WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.820
 Hello everybody, welcome to the Sustainability Framework Advisory Committee.

00:00:11.820 --> 00:00:19.800
 It is one o'clock and we are going to get started today, Friday January 27th, and we

00:00:19.800 --> 00:00:25.560
 do have a quorum here in the newly designed City Council Work Session Room.

00:00:25.560 --> 00:00:31.480
 We will begin our first item for individual consideration, receive nominations and elect

00:00:31.480 --> 00:00:33.440
 a Chair and Vice Chair.

00:00:33.440 --> 00:00:36.820
 I'll open it up for nominations.

00:00:36.820 --> 00:00:43.560
 Oh, I do want to welcome our new member, Mr. Paul Meltzer.

00:00:43.560 --> 00:00:44.560
 Go ahead.

00:00:44.560 --> 00:00:45.560
 I'm pleased to be here.

00:00:45.560 --> 00:00:51.400
 I recall sitting in this room with you and we urged the creation of this body, and that

00:00:51.400 --> 00:00:52.400
 we ended up sitting on it together.

00:00:52.400 --> 00:00:56.320
 If you want to continue serving, I would nominate you for Chair.

00:00:56.320 --> 00:00:57.320
 Okay.

00:00:57.320 --> 00:00:59.680
 I'll be happy to.

00:00:59.680 --> 00:01:09.000
 So we have one second, all those in favor of nominating myself, Keely Graves as Chair?

00:01:09.000 --> 00:01:10.000
 Aye.

00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:11.000
 Say aye.

00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:12.000
 Aye.

00:01:12.000 --> 00:01:13.000
 Aye.

00:01:13.000 --> 00:01:14.000
 Thank you.

00:01:14.000 --> 00:01:15.000
 So we'll move on to Vice Chair.

00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:19.000
 I'd like to open that up for nominations.

00:01:19.000 --> 00:01:21.040
 I'd like to nominate Paul.

00:01:21.040 --> 00:01:22.040
 Paul?

00:01:22.040 --> 00:01:23.040
 Okay.

00:01:23.040 --> 00:01:24.040
 We have a second.

00:01:24.040 --> 00:01:25.040
 I'm willing to do it.

00:01:25.040 --> 00:01:26.040
 Having no subject matter expertise, just being able to like fill in the gavel is something

00:01:26.040 --> 00:01:27.040
 I could do.

00:01:27.040 --> 00:01:28.040
 So I'm willing to accept the nomination.

00:01:28.040 --> 00:01:29.040
 I'll second it.

00:01:29.040 --> 00:01:30.040
 All right.

00:01:30.040 --> 00:01:31.040
 We have a second.

00:01:31.040 --> 00:01:32.040
 All in favor?

00:01:32.040 --> 00:01:33.040
 Say aye.

00:01:33.040 --> 00:01:34.040
 Aye.

00:01:34.040 --> 00:01:35.040
 All right.

00:01:35.040 --> 00:01:36.040
 It's unanimous.

00:01:36.040 --> 00:01:49.080
 So I will sit proudly in this chair and continue as the Chair and welcome you to be back up

00:01:49.080 --> 00:01:50.800
 if need be.

00:01:50.800 --> 00:01:57.360
 So we will move on to Item B, consider approval, October 28, 2022 minutes.

00:01:57.360 --> 00:02:01.320
 It's been a bit since we've been here.

00:02:01.320 --> 00:02:09.480
 Did everybody have a chance to look over those and are there any corrections?

00:02:09.480 --> 00:02:10.480
 Everybody okay with the minutes?

00:02:10.480 --> 00:02:11.480
 Yeah.

00:02:11.480 --> 00:02:12.480
 Move approval.

00:02:12.480 --> 00:02:13.480
 Move approval?

00:02:13.480 --> 00:02:14.480
 Second.

00:02:14.480 --> 00:02:15.480
 All right.

00:02:15.480 --> 00:02:16.480
 We're in second.

00:02:16.480 --> 00:02:17.480
 All in favor?

00:02:17.480 --> 00:02:18.480
 Aye.

00:02:18.480 --> 00:02:19.480
 Aye.

00:02:19.480 --> 00:02:20.480
 All right.

00:02:20.480 --> 00:02:26.720
 So we will move on to Item C, receive and discuss proposed meeting calendar for 2023

00:02:26.720 --> 00:02:27.720
 calendar year.

00:02:27.720 --> 00:02:28.720
 And do you have the draft calendar in your backup?

00:02:28.720 --> 00:02:29.720
 Mm-hmm.

00:02:29.720 --> 00:02:30.720
 I don't think it has a slider.

00:02:30.720 --> 00:02:31.720
 Those are just our proposed dates.

00:02:31.720 --> 00:02:32.720
 We may ask to shift a little bit during the spring as we work through the Climate Action

00:02:32.720 --> 00:02:33.720
 and Adaptation Plan.

00:02:33.720 --> 00:02:34.720
 That will be on an as-needed basis just to try to combine trips for 20 years.

00:02:34.720 --> 00:02:35.720
 So we will move on to Item C, receive and discuss proposed meeting calendar for 2023

00:02:35.720 --> 00:02:36.720
 calendar year.

00:02:36.720 --> 00:02:37.720
 And do you have the draft calendar in your backup?

00:02:37.720 --> 00:02:38.720
 Mm-hmm.

00:02:38.720 --> 00:02:39.720
 Those are just our proposed dates.

00:02:39.720 --> 00:02:40.720
 We may ask to shift a little bit during the spring as we work through the Climate Action

00:02:40.720 --> 00:02:41.720
 and Adaptation Plan.

00:02:41.720 --> 00:02:42.720
 That will be on an as-needed basis just to try to combine trips for 20 years.

00:02:42.720 --> 00:02:53.620
 So we may ask to shift a little bit during the spring as we work through the Climate

00:02:53.620 --> 00:02:54.620
 Action and Adaptation Plan.

00:02:54.620 --> 00:02:55.620
 That will be on an as-needed basis just to try to combine trips for travel for our consultant.

00:02:55.620 --> 00:02:56.620
 Okay.

00:02:56.620 --> 00:02:57.620
 Maybe a workshop here or there.

00:02:57.620 --> 00:02:58.620
 Okay.

00:02:58.620 --> 00:02:59.620
 So generally it's kind of keeping the meetings same Friday at 1.

00:02:59.620 --> 00:03:00.620
 Is that worked out for everyone?

00:03:00.620 --> 00:03:01.620
 Okay.

00:03:01.620 --> 00:03:02.620
 All right.

00:03:02.620 --> 00:03:03.620
 Do we need to vote on this or is it?

00:03:03.620 --> 00:03:04.620
 I think we just have consensus to move forward.

00:03:04.620 --> 00:03:05.620
 I think we have consensus to continue.

00:03:05.620 --> 00:03:06.620
 Great.

00:03:06.620 --> 00:03:07.620
 Thank you.

00:03:07.620 --> 00:03:08.620
 Thank you.

00:03:08.620 --> 00:03:18.600
 So moving right along, we have Item D here, a follow-up presentation on the current status

00:03:18.600 --> 00:03:24.560
 of the Greensense Energy Efficiency and Solar Rebate Programs and discuss and consider various

00:03:24.560 --> 00:03:28.340
 options to bring more effective programs to our DME customers.

00:03:28.340 --> 00:03:33.920
 And I just want to remind everyone that we are using the mics above us and not the mics

00:03:33.920 --> 00:03:36.920
 in front of us today.

00:03:36.920 --> 00:03:37.920
 So kind of speak.

00:03:37.920 --> 00:03:38.920
 Is that me, too?

00:03:38.920 --> 00:03:39.920
 That's you, too.

00:03:39.920 --> 00:03:40.920
 Yeah.

00:03:40.920 --> 00:03:41.920
 Thank you.

00:03:41.920 --> 00:03:42.920
 Hold up here.

00:03:42.920 --> 00:03:43.920
 Does everyone remember Bill from our last presentation?

00:03:43.920 --> 00:03:44.920
 All right.

00:03:44.920 --> 00:03:45.920
 Good afternoon, Madam Chair, committee members, Bill Sheppard, DME.

00:03:45.920 --> 00:04:00.600
 Thanks for having me back again as a follow-up to our presentation and conversation that

00:04:00.600 --> 00:04:05.000
 we had back in August.

00:04:05.000 --> 00:04:08.520
 Hopefully everybody got a chance to read the memo as well that addressed some of the questions

00:04:08.520 --> 00:04:10.840
 that were posed during that meeting.

00:04:10.840 --> 00:04:14.040
 So if you have any questions that -- lingering questions that came up from that, please feel

00:04:14.040 --> 00:04:18.880
 free to ask me.

00:04:18.880 --> 00:04:23.240
 So just as a review, and again, this is going to be a relatively short presentation because

00:04:23.240 --> 00:04:28.960
 I want to leave time for us just to have another discussion, but in review, these are the program

00:04:28.960 --> 00:04:34.880
 cost comparisons between the Greensense programs on the left and the solar program on the right.

00:04:34.880 --> 00:04:42.760
 Just a couple things I want to point out is the relative impact per dollar spent for Greensense,

00:04:42.760 --> 00:04:47.960
 which is about three times as much impact as the solar rebates on the right.

00:04:47.960 --> 00:04:52.840
 That's that bottom bullet there, 19 kilowatt hours per dollar spent versus three kilowatt

00:04:52.840 --> 00:04:53.840
 hours.

00:04:53.840 --> 00:04:58.360
 Also, I wanted to make note on this slide, too, that the 41 million kilowatt hours that

00:04:58.360 --> 00:05:04.400
 are reduced from the Greensense programs are actually reductions, whereas the 11 million

00:05:04.400 --> 00:05:09.960
 is an offset, so we're offsetting one form of energy for another.

00:05:09.960 --> 00:05:17.920
 Sorry, the point of clarification was like, on your CO2 number on the previous slide,

00:05:17.920 --> 00:05:22.240
 is this a number -- can you explain what that value is?

00:05:22.240 --> 00:05:31.160
 So the CO2 number we used is an all-in ERCOT cost per ton emitted through generation on

00:05:31.160 --> 00:05:32.980
 the ERCOT grid.

00:05:32.980 --> 00:05:39.360
 So it's a blended number as an example, because quite honestly, anything that we purchase

00:05:39.360 --> 00:05:43.400
 for our load is renewable fully, 100 percent.

00:05:43.400 --> 00:05:48.880
 So we thought an ERCOT example would be the best way to show that CO2.

00:05:48.880 --> 00:05:51.880
 So this is a reduction equivalent?

00:05:51.880 --> 00:05:52.880
 Yes.

00:05:52.880 --> 00:05:53.880
 Thanks.

00:05:53.880 --> 00:05:54.880
 Sorry.

00:05:54.880 --> 00:05:55.880
 It's okay.

00:05:55.880 --> 00:05:56.880
 Ed?

00:05:56.880 --> 00:06:14.280
 Do we know how many of the Greensense rebates, or the systems that were put in through Greensense,

00:06:14.280 --> 00:06:18.080
 also have battery storage?

00:06:18.080 --> 00:06:20.960
 So the programs on the left you're talking about?

00:06:20.960 --> 00:06:22.520
 No, I'm talking about solar.

00:06:22.520 --> 00:06:23.520
 On the right.

00:06:23.520 --> 00:06:24.520
 Okay.

00:06:24.520 --> 00:06:25.800
 Yeah, so the solar rebate program.

00:06:25.800 --> 00:06:31.400
 I have that number, I can get that number, I do not have it in front of me now.

00:06:31.400 --> 00:06:32.400
 Okay.

00:06:32.400 --> 00:06:38.360
 And these are just -- how many other installations are there?

00:06:38.360 --> 00:06:41.400
 We're just over 1,000 now.

00:06:41.400 --> 00:06:42.400
 Including the 605?

00:06:42.400 --> 00:06:43.400
 Right.

00:06:43.400 --> 00:06:46.040
 The 605 are the ones that received the rebate.

00:06:46.040 --> 00:06:47.040
 Okay.

00:06:47.040 --> 00:06:53.760
 Do we have any idea of the total capacity, generation capacity, of those 1,000?

00:06:53.760 --> 00:07:01.520
 In other words, adding up, say, so-and-so has a 3 kilowatt installation, some of the

00:07:01.520 --> 00:07:03.680
 year has larger?

00:07:03.680 --> 00:07:07.560
 We do, and if I had it in my computer, I could get to that pretty quick, and the number is

00:07:07.560 --> 00:07:08.560
 escaping me.

00:07:08.560 --> 00:07:11.360
 I will let you know that number, but we do track that.

00:07:11.360 --> 00:07:12.360
 Okay.

00:07:12.360 --> 00:07:13.360
 I'd love to be curious.

00:07:13.360 --> 00:07:14.360
 Yeah.

00:07:14.360 --> 00:07:15.360
 Thank you.

00:07:15.360 --> 00:07:17.520
 I have just another, back to Grant's question.

00:07:17.520 --> 00:07:24.360
 So on both sides, all the way down until the CO2, all of that other stuff is local, and

00:07:24.360 --> 00:07:26.560
 then the CO2, you used air-cot?

00:07:26.560 --> 00:07:27.560
 Correct.

00:07:27.560 --> 00:07:30.560
 Yeah, just a blended amount.

00:07:30.560 --> 00:07:38.200
 It's the best I could do to get somewhat of a relative comparison of kilowatt for kilowatt

00:07:38.200 --> 00:07:39.200
 between the two.

00:07:39.200 --> 00:07:40.200
 Okay.

00:07:40.200 --> 00:07:41.200
 Thanks.

00:07:41.200 --> 00:07:42.200
 I'm sorry.

00:07:42.200 --> 00:07:43.200
 I do not know what you mean by blended.

00:07:43.200 --> 00:07:47.760
 So when you're looking at air-cot, it's all the transmission or generation sources.

00:07:47.760 --> 00:07:52.360
 So you have natural gas, you have coal, you have some nuclear.

00:07:52.360 --> 00:08:00.520
 So the blended reduction that you get for a kilowatt hour is the total tonnage of those

00:08:00.520 --> 00:08:02.080
 resources across that system.

00:08:02.080 --> 00:08:03.640
 Does that make sense?

00:08:03.640 --> 00:08:04.640
 Yeah.

00:08:04.640 --> 00:08:08.440
 So this is not exclusively a Denton-generated number?

00:08:08.440 --> 00:08:09.440
 No.

00:08:09.440 --> 00:08:10.440
 No, no, no.

00:08:10.440 --> 00:08:13.360
 Is there a Denton-generated number?

00:08:13.360 --> 00:08:19.240
 Well, the Denton-generated number is, again, we offset everything that we have with 100%

00:08:19.240 --> 00:08:20.240
 renewable.

00:08:20.240 --> 00:08:21.240
 So it's zero.

00:08:21.240 --> 00:08:24.720
 I have a question on that.

00:08:24.720 --> 00:08:31.680
 So on our community greenhouse numbers that we have, that's for Denton, is there a way

00:08:31.680 --> 00:08:37.480
 to use those, or no, does that not?

00:08:37.480 --> 00:08:40.720
 So you're talking about the carbon emission study right now that's going on?

00:08:40.720 --> 00:08:42.720
 I mean, I don't know if-

00:08:42.720 --> 00:08:44.760
 You're talking about our greenhouse gas inventory?

00:08:44.760 --> 00:08:45.760
 Yeah.

00:08:45.760 --> 00:08:49.120
 Isn't there a localized number there?

00:08:49.120 --> 00:08:51.440
 I'm just curious why it was-

00:08:51.440 --> 00:08:56.560
 So we use market mix, and blended is the same as what we call market mix in the greenhouse

00:08:56.560 --> 00:08:57.560
 gas inventory.

00:08:57.560 --> 00:08:58.560
 Okay.

00:08:58.560 --> 00:09:03.960
 And then we have the DME emissions factor, and we have the market emissions factor, which

00:09:03.960 --> 00:09:11.560
 is what we apply to co-serve and encore in the city of Denton, those meters in the city

00:09:11.560 --> 00:09:15.240
 of Denton, which we get that from those providers.

00:09:15.240 --> 00:09:23.320
 So the Denton is zero, and the others use the same kind of blended market mix that Bill's

00:09:23.320 --> 00:09:24.320
 talking about.

00:09:24.320 --> 00:09:26.720
 So that's how we apply it.

00:09:26.720 --> 00:09:29.680
 Bill, her cut's 28% renewable.

00:09:29.680 --> 00:09:31.200
 Thank you.

00:09:31.200 --> 00:09:36.640
 So the rest is fossil fuel, or nuclear.

00:09:36.640 --> 00:09:39.040
 You want to repeat what you just said into the mic, please?

00:09:39.040 --> 00:09:40.040
 Yes.

00:09:40.040 --> 00:09:45.280
 So her cut is 28% renewable across the entire grid, so the rest is fossil fuel.

00:09:45.280 --> 00:09:46.280
 Okay.

00:09:46.280 --> 00:09:47.280
 Or nuclear.

00:09:47.280 --> 00:09:48.280
 Or nuclear.

00:09:48.280 --> 00:09:49.280
 Or nuclear.

00:09:49.280 --> 00:09:50.280
 Correct.

00:09:50.280 --> 00:09:54.160
 Does anyone else have a question on this slide before we move on?

00:09:54.160 --> 00:09:55.160
 All right.

00:09:55.160 --> 00:09:56.160
 Thank you.

00:09:56.160 --> 00:09:57.160
 All right.

00:09:57.160 --> 00:10:03.320
 So it looks pretty small up there, but I'll just walk through the big components.

00:10:03.320 --> 00:10:08.880
 So we thought it would be a little bit informative for us to actually go through the components

00:10:08.880 --> 00:10:10.060
 of our bill.

00:10:10.060 --> 00:10:11.880
 So there's three primary components.

00:10:11.880 --> 00:10:14.240
 There's a facility cost or charge.

00:10:14.240 --> 00:10:19.100
 There's the energy charge, and then there's also the usage charge.

00:10:19.100 --> 00:10:24.040
 So that first one there, facility charge, that's a fixed cost per month, and that recovers

00:10:24.040 --> 00:10:30.960
 a lot of our fixed costs, like customer service, billing, meter reading, those kind of things,

00:10:30.960 --> 00:10:32.920
 programs that we offer to customers.

00:10:32.920 --> 00:10:39.600
 And then you have the usage charge, which also recovers fixed costs from our customers,

00:10:39.600 --> 00:10:45.320
 and that goes towards the lines and the wires and the distribution system that we're required

00:10:45.320 --> 00:10:50.800
 to have in place to provide services to those customers, no matter what they use.

