* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. ROBIN, ARE [00:00:01] WE READY? STAFF? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND I CALL [CALL MEETING TO ORDER] THIS MEETING AT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION TO ORDER. IT'S OCTOBER 17TH, 2022 AT 6:00 PM NO, EXCUSE ME, 6:04 PM WE'RE HERE AT THE AUSTIN ENERGY HEADQUARTERS, AND VIRTUALLY FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE AN ATTENDANCE COMMISSIONERS, TU YANKER, KERRY VIRTUAL, I JUST BLANKED ON YOUR LAST NAME. COMMISSIONER BOWEN. COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN, COMMISSIONER REED. AND VIRTUALLY WE HAVE COMMISSIONER TROL. UH, FIRST WE [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL] WILL HEAR, UH, GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. THE FIRST SPEAKER WE HAVE ISK, YOU SIT DOWN HERE OR THINK YOU'D GO TO THE PODIUM UP THERE. HI, MY NAME IS BILL OKIE, AND FOR THOSE OF Y'ALL WHO DON'T KNOW ME, I'VE BEEN IN THE AFFORDABILITY ADVOCATE IN AUSTIN SINCE 1983 WHEN I WON MY FIRST ELECTRIC RATE CASE WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL CUT A RATE INCREASE IN HALF ON APRIL 12TH, 1984. I, I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THESE RATE CASES VERY CAREFULLY EVER SINCE. UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THESE RAPE CASES VERY CAREFULLY SINCE 1984. AND, UH, THE RESEARCH THAT I'VE DONE ON THE CURRENT RAPE CASE IS ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING AND SHOCKING. AT THE SAME TIME, I WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS RAPE PROPOSAL IS BUILT UPON A FALSE FOUNDATION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. IN APRIL, WHEN THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED THE PRESENTATION FROM AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, THEY SAID THAT WE ARE NOT SELLING ENOUGH ELECTRICITY. WE'RE LOSING REVENUE. WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE THAT IS NOT RELATED TO ENERGY SALES. SO WE'RE GONNA MULTIPLY THE CUSTOMER CHARGE BY TWO AND A HALF TIMES. WELL, GUESS WHAT? IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR OWN CHARTS IN THAT VERY FIRST PRESENTATION, YOU WILL SEE THAT REVENUES EXCEEDED EXPENDITURE IN 20 17, 20 18, AND 2019. IT WASN'T UNTIL 20, NOT 2020 AND 2021, UH, THAT YOU STARTED TO SEE EXPENDITURES EXCEED REVENUES. AND THERE'S THREE REASONS FOR THAT. NUMBER ONE, THE PANDEMIC WHEN ALL THE BUSINESSES WERE CLOSES AND PEOPLE STAYED HOME. NUMBER TWO, THE WINTER STORM, WHICH EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW THAT SLOWED DOWN ENERGY SALES. AND THEN THE THIRD THING, WHICH ISN'T TALKED ABOUT VERY MUCH, MUCH, IS THAT, UH, THE SUMMER OF 2021 LAST SUMMER WAS A MILDER THAN THAN NORMAL SUMMER. SO ALL THREE OF THOSE FACTORS DROVE DOWN, UH, ENERGY SALES. AND WHEN I TALKED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE RATE CASE, I TALKED TO MANY OF THOSE MEMBERS OVER MANY HOURS AND DAYS. AND WHAT I LEARNED IS THAT, UH, THEY HAVE PLENTY OF REVENUE OPTIONS, PLENTY OF, UH, COST SAVING MEASURES THAT COMPL COMPLETELY ELIMINATE THIS RATE INCREASE. AND THE PROBLEM WITH THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION IN THE, IN THE CHARTS AND EVERYTHING IS THAT, UH, THERE'S, WHEN YOU USE A PRIOR TEST YEAR APPROACH TO SETTING, TO RATE SETTING, UH, IF YOU USE A YEAR THAT HAS AN ANOMALOUS SET OF CONDITIONS LIKE WE HAD IN, IN, IN THE WINTER STORM, IN THE PANDEMIC, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO NORMALIZE THOSE NUMBERS. AND THE RATE CASE PARTICIPANTS TOLD ME THAT AUSTIN ENERGY DID NOT PROP MAKE ENOUGH ADJUSTMENTS TO NORMALIZE IT PROPERLY. SO THE RATE INCREASE IS BUILT ON A FLAWED FOUNDATION TO BEGIN WITH. AND THEN AFTER THAT, UH, THERE ARE JUST SO MANY THINGS THAT THERE ISN'T TIME TO GO THROUGH THEM TONIGHT. BUT WHAT I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO DO IS RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY MEET WITH THE RIGHT CASE PARTICIPANTS, ASK QUESTIONS, STUDY THEIR BRIEFS, INCLUDE AUSTIN ENERGY IN THE DISCUSSIONS, AND UTILIZE THE, THE HARD WORK AND THE EXPERTISE OF THESE WONDERFUL PEOPLE, MANY OF WHOM I'M KNOWN, KNOWN FOR AT LEAST 30 YEARS, UH, USE THEIR EXPERTISE TO GET RID OF THIS RATE INCREASE. AND BECAUSE OF THE DOUBLE RATE SHOCK THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAD TO, HAD TO APPROVE LAST WEEK, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE GONNA PHASE IT IN OVER THREE YEARS, MS. BE YOUR TIME AS FIRE. UH, PLEASE, PLEASE GO BOLD AND RECOMMEND WIPING OUT THE RATE INCREASE BY USING THE EXPERTISE OF THESE EXPERTS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK [00:05:01] YOU, SIR. NEXT COOPER. GOOD EVENING. I'M LYNETTE COOPER AND I REPRESENT, UH, TWO W R IN THE CURRENT BASE RATE PENDING BA. IS THERE SOMETHING I'M SUPPOSED TO TOUCH HERE? OKAY. DOES THAT HELP? ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. AND I HAD SENT YOU ALL THROUGH MISS OTTO, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR FORWARDING THOSE, UH, A COPY OF MY EXCEPTIONS, WHICH IS HOW YOU DISAGREE WITH THE EXAMINER WHO ISSUED THE CASE ALONG WITH THE TWO ATTACHMENTS I HAD MADE WITH THE EXCEPTION, ALONG WITH ACTUAL PAGES FROM AUSTIN ENERGY'S RATE CASE, UH, TO THAT I CITED IN THOSE EXCEPTIONS. AND SO WHAT I'VE DONE ALSO TONIGHT, AND I'VE PASSED TO YOU AND YOU SHOULD ALSO GET IT ELECTRONICALLY, BUT I WAS LATE GETTING IT TO HIM. YOU KNOW, I'M ALWAYS LATE TO THE PARTY, UH, WHICH IS AN OUTLINE, AND I REALLY DON'T WANNA SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN THE OUTLINE. I THINK IT'S SELF EXPLANATORY. EVERY POINT I'VE MADE IN HERE IS SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD EVIDENCE. IF, UH, YOU WANT, UH, SOURCES OF A RECORD EVIDENCE, I CAN CERTAINLY GIVE THEM TO YOU. UH, NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEADS. I CAN TELL YOU KIND OF WHETHER THEY'RE IN THE RATE FILING PACKAGE OR THAT, BUT I WANTED TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME OF, UH, WHAT IS THE RATE DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND WHERE DO WE GET THEM. UH, RATE DESIGN PRINCIPLES ARE BASICALLY SET UP UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY ACT. UH, AND THAT ALSO INCLUDES MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BECAUSE WHEN, UH, WE HAD A RAPE CASE APPEAL SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THAT WAS THE BIG ISSUE. WHAT KIND OF REGULATORY PRINCIPLES SHOULD APPLY TO A MUNICIPALITY ON APPEAL? AND THE COURT SAID IT SHOULD BE THE STATE, STATE, UH, REGULATORY PRINCIPLES. AND SO WHAT I HAVE GOTTEN FROM THESE STATUTES, AND IT WOULD BE 36.003, THAT SETS OUT THE VERY BROAD PARAMETERS OF WHAT YOU SHOULD LOOK AT AND THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE DESIGNING RATES. AND THAT'S ARE THAT RATES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE JUST IN REASONABLE AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE EQUITABLE. THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE UNREASONABLY PREFERENTIAL. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT YOU CAN HAVE SOME PREFERENCE, YOU JUST CAN'T BE UNREASONABLE ABOUT IT. AND THAT ALSO FIGURES INTO THE CONCEPT OF EQUITY. AND OF COURSE, RATES SHOULD HAVE SOME SEMBLANCE TO COST AND, UH, THEY MUST BE SUFFICIENT. THAT MEANS COST AND THEY SHOULD BE CONSISTENT. IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE SHOULD ALL BE PAYING THE SAME THING. AND IN OUR INVERTED BLOCK RATE, REG RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING THE SAME THING. EVERYBODY PAYS THE SAME CUSTOMER CHARGE. WELL, EXCEPT FOR THE LOW INCOME FOLKS IN THE CAT PROGRAM, EVERYBODY PAYS THE SAME RATE FOR THE FIRST 500 AND ON UP. UH, ANOTHER THING TO THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE MAKING THE DECISION ON, ON THE RATES, AND I'M MOST INTERESTED IN RATE DESIGN, CUZ I THINK IT IS A ALMOST A SIN TO, UH, BRING IN A CUSTOMER CHARGE THAT'S ALMOST DOUBLE WELL IS DOUBLE AND SOMETIMES EVEN TROUBLE OF WHAT THE SIMILAR SIZE UTILITIES ARE IN TEXAS. UH, IT DOESN'T, THEY DON'T HAVE REALLY A VALID REASON FOR THAT. UH, EVERYTHING THEY'VE GOT IS NOT REALLY JUSTIFIED. AND THAT IS SHOWED UP IN MY POINTS, BUT UNDER STATE LAW THAT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO RAISE ANY CUSTOMER CLASS MORE THAN 150% IS THE TIME UP. OKAY. I CAN BARELY HEAR IT. WELL, THAT'S ALL I DID NOT WANNA SPEND A LOT OF TIME LIKE I DID LAST TIME. UH, I KNOW Y'ALL'S TIME IS BUSY, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. WELL, LYNNETTE A VERY QUICK QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR WHAT A REASONABLE CUSTOMER CHARGE WOULD BE IN THIS CASE PERSONALLY GIVEN, UH, THE TESTIMONY FROM, UH, MR. JOHNSON WHO ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE DIRECT COST? AND THAT'S WHAT A CUSTOMER CHARGE IS SUPPOSED TO COVER. IT'S SUPPOSED TO CO UH, COVER THE COST OF, OF WHAT A CUSTOMER, THE VARYING COST. IF YOU ADD A CUSTOMER TO THE SYSTEM OR TAKE THE CUSTOMER OUT, WHAT COST DOES THE, UH, DOES THE UTILITY INCUR OR LOSE? AND THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE INSTANCE. AND IN HIS CASE, IT WAS HE FOUND THAT THE, UH, ACTUAL COST, THE DIRECT COST WAS EVEN LESS THAN THE CURRENT CUSTOMER CHARGE. I WOULD BE COMPLETELY HAPPY WITH THE CURRENT CUSTOMER CHARGE, BUT WE WOULD NOT, UH, MY CUSTOMER, MY CLIENTS WOULD NOT OBJECT TO SOMETHING THAT, UH, MIRRORS THE, UH, CLASS INCREASE. AND IN NO MATTER WE SHOULD EXCEED THE $13 THAT ICA THROUGH IN. BUT I REALLY PERSONALLY THINK IT SHOULD NO BE NO HIGHER THAN THE SYSTEM AVERAGE [00:10:01] INCREASE. AND AND WHAT WAS THE SYSTEM AVERAGE INCREASE? DO YOU REMEMBER? 5%. OKAY. AND SO I THINK, I MEAN, YOU MIGHT NEED TO GET SOMEBODY WHO'S HERE, BUT I THINK IT'S 5%. AND SO YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE NOT BE INCREASED MORE THAN 5%. RIGHT. OKAY. THAT EVERY, EVERY, YOU KNOW, EVERY TIER SHOULD INCREASE CONSISTENTLY THE SAME. OKAY. THANK YOU MS. COOPER. AND, AND, UH, CAN, UH, YOU MENTIONED PRINCIPLE TWO QUESTIONS. YOU, UH, IN TERMS OF AVOIDING RIGHT SH SO-CALLED RIGHT SHOCK EQUITY, UH, SPEAK TO PLEASE SPEAK TO HOW THAT WOULD BE, UH, PHASED IN. ANY CHANGES BETWEEN THE CLASS SHOULD BE PHASED IN. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? WELL, UH, AND I DERIVE THIS FROM THE PRINCIPLES I GOT FROM THE STATE, STATE, AND THESE ALSO KIND OF, I USED TO WORK WITH THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITY COUNCIL, SO I WAS IN A LOT OF STATE REGULATORY CASES, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE LOOKED AT. AND ONE OF THE ISSUES IS NO CUSTOMER CLASH SHOULD HAVE AN INCREASE OF MORE THAN 150%. UH, AND THAT'S JUST WAS JUST A GENERAL PRINCIPLE. AND THEN YOU CAN FIND THIS OTHER ONE IN, UH, THE REVIEW OF RATE, RATE, UH, THE, THE MUNICIPAL RATES. UH, THERE'S A LITTLE HISTORY, LITTLE POLITICAL HISTORY HERE OF, UH, UH, WHEN A, OUR RATES WERE APPEALED. THEY SEE THE PUC GETS TO DECIDE USING THEIR OWN CONCEPT OF WHAT SHOULD BE USED, WHAT FORMULAS AND ALL THAT. AND IF IT IS SO OUT OF RANGE WITH WHAT THE PUC, I MEAN WITH THE CITY HAD COME UP WITH, THEN WE'RE PUT ON A 10 YEAR PAROLE . AND THERE'S CERTAIN STATUTORY, UH, STANDARDS IN THAT 10 YEAR PAROLE, AND ONE OF 'EM IS, UH, IN A RATE CASE. UH, NO CUSTOMER CLASS SHOULD INCREASE MORE THAN 150%. AND, UH, THAT'S JUST, I THINK IT REALLY REFLECTS WHAT HAD BEEN BASICALLY, I HATE TO SAY COMMON LAW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING IS. OKAY. UH, MY, MY SECOND QUESTION, UH, MY SECOND QUESTION IS, YOU PARTICIPATED IN THE, UH, ADVISORY, THE CITY'S TASK FORCE THAT ESTABLISHED THE CAP PROGRAM. UH, AND, AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. BUT MY QUESTION IS, UH, READING THE HEAR, UH, HEARING ALL EXAMINERS RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THOSE ARE THE PARTIES, UH, THERE'S BEEN A LOT DISCUSSION, UH, REGARDING THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT PARTI UNDER PARTICIPATION UTILIZATION AND PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POVERTY BUT DON'T QUALIFY BASED UPON ONE OF THOSE, UH, PROGRAMS WHERE THEY DO THE MATCH. HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE THAT? WELL, ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH THE CAT PROGRAM IS IT'S, UH, INCOME ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE INCOME STANDARDS RELIED ON BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS. UH, LIKE THE ONE THAT HELPS FOR HOUSING REPAIR. THEY USE THE MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME CRITERIA. I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULD BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE HISTORICALLY WEATHERIZATION PROGRAMS COUNTRYWIDE HAVE ALWAYS USED THE FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINE. BUT ONE THING THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT IS ACCESS TO WEATHERIZATION PROGRAMS THAT MAYBE WE SH I, I REALLY THINK WE SHOULD EXTEND THE INCOME QUALIFICATION FOR WEATHERIZATION PROGRAMS FOR THE CAP CUSTOMERS. I ALSO THINK WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT REPLACING AIR CONDITIONERS, PARTICULARLY UNIT AIR CONDITIONERS, UH, BECAUSE THAT'S, UH, SOMETHING THAT REALLY WILL USE UP A LOT OF ELECTRICITY UNDER THE OLDER AIR CONDITIONING. SO THEY DON'T WORK VERY WELL. THE NEWER ONES WILL BE MORE EFFICIENT. UH, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT MAYBE INCREASING THE, THE INCOME GUIDELINE EVEN FOR THE CAP PROGRAM ITSELF. UH, I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD HAVE THE SAME, UH, PROGRAM BENEFITS, BUT MAYBE SIMILAR. I I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MR. TOPHER. