Aug 12, 2024 Electric Utility Commission

[00:00:03]

SIX OH FIVE

[CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

I'M CYRUS REED, SERVING AS INTERIM CHAIR.

WHO ELSE DO WE HAVE WITH US TODAY? M LONG, M**K LONG IS IN THE HOUSE.

JOSH RHODES, DR.

JOSH RHODES.

RANDY CHAPMAN.

RANDY CHAPMAN AND ONLINE.

WHO DO WE HAVE? RA ALVAREZ.

ARE YOU HERE? CESAR.

CESAR BEEZ IS RAISING HIS HAND.

RAUL, CAN YOU HEAR US? ARE YOU HERE? YES.

AND YEAH, IO IS HERE AND AO IS HERE AS WELL.

SO THAT MEANS WE HAVE QUORUM AND WE CAN PROCEED.

AND I BELIEVE THE FIRST ITEM

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]

DO WE HAVE PEOPLE SIGNED UP? WE DO.

UH, OUR FIRST, WE HAVE SEVEN SPEAKERS AND THEY, THEY'LL EACH HAVE THREE MINUTES.

AND UH, THE FIRST ONE IS JORGE RO.

HELLO? UM, MY NAME IS JORGE VERO.

IF YOU COULD JUST PUSH THE, THERE YOU GO.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY.

HELLO, MY NAME IS JORGE VIRO.

I'M AN AUSTIN ENERGY RATE PAYER.

I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF A NEWLY FORMED THIRD ACT, TEXAS, A WORKING GROUP OF THIRD ACT, NATIONAL AND NON-PROFIT.

FAST GROWING ORGANIZATION OF OLDER ADULTS DEDICATED TO PROTECTING DEMOCRACY AND STOPPING CLIMATE CHANGE.

I'M HERE TO OPPOSE AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A HYDROGEN GAS PLANT AS A BREACH TO A CLEANER ENERGY FUTURE.

THIS IS A VERY QUESTIONABLE INVESTMENT THAT PRIORITIZES FUEL, FUEL BASED INFRASTRUCTURE OVER PROVEN EFFICIENT AND RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS.

WHILE THE CONCEPT OF OF HYDROGEN AS A CLEAN ENERGY CARRIER IS INTRIGUING, THE CURRENT REALITY OF ITS PRODUCTION STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTIONS RENDERS IT AN IMPRACTICAL AND COSTLY STOP GAP MEASURE.

RATHER THAN INVESTING IN A TECHNOLOGY WHICH SUCH A SIGNIFICANT, WITH SUCH A SIGNIFICANT HURDLES, AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD DOUBLE DOWN ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES.

THIS STRATEGY HAVE A PROVEN TRACK RECORD OF REDUCING EMISSIONS, LOWERING ENERGY COST, AND ENHANCING GRID RELIABILITY.

BY FOCUSING ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AUSTIN CAN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE DEMAND, THEREBY IN DECREASING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL POWER GENERATION.

THIS CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH A COMBINATION OF POLICIES, INCENTIVES, AND PROGRAMS THAT ENCOURAGE BUILDING RETROFITS, APPLIANCES, UPGRADES, AND BE BEHAVIORAL CHANGES.

MOREOVER, ACCELERATING THE DEPLOYMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES SUCH AS SOLAR, WIND, POWER, AND BATTERY STORAGE IS A MORE DIRECT AND EFFECTIVE PATH TO THE CARBONIZATION.

THESE TECHNOLOGIES HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE, AND THE INTEGRATION INTO THE GRID IS WELL UNDERSTOOD.

BY INVESTING IN LARGE SCALE RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS AND SUPPORTING COMMUNITY SOLARS INCENTIVES, AUSTIN ENERGY CAN CREATE A CLEANER AND MORE RESILIENT ENERGY SYSTEM.

THE HYDROGEN CAPABLE GAS PLANTS REPRESENT A RISKY AND EXPENSIVE GAMBLE ON A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS STILL IN ITS INFANCY.

IT IS AN A DISTRACTION FROM THE URGENT NEED TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE AND BUILD A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE.

INSTEAD OF PURSUING THIS IMPROVING AND COSTLY APPROACH, AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD FOCUS ON PROVEN COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS AND DELIVER IMMEDIATE AND THAT DELIVER IMMEDIATE BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY.

BY PRIORITIZING ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, AUSTIN CAN LEAD THE WAY IN CREATING A CLEAN, RELIABLE AND AFFORDABLE ENERGY STRATEGY FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS AL BRADEN.

THERE WE GO.

UH, GOOD EVENING, UH, COMMISSIONERS AND AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF.

I'M AL BRADEN, A DISTRICT SEVEN VOTER AND AUSTIN ENERGY SHAREHOLDER.

TONIGHT WE GET DOWN TO THE SERIOUS TASK OF MODELING AUSTIN'S ENERGY

[00:05:01]

MICHAEL ENGER WILL BE PRESENTING SEVERAL PORTFOLIOS SCENARIOS SHORTLY, PROVIDING DIFFERENT TECHNICAL PATHS TO ADDRESS OUR SHARED GOALS OF RELIABILITY, AFFORDABILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY.

BUT AUSTIN ENERGY'S PREFERRED MODEL SEEM TO AIM AT A NEW GAS PLANT, EITHER METHANE POWERED OR METHANE DRESSED UP AS GREEN HYDROGEN.

DON'T FORGET EQUITY EQUITY DEMANDS THAT WE BUILD NO NEW FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS IN AUSTIN OR ESPECIALLY EAST AUSTIN COUNCIL HAS SAID.

SO OVER AND OVER.

ANY METHANE PLANT TO BE IN OUR LOAD ZONE WOULD FALL ON THE SHOULDERS OF EAST AUSTIN.

WHERE ELSE WOULD THE IT TECHNICALLY GO? WHERE ELSE HAS THE WIRES, THE PIPELINES, AND THE LAND AREA WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS? ANY TAKERS FOR B'S RIDGE OR LAKE AUSTIN? I DOUBT IT.

SO WE HAVE TO BE REAL WITH MY TECHNICAL BENT.

I APPRECIATE STUDIES TO GET THE BEST POSSIBLE ANSWERS.

SO I'M FINE WITH MODELING METHANE AND HYDROGEN TO FIND THEIR COSTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT SOMETHING TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER BUILDING IN OUR FAST GROWING RESIDENTIAL AREAS, USE THE USE DECKER'S WIRES AND LAND FOR BATTERIES.

TAKE AUSTIN'S CLIMATE GOALS TO HEART.

DON'T SEE THEM AS RESTRICTIONS ON CONTINUED USE OF FOSSIL FUEL FROM WHERE WE STAND TODAY IN AN EVER HEATING WORLD, ASK WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO A CARBON FREE FUTURE? I HEAR PROPOSALS FOR COMMUNITY RESILIENCY CENTERS POWERED BY COMMUNITY, SOLAR AND BACKED UP WITH BATTERIES.

COMMUNITY CENTERS THAT CAN BE A SOURCE OF PRIDE AND GATHERING IN THE GOOD TIMES AND A SOURCE OF RESILIENCY AND EVEN SURVIVAL IN THE WORST OF TIMES.

