[00:00:04]
[CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
OPEN THE MEETING.[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.THE FIRST SPEAKER IS BECKY HALPIN.
I JUST DON'T TOUCH THE MIC WHEN YOU GO UP THERE.
HELLO, I AM BECKY HALPIN, REPRESENTING THIRD ACT, TEXAS, AN ORGANIZATION OF OLDER PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING THE CLIMATE CRISIS.
IT'S DISAPPOINTING TO SEE AUSTIN ENERGY MODELING A NEW GAS PLANT FOR OUR FUTURE RESOURCE PLAN.
THE ECONOMICS AND EFFICIENCIES OF CLEAN TECHNOLOGY SUCH AS BATTERY, SOLAR, WIND, AND NOW POTENTIALLY GEOTHERMAL ARE STEADILY PUSHING FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS OFF THE PLAYING FIELD.
CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES LIKE SOLAR AND BATTERIES ARE BEGINNING TO BEAT COMMODITIES LIKE NATURAL GAS ON COST AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.
NO, HE'S GONNA GO AND PICK IT UP WHEN HE GET GAVIN.
THIS IS BECAUSE CLEANTECH IS CONSTANTLY IMPROVING AND EVOLVING.
YOU CAN KEEP LEARNING HOW TO MAKE A SOLAR PANEL BETTER AND BETTER, BUT FOSSIL FUELS STAY THE SAME.
DEPOSITS LAID DOWN IN THE CARBON
WE'RE CONSTANTLY SEEING INNOVATION IN CLEAN TECH.
FROM MULTILAYER SOLAR PANELS TO NEW BATTERY CHEMI CHEMISTRIES LIKE LITHIUM ION PHOSPHATE AND CLEAN TECH IS SHOWING UP AND SHOWING OFF.
A DAY AGO IN TEXAS, SOLAR SHATTERED ITS PREVIOUS RECORD AND PRODUCED ALMOST 22,000 MEGAWATTS OR APPROXIMATELY 40% OF DEMAND.
WHOLESALE POWER WAS FREE FOR TWO HOURS AND ABOUT 2 CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR ALL DAY.
NATURAL GAS BURNERS WILL BECOME STRANDED ASSETS AS CLEANER, CHEAPER, MORE EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES TAKE THEIR PLACE AND THAT IS HAPPENING VERY QUICKLY.
WHY BURDEN AUSTIN ENERGY RATE PAYERS WITH A GAS PLANT THAT WILL BE A COSTLY DINOSAUR? WHEN WE CAN ACCOMPLISH OUR GOALS WITH CLEANER, MORE EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY, WE NEED GENERATION IN THE AUSTIN LOAD ZONE.
LET'S PUT CLEAN TECH IN OUR BACKYARD.
ONE THING THAT MAKES AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY A UNIQUE AND STRONG COMMUNITY, IS THAT WE BELIEVE IN THE VALUE OF ALL OF OUR PEOPLE, ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
AUSTIN ENERGY'S SLOGAN, IS CUSTOMER DRIVEN, COMMUNITY FOCUSED, OR IS IT CUSTOMER FOCUSED? COMMUNITY DRIVEN.
THE PAST WHEN OUR COMMUNITY HAS CREATED A RESOURCE GENERATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN.
THAT WAS A COMMUNITY AND AUSTIN ENERGY PARTNERSHIP THIS YEAR, AUSTIN ENERGY INFORMED THE COMMUNITY THAT IT DIDN'T NEED THE COMMUNITY INPUT TO DESIGN A RESOURCE GENERATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN.
THIS SOUNDS CONTRADICTORY TO AUSTIN ENERGY SLOGAN.
THERE'S NOTHING COMMUNITY DRIVEN ABOUT TAKING OVER A CRITICAL COMMUNITY PROCESS, RUNNING IT YOURSELF, AND THEN ACTING AS IF IT'S COMMUNITY BASED.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THIS ANNOUNCEMENT PROMPTED MEMBERS OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION TO CREATE A WORKING GROUP TO STUDY AND PRODUCE A COMMUNITY BASED RESOURCE GENERATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN.
SEVERAL ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION MEMBERS AND VOLUNTEERS FROM THE COMMUNITY SPENT MONTHS OF THEIR FREE TIME AND THEIR GENEROUS DOWNS TO PUT TOGETHER A PLAN FOR OUR COMMUNITY THAT WOULD BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE NEEDLESS AND DESTRUCTIVE PROCESS OF BURNING FOSSIL FUELS.
THIS TRUE COMMUNITY PLAN WAS COMPLETED AND IS A VIABLE FOSSIL FUEL FREE ALTERNATIVE TO THE UNTESTED AND REALLY NOT YET AVAILABLE GREEN HYDROGEN PLAN PLANT, GAS PLANT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
[00:05:01]
STATED VERY CLEARLY, WE KNOW THAT BURNING FOSSIL FUELS DRIVES UP THE TEMPERATURES AND DAMAGES OUR CLIMATE.ITS PARTICULATE WASTE KILLS CROPS AND PEOPLE.
IT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS A BREAKDOWN IN THE SLOGAN OF CUSTOMER DRIVEN COMMUNITY FOCUSED.
DOESN'T THIS SOUND LIKE AUSTIN ENERGY DRIVEN AND AUSTIN ENERGY FOCUSED? I'M DISAPPOINTED.
WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE DAMAGE TO OUR CLIMATE.
WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE ENERGY GENERATION THAT WILL MAKE OUR PEOPLE AND OUR ENVIRONMENT SICK.
INVITING FOLKS FROM ALL OVER TOWN FOR A FEW FREE LUNCHES AND NEVER EXPLAINING TO THEM.
THERE'S A COMMUNITY RESOURCE GENERATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN ALREADY ON THE TABLE.
TO BE SHARED AND DISCUSSED IS A MISSED, TERRIBLE, MISSED OPPORTUNITY.
IT'S NOT IN SYNC WITH THE WAY WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE THINGS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
WE MUST INVEST OUR TAXPAYER FUNDS IN SMART, AFFORDABLE RESOURCES FOR OUR SMART, AFFORDABLE RESOURCE GENERATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN.
LIKE THE EU C'S WORKING GROUPS COMMUNITY PLAN.
LET'S MAKE SMART, HEALTHY, AFFORDABLE ENERGY PLANS TO BE CUSTOMER DRIVEN AND COMMUNITY FOCUSED.
BEFORE WE MOVE ON, WE JUST NEED TO TAKE THE ROLL CALL OFFICIALLY.
YOU HAVE VICE CHAIR WHITE? UH, I DO.
I DON'T KNOW IF MY VOICE IS GONNA HOLD OUT.
AND I CAN'T REALLY READ ON THE, THE RIGHT HAND SCREEN 'CAUSE IT'S SO LIGHT.
OKAY, SO THE NEXT DO WE HAVE, UH,
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
APPROVAL OF MINUTES? OKAY.ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR, UM, CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? NONE.
OKAY, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS
[Items 4 - 6, 8-12, 14, 16]
TWO THROUGH 18.DO WE HAVE ANY THAT ARE WANTING TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION? I I THINK WE SHOULD DEFINITELY PULL THE, UM, THE BUILDING CODES ONE, 'CAUSE THAT HAD A LOT OF COMMENTS AND COMMENTS FROM ALL, ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMMENTS.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST DISCUSS IT.
IT'S 18 I BELIEVE, RIGHT? YEAH, I THINK IT'S 18.
DID STAFF ALREADY POLL? DID STAFF ALREADY POLL 17? I DID NOT, UH, SORRY.
UM, YEAH, LET'S NOT DO 17 OR 18 RIGHT NOW.
JUST DO TWO THROUGH 16 FOR NOW AND THEN WE'LL, WE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO TAKE IT OFF THE AGENDA.
WHAT ABOUT TWO THROUGH 16? I HAVE A QUESTION ON SEVEN.
CAN WE PUT PULL 14 AS WELL? THANK YOU.
GOSH, IT'S A LENGTHY LIST TODAY.
I WANTED TO PULL, UM, YEAH, I MEAN, I, I AM INTERESTED IN 14, BUT WE DON'T NEED TO PULL IT, I SUPPOSE.
UH, AND THEN THERE WERE THREE, I THINK THERE WERE, WERE IMMINENT DOMAIN AND I THINK IT WAS TWO, THREE, AND 15.
DO YOU WANNA DISCUSS THOSE? YES, PLEASE.
I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION ON THE, UM, OKAY, SO WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON 2, 3 15 AND SEVEN.
[00:10:01]
10 10.WAS THAT THE COOLING, THE CHILLER BY THE WAY? I CAN'T REALLY HEAR IT THAT MUCH OF THIS YEAR.
OKAY, SO CAN WE VOTE ON EVERYTHING ELSE BUT 2, 3, 7, 13 AND 15? SECOND.
