Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-09 Utilities Advisory Commission Summary MinutesUtilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: February 13, 2013 Page 1 of 8 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING – SPECIAL MEETING FINAL MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2013 CALL TO ORDER Chair Cook called to order at 7:02 p.m. the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). Present: Commissioners Chang, Cook, Eglash, Foster, Hall, and Melton and Mayor and UAC Liaison Scharff Absent: Commissioner Waldfogel ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES The Minutes from the December 5, 2012 UAC meeting were approved as presented. AGENDA REVIEW Chair Cook revised the order of the agenda items and moved Item #5 (Commissioners' Memo on Carbon Neutral Plan) to be the first item to be discussed under New Business. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION MEETING/EVENTS None. UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT 1. Palo Alto CLEAN: The re-priced Palo Alto CLEAN program commenced on January 2. The City Council changed the program price in December to 16.5 cents/kWh. There have been no applications so far, but some developers have expressed renewed interest in the program. 2. Demand-Side Management Update: a. Facility Manager’s Meetings---are held several times per year for our largest commercial customers to keep them updated on everything from rates and resource plans to efficiency technologies and programs. At the next meeting, the topics include the latest techniques for improving large commercial building efficiency. We will also be giving out award certificates at this meeting to honor the companies that participated in last summer’s Demand Response Pilot program. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: February 13, 2013 Page 2 of 8 b. Green Business Leader Preparation---as part of encouraging local companies to apply for the annual Green Business Leader award, we are offering another class on February 14th on how to use the EPA’s Profile Manager benchmarking system. c. Palo Alto School District---we are currently working with the PAUSD to improve efficiency in all their lab facilities, as well as evaluating district buildings for their potential for new solar PV installations. d. Holiday LED Lights exchange program was so successful we ran out of available lights before the end of the year, despite having reordered several times. This was the first time we distributed the lights through local hardware stores rather than from City Hall and the two hardware stores who participated are very interested in doing this program again next year. e. Solar Streetlight Demonstrations---we are investigating the possibility of installing solar street light demonstration projects later this spring to evaluate the effectiveness of this technology and gauge public opinion on the aesthetics. We will provide a further update when the nature and location of the demonstrations is worked out 3. Communications Update: a. PG&E Update---we know most of the pipeline installation work in Palo Alto is completed, but we are waiting for PG&E to get back to us with exactly what else might need to be done and when they are going to do it. (In other words, is there just restoration work left or are there any installation loose ends to be tied? We also want to know if there will be significant construction on Junipero Serra Blvd that could impact traffic in Palo Alto.) b. Crossword Bill Inserts---starting in February, we will be running a crossword puzzle bill insert each month. The puzzles will focus on different utilities-related topics and programs. Our hope is this will be an effective new way to engage and educate residents. c. Commercial Bill Inserts---since last August are running bill inserts targeted to our small- and medium-sized commercial customers. We are able to manage the distribution so only commercial customers receive the commercial inserts and only residents receive the residential ones. This has been one of several steps we are taking to reach out to smaller commercial customers, who do not have the benefit of an assigned key account rep. d. Twitter Update---since last month’s launch, we’ve gained over 110 followers, including local residents, the media and various state and national agencies. We plan to do more outreach to increase that number, but first we are fine-tuning our tweeting style and content, including coordinating with other departments on things like getting updates out during storms. We are also looking at creative ways to tweet that will increase retweeting and spread our messages more widely while expanding our following. Vice Chair Foster asked if the EPA Portfolio Manager training was broadly promoted so that all those who would benefit from it would know about it. Director Fong said that it would be promoted, including with the large customers at the Facilities Managers' meetings. He added Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: February 13, 2013 Page 3 of 8 that PAUSD may have several buildings that may be Energy Star certifiable and that they may want to know about any upcoming contest. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that City Council Approve a Three-Year Extension of the Demand Response Pilot Program for Large Commercial Electric Customers Senior Resource Planner Karla Dailey stated that she was available for questions, if any. No commissioners had any questions on the report or recommendation. ACTION: Commissioner Melton made a motion that the UAC recommend that Council approve a three- year extension of the Demand Response pilot program for large commercial electric customers. Commissioner Chang seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (6-0) with Commissioner Waldfogel absent. ITEM 2: PRESENTATION: Presentation on Results of 2012 Statewide and Palo Alto Residential Customer Satisfaction Survey Assistant Director Tom Auzenne presented the results of last year’s residential customer satisfaction surveys. As has been done every even year since 2002, the company RKS completed surveys throughout CMUA utilities comparing the customer satisfaction on a variety of indices. In addition, in late 2012, CPAU completed an “oversample” of the survey, comparing the responses of Palo Alto residents with those of other utilities. In addition, as CPAU has been completing this survey since 2002, Palo Alto responses were tracked in