[00:00:07]
[Call to Order]
AL, AND IT'S TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15TH, 2022.THE TIME IS 1 0 5 AS WE CONVENE THIS MEETING OF THE AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL.
UM, THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD IN A HYBRID WAY WITH MANY.
HERE ON THE DIAS, WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, MYSELF AND COUNCIL MEMBER VELA ON THE DIAS AND COUNCIL MEMBER HYPER MADISON, VIRTUALLY.
UM, THE MAYOR IS AWAY ON CITY BUSINESS AND COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY IS, UH, SICK TODAY.
AND THEN WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN WHO HAS INDICATED THAT SHE'S COMING LATE.
HOPEFULLY WE'LL SEE OTHER, OTHER COLLEAGUES SHORTLY.
UM, LET ME START BY READING IN THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS THIS AFTERNOON FOR ITEMS 2 3 26 27 AND 28TH.
UM, ON NOVEMBER 9TH, IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE WATER AND WASTEWATER COMMISSION ON A SEVEN OH VOTE WITH COMMISSIONERS MUSK GROVE AND NAVARRO ABSENT, AND TWO VACANCIES FOR ITEMS SIX.
UM, IT SHOULD READ REGIONAL MOBILITY PROGRAM INSTEAD OF CORRIDOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM.
THAT'S FOR THE SPICEWOOD SPRINGS ROAD ART AND PUBLIC PLACES.
ON NOVEMBER 14TH, IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION ON A 6 21 VOTE WITH TWO VACANCIES ITEM, UH, 23, UH, NOVEMBER 14TH WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE EUC ON A NINE OH VOTE WITH TWO VACANCIES.
ITEM 24, UM, NOVEMBER 14TH WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION ON AN 8 0 1 VOTE WITH TWO VACANCIES.
ITEM 24 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED WITH ADDENDUM.
ITEM 28 HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 1ST, 2022.
ITEM 29 HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO JANUARY 26TH, 2023.
ITEMS 29, 30 AND 32 HAVE A NOVEMBER 9TH RECOMMENDATION BY THE WATER AND WASTEWATER COMMISSION ON A SIX OH VOTE WITH COMMISSIONER PENN RECUSING, COMMISSIONERS MUST GROVE AND NAVARRO ABSENT, AND TWO VACANCIES.
ITEM 32 WAS POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 8TH, AND THEN ITEMS 39 40 AND 42 SHOULD READ CITY CODE SECTION 12 4 64 INSTEAD OF CHAPTER.
AND ITEM 48 IS TO BE TAKEN UP AT 2:00 PM SO WE HAD REVISED OR LATE BACKUP DISTRIBUTED FOR ITEM FOUR, ITEM FIVE, ITEM SIX, ITEM 14, 43, 45, 52, 54, AND 56.
WE HAD, UM, ONE ITEM THAT WAS PULLED ITEM, UM, 62.
AND, AND AS WE, UM, AGREED TO THIS MEETING, WE SUGGESTED THAT ANY PULLED ITEMS WOULD BE POSTPONED.
SO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVA, THAT'S YOUR ITEM.
I ASSUME YOU'D LIKE THAT FOR DECEMBER 1ST.
UH, YES, AND EVERY TIME, IF I COULD JUST MAKE A QUICK COMMENT ABOUT THAT, I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY FINE TO POSTPONE THAT.
UM, ON DECEMBER 1ST, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN AND I HAVE ALSO REQUESTED THAT OUR CITY STAFF PROVIDE US WITH UPDATES ABOUT THOSE FOUR PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOTED IN THAT SAME RESOLUTION.
AND THAT IS THE PROPERTY ON CHACON, THE PROPERTY ON GUADALUPE ONE, TEXAS CENTER, AND THEN THE FOURTH.
AND SO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, UM, WILL HAPPEN, UM, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THOSE, YOU KNOW, ON THE SAME, IN THE SAME WEEK IF WE CONSIDER THE, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RESOLUTION ON THAT THURSDAY, ON TUESDAY, WE'LL HAVE THE UPDATE ABOUT THE PROPERTIES, ABOUT THE FOUR PROPERTIES, AND I BELIEVE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HAS SOME OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AS WELL.
I JUST WANNA NOTE THAT I THINK, UM, THE CHANGES IN CORRECTIONS SHEET SHOULD BE ITEM 49 THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN UP AT TWO, NOT ITEM 48.
SO WE'LL MAKE THAT CORRECTION TO THE LAST VERSION OF THE CHANGES AND CORRECTIONS.
SO OUR CONSENT AGENDA TODAY INCLUDES ITEMS ONE THROUGH 46.
UM, I HAVE ITEM 48 AND IT 58 THROUGH 62 ON MY SHEET ITEMS NOT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA INCLUDE ITEM 47, WHICH IS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM ON LABOR NEGOTIATIONS, WHICH WE ARE NOT PLANNING TO TAKE UP TO DATE UNLESS REQUESTED.
ITEM 49, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS.
UM, THAT ITEM WAS NOTICED FOR 2:00 PM SO WE CANNOT TAKE IT UP UNTIL 2:00 PM OR LATER.
ITEM 50, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSED REVISED ELECTRIC RATES.
ITEM 51, WHICH IS A PRESENTATION BY OUR H P D DEPARTMENT FOR THE 3 11 3 15 SOUTH CONGRESS HOOD.
AND OUR ZONING AGENDA, WHICH IS TIME CERTAIN FOR 2:00 PM TODAY, WHICH WILL INCLUDE ITEMS 52 THROUGH 57 IN ITEM 63.
[00:05:01]
AND AS NOTED ITEM 62 WILL BE POSTPONED TO DECEMBER 1ST.WE WILL TAKE THAT UP ON THE UM, CONSENT AGENDA.
UM, THIS MORNING WE HAVE 14 SPEAKERS IN CHAMBER, OR THIS AFTERNOON WE HAVE 14 SPEAKERS IN CHAMBERS AND THREE INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING REMOTELY.
UM, THEY WILL EACH HAVE THREE MINUTES OF THESE SPEAKERS, TWO OF THE INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING REMOTELY.
OUR SPEAKING TO US ON THE AE, UM, RATE CASE MATTER.
AND OF THOSE IN THE CHAMBER, 12 OF 14 ARE ONLY SPEAKING ON THE AE RATE MANNER.
SO AS I POSTED ON THE MESSAGE BOARD, I PROPOSE THAT WE HEAR FROM OUR THREE VIRTUAL SPEAKERS.
THAT'S JUST SORT OF THE NATURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY, UM, WHO ARE NOT SPEAKING ON ZONING.
AND THEN WE CAN HEAR FROM OUR SPEAKERS WHO ARE IN PERSON WHO WANNA SPEAK ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA, UM, IN OTHER WORDS, ANY ITEM THAT'S NOT AN AE RATE MATTER.
UM, AND THEN WE WILL, UM, HEAR FROM, WE'LL VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND THEN WE CAN HEAR FROM OUR, OUR AE SPEAKERS.
AT TWO O'CLOCK, WE'LL MOVE OVER TO ZONING IF WE HAVE ADDITIONAL AE SPEAKERS AFTER WE FINISH WITH THE ZONING SPEAKERS AND THE ZONING AGENDA AS WELL AS, UM, ITEMS, UH, 49 AND 51.
THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO HEARING FOLKS WHO ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THE RATE CASE.
AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THE PRESENTATION FROM THE EUC AUSTIN ENERGY AND TIME FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, AND, UM, QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL, UM, FOR STAFF OR FOR OTHERS IN THE ROOM RELATED TO THE RATE CASE.
UM, THEN WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, UM, FOR THAT.
SO IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ORGANIZATION FOR THE DAY, IF THEY'RE NONE, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE COUNCIL UMBRELLAS.
NOT A QUESTION, BUT BEFORE WE GOT MOVING WITH SPEAKERS, I JUST WANTED TO FLAG THAT.
ITEM NUMBER 60, UM, IS OUR CIRCLE C TURKEY TROT.
WE STILL HAVE $2,700 WORTH OF FEE WAIVERS THAT COULD BE TAKEN UP BY THE COUNCIL, BUT I APPRECIATE THE ALREADY 1400 THAT'S BEEN WAIVED BY, UM, MYSELF, MAYOR PROTE, ALTAR COUNCIL MEMBER'S, KITCHEN RENTERIA AND F FUENTES, AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING EVERYONE AT THE TURKEY TROT ON NOVEMBER 24TH.
COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD TO THAT? DISTRICT SEVEN WILL ADD $250 TO THE TURKEY TROT.
ANYONE ELSE? COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, WE'D LIKE TO FOLLOW THE LEAD OF DISTRICT SEVEN.
SO THANK YOU FOR OFFERING THE OPPORTUNITY.
SO ANOTHER TWO 50 FROM DISTRICT ONE AS WELL.
UH, COUNCIL MEMBER LS DO STILL NEED ADDITIONAL FUNDS AFTER THE, UM, SO I'LL, MY OFFICE CAN CONTRIBUTE TWO 50 AS WELL.
AND, UM, MAYOR EM, YES, SORRY TO BACKTRACK US HERE, BUT I WOULD ASK, I'M NOT SURE WHO PULLED THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BUT I WOULD JUST ASK IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, UM, IF FOLKS COULD PUT THEM ON THE, ON THE COUNCIL MESSAGE BOARD, THAT WAY WE CAN BE EFFICIENT.
UM, ON THE FIRST IT WAS COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, UM, SO COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, IF YOU COULD, UM, THINK ABOUT POSTING YOUR QUESTION THAT WOULD, SINCE WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME, I'LL, I'LL EVEN PUT 'EM INTO THE Q AND A.
UM, AND THEN WHILE WE HAVE SPEAKERS, UM, CITY ATTORNEY, IF YOU COULD JUST CONFIRM THAT WE CAN TAKE UP 48 WITH THE CONSENTED AGENDA IF YOU CAN HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
NOELLA, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE TO 50 TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER ELSE IN THE TURKEY TRIAL.
SO WE ARE GONNA MOVE TO SPEAKERS.
[ Public Comment ]
WE HAVE, UM, WE'RE GONNA MAKE ONE ADJUSTMENT TO THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON OUR AGENDA FOR CONSENT.WE'RE GONNA DO ONE THROUGH 46 AND THEN 58 THROUGH 62.
UM, AND, UH, FOR 48, UM, WE'LL HAVE THE HEARING WITH THE SPEAKERS, BUT WE'LL CLOSE THAT HEARING AFTER CONSENT.
IF THE CLERK WOULD LIKE TO, TO CALL OUR REMOTE SPEAKERS, PLEASE.
FIRST SPEAKER IS ZNO JOSEPH ON ITEM 40, 41, 42 AND 48 MAY APPROACH HIM.
THANK YOU, COUNSEL, I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE ITEM 48.
DOES THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN UP BY ITSELF? I'M SORRY, ZNO, I COULDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU SAID.
IF YOU COULD REPEAT IT PLEASE.
[00:10:01]
I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT ITEM 48.IS THAT AN ITEM BEING TAKEN UP BY ITSELF? UM, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND SPEAK NOW.
WE'RE TAKING ALL OF THE SPEAKERS NOW.
UM, IT WILL COME UP RIGHT AFTER, UM, WE DO CONSENT IN TERMS OF THE VOTE, BUT IN TERMS OF SPEAKING, YOU CAN SPEAK TO 48 RIGHT NOW, PLEASE.
UM, SO I WANTED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM 48.
THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE ACTUALLY AMENDING, UH, TITLE 25 OF THE CITY CODE.
SPECIFICALLY IT'S THE PROJECT CONNECT TRANSIT, UH, PROJECTS.
AND I JUST WANTED TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT ON PART ONE OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, IT SAYS, PROJECT CONNECT IS THE CITY'S HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM EXPANSION, WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY CONSIST OF A LIGHT RAIL NETWORK AND EXPANDED BUS SYSTEM.
AND WHEN I TESTIFIED BEFORE THE ZONING AND PLATTING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 18TH, 2022, I ASKED HIM TO INCLUDE BUS SYSTEM EXPANSION IN SOUTHWEST AND CENTRAL AUSTIN BECAUSE IT IS NOT BEING EXPANDED IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN.
THE JUSTIFICATION OR THE PROOF THAT SHOWS THAT IT'S NOT BEING EXPANDED IS TWOFOLD.
NOVEMBER 3RD, 2017, THERE'S A AUSTIN CHRONICLE ARTICLE BY JACK KRAVER AND IT QUOTES CAPITAL METRO AS SAYING SUPPORTERS OF THE PLAN, INCLUDING CAP METRO ITSELF, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EVERY POLICY HAS CERTAIN CASUALTIES.
SO PROJECT MANAGER LAWRENCE DIETER ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE'S THE ONCE AN HOUR COLONY PARK BUS THAT SERVES AFRICAN AMERICANS AND THAT THE SYSTEM IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN, THERE'S A MAP IN THAT ARTICLE THAT SHOWS THAT NORTHEAST WEST CONNECTIVITY WAS ELIMINATED.
SO I JUST THINK IT'S DISINGENUOUS FOR YOU TO KEEP SAYING THAT THERE'S EXPANDED SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, IN THE GEORGIAN ACRES AREA, THERE WAS THE MOBILITY HUB OPENING FOR THE TRANSIT DESERT.
I JUST WANNA CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE MILLION DOLLARS THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN RECEIVED FOR THAT MOBILITY HUB IS ACTUALLY GOVERNED BY FEDERAL DOLLARS.
SO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF HOMELAND SECURITY, A NUMBER OF AGENCIES, AND ALL OF THEM HAVE TITLE SIX, UH, COMPLAINT PROCESSES.
AND SO I JUST WANT YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE LIVE NORTH OF US 180 3 AND THE TRANSIT DESERT EXISTS, AND THE ORDINANCE SHOULD REFLECT THE ACCURACY OF WHAT IS ON THE GROUND AS IT RELATES TO THE OTHER ITEMS THAT I LISTED.
THOSE ARE JUST THE SPEED LIMIT ADJUSTMENTS FROM THE AUSTIN TRANSIT DEPARTMENT.
AND MY NEUTRALITY OF THIS IS THAT I GET THAT YOU NEED TO, UM, MAKE THESE CHANGES.
HOWEVER, I JUST WANNA CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION, THE TRANSIT DESERT SPECIFICALLY, THERE'S A REDUCTION OF SPEED FROM 50 MILES PER HOUR TO 40 ON, UH, DESSA ROAD IN BETWEEN PALMER LANE AND BREAKER.
THAT'S THE ONLY AREA WHERE ROUTE 3 92 PASSES AND IT'S A THREE MILE WALK TO SAMSUNG.
SO THERE NEEDS TO BE PEDESTRIAN HYBRID DEACONS PRIORITIZED IN THAT AREA BECAUSE IT'S AT LEAST A MILE BETWEEN THE LIGHTS.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO CALL TO THAT, TO YOUR ATTENTION, THAT AS WELL AS HARRIS BRANCH, WHICH IS, UH, 41 AND 42, IT'S HOWARD LANE.
SO ALL THESE AREAS ARE 24 TO 30 YEARS ACCORDING TO THE MARCH, UH, NINTH, 2020 PROJECT CONNECT PLAN.
AND ON PAGE 29, AND I JUST WANT YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT I GET A COUNCIL MEMBER, NOT TASHA HARPER MADISON IN 2019 CALLED THE THIS AREA.
YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, BUT WE PAY TAXES TOO.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL GLADLY ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME.
AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO MAKE MY COMMENTS.
NEXT SPEAKER IS SCOTT DELGADO ON ITEM 50
HI, I'M SPEAKING ON THE, THE AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSED RATE.
IS NOW THE RIGHT TIME? YES, PLEASE PROCEED.
UM, AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT SEVEN.
AND SO I WAS JUST CALLING IN TODAY, UH, TO, UH, TALK ABOUT AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSED, UH, RATE INCREASE, UM, SPECIFICALLY, UM, THE TIER LEVELS AND THEN ALSO THE BASE RATE.
AND THAT I JUST WANTED TO DISCUSS HOW, UM, UH, DEVASTATING THAT WOULD BE TO BOTH ME AND A LOT OF PEOPLE IN MY APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH HOW MUCH, UH, RENTS HAVE BEEN RAISED, HOW MUCH INFLATION HAS INCREASED.
THIS, UH, THIS HUGE RATE INCREASE FOR ENERGY WOULD INCREASE BILL BY ALMOST 70% GOING UP TO $150, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING I CAN CONSISTENTLY AFFORD.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
[00:15:01]
THAT, UM, THE RATE INCREASES MAYBE ONLY $2 OR KEEPING THE, THE TIERED LEVELS.UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE MY OPINION HEARD THAT THIS, THIS LARGE RATE INCREASE WOULD BE DEVASTATING FOR ME AND MY COMMUNITY.
NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID REISER ON ITEM 50.
UM, I'M SPEAKING ON, UH, AS IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUSTIN ENERGY RATE CASE AND I'M REPRESENTING HF.
UH, HF IS AN ACRONYM FOR HOMEOWNER UNITED FOR RATE FAIRNESS.
IT'S A NONPROFIT REPRESENTING RESIDENTS AND COMMERCIAL RATE PAYERS THAT LIVE OUTSIDE THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY FORMED IN 2012 TO ADDRESS CITY OF AUSTIN'S RATE ORDINANCE.
AT THAT TIME, HF WAS REFORMED IN 2022 TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PARTICULAR RATE MAKING PROCEEDING WITH ITS PRINCIPLE PURPOSE BEING TO PROTECT THE FUNDAMENTALS.
THE SETTLEMENT REACHED IN THE 2012 APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
HERS POSITION IS BASED ON THE SETTLEMENT IN POC DOCKET 4 0 6 27.
IN 2013, THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION APPROVED A SETTLEMENT RELATIVE TO THE RATES WITHIN THE CITY AND THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT TO BE CHARGED TO AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE THE CITY.
THE SETTLEMENT ESTABLISHED AN OUT OF THE CITY CUSTOMER THAT THEY RECEIVE NO BENEFIT FROM THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER PORTION OF AUSTIN ENERGY RATES AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE REMOVED FROM THEIR COST OF SERVICE.
THIS 2013 SETTLEMENT WAS REAFFIRMED IN 2016 IN THE RATE REVIEW AND ITS CURRENT PUBLIC POLICY ENFORCE TODAY.
HER ASSERTS THAT FOR THE REASONS THAT THIS AGREEMENT HAS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED AND IT SHOULD THEREFORE REMAIN IN EFFECT, THE DISCOUNT IS AND WAS BASED ON PUBLIC POLICY, NOT ON COST SERVICE.
I ASSERTS THAT THE SIMILAR REDUCTION MUST BE IN CORONATED INTO THE NEW RATE PROPOSAL FOR THE SAME REASONS AS PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED I REQUESTS OF REDUCTION IN ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE TRANS GENERAL FUND TRANSFER TO THE CITY, WHICH TOTALS 121 MILLION DUE THE CITY'S NEW PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE.
HERS PROPOSED REMEDY IS TO DELETE THE ALLOCATED EXPENSES FOR GENERAL FUND TRANSFER REPRESENTING ALLOCATIONS TO PRODUCTION, TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION, AND CUSTOMER FUNCTIONS RESPECTIVELY.
HF ALSO REQUESTS THAT IT, THE ASSOCIATED RATE REDUCTIONS DUE TO REDUCED REVENUE ACQUIRED REQUIREMENTS APPLIED TO BY OTHER CUSTOMERS, BE APPLIED EQUALLY SO THAT THESE BENEFITS ARE FULLY RECOGNIZED.
IT IS NOTABLE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS LARGELY DISMISSED HERF POSITION THROUGHOUT THE RATE PROCEEDINGS AND IS INSTEAD RELIED ON HF NEEDING TO PROVE A FALSE NEGATIVE.
NAMELY SUGGESTING THAT HF HAS NOT PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT THE CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE THE CITY THAT THEY DO NOT RECEIVE CITY SERVICES.
AUSTIN ENERGIES OR CITY COUNCIL'S INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER ADDRESS THIS POSITION DIRECTLY AND INDICATED THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE OUTSIDE THE CITY RESIDENTS BENEFITS FOR CITY SERVICE IS SQUARELY YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
LASTLY, HER REQUEST THE RATE REDUCTION BE IS REQUESTING THE RATE, BELIEVES THE RATE REDUCTION IS EASILY JUSTIFIABLE.
THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE VIRTUAL SPEAKERS.
SO WE'LL NOW TAKE UP THOSE SPEAKERS WHO ARE SPEAKING, UM, ON OUR AGENDA IT AND I THINK THERE MAY BE ONE PERSON WHO'S SPEAKING ON THE RATE CASE AND AN AGENDA ITEM.
SO BE APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO SPEAK NOW AS WELL.
THEY WILL EACH HAVE THREE MINUTES.
PAUL ROBBINS ON ITEM 46 AND 50 ON DECK.
OH, AND THAT IS THE ONLY ONE WITH 42 ITEMS. MR. ROBBINS, IS HE HERE? OKAY.
[00:20:01]
HIM.SO WE'LL SEE IF HE'S BACK LATER WHEN WE WHEN WE SPEAK.
THANK YOU MADAME PROTE, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS BILL MCKINLEY, I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT FORWARD.
WE ARE AN AUSTIN BASED 5 0 1 C
AND OUR BOARD HAS TAKEN AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT REGARDING ITEM 48 IN SUPPORT AND I'D LIKE TO READ THAT TO YOU RIGHT NOW.
OUR FELLOW AUSTINITE VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY IN FAVOR OF PROJECT CONNECT IN 2020.
BECAUSE OF THE BENEFITS IT WILL BRING OUR COMMUNITY, INCLUDING REDUCED TRAFFIC CONGESTION, MORE AFFORDABLE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS, INCREASED JOB GROWTH, LESS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AND SAFER STREETS.
SINCERELY APPRECIATES THE CITY'S PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE FOR PROPOSING THESE FOUNDATIONAL MODIFICATIONS.
AND WE STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THESE CHANGES WOULD PRUDENTLY AND APPROPRIATELY EXPEDITE THE CONSTRUCTION OF LIGHT RAIL AND METRO RAPID BUS LINES, MAKING SURE OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS GET WHAT THEY VOTED FOR SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
AND MADAME PROTE AND THE REST OF THE COUNCIL, I DID PASS A LETTER ON FRIDAY TO YOUR OFFICES WITH 27 ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL.
WE APPRECIATE IT BEING ON CONSENT.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD.
AND MADAME, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE SPEAKERS.
UM, BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM LAW ON SOME SETTLEMENT ITEMS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR PROTE AND COUNSEL.