[Items 2, 3 & 15]
START OFF WITH NUMBER TWO.UM, ELAINE, ELAINE MAYBE CAN HANDLE 15 WHILE YOU'RE OUT THERE.
ELAINE SALKA, VICE PRESIDENT OF, UH, ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES.
AND IF WE COULD HANDLE TWO AND 15, THE TWO QUESTIONS, THEY'RE RELATED.
TWO, THREE, I MEAN THE TWO ITEMS. IIN DOMAIN.
I MEAN, I'M ASSUMING PROBABLY THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNERS ARE NOT CONTESTING THIS OR ELSE THEY'D BE HERE TONIGHT, BUT JUST, THAT'S MY QUESTION ON ALL TWO, THREE AND 15.
UM, ON IMMINENT DOMAIN, IT'S, IT'S, IT MAY BE LESS OF THAT THEY'RE CONTESTING IT AND MORE OF COMING TO AN AGREEMENT ON THE PRICE.
AND SO IF THEY, UM, DON'T NEGOTIATE FURTHER ON THE PRICE, IT REACHES THE POINT WHERE WE DO GO INTO IMMINENT DOMAIN AND THEN IT'S DECIDED BY, UH, COMMISSIONER'S COURT FOR THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND.
AND THAT'S WHAT'S AWARDED TO THE, TO THE LANDOWNER.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT NONE OF THEM ARE FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO SELLING THEIR PROPERTY AND IT'S A MATTER OF THE PRICE, RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S A MATTER OF THE AGREEING ON THE, UH, FAIR MARKET VALUE PRICE.
HOW ABOUT IF WE VOTE ON THOSE? GET THEM OUT OF THE WAY? SURE.
ALL IN FAVOR? TWO, THREE AND 15.
16 WAS WAS ALSO AN EMINENT DOMAIN ONE.
DID WE PULL THAT? NOPE, SORRY.
[7. Recommend authorizing negotiation and execution of a contract for utility advanced metering infrastructure services with Landis+Gyr Technology Inc. for up to ten years for a total contract amount not to exceed $89,000,000.]
TO JOSH'S? QUESTION FOR NUMBER SEVEN.NOW THAT ELAINE WALKED ALL THE WAY DOWN
ELAINE THE SELICA AGAIN, THANKS.
UM, JUST READING THROUGH THE, UM, KINDA MORE DETAILED EXPLANATIONS OF IT.
IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, THE, THE LANDUS AND GEAR, LIKE THE TECHNOLOGY, LIKE IT'S SOLE SOURCE BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A PROPRIETARY SYSTEM THAT, THAT, THAT WE HAVE, UM, IS HOW DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH LONGER? LIKE, DO, DO WE HAVE LIKE ANY MORE, LIKE LONGER? SO THIS IS FOR A 10 YEAR CONTRACT TO, TO STICK WITH THE PROPRIETARY SYSTEM.
ARE THERE NON-PROPRIETARY SYSTEMS THAT WE MIGHT COULD CONSIDER THAT LIKE MAYBE MORE THAN ONE VENDOR COULD BID FOR? UM, THERE ARE OTHER A MI SYSTEMS, UM, USUALLY HELD BY INDIVIDUAL VENDORS.
UM, MORE OF THAT VERSUS HAVING, UH, DIFFERENT VENDORS THAT MIGHT TAKE PIECES AND PARTS.
UM, THIS IS A 10 YEAR AGREEMENT.
THERE IS AN OPTION TO RE-LOOK AT THE CONTRACT AFTER FIVE YEARS.
SO THERE, UM, THERE IS SOMETHING THERE.
UM, IT WOULD BE VERY COSTLY THOUGH RIGHT NOW TO, UM, KIND OF RIP AND REPLACE THE METERING TECHNOLOGY.
IT'S INGRAINED IN, YOU KNOW, OVER 70, UH, INTEGRATIONS AND SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT.
IT WOULD BASICALLY ENTAIL TAKING OUT ALL THE METERING INFRASTRUCTURE AND REBUILDING.
SO, UM, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE NOW, NEXT FIVE YEARS.
LOOK AT THAT, LOOK AT TECHNOLOGY, SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE INDUSTRY.
IS, IS, IS IN THIS SYSTEM, WOULD THERE BE A NATURAL POINT AT WHICH THAT, THAT KIND OF THING COULD HAPPEN? I MEAN, I, I KNOW I REALIZE WE'RE, IT'S INGRAINED, IT'S IN A MILLION DIFFERENT PLACES.
LIKE, SO I REALIZE IT'S A WICKED PROBLEM, BUT LIKE, WHAT WOULD BE THAT TIMELINE THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET A MORE OPEN SOURCE OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE COULD MULTIPLE OR, YEAH, SURE.
AND, AND I WOULD SAY ON SOME OF THESE LARGER CONTRACTS ON TECHNOLOGY THAT IS SO
[00:15:01]
INGRAINED, THE TEAMS ARE CONTINUALLY LOOKING AT WHAT ARE OTHER UTILITIES DOING IN THE INDUSTRY, WHAT OTHER OPTIONS ARE OUT THERE.SOMETIMES IF A NEW TECHNOLOGY COMES FORTH AND MATURES, UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, OTHER UTILITIES HAVE IMPLEMENTED AND THEY'RE SEEING VALUE IN IT AT THAT POINT WE CAN, WE CAN START LOOKING AT THAT AND MAKING A DETERMINATION, YOU KNOW, AS A NEW TECHNOLOGY OR A NEW VENDOR TO HANDLE SOME OF THESE THINGS.
BUT THERE'S NOTHING, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CURRENT, THIS AGREEMENT KEEPS US IN THE CURRENT STATE WHILE WE'RE ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE POSSIBILITIES.
DOES THAT HELP? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT LIKE AT SOME POINT IF WE WANTED TO GET OUT WE COULD.
IF WE'RE NOT STUCK HERE FOREVER, RIGHT? YES.
WE'RE WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING, UM, NEW AND BETTER BUT PROVEN.
UM, AND THEN WEIGHING COST BENEFITS OF MOVING AWAY FROM SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO SOMETHING ELSE.
OTHER QUESTIONS ON SEVEN? OTHER QUESTIONS ON SEVEN? OKAY.
UH, HOW ABOUT WE VOTE ON THAT? WE HAVE A MOTION FOR SEVEN SECOND.
[13. Recommend authorizing issuance of commercial and multifamily solar incentives during Fiscal Year 2024-2025, in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 for customer-sited commercial solar installations and $3,000,000 for customer-sited multifamily installations, for a total combined budget amount of $7,000,000.]
YOU HAD A QUESTION ON 13.UM, I'M ASSUMING THIS IS TIM OR RICHARD, I'M JUST THIS, I, I THINK THIS IS A NEW, UM, STRATEGY HERE, SO I'M JUST WONDERING.
UH, RICHARD, WELL KNOW WE'RE THINKING, I KNOW YOU DO THIS ON THE MULTIFAMILY EFFICIENCY, BUT YEAH, RICHARD, I'M WONDERING IF THERE HAS BEEN A HANGUP THAT'S CAUSING THIS, UH, RICHARD, RICHARD GENESEE, VICE PRESIDENT OF CUSTOMER ENERGY SOLUTIONS.
AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER WHITE, NO, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO HANGUP.
BUT AS WE HAVE FOUND THIS IS SUCCESSFUL, HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY IN TERMS OF, UH, MAKING SURE THAT CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS ARE NOT DELAYED.
UM, AND THAT THE EUC STILL HAS FULL VISIBILITY TO ALL PROJECTS.
WE WANT TO DO THE SAME ON THE COMMERCIAL FRONT, UH, OR I'M SORRY, ON THE SOLAR FRONT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT ANY DELAY AND TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, CONTRACTORS ARE ALWAYS, UH, PAID.
UH, AND WE HAVE THE SAME PROTECTIONS IN PLACE IN TERMS OF FULL REPORTING TO THE EUC.
SO IT WOULD JUST BE THIS, UH, DUPLICATIVE OF WHAT WE DO EXISTING ALREADY ON COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY WHERE YOU, YOU GET EVERY REPORT, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE EVERY PROJECT THAT EXCEEDS AUTHORITY OF 72,000 TO YOU FOR INDIVIDUAL APPROVAL.
AND YOU'VE, UH, YOU'VE APPROVED THAT, UH, SINCE FY 20, I BELIEVE FOR COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY.
THIS IS LIKE YOU SAID, THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT AUTHORITY ON SOLAR.
UM, YEAH, I WAS JUST HAVE, HAS THIS PART OF THE PROCESS BEEN CAUSING A DELAY SO FAR IN PAYMENT OR NO, IT HAS NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
UH, WE HAVE HAD CHALLENGES, UM, BEFORE WE IMPLEMENTED THIS ON THE COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY SIDE.
I'M NOT AWARE OF, UH, CHALLENGES ON THIS ON THE SOLAR SIDE, BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PRACTICE AND PREVENTATIVE, UH, PRACTICE TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS. OKAY.
