- All right. Good evening everybody So I'll call to order this meeting of the Bloomington Commission on
- sustainability and resilience at 5 30 p.m. And we'll start with the roll call Tara Dunderdale here Justin
- Vassel. I'm here Rebecca pain here Christopher miles Here Zach Omerman here Dave Rallo Here Quentin Gilly
- Alex York here Maria Arstad Sheng hua shu Not here Diana ogre dusky here and Ross Carlson And not here
- and do we have any commissioners in the zoom Okay, okay Well, we have a quorum. So we'll go ahead and
- get started and
- Good evening. Good evening everybody. Welcome. Thanks for being here with us for this special meeting
- of our commission So we're going to do things a little bit differently than we do most of the time tonight
- We're going to be hearing from a team of students at the IU O'Neill school they spent this past semester
- working with our Commission as a client on a capstone research project and their charge was to assess
- the feasibility of a sustainable energy utility here in Bloomington
- Tonight's presentation is something we've been looking forward to all semester But just a quick word
- on why this project matters to us as a commission So our commission exists to promote and advance sustainable
- policies and practices across environmental social and economic dimensions Energy touches on every one
- of those dimensions Electricity generation in particular is one of the biggest factors in whether the
- city can meet the goals laid out in our climate action plan So it's not an abstract question for us
- The students analysis will be foundational for the recommendations that we will then hopefully go on
- to develop for city leaders here in Bloomington. So just a quick note on format. We have an hour for
- the presentation and some Q&A hopefully. So we'll need to adjourn by 630. The findings for commissioners
- here the findings will come back with us and it'll be on a future agenda. So we'll have an opportunity
- to discuss this in more detail amongst ourselves at a future meeting. So tonight's really going to be
- focused around questions and answers for the students.
- So with that I'll hand it over to Commissioner Alex York who served as our point of contact on this
- project For a few remarks and to introduce our guests Thank You Justin Um, yeah, this is something that
- I have been very curious about the results on I first thought of it listening to the volts podcast which
- for any energy nerds out there who don't listen to this I recommend but I heard the podcast I think
- last year in August and then
- talking to people, I was given the idea, it's like, what if SPIA could do a capstone on this? And I
- immediately reached out to a number of professors that I had during my days at SPIA, at O'Neill School,
- SPIA for me forever. And a special thank you to two of them here, Professor Nikos and John. Nikos, I
- know this was your first capstone, so thank you for trying that out to experience this.
- A lot of professors don't like doing that. And John, for coming out of retirement, I think that without
- your engagement and participation, this wouldn't have happened. I know that we have a time limit, and
- I'm excited to get going. But a quick extra thank you also to Justin, who helped me with some of the
- early ideas on this and believing in me and telling me that it was a good idea to try it. And thank
- you to Jolie, one of our staff liaisons, for helping with some of the logistics that points through
- the project.
- And big thank you to the students for the hard work. And now, on to them. All right. Thank you for that
- introduction. So yeah, like you said, we're a graduate capstone class. My name is Bronwyn Meldrum. I'm
- the project manager, and I'm joined presenting today by Suso Badrai, Evie Sellers, and Miles Powell.
- And we were tasked in January with analyzing the feasibility of that sustainable energy utility, which
- is a community owned model of providing electricity found on energy generation and conservation and
- the use of renewables. So we've provided a copy of that full report to you. And also we have provided
- digital copies as well. And there's an accompanying appendix that has valuable information tools and
- methodology to supplement the report.
- And each of you also has a copy of the executive summary, which is a shortened version of the report
- that has the most vital information but is lacking some of the details. So definitely still worth looking
- through that report. But the presentation will follow the format of the executive summary, so you can
- follow along if you'd like. So we were asked to examine the feasibility of implementing a sustainable
- energy utility. Here it is. All righty. Perfect. OK.
- in Bloomington inspired by the one being piloted in Ann Arbor and similar initiatives in D.C. and Delaware.
- So early in our research we determined that
- That sort of framework is not going to be feasible in Bloomington due to the regulatory frameworks in
- Indiana So without permission from Duke Energy, we couldn't do that sort of Ann Arbor style But that
- led us to questions two and three which focus on what else could we do instead to still meet climate
- action goals? So alternative sets of actions called scenarios were developed and analyzed that could
- still allow Bloomington to move towards those
- carbon emissions goals and these scenarios range from low complexity and low additional Investment to
- more complex and requiring increased capacity and collaboration To see how these scenarios compare we
- selected the criteria of the five pillars of electric utility service Which are outlined by the Indiana
- utility regulatory commission. These are reliability affordability resiliency stability and environmental
- sustainability and we'll explain those in more detail later and
- The project began with extensive background research, which Miles will be giving a brief overview of,
- and then moved into three key analyses, evaluating the scenario pillar alignment, risk, and stakeholder
- impact analysis. So each will be discussed in turn and then integrated to evaluate overall scenario
- outcomes. And we'll have time for questions at the end, like Alex mentioned. So I'm going to turn the
- time over to Miles.