00:10:50.800 --> 00:10:57.840
 Then the third component is the energy charge, which is the energy cost adjustment, or ECA.

00:10:57.840 --> 00:11:03.880
 And that's really a pass-through cost of the energy that we purchase to provide our customers.

00:11:03.880 --> 00:11:08.200
 And then the last component, which sort of falls in that same category, is the renewable

00:11:08.200 --> 00:11:10.720
 cost adjustment, RCA.

00:11:10.720 --> 00:11:16.040
 And that's the premium that we pay for a generation coming back from our customers.

00:11:16.040 --> 00:11:23.680
 So right now, with our ECA essentially being 100% renewable, we feel that that's the more

00:11:23.680 --> 00:11:31.120
 appropriate right now, is the 3.4 cents for a premium to customers for a generation of

00:11:31.120 --> 00:11:32.120
 solar.

00:11:32.120 --> 00:11:33.120
 Paul?

00:11:33.120 --> 00:11:39.960
 Yeah, maybe not the key focus here, but if the usage charge is mostly reflecting fixed

00:11:39.960 --> 00:11:43.080
 costs, why is it charged per kilowatt hour?

00:11:43.080 --> 00:11:45.080
 So that's a great question.

00:11:45.080 --> 00:11:46.800
 That's part of rate making.

00:11:46.800 --> 00:11:51.400
 So there's a science that goes into rate making and a little bit of art, too.

00:11:51.400 --> 00:11:56.920
 So we're assuming that most residential customers have a similar load factor.

00:11:56.920 --> 00:12:01.440
 We don't register their demand like we do for a commercial customer.

00:12:01.440 --> 00:12:04.900
 So we don't know how much energy they need at a certain time.

00:12:04.900 --> 00:12:11.200
 So we look at that entire base of customers collectively, and we apply a certain amount

00:12:11.200 --> 00:12:17.000
 of recovery for lines, and wires, and poles, and we base that on a kilowatt hour basis.

00:12:17.000 --> 00:12:23.480
 I see you base it on a kilowatt hour basis, but why if you don't do more of it because

00:12:23.480 --> 00:12:29.480
 people use more, if it is truly fixed, why do you do a kilowatt hour?

00:12:29.480 --> 00:12:36.040
 Back to the art piece of rate making, if the nirvana for a rate maker, the utility is to

00:12:36.040 --> 00:12:43.560
 charge fixed costs in a fixed way, and that would make that facility charge $62 a month.

00:12:43.560 --> 00:12:50.620
 So instead of recovering all of it through there, we put a lot of it in the usage amount

00:12:50.620 --> 00:12:55.960
 so we can recover more from some customers who use a lot of energy, and we can recover

00:12:55.960 --> 00:12:57.800
 less from the ones that use less.

00:12:57.800 --> 00:12:59.800
 So it's just, again, it's an art.

00:12:59.800 --> 00:13:00.800
 It's a cross-subsidy.

00:13:00.800 --> 00:13:01.800
 It's a cross-subsidy.

00:13:01.800 --> 00:13:06.280
 Yes, within that residential class.

00:13:06.280 --> 00:13:07.280
 Okay.

00:13:07.280 --> 00:13:08.280
 Yep.

00:13:08.280 --> 00:13:14.600
 Can I just ask, there's a rate study that goes into it, correct, and it's done, it's

00:13:14.600 --> 00:13:16.320
 updated every so often?

00:13:16.320 --> 00:13:21.960
 Yeah, every few years we'll do a cost of service study, and that gives us an idea of what that

00:13:21.960 --> 00:13:26.480
 looks like from a subsidization standpoint as well as a recovery.

00:13:26.480 --> 00:13:32.440
 Sometimes we're not recovering all those costs right now, the business customers are subsidizing

00:13:32.440 --> 00:13:37.960
 the residential customers to an extent.

00:13:37.960 --> 00:13:44.120
 So the reason why I put it up here is because, again, it's the fixed costs that we're really

00:13:44.120 --> 00:13:48.000
 concerned with on the solar programs moving forward.

00:13:48.000 --> 00:13:55.160
 So as more and more folks are putting in generation, that problem is going to compound itself and

00:13:55.160 --> 00:13:57.920
 get more serious for us.

00:13:57.920 --> 00:14:03.040
 So the charges that we're looking at, the ones that we're worried about are those fixed

00:14:03.040 --> 00:14:04.040
 cost recovery charges.

00:14:04.040 --> 00:14:09.400
 And we'll get a little bit more into detail in the next slide when we compare the two.

00:14:09.400 --> 00:14:11.760
 Somebody have a question?

00:14:11.760 --> 00:14:12.760
 No.

00:14:12.760 --> 00:14:13.760
 Okay.

00:14:13.760 --> 00:14:17.520
 All right, so here's a bill breakdown using those components that we just talked about.

00:14:17.520 --> 00:14:23.000
 The customer on the left is a non-solar customer using 1,000 kilowatt hours, and the customer

00:14:23.000 --> 00:14:28.480
 on the right is a residential customer that has solar that also uses 1,000 kilowatt hours

00:14:28.480 --> 00:14:29.480
 from us.

00:14:29.480 --> 00:14:32.720
 So as far as the system impact, they're identical.

00:14:32.720 --> 00:14:37.240
 We need the same type of resources and equipment to feed the one on the left as we do on the

00:14:37.240 --> 00:14:38.240
 right.

00:14:38.240 --> 00:14:42.280
 Now, the one on the left, they're paying a normal bill, so they're paying their facility

00:14:42.280 --> 00:14:46.320
 charge, they're paying their usage charge, and they're paying their energy charge, and

00:14:46.320 --> 00:14:50.280
 it's about $111 a month that that customer's paying.

00:14:50.280 --> 00:14:59.000
 Above that $111 a month, over 50% of that is really used for fixed cost recovery.

00:14:59.000 --> 00:15:00.640
 So keep that in mind.

00:15:00.640 --> 00:15:06.380
 Customer on the right, same type of deal, facility charge, 867, you see all their identical

00:15:06.380 --> 00:15:08.400
 on the left column there.

00:15:08.400 --> 00:15:12.560
 On the right side, though, they're sending 1,000 kilowatt hours back to us, and that

00:15:12.560 --> 00:15:19.000
 1,000 kilowatt hours we credit at a full retail rate of the usage charge, which is the 6,840,

00:15:19.000 --> 00:15:22.880
 but we also apply that RCA premium on top of that.

00:15:22.880 --> 00:15:26.880
 So their net bill is just under $5.

00:15:26.880 --> 00:15:32.320
 Same impact to the system, but now we're shorting ourselves that fixed cost recovery that we're

00:15:32.320 --> 00:15:35.560
 really looking for for our residential customers.

00:15:35.560 --> 00:15:41.960
 So that is the problem we're trying to address, and the way to address that is through two

00:15:41.960 --> 00:15:43.200
 different ways.

00:15:43.200 --> 00:15:48.240
 One is to address it through the facility charge and making that a more appropriate

00:15:48.240 --> 00:15:49.240
 charge.

00:15:49.240 --> 00:15:54.840
 The other way to address it is through paying a more appropriate rate for the energy coming

00:15:54.840 --> 00:15:55.840
 back to us.

00:15:55.840 --> 00:16:03.920
 So instead of that 6,840 plus the 3,810, place something in the 3.4 cents per kilowatt hour,

00:16:03.920 --> 00:16:06.640
 or the ECA equivalent, if that makes sense.

00:16:06.640 --> 00:16:11.680
 So those are the two ways that you can address the problem that we see moving forward, and

00:16:11.680 --> 00:16:16.200
 we'll get into a little bit more detail on that when we go into the options.

00:16:16.200 --> 00:16:18.240
 So these might look a little familiar to you.

00:16:18.240 --> 00:16:22.160
 The first three options are the ones that we discussed in August.

00:16:22.160 --> 00:16:26.320
 First option is really just do nothing and keep status quo.

00:16:26.320 --> 00:16:31.180
 We feel that that's not a sustainable option, but that is doing nothing.

00:16:31.180 --> 00:16:36.400
 The second option, if you also recall from our conversation last August, we talked about

00:16:36.400 --> 00:16:39.200
 the solar rebate itself as well.

00:16:39.200 --> 00:16:45.440
 So options two, three, and four sunset that solar rebate and channel those dollars to

00:16:45.440 --> 00:16:53.720
 the green sense programs to have a little bit more effective use of those funds.

00:16:53.720 --> 00:17:01.360
 Option two does just that, like I said, sunsets the rebates, but it leaves everything else

00:17:01.360 --> 00:17:02.360
 the same.

00:17:02.360 --> 00:17:07.480
 So that in and of itself is not going to fix our fixed cost issue that we're having, but

00:17:07.480 --> 00:17:11.120
 it does make a better use of the funds.

00:17:11.120 --> 00:17:14.400
 Option three is the one that we discussed in August.

00:17:14.400 --> 00:17:21.080
 So that's the one where we pay the appropriate rate for the energy coming back to us at 3.4

00:17:21.080 --> 00:17:27.280
 cents versus the 10.6 cents, which is a full retail amount.

00:17:27.280 --> 00:17:32.780
 It does a lot to help us with getting some of those fixed cost recovery back, especially

00:17:32.780 --> 00:17:39.640
 when the amount of energy that is flowing to us is almost doubling every year.

00:17:39.640 --> 00:17:44.920
 Option four is an option that we came up with after talking to you all and after having

00:17:44.920 --> 00:17:47.080
 some internal discussions.

00:17:47.080 --> 00:17:49.400
 Option four addresses that problem a different way.

00:17:49.400 --> 00:17:52.480
 What it does is addresses it through facility costs.

00:17:52.480 --> 00:17:59.360
 So it sunsets the rebate like we mentioned, channels those dollars to green sense, but

00:17:59.360 --> 00:18:05.680
 instead of getting rid of the amount that we're paying for solar coming back to us,

00:18:05.680 --> 00:18:11.320
 we're keeping that the same other than the fact that we will drop the RCA or the premium

00:18:11.320 --> 00:18:14.120
 and make it equivalent to the ECA.

00:18:14.120 --> 00:18:21.960
 But what we will do, say that fast five times, is start ratcheting up the facility charge

00:18:21.960 --> 00:18:29.120
 over the next five years to start recovering the full amount of the fixed costs associated

00:18:29.120 --> 00:18:30.620
 with that customer.

00:18:30.620 --> 00:18:36.080
 So I'll put it a little bit more detail with this slide here and it is our recommendation

00:18:36.080 --> 00:18:43.600
 moving forward, but you can see the phased in steps for the facility charge FY24 or next

00:18:43.600 --> 00:18:44.600
 October.

00:18:44.600 --> 00:18:52.820
 It would go from the 867 to the 1945 and then we will continue to bump that up until FY28,

00:18:52.820 --> 00:18:58.920
 which is when we'll have the full cost recovery for solar customers on our system.

00:18:58.920 --> 00:19:04.120
 Incidentally, we gave the same presentation to PUB just this past Monday.

00:19:04.120 --> 00:19:09.680
 They were favorable towards option three or option four, but they were leaning towards

00:19:09.680 --> 00:19:11.480
 option four.

00:19:11.480 --> 00:19:17.980
 So that's the, when we talked to you all last time, you were concerned about ripping the

00:19:17.980 --> 00:19:18.980
 Band-Aid off.

00:19:18.980 --> 00:19:23.800
 So we felt that this was a little bit more stepping into it as far as making some corrections

00:19:23.800 --> 00:19:27.680
 in the system.

00:19:27.680 --> 00:19:33.960
 So what we'd love to get from you all today along with another good discussion is really

00:19:33.960 --> 00:19:40.280
 here where you all are standing with respect to which option that you would support moving

00:19:40.280 --> 00:19:41.280
 forward.

00:19:41.280 --> 00:19:42.280
 And with that.

00:19:42.280 --> 00:19:43.280
 Okay.

00:19:43.280 --> 00:19:44.280
 So we'll open it up for discussion.

00:19:44.280 --> 00:19:45.280
 I'm going to go first.

00:19:45.280 --> 00:19:46.280
 Can I start with a question of clarification?

00:19:46.280 --> 00:19:47.280
 Yes, please.

00:19:47.280 --> 00:20:01.760
 On your second to last slide, if we can go back.

00:20:01.760 --> 00:20:05.440
 Just to be clear, the higher facility charges are for solar customers.

00:20:05.440 --> 00:20:06.440
 Right.

00:20:06.440 --> 00:20:12.280
 And what you're doing in effect then with them, back to Paul's point, is that usage

00:20:12.280 --> 00:20:17.640
 charge, if I remember what you're saying, you're actually making a fixed, over time

00:20:17.640 --> 00:20:22.160
 you're making that into one fixed charge for those customers.

00:20:22.160 --> 00:20:23.160
 Correct.

00:20:23.160 --> 00:20:24.160
 Okay.

00:20:24.160 --> 00:20:25.160
 All right.

00:20:25.160 --> 00:20:26.160
 That was my question.

00:20:26.160 --> 00:20:27.160
 Thanks.

00:20:27.160 --> 00:20:34.440
 For clarification, from what I just heard, the higher facility charge is just for solar

00:20:34.440 --> 00:20:35.440
 customers?

00:20:35.440 --> 00:20:36.440
 Yes.

00:20:36.440 --> 00:20:44.680
 Now what it does not do, however, is reflect on whatever changes that we might need to

00:20:44.680 --> 00:20:47.200
 make for the overall customer base as well.

00:20:47.200 --> 00:20:51.480
 As a result of a cost of service study or whatnot, because right now I can tell you

00:20:51.480 --> 00:20:57.400
 that our facility charge is a little light, and you know, it might need to be looked at

00:20:57.400 --> 00:20:58.400
 to go up.

00:20:58.400 --> 00:21:02.800
 But as of right now, this is just looking at solar customers.

00:21:02.800 --> 00:21:07.800
 Paul?

00:21:07.800 --> 00:21:11.400
 I need a little help.

00:21:11.400 --> 00:21:16.680
 There are a lot of sort of equity issues here and economic issues that are important to

00:21:16.680 --> 00:21:22.520
 be sorted out, and ultimately we have to counsel to do that.

00:21:22.520 --> 00:21:28.760
 The job of this group is, as I understand it, is how to maximize the sustainability

00:21:28.760 --> 00:21:33.360
 impact that we have in the community.

00:21:33.360 --> 00:21:38.660
 There's a side of the argument I've just never really heard completely, but I feel like it's

00:21:38.660 --> 00:21:42.040
 kind of missing here.

00:21:42.040 --> 00:21:47.640
 This side, I understand completely, and it's crystal clear as presented that we're already

00:21:47.640 --> 00:21:50.600
 providing energy that's offset by renewables.

00:21:50.600 --> 00:21:56.400
 Why would we be subsidizing creation of different renewables, especially at a higher rate?

00:21:56.400 --> 00:22:02.480
 The part that keeps itching my brain is, don't we ultimately need, I mean we, you know, broadly

00:22:02.480 --> 00:22:09.080
 collectively, not just Denton, don't we ultimately need to bring much more renewable capture

00:22:09.080 --> 00:22:10.080
 online?

00:22:10.080 --> 00:22:15.500
 You know, sort of as a society, we know we need that.

00:22:15.500 --> 00:22:18.400
 It's hard for me to connect the dots, but I'm just putting this out there in the hope that

00:22:18.400 --> 00:22:24.040
 somebody in the room will be able to say, what is the, if there is one, what is the

00:22:24.040 --> 00:22:35.360
 environmental benefit of subsidizing more rooftop solar that reduces our demand to ERCOT,

00:22:35.360 --> 00:22:42.600
 but it's solar for wind or solar for solar, but it is bringing more renewable capacity

00:22:42.600 --> 00:22:47.840
 into existence, and is there any benefit to that or not?

00:22:47.840 --> 00:22:54.240
 I have kind of a hard time thinking it through, and I'd love to hear thoughts on that.

00:22:54.240 --> 00:22:57.040
 There's certainly an environmental benefit, looks like Mr. Nolte wants to mention something

00:22:57.040 --> 00:23:02.160
 too, but I did want to also mention that, you know, this doesn't preclude customers

00:23:02.160 --> 00:23:04.440
 from tying onto our system.

00:23:04.440 --> 00:23:11.440
 It's just bringing that amount that we're paying back to them more in line with not

00:23:11.440 --> 00:23:12.440
 subsidizing the rest of the system.

00:23:12.440 --> 00:23:15.440
 Hey, I can figure that part out with you all day, that's a different question.

00:23:15.440 --> 00:23:20.440
 But is there a reason why we're getting rid of the rebate?

00:23:20.440 --> 00:23:26.020
 Is it that, I mean, like why don't we want to still allow rebates for solar if we figure

00:23:26.020 --> 00:23:30.440
 out the cost adjustment?

00:23:30.440 --> 00:23:36.080
 Like just getting rid of them totally for solar is, you know, when we're talking about

00:23:36.080 --> 00:23:41.520
 the benefit and the capacity and going back and having more rooftop.

00:23:41.520 --> 00:23:46.400
 It's really based on the effectiveness of that dollar spent and we feel that it can

00:23:46.400 --> 00:23:53.000
 be spent better for greensense programs that actually reduce usage versus offset usage

00:23:53.000 --> 00:24:00.640
 that we're already providing renewable energy for, but the cost of solar has gone down tremendously

00:24:00.640 --> 00:24:08.320
 and we don't feel that it's no longer necessary for us to incentivize it because it's already,

00:24:08.320 --> 00:24:13.520
 the systems are already cheaper, as well as the federal government's providing a 30% tax

00:24:13.520 --> 00:24:16.320
 credit on top of that system cost too.

00:24:16.320 --> 00:24:22.720
 So I feel that if we're trying to spend our dollars the best we can and get the most bang

00:24:22.720 --> 00:24:27.120
 for the buck, it's better to channel those back to the greensense program.

00:24:27.120 --> 00:24:30.120
 That's what we feel.

00:24:30.120 --> 00:24:35.120
 Terry, if you want to address.

00:24:35.120 --> 00:24:41.120
 So I think that the recommendation on the rebate is really focused on what this committee

00:24:41.120 --> 00:24:44.620
 is about, which is sustainability.

00:24:44.620 --> 00:24:49.620
 And the biggest sustainability bang for the buck that you're going to achieve is to take

00:24:49.620 --> 00:24:55.840
 these funds and spend them on other greensense programs because they provide more overall

00:24:55.840 --> 00:24:58.360
 sustainability benefit to the community.

00:24:58.360 --> 00:25:02.520
 We're already providing 100% renewable energy to the community.

