Aug 19, 2025 Resource Management

[00:00:01]

COMMISSIONER GARY.

OKAY.

UH, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE

[CALL MEETING TO ORDER]

UH, IT IS 6 0 6.

I'M CALLING THIS MEETING OF THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TO ORDER.

UH, DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? WE DO NOT.

OKAY.

UH, THE FIRST ITEM

[1. Approve the minutes of the Resource Management Commission Meeting on July 15, 2025.]

I'LL BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE GO COMMISSIONER.

SO MOVED COM.

OKAY.

I SAW COMMISSIONER GIN'S HAND COMMISSIONER SECOND.

OKAY.

AND, UH, COMMISSIONER LUKI I THINK WAS SECOND TO SECOND.

OKAY.

SO, UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 15TH MEETING? HEARING NONE.

I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE TO APPROVE THE ME, UH, THE MEETING MINUTES FROM JULY 15TH.

UM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 15TH MEETING.

I SEE COMMISSIONER GARY, COMMISSIONER SILVERSTEIN, COMMISSIONER GIN, COMMISSIONER SCHWARTZ, COMMISSIONER LUKI, AND CHAIR DAVIS.

MOTION.

IT PASSES.

THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

MOVING ON.

THE SECOND ITEM IS, UM, AND JUST BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THAT, I'LL JUST MAKE A NOTE THAT, UH, THE ORDER, UH, OF TONIGHT'S ITEMS, WE'LL GO, UH, 2, 3, 4, UH, THEN WE'LL SKIP TO SIX, COME BACK TO FIVE AND FINISH WITH SEVEN.

UM, SO FOR NUMBER TWO, RECOMMEND

[2. Recommend approval authorizing issuance of rebates for multifamily and commercial customer energy efficiency measures by Austin Energy during Fiscal Year 2025-26 in the aggregate amounts of $3,830,000 for multifamily programs and $3,375,000 for commercial programs, for a total combined budget amount of $7,205,000. Funding: $7,205,000 is available in the Operating Budget of Austin Energy.]

DO WE HAVE SOMEONE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? YES.

MR. GENESEE? YES.

UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

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

UH, ITEMS TWO AND THREE ARE FROM, UH, WELL, TWO IS FIVE YEARS.

YOU'VE BEEN APPROVING THIS FOR FIVE YEARS.

ITEM THREE YOU APPROVED LAST YEAR.

THIS IS A ITEM FOR AGGREGATE AUTHORITY OF COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES IN ITEM TWO AND SOLAR MEASURES IN ITEM THREE.

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THESE IS TO GET CONTRACTORS PAID QUICKLY AND, UH, SO THAT THERE ISN'T ANY DELAY IN GETTING, UH, THEIR, UM, UH, PROJECTS PAID FULLY.

UM, ESSENTIALLY THE, THE DETAIL AROUND ANY OF THESE, UM, PROJECTS AND INCLUDING THE PAYMENTS AND EVERYTHING ARE ALL INCLUDED IN MONTHLY REPORTS THAT WE'RE STILL PROVIDING TO THE RMC AND NOW ALSO THE EUC.

SO YOU HAVE ALL THE DATA, YOU'RE GETTING THE DATA THAT THE POINT IS THOUGH, THAT WE HAVE AGGREGATE AUTHORITY AND WOULD NOT HAVE TO TAKE EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS, UH, FOR APPROVAL TO COUNCIL, WHICH WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY DELAY THE PROCESS OF THE PAYMENT TO THE CONTRACTORS AND GETTING THE PROJECTS PAID.

SO THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF WHAT THIS IS.

AND LIKE I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, UM, THIS IS THE FIFTH YEAR WE WOULD BE, UH, AUTHORIZING THIS FOR ITEM TWO AND THE SECOND YEAR FOR ITEM THREE.

AND I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GENESEE? YES, COMMISSIONER SILVERSTEIN.

THANK YOU.

UM, AUSTIN ENERGY KINDLY PROVIDED A SET OF YEAR TO DATE SAVINGS REPORTS FOR BOTH THE, UM, THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND THE RENEWABLE SOLUTIONS PROGRAMS. AND I WAS JUST WONDERING, TWO THINGS.

ONE OF THEM IS, HOW COME, I UNDERSTAND IT ONLY GOES THROUGH JUNE, BUT THE FISCAL YEAR GOES THROUGH SEPTEMBER, BUT THE NUMBERS LOOK PRETTY LOW IN TERMS OF THE, THE ACCOMPLISHMENT RELATIVE TO THE GOAL.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT AT ALL PLEASE? I, I CAN SAY THAT WE ARE ON TRACK FOR, UM, LIKE I CAN SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE SOLAR, I CAN SAY THAT, UH, IN 2024 WAS OUR HIGHEST YEAR EVER FOR SOLAR 2025, WHICH ENDS NINE 30 OF 2025.

UH, WE'RE GONNA BEAT EVEN WHAT WE DID IN 2024.

I THINK WE DID 13.1 MEGAWATTS, AND WE'RE GONNA DO EVEN MORE THAN THAT IN 2025.

SO I CAN SAY THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE, WE'RE GONNA DO THAT ON THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY SIDE.

EVEN WITH IT GETTING MORE CHALLENGING ON THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY SIDE, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO, UM, YOU KNOW, MAKE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS TOWARDS OUR GOALS.

AND OUR GOALS ARE NOW, OF COURSE, ALL ENCOMPASSED BY THE

[00:05:01]

SO IT'S LESS OF A YEAR BY YEAR GOAL AND MORE KIND OF THE CUMULATIVE GOAL IN, UH, 2025.

AND WE HAVE 131 MEGAWATTS LEFT, UH, OF OUR ENERGY EFFICIENCY GOAL TO 20 20, 20 35.

UM, AND I THINK WE HAVE EIGHT MEGAWATTS.

UM, UM, BUT ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY, I STAND CORRECTED.

THE 131 MEGAWATT GOAL, WE, THAT ORIGINALLY WAS A 2030 GOAL THAT WE'VE NOW BEEN ABLE TO ACCELERATE TO 2027, UH, UH, THROUGH THE PROCESS, IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER THAT FROM WHEN WE DID THE RESOURCE AND GENERATION PLAN.

SO, UM, I, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT REPORT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UH, COMMISSIONER SILVERSTEIN, BUT I THINK I CAN REPORT THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLY ON TRACK FOR THE ANNUAL NUMBER OR WHERE WE EXPECT TO COME END UP AT THE END OF THE FISCAL FOR BOTH ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SOLAR.

THANK YOU.

I WILL NOTE THAT THE DEMAND RESPONSE GOAL, THIS IS CALLED, UM, BY THE WAY, CUSTOMER ENERGY SOLUTIONS FISCAL YEAR 25 YEAR TO DATE MEGAWATT SAVINGS REPORTS AS OF JUNE, 2025, ALTHOUGH ODDLY IT'S LABELED NON-PUBLIC AE AND IT WAS ONLINE IN THE PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE WEBSITE.

SO GO FIGURE.

