* 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.
          [00:00:01]
          WHATEVER. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS 
          [CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
STARTS, UH, THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION, MEANING FOR NOVEMBER 14TH, 2022. 
          UH, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUORUM WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE FOLKS ONLINE. 
          UM, VICE CHAIR TITLE, WE'VE GOT, UM, I'M SORRY. 
          TERRY FE I UNDERSTAND. 
          CYRUS K MCKENNA. 
          YANKER. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND WE HAVE RANDY CHAPMAN, AND IT LOOKS LIKE KAREN HADDEN, BUT WE COULDN'T GET A RESPONSE OUT OF HER YET. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SORRY. 
          I'M HERE AND, YES. 
          OKAY, SO WE HAVE A QUORUM. 
          UM, LET'S CALL A MEETING TO ORDER ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS. 
          [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
PAUL ROBBINS FIRST . 
          PAUL, DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD? UH, HOW DO I TRIP THE POWERPOINT SLIDES? UM, OKAY. 
          AND, UH, HAVE YOU, UH, EMAILED THE SPREADSHEET THAT, SO ALL THESE COMMISSIONERS HAVE IT. 
          OH, COMMISSIONERS. 
          I AM PAUL ROBBINS. 
          I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST AND CONSUMER, LET ME START OVER. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          I AM PAUL ROBBINS. 
          I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST AND CONSUMER ADVOCATE. 
          I HAVE BEEN WORKING AROUND AUSTIN ENERGY ISSUES SINCE 1977. 
          I'D LIKE TO FIRST TALK ABOUT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT PROPOSED IN THE AUSTIN RATE CASE. 
          SLIDE. 
          HERE IS A LIST OF SAVINGS THAT VARIOUS OF THE INTERVENERS IN THIS RATE CASE HAVE FOUND. 
          JUST FIVE OF THESE LINE ITEMS AMOUNT TO 27.2 MILLION A YEAR, ALMOST AS MUCH AS THE 35.7 MILLION RATE INCREASE PROPOSAL. 
          UH, I HAVE, UH, ASKED THAT AUSTIN ENERGY EMAIL YOU A MORE DETAILED, UH, VERSION OF THIS LINE. 
          ITEM. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THE ESTIMATED RATE SHOCK OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S NEW REGRESSIVE RESIDENTIAL RATE STRUCTURE WILL BE, ON AVERAGE 13% ARE $136 MILLION, UH, ANNUALLY A YEAR. 
          UH, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS ESTIMATES THE, UH, INCREASE OR DECREASE AT VARIOUS LEVELS. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, LOW AND AVERAGE USERS SEE LARGE INCREASES WHILE VERY HIGH USERS SEE PROFOUND SAVINGS. 
          THIS IS ALREADY LAYERED ON TOP OF AN 18% INCREASE IN FUEL AND REGULATORY COST THAT JUST TOOK EFFECT. 
          SLIDE. 
          THIS RATE INCREASE WILL HURT LOWER INCOME PEOPLE MORE. 
          AUSTIN ENERGY PROVIDED ME WITH CONSUMPTION BY ZIP CODE AND HOUSING TYPE THAT IS SINGLE FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY AND DUPLEX. 
          THIS WAS MATCHED WITH INCOME FROM THE US CENSUS, AND THIS RESULT SHOWS THAT CONSUMPTION TRACKS INCOME. 
          NOW, AUSTIN ENERGY GAVE ME THIS INFORMATION, UH, IT, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD USE IT, BUT SINCE THIS DIDN'T GO WITH THEIR DESIRED OUTCOME, THEY FORGOT TO USE IT. 
          I REMEMBERED, UH, IN SUMMATION, UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION. 
          UM, I WAS HERE WHEN AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, ADVOCATED FOR A NUCLEAR PLANT THAT HAD A 500 6500 40% OVERRUN IN THE 1970S AND EIGHTIES. 
          I WAS HERE WHEN THEY 
          [00:05:01]
ADVOCATED FOR A BIOMASS PLANT THAT EVERYONE NOW REGRETS. 
          UH, I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD TRACK RECORD OF SEEING THROUGH, UM, FALSE INDICATIONS, AND I DO NOT THINK THEY NEED MUCH OF A RATE INCREASE, AND I DON'T THINK THEY NEED TO STRUCTURE THE RATES AS THEY ARE WANTING TO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MR. ROBINS, QUICK QUESTION. 
          UM, ON THE, ON THE SLIDES SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO SLIDES, ROBIN. 
          YEAH, NO, THAT ONE? YEAH, NO, THE THE ONE, YEAH, THAT ONE. 
          UM, I'M SORRY. 
          THE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE 170 IS THAT, IS THAT ON AN AVERAGE BILL OF SOMEONE WHO USES THAT THEIR BILL WOULD GO UP $170 OR IS THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT? UH, WHAT'S THE $170 IF YOU USE BETWEEN UH, HUNDRED AND ONE AND $750, YOUR, EXCUSE ME. 
          IF YOU USE BETWEEN 501 AND 750 KILOWATT HOURS, YOUR BILL WILL GO UP $170 A YEAR OR 24% INCREASE. 
          THIS CAME FROM THEIR CHART SITE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S THE ANNUAL IMPACT OF RATES IF YOU'RE, IF YOU USE THAT AMOUNT BASED ON THEIR TIER SYSTEM. 
          CORRECT. 
          CYRUS, AND IT INCLUDES THE, THAT DOES INCLUDE THE INCREASE IN THE MONTHLY CHARGE. 
          UH, YES IT DOES. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          UH, I PRORATED THIS FROM THE ORIGINAL CHART TO, UH, BACK OUT THEIR RATE REDUCTION. 
          YOU ALL REMEMBER THEY ORIGINALLY WANTED 48.2 MILLION, BUT THEY FOUND THAT THEY DOUBLE COUNTED, SO THEY LOWERED IT TO 35.2 MILLION. 
          ANOTHER INDICATION THAT AUSTIN ENERGY CAN OCCASIONALLY MAKE MISTAKES. 
          YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION. 
          PAUL ROBINSON, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GO OUT ANYMORE. 
          , CAN YOU TAKE A JOKE? THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ROGER BILT. 
          YES. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, ROGER BORGELT. 
          UH, I'M WITH HOMEOWNERS UNITED FOR RATE FAIRNESS. 
          UH, WE REPRESENT THE, THE CAPTIVE AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, CUSTOMERS WHO ARE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          AND, UH, WE HAVE PARTICIPATED FULLY IN THIS RATE CASE, UH, AS WE DID IN 2012 AND 2016. 
          HOWEVER, UNLIKE THOSE YEARS, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY THIS YEAR IS REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE ESSENTIALLY GAIN NO BENEFIT FROM THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER, WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR RATES. 
          UH, MY REQUEST OF YOU THIS EVENING, IF YOU DO TAKE A POSITION AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL IS TO SIMPLY CONTINUE, UH, WHAT EVERYBODY AGREED IN 2012 AND 2016 WAS THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE THING TO DO, AND THAT IS REMOVE THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER FROM THE RATES OF OUTSIDE CITY OF AUSTIN CUSTOMERS. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          NEXT SPEAKER IS BEN HALLMARK, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, GOOD EVENING. 
          UH, THANK YOU FOR, FOR TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR FROM THE PARTIES TONIGHT. 
          BEN HALLMARK WITH TEXAS INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS. 
          I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU JUST A MINUTE ABOUT THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE THAT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN FILED LAST WEEK, WHICH WAS A PRODUCT OF A LOT OF WORK AND NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL ADVOCATES, BUSINESS ADVOCATES, AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 
          UH, THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT WE CAME UP WITH IN THAT, UH, PROPOSAL IS, IS A 12 MILLION RATE INCREASE. 
          UH, WE BELIEVE THAT REPRESENTS A FAIR COMPROMISE GIVEN THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES, IN THIS CASE, THE ICO ALONE, WHO YOU'LL HEAR FROM, UH, HAS DISA ALLOWANCES THAT WOULD REDUCE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT TO 6 MILLION. 
          BUT THERE'S ALSO PARTIES THAT HAVE OTHER ONES THAT ARE ON TOP OF THAT, INCLUDING INCLUDING THE GFT, UH, PROPOSAL THAT THE IE ACTUALLY ADOPTED, AND INCLUDING THE CONCERNS THAT WE'VE RAISED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE TEST YEAR WAS NORMAL ENOUGH TO USE BECAUSE OF WINTER STORM YU. 
          SO WE, WE'VE HEARD FROM AUSTIN ENERGY THAT THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR CREDIT RATING AND BEING DOWNGRADED. 
          UH, AND I DID JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN WITH THESE DOWNGRADES, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS A VERY ROBUST CREDIT RATING. 
          THEY ARE SIX RUNGS ABOVE THE LOWEST INVESTMENT RATING, LOWEST INVESTMENT GRADE RATING. 
          THEY ARE THREE TO FIVE RUNGS ABOVE THE INVESTOR OWNED UTILITIES THAT ARE VERTICALLY INTEGRATED, REGULATED BY THE 
          [00:10:01]
PUC. 
          UH, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS SAID, WELL, HEY, WE'RE, WE'RE A MUNICIPAL UTILITY. 
          WE'RE NOT THE SAME. 
          UH, BUT IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT THEY GET TO ISSUE, UH, MUNICIPAL BONDS, WHICH ARE VIEWED AS LESS RISKY IN THE MARKET. 
          AND ALL OF THESE UTILITIES HAVE TO GO TO THE MARKETS AND RAISE CAPITAL. 
          UM, AND, AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S THAT CLOSE. 
          THESE ARE, THEY'RE COMFORTABLY ABOVE THESE OTHER UTILITIES THAT ARE RAISING CAPITAL, UH, WITHOUT TROUBLE ON COST ALLOCATION. 
          UH, AGAIN, THIS IS REPRESENTS A COMPROMISE POSITION OF THE PARTIES. 
          UM, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE MAJOR ISSUE THAT WE WANTED IN THIS CASE WAS THE PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE THAT THE IE ACTUALLY SAID WE SHOULD GET IT. 
          UM, BUT WE WERE WILLING TO COMPROMISE ON THAT AND PUT IT OFF UNTIL THE NEXT RATE CASE. 
          IF AS PART OF THAT, WE SEE, UH, SOME BENEFITS FROM THAT IN THE COST ALLOCATION. 
          THE, THE PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE ALONE IF IMPLEMENTED, WOULD'VE TAKEN, UH, THE PRIMARY GREATER THAN 20 CLASS TO ABOUT A 15% RATE DECREASE EVEN AT THE 48 MILLION ORIGINAL, UH, REQUEST THAT AUSTIN ENERGY MADE. 
          THAT'S OUR ESTIMATE. 
          SO THIS REPRESENTS A COMPROMISE, AND, AND, AND YOU CAN UNDERSTAND HOW PARTIES WERE ABLE TO COME TOGETHER ON IT. 
          UH, I'D ALSO NOTE THAT WE'VE AGREED TO SOME TERMS AND THE VALUE OF SOLAR, THAT THAT REALLY AREN'T OUR PREFERENCE. 
          UH, FOR EXAMPLE, AUSTIN ENERGY HAD SAID THAT THEY WANT THE SOCIETAL BENEFITS TO NOT BE RECOVERED THROUGH THE PSA AND INSTEAD BE RECOVERED THROUGH THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY, BUT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE SIERRA CLUB AND OTHERS THAT IT CONTINUED TO BE RECOVERED UNDER THE PSA AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT IS PART OF THIS JOINT PROPOSAL WE WERE WILLING TO AGREE TO. 
          SO I KNOW I'VE JUST THROWN A TON AT YOU REAL FAST. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. 
          WHERE DO WE FIND THIS PROPOSAL? WELL, UH, AS IT HAPPENS, I HAVE, UH, COPIES WITH ME, UH, IF FOLKS WOULD LIKE IT. 
          AND WE ALSO, OF COURSE FILED IT ON THE DOCKET SHEET FOR, FOR THIS RAPE CASE, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO PASS IT OUT IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND FOR THOSE OF US ONLINE, CAN THIS BE SENT ELECTRONICALLY AS WELL? ABSOLUTELY. 
          CYRUS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION ON THAT. 
          I THINK MAYBE JUST INCLUDING THE LINK ON THE CITY CLERK'S WEBSITE, THE LINK TO WHERE THAT DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND, MAYBE THAT COULD BE SHARED WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          I IS THAT POSSIBLE? YEAH, YOU EMAIL IT TO ROBIN. 
          OKAY. 
          OH YEAH, JUST EMAIL IT TO ROBIN. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UH, SO I WILL PASS THAT OUT AND, UM, WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL JOIN WITH US ON THAT PROPOSAL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DALE BULLA. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS DALE BULA AND I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS ON, UH, THREE ISSUES TONIGHT. 
          UH, FIRST OF ALL, THE PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE DOES NOT REWARD CONSERVATION. 
          IN MY OPINION, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE NO INCREASE IN THE FIXED FEE FOR ANYONE ON TIER ONE. 
          I AM BELOW 500 KILOWATTS MOST MONTHS AND SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR THAT. 
          IF I GO ABOVE TIER ONE, THEN I DON'T MIND PAYING THE EXTRA FEE. 
          SO I WISH YOU WOULD CONSIDER THAT. 
          ALSO, I'VE BEEN, UH, A SOLAR CUSTOMER SINCE THE VERY FIRST YEAR IT WAS OFFERED. 
          WE SHOULD HAVE A DEPENDABLE VALUE OF SOLAR, NOT ONE THAT FLUCTUATES YEAR TO YEAR. 
          I THINK THAT, UH, THE VALUE OF SOLAR WHEN WE FIRST STARTED WAS LIKE OVER 12 CENTS. 
          IT'S GONE DOWN EVERY YEAR SINCE THEN BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD NATURAL GAS IS SO CHEAP, WE DON'T THINK THE VALUE OF SOLAR SHOULD BE AS HIGH. 
          AND NOW THAT NATURAL GAS IS SIX EIGHT, MAYBE $10, UH, I THINK WE SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR THAT, FOR, UH, REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF, UH, FOSSIL FUELS THAT ARE USED BY THE UTILITY. 
          AND FINALLY, VEHICLE TO GRID. 
          I BELIEVE I'VE TALKED TO THIS GROUP MANY TIMES ABOUT THE ADVANTAGES OF VE A VEHICLE TO GRID AS WELL AS THE SAVINGS TO AUSTIN ENERGY, RATHER THAN THEM GOING OUT AND PURCHASING, UH, STORAGE. 
          I THINK THAT THOSE OF US THAT DRIVE ELECTRIC VEHICLES WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HELP THE GRID, AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE SOME KIND OF, UM, UH, PILOT PROGRAM. 
          I WOULD BE GLAD TO PARTICIPATE IN IT IF I'M, IF I'M ELIGIBLE. 
          AND I THINK THOSE THREE ITEMS THAT I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU TONIGHT, UH, I THINK THAT'S ABOUT ALL I WANTED TO SAY ABOUT IT. 
          ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND, AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL CONSIDER THOSE THREE 
          [00:15:01]
ITEMS. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU MR. BUA. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS LANETTA COOPER. 
          HI, I'M LYA. 
          UH, I'VE BEEN HERE A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE Y'ALL. 
          IT'S ABOUT THE RATE CASE. 
          WE, UH, MY CLIENTS TWO R UH, ALSO HAVE JOINED ON, UH, THE CONSUMERS, UH, UH, POSITION THAT YOU GOT PASSED OUT BY MR. HALLMARK. 
          BUT I WANTED TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME STUFF TO MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER THAT THE REVENUES THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN THAT SETTLEMENT ARE, ARE NOT, UH, TOO FAR OFF. 
          I HAD HAD, UH, MISS OTTO EMAIL YOU ALL THIS, UH, OUTLINE I DID. 
          AND THERE IS A ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT ONE THAT SETS OUT WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY USED TO PROVE THAT THE CURRENT RATE DESIGN IS GOING TO CREATE, UH, REVENUE ARMAGEDDON. 
          AND WHAT THIS IS, IS RAW DATA. 
          AND ALL I'M ASKING Y'ALL TO USE IS ASK THE ASK UH, AUSTIN ENERGY TO FILL IN 2022. 
          THEY NOW HAVE THE DATA, UH, IT WOULD BE RAW DATA. 
          THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO A LOT OF WORK ON IT. 
          UH, WHAT THEY, AND THEY'VE ALREADY GONNA SHOW YOU ALL REVENUES, WHICH INCLUDE, UH, THE BASE REVENUES, BUT ARE, ARE, UH, BUT ARE NOT ALL JUST BASE REVENUES. 
          AND SO THEN YOU COULD KIND OF SEE, DO YOU REALLY DO NEED TO CHANGE THE RATE DESIGN SO RADICALLY THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS? CUZ THIS IS THE, THIS IS A GRAPH REFLECTION OF THEIR ARGUMENT. 
          AND THE SECOND POINT I WANNA MAKE IS AUSTIN ENERGY'S ARGUMENT ABOUT SMUSHING DOWN THE HIGH TIERS, UH, IS BECAUSE THE, UH, HIGH USERS, THE BIG USERS SUFFER RATE SHOCK IN THE SUMMER CUZ THEIR RATES GO UP $57 IN THE SUMMER FOR A TYPICAL BILL. 
          AND, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THEIR RATES MAY GO UP $357, BUT THEIR USAGE GOES UP 49%. 
          SO THEY GO, SO IT GOES, I'M SORRY, NOT $57, BUT IT GOES UP 57%. 
          BUT THE, UH, USAGE GOES UP 49. 
          SO WHO SHOULD PAY FOR THE INCREASED USAGE? THE INCREASED USAGE CREATES THE HIGHER PEAK DEMAND. 
          SO THEY ARE MORE EXPENSIVE TO SERVE AS A RULE. 
          AND UH, THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE SHOULD NOT USE, UH, THIS CONCEPT OF RATE SHOCK CUZ IT'S COST BASED AND, UH, RATE SHOCK. 
          THEY CAN USE A LEVEL PLAYING, UH, A LEVEL PAYING PLAN, WHICH YOU JUST TAKE ALL THE MONEY, BUT THE COST WOULD STILL BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. 
          BUT IF YOU INCREASE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE TO $25 LOW INCOME PEOPLE AND LOW USERS DON'T HAVE MUCH TO BE ABLE TO DO A LEVEL PAYMENT PLAN. 
          SO ALL YOU'RE DOING IS MOVING COSTS FROM THE HIGH USER WHO CAN BENEFIT IF THEY THINK THEY HAVE RATE SHOCK TO A LEVEL PLAYING PLAN, BUT NOT FOR THE LOW USER. 
          AND I'M NOT GONNA BORE YOU WITH ANY ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT I'VE ALREADY TALKED WITH Y'ALL ABOUT. 
          I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO US, AND I HOPE YOU TAKE US SERIOUSLY AND THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU, MS. COOPER. 
          NEXT SPEAKER IS JOHN KAUFMAN. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          UH, I'M JOHN KAUFMAN. 
          I AM THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE THAT WAS HIRED BY THE CITY TO GIVE, UH, TO TAKE A FRESH LOOK AT THIS, UM, RATE, RATE DESIGN AND RATE REVIEW PROPOSAL. 
          UH, OUR JOB WAS TO LOOK AT THE, UH, PROPOSAL FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL BUSINESS RATE PAYERS. 
          AND WE WE SPOKE TO YOU, UH, LAST MONTH AND, AND TALKED ABOUT, UM, OUR, OUR PROPOSAL. 
          AND, AND SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK TO TRY TO COME TOGETHER WITH, WITH THE OTHER PARTIES AS, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED WITH THIS, UH, JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE THAT YOU HAVE. 
          AND IN THAT, UM, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, WE ARE STILL AT ODDS WITH AUSTIN ENERGY, HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO COME TO TERMS YET, ALTHOUGH WE ARE, UH, CONTINUING TO TALK WITH THEM. 
          I, THE, THE TOUGHEST PARTS ARE OBVIOUSLY THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THE OVERALL SIZE AND, AND, AND THE RATE DESIGN ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          I, I THINK YOU DID SEE THAT THERE WAS A LONG LIST OF THINGS, YOU KNOW, IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THE VARIOUS FINDINGS THAT WE HAD, UH, 
          [00:20:01]
WHERE WE THOUGHT THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS OVERSTATED OR THAT THE DATA WASN'T QUITE RIGHT. 
          UM, BUT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS, WAS $6 MILLION, UH, TO, YOU KNOW, COMPARED WITH WHERE AUSTIN ENERGY IS A 35 MILLION. 
          WITH THIS JOINT PROPOSAL, WE HAVE COME UP TO 12 MILLION. 
          WE'RE STILL AT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, 2320 OR SO MILLION DOLLARS APART ON THAT. 
          AND THAT IS A, A DIFFICULT GAP TO, UM, UH, TO COVER. 
          UH, ALTHOUGH I'VE NOTE THAT, UH, UH, IN THE LAST CASE, THE 2016 RATE REVIEW, UH, WE, WE ALSO REPRESENTED THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL SMALL BUSINESS CUSTOMERS. 
          AND IN THAT CASE, UH, THE, THE FINAL RESULT WAS ABOUT 25 MILLION LESS. 
          AND SO IT, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON THAT THESE, THESE RATE, UH, PROPOSALS ARE ULTIMATELY VIEWED TO BE A LITTLE AGGRESSIVE OR A LITTLE OVERSTATED. 
          AND, UM, UH, I I COMMEND TO YOU THAT THE TRUTH IS SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN IN THERE. 
          AND SO, UH, PLEASE TAKE A, A LOOK AT THAT AND, AND DON'T JUST, UM, ASSUME THAT EVERYTHING IS AS WHAT IT TO BE. 
          AND, AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED AND I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO, TO GET INTO IT, BUT, UH, SOME OF YOU MAY UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN, UH, YOU KNOW, A REGULAR CITY BUDGET THAT YOU'RE APPROVED. 
          THIS IS A, AN AMOUNT OF, OF ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE GONNA TRUST AUSTIN ENERGY TO, TO, UH, DO ITS BUSINESS. 
          AND WE HOPE THAT THEY CAN DO THAT IN A, UH, YOU KNOW, A COST EFFICIENT MANNER. 
          UH, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY HAVE TO DO PARTICULAR THINGS ON THESE LINE ITEMS, THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO USE THEIR MANAGERIAL JUDGMENT AND, AND DO WHAT THEY CAN. 
          AND IF IT, IF IT MEANS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY FIND IN A COUPLE YEARS THAT THAT WHAT, UH, IS ALL FREE ABILITY TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR IT AGAIN. 
          UH, AND, UH, GIVEN THAT THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TESTIER WITH THE WINTER STORM YURI AND, AND THE PANDEMIC, I I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE A BAD THING, UH, TO LOOK UNDER THE HOOD UNDER, UH, YOU KNOW, EVERY SO OFTEN. 
          UH, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S MUCH ELSE I CAN ADD ON THE RATE DESIGN, ALTHOUGH WE, WE JUST FELT THAT IT WAS A VERY DRASTIC MOVE TO BE GOING THIS QUICKLY, 150% INCREASE IN THE, IN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE WITH THE TIERS. 
