Holy Cross Energy
Tuesday is the last day to virtually cast a ballot in the Holy Cross Energy board of directors election, and members will choose two new board members from a field of eight candidates.
The board is responsible for helping set the energy not-for-profit’s goals and directing staff toward meeting them. Holy Cross serves 45,000 members in its service area, ranging from Aspen to Marble to Vail and out past Parachute.
Some of the greatest issues that the incoming board will face include carrying out the new rate increase and its potential implications for members with their own solar panels and steering Holy Cross to reach its ambitious 100% renewable energy by 2030 and offset greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2035 goals.
Here’s how the candidates land on those topics and others:
These answers have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity. Candidate Peggy Meyer did not respond to emails requesting comment, but the Holy Cross website includes her bio and answers to a Holy Cross-posed questionnaire.
Rate Change and Electricity Charge Separation
Changes to the rate structure, approved earlier this year, includes itemized charges for peak demand, a phased increase in membership fee, and changes to the kWh rate, or how much members pay for the electricity they used.
And the changes will separate the base electricity charge from the cost of the infrastructure, or the delivery charge, to the dismay of members with solar panels. Some say that the change would de-incentivize solar use by hampering the state law sanctioned practice of net-metering, or allowing customers to bank solar-generated energy and reducing their bill.
It is not clear if the change is in violation of the state law that states “cooperative electric associations shall provide net metering service at nondiscriminatory rates.”
The board approved a pause on the incoming rate changes, passed earlier this year, for the Colorado Energy Officet to consider the changes — particularly in respect to net metering.. The pause will carry through at least Jan. 1, 2024.
Thomas Sherman: “I do not agree with separating out charges, it’s a disincentive to solar installation. I do believe Holy Cross should provide incentives for residential solar, this is normally done through rate structure.”
Alex DeGolia, incumbent: “I support a rate reform in some capacity in order to transition our revenue model from one in which Holy Cross recovers nearly all of its operating revenue from a single volumetric energy charge. The current energy charge is inconsistent with the way the co-op’s costs are distributed and I believe it will be important to modify it to support the long-term goals of the association. … I also strongly support the pause on implementation of the proposed rate design to provide additional time for review of the proposal based on significant and valuable input from members concerned about how it could impact their monthly rates, their businesses, and the personal investments they’ve made in rooftop solar.”
Kimberly Schlaepfer: “Given what I know, I believe the decision to separate electricity charges from delivery charges does make sense, especially as Holy Cross moves towards its 100% renewable energy goal … Holy Cross has to pay more for the power coming off of rooftop solar than it does for utility-scale renewables, so prioritizing utility-scale renewables is more cost effective for us all as a membership. However, with that said, I don’t believe it’s fair for HCE customers who recently installed solar to have their system payback to be shot because Holy Cross did not really communicate with the public that this move would be coming.”
Craig Arthur Brown: “I support transparency in cost distribution and paying my fair share. The current management and the current board spent considerable time and discussion prior to proposing these changes. Change is always going to have individual impacts and potential unintended consequences. For background, I will be installing solar on my home later this year. I began the process prior to learning the rate structure change. My plan to install solar does not change with the rate changes.”
Linn Brooks: “Holy Cross Energy as a member co-op, must bill customers relative to the cost to provide their service. Occasionally, utilities give some customers a break in cost if their behavior saves the utility money (think residential rooftop solar). By incentivizing these behaviors even customers who don’t change their behavior benefit from the savings and should pay a little more than the customers who have invested their own money to reduce everyone’s costs. If elected, I will work during the pause approved by the board to understand where the proper balance lies between direct cost sharing (breaking out the costs to make solar and non-solar customers pay the same for system upkeep), and subsidies, which recognize the contributions of solar customers.”
Brian Brandl: “I fully support transparency, but the net effect is to raise everyone’s electricity bill. In an environment of rising housing costs, property taxes and inflation this puts additional strain on HCE’s customers … I believe HCE should incentivize solar. I’m not sure what this would look like at this time but I believe that encouraging a free and open market for solar, excluding subsidies, would help to bring the true costs of solar back into check. I feel that charging solar customers to use the grid is a sound business plan. However, what credits would look like and how they are utilized is a complicated situation with a lot of moving parts. The latest proposal by HCE is a disaster for current solar customers and a strong disincentive for future solar investment.”
Roseann Casey: “Many utilities fail because they fail to adequately plan for the very real cost of grid development and grid management. We are in a moment of significant transition and growth, and without a very thoughtful technical and managerial approach to grid growth and maintenance, the rest of the investments in renewable energy won’t matter. There are different approaches to how a utility might factor these costs into customer rates, but I think the separation of costs is a good first step and adds a level of transparency and realism.”