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR, FOR HAVING US. NEXT SPEAKER IS DALE VULA. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DALE BULE. I WANT TO SHARE SOME OF MY THOUGHTS ON ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUSES. [00:15:02] UM, THE MESSAGE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING IS TALKING ABOUT V TO G OR VEHICLE TO GRID TECHNOLOGY AND ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUSES, UH, HAVE SENT, UH, YOU SEVERAL ARTICLES SHOWING WHAT OTHER STATES ARE DOING WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY. AND I THINK AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD SUPPORT THIS CONCEPT AND PROMOTE THIS TECHNOLOGY ALONG WITH A I S D AND THE OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT ARE IN OUR SERVICE AREA WITH HUNDREDS OF BUSES SITTING IN BUS BARNS ALL SUMMER. IT SEEMS TO BE A NO BRAINER. THOSE SAME BUSES COULD BE PUT TO GOOD USE, UH, BY GENERATING REVENUE TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHILE REVIVING OR RELIEVING SOME OF THE STRESS ON OUR GRID DURING THESE HIGH PEAK LOADS. THESE BUSES COULD ALSO BE USED AS EMERGENCY POWER STATIONS DURING POWER OUTAGES OR OTHER KINDS OF EMERGENCIES. I HEAR THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS PLANNING FOR BATTERY STORAGE, BUT I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW THAT IS PROGRESSING AND WHAT AT, AT WHAT COST. UH, BY PARTNERING WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS, IT COULD LOWER THE OUTLAY OF SCHOOL BUS PURCHASES WHILE PROVIDING, UH, PERHAPS A LOWER COST TO THE UTILITY AS IT SEEMS TO BE WORKING IN NEW YORK AND MASSACHUSETTS, UH, ILLINOIS, AS WELL AS CALIFORNIA BY FILLING UP BATTERIES AT NIGHT WHEN SOME WIND TURBINES ARE EVEN TURNED OFF BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO PLACE TO SEND THE ENERGY. THIS SEEMS LIKE A WIN-WIN FOR ALL THAT ARE CONCERNED, AS WELL AS THE HEALTH OF THE CHILDREN THAT RIDE THESE BUSES. AND OF COURSE, THE PLANET WILL HAVE FEWER EMISSIONS AS WELL. THIS COULD PERHAPS SAVE MONEY FOR AUSTIN ENERGY BY NEEDING FEWER BATTERY STORAGE FACILITIES WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HELPING SCHOOL DISTRICTS WITH A REVENUE STREAM. UH, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO PLAN NOW FOR LOTS OF CHARGING STATIONS AT SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHILE MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE EQUIPPED WITH V TO G BUSES AS WELL AS V TO G CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE. UH, I KNOW THERE WAS A PRESS CONFERENCE THIS EVENING AT A I S D ANNOUNCING, UH, SOME OF THESE EFFORTS. THEY HAVE THREE BUSES ON ORDER, AND I THINK THAT MIGHT MAKE A GREAT PILOT PROGRAM TO SEE WHAT VT G COULD DO TO HELP THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND TO HELP AUSTIN ENERGY. AND THANKS FOR LISTENING TO MY IDEAS. THANK YOU, MR. BULA. MS. OTTO, DO WE HAVE ANY MORE? YES. NEXT SPEAKER IS ASHLEY FISHER. HI, MY NAME'S ASHLEY FISHER. I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE SOLAR AND STORAGE COALITION. UM, WE SPOKE TO YOU LAST MONTH IN MORE DETAIL ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS OUR COALITION HAS BEEN ASKING FOR IN THE RATE CASE. I HAVE A HANDOUT THAT I THINK I GAVE TO MOST PEOPLE, BUT I THINK I MISSED A COUPLE, SO I'LL HAND IT BACK OUT. BUT JUST TO SUMMARIZE, SORT OF AN OFFICIAL INTERVENER IN THE RATE CASE AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN BEEN, UH, AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR THROUGHOUT THE RIGHT CASE IS TO EXPAND THE VALUE OF SOLAR TARIFF TO INCLUDE STORAGE. UM, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS STATED THAT THEY THINK OUR ISSUES ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHT CASE. UM, BUT IN THEIR CLOSING BRIEF, UM, THEY DID NOTE THAT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME THAT E COMMITS TO INCLUDING SSC AS STAKEHOLDERS AND THE DEVELOPMENTS OF PROGRAMS RAISED IN THIS BRIEF. AND SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS PART OF THIS PROCESS. IT'S CONCURRENT WITH THE RATE CASE FOR SOME DIRECTION TO AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, TO LAUNCH A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR PLUS STORAGE TARIFF. AND I INCLUDE SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE HERE, UM, TO SORT OF HELP WITH THAT, BUT TO LOOK AT A RATE, UM, THAT COULD INCLUDE REBATES FOR STORAGE, TIME OF USE, ALLOWING MICROGRID, UH, TO SHARE PAYMENTS ACROSS CUSTOMER INVOICES AND A FEW OTHER THINGS. SO I HAVE SOME LANGUAGE HERE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IN THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. FISHER. SURE. AND THE FINAL SPEAKER IS JEAN CHERRY. MY NAME IS JEAN CHERRY. I'M A CUSTOMER OF AUSTIN ENERGY, AND I HAVE A PV SYSTEM INSTALLED. SO WHAT IS MY VALUE AS SOLAR? WHEN I BOUGHT THE SYSTEM SEVEN TO 10 YEAR OR SEVEN YEARS AGO, IT WAS SAID THAT SEVEN TO 10 YEARS WOULD BE THE PAYOFF OF THE SYSTEM. I'D GET LOWER IN ENERGY BILLS, I'D HEADS AGAINST INFLATION. SO FAR, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF THIS. SEVEN YEARS AGO WHEN I INSTALLED IT FOR 30 K, I'VE GENERATED 5.6 MEGAWATTS OF ENERGY. AND IF YOU FIGURE THAT AT 10 CENTS, WHICH IS A LITTLE HIGHER THAN WHAT WE'RE GETTING PAID RIGHT NOW, THAT'S ONLY $5,600 AGAINST A THREE $30,000 SYSTEM. HOW DO I PAY IT BACK? WELL, AUSTIN ENERGY BUYS [00:20:01] ALL OF MY PV ELECTRICITY AND THEN SELLS IT ALL BACK TO ME. SO I PAY A, UH, HIGHER RATE STRUCTURE IN THE TIER STRUCTURE BECAUSE I HAVE TO BUY IT BACK. EVEN THOUGH MY HOUSE USES WHAT I GENERATE, I PAY REGULATORY CHARGES ON THE, ON THE ELECTRICITY THAT I GENERATE BECAUSE I BUY IT BACK AND YOU PAY, I PAY THE SAME AS THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR. MY FUEL ADJUSTMENT COSTS ARE THERE. WHAT DO YOU DO? SEND A SHUTTLE TO THE SUN EVERY DAY TO FUEL IT SO I GET MORE ENERGY FROM IT. I DON'T THINK SO. SO WHY AM I PAYING FUEL ADJUSTMENT COSTS ON THE ENERGY THAT I GENERATE? AND LASTLY, BENEFITS, COMMUNITY BENEFITS? WELL, I, I HAVE A PV SET. I'M GENERATING ELECTRICITY FOR THE COMMUNITY. I'M HELPING OUT BY USING LESS ENERGY OFF THE GRID, BUT I'M TURNED AROUND AND PAYING A COMMUNITY BENEFIT THEN ON THAT SAME ELECTRICITY. WHY? WHY? WHY DO I DO THAT? SINCE WE'RE NEGOTIATING FOR A DIFFERENT PRICE RATE. HOW ABOUT RAISING MY RATE UP SO I GET MORE OUT OF IT SO I CAN PAY MY SYSTEM OFF, SAY 60 CENTS A KILOWATT HOUR INSTEAD OF 10 CENTS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHERRY. THERE NO MORE SPEAKERS. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO [1. Approve the minutes of the Electric Utility Commission Regular meeting on September 12, 2022.] APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. UH, WE HAVE THE SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2022 MINUTES FOR CIRCULATED WITH YOUR MEETING MATERIALS. ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES MOVE TO APPROVE. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER REED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. AND COMMISSIONER TREL? I CAN'T HEAR YOU, COMMISSIONER, IF YOU VOTED, IF SHE'S NOT ON THAT'S OKAY. SHE'S ON. I UNMUTED. I'M OKAY. I, YES, YOU, YOU MUTED ME. OKAY. I'M, I VOTED I OH, GREAT. OKAY. THANKS. UH, ALL THOSE OPPOSED, OR NONE OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, MOVING ON [Items 2 - 10] TO DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS IS ITEMS NUMBER TWO THROUGH 10. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP FOR DISCUSSION? OKAY. HEARING NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBERS 10, EXCUSE ME, TWO THROUGH 10. SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. AND COMMISSIONER TREL. AYE. GREAT. I, UH, NONE OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES. OKAY. MOVING [11. Discussion and possible action on the proposed Base Rate changes.] ON TO DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS. ITEM NUMBER 11, THIS IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED BASE RATE CHANGES. AND HERE AT THE TOP, I'D LIKE TO, UH, TALK ABOUT A COUPLE LOGISTIC THINGS. SO, UM, AS I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF ACTIVITY ONGOING. UH, WITH REGARD TO THE BASE RATE CHANGES WE HAVE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE, UH, STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE PARTICIPATED IN THE RATE REVIEW PROCESS ARE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN, UH, ONGOING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS. UH, LIKEWISE, THERE IS, UH, THE PSA, UM, ADJUSTMENT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL LAST WEEK. UM, I THINK MOST FOLKS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S GOING TO BE A, UM, YOU KNOW, A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO, UH, CUSTOMERS' BILLS. AND FINALLY, UM, DURING THAT CONVERSATION, UM, THAT COUNSEL HAD, THEY, THEY DISCUSSED PUSHING BACK THE BASE RATE CHANGE DECISION AT COUNSEL TO EARLY DECEMBER. AND I THINK, UM, WE MAY NOT HAVE CONFIRMATION YET ON WHEN THOSE MEETINGS WILL BE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, DECEMBER 1ST, AND COMMISSIONER REID, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THAT, THAT'S DECEMBER 1ST, IS THE DATE THAT, UH, COUNSEL IS LIKELY TO TAKE UP THE BASE RATE REVIEW, UH, FOR A DECISION. AND IN THE MEANTIME, I BELIEVE THEY ARE ASKING, OR THAT THEY INTEND TO HOLD ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, PERHAPS [00:25:01] A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THEY ARE INVITING, UH, RATE CASE PARTICIPANTS TO PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL. AGAIN, ON THESE ARE ON THESE ISSUES. MAYBE NOT. AGAIN, COMMISSIONER REED, DID I GETTING, I THINK YOU GOT IT RIGHT. I'M, I WAS WONDERING IF SOMEBODY FROM AUSTIN ENERGY COULD BE THERE JUST TO CONFIRM THOSE DATES. SO WE KNEW, UM, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF THESE DATES ARE SET IN STONE OR THEY'RE JUST PART OF A DISCUSSION, BUT IF SOMEBODY FROM AUSTIN ENERGY, I JUST HAVE A, HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIMING. OKAY. SO, HI AMY. HI. SO, UM, IS, IS WHAT CHAIRMAN HOPKINS SAID GENERALLY CORRECT THAT CITY COUNCILS INDICATED THEY, THEY WOULD MAKE A DECISION EITHER ON DECEMBER 1ST OR DECEMBER 8TH. YES. CURRENTLY THERE, THE PLAN IS FOR DECEMBER 1ST, AND THEY ADDED A NUMBER OF WORK SESSIONS THAT ARE ON THE COUNCIL MESSAGE BOARD RIGHT NOW WHO MAY HAVE POSTED THAT EARLIER TODAY. SO YOU CAN GO AND CHECK OUT ALL THOSE DATES. OKAY. AND MAYBE WE CAN GET, UM, MAYBE WE CAN DISTRIBUTE THAT TO THE UC COMMISSIONERS. SO WE'RE YEAH, I CAN, I CAN SEND YOU JUST THE AUSTIN ENERGY PART THIS DATE. OKAY. UM, AND THEN ONE OF THOSE WORK SESSIONS WOULD INVOLVE PARTIES AND THE IE AND AUSTIN ENERGY PRESENTING TO CITY COUNCIL. YES. SO CURRENTLY THAT IS PROPOSED AS NOVEMBER 9TH. UM, AND THAT THIS WAS ALL JUST DECIDED TODAY, BUT THAT'S WHY NOBODY'S BEEN INFORMED OFFICIALLY. BUT YES, NOVEMBER 9TH IS THE DATE THAT THE IE, THE ICA ALL PARTICIPANTS AND AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD, WOULD PRESENT. OKAY. AND WHEN ARE WE SCHEDULED TO MEET AGAIN? NOVEMBER 14TH. CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. SO WITH, WITH ALL ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER REED? I, I GUESS ONE QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, IS NOVEMBER 14TH, IS WAITING TILL NOVEMBER 14TH WAITING TOO LONG, GIVEN THAT THEY WILL HAVE STARTED THOSE WORKSHOPS? OR IS THERE THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE A, A SPECIAL MEETING BEFORE SAY THAT NOVEMBER NINE? YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES SOONER? UH, I THINK, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WISDOM IS. MY, MY NEXT THOUGHT, SO I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SAID WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY, WHICH IS THAT I, I AM GIVEN WHERE WE ARE. AND, UM, AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ADD THAT IN ADDITION TO, UH, THESE COMMENTS, UM, THAT, THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, THE, UH, BUDGET AND AUDIT WORK GROUP HAVE CIRCULATED, UH, JUST PRIOR TO THE MEETING, UM, TWO, I BELIEVE PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS. UH, AND, AND THEY'RE RATHER DETAILED AND, AND I APPRECIATE THE WORKING GROUP'S EFFORTS ON THIS. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE SPENT A LITTLE BIT OF TIME WITH THEM AND, UH, BUT, BUT IN AN IDEAL WORLD, I WOULD SPEND SOME MORE TIME, I WOULD GET TO SPEND SOME MORE TIME. AND SO WHAT I AM GOING TO RECOMMEND IS THAT WE, UH, DELAY THE ACTUAL VOTE ON THE BASE RATE CHANGES OR OUR ACTION ON THE BASE RATE CHANGES UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 14TH MEETING. UM, I WILL, I'M GOING TO, UH, TAKE A POLL AS TO WHETHER, YOU KNOW, HOW FOLKS FEEL ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR THAT, I, I WON'T MOVE IT. WE CAN VOTE ON IT TODAY. UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, GIVEN WHERE WE ARE, I, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THAT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO GIVE FOLKS SOME MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS. TO YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER REED, THERE IS ALSO THE OPTION TO CALL A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING THAT WOULD BE SOMETIME EARLIER THAN NOVEMBER 14TH. UM, BUT PRIOR TO POTENTIALLY THE NOVEMBER 9TH MEETING, IF THAT'S WHAT, WHAT, WHEN COUNCIL'S HEARING FROM STAKEHOLDERS. UM, BUT I, I THINK WE COULD, WE COULD MAKE A DECISION ON THE 14TH AND THAT WOULD STILL PROVIDE A, YOU KNOW, GUIDANCE TO COUNSEL PRIOR TO THEIR ULTIMATE, UH, DECISION ON THE FIRST, UH, SO I'M INTERESTED IN FOLKS' THOUGHTS IF I, GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. YEAH, I JUST, I WANNA SECOND THE IDEA THAT WE GIVE THE PARTIES A CHANCE TO COME UP WITH A RESOLUTION OF THEIR OWN, UH, BEFORE WE, UH, PROPOSE A RESOLUTION, UH, OUT OF THIS GROUP. UH, I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS, YOU KNOW, TWO OR THREE TIMES IN THE PAST, AND I CAN TELL YOU, YOU WILL NOT GET A BETTER RESOLUTION TO THIS THAN THE PARTIES CAN COME UP WITH ON THEIR OWN. COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN. YES, I WAS GONNA SAY, WE'VE HEARD FROM ALL THE PARTIES, WE, UH, THE BRIEFINGS, THE EXAMINER'S REPORT, EVERYTHING IS OUT, HAS BEEN NOW, UH, [00:30:01] AND WE'VE DONE OUR HOMEWORK. THE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PARTIES ARE, IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE ON THE BRINK OF SETTLEMENT. THERE'S BEEN NO MULTIPLE MEETINGS AND VERY LITTLE PROGRESS FROM WHAT I HEARD, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, UH, ALL OF WHICH IS, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WAITING UNTIL THE 14TH, UH, JUST IT IS, IT IS GETTING BEHIND THE HORSE INSTEAD OF A HEAD, THE HORSE. WE, WE OUGHT TO GIVE COUNSEL, WE OUGHTA WE TO SPEAK AS A VOICE AND PROVIDE A VOICE. SO, UH, THE SPECIAL MEETING, UH, AS LONG AS WE DO THAT SOMETIME THIS MONTH, UM, TO GET, ALLOW YOURSELF AND OTHERS A LITTLE MORE TI A LITTLE MORE TIME, UH, WOULD BE ACCEPTA CERTAINLY ACCEPTABLE. BUT I'M, I'M READY TO VOTE TONIGHT. UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE RESOLUTION. SO EITHER, EITHER, EITHER, EITHER OPTION, EITHER OPTION, BUT, BUT LET'S NOT WAIT UNTIL ALL THE OTHER PARTIES HAVE WEIGHED IN. I AGREE WITH YOUR APPROACH, CHAIR HOPKINS TO WAIT UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 14TH MEETING FOR THE REASONS YOU EXPRESSED. I ALSO, I'M NOT SURE WE'RE HAMSTRING OURSELVES BY WAITING UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 14TH MEETING, IF THAT'S STILL WEEKS BEFORE COUNSEL TAKES IT UP. I, IF WE CAN HEAR, IF WE, IF WE CAN GLEAN ANYTHING FROM THE PRESENTATIONS AT THE NOVEMBER 14TH, I, I'M SORRY, THE NOVEMBER 9TH MEETING, THAT WOULD GIVE US PLENTY OF TIME TO, I THINK, ACCOUNT FOR THOSE IN OUR RECOMMENDATION. SO THAT'S MY POSITION. AND, UH, HOW ABOUT COMMISSIONER TU AND YANKER? I AGREE WITH TRYING FIND, UM, UNDERSTAND BETTER WITH THE NEGOTIATION WHERE IT'S AT. YOU'RE MIKE. THANKS. I AGREE WITH UNDERSTANDING WHERE THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE AT AND SEEING WHAT THEY'RE COMING UP WITH. THERE'S, WE MAY HAVE READ A LOT OF THIS, BUT I HAVE A FEELING THERE'S STILL SOME ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS THAT THOSE PARTIES HAVE WHEN THEY ACTUALLY CRANK THE NUMBERS. SO I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE HESITANT. I, I DO HAVE SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE THAT OKAY, VOTE ON THE 14TH, BUT I FEEL OBLIGATED TO TRY TO GET BETTER INFORMATION BEFORE THE COUNCIL VOTES TO GIVE SOME ADVICE, SOME ADVICE TO MY COUNCIL MEMBER, THOUGH. AND SO IF THERE COULD BE SOME, BESIDES US SPENDING A LOT OF HOURS TRYING TO FOLLOW EXACTLY WHAT THE COUNCIL'S DOING IN REAL TIME, IF THERE COULD BE SOME KIND OF HEADS UP BEFORE THOSE MEETINGS SO THAT WE GET AN IDEA, I WOULD, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER YOKER, I, I THINK I COULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF A ESPECIALLY CALLED SESSION. I'M ALSO FINE AND READY TO VOTE TONIGHT, BUT I RESPECT OTHERS' HESITATIONS. SO, UH, BUT I THINK THAT A KIND OF SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE AND DOING A ESPECIALLY CALLED MIGHT BE THE BEST. AND COMMISSIONER TREL, ANY THOUGHTS? I MEAN, UM, COMMISSIONER TR OH, THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, YES, I, I, UM, I UNDERSTAND THE SETTLEMENT PROCESS PRETTY WELL AND I JUST THINK THAT, UH, THE WORKING GROUP HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON, UM, LOOKING AT THE ARGUMENTS AND, UH, THE EVIDENCE. AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENT FOR THEM TO HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE GOING, UM, AND WHAT THE, THE EUC THINKS ABOUT THE PENDING CASE. SO I, I COULD SUPPORT A, UM, UH, A, A SPECIAL CALLS MEETING SOMETIME, HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF THE MONTH, BUT CERTAINLY BEFORE THE, UM, NOVEMBER 14TH MEETING. UM, PRIMARILY CUZ I THINK, AND PERHAPS JUST TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION, WE WILL, UH, IF WE HAVE A ROBUST DISCUSSION, UM, UH, ON THE ISSUES, IT WILL, UH, ENCOURAGE SOME MOVEMENT AMONG THE PARTIES TO THE, UM, THAT ARE PART PARTICIPATING IN THE SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS. SO MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE, I'M READY TO VOTE TONIGHT, BUT MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE, I GUESS, A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE EEC. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT AN EVEN SPLIT. UH, I AM, I, I AM NOT READY TO VOTE TONIGHT, BUT I, I DO PREFER A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, CUZ I THINK WAITING FOR THE 14TH IS MAYBE TOO [00:35:01] LONG. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, SO, UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE GENERALLY WE'VE GOT FOUR FOR WAITING TO 11, 14 AND FOUR FOR A SPECIALLY CALLED MEETING, I THINK. UM, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW IS, OH, GO AHEAD. YEAH, I, I HAVE A, I HAVE A QUESTION. CYRUS SIERRA CLUB IS A PARTY TO THIS. SO I'M, I'M DIRECTING THIS TO YOU EVEN THOUGH I KNOW YOU'RE NOT HERE AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. BUT, UM, UH, GIVEN, GIVEN THAT THE PROCESS HAS WORKED ITSELF OUT, WHERE YET AGAIN, THERE'S GOING TO BE A PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE NINTH, ARE DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT PEOPLE ARE GONNA BE COMING TO ANY CONCLUSIONS BEFORE THAT HAPPENS? ? UH, I, I, I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. YEAH, I JUST DON'T KNOW. YEAH, YOU DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I, I HAVE THE SAME, UH, I HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS MYSELF, AND, AND I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, WHICH IS PEOPLE DON'T USUALLY SETTLE UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE. AND, AND SO I'M NOT SURE THAT, THAT WE'RE GONNA BE IN ANY BETTER SHAPE IN 10 DAYS THAN WE ARE RIGHT NOW. UH, AND WE MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE THE PARTIES ACTUALLY REACH THEIR OWN RESOLUTION IF WE JUST LET THE PROCESS PLAY OUT A LITTLE LONGER. SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY PREFERENCE. GO AHEAD. CAN WE RE WE COULD , UM, ONE, THE NOVEMBER 14TH IS SET AS A MEETING, WE COULD SCHEDULE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING. IT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S SORT OF A WASTE OF EVERYONE'S TIME, I GUESS, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IN ADDITION TO THE NOVEMBER 14TH. EXACTLY. RIGHT. RIGHT. UM, I THINK, UH, GIVEN SORT OF WHERE, WHERE, WHERE WE ARE, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE THERE'S AN EVEN SPLIT, LIKE I'M SAYING, UH, AS FAR AS CALLING A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING EITHER IN LIEU OF, OR IN ADDITION TO, OR JUST MAKING THE DECISION ON THE 14TH. SO I THINK WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS PUT A PIN IN THAT, HAVE THE DISCUSSION, UM, THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ABOUT, UH, THE, UH, WHERE WE ARE ON THE BASE RATE REVIEW. WHAT I'D, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS HEAR FROM ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN, IN PRESENTING THEIR VIEWS AND WHERE THEY ARE RIGHT NOW, WHAT THEY'RE THINKING, AND IN PARTICULAR THE, UH, UH, WORKING GROUP RESOLUTION THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED. I'D LIKE TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON THESE, AND PART OF THE REASON THAT I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE MOVE, UH, THE DECISION IS BECAUSE I WILL, I WILL SAY THAT IF WE TAKE IT UP AND DOWN VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, I'M GONNA HAVE TO BE A NOTE. BUT THERE ARE MANY, MANY PIECES OF THIS RESOLUTION THAT I WOULD SUPPORT. AND SO I THINK IF WE HAD SOME ADDITIONAL TIME, UM, YOU KNOW, WE COULD PULL OUT THE THINGS THAT THERE WILL BE UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT ON OR MAJORITY AGREEMENT ON, AND WE COULD PASS THAT ON TO THE COMMISSION, UH, SORRY, THE, THE COUNCIL WITH UNANIMOUS SUPPORT. UM, AND IT, YOU KNOW, IN AN IDEAL WORLD THAT THAT'S WHAT SOMETHING WOULD LOOK LIKE GOING TO, UH, THE, UH, THE COUNCIL. I DO THINK THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, TACKLE THAT. WE CAN TAKE AN UP AND DOWN VOTE ON THE HEARING EXAMINER'S, UH, PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION. UM, AS COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN PROPOSED, WE CAN TAKE AN UP AND DOWN VOTE ON THE WORKING GROUPS PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN, WE CAN DO THAT. UH, BUT AGAIN, I THINK IF WE DO THAT TODAY, FOR ME PERSONALLY, I'M GONNA HAVE TO BE A NO ON THE WORKING GROUPS PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION, THOUGH I THINK THERE ARE MANY PIECES OF THIS THAT I WOULD SUPPORT. AND SO GIVEN SOME TIME, I THINK WE COULD CARVE OUT, UM, AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION NOW SO THAT THERE IS SOME DIRECTION, AND MAYBE TO COMMISSIONER CHARLES'S POINT, THAT WILL INFORM, UH, SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS. WHO KNOWS IF ANYBODY WILL, UH, ACTUALLY CARE WHAT WE, UH, SAY, BUT POTENTIALLY, I MEAN PARTIES, UM, BUT POTENTIALLY, I MEAN, IT COULD INFORM, UH, WHERE, WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT WE'RE THINKING AND, AND, AND PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE USEFUL TO, TO THE PARTIES. SO, UH, THAT, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT, THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO. UH, AND SO I'LL GIVE THE, MAY I ASK, GO AHEAD. MAY, IF I MAY ASK ALL OF WHICH IS, UH, WE, WE CERTAINLY CAN VOTE ON DO AN UP AND DOWN ON THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT TONIGHT. UH, BUT WITH RESPECT TO, UH, AND A ROBUST DISCUSSION TONIGHT, I WOULD THINK WOULD ENABLE, [00:40:01] ENABLE US IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO TO BE ABLE TO, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE TIME PEOPLE NEED, BUT I, I, I SUSPECT FOR THE REASONS, UH, DISCUSS THAT HAVING OUR OPINIONS WOULD, MIGHT MOVE ALONG THE SETTLEMENT TALKS. AND THE, THEREFORE, IF WE, IF WE'VE FINISHED THE DISCUSSION THIS EVENING, UH, THEN WE COULD HA IN THAT SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OR SIMPLY MOVE UP THE NOVEMBER DATE TO NOVEMBER, SAY NOVEMBER 1ST, UH, THAT THEN WE COULD HAVE A QUICK UP AND DOWN VOTE, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORK GROUP, USING THAT AS A, AS AN OUTLINE AND THE THEREFORE BE ABLE TO SAY, YES, YES, YES OR NO. NO, NO. UH, HOW WOULD THAT, WOULD THAT GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME TO, TO MAKE THAT REVIEW AND HAVE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS? I, I THINK THAT WOULD, UM, FOR ME IT'S, IT'S MORE OF A QUESTION I THINK OF WHETHER FOLKS CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT KIND OF SCHEDULE. SO OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE CLEAR THEIR CALENDARS FOR THE 14TH, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE TO WRANGLE HERE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET EVERYBODY TOGETHER INCLUDING, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE ROOM AVAILABILITY AND EVERYTHING FOR, UH, LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, OCTOBER 31ST, OR, UH, NOVEMBER 7TH . THERE YOU GO. OH, I GUESS THAT'S, THAT'S HALLOWEEN. IS HALLOWEEN, OKAY. YEAH. UM, OKAY, SO NOT THE 31ST. SO, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'D EITHER NEED TO PICK ANOTHER EVENING AND KEEPING IN MIND AS WELL, THAT EV ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, INCLUDING, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY, ARE ALSO PARTICIPATING IN ALL OF THE WORKSHOPS THAT THE COUNCIL IS HOLDING, AND THEY'RE PREPARING FOR THOSE AS WELL. SO I THINK EVERYBODY'S GOT A REALLY PACKED SCHEDULE. UM, SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO FINDING ANOTHER DATE, UM, BETWEEN NOW AND THE 14TH AND, AND HOLDING A SPECIALLY CALLED, UH, SESSION. MY CONCERN IS THAT, IS, IS GETTING A DATE THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY. LET'S ASK, LET'S ASK STAFF TO DO THAT THEN, AND, YOU KNOW, DO A POLL AND, AND WORKING WITH YOU. SELECT THE DATE, OR THIS IS KATE, GO AHEAD. MAY I COMMENT? UM, AND THEN I'M, I'M SORRY, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GET OFF THE CALL. UM, BUT, UH, I, I FULLY SUPPORT, UM, THE IDEA OF GOING THROUGH THE WORKING GROUP'S RESOLUTION AND SEEING IF THERE ARE POINTS ON WHICH THERE IS UNION UNANIMITY. I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A BIG STEP FORWARD FOR TONIGHT. AND THEN AT THE END OF THE MEETING, IT CAN BE DECIDED, DO WE COME BACK ON THE 14TH OR DO WE COME BACK SOMETIME BEFORE THAT? BUT I THINK THAT IF WE COULD GO THROUGH A LOT OF THESE POINTS, I THINK THERE WILL BE UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT ON SOME OF THEM AND PERHAPS SOME CRITICAL ONES THAT WOULD HELP GUIDE THE SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS. I AGREE. COMMISSIONER TREL. THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT. SEE IF THERE ARE SOME POINTS OF UNANIMITY, THEN COME BACK AND REVISIT THE MEETING, UH, SCHEDULE AT THE, AT THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. AND GOODBYE. SORRY. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. BYE. I ALSO, THAT'S ANOTHER REASON I THINK WE SHOULD DELAY THE DECISION IS BECAUSE COMMISSIONER TREL IS NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO VOTE, AND OBVIOUSLY SHE'S A VERY VALUABLE MEMBER OF THIS COMMISSION AND WE APPRECIATE HER INPUT. SO. OKAY. UH, SO I THINK I WILL TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONERS CHAPMAN, REED, UM, AND YANKER TO PRESENT THE RESOLUTION OF THE WORKING GROUP, UM, IF YOU'D LIKE. AND WE CAN, UH, I'LL DEFER TO YOU ON HOW YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT. UH, THERE, THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO RESOLUTIONS THAT I RECEIVED. UH, AND ONE IS THE RESOURCE PLAN. UH, AND I, UH, YEAH, THE RESOURCE PLAN I DID NOT PUT FORWARD FOR TONIGHT THAT SAYS SEPARATE DISCUSSION. FINE. UM, THE TWO THAT I PUT FORWARD WAS ONE SPECIFICALLY ON VALUE OF SOLAR, UM, WHICH I HONESTLY THINK WE CAN JUST AT THIS POINT PUNT ON BECAUSE IT'S REALLY A SEPARATE, SEPARATE ISSUE THAT'S STILL BEING DISCUSSED AMONG MULTIPLE PARTIES, INCLUDING SOME THAT CAME TONIGHT. UM, AND IF WE COULD JUST CONCENTRATE ON THE MAIN BASE RATE ONE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE, UH, THAT WOULD BE THE, THE BEST USE OF OUR TIME. OKAY. WOULD, WOULD IT, ALL OF WHICH IS, UH, WE CAN JUST GO SEQUENTIALLY. UH, AND WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT NUMBER ONE, IT WOULD A, WOULD A SHOWING A KIND OF A SHOWING OF [00:45:01] HANDS BE HELPFUL IN TERMS OF, UH, OR DISCUSSION, A SHOWING OF HANDS? OR DO YOU WANT A DISCUSSION ON EACH, EACH ITEM? THERE'S A LOT OF WHERE ASS TOO. YEAH. AND NOT EVERYONE MAY AGREE. LET'S TO THE WHERE ASS, LET'S HELP EVERYBODY GET ON THE SAME PAGE. I THINK COMMISSIONER PERLE'S LOOKING FOR THE RESOLUTION. YES. EX, OH, I CAN GET ON NOW. GREAT. UH, THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME FOR ME TO BRING UP THAT I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS. SO IT JUST GOT SENT AT FIVE 17 AND 5 29, SO I WAS PACKING UP THE OFFICE AND TRYING TO GET ON MY WAY HERE. SO I'M HAVING TO GO THROUGH RIGHT NOW, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE LEAD TIME, A LITTLE BIT BETTER ON THIS NEXT TIME. YEAH. YEAH. TO THAT END, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE COMMITTING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON ANY OF THE PROPOSED ITEMS IN THE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEES. SO IN TERMS OF THE IDEA OF DOING A SHOW OF HANDS, I WOULD JUST ABSTAIN FROM ANY OF THAT, JUST CUZ I WANT MORE TIME WITH THIS. SO I, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION. I DON'T KNOW HOW FRUITFUL IT WILL BE IN LIGHT OF THE TIME IN WHICH WE GOT THE, AND I'M NOT BLAMING YOU ALL, IT'S JUST THE FUNCTION OF THE SCHEDULE. I'M, THAT'S JUST WHERE I'M AT IS I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH I HAVE TO OFFER. SO, SO BACK TO MY POINT. DOES SOMEBODY HAVE A COPY OF THIS THAT I COULD LOOK AT? WE'RE PUTTING UP ON THE SCREEN. OH, BINOCULARS. YOU WANT ME TO, CAN SOMEONE EMAIL IT IN YOUR EMAIL, KAREN? UM, OKAY. I HAVEN'T YET. SO I THINK, UM, FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES, I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL, UH, FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO UH, JUST PRESENT THE ITEMS, THE, THIS IS THE, I'M I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL RESOLUTIONS, NOT THE WHERE ASS. I THINK FOLKS CAN READ THOSE AND TAKE ISSUE WITH THEM IF, IF THEY DO, BUT I THINK THEY'RE JUST FACTUAL STATEMENTS ABOUT WHERE WE ARE IN THE CASE. UM, AND, AND SO, UM, ONCE PEOPLE HAVE AN INDEPENDENT OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE CLOSELY, THEY CAN PROVIDE COMMENTS TO YOU IF THEY LIKE. YEAH, I MEAN THE WHEREAS IS, UM, I'D SAY ARE FACTUAL, BUT THEY ARE AN INTERPRETATION OF FACTS, RIGHT? THEY'RE THEIR POSITION, THEY'RE THEIR, THEIR POSITION. THEY'RE SAYING AUSTIN ENERGY HAD A BASE RATE CASE. THEIR INITIAL ONE ASKED FOR EIGHT 48 MILLION. IT WENT DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY DURING THE PROCEEDING. UH, THE I E UM, HAD A SLIGHTLY LOWER RECOMMENDATION OF 31.3 MILLION. AND IF THESE, IF THESE NUMBERS ARE WRONG, I'M HOPING THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WILL, WILL CORRECT THEM CUZ THESE ARE, ARE BASED ON THE RATE CASE. UM, AND THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE HAD AN EVEN LOWER PROPOSAL OF 6.5 MILLION. SO WE SORT OF HAVE THREE PARTIES WITH THREE DIFFERENT REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, UM, SUGGESTED REVENUE REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THE RATE CASE. UH, BUT IT DOES HAVE A, UM, I'LL SAY SOME SUBJECTIVITY BECAUSE, UM, IT SAYS MULTIPLE PARTIES HAVE RAISED CONCERNS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN, UM, IS A RADICAL CHANGE TO OUR RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN AND COULD REPRESENT A SHOCK TO AUSTIN ENERGY RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS. SO THAT IS CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE, ALTHOUGH I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS THAT THEY DO FIND IT SHOCKING. UM, UH, AND THEN, UM, IT POINTS OUT THAT THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL'S JUST APPROVED, UH, NEW TARIFFS FOR THE POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT, WHICH WILL BE AN INCREASE FOR RESIDENTIAL, UH, RATE CONSUMERS. SO ALL THAT IS SORT OF SETTING UP THE, THE RESOLVE SECTION, WHICH IS TO RECOMMEND, UM, DENIAL OF AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE IESS RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN IT HAS A SERIES OF, UM, BOTH GENERAL POLICIES, A LOT OF WHICH CAME FROM RANDY AND THEN, AND THEN SOME SPECIFIC, UM, SUGGESTIONS TO, TO THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE FACTS, BUT THEY'RE WITH A CERTAIN SLANT, I'LL SAY. YEAH. UM, OKAY. SO I THINK JUST, JUST TAKING NUMBER ONE HERE, UH, REJECT THE AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSED BASE RATE REVENUE INCREASE 35.7 MILLION AND THE HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OF 31.3 MILLION. UH, SO THAT'S SORT OF THE BIG HEADLINE, YOU KNOW, BIG TICKET ITEM, OBVIOUSLY THE STORY. UM, AND, AND SO, UH, LATER IN YOUR RESOLUTION, WE HAVE THE WORKING GROUPS RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, AND I THINK IT'S A RANGE OF SIX AND TO 15, SIX AND A HALF TO 18. YEAH, 15, UM, 15, SORRY, EXCUSE ME. LOOKING AT, WELL, I, I WE'VE HAD DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THIS. UH, SO THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A VERSION THAT HAD 18. I DON'T [00:50:01] KNOW THAT WE, WE, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I DON'T EVEN FEEL COMFORTABLE VOTING ON THIS TONIGHT BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE STILL, WE'RE STILL ASSESSING ALL THOSE, UM, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT PARTIES HAVE BROUGHT FORWARD SUGGESTIONS OF HOW TO REDUCE THAT RATE INCREASE. UM, SO AS AN EXAMPLE, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE IN THE, IN THE PROCEEDING, UM, THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS SUGGESTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE A, A BECAUSE OF THE VERY DIFFERENT YEAR WE HAD IN 2021, UH, THERE SHOULD BE A REDUCTION OF SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 23 TO 24 MILLION BECAUSE OF THAT. UM, SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPE OF REDUCTION THAT WE COULD SEE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE AS A GROUP CAME UP WITH A DEFINITIVE LIST AND SAID IT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, 20 MILLION OR 15 MILLION OR 6 MILLION, WE JUST THOUGHT PRESENTING A RANGE. UM, BUT THAT, THAT, THAT IS VERY SUBJECT TO PEOPLE'S INPUT. SO, SO MY QUESTION IS, THE BOUNDS ON THE RANGE ARE HERE SIX AND A HALF TO 15, AND MAYBE THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 17 OR 18, WHATEVER. WHERE DOES THAT NUMBER COME FROM? SO IT, IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY SAYING, UM, THE IE RECOMMENDED 31 MILLION, UM, 21 WAS AN UNUSUAL YEAR BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC AND THE LOWER SALES. AND THEN HELP ME RANDALL WITH SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS WE DISCUSSED. WELL, YOU HAVE, YOU, YOU HAVE THE REC, EXCUSE ME, YOU HAVE ALL THE RECOMMENDATION AND ALL THE BACKING FROM THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE. UH, AND EXCUSE ME, YOU HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CONSUMER ADVOCATE. YOU HAVE TESTIMONY, UH, FROM THE ICA ALSO ON THE ICA AND THE ANALYSIS BY CLARENCE JOHNSON. UH, SO THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE THE BASE, BUT ALL OF WHICH IS THE, UH, 18, 18 MILLION, UH, WOULD BE HALFWAY. THAT WOULD BE A CEILING. SO I MEAN, ALL THIS DOES IS PROVIDE, PROVIDE A RANGE, AND THIS IS ON TOP OF THE FACT, THIS IS ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT COUNCIL TOOK ACTION THIS WEEK TO ALREADY INCREASE. SO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE THROUGHOUT IS APPLYING PRINCIPLES OF GRADUALISM AND, AND, OKAY, SO I I STILL JUST, I'M, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. I I, YOU'RE ANSWERING A LOT MORE THAN I, I'M ASKING, I'M JUST TRYING TO, I UNDERSTAND THE SIX AND A HALF WAS THE ICA RECOMMENDATION, SO I ASSUME THAT'S WHERE THAT CAME FROM. I HAVEN'T SEEN 15 OR 18 ANYWHERE FROM ANYBODY. AND SO I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT CAME FROM AND I DON'T THINK THE AUSTIN, YOU WANT ME TO BE HONEST WHERE IT CAME FROM? UM, YES. YEAH, SO THE, THE AUSTIN ENERGY RATE INCREASE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 15% ON RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS. AND THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE A BIG SHOCK TO PEOPLE TO SUDDENLY HAVE AN INCREASE OF 15% TO THEIR RATES ON TOP OF THE PSA. SO HALF OF 15 IS SEVEN AND A HALF. SO THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS THE SORT OF THE MATH. BUT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF, I MEAN, PAUL ROBBINS ACTUALLY SENT OUT ALL OF THE DIFFERENT REVENUE REDUCTIONS THAT DIFFERENT PARTIES CAME UP WITHIN THE RATE CASE. HE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH AND IDENTIFIED THEM AND THERE WERE A LOT OF THEM, I'M SURE. YEAH. SO, OKAY, THANKS. IS THERE ANY, ANYBODY WANT TO WEIGH IN ON WHERE, WHERE THEY'RE THINKING AS FAR AS THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT NUMBER PRIOR TO OUR, LIKE, ACTUAL VOTE ON SOMETHING? KAREN? I'M SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN? WOULD YOU CARE TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT YOU'RE THINKING AS FAR AS REVENUE REQUIREMENT DIRECTIONALLY? WELL, I, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE, THE MATH THAT'S GOING ON HERE. UH, EVEN THE 35 OR, UH, THAT'S NOT UP THERE, 35%, 35.7 IS NOT A SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT INCREASE IN THE BASE RATE. WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THERE ARE CERTAIN CUSTOMER CLASSES, THERE'S ALLOCATION AND RIGHT. AND SO, SO THAT COULD BE DIFFERENT IF YOU'RE ALLOCATING THE BASE RATE, UH, AMONG CUSTOMER CLASSES IN A DIFFERENT FASHION. UH, SO I'M, ALL I'M SAYING IS I, I, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND JUST FROM THIS WHERE ALL THE MATH IS COMING FROM. ROBIN, DID YOU THE, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS SENT TO THE WHOLE EUC, BUT WE HAD ASKED FOR, SO THIS IS GONNA HELP EXPLAIN [00:55:01] WHERE THIS NUMBER CAME FROM. WE HAD ASKED FOR, UM, THE I E THE ICA AND THE AE FINAL PROPOSAL IN TERMS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE, ON THE RATE CLASSES. AND THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO US, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE WHOLE EUC, IT WAS OKAY. AND THAT, THAT IS WHERE THAT 15% ROUGHLY COMES FROM. SO WE WERE LOOKING AT, WE WERE LOOKING AT THOSE, UM, ASSUMING A SIMILAR, YOU KNOW, DISTRIBUTION OF THE RATE INCREASE WOULD BE WHAT CITY COUNCIL DOES, WHICH IS AN ASSUMPTION, YOU KNOW, WE JUST SORT OF ASSUMED IF YOU'RE AT 31 MILLION AND IT'S A 15% INCREASE, IF YOU'RE DOWN AT 18 OR 15, IT'S GONNA BE A SEVEN AND A HALF. THAT'S CYRUS MATH, NOT OFFICIAL RATE MAKING MATH. BUT THE, IF WE HAVE A PRINCIPLE, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE SAY IN NUMBER TWO, IF WE HAVE A PRINCIPLE THAT ANYONE THAT SHOULD GET A RATE INCREASE IS GONNA GET, UM, IS GONNA BE TREATED EQUALLY AND APPLIED EQUALLY, AND ANYONE WHO'S DUE FOR A RATE DECREASE, IT'S GONNA BE APPLIED SORT OF EQUALLY AS WE DO THE NEW ALLOCATION. UM, THEN IF YOU REDUCE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, IT SHOULD, THERE SHOULD BE A SIMILAR INCREASE FOR CUSTOMER CLASS ARE GETTING AN INCREASE AND A SIMILAR DECREASE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING A DECREASE UNDER THE ALLOCATION METHOD. OKAY. I'M NOT SURE I CAUGHT ALL THAT, BUT IF YOU CH, I MEAN, PART OF THIS ALSO SUGGESTS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO NOT ACCEPT WHAT AUSTIN AND ENERGY HAS PROPOSED IN TERMS OF REALLOCATING THE RIGHT CLASSES. SO DON'T YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT MATH TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY GETS AN INCREASE OF ANY PARTICULAR AMOUNT? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE, WE DISAGREED ABOUT, THERE'S GONNA BE AN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ALLOCATION OF, OF, OF THE NEW RATES. WE JUST WANT IT TO BE GRADUAL AND EQUAL SO THAT IF, IF THE ALLOCATION SHOWS THAT THERE ARE CUSTOMER CLASSES WHO HAVE BEEN OVERPAYING, THEN THE REDUCTION SHOULD BE SIMILAR. AND IF THERE'S, IF THE ALLOCATION SHOWS THAT SOME CLASSES HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ENOUGH, IT SHOULD BE SORT OF AN EQUAL, EQUAL HIT ON FOLKS. OKAY. THAT NO CUSTOMER CLASS SHOULD BE OVERBURDENED WITH AN INCREASE OR OVER PROMISED WITH A DECREASE GRADUALISM. BUT I THINK IN, UH, ITEM NUMBER SIX, WE HAVE ADOPT A REVENUE DISTRIBUTION THAT WOULD NOT INCREASE THE RATES. SO ON ANY CUSTOMER CLASS, MORE THAN SEVEN AND HALF PERCENT. SO IF, IF WE'RE PUTTING A CAP ON, UH, EACH CLASS, SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT, UH, ON THEN, THEN THERE'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME REALLOCATION. UH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN THE COST ALLOCATION'S GONNA HAVE TO LOOK DIFFERENT TO ENSURE THAT THAT, ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSED, UH, RATE CLASSIFICATION BECAUSE IF YOU LIMIT IT TO SEVEN AND A HALF, THAT'S GOING TO DRAMATICALLY, UH, CHANGE THE, UH, CHANGE THE REVENUE AMONG CLASSES. YEAH, I'M, I'M DESPERATELY LOOKING FOR THOSE, UM, EUC DOCUMENTS SO I CAN FIND THEM. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT THEM AVAILABLE, ROBIN. I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. OKAY. I HAVE, UM, I HAVE FOUND THESE DOCUMENTS. YEAH. SO AS AN EXAMPLE IN AUSTIN ENERGY'S FILING, UM, WITH THE 35.7 ROUGHLY MILLION INCREASE THE CUSTOMER CLASS, NOT INCLUDING THE LIGHTING CATEGORY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, SORT OF MINOR. BUT IN TERMS OF THE MAJOR, UH, CLASSES, THE, THE LARGEST CHANGE WOULD BE A 15.5% INCREASE ON THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS AND A FIVE POINT WHILE THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER, UH, SEVERAL OTHER INCREASES. UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRIMARY VOLTAGE OVER 20 MEGAWATTS WOULD SEE A 9.3% INCREASE. SO IT'S SORT OF SAYING, THIS IS KIND OF SAYING NOBODY SHOULD HAVE AN INCREASE MORE THAN SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT. AND SO THE MATH WAS BASICALLY HAVING THE [01:00:01] REVENUE REQUIREMENT. OKAY. SO I, I'M, I'M GETTING WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT I'LL JUST TELL YOU THE MATH DOESN'T WORK. IF YOU, IF YOU LIMIT ALL INCREASES TO SEVEN AND A HALF, THEN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE NEGATIVE NUMBERS HAS TO GO POSITIVE. OR I BELIEVE IF I LOOK AT THE, AT THE, UH, RANGE OF THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S BEING RAISED IN EACH ONE OF THOSE RATE CLASSES, I HAS, HAS ANYBODY ACTUALLY DONE THE MATH TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU APPLY ALL THE CONSTRAINTS THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PROPOSAL? I HAVE NOT, BUT THAT'S A GOOD POINT. AND ONE THAT CERTAINLY WE CAN, BECAUSE I, I THINK WHAT YOU'LL FIND IS IF YOU ADD THE CONSTRAINTS THAT YOU HAVE IN THIS, THIS PROPOSAL PROPOSED RESOLUTION, YOU CAN'T MATHEMATICALLY ACCOMPLISH IT. IF, IF YOU, IF YOU USE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT AS, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ICA, EXCUSE ME. IF YOU USE THE ICAS RECOMMENDATION AS A BASE, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU, HOW YOU WOULD, NOT THAT IT WOULD BE A PROBLEM, THE SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT USING THE SEVEN SEVEN TO CAP IT AT SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT WOULD PROVIDE AN INCREASE TO RESIDENTIAL. IT WOULD PROVIDE AN INCREASE TO SMALL COMMERCIAL, BUT IT, BUT ALL OF WHICH IS, IT WOULD NOT PROVIDE A RATE CUT FOR SOME FOR YOUR LARGER COMMERCIAL. SO, SO THE, THE ONE THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT BEFORE THAT SAID SIX AND A HALF TO 18 REALLY JUST BECOMES SIX AND A HALF. UH, NO, I, I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE NECESSARILY LOOKING AT THE SIX AND A HALF, UH, THE REVIEWING THE TESTIMONY, THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD REASONS THAT IT COULD BE SIX AND A HALF, BUT, BUT ALL OF WHICH IS WITHIN THAT RANGE, WITHIN THAT RANGE, UH, WITH THE SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT CAP, IT IS POSSIBLE, IT IS POSSIBLE TO KEEP IT AT THE SEVEN POINT A HALF, ALL OF WHICH IS WE'RE NOT GONNA, AS IF I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE. RATHER WE'RE ASKING EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE FOR, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS ON EACH OF THESE ITEMS AND WE'RE KIND OF JUMPING AROUND. OKAY. SO, I MEAN, I DON'T WANNA BELABOR THIS ANY FURTHER OTHER THAN TO SAY, IN ORDER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR IT, I'VE GOTTA FIND SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS HOW THE MATH WORKS BECAUSE MY, JUST OFF THE CUFF MATH, MATH, AND I'M PRETTY GOOD AT MATH, UH, SAYS THIS, THIS DOESN'T ADD UP, BUT I, I'M, I'M, I, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO BE PROVED INCORRECTLY. I MAY BE THINKING ABOUT THIS TOO SIMPLISTICALLY, BUT AGAIN, ALL I WAS DOING WAS LOOKING AT IN THE, UM, I E RECOMMENDATION OF 31.3 MILLION, HIS TOP, UM, HIS TOP RATE IN TERMS OF AN INCREASE WOULD BE ON THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS AND IT WOULD BE A LITTLE OVER 14%. SO AGAIN, TRYING TO MAKE SURE, AND, AND WE'RE, WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS, SO MAKING SURE THERE'S NOT A HUGE RATE SHOCK TO RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS GIVEN THAT THEY, THEY'RE ALREADY GONNA SEE A PSA INCREASE. UM, AND AGAIN, HIS ALSO HAS A 9.8% ON SOME OF THE LARGER USERS, UH, AND A 5% ON THE SECONDARY VOLTAGE. SO SMALL BUSINESS, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS, YOU KNOW, I WE'RE NOT, UM, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO CITY COUNCIL. I DON'T KNOW IF CITY COUNCIL'S EXPECTING US TO COME UP WITH AN ACTUAL, YOU KNOW, PERCENTAGE ON EACH RATE CLASS OR ANYTHING, OR THAT DEGREE. I THINK GIVING SOME GENERAL GUIDANCE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH AUSTIN ENERGY AND OTHERS ON WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, I THINK THAT'S FAIR. BUT RIGHT NOW THE RESOLUTION HAS, UH, SPECIFIC NUMBERS, UH, YOU KNOW, SO WE SAY A RANGE OF REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND THEN A AND THEN A GRADUALISM CAP TO THE CLASSES. AND, AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER VIRTUAL THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA NEED TO SEE THE NUMBERS. SO WE HAVE THE SIX AND A HALF PERCENT, I'M SORRY, THE SIX AND A HALF MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, FROM THE I, FROM THE ICA, UH, THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE NUMBER RUNS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY SENT US. SO, SO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, ONE END OF THE RANGE. UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT, AND, AND SO OBVIOUSLY THAT [01:05:01] IS APPLYING THE 7.5%, UM, REVENUE, UH, CAP, THE INCREASE, THE GRADUALISM INCREASE, UH, I THINK THAT ALREADY VIOLATES, AM I, AM I READING THAT WRONG? I MEAN, THE 1414 0.4% CHANGE IN RESIDENTIAL ISN'T THAT, ISN'T THAT ALREADY IN, THAT WAS FOR THE IE RECOMMENDATION. THE ICA ONLY HAS I THINK A PERCENTAGE AND A HALF OR SOMETHING. YEAH, THIS IS LIKE THEIR NUMBERS. SEE, THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS. THIS IS, THIS IS I E I E, ONE OF 'EM I E AND ONE OF THEM'S, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY, THIS IS, THIS IS AUSTIN ENERGY. THERE'S AN AUSTIN ENERGY, THERE'S AN ICA. OH, HERE'S ICA. OKAY, I GOT IT. OKAY, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. YEAH, THE ICA HAD, I'LL SAY A PRETTY SIMPLE SOLUTION, WHICH WAS GIVE EVERYBODY A LITTLE OVER A PERCENTAGE, UH, RATE INCREASE OR A TINY DECREASE. THEY REALLY 1.1 0.2%, ONE 2%. YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S USING THEIR, THEIR BELIEF ON COST ALLOCATION, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING THE JUDGE AGREED WITH, BUT IS, IS A, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT RATE MAKING, I GUESS ISN'T SCIENCE, IT'S ART. UM, SO I GUESS I, I AGREE. I MEAN, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE, YOU KNOW, SO WE HAVE THE SIX AND A HALF PERCENT, UH, WITH THE SEVEN, UM, SORRY, SIX AND A HALF MILLION WITH THE SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT CAP. UH, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE TOP RANGE NUMBER, UM, WITH THE SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT CAP IMPLEMENTED. UM, AND THEN, AND THEN I, BUT I, I DO AGREE GENERALLY WITH, UH, THE SENTIMENT THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE, WE NEED TO STATE A, UH, YOU KNOW, A PARTICULAR, UH, REVENUE REQUIREMENT OR A CAP, UM, FOR GRADUALISM INCREASE. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK WE CAN, UM, BUT I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY HAVE TO. I THINK IT CAN BE DIRECTIONAL. I THINK IT CAN BE, THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL CAN BE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT THE AUSTIN ENERGIES PROPOSED RATE INCREASE, UH, OR, OR THE HEARING EXAMINERS PROPOSED INCREASE. UM, YOU KNOW, AND OR WE, WE SUPPORT SOME TYPE OF GRADUALISM. UH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I JUST THINK IT CAN BE DIRECTIONAL. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, BUT IF, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE SPECIFIC AS THIS RELU RESOLUTION IS PROPOSING, I THINK I WOULD, I NEED TO SEE HOW THOSE NUMBERS GET ALLOCATED AMONG THE CLASS CLASSES TO, TO BE, TO SPEAKING AGAIN HONESTLY, AS I'M TRYING, I MEAN, I ALMOST THINK ONE THROUGH FOUR WOULD GIVE, UM, CITY COUNCIL QUITE A BIT OF, OF DIRECTION. UM, YOU KNOW, AND SOME ATTENTION THAT THEY SHOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATES PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN WITHOUT NECESSARILY GOING INTO ALL THOSE DETAILS. I MEAN, THERE, I THINK THERE'S A WAY WE COULD PROVIDE GENERAL DIRECTION WITHOUT BEING AS SPECIFIC AS THIS LANGUAGE IS. UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ALSO CALLING FOR SOME OF THE, THE STUDIES AND THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN ON VALUE OF SOLAR GOING FORWARD. SO TO GIVE SOME DIRECTION WITHOUT, AGAIN, NECESSARILY BEING SO SPECIFIC. OKAY. UM, OKAY. I GUESS MAYBE THAT MOVES US ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. THAT'S, THAT'S TALKING ABOUT GRADUALISM GENERALLY. UM, THOUGH IT SAYS IT SHOULD BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO CLASSES, WHICH IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE NUMBER SIX BELOW, WHICH IS THE SEVEN AND A HALF CAP, SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT CAP. UM, SO I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT. SO COULD WE EARMARK NUMBER SIX AND, AND KIND OF COULD WE SIMPLY EARMARK SIX FOR NOW, ASK, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY TO UH, UH, TELL US WHAT THE, BASICALLY DO A ABBREVIATED, UH, BACK OF THE NAPKIN NUMBERS RUN, UH, APPLYING THE 7.5% AND TALK VOTE, INCLUDE THAT IN OUR SUBSEQUENT AT OUR SUBSEQUENT MEETING? YEAH, I THINK WE, WE DEFINITELY CAN THOUGH. I THINK WE NEED A REVENUE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE TO THEM. YEAH, YOU GOTTA HAVE MORE THAN IN THE EQUATION THAN THE SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT. SO WE'VE GOTTA PICK A REVENUE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GONNA, WELL, FIRST OFF, WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE GOT TIME AND RESOURCES TO DO THIS FOR US, BUT IF, IF THEY CAN, WHAT YOU NEED IS TO SAY, OKAY, PICK A SIX AND A HALF MILLION DOLLAR, AND THAT SHOULD BE ADDITIONAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? YES. [01:10:01] UM, AND, UH, PICK A 15 MILLION ADDITIONAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND THEN APPLY THE, UH, THE STUFF THAT YOU HAVE IN ITEM SEVEN, WHICH IS THE RIGHT CLASS, THE TIER STRUCTURE. OKAY. AND THEN, UH, AND THEN PUT A LIMITER ON IT THAT IT CAN ONLY BE A MAXIMUM OF 7.5% FROM ANY OF THOSE CLASS, FOR ANY OF THOSE CLASSES IN SEVEN AND SEE IF EVEN MATHEMATICALLY THAT WORKS. YEAH, I DON'T THINK, I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE NECESSARILY SAYING IT HAS TO BE SEVEN AND A 5% WITHIN EACH TIER. WE'RE SAYING THE CLASS AS A WHOLE, I THINK THEY'RE SAYING AS A CLASS, THE CLASS AS A WHOLE, LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. OKAY. I DON'T, DON'T THINK WE'RE SAYINGM. SORRY. I MISS, I'M, I DON'T THINK WE'RE SAYING, YEAH, AN INDIVIDUAL CAN'T GET A BILL MORE THAN SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING. WE'RE SAYING AS THE CLASS AS A WHOLE SHOULDN'T GET OUT. I MISSPOKE. YEAH. BUT EVEN AMONG CLASSES, I DON'T THINK THIS MATH WILL WORK. I THINK YOU'LL, I'M PRETTY SURE YOU END UP WITH AN IMPOSSIBLE EQUATION. SO, SO THAT'S FINE. I, I WANT TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. SO, UH, LET'S USE, LET'S AT LEAST GIVE THEM ENOUGH INFORMATION WHERE THEY CAN FIGURE IT OUT. SO I MEAN, I'M, I'M HEARING HAVE THEM RUN NUMBERS AT 15,000,007 AND A 5% CAP REVENUE, 15 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT, SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT, UH, INCREASE PER CLASS. MAX. MAX. MAX, YEAH. OR 18. I THINK , I THINK I ORIGINALLY WROTE 18, BUT SOMEHOW IT CAME OUT AS 15. UM, 15. 