News on our campaign to get PRPA to invest in Residential Energy Efficiency
Mayor Hutchinson's response to our request:
It's a long one!  Basically he says that Fort Collins is already doing what we are asking and he doesn't believe PRPA should get involved. 


Hi Fred,

I just had, about 15 minutes ago, a great conversation with one of your
neighborhood canvassers. He was very well informed (although he didn't
know about the full extent of what Fort Collins is doing for efficiencies, especially the new $1.24 million "Home Efficiency" audit/weatherization program), very courteous, and you'd be proud. I
told him that I support your efforts, and that we need to partner to further energy efficiency efforts in Fort Collins. Interesting timing,
since I have spent most of this weekend finalizing this response to you and was, in fact, at the computer finishing this when he knocked at our door....  

It was good to see you at the PRPA meeting. And thank you for yourvthoughts on energy efficiency, your emails, and for meeting with me. I strongly believe in partnerships and in the value of citizens becoming engaged in the challenges we face. I sincerely appreciate your group's passion about getting involved and I support a continuing dialog about that.

I believe we are in strong agreement that improving energy efficiency is important. I agree with you that it will help conserve resources,
lower energy bills for customers who participate, reduce needs for capital expenditures, and help us meet our city's environmental and Climate Action Plan goals. It's also important to recognize that there can be net costs for some efficiency programs, and we need to prioritize
efforts that yield the highest benefit relative to their cost.

I have carefully considered your proposals, reviewed the energy efficiency programs that PRPA is pursuing, informally discussed your
proposed approach with the PRPA Board, and looked further into what our city is doing about energy efficiency.

This is a complex issue, and looking into the details has taken much longer than I anticipated, but I believe it has been useful and
appropriate. Thank you for stimulating my research; it revealed that we're doing better than I realized.  

This email is to offer my opinions and my perspectives in response to our meeting and correspondence.


ROLE OF PRPA

I believe that the goals you outlined in your most recent email are achievable not primarily through PRPA, but by the individual cities
themselves. Some reasons why:

   - As we discussed, PRPA is owned by the four cities; consequently, PRPA responds to each city's needs--not the other way around. PRPA, of course, provides most of its services to all the cities, but also does an admirable job of tailored responses to each city's individual needs
and requests.

   - These needs, very properly, vary considerably from city to city. I disagree (and I believe the PRPA Board disagrees), with the concept that there should be a required common "base level of service" consistent among all four cities (whether for DSM measures or renewable energy services, etc.). Rather, each city should be free to request (and
pay for) services (DSM, renewable energy, etc.) that may be significantly different than the other cities' requirements. As a member of the PRPA Board, I acknowledge and respect that each of the cities must deal with their unique situations, values, and priorities.

   - Local investment in DSM measures (like local investment in renewable energy services) is determined by each city's elected Council
and by individual city policies that reflect the diverse values of each city. I do not support Fort Collins forcing all cities to be the same; Fort Collins should not dictate energy efficiency policies to the other cities, and I would strongly oppose those cities dictating Fort Collins'
energy policies (given the other cities' lower levels of DSM--and renewables--efforts, this would reduce Fort Collins' level of efficiency
efforts).

   - Further, I strongly believe that these efforts must be voluntary. Fort Collins citizens have a proud history of responding remarkably well
to voluntary conservation efforts. A key reason is that Fort Collins can offer both an aggressive education program as well as home and efficiency programs that combine education and incentives for energy efficient choices. As a result, citizens are informed of City policy and
provided with the means for participating in reaching community goals. And, again, our citizens do respond.

   - You've suggested PRPA divert renewable energy funding (for wind, etc.) to finance more efficiency programs. Let me clarify why that isn't
feasible. Fort Collins (due to our population size) is responsible for reaching the Colorado Renewable Energy Standard (RES), while the other three cities are not. In those cities, renewable energy programs are entirely voluntary. Fort Collins' 2009 Energy Policy includes aggressive goals for energy efficiency and support for funding renewables. But even
in the near term, our goals for renewable energy generation do not exceed the Colorado RES--so we have little leeway. We are phasing out RECs and the remaining REC funds are relatively small in any case (a few hundred thousand dollars), so REC funding is not a reasonable source to divert, either. Further, I view renewable generation and efficiency efforts as complementary and both are important.  

   - And finally, Fort Collins Utilities people directly interact with our residents as a matter of course, and residents turn to Fort Collins
Utilities for service, problems, etc.--not to PRPA.


