HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-02 Min - Board /00011, REGULAR MEETING
March 2, 2011
In accordance with District Code Section 2.08.010, the TDPUD minutes are action only
minutes. All Board meetings are recorded on a digital format which is preserved
Perpetually and made available for listening to any interested party upon their request.
The regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District
was called to order at 6:00 PM in the TDPUD Board room by President Bender.
ROLL CALL: Directors Joe Aguera, Jeff Bender, Ron Hemig, John Hillstrom and Tony
Laliotis were present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
President Bender led the Board and public in the Pledge of Allegiance.
EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Rosana Matlock, Steve Hollabaugh, Kathy Neus, Steven Poncelet,
Neil Kaufman, Michael Holley and Sara Owens
CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Steve Gross and Cristina Wooley
:. OTHERS PRESENT: Juanita Schneider, Scott Parker and Josh Susman
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT
There was no public input.
DIRECTOR UPDATE
Director Hemig wanted to commend staff for low outages due to tree trimming efforts and re-
dundancy in the electric system.
Director Laliotis commented on the low outages and the system holding up. He commended
employees.
Director Hillstrom added the electric system is commendable and great tree trimming effort.
President Bender announced that his wife Yvette has been appointed to Nevada County
Court Commission.
1 Minutes: March 2, 2011
ACTION ITEM
CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULING THE REGULAR BOARD MEETINGS FOR 2011 This
item involves scheduling the regular Board meetings for 2011.
Director Hemig moved, and Director Laliotis seconded, that the Board approve the proposed
Board meeting schedule for the remainder of 2011. ROLL CALL: All Directors aye, by voice
vote. SO MOVED
WORKSHOPS
REVIEW OF THE 2010 AND PROJECTED 2011 CONSERVATION PROGRAMS This item
is a review of the 2010 and Projected 2011 Conservation Programs
Steven Poncelet gave a presentation:
• District has a robust stable of energy and water conservation programs
o Significant investments in recent years
o Optimizing current programs
o Investigating new, cost-effective programs
o Rebates, give-a-ways, and direct-install
o Residential and commercial
o Successful track record of cost-effective programs
Primary goals of conservation programs
o Maximize ROI
o Ensure all customer have opportunity to participate
o Educate customers on benefits of conservation
• FY10 Conservation Program results
o Completed Evaluation, Measurement, & Verification (EM&V)
o Results remain tops in California for % energy reduction and cost-effectiveness
■ Net annual savings 3,775,270 kWh (2.5%)
■ Net lifecycle savings of 38,838,962 kWh
■ TRC of 5.51 (<$0.02/kWh)
o Money in customer's pockets
• 2010 Energy Conservation Program results:
o Commercial rebates (38)
o Residential rebates (768)
o Energy Savings Program customers served (175)
o Residential Energy Survey customers served (48)
o Holiday Light Exchange customers served (684)
o Residential Green Partners customers served (553)
o Business Green Partners customers served (59)
o Keep Your Cool customers served (36)
o Screw-in CFL's distributed (almost 60,000)
• 2010 Energy Conservation Program hi-lights
o Green Schools/Trashion Shows
■ 1,800 conservation kits
■ Peer-to-peer education, highly visible
2 Minutes: March 2, 2011
o Neighborhood Resource Mobilization - Olympic Heights pilot, —25% participation
o Energy Savings Program (RSP) & Residential Energy Savings (RES) - positive
customer response
o LED Holiday Light Exchange - over 5% customer participation
o Residential Green Partners
o Keep Your Cool
o CFL give-a-ways
• 2010 Water Conservation Program results
o Toilet Rebate customers (165 customers, 270 toilets)
o Toilet Exchange customers (12 customers, 15 toilets)
o Customer Leak Repair Rebates (42)
o Combined ESP/RES customers served (223)
o Low-flow showerheads distributed (-3,350)
o Low-flow sink aerators distributed (-4,000)
2010 Water Conservation Program hi-lights
o Launch of the Patricia S. Sutton Conservation Garden -web-based resource
o Water-Efficient Toilet Rebate and Exchange programs
o Customer Leak Repair Rebates
o Commercial Smart Water Controller program
• 2011 Projected Programs
o Optimize current programs
o Respond to regulatory changes
■ Federal ban on sale of screw-in incandescent light bulbs
■ Federal ban on sale of T12 fluorescent tubes and magnetic ballasts
■ SB1037 (Public Benefits) reauthorization
o New energy program investigations
■ Motor efficiency
■ Plug-in electronics
o New water program investigations
■ High-efficiency clothes washers
■ Ultra low-flow toilets
• Fiscal Impact
o FY11 budget includes funding for the Districts conservation programs
o There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this workshop item
There was no public comment.