          WE BELIEVE THAT OUR PROPOSAL IS MUCH MORE FAIR AND EQUITABLE AND, UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS, UM, THIS JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE MOVES IN EVERY DIRECTION THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS, JUST NOT AS, AS MUCH AS THEY WANT, AS FAST AS THEY WANT. 
          UH, AND THEN, UH, PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE BACK PAGE. 
          UH, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THESE IMPACTS, UH, THESE ARE MUCH MORE, UH, REASONABLE AND, UH, IMPACTS AT VARIOUS USAGE LEVELS COMPARED WITH, YOU KNOW, THE POTENTIAL 35% OR 45%. 
          MR. KAUFMAN, YOUR TIME IS UP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MR. KAUFMAN. 
          GOT A, I GOT A QUESTION ACTUALLY. 
          GO AHEAD MR. TU. 
          SO LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION, UM, AND IT HAS IN SEVEN C FOUR TIERS, 3 CENTS, 6 CENTS, 9 CENTS, 11 CENTS KILOWATT HOUR. 
          YEAH. 
          AND SO THAT, THAT'S POPPED UP IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION. 
          I JUST WONDERED, SINCE THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS JUST PASSED OUT, AND THIS WAS ACTUALLY FILED A WHILE BACK, NO CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY, BUT THE INSIDE THE CITY, IT HAS THE TIERS IDENTIFIED AS FAR AS THE USAGE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE RATES. 
          I JUST WONDER WHAT DROVE YOU ALL TO CHANGE THAT? AND MAYBE THIS IS MORE OF A QUESTION FOR RANDY AND CYRUS, OR DID YOU, YOU ALL COME UP WITH THAT VERSUS JUST LEAVING ALONE THE INSIDE CITY RATES? UM, UH, WELL, THE, THE, UM, THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS IS THAT ON AVERAGE MOST OF THE CUSTOMERS WHO LIVE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS USE A LOT MORE. 
          AND YEAH, I GUESS I MUST HAVE, LET ME TRY TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE, THE PROPOSAL ON PAGE ONE IS NO CHANGED RESIDENTIAL RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMIT. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE A DIFFERENCE IN THE INSIDE CITY RATES. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          AND THEY'RE SLIGHTLY HIGHER PLUS SOME SHIFTING AROUND OF THE TIERS. 
          RIGHT. 
          I'M JUST WONDERING WHY BOTHER CHANGING THE INSIDE CITY RATES? JUST LEAVE BOTH THE WAY THEY ARE, MAYBE CHANGE THE BREAK POINTS, BUT YEAH, I, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD NECESSARILY UPSET TOO MUCH, BUT IT, IT DOES. 
          THE MORE, UM, THE MORE DISCOUNT THAT YOU GIVE TO THE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE LESS, YOU KNOW, THE BIGGER THE IMPACT WILL BE INSIDE THE CITY. 
          AND, UH, IT'S, IT IS JUST A FACT. 
          THE, UM, FOR INSTANCE, THE, THE OVERALL PROPOSAL AS, AS AUSTIN ENERGY FOR, YOU KNOW, ALL CLASSES, THE WHOLE THING WAS SEVEN, ABOUT A 7% RATE INCREASE, BUT THAT ACTUALLY WOUND UP BEING A 24% INCREASE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. 
          AND THAT'S JUST BECAUSE THERE IS LOWER USAGE INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS THAN OUTSIDE THE CITY. 
          AND, AND THE OUTSIDE THE CITY FOLKS WOULD ACTUALLY GET ON AVERAGE 
          [00:25:01]
A REDUCTION. 
          NOW THAT'S JUST, I MEAN, THERE, THERE'LL BE WINNERS AND LOSERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE, OF THE CITY LIMITS. 
          I GUESS I'M STILL NOT, I'M SORRY, I'M NOT ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW IF, IF YOUR QUESTION WAS AT US, TO US, WHO, WHO DID THIS DRAFT RESOLUTION? OUR TIER NUMBERS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES IN THIS PROPOSAL. 
          AND OURS WERE BASED ON THE, UM, BASICALLY THE, THE RUN THAT AUSTIN ENERGY DID WHERE WE SAID, TAKE THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE ICA, ADJUST IT TO GET TO A SEVEN POINT HALF PERCENT INCREASE ON THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. 
          SO THEY ADJUSTED THE NUMBERS A LITTLE BIT. 
          SO THEY'RE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ICA, BUT THEY'RE MORE OR LESS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PRETTY SIMILAR. 
          YOU'RE REFERRING THE RESOLUTION, NOT THE JOINT PROPOSAL. 
          YEAH. 
          I, I APOLOGIZE. 
          NO PROBLEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OH, JOHN, UM, THIS IS JUST TO, UH, TO HELP ME IN OUR, IN OUR, IN OUR DRAFT RESOLUTION. 
          WE SAID THE ICA PROPOSED A REVENUE INCREASE OF 6.5 MILLION AND YOU JUST SAID 6 MILLION. 
          ARE WE WRONG? WAS IT REALLY 6 MILLION? NO, IT WAS, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS SIX. 
          YEAH, IT WAS MORE THAN 6 MILLION. 
          IT WAS MORE THAN SIX, SO SOMEWHERE. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          GOT IT. 
          JUST CURIOUS. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          WE'RE OUR, OUR, OUR POSITION'S AT 12 NOW, THOUGH. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRISTIAN FOGERTY. 
          HELLO EVERYBODY. 
          UM, MY NAME IS CHRISTIAN. 
          UM, I AM AN, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS AND, UM, I AM, UH, HAPPY THAT PEOPLE BEFORE ME, UH, EDUCATED ME ON THIS TOPIC. 
          UM, I'M HERE MAINLY JUST TO TALK TO OR SPEAK TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT I'VE BEEN HEARING FROM TALKING TO PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE RATE INCREASE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, UM, AS A PUBLICLY OWNED UTILITY AUSTIN ENERGY, INCREASING RATES BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TOO ENERGY EFFICIENT. 
          I MEAN, RIGHT OFF THE BAT JUST SEEMS, UM, YOU KNOW, IT DOES NOT SEEM, UH, LIKE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE PURSUED. 
          UM, I THINK THAT, UM, WALKING AROUND NEIGHBORHOODS, TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE RATE INCREASE, NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAPPENS, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, TAKES PEOPLE BY SURPRISE. 
          UM, AND EVERY LITTLE INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING IN AUSTIN, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A LABORED TOPIC, BUT YOU KNOW, IT REALLY DOES PHYSICAL, YOU KNOW, REAL DAMAGES TO PEOPLE. 
          UM, I HAVE THE TIME AND THE ENERGY TO COME OUT HERE AND SPEAK ON IT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, YESTERDAY I TALKED TO A WOMAN WHO LIVES IN NORTH LOOP. 
          SHE'S BEEN LIVING HERE FOR, YOU KNOW, OVER 10 YEARS, AND SHE SAID SHE, YOU KNOW, I, I SH HANDED HER A FLYER ABOUT THE RATE INCREASE, AND SHE SAID RIGHT AWAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST COMING AT ME IN EVERY DIRECTION NOWADAYS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, SHE, SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE'S THINKING OF MOVING OUT SOON BECAUSE OF THIS, THIS CONTINUED COST OF LIVING INCREASE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I, I, UM, I FEEL VALIDATED BY PEOPLE BEFORE ME SAYING THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT, UM, YOU KNOW, NUMBERS, DIFFERENT REVENUE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEING TOSSED AROUND. 
          SO THE FACT THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS AND PUTTING IT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL IN A FEW WEEKS, BUT WE DON'T EVEN AGREE ON A REVENUE REQUIREMENT, JUST SEEMS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, UM, YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PURSUE THE RATE INCREASE, BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, IT NEEDS MORE AND MORE DELIBERATION CONSIDERING DIFFERENT REVENUE REQUIREMENTS BEING PUT FORTH BY EXPERTS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AND THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A RECENT RATE INCREASE ON, YOU KNOW, POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT REGULATORY CHARGES. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S MY OPINION ON IT. 
          UM, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME COMING TO ONE OF THESE COMMISSION MEETINGS AND IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, INTERESTING TO LEARN MORE ABOUT IT. 
          AND, UM, YEAH. 
          THANK YOU GUYS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. FOGARTY. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ANNIE FIRO. 
          HELLO, EVERYONE. 
          UH, MY NAME IS ANNIE AND I'M ONE OF THE, I'M ONE OF THE ORGANIZERS WITH THE SUNRISE MOVEMENT, LIKE CHRISTIAN. 
          IT'S ALSO MY FIRST TIME SPEAKING IN FRONT OF A COMMISSION, UH, AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO THE PREVIOUS SPEAKERS WHO GAVE US A VERY THOROUGH INSIGHT ON ALL THE POSSIBILITIES AND WAYS THIS COME ABOUT. 
          UM, MOSTLY I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE LIVING IN AUSTIN, AND I'VE BEEN GATHERING FROM PEOPLE LIVING HERE. 
          UH, THE MAJORITY OF US ARE STRUGGLING AS IT IS TO NOT ONLY GET OUR EVERYDAY ACTIVITIES DONE, BUT ALSO KEEP A ROOF ABOVE OUR HEADS. 
          UM, AUSTIN ONCE WAS A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN FIND AND CREATE COMMUNITY REGARDLESS OF YOUR BACKGROUND, AND NOW IT'S BECOMING ONE THAT FAVORS THE WEALTHY ABOVE ALL ELSE. 
          UM, UM, OUR 
          [00:30:01]
RENTS ARE GOING UP EVERY SINGLE MONTH, AND ON TOP OF THAT, NOW WE HAVE TO ADD TO OUR UTILITY BILLS. 
          UM, THE PROPOSED INCREASE DOES NOT SEE ME DIFFERENTLY FROM A CONS, A LARGER CONSUMER. 
          IT IS NOT AN EQUITABLE PERSONAGE AND WILL RESULT IN THE HARM OF INDIVIDUALS LIKE MYSELF. 
          ADDING TO THAT, WE CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING THAT CERTIFIES THE RELIANCY OF HER POWER GRADE. 
          UH, WE EXPERIENCE THE CONSTANT THREATS OF POWER SHORTAGE DURING THE HIGH SUMMER TEMPERATURES AND CURRENTLY FEAR THE POSSIBILITY OF ANOTHER WINTER STORM, SUCH AS WINTER STORM BREWING, 2021 ON SUNDAY MORNING. 
          UH, I SPOKE WITH A D FOUR RESIDENT IN REGARDS TO HER BILL GOING UP TO WHICH SHE RESPONDED WITH LY FEAR. 
          UH, SHE'S A NATIVE AUSTIN AUSTINITE SURROUNDED BY THE MODERN ARCHITECTURE OF GENTRIFICATION AND HER WORDS EXACTLY WHERE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ALL MY LIFE, I'M THINKING OF SELLING MY HOME. 
          MY HOMETOWN IS NO LONGER A PLACE FOR ME OR MY FAMILY. 
          WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK AUSTIN ENERGY TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT HARMS NO ONE THAT FOCUSES ON THE WELLBEING OF THE COMMUNITY AND PRIORITIZES RESILIENCY ABOVE ALL ELSES, WHICH ISES FOR THE STUDY OF NEW CLEAN ENERGY SOURCES THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HELP US MEET THE CITY, UH, ENERGY DEMANDS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, MS. FIRO. 
          THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRIS HUGHES. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. 
          UH, I JUST, I'M GONNA REITERATE SOME OF WHAT WAS SAID ALREADY. 
          I, MY NAME IS CHRIS HUGHES AND I REPRESENT NXP SEMICONDUCTORS. 
          UH, WE PARTICIPATED FULLY IN THIS RATE REVIEW AS, AND I DID SO IN, UH, 2016, I REPRESENTED NXP AND SAMSUNG AND THAT ONE. 
          UH, AND I'VE REPRESENT A VARIETY OF INTERESTS IN RATE CASES AND CONTESTED CASES AT THE PUC ON A VARIETY OF MATTERS. 
          UM, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE JOINT PROPOSAL YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU OR IS GONNA BE EMAILED TO YOU IS A TRUE COMPROMISE. 
          UH, A LOT OF THESE PARTIES ARE RARELY ALIGNED, AND THEY ARE IN THIS CASE, UM, WHICH I THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE NOTE OF. 
          UH, NOT EVERYBODY GETS WHAT THEY WANT, UM, BUT EVERYBODY HAS COME TO THE TABLE WITH A COMPROMISE. 
          AND JUST TO LEAVE YOU, JUST TO REITERATE A LITTLE BIT WHAT MR. KAUFMAN SAID WITH REGARDS TO REVENUE REQUIREMENT, AND I SAID THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE OTHER DAY, IT IS COMMON FOR UTILITIES TO COME IN FOR REVENUE REQUIREMENT REQUEST AND GET APPROVAL BY THE PUC AT SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER RATE, LOWER SOMETIMES A 10TH OF WHAT THEY REQUESTED. 
          AND AUSTIN ENERGY WILL TELL YOU, WELL, WE'RE DIFFERENT. 
          WE'RE IN MOU, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES AND YOU SHOULD TREAT US DIFFERENTLY. 
          WELL, THAT'S PECULIAR CONSIDERING THE FACT, AS MR. KAUFMAN POINTED OUT, THAT IN 2016 THEY ENDED UP WITH A REVENUE REQUIREMENT APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, 25 MILLION LESS THAN WHAT THEY CAME IN AND ASKED FOR. 
          AND ACTUALLY, IN THAT CASE, THE IE AT THE TIME RECOMMENDED AN EVEN GREATER REDUCTION AND THAT, SO THE 25 MILLION WAS A SETTLEMENT, UH, RESOLUTION. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, THEY MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT NOT, NOT SO MUCH. 
          SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? NOPE. 
          THANK YOU, MR. HUGHES. 
          NEXT SPEAKER, YANA KAMAKA. 
          HI EVERYONE. 
          MY NAME IS YANA KAMIKA. 
          I AM THE LABOR OUTREACH COORDINATOR WITH THE TEXAS CLIMATE JOBS ACTION. 
          AND WE ARE AN ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS CLOSELY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE LABOR MOVEMENT ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS TO FIGHT FOR ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND A PRO WORKER AND PRO CLIMATE FUTURE. 
          I'M HERE TODAY TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT IN MY FULL-TIME JOB, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF TALKING TO WORKERS, UH, REGULAR UNION MEMBERS, REGULAR FOLKS WHO ARE ELECTRICIANS, WHO ARE PLUMBERS, WHO ARE FACTORY WORKERS, WHO REALLY BUILD THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND MAKE THE CITY OF AUSTIN RUN. 
          AND I WANNA SHARE WITH YOU THAT THEY'VE BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD TO FIGHT FOR A, A PEOPLE'S PLATFORM FOR AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          AND YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, WE HAD A RALLY RIGHT OUTSIDE THIS BUILDING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH OUR CLIMATE, UH, ACTIVIST FRIENDS, SOME OF WHOM ARE HERE TODAY, AS WELL AS SOME COMMUNITY GROUPS CALLING ON AUSTIN ENERGY AND AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL TO PURSUE A PLATFORM THAT'S REALLY ROOTED IN ECONOMIC AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU ALL TO URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE AGAINST THE BASE RATE INCREASE AND ACTUALLY TO URGE THEM TO NOT DO ANY BASE RATE INCREASE AT ALL. 
          THIS BASE RATE CONVERSATION IS COMING RIGHT AFTER A RATE INCREASE OF $180 A YEAR THROUGH THE PASS THROUGH RATE HAS ALREADY 
          [00:35:01]
BEEN PASSED AND WORKING FOLKS ARE STRUGGLING. 
          IN MY FULL-TIME JOB, AS I MENTIONED, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE AND HONOR OF TALKING TO THE WORKERS WHO BUILD THIS CITY, AND I'VE BEEN ASKING THEM, WHAT DOES A COMBINED RATE INCREASE OF ALMOST $400 A YEAR MEAN TO YOU AND TO YOUR FAMILY? RIGHT? WHAT ARE YOU GIVING UP TO PAY FOR THAT? AND FOLKS ARE TELLING US THAT THEY'RE THINKING, HOW AM I GOING TO AFFORD CRITICAL MEDICINE THAT I NEED FOR MY HEALTH CONDITIONS? HOW AM I GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD OTHER UTILITIES, MY RENT PRICES THAT HAVE ALMOST DOUBLED IN THE LAST YEAR, RIGHT? WE'RE SEEING STATISTICALLY AN ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT THAT IN AUSTIN, RENT PRICES HAVE ALMOST DOUBLED OVER THE LAST YEAR. 
          AND FOLKS ARE SAYING, HOW IS IT THAT I CAN, YOU KNOW, MY LABOR, MY MY WORK CAN BE USED TO BUILD THIS CITY AND I CAN'T EVEN AFFORD TO LIVE IN IT ANYMORE, RIGHT? THESE ARE THE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS WE'RE HAVING WITH WORKERS. 
          AND SO I REALLY URGE YOU ALL TO SAY TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WE CAN'T AFFORD WORKING PEOPLE IN THIS CITY. 
          CAN'T AFFORD ANOTHER RATE INCREASE OF ANY AMOUNT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU MISS MIKA. 
          AND THE LAST SPEAKER IS MADELINE KILBURN. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS MADELINE KILBURN. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH, UH, FOR EVERYONE WHO'S GONE BEFORE ME TONIGHT. 
          UH, FOR ALL OF YOUR INSIGHT ON THE ISSUE OF THIS RATE CASE. 
          I AM AN AUSTIN RESIDENT. 
          I MOVED HERE AS A STUDENT AS SO MANY DO LOOKING FOR A BETTER LIFE. 
          I MOVED TO AUSTIN AS A GAY WOMAN KNOWING THAT THIS IS A CITY WHERE I COULD FIND SAFETY AND COMMUNITY. 
          AND IT'S NO SECRET THAT THIS CITY IS NOW BECOMING DEEPLY UNAFFORDABLE FOR SO MANY MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY, PARTICULARLY THE WORKING CLASS. 
          MY GIRLFRIEND, WHO IS A BORN AND RAISED AUSTINITE, DOES NOT KNOW HOW SHE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD UTILITIES WITH A RATE INCREASE LIKE THIS. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW A SINGLE RENTER IN THE CITY WHO HAS NOT SEEN THE RENT GO UP THIS YEAR. 
          THIS RATE INCREASE PROPOSED BY AUSTIN ENERGY IS YET ANOTHER CHARGE ON THE COST OF LIVING IN THIS CITY. 
          AND PEOPLE ARE JUST MOVING HERE FOR A BETTER LIFE. 
          AUSTIN CONTINUES TO POSITION ITSELF AS A PLACE WHERE THAT'S POSSIBLE, AS LONG AS WE KEEP ON . 
          AND QUITE FRANKLY, AS LONG AS WE KEEP ON UPPING THE PRICE OF ADMISSION, THIS IS NO LONGER A CITY WHERE THAT IS ACCESSIBLE AND AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. 
          BUT THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU MISS K. 
          I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND APOLOGIZE FOR MY TARDINESS. 
          THANK YOU VICE CHAIR TITLE FOR KICKING THE MEETING OFF. 
          UM, I BELIEVE THAT, DID WE DISCUSS AT THE TOP OF THE MEETING THAT WE WERE GONNA TAKE, UM, A COUPLE OF THINGS OUT OF ORDER, OR DID WE OKAY, GREAT. 
          SO, UM, JUST AS A, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM, I'D LIKE TO TAKE UP STAFF BRIEFINGS AND REPORTS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT AND NINE. 
          UH, I'M GONNA TAKE THAT UP AT THE END OF THE MEETING. 
          UM, IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT TIME AND FOLKS WANT TO HAVE THAT VERY HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY FROM AUSTIN ENERGY, THOSE ARE OUR, UM, QUARTERLY OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL REPORTS. 
          UH, ALL OF THOSE MATERIALS WERE CIRCULATED WITH OUR MEETING MATERIALS. 
          UM, AND YOU CAN OBVIOUSLY VIEW AT YOUR LEISURE. 
          THOSE ARE FAIRLY MEATY REPORTS, AS YOU KNOW. 
          UM, AND GIVEN THE FOCUS ON THE BASE RATE INCREASE REQUEST, I WANT TO SAVE THOSE FOR LAST AND POTENTIALLY ALLOW FOLKS TO JUST REVIEW THAT MATERIAL ON THEIR OWN TIME. 
          OKAY, SO MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER SECOND. 
          OH, GO AHEAD. 
          BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, ADD TO YOUR, THANKS TO THE SPEAKERS TONIGHT. 
          WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE, THEY'RE DEEPLY CONCERNED. 
          THEY RAISED INCREDIBLE POINTS ON MANY FRONTS, AND IT'S REALLY A GREAT THING TO HAVE PEOPLE COMING FORWARD AND TALKING TO US. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HADDEN. 
          UM, 
          [1. Approve the minutes of the Electric Utility Commission Regular meeting on October 18, 2022.]
UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. 
          UM, THE MINUTES WERE CIRCULATED WITH YOUR MEETING MATERIALS. 
          UH, ANY COMMENTS OR, UH, JUST TO, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A, UM, ON PAGE, I GUESS IT WOULD BE PAGE THREE OF THE MINUTES. 
          UH, AT THE TOP IT SAYS, THE EUC REQUESTED AUSTIN ENERGY PROVIDE NUMBER 
          [00:40:01]
RUNS WITH A 15 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND A 7.5 GRADUATE INCREASE CAP. 
          THE I E 33.1 MILLION RECOMMENDATION, ISN'T IT 31.3 OR AM I MISREMEMBERING IT? I JUST THINK THE NUMBERS MIGHT BE MIXED UP THERE. 
          I I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. 
          31.3. 
          SO, SO, SO I WOULD'VE, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO PROVE THE MINUTES WITH, YOU KNOW, SWITCHING THE ORDER OF THE ONE AND THE THREE ON THAT. 
          PAGE THREE. 
          UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY. 
          MOTION CARRIES. 
          I THINK I, YEAH, I THINK I'VE GOT EVERYBODY. 
          I CAN SEE EVERYBODY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WONDERFUL. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          UM, OKAY, UH, MOVING ON TO ITEMS. UH, 
          [Items 2, 3, 6, & 7]
THIS IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION ITEMS NUMBER TWO THROUGH SEVEN. 
          ARE THERE ANY THAT COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP FOR A DISCUSSION? I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE UP, UH, NUMBER, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON NUMBER FIVE, AND I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN HAS ONE ALSO. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN? UH, YES, I, I, UH, BECAUSE OF OUR TIME LIMITATIONS, I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEBT COLLECT, THE DEBT COLLECTOR CONTRACT. 
          I'D LIKE TO DEFER THAT, UH, TO THE WORK GROUP AND, UH, REPORT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          UM, WHICH ITEM NUMBER IS THAT COMMISSIONER? I THINK IT'S ITEM FOUR FOUR. 
          UH, BEFORE WE DEFER SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM AUSTIN ENERGY ABOUT TIMING. 
          OFTENTIMES, UH, WHEN THEY BR THEY'RE BRINGING THESE ITEMS BEFORE US. 