UM, ONE THING I HAVE JUST NOTICED ON YOUR, UM, I GUESS YOUR MONTHLY REPORTS IN GENERAL, UM, IS THAT THEY NO LONGER, THEY USED TO HAVE LIKE A, A GRAPH OF WHERE AUSTIN ENERGY WAS JUST ON LIKE TOTAL AGGREGATE, UM, SOLAR, UM, DEPLOYMENT, I THINK FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
UM, AND THAT NO LONGER IS THERE.
I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN, UM, ANY OPPOSITION TO, TO THIS NEW STRATEGY, BUT I WOULD LOVE FOR THOSE REPORTS TO, I THINK WHAT'S THERE SHOWS A GOOD PICTURE OF THE FISCAL YEAR, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO, TO ALSO HAVE THAT KIND OF CUMULATIVE TRACKING BACK ON THOSE REPORTS.
IS THAT SOMETHING YEAH, WE, THAT COULD BE DONE.
I'M, I WASN'T AWARE THAT THAT HAD FALLEN OFF, BUT LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHERE WE ARE.
I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM 13.
JUST QUICK QUESTION, WHERE, WHERE DO WE FIND SURE.
UM, THE MONTHLY REPORTS OR WHERE WILL WE, THE, WHERE DO WE FIND THE MONTHLY REPORTS FOR THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY.
AND WHERE WILL WE FIND THE MONTHLY REPORTS FOR THE SOLAR GOING FORWARD? IS THAT, DO YOU GUYS PROVIDE US WITH A LINK? I JUST DON'T REMEMBER.
UM, THEY'RE ACTUALLY ON THE RMC WEBSITE.
SO MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE ANOTHER REQUEST.
CAN THEY ALSO BE ON THE EC? WE, WE, YEAH, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DUPLICATING IT TO YOUR WEBSITE AS WELL.
SO WE WILL HAVE THEM ON BOTH RMC AND EUC, BUT CURRENTLY THEY JUST EXIST ON THE, FOR BOTH, FOR
[00:20:01]
BOTH EFFICIENCY AND SOLAR.WE CAN, YES, I THINK THAT WOULD BE USEFUL JUST TO, TO SEE IT.
JUMPING THEN ON YOU CYRUS, BUT YEAH, MOVE APPROVAL ON 13 SECOND.
AMY, I THINK THAT MEANS WE HAVE ALL OF THEM APPROVED.
UM, YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE ENERGY CODE ONE OR THE, SORRY, THE, UM, CONSERVATION CODE.
BUT THIS WAS SOMETHING YOU REQUESTED TO BE ON THIS AGENDA TO TAKE IT UP.
I THOUGHT THAT YOU SAID THAT WAS PULLED THAT, THAT, SO THE
[17. Recommend conducting a public hearing and consider proposed terms, rate and fee changes for Austin Energy – Solar Standard Offer Rider – Solar Integrator; High Load Factor Primary Voltage (Demand greater than or equal to 20,000 kW); and High Load Factor Transmission Voltage (Demand greater than or equal to 20 MW).]
ITEM 17 WILL BE PUSHED TO OUR SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, BUT WE WILL STILL HAVE THE PRESENTATION ON THAT TOPIC TONIGHT.[18. Recommend approval to consider an ordinance repealing and replacing Article 12 of the City Code Chapter 25-12 (Technical Codes) to adopt the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code and local amendments and creating offenses.]
18 IS THE, UM, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, UM, THAT IS NORMALLY IN THE PURVIEW OF THE RMC, BUT VICE CHAIR WHITE REQUESTED TO VOTE ON IT TONIGHT.DO YOU WANNA DESCRIBE WHAT WE'RE DOING ON THAT ONE THEN? YEAH, I MEAN IT'S GOING, IT'S GOING TO COUNSEL, ALTHOUGH, UM, I GUESS ACTUALLY A QUESTION ON THIS.
I HEARD THAT THE TIMELINE MAY HAVE CHANGED.
CAN ANYBODY SPEAK TO THAT IN TERMS OF GOING TO COUNSEL AND I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON IT AS WELL.
WELL, DON'T WE DISCUSS IT THEN? HEIDI CASPER, DIRECTOR FOR GREEN BUILDING AND EMERGING TECH.
YEAH, THE TIMELINE HAS, UM, BEEN PUSHED.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT IS MANAGING THEIR OVERALL CODE ADOPTION PROCESS AND A COUPLE OF THEIR CODES, THE INTERNATIONAL BILLING CODE AND THE WWE CODE HAVE HAD, UM, SOME CONTENTIOUS STAKEHOLDER INPUT AND UM, SO THEY ARE PROVIDING SOME MORE TIME, BUT BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE ALL OF THE CODES TO GET ADOPTED AS ONE PACKAGE AND GO TOGETHER, UM, THEY'VE DELAYED THAT TIMELINE.
I DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE A COUNCIL DATE FROM THEM.
UM, SO WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WHAT THE DATE IS THAT THEY'RE GONNA TAKE 'EM ALL TO COUNCIL.
I I HEARD IT MIGHT BE NOVEMBER.
UM, IF SO, DOES THAT CHANGE THE IMPLEMENTATION EFFECTIVE DATE AT ALL? IT MAY.
THEY USUALLY WANNA GIVE 90 DAYS FOR IMPLEMENTATION, BUT I HAVE NOT, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T HAVE NOT HEARD ANY FINAL TIMELINE.
SO I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR HEIDI IF SHE'S AVAILABLE.
UM, THE QUESTION NUMBER ONE IS WHAT'S BEFORE US? I IS THE, IS THE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE US ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU PRESENTED? I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS LAST MONTH OR THE MONTH BEFORE.
OR HAVE THERE BEEN CHANGES SINCE THEN? NO, IT SHOULD ESSENTIALLY BE, UM, WHAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU LAST MONTH.
AND JUST TO 'CAUSE THAT THAT WAS, UM, NOW WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS DO
SO WE HAD, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, UH, WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM TEXAS GAS WHO WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE ALL THE SHELLS TO MAIZE ON ELECTRIC READY AND EV READY.
AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE FOLKS FROM ELECTRIFY, UM, ELECTRIFY AMERICA WHO WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADOPT MORE OF A, UH, AND I THINK TES OR SOMEBODY ELSE, TESLA I THINK WHO WANT, WANTS YOU TO DO MORE ON EV UH, CAPABLE SPACES AND MAYBE GO TO A POWER, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE TERMINOLOGY, BUT MORE OF A, A MINIMUM POWER, UH, REQUIREMENT LIKE CALIFORNIA DOES.
BUT WHAT'S BEFORE US IS KIND OF WHAT YOU PRESENTED BEFORE.
CORRECT? UM, WE HAD EVALUATED THE STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK AND WHAT WE HAD DECIDED TO IMPLEMENT, UM, IS WHAT I PRESENTED TO YOU LAST MONTH.
WELL I'M NOT GONNA PUSH FOR MY 42 INSTEAD OF 49, UM, CEILING INSULATION.
UH, 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T, IN THE GROUND SCHEME OF THINGS, IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT IMPORTANT.
UM, AND THEN THERE WAS THE ONE ISSUE ABOUT THE EXCEPTIONS ON THE SPACE HEATER, DID THAT GET RESOLVED? NO.
UM, SO YES, UH, WE HAVE THE COMMENT THAT WOULD LIKE US TO DISALLOW ELECTRIC RESISTANCE, WATER HEATING.
IT IS OUR OPINION AND THAT OF OUR LEGAL COUNSEL'S OPINION THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE LEGAL FOR US TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD VIOLATE FEDERAL PREEMPTION LAWS.
[00:25:01]
UM, GOT IT.SO WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
WELL, UM, UNLESS OTHER PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTS, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT, UH, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BASICALLY THAT'S BEFORE US, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS.
SARAHS, I JUST, I THINK YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT I HAD RAISED AROUND SPACE FOR THE HOT WATER HEAT PUMP AND IN FACT THEY DID.
YEAH, THAT'S CHANGE THAT I WAS REQUESTING.
I THINK, YEAH, I'D MADE TWO DIFFERENT REQUESTS.
IT'S BEEN A, UM, I'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF TRAVELING THE LAST WEEK TO HOUSTON AND BACK, SO I'M LITTLE FRAZZLED.
THE OTHER ONE, PAUL HAS BEEN PUSHING FOR THE, YOU KNOW, DISALLOWING THE ELECTRIC RESISTANCE.
AND I I WILL SHARE THAT HE, HE DID SEND ME THE CALIFORNIA EXAMPLE AND IT APPEARS THAT THEY, THEY DO REQUIRE THE HEAT PUMPS THERE AND THEY SEEM TO DO IT BY HAVING AN ALTERNATE PATH THAT HAS A PERFORMANCE BASED ALTERNATIVE.
