Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-04 Utilities Advisory Commission Summary MinutesUtilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 02, 2020 Page 1 of 9 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF November 4, 2020 SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER Chair Forssell called the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to order at 4:01 p.m. Present: Chair Forssell, Vice Chair Segal, Commissioners Danaher, Jackson, Johnston, Scharff and Smith Absent: AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Gary Lindgren asked what is a typical project for Carbon Offsets? He suggested that instead of sending money outside of the city and the state, that the money be used to replace gas fire equipment with heat pumps as well as start an incentive program that helps residents convert their appliances to more sustainable models. He concluded that the city’s electricity is not carbon neutral and that the city should not promote that it is. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Chair Forssell indicated that Commissioner Smith had made a request instead of Commissioner Jackson. Commissioner Danaher moved to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2020 meeting as presented with the change as noted on Item 3 where Commissioner Smith not Jackson requested an update on Bucket 1 REC sales. Vice Chair Segal seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 with Chair Forssell, Vice Chair Segal, and Commissioners Danaher, Jackson, Johnston, Scharff, and Smith voting yes. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, delivered the Director's Report. Update on COVID-19 – In late August, Governor Newsom released a “Blueprint for a Safer Economy,” which created a tiered system of COVID-19 restrictions that all counties in California must follow. Santa Clara County is currently in the Orange Risk (Tier Three) and will stay there until the state moves the county forward into a lesser or more restrictive tier depending on the number of COVID-19 cases. The current tier three restrictions are different from what was previously in place in the following ways: • Certain indoor businesses and activities may resume with a limited capacity of 25%, including gyms, fitness centers, pools, movie theaters, worship services, restaurants, Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 02, 2020 Page 2 of 9 and family entertainment centers that allow for naturally distanced activities such as bowling alleys and climbing walls. Retail businesses and libraries no longer have a capacity limitation. Indoor shopping malls no longer have a capacity limitation, but common areas must remain closed. Museums and zoos may increase their capacity limit to 50% of normal. Bars, brewpubs, and breweries may now operate outdoors. • All businesses must ensure that everyone visiting their facility is able to maintain at least a six foot distance from everyone outside of their household. • Palo Alto’s emergency proclamation remains in place, which means that the city continues its moratorium on tenant evictions and utilities service disconnections for bill non-payment. CPAU still offers expanded access to utilities rate assistance and payment relief programs. • A number of programs and services which previously involved in-person consultations or in-home visits have been converted to a virtual format. The Home Efficiency Genie is one example of this format change; we now offer virtual rather than in-home consultations, including a home electrification readiness assessment. Key Account and business utility representatives have been sharing recovery resources with the community to assist with a smooth transition. • The city is providing webinars and information online in place of in-person workshops to help customers understand how to maximize home energy and water efficiency, as well as comfort and safety, while learning about sustainability and climate action goals. The Switch is On Campaign – CPAU has been collaborating with the Building Decarbonization Coalition and other utilities on a consumer outreach campaign to promote home electrification. The campaign is aptly named “The Switch is On”. CPAU is planning to run a digital blitz of this campaign in November and early December, and will include running digital ads on popular online platforms as well as leveraging the city’s social media channels and e-newsletters. The digital ads will direct traffic to the website “switchison.org,” which provides information on how to make the switch from natural gas to electric appliances. Clean Fuel Rewards Program – Electric vehicle rebates will be coming soon to all CPAU customers. We will be participating in the Clean Fuel Rewards Program which is a statewide point-of-sale EV rebate. The program will launch by the end of the year. We expect the rebate to be about $1,000 for the purchase of EVs at participating dealerships. CPAU is contributing up to $1 million dollars in Low Carbon Fuel Standard funds towards this program. SunShares Solar Group-Buy Workshop – On October 27, CPAU hosted a webinar to inform residents about the Bay Area SunShares solar group-buy program. The event was well attended with 44 participants, as well as representatives from all three solar installation companies, for Q & A at the end of the presentation. Clean and Efficient Heating and Cooling with the Home Efficiency Genie – CPAU will be hosting its third educational webinar with the Home Efficiency Genie on November 10 at 6:30 PM. In this session, residents will learn about advances in heating and cooling technologies with an emphasis on efficient, all-electric heat pump