STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATION NO.______ Recommendation for an annual energy efficiency true-up 08.21.2015 Resubmit 09.01.15 1 Recommendation: The City Council should establish a true up proceeding for the energy efficiency rates within six months after the close of each fiscal year to reconcile any over or under recovery of AE energy efficiency revenues, realized and imputed, attributable to the energy efficiency rate for that recently closed fiscal year with that fiscal year’s energy efficiency expenses, including operations and maintenance, incurred by AE. The true up proceeding may result in no further action, a reduction or increase in the energy efficiency rate, and/or an amendment to the then-current energy efficiency budget, including the transfer of funds from one program to another to increase the effectiveness of the programs. Reasoning: Energy efficiency rates were separated out of base rates in the last contested rate case based in part on the advocacy of the environmental community. A primary concern from that community was that funding for the energy efficiency program was diverted to other utility operations. A separate rate they argued should promote greater accountability ensuring funds realized from energy efficiency rates would be spent on energy efficiency programs or refunded back to the customers. This recommendation is responsive to this public policy concern. According to Austin Energy in its response to the Task Force’s Interim Recommendations, audited data on the current FY energy efficiency revenues and expenses will not be available until some six months after the close of this fiscal year. This time lag between the end of fiscal year and having audited data available proved to be the case for the FY 2014 energy efficiency data. At last year’s budget and rate hearings, Austin Energy informed the council that true ups of the then-current FY should not occur until the FY’s data was audited. Consequently, the first opportunity the council has to correct any imbalances between revenues realized and expenses incurred in the energy efficiency program is six months after the close of the FY, mid-way into the next 1 Austin Energy, “Response to the Low Income Consumer Task Force’s Interim Report” (August 7, 2015), p.2. year’s FY’s operations. A true up proceeding at this time would provide up to date adjustments to the then current FY EE programs and/or rates in a timely manner. Without this true-up the regulatory risk increases that funds collected with EE rates are spent elsewhere in …
Recommendation on Building Codes – Revised Version August 20, 2015 The Task Force finds that continued improvement in base energy codes to reduce peak and overall energy use is of benefit to low-income and middle-income residents and to Austin Energy overall. Austin Energy has consistently worked with the City and its departments to improve base energy codes every three years, making new homes and remodeled homes and other buildings more energy efficient. By reducing the energy use of new and rehabilitated buildings Austin can lower emissions and water use from existing fossil fuel plants, reduce the need to buy expensive peak power off the market and potentially provide demand response capabilities to meet peak demand or even participate in energy markets. The Task Force reaffirms the goal of making new home construction in Austin, Texas to be net-zero energy capable by the end of 2015, while recognizing the challenges with fully meeting this goal. We recommend in 2015 that City Council direct the city manager to work with Austin Energy and the relevant advisory committees, and city departments to accomplish the following actions: 1. Adopt the 2015 IECC codes for residential construction, including local amendments to reach the net-zero-energy capable homes approved by City Council in 2007. The Task Force believes that the net-zero-energy capable home goal is achievable, but recognizes that certain homes will be unable to meet this goal in 2015 depending on whether the home is all-electric or includes gas heating and gas water heating, the size of the home and other issues like orientation of the design and the behavior of occupants. Assuming Austin Energy recommends and city council approves an updated more energy efficient code for new and remodeled homes, Austin Energy should continue to consider other amendments and programs to fully realize the net-zero capable homes goal beyond 2015; 2. Further the goal of net-zero energy capable homes by considering local amendments to the energy code and suggest amendments to other building codes to encourage the adoption of new technologies like solar PV, demand response, energy storage and electric vehicle charging technologies as appropriate. As an example, Austin Energy should work with the electrical code to assure that there is sufficient panel capacity to allow for EV charging stations. 3. Encourage the widespread adoption of solar PV technology by: a. Adopting a version of Appendix RB of the 2015 IECC that requires that all …
CLARIFICATION OF PROPOSED (d) TO THE Task Force’s RECOMMENDATION ON TRANSPARENCY, REPORTING AND ACCOUNTING Request for Clarification:.. Paragraph (d) to the Task Force’s Recommendation on Transparency, Reporting and Accounting should read as follows: Austin Energy should develop better tracking data by energy efficiency program and by city council district to: . . . . .