DID YOU LOOK INTO THIS, HEIDI? I MEAN I, SO YEAH, NONE OF THE OTHER CODES REQUIRE YOU, AGAIN, YOU FALL INTO THE FEDERAL PREEMPTION, RIGHT? SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PATH THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE IT, RIGHT.
AND SO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE TO BE UPDATED.
IS THERE A PERFORMANCE BASED PATH IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL? THERE IS A PERFORMANCE BASED PATH IN THE, IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, YES.
SO, SO THEN WHAT WOULD THE ISSUE BE WITH HAVING THE NON-PERFORMANCE PATH REQUIRE THE HEAT PUMP? WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT, UM, HOW THEY ALL BALANCE OUT THE, I MEAN THE PERFORMANCE BASED PATH ESSENTIALLY.
AND I THINK WE, YEAH, WE WOULD, WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT HOW IT ALL BALANCES OUT ON THAT FRONT.
DO WE, DO WE THINK THAT BUILDERS TODAY BUILDING ARE GONNA USE ELECTRIC RESISTANCE HEATING? NOT IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, BUT THEY DO USE IT IN MULTIFAMILY.
IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FEDERAL STANDARD IS CHANGING? IT IS TO YES.
REQUIRE HEAT PUMPS ANYWAY? YES.
WHEN DO YOU EXPECT THAT TO BE IN EFFECT? POSSIBLY AS SOON AS 2030.
SO THERE IS, THERE IS A GAP THERE.
THERE'S A, THERE'S A SLIGHT GAP THERE.
WOULD IT BE A LOT OF WORK TO LOOK AND SEE IF WE CAN DO WHAT CALIFORNIA DID? YES.
LIKE SO MUCH THAT IT WOULD SLOW DOWN THE TIMELINE NOW THAT IT'S NOVEMBER OR WE WOULD, WE WOULD PRO, IF WE WERE GOING TO MAKE THAT UH, CHANGE, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO REOPEN PUBLIC COMMENT AND THAT WOULD TAKE LIKE ANOTHER MONTH.
IT, IT WOULD ALSO, FRANKLY SPEAKING, 'CAUSE THERE IS SOME OPPOSITION FROM CERTAIN SECTORS TO THIS CODE, UH, IT MIGHT LEAD TO MORE OPPOSITION POTENTIALLY.
SO, CYRUS, DID YOU MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? I DID.
KABA, DO YOU WANT A SECOND? SURE.
I'LL SECOND THE MOTION TO MOVE APPROVAL ON ITEM 18 ON THE 2024 ENERGY INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE.
I THINK THAT PASSES, JUST TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, AUSTIN WOULD BE THE, I THINK THE FIRST CITY THAT WOULD ADOPT IT.
SO WHO IS TO ALL THE STAFF FOR THE HARD WORK.
[19. Staff briefing and process update on the Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan by Lisa Martin, Deputy General Manager and Chief Operating Officer, and Lynda Rife, President of Rifeline.]
19? NOW WE HAVE A STAFF BRIEFING BY OUR COO AND LINDA RIF.[00:30:01]
DAVID SAID TOUCH, TOUCH.LISA MARTIN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER.
WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT RELATED TO THE RESOURCE GENERATION PLAN FOR YOU THIS EVENING.
UM, AND THEN WE WILL BE RETURNING TO YOU DURING THIS SPECIAL CALLED, UM, EUC MEETING AT THE END OF THIS MONTH TO REVIEW THE RESULTS OF THE MODELING THAT WE'VE WORKED ON TO DATE.
SO MICHAEL WILL SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT, UM, UH, AS THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.
BUT FIRST I'D LIKE TO BRING UP LINDA RIF, WHO IS HERE TO PROVIDE THE RESULTS OF THE THIRD COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP.
WE'LL BE AROUND FOR QUESTIONS AFTER.
SO HAPPY TO BE HERE AND HAPPY TO, UM, TO LET YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS A FUN AND EXCITING, UH, THIRD WORKSHOP.
WE HEARD A LOT, UM, THAT THE SECOND WORKSHOP WAS A LOT OF DR. WEBER SPEAKING.
WE LISTENED A LOT IN THIS NEXT ONE.
JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS A BROAD GROUP OF PEOPLE, ORGANIZATIONS THAT REPRESENT A DIVERSE GROUP, LOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, PUBLIC CITIZEN AND SIERRA CLUB, BUT ALSO, UM, AN OLD AND YOUNG, A A RP AND A BRAND NEW COLLEGE STUDENT, AS WELL AS, UH, PEOPLE WITH FOUNDATION, COMMUNITY, CENTRAL HEALTH, AND OTHERS.
SO IN THIS, UH, WORKSHOP, WHAT WE REALLY, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
UM, WHAT WE LOOKED AT, WE MET ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 22ND, AND WE WANTED TO HEAR KIND OF STAKEHOLDER STORIES, WHAT MATTERED TO THEM AND RE RELY, UH, IN REGARDING, UH, AFFORDABILITY, RELI, ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND RELIABILITY.
AND SO WE HEARD THAT WE ALSO HAD SOME PRIORITIZING VALUES.
WE HAD A BEAN EXERCISE, AND I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT IN A MINUTE.
'CAUSE EQUITY HAS BEEN KIND OF A, UH, KIND OF A MAJOR TAKEAWAY ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS TO THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE.
UM, SO WHAT WE, UM, WHAT WE INITIALLY TALKED ABOUT WERE THESE STAKEHOLDER STORIES.
SO NEXT SLIDE PLEASE, AND I'M GONNA KEEP POPPING IN HERE.
THE NEXT SLIDE, WHAT IS THE IMPACT, IF YOU LOST POWER FOR THE FOLLOWING TIME PERIODS? AND THIS WAS AN INDIVIDUAL SURVEY THAT THEY ANSWERED FOR THEMSELVES, AND THEN THEY ALSO ANSWERED FOR THE ORGANIZATION THAT THEY LOOKED AT.
SO YOU CAN SEE ON RELIABILITY, UH, ONE HOUR, UH, MINIMAL, INCONVENIENT AND ANNOYING.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT THEY WERE REPRESENTING, I HEARD LOSS OF REVENUE, DAMAGE TO EQUIPMENT COULD ENDANGER OUR RESIDENTS DUE TO DEPENDENCY ON EQUIPMENT.
UM, EIGHT HOURS, IT BECOMES SOMEWHAT SUBSTANTIAL AND IT COULD, AND ON THE IMPACT TO ORGANIZATIONS, IT ACTUALLY COULD DISRUPT THEIR CARE.
AND THEN 48 HOURS, YOU REHEARSAL SEE THE WORD DEVASTATING AND LIFE THREATENING.
SO RELIABILITY REALLY CAME OUT WITH SOME VERY STRONG WORDING.
NEXT, BILL, WHEN WE ASKED THEM PERSONALLY ABOUT RAISING THEIR BILL ONE TO $5 PER MONTH, WE HEARD MINIMAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL DEPENDS.
IT KIND OF, IF IT GETS COMPOUNDED, LIKE IT KEEPS RAISING ONE TO $5 PER MONTH, THIS, I THINK IS WHAT THEY WERE SAYING WHEN THEY ASK ABOUT THEIR ORGANIZATION.
IT KIND OF WAS A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYWHERE, VERY LITTLE MODEST.
COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS WAS THERE AND, AND IF YOU RAISE IT IN ONE APARTMENT, THAT'S NOT SO MUCH, BUT THEY HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF APARTMENTS.
AND SO THE SCALE OF IT STARTS BECOMING SUBSTANTIAL TO THEIR ORGANIZATION.
BUT WHEN YOU SAID FIVE TO 10, AGAIN, ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, NOT SO BAD, BUT IT STARTS BECOMING MORE IMPACTFUL AND SIGNIFICANT.
WE ALSO, NEXT SLIDE ASKED THEM ABOUT HIGH SMOG, KIND OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION, UM, ON A LOCAL INDIVIDUAL THING, WE GOT THE WHOLE GAMUT SLIGHTLY AFFECTED TO EXTREMELY AFFECTED.
AND YOUR ORGANIZATION, THAT SAME THING.
PEOPLE WOULD LIMIT THEIR OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES, ASTHMA CAN FLARE ALLERGIES, LONG-TERM HEALTH IMPACTS.
AND THEN SAME WAY WITH COPD, ALLERGIES, LONG-TERM HEALTH PROBLEMS. SO ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, A LOT OF THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE WRESTLING WITH, WITH VALUE, WITH THE ENERGY GENERATION PLAN IS, YOU KNOW, RELIABILITY, AFFORDABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.
SO WE HAD A NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UM, WE LOOKED AT HOW THESE THINGS WORK.
UM, IF I WERE MAKING A S'MORE, I WOULD NEED GRAHAM CRACKERS, CHOCOLATE, AND MARSHMALLOWS, RIGHT? AND EVERYBODY HAS THE PERFECT WAY THAT THEY LIKE S'MORES, RIGHT? AND IT'S PROBABLY NOT MEASURING OUT EQUAL PROPORTIONS OF EACH ONE OF THOSE.
