HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-21 City Council (15)C ty of Palo
Manager’s
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
DATE:OCTOBER 21, 2002 CMR: 398:02
SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF ELECTRIC PORTFOLIO
PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR THE LONG-TERM ELECTRIC
ACQUISITION PLAN (LEAP)
This memorandum is attached to CMR:398:02 to include recommendations made by the
Finance Committee on October. 1, 2002.
At the October 1, 2002 meeting, the Finance Committee discussed the proposed LEAP
Guidelines and made changes that have been incorporated into the attached version of the
proposed guidelines. Guideline #6, relating to investments in renewable energy
technologies, was amended to state that theCity pursue an expected target level of new
renewable purchases of 10% of the expected portfolio load by 2008 with the retail rate
impact not to exceed 0.5 cents/kWh on average; and to move to a 20% target by 2015,
contingent on economic viability.
ATTACHMENTS
No CMR:398:02 Request for the Approval of Electric Portfolio Planning Guidelines
for the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) with all attachments
Proposed Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan Guidelines (October 7, 2002 draft)
CMR:398:02 Page 1 of 2
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Di
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
BENEST
City Manager
CMR:398:02 Page 2 of 2
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTENTION: FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER
OCTOBER 1, 2002
DEPARTMENT: UTILITIES
CMR: 398:02
REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF ELECTRIC PORTFOLIO
PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR THE LONG-TERM ELECTRIC
ACQUISITION PLAN (LEAP)
RECOMMENDATION
The Utilities Advisory Commission and staff recommend that the City Council approve
seven Electric Portfolio Planning & Management Guidelines to guide staff in developing
and managing the City’s Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City has taken a number of steps to meet the energy deficit expected to begin at the
start of 2005. The City Council approved four Primary Portfolio Planning Objectives on
November 13, 2001 (CMR:425:01) to guide the development of strategies to fill this
energy deficit:
Ensure low and stable electric supply rates for customers.
Provide superior financial performance to customers and the City by maintaining a
supply portfolio cost advantage compared to market cost and the retail supply rate
advantage compared to PG&E.
Enhance supply reliability to meet City and customer needs by pursuing
opportunities including transmission system upgrades and local generation.
CMR:398:02 Page 1 of 3
0
Balance environment, local reliability, rates and cost impacts when considering
renewable resource and energy efficiency investments.
To further facilitate the development of specific recommendations to fill the post-2004
energy deficit, staff developed seven LEAP Planning & Management Guidelines based
on the four Primary Objectives.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The UAC discussed six draft LEAP Guidelines at its June 5, 2002 meeting. The
Commission’s input during that meeting was incorporated into developing seven
guidelines for its consideration at its August 7, 2002 meeting. After making minor
changes to the wording of the guidelines, the UAC unanimously supported the proposed
LEAP Guidelines.
Guideline #6 relates to investments in renewable energy technologies. The guideline
proposes that Palo Alto purchase an amount of new renewables equal to 10% of the total
annual energy needs by the year 2008. One item that the UAC wished to bring to the
attention of the Council is that the State of California’s definition of renewables excludes
large hydroelectric power plants (of capacity greater than 30 MW). The UAC noted that
the common-sense definition of renewables includes hydroelectric power and that, if this
source were included in the calculation of renewables content in the electric portfolio, the
renewables fraction for Palo Alto would be approximately 45% in an average hydro year
even without new investments in renewables as required under Guideline #6.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND UTILITIES STRATEGIC PLAN
See Attachment B (UAC Report on the LEAP Guidelines).
RESOURCE .IMPACT
See Attachn~ent B (UAC Report on the LEAP Guidelines) for resource impact. The risk
of not approving the LEAP Guidelines at this time is that staff will not have the Council
direction and parameters to guide the pursuit of resource acquisitions to fill the post-2004
resource deficit.
ATTACHMENTS
No
Co
Proposed Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan Guidelines
August 7, 2002 Report to the UAC: Request’ for the Approval of Electric Portfolio
Planning Guidelines for the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP)
Minutes from the August 7, 2002 UAC meeting
CMR:398:02 Page 2 of 3
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Ratchye, Senior
i~ire~or of Utilities
EMIL’~ HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:398:02 Page 3 of 3
Attachment A
Proposed Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Guidelines
Guideline 1: Electric Portfolio Dependence on Western -While maintaining the
flexibility to adopt favorable ’custom products’ offered by Western, manage a supply
portfolio independent of Western beyond the Base Resource Contract.
Guideline 2: Hydro Risk Management - Manage hydro production risk by:
A. Planning for an average hydro year on a long-term basis;
B. Diversifying to fossil and/or renewable generation technologies; and
C. Maintaining adequate supply rate stabilization reserve.
¯Guideline 3: Market Risk Management - Manage market risk by adopting a portfolio
strategy for electric supply procurement by:
A. Diversifying energy purchases across commitment¯ date, start-date, duration,
suppliers, pri~ing terms & fuel sources;
B. Targeting additional thermal plant ownership/investment commitment at -25 MW
but in no event more than 50 MW;
C. Maintaining a prudent exposure to changing market prices by:
1. Procuring resources at fixed price for at most 90% of expected load for 2 or
more years out, assuming average hydro conditions; and
2.Procuring resources at fixed price for at most 75% of expected load for 5 or
more years out, assuming average hydro conditions; and
D.AvOiding contract-based fixed price energy purchases (except for contracts for
renewable resources) for durations greater than 10 years.
Guideline 4: Reliable & Cost Effective Transmission Services - Ensure the reliability
of supply at fair and reasonable transmission cost by:
A. Supporting, through political.and technical advocacy and/or direct investment,
the upgrading of Bay Area-transmission to improve reliability and relieve
congestion;
B.Participating in transmission market design to ensure that market design results
in workable competitive markets & equitable cost allocation;
C.Pursuing the option of forming and/or joining a Public Power Transmission
Control Area to increase control over transmission operations and related costs;
and
D.Ensuring PG&E honors the Stanislaus Commitments by providing to us firm-
transmission rights or equivalent.
Guideline 5: Local Generation - Monitor the potential of local generation options to
meet customer needs, improve local reliabilitY, minimize congestion and wheeling
charges, and Stabilize/reduce costs.
Attachment A
Guideline 6: Renewable Portfolio Investments - The City shall continue to offer a
renewable resource-based retail rate for all customers who want to voluntarily select an
increased content of renewable energy. In addition to the voluntary program, the City
shall invest in new renewable resources to meet the City’s sustainability goals while
ensuring that the retail rate impact does not exceed 0.25 C/kWh on average. Pursue a
target level of new renewable purchases of 10% of the expected portfolio load by 2008.
The contracts for investment in renewable resources not to exceed 30 years in term.
Guideline 7: Electric Energy Efficiency Investments - Offer quality PuNic Benefits
programs, utilizing funds collected through the 2.85% Public Benefits charge embedded
in electric retail rates, to meet the resource efficiency needs of customers. Additional
funding for cost-effective programs will be recommended as appropriate. Pursue these
investments by:
A. Providing expertise, education and incentives to support cost-effective customer
efficiency improvements;
B. Demonstrating renewable and!or alternative, generation technologies and new
efficiency alternatives; and
C. Providing rate assistance and efficiency programs to low-income customers.
MEMORANDUM
TO:UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
FROM:UTIITIES DEPARTMENT
DATE:AUGUST 7, 2002
SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF ELECTRIC PORTFOLIO
PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR THE LONG-TERM ELECTRIC
ACQUISITION PLAN (LEAP)
~_~_..QUEST
This report requests the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) recommends that the City
Council approve seven Electric Portfolio Planning & Management Guidelines to guide staff
in developing and inanaging the Citv’s Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP).
BACKGROUND
The term of the current contract with the Western Area Power Administration (Western) ends
on December 31, 2004. In October 2000 Council approved the 20-year Western Base
Resource Contract (CMR:378:00) which will replace the existing Western contract.
Due to the changed Western contract, the projected energy shortfall in the year 2005 and
beyond is expected to be - 650 million kilowatt-hours per year or about 55% of the City’s
electricity energy needs during an average hydrologicyear. This deficit is highly variable
depending on hydro conditions with the energy deficit as high as -70% in a very dry hydro
year and as low as -20% in a very wet year. This annual production variability is illustrated
in Figure 1.
Page 1 of 8
Fig 1" Variability of Existing Generation Portfolio After December 2004
140,000-
100,000
80,000
60,000
~ 40,000
Palo Alto Load
20,000
IAdditional Hydro Production
Average Year over Dry Year
C
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
The City has taken a number of steps to meet the energy deficit expected to begin at the start
of 2005. Based on the analysis provided by staff, in February 2001 the UAC approved a set
ofb.road portfolio obj~.ctives that would guide strategies to fill this energy deficit. With the
UAC’s recommendation of September 25,2001, the City Council approved a set of Primary
Portfolio Planning Objectives on November 13, 2001 (CMR:425:01). These objectives are
intended to faci~litate the development of the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP):
Approved Primary Portfolio Planning Obiectives in Developing the LEAP
o
Ensure low and stable electric supply rates for customers.
Provide superior financial performance to customers and the City by maintaining a
supply portfolio cost advantage compared to market cost and the retail supply rate
advantage compared to PG&E.
Enhance supply reliability to meet City and customer needs by pursuing
opportunities including transmission system upgrades and local generation.
Balance environment, local reliability, rates and cost impacts when considering
renewable resource and energy efficiency investments.
Page 2 of 8
Though these objectives are broad in scope and at times conflicting, this set of City-wide
accepted LEAP Objectives has provided staff with a degree of focus and established an
overarching set of boundary conditions to develop a portfolio plan.
The schedule of pieces of the plan that have been acted on or are planned for action by the
UAC and!or City Council is displayed in the graphic below.
