[00:00:02]
OKAY.FOLKS, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
CAN WE CONFIRM THAT THE CITY'S READY? THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
AND ARE WE GOOD IN THE SOUND BOOTH? GREAT.
[CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
OKAY.I'D LIKE TO CALL, TO ORDER THIS MEETING OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION.
IT IS SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2022 AT 5 36 IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY HEADQUARTERS.
JUDY BATH CONFERENCE ROOM ATTENDING FOR THE RECORD.
WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS HADN'T TOTAL BOWEN REED, CHAPMAN HOPKINS, VIRTUAL AND COMMISSIONER YANKER VIRTUALLY.
WE'RE HEAVILY WAITED TO THE RIGHT
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
WE WE'LL START WITH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.THIS IS NOT, UH, THE INVITATION FOR THE RATE REVIEW PROCEEDING, UH, PRESENTATION.
SO THIS IS GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE FIVE SPEAKERS SIGNED UP.
AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FAIR SHOT, TEXAS ACTION FUND, TEXAS CLIMATE JOBS ACTION FUND.
WE ARE COALITION OF LABOR UNIONS ACROSS THE STATE, INCLUDING MANY HERE IN CENTRAL TEXAS.
AND I'M HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS AUSTIN ENERGY.
THERE HAVE BEEN 13 RENEWABLE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS SINCE 2007 HERE IN THE CITY.
AND IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET, AUSTIN ENERGY REPORTED 439 MILLION IN FUEL REVENUE DUE IN PART TO AN INCREASE IN RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION PARTIES TO THESE AGREEMENTS INCLUDE SOME OF THE LARGEST CORPORATIONS ON EARTH, DUKE ENERGY, SOUTHERN COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, AND CONSOLIDATED EDISON.
SO EARLIER THIS YEAR, WE ASKED THE UTILITY TO DISCLOSE THESE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS, WHICH AFTER ALL ARE EXECUTED BY OUR PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITY AUSTIN ENERGY DECLINED SIDING MARKET COMPETITIVENESS AND PROPRIETARY INTEREST TO THIS DAY, THE DETAILED FINANCIAL TERMS OF THESE AGREEMENTS REMAIN COMPLETELY SHIELDED FROM PUBLIC SCRUTINY.
SO PART OF OUR MESSAGE TODAY IS QUITE SIMPLE.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH WITH THE SECRECY.
ONE THING AUSTIN ENERGY DID DISCLOSE TO US, HOWEVER, IS THAT THEY DO NOT REQUIRE A SINGLE WAGE OR SAFETY STANDARD FOR WORKERS ON THESE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS.
WHEN WE TRIED TO FIX IT, AUSTIN ENERGY FOUGHT US EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THE WAY IN A STATE WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE IS 50% MONOLINGUAL, SPANISH SPEAKING, AND IN A STATE WHERE A CONSTRUCTION WORKER DIES ON THE JOB DUE TO UNSAFE WORKING CONDITIONS.
ONCE EVERY THREE DAYS SINCE WHEN DID WE DECIDE AS A COMMUNITY THAT SECRECY AND DISDAIN FOR WORKING PEOPLE WERE VALUES.
WE WANTED OUR PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITY TO UPHOLD, BUT IT ISN'T JUST THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS UNDER AUSTIN ENERGY'S FAILED LEADERSHIP.
OUR UTILITY WAS NEARLY PRIVATIZED DURING THE 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION UNDER AUSTIN ENERGY'S FAILED LEADERSHIP, FITCH DOWNGRADED OUR UTILITIES BOND DEBT IN JUNE, UNDER AUSTIN UTILITIES FAILED LEADERSHIP S AND P DOWNGRADED OUR UTILITIES BOND DEBT IN AUGUST.
NOW AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS TO RAISE OUR UTILITY RATES BY AN AVERAGE OF $187 A YEAR BECAUSE EVIDENTLY CORPORATIONS ARE PAYING TOO MUCH.
DOESN'T AUSTIN ENERGY LEADERSHIP FEEL EVEN JUST A LITTLE ICKY BY FORCING WORKING PEOPLE TO SHOULDER THE BURDENS OF ITS MINI FAILURES, CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, AND HOTEL HOUSEKEEPERS
[00:05:01]
AND BARTENDERS AND BUS DRIVERS AND TEACHERS STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET.THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY THINKS SHOULD PAY THE PRICE.
WELL, AUSTIN ENERGY MIGHT HAVE MORE POWER THAN THE WORKING PEOPLE THAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO SERVE, BUT WE'RE STANDING UP AND WE'RE FIGHTING BACK.
THAT'S BEEN UNION MEMBERS AND COMMUNITY GROUPS ARE COMING TOGETHER TO DECLARE DAY OF ACTION LATER THIS MONTH.
[1. Approve the minutes of the Electric Utility Commission Regular meeting on August 8, 2022.]
NEXT WE'LL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED AUGUST 8TH, 2022 MEETING THE MINUTES WERE CIRCULATED WITH THE MATERIALS IN PREPARATION FOR THIS MEETING.ANY COMMENTS QUEST, UH, QUESTION, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS, THAT WAS MADE, UH, FROM THE WORK GROUP AND THAT WAS ADOPTED, HAS THAT BEEN CIRCULATED TO CITY TO CITY COUNCIL? YES, THAT WAS PERFECT.
IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND? OKAY.
I HEARD YOU COMMISSIONER YONKERS.
SO YEAH, I JUST GOT AUDIO LIKE A MINUTE AGO.
SO, UH, APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST MINUTES PASSES UNANIMOUSLY MOVING ON TO DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS.
ARE THERE ANY ITEMS IN TWO THROUGH 10 THAT COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP FOR DISCUSSION CHRISTIAN REID? UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SIX, THE RESILIENCY AS A SERVICE PILOT PROGRAM.
AND I ALSO HAD A QUESTION ON THE SAND HILL ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AND CHAIRMAN HAWKINS.
I HAVE A QUESTION, UM, ON NUMBER FOUR, GOT IT.
[Items 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, &10]
HEARING NONE.I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEMS. NUMBER ITEM NUMBERS, 2 3, 5, 7, 9, AND 10.
IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
UH, THOSE ITEMS PASS UNANIMOUSLY, UH, ON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS.
[4. Recommend authorizing negotiation and execution of a multi-term contract with Altec Inc. to provide customized utility vehicles, for up to 10 years for a total contract amount not to exceed $65,520,903.]
WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM NUMBER FOUR.COMMISSIONERS, ROBIN CAPELLO, DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SUPPORT SERVICES HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY.
UM, THIS IS A, UH, CONTRACT WITH ALL TECH TO PROVIDE CUSTOMIZED UTILITY VEHICLES, UM, FOR UP TO 10 YEARS.
AND MY QUESTION IS SIMPLY, ARE ANY OF THESE GOING TO BE ELECTRIC VEHICLES AT THIS POINT? NO, THEY ARE NOT OFFERING FULL ELECTRIC VEHICLES AS A PART OF THE LEASES.
WE ARE EXPLORING, CONTINUING TO EXPLORE WITH ALLTECH, ANY ELECTRIC VEHICLE OPPORTUNITIES.
THEY'RE CURRENTLY EXPLORING THE HYBRID, UM, VEHICLES, BUT AT THIS POINT WE DO NOT HAVE FULL ELECTRIC VEHICLE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US.
AND DOES THE, DID THE RFP OR THE REQUEST FOR THE CONTRACT INDICATE A DESIRE TO HAVE ELECTRIC VEHICLES? YES.
THAT IS A PART OF OUR, OUR STANDARD IS WE'RE REQUESTING CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVING, UH, OUR EQUIPMENT TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES.
AND DID ANY, ARE, IS THERE ANY OTHER, UM, UH, PROVIDER THAT MIGHT HAVE ELECTRIC VEHICLES THAT WOULD SATISFY THIS, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY'S NEED, WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY, UH, OTHER MANUFACTURERS THAT WOULD PROVIDE A FULL, UH, FULLY ELECTRIC, UH, VEHICLE OF THAT MODEL TYPE.
COULD YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ON WHAT IS NOT AVAILABLE GIVEN THE VEHICLE TYPE THAT WE ARE, UM, LEASING, UH, THOSE VEHICLES ARE HEAVY DUTY EQUIPMENT THEY'RE BUCKET TRUCKS, AND THEY ARE LIMITED INTO WHAT TYPE OF OFFERING THEY HAVE AVAILABLE FOR THOSE TYPES OF VEHICLES.
UH, THEY'RE EXPLORING THE HYBRID MODEL.
UM, THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN THAT, IN THAT TYPE.
UH, THE, AS WE MOVE INTO ELECTRIC VEHICLES TOO, AS I UNDERSTAND IN THE INDUSTRY AT THIS POINT, THEY'RE STILL COST PROHIBITIVE, UM, TO HAVE THOSE AS A PART OF A FLEET.
UM, BUT THEY'RE ON THE VERY EARLY STAGES OF, UH, INTRODUCING THOSE.
AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED THOSE AS AN OPTION AT THIS POINT.
[00:10:01]
THAT, UM, IT'S BEEN AT LEAST TWO YEARS, UH, AGO, AT LEAST THAT, UM, AT THE EARTH X EXHIBIT IN DALLAS FOR EARTH DAY, THEY HAD SOME BUCKET TRUCKS ON DISPLAY THAT WERE ALL ELECTRIC.SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE IN THE MARKET, BUT CERTAINLY SOMEBODY'S MAKING THEM, UM, ABSOLUTELY.
AND WE'RE CONTINUOUSLY EVALUATING THAT.
SO AS OUR, OUR LEASE CONTINUES TO EVOLVE WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, WE WILL ALWAYS EXPLORE THAT AS WE'RE, UH, BRINGING NEW VEHICLES INTO OUR FLEET.
UH, IT WOULD BE REALLY GREAT IF YOU WOULD.
I UNDERSTAND MAINTENANCE COSTS CAN BE CONSIDERABLY LESS, EVEN IF YOU HAVE A HIGHER UPFRONT COST.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS.
SO WHEN YOU SAY HYBRIDS, DO YOU MEAN PLUG-IN HYBRIDS OR JUST HYBRIDS? JUST HYBRIDS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OH, GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER RE UM, SO IS ALTECH, ARE THEY THE MANUFACTURER OR THEY'RE JUST THE COMPANY THAT YOU'RE CONTRACTING WITH TO FIND THE VEHICLES.
THEY ARE THE MANUFACTURER, THEY ARE THE MANUFACTURER AND THEY DON'T MAKE ANY EVS AT THIS AT THIS POINT, AT THIS POINT.
ANYTHING ELSE? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM NUMBER FOUR.
IS THERE A SECOND? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
UH, SO I THINK THAT THE MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU WITH TWO ABSTENTIONS.
[6. Recommend authorizing negotiation and execution of contracts with terms of up to 15 years for capacity and energy with certain Austin Energy customers with on-site backup generation as part of a Resiliency-as-a-Service (RaaS) pilot program, for an aggregate contracted capacity of up to 25 megawatts and estimated annual contracted amount of $3,375,000.]
NEXT WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM NUMBER SIX.UH, MY NAME'S ERICA BACH, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER SIX RA.
SO YOU, YOU, HOW, HOW ARE YOU ERICA? NICE TO SEE YOU.
UM, SO YOU GOT, YOU PRESENTED A COUPLE MONTHS BACK ON THIS SERVICE.
UM, AND SO THIS IS THE FIRST AND IN THAT, IN THAT PROPOSAL, YOU TALKED ABOUT UP TO, AND I MIGHT BE MAKING UP THE NUMBER 250 MEGAWATTS OF, OF POTENTIAL.
AND SO THIS, THIS CONTRACT BEFORE US IS FOR JUST A CERTAIN NUMBER, IT'S UP TO 25 MEGAWATTS OF THE BEHIND THE METER FOR HOW MANY, HOW MANY INDIVIDUAL SITES IT'S JUST UP TO 25 MEGAWATTS.
SO IT CAN BE AS MANY UNTIL THAT THAT TRANCH IS FILLED.
AND THE, THE, THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED BY THE, BY THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY REQUIRES THIS, UM, WAS LIMITED TO CERTAIN KINDS OF FACILITIES, I THINK, RELATED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, FOOD, FOOD SERVICE, ARE THESE INITIAL CONTRACTS LIMITED TO THAT? OR ARE THEY WIDER THAN THAT? WELL, WE'RE, THIS IS CUSTOMER DRIVEN.
SO WE ARE LOOKING AT, AS OUR CUSTOMERS COME TO US, UM, TO MEET THIS NEED THAN WE WANNA BE ABLE TO MEET THOSE NEEDS.
SO WE ARE GOING TO OPEN THIS UP TO THE CUSTOMERS THAT NEED THIS TYPE OF RESILIENCY.
I, IF IT'S FOUND TO BE IN YOUR INTERESTS, UM, WELL, AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, IT'S CUSTOMER DRIVEN.
SO, UM, THIS JUST ALLOWS, ALLOWS THEM TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT RESILIENCY IN A MORE AFFORDABLE MANNER.
SO IF IT DOESN'T WORK FOR THE CUSTOMER, IT DOESN'T WORK FOR US.
AND UNDER YOUR, SORRY, LAST QUESTION, UH, UNDER YOUR PROGRAM, UM, THIS IS, THIS WOULD AT THE MOMENT, THIS WOULD BE GAS, BACKUP GAS GENERATION.
IT, IT, IF THAT'S WHAT THE CUSTOMER WANTS, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE THEM.
WE WOULD RATHER HAVE THEM DO NATURAL GAS THAN DIESEL MM-HMM
UM, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN, THEN WE WILL BE SPEAKING TO THEM ABOUT IT.
BUT RIGHT NOW, NATURAL GAS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SHOWN INTERESTED IN.
SO IF SOMEONE CAME TO YOU WITH A, A STORAGE PLUS SOLAR PROPOSAL, THEY COULD QUALIFY UNDER THIS PROGRAM OR THEY WOULD NEED TO BE, UH, FOSSIL FUEL.
IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE FOSSIL FUEL.
IT'S JUST WHATEVER THE VALUE PROPOSITION IS OF THAT TECHNOLOGY.
MM-HMM
UM, BUT THEY, THEY THEY'D LIKE TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT, UH, PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM.
IS THERE AN APPLICATION OR THEY JUST REACH OUT, I MEAN, YOU HAVE LIKE KEY CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS OR WHAT, WHAT'S THE, YES.
SO WE'RE WORKING, UH, VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR KEY ACCOUNT, UH, REPRESENTATIVES, AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, UH,
[00:15:01]
ALL OF OUR, UH, CU, UH, CUSTOMER ENERGY SOLUTION, UM, UM, STAFF, UH, THAT REPRESENTS DIFFERENT SEGMENTS OF OUR CUSTOMER BASE.SO THEN THEY CAN BE AWARE OF, UH, THE PROGRAM, UM, WHAT'S, UH, WHAT IS THERE, YOU KNOW, FOR THEM TO BE OFFERED TO THEM.
UM, AND SO WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT EDUCATION PROCESS RIGHT NOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE READY TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE THAT WE'VE, UH, RECEIVED A LOT OF INTEREST FROM CUSTOMERS ALREADY.
AND, UH, WE DO ALREADY HAVE KEY ACCOUNT, UH, SPECIALISTS THAT HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO OUR CUSTOMERS, BUT IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED AND HASN'T SPOKEN TO ANY OF OUR, OF THEIR CUSTOMER REPS, WE JUST ENCOURAGE THEM TO REACH OUT TO AUSTIN ENERGY SO THAT WE CAN INFORM THEM.
UM, YOU SAY THERE'S NO FISCAL IMPACT.
AND THEN I SEE AN ESTIMATE ANNUAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF THREE POINT.
SO, SO THAT'S THE AMOUNT THEY WOULD PAY.
YOU GUYS, THIS NO RATE PAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THIS.
SO, UH, IT'S COST NEUTRAL BECAUSE THE AMOUNT THAT WE ARE PAYING TO HAVE ACCESS THE RIGHTS TO DISPATCH THAT ASSET IN THE MARKET IS THE VALUE THAT WE SHOULD BE RECEIVING OVER THE CONTRACT TERM.
SO THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT COST NEUTRAL.
SO NO RESIDENTIAL RATE PAYERS SHOULD, SHOULD SEE ANY KIND OF INCREASE BECAUSE OF THESE CONTRACTS.
IT SHOULD BE A SAVINGS OVERALL.
IT, AGAIN, IT SHOULD BE COST NEUTRAL COST NEUTRAL WE'RE WE'RE RIGHT.
WE'RE PURCHASING PROTECTION AND, UM, WE'RE PURCHASING PROTECTION FOR THE CUSTOMER'S PORTFOLIO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE FOR RECOMMENDATION ITEM NUMBER SIX.
IS THERE SECOND? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BOWEN.
AND ITEM NUMBER SIX, PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[8. Recommend authorizing negotiation and execution of a contract with GE Energy Control Solutions Inc for the purchase and installation of a control system for Sand Hill Energy Center in an amount not to exceed $2,600,000.]
NEXT UP WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT EVENING COMMISSIONERS.I'M VICE PRESIDENT FOR POWER PRODUCTION.
I'LL TAKE THE QUESTION ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
SO, UM, WE'VE GOT THE SANDHILL ENERGY CENTER.
WE NEED TO REPLACE IT TO MAKE IT WORK CORRECTLY, BUT TO KEEP WORKING CORRECTLY AS TO KEEP WORKING CORRECTLY.
UM, BUT NOTHING BY, BY MAKING THESE INVESTMENTS, UM, IT DOESN'T PREVENT US FROM IN THE FUTURE AS COSTS GO DOWN FOR STORAGE FROM, UM, RETIRING SANDHILL.
WHEN THAT POINT COMES, THIS IS JUST TO KEEP THE, THIS KEEPS THE EQUIPMENT WE HAVE, SO WE CAN GET THE MAXIMUM, RELIABLE VALUE OUT OF IT.
THIS WILL KEEP US SAFE AND RELIABLE AND EFFICIENT UP, UP TO THAT POINT IN TIME.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. SWEENEY? OKAY.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL.
I I'M GONNA ABSTAIN THIS ONE AND COMMISSIONER YER.
GREAT MOTION CARRIES WITH ONE ABSTENTION.
VERY EFFICIENT DISCUSSION OF OUR, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS TO
[11. Presentations by Base Rate Review participants on their positions in the Base Rate Review Process.]
COUNCIL, MOVING ON TO DISCUSSION ITEMS. UH, WE'RE GONNA FIRST TAKE UP ITEM NUMBER 11, WHICH ARE PRESENTATIONS BY BASE RATE REVIEW PARTICIPANTS ON THEIR POSITIONS IN THE BA BASE RATE REVIEW PROCESS.AND, UH, ROBIN SHOULD HAVE CER OR I ROBIN CIRCULATED A LINK TO THE, UM, IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 9TH.
I THINK IT'S ABOUT 155 PAGES, AND I HOPE THAT EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT THIS WEEKEND.
UH, AND, UM, AGAIN, JUST A REMINDER THAT WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA HEAR PRESENTATIONS TONIGHT AND, UH, HAVE, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME DISCUSSION.
AND THEN WE WILL ALSO HAVE POSTED IN OCTOBER, UM, A, AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON THE RATE REVIEW PROCESS OR THE RATE, OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE RATE REVIEW PROCESS TO COUNSEL.
SO WE'LL ACTUALLY BE VOTING ON THIS ITEM NEXT MONTH.
UH, SO AS FAR AS, UH, PROCEDURALLY, WHAT, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TAKE UP, UH, THE RATE BASE RATE REVIEW PARTICIPANTS IN THE ORDER THAT WAS INCLUDED ON THE INVITATION THAT WE FILED IN THE PROCEEDING.
AND THEN WE'VE OFFERED EACH, EACH PARTICIPANT FIVE MINUTES, AND I NEED TO CONFIRM THIS, BUT I THINK THE,
[00:20:01]
UH, THE ICA AND AUSTIN ENERGY A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME, I'LL, I'LL CONFIRM THAT JUST A SECOND.WHEN I PULL MY COMPUTER UP, UH, UNLESS ROBIN, DO YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT? YES.
UH, AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE WERE BOTH ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES.
UM, SO WE'VE, WE'RE GONNA DO FIVE MINUTES FOR EVERYONE.
UM, AND THEN EXCEPT FOR THE IND, UH, THE ICA AND AUSTIN ENERGY, AND THEY'LL HAVE 10 MINUTES AND THEY ARE THE LAST TWO PRESENTERS.
AND I'D LIKE TO GIVE EACH PERSON THE OPPORTUNITY THE ENTIRE FIVE MINUTES OR 10 MINUTES, UH, OF THEIR TIME TO ACTUALLY MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION.
I THINK FOLKS CAME WITH A PRESENTATION IN MIND AND I'D LIKE TO AFFORD THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY PRESENT ALL OF THAT MATERIAL TO US.
I KNOW NORMALLY WE, WE KIND OF TAKE QUESTIONS AS THEY COME, UH, WITH AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF, ESPECIALLY, BUT I'D LIKE TO GIVE EACH PRESENTER THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR ENTIRE, UH, PRESENTATION BEFORE WE ASK QUESTIONS.
SO PLEASE HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS UNTIL THE END OF EACH PRESENTATION.
AND THEN I'LL GIVE A, A BRIEF OPPORTUNITY FOR QUESTIONS AFTER EACH PRESENTATION.
I THINK WITH THAT, WE'RE READY TO START.
SO FIRST UP WE HAVE SOLAR AND STORAGE COALITION AND, AND JUST AS A, AS A NOTE, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND, UH, ROBIN WILL BE TIMING EACH PRESENTATION.
SO THERE'LL PROBABLY BE AN ALARM AT THE END OF FIVE MINUTES.
UH, IF, IF YOU USE THE ENTIRE TIME, THANK YOU.
HI, I'M ASHLEY FISHER AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE SOLAR AND STORAGE COALITION, WHICH IS MADE UP OF SOLAR AND STORAGE INSTALLERS, A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER, INTERESTED IN MICROGRIDS AND INCLUDES SON NOVA SUNRUN AND TESLA, SSC MEMBER COMPANIES OPERATE, MAINTAIN AND INSTALL BATTERIES THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES IN THE WORLD, INCLUDING THE AUSTIN ENERGY AREA.
THESE COMPANIES SHARE THE GOAL TO EXPAND THE ABILITY TO USE STORAGE.
IN ADDITION TO SOLAR AND OFFER FLEXIBILITY FOR CUSTOMERS.
THIS BENEFITS AUSTIN ENERGY, AUSTIN RESIDENTS, AND THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE WHILE OUR PROPOSAL DOES NOT PROPOSE EXACT RATES FOR THIS SSC WOULD LIKE AUSTIN ENERGY TO COMMIT TO INCLUDING STORAGE IN THE ONGOING VALUE OF SOLAR DISCUSSIONS.
WE KNOW THAT AUSTIN RESIDENTS ARE INTERESTED IN RESILIENCE, ESPECIALLY AFTER WINTER STORM URI.
AND WE KNOW THAT AUSTIN RESIDENTS ARE EAGER TO ADOPT TECHNOLOGY THAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL AND RE RESILIENCE BENEFITS.
WE KNOW THAT BATTERY STORAGE CAN BE, CAN BENEFIT BOTH INDIVIDUAL AUSTIN, ENERGY CUSTOMERS AND AUSTIN ENERGY AS A WHOLE IN HOW THEY OPERATE WITHIN THE ICOT GRID.
THE TEXAS PUBLIC UTILITY, THE TEXAS PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION IS ACTIVELY WORKING ON THIS AND WE DON'T WANNA BE LEFT BEHIND.
THEREFORE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR AUSTIN ENERGY TO PURSUE WAYS TO BETTER UTILIZE STORAGE IN THEIR SYSTEM.
SSC MADE SEVERAL REQUESTS DURING THE RIGHT CASE PROCEEDINGS.
THESE INCLUDED EXPANDING THE VALUE OF SOLAR TARIFF TO INCLUDE SOLAR PLUS STORAGE AND EXPANDING THE USE OF VALUE AND SOLAR FOR MICROGRIDS AND, AND MULTIFAMILY AUSTIN ENERGY CLAIMS THAT OUR REQUESTS WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE RATE CASE, EVEN THOUGH THE VALUE OF SOLAR TARIFF WAS BEING REASSESSED.
AS PART OF THIS PROCESS, WE THINK OUR REQUESTS ARE RELEVANT TO THE VALUE OF SOLAR TARIFF.
THE I E REPORT STATED IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION THAT AE DID NOT CLEARLY DEFINE WHICH, UH, WHAT COMPRISES ITEMS THAT CAN BE EVALUATED, EVALUATED RELATED TO HIS VALUE OF SOLAR.
DURING THIS PROCESS, THEY MADE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS IN THEIR REPORT THAT WAS ISSUED ON FRIDAY.
THEY SAID AE SHOULD EVALUATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER INPUT IN VALUE OF SOLAR RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND THEN AE SHOULD MORE CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT COMPRISES THE RATES AND METHODOLOGY INPUTS THAT MUST BE ASSESSED CONSISTENT WITH VALUE OF SOLAR TARIFF.
ALSO, WE THINK THAT ADVANCING STORAGE AND AUSTIN ENERGY IS SOMETHING THAT THE EU SEE IN THE COUNCIL CARES ABOUT.
AND AUSTIN ENERGY'S CLOSING BRIEF.
THEY ADDED AN FOOTNOTE THAT AT THEIR APPROPRIATE TIME AE COMMITS TO INCLUDING SSC AS STAKEHOLDERS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMS THAT THAT WAS MENTIONED IN OUR BRIEF.
SO WE'RE ASKING FOR EUC AND THE COUNCIL TO ASK AUSTIN ENERGY, TO COMMIT, TO EXPLORING WAYS THAT THEY CAN INCORPORATE STORAGE INTO AUSTIN ENERGY RATES.
AND TO LET US HELP, UM, TO DETAIL SOME OF THE POSITIONS THAT WE LISTED IN OUR POSITION STATEMENT AND OUR CLOSING BRIEFS.