IN FACT, UM, WHEN I WAS AT A PLACE WHERE THEY MAKE MARSHMALLOWS WHEN IT'S A HUNDRED DEGREES OUTSIDE THIS, UH, SUMMER, I HAD ONE CHILD WHO REALLY WANTED, UH, AS LITTLE GRAHAM
[00:35:01]
KEER AS POSSIBLE WITH A BUNCH OF CHOCOLATE AND MARSHMALLOW.ANOTHER ONE WHO WAS COMPLAINING TO ME ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE SAM MORE BECAUSE THEY NEEDED MORE, UM, GRAHAM CRACKER AND THEN ANOTHER ONE WHO BARELY ROASTED THE MARSHMALLOW AND JUST WANTED THE CHOCOLATE.
AND, AND, UH, IN GRAHAM CRACKER, UM, THEY ALSO HAD CINNAMON GRAHAM CRACKERS.
SO I WONDER IF PEOPLE WOULD PAY MORE IF YOU COULD GET CINNAMON GRAHAM CRACKERS FOR WHOLE PROCESS.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, IT'S USUALLY NOT EQUAL.
IT'S USUALLY YOU PRIORITIZE ONE THING OVER ANOTHER.
AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WITH THIS BEAM GAME.
WE WANTED THIS GOAL OR THIS EXERCISE FOR, WAS FOR PARTICIPANTS TO CREATE IN, IN FEEDBACK ON HOW AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD PRIORITIZE TRADE-OFFS AMONG COMMUNITY VALUES, AFFORDABILITY, RELIABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAIN SUSTAINABILITY.
WE CAN'T HAVE A HUNDRED PERCENT OF EVERYTHING.
WE, WE HAVE TO LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD ON ALL OF THIS.
AND SO NEXT, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO WHAT WE GAVE THEM IS A AFFORDABILITY, RELIABILITY, ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD.
WE GAVE THEM 10 BEANS, 10 JELLY BEANS IN THIS CASE, AND ASK THEM HOW YOU COULD DO THAT.
YOU COULD HAVE 10, 10 AND FIVE.
YOU COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, EIGHT EIGHT AND, AND WHATEVER.
SO YOU COULD PUT 'EM ANY WAY THAT YOU WANTED TO DO THAT.
BUT YOU HAD 10 ADDITIONAL BEINGS TO FILL 15 SPACES.
WE ASKED THEM TO DO THAT INITIALLY ON THEIR OWN BEFORE WE STARTED THE GAME.
AND THEN IN BOTH PLACES WE ASKED THEM TO REALLOCATE AFTER THEY HEARD ALL THE DISCUSSION OF IT.
SO ON THIS JELLYBEAN GAME, THE INDIVIDUAL ALLOCATION, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
STARTED OUT WITH AFFORDABILITY, RANKING 7.91 WITH THE SCORE.
THE LOW SCORE IN THAT AREA WAS SEVEN AND THE HIGH SCORE WAS 10.
RELIABILITY WAS RANKED 9.08 WITH A LOW SCORE OF EIGHT AND A HIGH SCORE OF 10.
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY RANKS 7.95 WITH A LOW SCORE OF SIX AND A HIGH SCORE OF 10.
SO WE STARTED OUT WITH RELIABILITY AT AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS WAS BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT AFFORDABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY CLOSER, BUT ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY A LITTLE BIT HIGHER, BUT IT WASN'T AS FOCUSED IN ALL OF THAT.
SO WE DIVIDED PEOPLE INTO FOUR GROUPS.
THEY TOOK THEIR NUMBERS AND PUT THEM TOGETHER IN WHATEVER THEIR GROUPS ARE.
SO YOU CAN SEE GROUP ONE, THE RED GROUP, THEIR HIGH, UM, THEIR HIGHEST SCORE WAS RELIABILITY, FOLLOWED BY AFFORDABILITY, FOLLOWED BY ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.
THAT'S NOT HOW IT FOLLOWED EVERY SINGLE GROUP, BUT THIS IS HOW THEY AT, JUST ADDING THEIR NUMBERS UP.
THAT'S WHAT THEY STARTED WITH.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, ALL FOUR GROUPS SAID THAT RELIABILITY WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT.
UM, IT RANKED FIRST IN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE GROUPS WHEN YOU LOOKED AT AFFORDABILITY.
UM, IT RANKED, IT TIED IN ONE GROUP, RANKED THE HIGHEST IN TWO OTHER GROUPS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY DID THE SAME.
THE RANGE, AGAIN, IF YOU LOOKED AT THE GROUP RANGES, UM, WAS LARGER IN THAT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY THAN AFFORDABILITY.
7.2, THE LOW IN, UM, AND UP TO 8.2.
SO THAT'S WHERE YOU LOOK AT IT.
AND THEN ONLY ONE GROUP DECIDED TO REALLOCATE BEST ON, UH, ON THEIR DISCUSSION.
AND THEY ACTUALLY MARKED AFFORDABILITY UP HIGHER AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
AND THESE ARE LITTLE SHORT NUMBERS.
THIS IS REALLY COMING FROM DISCUSSION.
I KNOW THIS IS A LITTLE CONFUSING AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL YOU SEE ALL THIS.
YOU WANT ME TO STOP AND ASK ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS SO FAR? OKAY, COOL.
UM, DID, SO WAS RELIABILITY THOUGH WAS KIND OF UP TO THE GROUP OR WAS IT BASED ON THAT INITIAL ONE HOUR VERSUS EIGHT HOURS IT, OR WAS IT IT WAS REALLY UP TO THE, UP TO THE GROUP.
I MEAN, WITH, THE FIRST THING THAT WE DID WAS THAT INDEPENDENT, UM, SURVEY.
SO IT PROBABLY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THAT.
I CAN'T SAY IT WAS TOTALLY INDEPENDENT, BUT THEY WERE TWO SEPARATE, UM, SURVEYS AND IDEAS THAT WE WANTED TO LOOK AT IT A COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS.
ONE, TO SLICE IT A COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS.
SO THEN, UM, THEY GOT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THEIR INDIVIDUAL REALLOCATION.
[00:40:01]
RELIABILITY ACTUALLY WENT UP FROM 9.08 TO 9.21.UM, WE HAD, UH, TWO PEOPLE THAT RAISED THEIR SCORES BACK ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL BASIS.
AFFORDABILITY STAYED THE SAME.
TWO PEOPLE RAISED THEIR SCORES, TWO PEOPLE LOWERED THEIR SCORES, IT ENDED UP EQUALING OUT.
UM, ACTUALLY DROPPED A TINY BIT ON ALL OF THAT.
FOUR PEOPLE LOWERED THEIR SCORES AND ONE RAISED THEIR SCORE.
SO WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING AT WHAT WAS IMPORTANT, THEY DID MOVE A LITTLE BIT BASED ON THE DISCUSSION THAT THE GROUP WAS HAVING.
SO, UM, THIS KIND OF PROVIDES THEM WITH SOME, SOME IMPORTANT THOUGHTS ON WHAT THEY THINK THOSE PILLARS OR MISSIONS ARE.
WHEN THEY REPORTING OUT, UM, A COUPLE OF THINGS POPPED UP AND I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND READ YOU THESE IF YOU DON'T MIND.
BUT, UM, ONE, ONE GROUP TALKED ABOUT PERHAPS AUSTIN ENERGY IS NOT SUPPRESSING THE WORD ABOUT THE GREAT JOB THAT'S BEING DONE ALREADY.
WE ALREADY, OR A NATIONAL LEADER WITH REGARD TO THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE WITH AUSTIN ENERGY.
THEY WERE REFERRING TO HOW GREEN THE ENERGY WAS.
UM, ANOTHER ONE WAS WITH RELIABILITY.
IT IS A LIFE OR DEATH SITUATION, AM OR PM.
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO RELY ON OXYGEN ELECTRIC WHEELCHAIRS AND OTHER MEANS THAT HAVE BECOME MORE AND MORE MANUFACTURED AND AUTOMATED.
THE DANGERS CAN BE HIGHER THE MORE AUTOMATION WE BECOME FOR THE DIS DISABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
ANOTHER ONE IS WE WANT ALL THE POWER TO BE ON, BUT THERE'S A LIMIT TO THAT.
YOU CAN'T, DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO SAY RELIABILITY AT ANY COST BECAUSE THAT COULD BECOME UNAFFORDABLE.
A LACK OF RELIABILITY CAN ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO A LACK OF SUSTAINABILITY IF PEOPLE TURN TO POLLUTING BACKUP SOURCES LIKE DIESEL GENERATORS.
UM, WE ALSO HEARD THAT YOU CAN DO IT ALL A LITTLE BIT.