I'M MEGAN RILEY ON BEHALF OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT AND HERE ON BEHALF OF OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL REPRESENTING US IN SEVERAL PROTEST CASES.
I COME TO SPEAK TO YOU ON ITEMS NUMBER 34 35 AND 59.
THOSE THREE ARE SETTLEMENTS RELATED TO THE MAY, 2020 PROTESTS FOR ITEM NUMBER 34.
IT INVOLVES A LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY TAYLOR ELLIS, UH, INVOLVING AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON MAY 31ST, AND WE RECOMMEND A SEDIMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,000 500 ON ITEM NUMBER 35.
THAT INVOLVES A LAWSUIT, UH, UM, BROUGHT BY CSR FUENTES, UH, INVOLVING A MAY 30TH, 2020 INCIDENT.
UH, AND WE RECOMMEND A SETTLEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE 62,500 FOR ITEM NUMBER, UH, 59 THAT IS RELATED TO A LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY MEREDITH WILLIAMS. UH, AND, UH, WE RECOMMEND A SETTLEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000 BASED ON A MAY 30TH, 2020 INCIDENT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR LAW? THANK YOU.
IF WE CAN ENTER THOSE IN THE RECORD FOR THOSE ITEMS. COUNCIL MEMBER POOL.
UM, I DO WANNA STATE WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE FIRST.
[Consent Agenda]
TO TAKE UP OUR CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH IS ITEMS ONE THROUGH 46 AND ITEMS 58 THROUGH 62.WE WILL TAKE UP 48 JUST AFTER THE CONSENT AGENDA JUST TO KEEP THINGS CLEAN.
UH, COUNCIL MEMBER POOL MAKES A MOTION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS SECONDS.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, YOU MAY PRETEND I HAVE A, A QUICK, I GUESS, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OR A DIRECTION TO OFFER ON ITEM 31.
THIS IS A CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR THE MOTOROLA SOFTWARE SERVICES.
UM, THIS IS PAIRED WITH ANOTHER ITEM WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS AROUND THE THREE 11 APP THAT I'M BRINGING FORWARD IN THAT IFC, WHICH IS THE VERSION THREE, WHICH INCORPORATES COUNCILMAN B KELLY'S AMENDMENT, WHICH SHE POSTED ABOUT ON THE MESSAGE BOARD.
UM, WE ARE DIRECTING CERTAIN UPGRADES AND, AND TWEAKS TO THE THREE 11 APP, AND I JUST DON'T WANT US TO GET INTO A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT WITH MOTOROLA IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DELIVER ON THOSE TYPES OF SERVICES.
SO WHAT I'M SEEKING TO DO FOR ITEM NUMBER 31 IS CHANGE IT FROM A FIVE YEAR CONTRACT, UH, AGREEMENT TO A ONE YEAR INSTEAD.
AND THEN IF STAFF DEEMS THAT MOTOROLA IS UNABLE TO FULFILL THE DIRECTION SET FORTH IN ITEM NUMBER 45, UH, THAT WE THEN PURSUE OTHER OPTIONS.
IS STAFF COMFORTABLE WITH THIS DIRECTION OR WOULD YOU PREFER A NEGOTIATE AND NOT EXECUTE? OR WHAT WOULD, OR WOULD YOU LIKE US TO GIVE ME TWO SECONDS TO CONFIRM, BUT IT SHOULD BE FINE.
ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, WHY DON'T WE JUST PULL 31 FOR A MINUTE AND WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT AFTER WE DO 48 AND
[00:25:01]
SEE IF WE CAN GET IS 31 CORRECT? UM, LET'S PULL THAT FOR NOW.SO I HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND MOTION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
OKAY, THAT'S UNANIMOUS ON THE DIAS 90 WITH COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY AND MAYOR ADLER ABSENT.
[48. Conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance amending City Code Title 25 and Chapter 9-2 to allow construction ofeertain transit system projects and related transportation infrastructure. Strategic Outcomers): Mobility.]
ITEM 48.UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAY PASSAGE COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN MAKES THAT MOTION SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VELA, ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON ITEM 48? COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS? A QUESTION, UH, WHICH RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT BASE MOTION? UM, ITEM 48 IS A ITEM FROM STAFF RELATED TO THE CHANGES TO THE CITY CODE FOR, UM, PROJECT CONNECT.
THEY'RE MOSTLY SITE DEVELOPMENT OR THEY'RE, THEY'RE, UM, MOSTLY SITE PLAN RELATED AND FISCAL SURETY.
THOSE, ALL THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE IN THE BACKUP ZAP WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO IT.
THEY CAN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND ZAP, I KNOW WE WERE JUST STILL REVIEWING THE ZONING AND PLATTING RECOMMENDATIONS, SO WASN'T SURE IF THE BASE MOTION HAD ALL OF THOSE INCLUDED.
UM, THE BASE, HELLO, I'M DONNA GALATI WITH THE CITY'S PROJECT CONNECT OFFICE.
THE, UM, THE MOTION WOULD JUST BE FOR THE ORDINANCE.
UH, PRIMARILY A LOT OF THE, THE MOTIONS, A LOT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY ZAP AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION WERE, UM, BROADER TOWARDS THE PROGRAM AND WE HAVE, UH, FORWARDED THOSE TO STAFF IN, IN OUR PARTNER DEPARTMENTS, UM, HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FOR EXAMPLE.
UM, BUT NONE OF THOSE WERE, WERE SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HOW'S MY KITCHEN? UM, I JUST WANNA THANK OUR STAFF AS WELL AS, UM, I THINK AS I SEE BILL STILL HERE.
BILL MCKINLEY, THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU ARE DOING WITH ALL OF THE, UH, GROUPS IN THE COMMUNITY.
UM, WE'RE MAKING A LOT OF GREAT PROGRESS ON THIS, SO, UH, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO US TODAY.
UM, WITH THAT WE'LL TAKE A, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
SO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON, ARE YOU VOTING? OKAY, WE HAVE 1 5, 2, 3.
SO WE HAVE EIGHT, UM, EIGHT OF US VOTING COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON OFF THE DIAS MAYOR ADLER AND COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, ABSENT THAT PASSES.
UM, WE CAN TAKE UP 31 IF WE HAVE AN ANSWER.
MAY I PUT IF I MAY I, I I'M ON THE DS.
I'M SORRY, JUST TO, UH, IT WAS A FINGERS PROBLEM, BUT I'M HERE.
DO I NEED TO REDO THE VOTE? JUST REDO.
SO WE'RE GONNA READ YOU, UM, THE CONSENT VOTE, UM, OR THE 48 IS A 48 VOTE.
UM, SO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON CAN PARTICIPATE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AGAIN OF ITEM 48, PLEASE.
THAT IS NINE OF US WITH TWO OF US OFF THE DIAS AS NOTED BEFORE.
UM, SO IF WE'RE NOT READY ON 31, THEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE AE
[50. Conduct a public hearing to receive public comment on Austin Energy's proposed revised electric rates. (Part 1 of 2)]
RATE SPEAKERS THAT ARE IN PERSON, PLEASE.AND THEY EACH HAVE THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR BEING WITH US TODAY.
THAT'S PAUL ROBBINS ON DECK IS CHRIS HUGHES.
CHRIS HUGHES ON DECK IS TREY SALINAS.
UH, SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL, UM, MY NAME IS CHRIS HUGHES.
I WOULD REPRESENT NXP SEMICONDUCTORS, WHO'S, AND WE HAVE PARTICIPATED FULLY IN THIS RATE REVIEW PROCESS, AND I WON'T TAKE UP MUCH TIME.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS AND FOLLOW UP ON SOME, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS LAST NIGHT AT THE EUC WITH, REGARDING SOME OF THIS STUFF REGARDING SOME OF THIS STUFF AS WELL.
BUT IF YOU REMEMBER LAST WEEK I DISCUSSED HOW THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, OBVIOUS OF TEXAS, UM, OFTENTIMES DEVIATES FROM THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT REQUESTS MADE BY UTILITIES.
UM, IN FACT, THEY ARE OFTENTIMES CONSIDERABLY, WHAT THEY ULTIMATELY END UP GETTING IS OFTENTIMES CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY REQUEST.
BUT I WANTED TO ALSO, IN FOLLOWING UP ON THAT PART IS, UM, LET
[00:30:01]
YOU KNOW THAT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER HAS ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION IN THIS CASE AT THE PUC.THAT WOULD BE THE ALG J REPRESENTING AN AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE MAKING A PROPOSAL FOR DECISION.
UM, IT IS COMMON IN THAT PROCESS FOR THE COMMISSION TO ACCEPT, TO ALTER, TO REJECT PORTIONS OF THAT PROPOSED DECISION AND COME UP WITH PROVISIONS OF THEIR OWN.
AND I BELIEVE THAT, UH, PERHAPS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE HAD THE I RECOMMENDATION GONE TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION AS AN ALJ PFD, UM, THERE ARE PROBABLY CERTAIN AREAS WHERE THE, THE COMMISSION WOULD'VE ACTUALLY MADE REVISIONS OR DEVIATED, UM, WHERE THEY MAY BELIEVE THAT CERTAIN GENERALLY ACCEPTED RATE MAKING PRINCIPLES WERE NOT FOLLOWED OR WERE MAYBE NOT FOLLOWED COMPLETELY.
SO I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT ALL OF THIS PROCESS, THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, SUBJECTIVITY TO IT.
SO, UM, I JUST WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO, TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, IN THE LAST AUSTIN ENERGY RATE CASE, THE AFTER THE PARTIES HAD FILED EXCEPTIONS TO THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OR THE FINAL BRIEFS, UM, THE A THE IE IN THAT CASE REC ISSUED A FINAL RECOMMENDATION THAT DID NOT OCCUR HERE.
SO I DON'T KNOW, UH, WHAT THE PROCESS IS FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PARTY'S EXCEPTIONS, BUT, UH, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THOSE EXCEPTIONS AS WELL.
UM, THAT WERE FILED AFTER THE, AFTER AUSTIN ENERGY'S BRIEF.
UM, I DO WANNA FINISH UP BY SAYING, UM, SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS IN THIS CASE, UH, HAVE TOOK COME OFF OF HIATUS AND WE HAVE RESUMED THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND, UH, THEY'RE, THEY SEEM TO BE POSITIVE RIGHT NOW.
I THINK THE, UM, A LOT OF THE PARTIES ARE, UH, ANXIOUS TO MAKE THAT WORK, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO ALLOW THAT PROCESS TO WORK OUT, TO WORK ITS WAY TO FINAL CONCLUSION, EVEN IF THAT MEANS, UH, DELAYING THIS PROCESS BY A WEEK OR SO.
SO THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY.
PRETEND I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR THE SPEAKER IF I YES.
I JUST WANTED TO, UM, AFFIRM, WHEN YOU SPEAK OF THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER, THAT PERSON IS EFFECTIVELY ACTING IN A JUDICIAL CAPACITY.
IS THAT CORRECT? IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THAT PERSON IS ACTING AS IN THE, WITH REGARDS TO THE PUC PROCESS, WOULD BE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
SO MY QUESTION IS THAT PERSON IS ACTING IN THE ROLE OF A JUDGE, QUASI-JUDICIAL MA ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE.
AND, AND YOU ARE ACTING IN THE ROLE OF AN ADVOCATE, AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PARTY THAT YOU ARE REPRESENTING.
AND, AND YOU TAKE ISSUE WITH THE DETERMINATION OF THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER, WHO IS THE JUDICIAL ACT IN THIS? WE DID, AND MANY OF THE PARTIES DID, AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS IN OUR EXCEPTIONS.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CONFIRM.
NEXT SPEAKER, TRACE SALINAS ON DECK IS BEN HALLMARK.
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE COALITION FOR CLEAN, AFFORDABLE, AND RELIABLE ENERGY, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS CCARE THAT CONSTITUTES YOUR LARGE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS ALONG WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS, HOSPITALS.
UM, WE HAVE REENTERED IN TWO SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS.
THAT'S YOUR ENCOURAGEMENT WE MET YESTERDAY, AND WE WILL CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
WE STILL CONTINUE TO THINK THAT THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE IS AN EFFECTIVE COMPROMISE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND INDUSTRIAL PARTICIPANTS.
THE BASE RATE MODEL WOULD HELP BRING CUSTOMER CLASSES TO THEIR COST OF SERVICE, UH, ACCORDING TO THE LATEST BUDGET TO TALK ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER, AGAIN, TOTAL UTILITY TRANSFER REVENUE IS PROJECTED TO GROW AT AN ANNUAL GROWTH RATE OF 3.4%.
IF YOU WILL FREEZE THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER LIKE YOU HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.
WHEN YOUR RESERVES ARE IN TROUBLE, THOSE SAVINGS CAN BE CA PASSED ONTO THE RATE PAYER.
AS A REMINDER, YOU JUST HAD TO TAKE A VERY PAINFUL VOTE, AND I HAD TO ASK YOU TO VOTE FOR IT ON THE PSA ADJUSTMENT.
UM, THAT WAS FOR YOUR LARGE INDUSTRIALS, THAT WAS A 30% INCREASE TO THE OVERALL BILL THAT IS UNBUDGETED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
COMPOUND THAT WITH WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED IN THE RIGHT CASE, WE RUN THE RISK OF PRICING OUR RESIDENTS, OUR BUSINESSES OUT.
AS A REMINDER, THE PSA WAS ALSO A 15% INCREASE ON RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS.
SO I WANT, I JUST ASKED THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL TO REMEMBER THAT AS YOU GO INTO DELIBERATIONS.
[00:35:01]
WHAT MR. HUGHES SAID, WE WANNA GET TO A SETTLEMENT.WE WANNA WORK WITH YOUR STAFF TO GET TO A SETTLEMENT.
IF THAT MEANS IT TAKES AN EXTRA WEEK, IT TAKES AN EXTRA WEEK.
I'M NOT CALLING FOR AN EXTRA WEEK, JUST DON'T THINK OF DECEMBER ONE AS THE ULTIMATE, ULTIMATE DEADLINE.
YOU ARE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR AUSTIN ENERGY, WHICH MEANS YOU ARE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.
IN THIS SITUATION, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO ENGAGE AND TO ASK TOUGH QUESTIONS, AS CHRIS SAID BEFORE.
ALSO REMEMBER, IT IS VERY COMMON PRACTICE FOR PUC COMMISSIONERS TO TAKE PARTS OF WHAT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDS.
THEY DON'T TAKE ALL OF THEM, THEY TAKE PARTS OF THEM OFTEN.
I JUST WANNA REMIND YOU THAT AS YOU GO INTO DELIBERATIONS, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON.
BEN HALLMARK ON DECK IS CRAIG NASER.
UH, THANK YOU FOR, FOR HAVING US HERE AGAIN ON THIS IMPORTANT CASE.
I REPRESENT, UH, TEXAS INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS IN THE RATE CASE.
UM, I WANTED TO, TO FOLLOW UP ON A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UH, FROM FROM LAST WEEK, I, I HEARD ON THE, THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, UM, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THE IE ACTUALLY FLAGGED IN, IN HIS REPORT WAS THE QUESTION, UH, THAT WE HAD RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THERE NEEDS TO BE A SPECIFIC ADJUSTMENT FOR WINTER STORM YURI OUTAGES DURING THE TEST YEAR.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE IE WAS CONCERNED THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HADN'T DEMONSTRATED THAT, UH, THEY HAD ADEQUATELY ACCOUNTED FOR.
UM, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS, IS DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY THE PUC PROCESS WORKS IN, IN AUSTIN ENERGY'S EXCEPTIONS, WHICH THEY FILED AFTER THE HEARING, AFTER THE REPORT COMES OUT, THEY PUT SOME NEW NUMBERS IN THERE THAT, THAT TRIED TO GET TO THIS ISSUE AND, AND IN THEIR VIEWS SHOW THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT FOR WINTER STORM YU.
BUT I WANNA FLAG FOR YOU THAT THOSE NUMBERS WERE NOT PART OF THE HEARING PROCESS.
WE WERE NOT ABLE TO DO DISCOVERY ON THEM.
WE HAVE NOT VETTED THEM, AND FRANKLY, WE STILL HAVE CONCERNS.
IN PARTICULAR, IF YOU LOOK AT HOW USAGE DURING THE TEST YEAR ON A PER CUSTOMER BASIS, BOTH FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS AND COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS, IT, IT WAS LOWER THAN IN PRIOR YEARS.
AND, AND THE CONCLUSION THAT OUR EXPERT CAME TO WAS THAT THIS IS BECAUSE OF WINTER STORM YEARY AND, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAUSES THE, UH, REVENUE REQUIREMENT TO BE OVERSTATED.
SO I, I WANTED TO FLAG THAT ISSUE, UH, BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT SORT OF HA HAS PLAYED OUT AS THIS PROCESS HAS CONTINUED TO GO ON.
I ALSO JUST WANTED TO SPEND A COUPLE OF QUICK MINUTES ON A COUPLE OF THE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS IN THE, UH, JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE WHERE YOU MAY BE WONDERING WHAT ARE THOSE, UH, ITEMS, WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? UH, ONE OF THEM WAS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY DEVELOP A PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE FOR ITS NEXT CASE.
UH, THIS IS THE ISSUE WHERE THE IE AGREED WITH OUR POSITION THAT THE PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
YOU KNOW, HIS POSITION WAS NOT AND DO IT IN FIVE YEARS, BUT AS PART OF THIS JOINT CONSUMER, UH, PROPOSAL, WE ARE WILLING TO DEFER THAT, UH, IT ASSUMING THAT, THAT THE COST ALLOCATION TO CLASSES IS CONSISTENT WITH, WITH WHAT IS IN THAT JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE.
UH, THERE'S ALSO A TERM ABOUT AUSTIN ENERGY WORKING WITH CUSTOMERS, UH, LARGE PRIMARY CUSTOMERS TO TRANSITION TO TRANSMISSION SERVICE IF, UH, FACILITIES CAN BE PURCHASED AND NEGOTIATIONS CAN TAKE PLACE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT AUSTIN ENERGY SAID IN THEIR EXCEPTIONS, THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO WORK WITH, UH, CUSTOMERS TO DO.
SO I'M HOPING THAT THAT TERM WOULD BE UNCONTROVERSIAL.
UM, AND LASTLY, THERE WAS A TERM ON LINE LOSSES.
LINE LOSSES REPRESENT THE FACT THAT AS YOU GENERATE ELECTRICITY AND TRANSMIT IT ALL THE WAY TO THE END USER, SOME OF IT IS LOST.
SO THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THE IHE FLAGGED AS WELL.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE JUST SAYING LET'S DEFER TO THE NEXT RATE CASE AND WE'LL CERTAINLY WORK WITH AUSTIN ENERGY TO WORK ON THAT PROCESS.
SO UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL SIT DOWN.
CRAIG NASSER, UM, ON DECK IS RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ.
HELLO, MY NAME IS CRAIG NASSER.
I AM THE CONSERVATION CHAIR OF THE STATE CHAPTER OF SIERRA CLUB.
AND I JUST WANNA SAY THAT, UH, I KNOW THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE.
UH, AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE PUSHING EVERYTHING.
I AM SPEAKING FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, WHICH IS, AND THE SIERRA CLUB'S POINT OF VIEW, WHICH IS THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A REALLY BIG ISSUE AND IT'S A LONG-TERM ISSUE.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES,
[00:40:01]
BUT IT'S A LONG TERM ISSUE.UH, UH, WINTER STORM UY WAS TERRIBLE.
WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT'S A RESULT OF CLIMATE CHANGE.
I GOT A SUDDEN WINDFALL INHERITANCE FROM A SECOND COUSIN I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW EXISTED.
AND SO WHAT I DECIDED TO DO, THAT INHERITANCE IS BY SOLAR CELLS FOR THE TOP OF MY HOME.
UH, IF I HAD INVESTED THIS MONEY IN, IN, UH, EXXON MOBILE, I WOULD'VE DOUBLE IT MORE THAN DOUBLED IT IN THE TIME BETWEEN WHEN I GOT THE MONEY AND NOW, BUT I DIDN'T.
I PUT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SOLAR SALES ON THE TOP OF MY HOME, AND I PAID THIS SUMMER $10 A MONTH IN JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST FOR ELECTRICITY.
NOT ONLY THAT, BUT BECAUSE I PUT THE MAXIMUM NUMBER IN, I KEPT THE GRID, DID MY SHARE TO KEEP THE GRID FROM COLLAPSING.
OKAY? IF YOU RAISE THAT BASE RATE TOO MUCH, NOT ONLY IS IT EQUITABLE FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T MAKE MUCH MONEY AT ALL, I'M, I'M A LITTLE BETTER OFF THAN THAT.
I'M RETIRED, BUT YOU ALSO MAKE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, YOU MAKE IT A LITTLE HARDER.
I'VE TALKED TO ALL MY NEIGHBORS ABOUT THIS, AND THEY'RE VERY SURPRISED AT HOW MUCH MONEY YOU SAY, BUT IT'S VERY HARD TO GET 'EM TO PUT THE INVESTMENT AND UP FRONT WHERE THEY CAN BUY SHARES OF EXXON MOBIL AND DOUBLE THEIR MONEY, OKAY? SO THAT'S ONE POINT.
AND THE OTHER POINT IS WHERE WHEN YOU MAKE, UH, THE, UM, UH, UH, THAT LINE TOO STEEP, TOO SHALLOW ABOUT WITH THE, WITH THE RATE, UH, SEGMENTS, UH, THAT DECREASES PEOPLE'S, UH, INCENTIVE TO SAVE ENERGY.
NOW, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT MORE TO THIS THAN WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT YOU GOTTA JUST THINK ABOUT THIS.
SAMSUNG USES A LOT OF ENERGY, AND THEY HAVE A HUGE CAMPUS.
THEY HAVE A LOT OF ROOF AREAS.
HOW MANY SOLAR CELLS ARE ON THOSE ROOFS? I HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY.
WHEN YOU GO LOOK AT SAMSUNG, YOU LOOK AT THEIR ONLINE PRESENCE, THEY TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH CO2 THEY'RE SAVING BY MAKING CHIPS, BY DOING THIS, BY DOING THAT.
UH, BUT WHERE IS THE INCENTIVE FOR OUR 10 LARGEST ELECTRIC USERS TO SAVE ANY ENERGY AT ALL? YOU KNOW, I JUST, I, I, YOU GOTTA THINK LONG TERM ON THIS.
UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO BE DONE, BUT I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT OF THAT WAY.
SO ANYWAY, THOSE ARE SOME POINTS.
RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ ON DECK IS WILSON STRING.