UM, I WILL NOTE THAT THE DEMAND RESPONSE NUMBERS ARE APPALLINGLY LOW, DISAPPOINTINGLY LOW IN MY VIEW, AND I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN DIG INTO HOW TO IMPROVE DEMAND RESPONSES, UH, BOTH AS AN ENERGY SAVINGS TOOL AND AS A RESOURCE IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. GENESEE? FOR ? OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT OVERVIEW.

WE ARE, UH, POISED TO VOTE ON ITEM JUST ITEM TWO.

UM, I'LL BE LOOKING, SORRY.

TWO, TWO AND THREE.

TWO AND THREE FIRST TWO AND, AND THEN THREE.

OKAY.

SO IF I HAVE A MOTION, SO MOVE, UH, MOVE, UH, COMMISSIONER SILVERSTEIN MOVES TO, UM, APPROVE ITEM TWO.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONER LUKI.

UM, ALL IN FAVOR OF ITEM TWO, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

UM, WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

IT IS UNANIMOUS.

SO THIS, UM, ITEM PASSES.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS.

OKAY.

UM, ITEM THREE.

UH, MR. GENESEE SPOKE TO BOTH OF THESE ITEMS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION REGARDING, UH, ITEM NUMBER THREE,

[3. Recommend approval authorizing issuance of commercial and multifamily solar incentives during Fiscal Year 2025-2026, in an aggregated amount not to exceed $5,300,000 for customer-sited commercial solar installations and $2,000,000 for customer-sited multifamily installations, for a total combined budget amount of $7,300,000 to qualifying solar incentive projects. Funding: $7,300,000 is available in the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Austin Energy Operating Budget.]

COMMISSIONER SILVERSTEIN.

UM, THANK YOU.

ARE THERE, DO, DO YOU ALL MR. GENESEE ANTICIPATE ANY IMPACTS OF THE END OF TAX INCENTIVES RAISING THE EFFECTIVE COST FOR CUSTOMERS OF ADOPTING SOLAR OR OF NEW TARIFFS, INCREASING THE COST OF NEW SOLAR PROJECTS ON THE ADOPTION RATES THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS PROJECTING? YES.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

SO THERE WILL BE IMPACTS BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, FOR RESIDENTIAL, THAT MEANS THAT THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR.

AND FOR COMMERCIAL, IT MEANS THAT THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF 2027.

AND SO WE EXPECT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A RUSH, UM, OF, UM, OPPORTUNITIES OR PROJECTS ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE.

AND THAT'S, UM, WE'VE, IN TALKING WITH OTHER UTILITIES, WE'VE ACTUALLY STARTED TO SEE SOME OF THAT TAKE PLACE.

HASN'T QUITE TAKEN PLACE AT OUR, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR PROGRAM AS OF YET, BUT IT IS SOMETHING WE'RE EXPECTING.

UM, AND THEN THERE ARE SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS THAT CAN EXTEND THE LIFE OF, UH, WHEN YOU HAVE TO GET THOSE PROJECTS DONE TO FOUR YEARS ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE.

SO, UH, I EXPECT THOSE, UM, YOU KNOW, CONTRACTORS WILL WANT TO, WILL START TO WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE PROVISIONS THAT, UM, THOSE SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS THAT GET THEM TO EXTEND IT FROM THE END OF 2027 THROUGH FOUR YEARS TO GET THE PROJECTS DONE.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? NONE.

I'LL BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

SO MOVED.

LOOKING FOR A, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND.

COMMISSIONER SCHWARTZ.

THANK YOU.

UH, ALL IN FAVOR OF, UH, APPROVING THE AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY SOLAR ITEM NUMBER THREE, PLEASE SHOW OF HANDS.

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

[00:10:01]

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

UH, MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR

[4. Discussion and recommendation on changing city code that relates to allowable methods for board and commission communications]

UH, BELIEVE THIS IS COMMISSIONER SILVERSTEIN, TAKE IT AWAY PLEASE.

THANK YOU.

THIS IS A NEAR COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ALREADY PASSED BY THE ELECTRIC UTILITY OF THE COMMISSION THAT SAYS, PLEASE ALLOW CITY STAFF TO SEND US COMMUNICATIONS VIA OUR PERSONAL EMAILS AS WELL AS BY THE CITY EMAIL.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF YOU, BUT I HAVE A HECK OF A TIME REMEMBERING TO LOOK AT MY CITY EMAIL AND ACCESSING THROUGH ALL OF THAT, THAT EMAIL THROUGH ALL OF THE, UM, AUTHORIZATION HOOPS THAT MICROSOFT OUTLOOK KINDLY PROVIDES FOR OUR PROTECTION, UM, INCLUDING WHY I WAS LATE LOGGING ON THIS EVENING.

THANK YOU, MICROSOFT.

SO THIS SAYS, UM, DOES NOT SAY, DEAR NATASHA, PLEASE DON'T SEND IT TO MY CITY EMAIL, BUT IT DOES SAY, DEAR CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE AUTHORIZE MS. GOODWIN TO SEND THIS TO ALL OF US THROUGH OUR PERSONAL EMAIL AS WELL AS OUR CITY EMAIL.

AND, UM, I APOLOGIZE, THERE IS A TYPO IN THE FORTH WHERE AS IF YOU WOULD CHANGE THE, WHEREAS MAKING TO WHEREAS EASING COMMUNICATION THAT WOULD MAKE THIS RESOLUTION MORE EXCELLENT.

AND I BEG YOU TO, UM, VOTE WITH ME IN MAKING OUR ABILITY TO ACCESS THESE COMMUNICATIONS EASIER.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

UM, CAN WE BRING THE, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION UP ON THE SCREEN? YES.

THANK YOU.

YEAH, I WAS TRYING TO LOOK IT UP.

YES, IT IS IN THE BACKUP.

UM, BUT WE'LL JUST BRING IT UP ON THE SCREEN AND THEN, YEAH.

YES.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION? UH, YES.

UH, COMMISSIONER ZIN.

SO I HAVE NO BEEF WITH THIS AT ALL.

THIS SOUNDS AMAZING, BUT I ALSO WAS WONDERING IS COULD WE GET AROUND THE QUORUM RULES WITH EMAILING EACH OTHER IF WE JUST MADE EVERY EMAIL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? LIKE I DON'T, I DON'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT COULDN'T BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS COMMISSION.

UM, WOULD THAT MAKE THINGS SIMPLER AND REDUCE, LIKE THE BURDEN ON THE LIAISON AND STAFF? I AM GOING TO PUMP THAT TO OUR STAFF LIAISON.

NO, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO EMAIL EACH OTHER, UM, IN MORE THAN FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

UM, ALL EMAILS ARE DISCOVERABLE AND PUBLIC AVAILABLE PER PUBLIC INFORMATION, BUT WE CAN'T LIKE POST THEM IN REAL TIME, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

OKAY.

SO IT'S A REAL TIME BURDEN, UH, FOR LIKE SYSTEM BURDEN.

UM, BUT IF WE COULD DO IT IN REAL TIME, THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

IS THAT CORRECT? I, I DON'T THINK SO.

I THINK THIS IS A TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT ISSUE, AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THAT.

YEAH.

OKAY.