THESE MAKE SENSE IN EVERY PART OF AUSTIN IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES, I HEAR THE NEED FOR POWER IN OUR LOAD ZONE INSTEAD OF A NEW FOSSIL FUEL PLANT AT DECKER OR SANDHILL, WE NEED BANKS OF BATTERIES THAT CAN IMPORT CHEAP WIND POWER AT NIGHT, HAVE IT PRE-POSITIONED IN TOWN READY TO USE IN THE EVENING PEAKS, A HEAR OF PRICE SEPARATION WHEN ERCOT CONGESTED WIRES SIMPLY CAN'T GET THE POWER FROM OUR WIND AND SOLAR FARMS TO US IN REAL TIME.

WE END UP SELLING THAT POWER TO LOSS AND PAYING MORE FOR IT LOCALLY.

WE NEED TO STORE IT WHEN AND WHERE IT'S GENERATED AND SEND IT TO AUSTIN WHEN PRICES ARE BACK IN BALANCE.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AS DEMAND MANAGEMENT, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, WEATHER, ISATION AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE INTEGRATION INNOVATION POURS OUT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND OUT OF THE PECAN STREET PROJECT.

LET'S USE THAT.

I WAS PART OF THE EUC WORKING GROUP THAT WORKED MUCH OF LAST YEAR ON THIS WITH FINAL ADJUSTMENTS BY THE EUC.

OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WILL ALSO BE MODELED.

I ASK AUSTIN ENERGY, GIVE US YOUR BEST EFFORT.

YOU HAVE THE MOST UP-TO-DATE, REAL MARKET COSTS.

YOUR TIME IS UP AND MODELING CAPABILITIES.

PLEASE MAKE THAT YOUR MISSION.

THANK YOU.

NEXT WE HAVE RICHARD HALPIN.

GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU SITTING AT THE TABLES KNOW THAT THIS YOUNG LADY HERE DID A HANDOUT FOR ME SO THAT HANDOUT GOES ALONG WITH THIS TALK.

YEAH, SO THANK YOU.

HELLO, UH, GOOD EVENING ELECTRIC UTILITY MEMBERS, COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN AUSTIN, ENERGY STAFF.

I AM RICHARD HALPIN, A CONCERNED ENERGY AND COMMUNITY ADVOCATE WITH THIRD ACT TEXAS.

THERE IS GOOD NEWS.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, TEXAS HAS LED THE COUNTRY IN LOW COST RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS.

THAT'S TERRIFIC.

WHAT A, WHAT A DEAL.

ACCORDING TO EMMA NEUBERGER WITH CNBC, NEUBERGER ALSO SAYS THAT DURING THE STATE'S GRID FAILURE, GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT AND OTHER CONSERVATIVE STATE LEADERS FALSELY BLAMED THE OUTAGES ON RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES LIKE WIND AND SOLAR.

HOWEVER, MOST OF THE OUT OUT OUTAGES STEMMED FROM PROBLEMS WITH LIMITED NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION AND FROZEN SUPPLIES AT NATURAL GAS, COAL, AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES, NOT FROM SOLAR AND WIND FAILURES.

A STORY BY PHILIP JACOBY OF THE DALLAS WARNING NEWS.

BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS HAVE BEEN DIRECTED BY THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE TO INFLUENCE THE STATE'S ENERGY MARKET TO ENCOURAGE THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE GAS POWER PLANTS.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DAN PATRICK AND INVESTMENT GIANT, UM, BLACKROCK ARE RED CARPETING THESE FUNDS TO NATURAL GAS PRODUCERS.

ERCOT

[00:10:01]

THE ARTICLE SAYS THE ANCILLARY SERVICE HAD COST CONSUMERS $8 BILLION BY CREATING THE APPEARANCE OF ENERGY SHORTAGES.

THAT NUMBER NOW HAS SWELL TO $12 BILLION.

THESE KINDS OF OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS JUST ADD COST AFTER COST AFTER COST.

SAID EXPERT DOUG LEWIN.

THOSE BENEFITS DON'T REACH THE CONSUMERS.

IN FACT, THE CONSUMER BILLS ARE GOING UP.

WHAT IF THOSE BILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS WENT TO IMPROVING THE TRANSMISSION LINES OR REQUIRING THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY TO CLEAN UP THE DEADLY PARTICULATES AND OTHER TOXINS THAT THEY HAVE PRODUCED TO SICKEN US AND HEAT US UP? EUC COMMISSIONERS AND AUSTIN ENERGY LEADERS DON'T BE HORNSWOGGLED BY THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY'S MISDIRECTED DISPATCHABLE CLAIMS ABOUT GAS PLANT FIDDLING LING.

YOU COMMISSIONERS AND AUSTIN ENERGY LEADERS AND MANY MORE HAVE CREATED VALIANT EFFORTS IN RENEWABLES, MAKE ENERGY MORE AFFORDABLE.

THESE SUBSIDIES TO THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY ARE TRAGIC MISTAKE.

THEY WILL BE REMEDIED BY VOTING FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO HONESTLY PUT PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS WHO WILL REQUIRE THE POLLUTERS TO CLEAN UP THE MESS THEY HAVE MADE IN OUR CLIMATE AND WILL ALLOW AFFORDABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS TO BE AVAILABLE TO ALL YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

THANK YOU.

NEXT IS ELISA AMMOND.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF AND MY FELLOW CITIZENS.

MY NAME'S ELISA HAMMOND.

I'M A, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY RATE PAYER PART OF DISTRICT NINE AND ALSO MY BACKGROUND'S IN CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY.

AND I WORK WITH SEVERAL, UM, CLIMATE FOCUSED NON-PROFITS, INCLUDING THIRD ACT AND A GROUP CALLED ECO ATHLETE THAT WORKS TO HELP, UM, PROFESSIONAL AND COLLEGIATE ATHLETES BECOME CLIMATE CHAMPIONS.

I'M HERE TONIGHT TO OPPOSE THE AUSTIN ENERGY HYDROGEN CAPABLE GAS PLANT.

THIS RAISES SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS AS WE WORK TO GET A MORE RELIABLE AND RESILIENT GRID BUILDING NEW FOSSIL FUEL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT CREATES MORE GREENHOUSE GASES.

AGGRAVATING CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT THE ANSWER.

WHILE THESE PLANTS ARE INITIALLY DESIGNED TO RUN ON, UM, EVENTUALLY DESIGNED TO RUN ON HYDROGEN, THEY WILL INITIALLY RELY ON NATURAL GAS AND FOR AN UNKNOWN TIME BECAUSE THE HYDROGEN IS STILL A NEW TECHNOLOGY IN DEVELOPMENT.

WE DON'T HAVE A KNOWN TIMELINE FOR TRANSITIONING AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS.

AND I THINK THAT, UM, GIVEN OUR CLIMATE EMERGENCY THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING AND REALLY HAVE SEEN THE IMPACT OVER THE LAST 18 MONTHS, THIS IDEA OF BUILDING FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE TO ADDRESS CLIMATE DISRUPTION IS JUST WEIRD.

I THINK THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO USE THAT WORD AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE KNOWN FOR.

WE'RE KNOWN FOR LEADERSHIP IN AUSTIN.

WE ARE ONE OF THE GREAT SUSTAINABILITY LEADERS OF CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

I REALLY DON'T WANT US TO LOSE OUR LEADERSHIP FOR BEING, UH, DISTRACTED BY WEIRD TECHNOLOGY.

IT'S A FALSE SOLUTION.