1.Portfolio Analysis Presentations; Approval
of Energy Risk Management Policies
2.Approval of Primary Portfolio Planning
Objectives; and Approval of initial 25 MW
Purchase
3.of DSM and Public Benefits PlanApproval
4. Renewable ResourceAnalysis
5.Portfolio Plan draft guidelinesUpdate,
6.of LEAP GuidelinesApproval
7. Additional Public Input
8. Final Plan 8, Implementation Process
9. Specific DeN Approval Requests
Completed ]
UAC analysis presentations:2/14-15/01; Council
approval of risk management policies, Feb 20,
2001 (CMR: 103:01)
UAC/Council approval - 9/25/01 & 11/13/01 (CMR:425:01)
UAC/Council approval - 10/3/01 & 12/3/01 (CMR:421:01)
UAC/Council presentation - 1/9/02 & 3/18/02
(CMR:176:02)
June 5, 2002 UAC presentation/discussion
To do
UAC considers 817102 -- to Council in fall
Summer 2002
UAC/Council approval - December 2002
To UAC/Council, when required 2003-2004
DISCUSSION
To facilitate the development of specific recommendations to fill the post 2004 energy
deficit, staff has developed seven LEAP Planning & Management Guidelines based on the
four Primary Objectives approved by tl-ie Council. At the UAC meeting on June 5, 2002, six
guidelines were presented for discussion. The Commission’s input during that meeting has
been incorporated in developing the final proposed set of guidelines, which now includes an
additional guideline related to an energy efficiency investment strategy.
This discussion section summarizes the UAC discussion on earlier presentations of the
guidelines. The analysis and background information utilized to develop these guidelines are
provided in the Attachment 1 to this report. Also attached is the presentation (and the
appendix to that presentation) made to the UAC on June 5, 2002.
Page 3 of 8
The proposed LEAP guidelines relate to key Council-approved Utilities portfolio objectives
and respond to the situation of needing additional supplies after 2004. Key themes found in
these LEAP guidelines address diversification to minimize risk and stabilize rates, the cost
and reliability of transmission, and new opportunities for efficiency and renewable
technologies.
It is recommended that the UAC recommends that the City Council approve the seven
proposed LEAP guidelines.
Guideline 1: Electric Portfolio Dependence on Western- W/file maintaining the flexibility
to adopt favorable ’custom products’ offered by Western, manage a supply portfolio
independent of Western beyond the Base Resource Contract.
The UAC (and staff) recogni~,e.the value. of the. existing.firm Western product backed up by
PG&E firming resources through t)~."integration~’ Contract 2948A. Due to the market and
credit risks now recognized by suppliers in providing integration, a similar product is either
unavailable or only offered at very high cost. The UAC recommended CPAU consider joint
action with NCPA member agencies or other Western customers for firming resources. In
addition, the UAC recommended staff carefully consider custom products that Western may
make available. Those thoughts are incorporated into Guideline 1. At its June 2002 meeting,
the UAC recognized that access to fossil-fired resources can provide similar firming. The
provision of such resources is addressed in Guidelines 2 and 3.
Guideline 2: Hydro Risk Management- Manage hydro production risk by."
A. Planning for an average hydro year
B. Diversifying to fossil and/or renewable generation.technologies
C. Maintaining adequate supply rate stabilization reserve
The UAC generally supported this guideline at its July 2002 meeting with comments
provided that this guideline in conjunction with Guidelines 1 and 3 address th~ hydro risk
inherent in Western’s Base Resource product.
Guideline 3: Market Risk Management -Manage market risk by adopting a portfolio
strateg-y for electric supply procurement by:
A. Diversifying energy purchases across commitment date, start-date, duration,
suppliers, pricing terms &fuel sources,"
B. Targeting additional thermal plant ownership/investment commitment at N25 MWbut
in no event more than 50 MW,"
C. Maintaining a prudent exposure to changing market prices by:
1. Procuring resources at fixed price for at most 90% of expected load for 2 or
Page 4 of 8
more years out, assuming average hydro conditions," and
2.Procuring resources at fixed priee for at most 75% of expected load for 5 or
more years out, assuming average hydro conditions; and
D.Avoiding contract-based fixed price energy purchases (except for contracts for
renewable resources)for durations greater than 10 years.
At its June 5, 2002 meeting, the UAC discussed staff’s prior recommendation to cap
additional thermal plant ownership or investment at 25 MW. Several Commissioners
recommended expanding the level of thermal plant ownership to more than 25 MW,
especially given the advantage the City has in terms of its access to tax-exempt financing and
extremely good credit rating: In addition, long-term commitments for plants reduce
uncertainty and contribute to rate stability. These factors were ’given weight given the recent
experience in the volatile energy markets.
Given the UAC comments, the guideline was changed to allow up to 50 MW of thermal plant
ownership. However, staff still recommends, a target of 25 MW for thermal plant ownership.
Of course, when a specific projec~ ]fi recommended, it (and alternative commitment levels)
will be evaluated for its overall attributes, including reliability.
The UAC generally supported the concept of diversification inherent in this guideline. Some
Commissioners reconnnended consideration of splitting up the purcliase piece into
commitments from more than one supplier or plant. Some questioned the limitation to ten
years on contract commitments, but staff still supports this limitation as the portfolio already
has a 20-year commitment with the Western contract, a 30-year or more commitment in the
Calaveras plant, and may pursue another 30-year commitment for a 25 MW thermal resource.
Guideline 4: Reliable & Cost Effective Transmission Services -Ensure the reliability of
supply at fair and reasonable transmission cost by:
A. Supporting, through political and technical advocacy and/or direct investment,~ the
upgrading of Bay Area transmission to improve reliability and relieve congestion;
B. Participating in transmission market design to ensure that market design results in
workable, competitive markets & equitable cost allocation,"
C. Pursuing the option offorming and/or joining a Public Power Transmission Control
Area to increase control over transmission operations and related costs; and
D.Ensuring PG&E honors the Stanislaus Commitments by providingfirm-transmission
rights or equivalent.
The UAC recommended that fixing the transmission problems is essential and could greatly
enhance options and access to energy sources that may be pursued under the other guidelines.
It was recommended that resources allocated in transmission services have a multiplier
affect and offer the City a way to leverage additional energy supply investments.
Page 5 of 8
¯ I o local generation options to meet
¯ ,~-.,~,~*ion-Explore the po!entta ’f_~,~, and wheeling charges, and
Guideline 5: _.b_ocm t.~,,.~- .diability, minimize conge~"~’~
stabilizeh’educe costs.
There was little UAC comment on this proposed guideline.
- The Ciq shall continue to offer a
....... me Portf~io Invesy~en~s , .....nt to voluntarily select a~.
Guideline o: Kene---o- ..~ .br all customers WhO w~ .......~ the Ci~ shall~, ......,,,ce-based retatl rate f! _ ~:,:~. ~ ¢h volunta~ pr°~’" ....~- --renewaote t ~o~.t .-~ ....orm~ In aaat.~,t .....e ensuringthat
invest in new renewable resources to meet the Ct& s sustainabili& goals while
the retail rate impact does not exceed 0.25 ¢/k~ on average. Pursue a target level of new
renewable purchases of 10% of the expected por(olio load by 2008. The contracts for
investment in renewable resources not to exceed 30 years in term.
:.’ ¯’ . taft refomaulated the guideline to ensure.that it
fter UAC in ut to clarify the gmdehne2 s ~_ _. : .....~1. e from the market for renewables)A , ~,_ ~.~.+ ;~ ~ " e (~n te~S o~wnat ~ ~--ablcaptures oom w-~- ....sibl ,"
and the appetite of ratepayers to~ay for the increased cost: An expanded discussion of the
many issues and alternatives for this ~ideline are found in Attac~ent 1.
The guideline also clarifies how renewables would count towards Nlfilling the guideline.
The target for purchases of renewable energy is 10% of the expected po~folio load. This,," energy purchased from the
does not include any other renewables that are pa~ of system .
market or through the NCPA po01. For example, if the average California energy m~x, or
"system energy" consisted of 10% renewables and CPAUpurchased this ener~ for 10% of
its po~folio, the resulting 1% renewables content does not count toward the guideline’s
target.
Guideline 7: Electric E~ffieiene Investments Offer qualiq Public Benefits
programs, uti!izing funds collectedthrough the 2.85% Public Benefits charge embedded in
electric retail rates, to meet the resource efficiency needs of customers. Additional funding
for cost-effective programs will be recommended as appropriate. Pursue these investments
bY:A. Providing expertise, education and incentives to support cost-effective customer
efficiency improvements;B. Demonstrating renewable and/or alternative generation technologies and new
efficiency alternatives," and
C. Providing rate assistance and efficiency programs to low-income customers.
This guideline was added since the June 2002 UAC meeting, when the LEAP Guidelines were
first considered. It responds specifically ~o concerns that efficiency programs be pursued in
addition to investment in renewable energy and addresses Primary Portfolio Planning Objective
Page 6 of 8
4 (balance environment, local reliability, rates and cost impacts when .considering renewable
resource and energy efficiency investments) in a complete manner.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND UTILITIES STRATEGIC PLAN
These seven proposed guidelines do not represent any change to existing City policies.
Guidelines 6 and 7 augment the City’s sustainability policies. The guidelines conform to
City’s Energy Risk Management Policies. The guidelines support Utilities Strategic Plan:
1.Strategy 2 - Preserve a supply cost advantage compared to the market price;
2.Strategy 4 - Deliver products and services for competitive markets;
3.Strategy 6 - Maximize the General Fund transfers and maintain financial strength;
and.
4. Strategy7 - Implement p’rograms that improve the quality of the environment.
The proposed LEAP Guidelines further the City’s commitment to the Green Government
Pledge by supporting the conservation of energy.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Implementation of the LEAP guidelines by itself does not have resource impacts. However,
implementing the LEAP may require re-allocation of current staffing resources and/or may
require additional City staffing than currently required since staff will need to manage many
more supply contracts than it does at the present time.
In addition, the transactions to procure supplies will have a resource impact. Each major
LEAP transaction will be brought to the UAC and City Council for approval prior to
implementation so policy-makers can consider the resource impact of each transaction. The
estimated cost of these transactions has been incorporated in electric retail rate projections.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adopting the proposed guidelines does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NEXT STEPS
Page 7 of 8
A series of public meetings to inform and seek input from the utility customers and residents
regarding the overall LEAP strategies, including the seven guidelines, are underway and
expected to be completed by September 2002.
Upon UAC approval of the LEAP guidelines, staff will seek Council approval of the guidelines
in September/October 2002. When the LEAP guidelines are approved by Council, staff will
develop alternative portfolios for UAC and Council consideration. These portfolios will
indicate the cost for each portfolio and its component elements and the portfolios’ other
attributes such as reliability enhancement and renewables content. The final LEAP, including
an implementation plan, is expected to be presented to the Council by year end..