WE ASKED TO EXPAND VALUE OF SOLAR TO INCLUDE SOLAR PLUS STORAGE.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT PROPOSING SPECIFIC RATE STRUCTURES, BUT INSTEAD WE POINTED TO EXAMPLES IN OTHER PLACES, THERE'S A VARIETY OF RATE STRUCTURES THAT COULD BE USED.
UM, SOME BASED ON TIME OF USE SOME BASED ON OTHER FACTORS, WE'RE ASKING AUSTIN ENERGY TO COMMIT TO A PROCESS THAT CREATES RATES FOR SOLAR AND STORAGE.
WE'RE ALSO ASKING TO EXPAND THE USE OF VALUE IN STORAGE, UH, UH, VALUE OF SOLAR FOR MICROGRIDS AND MULTIFAMILY.
WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE, UM, FOR MICROGRIDS TO SHARE PAYMENTS FOR EXCESS SOLAR ACROSS DIFFERENT, UH, INVOICES LIKE
[00:25:01]
OUR PREVIOUS SUGGESTION, NOT PROPOSING SPECIFIC RATES, BUT FOR AUSTIN ENERGY TO COMMIT TO A PROCESS TO ALLOW THIS REGARDING THE REBATES THAT WERE PROPOSED IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSAL.WE HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON THOSE ONE IS WE PROPOSE INCLUDING A REBATE FOR LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS AS AE DESIGNS, THEIR NEW REBATE PROGRAMS, AE SHOULD CONSIDER GENEROUS REBATE PROGRAMS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR LOWER INCOME CUSTOMERS.
WE'RE ALSO ASKING FOR A STORAGE REBATE.
WE'D LIKE AUSTIN ENERGY TO COMMIT, TO DEVELOPING A REBATE PROGRAM FOR BATTERY SYSTEMS AND MANY MARKETS.
AN INCREASING PERCENTAGE OF SOLAR CUSTOMERS ARE INSTALLING SOLAR PLUS STORAGE AND AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD PROVIDE A PATHWAY TO MAKE THIS MORE ACCESSIBLE FOR CUSTOMERS.
IN ADDITION, WE'RE ASKING TO ALLOW SOLAR LEASING PROGRAMS, AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD EXPLICITLY ALLOW THIS AND STATED CLEARLY WE'RE ASKING FOR PREDICTABLE TIMELINES FOR SOLAR PERMIT PROCESSING, AND WE'RE ASKING FOR BILLING SYSTEM UPDATES FOR AUSTIN ENERGY TO CONSIDER AN RFP FOR A NEW BILLING SYSTEM.
AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD ENSURE THAT THEIR BILLING SYSTEM IS NIMBLE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE NEW RATES AND PROGRAMS AND STRUCTURES THAT SOME OF THESE, UH, SOLAR PLUS STORAGE COULD, COULD BE IN THE FUTURE.
WE BELIEVE THAT WOULD RESULT IN BETTER CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE IN ADDITION TO SUPPORTING SOLAR AND STORAGE SYSTEMS. SO IN CONCLUSION, AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE, UM, UC OR, AND COUNCIL TO ASK AUSTIN ENERGY TO COMMIT, TO EXPLORING WAYS THEY CAN INCORPORATE STORAGE INTO, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY RATES.
THANK YOU, MS. FISHER, ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION.
I MAY HAVE JUST MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, BUT CAN YOU TELL ME AGAIN WHAT THE, THE POINT WAS ON, ON THE ABILITY TO SHARE FOR CUSTOMERS TO SHARE ACROSS, UH, ACROSS THE PLATFORM OR, RIGHT.
SO, UH, IF YOU HAVE A FULL DEVELOPMENT, UM, THAT HAS SORT OF SOLAR AND STORAGE, UM, SHARED ACROSS A VARIETY OF, OF HOUSES, HOUSING UNITS, WE'D WANT TO BE ABLE TO SORT OF TREAT THAT THE SAME WAY THAT YOU MIGHT TREAT, UM, AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY THAT HAS SOLAR SOLAR ON IT SO THAT IT CAN, THE, THE SAVINGS CAN BE DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.
SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LIKE A MICROGRID THAT THAT'S RIGHT.
UM, AND, AND IS THIS WHERE EACH HOUSE HAS ITS SOLAR AND STORAGE AND THEN IT'S ALL CONNECTED AND EACH, YES, IT COULD BE EACH INDIVIDUAL HOUSE OR IT COULD BE SOLAR IN A PUBLIC AREA.
THAT IS SHARED AMONGST THE HOUSES.
SO YOU SORT OF HAD, HAD TO TREAT THAT WHEN IT'S SORT OF SHARED AMONGST ALL THE HOUSES.
MM-HMM,
MM-HMM
THEY SORT OF LAY OUT THAT THEY'RE, UH, LOOKING AT REBATES ACROSS THE BOARD, SORT OF LOOKING AT HOW THEY'RE CHANGING ALL SORTS OF REBATE PROGRAMS. AND WE'RE JUST SUGGESTING THAT IN THAT PROCESS, UM, WE CONSIDER EXPANDING ACCESS TO THOSE REBATES.
UM, BUT WE DON'T GO INTO THE DETAILS OF EXACTLY HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
CAN YOU SUMMARIZE OR DESCRIBE WHAT YOU MIGHT BE ALSO LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF VEHICLE TO HOME AND VEHICLE, TO GRID, TO UTILIZE ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERIES AS PART OF THIS? UM, YES.
SO AGAIN, WE DON'T GO INTO THE SPECIFICS OF RATE DESIGN BECAUSE THERE'S A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OUT THERE.
UM, BUT THERE ARE A VARIETY OF WAYS THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES, UM, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS WOULD, WOULD PAY CUSTOMERS EITHER TO DISCHARGE THEIR BATTERY AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE IT BENEFITS THE UTILITY AT THAT POINT IN TIME, OR TO PULL FROM THEIR BATTERIES THEMSELVES SO THAT THEY'RE NOT, UH, SO THAT THEY'RE REDUCING DEMAND DURING THAT TIME.
AND SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF PROGRAMS OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE, UH, DEVELOPED TO FOR THAT KIND OF PRICING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. FISHER? ALL RIGHT.
[Additional Items]
NEXT.MY NAME IS TTA COOPER, AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
[00:30:01]
TWO R, WHICH STANDS FOR TWO WOMEN RATE PAYERS.ONE RESIDES WITHIN THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND ONE RESIDES WITHOUT, AND AS A LAWYER, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD SPEND THREE HOURS AND MAYBE NOT EVEN GET TO THE POINT THEN.
SO I HAVE PUT AS A PRECAUTION FOR ME EXCEEDING MY FIVE MINUTES BEFORE I EVEN COVER MY FIRST ISSUE.
OTHER EXHIBITS, UH, THAT I'VE ALREADY PROVIDED YOU ONE DEALING WITH THE THREE 11 CALL SERVICE.
UH, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT IS A SHARED COST SERVICE.
SO WE'VE ATTACHED A KIND OF MEMO AND IT'S ENTITLED THREE, ONE ELEVEN CALL CENTER.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS ONE THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER IT, UH, HE MISSED IT.
ENERGY IS PROPOSING TO REALLOCATE THE COSTS OF THE 20% DISCOUNT TO THE STATE MILITARY AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS, UH, ACROSS ALL THE CUSTOMER CLASSES.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THEY'RE ASKING RESIDENTIAL RATE PAYERS TO PICK UP 54% OF THAT, WHICH IS ATROCIOUS.
IT'S UNFAIR, IT'S INEQUITABLE, AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT COST BASED BECAUSE WE ARE NOT COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS.
AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE CUSTOMERS THAT GET THE DISCOUNT ARE IN THE COMMERCIAL CLASS.
WE RECOMMEND THAT THE ALLOCATION BE SET LIKE THE CAP CUSTOMER, WHICH IS ON A PER KILOWATT HOUR BASIS.
NOW I WILL SAY THERE'S A CAVEAT.
JUST READ MY BRIEF, CUZ I ALSO INCLUDED MY POST HEARING BRIEF FOR YOU ALL.
SO I WANNA RETURN TO THE SUBJECT THAT I REALLY WANTED TO COME HERE AND TALK TO Y'ALL ABOUT, AND THAT IS, UH, THE PRESUMPTION AND THE ARGUMENT AND THE ONE THAT AUSTIN, THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER, UH, HAS ADOPTED IS THAT THE CO THAT, UH, THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN IS CREATING FINANCIAL HAV HAVOC TO THE UTILITY.
DOGS AND CATS ARE RAINING FROM HEAVEN, BUT WHAT I'M HERE TODAY TO TELL YOU THAT IT JUST AIN'T TRUE.
SO WHAT I'VE GIVEN YOU IS AN EXHIBIT AND Y'ALL SHOULD SEE IT.
AND THE FIRST FEW PAGES SHOULD LOOK VERY FAMILIAR BECAUSE THEY'RE AN EXHIBIT THAT YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN BY THE EUC WAY BACK IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, WHEN THEY TOLD YOU THAT THEY NEEDED TO COMPLETELY RADICALLY CHANGE THE RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN.
AND WHAT I HAVE GOT IS CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THAT EXHIBIT THAT TRY TO SHOW THAT ON THE ONE THAT'S ENTITLED EUC TWO, IF YOU SEE THAT WHAT THEY HAVE ON THE LEFT IS THE SHOW IS TO SHOW HOW THE REVENUES MICROPHONE I NEED.
UH, SO WHAT THE ONE ON THE LEFT SHOWS THE BARS SHOW THE REVENUES AND THE LINE SHOWS THE COST.
AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SHOW YOU IS MY GOD.
IF WE KEEP ON GOING THIS WAY, WE'RE GONNA STARVE TO DEATH.
BUT IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE GRAPH, WHAT YOU SEE IS THAT EVERYTHING IS BELOW COST.
THE BASE REVENUES ARE BELOW COST AND DON'T FORGET COST FOR US.
AND ENERGY INCLUDES THEIR PROFIT, THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.
SO WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE PROFIT INCLUDED IN THE OPERATING COSTS.
SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT IS THE ONES WHERE IT'S SUPPOSEDLY BELOW COST IS FISCAL YEAR 2020 AND FISCAL YEAR 2021.
AND WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN 2020 AND 2021.
WE WERE ALL AT HOME OR CLAD IN LIKE THREE OR FOUR MASKS, UH, NOT GOING TO BARS, NOT GOING TO RESTAURANTS.
UH, SO WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS SOME PROBLEMS WITH, UH, WITH BUSINESS.
THE NEXT PAGE GIVES YOU KIND OF THE, AND THIS IS THE SAME EXHIBIT THAT Y'ALL HAD, UH, SHOWS HOW IT BUILDS ITS CASH BALANCE.
AND SO THEY GIVE YOU THESE NUMBERS AND TRYING TO TELL YOU, UH, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THIS FOR COMPLETE, UH, TRANSPARENCY HERE.
I WANTED YOU TO NOTICE THAT THE DEPRECIATION CONTRIBUTIONS ARE NOT THE DEPRECIATION EXPENSES THEY PUT IN THE, THE RATE CASE.
IT'S ACTUALLY TO RAISE A QUESTION Y'ALL MIGHT WANNA ASK AUSTIN ENERGY ABOUT, UH, THE NEXT PAGE IS BASICALLY THE SAME THING.
UH, BUT I, UH, BUT WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO, WHICH SHOWS THAT IN 2021, IT WAS 1.8 AND THE NEXT PAGE THEY HIGHLIGHT THAT, SEE, LOOK, WE HAVE A BAD DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO.
AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GONNA BE SEEING, UH, IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF PAGES IS THERE'S A REASON WHY THAT THERE'S THIS BAD DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO.
SO WE TURN TO THE VERY NEXT PAGE.
THIS IS IN THE RATE FILING PACKAGE, AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE EXPENSES THAT AUSTIN AND REVENUES THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS PUT IN THE RATE CASE.
AND SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE, YOU'LL NOTICE
[00:35:01]
THE FAMILIAR, FAMILIAR GRAPH THAT THEY GAVE YOU AT THE EUC IT'S ON EUC DASH SIX.AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE REPLICATION.
I THINK THAT THE EXHIBITS ARE, IF I JUST WANNA, I WISH YOU'D GIVEN ME A MINUTE.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU THE LAST TWO PAGES SHOW YOU PARTICULARLY IN 2021, THAT THOSE REVENUES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE GRAPH CHART, CUZ THOSE REVENUE REVENUES WERE NOT ADJUSTED FOR THE PANDEMIC.
THEY WERE NOT ADJUSTED FOR THE WINTER'S STORM AND THEY WERE NOT ADJUSTED FOR THE WEATHER.
AND SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE, THE PAGES NINE AND EIGHT AND NINE ARE A SERIES OF THINGS WHERE THERE WERE ACTUAL EITHER GOVERNMENT IMPOSED BY THE CITY REDUCTIONS IN THE REVENUES THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WAS TO RECEIVE AS, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS.
AND I DON'T REALLY WANNA TAKE UP MORE OF Y'ALL'S TIME.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO, TO TRY TO ANSWER 'EM THANKS MS. COOPER, ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.
COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN, UH, COUPLE QUESTIONS, UH, ON THE CAP ON THE CAP PROGRAM.
WHAT IS YOUR, WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON THAT? WELL, THERE'S, UH, THERE'S JUST THE GENERAL POSITION THAT I SUPPORT CAP.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT YOU WANNA SEE IF I MAINTAIN IT AS IT IS OR CHANGE IT.
WELL, UH, I'D LIKE TO MAINTAIN IT.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERN THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE CAP SHOULDN'T BE IN IT.
AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO, TO WORK TOWARDS THAT.
BUT I THINK CAP IS A VERY IMPORTANT PROGRAM.
I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS WITH THIS RATE FILING IS THAT OF COURSE THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, OUR ANSWER IS TO INCREASE THE CAP RATES FOR THE $25 PROPOSED CUSTOMER CHARGE.
WELL, THAT MEANS YOU AND I ARE GONNA PICK UP SOME EXTRA MONEY.
NOW, TECHNICALLY IT'S NOT A BASE RATE, BUT IT IS OUR ELECTRIC BILL THAT'S INCREASING AGAIN.
AND THAT, AND THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS EX EXTERNAL RESOURCE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN LOOKING AT THE REASONABLES CUZ THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
ARE THESE RE RATES GONNA BE REASONABLE AND EQUITABLE.
THOSE ARE REGULATORY PRINCIPLES THAT WE FOLLOW AT THE PUC AND GENERALLY ACROSS THE UNITED STATES ISSUES OF EQUITY AND FAIRNESS.
AND, AND MY SECOND QUESTION IS, UH, AM I CORRECT? AND IF, IF, IF YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW TESTIMONY ON THIS, BUT I, I DID READ THROUGH MOST OF THE TESTIMONY, RIGHT.
UH, WHAT, UH, DID YOU ADDRESS THE TOWN LAKE CENTER IN YOUR TESTIMONY? I DID AT, AT THE ORIGINAL TOWN LAKE CENTER.
THE, THE PROBLEM IS, UH, I, I DO COULD SEE THAT IT'S NOT A KNOWN AND MEASURABLE AS, AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PUC, IN OTHER WORDS, BUT MAYBE BY THE TIME THE RATES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SET THAT THEY HAVE IN FACT MADE IT, UH, MADE THE CONTRACT AND MADE THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY GOT THE $35 MILLION.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S STILL AN ESTIMATE SUBJECT TO FURTHER NEGOTIATION.
UH, UM, I'VE BEEN, YOU'VE BEEN AT DOOR CAUGHT TOO.
I'VE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO BE, TO NOT BE SO CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE.
UM, SO WINTER STORM, YURI REVENUES, HAVE YOU SKIMMED OR READ THE JUDGES? WHAT THE JUDGE SAID ABOUT THAT? WHAT THE HEARING EXAMINER SAID ABOUT THAT? CAUSE IT SEEMED TO ME LIKE HE WAS SAYING, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT MORE.
WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE NINE OF MY EXHIBIT IT, AND IT'S, IT'S ONE OF MANY THINGS AND WE DIDN'T, WE SHOULD NOT JUST LOOK WHEN WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE CUZ THE, THE GRAPH THAT THEY GAVE YOU WAS ON UNAUDITED REVENUES TO SHOW THE HUGE LOSSES.
AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE OUR RATE DESIGN.
SO IF YOU NOTICE IN THE, UH, ON PAGE EUC NINE, IT IS JUST ONE OF MANY THINGS, LOST REVENUE REVENUES THAT WERE LOST AND WOULD'VE BEEN COUNTED AND TO THEREFORE DECREASE THE COST AND SHOW THE ROBUSTNESS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 20, UH, 21, UH, REVENUES.
BUT WE WORKED, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU.
WE WERE VERY FRUSTRATED TRYING TO GET ANYTHING ON HURRICANE YOUR, I MEAN ON WINTER STORM, I KEEP CALLING IT HURRICANE.
I'VE BEEN DOING IT EVER SINCE THE RIGHT CASE.
I, I APOLOGIZE, UH, WINTER STORM UY, UH, AS WELL AS THE PANDEMIC BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT THE RATES WOULD BE AFFECTED.
YOU CAN'T TELL ME A BAR THAT'S CLOSED OR MAYBE EVEN GOES OUT OF BUSINESS.
[00:40:01]
AFFECT AUSTIN ENERGY'S REVENUE.SO WE, WE KNEW IN OUR HEARTS, BUT AUSTIN ENERGY FIRST RESPONSE WAS USUALLY, UM, WELL THAT'S, THAT'S NOT HOW WE SET OUR RATES.
WE DID NOT INCLUDE THIS KIND OF DATA.
ALL OF OUR RATES WERE, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S LIKE, DON'T LOOK, DON'T LOOK AT THIS OTHER DATA THAT WE'RE USING TO TRY TO TWIST AND TURN THE RATE REV THE RATE DESIGN, LOOK OVER HERE WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING THE TEST YEAR, BUT THERE'S TWO THINGS HERE.
ONE IS TO, WERE THE REVENUES REALLY ADEQUATE FOR CURRENT RATE DESIGN? THAT'S A VERY SERIOUS QUESTION BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES.
THAT'S GONNA AFFECT LOW USERS AND LOW USERS ARE NOT.
I MEAN, I KNOW AUSTIN ENERGY KEEPS SAYING THEY'RE ALL RICH PEOPLE THAT LIVE DOWNTOWN IN THOSE CONDOS, BUT I GUARANTEE THEY'RE NOT, AND THEY'RE NOT ALL ABLE TO GET ON CAP.
THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS.
AND WHEN HE COMES UP HERE, I'M SURE HE IS GONNA BE ABLE TO TELL YOU A LOT ABOUT THE DEMOGRAPHY.
UM, AND THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE THAT WILL BE SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTED BY, UH, BY THE RATE INCREASES AUSTIN ENERGY IS RECOMMENDING.
AND, AND IN CASE OF YURI, THEY DIDN'T EVEN GIVE US WHAT WE GOT.
ONE OF THE INTERVENERS HAPPENED TO FIND IT PLAYING, PLAYING, UH, NAME ROULETTE AT THE PUC WEBSITE AND HAPPENED TO FIND THIS FILING AND WHAT WE FOUND TO BE IRONIC, THE PERSON WHO SIGNED THE FILING WAS ONE OF THE CO-COUNSEL OF AUSTIN ENERGY IN THE RATE CASE.
SO IT WAS VERY FRUSTRATING AND YOU CAN SEE ME BEING SO DETAILED AND KIND OF INFLAMMATORY, AND I APOLOGIZE TO AUSTIN ENERGY, BUT IT WAS VERY FRUSTRATING.
SO WE AT LEAST GOT FOR THE ERCOT STUFF, 500 MILLION MINUTES OF, OF OUTAGE.
AND, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT TRANSLATES INTO REVENUES OR TO COST.
THEY GAVE US SOME AND WE DID, AND I DID THE BEST TO LIMIT TO LOOK IT UP.
BUT IF YOU ACT FOR 2021, BECAUSE OF THEIR ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION, THAT MORE THAN MAKES UP FOR THEIR SO-CALLED DEFICIT IN 2021.
SO YEAH, IT REALLY, I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET AT THAT, THAT SEEMED TO ME LIKE THE JUDGE IN HIS RECOMMENDATION IDENTIFIED THAT AS ONE AREA TO LOOK AT FURTHER.
SO, BUT THAT, BUT, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER.
WOULD YOU MIND COMMENTING ON YOUR POSITION ON THE CAC OR KAYAK POLICY CONTRIBUTION IN AN AID OF CONSTRUCTION? OH, UM, ONCE AGAIN, I WAS VERY FRUSTRATED.
LIKE THE FIRST TIME I ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT TRYING TO GET INFORMATION ON C A C, THEY GAVE ME BASICALLY THE CONTRACT MANUAL.
NOW I'M NOT A TECHNICAL PERSON, I'M A LAWYER.
WE LIKE TO THINK WE ARE, BUT IT, BUT IT SHOWED ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF CATEGORIES OF EQUIPMENT, WHICH MADE NO SENSE.
AND BOTTOM LINE WHEN I KEPT LOOKING FOR DOLLARS, CUZ THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS WHAT PART OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAD A FEE ATTACHED TO IT AND THERE WAS NEXT TO NO MONEY IN THERE.
SO IT WASN'T A VERY RESPONSIVE ANSWER AND WE KEPT TRYING AND DON'T FORGET, WE HAD A VERY SHORTENED TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS AND GET ANSWERS.
IT'S NOT LIKE THE NORMAL RATE CASE.
UH, THEY WERE ALWAYS POLITE TO US.
I'M NOT TRYING TO DISREGARD, BUT I DO THINK THAT, AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU'ALL ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING A STUDY ON C IAC, UH, BECAUSE NO, NOBODY OUTSIDE, MAYBE, UH, PEOPLE WHO ARE HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED IN TECHNO THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE COULD PROBABLY TELL YOU WHAT'S COVERED BY CIA C.
SO ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS, UH, I WOULD HOPE THAT Y'ALL WOULD LOOK AT IS TO SET OUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S CONNECTED WITH GROWTH AND IDENTIFY THE COMPONENT PARTS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE CIA C APPLIED THAT TO ME.
SO WE NEED TO GO START WITH GROUND ZERO.
THE SECOND THING IS LIKE A TREE THAT NOW HAS TWO LIMBS.
SO THE FIRST LIMB WOULD BE TO, UH, COME UP WITH SOME SCENARIOS, SOME FACTUAL SCENARIOS, LIKE A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S X MILES AWAY FROM, FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, A DOWNTOWN AREA.
AND I'LL, I'LL TALK ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN AREA IN A SECOND AND EMPTY.
LIKE I'VE GOT A LOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT'S A NEW CUSTOMER AND HOW, HOW DO YOU FIGURE THOSE OUT? UH, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FOUND OUT ACTUALLY READING AN AUSTIN ENERGY REPORT ON WINTER STORM IS THAT WE GOLD PLATE SOME OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE IN OUR VERY DENSE DEVELOPMENT.
[00:45:01]
I CAN DOWNTOWN AUSTIN AND THIS, THIS AREA MAY BE INCLUDED AS PART OF IT.I THINK I, I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT AND I THINK THAT YOUR POSITION HAS COME ACROSS AND I DO WANNA KEEP IT BRIEF AND WE'VE GOT A LOT OF OTHER FOLKS OKAY.
THAT ARE, UM, SO IN OTHER WORDS, I WOULD, I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING TO LOOK AT IS LOOKING AT WHEN THEY'RE GOAL PLATING, THE THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO, I'M SORRY, WHEN YOU GOAL PLATE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE SHOULD BE, BE LOOKING AT, AT ALSO AS MAYBE SOME NEW CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO C I A C CUZ THEY PUT A LOT OF REDUNDANT, UH, INFRASTRUCTURE IN THERE AND THE COMPLAIN LIKE SO MUCH SO THAT THE WINTER REPORT COMPLAINED THAT THEY COULDN'T, THEY COULDN'T TURN 'EM OFF BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T, THERE'S JUST NO WAY THERE WAS JUST SO MANY, UH, WIRES COMING IN.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING, SO.
I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UM, I'M UH, YOU MENTIONED, UH, UH, MR. CHAPMAN ASKED YOU ABOUT THE TOWN LAKE CENTER AND YOU CONCEDED THAT IT WAS NOT KNOWN AND MEASURABLE.
I'M REAL INTERESTED IN THE CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF KNOWN AND MEASURABLE, UM, CHANGES TEST YEAR.
AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU PRESENTED EVIDENCE ON ANY OTHER, UM, ISSUES IN THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT RELATED TO KNOWN AND MEASURABLE? UH, YES MA'AM I DID.
I, UH, KIND OF ACTED LIKE HALF A PUC LAWYER AND HALF AN AUSTIN ENERGY LAWYER KIND OF, UH, I STARTED OFF SAYING THESE ARE THE LEGAL STANDARDS AND THE LEGAL STANDARD IS AUSTIN ENERGY HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPENSES.
IN FACT IT'S IT MAKES SENSE CUZ I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO PRESENT EVIDENCE.
SO, UH, IT'S NOT AN EXCUSE THAT WE DIDN'T ASK THE RIGHT DISCOVERY QUESTION.
IF WE RAISE AN ISSUE WITH AUSTIN ENERGY AND THEY DON'T RESPOND BACK AND THE THREE 11 IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE FAILURE OF A BURDEN OF PROOF IN THAT CASE AND A BURDEN OF PROOF, UH, BUT KNOWN IN MEASURABLE MEANS THAT WE USE A HISTORICAL TEST YEAR.
SO WE GO BACK A YEAR AND THAT'S THE CLO, BUT WE TRY TO GET AS CLOSE TO THE YEAR, THE RATES ARE GONNA BE EFFECT.
AND SO IN THIS CASE IT WAS 2021 AND THEN WE CAN MAKE WHAT'S CALLED KNOWN AND MEASURABLE ADJUSTMENTS.
AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT'S CHANGED IN THE HISTORICAL TEST YEAR, WHETHER IT'S AN INCREASE IN COST OR AN ADDITIONAL COST THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS RECOVERED IN RATES OR A DECREASE IN COST, THEY MAKE IT TO THE ACTUAL HISTORICAL 20, 21 FISCAL YEAR 2021, BUT TO BE A KNOWN AND MEASURABLE, THEY HAVE TO COVER CERTAIN CATEGORIES KNOWN.
OBVIOUSLY THAT MAKES SENSE MEASURABLE MEANS IT CAN'T BE AN ESTIMATE.
AND IN THIS CASE WITH THE, UH, BUILDING THE TOWN LIKE BUILDING, IT WOULD'VE BEEN AN ESTIMATE BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WERE STILL IN NEGOTIATIONS AS TO TERMS. SO I HAD TO AGREE THAT THAT WAS NOT KNOWN IN ME.
AND SO ON THE TOWN LAKE CENTER IN PARTICULAR, MY MEMORY OF HAVING READ THE ENTIRE 150 HOWEVER MANY PAGES IS THAT, THAT, UH, DISCUSSION OF THAT IS THAT, UM, UH, IT WAS IT RELATED TO PERHAPS DEPRECIATION EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BUILDING.
BUT I WONDERED IF THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION THAT YOU'LL RECALL OR ANY, UH, EVIDENCE I'LL USE THAT TERM LOOSELY PRESENTED THAT WAS, UH, RELATED TO THE OPERATING EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BUILDING, THAT THEY WERE ONLY PARTIALLY USING.
NOW PAGE 39 OF THE RATE FILING PACKAGE IS THE LIST OF KNOWN AND MEASURABLE CHANGES THAT AUSTIN ENERGY MADE.
UH, I ONLY REMEMBER CUZ I ALMOST MADE IN PAGE MY EXHIBIT, SO OKAY.
UH, AND UH, AND SO THEY, THEY DID MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT THERE.
IT ALSO HAS TO, THE, THE EXPENSE HAS TO EXIST AT THE TIME THE RATES ARE GONNA TAKE EFFECT AND THAT'S WHAT THE, THE DRAWBACK IS WITH THE TOWN LAKE CENTER.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT YET.
I MEAN, IS IT CORRECT THAT IT'S KNOWN THAT IT WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER PART OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND NO LONGER BEEN IN AUSTIN ENERGY'S PORTFOLIO? WELL, THEY, THEY, THEY, YES MA'AM THEY DID TAKE IT.
THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO REMOVE THE COST OF, OF THE TOWN LAKE.
BUT WHAT I WAS ARGUING IS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAD RESPONDED TO AN RFI SAYING, WELL, WE WE'RE GONNA GET 35 MILLION FOR IT AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GET IT SOMETIME WE'RE EXPECTING TO GET IT SOMETIME IN 2023, WHICH IS THE RIGHT YEAR.
SO I SAID, HEY, UH, BUT THEN THEY CAME BACK AND SAID THEY DON'T HAVE THE DETAILS YET.
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE HEARING EXAMINER IS THAT HE DETERMINED
[00:50:01]
THAT IT, BECAUSE THE CONTRACT HAD NOT YET BEEN EXECUTED BETWEEN AUSTIN ENERGY AND I FORGET WHO IT IS, THEY'RE GONNA TRANSFER IT TO THAT.THEREFORE IT WASN'T MEASURABLE.
AND YET, DO YOU RECALL, DID YOU TAKE A POSITION ON THE, UM, NUMBER OF BUDGETED FTES THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY FILLED, UM, THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER OR FOUND WORD A KNOWN AND MEASURABLE CHANGE? WELL, I, I TOOK 'EM INDIRECTLY BY THE FACT THAT LIKE IN THE THREE 11 CALL CENTER, UH, THAT HAD SOME ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES AND I SAID THAT WE HAVE NO COST STUDY.
THAT'S A SHARED SERVICE, WHICH IS KIND OF LIKE AN AFFILIATE TRANSACTION.
ANYBODY HAS DONE ANY BUSINESS.
I DON'T REALLY WANNA SPEND A LOT OF TIME.
I, I WROTE UP A LITTLE, UH, MEMO FOR YOU GUYS, BUT THEY DID, IN MY OPINION, THEY DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF.
WE COULDN'T TELL THE REASONABLENESS OF COST.
WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT COST THEY INCLUDED AS PART OF THE THREE 11 COST CENTER.
DID THEY INCLUDE THE BUILDING? DID THEY INCLUDE THE UTILITIES? THERE'S NOTHING THERE.
AND PART OF IT WAS ALSO THEN ON TOP OF THAT, THEY WANTED TO ADD SOME ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES, BUT THOSE, AND THEY SAY THERE WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WAS IN THE RECORD WAS AN ASSURANCE OF AN AUSTIN ENERGY EMPLOYEE THAT WE KNOW WILL HAVE THEM BY WHEN THE RATES START WELL, THAT'S, THEY DON'T HAVE, 'EM SIGNED UP NOW AND FOR THE LAST, SO IT'S THE SAME THING AS THE TOWN LAKE CENTER, WE DON'T HAVE, THEY'RE NOT THERE RIGHT NOW.
THEY DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT FOR HIRE RIGHT NOW.
SO JUST LIKE TOWN LAKE, THEY SHOULD ALSO BE EXCLUDED.
WELL, THEY ARE KNOWN, BUT THEY'RE NOT MEASURABLE.
I THINK, I THINK THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE FOR YOU SO WE CAN THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR PATIENCE.
NEXT UP, WE HAVE PAUL ROBBINS AND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION.
WE'LL BE PULLING UP FOR MR. ROBINS.
IS THERE A POWERPOINT CLICKER? YOU CAN JUST SAY NEXT SLIDE.
SOMEBODY GONNA SAY 1, 2, 3, GO.
JUST GIVE US ONE MORE MOMENT, MR. ROBINS.
IT'S UP? DO YOU SEE IT WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST AND CONSUMER ADVOCATE, AUSTIN INTER UH, FIRST SLIDE.
AUSTIN ENERGY HAS THE LOWEST AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION OF ANY MAJOR UTILITY IN AIRCO.
IT IS 26% BOWL UP THE AIRCO AVERAGE, ONLY 2% OF AIR COTS.
CUSTOMERS HAD AVERAGE CONSUMPTION THAT WAS LOWER.
UH, NEXT SLIDE, UH, PART, UH, PARTIALLY BECAUSE OF THIS, AUSTIN HAS ONE OF THE LOWEST AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL BILLS IN ACOT.
THEY ARE 34% LOWER THAN THE ACOT AVERAGE.
ONLY 3% OF ACOS CUSTOMERS HAVE BILLS LOWER THAN AUSTIN ENERGY.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TOWARDS THIS GOAL SINCE 1977.
THE, UH, THESE, UH, FOUR MAIN STRATEGIES ARE THE ENERGY BUILDING CODE, THE PROGRESSIVE RATE STRUCTURE, AUSTIN, THE, UH, ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM AND THE GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM.
UH, NEXT SLIDE, HOWEVER, AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE THE PROGRESSIVE RATE STRUCTURE AND REPLACE IT WITH RATES THAT ARE LAR THAT LARGELY DISCOURAGE CONSERVATION.
UH, NEXT SLIDE, AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSES A STEEP RESIDENTIAL TARIFF INCREASE.
THIS IS A CHART FROM AUSTIN ENERGY'S RATE FILING.
UH, THE FIXED MONTHLY CHARGE WILL RISE FROM $10 TO $25.
THE UTILITY, THE UTILITY CLAIMS THAT THIS IS IN LINE WITH WHAT AUSTIN'S NEIGHBORING UTILITIES CHARGE, BUT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF GEORGETOWN, ALL MUNICIPAL UTILITIES IN AIRCO HAVE RELATIVELY LOW MONTHLY CHARGES.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, AUSTIN'S REALLY ABOUT AVERAGE, NEXT SLIDE, AUSTIN ENERGY'S CURRENT RATES ALSO
[00:55:01]
HAVE STEEP TIERS TO ENCOURAGE ENERGY CONSERVATION.UH, UNDER THE NEW RATE, THESE TEARS WOULD BE FLATTENED SO THAT THERE WOULD BE MUCH LESS INCENTIVE TO INVEST IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES.
UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW LEGIBLE THIS IS.
UM, THE LEFT BAR, UH, THE CHAIR STARTED 2.80 CENTS AND GO UP TO 10.80 CENTS.
BUT ON THE FAR RIGHT BAR THERE BETWEEN 3.7 AND 4.70 CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR, AS I SAID, ALMOST FLAT, NEXT SLIDE.
THE ESTIMATED RATE SHOCK OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S NEW REGRESSIVE RESIDENTIAL RATE STRUCTURE WILL BE 18, AN 18%, $184 ANNUAL INCREASE HERE.
IT'S ESTIMATED ON THE EFFECT AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF USE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, LOW AND AVERAGE CUSTOMERS SEE STARK INCREASES WHILE VERY HIGH WHILE VERY HIGH USERS SEE PROFOUND SAVINGS.
NEXT SLIDE, AUSTIN ENERGY CLAIMS THAT POOR PEOPLE DO BETTER THAN AVERAGE CUSTOMERS UNDER THIS NEW RATE, BECAUSE WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, WHAT POOR CUSTOMERS USE MORE THAN AVERAGE CUSTOMERS.
AND HERE IS A CHART THAT THEY PRESENTED, UH, TO PROVE THIS, UH, ACTUALLY THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT, UH, MANY CAP CUSTOMERS LIVE IN APARTMENTS AND MANY APARTMENTS ARE ALL ELECTRIC.
HOWEVER, UH, THERE'S ONLY 7% OF CUSTOMERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE UTILITIES CAP PROGRAM.
UH, I ONLY WISH AUSTIN WERE SO WEALTHY THAT THERE WERE ONLY 7% POOR PEOPLE HERE.
ANY OF YOU BELIEVE THAT? UH, NO, IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT FOUR TIMES HIGHER AND AUSTIN ENERGY'S OWN DATA PROVES THAT THIS IS REALLY NOT THE CASE.
THE UTILITY PROVIDED ME WITH CONSUMPTION BY ZIP CODE AND HOUSING TYPE THAT IS SINGLE FAMILY.
MULTI-FAMILY DUPLEX AND I, THIS WITH US CENSUS INCOME AND THE RESULT SHOWS WHAT EVERY OTHER STUDY THAT'S EVER BEEN DONE IN THE LAST 60 YEARS SHOWS THAT, UM, CONSUMPTION TRACKS INCOME, NEXT SLIDE DATA FROM THE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATIONS, IT'S BEEN FIVE MINUTES, OKAY.
DATA FROM THE, UH, US ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION SHOWS THE SAME THING.
UH, THIS IS A WIDELY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE.
I HAVE ONE OTHER SLIDE AND THAT IS, UH, FINAL NEXT ONE.
IN THE FIRST 11 MONTHS OF THE FISCAL YEAR, AIRCO HAD A 9% CONSUMPTION INCREASE.
AUSTIN ENERGY IS LIKELY TO HAVE A SIMILAR ONE.
THIS WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN A WINDFALL AND A WINDFALL, WHICH AVERAGED OVER FIVE YEARS, UH, WILL BE, WOULD LOWER THE RIGHT INCREASE PROPOSED, UH, SINCE AUSTIN ENERGY OFTEN HIDES INFORMATION.
I AM WORRIED THAT IF I SEND AN INFORMATION REQUEST ABOUT THIS ISSUE, THE UTILITY WILL NOT BE TRANSPARENT.
PERHAPS THEY WILL BE MORE OPEN IF IT COMES FROM YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. ROBBINS, ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ROBBINS? GO AHEAD.
SO TO PARAPHRASE WITH THAT LAST SLIDE, WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS THERE'S, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL REVENUES IN 2022 BEYOND THE EXPECTED BECAUSE OF THE HIGH TEMPERATURES AND EVERYTHING THAT HAPPEN IN THIS YEAR, THE HIGH TEMPERATURES IN THE POST PANDEMIC BEHAVIOR.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES THAT WE COULD LOOK AT AS A WAY TO DISCOUNT THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE? WELL, I BROUGHT ONE UP AND, UM, I, HUMAN CLONING IS ILLEGAL, SO I DID NOT HAVE TIME TO PURSUE IT TO THE DEGREE THAT I WANTED TO, BUT I DID ENTER IT INTO EVIDENCE TO THE EXTENT THAT I COULD IN THE, UH, RED CASE.
AND THAT IS THAT, UH, C A AS ONE OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, UH, BROUGHT UP, HAS A DIFFERENT DEFINITION IN THE WATER UTILITY AND THE WATER UTILITY.
IT'S CALLED A CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE.
AND THERE ARE ALSO DIFFERENT THINGS COVERED IN THE, UH, IN C A IN AUSTIN ENERGY VERSUS THE,
[01:00:01]
UM, UH, CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE IN AUSTIN WATER IN AUSTIN ENERGY.THEY BASICALLY LOOK AT THE BUILDING AND WHAT IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDS THE BUILDING, BUT IN AUSTIN WATER, THEIR CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE ALSO INCLUDES MAJOR THINGS THAT ARE COMMON TO EVERYONE SUCH AS WATER TREATMENT, PLANTS, RESERVOIRS, AND THE LIKE, AND MANY OF US, UH, WERE SCRATCHING OUR HEADS WHEN THIS RATE CASE BEGAN.
I REMEMBER LANETTA BROUGHT IT UP, RANDY CHAPMAN BROUGHT IT UP.
UH, THEY WERE SAYING, HOW CAN THIS RATE CASE BE LINKED TO GROWTH? DIDN'T WE PAY FOR GROWTH? AND THE ANSWER LIES IN THE DEFINITION, WE DID THE NARROW DEFINITION OF WHAT THE COUNCIL ASKED THEM TO DO, BUT THEY DID NOT DO WHAT AUSTIN WATER'S DOING.
AND I THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE C I P AND APPORTION IT TO GROWTH, YOU CAN FIND WAYS TO LOWER THIS RATE CASE.
UH, BUT AGAIN, I'M CHALLENGED BECAUSE OF THE TRANSPARENCY OF AUSTIN ENERGY.
UH, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO ALL THE GORY DETAILS RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY HIDE INFORMATION.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN.
UH, I, I READ TODAY THAT, UH, THAT, UH, IN SAN ANTONIO, BECAUSE OF THE, UH, HAD STREAM WEATHER SALES THIS YEAR, THAT THEY ARE DISCUSSING OR PROPOSING A REBATE, UH, TO CUSTOMERS INSTEAD OF, UH, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? UH, I WILL HAVE TO THAT'S UH, NO, I WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. ROBINS? GO AHEAD.
UM, SO, UH, MR. ROBBINS, YOU BELIEVE THAT THE FIVE TIERED STRUCTURE HAS HELPED, UM, MAKE AUSTIN HOMES MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT? UH, I, I DO.
I BELIEVE IT'S ONE OF OUR FORD TIERED STRATEGIES THAT HAS PRODUCED THE LOWEST RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION, AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION, AND THE LOWEST AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL BILLS OF ANY MAJOR UTILITY IN AIRCO.
UH, BY THE WAY, UM, THERE ARE, UH, OTHER INTERVENERS THAT STOLE MY THUNDER ON FINDING, UH, WAYS TO SAVE, UH, REQUESTED RATE MONEY, UH, BETWEEN THE ICA TTA COOPER, TAC, AND, UH, NXP.
THEY HAVE ALL RECOMMENDED SUBSTANTIVE QUANTIFIED AMOUNTS, AND I'M IN THE PROCESS OF PUTTING THAT TOGETHER IN SORT OF A SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON.
I'D BE HAPPY TO, UH, EMAIL IT TO, UM, THE LIAISON WHEN, UH, I'M DONE.
AND, UH, IF YOU ALL, HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE THIS YOURSELVES, IT, IT MIGHT MAKE IT SLIGHTLY, UH, EASIER.
UM, YOU MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, UH, THE, UH, INCREASES IN CONSUMPTION, UM, IN THE POST PANDEMIC WORLD.
AND THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION BECAUSE MY READING OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT IS THAT HE CONCLUDES THAT THE EFFECTS OF THE PANDEMIC ARE, SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO CONTINUE.
DID YOU, WAS THERE EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT YOU RECALL THAT WOULD'VE CHALLENGED THAT PROPOSITION? WELL, UH, THIS CHART NOW, THIS CHART IS INTUITIVE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE HAS BROKEN IT OUT.
UH, AIRCO HAS INCREASED THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS YEAR ON YEAR BY ABOUT 1.4%.
SO THE OTHER TWO MUST BE POST PANDEMIC BEHAVIOR AND THE HEAT.
AND I'M NOT GOOD ENOUGH YET THAT I COULD SEPARATE THESE TWO AND TELL YOU HOW MUCH IS ONE AND HOW MUCH IS THE OTHER, I COULD, I COULD MAYBE HAZARD A GUESS, BUT I INTUITIVELY DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
THANK YOU, MR. ROBBINS, WHAT IS YOUR, UH, POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION TO
[01:05:01]
EXPAND THE CAP PROGRAM AS A POTENTIAL WAY TO ALLEVIATE RATE RATE SHOCK? WELL, I HAVE, UH, TWO COMMENTS FIRST.UM, IF YOU DIDN'T CHANGE THE RATE STRUCTURE OF SO RADICALLY, UH, YOU WOULD NEED TO INCREASE CAP SO RADICALLY.
UH, THE SECOND PART OF THIS IS THAT I PERSONALLY, UM, TO MY KNOWLEDGE AND, AND I HAVE NOT READ HIS REPORT YET WORD FORWARD.
UH, BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HE IS PROPOSING SOMETHING GENERIC THAT HAS NOT BEEN QUANTIFIED WITH A DOLLAR AMOUNT, UH, OR EVEN A HARD, UH, DIRECTION.
UH, I JUST SORT OF LIKE, WELL, IF YOU DO THIS, MAYBE YOU OUGHT A CUSHION, MORE PEOPLE.
AM I GETTING THIS CONTEXT? CORRECT? I, I THINK THAT'S FAIR.
I THINK HE ASKS, HE ASKED US AND ENERGY AND, AND THE STAKEHOLDERS TO EVALUATE THAT AS A POTENTIAL WAY TO ALLEVIATE RATE SHOCK.
I THINK, UH, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A $25, UH, PAYING $25 TO TURN ON A LIGHT BULB WAS FAIR.
AND SO I COULDN'T AGREE, UH, WITH ANYTHING THAT FOLLOWS THAT, UH, UH, PAST THAT I BELIEVE THAT, UM, SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM KNOW REAL WELL THAT I HAVE CRITICIZED CAP BECAUSE NOT BECAUSE IT HELPS POOR PEOPLE, BUT BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE ARE ON IT THAT SHOULDN'T BE, AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO GET INTO THAT DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
UH, IT WOULD GET KIND OF COMPLEX AND IT WOULD KIND OF DEVIATE FROM THE OVERALL IF WE DID WHAT THE HEARINGS EXAMINER SUGGESTED.
UH, I WOULD WANT MORE ASSURANCE THAT IT REACHED THE RIGHT PEOPLE.
THE JUDGE, HOWEVER, DID SAY A, AS YOU SAID, STAKEHOLDERS, COME TOGETHER, LOOK AT SOME OTHER OPTIONS ON THIS RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN.
HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE ICAS PROPOSAL FOR A SLIGHT INCREASE IN FIXED RATES AND GOING FROM FIVE TIERS TO FOUR TIERS? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'VE LOOKED AT AND WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THAT PROPOSAL? UH, WITHOUT MEANING TO FLATTER THE ICA PRINCIPLES TOO MUCH? I THINK THEY'RE BRILLIANT.
UH, AND HAVING SAID THAT I WOULD DISAGREE ON THE APPROACH.
UH, I, IF IT WERE ME, I WOULD DO IT PROPORTIONALLY.
FOR INSTANCE, IF, UH, THERE'S A 5% INCREASE IN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS, THEN YOU WOULD RAISE THE, UH, BASE BASE RATE FROM $10 TO 10 50, AND THE SAME WITH, UH, THE TIERS INSTEAD OF 2.80 CENTS FOR THE FIRST TIER, IT WOULD BE 2.80 CENTS TIMES 5% INCREASE.
THANK YOU, MR. ROBINS, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
UM, I WILL SEND YOU THE, UH, COMPARISON OF, UH, THE PEOPLE'S, UH, OF THE PARTY'S SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS RATE CASE, UH, UH, YOU ALL ARE AWARE THAT THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A, UH, WHAT A $12 MILLION ADJUSTMENT.
I THINK THERE'S MORE THAT CAN BE SHAKEN OUT OF THIS.
NEXT WE HAVE H U R F GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS I'M ROGER BORGA.
I REPRESENT HOMEOWNERS UNITED FOR RATE FAIRNESS, WHICH IS WHAT H U R F STANDS FOR.
AND, UH, TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, UH, HEAR AS WE CALL OURSELVES, UH, WAS FORMED IN RESPONSE TO THE 2012 AUSTIN ENERGY RATE CASE, UH, WHICH WE, AS WE, WE, WE REPRESENT THE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY RATE PAYERS, ESSENTIALLY THE
[01:10:01]
NON AUSTIN RATE PAYERS WITHIN THE SERVICE TERRITORY.AND, UH, WE APPEALED THAT RATE CASE TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, WHICH RESULTED IN, UH, A PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION DOCKET 46, 27, UH, THAT DOCKET WAS SETTLED.
AND AS A PART OF THAT SETTLEMENT, WHAT WE WERE REQUESTING WAS A REDUCTION IN OUR RIGHTS.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT REDUCTION WAS BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN ARE PAYING FOR THEIR OWN, UH, POLICE, THEIR OWN FIRE, THEIR OWN PARKS IN THE VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS WHERE THEY LIVE.
AND, UH, WE DID NOT BELIEVE IT WAS FAIR TO HAVE THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER MONEY ESSENTIALLY INCORPORATED INTO OUR RATES.
SO THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE FORMATION OF THE ORGANIZATION.
UH, THAT WAS THE PURPOSE FOR THE FILING OF THAT INITIAL INITIAL RATE CASE APPEAL.
UH, WE PARTICIPATED OBVIOUSLY IN THAT RATE CASE, UH, WHICH WAS SETTLED, UH, WE THEN PARTICIPATED IN 2016, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY IN THE 2016 RATE CASE, UH, PROPOSED, UH, TO PERPETUATE THAT RATE SET UP SO THAT THE REDUCTION IN RATES FOR OUTOF CITY CUSTOMERS WOULD CONTINUE.
AND THE AMOUNT OF THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE REMOVED FROM THE OUTOF CITY CUSTOMER RATES.
SO WE INTERVENE IN THIS, THIS RATE CASE WHERE AUSTIN ENERGY FOR, FOR WHATEVER REASON HAS PROPOSED TO DISCONTINUE THAT, UH, THAT POLICY, UH, IT IS ABSOLUTELY A MATTER OF POLICY.
WE THINK IT'S A SOUND POLICY FOR THE REASONS THAT I'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED.
UH, THE, THE CUSTOMERS WHO ARE LIVING OUTSIDE THE CITY ARE, ARE GETTING NO BENEFIT FROM THIS GENERAL FUND TRANSFER MONEY, AS I'VE ALREADY SAID, UH, THEY PAY FOR THEIR OWN LAW ENFORCEMENT, THEIR OWN FIRE PROTECTION, THEIR OWN PARKS, WHEREVER IT IS THAT THEY CHOOSE TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN.
THERE'S NO REASON WHY THEY SHOULD BE PAYING FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN RESIDENCE, FIRE, AND, AND POLICE AND PARKS.
AND SO, UH, THAT WAS, UH, OUR SOLE ISSUE IN THIS CASE.
UH, THAT IS THE REASON WHY THE ORGANIZATION WAS FORMED.
UH, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE DISAPPOINTED THAT THE, THE, UH, INDEPENDENT HEARINGS EXAMINER DIDN'T DID NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IN OUR FAVOR WHERE SOMEWHAT HEARTENED THAT HE DID RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF POLICY.
AND, UH, WE SEE NO REASON, UH, NOR WILL WE GIVEN A REASON BY THE CITY DURING THE COURSE OF THE RIGHT CASE, WHY THIS POLICY SHOULD BE CHANGED.
AND SO OUR RECOMMENDATION WILL CONTINUE TO BE THAT IT'S A GOOD POLICY.
IT RECOGNIZES THE, THE LACK OF BENEFIT TO THE OUTOF CITY CUSTOMERS.
AND, UH, I WOULD SIMPLY ASK THAT YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO CHANGE THIS POLICY.
NONE HAS BEEN GIVEN, AND IT SHOULD BE CONTINUED.
AND WE WERE ASKING FOR, UH, ESSENTIALLY THE 121 MILLION GENERAL FUND TRANSFER TO BE REMOVED FROM THE RATES.
AND ALL OF THAT IS CONTAINED IN, IN BOTH OUR STATEMENT OF POSITION, UH, AS, AS WELL AS OUR BRIEF AS TO HOW WE WOULD PROPOSE TO DO THAT.
ALTHOUGH QUITE FRANKLY, WE'RE SOMEWHAT AGNOSTIC AS TO HOW IT'S DONE.
WE SIMPLY WENT THE 121 MILLION TAKEN OUT.
SO THAT'S, THAT IS REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
SO I REALLY DON'T NEED FIVE MINUTES TO, TO COVER IT.
CAN YOU TELL ME YOUR NAME AGAIN? I'M I'M SORRY.
WHAT DO YOU SAY, UM, WHEN PEOPLE ASK YOU, UM, DON'T PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY COME INTO AUSTIN AND USE OUR PARKS, ET CETERA, AND FACILITIES.
WELL, I THINK PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE, THE COUNTRY COME TO AUSTIN AND USE THE PARKS.
I THINK THERE ARE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE FROM ALABAMA HERE THIS WEEKEND USING OUR PARKS, BUT WE, BUT WE DON'T CHARGE THEM, YOU KNOW, AUSTIN ENERGY RATES BECAUSE THEY CAME TO AUSTIN AND USED OUR PARKS.