systems. Find details and link to register at cityofpaloalto.org/workshops UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 02, 2020 Page 3 of 9 NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: ACTION: Staff Recommendation That the Utilities Advisory Commission Accept a Presentation on 2020 and 2021 State Legislation, and Recommend the City Council Affirm the Continuation of the Current Utilities Legislative Guidelines Through 2021 Heather Dauler, Senior Resources Planner, noted that the 2020 Legislative session was very brief due to the Coronaviruses Pandemic (COVID-19). There was a fifth failed attempt at passing a bill regarding energy and long-duration storage. Several bills did past which included new subsurface installation mandates for construction which will start in 2023 as well as requirements for the state to stockpile Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for essential workers. In terms of the 2021 Legislative session, it is predicted that there may be another attempt at mandating storage in terms of energy as well as a bill regarding Resource Adequacy due to recent blackouts, and regionalization. For water, predicted bills that may come forward are affordability in terms of COVID-19 and existing programs, and wildfire impacts on water supply. Due to the shorten 2020 Legislative session, staff believes that many of the bills that were dropped will reappear in 2021. In conclusion, Senator Hill is terming out with Josh Becker taking his place. Commissioner Danaher shared that Josh Becker supports clean energy. In response to Commissioner Jackson’s inquiries regarding electric vehicle usage and mandates, Dauler answered that an Executive Order regarding new sales of cars has been issued but she predicted that the Executive Order would not move to new legislation. Dauler continued to the Utilities Legislative Guidelines and she noted that the guidelines provide direction to staff so that staff does not have to come back to the Commission or Council when staff wants to move forward on a piece of legislation or regulations. She reported that the guidelines have worked well and staff is not suggesting any changes. Commissioner Danaher supported the staff recommendation. In response to Commissioner Smith’s queries regarding how COVID-19 may impact the 2021 Legislation and bill prioritization, Dauler explained that bills were passed in 2020 even under the current pandemic and she predicted that the Assembly will continue to meet in 2021. Regarding prioritization, the Speaker of the Assembly and the President of the Assembly have their own priorities as well as each Chairperson of each Committee and each Member. In response to Chair Forssell’s question regarding how often staff brings forward legislative items to the Commission or Council for guidance, Dauler indicated that with the fast pace of legislation, it is difficult for staff to meet the 5-week deadline that is required by the city. Staff does come forward to Council when there is a bill that does not fit into the guidelines or is very controversial. Cormack commented that it has been suggested several times that the city’s sustainability goals would be achieved more quickly if there is some standardization across the state. She advised the Commission to think about that for the future. Commissioner Scharff and Commissioner Danaher agreed. ACTION: Commissioner Danaher moved that the Utilities Advisory Commission accept the staff presentation regarding 2020 and 2021 state legislation, and recommend the City Council continue the 2020 Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines into 2021. Commissioner Jackson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 with Chair Forssell, Vice Chair Segal, and Commissioners Danaher, Jackson, Johnston, Scharff, and Smith voting yes. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 02, 2020 Page 4 of 9 ITEM 2: ACTION: Staff Recommendation That the Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend the City Council Approve the 2025 Base Resource Power Supply Contract for the Central Valley Project With Western Area Power Administration, to Preserve the City's Options to Maintain, Terminate or Reduce its Allocation Until June 30, 2024 Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Utilities Resource Management, indicated that the Western Base Resource Electric Supply Contract makes up the vast majority of the electric supply portfolio. Lena Perkins, Senior Resource Planner, reported that staff’s recommendation is to execute the full share of the 2025 Western Contract. The Western Electric Supply Contract is a large federal hydroelectric contract, it is currently 40 percent of the city’s electric supply, it has somewhat predictable costs but highly variable output, and holds significant risks and uncertainty in future costs as well as the future generation. It has the potential to be a competitively priced carbon-free electric resource. The city has the option to reduce or terminate the contract until June 30, 2024, and so staff will continue to evaluate alternatives until then. A new key provision is that the city has the option to reduce or terminate the new contract every 5-years and there is a new overall rate formula set every 5-years. The contract must be executed by March 16, 2021, and staff will make a final recommendation to maintain, reduce, or terminate the city’s share of the 2025 Western Base Resource Electric Supply contract by the June 2024 deadline. Abendschein added that the contract requires significant levels of coordination among the other publicly owned utilities when it comes to negotiating with the federal government. Northern