FAIR ENOUGH.

I I THINK, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I, I'VE SEEN IS THAT CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE A MESSAGE BOARD AND THEY WILL POST TO THAT, UM, AND THAT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND, AND THEY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S COMMUNICATION THAT GOES ON THAT OUTSIDE OF THE REGULAR MEETING.

SO I THINK THAT MIGHT BE SORT OF THE SPIRIT THAT COMMISSIONER ZIN IS, IS THINKING OF.

UM, I, COMMISSIONER SCHWARTZ, THERE'S NO BOARDS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF OR THAT HAVE A MESSAGE BOARD SET UP BY THE CITY? NO BOARDS THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT HAVE THAT SET UP.

NO.

IT WOULD BE NICE, BUT YEAH.

OKAY.

UH, WE DO HAVE THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION UP ON THE SCREEN.

UM, CAN READ THROUGH THAT AT YOUR LEISURE, MAYBE WE CAN.

AND THE, THE CORRECTION THAT I WANTED TO MAKE, IF I MAY, IS IN THE FOURTH WHERE AS, OR THE FIRST WORD AFTER WHEREAS IS MAKING, AND I'D LIKE TO REPLACE MAKING WITH EASING, UH, E-A-S-I-N-G.

IS THAT FINE? NOTED.

DO WE NEED TO THANK TO VOTE ON THAT? NO, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO VOTE ON THAT.

OKAY, GREAT.

OKAY.

UM, CAN WE SCROLL, UH, DOWN TO THE BE IT RESOLVED SECTION? OKAY.

SO NOW THAT READS, UH, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION JOINS THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION IN ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO CHANGE THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW FOR COMMUNICATIONS TO AND FROM CITY OF AUSTIN VOLUNTEER BOARD AND COMMISSION MEMBERS TO GO TO BOTH OFFICIAL CITY EMAIL ADDRESSES AND PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESSES.

IS THERE ANY MORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

SO MOVED.

SEC.

SECOND.

I'LL SECOND.

.

[00:15:01]

UH, ALL IN FAVOR OF, UH, ADOPTING THIS RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

WE SEE, I SEE 5 1 2.

YES.

ALL OPPOSED? OKAY.

AND ONE OPPOSED? OKAY.

FIVE.

THE VOTE IS FIVE TO ONE.

THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION FAILS IF, IF I MAY, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN LEARNING FROM COMMISSIONER GIY WHY SHE, WHY SHE IS VOTING AGAINST THIS, BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND HER RATIONALE.

THANK YOU.

ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

BASICALLY, THESE EMAILS ARE SET UP, ONE, TO PROTECT US AS FAR AS WHEN SOMEONE IS ASKING FOR A REQUEST ON RECORDS AND TR AND COMMUNICATION.

NOW, ALTHOUGH IT IS GOING TO OUR PERSONAL EMAIL, THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET INFORMATION OUT OF THAT IS GONNA BE CUMBERSOME FOR THE CITY.

NOT SAYING ANYONE'S GONNA HIDE ANYTHING, BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE CITY EMAILS.

THEY'RE, THEY'RE HERE.

IF SOMEONE PULLS A REQUEST, THEY CAN PULL IT.

I THINK CCING OUR, UH, EMAIL FOR ME IS REDUNDANT.

I'D RATHER KEEP IT SEPARATE AND THAT, AND THAT'S THE WHOLE THING WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE WORKING AT A COMPANY, YOU HAVE THEIR EMAIL SYSTEM AND YOU HAVE YOUR OWN PERSONAL EMAIL SYSTEM.

SO I'M IN FAVOR OF KEEPING ALL CITY INFORMATION IN ONE BOX AND ALL MY PERSONAL INFORMATION AND ANOTHER, AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS.

THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, LET ME, IF I MAY EXTEND THIS DISCUSSION ONE MORE MINUTE, LET ME ASK, SINCE THIS RESOLUTION HAS FAILED, IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR, TO DO AN EXTRA PROCEDURAL STEP AND ASK MS. GOODWIN TO SEND US AN EMAIL TO OUR PERSONAL ADDRESSES WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING POSTED TO US ON OUR CITY ADDRESS THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE COMMISSION.

FOR INSTANCE, I DO NOT REMEMBER ON WHATEVER DAY IT IS TO LOOK AT THE CITY EMAIL IN ANTICIPATION OF SOMETHING OR OTHER COMING OUT.

AND IF I COULD GET A REMINDER FROM MS. GOODWIN THAT SOMETHING HAS BEEN POSTED THAT YOU SHOULD LOOK AT, THAT WOULD BE INCREDIBLY HELPFUL.

SO I WANT JUMP IN HERE.

SO MS. GOODWIN DOES SEND CALENDAR INVITES.

THAT'S HOW I REMEMBER.

'CAUSE I'LL GET AN INVITE SAYING YOUR MEETING IS COMING UP IN A DAY OR IT'S COMING UP, YOU KNOW, IN 30 MINUTES OR WHATEVER.

AND SO WHEN SHE SENDS THAT INVITE, AT LEAST FOR ME ON MY PHONE, I'M ABLE TO, OH, OKAY.

IF I'VE FORGOTTEN, LET ME LOOK AND SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT, WHAT TIME THE MEETING STARTS, EVERYTHING POPS UP FOR ME.

SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF SYNCHRONIZING YOUR CALENDAR FROM WHAT SHE SENDS.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S IN THERE.

UM, BUT IF SHE HAS ANOTHER METHOD THAT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, BENEFICIAL FOR YOU, BY ALL MEANS, I WOULD DEFER TO HER.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER.

APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, THIS WAS HELPFUL CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS.

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, EUC DID PASS THIS, SO IT'S ALREADY BEEN SENT TO COUNCIL ANYWAY, SO THEY CAN CONSIDER IT.

UM, AS WELL, IT WOULD BE JUST A COMMISSIONER ZINS QUESTION EARLIER.

IT WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE CHANGE THAT THE, THAT THE CITY HAS TO MAKE BECAUSE AS COMMISSIONERS, YOU GUYS ALL SIGN AN AGREEMENT THAT YOU'LL USE THE CITY'S EMAIL SYSTEM, ET CETERA.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD NEED TO CHANGE.

THANKS.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

AT THIS POINT WE'RE GONNA SKIP TO ITEM NUMBER SIX.

CAN I ASK A CLARIFICATION QUESTION REAL QUICK? SORRY.

YES.

COMMISSIONER ZIN.

GO AHEAD.

WAS THIS RESOLUTION, IT WAS OPT-IN, RIGHT? SO IT WASN'T LIKE, UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED BY THE EC AS WELL.

UM, YOU COULD HAVE IT GO TO YOUR PERSONAL EMAIL, BUT YOU COULD ALSO HAVE IT NOT GO TO YOUR PERSONAL EMAIL IF YOU CHOSE NOT TO.

SO IT WOULD BE ON AN INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER BASIS.

I THINK THE RULE NOW IS THAT THE EMAILS ARE GOING ONLY TO THE OFFICIAL CITY EMAIL ACCOUNTS, RIGHT.

OF COMMISSIONERS.