During the implementation stage, staff will seek Council authorization before making each
specific resource acquisition commitment.
ATTACHMENTS
Ao Summary of Analysis and Options Considered in Developing the LEAP Guidelines
B. UAC Presentation on Post’ 2004 Electric Portfolio Plan Update - June 5, 2002
C. Appendix to the June 5, 2002 UAC Presentation on Post 2004 Electric Portfolio
Plan Update
PREPARED BY:Lindsay Joye, Marketing Engineer
Karl Knapp, Senior Resource Planner
Jane Ratchye, Senior Resource Planner
Shiva Swaminathan, Senior Resource Planner
REVIEWED BY:Girish Balachandran
Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
JOH~ULRICH
DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
Page 8 of 8
Attachment 1
Summary of Analysis and Options Considered in Developing the
Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Guidelines
Guideline 1: Electric Portfolio Dependence on Western
While maintaining the flexibility to adopt favorable ’custom products’offered by Western,
manage a supply portfolio independent of Western beyond the.Base Resource Contract.
Since Western’s Base Resource product is essentially a hydro-only resource whose output
changes with hydrologic conditions, Western is developing and will offer ’some of its
customers "custom products" to assist in managing the hydro risk (variation in output by day,
month, and year). One of those products will be an "integrated energy product" which is
designed to simulate the current Western product of firm energy. As a Western customer,
Palo Alto could choose to purchase such custom products. However, Western has indicated
that larger customers such as Palo Alto may not be eligible for this type of product.
Other considerations may not make Western an ideal partner to provide integration or
integration-like services. Western’s ability to obtain federal spending authority is constantly
under p)essure. Additional spending authority required to deliver supplementary energywith
an intega’ation agreement could compound this problem. A relatively independent strategy
will shield the City from the political risk that Western anay be constrained by federal
spending authority. The City may also pursue joint action with other municipal utilities
and!or NCPA to receive a similar product. The flexibility to possibly’participate in custom
.products is needed in case a specific product is developed that makes sense for Palo Alto.
There don’t appear to be advantages to having Western purchase finning resources1 to hedge
against hydro risk. In fact, Western is likely to be a less attractive credit counterparty due to
credit reasons for energy suppliers compared to the City, and this is likely to result in higher
prices for long term energy purchas.edby Western: In addition, the City will not have control
over the timing, duration~ or start date of the firming resource. Western could purchase and
the City would bear the entire price and credit risk associated with it. Also, Western
purchases are encumbered by preference power rules against resale to manage assets.
1 Fflaning resources ensure that known, firm quantity of power is provided regardless of the output of the hydro
resource.
Attachment 1
Balancing Objectives
A. Rely on Western to provide integrated energy
product
B. City to develop an independent portfolio without
relying on Western for additional energy
C. While maintaining the flexibility to adopt
favorable ’custom products’ offered by Western,
manage a supply portfolio independent of Western
beyond the Base Resource Contract
Low & Competitive
Stable Rates
Rates
+
R~liability Sustainable
Resources
Guideline 2: Hydro Risk Management
Manage hydro productio~ risk by: .........
A.Plamffngfor an average hydro year
B.Diversifyi~g to fossil and/or renewable generation technologies
C.Maid, raining adequate supply rate stabilization reserve
Electric commodity cost variation due to hydro production variability could be as high as plus
or minus $10 million annually. Compounding the problem, in dry hydro years (when needs
for additional energy are highest), electric prices tend to be higher, while prices tend to be
lower in a wet year. Financial insurance products are available to stabilize cash flow, but
these products are illiquid, relatively expensive, and do not provide a good hedge against cost
variations caused by fluctuating hydro production.
Since the City has the .ability t° pass costs through its retail rates as needed, one option is to
have the retail rates reflect the volatile costs the City faces and pass those costs through.
However, customers have indicated that rate stability is desirable.
The City’s rate stabilization reserves provide a relatively low cost means of stabilizing rate
impacts that may result from such wide swings in electric supply cost. In addition,
diversifying electric supply to fossil and!or renewable generation, making adequate forward
purchases to meet energy deficits expected in an average hydro year, and option purchases to
manage hydro production uncertainty can reduce the annual supply cost variability.
Attachment I
Balancing Objectives
A. Purchase financial hedges to reduce hydro risk
B. Maintain minimal reserves and immediately
past-through cost via rates
C. Manage hydro production risk by planning
for an average hydro year, diversifying to
fossil/renewable generation technologies and
maintaining adequate supply rate stabilization
reserve
Low& Competitive
Stable Rates
Rates
Stable, Stable, but not
but not low
low
++++
Reliability Sustainable
Resources
Guideline 3: Market Risk Management
Manage market risk by adopting a portfolio strategy for electric supply procurement by:
A. Diversifying energy purchases a~ross commitment date, start-date, duration,
suppliers, pricing terms &fuel sources;
B.Targeting additional thermal plant ownership/investment commitment at ~25 M!gbut
in no event more than 50 M!/V,¯
C.Maintaining a prudent exposure to changing market prices by:
1. Procuring resources atfixed price for at most 90%o of expected load for 2 or more
years out, assuming average hydro conditions; and
2.Procuring resources atfixed price for at most 75% of expected load for 5 or more
years out, assuming average hydro conditions," and
D.Avoiding contract-based fixed price energy purchases (except for contracts for
renewable resources)for durations greater than 10 years.
The City’s committed resources (Western Base Resource and the Calaveras hydroelectric
plant) have 10-30 year term commitments and satisfy -45% of the City’s energy needs.
However, they are both hydroelectric resources. Diversifying energy purchases as
recommended reduces market price risk and facilitates the maintenance of stable and
competitive rates.
One option is to purchase all additional needs on the short-term ("spot") energy markets.
This would achieve the obj ective of maintaining competitive rates, but would likely lead to
volatile costs and, therefore, volatile retail rates (mitigated by the maintenance of hefty rate
stabilization reserves).
Attachment I
Another option is to lock in all the average hydro year needs with long-term fixed-price
resources. Rates would be stable with this strategy, however, they would not follow market
prices. This could lead to low rates (if the locked-in prices turned out to be lower than
market prices) or uncompetitive high rates (if the locked-in prices were higher than market
prices).
Targeting additional thermal plant ownership/investment commitment to -25 MW will
ensure that the City doesn’t over-conm~it to asset-based resources and has adequate short- to
medium-term resources more reflective of prevailing market conditions.
Maintaining adequate market price-based resources to meet load is important so that the City
can maintain a flexible portfolio with sufficient short-term resources so costs are not very
different from market costs at any time. That strategy also allows the City to provide’
customers with market basedrates, if requested.- "
Since tolling contracts and power plants have fixed and variable costs, avoiding contract-
based fixed price energy purchases for durations greater than 10 years (except for renewable
resource contracts) avoids over-committing to fixed price resources that may result in
considerable credit and market price exposure.
Balancing Objectives
A. Maintain large spot (short-term) market
exposure (45% of existing resource and balance
55% purchased on the short-term market)
B. Purchase all of the 55% energy deficits via
long-term fixed-price resources (> 10 years)
C. Manage market risk by adopting a
portfolio strategy for electric supply
procurement
Low&
Stable
Rates
+, stable,
but may
not be low
++
Competitive
Rates
÷÷
-, the longer the
term, the greater
the chance of
diverging from
market rates
÷+
Reliability Sustainable
Resources
Guideline 4: Reliable & Cost Effective Transmission Services
Ensure the reliability of supply at fair and reasonable transmission cost by:
A. Supporting, through political and technical advocacy al~d/or direct investment, the
upgrading of Bay Area transmission to improve reliability and relieve congestion;
B. Participating in transmission market design to ensure that market design results in
workable competitive markets & equitable cost allocation;
C. Pursuing the option offorming and/or joining a Public Power Transmission Control
4
Attachment I
Area to increase control over transmission operations and related costs," and
D.Ensuring PG&E honors the Stanislaus Commitments by providingfirm-transmission
rights or equivalent.
The City’s retail customers demand a high level of supply reliability and reasonable cost.
This can be achieved in a variety of ways and at different levels of effort. An aggressive and
independent reliability improvement strategy will likely be expensive and not necessarily
increase the probability of success.
A strategy of relying only on joint power agencies may not result in sufficient attention being
paid to Bay area-specific transmission issues. Therefore, it is recommended to actively
participate in the legislative and regulatory arena, relying on joint action agencies and
consultant help, to advance the City’s interests. These activities may include forming or
participating in bay area coalitions interested in improving bay area reliability.
Balancing Objectives
A. Pursue aggressive transmission upgrades
investment and advocacy
B. Rely on joint power agencies to advance
objective
C. Ensure the reliability of supply at fair and
reasonable transmission cost though advocacy
and/or investments
Low &
Stable
Rates
, stable
but not low
+
Competitive
Rates
Reliability
+++
++
Sustainable
Resources
Guideline 5: Local Generation
Explore the potential of local generation options to meet customer needs, improve local
¯ reliability, minimize congestion and wheeling charges, and stabilize/reduce costs.
The potential exists for the City to secure benefits from local generation. However, analysis
suggests that there is no ideal site within Palo Alto that is economical to develop. Although
local generation is feasible, it is not economic2 relative to market opportunities and in the
present regulatory framework. However, staff will continue to evaluate local generation
opportunities, including those that may not be located within the city limits of Palo Alto, but
could still improve local reliability because of their proximity to Palo Alto.
]2ocal generation has the potential to avoid congestion and wheeling charges, improve local
reliability, and stabilize or reduce costs. The option will continue to be monitored as market
prices change, technology changes, and as there are changes in the regulatory rules.
2 Costs exceed market rates by 2-3 C/kWh, or approximately double the cost of power from the market at present.
5
Attachment i
Distributed generation is also a potential resource for the future. Analysis concluded that co-
generation is marginally economic at the most favorable industrial customer site. In addition,
the estimated maximum local market is relatively small (6-10 MW). As a result of the
analysis completed, the recommended strategy is to monitor new technology developmerits
and to respond to customer inquiries.