FORT COLLINS ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVEL OF EFFORT

Starting on Jan. 1, 2010, Fort Collins has significantly strengthened
energy efficiency efforts for our residents.

Key to these efforts is the 1.81% rate increase the Fort Collins City Council passed last November (it took effect Jan. 1, 2010) for energy efficiency. These efforts are increasingly addressing the issues you are concerned about.

The 1.81% rate increase for energy efficiency will generate about $1.62M each year for Fort Collins energy efficiency programs, primarily
for residential improvements. The overall 2010 energy efficiency budget was developed to reach the target set by the Fort Collins 2009 Energy Policy of 22,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) of efficiency savings.

It is important to note that this additional 1.8% is on top of the
existing 1% rate increase for energy efficiency Fort Collins implemented
in 2004--so we now have added to the average residential monthly bill
about $1.50 per month dedicated to energy efficiency efforts (2.8% total
rate increase for efficiency). Let me add a perspective on that amount:
This email reflects my views, and I will not presume to speak for City
Council, but I doubt that Council would support adding any further
additional rate increases for efficiency efforts at this time.   

Please see the attached graphic summaries of the increased efforts,
which summarize the 2010 plan and budget and 2009 results and
expenditures. (Note the more than $4 million we're budgeting in 2010 for
energy efficiencies.)

The bottom line: starting in January, we now exceed your suggestion
that we "add a dollar a month to residential utility bills" for
efficiency efforts, weatherization help and rebates, and other new and
on-going efficiency efforts.


SPECIFIC EFFICIENCY EFFORTS

The 1.81% rate increase is allocated to both existing and new programs.
Let me summarize, below, the related Fort Collins Utilities programs,
budgets and expected savings. The list includes on-going funds from the
1% Fort Collins rate increase effective in 2004, some PRPA funds, and
some reserve funds from previously unexpended energy efficiency efforts.
For example, the Appliance Rebate Program (see below) has been underway
for over six years. The 2009 expenditures from previous efficiency
revenues was $153,000. That amount is increased in 2010 to $410,000
using the 1.81% revenues that began on Jan. 1, 2010.  

(Note especially the first program, $1.24 million per year for "Home
Efficiency," which I believe addresses your biggest concerns.)

- Home Efficiency Program, New in 2010
Fred, this program implements the heart of your proposals--for Fort
Collins. It funds home energy audits for Fort Collins residents to
prioritize energy and water efficiency opportunities and provides
rebates for measures such as insulation upgrades, windows and furnaces.
The program provides higher rebates for lower-income residents, similar
to what your proposals call for. Citizens can call Utilities at 221-6700
to request an audit, or see up-to-date information on our web site at
www.fcgov.com/conservation.  
   -    2009 results:  N/A
   -    2009 expenditures: $0
   -    2010 budget: $1,240,000
   -    2010 expected savings: 1600 megawatt-hours

- Appliance Rebate Program, Ongoing in 2010
This program funds rebates for ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washers
and dishwashers and for the recycling of older refrigerators and
freezers.
   -    2009 results: 243 megawatt-hours
   -    2009 expenditures: $153,000
   -    2010 expected savings: 1100 megawatt-hours
   -    2010 budget: $410,000

- Residential Lighting Program, Ongoing in 2010, in collaboration with
Platte River
This program funds outreach, marketing and rebates for ENERGY STAR
qualified compact fluorescent light bulbs and LED holiday lighting.
   -    2009 results: 794 megawatt-hours
   -    2009 expenditures: $63,000
   -    2010 expected savings: 1400 megawatt-hours
   -    2010 budget: $120,000

- Home Energy Reports, Started November 2009, ongoing in 2010
This program funds the production and mailing of home energy reports,
where 25,000 residential customers see a customized comparison of their
monthly electric use.
   -    2009 results: N/A
   -    2009 expenditures: $0
   -    2010 expected savings: 4,500 megawatt-hours
   -    2010 budget: $250,000

- Multi-family Efficiency, New in 2010
This program will target efficiency assessments, rebates and technical
assistance to the multi-family residential sector.
   -    2009 results: N/A
   -    2009 expenditures: $0
   -    2010 expected savings: 1,800 megawatt-hours
   -    2010 budget: $330,000

- Business Efficiency Program, Ongoing in 2010
This program funds assessments, rebates for high efficiency equipment
and technical assistance to reduce energy and water use for all
commercial customers. It also includes coordination and funding with the
Climate Wise program, with Fort Collins funding Climate Wise audits,
rebates, and efficiency projects.
   -    2009 results: 11,993 megawatt-hours
   -    2009 expenditures: $905,000
   -    2010 expected savings: 10,100 megawatt-hours
   -    2010 budget: $1,710,000

(Note: "Business Efficiency Program" results were significantly higher
in 2009 due to one large project with a key account customer that
achieved large efficiency savings at a very low cost.)