00:25:02.520 --> 00:25:09.520
 And so if we can divert those dollars into energy efficiency, that demand never even

00:25:09.520 --> 00:25:11.520
 shows up, for example.

00:25:11.520 --> 00:25:19.520
 And that energy efficiency benefit is zero carbon and goes to offset other sources of

00:25:19.520 --> 00:25:22.520
 emissions that may be taking place in the community.

00:25:22.520 --> 00:25:25.520
 So that's kind of the rationale from a pure sustainability.

00:25:25.520 --> 00:25:28.520
 I think Bill's arguments are valid.

00:25:28.520 --> 00:25:39.520
 They address kind of the economics, the financial impacts of this to the utility, because obviously

00:25:39.520 --> 00:25:46.520
 that money that we spend and the higher rate that we compensate for the pushback of energy

00:25:46.520 --> 00:25:49.520
 to our system creates additional rate pressure.

00:25:49.520 --> 00:25:57.520
 And it also creates cross-subsidies within the residential rate class, for example, from

00:25:57.520 --> 00:26:02.520
 those customers who don't have rooftop solar.

00:26:02.520 --> 00:26:09.520
 They're effectively subsidizing that under recovery of fixed cost that we're not getting

00:26:09.520 --> 00:26:14.520
 from the customers who do have rooftop solar.

00:26:14.520 --> 00:26:25.520
 To Mr. Meltzer's question, there is a benefit to continue to build renewable rooftop solar

00:26:25.520 --> 00:26:28.520
 in our community, and you've correctly identified it.

00:26:28.520 --> 00:26:31.520
 It's the reduction in demand.

00:26:31.520 --> 00:26:41.520
 It's not the power supply cost that it offsets directly, because a rooftop solar facility

00:26:41.520 --> 00:26:53.520
 that's put onto our system, we cannot rateably guarantee when that energy is going to be

00:26:53.520 --> 00:26:59.520
 delivered, and so from an overall portfolio management perspective, we have to procure

00:26:59.520 --> 00:27:02.520
 that energy anyway.

00:27:02.520 --> 00:27:08.520
 In real time, if the solar generators on top of rooftops do in fact generate, it reduces

00:27:08.520 --> 00:27:21.520
 our demand, but because we don't know when that's going to happen, when exactly they're

00:27:21.520 --> 00:27:28.520
 going to be pushing energy back to us, and it's randomness because of the use by the

00:27:28.520 --> 00:27:34.520
 household, so during those hours when that energy has the most value to us, it's also

00:27:34.520 --> 00:27:38.520
 the point in time in which the household is consuming more energy.

00:27:38.520 --> 00:27:43.520
 It's during the heat of the summer and the afternoon, and that's when power prices are

00:27:43.520 --> 00:27:44.520
 the highest.

00:27:44.520 --> 00:27:53.520
 So I'm having to buy that really high-priced energy to effectively offset what would theoretically

00:27:53.520 --> 00:27:57.520
 could have been sort of provided by the rooftop solar.

00:27:57.520 --> 00:28:04.520
 We would prefer, and it's more economic for the old tire rate base, to buy that from a

00:28:04.520 --> 00:28:15.520
 utility-scale solar facility, which ends up being 90% less costly than the energy that

00:28:15.520 --> 00:28:19.520
 would be generated from rooftop solar.

00:28:19.520 --> 00:28:27.520
 It does reduce demand, and as the market is being redesigned, that may have more value

00:28:27.520 --> 00:28:29.520
 to us in the future.

00:28:29.520 --> 00:28:35.520
 It doesn't have a lot of value to us today because of the randomness of this, the uncertainty

00:28:35.520 --> 00:28:37.520
 of when it's going to show up.

00:28:37.520 --> 00:28:45.520
 If it doesn't show up during four particular hours of the year, which happen to be correlated

00:28:45.520 --> 00:28:52.520
 very, very tightly with the highest temperatures and the highest energy consumption, then it

00:28:52.520 --> 00:28:54.520
 really has no value to us.

00:28:54.520 --> 00:28:56.520
 Does that make sense to you?

00:28:56.520 --> 00:29:09.520
 In general, renewables have a lack of predictability, but you manage to model them.

00:29:09.520 --> 00:29:16.520
 If you're modeling for one household, the randomness would be really hard to deal with.

00:29:16.520 --> 00:29:24.520
 But you have an installed base, and just to be a little snarky, I hear extra lines on

00:29:24.520 --> 00:29:27.520
 the sheets are going at a good price these days.

00:29:27.520 --> 00:29:31.520
 So why would that be intrinsically not modelable?

00:29:31.520 --> 00:29:38.520
 It is, if we had access to the data, but we don't have the granularity of the data from

00:29:38.520 --> 00:29:43.520
 our metering system to be able to actually quantify what that is.

00:29:43.520 --> 00:29:52.520
 Because we have no way to capture, for each rooftop solar facility, with the 15-minute,

00:29:52.520 --> 00:29:58.520
 or five-minute incremental balances with the demand of the house.

00:29:58.520 --> 00:30:03.520
 That's a technology limitation that we have in our metering system.

00:30:03.520 --> 00:30:06.520
 Did you miss me?

00:30:06.520 --> 00:30:07.520
 I do.

00:30:07.520 --> 00:30:08.520
 I certainly do.

00:30:08.520 --> 00:30:10.520
 I enjoy your questions always.

00:30:10.520 --> 00:30:11.520
 Go ahead, Adam.

00:30:11.520 --> 00:30:16.520
 Well, they're asking for our feedback where we stand on it, so I want to just share my

00:30:16.520 --> 00:30:18.520
 opinion on this, if I can.

00:30:18.520 --> 00:30:19.520
 Yeah, sure.

00:30:19.520 --> 00:30:21.520
 I have a couple questions, too.

00:30:21.520 --> 00:30:26.520
 Well, it may come packaged with a question, but when I was reading through this, I thought

00:30:26.520 --> 00:30:29.520
 there's two ways to read this.

00:30:29.520 --> 00:30:32.520
 One, it seems pretty clear if we state the big picture.

00:30:32.520 --> 00:30:36.520
 And two, you can fall into a rabbit hole with a lot of details and it gets murky.

00:30:36.520 --> 00:30:41.520
 And I don't know how much time to spend on each one, but to me, on the big picture, it's

00:30:41.520 --> 00:30:45.520
 clear, at least with the rebates, that we get more bang for our buck spending our money

00:30:45.520 --> 00:30:47.520
 elsewhere.

00:30:47.520 --> 00:30:53.520
 The restructuring of the billing, I don't know how to do it, but it seems clear that

00:30:53.520 --> 00:30:55.520
 we've got to either do option three or four.

00:30:55.520 --> 00:31:01.520
 So I just think we could sit here and debate the finer points of all of this.

00:31:01.520 --> 00:31:07.520
 But to me, just laying it out there, it's clear the numbers speak for themselves about

00:31:07.520 --> 00:31:10.520
 how we spend that rebate.

00:31:10.520 --> 00:31:17.520
 And I'm less steady on the net billing stuff, but it sounds like that needs to get solved.

00:31:17.520 --> 00:31:19.520
 And I kind of like this phasing in.

00:31:19.520 --> 00:31:23.520
 That's what we had asked for, and if that's the way it could be done.

00:31:23.520 --> 00:31:26.520
 So that's just kind of where I stand on it.

00:31:26.520 --> 00:31:27.520
 Option four?

00:31:27.520 --> 00:31:28.520
 Mm-hmm.

00:31:28.520 --> 00:31:29.520
 All right.

00:31:29.520 --> 00:31:36.520
 If I may add one more thing, one more point that I forgot to mention is I think it was

00:31:36.520 --> 00:31:39.520
 Mr. Sofe that was talking about batteries.

00:31:39.520 --> 00:31:44.520
 So as the battery costs get cheaper, we're going to see more battery systems come on

00:31:44.520 --> 00:31:48.520
 with new and existing systems.

00:31:48.520 --> 00:31:55.520
 So another argument for option four is that would take that into effect and still recover

00:31:55.520 --> 00:31:56.520
 our fixed costs.

00:31:56.520 --> 00:32:04.520
 Because if we go to a -- or if we stick with a -- just a cost base and the energy flowing

00:32:04.520 --> 00:32:08.520
 back to us and paying a smaller amount, well, when somebody has a battery, we're not going

00:32:08.520 --> 00:32:10.520
 to see anything flow back to us.

00:32:10.520 --> 00:32:15.520
 So that customer is going to be stuck paying or not stuck, but that customer will be paying

00:32:15.520 --> 00:32:20.520
 that small facility charge, and we won't be able to recover it all through any kind of

00:32:20.520 --> 00:32:24.520
 reduction in the amount of energy coming back to us, if that makes sense.

00:32:24.520 --> 00:32:31.520
 So option four really brings that charge into where it needs to be, which is the facility

00:32:31.520 --> 00:32:32.520
 charge.

00:32:32.520 --> 00:32:42.520
 Yeah, I was asking about the batteries because there's a new program, which I'm sure you're

00:32:42.520 --> 00:32:51.520
 aware of, that ERCOT has just issued a pilot program on virtual power plants and the idea

00:32:51.520 --> 00:32:55.520
 of -- it's like a community solar grid.

00:32:55.520 --> 00:33:05.520
 And I could see how, with greater growth in batteries and, of course, solar systems, how

00:33:05.520 --> 00:33:11.520
 the load could be made more reliable.

00:33:11.520 --> 00:33:18.520
 And to me, when I look ahead, I understand the -- well, sort of understand the economics

00:33:18.520 --> 00:33:28.520
 of it, but when I look at ERCOT and the fragility of the grid, I'm also concerned about doing

00:33:28.520 --> 00:33:37.520
 whatever the city can to ensure the reliability of its -- for its customers by utilizing whatever

00:33:37.520 --> 00:33:48.520
 alternative energy techniques or facilities that they can to -- when the grid gets funny,

00:33:48.520 --> 00:33:51.520
 you know, DME can come to the rescue.

00:33:51.520 --> 00:33:53.520
 But you know what I'm talking about?

00:33:53.520 --> 00:33:54.520
 Not particularly.

00:33:54.520 --> 00:33:56.520
 It's your main language.

00:33:56.520 --> 00:34:03.520
 But I'm looking -- I'm looking further in that -- to further -- because that would truly

00:34:03.520 --> 00:34:09.520
 further the sustainability character of our community.

00:34:09.520 --> 00:34:11.520
 Yeah.

00:34:11.520 --> 00:34:17.520
 I mean, you're always -- you're always current on what's happening, and I appreciate that.

00:34:17.520 --> 00:34:24.520
 And within the ERCOT market, the distributed energy resource initiative that's ongoing

00:34:24.520 --> 00:34:32.520
 won't mainly be pushed by Tesla because of their battery business.

00:34:32.520 --> 00:34:33.520
 It's in its infancy.

00:34:33.520 --> 00:34:37.520
 And really, there's a lot of uncertainty about the rules yet.

00:34:37.520 --> 00:34:41.520
 There's a proceeding before the PUCT right now on it.

00:34:41.520 --> 00:34:49.520
 And as it's currently structured, while this may not be germane to what the strategy and

00:34:49.520 --> 00:34:56.520
 policy issues are for the city, municipals will likely -- are most likely exempt from

00:34:56.520 --> 00:34:59.520
 those rules because of statutory limitations.

00:34:59.520 --> 00:35:05.520
 So what we decide to do as a community with respect to batteries and distributed energy

00:35:05.520 --> 00:35:10.520
 resources will be a policy decision that the council will ultimately have to make.

00:35:10.520 --> 00:35:12.520
 Right.

00:35:12.520 --> 00:35:15.520
 Will it be significant is the real question.

00:35:15.520 --> 00:35:20.520
 And you know, I think the number, Bill, is we have about two megawatts of installed rooftop

00:35:20.520 --> 00:35:22.520
 solar capacity now.

00:35:22.520 --> 00:35:29.520
 And we serve, you know, about 400 megawatts of peak demand.

00:35:29.520 --> 00:35:35.520
 So that two megawatts because of that uncertainty about when it's delivered and the fact that

00:35:35.520 --> 00:35:41.520
 if we were able to access the data, we would find out that it's not coincident with the

00:35:41.520 --> 00:35:46.520
 peak demand, that 400 megawatts of peak demand.

00:35:46.520 --> 00:35:52.520
 So unless it becomes a significantly larger component of the overall supply portfolio

00:35:52.520 --> 00:35:59.520
 that we have, it's really not going to move the needle in terms of reliability and resiliency.

00:35:59.520 --> 00:36:06.520
 It could if there's a high penetration within a community, you know, a microgrid, if you

00:36:06.520 --> 00:36:09.520
 would, within the community.

00:36:09.520 --> 00:36:13.520
 But right now we don't see that happening.

00:36:13.520 --> 00:36:18.520
 And I would say that it's many years away from being a reality.

00:36:18.520 --> 00:36:24.520
 So I think as you guys debate this and try to figure out what you're going to do, you

00:36:24.520 --> 00:36:30.520
 know, just remember that you've got plenty of time as you see that develop to amend whatever

00:36:30.520 --> 00:36:33.520
 policy and plan to put in place now.

00:36:33.520 --> 00:36:38.520
 I would hate to see you, you know, make a recommendation or the council make a recommendation

00:36:38.520 --> 00:36:43.520
 based upon something that may happen in the future.

00:36:43.520 --> 00:36:50.520
 And count on it to have some either sustainability benefit or some financial benefit.

00:36:50.520 --> 00:36:58.520
 I think it's important to begin the discussion now because there's not that much time left.

00:36:58.520 --> 00:37:03.520
 According to, you know, getting ahead of this and remaining, being able to adapt to what's

00:37:03.520 --> 00:37:08.520
 coming down the pipe, if the scientific projections are correct.

00:37:08.520 --> 00:37:09.520
 Yeah.

00:37:09.520 --> 00:37:15.520
 My point simply is that if we were to come up with a component of this that dealt with

00:37:15.520 --> 00:37:22.520
 distributed energy resources, premised upon a certain assumption about how economics are

00:37:22.520 --> 00:37:27.520
 going to work and what the impact is, and then two years from now when they do finalize

00:37:27.520 --> 00:37:30.520
 the regulations, it's completely different.

00:37:30.520 --> 00:37:33.520
 We'd have to come back and redo it.

00:37:33.520 --> 00:37:34.520
 Oh, sure.

00:37:34.520 --> 00:37:35.520
 Yeah.

00:37:35.520 --> 00:37:36.520
 Thank you.

00:37:36.520 --> 00:37:40.520
 Mr. Holti, while you're up here, I have a question maybe better directed at you because

00:37:40.520 --> 00:37:45.520
 we keep talking about 100% renewable and the solar isn't necessarily as needed.

00:37:45.520 --> 00:37:47.520
 But for me, that's actual physical energy.

00:37:47.520 --> 00:37:53.520
 And we know that population is increasing significantly, especially in the city of Denton

00:37:53.520 --> 00:37:56.520
 and in DMV customers.

00:37:56.520 --> 00:38:03.520
 So are we prepared for future growth and the demand increase for capacity on the 100% renewable?

00:38:03.520 --> 00:38:06.520
 I mean, are we planning for that?

00:38:06.520 --> 00:38:07.520
 We are.

00:38:07.520 --> 00:38:14.520
 I mean, because for me, the rooftop solar is a physical energy and it helps offset demand.

00:38:14.520 --> 00:38:20.520
 And so the more we have in the city, the better it just seems like.

00:38:20.520 --> 00:38:24.520
 I know you're familiar with the Denton renewable resource plan.

00:38:24.520 --> 00:38:25.520
 Right.

00:38:25.520 --> 00:38:32.520
 And so later this year, we'll be bringing a new version, a proposed new version that

00:38:32.520 --> 00:38:39.520
 will take into account the contribution from rooftop solar because it now is two megawatts

00:38:39.520 --> 00:38:40.520
 and it's going to grow.

00:38:40.520 --> 00:38:43.520
 And with batteries, as Bill said, it will continue to grow.

00:38:43.520 --> 00:38:50.520
 So how do we recognize that in the accounting of our 100% renewable?

00:38:50.520 --> 00:38:55.520
 Because if you're correct, that's physical energy that's actually being generated in

00:38:55.520 --> 00:38:56.520
 the community.

00:38:56.520 --> 00:38:57.520
 That is 100% renewable.

00:38:57.520 --> 00:38:58.520
 Right.

00:38:58.520 --> 00:38:59.520
 And so we will take that into account.

00:38:59.520 --> 00:39:00.520
 Okay.

00:39:00.520 --> 00:39:06.520
 And of course, we'll be back in front of this board with that Denton renewable resource

00:39:06.520 --> 00:39:09.520
 plan rewrite for your input and comments.

00:39:09.520 --> 00:39:10.520
 Okay.

00:39:10.520 --> 00:39:11.520
 Thank you.

00:39:11.520 --> 00:39:17.520
 And on that note, Catherine, do we feel like if these rebates disappear completely that

00:39:17.520 --> 00:39:20.520
 the solar roof top generation will decline?

00:39:20.520 --> 00:39:27.520
 I mean, like are the rebates not being used or do we not have enough people signing up

00:39:27.520 --> 00:39:28.520
 for it?

00:39:28.520 --> 00:39:34.520
 The solar rebate is being used and Bill, if I'm remembering the numbers correctly, the

00:39:34.520 --> 00:39:39.520
 last two years we've had as many installed without a rebate as were installed with a

00:39:39.520 --> 00:39:40.520
 rebate.

00:39:40.520 --> 00:39:41.520
 More.

00:39:41.520 --> 00:39:42.520
 More now.

00:39:42.520 --> 00:39:43.520
 Okay.

00:39:43.520 --> 00:39:47.520
 I think the doors that three years ago in the last two years we've really moved into

00:39:47.520 --> 00:39:53.520
 that isn't the deciding factor for a lot of folks that are installing it.

00:39:53.520 --> 00:39:54.520
 Okay.

00:39:54.520 --> 00:39:59.520
 And out of our peer compares, only us in Austin are still rebating our systems and Austin

00:39:59.520 --> 00:40:00.520
 has reduced it.

00:40:00.520 --> 00:40:04.520
 CoServe recently stopped paying a rebate as well.

00:40:04.520 --> 00:40:05.520
 Okay.

00:40:05.520 --> 00:40:12.520
 And just one more question on the rebates as we talk about, I think in there the money

00:40:12.520 --> 00:40:16.520
 would go to other rebates for sustainability.