          UH, IT, IT, IT IMPACTS, UM, WHEN THEY CAN, WHEN THEY EXPECT TO RECEIVE COUNSEL APPROVAL FOR THESE AND DELAYING IT A MONTH COULD CAUSE, UM, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. 
          SO IF THERE'S SOMEONE, LET'S, LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND HAVE SOMEONE COME UP AND AT LEAST SPEAK TO, UM, IF DELAYING THAT A MONTH WOULD BE, UH, WOULD CAUSE ANY ISSUES FOR AUSTIN. 
          AND ARE WE, ARE WE MEETING IN DECEMBER? OH, GOOD CALL, ACTUALLY, YEAH, WE, WE AREN'T EVEN MEETING IN DECEMBER, SO THAT MEANS A TWO MONTH BE JANUARY, IT WOULD BE A TWO MONTH DELAY. 
          UM, SO LET'S JUST, LET'S JUST PULL THAT ONE FOR NOW. 
          COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN. 
          UM, OKAY, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL. 
          ITEM NUMBERS 2, 3, 6, AND SEVEN. 
          SO MOVED. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND ON ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AND COMMISSIONER HADDEN, I COULDN'T SEE YOU ON THAT ONE. 
          UM, I'D LIKE TO, UM, VOTE IN FAVOR OF ALL EXCEPT SAIN ON NUMBER TWO, PLEASE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO NOTED. 
          ALL RIGHT, MOTION CARRIES. 
          UH, WE WILL NOW TAKE 
          [4. Recommend authorizing negotiation and execution of two multi-term contracts with Transworld Systems Inc. and I C System Inc. for collection services for delinquent utility accounts each for up to five years for total contract amounts not to exceed $3,000,000, divided between the contractors.]
UP ITEM NUMBER FOUR AND, UH, HEAR FROM AUSTIN ENERGY ABOUT, UH, DELAY. 
          HI THERE, VICE PRESIDENT OF CUSTOMER CHAT MANAGER. 
          UM, AND COULD YOU PLEASE, UH, COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN WOULD LIKE TO, UH, TALK WITH THE WORKING GROUP AND BRING THIS UP AT OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          IS THAT, UH, DOES THAT CAUSE ANY CONCERNS FOR YOU AS A UTILITY? UM, IT, IT PUTS US ON A, IT'S SLATED TO GO TO COUNCIL TOMORROW, PUTS US ON A LITTLE BIT OF A TIGHTER TIMEFRAME. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THE CONTRACTS EXPIRE IN THE SPRING, AND PART OF BRINGING THE FOURTH NOW SO WE CAN GET THE FINAL CONTRACTS NEGOTIATED AND IN PLACE, UM, PULL BACK, UH, ITEMS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PLACED WITH OTHER COLLECTION AGENCIES AND, AND REPLACE THEM WITH THE NEW AGENCIES. 
          UM, AND SO I DON'T KNOW, COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER FOR YOU RIGHT NOW. 
          I, WELL, IF IT'S NOT GONNA GO IN PLACE TILL SPRING, I I REALLY WOULD, UH, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO INTO, INTO IT, UH, NOW, BUT I, IF WE COULD, UH, SPEAK, SPEAK WITH YOU AND OF THE WORK GROUP, GET THEIR, UH, QUESTIONS RESOLVED, AND I'D PREFER TO DO IT IN JANUARY AND COMMUNICATE THAT TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UM, I JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WHICH WORK GROUP IS THIS? UH, THE, THE AUDIT BUDGET AND AUDIT WORK GROUP? YEAH. 
          AND, AND ACTUALLY, UM, COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN, I THINK, UH, THE WORK GROUP IS, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY THE BUDGET AND 
          [00:45:01]
AUDIT WORK GROUP. 
          I'M NOT SURE THAT IT, UM, MAKES SENSE FOR, UH, THIS DISCUSSION TO BE, UH, HELD BY THAT WORK GROUP SPECIFICALLY. 
          OF COURSE, YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS WE DON'T VIOLATE QUORUM, UH, ISSUES. 
          BUT I, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT, IT MAKES SENSE FOR, UM, THIS PARTICULAR, UH, CONTRACT OR, UH, RCA TO GO TO THE WORK GROUP FOR, YOU KNOW, AS CURRENTLY CONSTITUTED ALL, ALL, ALL OF WHICH IS, ALL OF WHICH IS, UH, UH, WHICH, YOU KNOW, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE WORK GROUP THAT I'VE CONFERRED WITH WOULD LIKE ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN QUESTIONS. 
          UH, BUT ALL OF WHICH IS, I'D REALLY RATHER HAVE THE CONVERSATION AND LEARN MORE FROM AUSTIN ENERGY ABOUT THE CONTRACTS, UH, HAVING THE INFORMA AND, AND THERE'S A HISTORY HERE. 
          THIS IS NOT, UH, JUST OUT OF THE BLUE, THERE'S A HISTORY WITH THESE, UH, DEBT COLLECTORS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS USED IN THE PAST. 
          AND I'D LIKE THOSE QUESTIONS TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE SUPPORTING, UH, THE CONTRACT TO CITY COUNCIL. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          COULD YOU READ, DOES THAT ANSWER IT OTHER, OTHERWISE, UH, WE CAN DO THE VOTE TONIGHT CHAIR, BUT THE AN AT LEAST CERTAINLY MY VOTE WOULD BE, NO, GO AHEAD. 
          COMMISSIONER REED, IS THERE A POTENTIAL FOR RANDY TO GET HIS QUESTIONS TOGETHER, GET THEM SUBMITTED AND ANSWERED? IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO AN EMAIL VOTE ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS OR, OR NOT? I I DON'T KNOW PROCEDURALLY WHETHER THAT'S AVAILABLE, UM, TO US, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT'S LOOKING LIKE NO, OVER HERE, . 
          OKAY. 
          JUST, JUST WONDERING. 
          UM, I, I, YOU KNOW, I'M INCLINED TO GO AHEAD AND JUST HAVE THE CONVERSATION. 
          WE'VE GOT STAFF UP HERE PREPARED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THIS CONTRACT AND, UM, WE CAN TAKE THE VOTE AND IF WE DOWN SUPPORT IT, THEN WE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL AND THAT THAT'LL BE THE EOCS POSITION. 
          UM, SO I THINK LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION, COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN, IF YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          BE HAPPY TO, UH, IS THIS, UH, THE SAME COMPANY THAT, UH, CALLS ITSELF, UH, MUNICIPAL SERVICES, UH, EITHER ONE OF THE TWO CONTRACTS THAT, UH, UH, DUKE'S CONSUMERS AS IF THEY WERE A MUNICIPAL COLLECT COLLECTION COLLECTOR? NO. 
          UH, NEITHER OF THESE AGENCIES ARE MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUREAU, WHICH IS KNOWN AS MSB. 
          NEITHER OF THESE AGENCIES ARE THAT VENDOR. 
          AND, AND DO, DO THEY, DO THEY COLLECT UNDER ANY, UH, FALSE NAMES OR, OR DO THEY COLLECT UNDER, UNDER THEIR REGISTERED NAMES? THEY, UH, COLLECT UNDER TRANS WORLD SYSTEMS INCORPORATED AN IC SYSTEM. 
          OKAY. 
          ON BEHALF OF CITY BOSTON UTILITIES. 
          SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, AND, UH, ALL OF WHICH IS THEIR FEES ARE, ARE THOSE FEES PAID BY AUSTIN ENERGY OR DO THEY WORK ON A COMMISSION FOR WHICH CONSUMER? THE INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER THAT, THAT, UH, GETS GETS, UH, THEY ARE COMMISSIONED BASED. 
          UM, THEY ARE ONLY PAID, UM, ON FUNDS THAT ARE COLLECTED, AND THEY ARE PAID, UM, BY AUSTIN ENERGY AND CITY OF AUSTIN UTILITIES. 
          UM, SO THE, THE CONSUMER DOESN'T PAY, UM, THOSE FEES TO THE AGENCY, THE IN THE INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER, UH, RECEIVES NO SURCHARGE? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW, AGAIN, I'M GOING BACK TO THE CONTRACT THAT THEY, THAT AUSTIN ENERGY PREVIOUSLY HAD WITH A GEORGIA OUTFIT. 
          UH, NEITHER ONE OF THESE IS THE GEORGIA BASED OUTFIT THAT CALLED THEMSELVES MUNICIPAL SERVICES, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          UH, THESE COMPANIES, AND AGAIN, THIS IS FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, UH, THEY FIND PEOPLE, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, IF YOU LIVE WITH SOMEBODY, UH, 
          [00:50:01]
OR IN A BOARDING SITUATION OR, UH, A AN INDIVIDUAL WHO'S, UH, THE RINSE IN ONE PERSON'S NAME, THEY TAKE IT OUT AND THE ABUSE SPOUSE OR GIRLFRIEND, WHOEVER, UH, LIVES IN THE SAME HOUSEHOLD LATER AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS PASSED, UH, THEY ARE CONNECTED AND THEN IT IS CHARGED AS A BILL TRANSFER BY AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          THAT'S HOW IT HAS WORKED IN THE PAST. 
          IS THAT STILL THE SITUATION? BECAUSE I HEARD THROUGH THE, UH, UH, SAFE PLACE THAT WOMEN WOULD IN ESSENCE BE DINGED FROM, UH, IN ESSENCE, THE PERSON WHOSE ACCOUNT ACCOUNTANT WAS IN THEIR NAME, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD NOT BEEN WITH, UH, BOYFRIEND, HUSBAND, WHOEVER YEARS AGO. 
          IS THAT STILL THE PRACTICE? UM, OKAY. 
          THERE ARE SEVERAL PARTS, SO HOPEFULLY I CAN, UH, SPEAK TO EACH ONE AND IF I MISS ONE, LET ME KNOW. 
          UM, THESE ARE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY COLLECTIONS. 
          SO IT'S OF DEBT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A CUSTOMER THAT'S LEFT OUR SERVICE TERRITORY. 
          THERE'S NO ACTIVE UTILITY ACCOUNTS IN THEIR, IN THEIR NAME. 
          UM, AND IT'S DEBT THAT'S TYPICALLY TWO YEARS OLDER AND LESS SO IT'S NEWER DEBT. 
          MAYBE SOMEONE LEAVES AND HASN'T PAID THEIR LAST THREE BILLS AND THEY, THEY DON'T PAY US. 
          AND EVENTUALLY IT, IT GOES OFF TO THESE COLLECTION AGENCIES. 
          SO THIS, THERE IS NO, UM, HOLDING AT THIS LEVEL TILL STATUTE OF LIMITATION. 
          UM, NOT, NOT IN THESE CONTRACTS. 
          THESE ARE TYPICALLY A YEAR OR TWO YEARS THAT THEY'LL, THEY'LL WORK THIS DEBT. 
          UM, WHOEVER SETS UP THE CITY OF AUSTIN UTILITIES ACCOUNT AND PROVIDES THEIR ID IS THE DEBTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCOUNT. 
          UM, IF SOMEONE LIVES IN A HOUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE MAY BE SOME SKIP TRACING OR COLLECTION ACTIVITIES THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THESE COMPANIES WOULD GO THROUGH TO TRY TO GET TO THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS ON THE UTILITY ACCOUNT. 
          UM, BUT THERE'S NO TRYING TO COLLECT FROM SOMEBODY WHOSE NAME WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO SET UP THE UTILITY ACCOUNT. 
          SO IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE A, A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE ABOUT SAFE PLACE, I, I'D BE GLAD TO HEAR ABOUT IT. 
          UM, AND, AND WORK WITH OUR ESCALATIONS TEAM AND, AND, AND TALK TO THEM TO SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING, UM, IN, IN THE PROCESS WE'RE MISSING. 
          NOW, WHAT YOU MAY, MAY ALSO BE REFERRING TO, SORRY, JUST ONE MORE THING IS, UM, AS A CITY ENTITY MUNICIPALITY, UM, THEIR ON THE UTILITY DEBT, AND SO THERE MAY BE SOMEONE WHO OWES DEBT IN THEIR NAME FROM FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO, THEY MOVE AWAY, THEY COME BACK TO CITY OF AUSTIN UTILITIES, AND IF WE STILL SEE THAT THEY OWE US MONEY, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE FISCALLY BOUND TO, UM, TO WORK WITH THEM TO ESTABLISH A PAY PLAN TO COLLECT THAT MONEY. 
          DID. 
          THEY ARE NOT REFUSED SERVICE. 
          THEY, THEY ARE ESTABLISHED INTO A PAY PLAN. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND, UH, AND THE OTHER QUESTION, UH, THERE ARE TWO, TWO QUESTIONS. 
          ONE IS, UH, ARE THEY AUTHORIZED? ARE THE TWO COMPANIES YOU DEAL WITH AUTHORIZED TO, UH, BE CALLING PEOPLE DURING CERTAIN HOURS OR AT THEIR WORKPLACE, WHICH MIGHT IMPACT THEIR EMPLOYMENT? I WILL HAVE TO, UM, THEY FOLLOW THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT AND OTHER FEDERAL GUIDELINES, UH, TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, WHICH OUTLINE, UM, WHEN AND HOW YOU CAN TRY TO CONTACT SOMEONE TO WRITE, PARTY, VERIFY TO, TO COLLECT A DEBT. 
          UM, WE HAVE VERIFIED THAT THEY FOLLOW THOSE REGULATIONS AND WE'VE VERIFIED THAT THEY'VE NOT BEEN CITED OR CENTERED FOR THOSE VERIFI UH, FOR THOSE, UM, REGULATIONS. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW THAT SOMEONE ALWAYS HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY, IF THEY'RE CONTACTED AT WORK, THEY, THE CONSUMER HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY, DO NOT CONTACT ME AT WORK OR CONTACT ME ONLY DURING THESE HOURS OR ONLY IN WRITING. 
          AND, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE BOUND TO, UM, THE AGENCY IS BOUND TO, TO ACT ACCORDING TO THAT REQUEST. 
          DOES THAT HELP? AND THAT'S IN THE CONTRACT IN THE PRO CRAFT CONTRACTS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. 
          UM, I WILL HAVE TO CHECK AND SEE IF IT'S IN THE CONTRACT. 
          IT WAS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK ABOUT FOLLOWING THE FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT AND THE 
          [00:55:01]
TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT. 
          AND, UH, AND THE OTHER, UH, QUESTION IS, UH, AGAIN, WHEN YOU CONTRACTED WITH MUNICIPAL SERVICES, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE HERE HAVING MOVED AND YEARS LATER, UH, THAT OUTFIT, UH, CONNECTED ME WITH, WITH A BILL THAT I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD, UH, THE GROUP THAT AUSTIN ENERGY USED, UH, RESULTED IN A DOWNGRADING OF MY PERSONAL CREDIT SCORE, MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT TO, TO, UH, GET A MORTGAGE LOAN, MAKING IT MORE EXPENSIVE TO GET A CAR LOAN. 
          UH, IS WHAT ARE THE RULES THAT AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, REQUIRES OF THESE COMPANIES? ARE THEY ALLOWED TO, UH, IMPAIR SOMEBODY'S, UH, CREDIT SCORE, UH, WITH THEIR INFORMATION? UH, YES. 
          AN UNPAID BILL, UM, COULD IMPACT, UH, A DEBTOR'S, UH, CREDIT SCORE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN RECENT REGULATION IN THE PAST, UM, TWO, THREE YEARS REGARDING BOTH MEDICAL DEBT AND UTILITY DEBT. 
          UM, SO PREVIOUSLY WHERE HISTORICALLY THAT MAY HAVE IMPACTED YOUR CREDIT SCORE TO A GREATER EXTENT. 
          UM, NOW, UM, GUIDELINES AND, AND, UM, HAVE, HAVE BEEN PUT FORTH TO KIND OF MITIGATE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT IMPACT. 
          UM, BUT YES, UM, IF, IF THE, UM, PERSON IS CONTACTED AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONCE IT GOES TO THESE CREDIT BUREAUS, THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN CONTACTED MULTIPLE TIMES, HOPEFULLY THROUGH, GIVEN ALL THE INFORMATION THAT THEY PROVIDED US WHEN THEY SET THEIR ACCOUNT, INCLUDING, UM, AFFORDING ADDRESS AND, AND OTHER MEANS. 
          UM, WE'VE CONTACTED THEM MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE THEY GO TO THESE COLLECTION AGENCIES. 
          AND YES, AT THAT POINT, UM, THERE, THERE IS A, A CREDIT SCORE. 
          SO ALL OF WHICH IS, THAT WAS NOT MY EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST WITH AUSTIN ENERGY, BUT ALL OF WHICH IS, IS IT POSSIBLE TO INCLUDE IN THE CONTRACT? AND WILL YOU INCLUDE IN THE CONTRACT THAT THEY WILL NOT, UH, LANGUAGE THAT THEY WILL, UH, NOT ADVERSELY, UH, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THEY MAY, UH, DO THEIR JOB, BUT CERTAINLY, UH, NOT DO IT TO THE IMPAIRMENT OF PEOPLE OF PEOPLE'S CREDIT SCORES THAT, UH, THE IMPACT OF A CREDIT SCORE IS ONE OF THE MAIN DRIVERS FOR PEOPLE TO WANT TO PAY THE DEBT, UM, AND, AND RESOLVE AN, AN OUTSTANDING ACCOUNT. 
          UM, RIGHT, BUT ALL OF WHICH IS AGAIN, AND I'M SORRY TO BE TAKING SO MUCH TIME, I, I, I REALLY WOULD'VE PREFERRED TO DEFER THIS, BUT ALL OF WHICH IS WHEN THEY PAY, WHEN THEY SET UP A PAYMENT PLAN WITH THESE TWO COMPANIES DO, IS ARE THOSE TWO COMPANIES THEN REQUIRED TO NOTIFY THE, AND MAKE THAT CORRECTION THAT THE BILL HAS BEEN PAID, OR IS IT ONLY WHEN AUSTIN ENERGY NOTIFIES THEM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL? HOW DOES THAT WORK? UM, WHEN THE DEBT IS SATISFIED, WHATEVER AMOUNT THAT IS PLACED WITH THE COLLECTION AGENCY, WHEN THAT IS PAID, UM, THE, AND THIS SHOULD BE THE CASE ACROSS ANY COLLECTION AGENCY OR ANY CONSUMER BASED ACCOUNT PLACED WITH A COLLECTION AGENCY. 
          ONCE IT'S PAID, IT IS MARKED ON THE CREDIT FILE AS PAID. 
          NOW IT STILL MAY SHOW THAT IT WAS LATE, BUT, UM, IT WILL BE UPDATED TO SHOW PAID. 
          I SO, SO WHEN THEY ENTER A PAYMENT PLAN WITH THE AGENCY, UH, IT HAS NO EFFECT AT THAT POINT WHEN THE ACCOUNT ONLY, IT'S ONLY WHEN, WHEN THEY'VE GOTTEN THEIR MONEY IN WHOLE AND AUSTIN ENERGY HAS BEEN, IN ESSENCE, REIMBURSED AND WHOLE. 
          YET, ONCE THE ONCE BALANCE THAT CITY OF AUSTIN UTILITIES PLACED WITH THE COLLECTION AGENCY IS, IS PAID IN FULL, UM, THE, THE CREDIT FILE IS UPDATED, SHOWING PAID IN FULL. 
          OKAY. 
          THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS, UH, BY OTHER COMMISSIONERS. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR? I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED. 
          IF A BILL IS PAID IN PART, NOT PAID IN FULL, THEY'VE MADE A PAYMENT, WILL THAT STOP THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO A CREDIT SCORE OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE PAID IN FULL? UM, IT, IT, YOU KNOW, CREDIT, CREDIT SCORING 
          [01:00:01]
IS, IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE, IT'S HANDLED BY CREDIT, UH, FAIR ISAACS, I BELIEVE, AND IT'S GOT A DIFFERENT BUNCH OF DIFFERENT ALGORITHMS. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IF AS LONG AS THERE, IT'S, THE CREDIT REPORT WILL SHOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DEBT PLACED ON, ON THAT CONSUMER, UM, ONCE IT'S PAID, IT DOESN'T REMOVE IT OFF THE CREDIT REPORT, IT STILL SHOWS BECAUSE IT WAS STILL LATE, IT WAS UNPAID, BUT IT WILL SHOW UPDATED AS PAID, AND THAT GETS UPDATED ONCE THE BALANCE IS PAID IN FULL OR ONCE FOR SOME REASON. 
          WE RECALL IT FROM THE AGENCIES, AND USUALLY IF THEY'RE ON A PAY PLAN WITH THE COLLECTION AGENCIES, THEY, THEY END UP, YOU KNOW, ONCE CONSUMER CONSUMERS ARE TYPICALLY ON THAT, THEY'LL END UP CONTINUING MAKING THE PAYMENTS TILL THE BALANCE IS PAID IN FULL. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          UM, I THINK WE'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER FOUR FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL. 
          HI, SOU. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND ON ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I, I, FINE AND ALL THOSE OPPOSED? I THINK I AM ONE, TWO AND, OKAY, SO WE'VE GOT TWO, NO ONE ABSTENTION AND 1, 2, 3, 4. 
          WHAT DID YOU DO? I SAID YES. 
          OKAY. 
          FIVE, SIX. 
          THAT DOES IT, RIGHT? SIX. 
          OKAY. 
          SO MOTION PASSES, BUT DO APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN BRINGING UP THESE ISSUES, WHICH ARE VERY IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY THE HISTORY OF THIS PROGRAM. 
          SO THANK YOU ANDY. 
          YES, VERY MUCH. 
          I DO APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, TAKING UP 
          [5. Recommend authorizing reimbursement of costs to Waller Creek Owner, LLC., for the  service pipe connection to interconnect the Waller Building to the Austin Energy (AE)  downtown District Cooling System in an amount not to exceed $2,308,703.]
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, COMMISSIONER TREL. 
          UM, YES, I, I'M TRYING TO, UM, FIGURE OUT WHO OWNS WHAT AND WHAT THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS IS FOR PAYING FOR THIS, UM, SERVICE PIPE CONNECTION THAT WALLER CREEK OWNER LLC HAS, HAS, UM, INSTALLED TO INTERCONNECT WITH THE, UM, DOWNTOWN DISTRICT COOLING SYSTEM. 
          THE AMOUNT IS ABOUT $2.3 MILLION. 
          UH, ALTHOUGH I JUST NOTICED THAT WHILE OUR AGENDA SAYS 2.3 MILLION, THE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION SAYS 2.4 MILLION. 
          SO I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD THAT QUESTION, BUT THAT'S ONE QUESTION. 
          SO IS IT CORRECT THAT WALLER CREEK OWNER LLC OWNS THIS INTERCONNECTION? UH, SO I'M PAT SWEENEY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POWER PRODUCTION AND DISTRICT SCHOOLING, EXCUSE ME. 
          UH, UH, FOR THE MOMENT, UH, THEY WILL, WE, WE WILL OWN IT. 
          ULTIMATELY, IT'LL BECOME PART OF OUR SYSTEM. 
          UH, IT'S A MECHANISM WE USE FROM TIME TO TIME WITH DEVELOPERS WHERE THEY NEED TO CONNECT TO OUR SYSTEM FROM THEIR LOCATION TO WHEREVER OUR MAIN LINE PIPE IS, THE DISTANCE AND THE COMPLICATION FACTOR, LOCATION, LOCATIONS, EVERYTHING WILL DETERMINE HOW MUCH THAT COSTS. 