- We'll begin first with a little bit of background and first specifically with the city of Bloomington
- itself the climate action plan the city has has specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
- Getting the citywide emissions below 2018 levels by 2030 and reducing achieving carbon neutrality by
- 2050 and this was kind of the impetus for this project
- the energy and built environment sector accounts for the largest amount of citywide emissions and Because
- of that the city has a variety of existing programs to attempt to address that BG hip seal Bloomington
- energy works and the sustainable neighborhood grants program But progress has been fairly limited on
- that front because energy is provided and generated by Duke energy Electricity is provided by Duke energy
- The city has very little control over what and how Duke chooses to produce that energy and in fact Duke's
- most recent Integrated resource plan actually shows that they are not Intending to switch to renewable
- energy fast enough for the city to meet its sustainability goals So that leads us to a sustainable energy
- utility the idea is to provide a hundred percent renewable energy to the customers and
- No more coal and natural gas all solar panels wind geothermal well possible There are examples as we
- mentioned in Ann Arbor, Michigan Washington DC and the state of Delaware and Ann Arbor is kind of our
- primary point of comparison as it's a similar Flag city with the flagship University of the state The
- idea would be to create a municipally owned and operated electricity utility and this the sustainable
- energy and the municipally owned aspect of it is
- Provide different incentives than the traditional investor-owned utilities like Duke IOUs are more concerned
- about profit and Certainly their public image in the regulatory structure But their primary goal is
- to produce profits for shareholders a sustainable energy utility certainly has to deal with a public
- image in the regulatory landscape, but Is not going to be concerned about profits. They're gonna be
- concerned about producing renewable energy exclusively This leads us to the five pillars
- Previously mentioned these are codified into Indiana code utilities are regulated at the state level
- and It's a very big deal nationally that Indiana has these And they provide guidance to the Indiana
- utility regulatory commission for the decisions in approving or denying certain utility Aspects so first
- is reliability, which is the ability to meet user demand at all times affordability
- is the ability to minimize the cost to the consumer and reduce energy burden. Energy burden is the percent
- of household monthly income that is spent on energy. And above 6% is considered a high energy burden
- being energy insecure. Resiliency is the ability to adapt to varying conditions and recover quickly
- in the case of an outage. Stability is the ability to maintain standard voltage flows, AKA avoid an
- outage to begin with. And environmental sustainability, which
- Certainly is going to be the most important one for a sustainable energy utility is both about the impacts
- of regulation on the cost For end users as well as meeting the demand for sustainable energy among customers
- So as we mentioned we can't exactly do and are in our burst style sustainable energy utility in Bloomington
- there are certainly financial and technical challenges, but the primary limiting factor is
- the utility code in Indiana. Indiana utility code gives a single entity the sole right to furnish retail
- electric service in its territory, which is fairly limiting. In Ann Arbor, the Michigan code allows
- them to compete with the IOU. They created their sustainable energy utility in parallel to the existing
- structure, and so customers can choose to sign up for the municipal energy
- Knowing that it is green energy While also still having their previous utility provider There are however
- other options that we found in the legal research There was a section of code that allows explicitly
- for the creation of a municipal electric utility but it does require that the municipality buy out all
- of the infrastructure of the incumbent IOU and
- Which we determined was prohibitively expensive for the city to actually implement Instead there were
- two other sections that we did pursue more One that allows behind the meter generation meaning you can
- generate energy for yourself this includes a municipal entity generating energy and sharing it across
- multiple buildings for municipal purposes and a statute that allows for alternative regulatory plans
- this one has a lot of potential essentially a
- utility company can approach the IURC with a alternative plan to what is currently in place and as long
- as that plan actually Improves some aspect of the five pillars. It generally gets approved There's not
- usually a lot of pushback from the IURC as long as it meets one of those pillars This means that the
- city would be able to do just about anything they could get Duke to agree with this does involve though
- negotiations with the party that has different interests than the city and
- And those last two in particular inform a lot of our scenarios.
- All right, hi everybody. So because we determined that the establishment of an SEU is unfortunately
- not feasible in the current legal and regulatory landscape, we developed and analyzed four alternative
- scenarios through which the city could make progress towards their climate action plan goals and support
- the ongoing deployment of renewable energy for both its own municipal operations as well as the benefit
- of the larger Bloomington community. So these four scenarios, which I will go into in more detail in
- just a moment,
- are business as usual, enhanced programming, a municipal microgrid, and community solar. Hello,
- there we go. All right, so scenario one, business as usual, is business as usual. It assumes the continuation
- of current programs such as BGHIP and SEAL at a consistent rate, and it serves as the baseline and comparison
- standard for the other scenarios and our analysis of their impact.
- Scenario 2 would involve expanding current city programming, but would not create dramatic change to
- the way the energy is generated and delivered in Bloomington. Under the scenario, we analyzed the potential
- impact of 50%, 100%, and 200% increase in projects funded under existing programs, such as SEAL and
- BGHIP. We also considered some new program and policy offerings, such as a peak demand response model.