BUT I, I'M, I'M ASKING ABOUT THIS RESOLUTION.

THIS WAS ESSENTIALLY AN OPT-IN RESOLUTION.

SO IF A COMMISSIONER WANTED TO PROVIDE THEIR PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS, UM, FOR THIS EXERCISE, THEY COULD, AND IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO, THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO.

IS THAT CORRECT? UH, UM, YOU ARE, YOU ARE MAKING THIS MORE SOPHISTICATED THAN WE INTENDED, COMMISSIONER.

I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THE OPT AND OPTION AND I DOUBT THAT THE EEC MEMBERS WHO CAME UP WITH THIS DID EITHER OR THE OPTOUT OPTION, BUT IT'S A GREAT IDEA AND IT WOULD ADDRESS COMMISSION OR GARY'S CONCERN.

YES.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

YES.

GREAT DISCUSSION.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

UM, NEXT ON OUR AGENDA,

[6. Presentation by Texas Gas Service regarding an update on the TGS application for a Statewide Energy Efficiency Program by Larry Graham, Manager, Local Government Relations, Texas Gas Service and Judy Hitchye, Managing Attorney, Texas Gas Service]

[00:20:01]

MR. LARRY GRAHAM APPROACH THE PODIUM.

UM, GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY.

LARRY GRAHAM, TEXAS GAS SERVICE.

SO I BELIEVE IN MARCH WE WERE HERE AND JASMINE SPOKE TO YOU AND THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, THE, THE PROCESS AND OUR APPLICATION.

SO WE MADE AN APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS RAILROAD COMMISSION FOR AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM.

AND UNFORTUNATELY TODAY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION DENIED, UM, OUR APPLICATION FOR AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR THE CENTRAL GOALS SERVICE AREA.

UM, SO THAT HAPPENED LITERALLY THIS MORNING, 10 30.

UM, AND THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY UPDATE WE HAVE.

WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD, UH, MUCH TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT OR DIGEST OR FIGURE OUT, UM, THE NEXT STEPS, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE UPDATE.

SO AT THE MOMENT, WE DO NOT HAVE AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM.

CAN YOU, CAN YOU SHARE ANY RATIONALE THAT YOU LEARNED ABOUT WHY THAT APPLICATION WAS DENIED? YEAH, I THINK, I THINK IN THE, UM, YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT? YOU WERE THERE.

YES.

THIS IS JUDY, HE, OUR MANAGING ATTORNEY.

GOOD EVENING ALL.

I HAVE A COPY OF THE ORDERS FOR YOU IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT.

UM, BASICALLY IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING IN TO LARRY'S POINT, THIS DENIAL CAME THROUGH THIS MORNING.

WE, UM, IT APPEARS THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT AGREE WITH A FULLY CUSTOMER FUNDED PROGRAM OF THIS NATURE.

SO IT, ALTHOUGH OUR PROGRAM THAT WE FILED WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THAT PROGRAM, WHICH WE HAD IN PLACE WITH YOU ALL HERE AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE, UM, COMMISSION DEEMED IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE TO APPROVE IT AS FILED.

THERE IS SOME COMMISSION PRECEDENT, UM, IN AN OLD CASE, OLDER CASE WHERE A, UM, SIMILAR TYPE CUSTOMER PROGRAM HAD BEEN REQUESTED BY ANOTHER UTILITY.

AND THE COMMISSION DENIED THAT APPLICATION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE UTILITY DID NOT, UM, APPLY FOR A 50 50 SPLIT IN THE SHARING OF ALL OF THE COST.

SO THEY'VE, UM, DECLARED IN THIS ORDER THAT THAT IS A PRECEDENCE THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE FOLLOWED GOING FORWARD.

SO ANY UTILITY THAT COMES BEFORE THEM SEEKING AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT WE HAD HERE, AND THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEEK APPROVAL WITH YOU ALL, OR THE CITY OF AUSTIN HERE AS THAT ORIGINAL JURISDICTION HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED UNDER A, UM, HOUSE BILL 2, 2, 6 3 IN 2023 OVER TO THE RAILROAD COMMISSION.

SO, UM, TO THE POINT THAT LARRY WAS MAKING, WE, UM, HAVE NOT DIGESTED THIS INFORMATION FULLY YET.

WE DO NOT KNOW WHERE OUR NEXT STEPS WILL BE.

WE DO, HOWEVER, REMAIN COMMITTED TO HAVING, YOU KNOW, UM, PROVIDING EDUCATION TO OUR CUSTOMERS WHERE WE CAN ON CONSERVATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, UM, WE, WE WILL JUST HAVE TO CONTINUE WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE THAT WE'RE PERMITTED TO DO UNDER THE LAW.

OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, UH, FOR COMING.

AND THAT'S HOT OFF THE PRESS INFORMATION.

I, I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF TIME TO, TO PREPARE FOR THIS, AND SO I'LL APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR, UH, THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ARE GOING COME.

OH, SURE.

BUT WE, THAT'S FINE.

WE DO UNDERSTAND, UH, UM, THAT THIS IS, THIS IS VERY FRESH, SO I WILL, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO THE, UH, COMMISSION.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, MR. GRAHAM OR MS. HY? UH, YES.

COMMISSIONER SCHWARTZ.

YEAH.

YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED, BUT ARE, ARE YOU ABLE TO SHARE WHETHER YOU'RE PLANNING TO RESUBMIT A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL ALL ADJUSTED BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR? OR IS THAT, OR IS THAT NOT THE CASE? I'M NOT ABLE TO GIVE YOU AN, AN ANSWER ON THAT.

UM, I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, UM MM-HMM .

MAKE A GUESS ON BEHALF OF WHAT THE COMPANY WILL DEEM THAT IT'S ABLE TO DO.

UM, WE, WE ARE COMMITTED TO HAVING AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM, AS YOU ALL KNOW.

UM, WE'VE, IT'S BEEN A LONGSTANDING PROGRAM HERE WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

HOW WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT AND PROVIDING REBATES WITHOUT HAVING, UM, CUSTOMER FUNDING, WE JUST DON'T KNOW YET.

[00:25:01]

UM, CAN I JUST, I, I GUESS I CAN LOOK BACK IN AT THE DETAILS OF THE PREVIOUS PROGRAM, BUT JUST FROM MY MEMORY, I GUESS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, PRIOR TO THIS NEW PROGRAM, IT HAD BEEN FUNDED, IT WAS, IT WAS NOT CUSTOMER FUNDED IN THE PAST, IS THAT CORRECT? IT WAS FUNDED BY THE COMPANY, THIS CUSTOMER FUNDING.

SO IT HAD BEEN CUSTOMER FUNDED BEFORE.

IT WAS, UM, FULLY CUSTOMER FUNDED.

GOTCHA.

YES.

OKAY.

MM-HMM .

IT WAS A LINE ITEM ON THE BILL.

MM-HMM .

GOT IT.

