March 1, 2007

By Diane Chiddister

Should Yellow Springs move quickly to purchase a new $3.5 million electric substation to ensure safe and reliable electric surface? Could a local energy conservation program postpone that purchase, or make it unnecessary altogether? Or is the best alternative a combination of a new substation and increased conservation efforts?

About 25 community members attended the Feb. 20 Village Council meeting, which included a lively discussion between Council, villagers and Village Manager Eric Swansen on these questions. The meeting was discussion only on the substation issue, and no action was taken; however, Council asked Swansen to meet with local conservation experts to explore possible options.

While Swansen urged Council to move soon on purchasing the new substation, several villagers stated that conservation efforts could save money for both the Village and individuals, along with conserving energy in a critical time of global warming.

“We’re missing an excellent opportunity to push conservation,” said Jerry Papania, who stated that if the Village moves ahead with the new substation, villagers will have much less impetus to conserve energy use.

Villagers could follow the lead of Californians, who use about one half the energy of the rest of the country, according to Bob Brecha, who also urged Council to consider conservation measures before buying a costly new substation.

“I want to throw out a challenge to the village that we will spend $3.5 million or we will learn to cut our energy use in half,” he said.

But the Village needs to take a broader look at conservation efforts rather than just focusing on electrical use, according to Sue Abendroth, who said that villagers also need to conserve energy in transportation.

According to Swansen and consulting engineer Jeffrey Pearce, the Village has no time to lose on moving ahead with the upgrade, especially since it will take two years for a new substation to become operable. The Village’s electrical system has been handling loads that strain its capabilities for at least a decade, Swansen said, and last summer peak loads would have caused brownouts on two occasions had emergency measures not been taken.

“Being unable to provide reliable power places the Village in a dangerous position in terms of community health, economic sustainability and, some might argue, a sense of security,” he stated in a written presentation.

According to a chart of Village electrical usage provided by Swansen, local electrical consumption has actually decreased in the last two years. However, Swansen and Pearce stated during their presentation that villagers have increased their electrical use on average 3 percent a year over the last 10 years, and Pearce’s study assumes a 3 percent increase yearly into the future.

But the Village needs time to consider the conservation alternative before moving ahead with the substation, according to Council member Judith Hempfling. Taking significant steps toward conservation could be good for the local economy in attracting state and national attention and possibly grant money, Hempfling said.

While other Council members agreed that the Village could benefit from energy conservation, several felt that the Village must move ahead quickly with the substation to ensure stable utilities and to attract new industry.

“We’re in a heap of trouble right now,” Kathryn Chase said.

Both Hempfling and Karen Wintrow emphasized that Council needs to call on local experts to identifty the possibilities for energy conservation, including Pat Murphy of The Community Solution, who also encouraged Council to take a thorough look at conservation possibilities before investing in a costly substation.

The village needs to see this challenge as an opportunity, according to Murphy of The Community Solution.

“We’ve got to start finding innovative solutions” to the energy issue, he said. “We know we have in the village the talent to do that.”

In his written presentation, Swansen stated that the substation could be financed over a 20-year period at a 5 percent average rate of interest, resulting in annual principal and interest payments of $280,850. However, the new substation would include an annual savings of about $90,000 which is currently paid to DP&L, so the total annual cost would be $190,850 yearly for 20 years. If that cost were passed on to consumers, it would increase electric rates about 6 percent, Swansen wrote.

According to the report, the Village electrical switching station load typically exceeds four megawatts, when it was designed to handle about 2.5 megawatts. The report states that at peak summer periods, the equipment must handle up to 10 megawatts of electricity.

In other Village business:
• Council approved a schedule for legislation on the Fogg farm annexation request. March 5 is the date of the first reading, and the second reading, or final approval, will take place on April 2. The measure passed 3–1, with Wintrow, Kathryn Chase and Bruce Rickenbach voting for and Hempfling voting against it. Council member Katheryn Van der Heiden was absent.

Before voting against the schedule, Hempfling expressed her concern that Council will address the first reading of the annex request at the same meeting that Council finds out what pre-annexation agreements Fogg farm owner Doug Miller agreed to. She had expected more time to consider the pre-annexation agreements before voting on the Fogg farm request, Hempfling said.

While Council had previously discussed the desirability of pre-annexation agreements, it had not yet identified what exactly it would request in terms of number of affordable houses or at what price level, Hempfling stated. She said she had not expected Swansen to move ahead with negotiating with Miller until Council had clarified this information.

But Swansen said he felt he had “broad general agreement” from Council that he should attempt to get the “best deal” possible regarding affordable housing and energy-efficient homes in the proposed development.

• Rick Donahoe asked Council why it is not considering the Village-owned Glass farm as a possible site for new residential development, rather than annexing the Fogg farm.

Several Council members have supported the Fogg farm annexation as a potential source of more affordable housing, since Fogg owner Doug Miller has stated that his development may include that sort of housing. But if the Village has an interest in providing more affordable housing, it could do so with land it already owns, Donahoe said.

But the Glass farm lacks road and sewer access, according to Council member Bruce Rickenbach, who stated that it would make sense to develop it in conjunction with other development in the area. As a property owner of land adjacent to the farm, Donahoe said he would provide access to the Village.

• Wintrow discussed why she had requested advice from Village Solicitor John Chambers regarding a possible conflict of interest on the Fogg farm due to the business activities of her husband, architect Ted Donnell. Chambers responded several weeks ago with a letter stating that he found no conflict of interest.

• Council unanimously passed a second reading of a request for the rezoning of the Center for Business and Education from agricultural to mixed use commercial.

Contact: dchiddister@ysnews.com