- scenario 3 our municipal microgrid is established under that idea that miles spoke to that state law
- allows municipalities with the approval of the legislative body to furnish power to the municipality
- for municipal purposes so long as it doesn't disrupt sales relating to an existing contract and
- With this scenario using ArcGIS, our team identified 10 viable municipal microgrid nodes, which can
- be seen in the map on this slide, by applying a 1,000 foot campus scale buffer radius around existing
- facilities and solar sites. This specific 1,000 foot distance was chosen as a strict technical limit
- to prevent severe voltage drop issues across the distribution lines while ensuring that multiple buildings
- could efficiently share power.
- And finally, our scenario four is the community solar model modeled after the pending Doug Otto United
- Way project in Columbus, Indiana. This scenario involves the city of Bloomington financing building
- and managing a community solar grid with cooperation from Duke Energy.
- The electricity produced from this array would be split 50-50 with Duke. So 50% would be sold to the
- grid, after which the proceeds would be deposited into a municipally owned escrow account and
- be redistributed to local consumers as bill credits.
- The other 50 percent would be retained for municipal use. This scenario would target low and moderate
- income households who face disproportionate energy burden for energy credits and is broken into community
- solar array sizes of one one point two and two megawatts for the purpose of our analysis and comparison.
- Hello, everyone. So, before I jump into the result, I want to highlight how we build this analysis.
- So, to start with, our analysis is morally inclined with both quantitative and qualitative measurements.
- So, we started with using the capacity and determining the capacity factors through the Android app tools for
- of Bloomington in terms of solar energy. And then for the three of the five pillars, reliability, stability,
- and resilience pillars, we developed an Excel-based model called B-SIT, which stands for Bloomington
- Energy Impact Scenario Assessment. So it generally evaluates the peak load reductions, outage survival,
- and hour-to-hour grid stability. So in terms of affordability pillars,
- we try to look upon the energy burden, particularly for the low income household and the low to moderate
- income household, and calculate the levelized cost of electricity.
- look for the net present value for each of the proposed scenarios. Similarly, for the environmental
- sustainability pillars, we used several of the tools like EPA Cobra, EPA eGrid in order to evaluate
- the emission factors for the city of Bloomington. So in terms of the data where the numbers could not
- present so well, we did the
- qualitative analysis, like to get the data, like to get the information on historical language impacts
- and ecological system. So to continue with, firstly, I would like to briefly explain how our analysis
- table works on by using one of the examples. Those
- So this is for the Scenarios 3. So on this, across the columns, it represents a scaling pathway scenarios
- on the basis of different scale and system size. Similarly, the each roads correspond to the five pillars,
- Indiana's pillars, reliability, affordability, resilience, stability, and environmental resilience.
- I will start, I'm gonna start, I'll briefly go through the every of the scenarios. So some of the scenarios
- signs in some certain aspects and sort falls out in some.
- certain way. So to start with our baseline scenarios. So this is basically, it assumes the Bloomington
- continues its current programs at the current pace with the rollover out over the projected times. So
- at the initial conditions, the performance is certainly limited across the pillars. So in overall, these
- scenarios has the lowest risk and also the lowest impact.
- So moving on, on the second scenario we have enhanced programming where we scale the existing program
- like busy heaps sales by 50, 100 and 200 percentage. So to start with in terms of reliability,
- In terms of reliability, peak load reduction is quite reduced around 100 kilowatts, which is relatively
- small to the system demands. Similarly, in terms of resilience, it do have an outer survival time of
- around 36 hours, but they are mostly disintegrated to the individual household, so it doesn't
- contributes for the community resilience. So we recorded as a low impact over here. So talking about
- the stability too, since it's like disconnected from the grid itself, so it doesn't have impacts on
- the stability and also with the increments of the programs, there is a certainly gap between the solar
- generation and grid resilience.
- So for affordability, these programs continue to provide a strong benefit for the participants, reducing
- the energy burden from the range of 14% to 32% of that group to 0% to 8%. But even at the full expansion,
- the program only reaches to 30 households per year, so it is very small compared to the total eligible
- population on that group.
- So basically, in terms of environmental sustainability, the carbon emission rate is quite minimal, which
- doesn't impact mostly with the city's climate action goal. And it's the same case for the monetary health
- impacts through the COBRA analysis.
- Going down to the another scenario, Scenarios 3, the municipal microgrid. So these scenarios increases
- the municipal solar capacity and connect the facilities through a shared micro system with the battery
- storage and power setting for the municipal facilities during the time of a peak hour demand to supply
- the energy during a peak hour demand. So here we can see a good
- number of progress in terms of reliability like the peak load is reduced almost like a 40% when we have
- a coverage of 200% of current to the baseline scenarios and also
- In terms of resilience, it increases from like 0.3 hours, which is the current baseline, to nearly 30
- hours at the highest capacity. That shows that the system ability for sustaining during the critical
- loads and powering up during the backup period.
- However, in terms of stability, it shows the different pattern. Like I said before, it initially improved
- the stability with the hourly variability, but then worsened at the highest capacity because the volatile
- load behavior from the solar synchronized battery discharge and the sharp transitions between the solar
- generations and the grid resilience.
- So like for this municipal microgrid, it's kind of a high upfront investment. But when we try to assist
- through the affordability models, we could find a good result over there.