Board discussion:
• What is the impact of the incandescent ban
• How do we track customer interactions
• How did the toilet exchange get implemented
• There are now high efficiency top loading washers comparable to the front loaders
• Saw an article on the impact of the high efficiency water appliances affecting the
amount of water going through pipes— a bit of a trade off
• The modification to T12 standard for commercial lighting will change
• Is the PUD thinking about a program to change out furnace motors for efficiency
3 Minutes: March 2, 2011
• What was the total annual savings on the 2010 EMV report- is it an estimate or it is
true kW hours
• Interesting that TRC was higher in 2010 than in 2009- showed we kept up aggressive-
ness
• Marketing tools are innovative: Trashion Shows and Green Programs
• Focus on customer leak repair programs- not a great response. Can the PUD
penetrate customer base in another way. Paying for water leaks is an incentive
• The leak repair program may pick up now that people are being billed on consumption;
could shut people off if repairs not made
• Olympic Heights event had a big impact- encourage to do more neighborhood
outreach
• Pat Sutton garden event was good to show off the garden- winter impacts may delay
garden being ready
• What about the Federal laws and the ban on the T12- maybe a bill stuffer to warn
customers that by July 2012, 100 watt incandescent will be banned
• Motor efficiency is really cool-
What are other utilities offering in new programs- So Cal, SMUD, PG&E- that they
have implemented and we have not
DISCUSSION OF CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 26, THE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE TO
PASS NEW TAXES AND FEES ACT This item is a review of Proposition 26 and how it
might impact the District.
Steven Poncelet gave a presentation:
• Setting electric rates and defining utility programs
o Within the purview of the Board
o `Rule of Reasonableness'
• California Proposition 13
o Established that fees = reasonable cost and equitable
o Voter approval
o Case law has never been applied to electricity rates
• California Proposition 218
o Similar to Proposition 13 but applies to water rates
o Electrical service charges specifically exempted
• Voters passed California Proposition 26 (Nov. 2010)
o Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees Act
o May impact how Board sets rates and defines programs
o Proposition is broadly worded — courts must interpret
o Northern California Power Agency discussed Proposition 26 at recent Strategic Is-
sues Conference
• Proposition 26
o Defines tax,to mean "any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local
government."
o Must have voter approval (2/3) unless exempted
• Main exemptions to Proposition 26 requirements
o Fees based on cost of service or product
o Fees subject to Proposition 218
4 Minutes: March 2, 2011
o Fees imposed as a condition of development
o Fines and penalties
o Charges for use of or entrance to real property
o Regulatory fees
• For application of Proposition 26 to the District
o Water rates covered by Proposition 218
o Regulatory fees apply to both water and electric utilities
o Electricity rates and programs may be exempted if the `cost of service or product'
exception applies
• Cost of service or product exception
o "Imposed for a specific government service or product"
o "Provided directly to the payor"
o "That is not provided to those not charged"
o "Which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing
the service or product"
• Meaning of"costs of providing the service"
o Nearly identical to Proposition 13 standard that the estimated costs are reasonable;
and requires that the fees be proportionate to use
• Next Steps
o Track court cases: Redding Electric Utility (payments in lieu of taxes)
o Impacts on electric rate setting: tiered rates, low-income rates, residential vs.
commercial
o Work closely with NCPA, CMUA, and others
o True impacts of Proposition 26 may take years to understand
There was no public comment.