AND I, AND I CAN TELL YOU AS, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT THE EXPERT IN WHAT THIS PROGRAM'S, WHAT THEY WERE IS THE, UM, FUNDING MECHANISM THAT WE, UM, AS WE FILED, MET THE CRITERIA AND WAS BELOW THE CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN HOUSE BILL 2, 2, 6 3, WHICH WAS, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WAS EQUAL TO, OR A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT FUNDING, YOU KNOW, THE LINE ITEM WOULD'VE BEEN UNDER THE PREVIOUS PROGRAM, SO THE COST DIDN'T GO UP IN OUR NEW APPLICATION.

IT'S JUST, I THINK IT'S THE CONCEPT THAT WAS PROBLEM, NOT NECESSARILY THE FUNDING.

WELL, THE FUNDING WAS THE PROBLEM, IT'S THE CONCEPT OF IT BEING A CUSTOMER FUNDED PROGRAM.

GOTCHA.

THANKS.

OTHER QUESTIONERS OR OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? UH, I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

UM, UH, AS FOR THE, THE, UM, PROPOSAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UM, DID IT INCLUDE, UM, I, I READ THAT IT INCLUDED REBATES FOR STANDBY GENERATORS, IS THAT CORRECT? IT WAS AN EXPANDED PROGRAM, YES, MA'AM.

MM-HMM .

SO GENERATORS MM-HMM .

AND, AND THE GENERATORS.

UM, HOW DO THOSE SAVE ENERGY? AGAIN, I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO TALK OUT OF, OUT OF TURN.

I CAN TELL YOU THE, UM, PROGRAM GUIDELINES ALLOWED US TO DO ENERGY EFFICIENCY TYPE, UM, UH, APPLIANCES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION.

SO OUR, OUR DEPARTMENT THAT HANDLES THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY THAT YOU'VE HAD A LONGSTANDING RELATIONSHIP WITH, FELT THAT THE INCLUSION OF THE, UM, GENERATORS IN THIS PROGRAM, THAT IT WAS A GOOD FIT, THAT IT DIDN'T TAKE, TAKE AWAY FROM THE CURRENT PROGRAM AS WE KNEW IT IN THE PAST.

AND IT WAS JUST AN ENHANCEMENT AND ABILITY FOR OUR CUSTOMERS TO, UM, CONTINUE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE STABLE ENERGY WHENEVER THEY NEEDED IT.

OKAY.

UM, AND THEN THE, THE, THERE WERE ALSO JUST, IF YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THE EXPANSION, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE WERE REBATES FOR GAS RANGES, WHICH WEREN'T INCLUDED BEFORE.

RIGHT.

UM, AND IS, WAS THAT PROPOSED TO BE RANGES THAT ARE, THAT WERE MORE EFFICIENT THAN SOME STANDARD? UM, AND, AND WAS, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE THE, THE FILING IN FRONT OF ME MM-HMM .

THIS IS THE ORDER, BUT, UM, IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY SAVING THE CUSTOMER MONEY BECAUSE OF, UH, CONSERVING ENERGY, DOES THE REBATE, WAS THE REBATE FOUND TO BE COST EFFECTIVE FOR RANGES UNDER OUR REVIEW, WE FELT THAT IT WAS AN EFFICIENT APPLIANCE TO ADD TO THE PROGRAM THAT IT BOLSTERED THE PROGRAM.

I, UM, AGAIN, I DO NOT WANT TO CHALLENGE YOU OR TO GO BACK AND FORTH ON THE, THE MINUTIA OF THE EFFICIENCY OF THESE RANGES.

I CAN TELL YOU FROM HAVING BEEN IN THIS INDUSTRY FOR A LITTLE WHILE, AND YOU KNOW, I'M A GAS GIRL, WE, WE TEND TO BELIEVE THAT IF THE APPLIANCES THAT WE HAVE SELECTED IN OUR PROGRAM MEET OR EXCEED THE STANDARD REQUIREMENT FOR EFFICIENCY, I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLIANCE RATINGS IN OUR PROGRAM ARE STAR ENERGY, STAR RATED.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO EXPAND OUR CUSTOMER'S ABILITIES TO WHENEVER THEY HAVE TO REPLACE A PIECE OF, OF EQUIPMENT THAT THEY DO HAVE OPTIONS AND ACCESS TO MORE EFFICIENT APPLIANCES.

AND WHAT, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, NATURAL GAS APPLIANCES ARE MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE, YOU KNOW, AT REDUCING THE CARBON FOOTPRINT AT, UM, HELPING OUR CUSTOMERS MEET THEIR, THEIR NEEDS WHEN IT COMES TO WANTING TO, TO BE MORE AWARE.

AND I GET TONGUE TIED BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE AN APPROVED SCRIPT.

AND SO I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT MY PERSONAL OPINION DOESN'T SHADOW STEP

[00:30:01]

I CAN TELL YOU WE DO LOOK AT THE REASONABLENESS OF ANYTHING THAT WE PUT INTO ANY PROGRAM OR TO ANY FILING.

AND OUR TEAM STRONGLY BELIEVES THAT THE APPLIANCES THAT THEY RECOMMENDED BE INCLUDED IN THIS FILING WERE EFFICIENT AND REASONABLE APPLIANCES, AND THAT THEY MET THE NEED AND THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OR THE CONSERVATION GOALS ESTABLISHED IN HOUSE BILL 2, 2, 6 3, AND WHICH WERE SIMILAR TO THOSE EXPECTATIONS OF THIS COMMISSION AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

UH, WE WERE NOT ATTEMPTING TO DO ANYTHING THAT WE BELIEVE THAT YOU ALL WOULD'VE FOUND CONTRARY TO, TO THE EXPECTATION, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS KIND OF OUR, OUR FORMULA, THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM IS BUILT UP AND AROUND WHAT WE'VE BUILT TOGETHER.

SO IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

IT'S NOT IDENTICAL TO WHAT WE HAD.

WE HAD THE ABILITY TO EXPAND THE APPLIANCES, AND WE HAD THE ABILITY TO EXPAND OUR RANGE AND OUR REACH.

SO WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO OFFER PROGRAMS TO CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN IN THE FULL CGSA SERVICE AREA.

OUR INITIAL FILING, WE ATTEMPTED TO, UM, HAVE, WE, WE DID REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM WITH ALL OF OUR CUSTOMERS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

THEY, THEY DID ASK US TO SEPARATE THAT OUT TO SERVICE TERRITORIES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

AND SO, UM, THIS PARTICULAR FILING, WHICH WAS DENIED TODAY WAS FOR THE CGSA AND A SIMILAR PROGRAM, WHICH MIRRORED THIS PROGRAM FOR THE RGV SERVICE TERRITORY WAS ALSO DENIED.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

UM, IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION COMMENTS ON THIS, ON THIS ITEM? WELL, WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR COMING HERE TONIGHT, UM, TO, TO GIVE US THAT UPDATE, UM, KEEP US POSTED.

WE WILL.

OKAY.

AND WE'RE GONNA LEAVE BEHIND A COPY OF THE RULES OF THE ORDER, JUST SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE IT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

WHAT IS THE ORDER NUMBER SO I CAN LOOK IT UP? THERE'S A CASE NUMBER.

YES.

IT, IT'S 0 0 0 1 8 2 2 1.

YES.