HELLO, MY NAME IS WILSON STRAIN, AND I WOULDN'T HOPEFULLY LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT ON HOW THESE RATE CHANGES WILL AFFECT THE LARGEST MAJORITY OF OUR POPULATION, THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE OF AUSTIN.
DURING A YEAR OF RECORD HIGH INFLATION, AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS TO MASSIVELY INCREASE THEIR RATES FOR THEIR POOREST CUSTOMERS AS IF THIS COMPANY IS SOMEHOW IN NEED, AS IF AUSTIN ENERGY IS THE ONE STRUGGLING RIGHT NOW.
IN FACT, WE KNOW AUSTIN ENERGY ISN'T STRUGGLING AT ALL.
WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS WHO USE THE MOST ENERGY WOULD ACTUALLY SEE A 25% DECREASE ON THEIR BILL THANKS TO THIS PROPOSAL.
AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD ACTUALLY PREFER IT IF PEOPLE WASTE ENERGY.
THEY ARE INCENTIVIZING IT WITH THIS PROPOSAL.
I GUESS THE MORE EMPTY ROOMS WITH THE LIGHTS TURNED ON, THE BETTER.
THIS IS CLEARLY A DIRECT ATTACK ON THE WORKING CLASS, STEALING FROM THE MOST VULNERABLE AMONG US.
SO THE RICH CAN BE EVEN RICHER.
WORKING CLASS PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE THIS HEAVY BURDEN THRUST UPON THEM WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY DEALING WITH SO MUCH PEOPLE.
FAMILIES WILL LOSE THEIR HOMES BECAUSE OF THESE PROPOSED RATE INCREASES.
AND AUSTIN ENERGY COULD NOT CARE LESS.
AUSTIN ENERGY SAYS THEY'RE CUSTOMER DRIVEN, COMMUNITY FOCUSED.
MAYBE THEY'RE DRIVEN BY SOME OF THEIR CUSTOMERS, THE ULTRA WEALTHY ONES, BUT WHAT COMMUNITY ARE THEY FOCUSED ON? EXACTLY.
BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW OF A SINGLE WORKING AUSTINITE THAT WOULD POSSIBLY SUPPORT THIS.
WE SHOULD BE HONEST AND FACE THE FACTS.
AUSTIN ENERGY HAS A ONE TRACK MIND AND THEY HAVE ZERO CONCERN FOR THE WELLBEING OF AUSTIN'S WORKING CLASS PEOPLE.
AUSTIN ENERGY IS PROFIT DRIVEN, PROFIT FOCUSED.
[00:45:02]
BRIANNA GRIFFITH ON DECK IS PRESTON MANIS.I'M REPRESENTING THE PARTY FOR SOS AND LIBERATION AS WELL AS, UH, THE MANY HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHO WE HAVE TALKED TO ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL.
MANY OF WHOM, MOST OF WHOM IN FACT KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT.
SO AUSTIN ENERGY WANTS TO RAISE THEIR RATES OVER 50% ON THE POOREST RESIDENTS, AND THEY HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CALL THIS FAIR AND EQUITABLE.
AUSTINITES ARE STRUGGLING RENT AND FOOD PRICES ARE SKYROCKETING, PEOPLE ARE LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK.
AND NOW AUSTIN ENERGY PLANS TO ADD HUNDREDS OF EXTRA DOLLARS PER YEAR TO OUR BILLS.
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE STRAW THAT BREAKS THE CAMEL'S BACK FOR COUNTLESS PEOPLE IN THIS CITY.
SO LET ME ASK AUSTIN ENERGY AND ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS THIS PROPOSAL, THIS, ARE YOU PREPARED TO GO OUT TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE FINANCIALLY RUINED BY THIS? WHO ARE BANKRUPTED, WHO ARE EVICTED, WHO HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON AND FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES ALREADY? UM, AND ARE YOU PREPARED TO TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY DO THEIR FACES THAT ISN'T FAIR AND EQUITABLE PROPOSAL, THAT THEY PAY MORE WHILE CORPORATIONS AND THE RICH PAY LESS? THIS RATE HIKE IS NOT A NEUTRAL LIKE NUMBER.
SHIFTING AROUND THIS RATE HIKE IS CLASS WARFARE.
WE DEMAND THAT CITY COUNCIL REJECT IT.
WE DEMAND NO NEW RATE HIKES ON THE POOR.
IF THE MONEY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE, IT SHOULD COME FROM THE, THE RICHEST 1%, THE TOP 1% WHO ARE CURRENTLY GONNA SEE A 25% DECREASE.
AND IT SHOULD COME FROM WEALTHY CORPORATIONS, NOT FROM US.
SHAME ON AUSTIN ENERGY FOR EVEN BRINGING THIS PROPOSAL FORWARD AND SHAME ON ANYONE WHO VOTES THIS FORWARD.
THE OTHER THING IS, UM, I WAS, UH, AT THE, UH, EUC, UH, MEETING LAST NIGHT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION WAS DETERMINING AND COULD NOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON WHILE I WAS THERE, UM, WAS HOW MUCH MONEY EVEN NEEDS TO BE RAISED.
SO THEY'RE RAISED, THEY'RE PROPOSING THESE RATE HIKES, AND THE TRUTH IS WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH AUSTIN ENERGY EVEN TRULY NEEDS.
THEY'RE CLAIMING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE THAN WHAT THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE FOUND.
SO HOW IS IT THAT IN JUST TWO WEEKS, WE MAY BE RAISING RATES EXTRAORDINARILY ON PEOPLE WHEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, ALLEGEDLY THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS TRYING TO RAISE FROM THOSE WHO CAN LEAST AFFORD IT.
SO WE ASK NO NEW RATE HIKES ON THE POOR.
YEAH, FOLKS, MY NAME IS PRESTON MENIS.
I LIVE AND WORK IN DISTRICT 10 HOPE A COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY GETS BETTER SOON.
THE FIRST JOB IS GRAVEYARD SHIFT AT AMAZON WAREHOUSE.
THE SECOND JOB IS DOOR DASHING.
THE CONTEXT IS I DON'T MAKE A TON OF MONEY.
I'M ONE OF THOSE FOLKS THAT WAS PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK.
AUSTIN ENERGY'S ABSURD BASE RATE REVIEW PROPOSAL WILL PUNISH THOSE THAT CAN SERVE ENERGY WHILE REWARDING THOSE WHO WASTE IT.
REVERSING DECADES OF PROGRESS AND INCENTIVIZING ENERGY CONSERVATION, IT WILL HIT THE WORKING CLASS HARDEST WHILE GIVING PRICE BREAKS TO COMMERCIAL ENERGY USERS.
THIS PROPOSAL IS A BLATANT AND UNJUSTIFIABLE CASH GRAB AND AN ACT OF CLASS WARFARE.
IT IS OFFENSIVE THAT A SO-CALLED MUNICIPAL UTILITY COMPANY THAT SUPPOSEDLY OWNED AND OPERATED FOR OUR COLLECTIVE BENEFIT RATHER THAN FOR PRIVATE PROFIT WOULD PRODUCE A PROPOSAL.
SO WILDLY ANTI WORKER AUSTIN ENERGY'S RIDICULOUS COST COST STATION BASIS FOR CHOOSING TO BUILD RESIDENTIAL RATE PAYERS WHILE GIVING COMMERCIAL RATE PAYERS A BREAK.
IS THAT A STRAIGHTFORWARD, AN EXAMPLE OF AN APPLES TO ORANGES COMPARISON? AS ONE CAN FIND THIS FATALLY FLAWED JUSTIFICATION SHOULD NEVER HAVE MADE IT OUT OF THE FIRST DRAFT, MUCH LESS ENDED UP AS A FINAL PROPOSAL.
THE RESIDENTIAL WORKING CLASS HAS FAR SHALLOWER POCKETS AND FAR FEWER OPTIONS FOR WEATHERING RATE LAND INCREASES THAN THE COMMERCIAL RULING CLASS DOES.
AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL SHOULD REJECT THIS PROPOSAL AND ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE.
ROY WALEY ON DECK IS DAVE CORTEZ CLERK.
HOW MANY, UH, SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE AFTER THESE TWO? UM, FIVE.
ARE ROY WALEY OR DAVE CORTEZ HERE? OKAY, MOVING ON.
SHANE JOHNSON ON DECK IS MIRA JOHNSON.
[00:50:07]
YEAH, UH, GO AHEAD.I AM A DISTRICT SEVEN RESIDENT.
MY PARENTS ARE DISTRICT SEVEN RESIDENTS FOR ABOUT 13 YEARS NOW.
UM, I'M HONESTLY STRUGGLING HERE FOR A SECOND BECAUSE, UM, THERE WAS A TYPO ON THE CITY WEBSITE THAT SAID REGISTRATION CLOSED AT ONE 15 TODAY AND NOW 1215.
WHEN I CAME HERE, THERE WERE AT LEAST FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE IN LINE TO REGISTER WHO COULDN'T REGISTER FROM THE PUBLIC.
THERE WERE THREE OR FOUR MORE PEOPLE I PERSONALLY KNEW WHO, UH, WERE HOPING TO REGISTER ON TIME, AND I HAD TO TELL THEM, DON'T BOTHER.
THIS QUOTE UNQUOTE, PUBLIC HEARING TODAY IS A SHAM.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I'M PRETTY LIVID.
I I'LL TRY NOT TO LET THAT COLOR MY COMMENTS TOO MUCH.
THIS IS SHAMBOLIC AND SHOULD NOT HAVE, HAVE COME TO PASS.
AND IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, YOU SHOULD TAKE A VOTE OR SOMETHING TO, TO REOPEN REGISTRATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD DO.
I ALSO KNOW THAT RAPHAEL AND DAVE ARE BOTH ON THE, UH, SHORTS AND DAVE CORTEZ ARE BOTH ON THEIR WAY HERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S WHEN, UH, PEOPLE AREN'T ALLOWED TO REGISTER AND, UM, MANY PEOPLE AREN'T ABLE TO COME SPEAK IT IF THINGS GO QUICKER AND PEOPLE WITH CHILDCARE, ET CETERA CAN'T MAKE IT HERE, PARTICULARLY ON A WORKDAY, UH, AT 1:00 PM IT'S ALSO SHAMEFUL THAT, UM, THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS ALLOWED TO BE SCHEDULED SO EARLY IN THE DAY.
I HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE AND A HALF TO TALKING POINTS ON THE OS ENERGY BASE RATE.
UH, INCREASE THE RATE HIKE AGAIN, SHAMBOLIC SHAMEFUL, UH, EARLIER SPEAKERS I JUST HEARD PUT IT BETTER THAN I AM.
UM, BUT THE COST OF LIVING IS SKYROCKETING.
RENT HAS DOUBLED OVER, UH, THE YEAR LAST YEAR.
UH, ACCORDING TO SOME METRICS, WORKING FAMILIES ARE STRUGGLING TO PAY BILLS AND CANNOT, SOME CANNOT AFFORD THE $15 A MONTH PSA INCREASE.
THEY CAN'T POSSIBLY AFFORD ANOTHER $200 A YEAR ROUGHLY INCREASE.
UM, AND IT WOULD BE EQUALLY, UH, DISTURBING FRANKLY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO IGNORE THE, UM, INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATES RECOMMENDATIONS OR, UM, IMPLICATIONS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY NEEDS ROUGHLY JUST SLIGHTLY OVER ONE FIFTH OF THE REVENUE INCREASE THAT THEY'RE CLAIMING TO NEED.
UM, I THINK THIS REALLY, THIS IS GONNA DEMONSTRATE HOW FAR, UH, THIS CITY COUNCIL HAS OPENLY SHIFTED AWAY FROM YOUR SUPPOSED EQUITY VALUES OR NOT.
UM, THE SHAMBOLIC PUBLIC HEARING TODAY IS CLEARLY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, SMALL DE DEMOCRATIC, AND ANTI ALL THE CITY'S SUPPOSED EQUITY VALUES.
SO I REALLY HOPE YOU ALL CAN LEARN FROM THIS AND, UH, NOT VOTE FOR ANYTHING HIGHER THAN A $2, UH, RATE INCREASE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, CLARK.
WERE YOU AWARE OF THE, THE TIMING ISSUE FOR A SIGNUP? NO, I'M LOOKING AT THE SIGNUP SHEET NOW AND IT SAYS 1215 AND IT WAS LAST UPDATED ON THE NINTH OF THIS MONTH.
I HAVE IT OPEN IN A TAB RIGHT NOW THAT SAYS ONE, SO I DUNNO, IT'S THE, THE FORMAT LINKS TO, BUT THEN HAS A LINK TO THE SPEAKER REGISTRATION ON THE, OKAY.
WELL, HOW MANY, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE HERE WHO WERE HERE BEFORE ONE 15 THAT WANTED TO SPEAK THAT WERE NOT ABLE TO SIGN UP? OKAY.
UM, DOES ANYONE HAVE AN OBJECTION IF, SINCE THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A HEARING ON AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, WE WILL LET YOU SPEAK.
WE WILL PROBABLY TAKE YOU UP THOUGH AFTER WE FINISH ZONING SO THAT THE ZONING FOLKS CAN, CAN GO.
UM, BUT THAT'LL BE BEFORE WE TAKE UP THE ITEM.
UM, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT THIS, THIS WAS DESIGNED TO BE A HEARING, SO WE'LL HEAR, WE'LL HEAR PEOPLE OUT.
UM, AND THEN IF MR. CORTEZ AND MR. WALEY ARRIVE, UM, WE WILL ALLOW 'EM TO SPEAK AS WELL.
UM, I THINK WE CAN TAKE MAYBE ONE MORE RIGHT NOW.
UM, WE HAVE IS MIRA JOHNSON HERE
[00:55:04]
COUNSEL? UH, I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION TO MAKE, BUT I'M GONNA SPEAK EXTEMPORANEOUSLY FOR MOST OF MY SPEECH.UH, IF THERE'S ANY TIME LEFT OVER, I'LL GO INTO THE PRESENTATION.
UH, THERE'S THREE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CONVEY, UH, URGENTLY.
FIRST I'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER REARRANGING THE PROCESS.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A SECOND HEARING ON DECEMBER 1ST AND MAYBE A VOTE.
I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER HAVING A VOTE THE WEEK AFTER DECEMBER 1ST.
UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY HURRY.
UH, SECOND, I'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A SMALL RATE INCREASE.
THERE'S, AS YOU KNOW, A BIG GAP BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES IS TO HOW MUCH IS NEEDED INCREASE.
AND IF IT DOESN'T WORK, THEN COME BACK FOR A LARGER ONE BACK IN THE DAY.
AND THERE I'VE BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF DAYS, IT WAS VERY COMMON TO HAVE A RATE INCREASE EVERY ONE TO TWO YEARS.
UH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S OUTLANDISH.
AND THIRD, UH, AT THE WORK SESSION, IT WAS, UM, WAS, UH, ALMOST LECTURED TO ME THAT TO US THAT WE ALL THE PARTIES NEED TO COMPROMISE.
I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT I HAVE BEEN TO THREE OF THE FOUR SETTLEMENT HEARINGS AND THEY HAVE BEEN A COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME.
UH, YOU COULD WRITE A COMEDY ABOUT HOW UNCOOPERATIVE THE UTILITY HAS BEEN.
UH, TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, UH, UM, FRIDAY WAS A HOLIDAY, YET THAT'S WHEN WE RECEIVED NOTICE OF A SETTLEMENT MEETING MONDAY.
SO SOMEONE WHO WAS OUT ON A HOLIDAY WOULDN'T FIND OUT TILL EIGHT IN THE MORNING ON MONDAY THAT THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT.
UH, OF COURSE THEY DIDN'T MISS MUCH.
UH, IN THE BRIEF AMOUNT OF TIME I HAVE LEFT, UH, THERE'S ONE SLIDE I WANT TO SHOW YOU.
UH, THIS IS FROM A SPREADSHEET THAT I HAVE EMAILED YOU AND I'M GONNA HAND YOU AGAIN WHEN THIS IS OVER, ABOUT VARIOUS STRATEGIES THAT THE INTERVENERS HAVE COME UP TO DIMINISH THE NEED OR ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR A RATE INCREASE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE COUNCIL TO GO THROUGH THIS LINE BY LINE AND COME UP WITH SAVINGS.
UH, YOU COULD HAVE THE, THE AUSTIN ENERGY ON ONE SIDE WHO WILL ARGUE AGAINST ALMOST EVERYTHING AND THE ADVOCATES ON THE OTHER.
AND YOU CAN MAKE A FAIR DETERMINATION AS TO HOW SALIENT, HOW, UH, GOOD THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE.
SOME CAN BE DONE QUICKLY LIKE THE, UH, TOWN LAKE CENTER SALE.
WE KNOW THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE KNOW THAT'S A BURDEN IN THE HAND.
OTHER THINGS LIKE, UH, BIOMASS PLANT RESTRUCTURING, UH, OF DEBT THAT MAY TAKE A FEW MONTHS, BUT ALL OF THESE THINGS COULD BE WEIGHED, UH, FOR VALUE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND UH, THANK YOU FOR LETTING THESE OTHER SPEAKERS, UH, BREAK IN.
UM, IF YOU ARE ONE OF THOSE SPEAKERS WHO CAME IN LATE, IF YOU CAN MAKE SURE THAT YOU TALKED TO THE CLERK, IF I DIDN'T SAY THAT BEFORE, UM, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
[31. Authorize an amendment to a contract with Motorola Solutions Inc. to provide support hosting services and related adjuncts and interfaces for the existing Customer Service Request System utilized by Austin 3-1-1 Citywide Information Center, to increase the amount by $2,500,000 and to extend the term by up to five years, for a revised total contract amount not to exceed $5,000,000. ]
COLLEAGUES, I'M GONNA SEE IF WE ARE READY TO MAKE A MOTION ON 31 SO WE CAN LET THAT THOSE STAFF GO.THANK YOU MAYOR
THIS IS ROLANDA FERNANDEZ WITH FINANCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT CAPITAL CONTRACTING ON AUSTIN ENERGY PROCUREMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IN THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT, UH, IT IS A THREE YEAR BASED TERM WITH THE ONE YEAR TWO, UM, ONE TWO YEAR TERM OPTION FOR RENEWAL.
UH, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, IF WE CAN, UH, RECOMMEND TO YOU TO, UH, UH, KEEP IT AS A THREE, UH, YEAR TERM AND AS WE WORK WITH AUSTIN ENERGY TO, UH, LOOK AT AND RESPOND TO AND INCORPORATE YOUR FEEDBACK AND YOUR DIRECTION ON THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION.
UM, THAT WE MUCH APPRECIATE IT.
MY CONCERN WITH THE TIMING OF IT IS HAVING TO GO BACK WITH MOTOROLA TO NEGOTIATE, UM, A CHANGE FROM THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION OF THE CONS, UH, CONTRACT AWARD TO, UM, TO A ONE YEAR TERM.
UM, AND, UH, KNOWING THAT THE CONTRACT EXPIRES, THE CURRENT CONTRACT EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 31ST, UM, WOULD BE FACING SOME CHALLENGES.
WE NEGOTIATING PRICING AND THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL MEMBER PUENTES IS, IS
[01:00:01]
TO, UH, KEEP THE CONTRACT FOR THE BASE THREE YEAR TERM COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES MOVES PASSAGE OF 31 AS INDICATED, UM, BY OUR STAFF COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER MADISON.SECONDS THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR, FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
I DID REVIEW THE RCA AND IT DOES HAVE IT AS A FIVE YEAR EXTENSION, SO I'M GLAD TO HAVE IT ON THE RECORD THAT THIS WOULD BE A THREE YEAR EXTENSION.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE A TECH CITY AND OUR APP SHOULD REFLECT THE INNOVATION AND THE LEVEL OF, UH, OF SERVICE THAT WE HAVE AS A CITY.
AND I KNOW ME AND MY TEAM SPENT TIME LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES THROUGH ONE ONE APPS, LOS ANGELES CITY, AS WELL AS NEW YORK CITY.
BOTH HAVE REALLY GOOD EXAMPLES AND I THINK, UM, OUR MODEL AND HOW WE SHOULD BE STRUCTURING THE WAY WE PROVIDE SERVICES TO OUR COMMUNITY AND HOW OUR COMMUNITY CAN ENGAGE WITH US THROUGH THIS APP SERVICE.
UM, SO JUST WANNA IMPRESS UPON, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR TEAM HERE, HOW IMPORTANT IT IS FOR US TO, TO ALWAYS BE INNOVATING AND THINKING THROUGH WAYS THAT WE CAN DELIVER SERVICES EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? SO WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, SO WE'VE, UH, EIGHT TO ZERO WITH COUNCIL MEMBER RENTERIA OFF THE DIAS AND MAYOR ADLER AND COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, ABSENT.
UM, SO WE'RE NOW GOING TO HEAR, WE'RE GONNA MOVE
[Zoning and Neighborhood Plan Amendments (Public Hearings and Possible Action)]
TO ZONING.UM, WE HAVE, I BELIEVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IN PERSON, UM, AND ONE TO SPEAK REMOTELY.
AND WE HAVE ONE APPLICANT SPEAKING REMOTELY IF NECESSARY.
UM, EACH SPEAKER'S GONNA HAVE THREE MINUTES.
UM, AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES IF THEY WANT TO PRESENT.
UM, MS. HARDEN, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE US THROUGH OUR POST MOMENTS.
THANK YOU MAYOR PRO TIM AND COUNCIL JOY HARDEN WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
YOUR POSTPONEMENT ITEM ARE FOLLOWS.
UM, ITEM NUMBER 53 IS NORTH IH 35.
THERE'S AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO YOUR DECEMBER 1ST COUNCIL MEETING.
ITEM NUMBER 54 IS YOUR WEST WILLIAM CANNON.
THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT TO YOUR DECEMBER 1ST COUNCIL MEETING.
ITEM 57 IS SPICE WITH GRAINS STAFF POSTPONEMENT TO YOUR DECEMBER 1ST MEETING.
AND LASTLY, ITEM NUMBER 63, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TO YOUR DECEMBER 1ST COUNCIL MEETING.
IF THE CLERK CAN CALL THE SPEAKERS, PLEASE.
I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE THE ONLINE SPEAKER.
SO THE IN-PERSON SPEAKER IS ROSSI HADAD ON ITEM 53 THAT'S BEING POSTPONED.
SO THEY MAY NOT, THEY NOT HAVE COME.
UM, IS THERE A PERSON ONLINE? NO, THEY HAVEN'T CALLED IN.
AND DID THE APPLICANT THAT WE HAD INFO ON WANNA SPEAK? OKAY.