- of affordability, like the scenarios requires around 4.5 million for a baseline, up to 26.9 million
- in terms of a high capacity. But when we try to assess it with the annual savings, it could generate
- up to 1.5 million per year and then achieve a net positive present value by the 50% coverage only.
- So over here, too, at the highest capacity, do show some of the good reduction in carbon emissions,
- like it would contribute around 10 percent of the city's, reduce the 10 percent of the city's goal targets
- on emissions. And same with the monetary value. It can save around 55,000 in annual monetary health
- service, saving through the analysis we did through the COBRA analysis.
- So the fourth, so in overall, it has the highest performance, but it too comes with the higher initial
- cost. So we find this solution as one of the optimal solutions in terms of three of the other scenarios.
- Finally, the scenario four. Scenario four is the community solar.
- So it focuses on improving the affordability and access rather than the system control itself. So in
- this scenario, the solar energy is generated and exported directly to the grid. So the local reliability,
- resilience, and stability are not significantly affected. However, this scenario shows strong benefits
- in terms of affordability, like we can see at
- 2 megawatt scale, it reduces the energy burden for the low-income household from about 21 percent to
- 6 percent, while it also, like, we try to assist it with a household of around 350 households, where
- we can find that it can generate $1,000 annual bill credits. It's at 2,000 kilowatts of monthly energy
- consumption.
- So environmentally, this scenario has a minimal impact since it does come with land use impact. So the
- environmental impact emission is quite not significant in this scenario. So in overall, this scenario
- is mostly beneficial for low income household, but need the coordinated approach with the utility company
- for the grid synchronization. Thank you.
- technical difficulties. Yes, thank you. Yes. All right, so now that we're back. So we undertook a risk
- analysis and a stakeholder analysis in addition to
- Identify other potential areas of impact for each scenario So the risk analysis was undertaken to identify
- the main barriers that could limit the feasibility of each scenario The risks were identified by the
- capstone team based on the information We gathered during our background phase and then were analyzed
- by the scenario leads and our risk analysis lead Let's see All right
- So this summary figure models the risk analysis results, which perhaps unsurprisingly suggests that
- the more ambitious the scenario, the riskier it is, technically, financially, legally, and environmentally.
- To understand this figure and break it down a bit, the top right red zone in each quadrant indicates
- the highest risk, and the bottom left blue zone in each indicates the lowest risk in terms of their
- combined magnitude of impact and likelihood of occurrence, which are the two axes for each figure.
- The black dots are labeled with each of the identified risks for each scenario, the codes for which
- are defined both in the full report and in the appendix. As an example of what these risks entail, RF4
- represents local budget constraints, which is a very important risk for every scenario, which is why
- it applies to all of them. As we can see in this figure, some risks apply across multiple scenarios,
- and it's important to consider that compounded impact.
- Based on this analysis alone, the business as usual scenario is unsurprisingly the safest. It's very
- low risk to keep doing what you're already doing. But we note that it offers limited progress
- to Bloomington's goals. So the enhanced programming scenario is the most balanced in terms of the potential
- risks compared to the potential benefits it provides.
- All right, we also conducted a stakeholder analysis since many relevant stakeholders exist across the
- public, private, and nonprofit sectors who could serve as allies or obstacles within our identified
- scenario options. So this is quite a figure, and I promise I will break it down. So the stakeholder
- key shows the full list of stakeholders compiled by our stakeholder analysis team, and it was basically
- everyone we could think of who might have a vested interest in this.
- All of these stakeholders were analyzed individually to determine their levels of interest and influence
- in each scenario, which are the two axes on each quadrant in the figure. These analyses are accompanied
- by written descriptions in the full report that provide the evidence and reasoning behind the positions
- and levels that we assign to each stakeholder.
- That analysis was then mapped on this pretty figure to determine the key stakeholders, those with the
- highest influence and highest interest, whether that be in support or opposition. So to go one by one,
- the key stakeholders in the business as usual scenario in that beautiful blue number one up there are
- the city of Bloomington and Electrify Indiana.
- The city supports its own current programs and policies and it is city bodies both legislative
- and administrative that formulate and implement them. So it's no surprise that they ended up pretty
- high up on this list. Electrify Indiana was isolated with stronger influence and interest than its fellow
- nonprofits due to its current status as a partner of the city's Department of Economic and Sustainable
- Development through their partnership in the Bloomington Energy Works program.
- To move on to the enhanced programming scenario, which is our lovely green over there, are again the
- Citi Electrify Indiana and SIREN. Stakeholders who may be of greater importance, depending on the specifics
- of this programming, include Centerpoint Energy and the Indiana Energy Association or the IEA. The Citi
- and Electrify Indiana largely hold the same positions and reasoning as they do in business as usual.
- to break down a little bit more why Centerpoint and the IEA were isolated in this scenario. They may
- stand in opposition to the enhanced programming depending on the specific programming that is pursued.
- So Centerpoint provides natural gas, which is used for HVAC heating and cooling and not electricity.