1 LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION September 4, 2015 This draft report is the product of a working group consisting of Task Force Members Lanetta Cooper, Cyrus Reed, Chris Strand and Carol Biedrzycki. You will see in reviewing the draft that there are placeholders for agenda items that are posted for discussion at the on September 4, 2015 task force meeting. At Friday’s meeting please make your comments specific to this draft. For example, if you believe something needs to be added please have copies of a draft of the material available for the group and have a specific suggestion as to where you would like it to fit into the draft. At the meeting there has been discussion about listing appropriate topics and areas of discussion for the future. This section of the report still needs to be drafted. The report working group plans to have the next draft on September 11th that will incorporate all the recommendations made to date and comments submitted to the task force on September 4th. 2 Executive Summary 3 I. Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 5 II. BACKGROUND 5 A. Summary of Task Force Activities 6 1. Mission 6 2. Membership 6 3. Activities 7 4. Briefings and Reports 8 B. Demographics 9 C. History of Low and Low Moderate Income Programs 12 D. Equity 13 III. RECOMMENDATIONS 14 A. Global Recommendations 14 1. Program Evaluation Policies 15 2. Transparency, Reporting, and Accounting 16 3. Energy Efficiency True-Up Correction for Energy Efficiency Services Budget Implementation 21 4. Better Building Codes and Planning Review Process 21 5. Establishing goals for demand and energy savings for all programs 21 6. Establishing goals for demand and energy savings for low and low moderate income energy efficiency programs including the weatherization program. 22 7. Establishing budget goals for low and low moderate income energy efficiency programs including the weatherization program. 22 B. Program Goals 23 C. Residential 24 1. Rollover of Unspent Weatherization Funds 25 2. Universal Application with Automatic Referral Process 26 3. Provision of Air Conditioners in Low Income Weatherization Program 27 4. On-Bill Repayment 29 5. Contractor Rebate Pilot program in conjunction with Affordable Housing projects 31 6. Energy Star Window Heating and Cooling Units for Vulnerable Populations 33 7. Low Interest Loans for Installation of Energy Star Window Units 34 8. Low Interest Loans for Comprehensive Energy …
AE Weatherization Program job status as of September 1, 2015 1 ReferralsDuplicates Loaded to SFHomeownersRentersUnable to ServeUnable to Contact Able to ServeTotal Screened11,2392,0379,2023,9591,3602,3728406713,883ReferralsUnscreenedScreenedAE Weatherization ContractorsClients AssignedAssessments in Process and CompletedInspections PassedInspections FailedHomes Invoiced YTDHomes with DOAmt Obligated YTDAmt Paid YTDAirtech66664784766$230,271$110,536American Conservation101101721368101$456,616$243,252American Youth Works22221141022$71,278$28,144City Conservation 106106862184106$405,034$263,072Climate Mechanical222217111522$81,280$46,592Conservation Specialist43434204243$164,921$139,994Go Green818168166781$283,090$187,973McCullough60601841260$245,803$49,979Valdez30302571830$98,905$52,787Total53153138684363531$2,037,198$1,122,329Note 1: Of the 531 homes, 46 are rentersNote 2: 2015 values will include costs incurred for AWU reimbursement of water related improvements, unvouchered AP transactions and Refrigerator Recycling costs. These values may change after financial audited values are confirmed and may not be reflected in the weekly report generated by the department for the weatherization program.
LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE AUGUST 21, 2015 9:00AM – 12:00 PM TOWN LAKE CENTER – ROOM 100 721 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD AUSTIN, TEXAS 78704 For more information: http://www.austintexas.gov/content/low-income-consumer-advisory-task- force AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS The first 5 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approve minutes from August 7, and August 14, 2015 meeting 3. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on on-bill repayment and financing arrangements b. Discussion and possible action on amendments to the multifamily energy efficiency program c. Discussion and possible action on low income energy efficiency program design including but not limited to cost effectiveness of energy efficiency measures, one-stop weatherization, program goals, and heating and cooling equipment repair and replacement d. Discussion and possible action on ECAD (Energy Conservation Audit Disclosure) including but not limited to enforcement and expanding scope of disclosure requirements to small rental properties e. Discussion and possible action on energy efficiency rate true-up proceeding. f. Discussion and possible action on final report 4. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on the low income weatherization budget. b. Discussion and possible action on definition of multi-family properties serving low and low moderate income customers c. Discussion and possible action on Austin Energy’s overall energy (kWh) and demand (KW) goals and kWh and KW goals for programs for low income and low moderate income customers. d. Discussion and possible action on Building Codes e. Discussion and possible action on audit of the billing system. The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call Liz Jambor at Austin Energy Department, 513-322-6353, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force, please contact Liz Jambor at 512-322-6353 f. Discussion and possible action on the need for a task force after October 1, 2015. 5. BRIEFINGS & REPORTS a. Austin Energy staff update on the weatherization program job status b. Status of data …