Balancing Objectives
A. Aggressively implement local generation
B. Explore the potential of local generation
options to meet customer needs and to improve
local reliability/minimize cost
Low &
Stable
Rates
--, high
but stable
cost
+
Competitive
Rates
Reliability
÷+
Sustainable
Resources
Guideline 6: Renewable Portfolio Investments
The City shall continue to offer a renewable resource-based retail rate for all customers who
want to voluntarily select an increased content of renewable energy. In addition to the
voluntary program, the City shall invest in new renewable resources to meet the City’s
sustainability goals while ensuring that the retail rate impact does not exceed 0.25 C/kWh on
average. Pursue a target level of new renewable purchases of10% of the expected portfolio
load by 2008. The contracts for investment in renewable resources not to exceed 30years in
tertn.
This guideline on investing in renewable technologies merits particularly careful review by
the UAC and Council. Due to the significant portfolio changes and concurrent energy
deficits, occurring after 2004, there is a special. Opportunity to invest in alternative
technologies, including renewable energy sources. Staff posed several policy questions to the
UAC in January 2002 and the UAC added several more that were transmitted to the Council
in a March 2002 informational staff report on the alternative electric supply plan
(CMR: 176:02). A slightly modified set of questions and staff’ s recommendations that led to
the formation of Guideline 6 follow:
i. Should the CPA U renewable program be voluntary or compulsory? CPAU currently
offers the Future Green rate program, a voluntary program. Continuing to offer that
program or similar successor programs is included in proposed Guideline 6. In addition,
staff recommends that there be a compulsory element for investment in renewable energy
outside of the Future Green and Public Benefits programs. Thus, Palo Alto’s overall
portfolio would contain the Council-approyed renewable fraction and in addition, those
who so desired could volunteer to purchase additional renewables to meet their personal
Attachment I
needs.
2. Should CPAU purchase energy or continue buying attributes? Staff recommends
purdhasing energy with a long-term view. For the voluntary green pricing program,
Future Green, renewable energy content is presently accomplished by purchasing "green
tickets", which are a market mechanism by which the renewable attributes of energy
generated from qualifying resources may be traded separately from the actual energy.
Staffbelieves that with some adjustments to the current’ design, CPAU can have a more
successful program offering, and that green power program success can be enhanced by
renewable resource procurement. For the renewables procurement program contemplated
in Guideline 6, staff recommends purchasing actual energy.
3. What is the appropriate purchase target of renewables as a percentage of the whole
electric portfolio ? Based on customer surveys (described in answer to question 7 below)
and the cost of renewable energy generation technologies, staff has determined that it is
achievable to purchase renewables accounting for i0-20% of the portfolio with an
acceptable level of rate impact estimated to be 1/4 - ½C/kWh.
4. Should cost-effective efficiency measures be counted as part of the renewables
fi’action of the portfolio? How should they be funded? Staff recommends that efficiency
measures do not count as part of the renewables fraction. Counting saved energy is
problematic and difficult to track. However, staff strongly recommends that cost-
effective efficiency measures be pursued and be funded from non-Public Benefits electric
supply revenues when such opportunities arise. Other efficiency measures should be
funded using the Public Benefits funds as outlined in Guideline 7.
5. Should a Renewables strategy and actionplan be incorporated into the overall energy
resource plan ? Staff recommends that guidelines for renewable energy procurement
should be an integral part of the resource, plan because of the many interdependencies
with overall resource portfolio planning. Development of a renewable plan independent
of the overall supply portfolio would miss opportunities for synergy. As such, proposed
Guideline 6 specifically addresses the renewables element of the LEAP and is an integral
element of the LEAP.
6. To what degree should Public Benefits program funds be directed toward increasing
renewable energy content? Public Benefits funds are currently allocated to low income
programs, research and development, and energy efficiency and renewable energy rebate
programs that flow back to Palo Alto customers. Public Benefits funds can be applied
toward additional renewable energy investments, but would reduce the available program
funding for local participants. Another way that Public Benefits funds could be expended
is for alternative energy, not necessarily renewable energy. For example, fuel cells may
Attachment I
be an appropriate use of those funds. Staff recommends that any renewables purchased
with the Public Benefits funds count towards achieving the portfolio standard goals of
Guideline 6.
7. Are the extra expenditures required to increase renewable content worth it to Palo
Alto? This question is the main issue in finding a balance between cost, rates and
environmental impact. Palo Alto enjoys substantially lower electric rates than nearby
utility customers. ’How much of this "headroom" is the City willing to forego in pursuit
of sustainability? For example, at the 10% level (120 GWh/year) and an assumed 2.5
C/kWh premium above the available market pri~e for electricity, annual commodity
purchase expenditures would increase by up to $3 million per year. This implies an
average rate increase of approximately 3% (0.25 C/kWh) over the "do nothing"
alternative. Staff has solicited customers on their willingness to pay for renewables and
has found substantial support for moderate rate increases to support renewables.
The survey results suggest c0n~iderably stronger willingness-to-pay for renewables
among residents (18% of load) than among commercial and industrial customers (75% of
load). (Institutional customers constituting 7% of the load were not surveyed.) Three-
quarters of residential customers indicated that they Would be willing to pay at least $5
per month more on electric bills for renewables. This translates to a residential rate
increase of at least 15%, or more than 0.8 C/kWh. About half of commercial and
industrial customers indicated they were willing to pay about 0.15 C/kWh or more extra
for renewables, over 40% were willing to pay at least 0.3 C/kWh more, and 25% indicated
they would be willing to pay ~it least 0.5C/kWh more.
Renewable resources generally cost more than traditional sources. The cost depends
upon the technology and range from about 4-6C/kWh for wind power to 9-18 C/kWh for
thermal solar technologies to 25-35 C/kWh for photovoltaic technologies. Of course, it is
always possible to select a mix of technologies to compose a renewable portfolio.
Utilities’ studies show that it is feasible to have a renewable portfolio content ofl 0-20%
of total energy needs with a rate impact between 0.25 and 0.5 C/kWh. To obtain lower
costs, longer term commitments are generally required.
8. What have other municipal electric utilities done regarding portfolio renewables
content? The renewables share of the 2001 California power mix was 12% (composed of
3% biomass and waste, 5% geothermal, 3% small hydro, <1% solar, and 1% wind). Palo
Alto’s renewables content for 2001 was 6% (composed of 1% biomass and waste, 2%
geothermal,2% small hydro, <1% solar, and 1% wind). The January 2002 report to the
UAC on renewable resource portfolio contained a list of the activities of many state and
regional entities with respect to renewables. Part of that list is reproduced below for
comparison purposes:
Attachment I
Entity
SMUD
LADWP
Silicon
Valley
Power
WAPA
NCPA
San
Francisco
Highlights
¯10-year plan to increase from 7% to 20% of energy from renewable resources by 2011.
¯Phase 1 allocates $10 million for 10 MW of new solar and wind and to reach 10% renewables
by 2006.
Overall plan including efficiency, low-income and weatherization is funded at $25.7 million
annually. "
250 MW of new renewable resources, through purchase or ownership arrangements by 2011,
at approximately $45/MWh
¯Currently at 2% eligible renewable content
¯Raised its rebate for photovoltaics from $5/W to $6/W
¯Constructing and operating solar photovoltaic system on its facilities and municipal buildings
throughout the city of Los Angeles. 1.0 to 1.5 MW of solar photovoltaic generation capacity
is scheduled for installation each year for the next five years.
¯Green power program is 65% small hydro, 34% wind, 1% solar.
¯Current renewable content = 27% (22% from geothermal, 4% small hydro).
"$16,000 for residential photovoltaics.
¯Rebate of $4000 per kW up to $400,000 for nonresidential wind, photovoltaics, or fuel cells
for systems up to 100 kW
Expanding wind capacity by 10 MW (currently 56 MW). Marketing "green tags" for 2.5 in
C/kWh in 100 kWh bl6dks.
Investigating the opportunities for piggybacking with California Power Authority/DWR
Initiated new organization called Public Renewables Parmership to conduct CEC-fimded
R&D jointly funded by municipal utilities and further the renewables cause for Munis.
$100 million renewable energy bond passed by general election
Guideline 6 was developed to provide specificity for the Council-approved Primary Portfolio
Planning Obj ective 4 - Balance environment, local reliability, rates and cost impacts when
considering rhnewable resource and energy efficiency investments. The guideline was
modified in response to the policy questions raised by the UAC at its January 9, 2002
meeting and the Council at its March 18, 2002 meeting.
Customer surveys, the Council Sustainability Policies, and the cost of alternative
technologies all support a 10-20% renewable content at an increased cost to customers of.
0.25 C/kWh over the next 10-15 years. In addition, this guideline recon~’nends c6ntinuing to
offer a product (such as the currently available Future Green Program) that consists of
additional renewables content to those customers who wish to voluntarily pay for it.
One alternative is to make a distinction in the renewables fraction for residential and other
customer classes. Since residential customers have shown a willingness to pay more than
con’nnercial and industrial customers, a larger fraction of renewables could be purchased for
their needs with the increased cost applied to that customer group. A smaller renewables
fraction (and concurrent smaller cost increase) could be purchased for the commercial and
industrial customer group. However, this approach would go against the historical practice
and.policy of viewing the portfolio as a whole. In addition, voters are made up of residential
customers and, perhaps, their preferences should be given larger weight than their fraction of
9
Attachment I
total citywide electric energy needs. The recommended guideline is a compromise or balance
between the greater amount that residential customers indicated they were willing to pay and
the lower amount most commercial and industrial customers were willing to pay. It also
recommends continuance of a voluntary option whereby interested c~stomers can receive
additional renewables content in such programs as Palo Alto’s Future Green Program that
currently provides 100% renewables content.
Balancing Objectives
A. Pursue opportunities in accordance with
customer preference and allocate costs accordingly
B. Pursue very aggressive (25% of portfolio)
renewable portfolio development - would result in
rate increase of over 0.5 C/kWh
C. Invest in new renewable resources with target of
20% renewable content in the portfolio ~!t..h a retail
rate impact not to exceed 0.5 C/kWh on average.
D. Invest in new renewable resources to meet
the City’s sustainability goals while ensuring
that the retail rate impact does not exceed 0.25
C/kWh.on average. Pursue a target level of new
renewable purchases equal to 10% of the
exoected portfolio load by 2008.
