Item 1: Comments on Draft Amendments to Austin Energy's Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan Davis — original pdf

Backup

Commissioner Davis’s Comments 1. Leasing Instead of Owning Combustion Turbines: I support (and is this not what "or contract for" in the plan indicates?) 2. Require Heat Pump Water Heaters in Building Code: I support this, but am not convinced it belongs in the Resource Gen Plan. 3. Passive House Pilot: I support this, but am not convinced it belongs in the Resource Gen Plan. Also, Council has already directed the City Manager to conduct a Passive House pilot via this resolution. 4. Battery/Virtual Power Plant: I support, and isn't this what AE's Solar For All grant is looking to do? 5. Goals for Renewable Energy and Demand Side Programs: The proposed efficiency and demand response reductions appear to be less ambitious than what is in the plan. Also want to understand the grocery store/ food processing plant piece. 6. Remove Nuclear Language: Neutral 7. Revise Green Choice Program: I support this, but am not convinced it belongs in the Resource Gen Plan. 8. Conservation Based Electric Rate Pilot: How is this different from the demand response goals in the draft plan? Why is this a Resource Gen Plan issue vs. a rate case issue? 9. Study of Ways to Reduce (the cost of) Rooftop Solar: I support this, but am not convinced that it belongs in the Resource Gen Plan. Having an aggressive goal for MW of installed local solar is preferable. 10. Tiered Incentive for Structures Exceeding Building Code: Seems like it could be a good idea, not convinced it belongs in Resource Gen Plan.