Dec 02, 2024 Special Electric Utility Commission

IS KAREN HADDEN READY TO GO? YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

CAN YOU HEAR OKAY? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

HI, GOOD EVENING.

UM, I'M GLAD TO HAVE THIS CHANCE TO TALK WITH ALL OF YOU.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK HAVING SERVED ON THE UC IN THE PAST.

I UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH IT IS.

AND, UM, AT ONE POINT, UH, EVEN CHAIRED THE, UH, GENERATION TASK FORCE.

SO I UNDERSTAND, UM, WHAT YOU'RE WORKING ON TONIGHT AND RESPECT, UM, WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

I, UH, ESPECIALLY LIKE THE RESOLUTION THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD, I THINK IT APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSES WHAT, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY G SHOULD BE ADOPTING AS GOALS.

UM, THESE GOALS HAVE SERVED AUSTIN ENERGY WELL IN THE PAST AND ALLOWED THE UTILITY TO KEEP ELECTRIC RATES LOW WHILE ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE EFFECTIVELY AND AFFORDABLY.

I HOPE THAT THAT'S THE PATH AUSTIN ENERGY WILL CHOOSE AND NOT PEAKER GAS PLANTS.

AND IN THE FUTURE, I HOPE THAT WE DON'T SEE A, A SHIFT, UM, TO WHERE NUCLEAR IS CONSIDERED IN ANY WAY, BECAUSE THAT'S A FINANCIAL DISASTER.

WE KNOW THAT FROM THE LAST TIME AROUND WHERE, UM, CPS ENERGY AND CENTERPOINT BOTH LOST 400 MILLION AND AUSTIN ENERGY WAS SMART ENOUGH TO STAY AWAY FROM THE PROPOSED NEW REACTORS AND WE SAVED THAT MONEY.

SO I SUPPORT YOU AND HOPE THAT YOU'LL GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF PASSING THAT RESOLUTION TONIGHT.

I THINK IT WOULD SERVE US ALL WELL AS RATE PAYERS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

CONVEY THAT AND THAT THE GOALS NEED TO BE RAMPED UP, UM, IN THE RESOURCE PLAN TO REQUIRE CHANGES HERE AND GOING FORWARD, UH, FOR AE TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE MORE SERIOUSLY.

UH, NEXT SPEAKER IS RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ.

HI THERE.

CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YEP, GO AHEAD.

HI.

YEAH, SORRY I COULDN'T BE THERE IN PERSON.

UH, STILL TRAVELING HOME AFTER THE HOLIDAYS.

HOPE THE AUDIO IS OKAY.

UH, MY NAME IS RAEL SCHWARTZ.

I'M A MEMBER OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION.

UH, I WAS ABLE TO TAKE SOME TIME AFTER THE HOLIDAY TO DIGEST THE RESOURCE PLAN AND TAKE A DEEP DIVE.

UH, SO JUST LOOKING AT THE, THE NEW PROPOSED GOALS AND HOW THEY RELATE TO THE CURRENT GOALS FROM 2030, THEY WERE ADOPTED FOUR YEARS AGO.

AND OVERALL, THE WAY THAT I SEE, UH, DEMAND RESPONSE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY HAVE BEEN GIVEN OBJECTIVELY LESS AMBITIOUS TARGETS THAN IN THE PLAN PAST FOUR YEARS AGO.

UM, ASIDE FROM THE IDEA OF NEW GAS PLANTS, I WAS GENUINELY SURPRISED TO SEE THIS LEVEL OF ROLLING BACK HERE ON THESE FRONTS.

SO FOR ME, UM, UNFORTUNATELY THE THEME HERE IS THE UTILITY KIND OF PUSHING BACK THE TARGETS.

AND AFTER HAVING NOT ROLLED OUT PROGRAMS QUICKLY ENOUGH, IT SEEMS THAT REMOVING THESE TARGETS AND ALLOWING THE UTILITY TO BUILD NEW MORE GAS GENERATION WILL ONLY REDUCE THE UTILITIES, UM, AMBITION IN THE FUTURE MOVING FORWARD IN THESE ITEMS, WHICH WE KNOW ARE CRITICAL.

UM, NOT TO GET TOO INTO THE WEEDS, BUT I KNOW THAT ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AUSTIN OXYGEN ENERGY IS MOVING THE GOAL OF 9 75 BACK FROM 2030 TO 2027.

UM, I KNOW THAT WE'RE ALREADY WELL OVER 90% OF THE WAY THERE, THAT IF THE STATUS QUO OF THE YEARLY ACHIEVEMENTS ON THIS FROM THE LAST LIKE 10 TO 15 YEARS, UM, HOLD GOING FORWARD, WE WOULD ACHIEVE THIS GOAL LIKE IN 12 MONTHS FROM NOW.

SO, UM, UH, PUTTING THIS AT 2027 RATHER THAN 2030, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AN INCREASE IN AMBITION, BUT IT'S REALLY A FAIRLY DRAMATIC REDUCTION FROM THE STATUS QUO THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY IN, UH, SETTING.

THIS GOAL SEEMS TO BE, UH, GIVING UP ON INCREASING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY GOALS.

AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS ON THE DEMAND DEMAND RESPONSE SIDE, SIMILAR, THE 2 25 GOAL THAT WE HAD FOR 2030 IS NOW BEING SHIFTED TO TWO 70 BY 2035.

SO IT'S ONLY AN INCREASE OF NINE EXTRA MEGAWATTS PER YEAR FROM 20 30 23 5.

SO IT'S A GOAL THAT ALSO REPRESENTS, UH, UNFORTUNATELY A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN ON THE DEMAND RESPONSE SIDE.

SO I THINK, UM, OVERALL, IF THIS IS ALL A SERIOUS PART OF OUR PLAN, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS NOT BEEN SERIOUS ENOUGH ABOUT RAMPING THIS UP, OR AT LEAST THE PLAN DOESN'T

[00:05:01]

SO TO ME, OVERALL THE UPDATE APPEARS LIGHT IN THE DETAILS.

UM, AND I WAS DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THAT IT WILL REMOVE AND DELAY THE TARGETS OF THE PREVIOUS PLAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

CAROLYN CREW, ARE YOU AVAILABLE? YOU WILL JUST NEED TO UNMUTE.

UM, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES.

SORRY ABOUT THE TECHNICAL GLITCHES.

ALL GOOD.

UM, GOOD EVENING.

UH, I, I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU, WHICH MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE 2035 RESOURCE PLAN, ESPECIALLY THE COMMITMENT TO NOT BUILD OR BUY CARBON EMITTING PLANTS.

THE REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT A A THIRD PARTY ANALYSIS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH RESOURCES THAT PRODUCED AIR POLLUTION AND ALSO A SPECIFIC STATED GOAL FOR BATTERY STORAGE.

AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSED PLAN DOESN'T EVEN STATE A SPECIFIC GOAL FOR BATTERY STORAGE.

UTILITIES ARE USING BATTERY STORAGE ALL ACROSS ERCOT FOR RELIABILITY, AND AUSTIN SHOULD TOO.

WE, WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE CURRENT DECKER DECKER PLANTS TO BE USED FOR POWER WHEN NEEDED.

I ALSO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION DOES NOT MENTION NUCLEAR ENERGY AS PART OF THE RESOURCE PLAN.

AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSED PLAN IS TITLED POWERING AUSTIN'S CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE AND NEW NUCLEAR NUCLEAR PLANTS, AS WELL AS NEW FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS ARE ANYTHING BUT CLEAN.

THERE'S NO REASON TO EVEN STUDY NUCLEAR AS AUSTIN ENERGY'S PLAN SUGGESTS.

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS BY FAR THE MOST EXPENSIVE FORM OF ENERGY, AND IT'S A CARBON INTENSIVE AND EXTRACTIVE ENERGY SOURCE LIKE FOSSIL FUELS.

TO COMPARE IT FAIRLY WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY, NUCLEAR ENERGY'S, CARBON EMISSIONS NEED TO INCLUDE EMISSIONS FROM THE WHOLE CYCLE OF CONSTRUCTION, EXTRACTION, PROCESSING, ENERGY PRODUCTION, AND WASTE.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCES TWO TIMES THE GREENHOUSE GASES THAT SOLAR PRODUCES, AND SIX TIMES THE AMOUNT THAT LAND-BASED WIND PRODUCES.

THE COST OF STORING HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR WASTE ESSENTIALLY FOREVER WOULD BE IMMENSE, AND IN REALITY IS TOTALLY UNKNOWN.

PROPOSED.

SMALL MODULAR REACTORS WOULD PRODUCE TWO TO 33 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF HIGH LEVEL WASTE AS PRESENT CONVENTIONAL, CONVENTIONAL NUCLEAR REACTORS.

WE NEED TO MAINTAIN OUR COMMITMENT TO NO NEW FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS AND NO NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS.

I HOPE YOU PASS THE RESOLUTION AND THAT IT SENDS A STRONG MESSAGE TO AUSTIN ENERGY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, THAT'S IT FOR OUR REMOTE SPEAKERS.

AND NOW WE HAVE IN-PERSON SPEAKERS.

THE FIRST IS JEN KRIEGER.

HELLO, GOOD EVENING.

UM, MY NAME IS JEN KRIEGER.

I'M COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT 2035 RESOURCE GENERATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN.

I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST THANK AUSTIN ENERGY FOR CREATING THE NEW RESOURCE PLAN WEBPAGE PER MY EARLIER REQUEST.

UH, THE PAGE IS THOROUGH AND TRANSPARENT.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE'S NO WAY TO ADDRESS SHORT TERM SUPPLY CRUNCHES, THEN OTHER THEN WOULD THE PROPOSED GAS PEAKERS.

I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT THE NOVEMBER 19TH CITY COUNCIL UTILITY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETING NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THAT PAGE.

UM, AND I WILL SEND MORE DETAILED WRITTEN COMMENTS, BUT WANNA COMMUNICATE A FEW KEY POINTS THIS EVENING.

THE FIRST OF WHICH IS THAT WHILE THE PROPOSED NEW PEAKER UNITS MAY HELP US MEET OUR SHORT TERM RELIABILITY AND COST CONTAINMENT GOALS, THEY WILL FURTHER EXACERBATE OUR LONG-TERM CLIMATE CRISIS BY LOCKING IN MORE FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT CAN BE PASSED OFF TO ANOTHER UTILITY AFTER 2035.

BY CONTINUING TO DIG OUR CLIMATE HOLE DEEPER, WE ARE MAKING IT EVER MORE COSTLY TO MEET OUR COMMUNITY'S ELECTRICITY NEEDS IN A CONTINUALLY DESTABILIZING CLIMATE AND PRICE ESCALATING ENVIRONMENT.

WINTER STORMS LIKE YURI AND MARA RISING ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND HEAT STRESSES ON ELECTRICAL GENERATION AND DELIVERY EQUIPMENT ARE A RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

IF WE CONTINUE TO BURN FOSSIL FUELS AND ALLOW CLIMATE CHANGE TO GET WORSE, RELIABILITY CHALLENGES AND COST WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE OVER BOTH THE SHORT AND LONG TERM.

WE ARE DIGGING OUR HOLE DEEPER EVERY YEAR THAT WE DO DELAY OUR DISINVESTMENT FROM FOSSIL FUELS TO AVOID DIGGING THIS HOLE ANY DEEPER THAN IT HAS TO BE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PROPOSED PLAN INCORPORATE A SPECIFIC COST AND RELIABILITY RISK THRESHOLD THAT IF TRIGGERED AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD HAVE TO PRESENT ITS CASE TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO JUSTIFY INVESTMENT IN ANY NEW METH METHANE GAS GENERATION LIKE THE PROPOSED PEAKERS.

THIS ANALYSIS SHOULD INCLUDE A HOLISTIC ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL AND NON-FINANCIAL COST AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED FOSSIL FUEL INVESTMENT.

IN FACT, THIS TYPE OF HOLISTIC ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IS CALLED FOR AN AUSTIN ENERGY'S REDEFINITION OF THE PLAN'S CORE VALUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.

[00:10:02]

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO RELY ON THEM, I WANT US TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT THE REAL SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, CO SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC COSTS AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A DECISION.

AUSTIN ENERGY ALSO MAKES THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPOSED NEW PEAKER UNITS WILL BE MORE EFFICIENT AND THEREFORE LOWER EMITTING THAN THE EXISTING ONES AT DECKER AND SAND HILL.

THIS IS GENERALLY TRUE, BUT AGAIN, LOCKS IN MORE FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL BE HARDER TO WALK AWAY FROM.

COME 2035, AUSTIN ENERGY ALSO PROPOSES ESTABLISHING SO-CALLED EMISSIONS GUARDRAILS AFTER THE NEW PEAKER UNITS ARE INSTALLED.

THIS JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

WE SHOULD SET AN EMISSIONS LIMIT NOW IN THE 2035 PLAN FOR ALL AUSTIN ENERGY OWNED AND PROCURED GENERATION, AND THEN IF NEEDED, SELECT UNITS WITH APPROPRIATE EMISSIONS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL HELP US STAY BELOW THAT LIMIT.

WE ALSO SHOULD ESTABLISH RULES OUTLINING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ANY FOSSIL FUEL UNITS CAN RUN.

ONE WAY OF DOING THIS IS ADAPTING REACH TO APPLY NOT ONLY TO FA IT, BUT ALSO THE GAS UNITS.

THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON ESTIMATES FROM REACH ALSO NEED TO BE UPDATED TO ONE, INCLUDE ALL TYPES OF AIR POLLUTANTS AND TWO, REFLECT THE LATEST ESTIMATES USING SOURCES LIKE THE ONES I PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED FROM THE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

APPLYING REACH TO ALL FOSSIL FUEL GENERATION HAS THE ADDED BENEFIT OF GIVING AUSTIN ENERGY, THE FLEXIBILITY IT IS ASKING FOR TO ACHIEVE OUR COMMUNITY'S CARBON FREE ELECTRICITY OUTCOME WITHOUT OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE MEASURES FOR HOW TO GET THERE.

NEXT SPEAKER IS MARY MICHAEL.

GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS MARY MICHAEL AND I'M AN INTERN WITH PUBLIC CITIZEN.

I'M SPEAKING TODAY TO VOICE MY CONCERNS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AUSTIN ENERGY RESOURCE PLAN.

RIGHT NOW, EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT IS FAILING THE WORLD WHEN IT COMES TO CLIMATE ACTION.

THE RECENT COP 29 MEETING, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO FACILITATE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE ACTION, WAS LARGELY INVE ATTENDED BY OIL AND GAS INVESTORS.

AND THE CONVENER OF THE MEETING EVEN DESCRIBED OIL AS A GIFT FROM GOD.

IT'S CLEAR THAT THOSE AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL WILL NOT HELP US.

ACTION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL WILL ALSO BE HALTED AND MOST LIKELY EVEN REVERSED THROUGHOUT THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

AND WE'RE LIKELY TO SEE THE SAME AT THE STATE LEVEL.

SO THOSE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT ADDITIONALLY ARE ALSO NOT GOING TO HELP US.

THE FUTURE OF OUR CLIMATE IS LOOKING BLEAK, BUT GREAT PROGRESS CAN STILL BE MADE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

AUSTIN ENERGY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW TO COMMIT TO A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE AND DO ITS PART TO CUT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SLOW CLIMATE CHANGE.

IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER TO TAKE SERIOUS CLIMATE ACTION ON A LOCAL SCALE TO SPEAK FROM A FINANCIAL POINT OF VIEW.

IT'S MORE COST EFFECTIVE IN THE LONG RUN TO MAKE THE INVESTMENTS IN CLEAN ENERGY.

NOW, AUSTIN ENERGY THINKS THAT THERE'S SOME ECONOMIC OR RELIABILITY RISKS WITH ABANDONING GAS PLANTS, BUT THESE CAN BE AVOIDED WITH AN AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION OF ROOFTOP SOLAR AND OTHER CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES.

AND I ALSO THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT IF WE DO NOT MAKE THE SWITCH TO CLEAN ENERGY, AUSTIN WILL OCCUR MUCH MORE ECONOMIC AND RELIABILITY AND RELIABILITY LOSSES IN THE LONG TERM.

AS THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE WORSEN THESE IMPACTS, WHICH INCLUDE MORE SEVERE AND FREQUENT HEAT WAVES, DROUGHTS AND WINTER STORMS WILL COST THE CITY AND THE UTILITY MUCH MORE DOWN THE LINE THAN IT WILL CAUSE TO TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY.

NOW LUCKILY, AUSTIN'S IN A GREAT POSITION TO HAVE AN AGGRESSIVE EXPANSION OF ROOFTOP SOLAR.

WE HAVE A CLIMATE THAT'S GREAT FOR SOLAR ENERGY GENERATION, AND WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE A MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY.

MORE ROOFTOP SOLAR IN AUSTIN WILL ACCOMPLISH SO MANY THINGS BESIDES JUST DOING OUR PART TO SLOW CLIMATE CHANGE.

IT ALSO CREATES GREEN JOBS, INCREASES ENERGY RESILIENCE, AND CAN REDUCE ENERGY COSTS AND GRID CONGESTION DURING PEAK TIMES.

I'VE RESEARCHED THE POTENTIAL OF ROOFTOP SOLAR ON CITY OF AUSTIN OWNED BUILDINGS, AND MY ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT THESE BUILDINGS ALONE HAVE A CAPACITY OF AT LEAST 14 MEGAWATTS OF ROOFTOP SOLAR ENERGY.

MY DATA SET DIDN'T INCLUDE EVERY CITY OF AUSTIN BUILDING, BUT THE RESULTS STILL SHOW A VERY PROMISING ENERGY POTENTIAL FOR ROOFTOP SOLAR IN AUSTIN.

SO NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO OPEN NEW PEAKER PLANTS.

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO CONTINUE WITH GREENHOUSE GAS EMITTING ENERGY SOURCES WHEN THERE ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS AVAILABLE.

THE UPDATED AUSTIN ENERGY RESOURCE PLAN NEEDS TO COMMIT TO A COMPLETE TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND TO NOT OPEN ANY NEW GAS PLANTS.

HAVE TO DRAFT A PLAN, UH, WITH EMISSIONS LIMITS, GUARDRAILS, WHATEVER WE WANT TO CALL THEM BEFORE WE CAN, BEFORE WE IMPLEMENT AND, AND MOVE FORWARD ON ANY PLANTS FOR BUILDING NEW GAS PEAKER PLANTS.

NEXT SPEAKER IS SHANE JOHNSON.

AFTER SHANE WILL BE CAMILLE COOK.

UH, GOOD EVENING.

GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

UM, YEAH, YEAH, WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE.

BUT, UH, JUST TO BUILD SLIGHTLY OFF OF WHAT, UM, JEN WAS SAYING BEFORE ME, YOU KNOW, WE

[00:15:01]

UM, IF WE DON'T DO THAT, THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES THAT WE CAN FOR SURE LOWER OUR EMISSIONS.

WE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A THIRD PARTY ANALYSIS OF.

UH, AND, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE SOME REALLY SEVERE, UH, HOT WEATHER DAYS, UH, OR EVEN COLD WEATHER DAYS WHERE WE END UP HAVING TO RUN THESE NEW PEAKERS SO MUCH AND ALL OF THE OLD PEAKERS ENOUGH, THERE COULD BE A THRESHOLD WHERE THAT JUST IS INCREASING OUR POLLUTION OUTRIGHT.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE, DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ANALYZED, UH, AND THAT WE NEED TO NEED TO ANALYZE BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

UM, ALSO EMPHASIZE THAT, UM, WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE A CRITICAL RELIABILITY NEED TO BUILD NEW PEAKERS AND COMMIT AND COMMIT TO THEM TODAY.

OR EXCUSE ME, THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS MONTH.

UM, AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD MEET AFFORDABILITY AND RELI RELIABILITY NEEDS WITH CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS BEFORE YOU KNOW, THIS, UH, PATH CONTINUES ON, UH, WITH IMPLEMENTING NEW PEAKERS.

UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO LOCAL SOLAR, THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES, THINGS LIKE THAT, UM, WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES, UH, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADEQUATELY DOING SO.

UM, UH, LAST THING I'LL EMPHASIZE IS THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, DIFFERENT, OUR COALITION OF ORGANIZATIONS HAD A PETITION OF WHERE OVER 1300 AUSTINITES SIGNED AND, UH, ASKING THAT WE DON'T PURSUE PEAKERS AT THIS POINT, THAT WE PRIORITIZE BATTERIES AND CLEAN ENERGY FIRST, UH, AND THAT WE SEE IF THOSE TECHNOLOGIES CAN MEET OUR NEEDS BEFORE WE PURSUE GAS PEAKER PLANTS.

UH, AND SO WE NEED TO FRANKLY BRING OUR PUBLIC UTILITY BACK IN LINE WITH THE PUBLIC'S PERSPECTIVES AND NEEDS.

UM, SO, UH, I SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION BEFORE Y'ALL.

UM, AS CAROLYN KRUM SAID EARLIER, UH, AND THE FRANKLY PRETTY SILLY NOTION THAT WE WOULD PURSUE NUCLEAR REALLY SHOULDN'T BE ON THE TABLE.

UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A SINGLE PERSON IN THIS ROOM WHO WOULD WANT A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NEXT TO THEIR HOME.

AND IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO PUT IT NEXT TO YOUR OWN HOME BECAUSE IT'S TOO DANGEROUS, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING AT ALL.

UM, BUT YEAH, I'LL, I'LL END IT THERE.

AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PLEASE, UH, YOU KNOW, PRIORITIZE CLEAN ENERGY, LOCAL CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS AND BATTERIES BEFORE WE PURSUE PEAKERS.

NEXT SPEAKER IS CAMILLE COOK AND THEN DON BROWN AFTER CAMILLE.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

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

I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON THE UPDATE AND ENCOURAGE THE EUC TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION AND ESTABLISH CLEAR INTERIM GOALS THAT MUST BE MET BEFORE LOOKING AT GAS PEAKERS.

WE'VE SEEN THROUGH THIS YEAR LONG PROCESS THAT WE HAVE PLENTY OF TOOLS THAT WE CAN USE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES WE'RE FACING HERE IN CENTRAL TEXAS.

WE CAN, IM IMPLEMENT SOME OF THESE TOOLS PRETTY QUICKLY, LIKE WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES AND WEATHERIZATION, AND WE'RE ALREADY VASTLY BEHIND MANY OTHER UTILITIES IN OR CAUGHT IN REGARD TO LOCAL BATTERY DEPLOYMENT.

IF WE BUILD NEW GAS PEAKER PLANTS, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT WE CAN CLOSE THE EXISTING PLANTS WE HAVE.

IT JUST CAME OUT TODAY THAT CPS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO CLOSE DOWN THEIR BRO EGG UNIT THREE GAS PLANT.

IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SHUT DOWN IN THE SPRING, BUT ERCOT IS MAKING IT STAY OPEN LIKE CPS WE'RE FACING TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS, PRETTY, PRETTY INCREDIBLE TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS.

AND IF WE BUILD THESE PEAKERS, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT, THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO SHUT THEM DOWN IN THE FUTURE OR EVEN SHUT DOWN DECKER AND SAND HILL WHEN WE WANT TO.

WE MUST MAKE SURE THAT EVERY POSSIBLE TOOL IS IMPLEMENTED BEFORE BUILDING MORE NATURAL GAS.

THERE ARE MANY TOOLS THAT WE CAN USE, AND THESE TOOLS ARE NOT EXPENSIVE.

DO NOT ADMIT, EMIT NOXIOUS EMISSIONS AND DO NOT LOCK US INTO MORE FOSSIL FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE.

WITH ALL THE DEMAND PROJECTIONS AHEAD OF US, I THINK ANY, ANYTHING THAT IS BUILT NOW WILL STICK AROUND CENTRAL TEXAS FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.

I ENCOURAGE Y'ALL TO THINK EXTRA HARD ABOUT CLEARING, MORE PEAKERS TO BE BUILT.

THEY COULD OUTLAST ALL OF US.

NEXT SPEAKER IS DON BROWN, AND THEN BECKY HALPIN.

NATIONAL COALITION OF ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS AND POLICY MAKERS.

MY NAME IS DON BROWN.

I'M A 35 YEAR RESIDENT OF AUSTIN.

I WORK WITH, UM, TWO NON-PROFITS.

ONE IS THE SECURE OF THE GRID COALITION, WHICH IS A

[00:20:01]

AND WE FOCUS ON THREATS TO THE GRID THAT ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY THE UTILITIES AND, UH, AND FERC AND NERC AND OF THIS, UH, MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT'S I SEE IN OUR, OUR PLAN HERE IN AUSTIN.

AND I'M WORKING SPECIFICALLY ON TEXAS LEGISLATION WITH ERCOT AND THE PUC.

UM, THERE, THERE'S A BIG MISS ON PAGE FOUR OF THE PLAN, THE PLAN THAT WAS SHOWN ON NOVEMBER 15TH.

AND THAT IS, WE'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT THE THREATS TO THE GRID THAT ARE BEYOND WEATHER.

THEY ARE SOLAR WEATHER, THEY'RE EMP, THEY'RE PHYSICAL THREATS AND THEIR CYBER THREATS.

AND THESE ARE VERY REAL THREATS THAT ARE HAPPENING.

AND I DON'T SEE IT IN AUSTIN ENERGY'S PLAN.

IT'S NOT.

THESE ARE, THESE ARE THREATS THAT, UM, ARE BEING ADDRESSED IN OTHER PLACES OF THE COUNTRY.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY AS PUT IN A, UH, NEUTRAL GROUND BLOCKER THAT HAS, UH, PROTECTING A, A TRANSFORMER THAT'S THE SIZE OF A FOOTBALL FIELD RIGHT NOW, THAT'S BEEN, THAT TECHNOLOGY HAS BEEN OUT IN EXISTING FOR, UH, A DECADE.

UH, IT'S IN PLACE IN THREE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY HAS MORE OF THOSE, UH, UNITS ON ORDER.

THOSE STOP THE GROUND.

THE, THE GROUND THAT, UH, CURRENT THAT COMES THROUGH AND DAMAGES TRANSFORMERS, IT ALSO STOPS THE HARMONICS THAT ARE CAUSING DAMAGE TO, UH, TO THE TRANSFORMERS AND TO, UM, THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S DOWNSTREAM FROM THOSE, UH, TRANSMISSION TRANSFORMERS.

THAT'S ONE THREAT.

THE SECOND THREAT IS THE EMP THREAT FROM, UH, FROM, UH, NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS.

AND THOSE THREATS, WHILE WE HAVE TAKEN FOR A LONG TIME FOR GRANTED THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES THAT WE'RE SAFE HERE, WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT OUTSIDE THREATS.

ACTUALLY, THE THREAT IS THERE AND WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN OUR PLAN.

NOW, THIS TECHNOLOGY IS ALSO IN PLACE.

THEY'VE DONE IT IN CPS ENERGY, UM, WITH, IN INJUNCTION, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE BASE IN SAN ANTONIO.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, CENTER POINT HAS PUT INTO THE RESILIENCY PLAN DIGITAL SUBSTATIONS THAT PROTECT AGAINST EMP AND THESE SUBSTATIONS COST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF A OF A MILLION DOLLARS TO PUT 'EM IN.

THAT'S AN UPGRADE.

WHEN YOU'RE COMPARING JUST A NEW SUBSTATION TO THE CURRENT LEGACY SUBSTATIONS, THEY ARE EQUIVALENT IN COST, MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE LESS AND COST.

SO ONE OF THE PROPOSALS WE'RE MAKING TO TEXAS IN THE LEGISLATION IS THAT ALL NEW BUILD OF CAPACITY WILL HAVE EMP PROTECTION AND THEY'LL BE USING DIGITAL, UM, SUBSTATIONS FOR THE THAT PROTECTION.

YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

SO IF YOU COULD JUST FINISH YOUR THOUGHT, THANK YOU.

OR, AND YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING.

I CAN DISTRIBUTE THAT.

I'LL, I'LL DO THAT.

YEAH, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, YOU CAN CONTACT ME.

YOU HAVE MY PHONE NUMBER.

THANKS SO MUCH.

NEXT IS BECKY HALPIN.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

I'M BECKY HALPIN AND I REPRESENT THIRD ACT, AN ORGANIZATION OF OLDER PEOPLE WORKING TO ADDRESS THE CLIMATE CRISIS.

THIRD ACT STRONGLY OPPOSES THE ADDITION OF NEW FOSSIL FUEL BURNING GAS SPEAKER PLANTS IN THE PROPOSED RESOURCE PLAN.

LOCAL SOLAR DEMAND RESPONSE, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND BATTERIES CAN PROVIDE THE ENERGY WE NEED.

THESE STRATEGIES ARE CLEANER, FASTER, AND WILL LIKELY BE CHEAPER IN THE LONG RUN, THE NEW GAS PLANTS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED EXTERNALIZED COSTS.

AND I WOULD SPECIFICALLY LIKE TO CALL OUT THE HEALTH RELATED COST TO THE LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES THAT ARE LOCATED NEXT TO THE AUSTIN ENERGY FACILITIES, WHERE THESE NEW GAS PLANTS WILL BE LOCATED.

WE THINK IT IS LONG PAST TIME TO GIVE THESE COMMUNITIES A BREAK FROM THE CONSTANT AIR POLLUTION THEY HAVE ENDURED FOR DECADES.

THE IDEA THAT NEW P PEAKER PLANTS COULD SOMEHOW CONTRIBUTE TO OUR ABILITY TO CLOSE DOWN FAYETTE COAL PLANT IS A RED HERRING.

IF WE HAD A REASONABLE PLAN TO CLOSE FAYETTE, IT WOULD BE CLOSED.

THE ONLY CLEAR PATH TO GETTING OUT OF PAYETTE IS TO SELL IT FOR AN UNREASONABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO LCRA.

AND THAT WOULD ONLY ACCOMPLISH GETTING IT OFF OF OUR BOOKS.

IT WOULD NOT NOW OR EVER ACCOMPLISH OUR GOAL OF STOPPING THE POLLUTANTS AND CARBON IT SPEWS FROM POISONING

[00:25:01]

OUR AIR AND ATMOSPHERE.

NEW GAS PLANTS WILL NOT CLOSE AN OLD COAL PLANT.

THEY WILL ONLY CREATE MORE POLLUTANTS.

AND FINALLY, THE IDEA THAT AUSTIN ENERGY CAN DETERMINE ITS ON ITS OWN.

HOW MUCH AND HOW OFTEN PEAKERS WOULD RUN IS ONLY PARTLY TRUE.

IF ERCOT NEEDS OR WANTS THE ENERGY FROM THESE PLANTS, IT CAN TELL AUSTIN ENERGY TO RUN THEM.

REGARDLESS OF AUSTIN ENERGY'S GOALS, NEEDS OR WISHES.

ONCE WE PUT PLANTS ON THE GRID, WE ARE ONLY PARTLY IN CONTROL OF THEM.

AUSTIN ENERGY COULD AND LIKELY WOULD END UP RUNNING THEM MUCH MORE THAN 12% A YEAR.

THE TIME HAS COME TO MOVE INTO THE FUTURE AND LEAVE OUR FOSSIL FUEL BURNING PASSED BEHIND US.

NO NEW GAS PLANTS PLEASE.

AND THANK YOU.

OUR FINAL SPEAKER IS AL BRADEN.

UH, THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING.

CHAIRMAN TATTLE, EUC MEMBERS AND AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF.

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

THE GENERATION PLAN DRAFT GAVE ME A LOT TO THINK ABOUT.

THANKSGIVING WEEKEND.

UM, GETTING TO THIS PLACE HAS BEEN A TWO YEAR, SOMETIMES CONTENTIOUS PROCESS.

LOOKING OVER THE DRAFT, I'M STRUCK BY HOW FAR WE'VE MOVED TOGETHER, AND I INCLUDE AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF FROM THE EARLY SURVEYS TO THE EUC MEETINGS, TO THE WORKING GROUP, TO STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, TO INTENSIVE FINAL MEETINGS BETWEEN ENGAGED EUC MEMBERS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DIRECTLY WITH AA STAFF.

WE'VE MOVED FROM A FUTURISTIC GREEN HYDROGEN PLANT TO A DOCUMENT THAT CLEARLY STATES AUSTIN ENERGY WILL LEAD WITH CUSTOMER ENERGY SOLUTIONS.

THIS PLAN FOCUSES ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY, DEMAND RESPONSE, ELECTRIFICATION, SMART EV INTEGRATION, AS WELL AS LOCAL SOLAR AND BATTERIES AT EVERY SCALE FROM HOMEOWNER TO UTILITY.

ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR BY THE EUC, THE WORKING GROUP COUNCIL AND CONCERNED CITIZENS.

WE RETAIN OUR COMMITMENT TO ZERO CARBON BY 2035 WITH 70% RENEWABLES BY 2030.

ADDING CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TRANSMISSION IS A NEW PART OF THE GENERATION PLAN, AS WELL AS DISTRIBUTION AWARENESS AND A SMART SYSTEM-WIDE DEMAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

WE STILL DO NEED A FULL TASK FORCE TO REIMAGINE AN URGENT AND CONSTRUCTIVE SOLUTION TO FAYETTE, PERHAPS REPLACING ITS POWER WITH SOLAR AND BATTERIES.

THERE'S 6,400 ACRES OUT THERE TO WORK WITH.

IF THESE WORDS HAVE COMMITMENT, THEN THERE'S A LOT TO LIKE IN THIS PLAN.

MANY THINGS ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY.

THAT CALL FOR ACCELERATION, OF COURSE, NO PLAN MAKES EVERYONE HAPPY.

I'M NOT COMMITTED TO THE PEAKERS TO REPLACE THE OLD ONES.

AT DECKER, BATTERIES CAN FILL MOST OF THE PEAK DEMAND SPIKES, WHICH ARE OF SHORT DURATION, LONGER DURATION BATTERIES ARE WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME OF THE PLAN.

I REMAIN OPPOSED TO ANY NEW NUCLEAR UNTIL WE AS A NATION SUMMON THE POLITICAL AND TECHNICAL WILL TO SAFELY DISPOSE OF OUR MASSIVE WASTE PILES.

AND I REMAIN VERY SKEPTICAL OF CARBON CAPTURE SO FAR.

IT'S JUST GREENWASHING IN THE PETRO INDUSTRY.

DESPITE THESE RESERVATIONS, WE HAVE A COMMITMENT TO SUPPLY EVER-GROWING AND PROGRESSIVELY CLEAN, RELIABLE ENERGY TO THE CITIZENS OF AUSTIN.

AUSTIN ENERGY.

SERIOUSLY ENGAGED WITH THE EUC COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP A CONSTRUCTIVE DRAFT PLAN.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSIONS TONIGHT WITH EUC, THEN TOMORROW NIGHT WITH RMC AND THEN COUNCIL, THE EUC RESOLUTION WILL HELP IMPROVE THE PLAN AND I ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THE EUCS RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

THAT IS ALL THE SPEAKERS WE HAVE.

ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU TO ALL THE SPEAKERS.

IS IT, IS THIS ON? YES.

UM, I'D LIKE TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT ANY STATEMENT, ACTION OR VOTE, UH, THAT I MAY MAKE WILL NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY MATTER RELATED TO THE FAYETTE POWER PLANT.

UH, AND THEY WILL NOT REPRESENT ANY OPINION, UH, OR POSITION THAT I MIGHT HOLD REGARDING THE FAYETTE POWER PLANT.

SO WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND START ON NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS GOING THROUGH THE PLAN THAT WAS OFFERED UP ON THE 27TH, AND THEN

SO NOTED.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

[1. Recommend approval of Austin Energy’s Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan to 2035, which provides a flexible management framework to meet changing conditions, and strategies for energy needs, generation supply, demand response, energy efficiency, and equity. Funding: This item has no fiscal impact.]

[00:30:01]

TALK ABOUT AMENDMENTS POTENTIALLY WITH THOSE.

SO DO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR DISCUSSION OF THE PLAN? I THINK LISA CAN PRESENT FIRST AND THEN YOU CAN ASK FOR A MOTION AFTER.

LISA? OH.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, TUTTLE, VICE CHAIR WHITE, AND COMMISSIONERS.

TONIGHT, I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT TO YOU THE DRAFT RESOURCE GENERATION AND CLIMATE PROTECTION PLAN TO 2035.

IT'S A CO COMPREHENSIVE WORK OF COLLABORATION, INNOVATION, AND BALANCE.

THEY WANT RELIABILITY, AFFORDABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.

WHEN I WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW I WANTED TO PRESENT TO YOU TONIGHT, I DECIDED THERE'S NO BETTER WAY TO START THAN TO TALK ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT WE SERVE.

SO WE COLLECTIVELY HAVE A MISSION.

ALL OF US IN THIS ROOM PLAY A PART, AND THAT IS TO PROVIDE CLEAN, AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE ENERGY, AND EXCELLENT CUSTOMER SERVICE.

IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES AND THE CHALLENGES THAT PUT THE PILLARS OF THAT MISSION AT RISK.

WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE OPTIONS TO SOLVE THOSE CHALLENGES AND THE TRADE-OFFS THAT EACH SOLUTION PROVIDES.

WE ARE CHARGED WITH FINDING THE RIGHT BALANCE AND SETTING OURSELVES UP TO BE ABLE TO ADAPT TO A CHANGING ENERGY LANDSCAPE.

WE HAVE TO DO THE MOST ENVIRONMENTAL GOOD WHILE REMAINING, RELIABLE AND AFFORDABLE.

WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE PEOPLE WE SERVE COME FROM ALL AREAS OF TOWN, ALL WALKS OF LIFE, ALL TYPES OF BUSINESS, AND WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THEM ALL FROM AN ELECTRICITY PERSPECTIVE.

AND TO DO THAT REQUIRES LISTENING AND THOUGHTFUL PLANNING.

NEXT SLIDE.

DAVID.

THIS INFOGRAPHIC PROVIDES A SUMMARY OF ALL THE WORK THAT WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF.

WE STARTED IN AUGUST OF 2023, AND WE CONDUCTED A SURVEY THAT HAD OVER 7,500 RESPONDENTS.

WE HELD FIVE STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS OVER SIX MONTHS THAT INCORPORATED THE FEEDBACK OF A CROSS SECTION OF 40 DIVERSE ORGANIZATIONS.

WE PARTNERED WITH LEADING INDUSTRY EXPERTS AND WE COLLABORATED WITH YOU, THE COMMISSION AND WITH CITY COUNCIL.

AND AS JEN NOTED, ALL OF OUR INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE ON PUBLIC INPUT.COM/GENERATION.

WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR TOP PRIORITIES FROM OUR COMMUNITY.

AND ENERGY EQUITY IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THROUGHOUT ALL OF THOSE AREAS.

WE LISTENED, WE DRAFTED, WE CHECKED IN AND GOT FEEDBACK.

WE DRAFTED AND REDRAFTED.

WE LISTENED AGAIN, AND THEN WE CAME UP WITH THIS PLAN.

THIS IS THE COVER OF OUR DRAFT PLAN.

THIS PLAN TALKS ABOUT HOW WE POWER AUSTIN'S CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE.

