Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016.10.15 CEAP Minutes Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee October 15,2016 Page 1 of 6 MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN ad hoc COMMITTEE Saturday, October 15, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 1. Call to Order Councilor Rich Rosenthal called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Committee members Stuart Green, Louise Shawkat, Roxane Beigel-Coryell, Jim Hartman, Greg Jones, Marni Koopman and Claudia Alick were present. Staff member Adam Hanks was present. Committee members James McGinnis and Isaac Bevers arrived late. City Administrator Dave Kanner was in the audience. Rosenthal outlined the agenda for the day. He stated there would be public input specific to each agenda item at the start of the item in addition to the regular public input time for items not on the agenda. 2. Public Input Joanne Eggars— stated she was at the last open house and was struck by the greenhouse gas rates produced by consumer goods. She believes this should be among the top concerns for the group. She understands the challenges involved with taking on consumer goods but stated that we can't get where we need to go without addressing those issues. Caren Caldwell— stated that there is a lack of social equity in the plan so far. The proposed solutions disproportionatly effect low income. Transportation, heating and energy efficiency upgrades are all more costly for low income residents. She asked the group look at the GEOS report for assistance and guidance on how to address disadvantaged sectors who are rarely addressed. She stated there needs to be equity in participation by disadvantaged groups and there needs to be greater assistance in home upgrades for both low income residents and landlords. Lastly, there needs to be equity in green jobs—the group should encourage local training for job and family wages for new green jobs. [see attached testimony] Hannah Sohl— stated she was recently at an energy conference and it was clear there that Ashland is looked to as a leader in solar power. She stated that this process is an important one and the group needs to take more time to consider how to get information to and from the community. The group needs to focus on how to get information regarding the next open house to more than just those people who are already involved. She encouraged the group to recommend the new position requested in the plan be an assistant city administrator, not just a staff level, position. Lastly, she asked the group take a greater focus on low income or disadvantaged groups while developing the plan. James McGinnis arrived 9:12 a.m. 3. "10x20" Ordinance Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee October 15,2016 Page 2 of 6 Group discussed whether a cost benefit analysis of the ordinance is (or could be) part of the current Cascadia contract. Hanks stated no, it's not in their current contract and probably isn't entirely in their realm of expertize. The challenge at this point is that there are many ways to achieve the 10%reduction—Council needs better clarity in order to create an acuare RFP for a cost benefit analysis. 1Ox20 Public Input Dave Helmich— stated he was one of the primary petitioners of the ordinance but there is not a unanimously held view of how to do the project. He believes the 1 Ox20 ordinance does not entirely fall into the LEAP, that it should be managed separately. If the 1 Ox20 ordinance is part of the CEAP and the 1 Ox20 project fails, the CEAP plan fails too. Keeping them separate works better for the progress of both. Jeff Sharpe—stated the ordinance was crafted to be achievable and it could be a vital resource to make the CEAP active and not just words on paper. There needs to be an FRP to organize the 1 Ox20 plan with a direct connection to the city's grid (he described the PPA involved plan). In order to achieve the goals of the LEAP, the group should encourage immediate action on 1 Ox20 and inclusion of it in the LEAP. [see attached testimony] Isaac Bevers arrived 9:25 a.m. Andrew Cubic— stated he has 25 years of experience in infrastructure implementation in California. The 1 Ox20 project is significant and may take many years, but time is still of the essence. He is surprised that there is no dedicated project manager being hired yet for it. He asked the group to use whatever influence they have on the City for that position to be created. James Stephens— stated he concurs with most of the statements so far. He thinks 1 Ox20 and CEAP should