          UH, THEY'RE MOTIVATED TO KEEP THE COSTS LOW, AS LOW AS THEY REASONABLY CAN BECAUSE WE WILL THEN ONCE, ONCE WE TAKE OWNERSHIP, WE REIMBURSE THEM AND TAKE OWNERSHIP OF IT, UH, AT THAT POINT THEN WE WILL, UM, UH, RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT THROUGH THE CONTRACT THROUGH A, A CAPITAL CHARGE RECOVERY IN THE CONTRACT. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          SO THAT IS HOW, THAT'S, UH, YOU, YOU REIMBURSE THEM, BUT THEN YOU, THEIR RATE FOR THE, UH, UH, CHILLED WATER RATE RIGHT. 
          REIMBURSES THE CITY FOR THE TOTAL COST, THE 2 MILLION PLUS, AND THE TIME AND TIME VALUE AND MONEY AND SO ON. 
          AND, UH, THIS MECHANISM ALLOWS US TO WORK MORE FLEXIBLY WITH DEVELOPERS WHERE WE OFTEN TIME MIGHT HAVE A VERY LONG INDICATION THAT THEY'RE GONNA START, BUT WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THEY DO AND THEY FIRE THE STARTING GUN AND THEY'RE OFF THE RACES. 
          AND SO THIS PUTS IT IN, IN THEIR HANDS TO MANAGE IT FROM A SCHEDULE AND A COST PERSPECTIVE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I, IN READING THROUGH THIS INFORMATION, IT SOUNDED, IT LOOKS TO ME AS THOUGH THE BENEFIT TO AUSTIN ENERGY IS THE DEMAND SHIFT TO OFF PEAK TIMES. 
          SO OVERALL IN DISTRICT COOLING, UH, THERE'S LOTS OF BENEFITS, BUT THE BIG ONE, UH, FOR, UH, FOR AUSTIN ENERGY FROM AN ELECTRICAL STANDPOINT IS THE DEMAND SHIFT BECAUSE WE, WE, UH, WE HAVE THERMAL STORAGE, SO WE, WE MAKE, UH, CHILLED WATER AT NIGHT, UH, AND THEN WE RELEASE IT DURING THE DAY TO COOL. 
          OF FACILITIES THAT ARE CONNECTED TO US, AND THEREFORE THAT DEMAND IS SHIFTED TO THE EVENING HOURS, 
          [01:05:01]
UH, AS OPPOSED TO DURING DAYTIME. 
          AND HAS, AT SOME POINT, I ASSUME SOMEBODY DID A, A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE, THE BENEFIT OF THAT SHIFT IS FROM A DISTRICT COOLING PERSPECTIVE. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, YES. 
          EARLY ON, I, I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THAT WAS AT THE TIME, BUT, UH, UH, WE LOOK AT IT, UH, AND IT, THERE, THERE'S AN ONGOING INCREASING BENEFIT AS YOU SHIFT MORE LOAD, UH, FROM WHAT WOULD BE A PEAK DEMAND TO A OFF-PEAK DEMAND. 
          WELL, THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING ALL THAT. 
          THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME. 
          BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO KNOW IF THE AMOUNT IS 2.308 MILLION OR 2.424 MILLION. 
          SO THE, UH, THE RCA ITSELF HAS 2.42 2,424,138. 
          AND THAT IS THE FIGURE THAT, UH, IS ON THE RCA. 
          AND I WOULD SAY THAT IS IT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          IF WITH THAT, I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE IT, NOTING THE CORRECT, UH, DOLLAR AMOUNT. 
          PERFECT. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? I WILL SECOND VERY QUICK QUESTION. 
          WHERE ARE WE ON OUR 40 MEGAWATT STORAGE GOAL, THERMAL STORAGE GOAL? WE'RE, WE'RE AROUND 32 MEGAWATTS. 
          CONGRATULATIONS. 
          AND, AND COURSES WE ADD CUSTOMERS OVER TIME THAT, THAT CONTINUE TO GROW. 
          GREAT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          MOVING ON TO, AS I SAID, WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP ITEMS EIGHT AND NINE AT THE END OF THE MEETING, UH, IF WE DO SO AT ALL. 
          UM, SO MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10, DISCUSSION 
          [10. Discussion and possible action on the 2023 Electric Utility Commission Meeting Schedule.]
AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS. THIS IS THE 2023 EUC MEETING SCHEDULE. 
          UM, HOPEFULLY FOLKS HAD A CHANCE TO JUST LOOK AT THAT. 
          UH, WE ARE VOTING TO APPROVE THAT SCHEDULE AND GET IT POSTED. 
          UM, CHAIRMAN HOPKINS, I NOTED AND HAVE TALKED TO MISS OTTO ABOUT THIS. 
          UM, THERE'S, THERE'S AN ERROR, JUST A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. 
          SO THE MARCH MEETING IS, SHOULD BE MARCH 20TH, 2023. 
          IT NOW READS MARCH 21ST, 2022, AND THE 21ST IS A TUESDAY, SO IT'S ACTUALLY INTENDED TO BE MONDAY, MARCH 20TH, 2023. 
          AND THE, THE JUNE MEETING IS LISTED AS JUNE 12TH, 2022. 
          AND IT ALSO SHOULD BE 2023. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR I DISAGREE WITH THAT MOTION. 
          I'M SITTING , THANK YOU FOR LOOKING SO CLOSELY AT IT. 
          UM, SOMEBODY READS THEIR DOCUMENT, THAT'S GREAT. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          I CAN'T SEEM TO FIND THAT, BUT, UH, I, I BELIEVE YOU. 
          THANKS FOR LOOKING. 
          AND, UM, IF, UH, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING 2023 MEETING SCHEDULE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER TRILLS AMENDMENTS THAT WERE JUST STATED. 
          IT SO MOVED. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND, AYE. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVING ON TO 
          [11. Discussion and possible action on the proposed Base Rate changes.]
ITEM NUMBER, UH, 11. 
          AND I'M GONNA ALSO TAKE UP ITEM NUMBER 12 AS WELL. 
          UH, SO THIS IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED BASE RATE CHANGE AND DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON DRAFT RESOLUTION. 
          OH, NO, EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY I'M NOT TAKING UP ITEM NUMBER 12 YET. 
          APOLOGIES. 
          UM, SO THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 11, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED BASE RATE CHANGES. 
          UM, SO I GUESS I'LL JUST OPEN THE FLOOR FOR, UH, UH, DISCUSSION. 
          I, WE DO HAVE A PROPOSED DRAFT RESOLUTION, UM, THAT WERE, WAS CIRCULATED WITH YOUR MEETING MATERIALS, UH, THAT COMMISSIONER, UH, TU REFERRED TO A LITTLE BIT EARLIER IN THE MEETING. 
          UM, AND, UH, SO I'LL JUST OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A DISCUSSION. 
          SO I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION AND THAT IS, UH, WE JUST GOT A BUNCH OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT THIS MEETING ON, ON A FEW ITEMS. UH, AND IT IT WOULD HELP ME IF I HAD SOMEBODY FROM AUSTIN ENERGY WHO COULD RESPOND TO THIS, UH, I COULD HEAR THEIR VIEW ON SOME OF THIS INFORMATION. 
          YEAH, I AGREE. 
          UM, SO THE JOINT PROPOSAL, UH, FROM THE CONSUMERS, UH, THAT WAS FILED, I GUESS IN THE DOCKET ON NOVEMBER 8TH. 
          UM, I, I PERSONALLY, UH, AS SOME OF THE FOLKS WHO CAME AND SPOKE TO US, UH, SAID, I, I THINK THAT SHOWS A LOT OF HARD WORK AND EFFORT AND, AND MOVEMENT AMONG THE PARTIES. 
          AND AS, AS FOLKS MENTIONED, THOSE, THOSE 
          [01:10:01]
FOLKS ARE NOT ALWAYS ALIGNED. 
          UM, AND SO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE COME TOGETHER ON THAT AGREEMENT, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD REALLY CONSIDER. 
          UH, I DO THINK THE OBVIOUS MISSING PARTY TO THAT PROPOSAL IS AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, AND WOULD BE INTERESTED AS WELL IN HEARING FROM, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY ON THAT. 
          SO IF THERE'S SOMEONE FROM AUSTIN ENERGY THAT, AND ALONG THOSE LINES, SORRY TO JUMP ON, BUT, UM, I WOULD BE CURIOUS IF SOMEBODY FROM AUSTIN ENERGY COULD ALSO RESPOND TO THE, UM, DRAFT RESOLUTION WE HAVE, UH, AND JUST ADDRESS IF THEY'RE OPPOSED TO CERTAIN PARTS OF IT. 
          AND I'M PRETTY SURE THEY MAY BE OPPOSED TO A FEW PARTS OF IT, JUST STATE WHICH, WHAT SPECIFICALLY THEY'RE OPPOSED TO, BECAUSE IF THERE'S, IF THEY'RE NOT OPPOSED TO OTHER PARTS, I'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT. 
          SO AT LEAST ON SOME THINGS, WE, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME, YOU KNOW, CONSENT. 
          THAT'S A LOT TO THROW AT YOU. 
          I KNOW. 
          SO, WELL, I'M NOT GONNA, I'M NOT GONNA TAKE ON ALL OF IT. 
          JUST THE FIRST PIECE OF IT. 
          UM, WITH RESPECT TO THOMAS QUEDO ON BEHALF OF ALL ENERGY OUTSIDE COUNCIL, UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE JOINT ALTERNATIVE, UH, PROPOSAL, UM, WE RECEIVED THAT LAST THURSDAY. 
          WE WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION, IN THE DISCUSSION OR, OR, UH, DRAFTING OF THAT AGREEMENT. 
          UH, AND WE'RE STILL CONTINUING TO EVALUATE IT. 
          UM, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT FROM OUR VIEW, UM, IT PROVIDES INADEQUATE, INSUFFICIENT, UM, REVENUE FOR THE UTILITY. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T FIND IT TO BE A, A VIABLE, REASONABLE, UM, SOLUTION TO THIS RATE REQUEST. 
          I MEAN, AS I TOLD CITY COUNCIL LAST WEEK, WE, WE VIEW THIS AS SIMPLY A CONCESSION OFF THEIR, THEIR, UH, FILED CASE BEFORE THE I H E, WHICH IS, WHICH IS ALL FINE AND GOOD, BUT IT, I, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY IT DOESN'T GET US TO, TO, YOU KNOW, TO GET THE UTILITY TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE FINANCIALLY. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. QUEDO WHILE HE'S UP? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE THE, YOU'RE THE RIGHT PERSON FOR ME TO ADDRESS THIS TO, BUT WE, WE WERE PRESENTED WITH AN EXPLANATION OF WHY THERE WERE AN ACTUAL 90 POINT, 94.6 TO $120.4 MILLION OF ANNUAL SAVINGS THAT COULD BE, UM, ACHIEVED BY THE UTILITY, UM, ESTIMATED BY THE RATE CASE INTERVENERS, UM, WITH A LIST OF, UH, 15 OR 16, UH, ITEMS THAT ADD UP TO THAT NUMBER. 
          AND I MEAN, THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, UH, AND I'VE JUST KIND OF BE INTERESTED TO KNOW WHETHER, WHETHER THE UTILITY, UH, CONCUR WITH THAT. 
          THE UTILITY DOES NOT CONCUR WITH THAT, THAT LIST. 
          I ACTUALLY TOOK A PHOTO OF IT A MOMENT AGO WHEN MR. ROBBINS HAD IT ON THE BOARD, AND I DON'T HAVE MY PHONE WITH ME. 
          I I CAN GO LOOK AND KIND OF GO THROUGH 'EM, BUT, BUT I AM FAMILIAR WITH MOST OF THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. 
          MANY OF THEM WERE PROPOSED BY THE INTERVENERS, UM, EITHER THE ICA OR OTHER INTERVENERS IN THE CASE AND AUSTIN ENERGY DID IN THE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY AND AT THE HEARING, AND IN THEIR BRIEFS AND IN THEIR EXCEPTIONS, RESPOND TO ALL OF THOSE, UH, ADJUSTMENTS OR ISSUES. 
          UH, AND FRANKLY, THE I E IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, EXCEPT FOR ONE, UH, THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE, UM, THAT WAS PRESENTED BY AUSTIN ENERGY WAS PERSUASIVE AND RECOMMENDED REJECTION OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          AND, AND WE DO AS WELL. 
          SO ALL OF THAT WAS FULLY ADJUDICATED BEFORE THE INDEPENDENT EXAMINER. 
          I CAN'T, I CAN'T SAY WITH CERTAINTY TO EVERY ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED. 
          THERE WAS, I THINK, AND I DON'T HAVE THE LIST IN FRONT OF ME, I THINK THERE WAS ONE OR TWO THAT WERE SOMEWHAT NEW. 
          UH, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE ISSUES, UM, AGAIN, WERE CONTAINED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ICA OR OTHER INTERVENERS, UM, AND HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE, THE IE PROCESS. 
          AND IF YOU'VE SEEN HIS REPORT, WHICH I HOPE YOU HAVE, THEN HE KIND OF SETS OUT WHAT EACH PARTY'S ARGUMENTS WERE AND THEN MADE HIS RECOMMENDATION ON THE ISSUE . 
          OKAY. 
          I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          IF I MIGHT. 
          SURE. 
          UM, SO MR. QUEDO, UH, YOU DON'T, UM, YOU DON'T PRESENT HERE AN ARGUMENT THAT ANY OF THOSE ADJUSTMENTS THAT YOU RECALL ARE NOT IN EVIDENCE. 
          THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT YOU WERE JUST DISCUSSING WITH COMMISSIONER VIRGIL, DO YOU HAVE THE LIST? I DON'T. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT THERE WERE MAYBE ONE OR TWO THAT WERE, I THINK HE HAD SOME, WE HE HAD SOME, I MEAN, YOU WANNA 
          [01:15:01]
GIMME A BRIEF MOMENT? SURE. 
          I THINK YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO PUT THIS UP FROM MR. UM, FROM PAUL'S, UH, PRESENTATION THAT HE DID. 
          IT'S ONE OF THE PAGES, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. 
          IS IT FROM HIS PRESENTATION OR IS THAT THE HANDOUT? YEAH, NO, AND I CAN GO THROUGH 'EM. 
          I'VE GOT 'EM HERE. 
          WELL, I MEAN, I CAN DO IT KIND OF QUICKLY AND I DON'T REALLY, I, I MEAN, IF YOU CAN TO YOURSELF REVIEW IT AND TELL US ANY OF THEM THAT YOU DON'T THINK WERE ACTUALLY PRESENTED SURE. 
          IN EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING. 
          SURE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, HE'S GOT THIS ADJUSTMENT OF 24 MILLION, SOMETHING CALLED USE BETTER TEST YEAR. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TEST YEAR, UH, AND THE EFFECTS OF COVID AND, AND WINTER STORM URIE, WHICH, WHICH AUSTIN ENERGY DID RESPOND TO. 
          I GUESS THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, ALTHOUGH JUST THE WAY HE'S PHRASED IT IS A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS. 
          UM, WINDFALL REVENUE FROM 2022, UH, I THINK THAT'S MR. UH, ROBINSON'S, UM, A CERTAIN THAT THERE'S MONEY FROM THE CURRENT YEAR THAT COULD BE USED TO REDUCE THE RATE INCREASE 4.2 MILLION. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM. 
          AND I DON'T, I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING, OH, YOU'VE GOT IT UP HERE. 
          I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING FORMALLY LITIGATED IN THE CASE. 
          UH, THAT CHARGING FULL BUILDING RECOVERY FEES. 
          AGAIN, I KNOW THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT HE HAS BROUGHT UP IN THE PAST AS HE NOTES IT'S UNCALCULATED, SO IT DOESN'T ADD TO THAT, THAT TOTAL, UM, I THINK ALL OF THE OTHER ONES WERE ADDRESSED IN THE CASE. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GREEN AND THE BLIGHT? DID HE SAY THAT EARLIER? I, I DON'T RECALL THAT HE ADDRESSED IT. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T RECALL WHAT THAT IS, UH, EITHER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THOSE, UH, THREE ITEMS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED, ONE OF WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL IS CUZ IT'S UNCALCULATED? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO WHAT I UNDERSTAND YOU, YOU'D BE SAYING IS THAT YOU HAVE YET TO SEE ANY ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENTS THAT YOU THINK WOULD, THAT WOULD SATISFY AUSTIN ENERGY'S, UM, PERCEIVED, UH, REVENUE REQUIREMENT? SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME, IF YOU WOULD, SO THAT YOU HAVE NOT YOU, YOU HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED ANY PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD, WOULD BE, UH, ACCEPTABLE TO AUSTIN ENERGY? WELL, AUSTIN ENERGY DID IN THE REBUTTAL CASE. 
          CONSIDER I'M AWARE OF THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M SAYING IN ADDITION TO, TO THOSE, UH, THAT YOU PRESENTED IN YOUR REBUTTAL CASE THAT YOU ACCEPTED, YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OTHER PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND, AND, AND ONE OTHER THING I WOULD NOTE, ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT THERE WAS, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT DEBT. 
          I, I, I DON'T RECALL THAT BIOMASS PLANT DEBT RESTRUCTURING ISSUE BEING SPECIFICALLY LITIGATED EITHER. 
          AND IF MR. ROBINS IS HERE AND IF SOMEBODY KNOWS THAT SOMEBODY PRESENTED IT, YOU CAN CORRECT ME, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THAT SPECIFICALLY. 
          MAYBE THAT WAS SOMETHING CYRUS NO, WE DIDN'T RAISE THAT ISSUE. 
          UM, TWO QUICK QUESTIONS. 
          UM, THE, I, THE I H E I HOPE I'M GETTING THAT RIGHT. 
          THE I H E DID SAY, UH, THEY AGREED WITH, WITH SOME OF THE PARTICIPANTS THAT THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER SHOULD BE REDUCED. 
          IS THE AUSTIN ENERGY POSITION IS THAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THE IE DID MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION. 
          UM, YOU'RE ALSO RIGHT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY PRESENTED A DIFFERENT NUMBER, A HIGHER NUMBER, UH, 120 MILLION VERSUS THE ONE 15. 
          UM, AND SO I MEAN, THAT'S THEIR POSITION IN THE CASE. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER ISSUE I RECALL, AND FORGIVE ME, I'VE READ LOTS OF DOCUMENTS, BUT SOMETIMES I CAN'T REMEMBER MM-HMM. 
          , UM, THE OTHER ISSUE HE, I THINK HE RAISED WAS AT LEAST SOME QUESTION ABOUT THE UNIQUE TEST HERE AND WHETHER SALES MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. 
          DID YOU GUYS RESOLVE THAT IN YOUR, HOW DID YOU ANSWER THAT? BECAUSE THAT WAS THE, THE 24 MILLION CAME FROM, I BELIEVE ONE OF THE INDUSTRIAL PARTICIPANTS, AND FORGIVE ME IF I DON'T REMEMBER, UM, SAYING THAT THEIR CALCULATIONS WAS THAT BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE YEAR, IT SHOULD BE ADJUSTED DOWNWARDS SOMEWHERE IN THE 20 MILLION, 25 MILLION RANGE. 
          AND, AND I DON'T THINK THE JUDGE AGREED WITH THEM, BUT HE SAID THERE'S AT LEAST A QUESTION ON THAT. 
          HOW, HOW 
          [01:20:01]
DID AUSTIN ENERGY RESOLVE THAT ISSUE? SURE. 
          SO LIKE SOME OF THE SPEAKERS EARLIER TONIGHT, THE IE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF COVID AND WINTER STORM UY, IN PARTICULAR ON TESTER BILLING DETERMINANTS, BUT HE DIDN'T MAKE A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION. 
          HOWEVER, HE DID DIRECT AUSTIN ENERGY TO EXPLAIN FURTHER, I THINK WERE, WERE HIS WORDS. 
          UM, WHY OR WHY, WHY OR WHY NOT? UM, COVID HAD AND URINE STORM UY DID OR DIDN'T HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE TEST YEAR. 
          AND IF, AND IF YOU LOOK AT AUSTIN ENERGY'S EXCEPTIONS AT PAGES SEVEN AND EIGHT, THEY ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. 
          AND, AND SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY DID WAS WITH RESPECT TO WINTER STORM UY, THEY WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE ACTUAL SALES, UH, IN THE, IN THE MONTH THAT URIE OCCURRED IN FEBRUARY OF 2021. 
          AND THEN THEY WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT, UM, PRIOR YEARS AND THEN THE MONTHS AROUND WINTER STORM URIE, AND THEY'VE GOT A LITTLE CHART THERE. 
          AND WHAT THEY FOUND OUT WAS THAT I ACTUALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, SALES WERE INCREASED IN THAT MONTH RELATIVE TO WHAT THEY HAD PROJECTED AND WHAT THEY EXPERIENCED IN, IN OTHER TI UH, YEARS IN THAT SAME MONTH. 
          UM, AND THEY, THEY ALSO WENT BACK AND EXAMINED AGAIN THEIR, THEIR TEST YEAR SALES, UM, FOR THE TEST YEAR VERSUS WHAT THEY'VE EXPERIENCED SINCE AND BEFORE WITH RESPECT TO COVID. 
          SO THERE'S A MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION IN THE EXCEPTIONS, UM, ON THOSE PAGES THAT I'VE DIRECTED YOU TO. 
          I'M SORRY, YOU SAID PAGE SEVEN AND EIGHT. 
          SEVEN AND EIGHT TALKS ABOUT YURI. 
          I THINK THAT COVID IS, MAYBE IT'S IN THAT SAME DISCUSSION. 
          I BELIEVE MAYBE, MAYBE IT GOES FROM SIX AND OR ON TO NINE, BUT THAT WAS THE, THE AUSTIN ENERGY'S, UH, RESPONSE TO THE A I'S RECOMMENDATION, WHICH ADMITTEDLY WAS SOMEWHAT UNCLEAR WHAT HIS EXPECTATIONS WERE, BUT THEY DID GO BACK AND CHECK AND TRY TO CONFIRM AND, AND THEY WERE ABLE TO, UM, CONFIRMED THE POSITION THAT THEY TOOK IN THE CASE. 
          I, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE ANSWERING THIS SURE. 
          NO, GO AHEAD. 
          THESE QUESTIONS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THEM. 
          BUT, UM, IN THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE, UM, OR ACTUALLY EVEN LOOKING AT OUR PROPOSED RESOLUTION, EITHER ONE, UM, IGNORING THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND RES RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN QUESTIONS, IS, IS AUSTIN ENERGY GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF SOME OF THESE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY CONSUMERS, LINE LOSS STUDY, PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE, TRANSMISSION SERVICE, VALUE OF SOLAR RESOURCE PLANNING, ADDITIONAL STORAGE AND SOLAR ISSUES? ARE THOSE THINGS THAT YOU, YOU THINK AUSTIN ENERGY, YOU KNOW, CAN'T ACCEPT AND WORK ON? OR ARE YOU STILL ANALYZING THOSE PROPOSALS? I, I WOULD, UH, CHOOSE TO NOT GET INTO THIS DISCUSSION. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND I, I'LL EXPLAIN WHY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE ARE FOLLOWING, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER'S ADVICE FROM LAST WEEK AND MAKING SOME ATTEMPT TO WORK WITH THE PARTIES AND SEE IF WE CAN REACH SOME TYPE OF, OF NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT OR SETTLEMENT. 
