Traverse City Light & Power set some new goals in strategic planning this week: backing off the goal of 30% renewable generation by 2020, ruling out future consideration of biomass, expanding the scope of its options for replacing dispatchable baseload generation, and ramping up energy efficiency beyond state requirements. TCLP board chair Mike Coco offers this summary:
The board and staff of Traverse City Light & Power met twice in recent weeks to review and revise our utility’s strategic goals. This process usually takes place each January. We took this step now in response to public feedback and the board’s decision to drop biomass as a generation option at our June 23rd meeting. After having a total of six members of the public at the last three strategic planning sessions in as many recent years, I’m glad to report that we had almost twenty members of the public attend. Almost all of them provided comment prior to the board’s discussions. In addition, the board took into account public feedback received since October 2009 when the board considered purchasing local land for a potential generation plant.
Major Outcomes
I would like to share with you the major outcomes of this process:
- First, there was board consensus to let go of 30by20 (producing 30% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020). Focusing on “renewable” as defined by regulatory agencies and the State and Federal governments greatly restricted community’s options for baseload generation. The 30×20 goal was replaced with a goal of meeting all of our baseload and peak load energy needs while emphasizing local public health, life cycle impacts of any generation option, CO2 emissions and being economically and environmentally responsible. Our utility is still faced with losing 50% of our baseload generation (from coal plants in Lansing). This is a challenge that needs to be addressed soon though I and other board members will work to not rush the process. Another challenge is how to adequately address concerns about local public health. This is issue important to the board and the staff. This will take significant board, staff and public discussion, as each generation source has benefits and challenges. And the board continues to want to move away from coal, from which we receive 95% of our electricity today. The board did not set a specific goal related to reducing CO2 emissions at this time. This is something that takes significant thought and discussion. The staff will be reviewing possible options for an objective tied to CO2 emissions as we complete this process.
- Second, the board again ruled out biomass as a generation source. This applies to biomass electricity generated both locally and non-locally. When the board decided June 23rd to move away from biomass and to investigate other generation options, we needed to make a clear statement that this was not a delay tactic and that the board had consensus on this issue. Each board member individually voted on whether TCLP should consider biomass as a generation option. Not one board member voted yes.
- Third, the board removed the requirement of “local” generation from the strategic goals. The intent of this decision is to give the staff more options to present to the public (i.e., both local and non-local options). Today, <1% of our electricity is produced locally. Local generation is the “gold standard” as it provides the highest level of system-reliability, is typically less expensive and avoids losses due to transmission. Local generation may also offer the option combined heat and power, which doubles the efficiency of a plant. Despite these positive attributes of local generation, the board felt it was best to take a significant step back in our generation planning and to not pigeon-hole the utility into a narrow set of options. To be honest, the board does not have a solid grasp on whether the community supports any form of local generation. There may be broad support for local generation. There may not. This is something the TCLP board must, and will, work to determine.
- Fourth, the board emphasized the need for 1) more energy efficiency, 2) more energy conservation and 3) more progressive energy tools. For “energy tools”, think smart metering, a possible solar rate similar to the green rate TCLP had in the past, methods to help shave peak-demand, etc. The board was specific in stating that we do not want to be bound by state rules around energy efficiency from Public Act 295. This legislation creates some disincentives to being more aggressive with energy efficiency sooner. The board also realizes that energy efficiency is only effective in replacing the need for more generation if it is done sustainable over the long term. TCLP board and staff will have a presentation and in-depth discussion on energy efficiency at our August 10th board meeting (5:15 at the Commission Chambers). This discussion will help us further define for the staff exactly what the board and public would like to see in increased energy efficiency programs (e.g., are we targeting to reduce overall use, reduce during peak demand, etc.). We would like to have additional public input from this discussion. We hope to see you there.
Next steps
Changes to the TCLP strategic goals are not final until we have specific objectives tied to each goal and they are voted on at a public meeting. The staff will develop those specific measurable and time-bound objectives over the next ~30 days based on public and board feedback. They will then be presented to the public and approved at a public board meeting. We welcome and encourage additional public input now and when they’re presented.
While the review of Traverse City Light & Powers strategic goals are first step, I realize they are not all-encompassing of restoring the board’s relationship with the community. I believe this is a significant first step to move in a new direction. We have heard you. We are moving forward.
If you have ideas, questions, concerns or general comments, please feel free to reach out to me or another TCLP board member. Thank you for reading.
Mike Coco, Chairman, Traverse City Light & Power
922-9689 mjcoco@gmail.com
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 11, 2010 at 12:27 am
Del Nolan
Your view doesnot hold water. AS Gearge pointed out, the community supports the continued use and refurbishing of the Breoadman Dams. they are economical to run, maintain and give back p[rofit side energy. A plan is before the board by a local engineer to take over the dams, refurbish them, run them and make power ofr the area.
I tmay be small in your eyes, but in the eyes of the rest of us, if we begin now it is the beginning of something good. Stop the good old boy malignancy that is pervasive on the City commission and county board . Time to stop them from tearing out these dams.