THERE ARE TECHNOLOGIES AND POLICIES WE CAN PRIORITIZE THAT ADDRESS ALL THREE THINGS ALL AT ONCE AND AREN'T PITTING AFFORDABILITY AGAINST RELIABILITY OR ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY BENEFITS.
WE WANT TO FOCUS ON WHAT IS SIMULTANEOUSLY AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE, AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE.
SO MAYBE THAT'S A BALANCE SOME MORE.
UM, AND THEN ANOTHER THEME THAT POPPED UP A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PLACES IS OVER HALF THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS NOW RENTERS.
RENTERS OFTEN DON'T HAVE AGENCY OVER HOW HVAC REPLACEMENTS ARE MADE OR HOW EFFICIENT THEIR APPLIANCES ARE.
SO ARGUABLY THAT'S AN AFFORDABILITY IMPACT BECAUSE THEY OFTEN HAVE TO USE MORE ENERGY, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS KIND OF AN INTERESTING PROCESS.
YOU'VE RECEIVED, I I THINK IT WAS LATE THIS AFTERNOON OR RIGHT BEFORE THIS MEETING, BUT YOU'VE RECEIVED THE WRITTEN REPORT AND A SPREADSHEET WITH EVERY SINGLE COMMENT IN IT.
WE ALSO HEARD A REPORT OUT ON THE TEXAS ENERGY POVERTY RESEARCH INSTITUTE THAT WAS REALLY TALKING ABOUT LOW INCOME AND EQUITY.
AND UM, WHAT THIS REPORT WAS WAS ACTUALLY A SURVEY OF LOW INCOME PEOPLE ACROSS THE STATE, BUT IN PARTICULAR IN THE AUSTIN ENERGY DISTRICT.
AND ONE OF THE MAJOR TAKEAWAYS THERE WAS THOSE LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS REALLY CARED ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, 50% RESILIENCY AND RELIABILITY.
THEY SPLIT UP RESILIENCY, 27%, RELIABILITY 8%, AND THEN SUSTAINABILITY AT 17%.
SO WE DID HEAR ABOUT THAT, THAT INFORMATION AS WELL AS EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE DONE WITH IT.
AND THEN THEY HAD SOME POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT, UM, THAT IT'S OFFERED IN THIS STUDY.
UM, ENHANCED ACCESS TO ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND ADDRESSING RELIABILITY RESILIENCY THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS AND PROMOTING CLEAN ENERGY ADOPTION THROUGH EDUCATION OUTREACH AND PROGRAMS. UM, WE ALSO TALKED A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT EQUITY AND THERE'S MORE DETAIL IN YOUR REPORT, BUT I WANTED TO TOUCH ON THAT BRIEFLY.
UM, AND THEN IT SAYS, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT DEMOGRAPHICS AND YOU THINK ABOUT EQUITY PEOPLE FILLED OUT A LOT.
I MEAN, THERE IS, THEY HAVE A PRETTY DIVERSE GROUP.
IT'S ELDERLY, THOSE WITH DISABILITIES, THOSE DEPENDENT ON ELECTRICAL, UM, MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, LOW INCOME, UM, RESIDENTS IN THE EASTERN CRESCENT, BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES GENERALLY SMALL BUSINESS WAS MENTIONED IN THAT AND TENANTS WITHOUT A SAY IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT PROGRAMS, IT'S PRETTY BROAD AND PRETTY WIDE ACCORDING TO THIS GROUP.
AND WHEN YOU ASK THEM THE, THE, YEAH, THE LAST, UM, SLIDE HERE IS IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT EQUITY, WHICH ONE OF BOSTON ENERGY'S MISSION OR PILLARS SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED? 10 PEOPLE SELECTED RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCE.
FIVE SELECTED AFFORDABILITY, THREE SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.
WE ALSO HEARD WE SHOULD PRIORITIZE ALL THINGS THAT HELP.
[00:45:01]
EQUITY.WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PRIORITIZE.
SO THAT WAS KIND OF A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION WE GOT FROM THIS LAST WORKSHOP.
THE NEXT WORKSHOP, WE'RE GONNA BE HELD ON, UH, THURSDAY, OCTOBER THE THIRD.
AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE TO COME BACK AND GIVE YOU OUR UPDATES ON, UM, THE STAKEHOLDER INPUTS ON ALL OF THAT.
WITH THAT, I STAND FOR QUESTIONS.
[20. Staff briefing and Modeling Overview for the Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan by Michael Enger, Vice President of Energy Market Operations and Resource Planning, and Ben Anderson, Senior Energy Analyst at Ascend Analytics.]
HEY, GOOD AFTERNOON.UH, MIKE LANGER, VICE PRESIDENT OF ENERGY MARKET OPERATIONS AND RESOURCE PLANNING.
AND I'M HERE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UH, ASCEND MODELING OVERVIEW AND TO INTRODUCE, UH, BEN ANDERSON.
SO FIRST I WANNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UH, THE MODELING PROGRESS TO DATE AND, AND WHAT WE'VE DONE.
SO IF YOU ALL REMEMBER, UH, WHAT WE HAVE DONE.
SO WE WORKED WITH THE EUC BACK IN JULY TO FINALIZE THE MODELING INPUTS AND ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE'D BE USING FOR THE MODELING.
UH, AND THEN WE WORKED WITH EUC IN AUGUST TO FINALIZE THE PORTFOLIOS AND SCENARIOS THAT AND SENSITIVITIES THAT WE'D BE RUNNING AS WELL.
UH, WHERE WE ARE NOW, UH, WE ARE COMPLETING THAT MODELING.
WE'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK ON MODELING RUNS, UH, DOING SOME MODELING OVER THE WEEKENDS.
UH, WE'RE GETTING VERY, VERY CLOSE TO GETTING THOSE COMPLETE.
UH, AND THEN WE'RE ANALYZING THAT OUTPUT, UH, TO THE VARIOUS METRICS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE EUC WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE, UH, THE OUTPUTS THAT WE'D HAVE BACK IN ON JULY AND THEN IN AUGUST.
UM, AND SO WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE DIFFERENT OUTPUTS, UH, THOSE METRICS AND KIND OF DO THAT, UH, THAT LOOKING AT THE, THE TRADE OFFS AS WELL AS THE RISKS BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF PORTFOLIOS AND TECHNOLOGIES.
AND THEN WHAT IS NEXT IS WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO YOU GUYS ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, UH, WITH A SUMMARY OF THE MODELING RESULTS.
UM, WE WILL BE THEN HAVING OFFICE HOURS FOR THE UC TO GO INTO DEEP DIVES ON THE MODELING RESULTS OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH THE FOURTH, MUCH LIKE WE DID, UH, WITH THE PORTFOLIOS AND SCENARIOS.
UM, AND THEN THAT WILL GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH EUC TO LOOK AT THOSE RESULTS AND, AND REFINE SOME SHORT LIST AND SOME POTENTIAL NEW PORTFOLIOS TO EVALUATE.
UM, SO THIS WAS A SLIDE THAT WE SHOWN YOU BEFORE.
UM, AND SO A LOT OF WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WITH WORKING WITH EUC ON THE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE PORTFOLIOS, UM, AND ALL THE OFFICE HOURS, THERE'S A LOT OF THE ORANGE PORTION UP THERE.
SO THAT'S THE MODELING THAT, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS BEEN DOING.
BUT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLY ON THAT WE WERE GONNA WORK WITH A THIRD PARTY TO DO INDEPENDENT MODELING AS WELL.
UM, AND SO THAT'S REALLY KIND OF THE BLUE PART OF THIS.
UH, AND SO THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO BE ABLE TO INTRODUCE BEN ANDERSON HERE IN A MOMENT.
HE WORKS FOR ASCEND ANALYTICS AND THEY CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE TYPE OF MODELING THEY DO.
UH, THE MODEL THEY RUN IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THAN THE MODELING WE'VE DONE.
UH, AND I GUESS ONE KEY DIFFERENCE IS, UH, THE MODELING WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE.
WE'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE EUC TO KIND OF DETERMINE WHAT THOSE PORTFOLIOS WILL LOOK LIKE AND THE ONES WE WANT TO DO.
YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT KIND OF HAVING THE EXTREMES TO LOOK AT THE CORNERS TO THE TRIANGLE, THE THREE PILLARS AND LOOKING AT THINGS KIND OF INSIDE, UH, ASCEND WILL BE UTILIZING, UH, OPTIMIZATION TOOLS, UH, AND MODELS THAT DICTATE WHAT THOSE PORTFOLIOS ARE BASED ON, UH, A SET OF ASSUMPTIONS OR CONSTRAINTS.
UM, WE JUST HAD THE WRONG PRESENTATION UP.
IT WAS THE EARLIER DRAFT, SO WE'RE FIXING THAT RIGHT NOW.
WE GOOD? OKAY, WE'RE GOOD, THANKS.
ALRIGHT, WELL WITH THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND INTRODUCE, UH, BEN ANDERSON TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT ASCEND AND WHAT THEY DO.