Board discussion:
• Are electric rates exempt
• NCPA had a lengthy presentation- this was more concise- fresh data- cost of service
test
• Good summary
• Take time to see impact and how rates will be set
• Understand better now than at NCPA
• Tiered rates and low income rates may be subject to a 2/3 vote-wait and see
• Raise rates due to need —would require 2/3 vote of rate payers
REVIEW OF RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKET This item involves:
a) Discussion regarding the renewable energy market
b) Discussion regarding the UAMPS Pooling Appendix for the Salt Lake Landfill
Gas Generation from the City of Murray Utah
Steve Hollabaugh gave a presentation:
• Future Opportunity
o Salt Lake landfill gas generation City of Murray.
o Resource: Salt Lake Land Fill Gas Generation including REC's
o Term: 2011-2016
5 Minutes: March 2, 2011
o Amount: 70% of output (Approx. 2 MW total capacity)
o Price: Seasonal, ranging from $63.80 to $72.66/MWh
o When Evaluating this Opportunity the District should Consider:
■ Length of the Salt Lake landfill gas generation;
■ Senate Bill, SBX12 , increasing RPS to 33% by 2020;
■ Market energy prices;
■ Renewable energy prices; and
■ % Renewables within the District portfolio
• Renewable Technology— Commercially Available
Description of Technology Cost $/MWh (2009 dollars)
o Dairy Anaerobic Digester $155
o Biomass Fluidized Bed Boiler $127
o Land Fill Gas $73
o Waste Water Anaerobic Digester $86
o Geothermal Binary $114
o Geothermal Flash $111
o Solar PV, Single Axis Tracking Crystalline $324
o Solar PV, Fixed Tilt, Crystalline $406
o Solar Thermal, Parabolic Trough $236
o Wind Class 5 Resource $91(PPA)
o Wind Class 5 Resource $61(Ownership)
• Dairy Anaerobic Digester
o Typical Size 0.25 MW
o Plant Capacity 75%
o Installed Costs $6225/ kw
o Fuel $2/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $16.6/ mwh
o Developer Costs $135/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $155/ mwh
o Risks & issues: Fuel supply, reliability, personnel, small
• Biomass— Fluidized Bed Boiler
o Typical size 25 MW
o Plant capacity factor 85%
o Installed costs $3925/ kw
o Fuel $2.50/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $11.8/ mwh
o Developer Costs $112/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $127/ mwh
o Risks & issues: fuel supply, permitting
• Land Fill Gas
o Typical size 2 MW
o Plant capacity factor 85%
o Installed costs $2420/ kw
o Fuel $1.50/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $16.30/ mwh
o Developer Costs $66/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $73/ mwh
6 Minutes: March 2, 2011
o Risks & issues: fuel supply, reliability-market impacts, generally small in size
• Geothermal Binary
o Typical size 50 MW
o Plant capacity factor 95%
o Installed costs $4852/ kw
o Fuel $0/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $38.40/ mwh
o Developer Costs $90/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $114/ mwh
o Risks & issues: fuel supply, transmission, development rights, geographically fixed
• Geothermal Flash
o Typical size 50 MW
o Plant capacity factor 93%
o Installed costs $4553/ kw
o Fuel $0/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $38.40/ mwh
o Developer Costs $881 mwh
o NCPA Costs $111/ mwh
o Risks & issues: fuel supply, transmission, development rights, geographically fixed
• Solar PV-Single Axis Tracking, Crystalline
o Typical size 20 MW
o Plant capacity factor 23%
o Installed costs $6564/ kw
o Fuel $0/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $0.0/ mwh
o Developer Costs $195/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $324/ mwh
Risks & issues: transmission, security, lane requirement, costs
• Solar Fixed Tilt Crystalline
o Typical size 25 MW
o Plant capacity factor 19%
o Installed costs $7089/ kw
o Fuel $0/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $0.0/ mwh
o Developer Costs $288/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $406/ mwh
o Risks & issues: transmission, security, lane requirement, costs
• Solar Thermal — Parabolic Trough
o Typical size 65 MW
o Plant capacity factor 28%
o Installed costs $5710/ kw
o Fuel $0/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $0.0/ mwh
