Comment Up
When politicians debate issues and they have already made up their minds before they even listen to the argument, the argument is impossible to defend. The now, very obvious 3/2 vote on just about everything, proves the point. It will get worse as meetings will be shorter and the time that commissioners have to bring forth their reasons will be reduced. Time clocks will ring. The right of free expression has been curtailed. The commission "visionaries" only want to hear the sound of their own voices and do not want to waste one minute hearing or even trying to comprehend another view.
We need to reduce our peak usage for 2013 to get the best electric rates for our contract beginning in 2014. This is one of the main reasons why we have a Conservation Department that is doing just that by showing people how they can become more energy efficient. From every report Joel Rutsky has given to the Commission, it has been successful in its goal.
Thinking over the events of earlier in the week and the deplorable behavior of some in the chamber when Commissioner Mulvehill spoke about funding a position for sustainability, I couldn't help but reflect on my own thoughts just a few years ago when we formed a new department for conservation. I was against this department when it was first introduced. Spending $1.5 million was not on my radar (the department cost even less then). Even a majority of the Finance Advisory Board were against it or perhaps they were just against spending money in general. Their main mission, given to them by a former commission, was to find new revenue sources. I failed to comprehend the importance of what the City was trying to achieve. I am not sure if that was my fault or the City's fault but the message was unclear. Somehow the communication failed then and it has failed now for totally different reasons.
We will lose so much more than the salary for a sustainability manager, $10,000 coming out of our operating budget, if we don't reduce our peak electric usage. All of you crying about your big electric bills will be crying even louder. Instead of a $300 bill, look for hundreds more per month. Crude oil prices just dropped to $98 a barrel on Friday but they expect that we might be paying over $5 a gallon at the pump this summer. Electricity is not commonly produced directly from oil, but as oil prices rise, so do conventional energy prices. Our Utility needs to recover its cost for the fuel it uses and its cost to purchase power from FMPA. One reason for the high cost of electric is because of the rates that are charged by FMPA that sell electric power to us.
A big part of the job of a sustainability manager would be to set up the "Beat the Peak" program. 90% of the budget for this position is already covered in the Utility Budget. The Utility department planned for this position. The funds are there. The greatest amount of time spent by this manager would be to ensure that consumers reduce our peak load for this year and next. It is imperative that we do so.
The other point that Commissioner Mulvehill made is that the position of sustainability manager is vital. Someone in a comment on this blog had ridiculed the fact that corporations that have sustainability programs was even referenced or mentioned here. If you Google private corporations and the increase in the number of sustainability managers that are on-board in the corporate world, you will see that there is a growing market and one that is intensifying. Corporations are looking for locations that align with their sustainable vision and goals. We eventually will develop the Park of Commerce. Afterall, Scott Maxwell has said that this is his number one priority now. We could be on the cutting edge if we do it right.
Politicos keep mentioning here that we should run the city more like a business but diss the fact that sustainability is exactly what successful corporations are concentrating upon by hiring their own sustainability managers. Real visionaries see that. It's just that our "visionaries" don't. They are looking only to "now." It is fair to say that they deem continued "education" more important by attending conventions and the like as Mulvehill's suggestion was to reduce that budget by $10 thousand to fund and hire this position.
Having a well grounded program is sensible. We just continue to kick the can down the road (I like that expression ever since Scott Maxwell used it) but the commission is looking at the immediate. The new commission has said that it has been talking to employees about this or that and the next thing but obviously they have not been talking to our department heads who have approved this position and obtain their reasons for it.
A Sustainability Manager position is justifiable. It is already budgeted in the Utility Budget. The unfortunate thing was that the argument was not sustainable as Maxwell did not want to listen to any more argument for it; The excuse was "We already voted and turned that down...no more discussion." It was indefensible in this public forum that was filled with his supporters and the rest of the trio who follow his lead. It is impossible to sustain and defend anything, good reasoning or not, against this kind of political mindset.
11 comments:
Why do we need to beat the peak in electric use? Rebecca Mattey said in her march, 2011 presentation to the City commission that with our generating capability and our current use, the exit cost from FMPA would be zero.
In addition to getting rid of the Sustainability Manager, shouldn't we also get rid of the Conservation Program which is costing us $1,500,000 annually. I hear the payback period for the program is 10-12 years which renders it uneconomic.
If we do not reduce our peak usage, we must still buy the difference from expensive FMPA,(reality) which will be approximately 5 to 15% additional electric, depending on our mega watt usage, during peak hours.
The Commission did not take the C.R.O.D.(Contract Rate Of Delivery) clause, out of the Exit-without- Penalty Contract, and forces us still to buy additional electric, above our in house capacity, from FMPA.