August 10, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Pat McGuire
Gearge – I don’t support TCLP using the Boardman dams because it makes no economic sense. The Boardman has neither the velocity or the mass to produce sufficient electricty to support the substantial costs of refurbishment and relicensing. Relicensing these dams through the FERC would be a very long and very costly process.
August 11, 2010 at 11:55 am
Rick Shimel
Pat—since you’re a newbie here I feel compelled to help you with your posts. Never, ever, confuse the issue with facts. It doesn’t matter that the river isn’t large enough to produce adequate power to pay for the costs of refurbishing the dams or the costly process of FERC licensing. Once you understand the uselessness of real information it gets easy; just make stuff up. Like, say, 30-40 thousand people support saving the dams. It doesn’t matter that you and I would probably agree that there aren’t 40 thousand people in GT County who even know we have dams. If you work it right you’ll find a “tag team” partner who will then quote your made up number as “evidence” in another post. If things start to go sideways play the “cramming” card; “I’m sick and tired of these ‘save the dams’ people cramming their sustainable power ideas down our throats.” It also helps to throw things like “social engineering,” “evils of the DDA, City Commission, County Commission, et al.” into the mix. When all else fails move out of TC. While this is a Traverse City board the majority of the “expert posters” here are not city residents.
August 12, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Pat McGuire
Rick –
Thanks for the advice. I am a newbie on this blog, and I’m coming to understand that trying to argue the facts does put a person at a serious disadvantage relative to the creative latitude enjoyed by those not so encumbered.
August 15, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Chris Bzdok
Pat and Rick – for what it’s worth, the admin stats indicate this site has many, many more readers than commenters. I expect most of us appreciate the facts that many commenters bring fwd. That was the hope in creating it. Best wishes, Chris
August 12, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Gearge Preston
Mr. Shimel is of course part of the good old boy croud that just wants what they want and the rest gop fly a kite. He’ll tell you of his long standing presence in the community, blah blah blah.
He and Pat are part of the kumbiya-lets hire-consultants from over 250 miles away..because that’s where good consultants must come from! And what the consultant(s) tell you in front a croud of same minded people that go ooooo ahhhh ohhhhh at their well dictioned and colorful presentations..makes them Rick and Pat like minded folks (lemmings) get on their wagon…,then the consultants ride out of town after saying check-please!
Pat imbides you with the cost to benefit ratio is not worth keeping the dams.. Wait a minute.. It seems a well meaning consultant cut of his same type of cloth laid out a plan that will cost about upwards of $10,000,000 million dollars to tear them out. Geez, lets see what spending 5 million would do to refurbish and produce power! Aplan for even less with more return sits before the TCLP and commission. Chew on that a bit! Oh yes, the majority of folks in the area do know dams exist on the Boardman and once produced not all but a measurable amount of hydro power.
The real question for TCLP and your good old boys and kumbiya’ers is.. Why did TCLP neglect these dams to the point of safety conserns. Who’s been a part of this web with fingers in the power-pie for so many years?
August 9, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Pat McGuire
I commend TCLP for dropping the “30by 20” goal because it was set to cost rate payers more money with no measurable benefit.
I’m likewise concerned that the Board of TCLP is considering making the reduction of CO2 a goal. If we’re going to go in that direction than we need to have a debate in this community about the validity of anthropogenic global warming, and even if we convince ourselves it is a problem we need to consider what paltry benefit could be derived from our local efforts when neither the international community nor the U.S. Congress can implement serious reduction policies.
August 10, 2010 at 10:05 am
Gearge Preston
So Pat, yu support appathy over doing something? Even if it is well planned and has a positive effect? Even if it is small? Come on, I suppose you go to G8 summits and protest with your mask on too!
Simple solutions such using the enegery produced by the current Hydroelectric dams on the Boardman are step in the right direction.
August 8, 2010 at 10:07 pm
J Ross
Why not re-establish the hydro electric power (re-newable) that is being shut down due to a loud small group of river anglers?
Why not use power we already have free flowing from the river? Stop the Boardman River dam de-commissioning. TCLP has a wonderful re-newable resource right there. Stop the madness of dismantling something that works.. Invest in making it better instead of the 20 years of nelgect.
August 10, 2010 at 10:07 am
Gearge Preston
Total support of that idea, as is oh say.. 30,0000 to 40,000 other local residents.
Stop the Dams Removal
August 8, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Brian Beauchamp
There’s a notable and appreciated difference in how TCL&P is going about developing the next phase of its strategic plan–it’s reaching out the public to participate in the process proactively. So, now it’s up to us as ratepayers and citizens to take them up on the offer and get involved.
As for the plan itself, I am very happy to see a focus on reducing CO2 emissions as a major component. The best way to do that is to focus very clearly on energy efficiency and energy savings. TCL&P can do a lot to support the community in this regard, but again it’s up to we the people to make the choices that will save us money and energy.
August 6, 2010 at 11:28 am
Greg Reisig
TCLP deserves a lot of credit for pulling back on biomass yet exploring new options for renewable energy use as well as an increased emphasis on conservation and efficiency. We look forward to working with TCLP and others to create a Smart Energy Plan for the entire Grand Traverse region.
Greg Reisig, Chairman
Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council