          AND WHILE THOSE CON UH, CONVERSATIONS ARE ONGOING, I I, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO LIMIT THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION TO, WELL, NOT G ENGAGED IN THESE TYPES OF, OF, UH, QUESTIONS IF, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU ALL. 
          THAT'S FAIR. 
          COMMISSIONER HUDDEN. 
          HI. 
          UM, I AM WONDERING HOW MUCH, UM, REVENUE INCREASE WAS THERE IN THE FEBRUARY WINTER STORM YEAR, UM, REVENUES COMPARED TO YEARS BEFORE THAT'S, OR THE YEAR BEFORE THE AMOUNT OF THE PSA INCREASE RECENTLY? I, I DON'T KNOW THAT NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOMEONE ELSE HERE FOR, FOR AUSTIN ENERGY, BUT OF COURSE THAT RELATES, YOU KNOW, TO EXPENSES THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM THE, THE BASE RATE REVIEW. 
          YES. 
          BUT IT DOES BRING IN REVENUE WELL, BUT IT BRINGS IN REVENUE TO COVER OTHER, TO COVER OTHER EXPENSES. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND WHILE THE, WHILE THE, YOU KNOW, THE CUSTOMER, YOU KNOW, IS IMPACTED BY ALL THESE THINGS, IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. 
          UM, THE PSA RECOVERS, UM, OTHER REVENUE FOR OTHER EXPENSES. 
          WELL, THE RATES WENT EXTREMELY HIGH DURING THAT SHORT TIME PERIOD, RIGHT. 
          AND THE UTILITIES DID BRING IN A LOT OF EXTRA MONEY, 
          [01:25:01]
IS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          WELL, THERE, THERE WAS AN INCREASE. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UM, BUT AGAIN, TO COVER THE COST OF, OF OTHER EXPENSES, NOT A PART OF THIS RATE REVIEW. 
          THIS RATE REVIEW IS LIMITED TO, UM, BASE RATE, UM, REVENUES AND EXPENSES, WHEREAS THE PSA IS, IS INTENDED TO COVER OTHER EXPENSES. 
          UM, LET ME ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION ON THAT. 
          ISN'T IT AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS WE CAN'T TAKE PSA MONEY AND USE IT FOR BASE RATES? WELL, WELL, AND AND TO BE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, ANY REVENUE THAT WAS GAINED BY AUSTIN ENERGY THROUGH SALES OF ITS GENERATION ONTO THE ERCOT WHOLESALE MARKET DURING YURI HAS BEEN CREDITED BACK TO CUSTOMERS LAST YEAR IN A REDUCTION TO THE PSA. 
          SO THAT IS JUST UNRELATED AT ALL TO THE BASE PROCEEDING THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE. 
          BUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR, UH, MR. QUEDO OR ANYONE AT AUSTIN ENERGY FOR THAT MATTER? OKAY. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          [12. Discussion and possible action on a draft resolution for a limited Resource Generation Plan Update in 2023. (Sponsors: Reed, Trostle)]
UH, I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW, UH, HOW WE WANNA DO THIS, BUT, UM, I'LL TELL YOU THAT, UH, WHERE I AM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M ENCOURAGED BY THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL. 
          I THINK THAT AUSTIN ENERGY NOT SUPPORTING THE PROPOSAL, UM, IS, IS A BIG SORT OF OMISSION. 
          UM, AND, AND, AND CLEARLY THEY ARE STICKING WITH THEIR, UH, REBUTTAL CASE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          AND, AND REALLY FOR ME, UM, WHEN I, WHEN I THINK ABOUT, UH, THE, THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THAT'S THE, THE FIRST THING THAT I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT'S LIKE IT'S STEP ONE, RIGHT? AND, UM, WE'VE GOT IN THE, UH, DRAFT RESOLUTION A RANGE SIX, 6.5 TO, I BELIEVE IT'S 15, UH, THAT'S RIGHT. 
          AND WE, AND THEN THE, WE HAVE THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL AT 12. 
          UM, AUSTIN ENERGY'S REBUTTAL CASE IS 35.7, AND IESS RECOMMENDATION IS 31.3. 
          SO WE, WE HEARD FROM FOLKS THAT IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR, UM, ULTIMATELY, UH, APPROVED REVENUE REQUIREMENTS TO BE LOWER THAN WHAT WAS REQUESTED. 
          UM, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY TRUE. 
          UH, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE FACTORS THAT ARE WEIGHING IN MY DECISION MAKING ARE THAT, UH, THE INDEPENDENT HEARING OR IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENT, PRESENTED, UM, BY ALL OF THE PARTIES, AND MADE A DETERMINATION THAT, UH, 31.3 WAS THE CORRECT, UM, REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          AND SO THAT WAS A REDUCTION FROM WHAT, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY'S, UH, REBUTTAL PROPOSAL WAS. 
          AND KEEP IN MIND, AUSTIN ENERGY DID COME DOWN FROM ITS ORIGINAL PROPOSAL OF 40 SOMETHING. 
          UM, AND YES, WE HAVE, UH, THE DATA POINT THAT IN, UM, THE 2016 CASE, THERE WAS A 27 MILLION REDUCTION FROM THE ORIGINAL, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSAL. 
          BUT I WOULD NOTE THAT THAT WAS A FULLY SETTLED CASE. 
          AND THAT MEANS, YOU KNOW, THAT EVERY, UH, PARTY AGREED ON THAT REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          AND SO, UM, THAT MEANS INCLUDING, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          SO I THINK THAT WE HAVE, UH, MISSING HERE IN THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL, AUSTIN ENERGY'S, UH, BUY IN ON THAT REVENUE REQUIREMENT OF 12 MILLION. 
          AND THAT IS, THAT IS CONCERNING TO ME. 
          IN AN IDEAL WORLD, I THINK A SETTLED REVENUE REQUIREMENT IS A MUCH, UH, BETTER PLACE TO BE. 
          AND IF WE CAN GET TO THAT PLACE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE, UM, IDEAL. 
          UH, BUT IN, IN THE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'RE NOT THERE RIGHT NOW AND WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT. 
          UH, AND SO I, I THINK THAT, UH, WHERE I AM, I AM LEANING TOWARD THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OF 31.3 MILLION. 
          I THINK THAT HE LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED, UM, BELIEVES THAT THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          AND I'M INCLINED TO, UH, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT THAT. 
          AND I'LL STOP TALKING. 
          CAN, CAN I, HE, SO HE DID SUPPORT THAT. 
          HE ALSO EXPRESSED GRAVE CONCERN THAT 
          [01:30:01]
THE RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN AS PUT FORWARD BY AUSTIN ENERGY, COULD REPRESENT A SHOCK TO CERTAIN CONSUMERS. 
          SO IN ADVOCATING YOUR POSITION OF, OF, OF ACCEPTING IT, DOES THAT MEAN YOU DON'T WANNA LOOK AT SOME OF THESE OTHER ISSUES THAT MANY FOLKS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT? JUST THE NOT AT ALL. 
          I THINK THAT, UM, SO THAT, THAT'S JUST MY, MY STARTING POINT. 
          I THINK THAT THE OTHER, UM, COST ALLOCATION AND RATE DESIGN ISSUES, I THINK, NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ADOPTING THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OR AUSTIN ENERGY'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON THOSE POINTS. 
          SO I WOULD BE, UH, OPEN TO SUPPORTING, IN FACT, UH, THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL AS FAR AS THE RATE DESIGN GOES. 
          HOWEVER, I NOTE THAT THAT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE. 
          UH, WHEN THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THE PARTIES MAY NO LONGER AGREE TO THAT RATE DESIGN, IF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT IS 31.3 MILLION, I MEAN, IT, IT PROBABLY ONLY MAKES SENSE AT A 12 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          SO I, I AM NOT, I AM, I COULD, I COULD SUPPORT THE RATE DESIGN PROPOSED EITHER IN THE, UH, DRAFT RESOLUTION OR THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL. 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO, UH, THAT, THAT ALL OF THE, THE PARTIES WOULD, WOULD, UH, SUPPORT THAT. 
          I GUESS IT MAY NOT. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, YOU KNOW, THESE JUST LIKE IN EACH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, I MEAN, THIS JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL, IF YOU TAKE ONE PIECE OUT, UH, THE WHOLE THING SORT OF COLLAPSES. 
          SO IT, IT MAY NOT, IT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER HADDEN, YOU'RE ON MUTE. 
          UM, AS THANK YOU, UM, CHAIRMAN, I'M WONDERING IF WE CAN, UM, ASK JOHN KAUFMAN ABOUT THAT, IF HE'S STILL AVAILABLE. 
          IS JOHN KAUFMAN STILL IN THE ROOM? YEAH, SURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HEY, JOHN KAUFMAN. 
          UH, AND IS THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE RATE DESIGN WOULD FIT, EVEN IF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT WAS 31,000,031, UM, RIGHT. 
          UM, I, I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE, BUT I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T, UM, WE THINK THE 31 MILLION IS TOO MUCH FOR THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, BUT I THINK AT LEAST OUR RATE DESIGN, WHICH IS WHAT IS IN THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE, COULD BE APPLIED TO A HIGHER REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          SO I THINK, UH, THAT IS, WE, WE SEE THAT AS A POSITIVE IN THAT IT IS, IT, IT, IT SHARE THE, THE PAIN IS SPREAD AROUND. 
          IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE NUMBERS THAT YOU SEE ON THE BACK PAGE OF THAT, THAT DOCUMENT. 
          HOWEVER, THE, YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD SEE, UH, PERCENTAGES THAT WERE MUCH CLOSER TOGETHER THAN WITH AUSTIN ENERGIES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I, I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, THAT YOU COULD APPLY OUR PROPOSED RATE DESIGN TO A DIFFERENT, UH, I'M SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN. 
          THE, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT, UH, THE, UH, THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATES RATE DESIGN, WHICH IS ALSO IN, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN THAT'S IN THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE, COULD BE ADOPTED WITH A HIGHER REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAN $12 MILLION. 
          YES. 
          UH, NOW OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD NOT BE, UH, THE DEAL THAT WAS BROKERED BETWEEN ALL THE DIFFERENT PARTIES, BUT, UH, YOU COULD MECHANICALLY DO IT AND, UH, THE RATE DESIGN WOULD PROVIDE, UH, DIFFERENT RATE INCREASES AT DIFFERENT USAGE LEVELS THAT WE BELIEVE WOULD BE MORE EQUITABLE AND WOULD BE, WOULD BE, UM, UH, CLOSER, YOU KNOW, CLOSER TOGETHER THAN THE DRASTIC IMPACTS THAT YOU SEE WITH THE AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN. 
          I DUNNO, DOES THAT HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER HEAD? YES, IT DOES. 
          AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M LEANING TOWARD EXACTLY WHAT YOU, UM, ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AS THE, UM, CONSUMER JOINT PROPOSAL. 
          I LIKE THE 12 MILLION LEVEL. 
          MM-HMM. 
          , CAN YOU STAY UP HERE PLEASE? SO I'M LOOKING AT ATTACHMENT TWO OF THE, THE JOINT PROPOSAL. 
          AND WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS I, WE'VE GOT AN ESTIMATE FROM AUSTIN ENERGY THAT FOR EVERY DOLLAR OF THE CUSTOMER CHARGE THAT WAS INCREASED, IT WOULD GENERATE APPROXIMATELY 5.7 MILLION. 
          AND SO IF YOU HAVE $2, SO THAT'S 11.4 MILLION, BUT YET THAT'S ALMOST TO THE TOTAL OF 13 THAT YOU HAVE HERE. 
          BUT YET YOU HAVE QUITE A LOT OF INCREASES STILL IN THE BASE RATE FOR THE TIERS. 
          AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT COMMISSION MATH WORKS. 
          IF YOU DO RATE DESIGN CORRECTLY, YOU GET TO WHATEVER REVENUE REQUIREMENT TARGET YOU'RE LOOKING AT. 
          SO IT, IT COULD, THAT COULD BE APPLIED, YOU'D WIND UP WITH MUCH HIGHER, 
          [01:35:01]
UH, RATE INCREASES AND MUCH HIGHER RATE PERCENTAGES, BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE SO DIFFERENT, SO VARIED AND, AND, AND DISPARATE. 
          OKAY, LET ME JUST RESTATE IT AGAIN. 
          ATTACHMENT TO THE SPREADSHEET. 
          INSIDE CITY EXCLUDING CAP, YOU'VE GOT A NUMBER OF 9.193 MILLION FOR INCREASING THE, THE CUSTOMER CHARGE $2. 
          OKAY. 
          THE NUMBER WE GOT FROM AUSTIN ENERGY IS THAT WOULD GENERATE TWO TIMES 5.7 MILLION. 
          WELL HAVE YOU, CAN YOU RECONCILE THOSE TWO OR YEAH. 
          WELL, THE NO MATTER, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU SET THE, THE FIXED CHART, IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE A LOWER FIXED CHARGE, YOU HAVE TO INCREASE THE USAGE CHARGES TO, TO GET TO THE FINAL NUMBER. 
          AND, UM, SO THE UNDERSTAND THAT THE, WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN, IT'S, IT'S, UH, IT'S JUST A MODEL AND YOU WOULD APPLY THAT TO WHATEVER REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          AND IN ORDER TO GET TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT, NOW THE DAVE, I THINK AUSTIN ENERGY WILL TELL YOU THAT THE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THEY DECREASES IT, IT CHANGES THEIR REVENUE PREDICTABILITY PERHAPS. 
          SO I THINK, UH, I THINK COMMISSIONER TOTAL IS JUST TRYING TO SAY WE, AUSTIN ENERGY TOLD US THAT, UM, IT, FOR EACH DOLLAR THAT THE, UH, CUSTOMER CHARGES INCREASED, UH, THEY WOULD SEE A APPROXIMATELY 5.7 MILLION, UH, REVENUE. 
          UH, AND SO, SO WHEN WE, ASSUMING RATES THE SAME, ASSUMING RATES STAY THE SAME, BUT IT WOULD, IT WOULD, IT'S FIXED CHARGE. 
          BUT, BUT THIS PROPOSAL, UM, ALSO HAS RATE. 
          SO YOU'RE, BUT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE IS BASED UPON NUMBER OF METERS, MINUS NUMBER OF CAPS. 
          IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DIFFERENT TIERS, RIGHT? IT'S JUST THE CUSTOMER CHART. 
          WELL, IT HAS TO, TO BE BALANCE ARE JUST THE WAY OF RAISING IT. 
          YEAH, I KNOW, RIGHT? I KNOW, BUT HE'S SAYING THAT THE TOTAL 9.1 IS 3 MILLION SHORT OF WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY TELLS US THE TOTAL WOULD BE. 
          I MEAN, COULD, I MEAN, YOU COULD PLAY WITH ALL THESE, THESE, THESE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS, BUT YOU HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GONNA INCREASE THE FIXED CHARGE, YOU'RE GONNA LOWER THE USE COMPONENT. 
          I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT SIMPLE. 
          OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS TABLE. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU'RE JUST SAYING THIS TABLES DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THAT TABLE DOESN'T ADD UP FOR YOU? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT, THAT, THAT THE TOTAL, UM, RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE, UH, INCREASE BY $2 WOULD EQUAL A REVENUE INCREASE OF 9.2 MILLION. 
          THAT'S WHAT THIS, UH, ATTACHMENT TWO SAYS, AUSTIN ENERGY TELLS US THAT WOULD ACTUALLY EQUAL SOMETHING LIKE 12.7 OR SO. 
          I DON'T, I CAN'T DO THE MATH. 
          11, 11.4 11, 5.4. 
          OKAY. 
           5.7 TIMES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK SO I'M JUST ASKING FOR RECONCILIATION OF THAT. 
          NOT THE DIFFERENCE. 
          THERE MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE CITY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND UNDER THIS JOINT CONSUMER PROPOSAL, WE JUST LEFT THE OUTSIDE FOLKS ALONE. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          BUT YOU COULD APPLY, YOU COULD APPLY THIS RATE DESIGN MODEL TO EVERYONE IF YOU WANTED TO, AND YOU COULD APPLY IT TO A DIFFERENT, UH, REVENUE REQUIREMENT AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE OUTSIDE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY CUSTOMER CHARGE INCREASE UNDER THIS JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT YOU COULD, YOU, IF YOU WANTED TO, YOU COULD APPLY IT SYSTEM WIDE. 
          CAN CAN I ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION OF, OF THE GROUP? SO A NUMBER OF US CAME TOGETHER AND, UH, YOU KNOW, CREATED A DRAFT RESOLUTION THAT'S NOT DISSIMILAR TO THIS, BUT IT'S NOT EXACTLY THIS. 
          AND SO MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE SUPPORT? AND YOU'VE ALREADY STATED YOU, YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE, THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT IN THAT DRAFT RESOLUTION, BUT MY QUESTION IS, HOW, HOW DO OTHER COMMISSIONERS FEEL ABOUT THE DRAFT RESOLUTION THAT SOME OF US WORKED ON? OUR PEOPLE IN SUPPORT OF IT OR NOT? WELL, I, I'LL SAY THAT MY THUNDER'S ALREADY STOLEN HERE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. 
          I ALSO THINK THAT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, UH, THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS PUT FORWARD, UH, MAKES SENSE. 
          AND IT SEEMS TO ME IT'S BEEN AGREED TO MORE OR LESS BY, UH, THE INDEPENDENT HEARINGS EXAMINER WHO'S THE ONLY INDEPENDENT PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS THAT'S BEEN PUT INTO THIS. 
          UM, I, I HAVEN'T DONE IT MYSELF. 
          YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT. 
          UM, AND FROM, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, LOGICALLY SOME OF THIS STUFF ADDS UP. 
          LET'S, LET'S JUST THINK ABOUT, JUST AS A, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, ARE THERE A HUNDRED AND MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF SAVINGS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY JUST DIDN'T FIND? I DIDN'T THINK SO. 
          THEY TELL ME IT'S PROBABLY NOT TRUE, AND I THINK THAT'S LOGICAL. 
          UH, SECONDLY, 
          [01:40:01]
DO THEY NEED A RATE INCREASE OF, OF A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT? WELL, INFLATION HAS BEEN RUNNING SIX TO 10% FOR THE LAST YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD MAKE US THINK THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS THE ONLY BUSINESS IN AMERICA THAT GOT EXEMPTED FROM INFLATION. 
          I MEAN, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WHAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED IS ABOUT A FIVE AND A HALF PERCENT INCREASE IN REVENUES AFTER NOT HAVING ANY INCREASES FOR YEARS. 
          LOGICALLY, THAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE MORE IN THE BALLPARK THAN, THAN JUST, WELL, YOU KNOW, OUT OF A, A FEELING OF COMPROMISE. 
          WELL, WE'RE JUST GONNA CUT THAT IN HALF OR CUT IT BY 60, 70%. 
          IT DOESN'T, DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. 
          UM, AND, AND NO ONE HAS SHOWN ME ANY NUMBERS THAT, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THAT WERE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE THAT CONTRADICT THE NUMBERS THAT THE INDEPENDENT HEARINGS EXAMINER CAME OUT WITH. 
          SO LOGICALLY, I'M KIND OF IN THE SAME SPOT, I THINK, I THINK UNLESS SOMEBODY CAN GIVE ME A LOT BETTER NUMBERS THAN I'VE SEEN TONIGHT, I'M NOT INCLINED TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T GET PRETTY CLOSE TO AUSTIN ENERGY'S, UH, ORIGINAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          THANKS FOR THAT PERSPECTIVE. 
          TWO, TWO NOTES. 
          UM, THE ICA WAS ALSO HIRED AND DID LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, AND THEY HAD A, A DIFFERENT OPINION AS WAS FILED. 
          SO I THINK THEY'RE THE OTHER GROUP THAT LOOKED YES. 
          THEY ARE A, THEY ARE AN ADVOCATE FOR ONE OF THE PARTIES, CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          AND THEN I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT, UM, OUR FINANCIAL REPORT THAT WE WERE PROVIDED WITH SHOWS THAT IN, IN THIS FISCAL YEAR 2022, USING THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE, THERE WAS A 3 MILLION LOSS BY AUSTIN ENERGY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022, WHICH ISN'T THE SAME THING AS DOING A BASE RATE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT INCLUDES OTHER THINGS, BUT JUST IT, IT MAY NOT BE AS DIRE AS, AS BEING SUGGESTED. 
          I THINK I'M LEANING IN A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR DIRECTION. 
          I THINK I HAVE A SENSE OF KIND OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER AND THE PROCESS THAT THAT, THAT THIS HAS GONE THROUGH. 
          I'M ALSO SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER SETTLEMENT MEETING TODAY AT 2:00 PM UM, BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT COULD PRODUCE FRUITFUL, UM, DISCUSSIONS. 
          SO I'M ALSO SENSITIVE TO OUR, YOU KNOW, TO WHAT ROLE WE WANNA PLAY IN TRYING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. 
          I MEAN, I TONIGHT'S THE NIGHT TO DO IT, SO WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING IF WE'RE GONNA DO ANYTHING, BUT, BUT THIS PROCESS IS STILL VERY MUCH, UM, IN THE NEGOTIATION. 
          UM, BUT, BUT I DON'T THINK I'M AT COMPLETELY WITH WHERE THIS PROPOSAL WE RECEIVED TONIGHT IS. 
          I MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN A RANGE OF THAT THAT GETS CLOSER TO WHERE, UM, THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER IS VERSUS A FIXED AMOUNT. 
          I WOULD AGREE WITH THE RANGE, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THESE NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING. 
          I, UM, AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINERS RECOMMENDATION. 
          UH, I SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME ON IT AND NOTED MANY WHERE I THOUGHT HE DROPPED THE BALL ON APPLYING CERTAIN PRINCIPLES OF RATE MAKING PRINCIPLES. 
          UH, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BY THE OTHER PARTIES, AND THEY HAVE TO DO WITH, UM, ADJUSTMENTS THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE MADE IN MY OPINION, AS, UH, NORMALIZATION ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON THE EXTREME CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED DURING THE TEST YEAR. 
          UM, AND, UH, I THINK THAT, UH, THERE'S A GREAT NEED TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER. 
          BEEN HEARING A LOT ABOUT THAT. 
          I'VE LISTENED TO THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE, ME HEARING FROM LAST WEEK IN FULL. 
          UM, I THINK THAT THERE ARE, THERE WAS AN UNEVEN APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF KNOWN AND MEASURABLE CHANGES, UH, TO THE ADVANTAGE OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S REQUEST. 
          UH, IN OTHER WORDS, REJECTING ANYTHING THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT IT SHOULD, THERE WAS A KNOWN AND MEASURABLE 
          [01:45:01]
CHANGE THAT SHOULD DECREASE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          THIS BY THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER. 