IT'S POSITIONED AS A BRIDGE TO A CLEANER ENERGY FUTURE, BUT IT IS COSTLY AND RISKY AND IT ALSO IS DOES GREAT DAMAGE TO OUR WATER RESOURCES, PRECIOUS WATER RESOURCES.

WE ALSO KNOW HOW CRITICAL THAT IS.

AND EVEN F SUCCESSFUL HYDROGEN IS NOT AN EFFICIENT FUEL.

WE HAVE SO MANY GREAT TECHNOLOGIES ALREADY WIND, SOLAR, BATTERY STORAGE.

WE KNOW THEM TODAY.

WE KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO.

AND TO LEAVE THIS FOR AN UNKNOWN TECHNOLOGY, YOU COULD DESCRIBE IT AS A GREEN BOONDOGGLE.

SO LET'S CHOOSE BENEFITS SOLUTIONS THAT BENEFIT CITIZENS.

LET'S INCENTIVIZE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LET'S, UM, INVEST IN THESE COMMUNITY PROJECTS THAT YOU'VE HEARD PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THAT IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY AND HELP CREATE A GREATER EQUITY AND BENEFIT FROM THE, UM, NEW GREEN ENERGY.

FINALLY, ON AUGUST 1ST, THE INSTITUTE OF ENERGY ECONOMICS AND UM, INSTITUTE ENERGY ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS JUST RELEASED A REPORT AND IT SAYS HYDROGEN IS NOT A SOLUTION FOR GAS FIRED TURBINES.

[00:15:01]

SO WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

THANK YOU.

CAN YOU SAY THE NAME OF THAT ORGANIZATION THAT DID THE REPORT ONCE MORE? THE INSTITUTE OF ENERGY, ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS.

AND I'M GOING TO SEND A COPY OF THIS REPORT TO EVERYONE ON THE COMMISSION.

NEXT IS JEN KRIEGER.

HELLO, GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

UH, MY NAME IS JEN KRIEGER.

UM, I HAVE BEEN WORKING TO SLOW THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE FOR MY ENTIRE 22 YEAR CAREER, INCLUDING AS A FORMER STAFF MEMBER AT AUSTIN ENERGY, WHERE I WAS AN INAUGURAL TEAM MEMBER OF THE AUSTIN CLIMATE PROTECTION PROGRAM.

I DID THE INITIAL EMISSIONS MODELING AND STRATEGY AND PLANNING THAT INFORMED THE OUR VERY FIRST, UH, RESOURCE GENERATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN.

UM, I AM HERE OFFERING SOME INITIAL COMMENTARY THIS EVENING ON AGENDA ITEM 17.

UM, I WOULD LIKE THE CHANCE TO PROVIDE SOME MORE DETAILED FEEDBACK ONCE I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS AND SCENARIOS.

UM, I WILL NOTE THAT THERE'S A REFERENCE IN THE SLIDE DECK FOR AGENDA ITEM 17 THAT SAYS, AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF PROVIDED THE COMMISSIONERS WITH THE MORE DETAILED MODELING INPUTS AND SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS.

I WOULD STRONGLY ASK THAT Y'ALL PLEASE POST THAT ON THE EUC WEBSITE SO THAT THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL.

I COULD NOT FIND IT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.

UM, AND MY, MY PRIMARY PURPOSE HERE THIS EVENING IS TO EXPRESS MY STEADFAST OPPOSITION TO AUSTIN ENERGY INVESTING IN ANY NEW FOSSIL FUEL GENERATION.

THE PROPOSED GAS TO HYDROGEN PLANT IS A HUGE SLAP IN THE FACE TO ME AND THE HUNDREDS OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO CONTRIBUTED HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF HOURS, TO CREATING THE AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN THAT WAS RESOUNDINGLY ADOPTED BY OUR CITY COUNCIL WITH VERY CLEAR TRANS DIRECTION TO TRANSITION COMPLETELY OFF OF FOSSIL FUELS.

SO THE FACT THAT YOU WOULD TRY TO SNEAK IT IN THERE EVEN AS A BRIDGE FUEL IS UNCONSCIONABLE AND REALLY INSULTING.

UM, I DO ALSO AS A PROFESSIONAL IN THE ENERGY SPACE, I KNOW THAT TOUGH CHOICES AND UNPOPULAR DECISIONS HAVE TO BE MADE, BUT AGAIN, I DO NOT FEEL THAT INVESTING IN HYDROGEN AND NATURAL GAS ARE WISE CHOICES FOR THE HEALTH OF AUSTIN ENERGY NOR OUR COMMUNITY.

THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION OFFERED, AT LEAST NOT PUBLICLY OFFERED TO FULLY EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF HYDROGEN.

AND STUDIES SHOW THAT HYDROGEN FOR POWER PRODUCTION IS AN INEFFICIENT USE OF A LIMITED RESOURCE THAT SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR MUCH TOUGHER TO DECARBONIZE SECTORS OF OUR ECONOMY.

NOW, IF WE HAVE TO GO DOWN THE HYDROGEN PATH IN THE HYDROGEN UH, HIERARCHY, I DO SUPPORT GREEN HYDROGEN OVER OTHER CHOICES.

BUT AGAIN, USING RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY TO SPLIT WATER MOLECULES TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN TO THEN PRODUCE POWER IS WOEFULLY INEFFICIENT AND AN UNNECESSARY ENERGY INTENSIVE USE OF OUR RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES.

I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE US INVEST DIRECTLY IN RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY POWER PRODUCTION.

BACK TO THE COMMENTS ABOUT TOUGH CHOICES, AND I KNOW THERE'S SOME FOLKS THAT AREN'T GONNA LIKE THIS, BUT IF IT COMES DOWN TO IT THAT FOSSIL GAS USE CANNOT BE AVOIDED, THEN RATHER AUSTIN ENERGY INVESTING IN NEW FOSSIL FUEL GENERATION THAT WOULD LOCK IN A POLLUTING RESOURCE FOR ANOTHER 40 OR 50 YEARS AS LONG AS THAT POWER PLANT WOULD LAST.

I WOULD RATHER SEE AN UNPOPULAR DECISION TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF YOUR EXISTING GAS ASSETS OF EITHER SANDHILL OR DECKER OVER NEW GAS GENERATION FOR A VERY LIMITED TIME WITH A CLEAR COMMITMENT FOR HOW LONG THAT WOULD BE.

YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

OKAY, I'LL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN WRITING.

THANK YOU.

NEXT IS CAMILLE COOK.

GOOD EVENING, Y'ALL.

MY NAME IS CAMILLE COOK AND I WORK AT PUBLIC CITIZEN.

AS A POLICY RESEARCHER AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, THE UPDATE TO THE RESEARCH GENERATION PLAN HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS AND WE'VE COME AGAIN TO A POINT WHERE WE'RE CONSIDERING DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR HOW TO ACHIEVE AUSTIN ENERGY AND CITY OF AUSTIN GOALS BY 2035.

ACHIEVING THE CITY'S CLIMATE GOALS DEPENDS ON AUSTIN ENERGY DECARBONIZING QUICKLY AND CONTINUALLY OVER TIME.

ONE OF THE MAIN ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND THESE GOALS WAS THAT MOST AE EMISSIONS WOULD BE ELIMINATED BY THE END OF 22 WITH THE CLOSURE OF FAYETTE AND THE REMAINING EMISSIONS WOULD CONTINUE TO DECLINE THROUGH THE REDUCTION OF PRODUCTION FROM LOCAL GAS GENERATION AND THE CORRESPONDING INCREASE OF GREEN ENERGY SOURCES AND DEMAND RESPONSE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES.

