MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY OPERATIONS REVIEW & ADVISORY BOARD
(EUORAB)
November 1, 2016
The regular meeting of the EUORAB was called to order by John Russell at 4:00 p.m. on
November 1, 2016 at 515 Clark Avenue. EUORAB members present were Jim Converse, Justin
Dodge, Steve Goodhue, and John Russell. Board member Cathy Brown was absent. Staff
members Donald Kom and Erin Cain were also present.
Approval of October 18, 2016 Minutes: Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Dodge to
approve the minutes of the October 18, 2016 meeting. Vote 4-0. Motion declared passed
unanimously.
Public Forum:
No comments.
Community Solar – Next Steps
Mr. Kom noted there have been three general models discussed regarding community solar.
The three options include City Owned/Costs Socialized, City Owned/Customer Participation,
and Third Party Owned/Customer Participation. He said that staff recommends moving forward
with the Third Party Owned/Customer Participation model. Mr. Kom also outlined some of the
next steps for this project moving forward. Staff is ultimately looking for direction from City
Council; a working group would then be gathered, a contractor selected, and the group would
work together to move forward.
Mr. Goodhue inquired about tax incentives and when the incentives expire. Mr. Kom replied that
to receive the state tax credit, the facility must be in service by 2017 and to receive the federal
tax credit, the facility must be in service by 2018.
Mr. Goodhue asked how that would affect the City. Mr. Kom explained that it shouldn’t have an
effect because the plan is to have the project in service by December 31, 2017 to ensure they
qualify and receive the credits.
Mr. Goodhue questioned how much time the consultant would need to do their work. Mr. Kom
said that they would first need to do a request for proposal (RFP), look at preferred sites, and
then complete the RFP; goal would be to start construction in April 2017 with construction
complete in the fall of 2017. He said that first and foremost would be to find the right consultant
for the project.
Mr. Kom informed the board of a customer satisfaction survey that is distributed annually by the
City of Ames. This year, they tried to gauge resident interest in solar through the survey. 63% of
respondents said they would be interested in participating in a community solar project for a
one-time fee of $200/year. Mr. Russell asked how many people responded to the survey. Mr.
Kom said that roughly 1,250 surveys were sent out with 500-600 responses received.
Erv Klaas, 1405 Grand Avenue, informed the board that 84 countries have signed an agreement
to reduce CO2 emissions. He stressed the need to reduce emissions and do something about
our atmosphere. Mr. Klaas concluded that solar has a great deal of potential and he urged the
board to move forward with the community solar project.
Bob Haug, 3517 Oakland Street, told the board not to worry about the timeline of getting the
project installed. He informed the board that Cedar Falls Utilities has done a community solar
project so there are other models out there to use as examples. Mr. Haug added that the
contractor you might seek to put together a marketing plan may not be the same person who
would work on the RFP.
Mr. Goodhue feels that a fair amount of public input has been received over the course of the
last year or so on this project; it’s time to move this project on to City Council. Mr. Goodhue
believes the third party option makes the most sense for the City, as well as those interested in
participating. He concluded that there are already a lot of good partnerships established
between the City and third parties; he’s ready to move the project forward with a
recommendation to take to Council.
Moved by Goodhue, seconded by Dodge to recommend to City Council the Third Party
Owned/Customer Participation option for community solar in 2017. Vote 4-0. Motion
declared passed unanimously.
Mr. Dodge noted that he is in favor of the Third Party Owned/Customer Participation option;
however, he feels it’s important to have exact specifications for this project as a utility so we
know what we are getting up front and corners can’t be cut by the contractor. Mr. Dodge
concluded that he would prefer to have the project in a visible location so that residents and
visitors can see what we’re doing and that we are a progressive community looking toward the
future.
Net Metering
Mr. Kom described, in detail, two options regarding grandfathering. Possibilities include projects
that signed the “old” interconnection agreement or projects that are in-service or have an
approved interconnection agreement today.