15. 15, EXCUSE ME. SORRY. 15 WOULD WORK. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO DO A RUN THE ICAS RECOMMENDATION. OK. DID, DO WE NOT HAVE THE ICAS RECOMMENDATION? WE DO. UM, IT'S WITH THEIR ALLOCATE AGAIN, THEIR PARTICULAR ALLOCATION. SO THEY, THEY DIDN'T OH, I SEE. WITHOUT THE SEVEN, YOU'RE SAYING THE ICAS REVENUE REQUIREMENT WITH THE SEVEN AND A 5% GRADUALISM. YEAH. OKAY. YES, I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE THAT. OKAY. OKAY. NOW, NOW IF AUSTIN ENERGY CAN DO THAT FOR US, . YEAH. SO WHAT GREAT RATE STRUCTURE IS IN THIS ASSUMPTION? NO, NO RATE DESIGN YET. UM, I DON'T THINK WE'VE, WELL, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED BY AE OR JUST LEAVE IT ALONE AS IT IS TODAY. I THINK SO FAR WE'VE ONLY, WE'RE ONLY DISCUSSING REVENUES PER CLASS, UM, AND HAVEN'T, HAVEN'T ATTEMPTED TO GET INTO THE WEEDS ON THE DESIGN YET, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED NEXT. BUT, BUT IN THAT ITEM SEVEN, YEAH, SO IT, IT, I THINK WE'RE, HAVE WE KIND OF, YEAH. ALL RIGHT. OKAY, GREAT. SO LET'S TALK, RIGHT? DESIGN , I, I JUST WANT TO MAYBE PUT SOME BASIC MATH OUT THERE, BUT I KNOW IT'S NOT TOTALLY ACCURATE BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER THINGS LIKE, UH, LOW LOAD FACTOR OR CHANGES AND A FEW THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT IF YOU TAKE 520,575 METERS MINUS 7% CAP, THAT'S 484,135 EATERS ARE CUSTOMERS AND JUST TAKE $3 PER CUSTOMER INCREASE, ISN'T THAT ABOUT $17.4 MILLION? SO JUST SIMPLY RAISING THE CUSTOMER CHARGE THREE BUCKS GETS IN THE BALLPARK ROUGHLY WITHOUT 52 CARD PICKUP ON RATES AND FIVE TIERS, THREE TIERS, SOME SUBSTANTIALLY DECREASE, SOME RATE SHOCK UP. I MEAN, THEY'RE JUST BLUNTLY THROUGH ALL THIS WITH A SURPRISE WITH THE PSA AND MAYBE SOME OTHER THINGS. THERE'S JUST SO MUCH GOING ON. I'M KIND OF VOTING FOR SIMPLICITY AND HAVING AN ANALYSIS WITH $3 OR $4 CUSTOMER CHARGE CHANGE. THAT'S JUST THE LEVEL OF GRANULARITY THAT I KIND OF WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH. AND I DO APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER VI'S EXPERIENCE AND COMMENTS HERE ABOUT THERE'S SOUP BEING MADE OR CAKES BEING BAKED BY THE NEGOTIATING PARTIES, AND THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY HAVE MORE INFORMATION THAN PERHAPS ANY OF US HAVE SPENT TIME ON. AND, UM, SO IT'D BE GOOD TO SEE WHAT THAT IS, BUT I'M ACTUALLY IN THE SIMPLICITY MODE. THANK YOU. THOUGHTS ON THAT? I THINK YOU GUYS WERE JUST, JUST REAL QUICKLY. I, I LIKE SIMPLICITY, UH, BUT I, ALL [01:15:01] OF WHICH IS, I, I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA THAT YOUR LARGEST CUSTOMER WOULD PAY $3 AND I WOULD PAY $3. UH, IF, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IT JUST DOING IT STRICTLY ON METERS. SO, UH, GET A LITTLE BIT MORE SOPHISTICATED , LIKE IF YOU HAVE 400 A SERVICE VERSUS TWO, WHATEVER. YEAH, OKAY. JUST SOMETHING. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. BUT FAR SIMPLER THAN FIVE TO THREE AND FLATTENING. AND, BUT, YOU KNOW, BASED, BASED UPON USAGE, AS LONG AS IT'S APPLIED BASED ON USAGE AND NOT SIMPLY, NOT, NOT SIMPLY WHAT SIZE METER YOU HAVE, I, I THINK COMMISSIONER'S TOTAL'S POINT IS WE COULD DO SOME BASIC MATH JUST LOOKING AT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND SAYING IF IT WERE 13 OR $14 OR $12 OR WHATEVER, WANNA LOOK AT WHAT, HOW MUCH REVENUE WOULD THAT RAISE JUST BY ITSELF. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL IS A WAY TO, OKAY. THINK ABOUT IT. YEAH. IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT? OR, I FUNDAMENTALLY, SO I HEAR THE ICA SAID 6.5 MILLION, IE SAID 31.3 AE REVISED WAS 35.7. SO WE HAVE THIS RANGE. NOBODY SAID ZERO. WELL, SOME PEOPLE MAY BE SAYING ZERO THAT I HEARD. OKAY. BUT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY OF ALL THESE NUMBERS TO SAY THE WAITING OF, OF, UM, YOU KNOW, WHICH NUMBERS YOU LOOK AT. I MEAN, THESE ARE SOPHISTICATED FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS AND ANALYSIS. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WAIT IT IN TERMS OF WHICH ONE I THINK IS, REFLECTS A GREATER DEGREE OF REALITY. BUT WE ALL SEEM TO HAVE THE ICA THROUGH AE REVISED SOME POSITIVE, POSITIVE NUMBER, RIGHT? AND WE DO THINK THAT IT'S PROBABLY IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE UTILITY. THERE'S A PAYBACK THERE OF THE DIFFERENT RATINGS, AND EVERY TIME YOU GET DOWNGRADED, THAT AFFECTS YOUR CREDIT. AND ESPECIALLY IN A RAISING A RISING INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT, IT MAY BE EVEN MORE PRONOUNCED THAN WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST. SO IT COULD BE MORE VALUABLE TO GO FROM A AA MINUS BACKUP TO DOUBLE A. RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S ALL VERY HELPFUL. UM, COMMISSIONERS, CHAPMAN AND REED, ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD ON THE RATE DESIGN? YOU'VE, YOU'VE PROPOSED ADOPTING THE ICAS FOUR TIER AND INCREASING THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE BY NO MORE THAN 20% OR $2. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST, UH, AT THE LAST MEETING. AND 20%, 20% SEEMED LIKE A REASONABLE CAP. THE, UH, WE HAVE FIVE TIERS NOW. UH, AE ASKED FOR THREE, AND THEREFORE FOUR SEEM LIKE REASONABLE, UH, UH, METHOD BECAUSE THERE AREN'T THAT MANY WITHIN RESIDENTIAL. THERE AREN'T THAT MANY CUSTOMERS WHO ARE IN TIER FIVE. UH, IT WOULDN'T, DOESN'T RAISE THAT MUCH REVENUE IN. AND THE, THE NUMBERS BEING THE NUMBERS ARE, UH, SHOW THAT PEOPLE WHO USE ARE THAT HIGH USAGE ARE NOT LO, ARE NOT PAYING THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO SAVINGS. SO UNDER, UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, WE, WE'VE, WE'VE ESTABLISHED A REVENUE REQUIREMENT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. AND ALL YOUR SUGGESTING HERE IS THAT WE NOT, WHEN WE, WHEN WE DESIGN THE RESIDENTIAL RATE, WE ARE NOT INCR WE ARE NOT GOING TO INCREASE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE BY MORE THAN 20% OR $2. AND THE REST OF THE REVENUE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE COLLECTED IS GOING TO BE COLLECTED THROUGH A FOURIER RATE STRUCTURE. IS THAT OKAY? AND THOSE NUMBERS ARE DIRECTLY FROM THE ICAS PROPOSAL. THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW, THE EXACT NUMBERS AREN'T AS IMPORTANT AS THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE GIVING SUB SIGNAL FOR CONSERVATION, RIGHT? SO, I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CARE WHETHER IT'S 10 AND A HALF OR 11.3 ON THE TOP. YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? IT'S MORE THAT WE'RE AT LEAST GIVING A SIGNAL TO PEOPLE SO THEY CAN SAY, OH, IF I USE, IF I GET [01:20:01] OVER THAT 2,500 PER MONTH, I'M REALLY GONNA GET HIT. I, I'LL, I'LL SAY THAT. JUST GENERALLY I'M SUPPORTIVE OF A FOURIER RATE STRUCTURE. I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT MAKES SENSE. UM, AND UH, I, I, I HONESTLY DUNNO WHERE I AM ON THE, THE CAP TO THE CUSTOMER CHARGE OF NO MORE THAN 20%. UM, UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'LL CONTINUE TO THINK ON THAT, BUT, BUT I, I GENERALLY THINK FOUR TIERS MAKE SENSE. UM, ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WAS JUST GONNA COMMENT THAT I THINK AT ONE POINT, AND PLEASE TAKE THIS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. CAUSE I'VE HEARD A LOT OF NUMBERS THROWN IN MY HEAD LATELY, BUT I THINK AT ONE POINT IT WAS SAID TIER ONE AND TIER TWO AS PROPOSED BY THE ICA SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT 90% OF CUSTOMERS. IT JUST MAKES FUNDAMENTALLY SO MUCH MORE SENSE THAN TO SHRINK EVERYONE DOWN TO THREE TIERS, IN MY OPINION. THANK YOU. KOSHER TOTAL. YOU KNOW, I USED TO DESIGN COMPUTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND CHANGING CODE, MAYBE THIS IS NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL, BUT IF IT'S NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL TO TO CHANGE IT, WE'LL FIND FIVE TO FOUR. BUT JUST, HOW ABOUT JUST LEAVE THINGS ALONE AND JUST CHANGE THE NUMBER? AND BY THE WAY, THE OTHER THING, SINCE 2021, IT WAS A PRETTY PAINFUL YEAR FOR MANY OF US, RIGHT? C O AND YURI AND SUCH NOT, AND IF THERE IS OVER RECOVERY, THEN HAVING THINGS KIND OF THE SAME AND ALL YOU'VE DONE IS DIAL UP A LITTLE BIT, THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, AND IF THERE'S AN OVER RECOVERY, YOU CAN JUST DIAL IT BACK DOWN PRETTY EASILY. SO THAT SUGGEST, SO I'M UNDERSTANDING, ARE YOU SUGGESTING KEEPING THE TIER, THE FIVE TIERS, FIVE TIERS EXACTLY THE SAME. THERE MAY BE SOME LOGIC IN SOME OF THE DETAILS OF LOAD LOAD FACTOR CUSTOMERS, EXCEPT FOR WHAT ABOUT, UH, HOUSES OF WORSHIP? UH, DO WE WANNA REALLY TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THEM IF THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THAT CATEGORY? OR EV CHARGING, WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE EV ADOPTION, BUT JUST SOMETHING SIMPLE AND IT, IT HAS TO BE A STRANGE YEAR. WE DON'T KNOW HOW STRANGE THERE'S DEBATE UPON THAT. AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING THE SAME, JUST TWEAK ONE NUMBER AND IF IT'S TOO MUCH, THEN YOU CAN ROLL IT BACK VERY EASILY. THANK YOU. UM, OKAY. I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE HAD THE FULL DISCUSSION ON THE RAY DESIGN. UM, WHY DON'T WE MOVE ON [14. Update from the Budget & Audit Working Group.] TO THE SORT OF STUDY AND OTHER SORT OF LIKE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK THAT WE CAN COVER THESE FAIRLY QUICKLY. I KNOW IT'S, IT'S GETTING LATE. UM, SO, BUT HOPEFULLY WE CAN, WE CAN COVER THESE KIND OF QUICKLY. SO THE FIRST ONE LINE LOSS STUDY, UM, THIS IS RECOMMENDING THAT, THAT AUSTIN ENERGY CONDUCT A NEW SYSTEM LOSS STUDY OR LINE LOSS STUDY TO DERIVE BOTH PEAK DEMAND AND ENERGY LOSS FACTORS BY SERVICE LEVEL, UM, PRIOR TO THE NEXT BASE RATE CASE. UM, ANY, YEAH, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING PEOPLE GENERALLY THINK SHOULD BE DONE, UM, BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT BASE RATE CASE SO THAT DIFFERENT CLASSES ARE GETTING ALLOCATED THE APPROPRIATE COSTS. I I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE AND SUPPORT THAT. ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, CARRIE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE. THIS IS REQUIRE AUSTIN ENERGY TO DEVELOP A PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE CONSISTENT WITH THE ANALYSIS AND THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT AND PROPOSE IT AS PART OF ITS RATE FILING PACKAGE IN THE NEXT BASE RATE REVIEW. SAME THING. IT WAS A RECO. I I E GENERALLY AGREED WITH THIS, THAT THIS SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LOT OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE, BUT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT SAID, WELL, AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT TIME, LET'S GET IT DONE. I, I SUPPORT THAT AS WELL. MAKES SENSE TO ME. OKAY. VALUE SOLAR TARIFFS. SO THIS IS THE ONE I HAD A WHOLE SEPARATE RESOLUTION ON. UM, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE SOME TIME. I JUST THINK WE SHOULD TAKE SOME TIME WITH IT CUZ UM, WE ALSO GOT, UM, ANOTHER REQUEST TONIGHT FROM ANOTHER PARTY, UH, ABOUT WHAT TO INCLUDE. BUT, UM, AND THIS IS THE STORAGE COALITION. YEAH. BUT BASICALLY THE IDEA IS GO AHEAD AND ADOPT WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS PROPOSING IN TERMS OF THE AVOIDED COST THAT THE IE AGREED WITH. AND BY THE WAY, SIERRA CLUB DID NOT AGREE WITH THAT. WE WANTED A DIFFERENT METHOD, BUT ESSENTIALLY, UM, AND THE OTHER RESOLUTION YOU'LL SEE CREATE A PROCESS FOR MOVING FORWARD THAT INCLUDES E UCR, RMC AND, AND LOOKS AT ALL THESE FACTORS GOING FORWARD KIND OF THING. BUT, UM, I'D LIKE TO SPEND SOME MORE TIME WITH THAT AND ALSO GET SOME, UH, INPUT FROM AUSTIN ENERGY ON THAT. OKAY, GREAT. I, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE AND, AND [01:25:01] WE CAN DISCUSS BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING WHETHER, UH, WE SHOULD JUST PULL THAT OUT AS A SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE A, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT, JUST, JUST AS A SORT OF STANDALONE THING. ROLL IN SOLAR INTO THAT, UH, CONVERSATION AS WELL. I MEAN, SORRY, STORAGE INTO THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL. OKAY. NUMBER 11. MAINTAIN EXISTING DIFFERENCES FOR REVENUE AND RATE STRUCTURE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN CUSTOMERS AND THOSE FROM OTHER NEARBY COMMUNITIES WITH NO ADDITIONAL COST SHIFTING. NUMBER 12. SORRY, NUMBER 12. I'M LOOKING AT AN OLDER VERSION. YEP. THERE WE GO. NUMBER 12. WELL, IF YOU LEAVE EVERYTHING ALONE, IT'S THERE. . KEEP US HOME. YEP. YEAH. OKAY. ANYBODY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? OKAY. UH, THE NUMBER 13 DIRECT EUC TO EXAMINE THE CONTRIBUTION IN NATIVE CONSTRUCTION POLICIES. UH, I ALSO SUPPORT THAT. ANY, ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I THINK THIS WAS A POINT WE DISCUSSED IN A PRIOR MEETING AND WE HAD AT, AT ONE POINT TALKED ABOUT HAVING THIS AS LIKE A SEPARATE, SO WAS THAT KIND OF THE IDEA JUST TO LIKE, LOOP THIS IN? YEAH, JUST LOOP IT IN AND SAY THIS ISN'T SOMETHING WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE HANDLING IN THIS RATE CASE, BUT WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD. AND THEN FINALLY, HOLD ON. I, I DIDN HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, GO AHEAD THIS. GO AHEAD. UM, CYRUS, UM, SO THIS IS BASIC. I UNDERSTAND THE SIMPLE VERSION OF THIS, WHICH IS SOMEBODY FINDS SOME COMPLETELY UNDEVELOPED LAND THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY BUILT OUT AND BEING SERVED, UH, IN THAT SIDE, DEVELOP A PROJECT. THERE'S HARDLY ANY OF THAT LEFT AROUND HERE ANYMORE. BUT, UH, LET'S ASSUME THAT'S A SCENARIO. SO YOU WOULD TRY TO COME UP WITH A POLICY WHERE THE PEOPLE, THE, THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS GONNA PAY MORE MONEY TO, UH, INNATE OF CONSTRUCTION AS A WAY OF BASICALLY KEEPING THE NEW BUILDING FROM BEING A BURDEN ON EVERYBODY ELSE. THE MORE LIKELY SCENARIO, WHICH IS THAT PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALLY BUILDING HOUSES, KNOCKING DOWN OLD HOUSES AND BUILDING NEW ONES OR KNOCK OR KNOCKING DOWN OLD BUILDINGS AND PUTTING UP APARTMENT BUILDINGS OR SOMETHING. IS THAT ALSO GONNA BE, UM, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS GETTING AT AND HOW, HOW WE ARE GONNA MAKE IT. I'M IN AN AREA I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT , IT WAS JUST TRYING TO GET AT THAT ISSUE WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY. LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK AT. UM, YOU KNOW, PAUL ROBBINS BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE WITH, IN AUSTIN WATER, THEY LOOK AT, UM, WHEN THEY RECOVER COSTS FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON THE OVERALL NEEDS OF THE SYSTEM. OKAY. YOU KNOW, SO SORT OF THAT KIND OF THING. BUT I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. I, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT WOULD BE, COULD POLITICALLY BE VERY DICEY DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU DID. OKAY, THANKS. I THINK I SKIPPED, UH, NUMBER 10. THIS IS TRANSMISSION SERVICE REQUIRE AUSTIN ENERGY COMMIT TO PROVIDING A PATHWAY FOR PRIMARY GREATER THAN 20 MEGAWATT H L F CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE THE FACILITIES NECESSARY TO UPGRADE TRANSMISSION SERVICE. AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE THIS PATHWAY NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER COUNCIL ACTION APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT IN THE BASE RATE CASE. WHAT, WHAT, CAN YOU PROVIDE SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT? SO THIS IS, THIS IS FOR LARGE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS, HIGH LOAD, UH, CUSTOMERS THAT POTENTIALLY WOULD OWN THEIR OWN TRANSMISSION AND THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT TRANSMISSION RATE. BASICALLY, IT'S A, IT'S AN ISSUE THE, THE, UM, INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS BROUGHT UP IN THE RATE CASE. UH, AND RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOT REALLY A PROCESS FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. SO CREATING THAT PROCESS. BUT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IS, IS ONE YEAR ENOUGH TIME? IS IT TOO MUCH? YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST AN, IT IS, IT'S AN ISSUE THEY BROUGHT UP. IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, AN ISSUE I KNOW A LOT ABOUT. UM, I THINK WE HAVE FOLKS HERE FROM THAT GROUP IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM, DOES ANYBODY WANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? ISN'T THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLEX WHERE WE NEED SOME INPUT FROM AE TO UNDERSTAND? I MEAN, WHY IT HASN'T IT BEEN DONE BEFORE? THERE'S PROBABLY SOME LOGIC BEHIND THAT. SO I'D LIKE TO NOT SPEND TWO MINUTES ON IT AND UNDERSTAND MORE FULLY WHAT IT IS. OKAY. YEAH. AND AGAIN, THIS GETS BACK TO HOW, HOW DETAILED DO WE WANT TO GET IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS? UM, AND WE MIX MM-HMM. . OKAY. [01:30:02] UH, ALRIGHT. SO THEN MOVING ON TO NUMBER 14. THE LAST ONE THERE INSTRUCT AUSTIN ENERGY TO DEVELOP A PLAN TO EXPAND ACCESS TO MORE AFFORDABLE ELECTRICAL POWER FOR RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, INCLUDING ADOPTING A RATE RIDER FOR TIME OF USE, CHARGING OF VEHICLES DURING OFF PEAK HOURS AT LOWER RATES. OKAY. SO NO, QUIT PUTTING T U ON EV. OKAY. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED WITH CALIFORNIA AND I, THIS IS WHERE WE NEED A STRICT DEFINITION OF WHAT TOU MEANS. IF IT'S THE CLASSIC SORT OF 20TH CENTURY, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A PEAK FROM TWO TO 8:00 PM IN THE AFTERNOON, YOU HAVE SHOULDER AND THEN YOU HAVE OFF PEAK. WELL LOOK WHAT'S HAPPENED TO CALIFORNIA OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS WITH THE DUCK CURVE. NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO SHIFT LOAD INTO THE PEAK TIMES BECAUSE THEY HAVE EXCESS SOLAR. SO ANYTHING WITH T U IT SHOULDN'T BE IN THERE. YOU COULD HAVE TIME VARIANT SOMETHING INTELLIGENT. DAVE, TO BE FAIR, I THINK WE THOUGHT THIS IS WHAT YOU WANTED. SO WE PUT THIS IN , BUT OBVIOUSLY WE GOT IT WRONG. , THIS WAS OUR DAVE TITLE. THANKS FOR TRYING, BUT NO, I DON'T LIKE, OKAY, WELL THEN WE SHOULD DEFINITELY REMOVE IT OR, OR GET YOUR, THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU WANTED TO SEE. CAUSE I THINK WE WERE TRYING TO, UH, RESPOND TO WHAT YOU HAD ASKED FOR. YEAH, AND, AND I'D LIKE TO GET AES, I MEAN, THERE'S UTILITY LINGO AND I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD WHAT TOU MEANT AND IT MEANT SOMETHING THAT WAS SORT OF AN ERA OF PURE THERMAL AND NOT MUCH RENEWABLE AND NOT ANY ELECTRIC VEHICLES. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING MORE TIME VARIANT OR GRID STRESS VARIANT OR EMISSION VARIANT IT ALL OF WHICH IS, UH, AS A JOINED WITH CONSUMER ADVOCATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, UH, IN, IN OPPOSING TIME OF USE RATES BECAUSE THEY PUN AT A, AS A WHOLE BECAUSE THEY PUNISH YOUR, YOUR STAY AT HOME PARENT, THEY PUNISH YOUR SENIOR WHO'S, WHO'S AT HOME. UH, THERE'S NO DISAGREEMENT THERE. THE, THE THOUGHT WAS, UH, IN, IN PUTTING THIS UP FOR CONSIDERATION, UH, WAS SIMPLY WITH THE ELECTRIFICATION OF VEHICLES THAT THOSE VEHICLE, IF, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT COULD USE LIMITED TWO VEHICLES THAT HAVE, SO THEY'RE NOT CHARGING DURING PEAK HOURS. THAT WAS THE CONCEPT AND WE WERE TRYING TO BUILD ON WHAT YOU SAID. THANKS FOR TRYING. SO WE CAN PULL, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IF YOU WANT TO PULL THAT, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE SPRING OR SUMMER. SO MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE'S ALREADY SOME ACTIONS UNDERWAY TO TRY TO HAVE INTELLIGENT CHARGING THAT AVOIDS AGGRAVATING THE PEAK. EXACTLY. EXACTLY. IT'D BE SPECIFIC, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC, JUST LIKE IN, IN SOME STATES WATER HEATERS HAVE A, HAVE IN ESSENCE A A TIME, A TIMER ON THEM. SO THEY'RE NOT CHARGING DURING OR CHARGING BEING USED DURING PEAK HEATING WATER DURING PEAK HOURS. SAME, SAME CONCEPT. IT WAS NOT ABOUT ADOPTING TIME OF USE RATES. THANKS. OKAY. UM, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT GOES THROUGH EVERYTHING, UH, THAT THE WORKING GROUP HAS PROPOSED. AS FAR AS A RECOMMENDATION, I'D LIKE TO NOW SHIFT GEARS AND REVISIT OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT, UH, WHEN WE, UH, WILL VOTE ON A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL ON THE BASE RATE PROPOSAL. UM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE HAD A REALLY ROBUST CONVERSATION. I THINK, UH, WE'VE IDENTIFIED SOME QUESTIONS AND MAYBE HOLES IN THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED. I ALSO THINK THAT WE'VE HAD, AT LEAST THERE'S A HANDFUL OF ITEMS THAT DIDN'T SOUND LIKE THERE WAS ANY OBJECTION TO, UH, OR CONCERN WITH. AND SO I THINK MAYBE IF THE WORKING GROUP, UH, WOULD LIKE TO TAKE IT BACK AND, YOU KNOW, WORK ON A, A DRAFT, UH, THAT WOULD, WOULD GET CLOSER TO, UM, I DON'T, I, I'M NOT GONNA SAY UNANIMOUS SUPPORT BECAUSE I DUNNO THAT WE'RE THERE YET, BUT PERHAPS CONSIDER PULLING OUT THE THINGS THAT YOU THINK MAY HAVE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT AS A STANDALONE AND THEN HAVE ANOTHER, UH, DRAFT THAT I, UH, IDENTIFIES THE THINGS WHERE THERE MAY NOT BE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT AND, AND WE CAN PLAN ON VOTING THAT UP OR DOWN. I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE NUMBER RUNS FROM AUSTIN ENERGY, IF POSSIBLE. UM, AND SO NOW I'D LIKE TO CIRCLE BACK AND HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT ON THE 14TH. UM, I'M STILL INCLINED TO [01:35:01] HAVE OUR VOTE ON THE 14TH. I THINK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, UH, IS, IS BETTER. I THINK IT STILL GIVES US ENOUGH TIME TO HAVE SOMETHING BEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR ULTIMATE VOTE. I I THINK THAT IT'LL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PARTIES TO CONTINUE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND THAT THE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 9TH, UM, MIGHT INFORM US IN OUR DISCUSSIONS EVEN FURTHER, UH, RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I THINK WE'VE GIVEN OUR AT LEAST INITIAL COMMENTS ON, ON WHERE WE ARE. UH, IF THE PARTIES ARE, YOU KNOW, LISTENING AND, AND INTERESTED IN, UH, TAKING THAT INFORMATION BACK TO THE SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS, I THINK THAT THAT COULD BE USEFUL. UM, AND HOPEFULLY WE'VE PROVIDED SOME GUIDANCE IN OUR THINKING, UH, TONIGHT. SO MY PREFERENCE IS THAT TO LEAVE IT ON THE 14TH, I THINK AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE STAKEHOLDERS HAVE A LOT ON THEIR PLATE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. UM, AND ADDING ANOTHER MEETING MIGHT BE DIFFICULT. UH, UH, BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO SCHEDULING ANOTHER MEETING IF WE CAN GET EVERYBODY HERE, UH, AND AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE ROOM. UM, AND SO CAN I ASK A POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY IN PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY? SURE. WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR CALLING A MEETING? IS THAT JUST ON YOU? YES, I GET TO DO THAT. OKAY. YEP. . I COULD JUST CALL A SPECIAL CALL MEETING. YEAH. WELL, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I, I'M IN FAVOR OF JUST STICKING WITH OUR SCHEDULED MEETING AND NOT CALLING IT, I DON'T SEE A NEED, I HAVEN'T BEEN CONVINCED OF A NEED FOR A CALLED MEETING. COULD WE SIMPLY MOVE UP THE MEETING DATE FROM THE 14TH? UH, NOT HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, BUT MEET OUR IN THE MONTH. I DON'T THINK WE CAN ALTER POSTED MEETINGS. CAN WE? I I MEAN WE CAN CALL A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING AND CAME AND TOLD CANCEL THIS ONE. WE CAN'T. YEAH. I, I SEE THE BENEFIT OF WAITING UNTIL AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS ON NOVEMBER 9TH TO COUNSEL PERSONALLY. I, I THINK JUST BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY REALLY AVAILABLE DATE I'M LOOKING AT IS THE SEVENTH. AND I'M CONCERNED THAT THAT DATE IS GONNA BE REALLY TOUGH, UM, FOR, UH, EVERYBODY. LET ME ASK, UH, WHEN CAN WE, UH, WE'VE ASKED AUSTIN ENERGY FOR, UH, IN ESSENCE, UH, NUMBERS ESTIMATES, UH, AND, AND, UH, YOU HAVE ASKED OUR WORK GROUP, UH, TO DEVELOP SOME REVISED RECOMMENDATIONS. SO, UH, WHEN CAN WE GET THOSE NUMBERS? IS SOONER THE BETTER? SOMEONE FROM AUSTIN ENERGY HERE THAT COULD POSSIBLY RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION? I'M SORRY, A QUESTION. HOW, HOW QUICKLY CAN WE GET THOSE NUMBERS THAT WE RE WE REQUESTED WE'RE SORRY. I THINK WE'LL NEED TO MOVE, UM, RUSTY FROM THE WAITING ROOM, UH, TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. AND I HONESTLY THINK YOU ALL MAY HAVE TO, HE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR. CAUSE IT WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING AND I'M NOT REALLY SURE, UM, THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO FULLY DECIPHER THE RUNS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. UM, BECAUSE I THINK WE WOULD NEED NOT ONLY TO GIVE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, BUT GIVE SOME BASIS IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN ITSELF, DON'T YOU THINK? YEAH. I THINK HE'LL TELL YOU WHAT ALL YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GIVE HIM YEAH. IN ORDER TO COME BACK WITH AN INTELLIGIBLE RIGHT. MODEL. UM, LET ME COMPLICATE IT JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE BY SAYING WHATEVER YOU GUYS DO, PLEASE SEND THIS OUT MORE THAN 30 MINUTES BEFORE THE MEETING. UH, LET'S, LET'S TALK ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING SO THAT WE HAVE A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, UH, GRIND IT A LITTLE BIT. UH, LET, LET'S NOT LEAVE THIS UP IN THE AIR IF WE'RE, I THINK RUSTY OR MR. MANUS IS ON THE PHONE. OH. UH, SO LET'S, LET'S SEE IF HE CAN PROVIDE US SOME, UH, INFORMATION AND, AND CLARITY QUESTIONS, UH, WHAT WE NEED TO GIVE HIM. RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS RUSTY MANUS, VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE. I'VE BEEN LISTENING IN. I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, QUITE HONESTLY, I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK IN AND LISTEN TO EXACTLY WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE WANTED. I I, I DIDN'T QUITE FOLLOW EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAID, BUT, UH, AFTER I GO BACK IN AND LISTEN TO THE TAPES, I THINK [01:40:01] I GOT ENOUGH DIRECTION THAT WE CAN PERHAPS HAVE THOSE TWO RUNS. ONE AT I I, I BELIEVE AT 15,000,001 AT, WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? UH, THE ICA I OF SIX THE, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE I E THE, NO, THE I E THE, THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REVENUE REQUIREMENT? NO, ICA. ICA. WE HAVE THE ICA WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THESE CHANGES. I MEAN, I THINK THAT, THAT THE ICAS PROPOSAL DOESN'T INCLUDE A HIGHER THAN 1.2%, UH, INCREASE. SO WE HAVE THAT, I THINK WE HAVE ICAS. UM, I THINK WE NEED 15 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT WITH A SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT GRADUALISM CAP TO EACH CLASS. AND THEN A, UH, DID I SAY HEARING EXAMINERS REVENUE REQUIREMENT OR DID I SAY ICA? OKAY. HEARING EXAMINER'S REVENUE REQUIREMENT WITH A SEVEN POINT A 5% GRADUALISM CAP ON EACH CLASS. IS THAT OKAY? I, I DON'T KNOW IF THE MATH WILL WORK ON THAT, BUT, UH, WHAT WE'LL, WE JUST HAVE TO PUT PENCIL TO PAPER. I THINK THAT WITH THAT BEING SAID, UH, AND IF WE NEED SOME CLARITY THAT WE'LL COME BACK, THAT WE CAN PROBABLY HAVE THOSE RUNS IN ABOUT A WEEK. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. IS IT, DID I MISS SOMETHING? WELL, IT'S JUST WE DO, WE HAVE AN I E ONE, IT'S JUST NOT, IT'S, IT GOES OVER THAT CAP. RIGHT? RIGHT. YES. SO YOU'RE SAYING IF WE WERE TO ACCEPT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF 31.53 MILLION, BUT SAID WE, WE WANT A, A MORE WHATEVER DISTRIBUTION, WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? WHERE THINGS ARE DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY, BASICALLY SO THAT NO CUSTOMER CLASS IS SEEING TOO MUCH OF AN INCREASE. RIGHT. BUT, BUT YOU ARE ARE AWARE, RIGHT, THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CLASSES, S TWO AND S3, UH, BASED ON THE COST OF SERVICE THAT SHOULD GET RATE CUTS. RIGHT. SO I'M, I'M HEARING YOU SAY THAT IF NEED BE, THEY SHOULD, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ALREADY PAYING ABOVE THEIR COST TO SERVE, YOU WANT TO INCREASE THEIR RATES POTENTIALLY. NO, WE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A FREEZE. YEAH. I THINK THE GRADUALISM CONCEPT IS THAT THE, THE, THE DECREASES SHOULD BE SIMILAR ACROSS RATE CA CLASSES AND THE, AND THE INCREASE SHOULD BE SIMILAR MM-HMM. . OKAY. SO WHEN YOU SAY DECREASES, WHEN YOU SAY DECREASES ACROSS S TWO AND S3, SO THEY SHOULD GET A, AT LEAST A SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT . THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE GET CROSSWAYS, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO BOTH. I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT WE HAVE TO, IF YOU'RE GONNA PUT A CAP, THEN, THEN THE, THE ONES THAT ARE SHOULD BE GETTING IT IN A DECREASE WILL SEE AN INCREASE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE, THE CAP. THE CAP IN THE OTHER CLASSES. RIGHT? RIGHT, RIGHT. THAT WOULD DEPEND. IT DEPENDS ON THE, ON THE AMOUNT OF THE DEGREES. RIGHT. THEY MIGHT STILL GET A DECREASES AND JUST BE SMALLER. IT COULD, YES. RIGHT. YES. YEP. BUT, BUT I THINK TO MAKE THE, YOU KNOW, REVENUE REQUIREMENT WORK, IF YOU PUT A CAP AT SEVEN AND HALF PERCENT, OTHER CLASSES ARE GONNA HAVE TO PICK UP THE UH, AMOUNT THAT, THAT, THAT CLASS IS NOT INCREASING. AND SO IT COULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW, SO, SO LET ME JUST SUGGEST THAT YOU GUYS GET TOGETHER WITH RUSTY AND TELL HIM AS BEST YOU CAN, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, IF HE HAS QUESTIONS AND TRY TO GET IT OUT TO US, YOU KNOW, THE WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING. AND, AND I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, YOU JUST, YOU'RE GONNA BE STUCK ON THE 14TH. RANDY, YOU'VE MENTIONED TO ME THAT YOU MAY BE OUT OF TOWN ON THE 14TH. CAN YOU CALL IN? YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. RIGHT. CAN CAN I ASK, CAN I ASK FOR ONE POINT OF CLARITY? SO IF I UNDERSTAND THIS RIGHT, SO YOU WANT TWO RUNS AT 15 MILLION AND AT THE I E RECOMMENDATION OF, WHAT WAS IT, 33 1 OR WHATEVER? YES. AND, AND YOU WANT ALL CLASSES TO GET A SEVEN POINT A 5% INCREASE, EXCEPT THOSE THAT MIGHT, UH, DESERVE A RATE DECREASE AND THEY, THOSE WILL FLOAT TO KIND OF FILL THE HOLE? IS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NO, SORRY. NO, NO, IT'S NO ONE, THE RESULT WILL BE BOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT NOBODY CAN GET MORE THAN A 7.5% INCREASE, UH, IN TOTAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT, NO CLASS. RIGHT. OKAY. SO EVERYBODY ELSE CAN GO UP OR DOWN WITHIN THOSE LIMITS, BUT NOBODY MAY END UP WITH MORE THAN A 7.5% INCREASE CLASS-WISE. RIGHT. AND OKAY, AND WHAT I HEARD, UH, CYRUS SAY FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, YOU [01:45:01] SAID HE WANTED FOUR TIERS. HE REALLY DIDN'T CARE WHAT THE TIERS WERE, UM, AS LONG AS IT SENT, SENT WHAT HE, HE CLAIMS AS A CONSERVATION SIGNAL. IS THAT CORRECT? BUT THE MAIN THING IS, WELL YOU, AND YOU AND I HAVE A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF INCENTING , YOU'RE AT HALF A CENT PER TIER. I'M AT A LARGER, UH, I MEAN, UM, YEAH, SO WE'D WANT THE RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN TO APPROXIMATE THE, THE ICAS RECOMMENDATION, I THINK. BUT, AND, AND WHAT KIND OF CUSTOMER, WHAT KIND OF CUSTOMER CHARGE? 20%. $2. $2. $2 INCREASE. $2. AND IF THAT, AND IF THOSE TIER STRUCTURES DON'T MEET THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THAT'S REQUISITE, WE CAN, WE WE SHOULD ALTER THOSE. WE, WE WE GIVE YOU, YEAH. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO ALTER THEM TO, TO, TO MAKE IT, MAKE THE MATH WORK. SO A $12 CUSTOMER CHARGE, FOUR TIERS USING THE ICAS BASIS, BUT, BUT ADJUSTING IF NECESSARILY TO MEET THE SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT CAP. CORRECT. YEP. I THINK THAT COVERS IT, THE RANGE. SO YOU, I CAN BE OUTVOTED AND THAT'S FINE. OKAY. SO LAY OUT WHAT YOU WANT THERE. BUT ALL I WANT IS LEAVE EVERYTHING ALONE AND JUST SEE HOW MUCH REVENUE YOU GET OUT OF $3. THE ICAS MAX RECOMMENDATION, $4, $5, AND JUST EVERYTHING THE SAME CUSTOMER. AND IT SHOULDN'T TAKE A WEEK TO DO THAT CUZ IT'S JUST INCREASING, INCREASING IN CUSTOMER CHARGE. RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY. JUST TO ADD ON TOP OF THAT, WHY, WHY, WHY DON'T WE JUST BECAUSE THAT'S SO SIMPLE, WHY DON'T WE JUST ASK FOR THAT AS A SEPARATE YEAH. SEPARATE NUMBER. YEAH. OKAY. RUSTY, DID YOU FOLLOW THAT? OKAY. SO THIS, THIS SECOND SEPARATE RUN AND, AND I, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR, FOR ASKING SOME POINTED QUESTIONS. SO WHAT'S THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT? 15 MILLION AND I E WELL, OH, JUST SEPARATE THAT. HOW MUCH REVENUE WOULD YOU GENERATE WITH A THREE, FOUR, AND $5 INCREASE IN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE? AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE THE DEBATE ABOUT WHAT IS THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND SEE HOW IT MATCHES UP. OKAY. WELL WE CAN CERTAINLY, WE CERTAINLY DON'T NEED A WEEK TO TELL YOU WHAT KIND OF REVENUE IS GENERATED WITH A, AN ADDITIONAL THREE, FOUR, OR $5. WE CAN GET THAT TURNED AROUND PRETTY QUICK. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. WE, WE'D JUST LIKE TO SEE THAT. OKAY. GREAT. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO I THINK THAT BRINGS US TO THE END OF OUR DISCUSSION. I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY HANGING IN THERE. LET'S, UH, FINISH OUT THE MEETING REALLY QUICKLY. UM, WE WILL LOOK FOR THE, THE WORKING GROUP IS GONNA TALK WITH MR. MANUS AND, UH, YOU KNOW, ANSWERING ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE SOME, SOUNDS LIKE HE IS GONNA TAKE BACK, UH, HIS UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'VE JUST SAID AND GET THOSE NUMBERS TO US WITHIN A WEEK OR SO. AND, UH, THEN WE WILL HAVE OUR MEETING ON NOVEMBER 11TH, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO, NOVEMBER 11TH IS MY BIRTHDAY. WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE IT. SORRY, THE 14TH. THE 14TH. UH, AND WE WILL, UM, EXPECT A REVISED PROPO, UH, RESOLUTION FROM THE WORKING GROUP. HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, FIVE DAYS A WEEK IN ADVANCE. OKAY, GREAT. UM, THANKS AGAIN. EVERYBODY MOVE, WE ADJOURN. OKAY. LET'S TAKE A, CAN WE DO QUICKLY FUTURE, ANY OTHER FUTURE THINGS IN NOVEMBER THAT WE WANNA, I'M GONNA TABLE ITEM [12. Discussion and possible action on the 2023 Electric Utility Commission Meeting Schedule.] NUMBER 12, UH, UNTIL NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS THE U UH, ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION SCHEDULE FOR NEXT YEAR. AND, UM, AND THEN, UH, I'LL ENTERTAIN, NO, I DON'T NEED TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THAT. UH, WE'VE DONE THE WORKING GROUP UPDATE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS] UH, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I, I'VE RAISED THIS BEFORE, BUT UNDER THE RESOURCE PLAN, UM, IT DOES DIRECT THE EUC BY THE END OF 2022 TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANY BRIEFING UPDATES OR UPDATE DATES ARE NEEDED. UM, UH, IN TERMS OF THE, OF THE RESOURCE PLAN. UM, SO I WOULD LIKE TO WORK ON A DRAFT RESOLUTION THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE A, I'LL CALL IT A LIMITED RESOURCE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS IN 2023, UM, TO ADDRESS ISSUES LIKE THE CHANGING REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT OF ERCOT, THE MONEY AVAILABLE UNDER THE IRA, AND [01:50:01] ALSO THE FACT THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS OUR COAL PLANT. SO I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH AUSTIN ENERGY ON THAT, BUT JUST SORT OF A, A, A LIMITED LOOK AT THE RESOURCE PLAN AND UPDATE IN 2023, BECAUSE IT DOES, IT DID SAY IN THE, IN THE RESOURCE PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 2020 THAT WE, THE EUC SHOULD CONSIDER WHETHER SOME SORT OF UPDATE IS NEEDED, MIDTERM, YOU KNOW, SORT OF MIDTERM CORRECTION KIND OF THING. OKAY. SO I'LL, I'LL, UH, WORK WITH ROBIN TO POST THAT AS, UM, ACTION A PO UH, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEM NEXT MONTH AS WELL. OKAY. GO, GO AHEAD. , UH, ALL OF WHICH IS THE SCHEDULE, THE SCHEDULE FOR COUNSEL, UH, CONSIDERATION AND THE DISCUSSION NEXT MONTH. UH, A LOT OF PEOPLE, OVER 300 CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WEIGH IN, UH, LIKE TO SEE THEM INFORMED OF, OF THE CHANGES. SO IF THERE'S PO IF IT'S POSSIBLE, CAN WE, UH, CAN WE GET SOMETHING OUT AND MAYBE PROVIDE THEM WITH A LINK TO THE, UH, TO THE SCHEDULE TO, TO WHOM? TO, TO THE 300 PEOPLE THAT, THAT CONTACTED AUSTIN ENERGY AND, AND US IN THE RATE CASE, ALL THE CONSUMER COMMENTS. MM-HMM. PEOPLE THAT MADE COMMENTS, THEY SHOULD BE INFORMED OF THE CHANGE IN SCHEDULE AND, AND HOW THEY MAY PARTICIPATE. UM, BECAUSE WE, THEY'RE TAKING PUBLIC COMMENTS IN NOVEMBER, VOTING IN DECEMBER, SO PEOPLE WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY WHITE IN SHOULD BE UPDATED. I, I, I FEEL LIKE THAT IS NOT OUTSIDE OF SORT OF OUR, OUR PURVIEW, BUT, UH, GO AHEAD. I, UM, I, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE RECIPROCAL CONTACT INFORMATION THE WAY THEY FILL THOSE FORMS OUT. I THINK, UM, YOU, THERE MAY BE SOMETHING WE CAN PUT ON SPEAK AUSTIN WITH SOME REVISED SCHEDULE, UH, POTENTIALLY THERE, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S REALLY A MECHANISM FOR US TO REACH OUT. I MEAN, IT'S SORT OF AN ISSUE WHERE YOU, YOU DON'T ALWAYS NECESSARILY WANT TO GIVE THAT KIND CONTACT INFORMATION. A LOT OF THOSE COMMENTS WERE, WELL, TO THE EXTENT WE HAVE PEOPLE HAVE, HAVE CONTACTED, HAVE CONTACTED US. UH, IT IT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN BE, THAT INFORMATION CAN BE RELAYED, UH, WE'LL LOOK INTO IT, BUT I THINK IT MORE OF A ONE WAY COMMUNICATION WOULD A BETTER, UM, I MEAN, I GET YOUR POINT, RANDY, BUT MAYBE JUST A NEWS RELEASE. HAVING, HAVING INFORMATION ON THE AUSTIN ENERGY WEBSITE ABOUT THE, THE SCHEDULE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE RATE PROPOSAL COULD BE SOMETHING. I MEAN, I THINK YOU WOULD DO THAT ANYWAY, SPEAK UP. AUSTIN IS ACTUALLY WHERE IT WAS MOST OF THAT INFORMATION. OKAY. WE HAD SOME ON OUR WEBSITE, BUT SPEAK UP AUSTIN, ONCE THE SORT OF THE PUBLIC FORUM PORTAL THAT WE, WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK AT THE UPDATING THAT WITH SOME OF THE SCHEDULE, WITH THE SCHEDULE OF WHEN THE ACTUAL PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN, IT COULD BE, I ASSUME THAT THE, UH, THE CITY IS ALSO PUBLICIZING THAT INFORMATION AND WHATEVER NORMAL CHANNELS THAT THEY DO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS INFORMATION AND THEIR NEWSLETTER YEAH, WE CAN PUT IT ON THE SIERRA CLUB WEBSITE. YEAH. YEAH. ALL, ALL OF WHICH IS, UH, THAT, THAT'S THE GETTING BOARD WORD OUT. AND, AND, UH, ARE Y'ALL GONNA DO ANY NEWS RELEASE OR ANYTHING? UM, I, I, I'M NOT SURE YET. I MEAN, TYPICALLY WE DO THINGS AFTER AN ACTION IS TAKEN, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY, UH, BEFORE, BECAUSE AGAIN, THINGS CAN CHANGE. YOU DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT THE COUNCIL'S SCHEDULE'S GONNA BE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW A GOOD NEWS STORY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WELL WITHOUT OBJECTION, I ADJOURN THE MEETING. THANKS. THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.