IT COMMITS TO THE MOST AGGRESSIVE CLEAN ENERGY GOALS THAT I'VE SEEN.

MOST UTILITIES ARE TARGETING 2050 GOALS, AND MOST OF THOSE ARE CARBON NEUTRAL.

WE ARE CARBON FREE BY 2035.

I ONLY KNOW OF TWO OTHER UTILITIES ON THE WEST COAST THAT HAVE SET SUCH AMBITIOUS GOALS.

WE ARE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE AMONG THE ELITE IN TERMS OF UTILITIES.

THE PLAN RECOGNIZES THAT THE RISK IS NOW, THERE'S RISK YESTERDAY, AND IT WILL CONTINUE INTO THE FUTURE UNTIL WE TAKE ACTION.

THE PLAN BUILDS OFF OF DECADES OF EXPERIENCE WE HAVE IN CUSTOMER PROGRAMS, AND IT TAKES THEM EVEN FURTHER MOVING SEVERAL LEVELS HIGHER ON THE MATURITY CURVE.

THIS PLAN RECOGNIZES THAT TECHNOLOGY IS EVOLVING AND IT BUILDS UPON A FOUNDATION OF INNOVATION.

THIS PLAN THOUGHTFULLY INCORPORATES THE FEEDBACK FROM ALL OF YOU, FROM THE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS AND FROM CITY COUNCIL.

THE PLAN IS BUILT OFF OF FOUR MAIN CATEGORIES IN OUR TOOLKIT, THE ONES WE DISCUSSED JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO.

AND EACH CATEGORY IS FILLED WITH TOOLS TO HELP US BE THE ELECTRIC UTILITY THAT THE COMMUNITY EXPECTS US TO BE.

OUR PLAN PRIORITIZES CUSTOMER ENERGY SOLUTIONS.

WE HAVE GOALS SET TO DO THE MAX POSSIBLE BASED ON THE DNV ENERGY INSIGHTS ANALYSIS.

AND WE WON'T STOP THERE IF CONDITIONS CHANGE AND WE CAN DO MORE.

WE SET A TARGET TO PIVOT FROM MEGAWATT REDUCTION GOALS TO GREENHOUSE GAS AVOIDANCE GOALS IN SUPPORT OF DECARBONIZATION AND ELECTRIFICATION.

WE COMMIT TO PROMOTING A SUITE OF BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAMS, AND WE INCLUDE INCENTIVES FOR CUSTOMER SIGHTED BATTERIES AND WORK TO IMPROVE THE CUSTOMER INTERCONNECTION EXPERIENCE.

WE COMMIT TO INCORPORATING EQUITY AND DECIDING CONSIDERATIONS TO PROTECTING LOCAL AIR QUALITY AND FOCUSING CUSTOMER PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HOST OUR GENERATION INFRASTRUCTURE.

THIS PLAN RECOGNIZES THAT OUR RISKS ARE UNIQUE AND REQUIRE LOCAL SOLUTIONS.

IT INCLUDES ALL THE TOOLS IN THE TOOLKIT THAT WE CAN USE LOCALLY.

IT INCLUDES TRANSMISSION, IMPORT CAPACITY, LOCAL UTILITY SCALE, SOLAR, LOCAL UTILITY SCALE BATTERIES.

IT USES OUR EXISTING GENERATION AND MORE EFFICIENT NATURAL GAS PEAKER UNITS.

WE HEARD YOU.

WE HEARD THE COMMUNITY.

WE ARE NOT PROPOSING A LARGER, LONGER RUNNING COMBINED CYCLE UNIT.

WE COMMIT TO SMALLER, MORE FLEXIBLE UNITS AND DEVELOPING EMISSION GUARDRAILS.

[00:35:01]

THIS PLAN COMMITS TO MAINTAINING OUR BLACK START UTILITY STATUS.

ALL OF THESE ARE NECESSARY FOR OUR LOCAL SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE THE LOCAL RISK.

THIS PLAN RECOMMITS TO A CARBON FREE FUTURE.

WE REAFFIRM OUR COMMITMENT TO EXITING COAL.

WE REESTABLISH A RENEWABLE ENERGY GOAL THAT LEAVES ROOM FOR EVOLVING ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, AND WE'LL ADD MORE CLEAN AND RENEWABLE ENERGY ALL ALONG THE WAY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THIS PLAN LEANS INTO INNOVATION AND FIGURING OUT WHAT'S AROUND THE CORNER FOR TECHNOLOGY.

IT PROMOTES R AND D PARTNERSHIPS AND GRANT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES.

IT INCORPORATES NEW INNOVATIVE SOLAR OPPORTUNITIES LIKE SOLAR FOR ALL AND SOLAR STANDARD OFFER.

IT PILOTS GEOTHERMAL GENERATION IN TEXAS.

IT ENHANCES OUR VIRTUAL POWER PLANT PROGRAMS AND CONTINUES ON A PATH TO DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, OR A DERMS. IT SUPPORTS VEHICLE TO X OPPORTUNITIES LIKE V TWO G AND VTA, HOME VEHICLE TO GRID AND VEHICLE TO HOME.

AND IT EXPLORES EVOLVING AND EMERGING TECH LIKE ADVANCED NUCLEAR CARBON CAPTURE AND MORE.

IT RECOGNIZES TRADE-OFFS.

THIS PLAN IS THE BRIDGE TO OUR CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE.

TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY WILL NOT GET US THERE, BUT WE CANNOT SIT AND WAIT.

THE ISSUES EXIST TODAY, AND WE MUST TAKE ACTION TO CONTINUE TO SERVE OUR CUSTOMERS, AND WE MUST DO IT IN THE MOST RESPONSIBLE WAY.

THE RISKS TO RELIABILITY, AFFORDABILITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY ARE TOO BIG AND TOO REAL TO NOT TAKE A BALANCED AND RESPONSIBLE APPROACH.

THIS PLAN PROVIDES ANSWERS TO THOSE ISSUES.

IT GIVES US THE OUTCOME BASED POLICY THAT ALLOWS THE FLEXIBILITY TO PROPOSE BALANCED AND MEANINGFUL CHANGE.

IT SETS EXPECTATIONS ON THE ORDER OF PRIORITY, AND IT PROVIDES GUARDRAILS TO MINIMIZE UNWANTED OUTCOMES.

IN DOING SO, IT PROVIDES THE CLEANEST ENERGY PORTFOLIO IN TEXAS INDUSTRY LEADING CUSTOMER ENERGY SOLUTIONS, A PROMOTION OF RELIABILITY, AFFORDABILITY, AND SUSTAINABILITY.

IT PROTECTS OUR MOST VULNERABLE, IT'S RESILIENT TO EXTREME WEATHER.

IT'S FLEXIBLE AND INNOVATIVE.

IT'S BUILT TO ADAPT TO CHANGING CONDITIONS.

THIS IS OUR PLAN.

IT'S THE COMMUNITY'S PLAN.

IT'S HOW WE'LL POWER OUR CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE.

AND, UM, I'LL ASK MICHAEL TO JUST COME UP HERE AND GIVE A FEW, UH, DETAILS ABOUT THE PROJECT THAT WE HAVE.

I WANNA THANK YOU ALL FOR THE TIME, EFFORT, AND CONTRIBUTIONS THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN TO GET US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

AND MY TEAM AND I ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

ANY QUESTIONS? YES, SIR.

I HAVE A QUESTION, UH, ON THE PLAN.

AND THE, UH, ONE ITEM IS THE, UH, PILOT, UH, GEOTHERMAL GENERATION, UH, ALL OF WHICH IS, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, IT'S GREAT IF OTHER UTILITIES PILOT THINGS AND WE LEARN FROM THEIR OVERRUNS AND COST MISTAKES.

UH, THIS SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT, UH, THAT WE WANNA BE IN THAT FIRST GROUP.

UH, IS THERE SOME GRANT FUNDING THAT MAKES THAT POSSIBLE OR WOULD THIS COME FROM RATE PAYERS? SO, UM, YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT OUR CULTURE OF INNOVATION, WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE READY FOR THE EMERGING AND EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY THAT WE NEED TO GET TO OUR CLEAN ENERGY GOALS OF CARBON FREE BY 2035.

UM, THE GEOTHERMAL PROJECT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A RATHER SMALL ONE.

WE CHOSE TO DO ONE THAT'S JUST FIVE MEGAWATTS TO JUST SEE IF WE CAN START WITH BREAKING INTO THAT TECHNOLOGY AND SEE WHAT GEOTHERMAL GENERATION CAN DO IN TEXAS.

UM, AND, AND ONLY, UH, IF IT'S A PROVEN TECHNOLOGY, WOULD WE MOVE FORWARD WITH WITH ANYTHING FURTHER THAN THAT.

AND OF COURSE, UH, WE WOULD BE BRINGING THAT FORWARD TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

UH, I, I RECALL, UH, FORMER PUC COMMISSIONER BARRY SMITHERMAN, UH, TALKING ABOUT A PLANT, UH, ON THE BORDER WHERE IT'S NOT, IF I RECALL, IT'S NOT SO, UH, IT'S WARMER, IT'S NOT HIGH UP AS WE ARE, UH, GEOGRAPHICALLY.

UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROJECTED COST EVEN TO DO SUCH A PILOT TO DO THE PILOT PROJECT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE? YEAH.

THE SMALL PILOT.

YEAH, I THINK THAT, I MEAN, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT IN THAT THERE, THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND, EXCUSE ME, MATTERS.

AND THIS ONE IS IN EAST TEXAS, RIGHT? THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WE, WE RECENTLY HAD A PRESS RELEASE ABOUT AND ANNOUNCED AND WHATNOT.

[00:40:01]

HI, GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS.

MIKE LANGER, UH, VICE PRESIDENT OF ENERGY AMERICA OPERATIONS AND RESOURCE PLANNING.

UH, YES.

IT, SO IT'S A, IT'S A SMALLER FIVE MEGAWATT GEOTHERMAL PROJECT.

IT'S ADVANCED, UH, GEOTHERMAL JUST TO BE UTILIZING CO2 INSTEAD OF WATER.

UH, WHICH MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE, UH, IN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

THEY HAVE BEEN RUNNING A GENERATOR ON CO2 DOWN AT THE SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE IN SAN ANTONIO.

IT'S ABOUT A 10 MEGAWATT.

SO THE TECHNOLOGY IS, IS BEING UTILIZED.

UM, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL TO SCALE IT UP, UH, TO A MUCH BIGGER SIZE.

BUT I THINK WE ALWAYS BELIEVE THAT WHEN YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA EXPERIENCE SOME TYPE OF UNFORESEEN CHALLENGE AS WE'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE CAN OVERCOME THAT SAFELY AND ECONOMICALLY BEFORE WE DO TRY TO SCALE IT UP.

THIS IS DONE UNDER A POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT, A SHORT TERM POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT.

UH, WE DO KNOW HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO, TO SPEND MONEY UNTIL THEY'RE ABLE TO PRODUCE POWER.

UM, SO WE'VE TRIED TO MITIGATE OUR, OUR RISK, BUT THE RISK ON THE DEVELOPER, WE'LL TAKE ON THE, THE MARKET RISK.

UH, AND WHILE WE CAN'T DISCLOSE THE THE EXACT PRICE, I WILL TELL YOU IT'S MUCH, MUCH CHEAPER THAN OUR FIRST ENDEAVOR IN, IN SOLAR, UH, WHEN WE WERE SUPPORTING SOLAR IN TEXAS.

UH, A LITTLE MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OUR FIRST ENDEAVOR IN WIND WHEN WE'RE SUPPORTING WIND IN TEXAS.

UH, BUT I DO BELIEVE, OR WE DO BELIEVE THAT IF WE CAN SCALE THIS UP AND THIS TECHNOLOGY WORKS, UM, AS WE BELIEVE IT, IT MAY THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO PUSH THIS DOWN WHERE THE ALL IN COST IS MORE AFFORDABLE THAN, THAN NUCLEAR FOR BASE LOW CARBON FREE GENERATION.

UH, SO WE DO BELIEVE WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THAT DOWN, UH, FAIRLY CLOSE TO WHERE THE CURRENT FORWARD CURVE IS TRADING FOR SEVEN BY 24 POWER.

WE'LL TAKE A BREAK MAYBE SEVEN 30 OR EIGHT O'CLOCK.

OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.

WELL A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS FOR A YEAR AND A HALF.

THERE'S A LOT OF PASSION FROM THE COMMUNITY, A LOT OF GOOD INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE, LIKE SOMEONE MENTIONED, WE HAVE, UM, I THINK A FAR BETTER ALIGNMENT ON MANY THINGS ALREADY.

AND I THINK IT'S JUST PROBABLY MORE CONSTRUCTIVE TO SAY, LET'S TAKE THE PLAN AND THEN SEE WHAT KIND OF AMENDMENTS WOULD BE TO, TO DO THAT.

AND SO THE MOST CONSTRUCTIVE WAY TO DO THAT, I BELIEVE IS TO HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLAN, HAVE A SECOND, AND THEN WE START THE DISCUSSIONS AND GO THROUGH ITEM BY ITEM THE AMENDMENTS AND THEN HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON THOSE AND THEN VOTE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT AND THEN WE'LL ROLL THROUGH THAT.

THIS COULD BE A VERY LONG PROCESS, THAT'S WHY I HAVE MY HUGE CUP WITH ME.

AND

[01:00:01]

AND, AND TO BE CLEAR, ONE COULD, UM, VOTE TO APPROVE THE PLAN FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES, GO THROUGH AND SEE WHAT AMENDMENTS ARE POSSIBLE.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, DECIDE INDIVIDUALLY WHETHER YOU WANTED TO VOTE FOR THAT PLAN WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS OR NOT.

AT THE, THE BACK END AFTER WE GO THROUGH EVERYTHING.

SO DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

OKAY, LET'S START THE DISCUSSION.

UM, SO CYRUS, DON'T YOU HAVE, YOU AND KABA HAVE, UM, SO KA AND I, UM, WORKED COLLABORATIVELY TOGETHER, WHICH DOESN'T MEAN EACH OF US AGREES WITH EVERY WORD ON THESE PAGES.

SO IT WAS SOMEWHAT HASTILY DONE.

ARE THERE ANY HARD COPIES YOU COULD DISTRIBUTE? UM, YES.

SO, UM, I HAVE A, SO THERE WAS, THERE WAS SOMETHING I SENT YOU, BUT SINCE THAT TIME, SO IGNORE THAT.

SINCE THAT TIME WE'VE TRIED TO PUT IT INTO ONE DOCUMENT.

'CAUSE SHE HAD A LOT AND I HAD SOME AND WE PUT IT TOGETHER.

BUT THAT OF COURSE DOESN'T PRECLUDE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER FROM OFFERING AMENDMENTS.

AND I DON'T KNOW, FOR THE PEOPLE ON THE ONLINE, CAN YOU SEND THIS DOCUMENT TO THEM? YES, I CAN EMAIL IT TO THEM RIGHT NOW.

YEAH, EMAIL IT TO THEM AND THEN, UM, MAYBE WE COULD BRING IT UP ON THE, THE SCREEN AND WE TRIED TO PUT EITHER HER NAME OR MY NAME NEXT TO, UM, YOU KNOW, NEXT TO THOSE, NEXT TO THOSE ITEMS. UM, AND IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT IT'S BASICALLY AN ORDER BY PAGES.

UM, SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES GET REPEATED LATER ON BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DOCUMENT THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, A SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO MM-HMM.

IN SOME CASES THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY THIS, WELL THE FIRST ONES ARE THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

THE FIRST ONES ARE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF, UM, OKAY, SO YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF, THERE'S A TOTAL 37, THERE'S A TOTAL OF 37.

UM, AGAIN, SOME OF THEM ARE REPEATS.

MM-HMM, , UM, AND YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM COULD BE WITHDRAWN, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING, SO, OR AMENDED.

MR. CHAPMAN, DO YOU HAVE ALSO SOME, EXCUSE ME, DO YOU, DO YOU ALSO HAVE SOME AMENDMENTS? UH, NO, I DO NOT.

SO WE'LL JUST GO THROUGH THIS.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE A LIST? SIMILAR? OKAY, WELL LET'S START WITH NUMBER ONE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF YEAH, GO AHEAD.

WE JUST WANTED TO SUGGEST THAT IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE, I THINK IT'S THE FIRST 12 OR SO AMENDMENTS ARE TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, WE COULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GET TO THE ACTUAL SUBSTANTIVE ONES FIRST, IF THOSE DO OR DO NOT PASS, THEN THAT WOULD DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU'D HAVE TO AMEND THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OR WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO EVEN DO AMENDMENTS TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AT ALL.

WE WOULD JUST HAVE THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REFLECT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBSTANTIVE PORTIONS.

THEREFORE, YOU, YOU COULD SKIP ALL OF YOUR AMENDMENTS TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KNOW THAT THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WOULD REFLECT THE ULTIMATE PRODUCT THAT YOU WOULD BE PUTTING FORTH.

I THINK THAT WORKS FOR SOME OF THEM BECAUSE WE HAD LIMITED TIME.

I THINK THERE MIGHT BE A FEW WHERE WE DIDN'T ENTIRELY TRUE UP, BUT I THINK WE COULD TAKE THE TEXT, LIKE I'M THINKING ON THE PROTECT LOCAL AIR QUALITY NUMBER NINE IS ONE EXAMPLE WHERE I THINK WE DID NOT, THAT LANGUAGE DIDN'T GET INCORPORATED INTO THE PAGE 53 TEXT, WHICH IS IN NUMBER 32.

YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO WORK WITH, BUT I GUESS, ACTUALLY, LET'S SEE, WHERE DOES THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, I SEE I'M GOING THROUGH AT LEAST THROUGH PAGE SIX, AT LEAST THROUGH PAGE SIX IT LOOKS LIKE.

OKAY, SO THAT MEANS ONE THROUGH 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, ACTUALLY 12 SAYS ON PAGE FIVE.

13 ON PAGE FIVE.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE ACTUALLY AFTER 13, GOING ON 14.

14 STARTS ON PAGE 19.

STEWART, YOU WANNA DOUBLE CHECK US ON THIS? YEAH, I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT ALL OF THESE, LEMME IF YOU CAN GIMME A SECOND.

[01:05:46]

SO IF WE'RE GONNA DO IT THIS WAY, JUST MAYBE MAKE A NOTE, UM, NEXT TO NUMBER 32, LIKE PLUS NUMBER NINE.

'CAUSE I WILL OFFER THAT TEXT THERE.

THAT IS, UM, THAT IS NUMBER 30.

NO, THAT IS NUMBER 34.

IT'S, IT'S THERE.

WE DON'T HAVE THIS IN OUR BACK.

CORRECT? NO, WE CAN JUST, YOU KNOW, CIRCLE BACK IF THERE'S SOME THAT WE MISSED.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT NUMBER 11.

UM, 11 IS NUMBER THREE.

I MEAN, SORRY, NOT 11, 12.

SO WE'D START ON 14.

START ON 14.

PROCEDURALLY, DO WE NEED TO OFFER EACH AMENDMENT AND HAVE A SECOND? YES.

UH, ONE BY ONE 30 SOMETHING AMENDMENTS.

'CAUSE WE NEED TO RECORD THE MOTION, THE SECOND, THE VOTE ON EVERYTHING.

I'M, I'M A LITTLE TROUBLED.

WE HAVE OVER 30 AMENDMENTS.

WE HAVE NOT HAD FIVE MINUTES TO READ THIS AND THEN COMPARE AND, UH, ALL OF WHICH IS THIS, IS, THIS PROCEDURE AIN'T GONNA WORK.

UH, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME TIME TO READ THIS.

COMPARE.

THINK ABOUT IT.

I, I, I'M A LITTLE BIT, I'M SOMEWHAT, UH, SURPRISED NOT HAVING SEEN THIS UNTIL TONIGHT.

I I, I, I KNOW EVERYBODY'S BUSY.

DON'T, YEAH.

DON'T GET ME WRONG.

AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THIS, RANDY.

I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS.

UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS THE TROUBLE WITH US RECEIVING THE PLAN, YOU KNOW, LATE AFTERNOON, THE DAY BEFORE HOLIDAY, WHERE, YOU KNOW, I CAN SAY I WAS TRAVELING AND DID WHAT I COULD WITH THE, THE DAY THAT I HAD HERE TO ACTUALLY WORK ON IT.

UM, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THIS.

AFTER A YEAR AND A HALF OF BEING AT THIS, WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO RUSH LIKE THIS.

LIKE, I VERY MUCH AGREE.

I MEAN, I, I, MY INCLINATION WOULD BE TO ADJOURN, COME BACK TOMORROW AFTER WE'VE, AFTER WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANALYZE IT, TO ANALYZE THIS AND NOT TRY TO DO IT BY THE FLY AND MAKE, MAKE MISTAKES.

IF, IF I HAD TO, UH, VOTE UP AND DOWN, I WOULD SAY, UH, THERE'S PROBABLY SOME GOOD STUFF IN HERE, BUT I, I'M NOT READY TO ADOPT, TO ADOPT OR TO STAY UP ALL NIGHT TO GO THROUGH,

[01:10:01]

CAN YOU MAKE SURE YOU'RE SPEAKING INTO THE MIC, JUST SO THE ONLINE PEOPLE CAN HEAR MOVING FORWARD.

CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY.

JUST YOU WANNA RE REPEAT JUST IN CASE PEOPLE DIDN'T HEAR YOU? I, I'LL, I'LL BE HAPPY TO REPEAT.

AND THAT IS HAVE, AND I UNDERSTAND GETTING THE, THE STAFF DRAFT, UH, WAS A CHALLENGE AND ATE UP A LOT OF INK.

UH, AND, UH, AND ALL OF WHICH IS TO GO THROUGH AND ANALYZE.

IF I HAD TO VOTE UP AND DOWN, I'D JUST SAY I COULD NOT ADOPT ANYTHING THAN TO STAY HERE TILL MIDNIGHT GOING ONE BY ONE BY ONE AND NOT HAVING THE BENEFIT OF ANY ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION HOW EACH MATTER WOULD AFFECT, IF THERE ARE FIVE THINGS ON HERE THAT ARE IMPORTANT, THAT ARE PRIORITY.

I, I, I THINK WE COULD DO THAT.

IF WE'RE TALKING 30 SOMETHING MATTERS, UH, I, I'M NOT, I'M JUST NOT READY TO, UH, GO THROUGH AND STAY UP ALL NIGHT FOR THAT PURPOSE.

WELL, WE DO HAVE, UH, SOME TIME HERE TONIGHT, SO WE CAN TRY TO GO THROUGH THERE.

UM, SOME OF THESE MIGHT BE NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL.

MAYBE WE CAN RIP THROUGH SOME OF THOSE AND MAYBE YOU ALL, IF YOU HAVE HIGHEST PRIORITY, YOU CAN IDENTIFY THOSE RIGHT NOW.

I THINK THAT, UM, STUART'S SUGGESTION HELPED US LEAP TO 14, SO WE CAN MAYBE AVOID WORDSMITHING TILL MIDNIGHT.

AND NOT BEING ABLE TO ABSORB IT.

BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR MAYBE THE, THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT WE COULD HIGHLIGHT? CAN I JUST, I MEAN, AND, AND I DON'T MEAN THIS, UH, IN A NEGATIVE, BUT HAS EVERYBODY FULLY READ THE DOCUMENT? MM-HMM.

SO I WOULD SAY LIKE, THERE'S A LOT OF REPEATS IN HERE.

WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED SOME OF THOSE, AND THEN THERE'S JUST REPEATS ON THEMES.

UM, NAMELY, YOU KNOW, GUARDRAILS ON ANY SORT OF FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS AND INVESTMENTS.

UM, AND THEN I GUESS, YOU KNOW, A NUMBER OF THEM ARE PERTAINING TO SPECIFIC GOALS, UM, AROUND, YOU KNOW, RENEWABLE ENERGY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND WHATNOT.

UM, I STILL, I AGREE WITH YOU.

IT'S RUSHED.

I, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S FIVE AND I, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE FIVE AND 30 IN TERMS OF LIKE DISTINCT TOPICS, I GUESS.

BUT YEAH, I HEAR YOU.

I JUST WANNA TRY TO, TO PLOW FORWARD, SEE, YEAH.

AND, AND IF IT HELPS, UM, MY INTENTION, AND I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, IT'S COMMISSIONER WHITE'S INTENTION IS WE HAVE ANOTHER ITEM, A RESOLUTION.

I WAS NOT INTENDING TO, TO, UM, YOU KNOW, VOTE TO PROCEED ON A DISCUSSION OF THAT RESOLUTION.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S A BETTER USE OF OUR TIME TO HAVE, LOOK AT THE PLAN IN FRONT OF US, TRY TO PROVE IT IF WE THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED, AND THEN VOTE ON THAT PLAN.

SO, SO THE O THE OTHER RESOLUTION, WHICH I ALSO REVIEWED, UH, YOU'RE WITHDRAW, YOU'RE WITHDRAWING THAT FROM THE, I MEAN, IT'S, I'M, I, I HELP SPONSOR IT.

I DON'T, I, I THINK WE SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON THE PLAN THAT'S BEFORE US AND TRY AND, IN MY MIND, TRY TO IMPROVE THAT PLAN.

THE RESOLUTION IS THERE IF CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO LOOK AT IT, BUT IT'S SIMPLY A RESOLUTION FROM TWO MEMBERS.

BUT, SO WE'RE NOT VOTING ON IT.

IT'S NOT MY INTENTION.

SO I THINK THAT'S WISE 'CAUSE WE'RE REPRESSED ALREADY.

OTHER COMMENTS, I'D LIKE TO TRY TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, AND JUST SEE HOW FAST WE GO ON THIS ON 14.

SOME OF THEM ARE PRETTY SIMPLE, I THINK.

WE'RE RECOGNIZING THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE.

THIS 14 ON PAGE 19.

I THINK 14 IS ACTUALLY A PRETTY SIMPLE ONE.

UM, SO DO YOU WANNA JUST NOTE THIS? SO ON PAGE 19, UM, THIS IS A SECOND A SECTION ON, UH, CLIMATE, UH, CLIMATE RISK.

AND THERE'S SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THE NEED TO, UM, BE RESPONSIVE TO THAT.

SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO ACTUALLY FIND THE SECTION IN THE PLAN.

AND THIS IS JUST ADDING THAT THEY ALSO SHOULD CONSIDER THE, THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SINCE

[01:15:01]

AND THAT PART OF THIS PLAN ALSO NEEDS TO BE TO ADDRESS OUR CONTRIBUTION AS A COMMUNITY TO THAT.

ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION TO, SO I'M MOVING TO ADOPT THE UNDERLINED TEXT HERE ON NUMBER 14 TO THIS SECTION ON PAGE 19.

ANY COMMENTS FROM AUSTIN ENERGY ON THIS EDITION? DO I NEED, DOES SOMEONE NEED TO SECOND IT SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT OR NOT? YES, GO AHEAD.

I SECOND THAT MOTION.

I FIGURED MOTION.

SO WE, FOR PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION.

LET'S TRY TO MOVE ON AND SEE HOW WE GET GOOD AT THIS.

ALRIGHT.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT NUMBER 14 UP HERE, CORRECT? YES.

SO PAGE 19 IS A SECTION CALLED AUSTIN ENERGY'S ENERGY LANDSCAPE.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO DESCRIBE THE CURRENT STATE OF HOW THINGS ARE.

UM, WHEREAS THIS STATEMENT STARTS TO TALK ABOUT SPECIFICALLY THAT WE NEED TO START UTILIZING THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON CALCULATIONS RELEASED IN 2023.

THAT SOUNDS MORE LIKE A KEY ACTION TO ME.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT IS MISPLACED, AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY USING THOSE CALCULATIONS.

IN IN WHAT WAY? JUST IN YOUR DECISION MAKING.

IN OUR DECISION MAKING.

ABOUT WHAT? ABOUT RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS? UM, INVESTMENTS.

YOU HAVE A LOT OF METRICS THAT YOU USE WHEN PUTTING FORTH PROPOSALS, BE THEY ENVIRONMENTAL OR FINANCIAL RELIABILITY METRICS, AFFORDABILITY METRICS.

UM, THIS WAS ONE THAT WE HEARD MULTIPLE TIMES THROUGH THIS PROCESS, UM, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS PROCESS, UM, TO ACTUALLY MONETIZE THE, UM, THE CLIMATE IMPACT.

AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M SUGGESTING IT HERE.

SO, AGAIN, FOR CONTEXT, THIS SECTION IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT GENERATION RETIREMENTS.

THIS PARAGRAPH IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT CLOSING FAYETTE POWER PROJECT.

I APOLOGIZE.

UM, WE SKIPPED FORWARD A LITTLE FURTHER THAN I REALIZED.

UM, YEAH, SO THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS SINCE THERE WAS SOME SORT OF PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE THAT AE, UM, DEEMED, YOU KNOW, TOO EXPENSIVE IN TERMS OF GETTING IT OUT OF, UH, ALTERING THE CONTRACT IN A WAY TO ALLOW ITS PORTION OF FAYETTE TO CLOSE.

AND THIS IS A SUGGESTION THAT, THAT THAT DECISION MAKING INCORPORATE THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON AVOIDED EMISSIONS INTO THAT.

WHAT, WHAT SECTION WOULD THIS MAYBE BETTER FIT INTO? I, I, MY INTENTION IS FOR IT TO BE IN THIS SECTION ABOUT RETIRING FAYETTE.

SO, SO, SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A GOOD DEAL, WHATEVER IS ON THE TABLE, WHENEVER SOMETHING MIGHT BE ON THE TABLE AGAIN.

AND SO I'LL JUST READ THE SENTENCE AGAIN.

IT SAYS, IT SAYS THAT WE PLAN TO RETIRE OUR SHARE OF FPP BY 2022.

WE WERE UNABLE TO REACH A WORKABLE AND AFFORDABLE AGREEMENT WITH OUR PARTNER.

AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARDS THAT GOAL, WE MUST ALSO CONSIDER HOW CEASING OPERATIONS ADDS NEW FINANCIAL AND MARKET RISKS AND MAKE A PLAN TO MITIGATE THOSE RISKS.

AND THEN YOU'RE SUGGESTING TO ADD THAT TO THE END, WHICH AGAIN SOUNDS LIKE A KEY ACTION AS OPPOSED TO A CURRENT ENERGY LANDSCAPE RISK.

THAT'S, I THINK I'LL JUST LEAVE IT THERE.

I MEAN, THE SECTION IS GENERATION RETIREMENTS.

WOULD IT WORK BETTER AS A SEPARATE PARAGRAPH? I HAVE A QUESTION.

WOULD IT BE MORE PALATABLE IF YOU TOOK OUT THE CLAUSE AFTER THE COMMA AND JUST SAY, CONSIDER THE VALUE OF AVOIDING ADDITIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS? I, I AM JUST TRYING TO LAND THE PLANE HERE.

, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO YOU TO PUT A CLOCK JUST LIKE THE SPEAKERS EACH HAD THREE MINUTES.

WE NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF CLOCK ON THIS TO FOUR SESSION.

WELL, AND WHILE SHE'S THINKING ABOUT THAT, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.

IS THAT AN OBJECTIVE NUMBER? IS THAT A METRIC THAT'S BEEN CALCULATED ALREADY? YEAH.

OH, OKAY.

THE EPA HAS AN ESTABLISHED SOCIAL COST OF CARBON.

AUSTIN ENERGY ALREADY USES IT FOR THEIR, UM, VALUE OF SOLAR CALCULATIONS.

SO, OKAY.

IT SEEMED LIKE A, IS IT ALREADY USED IN REACH IN

[01:20:01]

THE DISPATCH? NO.

I THINK IT IS MORE PALATABLE IF YOU STRIKE, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE COMMA.

UM, AND AGAIN THOUGH, THIS IS LITERALLY THE CURRENT ENERGY LANDSCAPE.

SO IT'S JUST A SECTION THAT DESCRIBES CURRENT STATE AND CURRENT RISKS.

SO, UH, AGAIN, ARE, ARE WE IN THE SAME SECTION? 'CAUSE THE SECTION I'M LOOKING AT SAYS GENERATION RETIREMENTS.

IT IS DESCRIBING HOW GENERATION RETIREMENTS IMPACT THE CURRENT ENERGY LANDSCAPE IMPOSE RISK TO ALL FACETS OF THE MISSION.

SO, SO THE PART AFTER THE COMMA, EXCUSE ME.

SO I UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE, FOR EXAMPLE, TO, UH, FOR AUSTIN ENERGY TO DETERMINE AND PUT A NU A NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH, UH, UH, THE COST OF TREATING PEOPLE WITH ASTHMA OR THE COST OF, UH, UH, FISH THAT HAVE MERCURY AND THE CLEANUP COST ALL THE COST, HUMAN AND OTHERWISE MM-HMM.

THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH, UH, WITH THE REDUCTION.

IS IS THAT, IS THAT THE INTENT? I'M NOT SURE THAT ALL OF THAT IS ACTUALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON, BUT, UM, IT IS FOCUSED ON THE, THE COST OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

AND IF IT WOULD BE MORE PALATABLE, WE COULD MOVE THIS TO THE SECTION BELOW, WHICH IS ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP.

UM, AND JUST ADD, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'D NEED TO MAKE IT INTO A, MAKE IT INTO A SENTENCE THAT MAKES SENSE.

BUT I, WE COULD JUST SAY WHEN CONSIDERING FA THINK THAT WOULD BE BETTER, BECAUSE I THINK THE SENTENCE IS JUST SAYING, WHEN THEY CEASE OPERATION, THEY NEED TO MITIGATE THAT RISK, THE FINANCIAL AND MARKET RISKS BY DOING OTHER THINGS.

THAT'S ONE CONSIDERATION.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S ACTUALLY REFERRING TO THE, TO THAT SPECIFIC PLANT.

IT'S MORE, I, THE WAY I'M READING IT, IT'S, CAN WE BRING THE PLAN UP FOR PEOPLE TO SEE? IS IT, IT SAYS, AUSTIN ENERGY IS ALSO A PARTIAL OWNER WITH THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY OF THE FAYETTE POWER PROJECT COAL PLANT.

WE KNOW THE BIGGEST BARRIER TO A CLEAN ENERGY GOALS COMES FROM THIS RESOURCE THAT WE PLAN TO RETIRE SHARE AND DAH, DAH, DAH DAH.

WE ARE UNABLE TO WORK AFFORDABLE AGREEMENT WITH OUR PARTNER.

THIS GOES TO THE POINT OF IT, WAS IT AN AFFORDABLE AGREEMENT OR NOT? WE CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARD THE GOAL.

WE MUST CONSIDER HAVE CCING OPERATIONS ADD NEW FINANCIAL MARKET RISK AND MAKE A PLAN TO MITIGATE THOSE RISKS.

I MEAN, I REALLY THINK THIS GOES RIGHT HERE.

I MEAN, IT ALSO MENTIONS BARRIER TO CLEAN ENERGY GOALS.

IT MENTIONS RETIREMENT.

THIS IS ABOUT, IS IT ACTUALLY AFFORDABLE? IF THEY'RE PAYING AN AMOUNT FOR AVOIDED CARBON IN ONE PROGRAM, WHY WOULD IT NOT BE WORTH THE SAME WHEN CONSIDERING THIS DECISION? AND I THINK THAT IT'S UP TO YOU TO VOTE ON, YOU KNOW, EACH AMENDMENT AS YOU ARE READY.

I'M GONNA TAKE YOUR SUGGESTION.

STRIKE AFTER THE COMMA UTILIZING, ASK THAT WE TALK ABOUT INSERTION OF AND CONSIDER THE VALUE OF AVOIDING ADDITIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I WOULD ALSO ADD, UM, THE WORD ALSO AFTER THE NEW, AND JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S KIND OF ONE OF A SET OF CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THIS ONE TOPIC.

IF WE'RE STRIKING, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE STRIKING THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON.

UM, BUT IF WE ARE GONNA STRIKE THAT, IF THAT'S THE WILL WITH THE GROUP, THEY'RE ALREADY USING IT.

NO, THEY'RE NOT, NOT WITH FAYETTE.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM IS IT COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

WELL, I DO THINK IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF THEY LOOKED AT IT WITH THAT LENS.

I THINK IT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE.

WELL THEN YOU WANT TO GO INTO A DISCUSSION ABOUT REACH AND HOW REACH IS DEPLOYED THEN.

RIGHT? WELL, I THINK THERE'RE ALREADY THERE, THERE'S A FLOOR AT WHICH THEY CAN'T GO FURTHER WITH REACH.

THIS IS A WAY OF US GIVING SOME GUIDANCE IN ADVANCE OF HOW TO EVALUATE.

THEY CAN'T GO BEYOND THEIR HS OR LS, LLSL.

SO IT'S, THIS IS MORE ABOUT WHEN LCRA COMES WITH ANOTHER PROPOSAL, HOW IS IT BEING EVALUATED? AND SINCE WE'LL NEVER SEE THE PROPOSAL ITSELF,

[01:25:01]

I WOULD SAY THAT WITH THE LEVEL OF DISCUSSION IN THIS PLAN ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN CONTEMPLATING THE CLOSURE, I'M COMFORTABLE ADDING AND CONSIDER THE VALUE OF AVOIDING ADDITIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND THEN LEAVING IT THERE.

COULD WE ADD, CONSIDER THE FINANCIAL, UM, OR THE ECONOMIC VALUE? I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT.

OKAY, FINE.

AND I, AND I GET AUSTIN ENERGY'S CONCERN WITH PUTTING SPECIFIC PARAMETERS IN THIS SECTION.

SO I THINK YOUR, YOUR AMENDMENT KIND OF CAPTURES THE, THAT IDEA.

SO WHAT'S THE FINAL? SO THE, THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE, AND ALSO CONSIDER, UH, THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF AVOIDING ADDITIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

OH, IS THAT A MOTION? DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? UM, YES.

I, I THINK IF YOU JUST EX YEAH.

SECOND.

HOW ABOUT YOU WANNA VOTE ON IT? YEP.

I'LL BE ABSTAINING.

UNDERSTAND.

I THINK WE HAD SEVEN.

SO WHAT ABOUT ONLINE EIGHT? AYE.

SO, UH, SO I UN, EXCUSE ME.

SO I UNDERSTAND, UH, ALL OF WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE ADOPT, ANYTHING WE ADOPT TONIGHT THAT DIFFERS FROM THE DRAFT WILL BE SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED? OR WILL IT BE TOTALLY, UH, WRAPPED INTO, UH, THEIR PLAN? HOW, HOW PROCEDURALLY WE'RE LEARNING ABOUT THIS? SO AUSTIN ENERGY HASN'T SAID WHAT THEY PREFER, I GUESS.

UM, YES.

YOU'RE, YOU'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNSEL.

SO COUNSEL CAN THEN TAKE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS OR NOT AND ADD THEM INTO THE PLAN.

SO THE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE ON A SEPARATE PAGE.

IT WON'T BE, UH, PLUGGED INTO ANOTHER COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE DRAFT PLAN.

I THINK IT WOULD BE ON SEPARATE PAGES.

