Aug 12, 2024 Electric Utility Commission

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]

FUTURE.

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.

IS PUSHING THE CONTINGENCY RESERVE SERVICE OR ECRS TO ENCOURAGE QUICKSTART GAS PLANTS WITHIN MONTHS OF ECRS.

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.

INVESTING IN A HYDROGEN CAPABLE PLANT WILL LOCK US INTO FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE.

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.

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.

MOST OF THE PORTFOLIOS THAT AE HAS PUT FORWARD IN VISION AND INCREASED USE, UH, IN FOSSIL FUELS, WHETHER IT'S DIRECTLY BY AE POTENTIALLY TO PRODUCE HYDROGEN OR BY RELYING ON THE ERCOT GRID, THEY SPECIFY THAT ONLY STACK CO2 EMISSIONS COUNT AND MANY PORTFOLIO PORTFOLIOS EVEN PUSH BACK THE DATE OF FAYETTE'S RETIREMENT.

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.

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.

I'M OPPOSED BIG SURPRISE TO THE PROPOSED AUSTIN ENERGY HYBRID GAS PLANT.

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]

IS APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FROM JULY.

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.

THEN WE HAVE ITEMS TWO THROUGH 16.

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.

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.

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]

THE SECOND WAS.

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. ]

TO NUMBER TWO.

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.

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.

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.

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.

WAS ITEM FOUR WHO HAD A QUESTION ON ITEM FOUR.

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]

MAINTAINED AND CHANGED OUT ON A REGULAR BASIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.

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.

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.

ALSO HAD A QUESTION ON 11 OR SOMEONE DID.

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.

TO THIS, UH, OUTSOURCING OF A, OF A PROGRAM, IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU NEEDED F MORE FTES, WHY NOT ASK, ASK THE CITY FOR MORE FTES INSTEAD OF MAKING IT A BUDGET ISSUE? UH, IT WASN'T REALLY A MATTER OF, UH, NEEDING MORE FTES.

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.

I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO'S UP FIRST, LISA.

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. ]

13.

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.

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]

WE STARTED WITH A FOUR PHASE PROCESS, THE FIRST PHASE BEING FOCUSED ON WHAT ARE THE VALUES AND DEFINITIONS, UM, THAT ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS COLLECTIVELY SHARE.

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.

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

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.

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.

NO EMISSIONS NET ZERO, WHAT IS THE TRADE OFF? IN OTHER WORDS, FROM A STANDPOINT, FROM A STANDPOINT WITHIN OUR LOAD ZONE, WHERE WOULD THIS COME FROM IN TERMS OF, UH, NOT JUST LOAD SHIFTING WITHIN A DAY, WITHIN A DAY, UH, LOAD MANAGEMENT, BUT RATHER, UH, PROTECT US FROM THE NEXT STORM? THAT, UH, GREAT COMPLEX SET OF QUESTIONS.

UH, I HAVE A QUESTION.

UH, ON NET SEA, ON NET ZERO VERSUS CARBON FREE, UH, CERTAINLY CARBON FREE,

[00:50:01]

I WONDER IF I SHOULD JUST GO THROUGH THE SLIDES BECAUSE I MIGHT ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND THEN COME BACK TO IT.

BUT THE, THE TRADE OFFS, UH, GREAT QUESTION.

THE TRADE-OFFS ARE REALLY AROUND, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE, LIKE WHAT'S CLEANEST ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S MOST AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE AS WELL AS RELIABILITY.

AND THERE'S NO EASY SOLUTION AND THERE'S NO ONE SOLUTION.

UM, THERE ARE MANY TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX AND SO HAVING MORE TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX SO TO SPEAK, GIVES YOU A MORE ROBUST SYSTEM, BUT YOU NEED TO REDUCE EMISSIONS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

SO THE WAY I THINK OF IT IS, DO YOUR BEST AND CLEAN UP THE REST.

AND I'LL, I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT AT A NATIONAL SCALE.

WE'VE ALREADY REDUCED OUR EMISSIONS FROM 6 BILLION TONS A YEAR TO UNDER 5 BILLION TONS A YEAR.

SO WE'RE HEADED THE RIGHT WAY.

I WOULD ARGUE WE'RE NOT HEADED THE RIGHT WAY FAST ENOUGH, BUT WE'RE HEADED THE RIGHT WAY AT LEAST.

AND THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD YOU GO FROM 6 BILLION TONS ALL THE WAY TO ZERO OR IS IT CHEAPER TO GO FROM LIKE SIX TO 1 BILLION TONS NATIONALLY AND THEN REMOVE A BILLION TONS SOMEWHERE ELSE? SO THAT'S KIND OF THE QUESTION.

AND IT MIGHT COME DOWN TO WHAT YOUR VALUES ARE AND WHAT YOU COULD AFFORD AND WHAT'S FASTEST AND THAT KIND OF THING IN THE ANSWER WILL BE DIFFERENT FOR AUSTIN THAN SAY FOR SEATTLE.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT FACTORS TO CONSIDER INTO THAT.

BUT LET ME WALK THROUGH SOME OF THESE 'CAUSE I THINK I MIGHT END UP ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.

IF NOT, PLEASE ASK IT AGAIN.

UH, THE PRIORITY ORDER THAT MOST OF US COME TO CONCLUDE IS THAT YOU SHOULD START WITH EFFICIENCY.

I THINK WE HEARD THAT FROM AT LEAST ONE OF OUR SPEAKERS EARLIER TODAY FROM, UM, PUBLIC COMMENT, EFFICIENCY TENDS TO BE THE CHEAPEST, FASTEST, BEST THING TO DO.

AND THE GOOD NEWS, ALL SYNERGY IS ACTUALLY ALREADY DONE A LOT OF THIS.

WE'RE A NATIONAL INTERNATIONAL LEADER.

THAT MEANS THERE ARE FEWER THINGS TO DO.

THERE'S SO A LOT OF EFFICIENCY TO DO, BUT SOME OF THE EASY EFFICIENCY THINGS HAVE BEEN, UM, BEEN DONE.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT THE GOOD NEWS OF HAVING DONE EFFICIENCY IS IT BOUGHT US A LOT OF TIME AND SAVES US A LOT OF HEADACHE.

SO THIS IS GREAT IF YOU'RE IN HOUSTON OR SOME OTHER PLACES, EFFICIENCY IS EVEN A BIGGER FIRST STEP YOU COULD TAKE 'CAUSE THEY HAVEN'T REALLY DONE THAT MUCH YET.

THE NEXT STEP IS ELECTRIFICATION.

ELECTRIFYING AS MUCH OF SOCIETY AS YOU CAN, ESPECIALLY LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES OPERATING ON GASOLINE AND THE HOME HEATING OR COOKING, WHICH IS OFF OF NATURAL GAS.

IF YOU'RE IN LIKE NEW ENGLAND, YOU MIGHT BE DOING THAT HOME HEATING OR COOKING OFF OF FUEL OIL, WHICH IS EVEN WORSE.

AND IF WE'RE GOING TO ELECTRIFY LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES AND HOME HEATING AND COOKING, WE WILL LIKELY NEED TO EXPAND THE GRID TO ACCOMMODATE HIGHER PEAK POWER DEMANDS AT PEAK TIMES OR NET PEAK TIMES.

THAT'S IN SAY GIGAWATTS AND ANNUAL CONSUMPTION IN GIGAWATT HOURS, A TERAWATT HOURS.

SO WE SHOULD ELECTRIFY AS MUCH AS WE CAN AND THAT WOULD HAVE A LOT OF AIR QUALITY BENEFITS AS WELL AS CLIMATE BENEFITS AS WELL AS FINANCIAL BENEFITS FOR THE CITY.

BUT THE PARTS OF SOCIETY THAT ARE DIFFICULT OR INTRACTABLE OR VERY EXPENSIVE TO ELECTRIFY, THEN YOU'D USE CLEAN MOLECULES.

AND THAT MIGHT BE THINGS LIKE BIO METHANE.

UH, WE ALREADY MAKE SOME BIO METHANE IN THE AUSTIN AREA FROM LANDFILL GAS AND KIND OF THING, OR HYDROGEN OR HYDROGEN CARRIERS, HYDROGEN CARRIERS OR MOLECULES LIKE AMMONIA OR METHANOL OR FORMIC ACID.

AND THIS WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR ACTIVITIES THAT ARE HARD TO ELECTRIFY.

WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF THAT IN AUSTIN, BUT AVIATION'S HARD TO ELECTRIFY SHIPPING SOME INDUSTRIAL HEAT CHEMICALS, MANUFACTURING, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE HARD TO ELECTRIFY, UH, AND THAT'S BASICALLY WE USE MOLECULES WHEREVER YOU CAN'T GET THE ELECTRONS EASILY THERE.

AND THEN THE LAST STEP, THIS IS WHERE YOU GET TO NET ZERO, IS CARBON MANAGEMENT.

EITHER USING CARBON SCRUBBING AT THE POINT OF EMISSIONS TO REMOVE THE CO2 BEFORE IT GOES IN THE ATMOSPHERE OR DIRECT AIR CAPTURE OR SOIL CARBON MANAGEMENT OR A FORESTATION OR REFORESTATION OR MARINE CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL, WHATEVER YOUR OPTIONS ARE TO REMOVE CO2 OUTTA THE ATMOSPHERE ONCE IT'S ALREADY THERE.

SO THOSE ARE THE, THE FOUR STEPS, STARTING WITH EFFICIENCY MAKES THE MOST SENSE, IS FASTEST TO DEPLOY AND GIVES US A LOT OF A LOT OF BENEFITS.

SO WE SHOULD DO THAT.

WE'VE BEEN DOING IT, WE SHOULD DO MORE.

ELECTRIFICATION IS THE NEXT OBVIOUS THING, AND THAT'S WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME TODAY TALKING ABOUT.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT LOW GROWTH IN ERCOT AND AUSTIN ENERGY AREA.

AND BASICALLY THE STORY OF TEXAS IS GROWTH, POPULATION GROWTH AND ECONOMIC GROWTH.

YOU NAME IT.

THAT MEANS PEAK DEMAND'S GONNA GO UP IN GIGAWATTS AS WELL AS CONSUMPTION, BUT WE'RE ALSO SEEING GROWTH IN TRANSMISSION CONGESTION BECAUSE IT'S EASIER TO BUILD POWER PLANTS AND LOAD LOADING THE CONSUMING APPLIANCES LIKE DATA CENTERS OR ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

IT'S EASIER TO BUILD THOSE IN THE TRANSMISSION.

SO THE TRANSMISSION CONSTRUCTION CANNOT KEEP UP AND THEREFORE WE HAVE, UH, EXPECTATIONS FOR MORE CONGESTION AS TIME GOES ON.

PEOPLE WHO LOOK AT CLEANING UP THE ECONOMY WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE ELECTRICITY AS WELL AS ESPECIALLY SPACE GASOLINE AND, AND HOME HEATING, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH NATURAL GAS.

AND WE SEE THESE GROWTH PROJECTIONS ON THE LEFT IN GIGAWATT HOURS FOR ERCOT AND ON THE RIGHT AND UM, MEGAWATTS, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEGAWATTS.

AND UH, MOST PEOPLE LOOKING AT THIS SAY, YEAH, PEAK DEMAND'S GONNA GROW.

IT WAS 82 PLUS, UM, GIGAWATTS LESS YEAR AND THEN, UH, WE WILL GROW PERHAPS TO 90 GIGAWATTS OR MORE.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHOSE PROJECTION YOU WANNA BELIEVE.

ERCOT SAYS IT'S GONNA GROW A LOT, THE DEVELOPERS BUILDING THINGS THAT IT'S GONNA GROW A LOT.

I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO THINK THAT DEMAND WILL GROW A LOT AS WELL AS CONSUMPTION AROUND THE YEAR FOR A VARIETY OF PURPOSES.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE, UM, THERE'S AGREEMENT ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, GOVERNOR ABBOTT AND, AND NEIL AND MUSK SAYING THE GRID NEEDS TO DOUBLE OR TRIPLE IN THE COMING TIME.

AND I THINK MOST ENVIRONMENTALISTS, MOST

[00:55:01]

ELECTRIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION, ELECTRIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL LOADS.

UH, LOW GROWTH IS ON THE WAY UP IN ERCOT IN TEXAS AND IN AUSTIN FOR A FEW REASONS.

WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL LOADS IN THE AUSTIN AREA, BUT WE DO HAVE DATA CENTERS.

WE HAVE SOME FACTORIES NOW, WHICH IS KIND OF, UH, NEW FOR US.

UM, BUT FOR ERCOT MORE BROADLY, OIL AND GAS IS ELECTRIFYING STEEL, ELECTRIFYING.

THERE'S A LOT OF NEW ELECTRIFIED INDUSTRIAL LOADS.

ELECTRIFICATION OF HOME HEATING AND COOKING, FOR EXAMPLE, GOING FROM NATURAL GAS COOKTOPS TO INDUCTION COOKTOPS AND FROM NATURAL GAS FURNACES TO ELECTRIC HEAT PUMPS.

THEN WE HAVE JUST POPULATION ECONOMIC GROWTH.

THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE AND THEY'RE GETTING RICHER AND SO THAT LEADS TO MORE ACTIVITY.

AND THEN WE HAVE THIS WILD WEATHER WHERE IT'S GETTING HOTTER IN THE SUMMER AND WE HAVE POLAR VORTICES WHERE IT CAN GET COLDER IN THE WINTER AND THOSE COLD SNAPS AND EXTENDED HEAT WAVES CAN REALLY DRIVE UP DEMAND IN GIGAWATTS AND CONSUMPTION IN GIGAWATT HOURS.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE SITUATION WHERE TRANSMISSION CAPACITY, AS I MENTIONED IS SCARCITY AND SCARCER.

THAT CAN BE AN ISSUE FOR REMOTE RENEWABLES.

WE DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SOLAR IN THE OSS ENERGY SERVICE AREA.

THE WIND RESOURCE AND AUSTINS ENERGY SERVICE AREA IS QUITE BAD.

SO IF WE WANT TO USE MORE WIND, THAT TYPICALLY IS REMOTE AND THE REALLY LARGE SOLAR FARMS TEND TO BE REMOTE AS WELL.

AND SO THAT PUTS US POTENTIALLY RISK OF HAVING TO PAY FOR EXPENSIVE TRANSMISSION CHARGES.

LET'S LOOK AT AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA.

NEXT SLIDE IN PARTICULAR.

AND HERE ARE A SERIES OF CHARTS WE, WE'VE SHOWN.

UM, WE CAN SHARE OUR ASSUMPTIONS, BUT WE SHOW HISTORIC LOW GROWTH IN BLUE GOING BACKWARDS WITH A BUSINESS AS USUAL PROJECTION, DARK BLUE GOING FORWARD.

BUT ON TOP OF THAT, A FEW DIFFERENT COLORS.

IN, UH, IN SORT OF ORANGE THERE, A VERY THIN SLICE IS HOME ELECTRIFICATION PRIMARILY FOR HEATING AND COOKING.

AND THE BRIGHTER BLUE IS PROJECTIONS FOR GROWTH IN DATA CENTERS IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA.

AND THEN IN GREEN IS EV OR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING.

AND THAT'S IF EVERYONE CHARGES THEIR ELECTRIC VEHICLES WHEN THEY GET HOME FROM WORK, WHICH THEY PROBABLY WOULD NOT DO.

SO THIS IS CONSIDERED MAYBE A WORST CASE SCENARIO, BUT WHAT IT SHOWS IS THAT PEAK DEMAND GROWTH FROM ABOUT, UH, THREE GIGAWATTS TODAY OR LAST YEAR TO SOMETHING LIKE OVER SEVEN AND A HALF GIGAWATTS IN A DECADE AND A HALF.

SO SUBSTANTIAL LOW GROWTH IS POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE IF ELECTRIC VEHICLES ARE NOT SMARTLY MANAGED AND EVERYONE CHARGES THEM AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH SEEMS KIND OF PREPOSTEROUS YET AS A RISK WE NEED TO HAVE IN MIND.

SHOWN ON THE SAME CHART IN MAGENTA IS OUR RESOURCE THAT IS WITHIN THE SYNERGY SERVICE AREA, WHICH IS ABOUT TWO AND A HALF GIGAWATTS.

AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT BENGEN LINE DROPS AS TIME GOES ON AS DIFFERENT POWER PLANTS ARE SHUT DOWN OR AS PPAS OR AGREEMENTS FOR WIND FARMS AND SOLAR FARMS ROLL OFF BECAUSE THEY'LL HIT THE END OF LIFE, WHICH IS USUALLY LIKE 20 YEARS OR 25 YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO WE SEE, UH, DECLINING SUPPLY AND INCREASING DEMAND UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGES.

IF WE HAVE ROUND THE CLOCK CHARGING.

SO IF NOT EVERYBODY CHARGES THEIR EVS AT THE SAME TIME, BUT THEY SMOOTHLY CHARGE 'EM MEANING ABOUT 4% OR SO THE CARS ARE PLUGGED IN A GIVEN MOMENT.

THE LOW GROWTH IS STILL SIGNIFICANT BUT NOT NEARLY AS DRAMATIC AS WHAT I SHOWED YOU IN THE PRIOR CHART.

SO IT GOES FROM ABOUT THREE GIGAWATTS TO OVER FOUR GIGAWATTS.

UM, KEEPING THE HOME ELECTRIFICATION FOR HEATING AND COOKING AND DATA CENTERS GROWING.

BY THE WAY, THAT'S ABOUT 500 MEGAWATTS OF OF DATA CENTERS OR SO.

UM, IT'S REALLY HARD TO KNOW HOW MUCH DATA CENTER DEMAND WILL GROW OVER TIME AND UH, THIS IS ASSUMING THAT IT'S GONNA GO FROM ABOUT 125, WHICH IS TODAY TO ANOTHER 500 MEGAWATTS.

A LOT OF THAT LOW GROWTH OF DATA CENTERS MIGHT BE OUTSIDE OF AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA.

SOME OF THE REALLY BIG ONES THAT WERE JUST ANNOUNCED, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE AM BASTROP AND TAYLOR.

SO MAYBE THEY WON'T BE IN AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA.

YET AT THE SAME TIME, THE MOST CRITICAL THING FOR DATA CENTERS THESE DAYS IS RELIABILITY OF POWER AND SPEED WITH WHICH THEY CAN GET A UTILITY CONNECTION, IN WHICH CASE, AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA WILL BE DESIRABLE ON BOTH COUNTS.

AND IN FACT, IF WE JUST TAKE THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AS AN EXAMPLE, WE JUST WANT A BILLION DOLLAR SUPERCOMPUTER, A RESEARCH COMPUTER.

IT'S ABOUT A HALF BILLION TO BUILD IT AND A HALF HALF BILLION TO MANAGE IT OVER A DECADE.

THAT ONE COMPUTER WILL HAVE 30 MEGAWATTS OF DEMAND.

SO THAT'S NOT QUITE A DATA CENTER, THAT'S JUST ONE COMPUTER.

BUT UH, THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT DATA CENTER GROWTH MIGHT GO UP.

UM, AND IT MIGHT GO UP MORE STEEPLY THAN WHAT IT SHOWED, OR IT MIGHT GROW LESS STEEPLY, IT MIGHT BE MORE SHALLOW.

SO THESE ARE ALL JUST DIFFERENT PROJECTIONS OF HOW IT MIGHT GO.

BUT THE KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS CHART AND THE PRIOR ONE I SHOWED YOU IS THAT THE EVS ARE CHARGED AROUND THE CLOCK.

FOR THIS THIRD SCENARIO, THIS MATCHES ERCOT VIEW.

ERCOT ESTIMATE IS ABOUT 10% OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES BE CHARGED AT PEAK TIMES BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE SEEING SO FAR.

IT MAY BE GREAT IF EVERYONE CHARGED BETWEEN 10:00 PM AND SAY 6:00 AM IN FACT, TODAY IN NORTH TEXAS, TXU ANNOUNCED, UH, A PARTNERSHIP WITH FORD TO OFFER FREE NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS BASICALLY TO CHARGE.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.