Power Agency coordinates those negations on behalf of the publicly owned utilities and in the last couple of years there have been opportunities to improve the contract. The city continues to be involved in those negotiations in addition to considering all other options. Commissioner Scharff agreed that the contract has vastly improved and he supported approval of the contract. In response to Chair Forssell’s question of if the city negotiates with the bureau directly as a city or through the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), Commissioner Scharff answered that it is through the NCPA, but the city is extremely involved in the negotiations. In reply to Commissioner Johnston’s inquiries regarding if the price of the contract is in alignment with the city’s other sources and what are the downsides to signing the contract, Perkins answered yes, historically it has been a cost base resource that is only available to public utilities and staff continues to monitor it. She reported that she could not see any downsides to signing the contract. Commissioner Johnston supported a recommendation to approve the contract. In answer to Commissioner Smith’s query regarding other risks, Perkins predicted that the two biggest risks are new costs regarding the implementation of the new federal biological opinions and the allocation of those costs. The other major risk is the amount and timing of the generation the city receives from this and the unimpaired water flow. In answer to Commissioner Smith’s question regarding viable alternatives, Perkins reported that New Mexico Wind could be an alternative because it has a high capacity factor and Northwest Wind because the city does own transmission up to Washington State. In reply to Commissioner Smith’s interest in how a customer’s water bill will be affected if it’s $35 per megawatt-hour versus $70 per megawatt-hour and what scenarios would make the contract be deemed uneconomical, Perkins reported that an additional 1/3 of a cent would be added to a customers bill if the rate is $35 per megawatt-hour. Regarding the contract being deemed uneconomical, she stated that in general the resource can be shaped to capture the highest value hours of the day but it cannot be shaped seasonally. In a low hydraulically year, electricity prices will be higher, but there is tremendous value in the flexible dispatchable capability. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 02, 2020 Page 5 of 9 Commissioner Smith advised staff to include in their evaluations a hedge in terms of Bucket exchange. He concluded that he supported the approval of the contract. In regard to Commissioner Danaher’s inquire, Perkins stated that between 2023 and 2024 staff could execute short-term contracts with existing projects and that the evaluation will include competitive bids. Abendschein added that the evaluation will be completed before 2023. In reply to Vice Chair Segal’s question regarding dispatchability and if there is a risk in terms of changing views about environmental impacts, Perkins announced that in general the projects can be operated with inter- daily flexibility and ramping, and the ability to dispatch within a day is fairly protected from environmental concerns. Abendschein confirmed that the factors affect seasonal dispatchability. In response to Vice Chair Segal’s query regarding an agreement with the other partners on when the resource is dispatched, Perkins answered that the schedulers from Western Area Power Administration provide maximums and minimums to staff and staff dispatches within those levels. In answer to Chair Forssell’s request for more clarity regarding favorable cost allocation in dry years and what kind of shape the infrastructure is in for the Central Valley Project, Perkins explained that the Court of Appeals ruled that the statute requires the proportional collection of environmental costs. The total environmental cost needs to have a fixed percentage for water and power. The Bureau of Reclamation has put forth proposals for proportionality. In terms of the Central Valley Project, Perkins answered that the generation and transmission of power and the dams are in good shape. The canals, pumps, and other water conveyance structures require a lot of maintenance and pose threats. Staff continues to follow the project. ACTION: Commissioner Scharff moved that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommend the Council approve the execution of the extension of our current electricity supply contract, which is the 2025 base resource contract for the Central Valley Project (CVP) with the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) titled “Contract 20-SNR- 02365 United States Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration Sierra Nevada region contract for electric service base resource with City of Palo Alto” for the full amount of generation available (12.06299% share), to preserve the city’s options to maintain, terminate, or reduce its allocation until June 30, 2024. Commissioner Danaher seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 with Chair Forssell, Vice Chair Segal, and Commissioners Danaher, Jackson, Johnston, Scharff, and Smith voting yes. ITEM 3: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Electrification Cost and Staffing Impacts on the City of Palo Alto's Electric and Gas Distribution Systems Bret Anderson saw the report as a starting point. He reported that the report focuses on single-family homes and advise staff to evaluate other components such as commercial and multi-family. He foresaw a potential for all-electric homes and devices that are on an interactive grid to address peeks, average needs, and startup costs after an outage. New or upcoming technologies are not addressed in the report, but the report does indicate that it is feasible and affordable for the City to move away from neutral gas. Tom Kabat agreed that the report is innovative and strongly agreed that the report explains to residents that is it feasible to move to all-electric. He mentioned that the report may be using outdated efficiencies regarding heat pumps. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Utilities Resource Management, reported that the Utilities Department is engaging with the city’s Sustainability Department and running analyses for the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) update for 2020. The Utilities Department is also working on parallel analyses that relate to the utility impacts of the S/CAP. Elizabeth Oliphant, Stanford Fellow, reported that the analysis focused on the total utility costs for electrifying all single-family residences located within the city. The main goal of electrifying single-family Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 02, 2020 Page 6 of 9 homes is to reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. Such a conversion would cause an increase in the peak electricity demand by almost three times. With a higher peak demand, around 95 percent of the city’s transformers will need to be upgraded. If the city chose to do all like for like replacements, the minimum cost is roughly $12.5 million to $33.9 million. For optimized upgrades, converting a pole-mounted transformer to a pad-mounted transformer, the cost is roughly $8.3 million to a maximum of $25.3 million. Also, other electrical upgrades such as replacing 20 percent of the secondary transmission lines as well as replacing 25 percent of the feeder lines will need to take place. The city can expect to pay between $21.4 million to $41.7 million for those other electrical upgrades. There is a cost associated with disconnecting the gas distribution system to a single-family residence and that system includes main lines, services lines, and meters and risers. All customers have to agree to disconnect before a gas main can be sealed and if the main is sealed, it automatically disconnects all service lines that are attached to it. It would cost roughly $11.4 million to a maximum of $53.7 million to disconnect the gas lines. If the mains are sealed, the city would save $26 million to $34 million by not having to pay for the Gas Main Replacement Program. In total it would cost between $41.1 million to $128.3 million if all single-family homes went electric. Additional staff time is needed to implement the upgrades and disconnections and that is estimated to range between 204,306 hours to 801, 116 hours. Abendschein summarized the high-level questions that the Commission has raised which is what are going to be the utility impacts, what is going to be the cost to deal with those utility impacts, what are the staffing impacts going to be, and what rates would customers pay if all the single-family homes were disconnected? Staff is in the process of answering those specific questions and plans to bring back the results to the Commission in January of 2021. He acknowledged that is it highly likely that there will be more electrification and eventually disconnection in terms of the multi-family and commercial sectors. He explained that it is very complicated to electrify multi-family and commercial facilities. He reminded the Commission that it is important to have a transitional strategy for the multi-family and commercial sectors so that staff can work with them to make substantial reductions in their natural gas use before they disconnect. Commissioner Smith agreed that having a transition plan for the multi-family and commercial sector is prudent and wise. He believed that repurposing the decommissioned gas piping for the fiber network would reduce the total cost. Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, reported that the city’s vendor Magellan is currently exploring that option but he believed that the fiber network will be well established by the time the city is ready to turn off the gas utility. If there is a possibility to use decommissioned lines though then staff will consider doing that. In reply to Commissioner Danaher’s query regarding other offset cost savings, Oliphant reported that she did not look at what a transformer’s life span is but in terms of electric vehicles (EV), there will have to be some upgrades associated with EVs. When more flexible load technology comes online, the upgrades done for EVs will assist in the broader project of electrifying single-family homes. Abendschein added that other replacements will happen within the system that will overlap with the upgrades that need to be done for building electrification. Christine Tam, Senior Resource Planner, noted that if the city does not pursue electrification of single-family homes, to meet some of the S/CAP goals the city will have to upgrade the electric grid system anyways for EVs. In response to Commissioner Danaher’s questions regarding the large gap between the minimum cost and the maximum cost and how much carbon the city will save, Oliphant explained that the cost indicates that the transformers will need to be upgraded as well as more will need to be installed. The cost also reflects the cost difference between different types of transformers. Tam answered that if all single-family homes are electrified, the city will save 49,000 metric tons of carbon. Abendschein added that the goal is to receive an 80 percent reduction of carbon in all of the above