be parallel efforts. The 1 Ox20 project helps the group meet plan goals because local, renewable energy production will automatically lower our greenhouse gas emmissions. He believes the future will be based in electricity and that it should be generated from renewable resources that don't increase greenhouse gas numbers. He stated that this is not just solar or hydro production but will be from unknown technologies which should fit into the LEAP. Tom Marvin— stated that one factor the group can't forget is the business of renewable electricity. We buy from BPA and 85% of is it hydro based but there is no direct line from the hydro power plant to us. BPA puts energy into the Northwest power grid with lots of other groups and sources. Our electricity can come from any of those sources. With population increases, our electric use over the next several years the demand for electricity will only go up. He believes that other groups will demand any electricity we produce. [see attached testimony] Huelz Gutchen— stated there are two kinds of PPAs possible, one across the freeway(solar- farm) and one in town (solar on rooftops/brownfields). There is a double-bundle financing method for the version in-town. Most of this would be paid for by the Federal government. He Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee October 15,2016 Page 3 of 6 believes the City needs to hire two experts in this field right now. The City needs to get more creative with it financing. It's better to hire these two people now and learn about all the details necessary later. He believes that the job of managing the 1 Ox20 ordinance belongs in the Planning Department since that department adds more greenhouse gases with new buildings than we will every make up for with 1 Ox20. Group discussed two questions; 1) In addition to the questions/topics in the packet, what more does Council need to consider? and 2) Where/how should 1 Ox20 be incorporated in the LEAP? Some topics for consideration the group discussed included: 1) The effect of 1 Ox20 on low-income community members 2) Have increases in electric demand (such as those from an increased number of electric vehicles)been considered? 3) Will (or how will) creation of our own power effect our current BPA contract? In what ways will it effect our costs from BPA? 4) 10% of what? Based on when? 2016? Do the calculations re-set each year? Group determined that as this started as a parallel process, it can't be completely incorporated into the LEAP. It needs to be mentioned in the plan, and maybe should be listed as one of the first(or in-process) actions, but 1 Ox20 can't be handled entirely in the LEAP process. McGinnis asked Dave Kanner where he thinks the 1 Ox20 ordinance would fit in and what resources are likely to be allocated? Kanner stated he would like the 1 Ox20 in the CEAP so that it can be prioritized by the group along with any other proposed action. Discussions regarding how much city residents (including low income) can handle (increases to electric rates will inevitably come with 1 Ox20 and other CEAP-related projects) need to occur in the CEAP process. Rosenthal asked Kanner what next steps he envisions for the 1Ox20 ordinance? Kanner stated that the first step is to get ordinance clarification. There are many options for how to calculate and how to implement, so what is the end target? What are the resources necessary(and what resources do we have available)? He ultimately invasions a single, management-level position to handle both CEAP actions and 1Ox20 implementation. The challenge is providing enough resources to handle both. Group raised concerns about one staff member handling both CEAP and 1 Ox20, as they are two very different skill sets. They also expreseed concerns that focus on 1Ox20 will slow down implementation of the CEAP. Alick/McGinnis m/s that the "10x20" ordinance be referenced in some way in the final Climate and Energy Action Plan. Discussion: Group discussed ways in which it might be referenced and why there should be no reason for the City to hold off on 1 Ox20 action before the CEAP is finalized. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes. 4. Goals and Targets Ordinance Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee October 15,2016 Page 4 of 6 Rosenthal reviewed the changes to the ordinance made by the Legal Department. Group discussed the timeline - with legal review, publication requirements, and Council agenda availability the Ordinance likely won't have first reading until January. They discussed whether because that is so close to the CEAP going to Council if they shouldn't just go on the same agenda. There wasn't group consensus as to if having them together was a good idea. Goals/Targets Ordinance Public Input Collin Ellis—urged the group to take the most aggressive goal/target they can take. Stated that if they don't they aren't really addressing the problem. He stated that he wants this city to be a leader in the country on this issue and without an aggressive goal, the group isn't doing its job. Hannah Sohl—Thanked Hanks for his work on the draft ordinance and stated that it doesn't have to be an either/or situation for carbon neutral/science based targets. The most recent version of the Eugene ordinance (which has been updated since the version in the packet) has a robust public accountability built in. It is important to include consumption in the goals. The first focus can and should be on sector based emmissions but later focus can shift to consumption. She encouraged the group to have annual, sector-based updates and to follow Eugene's model by having a goal of carbon neutral by 2047 with 8% reductions each year based on best-available science. Group discussed ways to combine an 8% reduction with consumption, which still can't accurately be tracked. They discussed the possibility of having the reductions measured on a three-year average, to account for typical fluctuations in project timelines, financing, etc. Group discussed how to adapt the plan as science-based targets change so frequently(what's an appropriate target today may be wildly different than one 5-, 10-, 20-years from now.) How to we keep the debate reasonable, and effective? Hartman/Koopman m/s to propose an ordinance with a goal consistent with achieving a 350 parts/million reduction by 2100. This means an 8% average annual reduction of all greenhouse gas emissions, including those from consumption of goods and food. Discussion: Hartman stated that all three greenhouse gases are accelerating—we need to decelerate now. He acknowledges that this is a big goal but thinks it can be achieved in small chunks. Koopman stated that using the Eugene ordinance as a model we know that we can include lots of other goals, not just an 8%reduction goal. We need to embrace that this is going to be very hard. Green stated that the goal should probably call out a baseline date to prevent future ambiguity. We also nee to acknowledge that no matter how well we do here, we can't solve the entire world's problems. Green/Hartman m/s to amend the motion to include a baseline date in-line with the greenhouse gas inventory of 2015. Voice Vote: all ayes. Amendment to motion passes. Group discussed if "moving average"needed to be in the reduction requirements, determined that this can will likely happen naturally, especially if the plan is reviewed annually. Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee October 15,2016 Page 5 of 6 Beigel-Coryell raised concerns over including consumption in the goal—not only will this require major policy changes but will require the entire community to buy into lifestyle changes. She also raised concerns over whether or not cities with action plans will be sued for not being able to reduce in areas with no measurement ability (consumption has no real measurement ability other than general regional data). Rosenthal stated that he isn't really sure how from a policy standpoint this will work but he still thinks that it is important to recognize the importance of the goal to the group. Group acknowledged that much of the ability to meet this goal requires State and Federal actions or actions by other entities that we have no control over. Group still felt it was an important statement goal nonetheless. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion (with amendments) Passes. Hanks asked the group what the city operations goal should be? He stated that he left as a placeholder the city operations goal from the originally proposed ordinance from Rogue Climate. Group discussed whether any city operations goal needs to be in-line with the year(2028) the BPA contract is up. They determined it wasn't entirely necessary to do so. Green/Beigel-Coryell m/s to adopt the city operations goal as written in section 9.40.030 of the draft ordinance. Discussion: Hartman would prefer to have a more aggressive goal. Hartman moved to amend the years in the goal to 2025 and 2045. Amendment to motion died for lack of a second. Disccussion continued: Group discussed whether the goal needs to be more clearly stated as to how it relates to the 8% reduction goal just approved. Jones wondered if there needs to be verbage limiting the amount of reductions achieved through offsets but group determined that they can't limit that as we can't yet track consumption. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes. Koopman stated that she would like to see the minimum reporting schedule lowered from 5-year to 3-year milestones. Group determined that they need to make a clear distinction between reporting and milestones. They reiterated the desire for annual reporting, and determined there needs to be a different timeline for potentially course-correcting milestones. Koopman/Alick m/s to replace five-year target milestones with three-year target milestones in section 9.40.040 of the draft ordinance and accept the plan sections as presented to include accountability with implementation plan. Discussion: Koopman stated that Eugene's newest ordinance has a section with triple-bottom-line considerations. Group discussed whether having annual targets every three years is necessary or would this just be used to do larger course corrections. They agreed that this means a Greenhouse Gas Inventory every three years with the understanding that an 8% average reduction will vary from year-to-year but should average out over a three-year timeframe. Voice Votes: All Ayes. Motion Passes. Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee October 15,2016 Page 6 of 6 5. Next Meeting Group agreed that a continued discussion of the implementation plan and the vision statement should be on the next agenda. They also discussed the possibility of keeping a list of questions or topics needing to be discussed. The first items on that list include: social equity and the effect of the plan on tourism. The upcoming meeting schedule is as follows: October 19, 5:30 p.m. —7:00 p.m. November 2, 3:30— 5:30 p.m. 10. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant 1 Testimony before CEAP Ad Hoc Committee October 15, 2016 Caren Caldwell 124 Ohio Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-621-0663 Reference: Geos Institute, Ashland. "Climate Change Vulnerability in Ashland and the Rogue Valley", September 2016 Topic: Urgency of incorporating Vulnerability Report into Climate Plan Highlight: Equity findings in Vulnerability Report Comments: e Good morning. Thanks for this opportunity to address your committee, the very existence of which is a game changer in this era of climate change. Local communities doing climate planning is awesome and exciting! Thank you for taking on the job! I want to talk about the social equity aspects of climate planning. Impacts from climate change as well as proposed solutions disproportionately affect Ashland's low-income residents and workers 44kshfand, Low-income people spend a higher percentage of their income on transportation in the form of older, less efficient cars, and on housing and energy in the form of older, less energy-saving houses and appliances. They also have fewer resources to invest in energy saving measures. They are living in a precarious state made more precarious by climate change. z Rogue Climate supports the development of a climate and energy action plan that will not exacerbate these impacts, but will prioritize social equity for low income people on a par with other goals like climate mitigation and adaption, environmentally sound public policy, clean air and water, public health, and economic vitality. I draw your attention to the report of the Geos Institute, Ashland. "Climate Change Vulnerability in Ashland and the Rogue Valley", September 2016. The report concludes by noting that a recent review of climate change plans (Geos Institute, In Review) showed that some topics are not receiving adequate attention in Ashland's climate planning process. Even though climate change affects all sectors of our communities, disadvantaged populations are one of the sectors rarely addressed. Who are we talking about? • Elders, who are sensitive to heat, and especially low-income without family nearby • Outdoor workers and seasonal workers, most of whom have low incomes • Seasonal and service industry workers (forest, ski area, restaurant, theater, hotel, etc.) • Homeless populations, people lacking in transportation options • Low income populations and families/single parents with young children • People with respiratory illness, heart conditions or mental illness The Geos Vulnerability report found that low income is a common stressor among all socioeconomic groups that were vulnerable to climate change. Having a low income in addition to health problems, racial biases, job type, and age greatly exacerbates the impacts of climate change. 