00:40:16.520 --> 00:40:22.520
 Is there a possibility, and it may not be okay to talk about that at this point on the

00:40:22.520 --> 00:40:28.520
 agenda, but for rebates to go to battery systems instead of the actual solar systems?

00:40:28.520 --> 00:40:30.520
 Has that been discussed or?

00:40:30.520 --> 00:40:35.520
 I mean, the slate is clear and we can continue to work with the sustainability folks to figure

00:40:35.520 --> 00:40:39.520
 out where the best place is for those dollars.

00:40:39.520 --> 00:40:42.520
 So, yeah, that can certainly be an option.

00:40:42.520 --> 00:40:43.520
 Okay.

00:40:43.520 --> 00:40:44.520
 All right.

00:40:44.520 --> 00:40:45.520
 Ed, did you have anything?

00:40:45.520 --> 00:40:46.520
 No.

00:40:46.520 --> 00:40:47.520
 I got it.

00:40:47.520 --> 00:40:48.520
 Okay.

00:40:48.520 --> 00:40:49.520
 All right.

00:40:49.520 --> 00:40:50.520
 Brent?

00:40:50.520 --> 00:40:56.520
 Yeah, I'd like to vocalize a little direction as well, kind of along the same lines as Adam.

00:40:56.520 --> 00:41:01.520
 Phase four, or option four, is along the lines of what we had asked for at your last presentation,

00:41:01.520 --> 00:41:06.520
 so I appreciate your packaging something together that reflects a lot of the feedback that you

00:41:06.520 --> 00:41:08.520
 received from that last presentation.

00:41:08.520 --> 00:41:16.520
 We spoke a lot as well about the grandfathering and these legacy solar users, and I'm just

00:41:16.520 --> 00:41:21.520
 wondering, and this is just my only question, do you envision any means or mechanism that

00:41:21.520 --> 00:41:27.520
 we have in the interest of protecting those customers who a decade ago we said, "This

00:41:27.520 --> 00:41:31.520
 was something we as a city want to incentivize within the community.

00:41:31.520 --> 00:41:35.520
 Here's the pocket of money that we're going to direct toward this," and those residents

00:41:35.520 --> 00:41:38.520
 that said, "You know what, I think I'd like to do this.

00:41:38.520 --> 00:41:40.520
 I'd like to adopt that incentive.

00:41:40.520 --> 00:41:45.520
 I'd like to install this system," and you profiled that as being a near 20-year commitment

00:41:45.520 --> 00:41:49.520
 on the financing of those systems at the last presentation, and here we are about halfway

00:41:49.520 --> 00:41:55.520
 through that financing period and saying we're going to cut the tap off for what we're assisting

00:41:55.520 --> 00:42:01.520
 them in doing of what we asked of them a decade ago, and so I don't see any protections built

00:42:01.520 --> 00:42:06.520
 into option four, and I'm just wondering if you envision any mechanism whatsoever in which

00:42:06.520 --> 00:42:13.520
 that could be incorporated for those legacy users, but protecting the financial sustainability

00:42:13.520 --> 00:42:18.520
 of DME in the long term by phasing off that pot of money that we're allocating because

00:42:18.520 --> 00:42:23.520
 it no longer makes the most bang for a buck in reducing that demand, as you said, instead

00:42:23.520 --> 00:42:25.520
 of just offsetting.

00:42:25.520 --> 00:42:32.520
 That's a great question, and grandfathering is an option, albeit it be a very difficult

00:42:32.520 --> 00:42:36.520
 option with our current billing system, so you have two things there.

00:42:36.520 --> 00:42:42.520
 You have a technical -- I don't want to stay constrained, but challenge from a billing

00:42:42.520 --> 00:42:48.520
 system standpoint, and then you also have an administrative challenge from trying to

00:42:48.520 --> 00:42:54.520
 track these systems through whatever period we make that grandfathering period at, whether

00:42:54.520 --> 00:42:57.520
 it's 5, 10, or 15 years or forever.

00:42:57.520 --> 00:43:05.520
 It's just going to continue to be a challenge to manage as we move forward, but it's certainly

00:43:05.520 --> 00:43:10.520
 something that I anticipate is going to come up in the city council conversations as well,

00:43:10.520 --> 00:43:19.520
 so I think the jury's still out on that, but yes, it is something that is top on our minds

00:43:19.520 --> 00:43:23.520
 because there are going to be a lot of customers out there that aren't going to be happy when

00:43:23.520 --> 00:43:24.520
 we change the program.

00:43:24.520 --> 00:43:26.520
 Ed has another question.

00:43:26.520 --> 00:43:37.520
 Yeah, on the California plan that was recently passed, grandfather's existing -- and people,

00:43:37.520 --> 00:43:43.520
 the California plan removed that majoring, and the people who -- what they've done is

00:43:43.520 --> 00:43:50.520
 they've put in a grandfathering of people who already have their systems.

00:43:50.520 --> 00:44:00.520
 They give them 20 years from the date of their installation as a grandfather's period before

00:44:00.520 --> 00:44:09.520
 their net metering is taken away from them, and if California, which has over a million

00:44:09.520 --> 00:44:16.520
 solar installations, can work out a program like that, I would think that we could find

00:44:16.520 --> 00:44:21.520
 ways to do that as well.

00:44:21.520 --> 00:44:31.520
 As a solar owner, I'm thinking for other people that they're going to be severely shocked

00:44:31.520 --> 00:44:40.520
 when they learn this, especially those of us who took advantage, although I didn't take

00:44:40.520 --> 00:44:46.520
 advantage of the program, the program is the result of our solar system being put in almost

00:44:46.520 --> 00:44:55.520
 17 years ago, and I know a lot of people who have obviously made use of these rebates and

00:44:55.520 --> 00:45:07.520
 incentives, and to just pull this out from under their feet is not good, basically, and

00:45:07.520 --> 00:45:13.520
 one can make whatever excuses they want, you can juggle numbers any way you want, but that's

00:45:13.520 --> 00:45:21.520
 just bad business, and I say that as a vested interest as a solar owner.

00:45:21.520 --> 00:45:31.520
 So I would really appreciate it if you would really look into some sort of grandfathering

00:45:31.520 --> 00:45:41.520
 policy, or at least something that does it gradually rather than these huge amounts year

00:45:41.520 --> 00:45:42.520
 by year.

00:45:42.520 --> 00:45:46.520
 I mean, my child, you should have heard what my wife said.

00:45:46.520 --> 00:45:49.520
 Are you not in favor of any of the options?

00:45:49.520 --> 00:45:55.520
 I'm in favor of option four if there is a grandfather.

00:45:55.520 --> 00:46:02.520
 And the point you make is a very valid one, and that is why we're here in front of you

00:46:02.520 --> 00:46:05.520
 now, before it becomes a huge issue.

00:46:05.520 --> 00:46:11.520
 We're talking about 605 systems that have gotten the rebate, but overall we're talking

00:46:11.520 --> 00:46:17.520
 about a little over 1,000 systems that have benefited by our rate structure so far.

00:46:17.520 --> 00:46:23.520
 So we will certainly have those conversations, have a deeper dive with customer service from

00:46:23.520 --> 00:46:28.520
 the billing standpoint, those technical constraints.

00:46:28.520 --> 00:46:34.520
 But again, I fully anticipate that being a big talking point in city council as well.

00:46:34.520 --> 00:46:39.520
 So I have two members, option four is for grandfathering discussions.

00:46:39.520 --> 00:46:45.520
 Adam, just option four, or are you interested in also the grandfathering?

00:46:45.520 --> 00:46:50.520
 I'm also interested in the grandfathering if it's possible.

00:46:50.520 --> 00:46:51.520
 Paul?

00:46:51.520 --> 00:46:56.520
 Yeah, my starting point, just based on the presentation, was four.

00:46:56.520 --> 00:46:58.520
 It's crystal clear.

00:46:58.520 --> 00:47:03.520
 The point of my inquiry before was to make sure I was hearing whether there was an opposing

00:47:03.520 --> 00:47:09.520
 case that wasn't in there, and the fact that you all found that persuasive was meaningful

00:47:09.520 --> 00:47:10.520
 to me.

00:47:10.520 --> 00:47:14.520
 And the grandfathering, I think, makes sense in terms of keeping faith with people who

00:47:14.520 --> 00:47:18.520
 took a deal based on a set of assumptions.

00:47:18.520 --> 00:47:25.520
 The one thing that's not that is intriguing to me, Kelly, was your comment about what

00:47:25.520 --> 00:47:28.520
 if the subsidy was strictly for battery?

00:47:28.520 --> 00:47:35.520
 And I wonder if we might hear in the future, or if it's not possible to hear now, if the

00:47:35.520 --> 00:47:41.520
 calculation is different in terms of the benefit for the dollar if it was just subsidizing

00:47:41.520 --> 00:47:44.520
 the battery.

00:47:44.520 --> 00:47:49.520
 Well, and I don't want to speak for sustainability because we certainly have to have some conversations

00:47:49.520 --> 00:47:55.520
 around that, but at the point that a customer installs a battery, now they can impact their

00:47:55.520 --> 00:47:57.520
 peak demand on our system.

00:47:57.520 --> 00:48:01.520
 So it's certainly something worth looking at.

00:48:01.520 --> 00:48:03.520
 Go ahead.

00:48:03.520 --> 00:48:10.520
 So back to the, I mean, the way I understand the big picture is that we have 100% renewable

00:48:10.520 --> 00:48:12.520
 coming in now.

00:48:12.520 --> 00:48:18.520
 So this pot of money, the rebates, where we're still-- so if you put this in line of our

00:48:18.520 --> 00:48:26.520
 climate action plan, we want to get to net zero by 2050, none of this-- well, this sort

00:48:26.520 --> 00:48:28.520
 of touches transportation in an interesting way.

00:48:28.520 --> 00:48:34.520
 But what this really touches is the housing sector, right, building sector, where we directly

00:48:34.520 --> 00:48:37.520
 are consuming fossil fuels, right?

00:48:37.520 --> 00:48:44.520
 So it seems like this-- I think the main point is that money for any program that makes us

00:48:44.520 --> 00:48:50.520
 consume fewer fossil fuels directly is just making more of a bank for a buck, right?

00:48:50.520 --> 00:48:52.520
 That's the main point.

00:48:52.520 --> 00:48:54.520
 I just don't want to lose sight of that.

00:48:54.520 --> 00:49:02.520
 So batteries are great in Denton, but a battery is still-- it's already in this loop of 100%

00:49:02.520 --> 00:49:08.520
 renewables, so I don't see how it's-- that's why I haven't put rooftops over on mine.

00:49:08.520 --> 00:49:09.520
 In fact, it was your question.

00:49:09.520 --> 00:49:12.520
 Like, well, there's maybe some-- but I don't know.

00:49:12.520 --> 00:49:14.520
 I feel like we could spend that money on insulation.

00:49:14.520 --> 00:49:19.520
 And then we're just sort of scaling that logic up to a whole city.

00:49:19.520 --> 00:49:20.520
 Yeah.

00:49:20.520 --> 00:49:23.520
 Unless there's gas conversions and things like that.

00:49:23.520 --> 00:49:24.520
 Yeah.

00:49:24.520 --> 00:49:31.520
 So I think you have option four here with just the conversations of grandfathering to

00:49:31.520 --> 00:49:34.520
 continue on that if possible.

00:49:34.520 --> 00:49:35.520
 OK.

00:49:35.520 --> 00:49:40.520
 And just to correct the record, it's about 7 megawatts that we have right now for residential

00:49:40.520 --> 00:49:41.520
 rooftops over.

00:49:41.520 --> 00:49:42.520
 Not two?

00:49:42.520 --> 00:49:43.520
 Not two.

00:49:43.520 --> 00:49:44.520
 Seven?

00:49:44.520 --> 00:49:49.520
 The last couple years have been exponential, which, again, while in front of you.

00:49:49.520 --> 00:49:50.520
 Right.

00:49:50.520 --> 00:49:53.520
 That's-- I mean, maybe not on the DME.

00:49:53.520 --> 00:50:00.520
 Billing might not be great, but for us and demand and usage and renewables and reduced

00:50:00.520 --> 00:50:01.520
 greenhouse, that's great.

00:50:01.520 --> 00:50:02.520
 And it's going to continue.

00:50:02.520 --> 00:50:03.520
 Yeah.

00:50:03.520 --> 00:50:04.520
 And the customers will still put it on.

00:50:04.520 --> 00:50:05.520
 Thank you so much.

00:50:05.520 --> 00:50:06.520
 Thank you.

00:50:06.520 --> 00:50:07.520
 I appreciate you coming back with option four for us.

00:50:07.520 --> 00:50:08.520
 No problem.

00:50:08.520 --> 00:50:09.520
 Have I answered all your questions?

00:50:09.520 --> 00:50:10.520
 I think we're good.

00:50:10.520 --> 00:50:11.520
 All right.

00:50:11.520 --> 00:50:12.520
 Thank you.

00:50:12.520 --> 00:50:13.520
 Thank you.

00:50:13.520 --> 00:50:14.520
 All right.

00:50:14.520 --> 00:50:25.520
 So we will move on to item E, receive a report, hold the discussion, and provide feedback

00:50:25.520 --> 00:50:31.520
 regarding the climate action and adaptation plan development.

00:50:31.520 --> 00:50:32.520
 Okay.

00:50:32.520 --> 00:50:33.520
 And we had our first town hall last night.

00:50:33.520 --> 00:50:34.520
 About 40 people came out to the Civic Center for our town hall.

00:50:34.520 --> 00:50:35.520
 So I remember you're there.

00:50:35.520 --> 00:50:36.520
 Thank you all.

00:50:36.520 --> 00:50:37.520
 And we have Carol Fraser with us today.

00:50:37.520 --> 00:50:38.520
 We're going to walk through similar presentation to last night, and you'll be able to discuss.

00:50:38.520 --> 00:50:39.520
 Okay.

00:50:39.520 --> 00:50:40.520
 Great.

00:50:40.520 --> 00:50:41.520
 Welcome back.

00:50:41.520 --> 00:50:42.520
 Hey, all.

00:50:42.520 --> 00:50:43.520
 Good to be back.

00:50:43.520 --> 00:50:44.520
 So I'm Carol Fraser.

00:50:44.520 --> 00:50:45.520
 I'm with SSG.

00:50:45.520 --> 00:50:46.520
 And I'm here to talk about climate change.

00:50:46.520 --> 00:51:02.520
 And for those of you at the town hall last night, this is pretty similar to what you saw

00:51:02.520 --> 00:51:03.520
 there.

00:51:03.520 --> 00:51:04.520
 So apologies for that.

00:51:04.520 --> 00:51:05.520
 But I'm going to get to more of a discussion.

00:51:05.520 --> 00:51:06.520
 So she said around 40.

00:51:06.520 --> 00:51:07.520
 Is that typically what you see?

00:51:07.520 --> 00:51:08.520
 And you're around 40 people?

00:51:08.520 --> 00:51:09.520
 Yeah.

00:51:09.520 --> 00:51:10.520
 Yeah.

00:51:10.520 --> 00:51:11.520
 You know what?

00:51:11.520 --> 00:51:16.520
 With the pandemic, we've been doing more of those online, and that's been usually about

00:51:16.520 --> 00:51:17.520
 the turnout for those online.

00:51:17.520 --> 00:51:18.520
 And so in person, I think it's still people are still getting used to coming back to that

00:51:18.520 --> 00:51:19.520
 kind of thing.

00:51:19.520 --> 00:51:20.520
 But we felt like it was a really good turnout in terms of, you know, we were standing room

00:51:20.520 --> 00:51:21.520
 only at one point, I think.

00:51:21.520 --> 00:51:22.520
 And it was really engaged, letting the discussion.

00:51:22.520 --> 00:51:23.520
 Great.

00:51:23.520 --> 00:51:24.520
 Thanks.

00:51:24.520 --> 00:51:25.520
 Sorry.

00:51:25.520 --> 00:51:28.520
 Were you able to profile the demographics of who attended?

00:51:28.520 --> 00:51:46.520
 I'm not sure if we can capture that on the sign-in sheet or anything like that.

00:51:46.520 --> 00:51:47.520
 No.

00:51:47.520 --> 00:51:49.520
 So we didn't do it systematically in that way.

00:51:49.520 --> 00:51:56.520
 But we did ask where people came from in the city on our interactive screen.

00:51:56.520 --> 00:52:00.520
 And we did have people from all different parts of the city showing up.

00:52:00.520 --> 00:52:03.520
 I think that was kind of the main factor that we captured there.

00:52:03.520 --> 00:52:04.520
 I know.

00:52:04.520 --> 00:52:05.520
 We're about to dig into it more.

00:52:05.520 --> 00:52:10.520
 But in going forward, once we do these directed community outreach events, could it be possible

00:52:10.520 --> 00:52:14.520
 to capture more of those metrics just to ensure we're reaching those communities that you

00:52:14.520 --> 00:52:16.520
 have the intention of meeting?

00:52:16.520 --> 00:52:20.520
 I know you did a lot of early kind of discovery about what would be important stakeholders.

00:52:20.520 --> 00:52:25.520
 It would just be good to try to capture who's actually participating in the process.

00:52:25.520 --> 00:52:26.520
 Yeah, sure.

00:52:26.520 --> 00:52:31.520
 We always do an evaluation form after a session so we can add those kind of questions in there.

00:52:31.520 --> 00:52:33.520
 And then we also will be doing a survey.

00:52:33.520 --> 00:52:36.520
 And we'll have those kind of demographic questions on the survey as well.

00:52:36.520 --> 00:52:37.520
 Thank you.

00:52:37.520 --> 00:52:38.520
 Appreciate that.

00:52:38.520 --> 00:52:39.520
 All right.

00:52:39.520 --> 00:52:40.520
 Good?

00:52:40.520 --> 00:52:41.520
 Yeah.

00:52:41.520 --> 00:52:42.520
 Okay.

00:52:42.520 --> 00:52:49.520
 So briefly, the overview for today, we'll just remind you of the project overview as

00:52:49.520 --> 00:52:50.520
 a whole.

00:52:50.520 --> 00:52:54.520
 We'll go over the inventory report, look at those projections, get into some of our significant

00:52:54.520 --> 00:53:00.520
 findings, and then really we want to present to you some initial real carbon action ideas

00:53:00.520 --> 00:53:05.520
 and then get your feedback on those ideas, what excites you, concerns you about them,

00:53:05.520 --> 00:53:07.520
 and other ideas you may have.

00:53:07.520 --> 00:53:13.520
 So as I'll show in a moment where we are at in the project timeline.