DM
Blast form the Past--
Tuesday December 16, 2008 - At last night's FMPA commission workshop, not a single Electric Utility Task Force member was there other than its Chair and Jim Kelly an alternate on the Task Force, who left the meeting early.
The workshop confirmed three things:
1. that the city was grossly misinformed about FMPA and our electric utility by the previous utility directors, previous engineering services manager, bond counsel, plant manager and others.
2. that the generation deal recommended by the city manager, previous utility directors, previous engineering service manager, plant manager, bond counsel mayor, commissioner Vespo and others was a rotten deal that would have put the city into an extended hardship under the burden of very high utility rates and no hope of relief for a half century.
And 3. that if we get out of FMPA/ARP and do nothing but fix our steam generator S3, five years from now when we're out... we will be saving money generating our own electricity!
Is Rebecca mattey correct or is DM?At current peak levels, do we have to pay a penalty to FMPA to Exit? If so, how much.
I hope these are the types of questions that Sue Hersey will be addressing in her March Presentation.
we want to lower our peak usage - bottom line - is to get lower rates on the new contract. 2013 will be the deciding year
Lake Worth is too sophisticated, intelligent and wary to buy into yet another—“I said conservation so you need to buy into anything I so or you are ignorant, short sighted and a wasteful person.” Just give us the real numbers with enough reaction time to do something about it instead of yet another 11th hour Staff presentation with not enough reaction time to consider alternatives.
The RO plant fiasco is the latest example. We got the self contained water supply that our resident conservation geniuses forced upon Lake Worthians of lesser intelligence, foresight and care for the planet. It is hoped that the $60,000 emergency study the Commission just approved will save us from the 50% reduction in capacity that SFWMC permitted the RO plant for. Without a Permit for increased use, it seems we not only will have to buy water from somebody to meet current demand, but will have to get permitted for and pay for an expansion in the RO plant if we want to have tenants in the POC. BTW—do you remember the $500,000 cost of additional personnel to operate the RO plant being factored into the consideration to terminate our County Water Contract? Me neither.
The education our resident geniuses are giving us is proving to be quite expensive.
LW is anything but sophisticated. Very few people really know what in heck is going on especially with the Utility. Negative and misinformed remarks don't help.
It's not an emergency. It's one of the utility items that was moved to spc mtg agenda recently. Some people continue to make things up to suit themselves and their own political BS.
Maxwell approved everything pertaining to the RO and was front & center at the grand opening. Ask him about it.
Most times I read your blog, I don't know whether to laugh at the idiocy or cry about it. What on earth is the above commenter talking about in the first paragraph?? Is he/she making a specific point about a specific item that the commission voted on? Or just free-associating their general displeasure with life in general to generally anything?
It writes:
It is hoped that the $60,000 emergency study the Commission just approved will save us from the 50% reduction in capacity that SFWMC permitted the RO plant for.
Emergency? Since when is something that's been budgeted for 2 years an emergency? Oh . . . I guess when the DCE (dumbest commission ever) can't make a timely decision to allow our Utility Director to do her job and run a utility operation.
Also:
BTW—do you remember the $500,000 cost of additional personnel to operate the RO plant being factored into the consideration to terminate our County Water Contract? Me neither.
Huh. Me neither. Could it be that perhaps we don't remember because there isn't an additional $500K in personnel?
Lastly:
The education our resident geniuses are giving us is proving to be quite expensive.
Not nearly as expensive as it's going to get once the last two commissioners with any active brain cells leave the dais. Once the dumbing down is complete, I'm sure everything will make more sense to you.
Who are the last 2 commissioners with any active brain cells left?
Don't any of you negative people say anything bad about the r.o. plant. The r.o. plant brought to us courtesy of $40 million is going to save the city.
As the biggest proponent of the r.o. system, Lynn can confirm that the r.o. plant is going to save the city by attracting new businesses, lowering our water rates and allowing us to have all the control over our water. we can dictate how much we can use and charge because SFWMD can't tell us how much water the city can use any longer. All that is correct right Lynn? Lower rates, unlimited use, total control. All reasons you have been stating in justifying the r.o. project.
It is we, the city now, that is dictating once a week watering. SFWMD limits landscape irrigation to two days a week, with a three-day-a-week provision for some counties. For many areas, watering schedules remain the same under year-round conservation measures as they were under now-expired water shortage restrictions.
The commission, by resolution, still has us only being allowed to water once per week.
And to address the sarcasm of the above anonymous poster, the RO plant did NOT cost us $40 mil--far from it.
Post a Comment