[00:20:01]

THESE ARE NOT VIABLE SOLUTIONS TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS THAT WE'RE FACING HERE IN AUSTIN, NOT ONLY ENVIRONMENTALLY, BUT ALSO POLITICALLY.

THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN HAVE SPOKEN CLEARLY THAT THEY DO NOT WANT FAYETTE TO CONTINUE RUNNING.

ADDITIONALLY, PEOPLE HAVE STATED THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR GREEN ENERGY AND THE PUBLIC INPUT THAT AE RECEIVED.

LAST AUGUST, OVER 60% OF PEOPLE SAID THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE A HIGHER BILL IN ORDER TO HAVE CLEANER ENERGY.

ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A GIVEN THAT GREENER MEANS MORE EXPENSIVE.

MOST OF THESE SCENARIOS DON'T REFLECT THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE.

AE SHOULD BE MODELING DIFFERENT PORTFOLIOS TO MEET OR EXCEED ESTABLISHED GOALS, THE URGENCY OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND AUSTIN'S AIR POLLUTION CHALLENGES DEMAND CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING, NOT BACKING OFF FROM IMPORTANT GOALS BECAUSE IT'S EASIER.

PUBLIC CITIZENS STRONGLY OBJECTS TO ANY CONSIDERATION OF BACKSLIDING ON ESTABLISHED CLIMATE GOALS.

FOR AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE CITY, MOST OF THE PORTFOLIOS PUT FORWARD WOULD DO JUST THAT.

AE HAS A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD THE PACK IN CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS IN TEXAS.

LET'S PUSH THE ENVELOPE.

THANK YOU.

NEXT IS BECKY HALPIN.

I FEEL LIKE I'M KIND OF IN A DARK HOLE UP HERE.

I THINK WE NEED LIKE A LIGHT .

YEAH, I AM.

BECKY HALPIN.

AUSTIN ENERGY HAS BEEN HOLDING MEETINGS AND ASKING SELECTED STAKEHOLDERS WHAT THEY VALUE IN A RESOURCE PLAN.

ONE STAKEHOLDER UNINVITED TO THE TABLE IS THE EARTH HERSELF AND ALL HER LIVING BEINGS.

I BELIEVE SHE WOULD TELL YOU SHE VALUES ABOVE ALL THINGS A VIABLE FUTURE WHERE ALL BEINGS CAN FLOURISH, INCLUDING EVERY AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMER, BUT CONTINUED FOSSIL FUEL BURNING AND BUILDING NEW FOSSIL FUEL GENERATION IN THE FORM OF A GAS PLANT, HOWEVER IT IS CONCEIVED, WILL MAKE THE CLIMATE CRISIS WORSE.

WHATEVER TRADE-OFFS ARE OFFERED BY AUSTIN ENERGY IN A NEW RESOURCE PLAN TO JUSTIFY A NEW GAS PLANT OF ANY VARIETY ARE ULTIMATELY TRADE-OFFS TO KEEP DESTROYING THE EARTH'S SYSTEMS WE DEPEND ON FOR LIFE IN ORDER TO GET A FEW MORE YEARS OF PURPORTEDLY CLEAN DISPATCHABLE ENERGY.

HOWEVER, THE DIRECT COSTS OF GAS GENERATION ARE NOT CHEAPER THAN THE COST OF RENEWABLES AND CERTAINLY THE ONGOING COSTS OF FUEL AND MAINTENANCE FOR GAS FAR EXCEED THE ONGOING COSTS FOR WIND OR SOLAR OR BATTERIES.

AND GEOTHERMAL A VERY PROMISING RENEWABLE SOURCE WE SHOULD CONSIDER.

AND THE INDIRECT COSTS OF FOSSIL FUEL BURNING ARE ASTRONOMICAL.

INCREASED PLANETARY HEATING LEADS TO DROUGHTS, FLOODS, FIRES, MORE INTENSE WEATHER EVENTS.

WE PAY MORE FOR FOOD BECAUSE IT'S HARDER TO GROW AND MORE EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE.

WE PAY MORE FOR HOMEOWNER AND PROPERTY INSURANCE BECAUSE RISKS ARE GREATER.

WE PAY MORE FOR ENERGY BECAUSE WE USE MORE TRYING TO KEEP OUR HOMES COOL UNDER HEAT DOMES AND WARM UNDER BIZARRE.

DURING BIZARRE WINTER WEATHER EVENTS, PEOPLE ARE DYING OUTRIGHT AS A RESULT OF OUR FOSSIL FUEL FOLLY.

I COULD GO ON, BUT MY POINT IS THAT THERE ARE NO TRADE-OFFS WORTH CONTRIBUTING TO THIS TRAGEDY.

EVERY ELECTRON GENERATED WITH FOSSIL FUELS JUST MAKES IT WORSE.

THERE IS A FAMOUS POEM BY ROBERT FROST, THE ROAD NOT TAKEN, WHICH ENDS THIS WAY.

I SHALL BE TELLING THIS WITH A SIGH SOMEWHERE AGES AND AGES HINTS TWO ROADS DIVERGED IN A WOOD IN I I TOOK THE ONE LESS TRAVELED BY AND THAT HAS MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

AND SO SHOULD WE TAKE THE LESS TRAVELED PATH AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS, TOWARDS RENEWABLE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND THAT WILL MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

THANK YOU.

LAST SPEAKER IS CARLA DUNLAP.

OKAY, I FEEL LIKE TOM CRUISE, YOU KNOW, RESCUE BUSINESS.

LET'S GET IT IN LAST MINUTE.

UH, BUT I'M HERE.

MY NAME'S CARLA DUNLAP.

I LIVE IN SOUTH AUSTIN, ABOUT AS SOUTH AS YOU CAN GET.

SO COMING UP HERE WAS A EYEOPENER, BUT UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS 'CAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

I APPRECIATE THE COMMISSION'S EFFORTS ON THIS AND I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT AS WELL.

UM, BUT I AM, UH,

[00:25:01]

AND HERE'S WHY.

SUGGESTING THAT WE NEED A GAS PLANT THAT'S TETHERED THE FUTURE PROMISES OF AN UN UNTESTED UNSETTLED TECHNOLOGY TO ADDRESS OUR ENERGY NEEDS.

THAT IS TECHNOLOGY TO PRODUCE AND STORE SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES OF GREEN HYDROGEN AT SCALE IS STILL UNDER DEVELOPMENT.

GREEN HYDROGEN PRODUCES NI NITROUS OXIDES, WHICH ARE MORE POLLUTING THE NATURAL GAS.

IT'S UNLIKELY TO BE COST COMPETITIVE NOT ONLY BY THE NATIONAL GOAL, BUT BY THE AUSTIN GOAL OF 2035.

IT'S EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE, SO IT'S GONNA REQUIRE SUBSIDIES.

AND SUBSIDIES AREN'T FREE MONEY.

YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU GET THE FEELING SOMETIMES THAT PEOPLE THINK THAT, BUT THOSE ARE OUR TAX DOLLARS.

UM, IT'LL DRIVE HIGHER CUSTOMER BILLS AND AGAIN, IMPACT OUR TAXES AND WHERE'S IT GONNA BE LOCATED? DO YOU WANT IT IN YOUR BACKYARD? I DON'T WANT IT IN MINE.