00:53:13.520 --> 00:53:18.520
 So we've spent the fall, as you know, we were here presenting to you all about the local

00:53:18.520 --> 00:53:25.520
 context, understanding, working with sustainability staff, what the current energy use profile

00:53:25.520 --> 00:53:31.520
 is, and then we're using that to develop those business plan projections.

00:53:31.520 --> 00:53:35.520
 Right now we're beginning the process of developing the low carbon pathway.

00:53:35.520 --> 00:53:41.520
 So that is really the meat of it around the low carbon actions.

00:53:41.520 --> 00:53:43.520
 That's what we'll go into the pathway.

00:53:43.520 --> 00:53:48.520
 And then further on in the spring we'll be doing an analysis on those final selected

00:53:48.520 --> 00:53:53.520
 actions around what the costs associated with them would be, what the co-benefits, co-harms,

00:53:53.520 --> 00:53:59.520
 equity implications would be, et cetera, with the draft coming in May and the final presentation

00:53:59.520 --> 00:54:03.520
 in Council of Change.

00:54:03.520 --> 00:54:08.520
 And as a reminder of the way that our process works in terms of climate action planning

00:54:08.520 --> 00:54:09.520
 in general.

00:54:09.520 --> 00:54:15.520
 So on the top line here, we collect a lot of data.

00:54:15.520 --> 00:54:21.520
 It's very much a data driven process, including data from engagement, engagement input.

00:54:21.520 --> 00:54:27.520
 And that is going into the business as usual modeling, which we're presenting today, shows

00:54:27.520 --> 00:54:31.520
 you the future emissions production, and then very important to the low carbon modeling

00:54:31.520 --> 00:54:33.520
 and developing that pathway.

00:54:33.520 --> 00:54:41.520
 It's an iterative process, so we are constantly refining based on what we hear.

00:54:41.520 --> 00:54:48.520
 In terms of y'all's involvement in this process, so we anticipate three more times that we'd

00:54:48.520 --> 00:54:52.520
 come here for you and present and ask for your feedback.

00:54:52.520 --> 00:54:54.520
 So the next time would be in March.

00:54:54.520 --> 00:55:02.520
 We do a workshop around the actions that we've identified and also suggestions around the

00:55:02.520 --> 00:55:06.520
 targets that you all would be wanting to achieve with this plan.

00:55:06.520 --> 00:55:09.520
 We already have targets, but potentially we could refine them.

00:55:09.520 --> 00:55:14.520
 In April, we would want to get a little bit more into the details of the actions and really

00:55:14.520 --> 00:55:19.520
 prioritizing among them, which are more important based on criteria that we would collect from

00:55:19.520 --> 00:55:20.520
 you all.

00:55:20.520 --> 00:55:26.520
 And then finally in May, we review the draft plan.

00:55:26.520 --> 00:55:33.520
 So, so far we've developed that baseline greenhouse gas inventory and developed the projection

00:55:33.520 --> 00:55:38.520
 to 2050 under a business as usual or business as planned scenario, and then we'll be working

00:55:38.520 --> 00:55:42.520
 on developing this pathway.

00:55:42.520 --> 00:55:47.520
 So this inventory report is measuring the emissions that are generated within the city

00:55:47.520 --> 00:55:48.520
 of Denton.

00:55:48.520 --> 00:55:54.520
 That's a geographic emission profile, and it provides a snapshot of the baseline emissions

00:55:54.520 --> 00:55:56.520
 for 2019.

00:55:56.520 --> 00:55:57.520
 That's the base year that we're using.

00:55:57.520 --> 00:56:00.520
 It's the year that we have the best data available for.

00:56:00.520 --> 00:56:04.520
 And it really helps hone in on opportunities where you can use energy more efficiently

00:56:04.520 --> 00:56:07.520
 or reduce emissions and manage waste.

00:56:07.520 --> 00:56:14.520
 So this is an overall picture of the emissions, again, in that territorial calculation for

00:56:14.520 --> 00:56:16.520
 the community of Denton.

00:56:16.520 --> 00:56:21.520
 And as you can see here, the transportation emissions, especially within scope one and

00:56:21.520 --> 00:56:25.520
 scope two, and those are the ones that we've focused on, scope one and scope two, that's

00:56:25.520 --> 00:56:29.520
 generated from the activities occurring in Denton, as well as the electricity that you're

00:56:29.520 --> 00:56:30.520
 procuring.

00:56:30.520 --> 00:56:37.520
 Again, this is 2019, so it doesn't reflect the 100% DME renewable generation quite yet,

00:56:37.520 --> 00:56:39.520
 but you will see that in the projections.

00:56:39.520 --> 00:56:45.520
 So transportation is really where bulk of your emissions are coming from, and to a lesser

00:56:45.520 --> 00:56:47.520
 extent, waste and stationary energy.

00:56:47.520 --> 00:56:56.520
 So that's all the buildings, residential, commercial, industrial facilities, et cetera.

00:56:56.520 --> 00:57:02.520
 So we just want to show you all that our model, the way that we're populating our computer

00:57:02.520 --> 00:57:07.520
 model to look at these projections, is very closely calibrated with the inventories that

00:57:07.520 --> 00:57:09.520
 the building staff have already been doing.

00:57:09.520 --> 00:57:17.520
 So we directly align the activities in our model to the inventory, as you can see here.

00:57:17.520 --> 00:57:24.520
 There's just a few changes in terms of categorization of some of the emissions between the T&D

00:57:24.520 --> 00:57:31.520
 losses, we put those into process and fugitive, and there's an extra residential column here

00:57:31.520 --> 00:57:38.520
 that's just the same as the first one, that's just an error.

00:57:38.520 --> 00:57:45.520
 So looking at the 2006 inventory to 2019, you can get a sense of how Denton's emissions

00:57:45.520 --> 00:57:47.520
 have changed over time.

00:57:47.520 --> 00:57:54.520
 So the really good news there is that due to more and more renewable electricity being

00:57:54.520 --> 00:57:59.520
 procured, the residential and commercial sector emissions have gone down quite dramatically,

00:57:59.520 --> 00:58:03.520
 and your overall emissions have gone down as a result as well.

00:58:03.520 --> 00:58:09.520
 So from close to 2 million tons of CO2 equivalent per year, or in that year, 2006, you're down

00:58:09.520 --> 00:58:14.520
 to 1.3 million, and also your emissions per capita have gone down.

00:58:14.520 --> 00:58:17.520
 What hasn't gone down, as you can see, is transportation emissions.

00:58:17.520 --> 00:58:23.520
 There have been fuel efficiency increases in vehicles, that kind of thing, but you have

00:58:23.520 --> 00:58:25.520
 an increase in population at the same time.

00:58:25.520 --> 00:58:30.520
 So you have about the same amount of emissions there, and then with those increases in population,

00:58:30.520 --> 00:58:37.520
 you do have an increase in waste and wastewater-related emissions, and those TND losses in fugitive

00:58:37.520 --> 00:58:38.520
 emissions.

00:58:38.520 --> 00:58:43.520
 So now I'm going to the business plan projections.

00:58:43.520 --> 00:58:50.520
 So we incorporate demographic trends, that's population increases, expected new employment

00:58:50.520 --> 00:58:56.520
 growth, business growth, and then any plans, policies, or programs that are either already

00:58:56.520 --> 00:59:04.520
 in place and expected to continue, or that are planned for, funded, it's going to happen.

00:59:04.520 --> 00:59:08.520
 It's a fairly conservative kind of projection.

00:59:08.520 --> 00:59:12.520
 So first of all, we incorporate changes in the climate, expected changes based on the

00:59:12.520 --> 00:59:13.520
 latest science.

00:59:13.520 --> 00:59:18.520
 So we're expecting heating degree days to decrease, so it's going to be warmer in the

00:59:18.520 --> 00:59:19.520
 winter.

00:59:19.520 --> 00:59:23.520
 You're going to have to heat your homes in this less, and conversely, cooling degree

00:59:23.520 --> 00:59:29.520
 days increase in the summer, it's getting hotter.

00:59:29.520 --> 00:59:34.520
 We're also projecting a 67% population growth between now and 2050.

00:59:34.520 --> 00:59:41.520
 This is based on current trends and really what's kind of understood about the trajectory

00:59:41.520 --> 00:59:43.520
 that that is on in general.

00:59:43.520 --> 00:59:48.520
 And then a really big increase in employment growth, and again, based on current trends

00:59:48.520 --> 00:59:55.520
 around new businesses that are opening here in Denver.

00:59:55.520 --> 00:59:59.520
 We are assuming that DME will continue to meet its renewable electricity goal, sounds

00:59:59.520 --> 01:00:08.520
 like that's their plan too, and that 91% of Denton residents will be using DME for electricity.

01:00:08.520 --> 01:00:12.520
 There is a remaining 10% served by the two other utilities.

01:00:12.520 --> 01:00:20.520
 We're also projecting that natural grass growth, the growth of that use of that fuel, because

01:00:20.520 --> 01:00:25.520
 people are still going to be using it to heat their homes, would be kind of offset by the

01:00:25.520 --> 01:00:31.520
 increase in the number of pumps that are being used, and that we would see potentially an

01:00:31.520 --> 01:00:34.520
 increase in rooftop solar of 2% annually.

01:00:34.520 --> 01:00:38.520
 It sounds like it's been maybe increasing at a faster rate than that, from what I heard

01:00:38.520 --> 01:00:39.520
 today.

01:00:39.520 --> 01:00:46.520
 So again, this is somewhat of a conservative projection of that.

01:00:46.520 --> 01:00:52.520
 We're also keeping, apologies, we're projecting that there's going to be more residences,

01:00:52.520 --> 01:00:59.520
 more homes, so there will be about 90,000 residences in the future by 2050.

01:00:59.520 --> 01:01:03.520
 That the average home size would remain the same at 2,000 square feet.

01:01:03.520 --> 01:01:09.520
 That there would be a significant amount of new commercial, so non-residential building

01:01:09.520 --> 01:01:11.520
 space, 2.6 million square feet.

01:01:11.520 --> 01:01:15.520
 And that the trends in how these buildings are heated would remain the same.

01:01:15.520 --> 01:01:19.520
 So right now it's about 45% gas, 55% electricity.

01:01:19.520 --> 01:01:21.520
 Ben?

01:01:21.520 --> 01:01:26.520
 Does the total residences include multi-family?

01:01:26.520 --> 01:01:27.520
 Yes.

01:01:27.520 --> 01:01:33.520
 I believe these are housing units.

01:01:33.520 --> 01:01:37.520
 This number is housing units, not single family homes.

01:01:37.520 --> 01:01:38.520
 Thank you.

01:01:38.520 --> 01:01:43.520
 And then we're also assuming that the majority of homes will have air conditioning units,

01:01:43.520 --> 01:01:51.520
 not necessarily heat pumps, so that trend would continue.

01:01:51.520 --> 01:01:54.520
 In terms of transportation, we're not projecting any pattern mode shifts, so the assumption

01:01:54.520 --> 01:01:59.520
 that would be most people are still driving to get around, rather than biking, walking,

01:01:59.520 --> 01:02:01.520
 or taking transit.

01:02:01.520 --> 01:02:05.520
 We're incorporating some of the national fuel efficiency improvements in new vehicles

01:02:05.520 --> 01:02:08.520
 that extend out to about 2030.

01:02:08.520 --> 01:02:13.520
 We're projecting that municipal vehicles, so city-of-tem vehicles, would gradually electrify

01:02:13.520 --> 01:02:15.520
 in the next few years, as well as personal vehicles.

01:02:15.520 --> 01:02:22.520
 And it would be based on these projections from NCT Hub around adoption rates.

01:02:22.520 --> 01:02:27.520
 For waste, we're keeping the current diversion rate constant, assuming that there aren't

01:02:27.520 --> 01:02:33.520
 major changes in recycling or composting, and that waste would increase with the population

01:02:33.520 --> 01:02:34.520
 growth.

01:02:34.520 --> 01:02:39.520
 For waste and wastewater, we're projecting that there would be slight decreases in water

01:02:39.520 --> 01:02:42.520
 use, due to some of the programs we have going on right now.

01:02:42.520 --> 01:02:46.520
 But that wastewater emissions would continue to grow in the population.

01:02:46.520 --> 01:02:47.520
 I have a question.

01:02:47.520 --> 01:02:50.520
 I know that there was a solid waste study being done.

01:02:50.520 --> 01:02:53.520
 Is that something that you all have looked at to get these numbers?

01:02:53.520 --> 01:02:54.520
 Yeah, exactly.

01:02:54.520 --> 01:02:55.520
 Yeah.

01:02:55.520 --> 01:03:00.520
 So this 24% diversion rate is based on that comprehensive waste audit?

01:03:00.520 --> 01:03:01.520
 Yeah.

01:03:01.520 --> 01:03:02.520
 Okay.

01:03:02.520 --> 01:03:03.520
 The most recent one.

01:03:03.520 --> 01:03:09.520
 And just to add to that, the programs that we will implement through the comprehensive

01:03:09.520 --> 01:03:12.520
 solid waste management strategy could increase this diversion number.

01:03:12.520 --> 01:03:17.520
 So as we get more of those programs on the ground, we can reevaluate the diversion and

01:03:17.520 --> 01:03:18.520
 increase this percentage.

01:03:18.520 --> 01:03:19.520
 Okay.

01:03:19.520 --> 01:03:20.520
 Thank you.

01:03:20.520 --> 01:03:21.520
 Yeah.

01:03:21.520 --> 01:03:25.520
 It can be tricky to set a specific number on that, so we do try to err on what do we

01:03:25.520 --> 01:03:31.520
 know about the waste diversion rate right now and just put that on the board.

01:03:31.520 --> 01:03:37.520
 So in terms of our projections, this is our business as planned energy use by the fuel

01:03:37.520 --> 01:03:38.520
 type.

01:03:38.520 --> 01:03:40.520
 A couple things stand out.

01:03:40.520 --> 01:03:46.520
 We do have a small dip around 2023, when those fuel efficiency standards are starting to

01:03:46.520 --> 01:03:53.520
 happen this year, and that does help with the gasoline use, but beyond a few years, that

01:03:53.520 --> 01:03:59.520
 takes back up with the number of people who are driving for work or for personal errands.

01:03:59.520 --> 01:04:04.520
 And then you also have a huge increase in the amount of electricity that's being used,

01:04:04.520 --> 01:04:10.520
 and really that's being driven by a lot of that commercial floor space that's coming

01:04:10.520 --> 01:04:11.520
 online.

01:04:11.520 --> 01:04:16.520
 And then again, that's based on your current mix of building types, so all the types of

01:04:16.520 --> 01:04:21.520
 businesses that you've seen popping up recently, just kind of projecting those trends.

01:04:21.520 --> 01:04:30.520
 You are having an increased population as well, and that's a major driver here.

01:04:30.520 --> 01:04:36.520
 So we are projecting that the per capita energy use would be going up, but the clarification

01:04:36.520 --> 01:04:41.520
 is there is residential energy use, like the average energy that a person or household

01:04:41.520 --> 01:04:49.520
 uses in their home would be going down, but because of that increase in commercial and

01:04:49.520 --> 01:04:55.520
 industrial activity, the overall energy use within the city going up, and you do have

01:04:55.520 --> 01:04:57.520
 a slight population increase.

01:04:57.520 --> 01:05:03.520
 So it's not necessarily something where it's reflecting individual users, the more the

01:05:03.520 --> 01:05:08.520
 profile of the city is pulled.

01:05:08.520 --> 01:05:12.520
 When we're looking at the sector base, so this is just breaking down with the graph

01:05:12.520 --> 01:05:19.520
 from two slides ago, really we're not seeing a lot of that growth in the residential sector

01:05:19.520 --> 01:05:22.520
 with electricity and energy use.

01:05:22.520 --> 01:05:27.520
 You'll see some small increases in gas use as well, but really we're seeing again that

01:05:27.520 --> 01:05:33.520
 electricity is going up in the industrial sector, primarily, and transportation, some

01:05:33.520 --> 01:05:38.520
 retail electricity going towards electrified vehicles that we're expecting, but primarily

01:05:38.520 --> 01:05:43.520
 the fuel there would be gasoline and diesel.

01:05:43.520 --> 01:05:50.520
 And the municipalities are very small in comparison, so they're not really showing up here.

01:05:50.520 --> 01:05:56.520
 In terms of the emissions that are associated with those energy uses, so starting in 2022

01:05:56.520 --> 01:06:02.520
 that's when we have the DME supply at 100% renewable, so that's really reducing the

01:06:02.520 --> 01:06:04.520
 emissions for most of the electricity being used.

01:06:04.520 --> 01:06:09.520
 The remaining emissions there are associated with those 10% of other customers not using

01:06:09.520 --> 01:06:10.520
 DME.

01:06:10.520 --> 01:06:16.520
 And then you also have that gasoline and diesel for the transportation uses, causing a lot

01:06:16.520 --> 01:06:22.520
 of the emissions going forward, as well as some gas use in buildings still.

01:06:22.520 --> 01:06:30.520
 So on the natural gas, is the DME gas generation plant, is that gas built into this business

01:06:30.520 --> 01:06:31.520
 as usual?

01:06:31.520 --> 01:06:40.520
 So that is associated with essentially, it's out of scope for this inventory, because that

01:06:40.520 --> 01:06:45.520
 gas that's being burned at the Denton Energy Center is going back, the electricity is going

01:06:45.520 --> 01:06:46.520
 back into the grid.

01:06:46.520 --> 01:06:52.520
 So it's associated with the overall emissions factor for aircraft, but since you all are

01:06:52.520 --> 01:06:57.520
 not using that electricity directly, you're contracted to get renewable electricity from

01:06:57.520 --> 01:07:02.520
 other wind farms primarily, that's what's reflected in this analysis.

01:07:02.520 --> 01:07:06.520
 Okay, so I was just talking about specifically, not the electricity part, but the natural

01:07:06.520 --> 01:07:08.520
 gas use that's being used.

01:07:08.520 --> 01:07:10.520
 To fire the electricity plant?

01:07:10.520 --> 01:07:11.520
 Yeah.

01:07:11.520 --> 01:07:13.520
 Yeah, so that wouldn't be in here either.

01:07:13.520 --> 01:07:14.520
 Okay.

01:07:14.520 --> 01:07:25.520
 I don't understand that, that a local source would not be included in the local inventory.

01:07:25.520 --> 01:07:29.520
 So it has to do with the way that our scoping works for this inventory.

01:07:29.520 --> 01:07:34.520
 It's certainly occurring in Denton of course, but it's part of what we call the Scope 3

01:07:34.520 --> 01:07:40.520
 emissions scope, which is things that tend to cross the boundaries of a municipality.