UH, IN THIS CASE, FEWER PEOPLE WOULD CHARGE A PEAK TIME, BUT THIS MATCHES ERCOT VIEW ABOUT 10% OF VEHICLES WE CHARGED.

AND THEN YOU GET UP TO SOMETHING LIKE, UH, FOUR AND A HALF GIGAWATTS OF PEAK DEMAND.

SO SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH, 50% GROWTH, UM, OVER PEAK LAST YEAR.

[01:00:01]

I GUESS THE QUESTION YOU MIGHT CONSIDER IS HOW LIKELY THE RISK IS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GONNA ACT IN A SYNCHRONOUS WAY OR IS EVERYONE REALLY GONNA CHARGE THEIR CARS AT THE SAME TIME? AND I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION, BUT WE KNOW THIS HAPPENS FOR WEATHER BASED EVENTS.

WE TEND TO TURN OUR AIR CONDITIONERS WHEN IT'S HOT AND WE TEND TO TURN ON OUR HEATERS WHEN IT'S COLD.

BUT DO WE DO THAT FOR NON WEATHER RELATED ACTIVITIES? AND THE ANSWER IS YES.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE, I GIVE ONE EXAMPLE.

THIS IS A, A KIND OF A FUNNY ONE FROM ENGLAND.

THERE'S A VERY POPULAR SOAP OPERA CALLED THE EAST ENDERS ON BBC AND IT'S A KNOWN PHENOMENON TO THE GRID OPERATOR THAT WHEN THAT SHOW ENDS 1.75 MILLION ELECTRICITY KETTLES ARE TURNED ON ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY, WHICH CREATES A VERY SHORT SURGE OF THREE GIGAWATTS, AN ENTIRE AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA JUST TO HEAT THE WATER FOR TEA DRINKERS WHO ARE MAKING THE TEA AFTER THE SHOW ENDS.

AND SO GRID OPERATORS KNOW IT'S PRETTY PREDICTABLE.

SO THEY HAVE STANDBY POWER FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN FRANCE, BUT ALSO PUMPED HYDRO ELECTRIC FROM WHALES JUST TO MEET THIS NEED.

THIS IS NOT WEATHER DRIVEN, IT'S BASED ON THE SHOW IN THE UNITED STATES.

INSTEAD OF UH, TEA KETTLES, IT'S FLUSHING.

WE HAVE THE SUPER BOWL FLUSH WHERE WE ALL FLUSH OUR TOILETS AT THE SAME TIME WHEN THERE'S A COMMERCIAL BREAK.

AND SO THE TOP SHOWS, UH, A SURGE IN WATER POLE FROM THE RESERVOIR IN NEW YORK ON SUPER BOWL SUNDAY IN 2018 AND BELOW THE SUNDAY PRIOR.

WHERE DO YOU SEE THE WATER PRESSURE DROPS OVER TIME, BASICALLY, BUT THERE'S A BIG SURGE AT DIFFERENT TIMES WHEN YOU HAVE SAY END OF HALFTIME OR END OF THE SUPER BOWL OR DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL BREAKS WHERE WE ALL FLUSH OUR TOILETS AT THE SAME TIME.

AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS A, UH, TRAFFIC JAM.

THIS IS 2017 THANKSGIVING TRAFFIC.

SO WE ARE CAPABLE OF HAVING A LOT OF PEOPLE DO THE EXACT SAME THING ACROSS A WIDE GEOGRAPHIC AREA AND THAT'S THE RISK FOR US ENERGY WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

WHETHER ELECTRIC VEHICLES BREAK OR SAVE THE GRID BASICALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT TIME OF DAY YOU CHARGE THEM.

THIS HAS BEEN A KNOWN RISK FOR A LONG TIME.

I'M SHOWING, UH, TWO FIGURES FROM A PAPER THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN 2008 LOOKING AT CALIFORNIA FOR 1,000,005 MILLION OR 10 MILLION PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES ON THE RIGHT SHOWS WHAT HAPPENS IF EVERYBODY PLUGS IN THEIR CARS AT PEAK TIMES.

IT WOULD DRIVE THE PEAK UP FROM 30 GIGAWATTS IN THIS CASE TO UH, NEARLY LIKE 43 OR SO GIGAWATTS.

SO THERE'D BE SUBSTANTIAL SURGE OF PEAK MANHOOD ONE PLUGS IN AT THE SAME TIME, BUT ON THE LEFT IS A MORE MANNER SITUATION.

IF YOU PLUG IN YOUR ELECTRIC VEHICLE IN THE OFF HOURS, SAY AFTER 10:00 PM OR BEFORE 7:00 AM YOU DON'T INCREASE PEAK DEMAND.

IN FACT, YOU DO WHAT'S CALLED, CALLED VALLEY FILLING.

YOU USE THOSE POWER PLANTS MORE AROUND THE CLOCK, WHICH ENDS UP LOWERING THE COST FOR EVERYBODY.

SO IF WE CAN GET ALLEVES TO CHARGE OFF PEAK, THAT SAVES MONEY FOR EVERYONE.

BUT IF WE ALL CHARGE ON PEAK, THAT WOULD STRAIN THE GRID FOR EVERYONE.

SO IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO FIGURE THIS OUT.

UH, THE FORECAST OF SHORTFALL AND GENERATING CAPACITY.

SIGNIFICANT.

THIS IS SOME OF THE SAME INFORMATION I SHOWED ON THE MAGENTA TRACE EARLIER FOR THOSE LOAD FORECAST, BUT THIS KIND OF SHOWS IT FOR DIFFERENT CLOSURE SCENARIOS FOR FAYETTE, UH, FAYETTE WILL CLOSE SOMEDAY.

AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHEN, RIGHT NOW THERE'S ABOUT TWO AND A HALF GIGAWATTS OF RESOURCE OR GENERATING CAPACITY IN THE PORTFOLIO THAT AUSTIN ENERGY CONTROLS.

BUT THERE'S A LOT OF ROLL OFFS THAT WILL HAVE IN THE FUTURE AS A POWER PLANT SHUT DOWN OR AS THESE PPAS AS POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS END.

AND SO WHAT WE SEE IS DECLINING RESOURCE IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY PORTFOLIO AT THE SAME TIME.

THAT DEMANDS GOING UP FROM THREE GIGAWATTS TO FOUR AND A HALF TO SEVEN AND A HALF GIGAWATTS DEPENDING ON WHICH SCENARIO I THINK IS MOST LIKELY.

UM, AND THAT MISMATCH IS THE CHALLENGE.

HOW DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCE ADEQUACY? YOU GOTTA GET IT FROM, YOU GOTTA GET THE RESOURCE FROM SOMEWHERE.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OPTIONS.

SO REALLY MORE THAN A COUPLE, BUT A LOT OF OPTIONS.

UH, SYNERGY HAS TO RE, UH, MEET RESOURCE ADVOCACY, WHICH MEANS BALANCING SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

BEEN DOING THAT FOR MANY YEARS, BUT I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO GROW.

I'VE CATEGORIZED THEM HERE.

JUST COMING BACK TO WHAT I SAID EARLIER, THERE ARE NON GENERATOR OPTIONS AND THERE ARE SEVERAL COMMENTS IN THE PUBLIC SESSION AT THE BEGINNING WHICH AFFIRM TO THIS POINT, ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS REALLY THE BEST, BIGGEST, FIRST FASTEST, CHEAPEST OPTION TO GET GOING.

AND SO WE SHOULD DO THAT IF WE HAVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND WE, WE KEEP THE LEGACY OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S LEADERSHIP ON THIS GOING, THAT WILL REDUCE THE NEED FOR MORE ELECTRICITY.

UH, KEEP IN MIND WE DID HAVE EFFICIENCY BUILT INTO OUR PROJECTION.

SO WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF ASSUMED THAT WE'LL KEEP DOING THAT THROUGH BUILDING CODES AND OTHER THINGS.

IN EFFECT, ADDING ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

THE GRID IS AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PLAY BECAUSE THE ELECTRIC DRIVE TRAIN IS SO MUCH MORE EFFICIENT THAN THE GASOLINE DRIVE TRAIN.

SO GOING FROM GASOLINE COMBUSTION ENGINES TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES IS AN EFFICIENCY PLAY, THOUGH IT EXPANDS THE GRID AND GOING FROM NATURAL GAS COOKTOPS AND NATURAL GAS FURNACES TO INDUCTION COOKTOPS OR ELECTRIC HEAT PUMPS IS ANOTHER EFFICIENCY PLAY.

IT EXPANDS THE GRID BUT IT REDUCES OUR FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION ELSEWHERE.

UH, ANOTHER ADVANTAGE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A MAJOR OUTAGE IN A HEAT WAVE OR A COLD SNAP, THE HOME WILL STAY AT A SAFE OR COMFORTABLE TEMPERATURE FOR LONGER.

AND SO IT HAS SOME BENEFITS TO HUMAN QUALITY LIFE AS WELL AS JUST HUMAN LIFE IN GENERAL.

FEWER PEOPLE WILL DIE.

ANOTHER OPTION IS DEMAND RESPONSE.

IT'S GREAT TO HEAR ABOUT THE POWER PARTNERS PROGRAMS AND THE ENERGY YOU HAVE AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO USE ADDITIONAL 20,000 THERMOSTATS.

I THINK I HEARD IN 6,000 ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY IN TERMS OF GRID BALANCING.

TURNING OFF LOADS THAT ARE NON-ESSENTIAL IS AS USEFUL FOR BALANCING THE GRID AS TURNING ON A POWER PLANT.

SO MORE OF THAT AND ALSO ENERGY'S

[01:05:01]

IT'S GREAT TO HEAR THAT DISCUSSION EARLIER.

AND SO THAT'S A NON GENERATOR OPTION.

AND THEN YOU CAN USE BATTERIES AND OTHER STORAGE SYSTEMS. UH, THEY'RE VERY HELPFUL.

BATTERIES ARE VERY COST COMPETITIVE.

THEY'RE VERY EFFICIENT IN ROUND THREAT THESE DAYS.

AND UH, WE'VE DONE SEPARATE RESEARCH ROSS ENERGY WHERE WE SEE VALUE ECONOMICALLY IN DISTRIBUTING BATTERIES AROUND THE DIFFERENT SUBSTATIONS AND FEEDERS FOR GOOD RELIABILITY PURPOSES.

THOSE ARE GREAT.

WE NEED MORE OF THEM.

THEY TEND TO BE LIMITED IN DURATION TODAY.

BATTERIES OFTEN HAVE TWO OR FOUR, MAYBE EIGHT HOURS OF DURATION.

THERE ARE SOME NEW BATTERY CHEMISTRIES THAT WILL LAST LIKE A HUNDRED HOURS.

THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE IS THE BATTERIES SO FAR DON'T LAST 5, 7, 9 OR 11 DAYS, WHICH ARE THE PERIODS OF TIME THAT CAN HAPPEN IN TEXAS WHERE YOU HAVE NEITHER WIND NOR SUN.

SO IT'S THE LONG DURATION STORAGE.

THAT'S A REAL CHALLENGE FOR BATTERIES SO FAR, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF INNOVATION HAPPENING.

THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS TO MEET RESOURCE ADEQUATE NEEDS.

PART OF RENEWABLES.

WE HEARD THAT FROM, UH, THE SPEAKERS BEFORE AND THIS IS ONE OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S GREAT AREAS OF LEADERSHIP.

I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO RENEW EXISTING OUT OF SERVICE AREA, UH, POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR WIND AND SOLAR, UH, POSSIBLY EVEN REPOWER THEM.

SOMETIMES YOU CAN PUT NEW, UH, URBAN SYSTEMS ON TOP OF THE TOWERS TO GET MORE POWER OUT OF WIND FARM.

SOMETIMES WHEN YOU REPLACE THE SOLAR PANELS YOU GET MORE POWER TO THE SOLAR PANELS.

SO REPOWERING AND EXPANDING THE POWER OUT OF EXISTING SITES IS GREAT.

HOWEVER, THE LAWS HAVE CHANGED SUCH THAT THE TAX TRANSFERABILITY OF POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT AS ATTRACTIVE.

SO IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE FOR ALL ENERGY TO OWN THE POWER PLANT RATHER THAN JUST DO A PPA.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO LOOK INTO.

UH, THOSE LARGE FARMS GIVE YOU ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND EFFICIENCY, BUT THEY ARE EXPOSED TO PROBLEMS OF TRANSMISSION CONGESTION AND THAT'S OUT OF AUSTIN ENERGY CONTROL.

SO, AND I THINK THAT'S GONNA GET WORSE.

UH, THERE'S ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD NEW SOLAR IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA.

PROBABLY, UH, HUNDREDS OF MEGAWATTS I WOULD PRIORITIZE COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS, PARKING LOTS, WAREHOUSES, THINGS LIKE THAT VERSUS JUST RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR, ALTHOUGH I'M A BIG FAN OF RESIDENTIAL TOP SOLAR.

QUICK QUICK QUESTION ON THE RENEWING EXISTING PPAS.

UM, WHAT ABOUT ADDING BATTERY TECHNOLOGY TO THOSE PPAS? COULD THAT HELP ALLEVIATE THE CONCERNS ABOUT TRANSMISSION CONGESTION? JUST 'CAUSE YOU COULD STORE THE ENERGY AND THEN HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THAT? SO I, I THINK, UM, I THINK MOST NEW WIND SOLAR FARMS HAVE BATTERIES BUILT IN BECAUSE THEY OFFER MORE VALUE TO THE GRID WITH BATTERIES.

SO THAT, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING ELSE ENERGY CAN SPECIFY.

UM, THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY ALLEVIATE TRANSMISSION CONGESTION.

IT MIGHT HELP A LITTLE BIT 'CAUSE YOU CAN FINE TUNE WHEN YOU'RE EXPORTING POWER OVER THE LINES.

BUT THE WAY THE TRANSMISSION LINES ARE TODAY, THEY'RE FULL WITH SOLAR DURING THE DAY AND FULL OF THE WIND AT NIGHT.

THERE AREN'T A LOT OF TIMES WHEN THEY ARE UNDERUTILIZED THERE, THERE ARE SOME THOUGH, SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK THE BATTERIES CLOSE TO LOAD ARE MORE USEFUL.

SO HAVING BATTERIES IN AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA WILL PROBABLY PROVIDE MORE VALUE, BUT I HAVEN'T DONE A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THAT.

COMPARE AND CONTRAST, I THINK IN THE LONG RUN WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE BATTERIES IN BOTH PLACES.

FRANKLY, I THINK WE'LL NEED BATTERIES IN AUSTIN AND ON THE WIND AND SOLAR FARMS. UH, SO THE TRANSMISSION CONGESTION WILL BE HELPED A LITTLE BY THAT.

THE BIGGER PROBLEM WITH THE BATTERIES OF THE WIND AND SOLAR FARM IS YOU STILL HAVE LIMITED DURATION, SO YOU MIGHT CONSIDER MAYBE HAVE MORE ROOM THERE FOR THE, LIKE THE LONG DURATION ENERGY STORAGE.

THESE ARE LIKE IRON AIR BATTERIES OR DIFFERENT CHEMISTRIES THAN LITHIUM, FOR EXAMPLE, ANYWAY.

BUT I THINK IN THE LONG, LONG RUN WE'LL HAVE BATTERIES EVERYWHERE, FRANKLY, OR NOT EVERYWHERE, BUT WELL BATTERIES IN A LOT OF PLACES I SHOULD SAY.

GREAT QUESTION.

UM, WE SHOULD HAVE SOLAR IN AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA.

THE SHOULD COMMENT THAT THE WIND RESOURCE IN AUSTIN'S PRETTY BAD EXCEPT DURING, UH, MARCH WHEN WE HAVE OUR, OUR ZILKER KITE, YOU KNOW, CONTEST AND DISPLAY.

SO WE GET WIND A FEW WEEKS A YEAR, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO PUT WIND IN AUSTIN, BUT GREAT WIND RESOURCE IN OTHER PLACES IN TEXAS.

AND THEN WE SHOULD CONSIDER SPENDING SOLAR OUT OF SERVICE AREA, BUT TRY TO FIND THE LESS CONGESTED AREAS.

THE SOLAR RESOURCE IS MORE CONSISTENTLY GOOD ACROSS TEXAS THAN WIND, SO WE HAVE SOME OPTIONS THERE.

AND THE SOLAR RESOURCE ALIGNS PRETTY CLOSELY WITH PEAK DEMAND.

MEAN LIKE IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, LONGER TERM THERE ARE SOME OTHER OPTIONS THAT MIGHT, UM, BE APPEALING BECAUSE THERE ARE EMISSIONS FREE GEOTHERMAL'S VERY APPEALING.

THERE ARE OTHER OPTION TO BE RESOURCE ADEQUATE NEEDS WITH DISPATCHABLE SOURCES.

BY THESE I MEAN THINGS YOU CAN TURN ON OR OFF.

UM, THESE ARE THE CONVENTIONAL OPTIONS PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH.

WE HEARD SEVERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THEM IN THE OPENING SECTION ALREADY TODAY.

IN THE NEAR TERM.

THINGS YOU CAN BUY SAY OFF THE SHELF TECHNOLOGY TODAY OR YET IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS IS, UH, GAS, WHICH COULD BE BIOME METHANE OR OR FOSSIL FUEL GAS WITH CARBON REMOVALS, SAY SOMEWHERE ELSE.

COULD BE A NACODOCHES OR SOMEPLACE OR GAS AND CARBON CAPTURE ON SITE OR GAS OR FLEXIBLE FUEL, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN BLEND WITH HYDROGEN OR SOMETHING ELSE.

AND THEN YOU GET TO OTHER FUEL LIKE HYDROGEN OR AMMONIA, THAT KIND OF THING.

YOU COULD ALSO DO, UH, FUEL BLENDING AT FAYETTE POWER PLANT WITH OTHER SOLID FUELS LIKE WOOD PELLET BLENDING THAT'S BEEN DONE AT A VARIETY OF COAL PLANTS AROUND THE NATION.

AND THAT HELPS WITH YOUR LIFECYCLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AS WELL.

SO THERE ARE A VARIETY OF THINGS YOU COULD DO WITH THE EXISTING FLEET TO LOWER THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS OR WITH ANY NEW SYSTEMS THAT ARE BUILT.

AND THEN ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED EARLIER ABOUT THE SOURCING OF THE HYDROGEN AMMONIA ARE RELEVANT.

SO YOU'D WANT YOUR HYDROGEN AMMONIA OR WHATEVER MOLECULE YOU'RE USING TO HAVE BEEN SOURCED IN A CLEAN WAY.

SO NEAR TERM THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS THAT CAN BE BUILT BY, BY NEAR TERM I

[01:10:01]

THAT'S NOT VERY GOOD RESOURCE IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE AREA, BUT THERE ARE SOME GOOD PLACES IN TEXAS THAT DOESN'T SOLVE YOUR TRANSMISSION CONGESTION PROBLEMS, BUT IT DOES MAYBE SOLVE SOME OF YOUR CLEANLINESS CONCERNS.

THERE'S A LOT OF RESEARCH, A LOT OF STARTUPS, A LOT OF WORK GOING TO REDUCE THE COST OF DRILLING FOR GEOTHERMAL.

MOST OF THAT WORK IS IN UTAH AND NEVADA, SO IT'S NOT REALLY IN TEXAS YET.

HOWEVER, MANY OF THE COMPANIES ARE BASED IN TEXAS, SO WE MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY WITH THAT.

AND THEN THERE'S NUCLEAR FISSION.

WE WERE TO USE A NUCLEAR FISSION AT SOUTH TEXAS POWER PLANT ON THE, ON THE COAST, AND THAT TENDS TO BE PRETTY EXPENSIVE AND SLOW TO BUILD, HARD TO DO IN THE SERVICE AREA.

MAYBE YOU COULD DO SOME BROWNFIELD EXPANSION, SDP BY INSTALL SOME SMALL MODULE REACTORS THAT DOESN'T SOLVE ALL YOUR CONGESTION PROBLEMS, BUT IT DOES GET YOU MORE, UH, CLEAN POWER.

AND THE NUCLEAR FUSION IS TECHNICALLY IMMATURE AND WHO KNOWS HOW MUCH IT'S GONNA COST A BUILD OR HOW LONG IT'LL TAKE.