IF NOT, THEN MS. HARDEN, IF YOU WANNA TAKE US THROUGH OUR CONSENT ZONING AGENDA, WHICH I HAVE IS 52 TO 57 AND 63 PLEASE.
THANK YOU AGAIN, JOY HARDEN HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
YOUR ZONING AGENDA BEGINS WITH ITEM NUMBER 52 C 1 4 20 22 0 0 89.
THIS ITEM'S OFFERED FOR CONSENT ON ALL THREE READINGS, UM, LATER IN THE AGENDA.
UM, IT HAS A RELATED NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER 56.
ITEM NUMBER 53 IS C 1 4 20 20 0 1 43.
THERE'S AN APPLICANT POST MOMENT REQUEST TO YOUR DECEMBER 1ST COUNCIL MEETING.
ITEM NUMBER 54 IS C 1 4 20 21 0 1 61.
THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD POST MOMENT REQUEST TO YOUR DECEMBER 1ST COUNCIL MEETING.
ITEM 55 IS C 1 4 20 20 22 0 44.
WE CAN OFFER THIS ITEM FOR CONSENT, SECOND READING ONLY.
AND WE'LL BRING THIS BACK FOR THIRD READING AT YOUR DECEMBER 1ST COUNCIL MEETING.
ITEM NUMBER 56 IS MPA 20 22 0 0 2 8 0.01.
THIS WAS RELATED TO THE PREVIOUS ITEM NUMBER, PREVIOUS ZONING ITEM, WHICH WAS NUMBER 53 RELATED TO THE PREVIOUS ZONING ITEM, WHICH WAS NUMBER 52.
THIS IS BEING OFFERED FOR CONSENT ON ALL THREE READINGS.
ITEM 57 IS C 1 4 20 21 0 180 9.
THERE'S A STAFF POSTPONEMENT REQUEST TO YOUR DECEMBER 1ST COUNCIL MEETING.
AND WE HAVE THE ADDENDUM ITEM, WHICH IS NUMBER 63.
AND THAT IS C 1 4 20 22 0 0 49.
AND THERE'S AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT REQUEST TO YOUR DECEMBER 1ST COUNCIL MEETING.
THANK YOU, UM, COLLEAGUES, IS THERE ANY COMMENTS OR AMENDMENTS AT THIS POINT? OKAY, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION MOTION, UH, FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH IS ITEMS 52.
THE 57 AND 63 COUNCIL MEMBER POOL MAKES THAT MOTION SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
[01:05:01]
ELLIS.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY, THAT IS SEVEN ZERO WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO.
COUNCIL MEMBER RENTERIA OFF THE DIAS MAYOR ADLER AND COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, ABSENT.
[49. Conduct a public hearing and consider an ordinance adopting historic design standards and amending City Code Chapters 25-2 and 25-11 relating to historic landmarks and historic area combining districts.]
UM, WE ARE NOW GONNA TAKE UP ITEM 49, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS, THUS WAS NOTICED FOR 2:00 PM AND COULD NOT BE TAKEN UP BEFORE.NOW I THEN THAT'LL BE FOLLOWED BY OUR STAFF'S PRESENTATION ON ITEM 51.
UM, AFTER THOSE TWO ITEMS, WE WILL RETURN TO ITEM 50.
UM, SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT ITEM 49, PLEASE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MARON COUNCIL CARIB TRON HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS WERE INITIATED BY THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION IN 2018 AND CREATED BY A WORKING GROUP OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF FROM 2019 TO 2020.
THEY ARE INTENDED TO CLARIFY EXISTING GENERAL STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS AND NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT PROPERTIES.
THE STANDARDS WILL ALSO INCREASE EQUITY BY REDUCING THE RESOURCES REQUIRED FOR FUTURE HISTORIC DISTRICT APPLICATIONS IN PROVIDING AN ACCESSIBLE EDUCATIONAL TOOL FOR ALL HISTORIC PROPERTY OWNERS.
THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS WERE CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED IN FALL 2020 BY THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION, DOWNTOWN COMMISSION AND DESIGN COMMISSION THERE BEFORE YOU.
NOW, FOR FORMAL ADOPTION, I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, WE NEED, WE NEED SEVEN VOTES OR WE NEED PASS READING.
WELL, UM, I GUESS WE'RE, DO YOU WANNA SEE CATHY? I'M SURE CATHY WOULD WANT TO VOTE ON THIS.
SO SEE, SO WE NEED SEVEN TO PASS IT ON ALL THREE READINGS, SO WE'RE JUST SEEING IF WE CAN GRAB ANOTHER COLLEAGUE.
DO WE HAVE A MISSION TO MOVE PASSAGE ON ITEM 49, HISTORIC STANDARDS COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO MOVES IT SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER POOL.
IT'S, UH, UNANIMOUS FOR THOSE OF US ON THE DIAS, WE HAVE, WE HAVE SEVEN.
WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO KEEP OUR HANDS UP SO I CAN READ 'EM? NO, I THINK EVERYONE WAS, EVERYONE WAS FOUR, NO ONE WAS AGAINST, CORRECT.
I WAS JUST CHECKING THE NUMBERS TO MAKE SURE I STILL HAD SEVEN UP HERE.
UM, OKAY, SO IT'S 7, 7 0 WITH, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER, VELA, COUNCIL MEMBER, AND ABSENT OFF THE DIAS AND, UH, MAYOR ADLER AND UM, AND COUNCIL MEMBER KELLY, ABSENT THAT PASSES ON ALL THREE READINGS.
[51. Presentation of a Project Assessment Report for the 311 -315 South Congress Planned Unit Development, located at 311-315 South Congress Avenue, within the within the Lady Bird Lake Watershed and the East Bouldin Creek Watershed.]
WE ARE GONNA HEAR ITEM 51, WHICH IS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 3 11, 3 15 SOUTH CONGRESS.UM, THIS IS A PRESENTATION THAT, UH, WE NORMALLY HEAR AT THE EARLY STAGES OF A POD.
JOY HARDEN WITH THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT THIS DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT ITEM, WHICH IS CASE NUMBER CD 20 22 2.
THIS IS A BRIEFING ON A PROPOSED PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR PUD, LOCATED AT 3 11, 3 13 AND THREE 15 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
AND JUST AS A QUICK REMINDER TO COUNSEL THE LAND, THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT PRIOR TO APPLICANT SUBMITTING A PUT APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO DO WHAT WE CALL A DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A DRY RUN OF WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO SUBMIT.
STAFF OFFERS COMMENTS AND THE COMMENTS FROM NUMEROUS CITY DEPARTMENTS AND WE GIVE THEM BACK.
WE GIVE, UM, THE APPLICANT BACK THE COMMENTS AND THEN WE DO A BRIEFING TO THE COUNCIL ON THE OVERALL BIG PICTURE ITEMS. UM, AND THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO WHAT THE APPLICANT'S GONNA SUBMIT IN THEIR FUTURE PUT APPLICATION.
SO AS I STATED, THIS SITE IS LOCATED THROUGH 11,003 13 AND THREE 15 SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE, WHICH FRONT SOUTH CONGRESS, BUT WE'LL BE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PRO PROPOSED BARN SPRINGS EXTENSION IN SOUTH CONGRESS AVENUE.
WE CALL THIS THE FIRESTONE PU BECAUSE OF COURSE THE SITE HAS A FIRESTONE LOCATED ON IT, ALONG WITH A TWO STORY OFFICE AND A RETAIL STRIP.
THE SITE IS 0.8143 ACRES IN SIZE AND IT'S CURRENTLY STONE CS ONE V N P.
AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING PUD ZONING.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 450 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 7,500 SQUARE FEET OF GROUND FLOOR, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED USES, UM, ARE COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL AND UP TO 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PUD AS OPPOSED TO THEIR EXISTING ZONING BECAUSE THEY ARE PROPOSING TO GO UP TO 400 FEET IN HEIGHT WITH,
[01:10:01]
UM, AND, UM, THE EXISTING ZONING DOES NOT ALLOW FOR 400 FEET.UM, NEITHER WOULD THE VMU OVERLAY OR EVEN WITH THE VMU TUBE.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING 15 TO ONE FLORIDA AREA RATIO A, IT IS CHANGED FOR THOSE INCREASED ENTITLEMENTS, WHICH I'VE OUTLINED.
THEIR MAJOR, UM, ASK WOULD BE THE 400 FEET IN HEIGHT AND THE 15 TO ONE A.
THE APPLICANT IS OFFERING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUT SUPERIORITY OUTLINED IN THE CODE, WHICH IS 10% OF THE BONUS AREA AT 60% MFI.
AND, UM, I KNOW THAT YOU CAN FIND THIS IN, IN THE BACKUP THAT IS ONLINE, BUT I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT, UM, A FEW OF THEIR OTHER SUPERIORITY SUPERIORITY ITEMS. UM, AGAIN, I SAID THE 10% OF BONUS AREA, 60% MFI RESERVE FOR ONSITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THEY'LL ALSO BE OFFERING, UM, 2,500 SQUARE FEET OF AFFORDABLE COMMERCIAL SPACE FOR LOCAL BUSINESS OR NONPROFIT FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS.
AND NO GREATER THAN 80% MARKET RENTS, UM, FOR THEIR TRANSPORTATION.
SOME THEIR TRANSPORTATION SUPERIOR ORDER ITEMS ARE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING FOR 6% OF OVERALL VEHICLE SPACES WITH WIRING FOR 50% OF SPACES FOR FUTURE EV CHARGING CAPABILITY.
THEY'LL HAVE ONSITE SHOWERS FOR USE OF TENANTS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE PROJECT.
A HUNDRED PERCENT STRUCTURED PARKING MIXTURE BELOW AND ABOVE GRADE AND LOADING TRASH COLLECTION LOCATED ONSITE, NO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MANEUVERING.
THEY'LL OFFER THREE STAR, UM, THREE STAR RATING, LEAD PILOT, BIRD DETERRENCE COMPLIANCE, SOLAR POWER WHERE FEASIBLE DARK SKIES COMPLIANCE.
AND UM, ALSO THIS DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT WENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND, UM, THE APPLICANT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL MISSION HAD A REALLY GOOD DIALOGUE AND SOME OF, UM, AND THE APPLICANT, I WANNA MAKE SURE I STATE THIS IS NOT ASKING FOR ANY ENVIRONMENTAL VARIANCES, BUT THEY ARE OFFERING ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERIORITY, UM, AS FUNCTIONAL GREEN LANDSCAPE SOLUTIONS, A HUNDRED PERCENT ONSITE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT, PURPLE PLACE, PURPLE PIPES EXTENSION, INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT, URBAN BEEKEEPING INITIATIVE.
SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT SUPERIORITY ITEMS. SO AGAIN, THE MAJOR REQUEST WILL BE FOR THE INCREASED HEIGHT IN A, JUST KNOW THAT ONCE THIS BRIEFING IS COMPLETE, THE APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT THEIR ACTUAL PUT APPLICATION.
IT WILL GO THROUGH THE USUAL PROCESS REVIEW OF THE MULTIPLE CITY DEPARTMENTS REVIEW BY A MINIMUM THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION, PLANNING COMMISSION.
AND I'LL JUST STATE AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY ENVIRONMENTAL UH, VARIANCES, BUT WE DID TAKE THIS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND SO WE'LL ALSO BE TAKING THIS BACK.
AND THIS CONCLUDES THE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PRESENTATION.
CAN YOU, UM, OUTLINE WHAT THE 10% AFFORDABILITY, WHAT BASE THAT WAS BASED ON? WAS IT BASED ON THEIR CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS OR THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT? IT IS BASED ON THE, BASED ON THEIR CURRENT ENTITLEMENT.
SO THEY'RE ZONING A CS ONE THAT'S 60, 60 FEET OF HEIGHT.
SO ANYTHING 60 TO 400 FEET IN HEIGHT, THEIR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WOULD BE BASED ON THAT PERCENTAGE.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE DOING IT OFF OF THEIR, THEIR EXISTING YES, THEIR EXISTING HEIGHT OF SINCE DEFEAT.
I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND I'M GONNA START WITH THAT START WHERE YOU ENDED.
SO, UM, MS. HARDEN FROM THAT EXCHANGE, I THINK I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID.
THE BASELINE IS SET AT THEIR EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS AND THE BONUS AREA IS CALCULATED ON WHAT THEIR EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS ARE.
NOT THE SOUTH CENTRAL, NOT THE SOUTH CENTRAL AND NOT, UM, CURRENTLY THEY HAVE V WHICH WOULD ALLOW 90, THIS WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE VMU TWO.
UM, SO THEY ACTUALLY DO 90 WITH THE V.
SO THEY'D HAVE SOUTH CENTRAL ENTITLEMENTS, LIKE YOU SAID, OR THE V BUT IT WOULD BE BASED ON THEIR BASE HEIGHT OF CS CS ONE, WHICH IS 60 FEET OF HEIGHT.
AND SO THIS CALCULATION OF THE BASELINE, UM, JUST I WANNA JUST POINT OUT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE BASELINE THAT WAS USED FOR THE STATESMAN, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT IS.
SO MANAGER, I THINK I WOULD LIKE AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT.
I KNOW THAT'S COME UP IN OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS, BUT THE STATESMAN IS NOT USING THEIR EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS AS THE BASELINE.
THAT WAS NOT WHAT WAS USED TO CALCULATE THE, THE BONUS AREA FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, IT WAS ACTUALLY THE VISION PLAN OF THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT VISION PLAN.
SO THAT IS VERY INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
AND UM, I KNOW MR. OVN REMEMBERS FONDLY THE, THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STAKEHOLDERS PROCESS FROM LONG, LONG AGO, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW TO SET THE BASELINE AND HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS TO BE ACCURATE WITH THE BASELINE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT CALCULATES THE E BONUS AREA.
AND THEN, UM, I ALSO HAD ANOTHER QUESTION.
WE RECEIVED A REQUEST THAT THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT ADVISORY BOARD RECEIVE A BRIEFING ABOUT THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT IS WITHIN THE SOUTH CENTRAL WATERFRONT.
[01:15:01]
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, THAT YOU BELIEVE COULD BE ACCOMMODATED? ABSOLUTELY.UM, DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN OR THAT THAT WILL HAPPEN? I, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY'RE MEETING, BUT WE WILL DEFINITELY MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS.
I THINK I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT I'LL, I'M FORGETTING WHAT THAT IS AT THE MOMENT.
I THINK YOU SAID IT WAS 10% AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IS THAT CORRECT? 10% AT 60%, YES.
SO I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPERS WHO I ASSUME WE'RE HERE AND WE MAY HEAR FROM SOON TO, TO REALLY LOOK AT THAT NUMBER.
I THINK IN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY WITH THAT LEVEL OF HEIGHT GIVEN, UH, GIVEN THE, THE BIG JUMP FROM 60 FEET, WHICH IS WHAT THEY HAVE ENTITLEMENT TO CURRENTLY TO THE 400 FEET THEY'RE REQUESTING, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT PERCENTAGE CLOSER TO 20%.
I DID, UH, I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE, BUT I DID SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT AND THEY SAID THAT THIS WAS JUST A STARTING POINT.
THEY ALSO FILED THIS IN MARCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL ADOPTING VMU TWO, WHICH IS 10% AT 50 OR 12% AT 60.
UM, SO THIS WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THAT CHANGE.
AND SO THE APPLICANT DID SAY, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT THEY DID SAY THIS WAS A STARTING POINT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS
UM, I DEFINITELY WANNA MAKE SURE IN THIS AREA THAT WE'RE MINDFUL TO FIRST FLOOR WALKABILITY AND ANY SORT OF BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT'S, THAT'S INCORPORATED INTO THIS.
I KNOW WE'VE HAD A CONVERSATION LATELY ABOUT WHETHER IT'S CITY ORDINANCES THAT ARE DIRECTING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES VERSUS FINANCING THE PROJECT.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S RELATIVELY NEW AS WE LOOK AT PARKING STANDARDS AND PARKING MINIMUMS VERSUS MAXIMUMS. AND THEN MY LAST COMMENT WILL JUST BE, I'M SURE IT'S ON THEIR RADAR THAT GIVEN IT'S A CAR REPAIR SHOP FOR PART OF THIS TRACK, THAT THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME SORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION PRIOR TO, TO USING AS A HOUSING, UM, OPPORTUNITY THERE.
BUT THOSE ARE JUST THE FIRST THINGS ON MY RADAR FOR, UH, FOR A PLOT OF LAND LIKE THIS THAT I THINK IS EXCITING TO SEE WHAT ITS NEXT CHAPTER WILL BE.
THANK YOU YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT, UM, SOME OF THEIR, UM, SUPERIOR SUPERIORITY ITEMS, I CANNOT GET THAT WORD OUT TODAY.
UM, DO CALL FOR DECREASE IN PARKING AND SO, BUT I'LL TAKE THOSE BACK.
UM, SAY NO MORE COMMENTS, WE CAN MOVE ON AND WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
UM, I DO WANNA NOTE FROM MY COLLEAGUES THAT WE WILL HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING MONDAY AT NINE 30, UH, TO CANVAS THE ELECTION AND TO CALL THE ELECTION.
UM, SO WE DO NEED TO HAVE SEVEN PEOPLE THERE.
IT WILL BE AT THE START OF THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING.
UM, SO IF YOU CAN TUNE IN, UM, VIRTUALLY, UM, AND WE'LL GO, I GUESS WE'LL HAVE A, A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, UM, VIRTUAL, WHICH HOPEFULLY WE CAN MAKE BE THE SAME LINK FOR THE AUDIT AND FINANCE AS FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING.
UH, BUT WE DO NEED PEOPLE TO BE IN ATTENDANCE SO THAT WE CAN, UM, CALL THE ELECTION APPROPRIATELY.
SO I WANTED TO, TO FLAG THAT FOR FOLKS.
[50. Conduct a public hearing to receive public comment on Austin Energy's proposed revised electric rates. (Part 1 of 2)]
SO HOW MANY MORE SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE FOR ITEM NUMBER 57 IN PERSON? AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY REMOTE.SO IF WE CAN, UH, MOVE FORWARD, EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ ON DECK IS ROY WALEY.
AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS, UH, WONKY BUT VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
MY NAME IS RAFAEL SCHWARTZ, I'M HERE WITH THE AUSTIN SIERRA CLUB.
UH, IT'S BEEN CLEAR I THINK, LISTENING TO FOLKS THAT EQUITY IS THE HUGE ISSUE HERE, BUT BEING THAT I'M AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER AND A HOMEOWNER OF A RENTAL IN SOUTH AUSTIN THAT PAYS ATTENDANCE, ELECTRICAL BILLS, I THINK I'M SOMEWHAT MORE, UH, UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO SPEAK ABOUT THE REALLY QUITE MASSIVE, UH, ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPLICATIONS AT STAKE HERE.
SO FOR A TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE PROPOSAL WILL RAISE THE BASE RATE, UH, AND LOWER THE PER UNIT COST OF ELECTRICITY FROM 16 CENTS ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 11 CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR.
SO AS BORING AS THIS SOUNDS, UH, THIS, IT'S A PRETTY ASTONISHING 40 OR 50%, UH, DIFFERENCE IN PER UNIT ENERGY COSTS.
EVERY HOME INSULATION INVESTMENT OR ANY TYPE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY INVESTMENT MAKES 50% LESS SENSE.
EVERY ATTIC INSTALLATION PROJECT, EVERY WINDOW REPLACEMENT, EVERY ENERGY STAR, UH, APPLIANCE, UH, NONE OF THIS WILL LIKELY MAKE ANY FINANCIAL SENSE ANYMORE.
[01:20:01]
SO SEEING THIS PLAN, UH, THIS PAST SPRING, I CAN ALREADY STAND HERE AND SAY THAT I CHANGED MY PERSONAL PLANS TO ADD INSULATION TO A LEAKY ATTIC SINCE THE PAYBACK WILL NEVER BE THERE.UH, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AUSTINITES WILL ADAPT TO THE NEW RATES AND LET'S LET THEIR HOME LEAK MORE AC SEA AND HEAT, UH, WHEN THEY BUY, UH, UH, ALSO LESS ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES.
UH, AND JUST TO END, I WANTED TO SAY, WHAT WOULD THE COUNCIL THINK IF THE STATE OF TEXAS SAID, HEY, AUSTIN, THE HECK WITH YOUR TESLAS AND EVS, WE'RE GONNA CHARGE EVERY AUSTINITE RESIDENT THREE, THREE OR $400 A YEAR, WHETHER YOU BUY THE GAS OR NOT AS A BASE GASOLINE CHARGE SO THAT WE CAN LOWER THE PRICE OF THE PUMP A LOT AND ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO DRIVE MORE AND MORE AND FURTHER FOREVER INTO THE FUTURE.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THIS PROPOSAL, EXCEPT THE CITY IS DOING IT TO ITSELF.
SO GENUINELY CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING AND PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE CITY'S CLIMATE GOALS AND THIS CRITICAL ISSUE.
MIRA JOHNSON ON DECK IS KABA WHITE? YEAH, SHE DID.
THREE MINUTES, RIGHT? THANK YOU SO MUCH, COUNCIL AND THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER AL FOR REOPENING THIS DOCKET.
I WAS TOURING A KINDERGARTEN FOR MY DAUGHTER.
I THOUGHT I HAD TILL TWO 30, AND I'M FIVE MINUTES EARLY IF WE GO BY THAT.
I WANNA SHARE SOME PERSPECTIVE BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN ABOUT 11 YEARS OF ENGAGING THIS COUNCIL ABOUT AUSTIN ENERGY.
I HAVEN'T BEEN IN HERE FOR PUBLIC HEARING IN A WHILE SINCE MY DAUGHTER WAS BORN FOUR AND A HALF YEARS AGO, SO IT'S A LITTLE ODD BEING BACK.
BUT I WANT TO JUST REMIND FOLKS ON HISTORY.
I THINK, UH, THERE'S A FEW STAFF OVER HERE FROM AUSTIN ENERGY THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED FOR ABOUT THAT LONG, IF NOT LONGER.
THERE'S A FEW ADVOCATES HERE WHO'VE BEEN INVOLVED LONGER THAN THAT.
AND WHAT I CAN SAY IS YOU HAVE A TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO US TO HOLD THE UTILITY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN.
TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WHETHER IT WAS THE, UH, PREVIOUS COUNCIL, THE AT LARGE OR THE TEN ONE, WE'VE SEEN A DIFFERENT RANGE OF COST FIGURES, NUMBERS, REVENUE ESTIMATES COME TO THE, UH, VARIOUS COUNCIL COMMITTEES ABOUT WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY NEEDS, BUT REALLY IT'S WHAT THEY WANT.