          UM, THINGS LIKE, UH, THE AE CALL CENTER EXPENSES, UH, WHAT WAS, UH, ONE OF THEM? UH, I THINK THAT IT IS, UH, RATE CASE EXPENSES. 
          ANOTHER THAT IF AUSTIN ENERGY'S GONNA BE FILING EVERY FIVE YEARS, THAT'S THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD THAT SHOULD OCCUR RATHER THAN THREE YEARS, IT SHOULD BE FIVE YEARS. 
          UM, , UH, I THINK THAT RATE SHOCK IS REAL. 
          AND AS A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY IN PARTICULAR, I THINK THAT, UH, THERE'S A REAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE VULNERABLE OF OUR RATE PAYERS. 
          AND, UH, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW WE'RE GONNA GET THERE WITH A 31 MILLION INCREASE. 
          UM, I, I HAD A LOT OF NOTES FROM THE, UM, HEARING EXAMINER'S, UM, MY REVIEW OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT. 
          UH, BUT, UM, I I, I JUST FOUND IT TO BE FLAWED. 
          AND THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT YOU WOULD, UH, RECOMMEND THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER DIDN'T, UM, DOES THAT GET US TO THE DRAFT PROPOSAL RESOLUTIONS NUMBER RANGE OF, YOU KNOW, I KNOW 6.5 IS THE ICAS, BUT IS THAT WHAT'S GETTING US TO 15 MILLION? OR IS THERE, UM, DO YOU HAVE A A NUMBER? I, I, I DO NOT HAVE A SCHEDULE TO SHOW YOU , UM, THAT WOULD TELL YOU IN THAT RANGE. 
          HOWEVER, I WOULD SAY THAT THE PARTIES NON UNANIMOUS SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL CERTAINLY FITS WITHIN THAT RANGE. 
          AND I THINK THERE IS VALUE IN HAVING OBTAINED CONCESSIONS FROM EACH OF THOSE PARTIES THAT MERITS SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. 
          CAN I ADD ONE MORE THING? CHAIR? I THINK ONE THING I'M JUST PERSONALLY SENSITIVE TO IS THE INCREASE IN THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CHARGE. 
          I THINK WHEN I THINK ABOUT OVERALL, UM, THE FEELING OF THIS ON, ON THE, ON THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS MOST EXPERIENCED. 
          SO, I DON'T KNOW, JUST, JUST SHARING WHERE I'M AT ON THAT. 
          AND THIS, THIS AGREEMENT IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK A, A MORE MODEST INCREASE IN THAT THAN AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSAL, WHICH WAS LIKE $25, OR MAYBE IT WAS A RANGE OF LIKE 10 TO 25, BUT I THINK IT WAS 25. 
          I IT WAS 25. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, AGAIN, AGAIN, IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION, THERE MAY BE POINTS THAT WE ALL CAN AGREE TO, UM, WITHOUT NECESSARILY TAKING A POSITION ON THE, ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT ITSELF. 
          AND WE COULD HAVE A SEPARATE, YOU KNOW, VOTE ON THAT. 
          I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE GONNA GET TO A, YOU KNOW, SIX VOTES. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE A USEFUL EXERCISE. 
          I, I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER, BECAUSE I, I'LL TELL YOU THAT THE, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS INVITED THE AUSTIN OR THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION TO PRESENT TOMORROW AT THEIR MEETING . 
          UM, AND SO I GET TO DO THAT. 
          THAT'S 12 HOURS AWAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, UM, TO PRESENT OUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND SO, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT SOMETHING, UH, THAT HAS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT, UM, UH, IF, IF THAT'S AT ALL POSSIBLE. 
          UH, I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BRIDGE THE GAP ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, BUT PERHAPS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I CAN, UM, INDICATE, UH, TO COUNSEL TOMORROW. 
          UM, IF, UNLESS WE THINK THERE IS A CHANCE, COULD I SO MOVE, SO MOVE THAT WE, UH, TAKE A VOTE ON THAT, ON THE REMAINING ISSUES? YEAH. 
          YES. 
          UH, I THINK I, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED MOTION, BUT I, I HEAR YOU. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER TU, YOU WERE GONNA SAY SOMETHING. 
          WELL, HOW ABOUT WE GO OVER A FEW THINGS THAT MAYBE ARE SIMPLE FOR EVERYBODY TO HAVE THE UNANIMOUS MONEY. 
          DOES ANYBODY SUPPORT GOING TO $25 FOR THE CUSTOMER CHARGE? I THINK THAT'S CLEARLY NO. 
          OH, I, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT'S ONE THING. 
          ALL RIGHT OFF THE TABLE. 
          OKAY. 
          AS FAR AS OUR RECOMMENDATION, UH, FLATTENING THE CURVE, DOES ANYBODY AGREE WITH THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL OF THE RATES BEING FLATTENED? SO FIVE TIERS, BUT WELL EVEN FOUR TIERS, BUT RADICALLY FLATTENED. 
          MM-HMM. 
           DOES ANY VERSUS WHAT WE'VE GOT IN BOTH, UM, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE'S REP PROPOSAL HERE 
          [01:50:01]
OR THE, THE JOINT PROPOSAL, AN ATTACHMENT TO WHICH ARE BOTH MORE GRADUATED SIMILARLY TO THE EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE MM-HMM. 
          . 
          SO DOES ANYBODY DISAGREE THAT FOR LONG TERM ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN THOSE INCENTIVES, THAT WE WANT TO MAINTAIN A SLOPE SORT OF NEAR WHERE WE HAVE TODAY, WHICH IS, CAN BE DIFFERENT THAN PERHAPS PURE COST OF SERVICE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS? I, I DON'T ACTUALLY REMEMBER HOW THEY COMPARE TO THESE. 
          OKAY, THIS IS 3 6, 9 11, LET'S SAY. 
          YEAH, HERE'S THE ORIGINAL, I MEAN, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW. 
          AND 2.8, I'M GONNA GO FROM THE FIRST TIER, SECOND TIER, THIRD TIER, FOURTH TIER, FIFTH TIER, 2.80 CENTS, 5.80 CENTS, 7.80 CENTS, 9.3, 10.8 FOR INSIDE THE CITY. 
          ATTACHMENT TWO, THE JOINT IS 3 CENTS, 6.60 CENTS, 9.80 CENTS, 12 CENTS. 
          AND, UM, FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE'S, 3 CENTS, 6.20 CENTS, 9.20 CENTS, 11.30 CENTS. 
          SO SOMEHOW THAT'S DIFFERENT YET AGAIN THAN, IT'S ONLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE TOO MANY LINES OF IT. 
          UM, IT'S ONLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE JUST BASED IT AS AN EXAMPLE ON THE TABLE THEY PROVIDED AND SAID, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, RIGHT. 
          PUT THESE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON THE, THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, BUT SORT OF IN THAT RANGE MM-HMM. 
          , SINCE IT WAS DRESSED TO ME, I GUESS , I, I'M LESS CONCERNED WITH THE NUMBER OF TIERS IN THE, UH, HOW STEEP THE, UH, INCLINE IS THAN I AM THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          SO AGREED ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT BEING A FUNDAMENTAL SITUATION. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET SOME DIFFERENT GENERAL PHILOSOPHICAL THINGS OUT OF THE WAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THE SLOPE REDUCING, IT MEANT THERE WAS A PRETTY BIG DECREASE IN THE UPPER TIER AND SOME MEANINGFUL INCREASES IN THE LOWER TIERS. 
          RIGHT. 
          SORRY. 
          SO I MEAN, KEEPING IT MORE IN THE SLOPE OF THE ORIGINAL, JUST BASICALLY, RIGHT. 
          AND I PERSONALLY AM NOT CONVINCED WITH THE BUNCHING ANALYSIS. 
          OKAY. 
          AS FAR AS ANYTHING MEANINGFUL ECONOMIC THEORY, IF I MAY, DAVE, UM, I SUPPORT HAVING TEARS AND IF WE HAVE TO GO FROM FIVE DOWN TO FOUR MAYBE, BUT, UM, ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT IS TOO MUCH. 
          AND THOSE TIERS WERE PUT IN PLACE TO FAVOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY. 
          AND THEY HAVE DONE THAT. 
          AND WE WERE ABLE TO AVOID BUILDING A WHOLE NEW POWER PLANT AT ONE POINT IN TIME BECAUSE PEOPLE BECAME MORE EFFICIENT. 
          WE SAVED A LOT OF MONEY THAT WAY AND WE DIDN'T HAVE TO RAISE RATES FOR 17 YEARS IN AUSTIN BECAUSE OF THAT. 
          THIS IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR. 
          IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER IN A WORLD OF CLIMATE CHANGE THAT WE FAVOR EFFICIENCY AND WE NEED TO KEEP TIER. 
          SO I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S DEBATING ABOUT NOT HAVING TEARS. 
          IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THE SLOPE, THE INCREASED THROUGH THE HIGHER TIERS MAINTAIN AS, AS A, A GRADUATED SCALE IN TERMS OF THE PRICE PER KILOWATT. 
          DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE A PREFERRED SLOPE YOURSELF? I, I JUST SAID THIS. 
          THERE'S SO MANY MOVING PARTS WITH THIS ON TOP OF THE PSA JUST FINALLY GETTING OUTTA THE WAY THAT I JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE RATES EXACTLY AS THEY ARE AND LOOK AT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND SEE WHAT HE GOT. 
          AND IF, IF YOU TRULY SAID THAT THE REQUIREMENT FROM WAS AROUND, YOU KNOW, 12 MILLION, A $2 INCREASE IN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE GETS YOU ABOUT THERE. 
          SO DAVE, LOOK AT NUMBER THREE. 
          EXACTLY. 
          YEAH. 
          MAINTAIN THE PRESENT RESIDENTIAL RIGHT STRUCTURE OF INVERTED BLOCK RIGHTS THAT ENCOURAGED CONSERVATION. 
          AND THEN IT SAYS, WELL, REDUCING THE NUMBER OF TIER FROM FIVE TO FOUR MAY BE CONSIDERED AS SUGGESTED BY THE ICA. 
          ANY INCREASE SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN X PERCENTAGE. 
          AND THEN TO YOUR POINT, A $2 INCREASE IN THE MONTHLY FEE WOULD ON ITS OWN, GENERATE THAT MUCH FOR THE UTILITY. 
          EXACTLY. 
          AND I THINK THAT, SO IF YOU WERE TO STRIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, SEVEN OR WE'RE LIKE, IF WE'RE CREATING A NEW RESOLUTION HERE, TAKE OUT SEVEN AND JUST NUMBER THREE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET UNANIMOUS SUPPORT, UH, WHICH, WHICH, 
          [01:55:01]
WHICH ALLOWS FOR A MAX $2 INCREASE IN THE CHART, CUSTOMER CHARGE DOESN'T SPECIFY THE SLOPE OF THE TIERS. 
          UM, AND CONTEMPLATES KEEPING IT AT EITHER FIVE OR FOUR. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE MOST SUCCESS BY MORE GENERAL KIND OF, UM, PHILOSOPHICAL ADVICE TO COUNCIL VERSUS GRANULATED RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          I THINK WE'RE GONNA BUILD A CONSENSUS BETTER THAT WAY. 
          AND I WOULD ONLY SAY THAT I THINK THAT NUMBER THREE, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I, AS I READ IT AND I JUST WANNA MAKE CERTAIN IT'S CLEAR THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AN INVERTED BLOCK RATE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT THE FLATTENED RATE. 
          WE WANT INCLINING RATES FOR HOWEVER MANY TIERS, FOUR OR FIVE, RIGHT? YEP. 
          THAT'S MY INTENT. 
          BUT I DIDN'T USE, I DIDN'T WRITE THAT LANGUAGE, IS THAT, I KNOW YOU DIDN'T , UM, AND, UH, BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          IF YOU WANNA PUT IN PLANNING INSTEAD OF INVERTED, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. 
          SO ARE WE, ARE WE AGREED ON NUMBER HOLDING SEVEN ASIDE? ARE WE AGREED ON NUMBER THREE? I THINK I'M SEEING AGREEMENT GENERALLY. 
          COMMISSIONER BURL, WHAT DO YOU THINK? YEAH, I'M OKAY. 
          I MEAN, NUMBER TWO IS A SIMILAR, APPLY THE RATE MAKING POLICIES OF GRADUAL LIMITED AVOIDANCE OF RATE SHOCK FOR EACH CUSTOMER CLASS. 
          I MEAN, WE COULD EVEN END IT THERE, BUT JUST SORT OF A GENERAL PRINCIPLE. 
          WE DON'T WANT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RATES THAT'S GONNA LEAD ANY CLASS TO HAVE RATE SHOCK. 
          IT'S SORT OF OBVIOUS. 
          BUT I AGREE. 
          AND I THINK THAT I, AGAIN, COULD SUPPORT NUMBER TWO AS A PHILOSOPHICAL, UM, RECOMMENDATION. 
          UH, I THINK THAT IT GETS US INTO TROUBLE OR IT, IT COULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH, UH, SIX BECAUSE, SO AS I UNDERSTAND THE WAY, YOU KNOW, WE, IF WE'RE ESTABLISHING A CAP OF 7.5%, THEN I DON'T THINK THAT EACH, UH, CLASS CAN HAVE GRADUALISM APPLIED EQUALLY BECAUSE AS WE SAW THE NUMBER RUNS, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE CLASSES THAT WE'RE SEEING A DECREASE OF LIKE 15% ARE NOW UP AT WHATEVER ONE THEY'RE SEEING ONLY AN INCREASE OF LET'S SAY 1%. 
          BUT IT'S, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT APPLIED EQUALLY ACROSS THE CLASSES TO GET TO GET US AT THE 7.5% CAP. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT CONCEPT OF APPLYING GRADUALISM TO ACROSS ALL CLASSES IS THAT YOU WOULDN'T, UM, YOU WOULDN'T TAKE CLASS OF CUSTOMERS WHO WOULD OTHERWISE GET A SIGNIFICANT RATE DECREASE AND LEAVE THEM WITH THE DECREASE. 
          YOU WOULD, EVERYTHING WOULD BE GRADUAL IN TERMS OF THE COST OF SERVICE. 
          SO YOU DON'T MOVE THEM. 
          I THINK I'VE HEARD MR. BOCATO SAY BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THEY CAPPED IT AT 50% OF COST OF SERVICE MM-HMM. 
          , RIGHT? SO, BUT THAT, I THINK AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW BASED ON THE COST OF SERVICE PRINCIPLE, WHICH I DON'T THINK HAS TO BE APPLIED IN RATE DESIGN, I THINK THERE'S MORE ART TO IT THAN THAT SIMPLY COST IS THAT YOU WOULD NOT DECREASE CERTAIN CUSTOMERS RATES, UM, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. 
          YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T INTRODUCE GRADUALISM ON TO INCREASE IT, BUT NOT INTER NOT USE IT ON DECREASING RATES, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          WELL, THAT'S WHAT SECOND SENTENCE OF NUMBER TWO SAYS, GRADUALISM SHOULD BE APPLIED EQUALLY TO CLASSES THAT WOULD RECEIVE A REVENUE RATE REDUCTION AND TO CLASSES THAT WOULD RECEIVE A REVENUE RATE INCREASE UNDER THE ADOPTED CLASS REVENUE DISTRIBUTION APPROACH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE GETTING A DECREASE, YOU STILL SHOULD GET A DECREASE. 
          BUT THAT IS TO BE, YOU KNOW, NOT TO SHOCK ANYONE, EITHER. 
          EITHER DIRECTION, GRADUAL, GRADUAL . 
          OKAY. 
          SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WHEN WE START TALKING NUMBERS, WHEN WE START TALKING LIKE ACTUAL NUMBERS, THIS, UM, SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT AND NUMBER SIX WITH THE 15 MILLION, UH, REVENUE REQUIREMENT IN THE NUMBER RUNS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY SENT US. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT MAXIMUM 12 CU $12 CUSTOMER, CUSTOMER CHARGE, 
          [02:00:02]
UM, NUMBER RUNS, WE'VE GOT, IT SAYS THAT WE'RE RECEIVING A NEGATIVE RATE OR A, A RATE DECREASE ARE STILL RECEIVING A RATE DECREASE, WHICH IS, I THINK CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COMMISSIONER TREL. 
          BUT THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT, UM, SO FOR INSTANCE THE 31.3 MILLION, UM, REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND YOU APPLY THAT SAME THING, THEN YOU'VE GOT, UM, TWO OF THE CLASSES THAT WE'RE RECEIVING A NEG OR A RATE DECREASE, YOU'VE GOT THEM INCREASING TO SEVEN AND A HALF PERCENT AND ONLY ONE CONTINUES TO HAVE A NEGATIVE OR A DECREASE AT NEGATIVE 0.8% DOES. 
          SO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SO I THINK THAT LIKE SIX DOESN'T WORK UNLESS IT'S AT THAT 15 MILLION. 
          AND SO AGAIN, I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT LIKE TWO AND WE TAKE OUT SIX. 
          I AGREE. 
          CAUSE I THINK TWO IS MORE GENERAL AND IT DOESN'T CONFLICT. 
          I, IF WE JUST ADOPT TWO, WE DON'T RUN INTO ANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS IN OUR PHILOSOPHY RUNNING UP AGAINST THE NUMBERS. 
          WHILE WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT, CAN I SAY SOMETHING THAT, CAN I SAY SOMETHING PLEASE? HOPEFULLY NON-CONTROVERSIAL ABOUT FOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK WE ALL GENERALLY AGREE THAT THIS SHOULD BE TRUE. 
          I THINK AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESPONSE WOULD BE THEY HAVE DONE THIS. 
          UM, AND THAT VERY WELL MAY BE TRUE, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY HARM IN RECOMMENDING TO COUNSEL THAT THAT BE DONE. 
          AND I WOULD SAY ON THAT POINT, I AGREE THAT IT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT OUR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL IS THAT YOU APPLY, THAT THE COUNCIL APPLY ITS UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS A KNOWN AND MEASURABLE CHANGE AND WHETHER NORMALIZATION, AND THEY MAY DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER SAYS. 
          IT IS NOT JUST A, I WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE FOR A LONG TIME AND I UNDERSTOOD THAT I MADE A RECOMMENDATION, BUT THE DECISION MAKERS MADE THE DECISION AND HERE IT'S THE CITY COUNCIL WHO'S GONNA MAKE THIS DECISION AND THEY'RE FREE TO DISAGREE WITH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO ON ITEM FOUR, IT COULD READ SOMETHING LIKE, BASE AUSTIN ENERGY'S REVENUE REQUIREMENT ON THE 2021 TEST YEAR. 
          UM, OR LET'S SEE, THE EEC RECOMMENDS THAT, UH, COUNCIL APPLY ITS UNDERSTANDING OF KNOWN AND MEASURABLE CHANGES AND WHETHER A NOR NORMALIZATION TO AUSTIN ENERGY'S REVENUE REQUIREMENT, UH, OR TO THE 2021 TEST YEAR. 
          SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          THAT SOUNDS GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT IS EXPLAINED IN THE REPORT FROM THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER ON NUMEROUS ISSUES IN THAT, AND THEY CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND THEY CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE. 
          I'M WONDERING IF WE MIGHT BE READY TO VOTE ON THIS IF WE PULLED SIX OUT, BUT I'M ALSO WONDERING IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT WANNA VOTE ON SIX SEPARATELY, KAREN, THAT I, I'D STILL LIKE TO GO THROUGH THE OTHER POINTS IN THE DOCUMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, BEFORE WE GET THERE, CUZ AGAIN, IF WE CAN, UM, SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO I THINK, UH, FIVE JUST YES, GO AHEAD. 
          ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, I KNOW WE'RE NOT GONNA GET AGREEMENT, BUT, BUT WOULD WE, COULD WE COME TO A, LIKE IN, IN, IN LINE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT WE JUST MADE FOR FOUR, COULD WE SAY SOMETHING LIKE THE E U C UH,  AS A BODY? UH, I'M THINKING SOMETHING OF THE RANGE OF, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW USEFUL THIS WOULD BE TO COUNCIL, BUT LIKE 6.5 TO 1 31 0.3 MILLION. 
          I MEAN, THAT RANGE IS HUGE, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF IF WOULD THERE BE ANY SUPPORT FOR THAT OR 12 MILLION? CUZ IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WAS YES, THE PARTIES HAVE COME UP TO THAT. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S THE I SEE SUPPORT. 
          YEAH, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE PARTIES 12, 12 MILLION TO 3 31 0.3. 
          YEAH, 
          [02:05:03]
IT MAY BE TOUGH. 
          I MEAN, I WOULD PREFER 6.5 TO 31 TO GIVE THE FULL RANGE BECAUSE IT, YOU KNOW, IT GIVES THE FULL RANGE. 
          THAT BEING SAID, I HAVE A FEELING OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT NOT SUPPORT THAT  HAVING A BIG RANGE, A DIFFERENCE HAVING WITH, I PERSONALLY WOULD PREFER TO AVOID THE EMBARRASSMENT OF SAYING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN ONE AND A MILLION. 
          FAIR. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S, LET'S START THE SHOT. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S IS 12 MILLION TO 31 MILLION BETTER TO YOU? NOT REALLY. 
          OKAY. 
           I MEAN, IT'S HALF AS, YEAH, BUT YEAH. 
          WELL, I HEAR YOU. 
          I MEAN, I, I AGREE WE'RE NOT GONNA COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON REVENUE, UM, TONIGHT, BUT MAYBE IT'S JUST WORTH POINTING OUT THAT THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS REVENUE REQUIREMENTS IN EVIDENCE, UM, THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO CONSIDER. 
          I MEAN, WE'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT ON THEM. 
          WE CAN'T REACH AN AGREEMENT ON THEM. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN WE COULD, WE COULD STATE THAT. 
          UM, OKAY, KEEP GOING SARAH. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, YEAH, I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA SAY ON NUMBER FIVE, DID WE WANT TO HAVE A, A BIGGER RANGE OR JUST LEAVE IT OUT? IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WANNA LEAVE IT OUT AND IF WE WANNA TAKE A SEPARATE VOTE ON THAT, YOU KNOW, SO WE COULD SEE IF THERE'S, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS, WE COULD, WE COULD TAKE IT OUT OF THIS RESOLUTION. 
          UM, MY QUESTION WAS REALLY ABOUT ITEMS EIGHT THROUGH 17 MEAN, YOU KNOW, GET PRETTY SPECIFIC. 
          UM, SOME OF THEM ARE IN THE, UM, YOU KNOW, REPORT, SOME OF THEM ARE IN THE REPORT OR HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP THROUGHOUT THE CASE. 
          UH, I KNOW THEY'RE IMPORTANT, UM, YOU KNOW, TO CERTAIN PARTICIPANTS. 
          UM, SO MY QUESTION IS, ARE THERE SUPPORT FOR THESE LINE LOSS STUDY, PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATES, TRANSMISSION SERVICE? UM, AND THEN SOME OF THESE ARE, ARE THINGS THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT UP, UH, YOU KNOW, INSTRUCT US ENERGY TO CONSIDER THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TARIFF IN PROGRAM THAT INCENTIVIZES SOLAR PLUS STORAGE, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THE, THE SOLAR FOLKS AND, UH, STORAGE FOLKS BROUGHT UP, UM, THEY'RE FAIRLY, THEY'RE INSTRUCTIONAL. 