ALTHOUGH IF YOU TALK TO THE NUCLEAR FUSION STARTUPS, THEY ARE CONVINCED THAT THEY WILL BE BUILDING NUCLEAR FUSION POWER PLANTS IN 2028.

SO WE SHALL SEE THAT I REMAIN A LITTLE SKEPTICAL EVEN THOUGH I'M, UM, A TECHNO OPTIMIST.

SO THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS, SOME, UH, IN HAND OR CLOSER IN HAND AND SOME THAT ARE FURTHER AWAY THAT ARE DISPATCHABLE.

UH, SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS, ROSS ENERGY.

UH, THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT IT IS IN AUSTIN ENERGY'S SER SERVICE AREA OR IN ITS, UH, IN ITS BENEFIT TO CONSIDER DISPATCHABLE POWER WITHIN THE ZONE BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT BULK GRID PRICE VOLATILITY IN GENERAL, BULK GRID PRICES HAVE GONE DOWN IN TEXAS, BUT HAVE ALSO BECOME MORE VOLATILE WHERE THEY CAN GO IN GENERAL FROM UNDER $40 MEGAWATT HOUR TO THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS MEGAWATT HOUR IF YOU HAVE A SCARCITY EVENT.

TRANSMISSION CONGESTION PRICING IS OUTTA CONTROL OF LOSS ENERGY, UH, AND IS BECOMING, I THINK, MORE EXPENSIVE IN GENERAL.

BUT IF YOU HAVE THAT SPECIAL POWER, YOU CAN REDUCE YOUR EXPOSURE TO THE BULK GRID PRICE VOLATILITY AND TRANSMISSION CONGESTION PRICING WHILE ALSO IMPROVING RELIABILITY, ESPECIALLY FOR VOLTAGE CONTROL AND THAT KIND OF THING.

ROTATING MACHINES ARE PARTICULARLY VALUABLE FOR MANAGING VOLTAGE AND FREQUENCY.

HISTORICALLY, WE'VE USED THERMAL POWER PLANTS FOR THAT LIKE GAS OR OR COAL PLANTS.

YOU CAN ALSO USE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

YOU CAN ALSO USE HYDRO, YOU CAN ALSO USE GEOTHERMAL.

YOU CAN ALSO USE WHAT ARE CALLED SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSERS, WHICH ARE ROTATING MACHINES THAT AREN'T THERE FOR POWER.

THEY'RE, THEY'RE JUST THERE FOR FREQUENCY CONTROL AND THAT'S BEING DONE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE UK.

AND THEN WOULD THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENTS WITH THE NEW TAX RULES.

AND I, I WOULD SAY THAT MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ARE PRETTY WELL POSITIONED TO ADDRESS THE LOW GROWTH BECAUSE THE ABILITY TO BUILD MORE RESOURCES AND MANAGE EFFICIENCY AND CONNECT TO THE GRID.

SO ALSO ENERGY IS IN GOOD POSITION, UM, IN TERMS OF THE DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODELS THAT ARE OUT THERE FOR ADDRESSING THE ENERGY TRANSITION.

A COUPLE MORE THINGS TO THINK ABOUT THESE ARRAYS BY SOME OF THE COMMENTERS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HOUR.

FENCE LINE, POLLUTION'S ALWAYS A CONCERN, OF COURSE, OTHER NUISANCES, NOISE, POLLUTION, HIGH POLLUTION, YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT JOBS, WHO'S GETTING THE JOBS.

UH, YOU ALSO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT COST AND RELIABILITY.

SO, UH, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST AT RISK FROM POLLUTION ARE ALSO THE PEOPLE MOST AT RISK FROM HIGH PRICES OR UNRELIABLE GRID.

AND UNRIVAL GRID TENDS TO HIT THE MARGINALIZED GROUPS THE HARDEST.

WE SEE THE INEQUITIES MOST STARKLY DURING EVENTS LIKE WINTER STORM URI, FOR EXAMPLE.

THE JOBS ONE IS ALSO IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW IN AUSTIN, WE SEND A LOT OF MONEY OUT OF THE AREA TO BUY GASOLINE FROM OUT OF AREA REFINERS OR TO BUY NATURAL GAS FROM OUT OF AREA PRODUCERS.

SO ONE OF THE EXCITING THINGS ABOUT SWITCHING FROM GASOLINE TO ELECTRICITY OR FROM NATURAL GAS ELECTRICITY IS WE'LL HAVE MORE DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY SERVICE ZONE, WHICH PROBABLY LEADS TO MORE ECONOMIC BENEFIT IN JOBS HERE.

SO THERE'S A REAL EQUITY BENEFIT FROM ELECTRIFYING AS MUCH OF THE ECONOMY AS POSSIBLE.

OTHER THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS A NUANCED POINT AND UH, I THINK I CAN BE DISTRACTING WITH IT, BUT I WANNA MAKE THIS POINT THAT ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT ELECTRIC VEHICLES THAT'S VERY EXCITING IS THE AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS BENEFITS ARE VERY DISTINCT.

THAT WE, BY SHIFTING FROM A URBAN DAYTIME GROUND LEVEL GASOLINE TAILPIPE TO A NIGHTTIME RURAL SMOKESTACK THAT'S HUNDREDS OF FEET IN THE AIR, WE GET DISTINCT ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS.

WE SAVE MONEY AND WE HAVE A MORE EFFICIENT SYSTEM, BUT THAT POLLUTION IN RURAL AREAS UP HIGH AT NIGHT DOESN'T LEAD TO PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG THE SAME WAY AND IS NOT EXPOSED TO MANY PEOPLE.

AND SO EVEN IF YOU WANT TO CHARGE YOUR ELECTRIC CAR OFF OF COAL, THAT WOULD BE CLEANER THAN INTERNAL COMBUSTION IS RUNNING OFF GASOLINE IF YOU CHARGE ELECTRIC VEHICLE OFF NATURAL GAS INSTEAD OF COAL'S EVEN CLEANER.

AND IF YOU CHARGE THAT OFF OF WIND SOLAR, IT'S EVEN CLEANER YET AGAIN.

SO THERE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT BENEFITS BY SHIFTING THE TIME AND LOCATION OF EMISSIONS FROM TAILPIPES TO SMOKESTACKS, OR BETTER YET NO SMOKE STACKS AT ALL, BUT SOME COMBINATION OF ALL THAT HAS PRETTY IMPORTANT, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING MY GROUPS DONE RESEARCH ON AND PUBLISHED ON YEARS AGO.

THIS IS WELL OVER A DECADE AGO.

SO THIS IS A KNOWN PHENOMENON IN THE EV WORLD.

MAINTAIN AND ENSURE RESOURCE ADEQUACY WHILE REDUCING EXPOSURE TO EXPENSIVE OR HARD TO PREDICT PRICES AND VOLATILITY EITHER FOR THE ELECTRICITY ITSELF OR TRANSMISSION.

IN SUMMARY, I THINK UTILITIES LIKE AUSTIN ENERGY NEED TO PREPARE FOR AN ERA OF UNPRECEDENTED GROWTH AND ELECTRICITY IS VERY EXCITING, UH, AND THAT A WHOLE ARRAY OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND OPTIONS SHOULD BE DEPLOYED TO

[01:15:01]

AND THERE ARE A MIX OF GENERATION OPTIONS YOU MIGHT CONSIDER.

PLUS DEMAND SITE CONTROLS AS YOU HEARD, PLUS IN-SERVICE AREA OPTIONS LIKE ROOFTOP SOLAR AND BATTERIES AND, UM, EFFICIENCY AND THAT KIND OF THING.

AND THAT DOING SO WOULD IMPROVE OVERALL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE.

BY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE, I MEAN THE OPERATION OF THE GRID, IT WOULD END UP BEING MORE RELIABLE AND LESS EXPENSIVE FOR CUSTOMERS, WHICH IS GREAT.

AND THAT WOULD LEAD TO LOWER EMISSIONS AND EQUITY ELEMENTS SHOULD IMPROVE IF WE LOOK AT EQUITY IN TERMS OF EMISSIONS AND COSTS AND RELIABILITY.

AND THEN DOING SO WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE OVERALL FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE CITY AND THE UTILITY BECAUSE IT WOULD KEEP MORE MONEY CIRCULATING THE LOCAL ECONOMY, WHICH IS GREAT.

AND THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS THAT ALL THE ENERGY OPTIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THROUGH TRADE OFFS.

ALL OF THEM HAVE DOWNSIDES AND UPSIDES, AND THE GOAL OF PLANNERS AND ANALYSTS AND STAKEHOLDERS IS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BEST MIX IS.

THERE'S NO ONE PERFECT SOLUTION.

AND SO WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

AND I'LL, I THINK THAT'S MY LAST SIDE, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL HAVE.

UH, QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS.

ANYBODY IN THE ROOM HAVE QUESTIONS ONLINE? RAUL SAY, SARAH AO.

JONATHAN RAUL.

THERE WAS A QUESTION ASKED EARLIER, DID I ANSWER ALL THE POINTS OF THE QUESTION FROM THE GENTLEMAN EARLIER TODAY? UH, YES.

UH, MY, MY QUESTION THOUGH IS IN TERMS OF, UH, THE USE OF CARBON NEUTRAL, WOULD IT, LOOKING AT THE VARIOUS SOURCES, WHAT WOULD THE IMPACT BE IN TERMS OF CARBON NEUTRAL OF LIKE, ENERGY, CREDIT, UH, CREDITS? IN OTHER WORDS, DOES THAT IMPLY THAT WE WOULD BE USING DO SAME DOLLARS TO PLANT TREES OR DO SOMETHING ELSE OR, OR KEEP, UH, TRUCKS THAT ARE EMITTING OFF THE, OFF THE ROADS IN THE AREA? IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS ARE THERE CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE? ARE THERE CHEAPER OR OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME EFFECT IN TERMS OF THE CLIMATE, MORE COST EFFECTIVELY? THAT'S A, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

AND THAT'S, UM, THE WAY WE ANALYZE, WE CALL THAT LEAST COST OPTIMIZATION.

IF YOU WANT TO DECARBONIZE THE GRID, YOU HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF MONEY, SO YOU WANT TO DO IT THE LEAST COST WAY.

HOW DO YOU GET THE CLEAN GRID IN THE CHEAPEST WAY? AND IN THE EARLY DAYS, AND I THINK WE'RE STILL IN THE EARLY DAYS, BUT IT'S BEEN TRUE FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, THE CHEAPEST THINGS TO DO TO REDUCE EMISSION TO GRID OR TO INVEST IN EFFICIENCY, WIND AND SOLAR.

AND NOW YOU MIGHT SAY EFFICIENCY, WIND AND SOLAR AND BATTERIES, EFFICIENCY WIND, SOLAR BATTERIES AND HEAT PUMPS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

SO WE KEEP AT LIKE, WHAT'S THE NEXT MILLION DOLLARS? WHERE SHOULD THAT GO? AND CLEANER SUPPLY IS THE ANSWER FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

AND IN LIKE 2007, 2008, WE SAY THE GRID COULD NOT TAKE MORE THAN 20% WIND.

AND THAT'S CLEARLY FALSE.

THE, THE GRID COULD TAKE A LOT MORE THAN 20% WIND, FOR EXAMPLE.

SO WE KEEP PUTTING MONEY INTO THESE CLEAN OPTIONS, BUT AT SOME POINT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT POINT IS, THE LAST 5% LESS 10%, LESS 30% THE, THE LAST PART OF THE GRID, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE LIKE, WELL, IS IT CHEAPER TO BUILD MORE WIND AND SOLAR OR IS IT CHEAPER TO ADD CARBON CAPTURE TO A NATURAL GAS PLANT? OR IS IT CHEAPER TO BUILD A HYDROGEN PLANT OR TO BUILD A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OR GEOTHERMAL OR YOU START TO HAVE OTHER OPTIONS.

AND IT THAT LAST 10 TO 30% STARTS TO GET MORE EXPENSIVE TO DECARBONIZE BY BUILDING MORE WIND AND SOLAR BECAUSE OF THE VARIABILITY OF WIND AND SOLAR.

AND YOU CAN GET THERE, YOU JUST HAVE TO BUILD A LOT OF WIND SOLAR TO GET THERE.

SO MAYBE YOU BUILD SOME BATTERIES, BUT WHEN YOU ADD IN THE COST OF WIND AND SOLAR AND BATTERIES, AT SOME POINT IT'S CHEAPER TO BUILD SOMETHING ELSE.

BUT NUCLEAR IS ONE OF THE SOMETHING ELSE'S LOOKS PRETTY PRICEY.

AND GEOTHERMAL SOIL TODAY IS PRETTY PRICEY.

IT BECOMES DOWN A PRICE.

AND SO THE OPTION BECOMES, SHOULD I PUT A MILLION DOLLARS INTO ANOTHER WIND FARM OR TO PUT A MILLION DOLLARS INTO CARBON REMOVALS, FOR EXAMPLE.

AND AT SOME POINT CARBON REMOVALS BECOME CHEAPER AND FASTER TO DEPLOY.

AND THAT'S WHAT OUR ANALYSIS OF PEOPLE CONCLUDE IS ALL BASED ON SOME ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE COST OF CARBON REMOVALS WILL BE, BUT THOSE CARBON REMOVALS WILL BE SCRUBBERS FROM THE SKY OR A FORESTATION OR REFORESTATION OR, UM, DOING SOME SOIL WORK TO GET CARBON INTO THE SOIL OR MARINE CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVALS.

BUT THERE'S A VARIETY OF WAYS YOU CAN DO IT.

YOU COULD ALSO DO WHAT YOU ASKED ABOUT, WHICH IS OFFSETS WHERE YOU, YOU DON'T REMOVE CO2, BUT YOU PAY SOMEONE ELSE TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR, LIKE TO ELECTRIFY THEIR TRUCK OR SOMETHING.

SO THERE ARE VARIETY OF WAYS TO DO IT.

IT'S ALL PRETTY NASCENT.

THE CARBON MARKETS ARE PRETTY, UM, ILL-FORMED, I WOULD SAY, AND, AND DON'T HAVE ROBUST PARTICIPATION.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY THERE.

UM, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS TO CONSIDER IS IT LOOKS BY MOST ANALYSES TO BE CHEAPER AT SOME POINT TO REMOVE OR CAPTURE THE CARBON THAN IT IS TO AVOID THE CARBON ENTIRELY IN THE FIRST PLACE WITH WIND AND SOLAR AND BATTERIES IN NUCLEAR AND GEOTHERMAL, THAT KIND OF THING.

I I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION

[01:20:01]

ACCURATELY, UH, THAT THAT'S HELP HELPFUL, UH, RELATED OR MAYBE RELATED QUESTION, UH, IS, UH, WE'RE CERTAINLY GONNA SEE INCREASED DEMAND AS, AS YOU SHOWED ON YOUR SLIDES.

WHAT, UH, WOULD THE IMPACT BE OF ADDRESSING THE INCREASED DEMAND BY SIMPLY, AND I SAY SIMPLY IMPROVING TRANSMISSION SO THAT WE COULD GET, UH, INCREASED USE FROM SOLAR FARMS IN WEST TEXAS OR, OR WIND IN WEST TEXAS, UH, THROUGH BETTER TRANSMISSION? UH, SO THE GREAT QUESTION, BETTER AND EXPANDED TRANSMISSION ENDS UP BEING A LOT CHEAPER BECAUSE IF YOU COULD EXPAND THE GRID AND CAN REACH, UM, REALLY FARFLUNG WIND AND SOLAR, THINK OF HOW, HOW GOOD THE WIND RESOURCE IS IN CORPUS CHRISTI OR HOW EXCELLENT THE SOLAR RESOURCE IS IN ARIZONA, UH, EXPANDED GRID THAT REALLY GOES FAR, ENDS UP BEING CHEAPER AND, UH, OUR ANALYSIS AND LIKE EVERYONE DOES THIS ANALYSIS, UH, DIFFERENT NATIONAL LABS, LIKE A BIGGER GRID SHAPER.

AND SO, AND WE AGREE, SO WE SHOULD DO THAT.

HOWEVER, UM, FROM A PRACTICAL POLITICAL, UM, CONSIDERATION, IT'S HARDER TO BUILD TRANSMISSION OF PERMITS FOR IT.

NOW.

THERE'S A VARIETY OF THINGS HAPPENING.

THE BIPARTISAN PERMITTING REFORM OF THE MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER.

UM, THERE ARE THINGS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW WITH ELECTION YEAR POLITICS THAT MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER AND THAT WOULD BE GREAT BECAUSE IF WE COULD MAKE THE GRID LARGER, THEN WE CAN ACCESS THOSE REALLY LARGE ECONOMIES OF SCALE WIND AND SOLAR IN THOSE PLACES YOU MENTIONED AND THAT'D BE GREAT.

SO I, I WOULD SAY LET'S DO MORE OF THAT.

UM, THE REALITY IN THE GROUND THE LAST 15 YEARS HAS BEEN, IT'S HARD TO BUILD TRANSMISSION FAST ENOUGH.

THE, THE LOAD IS GROWING SO QUICKLY FOR DATA CENTERS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLES, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THE POWER PLANTS ARE GROWING.

LIKE WE, YOU CAN BUILD A, A WIND OR SOLAR FARM LIKE IN TWO YEARS AND YOU CAN BUILD A DATA CENTER IN TWO YEARS AND YOU CAN BUILD ALL SORTS OF THINGS IN TWO YEARS.

BUT IN TEXAS WHERE WE BUILD TRANSMISSION FASTER THAN JUST ABOUT ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, IT STILL TAKES FOUR TO SIX YEARS, WHICH IS PRETTY FAST.

AND OUTSIDE OF TEXAS IT'S LIKE 10 TO 18 YEARS, WE CAN'T QUITE KEEP UP.

SO I'M JUST SKEPTICAL WE CAN BUILD TRANSMISSION FAST ENOUGH, BUT TRANSMISSION WOULD BE GREAT.

WE NEED MORE OF IT.

I WOULD WHOLLY ENDORSE THAT SUGGESTION.

I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

UM, OKAY.

UM, UH, ONE, UH, IS, UH, ANYWAY, JUST ABOUT, YOU KNOW, YOU HEARD THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE HYDROGEN AS A, AS A SOURCE OF ENERGY, RIGHT? OR GENERATION.

SO, UM, HAVE Y'ALL DONE RESEARCH ON THAT, UH, THE PROS AND CONS, THAT SORT OF KINDA THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT AS AN OPTION? UM, 'CAUSE I KNOW YEAH, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE HEARD SOME FOLKS WHO HAVE CONCERNS, YOU KNOW, WHICH MAY BE VERY VALID CONCERNS.

I'M NOT, I'M NOT VERY INFORMED ABOUT THAT, BUT, UH, UM, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GONNA REACH OUR GOALS THAT WE WANNA REACH, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE INNOVATIVE.

AND IT SEEMS KIND OF ODD IF THERE'S AN INNOVATING APPROACH TO NOT CONSIDER IT, BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT, IT IS THE ANSWER OR IT IS, UH, THE WAY WE WANNA GO.

BUT, UH, UM, JUST CURIOUS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF YOUR TAKE ON THAT DEBATE OR IF Y'ALL HAD RESEARCH OR SOMETHING AGAIN, WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THAT'S TO OUR, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND TO STAFF AND TO YOU, ANYONE WHO HAS INFO ABOUT THAT WHO CAN SHARE IT, I FEEL I, I'D APPRECIATE SEEING IT.

YEAH, GOOD QUESTION.

I'M VERY DEEP IN THE HYDROGEN WORLD AND HAVE BEEN FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, DO A LOT OF RESEARCH ON IT.

AND WE LOOKED AT HYDROGEN FOR ITS ROLE, POTENTIALLY TO DECARBONIZE TEXAS AND THAT KIND OF THING.

AND I THINK WITH HYDROGEN, THERE ARE A COUPLE FACTORS TO CONSIDER.

ONE IS IT'S SOURCED IN A CLEAN WAY OR NOT.

YOU CAN MAKE HYDROGEN IN A DIRTY WAY, YOU CAN MAKE IT IN A CLEAN WAY.