relation to the previous surveys, particularly in 2008 and 2010. Auzenne reported that overall satisfaction is exceptionally strong, leading not only statewide levels, but also Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) satisfaction ratings (which typically tend to be higher than other regions of the state). Despite the strong gain since 2010, most other CPAU image attributes remain close to previous levels. CPAU customers are aware of benefits of being served by a community-owned utility and are among the strongest supporters of their municipal utility. Palo Altans experienced fewer outages in 2012 than both statewide municipal and IOU averages. However, reliability and value scores have declined. Half of all Palo Alto residents have contacted CPAU in the past year, well above other utility levels. Customers are very satisfied with the time it took to resolve the issue and their call center experience. Just over half of residential customers are very satisfied with CPAU’s communication; however, satisfaction falters in terms of covering subjects that are of interest to Palo Alto residents. Website visits have increased since 2010 with many believing the new website is an improvement over the previous one. CPAU customers are much more aware of Energy Efficiency programs than are other residents throughout the state; however, they are Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: February 13, 2013 Page 4 of 8 equally likely to participate in the programs as are others. Finally, in the future, CPAU customers prefer to have surveys completed on line (59%) rather than by phone (28%). Commissioner Eglash asked if the most economically disadvantaged ratepayers are being treated appropriately. Auzenne stated that he felt that the majority of customers were being treated appropriately. He also indicated that customer participation in the CPAU financial assistance programs were not showing significant increases in participation over the past few years. Commissioner Chang asked whether the efficiency requirements in the Residential Energy Assistance Program (REAP) are required for low-income discount (Rate Assistance Program, or RAP) customers. Auzenne said that all RAP participants must take part in the efficiency direct install program, to the extent allowed by the landlord if the customer is a tenant. Commissioner Eglash indicated he would like to see a longer term trend on customer satisfaction and responses, rather than just the past four years. This desire was reiterated by Commissioner Chang. Auzenne indicated that such a trend line would be prepared for the Commission in the future. Vice Chair Foster stated that the RKS PowerPoint presentation contained in the Commissioner’s Agenda packet rather than the summary PowerPoint presentation made at the Commission meeting) was incomprehensible, and asked if there was a written narrative available from the consultant. This request was echoed by multiple Commissioners. Auzenne indicated that he thought a written narrative of the full CMUA survey was available; however, only the PowerPoint has been developed for the CPAU oversample. Commissioner Chang asked about why energy efficiency was not participated in at CPAU more than at other utilities, since Palo Altans are more aware of the programs. Auzenne said that in Palo Alto, as opposed to many other utilities throughout California, the focus has been less on the “low hanging fruit” and most cost-effective lighting change-out measures in the past two years. CPAU has focused on expanding efforts to enhancing efficiency throughout a home or business, as many lighting upgrades have already been completed in Palo Alto. Since remaining efforts tend to be more time consuming and costly for both the customer and the utility, actual upgrades take longer and involve fewer customers than would inexpensive lighting upgrades. ITEM 3: ACTION: Selection of Potential Topics for Joint UAC/Council Meeting Chair Cook listed some topics for the joint meeting with Council: carbon neutral plan, use of the Calaveras Reserves, back-up power (second transmission line), undergrounding, rates trends, and City Council's views on proactive leadership initiatives. Vice Chair Foster stated that it was very beneficial at the last joint meeting when each Council member briefly stated items of particular interest to them that they would like the UAC to discuss. He also recommended that fiber to the premise be added to the list as it is still a hot topic. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: February 13, 2013 Page 5 of 8 Mayor Scharff agreed that the fiber to the premise issue is a hot issue along with WiFi. Commissioner Melton said that the transmission line and use of Calaveras Reserve do not need more discussion as policy decisions have been made and it is a matter of implementation now. Commissioner Eglash also noted that there has been some action by the Council to appoint a citizen’s committee on the issue of electric undergrounding and so that would not be a good topic for the joint meeting. Commissioner Hall stated that there are many, many retirements and asked if the Director would find it helpful to have a discussion on the issue. Director Fong stated that she normally does not bring operational issues to the UAC. Chair Cook stated that the issues have been narrowed somewhat with the input of the commissioners and now include carbon neutral plan, rates trend, fiber to the premise and WiFi, and a round robin where Council members can offer their own areas of interest. ACTION: No action was taken. ITEM 4: ACTION: Selection of Potential (Topics) for Discussion at Future UAC Meeting Vice Chair Foster asked about the council study session on PaloAltoGreen options. Mayor Scharff stated that the study session format is a place where questions and reactions are shared, but no action is taken. Foster asked when the issue would come back to the UAC. Director Fong stated that it will come back to the UAC, but a date has not been determined. ACTION: No action was taken. ITEM 5: ACTION: Commissioners’ Memo Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission Discuss and Potentially Act Upon the Cost Limitation Provision of the Carbon Neutral Plan for the Electric Portfolio Commissioner Eglash provided a brief synopsis of the memo signed by Chair Cook, and Commissioners Eglash and Melton and stated that the discussion at the UAC's December meeting focused on the expected cost to achieve carbon neutrality