AND IT'S THE FINAL ORDER ISSUED TODAY.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

OKAY.

UM, THAT BRINGS US BACK TO ITEM

[5. Discussion and recommendation on policy regarding Texas Gas Service Energy Efficiency Programs]

UM, HOWEVER, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT, UH, IS RELATED TO THE ONE THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

AND, UH, IN, UH, VICE CHAIR ROBIN'S ABSENCE, I'M GOING TO, UH, SUGGEST THIS, UH, THAT WE TABLE THIS ITEM.

ANY, UH, ANY OBJECTION, HEARING NONE? UH, WE WILL MOVE

[7. Discussion on natural gas utilities: fuel costs, low-income customer issues, environmental effects, clean-energy programs, and policy related issues related to them.]

UM, BELIEVE THIS IS, UH, VICE CHAIR ROBBINS PRESENTATION THAT COMMISSIONER SILVERSTEIN IS GOING TO PRESENT IN HIS STEAD.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

MADAM CHAIR, AND I APOLOGIZE TO YOU ALL, I CANNOT GIVE THIS MATERIAL THE, UM, THE DRAMA AND LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT OUR COLLEAGUE COMMISSIONER ROBBINS COULD, BUT I WILL DO MY BEST TO GO THROUGH IT AND HIT THE HIGH POINTS PARTICULARLY.

AND, AND I WILL, WE'LL ZIP OVER A COUPLE OF THESE ITEMS BECAUSE THE, AND FOCUS PARTICULARLY ON THE ISSUES RELATING TO THE GAS CONSERVATION PROPOSAL THAT, THAT THE RAILROAD COMMISSION JUST SHOT DOWN.

SO IF WE COULD GET THAT UP.

CAN WE BRING UP ITEM SEVEN ON THE SCREEN, PLEASE? THANK YOU.

THE BACKUP.

THANK YOU.

AND, UM, COMMISSIONER, VICE CHAIR ROBINS SENDS HIS REGRETS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO JOIN US TONIGHT.

THANK YOU.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

UM, HE WANTED TO, FIRST OFF, HE WANTED TO REMIND US OF HOW SIGNIFICANTLY TEXAS GAS SERVICE ANNUAL RESIDENTIAL BILLS HAVE GONE UP EVERY YEAR.

UM, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL OF INCREASE OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS IN PARTICULAR.

NEXT, PLEASE.

THIS HAS A NUMBER OF COMPONENTS INCLUDING FUEL COSTS, TAXES AND FEES, LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE,

[00:35:01]

I WILL POINT OUT THAT LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE COSTS WERE, ARE ACTUALLY TAKEN FROM CON CUSTOMER VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS AND SOME, I BELIEVE PORTION OF, UM, TEXAS GAS SERVICE SHAREHOLDER FUNDS.

THE LAST PROPOSAL, THE NEW PROPOSAL FROM TEXAS GAS SERVICE HAS PROPOSED THAT, I APOLOGIZE, I MIGHT BE MIXING THIS UP WITH ATMOS BECAUSE THEY, THEY TEND TO BLUR OVER TIME IN MY HEAD AND I APOLOGIZE.

ONE OF OUR TWO GAS UTILITIES HAS GONE IN PROPOSING THAT RATHER THAN CUSTOMER BILL ASSISTANCE COMING FROM, UM, COMING FROM VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CUSTOMERS, THAT THIS BE A MANDATORY COMPONENT OF RATES AND THAT, BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE AT THE PRESENT TIME.

NEXT, PLEASE.

SO, SO THIS SHOWS WHAT THE, THE ELEMENTS OF THE GASSED BILL ARE NEXT, PLEASE.

UM, THE MAIN COMPONENTS FOR HIGH FUEL PRICES HAVE BEEN RISING SUPPORT COSTS.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT PAUL MEANS BY THAT.

SECURITIZATION, WHICH IS THE COSTS THAT WERE INCURRED BY ALL OF THE GAS UTILITIES BUYING EXTRA HIGH PRICE GAS DURING WINTER STORM URI, AND THEN HAVING THE LEGISLATURE ALLOW THEM TO SPREAD THAT RECOVERY OUT OVER TIME.

AND THEN EXTRA FUEL COST COMPONENTS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS SHOWS THE COST OF FUEL PER MCF, IT REFLECTS IN PARTICULAR, UM, GAS EXPORTS.

NEXT, PLEASE.

WHICH, WHICH, BECAUSE WE ARE EXPORTING GAS OUT OF THE UNITED STATES, WE, IT, WE ARE HAVING OUR GAS HERE PRICED AT THE WORLD MARKET RATES RATHER THAN, THAN DOMESTIC RATES, WHICH WOULD BE LOWER IF WE WERE NOT EXPORTING BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE MORE SUPPLY RELATIVE TO THE AVAILABLE DEMAND COST OF EXTRA FUEL COMPONENTS PER MCF.

SO THIS INCLUDES SOME OF THE ELEMENTS OF GAS ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT.

IF, IF THE, UM, TEXAS GAS SERVICE FOLKS ARE IN THE ROOM AND YOU'RE JUMPING OUT OF YOUR SEATS AT SOME OF THESE, I LEAP TO REMIND YOU THAT THIS IS NOT MY PRESENTATION AND MY ABILITY TO DEFEND IT WILL, AND ALL OF THE COMPONENTS IN IT WILL BE LIMITED.

THANK YOU.

NEXT, PLEASE.

THIS I CAN SPEAK TO.

THIS IS THE WINTER STORM URI SURCHARGES.

UM, AND THIS SHOWS HOW HIGH GAS PRICES ROSE ON THE, THE DAYS PRECEDING AND DURING WINTER STORM URI SO THAT THE LDCS WERE BUYING EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE GAS AND IN ORDER TO SERVE CUSTOMERS AT VERY HIGH DEMAND LEVELS WELL ABOVE NORMAL.

NEXT, PLEASE.

SO THE, THE SECURITIZATION DID THREE AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS FOR THE GAS COMPANIES THAT WAS FINANCED OVER 16 YEARS.

THIS REPRESENTS OH ONE OVER A DOLLAR PER MCF SURCHARGE.

AUSTIN CUSTOMERS WILL BE PAYING FOR THIS $38 A YEAR OR $608 A YEAR OVER THE 16 YEAR PAYOFF.

NEXT, PLEASE.

AND THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW MOST OF THAT MONEY WENT TO EARNINGS FROM THE GAS COMPANIES, THE PRODUCERS, AND THE PIPELINE OWNERS AND SHIPPERS AND MARKETERS.

NEXT, PLEASE.

AS I SAID, L-N-G-U-S-L-N-G IS COMPETING ON A WORLD MARKET.

SO OUR PRICES FOR DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION HAVE GONE UP BECAUSE WE ARE COMPETING WITH WORLD BUYERS FOR THE AVAILABLE NATURAL GAS.

NEXT, PLEASE.

AND THIS SHOWS HOW MUCH OUR NATURAL US NATURAL GAS EXPORTS HAVE INCREASED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.

NEXT, PLEASE.

THIS SHOWS THE TAXES AND FEES COMPONENT OF THAT BILL.

NEXT, PLEASE.

LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE.