          THEY DON'T REALLY SAY THOU MUST DO THIS EXACTLY THIS WAY. 
          THEY'RE MORE OF A, YOU KNOW, SORT OF A GUIDANCE FOR CITY COUNCIL TO, TO, UH, CONSIDER. 
          AND I THINK THERE ARE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BUT THAT DON'T HAVE TO BE DECIDED TO GET TO RATES. 
          RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          AND, AND SO IT'D BE A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED DURING THE HEARING, JUST LEFT TO THE FIVE MORE YEARS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE THINK THAT THESE, UM, WE WE COULD USE SOME DIRECTION TO, TO BE GIVEN. 
          COOL. 
          UH, YEAH, I, I, UM, I THINK GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF MANY OF THESE THINGS. 
          DO YOU WANNA JUST, UH, JUST GO THROUGH 'EM EIGHT LINE LAW STUDY? ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THE LINE LAW STUDY? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SUPPORT. 
          YEAH, IT'S, IT'S DOING A STUDY TO PREPARE US FOR A FUTURE RATE CASE. 
          IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY IMPACT RIGHT NOW. 
          UH, THIS IS IN THE NINE IS PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE. 
          THIS WAS, UH, THE HEARING EXAMINER MADE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS, THIS, RIGHT? YEAH, I I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. 
          ANYBODY OPPOSED? OKAY. 
          UM, TRANSMISSION SERVICE, WHICH, WHAT'S H L F HIGH LOAD FACTOR CUSTOMERS? OKAY. 
          UM, THIS IS BASICALLY THE ISSUE FOR CERTAIN CUSTOMERS THAT THEY ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE REALLY NOT PART OF THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, RIGHT? UM, THEY'RE REALLY IN THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE, SO THEY SHOULD, THEY, THERE SHOULD BE SOME PATHWAY FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT. 
          UM, THAT LOOKS CONSISTENT WITH PAGE FOUR OF THE JOINT PROPOSAL. 
          OKAY. 
          UNDER OTHER RATE DESIGN ISSUES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND THIS ISSUE WAS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL LAST WEEK, SPECIFICALLY WITH A, WITH GRAPHS TO EXPLAIN HOW THEY AREN'T PART OF THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. 
          GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          GREAT. 
          I, YEAH, I COULD SUPPORT THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          EIGHT, NINE AND 10 ARE, ARE ALL THREE SIMILAR IT LOOKS LIKE TO PAGE FOUR OF THE JOINT PROPOSAL. 
          [02:10:02]
WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF FOLKS ON, UH, MIKE, SO LET'S TURN 'EM OFF. 
          SO, UH, COMMISSIONER FER CAN SPEAK, UH, POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE HERE. 
          COULD WE HAVE A NATURE BREAK? UM, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I I WOULD LIKE TO IN, DURING THAT BREAK, IF THE RESOLUTION DRAFTERS, WE COULD, UH, MEET AND TRY TO LIKE HASH OUT SOME LANGUAGE ON SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE UNANIMOUS SO THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, VOTE ON THAT WHEN WE, WHEN WE COME BACK, ADJOURN FOR A, UH, LET'S SAY A 10 MINUTE BREAK TO, OH GOSH, UM, 8 25. 
          LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY BACK. 
          I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. 
          AGAIN, IT'S 8 26, UH, AND WE'VE MADE SOME PROGRESS ON A NEW PROPOSED RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE HOPING, UM, WE CAN GET CLOSER TO UNANIMOUS, UH, CONSENSUS ON. 
          SO, UM, BUT WE'RE GONNA KEEP GOING DOWN THAT LIST AND, UH, COMMISSIONER REED, I'M GONNA NEED MY PAPER BACK. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          . 
          OKAY, SO I, WE WERE ON, UM, I THINK ITEMS NINE AND 10. 
          THIS IS PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE AND TRANSMISSION SERVICE. 
          AND, UH, COMMISSIONER VI HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT HE WANTED TO, UH, RAISE WITH AUSTIN ENERGY. 
          IF WE COULD HAVE SOMEBODY FROM US ENERGY COME UP. 
          NOT CERTAIN IF I'M THE CORRECT PERSON, BUT WE CAN START WITH ME. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL IF YOU CAN'T FIND SOMEBODY, OF COURSE WE'LL FIND SOMEBODY WHO CAN. 
          I'M SURE, UH, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY THE, THE ISSUE FOR ME IS EVEN THOUGH I SEE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS PUSHED OFF TO THE NEXT BASE RATE REVIEW, THE PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF IT. 
          UH, SURE. 
          SO, UM, LET ME SAY THAT AUSTIN ENERGY DID NOT PROPOSE AND DOES NOT HAVE A PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE. 
          UH, BUT IN THE COURSE OF THE CASE, THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS, UM, T UH, PROPOSED THAT AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD CREATE A PRIMARY SUBSTATION UH, RATE AND THAT IT SHOULD BE APPLIED GOING FORWARD. 
          UM, FROM THIS CASE, THE IE AGREED WITH THEM AND RECOMMENDED THAT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, DEVELOP A PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE, BUT THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO AT THIS TIME. 
          SO AS I READ THIS LANGUAGE HERE, THIS ITS RATE FILING PACKAGE IN THE NEXT BASE RATE REVIEW. 
          AND SO AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TO, TO GO FORWARD IF COUNCIL DREX THEM TWO AND DEVELOP SUCH A RATE. 
          AND OF COURSE THEY, PART OF THAT WOULD BE TO CALCULATE THE RATE IMPACTS ON, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER CUSTOMER CLASSICS. 
          CUZ BASICALLY IF YOU GIVE A BREAK TO THESE CUSTOMERS, IT'S GOTTA BE COLLECTED FROM, FROM OTHER, UH, RATE CLASSES. 
          AND, AND THAT'S GONNA MEAN, YOU KNOW, ABOUT 9 MILLION ACCORDING TO AUSTIN ENERGY BEING COLLECTED FROM, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS. 
          BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          AND NUMBER 10, NUMBER 10, UH, IS ALSO, UM, A PROVISION THAT WOULD, UM, BENEFIT LARGE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS, UM, SUCH AS T I AND PERHAPS OTHERS. 
          UH, AND, AND BASICALLY WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW WOULD BE OR, UH, PROVIDE WOULD BE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD, WOULD COMMIT TO, TO PROVIDING A PATHWAY OR, OR WORKING OUT A, A WHAT MANNER IN WHICH THESE LARGE PRIMARY GREATER THAN 20, UM, HIGH LOAD FACTOR CUSTOMERS COULD BUY THE FACILITIES THAT SERVE THEM IN ORDER TO ALLOW THEM TO BE SERVED AT TRANSMISSION LEVEL, WHICH WOULD ULTIMATELY LOWER THEIR, THEIR RATE. 
          UM, BUT UM, BEFORE THAT COULD HAPPEN, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME ARRANGEMENT WORKED OUT WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THOSE FACILITIES FROM AUSTIN AREA. 
          SO THEY'D HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE FACILITIES, AGREE UPON A PRICE, OR SET A PRICE, UH, AND THEN MOVE FORWARD. 
          AND AT THAT POINT THEY WOULD THEN BEGIN TO TAKE UNDER THIS NEW, OR NOT NEW, BUT TAKE UNDER THAT RATE, UM, CLASS OR RATE LEVEL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO NUMBER NINE, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY HAS THE IMPACT ULTIMATELY OF, OF SHIFTING SOME COST ONTO CONSUMERS AND AWAY FROM INDUSTRIALS, CONSUMERS AND SMALL BUSINESS, IS THAT RIGHT? UH, NOT SMALL BUSINESS, BUT IT, IT AGAIN, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY'S, UM, ESTIMATE IS THAT THERE 
          [02:15:01]
WOULD BE ABOUT 9 MILLION THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE COLLECTED FROM OTHER OTHER CUSTOMERS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE SMALL, COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, UM, CUSTOMERS. 
          SO IT REALLOCATES COST THAT'S RIGHT. 
          IT SHIFTS COST TO THOSE OTHER CUSTOMERS. 
          OKAY. 
          YES. 
          AND THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE, WHAT, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ACTUAL RATE IMPACTS AND, AND COST IMPACTS TO CUSTOMER CLASSES HERE. 
          UH, I DON'T KNOW. 
          UM, I, I DON'T KNOW WITH RESPECT TO THE, UM, UH, IF THEY WERE TO TAKE AT TRANSMISSION LEVEL, WHETHER THAT WOULD NECESSITATE, UH, A SHIFTING OF COST. 
          OKAY. 
          THE SAME, I'M BEING TOLD BY MR. DOMBROSKI THAT IT WOULD BE, ACTUALLY IT WOULD, AND IT WOULD BE THE SAME AMOUNT, ABOUT $9 MILLION. 
          SO UNDER A PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE OR TRANSMISSION LEVEL. 
          OKAY. 
          CAUSE IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, IT JUST CHANGES WHO, IT JUST CHANGES THE ALLOCATIONS. 
          CORRECT. 
          NOW UNDER THE VIEW OF THOSE WHO, YOU KNOW, ADVOCATE FOR THIS, THEY WOULD SAY THAT THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE REALLOCATION BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR SOME OF THE COSTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY INCLUDED IN THEIR RIGHTS. 
          OKAY. 
          I FEEL LIKE I HAVE A BETTER HANDLE ON IT. 
          THANKS. 
          SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, AND THEN I THINK WE'RE DISCUSSING PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE NUMBER NINE. 
          UH, DO WE, WITH THAT EXPLANATION, DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT OR DO WE NEED TO PULL THAT ONE OUT? I, I AGREE WITH IT, BUT UM, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT IT'S A, IT'S A DIRECT AND DIRECTIVE TO PROPOSE IT AS PART OF THE NEXT RIGHT. 
          FILING PACKAGE, WHICH DOESN'T, WE CAN'T FIND THE NEXT COUNCIL ANYWAY. 
          SO, UM, IT'LL ADVANCE THE BALL WHENEVER THERE'S ANOTHER BASE RATE CASE AND THEN THE DECISION CAN BE MADE WHETHER THAT'S A GOOD IDEA OR NOT. 
          SO MAYBE YOU JUST, MAYBE YOU JUST CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO SAY, TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE NEXT RATE PACKAGE. 
          WELL, IF AUSTIN ENERGY DOESN'T PROPOSE THAT IT WON'T BE CONSIDERED. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THOUGH. 
          I THINK THAT THE UTILITY HAS TO COME FORWARD WITH A, HOW, HOW THAT WOULD WORK, WHAT THAT RATE WOULD LOOK LIKE AND, AND THE IMPACT. 
          SO I THINK IT'D HAVE TO BE PROPOSED, BUT THAT I'M, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THAT MODIFICATION IF THAT'S, IF YOU THINK THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD BE. 
          NO, I WAS JUST DOING IT FOR, CUZ I THOUGHT YOU WANTED IT, SO IF YOU'RE HAPPY WITH IT AS IT IS. 
          OH NO, THAT'S JUST MY INTERPRETATION OF THOSE WORDS. 
          AND IF YOU THINK THAT, THAT IF YOU DON'T READ IT THE SAME WAY, THEN WE SHOULD MODIFY IT. 
          NO, I'M, I'M NOT COMPLAINING. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE, UH, CONSENSUS, UH, ON THE, UH, LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN. 
          UM, HOW ABOUT NUMBER 10? I, IS THAT THE VALUE OF SOLAR? THIS IS TRANSMISSION SERVICE. 
          OH, SORRY, WHAT? I, I HAVE A, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION THAT I'VE BEEN PUZZLING THROUGH IF, WOULDN'T THIS BE A CHANGE IN RATES? I MEAN IT SEEMS TO ME I WOULD, IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT NO LATER THAN A YEAR AFTER THE COUNCIL ACTION APPROVING THE RATES, DO THEY MEAN THIS CASE? I, I'M, I'M SORRY, I'M KIND OF LOST. 
          DO WE HAVE RANDY ? CAN YOU DO, CAN YOU DO A CREATE THIS PATHWAY A YEAR FROM NOW? SAY WITHOUT, I MEAN, THAT'S A RATE CHANGE, ISN'T IT? YEAH. 
          IT REQUIRES A CHANGE IN THE RATE, AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO THAT WITHOUT COMMISSION COUNCIL APPROVAL. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT THAT REQUIRES. 
          YEAH. 
          , I, I'M, I'M READING THE WORDS THE SAME WAY YOU ARE. 
          OKAY. 
          PROPOSING IT AND MAKING IT AVAILABLE. 
          IT'S STILL GOTTA BE APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL WHEN IT'S PROPOSED. 
          MAYBE 
          [02:20:01]
WE SAY AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD BE DIRECT TO PROVIDE THE PATHWAY NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE COUNCIL ELECTION APPROVING THE RATES. 
          AND THEN SUBJECT COUNCIL WOULD STILL NEED TO APPROVE IT, RIGHT? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          AND MAKE THAT CLEAR. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT'S FINE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO SUBJECT IS THAT CIRCULAR AUSTIN SHOULD BE DIRECTION TO PROVIDE THE PATHWAY LETTER THE ONE YEAR AFTER THE COUNCIL ACTION APPROVING THE RATES. 
          MY QUESTION IS, WHAT DOES THAT PHRASE APPROVING THE RATES? DOES IT MEAN THESE RATES, THIS BASE RATE CASE? IT DOES. 
          I'M GETTING  INDICATING, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT THAT I THINK IS A PROBLEM. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SAY, GO FORTH AND DO SOMETHING LATER. 
          THAT IS A CHANGE IN RATES THAT WE'RE NOT APPROVING NOW, UNLESS MAYBE THERE IS A CASE TO BE MADE FOR THAT. 
          SURE. 
          WHY DON'T WE HAVE BRING, UH, MR. HALLMARK AND MR. BRITO UP? UH, OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          RIGHT. 
          YEP. 
          . 
          I PROBABLY WILL. 
          UH, WELL, THANKS FOR TAKING A LOOK AT THIS. 
          NO, SO THE, THE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IN OUR VIEW, YOU KNOW, CUSTOMERS CAN WORK WITH THEIR UTILITY TO TRY TO CHANGE THE, THE, THE VOLTAGE LEVEL. 
          IT'S A NEGOTIATION THAT HAS TO HAPPEN. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GIVE AND TAKE AND, AND THERE'S AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE REACHED ON MAINTENANCE AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS. 
          BUT, SO THIS TERM IS REALLY JUST MEANT TO BE A PROCESS TERM. 
          IT ISN'T SAYING THAT YOU WOULD CHANGE RATES AND IT'S A YEAR. 
          IT'S THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD SAY, IF YOU WANT TO EXPLORE GOING TO TRANSMISSION, THEN HERE'S WHAT YOU DO. 
          AND, AND THAT IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITHIN A YEAR. 
          WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO JUST ADOPT MORE OF THE LANGUAGE FROM THE JOINT PROPOSAL IN SOME OF THIS BECAUSE EIGHT, NINE, AND 10 FOLLOW PAGE FOUR OTHER RATE DESIGN ISSUES. 
          AND IF IT'S ALREADY BEEN WELL CRAFTED IN THIS, I JUST RECOMMEND THAT WE KINDA LOOK AT PAGE FOUR AND LEVERAGE THAT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. 
          I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT. 
          SO THIS IS PAGE FOUR OF THE, OR, OR PAGE ONE OF ATTACHMENT ONE, WHICH IS A MORE CONCISE STATEMENT OF IT. 
          OR IF WE'RE GONNA KEEP NUMBER 10, SIMPLY SAY TO REVIEW, INSTEAD OF PROVIDE THIS PATHWAY. 
          I THINK I'M READING ATTACHMENT ONE IS JUST LIKE A SUMMARY OF THEIR, OF THE JOINT CONSUMER AD ALTERNATIVE, RIGHT? YEP. 
          I MEAN, I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY INTENDED TO BE THAT WAY, SO THAT LANGUAGE IS CLOSER TO WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I HAVE A QUESTION IF IT'S, I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE WHAT YOU SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, A CUSTOMER CAN ALWAYS TALK TO THE UTILITY ABOUT CHANGING, ITS FROM DISTRIBUTION TO TRANSMISSION. 
          SO WHY DO WE NEED THIS? IF THEY CAN, THEY'RE ALWAYS FREE TO TALK ABOUT CHANGING THEIR, JUST TO PROVIDE SOME PROCESS THAT THE CUSTOMER CAN UNDERSTAND AND KNOW THIS IS HOW IT HAS TO HAPPEN. 
          THESE ARE THE STEPS YOU HAVE TO TAKE. 
          UH, LIKE I SAID, IT'S MEANT TO BE A PROCESS TERM IN THAT RESPECT. 
          IT'S NOT, CERTAINLY NOT TRYING TO MANDATE THAT CERTAIN CUSTOMERS ARE GOING TO BE ON TRANSMISSION SERVICE WITHIN A YEAR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          IT'S JUST A, HERE, HERE, I, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THE WAY WE PROPOSED THIS IN THE CASE WAS ACTUALLY AS A FACILITIES CHARGE, UH, TARIFF, WHEREBY THE, THE UTILITY WOULD DEVELOP FOR YOU AND TELL YOU, IF YOU WANT TO BUY THIS EQUIPMENT, HERE'S HOW MUCH IT COSTS, AND HERE'S HOW YOU HAVE TO GO ABOUT IT. 
          YOU HAVE TO TALK TO US ABOUT THIS. 
          WE HAVE TO NEGOTIATE THESE DETAILS, THAT SORT OF THING. 
          AND MY RECOLLECTION FROM MANY YEARS AGO IS OFTEN THE TARIFF IS, IT'S LIKE A, UM, UH, IT'S, IT'S A CONTRACTUAL RATE. 
          I MEAN, THERE'S NO ACTUAL RIGHT SET IN THE TARIFF. 
          IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, YOU WILL PAY, WE'LL, WE'LL GIVE YOU THE PROPOSAL OF HOW MUCH IT'S GONNA COST. 
          RIGHT. 
          I CAN SEE IT BEING, SO IT'S NOT A RATE CHANGE. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. 
          IT'S NOT A RATE CHANGE. 
          I MEAN, IT WOULD, YEAH, IT, IT WOULD BE BLANKS IN THERE BECAUSE THE EQUIPMENT WOULD BE DIFFERENT FOR EACH SCENARIO AND THAT KIND OF THING. 
          IT, IT, YEAH. 
          ACTUALLY, IT, IT WOULD BE A RATE. 
          I MEAN, AUSTIN, AUSTIN ENERGY CURRENTLY HAS A TRANSMISSION, UH, SERVICE TARIFF. 
          IT'S IN PLACE. 
          THEY HAVE ONE CUSTOMER ON THAT RATE. 
          AND AS I MENTIONED AT THE OUT, UH, EARLIER TO THE QUESTION, IT, THIS WOULD RESULT IN A SHIFTING OF COSTS. 
          SO THERE WOULD NEED TO BE SOME TYPE OF, OF, UH, 
          [02:25:01]
RATE CHANGE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL. 
          BUT THE MORE DIRECT ANSWER TO YOUR EARLIER QUESTION ABOUT WHY IS THIS INCLUDED? I MEAN, THIS IS ALL FROM THEIR SETTLEMENT OFFER. 
          THEY BASICALLY SUBMITTED A SETTLEMENT OFFER TO COUNCIL AND ARE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE, YOU KNOW? WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE, NO, IT'S NOT INAPPROPRIATE. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S OUR, THAT'S YOU JUST NO, NO, NO, NO. 
          I'M SAYING THAT'S FROM YOU. 
          YOU'RE, YOU'RE, THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT OUT OF THE CASE, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE PUTTING IT INTO PUBLIC IN HOPES THAT YOU ALL WILL RECOMMEND IT. 
          I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND. 
          I'M THEIR EXCEPTIONS SAY THAT RATHER THAN DOING A PRIMARY, THEY DON'T, THAT THEY WANNA WORK WITH US. 
          WHAT WOULD THE HARM BE TO SAYING AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD REVIEW THIS A PATHWAY NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR INSTEAD OF PROVIDE, UH, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT, RANDY? I, EXCUSE ME. 
          I'M SAYING, WHAT WOULD THE HARM BE TO SIMPLY SAY, AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD REVIEW A PATHWAY NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR INSTEAD OF PROVIDE THIS PATHWAY OR CONSIDER REVIEW OR CONSIDER AND REVIEW AS OPPOSED TO, UH, REQUIRING THAT IT BE, I READ IT THE WAY I READ IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE BE IMPLEMENTED AND WE'VE HEARD IT CAN'T BE IMPLEMENTED. 
          WHAT PERHAPS I CAN HELP OUT, I MEAN, AUSTIN ENERGY AS MR. UM, HALLMARK SAID JUST A MOMENT AGO, I MEAN, IS WILLING TO WORK ON DEVELOPING A PATHWAY TO, UM, SEE IF, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING CAN BE WORKED OUT IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BECOME TRANSMISSION LEVEL CUSTOMERS. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO USE THE REVIEW LANGUAGE. 
          I WAS JUST SIMPLY SAYING A MOMENT AGO THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN A CHANGE IN RATES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL, AND THAT THERE IS AN EXISTING TARIFF. 
          WHETHER THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW. 
          BUT IF IT DOES, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CHANGED AS WELL. 
          I THOUGHT IT WOULD JUST RESULT IN A CHANGE IN THE COST ALLOCATION. 
          WELL, THAT'S A CHANGE IN RACE. 
          UH, HOW DO YOU CHANGE, HOW DO YOU CHANGE AN ALLOCATION FOR THAT? WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR BOOKS AFTER YOU PUT IN, AFTER THE RATES ARE PUT IN PLACE, OFTEN RESULTS IN DIFFERENT CLASSES, PAYING DIFFERENT AMOUNTS. 
          I MEAN, ALL SORTS OF THINGS ACTUALLY HAPPEN AFTER THE COUNCIL DECIDES ON RATES. 
          BUT IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT A RATE CHANGE. 
          IT IS ALLOWING ONE CUSTOMER TO MOVE TO A DIFFERENT CLASS, IF YOU WILL. 
          WHAT HAPPENS? YOU DON'T, AND YOU DON'T GO BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND SAY, WELL, NOW THE, THE COST ALLOCATION'S DIFFERENT NOW. 
          SO WE NEED YOU TO APPROVE THAT. 
          NO, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          ONCE YOU SET RATES, SAY 2 MILLION RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS ARRIVE TOMORROW. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THEN YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU DO A NEW COST OF SERVICE STUDY, AND IT SHOWS THAT THE COST TO SERVE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS HAS CHANGED RELATIVE TO OTHER CLASSES AND WHEN YOU CHANGE RATES. 
          BUT FOR PURPOSES OF DESIGNING THIS RATE, AGAIN, IT, IT WOULD RESULT IN AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSING TO, TO CHANGE THE, THE RATES. 
          IS THIS, OTHERWISE THIS IS A NEW TARIFF, RIGHT. 