Meeting the 100×30 Goal
Back in 2020, Holy Cross set its ambitious goal to achieve 100% renewable electricity by 2030 and offset greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2035. According to the Holy Cross website, they achieved 53% renewable energy in 2022 with 9% of that coming from local sources.
What else needs to be done to close that gap by 2030? Here is how the candidates weigh in:
Sherman: “A goal is something to aim for. 100% renewable is a realistic goal, especially when the utility doesn’t own power generation. HCE purchases our power in an open market and can choose from what sources and at what prices. Purchasing 100% renewable energy isn’t particularly difficult, it’s just expensive. Most consumers favor renewable energy but wouldn’t choose to pay more for the privilege.”
DeGolia: “HCE has contracts in place that mean it is on track for more than 90% of annual electricity delivered to members to be clean and renewable by the end of 2024. This is a huge step – while we have our sights set on a fully decarbonized grid, it’s important to remember that in terms of climate impacts, getting from 80% to 90% (much less 50% to 90%, as is expected over the next 18 months) is just as important as from 90% to 100%. That said, 100% is an important goal and we will still have significant work to be done to get all the way there by 2030.”
Schlaepfer: “I think HCE has made incredible progress towards their 2030 goal, however the most difficult part is still to come. Once Holy Cross reaches ~90% renewable grid, the next challenge will be flattening the demand curves for electricity to ensure they do not have to buy fossil fuel power to supplement the grid during peak times. Changing use behavior for energy will be incredibly difficult and will require that HCE considers creative solutions that do not burden the lowest income folks in our community with peak demand charges. I think there is an opportunity to turn off loads that do not need to be on in order to avoid charging everyone a huge fee (think of all the rooms and homes in our valleys and the energy they use while sitting empty).”
Brown: “I believe the current Board and management are asking the right questions to understand the progress towards 100% renewables by 2030. I have a simple mind – 100% renewable goals mean all generated or purchased power is from renewable resources. Is this possible? At what cost – sustainability and affordability? This is the greatest hurdle in my view. I am a firm believer in abundant, affordable energy and enhancement of the environment.”
Brooks: “Holy Cross is on track to achieve 92% renewable energy by next year. This is tremendous progress and positions Holy Cross as a national leader in energy transition. But Holy Cross can’t get to 100% alone. Members must continue to invest in their homes and businesses to modify how they use energy to align with the availability of renewables. Holy Cross can continue to drive towards its goals of renewable energy, grid stability and low bills through outreach and member incentives, including rewarding member investment with equitable rates and rebates.
Brandl: “The push for renewable energy sources vs. energy costs needs to find a balance point and be economically sustainable. I think goals are a great thing to have but getting there responsibly and with a solid solution is going to be just as important. If the goal has to be reassessed to be realistic then so be it. You can’t have a fictitious date to accomplish a goal without a plan to provide the energy needed to power the grid. I think that the greatest hurdles to overcome are to not be unrealistic, and keep up with new and innovative technologies to get there.”
Casey: “Achieving this goal requires a commitment across the full strategic and managerial approach to HCE: investments in staff, technical expertise, management and investment in the full system over the long-term. They have shown solid progress and have approached this goal through a mix of investments and partnerships. The progress will get harder as they get closer to the goal….incremental improvements as you near 100% will be challenging. Progress from here forward will rely on and benefit from the public education and community engagement efforts that HCE excels at.”
Voting Instructions
To vote virtually, members will need credentials found on the mailed ballot or in the email they received titled “Holy Cross Energy Director Election Login.”
Members can also vote through their SmartHub account on a web browser or through the mobile app. Log in, and click on the “Vote Now” button.
In-person voting will be available from 5-6 p.m. at the annual meeting on Thursday, June 15, at TACAW in Basalt.
Mailed and electronic ballots must be received by Tuesday, June 13, at 11:59 p.m. Members who do not meet this deadline may vote in person at the annual meeting. If more than one ballot is submitted per member-of-record, precedence will be given to the paper ballot, officials said.
The first board meeting with the two new directors will be June 21. Courses for new directors are offered by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which Holy Cross bylaws require.
Board member terms last four years and are not term limited.
"cros" - Google News
June 13, 2023 at 11:28AM
https://ift.tt/VhP2mQH
Holy Cross Energy board candidates weigh in on the big issues to ... - The Aspen Times
"cros" - Google News
https://ift.tt/upVECgG
https://ift.tt/7TmXVUx
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Holy Cross Energy board candidates weigh in on the big issues to ... - The Aspen Times"
Post a Comment