HOW WOULD IT BE PRESENTED PAGES IS WHAT I'M ASKING.

I THINK, I THINK IT WOULD BE A RESOLUTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL SAYING SOMETHING LIKE, WE ADOPT THE PLAN, BUT MAKE THE FOLLOWING, YOU KNOW, CHANGES AS PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION.

AND WE WOULD JUST LIST THEM.

THAT I THINK THAT'S THE WAY YOU WOULD.

THAT WOULD BE CLEAR.

AND AUSTIN ENERGY IS OF COURSE FREE TO TELL CITY COUNCIL, WE DON'T LIKE THAT ONE.

OR WE LIKE THESE SEVEN, BUT NOT THESE 10 OR WHATEVER.

BUT THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS.

BUT WE'D BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION AS A BODY.

LISA, ANY COMMENTS? NO, I, I MEAN, I THINK AMY DESCRIBED IT ACCURATELY, RIGHT? IT'S A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION WITH AMENDMENTS AS YOU VOTE ON HOW THOSE AMENDMENTS WORK.

RESETTING THE CLOCK.

IF, IF I MAY MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

LET'S DO IT FASTER.

YES, I AGREE.

UM, THIS WOULD COME, UH, EITHER I GUESS AT THE TOP OF PAGE 20, BUT IF YOU, IT'S IN THAT SAME SECTION, ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP, BASICALLY THE END OF PAGE 19, BUT THERE'S NO ROOM.

SO IT WOULD BE THE TOP OF PAGE 20, UM, ADDING THE FOLLOWING TEXT BECAUSE THE AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN GOALS ARE MEN MENTIONED BUT NOT DESCRIBED AT ALL IN THIS PLAN.

SO JUST A BRIEF DESCRIPTION.

THE AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN ESTABLISHED GOALS FOR THE AUSTIN COMMUNITY TO REACH NET ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY 2040 WITH APPROXIMATELY 75% REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS BY 2030 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS.

PLAN FOR OTHER LOCAL SECTORS SUCH, SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION RELY ON CARBON FREE ELECTRICITY FROM AUSTIN ENERGY.

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT.

LET'S DISCUSS IT.

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ANYONE QUESTION FOR THE AUTHOR IS THIS, IS THIS ACCURATE? THIS, THESE ARE THE GOALS FROM THE AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN, WHICH, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU WERE VERY INVOLVED IN IT.

ON TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION IN THERE.

AND IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE DIFFERENT, UM, STRATEGIES IN THE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE ELECTRIFICATION AS A REPEATED STRATEGY.

THERE'S A WHOLE SECTION

[01:30:01]

AND, UM, YEAH.

BUT DOES IT SAY IN THE PLAN THAT IT RELIES ON ENERGY FROM AUSTIN ENERGY TO BE CLEAN? YEAH, IT ACTUALLY ASSUMED THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WAS GOING TO GET TO ZERO EMISSIONS.

ANYTHING CONTROVERSIAL WITH THAT? ARE, ARE WE JUST LISTING THE, LIKE THE OTHER SECTORS AS TRANSPORTATIONS AS, AS EXAMPLES? I GUESS I'M A BIT CONFUSED ON WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY CAN DO.

OR WHEN YOU SAY TRANSPORTATION, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES OR CAP METRO OR LIKE WHAT, WHAT IS IT APPEARS, UH, MULTIPLE PLACES.

GOOD QUESTION.

BUT YEAH, LIGHT DUTY TRANSPORTATION.

BUT THERE'S ALSO MENTION OF ELECTRIFICATION OF A RR, FOR EXAMPLE.

UM, CAP METRO IS TECHNICALLY NOT CITY OF AUSTIN.

SO THAT'S, UM, MENTIONED, BUT A LITTLE BIT MORE TANGENTIALLY.

UM, SO YEAH, IT'S NOT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS SUPPOSED TO, WELL ACTUALLY AUSTIN ENERGY DOES PLAY A ROLE IN ALL THAT, BUT, UM, THIS IS MORE JUST TO THE POINT.

HAVING CARBON FREE ELECTRICITY IS IMPORTANT FOR MEETING REDUCTIONS IN THOSE OTHER SECTORS.

I'M NOT PERSONALLY FAMILIAR WITH THAT PLAN AND ALL THE DETAILS.

SO I WON'T BE VOTING FOR THIS JUST 'CAUSE I'M UNCOMFORTABLE IMPORTING INFORMATION THAT I HAVEN'T VERIFIED.

YEAH, I'M JUST WONDERING.

IT, IT DOES MENTION THAT THESE EFFORTS AND MORE HAVE MADE AUSTIN ENERGY AN INDUSTRY LEADER IN CONSERVATION AND CLEAN ENERGY WHILE HELPING THE CITY OF AUSTIN, UH, GOALS, UH, REACH THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S GOALS IN THE CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.

I'M, I GUESS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THIS A ADDITIONAL STUFF TO THAT OR IS THIS, THIS IS DESCRIBING GOALS IN THE AUSTIN CLIMATE EQUITY PLAN.

I MEAN, I WOULD ARGUE WE ALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ON THAT PLAN AS PART OF THIS PROCESS SINCE THEY'RE INTIMATELY RELATED.

BUT, UM, I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS, DO WE NEED TO RESTATE THE GOALS? IF THEY'RE ALREADY, IF IT SAYS IT'S THIS, THE INTENT IS TO HELP.

I MEAN, I HEAR YOUR LOGIC, BUT BY THAT LOGIC, WE COULD CUT MOST OF THIS DOCUMENT, WHICH I'D ALSO BE HAPPY TO DO.

WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD .

MAYBE WE SHOULD, I GUESS, DO YOU WANNA MAKE THAT MOTION ? I'LL SECOND IT.

I'D LIKE TO STILL TRY TO PLOW THROUGH.

MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL THE QUESTION AND THEN JUST DECIDE.

I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING THIS OR NOT INCLUDING IT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE IT.

I'LL BE VOTING FOR IT, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD CALL THE QUESTION.

'CAUSE OTHERWISE, AS RANDY SAYS, WE'RE GONNA BE HERE VERY LATE.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO INCLUDE IT.

WELL, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS? OKAY.

I, I SAY I'M NOT GONNA VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE I THINK IT, IT'S ALREADY STATED ELSEWHERE.

SO HOW MANY VOTES DO WE HAVE? FOUR, TWO.

HOW MANY ANY OTHERS ONLINE? RAUL.

RAUL.

AND WE'VE GOT WHAT, 10 TODAY? WE HAVE 10 PEOPLE HERE TODAY.

YOU NEXT, SARAH.

OKAY, NEXT.

NEXT ONE IS, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S CONTROVERSIAL.

IT'S JUST, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY RIGHTLY POINTS OUT THAT RENEWABLE RESOURCES OUTSIDE OF OUR LOAD ZONE, UH, DO PRODUCE SOME OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES BECAUSE OF CURTAIL CURTAILMENTS OF THOSE RESOURCES.

SO I'M JUST SUGGESTING ADDING SOME LANGUAGE THAT LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INCLUDING LOCAL RENEWABLE ENERGY, ENERGY STORAGE, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND DEMAND RESPONSE INVESTMENTS, AVOID THESE CHALLENGES AND WILL BE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT GOING FORWARD.

UM, AND THEN JUST A, A LITTLE BIT OF A, AN A, UH, AN EDIT THERE.

UH, ON THE NEXT SENTENCE.

I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

I'D VOTE FOR THAT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

WHO'S IN FAVOR? SAY AYE.

WE RIPPED THROUGH THAT ONE IN A FEW MINUTES.

WAIT, WHO? SORRY, WHO MOVED AND SECONDED THOSE? THE SAME CYRUS, CYRUS AND THEN WHITE.

AND THEN DO YOU HAVE A GOOD COUNT ON WHO VOTED FOR THAT WAS UNANIMOUS, RIGHT? UH, LET'S DOUBLE CHECK ONLINE.

I'M NOT SURE.

SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT HAVE VOTED.

I DIDN'T VOTE.

I WAS STILL READING, BUT YOU DIDN'T NEED IT.

[01:35:05]

SO HOW MANY VOTES IS THAT? CAN WE JUST RAISE OUR HANDS AGAIN? OKAY.

ALRIGHT, NOW WE WE'RE ON THE ROLL.

10 ZERO.

WE'RE GONNA MAKE RANDY HAPPY HERE.

17 ON PAGE 25.

I WAS THIS YOURS? WE DIDN'T PUT A NAME.

THIS WAS MINE.

UM, SO THIS IS, UM, PAGE 25.

SORRY, I'M GETTING THERE.

SO THIS IS A SECTION ON VOLTAGE SUPPORT AND THERE IS A MENTION OF THAT THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES OF VOLTAGE SUPPORT.

THIS IS AN EDIT AND, UM, ADDITION TO NOTATE SOME OF THOSE.

AND THEY'RE NOT POTENTIAL THERE, THEY EXIST TODAY, UM, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE NOT AUSTIN ENERGY RESOURCES.

SO MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THEY MEANT.

UM, BUT IN ANY CASE, THEY EXIST.

UM, AND, AND JUST, UM, INDICATING THE, THAT AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD PHASE IN THOSE RESOURCES OVER TIME AS THEY DECARBONIZE CHAIR.

MAY I MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS ONE? I THINK WE NEED TO FIRST, I'LL, I'LL SECOND IT.

I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AS WELL, BUT I'LL SECOND IT.

SO I, I THINK WE OUGHT TO DISCUSS THIS.

THIS SHOULD BE QUICK.

THEY ARE POTENTIAL, SINCE THEY'RE NOT INCORPORATED.

UH, IT IS TRUE THAT BATTERIES AND SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSERS CAN PROVIDE VOLTAGE SUPPORT THAT'S NOT ARGUED.

AND I THINK MAYBE YOU COULD JUST CHANGE THAT TO MAY USE TO REPLACE EXISTING GENERATION.

AND I'M NOT SURE ABOUT STRIKING THE EXISTING 'CAUSE THAT'S A FACT.

EXISTING GENERATION CAN PROVIDE VOLTAGE SUPPORT.

SO IF YOU JUST INCLUDE INCORPORATE, INCLUDING BATTERIES AND SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSERS, WHICH AUSTIN ENERGY MAY USE TO REPLACE EXISTING GENERATION OVER TIME, IT'S PRETTY INNOCUOUS.

LISA, DID YOU YEAH, MY COMMENT WAS MORE ABOUT THIS AS STATED AS AN ACTION.

AND AGAIN, THE ACTIONS ARE AT THE BACK OF THE DOCUMENT AND YOU'RE AGAIN, EDITING THE CURRENT ENERGY LANDSCAPE WITH, UH, THE CHAIR'S EDITS.

IT'S A LITTLE LESS, MORE OF A ACTION AND MORE OF A STATEMENT OF CAPABILITIES.

THEN MAYBE I WILL EDIT IT HERE AND OFFER IT AGAIN IN THE APPROPRIATE ACTION SECTION ONCE I SCROLL THROUGH AND FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT IS.

UM, CYRUS, YOU SAID YOU HAD YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, UM, I THINKS SAYING AUSTIN ENERGY WILL USE THESE THINGS.

I MEAN, THAT WILL DEPEND UPON, YOU KNOW, THE, WE'RE NOT ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING THIS.

YEAH, YEAH, WE'RE NOT, WE DON'T, WE DON'T KNOW, LIKE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPROPRIATE MIX FOR VOLTAGE AND WE CAN'T KNOW AT THIS POINT.

SO I, I THINK A MAY IS A BETTER APPROACH.

UM, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

, I I WOULD ALSO JUST STATE THAT SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSERS ARE NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR GENERATORS, BUT FOR THE USE OF, UH, UH, REACTIVE POWER VOLTAGE SUPPORT.

SO THEY ARE, BUT THEY'RE NOT FULL REPLACEMENTS.

BATTERIES DO HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF PROVIDING BOTH REAL AND REACTIVE POWER, SO THEY COULD BE A REPLACEMENT FOR A GENERATOR.

SO IS THE AMENDED AMENDMENT, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THIS STRIKE? THROUGH LANGUAGE AT THE END? POTENTIAL IS ADDED BACK IN AND WILL HAS BECOME MAY, BUT THIS, BUT EXISTING GENERATION HAS THE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT OF ALSO PROVIDING POWER.

IS THAT, I, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED.

THAT'S STILL A FACTUAL, I'M ACTUALLY NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS DOING IN THIS SECTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

IF THIS IS JUST ON VOLTAGE SUPPORT, WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT POWER GENERATION? THIS IS ABOUT VOLTAGE SUPPORT BECAUSE THE POWER GENERATORS CREATE REACTIVE AS WELL AS POWER.

I, YEAH, JUST WE NOT SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THIS.

WE COULD ALSO ADD CAVEATS ABOUT WHY THESE OTHER ARE BENEFICIAL IN THAT THEY ARE NOT POLLUTING.

SO I, I GUESS I JUST THINK IT'S, UH, THERE'S A LOT OF THESE LITTLE NOTES THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT.

ARE THERE, SORRY, I DON'T WANNA, ARE THERE LIKE TOP PRIORITY ITEMS THAT MIGHT BENEFIT FROM FRESHER BRAINS OR CAN YOU HELP US CIRCLE THE ONES FROM 18 THROUGH 37 THAT YOU'D REALLY WANT TO YES.

FOCUS ON FIRST? YES.

CAN DO THAT.

CAN WE WRAP THIS ONE UP? MM-HMM.

THIS SAYS THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES OF VULTURE SUPPORT, INCLUDING BATTERIES AND SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSERS, WHICH AUSTIN ENERGY MAY USE TO REPLACE EXISTING GENERATORS OVER TIME.

SO IN MY BOOK

[01:40:01]

YEAH, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'LL DO THAT AS THE ENGINEERING DICTATES, RIGHT? AND AS THE GOALS FOR THE CLIMATE PLANE DICTATE, I THINK THE ISSUE IS THEY WON'T REPLACE GENERATORS IN THE SENSE THAT THERE'LL BE GENERATORS.

RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

STRIKING EXISTING CAN, WE CAN'T THEN SAY, CAN WE SAY REPLACE EXISTING GENERATORS FOR VOLTAGE SUPPORT OVER TIME.

THE WHOLE, THIS, THE WHOLE THING IS TRYING TO SET UP LIKE WE HAVE TO HAVE FOSSIL FUEL GENERATORS OR ELSE EVERYTHING'S GONNA COLLAPSE.

AND THIS AMENDMENT IS TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES WHICH CAN BE PHASED IN OVER TIME TO REPLACE THOSE POLLUTING SOURCES.

BUT THE START OF THE SENTENCE ALREADY SAYS THAT THIS IS ABOUT VOLTAGE SUPPORT.

SO I THINK WE DON'T HAVE TO RE SAY IT.

I, I LIKE THE LANGUAGE, UH, THAT YOU USE CHAIR TUTTLE, UH, AND OVER TIME COULD BE FIVE YEARS, IT COULD BE A HUNDRED YEARS.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT ADDS ANYTHING.

SO KEEP THE MAY DROP THE WORD OVER TIME.

SO WE'RE JUST DROPPING OVER.

YOU GOT MY VOTE.

SO THEN IT READS, THE EDITED TEXT IS INCLUDING BATTERIES AND SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSERS, WHICH AU AUSTIN ENERGY MAY USE TO REPLACE EXISTING GENERATORS.

OVERTIME FOR VOLTAGE SUPPORT, I DON'T CARE.

I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OVERTIME MEANS IF, SO, I, I AGREE.

JUST LEAVE IT ALL.

SO WE CAN JUST STRIKE OVER TIME.

SO THAT LAST, SO PERIOD AFTER GENERATORS, SO THAT LAST SECTION IS STILL STRUCK OUT.

THE EXISTING GENERATION HAS THE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT OF ALSO PROVIDING POWER.

IS THAT, I WOULD SAY YES.

UNLESS WE WANNA ALSO DESCRIBE THE BENEFITS OF THE BATTERY TECHNOLOGY, WHICH WOULD BE VALID.

I, I DON'T SEE THE HARM IN JUST HAVING THE, BUT EXISTING GENERATION HAS THE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT OF ALSO PROVIDING POWER.

IT'S REAL POWER AND REACTIVE POWER.

WELL, IT SHOULD AT LEAST BE A SEPARATE SENTENCE.

THEN SAY, NOTE IT.

I'M GONNA SAY EXISTING GENERATION HAS A BENEFIT OF ALSO PROVIDING POWER BATTERIES AND SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSERS OR EMISSIONS FREE.

AMY, YOU'RE A PERSON LOGGING THIS.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE? ? THERE ARE OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES OF VOLTAGE SUPPORT, INCLUDING BATTERIES AND SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSERS, WHICH AUSTIN ENERGY BAY USE TO REPLACE EXISTING GENERATORS.

EXISTING GENERATION HAS THE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT OF PROVIDING POWER AND BATTERIES AND SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSERS ARE EMISSIONS FREE.

I'M FINE.

GREAT.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND.

WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION TIME FOR A VOTE ON THIS, THEN WE'RE GONNA GET TO THE PRIORITY ITEMS. OKAY.

ON THE AYE.

NOW, ARE THERE ANY OPPOSED OR ABSTAINING? I THINK WE HAVE ALL THREE.

THERE'S TWO OPPOSED? NO, I THINK WE HAD TWO.

WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE.

YOU WENT CAN, I'M GONNA ABSTAIN FROM THAT ONE.

COMMISSIONERS.

BLACKBURN, ANACON, WHAT WAS YOUR VOTE VOTING FOR? OKAY.

IT GETS TOGETHER.

NOW FROM 18 THROUGH 37.

WHAT ARE THE ONES WE WANNA FOCUS ON? I MEAN, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON 24.

IT'S ABOUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

IT'S ACTUALLY, UM, ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

UM, SO, UM, NUMBER 24, WHICH IS WOULD AMEND PAGE 50.

IS, UM, SO CAN I OFFER THAT ONE AND THEN CAN YOU SECOND IT? SO I, WELL, LET'S JUST GET A LIST FIRST.

OH, YOU WANNA DO A LIST FIRST? A LIST OF THE, THE HIGHEST PRIORITY ONES THAT YOU AND EVA WANNA LOOK AT.

WE CAN TAKE A QUICK BREAK IF THAT WOULD HELP.

NO, NO, NO.

I MEAN, I THINK THE, THE OLDER COMING ONES, 24, 25, 26, UM, 24 THROUGH 37 ARE

[01:45:01]

ALL 27 IMPORTANT? 28.

I MEAN, LIKE MOST OF THE METEOR ONES WERE AT THE END, SO YEAH.

I MEAN, AS YOU CAN SEE, A COUPLE, ONE OF 'EM IS 30, 31 IS THE ONE ON THE PEAKER UNITS.

THAT'S PROBABLY THE TOUGHEST ONE.

BUT I GUESS IT'S LIKE, ARE WE TRYING TO, ARE WE TRYING TO DO THE TOUGHEST ONE FIRST AND THEN GO BACK? IS THAT, IS THAT THE GOAL? NO, I JUST WANNA GET 'EM IDENTIFIED.

MAYBE WE COULD SKIP SOME.

I WOULD SAY 24TH TO 37 ARE ALL, HAVE SOME IMPORTANCE.

SOME OF THEM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE MY OPINIONS ABOUT, WHICH I THINK ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT.

BUT, UM, I THINK THE, THE OTHER ONES THAT WE'RE SKIPPING ARE MORE, I'D SAY MORE EDITORIALS THAN, THAN, UH, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY CHANGE.

UM, I DON'T REALLY THINK THEY CHANGE ANYTHING.

THEY CHANGE THE WORDS ON THE PAPER, BUT THEY DON'T, UM, THEY DON'T MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE.

SO HOW ABOUT WE DISCUSS MAYBE OTHER MEANS TO GET THOSE IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL? IS IT, IS IT WHERE YOU COULD SIFT THOSE OUT AND JUST SUBMIT THOSE? SURE.

I MEAN, WHY ARE WE HERE? WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A YEAR AND A HALF.

LIKE, I, EITHER WE SHOULD DO IT OR WE SHOULD SAY WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

IF YOU WANT THEM TO CONSIDER INCORPORATING IT IN IT INTO THE PLAN, AND SOME OF THEM ARE WORTHWHILE AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THEY'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH IT, THEY MAY WELL INCORPORATE THAT.

WELL, BUT IT'S NOT VERSION 1.1.

IT IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME.

UM, AND I THINK IF THEY WANTED TO CO-WRITE THIS, THEN WE WOULDN'T HAVE GOT THE DRAFT THE AFTERNOON BEFORE THANKSGIVING.

I, I THINK IT'S A BETTER USE OF OUR TIME THOUGH.

BUT TO FOCUS ON THE ONES THAT HAVE ACTUAL, I'M FINE TO START THERE.

I JUST AM NOT COMMITTING TO LIKE, SKIPPING THEM.

I DON'T, I MEAN THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

I, I'M WILLING TO COME BACK ANOTHER DAY.

I DON'T REALLY WANT TO, BUT I'M WILLING TO.

I MEAN, ARE THERE PARTICULAR ONES WE CAN, I MEAN, CAN DISTILL DOWN, DISTILL DOWN TO THE NUMBERS? LIKE, LIKE WE HAVE, LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND WE SKIPPED OVER STUFF THAT'S IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

I MEAN, I THINK WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, LIKE IT'S A LOT OF, WE'RE FIGHTING OVER THOSE NUMBERS.

I MEAN, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN JUST PUT THOSE NUMBERS DOWN SOMEWHERE? YEAH.

WELL THAT THOSE ARE, THEY ARE, THEY'RE STARTING WITH NUMBER 24.

SO WHY DON'T WE JUST START THERE.

I I WOULD SUGGEST WE GO TO 24.

I MEAN IF PEOPLE NEED A BREAK WE CAN TAKE A BREAK BUT, WELL, I'M GONNA ROLL NOW.

SO I WILL OFFER 24 AT A SECOND.

TAKE A BREAK A LITTLE BIT.

I'LL SECOND.

SO 24 DOES A NUMBER OF THINGS.

UM, AND UM, ONE IS UM, IT INCREASES THAT 9 75 BY 2027 GOALS TO A THOUSAND.

SO THAT MEANS 25 MEGAWATTS OF ADDITIONAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

SO APPROXIMATELY NINE MEGAWATTS A YEAR.

UM, IT SAYS, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY WHILE MOVING TO GREENHOUSE GASES SHOULD CONTINUE TO REPORT ON THE MEGAWATTS REDUCED.

SO NOT SAYING IT'S A GOAL, BUT SAYING CONTINUE TO REPORT IT.

UM, AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD CONTINUE TO AIM TO REDUCE, UH, ENERGY USE, UM, BY 1%.

UM, WHICH IS A CURRENT GOAL, ALTHOUGH I SHIFTED IT ONLY TO THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR JUST BECAUSE THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SECTOR FOR ENERGY SAVINGS.

AND WE KNOW THAT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ARE INCREASING A LOT.

AND SO IT'S GONNA BE HARD TO REDUCE, IT'S GONNA BE HARD TO REDUCE, UH, YOU KNOW, BY 1% THOSE SECTORS.

IT PUTS IN A PARAGRAPH THAT I THINK WAS PROBABLY LEFT OUT BY MISTAKE, BUT SAYING WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO BE A LEADER ON, UM, GREEN BUILDING.

UH, IT PUTS BACK IN A GOAL ON LOCAL THERMAL STORAGE, WHICH WAS SOMETHING IN THE PREVIOUS PLAN.

AND IT PUTS IN, UM, SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT, UH, MAKING SURE AT LEAST 25% OF THE POPULATIONS THAT SERVE SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS WILL BE, UH, CAP ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS IN THE CURRENT PLAN.

SO IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO NOT LOSE SOME OF THE GOOD, UM, KIND OF GOALS AND METRICS WE HAD IN THE PREVIOUS PLAN.

[01:50:01]

ESSENTIALLY.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU CYRUS.

UH, THE ALL OF WHICH IS THIS IS COMMITTING AUSTIN ENERGY, BUT ISN'T THE, UH, ENERGY, UH, CO CONSERVATION COAT REALLY AN ANIMAL, A CITY COUNCIL? SHOULDN'T THIS BE THE LANGUAGE INSTEAD OF MAKING, SO AUSTIN ENERGY AE YOU'RE REALLY RECOMMENDING IT.

AUSTIN ENERGY IS THE, UM, LEADER ON ASSESSING AND ADOPTING THE LATEST ENERGY CODES.

SO THEY PRESENT THAT TO CITY COUNCIL.

CITY COUNCIL THEN ADOPTS THOSE.

SO IT IS UP TO CITY COUNCIL, BUT THIS IS MERELY SAYING AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE A LEADER ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE ENERGY CODES AND, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO BE A LEADER IN THE, BECAUSE WE ARE THE LEAD.

I MEAN, WE ARE ONE OF THE LEADERS ON BUILDING ENERGY AND GREEN BUILDING CODE.

SO I JUST WANT A STATEMENT THAT WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE THAT BECAUSE ONE OF THE WAYS WE RE REDUCE ENERGY IS BECAUSE OF THAT CODE.

'CAUSE WE'RE BUILDING SO FAST.

NO PROBLEM, JUDGE.

SO IS IT REALLY MORE LIKE, SUGGEST THIS, SUGGEST THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ENERGY CODE VERSUS LIKE, AUSTIN ENERGY HAS TO ADOPT THE CODE? JUST THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN? YEAH, IT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, I THINK THIS IS IN LINE WITH HOW IT'S BEEN STATED PREVIOUSLY.

UM, I MEAN WE COULD SAY INCLUDING FACILITATING ADOPTION YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

AND THAT'S MIGHT BE MORE ACCURATE.

YEAH, THAT WOULD BE MORE ACCURATE.

IT LOOKS, TO MY EYE, THE MOST SPEC SPECIFIC OR PRESCRIPTIVE ONE IS THE THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE SENTENCE.

UM, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN GETTING A REACTION FROM AUSTIN ENERGY ON THIS LANGUAGE AND WHETHER, UM, YOU KNOW, CONTINUING TO REPORT ON MEGAWATTS, CONTINUING TO AIM FOR AN ENERGY SAVINGS GOAL, UH, CONTINUE TO BE A LEADER ON BUILDING CODES, HAVING SOME LOCAL THERMAL STORAGE, HAVING SOME SORT OF A PERCENTAGE YOU'RE TRYING TO MEET IN TERMS OF WHO BENEFITS, WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK ABOUT THESE IDEAS OR NUMBERS? YEAH, SO I THINK THAT, UM, THE CONCEPTS LAID OUT HERE ARE ALIGNED WITH HOW WE WORK.

I THINK THAT THIS IS LARGELY MIRRORING A LOT OF WHAT'S IN OUR EXISTING PLAN, WHICH OVER THE YEARS, BY ADDING GOALS IN THIS SHAPE AND THAT SHAPE AND THIS SHAPE BECAME VERY PRESCRIPTIVE IN A WAY THAT ULTIMATELY SET A PATH THAT SOMETIMES, AS SARAH MENTIONED EARLIER, CREATES SOME TENSION, RIGHT? SO WE TRIED VERY CAREFULLY TO WRITE THIS PLAN IN A WAY THAT SETS OVERARCHING GOALS, TARGETS FOR WHERE TO HEAD, BUT DID NOT PRESCRIBE HOW TO SPECIFICALLY MEET THOSE GOALS.

EVERY LITTLE STEP ALONG THE WAY.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO BALANCE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY AND RELIABILITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE AS CLOSE TO OUR CLEAN ENERGY GOALS AS WE ARE, IT GETS TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO THAT.

AND SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THIS IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF PRESCRIPTIVE GOALS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID.

UM, THAT SAID, WE ARE A LEADER IN GREEN BUILDING AND ENERGY CODE.

I DO WANNA POINT OUT JUST FOR EVERYONE'S AWARENESS THAT WE WORK TO DO THE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND WE HAVE THE EXPERTISE, ULTIMATELY WE SHARE IT WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT WHO PRESENTED TO SIT TO COUNCIL AS PART OF PACKAGE OF ALL OF THE CODES AS A WHOLE.

SO JUST FOR AWARENESS.

UM, IT'S A CITY PARTNERSHIP IN PRESENTING THAT TO COUNCIL.

UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, IN GENERAL, AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT, THAT WE DO, BUT THE PRESCRIPTIVE TARGETS THEN HELP US.

THEY, THEY BIAS US THE WAY THAT WE DO THE WORK, WHICH MAY BE INTENTIONAL, BUT IT MAKES IT HARDER TO BALANCE OVERARCHINGLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO MEET THE CUSTOMER'S NEEDS AS THE ENERGY LANDSCAPE CHANGES.

MAYBE THAT'S LIKE AN OVERARCHING CONVERSATION.

'CAUSE THERE'S GONNA BE A NUMBER OF THESE COMING UP, UH, THAT ARE, THAT ARE MORE PRESCRIPTIVE GOALS.

AND I THINK IS OUR VIEW THAT THERE IS VALUE IN HAVING THOSE CLEAR MILE MARKERS TO MEASURE SUCCESS.

BUT WHAT DO OTHERS THINK ABOUT THAT? WELL, HOW, LIKE, I MEAN THERE, SO THERE, I MEAN THERE ARE NUMBERS LIKE IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, RIGHT? AND SOME OF THOSE, SOME OF THE, LIKE IN THE NEXT ONE THERE'S 270 MEGAWATT.

I THINK THAT'S FROM THE, FROM THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

SO I MEAN, DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS? LIKE RELATIVE, LIKE FROM THE, FROM IN 24

[01:55:01]

LIKE THE, THE CAP GOAL IS A, IS AN AIM.

UM, AND YOU KNOW, JUST FACILITATING THE ADOPTION OF THE ENERGY CODE.

LIKE IS IT, IS IT REALLY, IS IT THAT, IS IT THAT ONE? IS IT THE THERMAL STORAGE ONE? THAT'S THE CONCERN FOR THE PRESCRIPTIVE.

IT, IT, HONESTLY IT'S, IT'S THE 1% WHICH IS A MEGAWATT HOUR GOAL PLUS THE MEGAWATT REDUCTION GOAL, PLUS THE GREENHOUSE GAS AVOIDANCE GOALS.

PLUS THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUR POPULATION OR PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS SERVED BY OUR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM.

I THINK THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN A GOAL.

I THINK THERE'S SOME WORDING THERE THAT'S MISSING OR SOMETHING.

UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S WRITTEN THERE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

UM, THE THERMAL ENERGY GOAL, THE, I THINK SOMEONE COMMENTED ON THIS EARLIER.

THERE, THERE IS AN EXISTING GOAL IN THE CURRENT PLAN AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I LEFT THAT OUT WAS LARGELY JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE OF OUR THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE PROGRAM IS, RIGHT? IT, I, WE WANT IT TO EXPAND AS BEST AS POSSIBLE.

BUT WE ARE DOING SOME FINANCIAL REVIEWS TO FIGURE OUT CAN WE INVEST IN IT.

RIGHT NOW IT'S KIND OF STAGNANT.

AND SO WE ARE ON TRACK TO MEET OUR CURRENT GOAL, BUT I'D LIKE TO DO MORE ANALYSIS AND FIGURE OUT THE FUTURE OF THAT PROGRAM AND IF WE CAN EITHER GROW IT OR IF IT CAN GROW IN A DIFFERENT WAY, UM, BEFORE SETTING A DIFFERENT GOAL OUT TO 2035.

WELL THE THE ONE THING GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

I, I WAS GONNA SAY, I, I AGREE IT SHOULD NOT BE PRESCRIPTIVE.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH ADOPTING A NUMERICAL GOAL AND WHAT IS THE COST OF THERMAL STORY.

BUT IN PARTICULAR, THERMAL STORAGE, UH, GONNA BE THREE YEARS, SEVEN YEARS, SEVEN YEARS OUT.

SO THESE, THESE ARE THE CHILLING STATIONS.

IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED.

BUT YEAH, I WOULDN'T SET SET THE GOAL.

WELL, I TELL YOU ONE THING THAT I DO FIND IN HERE IS THAT THE SHIFT FROM MEGAWATTS TO AVOID A GREENHOUSE GAS, I LIKE PERSONALLY THE ADD INSTEAD OF SHIFT.

'CAUSE I, I SEE NO REAL PROBLEM WITH HAVING BOTH FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT SMALL THING.

AND THEN TAKING UPON YOUR POINT, TAKING UP YOUR POINT ABOUT WATCH OUT ABOUT OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE, THERE NEEDS TO BE A MECHANISM WHERE THESE REASONABLE IDEAS ARE PUT FORTH AND THERE'S TIME FOR AE TO RESPOND AND MAYBE REVISE THIS DRAFT JUST BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE MORE THAN A, A SOLID SKELETON THAT'S GONNA BE REVIEWED.

THIS IS THE STARTING POINT AND IT'S FAIRLY WELL REFINED AND YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT SOME DETAILS THAT DO, DO DESERVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND THE TIMELINE'S JUST PRESSING US ALL RIGHT.

AND IT'S FRUSTRATING.

SO I'D LIKE TO TRY TO FIND SOME MECHANISM WHERE WE GET THESE LOGGED AS FAR AS THE DETAILS AND THEN THE WORDSMITHING CAN BE DONE OFFLINE OR IN, IN THE FUTURE IN SOME SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME THAT'S REASONABLE FOR THEM TO GO RESPOND TO EACH ONE OF THOSE.

UM, I MEAN WHAT I COULD DO IS OFFER A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION AND MAKE, MAYBE TAKE OUT A FEW OF THE SPECIFIC THINGS.

MM-HMM, .

UM, WHAT ABOUT JUST TAKING OUT THE ? WELL, WHAT I WAS GONNA SUGGEST IS WE COULD JUST SAY AUSTIN ENERGY COMMITS TO ACHIEVING ITS CURRENT THERMAL STORAGE GOAL OF 40 MEGAWATTS BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY IN THE PLAN.

AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE ON COURTS TO MEET THAT.

UM, AND IT'S JUST BECAUSE THAT'S IMPORTANT.

THAT'S THE CHILLING STATION.

SO IT'S A DEMAND, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE IN THE PLAN AND IT'S THE CURRENT GOAL.

SO I WAS GONNA SAY JUST AUSTIN ENERGY COMMITS TO ACHIEVING ITS CURRENT GOAL OF 40 MEGAWATTS OF LOCAL THERMAL STORAGE BY 2030, WE'LL LEAVE 2035 TO THE FUTURE.

'CAUSE THAT'S LONG THE WAY.

UM, AND THEN, UM, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE THE THINGS ABOUT BUILDING CODES.

'CAUSE WE ARE A LEADER.

IT'S ONE OF THE WAYS WE, WE REDUCE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THAT IN.

UM, I AM WILLING TO DROP THE, UH, I MEAN, HUH? DON'T DO IT.

JUST SAID, UM, THE 1%.

WELL I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO, TO, TO HAVE A MEGAWATT HOUR GOAL.

BUT BUT, AND THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE THAT IT WILL APPEAR.

I MEAN, WHAT COULD SAY IS AUSTIN ENERGY WILL CONTINUE TO REPORT ON THE MEGAWATTS REDUCED FROM ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND THE MEGAWATT HOURS SAVED IN ALL SECTORS.

THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE IN HERE.

SO IF WE DON'T, IF WE ARE, IF WE ARE SAYING TO ADD GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TO THAT, HOW ABOUT THERE, THERE'S THAT.

[02:00:01]

JUST IT'S A REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO REPORT IT.

UM, BECAUSE THAT IS A MECHANISM TO SHOW YOU HOW YOU'RE DOING.

RATHER THAN HAVING A PRESCRIPTIVE GOAL.

YOU JUST SAY, WE'RE GONNA MOVE TO GREENHOUSE IN 2027.

WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT LATER, BUT WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO REPORT ON THOSE THINGS.

UH, WHAT ABOUT THE 9 75 STRUCK OUT TO A THOUSAND? WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? SO, UM, THAT WAS HONESTLY BEFORE MY QUESTIONING OF SARAH.

UM, BECAUSE I, I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING BACKWARDS AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING HER THOSE QUESTIONS.

SO, OKAY.

UM, I THOUGHT THAT 9 75 WAS ACTUALLY DECREASING WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN THESE YEARS, BUT, UM, I NOW THINK IT'S SORT OF IN LINE WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING.

IT'S ACCELERATING.

RIGHT? WELL, IT'S ESSENTIALLY SAYING WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN THE PAST FEW YEARS IN THESE NEXT THREE YEARS.

UM, WHEREAS I THINK GMB WAS SAYING IT'S GONNA GO DOWN.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, LEAVE 9 75 ALONE.

SO KEEP IT AT 9 75.

WELL, BUT IT'S 9 75 BY 2027 INSTEAD OF 2030, WHICH IS AN ACCELERATION.

THAT, THAT'S HOW I WAS UNDER YEAH, I DIDN'T UNDER, I I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE, THE DISCUSSION EARLIER.

'CAUSE IT, IT FELT LIKE WE'RE DOING IT SOONER THAN LATER, WHICH MM-HMM.

IS MOVING FASTER.

I THINK STUART WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE REPORTING.

ON THE REPORTING.

UM, AND I SHOULD HAVE INTRODUCED MYSELF EARLIER.

STUART RILEY, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER OF BUSINESS SERVICES.

UM, SO MY QUESTION ABOUT CONTINUING TO REPORT ON MEGAWATTS REDUCED FROM ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS IN ALL SECTORS.

IF WE HAVE AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM THAT SWITCHES SOMEBODY FROM A GAS WATER HEATER, FOR EXAMPLE, TO A HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER, THAT'S A MEGAWATT INCREASE.

UM, AND PART OF WHAT WE'VE RUN INTO, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE WHOLE COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS WHEN WE, THE REASON BEHIND SAYING WE WANT TO SHIFT TO GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS FROM MEGAWATT REDUCTIONS BECAUSE WE MAY ACTUALLY BE ADDING MEGAWATTS, BUT REDUCING GREENHOUSE GASES.

SO I, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD REPORT THAT BECAUSE OUR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM WOULD BY DO DOING THAT, HAVE EATEN INTO ITS OWN REDUCTIONS.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE, KIND OF WHAT LISA WAS TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, WHERE YOU HAVE THESE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT END UP IN CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE'VE HAD A, A CHALLENGE.

AND IT WOULD BE REALLY USEFUL, I THINK, UH, TO, TO HAVE THAT, TO SHIFT, HAVE TIME TO GET TO THAT, TO WHERE WE KNOW WHAT, HOW WE'RE GONNA MEASURE THAT IN TERMS OF GREENHOUSE CASH REDUCTIONS AND, AND HAVE ONE, YOU KNOW, SINGULAR MISSION.

AND THAT'S TO DO THE MOST ENVIRONMENTAL GOOD.

SO I WOULD, MY RESPONSE WOULD BE YOU CAN CONTINUE TO REPORT ON A, ON A PROGRAM BASIS.

SO IF YOU SAY THESE, YOU KNOW, THESE LIGHTING PROGRAMS ARE GONNA REDUCE PEAK MEGAWATTS.