approaches instead of comparing cost per ton between the different strategies. Commissioner Jackson predicted that many homes will require 200-amp service and if many single-family homes are already at 100-amp service, converting to 200-amp service would be a large impact. Tam expressed that less than 30 percent of homes still have a 100-amp panel. In response to Commissioner Jackson’s question regarding the expected lifetime of a transformer and feeder lines, Batchelor answered Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 02, 2020 Page 7 of 9 that the lifespan for a transformers is between 50 and 60-years and it is roughly the same for feeder lines. Commissioner Jackson emphasized that regardless if single-family homes are electrified or not, a lot of the work will need to be done. He concluded that motivating residents to shift their loads more dramatically is within the city’s best interest even though financing that infrastructure upgrades will be costly. Commissioner Scharff expressed that the limiting factors are that many residents are not aware that the city is considering shutting off the gas distribution system, it is unclear how much it will cost a resident to electrify their home, and how well does the technology work. He urged staff to analyze how much it will cost a resident to electrify their homes, will the city pay for it, and to be granular in the analysis. He foresaw the process of electrification being long term and that staff needed to explore the best approach for implementation. Abendschein commented that staff is working on such an analysis and staff will be bringing that forward to Council soon. Vice Chair Segal disclosed that staffing requirements need to be evaluated and also fairness issues among residents. Abendschein agreed and added that the wide range comes from the desire to accommodate people’s desire to electrify at whatever point in the 10-year process. She wanted to see the city move quicker on upgrading transformers. Abendschein agreed that there are a lot of logistical issues that need to be ironed out. Commissioner Johnston agreed that the city needs to start upgrading now to reach its 10-year goal of electrification as well as start-up a robust, comprehensive public engagement and education program. Batchelor admitted that there has not been a lot of public outreach but staff plans to start campaigning heavily in the coming months. Chair Forssell concurred with Commissioner Scharff that the public is not aware of the city’s plans and that the communication and education challenge is more complicated than the usual. She suggested that any communication with the public needs to emphasize all benefits of an electrified city including safety, pollution, along with reducing the city’s carbon footprint. She suggested doing a pilot program consisting of one block within the city that is all-electric and promoting that block to the rest of the city. Commissioner Jackson agreed with the comments regarding public education but he predicted that it will be challenging. Batchelor commented that staff has been discussing innovative ways for public engagement as well as innovative incentives. In reply to Cormack’s question regarding the differences between like for like upgrades and optimized upgrades, Oliphant explained that the difference is the capacity of the different transformers. Cormack emphasized that this program is a campaign and she concurred that many residents are not aware of this. The UAC recessed at 6:24 p.m. and returned at 6:35 p.m. ACTION: None ITEM 4: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Electric Vehicle Charger Needs Assessment to Reach 80% Electric Vehicle Penetration by 2030 Shiva Swaminathan, Senior Resource Planner, announced that the idea behind this assessment was to form a framework that looked at the EV charger needs if 80 percent of penetration for EVs is achieved. Mo Sodwatana, Stanford Fellow, reported that the project’s objective is to understand how many chargers the city will need to support the S/CAP goal of 80 percent penetration as well as determine what types of chargers are needed. There are three types of EV chargers; AC Level One; AC Level Two; and DC Fast Charge. The framework that the analysis was conducted under included the current EV trends in Palo Alto, charging patterns, existing infrastructure, the forecast for EVs in the city by 2023, and estimation of the number and Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 02, 2020 Page 8 of 9 types of charging ports needed. An in-depth analysis was also conducted for multi-family properties and both analyses estimated the cost for the utility as well as customers. For currently registered residential vehicles, 9 percent are EVs, for non-residential vehicles 6 to 10 percent are EVs and there are approximately 4,000 charging stations within the city currently. It is projected that there will be 42,000 residential EVs with 80 penetration by the year 2030 and to support that there would need to be between 18,000 to 26,000 charging ports. The report estimates more L2 chargers in the future due to more longer-range EVs. In terms of non- residential, it is estimated that there will be 54,700 EVs by the year 2023 which results in 6,200 to 12,300 charging ports. In summary, it would cost a single-family resident $-$300 per port for an L1 charger, for a single-family resident L2 charger it would cost $3,000-$10,000 per port, for a multi-family L2 charger it is roughly $12,400-49,999 per port, for a non-residential L2 charger it is roughly $5,400- $20,500 per port and for a DC Fast Charger it costs $62,000-$230,000 per port. The difference between the cost