01:07:40.520 --> 01:07:47.520
 So we're doing a geographic inventory, so that effectively is being accounted for somewhere

01:07:47.520 --> 01:07:52.520
 else, namely in the communities that are using grid electricity, which you all are a small

01:07:52.520 --> 01:07:56.520
 percentage of, but mostly your electricity is considerably more.

01:07:56.520 --> 01:07:57.520
 Okay, thanks.

01:07:57.520 --> 01:07:58.520
 Brandon?

01:07:58.520 --> 01:08:03.520
 And this is maybe more to Catherine, and mind me, it's something like 20% of our total emissions

01:08:03.520 --> 01:08:07.520
 is municipally sourced, or municipally based.

01:08:07.520 --> 01:08:10.520
 Okay, it's okay if we're not right there.

01:08:10.520 --> 01:08:11.520
 Hold on one second.

01:08:11.520 --> 01:08:12.520
 I don't know.

01:08:12.520 --> 01:08:15.520
 I think it's quite a bit smaller than that.

01:08:15.520 --> 01:08:17.520
 You're talking about the city of Denton.

01:08:17.520 --> 01:08:18.520
 Correct.

01:08:18.520 --> 01:08:20.520
 It's kind of municipal operations in the entire community.

01:08:20.520 --> 01:08:21.520
 Yes.

01:08:21.520 --> 01:08:22.520
 A little bitty portion of it.

01:08:22.520 --> 01:08:24.520
 It's between 10 and 20.

01:08:24.520 --> 01:08:25.520
 Okay.

01:08:25.520 --> 01:08:30.520
 So should that then be reflected in the previous graph you showed, that bar graph?

01:08:30.520 --> 01:08:31.520
 Yes.

01:08:31.520 --> 01:08:35.520
 Yeah, you know what, maybe we're just missing it now that I've looked at it more closely.

01:08:35.520 --> 01:08:37.520
 We can update this for you to get that in there.

01:08:37.520 --> 01:08:41.520
 And then if I was remembering right, and I know we're pulling back a little far in history,

01:08:41.520 --> 01:08:46.520
 we were accounting DEC emissions in that municipal operations.

01:08:46.520 --> 01:08:47.520
 Correct.

01:08:47.520 --> 01:08:48.520
 Yeah.

01:08:48.520 --> 01:08:52.520
 Yeah, maybe that's part of what we're pulling out here.

01:08:52.520 --> 01:09:00.520
 So essentially it would be in this, sorry it's back a ways.

01:09:00.520 --> 01:09:04.520
 Yeah, it would fall into this part here.

01:09:04.520 --> 01:09:06.520
 This is a separate line.

01:09:06.520 --> 01:09:08.520
 Yeah, because I don't think we were doing it in 2019.

01:09:08.520 --> 01:09:10.520
 We just started doing it.

01:09:10.520 --> 01:09:13.520
 Yeah, and we do have this figure, I think it's 117,000.

01:09:13.520 --> 01:09:19.520
 I drew it into this presentation, but in terms of the emissions, yeah.

01:09:19.520 --> 01:09:21.520
 Can I ask a question?

01:09:21.520 --> 01:09:26.520
 On this too, this is a good question because the risk is double counting.

01:09:26.520 --> 01:09:31.520
 You know, because that little bar we have some non-DME customers,

01:09:31.520 --> 01:09:35.520
 that's reflecting them buying stuff off the grid,

01:09:35.520 --> 01:09:38.520
 which is where the DEC emissions would show.

01:09:38.520 --> 01:09:45.520
 So if we count it here and as our, you see what I'm saying?

01:09:45.520 --> 01:09:49.520
 Yes, we just account for it as going into the grid in general,

01:09:49.520 --> 01:09:51.520
 and then we use a general grid emissions factor for your product.

01:09:51.520 --> 01:09:56.520
 So we're not tying that electricity use and emissions specifically to DEC.

01:09:56.520 --> 01:09:59.520
 It's just based on what the aircraft can see.

01:09:59.520 --> 01:10:04.520
 And then I have one other question on a slide that you were on before you started.

01:10:04.520 --> 01:10:07.520
 And I pulled this way back.

01:10:07.520 --> 01:10:10.520
 I just missed it.

01:10:10.520 --> 01:10:13.520
 What is non-energy?

01:10:13.520 --> 01:10:18.520
 So that has to do with process emissions.

01:10:18.520 --> 01:10:22.520
 I'm looking at this right.

01:10:22.520 --> 01:10:28.520
 Yeah, so in industrial processes, that's the kind of emissions that come out when you,

01:10:28.520 --> 01:10:31.520
 I'm not sure if there's a lot of steel manufacturing here,

01:10:31.520 --> 01:10:34.520
 but that's kind of an example of those kinds of things.

01:10:34.520 --> 01:10:37.520
 When you're doing chemistry, essentially chemical processes,

01:10:37.520 --> 01:10:39.520
 there are emissions that are associated with that.

01:10:39.520 --> 01:10:42.520
 It's like a byproduct.

01:10:42.520 --> 01:10:46.520
 So it's not from using electricity or burning that as a fuel source.

01:10:46.520 --> 01:10:52.520
 It's about when we look at the mix of building types that are in industrial use.

01:10:52.520 --> 01:10:58.520
 Part of that is probably going to be some of the fracking operations as well.

01:10:58.520 --> 01:11:02.520
 Fracking and drilling, yeah.

01:11:02.520 --> 01:11:04.520
 So it says ton of CO2 equivalent.

01:11:04.520 --> 01:11:06.520
 So these are not CO2 emissions.

01:11:06.520 --> 01:11:08.520
 These are some sort of greenhouse gas.

01:11:08.520 --> 01:11:15.520
 So most of them are CO2, but we do convert methane and NO2,

01:11:15.520 --> 01:11:19.520
 that kind of thing, into a CO2 equivalent just so we can lump it all together

01:11:19.520 --> 01:11:26.520
 and look at it in one picture.

01:11:26.520 --> 01:11:30.520
 I just want to comment, I'm glad to see that the non-energy,

01:11:30.520 --> 01:11:35.520
 the actual process is counted because that's pretty important to keep in there.

01:11:35.520 --> 01:11:40.520
 So thanks.

01:11:40.520 --> 01:11:43.520
 And this is the same thing, so emissions broken down by sector,

01:11:43.520 --> 01:11:47.520
 and then we're showing the fuel type that's leading to those emissions.

01:11:47.520 --> 01:11:52.520
 So I don't think -- oh, okay, yeah.

01:11:52.520 --> 01:11:56.520
 So fugitive, I think we've kind of pulled out into the non-energy sector.

01:11:56.520 --> 01:11:59.520
 I'm associating with industrial as well,

01:11:59.520 --> 01:12:03.520
 but there's also little leaks in the distribution system,

01:12:03.520 --> 01:12:05.520
 the natural gas distribution system,

01:12:05.520 --> 01:12:08.520
 so that's where some of that non-energy would come from as well.

01:12:08.520 --> 01:12:12.520
 And then waste, that's what's coming out of landfill,

01:12:12.520 --> 01:12:16.520
 not being used as an energy source.

01:12:16.520 --> 01:12:19.520
 But yeah, as you can see here, the kind of main takeaway as well

01:12:19.520 --> 01:12:21.520
 is around transportation and gasoline use.

01:12:21.520 --> 01:12:28.520
 That's your biggest fuel source in terms of the emissions being produced.

01:12:28.520 --> 01:12:30.520
 So some of the significant findings,

01:12:30.520 --> 01:12:34.520
 and we think of these as challenges and opportunities,

01:12:34.520 --> 01:12:37.520
 there's just going to be a lot more demand for electricity

01:12:37.520 --> 01:12:41.520
 that's really being driven by, again, that commercial energy use,

01:12:41.520 --> 01:12:44.520
 so businesses are coming and done, that's awesome.

01:12:44.520 --> 01:12:47.520
 A lot of them are coming in maybe because of the renewable electricity

01:12:47.520 --> 01:12:49.520
 that you have here,

01:12:49.520 --> 01:12:53.520
 and that may help you remain competitive in that way.

01:12:53.520 --> 01:12:56.520
 You also have an opportunity to shake the kinds of distances

01:12:56.520 --> 01:12:59.520
 that might want to come here with that on your side.

01:12:59.520 --> 01:13:03.520
 So looking at -- just electricity is going to be such a big part of your energy mix,

01:13:03.520 --> 01:13:09.520
 even if you don't change anything from its best quote.

01:13:09.520 --> 01:13:13.520
 It's also getting cleaner and cleaner, which you all know already,

01:13:13.520 --> 01:13:17.520
 it's just going to be a lot less the part of your energy use

01:13:17.520 --> 01:13:19.520
 that's driving your emissions.

01:13:19.520 --> 01:13:21.520
 That's really going to come from your transportation sector

01:13:21.520 --> 01:13:25.520
 and the fuels being used there.

01:13:25.520 --> 01:13:27.520
 I've mentioned these fuel efficiency improvements,

01:13:27.520 --> 01:13:30.520
 so they are helping you out from a national level,

01:13:30.520 --> 01:13:35.520
 but with that population growth, you will see that take right back up again

01:13:35.520 --> 01:13:38.520
 in terms of the emissions associated with vehicles.

01:13:38.520 --> 01:13:41.520
 And we do have a bit of those EVs factored in as well,

01:13:41.520 --> 01:13:47.520
 so you can see the kind of comparative contribution that they make.

01:13:47.520 --> 01:13:51.520
 The emissions here are just from the percentage of customers

01:13:51.520 --> 01:13:56.520
 who would be using non-DME electricity to power their EVs.

01:13:56.520 --> 01:13:57.520
 Is that your question?

01:13:57.520 --> 01:13:58.520
 Yes, thank you.

01:13:58.520 --> 01:13:59.520
 I'm sorry?

01:13:59.520 --> 01:14:00.520
 Yes.

01:14:00.520 --> 01:14:04.520
 Oh, good. Okay.

01:14:04.520 --> 01:14:07.520
 We've said it once and before, but this is really, I think,

01:14:07.520 --> 01:14:11.520
 the biggest opportunity for Denton to think about how can emissions

01:14:11.520 --> 01:14:19.520
 in the transportation sector be avoided and reduced in a variety of ways.

01:14:19.520 --> 01:14:26.520
 It's your biggest contributing sector in terms of emissions.

01:14:26.520 --> 01:14:33.520
 So we've put together some initial ideas for how Denton can meet its net zero targets

01:14:33.520 --> 01:14:38.520
 and reduce in these key sectors based on our planning philosophy.

01:14:38.520 --> 01:14:42.520
 We really like to focus on avoiding, you know,

01:14:42.520 --> 01:14:45.520
 recommending activities that can avoid emissions being produced,

01:14:45.520 --> 01:14:49.520
 whether that's through electricity that's needed to supply that energy

01:14:49.520 --> 01:14:54.520
 or just the direct use of fuels, reducing energy, energy efficiency,

01:14:54.520 --> 01:14:58.520
 the home retrofits and insulation that were mentioned in the previous presentation

01:14:58.520 --> 01:15:02.520
 can really help with that, and then switching to renewables.

01:15:02.520 --> 01:15:04.520
 So you reduce your demand as much as possible.

01:15:04.520 --> 01:15:08.520
 It's a lot easier to find that renewable electricity

01:15:08.520 --> 01:15:12.520
 other than letting it kind of grow and grow and become a really difficult link to source.

01:15:12.520 --> 01:15:18.520
 And then finally, considering, again, to meet those net zero goals,

01:15:18.520 --> 01:15:24.520
 where can you use nature, technology, to sequester emissions or offset

01:15:24.520 --> 01:15:31.520
 when you really can't find a way to reduce or replace or avoid them yourself?

01:15:31.520 --> 01:15:38.520
 So some ideas are to implement a planning paradigm called 15-minute neighborhoods

01:15:38.520 --> 01:15:40.520
 or 20-minute neighborhoods.

01:15:40.520 --> 01:15:44.520
 This is kind of a holistic way of looking at city planning within a city.

01:15:44.520 --> 01:15:49.520
 And really this just means that you would allow residents or enable residents

01:15:49.520 --> 01:15:55.520
 to access pretty much all their daily needs within a 10 or 15-minute walk from their house.

01:15:55.520 --> 01:15:58.520
 It's about a half a mile or so.

01:15:58.520 --> 01:16:01.520
 And there's a whole bunch of co-benefits to doing this,

01:16:01.520 --> 01:16:03.520
 in addition to the emissions reductions.

01:16:03.520 --> 01:16:06.520
 I really would like to think with this lens from the beginning,

01:16:06.520 --> 01:16:10.520
 what are kind of the other benefits that could come from this economic development,

01:16:10.520 --> 01:16:14.520
 mental and physical health, the air pollution, that kind of thing.

01:16:14.520 --> 01:16:16.520
 So this is kind of in the avoid category.

01:16:16.520 --> 01:16:18.520
 Paul has a question. Oh, I'm sorry.

01:16:18.520 --> 01:16:21.520
 Yeah. I'm sorry, I'm coming in, you know, when you're sort of deep in the process,

01:16:21.520 --> 01:16:28.520
 but is this sort of high-level concept or is this something that, you know,

01:16:28.520 --> 01:16:37.520
 has been implemented where there's a body of work like specific zoning recommendations?

01:16:37.520 --> 01:16:41.520
 You know, is there a kind of toolkit that would ultimately be the recommendation?

01:16:41.520 --> 01:16:43.520
 For sure, for sure, yeah.

01:16:43.520 --> 01:16:46.520
 So there would be a whole bunch of steps that we would recommend to them to take,

01:16:46.520 --> 01:16:51.520
 among them looking at zoning, parking requirements, lot size,

01:16:51.520 --> 01:16:55.520
 like these kinds of things where, you know, how do you build communities that are more compact

01:16:55.520 --> 01:17:01.520
 and then maybe allowing with the zoning thing like certain kinds of uses in more areas.

01:17:01.520 --> 01:17:06.520
 Those would be the kind of recommendations that we might make under this kind of framework.

01:17:06.520 --> 01:17:12.520
 There's a lot, so, you know, there could be bike lanes, there could be lots of stuff, yeah.

01:17:12.520 --> 01:17:19.520
 On a similar note, considering making places that are pedestrian only or kind of low traffic,

01:17:19.520 --> 01:17:23.520
 giving a different feel that could have benefits in terms of economic development,

01:17:23.520 --> 01:17:27.520
 where people want to gather, where they want to shop,

01:17:27.520 --> 01:17:30.520
 and that could be in specific areas of town.

01:17:30.520 --> 01:17:33.520
 Lots of cities are looking into this or planning this.

01:17:33.520 --> 01:17:38.520
 Around university campuses, you have a downtown Denny plan that's about to kick off.

01:17:38.520 --> 01:17:43.520
 That could be something to look into there. And you also have master plan communities.

01:17:43.520 --> 01:17:48.520
 Consider how you can integrate these kinds of things into new places that haven't been built.

01:17:48.520 --> 01:17:53.520
 And also slow, healthy streets, something coming out of the pandemic in a lot of places

01:17:53.520 --> 01:18:02.520
 where there's just traffic calming that really helps people want to choose more active modes of transportation.

01:18:02.520 --> 01:18:09.520
 You also have a lot of assets already here in Denton around low carbon transportation in an economic development sense.

01:18:09.520 --> 01:18:15.520
 You have Peterbilt Motors, they're building electric trucks right here in town.

01:18:15.520 --> 01:18:18.520
 You have Cargo Bikes Manufacturing.

01:18:18.520 --> 01:18:22.520
 You could really leverage that in terms of business to business relationships

01:18:22.520 --> 01:18:30.520
 or becoming a kind of hub of, you know, hub of the planes around low carbon transportation.

01:18:30.520 --> 01:18:34.520
 So thinking about it holistically can be a useful framework.

01:18:34.520 --> 01:18:40.520
 And that would involve setting up economic development incentives for certain kinds of businesses

01:18:40.520 --> 01:18:49.520
 or for businesses to use certain kinds of practices that are low carbon ways of getting their goods shipped around.

01:18:49.520 --> 01:18:53.520
 Renewable energy, so hot topic of the day.

01:18:53.520 --> 01:18:59.520
 So there may be a variety of ways to think about how you could add more renewable energy here in town.

01:18:59.520 --> 01:19:07.520
 I had a question, oh I think he's gone now, but there's residential solar incentives.

01:19:07.520 --> 01:19:11.520
 You could also think about commercial, what kind of commercial solar incentives.

01:19:11.520 --> 01:19:14.520
 I can't think off the top of my head if you already have that.

01:19:14.520 --> 01:19:18.520
 Or around battery storage, that kind of thing.

01:19:18.520 --> 01:19:20.520
 It can increase your resilience locally.

01:19:20.520 --> 01:19:29.520
 Another kind of consideration around sustainability of that is you have what's called transmission line losses

01:19:29.520 --> 01:19:31.520
 on power that's coming to you from far away.

01:19:31.520 --> 01:19:34.520
 It can be as high as seven or eight percent of the electricity.

01:19:34.520 --> 01:19:37.520
 It can be just kind of lost because it has to travel a long distance.

01:19:37.520 --> 01:19:46.520
 So the more that you have kind of here locally, you're actually kind of getting more electricity potentially out of the farms that are here.

01:19:46.520 --> 01:19:49.520
 So it's something to consider in terms of adding it more locally.

01:19:49.520 --> 01:19:52.520
 You also have the jobs that come along with that.

01:19:52.520 --> 01:19:57.520
 So we think about sustainability and climate action pretty holistically as I said,

01:19:57.520 --> 01:20:00.520
 and all the co-benefits that come along with some of these actions.

01:20:00.520 --> 01:20:02.520
 So that's another consideration.

01:20:02.520 --> 01:20:03.520
 Paul?

01:20:03.520 --> 01:20:08.520
 You must have been jumping out of your seat during the earlier discussion.

01:20:08.520 --> 01:20:20.520
 What do you make of the argument that was shown to be persuasive that you're not changing the sustainability profile then

01:20:20.520 --> 01:20:26.520
 by adding more because it's already being supplied by renewable sources?

01:20:26.520 --> 01:20:34.520
 And I get the transmission point, although we're not actually bringing the atoms from the wind farm in Munster.

01:20:34.520 --> 01:20:42.520
 We're taking the electrons from the near end of the grid.

01:20:42.520 --> 01:20:45.520
 So we are more at the first point.

01:20:45.520 --> 01:20:50.520
 What do you make of that argument that doesn't add to the sustainability profile because we're already out of our holes?