Page 1 of 2 LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 14, 2015 The Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force convened in a Special-Called meeting at Town Lake Center, 721 Barton Springs Road, Room 100, in Austin, Texas. Chairperson, Carol Biedrzycki called the meeting to order at 11:02 a.m. Task Force Members in Attendance: Carol Biedrzycki (Chair), Tim Arndt (Vice Chair), Lanetta Cooper, Richard Halpin, Dan Pruett, Cyrus Reed, and Michael Wong. Karen Hadden was not present at the call to order, but arrived later. Chris Strand was absent. Staff in Attendance: Austin Energy (AE) staff included Debbie Kimberly, Liz Jambor, Denise Kuehn, Ronnie Mendoza, and Toye Goodson. Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department staff included Cara Welch. 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS: GENERAL No citizens signed up to speak. 2. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion of low income weatherization program, including but not limited to heating and cooling equipment repair and replacement. Members reviewed and made changes to the draft backup document created by Ms. Biedrzycki, “Low-Income Weatherization Program Goals” (Back-up Item 2, August 14, 2015 meeting). At 11:30 a.m., the meeting was recessed. At 11:40 a.m., the meeting was reconvened. Members continued discussion regarding weatherization program goals. An amended version of the document will be distributed at the next meeting. Members reviewed and discussed additional backup documents submitted by members and staff including: “Green Building Pre-Submittal Worksheet” (Back-up Item 2, August 14, 2015 meeting) from Mr. Wong; “A Proposed Weatherization Program” (Back-up Item 2, August 14, 2015 meeting) from Mr. Reed; “8/12/2015 Draft Recommendation – Repair and Replacement of Furnaces and Air Conditioners in Low Income Weatherization Program” (Back-up Item 2, August 14, 2015 meeting) from Ms. Biedrzycki; and “AE Weatherization Program Job Status as of August 11, 2015” (Back-up Item 2, August 14, 2015 meeting) from staff. Each member was encouraged to comment on topics and issues related to the goals of the program as well as issues raised during the review of these documents. 3. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS a. Discussion regarding future agenda items including a schedule of topics. Ms. Biedrzycki distributed a draft agenda for the August 21 meeting and requested input from members regarding the agenda items. Page 2 of 2 Members also discussed including a recommendation in the final report suggesting the work of the task force continue past the October 1, 2015 date included in the Council resolution. ADJOURNMENT The Chair adjourned the …
Page 1 of 3 LOW INCOME CONSUMER ADVISORY TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 7, 2015 The Low Income Consumer Advisory Task Force convened in a regular meeting at Town Lake Center, 721 Barton Springs Road, Room 100, in Austin, Texas. Chairperson, Carol Biedrzycki called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Task Force Members in Attendance: Carol Biedrzycki (Chair), Tim Arndt (Vice Chair), Lanetta Cooper, Richard Halpin, Cyrus Reed, and Michael Wong. Karen Hadden was not present at the call to order, but arrived later. Chris Strand and Dan Pruett were absent. Staff in Attendance: Austin Energy (AE) staff included Debbie Kimberly, Liz Jambor, Stacy Lewis, Kurt Stogdill, John Umphress, Michael Husted, and Hayden Migl. Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department (NHCD) staff included Letitia Brown. Debbie Kimberly introduced Hayden Migl as the new staff liaison to the Task Force. Chair Carol Biedrzycki stated that the City Council appointed Michael Wong to the Task Force at its August 6 meeting. Members and staff in attendance introduced themselves. 1. CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS: GENERAL Scott Johnson spoke regarding the accessibility and user-friendly nature of the CPS Energy website. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approve minutes from July 17, 2015 meeting- A motion was made by Member Lanetta Cooper to approve the July 17, 2015 meeting minutes and seconded by Vice Chair Tim Arndt. Amendments were proposed. Under Old Business Item 3c, end of 1st paragraph: Add “The revised motion was not approved.” Under New Business, Item 4d, second sentence: Edit to read, “Employees of approximately…” Member Cooper and Vice Chair Arndt accepted the amendments and all members approved on a 7-0 vote. 3. OLD BUSINESS The Chair discussed the order items would be taken up in the meeting, and members distributed late back-up for various items. a. Discussion and possible action on on-bill repayment and financing arrangements - Member Karen Hadden introduced the document “Proposal for On Bill Repayment with Rebates” (Back-up Item 3a, August 7, 2015 meeting). Member Cyrus Reed motioned approval of the recommendation, and Member Richard Halpin seconded. Discussion included concerns of this program for the rental market, consequences if someone cannot pay their bill, target audience and designating it only for solar. The item was tabled until the next meeting. Page 2 of 3 b. Discussion and possible action on amendments to the multifamily energy efficiency program - This item was not discussed. c. Discussion and possible action on …