- However, if adoption of heat pump HVAC technology is further incentivized in enhanced programming,
- They may stand in opposition due to the potential threat posed to their services. To continue moving
- down this path, the key stakeholders in the municipal microgrid scenario, our red one down in the bottom
- left to me, I think left to everyone, I digress, are the city, Duke Energy, the IEA, and the Indiana
- Utility Regulatory Commission, or the IURC, who I will be referring to by the acronym so I don't mess
- it up again.
- Bloomington's municipal government, who is strongly in support of energy and climate action, as you
- can see in what we're already doing, woohoo, would have the single largest influence over this project,
- given that it involves the connection of municipal buildings. Duke could try and challenge this project
- either legally or through lobbying with the General Assembly, and as the legally recognized sole provider
- of electricity service in Bloomington, they would have a right to do so.
- The IEA as a trade association of which Duke is a part would be expected to support Duke's positions
- and the IURC would be involved in any potential legal challenges, though they are mandated to be a neutral
- party in their application of state law. All right, I promise you're almost done hearing my voice. Finally,
- the key stakeholders in the community solar scenario, our final pink, are Duke, the city of Bloomington,
- and the IURC.
- Duke and the city are the stakeholders of the utmost importance for the scenario, as they are the two
- parties who would need to negotiate an agreement under which Duke would allow construction of community
- solar under the aforementioned negotiated management and financial plan. This plan would then need to
- be presented before the IURC, who hold the final say on whether to approve or deny the project. There we go.
- So bringing it all together there are complexities and limitations inherent in all of the analyses.
- So they are further discussed in the report and they should be taken into account when interpreting
- the results and when making decisions. But the business as usual served primarily as a baseline for
- comparison and as we discussed
- performs fairly poorly across the pillars. It has the lowest risk but also the lowest reward and is
- not aggressive enough to make meaningful progress towards Bloomington's sustainable sustainability and
- city climate action goals. That being said these programs have positive impacts. So we're focusing on
- an expansion and certainly not on removing any beneficial programs.
- So analysis suggested the enhanced programming pathway would yield some greenhouse gas emissions emissions
- reductions But only modest improvements in electric service focusing only on expanding existing programs
- has drawbacks because Funding is uncertain and this approach does not provide benefits from aggregated
- renewable generation or storage only increasing separated solar generation or electrics and electricity
- Sorry efficiency Programming so as such enhanced programming would serve best as a complement to other
- initiatives while the city should also consider Ways to expand resident and business facing programs
- to new areas like peak demand response For the municipal microgrid scenario at the highest capacity
- it results in substantial progress towards city climate goals in renewable energy expansion and emissions
- reduction and
- It requires a large initial investment. But if implemented incrementally, this cost can be spread out
- over time while still obtaining benefits until economies of scale improve return on investment.
- Unfortunately, since this scenario focuses only on city owned buildings, it falls short of distributing
- the benefits directly to Bloomington residents. While future financial savings could potentially be
- redistributed throughout the local economy using programming expansions, it is crucial to recognize
- the inherent trade offs in this scenario.
- For number four community solar it has a greater direct impact on house income low-income households
- But it does have a significant obstacle for this scenario to be an option Duke must agree to be a partner
- While this is a challenge the precedent set in Columbus has made it much more of a possibility the city
- should start to develop a relationship with Duke to warm them up to the idea of a partnership and begin
- engaging with community nonprofits to find a third party that could facilitate a community solar array
- Glaringly our recommendations are optimistic about city funding and staff capacity, which we know are
- strained These recommendations should be taken as a set of options that can be ready for when federal
- funding opens up or when other grant opportunities Arise as well as making efforts to implement them
- as possible in the present so because of these constraints incremental implementation is suggested for
- all actions and
- To take what steps are possible at the time and still make progress towards full scenario project goals.
- That being said, recommendations are organized into short-term and long-term processes depending on
- whether Bloomington could begin implementation soon or whether they require more external planning or
- collaboration that would require more time. Within these timeframes, recommendations are rank ordered
- based on highest to lowest potential impact.
- So for our short-term recommendations, these are possible. They could be started within three years
- First we recommend expansion of the municipal solar and battery capacity to prepare for future implementation
- of a microgrid and reduce city emissions in the meantime The second and third are also in preparation
- of a microgrid and involve further evaluating the feasibility of a municipal microgrid through refined
- cost and benefit estimates and
- Paired with bar certified legal review because while our research team team did a very thorough job
- We don't have the training or certification to ensure legality for you So our fourth recommendation
- is to expand support for residents solar and energy efficiency initiatives through increased resource
- allocation to BG hip seal and other relevant energy programming and
- Number five, Bloomington should seek additional grants and external funding from governments, nonprofits,
- philanthropic organizations, and community institutions like Indiana University to increase financial
- capacity for energy related programs. Our sixth recommendation is to evaluate the potential impacts
- of a city administered peak demand response program to reduce grid strain and high wholesale prices,
- which could curry favor with Duke Energy.