AND SO I WANT YOU TO BALANCE WHAT THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN ARE ASKING FOR AND WANT WITH WHAT THIS UTILITY WANTS.
WE HAVE ALWAYS, ALWAYS HAD TO SCRATCH AND CLAW TO GET THE PUBLIC INVOLVED IN THESE VERY WONKY, COMPLICATED PROCESSES.
WE HELP TO GENERATE 300 UNIQUE COMMENTS, NOT INTO OUR DATABASE SYSTEM, JUST TO GETTING THE WORD OUT FOR THE UTILITY FOR THE PEOPLE OF AUSTIN, FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO PEOPLE COULD COMMENT ABOUT THE INCREASE IN BILLS THAT WAS BACK IN JUNE AND JULY.
MORE THAN 300 PEOPLE JUST BY GETTING ONLINE AND GETTING THE WORD OUT.
I WAS OVER AT THE, UH, FOOD TRAILER PARK ON CESAR CHAVEZ AND PLEASANT VALLEY.
TALKING TO THE SHOP KEEPS THERE.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH $200 EXTRA? WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH THE HUNDRED DOLLARS EXTRA? WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH $200 LESS? OKAY, FOLKS ARE HURTING, YOU KNOW THIS, AND YOU HAVE THE CHANCE RIGHT NOW TO HOLD THIS UTILITY TO A STANDARD THAT WILL HELP A LITTLE BIT KEEP PEOPLE IN THIS CITY.
MY MOTHER DOES EVERYTHING SHE CAN.
SHE'S BEEN AT THE PUC, SHE'S BEEN AT THE CAPITAL, SHE HAS BEEN DOING EVERYTHING SHE CAN TO KEEP HER THERMOSTAT MANAGED TO TURN HER LIGHTS OFF AT NIGHT, YET SHE'S STILL PAYING, UH, MORE THAN $200 A MONTH.
AUSTIN ENERGY BILL, THERE ARE SO MANY STORIES OF THIS HAPPENING, AND I WANT YOU ALL TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT YOU'RE GONNA HEAR TODAY FROM OTHER PRESENTERS YOU HAVE.
WELL, FIRST, THE SIERRA CLUB AND WE'RE SIGNED ON TO SUPPORTING 12 MILLION FOR THIS ISSUE.
YOU'RE GONNA HEAR FROM THE EUC SAYING 15.
WHAT WAS THE NUMBER FROM AUSTIN ENERGY? I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE 35.
I THINK YOU KNOW ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.
MIRA JOHNSON ON DECK IS KABA WHITE.
KABA WHITE ON DECK IS ANGELA ENRIQUE.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC CITIZENS TEXAS OFFICE.
UH, THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER MAYOR PROTON FOR ALLOWING
[01:25:01]
US TO, TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.AS I THINK YOU ALL KNOW, UH, PUBLIC CITIZENS SIERRA CLUB AND SOLAR UNITED NEIGHBORS INTERVENED JOINTLY IN THE RIGHT CASE.
AND WE TOOK UP A NUMBER OF ISSUES.
BUT I THINK ALL OF, ALL OF OUR, UH, COLLECTIVE ATTENTION RIGHT NOW IS REALLY FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON THE RESIDENTIAL RATES, HOW MUCH THAT INCREASE WILL BE AND THE FORM THAT IT TAKES.
AND WHAT I WANNA CONVEY TODAY IS THAT THERE IS NOT JUST TWO CHOICES BETWEEN GIVING AUSTIN ENERGY THE MONEY THAT THEY NEED OR NOT GIVING THEM ANY MONEY.
AND THERE'S ALSO MORE THAN TWO CHOICES AROUND HOW TO STRUCTURE RATES.
PERSONALLY, I FIND THE PROPOSAL THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS BROUGHT Y'ALL ON THE RESIDENTIAL RATE STRUCTURE PROFESSIONALLY AND PERSONALLY OFFENSIVE.
IT REALLY JUST STANDS THE POLICY PRIORITIES OF THE CITY.
ON THEIR HEADS, IT SAYS EQUITY DOES NOT MATTER.
AND ENERGY CONSERVATION IS NO LONGER A PRIORITY.
IT TELLS PEOPLE IN THIS CITY WHO HAVE INVESTED IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY THAT THEY MADE A MISTAKE FINANCIALLY.
MAYBE THEY DID SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, MAYBE THEY MADE THEIR HOME A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE.
BUT FINANCIALLY THAT WAS A BAD INVESTMENT.
AND I THINK THAT'S A REALLY NEGATIVE MESSAGE TO BE SENDING.
YOU JUST HEARD FROM SOMEBODY WHO IS TRYING TO MAKE THAT DECISION RIGHT NOW IN REAL TIME.
WHEN YOU HAVE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE SAID, WELL, I PUT ALL THIS MONEY INTO INSTALLATION OR NEW WINDOWS OR WHATEVER, AND IT'S NEVER GONNA PAY OFF.
GUESS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT GONNA WANNA MAKE DO THAT SAME THING.
WE KNOW THAT WHEN THERE'S POSITIVE STORIES ABOUT SOLAR AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY, THAT IT'S CONTAGIOUS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SAID AS A CITY THAT WE DO WANT TO SUPPORT.
THESE RATE CHANGES AREN'T JUST DETERMINED BY THE AMOUNT OF MONEY.
AND I REALIZE THAT THAT IS IMPORTANT, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS GONNA GET.
BUT Y'ALL CAN CHOOSE TO STRUCTURE THOSE RATE INCREASES IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT UNDULY PUNISH THOSE WHO ARE USING THE LEAST ENERGY.
YOU CAN CHOOSE TO KEEP MORE OR LESS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND ADD SOME PERCENTAGE TO EACH OF THOSE RATE, UH, TIERS.
AND, AND THE FIXED CHARGE, I UNDERSTAND MIGHT NEED SOME INCREASE, BUT WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO YOU? I I HOPE THAT YOU ALL WILL JUST STAND BEHIND.
WHAT I, I THINK IS PROBABLY A GUT FEELING THAT MANY OF YOU HAVE, WHICH IS THAT IT'S NOT RIGHT.
IT'S NOT RIGHT TO ASK PEOPLE WHO ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY POORER, EVEN IF IT'S NOT JUST THE MOST POOR.
AND YOU'VE SEEN SOME DATA FROM AUSTIN ENERGY THAT SHOWS THAT IT'S NOT JUST THE POOR THAT ARE IN A CERTAIN KIND OF USAGE RANGE.
WELL, IT'S THE POORER, IT'S THE MEDIAN AND LOWER INCOMES.
LET'S NOT PUT THIS RATE BURDEN JUST ON THEM.
ENRIQUE ON DECK IS DANIELA SILVA.
MY NAME IS ANGELA ENRIQUE AND I AM AN INTERN WITH PUBLIC CITIZEN AND A STUDENT AT UT AUSTIN.
I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD NOT ADOPT AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE RESIDENTIAL RATE STRUCTURE.
AS A LOWER INCOME STUDENT RENTER, I CONSERVE AS MUCH ENERGY AS I CAN.
BEING FRUGAL IN MY ENERGY USE HELPS MY ROOMMATES AND ME HAVE A LOWER CARBON FOOTPRINT AND A SMALLER UTILITY BILL.
I BELIEVE THAT MY PERSONAL EFFORTS IN ENERGY CONSERVATION ARE BEING VIOLATED BY THIS PROPOSAL.
HOW IS IT THAT I AND THOUSANDS OF OTHER STUDENTS AT UT AUSTIN ARE GOING TO BE BURDENED BY THIS RATE INCREASE? WHEN MOST OF US LIVE IN APARTMENTS, WE DO NOT USE AS MUCH ENERGY AS HIGHER INCOME RESIDENTS LIVING IN LARGER SPACES THAN US.
THIS RATE INCREASES INEQUITABLE TO THE MIDDLE AND LOWER CLASSES OF AUSTIN AND DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S CLIMATE PLAN.
ALL RESIDENTIAL AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMERS SHOULD HAVE ABOUT THE SAME PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN THEIR RATES.
AND THIS ENERGY RATE PROPOSAL WOULD NOT PENALIZE HIGHER ENERGY USERS FOR RAISING THE UTILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS FOR EVERYDAY USERS.
THUS, IT IS IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST THAT AUSTIN ENERGY KEEPS ITS CURRENT RATE OF BILLING HIGH ENERGY CONSUMERS A LARGER AMOUNT FOR THE USAGE OVERALL, THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD VOTE TO KEEP THE CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE.
THANKS FOR YOUR TESTING, MAYOR PUTIN.
YES, COUNCIL MEMBER HAR MADISON.
[01:30:01]
THANK YOU SO MUCH.UH, BEFORE ANGELA LEAVES THE ROOM, I CAN'T SEE CHAMBERS.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS YOUR FIRST TIME COMING DOWN TO SPEAK TO THE BODY, BUT YOU DID A REALLY GREAT JOB, VERY CLEAR AND CONFIDENT AND POISED, AND SO I APPRECIATE SEEING YOU IN CHAMBERS TODAY.
AND THANK YOU FOR, UM, FOR COMING TO TALK TO US.
IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO, TO SEE YOUNG FOLKS, STUDENTS, AND RENTERS, UM, ADVOCATING FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR PEERS.
DANIELA SILVA ON DECK IS DALE BULA.
MY NAME IS DANIELA SILVA AND I'M A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT THREE.
UM, I'M HERE TO SPEAK ALONG WITH MANY OF MY, UM, COLLEAGUES AND FELLOW ORGANIZERS ABOUT AUSTIN ENERGY.
AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT IT BEING A PUBLIC UTILITY SHOULD BE SERVING IN THE PUBLIC GOOD.
AND RIGHT NOW, THE PROPOSAL, UH, DISPROPORTIONATELY INCREASES LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES WHILE LOWERING MORE AFFLUENT HOUSEHOLDS, BILLS COLLECTIVELY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY DISINCENTIVIZES UM, ENERGY CONSERVATION, WHICH I THINK GOES IN DIRECT CONTRAST OF OUR GOALS AS A CITY TO BE AS, UM, CLIMATE FRIENDLY AS POSSIBLE.
PERSONALLY, HAVING SPOKEN TO HUNDREDS OF RESIDENTS WITHIN THE DISTRICT THAT I LIVE, UH, PEOPLE ARE REALLY STRUGGLING WITH PAYING THEIR BILLS AND GETTING BY DAY TO DAY, NOT ONLY ARE THEY HAVING TO FACE INCREASES IN RENT OR IN PROPERTY TAXES, BUT COST OF LIVING ALONE IS INCREASING EXPONENTIALLY AND ADDING THIS FINANCIAL BURDEN ONTO WORKING CLASS FAMILIES ONTO ARTISTS, MUSICIANS, EMS WORKERS, IS REALLY PLACING AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THOSE.
AS MANY HAVE STATED ALREADY, ARE SOME OF THE LEAST CONSUMPTIVE OF OUR, OUR ENERGY USAGE.
I KNOW THAT PERSONALLY WITHIN MY HOUSEHOLD, WE TRY TO KEEP AS MANY LIGHTS OFF AS POSSIBLE.
WE FOLLOW ALL OF THE TEMPERATURE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE PUT OUT BY THE CITY, UM, TO BE AS LESS STRENUOUS AS POSSIBLE.
AND, UM, REALLY I THINK THAT, UM, ANY, ANY INCREASE MORE THAN $2 A MONTH WOULD BE, UM, AN UNDUE BURDEN ONTO, UM, FOLKS WHO ARE ALREADY STRUGGLING TO PAY THEIR BILLS.
AND ADDITIONALLY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKING PEOPLE TO TAKE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR YEARS AND YEARS, AND IT'S GETTING MORE POPULAR.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD DO A BETTER JOB AS A CITY OF PLANNING HOW TO TRANSITION, UM, WITH THE DISINVESTMENT OF FOSSIL FUELS AND FIGURE OUT HOW A DECREASE OF, UM, DEMAND IS GOING TO IMPACT AUSTIN ENERGY AND IT'S GONNA IMPACT THE WAY THAT WE POWER THE CITY.
UM, SO DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON.
SO IN ADDITION TO THE, UM, ANY REFUSAL OF RATE INCREASE OF MORE THAN $2 A MONTH, I'D LIKE TO ALSO ASK FOR, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY TO MAINTAIN A TIERED RATE STRUCTURE WITH AT LEAST FOUR TIERS TO HELP CONTINUE INCENTIVIZING THE ENERGY CONSERVATION THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO IMPLEMENT INTO THEIR HOMES.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
DALE BULA ON DECK IS JOHN KAUFMAN.
AND THANK YOU TO MY REPRESENTATIVE ALLISON ALTAR FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK.
UM, IN 2004, AUSTIN ENERGY STARTED A SOLAR PROGRAM AND I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TO SIGN UP FOR NOT BECAUSE OF HUGE FEDERAL TAX CREDITS OR REBATES, BUT BECAUSE AS A RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHER, I DID NOT WANT TO HAVE TO HAVE A FUTURE OF HIGHER ENERGY BILLS.
IT SEEMS LIKE THIS PROPOSAL IS GOING TO THROW A MONKEY WRENCH INTO THAT DESIGN.
UH, AS A RESULT OF THE INVESTMENT THAT I MADE FOR FUTURE, UH, MY MONTHLY RATE IS IN TIER ONE.
IN FACT, IT WAS ALWAYS IN TIER ONE UNTIL COVID HIT AND WE HAD TO STAY HOME ALL SUMMER, CUZ WE USUALLY WENT TO MY AUNT'S HOUSE WHERE IT WAS COOLER AND WE COULD PUT OUR AIR CONDITIONING AT A LOWER RATE.
SO MY CONCERN RIGHT NOW IS TO KEEP PEOPLE THAT WANT TO USE THE LOWEST AMOUNT OF ENERGY IN TIER ONE, NOT TO HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING MORE.
IF WE RUN ABOVE TIER ONE, THEN MAYBE $2 WOULD BE OKAY OR WHATEVER THE RATE MIGHT BE FOR PEOPLE IN THE HIGHER THING.
BUT MY GOAL IS TO ALWAYS USE LESS THAN 500 KILOWATTS A MONTH.
AND I'VE BEEN AT THAT GOAL THE LAST THREE MONTHS.
SO PLEASE CONSIDER THOSE OF US THAT HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS, AND PLEASE KEEP ENCOURAGING US TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
[01:35:01]
JOHN KAUFMAN.I, ME AND, UH, THE TEAM OF EXPERTS THAT I HAVE ARE, UH, MAKE UP THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE.
AND, UH, WE HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROCESS SINCE ABOUT MAY.
AND, UH, IT HAS DEFINITELY COMPLICATED THIS TIME AROUND.
WE WERE INVOLVED ALSO IN THE PROCESS BACK IN 2016, UH, FOR THE RATES THAT WENT INTO EFFECT IN 2017.
UH, I WANT TO, UH, MAKE SURE THAT I, THAT I'M AVAILABLE TO YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHERE OUR, WHERE WE ARE, WHAT OUR CURRENT POSITION IS.
WE'RE HAPPY THAT WE WERE ABLE TO BRING TOGETHER, UH, MOST OF THE PARTIES, MOST OF THE PARTIES OTHER THAN AUSTIN ENERGY, AT LEAST ON MANY OF THESE ISSUES, YOU STILL HAVE.
UH, AND, AND I I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AUSTIN ENERGY HAS STARTED, UH, NEGOTIATING AGAIN, AND WE HOPE THAT WE CAN COME TO TERMS IF WE DON'T.
UH, YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF VERY DIFFICULT DECISIONS.
ONE IS THE OVERALL, UH, REVENUE THAT THE UTILITY NEEDS.
UH, WE HAVE, UH, IN THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE, UH, COME TO THE POSITION THAT THE UTILITY, UH, SHOULD HAVE ABOUT A 12 MILLION INCREASE.
WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS, UH, FAIR, JUST AND REASONABLE.
IT IS ENOUGH TO, TO GIVE THE UTILITY, UH, WHAT IT NEEDS TO PROVIDE SAFE AND ADEQUATE, RELIABLE SERVICE.
IT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO PREVENT THEM FROM, UH, FACING ANY, UM, DOWNGRADES FROM BOND RATING AGENCIES AND, AND OR OR OTHERWISE.
THE RISK, IF YOU GO HIGHER IS THAT YOU WILL SPUR INFLATION IN THE CITY.
WE KNOW THAT, UM, THAT BUSINESSES AND, AND YOU KNOW, WE ARE REPRESENTING RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL BUSINESS CUSTOMERS, AND YOU, YOU ALREADY HEARD FROM THE VERY LARGE CUSTOMERS, UH, EVERY BIT, UH, OF, OF INCREASE, YOU KNOW, IS, YOU KNOW, CAN HAVE, UH, A CASCADING EFFECT DOWN THE, DOWN THE WAY.
BUT WE, WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT $35 MILLION IS OVERSTATED.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS MORE THAN WHAT THE TEXAS PUC WOULD OFFER.
IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE, UH, RATE MAKING PRINCIPLES AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM FOR KNOWN AND MEASURABLE ADJUSTMENTS.
UH, BUT, UH, THE TRUTH IS SOMEWHERE THERE, SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, UH, YOU KNOW, 6,000,030 5 MILLION, WE, WE SUGGEST THAT IT'S CLOSER TO $12 MILLION.
AND WE WOULD, UH, SUGGEST THAT YOU, UM, UH, ADOPT THAT AS, AS THE PRUDENT AMOUNT.
YOU'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE OTHER DIFFICULT DECISION YOU HAVE, AND THAT IS ON THE RATE DESIGN.
UH, WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER, UH, PAINSTAKINGLY, UH, CRAFTED SOMETHING THAT WE BELIEVE IS A, IS AN, AN INTERMEDIATE COMPROMISE APPROACH.
ONE THAT DOES NOT FLATTEN THE CURVE AND, UH, REMOVE THE INCENTIVE FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION AND ENERGY INCENTIVE, BUT IT DOES ADJUST IT A LITTLE BIT.
UH, WE WOULD INCREASE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE BY $2.
THAT WOULD BE A 20% INCREASE IN THAT PARTICULAR FEE.
BUT WE'VE, UH, WORKED REALLY HARD AT EVERY LEVEL TO REDUCE, WE'VE REDUCED THE TIERS FROM FIVE TO FOUR, AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T IMPACT ANY PARTICULAR SUBSET OF THE CITY, UH, UH, TOO ADVERSELY.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST PAGE, ATTACHMENT TWO TO THE, THE JOINT CONSUMER ALTERNATIVE, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT WOULD RESULT IN ABOUT AN 8% INCREASE.
AND IT ISN'T THE, THE, IT'S A LITTLE, THE, THE PERCENTAGES ARE CLOSER TOGETHER, NOT QUITE AS DRASTIC AS WHAT AWESOME ENERGY HAS.
AND, UH, MR. KAUFMAN, ASSUME YOU'RE GONNA BE AROUND IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER THE OTHER PRESENT.
THAT CONCLUDES ALL THE SPEAKERS.
UM, SO COLLEAGUES, WE HAVE, UM, PLANNED THAT WE WILL HEAR FROM, UH, MARTY HOPKINS, THE CHAIR OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE CHAIR IS HERE OR ON WEBEX.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US CHAIR HOPKINS.
UM, SHE'S GOING TO GIVE US A PRESENTATION ON, UM, WHERE THE UC IS AT IN THIS PROCESS.
THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME TO SPEAK TODAY.
UH, BY WAY OF BRIEF INTRODUCTION, MY NAME IS MARTY HOPKINS AND I'M THE CHAIR OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION.
I WAS APPOINTED BY FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER GREG KASAR TO MY FIRST TERM ON THE COMMISSION IN 2017.
AND AGAIN FOR A SECOND TERM IN 2021, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER VELA REAPPOINTED ME TO THE COMMISSION UPON HIS ELECTION.
UM, WHEN I'M NOT FOCUSED ON, UH, MY COMMISSION DUTIES, I WORK AS A STATE ENERGY REGULATORY LAWYER AT EVER.
SHE SUTHERLAND, AND MY WIFE AND I TRY TO KEEP UP WITH OUR ONE YEAR OLD.
UH, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I'D LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE COUNCIL THAT WE ARE AN 1111 MEMBER COMMISSION, WHICH, UH, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, UM, WE HAVE TWO VACANCIES.
[01:40:01]
NINE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION WERE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN REVIEWING THE BASE RATE REVIEW INFORMATION, UM, IN THIS, UH, UH, BASE RATE REVIEW AND, UH, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, WE HEARD FROM MANY STAKEHOLDERS.UH, WE, UH, HEARD FROM MANY RATE REVIEW PARTICIPANTS AND, UH, AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMERS WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE RATE REVIEW PROCESS.
UH, WE REVIEWED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MATERIAL AND, AND HAD MANY THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSIONS.
UH, ON, ON THE COMMISSION, THOUGH WE TRIED TO REACH UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS ON ALL MATERIAL ITEMS FOR OUR RECOMMENDATION, WE WERE UNABLE TO DO SO.
UH, ON THREE IMPORTANT POINTS, UH, THE FIRST BEING THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THE SECOND BEING A SPECIFIC GRADUALISM MECHANISM, AND THE THIRD BEING THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN.
UH, SO I'LL BE PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY TWO RESOLUTIONS.
ONE THAT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY AND ONE THAT PASSED ON A SIX TO THREE VOTE.
UH, AT THE OUTSET, I'D LIKE TO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE COMMISSION, UH, THAT WE RECOGNIZE HOW DIFFICULT A RATE INCREASE WILL BE AT THIS TIME FOR MANY OF OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
AND THIS OF COURSE, WILL BE MAGNIFIED BY THE RECENTLY APPROVED POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT INCREASE IN MAKING OUR RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK, UH, OR I, AND, AND I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR, UH, THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS AS WELL ON THIS, UH, ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE THESE VERY REAL CONCERNS WITH ENSURING THE CONTINUED FINANCIAL HEALTH OF OUR UTILITY.
WITH THIS IN MIND, THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING TO COUNCIL, UH, ONE, APPLY GRADUALISM OF SOME FORM TO EACH CUSTOMER CLASS EQUALLY TO REDUCE RATE SHOCK TO MAINTAIN A TIERED RATE STRUCTURE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS WITH EITHER FIVE, WHICH IS THE CURRENT NUMBER OF TIERS OR FOUR TIERS, WHICH, UH, HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE WHO JUST SPOKE.
UH, AND THEN AS, AS A SECOND PART TO THAT, NUMBER TWO, LIMIT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE INCREASE TO 20% OR A $2 INCREASE.
