Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 Conservation Report Agenda Item # TRUCKEE DONNER Public Utility District is Workshop To: Board of Directors From: Doug Grandy, Conservation Committee Chair Date: March 19, 2008 Subject: Conservation Committee Monthly Report 1. Committee meetings a. Minutes of February 7 meeting 2. Future meetings set: Thursday April 3rd, Tuesday May 6th, Thursday June 5th, and Tuesday July 1st 3. Water and Power Conservation Plan progress a. Reconciliation of Water and Power Conservation Plan draft outline with Resolution 2007 — 03 TDPUD Conservation Committee Minutes Thursday February 7, 2008 I. Doug calls meeting to order 6:05pm Il. Roll Call- Doug Grandy, Dan Dickerson, Rolf Godon, Ben Benson, Jimmy Smith (SWG), Tom Gorin, Christa Finn, Susie Sutphin, Eric Perlman, Anna Demm, Gerald Herrick and Joanna Walters III. Tom made a motion to accept January minutes, Rolf seconded. The minutes passed with a voice vote. IV. Input from the Public- none V. Doug introduced the new General Manager Michael Holley, and thanked him for coming to the meeting at such a late hour. Michael gave a brief background on his career spending the last 11 years in Contra Costa as Operations Manager of the water district. He has had a home in Glenshire so he was familiar with the community. Before working for utilities Michael worked for environmental agencies primarily hazardous waste consulting. Michael explained that he believes strong utility management includes keeping rates stable, environmental stewardship and safety for the employees. Michael reviewed Scott's slide presentation that had been presented at the last board meeting —TDPUD Conservation Programs, 2007 Activities, 2008 Planning/Schedule. Discussions regarding current conservation programs followed with Michael interested in gaining more ground within the conservation programs. Eric Perlman posed the question- "what if we had to cut energy 50%, what if everything was on the table?" Doug talked about Conservation vs. Efficiency. Conservation is cutting usage; efficiency is doing the same thing you always have using less energy. Michael brought up the compound savings. You can create savings that are then lost (equipment is replaced, behavior changes, etc) so you are really treading water. Let's create programs that sustain the savings. Michael has seen tiered rates for low income as well as conservation tiers, he has not seen success with just tiers. There is a question about giving someone incentives to do the right thing, rather then punishing them for using excess. The conservation discussion in the public forum is a slippery slope because it will increase rates. It can lead to lower bills per household, but the fixed costs of the utility now need to be covered with fewer kilowatt-hours. The revenues have to come from somewhere. Jimmy Smith from Southwest Gas (SWG) supported the reality. Public education is crucial in the package of conservation. The Holiday Light LED program -- although it might not save a ton of energy due to the limited amount of usage throughout the year, it offers a lot more in terms of public education and PR. A discussion followed regarding the opportunities available through the Sierra Sun in regards to PR. The one item left off of Scott's schedule was the budget process. The process starts in October and is finalized at the end of November. The committee was energized by the ability to get several items added to the 2008 budget regarding conservation; the goals for 2009 are much greater. The committee recommendations will be completed in time for consideration prior to the budget process for 2009. For a budget to grow in the public sector you need to show the benefit. The committee is an example of the willingness of customers to put in their own time and energy. Michael brought up the Geysers project. When PGE failed to complete the permitting process the NCPA organization moved in quickly and locked in a contract guaranteeing a fixed 20 year price on a reliable renewable resource. Geothermal purchases are from an existing facility with existing wells with known and stable output. It will be on line in 2010. The committee discussed the amount of work on the table for the Conservation Department and the limitations of any one person. It was a concern that 11 programs would be too much for one person to do well and this could be devastating to the program at this stage. The opportunities available should be fully optimized; options of contracting out some items and perhaps the committee could provide help. Mr. Holley is open to seeing a case made that an additional conservation position would pay for itself. The discussion was tabled until next month so Scott could be available for the discussion. VI. Doug introduced Jimmy Smith from SWG. He was able to provide some answers for the committee regarding a possible conservation rebate program. For background a rebate or any other conservation program would be paid for using Public Purpose Money- i.e. PP Money. Currently PP Money is spent to cover SWG CARE Program for Lower income customers, a low income weatherization program, and research and development. If the PUD wants to pursue a power switching program with SWG, CPUC would have to sign off on a rate change to cover the cost of the program. SWG can not generate anymore PP money without CPUC sign off. The program is not out of reach- it is just not funded. Low income programs receive favor from the CPUC; mixed focus programs need more information and support. A west shore program to replace electric furnaces with gas for free in any low income home- even for renters, only 18 homes participated in the program. In addition to having a low response the costs of the conversion varied from home to home. Doug asked if SWG would approve a shareholders supported program to cover fuel switching cost from electric to gas. With an electric furnace, gas is burned at an electric plant- the energy generated is sent to a house and that energy is used to heat the furnace. In a gas furnace the gas is sent directly to a house and 3 times the amount of energy is generated from the same amount of gas. Conversion programs are tricky because of the up front costs. Even programs that were almost free- acceptance is low. People do not want to fix something that is not broken. A low income weatherization program is contracted out to Project GO. A consultant goes out to the house and provides a report for the homeowner. Once the low income renter/owner signs off on the changes Project GO facilitates all the changes. If the home is rented by a low income resident, the homeowner signs a contract guaranteeing not to increase rent as a result of the upgrades. A low income house is determined by area so Quincy is different than Tahoe. The PUD contacted SWG and communication has followed regarding SWG sharing