I'LL JUMP INTO OUR MODELING PROCESS AND THE PORTFOLIOS THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING.
SO IT IS SEND, WE USE A STOCHASTIC ANALYSIS TO ACCOUNT FOR UNCERTAINTY AND POWER SYSTEM MODELING.
OUR POWER SIM SOFTWARE RUNS A LARGE SET OF SIMULATIONS AND THEY COVER A BROAD RANGE OF FUTURE CONDITIONS.
THE MODEL VARIES WEATHER, WIND, AND SOLAR PRODUCTION, LOAD PRICES, AND THERMAL AND BATTERY DISPATCH DECISIONS.
AS THE LOWER LEFT GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATES OR RESULTS INCLUDE DISTRIBUTIONS OF VARIOUS OUTPUTS SUCH AS COST EMISSIONS AND RENEWABLE GENERATION, WE QUANTIFY BOTH THE AVERAGES AND THE VARIABILITY OF THE RESULTS AND THAT PROVIDES MORE ROBUST DATA FOR DECISION MAKERS.
WE HAVE TWO MAIN MODELS THAT WE USE FOR RESOURCE PLANNING, CAPACITY EXPANSION, AND PRODUCTION COST.
SO FIRST, THE CAPACITY EXPANSION MODEL.
IT CREATES OPTIMIZED PORTFOLIOS BASED ON CONSTRAINTS THAT THE USER DEFINES.
[00:50:01]
CAN BE GOALS LIKE ZERO EMISSIONS, UH, BY A CERTAIN DATE OR A CERTAIN RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGET OR LIMITS ON WHAT TYPES OF RESOURCES CAN BE BUILT OUT IN CERTAIN YEARS.OUR SOFTWARE TAKES THESE CONSTRAINTS AND COST INPUTS AND IT OUTPUTS A TECHNOLOGY MIX THAT MINIMIZES TOTAL PORTFOLIO COSTS WHILE HONORING THE CONSTRAINTS PROVIDED.
SO THAT'S HOW WE COME UP WITH THE PORTFOLIOS AND WE COME UP WITH DIFFERENT PORTFOLIOS BY PROVIDING DIFFERENT CONSTRAINTS SETS.
NEXT UP IS OUR PRODUCTION COST MODEL.
UM, OH YEAH, YOU CAN STAY ON THIS SLIDE FOR A SECOND.
THE PRODUCTION COST MODEL, IT TAKES THESE PORTFOLIOS THAT THE CAPACITY EXPANSION MODEL CREATED AND IT RUNS THEM THROUGH DETAILED STOCHASTIC MODELING TO CALCULATE COST EMISSIONS AND RELIABILITY METRICS FOR THOSE DIFFERENT PORTFOLIOS.
AND THE MODEL PROVIDES AVERAGE VALUES AS WELL AS P FIVE AND P 95 PROBABILITY VALUES TO SHOW A WIDE RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT OUR MODELS USE THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED WITH THE EUC BACK IN JULY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE, UH, CLOSE COMPARISON TO U PLAN MODELS WHICH ARE BEING RUN IN PARALLEL IN USING THOSE ASSUMPTIONS.
WE'VE DEVELOPED FOUR MAIN PORTFOLIOS TO UNDERSTAND TRADE-OFFS BETWEEN COSTS, EMISSIONS AND RELIABILITY.
SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BEN, CAN YOU, UM, JUST TELL US, UH, P FIVE VERSUS P 95? WHAT DOES, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? MM-HMM,
SO P FIVE IS THE FIFTH PERCENTILE.
UM, SO IF YOU HAVE, UH, A DISTRIBUTION, UH, P FIVE IS LIKE THE, THE, SO YOU RUN IT A HUNDRED TIMES AND MM-HMM,
SO WE'RE RUNNING, WE'RE RUNNING A HUNDRED SIMULATIONS.
AND SO IT WOULD BE THE, THE FIFTH PERCENTILE OF THOSE 100 SIMULATIONS IN THAT P 95 WOULD BE THE 95TH PERCENTILE.
DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? YES, THANKS.
ALRIGHT, SO OUR PORTFOLIOS PORTFOLIO A, WE PROVIDE AN EMISSIONS AND RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGET AND WE KEEP THE LOCAL SYSTEM RELIABLE AND WE MINIMIZE TRANSMISSION CONGESTION BY PROVIDING LOCAL FIRM RESOURCES.
PORTFOLIO B IS THE SAME AS PORTFOLIO A, BUT IT DOES NOT ALLOW ANY NEW NATURAL GAS OR HYDROGEN BURNING PLANTS.
SO THIS PROVIDES A PATH TO ZERO EMISSIONS THAT'S NOT DEPENDENT ON CLEAN HYDROGEN AVAILABILITY.
IT'S A LOWEST COST PORTFOLIO THAT MAINTAINS LOCAL RELIABILITY AND AVOIDS TRANSMISSION CONGESTION.
HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY EMISSIONS OR RENEWABLE ENERGY MARKETS.
SO IT CAN BUILD AS MUCH GAS AS IT NEEDS TO IN ORDER TO PROVIDE, UH, LOCAL CAPACITY.
OUR PORTFOLIO D IT HAS THE SAME CONSTRAINTS AS A, EXCEPT WE INCREASE THE LOCAL FIRM CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS.
SO IT'S GONNA BE BUILDING MORE LOCAL FIRM RESOURCES TO ENSURE A HIGHER LEVEL OF RELIABILITY.
AND I'LL NOTE THAT ALL OF THESE PORTFOLIOS USE THE MAX DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT PROJECTIONS FROM THE RECENT DNV STUDY.
CAN I ADD A, CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO ON? SURE.
UM, JUST ON THE CARBON FREE, UM, IS, IS THAT JUST LIKE CARBON FREE STOCK EMISSIONS OR ARE YOU ASSUMING SUFFICIENT GENERATION TO MEET LOAD? WE ARE NOT ASSUMING SUFFICIENT GENERATION TO MEET LOAD, IT'S JUST CARBON FREE STACK EMISSIONS.
ALRIGHT, SO DIVING INTO THE PORTFOLIO CONSTRAINTS A LITTLE BIT MORE PORTFOLIOS A, B, AND D HAVE A LOT OF SIMILAR CONSTRAINTS.
SO FIRST OF ALL, THEY'RE COAL FREE.
OUR STUDY PERIODS 2025 TO 2035 AND WE ASSUME THAT THE FBT PLANT HAS RETIRED IN THE END OF 2024.
UM, THEY HAVE THIS CARBON FEE FREE REQUIREMENT, ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS BY 2035.
WE START OUT WITH 2023 CARBON EMISSION LEVELS AND THEN RAMP DOWN IN LINEARLY TO ZERO IN 2035.
THEY HAVE A 65% RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGET STARTING IN 2027.
SO RENEWABLE ENERGY HAS TO PROVIDE AT LEAST 65%
[00:55:01]
OF THE LOAD ENERGY IN 2027 AND BEYOND.AND SCENARIOS A AND D HAVE A GREEN HYDROGEN CONVERSION REQUIREMENT REQUIRING ALL NEW AND EXISTING NATURAL GAS PLANTS TO CONVERT TO GREEN HYDROGEN IN THE 2030S.
UM, SCENARIOS A, D AND C HAVE A LOCAL RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT.
UM, SO WE, WE HAVE THE CONSTRAINT SO THAT THE LOCAL FIRM CAPACITY, UH, ADJUSTED DOWN BY THE ELCC OF EACH TECHNOLOGY TYPE, PLUS THE RELIABLE IMPORT CAPACITY.
SO THE AMOUNT OF TRANSMISSION CAPACITY THAT CAN BE RELIED UPON TO PROVIDE ENERGY MUST EXCEED THE ANNUAL PEAK LOAD.
SO THE IDEA OF THAT REQUIREMENT IS THAT YOUR LOCAL GENERATION PLUS YOUR TRANSMISSION CAN SATISFY YOUR PEAK LOAD AND THE EXCEPTION IS SCENARIO D.
SO THAT ONE HAS AN ENHANCED LOCAL RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT.
WE ADD 15% TO THAT ANNUAL PEAK LOAD TO GET AN ENHANCED LEVEL OF LOCAL RELIABILITY.
SCENARIO B HAS A COUPLE, UM, UNIQUE THINGS ABOUT IT.
FIRST, NO NEW NATURAL GAS OR HYDROGEN PLANTS ARE ALLOWED, WHICH MEANS THAT WE NEED TO RELY ON BATTERY STORAGE TO PROVIDE LOCAL FIRM CAPACITY.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ADD A REACH ADDER TO EXISTING NATURAL GAS PLANTS, WHICH BASICALLY INCREASES THE COST REQUIRED FOR THEM TO DISPATCH.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO DISPATCH LESS BECAUSE OF THAT.
AND THE EXISTING GAS ALSO RETIRES AT THE END OF 2034.