AND, UH, FRANKLY OVER TIME, I'VE, UH, I'VE NOTICED BECAUSE I SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THE OUT OF CITY.
I ACTUALLY I'M, I'M A CITY RESIDENT MYSELF, BUT I SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THE OUT OF CITY AREA AND WHAT I'M FINDING OVER THE YEARS.
AND, AND IT'S CERTAINLY MORE TRUE TODAY THAN IT WAS BACK IN 2012 WHEN WE WERE INITIATED IS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING, PARTICULARLY IN, IN THE WESTERN REACHERS OF THE SERVICE TERRITORY, COME TO AUSTIN AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.
UM, IN FACT, THEY COME TO AUSTIN LESS AND LESS AND LESS, I WOULD SAY, UH, EVERY YEAR, AS, PARTICULARLY AS, AS MORE SERVICES AND, AND THINGS ARE DEVELOPED IN THAT AREA.
UH, I HAVE A NUMBER OF FRIENDS IN LAKEWAY WHO SAY THEY COME TO AUSTIN ONCE A YEAR, IF THEY HAVE TO.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, UH, SO IT'S REALLY NOT FAIR TO SAY THAT THEY'RE USING ALL OF OUR PARKS AND FACILITIES HERE BECAUSE BY AND LARGE AND MORE AND MORE, THEY'RE NOT.
AND NOT ONLY THAT, THERE'S PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE STATE OF TEXAS AND ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, FRANKLY, THAT COME TO ACL AND SOUTH BY SOUTHWEST AND, AND USE OUR PARKS.
AND WE'RE NOT CHARGING THEM IN FOR THE UTIL IN THEIR UTILITY RIGHTS.
[01:15:02]
HI, MR. FERGIL.UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSED TO, UM, APPLY THE SAME TIER STRUCTURE TO OUTSIDE CITY AS INSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS.
DID I MISUNDERSTAND WHAT I READ IN THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT? NO, IT, THAT, THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING ESSENTIALLY TO EVERYTHING BE THE SAME UNDER, UNDER THE CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE TODAY.
UH, THE OUT OF CITY CUSTOMERS ESSENTIALLY DO NOT PAY THE FOURTH AND FIFTH TIERS, THEIR, THEIR RATES STOP AT TIER THREE.
AND, AND SO UNDER THE NEW RATES, ALL OF THE RATES WOULD BE THE SAME AS, AS OUR SENIOR INDUSTRY IS PROPOSING THAT FOR BOTH IN AND OUT OF CITIES.
SO THE REDUCTION IN RATES THAT WE CURRENTLY ENJOY AND HAVE ENJOYED FOR, YOU KNOW, ALMOST 10 YEARS NOW, UH, WOULD GO AWAY.
AND SO WHAT DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THE, UM, ICAS POSITION THAT IF THAT RATE STRUCTURE WAS COLLAPSED AS AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSED COLLAPSED? IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY WERE MADE THE SAME, THE RATES IN OUTSIDE AND IN WERE MADE THE SAME, THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN OUTSIDE CUSTOMERS, REVENUE PAID IN TO BE REDUCED BY 7.4% IN INSIDE CUSTOMERS REVENUE TO BE INCREASED BY 26%.
WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THEIR PROPOSAL AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, AND, AND PART OF THE REASON, UH, IS THAT WHAT THE ICA WAS PROPOSING IS THAT WE KEEP PAYING THE CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE ON A TEMPORARY BASIS UNTIL A NEW STUDY COULD BE DONE AS TO WHAT THE ACTUAL, YOU KNOW, USAGE NUMBERS WERE DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF CITY.
AND BECAUSE THEY, THEY HAD PROPOSED THAT AS SORT OF A TEMPORARY SOLUTION UNTIL THE ACTUAL DATA COULD BE GATHERED.
I DIDN'T REALLY SEE THE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE SIMPLY PROPOSING IT AS A, AS A TEMPORARY FIX WHILE A RATE STUDY WAS DONE.
THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THEM TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I, I'M SORRY I'M BEING DENSE, BUT IS THAT LIKE YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WANTED ANOTHER RATE STUDY TO BE DONE, CORRECT.
JUST TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE CORRECT RATES WERE.
I, I THINK THEIR CONTENTION, WHICH I'M NOT SURE THAT I AGREE WITH IS THAT, UH, OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS USE MORE ELECTRICITY.
I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRUE A LONG TIME AGO.
I THINK THAT IT IS PRO PERHAPS LESS AND LESS TRUE OVER TIME IN TERMS OF THE DATA THAT I'VE SEEN.
I THINK THAT, UH, THE, THE USAGE DATA DIFFERENTIALS BETWEEN INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF CITY ARE PROBABLY COLLAPSING AND COMING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO BEING THE SAME SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE, THE WAY HOUSES ARE BEING CONSTRUCTED AND VARIOUS OTHER CONSERVATION MEASURES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, HEARING DONE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BERGAL.
MY NAME'S TODD KIMBRO, AND I HEAR HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF DATA FOUNDRY, UM, DATA FOUNDRY WAS ACQUIRED ABOUT A YEAR AGO.
I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON KIND OF WHERE, WHERE THEY ARE NOW.
CAUSE I THINK IT'S A, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW CAUSE THEY THEY'RE IN A DIFFERENT PLACE NOW THAN THEY WERE A FEW YEARS AGO, UH, WAS ACQUIRED ABOUT A YEAR AGO BY SWITCH SWITCH LIMITED, UH, COMBINED.
THEY NOW CONSTITUTE ONE OF THE LARGEST DATA CENTER OPERATORS IN THE UNITED STATES.
THEY HAVE HUNDREDS OF PATENTS RELATED TO DATA CENTER, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, UM, AND, AND THEY'VE OBVIOUSLY MADE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS HERE IN TEXAS.
UH, AMONGST THOSE BEING THE, THE FACILITY THAT'S, UH, SERVED BY AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, DATA CENTERS OR DATA FOUNDRIES INTEREST IN, IN THIS RATE CASE IS ACTUALLY PRETTY NARROW.
SO, UH, IT'S GONNA SOUND A LITTLE BIT LIKE HERF IN, IN BEING LIMITED TO A TOPIC OR TWO SPECIFICALLY, UM, DATA FOUNDRY RESPECTFULLY ASKS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE, THE NEW TARIFF PRODUCT THAT A ENERGY'S PROPOSED P I TWO HIGH LOAD FACTOR, UM, AS IT BETTER MATCHES THAT THE ACTUAL COST AND THE ACTUAL OPERATIONS OF DATA FOUNDRIES FACILITY HERE IN, IN AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE TERRITORY, UM, WE ALL ALSO ASKED THAT IT BE APPROVED CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSED IT, WHICH IS TO SAY WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF ANY SORT OF OBLIGATION TO GIVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY REPORTING BY THE CUSTOMER AND ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY THAT EXISTING HIGH LOAD FACTOR, LARGE HIGH LOAD FACTOR CUSTOMERS ARE ALLOWED, UM, TO NOT PARTICIPATE IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY, SURCHARGES, TH
[01:20:01]
THIS IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT OCCURS OUTSIDE OF THE AUSTIN ENERGY FOOTPRINT.IF, IF I WERE TO TODAY, GO TO ROUND ROCK, LET'S SAY, AND HAD A COMPETITIVE RETAIL FOOTPRINT, THE PUC FOR MORE THAN A DECADE HAS SAID THAT THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER.
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO DO THE SAME HERE, UM, WOULD CONTINUE TO DO THE SAME BOTH FOR CUSTOMERS IN THIS NEW TARIFF RATE, WHICH WOULD FIT FOR THREE MEGAWATTS TO 20 MEGAWATTS, GIVE THEM THE SAME RIGHTS, THE SAME TREATMENT AS THEY WOULD GET IF THEY WERE OVER 20 MEGAWATTS IN SIZE.
SO IN, IN MANY RESPECTS, THIS IS A CONTINUATION, BOTH IN TERMS OF TEXAS WIDE POLICY.
ALSO IT'S CON A CONTINUATION OF WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY'S POLICY HAS BEEN AS TO HIGH LOAD FACTOR CUSTOMERS.
WHEN THEY'VE BEEN 20 MEGAWATTS OR MORE, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SAME TREATMENT FOR THOSE CUSTOMERS THAT ARE THREE MEGAWATTS TO 20 MEGAWATTS IN THE COURSE OF THE, THE HEARING.
AND, AND I THINK AT LEAST SOME OF YOU, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE IN THE ROOM FOR SOME OF THIS.
THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THAT, UH, DATA FOUNDRY AND SWITCH HAVE INVESTED IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
THEY LITERALLY HAVE HUNDREDS OF PATENTS ON THE TOPIC THEY'VE, THEY'VE SPENT, YOU KNOW, MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF THEIR OWN MONEY IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THEIR OWN ENERGY EFFICIENCY, ASKING THEM TO THEN PAY FOR A SURCHARGE ON THEIR BILL TODAY IS IN ESSENCE TO ASK THEM TO PAY TWICE, POTENTIALLY IT'S EVEN WORSE THAN THAT, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY WE'RE LOOKING AT OTHER DATA CENTERS, FOR INSTANCE, THAT MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE FOR MONIES FROM AUSTIN ENERGY THROUGH AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY CHARGE WOULD THEN DATA FOUNDRY NOT ONLY WOULD BE ASKED TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN, THEY'D BE ASKED TO PAY FOR THEIR COMPETITORS THAT OBVIOUSLY CREATES A, A SERIOUS BUSINESS PROBLEM.
IT ALSO CREATES A SERIOUS QUESTION ABOUT THE INCENTIVES TO POTENTIALLY BUILD NEW DATA CENTERS IN AUSTIN ENERGY'S FOOTPRINT WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE THAT IN TURN OBVIOUSLY BRINGS THE QUESTION OF TAX BASE JOBS AND, AND THE BROADER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS THAT, THAT SPUR OFF OF THAT.
UM, I, AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO, UM, TO RECOMMEND AKIN AND CONSISTENT TO WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS RECOMMENDED WITH ITS P I TWO, A A TARIFF OFFERING THAT IS SYNONYMOUS TO THAT THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR THOSE CUSTOMERS OVER 20 MEGAWATTS AND SYNONYMOUS TO WHAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE IF THE DATA CENTER WERE INSTEAD OF BEING AN AUSTIN ENERGY'S FOOTPRINT, WHERE INSTEAD IN ROUND ROCK OR TAYLOR OR IN OTHER AREAS, UM, OUTSIDE OF THE, THE AE FOOTPRINT.
AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN.
HOW, HOW MANY EMPLOYEES, UH, DOES DA DATA FOUNDRY HAVE IN AUSTIN OFF HAND? I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER.
UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT AN INSIGNIFICANT NUMBER, BUT IT'S, I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC DATA POINT RIGHT HERE.
RIGHT, RIGHT AT HAND, BUT, OKAY.
UM, I WOULD ALSO POINT TO THE, THE CONSTRUCTION JOBS THAT COME OFF OF DATA CENTERS TOO.
I MEAN, SO I GUESS THERE'S KIND OF TWO PRONGS TO YOUR QUESTION.
IT WAS THE LONG TERM FTE COUNT, WHICH IS MY MEMORY IS SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF 50 TO A HUNDRED, BUT DON'T HOLD ME TO THAT.
I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC DATA NUMBER, BUT AS YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN, THERE'S A PROLIFERATION OF DATA CENTERS AROUND THE STATE.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT OBVIOUSLY THEN TRANSLATES TO CONSTRUCTION JOBS.
AND THEN OF COURSE THE OTHER PART OF THAT TOO, IS TAX BASE.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S VALUE SEPARATE FROM THE JOBS AS WE THINK ABOUT THIS TOO.
SECOND QUE SECOND FINAL QUESTION.
UH, DURING WINTER STORM URIE, UH, LIGHTS WENT OUT IN MY HOME AT TWO, ABOUT TWO 30 IN THE MORNING AND WE STAYED UNDERCOVER AND DID THE BEST WE CAN.
WAS THAT TRUE FOR DATA FOUNDRY? THERE WERE INTERRUPTIONS IN SERVICE.
AND IN FACT, DATA FOUNDRY ALSO RAMPED DOWN VOLUNTARILY ITS OWN ITS OWN OPERATIONS, AS BEST AS IT COULD, UH, IN ORDER TO MITIGATE ITS OVERALL EFFECT ON THE GRID.
IT WAS NOT TURNED OFF BY AUSTIN ENERGY.
I, THERE WERE PERIODS OF TIME WHERE THEY HAD INVOLUNTARY OUTAGE, BUT THEY ALSO, IN ADDITION TO THAT WERE TRYING TO RAMP DOWN AS BEST THEY COULD BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE WERE CONSERVATION CALLS THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM.
SO THEY WERE, THEY WERE TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
AND, UM, AND I SHOULD HAVE NOTED BEFORE SLIGHT, SLIGHTLY, SLIGHTLY OFF TO YOUR OFF YOUR QUESTION.
BUT I, I WAS REMISS IN NOT MENTIONING IT BEFORE.
THE OTHER THING THAT IS NOTEWORTHY IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSAL AS TO THIS P I TOO, IS IT HAS NO IMPLICATIONS OR EFFECTS ON THE OTHER RATES FOR OTHER CUSTOMERS.
SO BY CREATING THIS PRODUCT, IT HAS NO EFFECT ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THAT'S THEN APPLIED TO OTHER CUSTOMER CLASSES.
SO EVERYONE ELSE IS, IS HELD HARMLESS.
UH, IS DATA FOUNDRY PART OF A PROGRAM LIKE POWER PARTNERS, UM, TO
[01:25:01]
WHERE WHEN YOU VOLUNTARILY CUT BACK, YOU'RE GETTING BENEFITS OUT OF THAT WITH AUSTIN ENERGY? UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE PART, PART OF A POWER PARTNERS AS SUCH.WHAT THEY HAVE GOTTEN INCREASINGLY INTERESTED IN IS MORE AT THE KIND OF ERCOT LEVEL, UM, WHERE, WHERE THERE'S OBVIOUSLY, UM, DEMAND RESPONSE PRODUCTS THAT, THAT HAVE ROLES IN THE WHOLESALE MARKET.
AND THEY'RE INCREASINGLY LOOKING AT THAT.
UM, AND, AND, AND FRANKLY ARE GETTING MORE SOPHISTICATED IN KIND OF THAT, THAT CURTAILMENT SPACE THAT SAID HISTORICALLY THEIR REAL FOCUS HAS BEEN ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY KIND OF IN THE 87 60 VEIN.
SO IT'S LESS ABOUT DEMAND RESPONSE.
IT'S MORE ABOUT JUST USING LESS ELECTRICITY.
AND SO AS WE LOOK TO THOSE, THOSE HUNDREDS OF PATENTS THAT THEY SKEW TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, HVAC, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY REACTIONARY AS MUCH AS JUST USING LESS COMMISSIONER BOND.
THANKS MR. KIMBRO, I, YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS KIND OF AT THE END, BUT I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP IF, IF THIS P I TWO IS NOT APPROVED, IS THAT A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH CHANGE IN THE BUSINESS CALCULATION FOR A COMPANY LIKE DATA FOUNDER OR, OR OTHER DATA CENTERS THAT WOULD FORCE THEM TO LEAVE AUSTIN? OR IS IT I'M JUST TRYING TO, TRYING TO QUANTIFY THE IMPACT THIS WOULD HAVE SURE.
AND, AND IN FULL CANDOR AS TO THE KIND OF SUNK COST OF AN EXISTING FACILITY, I THINK I HAVE TO BE CANDID AND SAY, NO, I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES THINGS.
UM, I THINK THE REAL QUESTION FOR YOU IS, AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE, THE FUTURE DATA CENTERS, UM, AND, AND I CAN SAY IT'S TO MY MIND, NOT COINCIDENTAL THAT THE DATA CENTER LOCATIONS THAT SWITCH AND DATA FOUNDRY ARE LOOKING AT FOR POTENTIAL NEW BUILDS CURRENTLY DO NOT INCLUDE ADDITIONS TO AUSTIN ENERGY.
AND I'LL ALSO SAY I'VE GOT DATA OR DATA CENTER CLIENTS OUTSIDE OF DATA CENTER SLASH SWITCH.
NONE OF THEM ARE LOOKING AT AE WITH THE CURRENT STRUCTURE.
THANK YOU, MR. KIMBRO, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
I'M I'M SELF-REGULATING MYSELF.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM NXP TODAY? OKAY.
THEN MOVING ON T I E C, IT'S QUITE THE RECEPTION.
UH, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR, TI C IS TEXAS INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS, AND WE REPRESENT THE INTEREST OF LARGE ENERGY USERS AND ELECTRIC RATE PROCEEDINGS.
UH, TACS PARTICIPATING MEMBER IN THIS CASE IS SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR.
UH, AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WITH ME TODAY IS SAMSUNG SENIOR FACILITY DIRECTOR, JASON MOSS.
UM, NOW ELECTRICITY IS TYPICALLY ONE OF THE TOP COST FOR T C MEMBERS.
AND SAMSUNG IS NO EXCEPTION TO THAT.
SAMSUNG HAS ONE OF THE MOST ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FACILITIES IN THE WORLD RIGHT HERE IN AUSTIN.
IT DIRECTLY EMPLOYS OVER 3,300 EMPLOYEES AND SUPPORTS OVER 11,000 LOCAL JOBS.
SAMSUNG'S AUSTIN FACILITY CONTRIBUTED OVER 6.3 BILLION TO AUSTIN'S ECONOMY IN 2021.
SAMSUNG ALSO CONTRIBUTED OVER 140 MILLION IN TAXES TO LOCAL TAXING DISTRICTS IN 2021, INCLUDING THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS RATE INCREASES MAKE LIFE MORE DIFFICULT FOR SAMSUNG WHEN IT COMES TO COMPETING IN THE GLOBAL SEMICONDUCTOR MARKETPLACE AND SUPPORTING THIS COMMUNITY.
SO THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CASE FOR SAMSUNG, AS I KNOW IT IS FOR ALL PARTICIPANTS, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO IT.
WITH RESPECT TO THE I'S RECOMMENDATION.
WE OF COURSE GOT THAT ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
UM, WE APPRECIATE, I WANT TO SAY THE I'S EFFORTS AND THAT OF HIS TEAM, UH, WE'RE STILL ANALYZING HIS REPORT, BUT I CAN GO OVER SOME OF THE ISSUES TODAY.
WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO DO EVERYTHING, BUT I CAN HIT SOME HIGH POINTS, UH, ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SIDE.
WE AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF GENERAL FUNDS TRANSFER INCLUDED IN RATES TO WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY ACTUALLY PAID TO THE CITY DURING THE TEST YEAR, WHICH IS A KNOWN AND MEASURABLE ADJUSTMENT WHERE WE THINK THE IH E GOT IT RIGHT, AND SAID, LET'S USE THE TESTIER AMOUNT.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE PUSHED FOR, AND IT SHOULD REDUCE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT BY ABOUT 7 MILLION FROM AUSTIN ENERGY'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
WE ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE TESTIER SALES BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPACT THAT WINTER STORM UY HAD IN REDUCING SALES DUE TO OUTAGES.
[01:30:01]
SET RATES BASED ON ABNORMALLY LOW SALES DURING THE TEST YEAR, ALL ELSE, YOUR RATES ARE GOING TO BE TOO HIGH.THE, I E AGREED WITH OUR CONCERN THAT AUSTIN HAS AUSTIN ENERGY HAS NOT PROVIDED EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE TESTIER SALES WERE IN FACT NORMAL, UH, AND, AND INDICATED THAT THEY SHOULD PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION.
UH, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE RATES ARE SET IN THIS CASE, UH, THE REFERENCES TO WE EVEN TOUCH, UH, UH, SOMETHING THAT'S CAUSED BY OUTAGES, AS OPPOSED TO MORE NORMAL IN, YOU KNOW, ABNORMAL WEATHER, SO TO SPEAK, UH, ON THE COST ALLOCATION SIDE.
OUR BELIEF IS THAT THE RATE CLASSES SHOULD TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE PAY FOR THE COST THAT THEY CAUSE AUSTIN ENERGY TO INCUR COST BASED RATES.
THAT LIMIT SUBSIDIES BETWEEN CUSTOMER CLASSES ARE CRITICAL TO MANAGING THE COST OF LARGE CUSTOMERS LIKE SAMSUNG ON THIS SCORE.
WE THINK THE I'S RECOMMENDATION FALLS SHORT ON SEVERAL ISSUES, INCLUDING PRODUCTION DEMAND COSTS, WHICH IS BASICALLY HOW DO WE ALLOCATE GENERATION COSTS AND DISTRIBUTION DEMAND COST ON PRODUCTION DEMAND COST THE IG ADOPTS A'S PROPOSAL TO USE A MODIFIED 12 CP METHOD.
A 12 CP ALLOCATOR ASSUMES THAT EVERY MONTH OF THE YEAR IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF CAUSING AUSTIN ENERGY TO INCUR GENERATION COST.
IT'S UNDISPUTED THAT BOTH AUSTIN ENERGY AND ERCOT AS A WHOLE PEAK IN THE SUMMERTIME.
AND THAT'S WHY THE STANDARD UTILITY PRACTICE IN THIS STATE IS TO ALLOCATE PRODUCTION DEMAND COSTS BASED PARTIALLY ON AVERAGE DEMAND AND PARTIALLY ON DEMAND DURING THOSE FOUR SUMMER PEAK PERIODS, THAT METHODOLOGY IS KNOWN AS A AND E FOUR CP.
THIS APPROACH RECOGNIZES THAT THE SUMMER PEAKS DRIVE COST WHILE ALSO ACCOUNTING FOR THE AVERAGE USAGE IT'S BEEN USED BY ALL OF THE VERTICALLY INTEGRATED UTILITIES UNDER THE PUCS JURISDICTION.
AND IT'S ALSO BEEN APPROVED IN NEARBY STATES LIKE NEW MEXICO AND COLORADO.
SO WE THINK THAT AUSTIN, WE THINK THAT AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSAL ON 12 CP IS A REAL OUTLIER AND IT'S CONTRARY TO COST CAUSATION, AND THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED.
WE DO WANNA SAY THAT WE APPRECIATE THE I'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT, UH, TO START RECOGNIZING THAT PRIMARY SUBSTATION CUSTOMERS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THAN OTHER DISTRIBUTION CUSTOMERS IN TERMS OF HOW THEY USE AE SYSTEM.
PRIMARY SUBSTATION CUSTOMERS DO NOT USE THE LOOP DISTRIBUTION NETWORK.
THEY ARE SERVED FROM SUBSTATIONS THROUGH DEDICATED FEEDER LINES THAT DO NOT SERVE ANY OTHER CUSTOMERS.
SO WE THINK THAT SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE RATE SETTING PROCESS.
AND WE URGE THE ADOPTION OF THE I'S RECOMMENDATION ON THAT POINT.
UH, FINALLY, JUST VERY QUICKLY TO, TO DOVETAIL WITH MR. KIMBRO'S POINT, WE URGE THE ADOPTION OF THE I'S RECOMMENDATION ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY, CHARGES AND REPORTING.
UH, THE IG PROPERLY RECOGNIZE THAT CUSTOMERS LIKE SAMSUNG ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROGRAMS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY, WHICH ARE OF COURSE NOT DESIGNED FOR LARGE CUSTOMERS LIKE SAMSUNG.
SO WE DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CHARGE SAMSUNG FOR THOSE PROGRAMS. WHEN SAMSUNG OF COURSE ENGAGES IN LARGE SCALE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS. IT HAS THAT INCENTIVE TO DO THAT.
YOU KNOW, WHEN AN ELECTRIC ELECTRICITY IS A MAJOR COST FOR YOUR BUSINESS EFFICIENTLY, REDUCING YOUR USAGE CAN GIVE YOU A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.
AND FOR THE SAME REASON, THOSE PROGRAMS CAN BE CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY.
SO WE DON'T THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE A REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
UM, WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, MR. HALLMARK, ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.
UM, I, ON YOUR, SORRY, ON THE SECOND POINT YOU MADE WHERE YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU AGREE WITH THE I E ON THE POTENTIAL REDUCTION FOR THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER, AND YOU ALSO AGREE WITH THE I E THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SALES ADJUSTMENT DUE TO, TO THAT SPECIAL YEAR OF 2021.
DO WE HAVE ANY SENSE OF A DOLLAR FIGURE ON WHAT THAT WOULD BE? IS THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS? IS IT MILLIONS, OR WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
WELL, BASED ON, ON THE ANALYSIS THAT WE PRESENTED, UM, IT, IT APPEARED TO US, I I'M PROBABLY GONNA GET THIS NUMBER WRONG.
SO PLEASE GO TO MY BRIEF FOR THE ACTUAL NUMBER THAT THE, THE SALES PRODUCE ABOUT $24 MILLION MORE IN REVENUE THAN, THAN THEY NEED TO, UH, BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY WERE, THE SALES WERE DEPRESSED DURING 2021 BECAUSE OF WINTER STORM YEAR.
SO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN ZERO AND 24 MILLION, IF WE WERE TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS, SO SIGNIFICANT POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER, IT, IT IS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT.
AND I WILL SAY THAT WHILE WE APPRECIATE THE ITS ANALYSIS ON THAT, WE DON'T AGREE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY MET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ISSUE, WHICH IS, HE SAID THAT THEY DID, BUT THAT HIS PREFERENCES, THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BE PROVIDED.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE, LIKE I SAID, WE THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED IN THIS CASE.
THANKS COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS.
[01:35:01]
UH, YOU MENTIONED THAT, UH, LET ME ASK YOU, UH, RENTERS, UH, DON'T PARTICIPATE OR CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN MOST ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS. CAN'T PUT SELLER ON THEIR, ON THEIR UNITS, UH, RENTAL UNITS, UH, SHOULD THOSE PEOPLE BE EXEMPTED ALSO? WELL, I THINK THAT'S A POLICY DECISION FOR, FOR THE CITY TO MAKE, UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY THAT A COMPANY LIKE SAMSUNG, WHICH IS POURING LARGE AMOUNTS OF ITS OWN DOLLARS INTO ITS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS, THAT'S BENEFITING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM BY REDUCING DEMAND.AND NOBODY ELSE IS BEING ASKED TO PICK UP THE TAB FOR THAT.