YOU KNOW, COME ON, ITIF, THE, SORRY, I'M NERVOUS.

THE INFO AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION FOUNDATION, THEY'RE RECOGNIZED AS LEADING THINK TANK FOCUSED ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR POLICY MAKERS.

THEY CAUTION THAT CLEAN, THAT IS GREEN.

HYDROGEN IS EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO TRANSPORT, HAS HIGHER PIPELINE COSTS, AND IT'S GOT SAFETY HAZARDS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON GREEN HYDROGEN.

GREAT.

KEEP GOING ON IT.

KEEP WORKING ON IT, BUT IT'S NOT IN A STATE RIGHT NOW THAT WE WANT TO COMMIT TO IT.

ALL OF THIS SUGGESTS TO ME THAT THE INITIAL GAS PLANT WON'T BE TRANSITIONED TO GREEN HYDROGEN IN TIME BY THE NATIONAL GOAL OF 2030 AND PROBABLY NOT BY 2035.

SO WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER GAS PLANT AND ITS POLLUTION INSTEAD AS I FEEL LIKE I'M PREACHING TO THE CHOIR.

BUT INSTEAD FOCUS ON DEVELOPED TECHNOLOGIES LIKE SOLAR, WIND, AND THEIR COMPANION BATTERIES.

BATTERIES ARE MAKING GREAT STRIDES.

I KNOW YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY WRESTLED WITH THIS AND YOU HAVE A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE THAN I DO, BUT FOR A NOVICE LIKE ME TO SAY, GEE WHIZ, WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? I BETTER LOOK INTO THIS.

IT'S TROUBLING, ESPECIALLY WHEN ALTERNATIVES FOR ACCELERATED RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPED DEPLOYMENT RATHER EXIST, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL ENERGY EFFICIENT HOME AND BUSINESS UPGRADE INCENTIVES, WHICH IS BEING DONE.

MAKE A MORE, AND PROVIDING COMMUNITY LED SOLUTIONS ARE POSSIBLE.

YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

UM, I WANT TO THANK ALL THE SPEAKERS.

THANK YOU FOR COMING AND, AND THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING YOUR, YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

UM, NEXT STEP

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

UM, I WASN'T ACTUALLY HERE, BUT I, UH, I WILL ENTERTAIN A, A, A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OR IF YOU NEED ANY CHANGES.

SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM JULY.

OH, JONATHAN'S IN THE HOUSE PLEASE.

UH, PLEASE REFLECT THAT JONATHAN HAS JOINED.

OKAY.

SO THAT, UM, THAT IS APPROVED ON HOWEVER MANY THAT IS.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8.

IS THAT EIGHT OF US? WOW.

EIGHT TO NOTHING.

THAT'S A GOOD SCORE.

UM,

[Items 3, 5-10, 12 & 14-16]

THERE ARE A WHOLE LOT OF ITEMS. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT ANYONE WANTS TO PULL FOR QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? UH, YES, I'M GONNA HAVE TO RECUSE.

OKAY, SO ON 13, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO, AMY? WE JUST NEED TO NOTE IF WE VOTE ON IT THAT HE'S RECUSING HIMSELF.

YEAH, WE'LL JUST NOTE THAT YOU'RE RECUSING ON 13.

OKAY.

AND THEN ARE THERE ANY OTHER, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THE ITEMS? UH, I HAVE QUESTIONS ON FOUR AND 11.

FOUR AND 11.

SO WE'LL PULL FOUR AND 11.

UM, I HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION ON TWO MYSELF, SO WE'LL PULL TWO, FOUR, AND 11.

UM, AND THEN, SO LET'S, UH, VOTE ON 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, NOT 13.

SO WE DON'T CONFUSE OURSELVES.

14, 15, AND 16.

CAN I JUST MAKE THAT MOTION? YEP.

I MAKE A MOTION TO PROVE ALL THOSE NUMBERS I JUST SAID.

OKAY.

SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR OF ALL THOSE MULTIPLE NUMBERS.

DID YOU GET ALL THAT EIGHT TO NOTHING, BUT I DID NOT GET WHO

[00:30:01]

WAS THAT OKAY? OKAY, GREAT.

UM, SO NOW LET'S GO

[2. Recommend authorizing negotiation and execution of a contract for utility demand response program support for thermostats and other equipment with EnergyHub, Inc., for up to five years for a total contract amount not to exceed $12,500,000. ]

WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ABOUT ENERGY HUB AND DEMAND RESPONSE? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

UH, RICHARD GENESEE, VICE PRESIDENT OF CUSTOMER ENERGY SOLUTIONS WITH AUSTIN ENERGY.

AND I'M HERE TO, UH, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ON THE, UM, ENERGY HUB, PROPOSED ENERGY HUB CONTRACT.

QUESTION QUESTION NUMBER ONE IS THIS FOR ALL TYPES OF CONS, DEMAND RESPONSE FOR ALL TYPES OF CONSUMERS? SO WOULD INCLUDE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL? YES.

INCLUDING, UM, UH, YES.

IT IN A, IN A NUTSHELL YES IT IS.

AND WOULD IT COVER, WOULD IT ALLOW YOU TO DO DEMAND RESPONSE BOTH FOR SOME, FOR ANY SEASON OR ANY PERIOD THAT YOU NEEDED IT? IN OTHER WORDS, WE COULD USE IT FOR WINTER AS WELL? YES.

OKAY, GOOD.

UM, AND UM, IS THERE ANY KIND OF MEGAWATT GOAL AS PART OF THIS OR IS IT MORE LET'S GET ALL THE DEMAND RESPONSE WE CAN.

WELL, IT'S FOR ALL THE DEMAND RESPONSE WE CAN GET.

IT'S A, UH, CONTRACT WITH, UH, THE DOLLARS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.

SO 12.5 MILLION OVER FIVE YEARS, AN INITIAL 2.5 MILLION FOR 12 MONTH INTERVAL AND THEN FOUR SUCCESSIVE, UH, ONE, UH, 12 MONTH INTERVALS.

OKAY.

AND WE CAN ALWAYS, IF THEY DON'T DO A GOOD JOB, WE CAN ALWAYS SAY ENERGY HUB HERE.

WELL, YEAH, WE WOULD EVALUATE THEM, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE FIRST YEAR AND, UH, NOT RENEW.

OKAY.

ON AND SUCCESSIVE YEARS IF THEY FELL SHORT.

OKAY, GREAT.

OF PERFORMANCE.

DO, DO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE ENERGY HUB? DEMAND RESPONSE CONTRACT? UM, YEAH, SO THERE IS, THERE, IS THERE A, IS THERE A GOAL PER YEAR FOR THE MEGAWATTS? LIKE, UM, THERE'S A PROJECTION, I WOULD SAY A FORECAST, BUT I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC GOAL.

IT'S AN AGGREGATION FOR OUR PARTNER, PARTNER THERMOSTAT PROGRAM, OUR POWER PARTNER ELECTRIC VEHICLE PROGRAM.

AND THE GOAL I GUESS WOULD BE MORE IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF CONNECTED DEVICES THAT WE WOULD HAVE.

WE, WE HOPE TO EXPAND TO 20,000 THERMOSTATS AND 6,000 ELECTRIC VEHICLES, UH, PER YEAR.