SO BY 2035, ALL OF THE FIRM LOCAL CAPACITY HAS TO BE SERVED BY BATTERIES.
HEY BEN, QUICK QUESTION ON THAT AND AND APPRECIATE THE, THE CLARIFICATION THAT B WOULD INCLUDE BATTERIES.
DO YOU, DO YOU THEN LET THE MODEL PICK THE AMOUNT OF BATTERIES AND THE DURATION THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS OR, OR DO YOU PUT A YES.
IS THAT WHAT YOU DO OR, YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
AND THEN THE VERY LAST CONSTRAINT HERE, UM, NO FUEL RESTRICTIONS.
SO PORTFOLIO C, IF YOU REMEMBER, THAT WAS THE ECONOMIC PORTFOLIO.
IT ALLOWS THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF NATURAL GAS PLANTS WITHOUT A REACH ADDER AND ALSO WITH NO HYDROGEN CONVERSION REQUIRED.
SO THAT JUST HAS GAS OPERATING THROUGH THE END OF THE STUDY.
ALL RIGHT, SO MOVING TO NEXT STEPS, WE'RE FINALIZING OUR MODEL RESULTS FOR THE FOUR PORTFOLIOS THAT WE'VE CREATED.
THEN WE'LL COMPARE OUR MODEL RESULTS TO THE RESULTS FROM THE U PLAN MODEL, WHICH IS BEING RUN IN PARALLEL FOR THE 13 AUSTIN ENERGY AND EUC PORTFOLIOS.
WE'RE GONNA PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF OUR MODEL RESULTS FOR THE SEPTEMBER 30TH EUC MEETING, AND WE'RE ALSO DEVELOPING A FINAL REPORT WITH ALL OF OUR FINDINGS.
SO WITH THAT, UH, WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME ALL, AND I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ON, ON SOME OF THE, LIKE AT THE VERY BEGINNING YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, LOOKS LIKE YOU, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HISTORIC SOLAR OUTPUT VERSUS LIKE SIMULATED OR SYNTHETIC LIKE SOLAR PROFILES.
UM, ARE, DO YOU, DO YOU, ARE THOSE LINKED BACK TO LOAD? LIKE, I'M JUST THINKING OF, YOU KNOW, IF, YOU KNOW, IF IF THE SOLAR, IF SOLAR'S LESS DURING THE DAY, THERE'S LESS HEATING OF BUILDINGS, LESS AIR CONDITIONING, IS, IS THERE A LINK BACK TO LOAD FOR LIKE FUTURE SYNTHETIC SOLAR PROFILES? YEAH, GOOD QUESTION.
WE DO CORRELATE SOLAR PRODUCTION, HISTORICAL SOLAR PRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL LOAD.
SO ANY CORRELATION THAT PHYSICALLY DOES EXIST BETWEEN SOLAR PRODUCTION AND LOAD WILL BE SIMULATED FORWARD AND PRESENT IN THE MODEL.
SO LIKE YOU HAD LIKE A LOW DAY IN 2016, YOU WOULD TAKE 2016 LOAD, BUT THEN WOULD THAT BE, YOU KNOW, BUMPED UP FOR, FOR THE BASE YEAR OF WHATEVER WE'RE USING LIKE 2022 OR 2024.
UM, ARE YOU, ARE YOU ASKING IF LOAD INCREASES BETWEEN 2016 AND 2024, IS THAT INCREASE GOING TO REFLECT AN INCREASE IN SOLAR? WELL, IT'S JUST, I, I I GUESS I WAS ASSUMING I WAS TRYING TO, I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE
[01:00:01]
'CAUSE I GOT, SO I DO A LOT OF GRID MODELING AND I, I KNOW THAT LIKE, YOU KNOW, DEMAND LIKE IS IMPACTED BY, YOU KNOW, WIND AND SOLAR PROFILES.UM, AND SO I'M JUST LIKE, IF IF ONE CHANGES ONE, THEN ONE NEEDS TO, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT CHANGING THE OTHER 'CAUSE THEY ARE LINKED TOGETHER.
AND SO I WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE CASE.
THAT, THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE LIKE A FUTURE DAY WHERE WE HAVE VERY LOW, SO VERY LOW SOLAR BUT THEN LIKE, YOU KNOW, HAVE LIKE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF LOAD THAT YOU WOULD GET WHEN YOU HAVE LIKE A REALLY SUNNY DAY IN THE SUMMER WHEN IT'S BEATING DOWN ON ALL THE BUILDINGS AND, RIGHT.
THAT, THAT CORRELATION WILL REMAIN IN PLACE.
AND, UM, MOST OF OUR SIMULATION IS DRIVEN BY WEATHER.
SO WEATHER'S THE, THE NEW FUEL FOR, UH, MOST OF OUR ENERGY PRODUCTION THROUGH RENEWABLES.
AND THEN, UH, WEATHER ALSO DRIVES LOADS.
SO THOSE PHYSICAL REALITIES AND CORRELATIONS ARE EMBEDDED INTO THE MODEL.
SO THE MODEL FIGURES OUT WHAT THOSE ARE HISTORICALLY AND THEN IT MAINTAINS THOSE CORRELATIONS SO THAT IF YOU SEE, IF YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SEE A HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOLAR AND LOAD, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, UH, UH, SUNNY DAY, THERE'S A LOT OF SOLAR AND THERE'S A LOT OF LOAD.
MAYBE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SUMMER.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF LOAD, A LOT OF SOLAR THAT CORRELATION WILL BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE SIMULATION.
UM, WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE LOOKING AT LIKE, LIKE TOPOLOGY, TOPOLOGY CONSTRAINTS, LIKE WITHIN, UM, WITHIN THE MODEL BECAUSE I MEAN, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BIGGEST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE THINKING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LOW POCKET PRICE SEPARATION, SO YOU KNOW, NOT ENOUGH LOCAL GENERATION.
UM, HOW, SO YOU MENTIONED, I THINK YOU SAID, YOU MENTIONED THAT IT, THAT AT LEAST LIKE THE, THE ELECT THE EFFECTIVE LOW CARRYING CAPACITY OF ALL RESOURCES, UM, YOU KNOW, HAS TO BE AT OR AT LEAST IN ONE SCENARIO HAS TO BE 15% GREATER THAN PEAK THAN, YEAH.
DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU HAVE A FEEL FOR WHAT, HOW MANY MEGAWATTS IS THAT? LIKE, UM, MM-HMM MM-HMM
SO THE PEAK LOAD IS IN THE LOW THREE THOUSANDS.
UM, SO YOU KNOW ABOUT 3,200 MEGAWATTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE STUDY INCREASING TO, UH, I THINK ABOUT 34, 3500 BY THE END.
UM, AND WE ASSUME THAT WE CAN RELY ON 2200 MEGAWATTS OF TRANSMISSION CAPACITY.
SO THAT REDUCES THAT PEAK LOAD BY THAT AMOUNT.
SO THEN WE'RE DOWN TO ABOUT 1000 TO 1200 MEGAWATTS.
SO THAT'S THE, THE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OF FIRM CAPACITY THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
AND THAT'S NET OF TRANSMISSION.
UM, SO YEAH, SO I, I WAS TRYING TO GET SO NET OF TRANSMISSION IN OR NET OF RELIABLE TRANSMISSION IN, 'CAUSE I KNOW THEY GET DERATED IN THE SUMMER.
UM, DO YOU HAVE A FEEL FOR LIKE WHAT THAT NUMBER IS OR IS LIKE, DO WE HAVE, IS, IS THAT A NUMBER THAT'S GOING INTO THE MODEL OR IS THAT A NUMBER THAT COMES OUT OF THE MODEL? THE, THE TRANSMISSION NUMBER OR THE, THE FIRM CAPACITY NUMBER? LIKE THE FIRM, LIKE THE NET AT THE END OF THE DAY NEED THIS MANY MEGAWATTS INSIDE.
IN HOUSE THAT, THAT'S A NUMBER THAT GOES INTO THE MODEL.
UM, I MEAN ONCE WE, ONCE WE CALCULATE THE PEAK DEMAND, WHICH WE HAVE A FORECAST FOR, SO YEAH.
SO THAT'S A, THAT'S A CONSTRAINT THAT GOES INTO THE OPTIMIZER.
SO IF IT'S, IT IS GOING IN, DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE ANU DO YOU HAVE A FEEL FOR WHAT THAT NUMBER IS? UM, IT'S ABOUT THAT 1000 TO 1200, UH, DEPENDING ON THE YEAR IN, IN THE STUDIES THAT DON'T REQUIRE THAT EXTRA 15%.
AND THEN YOU CAN ADD ABOUT THAT SO THAT, YEAH, THAT'S ON TOP OF ANY LIKE TRANSMISSION THAT'S COMING IN TOO.
SO THAT'S LIKE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MEGAWATTS IN-HOUSE? MM-HMM.