SO TO, TO ECHO MR. KIMBRO'S COMMENT AGAIN, TO, TO CHARGE US FOR THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS WOULD BE IN EFFECT TO CHARGE US TWICE FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN OUR VIEW.
WE HAVE SIERRA CLUB, PUBLIC CITIZENS, SOLAR UNITED NEIGHBORS.
AND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR THIS ONE.
SO JUST GIVE US ONE MOMENT TO PULL THAT UP.
AND, UH, I'VE HANDED THIS OUT AS WELL.
SO YOU'VE GOT A PAPER COPY, HARD COPY ON YOUR DESK AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S UP.
I'M HERE, UH, REPRESENTING TODAY, UH, SIERRA CLUB, PUBLIC CITIZEN, AND SOLAR UNITED NEIGHBOR'S SON.
UH, I APPEARED AT THE HEARING AND I'M NOW, UH, OFFERING THIS, UH, SUMMARY OF OUR POSITION.
WE HAVE FOUR MAIN CONCERNS THAT WE WILL DISCUSS BRIEFLY HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, WE BELIEVE THAT AE FAILED TO, UH, MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF TO, UH, PROVE UP THE REQUIREMENT OR PROVE UP THE, UH, CHARGES THAT WERE INCLUDED FOR THE FAYETTE POWER PLANT BEYOND YEAR IN 2020, I'M SORRY, 2022, WHEN IT WAS, UH, SCHEDULED TO BE REMOVED FROM, OR THEY WERE SCHEDULED TO CEASE TAKING SERVICE FROM THE PLANT.
SECONDLY, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY'S, UH, PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN IS BAD POLICY AND BAD RATE MAKING AND HARMS CUSTOMERS.
THIRD AUSTIN ENERGIES PROPOSE CHANGES IN THE VALUE OF SOLAR METHODOLOGY FOR, UH, RATING OR MAKING THE RATES OR, OR DETERMINING THE RATES FOR THE, UH, CREDIT FOR THAT CHARGE, UH, IS A BAD IDEA.
IT, UH, TAKES THE CURRENT SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM AND SUCCESSFUL METHODOLOGY AND CHANGES IT OUT FOR ONE THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE OR, OR, UH, WOULD RESULT IN THE RIGHT SIGNALS.
AND FINALLY, AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSED EXEMPTION OF HIGH LOAD INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS FROM THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY, UH, CHARGE SERVICE CHARGE.
THE EES IS UNFAIR, DISCRIMINATORY, AND, AND ALSO HARMS THOSE PROGRAMS AND IS SIMPLY NOT CORRECT.
SO THE FIRST CONCERN, LIKE I MENTIONED WAS THE CONCERN THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAD FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT, UH, THE OR SUPPORT THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT SHOULD CONTINUE TAKING POWER FROM THE FAYETTE PROJECT, EVEN AFTER TE TEST YEAR END, OR END OF YEAR OF 2022, THE DAY IN WHICH, OR THE TIME ON WHICH THE CITY HAD DETERMINED IN ITS RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN OF 2030 THAT THE, UH, CITY SHOULD EXIT TAKING SERVICE FROM, UH, THE, UH, FAYETTE POWER PLANT.
UM, THERE'S TWO MAIN PROBLEMS HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, EVEN THOUGH THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED CEASING TAKING SERVICE OR PARTICIPATING IN THE FAYETTE P PROJECT, UH, BY TEST OR YEAR IN 2022.
AND HERE WE ARE AT YEAR END 22, ALMOST, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY INCLUDED NOTHING IN ITS RATE FILING PACKAGE, DISCUSSING THE STATUS OF EXITING THE, THE PLANT, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WE WERE GETTING CLOSE OR WERE GONNA BE ABLE TO MEET THE DEADLINE, OR IF WE WERE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO MEET THE DEADLINE, WHY NOT, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS REASONABLE TO PROCEED AND CONTINUE TO TAKE SERVICE AND, AND PARTICIPATE.
AND THE SECOND THING THAT'S WRONG HERE IS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY FAILED TO PROVE UP THE PRUDENCE OF CONTINUING ON WITH THE FAYETTE PLANT, UH, PAST YEAR IN 2022, UH, WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY DID WAS IT INCLUDED RATE INFORMATION IN THE RATE FILING PACKAGE, BUT THAT ESSENTIALLY AMOUNTS TO MERELY OPENING THEIR BOOKS.
AND AS WE KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, UH, YOU, YOU, UH, UTILITY'S NOT ABLE TO, OR CANNOT PROVE UP PRUDENCE SIMPLY BY OPENING ITS BOOKS.
UM, SO FOR THOSE TWO REASONS, THE PARTICIPATION IN THE FAYETTE PROJECT IS AN ISSUE THAT, THAT A AUSTIN ENERGIES FAIL TO, UM, MAKE ITS
[01:40:01]
BURDEN MEAN ITS BURDEN IMPROVE.THE SECOND ISSUE IS OUR CONCERN THAT THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN IS IN IS UNWISE BAD POLICY AND ACTUALLY HARMFUL.
AND THERE'S TWO MAIN PROBLEMS HERE TOO.
UH, FIRST IS THE FACT THAT THE AUSTIN ENERGY THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS PROPOSED TO INCREASE THE FIXED CHARGE FROM $10 TO $25 AS MENTIONED BY OTHERS BEFORE.
UH, AND THAT IS ON ITS, ON ITS FACE.
A HUNDRED PERCENT INCREASE IS ON ITS FACE PER SE, UH, UH, UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE.
UH, IT CAUSES RATE SHOCK AND ALSO, UH, REMOVES OR ELIMINATES THE PRICE SIGNALS THAT THE, THAT HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN THE RATES PRIOR TO, UM, UH, SUPPORTING, UM, CONSERVATION, A CUSTOMER THAT USES 100, UH, K H WILL BE CHARGE THE SAME CHARGE AS A CUSTOMER THAT IS CHARGE OR USES 5,000 K H UNDER THIS CHARGE.
THEREFORE IT HAS NO IMPACT ON SUPPORTING CONSERVATION, SECONDLY, AND IT CREATES RATE SHOCK AS WELL.
SECONDLY, THE AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSAL TO, UM, UH, ELIMINATE THE FIVE TIER SYSTEM THAT IT HAS NOW AND IN REPLACE IT WITH A FAIRLY, A VERY FLAT THREE TIERED SYSTEM HAS THE SAME KIND OF RESULT.
IT ELIMINATES THE, UH, PRICE SIGNALS THAT IT, THE PRIOR RATES HAD SENT, UH, FOR CONSERVATION, THOSE PRICE SIGNALS, UH, WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL IN RESULTING IN CONSERVATION, IN AUSTIN ENERGY.
AUSTIN ENERGY ACTUALLY BECAME, UM, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY RECOGNIZED BECAUSE OF ITS SUCCESS IN CONSERVATION.
AND YET THIS, UH, BACKS AWAY FROM THOSE FIVE MINUTES.
I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND WRAP IT UP BY SAYING, UH, WE'VE ALSO GOT CONCERNS THAT WE'VE LISTED IN THE SECOND TWO PAGE.
LAST TWO PAGES REGARDING, UH, THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE VALUE OF SOLAR TARIFF, UH, THAT IS, UM, A PROPOSAL TO USE A METHODOLOGY THAT, THAT ISN'T CORRECT FOR THAT TARIFF.
AND FINALLY, WE BELIEVE THAT ALL CUSTOMERS, INCLUDING THE, UM, UH, HIGH HIGH LOAD, UH, INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS SHOULD BE CHARGED THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY CHARGE, AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE AN EXEMPTION FROM THAT.
AND I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, MR. BRA BRAZIL QUESTIONS.
NO FRIENDLY CROSS FROM COMMISSIONER SCIENCE.
SOMEBODY ASKED ABOUT VOS S SURE.
CAN YOU GO THROUGH THE, THE DISCUSSION ON THE, THE US METHODOLOGY THAT IS PARTICULARLY OF CONCERN? YES, THE PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE OR TO EXCHANGE THE CURRENT FORWARD LOOKING LONG TERM LONG RANGE METHODOLOGY THAT WAS STARTED HERE IN AT AUSTIN ENERGY SEVERAL DECADES AGO BY OUR WITNESS, UH, CARL ROBAGO THAT'S THE CURRENT METHODOLOGY, AND IT RECOGNIZES THAT THE CUSTOMERS THAT ARE GONNA BE PUTTING IN PLACE, UH, VALUE OF SOLAR OR ROOFTOP, SOLAR ARE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS.
IT, IT ANALYZES COST CONSIDERING THAT IT'S THAT KIND OF CUSTOMER, THE PROPOSED, UH, METHODOLOGY IS A BACKWARD LOOKING METHODOLOGY, A SIMPLIFIED METHODOLOGY THAT LOOKS AT ERCOT COSTS AND IT'S THE KIND OF COST MAKING OR COST METHODOLOGY THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR COMMERCIAL, SOLAR, UH, GENERATORS.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE MAIN, UH, PROBLEM.
IT, THE, THE CURRENT METHODOLOGY TAKES IN PLACE OR TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE SPECIAL KIND OF CUSTOMERS THAT ARE GONNA BE ENCOURAGED TO USE THIS, UH, THESE, UH, TO, TO USE VALUE, UM, ROOFTOP SOLAR, THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY IS ONE THAT FORCES THOSE CUSTOMERS TO COMPETE WITH COMMERCIAL SOLAR PRODUCERS.
SO, SO DO YOU THINK THAT, UM, EXISTING CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE SOLAR AND, UM, POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS COULD BE HARMED BY THE CHANGE THAT'S REPRESENTED HERE? YEAH.
I MEAN, IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE IS A SIMPLICITY TO THE PROPOSED CHANGE, UH, AND, AND, AND THAT, AND IT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN APPEAL, BUT THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT THE VALUE OR THE ACTUAL CREDIT THAT'S CALCULATED BY THE NEW OR THE PROPOSAL IS NOT CORRECT TO SEND THE RIGHT PRICE SIGNALS TO THOSE CUSTOMERS.
YOU NEED TO USE THE RIGHT PRICE SIGNALS TO GET THE RIGHT CUSTOMERS, TO, TO PUT THESE FACILITIES IN PLACE.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE HARM IS.
UM, WE THINK THAT YOU NEED TO LOOK AHEAD AT THIS AGAIN, MORE CLOSELY IN A, IN ABOUT A YEAR OR SO, AND COME UP WITH A, IF ADJUSTMENTS NEED TO BE MADE TO THE CURRENT METHODOLOGY FINE, BUT THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY IS THE WRONG ONE.
IT'S FOR THE WRONG KIND OF CUSTOMER.
UH, YOU, YOU AND ACTUALLY OTHERS HAVE SAID AUSTIN ENERGY DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF YOU'VE
[01:45:02]
PARTICIPATED IN.I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY RATE CASES AND ADDED CARL ROBAGO HUNDREDS UHHUH.
UH, TELL ME YOUR BASIS FOR THAT CONCLUSION FOR, FOR THE FAYETTE PLANT.
RIGHT? MY, THE BASIS OF THE CONCLUSION IS, I MEAN, AGAIN, IT'S TWO PRONGED.
FIRST OF ALL, THE CITY HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT RETIRING OR, OR EXITING THE PLANT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR IS YOUR POLICY.
THE CITY SAYS, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
AND BY THE WAY, YOU NEED TO KEEP TRACK OF WHERE YOU ARE SO THAT YOU CAN PROVE UP THAT WE CAN DO IT OR NOT.
AUSTIN ENERGY CAME IN AND DIDN'T SUBMIT ANYTHING AT ALL, NOT A WORD OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THAT SCHEDULE AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE THERE OR NOT, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE GONNA BUST THE SCHEDULE AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS REASONABLE.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE PRUDENCE OF THE PROBLEM OF THE PRUDENCE PROBLEM LIES UP UNTIL NOW.
AND MAYBE THOSE CHARGES HAVE BEEN IN RATES, BUT AT ONCE YOU REACH THAT YEAR IN 2022, NOW THAT DEADLINE THAT THE CITY IS IMPOSED, IF YOU'RE GONNA KEEP GOING, YOU NEED TO PROVE UP THE PRUDENCE AND TO PROVE UP THE PRUDENCE, YOU HAVE TO DO MORE THAN JUST OPEN YOUR BOOKS.
YOU HAVE TO TESTIFY, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY.
AND IN OTHER, YOU KNOW, PROOF THAT SHOWS THAT IT'S NOT ONLY THE COST OF PROCEEDING FORWARD, BUT THAT IT'S REASONABLE TO, TO CONTINUE DOING SO THAT IT'S PRUDENT TO CONTINUE DOING.
SO, AGAIN, IT'S JUST INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S OWN DECLARATION OF ITS POLICY.
AND ONCE YOU BUST THAT, YOU NEED TO PROVE UP THAT IT'S.
AND, AND MY SECOND QUESTION, UH, I, I SAW A NEWS REPORT LAST NIGHT, K X A N UH, INTERVIEWED A PERSON WHO HAD RECENTLY, UH, UH, SPENT A LOT TO INSTALL SOLAR ON HER ROOF.
MM-HMM
UH, I'M NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, BUT IT WOULD THAT NOT BE A GOVERNMENTAL TAKING FOR WHICH COMPENSATION WOULD BE DUE.
I MEAN, I SUPPOSE YOU COULD COME UP WITH AN ARGUMENT THAT IT'S A GOVERNMENTAL TAKING THAT MIGHT BE A REACH MAYBE BECAUSE YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A GUARANTEED OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THOSE THAT VALUE GOING FORWARD.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU'VE RELIED ON THE CITY AND ITS METHODOLOGY TO MAKE THAT KIND OF INVESTMENT, AND THAT INVESTMENT GOES FORWARD FOR 25 YEARS, AND YOU'RE STUCK WITH IT, I'D SAY YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF CLAIM.
AND I THINK YOU ALSO HAVE SOME SORT OF CLAIM THAT THE CITY WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND USE THE RIGHT METHODOLOGY GOING FORWARD AND, AND NOT CHANGE METHODOLOGIES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREAM.
I THINK THAT AT LEAST YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.
I'M THIS IS NOT A SOFTBALL, BUT, UM, THE, THE JU I MEAN, THE, I ACHIEVE, I ACHIEVE DIDN'T AGREE WITH SIERRA CLUB ON THE VALUE OF SOLAR, RIGHT? HE BASICALLY SAID IT WAS, IT WAS REASONABLE, YOU KNOW, GREAT MINDS CAN DIFFER, BUT WHAT THEY PRESENTED WAS REASONABLE, HE DID.
HOWEVER, SAY THAT MORE STAKEHOLDER INPUT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL.
WHAT IS YOUR READING OF THE, OF THE, JUDGE'S WHAT THE JUDGE SAID ON, ON THE VALUE OF SOLAR PROPOSAL? I THINK IT'S AN INDICATION THAT HE EX UNDERSTANDS THAT YOU HAVE A COMMUNITY OUT THERE IN THIS, YOU KNOW, IN THIS CITY THAT HAS, UH, COME TO EXPECT THAT SOMETHING, A PARTICULAR METHODOLOGY WOULD BE AP APPLIED AND THEY'RE, THEY'VE COME TO EXPECT THAT IT'S A METHODOLOGY THAT THEY CAN RELY ON BECAUSE IT WAS PROVEN UP TO BE REASONABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN IT WAS INITIATED.
AND I THINK HIS CONCERN IS MAYBE I CAN, MAYBE I CAN GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS, BUT I DO THINK THE COMMUNITY IS GONNA BE CONCERNED.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S THE NATURE OF IT.
WE HAVE THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE.
IF YOU NEED A MIC, I GUESS YOU CAN GET UP HERE.
I WAS SELECTED AS THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE BY THE CITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY RATE REVIEW.
UM, I WAS INVOLVED IN THE PREVIOUS REVIEW IN 2016, WHICH LED TO SOME RATE REDUCTIONS AND, UH, ON MY TEAM IS, UH, CLARENCE JOHNSON, WHO IS, UM, UH, AN EXPERT ON UTILITY MATTERS AND ECONOMIST AND, AND SOMEONE WHO HAS
[01:50:01]
PARTICIPATED IN, UM, UH, A GREAT NUMBER OF RATE DESIGN, UH, ELECTRIC RATE DESIGN CASES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.AND, UM, UH, ALSO WITH US, UH, UH, BOBBY GAZA HERNANDEZ IS IN THE BACK.
UH, WE PARTICIPATED IN, UH, MOST OF THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE AS WE WERE CHARGED OF THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE SMALL BUSINESS RATE PAYERS.
AND, UH, WE ARE, UH, DISAPPOINTED IN THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OR IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER'S, UH, REPORT.
UH, WE THINK THAT IT HAS LED, YOU KNOW, IF FOLLOWED WOULD LEAD TO A RATE IMPACT AT THE END, UH, OF THIS PROCESS, THAT WOULD BE PRETTY DRAMATIC, UH, PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE WHO USE LESS THAN THE AVERAGE.
AND YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD ABOUT THAT, BUT, BUT FIRST LET ME KIND OF STEP STEP THROUGH, UH, THE, UH, THE ISSUE FIRST, UH, STEP IN THE PROCESS IS, OR AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT FIRST, THE TOTAL AMOUNT, UH, OF MONEY THAT THE UTILITY NEEDS.
AND, UM, UH, THE JUDGE THIS, UH, THE HEARING EXAMINER, UH, FELL ON THE SIDE OF AUSTIN ENERGY ON ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THOSE ISSUES.
AND SO WE'RE STARTING WITH, UH, QUITE A BIT OF MONEY, UH, CERTAINLY MORE THAN 30 MILLION A YEAR, UH, THAT WOULD THEN NEED TO BE SOMEHOW FIGURED INTO THE RATES.
UM, I WON'T GO INTO ALL OF THOSE ISSUES, BUT I, I WOULD, UH, REPEAT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WOULD SAY AS BROAD THEMES THAT WE DISAGREE WITH.
THE HEARING EXAMINER ON ONE IS THE TEST YEAR.
WE THINK THAT THIS IS AN ABNORMAL TEST YEAR.
IT INCLUDES NOT ONLY WINTER STORM YURY, BUT ALSO SOME OF THE MOST INTENSE PERIOD OF THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC.
AND THAT HAS KIND OF PLAYS HAVOC WITH THE REVENUES.
THERE WAS, WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE WERE UNUSUAL REVENUES AND UNUSUAL EXPENSES IN MANY REGARDS.
UH, THE, THE HEARING EXAMINER DID NOT BELIEVE THAT, UH, WE, THAT WE QUANTIFIED WHAT THE, THE PROBLEM WAS ON MANY OF THESE THINGS WE TRIED TO NORMALIZE, AND THAT IS USED, GO BACK FURTHER IN TIME AND AVERAGE, UH, REVENUES ARE COST OVER TIME.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT IF YOU, IF YOU PROPERLY DID THAT AND, AND, UH, KIND OF, UH, IN A WAY AVERAGED OUT SOME OF THESE, THESE PROBLEMS, THE, THE OVERALL REVENUE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THE OTHER, UH, KIND OF MAJOR SET OF PROBLEMS WE HAVE WITH THE, UM, UH, REPORT IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE, THE KNOWN AND MEASURABLE ISSUE.
THERE WERE A COUPLE OF, OF, UH, ISSUES WHERE, UH, THE JUDGE FELT LIKE I, I THINK WAS, WAS RATHER GENEROUS, GENEROUS WITH AUSTIN ENERGY AS TO WHAT IS MEASURABLE.
UH, FOR INSTANCE, UH, THERE WERE, UM, UH, THERE, THERE ARE SEVERAL VACANCIES THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS NOT FILLED, AND THE JUDGE ASSUMED WELL, UH, JUST ASSUMED THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO FILL THOSE, THOSE POSITIONS AS THE, UH, UH, AS THE RATE PERIOD GOES FORWARD.
UH, ALSO THERE WERE, UH, FOR INSTANCE, SOME HEAVY EQUIPMENT CONTRACTS, UH, THAT WERE KNOWN, BUT WERE NOT MEASURABLE BECAUSE THE CONTRACTS DON'T SAY EXACTLY HOW MUCH OF THOSE AC THOSE, UH, LARGE EQUIPMENT, UM, UH, THAT THEY WILL BE RENTING OVER THE YEARS.
WE DON'T, WE KNOW THE RATE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HEAVY EQUIPMENT, UM, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, ITEMS THEY WILL BE USING, GOING FORWARD.
AND, AND SO I, I, I THINK, UM, UH, UH, COMMISSIONER DID POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS SOME, UH, PERHAPS SOME INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF KNOWN AND MEASURABLE, UH, ALL WORKING TO THE BENEFIT OF THE UTILITY.
SO THEN WE START WITH THIS, UH, INCREASE THAT WE NEED TO FIND.
AND THE NEXT STEP, UH, AT LEAST IN THE WAY I LOOK AT THESE THINGS IS THE CLASS ALLOCATION.
YOU GOTTA BAKE THE PIE, AND THEN YOU GOTTA SLICE IT UP AND FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH OF THIS, UH, ADDITIONAL REVENUE HAS TO COME FROM RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS AND HOW MUCH OF IT NEEDS TO COME FROM THE VARIOUS COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS.
AND THERE, UH, THE, UH, HEARING EXAMINER WENT LARGELY ALONG, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY SIDE IN PUTTING THE LINE, SHARE OF THIS INCREASE ON THE SMALLEST CUSTOMER ON THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
AND, UH, UH, HERE AGAIN, I THINK THE, UH, THIS UNUSUAL TEST YEAR PERIOD, WHICH RUNS FROM OCTOBER OF 2020 TO SEPTEMBER OF 2021, UH, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WHEN, UM, MANY BUSINESSES WERE SHUT DOWN AND WORKERS WERE PERFORMING THEIR JOBS FROM HOME, IT, IT WORKED OUT IN, IN A MANNER THAT I THINK UNFAIRLY REPRESENTS HOW MUCH THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS NEED TO BE PICKING UP FROM THIS RATE INCREASE.
SO THAT JUST, UH, JUST QUICKLY BRINGS US DOWN TO WHAT I THINK IS THE MOST IMPACTFUL QUESTION HERE.
AND THAT IS HOW ARE THE RATES GOING TO BE DECIDED IF, IF ALL OF THIS FLOWS DOWNHILL TO THE SMALLEST, UH, USERS, UH, WHAT WILL BE THE RATES WITHIN THAT RESIDENTIAL SLICE OF THE PIE AND THE, UH, HEARING EXAMINER LARGELY AGREED WITH, WITH US,
[01:55:01]
UH, RECOG, UH, BELIEVE THAT OUR, OUR, OUR, THE ISSUES THAT WE RAISED AS REGARD TO RATE SHOCK AND THE NEED FOR SOME SORT OF GRADUALISM OR SOME SORT OF EQUITY, UH, AMONG THE LEAST OF THE CUSTOMERS, UH, AND HE, HE URGED A NEGOTIATED SOLUTION ESSENTIALLY.AND, UH, WE ARE, ARE CERTAINLY WILLING TO SIT DOWN AND, AND TRY TO WORK OUT SOMETHING AS FAR AS HOW BIG AND HOW IMPORTANT THIS ISSUE IS.
I WOULD REFER YOU TO PAGE 12 OF THE, THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT.
SO IF YOU HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT CHART, AND THAT WAS A CHART THAT, UM, OUR ICA TEAM PUT TOGETHER TO SHOW WHAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT IS AT VARIOUS USAGE LEVELS.
NOW, THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT GOING TO BE EXACT, UH, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THE NUMBERS ARE GONNA FLOW DOWN, UH, EVEN BASED ON THE IEG RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT, THE RELATIONSHIPS, UH, WE BELIEVE ARE STILL, UM, UH, UH, ACCURATE AND WITHOUT SOME KIND OF ALTERNATIVE RATE DESIGN, UH, WE ARE FA THERE ARE CUSTOMERS ON THE LOWER END OF THE USAGE SPECTRUM WHO ARE POTENTIALLY GONNA FACE 30 TO 50%, UH, OF AN INCREASE IN THEIR MONTHLY UTILITY BILLS.
AND, UH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, WE, I THINK WE, WE REALLY NEED TO FOCUS ON, AND WE WOULD URGE THE EUC TO, UH, TAKE A POSITION IN FAVOR OF OUR ICA ALTERNATIVE RATE DESIGN.
UH, WE, UH, AND, AND PART OF THIS RATE DESIGN OF COURSE, IS THE CUSTOMER CHARGE THAT YOU'D HEARD ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO RAISE THE FIXED CHARGE THAT EVERYONE HAS TO PAY FROM $10 TO $25.
UH, WE, UM, WE THINK THAT THAT IS, IS FAR TOO MUCH.
IT IS OUT OF LINE, YOU KNOW, THE MOST COMPARABLE, UH, UTILITIES OF COURSE, WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO AND LUBBOCK, WHICH HAVE FIXED CHARGES THAT ARE EVEN LOWER IN THE NINE, $9 AREA.
AND, UH, I THINK THAT OUR OWN, OUR OWN CALCULATIONS ABOUT THE, THE COSTS THAT ARE CUSTOMER SPECIFIC AND THAT SHOULD THEN, SHOULD BE, UH, A FIXED AMOUNT, UH, OR EVEN LESS THAN $10.
SO WE, WE WOULD PREFER THAT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE STAY AT $10.
WE THINK THAT THAT IS, IS PROGRESSIVE.
I, I WOULD, UM, I, I THINK THAT MR. ROBBINS, UH, LABELING IS FAIR.