01:20:50.520 --> 01:20:54.520
 Well, I think someone brought up that there's going to be more demand.

01:20:54.520 --> 01:21:00.520
 So it's another way of adding that to your system, but may not be at the lowest cost.

01:21:00.520 --> 01:21:05.520
 So it may be at the direct cost of paying for those resources.

01:21:05.520 --> 01:21:11.520
 But there may be the co-benefits economically for the city of Denton having more solar installation jobs, for example,

01:21:11.520 --> 01:21:16.520
 and having the economic activity and the tax revenue that comes along with that.

01:21:16.520 --> 01:21:22.520
 Thinking about it, not just the electricity that you're procuring and the cost of that, but what are the other benefits?

01:21:22.520 --> 01:21:28.520
 That's what I would recommend in terms of what was presented to you all today.

01:21:28.520 --> 01:21:36.520
 The thing that makes sense is really investments in energy efficiency, insulation, retrofits.

01:21:36.520 --> 01:21:40.520
 That's really key. That's avoiding energy use in the first place.

01:21:40.520 --> 01:21:49.520
 If that's what's more cost effective for your municipal utility, it makes a lot of sense because switching, that's the third step.

01:21:49.520 --> 01:21:52.520
 Avoiding is the first step.

01:21:52.520 --> 01:22:00.520
 You might want to consider there are the federal incentives for solar installations.

01:22:00.520 --> 01:22:03.520
 I don't think they're necessarily tied to income.

01:22:03.520 --> 01:22:09.520
 I'm not sure off the top of my head, but maybe thinking about lower income households versus higher income households,

01:22:09.520 --> 01:22:19.520
 like helping some of them have more of an incentive to install solar based on income could be another way of thinking about the equity implications of what's being presented

01:22:19.520 --> 01:22:25.520
 and how you want to go forward with solar remakes or battery remakes, any kind of thing.

01:22:25.520 --> 01:22:29.520
 What is the picture down here? Is that a battery?

01:22:29.520 --> 01:22:35.520
 Yeah, this is a battery. This is just a company called Sunbridge Energy.

01:22:35.520 --> 01:22:42.520
 I don't know anything about them, but they have a single family home cell battery that I think could be disconnected.

01:22:42.520 --> 01:23:04.520
 In terms of actions in the building sector, thinking about what kind of standards you could have for new construction, net zero building standards.

01:23:04.520 --> 01:23:14.520
 This is kind of in line with what we were just talking about. You have low income weatherization programs already to look at expanding those,

01:23:14.520 --> 01:23:18.520
 changing them to really drive significant reductions in energy use.

01:23:18.520 --> 01:23:25.520
 Rebates for the heat pumps and more efficient appliances. I think this is something else that the utility is putting forward.

01:23:25.520 --> 01:23:28.520
 That's really a great way to save energy use.

01:23:28.520 --> 01:23:37.520
 And then looking at big users of energy, these big larger commercial multifamily buildings, existing and new ones,

01:23:37.520 --> 01:23:45.520
 to look at the energy that they're currently using and think about how to reduce that over time through benchmarking programs.

01:23:45.520 --> 01:23:54.520
 Finally, with waste and wastewater, there are examples of communities really using education to reduce food waste specifically.

01:23:54.520 --> 01:24:00.520
 So investing in that can really change your diversion rate and drive down your landfill emissions.

01:24:00.520 --> 01:24:11.520
 Also things like diverting compost. You have your own trash collection, so you can consider having a composting facility and collecting those as a separate product.

01:24:11.520 --> 01:24:17.520
 You could expand some of the electricity production that is going on with landfill gas already.

01:24:17.520 --> 01:24:28.520
 And then consider how your wastewater treatment can become more energy efficient using some of the heat that's being generated in those processes to actually drive the electricity that's being used.

01:24:28.520 --> 01:24:32.520
 Again, initial ideas, so we'd love to know what you think.

01:24:32.520 --> 01:24:38.520
 I'll just quickly give you a sense of the upcoming public engagement opportunities.

01:24:38.520 --> 01:24:46.520
 So we did have the town hall last night. We're going to have another community workshop on the actions coming up, I think in March.

01:24:46.520 --> 01:25:02.520
 And then we're developing a meeting in a box. This is like a toolkit that community groups can use or staff can be invited out to community groups to go through some of these ideas and more depth and collect feedback from a wide variety of people.

01:25:02.520 --> 01:25:05.520
 So we'll have that ready in the next few weeks.

01:25:05.520 --> 01:25:14.520
 We're going to have specific focus groups to go into some of the kind of implementation questions and the equity implications of these actions.

01:25:14.520 --> 01:25:26.520
 And we'll also be putting out a survey sometime in February. This one survey will begin and will be open for a good period, probably about a month.

01:25:26.520 --> 01:25:35.520
 And that's going to allow us to collect a lot of input on the actions and all the implications of them. So we're keeping up to date on the website here.

01:25:35.520 --> 01:25:46.520
 Will the survey be on the city of Denton website or will it be like something separate or will it be accessible easily?

01:25:46.520 --> 01:25:58.520
 I don't know who's going to host the survey, but we'll have links on our website and then we'll of course share it social media and ask everyone to share about it as widely as possible.

01:25:58.520 --> 01:26:05.520
 And we're putting something in the flyer too, right? Is that related to the survey or?

01:26:05.520 --> 01:26:07.520
 In the bill stuffer.

01:26:07.520 --> 01:26:08.520
 Yeah, in the bill stuffer, yes.

01:26:08.520 --> 01:26:10.520
 Why not in the bill stuffer? That's what it is.

01:26:10.520 --> 01:26:15.520
 Yeah, so that'll get a wide distribution.

01:26:15.520 --> 01:26:23.520
 And this is just to reiterate who we're considering that are interested in effective parties, sometimes known as stakeholders.

01:26:23.520 --> 01:26:31.520
 So this is who we're engaging with via the focus groups, specific community and sector representatives.

01:26:31.520 --> 01:26:41.520
 Engaging with you all and then city staff and project team. We're meeting every other week, if not more often sometimes, and community members in general for all those other channels.

01:26:41.520 --> 01:26:52.520
 Everything that's going into this will ultimately be put into that draft plan and then going up to city council for their final approval.

01:26:52.520 --> 01:26:57.520
 We'll be developing this wedge diagram specifically for the community vendors.

01:26:57.520 --> 01:27:04.520
 So each action that we put into the model will be reflected here in terms of the emissions reduction potential over time.

01:27:04.520 --> 01:27:12.520
 So each colored wedge is kind of one action or however we define one action can sometimes be a bundle of them.

01:27:12.520 --> 01:27:21.520
 And then we'll also show you that in relation to what I just showed you, the business client projections.

01:27:21.520 --> 01:27:25.520
 We'll also have other kind of outputs in the draft plan.

01:27:25.520 --> 01:27:33.520
 We do have spatially based models, so you'll be able to see the projected emissions in each scenario by zone of the city.

01:27:33.520 --> 01:27:38.520
 This is based on traffic zone or transportation zone from NCTCOG, the way that they do their modeling.

01:27:38.520 --> 01:27:47.520
 And we can produce other kind of analysis like you see here.

01:27:47.520 --> 01:27:53.520
 And yeah, we're really in the, as you saw this one earlier, but we're really in the thick of getting input on the actions,

01:27:53.520 --> 01:28:00.520
 putting that into our model and then developing the wedge diagram that I just showed you there.

01:28:00.520 --> 01:28:09.520
 So at this point, I'd really like to know, in the time that we have, any other thoughts on the actions I presented?

01:28:09.520 --> 01:28:14.520
 If you have other ideas that you'd like us to consider modeling?

01:28:14.520 --> 01:28:21.520
 Yeah, I have just kind of process thoughts about how you attended the workshop last night.

01:28:21.520 --> 01:28:27.520
 You know, it's all good and interesting, but from this perspective,

01:28:27.520 --> 01:28:35.520
 with most value members of the general public getting to spend time on is hearing more about the ideas.

01:28:35.520 --> 01:28:41.520
 Like I almost, to be a little prescriptive, start on slide 40, like we're here, we've got to get to here.

01:28:41.520 --> 01:28:44.520
 Here are different ways we might do it.

01:28:44.520 --> 01:28:51.520
 And I would like to know what people find acceptable, imaginable, what questions, what concerns they have on each,

01:28:51.520 --> 01:28:55.520
 you know, what they really get behind out of those ideas.

01:28:55.520 --> 01:28:57.520
 That's my main feedback.

01:28:57.520 --> 01:29:02.520
 The other one's just a process question, and the answer may be, yeah, we totally already done that, Paul.

01:29:02.520 --> 01:29:14.520
 Which is, was there a stage where, you know, looked at what are the best ideas in place anywhere in the world

01:29:14.520 --> 01:29:20.520
 that may not directly apply to them, but maybe looked at sideways could, you know, just,

01:29:20.520 --> 01:29:28.520
 is this the boil out of, you know, kind of the state of sustainability in the world today that could be relevant?

01:29:28.520 --> 01:29:35.520
 For sure. Yeah, so in terms of your first question, that's exactly what we'll be doing in our next public workshop,

01:29:35.520 --> 01:29:37.520
 is getting more into the actions.

01:29:37.520 --> 01:29:41.520
 There won't be the presentation of the projections beyond probably one slide.

01:29:41.520 --> 01:29:47.520
 And then we will get into, you know, the specifics of what do folks find acceptable,

01:29:47.520 --> 01:29:50.520
 and that's where the prioritization comes in as well.

01:29:50.520 --> 01:29:54.520
 Like if you had to choose between the city doing this and the city doing this,

01:29:54.520 --> 01:29:58.520
 what are your priorities, what are they based on? We'll be getting a sense of that.

01:29:58.520 --> 01:30:03.520
 With your second question, that is exactly the phase that we're in right now.

01:30:03.520 --> 01:30:09.520
 So, you know, our initial ideas are based on what we're finding in the business' plan projections.

01:30:09.520 --> 01:30:14.520
 This is where you'd want to concentrate, transportation, buildings, that kind of thing.

01:30:14.520 --> 01:30:19.520
 But we are developing what we call an actions catalog that we're working with the city staff on.

01:30:19.520 --> 01:30:22.520
 We'll be reviewing that really carefully and then taking that and saying,

01:30:22.520 --> 01:30:27.520
 here are the recommended actions based on the best practices from around the world.

01:30:27.520 --> 01:30:31.520
 We've worked with over 100 communities doing this kind of thing.

01:30:31.520 --> 01:30:36.520
 Do you want to complete that phase and then bring that to the general public to say,

01:30:36.520 --> 01:30:42.520
 you know, here's kind of outside of the box, but proven things beyond what you've already got?

01:30:42.520 --> 01:30:47.520
 Yeah, that's what we'll be doing in the next phase of the engagement.

01:30:47.520 --> 01:30:48.520
 Brian?

01:30:48.520 --> 01:30:54.520
 It was kind of two thoughts here and you were first in and you first presented yourself

01:30:54.520 --> 01:30:56.520
 and the outline of what this would follow.

01:30:56.520 --> 01:31:01.520
 I made a note that I know this is a really technocratic space and it's difficult,

01:31:01.520 --> 01:31:05.520
 especially for people in your position, and I know the sustainability office is familiar with this too,

01:31:05.520 --> 01:31:11.520
 but to interpret the really technocratic expertise you have down to a common level of understanding.

01:31:11.520 --> 01:31:15.520
 And so I appreciated the step-by-step that you had last night.

01:31:15.520 --> 01:31:19.520
 Two thoughts that I kind of reflected on was even looking at this again,

01:31:19.520 --> 01:31:24.520
 I know if you weren't here in front of me on some of these things explaining scope one, scope two admissions,

01:31:24.520 --> 01:31:26.520
 that would be something I would have to look up regardless.

01:31:26.520 --> 01:31:33.520
 And maybe building in like a glossary of terms and definitions into these types of presentations might make them,

01:31:33.520 --> 01:31:35.520
 I know this is now on public record because it's in our backup,

01:31:35.520 --> 01:31:43.520
 but make this a lot more digestible to people who might not have the same level of access to this one-on-one that we get with you.

01:31:43.520 --> 01:31:52.520
 But then, too, and on Paul's thought, when you are in this position of really idiosyncratic and technical capacity,

01:31:52.520 --> 01:31:56.520
 that detangling these really complex problems is a huge challenge,

01:31:56.520 --> 01:31:59.520
 and I know you know this because you've done this, as you said, a hundred different times,

01:31:59.520 --> 01:32:07.520
 but given that there are evidence-based best practices that have been adopted both in the local context

01:32:07.520 --> 01:32:10.520
 and the national and global context that I'm sure you're familiar with,

01:32:10.520 --> 01:32:18.520
 and folks like Ed who are deep in the weeds know a lot of these different models and practices that other communities have adopted,

01:32:18.520 --> 01:32:25.520
 beyond getting just prescriptive about it, I would really like to see in these upcoming workshops just, again,

01:32:25.520 --> 01:32:30.520
 really honing in on that base level of understanding about here's what's been done, how it could impact your community,

01:32:30.520 --> 01:32:37.520
 but bringing that down to that base level of understanding that there are recommendations you're going to make,

01:32:37.520 --> 01:32:44.520
 but it still has to be uptaped by our community, you know, with the specific backgrounds and experiences that we have as residents,

01:32:44.520 --> 01:32:51.520
 and so I hope that can be navigated well, but it's something that I'm really looking forward to seeing in these future workshops.

01:32:51.520 --> 01:32:58.520
 Yeah, I really appreciate that. I think we can definitely include, as you say, some more classrooms and that kind of thing in our presentations.

01:32:58.520 --> 01:33:03.520
 I think the meeting in a box will also help, I think, with some of the things you're bringing up.

01:33:03.520 --> 01:33:11.520
 It's going to be a pretty accessible thing, because we're not going to be there to deliver something that people can do themselves,

01:33:11.520 --> 01:33:20.520
 so it will kind of break things down in that way, and then I think, you know, it is kind of a dance or a balance between,

01:33:20.520 --> 01:33:25.520
 we don't want to prescribe to you all, you know, specific actions.

01:33:25.520 --> 01:33:33.520
 We really want to know, from a community, what are people passionate about and what's kind of already being worked on, you know, what's out in the ether.

01:33:33.520 --> 01:33:40.520
 So last night was kind of that, like, let's gather the initial thoughts, and then, yeah, going forward, I think we can really break in on the table.

01:33:40.520 --> 01:33:44.520
 You know, here are the things that work elsewhere, based on what you told us, what you're excited about,

01:33:44.520 --> 01:33:51.520
 because I think at the end of the day, you know, we help you make the plan, and then, you know, we kind of leave it in to you all to implement it,

01:33:51.520 --> 01:33:56.520
 and so it's really important to have that community excitement and enthusiasm.

01:33:56.520 --> 01:34:02.520
 But I really appreciate that, and I'm going to take that back and incorporate your feedback.

01:34:02.520 --> 01:34:06.520
 So I enjoyed the feedback and discussion so far.

01:34:06.520 --> 01:34:17.520
 My question is, and this may be more to the city, is there any possible way it can be recorded or, like, live-streamed or anything, the meetings?

01:34:17.520 --> 01:34:23.520
 I mean, because 40 people is great, but we have 30, you know, we have thousands and thousands of people in our city,

01:34:23.520 --> 01:34:30.520
 and there's just no way of going back, you know, like, for those who can't make it.

01:34:30.520 --> 01:34:35.520
 So I'm just curious if that's at all possible.

01:34:35.520 --> 01:34:39.520
 It gets a little bit difficult with the interactive part of the meeting.

01:34:39.520 --> 01:34:49.520
 We can probably stream a presentation portion, but when we're all up moving around and talking in small groups, it gets a little bit difficult.

01:34:49.520 --> 01:35:03.520
 But I can talk to Billy about, you know, maybe we could do a Zoom link for the presentation portion.

01:35:03.520 --> 01:35:06.520
 I think there's ways that we can, yeah, make it interactive.

01:35:06.520 --> 01:35:15.520
 Brave combo plays. They close the meetings. You'll have thousands of people.

01:35:15.520 --> 01:35:20.520
 Is that a band? All right, that sounds great. Yeah.

01:35:20.520 --> 01:35:23.520
 I think, yeah, like what Catherine said, but I think we can look into it.

01:35:23.520 --> 01:35:30.520
 Like, when we had our webinar, I don't know if any of y'all were on that, we have ways that we can use to make those interactive.

01:35:30.520 --> 01:35:34.520
 Maybe we can do some kind of parallel activity.

01:35:34.520 --> 01:35:41.520
 I think with reporting, we would probably need the permission of folks there, you know, if there's that element.

01:35:41.520 --> 01:35:46.520
 But we do want to make it accessible to people who can't make it out there physically.

01:35:46.520 --> 01:35:50.520
 It's definitely a consideration, so we can work on that.

01:35:50.520 --> 01:36:02.520
 And my other question is, will you be coming back to present to this committee after each community meeting, or is that not?

01:36:02.520 --> 01:36:08.520
 Let me find the, in general, yes, I think that's the answer.

01:36:08.520 --> 01:36:14.520
 We are kind of time number two. Yeah, this one here.

01:36:14.520 --> 01:36:21.520
 So we will have other kind of community meetings in March and April, and we'll be presenting to you all around the same time.

01:36:21.520 --> 01:36:25.520
 Okay, sounds good. Adam?

01:36:25.520 --> 01:36:28.520
 Yeah, I missed a couple meetings. I was out of the country.

01:36:28.520 --> 01:36:32.520
 So I don't know if this is to you or to the committee.

01:36:32.520 --> 01:36:36.520
 Why or when did this become the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan?

01:36:36.520 --> 01:36:39.520
 Is that what it's being called now?

01:36:39.520 --> 01:36:44.520
 Can you explain? I thought we were just calling it Climate Action Plan.

01:36:44.520 --> 01:36:47.520
 So I don't know who to direct this question to, sorry.

01:36:47.520 --> 01:36:52.520
 It's always been Action and Adaptation.

01:36:52.520 --> 01:36:53.520
 It has?

01:36:53.520 --> 01:36:57.520
 That's a, that's what our committee responded to.

01:36:57.520 --> 01:37:00.520
 That's the term of art. Would you say?

01:37:00.520 --> 01:37:04.520
 It really varies. You know, some communities, it's a Climate Action Plan.

01:37:04.520 --> 01:37:07.520
 Some communities, it's Climate Action and Adaptation.

01:37:07.520 --> 01:37:12.520
 Some communities, it's Community Energy and Climate Action Plan.