THIS, IN THIS SLIDE, UM, COMMISSIONER ROBBINS IS ATTEMPTING TO SHOW

[00:40:01]

AUSTIN ENERGY AND AUSTIN WATER ARE SPENDING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY ON THIS 1.5% OF GROSS REVENUE FOR THE AUSTIN UTILITIES OVERALL.

IN CONTRAST, TEXAS GAS SERVICES SPENDING ONLY $200,000 FOR THE ENTIRE CENTRAL GULF REGION, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

UM, NEXT PLEASE.

UM, COMMISSIONER ROBBINS HAS SOME ISSUES WITH HOW THE GAS COMPANIES ARE REPRESENTING THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT THEY SAVE, THE EFFICIENCY OF THE PROCESS.

NEXT, PLEASE.

AND WE HEARD HIM TALK ABOUT THIS AT THE, I THINK THE JUNE MEETING, UM, ON THE ATMOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION.

HE, HE FELT THAT THERE WAS SOME, THIS SLIDE FROM ATMOS WAS MISREPRESENTING THE EFFICIENCY WITH WHICH MBTS OF GAS ARE CONVERTED TO ELECTRICITY.

IN THE ATMOS PRESENTATION, HE HAD THIS START.

THEY, THEY SHOWED THAT IF YOU TOOK A HUNDRED M-M-B-T-U OF GAS, YOU WOULD END UP WITH ONLY 38 M-M-B-T-U DELIVERED TO THE CUSTOMER.

IN CONTRAST, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

UM, ERCOT THINKS IT'S MORE LIKE 48 M-M-B-T-U.

SO IF YOU DO THE MATH DIFFERENTLY AS THIS DOES, YOU ARE SHOWING THAT THE DELIVERY TO THE WATER HEATER AT THE CUSTOMER POINT IS ALMOST IDENTICAL, BUT CERTAINLY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EFFICIENT ON THE ELECTRICITY SIDE RELATIVE TO THE WHAT THE ATMOS SLIDE SHOWED US.

NEXT, PLEASE.

AGAIN.

NEXT, NEXT, PLEASE.

THERE WE GO.

OKAY.

SO PAUL DID A SURVEY OF, OF GAS UTILITY PROPOSED REBATES AND, UM, FOUND THE FOLLOWING DATA FOR TANKLESS WATER HEATERS.

CONSISTENTLY, TEXAS GAS SERVICE HAS PROPOSED REBATES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE ADJUSTED NATIONAL AVERAGES.

NOTE FURTHER, HIS, I BELIEVE THAT HIS REFERENCE TO NATIONAL TEMPERATURE ADJUSTED REFLECTS THE FACT THAT SOME OF THESE DIFFERENT APPLIANCES ARE RELEVANT FOR DIFFERENT WEATHER ZONES AND TEMPERATURES, AND SOME OF THESE APPLIANCES HAVE BEEN, SO YOU'D NEED A DIFFERENT FURNACE HERE IN AUSTIN THAN YOU WOULD NEED IN MINNESOTA, FOR INSTANCE.

EVEN SO, THE, THE REBATES APPEAR TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAT TEXAS GAS SERVICE HAS PROPOSED THAN ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY.

AND I HAVE ALSO LOOKED AT SOME OF THESE, AND I CAN SUGGEST THAT AS TEXAS GAS SERVICE FIGURES OUT HOW TO MODIFY THEIR CONSERVATION PROGRAM GOING FORWARD, THAT THEY COULD DO ALL OF US A FAVOR BY REDUCING THE REBATES ON A BUNCH OF THESE APPLIANCES TO MORE STANDARD NATIONAL NORMS THAN THE INFLATED LEVELS THAT THAT WE SEE HERE.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT CUSTOMERS ARE GOING TO BE BUYING WATER HEATERS AND FURNACES AND CLOTHES DRYERS WITH OR WITHOUT A REBATE.

AND SO YOU CAN PAY A REBATE THAT IS A HUNDRED DOLLARS ON A CLOSED DRYER INSTEAD OF 225 AND HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY MORE COST EFFECTIVE REBATE.

UM, AND THEY COULD ALSO BE ELIMINATING THINGS LIKE A NATURAL GAS STUB FOR A CLOTHES DRYER.

YOU DON'T NEED TO PAY A REBATE ON THAT MO.

VERY FEW OTHER UTILITIES DO.

I WILL POINT OUT THAT, UM, HAVING TAKEN A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED PROGRAM DATA THAT WAS JUST THROWN OUT, I WILL TELL YOU THAT IF WHEN I TOOK THE TOTAL RESIDENTIAL GAS SAVINGS, WHICH WAS 3,000,412 AND CHANGE MMB THE AND DIVIDED BY THE AVERAGE ANNUAL COST SAVINGS, WE ENDED UP WITH, UM, A TOTAL COST OF A, A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF 1.31, WHICH SAYS TO ME THAT WE ARE NOT GETTING A HECK OF A LOT OF RETURN FOR THE MONEY THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO SPEND ON THIS.

AUSTIN ENERGY IS GETTING SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR EVERY INVESTMENT THAT THEY MAKE IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO PAUL IS GONNA GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES OF THE, THE MATH ON THIS.

THE GAS DRYER WITH MOISTURE SENSOR.

[00:45:02]

AND, AND THE DRYER STUB IS NOT A REBATE ON THE DRYER.

THE DRYER STUB IS PAYING A REBATE TO A BUILDER, WHICH GOES INTO THE HOME FOR PUTTING IN THE LITTLE PIPE THAT CONNECTS YOUR DRYER TO THE GAS SERVICE TO, AND, AND THERE IS ALSO POTENTIALLY A STUB IN THE KITCHEN TO CONNECT YOUR STOVE TO THE DRYER TO, TO THE GAS SERVICE.

SO IF THERE IS ONLY A 50 CENT PER YEAR SAVINGS ON A GAS DRYER FOR MOISTURE SENSOR WITH A MOISTURE SENSOR, IF THE SAVINGS ARE THAT TRIVIAL PAL CALCULATES THIS AS THE PAYBACK OF 666 YEARS, WHICH IS NOT MY IDEA OF A COST-EFFECTIVE INVESTMENT.

NEXT, PLEASE TANKLESS WATER HEATERS.

THIS IS THE COST 4,000 PLUS TO 5,000 FOR INSTALLING A NEW TANKLESS WATER HEATER VERSUS MUCH LOWER 1600 TO TO 1850 FOR A TANK UNIT.

THOSE ARE THE KINDS THAT AUSTIN, THAT, THAT YOU CAN HAVE EITHER A NATURAL GAS OR AN ELECTRIC WATER HEATER.

AND THE PROBLEMS WITH TANKLESS WATER HEATERS ARE THAT THEY REQUIRE SCALE REGULAR CLEANING OF SCALE OUT OF THE WATER HEATER.

WE HAVE LEARNED PAINFULLY THAT IN A WINTER STORM URI TYPE ENVIRONMENT THAT YOUR OUTSIDE TANKLESS WATER HEATER WILL FREEZE UP AND STOP WORKING AND ITS PIPES WILL BREAK.