THIS IS THE QUESTION OF A PROGRESSIVE RATE DESIGN AND A REGRESSIVE RATE DESIGN, WHETHER THE RATE DESIGN RECOGNIZES THAT, UH, CUSTOMERS WHO USE MORE SHOULD PAY MORE, OR WHETHER OR NOT IT, YOUR, THE REVENUE SHOULD LARGELY BE JUST COMING, UH, ON A PER CUSTOMER BASIS.
AND THE, THE EVIDENCE, UH, WHICH THE IH E DID ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE WITH IT IS THAT ON INCOME THAT THE BULK OF LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS ARE GONNA BE ON THE LOWER END.
I THINK THAT THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.
AND HE ALSO, UH, THROUGHOUT THE, THE SUGGESTION OF, OF, OF EXPANDING OR IN SOME WAY, UH, CHANGING THE CAP PROGRAM, I WOULD SAY ON, ON THAT WE, WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE CURRENT CAP PROGRAM, BUT WE ARE NOT CONFIDENT THAT THAT, UH, FIDDLING WITH THAT PROGRAM WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.
UH, IT'S IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE PROBLEM THAT THERE ARE SO MANY LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS IN THE CITY THAT DO NOT GET, DO NOT GET INTO THE CAP PROGRAM.
WE KNOW THAT 7% OF THE CUSTOMERS ARE, ARE IN THE CAP PROGRAM, BUT THE AMOUNT OF, OF CUSTOMERS WHO ARE AT, UH, AT THE POVERTY LEVEL IS, IS SOMEWHERE IN THE AREA OF, UM, YOU KNOW, 20, 27%, DEPENDING ON HOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT AREA YOU LOOK AT, IT'S MUCH MORE.
I THINK THE, THE RECORD ALSO SHOWS THAT SOMETHING OF THE, ON THE ORDER OF ONLY 30% OF CUSTOMERS WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE CAP PROGRAM, WIND UP GETTING IT.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S AN OUTREACH PROBLEM OR WHETHER CUSTOMERS DON'T KNOW ABOUT OR CAN'T GET ON IT.
UM, BUT THAT, UH, WE'RE MORE CONCERNED MR. ROBBINS HAS, I THINK, VALID CONCERNS ABOUT CUSTOMERS WHO MIGHT BE GETTING ON THE PROGRAM WHO DON'T DESERVE IT.
I, I HAVE MORE CONCERNS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DESERVE IT AND AREN'T GETTING ON IT AND WERE NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND THEM.
SO I, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS A TOOL THAT WOULD REALLY HELP.
I THINK THE RATE DESIGN SHOULD, SHOULD REMAIN PROGRESSIVE AND SHOULD REMAIN IN A WAY THAT THAT ENCOURAGES ENERGY CONSERVATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
UM, SO, UH, THE ICA HAS RECOMMENDED AN ALTERNATIVE, UH, RATE DESIGN AND, AND A LOT OF THOUGHT WAS PUT INTO IT.
AND IT'S THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE RATE DESIGN THAT TRIES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THESE POLICY ISSUES THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.
IT WOULD ACTUALLY MOVE THE RATE DESIGN IN THE DIRECTION THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS AND AT THE TIME LIMIT, OKAY, NOW THIS IS MY LAST POINT.
UH, SO IT WOULD, IT WOULD MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.
WE WOULD, UH, BUT WE WOULD NOT SUPPORT MOVING THE CUSTOMER CHARGE UP ANY HIGHER THAN $13, BUT WE, WE COULD, WE COULD POSSIBLY MOVE THAT FAR.
[02:00:01]
TIERS ARE IMPORTANT.WE, WE WOULD RECOMMEND ELIMINATING ONE OF THE TIERS, BUT WE THINK THAT THE REMAINING FOUR TIERS NEED TO BE, UH, CALIBRATED DIFFERENTLY.
AND, AND I WOULD URGE YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS OF, OF CLARENCE JOHNSON HERE, WHO, UM, WAS, WHO PUT TOGETHER OUR ALTERNATIVE.
UH, BUT I, AGAIN, I, UH, WE THINK THAT IT, THAT OUR RECOMMENDED RATE DESIGN IS EQUITABLE.
IT'S BALANCED, IT PROMOTES ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION, AND IT WOULD AVOID THESE, UH, THESE VERY DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES IN, IN WHAT THE IMPACT IS BASED ON YOUR USAGE.
UH, SO, UH, W WOULD VERY MUCH ENCOURAGE YOU TO FOCUS ON THAT, UH, PARTICULARLY IN A CITY, WHICH, UH, HAS AN AFFORDABILITY PROBLEM THAT IS WELL DOCUMENTED AND A HOUSING PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, ENERGY COSTS ARE VERY, ARE VERY MUCH LINKED TO HOUSING.
AND, UH, SO THAT SUMS UP OUR MAIN APPROACH.
BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I WOULD, UH, URGE YOU TO, I WOULD URGE YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RATE DESIGN AND, UH, I WOULD FEEL I WOULD HAVE MR. JOHNSON FIELD THOSE.
THANK YOU, MR. KAUFMAN, ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER TREL, WITH RESPECT TO THE, UM, YOUR PROPOSED, UH, FOUR TIERS.
I, I WAS HAPPY TO FIND THAT IN THE, UM, INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT, CAN YOU TELL ME, UM, UH, WHAT THE BASIS FOR THE RATES THAT WERE LISTED, UM, COMPARED TO THE CURRENT RATES BY TIERS? WHAT I MEAN, IS IT, FOR INSTANCE, I SEE IT WAS 3 CENTS FOR THE FIRST TIER OF ZERO TO 500 KWH.
AND WHEREAS THE EXISTING ZERO TO 501ST TIER IS 2.8.
UM, I THINK THIS IS IF I'M THINKING OF THE CHART YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UH, I THINK THIS IS BASED ON, UH, THE ICA REVENUE REQUIREMENT, WHICH WAS 1.8%.
SO THERE IS A REVENUE REQUIREMENT, UH, INCREASE INCLUDED THERE.
UM, BUT MY GOAL IN PUTTING TOGETHER THE RATE DESIGN AND THE CONSIDERATIONS I WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, TRYING TO, I GUESS, SATISFY SEVERAL DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES.
ONE OBJECTIVE OF COURSE, IS NOT TO DIMINISH THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OR PRICE SIGNAL, UH, IMPACT OF THE RATES.
UH, ANOTHER OBJECTIVE THOUGH, WAS TO ENCOURAGE GRADUALISM IN THIS RATE DESIGN CHANGE, UH, TO ENCOURAGE A, A RATE MODERATION.
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL FROM AE WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT, UH, RATE INCREASES IN THE LOWER TIER AND WOULD, IT WOULD INVOLVE RATE REDUCTIONS IN THE HIGHER TIERS.
AND FOR EXAMPLE, USERS OF 2000 K H OR MORE.
SO MY VIEW WAS THAT TO MODERATE THIS, WE WOULD NEED TO, UH, HAVE A, A FLATTENING OF THE, OF THE, UH, RATE INCREASE THAT RESULTS IN, UH, AN INCREASED PERCENTAGE IN LOWER TIERS.
THAT'S MORE LIKE THE AVERAGE INCREASE FOR, FOR RESIDENTIAL AND TO HAVE A, UH, CHANGE IN THE UPPER TIERS.
UH, SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, YOU REALLY HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST FOUR TIERS, UH, I CAN REDUCE FROM FIVE TO FOUR AND THAT ACCOMPLISHES, UH, ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAD, WHICH WAS TO REDUCE VOLATILITY AND REVENUE, BUT IT ALSO ENABLES US TO HAVE A SPECIFIC RATE FOR THE HIGHER USAGE.
AND SO, SO THAT THERE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN RATES FOR THE HIGHER USAGE.
DID YOU ALSO, UM, THE, AND, AND ALL THE RATES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WERE FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, CORRECT.
WAS THERE ALSO ANY CONCERN ABOUT, UM, THE CHANGES TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL RATES COMPARED TO, UH, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS AS PROPOSED BY AE? WELL, UM, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE OUR, OUR, OUR MANDATE WAS TO REPRESENT RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
SO, UH, I DID NOT DO A, A, A EVALUATION OF ALL THE RATE STRUCTURE ELEMENTS OF THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.
HOWEVER, I WOULD NOTE THAT, UH, ONE OF MY CONCERNS IN TERMS OF INTERCLASS EQUITY WAS THE FACT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS PROPOSING, UH, YOU KNOW, RATE REDUCTIONS, UH, FOR A NUMBER OF THE LARGE COMMERCIAL CLASSES.
UH, AND, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF RATE MODERATION, MY PROPOSAL WAS TO ELIMINATE THOSE REDUCTIONS AND, UH, UH, THAT ENABLED BASICALLY ENABLED, UH, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, REVENUE SPREAD THAN I PROPOSED TO, TO BE MORE EQUITABLE, UH, AND NOT AS PUNITIVE TO THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS.
[02:05:02]
SO WAS YOUR PROPOSAL WHEN IN ELIMINATING THE RATE REDUCTIONS FOR THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL, DID, DID YOU RECOMMEND A, UM, RATE INCREASE FOR THOSE CLASSES? UM, YES.I THINK I, I, IN FACT, WAS, UH, I PROPOSED 25% OF SYSTEM AVERAGE INCREASE.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE, UH, INCREASE WAS, YOU KNOW, 7% ON AVERAGE FOR ALL CLASSES, UH, THEN IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, INDU THOSE, UH, LARGE INDUSTRIAL, UH, COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS WOULD GET 25% OF THE SEVEN, YOU KNOW, 7% INCREASE, EIGHT PERCENTAGE IT'S 25% OF IT, SO, RIGHT, RIGHT.
SO, SO THE, UM, THANK YOU, MR. JOHNSON.
UM, SO THE CURRENT, UH, RATES HAVE A TIER THAT GOES BETWEEN ZERO AND 500 KILOWATT HOURS, AND THEN TIER TWO IS 5 0 1 TO A THOUSAND, AND IT CONTINUES ON THAT LINE.
DO YOU CHANGE THAT PART OF THINGS OR JUST THE, UM, UH, RATE THE, THE, UM, THE MONEY THAT GOES WITH THAT? NO, I CHANGED THE TIERS, UH, THE BREAK POINTS, I, I KEPT THE ZERO TO 500 UHHUH
AND THEN, UH, BEYOND THAT, I HAD TWO ADDITIONAL TIERS.
IT'S 1300 TO, UH, TWO, 2000 AND THEN ABOVE 2000.
H HOW SIGNIFICANT IS IT TO ELIMINATING OR, UM, MITIGATING REVENUE VOLATILITY IS ELIMINATING THAT FIFTH TIER.
IS IT REALLY A BIG DEAL? I MEAN, JUST LEAVING THINGS ALONG WITH FIVE TIERS, ARE THERE ANY ADVANTAGES WITH THAT? UH, YOU KNOW, UH, I, I WOULD NOT BE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH MAINTAINING, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE IN TERMS OF THE TIERS, JUST THE CURRENT FIVE TIER SYSTEM.
UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, IN FAIRNESS TO, TO AUSTIN, ENERGY'S CONCERN, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S TRUE THAT THE MORE TIERS YOU HAVE, THE MORE REVENUE VOLATILITY YOU HAVE, CUZ BASICALLY YOU HAVE AS CUSTOMERS.
UH, IF YOU HAVE, FOR INSTANCE, A VERY HOT SUMMER AND CUSTOMERS MAY MOVE INTO A HIGHER TIER THAN THEY NORMALLY WOULD.
IN FACT, THEY MAY, MAY NOT EXPECT IF THEY'RE GOING TO.
UH, SO I MEAN, I, IN FAIRNESS TO AUSTIN ENERGY'S POINT, I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOME, UH, DISADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF THIS REVENUE VOLATILITY, UH, THAT COMES WITH HAVING TOO MANY TIERS.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT ONCE YOU START ELIMINATING TIER, UH, AND, UH, THEREFORE ADDRESSING REVENUE VOLATILITY, YOU ALSO ARE DESTROYING THE PRICE SIGNAL, UH, THAT WAS THE ACTUAL BASIS FOR PUTTING THE RATES IN PLACE.
SO, UH, IN MY MIND, YOU KIND OF HAVE TO BALANCE THOSE, THOSE ISSUES.
WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO AUSTIN ENERGY'S, UH, ARGUMENT THAT I THINK UNDER THE CURRENT STRUCTURE, MORE THAN 40% OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS ARE SUBSIDIZED BY OTHER RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE TOP TIERS ARE INTERCLASS SUBSIDY INTEREST, EXCUSE ME, CLASS SUBSIDY, UM, OF THE LOWER TIER.
I DON'T AGREE WITH, WITH THAT POSITION.
I MEAN, I, IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT I HAVE WITH AUSTIN ENERGY'S ANALYSIS, AND THAT IS THAT THERE IS REALLY NO COST BASIS FOR ANY PARTICULAR TIERS.
UH, WHEN WE DO A COST TO SERVICE STUDY, ALL WE DO IS ASSIGN COST TO A CLASS.
WE DON'T ASSIGN COST TO INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE, WHEN WE FIND A COST BASIS, WE WILL LOOK AT FOR INSTANCE, COINCIDENT PEAK DEMANDS OF A CLASS.
SO WE MIGHT LOOK AT THEIR NON COINCIDENT PEAK DEMANDS.
UH, WE DON'T KNOW THOUGH IF THAT, IF THAT FLOWS THROUGH TO INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS THAT ARE USING, UH, YOU KNOW, IN A LOWER TIER OR HIGHER TIER, THEY MAY HAVE QUITE DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, COINCIDENT PEAKS.
SO, UH, I GUESS MY POINT IS THERE'S REALLY NOT A COST EVALUATION.
YOU CAN MAKE THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH NORMAL COST EVALUATION IN, IN, YOU KNOW, ELECTRIC UTILITY RATE MAKING THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT WE CAN DETERMINE.
THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, A SUBSIDY FLOWING FROM ONE SET OF CUSTOMERS TO ANOTHER.
UH, I MEAN THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF ANALYSIS THAT WOULD LOOK AT MARGINAL COSTS THAT MIGHT, UH, YOU KNOW, BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
[02:10:01]
YOU KNOW, I, I, I WOULD SAY I, YOU KNOW, FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE KIND OF WITH THE, THE INITIAL STARTING PRECEPT OF THAT POSITION AND THAT ARGUMENT BY AUSTIN ENERGY QUESTION, REID.JUST, UM, TWO QUICK QUESTIONS AND, AND MR. JOHNSON, I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR PROPOSAL.
SO MY QUESTION ISN'T ACTUALLY FOR YOU.
UM, SO YOU HEARD MY EARLIER DISCUSSION WITH THE TX REPRESENTATIVE ABOUT, UM, THE EFFECTS OF WINTER STORM U IN SALES.
DID YOU GUYS COME UP WITH, IN TERMS OF AN ADJUSTMENT, DID YOU COME UP WITH A NUMBER ON HOW TO ADJUST DOWNWARD THE, THE AMOUNT FOR THE, THE, THE SALE ISSUE OF THAT PARTICULAR YEAR, YOU KNOW, HURRICANE YURI AND, UH, AND THE PANDEMIC ALSO BOTH HAD POTENTIAL POTENTIAL IMPACTS THAT ARE NOT ONLY JUST, YOU KNOW, ASSOCIATED WITH REVENUES, BUT ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH COSTS, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO, TO, UH, ATTEMPT TO SAY, WHAT WOULD THE BASE REVENUES HAVE BEEN IF THOSE EVENTS HAD NOT OCCURRED? UH, SO NO, WE DID NOT PERFORM A, UH, THAT KIND OF COMPARISON.
WE DID LOOK AT, UH, SOME SPECIFIC COSTS.
WE ASKED AUSTIN ENERGY, TELL US WHAT COST YOU INCURRED DIRECTLY INCURRED BECAUSE OF HURRICANE URY.
I MEAN, NOT HURRICANE URY, BUT, UH, YOU'RE LIKE LATA BTA STARTED ME ON THIS
UH, AND THEY GAVE US, UH, COST AND MY PROPOSAL WAS TO TREAT IT LIKE, UH, THE PUC WOULD TREAT, UH, ANY EXTRAORDINARY STORM AND THAT IS TO, UH, TAKE THE COSTS AND AMORTIZE THEM OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS.
UM, SO UNFORTUNATELY THE, UM, I E DID NOT AGREE WITH THAT, EVEN THOUGH HE DID INDICATE I THINK SOME AMBIVALENT ON THE ISSUE AND, YOU KNOW, INDICATED IF YOU DID MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT, HERE'S THE WAY I WOULD DO IT.
BUT, UH, SO WHEN YOU GET TO THE REVENUES, THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE THAT HAD TO DO WITH HURRICANE U WAS THE, UH, UNCOLLECTIBLE COLLECTIBLE EXPENSE, THE LATE PAYMENT FEES, LATE PAYMENT FEES OR REVENUES, UH, YOU KNOW, BOTH THE PANDEMIC AND HURRICANE, I MEAN, WINTER STORM U HAD HAD TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON, ON THOSE ISSUES, PARTICULARLY SINCE THE CITY COUNCIL WAIVED THE LATE PAYMENT FEE FOR A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF MONTHS.
UH, AND WE DON'T THINK THAT, UH, UH, BASICALLY OUR APPROACH WAS TO GO AND LOOK AT THE TWO PREVIOUS YEARS OF, UH, LATE PAYMENT FEE REVENUE AND USE THAT AS THE BASIS, UM, THE, UH, AN ADDITIONAL, UH, RELATED ISSUE THERE AS THE UN COLLECTIBLE EXPENSE.
AGAIN, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT DURING THE DEPTH AS A PANDEMIC.
UH, SO, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD EXPECT IT WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON, ON COLLECTIBLES.
AND SO WE, INSTEAD OF ATTEMPTING TO, TO WORK OFF OF THE COST BASIS THAT EXISTED DURING THE TEST YEAR, UH, WE LOOKED AT THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS OF UN COLLECTIBLES AND THAT AVERAGE, UM, SO, AND I KNOW THAT IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL REVENUES, I KNOW THAT THE, I E REFERENCED, UH, THE ANALYSIS THAT T I E C PERFORMED, WHICH, UH, ATTEMPTED TO LOOK AT PREVIOUS YEARS TO SEE IF THERE WAS A BASIS FOR MAKING A REVENUE ADJUSTMENT.
THE FINAL POINT I'LL MAKE ON THIS IS THAT.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THIS TEST YEAR IS SO UNUSUAL IS THAT, UH, IT AFFECTS ALSO THE ALLOCATION OF COSTS BETWEEN CLASSES, CUZ BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAD DURING THE PANDEMIC WAS THAT, UH, MANY, UH, RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS WERE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO OPERATE.
UH, THERE WERE, THERE WERE BUSINESSES THAT WENT OUTTA BUSINESS.
UH, THE, I MEAN THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY EVENT.
SO WHAT THAT DID IS REDUCE THE DEMAND WITHIN THE, UH, COMMERCIAL CLASS AND THE COMMERCIAL CLASSES.
ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAD PEOPLE WHO WERE UNEMPLOYED OR WHO HAD TO WORK FROM HOME.
AND THAT INCREASED THE DEMAND FROM THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS, THAT THERE WAS NO ADJUSTMENT TO THE ALLOCATION FACTORS OF THE CLASSES TO REFLECT THIS PANDEMIC EFFECT.
AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD CONCLUDE THAT WE'RE BASICALLY THAT MANY OF THESE EFFECTS ARE IF NOT DISAPPEARING, THEY'RE AT LEAST WINDING DOWN.
AND SO THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMERCIAL USAGE AND RESIDENTIAL USAGE IS GOING TO CHANGE DURING THE PERIOD AND WILL BE DIFFERENT DURING THE PERIOD THAT RATES ARE IN EFFECT.
FINAL, FINAL, FINAL QUESTION IN TERMS OF COST ALLOCATION.
JUST TELL ME IF I'VE GOT THIS RIGHT.
SO THE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMERS WANTED ONE COST ALLOCATION MODEL.
YOU GUYS WANTED ANOTHER AND AUSTIN
[02:15:01]
ENERGY IS SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN AND BASICALLY THE IEG AGREED WITH THE AUSTIN ENERGY METHODOLOGY.AM I SORT OF CORRECT IN THAT? YES.
THAT WOULD BE THE CASE FOR THE PRODUCTION DEMAND METHOD I SHOULD MENTION.
I HAVE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY 10 OTHER ALLOCATION ISSUES I HAVE THAT ARE SMALLER ALLOCATION ISSUES.
PEOPLE FOCUS ON THE PRODUCTION DEMAND ISSUE BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG DOLLAR ISSUE BECAUSE IT INVOLVES THE, UH, UH, POWER PLANTS.
UM, AND I CAN ASK COST ENERGY ARE THE PROPOSED COST ALLOCATION METHODS THAT BOTH AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE JUDGE ARE RECOMMENDING.
ARE THEY BASICALLY THE ONES WE'RE USING TODAY IN THE PRESENT RATE STRUCTURE OR ARE THEY SOMETHING DIFFERENT? UM, THE RATE STRUCTURE TODAY FOR IS BASED ON A SETTLEMENT AND, UH, SO THERE WAS REALLY NO RESOLUTION OF THE COST ALLOCATION ISSUE ON PRODUCTION DEMAND.
UH, YOU KNOW, AUSTIN ENERGY DID PROPOSE 12 CP, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE USING HERE.
THEY PROPOSED THE SAME THING THAT THEY'RE USING HERE, BUT THERE WAS NO RESOLUTION OF THAT ISSUE.
UH, COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN, LAST QUESTION.
AND THEN I THINK LET'S, UH, TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.
AND MY QUESTION WILL BE FOR MR. KAUFMAN.
SO, WELL ACTUALLY I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND WRAP UP THIS YEAH.
SO, UM, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AND THEN PULL UP AUSTIN ENERGY.
UH, THEN I'LL HAVE TO COMBINE THIS, UH, UH, JOHN, THERE WERE TWO, TWO ITEMS, UH, TURN YOUR MIC OFF TWO, TWO ITEMS MR. KAUFMAN, UH, DID AUSTIN ENERGY MADE IT SPUR THE PROOF OVERALL? AND SECONDLY, UH, THEY RECOMMENDED, UH, THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED, UH, CONSIDERATION OF A, BECAUSE OF THE LOW SATURATION RATE IN THE CURRENT CAP PROGRAM, WHICH, WHICH YOU SUPPORT, UH, THEY RECOMMENDED A CAP PLUS PROGRAM FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT BEING COVERED, UH, UNDER THE CURRENT LIMITATIONS OF THE CAP PROGRAM.
UH, TELL US FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE IN OTHER STATES, UH, HOW SUCH A PROGRAM WOULD BE FORMULATED.
WHICH LET, LET ME, UH, MENTION THAT FIRST IN THAT, UM, THE, UH, THE CAP PROGRAM, UH, REACHES APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR IT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM AND IT, AND DOES HAVE AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT, UH, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.
UM, AND IT'S, IT'S THAT, IT'S THAT FACT THAT, THAT MAKES ME NOT, UM, MAKES ME RELUCTANT TO SUPPORT, UH, EXPANSION OF THE CAP PROGRAM AS A SOLUTION TO THIS RATE SHOCK PROBLEM, UH, OR, OR, AND SO, UM, I, I THINK THAT THERE CERTAINLY WOULD BE ROOM TO IMPROVE THE CAP PROGRAM AND, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH, WITH THAT AS A, AS A SOLUTION, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A SOLUTION TO THE, THE, THE, THE RADICAL PERCENTAGES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO FOR WHATEVER REASON ARE ON THE LOW, LOW USAGE SIDE.
AND WE KNOW THAT MANY OF THOSE ARE LOW INCOME AND FOR SOME REASON HAVE NOT BEEN REACHED BY THE CAP PROGRAM.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF MOBILITY, THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST CHAOS IN PEOPLE'S LIVES SOMETIMES, AND THEY JUST DON'T GET INTO THAT PROGRAM.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S A SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING IT'S, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
AND I THINK IT PROBABLY HELPS A LOT OF LOW INCOME PEOPLE STAY CURRENT ON THEIR BILLS, BUT, UM, IT'S, IT'S NOT A SOLUTION TO THIS OVERALL RATE STRUCTURE PROBLEM.
UM, THE, OR AT LEAST IN MY MIND, I DON'T THINK THAT BY ALONE THAT COULD, COULD REALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT WE'VE BEEN MOSTLY HARANGING ABOUT TODAY.
UH, THE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF ISSUE.
THAT'S JUST KIND OF A CONCLUSORY THING.
I, I OBVIOUSLY ON MANY OF THE ISSUES, WE DON'T THINK THAT AUSTIN ENERGY PROVED THEIR CASE.
UH, BUT THEY DID HAVE EVIDENCE.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UM, I THINK THE BURDEN OF PROOF ISSUE IS IF, IF, UH, NEITHER, YOU KNOW, UH, IF NEITHER SIDE REALLY MAKES, UH, A, A SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENTIARY CASE, THEN YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO YOU'RE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ERR ON THE SIDE, UH, AGAINST THE UTILITY, CUZ THEY HAVE THE, THE BURDEN, THEY HAVE MOST OF THE INFORMATION, THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO GO FORWARD.
BUT, UH, IT JUST, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON VARIOUS ISSUES, WHETHER OR NOT THAT THAT BURDEN OF PROOF WAS MET.
I, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ANSWER BETTER THAN THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. KAUFMAN.
UH, SO WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK BE BACK AT EXACTLY EIGHT O'CLOCK WE'LL HEAR FROM AUSTIN ENERGY.
[02:20:04]
OKAY.LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY BACK.
WE'LL WE'LL GO BACK ON THE RECORD AND WE HAVE AUSTIN ENERGY PRESENTING FOR US.
MY NAME'S THOMAS BETO AND I REPRESENT AUSTIN ENERGY IN THIS BASE RATE REVIEW, AUSTIN ENERGY IS PUT FORTH A RATE APPLICATION BASED UPON A THOROUGH AND COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF ITS BOOKS AND RECORDS.