- Integrated Design Assistance Program, Ongoing in 2010
This program funds technical assistance and financial incentives to
design and build high performance, energy efficient new commercial
buildings.
   -    2009 results: 303 megawatt-hours
   -    2009 expenditures: $41,500
   -    2010 expected savings: 2000 megawatt-hours
   -    2010 budget: $250,000

HOW THIS COMPARES TO WHAT WE HAD BEEN DOING

The total efficiency savings from the portfolio of programs were 11,400
MWh and 14,000 MWh (projected) in 2008 and 2009 respectively. The 2010
savings target of 22,000 MWh is approximately a 75% increase over the
results in 2008 and 2009.

We are very serious about efficiency--this is a major increase. Here's
how we're implementing that increase: Fort Collins' overall energy
efficiency program is targeted and goal-oriented. Note on Figure 2 of
the attachment that the increase in the efficiency budget (to over $4
million) is much more than the 1.81% rate increase itself would provide.
That's because to meet the Fort Collins target, the budget for 2010
includes not just the 1.81% increase monies, but also on-going Fort
Collins efficiency funds, some Fort Collins energy efficiency reserve
dollars, and some PRPA funds.

The expected “cost of conserved” energy for the portfolio of
programs to reach the annual savings goal is $0.02 per kilowatt-hour.
Saving 22,000 MWh through energy efficiency in 2010 will save
approximately $1M in avoided purchased power costs each year for the
next ten years.  


SUMMARY

   - Fort Collins is basically already doing what you and your group
are proposing. Fort Collins can independently pursue its own unique
energy efficiency efforts directly and, in my opinion, more effectively,
by not seeking required common programs for all cities through PRPA.

   - Fort Collins is leading the way with a series of aggressive
energy efficiency programs supported by our City Council and tailored to
our city's unique needs and values. These efforts are being implemented
primarily by our city Utility staff--not PRPA--and are not tied to
probable lesser efforts that the other cities might dictate. That is
proper and effective because our Utilities people directly interact with
our residents as a matter of course.

   - These efforts are voluntary and designed to assist residents in
taking their own steps for energy efficiencies. Education on these
efforts is increasingly important; I have begun discussions with the
City Manager on how to improve publicizing them. I am also open to
dialog with you and your group about your possible involvement and help.


   - PRPA's efficiency work is appropriate, and is a carefully-focused
complement to the individual cities' efforts.

   - Besides the efforts outlined in this email, many Fort Collins
residents are additionally implementing energy efficiency (mostly
weatherization) efforts through a variety of dollars available for
income-qualified weatherization from Federal government programs our
city receives. More information is available through the Governor's
Energy Office.

Thanks again for what you're doing. Your organization can do a lot to
support our efforts in Fort Collins. As our programs continue to grow,
the value of energy efficiency will be clearly demonstrated, and these
programs will pave the way for even broader participation in the future.
If you'd like to meet for further discussions, please let me know and
we'll set it up.

Warm regards,

- Doug
Our response to the Mayor:
Our primary point is that our energy community extends beyond Fort Collins and that PRPA must act as a whole to maximize the savings potential of home energy efficiency.

 

Doug

 

Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful response.  I appreciate your attention to the issue and your attention to the voice of your constituents.  One thing that I really love about our town is that it seems like everyone is focused on making it the best place it can be.

 

James also really enjoyed talking to you the other night.  He came back excited, ready to learn more, and pass the knowledge along to the community.  Part of our goal in knocking on doors is to get residents thinking about efficiency and we direct folks to the city’s website to become further engaged.  I’d love to work out some sort of feedback mechanism so that we can tell how many people we are directing toward FCUs programs.  I’d also like to find other ways in which we can work with the City.

 

I agree that we have a lot in common with our values and beliefs.  Reducing waste is pretty difficult to argue against.  I too would say that we need to be pursuing the best bang for the buck.  I think we have some (not many) differences of opinion about what exactly the best bang is.

 

There are still a few questions that I have and points to clarify.

 

-As I understand it (and maybe I’m wrong) PRPA exists to help the four cities accomplish mutual energy related goals.  The cities dictate PRPA policy through the board of directors.  If the cities agreed that PRPA should increase their efficiency investment then PRPA would do it.  I know that PRPA doesn’t tell the cities what to do.  The citizens tell you what to do and you tell PRPA.  Right?