and not on the potential maximum cost. Particularly before the long-term renewable resources are on-line, for 2013 through 2016, the cost could be significant to get to carbon neutrality. He summarized the recommendations in the memo as limiting total spending during 2013 to 2016 and a cap on the price of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). Public Comment: Bruce Hodge stated that the additional limitations recommended by the Commissioners' Memo are unnecessary and supported the cost cap in the proposed plan. He shared his analysis of the Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: February 13, 2013 Page 6 of 8 bill impact for customers using different amounts of electricity per month and showed that the impact was small and reasonable. Walt Hays agreed with Bruce Hodge since Bruce Hodge had done the analysis. Walt Hays reminded the Commission of the risks of climate change and said that the City should not quibble with the small costs being proposed in the plan. He added that the plan is more than symbolic and, even if only symbolic, may have greater impact as the bold plan it is. Commissioner Melton asked for staff’s opinion of the recommendations in the Commissioners’ Memo. Director Fong stated that staff has put its proposal forward and the Commissioners’ Memo provides another option. Vice Chair Foster stated that he feels like the message the plan sends is valid and that the plan has only a small rate impact anyway and he doesn't support a lower cost limitation. However, he stated that he could support the proposed REC cost limitation. Commissioner Melton stated that the spending limit proposed in the memo is a "black swan" protection device. He stated that we need some maximum spending limitation in case something changes dramatically. Responding to Commissioner Melton’s recommendation, Vice Chair Foster stated that he agreed that there needed to be a spending limit and that the proposed plan does have a limitation of $2.5 million/year. Commissioner Eglash agreed that the proposed plan does have a spending limit of about $2.5 million per year. He stated that the question at hand is whether we are comfortable with the proposed rate cap for our residential and commercial customers. This is especially an issue in the years from 2013 to 2016 before the long-term renewable contracts come on line. Commissioner Chang asked how the cap in the proposed plan of 0.25 cents/kWh was derived. Director Fong said it was proposed by staff to cover the uncertainties in hydroelectric production and the future cost of RECs. She stated that another idea is to have a dollar amount that is a trigger point when staff needs to return to the Council for further direction. Commissioner Hall stated that he supports a 0.15 cents/kWh which appears to be an adequate cap rather than a total dollar cap. In addition, he doesn't support a price cap on RECs as that limits staff and removes flexibility. Commissioner Eglash said that the concern raised in the memo is that we could look foolish by some ratepayers, particularly those who are cost sensitive. He doesn’t want to spend an inordinate amount of money to get the last little bit of carbon neutrality when that additional cost could be extreme. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: February 13, 2013 Page 7 of 8 Vice Chair Foster stated that he supports a trigger point to ensure that costs are not exceeded, but not necessarily a lower cost cap. Commissioner Melton stated that he supports a trigger point. Chair Cook said that the point of the memo was to ensure that the UAC has done its job and clearly thought through the costs to make sure that the costs are reasonable. Vice Chair Foster was concerned that any action will show that the UAC supports carbon neutrality, but doesn't want to pay much at all for it. He would rather not take a new formal action, but rely on staff to less formally provide an early heads up to the UAC and Council if costs are higher than anticipated. Commissioner Melton asked if staff could come back to the UAC with an update of the cost to get to carbon neutral based on better information about hydroelectric conditions. He asked a cost trigger could be put in place which if met would prompt staff to come back to the UAC to discuss whether or not it made sense to pursue carbon neutrality for that year. The cost trigger would be less than the cap approved by Council, so that staff would not have to return to Council if the decision was to move forward with carbon neutrality. Director Fong asked Senior Resource Planner Monica Padilla to discuss how a cost trigger would be used by staff. Padilla stated that RECs will be purchased after the fact when hydro conditions are known and we'll have a better idea of REC costs and that staff could return to the UAC with updated costs before purchasing RECs. ACTION: Commissioner Eglash made a motion to recommend that Council direct staff that, if cost is higher than 0.15 cents/kWh, staff should come back to the UAC for additional discussion. He explained that it could be left to staff's discretion to inform the UAC regarding a significant increase in the cost of RECs. Commissioner Hall made a substitute motion to revise the cap to 0.15 cents/kWh, instead of 0.25 cents/kWh. Commissioner Eglash seconded the substitute motion. Commissioner Hall explained that it's more straightforward to have a cap, rather than a trigger point to return for discussions. If it looks like the cap will be exceeded, staff could return and request additional spending authority. Vice Chair Foster stated that he supports a request for discussion, rather than a lowering of the cap. But, if a lower cap is proposed, then he would support a cap of 0.2 cents/kWh, not 0.15 cents/kWh. Commissioner Eglash stated that Council supported carbon neutral by 2015, but the additional costs to move it up to 2013 were high and a cap will reduce the cost of moving up the date of implementation. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: February 13, 2013 Page 8 of 8 Vice Chair Foster proposed an amendment to the substitute motion to revise the cap to 0.2 cents/kWh. The amendment died for lack of second. The substitute motion to recommend that Council achieve carbon neutrality for the electric supply portfolio within a cost cap of 0.15 cents/kWh passed (4-2) with Foster and Melton opposed and Waldfogel absent. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Marites Ward City of Palo Alto Utilities