- Since they are the ones paying those higher wholesale prices during times of peak demand Along that
- vein the last two short-term Recommendations comprise developing positive interactions with Duke and
- finding a trusted community partner to facilitate community solar which can ease the way for a longer
- term action So along that sense our first long-term recommendation is to partner with Duke on community solar and
- And then to so to develop a proposal to do so and then actually implement it. It would be high-impact
- and a long-term action plan for Bloomington to work towards Duke may reject attempts at partnership
- and the iurc will likely side with the utility in the case of a dispute the iurc tends to side with
- the utility in anything so if Bloomington or if Duke wants to go along with it
- The IORC should approve it. But if they fight back, the IORC will likely side with them on that as well.
- So in this case, it may be necessary to develop a plan for formal legal action to challenge the current
- monopoly utility regulations in conjunction with other Indiana entities like municipalities, industry
- consumers, and nonprofits like the Citizens Action Coalition, which recently filed a complaint against the IORC.
- So our second long-term recommendation is to develop a municipal microgrid distribution infrastructure,
- and that would involve piloting a microgrid framework in one of the identified nodes, connecting only
- a handful of buildings at a time to sort of trial a microgrid. This would significantly decrease upfront
- capital required, minimize risk, and allow Bloomington to learn from any potential growing pains before
- implementing it citywide.
- If the city does see net benefits with this initiative microgrids could then be expanded to other identified
- nodes. This phased implementation allows for significant flexibility in the timeline limiting the severity
- of financial uncertainty. Savings from this program could then be put towards other actions such as
- increasing funding for energy programming or just towards increasing and expanding the microgrid further.
- As these processes take shape, Bloomington can develop best practices that can be used as an inspiration
- or template for other cities or energy users with large facilities like IU, Nova Nordic, Nordisk,
- or Cook, much like how the inspiration for a local SEU came from Ann Arbor and how the community solar
- installation in Columbus has potentially opened a pathway for the same in Bloomington. Success here
- could open, could serve to create impacts much larger than could be advanced or achieved by one city alone.
- So we have some ongoing recommendations as well. We recommend that Bloomington follow future Indiana
- General Counsel legislative sessions to be aware of changes that are proposed or passed and that the
- city advocate for policies that allow community solar installations and other sustainable energy development
- independent of the incumbent utilities discretion. All of the scenarios and recommended actions also
- require some level of external support. So the city should continue to be working to engage
- with stakeholders to increase support, mitigate risks, and create opportunities for future collaboration.
- This includes public campaigns for residents to raise awareness about programs, communication with Duke
- to soften them for partnership, and outreach to community nonprofits and philanthropic organizations
- for funding or collaborative opportunities. So we appreciate your time and attention and would like
- to acknowledge those who have helped us create this report.
- We'd like first to thank you, the commission, for providing this project. It's been an excellent opportunity
- to dive into sustainable energy and to develop new skills and analytical techniques. We'd also like
- to thank our advisors, Professors John Rupp and Nico Seragiannis, as well as the many consultants who
- provided insights, direction, and advice throughout the project's development. So finally, we turn our
- remaining time over to you for questions. Thank you.
- Well, thank you very much for that wonderful presentation. And I just want to say this is a really impressive
- body of work, and this is going to be very useful for us. It gives us a lot to think about,
- a lot to digest, and we're looking forward to diving into it.
- So congratulations on a well a job well done and and thank you for all the effort that you've put into
- it and Those things also extend to everyone else who is involved who you acknowledged the faculty who
- supported it our star staff here on the commission and with the city So now with that I will open it
- up to the rest of the commissioners for questions. Is there anyone who would like to begin? Commissioner
- Dunderdale Yeah, I just want to echo this isn't a phenomenal amount of work and I have been I've
- given these kinds of presentations, both as a student and professional, and this is one of the best
- ones I've seen. It's incredible work. And I'm going to actually ask an education-related question. This
- is the first time our commission has done this. I think that any of our commissions in the city have
- done this. And I would love to hear about this experience as a student. This is not a trick question.
- I want to know, would you recommend that students sign up for another capstone like this if our commission
- or any other commission
- decides to propose another project. Yeah. And it's OK to say no. It's really not a trick question.
- I mean personally I'm sure everyone has different opinions but it was nice to be working on a project
- that we would present to a local you know a local commission that could actually take it and
- make recommendations for real changes in our community that we could see. So that aspect of it was I
- think beneficial for me and helped motivate me to do good work because I cared about the results.
- Yeah, and I'll add that there are multiple students in this group who work for the city as fellows So
- it was nice to connect what we're doing in the office to this project It was nice to have people who
- are like, oh, I know that one. I know that one or I know who to talk to So I think Opening up to more
- Commission led capstones is certainly not a bad idea if other offices want to get in on this action
- I think it's a great idea for some
- Experiential learning it was a challenge, but we certainly learned a lot both from the aspect of skills
- development and teamwork and Certainly in the area of subject matter expertise because I had never heard
- the acronym se you in my life And now I know so much All right any other questions from commissioners
- and throw your hand up so I can see it if you do I
- Yeah, Alex, go ahead. Yeah, on the community solar project with Duke, the 50-50 split, I was just wondering
- why a 50-50 split with Duke and if other arrangements were also considered. So a lot of the details
- about the community solar project were just based on what they did in Columbus.