Mr. Kom then explained seven options for net metering. Options include the purchase of excess
energy at an avoided cost, the purchase of excess energy at a fixed cost, require storage to
accompany a solar installation, require future new solar installations to be westerly facing, move
the fixed costs to the customer charge, develop a demand charge for residential solar
customers, and “right size” the solar panel appropriately. Mr. Kom said there are new
developments coming in the storage of solar energy.
Mr. Kom said there are many possibilities out there to study; however, most possibilities are
centered on the seven options presented today and there isn’t one option that works for all
utilities. Staff’s recommendation is Option 2 which would be to purchase excess energy at a
fixed cost; this option could be geared specifically toward our community and needs.
Mr. Goodhue questioned if Option 1, purchase excess energy at avoided cost, would be the
wholesale price of MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator). Mr. Kom said that was
correct and that that could be challenging with MISO prices constantly changing. Mr. Kom noted
that one extreme solution could be to link the extra output of solar to the MISO hourly price;
however, this would be cost prohibitive for residential or small commercial property owners.
Option 1 is using the average MISO on peak price.
Mr. Goodhue inquired if Option 2 is the wholesale cost or the City’s cost. Mr. Kom explained that
the average cost of energy is built into the customer’s rates. The energy component of the retail
rate is set by the utility until rates need to be increased and are approved by Council but the
number is relatively stable.
Mr. Converse inquired about the wording for Option 7, “right size” the solar panel, and
questioned who sizes the panels and whether or not this is something that should be monitored.
Mr. Kom replied that typically a customer will meet with a vendor and the vendor will work with
the client on appropriate sizing for their panels. The utility gets involved once an interconnection
agreement is submitted; size isn’t something that the utility looks at. The utility is checking
wiring, proper disconnect, etc. Sizing is not part of the utility’s discussion with the customer, at
this time.
Mr. Converse questioned if Mr. Kom feels there will be state or federal regulations regarding
sizing restrictions in the future. Mr. Kom said potentially but at this time the utility does not make
a judgment call on load versus output.
Mr. Goodhue asked if there is a City of Ames Municipal Code restriction on Option 4, require
future new solar installations to be westerly facing panels.
Betty Baird, 2707 Duff Avenue, informed the board that the current restriction in the code is that
street facing panels are not allowed.
Bob Haug, 3517 Oakland Street, feels that if the utility is concerned with oversizing, perhaps the
utility should require those interested to contact the utility prior to installation. By doing so, it
would give the utility the opportunity to step in and help with appropriately sizing solar systems.
Mr. Haug believes the board should consider Option 2, purchase excess energy at fixed cost;
it’s reasonable and fairer than the MISO rate. Regarding battery storage, Mr. Haug said that he
is a proponent of storage and that the cost is decreasing. However, requiring citizens to invest in
battery storage at this time would be premature and likely shut down citizens investing in roof
top solar panels in Ames.
Ms. Baird, seconded Mr. Haug’s remarks. She also said Mr. Kom’s comments were excellent
regarding the necessity for certainty.
Mark Steffen, 2316 Aspen Road, gave a short presentation regarding a fair solar tariff. Mr.
Steffen feels it’s important to look at the total picture and address impacts accordingly. He is
convinced that the community could continue with the current tariff rate. According to his
research, solar could grow 100x with no change in tariff and residential rate payers would only
pay an extra $2.00/year.
Mr. Russell asked what the difference in cost is between a typical meter and a meter that could
measure demand. Mr. Kom said that a regular meter is $30-35 and a demand meter is $200250.
Mr. Russell asked if the industry might move to that type of meter for residential customers. Mr.
Kom explained that demand meters might make sense for solar customers to be able to capture
usage to determine fixed costs but it would not make sense to install a demand meter across
the board at this time; perhaps in the future.