THE PROPOSED BASE RATE INCREASE OF 34 5, EXCUSE ME.
0.7 MILLION IS BASED ON A COST OF SERVICE STUDY AND TEST YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2021.
THE COST OF SERVICE STUDY CONFIRMED THAT AUSTIN ENERGY'S RATES AND RATE STRUCTURES ARE NOT MEETING THE COST OF SERVING THE COMMUNITY.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
IN PARTICULAR, CURRENT RESIDENTIAL BASE RATES DO NOT APPROPRIATELY RECOVER COST.
THE CURRENT RATE CLASS STRUCTURE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO AUSTIN ENERGY'S DETERIORATING FINANCIAL POSITION.
THE COST OF SERVICE STUDY RESULTS SUGGEST THAT CHANGES TO THE CURRENT RATE CLASS STRUCTURE ARE NOT ONLY WARRANTED BUT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO STABILIZE AUS AUSTIN ENERGY'S FINANCIAL POSITION AND TO ALLOW THE UTILITY TO CONTINUE DELIVERING AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE ELECTRIC SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.
AUS AUSTIN ENERGY IS REQUESTING ADJUSTMENTS TO ITS BASE RATES FOR THREE PRIMARY REASONS.
FIRST, THE UTILITY FINANCIAL HEALTH HAS BEEN DETERIORATING DUE TO INCREASES IN COSTS OF PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE THAT ARE NOT RECOVERED THROUGH EXISTING RATES.
SECONDLY, AUSTIN ENERGY NEEDS TO REVISE ITS RATE DESIGN, ESPECIALLY FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS IN ORDER TO STABILIZE REVENUES AND MORE EQUITABLY RECOVER ITS COSTS.
AND FINALLY, WITHOUT ADJUSTING BASE RATES, OFTEN ENERGY WILL BE AT RISK OF VIOLATING ITS FINANCIAL POLICIES ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
NOW, BEFORE I DIVE INTO THE CORNERSTONES OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSAL, I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT TO THIS RATE REQUEST.
THIS IS THE THIRD RATE CASE AUSTIN ENERGY HAS HAD SINCE 1994.
THE UTILITY HAS NOT INCREASED ITS BASE RATES SINCE 2012.
ITS MOST RECENT BASE RATE CASE WAS IN 2016 AND THAT RESULTED IN A DECREASE IN BASE RATES OF 42.5 MILLION.
NOW SIX YEARS LATER, AUSTIN ENERGY SEEKS TO INCREASE RATES BY 34 5 0.7 MILLION IN 2023.
EVEN AFTER THIS INCREASE BASE RATES WILL STILL BE LOWER THAN WHAT THEY WERE IN 2015 SIGNIFICANTLY AVERAGE CUSTOMER BILLS WILL REMAIN THE LOWEST IN ERCOT OF ANY OF THE PEER UTILITIES.
SINCE AUSTIN ENERGY'S LAST RATE MAKING TEST YEAR PRICES MEASURED MONTHLY BY THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR ALL URBAN CONSUMERS, FUELS AND UTILITIES HAVE INCREASED 16.5% WHILE RATES HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED.
THIS YEAR ALONE OVERALL INFLATION HAS BEEN ABOVE 8% WITHIN THE CITY AND AUSTIN ENERGY IS NOT IMMUNE TO THESE IMPACTS.
I'D LIKE TO FOCUS NOW ON THREE SPECIFIC ISSUES, REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THE RESIDENTIAL TIER STRUCTURE AND RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE AS NOTED AUSTIN ENERGY IS PROPOSING TO INCREASE ITS BASE RATES BY 35.7 MILLION TO ACCOUNT FOR HIGHER O AND M COSTS AND SPECIFICALLY THE COST OF TO PURCHASE MATERIALS, GOODS AND LABOR ARE ALL INCREASING.
THIS BASE RATE INCREASES CRITICAL AND NECESSARY FOR SEVERAL REASONS.
AUSTIN ENERGY HAS LOST A COMBINED 90 MILLION IN THE PAST TWO YEARS.
THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CONDITION HAS RESULTED IN LESS THAN 150 DAYS OF CASH ON HAND IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY'S FINANCIAL POLICIES ON JUNE 28TH FIT CREDIT RATINGS DOWNGRADED A AUSTIN ENERGY FROM AA TO A MINUS AND NOTABLY.
THIS DOWNGRADE ASSUMES THAT THE ORIGINAL REQUESTED INCREASE OF 48 MILLION IN BASE RATES BE APPROVED JUST TWO WEEKS AGO ON AUGUST 23RD, A SECOND RATING AGENCY S AND P ALSO ISSUED A DOWNGRADE FOR ALL AUSTIN ENERGY.
NOW IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE UTILITIES FINANCIAL HEALTH, AUSTIN ENERGY MUST RECOVER A SIGN, SIGNIFICANT INCREASE TO ITS REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND ITS BASE RATE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE ADOPTED.
NEXT I'D LIKE TO SHIFT AND TALK FOR A MOMENT ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL RATE STRUCTURE.
AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSAL IN THIS CASE SEEKS TO UPDATE AN OUTDATED RESIDENTIAL RATE STRUCTURE, WHICH DOES NOT ACCURATELY RECOVER THE COST TO SERVE CUSTOMERS SPECIFICALLY THE UTILITY PROPOSES TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL RATE TIERS FROM FIVE TO THREE AND TO FAT LATIN, THOSE TIERS CURRENTLY REVENUE GROWTH IS HAMPERED BY OUTDATED RATE DESIGNS THAT RELY TOO HEAVILY ON ENERGY SALES, PARTICULARLY IN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS.
IT IS OUTDATED BECAUSE CONSUMPTION PATTERNS, PATTERNS CONTINUE TO CHANGE IN THE 2012, UH, RATE
[02:25:01]
CASE.THE AVERAGE MONTHLY RESIDENTIAL CONSUMPTION WAS ABOUT 1100 KWH PER MONTH IN THE 2016 CASE THAT HAD FALLEN TO 900 K H PER MONTH.
AUSTIN ENERGY IS PROUD OF THAT ACHIEVEMENT, BUT IT COMES AT A PRICE.
MOST RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS ARE BUILT ON A STEEP FIVE TIER STRUCTURE WITH EACH TIER PRICE PROGRESSIVELY HIGHER.
THE FIRST AND SECOND TIERS ARE PRICED BELOW COST AND ARE SUBSIDIZED BY THE FOURTH AND FIFTH TIERS THAT ARE ABOVE COST.
MORE THAN 40% OF RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS ARE BEING SUBSIDIZED BY OTHER RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
MOREOVER, THERE SIMPLY ARE NOT ENOUGH CUSTOMERS IN THE HIGHER TIERS TO MAKE UP THE REVENUE DEFICIT FROM THE LOWER TIERS UNDER RECOVERY.
THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR QUITE A LONG TIME.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN 2016, RESIDENTIAL CLASS REVENUES WERE $50 MILLION BELOW COST.
YOU DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE THE UTILITY IS FINANCIALLY SOLVENT.
ONLY IF CUSTOMERS USE HIGH LEVELS OF CONSUMPTION.
ADDITIONALLY, CERTAIN COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING COSTS WELL ABOVE THE COST TO SERVE THEM ACCORDINGLY.
THE UTILITY PROPOSES MOVING THESE CLASSES CLOSER TO COST OF SERVICE.
NOW, DESPITE THESE IMBALANCES AUSTIN, ENERGY'S MINDFUL OF THE RIGHT IMPACTS AND THE NEED FOR GRADUALISM AND PROPOSES MOVING THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS 50% TO COST RATHER THAN AN ELIMINATION OF THE ENTIRE SUBSIDY.
THIS IS AN PENALTY AS OTHERS ALLEGE, BUT RATHER AN ATTEMPT, A SINCERE ATTEMPT TO REDUCE A SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDY THAT IS PERSISTED FOR WELL OVER A DECADE.
NOW THE PROPOSED TIER STRUCTURE BETTER REFLECTS CURRENT CONSUMPTION PATTERNS WHILE CONTINUING TO SEND EFFICIENCY SIGNALS.
THE PROPOSAL ALSO REDUCES INTRA AND INTERCLASS SUBSIDIES ENHANCES REVENUE STABILITY AND REDUCES CUSTOMER BILL VOLATILITY.
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING DEMONSTRATED THAT FIVE TIERS DO NOT SEND PRICE SIGNALS THAT CUSTOMERS RESPOND TO.
MOREOVER FIVE TIERS ARE NOT DRIVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY EXPENDITURES.
THAT'S WHAT OUR EVIDENCE HAS DEMONSTRATED.
AND THERE WAS NOT COUNTER EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING.
NO ONE CHALLENGED AUSTIN ENERGY'S BUNCHING ANALYSIS.
FURTHERMORE, AUSTEN ENERGY IS NOT ELIMINATING THE PRICE SIGNAL.
EACH TIERS RATE WILL BE HIGHER THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE, 3.70 CENTS 4.20 CENTS 4.70 CENTS.
NOW I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AUSTEN ENERGY PROPOSALS TO INCREASE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE IN ORDER TO BETTER RECOVER, FIXED COSTS BY RELYING LESS ON ENERGY SALES, THE PROPOSAL WILL INCREASE FIXED CHARGES FOR REVENUE STABILITY BY INCREASING THE CUSTOMER CHARGE FROM 10 TO $25.
AS YOU'VE HEARD TONIGHT, THE HIGHER CUSTOMER CHARGE DECOUPLES FIXED COST RECOVERY WITH KWH CELLS, WHICH ARE INSUFFICIENT TO RECOVER, FIXED COSTS UNDER THE TIERED STRUCTURE CURRENTLY IN PLACE.
AND JUST TO BE CLEAR WHEN YOU INCREASE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, YOU'RE DECREASING THE ENERGY CHARGE BY AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT.
ADDITIONALLY, THE MOST VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS ARE NOT IMPACTED BY CUSTOMER CHARGE INCREASE BECAUSE AUSTIN ENERGY WAVES, THE CUSTOMER CHARGE TO CAP CUSTOMERS THUS THE HIGHER THE CUSTOMER CHARGE.
THE MORE THESE CUSTOMERS BENEFIT OVERALL AUSTIN ENERGY STRIVES TO BRING CUSTOMERS CLOSER TO WHAT IT COSTS TO SERVE THEM, ESTABLISHING MORE EQUITABLE CHARGES AS THE COMMUNITY CONTINUES TO GROW ON FRIDAY.
THE I E ISSUED ITS FINAL REPORT.
THE 148 PAGE REPORTS PRESENTS A THOROUGH AND THOUGHTFUL EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE REPORT.
THE I E AFFIRMED A'S POSITION ON ALMOST EVERY ISSUE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WITH RESPECT TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, HE AGREED WITH AUSTIN ENERGY ON 18 OF 19 CONTESTED ISSUES.
THE ONE ISSUE HE DISAGREED WITH WAS THE AMOUNT OF THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.
SIMILARLY ON COST ALLOCATION, HE REJECTED THE SELF-SERVING POSITIONS PROPOSED BY PARTICIPANTS AND HE AGREED WITH AE BALANCE PROPOSAL ON ALL BUT TWO RELATIVELY SMALL ALLOCATION PROPOSALS.
HE ALSO DETERMINED THAT AUSTIN ENERGY'S VALUE OF SOLAR PROPOSAL WAS APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE.
NOW WITH RESPECT TO RATE DESIGN, HE EXPRESSED CONCERNS, BUT THE REPORT DIRECTS AE TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THE TIERED STRUCTURE RATHER THAN ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PARTICIPANTS.
AND IN THAT REGARD, AUSTIN ENERGY IS CURRENTLY EXAMINING WHETHER OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT PRESERVE CUSTOMER FAIRNESS ARE VIABLE.
AND I WANNA SAY THAT AGAIN, WE ARE LOOKING AT WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT IT CAN
[02:30:01]
ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF THE I G AND SOME OF THE PARTIES.HE ALSO POINTED OUT HOWEVER THAT IF COUNCIL WERE TO FOCUS ON COST CAUSATION, A BASIC FUNDAMENTAL GOAL OF RATE MAKING, THEN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO APPROVE A'S RATE DESIGN MORE OVER.
HE MADE IT CLEAR MULTIPLE TIMES THAT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AUSTIN ENERGY MUST RECOVER ITS REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
THROUGH THE, THROUGH ITS RATES.
AUSTIN ENERGY IS A PUBLIC POWER UTILITY AND IS OWNED BY THE COMMUNITY THAT IT SERVES.
ITS MISSION IS TO PROVIDE CLEAN, RELIABLE, AFFORDABLE ENERGY, AND EXCELLENT CUSTOMER SERVICE, BUT TO CONTINUE TO MEET ITS MISSION, THE UTILITY MUST MAINTAIN FINANCIAL STABILITY IN A WAY THAT IS EQUITABLE TO ALL CUSTOMERS.
AND THAT'S WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS SEEKING IN THIS CASE, FINANCIAL STRENGTH AND CUSTOMER FAIRNESS.
WE EXTEND OUR APPRECIATION TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER RE HEY, UH, HOW ARE YOU, THOMAS? HEY, UM, SO YOU SAID THE, I H E AGREED WITH YOU GUYS ON 18 OF THE 19.
UM, AND YOU YOU'VE, AND YOU YOU'VE HEARD MY QUESTIONS BEFORE.
UM, I WOULD AGREE THAT HE, HE WAS BASICALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU GUYS IN 18 AND 19 OTHER GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.
HE DID RAISE THAT ISSUE OF, UM, HOW YURI AFFECTED SALES AND WHETHER THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DETERMINE HAVE, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU GUYS ARE ABLE TO DO IN RESPONSE? ARE YOU PLANNING TO RESPOND TO THAT IN SOME WAY? YEAH.
I MEAN, I'LL TELL YOU THE, THE, THE IG SURPRISED US A BIT OR SURPRISED ME AT LEAST A BIT ON A COUPLE OF POINTS AND THAT'S ONE OF THEM TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, HE WOULD SAY YOU WIN OR YOU LOSE, AND HERE'S MY RECOMMENDATION, BUT HERE, AS HE NOTED, HE SAID THAT HE, HE WANTED FOR AUSTIN ENERGY TO QUOTE BETTER EXPLAIN THE IMPACT ON TESTIER SALES REVENUES AND BILLING DETERMINANTS.
SO WE'RE REVIEWING OUR EVIDENCE AND THE EVIDENCE PUT ON BY THE OTHER PARTIES AGAIN, UH, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MINDFUL OF HIS RECOMMENDATION AND, AND, UH, AND ARE LOOKING AT IT AGAIN AT THIS POINT, AS Y'ALL KNOW, IT'S ONLY BEEN SINCE FRIDAY, SO I CAN'T, I DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE TO OFFER THAN THAT, ON THAT POINT.
AND THEN JUST ONE MORE QUESTION AND THE SAME IS TRUE LINE LOSS STUDY, SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF, BUT THAT WAS ANOTHER ONE WHERE YOU IT'S KIND OF SAME THING.
TRY AGAIN, OR TRY MORE, TRY HARDER, BUT WITHOUT A REJECTING THE, THE PROPOSAL.
AND THEN YOU MENTIONED AUSTIN ENERGY IS LOOKING AT SOME POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES OTHER THAN YOUR RIGHT DESIGN, HAS AUSTIN ENERGY LOOKED AT THE ICA ALTERNATIVE? UM, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO SAY WE COULD LIVE WITH THAT, OR WE COULD DO THAT, BUT THE CONCEPT OF HAVING A SLIGHTLY LOWER, SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER FIXED CHARGE AND HAVING FOUR TIERS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE EXAMINING AS, AS YOU GO FORWARD? WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
I MEAN, WE CERTAINLY ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPOSALS THAT THE ICA AND THE OTHER PARTIES MAY ARE IN PARTICULAR, THE ICA ON THIS POINT.
UH, WE ALSO, UM, YOU KNOW, SAW THE IEG, MADE SOME SUGGESTIONS AS WELL WITHOUT A FIRM PROPOSAL.
UH, AND SO WE'RE EVALUATING ALL OF THAT, BUT I DON'T HAVE MORE TO ANSWER, UH, TO THANKS RESPOND AT THIS POINT, CHRIS OR CHAPMAN, WE GO BACK WAYS.
UH, LET ME ASK YOU, UH, ONE OF THE REC ONE OF THE RECOGNITIONS, UH, UH, WAS THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT THE CAP PROGRAM I IS NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED, BUT ALL OF WHICH IS WE'VE HEARD TODAY, IT'S ONLY REACHING ABOUT 7% OF THE POPULATION.
THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE REPORT, UH, WAS, UH, CONSIDER A CAP PLUS PROGRAM TO, UH, REACH OTHERS WHO, WHO ARE NOT BEING COVERED THROUGH AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY SERIOUS DISCUSSION ON THAT AT AUSTIN ENERGY? I CAN'T SAY THAT WHETHER THERE HAVE BEEN SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITHIN AUSTIN ENERGY OR NOT, I, I HAVE NOT HAD SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC POINT, UH, IN TERMS OF RESPONDING TO THE, THE IT'S REPORT.
NO, AND, UH, I, I THINK IT'S REALLY, REALLY CRITICAL FOR, FOR US WHEN WE MAKE A, MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION FINAL VOTE.
UH, WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT SOME PRINCIPLES LATER, BUT IN THE IN RATE CASES THAT WE'VE PARTICIPATED IN, UH, IT'S ALWAYS AVAILABLE THE INFORMATION'S THERE TO KNOW THE NUMBERS.
[02:35:01]
THE CON CONSUMER ADVOCATE HAS DEVELOPED AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL.WE DON'T KNOW, WE ONLY HAVE YOUR NUMBERS.
IN FACT, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THE UPDATED NUMBER OR, OR I DON'T HAVE THE UPDATED NUMBERS BASED UPON THE 34.7%.
UH, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE Y'ALL CAN WE GET THAT DATA WITHIN A WEEK OR SO THAT, UH, SO WE KNOW IF THEIR PROPOSAL WERE ADOPTED VERSUS THE, THE, ALL I HAVE IS THE ORIGINAL REQUEST.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE 34, I'M GUESSING 25% IMPACT ACROSS THE BOARD.
Y YEAH, AS YOU YOU'RE ALLUDING TO, UM, ALSO ENERGY IN THE REBUTTAL CASE, UM, CONCEDED, UM, UH, A HANDFUL OF ISSUES THAT REDUCE THE, THE OVERALL REQUEST.
HOWEVER, AT THAT TIME, RERUN THE MODEL AND, AND DO A NEW COST ALLOCATION TO REFLECT THE NEW NUMBERS.
IT JUST, IN TERMS OF THE TIMING, PREPARING FOR THE HEARING AND IT, AND, AND KNOWING THAT THE IG WAS ALSO GOING TO BE MAKING ADJUSTMENTS AS WELL, POTENTIALLY, THAT WAS NOT DONE RIGHT NOW.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WHAT I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, EXPLORING OTHER ALTERNATIVE RATE DESIGN APPROACHES THAT MIGHT BE VIABLE.
UM, AND SO WE'RE NOT LIKE DIRECTLY FOCUSED ON THAT, BUT IN CALCULATING THOSE ALTERNATIVES, WE HAVE TO DO DO SOME OF THAT AS WELL.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR PLAN IS TO, AGAIN, CONTINUE TO KIND OF CRUNCH THOSE NUMBERS FOR THE NEXT FEW DAYS.
WE HAVE, UM, ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH, OR WE'RE HO HOSTING A MEETING OF THE, OF THE PARTIES TO KIND OF GO THROUGH SOME OF THAT NEXT WEEK.
UM, SO WE MIGHT BE IN A BETTER POSITION AT THAT TIME TO, TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, FIRMER NUMBERS THAT KIND OF REFLECT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE, THE, IT, THAT'D BE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, UH, FOR US.
AND, UH, THE, THE, UH, ALL OF WHICH IS, LET ME, LET ME HOLD ON THAT.
I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION LATER.
I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS.
WHAT WE WANNA KNOW IS WILL YOU RUN THE NUMBERS? GOT IT.
UM, MAYBE, AND AT THE POINT TO MAYBE WHERE I NEED TO, TO DEFER OVER TO, TO RUSTY.
I MEAN, I, BUT AGAIN, I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE, THE ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS KIND OF RUNNING THOSE NUMBERS IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPLORING OTHER ALTERNATIVES, THAT FRANKLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF THE IG AND THE PARTIES, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, UH, TRYING TO DEVELOP, YOU KNOW, A VIABLE RATE DESIGN, THAT'S GONNA ALLOW THE UTILITY TO COLLECT ITS ITS REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
SO IT'S, IT'S KIND OF PART AND PARCEL TO THAT.
I THINK WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ME AND SEVERAL OF US WHO'VE DISCUSSED THIS IS TO KNOW FOR IT, TO HAVE YOU RUN THE NUMBERS BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE I'S RECOMMENDATION IS, RIGHT.
AND THERE'S SOME THAT EQUIVOCATE SOME ISSUES AND TO LET US SEE WHAT YOUR, YOUR NUMBER RUNS WOULD BE ON YOUR NEW, LOWER REVENUE REQUIREMENT INCREASE.
AND TO SEE WHAT THE NUMBER RUN WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR THE, UM, CONSUMER ADVOCATES, UM, CASE THOSE THREE.
AND, AND I HEAR YOU THAT, AND, AND IT'S, I'M ENCOURAGED TO HEAR THAT YOU'RE WORKING TOWARDS, UM, WORKING WITH THE PARTIES AND TRYING TO FOLLOW THE URGING OF THE EXAMINER TO TRY TO WORK SOME OF THIS OUT.
BUT I, YOU KNOW, YOU AND I GO WAY BACK TOO.
AND, UM, WHILE ALL SUGGESTING THAT I'M GETTING OLD, BUT GO AHEAD.
UM, UH, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND ABOUT RATE MAKING AND, AND, AND, AND THAT IS THAT THEORETICALLY THE DECISION MAKER IS GONNA DECIDE EACH OF THE DISCRETE ISSUES AND THEN WHAT FALLS OUT, FALLS OUT.
AND THAT'S HOW WE APPROACHED IT TOO.
BUT I HAVE NEVER SEEN A DECISION MAKER WHO DIDN'T WANNA KNOW WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE NUMBER WAS.
WE WANNA KNOW WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE WE WANNA KNOW WHAT THE RIGHTS WOULD BE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AS WELL.
LET ME VISIT, WE ARE GOING TO BE REQUESTING THAT OF YOU.
UM, AND I'LL JUST ADD ONTO THAT.
JUST ONE MORE NOTE IS THAT WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT INFORMATION IN ADVANCE OF THE OCTOBER MEETING.
CAUSE WE'RE GONNA MAKE A DECISION AT THE OCTOBER MEETING AND, AND I AT LEAST WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT WITH THAT INFORMATION.
I MEAN, I LEARNED A LOT TONIGHT.
I'D LIKE TO SIT WITH THE, WITH THE NUMBERS, UM, AND SO SOMETHING IN ADVANCE OF THE OCTOBER MEETING.
[02:40:01]
THANKS.IF I MAY ADD, UM, I, I KNOW, UM, COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN MENTIONED LIKE WITHIN A WEEK BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA BE SENDING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
UM, AND SO THE SOONER THE BETTER, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UM, FINAL IMPACT OF THESE RATES ON CUSTOMERS, NOT JUST AN AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER, BUT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE LOWER TIERS OF USE AND PEOPLE IN THE HIGHER TIERS AND DO, UM, CROSS THE BOARD COMPARISON APPLES TO APPLES UNDER THE DIFFERENT PLANS.
AND JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW, AND MAYBE YOU'RE ALREADY AWARE, YOU KNOW, THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE DOES PROVIDE FOR US TO FILE EXCEPTIONS, UH, WHICH KIND OF ARE OUR, UH, OPPORTUNITY AS WELL AS ALL OF THE PARTIES OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN TO OUR AUDIENCE, WHICH IN THIS CASE WILL BE THE COMMISSION, BUT THE, I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, THE COUNCIL, BUT CERTAINLY YOU ALL WILL HAVE ACCESS TO IT AS WELL, WHERE WE KINDA LAY OUT FORMALLY, UH, ANY DISAGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THE IISS, UM, RECOMMENDATION.
SO YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THAT AT YOUR DISPOSAL AFTER THE 26TH.
MY, MY, MY LAST QUESTION, UH, IS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ARE DUMBFOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT RESIDENTIAL RATES WOULD BE INCREASING, UH, WHILE THE LARGE COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS WOULD BE GETTING A BREAK.
AND, UH, AS SOMEONE SAID, UH, AS WE REVIEW THIS, DON'T POKE THE BEAR.
UH, IF AUSTIN ENERGY WERE TO SIMPLY FREEZE, UH, COMMERCIAL, LARGE COMMERCIAL RATES WHERE THEY ARE TODAY, WHAT IMPACT WOULD THAT HAVE, UH, ON REDUCING THE RATE OF RESIDENTIAL, UH, AN INCREASE FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS? DO YOU KNOW THOSE PERCENTAGES? I DON'T, I, I, I, I DON'T HAVE, UH, ANY BASIS FOR ANSWERING THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW, BUT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT AND, UH, THAT I WOULD THINK WOULD BE INFORMATION THAT WE COULD HAVE.
AND I WOULD ALSO NOTE, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, RANDY, CUZ YOU, YOU MENTIONED THE PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC BEING SURPRISED, BUT A PRACTITIONER AT THE PUC CERTAINLY KNOWS THAT WATCHING FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS THAT, YOU KNOW, MORE TIMES THAN NOT THE RESIDENTIAL RATE CLASS, UH, PROPOSAL FOR THE, BY THE UTILITY, UH, DEMONSTRATES THAT THAT CLASS IS, IS GETTING A HIGHER THAN SYSTEM AVERAGE INCREASE BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN CONSUMPTION, CHANGES TO THE UTILITY.