UM, THESE, UM, MORE EFFICIENT AIR CONDITIONERS ARE GONNA REDUCE MEGAWATT HOURS AND, AND MEGAWATTS.

UM, BUT MAYBE THESE OTHER, UH, PROGRAM ELECTRIFICATION, YOU KNOW, ELECTRIC STOVE, WHATEVER, MAYBE THOSE INCREASE.

BUT, UM, AT LEAST YOU'RE REPORTING ON IT.

THERE'S SOME CONTINUATION OF WHAT, WHAT THOSE PROGRAMS ARE ACHIEVING.

YOU KNOW, STILL HELPING REDUCE PEAK DEMAND.

WHAT IF WE JUST ADDED EXCLUDING BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION AT THE END OF THAT? THAT MAY MAKE SENSE.

'CAUSE WE WENT ALL ELECTRIC AND GOT AN EV IN MY, OUR ELECTRIC BILL'S REALLY HIGH, BUT ALSO DON'T PAY FOR GAS .

NO.

SO IT'S GONNA BE, YEAH.

SO, ALRIGHT.

I THINK, I THINK PART OF THAT THAT WE GET TO IS, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO DICTATE EVERY TYPE OF REPORT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF NEEDS TO PRODUCE.

WE'RE NOT GONNA GET THERE TONIGHT PROBABLY IN TERMS OF, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO REPORT THIS.

YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO REPORT THAT WE HAVE, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE YOU AS AN EUC ON AN ONGOING BASIS.

IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU, IF IF WE WERE HERE REPORTING ON CES PROGRAMS AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE AND YOU SAID, HEY, WE'D LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU EXCLUDED ALL OF THE BENEFICIAL ELECTRIFICATION, HOW MANY MEGAWATTS HAVE YOU REDUCED? WE'D BE PROBABLY BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A REPORT FOR YOU LIKE THAT.

BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN IF WE DON'T SAY IT HERE, IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN.

THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

WOULD THAT REPORT BE PUT ON THE WEBSITE EVERY TIME WE REQUESTED IT? WELL, IF YOU, IF YOU JUST TELL ME WHAT THE URL HAS TO BE, I CAN GET IT .

SO THE SPIRIT OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE PROGRAMS THAT ARE STILL HELPING PEOPLE SAVE ENERGY, STILL HELPING CAP CUSTOMERS, UM,

[02:05:01]

UM, SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET THERE, BUT I THINK HAVING SOMETHING TO SAY AUSTIN, AUSTIN ENERGY WILL CONTINUE TO REPORT ON, UM, ON THOSE THINGS.

WELL, ALL, ALL ALL OF WHICH IS, ALL OF WHICH IS ON THE DOCUMENT, THE OTHER DOCUMENT THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT, UH, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW ON A TWO TO FOUR YEAR BASIS, UH, OF PROGRESS.

I THINK.

AND, AND YOU KNOW, MY SUGGESTION WHEN I WAS EDITING THAT WAS 36 MONTHS, EVERY 36 MONTHS.

BUT TO ME THAT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITHOUT, WITHOUT, INSTEAD OF DOING IT PIECEMEAL MM-HMM EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE PLAN TO REVIEW, MONITOR, AND REVIEW CHAIR AUSTIN ENERGY HAS SAID THAT THEY DON'T WANNA DO THAT FREQUENCY.

AND IT'S ONE THING TO REVIEW, BUT IF WHAT COMES BACK IS, WELL, WE STOPPED BOTHERING WITH ATTIC IN INSTALLATION BECAUSE WE GOT TO 75% CARBON FREE, AND SO IT DOESN'T GIVE US THAT MUCH REDUCTION THEN, YOU KNOW, THEN WE'VE JUST LOST THREE TO FIVE YEARS OF OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO GOAL.

AND WE'RE JUST NOW REVIEWING.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT IS WHAT IS IMMINENTLY GOING TO HAPPEN.

I'M JUST SAYING AT SOME POINT YOU GET TO WHERE THE GREENHOUSE GAS METRIC DOESN'T DRIVE EFFICIENCY.

LISA, YOU HAD SOME COMMENT? YES.

I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT THE PLAN AS DRAFTED AND AS RECOMMENDED INCLUDES AN ANNUAL CHECK-IN ON THE PROGRESS OF THE GOALS AS WRITTEN WITH AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FEEDBACK ON DIRECTION CHANGING.

DO WE NEED TO GO BACK AND DO SOMETHING FURTHER? DO WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT? THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PLAN IS TO CREATE THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADAPT TO CHANGING ENVIRONMENT.

AND SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO PROVIDE YOU REPORTS AS YOU ASK.

WE CAN CONTINUE TO, UH, SHARE WITH YOU HOW OUR PROGRAMS ARE DOING AND WHAT TENSIONS WE'RE SEEING WITHIN OUR PROGRAMS. I'M SIMPLY ASKING THIS TO BE OUTCOMES BASED.

RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE TRADE OFFS WITH EVERY PATH WE TAKE FORWARD AND RECOGNIZE THAT, THAT THE PLAN IS WRITTEN LARGE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT PRIORITIZES CUSTOMER ENERGY SOLUTIONS WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY FIRST.

IF WE WERE TO MAKE ANY DECISION ABOUT SHIFTING A PROGRAM IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IT WOULD BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WHOLE TO BETTER USE, YOU KNOW, OUR FINANCING SO THAT WE CAN AVOID INCREASING RATES.

THE WHOLE IDEA IS BALANCE.

I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF TRUST AFTER WORKING WITH THE AUSTIN ENERGY STAFF AND THE EXPERTISE IN THERE OVER MANY, MANY YEARS.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE JUST GOING TO GET RID OF A PROGRAM.

AND THIS ALSO, I JUST WANNA ALSO CLARIFY FOR Y'ALL THAT, UM, THE SHIFT TO GREENHOUSE GAS AVOIDANCE IS INTENDED TO BE DONE OVER TIME BECAUSE AS SARAH AND I BELIEVE RICHARD MENTIONED, UM, RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT THE MEGAWATT REDUCTION GOAL.

WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ACCOUNTING FOR THAT APPROPRIATELY.

SO THERE'S A PHASED IN APPROACH OF LET'S DO A, LET'S LET'S WORK TO TRACK OUR GREENHOUSE GAS AVOIDANCE.

LET'S SEE HOW THAT WORKS, LET'S SHARE THAT AND THEN ULTIMATELY ESTABLISH GOALS, UH, IN 2027.

SO THERE'S TIME TO WORK THROUGH THE DETAILS OF HOW THAT WORKS OUT.

WE ARE NOT AT A POINT OF OVERSATURATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS AVOIDANCE.

AND I I THINK THE RISK THAT YOU'RE FEARING IS FAR OFF.

BUT IF WE'RE NOT THERE AND YOU DON'T HAVE A GOAL, LIKE YOU HAVEN'T EVEN ACTUALLY PROPOSED A GOAL FOR THIS PLAN, SHOULDN'T WE KEEP THE METRIC THAT WE DO HAVE UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING WE ARE SUGGESTING TO KEEP THE METRIC THAT WE DO HAVE 975 MEGAWATTS.

THE 1%, I'M SORRY, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE 1% OF LOAD THAT'S IN THE EXISTING PLAN.

THAT CONCERN IS AS WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS ELECTRIFICATION, RIGHT? AND CONTINUING TO, UM, SEE LOAD GROWTH IN THE, IN SENSE OF THINGS LIKE DATA CENTERS AND OTHER LARGER BUILDINGS.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE, UM, QUANTITIES OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND DEMAND RESPONSE THAT YOU CAN GET THAT WE USED TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE.

SO THIS IS SIMPLY RECOGNIZING THE, THE, THE CURRENT GOAL.

BUT THIS IS ON RESIDENTIAL.

I NOT SURE WHERE DATA CENTERS RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE OF THAT COME INTO THIS.

IT IS ON RESIDENTIAL.

1% COMPARED TO THE PROJECTED, RIGHT? CYRUS? YEAH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SAYING SO FOR LOW BECAUSE OF THESE PROGRAMS WE'RE REDUCING LOAD FROM ELECTRIC ELECTRIFICATION, WOULD THAT HAVE TO BE NET OF BENEFICIAL RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIFICATION? LIKE AGAIN, MY ELECTRIC BILL WENT WAY UP , BUT I THINK ISN'T, IS IT ONE, IS IT A 1% ACTUAL REDUCTION OR IS IT A 1% REDUCTION FROM THE PROJECTION? YEAH, I MEAN YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THEM HOW THEY DO IT NOW BECAUSE THEY, THEY REPORT ON IT NOW.

UNDERSTOOD.

AND IT WOULD, THIS WOULD BE

[02:10:01]

CAN ANYBODY ANSWER THAT? I I'M HEARING THE TABLE THIS ITEM WHILE, WHILE HE'S COMING UP.

MY, MY CONCERN ABOUT ALL THIS IS ONCE YOU, YOU, YOU PAY SOMEBODY OR, OR GIVE THEM SOME, A REBATE TO REPLACE THEIR AIR CONDITIONER, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY CONTROL HOW THEY'RE GONNA USE THEIR AIR CONDITIONER.

AND SO WHILE WE MAY MAKE THEIR HOME HEATING COOLING COSTS MORE EFFICIENT, WE DON'T NECESSARILY CONTROL HOW THEY USE IT.

AND, AND SO I I GET WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.

UH, ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAD SOMEBODY HAD, UH, WELL THAT'S TOO MUCH INTO THIS.

I JUST, SO IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY STATE IN THERE RESIDENTIAL.

RIGHT? EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE INTENDING IT TO BE.

IT DOES.

IT DOES, YEAH.

DOES.

I'LL BACK SECOND SLIDE.

I ALSO HAVE SOME GENERALIZED CONCERNS ABOUT HOW GRANULAR THIS DISCUSSION IS GETTING IN THE CONTEXT OF A VERY HIGH LEVEL PLAN.

UM, I KNOW I'M RELATIVELY NEW TO THIS PROCESS, BUT I KNOW THAT YOU LAST PASSED A PLAN IN 2020 AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO LAST UNTIL 2030 AND IT'S 2024.

SO I MEAN, FOR THE LONGEVITY OF THE PLAN THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING NOW, I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO MAINTAIN A HIGH LEVEL PERSPECTIVE IN, IN THE APPROACHES THE AUSTIN ENERGY IS TAKING.

WELL, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, WHILE IT'S A 10 YEAR PLAN, IT'S NEVER BEEN THAT IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE UPDATED UNTIL 10 YEARS.

IT USED TO BE ON A TWO YEAR UPDATE SKY GOAL THEN IT WAS KIND OF EVERY THREE YEARS.

SO IT, IT, THE INTENTION ISN'T TO WAIT TILL 10 YEARS AND MAKE A NEW PLAN.

SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING ABNORMAL IN THAT REGARD.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE CURRENT PLAN, IT HAS THIS GRANULARITY IN THERE AND WE'RE TRYING TO BRING IT BACK TO THIS PLAN SO THAT THIS IS MORE MEANINGFUL.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S JUST A LOT OF WORDS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY STATE HOW MUCH OF WHAT IS GONNA HAPPEN.

IT'S MORE OF A, I MEAN, BUT IN THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AT OUR LAST MEETING, IT DID SOUND LIKE THERE WAS A PLAN AND THEN CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES, CHANGING TECHNOLOGIES WARRANTING AN UPDATE.

AND THAT PROCESS TOOK, THIS HAS TAKEN TWO YEARS NOW.

SO I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, FOR THE LONGEVITY OF THIS PLAN AND, AND TO MAKE IT FLEXIBLE TO ACCOMMODATING CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES AND TECHNOLOGIES, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, TO STEP AWAY FROM THESE VERY SPECIFIC PRESCRIPTIONS AND ALLOW THE FLEXIBILITY THAT, THAT THIS PLAN SEEMS TO HAVE CONTEMPLATED THE DRAFT PLAN.

I THINK THE HISTORIC, THE ADVANTAGE WITH HAVING CYRUS AND KAVA HERE WHO HAD SO MUCH EXPERIENCE AT THIS IS THEY'VE SEEN THE VALUE OF, IN CERTAIN CASES HAVING SPECIFIC GOALS.

AND THERE'S ALWAYS A TENSION BETWEEN ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY TO PROFESSIONALS WHO, WHO KNOW HOW TO RUN THE UTILITY, BUT YET TRYING TO FORCE SOME GOALS THAT, THAT ARE EXTERNAL IMPETUS TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN MAYBE UTILITIES TYPICALLY DO.

TO ADD, UM, SO MAY MAYBE AGAIN, UM, I WOULD SUGGEST SAYING JUST, UM, LEAVING THE LANGUAGE IN AT AS IS AND THEN JUST SAY AUSTIN ENERGY WILL CONTINUE TO REPORT ON THE MEGAWATTS, UH, AND MEGAWATT HOURS REDUCED FROM ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS IN ALL SECTOR.

AND IT'S A DIFFICULT BALANCE OF DOING THAT.

UM, SO IT'S A NATURAL TENSION.

CAN I CLARIFICATION? UH, 'CAUSE I'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

I'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, MEGAWATT REPORTING, BUT THEN I'VE ALSO HEARD MEGAWATT GOAL AND UM, YOU KNOW, I SUPPORT THE IDEA.

I I REALLY SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION AS THE GOAL AND I WOULD SUPPORT ONGOING REPORTING AS WE GET THROUGH, UH, YOU KNOW, THE REST OF THE PLAN.

BUT I DON'T SUPPORT KEEPING BOTH THE MEGAWATT AND THE GREENHOUSE GAS AS A GOAL FOR REASONS WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.

SO IS THAT CLARIFYING? BECAUSE I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER REED SUPPORT THAT PERSPECTIVE.

YEAH, I WAS TRYING

[02:15:01]

UM, AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE SOMETHING ABOUT CONTINUE BEING A LEADER ON BUILDING CODES AND GREEN BUILDING.

UM, AND THEN, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY COMMITS TO ACHIEVING AT LEAST RE OR COMMITS TO ACHIEVING AT LEAST 40 MEGAWATTS OF LOCAL THERMAL STORAGE BY 2030, WHICH IS IN THE CURRENT PLAN.

SO I WOULD DROP THE SPECIFIC 1%, UM, AND DROP THE 25% OF THE POPULATION, WHICH ARE VERY PRESCRIPTIVE.

AND JUST SAY, CAN YOU CONTINUE TO REPORT ON THOSE THINGS, BE A LEADER ON GREEN ENERGY, I MEAN ON GREEN BUILDINGS AND, UM, MAINTAIN THE LOCAL THERM THERMAL STORAGE GOAL.

YEAH, I, I THINK THE REPORTING IS SOMETHING I, LIKE I SAID I WOULD SUPPORT AND I, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

WE COULD SUPPORT THAT.

BUT THE OTHER PARTS ON THERMAL, I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO LISA.

SO SARAH, YOU, YOU SAID MEGAWATT AND MEGAWATT HOUR, MEGAWATT MEGAWATTS AND MEGAWATT HOURS JUST RECORD.

SO WE NEED TO ACTUALLY ADD THAT.

YEAH, SCROLL UP AT THE VERY END OF THE YEAH, COULD YOU REPORT ON THE MEGAWATTS AND MEGAWATT HOURS AND MEGAWATTS HOUR REDUCED FROM ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

AND THAT WAY YOU'RE REPORTING ON IT.

AND I HAVE A FRIENDLY REQUEST FROM SURE.

SOME STAFF WHERE YOU TALK, YOU KEEP SAYING REMAINING, WE COMMIT TO REMAINING AN INDUSTRY LEADER ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND BUILDING CODES.

BUT YOUR LANGUAGE SAYS BEING AND WE ARE VERY PROUD THAT WE ALREADY ARE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO REMAIN.

DOES THIS, WELL, IF YOU SCROLL UP, IT'S BACK TO 9 75, RIGHT? INSTEAD OF A THOUSAND, WE CAN, WE CAN PLEASE CYRUS.

SORRY YOU'RE BACK.

IF YOU SCROLL BACK TO 9 75.

WHAT ABOUT THE ADD AND SHIFT? THIS PART? YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

WE'RE, WHICH ONE? WE'RE SHIFTING TO? WE'RE SHIFTING TO ADD? NO, KEEP IT ADD.

WE ARE SHIFTING TO GREENHOUSE GAS AVOIDANCE AND WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO REPORT ON MEGAWATT AND MEGAWATT HOUR.

SOUNDS THAT LOOK GREAT.

YOU WERE TAKING OFF THIS PART.

AND THEN WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE? DID WE GET, DID WE DO THE CAP ONE YET? THAT'S GONE.

LET'S GO.

THAT'S GONE.

OKAY, THEN WE'LL FIGHT ABOUT THAT LATER.

AND THEN, UM, JUST, JUST COMMIT TO THE, THE GOAL YOU HAVE AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL FIGHT ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD INCREASE IT LATER.

AND THEN YOU HAD TO BEING REMAINING, AUSTIN ENERGY COMMITS TO REMAIN AN INDUSTRY LEADER AND IT PROBABLY SHOULD SAY INCLUDING FACILITATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE 20, BECAUSE YOU GUYS, YOU GUYS DON'T ADOPT IT.

YOU GUYS JUST, YEAH.

FACILITATE IT.

UH, SORRY, WHAT WAS THE LAST ONE? GET RID OF BEING WHERE? INCLUDING FACILITATION.

WHERE OF ADOPTION.

OH, OKAY.

THERE'S STILL A OKAY, GOT IT.

A BEING THAT NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED THERE.

JUST SAY FACILITATION.

FACILITATING, YEAH, I WAS SAYING INCLUDING FACILITATING.

INCLUDING FACILITATING ADOPTION.

HOW ABOUT IF WE TAKE A BREAK FOR FIVE MINUTES? ? SOUNDS GOOD.

IT'S 8 24 RIGHT NOW.

THAT, THAT ONE WAS A REALLY FAST ONE.

THAT ONE WAS EASY.

SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THIS ONE? YEAH, I THINK SO.

UM, SO WE HAVE, I MOVE TO THE REVISED AMENDMENT AS REFLECTED ON THE SCREEN SECOND, JOSH SECOND.

ON THIS ONE.

[02:20:01]

A NOW .

OKAY, LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK.

IT'S 8 25 RIGHT NOW.

WE'LL BE BACK AT EIGHT 30.

SO WHICH ONE DO WE WANNA TAKE UP NEXT? ? CYRUS? NO, I COPY.

I MEAN, LET'S JUST GO IN ORDER.

CYRUS, YOU HAVE 25.

EXCUSE ME? DID WE VOTE ON 24? WE DID.

WE DID.

YEAH, WE, WE SCRATCHED THAT, UH, SECOND PART OF THIRD.

UM, SO MOVING MO ARE WE, ARE WE BACK IN SESSION? IT'S CALLED TO ORDER.

CALL TO ORDER.

SO, UM, 25 IS AN ATTEMPT TO, OKAY, I OFFER 25 TO, UM, MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE DEMAND RESPONSE GOALS AND SECTION SECOND.

SECOND.

SARAH NORRIS, DIRECTOR OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY SERVICES.

SO 25, THE INTENT IS TO, UM, HAVE MORE OF A RANGE OF THE GOAL BASED ON TWO 70 MEGAWATTS IS BASICALLY THE DNV, UH, ECONOMIC PROJECTION, ECONOMIC READINESS.

I DUNNO IF I'M GETTING THE LANGUAGE RIGHT.

UM, AND FOUR 70 WAS THE TECHNICAL READINESS NUMBER.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET SOMETHING THAT SAYS AT LEAST THIS AND UP TO THAT.

AND THEN IN ADDITION, HAVE A SPECIFIC GOAL FOR 2027 SINCE WE'VE ALL IDENTIFIED, UM, THAT 27 IS GONNA BE A KEY YEAR, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO GET A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENING LOCALLY BY THEN.

AND SO I'M USING A WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED BY DMV AS, UM, THE TECHNICALLY READY AMOUNT OF, UM, DEMAND RESPONSE AVAILABLE IN THE AUSTIN AREA BASED ON THEIR STUDY.

UM, IS THE 102, THE TECHNICAL POTENTIAL OR THE ECONOMIC POTENTIAL IN 2027? HOLD ON.

UH, IT IS THE TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABLE.

SO IT'S, IT'S ASKING AUSTIN ENERGY TO GO ABOVE, UM, THE ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE, THE ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE FOR 27 WOULD BE 78 CHAIR.

I HAVE STAFF READY TO SPEAK IF YOU'D LIKE.

SARAH? SARAH, SORRY, I WAS GETTING, SORRY, I WAS GETTING UNMUTED.

UM, GOOD EVENING.

UM, SO I, I DO HAVE SOME, SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT TRYING TO PUSH FOR THE TECHNICAL GOAL.

AND NOT TO SAY THAT WE ARE AVERSE TO HAVING A STRETCH GOAL, BUT WHEN WE ARE THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN BUILD A PORTFOLIO THAT WE CAN RELY ON, AS WE WOULD GENERATION, MY CONCERNS AROUND GOING FOR THE TECHNICAL GOAL ARE THAT IT REQUIRES A LOT OF, IT WILL REQUIRE A LOT OF INVESTMENT AND COMMITMENT FROM OUR CUSTOMERS.

SO EVEN IF WE WERE TO INVEST HEAVILY IN ONE MIGHT SAY OVER INCENTIVIZE DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, THERMOSTATS AND COMMERCIAL DEMAND RESPONSE AND CUSTOMER CITED BATTERIES, WE WOULD STILL BE RELYING ON CUSTOMERS TO MAKE THAT INVESTMENT IN THE BATTERY AS WELL AS COMMIT TO THE BEHAVIORAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR, YOU KNOW, MANAGED EV CHARGING AND THERMOSTATS.

SO WHEN, WHEN DNV TALKS ABOUT THE TECHNICAL POTENTIAL, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF EVERYBODY WHO HAD A THERMOSTAT PARTICIPATED A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME.

AROUND PLACING A, A LOT OF EXPECTATIONS ON THE WAY THAT CUSTOMERS WILL PERFORM.

AND JUST FOR REFERENCE, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T BEEN, UM, SORT OF E YOU KNOW, EAT, SLEEPING AND BREATHING THIS FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AT ABOUT 20%, UH, PERFORMANCE ON OUR INSTALLED CAPACITY.

SO WE HAVE A LITTLE OVER 250 MEGAWATTS OF INSTALLED DEMAND RESPONSE CAPACITY, AND WE GET ABOUT 50 MEGAWATTS OF PERFORMANCE IN, IN AN EVENT IN THE SUMMER.

AND SO I GUESS I JUST WANT TO INVITE SOME CAUTION

[02:25:01]

I DO THINK THAT WE CAN IMPROVE OUR NUMBERS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I THINK THAT WE CAN IMPROVE THEM FIVEFOLD FOR CUSTOMER PARTICIPATION.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY, MY SORT OF CAUTION.

I WOULD, UM, I WOULD SAY THAT WE COULD ACCEPT A 2027 GOAL POTENTIALLY THAT ALIGNED WITH THE ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE.

UM, BUT I THINK IN EITHER CASE, WHETHER IT'S THE 2035 OR THE 2027 GOAL SETTING, A GOAL THAT IS ALIGNING WITH THE TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABLE REALLY, UM, RUNS THE RISK OF US MAKING SOME, I THINK POOR FINANCIAL DECISIONS IN ORDER TO HIT, HIT THOSE NUMBERS.

SORRY, WAS THE 1 0 2, WAS THAT A BINDING THING OR WAS IT A, WAS IT A STRETCH GOAL, LIKE THE FOUR 70 ABOVE IT? UM, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT'S BINDING.

I MEAN, ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT WOULD BE SAYING INCLUDING AT LEAST AN ADDITIONAL 78 MEG MEGAWATTS AND UP TO 102 MEGAWATTS, WHICH WOULD KIND OF MIRROR THAT.

UM, BUT THE, THE IDEA WAS TO, YOU KNOW, SORT OF, UM, JUMPSTART THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW WITH PRICE SEPARATION, ET CETERA.

SO THE MORE WE CAN DO NOW, UH, WITH BATTERIES WITH DEMAND RESPONSE, THE BETTER.

BUT YEAH, THE ECONOMIC NUMBER WOULD BE, IF I'M READING MY CHART RIGHT, WOULD BE 78 MEGAWATTS.

BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A 27 GOAL IN THERE BECAUSE WE KNOW WE'RE FACING, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO, TO, UM, JUMPSTART THESE EFFORTS.

NOW.

I'LL JUST, I ADD THAT THE, IT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYTHING MAGICAL ABOUT 2027.

THE ISSUE IS NOW, IT WAS YESTERDAY AND IT WILL BE TOMORROW.

AND SO, RIGHT.

OUR TEAM IS DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN ON ALL OF THESE PROGRAMS TO EXCEED YOUR EXPECTATIONS.

UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANYTHING MAGICAL ABOUT 2027.

I'VE ACTUALLY RECEIVED SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY IS THAT, WHY YOU STARTED TO ADD IN, YOU KNOW, RESOURCES.

AND IT'S LITERALLY, THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE LEAD TIME FOR LARGE UTILITY SCALE RESOURCES.

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR.

AND, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE, OF COURSE, THE LOOK TO, UM, CONVERT INTO THE GREENHOUSE GAS AVOIDANCE GOALS IN 2027 FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

SO THAT'S THE OTHER REASON THAT DATE KEEPS COMING UP.

JUST A COMMENT ON THE LAST PART.

WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET.

THIS PART? YEAH.

YEAH, WE HAVEN'T TALKED, HE HASN'T TALKED, PROPOSED THAT I DON'T THINK.

ARE YOU ONLY PROPOSING THE MEGAWATT GOALS PORTION? RICHARD WANTS TO SPEAK TO THE OTHER PART THAT'S UNDERLINED HERE.

IF YOU HAVE, IF I WERE ON 25, ARE YOU, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE SENTENCE SA ENERGY STRUCTURE DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS? YES.

NOT GONNA ACTUALLY BE AVAILABLE WHEN WE CALL ON THEM.

WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THAT? YEAH, I, I, I'M CONCERNED, UH, ON THAT BECAUSE AS WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT, I THINK THAT GETS, UH, VERY PRESCRIPTIVE WHEN WE'RE IN A ADMITTEDLY, UM, NEW ARENA WITH THE AMOUNT OF DEMAND RESPONSE WE'RE GONNA BE PUSHING OURSELVES AND CUSTOMERS TO ADOPT.

AND I THINK THAT STATEMENT, THAT SENTENCE CONCERNS ME BECAUSE IT SAYS, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO AND THIS IS EXACTLY HOW YOU HAVE TO GO ABOUT DOING IT.

WHEREAS I THINK WE'RE GONNA NEED TO THINK MORE BROADLY AND HAVE A LOT MORE TOOLS IN OUR TOOL CHEST THAN WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

AND I DON'T LIKE THAT THIS SEEMS TO LIMIT US TO ONE WAY OF MOVING FORWARD WITH DEMAND RESPONSE.

SO I WOULD STRIKE THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S, IT'S OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE AS WE'VE SAID BEFORE.

ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU DO FOR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS? YEAH, WE, WE, WE DO A LOT.

AND ALL I'M SAYING IS, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, I'M JUST ASKING LIKE, DO THEY GET PAID FOR SAYING THAT THEY'LL BE AVAILABLE OR DO THEY GET PAID FOR ACTUALLY REDUCING LOAD? THEY GET PAID, UH, FOR REDUCING LOAD AND UH, THEY ALSO GET PAID SEPARATELY FOR SAYING THAT THEY'LL BE AVAILABLE TO REDUCE LOAD.

SO THEY GET PAID IN MULTIPLE WAYS.

SO WHY WOULD THE RESIDENTIAL, I MEAN THE RESIDENTIAL LOAD IS, I MEAN, IT'S ALL LOAD, RIGHT? RIGHT.

IF IT'S HAPPENING AT PEAK AND YOU'RE ASKING FOR REDUCTION, WHY SHOULD THE COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER GET COMPENSATED FOR THAT AND THE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER SHOULDN'T? AND FURTHER IT'S IN HERE BECAUSE AS WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS, Y'ALL WERE SAYING THAT, WELL, WE CAN'T COUNT ON THESE NUMBERS.

WE HAVE THIS MANY PARTICIPANTS SIGNED UP IN THE PROGRAM, BUT SOME PERCENTAGE OF THEM SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE ARE

[02:30:01]

WELL, IF YOU PUT SOME MONEY BEHIND IT, I THINK THAT MIGHT CHANGE.

LET, LET, I, I, SARAH'S GONNA SPEAK MORE TO THIS, BUT I GUESS AGAIN, I'LL JUST STRESS THAT IT IS SPECIFYING ANOTHER THING THAT AGAIN, TIES OUR HANDS TO DOING SOMETHING IN A VERY PARTICULAR WAY VERSUS ALL THE WAYS IN WHICH WE'RE GONNA NEED TO CONSIDER TO EXPAND THIS PROGRAM.

BUT I'LL LET SARAH WEIGH IN.

YEAH, SO HERE AT THE TOP, I JUST WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE, YOU KNOW, WE AGREE, WE ARE ALIGNED THAT, UM, HELPING CUSTOMERS TO, TO UNDERSTAND THE, THEIR SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTION, LIKE MORE LIKE, LIKE MORE CLOSELY ALIGNING OUR INCENTIVE STRUCTURE TO THE POINT OF DISCOMFORT OR THE POINT OF CHOICE FOR CUSTOMERS.

WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, SORT OF BEST IN CLASS PROGRAM DESIGN AND ARE WORKING TOWARDS THAT.

THERE ARE SOME OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES AROUND THAT.

YOU KNOW, THERE ARE 30,000 CUSTOMERS IN OUR POWER PARTNER THERMOSTAT PROGRAM.

SO THERE, THE LOGISTICS AND, AND THE AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES TO ACTUALLY, UM, DO THE IMMEDIATE DATA ANALYTICS FAIRLY LIMITED.

I MEAN THE, IT'S ADMINISTERED THROUGH A THIRD PARTY CONTRACTOR, AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY OFFER TO ANY OF THEIR UTILITIES.

THE ONE THAT WE USE, UM, WE USE A DIFFERENT SERVICE TO SUPPORT THE COMMERCIAL DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM THAT THE, THE TYPES OF METERS THAT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS HAVE ARE DIFFERENT.

AND SO OUR ABILITY TO DO, UM, MORE LIKE THE DATA ANALYSIS, UM, TO, TO MORE CLOSELY ALIGN THAT IS, IS ENHANCED.

THAT SAID, WE AGREE AND ALIGN WITH, WITH YOUR VIEWS THAT BRINGING, BRINGING THE CUSTOMER, YOU KNOW, INCENTIVE CLOSER TO THE POINT OF DECISION IS THE BEST WAY TO DRIVE THE RIGHT BEHAVIOR.

BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES TO GET THERE, RIGHT? AND SO MAYBE IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE CAN INCENTIVIZE BASED ON THE SPECIFIC KILOWATTS REDUCED, BUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY OPTED OUT, RIGHT? SO SOME OF THOSE THINGS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN LIMITED BY OEMS IN, IN THE PAST.

AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE CONTINUING TO WORK THROUGH.

BUT THAT SAID, I THINK TO RICHARD'S POINT, WHEN YOU GET REALLY PRESCRIPTIVE, IT MAKES IT, UM, IT CAN MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO NAVIGATE ABOUT, AROUND WHICH DIRECTION IS GOING TO BE THE MOST EXPEDIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE FOR BOTH THE CUSTOMER AND FOR US TO GET TO THAT OUTCOME ORIENTED SOLUTION, WHICH IS WE WANT CUSTOMERS TO HAVE A MORE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INCENTIVE AT THE POINT OF DECISION.

SO I, I JUST WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HEAR YOU AND AND AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE OPTIMAL PROGRAM DESIGN WOULD BE TO ALIGN THOSE THINGS.

UM, HOWEVER, THERE ARE OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES THAT WE NEED TO WORK THROUGH AND ARE WORKING THROUGH AND WE'LL HAVE TO WORK THROUGH TO MEET THESE GOALS IN ANY EVENT.

SO I THINK BEING THIS PRESCRIPTIVE IN IT IS, IT REALLY COULD HAMPER OUR ABILITY TO MOVE THE PROGRAM IN, UM, IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

AND SO I, I ECHO WHAT RICHARD SAID, THAT WE, WE REALLY NEED SOMETHING THAT'S SLIGHTLY LESS PRESCRIPTIVE ON THAT, BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE LANGUAGE THAT TALKED ABOUT CONTINUING TO INNOVATE AND STRIVE FOR THOSE TYPES OF GOALS, RIGHT? LIKE, I, I DON'T WANT, I DON'T WANT IT TO SEEM LIKE WE ARE NOT TRYING TO INNOVATE.

WE, WE DEFINITELY ARE.

UM, BUT THERE ARE SOME REAL CHALLENGES, REAL OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES THAT EXIST ACROSS THE INDUSTRY IN THIS SPACE THAT WE ARE GRAPPLING WITH AS WELL.

THANKS, SARAH.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THERE IS NO UTILITY THAT DOES THIS, THAT THERE'S NO PLATFORM OR PROVIDER AVAILABLE TO FACILITATE THE, THE PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION? NO, I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS NO UTILITY.

SARAH, I'M SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING.

LET ME JUST CHIME IN HERE FOR A SECOND.

UM, WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT WE ARE AGAINST THIS, THIS, THIS CONCEPT.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO PROGRAM DESIGN HERE TONIGHT AND TO DICTATING HOW THAT PROGRAM DESIGN IS GOING TO BE CARRIED OUT.

BUT YOU, YOU, YOU CAN HEAR OUR COMMITMENT THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN THIS KIND OF APPROACH AS WELL.

BUT BY DICTATING THIS AND SAYING THAT WE WILL STRUCTURE DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS TO WORK IN THIS EXACT WAY.

WE WANNA HAVE ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE, BUT WE DO WANT TO APPROACH THAT KIND OF A, A STRUCTURE AS FEASIBLE.

AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD TONIGHT, THINKING ABOUT OUR GOALS, BUT NOT PROGRAM DESIGN, I THINK WOULD BE A MORE CO UH, KIND OF EFFICIENT

[02:35:01]

APPROACH.

BUT YOU ALSO DON'T WANT THE, YOU DON'T WANT NUMERICAL GOALS, YOU DON'T WANT NOTES ON PROGRAMS LIKE WHAT WE HAVE NUMERIC GOALS, UM, LIKE THE 270 WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE, ON THE LAST ONE, THE 975.

COULD, COULD WE, COULD WE IN THE, COULD WE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE GET LIKE A, A COUNTERFACTUAL OF WHAT A RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER MAYBE COULD HAVE MADE IF WE HAD A PROGRAM LIKE THAT AND THEN DISCUSS IT, LIKE DISCUSS THE PROGRAM DESIGN AT SOME POINT? LIKE WHAT IF THEY GOT ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH, WE CAN, WE CAN TALK.

I MEAN, THIS ISN'T, THIS ISN'T YOUR ONE, UH, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S ONE CHANCE TO HAVE INPUT ON, YOU KNOW, ON DEMAND RESPONSE.

SO NO, BUT THIS IS A TOPIC THAT WE'VE BROUGHT UP A BUNCH OF TIMES AND THERE'S BEEN NO MOVEMENT ON IT.

SO USUALLY Y'ALL DO RESPOND AT LEAST IN SOME WAY WHEN SOMETHING IS ESTABLISHED AS A GOAL AND A COMMITMENT AND A PLAN.

I GUESS I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IF, IF YOUR CURRENT PROVIDER CAN'T PROVIDE THIS, THIS, CAN'T YOU, IT DOESN'T SAY DO IT TOMORROW, IT JUST SAYS, YOU KNOW, DO IT.

SO MAYBE YOU NEED TO MOVE TO A DIFFERENT PROVIDER.

WELL, I, ALL OF WHICH IS, I, I, I EITHER MOVE TO TABLE, UH, THIS ITEM OR, UH, THIS CAN BE TAKEN UP BY THE EUC AS A, AS A MATTER IN THE FUTURE.

UH, IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE DECIDED TONIGHT.

I AM CONCERNED THAT IT, THAT IT OPENS THE DOOR TO TIME OF TIME OF DAY RATES.

I MEAN, NOBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH WHAT TIME THEY PLUG IN THEIR, THEIR ELECTRIC VEHICLE, BUT WE ALL PAY FOR INCENTIVES.

AND 50% OF AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMERS, UH, OUR RENTERS, THEY'RE PAYING FOR THIS IN THEIR RATES TODAY.

ALL INCENTIVES ARE PAID IN RATES AND THEY DON'T SEE ANY BENEFIT.

SO THE MORE WE HIKE UP THE COST, IT'S A COST BORNE BY THOSE WHO CAN LEAST AFFORD IT.

, I THEREFORE MOVE THE TABLE.

SO, CYRUS, DO YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS AMENDMENT? I'M JUST SUGGESTING TAKING THAT LANGUAGE THAT, THAT SENTENCE OUT AND LEAVING THE OTHER SENTENCE AND CALLING THE QUESTION ON THE GOALS.

SO THE GOAL PART IS A RANGE OF TWO 70 TO FOUR 70.

WITH A SPECIFIC GOAL BY 27.

I I JUST WANNA RESPOND THOUGH, TO WHAT, TO WHAT YOU SAID, RANDY, BECAUSE WHEN YOU PAY FOR DEMAND RESPONSE, YOU'RE PAYING FROM WHAT YOU WOULD'VE OTHERWISE SPENT TO BUY REALLY EXPENSIVE ELECTRICITY.

SO IT'S ACTUALLY A SAVINGS TO THE CUSTOMERS.

IT'S, IT'S NOT AN EXTRA COST, IT'S A, IT'S A CHEAPER WAY TO MEET THE LOAD BY REDUCING IT.

SO I JUST LIKE, WHATEVER WE DO, I JUST LIKE, I JUST WANNA STATE THAT LIKE IT'S, YOU WOULDN'T PAY MORE THAN, THAN IT WAS WORTH.

JUST LIKE THERE'S A VALUE OF SOLAR RATE.

AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD NEED TO CALCULATE WHAT THAT APPROPRIATE VALUE IS AND COMPENSATE BASED ON THAT.

I ASSUME THAT IS HOW THEY COME ABOUT WHAT THEY PAY FOR COMMERCIAL DEMAND RESPONSE, RIGHT.

BUT CAN WE JUST STRIKE THAT SENTENCE AND COME BACK TO IT LATER? MAYBE GET A COUNTERFACTUAL OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

AND I THINK, ARE WE ALSO DOING THE 78 TO, WAS IT 78 TO 1 0 2 AS THE STRETCH GOAL FOR 2027? IF, IF THAT GETS YOUR VOTE YEAH.

YEAH, I'LL VOTE FOR THAT.

CAN YOU STATE IT MORE CLEARLY SO I CAN NOTE MY PAPER? WAS IT AT AT LEAST 78 BY, UH, 2027 WITH A STRETCH GOAL OF 1 0 2 OR UP TO 1 0 2? IT'S 78.