Low &
Stable
Rates
Competitive
Rates
Reliability Sustainable
Resources
-++
__+++
÷+
Guideline 7: Electric Energy Efficiency Investments
Offer quality Public Benefits programs, utilizing funds collected through the 2.85°/6 Public
Benefits charge embedded in electric retail rates, to meet the resource efficien, cy needs of
customers. Additional funding for cost-effective programs will be recommended as
appropriate. Pursue these investments by:
A. Providing expertise, education and incentives to support cost effective customer
efficiency improvements;
B. Demonstrating renewable and/or alternative generation technologies and new
efficiency alternatives; and
C. Providing rate assistance and efficiency programs to low-income customers.
The City’s Public Benefits programs are focused to achieve high levels of customer
satisfaction. The programs support the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Utilities’ Strategic
Plan and meet State requirements for Public Benefits programs. It is recommended to
preserve the Public Benefits program funding level equal to the State-required minimum
(2.85% of electric revenues) to balance customer satisfaction and rate impact.
Some alternative energy generation technologies may be pursued with Public Benefits
funding. An example of this is a fuel cell, which is a highly efficient generation technology,
10
Attachment i
but is not a renewable energy technology which could be funded under Guideline 6.
Additional funding levels (beyond the Public Benefits receipts) will be recommended when
high value opportunities present themselves to offset high-cost electric supply with less
expensive conservation or peak shaving strategies as seen during the 2000-01 energy crisis.
Balancing Objectives
A. Fund electric Public Benefits programs at a 1eve!
greater than the minimum set by State and!or
Federal legislation (currently 2.85% of electric
revenues)
B. Fund electric Public Benefits programs at a
level equal to the minimum set by. State and/or
Federal legislation
Low&
Stable
Rates
Competitive
Rates
Reliability Sustainable
Resources
++
11
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
LONG-TERM ELECTRIC ACQUISITION PLAN GUIDELINE
Carlson: I lcnow you’ve got one action item, which is the long-range electric acquisition
plan. Let’s try and go through that. There’s nothing in here that’s controversial, I would
hope. John, would you like to say a few words about it?
Ulrich: We’ll find, I don’t think we have any more than about two and a half hours worth
of information this evening...
Carlson: I’ve already been through this once so I’m okay.
Ulrich: But if you have questiog,s,, we’ll keep on going. Next subject is the long-term
electric acquisition plan, better known as LEAP. Some of you, Mr. Carlson, Mr.
Beecham and Mr. Dawes, attended the meeting that we had last Thursday. Time goes by.
And in that we made a concerted effort, through advertisement, to have the public come
out and listen to some of our ideas on the long-term electric portfolio plan. We’ve had a
number of presentations earlier, as outlined in the memos you received, when we came
and talked about the deficiencies we were going to have at the end of the Western
contract, which expires at the end of 2004. In fact, last November you approved and
subsequ_ently the Finance Committee approved that we purchase a 25-megawatt contract
to cover a portion of the 3rd and 4th quarter of the year because the hole where the
deficiencies that were expected due to hydro conditions of our resources from Western
was going to be so dramatic that it was clear that additional energy would be needed. So
in fact, we’re just about finished with the RFP process and hopefully will be awarding a
comract on that in the very near future.
That of course has led to us having a series of guidelines, some of which we have
communicated to the public last week, because we think it’s very important, as you do,
that the residents and businesses of Palo Alto have a good understanding of where energy
is going to come from and have some ability to participate in some of the decisions we
are going to make. We went through a number of iterations on what level of renewables
we might have, the cost of some of those renewables and where they might come from.
All of that is embedded in our guidelines. Since we’ve had an opportunity to share those
with you before, we’re here this evening to request that you approve the guidelines so
that we can then forward it to the City Council for their approval. Briefly, tonight we’re
just going to say what’s been done, go over the 4 Electric Portfolio Objectives, the 7
LEAP Guidelines and some of the public comments received, so that you understand we
are listening very clearly to what the public has to say, justification for proposed
guideline related to investment in renewables and then go over the next step.
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 1 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
I won’t spend much time here. You get a good pictorial of progress that’s been made
here, what’s been completed. It’s a good snapshot of the amount of time and effort and
review process that has taken place to get us to this point. So the "To Do" in the bottom
right hand corner is your consideration to approve these and to move ahead so that we
can go right after Council returns in September to receive their approval on the
Guidelines. Then in progress is continued communication with the punic and how we’re
making offers to go out into neighborhood associations and to the Chamber and into the
industrial/commercial community, who have meetings, to go over all these plans. The
final LEAP document and implementation process would take place at the end of the
year. And then have a specific deal approval request and those will go to the UAC and
Council as required as we’re trying to ftll up the resources. ¥ou’11 see that this is a very
’thorough process. And one you can look back probably a few years from now and when
people wonder where we got where we’re at and see that they got an opportunity to
participate in it.
The 4 Electric Portfolio Objectiv.~es.i ensure low and stable electric supply rates, maintain
a cost advantage compared to market cost and a retail supply rate advantage compared to
PG&E (you can see embedded in this, allof the things that are in our Strategic Plan and
in Mission), pursue reliability enhancements, and balance environment and local
reliability.
The 7 Proposed LEAP Guidelines: Electric Portfolio’s dependence on Western, hydro
risk management, market risk management, reliable and cost effective transmission
services, local generation, renewable portfolio investments and electric energy efficiency
investments. Maybe it’s better that I don’t read every single one of these, but Guideline
#1.
Carlson: John, I wonder if we can just go through these guideline.by guideline?
Ulrich: Do you want me to stop then and ask if you have questions?
Carlson: Yes, if you would. If anyone has any questions or comments on guideline 1
and guideline 2, maybe we’ll be quicker that way, Does anybody have any questions on
Guideline 1, which is basically saying we’re going to purchase power, "firming" power
independently from Western?. Okay #2.
Ulrich: I have extra copies of it if you’d like.
Carlson: Looks like we have multiple versions, but go ahead. Guideline 2.
Ulrich: I might point out if you have the Memo item #2, it’s on page 10, that rationale
and discussion. You can read it there too. Manage hydro production risk by planning for
an average hydro year, diversifying to fossil and/or renewable generation technologies,
and maintaining adequate supply rate stabilization reserves.
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 2 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
Carlson: John, what this one means is that a substantial amount of what we do is to buy
extra power from the market in dry years primarily using the supply stabilization reserves
as the cheapest way to the smooth rates rather than buying forward products or firm
power.
Balachandran: No, we’re going to be doing a combination of things so we will be buying
forward but we’re going to be buying. These are guidelines, when you get .into the
detailed hedging strategies and implementations, you’ll get into more details. Yes, we
are buying some contracts, 2-5 year contracts. We will be buying some thermal resources
and those are covered in Guidelines 2 and 3 combined.
_Carlson: Already 2 and 3 are.being worked together. I guess 3 is the one that says we’re
going to buy part of a thenrtal plant and we’re going to have limited contracting forward.
Balachandran: Correct. The reason why we put this separately is because we’re so hydro
dependent and we’re so expose~..~0 that risk. When you look at 2b - diversifying to
fossil/renewable generation technologies, some of the fossil technologies .we’re talking
about gets covered in Guideline 3. You need to look at those together.
Carlson: Okay.
Ulrich: It might be helpful to have page 10 in front of you in addition to what I show up
here. I apologize if it’s ....
Carlson: We have 3 overlapping documents with different page numbers on them.
Balachandran: Maybe I can explain that. There’s actually one staff report that has 2
parts to it. The first part is 8 pages and that -essentially looks, at the Guidelines as
changed by your comments from the last meeting.
Carlson: Is it this? -This is 10 pages long. "
Balachandran: This is John’s presentation. So that’s one document. In your packet, you
have the staff report, this thick packet.
Ulrich: It’s listed as Attachment 1 and it starts right after the Memo and it starts #1, page
1 and it has the Guidelines with details.
Balachandran: That’s what John was referring to. I’m just saying that the document is
split into two parts. The first part just takes your comments from the last meeting,
sunnnarizes those and also points out here’s how we’ve changed the Guidelines based on
your comments. Attaclm~ent 1 is kind of a generic document that explains the Guidelines
from scratch. We didn’t want to repeat that report to you because you’ve looked at it
already.
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 3 of 15
Carlson:
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
So what’s John reading from?
Balachandran: John’s reading from the slide presentation, which I just handed to you.
Ulrich: My attempt was to summarize this evening all the things that are in your packet.
Balachandran: So in terms of guiding us through this, you need to look at the slide and if
you have questions, go to 2 places, first in the document itself where your comments are
addressed and then to the main memo, in this case, it’s page 4 of 8, because it addresses
your comments, from your last meeting. And if you want additional detail, the attachment
goes from A to Z.
Ulrich: Maybe I jumped, to too quick a conclusion that you wanted kind of a summary tom
go through since all of these we’ve gone through before, so I want to be responsive to
either go through this because this is extremely important stuff because we’re going to
the City Council with it. You have had an opportunity before when we had this in June
but obviously you can’t remember all this stuff. So if you’d like to find a way to go
through it in a way you’re comfortable with.
Carlson: Dexter.
Dawes: Yes, I was going through the 8 page thing where you interleaved the comments
from the last meeting; that’s where I have all my comments and this tends to jump around
so what I’d like maybe ask is some questions that deal with 1 and 2 while we’re here.
The whole process really seems to me to submerge NCPA and its capabilities and
functions in this whole LEAP thing. I’ve come away - with the activities that I’ve had
being exposed to NCPA - with a feeling that it’s an excellent organization. It’s one that
we spend a lot of time on, Bern spent a lot of time on and Dick did in the past. But yet it
seems to kind of, it doesn’t disappear totally, but it’s way down here and it seemed to me
that many of these issues are ones that munis acting in concert could gain thereby. I just
wondered if you could elaborate on your philosophy on how NCPA fits into this Western
"go it alone" philosophy.
Balachandran: Interesting that you use the word "submerged" when you’re talking about
hydro over here. There is no philosophy or attempt to actually marginalize NCPA over
here. In fact, maybe we haven’t called it out,. but if you look at thermal plant ownership,
that’s an area where we can utilize NCPA and the reliable and cost effective transmission
services, we do use NCPA there. They’re the ones who lobbied for us at FERC. They
advocated a regulatory site so they’re very active there. They also assisted us in some
transmission planning.
