Attendees: - Xcel Energy: Responsible by Nature



Attendees: Xcel EnergyNeil Cowan, Jacklyn Webb (ph), Louise Wood, Ryan Matley, Mike Pascucci, Shawn Queenan, Sage Tauber, Kent Scholl, Eric Van Orden, Kristin GasparStaffBill Dalton, Mimi Xavier, Radinka SownrayanOCCScott EnglandCEOLyndsey Stegall, Ellen KutzerCOSEIATaylor Henderson, Phil Undercuffler (ph)EFCAJacob SchlesingerVote SolarRick GilliamIndependent AdvocateKarey Christ-JanerWRAGwen Farnsworth, Robin QuarrierREC SolarJonathan Oakley (ph)CECJustin WilsonWalmartK. Baker (ph)Welcome & Introductions This is the first meeting for this Stakeholder group as formed out of the Settlement Agreement in consolidated Proceeding Nos. 16AL-0048E (2016 Phase II Electric Rate Case), 16A-0055E (Renewable*Connect Program) and 16A-0139E (2017-2019 Renewable Energy Compliance Plan).Review of Agenda & Stakeholder Group Charter No questions on Agenda or Stakeholder Group CharterRick Gilliam did reserve his right to review and suggest changes to the Charter.Stakeholder Group Goal and TopicsGOAL: The goal of this stakeholder group is to develop one or more programs that will allow customers to voluntarily contribute to meaningful carbon emission reductions from the Company’s electric generation fleet.Define “electric generation fleet” = existing generation that emit CO2Neil (XEL) – Does this contemplate merging programs?TOPICS: Appropriate bill credit or avoided cost calculation methodologies for various programs including, but not limited to, Renewable*Connect, Solar*Rewards, Solar*Rewards Community, and Net Metering. The discussion will include how and under what conditions different methodologies may apply.Rick (Vote Solar) – interested in avoided cost calculation; move from originally filed to QF methodology for Renewable Connect program; he’s interested in footnote 2 of settlement agreementGwen (WRA) – emerged out of RC discussions; Jake (EFCA) – why is net metering included since it’s not based on avoided costGwen (WRA) – correctKarey C-J (Ind.) – room for a global view & needs to be done in CO; advocated for separate proceeding. How does this apply to net-metering?Gwen (WRA) – bullets are discussion points; not that need to make decisions on all of these points. These are the topics to discuss, but not necessarily make changes to all of the programs listedRick (VS) – avoided cost in a generic sense? Not restricting ourselves to PURPA definition of avoided cost. To inform how future products should be developed, not necessarily develop a program/productGwen (WRA) – would hope Xcel would bring a program idea to this groupJake (EFCA) – new ideas could be raised in this group.Neil (XEL) – need to establish baseline.Kent (XEL) – yes, consistency is important.Justin (CEC) – we should clearly define this so we know how to participate. Define 1st paragraph of Topics slide so we know what we should focus on.Gwen (WRA) – this is a topic in existing programs group; Renewable Connect is now an approved program – so, we should separate existing/new programs Mike (XEL) – read footnote 2 from the settlement that includes 3 points of further detail.Rick (VS) – this was his footnote; Karey – “at a minimum” is operative phrase.Ryan (XEL) – there is value in keeping footnote in this group; it is the basis for new programs and the economics of new programs; foundational piece to take forwardJake (EFCA) – part of Rick’s goal was to make changes to existing programs as well, right?Rick (VS) – Yes. Larger changes could have impact on incremental cost because former view doesn’t capture startup cost; more solar = can impact startup costs and capture larger avoided cost. This is in a nutshell what he wants to discuss here to put finer points on where you start to see these startup costs start to be avoidedRyan (XEL) – could look to future and changes could affect existing programsRick (VS) – PUC decided PURPA doesn’t require them to look at aggregate of QFs (?)Kent (XEL) – no costs or benefits to CT fleetNeil (XEL)– could use for future projects or prospectively for existing programsKarey (Ind.) – may be helpful to see how Green Tariff in CA is approaching this; in CA files advice letter; Hopes any future product would leave the door open to any avoided cost methodology that are developed in the futureJustin (CEC) – unpack 1st para of Topics; start with last sentence: “how and under what conditions difference methodologies may apply”…and start to unpack first sentence.Bill (Staff) – Windsource based on market price not avoided cost; as price of renewables drops, avoided cost means less and less…we can’t lock into what the market can provide.Gwen (WRA) – this is the rationale why we have different calculations in different situations; avoided cost depending how it’s used can be significant; Rick (VS) – how do you develop a credit for customers for the future for other projects going forward?Gwen (WRA) – it matters when there’s a bill credit.Eric (XEL) – what do customers want? Gaps in the market? Aside from nuances of methodology?Rick (VS) – group of people that will pay a premium for renewables, earlier adopters…but