AND IF IT'S SOURCED IN A RENEWABLE WAY OR NON-RENEWABLE WAY, SO YOU CAN SOURCE HYDROGEN, YOU CAN MAKE HYDROGEN FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES OR NON-RENEWABLE LIKE FOSSIL FUEL SOURCES, AND YOU CAN MAKE IT IN A CLEAN WAY OR A DIRTY WAY.

AND ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, YOU'D RATHER BE IN A CLEAN RENEWABLE WAY THAN A DIRTY NON-SUSTAINABLE WAY.

YOU CAN DO FOSSIL FUELS IN A CLEAN WAY, BUT THAT'S NOT RENEWABLE.

AND YOU CAN DO RENEWABLES AND IN A WAY THAT'S ALSO NOT CLEAN DEPENDING ON HOW YOU'RE HANDLING YOUR GASES AND THAT KIND OF THING.

AND, UM, THERE'S ALSO MANY PATHWAYS TO MAKE HYDROGEN.

YOU CAN MAKE IT BY SPLITTING WATER.

YOU CAN MAKE IT BY STEAM METHANE REFORMING.

YOU CAN MAKE IT BY DRILLING FOR, FROM NATURAL RESERVES.

YOU CAN GASIFY WOOD.

THERE'S, UH, SOMETHING CALLED PYROLYSIS.

THERE'S PHOTO BIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES.

THERE ARE TERMITES IN AFRICA THAT MAKE HYDROGEN IN THEIR HIND GUT.

LIKE THERE'S, LIKE, THERE'S ALL SORTS OF WAYS TO MAKE HYDROGEN AND IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO BE MINDFUL ABOUT NOT PROPAGATING A DIRTY WAY TO DO IT.

AND THE WAY WE DO IT RIGHT NOW IN TEXAS AND AROUND THE WORLD IS PRETTY DIRTY.

AND SO THE FIRST BEST USE OF HYDROGEN IS TO MAKE IT A CLEAN WAY TO DISPLACE THE DIRTY WAYS.

AND THEN WE MIGHT USE IT OTHER WAYS BEYOND THAT.

SO I, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT US ENERGY I WANNA HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND.

THANKFULLY AUSTIN ENERGY'S NOT ALONE IN THIS BECAUSE SINGAPORE AND SOUTH KOREA

[01:25:01]

AND JAPAN AND EUROPE, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN CLEAN MOLECULES AND THEY'RE DEVELOPING THE MARKET.

AND SO AUSTIN ENERGY DOESN'T HAVE TO DEVELOP IT, IT CAN JUST SORT OF SEE WHAT TURBINES OR FUEL CELLS OR OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE.

THE GOOD NEWS IS ONCE YOU HAVE HYDROGEN, IT'S PRETTY EASY TO USE IT CLEANLY.

IF YOU CAN SOURCE IT IN A CLEAN WAY AND AFFORD IT, IT'S PRETTY EASY TO USE.

YOU CAN USE IT IN AN ENGINE, YOU CAN USE IT IN TURBINE, YOU CAN USE IT IN A FUEL CELL.

THERE'S ALL SORTS OF TRADE OFFS FROM IT AND IT OFFERS SOME PERFORMANCE BENEFITS, BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE EMISSIONS THAT SOME PEOPLE COMMENTED.

SO THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF TRADE OFFS WITH IT.

WHEN I THINK OF THE FUTURE OF AUSTIN ENERGY, LIKE IF I WERE THE CEO AND I, WERE IN CHARGE OF KEEPING THE POWER ON THE WAY I THINK ABOUT THESE THERMAL POWER PLANTS FOR YOUR BURNING BIO METHANE OR GAS AND CAPTURE OR HYDROGEN OR WHATEVER IT IS, IS THE POINT ISN'T TO USE THEM AROUND THE CLOCK.

THE POINT IS TO USE THEM WITH LOW CAPACITY FACTOR FOR THE TIMES WHEN WIND OR SOLAR ARE NOT AVAILABLE.

IT IS CHEAPEST AND CLEANEST TO USE WIND AND SOLAR WHEN IT'S AVAILABLE.

YOU WOULD ONLY WANT TO USE THE MOLECULES WHEN WIND AND SOLAR OR OTHER SOURCES ARE NOT AVAILABLE.

THAT THAT'S REALLY THE WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT.

IT'S KIND OF THE WAY WE BUILT GAS PEAKERS DECADES AGO.

YOU BUILT GAS PEAKERS WITH THE INTENT OF USING THEM LIKE 4% OF THE TIME.

THE INTENT WAS NOT TO USE 'EM A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME.

AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT THAT, THERE'S ONLY SO MANY DAYS A YEAR WE DON'T HAVE WIND AND SUNSHINE, BUT THERE ARE DAYS OF THE YEAR WE DON'T HAVE WIND OR SUNSHINE.

THAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF HAVING THESE OTHER GENERATORS.

NOW, IF YOU'RE GONNA DOUBLE THE GRID ACCOMMODATE DISPLACEMENT OF GASOLINE VEHICLES, THEN IT'S ALL DIFFERENT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY BENEFITS FROM DISPLACING GASOLINE, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER DIFFERENT USAGES ANYWAY.

HOW, AND I DON'T KNOW IF NOW'S THE TIME, BUT I CAN CUT BACK SOME OTHER TIME AND DO A LONG .

YEAH, NO, I THINK, UH, WELL ANYTHING YOU COULD SHARE AND I CERTAINLY WOULD APPRECIATE KIND OF A RETURN VISIT.

UM, BUT AGAIN, LIKE I SAID TO, TO CALL OUT TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SHARE WITH US, UH, RESEARCH AROUND, UH, THIS AS AN OPTION.

OKAY, BUT I, BUT I DID HAVE ONE OTHER, UH, QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A QUESTION, BUT YOU KNOW, UH, IT'S KIND OF A PREVIEW TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE PORTFOLIOS THAT'S COMING UP, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN PULL UP, UH, SLIDE 15 FROM YOUR SLIDE DECK.

I KNOW I DON'T THINK YOU CONTROL THAT, BUT IF OUR, WE DON'T, BUT I THINK AMY, THOSE YEAH, AND THIS IS REALLY A, I SWEAR TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT, THAT THIS IS GONNA MINIMIZE THE QUESTIONS I HAVE IN THE PORTFOLIO DISCUSSION, UM, BECAUSE THE PORTFOLIOS WE'VE SEEN ARE JUST A BUNCH OF NUMBERS ON A SPREADSHEET.

UM, BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IN THOSE OPTIONS, RIGHT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THIS AUSTIN ENERGY GENERATION LINE THAT ALL IT DOES IS GO DOWN.

UM, AND SO THOSE PORTFOLIOS THAT ARE LAID OUT FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER AND OBVIOUSLY FOR THE UTILITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN THAT RED LINE, WHICH IS THE AUSTIN ENERGY CAPACITY GOES DOWN, YOU KNOW, FOR CAN, CAN WE HAVE LIKE A CHART LIKE THIS FOR EACH PORTFOLIO OPTION THAT SHOWS, OKAY, WHEN THIS LINE DIPS DOWN, WE'RE GONNA BE COMPENSATING BY DOING X, RIGHT? FOR ME RIGHT NOW, IT'S VERY CONFUSING THESE PORTFOLIOS AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN PRESENTED YET.

BUT YOU KNOW, FOR ME IT'S LIKE, IT, IT'S A, I'M A VISUAL LEARNER, RIGHT? SO IF YOU CAN SHOW ME, OKAY, WHEN THIS HAPPENS, THIS IS OUR RESPONSE AND WE'RE GONNA START TRYING TO MEET THAT THREE YEARS IN ADVANCE, FIVE YEARS IN ADVANCE, YOU KNOW, TENURE, WHATEVER, WHATEVER THE, THE NUMBER OF, UM, BUT FOR ME AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IT'S THAT RED LINE GOING DOWN AND NEVER COMING UP.

THAT'S KIND OF A CONCERN.

UM, AND, UM, OF COURSE THE DEMAND GOES UP, YOU KNOW, FOR ALL OF THESE THINGS POPULATION WISE AND, AND THESE OTHER STRESSORS.

UM, SO I THINK THAT FOR ME, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE PORTFOLIOS THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO DISCUSS IS KIND OF LIKE, AGAIN, WHAT ARE WE DOING AT WHICH POINT IN TIME, BECAUSE ALL I SEE RIGHT NOW IS JUST THESE VERY GENERIC LISTS OF MEGAWATT HOURS AND DIFFERENT ROWS ON A SPREADSHEET AND, UM, IT DOESN'T SHOW ME OR HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE TIMING OF EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW? AND, UM, SO, UM, SO ANYWAY, SO THAT'S, I'M GONNA TRY TO HELP YOU.

SO THAT'S NOT YOU, UH, DR. WEBER.

UH, BUT, UH, UH, BUT THAT'S, I WANTED TO SHOW THIS GRAPH SO I COULD SAY, LOOK, I WANT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT FOR EACH, UH, PORTFOLIO OPTION, BECAUSE IT'LL HELP ME UNDERSTAND, UH, WHAT ARE WE DOING YET, RAUL, DID YOU GET, SORRY, SORRY, DR. WEBER FOR COMMANDEERING YOUR STUFF.

IT'S NO PROBLEM.

RAUL, DID YOU GET AN EMAIL FROM A AMY EVERHART WITH A SPREADSHEET ON IT WITH THE 10 DIFFERENT, UM, PORTFOLIOS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS PLANNING TO MODEL? IT ACTUALLY DOES, IT DOESN'T DO EXACTLY WHAT THIS CHART DOES, BUT AT LEAST TELLS YOU THE YEARS IN WHICH THEY'RE MODELING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES AND ALSO THE YEARS IN WHICH CERTAIN RESOURCES ARE COMING OFF.

UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SPREADSHEET, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

I MEAN, I MEAN, I'M PRETTY GOOD WITH SPREADSHEETS AND I DID LOOK AT 'EM, BUT, UH, AS YOU DIG DEEPER, THERE'S JUST MORE AND MORE NUMBERS AND MORE AND MORE SPREADSHEETS.

AND, UH, AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, I'M A, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION BEFORE, I'VE BEEN ON THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD FOR

[01:30:01]

ME TO MAKE HEADS, TAILS OUT OF WHAT WE WERE PROVIDED.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY WHERE I CAN BE INFORMED, MAKE DECISIONS.

AND AGAIN, I'M JUMPING THE GUN HERE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN RECEIVED THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE PORTFOLIOS, BUT I'M JUST ARTICULATING WHAT ONE VOTE ON THIS COMMISSION OR ONE VOTE ON THIS COMMISSION WANTS, UH, WOULD LIKE TO SEE RIGHT.

TO HELP UNDERSTAND THE OPTIONS WE'RE CONSIDERING.

SO THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME DO THAT.

GOT IT.

YEAH, I GOT IT.

MAYBE THERE IS A WAY TO, UM, TO SHOW IT IN A DIFFERENT, TO SHOW IT SO IT'S EASIER TO SEE VISUALLY THOSE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

UM, MAYBE THAT'S A, A DIRECTION TO AUSTIN ENERGY FOR FUTURE PRESENTATIONS TO MAKE IT, TO SEE THAT LINE.

UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DR. WEBER? UM, I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT FUEL CELLS, BUT I I CAN DO IT OFFLINE.

I THINK , BUT QUICK, I CAN GIVE A 32ND ANSWER AND THEN WE CAN TALK MORE.

UM, SARAH, SO FUEL, THE, THE ADVANTAGE OF FUEL CELLS COMPARED TO, SAY TURBINES OR ENGINES IS THEY OPERATE AT LOWER TEMPERATURE, SO THEY DON'T HAVE THE, THE SAME RISK OF NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS.

EXACTLY.

AND THEY DON'T HAVE MOVING PARTS, WHICH IS VERY BENEFICIAL.

THEY TEND TO HAVE SOME WATER HANDLING PROBLEMS AND ARE MORE EXPENSIVE, LIKE THE BLOOM ENERGY, OTHERS, BUT THEY WORK AND THEY'VE BEEN WORKING, I MEAN, THEY WERE FIRST EMBEDDED IN LIKE 1839 OR SOMETHING, SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT NEW AND NASA'S BEEN USING FOR DECADES.

SO FUEL CELLS ARE, ARE PRETTY CLEAN AND, UM, AND PASSIVE THAT THEY DON'T MOVE PARTS, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY PRICEY.

GOT IT.

I THINK IF, IF WE'RE DONE WITH DR. WEBER, THANK YOU FOR, FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS AND FOR YOUR TIME, UH, GOOD LUCK THAT YOUR FLIGHT DOESN'T GET DELAYED.

'CAUSE HAVING TRAVELED IN THE LAST, UH, MONTH OR SO, UM, IT'S ESPECIALLY CHANCE A YEAH.

GOOD LUCK IS ALL I'LL SAY TO YOU.

LINDA, ARE YOU READY? I THINK I AM.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

UM, UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS LINDA RIF WITH LIFELINE.

MY JOB IS FACILITATION OF A STAKEHOLDER GROUP THAT WE'RE, UM, MEETING WITH.

OUR LAST, WE HAD OUR SECOND WORKSHOP ON, UH, FRIDAY, JULY 26TH FROM 1130 TO ONE 30.

WE MEETING AT LUNCH.

WE'VE ASKED THE PARTICIPANTS, WHEN'S A GOOD TIME, THIS IS A GOOD TIME FOR THEM.

THE GOALS OF THAT WORKSHOP WERE A LOT OF JUST INFORMATION THIS LAST TIME, SO I'M NOT GONNA BE REPORTING OUT A LOT OF IT, BUT WE HAD TO UNDERSTAND HOW ERCOT AND THE RELATIONSHIP TO AUSTIN ENERGY WORKED.

AND THEN WE ALSO HEARD A SIMILAR PRESENTATION FROM DR. WEBER, FROM THE WEBER ENERGY GROUP, FROM THE COCKRELL SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AT UT REGARDING TEXAS AND AUSTIN AREA ENERGY MARKETS, TRENDS, RESOURCE, O OUT OPTIONS, POTENTIAL RISKS, AND TRADE-OFFS.

AS A REMINDER, THIS IS A MIX OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS.

IT INCLUDES NEIGHBORS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, PUBLIC CITIZENS, SIERRA CLUB, UM, OLD, YOUNG, JUST KIND OF, KIND OF A WIDE VARIETY OF PEOPLE.

AND WHAT WE HEARD ON THE ERCOT PRESENTATION FROM, UM, FROM AUSTIN ENERGY WAS AUSTIN ENERGY IS BOUND TO THE ERCOT MARKET AND ITS RULES AND CONSTRUCTS.

THE ERCOT MARKET, LIKE ANY OTHER MARKET, HAS BOTH BENEFITS AND RISK AND DECISIONS MADE IN THE MARKETPLACE HAVE TRADE-OFFS.

FOR EXAMPLE, DECISION MADE TO MAXIMIZE RELIABILITY COULD REDUCE AFFORDABILITY OR VICE VERSA.

DECISIONS WE MAKE FOR THE RESOURCE GENERATION PLAN WILL AFFECT THE TOOLS AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE TO MINIMIZE RISK AND MAXIMIZE BENEFITS IN THE ERCO MARKET IN TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY, SUSTAINABILITY, RELIABILITY, AND EQUITY, WHICH WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT TODAY.

WE ALSO HEARD FROM DR. WEBER.

UM, AND YOU'LL, THIS IS A LOT OF FAMILIAR THINGS.

UTILITIES, INCLUDING A ENERGY NEED TO PREPARE FOR AN ERROR OF UNPRECEDENTED ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION.

THE CHALLENGE IS SIMULTANEOUSLY EXPANDING AND DECARBONIZING THE GRID WHILE THE WORLD WORLD IS WARMING THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS UNIQUELY POSITIONED AS A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY TO ADDRESS LOAD GROWTH BECAUSE WE CAN WORK ON BOTH THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND SIDE OF THE EQUATION.

AND SINCE THE SERVICE TERRITORY IS ITS OWN LOAD ZONE, AUSTIN ENERGY CAN AVOID CONGESTION COSTS BY BUILDING GENERATION CLOSE TO WHERE THE CUSTOMERS NEED IT.

YOU HEARD IT TONIGHT, HE SAYS IT ALL THE TIME.

DO YOUR BEST CLEAN UP THE REST THROUGH A COMBINATION OF EFFICIENCY, ELECTRIFICATION, CLEAN MOLECULES, AND CARBON MANAGEMENT.

AUSTIN ENERGY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THE OVERALL FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE UTILITY AND THEREFORE PROVIDE MORE BENEFIT TO THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY AND CUSTOMERS.

AND THEN THE KEY LENS THROUGH WHICH ENERGY OPTIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ARE THESE TRADE-OFFS AND OPTIONS.

HEARD A LOT OF QUESTIONS AS WELL.

[01:35:01]

SOME OF THEM HAVE ALREADY BEEN HERE.

UM, I APOLOGIZE THAT I DID NOT GET YOU THE, UM, WORKSHOP MEETING NOTES, BUT WE TRIED TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED IN THE MEETING NOTES.

IT GOT VERY LONG-WINDED THAT WE, SO WE WENT A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

YOU SHOULD HAVE THOSE ANY DAY NOW.

BUT WE HEARD QUESTIONS ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY DEMAND RESPONSE, THIS NET ZERO VERSUS COM, UH, CARBON FREE, WHICH IT WAS ALSO ASKED HERE.

LOCAL GENERATION AFFORDABILITY, DEMAND MANAGEMENT, AND ANY KIND OF NEW RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

SO THEY WERE ALONG THE LINES THAT YOU WERE ASKING TODAY.

GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.

THE NEXT WORKSHOP'S GONNA BE HELD THURSDAY, AUGUST 22ND.

THAT'S 1130 TO ONE 30 HERE.

AND THAT ONE IS GONNA BE MORE OF THE GROUPS TALKING TO EACH OTHER.

UM, AND NOT SO MUCH INFORMATION OUT TO THEM.

WE ARE GONNA SPEND SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT EQUITY AND UM, ALSO SOME TRADE OFFS AND THINGS THAT WE'LL MOVE INTO.

WE'LL ALWAYS COME BACK AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT WE'VE HEARD OR WHAT YOU'VE SEEN.

AND YOU SHOULD GET THAT REPORT BY THE END OF THE WEEK THIS WEEK.

I THINK I'LL, I'LL, I'LL TRY MY BEST.

SO WITH THAT, UM, ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, MICHAEL, ARE YOU UP NEXT? I'M, YES.

MICHAEL ENGER, UH, VICE PRESIDENT OF ENERGY MARKET OPERATIONS AND RESOURCE PLANNING.

AND I'M HERE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE, THE PROPOSED MODEL PORTFOLIOS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK ON THE SCENARIOS AND SENSITIVITIES.

SO WE'RE GONNA GO OVER, UH, A COUPLE DIFFERENT, UH, TOPICS.

WE'RE GONNA START OFF WITH AN OVERVIEW OF THE PORTFOLIO DESIGN, UH, KIND OF HOW WE CAME TO THE PORTFOLIOS THAT WE CAME TO AND WHY.

UH, WE'LL TALK, LOOK AT THE DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT PROJECTIONS.

WE HAVE SOME RE UH, SOME FEEDBACK AND SOME INFORMATION FROM DNV FROM A STUDY WE DID TO LOOK AT POTENTIAL.

UH, SO WE'LL LOOK AT HOW WE'RE TRACKING VERSUS WHAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO.

UH, WE'LL LOOK AT THE COMPARISON TO PORTFOLIOS, UH, AND OVERVIEW OF THE SCENARIOS AND SENSITIVITIES.

AND THEN WE WILL CONCLUDE WITH, UH, MODELING TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS.

SO FIRST OF ALL, THE PORTFOLIO DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.

I DO WANT TO TAKE, UH, ONE MORE MOMENT OR TIME TO, TO STRESS THAT WE HAVE NOT PROPOSED ANY RESOURCE PLANS, UH, TO DATE.

THESE ARE MERELY MODELING PORTFOLIOS SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THEM AND MEASURE THE RESULTS SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND THOSE, THOSE TRADE OFFS.