01:37:12.520 --> 01:37:14.520
 I've seen all sorts of them.

01:37:14.520 --> 01:37:17.520
 Community, Climate Action and Resilience Plan.

01:37:17.520 --> 01:37:22.520
 So, you know, what you call it is one thing. What's in it is probably the more important part.

01:37:22.520 --> 01:37:27.520
 So, yeah, that's the framework we're going to, but it's kind of the same idea.

01:37:27.520 --> 01:37:32.520
 So I'm asking now because it's, maybe it's too late, but it's kind of a conceptual question.

01:37:32.520 --> 01:37:37.520
 So it makes it sound like adaptation isn't an action.

01:37:37.520 --> 01:37:43.520
 And it sort of pulls out adaptation as something special when the presentation doesn't mention adaptation.

01:37:43.520 --> 01:37:46.520
 It's all mitigation, as far as I can tell.

01:37:46.520 --> 01:37:51.520
 So if we're going to pinch it as a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, we ought to talk about adaptation more.

01:37:51.520 --> 01:37:59.520
 I know some of those actions that are adaptation overlap with mitigation actions, like weatherizing homes and such.

01:37:59.520 --> 01:38:01.520
 But some of them do not.

01:38:01.520 --> 01:38:08.520
 And so I would prefer, just because it's simpler and I think it's more representative, to just call it a Climate Action Plan.

01:38:08.520 --> 01:38:10.520
 And that would include everything.

01:38:10.520 --> 01:38:16.520
 Or if we're going to continue to call it this, we ought to emphasize more one of the words that's in it.

01:38:16.520 --> 01:38:24.520
 Mitigation is super important, but right now it seems like that's, we start with, OK, here's our zero carbon goal.

01:38:24.520 --> 01:38:27.520
 And here's all the sectors of emissions and stuff.

01:38:27.520 --> 01:38:35.520
 But we don't really talk about how you build a city that's more resilient to the weather changes that we know are coming.

01:38:35.520 --> 01:38:41.520
 So either I think we need to emphasize that more or change the name or both is my suggestion.

01:38:41.520 --> 01:38:43.520
 Maybe it's too late.

01:38:43.520 --> 01:38:51.520
 I think as we get into the actions, we're going to see more of the adaptation piece.

01:38:51.520 --> 01:39:00.520
 Because when we start talking about planning and how we're developing different areas of the city,

01:39:00.520 --> 01:39:06.520
 if we're making them more walkable, then we start to encompass that.

01:39:06.520 --> 01:39:17.520
 That's certainly our focus is working to maximize both with a bit more emphasis on the mitigation due to your net zero goals.

01:39:17.520 --> 01:39:20.520
 That's within the scope of what we're developing.

01:39:20.520 --> 01:39:29.520
 I think there is an opportunity to look more at resilience and adaptation, perhaps kind of outside of the work that we're doing specifically.

01:39:29.520 --> 01:39:32.520
 But there's a lot that can be done there.

01:39:32.520 --> 01:39:36.520
 And our focus is going to be more on where do those things overlap and the mitigation.

01:39:36.520 --> 01:39:46.520
 But yeah, I understand what you're saying because this committee talked about more resilience with the climate crisis coming.

01:39:46.520 --> 01:39:50.520
 And that was one of the reasons why we approved this and discussed this.

01:39:50.520 --> 01:39:55.520
 And so it's not just about reducing emissions for us.

01:39:55.520 --> 01:39:57.520
 There's more to it.

01:39:57.520 --> 01:40:02.520
 And so that's where the conversation is coming from.

01:40:02.520 --> 01:40:03.520
 Does that make sense?

01:40:03.520 --> 01:40:08.520
 Yeah, I think it will come out in the actions.

01:40:08.520 --> 01:40:16.520
 Oh, I was going to say I can understand completely what Adam's saying because I'm talking to people about adaptation.

01:40:16.520 --> 01:40:23.520
 It really removes the urgency of what the actual problem is.

01:40:23.520 --> 01:40:27.520
 And oh, if we can adapt, everything will be fine.

01:40:27.520 --> 01:40:33.520
 And I know that your presentations do not say that.

01:40:33.520 --> 01:40:48.520
 And so I think the more we stay on the path that we're on with the idea of reducing, the adaptation comes in reducing the emissions basically.

01:40:48.520 --> 01:40:56.520
 Yeah, I'd also say a lot of the actions are going to increase resilience to extreme weather around the buildings especially.

01:40:56.520 --> 01:41:01.520
 And resilience kind of in a larger sense around fuel prices.

01:41:01.520 --> 01:41:05.520
 That's a huge uncertainty in climate change as well.

01:41:05.520 --> 01:41:08.520
 So I think that will come out more in that.

01:41:08.520 --> 01:41:17.520
 Yeah, and just in talking to people, there's some people in this town who think this is a bunch of baloney.

01:41:17.520 --> 01:41:21.520
 I talk to people and they say, oh, you can't fix your roads.

01:41:21.520 --> 01:41:23.520
 How are you going to do this?

01:41:23.520 --> 01:41:36.520
 So there's something where the more practical, pragmatic, this will help this, this will help that, this will ensure a healthier future.

01:41:36.520 --> 01:41:39.520
 All positives because all you get from the other side are negatives.

01:41:39.520 --> 01:41:40.520
 For sure.

01:41:40.520 --> 01:41:45.520
 I think our financial analysis in later stages will also help to demonstrate some of that.

01:41:45.520 --> 01:41:51.520
 Where you'll be saving money ultimately while you're reducing emissions.

01:41:51.520 --> 01:41:52.520
 All right.

01:41:52.520 --> 01:41:54.520
 Paul, you have something else or?

01:41:54.520 --> 01:41:58.520
 Yeah, well, you had asked whether there are other things that you're interested in.

01:41:58.520 --> 01:41:59.520
 Go ahead.

01:41:59.520 --> 01:42:13.520
 So I didn't see anything about the climate action impacts of preserving green space, adding to tree canopy, that whole area.

01:42:13.520 --> 01:42:16.520
 Environmental aspects.

01:42:16.520 --> 01:42:27.520
 Yeah, we typically include that as part of the carbon sequestration options for residual emissions that couldn't be reduced or avoided somehow.

01:42:27.520 --> 01:42:36.520
 Many communities, that's the case where then you're looking at how many trees could be planted or how could we change agricultural practices within the city.

01:42:36.520 --> 01:42:38.520
 So yeah, we can definitely do this.

01:42:38.520 --> 01:42:40.520
 This is kind of my point.

01:42:40.520 --> 01:42:43.520
 This is a good illustration.

01:42:43.520 --> 01:42:47.520
 That's one framing of it, but it's maybe too narrow.

01:42:47.520 --> 01:42:50.520
 I like your talk about co-benefits and all of that.

01:42:50.520 --> 01:42:57.520
 So planting trees, if we want to get people to walk more, it will be nice if it was shadier.

01:42:57.520 --> 01:43:06.520
 And it helps with air quality and it helps with a whole bunch of other things, including resilience if we can reduce heat island effects.

01:43:06.520 --> 01:43:17.520
 So I think it will be important as we move forward, just echoing Ed, that we talk about all the co-benefits of this, of every action that we're talking about.

01:43:17.520 --> 01:43:21.520
 Because to me this is the most ambitious thing the city is doing.

01:43:21.520 --> 01:43:25.520
 It's just, I think it's really amazing.

01:43:25.520 --> 01:43:32.520
 And it will be, there's going to be folks who are skeptical, but if we can learn to talk in different ways about all the benefits of this.

01:43:32.520 --> 01:43:38.520
 And even if we don't hit our targets that are really quantified, if we make steps towards it, it has all of these co-benefits.

01:43:38.520 --> 01:43:43.520
 It's a good framework to talk about all of the ways we can improve.

01:43:43.520 --> 01:43:45.520
 That's really helpful. I appreciate that.

01:43:45.520 --> 01:43:50.520
 I think at the end of the day so many of these actions are going to make Benton a better place to live.

01:43:50.520 --> 01:43:53.520
 That can be the overall takeaway for sure.

01:43:53.520 --> 01:44:00.520
 Cleaner air, lower energy bills, better jobs, all of those things.

01:44:00.520 --> 01:44:05.520
 I think that builds on Adam's comment.

01:44:05.520 --> 01:44:10.520
 It's a bit anecdotal, but I would say it's still true.

01:44:10.520 --> 01:44:19.520
 That possibly the most popular grand plan that the city has presented to the public in the last several years is the trails plan.

01:44:19.520 --> 01:44:27.520
 When Parks and Rec was asked, asked the public in many workshop type settings, what do they want, what do they want? Trails, trails, trails.

01:44:27.520 --> 01:44:32.520
 Just in terms of building a case that people could latch onto.

01:44:32.520 --> 01:44:34.520
 It's linear parks, it's trees.

01:44:34.520 --> 01:44:43.520
 Also, incidentally, when you talk about light paths, that conversation migrated toward the desire for off-road paths.

01:44:43.520 --> 01:44:52.520
 So I'm just kind of indicating there's, as you've talked about, preserving green space and kind of ancillary benefits.

01:44:52.520 --> 01:44:57.520
 I can put it on, you put it very well.

01:44:57.520 --> 01:45:01.520
 The trails business is the hook.

01:45:01.520 --> 01:45:08.520
 That would be in the next meeting, targets, and you took the slide.

01:45:08.520 --> 01:45:12.520
 I'm trying to find the co-benefits.

01:45:12.520 --> 01:45:21.520
 So the discussions that this group is talking about interested in would be in the discussion for March or April.

01:45:21.520 --> 01:45:24.520
 These are all meetings that we would have.

01:45:24.520 --> 01:45:26.520
 Sorry, what's your question?

01:45:26.520 --> 01:45:32.520
 The discussions that we're having now, like in the actions, would that come in March or April?

01:45:32.520 --> 01:45:34.520
 More specific.

01:45:34.520 --> 01:45:36.520
 More specific recommended actions.

01:45:36.520 --> 01:45:45.520
 That's going to start in March and then continue into the April meeting where we can have a whole suite of ones that would be considered.

01:45:45.520 --> 01:45:52.520
 But we want to prioritize, we want to understand the city's not going to be able to do everything at once or has limited resources.

01:45:52.520 --> 01:45:55.520
 So which one's the most important? That will be in the April discussion.

01:45:55.520 --> 01:45:57.520
 Okay. All right. Thank you.

01:45:57.520 --> 01:46:06.520
 But we're open to your input from now until through April, so if you've got other thoughts.

01:46:06.520 --> 01:46:07.520
 Well, thank you so much.

01:46:07.520 --> 01:46:08.520
 Thank you.

01:46:08.520 --> 01:46:09.520
 Thank you.

01:46:09.520 --> 01:46:15.520
 So we will move on to our last item or to item F, staff reports.

01:46:15.520 --> 01:46:20.520
 There is the February engagement and then the matrix.

01:46:20.520 --> 01:46:26.520
 And February engagement was just an update of what we have coming up.

01:46:26.520 --> 01:46:35.520
 And then if we have any questions to the matrix, I'm going to have it pulled up over here so I can hear you guys.

01:46:35.520 --> 01:46:40.520
 I am curious, there are a couple of items on tree canopy.

01:46:40.520 --> 01:46:46.520
 Ed has one for carbon sequestration.

01:46:46.520 --> 01:46:48.520
 Say that really fast too.

01:46:48.520 --> 01:46:55.520
 And I asked for like the tree canopy goals for the future.

01:46:55.520 --> 01:46:57.520
 So we will have Haywood come back.

01:46:57.520 --> 01:47:03.520
 If we could just mesh everything that says tree canopy together and knock some of these off.

01:47:03.520 --> 01:47:05.520
 Is that one presentation?

01:47:05.520 --> 01:47:06.520
 We'll do that.

01:47:06.520 --> 01:47:07.520
 Okay.

01:47:07.520 --> 01:47:08.520
 All right.

01:47:08.520 --> 01:47:09.520
 Thanks.

01:47:09.520 --> 01:47:12.520
 Are we putting things on the matrix yet?

01:47:12.520 --> 01:47:13.520
 We can.

01:47:13.520 --> 01:47:15.520
 Do you want to do that now?

01:47:15.520 --> 01:47:17.520
 Yeah, go ahead.

01:47:17.520 --> 01:47:24.520
 I have two, possibly three things.

01:47:24.520 --> 01:47:32.520
 And I probably should have asked this when DNE was here, but the status is commercial and industrial.

01:47:32.520 --> 01:47:45.520
 Solar installations, how are they going to be impacted by this new policy, or if the policy even applies to them?

01:47:45.520 --> 01:47:55.520
 And I'm assuming that, or I don't even know if there are incentives for industrial.

01:47:55.520 --> 01:47:56.520
 That's what I'm not sure about.

01:47:56.520 --> 01:47:58.520
 I don't know if it applies to industrial.

01:47:58.520 --> 01:48:05.520
 Yeah, so that would, I think that should be part of the conversation.

01:48:05.520 --> 01:48:13.520
 Schools, DISD, would they be impacted by this?

01:48:13.520 --> 01:48:32.520
 The other thing is, there's a thing called islanding, which is a process where a grid-tied solar system, when the grid goes down, the system can continue to work.

01:48:32.520 --> 01:48:41.520
 As it is right now in Denton, any grid-tied PV system goes down when the grid goes down.

01:48:41.520 --> 01:48:52.520
 But there are ways that the generator, the PV system, can remain on even when the grid goes down.

01:48:52.520 --> 01:49:05.520
 From what I've been told, it's largely a matter of safety protocols, so if guys have to go out and work on the lines, they're not going to get executed, electrocuted.

01:49:05.520 --> 01:49:17.520
 There was a little discussion about this a number of years ago, and I just wondered if there had been any development with that.

01:49:17.520 --> 01:49:41.520
 And then one last question, the rates, if you use more power in the winter months, November through April, you get a discount. First 600 kilowatt hours are .0684, and any additional kilowatt hours after that are .0455.

01:49:41.520 --> 01:49:52.520
 And I wondered if the rationale for that is still germane to the situation, seeing as how we've just seen how we're going to have more hot days and less cold days.

01:49:52.520 --> 01:50:04.520
 Assuming that winter months are because people jacked up their thermostats because of cold.

01:50:04.520 --> 01:50:13.520
 So Ed, would you like just a staff report on this last one, or do you want a presentation to this? Well, whatever form it takes, the most official way.

01:50:13.520 --> 01:50:24.520
 So the rationale for the winter? Yeah, why the winter rates, why there's a discount in the rate after the first 600 kilowatt hours.

01:50:24.520 --> 01:50:36.520
 And it's not that way in the summer. Summer months are .0684. There's no reduction if you use more power in the summer.

01:50:36.520 --> 01:50:43.520
 And it seems like that's sort of the catch-22 for the rate payer, the way things are coming up.

01:50:43.520 --> 01:51:01.520
 I need to look at the rate structure, but I'm wondering if they're thinking that the lower usage, that you're using less electricity in the winter, based on more houses having natural gas.

01:51:01.520 --> 01:51:15.520
 It could be. And that a lot of our multifamily and several of our lower-- Yeah, this is a discussion. Yeah, sorry. Thank you.

01:51:15.520 --> 01:51:23.520
 We can save it for the staff report, but if we need to, if they would like to have it more discussion-based, you can do it in a presentation.

01:51:23.520 --> 01:51:34.520
 I was getting a little bit, yeah. So is that all for the matrix? Yeah, thank you. Okay, Brian?

01:51:34.520 --> 01:51:45.520
 Items number two and four. I know Matt had a request of one, and we did half of item number four that I-- What are you saying? I don't know.

01:51:45.520 --> 01:51:56.520
 Okay. So item two was requested by member Frey, transportation overview, new transportation standards, broader mobility plan, bike program, vehicle idling standards, sidewalks, infrastructure.

01:51:56.520 --> 01:52:08.520
 Item four was something that Keely and I put on together, request and review of development codes, parking minimums, on-street parking, and then we covered the tree code in a separate presentation.

01:52:08.520 --> 01:52:16.520
 Those two items feel substantively very similar, and I feel like they're going to come up quite a bit as we work through the climate action plan.

01:52:16.520 --> 01:52:34.520
 I just wonder if there's a way we could-- I'm not sure if it would be more beneficial for our committee's understanding to hear that sort of information possibly from development services prior to discussion about some of those adaptation and the climate action items, or perhaps something we can evaluate after.

01:52:34.520 --> 01:52:42.520
 I'm just wondering if those two items could be combined and then the scheduling of those. I'm not clear on when it would be most effective for us to hear that information.

01:52:42.520 --> 01:52:45.520
 Probably sooner than later, right, as we're working through this.

01:52:45.520 --> 01:52:56.520
 It would cover-- I would hope it would cover currently our operative norms in development services, particularly around a lot of these transportation issues.

01:52:56.520 --> 01:53:07.520
 I'm just curious if we might be able to provide more direction to staff whenever we hear more from our climate action plan and the recommendations out of that.

01:53:07.520 --> 01:53:08.520
 So two and four?

01:53:08.520 --> 01:53:09.520
 Correct.

01:53:09.520 --> 01:53:10.520
 Okay.

01:53:10.520 --> 01:53:15.520
 Okay.

01:53:15.520 --> 01:53:16.520
 Yeah.

01:53:16.520 --> 01:53:17.520
 Yeah.

01:53:17.520 --> 01:53:18.520
 It's still on.

01:53:18.520 --> 01:53:20.520
 Anybody else?

01:53:20.520 --> 01:53:28.520
 Just wanted to second that. I was going to say, I didn't know if I missed it, but a transportation-focused discussion, given that that's the gorilla in the room for it.

01:53:28.520 --> 01:53:29.520
 Okay.

01:53:29.520 --> 01:53:30.520
 Yeah.

01:53:30.520 --> 01:53:33.520
 Would our new member like to add anything to the matrix, or would you look over?

01:53:33.520 --> 01:53:35.520
 I'd add my support to the items.

01:53:35.520 --> 01:53:36.520
 Okay.

01:53:36.520 --> 01:53:39.520
 All right. So that-- do you have that, Catherine?

01:53:39.520 --> 01:53:40.520
 I do.

01:53:40.520 --> 01:53:41.520
 All right.

01:53:41.520 --> 01:53:53.520
 So I think we kind of covered concluding items a little bit, but does anybody have anything extra they want to add that's not on the matrix that they would like to see?

01:53:53.520 --> 01:53:56.520
 Or any other thing?

01:53:56.520 --> 01:54:05.520
 All right. I think we are good. We will conclude the meeting at 2.54. Thank you, everybody.