as increases, interest is more economics than ‘feel good’ environmental valuesJustin (CEC) – we don’t know there’s a ‘need’ for new products; why develop new programs if we don’t know the demand on existing programs; is it worth going thru brain damage for new programs if we should focus on making existing programs betterKent (XEL) – first slide; this group is to develop new programsKarey (Ind.) – people want the state to wean off of coal; need to look at this squarely; this is the product we can develop; can be a combination productGwen (WRA) – could be line item to divest from coal to ensure I’m a no-emissions customer; contained in bullet points (i.e., combine Windsource & RC) Taylor (COSEIA) – legislation being drafted (?); Xcel seems to be opposed; market forces are key pieces of puzzleGwen (WRA) – if we’re not there yet to address existing fleet; let’s give customers choice to do whatever it takes to divest from coal; two different pathways to get to the same placeRyan (XEL) – doesn’t mean ‘develop product’ has to end up in marketGwen (WRA) – if we get legislation that does it anyway, we don’t need a product that does itKent (XEL) – in simplistic view if customers want to go green, then go buy RECs (that’s Windsource)Gwen (WRA) – good discussion for opening meeting; not resolved today, but those were discussions we had last summer and in proposing this, RECs aren’t the end of the story – is that purchase of RECs really driving reduction of emissions and change…really driving transition of existing generation fleet. Agree philosophical discussion around RECs, but we’re trying to go a step further to make a product that encompasses meaningful transition of the fleet.Kent (XEL) – then yes, make distinction between individual customer versus program that will shut down coal plant, for example beyond just signing up for Windsource / putting solar on my roof, etc.Karey (Ind.) – there needs to be “additionality” it’s not enough to just buy RECs…a program should encompass additional carbon reduction especially if there’s an additional premiumBill (Staff) – new program that comes beyond ERP/RES; solar on schools, government buildings, etc. to allow running gas/coal less but people are getting tangible benefits Robin (WRA) – messaging can get very complicated to describe additionality; she sees benefits of a very simple product that allows customers to divest from coal – messaging might be ‘help us change generation fleet’ to go beyond RECsPhil (CoSEIA) – perspective from other regions; volumetric production, but there’s also kw and other factors that the program that could look at….could be programs that allow controllable load that can shape load and generation to run a more balanced grid and reduce emissions, turbine startups & run other fleet more fully loadedEric (XEL) – what is a ‘product’? there are products we all pay for (e.g. Rush Creek), the other incremental products – Gwen (WRA) – we could add a bullet point of integration costs, but not make it too complicated. Let’s think of a new product that would divest from coal – how does it include issues around additionality, RECs, is there a way to make a product sufficiently different from what we have that encompasses all of thisJake (EFCA) – like having customers pay off depreciation costs of coal plants.Gwen (WRA) – yes, a fund to do something like this.Jake (EFCA) – has anyone run numbers on this?Gwen (WRA) – don’t have numbers on what the tipping point is; may be # of customers that show interest & driving PUC to move toward thatKarey (Ind.) – has seen numbers…taking time off of the life of an asset – a fund that would accumulate to take time off of the asset and retire Gwen (WRA) – it would be incremental cost; accelerating depreciation; still need decision point from the Commission to look at retirement of an asset in order to recognize the economic contributionKarey (Ind.) – we are tasked to look at [3rd bullet on slide 6]Neil (XEL) – throw our traditional view of renewable products on its head; requires some form of looking at avoided costRick (VS) – do we really need new programs; we could in theory get to a point where we’re mimicking a restructured environment; a lot of different market players – way to be thinking of future products…allow people to have choices - if everyone had a choice to choose ‘black’ or ‘green’ – market may drive demand and may not have enough support for existing coal fleet…idea to put entire fleet out for existing productsWalmart – slide 4; word “meaningful” sticks out; should we put context or delineated measure around what is “meaningful”?Ryan (XEL) – challenge to set quantitative metric around “meaningful” to customersGwen (WRA) – also what is meaningful to transitioning ex. Generation fleetKent (XEL) – focus on retiring coal plant earlier than usual, or customers paying voluntarily to re-dispatch…if customers pay delta to flip our economic dispatchKarey (Ind.) – thinks people want coal retirement; communities want 100% renewables, not just re-dispatchKent (XEL) – coal retirement may take 15-20 years, but we can re-dispatch todayGwen (WRA) – yes, re-dispatch is definitely part of it. Not just asking customers to pay extra, but not making coal retirement happen eventually – that wouldn’t be right.Kent (XEL) – fully depreciated is different; is there a product in which customers make it MORE economic to turn coal off (i.e., we turn coal off on weekends, customers could voluntarily pay to make this more economic more often)Ryan (XEL) – what DO the customers want? Different value propositions to ‘pay now’ but not see tangible benefits for 10+ years is different than immediate tangible effectsKarey (Ind.) – could be a hybrid of all of thisRick (VS) – if right price on carbon, wouldn’t it lead to different dispatchKent (XEL) – goal is to make gas look cheaper than coal to re-dispatch with less emissions (based on gas/coal prices and heat rate)…gets into engineering geeky stuffJake (EFCA) – doesn’t seem like a difficult concept for customers – ‘pay xcel to burn less coalTaylor (CoSEIA) – also consider jobs in these communities and give consideration to jobsTOPICS (2-3): Improvements to Windsource? and Renewable*Connect. & The possibility of combining the Windsource? and Renewable*Connect programs.Neil (XEL) – do we try to look at WS as avoided cost now? RC RFPs just came back in, so still distantGwen (WRA) – context: in the settlement there’s a term that says the company will think about next round of RC…opportunity to look at future – not intended to say Xcel is launching RC, now let’s change it. Existing group is more about keeping track and discussions about changing the programs is discussed in this group.Ryan (XEL) – different between bullets 2 & 3?Gwen (WRA) – not change RC now, but forward looking was intent. Rick (VS) – the programs are different; WS is a pure premium product & RC is the opposite; it’s a substitute productGwen (WRA) – it could mean replace WS with RC and make RC bigger; marketing question – maybe demand for both types of productsBill (Staff) – an event in town can actually buy RECs for that event; people will want thisRyan (XEL) – Can come on and off RC monthly…Neil (XEL) – suggest we step away for a break and then go into last few bullets>>BREAK<<TOPICS (4-6): Voluntary contributions toward early retirement of existing fossil fuel generation facilities.; Program marketing to include descriptions of subscription-supported generation facilities.; & Opportunities for other programs/ideas, such as the viability of longer term potential for provision of ancillary services from distributed energy resources and the use of combined distributed energy resources to improve the operability and efficiency of the grid.Neil (XEL) – Three bullets points on slide 6 – any more discussion?Gwen (WRA) – bullet 2; specific facility dedicated to a productKarey (Ind.) – needs to be a product that an entire city can benefit fromRick (VS) / Taylor (CoSEIA) – 3rd party involvement in larger projects; eg, 2 MW is too restrictiveGwen (WRA) – 1) how would this restriction be lifted legislatively, and 2) how do you get through regulatory hurdles. How to think about from Xcel’s perspective to think like a PPA (?)Bill (Staff) – limitations of being a regulated state Rick (VS) – change CSG statute or do it some other way?Justin (CEC) – thinks it’s bothKent (XEL) – this group may want to focus that if a program requires a statute change; is that a place this group wants to go?Gwen (WRA) – yes. Its worthwhile to talk about potential legislative issuesJustin (CEC) – shouldn’t be a line in the sandNeil (XEL) – can certainly be discussed here; other groups have done so3rd bullet: Ancillary service ideasNeil (XEL) – Originally he didn’t think this bullet didn’t belong in this groupRick – smart inverters can provide certain ancillary services; so his thought on this bullet is that Xcel invest in certain assets to manage voltage / frequency levels and advantages that can be provided.Karey (Ind.) – gets into grid mapping tools; power flow analysis. Gwen (WRA) – need to think about levels of complexity; achieve policy goals in a simple way is preferred.Neil (XEL) – package ancillary service and package and operationalize this? Are we talking about taking off this big chunk?Rick (XEL) – what would be helpful is to have discussion about road map going forward: AMI first – what is needed to improve intelligence of the grid…Gwen (WRA) – another way to think of it is Xcel’s battery project and different ways to view storage on the grid; so if there’s a product that comes out of this that would relate to last bullet pointJake (EFCA) – that’s just one piece of it. This bullet is intended to go beyond ICT. Within the scope of this group to come up with programs that take advantage of AMI and being able to provide ancillary services; also looking to other 3rd party providers that offer aggregation services that are installing batteries and smart inverters. This was EFCA’s intent with this bullet.Neil’s (XEL) – diagram of what is in play: ICT, AGIS, DER (“aggregation”), Energy Storage interconnectionKarey (Ind.) – swirl in the middle is power flow data; the big nut is the grid mapping and finding the