On-Bill Repayment Recommendation Recommendation: Austin Energy would allow for repayment for energy efficiency retrofits on a customer’s monthly utility bill. Rebates would also be provided for qualifying measures. Description: The utility assists customers in attaining cost-effective energy upgrades at customer sites – like better building efficiency, more efficient appliances, HVAC systems and rooftop solar through on-bill repayment. The customer pays nothing upfront for the upgrades they choose because the utility pays the installer. Using a tariff, the utility puts a fixed charge on the customer’s monthly bill that is less than the estimated savings generated by the upgrade – so the customer enjoys immediate and sustained cash flow. Until the investment is recovered, the tariff for the improvement charge automatically transfers to future customers at that site. Transparency would be assured by requiring building owners to inform future buyers or renters of the property of the on-bill repayment in place. On-bill Repayment (OBR) clears the biggest barriers to financing because it does not depend on a consumer loan, long-term lease, or a lien on the value of the property. Renters and lower-income households have faced barriers to accessing investment capital for cost-effective energy upgrades, and similar financing challenges have stumped credit-strained companies and local governments. Compared to typical debt-based programs, experience shows that On-bill Repayment has a bigger impact for these reasons: 1. First, the addressable market is double the size because nearly all customers are eligible. 2. When customers are offered upgrades with the OBR value proposition, they accept more than half of the time, which is 5 times the typical rate. 3. When customers do accept, the projects they undertake are much larger because the terms are more attractive. Precedents: States with utilities conducting some type of OBR program include AR, CA, CT, HI, KS, KY, NJ, NY, and SC. In Texas, Guadalupe Valley Electric Coop uses OBR to collect air conditioning service charges on the monthly bill. The Pedernales Electric Coop is developing an OBR program to finance PVs. Austin Energy’s “Nightwatchman” program that leases lighting equipment as part of a security lighting electric rate goes back to 1979. This rate and program are similar to a number of utilities around the country. Estimated Cost: Depending on how the financing is structured, the cost effectiveness should be less than or equal to AE’s current financing program for home efficiency. Initial capital must be provided; $500,000 is suggested …
The Clean Power Plan incentivizes low-income efficiency plans - page 864 onward. A key piece of this section is at the end of this email. http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/cpp-final-rule.pdf ——————————— Dr. Arjun Makhijani is president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, based in Takoma Park, Maryland. Below is an excerpt from his comments on the Clean Power Plan. (They’re numbered differently here than they are on the website) http://ieer.org/news/clean-power-plan-step-direction/ 1. New natural gas plants are not part of the best system of emission reductions: This is perhaps the best and most solid indication that the Obama administration takes long-term reductions seriously. New natural gas combined cycle plants, even though they have lower CO2emissions per megawatt-hour (using EPA leak rates and global warming potential for methane), will not be part of the BSER even though they meet the cost test and emission rate test. The reason: they will be emitting CO2 for decades (p. 346, italics added): However, our determination not to include new construction and operation of new NGCC capacity in the BSER in this final rule rests primarily on the achievable magnitude of emission reductions rather than costs. Unlike emission reductions achieved through the use of any of the building blocks, emission reductions achieved through the use of new NGCC capacity require the construction of additional CO2-emitting generating capacity, a consequence that is inconsistent with the long-term need to continue reducing CO2emissions beyond the reductions that will be achieved through this rule. New generating assets are planned and built for long lifetimes –- frequently 40 years or more –-that are likely longer than the expected remaining lifetimes of the steam EGUs whose CO2 emissions would initially be displaced be the generation from the new NGCC units. The new capacity is likely to continue to emit CO2 throughout these longer lifetimes…. 2. Increased capacity factor of existing natural gas plants is BSER: The EPA is still allowing increased capacity factor of existing natural gas combined cycle power plants to displace coal. This is the result of its estimate of methane leak rates and global warming potential. So long as new central station natural gas plants are not encouraged, the rate of use of existing plants is a problem that can be sorted out in the coming years. It would have been very difficult to argue only on the grounds of the BSER rules and existing methane leaks estimates that increasing capacity …