UH, AS WELL AS, UH, THE OUTPUTS OF EACH PORTFOLIO.

UH, MODELS ARE REALLY DESIGNED TO HELP GIVE YOU GOOD INFORMATION TO HELP INFORM YOU TO USE THAT INFORMATION TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS.

AND WE'RE NOT JUST USING ONE MODEL OVER HERE.

WE DO HAVE A THIRD PARTY ALSO MODELING AT THE SAME TIME USING A DIFFERENT MODEL, WHICH WILL LIKELY HAVE DIFFERENT OUTPUT AS WELL SINCE IT'S A STOCHASTIC MODEL VERSUS PRODUCTION COST MODEL THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE LAST DUC.

SO WE STARTED OUT WITH THE PORTFOLIO DESIGN AND CONSIDERATIONS BY TESTING BOUNDARIES.

SO WE LOOKED AT CREATING PORTFOLIOS THAT WE ASSUME WE HAVE NOT RUN THE PORTFOLIOS YET.

THAT WOULD KIND OF HIT THE, THE MAX OF THOSE DIFFERENT COMMUNITY VALUES THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, WHICH IS SUSTAINABILITY, RELIABILITY, AND AFFORDABILITY.

FROM THERE, WE WANNA MODEL PORTFOLIOS THAT MEET TARGETS, UH, SO WE GET THE RESULTS FROM THAT AS WELL.

AND FROM GETTING THE RESULTS OF THOSE PORTFOLIOS TO MEET TARGETS AS WELL AS THOSE THAT MEET MAXIMUMS, WE'RE ABLE TO MEASURE THE RISKS OF DIFFERENT PORTFOLIOS AND DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY TYPES AS WELL AS THE TRADE OFFS FROM THOSE DIFFERENT COMMUNITY VALUES.

WHEN WE GO STRONGER TOWARDS ONE PORTFOLIO VERSUS ANOTHER PORTFOLIO, WE'RE MAKING INFORMED DECISIONS WITH OUR TOLERANCES AROUND THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITY VALUES.

UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UH, NEXT WE HAVE THE DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT TO 2035.

AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE, WE LOOKED AT A-A-D-M-V STUDY TO HELP LOOK AT WHAT OUR MARKET POTENTIAL IS FOR MORE DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT.

UH, WHAT WE HAVE HERE ON THE GRAPH HERE IS IN, UH, THAT DARKER ORANGE COLOR.

THOSE ARE THE, UH, THE COMMITMENTS THAT WE HAVE MADE OR, OR KIND OF BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR AUSTIN ENERGY.

AND THAT'S 2024 TO 2035 TO DATE FROM 20 2007 TO 2024.

WE HAVE ACTUALLY REDUCED ABOUT, WE'VE DONE ABOUT 1.2 GIGAWATTS, UH, SINCE 2007, UM, ON THE YELLOW ABOVE THE ORANGE.

THAT IS THE ADDITIONAL, UH, POTENTIAL FROM THE DNCP STUDY.

AND THAT EQUATES TO ABOUT ONE GIGAWATT IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE'RE ALREADY PLANNING ON DOING.

MICHAEL, IS THE ACTUAL STUDY ITSELF AVAILABLE AT THIS POINT, OR NOT YET? NOT YET.

WE HAVE, UH, THE NUMBERS, BUT THEY'RE STILL DRAFTING THE FINAL REPORT.

AND SO THAT WILL BE RELEASED HERE VERY SHORTLY.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS THE EXACT DATE, BUT I, I KNOW THEY'RE, THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT.

I BELIEVE THAT'S MAYBE MORE THE END OF AUGUST THAT WE'RE EXPECTING THAT THAT REPORT.

MY MICHAEL, I, I'M CURIOUS, SO THE THIRD ITEM, ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

AND I THINK WE'RE ALREADY KIND OF A LEADER IN THAT AREA AND WE PLAN TO CONTINUE TO BE A LEADER.

IT LOOKS AS I UNDERSTAND THE GRAPH, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE MAXED OUT THAT THERE IS NO, WELL, TO BE HONEST, WE ACTUALLY HAVE, WHAT WE ARE PROJECTING AND PLANNING ON TRYING TO DO IS ACTUALLY 40 MEGAWATTS HIGHER THAN THE NUMBER WE GOT BACK FROM DMV.

SO THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A, A BIG PUSH AND A LOT OF INVESTMENT IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY

[01:40:01]

SO THE 360 IS, IS HA WOULD BE UPDATED.

I, I DON'T UNDER HELP, HELP ME, HELP ME.

UH, WITH UNDERSTAND, I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WHAT WE ARE INTENDING TO, TO, TO DO IS ALREADY IN EXCESS FOR WHAT DNV THINKS IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.

SO WE'RE LOOKING TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND FROM WHAT CAME OUT OF THAT REPORT.

I SEE.

IT, IT THAT THAT NUMBER AND SORRY IF I'M JUMPING AHEAD, I DON'T KNOW IF OTHERS WANNA ASK QUESTIONS.

I MEAN, THAT'S CONFUSING TO ME TOO.

'CAUSE ENERGY EFFICIENCY I THINK OF AS MEGAWATT HOUR IS NOT MEGAWATTS.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW IT'S 360.

OH, I GUESS MAYBE YOU'RE JUST REDUCING THE, YOU KNOW, THE LINE JUST 'CAUSE YOU'RE USING LESS OVERALL.

SO THAT ALSO IMPACTS THE, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I NEED TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS IN WRITING OR SOMETHING AS PART OF THIS.

YEAH, ENERGY EFFICIENCY REDUCES MEGA LOT.

OKAY, SO IT'S MAKE, SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE, YOU'RE REDUCING, YOU'RE REDUCING ENERGY USE ALL THE TIME, INCLUDING AT PEAK.

AND SO THIS IS JUST THE PEAK REDUCTION.

GOT IT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS GRAPHIC? ALRIGHT, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

UM, THIS IS A VERY BUSY SLIDE AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

UM, EVERYBODY ON THE EEC SHOULD HAVE RECE RECEIVED A, A WORKBOOK THAT HAS MORE DETAIL.

UH, THIS IS JUST TRYING TO PUT ALL OF THE 10, UH, MODEL PORTFOLIOS ON ONE SLIDE WITH KIND OF THE SUMMATION OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES BY 2035 FOR KIND OF A, A QUICK LOOK COMPARISON, BUT YOU DO HAVE MORE DETAIL.

UM, AND THEN YOU'LL NOTICE THERE ARE TWO BLANK SECTIONS WHERE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK AND PORTFOLIOS FROM THE EUC AND, AND HOPING THAT YOU WILL DO THAT WITHIN THE MODELING FRAMEWORK THAT WE PROVIDED, UH, ABOUT A MONTH AGO.

AND THIS SLIDE IS, UH, SIMILAR TO, SIMILAR TO THE LAST SLIDE, BUT INSTEAD OF A A TABLE WITH NUMBERS, WE'VE KIND OF GIVEN THE PORTFOLIOS WITH A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THOSE PORTFOLIOS ARE INTENDED TO DO.

SO THEN I WANNA TALK ABOUT SCENARIOS.

UM, SO WE ARE GOING TO RUN ALL THE DIFFERENT PORTFOLIOS, UH, AFTER WE'VE RECEIVED YOUR FEEDBACK, UH, UM, THROUGH BUSINESS AS USUAL AS WELL AS A FEW SCENARIOS.

ONE IS EXTREME GRID WIDE WIDE EVENTS, AND THAT IS ALIGNED WITH, WITH INFORMATION FROM ERCOT WHEN THEY DO PROBABILISTIC, UM, PROBABILISTIC MODELING ON DIFFERENT OUTCOMES DEPENDING ON DIFFERENT WEATHER EVENTS.

SO WE'RE USING THEIR INFORMATION THERE.

UH, WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT LOCAL CONGESTION, SO IF WE HAVE TRANSMISSION OUTAGES OR DO ADDITIONAL TRANSMISSION UPGRADES, HOW THAT PORTFOLIO PERFORM IN THOSE SCENARIOS.

AND THEN WE'LL ALSO LOOK AT NEW MARKET REGULATIONS, WHICH ALSO ALIGNS ON NUMBERS FROM ERCOT FROM A THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT THAT THEY COMMISSIONED TO LOOK AT LOSS OF LOAD AND THE IMPACT OF, UH, PCM.

SO, SO THOSE WOULDN'T BE, YOU'RE NOT, THOSE ARE SEPARATE SCENARIOS FOR EACH OF THE PORTFOLIOS.

THOSE ARE SCENARIOS FOR EACH OF THE PORTFOLIOS.

FROM THERE WE WILL HOPEFULLY GET, UH, A HANDFUL OF PORTFOLIOS THAT LOOK LIKE THEY PERFORM WELL IN EACH ONE OF THOSE SCENARIOS.

AND THEN IF WE GO ON TO THE, WELL THIS SLIDE HERE, FROM THERE WE'LL TAKE THOSE SHORTLISTED PORTFOLIOS AND WE'D LIKE TO RUN ADDITIONAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AROUND THOSE, UH, PORTFOLIOS.

AND SOME OF IT HAS TO DO WITH WE'RE RUNNING A PORTFOLIOS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS.

SO WE MIGHT THINK WE HAVE SOME REALLY GOOD DIFFERENT PORTFOLIOS BASED ON THE SCENARIOS BEFORE, BUT WE WANNA REALLY TEST THEM AGAINST THOSE SENSITIVITIES.

UH, IF OUR LOAD FORECAST IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN, THAN WHAT WE ACTUALLY SEE AND IT'S MUCH HIGHER.

LIKE WHAT YOU SAW IN WEBER'S PRESENTATION, FOR EXAMPLE.

HOW DO THOSE PORTFOLIOS PERFORM FOR RELIABILITY SUSTAINABILITY AS WELL AS AFFORDABILITY? UH, WE WANNA LOOK AT IF FUEL PRICES GO UP ACROSS THE ERCOT WIDE SYSTEM.

I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF, OF NATURAL GAS.

WE SAW NATURAL GAS PRICES RISE SUBSTANTIALLY, UH, AFTER THE RUSSIAN UKRAINE CONFLICT OCCURRED BACK IN 2022, DIDN'T LAST HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

IT CAME BACK DOWN.

IT WASN'T REALLY FUNDAMENTALLY DRIVEN.

BUT IF WE DO HAVE FUEL PRICES, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY GO UP, HOW DOES THAT PERFORM? HOW DO THOSE PORTFOLIOS PERFORM? UH, WE WANNA LOOK AT A D ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO IMPORT EXPORT CAPACITY IN AND AROUND THE AUSTIN LOAD ZONE.

IF WE SEE LARGE DATA CENTERS IN AND AROUND AUSTIN, THAT WILL AFFECT POWER FLOW AND HOW POWER MOVES THROUGH TRANSMISSION LINES.

UH, AND THEN WE ALSO WANNA LOOK AT ERCOT RESOURCE RETIREMENTS.

UH, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE EP REGULATIONS.

IF ALL THE COAL PLANTS SHUT DOWN IN TEXAS, FOR EXAMPLE, BY A CERTAIN DATE, HOW WILL THE PORTFOLIOS PERFORM AS WELL? SO THOSE WILL BE, THE SENSITIVITIES WILL BE RUNNING ON THOSE SHORTLISTED PORTFOLIOS.

VERY, VERY LATE IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

AND THEN MUCH SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE MODELING FRAMEWORK.

UM, WE, WE ARE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK FROM THE EUCI BELIEVE ALL OF THE, ALL OF THESE WORKBOOKS ARE SENT MAYBE ON THE 8TH OF AUGUST, ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE VERY,

[01:45:01]

UH, WE ARE OFFERING OFFICE HOURS TODAY, TOMORROW, AND THE NEXT DAY IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AND WANNA JUST COME TALK AND DISCUSS ONE-ON-ONE.

UH, AND THEN WE'RE ALSO LOOKING FOR, FOR THOSE TWO PORTFOLIOS THAT YOU SEE WE'LL BE PUTTING TOGETHER AS WELL.

UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO, WE'D APPRECIATE ALL THAT INPUT BY AUGUST 14TH SO WE CAN GET STARTED ON THE MODELING.

THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF WORK LEFT TO DO, UH, AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET, UH, WRAPPED UP SO WE CAN COME BACK AT THE VERY NEXT EUC AND TALK ABOUT SOME MODELING RESULTS.

SO MAYBE THAT'S A GOOD SEGUE INTO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO ON THE TIMELINE WE'VE KIND OF GRAYED OUT WHAT'S ALREADY OCCURRED, BUT WE'RE HERE TODAY TALKING ABOUT THE PORTFOLIO SCENARIOS, LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK FROM HERE.

WE'LL RUN THE MODELS ON THOSE PORTFOLIOS AS WELL AS SOME SENSITIVITIES.

AND WE PLAN TO COME BACK, UH, IN SEPTEMBER TO GO OVER THE RESULTS OF THOSE MODELS SO WE CAN DISCUSS NEXT STEPS ON CRAFTING AND FORMING A RESOURCE PLAN TO HOPEFULLY BRING FORWARD PRIOR TO THE END OF THE YEAR FOR VOTE.

SO THAT IS ALL I HAVE PREPARED, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU, ANYBODY MAY HAVE.

UM, QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL.

AND THEN WE NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT PRESENTER.

DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH.

UH, YES.

UM, MICHAEL, WHAT WHATEVER SOLUTION, UH, THE CITY ENDS UP SELECTING WILL HAVE A BILL IMPACT ON RE RES RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS.

CAN YOU FOR EACH SCENARIO, I, ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE, IDENTIFY HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY RATES WOULD GO UP.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE, IF WE TAKE THE SCENARIO WHERE WE BUILD A NEW GAS PLANT OR WHERE WE INVEST HEAVILY INTO BATTERY INTO BATTERIES FOR EACH SCENARIO, THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

SURE.

THAT'S PART OF THE AFFORDABILITY, UH, METRICS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE OUTPUTTING.

UH, SO THERE WAS, UH, NINE DIFFERENT METRICS, I BELIEVE, IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY, THAT WE'RE GONNA OUTPUT THAT TOUCH UPON THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITY VALUES, UH, UH, UNDER AFFORDABILITY.

ONE IS THAT, THAT RATE IMPACT OR THE AFFORDABILITY OF HOW RATES WILL MOVE FOR CUSTOMERS AND THAT'LL BE EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE.

AS A PERCENTAGE.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE'RE PAYING 10 CENTS A KILOWATT HOUR RIGHT NOW, THAT IT WOULD BE 12 CENTS UNDER X SCENARIO OR Y OR 14 CENTS UNDER Y.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

GOOD AHEAD.

UM, AND THIS WOULD PROBABLY PROBABLY FACTOR INTO LIKE THE, THE RATES, BUT SINCE, I MEAN SINCE A LOT OF THE, THE REASON WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, NEW RESOURCES IS OUR, YOU KNOW, LOAD POCKET PRICE SEPARATION ISSUE.

LIKE WELL EACH OF THE, WE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THE IMPACT OF EACH OF THESE SCENARIOS ON HOW MANY HOURS THAT HAPPENS AND WHAT, HOW MUCH, HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IT, IT IS IN THAT OVER THOSE HOURS THAT, THAT IT HAPPENS AND EACH, EACH SCENARIO, YOU KNOW, THIS ONE REDUCES IT BY THIS MUCH OR THIS, THIS ONE THAT GOES UP BY THIS MUCH OR WHATEVER.

LIKE TO, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, YES.

'CAUSE THEY ARE STILL MODELS.

SURE.

AND THEY WEREN'T, THAT WON'T BE PERFECT.

SO ONE THING I WOULD SAY ABOUT THE PRODUCTION COST MODEL, I THINK IT WILL DO A GREAT JOB OF SHOWING, UH, THE INCREASE OR DECREASE OF LOW ZONE PRICE SEPARATION SINCE IT'S MODELING ALL THE ELECTRIC ELEMENTS INSIDE OF THE ERCOT MARKET.

AND SO I THINK IT DOES A BETTER JOB OF, OF DOING THAT AT THE SAME TIME IT DOESN'T HAVE INTERMITTENCY OR FORECAST AIR IN LOAD AND, AND WIND AND SOLAR.

AND SO YOU DON'T GET THE SAME PRICE VOLATILITY THAT YOU SEE IN THE REAL TIME MARKET, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE PRICE SEPARATION THAT WE SEE ON THE OTHER SIDE WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS STOCHASTIC MODEL.

SO LOOKING BACK A LOT AT HISTORY AND CORRELATIONS AND SO YOU'LL SEE THE VALUE OF DIFFERENT ASSETS IN DIFFERENT AREAS, BUT YOU WON'T ACTUALLY SEE THE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE WHEN YOU PUT A AN ASSET IN A PARTICULAR AREA BECAUSE IT'S NOT MODELING THE TRANSMISSION IS LOOKING AT ALL THAT INFORMATION IS VALUED IN THAT FORWARD CURVE.

OKAY, GREAT.

THANKS.

UM, SO ONE THING I NOTICED IS, UM, TWO OF THE RESOURCES THAT I'M EXCITED ABOUT, UM, ARE FUEL CELLS AND GEOTHERMAL MM-HMM .

BUT YOU GUYS ARE NOT ABLE TO MODEL THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE, YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION IN ORDER TO MODEL THOSE TYPES OF RESOURCES.

SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT TECHNOLOGY READINESS AND WHAT WE COULD ACCOMPLISH IN, IN THE NEARER YEARS ORIGINALLY, UH, FUEL CELLS AND UH, GEOTHERMAL WERE NOT INCLUDED.

THERE ARE FUEL CELLS TODAY.

THEY, UH, HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME AS MICHAEL OVER HAS SPOKEN TO.

THEY'RE JUST NOT AT AT COMMERCIAL SIZE OR SCALE.

MOST OF THE FUEL CELLS YOU SEE ARE CLOSER TO TWO MEGAWATTS IN SIZE.

AND SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THINGS AT A UTILITY SCALE, WE WERE LOOKING FOR, FOR BIGGER SOLUTIONS.

UM, WHEN IT COMES TO GEOTHERMAL, UM, WE ARE GETTING VERY EXCITED ABOUT WHERE GEOTHERMAL MAY BE HAPPENING HERE

[01:50:01]

IN TEXAS.

IT'S A LOT DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU ASKED ME FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO ABOUT THE PROSPECTS OF GEOTHERMAL, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME TECHNOLOGY BREAKTHROUGHS.

I THINK YOU MENTIONED REDUCING DRILLING COSTS.

IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE'RE PROBABLY VERY GOOD AT IN TEXAS, IT'S DRILLING, DRILLING HOLES.

UH, WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR A LONG TIME AND WE DO A LOT OF IT HERE IN TEXAS.

UM, AND THERE ARE SOME NEW TECHNOLOGIES AS WELL.

AND SO WHILE WE ARE ACTUALLY ENGAGED AND WORKING ON TRYING TO SPIN UP THE FIRST COMMERCIALLY OR FIRST UTILITY SCALE PILOT GEOTHERMAL PROJECT RIGHT NOW, UH, AND WE'RE PRETTY FAR ALONG WITH THAT, I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO NECESSARILY, UM, PLAN ON GEOTHERMAL AS A SOLUTION UNTIL WE HAVE MORE.

WHEN YOU SAY WE DO YOU MEAN TEXAS? AUSTIN, AUSTIN ENERGY.

AUSTIN ENERGY.

WHEN AS WE'RE FORMING A RESOURCE PLAN, WE MAY NOT WANT TO, UM, DEPEND ON SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T QUITE SEEN COME TO FRUITION YET, BUT WE'D LIKE TO KEEP IT AS AN OPTION.

SO I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE RESOURCE PLAN THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE GOALS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AND NOT PARTICULAR MEGAWATTS SIZES OF DIFFERENT ASSETS AT DIFFERENT YEARS.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT SO THAT WE CAN MODEL THINGS AND LOOK AT RISK AND LOOK AT, UH, DIFFERENTIALS AND RISK BETWEEN DIFFERENT PORTFOLIOS.