THREE, APPLY THE COUNCIL'S UNDERSTANDING OF KNOWN AND MEASURABLE CHANGES AND WHETHER NORMALIZATION TO THE 2021 TEST.
YEAR FOUR, REQUIRE AUSTIN ENERGY TO CONDUCT A NEW LINE LOSS.
FOUR, UH, REQUIRE AUSTIN ENERGY TO CONDUCT A NEW LINE LOSS STUDY PRIOR TO THE NEXT BASE RATE REVIEW.
FIVE, REQUIRE AUSTIN ENERGY TO DEVELOP A PRIMARY SUBSTATION RATE CONSISTENT WITH THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL RECOMMENDATION TO BE PROPOSED IN THE NEXT BASE RATE REVIEW.
UH, SIX, REQUIRE AUSTIN ENERGY TO DEVELOP A PATHWAY FOR PRIMARY GREATER THAN 20 MEGAWATT HIGH LOAD FACTOR CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE FACILITIES NECESSARY TO INTERCONNECT AT TRANSMISSION VOLTAGE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF COUNCIL APPROVING RATES SET IN THIS BASE RATE REVIEW.
SEVEN, ADOPT THE VALUE OF SOLAR TARIFFS PROPOSED BY AUSTIN ENERGY, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE SOCIETAL BENEFITS BE COLLECTED THROUGH THE PSA AND COST RECOVERY OF THE SOCIETAL BENEFITS.
BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW IN THE NEXT BASE RATE REVIEW.
MAINTAIN EXISTING DIFFERENCES IN REVENUES AND RATE STRUCTURES FOR AUSTIN ENERGY CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS NINE.
DIRECT THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION TO EXAMINE AUSTIN ENERGY'S CONTRIBUTION IN AID OF CONSTRUCTION POLICY.
INSTRUCT AUSTIN ENERGY TO DEVELOP A PLAN TO EXPAND ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE POWER FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES AND CONSIDER HOW TO EQUITABLY CHARGE EV CUSTOMERS FOR CHARGING VEHICLES AT HOME WITH LOW LOAD FACTOR 11.
INSTRUCT AUSTIN ENERGY TO CON CONSIDER DEVELOPMENT OF A TARIFF OR PROGRAM THAT INCENTIVIZES SOLAR STORAGE AND V2 G SLASH V TWO H OR VEHICLE TO GRID AND VEHICLE TO HOME 12.
INSTRUCT AUSTIN ENERGY TO HIRE A THIRD PARTY TO UPDATE ITS 2015 NON-NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING STUDY 13.
INSTRUCT AUSTIN SYNERGY TO WORK WITH THE ELECTRIC UTILITY TO EXAMINE ALTERNATIVE ENROLLMENT METHODS FOR THE CAP, UH, PROGRAM OR, UH, CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO ENSURE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION.
NOW MOVING ON TO THE NON UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION, AGAIN, SIX MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL WON REJECT AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSED BASE RATE REVENUE INCREASE OF 35.7 MILLION, WHICH
[01:45:01]
WAS AN AUSTIN ENERGY'S REBUTTAL, UH, PROPOSAL.AND, UH, REJECT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION OF 31.3 MILLION.
UH, TWO, ADOPT A BASE RATE REVENUE INCREASE OF AT LEAST 6.5 MILLION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE.
UH, UH, BUT NO MORE THAN 15 MILLION.
THREE, ADOPT A REVENUE DISTRIBUTION THAT WOULD NOT INCREASE RATES ON ANY CUSTOMER CLASS, MORE THAN 7.5% FOR CONSIDER ADOPTING THE, UH, INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATES PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN WITH A $2 MAXIMUM CUSTOMER CHARGE INCREASE AND FOUR TIERS.
AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC, UH, UH, UH, USAGE, UH, DELINEATIONS IN OUR PROPOSAL THAT HAVE BEEN CERT IN, IN THE TWO RESOLUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED TO YOU.
UH, FINALLY, I'LL, I'LL NOTE THAT THE SIGNIFICANT DISAGREEMENT ON THIS SECOND RESOLUTION OR THE NON UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION CENTERED ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
UM, AS YOU ARE, UH, AWARE, THERE WERE MANY DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENTS PROPOSED BY PARTIES TO THE AUSTIN ENERGY REQUESTED REVENUE REQUIREMENT INCREASE, AND THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDED AN INCREASE OF 31.3 MILLION.
THOSE MEMBERS WHO DID NOT SUPPORT THIS SECOND RESOLUTION GENERALLY SUPPORTED A HIGHER REVENUE REQUIREMENT INCREASE THAN THE UPPER RANGE OF THE $15 MILLION.
UH, I, FOR EXAMPLE, AT LEAST, UM, I SUPPORTED THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDED INCREASE OF 31.3 MILLION.
UM, I NOTE THAT THIS, I NOTE THAT BECAUSE OF, UM, I, I, WAIT, I NOTE THIS BECAUSE NON-SUPPORT FOR THE SPECIFIC GRADUALISM AND RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN PROPOSALS INCLUDED IN THIS SECOND RESOLUTION STEM FROM THE DISAGREEMENT ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY.
SO, AS YOU WILL SEE, THE COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTED APPLYING GRADUALISM TO EACH CUSTOMER CLASS EQUALLY TO AVOID RATE SHOCK.
UM, AND AGAIN, SPEAKING FOR MYSELF BECAUSE I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE 15 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT INCREASE CAP, UH, A 7.5% INCREASE CAP ON EACH CLASS, UH, DOESN'T WORK IN A VACUUM.
UH, AND SO BECAUSE I I HAD IN MIND A DIFFERENT REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THE 7.5% INCREASE DIDN'T WORK THOUGH, AS I SAID, I, I, UH, SUPPORT GRADUALISM GENERALLY, AND THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE UNANIMOUS UH, RESOLUTION.
UM, A SIMILAR SITUATION ARISES ON THE RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN IN THE NON UNANIMOUS RESOLUTION.
THE COM COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY AGREED ON FIVE OR FOUR TIERS AND, AND A MAXIMUM OF A $2 INCREASE TO THE CUSTOMER CHARGE.
UM, AGAIN, BUT THREE COMMISSIONERS DID NOT AGREE ON THE SPECIFIC TIER DELINEATIONS IN THIS, UH, RESOLUTION, THE SECOND RESOLUTION.
SO IN SOME, I WOULD SAY THAT THE COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTS SOME FORM OF GRADUALISM AND A MAXIMUM INCREASE OF THE $2 CUSTOMER CHARGE, UH, $2 TO THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND A TIERED, UH, RESIDENTIAL RATE DESIGN.
UM, UH, WE COULD NOT AGREE UNANIMOUSLY ON A REVENUE REQUIREMENT, UH, BUT AGAIN, APPROVED A 6.5 TO 15 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT INCREASE IN A SIX TO THREE VOTE.
UH, THAT CONCLUDES MY PREPARED REMARKS.
THANKS AGAIN FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU, CHAIR HOPKINS, ARE THERE QUESTIONS? UM, I HAVE ONE FOR YOU.
UM, CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND FOR THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT? YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T SUPPORT THE 15 MILLION CAP.
UM, I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE CRUX OF THE QUESTION THAT WE HAVE TO ANSWER FIRST IS WHAT DO WE THINK THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE AND, AND WHETHER WE THINK THERE IS ANY FAT IN THE PROPOSAL THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US, UM, BY AUSTIN ENERGY.
UM, SO I'D LIKE TO HEAR, HEAR, HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND WHAT WAS GIVING YOU PAUSE.
UH, ULTIMATELY I EIGHT I SUPPORT THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S, UM, EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PUT BEFORE HIM.
AND, UH, IT, AND CONSIDERING THAT HE WAS HIRED, UH, PARTICULARLY TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL REVIEW OF, OF THIS MULTI-PARTY PRO PROCESS AND, AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAD SUPPORTED ITS REVENUE REQUEST UP TO THE 31.3 MILLION,
[01:50:01]
UH, I FOUND THAT COMPELLING.AND, UH, AND AGAIN, UH, THINK THAT, UH, I, WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHER FOLKS WHO DIDN'T VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE SECOND RESOLUTION, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THEY EXPRESSED SIMILAR UM, IDEAS.
AND CAN YOU INDICATE THE OTHER TWO COMMISSIONERS THAT DIDN'T SUPPORT THE SECOND RESOLUTION? YES, IT WAS, UH, COMMISSIONER FEI FER CFER AND COMMISSIONER BOWEN.
AND THANK YOU FOR THAT SUMMARY.
AND COLLEAGUES JUST WANTED TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION THAT THE ICA PROPOSAL, UM, OR THE ICA REPORT HAD IT AT A 6 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
THE INTRAVENOUS PROPOSAL WAS AT 12 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT IN THE, AND, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE EUC RECOMMENDATION, UM, HAD IT AT A 11.4 MILLION REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? ACTUALLY, IT'S, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION IS BETWEEN 6.5 AND 15 MILLION.
UM, SO WE'RE SEEING A TREND MORE IN THAT SIX TO 15 MILLION.
AND SO I, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT CUZ IT WAS SHARED EARLIER THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS, UH, NEGOTIATING, UM, ON A ANOTHER PROPOSAL.
AND SO I, UM, YOU KNOW, I HOPE TO SEE SOMETHING MORE ALONG THAT RANGE COME BACK TO US FOR CONSIDERATION.
UH, AND CERTAINLY JUST WANNA PUNCTUATE THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL GROUPS THAT HAVE INDICATED SUPPORT FOR A $2 INCREASE TO THE CUSTOMER CHARGE.
AND SO I, UM, AM ALSO MORE IN LINE, UM, WITH THAT EFFORT.
COULD YOU GIVE US A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON, UM, THE, UH, THE RANGE OF THE REVENUE AMOUNT, UH, AND IT WAS A SIX THREE VOTE FOR THE 6 MILLION TO 15 MILLION, AND THEN YOU AND TWO OTHER COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTED THE 31 AND A HALF MILLION.
COULD YOU GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR ASSESSMENTS OF WHY NOT ONLY THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER, UH, AGREED WITH THAT NUMBER, UH, AS, AS AUSTIN ENERGY HAD CALCULATED IT DID? SURE.
SO I THINK, UM, THE, THE 6.5 MILLION, UH, LOWER END OF THE RANGE, UH, THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVED RECOMMENDED TO YOU CAME FROM THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATES, UH, RECOMMENDATION ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT INCREASE.
AND THE 15 MILLION, UH, UPPER END OF THAT RANGE, I BELIEVE CAME FROM, UH, JUST WORKING TOGETHER WITH, UH, UH, COMMISSIONERS AND PARTIES.
AND, AND, UH, I, YOU KNOW, I, AS I DIDN'T COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER, I'M NOT POSITIVE WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM, BUT I THINK IT WAS, UH, JUST DEVELOPED THROUGH CONSULTATION WITH ONE ANOTHER AND OTHER PARTIES.
UM, THE, AS YOU NOTED, THE 12, THERE'S A 12 MILLION JOINT CONSUMER PROPOSAL THAT WAS MADE ON, UH, NOVEMBER 8TH.
SO, AND THEN ON THE UPPER, SO THAT WAS THE RANGE THAT'S BEEN APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED TO YOU FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY COMMISSION.
AS FAR AS THE, THE OTHER REVENUE REQUIREMENT INCREASE THAT WAS FOCUSED ON AT OUR, OUR COMMISSION MEETINGS, I WOULD SAY IT WAS THE 31.3 MILLION, UH, WHICH IS THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
AND THAT COMES DOWN, UH, I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT A COUPLE OF MILLION, UH, FROM AUSTIN ENERGY'S REBUTTAL PROPOSAL, WHICH WAS 35.7 MILLION, I BELIEVE.
AND THE, THE HEARING EXAMINER GOES INTO DETAIL IN HIS, UM, UH, FINAL RECOMMENDATION ABOUT WHY HE BELIEVED THAT ULTIMATELY AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, WAS MORE PERSUASIVE ON ITS, UM, EVIDENTIARY BURDEN FOR, UH, THE PROPOSED REVENUE REQUIREMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, UH, THE GENERAL FRONT TRANSFER ADJUSTMENT, WHICH HE MADE TO BRING IT DOWN TO 31.3 MILLION.
AND SO ULTIMATELY, DESPITE THE, UH, PARTY'S, UH, PRESENTATIONS AND EVIDENCE ON, UH, THE VARIOUS ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED, AND MANY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT HERE TODAY, UH, I THINK THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER WHO HAS, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE IN THIS, IN THIS WORLD, AND VIEWED THAT EVIDENCE, UH, AS A, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY ACTING AS A JUDGE, AN IMPARTIAL, UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, VIEWED ALL OF THE, THE, THE PARTY'S EVIDENCE AND CONCLUDED THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAD MET ITS BURDEN UP TO THAT 31.3 MILLION NUMBER.
[01:55:02]
AND SO I, AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER VIRTUAL AND COMMISSIONER BOWEN, UH, FOUND THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION COMPELLING ON THAT FRONT, GIVEN HIS EXPERTISE AND HIS POSITION IN THIS CASE.AND HE, YOU KNOW, HIRED TO DO, UM, A VERY THOROUGH, UH, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, ROBUST REVIEW OF, OF THE INFORMATION.
AND I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M ULTIMATELY, UH, UH, AGREED WITH HIS RECOMMENDATION, I GUESS ON THE, ON THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT INCREASE.
OTHER, OTHER COLLEAGUE QUESTIONS FOR THE CHAIR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US.
IF YOU'RE, IF YOU LIKE TO STAY ON, UM, IN CASE THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, UM, AND, AND YOUR WORK ON THIS.
UM, CO I I DO WANNA JUST UNDERSCORE THAT I, I REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE TO BIG PROCESS WHAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH WITH THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
UM, AND I THINK WE'RE GONNA NEED SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, FOCUSED INFORMATION, UM, FROM AUSTIN ENERGY AND THEN PERHAPS A CHANCE TO DEBATE SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE PIECES.
UM, IF WE CAN, UM, YOU MAY BE PRESENTING THIS TODAY IN YOUR PRESENTATION, BUT IF YOU'RE NOT, IF WE CAN GET A REALLY CRISP SUMMARY OF THE, THE ELEMENTS OF, OF THE 35.7 OF THE, OF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, UM, AND SORT OF A SUMMARY OF THE DIFFERENCES ACROSS THE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS AS WELL AS YOUR REBUTTALS TO THAT.
UM, I THINK WE, WE HEARD THAT THE IAG WAS OKAY WITH A LOT OF THOSE, BUT WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY, UM, HAD THAT SORT OF SUMMARY DOCUMENT THAT PUTS THEM ALL TOGETHER WHERE WE CAN REALLY, WE CAN REALLY, UM, ANALYZE THEM ALL, ALL TOGETHER.
OR IF YOU HAVE THAT, IF YOU CAN SURFACE THAT FOR US, YOU MAY HAVE THAT ALREADY, THAT'D BE GREAT.
YEAH, I JUST WANNA ADD, ADD TO THAT, UM, THE 31.3 MILLION WAS THE, THE FIGURE, UM, FROM STAFF, THE UPDATED FIGURE.
IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A BIT OF A GAP AND I'M UNCOMFORTABLE SIMPLY TAKING A MIDPOINT WHEN I AM PRETTY SURE THAT THERE'S A REASON WHY AUSTIN ENERGY HAS PEGGED THE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS AT 31 POINT HALF OR 31.3 MILLION.
AND SO TO UH, AMPLIFY WHAT THE MAYOR PROTE IS SAYING HERE TODAY, I WOULD LIKE ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION FOR THOSE NUMBERS TO BE LAID OUT BECAUSE THIS IS, FOR ME, THE CRUX OF THIS CONVERSATION AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TRUST THAT NUMBER.
SO, UM, AND I KNOW AUSTIN ENERGY IS WORKING REALLY HARD ON THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH ALL THE PARTIES AND THAT IS CONTINUING A PACE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UH, THAT BE LAID OUT FOR US WITH AN EXPLANATION, UH, TO SHORE UP, UH, OUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW AUSTIN ENERGY ARRIVED AT THE, AT THEIR REVENUE EXPECTATION NUMBER.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, AUSTIN ENERGY'S NUMBERS 35.7 AND THE 31.3 ISH NUMBER IS THE I G WHICH TAKES OFF THE GENERAL TAKES OFF A PORTION OF THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.
JUST SO, JUST SO WE HAVE THE NUMBERS, WE MAY WANNA GO TO, WE MAY WANNA USE THE IE NUMBER, BUT, BUT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS THEIR NUMBERS, THE 35.7 COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS, THANK YOU.
I KNOW WE ALSO HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF FOLKS, UM, ACROSS THESE PAST FEW WEEKS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TIERS AND, AND HOW STEEP THOSE TIERS SHOULD BE CALIBRATED, WHERE THE BREAKING POINTS SHOULD BE.
AND SO I KNOW IT WAS MENTIONED HERE A COUPLE OF TIMES THAT THERE WERE FOLKS MORE SUPPORTIVE OF GOING TO FOUR, FOUR TIERS INSTEAD OF THREE, AND THEN TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THAT WE ARE MAKING SURE WE'RE LOOKING OUT FOR A HOMEOWNER WHO HAS MADE IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR HOME AND, AND PUT MONEY INTO MAKING SURE THEY'RE CONSERVING ENERGY.
AND I WANNA MAKE SURE OUR RATE STRUCTURE DOESN'T, UH, DISINCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO TURN OFF THEIR LIGHTS AND CHANGE THEIR AIR CONDITIONING AND THEIR HEATING TEMPERATURES.
CUZ THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE REALLY HAVE THE POWER TO DO WITH THE MUNICIPALLY OWNED UTILITY.
AND SO I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT THE, THE TIER STRUCTURES AND HOW STEEP THEY ARE AND WHERE THE BREAKING POINTS ARE.
I JUST HAVE A, A HAVE A PROCESS QUESTION, YOU KNOW, TO YOUR, UM, POINT CUSTOMER POOL.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM US ENERGY TO GO THROUGH EACH PART OF THE, UM, OF THE EXPENDITURES WITH THE REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
I KNOW MANY OF OUR OFFICES HAVE BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF, YOU KNOW, ASKING FOR MORE DETAIL, PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, MY STAFF HAS BEEN DIGGING IN ON THE LATE FEES AND, UM, AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO CREATE SPACE FOR US TO HAVE THAT EXCHANGE WITH AUSTIN ENERGY IN A PUBLIC FORMAT AND THEN SEPARATELY, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE AS A COUNCIL DETERMINE WHAT, UH, REVENUE REQUIREMENT WE'RE
[02:00:01]
COMFORTABLE WITH THAN HAVING A CONVERSATION ON THE COST ALLOCATION WITHIN THAT REVENUE REQUIREMENT, UM, AMONGST THE CUSTOMER CLASSES.AND SO HOW IS THAT GOING TO PLAY OUT DURING, UM, OUR, OUR NEXT HEARING? I THINK THEY HAVE OUR PRESENTATION TODAY, AND I DON'T KNOW THE FULL CONTENTS OF THIS AND THIS MAY, THIS MAY ALL BE CONTAINED IN THERE.
I JUST WANNA SAY THEY MAY, THEY MAY HAVE ALREADY ANTICIPATED ALL ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS.
UM, SO WE MAY WANNA HEAR, HEAR FROM THEM AND THEN DECIDE HOW MUCH MORE WE NEED.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONTENT OF THEIR PRESENTATION IS, SO I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
UM, I WILL FLAG, I DO HAVE TO HEAD OUT HERE IN ABOUT 30 MINUTES, SO I WILL TUNE IN, UH, FOR AS MUCH AS HIS PRESENTATION AND THEN OF COURSE FOLLOW UP WITH STAFF IF ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
BUT JUST WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE PROCESS AND THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COUNCIL TO ENGAGE IN THAT DISCUSSION.
CITY MANAGER, MAYBE OTHER QUESTIONS.
THEN I WAS GONNA TURN TO PRESENTATIONS.
SO I HAD A, A QUEST, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND ONE GOES BACK TO AN ITEM THAT WAS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY THAT WE APPROVED AND THAT WAS THE PRETTY LARGE CONTRACTS TO ACQUIRE OLD DEBT.
UM, AND COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, MAYOR EM, YOU ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THAT DEBT IN THE Q AND A, WHICH I THINK WAS REALLY USEFUL BECAUSE THERE'S A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF DEBT OUTSTANDING THAT THE, THAT THE CITY THAT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS ON THE BOOKS.
AND WE JUST APPROVED, I THINK UP TO 5 MILLION FOR TWO SERVICES TO, TO HELP GET SOME OF THAT DEBT.
AND I HAD INTENDED TO SUBMIT THROUGH THE Q AND A AND JUST DIDN'T, DIDN'T DO IT.
SO I I WOULD ASK THAT IT BECOME PART OF OUR, PART OF OUR AUSTIN ENERGY RATE CASE PAGE.
UM, A WHILE BACK WE HAD SOME, SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH CONSUMER ADVOCATES ABOUT BAD DEBT AND HOW TO, HOW BEST, WHAT ARE SOME INNOVATIVE PRACTICES THAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING TO GET SOME OF THAT DEBT BACK.
AND WE HAD, UM, I HAD DONE A RESOLUTION AND I THINK WE HAD A TASK FORCE THAT LOOKED AT THIS AND THEN THE, AND THEN OUR AUSTIN ENERGY DID QUITE A BIT OF WORK ON IT AND CAME UP WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REAR RIDGE MANAGEMENT.
AND SO MANAGER, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PUT THAT WORK ONTO OUR AUSTIN ENERGY SIDE.
I'M AFRAID THAT WE'RE SO MUCH TIME HAS PASSED THAT WE'RE KIND OF LOSING, LOSING, UM, LOSING STEAM ON THAT EFFORT.
AND IT'S REALLY ABOUT MANAGING PAYMENT PLANS IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS THE, AUSTIN ALLOWS THE UTILITY TO GET MORE OF THAT, COLLECT MORE OF THAT DEBT AND ALSO TAKES INTO, INTO ACCOUNT, UM, THE VARIOUS AND INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OUR FAMILIES ARE, ARE FACING IN TERMS OF STRUGGLING TO PAY THEIR UTILITY BILLS.
AND, AND IT WAS SOME REALLY SUBSTANTIAL AND VERY USEFUL WORK THAT I THINK WE'VE, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BETTER IMPLEMENT HERE IN THE FUTURE, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT INCREASING RATES.