AND IN FACT, PAUL CONCLUDES THAT NOT ONLY IS THERE NO PAYBACK, IT MAY IN FACT COST SIGNIFICANTLY MORE JUST FROM THE HIGHER COST OF INSTALLING THE DEVICE AND THE QUESTIONABLE GAS SAVINGS.

YOU'LL LOSE MONEY BY INVESTING IN A TANKLESS WATER HEATER RELATIVE TO A TANK WATER HEATER.

NEXT, PLEASE.

EFFICIENT FURNACES.

THESE HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER COST RANGES FOR THE ONES THAT ARE, UM, THAT, THAT PAUL LOOKED AT THAT HE BELIEVES ARE, UM, DESIGNED FOR NORTHERN CLIMATES RATHER THAN AUSTIN CLIMATES.

I DUNNO A LOT ABOUT THIS, SO I'M GONNA ZIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

THANK YOU.

GAS RANGES, THESE ARE GONNA BE GAS TO GAS CHANGE OUTS SO THAT THERE IS LITTLE BENEFIT OF DOING A GAS STOVE RE HEATER REPLACEMENT.

I SAID THAT WRONG.

A GAS RANGE REPLACEMENT BECAUSE IF THEY'VE ALREADY GOT A GAS RANGE, THEY'RE GONNA BUY ANOTHER GAS RANGE AND YOU CAN GIVE THEM $50 TO MAKE 'EM FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT RATHER THAN SPENDING A HUGE REPLACEMENT.

VERY FEW GAS UTILITIES OR GIVING REBATES FOR RANGES AND RANGE STUBS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

PAUL IS PARTICULARLY EXERCISED, AND I DON'T BLAME HIM ABOUT OFFERING PROPOSED REBATES ON BACKUP GENERATORS IN A CONSERVATION PROGRAM.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO GIVE REBATES ON CONSERVATE, ON ON BACKUP GENERATORS.

THEY'RE CALLED BACKUP GENERATOR MANUFACTURERS, AND THEY ARE GIVING OUT REBATES, THEY'RE GIVING OUT WARRANTIES.

THERE ARE MANY STATES THAT ARE RUNNING INTO ELECTRIC AND GRID RELIABILITY PROBLEMS AND ARE ENCOURAGING YOU TO GET A BACKUP GENERATOR AND CONTRIBUTE IT FOR GRID RELIABILITY.

WE ARE NOT YET ONE OF THOSE STATES, SO GIVING A BACK HAVING A BACKUP GENERATOR IS PURELY A LOAD BUILDING EFFORT AND, UM, IT IS NOT A CONSERVATION MECHANISM IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

SO THIS, I AGREE WITH PAUL, THAT THIS PARTICULAR MEASURE SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM ANY FUTURE PROPOSALS FROM TEXAS GAS SERVICE.

NEXT, PLEASE.

SO IN PAUL'S VIEW, THE PROPOSED THE GAS SERVICE CONSERVATION PROGRAM THAT WAS JUST TOSSED OUT BY THE RAILROAD COMMISSION, IT APPEARS THAT THE RAILROAD COMMISSION DID NOT SHARE PAUL'S LOGIC FOR WHY TO THROW IT OUT.

PAUL'S RATIONALE IS THAT THE TEXAS GAS SERVICE PROPOSAL WAS WASTING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY FOR APPLIANCE REBATES THAT ARE NOT COST EFFECTIVE AND ARE NOT BUYING ANY SIGNIFICANT ENERGY SAVINGS.

AND, UM, THOSE ARE BOTH IN THE DRYER WATER HEATER AND FURNACE CATEGORY AND IN THE RANGE AND BACKUP GENERATORS.

TEXAS GAS SERVICE DID NOT ACTUALLY PROPOSE COST EFFECTIVE

[00:50:01]

SO SOME OF THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE MEASURES FOR ACTUALLY SAVING ENERGY AND REDUCING GAS USE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NEW PROGRAM, BUT IT APPEARS THAT TEXAS, THAT THAT THE RAILROAD COMMISSION TOSSED THIS OUT, NOT BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT COST EFFECTIVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OR CONSERVATION MEASURES THE TEXAS GAS SERVICE WAS PROPOSING NOR, BUT THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING TO PAY WHOPPING REBATES THAT WERE NOT SAVING ENERGY RELATIVE TO THE COST OF THE MEASURE, BUT RATHER THE RAILROAD COMMISSION.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY TOSSED IT OUT PURELY ON THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT THE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE TO PAY WELL, THAT ALL OF THOSE COSTS SHOULD NOT BE IN OUR RATES.

AND I, UM, DO AGREE THAT THE COSTS FOR BAD ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS SHOULD NOT BE IN OUR RATES.

SO IT, I FIND MYSELF UNCOMFORTABLY AGREEING WITH THE RAILROAD COMMISSION ON THIS ONE POINT.

NEXT, PLEASE.

UM, TGS IS BUYING NATURAL GAS, INCLUDING IT APPEARS RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS, RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS COSTS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN UM, PLAIN OLD TEXAS GAS AS SHOWN IN THIS SLIDE.

NEXT HAUL OFFERS A SET OF ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD LOWER RATES THAT THIS COMMISSION AND OUR, UM, CITY COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER IN THE UPCOMING FRANCHISE CONSIDERATION.

PAUL PROPOSES ON THIS PAGE THREE ITEMS DEMANDING PRE-APPROVAL OF ALL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES THROUGH THE, AS PART OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THAT AS WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME, AUSTIN SHOULD OPPOSE THE MERGERS WITH OTHER TEXAS GAS SERVICE REGIONS BECAUSE AS A REMINDER, THOSE REGIONS HAVE AN EVEN HIGHER COST PER CUSTOMER TO SERVE SO THAT WE WOULD END UP THROUGH THE CONSOLIDATION, THE DENSER AUSTIN SERVICE AREA WOULD END UP SUBSIDIZING THE OTHER AREAS THAT WE WOULD BE MERGED INTO.

AUSTIN SHOULD DEMAND FULL CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES FOR NEW HOOKUPS AND DEVELOPMENTS.

AS A REMINDER FROM SEVERAL MEETINGS BACK, TEXAS GAS SERVICE HAS DONE, UM, APPLIES MINIMAL, UM, CONTRIBUTION IN NATIVE CONSTRUCTION TO NEW HOOKUPS AND DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH MEANS THAT WE, THE RATE PAYERS AS A WHOLE PAY FOR ALL OF THOSE LINE EXTENSIONS RATHER THAN THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARY.

NEXT, PLEASE.

HE PROPOSES LOWERING GAS STORAGE AND RESERVATION FEES TO HISTORICAL LEVELS.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS A WHOLESALE GAS ISSUE AND NOT, THIS IS ALLISON SPEAKING, NOT PAUL.

UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS IS FEASIBLE BECAUSE IT'S A GAS MARKET IS ISSUE AND NOT SOMETHING THAT I THINK AUSTIN CAN AFFECT GAS COMPANIES AND CITIES SHOULD BE FILING LAWSUITS TO, TO PROTEST AGAINST THE HIGH COST DURING WINTER STORM URI.