BUT WE WANNA BE OPEN TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OPPORTUNITIES THAT AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE WHEN THERE'S SOMETHING BETTER THAT COMES ALONG THAT STILL MEETS THE CARBON FREE OBJECTIVE THAT MAYBE HAS A DIFFERENT PROFILE, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADD THAT INTO THE SYSTEM.

AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR YOU OR FOR LISA.

I'M NOT SURE.

SO IN THE EUC CONSIDERING, UH, D DIFFERENT PORTFOLIOS, AND I'M THINKING ABOUT THE, THE WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS, WE ADD HIGHER GOALS IN TERMS OF DEMAND RESPONSE, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, CUSTOMER CITED, SOLAR, I'M NOT, I DON'T REMEMBER ABOUT COMMUNITY SOLAR.

THEN WHAT YOUR CONSULTANT IS TELLING YOU IS AVAILABLE.

SO DOES THAT MEAN IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF EVERYONE'S TIME TO MODEL HIGHER GOALS OR, UM, I, I MEAN I THINK IT'S MORE VALUABLE FOR MODELING GOALS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF WHAT WE BELIEVE IS, IS FEASIBLE AND WE CAN ACCOMPLISH.

UM, BUT WE'LL CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO MODEL HIGHER GOALS IF THAT'S UH, OKAY.

THE DIRECTION YOU'D LIKE US TO GO.

AND THEN, UM, ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WE RECEIVED, UH, EARLIER TODAY WAS, UM, GIVEN CERTAIN CHOICES IT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE TO JUST KEEP SOME OF THE FOSSIL FUEL RESOURCES WE HAVE.

UM, I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS IF I LOOK AT PORTFOLIO FOR RELIABILITY AND I SEE ADDING COMBINED CYCLE PLUS SCR 2 25 MEGAWATTS AND COMBUSTION TURBINES 350 MEGAWATTS, ISN'T THAT ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF GAS WE HAVE TODAY? COULD WE NOT MODEL JUST WHAT IF WE DIDN'T SHUT THEM DOWN IN 2035 AND MAYBE ADDED SOME BETTER POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ON THEM? I, I PERSONALLY SUPPORT THAT AND SO THAT'S SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR.

I, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE IT'S BETTER TO REUSE EXISTING STEEL IN THE GROUND THAN RIP IT DOWN AND BUILD NEW STEEL THAT DOESN'T SEEM VERY ENVIRONMENTALLY, UH, FRIENDLY TO ME AS WELL.

AND SO WE COULD BE LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL POLLUTION CONTROLS, CONVERSION OF EXISTING ASSETS, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, TWO OTHER THINGS SUCH AS CARBON CAPTURE SEQUESTRATION OR HYDROGEN CAPABLE OF THINGS OF THAT NATURE AS WELL.

SO THAT E EVEN THAT PORTFOLIO COULD, IN SOME WAYS, YOU COULD THINK OF IT AS YOU COULD BUILD COMPLETELY NEW PLANTS OR YOU COULD USE THE ONES YOU HAVE, RIGHT.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME UPGRADES RETRO TO THERE WOULD UPGRADE, BE SOME INVESTMENT INVOLVED.

IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE LESS INVESTMENT.

JUST, JUST CURIOUS IF THAT WAS A WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT.

UM, OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL? AND THEN I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE, WE WOULD COME UP WITH TWO PORTFOLIOS IN THE NEXT TWO DAYS AND WHETHER THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, MAYBE A FEW DAYS MORE POSSIBLE.

UM, I HAVE A, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? QUICK, QUICK QUESTION OR A COMMENT? I DUNNO.

UM, NO, IT IS A QUESTION.

UM, BUT I SUBMITTED MY QUESTIONS IN WRITING, SO I MEAN, I THINK AS LONG AS I CAN, UH, GET SOME RESPONSES, AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT SO MUCH TO, AGAIN, ADDING PORTFOLIOS, BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PORTFOLIOS WHEN THEY COME BACK TO US.

THE PORTFOLIOS IS, IS THAT ONE LABELED AFFORDABILITY.

UM, UM, BUT, UH, I THINK THE ONE THAT'S KIND OF CONCERNING FOR ME, UH, I LIKE, UH, COMMISSIONER REED'S SUGGESTION ABOUT, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IF MAINTAINING ASSETS VERSUS BUILDING NEW ONES.

UM, AND I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING, AGAIN, IF WE MODEL THE, THE WORK GROUP PROPOSAL, RIGHT.

THAT THAT WOULD BE A VALUABLE THING.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS A COMMISSIONER, I WOULD THINK, UM, BUT FOR ME, THE, THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT

[01:55:01]

BECAUSE I MEAN, I THINK, AGAIN, I'VE ALWAYS, AND I'VE SAID THIS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, IS LIKE, I DON'T WANNA MAKE, I DON'T WANNA PORTRAY TO THE COMMUNITY THAT AFFORDABILITY GOES AGAINST RELIABILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY.

AND I SEE THAT THE PORTFOLIO PROPOSED UNDER AFFORDABILITY IS LIKE THE LEAST ATTRACTIVE IN TERMS OF BALANCING AMONGST RELIABILITY, AFFORDABILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY.

WE EVEN, IT'S THE ONLY OPTION WHERE WE ACTUALLY GO DOWN ON THE DEMAND SIDE OF, UM, APPROACHES.

SO FOR ME IT'S, UM, AGAIN, WHAT'S THE VALUE OF HAVING THAT PORTFOLIO AND CAN WE CHANGE THE NAME SO IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF WE CARE ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, THIS IS THE ONE YOU WANT WHEN SURE.

SO THAT, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT AFFORDABILITY IS JUST ONE ISSUE THAT OUR COMMUNITY CARES ABOUT IN ADDITION TO RELIABILITY.

AND, UM, SO FOR ME IT'S LIKE, CAN WE CHANGE THE NAME AND HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S EVEN AN OPTION BECAUSE, SO IT JUST DOESN'T EVEN SEEM LIKE SOMETHING ANYONE'S ASKING FOR.

SO ONCE AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT PROPOSALS OF RESOURCE PLANS.

THESE ARE DIFFERENT PORTFOLIOS WE'RE GONNA MODEL TO LOOK AT THAT TRADE OFF OF RISK AS WELL AS THE, THE MEASURE RISK AS WELL AS LOOK THE TRADE OFF BETWEEN DIFFERENT PORTFOLIOS AND HOW THEY IMPACT THAT.

AND SO WE STARTED OUT WITH THE IDEA OF TRYING TO MODEL ONE PORTFOLIO THAT WILL RUN THAT WOULD BE AS LEASE COSTLY AS POSSIBLE, THAT WE LABELED THAT ONE THAT WOULD BE AS, AS ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE AS POSSIBLE AND LABELED IT.

AND THEN ONE THAT WOULD BE AS RELIABLE AS POSSIBLE AND LABELED THAT AND THEN RUN ADDITIONAL PORTFOLIOS WITHIN THAT TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE DIFFERENT RISK PROFILES AS WELL AS THE TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT COMMUNITY VALUES.

SO THAT WAS MODELED IN INTENTIONALLY AS ONE OF THOSE EXTREME, UH, ONE OF THE CORNERS OF THE TRIANGLE, IF YOU WILL.

WELL, AGAIN, I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT LABELING IT THE AFFORDABILITY OPTION BECAUSE I MEAN, TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A HIGH DEGREE OF RELIABILITY IN THAT OPTION AS WELL.

SO WHY DON'T YOU LABEL THIS ONE RELIABILITY AND LABEL THE OTHER RELIABILITY AS AFFORDABILITY? UH, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I'M JUST, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE TRYING TO PEG THIS ONE AS THE AFFORDABILITY OPTION.

I KNOW IT PROBABLY PRODUCES THE, THE LOWER RATES OR I GUESS I ASSUME THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL ARE, YOU KNOW, THINKING, BUT, UH, I REALLY THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE CALLED SOMETHING ELSE.

'CAUSE IT, IT'S A VERY FA IT'S A FALSE, UM, WAY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ISSUE OF AFFORDABILITY 'CAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE NOTHING ELSE MATTERS EXCEPT RATES.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT FOLKS, UH, IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ADVOCATE FOR WORKING FAMILIES WOULD SAY, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE EXCEPT AFFORDABILITY AND THROW EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THE WINDOW.

SO I THINK FOR ME THAT'S A FALSE SORT OF A MESSAGE WE'RE PORTRAYING.

AND SO WE COULD JUST COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT NAME THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL COMFORTABLE.

BUT, UH, AGAIN, I MIGHT BE THE ONLY ONE WHO FEELS THAT WAY.

BUT, UH, I, I JUST WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AGAIN, AFFORDABILITY IS ONE OF THE THREE PILLARS AND THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT WE THROW THE ENVIRONMENT, YOU KNOW, OUT THE WINDOW OR RELIABILITY OUT THE WINDOW JUST 'CAUSE WE THINK WE SHOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, UM, A UTILITY THAT CHARGES FAIR RATES.

UM, AND, AND IT'S AFFORDABLE.

SO THAT'S JUST MY 2 CENTS.

I WON'T GO INTO MY OTHER, UH, 12 OR 15 QUESTIONS.

YOU KNOW, YOU GOT 'EM, YOU CAN RESPOND, UH, WHEN YOU CAN'T.

UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE JUST 'CAUSE IT'S SAYING, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, FOR ME IT'S ALSO AN ISSUE FOR AUSTIN ENERGY, AGAIN, IF, IF, UH, THE WAY IT'S PORTRAYING THESE, UH, THESE OPTIONS, RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, UH, THESE, THESE, UH, TRADE-OFFS.

10 PER 10% OFF, AND A WAIVER OF A CUSTOMER SERVICE FEE FOR SOMEBODY WHO IS METAL, UPPER METAL OR WELL OFF, UH, ENERGY PRICES HAVE NOTHING VERY LITTLE PART OF THEIR OVERALL BUDGET FOR LOW INCOME PEOPLE.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S A FAIR WAY TO PORTRAY THAT PARTICULAR, UM, OPTION.

UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU FOR THE, THE FEEDBACK.

WE'LL, WE'LL DEFINITELY TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION.

IT, IT WAS JUST AN INTENT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO, TO MEASURE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT PORTFOLIOS BY KIND OF HAVING THAT STAKE IN THE GROUND OF WHAT WOULD BE THE LEAST COST PORTFOLIO, NOT A, NOT A PORTFOLIO WE'RE PROPOSING AS A POTENTIAL RESOURCE PLAN.

LET ME, LET ME COMMENT, LET ME MAKE A COMMENT.

AND THAT IS AFFORDABILITY.

IT IS NOT, IN MY OPINION IS NOT THE SIMPLY LEASE COST THE WAY OF ACHIEVING IT MOST CHEAPLY FOR, BUT RATHER AFFORDABILITY FOR WHO? IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE, UH, WE PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF HELP RIGHT NOW UNDER THE RATE, CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE, UH, FOR

[02:00:01]

IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL PART ONLY SECOND TO SHELTER OF YOUR, OF YOUR MONTHLY BUDGET.

AND THAT'S, I BELIEVE WHY ONE OF THE METRICS WE'RE ALSO GONNA LOOK AT IS ENERGY BURDEN.

THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE, UH, OTHER METRICS FROM LAST MONTH WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE METRICS WE'RE GONNA OUTPUT FROM THESE MODELS.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE RATE IMPACT AS WELL AS ENERGY BURDEN.

'CAUSE YOU ARE CORRECT, IT DOES IMPACT DIFFERENTLY IN DIFFERENT, UH, INCOME CLASSES WHEN OUR RACE INCREASE.

AND THAT, THAT, THAT IN MY OPINION, WOULD MAKE IT EQUITABLE.

THAT CERTAINLY PRI THE PRI AFFORDABILITY IN MY JUDGMENT HA HAS TO DO WITH PROTECTING THOSE WHO SURE.

SO MAYBE A, A BETTER NAME FOR THIS PORTFOLIO MIGHT BE LEASE COST SYSTEM AVERAGE RATE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY DISCUSS THAT AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE A, A NAME, A PORTFOLIO THAT, THAT FITS A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL BEFORE A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE'RE GONNA ARRIVE AT TWO ADDITIONAL PORTFOLIOS? .

WELL, THANK YOU.

UM, SO FIRST QUESTION, DID ALL COMMISSIONERS RECEIVE THE EMAIL WITH THE PORTFOLIOS? IS ANYONE, DOES EVERYONE HAVE THAT? I GOT IT.

UM, SECOND QUESTION.

GIVEN, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY'S DESIRE TO HAVE THE EUC PROVIDE, UH, TWO ADDITIONAL PORTFOLIOS TO MODEL, WHICH I'M, I'M HAPPY THAT THEY'RE GIVING US THAT OPPORTUNITY.

UM, HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE THAT? WELL, WHAT, DOES ANYONE HAVE A SUGGESTION OF HOW TO ACHIEVE THAT? I DO.

YOU SHOULD HAVE TWO OR THREE PEOPLE GET TOGETHER AND PREPARE THOSE AND WE SHOULD TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT ON WHAT YOU DO.

IS THAT, IS THAT, LIKE, DO WE HAVE A FORMAL PROCESS LIKE THAT WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? I THINK WE CAN DELEGATE IT.

YEAH, SURE.

WE CAN, WE CAN, WE CAN RATIFY IT LATER IF IT OKAY.

WELL WE CAN DO IT OVER THE TELEPHONE, YOU KNOW.

I, OKAY.

I JUST DIDN'T KNOW, BUT YEAH, JUST TURN OFF YOUR RED LIGHTS.

OH, SORRY.

UM, LISA, WERE YOU GONNA HAVE A RESPONSE OR WERE YOU HERE FOR QUESTIONS? I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY GOING TO MODEL EXACTLY THE WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION AS A PORTFOLIO.

WE DIDN'T WANNA PRESUME THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED FOR ONE OF THOSE.

AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO LEAVE IT BLANK FOR YOU TO PUT WHATEVER YOU WANT IN IT.

AND I THINK THE ONLY, YOU KNOW, UH, RULE THAT YOU HA IT'S NOT A RULE FROM US AS MUCH AS IT IS, YOU HAVE TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A, AN UNINTENTIONAL MEETING.

AND SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO, UM, DISCUSS WITH OUR MODELING TEAM, WE DO HAVE SEVERAL HOURS OF, UH, OFFICE HOURS WHERE, YOU KNOW, A SUBSET OF Y'ALL CAN COME TOGETHER AND TALK THROUGH IT.

UM, ULTIMATELY YOU CAN MEET ON YOUR OWN, UH, IN A SMALL GROUP AS WELL.

WE JUST CAN'T, WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T CREATE A QUORUM SIMILAR TO A WORK GROUP.

SO SIMILAR TO A WORK GROUP.

UM, SO ON THE WORK, SO I I I WOULD LIKE ONE OF THE PORTFOLIOS TO BE THE WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATION, BUT MAYBE WITH SOME SMALL CHANGES GIVEN THE INFORMATION WE HAVE ON THE DNV.

UM, BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CONSULT WITH CAIA AND DAVE WHO AREN'T HERE.

'CAUSE I FEEL SOME RESPONSIBILITY SINCE THEY WERE ON THE, ON THE, UM, ON THE WORK GROUP.

IS IT, IS IT OKAY TO JUST USE THE, THE PREVIOUS, THE, THE MEMBERS OF THE EOC WHO WERE ON THE PREVIOUS WORK GROUP AND THEN WE CAN JUST CONSULT WITH ONE ANOTHER? WELL, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT YOU KEEP IT SMALL.

UH, AND IN THAT VEIN I WOULD, I I JUST CAN'T DO HAVE THE BANDWIDTH TO DO THIS RIGHT THIS MOMENT.

I THINK THAT JOSH WANTS TO BE ON, IN THAT GROUP AND PERHAPS OTHERS AS WELL.

AND THEN I WOULD SUGGEST YOU SEE WHO WANTS TO BE ON IT AND THEN DECIDE HOW TO, HOW TO PUT IT TOGETHER.

WHO, WHO I'LL VOLUNTEER TO BE OFF IT.

SO .

FOR THAT, ASSUMING JUST DO IT THAT DAVE TUTTLE AND KABA WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED IN SOME WAY AND I'D LIKE TO BE INVOLVED IN SOME WAY.

SO I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO VOLUNTEER

[02:05:01]

AND YOU AND JOSH, THEN AND JOSH, ONE MORE.

UH, IS THERE ANOTHER PERSON, UH, WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED IN, IN ARRIVING AT TWO PORTFOLIOS BEFORE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAY? RAUL, WOULD YOU WANT TO OR JONATHAN .

I'M ACTUALLY AT OUT OF TOWN ON VACATION RIGHT NOW.

I'M TRYING DO.

UM, BUT I, I AGREE.

AGAIN, I I FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE SHOULD MODEL THE, YOU KNOW, THE THE WORK GROUP, UM, PROPOSAL, UH, OR PORTFOLIO WITH TWEAKS, RIGHT.

AS, AS, AS, UH, Y'ALL DETERMINED.

SO I'M, I'M HAPPY, UH, UH, TO, UH, DESIGNATE A WORK GROUP RIGHT.

AND GIVE THEM THAT, UH, AUTHORITY.

WE WILL, I WILL SEPARATELY REACH OUT TO, UM, YOURSELF.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF DAVE TUTTLE'S IN TOWN.

I KNOW CAVE IS BACK TOMORROW, I BELIEVE.

BUT, UM, I'LL REACH OUT TO THEM AND, UM, LET'S SAY WE DIDN'T QUITE MAKE THE DEADLINE OF WEDNESDAY CLOSE OF BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY OF GETTING US ALL TOGETHER, ET CETERA, EXTRA DAY.

NOT THAT BIG A DEAL KIND OF THING.

YOU'D LIKE IT BY THE END OF WEDNESDAY, BUT I HAVE THE PROTECTION OF THE MICROPHONE RIGHT NOW AS I LOOK AT MY MODELING TEAM.

I THINK THAT IF WE GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON OUR, THE PORTFOLIOS WE PROPOSED BY WEDNESDAY, THEN I THINK THEY COULD HAVE, YOU COULD HAVE UNTIL FRIDAY OKAY.

TO GIVE US YOUR PORTFOLIOS.

BUILDING CODES? SOUNDS GOOD.

SOUNDS GOOD.

ALL, UM, WE HAVE A PLAN.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS, BUT IT'S, IT'S A PLAN.

, IT'S A PLAN.

AND I JUST WANNA REMIND YOU, IF ANY OF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ASKING YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT PORTFOLIOS AND GETTING KIND OF FIRSTHAND BACK AND FORTH DIALOGUE GOING, YOU KNOW, IN A SMALL GROUP, ONE-ON-ONE WHATNOT.

WE HAVE FOUR HOURS OF OFFICE HOURS OVER THE NEXT TWO DAYS.

JUST SEND AN EMAIL TO AMY.

I SENT AN EMAIL FOR TOMORROW AT TWO.

WONDERFUL.

SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO JOIN ME TOMORROW AT TWO, I, I DO HAVE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I HAVE, BUT I, I DON'T WANNA DO 'EM TONIGHT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ARE THOSE OFFICE HOURS IN PERSON OR VIDEO OR VIRTUAL? VIRTUAL.

SO DOES THAT MEAN WE CAN GO TO

[18. Staff briefing on the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code by Heidi Kasper, Energy Efficiency Services Director, Austin Energy. ]

UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO, UH, INTRODUCE THIS TOPIC, UM, ON BUILDING CODES.

JUST AS A REMINDER FOR ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, UH, WHILE WE'RE GIVING YOU THIS BRIEFING, THIS WILL BE PACKAGED WITH ALL THE OTHER CODES FOR THE CITY THAT WILL BE PRESENTED AS ONE PACKAGE, UH, BY DEVELOPMENT, UH, SERVICES, UH, AND TWO COUNCIL.

SO YES, WE ARE WORKING ON THIS PART OF IT, BUT IT WILL BE PART OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE OF, OF CODES THAT THE CITY WILL FORWARD THROUGH DSD DEPARTMENT.

AND AS YOU'LL HEAR FROM HEIDI, THERE ARE SOME NOTABLE CHANGES ON BOTH THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SIDE, UH, THAT WE WANT TO REVIEW WITH YOU.

IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'RE REVIEWING THEM WITH YOU, BUT, UH, JUST SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHERE WE ARE AND ALSO THE SCHEDULE HAS BEEN PUSHED BACK A LITTLE BIT FOR THAT.

SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, THANKS RICHARD.

HEIDI CASPER, DIRECTOR OF GREEN BUILDING AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY.

UM, AS RICHARD MENTIONED, I WAS HERE BACK IN APRIL WHERE I GAVE YOU A SUMMARY OF WHAT WE THOUGHT OUR PROPOSED ENERGY CODE CHANGES WOULD BE RIGHT BEFORE GOING OUT FOR STAKEHOLDER COMMENT.

SO TONIGHT I AM BACK WITH AN UPDATE.

UM, I WILL COVER THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED IN THAT PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE, UM, I'LL GIVE YOU A REFRESHER OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES, THE RESULTS OF OUR ENERGY SAVINGS ANALYSIS AND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER ON IMPACTS TO AFFORDABILITY.

VIA SOCIAL MEDIA AND NEWSLETTERS.

SO IN TERMS OF OUR OUTREACH, WE PRIMARILY RELIED ON THE SPEAK UP AUSTIN, UH, WEBPAGE.

WE DID REACH OUT DIRECTLY VIA EMAIL, INCLUDING TO MANY OF YOU, UM, APPROXIMATELY TO 157 ORGANIZATIONS AND 235 INDIVIDUAL INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS.

THESE FOLKS INCLUDED DEVELOPERS, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, HOME BUILDERS, GAS COMPANIES, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY GROUPS, AMONG OTHERS.

WE ALSO ANNOUNCED THE ENGAGEMENT

[02:10:01]

AND IN TOTAL WE RECEIVED OVER A THOUSAND VIEWS ON THE PAGE.

AND 55 COMMENTS.

THIS MAY SEEM COUNTERINTUITIVE.

HERE WE HAVE A BREAKDOWN OF THE, TO TOPICS COMMENTED ON.

SO THE MAJORITY OF COMMENTS WERE IN SUPPORT OF ADOPTING THE NEW CODE, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED APPENDICES.

UM, BY FAR, ELECTRIC READINESS AND EV READINESS WERE OUR MOST COMMENTED ON TOPICS.

UM, SOME COMMENTERS DID EXPRESS CONCERNS OVER IMPACTS TO AFFORDABILITY, AND WE HAD SOME COMMENTS THAT WE'RE ADVOCATING FOR INCREASING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EV INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE ADDITION OF A DC FAST CHARGER COMPLIANCE PATH.

BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK, UM, WE DO INTEND TO DEVELOP A DC FAST CHARGER, FAST CHARGING COMPLIANCE PATH.

UM, I'M GOING TO COVER THE AFFORDABILITY PIECE A LITTLE BIT LATER.

UM, THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS ALSO ON WATER HEATING.

AND WE HAD A MIX OF COMMENTS, UH, HERE.

A NUMBER OF THOSE WERE REQUESTING THAT WE REMOVE A PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SPACE REQUIREMENT, UM, FOR EXTERIOR INSTANTANEOUS GAS WATER HEATERS.

AND ANOTHER, UM, SORRY, REMOVE AN ADDITIONAL SPACE REQUIREMENT ENTIRELY.

AND THEN OTHERS ASKING THAT WE REMOVE AN EXCEPTION TO THE SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR EXTERIOR, UH, GAS, INSTANTANEOUS WATER HEATERS.

SO WE HAD A BIT OF COMMENTS ON EITHER SIDE.

UM, AT THE MOMENT, CAN, CAN YOU JUST TELL US WHAT, WHAT IS THE PROPOSAL ON THE WATER HEATER EXEMPTION? AND TALK TO US LIKE WE DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IT .

SO THE, UM, THE CODE LANGUAGE REQ RIGHT NOW AS PROPOSED INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT THAT FOR IF YOU'RE INSTALLING A GAS WATER HEATER, THAT YOU ALSO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THREE FOOT BY THREE FOOT BY SEVEN FOOT SPACE.

UM, I BELIEVE THAT ALSO REQUIRES TO, APPLIES TO INSTANTANEOUS, UM, ELECTRIC RESISTANCE WATER HEATERS TOO.

SO IT REQUIRES THAT YOU PROVIDE THAT LARGER SPACE SO THAT IF A HOMEOWNER LATER WANTS TO COME BACK AND RETROFIT WITH A HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, THEY HAVE THE SPACE TO DO SO.

UM, SO WE HAD SOME THAT SAID, TECHNOLOGY IS CHANGING.

WHY DO WE NEED A SPACE REQUIREMENT AT ALL? YOU CAN DO IT WITH DUCTING OR YOU HAVE SPLIT SYSTEMS THAT ARE COMING ONLINE.

AND THEN WE HAD SOME THAT SAID, UM, YOU SHOULDN'T BE EXEMPTING THE EXTERIOR, UH, GAS ONES.

'CAUSE THAT, UH, DEFEATS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING THE SPACE REQUIREMENT AND, AND YOU'RE INADVERTENTLY INCENTIVIZING FOLKS TO PUT THEM ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.

UM, WHICH WE SAW DURING URI IS MAYBE NOT A GREAT IDEA.

UM, SO WE HAVE AT THIS POINT DECIDED TO REMOVE THE EXCEPTION.

NEXT, NEXT SLIDE.

OH, AND A FULL LIST OF COMMENTS IF YOU WANNA DIVE INTO 'EM, IS AVAILABLE.

UM, SO GOING BACK OVER THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ON THE RESIDENTIAL CODE, I'LL TRY AND GO OVER THESE QUICKLY.

UM, CONVERSION OF THE ADDITIONAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENT FROM A PICK ONE OF THESE INTO A POINT SYSTEM.

SO PICK ENOUGH TO GET TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF POINTS.

IT INCLUDES, UH, CHOICES AMONG ENVELOPE, MECHANICAL DEMAND RESPONSE, AND ONSITE SOLAR OPTIONS.

DEMAND RESPONSE CONTROLS WILL HAVE TO BE INCLUDED ON ELECTRIC WATER HEATERS.

UM, THOUGH TIMERS WILL REMAIN AN OPTION.

BATHROOMS WITH INTERMITTENT EXHAUST FANS MUST INCLUDE CONTROLS TO HELP REMOVE EXCESS MOISTURE.

THESE CAN INCLUDE TIMERS, OCCUPANCY SENSORS, HUMIDITY CONTROL OR CONTAMINANT CONTROL.

THE AIR LEAKAGE REDUCTION FOR THE ENVELOPE HAS GONE DOWN FROM FIVE AACH H TO FOUR, SO A TIGHTER BUILDING ENVELOPE.

UM, THERE'S BEEN A DECREASE IN THE PRESCRIP PRESCRIPTIVE ATTIC INSULATION.

UM, CHANGING THAT REQUIREMENT FROM R 49 TO R 38.

THIS WAS ARRIVED AT THROUGH A CONSENSUS BUILDING AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

AND WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT MODELING WISE HERE, WE DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT OF EFFICIENCY TO BE GAINED FROM GOING TO THE R 38 TO R 49, AND THAT WE, WE CAN GET THERE MORE COST-EFFECTIVELY DOING OTHER THINGS.

UM, BUT A BUILDER COULD STILL, WHO WASN'T DOING THE PRESCRIPTIVE PASS PATH, COULD STILL PUT IN MORE INSULATION AND THEY JUST GET MORE POINTS FOR IT OR WHATEVER.

IT WOULD COME OUT IN THE PERFORMANCE.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

CURRENTLY WE DON'T HAVE A PROGRAM STOOD UP FOR THAT, WHICH IS ALSO WHY WE ARE, UM, CONTINUING TO KEEP THE TIMER AS AN OPTION, UH, IN THE CODE.

I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE, ON THE DEMAND, DEMAND RESPONSIVE PATROLS FOR WATER HEATERS, BECAUSE I KNOW I'VE GOTTA HEAP UP WATER HERE AND I SEE WHERE IT GOES.

MM-HMM.

, WHAT IS THE, HOW DO, HOW DOES, HOW DOES THE UTILITY COMMUNICATE WITH THOSE? ARE THOSE, ARE THOSE WIFI OR LIKE, LIKE THE THERMOSTATS OR THAT'S YES.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE INTENT.

[02:15:01]

BUT WE WANNA START PREPPING THE MARKET FOR DEMAND RESPONSE CONTROLS ON WATER HEATERS BECAUSE IN TALKING WITH OUR DEMAND RESPONSE TEAMS, WE ARE LOOKING TO ADD THAT TO OUR PORTFOLIO OF DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS. SO THIS IS LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR THAT.

DO YOU, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT LIKE IN MY GARAGE, THE, THE ROOM OFF OF MY GARAGE THAT HAS MY HEAT PUMP, HOT WATER HEATER, LIKE MY INTERNET DOESN'T MAKE IT OVER THERE.

SO WOULD THERE BE SOME KIND OF PERFORMANCE THAT IT, YOU'D HAVE, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF SIGNAL OVER THERE TO LIKE GET IT, TO QUALIFY TO GET REBATES OR WHATEVER? NOT PER THE CODE, BUT IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN A PROGRAM, THEN YES.

UM, OKAY.

AND LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T HAVE THE PROGRAM STOOD UP YET, SO MAYBE SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.

'CAUSE I KNOW THAT I GOT THE HARDWARE, WELL, HALF THE HARDWARE, BUT NO COMMUNICATIONS.

THANKS.

UM, AND THEN AS I MENTIONED, NEW ELECTRIC READY AND EV READY, UH, REQUIREMENTS, UM, AND APPENDICES, AND I'LL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON THOSE IN A LATER SLIDE.

SO ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES INCLUDE, UM, A REQUIREMENT FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS. UM, THAT SIZING IS, UH, A CALCULATION OF WATTS PER SQUARE FOOT FOR THE THREE LARGEST FLOORS.

AND IT APPLIES TO BUILDINGS OVER 10,000 SQUARE FEET.

THERE'S AN ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM READINESS REQUIREMENT WHERE, UM, SPACE IS DETERMINED BY THE, AGAIN, BY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THOSE THREE LARGEST FLOORS.

AND IT'S INTENDED TO PAIR ROUGHLY WITH A RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM REQUIREMENT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO INSTALL THE BATTERY, YOU JUST NEED TO PREPARE THE, UH, A SPACE FOR IT.

SO WHERE A BATTERY COULD GO IN THE FUTURE ON THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM REQUIREMENT, COULD SOMEONE BUILDING A, A COMMERCIAL BUILDING SAY, HEY, INSTEAD OF PUTTING MY RENEWABLE ENERGY ON MY BUILDING, I'M JUST GONNA, YOU KNOW, DO THE JOIN COMMUNITY SOLAR PROGRAM OR SOMETHING OR, SO THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN CURRENTLY, THERE ARE, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT REQUIREMENT IF YOU CAN'T PUT THE SOLAR ON YOUR ROOF.

SO IT'S, I DON'T BELIEVE, AND WE'RE LOOKING INTO SOME OF THE NUANCE OF IT, BUT, UM, RIGHT NOW WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S THAT YOU COULD JUST CHOOSE NOT TO.

UM, BUT WHAT IT WOULD SAY IS THAT IF YOUR ROOF IS SHADED, IF YOUR ROOF HAS, UM, TOO MUCH OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM SPACE, THEN YOU COULD PARTICIPATE IN A GREEN CHOICE PROGRAM OR SOME OTHER, UH, RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM OR COMMUNITY SOLAR OR THE LIKE.

YEAH, I WAS JUST THINKING OF A WAY TO, YOU KNOW, TO LEAD TO MORE DEMAND FOR THE COMMUNITY SOLAR BY GIVING PEOPLE THAT OPTION.

WE COULD CONSIDER THAT.

BECAUSE IT COULD BE A WAY TO, UM, IT MIGHT BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE IF YOU, IF YOU GUYS ARE BUILDING COMMUNITY SOLAR SOMEWHERE TO JUST SAY, JOIN, YOU KNOW, JOIN THIS RATHER THAN HAVE IT ON THE ROOF.

AND THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS AND THE IMPACT REALLY VARIES A LOT DEPENDING ON THE BUILDING TYPE, AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN A MINUTE.

UM, EARLY CAGE REDUC HAS BEEN REDUCED, UH, IN THE COMMERCIAL CODE ALSO.

AND, UH, SPECIFICALLY FOR GROUPS R AND I RESIDENTIAL AND AN INDUSTRIAL, UM, WE'VE MADE UPDATES TO THE HVAC EFFICIENCY TABLES ALIGNING WITH FEDERAL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS.

THE, A TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE RATIO HAS BEEN INTRODUCED THAT ALLOWS FOR TRADE-OFFS WITHIN HVAC SYSTEM DESIGN.

UM, SO NOT ALL OF YOUR SYSTEMS NEED TO BE THE SAME, UH, EFFICIENCY.

YOU CAN MAKE SOME TRADE-OFFS HAVING MORE EFFICIENT EQUIPMENT, UM, FOR SOME THINGS UNLESS EFFICIENT FOR OTHER THINGS.

SO LOOKING AT THE TOTAL SYSTEM, UM, PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY.

UM, THERE'S BEEN UPDATES TO THAT, THE ADDITIONAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY SECTION TO PROVIDE A LOT MORE OPTIONS, GIVE DEVELOPERS MORE FLEXIBILITY.

AND AGAIN, WE'RE ADOPTING THE ELECTRIC READY, EV READY DEMAND RESPONSE APPENDICES.

I BELIEVE THAT ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM IS ALSO AN APPENDIX.

SPOTS DO COUNT TO TOWARD MEETING THE EV CAPABLE AND EV READY REQUIREMENTS.

SINCE, UH, ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND ON THE, UH, ELECTRIC READINESS PROVISIONS RECEIVE THE MOST COMMENTS, I'VE BROKEN THOSE OUT.

THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE COMMERCIAL CODE VARY BY BUILDING USE AND INCLUDE PRIMARILY EV CAPABLE SPACES.

THE HIGHEST REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING 35% OF PARKING SPACES BE EV CAPABLE AND AN ADDITIONAL 5% BE EV READY.

THIS ALSO ALIGNS WITH THE MULTIFAMILY REQUIREMENTS IN UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL CODE.

UM, WE ARE NOT REQUIRING ANY CHARGING EQUIPMENT TO BE INSTALLED AT THIS TIME, THOUGH.

IF A PROJECT CHOOSES TO INSTALL CHARGING STATIONS, THOSE

[02:20:01]

UM, SO YOU CAN ALWAYS DO BETTER UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL CODE.

AS I SAID, LOW-RISE, MULTIFAMILY IS GONNA REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 40% EV CAPABLE.

SO WE WENT WITH 40% FOR BOTH, UH, MULTIFAMILY BUILDING TYPES, AND THEN ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES AND TOWNHOUSES WILL REQUIRE, UH, ONE EV CAPABLE SPACE.

UM, AND AGAIN, AN EV READY SPACE OR A SPACE WITH A CHARGING STATE WITH CHARGING EQUIPMENT WOULD SUBSTITUTE TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENT.

LET ME, LET ME ASK, UH, RIGHT NOW, OR CHARGING, UH, OR, OR MOVED FROM SUBSCRIPTIONS TO 9 CENTS A KILOWATT HOUR FOR CHARGING.

AND, AND WE'VE HEARD FROM DR. WEBER THAT PEOPLE COME HOME AND PLUG IT IN AT THE END OF THE DAY.

YEAH, PLUG IT IN.

UH, IT SEEMS TO ME WE'RE SENDING MIXED MESSAGES, UH, IF WE HAVE THE SAME CHARGING RATE 24 HOURS A DAY.

AND IS THERE SOME WAY, SOME WAY WITHIN THE, IN THIS CONTEXT THAT WE COULD PROVIDE MORE, SOME INCENTIVE OR, OR DISINCENTIVE, UH, TO HAVE CHARGERS THAT ARE NOT, UH, SET TO BE SAME PRICE 24 HOURS A DAY OR JUST TURN 'EM OFF, JUST TURN 'EM OFF FOR CERTAIN HOURS? SO, UM, IN, IN THE CASE OF THE CODE, WE'RE LEANING REALLY HEAVILY ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, UM, BECAUSE WE THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE DOING CHARGING AT HOME, IN WHICH CASE IT'S NOT THE, IT WOULDN'T BE THE 9 CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR, IT WOULD BE BASED ON YOUR ELECTRIC USAGE AND YOUR TIERS.

UM, SO YOUR POINT TAKEN ON THE, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT OPTIONS ON THE CHARGING NETWORK, AND I CAN GO BACK TO THE TEAM, UH, AND TALK ABOUT THAT IN MORE DEPTH AND PERHAPS COME BACK AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT IN MORE DEPTH.

I DON'T THINK WE SEE THE SAME POTENTIAL FOR CHANGING BEHAVIOR ON A PUBLIC CHARGING STATION IN TERMS OF THE TIME, TIME OF USE THAT PEOPLE ARE USING THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE USING THEM WHEN THEY NEED TO, WHEN THEY'RE OUT AND ABOUT.

SO I, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE'RE GONNA SHAPE CHARGING BEHAVIOR AT PUBLIC STATIONS WITH THE RATE.

UM, WE ARE AND WE'VE LAUNCHED A, UM, DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM FOR CHARGING STATIONS GEARED TO THE FOLKS THAT ARE USING THAT AT HOME TO TRY AND SHAPE BEHAVIOR THERE AND GET FOLKS TO, UM, UNDERSTAND THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH PREFERRED IF THEY WOULD CHARGE OFF PEAK AND AT NIGHT.

I, I GUESS I'M MA MAINLY THINKING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NUMBER OF EV READY PARKING SPACES YEP.

AND MUL MULTIFAMILY, I'M TALKING ABOUT MULTIFAMILY.

CORRECT.

UH, AND, AND FOR THAT, FOR THO IN THE MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS, UH, WHAT WE'RE I THINK IS FOUR UNITS OR MORE? MM-HMM.

OR FIVE I THINK.

UH, THAT'S WHERE I WOULD SEE PEOPLE COMING UP.

THE, THE BIGGEST USE WHERE, WHERE HAVING A DIFFERENT RATE OR HAVING, AS I SAY, TURN 'EM OFF DURING CERTAIN HOURS TO, UH, FLATTEN THAT LOAD.

THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

I THINK MICHAEL BROUGHT UP THAT SOMEBODY, SOME UTILITY WAS DOING FREE AFTER 10:00 PM OR SOMETHING LIKE, I, I GUARANTEE I'D CHANGE THE TIMER ON MY CAR THE CHARGE AFTER THAT, IF I COULD GET THAT GOOD A RATE.

TX T IT, IT IS ALL OF WHICH IS THE ENERGY COST.

OH NO, I KNOW THEY'RE STILL GETTING YOU THEM T AND D CHARGES FOR SURE.

TXU AND RELIANT ARE BOTH, BOTH HAVE, UH, PLANT THOSE PLANS.

UM, NEXT SLIDE.

THE ELECTRIC READINESS APPENDICES INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS THAT NEW BUILDINGS USING COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT PROVIDE FOR ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH THAT FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THOSE BUILDINGS CAN CHOOSE THE FUEL SOURCE AND EQUIPMENT THAT BE BEST MEETS THEIR NEEDS.

UM, THIS DOES INCLUDE A SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR FUTURE WATER HEATING.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER.

UM, THE REQUIREMENTS I WILL POINT OUT, ADD COST TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING, BUT REPRESENT WORK THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE COSTLY TO TRY TO RETROFIT LATER.

SO UNLIKE ENERGY EFFICIENCY, THERE'S NOT AN IMMEDIATE, UH, EFFICIENCY PAYBACK TO THIS, BUT WHERE WE THINK THAT THERE'S PAYBACK IS THAT IT'S CHEAPER TO DO IT AT NEW CONSTRUCTION VERSUS TO TRY AND DO IT LATER.

UM, TEXAS GAS HAS CHALLENGED US ON THIS, UM, AS TO WHETHER THIS IS LEGAL UNDER TEXAS STATUTE, WE'RE HAVING LEGAL REVIEW.