 

-I recognize that each city is different, but might there be a common level of interest in providing a basic level of residential DSM service?  Clearly there is already a “base level of service” or PRPA would not have invested $1.5 million in 2008 in DSM.  I think that most people in all four cities (who are educated on the issue) would agree with you and me that energy efficiency is an important and common sense investment.  The directors of PRPA ought to be able to get together, find the common ground, and hammer out a policy that meets potential DSM goals shared by the four cities.

 

-How did PRPA come to agreement on common decisions such as the wind turbines and the existing DSM programs?  Don’t those programs affect all cities, even if most of the DSM work is in FTC?

 

-What is the PRPA Climate Action Plan all about?  If PRPA is not going to implement more aggressive DSM, then the CAP is a paperweight.  How much did that plan cost?

 

-I think I hear you saying that FTC is already spending the money that we are asking PRPA to spend.  Asking FTC to pay more would not be fair.  We would like to see the board adopt the goal suggested by the Governor’s Energy Office to meet the state’s CO2 emissions goal for 2020.  IF a city is already on track to meet or exceed that goal, then that city would get credit with PRPA for the expenditures going towards its DSM goal.

 

-What about Lisa’s question concerning a subsidy situation caused by FTC pulling ahead of the other cities?  Brian Moeck’s response was that all the cities should become more efficient at the same time.  Is there a plan to make that happen?

 

-I don’t think anyone would suggest that FTC reduce DSM programs to meet a lesser PRPA goal, and I don’t think that anyone would suggest that we make DSM anything but voluntary.  But we do need to aggressively market these programs to least efficient homes.

 

-I don’t think that we have time to let FTC programs mature before extending this work as an example in the hopes that broader participation will just happen.  How long has FTC been ahead of the others?  This seems like it would lead to an “I told you so” situation.

 

-PRPA should investigate how many homes, territory-wide, use electric heat or space heaters.  Are these some of, or all of, the homes that would qualify for the weatherization program we are suggesting?  Even if not, the benefit to the community of reducing natural gas bills warrants the investment (FCU is investing in cutting gas bills).

 

-Thank you for exploring the idea of reallocating wind funds.  That’s all we asked.  Maybe the other cities could redesign their voluntary REC programs.  The point here is that the goals of the wind program can be better achieved through DSM.  

 

-We are not asking PRPA to take over the city utilities’ public role.  A new idea has come forth that PRPA could provide vouchers to qualified candidates (low income folks in inefficient housing anywhere in the territory); the participants could use the vouchers with certified contractors who could redeem the vouchers with PRPA.  That is not much of a public face for PRPA and PRPA does not interfere with the city utility role.

 

-The citizens of Loveland, Estes Park, and Longmont value efficiency just as much as the rest of us.  Cforse will be demonstrating this fact in the near future.

 

-I disagree with you that PRPA’s efficiency work is appropriate.  PRPA’s current DSM programs are skewed towards businesses at the expense of residential.  The low-income people who need the most assistance are instead subsidizing businesses that should be doing this on their own.

 

-What is the plan to improve the efficiency of PRPA’s least efficient customers?

 

-What is the plan to accommodate the needs of private contractors?

 

Summary

 

Inefficiency in any part of the system affects the efficiency of the whole.  FTC can only do so much.  Our electric community is PRPA and the cities need to work together on this.  If the other cities did what FTC is doing then we could double efficiency productivity.  PRPA is the proper venue for the cities to work together on energy policy.

 

I look forward to working with you, Doug.  You (and the city staff) have helped tremendously in supporting CFORSE’s efforts in FTC.  I think the work that is being done by FCU demonstrates a strong commitment.

 

We still need action from the four cities working together through PRPA:

 

PRPA should increase its investment in DSM to meet the target developed by the GEO and dedicate the increase to reducing residential energy consumption.  The least efficient homes throughout the territory, occupied by income-qualified residents, should be prioritized for efficiency retrofits first.  PRPA should issue vouchers to program participants to be used with certified contractors.  The contractors would redeem their vouchers with PRPA once work has passed inspection.  Total energy savings that track with the GEO target for 2020 and the satisfaction of participants should be the measure of success.

 

 

I’d like to meet with you again soon to discuss.  I’m also planning to meet with the other Mayors to clarify what CFORSE is doing and to hear their opinions/ideas.

 

 

Best,

 

Fred Kirsch
 
 
  Site Map