JUST THE ECONOMIC, LIKE FROM THE DMV, FROM THE, FROM THE SENTENCE IT'S SAYING WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA GET TO THE ECONOMIC, WE'RE GONNA STRIVE FOR THE TECHNICALLY YEAH, I, I BELIEVE IF, UNLESS I HEARD HER WRONG, I BELIEVE SARAH SAID THAT SHE'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

DID I, DID I HEAR THAT CORRECT, LEE? THAT IS CORRECT.

IT, SO IT SAYS TWO 70 RIGHT THERE, RIGHT? TWO 70, THAT'S BY 2035.

BUT CYRUS ALSO WANTED ONE, A INTERMEDIATE GOAL BY 2027.

I'M JUST SAYING 70, 78 TO ONE OH B STUDY.

SO IT'S MATCHING THE STUDY WE HAD DONE SAYING WE CAN GET TO 78, BUT THERE'S A POTENTIAL TO DO MORE.

SO COST AT A COST AT A SIGN

[02:40:01]

COST.

THE REQUIRED GOAL IS THE LOWER ONE, THE OTHER ONE IS A STRETCH GOAL.

SO IT'S SAYING GET TO HERE, AIM HIGHER.

I WOULD CLARIFY THAT EVEN THE ECONOMIC ACHIEVABLE ONES ARE NOT, THEY'RE STRETCH EASY GOALS.

THEY'RE STRETCHED IN AND OF THEMSELVES.

UM, WE, WE BELIEVE IN YOU.

I I BELIEVE IN, I BELIEVE IN US TOO AND EVERY CUSTOMER THAT IT REQUIRES TO GET TO THOSE GOALS.

I JUST WANNA, THE PARTICIPATION RATES USED IN THE ANALYSIS ARE AT THE UPPER END OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERED ACHIEVABLE WITHIN THE INDUSTRY.

ANYTHING ABOVE THAT WOULD BE MOST CHALLENGING IN TERMS OF PARTICIPATION.

SO I JUST WANNA SET EXPECTATIONS, A GOAL AS A GOAL.

AND I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT, I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, I UNDERSTAND WHERE SARAH'S COMING FROM, BUT THAT WE DON'T THINK NECESSARILY THAT PARTICIPATION IN THESE AREAS WILL BE LINEAR.

RIGHT? AND SO I WOULD LOVE IT IF WE ARE ABLE TO JUMPSTART THEM, BUT IT TAKES A LOT OF OPERATIONAL WORK TO GET SOMETHING GOING.

AND SO I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR ABOUT THERE'S A REASON WHY THERE'S GOALS FOR 2035 IN THE PLAN AND NOT THESE STEP-WISE GOALS ALL THE WAY ALONG THE WAY.

SO COMMISSIONER REED, TO THAT POINT, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO THEN KEEP YOUR AT LEAST LANGUAGE IN BECAUSE UP TO YOU COULD HAVE AN UP TO ANY KIND OF NUMBER.

IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S NOT, UM, ALL THAT RELEVANT HERE, BUT BY JUST SAYING AT LEAST UP TO NORMALLY IS USED AS LIKE A CAP, YOU KNOW, DON'T EXCEED FOUR 70, BUT WE'RE WE'RE, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT US TO GO BEYOND TWO 70.

SO JUST HOW ABOUT STRIVE FOR AND, AND STRIVE FOR AND, AND, OKAY.

AND EVEN IF THOSE ARE NON-ECONOMIC, SHOULD WE ADD SOMETHING ABOUT LIKE IF ECONOMIC, IF IF REASONABLY ECONOMIC, THAT'S FINE.

SO, AND STRIVE FOR 470 IF ECONOMIC, REASONABLY ECONOMIC.

SO I THINK IT WOULD BE AFTER 2035.

STRIVE FOUR FEELS A LITTLE STRONG.

I MEAN, DOES IT NOT, I I IT FEELS, I THINK IT MOVES THE GOALPOST A LITTLE BIT.

AND YOU HAD 78 TO 1 0 2 OR YEAH.

INCLUDING AT LEAST 78 MEGAWATTS THAT'S BELOW.

SORRY, BUT THE, IF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE CLAUSE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO APPLY TO THE 78.

RIGHT? SO THAT NEEDS TO MOVE TO AFTER 2035 ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, RIGHT? IT DOES, IT APPLIES TO ANY OF THE STRETCH GOALS, WHETHER IT'S B FOUR 70 OR 1 0 2, WHICH IS ALSO A STRETCH GOAL.

CYRUS, WHAT DO YOU WANNA REPHRASE? INCLUDING AT LEAST IT SHOULD SAY 78 MEGAWATTS AT LEAST.

HOW MANY MEGAWATTS AND STRIVE FOR UP TO 102 MEGAWATTS BY 2027.

AGAIN, IF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE AFTER THE 2027.

YEAH, YOU'RE JUST MISSING THE, THE UPPER LIMIT.

I THINK WE, WE STRUCK THE LANGUAGE.

AT LEAST SEVEN, EIGHT MEGAWATTS AND STRIVE FOR 102 MEGAWATTS BY 2027.

LET, LET ME ASK A PRACTICAL QUESTION.

IS THE BILLING SYSTEM AUSTIN ENERGY USES TODAY CAPABLE OF DOING THIS? YEAH, I MEAN THESE ARE JUST, WE HAVE DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS TODAY.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

YEAH,

[02:45:01]

I THINK THAT REQUIRES A DIFFERENT BILLING SYSTEM, RIGHT? I THINK IT'S EXTRA MODULES THAT THEY BUY THAT SOME OTHER UTILITIES FOR THE YEAH, NO, FOR THE A HUNDRED.

I FEEL LIKE I'M CONFUSING.

UM, FOLKS, IT, AFTER 2027 IN THAT SENTENCE, CAN YOU DELETE THE, IF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE THAT WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO APPLY TO THE STRUCTURAL WHAT'S, SAY INCLUDING AT LEAST SEVEN EIGHT MEGAWATTS AND STRIVE FOR? OH, WE ARE ADDING A STRUCTURAL, THERE'S SAY TWO MEGAWATTS.

IF, IF, WELL THEN THAT SHOULDN'T BE STRUCK.

JUST TYPE IN 1 0 2 MEGAWATTS, .

DON'T TRY TO UN STRIKE IT AGAIN.

JUST TYPE IT IN AND STRIVE FOR 1 0 2 MEGAWATTS.

JUST TYPE IT IN.

IT'S, IT'S NOT AN ADDITIONAL, IT'S JUST DRIVE 4 1 0 2.

THAT'S RIGHT.

AND I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, I THINK JUST SO THAT EVERYONE'S AWARE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE COMPARING TO OUR EXISTING PLAN, THIS IS LOOKING AT WHEN YOU PUSH THE DEMAND RESPONSE BUTTON, HOW MANY MEGAWATTS YOU CAN ACTUALLY DROP AS OPPOSED TO HOW MANY THINGS ARE INSTALLED.

SO IT'S A ACHIEVED SUMMER REDUCTIONS.

SO SOME OF THE COMMENTS EARLIER, WERE TALKING ABOUT US MOVING, WE, WE, WE PURPOSEFULLY CHANGED THE DEFINITION IN COORDINATION WITH CONVER CONVERSATION WITH SEVERAL OF YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ACHIEVED SUMMER REDUCTIONS.

WHEN YOU PUSH THE BUTTON, HOW MUCH CAN YOU CAN ON, RIGHT.

SO LIKE YOUR LEAD THERMOMETER WILL NOT HAVE THE OVERRIDE OPTION IN THIS.

NO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT NO, NO, NO.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY AN OVERRIDE OPTION RIGHT.

IN, IN MANY OF THE PROGRAMS. RIGHT.

AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO JUST COUNT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SIGN UP FOR THE PROGRAM AND SAY, I CAN COUNT ON ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE BECAUSE GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENING AT YOUR HOME OR SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME OR WHATEVER, THEY MAY HAVE TO OVERRIDE IT FOR A PARTICULAR REASON.

SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP REASONABLE GOALS IN HERE BECAUSE IT, IT'S WHAT WE ACTUALLY ACHIEVE WHEN WE ASK FOR DEMAND RESPONSE.

AND YES.

SO THERE'S STILL SOME DANGLING THAT WE NEED TO CLEAN UP.

IT SAYS AN ADDITIONAL 1 0 2 MEGAWATTS BY 2017.

SO THAT'S SORT OF REDUNDANT THERE, RIGHT? THAT'S STRUCTURED FOR 1 0 2.

THE SECOND ONE STRUCK THROUGH THE SECOND ONE.

TRUCTURE.

I CAN'T SEE THAT.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO UNS.

STRIKE IT WHENEVER.

OKAY, FINE.

AND THEN WHAT ABOUT EVA'S POINT IS WELL MADE ABOUT COMMERCIAL AGAINST THIS AS FAR AS YOU REDUCE DEMAND, YOU GET PAID.

UM, IS THERE SOME WAY TO TAKE THAT NEXT SENTENCE THAT SAID AUSTIN ENERGY WILL STRUCTURE AND WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS RICHARD? WE, WE ARE WORKING WITH, WE ARE WORKING WITH ENERGY WITH OUR PROVIDER TO STAND UP A PROGRAM OF THIS NATURE.

AND AS SARAH NOTED, THERE ARE SOME OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS, RIGHT.

THAT ARE STANDING IN THE WAY.

AND SO, RIGHT.

AGAIN, WE DON'T WANNA GET TOO FAR DOWN THE WEEDS OF PROGRAM DESIGN HERE IN THIS POLICY DOCUMENT.

AND WE WANNA BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO RIGHT.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE, RICHARD HAS PROGRAMS THAT ARE JUST BEHAVIORAL DEMAND RESPONSE JUST BY ASKING.

YOU MIGHT BE WILLING TO, TO SHUT IT DOWN.

RIGHT? TURN DOWN YOUR USAGE CHAIR.

I WITHDREW THAT SENTENCE OFF OF MY AMENDMENT SO I NO LONGER WANNA TALK ABOUT IT.

YEAH, BUT I DIDN'T SECOND THAT.

I DIDN'T REMEMBER THAT.

I'M TRYING TO GET A, OKAY, SO THAT'S STRUCK.

I CAN'T SEE YOU THAT IT STRUCK, BUT THAT IS STRUCK.

I MEAN IF YOU'RE WORKING TOWARD IT THOUGH, COULD WE JUST SAY THAT WE'LL WORK TOWARDS, WHY DON'T WE JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT IN THE UC MEETINGS, WE COULD JUST FOLLOW UP ON AN UC MEETING.

I MEAN, WE DO, WE DO REFERENCE TO EXPANDING OUR OFFERINGS AND WE DID JUST TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF PURSUING THIS, BUT AGAIN, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE IN THIS DOCUMENT AND CAN BE DISCUSSED AT A MUCH GREATER LEVEL OF DETAIL IN A FUTURE EUC MEETING.

WITH THE STRIKE ACTS THAT I CAN'T SEE.

CALL THE QUESTION ON

[02:50:01]

THIS AMENDMENT.

DO PEOPLE SUPPORT IT OR NOT? YES.

WELL, WE VOTE, VOTE.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS, SAY AYE.

IT'S JUST STRETCH GOALS PUTTING IN BASICALLY, RIGHT.

IT'S PUTTING IN STRETCH GOALS.

SO IT STRUCK OUT THE THOU SHALT DO THAT AND IT'S JUST PUTTING STRETCH GOALS IN.

WE HAVE SIX.

DO WE HAVE SIX? YEAH, WE HAVE TWO ONLINE AND FOUR RIGHT HERE.

DID WE TALK ABOUT 26 ALREADY? BASICALLY WITH THE COMMISSIONER.

AKANDE, DID YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OR AGAINST, YOU'RE MUTED.

MAYBE JUST RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU ARE VOTING.

SORRY, I, I VOTED IN FAVOR.

CAN WE MOVE ON TO POTENTIALLY 26? YEAH, 26 IS VERY SIMPLE.

UM, IT'S REALLY JUST REMOVING A SENTENCE.

THIS IS AGAIN TALKING ABOUT MAINTAINING THE REPORTING.

UM, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS ONE.

AND ON IT, YEAH, WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS ONE.

UM, BUT IT WAS, YEAH, I MEAN, CAN WE JUST VOTE ON THAT? I JUST WANNA, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME.

WELL, THE, THE PROBLEM IS THE PREVIOUS ONE WE'VE SAID WE'RE GONNA TRACK MEGAWATT REDUCTIONS, BUT WE'RE NOT MAKING IT A GOAL.

SO THIS IS NOW IN CONFLICT WITH THAT .

SO WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? I WOULD LIKE TO ONLY REMOVE THAT SENTENCE ON THIS.

SO JUST STRIKE OUT, BECAUSE OF THAT EARLY ADOPTION STATUS, THERE'S NO MORE LOW HANGING FRUIT IN THE AREA.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE.

I THINK THERE'S STILL INSULATION AND OTHER LOW HANGING FRUIT IN OUR AREA TO DO SO.

I JUST WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THAT SENTENCE.

STAFF.

DO YOU WANNA RESPOND? SECOND? SO IT WOULD SIMPLY BE REMOVING THAT SENTENCE BECAUSE OF THIS EARLY DUCK, SINCE THERE'S NO MORE LOW HANGING FRUIT IN THE AREA, THE REST OF IT WOULD STAY THE SAME AND, AND YOU WOULD NOT MAKE THE OTHER EDITS THAT YOU HAVE IN THIS? NO.

I MEAN, I THINK SARAH ALREADY SPOKE TO THIS AND DESCRIBED WHAT SHE MEANT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT LOW HANGING FRUIT AND ESSENTIALLY IT HAS TO DO WITH STANDARDS GETTING HIGHER, WHICH IS GREAT.

SO THAT REDUCES THE MARGINAL, UH, THAT YOU CAN COUNT.

AND THEN SHE MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, UH, LIGHTING AS ONE OF THE MAIN AREAS.

I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S NOT ANY WORK TO BE DONE OR ELSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE A GOAL TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE.

SO, WELL STANDARDS ONLY, THAT'S ONLY FOR NEW BUILD.

THERE'S A LOT OF OLDER HOUSING.

UM, AND THE LIGHTING I GET HAS BEEN FRUITFUL IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR.

BUT AS AN OWNER OF AN OLDER HOME, AND I KNOW A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE WITH OLDER HOMES, UNFORTUNATELY A LOT OF TIMES THERE IS LITTLE OR NO ATTIC INSULATION AND JUST BASIC THING, PRETTY BASIC THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE FOR NOT THAT MUCH MONEY.

SOLAR, SOLAR SCREENS.

YOU KNOW, CAULKING UP SOME CRACKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, BASIC STUFF, WEATHERIZATION.

UM, WE NEED TO KEEP DOING THAT.

IT'S DEFINITELY NOT DONE ACROSS THE BOARD.

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO STOP ANY ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND SO I, YOU CAN PROBABLY JUST VOTE ON THIS AND MOVE ON.

YEAH, YEAH.

SHOULD WE, THE QUESTION SHOULD REMOVE THE SENTENCE? SURE.

ALL IN FAVOR REMOVING THAT ONE SENTENCE.

GREAT.

FOR THE RECORD, YOU ALL ARE DISAGREEING WITH MICHAEL WEBER.

THAT'S OKAY.

WE DO THAT SOMETIMES.

DON'T TELL HIM I SENTENCE.

THAT'S KIDDING.

I LIKE MICHAEL, IT'S GOOD.

BEFORE WE MOVE ON FROM THE, LIKE OTHER THINGS THAT WERE IN THERE FOR CHANGES, LIKE, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE DO NOT WANT MEGAWATT REDUCTIONS OR MEGAWATT HOUR REDUCTIONS AS A GOAL ANYMORE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS THAT WHERE WE ARE.

I'M MORE INTERESTED IN GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS, IF I CAN BE HONEST.

[02:55:04]

ARE WE ON NUMBER 27 NOW? YES.

54.

ALRIGHT, JUST A SECOND PAGE.

THIS ONE.

SO THIS IS INSERTION OF THE UNDERLINE INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A TARIFF THAT ALLOWS ALL CUSTOMER CLASSES TO PROVIDE UTILITY ACCESS TO CUSTOMER SIDE OF BATTERIES.

YEAH, SO THIS HAS BEEN UNDER DISCUSSION FOR QUITE A WHILE.

THERE WAS ACTUALLY A COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON THIS.

UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT YET IMPLEMENTED.

UM, I THINK THERE WAS MENTION, UM, YEAH THERE'S MENTION HERE OF INCENTIVES BUT, UH, NOT NECESSARILY THIS TARIFF TO ALLOW AUSTIN ENERGY TO ACTUALLY ACCESS THE BATTERY.

SO WE DON'T WANT JUST WANT CUSTOMERS TO HAVE A BATTERY, WE WANT THEM TO ALLOW AUSTIN ENERGY TO ACCESS IT.

I ASSUME THAT PROBABLY THEY WOULD MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT ALSO OF RECEIVING AN INCENTIVE.

BUT AGAIN, THAT'S A VALUABLE ENERGY RESOURCE JUST LIKE SOLAR IS.

THERE SHOULD BE VALUE PROVIDED TO THE CUSTOMER FOR ALLOWING THE USE OF THEIR RESOURCE.

I HAVE A MOVE APPROVAL, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT.

ALL OF WHICH IS AUSTIN ENERGY, AS WE HAVE EXPERIENCED, UH, DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO TURN OFF HOUSES AND DO ROLLING BLACKOUTS AND MANY OF US WERE SUBJECT TO THAT.

UH, ALL OF WHICH IS THIS GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO MONITOR AND TRACK, UH, WHO HAS A GREENHOUSE, WHO HAS, WHO'S USING BATTERIES, WHO IS KIND OF A BIG BROTHER ALMOST, BUT ALL OF WHICH IS IF AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, BECAUSE OF BILLING SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY CANNOT HANDLE INDIVIDUALIZED ROLLING BLACKOUTS, HOW, WHAT IS THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH INDIVIDUAL BATTERY MONITORING FOR EVERY HOUSE AND APARTMENT AT SOME POINT I WOULD THINK THAT REQUIRES LIKE SOME OTHER THINGS, CHANGES TO THE BILLING SYSTEM, AMENDMENTS TO THE CONTRACT.

IS THERE, ARE THERE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT AND WHY THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO THE THERMOSTAT PROGRAM, IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, WE HAVE COMMITTED IN THIS PLAN TO DEVELOPMENT OF A DERM SYSTEM TO, THAT WOULD CONTROL, UM, THESE TYPES OF RESOURCES.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S NECESSARILY A BILLING SYSTEM TYPE OF ISSUE, BUT UM, YOU KNOW, I WILL SAY THAT WHETHER IT'S A COST OR NOT, I THINK THE SOCIAL BENEFIT IS GOING TO BE, UM, VAST.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE GRID IS HEADED AND, AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO, TO DOING THESE KINDS OF PROGRAMS AND, AND UH, ENABLING THAT KIND OF TECHNOLOGY.

SO, UM, WE'LL CERTAINLY DO IT IN A COST AS COST EFFECTIVE A MANNER AS POSSIBLE.

I'LL REMIND YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR, WITH OUR SOLAR FOR ALL GRANT THAT CONTEMPLATES SOLAR AND STORAGE AT LOW INCOME CUSTOMERS HOMES, WE, YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S, THIS ISN'T JUST A, A PROGRAM THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S NOT A TECHNOLOGY THAT WILL SOLELY BENEFIT PEOPLE WITH MEANS TO CO-INVEST IN THAT KIND OF TECHNOLOGY.

AGAIN WHERE WE KIND OF GET PRESCRIPTIVE HERE, BUT UH, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SUGGEST IS THAT WE WILL CONSIDER RATES THAT ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING INSTEAD OF SAYING EXACTLY WHAT THAT RATE WOULD HAVE TO DO.

AND IS GO AHEAD.

UM, NO, YOU GO AHEAD.

I WAS JUST GONNA ASK, UM, I JUST FOLLOW UP.

I SECOND YOUR MOTION 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A SECOND .

UM, SO, UM, OKAY, GO AHEAD.

NO, GO AHEAD.

I, THAT ANSWERS MY WELL I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, UM, IS TARIFF THE RIGHT WORD? WELL, I, I WAS GONNA PROPOSE THAT MAYBE, UH, LIKE A A A A BROADER WAY THAT I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY ALL LIVE WITH WOULD BE TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE AUSTIN ENERGY WILL DEVELOP INCENTIVES AND RATES, UM, TO MAX, YOU KNOW, FOR CUSTOMER SIGHTED BATTERY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT INSTEAD OF BEING, UH, UH, THAT SPECIFIC TO SAY THAT IT'S A, A TARIFF TO PROVIDE THE UTILITY ACCESS BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE POTENTIAL, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR, UM, RESIDENTIAL LEVEL DEMAND RATES THAT ALSO WOULD PROVIDE BENEFITS TO RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS IN HOW THEY'RE DEPLOYING THEIR BATTERY, UM, IN TERMS OF REDUCING THEIR DEMAND.

SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY JUST, THIS IS

[03:00:01]

WOULD THAT, YEAH, I WAS GONNA ASK IF TARIFF IS THE RIGHT WORD OR PROGRAM, LIKE IS THAT TARIFF IN MY MIND'S LIKE RATE STRUCTURE, BUT MAYBE I'M GETTING THE YEAH, I MEAN I KIND OF, I ST STR I STRUGGLED A LITTLE BIT WITH, WITH SAYING A TARIFF FOR ALL RATE CLASSES.

UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE KIND OF DIFFICULT.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE A LOT OF THE WORDING GETS A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING.

SO IF WE COULD JUST BE, I THINK SIMPLER IS BETTER.

YEAH, SO BASICALLY, I GUESS I WAS JUST THINKING OF LIKE THE VALUE OF SOLAR.

THAT'S A TARIFF.

THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TARIFFS BUT THEY ARE NOT DISTINGUISHED BY RATE CLASS OR DISTINGUISHED BY CAPACITY.

IT'S A RIDER.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE OKAY.

A RIDER.

I'M FINE WITH THAT TOO.

, I MEAN, BUT I THINK WE COULD JUST CALL IT A RATE AND YOU KNOW, WE, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN.

I MEAN, OKAY.

YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

RATES WOULD TYPE UP IF WE SAID WE WOULD DEVELOP INCENTIVES AND RATES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND, AND CONSIDER RATES OR, SO IF I, I'M JUST TRYING TO KIND OF HELP, CAN WE JUST REPLACE THE WORD TARIFF WITH RATE OR YOU COULD LEAVE IT ALL OUT AND WE'RE FINE.

, I'M ASKING WOULD THAT I I DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE LIMITING THE TYPE OF WHAT THE RATE WILL DO INSTEAD OF OPENING UP THE POSSIBILITY FOR SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE CONSIDERING HERE TODAY.

SO WHAT I INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS ALL CUSTOMER CLASSES TO PROVIDE UTILITY ACCESS TO CUSTOMER SIGHTED BATTERIES.

JUST PROGRAM INSTEAD OF TARIFF.

YEAH, IT WOULD REQUIRE A DERMS AND YEAH, WE'RE COMMITTED TO DEVELOP TO DOING THAT.

SO, SO YEAH, YOU'RE ALREADY DOING IT, SO THAT'S EASY.

SO INSTEAD OF TARIFF, WE'RE GONNA SAY PROGRAM THERE.

THAT'S THE EDIT.

DO YOU ACCEPT THAT FROM THE AMENDMENT? YEAH.

ALLOWS ALL CUSTOMER CLASSES.

YOU STILL WANNA SAY ALL CUSTOMER CLASSES OR JUST CUSTOMERS? IS IT INCLUDING A PROGRAM? WE'RE ALREADY SAYING WE'LL DEVELOP AND PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR CUSTOMER CITED BATTERY STORAGE TO MAXIMIZE BENEFITS TO CUSTOMERS AND THE ELECTRIC GRID.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE ADDING BY SAYING AND WE'LL DEVELOP A PROGRAM.

I MEAN IS THIS, IT SOUNDS LIKE Y'ALL ARE DOING THIS.

SO WHAT'S THE HARM HERE? THE HARM IN SAYING WHICH LANG IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE GONNA DO A WHY NOT, WHY CAN'T WE JUST STATE IT HERE? WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING TO STATE NOW? JUST WHAT'S, WHAT'S THERE? I THINK WE JUST SAID INCLUDING A, INSTEAD OF THE WORD TARIFF THERE, I THINK WE SAID PROGRAM.

SARAH HAS HER HAND UP AND WE DIDN'T DELETE BELIEVE ALL.

SO CAN YOU BRING THAT BACK PLEASE? SORRY, ALL I JUST WANTED TO SAY, UM, I, I AGREE WITH THE MOVE FROM THE TERM TARIFF TO THE TERM PROGRAM.

I THINK WE WANNA BE ABLE TO EXPLORE DIFFERENT AVENUES FOR INCENTIVIZING CUSTOMERS TO ADOPT BATTERIES.

WHETHER IT'S THROUGH DIRECT INCENTIVES, WHICH IS LIKE A CARROT OR THROUGH RATES, WHICH WOULD BE LIKE A STICK.

SO I THINK MOVING TO A MORE GENERALIZED TERM TERMINOLOGY OF PROGRAM OR SAYING INCENTIVES AND OR RATES WOULD BE, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO FIGURE OUT THE PROGRAM DESIGN THAT IS MOST EFFECTIVE WITH OUR, WITH OUR CUSTOMERS.

CAN WE CALL THE QUESTION? OKAY, THAT LOOKS GOOD.

HOW ABOUT WE, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR HOW MANY YEARS AND SO FOR ALL, I THINK IT'S BEEN AT LEAST TWO YEARS SINCE THAT RESOLUTION WAS PASSED.

MAYBE MORE.

SO LET'S CALL THE QUESTION I HOPE, BUT WE DID NOT ADD OR RATES UP THERE, WE ADDED PROGRAM DOWN BELOW.

'CAUSE WE DON'T WANT INCENTIVES OR RATES.

GET AT RATES, BUT PROGRAMS. YEAH.

WHAT'S THE HARM? WELL PUTTING OR RATES THINK PUT AND RATES, BUT WE DON'T WANT, OR I THINK, I THINK WE DECIDED ULTIMATELY THE, SEEMED LIKE THE WAY THE CONVERSATION WENT WAS JUST TO BE BROADER AND NOT EVEN HAVE TO

[03:05:01]

SO I THINK CAN WE JUST CALL THE QUESTION ON WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT HERE? WE'VE SAID PROGRAMS, IT DOESN'T SAY TARIFF, IT DOESN'T SAY RATES.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

THAT'S FINE.

NUMBER 28, THIS IS ON PAGE 51.

SO THIS IS BASICALLY INSERTING ANOTHER STRETCH GOAL.

WELL, IT WASN'T WRITTEN THAT WAY, BUT I WOULD BE FINE.

I'M SURE THERE'S GONNA BE OBJECTION.

UH, SO I WOULD BE FINE TO REWORD IT THAT WAY.

UH, CAN YOU GIMME JUST A SECOND? OKAY.

WELL FIRST OF ALL YOU HAVE A MOTION AND YOU HAVE A SECOND? YEAH.

MOVE, MOVE.

APPROVAL OF NUMBER 28.

LET'S DISCUSS SECOND.

SO THE 2 0 5 THAT'S ALREADY IN ELSEWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT, RIGHT? YEAH, THE, WELL THE GOAL IN THE DOCUMENT IS 405 MEGAWATTS OF INSTALLED LOCAL SOLAR CAPACITY BY 2035.

YEAH, SO WE'RE, THERE'S TWO THINGS HERE.

ONE IS THE 2027 GOAL, SO THAT'S THE 2 0 5.

AND THEN JUST TO TRY TO MOVE THIS ALONG, I THINK WE COULD KEEP THE 4 0 5.

UM, AND LET'S SEE.

AND 405 MEGAWATTS HAVE INSTALLED LOCAL LOCAL CAPACITY BY 2035 AND STRIVE FOR WERE 600 MEGAWATTS.

SO THAT, THAT'S THE SAME KIND OF LANGUAGE THAT WE USED FOR THE LAST ONE.

WHERE DID THE 600 COME FROM? WELL, WE HAD MODELED 700 AND THAT WAS WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RESOURCE PLANNING WORKING GROUP.

UM, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIND A MORE, SO A LOWER NUMBER TO THAT WOULD STILL BE MEANINGFUL.

TECHNICAL IS FIVE 80, THE TECHNICAL IS FIVE 80.

WE COULD DO FIVE 80 THEN FIVE 80.

AND I'M CHAIR, I'M GONNA CALL TIM HARVEY UP.

ACHIEVABLE? TECHNICALLY ACHIEV ACHIEVABLE? THE TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE WAS THE, SO, SO THE, THE STRETCH GOAL, UM, THAT DNV HAD WAS UM, I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS UM, 4 31 AND PART OF THAT CONSIDERED, UM, SOMETHING ELSE.

ALTHOUGH THAT WASN'T THE ACTUAL TECHNICAL, REMEMBER THEY GAVE US OTHER NUMBERS WERE THAT WERE ALL MUCH LARGER FROM DNV, BUT THIS WAS THE TECHNICAL ACHIEVABLE.

HI TIM.

HI.

I AM TIM HARVEY.

I'M THE CUSTOMER RENEWABLE SOLUTIONS MANAGER.

UM, SO, SO THE 405 MEGAWATT GOAL THAT WE HAVE HERE IS A STRETCH GOAL FOR US ALREADY.

UM, THIS WOULD BE PUTTING OUR BEST FOOT FORWARD AND UM, WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A 600 MEGAWATT GOAL THAT WOULD HAVE US ADDING.

SO, SO FIRST OF ALL, LET ME JUST PUT THIS INTO CONTEXT.

THIS HAS BEEN OUR, OUR BEST YEAR EVER.

WE PUT IN 16 MEGAWATTS.

UM, IF WE WERE TO REACH 600, IF WE ADDED FIVE MEGAWATTS INCREMENTALLY EVERY YEAR, SO IN 2035 WE'RE PUTTING IN 66 MEGAWATTS.

SO WE'RE RAMPING UP LIKE FIVE MEGAWATTS EVERY YEAR.

WE STILL WOULDN'T HIT THE 600 MEGAWATT GOAL.

I I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S POSSIBLE.

I DON'T, I I I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT.

NOW 405 IS A STRETCH GOAL.

I THINK WE COULD GET THERE BY POTENTIALLY DOING SOME U LOCAL UTILITY SCALE STUFF LIKE WEAVERVILLE.

UM, BUT I DON'T, I JUST DON'T THINK 600 IS IS POSSIBLE.

POSSIBLE MAYBE, BUT VERY EXPENSIVE.

WELL, WE SAID FIVE 80, NOT 600 .

DIDN'T WE GO WITH THE DNV NUMBER ON THE LAST ONE? YEAH.

SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 4 0 5 BEING A STRETCH AND THE DNV FIVE 80? IS THAT THE TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE, TECHNICALLY

[03:10:01]

SO YOU WERE DOUBLE CUTTING SOME BATTERIES? YES, BAT BATTERIES WERE IN THERE.

SO IT WAS 4 0 5 AND, AND THAT, UH, TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABLE OR THE ACHIEVABLE GOAL, SORRY, ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE.

YEAH, WAS ECONOMICAL.

THAT IS AT A HUNDRED PERCENT.

SO THAT MEANS THAT WE'RE DOUBLING OUR INCENTIVES TO GET THERE, IS THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD THAT.

AND SO THE TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABLE IS BASICALLY US MAXING EVERYTHING OUT THAT'S POSSIBLE.

SO IT'S CAN YOU SHARE ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THEY MODELED THE STANDARD OFFER PROGRAM? 'CAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE THEY WERE NOT ASSUMING THAT MUCH FROM THAT PROGRAM.

SO THEY, YEAH, SO THEY, THEY ASKED US FOR THE ECONOMICS OF THE PROGRAM AND THEN THEY MODELED IT BASED ON THE ECONOMICS.

SO WHAT, WHAT ECONOMICS DID YOU PROVIDE THEM? LIKE WHAT WAS THE RATE THAT YOU PROVIDED THEM? 11.24 CENTS I THINK, OR IT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 11 CENTS.

'CAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE NUMBER EXACTLY THEN DIDN'T THEY DO THAT WORK BEFORE Y'ALL MOVED IT TO THAT RATE? BUT WE, WE TOLD THEM 11 CENTS BECAUSE WE WERE EXTRACTING.

SO THEY WENT BACK AND REDID THE NUMBERS.

SAY, SAY THAT.

ARE YOU SAYING THEY REDID THE NUMBERS AFTER YOU CHANGED THE RATE THIS FALL? NO, WE, WE MODELED IT AT 11 CENTS TO AT THE BEGINNING BECAUSE WE ASSUMED THAT IT WAS GOING TO GO UP OVER TIME.

GOTCHA.

AND THERE, SORRY, TIME.

THE ANALYSIS, UM, RESULTED IN ESSENTIALLY JUST SHY OF 35 MEGAWATTS OF POTENTIAL IN THE, SO IN THE SOLAR STANDARD OFFER BY 2035.

AND THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE 405 MEGAWATT GOAL UP THERE.

AND I JUST WANNA REITERATE FOR EVERYONE'S AWARENESS FOR LOCAL SOLAR INCREASING THE SAVINGS IN CAPTURING EVEN, LET'S SEE, THIS WAS 700 MEGAWATTS, BUT IT SAYS EXTREMELY CHALLENGING.

HERE ARE THE BIGGEST BARRIER IS COST OF THE SYSTEMS AND WOULD REQUIRE A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN S IN ORDER TO MAKE THE DECISION TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT COST EFFECTIVE, SORRY, WOULD REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT INCENTIVES IN ORDER TO MAKE THE DECISION TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT COST EFFECTIVE FOR CONSUMERS.

IN ADDITION, THERE ARE ALSO SUPPLY CHAIN CONCERNS AND INTERCONNECTION BARRIERS THAT WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF SOLAR THAT COULD BE REALISTICALLY INSTALLED OVER A 10 YEAR TIME HORIZON.

SO IT IS A STRETCH AND IF YOU DO ADOPT ANY STRETCH GOAL, I DEFINITELY ENCOURAGE YOU TO INCLUDE THE ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE LANGUAGE OR ELSE YOU WILL BE PUTTING THE BE PLAN OUT OF BALANCE.

CAN WE THEN, SO AT LEAST THE, THE 2 0 2 0 5, 205 MEGAWATTS BY 2027 AND 405 MEGAWATTS BY 2035? UH, YEAH, I DON'T, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE.

UH, OF LOCAL BY, YEAH, BY 2035 AND STRIVE FOR 580 MEGAWATTS IF, UH, ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, CAN WE JUST USE LIKE, WE HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY LIKE EITHER THE DMV NUMBERS MEAN SOMETHING OR THEY DON'T? I THINK THAT'S FAIR, STUART.

YEAH, I THINK, UM, WE'RE, WE'VE BEEN HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF CONVERSATION OVER HERE ABOUT WHEN WE'RE INCLUDING THE STRETCH GOAL WITH THE, IF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, IT BECOMES A LITTLE BIT UNCLEAR.

WHAT'S THE GOAL AT THAT POINT THEN? AND, AND WE DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HIRED DNV FOR THEIR EXPERTISE FOR A REASON, YOU KNOW, UM, WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO STICK WITH THAT INPUT, UH, THAT THEY PROVIDED US.

AND UM, WE JUST THINK THAT GOING BEYOND THIS 4 0 5 IS JUST A BRIDGE TOO FAR.

I, I'D I'D ALSO ADD THAT I THINK ADDING ANY UTILITY SCALE SOLAR BY 2027 IS UNREALISTIC.

ANY WHAT? ANY UTILITY SCALE SOLAR IN THE AUSTIN NEAR AUSTIN BY 2027.

IF IT HASN'T, IF THAT PROJECT HASN'T BEEN STARTED, THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

I THINK THAT'S IN ADDITION TO WHAT THEY HAVE.

IT'S NOT A, JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO INCLUDES FIVE, IT INCLUDES WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE, INCLUDING 100 AND THE 205 INCLUDES

[03:15:01]

WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE.

MM-HMM, .

SO IT'D BE, IT WOULD BE ADDING, YEAH, IT WOULD BE ADDING 45 MEGAWATTS AND THAT'S LOCAL SOLAR.

SO THAT CAN INCLUDE CUSTOMER SIGHTED COMMERCIAL.

IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT.

AND IT CAN INCLUDE LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LANDFILL AND OTHER LIKE SMALLER SCALE BUT YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE, BUT I GUESS UTILITY, BUT COMMUNITY LEVEL WOULD ALSO COUNT IN THESE NUMBERS.

THE, THE TWO EVA, THE 2 0 5, THOUGH YOU COULD ACTUALLY ARGUE IT SHOULD BE HIGHER BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE COMMUNITY SOLAR.

RIGHT? OR MAYBE JUST A SECOND.

CAN I TIM PLEASE.

YEAH, SO, SO EVEN 45 MEGAWATTS BY 2027 IS SOMETHING THAT IS UM, VERY, VERY CHALLENGING FOR US.

UM, THERE, SOLAR PROJECTS HA TAKE TYPICALLY AT LEAST A YEAR, UH, ON THE COMMERCIAL SCALE TO DEVELOP.

UM, SO LIKE EVEN WHEN WE RAMPED UP OUR INCENTIVES, WE DIDN'T SEE THE MARKET RESPOND TO THAT FOR TWO YEARS.

SO I, I JUST DON'T, I THINK AN INTERIM GOAL HERE IS, UM, WHILE IT WILL BE A CHALLENGE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, UM, LANGUAGE THAT SAYS AT LEAST IS CONCERNING TO ME INSTEAD OF 27, 20 27, 20 30 WOULD BETTER.

OUR, OUR CURRENT GOAL TO 2030 IS 200 MEGAWATTS AND WE'RE ON TARGET TO ACHIEVE THAT.

WE EXPECT TO ACHIEVE THAT.

UM, TIM, I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE INTERIM GOALS ARE, ARE HARD FOR, FOR US.

WE'RE GETTING CONFUSED HERE AS THE PEOPLE.

SO YEAH, I MEAN I'M LOOKING AT THE PROJECTIONS AND IT WAS 170 ON CUSTOMER SIGHTED AND 42 ON COMMUNITY SOLAR.

THIS WAS FOR 2027, WHICH IS ACTUALLY MORE THAN, YEAH, 42 MEGAWATTS FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOUR AND A HALF.

I THINK YOU CURRENTLY HAVE 34.

I THINK YOU'RE POUNDING, YOU HAVE WEBER.

WEBER AT WEBER.

WEAVERVILLE IS ST.

COMMUNITY SOLAR, BUT IT IS IN OUR LOAD ZONE.

I THINK THAT'S HOW THEY COUNTED IT.

YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GETTING, WE'RE GETTING CONFUSED AS THAT'S HOW THEY COUNTED.

SO WE'RE, WE'RE AT A, WE'RE AT A TOTAL OF 160 MEGAWATTS FOR LOCAL BY THE NEW DEFINITION IN OUR LOAD ZONE.