3 To meet the challenge faced by our low income residents and workers, Rogue Climate urges your team to incorporate three kinds of equity planning into the overall Climate and Energy Action Plan. One, equity in participation by disadvantaged populations. We must proactively discuss equity and disadvantaged populations in all City planning processes. Measure the impacts of climate adaptation and mitigation on the most vulnerable. The City of Eugene accomplishes this goal by establishing a social equity committee. We can also train people with relationships in different communities (Latino communities or churches for example) to do outreach on energy, water, heat impacts, and other issues; and provide opportunities for people with low incomes to become educators and leaders,, Two, equity in home energy upgrades. We need to implement financial strategies for low income home owners to upgrade energy systems; and provide incentives for landlords to invest in energy upgrades, air conditioning, comfort, and air quality in rental units. Three, equity in green jobs. As mitigation plans are implemented, we can expect new green jobs to be created locally. We need to leverage public and private funding to create those green jobs and provide training opportunities that benefit local residents and workers, including low income people and underserved groups; and we need to uphold high road standards for new jobs that provide secure family wages. Thank you. 10.15.16 CEAP ad hoc committee public input-Jeff Share 557 Fordyce 97520 Good morning,and thanks again to each of you for your work on this important pla _ The 10x20 ordinance has been crafted to be a truly impacting first step for ur city, achieva le if quickly started, and showcase once completed. ( � Nilac.=u � �� . The ordinance could also :prove a great benefit to CEAP for vital sections addressing renewable energy production. It is hoped CEAP will be remembered as the Climate and Energy ACTION plan, not just an Academic Plan,and at this point in time,this committee appears to be in a unique position for stimulating rgaf- action. Today I am asking you consider recommending that the Mayor and Council direct immediate development and publishing of an RFP soliciting proposals for the installation of a 10 to 15MW renewable energy utility,with direct connect to the city distribution system,to be completed and on-line by the end of 2020. A Dec.1 Response may be desired to assure our CEAP has opportunity to integrate this valuable information, and to give a realistic baseline to measure other options against. This RFP can be easily, and inexpensively produced,and will in no way obligate the city to any additional investment,time or commitment. What it will do is garner some incredibly valuable information, providing real- world ' ' for ordinance fulfillment,as well as strong validation of cost and timing information I'm sure we want to be part of the finished plan. Our communication with larger EPCs(Engineering, Procurement,Construction contractors) e V031wq/ interested in responding to such an RFP have suggested that there are PPA flips approaches that e bo workable for the city,without requiring city investment beyond a PPA(Power Purchase Agreement), likely with all power produced being sold to the city(PPA directly with Ashland). One of the primary deciding factors for the City will likely be the PPA kWh cost,and possible timing of flip to the City, proposed by the respondents. A common theme in those discussions was the need for them to see the City was truly interested in pursuing a project, and not just political broadcasting. Current solar plant size recommendations vary from 15MW for fixed, down to 10MW for tracking PV installations. We have been investigating Ashland's industry-proven renewable energy options for many years,with wind and irradiation monitoring,system pilot projecting, and estimating full project development and construction for specific area wind and solar options. All of this work has been provided open-source to encourage innovation, and will be considered beneficial to responding EPCs. We know of several respected EPCs that will be interested in responding to such an RFP. In order to achieve the goals of this admirable energy security and community impacting ordinance,we urge immediate and effective gathering of current, relevant information;which requires immediate, meaningful action. Here's hoping we motivate the citizenry to make CEAP an effective instrument for change,and not just a bookend in the city archives. 