AND THEN I WOULD LIKE, I WOULD LIKE AUSTIN ENERGY MAYBE BEFORE THEIR PRESENTATION TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN 2013 IN TERMS OF THE TWO STEP PROCESS.
I'VE BEEN COMMUNICATING A LITTLE BIT, UM, ABOUT THIS, BUT I THINK WE'VE NOT NAILED IT AS I, AS I REMEMBER, AND MAYBE I'M REMEMBERING WRONG, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR AUSTIN ENERGY FOR ABOUT A 13% INCREASE AFTER A SERIES OF REALLY FOCUSED WORK SESSIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNCIL UNDERSTOOD REVENUE REQUIREMENTS AND JUST VARIOUS ELEMENTS THAT WERE IN DISPUTE.
THE RECOMMENDATION ENDED UP BEING CLOSER TO SIX OR 7%, BUT IT WAS, IT WAS SOMEWHERE, I MEAN I, IT SEEMS TO ME, AND MR. ROBINS YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS, BUT IT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ALLOWED TO CALL ON YOU, SO I'M PERHAPS, UM, THERE'LL BE ANOTHER WAY OF GETTING THIS INFORMATION, BUT I THINK WHAT WE FINALLY CAME TO WAS A DECISION THAT, THAT THERE WOULD BE A VERY SHORT TERM, A SHORTER TERM, UM, RATE INCREASE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT AUSTIN ENERGY WOULD COME BACK TO US IF IT, IF THEY, IF WHAT THEY FEARED WOULD HAPPEN, WHICH IS THAT THEY CONTINUED TO LOSE REVENUE AT SUCH A RATE THAT SOMETHING HAD TO BE DONE MORE DRAMATICALLY.
MANAGER, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE AS I, AS I HEAR THE REQUESTS FOR A PHASED IN APPROACH OR A TWO-STEP PROCESS, IT, IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE DID LAST TIME AND, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M LEANING TOWARD COLLEAGUES IN ADDITION TO SOME OF THE OTHER CHANGES THAT WE TALKED THE OTHER DAY.
BUT BECAUSE THERE'S SUCH DISPUTE ABOUT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT AND BECAUSE THERE'S DISPUTE ABOUT WHETHER THIS TEST YEAR WAS REALLY THE BEST TEST YEAR AND WHETHER THE PANDEMIC RATES DIDN'T IMPACT REVENUES IN SUCH A WAY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK MANY HAVE OFFERED A COMPELLING, A COMPELLING CASE.
SO THE PANDEMIC DID DECREASE OUR REVENUE THAT IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO NOT THINK ABOUT THIS AS A RATE FOR FIVE YEARS, BUT TO DO SOMETHING LESS DRASTIC IN TERMS OF A RATE INCREASE AND COME BACK AND REVISIT IN A COUPLE YEARS.
THAT MEMBER VERTO YOU CAN ASK, MAY I ASK MR. MR. ROBINS ANSWER IF WE CAN TRY AND KEEP IT BRIEF? SURE.
CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT MR. ROBINS ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS A TWO STEP, I KNOW IT WAS A TWO STEP WITH SOME INDUSTRIAL RATES THAT HAD YET TO ROLL OFF, BUT IN TERMS OF KIND OF OUR AGREEMENT ABOUT
[02:05:01]
WHAT THE OVERALL RATE INCREASE WAS, WHAT I REMEMBER WAS THAT, UH, AFTER, UH, CONSIDERABLE NAING OF TEETH, A RATE INCREASE, UH, WAS, UH, CREATED IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 AND I THINK THE NEXT YEAR, UH, YOU CHAMPIONED A PROPOSAL TO GO TO 100%, UH, CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING A BUILDING OR DEVELOPMENT.THIS DID NOT DEAL WITH CAPITAL, UH, RECOVERY FEES FOR THINGS LIKE POWER LINES, BUT IT DID DEAL WITH, UH, HOOKUPS AND THAT CREATED SO MUCH EXTRA REVENUE THAT THERE WAS A RATE DECREASE, UH, IN 2017.
THAT'S THE EXTENT OF MY MEMORY AT THIS TIME.
I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK TO, UM, THANK YOU.
I HAD FORGOTTEN THAT AND I'LL JUST CREDIT SHOOT F CUZ THAT WAS THE SHOOTY F REALLY THAT WAS THE SHOOT F RESOLUTION THAT SAVED MILLIONS YES.
AND GENERATED MILLIONS, BUT I THINK WE HAD AN AGREEMENT IT WAS HER IDEA, BUT COUNCIL PASSED IT UNANIMOUSLY.
I HAD FORGOTTEN THAT THE WAY THAT PLUGGED IN THERE, BUT I DO THINK WE HAD AN AGREEMENT THAT WE WERE GONNA COME BACK IN A COUPLE YEARS AND THAT WAS ONE, ONE WAY WE WERE ABLE TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH A HALF, YOU KNOW, HALF OF, ALMOST HALF OF ABOUT A HALF 50% REDUCTION IN THE RATES.
SO THAT WOULD BE JUST HELPFUL TO KNOW.
AND, AND, UM, AGAIN, MANAGER, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE, IF WE PASSED SOMETHING LESS THAN WHAT, WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS CONSIDERING WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD COME BACK OR THAT THE NEXT COUNCIL WOULD COME BACK IN LESS THAN FIVE YEARS TO REVISIT IT.
AND MR. ROBBINS IS MAKING A DISTINCTION WITH REGARD TO LINE EXTENSIONS THAT I WANNA, I WANNA BETTER UNDERSTAND AT SOME POINT BECAUSE I, I KNOW MANY OF OUR INTERVENERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT CAPITAL RECOVERY AND THAT WE MAY, WE MAY NOT BE FULLY RECOVERING OUR CAPITAL COSTS THERE.
AND I, I'D LIKE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT.
I THINK THERE'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING ON THE CAPITAL RECOVERY THAT WE HAVE TO GET A FEW ANSWERS ON.
UM, I'D LIKE TO ASK, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY TO COME UP AND DO THEIR PRESENTATION.
TOPO, YOU MENTIONED A Q AND A, DO YOU REMEMBER WHICH MEETING THAT WAS WAS LOCATED ON BY CHANCE? I THINK WHAT I WAS SAYING, COUNCIL MEMBER FUENTES, IS THAT I INTENDED TO SUBMIT A Q AND A TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ARREARAGE MANAGEMENT STUFF GOT HOOKED UP TO TODAY'S MEETING AND I, I JUST NEGLECTED TO DO SO.
AH, SO I WAS ASKING THE MANAGER IF HE COULD HOOK UP SOME OF LIKE THE ARREARAGE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE, UM, POWERPOINT FROM FEBRUARY, 2017 AND SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF TO OUR MAIN AUSTIN ENERGY RATE CASE PAGE SO THAT WE CAN, WE CAN KIND OF REVIEW IT AND, AND SEE WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS MIGHT BE THERE TO HELP WITH PAYMENT PLANS AND HELP, HELP COLLECTING THAT BAD DEBT.
UH, TAMMY COOPER, AUSTIN ENERGY.
I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF SET UP, UH, THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE ON TAP TODAY TO PRESENT TO YOU.
UH, WE HAVE THOMAS BRITO OUTSIDE COUNCIL WHO IS GOING TO DISCUSS, UH, SPECIFICALLY THOSE REVENUE REQUIREMENT ISSUES THAT, THAT YOU'VE INDICATED YOU WANT TO, TO DIG A LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO.
UH, WE ALSO HAVE CARRIE OVERTON WHO WAS HERE TO TALK ABOUT OUR CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE OR OUR CAP PROGRAM.
I BELIEVE AT THE LAST MEETING YOU HAD ASKED SPECIFICALLY THAT YOU WANTED, UH, MORE INFORMATION AND COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN, IT INDICATED SHE WANTED A WORK PLAN, UH, WITH RESPECT TO HOW WE MIGHT BE EXPANDING THAT PROGRAM.
ALSO, I BELIEVE MR. BRITO MAY BE ABLE TO SHED A FEW MORE, UH, UH, MEMORIES ON, ON THAT DISCUSSION YOU WERE JUST HAVING, UM, WITH MR. ROBINS AS WELL.
AND, UH, WITH RESPECT TO, UH, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WITH RESPECT TO COUNCIL MEMBER POOL'S QUESTION ABOUT AUSTIN ENERGY'S REQUEST.
I MEAN, IT, IT IS IN OUR REBUTTAL CASE'S LAID OUT TO 35.7 MILLION.
UH, THE INDEPENDENT HEARINGS EXAMINER DID, UH, RECOMMEND 31.3 BASED ON THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.
AND, YOU KNOW, THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT IS WITHIN COUNCIL'S PURVIEW TO DECIDE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
UH, IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PUBLICLY SAY THAT, THAT WE COULD, UH, YOU KNOW, MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO, UH, WITH RESPECT TO WHERE WE'RE AT AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCEEDING.
SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, AND, UH, IF YOU'RE READY, I CAN TURN IT OVER TO MR. BETO TO TALK ABOUT REVENUE REQUIREMENT ISSUES.
UM, IF I MAY, LET ME START WITH, UM, THE DISCUSSION A MOMENT AGO ABOUT THE 2012 RAPE CASE.
NOW, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY REQUESTED 113 MILLION RATE INCREASE AT THAT TIME.
[02:10:02]
AND AFTER NUMEROUS WORK SESSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS, COUNCIL ULTIMATELY APPROVED, I BELIEVE 105 MILLION RATE INCREASE.WE ACTUALLY WENT BACK, UH, A WHILE BACK TO TRY TO DETERMINE THE BASIS FOR THAT DIFFERENCE.
AND I CAN'T SEEM TO FIND ANY BASIS FOR HOW WE GOT FROM ONE 13 TO 1 0 5.
BUT REGARDLESS, THAT WAS WHAT WAS APPLIED, OR EXCUSE ME, WHAT WAS APPROVED.
AUSTIN ENERGY AT THAT TIME HAD A NUMBER OF FIXED CONTRACTS WITH SOME OF THEIR LARGER CUSTOMERS WHOSE RATES WERE FROZEN, UH, AT THE TIME OF THE DECISION IN JUNE OF 2012.
AND SO AUSTIN ENERGY WAS ONLY ABLE TO COLLECT APPROXIMATELY 70 MILLION OF INCREASED REVENUES AT THAT TIME.
BUT THEN SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN THOSE CONTRACTS EXPIRED, THEY WERE ABLE TO INCREASE THE RATES TO THOSE CUSTOMERS AS WELL.
AND IT WAS ONLY AT THAT POINT IN TIME THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO COLLECT THE FULL 105 MILLION, UH, RATE INCREASE THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
NOW, THERE WAS ALSO, UH, AN APPEAL, OF COURSE, FROM HF TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION THAT ULTIMATELY SETTLED IN, I BELIEVE, FEBRUARY OR MARCH OF 2013.
THAT KIND OF CHANGED THE FIGURES A LITTLE BIT, ULTIMATELY AS PART OF THAT SETTLEMENT.
I CAN GO BACK AND CONFIRM THOSE NUMBERS.
BUT, UM, THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION OF KIND OF HOW THINGS PLAYED OUT IN 2012.
THE OTHER THING THAT WAS MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO AND MR. ROBINS RELATED TO THE, THE CAK POLICY, OR WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS THE, OUR CONTRIBUTION IN NATIVE CONSTRUCTION.
BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, ALL UTILITIES HAVE A, A TARIFF OR A POLICY WITH RESPECT TO, UM, CONNECTING NEW CUSTOMERS.
YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M A RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER AND I NEED 50 FEET OF DROP LINE OR A HUNDRED FEET OF DROP LINE TO CONNECT FROM THE POLE IN MY BACKYARD TO MY HOME, THEN THE, THE UTILITIES TARIFF MAY PROVIDE THAT.
I DON'T HAVE TO PAY ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS, IT'S JUST RECOVERED THROUGH MY, MY REGULAR ELECTRIC RATES.
BUT IF I NEED, YOU KNOW, 200 OR 250 FEET BECAUSE PERHAPS I'M OUT IN THE COUNTRY AND THE POLE'S FARTHER AWAY, THEN I HAVE TO PAY WHAT'S CALLED A CONTRIBUTION MADE OF CONSTRUCTION.
SIMILARLY, IF A COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER, A LARGE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER NEEDS SPECIAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE INSTALLED, UH, IN ORDER TO CONNECT THEM FOR SERVICE, THEN THERE MAY BE A PAYMENT THAT'S EXPECTED OF THAT CUSTOMER.
AND FOR MANY YEARS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AUSTIN ENERGY PERHAPS WAS NOT COLLECTING THE FULL AMOUNT, UH, OF CONTRIBUTION NATIVE CONSTRUCTION.
AND THEN FOLLOWING THE 2012 CASE, UH, COUNCIL DID DIRECT AUSTIN ENERGY TO BEGIN TO COLLECT THE FULL AMOUNT, UM, NECESSARY IN ORDER TO INTERCONNECT THESE CUSTOMERS.
AND IT HAS BEEN DOING SO EVER SINCE.
AND IT WAS, IT WAS NICE TO SEE MR. ROBINS RECOGNIZE THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE STATE ITEMS THAT HE LIST ON HIS LIST OF SAVINGS THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AUSTIN ENERGY IS FOLLOWING THE CITY'S POLICY AND COLLECTING THE FULL AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION NATIVE CONSTRUCTION.
I KNOW THAT EC, EVEN LAST NIGHT MENTIONED, UM, PUTTING THAT ON AN AGENDA ITEM TO, TO DISCUSS IN SOME MANNER, UH, I GUESS TO, AGAIN, TO ENSURE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS, IS, IS COLLECTING THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNTS FOR CUSTOMERS.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN ALLEGATIONS THAT GROWTH SHOULD PAY FOR THEMSELVES, AND I THINK THAT KIND OF RELATES TO THIS ISSUE.
SO ANYWAY, I I, I SHARED THAT WITH YOU AS WELL.
UM, BUT WHAT MY REAL PURPOSE HERE TODAY WAS TO TALK TO YOU SPECIFICALLY ABOUT SOME OF THOSE DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENTS, AS OTHERS HAVE REFERRED TO 'EM, UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
AND SO WHAT I'VE GOT ON THIS SLIDE HERE BEHIND YOU IS A LIST OF ALL THE REALLY CONTESTED REVENUE REQUIREMENT ISSUES IN THE CASE.
AND, AND I'M NOT GONNA GET REALLY IN THE WEEDS, UH, AND GIVE YOU A, YOU KNOW, A FULL DETAILED ANALYSIS OF EVERY ONE OF THESE ISSUES.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THEM AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE, YOU LIKE, BUT MY DESIRE TODAY WOULD BE TO JUST KIND OF HIT THE ISSUES QUICKLY AND LET YOU KNOW KIND OF WHAT THE, THE, UM, UNDERLYING RATIONALE WAS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE AND THEN AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESPONSE TO IT.
UM, AND SO IF I MAY, I'LL JUST KIND OF START WITH THE, THE FIRST ISSUE WHICH RELATES TO THIS, THE THREE 11 CALL CENTER.
SO, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY WAS PROPOSING TO, UM, INCLUDE 13.75 MILLION ASSOCIATED WITH THE CALL CENTER, WHICH INCLUDED A KNOWN AND MEASURABLE ADJUSTMENT OF, UM, HOLD ON, I WANNA MAKE SURE I GET MY NUMBERS RIGHT.
OF, OF 5.3 MILLION TO ACCOUNT FOR, UH, A NEW CONTRACT THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL, UH, IN FEBRUARY OF 2022.
AND THAT NEW CONTRACT, UH, REQUIRED THE HIRING OF A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES TO, UM, STAFF.
THE THREE 11 CALL CENTER, THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE PROPOSED ABOUT A 2.9 MILLION
[02:15:01]
ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE HE, HE, IN HIS, IN HIS MIND, UM, AT THE TIME THAT WE HAD THE HEARING BACK IN JULY, NOT ALL OF THOSE EMPLOYEES HAD HAD BEEN HIRED AT THE TIME.AND SO IN HIS, AND IN HIS OPINION, THE, UM, FULL STAFFING LEVEL, THE FULL COST OF OF STAFFING, UM, AT THE FULL LEVEL WAS NOT KNOWN.
I MEASURABLE IT HAD NOT OCCURRED YET, BUT IN REBUTTAL TESTIMONY AND AT THE HEARING, UH, AND THEN IN BRIEFING, AUSTIN ENERGY RESPONDED BY SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT THE FIVE YEAR STAFFING CONTRACT HAD BEEN EXECUTED IN FEBRUARY OF 2022.
UH, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT THE FULL STAFFING LEVEL HAD HAD AT THAT TIME BEEN MET AND IS IS, HAS STILL BEEN MET TODAY.
AND SO IN ALL SYNERGY'S OPINION, UM, THE FULL AMOUNT NECESSARY TO PAY THESE EMPLOYEES IS APPROPRIATE AND SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN, IN RIGHTS IN THE IE AGREED WITH THEM.
MOVING ON TO UNCOLLECTABLE EXPENSE, THE TEST, YOUR AMOUNT FOR UNCOLLECTABLE EXPENSE WAS 13.9 MILLION.
AUSTIN ENERGY MADE A DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 7.8 MILLION, RESULTING IN A REQUEST OF 5.9 MILLION.
UM, THE I E, UH, EXCUSE ME, ICA RECOMMENDED THAT, UM, THAT THE TEST, YOUR AMOUNT WAS ABNORMALLY HIGH, AND THAT INSTEAD THAT THERE SHOULD BE A THREE YEAR AVERAGE OF UNCOLLECTABLE EXPENSE THAT SHOULD BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR SETTING RATES GOING INTO THE FUTURE.
AUSTIN ENERGY RESPONDED BY SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THE A THREE YEAR AVERAGE WAS MORE APPROPRIATE THAN THE ACTUAL TEST YEAR, AND IN FACT, IT EVEN GOES BACK FURTHER IN TIME.
SO IT'S LESS, UH, RELIABLE GOING FORWARD.
THEY ALSO INDICATED THAT, UM, THAT THERE WAS NO CONNECTION TO WINTER STORM URIE, WHICH WAS ALSO A BASIS OF THE IS C'S RECOMMENDATION, UH, AND THAT THEY HAD MADE A SEPARATE ADJUSTMENT TO LATE PAYMENT FEES AS A RESULT OF THE CHANGE IN THE COUNCIL'S POLICY DURING WINTER STORM UY, WHICH WAIVED, UM, THE, WHICH TEMPORARILY ELIMINATED LATE FEE PAYMENTS AT THAT TIME.
HEAVY EQUIPMENT LEASES, EXCUSE ME, BEFORE YOU GO ON, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY SURE.
SO THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL, UM, NUMBER THAT WAS 13 SOME MILLION.
THAT'S FROM THE TEST YEAR, CORRECT.
THAT WAS THEN ADJUSTED BY HOW MUCH, BY $7,000,837 AND 13 CENTS.
THAT WAS A DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT ASSOCIATED WITH NON-RECURRING EVENTS RELATED TO, UM, TO OTHER, OTHER REVENUES.
SO YOU STARTED WITH A 13 MILLION NUMBER, AND WHAT WAS THE NUMBER THAT WAS USED IN YOUR CALCULATIONS? THE, UM, ORIGINAL NUMBER, THE TEST OF YOUR NUMBER WAS 13.9 MILLION.
IT WAS ADJUSTED DOWNWARD BY JUST OVER 7.8 MILLION TO GET A UNCOLLECTABLE EXPENSE PROPOSED BY AUSTIN ENERGY OF FIVE POINT, REALLY 6,000,005 5,994,000.
AND THE ICA HAD PROPOSED A THREE YEAR AVERAGE UNCOLLECTABLE AMOUNT USING FISCAL YEARS 2018 THROUGH 2020, UH, WHICH RESULTED IN A A 4.6 MILLION FIGURE FOR THAT ST UH, EXPENSE ITEM.
SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY ADJUSTED THIS FOR ANY OF THOSE ISSUES? YES.
AND THAT IT APPROPRIATE THEN, ONCE YOU MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT TO, TO RELY UPON THE TEST YEAR, UH, AMOUNT, UH, AND NOT USE A THREE OR AVERAGE AS THE ICA IS RECOMMENDED.
UM, HEAVY EQUIPMENT LEASES, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER TEVA HAD A QUESTION ON THAT.
I DID HAVE YOUR, UM, HOW DO YOU WANNA HANDLE THIS? SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT THEM AS WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DIFFERENT POINTS? MAYOR TIM, THAT WOULD, IF, IF FOLKS ARE ARE WILLING, OR YOU AND I CAN JUST MEET WITH THEM IF THEY DON'T EITHER WAY.
I DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT STORM IN VARIOUS WAYS, AND I'M NOT CLEAR FROM THE EXCHANGE I JUST HEARD, WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE UNCOLLECTIBLE EXPENSE AND, AND THIS IS THE SAME REV, THIS IS THE SAME REQUIREMENT THAT, UM, THE INDEPENDENT HEARING EXAMINER SUGGESTED IF WE, IF WE WANT TO LOWER IT, UM, HE WOULD NOT SUGGEST CONTACT, UH, ELIMINATING, HE WOULD SUGGEST ONLY FOCUSING ON CONTRACTING AND OVERTIME EXPENSE.
UH, NO, THAT'S, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BAD DEBT OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT EXPENSES RELATED TO THE PANDEMIC OR REVENUE? I'M TALKING ABOUT BAD DEBT, OR IT'S ALSO REFERRED TO AS UNCOLLECTABLE EXPENSE.
SAME THING, BUT THERE'S A, A, ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION, UM, ONE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT WE'LL GET TO IN A MOMENT.
YEAH, I THOUGHT THE BAD DEBT TO ME, I WAS COMPELLED BY THE INTERVENER'S TESTIMONY ON THAT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MY, HOW MY COLLEAGUES FEEL, BUT I DID, I DID.
UM, I'M, I'M NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING AUSTIN ENERGY'S CASE.
IT DID SEEM TO ME THAT, THAT THE REVENUE ON MOST
[02:20:01]
YEARS IS, IS HIGHER.UM, AND SO AS I SEE IT, THE ICA WAS SAYING THE AVERAGE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS IS 5.55 MILLION IN TERMS OF BAD DEBT COLLECTION REVENUE.
AND THE TEST YEAR IS 3.34 MILLION THAT YOU'RE, THAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS INCLUDING.
AND, AND I KNOW YOU JUST ANSWERED THIS, BUT CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY, WHY AUSTIN ENERGY FEELS THAT THE TWO YEARS THAT THE, THE FIVE, UM, THAT THE 3.34 IS BETTER, IS MORE ACCURATE? YOU LOST ME ON THAT, LIKE THAT NUMBER, THE THREE POINT, TELL ME AGAIN.
