The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - April 20, 2021 SSLODI CITY COUNCIL SHIRTSLEEVE SESSION CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2021 An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday, April 20, 2021, commencing at 7:01 a.m. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20, all Council Members participated in the meeting via teleconference and the meeting was available for viewing by the public via livestream at https://www.facebook.com/CityofLodi/ and https://zoom.us/j/93455719476?pwd=NDdhc1E4OEZyYWV3d2pDY1U5SjVZZz09; the opportunity for public comment was available through councilcomments@lodi.gov and https://zoom.us/j/93455719476?pwd=NDdhc1E4OEZyYWV3d2pDY1U5SjVZZz09. Present: Council Member Hothi, Council Member Khan, Council Member Kuehne, Mayor Pro Tempore Chandler, and Mayor Nakanishi Absent: None Also Present: City Manager Schwabauer, City Attorney Magdich, and City Clerk Cusmir Lodi Electric Utility Director Jeff Berkheimer provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the feasibility of providing retail electric service near Interstate 5. Specific topics of discussion included interconnection options, Option 1 - connection to STIG or LEC facilities, Option 2 - Northern California Power Agency, Option 3 - PG&E, project costs summary, and potential schedule. City Manager Schwabauer provided some background information regarding the inquiries received by staff regarding large vehicle charging facilities and the improvements required to meet those needs. Tony Zimmer with the Northern California Power Agency addressed questions asked by Council Member Kuehne, regarding fees that may be avoided if Options 2 or 3 were to be implemented. City Manager Steve Schwabauer noted that there is an increased level of regulation associated with a 230kv system. There was additional conversation regarding how proceeding with Options 2 or 3 would impact other Electric Utility projects in the City and the interests in providing retail electric service along the Interstate 5 corridor. City Manager Schwabauer spoke about the potential for generating revenue in response to a question asked by Mayor Pro Tempore Chandler. Mr. Schwabauer noted that the City's power would be primarily used as backup for the proposed charging stations. Lodi Electric Utility Director Berkheimer answered questions asked by Mayor Nakanishi regarding a PG&E 230kv feed project. Mr. Berkheimer discussed the potential of reviewing the request for power along the corridor following completion of the PG&E project in response to a question A.Roll Call by City Clerk B. Topic(s) B-1 Feasibility of Providing Retail Electric Service Near Interstate 5 (EU) 1 asked by Mayor Nakanishi. City Manager Schwabauer spoke about the future and Lodi possibly being a logical location for a vehicle charge hub. Mr. Schwabauer stated that there could be a future benefit to the City. Council Member Hothi spoke about the potential for State funding for the project. Mr. Schwabauer said that he will ask staff to explore the grant options. Council Member Kuehne stated that planning for the future is important but would like clearer information and stated that he would support Option 2 is there are opportunities for money from the State. Council Member Khan agreed with Council Member Kuehne. Mayor Pro Tempore Chandler encouraged staff to continue looking for funding and revenue opportunities. Mike Lusk, a resident, provided public comment via email, regarding Electric Utility operations, the City property at White Slough and the general fund. City Clerk Cusmir read the email into the record. There was no public comment on non-agenda items. :No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 a.m. C. Comments by Public on Non-Agenda Items D.Adjournment ATTEST: Jennifer Cusmir City Clerk 2 Lodi Electric Utility Feasibility of Providing Retail Electric Service Near Interstate 5 Presented by: Jeff Berkheimer, Director Lodi Electric Utility Lodi City Council Shirtsleeve April 20, 2021 N O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C YN O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C Y Presentation Overview -Preview 2 Project Options •Option 1 –NCPA 3 MVA Customer Feeder (NOT Rule 2 Compliant) -NOT a feasible option in terms of providing retail electric service to commercial/industrial customers •Option 2 –NCPA 45/30 MVA Substation with 11 Breakers •Option 3 –PG&E 45/10 MVA Substation with 3 Reclosers Projected Costs Summary Table •Approximately $14-$18 Million –not including any needed system upgrades if identified by PG&E Potential Schedule •At least 3-4 years –not including any needed system upgrades if identified by PG&E Conclusions N O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C YN O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C Y Interconnection Options –Option 1 3 Connection to STIG or LEC Facilities •Similar to existing connection for White Slough NOT Rule 2 Compliant No separate feeder for loads in the event of a plant or transmission system outage N O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C YN O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C Y Interconnection Options –Option 2 (NCPA) 4 230 kV Transmission on LEC Ring Bus 60 kV Connection from NCPA N O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C YN O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C Y Interconnection Options –Option 3 (PG&E) 5 230 kV Transmission on 8 Mile Ring Bus 60 kV Connection from PG&E N O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C YN O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C Y 6 Cost Element Option 1 NCPA 3 MVA (NOT Rule 2 Compliant) Option 2 NCPA 45/30 MVA Option 3 PG&E 45/10 MVA Transmission Substation N/A –Existing STIG or LEC 230 kV Breakers $4.5M $6.5M Distribution Substation $420k $3.165M $5M Distribution Feeder $1.2M $750k $750k Switching $300k $800k $600k Site Development $450k $500k $500k Engineering/ Permitting (includes $200k for System Study) $520k $700k $1M Construction N/A –Included Above $3.975M $4.0M TOTAL $2.89M $14.39M $18.35M Does not include increased costs for maintenance of separate system; staffing requirements; impacts to reliability as it relates to ability to restore outages in timely manner N O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C YN O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C Y 7 Activity Option 1 NCPA 3 MVA (NOT Rule 2 Compliant) Option 2 NCPA 45/30 MVA Option 3 PG&E 45/10 MVA Design Contract Execution 2 Months 3 Months 2 Months Design 6 Months 8 Months 10 Months Permitting 4 Months 10 Months 12 Months Construction Bid & Contract 4 Months 5 Months 5 Months Construction 4 Months 10 Months 10 Months PG&E Inspection 3 Months 4 Months 2 Months Testing 2 Months 3 Months 2 Months TOTAL 2 Years, 1 Month 3 Years, 7 Months 3 Years, 7 Months Potential Schedule N O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C YN O R T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A P O W E R A G E N C Y Conclusions Discussion still needed with Public Works regarding land availability and pricing for any future development Utility would need to incur the full cost and build infrastructure to meet highest energy demand anticipated to maximize investment Customers seeking only standby capacity would require LEU to “reserve” capacity •Needs are trending toward self-generation configurations Investing millions in additional infrastructure would require guarantee/commitment regarding future electrical needs to minimize risk to LEU and existing rate payers No guarantees on timing and/or cost as it relates to any system planning/upgrade requirements by PG&E 8