UM, WE THINK WE'RE FINE, BUT LEGAL IS LOOKING AT IT.

UM, NEXT SLIDE.

[02:25:03]

I THINK IT'S LEGAL.

IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR YOU TO SAY THEY HAVE TO DO ELECTRIC HOMES, BUT I THINK YOU CAN SAY YOU HAVE TO GIVE PEOPLE THE CHOICE.

THAT SHOW THAT SOME EVS ARE OVERALL CHEAPER TO OWN AND MAINTAIN THAN A COMBUSTION ENGINE VEHICLE.

UM, I'M NOT A LAWYER, ME EITHER.

OUR ENERGY BOTTLING STAFF HAVE PERFORMED AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED CODE OVER OUR CURRENT 2021 CITY OF AUSTIN CODE FOR RESIDENTIAL.

WE ANTICIPATE APPROXIMATELY 6.1% MEGAWATT HOUR SAVINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.

THE HIGHEST UH, BENEFIT THERE IS OUR LOW RISE MULTIFAMILY, UM, SINGLE FAMILY, UM, IS A LITTLE BIT LESS.

UM, AND THEN FOR COMMERCIAL IT'S UH, 13.4% IF YOU AVERAGE IT ACROSS ALL OF VARIOUS BUILDING TYPES.

WE'VE GIVEN YOU A SUBSET OF THOSE HERE.

UM, WHERE YOU SEE THE LIGHT GREEN BAR THAT IS THE RENEWABLE POWER.

SO WE BROKE THAT OUT SEPARATELY.

SO THE DARK GREEN IS, UH, EFFICIENCY AND THEN THE LIGHT GREEN IS THE RENEWABLE POWER REQUIREMENT.

UM, YOU'LL SEE LIKE ON RESTAURANTS, THERE IS NO RENEWABLE POWER BECAUSE MOST OF THOSE WOULD BE, AND OUR PROTOTYPE MODEL IS LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET.

SO IT WOULD BE EXACT.

UM, NEXT SLIDE.

SO WE'VE ALSO DONE SOME LOOKING AT THE AFFORDABILITY IMPACT.

UH, TO DO SO, WE RESEARCHED LOCAL MATERIALS COSTS REACHED OUT TO VARIOUS BUILDERS FOR COST ESTIMATES, UM, FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

WE EXPECT THE SAVINGS FROM REDUCED ATTIC INSTALLATION RIGHT NOW TO MORE THAN OFFSET THE ADDED COSTS FROM THE EV CAPABLE ELECTRIC READY AND OTHER NEW EFFICIENCY MEASURES.

THE ELECTRIC READINESS COSTS ALSO ONLY APPLY TO HOMES THAT ARE NOT ALREADY ELECTRIC, SO THERE'S SOME VARIABILITY.

UM, AND ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, WE EXPECT THE EFFICIENCY GAINS TO RESULT IN ABOUT 25 TO $50 OF UTILITY COST SAVINGS FOR AVERAGE HOMES WITH TODAY'S RATES.

UM, AND THEN I, I WILL NOTE THAT OUR ELECTRIC READINESS, UH, COST MAY BE A LITTLE LOWER COMPARED TO SOME OF THE OTHER STUDIES THAT ARE OUT THERE AND NUMBERS THAT TEXAS GAS HAS PUT OUT.

WE TALKED TO BUILDERS.

UH, NEW HOMES ARE BEING BUILT WITH 200 AMPS SERVICE PANELS, UM, UNIFORMLY NOW THEY'RE ALREADY WHERE THEY'RE HAVING, UH, GAS CONNECTIONS FOR DRYERS.

THEY ALREADY INCLUDE AN ELECTRIC OUTLET FOR, UH, AN ELECTRIC DRYER 'CAUSE THE HOME BUYER BRINGS THAT APPLIANCE AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE BRINGING.

UM, SO WE REALLY THINK THE MAIN DIFFERENCE HERE IS, UH, THE RANGE.

AND THAT'S THE PART THAT'S NOT STANDARD PRACTICE.

UM, ON THE LOW RISE MULTIFAMILY, WE ARE ANTICIPATING AN INCREASED COST PER UNIT IN THE RANGE OF AROUND 375 TO $475 PER UNIT.

UM, DEPENDING AGAIN ON WHETHER THAT BUILDING IS ALL ELECTRIC OR NOT.

THE SAVINGS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, ARE A LITTLE HIGHER.

SO WE ANTICIPATE ANNUAL BILL SAVINGS OF ABOUT $75, UM, GIVING US, UH, A PAY PAYBACK PERIOD OF ROUGHLY FIVE, I THINK FIVE SIX YEARS.

UM, ON THOSE, THE, UH, ATTIC INSTALLATION SAVINGS DON'T GO AS FAR IN MULTIFAMILY.

'CAUSE NOT EVERY UNIT HAS CEILING SPACE, SO YOU HAVE LESS ATTIC, UM, TO GET ANY COST SAVINGS BACK.

AND THEN IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UM, SO COMMERCIAL IS A LOT HARDER.

, UM, JUST GIVEN THE DIVERSITY OF BUILDING TYPES, WHAT WE DID IS WE LOOKED AT A PROTOTYPICAL 10 STORY HIGH-RISE APARTMENT BUILDING.

UM, THE, AND I'VE BROKEN OUT SOME OF THE COSTS, UH, THERE WE ARE ANTICIPATING.

UM, SO BASED ON THIS COST ANALYSIS, WE ACTUALLY ADDED AN EXEMPTION TO THE ELECTRIC READINESS REQUIREMENT FOR CENTRALIZED HOT WATER SYSTEMS. WE DID NOT FIND THAT TO BE COST EFFECTIVE.

UM, AND ALL TOLD, WE ARE STILL COMING UP WITH AN APPROXIMATE FIRST COST INCREASE OF AROUND 1,250 TO $1,750 PER DWELLING UNIT, DEPENDING AGAIN ON WHETHER THAT BUILDING IS ALREADY USING ELECTRIC APPLIANCES.

ANNUAL COST SAVINGS WERE ESTIMATED, UM, EVEN HIGHER AT APPROXIMATELY $160 PER UNIT RESULTING IN AN EIGHT TO 10 YEAR SIMPLE PAYBACK.

UM, AGAIN, I WILL JUST REITERATE, THE CODE ADOPTS ELECTRIC RED READINESS AND EV READINESS, UM, REQUIREMENTS PER THE DIRECTION, UM, THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM Y'ALL AND MANY OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK.

THOSE THINGS DO NOT HAVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY SAVINGS.

THEY DO NOT HAVE DEMAND SAVINGS AT THE OUTSET.

UM, HOWEVER, STUDIES SHOW THAT COSTS TO RETROFIT THE INFRASTRUCTURE LATER CAN BE FOUR TO SIX TIMES HIGHER.

AND WE'RE BUILDING OUR BUILDINGS HOPEFULLY FOR A LONG TIME.

SO, UM, ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR EVS, ACCESS TO THAT INFRASTRUCTURE CAN FACILITATE RESIDENTS BEING ABLE TO OWN AN EV COULD MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAKING THAT CAR CHOICE OR NOT.

UM, THERE ARE STUDIES NOW

[02:30:01]

UM, OTHER INTANGIBLE BENEFITS FROM THESE, UH, CODE CHANGES INCLUDE POSSIBLE HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS FROM ALLOWING RESIDENTS TO SWITCH TO, UH, SAY AN ELECTRIC RANGE OVER A GAS RANGE.

THERE'S A LOT OF STUDIES COMING OUT ABOUT POTENTIAL NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS OF GAS STOVES.

UM, SO THEY AMPLIFY SOME OF THE OTHER CITY GOALS.

UM, AND WITH THAT, I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS.

HAS IT BEEN PUBLISHED YET? , THE ICC? THE FINAL VERSION? YEAH.

NO, I DON'T THINK SO UNLESS, UM, WE, I HAVEN'T CHECKED TODAY.

PAT, DO YOU KNOW, SO, UH, A NON REDLINE VERSION ASSESSMENT AND THAT HAS CONTINUOUSLY SLID OUT FURTHER AND FURTHER ON US, SO I HESITATE TO ACTUALLY .

SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR TIMELINE FOR TAKING THIS, THIS, AND ALL THE OTHER CODE CHANGES IS, IS, IS GONNA BE FURTHER IN THE FUTURE? IT'S SLID OUT.

UM, RIGHT NOW WE'RE HOPING TO TAKE IT TO COUNCIL IN OCTOBER.

OH, REALLY? YEAH.

OH, OKAY.

NOW THE, ALL OF THE FINAL LANGUAGE IS AVAILABLE, UM, IS IN A RED LINE VERSION.

SO IT'S NOT THAT RED LINE VERSION IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE.

IT IS FINAL LANGUAGE, BUT THEY HAVEN'T TAKEN THE RED LINE VERSION, TAKEN ALL THE RED LINES OUT AND PUT IT INTO A FINAL BOOK, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO THE FINAL LANGUAGE IS AVAILABLE, WE KNOW WHAT THE CODE WILL BE.

UM, IT'S JUST THAT THE BOOK, YOU CAN'T GO BY THE BOOK YET.

YOU CAN BUY THE RED LINE.

SO IF THIS WERE TO GO TO YOU, YOU STILL, YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD, CITY COUNCIL WOULD, WOULD IF THEY WANTED TO ADOPT IT, BUT IT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE IMPLEMENTED TILL 2025 OR SOMETHING? CORRECT.

THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE, IF WE GO TO COUNCIL IN OCTOBER IS PLANNED AND IT PASSES THEN WOULD BE MARCH OF 2025.

MARCH OF, OKAY.

YEP.

AND YOU'RE NOT LOOKING FOR THIS COMMISSION TO ENDORSE THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO RMC AND THEY'RE THE ONES CORRECT.

BUT IF, UNLESS, I MEAN, YOU WANNA SAY A FRIENDLY WORD, BUT YEAH.

WELL, WE, WE COULD PUT ON THE, A FUTURE AGENDA, LIKE, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S IN THE WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADOPT THE LATEST CODE, BUT WE, WE COULD DO THAT JUST TO BE NICE IN SOME FUTURE MEETING.

IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE TIME.

, WHAT'S NEXT ON THE AGENDA? QUARTERLY.

WHAT'S

[19. Staff briefing on the Third Quarter Operations Report by Lisa Martin, Deputy General Manager and Chief Operating Officer.]

OH, BRIEFINGS ONE.

FIRST ONE IS FROM LISA, THE QUARTERLY OPERATIONS REPORT.

AND THE NEXT IS THE FINANCIAL REPORT FROM STEPHANIE ALKA.

SO I WANNA BE RESPECTFUL OF YOUR TIME AND ASK YOU HOW YOU'D LIKE ME TO PROCEED.

DO YOU WANT ME TO HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS? DO YOU WANT ME TO GIVE YOU THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AT, LET YOU ASK QUESTIONS OR DO YOU WANT ME TO JUST PRESENT THE WHOLE THING? IT CAN DO IT EITHER WAY.

UH, WHAT IS THE WILL OF THE GROUP DO YOU THINK? AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND THEN WE DO HAVE IT IN OUR PACKETS, AND THEN IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WE CAN ASK IT RIGHT NOW OR ASK IT AT ANOTHER TIME.

I'D SAY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WOULD BE GOOD.

SOUNDS GOOD.

I'M LISA MARTIN, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER.

IF YOU COULD GO TO SLIDE THREE, PLEASE.

SO FOR THIS IS THE PRESENTATION FOR, UH, FISCAL YEAR, UH, 2024 Q3.

SO APRIL, MAY, AND JUNE.

SO NOTE THAT WE HAVE SOME PRE-SUMMER MONTHS AND THEN THE VERY BEGINNING OF SUMMER IN HERE, RENEWABLE PRODUCTION FOR THIS QUARTER, UH, WAS 50% AS A PERCENTAGE OF LOAD.

IN Q3, OUR CARBON FREE PRODUCTION WAS 67% AS A PERCENTAGE OF LOAD.

WHEN YOU DO LOOK AT THE GENERATOR MAINTENANCE, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE PERCENTAGE AVAILABILITY IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER AND THAT IS REFLECTIVE OF THE MAINTENANCE TO PREPARE FOR SUMMER MONTHS.

I HAVE DETAILS IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

AND THEN YOU'LL SEE THAT OUR RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE TRENDS CONTINUE TO STABILIZE.

I WILL SAY, UH, THAT WE DID HAVE SOME STORMS DURING THIS QUARTER, BUT THEY DID NOT HIT THE MAJOR EVENT DAY TYPE CRITERIA.

SO THEY ARE INCLUDED.

YOU'LL SEE A SLIGHT UPTICK IN OUR FREQUENCY OF OUTAGES.

UM, I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT INTERFERENCE LIKE, UM, UH, HIT POLES WAS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF CAUSE ABOUT 10% COMPARED TO VEGETATION, WHICH WAS ABOUT 6%.

THE LARGE MAJORITY OF THAT WAS WEATHER RELATED.

UH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR, OUR, UH, RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE NUMBERS THIS QUARTER, I'LL ALSO JUST POINT OUT THAT WITHIN THIS, UH, PACKET YOU DO HAVE AN UPDATE ON THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING MAINTENANCE, WHICH I KNOW CHAIR TUTTLE, UM, ASKS FOR EVERY MONTH.

AND SO WE HAVE THAT IN HERE AS WELL.

I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OR MOVE TO ANY SLIDE THAT YOU

[02:35:01]

WISH TO DISCUSS.

IF ANY QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM, QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM.

UH, THERE'S ONE QUESTION ON THE, ON THE AVERAGE SESSION CHARGING LENGTH, THERE'S A LOT OF IDLE TIME.

UM, IS IT, DO, DOES, UM, I KNOW, LIKE I KNOW LIKE TESLA CHARGING STATIONS, THEY START CHARGING YOU IF YOU'RE SITTING THERE, BUT YOU'RE DONE CHARGING.

UM, DO THE CHARGE POINT ONES DO THAT? I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS THEY DO NOT CHARGE YOU IS PER KILOWATT HOUR USED.

SO IF YOU'RE SITTING IDLE, THAT IS, UH, FOR THE, UH, LEVEL TWO CHARGERS IS I, I THINK FOR THE, I THINK WE HAVE A CHARGER FOR CFA CFAS CHARGER.

IT'S OKAY.

BASED ON THE NUMBER OF MINUTES YOU'RE PLUGGED IN? CORRECT.

I WILL PASS IT ON TO STEPHANIE ALKA.

ALRIGHT, THANKS.

ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

ACTING CHAIR.

[20. Staff briefing on the Third Quarter Financial Report by Stephanie Koudelka, Finance Director.]

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

I'M STEPHANIE ALKA, I'M DIRECTOR OF FINANCE FOR AUSTIN ENERGY.

I'LL ALSO, AT THE INTEREST OF TIME, JUST GIVE YOU AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

WE HAVEN'T HAD TOO MUCH MOVEMENT IN OUR FINANCIAL, I NO LONGER HAVE TO PICK UP ISSA'S SOCCER PRACTICE.

SHE'S GETTING A RIDE HOME WITH HER FRIEND, SO, SO I'LL DO IT TWICE.

TAKE ALL THE TIME YOU WANT.

WE'LL RUN THROUGH AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR YOU THIS EVENING.

UM, AGAIN, NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED IN OUR FINANCIAL POSITION, BUT I'LL HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS ON OUR, UM, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE.

ONE MORE.

SO, UM, THESE ARE FINANCIAL RESULTS AS OF JUNE, 2024.

UM, OUR REVENUES WERE 1.2 BILLION AS OF THE END OF THE QUARTER.

THAT'S ABOUT 3% UNDER BUDGET, MOSTLY DUE TO POWER SUPPLY COSTS.

SIMILAR STORY AS LAST QUARTER.

UM, WE'VE SEEN, UM, ALTHOUGH WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF PRESSURE ON THE MARKET THIS FISCAL YEAR SO FAR THIS SUMMER, OUR PRICES HAVE BEEN PRETTY MODERATE.

SO WE'RE SEEING SOME UNDER BUDGET IN POWER SUPPLY ON THE EXPENSE SIDE, WE ARE AT 1.3 BILLION.

OBVIOUSLY THAT'S OUTPACING THE $1.2 BILLION IN REVENUE THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AT THE, AS OF THE END OF THE QUARTER.

UM, THOSE COST DID OUTPACE REVENUES BY 4% AT JUNE.

UM, WE DID SEE THE IMPACT TO POWER SUPPLY ON THE EXPENSE SIDE.

SO WE SEE UNDER BUDGET FOR POWER COST.

THAT'S OFFSET BY, UM, PROGRESS THAT, UH, WE'VE MADE IN OUR VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR FINANCIAL POLICIES, WE ARE NOT IN FULL COMPLIANCE.

THE FIRST IS OUR QUICK RATIO.

IT'S SLIGHTLY OUT OF COMPLIANCE AS IN AS OF THE END OF THE LAST FISCAL YEAR.

UM, THAT'S A MEASURE OF THE UTILITIES ABILITIES, ABILITY TO PAY OUR LIABILITIES WITH LIQUID ASSETS, WHICH LEADS INTO THE OTHER, UH, METRIC THAT'S OFF.

UM, AS YOU KNOW, OUR DAYS CASH ON HAND IS UNDER THE MINIMUM 150 DAYS.

WE'RE SITTING AT 119 DAYS AS OF THE END OF JUNE.

ARE WE MAKING PROGRESS ON THAT? WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS ON THAT, WHICH LEADS INTO THE NEXT, UM, BOX HERE.

OUR POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT HAS, UM, WE ARE 1 MILLION UNDERCOVERED AS OF THE END OF JUNE.

UM, WE STARTED THE FISCAL YEAR AROUND 115 MILLION UNDERCOVERED.

SO WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS IN HEADWAY, OBVIOUSLY, UM, OUT OF AN UNDERCOVERED POSITION OF 1 MILLION.

SO THAT CASH HAS COME IN, UM, THROUGH RECOVERING THE POWER SUPPLY.

SO THAT'S WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE SINCE THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

I THINK WE'RE AT ABOUT 90 DAYS, SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE A, A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO FOR ANOTHER ADJUSTMENT ANYTIME SOON.

UM, WE ARE LOOKING AT OUR JULY RESULTS.

UM, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAD VERY, A DECENT WEATHER IN JULY, SO MORE TO COME ON THAT.

UM, AUGUST IS WHERE WE TYPICALLY SEE SOME OF OUR, UM, HIGHER LOAD ZONE PRICES.

SO WE'LL BE WATCHING THAT VERY CLOSELY TO SEE WHAT THE RATE WILL NEED TO DO.

UM, GIVEN THAT THE SUMMER IS NORMAL, NORMALLY AN UNDER RECOVERED PERIOD.

THAT CONCLUDES MY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? ANYONE ONLINE HAVE QUESTIONS? I THINK, I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

UH, FUTURE ITEMS, IS THAT WHAT'S NEXT? DO DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO TELL US FOR FUTURE ITEMS? NO.

[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]

THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO ASK US WHAT YOU WANNA HEAR ABOUT IN THE FUTURE.

WAS

[02:40:01]

THERE ANYTHING THOUGH ON THE LIST FROM PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS THAT, THAT YOU WERE PLANNING? SO WE'RE HA ARE WE HAVING TWO MEETINGS IN SEPTEMBER? WE'RE HAVING A REGULAR MEETING THAN THE SPECIAL MEETING.

IS THAT CORRECT? WE ARE PLANNING TO HAVE THE REGULAR MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 9TH AND THE SPECIAL CALL JUST FOR THE GENERATION PLAN ON SEPTEMBER 30TH.

WHAT, WHAT OUTSTANDING ITEM.

I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME AT THE MOMENT, BUT I CAN SEND IT TO Y'ALL AFTER THIS.

THAT'D BE GOOD THEN.

WE, WE CAN, YOU CAN RESPOND GREAT WORKS FOR ME.

I WILL LET DAVE TUTTLE, THE ILLUSTRIOUS AND INTELLIGENT DAVE TUTTLE HANDLE THAT.