SO, SO IT WOULD BE 45 MEGAWATTS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TO GET TO 205, RIGHT? I GUESS I'M JUST SAYING, I THINK THIS WAS A TABLE THAT YOU SENT AROUND THAT HAD THE, THE, UM, THE NUMBERS BY YEAR.

AND SO FOR 2025, WHICH I THINK IS MAYBE JUST THE EXISTING 'CAUSE IT ACTUALLY HAS A HUNDRED AND 168, I GUESS MAYBE.

OH NO, MAYBE THAT'S ASSUMING THE EIGHT FROM LANDFILL.

IS IT? OKAY, BUT WHAT TABLE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT SAYS EXISTING PROJECTIONS.

THERE'S DEMAND RESPONSE, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND THEN CUSTOMER CITED SOLAR AND COMMUNITY SOLAR, WHICH IS JUST EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T CUSTOMER CITED.

IT'S 20 25, 20 26, AND 2027 IS COLUMNS.

IS THIS PART OF THE MODELING WORK? YEAH.

CAN WE JUST TAKE A BREAK TO, SO WE CAN GET OUR NUMBERS OUT AND SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? THANKS.

SO YOU WANNA TABLE THIS AND MOVE UP TO THE NEXT ONE WHILE THEY GET THE NUMBERS? SURE.

OKAY, LET'S COME BACK TO 28.

UM, 29 MOTION AND SECOND.

YEAH, I MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, INCLUDE THIS AMENDMENT ON LOCAL UTILITY SCALE BATTERIES.

SECOND.

IS SUBSTANTIVE, AND I'M SURE ALL STANDARD ENERGY WILL HAVE AN OPINION ON, IS TO ADD ACTUAL UTILITY SCALE GOALS.

IT HAS, UM, TWO PARTS.

ONE IS TO ADD A SENTENCE JUST SIMPLY SAYING, AND THIS I DON'T THINK WILL BE CONTROVERSIAL, SAYING LONGER DURATION BATTERIES ARE ALSO BEING DEVELOPED, WHICH MAY BE A USEFUL TOOL IN THE FUTURE.

AND THEN THE PART THAT

[03:20:01]

UM, AND THESE ARE BASICALLY THE SIMILAR TO THE GOALS THAT WE HAD IN OUR WORK GROUP, OUR PRODUCT AND, AND IN OUR EUC UM, MODELING EXERCISES, 200 MEGAWATTS BY 20 27, 300 BY 2030, AND 500 BY 2035.

THAT'S THAT'S AN AWFUL LOT OF BATTERIES, WHICH MAY BE WHAT WE WANNA DO.

DISCUSSION LISA, YOUR COMMENTS ON THOSE TWO INSERTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER REED AND I TALKED ABOUT THE LONG DURATION BATTERY STORAGE AND, AND I CERTAINLY THAT WAS NOT AN INTENTIONAL OMISSION.

UM, SO THE IDEA THAT IT IS AN EMERGING TECHNOLOGY AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO LOOK AT IT AND, YOU KNOW, IT MAY FIT UNDER CULTURE OF INNOVATION.

UM, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN A CONCERN ABOUT THAT, THAT SENTENCE.

UM, IN GENERAL, AND I'LL JUST SPEAK IN GENERAL FOR, 'CAUSE I THINK THIS WILL COME UP IN A NUMBER OF GOALS MOVING FORWARD.

WHEN IT COMES TO UTILITY SCALE SUPPLY SOLUTIONS, WHETHER IT'S BATTERIES, UTILITY SCALE SOLAR OR UH, NATURAL GAS PEAKER UNITS, UM, I CAUTION PUTTING GOALS IN THE PLAN IN ANY SENSE OF, BECAUSE THERE'S A LEAD TIME THAT IT TAKES TO BUILD ANY OF THESE RESOURCES.

THEY ALL PROVIDE DIFFERENT, UH, VALUE STREAMS. THEY ALL HAVE TRADE OFFS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

AND THE AMOUNT AT WHICH YOU NEED TO BUILD BY A CERTAIN DATE IS UNCERTAIN, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE DON'T JUST PICK A PORTFOLIO AND STICK TO THAT AS IF IT WERE THE COMPLETE PLAN MOVING FORWARD.

SO THE FLEXIBILITY OF SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WE, WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF EACH ONE OF THESE TYPES OF RESOURCES WITHOUT PRESCRIBING A CERTAIN QUANTITY THAT WE NEED BY CERTAIN YEARS, UM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT WE, WE, WE HOPE THAT BATTERY PRICES CONTINUE TO DROP, BUT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE STILL PRETTY HIGH.

AND SO TO PRESCRIBE THIS AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH IT TO PUT A A LIMIT ON THE OTHER TYPES OF RESOURCES REALLY SETS A DIRECTION AND TIPS THE SCALE AND COULD CREATE AN UNECONOMIC AND UNACHIEVABLE UNRELIABLE SOLUTION.

SO IS YOUR OBJECTION, YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO PUTTING ANY NUMBER.

IT'S NOT THAT YOU THINK 200 MEGAWATTS IS UNREALISTIC, IF IT WERE TO SAY 50 MEGAWATTS, YOU, YOU STILL WOULDN'T WANT THAT IN A PLAN OR A HUNDRED.

IT, IT'S NOT THE NU IT'S NOT THE NUMBER, IT'S THE CONCEPT.

SO YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT.

I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE OF GOALS IN GENERAL WITH REGARDS TO UTILITY SCALE SYSTEMS BECAUSE WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO ME, YOU KNOW, AND WHAT IS AMENABLE TO THE COMMUNITY AND HOW QUICKLY I CAN BRING SOMETHING TO FRUITION IS ALL HAPPENING WHILE THERE'S A CHANGING ENERGY LANDSCAPE.

A A LOWER NUMBER RIGHT, WOULD CERTAINLY BE BETTER.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU THERE USED TO BE A GOAL IN A PREVIOUS PLAN TO HAVE A 10 MEGAWATT BATTERY STORAGE GOAL.

AND I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THE AUSTIN SHINES PROJECT.

AND AFTER DOING ALL THAT WORK, WE DETERMINED THAT THAT WASN'T THE, THE SITUATION WAS NOT RIPE FOR REACHING THAT GOAL.

SO EVEN A SMALL GOAL CAN SOMETIMES BE SOMETHING THAT IS PROBLEMATIC.

I WILL, UM, I WILL TALK AGAIN, I BRING THIS UP MORE AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, I I, YOU KNOW, VERY MUCH WANNA START MOVING FORWARD.

I WOULD LIKE TO GET GREEN LIGHT ON POLICY AND MOVE FORWARD WITH TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE START TO SOLVE OUR EXISTING RISK WITH LOCAL SOLUTIONS.

AND I THINK THAT BATTERY STORAGE IS A KEY COMPONENT TO THAT.

I JUST DON'T THINK PRESCRIBING THE CERTAIN QUANTITIES IN CERTAIN YEARS.

IS IT USEFUL EXERCISE? LET ME ASK HOW, IF INSTEAD OF THE INTERIM GOALS, WE SIMPLY SET A GOAL OF 2035 KNOWING BATTERY PRICES OR CONTINUING, WOULD THAT BE, I I, I WOULD CAUTION AGAINST IT AS A WHOLE, RIGHT? THE BATTERY PRICE BATTERIES, PRICES MAY BE GOING DOWN, RIGHT? IT'S ALSO GONNA BE DEPENDENT ON WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH TARIFFS AND SUPPLY AND LOTS OF OTHER THINGS.

AND CITING THAT AMOUNT OF LOCAL UTILITY SCALE BATTERY MAY OR MAY NOT BE SOMETHING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, FEASIBLE HERE, RIGHT? AND IT MAY NOT ACHIEVE OUR GOALS, NOT ONLY IN AFFORDABILITY BUT ALSO IN RELIABILITY.

AND I THINK PEOPLE LIKE TO TALK ABOUT HOW CLEAN BATTERIES ARE, BUT THEY CERTAINLY ARE CLEANER.

DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY'RE CHARGED WITH.

AND, UM, THERE ARE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

[03:25:01]

IT MAY BE THE RIGHT ANSWER, BUT I, AGAIN, I'D, I I'M, I'M ADVOCATING FOR THE APPROACH OF SAYING THESE ARE TOOLS IN OUR TOOLKIT AND WE WILL WORK TO ADDRESS OUR RISKS.

WE WILL BRING NUMBERS TO COUNCIL AS WE PROPOSE VARIOUS PROJECTS AND THEN WE WILL CHECK IN EVERY YEAR TO SAY WHERE WE ARE, HOW MUCH WE'VE DONE, AND WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO ADJUST SETTING THESE SPECIFIC NUMBERS PRETENDS LIKE THERE'S A CRYSTAL BALL THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER.

I AGREE.

I GUESS LIKE, SO I, I GUESS THROUGH, THROUGH LIKE A LOT OF THE, THE MODELING AND THE SCENARIOS AND THINGS, IT, IT, IT, IT DID SEEM LIKE HAVING, HAVING SOMEWHAT AROUND THIS LEVEL OF BATTERIES WAS, WAS PRETTY HELPFUL, LIKE IN, IN THE SCENARIO.

SO HOW, HOW ARE, HOW DO THOSE SCENARIOS PLAY IN TOWARDS LIKE A, A PLAN THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE LIKE SOME OF THESE NUMBERS IN IT? SO AGAIN, MODELING PROVIDES USEFUL INFORMATION.

IT SAYS THAT BATTERIES WILL HELP TOWARDS A SOLUTION.

IT SAYS THAT RIGHT IN COMBINATION WITH NATURAL GAS PEAKERS, YOU CAN START TO BRING DOWN YOUR RELIABILITY RISK.

UM, ALL OF THAT IS, IS IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

BUT AGAIN, A MODEL ASSUMES PERFECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE FUTURE, CERTAINLY THE U PLAN MODELS.

AND SO I DON'T WANT TO PICK ONE OF THOSE PORTFOLIOS AND THEN SAY THAT IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AND BUILD THIS AMOUNT IN THIS YEAR.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO BRING PROJECTS TO COUNCIL, NOT BECAUSE I HAVE A GOAL THAT SAYS I NEED TO BRING THAT AMOUNT TO THEM, BUT INSTEAD BY SAYING THIS IS THE BEST PATH FORWARD, THIS IS WHAT IS WE'VE, WE'VE INSTALLED.

I'D LIKE TO SAY, HEY, WE'VE, WE'VE INITIATED AN RFP FOR A HUNDRED, 150 MEGAWATTS OF BATTERY STORAGE.

AND WE PUT THAT IN AND WE SEE HOW IT DOES AND WE SAY, LOOK, IT ACTUALLY ADDRESSED STAR RISK IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS.

IT DOESN'T SOLVE THIS PART.

RIGHT? AND THEN COME BACK AND SAY, LET'S DO MORE OR WE'VE HAD THESE CONCERNS WITH IT AND LET'S, LET'S GO A DIFFERENT PATH.

SO AGAIN, I, I DON'T WANT, I'D LIKE TO NOT PRESCRIBE THOSE NUMBERS.

I GUESS I SEE THIS AS LIKE FUNDAMENTAL, LIKE IF THERE'S NOT, IF THERE'S NOT GONNA BE UTILITY SCALE BATTERIES, THEN THEY'RE DEFINITELY GONNA, YOU KNOW, GO FORWARD WITH HOWEVER MUCH, UH, GAS PEAKERS AND, UM, IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO, YOU KNOW, ARE WE TRYING TO CREATE A CLEAN ENERGY PLAN OR NOT.

UM, THESE ARE NOT, I DON'T THINK OVERLY AMBITIOUS GOALS.

THERE ARE OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS INCLUDING CPS ENERGY THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, ALREADY BEYOND THESE NUMBERS.

THEY'RE LARGER BUT STILL AE HAS CLOSE TO ZERO.

THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE ON WHY, WHY WE NEED TO HAVE CLEAR GOALS FOR BATTERIES.

BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE THEM, THEN CLEARLY WE ARE GONNA END UP WITH MORE FOSSIL FUEL GENERATION HERE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE.

I I THINK THAT THE PLAN SETS FORTH A PATH OF USING THE TOOLS THAT MEET THE NEEDS AND WE DID ANALYSIS AND IT LOOKS LIKE BOTH BATTERIES AND PEAKER PLANTS WORK BETTER TOGETHER.

YOU MAY RECALL THE BATTERIES HELP WITH THE SHORT DURATION NEEDS AND YOU USE THEM FIRST AND THEN YOU HAVE THE PEAKERS TO FILL IN THE GAPS FOR THE LONGER DURATION NEEDS.

BUT THERE ARE LONGER DURATION BATTERIES.

SO IF YOU DON'T MODEL THEM THEN THERE, IT DOESN'T STATE THAT THEY CAN'T HELP YOU JUST DIDN'T MODEL THEM.

I, I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE COMMENTS.

YOU DIDN'T MODEL LONG DURATION BATTERIES, RIGHT? THERE WERE NO PORTFOLIOS WITH LONGER DURATION BATTERIES.

WE DID MODEL IN THE FIRST INITIAL RUN.

IN THE INITIAL RUN THEY DID ABSOLUTELY.

THE, AND THE COSTS WERE QUITE HIGH.

AND THE LIMITATIONS ON OPERATION, ARE YOU JUST TALKING ABOUT THE EIGHT HOUR BATTERIES? THERE WERE, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS 12 HOUR AND 100 HOUR BATTERIES.

BUT THEY'RE ALSO DOING, WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS YOU WORK WITH BOTH OF THEM.

CAN WE JUST MOVE ON WITH THIS? OKAY.

SO THERE'S AN AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE THE FIRST SENTENCE, THE GENERIC SENTENCE.

UH, DAVE, CAN I SAY SOMETHING? SORRY.

BOBCAT GENERAL MANAGER.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED CPSI KEEP HEARING CPS AND BATTERIES, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL ARE AWARE, BUT THEY JUST PURCHASED AND INCORPORATED 1700 MEGAWATTS OF GAS GENERATION INTO THE PORTFOLIO.

SO THEY'RE DOING BATTERIES,

[03:30:01]

SO I DIDN'T HEAR YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE GAS GENERATION THAT THEY ADDED TO THEIR PORTFOLIO.

SO, I MEAN, I THINK LIKE IN, IN SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD, I MEAN THERE'S THERE YES.

A DISCUSSION OF LIKE DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES PLAYING DIFFERENT ROLES.

UM, IF, I MEAN, IF YOU SAY, IF YOU SAY WE NEED BOTH, THEN I GUESS LIKE, I, I GUESS LIKE WHAT A LOT OF FOLKS IN CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH EUC IS LIKE, WELL, IF WE NEED BOTH, CAN WE DO THE BATTERIES FIRST TO JUST TO SEE WHERE THAT GETS US TO THEN GET US TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN MAKE A MORE INTELLIGENT DECISION ON ANY KIND OF PEAKERS OR, OR FUTURE STUFF.

I MEAN, IF, IF YOU SAY WE NEED 'EM, THEN CAN WE JUST GO AHEAD AND GET 'EM, UM, SO THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, BE SMARTER ABOUT THIS.

AND I'M OPEN TO DIFFERENT NUMBERS FOR THOSE GOALS.

I MEAN, IF THERE'S NOT SUPPORT FOR THOSE PARTICULAR NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, BUT GETTING, AS YOU SAY, GETTING SOMETHING STARTED I THINK IS IMPORTANT.

CAN YOU GIVE SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU ALL HAVE LIVED THROUGH IN THE PAST WITH MOVING THE UTILITY FORWARD WITH UTILITY SCALE, WIND AND SOLAR, WHICH CREATES A CONTEXT FOR YOUR PUSHING FOR THE GOALS? YEAH, WE HAD GOALS EXACTLY LIKE THIS.

IT USED TO BE THAT THE PLAN WAS MUCH MORE, UM, MUCH MORE PRESCRIPTIVE AND THAT THERE WERE SEPARATE GOALS FOR WIND AND SOLAR.

NOT EVEN, LIKE, WASN'T EVEN JUST UTILITY SCALE, RENEWABLE ENERGY.

AND THAT MOVED, MOVED THINGS FORWARD THAT, YOU KNOW, INITIALLY IT WAS WIND, UM, AND THEN I WANNA SAY 2014 OR SOMETHING, WE ADDED A GOAL SPECIFICALLY FOR 600 MEGAWATTS OF SOLAR.

AND YOU KNOW, THAT ENDED UP JUMP STARTING AUSTIN ENERGY INTO UTILITY SKILLS, SOLAR.

AND A BIG WAS, AND THERE WAS THE 600 MEGAWATTS WAS FIRST, YOU KNOW, DO AN RFP OR WE DID AN RFP FOR SOLAR.

WE GOT, YOU KNOW, INFORMATION BACK AND THEN SORT OF DECIDED, WELL, SOME OF IT WE'RE GONNA DO AN NOW AND SOME OF IT IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE STILL HAD THAT GOAL, WHICH THAT YEAH.

AND, AND WHEN, WHICH ALIGNS WITH OUR CURRENT SITUATION, WHICH IS LAST YEAR AE DID AN RFP FOR 200 MEGAWATTS OF BATTERIES.

THEY DID ANOTHER RFP THIS SUMMER THAT HAD WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY PROPO PROPOSALS, INCLUDING SOME LOCAL BATTERIES.

SO IT DOESN'T SEEM, I DON'T KNOW, THIS SEEMS LIKE THE, THE DIRECTION THINGS ARE MOVING ANYWAY.

I'M NOT SURE.

YEAH, WE ABSOLUTELY WANNA DO SOME UTILITY SCALE BATTERIES AND WE WANT THEM TO, TO DO THEM OF A SIGNIFICANT DURATION OF, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF BATTERIES IN, IN OUR, OUR TWO HOURS.

AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT PRICING LOOKS LIKE FOR FOUR AND SEE IF WE HAVE THE SPACE IN THE, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY COMMIT, UH, AGREE AGREEMENT TO HOST THOSE RESOURCES.

I I THINK THAT, UM, TO TALK ABOUT THE CONTINUOUSLY, UM, GROWING GOALS THAT HAVE BEEN SET IN THE PAST IS LIKE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT TIME.

AND I AGREE WITH YOU.

THEY, THEY, THEY, THEY GOT US TO BE RIGHT.

WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF ONE OF THE CLEANEST UTILITIES AND THE LEADING UTILITIES IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP AND, AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS NOT A SITUATION OF MOVING FROM VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TO A, A HIGHER PERCENTAGE.

RIGHT? WE, WE ARE ALREADY WELL PUSHING RIGHT, COMPARED TO, COMPARED TO OTHER UTILITIES AND CERTAINLY IN ERCOT.

AND SO WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT OUR DECISIONS AS WE MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THE COST AND THE IMPACT, THE RISK IS ALREADY HERE IN TERMS OF RELIABILITY.

THE COST IS ALREADY GOING HIGHER.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE SEE IN CONGESTION.

THESE ARE TOOLS THAT WILL HELP US SOLVE SOME OF THOSE, BUT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE PUT THOSE TOOLS IN.

AND SO YES, STARTING WITH BATTERIES, RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY THE QUICKEST UTILITY SCALE SOLUTION IS THE RIGHT WAY TO START, RIGHT? I I DO NOT BECAUSE OF THE LEAD TIME THAT IT TAKES FOR ALL THE OTHER ITEMS AND BECAUSE OF THE PATH WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE TO, FOR CITING CONSIDERATIONS AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I, I DO NOT WANNA WAIT ON OTHER PROJECTS AS WELL.

WE TAKE ALL THAT TO COUNCIL, UM, YOU KNOW, BIT BY BIT FOR, FOR APPROVAL, BUT ABSOLUTELY BATTERIES ARE, ARE WHERE YOU START.

UM, AND WE JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT, WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR TOOLKIT AS A WHOLE CHAIR TITLE? UH, I THINK THERE IS AGREEMENT ON THE FIRST SENTENCE AND WE HAVE HAD SOLID COMMITMENTS FROM STAFF TONIGHT THAT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE PUTTING NUMBERS ON.

AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND, AND IT'S MICROMANAGING THE UTILITY.

UH, I

[03:35:01]

LET, LET'S HAVE A VOTE ON OR BIFURCATE HOWEVER YOU WANT.

SO, UM, WE COULD QUICKLY DO A VOTE ON THE FIRST SENTENCE.

'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S GENERAL AGREEMENT ON THAT AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A SEPARATE VOTE ON THE OTHER IF THAT'S AGREEABLE.

FIRST ONE'S EASY, RIGHT? FIRST ONE'S EASY.

ADD A STATEMENT ABOUT LONG, LONGER DURATION BATTERIES.

IT'S NOT HARD.

AND THE WORD CURRENTLY, RIGHT? OKAY.

I'M TIRED NOW ABOUT SPECIFIC GOALS.

DID WE VOTE? WE VOTE, WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THE, I'M VOTING IN FAVOR OF THAT ONE.

THE FIRST SENTENCE.

CAN WE JUST CALL THE QUESTION ON THE SECOND ONE? I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED IT.

I MEAN, THE ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE DO YOU WANT ADJUST THOSE NUMBERS AT ALL OR JUST VOTE ON THIS? WE CAN ADJUST IT IF WE WANNA VOTE ON A DIFFERENT ONE.

I MEAN, AS AN ASIDE, WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT THESE AS GOALS, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE LANGUAGE IS A BIT STRONGER.

IT'S A COMMITMENT.

UM, ELSEWHERE IN THE PLAN, WE USE PHRASES LIKE STRIVE TO AIM TO, TO ME THAT'S A GOAL.

THIS FEELS MORE PRESCRIPTIVE.

SO WOULD IT, WOULD YOU BE MORE SUPPORTIVE IF WE REPHRASE THAT, ESTABLISH AUSTIN ENERGY WILL ESTABLISH A GOAL OR GOALS? I WOULD BE MORE SUPPORTIVE.

I OKAY.

COULDN'T ASSURE THAT I WOULD VOTE FOR IT, BUT I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO DESCRIBE THIS AS SETTING GOALS, IT SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT VERB.

YEAH, I THINK IT'S JUST TOO, IT'S JUST TOO INFLEXIBLE FOR ME.

SARAS, WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN SOMETHING AROUND LIKE, OR IS IT, WOULD IT BE REPETITIVE TO ISSUE AN RFP FOR THESE NUMBERS? LIKE TO, TO GET THE ACTUAL NUMBERS IN FRONT OF THE UTILITY AND OR COUNSEL FOR THE COST AND YEAH, I MEAN WE HAVE DONE THAT TWICE.

FAIR ENOUGH.

I, UH, LET'S HAVE A VOTE.

THIS IS HARD.

IT'S HARD.

OKAY, SO THIS LAST SENTENCE WITH COMMIT TO INSTALLING 200 BY 20 27, 323, SHOULD WE SAY ESTABLISH GOAL WILL ESTABLISH GOALS TO ACHIEVE AT LEAST DA DAH, DAH, DAH.

HOW DOES THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE ABOUT STILL TOO PRESCRIPTIVE A, A VOTE TO EITHER INCLUDE IT OR NOT.

SO THE VOTE IS TO INCLUDE THAT SENTENCE OR NOT.

ALRIGHT.

AND THAT'S PAINFUL FOR ME BECAUSE I ACTUALLY DO BY WHAT? CAN WE JUST GET THE COUNT OF AGAINST? AGAINST? YES.

EV ALL VOTING? NO VOTING, NO.

4, 5, 6.

UH, COMMISSIONER CONDE AND BLACKBIRD, HOW DO YOU VOTE? ABSTAINING.

AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN, I'M SORRY, I JUST CAN'T SEE YOU ON THE SCREEN, SO IF YOU COULD JUST SAY YOUR VOTE AGAINST, OKAY.

OKAY, SO THAT FAILS I'LL ABSTAIN.

BUT WE DO NEED TO SEE SOME PROGRESS.

PROGRESS ON THIS.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT BATTERIES FOR YEARS AND YOU WILL AND YOU WILL.

UM, SO THAT WAS A VOTE OF THREE TO SIX TO TWO.

UH, YEAH, THIS IS JUST KIND OF CLARIFYING THAT THERE IS STILL THE GOAL TO RETIRE THESE UNITS.

DOESN'T CHANGE THE POINTS MADE ABOVE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, AS THEY'RE NEEDED IN THE MEANTIME, THEY'LL BE THERE TO SERVE THESE NEEDS, BUT THAT EVERY EFFORT WILL BE MADE TO REPLACE THEM WITH CLEAN RESOURCES BY 2035, WHICH IS THE COMMITMENT AND THE CURRENT PLAN.

MOVE APPROVAL.

I SECOND THE MOTION.

HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE DEFINE EVERY EFFORT? DO THEY SET ASIDE OTHER PROJECTS? EVERY EFFORT IS ECONOMICAL.

HMM.

I'M FINE WITH THAT.

EVERY ECONOMIC EFFORT.

[03:40:04]

SO YOUR AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IS EVERY ECONOMIC EFFORT WILL BE MADE TO REPLACE ALL AE NATURAL GAS GENERATION CAPACITY WITH CLEAN ENERGY BY 2035.

CAN WE CALL THE QUESTION? THAT'S THE RULE ANYWAY, RIGHT? IT'S A SIMPLE ONE.

I SAY LET'S VOTE ON THAT.

I MEAN, AREN'T THEY STILL GOING BECAUSE OF RELIABILITY CONCERNS, RIGHT? THIS IS IN 2030.

MAKE AN EFFORT TO REPLACE WHAT THAT GENERATION, WHAT MAKE EVERY EFFORT, I MEAN EVERY ECONOMIC EFFORT TO REPLACE THEM BY 2035.

I SAID IF ECONOMIC YEP.

EVERY ECONOMIC EFFORT IF IT'S NOT THE SAME.

AND, AND LET ME, LET ME CLARIFY CLARIFIED.

IF WE HAD THE PLAN, PEAKERS AS, AS WRITTEN, UH, ARE ALL OF WHICH IS A PEAKER LIKELY WILL LAST MORE THAN 10 YEARS? MM-HMM.

AS A BACKUP RESOURCE.

ARE WE, IF WE VOTE FOR THIS, ARE WE SAYING WE TRASHED THE PEAKERS AND NOT, NOT HAVE THEM AS AN EMERGENCY RESOURCE? WELL, WHAT I'VE HEARD IN THE PAST IS THEY'RE MODULAR AND YOU COULD JUST SELL 'EM.

ALRIGHT? THIS SECTION IS, YOU SELL THEM THIS SECTION, IF I MAY, THIS SECTION IS ALSO ABOUT THE EXISTING PLANTS.

YOU, YOU SELL THEM ALL OF WHICH IS YOU'RE JUST SHIFTING THAT SAND ON THE BEACH.

YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING FOR GLOBAL WARMING, NOW YOU'RE GIVING SOMEBODY A FIRE SALE.

ANY RESPONSE FROM AE THIS, THIS SECTION IS ABOUT, I'LL JUST RE RECALL REMIND YOU THAT WHEN WE DID THE MODELING, IT POINTED TOWARDS, IF YOU MODELED WHAT OUR EXISTING PLAN SAYS, WHICH IS RETIRE OUR EXISTING GENERATION AT DECKER AND SANDHILL BY 2035, THEN YOU SEE RELIABILITY RISK HOURS SHOOT UP, LIKE OFF THE CHARTS UP.

YOU SEE LIQUIDITY RISK OFF THE CHARTS.

IT, IT CREATES A, A INCREDIBLE, UH, FUTURE.

AND SO THEN AS WE REFINE THE MODELING, THERE WAS A REQUEST TO SAY, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU KEEP YOUR GENERATION UNITS RUNNING? SO WE INCORPORATED THAT LANGUAGE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME ARE VERY, WE'RE VERY CAREFUL TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS DOESN'T MEAN WE JUST WANNA RUN THESE UNITS FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER.

RIGHT? WE WANNA AVOID RETIRING THEM PREMATURELY.

AND THE LANGUAGE SAYS AS THE LANDSCAPE EVOLVES, WE'LL REGULARLY ASSESS OUR GENERATION NEEDS AND POTENTIAL RETIREMENTS WERE POSSIBLE.

THE REASONING FOR KEEPING THEM MIGHT BE ECONOMIC, IT MIGHT BE RELIABILITY, IT MIGHT BE THAT THEY ARE THERE TO HELP COVER ANCILLARY SERVICES, BUT THEY'RE NOT RUNNING, SO THEY'RE JUST ADDED CAPACITY, RIGHT? SO YES, OUR GOAL, THIS HAS NOT CHANGED THE FACT THAT OUR GOAL IS CARBON FREE BY 2035 AND WE'LL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO GET TO CARBON FREE BY 2035 WHILE MAINTAINING THE BALANCE IN THE PLAN AND MEETING OUR CUSTOMERS OVERARCHING NEEDS.

BUT I THINK THAT THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE EXISTING LANGUAGE WITHOUT THE AMENDMENTS TO IT.

BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY THAT.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT ACTUALLY SAY THAT IT, IT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN AS A WHOLE, IT HAS THE GOAL OF CARBON FREE BY 2035 AND IT HAS THE GOAL OF MAKING SURE WE MAINTAIN SUFFICIENT LOCAL RESOURCES TO MITIGATE THE RISK.

IF IT'S NOT IN CONFLICT, CAN WE JUST, I, I DON'T, UH, I PERSONALLY, I DON'T, I DON'T LIKE THAT EVERY ECONOMIC EFFORT, LANGUAGE, TO ME IT SOUNDS LIKE SPEND WHATEVER IS NEEDED TO DO THIS.

AND SO, AND I THINK THAT LAST SENTENCE IS REPETITIVE OF THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADDED.

SO, UM, SO YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE NEED THAT LAST SENTENCE.

WHAT IF WE, UM, WILL SEEK TO REPLACE THESE POLLUTING RESOURCES WITH CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES BY 2035? AND SCRATCH THE LAST SENTENCE.

YEAH, SCRATCH.

THAT'S WHAT I'M, I'M JUST SAYING.

YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT.

SO I'LL ACCEPT THAT YOUR OWN FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND CALL THE QUESTION.

CAN WE LIVE WITH THAT?

[03:45:02]

COOL.

SO IT'S JUST THE INSERTION OF WE'LL SEEK TO REPLACE THESE POLLUTING RESOURCES WITH CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES BY 25.

FIVE BY 25.

SO THAT'S JUST REAFFIRMING THE SAME GOAL, RIGHT? YEP.

THAT SHOULDN'T BE CONTROVERSIAL.

I, I SUPPORT THAT THERE.

VOTE FOR NO CON PERSON.

SO HOW ARE PEOPLE VOTING ONLINE? OKAY, WE'VE GOT TWO.

CHRIS, I'M VOTING, NO, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDED.

CONTROVERSIAL .

THAT ONE PASSED, RIGHT? PASSED.

COMMISSIONER KIRKSEY, ARE YOU NO.

OR ABSTAIN? NO.

DID YOU? NO.

31 IS MORE EFFICIENT NATURAL GAS PEAKERS 31 IS A HODGEPODGE OF IDEAS.

UHHUH, IT'S HOW MANY PAGES LONG? YES.

EXCUSE ME.

CHAIR.

YOU GUYS NEED TO VOTE TO TAKE THIS MEETING PAST 10:00 PM OKAY.

WHO WANTS TO MAKE THAT MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

UM, COULD WE ACTUALLY GO BACK TO THE SOLAR ONE BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THIS? WHICH SOLAR ONE 28TH? UM, OH, THE ONE WE DIDN'T FINISH? YEAH, 28TH.

SO STAFF WAS GOING TO GO CHECK ON THAT.

AND SO WE LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS AND SO ACTUALLY THE 2 0 5 I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE TO TWO 12 BECAUSE THAT WAS THE NUMBER THAT THEY MODELED, UM, IN ALL OF THE PORTFOLIOS FOR 2027.

AND THEN, YEAH, AND THEN I GUESS THE, I THINK THE WORDING IS A LITTLE BIT AWKWARD.

AUSTIN ENERGY WILL PLAN TO REACH AT LEAST 212 MEGAWATTS BY 2027, AT LEAST 212 MEGAWATTS OF, AND I'M GONNA PUT THE OF INSTALLED LOCAL SOLAR CAPACITY THERE, JUST MOVING THAT CLAUSE UP SO THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT BETTER WRITTEN BY 2027 AND 400 AND MEG 405 MEGAWATTS BY 2035 AND STRIVE FOR 580 MEGAWATTS IF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE BY 2035.

AND I CONFIRMED WITH STAFF ON THAT 212 NUMBER.

THAT WAS THE, I THINK THE ONE THAT WAS IN QUESTION.

SO YOU'RE PROPOSING, OUR CURRENT GOAL IS 200 BY 2030 AND YOU'RE PROPOSING TO BRING IT FORWARD THREE YEARS AND INCREASE IT BY 12 MEGAWATTS.

I'M I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE, THE CURRENT GOAL IS NOT 200.

UM, BUT I'M JUST GOING WITH WHAT Y'ALL MODEL THE, FOR 2027, YOU MODELED 212, MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD TIM HARVEY CUSTOMER RENEWAL SOLUTIONS.

OUR CURRENT GOAL TO 2030 IS 375 MEGAWATTS OF LOCAL SOLAR.

THAT INCLUDES THE FIVE COUNTY AREA WITH 200 MEGAWATTS OF CUSTOMER CIED.

WHEN WE SWITCH THE DEFINITION TO BE IN THE LOAD ZONE, THAT ESSENTIALLY IS CUSTOMER CITED.

WELL PLUS, PLUS WEAVERVILLE, PLUS WEAVERVILLE.

AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU GET FROM COMMUNITY SOLAR.

ANYWAY, Y'ALL MODEL YOUR EXPECTATION IN ALL OF YOUR PORTFOLIOS WAS THE 212.

IT, IT'S BASICALLY BY 2027 IT'S BASICALLY 170 CUSTOMER CITED PLUS THE 42 COMMUNITY SOLAR IS WHAT? IT'S, THAT'S I THINK.

COMMUNITY SOLAR INCLUDES WEBER.

AND

[03:50:01]

IT, IT'S THE, TO BE CLEAR, IT'S THE BUSINESS AS USUAL PLUS THE ECONOMIC ACHIEVABLE PLUS COMMUNITY SOLAR TO GET TO TWO 12.

SO IT'S WHAT IT'S WHAT YOU GUYS MODELED ESSENTIALLY FOR 2 27 3 YEARS.

IT'S 52 BECAUSE YOU'RE, IT'S 52 MEGAWATTS FOR THREE YEARS.

I MEAN IF YOU'RE HUNDRED 60 NOW UHHUH, YOU GOT 25 6, 27, WHICH NUMBER ARE WE LOOKING AT? I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE RIGHT THING ON, UM, NUMBER, NUMBER 28.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW THE GOAL FOR 2027 AND WHAT THEY MODELED IN ALL OF THE PORTFOLIOS WAS 212 MEGAWATTS FOR 2027.

I'LL JUST REMIND YOU AGAIN THAT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU MODEL THINGS RIGHT, YOU'RE PICKING AND CHOOSING IN CERTAIN YEARS FOR YEP.

MODELING PURPOSES, NOT FOR OPERATIONAL ACHIEVABLE PURPOSES.

WELL THAT WAS THE, THAT WAS WHAT DNV, RIGHT? THAT'S WHY Y'ALL CHOSE ALL THOSE NUMBERS IN THAT LINE.

WERE THE DNV ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE NUMBERS, RIGHT? I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY GAVE US NUMBERS THAT WERE PER YEAR.

I DON'T KNOW.

'CAUSE Y'ALL DIDN'T SHARE THIS STUDY, BUT THE, THE ALL I HAVE TO GO ON IS WHAT YOU SHARED.

SO I WILL JUST REITERATE AGAIN AND JUST REPEAT WHAT TIM HAS SAID.

IN ALL THE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAVE WITH OUR INNOVATIVE SOLAR PROGRAMS, THERE ARE A NUMBER THAT ARE ON THE HORIZON.

IT TAKES TIME FOR THEM TO JUMPSTART THIS PATH WILL NOT BE LINEAR.

WE HAVE LOOKED, WE ARE LOOKING TO MAXIMIZE AND ACHIEVE AS MUCH LOCAL SOLAR AS WE CAN.

405 BY 2035 IS A STRETCH GOAL.

IF THE ENVIRONMENT CHANGES AND SUCH THAT WE CAN DO MORE THAN THAT, WE WILL DO MORE THAN THAT.

ARE WE TALKING, I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 2027.

I I I'M PROPOSING THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN INTERIM GOAL.

OH, WELL, BECAUSE AS TIM HAS ALREADY DESCRIBED, THAT EXCEEDS THE MAX WE'VE EVER BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE.

AND THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE ON THE HORIZON TAKE TIME FOR, ESPECIALLY FOR COMMERCIAL ENTITIES TO BUILD UP TO THAT.

SO I THINK WE ALSO HEARD EARLIER, UNLESS WE ALREADY HAVE, YOU KNOW, UTILITY SCALE LOCAL SOLAR IN THE PIPELINE, THESE NUMBERS WILL BE HARD TO ACHIEVE.

TIM, DID YOU SAY EARLIER THAT THE, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW IS ABOUT 16 MEGAWATTS PER YEAR ADDED? THAT'S WHAT WE DID THIS YEAR AS OUR BIGGEST YEAR EVER.

UM, SO PRIOR TO THAT WE WERE, WE DID 14 MEGAWATTS LAST YEAR, AND I THINK THAT PREVIOUS TWO YEARS IT WAS AROUND 12 MEGAWATTS.

SO EIGHT YEARS, 20, 27 TO 20, 35 TIMES 16 IS, I THINK IT WOULD YIELD MAYBE 3 36 TOTAL.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SAYING 4 0 5 IS A STRETCH.

UH, AND THE FEDERAL FUNDING THAT IS NOW FLOWING THROUGH WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE IN THE PIPELINE FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS.

SO WE, WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER TWO MEGAWATTS EVERY YEAR TO HIT THAT 4 0 5 MARK.

YEAH, BUT YOU, SO, AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE STANDARD OFFER.

YOU DON'T HAVE SOLAR FOR CURRENTLY SOLAR FOR ALL.

UM, AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DECENT LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CITY MIGHT WANNA PUT SOLAR ON CITY BUILDINGS.

SO THERE'S RIGHT THERE AT LEAST THREE CATEGORIES THAT SHOULD ADD TO THE, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT YOU ACHIEVED THIS YEAR.

SO, SO WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THE 27 GOAL IS THAT YES, WE ARE LAUNCHING TWO VERY INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS AND LAUNCHING THOSE PROGRAMS IS A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT ON BOTH PARTS.

UM, AND, AND EFFORTS THAT WE ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY ON AND, UM, WILL DO.

SO, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO TO, UM, GET EVEN FURTHER BEYOND WHAT, WHAT WE'RE STRETCHING TO DO ALREADY.

YOU KNOW, I I THINK WE'RE GONNA ACHIEVE THAT OR WE'RE NOT.

BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE POISED TO DO MORE THAN WE'RE ALREADY SETTING, SETTING OURSELVES UP TO DO.

I I DON'T THINK IT, I I, YOU KNOW, TO SET UP THE UTILITY TO FAIL, UH, IS A MISTAKE.