level of data sharing that would enable all of these things.Gwen (WRA) – wants to capture word “aggregation” for future reference.Jake (EFCA) – is company open to programs, pilots, tests to develop these types of services to explore this in this group.Neil (XEL) – yes, it’s possible. Can’t commit, but yes it’s a possibility.Ryan (XEL) – a lot of nebulous things here; let’s start next steps conversation to flesh some of these things out to determine a path forward.Ryan on white board: Avoided costs = potentially foundation of all programs going forwardNew carbon productRC & WS going forward (merged? Changes?)DERs & Grid (smart inverters pilot? Etc)Existing programs evolution/expansionKarey (Ind.) – we haven’t talked about handling of RECs; different for different programs. In some places they stay with the property – any discussion needed about an entirely different way of handling RECs where customer is compensated for RECs.Ryan (XEL) – where do we start with scope? He suggests starting with #1 avoided cost as fundamental starting point for any future programsKarey (Ind.) – developing the carbon product should be high priority and fundamental new product; if nothing else came out of this group this product would be exciting. Avoided cost is much broader and requires more stakeholders and requires litigated proceeding.Neil (XEL) – stakeholders are invited, but don’t participate. Could focus invite on ‘avoided cost’ to increase participation on this topic.Taylor (CoSEIA) – state rep is not supportive, so legislation outcome remains unclear.Ryan (XEL) – timing wise doesn’t think there’s urgency on #3 RC & WS bullet; recommends avoided cost is starting point.Rick (VS) – appetite for meeting more often?Neil (XEL) – settlement is once/quarter, but certainly if needed we can meet more often.Karey (Ind.) – monthly meetings?Jake (EFCA) – break up meetings based on 5 topics identified above to focus the group.Karey (Ind.) – consider establishing concrete goals (ie, have a concrete avoided cost framework by Q3)Neil (XEL) – we have 3 years to come up with one or more programs.Ryan (XEL) – consider putting a timeline around some of these steps to give clarity of ‘runway’ to get to decision points. Input on how/when to tacklet #4 #5. Easy to bite off smart inverters.Jake (EFCA) – ICT settlement contemplated stakeholder meeting to discuss how inverter pilot would happen; thinks this is coming up in next 6 months; may make sense to include this group in that group. Another decision point is PUC decision on AGIS docket which would have impact on these issues. Is ADMS rolling out regardless of what happens in AGIS?Neil (XEL) – yes, believe that’s correct.Ryan (XEL) – AGIS hearing mid-April meeting about avoided cost & take a crack at putting down rough timeline on paper.Neil (XEL) – we’ll circulate notes & pictures to get these things formed.Ryan (XEL) – avoided cost tends to be very numbers driven conversation.Karey (Ind.) – could send California charts if it would be helpful; about to embark on a societal cost test. Might be helpful to look at categories of what another state is doing & have something to discuss.Jake (EFCA) – what is this conversation going to feed into? What are we determining avoided costs for? RC? Small QFs? Large QFs too?Eric (XEL) – is there a point where renewables don’t need programs? Is this relevant to talk about? Program vs. policy.Taylor (CoSEIA) – yes. Quickly approaching cost curve where costs will just enable renewable options. Natural adoption will start happening.Rick (VS) – confused by Eric’s comment; this is happening already and though we were talking about how does this evolve over time; probably a physical limit to how much generation can be added to the system – getting this with last bullet, but under current structure we are getting more & more renewables.Karey (Ind.) – feeds into whether there’s cost shifting among customers; everything is based on credit or cost. Avoided cost is in calculator, so critical for pricing any future product.Ryan (XEL) – some of these issues are pushing against boundaries of what we have today and toward restructuring markets; not sure this group will make progress on that larger scope.Rick (VS) – it’s about customer choice at retail level.Karey (Ind.) – would be helpful to inventory avoided cost assumptions from all litigated proceedings to determine baseline.Rick (VS) – not just costs, but also timeframe over which those costs are evaluated is critical.Jake (EFCA) – certain inputs and assumptions that go into all the models which are also critical.Karey (Ind.) – does company have any societal cost test in any products?Neil (XEL) – DSM considers societal benefitMike (XEL) – usually an adderNeil (XEL) – next meeting consider whether any legislation triggers carbon reduction product.Wrap – Review Action Items & Schedule Next Meeting ACTION to Xcel: The next meeting will be scheduled for the mid-late AprilACTION – Inventory of Avoided Cost Assumptions?Additional Information Provided Post-Meeting:Pictures of White Board: ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download