10x20 has the potential to be a robust, impacting showcase project for our City. Thank you! Upward and Onward J# �� �� w.. w y �� . Ashland's Energy Sources 1. The City of Ashland Electric Utility (Thee City) purchases 98-919%of the community's net electricity consumption from Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). 2. The City generates 1-2% of the community's net electricity consumption from a City owned and operated hydro generator located near Reeder Reservoir. 3. The electricity that is purchased from BPA is predominantly from hydroelectric generation (85% hydro, 10% nuclear, 5% undetermined (open market purchases- most recent calendar year predominately wind). 1*13L() A J'Alf"(171a,(19 190wer Irrvii PaciffCorj.-), the efeictri it tf'Ve-, contract f6t*some tl,�ould he,;,-et as we at,,6-1'.,,1 f"af-[s''�1-)4-'J with nt")erl(J in sight. The Jarg& Utilitie's", aire unf,.16�ir to deliver,511)1;�,q' e4ectricit.,V to ctfstol-nel-�-,%M by 2('-)30,, 1%!131 170 S3CJ1TE-1[`!U,'e for full 041a a titi'n 4. Large scale hydroelectric generation is defined as a clean and renewable energy source by the US,Department of Energy, US Energy Information Administration,,- us Environmental Protection Agency,and Oregon Department of Energy. 5. The current contract with BPA expires Sept 30,2028., T17�ss is, 8 vic-a at ft'L,?-, til, ;!i .4 1 yi 6. The current total cost of wholesale power,including delivery and demand charges, is Just over four cents per kWh. T/-/*,w.MV t is an which t"I'"als'l be C,cD1f,'-,L1/r91,00" based on ctn--r( tit usraae, And If ive use C( tl -74 i�ttas vt t3/consen,,�ath,,�re�y pt'n- afl 01.11 3/10tMet jectecl ye�ars ag�.),) f i, h conservation c)-by 1'17h9177R,1,gE-W7,E-W'aU0[3,, tl,7e total TWO H70, City iS f/703 1311,00,7e far) C)Vl- Y l 'tL,) -isrz,-� a, consel"L','e. ,:.3ee 5. Nov ir 71 by a contrc-(,-:t Ashland's Renewable Energy Requirements 1. The State of Oregon requires that all electric utilities comply with renewable portfolio standards, (RPS) that impose specific portions of the total power generation or purchases by utilities to be from renewable sources. 3 0, 'tvpttl af-n)"of,17"z Ir" thvat�its, f be t.is;,d.. tt),ad"- (al!tc I IJ 13y' g,3 C'Y P"J. 111-r-it 1"voukl,pr ve,,rlt cl ,m add7tional 10"',"I"' 2. RPS levels are different for investor-owned utilities (Pacific Power and PGEJ and consumer owned utilities (includes municipal utilities,public utility districts and cooperatives). 3. As a municipal utility, the City has no additional RPS requirement unti12025 when the requirement is 5% (see future section for ORS exclusions) 4. The RP'S, regulations exclude "existing hydro" (prior to 1995) as a qualifying resource in meeting a utilities, RPS requirement. The RPS allows upgrades to, existing hydro as a qualifying resource in meeting the RPS requirement. Ashland's Renewable Energy Acquisition 1. Efficiency improvements to existing hydro, are RPS qualifying and the C�ity receives its proportionate share,through the issuance and transfer of RECs from BPA hydro system efficiency improvements. 2. The C ity has a supplemental contract with BPA for the purchase of an equivalent of 6%of its total electricity needs through BPNs Environmentally Preferred Power(EPP) program as, renewable energy credits (RECs). 3. The current BPA EPP contract expires Sept 30, 2016. 4. Customer-owned solar systems are not RPS qualifying because the customer owns the associated RECs,not the City. 0 !"'A i(7k rqrior; C017SW317i_ 5. The City's local hydroelectric generation is not RPS qualifying as it is"existing hydro" (in use prior to 1995). Efficiency improvements to the hydro generator could qualify. Ashland's Future Renewable Energy Requirements I . The City's state-mandated RPS requirement increases to 5% by the end of 2025. 1. The City has "banked"RECs in anticipation of future RPS needs. T i V .s C f .i�}. M 0 0,!_ J 3. The City will have acquired enough RECs by 2025 to meet the 5% requirement through the year 2039. During the years post 2025,the City will continue to acquire enough RECs to meet the RPS requirement through 2048. 4. The Council has adopted a local ordinance (dubbed 10 by 20)that requires the generation or acquisition of new, local and clean electricity equivalent to 10%of the community's electric consumption by 2020 (individual terms not yet defined). 