Dawes: I’d include them on the chart by name because even in the explanatory
paragraphs, I don’t even see their names pop up under 3 or 4, but I agree that that should
be explored through.
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 4 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
Ulfich: Since these were guidelines, we weren’t trying to be specific with who we might
do this with, but what Girish fried to outline was there’s some obvious benefits in
worldng with NCPA because they have been an excellent partner, but it would not
preclude us from doing something independent of them if that turned out to be in our best
interest. So in the guidelines side, we just wanted to outline our planning criteria and go
from there.
Carlson: But the key think in at least Guideline 1 is that you would not rely on WAPA to
negotiate a contract for you.
Balachandran: Con’ect.
Carlson: Let’s go ahead. Any more questions on 1 and 2 here? Okay. Bern?
Beecham: On 2, and you might have covered this at the last meeting and I wasn’t here
for it. Your first iteln was plannipg for an average hydro year and what I wonder on that
was it seems the downside of a dry year .has more potential for much more cost than the
upside of a wet year. I expect that in your normal thoroughness, you calculations of
where the money lies and so on, but it seems to me for minimizing risk of higher costs,
not loss of heat energy, you’re better off planning for a drier than normal year.
Balachandran: I think that that is addressed in a way in a sense this is long term
acquisition plan, so when we go ....
Beecham: This is the hydro-risk management.
Balachandran: Right. Right. But the overall context that we are looking at is the long
term plan. When we’re looldng at Guideline 3, you see that we have a hedging strategy
to buy not more than 90% 2 years out and 75% 5 years out. In those 2 years, if you’re
planning for 2004 fight now, we wouldn’t have bought more than 90%. So we buy up to
90% of the 2004 average year load. When 2003 comes around, we continue to buy, so
we’ll probably be long going into the month. The other thing to balance out in terms of
risk is when you have a number of long-term resources. We do have. Go ahead, you had
a question.
Beecham: The deficit; the hole, is up to 70%. I guess virtually any year we have to cover
the summer months. But then the increase - the difference - is in the springtime. Is that
right? Again it seems to me that if you plan ’for an average year, you’re not minimizing
your risk. I don’t lcnow if I can say that any more clearly. John is kind of shaking his
head, but I don’t know what tl~at really means.
Ulrich: I’m just trying to figure out how to answer that. The other side of this thing is if
you get in a position, if you plan for a dry year, then you have resources you don’t know
what to do with - except sell. We have been in this kind of a dilemma, not making
commitments for more than our load of our customers. The municipal code requires that
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 5 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
we do not speculate beyond what we recently estimated our loads to be. ¯ Obviously, if it’s
a dry year and you need it a11, then you’re not speculating. It’s when it doesn’t turn out
that way. So this is an attempt to balance it. This is what the reserve stabilization is for.
If you have that dry spell and you don’t have enough resources, then you’re going to have
to go out in the market and buy it. That was the attempt with this 90%.
Bechtel: Mr. Chairman.
Carlson: Yes, this is a complex question. Go ahead.
Bechtel: I agree with Bern. What’s troublesome to me is the first sentence. If you just
drop that and have B- and C, it wohlel be real clear when it says "diversify and cover your
base" or "plan for an occasional dry year or so." But when you have that first sentence
there, it says plan for an average year. So it’s clearer when you just deal with the B and
C aspect of it. Clearer to me, anyways.
Balachandran: The criterion we use for our reserves is 2 dry hydro years.
Dawes: For the financial reserves?
Balachandran: Right. There are .a number of ways of hedging dry year prices. What we
did over here was use financial.reserves as one way of doing it. Maybe we should try to
clarify these points by Council Member Beecham and Commissioner Bechtel. The point
over here - by saying "average year," we’re looking at "long-term average hydro."
We’re not going to ignore the operational realities of having a dry hydro year, so when
you have a dry hydro year, this guideline would not imply that we are not going to hedge
or buy power in advance. That’s one part of it, but to get to Bern’s question, I’m going to
pass it over to Shiva.
Beecham: Before you do that, don’t you have to plan for the year before you’re going to
know if it’s going to be dry dr normal?
Balachandran: Yes - I’ll let him answer.
Swaminathan: The key to Bern’s question is: in a dry hydro year, you have low
production and prices tend to go much higher than on a wet side. We’ve done the
analysis for that, and the hydro production is skewed the other way. In other words, if
you look at the hydro production variability, on the downside - in a dry hydro year - the
production reduction is not as much as the production increases during a wet hydro year.
So the curve for hydro production is also skewed in favor of wet hydro years. In a wet
hydro year, there’s more production [increase] compared to reduced production in a dry
hydro year - so that kind of evens it out. Yes, if you look at those two aspects, overall
there is a negative net impact financially, but it’s not as substantial as you may think
based on market price going way up. Also there’s the other aspect, the other contracts
you’re buying, tolling contracts, where we are looking at exercising options just as we
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 6 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
find out about the hydro conditions of the next cycle. So there are mechanisms we are
building to respond to that. But for the long term, we don’t want to come into resources
more than our expected load.
Carlson: But the point Bern was making and George also, was that the cost increase in a
dry year was so much that, on average, you’ll be better off planning for at least a
moderately dry year. What you’ll lose from selling that surplus will be more than made
up by what you save by not having to buy power in the year that does turn out to be dry -
at a much higher rate.
Ulrich: Your logic is impeccable. We’re straddling this issue about prevention of buying
something that we knowingly won’t use, and if you plan for a more frequent dry year,
then you’re paying for something more than you really expect to happen. You’re going
to end up more frequently having more power than you can sell. It may be economically
beneficial -because the hydro is cheaper.than the.replacement ~ to ha~e that. in reserve~
But we have got this problem and we can’t do it legally, so that’s why we’re kind of-
toying with it a little.
Dawes: Did I hear correctly, though, where Shiva said we’re using this option strategy -
which sounded exceptionally fine to me - where you buy the contract with the option for
more, with the option exercise date in effect keyed to the time when you lcnow what the
hydro year is going to be - about. So you can pull the ripcord at a favorable price once
you know, or have a better idea of, what the outcome is. It’s an excellent strategy.
Swaminathan: Correct. In fact, that option we purchased ahead of time for long term, so
that the exercise date we expect to be somewhere in February and March, just as we fima
up our expectations of the hydro conditions. The option price we’ve found does not
increase - we can exercise the option on an annual basis, on a monthly basis and on a
daily basis; on an annual basis, you get the long-term contract exercise date within the
year - does not change very much. We plan to exercise sometime in the Feloruary/March
time period when we know reasonably well what the hydro conditions are.
Dawes: Maybe they’ll get smart at you at some point and they’ll price it a lot higher, but
it sounds great.
Carlson: Bern, you had a comment here.
Beecham: Actually, Dexter picked it out. The options, I think, will provide a slight
downward bias. I lmow you guys do a lot of detailed "what ifs" and calculations, and the
options would probably provide the bi~s that I was inherently thinking would be
appropriate.
Ulrich: Well, if the option is to buy, that’s one thing. But if you have options and you
have to sell it, that’s a whole other issue.
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 7 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
"Balachandra~: I want to clarify one point. In terms of the options, we are going to be
buying from the tolling contract. We’re not, according to these guidelines, we won’t be
buying more than average load.
Dawes: No, but you have the option to buy. If our average supply is less than what the
average [load] is, then you can exercise the option and make it up to where - am I
interpreting it wrong?
Balachandran: No, it’s just the strike price. Say you have an option that you bought 2
years ago, and you can strike at a certain price. But according to our guidelines, we’re
not going to be buying for a long-term basis more than our expected load.
Dawes: Correct me if I’m wrong. If you buy 2 years ahead and it turns out to be a drier
yearl you have the option of exercising that option. If it’s a wet year, you’re not going to
be exercising:it. So you have a commitment to buymore than you need, but you have the
flexibility to buy if your supply is less than the average that’s expected. We’re beating a
dead horse here.
Ulrich: Well it’s helpful to have the guidelines that reflect what’s in our best interest.
We’re trying to find the right - do you want to say something Jane?
Ratchye: I’m wondering if, Comlnissioner Bechtel, we can address his question by
modifying what we show there as A - "planning for an average hydro year." Would it
reflect the comments of the commission to say "manage hydro risk by conducting long-
term planning for an average hydro year"? The intent is so we don’t make 20, 10 and 5-
year commitments based on a dry year. We’re talking about the long-term view here. So
should we modify the statement of the guideline to reflect this thought, that planning
features are long-term? ¯
Bechtel: I think that would go further, but I’m not even sure you need that. I’m not even
sure that particular guideline is needed for risk management.because ,’number" B says,.if
you read the sentence out completely, it says, "Manage hydro production risk by
diversifying to fossil and!or renewable generation technologies" and "C - Maintaining
adequate supply rate stabilization." You don’t even need the first guideline because you
do that anyways.
Ratchye: Well, there are different phi!osophies you can go with. You could say, let’s
plan for a dry year and know that you have a lot you’re going to have to buy every year.
Or you can plan for a wet year and you’ll have to do the opposite there. So the thought
is, be in the middle and have the rate stabilization reserve of adequate size. Of course,
the size will have to be determined.
Carlson: I would consider adding a 4th bullet of "use contract options to handle dry
years," but I think we’ve beaten this too much. You’ve got some suggestions to deal
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 8 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
.AUGUST 7, 2002
with, to try and prevent the same question from the Council.
to the next one.
We should try to move on
Ratchye: We need action on these items.
Ulrich: We’ve got to keep going, unless you don’t want to take action tonight. That
makes it a whole different evening. We either need to settle on it or ....
Carlson: What’s the number to put in front of the word "average"? Long-term, or twenty
years?
Ulrich: Long term.
Carlson:. Is ten years not long enough? Is this a twenty-year tong-term average?
Balachandran: Can I add something over here? In our third guideline, we talk about
/locking in up to 90% two years out. Now for the next two years, we’re going to be doing
some planning to actually buy some energy. What I’m hearing you say is that 2nd year
out maybe a dry year, so you may be better off locldng that in. And yes, that is within
these guidelines to actually do that. One way of handling that, one of the Auditor’s
recommendations, was to come to the Council on a regular basis to update the Council on
long-term supply strategies. So we plan to come to the Council anyway to say here’s
how we’re performing; here’s our plan for the next 2 to 5 years. We’re going to have
more opportunities to get into some more of the operational details of what we’re going
to be doing in the next 2 to 5 years, which would incorporate some of this dry year
planning. We offer ~hat up. That’s how we think this will unfold.