its low income list. Once the confidentially agreement is signed SWG will provide the low income list. This list will not include electric only customers, but this is a huge step forward. SWG has 80% of the local Truckee market. California Assembly Bill 1470 passed October 121"2007 with the intent to get 200,000 solar systems up and running in CA by 2017. The program will be paid for by a .13 cents PP charge on all gas bills. Most of the solar system will probably come out of Southern California because the rule making will probably distribute the number per area based on gas users. Since Southwest gas has such a small part of the market most of the solar water heater systems will be allocated to Southern California Gas or PG&E. The big message is that a lot of the details are not worked out and it will take at least 2 years before the rules are clear on program eligibility. VII. The report is starting to take form. It is important for every committee member to participate in the process by providing additional material or edit. While the document is taking form it is crucial that the information remain confidential so the process can proceed with open ideas, taking all ideas and editing at the end. Doug asked if members would take responsibility for sections. Doug was assigned the job of Editor in Chief of the document as a whole. The assignments made at the last months meeting were reviewed. Gerald volunteered for Organization; Dan agreed to work with Scott on Existing Programs. Joanna volunteered for Rates VIII. Meeting was adjourned 9:15pm Reconciliation of TDPUD Resolution 2007 — 03 to the draft Water and Power Conservation Plan Citizen Advisory Water and Power Conservation Committee March 19, 2007 At its February 20, 2007 regular Board meeting, President Taylor requested of the Citizen Advisory Water and Power Conservation Committee (Committee)this reconciliation of the outline of the draft Water and Power Conservation Plan(Plan) with Resolution 2007 —03 which created the Committee, and set forth the duty of the Committee to develop the Plan. That resolution has five bullet points that are reproduced below, with a brief explanation below each one relating the chapters that address the point. The chart following depicts graphically the relationship of the chapters with the bullet points. The first few chapters, namely the Executive Summary, the Introduction, the Background and History, and the Policy and Legal Environment cover all the bullets, as they collectively give a concise overview of relevant events leading to the development of the Plan at the State and District levels, and the requirements for the Plan that result. The next few chapters, namely the Conservation Potential, the Analysis Methodology, TDPUD's Unique Load Profile, Existing Programs and Their Effectiveness, and Conservation Measures Considered, delve into the analysis of the opportunities. What measures work? What has been tried in the past? How do you project the benefits of proposed measures? How is Truckee unique and how does that affect the analysis? All of these questions are addressed in these chapters. The next few chapters, namely Rates and Rate Design, Outreach, Marketing and Partnerships, Energy Production, and Organizational Dynamics all address different aspects of program delivery. Finally, the last two chapters, Recommendations and Impact of Recommendations, sum up all the conclusions the Committee will reach based on the analysis described earlier, and put forth its recommendations to the Board for action, along with a brief recap of the effect of those recommendations. Looking at this point by point: • The plan needs to satisfy the requirements of the public benefits program related to conservation. All of the chapters address an aspect of the public benefits program,be it the requirements, the application of those requirements, the best methods to meet the requirements, and the best methods to deliver those benefits. 0 The plan needs to give special attention to assisting low income persons. All of the chapters except#7 will address some aspect of the low income program. Chapter seven specifically examines the electric load profile, irrespective of the economic conditions of individual ratepayers. • The plan must deal with the issue of irrigation water practices. Irrigation practices, and water use generally, will be addressed in the sections covering analysis and consideration of conservation measures, as well as their delivery and effectiveness. Chapter 12 regarding energy production issues will not look at water matters. • The plan needs to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of various conservation methods and recommend those practices that represent the best investment of the District's limited resources. All of the chapters address some aspect of cost-effective measures to conserve electricity and water. • The District has a preference for established and successful conservation practices. Experimental conservation practices or conservation practices that are still in the experimental or developmental phase are to be avoided. The chapter on Truckee's Unique Load Profile is examining factual matters related to historical energy and water use in the District. This bullet point is an overarching consideration that is taken into account in all of the chapters except for this one. TDPUD Conservation Committee Review of 5 Points Bullet Point Bullet Point : Bullet Point Bullet Point ; Bullet Point Outline Item ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE 1. Executive Summary '' ''.... .. �..... `'.... ..._.. 2. Introduction 3. Background and History__ A Policy and Legal Environment 35 Conservation Potential "� '' 6 Analysis Methodology, 7. TDPUD's Unique Load Profile `' _.... 8. Exisiting Programs and Their Effectiveness '' 9. Conservation Measures Considered 10. Rates and Rate Design "' '' ._. . _ . 11. Outreach Marketing and Partnerships VO... . 12. Energy Production .... '�.._.. ,13 Organ¢ational Dynamics "' v 14. Recommendations 15. Impact of Recommendations `' 16. Acknowledgments 17. Appendices Details of Recommended Measures _...._..._ KEMA Report","_. Resolution 2007-03 Relevant Statutes 1 The plan needs to satisfy the requirements of the public benefits program related to conservation. 2 The plan needs to give special attention to assisting low income persons. 3 The plan must deal with the issue of irrigation water practices. 4 The plan needs to evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of various conservation methods and recommend those practices that represent the best investment of the District's limited resources. 5 The District has a preference for established and successful conservation practices. Experimental conservation practices or conservation practices that are still in the experimental or developmental phase are to be avoided.