IS A MISTAKE.

AND ALL OF WHICH IS,

[03:55:01]

UH, SO, SO ALL OF WHICH, ALL OF WHICH IS, I I'M, WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOALS THAT ARE MAY NOT BE ACHIEVABLE AND I WOULDN'T WANNA SADDLE AND ACHIEV THAT.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE 2027 GOAL? 'CAUSE I, I GUESS I'M CONFUSED WHAT THE STRESS IS ABOUT THIS.

IF THERE'S 160 NOW PLUS 16 TIMES THREE PLUS EIGHT FROM THE LANDFILL, YOU'RE AT TWO 16 AND I WAS SUGGESTING TWO 12, LIKE THIS DOESN'T EVEN SEEM LIKE A STRETCH AT ALL.

THE STAFF IS SAYING A STRETCH.

AND, AND, AND THAT IS SOON AS WE DELETED, WE DELETED LANGUAGE EARLIER.

CAN YOU USE THE MICROPHONE WEBER GAVE US, EXCUSE ME, AND WE DELETED THAT LANGUAGE ABOUT THE EASY, EASY PICKENS TO UH, RECOGNIZE THAT THE EARLY ADAPTERS HAVE ALREADY, UH, BID IN AND MADE THAT PART OF THEIR PLAN.

THE LONG AS IT GETS, AS IT TIME GOES BY, IT BECOMES MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT AND IN GREATER INCENTIVES RE ARE REQUIRED.

I I JUST WANNA ALSO OFFER THAT SOMETIMES WHEN WE STAND UP HERE AND HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE THINK WE CAN ACHIEVE AND WHY, WHY IT'S, THERE'S OPERATIONAL TENSIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT ALMOST STARTS TO PAINT A PICTURE AS IF LIKE WE'RE NOT FOR ALL OF THESE THINGS, WE, WE ARE ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY INDUSTRY LEADERS WHEN IT COMES TO THESE PROGRAMS. AND, AND I COULDN'T BE PROUDER OF THE TEAM THAT WORKS ON THESE THINGS.

AND I WANNA JUST SAY THAT WHEN THEY HAVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BUILDING TOWARDS THESE GOALS AND WHEN THEY START TO SHOW CONCERN, IT GIVES ME GREAT CONCERN.

AND SO I'M NOT AGAINST SETTING GOALS.

WE, WE ARE FOR SETTING GOALS THAT, THAT ULTIMATELY MOVE US FORWARD.

BUT WE NEED TO LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY TO OUR EXPERT STAFF BECAUSE THEY HAVE DECADES OF EXPERIENCE DOING THIS.

THEY KNOW WHAT CHALLENGES THEY'RE FACING AND THEY NEED FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO MEET SOME OF THOSE GOALS.

AND THEY DON'T WANT TO FALL SHORT AND THEY DON'T WANNA TRY TO PUSH AGAIN, TILT THINGS IN A WAY THAT BECOMES UNBALANCED TO TRY TO MEET A PARTICULAR GOAL WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE A GREATER GOOD OVERALL.

SO I JUST, I JUST WANNA REITERATE THAT 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T, I DON'T WANT IT TO COME ACROSS AS WE'RE FIGHTING AGAINST SOLAR.

WE'RE FIGHTING AGAINST DEMAND RESPONSE, ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

WE ARE FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND WE DO THEM INCREDIBLY WELL.

OKAY, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DETAIL OF 2 0 5 VERSUS TWO 12.

IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME WHETHER OR NOT THEY SUPPORT EITHER OF THOSE NUMBERS.

WE ARE, THEY HAVE 2 0 5 IN THE WE ARE DOCUMENT, RIGHT? WE DO NOT, WE DO NOT HAVE AN INTERIM SOLAR GOAL.

WE HAVE A 4 0 5 BY 2035 GOAL.

I MEAN, WE ARE LITERALLY TALKING ABOUT GOING BACKWARDS.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT GOING, GOING BACKWARDS.

WELL, IF YOU AT ALL, IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU, IF YOU DID 16 MEGAWATTS THIS YEAR AND YOU HAVE ONE 60 AND YOU DID THAT FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS, JUST PLUS THE EIGHT MEGAWATTS OF THE LANDFILL, THAT DOESN'T EVEN ACCOUNT FOR ANYTHING FROM THE STANDARD OFFER OR SOLAR FOR ALL.

SO IT THAT GETS JUST WITHOUT INCLUDING THOSE, YOU GET TO TWO 16 BY 20, THE END OF 2027 IF YOU ASSUME 16 YEAR 16, RIGHT.

BUT EVEN IF, OKAY, LET'S SAY THERE'S SOME WIGGLE ROOM, BUT YOU'VE GOT TWO NEW PROGRAMS, ONE OF WHICH IS GRANT FUNDED.

LIKE I THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO, WITH THOSE TWO NEW PROGRAMS, MEET WHAT YOU DID THIS YEAR ON AVERAGE OVER THE COMING THREE YEARS.

RIGHT? DO WE HAVE, THIS IS ACTUALLY NOT A IT'S NOT A STRETCH GOAL.

IT IS, IT IS A STRETCH GOAL.

AND NOW RICHARD GENESEE, VICE PRESIDENT CUSTOMER ENERGY SOLUTIONS, IT IS A STRETCH GOAL.

AND I'LL POINT OUT, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE FOUR, UH, OH FIVE BY 2035 DOES INCLUDE, UH, STANDARD OFFER AND SOLAR FOR ALL.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, THERE WAS A MISSTATEMENT EARLIER THAT IT DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT THE 4 0 5 DOES INCLUDE THAT.

AND AS TIM LAID OUT, THAT IS GONNA BE MORE THAN WE'VE EVER DONE CONSISTENTLY

[04:00:01]

YEAR AFTER YEAR, EVEN TO HIT THE 4 0 5.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

I'M, WE'RE EVERYTHING LISA SAID, WE'RE ALL FOR AGGRESSIVE GOALS, BUT PILING ON TOP OF WHAT IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED AS A STRETCH GOAL FOR US, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

I WASN'T SAYING IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN 4 0 5.

I WAS SAYING THAT IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN TWO 16, WHICH IS JUST BUSINESS AS USUAL.

HEY, HEY.

CALL THE QUESTION.

YEAH, I, I'M LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT.

IT HAS 4 0 5 BY 2035 ALREADY A GOAL.

AND SO THE DISCUSSION IS INSERTING SOMETHING AS A GOAL FOR 2027 AND THEN ALSO PUTTING STRETCH GOAL.

CAN WE VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY? CAN WE JUST START WITH THE 2027, AT LEAST 212 MEGAWATTS OF INSTALLED LOCAL LOCAL SOLAR CAPACITY.

BY THE END, WE CAN SAY BY THE END OF 2027, THOSE AND PAPERS.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

AND TO BE CLEAR, THAT IS WHAT WAS MODELED AND WHAT THE EXPECTATION WAS THAT THEY WOULD ACHIEVE.

NOT THAT IT WILL BE EASY, BUT IT WAS THE, IT WASN'T AS WELL.

MM-HMM, .

I, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT OVER CONSTRAINING THE PROBLEM.

UM, OKAY, LET'S HAVE A VOTE.

YOU ALL VOTE FOR.

SO IN FAVOR.

ANYONE ONLINE? CAN THE NOSE PLEASE RAISE THEIR HANDS? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY, GREAT.

AND THEN LANGUAGE ON THE STRETCH GOAL BEYOND 4 0 5.

THAT'S THE SECOND ONE, I MEAN SURE.

UM, THAT'S JUST, THAT'S THE 4 0 5 BY 2035 AND STRIVE FOR 580, WHICH WAS THE DNV ECONOMICALLY OR TECHNICALLY ACHIEVABLE.

UM, AND SO IT'S 400 OR 580 MEGAWATTS IF ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE BY 2035.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT DE DEMORALIZING THE TEAM.

I MEAN THAT'S TECHNICALLY AVAILABLE.

AND WHAT, TIM, YOU DO THE MATH ON EIGHT TIMES 16 AND IT'S, I THINK IT WAS 336 OR SOMETHING.

UM, I JUST HATE TO SEE GOOD PEOPLE STRIVE SO HARD AND THEN BE SET UP TO FAIL WHEN THEY'RE REALLY TRYING.

IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T WANT IT.

I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT.

OKAY, SO THOSE IN FAVOR OF THAT INSERTION OF LANGUAGE OF STRETCH GOAL OF FIVE 80.

YOU TOO .

OKAY THEN THE NAYS.

OKAY, SO WE'RE DONE WITH 28 AND JOSH IS ABSTAINING.

JOSH IS ABSTAINED.

NOW WE'RE ON TO THE DISSERTATION ON THE NUMBER 31.

UM, THESE ARE A LOT OF WORDS.

UM, CAN YOU USE THE MICRO SUGGEST, UH, MOVE, MOVE YOUR, UH, OH, EXCUSE ME, CY CYRUS, UH, ALL OF WHICH IS GOING ALONG LINES WE'VE ALREADY BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH SPECIFIC, UH, SPECIFIC, UH, DEMANDS OF AUSTIN ENERGY.

I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON THAT PAGE THAT SAYS, AUSTIN ENERGY WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT UTILITY INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS WORKING TO DEVELOP BEST PRACTICES, ET CETERA.

AND I WOULD, SO I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA MAKE THE SUGGESTION THAT WE NOT TAKE THIS AS ONE AMENDMENT, BUT YEAH.

MAYBE DIVIDE INTO A COUPLE.

UH, FROM WHERE TO WHERE? IT'S THE ENTIRE NEXT PAGE.

AND ALSO I THINK THAT WORKS.

WE HAD A ERROR IN OUR DOCUMENTS.

SO, UM, RIGHT ABOVE 32, THE PARAGRAPH THERE, LET'S CALL THAT 31 B 'CAUSE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A SEPARATE AMENDMENT, EXCUSE ME, RIGHT? YEAH.

[04:05:01]

NO, BUT IT SAYS ON PAGE 53, IF YOU SEE WHERE THAT IS, THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A SEPARATE ITEM, BUT WHERE DOES IT END? WHERE DOES IT END? OH, IT'S IN THE DEVELOP EMISSION GUARDRAILS FOR ALL OH, 31 B.

IT'S ON THE SCREEN.

DID Y'ALL, YEAH, SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE, WE TAKE THESE ISSUES UP SEPARATELY.

UH, I MEAN THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE PEAKER PLANTS WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, TALKED ABOUT IN AUSTIN ENERGY HAS ALREADY MADE THE ASSESSMENT.

SORRY, WHICH, WHICH, UM, I'M TALKING, UH, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE, THE PARAGRAPH.

AND THIS IS, THIS REALLY IS LONG.

BUT AUSTIN ENERGY SHOULD ASSESS THE NEED TO BUILD OR CONTRACT, UH, FOR NO MORE THAN 300 MEGAWATT.

UH, THAT WAS, THAT WAS MORE EFFICIENT.

ISN'T THAT PART OF THIS THE SAME NUMBER? YEAH.

THAT, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT, UM, THAT'S PART OF 31.

FLIPPING THE PA FLIPPING THE PAGES.

OH, YOU'RE JUST SAYING THE ASSESS TWO, THE THE ASSESS PART.

EXCUSE ME.

THE UNDERLINED PART YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TROUBLE WITH THERE? 'CAUSE THE OTHER STUFF WAS NOT OUR TEXT THAT WAS IN THE PLAN.

YEAH, YEAH.

TO ASSESS THE NEED.

I THINK THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DONE.

THAT IS NOT ACCURATE.

THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT IN THE PLAN.

YEAH, THAT, THAT, THAT WAS UNDERLINED THE NUMBER MORE THAN 300 WE ADDED.

SHOULD WE START AT THE, OOPS, I, I CAN'T FOLLOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO CAN WE JUST GO DOWN AND LIKE PARAGRAPH BY PARAGRAPH OR SOMETHING? 'CAUSE THERE'S LIKE YEAH, YEAH.

PAGE LIKE THE STUFF.

UM, SURE.

SO, UM, PAGE 53, THE SECTION PURSUE ADDITIONAL MORE EFFICIENT NATURAL GAS PEAKER UNITS.

UM, THERE'S SOME EDITORIAL LANGUAGE JUST SAYING, UH, YEAH, ONE COMPARED TO, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK HOW WE CAN SPLIT THIS UP.

WELL, THE THIRD, SO WE, I MEAN WE HAVE A, A FEW MINOR EDITS AND THEN THE MAIN PART THAT, THAT WE HAVE HERE IS IF AT THE END OF 2027, SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING BEFORE AUSTIN ENERGY MOVES FORWARD WITH PEAKERS, FIRST DO THE CLEAN ENERGY STUFF AND THEN DO GO TO COUNCIL WITH THEY, THEN THEY CAN START THIS, UM, THIS KIND OF FEASIBILITY AND, YOU KNOW, START, START LOOKING AT THE OPTIONS.

BUT THEY DO NEED TO, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT ALL OF, LOOK AT ALL OF THE OPTIONS, BUT THAT CAN INCLUDE THE NATURAL GUEST SPEAKERS.

BUT AFTER THEY'VE MET THESE CLEAN ENERGY TARGETS WITH THE INTENTION OF PERHAPS THE PROBLEM IS BEING MITIGATED GATED WITH THESE CLEAN SOLUTIONS AND WE DON'T NEED THAT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE FIRST SECTION THERE THAT HAS THOSE FOUR BULLET POINTS.

I'D LIKE, I'D LIKE TO HEAR BECAUSE, UH, UH, BOB, IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE, 'CAUSE WHAT I UNDERSTAND AUSTIN ENERGY IS SAYING IS WE NEED BOTH.

WE NEED TO BE DOING BOTH.

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU MENTIONED, CCPS THAT UH, YEAH, I, I THINK, OR LISA, YOU'RE RIGHT, I RESPOND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS.

IF ENOUGH, UH, YOU KNOW, OTHER SOLUTIONS WILL COME TO FRUITION.

I THINK THAT THIS AMENDMENT ESSENTIALLY IS A WAIT AND SEE APPROACH.

IT'S A LET'S KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND FIGURE OUT

[04:10:01]

AND THEN YOU CAN START TO DO A FEASIBILITY STUDY AND BUILD IN THE PLAN THAT IT ACTUALLY TAKES TO ACTUALLY BUILD SOME OF THESE UNITS.

AND I THINK THAT WHAT THAT DOESN'T RECOGNIZE IS THE FACT THAT THE RISK IS NOW, AND THE RISK BEGAN RIGHT AS SOON AS THE ENERGY LANDSCAPE STARTED TO CHANGE A COUPLE YEARS AGO.

AND SO WE ARE IN, IN VERY DIRE NEED OF LOCAL SOLUTIONS AND IT TAKES A MIX OF ALL OF THOSE SOLUTIONS TO COME TOGETHER AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADDRESS OUR COMMUNITY'S NEEDS FOR CLEAN, AFFORDABLE, AND RELIABLE POWER.

AND SO TAKING ONE OF THOSE TOOLS AND SAYING, YOU HAVE TO WAIT, PROVE TO ME FIRST THAT THESE OTHER THINGS CAN COME TO FRUITION IS, IS IT'S JUST NOT A RESPONSIBLE TACTIC TO TAKE WHEN YOU INSTEAD CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT RESOURCE KNOWING THAT COUNCIL STILL HAS TO APPROVE IT, RIGHT? THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS JUST ALLOWS THIS, THIS PLAN SHOULD CREATE THE POLICY THAT ALLOWS US TO OPEN THE DOOR TO EXPLORING NATURAL GAS PEAKER UNITS TO FILL A GAP THAT EXISTS TODAY.

NOT ONE THAT'S GOING TO COME TO BE IN 2027 OR BEYOND THAT, KNOWING THAT IT TAKES PROBABLY TWO TO FOUR YEARS TO BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THIS BASED OFF OF PERMITTING AND CITING AND SUPPLY CHAIN AND ALL OF THE ABOVE.

SO WAITING UNTIL 2027 TO SEE IF OTHER THINGS HAVE COME TO FRUITION FIRST DOES NOT HELP MITIGATE THE RISK WE HAVE TODAY.

AND SO I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE AGAINST THIS WAIT AND SEE APPROACH.

WE MODELED SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS TO SAY, WHAT'S THE RISK IF YOU WAIT AND YOU SAW THAT IF YOU JUST GO A PATH THAT INCLUDES DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT, CUSTOMER ENERGY SOLUTIONS, AND BATTERY STORAGE, YOU DON'T START TO SEE ANY BENEFIT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY GET IN TERMS OF REDUCING RELIABILITY RISK UNTIL YOU START TO SEE TRANSMISSION COME INTO PLAY.

AND WE KNOW TRANSMISSION IS A SIX TO EIGHT YEAR KIND OF PROCESS.

SO LET ME JUST SUMMARIZE.

I KNOW I SAID A LOT OF THINGS LOAD CAN CHANGE VERY QUICKLY.

ONE TO TWO YEARS, RIGHT? LARGE LOAD COMING TO JOIN SUPPLY TAKES TWO TO FOUR YEARS WITH BATTERIES BEING ON THE LOWER SIDE OF THAT AND NATURAL GAS PEAKERS ON THE HIGHER SIDE OF IT.

AND THEN TRANSMISSION TAKES USUALLY SIX TO EIGHT YEARS.

AND AS SOON AS THAT CAPACITY IS THERE, SOMEONE WANTS TO TAKE IT UP.

SO WE NEED ALL OF THE SOLUTIONS AND NOT ADDITIONAL BARRIERS TO PREVENT US FROM TRYING TO RESOLVE THE RISKS WE HAVE COLLECTIVELY IN THE MOST RESPONSIBLE WAY POSSIBLE.

I, I AGREE.

AND, AND WE LOOK AT ZOS THAT WENT BANKRUPT.

THAT IS ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE ISSUES OF NOT HAVING SUFFICIENT GENERATION DURING EXTREME CONDITIONS.

THANKS.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEPARATE THIS INTO TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.

SO ONE IS THIS ISSUE THAT LISA JUST DESCRIBED OF BEFORE ALLOWING FOR INVESTMENT, YOU'VE GOTTA GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

AND THEN BELOW THAT, THE TWO PARAGRAPHS BELOW THAT ARE ABOUT HOW DO WE MITIGATE POLLUTION? SO MAKING SURE WE'RE USING MAXIMUM AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, MAKING SURE THAT, UM, AND THEN MAKING SURE WE CONTINUE TO, TO, UM, SUPPORT METHANE REGULATIONS TO AVOID LEAKAGE.

UM, 'CAUSE I THINK THEY'RE REALLY TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES AND UM, MY SENSE OF WHERE THE FELLOW MEMBERS ARE ARE THAT THERE MIGHT BE MORE SUPPORT FROM THAT SECOND THAN THERE MIGHT BE FOR THE FIRST.

SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED, BUT YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? MM-HMM.

, DO YOU WANNA TAKE THE SECOND, DOES IT CLEANLY DIVIDE TEXTUALLY? LIKE COULD WE CUT IT OFF AFTER THESE WELL VOTE AND CONCEPT IS THE DIVISION AFTER NON-POLLUTING RESOURCES.

SO LET'S TAKE THE SECOND, JOSH, LET'S TAKE THE SECOND ONE FIRST BECAUSE THAT'SS THE MOST IMPORTANT.

BASICALLY THE IDEA ELECTRIFYING TRANSPORTATION OR WORKING WITH OTHER POINT SOURCES TO REDUCE THEIR POLLUTION SO THAT OVERALL WE'RE HAVING A POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE AIRSHIP.

THE SECOND ONE BASICALLY SAYS IF WE INVEST IN GAS SPEAKERS THAT WOULD, UM, INCREASE AIR POLLUTANTS, WE'VE GOTTA UTIL UTILIZE THE BEST, THE MAXIMUM AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, UH, AND THE BEST SYSTEM OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION.

THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT'S IN THE LAW FOR GREENHOUSE GASES.

UM, AND IF WE CAN'T REDUCE AIR POLLUTION, WE'LL, YOU KNOW, WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH OTHER FOLKS TO REDUCE POLLUTION IN OTHER PARTS OF OUR LOCAL AIRSHED.

[04:15:01]

AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT EFFORTS TO LOOK AT BEST PRACTICES IN TERMS OF METHANE LEAKAGE AND SUPPORTING THE FEDERAL RULES ON METHANE.

AND COMMISSIONER REED, I WOULD ASK YOU WHAT IS NOT IN THE PROTECT LOCAL AIR QUALITY PARAGRAPH THAT SPEAKS TO INCLUDING SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY WITH ANY NEW PEAKERS? SO WHAT, WHAT'S NOT THERE IS THE IDEA THAT YOU'LL WORK, UM, IT'S SIMILAR, IT'S A SIMILAR CONCEPT.

YEAH, I, WE HEARD VERY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HEARD, WE LISTENED AND HEARD FEEDBACK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT, SPECIFICALLY FROM OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS ABOUT LOCAL AIR QUALITY AND WE'RE VERY CAREFUL WITH THIS LANGUAGE, SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT IT ADDRESSES YOUR NEEDS.

CLEAR WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 32, I'M TALKING ABOUT, SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THIS, THIS LOOKING AT, YEAH, WE'RE THE LANGUAGE BELOW THE 31 B IN 31.

AND IT'S ALREADY COVERED.

IT'S ALREADY COVERED IN THE EXISTING PLAN, WHICH THEY ALSO HAVE AN AMENDMENT, BUT IT'S ALREADY COVERED IN EXISTING PLAN.

CORRECT.

THEY'RE CONTROLLING DIFFERENT THINGS.

SO LISA, ARE THERE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS LANGUAGE BESIDES REDUNDANCY AND, WELL, AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S TRYING TO GET AT THAT'S NOT ALREADY INCLUDED IN THERE.

SO I GET YES, IT'S, IT'S A REDUNDANCY THING, BUT THERE'S, THIS DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SPEAK TO, YOU KNOW, SCR TECHNOLOGY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IS MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE, THE BEST AVAILABLE.

AND SO INSTEAD IT USES TERMS LIKE MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.

THAT'S A TERM THAT'S SORT OF A LEGAL TERM FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS.

UM, AND SO IT MAY INVOLVE, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER TECHNOLOGIES.

THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT MY AREA, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES.

AND WHAT IS THE TERMINOLOGY DO YOU BEST AVAILABLE, BEST SYSTEM OF EMISSION REDUCTION, BEST SYSTEM OF EMISSION REDUCTION, WHICH IS WHAT'S REQUIRED BY, THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED UNDER THE GREENHOUSE GAS RULE.

MAC IS WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, MERCURY PM OTHER TOXICS REQUIRED BY WHOM? EPA FOR NOW.

FOR NOW.

AND SO, SO I MEAN, YOU KNOW, OH, GO AHEAD JOSH.

WELL, , IF WE'RE GONNA DO THE FOR NOW THING, IF THAT GOES AWAY, IS THE PLAN STRONGER IF IT REQUIRES THE SCR MM-HMM, THEN I KNOW THAT'S A WHAT IF, SO HOW DOES THIS REALLY AFFECT IT? I MEAN, MAYBE THERE'S SOME JARGON THAT YOU ALL ARE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN ALL THE TIME.

BEST SYSTEM OF EMISSION REDUCTION VERSUS MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.

ONE IS FOR CARBON, THE OTHER IS FOR, UH, NITROGEN OXIDE.

AND, AND SO CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IS THE BEST SYSTEM OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION? NO, THAT WOULD BE THE CARBON.

THAT'S GREENHOUSE GAS.

AND THEN THE MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY THAT'S FOR THE CRITERIA POLLUTANTS.

AND, AND HAZARDOUS POLLUTANTS.

AND THEN THE, THE LANGUAGE IN THE PARAGRAPH BELOW IS MORE, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO TRY TO BE A LEADER IN TERMS OF HOW WE USE GAS AND METHANE LEAKAGE AND THE, AND THE RULE THAT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED FOR THE MOMENT, I'M OPEN FOR SUGGESTIONS ON, I'VE RESOLVED THIS, THIS IS FAIRLY DEEP INTO IS THE BEST SYSTEM OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR GREENHOUSE GASES IS THAT CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION, NOT, NOT FOR A PEAKER PLANT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT REQUIRED OF A PEAKER PLANT GOING LESS THAN 20%.

THAT'S NOT REQUIRED.

SO THEN WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE DO FOR THE BEST

[04:20:01]

SYSTEM OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR GREENHOUSE GASES THAT'S NOT ALREADY COMMITTED.

IT'S MORE HOW YOU OPERATE THE PLAN, LIKE THE EMISSIONS CONTROLS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO, OKAY.

I JUST, I, I WANT, AND IT MAYBE THE OTHER THING IS HAVING LOW NOX BURNERS CAN BE ANOTHER CONTROL TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN BE USEFUL.

GOT IT.

LET ME UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON IS THE LAST PARAGRAPH TO UNDERSTAND FOR MY BENEFIT, WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING AND VOTING ON SEPARATELY IS THIS LAST FULL PARAGRAPH ON THE PAGE AND THAT ONLY, RIGHT, WELL I WAS SAYING THE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS, UM, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT STARTS WITH AUSTIN ENERGY WILL, WILL CONTINUE.

THAT'S THE LA SO UM, BEFORE, YEAH, UM, YOU KNOW WHAT, WITHDRAW THAT PARAGRAPH AND LET'S JUST VOTE ON THE LAST PARAGRAPH ABOUT METHANE CONTROLS.

'CAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE WE CAN COVER IT IN ON 32.

SO HOW ABOUT YOU ALL GUIDE US THROUGH WHAT YOU WANT TO KEEP OR WHAT YOU WANNA DISCUSS FURTHER.

GO DOWN EACH THESE SECTION.

LET'S START WITH THE END.

GO DOWN THAT ONE.

WE'RE NOT THERE.

CAN WE VOTE ON IF WE WANNA VOTE ON THEM INDEPENDENTLY? THEY CAN AMEND THEIR AMENDMENT, RIGHT? WELL I'M SUGGESTING WE JUST VOTE ON THIS METHANE ONE AS TO START WITH.

WELL, WHY DON'T WE TAKE IT IN ORDER BECAUSE OTHERWISE OKAY, IT'S GETTING LATE AND WE'RE GETTING TIRED AND IT'S ALREADY HARD ENOUGH TO FOLLOW SOME OF THIS.

SO WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE TOP OF 31.

WE'RE ON 31.

AND THEN THE FIRST INSERTED SUBSTANTIAL PARAGRAPH IF AT THE END OF 2027 , IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YEAH, NO, LET'S JUST GO ON THERE.

CHAIR.

COULD WE, COULD WE START WITH THE, IF IT REPLACES AN OLDER UNIT THAT IS RETIRED, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.

SO THERE ARE TWO EDITS IN THAT PARAGRAPH THERE.

I DUNNO THAT THE FIRST ONE MATTERS, BUT IF IT REPLACES AN OLDER UNIT, SORRY.

SO THIS CALL THE QUESTION ON JUST THE, IF IT REPLACES AN OLDER UNIT THAT IS REQUIRED RETIRED, THIS, THIS SENTENCE IS WRITTEN TO JUST BE EXPLANATORY, TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY NEW MORE EFFICIENT PEAKER UNITS.

AND SO IT'S COMPARING A NEW UNIT WITH A HEAT RATE OR A, YOU KNOW, THE AMOUNT OF FUEL THAT IT WOULD USE TO CREATE MEGAWATTS TO A DECKER UNIT.

AND SO IF YOU'RE RUNNING A NEW, A MORE, MORE EFFICIENT PEAKER UNIT COMPARED TO A DECKER UNIT, IT WOULD HAVE ABOUT HALF AS MUCH, UH, NATURAL GAS AND ABOUT HALF AS MUCH EMISSIONS FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER.

BUT IT ALSO SAYS THUS REDUCING EMISSIONS BY ABOUT HALF AS MUCH.

SO THAT'S, NOW THAT'S NOT COMPARING, THAT'S SAYING YOU'RE REDUCING EMISSIONS, BUT THAT WOULD, THE EMISSIONS COMING OUT OF THE NEW PEAKER UNIT WOULD BE ABOUT HALF AS MUCH AS THE EXISTING DEPUTY UNIT.

I'M FINE WITH JUST SAYING THAT WOULD BE ABOUT HALF AS THE, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE RETIRED, THE EMISSIONS, IT JUST HAS TO BE NOT DISPATCHED, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S THE YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S RIGHT.

AS MUCH AS AN OLDER, THAT'S RIGHT.

SO WE COULD SAY THUS THE EMISSION INSTEAD OF REDUCING, THUS THE EMISSIONS WOULD BE ABOUT HALF AS MUCH PER MEGAWATT HOUR PRODUCED.

YES, THAT IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

TRUE STATEMENT.

EMISSIONS WOULD BE HALF AS MUCH PER MEGAWATT HOUR PRODUCED.

SO WE'RE STRIKING THE WORD REDUCING.

WE'RE STRIKING BY ABOUT, THUS THE EMISSIONS WOULD BE ABOUT HALF AS MUCH AS WELL.

SO WE'RE STRIKING BY, AND THEN WE'RE STRIKING AS WELL AND THEN NOT ADDING THE NEW LANGUAGE.

SO IT WOULD JUST BE, THUS THE

[04:25:01]

CAN WE VOTE ON THAT CHAIR? YEAH, LET'S VOTE ON THAT.

LET SEE, SEE IT AND TRY TO PRODUCED AND THEN THEN WHAT'S STRICKEN I COLOR FOR WHAT'S ADDED? I NEED BINOCULARS HERE.

IT'S JUST MAKE IT BIGGER.

OKAY, SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT.

OH, OKAY.

AYE, THAT'S JUST A STATEMENT OF FACT.

NOW LET'S GO TO YOUR NEXT PARAGRAPH.

THIS IS BASICALLY SAYING DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN FIRST AND THEN GET A THIRD PARTY TO AUDIT IT, RIGHT? YEP.

AND SO CAN WE VOTE ON THAT? STARTING IT IF AND THROUGH THE FOUR BULLET POINTS AS A SINGLE ITEM? SO JUST THAT PARAGRAPH.

CAN I JUST REMIND Y'ALL TO PLEASE USE YOUR MICS SO OUR PEOPLE, MY APOLOGIES ONLINE CAN HEAR.

THANKS.

UM, MOVING TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT THAT STARTS WITH IF AND ENDS WITH THE FOURTH BULLET POINT AT THE BOTTOM.

I'M GONNA BE HONEST, I'M REAL CONFUSED AS TO HOW THE FOUR BULLET POINT FITS INTO THE CONTEXT OF THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH.

SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR.

CAN YOU SAY AGAIN? I JUST SAID I'M, I'M JUST REAL CONFUSED AT HOW THE FOUR BULLET POINTS FIT IN WHERE THEY FIT INTO CONTEXT OF THE OTHER REST OF THE PARAGRAPH.

DOES IT SAY, DO THESE THINGS? IS THAT WHAT IT IS THAT THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO FIRST? YOU HAVE TO DO THOSE FOUR THINGS FIRST.

UH, YES.

SO, SO WHAT WE'RE VOTING POSSIBLY FOR OR LIKELY AGAINST IS THAT IF, AND THEN THE PARA, THE CONTINUATION THAT SAYS BEFORE ANY WE'RE QUO THE WHOLE BLOCK THAT GOES DOWN TO THE WORD UH, EMISSIONS OF NOX.

IS THAT CORRECT? NO, THE NOX EMISSIONS WILL TAKE UP IN THE NEXT ONE.

STARTING AT IF ENDING WITH LOCAL BATTERY STORAGE.

CALL THE QUESTION.

YOU HAVE A MOTION AT FIRST WHAT, ANY SECOND DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS? OKAY, WHAT'S THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS? BASICALLY, SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DO WE WANNA TRY TO DO THE CLEAN ENERGY PATH BEFORE ARE GIVING UP ON CARBON FREE? SO THIS IS INSERTING 2027 GOALS FOR EACH ONE OF THESE.

AND TO BE HONEST, I DON'T KNOW IF WE MAYBE HAVE A TYPO ON THE LOCAL SOLAR GOAL.

SO I THINK THAT WAS PROBABLY SUPPOSED TO BE 212.

IT SHOULD BE TWO 12, BUT YEAH, SO LET'S JUST MAKE THAT TWO 12 DISCUSSION ON THIS.

I MEAN, IT'S THERE IN 2027 SPECIFIC GOALS AND WE JUST WENT THROUGH THE LOCAL BATTERY ONE.

THE INTENTION IS IT'S DOING THAN THAT, RIGHT? IT'S A PROCESS AS WELL.

SO IT SEEMS LIKE, SO, SO THAT PARAGRAPH LIKE RELATIVE TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH THAT THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IS I, I FEEL LIKE A MORE GENERAL VERSION OF THAT ONE.

THE FIRST ONE'S VERY PRESCRIPTIVE, THE SECOND ONE'S VERY, UH, IT'S MORE GENERAL.

WHICH SECOND PARAGRAPH? THE ONE THAT SAYS BEFORE, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON IT, BUT THE NEXT ONE, THE BEFORE ANY INVESTMENT, THE BASICALLY A THIRD PARTY YEAH.

DOESN'T, SAYS YOU GOTTA GO LOOK AT IT FIRST.

THE FIR THE ONE WE'RE VOTING ON NOW SAYS YOU HAVE TO DO THESE THINGS FIRST.

IS THAT HOW? YEAH, I GUESS REALLY WE SHOULD JUST TAKE THOSE, I DON'T KNOW UP AS ONE THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE TOGETHER.

UH, I THINK THEY'RE SEPARATE.

I THINK WE SHOULDN'T SAY SEPARATE.

THAT'S ABOUT, OKAY.

SO STARTING WITH IF AT THE END OF 2027, INDEPENDENT AUDIT FOR INDIVIDUAL GOALS FOR THE 2027 TIMEFRAME, ALL IN FAVOR? SAY THOSE NOT IN FAVOR, NAY.

IT'S, IT'S NOT THAT SOME OF US DON'T WANT SOME OF THESE GOALS, BUT I THINK THIS IS, WELL IT'S NOT USURPING WHAT THE COUNSEL, FUTURE COUNSEL WILL DO, BUT I MEAN IT'S IT IS VERY PRESCRIPTIVE.

[04:30:02]

YEAH, IT'S VERY PRESCRIPTIVE.

IT SUCKS SEX.

I MEAN WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH A PEAKER, THEY WOULD'VE TO GO THROUGH THIS ANYWAY.

RIGHT? THEN WE HAVE THE, BEFORE ANY INVESTMENT AND THEN ENDING WITH PRIORITIZED NON-POLLUTING RESOURCES.

IT'S JUST SAYING BEFORE YOU DO THAT INVESTMENT, YOU'VE GOTTA DO ANALYSIS OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD REACH THAT, THOSE SAME NEEDS WITH NON-CARBON.

AND THEN IF YOU DECIDE TO GO FORWARD DOING ALL OF THE ABOVE RFP, UH, SO IT'S AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS THOUGH.

THIRD PARTY AGAIN? YES.

THIS WOULD BE NOT THE EUC, THIS WOULD NOT BE, THIS WOULD BE YET ANOTHER STUDY? CORRECT.

AND I WILL OFFER THAT, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT ELSE YOU'RE LOOKING TO OBTAIN OTHER THAN THE DNV ENERGY INSIGHTS ANALYSIS AND THE ASCEND ANALYTICS ANALYSIS.

YOU'LL RECALL THEY DID MODELING WHERE THEY SAID, LET'S CONSTRAIN THE MODEL AND SAY YOU CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING THAT CREATES POLLUTION, BUT YOU NEED TO MEET THESE RELIABILITY GOALS.

HOW DO YOU DO THAT WITH THE LEAST COST? AND IT INCLUDED BUILDING NEARLY THREE GIGAWATTS OF BATTERY STORAGE AND SOLAR.

AND THEN THEIR ESTIMATION OF THE LANDMASS IT WOULD TAKE TO GET THAT WAS 10% OF OUR SERVICE TERRITORY.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT KIND OF THIRD PARTY ASSESSMENT INDEPENDENT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR BEYOND WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

I DON'T, I I THINK WE'VE STUDIED THIS ENOUGH.

I CALL THE QUESTION.

VOTE AGAINST SAVE THE MOTION SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? THE NAYS.

OKAY, THEN WE GO DOWN TO THE PARAGRAPH.

TO THE EXTENT THAN ANY NEW INVESTMENT SHOULD INCREASE, UM, I, I I'M GONNA WITHDRAW THIS ONE.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S BETTER COVERED IN THE NEXT SECTION.

UM, OKAY.

BUT THIS IS TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM THE NEXT SECTION.

SECTION.

WELL THE NEXT SECTION IS ABOUT PROTECTING AIR QUALITY.

OH, DO YOU MEAN LIKE THE NEXT 32 PROTECT LOCAL AIR QUALITY.

GOTCHA.

WELL DIDN'T YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT WE'LL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS WORKING TO DEVELOP BEST PRACTICES FOR METHANE EMISSIONS, DA DA DA.

I'D LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT ONE.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT.

OKAY, SO LET'S TALK ABOUT IT VIA, HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

SO THE MOTION WILL BE TO ADD, UM, AS PART OF THIS PLAN DIRECTION TO AUSTIN ENERGY TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT, UH, THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN ORGANIZATIONS LOOKING AT HOW DO WE DEVELOP CLEANER GAS SOURCES AND MAKE SURE THERE AREN'T METHANE LEAKS AND TO SU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE EPA RULE THAT WAS FINALIZED IN DECEMBER OF 2023 TO REDUCE METHANE EMISSIONS, UH, FROM THE OIL AND GAS SECTOR.

SO THIS IS CONTINUING WHAT THEY'RE ALREADY DOING.

PAUSE SECOND.

OKAY, RANDY, MY RESCUE, IS THERE A STAFF COMMENT ON THIS? I'VE JUST CONFIRMED WITH, UH, STAFF THAT THIS IS, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE ALREADY DO.

SO YOU HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THIS NO ISSUE.

SO ON THIS BEGINNING WITH AUSTIN ENERGY, WE'LL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT INDUSTRY ORGANIZATIONS AND THEN TO THE TOP OF THE NEXT PAGE TO REDUCE METHANE EMISSIONS BY MORE THAN 80% FROM OIL AND GAS INFRASTRUCTURE.

PASS.

THEN YOU HAVE A PARAGRAPH ON SHOULD ASSESS THE NEED TO BUILD OR YEAH, WE'RE MISSING SOME UNDERLINES THERE.

SO IT SHOULD BE THE, THE FOUR, NO MORE THAN 300 MEGAWATTS.

THAT IS AN ADDITION THAT WE HAD.

UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

I WASN'T, I WASN'T TRYING TO FOOL ANYONE.

IT WAS JUST CUTTING AND PASTING.

UM, SO THAT'S THE IDEA.

UM, BASICALLY THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IN THEIR, IN THEIR MODELING HAS SUGGESTED THAT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 200 AND 300 MEGAWATTS OF PEAKERS ARE WHAT'S NEEDED.

THIS AMENDMENT TRIES TO PUT AN UPPER LIMIT ON

[04:35:01]

THAT.