Bechtel: What you’re saying is just not captured in these words, though, but is by and
large, you’re plalming to have average years? By and large we are planning on having
average hydro over the next 20-30 years - but you are going to diversify, and you are
going to maintain an adequate rate stabilization reserve. I’m comfortable with that, so
let’s move on.
Ulrich: It’s important that we’re all happy with this, because we’re going to be living
with this for some time. We’ll be making some pretty significant decisions. Our
definition of guideline is, it is a guideline. If we see something that’s different as time
goes on, we will come back and try to change that on a specific basis -just like we did
with the laddering and our purchases on gas. If you’re willing to go with it that way, then
I’d be comfortable with you leaving it either "planning for on an average long-term
basis," if that’s agreeable with all of you.
Carlson: Go ahead Dexter.
Dawes: I’d like to suggest formalizing the option strategy here: "plan for an average
hydro year, but allow flexibility by including options to buy additional power under
UAC Minutes080702 Page 9 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
existing contracts to augment our supply in a dry year." It’s modifying A - "planning for
an average hydro year" but by acquiring options to acquire more power in the event of a
dry year.
Carlson: Any objection to that change? I think it’s a good idea. It will save time with
the Council.
Beecham: May I suggest that in the attachment 1 on page 2 there is discussion about the
option purchases, so you may want to consider if your option discussion is just off of the
text, or if it’s actually included in the guidelines.
Ulrich: Sorry, if you can just say that again? I didn’t quite hear it.
Beecham: It’s here.
Ulrich: I got that part. I think it’....s..d.own in the text that you suggested changing and I just
want to be sure.
Beecham: My comment to the Commission was that because it was in the text that it
talks about options, we should simply just leave it there; it may not be necessary to put it
in the guidelines.
Ulrich: Why don’t we put it up with belt and suspenders? We’ll put it up to respond to.
Dawes: I don’t know if that paragraph is part of your written record or not, or whether
it’s just an explanatory thing. But Bern is right. It is laid out there.
Carlson: With that change, can we go on to Guideline 3?
Ulrich: I put the summary up on the screen and there’s more detail on page 3.
Dawes: My cormaaent before was - I was the one pushing for a larger flexibility here and
I still believe that as a good idea. We’re evidently working with NCPA to be a partner in
a plan. I would encourage us to explore the option of working with other merchants,
owners of power plants, particularly given the extremely difficult time that merchant
power plant owners - the Duke Energy’s, the Dynegy’s, the Calpines of the world- are
having. A partner that can buy a 10-15% interest in the plant just might make the
difference between having a plant cancelled or indefinitely deferred, where they’ve
already got the permit for it. Particularly if it’s anywhere in our area, not in our
backyard, but down in Coyote Valley or some other place comes to mind. Money talks,
and we have the capital structure where we can make a very good partner for these
people. I know your mind is open. It should not be included in Guideline 3, but it’s my
belief, urging you to keep your minds and your wallets open.
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 10 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
Carlson: Dexter I agree with you completely, but I don’t think this guideline limits it. It
says 25 to 50 megawatts worth of power. If you can find a good buy, go for it.
Swaminathan: We previously increased it. We previously had approximately up to 25
and now we have no more than 50. We are exploring options. But the problem is, a 25
megawatt piece has to be more like a base load plan. Within the NCPA membership -
we have to construct a base load plan of 150 megawatt size - within the membership
alone, there is not sufficient interest. However, we are exploring other merchant power
plant builders to try to find some equity positions to try to take ~i:!
Carlson: Good. Great.
Ulrich: This is the Transmission Guideline: Ensure the reliability of supply at fair and
reasonable transmission cost by supporting basically upgrades particularly in the Bay
Area. Participating in transmission market design, which we’re doing. Pursuing the
option of forming or joining a Public Power Transmission Control Area. That’s more
like what SMUD has done. E~fi-ure PG&E honors the Stanislaus Commitments by
providing firm-transmission rights or equivalent. All of those would be strategies in
order to get the reliability that we need.
Bechtel: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment on D.
Carlson: Go ahead.
Bechtel: I. was wondering, shouldn’t you change the word? Don’t we want to make
PG&E ensure us firm-transmission rights? Is that what you’re trying to say there?
Balachandran: Can you repeat your question there please?
Bechtel: You’re saying ’!ensuring PG&E honors the Stanislaus Commitments by
providing" - it almost implies that we’re providing firm-transmission rights. You mean
that PG&E should provide that. Correct?
Beecham: I think what he’s asking is if it were to say, "ensure PG&E honors the
Stanislaus Commitments and provides firm-transmission rights". That would clarify his
question.
Bechtel: I just want to make sure that it’s PG&E providing those rights. It’s just an
addition to the words.
Ulrich: Since this is under transmission, we added the word firm-transmission. We just
need it to say that PG&E honors the Stanislaus Commitments, which is embedded in it.
Carlson: Dexter?
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 11 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
Dawes: We are part owners of COTP. We at one time talked about participating
financially in Path 15, but at the end of the day, we didnSt. There’s no mention here
under Guideline 4 of buying into additional transmission resources, if only to be able to
swap them for other areas. Any reason why we would not entertain additional buy in?
Ferguson: It’s in "A".
Balachandran: It’s in 4A, Commissioner Dawes.
Dawes: Okay. I stand corrected. I was looking at political and technical advocacy.
Ulrich: We always’have good tactics.
Ferguson: Let me propose fixing "DY: by inserting after the word "providing" the words
"to us" - "by providing to us firm-transmission rights or equivalent." That resolves the
ambiguity.
Carlson: Okay. #5 Local Generation.
Ulrich: Yes, explore the potential of local generation options to meet customer needs,
improve local reliability, minimize congestion and wheeling charges and stabilize/reduce
rates.
Rosenbaum: Have we used the COBUG at all this summer?
Ulrich: No, there is some potential for using that, because we have a lot of hours that we
can go after. But it’s got to be economic. Plus it’s only 2.5% of our load, so it’s a little
tough to meet some of those criteria. That doesn’t mean we couldn’t build a power plant
right here in Palo Alto. That’s more of what that’s getting at, but I’m not sure that’s the
most economical.
Carlson: Why spend 10 years getting the permit? Let’s move on to #6.
Beecham: Before you go on, on 5, in the text on attachment 1, the text indicates that
you’ve looked at this, it’s not economic, there are no sites,, it will be small anyways, and
so the text concludes that we just monitor technology, basically. The text kind of takes
away the promise of what you actually say in the guideline. On the one hand it says
explore the potential - that sounds good - so let’s do .something. Then the text says, yes
we did it and it’s not really there. I just wonder if you’d like to leave it as it is, or be a
little more straightforward with it?
Bechtel: Yes, your text puts up a straw man and then knocks him down. And the
guideline is more direct.
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 12 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 71 2002
Balachandran: I third( we’re distinguishing 2 things over here:
distributed generation. There’s local generation which ....
Carlson: They’re both talking about local.
local generation and
Ulrich: The problem is that so far, the analysis shows you can’t get there from here by
having the hole tilted with a piece from our local generation. But it isn’t yet clear that we
can’t find one. Similar to what Mr. Dawes suggested, it might just be down the road.
Ratchye: The point is, it’s how the guideline is written: we want to continue to explore it.
The most recent exploration didn’t look so good, but that doesn’t mean we should never
look at it again. We should continue to look at it and we may come up with a different
conclusion in the future.
Dawes: Could we strike that and put "monitor" rather than "explore" in the guideline?
Ulrich: Sure. " .......
Carlson: Item #6, which is all the audience cared about about a week ago, but they’re
sure not here now. I would have to summarize: what the audience wanted was for free,
they wanted a portable tank on every roof in town.
Ulrich: We’ve gone further than that. The next slide has some anecdotal comments.
Plus we’ve given you a handout that’s got almost all of their comments. You can read
them in the handout. Yes, there is an interest. It was not a large group that came by.
Virtually all the comments were similar or supportive of the kinds of recommendations
we made in the guideline. If there was a bias, it was for more renewables. Some of them
were - if you don’t mind, I’m just going to skip a page here - offer quality-Public
Benefits programs collected through the 2.85% so that you can utilize as much of tha~, or
more than we Currently do, for renewables.
Carlson: John, I assume the operative item here on Guideline 6, though, is that we buy
the best renewables we can find - up to a cost to the customer of quarter of a cent per
ldlowatt hour. Is that correct?
Ulrich: That’s correct. That’s what the survey data shows us. There’s maybe not as
much detail as you’d like, but we did go and survey our customers on this and that’s what
they’re telling us. And there isa different price point - as you can see - from the
commercial industrial customers, which is a lower threshold.
Carlson: Next? Commissioner Rosenbaum.
Rosenbaum: Just a comment on page 7, item 4, that asks "should cost-effective
efficiency measures be counted as part of the renewables fraction of the portfolio?" The
answer is, they shouldn’t. And that’s tine. But then there’s the sentence "counting saved
UAC Ninutes 080702 Page 13 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
energy is problematic and difficult to track." It seems that’s the whole basis of demand-
side management. I’m surprised you woutd just throw it out like that. I think it reads
fine, but I would just question having that sentence there at all.
Carlson: If you’ve ever tried it, it’s real. It’s very difficult to try to figure out how much
is frol~ conservation as opposed to economic change, industrial change and everything
else.
Beecham: And before you leave that section, I’d suggest that Renewables always be
capitalized if you’re talked about the legally defined term Renewables. In reality we’ve
got plenty of renewables with our hydro, that’s the bulk of our availability. ’
Dawes: Don’t confuse it with reality.
Beecham: As I see you are talking about it, we need to make sure that the public
understands that a substantial po .ft.. i~.~n of our supply is "renewable" in a common sense, as
in "hydro." We are also working on an officially defined term of "Renewables" which is
different from that.
Dawes: You missed my speech at the public meeting.
Ulrich: Yes, you did quite well, thank you. The problem with us continuing to talk that
way is that it’s the not the way it’s going to be counted elsewhere. In fact, legislation is
being pending now where they’re trying to see that it goes up to 20% and they’ll count
it the way the legislature looks at it, and it’s 30 megawatts or lower for hydro.