SO THOSE WOULD BE OUR GOALS.

AND COULD, COULD IT, IT INCLUDE, I MEAN, IF WE WERE TO HAVE A LOT OF, UM, WATER HEAT PUMPS OR SPACE HEAT PUMPS OUT IN THE COMING YEARS, CAN THOSE BE ADD I GUESS? WELL, I GUESS THE HEAT PUMPS COULD BE ADDED.

YEAH.

WHAT COULD, COULD WE ADD WATER HEAT PUMPS TO THIS? YEAH.

ANY, IT, IT, IS IT, IS IT BROAD ENOUGH TO USE DIFFERENT APPLIANCES? YEAH.

PER, PER THE, THE NATURE OF THIS CONTRACT, WE'RE ABLE TO AGGREGATE ACROSS DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES, DIFFERENT SOURCES.

SO ANY DEVICE THAT WE WOULD ADD TO THE PROGRAM, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO AGGREGATE UNDER THIS CONTRACT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE? M**K SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER TWO? I THINK IT'S EIGHT TO NOTHING.

YEAH.

UM, NEXT STEP

[4. Recommend authorizing negotiation and execution of a contract for Arc-Rated clothing and related goods and services, with Tyndale Company, Inc., for up to five years for a total contract amount not to exceed $4,075,000.]

UH, THAT'S ME THOUGH.

UM, YEAH, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF SOMEONE COULD EXPLAIN TO US, UH, THAT ITEM, 'CAUSE IT'S FOR, IT APPEARS, UH, PURCHASING UNIFORMS AND I KNOW WE'RE USED TO SEEING VERY LARGE DOLLAR, UH, FIGURES ON OUR AGENDA ITEMS, BUT, UH, THIS ONE IS LIKE, I GUESS $4 MILLION.

UM, AND I GUESS, YEAH, IF SOMEONE CAN EXPLAIN LIKE IF WE, THAT'S 800,000 A YEAR, RIGHT? SO IF WE'RE BUYING UNIFORMS IN YEAR ONE THAT ARE WE STILL SPENDING ANOTHER 800,000 FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS? RIGHT? SO, SO AGAIN, REALLY JUST, UH, SO WE COULD HAVE IT ON THE RECORD FOR THE PUBLIC WHO MIGHT BE WONDERING WHY ARE YOU SPENDING $4 MILLION ON UNIFORMS? 'CAUSE IT MAY BE THAT THERE'S A BUNCH MORE THERE THAT THAT IS, UH, BEING ACTUALLY PURCHASED AS WELL.

SO JUST SOME FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

HI, THIS IS KATHLEEN GARRETT, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY.

UM, THAT IS FOR FIRE RETARDANT UNIFORMS FOR OUR A LINEMEN AND FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THE POWER PLANTS.

SO IT'S DEFINITELY COSTS MORE THAN JUST YOUR NORMAL, UH, UNIFORM SHIRT BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE REQUIRED, I MEAN, IT'S FIRE RETARDANT ARC FLASH ARC RATED, SO IT'S PERSONAL, PERSONAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FOR OUR A LINEMEN AND OUR, AND OUR FOLKS THAT WORK OUT AT THE POWER PLANTS AND SUBSTATIONS.

AND SO THOSE UNIFORMS HAVE TO GET CHANGED OUT REGULARLY.

THEY HAVE TO BE

[00:35:01]

SO IF YOU GET A TIER IN ONE OF 'EM OR ANYTHING HAPPENS TO IT OR IT WEARS OUT, YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO CONSTANTLY, CONSTANTLY BE REPLACING THOSE TYPES OF UNIFORMS. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR? I MEAN, IT DID AND IT DIDN'T, BUT I GUESS HOW, HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO WE HAVE WHO USE THAT KIND OF UNIFORM? ELTON HOW MANY LINEMEN DO YOU HAVE? UH, THERE'S PROBABLY FOUR LINEMEN AND THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 200 IN PLANTS.

SO PROBABLE CODE TO 800 ACCOUNT SUPERVISOR.

800 APPROXIMATELY.

ALL RIGHT.

WELL I THINK THAT, UH, THAT'S A LOT OF EMPLOYEES AND THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BE PROTECTED.

SO, UH, I APPRECIATE Y'ALL GIVING US THAT, UH, ADDITIONAL DETAILS.

SO, UM, MR. CHAIR, UH, I'LL MOVE APPROVAL.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

WE HAVE A FIRST.

ANYONE WANT A SECOND? JOSH? RHODE SECONDS.

ALL IN FAVOR OF 4 MILLION FOR UNIFORMS. I I DON'T MEAN THAT SARCASTICALLY.

IT'S IMPORTANT.

AGE, H AGE, AND NOTHING CAN THEY BE BRIGHT ORANGE? THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION.

.

THANKS.

YOU

[11. Recommend authorizing negotiation and execution of a contract to support implementation of Austin Energy’s multifamily focused energy efficiency program with CLEAResult Consulting, Inc., for up to five years for a total contract amount not to exceed $5,700,000.]

YES, 11.

YOU HAVE SOMEBODY'S, UH, YOU KNOW, AVAILABLE TO, UH, 'CAUSE I BELIEVE, AGAIN, THIS IS AN, I THINK THIS IS A $5 MILLION CONTRACT AND IT'S TO AGAIN, JUST THE VERBIAGE AND THE CONTRACT SAYS IT'S TO KINDA LIKE HELP PEOPLE SIGN UP FOR A PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE.

UM, SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, MULTIFAMILY, UH, SORT OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM OF SOME KIND.

UH, SO IF SOMEONE CAN EXPLAIN LIKE WHY WE NEED SOMEONE TO HELP PEOPLE SIGN UP FOR A PROGRAM THAT COSTS, YOU KNOW, IT'S 5.7 MILLION, BUT YOU KNOW, FOR FIVE YEARS, UM, KIND OF WHAT'S INVOLVED.

AND THEN MAYBE HOW MANY, AGAIN, WHETHER IT'S MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX OWNERS OR WHETHER IT'S INDIVIDUALS WHO LIVE IN THIS COMPLEX, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S AGAIN, WORKING WITH THE OWNER OR WORKING WITH RESIDENTS IN THESE COMPLEXES.

SO JUST MORE, UH, DETAIL OF SURE.

THIS IS, UH, RICHARD GENESEE, AGAIN, VICE PRESIDENT OF CUSTOMER ENERGY SOLUTIONS.

AUSTIN ENERGY.

UM, LIKE YOU INDICATED, IT'S A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT AND THE DETAILS OF THE CONTRACT ARE REALLY FOR MANAGING THE MULTIFAMILY ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM ACROSS THE BOARD.

SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE EDUCATION, QUALITY CONTROL, PROJECT MANAGEMENT, AND RECRUITING BOTH NEW MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS AND, UH, EXISTING PROPERTY MANAGE OR PROPERTY, UH, MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS FOR NEW MEASURES.

AND SO, UH, WE WILL DEPLOY NEW DEMAND RESPONSE ENABLING SMART DEVICES THAT WILL REWARD CUSTOMERS FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION WHILE PROVIDING VALUABLE GRID MANAGEMENT RESOURCES TO THE UTILITY.

UH, SO THESE MEASURES ARE PART OF THE MULTIFAMILY REBATE PROGRAM, UH, TO ASSIST IN MEETING OUR ENERGY EFFICIENCY GOALS.