          THAT WE'RE PROPOSING? WELL, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS A TRANSMISSION LEVEL TARIFF, WHETHER, UM, THIS WOULD NECESSITATE CHANGES TO THAT TARIFF OR AN ALTOGETHER NEW TARIFF. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. 
          SO WOULD COUNSEL HAVE TO APPROVE CHANGES TO AN EXISTING TARIFF OR A NEW TARIFF? YES. 
          YES. 
          SO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION FOR US. 
          I MEAN, I THINK THAT THIS, THIS NUMBER 10 IS SAYING, UH, YOU KNOW, COMMIT TO PROVIDING A PATHWAY. 
          SO AUSTIN ENERGY, WE'RE, WE'RE DIRECTING AUSTIN ENERGY TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THEIR TRANSMISSION, TARIFF OR ADOPT A NEW, OR PROPOSE A NEW TARIFF. 
          BUT ULTIMATELY COUNCIL'S GONNA HAVE TO APPROVE THAT. 
          ISN'T, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT. 
          AND SO, I MEAN, THE RATE IMPACTS I'M SURE WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME, NO DOUBT. 
          YEAH. 
          THIS WAS SIMPLY, AS MR. HALLMARK SAID EARLIER, LANGUAGE THAT WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD, WOULD WORK WITH, UM, INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS TO DEVELOP, YOU KNOW, A PATHWAY OR A METHOD OR A WAY TO ALLOW THEM TO PURCHASE THEIR, UM, FACILITIES NEEDED IN ORDER TO UPGRADE A TRANSMISSION SERVICE. 
          AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE UTILITY'S WILLING TO, TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH, WITH, UH, THE INTERESTED PARTIES. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYBODY, ANYBODY OPPOSED TO NUMBER 10? WELL, 
          [02:30:01]
IN WHAT FORM DOES IT HAVE PROVIDE OR REVIEW? LET'S, LET'S USE THE LANGUAGE FROM NUMBER FIVE. 
          YEAH. 
          LANGUAGE FROM NUMBER FIVE AND ATTACHMENT ONE TO THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE. 
          KRISHNA REID. 
          YOU GOT THAT? YES. 
          ALL RIGHT, . 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, MOVING ON, I THINK, UH, LET'S, LET'S TRY TO GET THROUGH THE REST OF THESE. 
          IT'S GETTING LIGHT. 
          UM, SO VALUE OF SOLAR, I KEPT THIS REAL SIMPLE, ADOPT THE OS ENERGY PROPOSAL AND THE BASE RATE FILING PACKAGE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE VALUE OF SOLAR SOCIETAL BENEFITS SHOULD BE COLLECTED THROUGH THE PSA. 
          UM, I'LL POINT OUT THAT IN THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE, A SENTENCE WAS ADDED, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO CERTAIN PARTIES THAT COST RECOVERY FOR THE SOCIETAL BENEFITS WILL BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW. 
          IN AUSTIN ENERGY'S NEXT BASE RATE REVIEW, WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD ADD. 
          UM, THERE'S ALSO A SEPARATE RESOLUTION ON VALUE OF SOLAR, WHICH GOES INTO A LOT MORE DETAIL ON THE VALUE OF SOLAR. 
          UM, I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I AM INCLINED TO JUST STICK, JUST STICK WITH THE DISCUSSION TO THIS, THE HIGHER LEVEL, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S IN ITEM 11 WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT YOU JUST ADDED. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND THEN, AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION, UH, AROUND THAT. 
          AND THAT'S SORT OF IN LINE WITH OUR GENERAL HIGH LEVEL RECOMMEND POLICY KIND OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL. 
          AND THAT'S PERSONALLY FINE WITH ME. 
          RMC HAD A VERY SIMILAR RESOLUTION TO THIS THAT MADE THESE POINTS ALREADY. 
          SO I THINK COUNSEL HAS THAT AS A RECOMMENDATION IF THEY WANT TO ACT ON THEM. 
          ANYBODY OPPOSED TO NUMBER 11? OKAY. 
          HEARING NONE. 
          UH, WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER 12. 
          THIS IS OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS, UH, MAINTAIN EXISTING DIFFERENCES FOR REVENUE AND RATE STRUCTURES FOR CITY OF AUSTIN CUSTOMERS AND THOSE FROM OTHER NEARBY COMMUNITIES WITH NO ADDITIONAL COST SHIFTING. 
           I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THAT. 
          I MAINTAIN EXISTING DIFFERENCES FOR REVENUES AND RATE STRUCTURES FOR CITY OF AUSTIN CUSTOMERS. 
          OH, I THINK JUST TAKE OUT THE COMMA. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYBODY OPPOSED? OR HOW TO COME AFTER COMMUNITIES, BUT YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYBODY OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. 
          UH, OKAY. 
          13. 
          DIRECT THE UC TO EXAMINE POLICIES RELATED TO A'S CONTRIBUTION IN NATIVE CONSTRUCTION AND CONSIDER WAYS TO INCREASE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM NEW GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT TO INCREASE AUSTIN'S REVENUE IN FUTURE YEARS. 
          UM, COMMISSIONER REED, ANYTHING YOU WANNA SAY THERE? OR, SORRY, I'M TRYING TO, I'VE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO STAY BACK FROM THE MICROPHONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, UH, THIS IS AN ISSUE WE'VE TAKEN UP BEFORE AND, YOU KNOW, A NUMBER OF US SAID, WHY DIDN'T THEY EXAMINE THIS AS PART OF THE RATE CASE? AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE THE RATE CASE, BUT IT'S, IT'S AN IMPORTANT POLICY. 
          YOU KNOW, SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL FEES ON, ON DEVELOPERS SO THEY CONTRIBUTE MORE TO THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE? SO I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD ACTUALLY HAD THIS DISCUSSION AND THAT, UM, O ENERGY AGREED, OR THAT WE WERE GONNA TAKE IT UP AT A FUTURE MEETING AND THAT, SO I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IT'S, UM, THAT WAS MY RECOLLECTION TOO. 
          AND YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER OF PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA, UM, AND, AND GETTING, UH, TEE IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          UH, UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARY IN THIS, UH, RATE REVIEW PROCESS. 
          I, I, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT SOME DISCUSSION WE'VE BEEN HAVING ABOUT THIS BASE RATE CASE, THAT THE IDEA OF LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT SOURCES OF REVENUE IN LIEU OF JUST INCREASING THE BASE RATES HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. 
          AND I, I THINK IT'D BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE COUNCIL TO KNOW THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN EXPLORING THAT ISSUE GOING FORWARD. 
          OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN IN THIS CASE, BUT I, I FAVOR LEAVING IT IN. 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN, I, I THINK IT SAYS DIRECT THE EUC TO EXAMINE. 
          RIGHT, EXACTLY. 
          AND I MEAN, SO, AND I FEEL LIKE WE ALREADY ARE GOING TO, SO IT'S, I DON'T KNOW THAT DIRECTION IS NECESSARY, BUT I'M, THEY CAN, THEY CAN DIRECT US TO DO IT. 
          WE ALL AGREED TO DO IT THE LAST, YEAH, IT MIGHT BE 
          [02:35:01]
REDUNDANT, BUT IT DOESN'T DO ANY HARM. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO 14, INSTRUCT US AND ENERGY DEVELOP A PLAN TO EXPAND ACCESS TO MORE AFFORDABLE ELECTRICAL POWER FOR RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, AND CONSIDER HOW TO EQUITABLY CHARGE EV CUSTOMERS WHO CHARGE AT HOME AT HOMES WITH LOW LOAD FACTORS. 
          IS THIS REALLY PART OF THE RATE REVIEW PROCESS RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATION ON? IT SEEMS A LITTLE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE . 
          I, I'VE DON'T KNOW ON THIS, BUT I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SUGGESTING THERE SHOULD BE A TIME OF USE RATE PERHAPS SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. 
          OR DAVE, I KNOW YOU HAD SOME SEPARATE THOUGHTS ABOUT IT'S JUST TIME VARIANT, TIME OF USE. 
          IS IT FORM OF TIME VARIANT? UM, IS IT HARMFUL? I DON'T THINK SO. 
          I THINK THEY SHOULD BE DOING IT AND THEY'RE DOING IT. 
          THEY'RE, THEY DON'T WANT TO IMPLEMENT FURTHER IMPLEMENT OR EXPAND THEIR TOU PILOT THAT THEY'RE DOING FOR EBS RIGHT NOW, SO THAT SOME THINGS ARE UNDER UNDERWAY. 
          I MEAN, IS THERE BETTER LANGUAGE THAT WOULD CAPTURE, I THINK THE, THE CONCERN IS, IS THAT, IS THIS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE RATE REVIEW PROCESS? I MEAN, CERTAINLY WE CAN TAKE THIS ISSUE UP AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL THAT AUSTIN ENERGY DEVELOP A PLAN TO EXPAND ACCESS TO MORE AFFORDABLE ELECTRICAL POWER. 
          UM, I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S, IT'S TO COMMISSIONER BONES, UH, POINT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I MIGHT HAVE THE SAME COMMENT FOR THE REMAINING NUMBER REMAINING ITEMS. I DON'T MEAN TO LIKE JUMP AHEAD, BUT I'M JUST THINKING THAT MAYBE NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT, BUT I'M THINKING THE MORE WE PUT IN THIS RECOMMENDATION, I THINK IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE KEY THINGS WE WANT TO CONVEY TO SOME DEGREE. 
          LIKE IT DILUTES OUR OVERALL RECOMMENDATION IS HOW I WOULD VIEW THIS. 
          IF WE'RE GETTING TOO FAR OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE RATE REVIEW PROCESS. 
          I THINK WHAT THE ENTIRE, AS A GROUP WE'RE SETTING BOTH AS PART OF THE RATE REVIEW, WE'RE SETTING A GROUP OF PRINCIPLE OF COMMUNITY PRINCIPLES AND, UH, ALL OF WHICH IS TO SAY, LOOK AT CERTAIN THINGS OR EUC LOOK AT CERTAIN THINGS, UH, SHOULD BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT OTHERWISE, OTHERWISE THINGS GET PUT ON THE BACK BURNER. 
          YEAH, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT AND I THINK THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT. 
          I'M JUST SAYING FOR PURPOSES OF WHAT CHAIR HOPKINS IS GONNA PRESENT TO CITY COUNCIL TOMORROW EVENING, I'M, THIS IS NOT A HILL I'M GONNA DIE ON, BUT I JUST AM MORE IN FAVOR OF KEEPING IT MORE CONCISE AND PERTAINING TO THE CURRENT RATE REVIEW. 
          WELL, I I BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, DECOMMISSIONING NUMBER 16, I BELIEVE WAS AN ISSUE RAISED IN THE CURRENT RATE CASE. 
          SO I THINK, I THINK 15 WAS AS WELL. 
          I THINK. 
          YEAH, SORRY, I RETRACT MY, OKAY. 
          GROUPING , YOU KNOW, I GUESS 14 OR, OR COMMISSIONER TU. 
          I AGREE WITH MARSHALL'S SENTIMENT ABOUT LESS CAN BE MORE WHEN YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THE POINTS ACROSS, BUT I, I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY HARMFUL TO HAVE ANY OF THESE 13 THROUGH 17 ARE DIRECT OR INSTRUCT AND IT JUST PUTS A PLACEHOLDER IN FOR PEOPLE TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT INSTEAD OF MAYBE FEW YEARS FROM NOW WE ALL, YOU KNOW, ARE SCRAMBLING OR SUCH. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S HARMFUL. 
          UM, I WOULD HAVE AN UPDATE ON 15 ABOUT MICROGRIDS WITH SOLAR PLUS STORAGE. 
          I THINK IT SHOULD BE SOLAR STORAGE AND VEHICLE TO GRID OR VEHICLE TO HOME, WHICH I'VE LEARNED IS V TWO G OR V TWO H, RIGHT? MM-HMM. 
          . 
          THANK YOU. 
          SORRY. 
           INSTRUCT US ENERGY CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF A TARIFF INTER PROGRAM THAT INCENTIVIZES SOLAR PLUS STORAGE. 
          WELL, SOLAR STORAGE IN V2 G SLASH V TO H. 
          AND THEN ON THE SECOND PART OF THAT, HOW TO USE, UH, AND THE USE OF MICROGRIDS WITH SOLAR STORAGE AND V A G, VITA H TO MAKE THAT SYMMETRICAL. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON, SO, 1415, 
          [02:40:01]
UM, 16 OR 17 SINCE I THINK WE COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE THIS ALL UP HERE QUICKLY. 
          ANYBODY? I THINK FOLKS ARE RUNNING OUTTA STEAM. 
          UM, I KNOW I AM. 
          UH, AND SO WE STILL NEED TO, I THINK, TAKE A A VOTE. 
          UM, AND SO I THINK KUSHNER REED HAS BEEN WORKING ON A DRAFT RESOLUTION, UH, THAT TAKES OUT ITEMS ONE  FIVE, SIX, AND SEVEN AND HAS A COUPLE OF OTHER REVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, UH, ON THE OTHER, UH, POINTS. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO DO THIS PERHAPS. 
          UM, COULD WE LIKE EMAIL IT TO ROBIN OR SOMETHING AND PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN AND THEN VOTE ON THAT? YEAH. 
          NOW, UM, SORRY, SHOULD WE ELIMINATE ALL THE WHERE ASS AND JUST SAY RESOLVED? YES. 
          I, I, YES. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION. 
          YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO, UM, I NEED HELP ON NUMBER, SO RESOLVE THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION URGES AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL TO, I SAID ONE CAREFULLY REVIEW THE ICAS RECOMMENDATION OF, OF A 6.5 MILLION REVENUE RECOMMENDATION, THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION OF A, OF A 12 MILLION. 
          I'M TIRED TOO. 
          REVENUE RECOMMENDATION, THAT'S, THAT'S REVENUE INCREASE. 
          REVENUE INCREASE, AND THE I H E RECOMMENDATION OF A 31.3 MILLION INCREASE. 
          AND THEN I WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, IN PARENTHESIS OR SOMETHING AS IT WAS NOT ABLE TO REACH A CONSENSUS AS, AS, AS MEMBERS, AS MEMBERS WERE NOT ABLE TO REACH A CONSENSUS ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          WOW. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          AND THEN IT GOES TO APPLY THE RATE MAKING POLICIES OF GRADUALISM. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          UM, SHOULD I JUST, , GO AHEAD. 
          I, I CAN JUST SHARE THIS WITH ROBIN. 
          UM, THE OTHER ONE I NEEDED HELP ON WAS THE NEW NUMBER FOUR BASE A'S REVENUE REQUIREMENT ON THE 2021 TEST YEAR. 
          CUZ YOU REWROTE THAT. 
          SO EUC RECOMMEND, OR THIS IS, UM, THE WEATHER AND THE NORMALIZATION. 
          YEAH, SO IT WOULD READ, APPLY ITS UNDERSTANDING OF KNOWN AND MEASURABLE CHANGES AND WHETHER NORMALIZATION TO THE 2021 TEST YEAR. 
          SO, UM, GOING BACK TO YOUR FIRST ITEM THERE, I, MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD IT. 
          I THOUGHT WE WERE JUST GONNA SAY WE WERE UNABLE TO REACH A CONSENSUS ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT INSTEAD OF SHOWING JUST HOW CONFUSED WE ARE. 
          I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO LIST THOSE BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE MAJOR PROPOSALS. 
          IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, FOLKS, THE RANGE OF OPINIONS THAT WERE EXPRESSED ON THE COMMISSION WAS ANYWHERE BETWEEN SIX AND 31.3. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT WAS AN ATTEMPT AT ATTEMPTING TO CAPTURE THAT. 
          BUT I MEAN, IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, I'LL LIVE WITH IT. 
          I MEAN, I I'M ALSO FINE WITH JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT SAYING ANYTHING, FRANKLY, I CAN JUST STATE THAT TOMORROW AT OUR, AT OUR, UH, MEETING IT JUST THAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO COME TO CONSENSUS ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT. 
          I MEAN, BECAUSE THE WAY THE RESOLUTION IS WRITTEN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, RESOLVED THAT THE EUC URGES THE CITY COUNCIL TOO. 
          AND SO IF WE'RE NOT URGING THEM TO LOOK AT A SPECIFIC DOCUMENT, THEN I JUST, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SAY, YEAH, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE IT OUT. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST DELETE IT. 
          ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT? I'M, I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH IT. 
          I I CAN JUST, I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T REACHED AN AGREEMENT, SO, RIGHT. 
          WE HAVEN'T, IT'S JUST THAT'S A TRUTH. 
          IT'S A STATEMENT. 
          WE'VE REACHED AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY SHOULD LOOK AT ALL THREE DOCUMENTS. 
          , I, I MEAN, WE'VE AGREED TO DISAGREE , ALL OF WHICH HAS QUESTIONED WHETHER WE'RE DOING OUR JOB, BUT 
          [02:45:01]
IT IS WHAT IT IS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I THINK, UM, LET'S, LET'S JUST TAKE IT OUT, UH, START WITH NUMBER TWO AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A VOTE, A SEPARATE VOTE ON THE NUMBER ONE, NUMBER SIX AND NUMBER SEVEN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M GOING TO DOWNLOAD THIS AND SHARE IT WITH ROBIN. 
          AND I'M NOT SURE EVERY WORD IN HERE IS WHAT WE SAID, BUT IT'S CLOSE. 
          THAT'LL WORK. 
          AND I TOO AM ANXIOUS TO, FOR US TO RESOLVE THAT. 
          BUT I WOULD LIKE TO, ONCE WE GET THROUGH THAT, I WOULD LIKE OUR DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN TAKE A VOTE ON NUMBER FIVE AS WELL AS SIX AND SEVEN. 
          OH, SURE. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          I'VE SENT SOMETHING TO ROBIN , NOT SURE WHAT IT IS. 
          IT'S NOT REALLY IMPORTANT ANYWAY. 
          OH, I OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T START, DIDN'T FINISH THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE BECAUSE I WAS COPY, I WAS WRITING FROM THE, UH, SO WE NEED TO FIX THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE CAN DO THAT LIKE AFTER THE VOTE. 
          SO SIX TRANSMISSION SERVICE SHOULD BE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S, DO YOU HAVE IT YET? OH, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT, HERE WE GO. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK THAT'S AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, MINUS THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE ITEM, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO COPY OVER FROM THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE, UH, AFTER THE VOTE. 
          SO, UH, WITH THAT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT RESOLUTION UP ON SCREEN. 
          DO, DO YOU WANNA HAVE HER JUST GO DOWN, JUST SO EVERYONE SEES IT? OKAY. 
          YEP. 
          AGAIN, ON NUMBER SIX, I DIDN'T FINISH THE SENTENCE. 
          AUSTIN ENERGY SHALL PROVIDE THIS PATHWAY. 
          , THERE'S A CONTINUATION THERE THAT I DIDN'T FINISH WRITING. 
          WHAT SHOULD IT, WHAT SHOULD IT SAY? WHAT'S JUST A PERIOD SENTENCE? NO, IT SHOULD SAY, AUSTIN ENERGY SHALL PROVIDE THIS PATHWAY NO LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE COUNCIL ACTION APPROVING THE RATES SET IN THIS BASE RATE REVIEW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I I WOULD MOVE THAT WE, UM, APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION, UH, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT CHAIR, UH, HOPKINS WILL PRESENT IT TO THE 
          [02:50:01]
CITY COUNCIL TOMORROW. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? ARE WE DONE? IS THERE 14 THROUGH? THAT'S IT BECAUSE WE'VE TAKEN OUT 1, 5, 6, AND SEVEN. 
          WELL, I JUST CAN'T COUNT AND DAVE TU MAKES SURE I SAID V TO G AND V TO G. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THAT WHAT THE TWO IS? CORRECT. 
          LIKE, LIKE THE NUMBER? OKAY. 
          YEAH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. 
          I'LL, I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYONE. 
          YAY. 
          WE'VE GOT A CONSENSUS ON THESE AND I'LL FIX THOSE ISSUES AND, AND SEND YOU THE, UM, OKAY, SO NOW WE DO NEED TO TAKE UP 1, 5, 6, AND SEVEN. 
          AND I THINK I'D LIKE TO DO THAT JUST AS A GROUP, UM, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL OF THESE ISSUES. 
          AND SO WHAT I'LL DO IS ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UM, RECOMMEND A SEPARATE, UH, RESOLUTION THAT INCLUDES ITEMS 1, 5, 6, AND SEVEN, UH, AS WRITTEN. 
          I WOULD, SO MOVE, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 
          AND COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN. 
          THAT'S SIX. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THAT IS, THAT DOES IT. 
          SO THAT RESOLUTION PASSES. 
          UM, AND WE WILL, I'LL PRESENT TO, UH, CITY COUNCIL TOMORROW THAT WE HAVE, UH, UNANIMOUS CONSENT ON THE, UH, FIRST ONE AND THAT THERE WAS A 6 1 2 3 SPLIT ON THE SECOND. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND CAN WE STILL DO THE GENERATION PLAN? UM, IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN TAKE THAT UP AT ANOTHER MEETING? THEY, THEY ARE. 
          CITY COUNCIL DOES WANNA TAKE THIS UP ON DECEMBER 1ST, AND IT'S A RELATIVELY SIMPLE RESOLUTION, WHICH SIMPLY ASKS, EUC, UM, ASKS THE COUNCIL TO DIRECT US TO DO A LIMITED, UM, GENERATION PLAN UPDATE IN THE SECOND HALF OF 2023 WITH FINAL RESULTS BEING PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2024. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE FROM AUSTIN ENERGY IS HERE THAT CAN RESPOND TO THE RESOLUTION OR WHETHER IT'S TOO LATE THAT EVERYONE'S LEFT. 
          CYRUS, ISN'T IT JOINT EUC AND RMC, OR, WELL, WE CAN'T REALLY SAY WE, SO IT SAYS, UM, DIRECT HOUSE ENERGY WORK COLLABORATIVE, ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION, UM, AND THEN SAYS, YOU KNOW, MENTIONS OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, BUT IT'S, IT'S OUR RESOLUTIONS. 
          I CAN'T REALLY DIRECT THEM TO DIRECT RMC. 
          BUT GOOD EVENING, I'M STUART RILEY, ACTING DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER. 
          UM, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS REVIEWED THIS AND UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE OKAY WITH THE LANGUAGE IF, IF YOU WERE PROCEEDING WITH IT. 
          I MOVE APPROVAL. 
          YEAH, , I SECOND THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          OKAY. 
          RESOLUTION, UH, PASSES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, ITEM NUMBER 
          [13. Discussion of report regarding City Council action on items previously reviewed by the EUC.]
13, REPORT REGARDING CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON ITEMS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE E E U C. 
          ANY COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, UM, WORKING GROUP UPDATE. 
          [14. Update from the Budget & Audit Working Group.]
I BELIEVE WE COVERED EVERYTHING, UM, YOU GUYS WOULDN'T, COULD HAVE POSSIBLY WANTED TO DISCUSS. 
          IS THAT, IS THAT FAIR? TODAY? TODAY? OKAY, GREAT. 
          UM, OKAY THEN WITHOUT OBJECTION, I ADJOURN THE MEETING. 
          THANKS FOR ALL YOUR TIME AND HARD WORK ON THOSE ISSUES.
* 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.