Andrew Zellers, 1712 Main Street, is a Brightergy representative from Kansas City, MO who
works with clients in Ames; he proposed a different solution. Mr. Zellers believes that Ames
essentially has a pilot program; the most elegant solution would be to protect those who have
already invested in solar and eliminate the opportunity for solar once it has reached 2000 kW.
He feels that by taking out the language in the current code that states, “Requirements and
benefits are subject to future change” gives residents the certainty they need to move forward
investing in solar.
Mr. Russell asked Mr. Zellers for his recommendation on how the utility would monitor how far
they are from the 2000 kW and also how the utility would advise and inform potential investors
of solar. Mr. Zellers said it would be difficult but there are ways to do it; he suggested something
on the webpage indicating the progress and cap point for kW. Mr. Zellers stressed the
importance of looking at the goals and outcome they want to achieve as a board.
Mr. Kom encouraged the board to study their options; different utilities value different
components. Mr. Kom concluded that staff recommends option 2; this option provides a long
term solution. Although, in the future he feels it will also be important to continue to stay up to
date and informed of the technology of the components of the battery storage option.
Mr. Russell asked if there is a way to combine options 2 and 3 from a logistical, billing, and
practical stand point. Mr. Kom said that more research would need to be completed by staff for
option 3; a model would also need to be designed.
Mr. Russell inquired if residents who install the battery system have the capability to draw upon
stored energy when they need it. Mr. Steffen said that as soon as solar is no longer being
produced, the energy stored in the battery kicks in and provides energy until the battery runs
out; then, at that point, the utility must be used for energy.
Mr. Dodge said he is a proponent of Option 2. It captures what he was looking for after
gathering public input; it recovers fixed costs for the utility, and pays the customer a fair rate for
their energy. He thinks the battery option is very interesting but the board does not have enough
details at this time to move forward with a motion that includes battery storage. Mr. Dodge also
stated that he is not in favor of the suggestion to strike the language from the code that currently
reads, “Requirements and benefits are subject to future change.” This language protects the
utility from uncertainty or unknowns that could occur and as an advisory board, it’s part of their
job to help protect the utility.
Mr. Goodhue said the goal is to encourage solar in the community; the board doesn’t want to
hinder people from investing nor do they want to create undo hardships for those who have
already invested in solar. But, the other goal is to capture the fixed costs currently not recouped
by the utility. The board is in an advisory capacity to help determine what is best for the utility.
Mr. Goodhue feels that Option 2 would help the utility recover the fixed costs; battery storage
can be pursued in the future.
Mr. Converse agreed that Option 2 is the most fair to all involved in the process. He said that
he likes the idea of battery storage but doesn’t want to prohibit citizens from investing in solar by
making battery storage mandatory; however, it’s certainly something the board should look at in
the future as it becomes more affordable.
Mr. Russell feels that Option 2 is the best long term solution. He said that when all of the
economic forces come into play, technology will bring down the cost of solar. And, Mr. Russell
believes that the issue of banking energy will provide an option for those solar users who install
battery systems to help offset higher costs.
Moved by Dodge, seconded by Converse to support Option 2 – Purchase excess energy
at fixed cost. Vote 4-0. Motion declared passed unanimously.
Mr. Goodhue encouraged staff to follow up on the battery storage option in the future.
Mr. Kom said that he would work with City of Ames legal staff to make changes to the code. He
asked the board if this is a long term solution or a transitional solution. Mr. Dodge feels that
Option 2 provides them with a long term solution; Mr. Russell and Mr. Goodhue agreed. Mr.
Dodge said that he would not be in favor of changing the fixed rate to the MISO rate.
Mr. Kom agreed that staff will continue to work with groups, such as the Ames Progressive
Alliance, to become more educated and informed regarding battery storage and potential
options for the future. He concluded that once a draft is complete, the code changes will go to
City Council for approval; the public will be able to speak at Council if they would like the
opportunity to do so.
Adjourned at 5:58 p.m.
____________________________
____________________________
John Russell, Chairperson
Erin Cain, Recording Secretary