AND, UH, THERE WERE, UH, SO THIS WAS AWARDED BY COMPETITIVE, UH, RFP, UH, THERE WERE FOUR APPLICANTS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE SUCCESS, UH, SELECTED THE HIGHEST, UH, IT'S A RATING SYSTEM.

UH, THEY ALL GET, UH, EVALUATED AND RATED AND THEN WE SELECT THE, UM, UH, UH, THE AWARDEE THAT RATES THE HIGHEST OUT OF ALL OF THEM.

AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT ARE CONSIDERED, BUT THIS MONEY, UM, IS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THOSE PROGRAMS BASICALLY.

BUT THE ACTUAL INCENTIVES, LIKE FOR THE DEVICES WOULD GO TO THE, THE BUILDING OWNER.

YEAH.

THE, THE INCENTIVES GO TO THE BUILDING OWNER.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE IN MULTIFAMILY EFFORTS WHERE WE CAN, UH, INCENTIVIZE THE BUILDING OWNER AND THE TENANT AS WELL.

SO, UH, YES, BUT THE, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THIS GOES TO THE, UH, CONTRACTING COMPANY THAT WOULD BE MANAGING THE PROGRAM ON OUR BEHALF.

LET ME, UH, RICHARD, IF I COULD ASK, UH, WHY, WHY IS IT, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF COULD NOT, UH, DO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAM? DID YOU, AUSTIN, DID YOU LOOK AT EMPLOYEES? YEAH, THAT WE ACTUALLY TRANSITIONED FROM THAT TO THIS MODEL.

SO WE WERE, UH, WORKING WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF UP UNTIL THIS DATE.

UH, THE FEELING WAS THE NEXT, UM, YOU KNOW, PHASE OF THE PROGRAM AND ITS EXPANSION AND SCOPE EXCEEDED JUST STAFF CAPABILITIES AND WE NEEDED TO ACTUALLY BRING RESOURCES ON BOARD TO MANAGE THE PROGRAM FOR US.

I, I, I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS IF IT, IF THERE WERE PROBLEMS LEADING

[00:40:01]

IT WAS A MATTER OF, UM, ARE STAFF BETTER PREPARED OR ARE AS A COMPANY OR AS A CONTRACTOR BETTER PREPARED TO SCALE US ACCORDINGLY? AND I MEAN, IN, IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF, UH, RESOURCES WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY DEPLOY THE PROGRAM, WE'VE GROWN THE PROGRAM, UH, YOU KNOW, FROM FOUR, UH, PARTICIPATING CONTRACTORS NOW IN, UH, FY 24 TO A PARTICIPATING 12 CONTRACTORS.

AND WE WOULD LOOK TO SCALE BEYOND THAT.

UM, SO THIS COMPANY THAT'S SELECTED HAS THE EXPERTISE TO DO THAT AND THE EXPERIENCE TO DO THAT COST EFFECTIVELY AND FRANKLY MORE COST EFFECTIVELY THAN WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO WITH JUST LIMITED STAFF.

YEAH, I WILL SAY THAT SAME COMPANY RUNS A LOT OF THE, A LOT OF THE PRIVATE UTILITY CONTRACTS FOR THIS KIND OF WORK, LIKE AT ENCORE AND CENTERPOINT IS DONE BY THIS COMPANY.

SO I THINK THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE QUITE A BIT OF EXPERIENCE, UM, AS I THINK PROBABLY JONATHAN AND OTHERS MIGHT KNOW.

DID YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, RAUL, OR, AND SO I GUESS THE, 'CAUSE YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT CONTRACTORS BEING TRAINED UP TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM, BUT I THINK THIS IS FOR MULTIFAMILY.

YEAH, I GUESS I'M, I'M HAVING TO, I'M HAVING TROUBLE KIND OF UNDERSTANDING, UM, WHO WE'RE WORKING WITH HERE OR IS, IS IT THE CONTRACTOR TRAINED CONTRACTORS TO HELP MULTIFAMILY OPERATORS OR OWNERS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE PROGRAMS? UM, OR IS IT FOR THIS COMPANY TO GO AND FIND MORE FOLKS AND SIGN 'EM UP FOR THESE, UH, ENERGY ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS? THIS, THIS CONTRACT IS FOR THE COMPANY THAT WE WOULD HIRE TO ESSENTIALLY RUN THE PROGRAM, WHICH INCLUDES THE MYRIAD OF RESPONSIBILITIES FROM, UM, UH, ENROLLING CONTRACTORS TO ACTUALLY WORK ON AND DEPLOY THE PROGRAM.

AND ALSO WHICH PROPERTIES WHICH ARE GONNA GO AFTER IN TERMS OF, UH, SCALING THE PROGRAM.

SO IT WOULD BE, UH, BOTH.

GREAT.

UH, AND SO YOU SAY WE WENT FROM FOUR TO LIKE 12.

IS THERE LIKE A TARGET THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REACH BESIDES AS MANY AS WE CAN TRAIN ? WELL, AS MANY AS WE CAN DO COST EFFECTIVELY AND AFFORDABLY IS, IS HOW I WOULD ANSWER THAT AND TO SCALE ACCORDINGLY.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER, BUT I THINK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS CONTRACTED COMPANY WOULD HELP US DETERMINE, UH, WHAT THAT NUMBER IS AS WE, AS WE GROW THE PROGRAM.

YEAH, WELL I THINK I CERTAINLY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KIND OF GETTING LIKE A MID-YEAR REPORT ON KIND OF HOW, HOW THE, HOW THIS CONTRACT OR HOW THIS WORK IS PROCEEDING.

SO, UH, UM, BUT THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS AND HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IF NO ONE HAS OTHER QUESTIONS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? A SECOND.

TER ROLL'S.

UM, MOTION TO APPROVE JOSH.

OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING 5.7 MILLION UP TO SI 5.7 MILLION FOR CLEAR RESULTS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

UM, LET'S SEE.

, I DON'T SEE YOU ON.

THERE WE GO.

HE, HE APPROVES AS WELL.

SO EIGHT TO NOTHING.

THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE, YOU ACTUALLY NEED TO GO BACK TO NUMBER 13.

OH OH, NUMBER

[13. Recommend approval of a capacity-based incentive to Travis County Healthcare District, for installation of solar electric systems on their facility located at 7050 Elroy Road Del Valle, TX 78617, in an amount not to exceed $80,280. ]

UM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE NUMBER 13, WHICH IS A CAPACITY BASED INCENTIVE TO TRAVIS COUNTY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT FOR SOLAR.

ANYONE WANNA MAKE THAT MOTION? SO MOVED.

SECOND.

SECOND.

OH, RAUL, RAUL GETS A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY.

SEVEN WITH ONE RECUSAL THAT IS APPROVED AS WELL.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR CATCHING NUMBER.

LUCKY NUMBER 13.

AND NOW WE GO TO I BELIEVE, STAFF PRESENTATIONS.

[17. Staff briefing and process update on the Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan by Lisa Martin, Deputy General Manager and Chief Operating Officer, Lynda Rife, President of Rifeline, and Dr. Michael Webber of The University of Texas at Austin. ]

GOOD EVENING, ACTING CHAIR, REED AND COMMISSIONERS.

I'M LISA MARTIN, AUSTIN ENERGY'S CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER HERE TO GIVE THE INTRO TO TONIGHT'S, UH, GENERATION RESOURCE AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN UPDATE.