Beecham: So what I’m suggesting is when we use those requirements,, we use a capital
R, so people will know we’re meaning that definition versus the hydro we have. I think
we just lose credit for having a very renewable supply, just because it doesn’t meet the
legal definition.
Ulrich: All right.
Carlson: Okay. Any more questions on #6? #7 is the last ol~e.
Ulrich: Just quickly, to make sure I call your attention to the customer survey
information, which quantified that $5 and also the smaller amount that
commercial/industrial customers are willing to pay. Also, to the cost of these renewables.
I know we went into this in detail at an earlier UAC meeting. The predominant cost most
equal to brown power is wind. As you move up through the chain, it gets quite
expensive. Many of the questions from the public centered around, why don’t we put in
more photovoltaics aroundthe city? Our attempt is to show that if we do that, there’s
going to be a significant cost increase beyond the price point we bblieve people are
willing to pay. That’s how we settled on this 10% number.
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 14 of 15
EXCERPT
UAC MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2002
Bechtel: Excuse me John. Is there any significance to the fuel cell having a purple bar?
I’m sorry I missed the meeting. I noticed you have a purple bar on that.
Ulrich: That’s because it’s not a Renewable.
Carlson: I ~hought it was a "capital R" Renewable under the state definition. Fuel cells.
Ulrich: I don’t think so. The fuel that it burns is a fossil fuel.
Carlson: Well, physically, but politically, I thought they just threw it in there.
Balachandran: I think they’re supported through the Public Benefit funding through
R&D and advanced technologies.
Carlson: So under Public Benefits it’s defined as ....
Balachandran: But it’s not Rene~v~ble.
Carlson: It’s not Renewable. Got it.
Ulrich: That’ll be fuel cell with a small "f’.
[laughter]
Carlson: Go ahead Bern.
Ulrich: Everyone has this application. I just put it up here because it’s a very interesting
area and it’s something that has some viabillty in places. ~4 main components. Do you
want to review this anymore or do you want to move on to the next?
Carlson: I want to entertain a motion to approve the guidelines as slightly edited this
evening.
Ferguson: So moved.
Bechtel: Second.
Carlson: It’s been moved by Commissioner Ferguson and seconded.by Commissioner
Bechtel. Any further discussion? In that case, everyone in favor say "aye".
All Commissioners: Aye.
Carlson: Anyone opposed? Passed 5 to 0. Thank you.
UAC Minutes 080702 Page 15 of 15
Attachment B
Proposed Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Guidelines
(October 7, 2002 Draft version)
Guideline 1: Electric Portfolio Dependence on Western- While maintaining the
flexibility to adopt favorable ’custom products’ offered by Western, manage a supply
portfolio independent of Western beyond the Base Resource Contract.
Guideline 2: Hydro Risk Management - Manage hydro production risk by:
A. Planning for an average hydro year on a long-term basis;
B. Diversifying to renewable and!or fossil generation technologies; and
C. Maintaining adequate supply rate stabilization reserve.
Guideline 3: Market Risk Management - Manage market risk by adopting a portfolio
strateg)) for electric supply procurement by:
A. Diversifying energy purchases across commitlnent date, start-date, duration,
suppliers, pricing terms & fuel sources;
B. Targeting additional thernaal plant ownership/investment commitment at -25 MW
but in no event more than 50 MW;
C. Maintaining a prudent exposure to changing market prices by:
1. Procuring resources at fixed price for at most 90% of expected load for 2 or
more years out, assuming average hydro conditions; and
2.Procuring resources at fixed price for at most 75% of expected load for 5 or
more years out, assuming average hydro conditions; and
D.Avoiding contract-based fixed price energy purchases (except for contracts for
renewable resources) for durations greater than 10 years.
Guideline 4: Reliable & Cost Effective Transmission Services - Ensure the reliability
of supply at fair and reasonable transmission cost by:~ ... " ’
A. Supporting, through political and technical advocacy and!or direct investment,
the upgrading of Bay Area translnission to improve reliability and relieve
congestion;
B.Participating in transmission lnarket design to ensure that market design results
in workable competitive markets & equitable cost allocation;
C.Pursuing the option of forming and/or joining a Public Power Transmission
Control Area to increase control over transmission operations and related costs;
and
D.Ensuring PG&E honors the Stanislaus Commitments by providing to us firm-
transmission rights or equivalent.
Guideline 5: Local Generation - Monitor the potential of local generation options to
meet customer needs, improve local reliability, minimize congestion and wheeling
charges, and stabilize/reduce costs.
Attachment B
Guideline 6: Renewable Portfolio Investments - The City shall continue to offer a
renewable resource-based retail rate for all customers who want to voluntarily select an
increased content of renewable energy. In addition to the voluntary program, the City
shall invest in new renewable resources to meet the City’s sustainability goals while
ensuring that the retail rate impact does not exceed 0.5 C/kWh on average. Pursue a
target level of new renewable purchases of 10% of the expected portfolio load by 2008
and move to a 20% target by 2015, contingent on economic viability. The contracts for
investment in renewable resources are not to exceed 30 years in term.
Guideline 7: Electric Energy Efficiency Investments - Offer quality Public Benefits
programs, utilizing funds collected through the 2.85% Public Benefits charge embedded
in electric retail rates, to meet the resource efficiency needs of customers. Additional
funding for cost-effective programs will be recommended as appropriate. Pursue these
investmerits by:
A. Providing expertise, education and incentives to support cost-effective customer
efficiency improvements;~---
B. Demonstrating renewable and!or alternative generation technologies and new
efficiency alternatives; and
C. Providing rate assistance and efficiency programs to low-income customers.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO APPROVING THE PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR THE
LONG-TERM ELECTRIC ACQUISITION PLAN TO ADDRESS
THE POTENTIAL FOR DEFICITS IN THE CITY’S LONG
TERM ENERGY NEEDS
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto ("City") provides
electric services to residential and commercial customers
located within its jurisdictional boundaries in a deregulated
energy industry environment; and
WHEREAS, the City acquires most of its power supply from
the Western Area Power Administration under a contract expiring
on December 31, 2004, but extending for twenty years under terms
that are not as favorable as provided under the existing
contract; and ’
WHEREAS, the Council approved a set of energy portfolio
planning objectives in November 2001, among them, ensuring low
and stable electric supply rates for customers, maintaining a
supply portfolio cost advantage relative to market cost,
enhancing supply reliability through the pursuit of electric
transmission system upgrades and new generation resources, and
balancing resource reliability and cost considerations in the
consideration of investment in renewable and energy efficiency
resources, intended to facilitate the development of the Long-
Term Energy Acquisition Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Finance Committee of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto, the Utilities Advisory Commission and the
City Manager have recommended the approval of the LongTTerm
Electric Acquisition Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto
does hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION i.The Council hereby approves the seven
guidelines that comprise the Long-Term Acquisition Plan
Guidelines,in particular dealing with electric portfolio
dependence on the Western Area Power Administration,
hydrological production risk management, market risk management,
reliable and cost effective transmission services, local power
generation sources, renewable portfolio investments, and
electric energy efficiency investments, respectively, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference as "Attachment A."
021017 syn 0072222
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this
resolution does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act, and therefore no environmental
assessment is required.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:City Manager
Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of
Administrative Services
Director of Utilities
021017 syn 0072222
Attachment A
Proposed Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP) Guidelines
Guideline 1: Electric Portfolio Dependence on Western - While maintaining the
flexibility to adopt favorable ’custom products’ offered by Western, manage a supply
portfolio independent of Western beyond the Base Resource Contract.
Guideline 2: Hydro Risk Management - Manage hydro production risk by:
A. Planning for an average hydro year on a long-terna basis;
B. Diversifying to fossil and!or renewable generation technologies; and
C. Maintaining. adequate supply rate stabilization reserve.
Guideline 3: Market Risk Management- Manage market risk by adopting a portfolio
strategy for electric supply procurement by:
A. Diversifying energy purchases across commitment date, start-date, duration,
suppliers, pricing terms & fuel sources;
B. Targeting additional thermal plant ownership/investment commitment at -25 MW
but in no event more than 50 MW;
C. Maintaining a prudent exposure to changing market prices by:
1. Procuring resources at fixed price for at most 90% of expected load for 2 or
more years out, assuming average hydro conditions; and
2.Procuring resources at fixed price for at most 75% of expected load for 5 or
more years out, assuming average hydro conditions; and
D.Avoiding contract-based fixed price energy purchases (except for contracts for
renewable resources) for durations greater than 10 years.
Guideline 4: Reliable & Cost Effective Transmission Services - Ensure the reliability
of supply at fair and reasonable transmission cost by:
A. Supporting, through political and technical advocacy and/or direct investment,
the upgrading of Bay Area transmission to improve reliability and relieve
congestion;
B.Participating in transmission market design to ensure that market design results
in workable competitive markets & equitable cost allocation;
C.Pursuing the option of forming and/or joining a Public Power Transmission ’
Control Area to increase control over transmission operations and related costs;
and
D.Ensuring PG&E honors the Stanislaus Commitments by providing to us firm-
transmission rights or equivalent.
Guideline 5: Local Generation- Monitor the potential of local generation options to
meet customer needs, improve local reliability, minimize congestion and wheeling
charges, and stabilize/reduce costs.
Attachment A
Guideline 6: Renewable Portfolio Investments - The City shall continue to offer a
renewable resource-based retail rate for al! customers who want to voluntarily select an
increased content of renewable energy. In addition to the voluntary program, the City
shall invest in new renewable resources to meet the City’s sustainability goals while
ensuring that the retail rate impact does not exceed 0.25 C/kWh on average. Pursue a
target level of new renewable purchases of 10% of the expected portfolio load by 2008.
The contracts for investment in renewable resources not to exceed 30 years in term.
Guideline 7: Electric Energy Efficiency Investments - Offer quality Public Benefits
programs, utilizing funds collected through the 2.85% Public Benefits charge embedded
in electric retail rates, to meet the resource efficiency needs of customers. Additional
funding for cost-effective programs will be recommended as appropriate. Pursue these
investments by:
A. Providing expertise, education and incentives to support cost-effective customer
efficiency improvements;
B. Demonstrating renewable and/or alternative generation technologies and new
efficiency alternatives; and
C. Providing rate assistance and efficiency programs to low-income customers.