o Developer Costs $152/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $236/ mwh
o Risks & issues: transmission, permitting, costs
• Wind — Class 5
7 Minutes: March 2, 2011
o Typical size 50 MW
o Plant capacity factor - 34%
o Installed costs $2330/ kw
o Fuel $0/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $0.0/ mwh
o Developer Costs $61/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $91/ mwh
o Risks & issues: transmission, permitting, reliability, site location, firming & shaping
costs appx $40/ mwh
• Renewable technology— emerging
Description of Technology PPA Cost $/ MWh
o Biomass IGCC $102
o Solar PV, Thin Film $153
o Solar PV, Concentrating $236
o Solar Thermal, Sterling Dish $346
o Solar Thermal, CFLR $109
o Solar Central Power Tower $174
• Biomass - IGCC
o Typical size 20 MW
o Plant capacity factor 85%
o Installed costs $3476/ kw
o Fuel $2.50/ mmbtu
-^ o Variable O&M $12.3/ mwh
o Developer Costs $94/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $102/ mwh
o Risks & issues: emerging technology
• Solar—Thin Film Fixed Tilt
o Typical size 20 MW
o Plant capacity factor 20%
o Installed costs $3337/ kw
o Fuel $0.0/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $0.0/ mwh
o Developer Costs $117/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $153/ mwh
o Risks & issues: emerging technology, required more land than PV
• Renewable Technology—Solar PV Concentrating
o Typical size 15 MW
o Plant capacity factor 23%
o Installed costs $5205/ kw
o Fuel $0.0/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $0.0/ mwh
o Developer Costs $168/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $236/ mwh
o Risks & issues: emerging technology
�^ • Solar—Thermal, Sterling Dish .
o Typical size 15 MW
o Plant capacity factor 23%
8 Minutes: March 2, 2011
'^ o Installed costs $6562/ kw
o Fuel $0.0/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $0.0/ mwh
o Developer Costs $271/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $346/ mwh
o Risks & issues: emerging technology, costs
• Solar—Thermal, CLFR
o Typical size 65 MW
o Plant capacity factor 28%
o Installed costs $2457/ kw
o Fuel $0.0/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $0.0/ mwh
o Developer Costs $84/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $109/ mwh
o Risks & issues: emerging technology
• Solar— Thermal Central Power Tower
o Typical size 65 MW
o Plant capacity factor 28%
o Installed costs $4669/ kw
o Fuel $0.0/ mmbtu
o Variable O&M $0.0/ mwh
o Developer Costs $130/ mwh
o NCPA Costs $174/ mwh
o Risks & issues: emerging technology
There was no public input.
Board discussion:
• Concern about future & changes— 5 years from now; test of reasonablene
ss
• RPS goals will go up and standards will broaden
• California will be competing for renewables in California
• Be proactive about end of 5 year landfill gas contract
• Coal plants are on the way out or converted to coal/gas plants
• Could have sticker shock in 5 e years with new renewable contracts
• What about new hydro
• What about nuclear on a large scale
• City of Murray is short term contract
• By 2020, RPS formula proposed to get to 33%
• Good presentation- learned a lot
• By exceeding PUD's target and state target, will we be used as an example
• Should we sell REC's now
• What is the outlook for new products
• Is there any option to increase our wind allocation at Horse Butte
,,.-.. • if SBX12 goes through and we have higher targets, our location to 0 p wer is good
9 Minutes: March 2 2011
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO SECTION
54956.8 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE. PROPERTY 10750 BERMGARTEN RD
'
MCGLASHAN SPRINGS APN 18-010-10; DISTRICT NEGOTIATOR. GENERAL
MANAGER; NEGOTIATING PARTY: TAHOE DONNER ASSOCIATION; UNDER
NEGOTIATION: PRICE AND TERMS
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54957 (E): GENERAL MANAGER PERFORMANCE PLAN REVIEW
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Report from Closed Session
There was no reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:
1 05 PM.
TRUC L UTILITY DISTRICT
eff Bender, P sident
s
Prepared by
Barbara Cahill eputy District Clerk
10 Minutes: March 2, 2011