UM, I JUST WANNA SET FOR THE COMMISSION A REMINDER ABOUT WHERE WE ARE IN THE STAGE OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING.

[00:45:01]

UM, WE ARE CURRENTLY IN PHASE TWO, WHICH IS A FOCUS ON WHAT'S THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS, WHAT'S THE FUTURE STATE WE CAN EXPECT, WHAT ARE THE RISKS AND WHAT IS EVERYONE'S TOLERANCES FOR THAT.

UM, AFTER THAT WE'LL MOVE TO OUR THIRD PHASE, WHICH IS TALKING ABOUT OBJECTIVES AND OPTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE FINAL STAGE, WHICH IS SOLUTIONING.

SO WE'RE NOT, UM, AT SOLUTIONING YET TONIGHT YOU WILL FIRST HEAR A PRESENTATION FROM DR. MICHAEL WEBER.

HE'LL BE PROVIDING A PRESENTATION THAT HE COMMUNICATED TO THE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER GROUP AND THEN TO THE, UH, UH, UTILITY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

UM, AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU SAW THAT PRESENTATION AS WELL.

UM, FOLLOWING THAT, LINDA RIF OF RIF LINE WILL BE HERE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN UPDATE ON HOW THIS PRESENTATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS.

UM, ESSENTIALLY THAT'S A SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP NUMBER TWO HELD LAST MONTH.

AND THEN WE'LL WRAP UP TONIGHT'S, UM, JEN PLAN, UPDATE WITH MICHAEL ANGER PROVIDING AN UPDATE ON THE PORTFOLIOS SENSITIVITIES AND SCENARIOS THAT WE HAVE PROVIDED TO YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR FEEDBACK BEFORE WE BEGIN THE MODELING PHASE.

SO I'LL START OFF WITH DR. MICHAEL WEBER.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

AND CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME OKAY IN THE ROOM? YEAH, I CAN HEAR YOU.

OKAY.

I PROBABLY LOOK LIKE I'M IN A PRISON CELL OR SOMETHING.

I'M IN A LITTLE PHONE BOOTH IN A AIRPORT LOUNGE AT JFK AIRPORT NEW YORK.

SO, UH, SORRY FOR THE WEIRD LIGHTING.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT MY FACE, I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THE THINKING WE'VE BEEN DOING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS.

SO I'VE GOT A STUDENT, EMILY ARNUM AND A RESEARCH ASSOCIATE DR.

Y GLAZER, PART OF THIS WORK ON LOOKING AT SOME OF THE DEMAND CHANGES THAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE COMING YEARS IN AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA.

IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, AND NEXT SLIDE.

AND NEXT SLIDE AND NEXT SLIDE.

A LOT OF THAT IS JUST BASICS.

I THINK MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS KNOW.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO REMIND PEOPLE IS THE CHALLENGE BEFORE IS, SO WE'VE HEARD IT FROM SOME OF THE OPENING SPEAKERS, IS THAT THE NEED AND DESIRE AND REALLY I THINK THE MORAL AND ETHICAL IMPERATIVE TO DECARBONIZE THE GRID, GETTING THE GRID TO, UH, AS LOW EMISSIONS AS POSSIBLE IS VERY IMPORTANT.

BUT WE ALSO NEED TO SIMULTANEOUSLY EXPAND IT BECAUSE THE EXPANDED GRID WILL BE NECESSARY FOR DECARBONIZING THE BROADER ECONOMY.

THERE ARE A LOT OF USES OF FOSSIL FUELS, FOR EXAMPLE, GASOLINE AND CARS OR NATURAL GAS FOR COOKING AND HEATING OUR HOMES THAT IF WE ELECTRIFY, WOULD LEAD TO LOWER EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE CRITERIA OF POLLUTANTS.

SO WE NEED TO EXPAND THE GRID TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE NEW LOADS, THOSE OTHER FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION PURPOSES IN SOCIETY, AS WELL AS CLEAN THE GRID AS A WHOLE JUST TO MEET OUR EXISTING ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE LOADS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO ON TOP OF THE ENERGY TRANSITION NEXT SLIDE.

FROM MY VIEW, WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED THE ENERGY TRANSITION IN THE UNITED STATES.

THIS IS A GOOD NEWS STORY.

I GUESS WE'RE ABOUT 10 TO 15 YEARS INTO A 30 TO 40 YEAR TRANSITION.

AND BY TRANSITION WHAT I MEAN IS MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO ENERGY SERVICES, BUT IN A CLEANER WAY WITH LOWER GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAN WHAT WE DID BEFORE.

PEAK GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, THE UNITED STATES WAS AROUND 2006 TO 2008 AND HAS BEEN DECLINING SINCE THEN, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE RISE OF WIND AND SOLAR AND CHEAPER NATURAL GAS DISPLACING COAL, BUT ALSO THROUGH EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS LIKE APPLIANCE, UH, STANDARDS AND FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS AND THAT KIND OF THING.

THERE ARE A VARIETY OF WAYS TO GET THE ECONOMY ALL THE WAY TO ZERO OR NET ZERO.

A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOKED AT THIS, MY GROUP AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HAS LOOKED AT IT, BUT SO OTHER UNIVERSITIES LIKE PRINCETON AND OTHER AGENCIES LIKE THE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION AT THE US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND IN PARIS, THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY.

AND THE GOAL HERE IS TO FIGURE OUT, WELL, HOW CAN WE REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS, UM, ALL THE WAY TO ZERO OR REMOVE CO2 OF NET ZERO TO GET A NET ZERO EFFECT.

AND, UM, ALL OF US THOUGH WE HAVE DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS AND COME TO SOME MAYBE DIFFERENCES AT THE EDGE FOR THE MOST PART, COME TO THE SAME SETS OF CONCLUSIONS WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT.

AND SOME OF THE DIFFERENT TRADE-OFFS WITH REGIONAL VARIABILITY.

NOT EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO EC GEOTHERMAL ENERGY, FOR EXAMPLE.

NOT EVERYONE HAS EASY ACCESS TO HYDROELECTRIC, BUT WITH, UH, GEOGRAPHIC VARIABILITY ASIDE, THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS TO GET TO NET ZERO, WHICH IS GREAT AND DOING SO IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY, WHICH IS GREAT TO KNOW.

AND THEN WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT GETTING TO NET ZERO OR CARBON NEUTRAL, MEANING YOU ALLOW SOME EMISSIONS IN ONE PART OF SOCIETY, BUT THEN REMOVE THEM END UP BEING CHEAPER, FASTER, MORE EQUITABLE THAN GOING TO COMPLETELY ZERO CARBON OR CARBON FREE SOLUTIONS.

THERE, THERE ARE WAYS TO GET SOCIETY TO ZERO CARBON, UH, OR SAY CARBON FREE WHERE THERE ARE NO EMISSIONS ANYWHERE.

BUT MOST OF US DOING THIS WITH AN OBJECTIVE OF MINIMIZING COST AND ACCELERATING AND GOING AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND KEEPING EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND, UM, HAVE CONCLUDED THAT SOME EMISSIONS THAT ARE THEN REMOVED ENDS UP BEING CHEAPER, FASTER, MORE EQUITABLE.

SO THAT'S A, A BROAD SORT OF META CONCLUSION FROM THESE DIFFERENT STUDIES AND I CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.