I WANT TO STAY, I WANT THAT NUMBER TO BE AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE.

I DON'T WANT THE PLAN TO PRESCRIBE OR PUT A LIMIT.

A PROHIBITION'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT IF ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE EXTREME LOAD GROWTH, RIGHT? SO THE 300 MEGAWATTS, THE MODELING SUGGESTS THAT THAT TENDS TO WORK, UH, GIVEN CURRENT LOAD GROWTH CONDITIONS.

WHEN YOU START TO PUT IN THE HIGH LOAD GROWTH, THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT.

AND I THINK ALL OF OUR NUMBERS WILL HAVE TO GO UP.

SO BOTH BATTERIES, LOCAL, YOU KNOW, SOLAR, EVERYTHING HAS TO GO UP.

SO I UH, WOULD NOT, WE WILL SPARE YOU THE MINUTES THAT IT TAKES ME TO TALK, TALK AGAIN ABOUT THE PRESCRIPTION OF NUMBERS WITH UTILITY SCALE.

BUT EVERYTHING I SAID BEFORE STANDS HOLD TRUE ON THIS ONE AS WELL.

I AM NOT TRYING TO BUILD AS MANY MEGAWATTS OF PEAKERS FOR THE RECORD, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND? I MAKE A MOTION TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF PEAKERS THAT COULD BE BUILT IN THIS PLAN TO NO MORE THAN 300 MEGAWATTS.

SECOND, OKAY, THIS SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE GUARD BAND OR GUARDRAIL, SORRY, GUARDRAIL.

AND IF YOU NEED MORE, YOU CAN ALWAYS GO BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND ASK FOR MORE AFTER YOUR ANALYSIS AND THINGS EVOLVE, RIGHT? SO TO ME THAT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING TO PUT IN AS A PLACEHOLDER RIGHT NOW THAT'S A REASONABLE CONSTRAINT.

SO LET'S VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF A 300 MEGAWATT CAP THAT YOU COULD OF COURSE ALWAYS GO IN THE FUTURE AND MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR SAY AYE.

OKAY, ALL THOSE NOT IN FAVOR SAY NAY.

SO I DON'T KNOW, SIX, FIVE TO SIX.

THE NAYS HAVE A, I BELIEVE, RIGHT? YEP.

THEN CREATE APPROPRIATE EMISSIONS GUARDRAILS.

THEN YOU HAD YOUR 31 B, WHICH I GUESS WAS GAS GENERATOR.

STRIKE OUT PEAKERS.

WHO'S IS THIS? THIS IS BOTH OF YOU.

WELL, SO THIS IS, UM, JUST TRYING TO MOVE UP.

BASICALLY SAYING THAT TO START, UM, REDUCING EMISSIONS EVEN, YOU KNOW, IT WAS KIND OF THE WAY IT WAS WORDED IS THAT THEY WOULD DEVELOP THEM AFTER, UM, AFTER THEY GOT NEW UNITS, WHICH DIDN'T, I GUESS MAKE SENSE TO US.

UM, SINCE THAT'S WAS ALREADY A COMMITMENT IN THE EXISTING PLAN WAS TO USE REACH ON THOSE UNITS, WE DIDN'T REFERENCE REACH 'CAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONCERN EXPRESSED THAT MAYBE THAT WASN'T QUITE THE APPROPRIATE TECHNIQUE.

SO WE JUST SAID ADJUST THE OFFERING PRICES TO ACHIEVE REDUCTIONS AND EMISSIONS OVER TIME.

SO MOVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

OKAY, SET DISCUSSION.

LISA, WHAT'S STAFF COMMENTARY ON THIS? SO THE REASON THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO PUT EMISSIONS LIMITS ONCE WE HAVE ADDITIONAL RESOURCES IS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT RESOURCES RIGHT NOW TO BE ABLE TO PUT LIMITS ON THEM.

WE ARE OPERATING AT A DEFICIT.

OUR PEAKER UNITS ARE OPERATING MORE THAN THEY SHOULD BE IN CERTAIN CASES.

WE DON'T SEE THE, THE 12% OR LESS THAT WE SEE IN MODELING IN OUR CURRENT STATE.

AND SO WE SEE WE'RE SEEING THAT FROM A PRICING PERSPECTIVE AS WELL.

AND AS YOU KNOW, FUNDAMENTALLY PEAKER UNITS ARE VERY DIFFERENT THAN A COAL UNIT.

SO THE IDEA OF PRICING INTO THE DISPATCH PRICE, RIGHT? FUNDAMENTALLY, THEY, THEY ONLY ARE SUPPOSED TO RUN WHEN THE PRICES ARE HIGH BECAUSE DEMAND IS HIGH.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT TRYING, WE'RE TRYING TO NOT CONFLATE THE REACH COMMENT IN HERE.

SO INSTEAD WE TALK ABOUT EMISSIONS GUARDRAILS.

I THINK WE ACTUALLY HEARD THAT FROM THIS COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT USING EMISSION LIMITS.

WE TALKED ABOUT WE COULD DO RUNTIME LIMITS, WE CAN CONVERT THOSE TO EMISSIONS LIMITS AND WHATNOT.

BUT WE WERE LOOKING TO, ONCE WE HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY THAT WE CAN THEN SAY WE SHOULD USE THE MOST EFFICIENT UNITS FIRST, THEN WELL OF COURSE FIRST YOU USE YOUR BATTERIES, THEN YOU USE YOUR MOST EFFICIENT LIMITS.

SO WE COULD

[04:40:01]

AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY ON THE PEAKERS.

WE ACTUALLY EXPANDED IT, SO SORRY, UM, I DIDN'T HIGHLIGHT THAT.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS WAS SPECIFIC TO PEAKERS, BUT HONESTLY I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY DO NOTHING WITH THE PEAKERS AND GET MOST OF YOUR REDUCTIONS FROM THE COMBINED CYCLE.

SO, SO THE COMBINED CYCLE UNIT, AND I'LL HAVE MIKE COME UP AND OFFER SOME OTHER COMMENTARY ON HOW THE UNITS GENERALLY TEND TO RUN, BUT IN GENERAL, THE COMBINED CYCLE UNIT IS KIND OF A COMBINATION.

IT'S NOT AS FLEXIBLE AS A PEAKER UNIT.

AND SO IT TENDS TO RUN WHEN IT, IT, IT, IT RUNS SOONER AND IT RUNS WHEN NEEDED AND IT COVERS A FAIR AMOUNT OF, OF BASE LOAD.

IF YOU PUT IN A PRICE ADDER INTO THE DISPATCHABLE RANGE OF IT, IT ESSENTIALLY REDUCES ITS EFFICIENCY, CAUSES IT TO PRODUCE MORE, UM, EMISSIONS PER NEEDED MEGAWATT.

AND SO IT IS NOT A GREAT IDEA TO PUT A LIMITATION LIKE THAT ON OUR ONLY COMBINED CYCLE UNIT.

IT MAKES SENSE.

AND, AND ESSENTIALLY YOU'D BE DISPLACING OTHER GAS, OUR GAS WITH OTHER GAS THAT IS AGAIN, LESS EFFICIENT.

SO I'LL HAVE MIKE COME UP AND SHARE HIS KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM ON LIMITATIONS ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF TECHNOLOGIES.

PLEASE, MIKE? NO, I THINK THAT THAT'S VERY WELL SAID.

AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE COMBINED CYCLE ALSO HAS WHAT'S CALLED DUCT BURNERS ON IT.

AND WHEN YOU KICK THOSE IN, THAT KIND OF CHANGES THE, THE RAMP RATE AND HOW THE, THE UNIT OPERATES AS WELL.

AND SO YOU'LL, YOU'LL HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY LIMITATIONS IF YOU WERE TRYING TO HAVE IT, UH, FOLLOW UP AN OFFER CURVE AND THEN UNFOLLOW, WELL FOLLOW THE OFFER CURVE, PUT IN THE DUCT BURNERS.

YOU'D HAVE TO ALMOST TAKE THE DUCT BURNERS OUT.

IT WOULD CAUSE A LOT OF OPERATIONAL ISSUES FOR THE POWER PLANT TO DO THAT.

AND YOU WOULD, I THINK, AS LISA MENTIONED, I, THE COMBINED CYCLE WHEN IT'S SITTING DOWN AT LSL, UH, IS ABOUT, UH, HALF AS EFFICIENT AS WHEN IT'S SITTING KIND OF MORE LOADED.

AND SO YOU HAVE A MUCH HIGHER HEAT RATE, SO YOU'RE PRODUCING A LOT MORE EMISSIONS FOR PER MEGAWATT HOUR.

AND SO YOU COULD, YOU COULD RUN IT MORE LOADED AND MORE EFFICIENT AND HAVE A MUCH LOWER EMISSIONS PER MEGAWATT HOUR.

'CAUSE IT, IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO RUN AT THE BOTTOM, BENEFITING RELIABILITY, WELLING YOUR RELIABILITY.

AND WE ONLY CHANGING THE, CHANGING THE WORDS FROM PEAKERS TO NATURAL GAS GENERATORS IS THE ONLY, IS THE ONLY UNIT THAT THAT ENCAPSULATES OR ADDS INTO THIS GROUP WOULD BE THAT COMBINE SITE.

THAT WHAT? SAND HILL? YEAH.

THE ONLY, THE ONLY NATURAL GAS UNITS WE OWN TODAY ARE PEAKING UNITS AT DECKER AND SANDHILL AND THE COMBINED CYCLE AT SANDHILL.

HELP ME OUT HERE.

WHAT, WHAT IS THIS GONNA ADD? IF IT'S MODIFIED LIKE THIS? IT'S JUST THE LINES THAT WITH THE COMMITMENT AND THE CURRENT PLAN, BUT THEY HAVE THE COMMITMENT OF THE CURRENT PLAN, RIGHT? NO, I MEAN THE PLAN THAT IS LIKE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.

WELL, BUT LIKE HALF OF THE, THERE'S STILL THE WORD PEAKER IS IN HERE.

LIKE, SO SOME OF IT, SOME OF THE WORDS PEAKER HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO NATURAL TO NATURAL GAS GENERATOR AND SOME OF THE WORD PEAKERS HAVE BEEN LEFT.

SO I'M, IT'S THE, THE PARAGRAPH'S INCONSISTENT.

UH, OKAY.

CAN YOU, WHICH, WHICH, CAN YOU POINT OUT THE SENTENCE? UM, I SEE USING PEAKER'S IN THIS WAY, BUT I THINK THAT WAS A STATEMENT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT PEAKER'S.

LESS EFFICIENT AND HAVE MORE EMISSIONS AT LOWER LEVELS OF OUTPUT THAN THEY DO KIND OF AT, OF HIGHER SUSTAINED.

MAYBE IT'S, MAYBE, MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT.

JUST I I MEAN ISN'T THE BASICS OF THE MARKET YOU OPERATE THE MOST EFFICIENT, WHICH ARE THE MOST LOWEST EMISSIONS FIRST.

AND SO YOU'RE INCENTED TO DO THAT ANYWAY FROM THE ECONOMICS AND THE EMISSIONS, RIGHT? YES.

SO I'M STRUGGLING TO SEE HOW THIS ADDS VALUE VERSUS COMPLEXITY.

I THINK IT ADDS COMPLEXITY.

I THINK THERE, I MEAN, LIKE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES YOU MODEL POWER PLANTS FOR SIMPLICITY WITH A, LIKE A, A STATIC HEAT RATE, BUT THEY DO HAVE DYNAMIC HEAT RATES AND THEY'RE

[04:45:01]

IT'S KIND OF LIKE YOUR, YOUR CAR GETS WORSE FUEL MILEAGE AT 15 MILES AN HOUR THAN IT DOES AT 55.

'CAUSE IT'S LIKE SET FOR, LIKE, THAT'S WHAT IT'S SET TO DO.

UM, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS REALLY HELPING THE OVERALL GOAL.

WELL, AND AS LISA POINTED OUT, IF, IF YOU RAISE THE PRICING, SAY FOR SAND HILL, UH, IT'S LIKELY THAT ANOTHER OLDER, LESS EFFICIENT UNIT MAY BE DISPATCHED AHEAD OF THAT AND THE NET RESULT IS YOU'D ACTUALLY HAVE INCREASED EMISSIONS WITHIN .

SO LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THIS.

VOTE.

DO YOU, ARE YOU READY TO UH, WE'LL, WE'LL WE WILL WITHDRAW THIS ONE.

31 B IS WITHDRAWN DOESN, IT SEEMS TOO COMPLEX.

WE REALLY ARE TRYING TO DO A GOOD THING, BUT IT SEEMS THE COMPLEXITY OF IT IS WE CAN'T, OKAY.

IT'S HARD TO DICTATE 32, WHICH REFERS TO PAGE 53 AGAIN.

AND SO THIS IS GETTING AT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO IN THAT OTHER PARAGRAPH, AND I THINK IT'S CONTAINED HERE, WHICH IS JUST, I'M TRYING TO ADD SOME OTHER THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO TO LOWER EMISSIONS.

UM, SO THE WAY YOU OPERATE THE PLANT, WHETHER YOU HAVE LOW KNOX BURNERS, UM, COMMITTING TO MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.

UM, SO IT'S JUST TRYING TO ADD SOME SPECIFICITY TO THAT LIST AND, AND ARE YOU OPPOSED TO IT COMMITTING TO BEST ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECH, WHATEVER THE OTHER TERMINOLOGY IS.

I THINK THAT'S, I THINK MAXIM IS ACTUALLY FOR, I WISH, UM, THE, WELL, I I BELIEVE MAC IS REALLY REFERRING MORE TO HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS.

SO BACKED IS MORE FOR NOX.

MIKE HOFFMAN, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER.

SO, UM, I'M FINE WITH WITH, OH, WITH THE NEW ADMINIS.

UM, YEAH, I, LET'S JUST, IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE.

HOW WOULD YOU FIX THIS TO GET AT WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO? UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THERE IS A NEW EPA STANDARD FOR, UH, COMBUSTION TURBINES.

IT'S JUST A PROPOSED RULE, BUT IT REFERENCES BEST SYSTEM OF EMISSION REDUCTION.

SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION AND, UH, COMBUSTION CONTROLS.

SO, SO TO ASSURE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY GOING FORWARD, UM, FOR ANY EXISTING UNITS OR MORE FOR ANY NEW UNITS IS DOING THE BEST THEY CAN DO.

WHAT ARE THE, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WORDS WOULD ACHIEVE THAT? IT SEEMS WE ARE ALREADY COMMITTING TO SCRS FOR ANY NEW PEAKERS.

UH, I SUPPOSE IF WE ADDED LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE, UH, COMBUSTION CONTROLS, WHICH IS IMPLIED, BUT WE COULD ADD THAT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ALIGN WITH THE EPAS PROPOSED RULE OF BSCR.

SO OTHER TECHNOLOGIES INCLUDING COMBUSTION CONTROLS, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I MEANT BY OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS, RIGHT? COMBUSTION CONTROLS.

AND DON'T CERTAIN UNITS USE LOW NOX BURNERS, WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CLEANER? I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE CONFIGURATION, BUT OKAY.

I WOULD JUST, UH, AVOID THE USE OF MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 'CAUSE IT'S A REGULATORY STANDARD THAT IS, THAT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND IT'S IMPLYING, UH, HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT CONTROL, WHICH IS, UH, DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

ENERGY WILL ALSO, UM, ASSESS THE USE OF OTHER POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES, INCLUDING COMBUSTION CONTROLS AND LOX BURNERS AND JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

IF NOX IT'S MORE FOR A COAL PLANT THAN FOR A, OKAY.

UM, SO, UH, I WOULD JUST CHANGE IT TO SAY, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY WILL ALSO EMPLOY OTHER POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AS, UM, COMBUSTION CONTROLS AND LOW NOX BURNERS AS APPROPRIATE.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

JUST TO ADD TO THE LIST, WE DO STATE IN THE PROTECT LOCAL AIR QUALITY SECTION, WE'LL CONTINUE TO ASSESS EMERGING POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES TO FURTHER REDUCE LOCAL EMISSIONS.

I GUESS YOU COULD ARGUE THAT THOSE AREN'T THE ONES YOU MENTIONED AREN'T NECESSARILY EMERGING.

UM, SO, SO I THINK THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE JUST TO ADD A SENTENCE AFTER THE 95% AND JUST SAY, AUSTIN

[04:50:01]

FAIR.

SO IT'S BASICALLY JUST ASSESS SOME ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGIES.

AND THEN YOU CAN ERASE THE REST OF IT.

I SECOND THAT ON THESE EASY ONES.

YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE WITH ME.

IT'S THE HARD ONES.

I DON'T KICKED OUT CLUB .

IT'S, IT'S A BIG 10.

SO YOU HAVE YOUR TWO VOTES PLUS, YEAH.

HOW MANY IN FAVOR OF THAT EDITION SAY AYE.

I THINK THAT PASSES.

UM, THE, AND I'M, I'M SORRY FOLKS.

I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A LONG NIGHT.

UM, WE'RE GETTING TO THE END.

UM, THE NEXT ONE IS JUST SIMPLY ADDING A STATEMENT, UM, ABOUT BLACKSTAR CAPABILITY.

UH, BECAUSE, WELL THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS DO NOT ALLOW THE USE OF STORAGE FOR BLACKSTAR.

THERE IS A DISCUSSION AND MOVEMENT AFOOT AT ERCOT THAT WOULD ALLOW BATTERIES TO PROVIDE SOME BLACK START CAPABILITY.

UM, AND SO THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO JUST REFLECT THAT IN THE, IN THE TEXT.

CAN WE ADD IF ECONOMIC TO THE END OF IT, THE WAY IT READS? SORRY, CAN WE ADD IF ECONOMIC TO THE END OF THAT, THE WAY IT READS IS LIKE IF ERCOT GIVES THE GO AHEAD THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS TO, THAT, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO ME.

IT'S MERELY, IT'S JUST SAYING TECHNOLOGY'S EMERGING RIGHT NOW.

WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, GAS IS WHAT WE USE FOR BLACKSTAR.

THE FUTURE MAY LOOK DIFFERENT ANYWAY, LET'S GET BACK TO THE, I THINK THEY WOULD MONITOR IT ANYWAY, BUT WITH THAT CHANGE, THAT'S GREAT.

LET'S KEEP OUR RHYTHM MOTION IN SECOND.

UH, DO YOU HAVE A, TO HAVE DISCUSSION ON THIS? WE'LL, WE'LL IMPLEMENT BATTERIES FOR THAT PURPOSE.

RIGHT? SO IN ORDER TO DO WHAT I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO RESERVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CAPACITY TO BE ALWAYS AVAILABLE.

RIGHT, I SEE.

AND NOT NECESSARILY USING IT FOR ITS OTHERWISE ECONOMIC PURPOSE.

AND SO IT MAY NOT BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO IMPLEMENT BATTERIES SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BLACKSTAR.

I DON'T KNOW.

WHAT ABOUT, WE'LL CONSIDER IMPLEMENTING BATTERIES FOR THAT PURPOSE IF ECONOMIC, I, I'M, I AM CERTAINLY HAPPY TO CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE THINGS 'CAUSE IT MAY BE THE BEST OPTION.

YOU'VE GOT THE CONSIDER AND THEN WHERE'S THE IF ECONOMIC LIKE SURE.

YEAH, SHE'S, THERE WE GO.

ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT, SAY AYE.

PASSED 34, THIS IS ON PAGE 54.

CARBON FREE IS A PERCENTAGE OF LOAD.

SO REALLY APPRECIATE AUSTIN ENERGY IN THE PLAN SETTING A, A HIGHER GOAL FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY BY 2030.

UM, THIS, I WAS SUGGESTING A SLIGHT INCREASE TO 73%, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE NUMBER THAT WAS IN, UM, THE MODEL 14, WHICH APPEARS TO BE THEIR PREFERRED KIND OF PORTFOLIO.

SO IT'S TRYING TO MATCH, UH, THAT THE 73% THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY WOULD ACHIEVE AS PART OF THAT, UM, BATTERY PLUS PEAKER MODEL.

SO MOTION AND SECOND.

FOR DISCUSSION STAFF COMMENT ON THOSE INSERTIONS.

I WAS, I WAS CURIOUS WHERE THE NUMBER CAME FROM.

SO THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT.

HUNDRED PERCENT CARBON FREE BY 2035.

THIS IS, UM, AS A PERCENTAGE OF LOAD.

AND SO, RIGHT.

I'M NOT CERTAIN, AS LOAD CONTINUES TO GROW, OUR PERCENTAGES BECOME HARDER AND HARDER TO ACHIEVE.

AND SO, UM, WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO HERE IS MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY IN, THIS IS A PATH AWAY POINT ON OUR PATH TO CARBON FREE, A

[04:55:01]

AND I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROMOTE FLEXIBILITY INTO OTHER TYPES OF TECHNOLOGIES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE RENEWABLE.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S A VERY BIG NUMBER TO, BUT IT DOES EVERY TIME.

IT'S JUST RENEWABLE RIGHT NOW, IN ORDER TO MAKE MORE RENEWABLE AND HIT OUR HIT OUR GOALS, WE HAVE TO JUST BUY MORE PPAS, UH, OR SIGN UP FOR MORE PPAS.

AND THOSE COSTS ARE COMING AT A PRETTY HIGH RATE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF CONGESTION.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE WILL HOLD.

UM, BUT THAT'S WHY THE NUMBER WAS, IT WAS PUSHED OUT, BUT YET ALSO INCREASED TO SOME EXTENT.

I'M NOT SURE THE THREE MEGAWATTS, I MEAN 3% MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE, BUT IN, IN EVERY PERCENT I THINK DOES COUNT.

AND IT USUALLY COMES IN THE, IN THE TERM OF COST DISCUSSION.

AND WHAT'S THE GOAL FOR 2035? 'CAUSE IT'S 70% THE GOAL FOR 2030, IT WOULD BE 100% CARBON FREE AS A PERCENTAGE OF LOAD BY 2035, BUT NOT A SPECIFIC RENEWABLE GOAL.

AND I, I ACTUALLY, UM, I MEAN I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE GIVEN THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY.

WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT LONG DURATION STORAGE.

I MEAN, I GENERATION OKAY.

STORAGE IS GENERATION.

I MEAN, I TEND TO DOUBT THERE'LL BE THIS NUCLEAR REVOLUTION WILL BE IN PLACE BY THEN.

YOU HAVE MY DOUBTS, BUT WHAT DO YOU MEAN THAT FUSION? YEAH.

BUT, UM, IT GIVES US THAT CHANCE IN THE FUTURE.

BUT 2030, I THINK WE KNOW WHAT THE NON-CARBON RESOURCES ARE GONNA BE.

SO IT SEEMS LIKE HAVING A HIGHER GOAL WILL GET US CLOSER FASTER.

NO, .

SO THIS IS BASICALLY UPPING THE GOALS.

THERE IS A STATEMENT IN HERE, THE GOAL WILL INCLUDE BOTH LOCAL AND NON-LOCAL RENEWABLE RESOURCES.

IS THAT OF CONTROVERSY? DO YOU WANNA SEPARATE UPPING THE GOALS FROM THAT ONE INSERTION? I MEAN, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S CONTROVERSIAL.

I THINK THEY COUNTED IT ALREADY.

IT WAS ALREADY COUNTED.

IT IS ALREADY CONSIDERED.

I WOULD JUST, IT'S JUST, IT MAKES IT EASIER.

IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM TO MEET IT.

SO YOU DON'T WANNA BREAK THAT UP IN INSERTING THAT ONE SENTENCE? NO, IT'S OKAY.

I THINK THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF CHALLENGES.

JUST SAY, YOU, YOU ALL VOTE, LET'S VOTE.

ANY ABSTENTIONS? IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT IT, IT'S JUST OKAY.

CAN YOU SHOW ME VOTING? YES, PLEASE.

AND COMMISSIONER CONDE, ARE YOU ABSTAINING? I'M ABSTAINING.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

OKAY, WE'RE ON A ROLL TO NUMBER 35, WHICH IS REFERRING TO PAGE 56.

SO THIS IS, UM, PUTTING IN A, UM, REQUIRED REVIEW OF THE RESOURCE PLAN BY THE END OF 2027.

SO THREE YEARS FROM TODAY, WITHIN 36 MONTHS, BASICALLY, UM, HAVING A REVIEW, UM, INCLUDING A TECHNOLOGY READINESS ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS SOMETHING THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT, IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUALLY DO.

SO IT'S SAYING THREE YEARS FROM NOW, WE'LL DO ANOTHER REVIEW.

WELL, AS I SAID, AS I SAID EARLIER, 36 MONTHS, UH, SOUNDS GOOD.

UH, 36 MONTHS SOUNDS BETTER THAN TWO YEARS, WHICH I READ AS IN THE CURRENT LANGUAGE.

GOALPOSTS, THE RIGHT GUIDE GUIDELINES.

SO 36 MONTHS.

YES, I WOULD OFFER STAFF COMMENT.

I WOULD OFFER THE COUNTER THAT THE PLAN SAYS THAT WE WILL LOOK AT IT ANNUALLY AND PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON WHERE THINGS ARE.

AND THEN THAT WOULD HELP US DETERMINE DO WE NEED TO COME BACK AND REDO THIS EXERCISE, MULTI-YEAR LONG EFFORT EXERCISE, UM, IN, YOU KNOW, TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN THREE YEARS.

OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS.

THE PLAN PROVIDES THE RIGHT

[05:00:01]

AND YOU KNOW, I I I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS, AT THIS POINT, WHEN YOUR GOALS ARE 100% WITHIN 10 YEARS, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED TO GO RESET THE GOALS IN THREE YEARS.

IF THE PLAN PROVIDES THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY AND THE RIGHT CHECK-INS, THEN WE ARE MAKING SURE WE'RE GOING WHERE WE'RE HEADED.

I'M NOT AGAINST TECHNOLOGY READINESS ASSESSMENT, I THINK WE'LL DO THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS ANYWAY.

AND I THINK THAT'D BE PART OF THE, UM, ANNUAL CHECK-INS.

IT'S, IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF WHAT LEVEL OF, UM, EFFORT IS REQUIRED WHEN YOU'RE AT THIS STAGE AND IF YOU SET THE PLAN CORRECTLY.

NOW, I'M NOT, UH, ALL, ALL OF WHICH IS, I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE DO ANOTHER, UH, UH, REVIEW.

WHAT I, I, I GUESS WHAT I WAS CONTEMPLATING WAS A SET ASIDE EUC MEETING WITH REPORT, WITH REPORTING, JUST TO KNOW, UH, A, A DEEP LOOK AT HOW WE ARE ACCOMPLISHING IN NOT FOR PURPOSES OF AMEND, AMENDING THE PLAN IN THREE YEARS OR ANY, OR ANY SPECIFIC PERIOD.

IN THAT CASE, WE PLAN ON DOING THAT EVERY YEAR FOR YOU.

I'M GOOD EITHER WAY.

SO CYRUS, OH, COMMISSIONER REED.

YOU CAN CALL ME CYRUS.

IT'S OKAY.

WHAT IS THE SCOPE, WHAT IS YOUR INTENDED SCOPE OF THIS REVIEW AND HOW IS IT DIFFERENT THAN THE REPORTING? UM, SOME CONSIDERATION OF THE EXISTING PLAN.

UM, AN ASSESSMENT OF TECHNOLOGY READINESS AND, UH, IF NEEDED AMENDMENTS TO IT THAT COULD BE VOTED ON BY THE EUC COUNCIL.

MAYBE NOT A FULL BLOWN, MAYBE NOT WHAT WE DID THIS TIME.

I THINK THAT WAS, IS THIS A REVIEW? YEAH, YEAH.

UM, IS IT INTENDED TO INVOLVE OUTSIDE THIRD PARTIES OR INTERNAL OR, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE COMMITTING TO.

I THINK MORE, IT'D BE MORE INTERNAL.

SO IT'D BE JUST EUC AUSTIN ENERGY CITY COUNCIL.

UM, SO SOME, SOMETHING NOT AS ROBUST AS THE PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH, BUT SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST A REPORT.

SO I'M NOT SURE OF THE RIGHT WORDS, BUT THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.

IF WE HAVE THE YEARLY REVIEWS AND WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED MORE DETAIL, CAN'T WE JUST ASK FOR THAT DETAIL AT THAT TIME? YEAH.

I MEAN, BUT THE IDEA OF THIS IS, IT WOULD BE AN ACTUAL KIND OF, UM, STEP BACK AND SAYING, ARE WE, ARE ANY LARGE ADJUSTMENTS NEEDED IN THE PLAN OR ARE WE AT COURSE? YES.

SO I I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS A FOCUSED REVIEW BY THE EUC OR MEANING A MEETING WOULD BE SET ASIDE FOR AN UPDATE.

IT, IT, IT IS ALL, CAN'T WE JUST DECLARE THAT IN THE FUTURE WHAT WE WANNA DO? YEAH, YEAH.

WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IN THE BACK OF MY MIND IS WE USED TO HAVE A CONCEPT CALLED ROOT CHECKS.

WHERE HIGH LEVEL EXECUTIVES WOULD COME IN AND WE'D HAVE OUR PROJECT AND IT'S A THREE OR FOUR YEAR PROJECT DOING VERY SOPHISTICATED MICROPROCESSORS.

AND YOU HAVE THESE EXECUTIVES SWOOP IN AND IT WAS, THE ANALOGY WAS, OH, IT'S A GROWING TREE AND IT'S STILL SMALL AND IT'S GROWING.

YOU'RE PROGRESSING ALONG THE PROJECT.

LET'S SEE HOW ITS ROOTS ARE DOING .

AND SO YOU PULL IT UP AND YOU CHECK THE ROOTS AND YOU STICK IT BACK DOWN , IT'S CALLED A ROOT CHECK.

AND THEN AFTER A WHILE AFTER YOU KEEP DOING THE ROOT CHECK, THE ROOTS DON'T GROW ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU KEEP PULLING IT UP ALL THE TIME.

AND SO WE NEED TO GIVE THEM TIME TO DO WHAT THEY KNOW HOW TO DO.

ISSUES THAT NONE OF US ARE HAPPY ABOUT FACING.

AND I THINK THAT PERSONALLY FROM A MANAGERIAL STANDPOINT, I, I'D RATHER JUST TALK TO PEOPLE, HAVE US TALK, CONVENE, WE HAVE AN ISSUE, AND WE'RE NOT GETTING RESPONSIVENESS, THEN WE GO TO THE COUNCIL AND THEN WE LET THEM DO A ROOT CHECK OR ASK FOR THE ROOT CHECK.

BUT WE DO IT VERY JUDICIOUSLY.

BUT I, I THINK WE'VE GOT A TEAM THAT REALLY IS, UM, TRYING IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS TO TAKE AN OVER CONSTRAINED PROBLEM, PERHAPS WITH SOME

[05:05:01]

AND MAKING THE BEST OF IT.

BUT I WELCOME OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS.

I, I THINK THAT WE NEED, WE HAVE YEARLY CHECKS.

CAN YOU, YOU WANNA WITHDRAW THIS OR YOU WANT US TO VOTE IT DOWN? UM, WE CAN WITHDRAW IT.

36 REFERS TO PAGE 55.

I THINK WE ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS.

THERE'S NOT SUPPORT.

SO I ASSUME THAT'S A WITHDRAWAL.

37 55 IS WITHDRAWN.

ARE THERE ANY THAT WE SKIPPED OVER SINCE WE'RE NOT EVEN NEAR MIDNIGHT YET? THERE ARE MANY WE SKIPPED OVER .

ARE THERE ANY THAT YOU WANNA BRING UP? NO.

ALL THE ONES THROUGH.

UM, ON NUMBER 12, ON PAGE FIVE ABOUT, SORRY, UH, THIS WAS YOURS.

UM, COMMISSIONER WHITE ABOUT, UM, ON FAYETTE EITHER SHUTTING DOWN FAYETTE OR CONVERTING IT TO RUN CARBON FREE, EMISSIONS FREE ENERGY SOURCE.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THE LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSED PLAN IS CONFUSING.

UM, SO THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE A, A CLEAR PATH.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE INTENTION IS WITH THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, BUT THIS WAS TO JUST CLARIFY THAT IT SHOULD EITHER BE SHUT DOWN OR, I DON'T KNOW.

THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME, THIS IS ITEM 12 JUST THOUGHT YES.

ABOUT MAYBE IT WOULDN'T BE SHUT DOWN.

SO I DON'T YEAH, WE CAN TAKE IT UP.

ARE YOU MOTIONING? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

I'LL, I THINK IT'S A GOOD, I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING TO, TO PUT THAT OPTION IN THERE.

UH, WE'RE SEEING, WE'RE SEEING SOME OTHER COAL PLANTS, UH, INCLUDING ONE SOUTH OF US THAT WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING TO REPLACE COAL WITH GEOTHERMAL PLUS, UH, SOLAR PLUS STORAGE.

IT'S POSSIBLE.

SO A REPOWER, THAT'S EASY.

THAT SEEMS REUSABLE.

ALL CALL THE QUESTION.

LET'S SHUT IT DOWN.

OR REPOWER, THAT WAS KIND OF HALF-HEARTED.

HE A .

HE'S NOT VOTING.

DID, WERE THERE ANY NO VOTES ON THAT.

AND I'M, I'M ABSTAINING.

OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO IS, IS IT TIME TO VOTE ON THE MAIN ONE? WELL, WE'RE GIVING A, A LAST CHANCE TO GO BACK TO SOME OF THE ONES.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.

YEAH, I'M, I'M GOOD.

UH, CHAIR, UH, CHAIR TODD.

CHAIR TODD.

JUST PROCEDURALLY, UH, THIS LANGUAGE THAT IS ON THE COMPUTER, UH, ALL OF WHICH IS IF YOU WILL REVIEW IT, REVIEW IT AND UH, WITH THE TRANSMITTAL, UH, TO COUNSEL, COPY ALL THE, YOU SEE, OF COURSE.

AND, UH, AND TAKE CARE AND TAKE CARE OF THAT WITH STAFF.

SO YOU MEAN YOU'VE GOT ALL THE NOTES? YEAH.

IF YOU WANT I CAN REVIEW WHICH ONE'S PASSED.

UM, AND THEN Y'ALL CAN VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION WITH

[05:10:01]

SO, UM, AMENDMENT 12 PASSED NINE TO NINE TO ZERO TO TWO.

UM, ITEM 14 PASSED NINE TO ONE TO ONE.

I THINK WE, DID YOU GET, I DON'T THINK YOU GOT THE AMENDMENTS ON THAT ONE.

I THINK THAT'S, I DIDN'T ON THAT.

I WAS WRITING THEM AND THEN I STARTED TO CHANGE IT IN THE DOCUMENT.

SO I'LL JUST GO BACK YOU AND DO IT, 'EM, BUT I WILL CIRCULATE IT TO YOU GUYS TO MAKE SURE THAT I'VE GOT EVERYTHING.

OKAY, THANKS.

UM, THE NEXT ONE WAS 15.

THAT ONE FAILED THREE TO EIGHT, UM, 16 PAST 10 TO ONE, UM, OR 10 TO ZERO TO ONE.

UM, 17 PAST NINE TO ONE TO ONE.

AND DID YOU GET, I HAVE POTENTIAL STAYING IN AND THEN ADDING A FEW OTHER WORDS, LIKE OKAY.

YOU'LL CIRCULATE IT SYNCHRON TO SYNCHRONOUS MAYBE.

CAN YOU JUST LIKE, OH YES.

SEND THEM TO ME AND CYRUS AND DAVE BEFORE YOU POST.

YES, I WILL.

I WILL SEND THE, YES.

UM, ITEM 24, UH, PASSED.

10 0 1.

ITEM 25.

I THINK THIS ONE FAILED.

I JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE NUMBERS, BUT I HAVE SIX NAMES HERE.

UM, ITEM 26 PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

UH, ITEM 27 PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

28.

UM, FAILED TWO TO 10.

UH, THE SECOND HALF OF 28 FAILED TWO TO NINE TO ONE.

ITEM 29 PASSED 11 ZERO.

ITEM 29 B FAILED THREE, SIX TO TWO.

WELL, HOLD ON.

29 DID, I MEAN I WISH IT HAD PASSED THE WHOLE THING.

YEAH, SORRY.

29, THE FIRST HALF PASSED.

THE FIRST HALF PASSED THE SECOND HALF DID NOT.

UM, ITEM 30 PASSED.

ITEM 30.

WELL THAT WAS CUT INTO TWO QUESTIONS TOO.

NINE TO TWO AND THEN 11.

OH, 31 WE HAVE, THIS IS THE A BUNCH 31 A AS I HAVE LABELED.

IT IS, UH, FAILED TWO TO 9 31 B FAILED TWO TO NINE.

UH, CAN WE JUST GO TO THE ONES THAT PASSED? , UH, 30 MAKES US FEEL BETTER.

30 1D PASSED.

AND THAT IS THE WITH STRONG SUPPORT FROM MR. CHAPMAN.

STRONG .

IT'S ENTHUSIASM.

THAT'S, I HAVE CHAPMAN AS A SECOND ON THIS ONE.

SO THAT'S GOOD.

THAT'S DEVELOP PRACTICE OR CONTINUED PRACTICES.

UM, ALL RIGHT.

31 E WAS WITHDRAWN.

UH, 32 PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

33 PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

AND THAT'S IT.

DID YOU, DID YOU MENTION 24, WHICH WAS SORT OF A, THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY ONE, WE, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF YOU INCLUDED THAT ONE.

30, 24 PAST 10 ZERO MONTH.

WITH, WITH SOME, WITH EDITS.

WITH EDITS.

AND DO WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE CORRESPONDING OR DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY? WELL, ISN'T THAT SORT OF IMPLICIT IN THIS? WELL, MIGHT AS WELL TIE THE BOW.

WE'LL DO IT ONE TIME.

WE, YES, THAT'S THE PLAN TO DO IT.

UM, YEAH, ANYTHING THAT PASSED WE WILL MAKE SURE IS REFLECTED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AS WELL.

UM, OKAY.

SO, UM, I, SO THIS ISN'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NECESSARILY NEED TO VOTE ON THIS, BUT PUBLIC CITIZEN DOES NOT WANT OUR LOGO IN THIS DOCUMENT.

SO CAN YOU JUST REMOVE IT PLEASE? YES.

GOT THE MAID MOTION, UH, AS AMENDED, MOTIONED, AND SECONDED.

SO YOU'VE

[2. Approval of a recommendation on Austin Energy's Resource, Generation, and Climate Protection Plan.]

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE OVERALL PLAN WITH THE AMENDMENTS.

SO MOVED.

SECOND, JOSH.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

SO YOU HAVE THREE ONLINE PLUS TWO, FOUR OR SIX.

I'M GONNA ABSTAIN ON THIS.

UM, I DO THINK

[05:15:01]

THE PLAN IS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED FROM WHERE WE STARTED THE PROCESS.

I APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE EFFORTS EVERYONE'S MADE, BUT, UH, I AM GONNA ABSTAIN ON IT.

I'M VOTING AGAINST.

AND I THINK WITH THAT WE CAN ADJOURN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR, THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR HARD WORK.