- Certainly some differences in that a lot of the details there were based on an EPA grant program that
- no longer exists So a lot of those specifically but the understanding of the people involved in In that
- project is that for that grant program 50% of the energy had to specifically 50% of the revenues had
- to help low-income households and
- So there was some of that generation that goes to the United Way Center in Columbus and then the money
- that gets The profits from selling the energy back to Duke is then distributed into bill credits for
- a few hundred low-income households in Columbus So that was really the reason for the 50-50 split is
- just that is the example that we had that's what they did and to meet the requirements of the program
- that they were getting funding from
- Yeah, Zach. You mentioned during the community solar component that the environmental benefits were
- negligible or minimal because of land use impacts. I'm curious, did you quantify how many acres for
- each percentage, how many acres would be impacted? I'm just curious about that.
- Would there be any impact on a tree canopy? For example, I am going to call our lovely live Myers to
- the stand as the lead on the environmental Sustainability pillar and provide you so many wonderful details
- in that department. Awesome. Thank you I anticipated some questions about the ecological impacts
- And I was not able to find any data on acreage, so I went off of literature review, so scientific articles,
- and then taking what I learned from those articles and making assumptions. So what you read within the
- appendix as well as the project are just assumptions and recommendations based off of the scientific
- literature, which is cited. So I could not find any quantifiable data.
- You're a very important person. Did you ever fall out? I thought it was done. I'm so sorry. If you're
- the sustainability person, I'd like to ask you a few questions while you're up there. So first of all,
- I just wanted to say I am also impressed by the robustness and the professional depth of this study.
- I appreciate that you did work on, it's probably not the correct term, but electrical engineering questions,
- among other things. I'm impressed. I had a few different questions.
- Some of them are about definition, just for clarity. So I couldn't find anywhere that environmental
- impact or sustainability were explicitly defined or outlined in these materials. Can you do that for
- me? Or is there a place where you have done so that I'm not finding
- My thought, and I was not a member of the legal team, so I might have to call somebody else to the stand,
- pun somewhat intended, is that the pillars are codified in Indiana state law with environmental
- sustainability being one of them. So there might be a statutory definition provided. I don't know if
- that's accurate. So that definition lives in Indiana state law, and that's what you used as your metric.
- OK, I appreciate that.
- Maybe a similar question that you may or may not be in a position to answer. In your stakeholder key,
- it's very thorough. I'm impressed by that. I noticed that things like other species, flora, fauna, non-human
- actors, and people, so non-institutional players, are not identified there. Was there a reason for that?
- I hate to take it to another person, but I was not a part of the stakeholder analysis. It's me again.
- So that is a wonderful point, and I'm going to be honest with you, it was not something that I thought
- of and is something that I would definitely incorporate into a future version of that analysis. I knew
- that Liv was incorporating some aspects of ecological analysis and ecological impact into her work,
- so I wasn't entirely sure how much would be covered there.
- That is a wonderful point. And yeah, in a future version of this or in future recommendations that would
- be created based on this, I think that should absolutely be incorporated.
- Adding onto that a little bit, in terms of the ecological impacts, the main concerns that I was looking
- at were habitat fragmentation, as well as just land use and land cover change over time, especially
- with deployment of solar arrays. So not specifically what species are being displaced, because we don't
- have, I know we have an idea and suggestions of places, but I think moving forward, doing a deeper ecological
- dive and maybe a conservation index of what species
- will be impacted in each deployment area should be considered. Thank you. I have a question
- about conclusions, but I can wait, because these were themed, and I can pass it on. Sounds good. Are
- there any other questions from commissioners? Yeah. Alex? Yeah. I was wondering, going back to the community
- solar land use. I'm in the hot seat tonight, yes.
- It occurred to me the idea of modeling that there's land use degradation when you go to solar. Was it
- at all considered to do something like agrifoltaics, where you're still utilizing the land in some other
- way, or putting the solar on already disturbed land, brownfields or existing buildings? And what are
- the environmental impacts then when we're not using pristine land that's being disturbed?
- So in terms of other land use, we considered brownfields. And once again, I'm going to call on Vinny,
- because he did a lot of research on brownfields. And he'd have a lot more information, because in my
- ecological impact write-up, we had different quantifiable measures that we were looking at. And Vinny's
- had more concern about brownfields. Yeah, sure. Thanks.
- For the Brownfields aspect of it, a lot of the research that went into it was what is available. And
- so looking on the Indiana Brownfields program list, what currently exists in the state, in Bloomington
- in particular, is quite competitive with other projects, both private and public. There wasn't a whole
- lot of information
- Regarding the actual characteristics of the site in particular the sizes of them is that would play
- a most important role in how much energy would actually end up be generated The largest sites on the
- list was somewhere around 70 acres however, this one was just recently purchased by a biopharmaceutical
- company for large-scale manufacturing plant
- So in the case of brownfields as a whole We kind of look to avoid that in the analysis Primarily due
- to the lack of information on the both the availability and from what it looked like other purchasers
- of the land already for ongoing projects Yeah
- I'm just wondering how in-depth you looked at Ann Arbor's specific program and the reason why I ask
- is my understanding is and this is just a cursory I don't understand it in depth that I was I was I'm
- wondering My understanding is their legal constraints are fairly similar to what we have in Indiana
- while the political constraints are different
- They're obviously at the bluer state than here's they have different political constraints the legal
- framework my understanding at least is it's fairly similar to Indiana yet They found a way to work around
- it To create an se you I'm wondering How different what is what makes us different here? the the primary
- difference in Michigan is a the foot act which has been interpreted by state courts to allow for competition and
- So it is set up similarly in the basic like code But this specific legislation has been interpreted
- by the state Supreme Court to allow for a parallel utility Which is what Ann Arbor actually did? Just
- a brief follow-up if I may My understanding though of the Ann Arbor program that is is that it's more
- complementary and less and direct competition With their version of Duke. I think it's called deep something
- DTE. Yeah is that correct or
- But yeah by competition, I mean in the economic sense of the word that there can be another utility
- operating in the same space So it is in a way complementary. They're not replacing the existing IOU.