5. The Oregon RPS recognizes certain exceptions to the RPS(exemption from 5% requirement). The exceptions that apply to the City are: a. "Acquiring the additional electricity would require the electric utility to substitute qualifying electricity for electricity from an energy source other than coal, natural gas or petroleum." ORS 469A.060 (1) (b), amended {HB 1547) 1� A 10 bv '02, 6. "A consumer-owned utility is not required to comply with a renewable portfolio standard to the extent that compliance would require the consumer-owned utility to reduce... purchases of the lowest priced electricity from Bonneville Power Administration..." and "applies only to firm commitments for BPA electricity that the Bonneville Power Administration has assured will be available to a consumer-owned utility to meet agreed portions of the consumer-owned utility's load requirements..." ORS 469A.060{3), amended {H13 1547) TW' t7'1C'Me ON[ LJ *-he a C-icytfon "o begin tC) r0"nktV ci(m 10 J( Q T.,.)n Col &3 Io 1 6,ci I E rl.J sli Policy Questions 1. What are the primary objectives of the ordinance and in what order of priority? a. Independence from the regional electricity grid? Ib 0, -1 dep- c"i G P� s iP f,��i t (D-S 1 Of S,i7i/e .7 % 1CJ0 f 9S,e Fj ft a ri e l5. b. Emergency access to electricity due to regional grid failure? i i o t o i o ko la I P, I-ni o re t•6­1a_;il 1',e I-?,f io c a i o e fm;. !hjssi7obio c. Carbon mitigation locally? It., bit for tfie i�,(nticl. The Frieri(Js befieve ii-i (51obal Vlarm�njg. How Yes. ATid for Ashicr,, )(J t') a bout you? d'. Carbon mitigation regionally? 2. Should the ordinance be developed to; utilize the State of Oregon RPS structure as defined in Oregon Revised Statutes {ORS)as the template and model to implement the 10 by 20 ordinance? 3. Should the ordinance be developed with its own set of definitions, standards and eligible resources separate from the State RPS structure?. S �z� ni,-iv c i i, !i. a,nie ce,s s a i-v� 7-17 c,-� o rz-1iFi ca n,c--" at„ Is D rer)ei,fvable. All fr�715 ' Airlcl t"I'lat be Uli:3 0i791'(-"ir'1g int'el'*tt. Its cyef4�ir'l"i -f'E Z Y. 4. If separate from the State RPS,should the local supplemental RPS include or exclude the state RPS mandates,i.e. cumulative or additive? 5. Should the clarified goals and intent of the ordinance be incorporated into the Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP)or remain as, a stand-along ordinance? Ohl-ancf one. The ori"Jil,lance is, 1-lot in Conflict 11vith th e CEAP it 6. How does the ordinance fit in with the other goals of the CEAP? Should it take precedence both financially and in priority or should it be reviewed and evaluated equally with the other strategies and actions,within the plan,? TI,i e � th t r�' It,�C- 1 1) 2f 117 Ordinance Content Questions I What are the definitions of the following: a. New L As of what date.? Built o,r acquir(-:-w'j'v-r,-irn t ie dal of ad(.-)ptir)i'7 of't i'l r" anci as 'S (-,,atv,-:;ec1 bjl the City, as 1:,r 11-rip licit ai7c]explicit in tl"ia orr-,Iinance, New generation or newly acquired by the City Electric Utility? Tha-it"i s Itin I)II, cl,',: IAJ letv a4s. b. Clean, Resources L Renewable energy as defined in ORS? OK. City specific definition? Does that include energy efficiency, demand response? That is i,,v,/*(alf Vvu'�j ol'- Effick-.1ricy ar.)ci consrlrvaliol'? (to n o t e n4trar ii i t a t'r'�,r !�,,rif i I C. Cause to be produced I. Limited to City owned/operated generation facility.? V L4 17 Ica C, 1) PF",Zk o r a vo--,n a If.)c I B F�A if c,z)i-ilcl -talk them into it. Purchase of qualifying electricity from others? • 0 K C-A s I o i S, i.3 0'e-, Fe 17 c 4. Pf�,,,. Purchase of RECs MZ A b s o I Ll t e i c i� -eif ancf-ov -nd "1e t.j C7 V 20- h ar f c.,,--,S d. Local r, t--1 --11-2y way L L,ci i cl r) fif I R e U� . S e)ID is To S Of"Li i -s i. Within City limits? Within Rogue Valley? Within Ashland's regional balancing authority {PACW)? iv. Within Northwest Power Pool territory? e. 10%of electricity used in the City i ll t, ish s is A ci vVIF 4 N1 1, b: C-7, S C� a pe :P i. Annual consumption (as defined by state RPS standard)? ii. Peak day demand? iii, Average daily demand? iv. Peak day consumption? v. Average daily consumption? vi. Other benchmark of electricity use? What does"from and by 2020" mean? "(DL'l it' L l U S0C•I C !J V Fi-;r)t�aT h f i's 4 i - irne a Is that January 1, 2020 or December 31, 2020? 3. Should the ordinance contain any financial caps or limits relati ng/com pared to the acquisition cost of other wholesale electricity products? An o l r;r'^ r••:�—r-.i""'...^. ""�F�' 'k., S� .Y• z EY" �`:= a=": ,.z{- •-.j:_.l� €::lf ft ....4 €�� i.� r,- 0�1 �o cost of thrie, 77- cost OtlGl-0, C,ie cotul�ci/