AND THAT'S NOT DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
UNFORTUNATELY, UM, THE SITUATION IS CONTINUED TO GET WORSE AND UM, IT GOT WORSE IN 2016.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE WORLD OF HIRING, UM, THAT 18 OR 1,897 POSITIONS WERE APPROVED AT ONE POINT IN TIME, FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES, UM, 1631, UH, THOUSAND 631 WERE HIRED THAT LEAVES 266, UM, FULL-TIME POSITIONS EMPTY.
AND I'M WONDERING WHAT, WHAT'S THE IMPACT IF WE FREEZE THAT HIRING.
UM, AND CAN THAT BE DONE? WHAT WOULD THAT DO? UM, ECONOMICALLY I'M NOT, UM, CERTAIN SPECIFICALLY OF THOSE NUMBERS THAT YOU WERE GIVING OUT, BUT, BUT NO UNFILLED POSITIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE REV REQUIREMENT.
AND SIMILARLY ON THE ISSUE THAT YOU WERE ASKING EARLIER ABOUT K UH, THE KNOWN AND MEASURABLE, UM, IT'S, I'VE BEEN INFORMED, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT THAT AS OF TODAY, EVERY POSITION FOR THE, THE, I THINK THE LEASE ISSUE OR THE CALL CENTER ISSUE HAVE BEEN IN FACT FILLED, AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT IN THE RECORD EVIDENCE, BUT I'M SHARING THAT WITH YOU ALL, JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE AS WELL, CUZ YOU SEEM TO EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE KNOWN AND MEASURABLE STANDARD THAT THE I E HAD APPLIED.
AND I THINK THAT'S DISCUSSING PAGES 11 THROUGH 14 OF THE, THE REPORTING.
COULD YOU CHECK YOUR NUMBERS? CUZ I GOT AN EMAIL FROM ROBIN VERY RECENTLY INDICATING THAT UH, CONFIRMING, UH, 260 THERE'S 260 EMPTY POSITIONS RIGHT NOW IS AND IS THAT A UTILITY WIDE? UH, NUMBER? YES.
AND IT APPEARS THAT THE NUMBERS SHE SENT OUT THAT ROBIN SENT OUT WERE FROM, I
[02:45:01]
DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE A WORKING PAPER FROM YOUR RIGHT CASE, BUT UH, IT ALL, THIS IT'S RECENT, RIGHT? EXCUSE ME.THIS RECENT DA DATA THAT THEY, UH, PREPARE AUSTIN ENERGY PREPARED.
YOU KNOW, I DID SOME ROUGH NUMBERS THAT, THAT INDICATED IF YOU HAVE AN AVERAGE SALARY OF, OF $80,000, WHEN YOU ADD IN ALL BENEFITS, SOCIAL SECURITY SURE.
HEALTHCARE, IF THAT'S THE AVERAGE THAT WOULD THAT NUMBERED ABOUT 20 MILLION.
SO IF, IF HER INFORMA AND HER EMAIL INDICATED THAT THOSE JOBS ARE ALL BEING FILLED, BUT THEY'RE VACANT NOW.
SO THE IMPACT OF A RATE FREEZE IS IMPORTANT.
SO I MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON IT.
UM, I BELIEVE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU REQUESTED WERE EXISTING AUSTIN ENERGY EMPLOYEES AND THAT THERE ARE 200 VACANCIES AND THAT'S TRUE.
UM, BUT THE POTENTIAL OF THOSE SALARIES ARE NOT IN THE TEST YEAR, THE TEST YEAR ACTUAL COSTS.
SO THERE ARE VACANCIES OF OUR FULL-TIME AUSTIN ENERGY EMPLOYEES.
THOSE SALARIES ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE TEST YEAR.
IT'S JUST ACTUAL SALARIES PAID.
NOW WE ALSO TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE KNOWN AND MEASURABLES FOR THE APPLE ONE CONTRACT, WHICH ARE CONTRACTED EMPLOYEES, WHICH ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE SET OF EMPLOYEES.
YOU REQUESTED INFORMATION ON THAT KNOWN AND MEASURABLE WAS, IS, UM, THERE WAS CONCERN THAT WE WOULDN'T STAFF UP AT A POINT IN TIME THAT, UM, OR THAT WE WOULDN'T STAFF UP TO THE LEVEL THAT WE INCLUDED IN OUR KNOWN I MEASURABLE.
AND THAT'S WHAT MR. BETO SAID, WE'VE ALREADY MET THAT, THAT, THAT STAFFING LEVEL ON A CONTRACTED BASIS.
SO FREEZING SALARIES WON'T CHANGE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT OR FREEZING, UH, FREEZING, UH, UH, UH, 200 EMPLOYEES IS NOT, IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT CUZ THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT NEVER HAD THOSE SALARIES IN 'EM TO BEGIN WITH.
IF, IF THEY WEREN'T FILLED POSITIONS IN BEING PAID, THEN THEY WEREN'T INCLUDED.
I I EXCUSE ME, BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.
THE, BUT THE CHART SHOWS CONTRACTED POSITIONS AND THE CHART IS ACTUALLY 263 EMPLOYEES.
UM, UH, THOMAS, COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND ECONOMICALLY, UH, WHAT A ECONOMICALLY VULNERABLE CUSTOMER IS AS THE HEARING EXAMINER USED THAT TERM REPEATEDLY? I, I NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE, I G'S REPORT IN MORE DETAIL TO SEE.
I MEAN, I'M, I'M FAMILIAR WITH HIM USING THE, THAT TERM AND I'VE, YOU KNOW, HEARD IT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE CASE, BUT I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC DEFINITION.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S, IF HE HAS ONE THAT HE'S USED AS WELL.
I MEAN, THERE'S, I HAVE A LAYMAN'S UNDERSTANDING, BUT IF, I MEAN, IS THERE SOMETHING YOU THAT YOU HAVE IN MIND? WELL, HE, HE, HIS CONCERN WITH THE PROPOSED RATE DESIGN IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON ECONOMICALLY VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS.
AND I WANNA KNOW WHO, I MEAN, DID HE, IS THERE EVIDENCE RELATED TO THAT? I MEAN, IS IT PEOPLE AT, AT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE POVERTY LEVEL, IT'S, HE'S NOT TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY IN THE CAP PROGRAM, RIGHT? IT'S, THAT'S A, IT'S A BROADER, UH, IT'S A BROADER GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS THAN SIMPLY THOSE ON CAP.
BUT AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL HIM DEFINING IT.
I DON'T RECALL IN THE CASE, IT BEING DEFINED, THERE MAY BE THOSE WHO, UM, WORK ON THESE PROGRAMS MORE CLOSELY THAT HAVE A, A SPECIFIC DEFINITION.
I'M NOT AWARE OF A SPECIFIC DEFINITION, BUT EVEN IF YOU GIVE IT, UH, YOU KNOW, SORT OF THE BROADEST DEFINITION, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, WE, WE, I WOULD INTERPRET THIS AGAIN.
YOU MAY BE TREATING IT, UM, SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY, BUT I WOULD EXPECT THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, SORT OF A LAYMAN'S UNDERSTANDING OF INDIVIDUALS WHO AGAIN, MAY NOT BE IN THE CAP PROGRAM, BUT WHO STILL, UM, YOU KNOW, COULD POTENTIALLY EXPERIENCE RATE SHOCK AS A RESULT OF THE, THE PROPOSALS OR, YOU KNOW, ALONG WELL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE HIS, THE EXAMINER'S PROPOSAL IS, IS THAT YOU SOMEHOW EXPAND OR CREATE A NEW PROGRAM, EXPAND CAP, OR TO ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF THE RATE PROPOSAL ON THESE VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS.
AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE, IT'S GONNA BE KIND OF HARD TO CREATE A PROGRAM
[02:50:01]
TO CAPTURE THEM.I MEAN, THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A SPECIFIC CRITERIA, A SPECIFIC FORMULA FOR CAP CUSTOMER ELIGIBILITY, BUT HE DIDN'T GIVE US ANYTHING BEYOND THAT.
AND AGAIN, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT TERM OF BEING, GIVEN A, GIVEN A, A SPECIFIC DEFINITION.
UM, AGAIN, OTHERS WHO ARE INTIMATE WITH THESE PROGRAMS. I MEAN, RANDY, DO, I MEAN, THEY MAY, THEY MAY BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT AN EXACTLY THE IHE HAD IN MIND.
I HAD THE SAME QUESTION WHEN I READ THE, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION AND HE NEVER DEFINES IT.
HE USES IT IN A GENERIC FASHION.
UH, WE HAVE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS OF, UH, OF, UM, ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS FOR THE CAP PROGRAM.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO KNOW.
I MEAN, IT'S ALONG THE LINES OF ALSO NOT TELLING US EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANS WHEN HE SAYS, YOU KNOW, CAP PLUS, UH, SO I THINK IT'S GONNA BE UP TO, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S, IF THERE'S GONNA BE ANY PROGRESS MADE ON THAT, IT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE BETWEEN THE UTILITY AND THE, THE PARTIES.
I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL MM-HMM
AND SO IF, IF YOUR REBUTTAL POSITION IS LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL ASK, I MEAN, ARE YOU CONCERNED AT ALL THAT THERE, THERE WILL BE A FURTHER DOWNGRADE EVEN FROM, UH, IF YOU GET THE REBUTTAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT? WELL, AS FAR AS THE S AND P ADJUSTMENT, UM, SINCE IT'S BEEN SO RECENT, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY, THEY AND I HAVE NOT SEEN THE, UM, THE, UH, PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS, UM, ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEIR DOWNGRADE ASSUMED A SPECIFIC, UH, LEVEL OF, OF RATE RELIEF, THE FIT ONE DEFINITELY DID.
UH, AND YOU OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THE UTILITY CERTAINLY CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, WHAT, WHAT THEIR CREDIT, UM, RATING AGENCIES MAY DO.
UM, BUT I DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE OF, UH, WE HAVEN'T HEARD MORE FROM, FROM FIT S AND P THAT I'M AWARE OF, UM, SUGGESTING WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT DO, UM, FOLLOWING THIS, THIS CASE.
THE EXAMINER POSITS, THIS QUESTION, SHOULD CONSERVATION AFFORDABILITY AND GRADUALISM BE SUBORDINATED TO INCREASING FINANCIAL STABILITY AND ALIGNING INTRA CLASS COST CAUSATION WHAT'S AUSTIN.
ME WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING ON THAT PAGE.
I, I JUST WROTE A NOTE TO MYSELF THAT SAY IT AGAIN.
THIS IS OF THE REPORT, NOT OF THE FILE THAT WE GOT THE OTHER, CORRECT.
TELL ME AGAIN, SHOULD CONSERVATION AFFORDABILITY AND GRADUALISM BE SUBORDINATED TO INCREASING FINANCIAL STABILITY AND ALIGNING INTRA CLASS CAUSED CAUSATION WHAT'S AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESPONSE TO THAT SUGGESTED, DO YOU FIND, ARE YOU FINDING IT, THOMAS? NO, I'M NOT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M IT'S ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 100.
IT'S THE LAST SENTENCE OR SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE.
THANK YOU, MR. BE POLICY CHOICES INCLUDE WHETHER CONSERVATION AFFORDABILITY AND GRADUALISM WITHIN THE INTRA CUSTOMER CLASS CONTEXT SHOULD BE SUBORDINATED TO A'S LEGITIMATE GOALS OF INCREASING FINANCIAL STABILITY AND ALIGNING WELL, I THINK THAT IT IT'S, THIS IS, I MEAN, I'VE WATCHED COST ALLOCATION WITNESSES ON THE STAND FOR 30 YEARS.
I MEAN, THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT FACTORS THAT ONE HAS TO CONSIDER AS A DECISION MAKER, AS A COST ALLOCATION WITNESS AND SETTING RATES THAT, YOU KNOW, TRY TO BALANCE ALL THESE VERY LEGITIMATE GOALS.
SO I, I, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN SAY DEFINITIVELY THAT ONE IS, SHOULD BE, OR TWO OR THREE EVEN SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SUBORDINATED TO THE OTHERS, BUT I, BUT THOSE ARE ALL IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS WHEN SETTING, SETTING RATES.
THAT'S WHAT MAKES THIS A CHALLENGE? THANKS.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER HAS, IS, UH, SUGGESTING THAT HIS UNDERSTANDING OF A'S, UH,
[02:55:01]
RATE PROPOSAL IS THAT, UM, IT, THAT IT WOULD, THAT THE UTILITY WOULD, UM, SUBORDINATE THOSE, UH, RATE MAKING CONCERNS, RATE, MAKING POLICIES, UH, TO, UH, IN SUPPORT OF INCREASED FINANCIAL STABILITY.DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? NO, I DON'T.
I MEAN, I'LL CONCEDE THAT AS I NOTED IN MY, MY PREPARED REMARKS THAT, YOU KNOW, HE DID EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT POTENTIAL RAID SHOCK, TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT AND AGREE WITH IT OR THAT HE LAYS THAT OUT.
HE CERTAINLY MADE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES.
AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING DOING THAT.
UH, BUT HE ALSO MADE A POINT OF SAYING REPEATEDLY THAT IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW COST CAUSATION PRINCIPLES, WHICH AGAIN IS A BASIC FUNDAMENTAL TENANT OF RATE MAKING, THEN AE PROPOSAL IS REASONABLE AND SHOULD BE ADOPTED.
MOREOVER, HE MAKES IT CLEAR, AT LEAST IN TWO INSTANCES THAT YOU GOTTA HAVE A RATE DESIGN THAT ALLOWS THE UTILITY TO RECOVER THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE APPROVING A REVENUE REQUIREMENT ONLY TO DESIGN RATES IN A MANNER WHERE THE UTILITY DOESN'T COLLECT IT AND HAS TO COME BACK A FEW YEARS LATER.
QUESTIONER HAD, UM, AS A CUSTOMER, I FEEL A LITTLE BIT SLAPPED AROUND AS A AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMER BECAUSE I'M ONE OF THE MANY, MANY PEOPLE IN THE CITY WHO HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS, AND I'M PROUD OF THAT.
WE'VE GOT, UM, CLIMATE CHANGE GOING ON.
THIS, UM, COMMISSION HAS PASSED AN EMERGENCY CLIMATE, UH, RESOLUTION AND URGED COUNCIL TO TAKE ACTION.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE, OKAY, NOW WE'RE CONCERNED, UM, ABOUT NOT ENOUGH REVENUES.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO DID THOSE MEASURES ARE NOW GETTING PENALIZED.
AND I, I AM AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO FEEL LIKE WHY ARE LARGE, UM, INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL, UH, CUSTOMERS GETTING A BREAK.
UM, AND IT FEELS LIKE IT IS ON THE BACK OF THOSE OF US WHO ARE EVERYDAY RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS IN THE CITY.
AND I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS THAT CONCERN.
WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO RESPOND TO THAT? SURE.
I WOULD SAY THAT AUSTIN ENERGY'S APPROACH IS THAT, UM, UH, THEY'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND THAT CUSTOMERS HAVE BENEFITED AND OUR SOCIETY AND OUR ENVIRONMENT HAVE BENEFITED FROM THAT.
AND THEY'RE NOT MOVING AWAY FROM THAT COMMITMENT.
AND, UH, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I MEAN, THIS IS A CLASSIC CONSEQUENCE OF BEING SUCCESSFUL IN YOUR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS. AS YOU GET TO A PLACE WHERE YOU'RE NOT RECOVERING YOUR FIXED COST.
AND, UH, IN ORDER TO AGAIN, MAINTAIN THE FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF THE UTILITY, UH, THERE HAS TO BE SOME BALLOTING, BUT, YOU KNOW, AS I NOTED IN MY REMARKS, THIS IS STILL A, YOU KNOW, A, A STEPPED INCRE A, A STEP TIER STRUCTURE, UH, THAT DOES SEND A PRICE SIGNAL.
I MEAN, EVERY OTHER UTILITY THAT THE INTERVENER EARLIER, I THINK MR. ROBBINS, YOU LISTED ALL THE LOW CUSTOMER CHARGES.
EVERY ONE OF THOSE UTILITIES HAS A FLAT CU UH, FLAT ENERGY RATE.
THEY DON'T HAVE A TIERED STRUCTURE, ALL SYNERGY DOES AND, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO UNDER THE, THE UTILITIES PROPOSAL.
THAT'S WHY THEIR CUSTOMER CHARGES LOW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. PDA? ALL RIGHT.
REALLY APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S TIME AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
SO I'D LIKE TO TAKE UP ITEM NUMBER 12 QUICKLY, AND THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE WORKING GROUP UPDATE.
AND I KNOW THAT THE, UH, BUDGET AND AUDIT WORKING GROUP HAVE DRAFT PRINCIPLES FOR RATE REVIEW THAT THEY'D LIKE TO, UH, PRESENT.
AND WHAT I'M GONNA PROPOSE IS THAT THIS BE A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION OF WHAT THE, THE, THEIR PRINCIPLES FOR RATE REVIEW, UH, THAT THEY'VE ARE PROPOSING.
AND THEN WE ALL TAKE IT HOME AND SIT WITH IT AND, UH, AND THEN BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS BOTH THIS DOCUMENT AND EVERYTHING WE LEARN TONIGHT, UM, AT THE OCTOBER MEETING.
[12. Discussion of report regarding City Council action on items previously reviewed by the EUC.]
ITEM NUMBER 12.UH, THIS IS THE DISCUSSION OF REPORT REPORT REGARDING CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON ITEMS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE EUC CIRCULATED WITH YOUR, UH, MEETING MATERIALS.
[03:00:01]
OR CORRECTIONS, LET ME KNOW, HEARING NONE.AL WAIT, DO I NEED A, I DON'T NEED A MOTION ON THIS.
[13. Update from the Budget & Audit Working Group]
NUMBER 13, UPDATE FROM THE BUDGET AND AUDIT WORKING GROUP, UH, WHO WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT ON THE DRAFT PRINCIPLES FOR RATE REVIEW, ALL OF WHICH IS, UH, YOU HA YOU HAVE THE DRAFT PRINCIPLES, UH, UH, BEFORE YOU, I WOULD, AT THIS POINT, RATHER, RATHER THAN GO THROUGH THEM INDIVIDUALLY, I WOULD ASK FOR, UH, GENERAL COMMENTS, UH, SINCE WE'RE NOT VOTING TONIGHT, CERTAINLY GET A SENSE FROM OTHERS PRESENT, UH, PRESENT.THEY, THEY DO REPRESENT THE COLLECTIVE THOUGHT, AND I HAVE COPIES FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T SEEN THEM, BUT I WOULD LIKE, I WOULD WELCOME A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION.
SHALL WE JUST READ THEM? SO EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE.
CERTAINLY RECOMMENDATION THE THERE'S FOUR, UH, ALONG WITH THE FUTURE, THE FUTURE RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, CONSIDER, UH, THE EFFECTS OF ELECTRIFICATION VEHICLE ELECTRIFICATION, NOT SUBJECT TO THE RATE CASE, BUT OR GENERAL RECOMMENDATION.
NUMBER ONE IS IN SETTING RATES, ANY CHANGES TO COST ALLOCATION AND RATE DESIGN SHOULD APPLY THE RATE, MAKING POLICIES OF GRADUALISM AND AVOIDANCE OF RATE SHOCK FOR EACH CUSTOMER CLASS GRADUALISM SHOULD BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO CLASSES WHICH WOULD RECEIVE A REVENUE OR RATE REDUCTION AND TO CLASSES THAT WOULD RECEIVE A RATE, UH, UH, INCREASE UNDER THE ADOPTED CLASS REVENUE, DISTRIBUTION APPROACH, COMMENTS, THERE BEING NO COMMENTS, NUMBER TWO MM-HMM
AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S RECOMMENDATION TO MY ONLY COMMENT ON THAT WOULD BE, UM, THE ICA ITSELF GAVE A RANGE OF ONE TO $3 AND $3 WOULD ACTUALLY BE 30%.
SO ALL OF WHICH IS THESE ARE PRINCIPLES, THESE ARE PRINCIPLES, RIGHT? AND, AND I BELIEVE THE ICA SET 'EM UP TO, UP TO.
SO, YOU KNOW, 20%, HOW DO YOU DEFINE RATE SHOCK? YEAH, SO ANYWAY, THAT, BUT WE CAN DISCUSS IT AT THE NEXT MEETING.
I JUST THIRD PRINCIPLE THREE OR FOUR AUSTIN ENERGY'S REVENUE REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE TEST YEAR, BUT BE ADJUSTED FOR KNOWN AND MEASURABLE CHANGES AND WEATHER NORMALIZATION.
THIS SHOULD INCLUDE KNOWN MAJOR WEATHER EVENTS AND THE NUMBER OF STAFFING REDUCTIONS I E M P FTE POSITIONS.
AND ON THAT, I BELIEVE EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAS THE DATA THAT ROBIN HAS SHARED.
FOURTH PRINCIPLE FOR RATE REVIEW IS EXISTING DIFFERENCES FOR REVENUES AND RATE STRUCTURES FOR THE, FOR CITY OF AUSTIN CUSTOMERS.
AND THOSE FROM OTHER NEARBY COMMUNITIES SHOULD BE MAINTAINED WITH NO ADDITIONAL COST SHIFTING THAT'S.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN ENGLISH?
[03:05:01]
WORDS, WITHIN THAT, WITHIN THAT NOT BE LOOKING THE CONCEPT OF NOBODY'S GAINING, NOBODY'S GAINING THAT CONCLUDES IT.I DON'T WELCOME ANY DISCUSSION.
WELL, HOW ABOUT NUMBER FIVE? OH, NUMBER FIVE, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, I WOULD JUST TUNE UP SOME OF THE LANGUAGE TIME OF USE IMPLIES A CERTAIN PEAK SHOULDER OFF PEAK.
AND YEAH, WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO GET TO EVENTUALLY IS INTELLIGENT CHARGING THAT CAN VARY FROM THAT THAT'S BASED UPON WHOLESALE PRICES OR GRID, STRESS, OR EMISSIONS.
AND SO IT, I WOULD STRIKE T YOU AND PUT SOMETHING MORE ABOUT INTELLIGENT CHARGING, INTELLIGENT, VERY CHARGING MM-HMM
AND ALSO, UM, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE PV PLUS STORAGE BEHIND THE, THE METER STORAGE INCENTIVES, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT IN SOME WAY, UM, THE ROADMAP FOR USING ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERIES AS A RESOURCE CAN BE CONSIDERABLE.
AND EITHER I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE VEHICLE TO HOME OR VEHICLE TO GRID AND SETTING THAT UP, MM-HMM,
AND IT'S A LOT MORE ECONOMIC SOMETIMES THAN BEHIND THE METER STATIONARY STORAGE.
AND I'M NOT READY TO SUBMIT LANGUAGE OR ANYTHING AS OF YET, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS, UM, EVEN WITH SENTENCE OR SO, UM, THE VALUE OF SOLAR.
WELL, I APPRECIATE, UH, THE, OH, GO AHEAD.
I'M SORRY TO BE THE SKUNK AT THE PARTY.
UH, THESE, I MEAN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT PEOPLE HAVE PUT INTO THIS, BUT THESE DON'T SEEM LIKE PRINCIPLES TO ME.
THEY SEEM LIKE SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED TONIGHT.
AND I MEAN, THEY, THEY SEEM SPECIFICALLY ORIENTED TO ANSWER THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT WERE HERE TONIGHT.
HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH ARE WE GONNA INCREASE, UH, THE, UM, UH, THE, THE FIXED CHARGE, UH, HOW ARE WE GOING TO, HOW MANY TIERS ARE WE GONNA HAVE? UH, I MEAN, THESE ARE SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE KIND OF IN, IN MY VIEW RIGHT NOW BEING MASSAGED BY THE PARTIES WHO NO DOUBT ARE GONNA BE TALKING AFTER TONIGHT AND, AND STUFF I'M NOT READY TO AGREE TO PRINCIPLES THAT PRESUPPOSE SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO ALL THOSE QUESTIONS.
UM, I, I, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT CUZ WE'RE, WE'RE NOT BOUND BY IT, BUT, UM, IT, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A PRINCIPLE.
I, I, EXCUSE ME, I'D BE CLEAR.
AND I THINK I, I, I, I THINK MARTY WAS TOO, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A VOTE TONIGHT, UH, ON THE, ON THE PRINCIPLES, BUT THEY, THESE, THESE REFLECT THE COLLECTIVE COLLECTIVE, UH, THOUGHTS CONCERNING, UH, AND TO GIVE GUIDANCE, UH, TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO THE PARTIES AND, AND AUSTIN ENERGY AND EVENTUALLY TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THAT'S, THAT'S THE POINT OF DEVELOPING THE POLICE.
I, I UNDERSTAND ALL I'M SAYING IS I'D RATHER LET THEM WORK ON IT AND COME BACK TO US WITH SOMETHING.
MAYBE THAT'S AN AGREED DEAL THAT DOESN'T FIT WITHIN THESE PRINCIPLES.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT IF EVERYBODY AGREES TO A FINAL ANSWER THAT DOESN'T FIT WITH YOUR PRINCIPLES THAT WE'RE AGAINST IT? NO.
WELL, ALL OF WHICH IS IT, IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A DISCUSSION DRAFT, UH, AND CERTAINLY IF THERE'S A UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, OF COURSE, WE'RE GONNA AGREE WITH THE UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT.
UH, SO I, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T, I DID NOT MEAN IT IN THAT CONTEXT.
I, I TAKE THIS AS THE WORKING GROUPS, UH, LIST OF, I WOULD SAY CONCERNS AND WHERE THEIR HEAD IS.
AT LEAST SOME OF, AT LEAST SOME MEMBERS OF THE WORKING GROUP WHERE THEIR HEAD IS RIGHT NOW, UH, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAD PRIOR TO THIS EVENING'S MEETING.
BUT I AM, YOU KNOW, I, LIKE I SAID, I I'M GOING TO GO HOME, DO SOME MORE READING, SIT WITH THE INFORMATION THAT I HEARD TONIGHT, UM, AND COME PREPARED TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, FOLSOM DISCUSSION IN OCTOBER.
AND WE'LL BE POSTED FOR ACTION RIGHT AT THAT TIME.
I MOVE, WE ADJOURN
[03:10:10]
YEAH.IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WORK FOR US TOO.