estimate for multi- family L2 chargers and single-family residential L2 chargers is that there are fewer ports per site for multi- family. In conclusion, the number of EVs will increase tenfold, and charging needs are expected to increase 6 to 8-fold. Energy consumption will increase by 1.5 percent of the total load to 15 percent of the total load while on the residential side it will increase by 6 percent to roughly 69 percent, and the number of EVs per household is projected to increase from .18 to 1.7. The cost per port is highly variable and is dependent upon many factors and due to economics of scale, greater ports per site are more cost-effective. In response to Vice Chair Segal’s inquiry on why there are more ports than there are single-family homes, Swaminathan commented that it is assumed that a single-family home has 2 EVs which resulted in there being more ports than homes. In reply to Commissioner Smith’s question of does the report assume that two EVs will be charged at one L2 charger, Sodwatana mentioned that there are uncertainties. Commissioner Danaher disclosed that the main cost driver is the cost of permits and he suggested that staff explore ways to decrease the cost for upgrading an electrical panel. He emphasized that he wanted a presentation about permits and fees. He wanted to see a cost breakdown of how much of the cost is caused by the city when commercial and single-family homes wish to upgrade their existing infrastructure to accommodate an EV and EV charger. Chair Forssell disclosed that she is concerned when it comes to the make-ready costs for multi-family and for non-residential. She did not see what the benefits are for multi-family facilities to accommodate EV chargers but she saw an opportunity for new multi-family developments to have more EV capacity. Also, there is a trend among commercial facilities to provide an employee perk to charge their car at work. In response to Chair Forssell’s query about how did staff arrive at the number of existing DC Fast Chargers, Sodwatana restated that the estimates came from CalETC’s White Paper which notes that more longer-range EVs are expected to hit the market as well as ride-sharing vehicles that need to quickly charge. In answer to Cormack’s question regarding the estimated 300 charging ports currently existing, Sodwatana commented that the estimates came from the city’s registered L2 permits. Swaminathan clarified that the city has issued 600 to 800 permits, but half of those are commercial permits. Hiromi Kelty, Sustainability Program Manager, adds that the majority of residents are not pulling permits to install L2 chargers in their homes. In response to Chair Forssell’s inquiry regarding unpermitted L2 chargers, Swaminathan reported there is a risk because there is no inspection to make sure the installation of the charge and the electrical panel is done correctly. Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities, added that a transformer could become overloaded if the capacity to a home is maxed out. In reply to Chair Forssell’s question about how the load is measured for a transformer, Batchelor shared that it is estimated based on the homes on the block when that block was established. Shiva added that it is also based on the monthly energy consumption for that block. ACTION: None. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: December 02, 2020 Page 9 of 9 COMMISSIONER COMMENTS and REPORTS from MEETING/EVENTS Commissioner Scharff announced that the NCPA has decided to decrease the State of Emergency Power from the General Manager to help decrease the amount of money that can be spent without guidance from the Commission. Another topic is the Unfunded Pension Liability and there is strong support to copy Palo Alto’s model. The American Public Power Association (APPA), which the city is a partner in, lost the lawsuit regarding small cell towers. Going forward the city has to follow the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rule which is there is a shorter period to review the applications as well as decreased grounds to deny them. FUTURE TOPICS FOR UPCOMING MEETINGS: December 02, 2020 Chair Forssell requested when future topics are raised, that there be an indication if the item should be received as a discussion at the full Commission, or if it can come as an informational document. Commissioner Danaher wanted an informational report regarding measures that promote the installation of EV chargers. He wanted to have a presentation from Public Works to discuss the permitting process for the installation of solar panels and electrification. Commissioner Johnston requested a discussion regarding the second transmission line. He acknowledged that the informational reports in the Packet were very helpful and informative. Commissioner Smith and Chair Forssell agreed. In response to Chair Forssell’s query regarding the death of a lineman in November 2019, Dean Batchelor, Director of Utilities, reported that the investigation is still ongoing but changes have been made including updating the Safety Manual and a new process for onboarding new employees. Vice Chair Segal asked for an informational report or an update in the Director’s Report on staffing challenges that have been impacted by COVID-19. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: December 2, 2020 Vice Chair Segal moved to adjourn. Commissioner Jackson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0 with Chair Forssell, Vice Chair Segal, and Commissioners Danaher, Jackson, Johnston, Scharff, and Smith voting yes. Meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Tabatha Boatwright City of Palo Alto Utilities