- They're just working in parallel Yeah, Quentin
- We did not know Yeah, that was we did consider it but we decided that was outside of the scope of our
- project which was more based on research and feasibility analysis So we we left that up to the city
- and the Commission to actually contact you can start those relationships And I'm sure this will be I
- this may be covered in the full report but I
- in considering environmental impact are you does your analysis include the the sort of outsourced impacts
- of solar so the rare earth mining that's happening somewhere else the cost to the emissions related
- to getting it here and then the cost of repair and replace of the infrastructure over time
- So within the report, our scope was just based on greenhouse gas emissions as well as regional pollutants
- or criteria pollutants within the area. And the data that we used from that was the EPA eGrid 2023 data.
- So I collected the data for Indiana specifically for power plant emissions. So a whole bunch of criteria
- pollutants and created a range and then average based off of that.
- So within the report I have to mention that there are limitations to some of the numbers that you will
- read because they are based on Monroe County and not Bloomington specifically. So outside sources weren't
- considered. It was just 20 23 power plant data for regional criteria pollutants. All right. We were
- getting pretty close to time. Are there any last minute quick questions. Alex.
- Last one going back to CEU legality. I'm not arguing that it's not I'm not arguing that it is legal
- but we talked about community solar not being currently permitted. But if you have the utilities agreement
- you can do pretty much anything. Would it be your understanding that if Duke were amenable to it that
- the city could do an SEU.
- Because I know that in Ann Arbor's case that DTE did not fight it and that they have been a partner
- So if the city could secure that partnership, do you think that? the se you could potentially move forward
- Yes, our understanding is that? Basically any option that you can get Duke to agree with would be legally
- feasible The question is what you can get them to agree to and that's why we pursued other options We
- did not think that was
- Especially realistic, but it's certainly something that could be worth pursuing All right, I lied about
- that being the last question we have one more quick one from Christopher Very quickly. Um, so I appreciate
- that Immediately after starting this you pretty much identified that you're hamstrung by straight state
- law in terms of what you're doing That can't be a fun discovery to instantly make but along the lines
- of sort of possibilities and constraints going forward it sounds like the conclusions are local
- municipalities are
- significantly constrained in what they can do. Would you therefore say that your conclusion from this
- research is that state or federal level legislative change or other forms of more fundamentally structural,
- political, ecological transformation are necessary to achieve meaningful sustainability transitions?
- Yes. Yes, I would.
- In the stakeholder analysis, in the full thing, I discuss the congressional representatives for both
- in the Senate, Indiana as a whole, in the House, the Bloomington general area, as well as the state
- legislative representatives. And it was clear, looking into their voting records, that there were things
- in there that could have made a project like this a lot easier, a lot more feasible. There's been bills
- introduced in the state legislature
- to allow community solar, I believe, for the last two or three years, it's all in there. But it's been
- shot down every time. And a lot of that has to do with lobbying and outside influence and things that
- I will not get into at the moment. But yes, and on the other end, too, at the federal level, not only
- is federal policy a huge, huge, huge player, but federal funding is a huge player.
- The only, well, not the only, but a large part of why the project in Columbus could go anywhere was
- because there was EPA funding. We know very well that that does not exist anymore for the time being.
- But in a future where these things are not obstacles in the state house, are not obstacles at the federal
- level, I think they're
- A bright future ahead. I'm choosing to believe there's a bright future ahead anyway. But yes, I think
- the state and federal policy play a huge role in what the municipalities can do. We learned that real
- quick. And as much as I would love to recommend all the bills that I think should be passed to make
- this happen, it's out of the scope and potentially unrealistic for a while. But all that to say, yes.
- Accomplished a lot within the time that you had to put this work together and it really is an incredible
- piece of work that we deeply appreciate So thank you very much again for all the hard work that you've
- put into it and for everybody who was who played a role in that As a quick note before y'all leave anyone
- who spoke at the podium today If you could just see our secretary Tara before you leave just so she
- can get down your name for the record And other than that I will just note that our next regular business
- meeting of this Commission will be on
- Tuesday May 12th at 6 30 p.m. In the McCloskey room down the hall I'm sorry 6 p.m. And We are at the
- end of the scheduled time. So with that we are adjourned at 6 30 Thank you