SO THE TEST YEAR AMOUNT OF REVENUE, UM, ATTRIBUTABLE TO DEBT COLLECTION, LATE PAYMENT COLLECTION IS 3.34.
AND THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE WAS POINTING OUT THAT THE AVERAGE ANNUAL OF LATE FEE REVENUE IN THE TWO YEARS PRIOR TO 2020 WAS CLOSER TO 5.55.
SO THAT'S A DIFFERENTIAL OF ABOUT 2 MILLION.
ANYWAY, LET ME JUST SAY, WE CAN GO, WE CAN MAYBE NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO DRILL DOWN INTO ALL OF THESE, BUT LET ME JUST SAY THAT I FOUND, I FOUND THE, TO ME, THAT WAS COMPELLING THAT, UM, THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATE'S EVIDENCE WAS COMPELLING, AND THAT RESULTS IN ABOUT A 2 MILLION DIFFERENTIAL.
I, I'M SORRY, I I DON'T FOLLOW YOU ON THE NUMBERS.
MY, MY NUMBERS SHOW THAT THE TEST, YOUR AMOUNT WAS 13.9 MILLION.
AS I MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, AUSTIN ENERGY MADE A DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT TO BASICALLY TRY TO TAKE OUT THE EFFECTS OF, OF WINTER STORM URY AND THE TEMPORARY ELIMINATION OF THE RECOVERY OF, OF, UH, OF LATE FEES AND OR UNCOLLECTIBLE.
AND THAT BROUGHT IT DOWN TO 5.9 MILLION REQUEST.
AND THE ICA SAID NO, IN HIS OPINION, THE TEST, YOUR AMOUNT WAS STILL ABNORMALLY HIGH AND THAT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE AN AVERAGE OF FISCAL YEAR 18 THROUGH 20, WHICH RESULTED IN A RECOMMENDATION OF 4.57 MORE, FIVE SEVEN 4 MILLION, THE DELTA BEING ABOUT A MILLION AND A HALF.
SO BASICALLY, AUSTIN ENERGY SAYS WE NEED TO INCLUDE ABOUT 6 MILLION FOR BAD DEBT.
THE ICA SAYS WE NEED TO INCLUDE ABOUT 4.6 MILLION.
UM, THAT'S WHAT I SHOW ON THIS ISSUE.
AND AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESPONSE BASICALLY IS ONCE YOU TAKE OUT THE 7.8 MILLION, ONCE YOU SORT OF NORMALIZE THE TESTIER FIGURE, IF YOU WILL, THEN YOU DON'T NEED TO TO DO A THREE YEAR LOOK BACK.
THE ICA HOWEVER, FELT THAT NO, YOU STILL HAVE THE EFFECTS OF, OF URIE AND COVID, AND THAT IT WAS MORE APPROPRIATE TO DO A THREE YEAR LOOK BACK AND THEN TAKE THAT AVERAGE AND USE THAT AS THE BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING RATES IN THE FUTURE.
YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING, THEY BOTH TO BE DONE.
BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SECTION ON 14, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SECTION ON 43.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT UNCOLLECTIBLE EXPENSE, AND I WAS TALKING ABOUT LATE, LATE, LATE PAYMENT REVENUE.
BUT I THINK, I THINK BOTH, UM, IN MY OPINION BOTH, I THINK THERE'S MOVEMENT THERE THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER AS AS COUNCIL.
AND WE SHOULD LOOK CLOSELY AT THE, AT THE INDEPENDENT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, AND I, I APPRECIATE YOU ADDRESSING IT.
I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE INDEPENDENT CONSUMER ADVOCATES POINTS ON BOTH OF THOSE ISSUES, BOTH PAGE 14 AND 43.
AND YES, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THERE, IS A LATE PAYMENT, A SEPARATE LATE PAYMENT FEE THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A MOMENT.
MY NUMBERS ARE STILL NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOURS ARE, BUT WE, WE'LL, PERHAPS WHEN WE GET TO IT, UH, WE CAN TALK, WE CAN KIND OF COME BACK TO IT IF YOU'D LIKE.
WHY DON'T YOU KEEP GOING? OKAY.
UM, AUSTIN ENERGY, AGAIN MADE A KNOWN AND MEASUREMENT KNOWN AND MEASURABLE, EXCUSE ME, ADJUSTMENT OF, OF ABOUT 7.4 MILLION TO, UM, HEAVY EQUIPMENT LEASE TEST YOUR EXPENSE AMOUNT BASED UPON A THREE YEAR AVERAGE OF LEASE PAYMENTS ON EXISTING EQUIPMENT.
UM, THE ICA PROPOSED AN ADJUSTMENT, UM, OF ABOUT 7.3 MILLION BASED ON FISCAL YEAR 2022 COST.
AND THE, THE BASIS WAS THAT THE, UM, THE ALLTECH HEAVY EQUIPMENT CONTRACT WAS NOT, UH, IN HIS, IN HIS VIEW, KNOWN I MEASURABLE.
UM, ALL SYNERGY'S RESPONSE TO THAT WAS THAT THE, UM, THE ALLTECH HEAVY EQUIPMENT, UM, LEASE HAS BEEN THE HISTORICAL METHOD BY WHICH AUSTIN ENERGY HAS ACQUIRED HEAVY EQUIPMENT GOING BACK TO 2007.
THE CURRENT AGREEMENT IS FULLY, IS A FULLY EXECUTED LEASE CONTRACT, AND IT, BUT IT PROVIDES FOR ANNUAL EXTENSIONS.
AND I BELIEVE THE ICA WAS TROUBLED BY THE FACT THAT COUNCIL APPROVES THOSE EXTENSIONS EACH YEAR.
UH, AND SO IN HIS, OR IN HIS MIND, COUNCIL COULD PERHAPS REJECT THAT OR THAT IT WASN'T FULLY KNOWN.
I MEASURABLE, UH, AND IN RESPONSE, AUSTIN ENERGY, UH, CLAIMS THAT
[02:25:01]
THE, UM, ALTHOUGH THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZES EXTENSIONS ANNUALLY, THE FINANCIAL OF OBLIGATIONS ARE SET OUT IN THE ORIGINAL BINDING CONTRACT AND THE CURRENT, I SHOULD ALSO NOTE THEN, THE CURRENT EXTENSION HAS BEEN APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2022.SO AT A MINIMUM, YOU'VE GOT THAT EXTENSION THAT'S NOW KNOWN AND MEASURABLE.
UM, BUT ALSO ENERGY'S, UM, ARGUMENT IS THAT THE CONTRACT IS BINDING UPON THEM.
AND THE FACT THAT COUNCIL EACH YEAR THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS KIND OF APPROVES THE EXTENSION, DOESN'T MAKE IT LESS KNOWN AND MEASURABLE AND OR, OR LESS APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE IN RATES.
AND SPEAKING OF WHICH, I, I WOULD AGAIN REMIND YOU, I THINK IT'S NOTEWORTHY, AND I MENTIONED THIS THE OTHER DAY, IS THAT NOT A SINGLE PARTY IN THIS CASE HAS RECOMMENDED THE DISALLOWANCE OF A SINGLE PENNY BASED UPON A DETERMINATION OR RECOMMENDATION THAT ANY OF THE COSTS INCUR BY AUSTIN ENERGY ARE EITHER UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE, AS YOU'LL SEE.
AND AS YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN, ALL OF THESE ADJUSTMENTS RELATE TO REALLY TIMING, WHICH, WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT BASIS, UH, FOR MAKING A DISALLOWANCE IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, IF A UTILITY JUST SAYS, HEY, WE WANT TO, WE WANNA START CHARGING CUSTOMERS FOR SOMETHING THAT WE THINK MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE THAT'S CLEARLY UN UH, UH, INAPPROPRIATE, WHICH IS WHY THE PC, FOR EXAMPLE, IS ALWAYS HELD UTILITIES TO A PRETTY HIGH STANDARD KNOWN AND MEASURABLE MUST MEAN KNOWN AND MEASURABLE.
YOU CAN'T SAY WE MIGHT EXECUTE A LEASE, YOU HAVE TO EXECUTE THE LEASE.
AND AUSTIN ENERGY'S VIEW, HOWEVER, THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE MET THAT STANDARD.
SO, UM, MOVING ON, NON-NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING, THIS WAS A CONTESTED ISSUE.
UM, AUSTIN ENERGY, OF COURSE, HAS TO COLLECT IN RATES MONEY TO DECOMMISSION THEIR POWER PLANTS.
IT'S APPROPRIATE TO COLLECT THOSE, UH, OVER THE LIFE OF THE PLANT.
AND THE IDEA BEHIND THAT IS CUSTOMERS WHO RECEIVED POWER OR BENEFIT FROM THOSE POWER PLANTS PAY FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING SO THAT YOU DON'T JUST WAIT UNTIL A PLANT SHUTS DOWN AND THEN SAY, WE NEED TO COLLECT MONEY FROM CUSTOMERS WHO MAY HAVE JUST, UM, COME ONTO THE SYSTEM AND NEVER REALLY RECEIVED ANY BENEFIT FROM THOSE POWER PLANTS.
UH, ALL ENERGY IS PROPOSING TO INCLUDE $8 MILLION ANNUALLY TO COVER FUTURE DECOMMISSIONING EXPENSES.
THIS IS THE SAME AMOUNT THAT THEY INCLUDED, UH, BACK IN 2016.
THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGE, UM, FROM 2016, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE ACQUIRED AN ADDITIONAL PLANT THAT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE DECOMMISSIONED NACODOCHES.
THEY, UM, WENT THROUGH THE HOLLY EXPERIENCE WHERE THEY THOUGHT THAT IT WAS GONNA COST 19 MILLION TO DECOMMISSION THE PLANT, AND IT COSTS 32 MILLION.
UH, AND CONSIDERING THAT THERE'S BEEN INFLATION SINCE 2016, THE ICA RECOMMENDED A DOWNWARD ADJUSTMENT OF 6 MILLION.
BUT THE, UH, IE, UH, REJECTED THAT RECOMMENDATION.
AND AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESPONSE TO IT IS THAT THE ICA DID, UM, UM, WAS UNAWARE, FIRST OF ALL, UM, OF THE NUMBER OF PLANTS THAT NEEDED TO BE DECOMMISSIONED, UH, WAS UNAWARE THAT NACODOCHES WAS, YOU KNOW, A NEW POWER PLANT THAT NEEDED TO BE DECOMMISSIONED, WAS UNFAMILIAR AND UNAWARE OF THE COST TO DECOMMISSION.
THE HOLLY PLANT WAS ALSO UNAWARE THAT THE ICA, THE SAME RCA WHO WAS IN THE CASE IN 2016, RECOMMENDED A TOTAL DECOMMISSIONING EXPENSE OF 9.89 MILLION, BUT FOR SOME REASON, USING THE SAME REPORT SIX YEARS LATER RECOMMENDED A 6 MILLION ADJUSTMENT.
UM, AND SO, UM, SO THOSE ARE BASICALLY AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESPONSES ON THAT, THAT ISSUE, WINTER STORM URINE AND COVID EXPENSES.
UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE PARTIES EARLIER MADE REFERENCE TO AUSTIN ENERGY PRESENTING NEW INFORMATION, UH, IN THEIR EXCEPTIONS, UH, ON THIS ISSUE.
UH, AND THAT'S TRUE, UH, AND NORMALLY I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT, UM, APPROPRIATE TO DO SO.
BUT THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES WITH THE IHE MADE NO FIRM RECOMMENDATION AND IN FACT, UM, DIRECTED AUSTIN ENERGY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION ON THIS VERY ISSUE.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, UH, IN AUSTIN ENERGY'S, UH, EXCEPTIONS ON THIS ISSUE.
UM, THE ICA RECOMMENDED, UM, UH, AMORTIZING EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH WINTER STORM URINE AND COVID, UH, OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
AND THIS IS THE, UM, ISSUE I THINK PERHAPS YOU WERE REFERRING TO A MOMENT AGO.
UM, AT SOME POINT, COUNCIL MEMBER TOVO RELATED TO OVERTIME PAY OR CONTRACT LABOR OR LABOR AND BENEFITS.
THERE WAS, THERE WERE MULTIPLE COMPONENTS OF THIS ISSUE.
AND BASICALLY THE ICA SAID, WE'RE NOT CHALLENGING THE REASONABLENESS AMOUNT OF THE AMOUNTS, WE JUST THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SPREAD IT OUT OVER A LONGER TIME PERIOD.
UM, OFTEN ENERGY IN THEIR CASE IN THE REBUTTAL CASE, EXPLAINED THAT THEY, UH, THAT WHILE URIE WAS AN EXCEPTIONAL STORM, OR EXCUSE ME, AN EXCEPTIONAL EVENT, THEY HAVE STORM COSTS ALL THE TIME, AND THAT THESE COSTS WERE NOT OUT OF LINE WITH OTHER TYPES OF WEATHER EVENTS THAT THEY HAVE HURRICANES OR, UH, FREEZES IN THE WINTER AND THAT SORT OF THING.
[02:30:01]
WAS THEIR RESPONSE TO, UM, THE ICAS ADJUSTMENT.UM, AND THE IT, UH, AGAIN, REJECTED THE ICAS PROPOSAL ON THAT ISSUE.
RAY CASE EXPENSES, THIS IS A RELATIVELY SMALL ISSUE, BUT, UM, IT'S ONE THAT THE ICA MADE A RECOMMENDATION ON.
SO THERE WERE, UH, ABOUT 1.8 MILLION OF LEGAL AND CONSULTING FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PRE PROCEEDING THAT AUSTIN ENERGY PROPOSES TO COLLECT IN RATES, UH, OVER A THREE YEAR TIME PERIOD.
THEY'VE AMORTIZED IT OVER A THREE YEAR TIME PERIOD.
SO YOU CAN THINK OF IT ROUGHLY AS THEY TOOK THE 1.8 MILLION, THEY DIVIDED BY THREE, THEY GET ABOUT 600,000, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY PUT IN RATES.
THE ICA SAID NO, THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A FIVE YEAR AMORTIZATION PERIOD, UM, UH, BECAUSE AUSTIN ENERGY'S LAST CA RATE CASE WAS SIX YEARS AGO.
SO THE RECOVERY PERIOD OF AT LEAST FIVE YEARS WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
AND SO IF YOU TAKE THAT SAME AMOUNT, THE 1.8 MILLION, YOU DIVIDED OVER FIVE YEARS INSTEAD OF THREE, YOU HAVE A LOWER RATE IMPACT, YOU HAVE AN ADJUSTMENT, UH, OF ABOUT $238,000 IN, IN RATES.
UM, ALL SYNERGY'S RESPONSE AND THE, THE RESPONSE THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE IHE SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE CITY'S FINANCIAL POLICIES, UM, A RATE RATE ACCURACY REVIEW SHALL BE COMPLETED EVERY FIVE YEARS AT A MINIMUM.
UM, BUT IT DOESN'T PRE PREVENT ALL ENERGY FROM COMING IN IN A SHORTER TIME PERIOD.
MOREOVER, IN THEIR MIND, YOU BEGIN TO INCUR RATE CASE EXPENSES, UM, SOME PERIOD BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY FILE THE RATE CASE, EVEN THOUGH A RATE CASE MIGHT NOT BE FOR FIVE YEARS.
YOU KNOW, YOU MAY START A YEAR IN ADVANCE HIRING A CONSULTANT TO DO A COST OF SERVICE STUDY, AND YOU DON'T WANT TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE YOU'RE, WHAT THEY REFER TO AS PANING, UH, RATE CASE EXPENSES, WHERE RATE PAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THE, THE EXPENSES FROM THE LAST CASE AT THE SAME TIME AS THEY'RE PAYING EXPENSES FROM THE, THE NEXT CASE.
BUT AGAIN, REASONABLE MINDS CAN DIFFER AS TO AN APPROPRIATE AMORTIZATION PERIOD.
UH, AND THEY FREQUENTLY DO AT CASES OVER AT THE COMMISSION TELL LAKE CENTER.
UH, MAY I PRETEND, CAN I ASK A GOOD QUESTION? YOU, YOU CERTAINLY MAY.
UM, IT'S JUST AN OBSERVATION AND YOU, AND YOU CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHERE TO LOOK FOR THAT.
UH, THIS IS A VERY HELPFUL LISTING OF THE ISSUES.
UM, AND, UM, I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN POINT THE PUBLIC TO, UM, A DOCUMENT THAT, UM, THAT, UM, DOES A SIDE BY SIDE FOR EACH OF THESE ISSUES THAT, THAT TALKS ABOUT THE DIFFERENT POSITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN.
I MEAN, THIS IS HELPFUL TO HAVE YOU, UM, EXPLAIN THEM AND FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS, BUT I SUSPECT THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO FOLLOW.
SO IS CAN YOU POINT US TO A DOCUMENT THAT'S OUT THERE? SURE.
UH, ACTUALLY, UM, WE DID PREPARE A, WHAT WE CALLED A SCORECARD THAT SHOWED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUSTIN ENERGY WITH THE ICA AND THEN WITH THE I E MM-HMM.
IT'S KIND OF JUST LIKE BA IT LOOKS BASICALLY LIKE THIS.
DOES, DO YOU HAVE IT ORGANIZED BY, BY THESE ISSUES, MA'AM? IS IT ORGANIZED BY THESE ISSUES? IT, IT IS, BUT WE HAVE SINCE, UM, ALSO PUT TOGETHER WHAT WE CALL IT DPL OR DECISION POINT LIST, WHICH IS A SAME, SAME FORMAT, SORT OF AN EXCEL SHEET THAT'S GOT, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE COLUMNS, BUT IT INCLUDES THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ALL THE PARTIES, UM, BECAUSE IT INCLUDES THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ALL THE PARTIES.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, THE, YOU KNOW, THE P FROM TIME TO TIME AND A BIG CASE HAS RELIED UPON, UH, AND, AND ALLOWS, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED TO KIND OF SEE ALL IN A, IN A TABLE FORMAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PARTIES.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT AVAILABLE.
UM, I'D JUST LIKE TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW WHERE THAT IS.
IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO FOLLOW ALONG, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE DIFFICULTY.
WELL, YOU CAN PUT IT ON, PUT THAT ON THE COURT'S WEBSITE IF YOU LIKE, AND WE CAN PUT IT UP ON THE MESSAGE BOARD.
UM, IT SHOULD BE IN INBOXES SO WE CAN PUT IT UP ON, WELL, I'M NOT SO CONCERNED ABOUT MYSELF.
I'VE GOT ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION.
IT'S JUST HARD TO FOLLOW FOR THE PUBLIC.
AND SO I JUST, I KNOW THERE'S INFORMATION.
IF WE COULD JUST TELL THEM WHERE IT IS.
AND I THINK YOUR SUGGESTION YOU JUST MADE IS A GOOD IDEA.
AND, AND IT'LL BE IN THE BACKUP TOO WITH ALL THE RAPE CASE, UM, DOCUMENTS.
AND I'M PROBABLY GONNA REGRET PROPOSING THIS, BUT IN FAIRNESS, WHAT WHAT WE MIGHT DO IS, UH, CIRCULATE THAT TO THE PARTY SINCE IT DOES HAVE A SUMMARY OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND WHILE I'M HOPE THEY'RE LISTENING, WHILE I'M NOT ASKING FOR A, YOU KNOW, A WHOLESALE REWRITE, I ALSO WANNA REFLECT THEIR, THEIR POSITIONS, UH, ACCURATELY.
SO, UM, WE'LL DO THAT QUICKLY, HOPEFULLY, AND THEN GET THAT POSTED ON THE, ON THE WEBSITE SO THAT FOLKS CAN SEE IT.
I APPRECIATE THIS AND I KNOW YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK AND THANK YOU COUNCIL MEMBER POOL.
AND I, I JUST WANNA ADD THERE IS THE, THE AUSTIN
[02:35:01]
ENERGY REBUTTAL, WHICH FOR THOSE WHO WANT MORE DETAIL, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL, RIGHT? AND I THINK THE, THE I E, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK OF AS FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS, DOES A GOOD JOB OF SUMMARIZING THE, THE, UM, COMPETING EVIDENCE THAT, UH, WAS PRESENTED BEFORE HIM AND I, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN AN UNDERSTANDABLE WAY WHERE HE SAYS, ALL ENERGY SAYS THIS, THE PAR OTHER PARTIES SAY THAT, HERE'S WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT.UM, UH, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO CONTINUE OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE'RE, UH, WHATEVER'S YOUR PLEASURE? I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE.
CUZ IF WE DON'T FIGURE THIS OUT, WE'RE NOT GONNA MOVE FORWARD.
SO, UM, THEN, THEN, UH, JUST A GOOD A TIME AS ANY, OKAY.
I'LL TRY TO BE, UM, QUICK, UM, TOWN, LAKE EX, UH, CENTER.
SO AS YOU KNOW, AUSTIN ENERGY'S MOVED TO A, A NEW HEADQUARTERS.
UH, THEY STILL OWN THE TOWN LAKE CENTER, UM, TWO WOMEN RATE PAYERS.
ONE OF THE INTERVENERS IN THE CASE, UM, PROPOSED TO AMORTIZE, UM, 30.5 MILLION AS AN OFFSET TO REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
BASICALLY, THEY TOOK, UH, SOME TYPE OF EVALUATION OR APPRAISAL THAT I, I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY GOT IT, BUT, UM, IT MAY HAVE EVEN BEEN CREATED BY THE CITY FOR ALL I KNOW.
BUT ANYHOW, THEY, THEY FELT THAT THAT WAS A, YOU KNOW, AN ASSET THAT THE UTILITY OWNS AND THAT, UH, RATE PAYERS SHOULD GET BENEFIT FOR THAT, THE VALUE OF THAT ASSET SPREAD OVER A FIVE YEAR TIME PERIOD.
AUSTIN ENERGY SAID IN RESPONSE THAT, UH, THEY HAVE NOT ENTERED INTO ANY, ANY FIRM AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING FOR THE SALE OR TRANSFER.
I MEAN, BASICALLY IT WAS AUSTIN ENERGY KINDA ARGUING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID ON OTHER ISSUES, BASICALLY, THAT THAT TRANSACTION IS NOT OCCURRED AND IT'S NOT KNOWN AND MEASURABLE AT THIS TIME.
SO IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE IT IN AS AN OFFSET TO RATES AT THIS TIME.
UM, AND THE IE AGREED, UH, AND MADE NO ADJUSTMENT THERE.
UM, OTHER, OTHER EXPENSES, FPP THAT'S FAYETTE AND NACODOCHES, UM, SIERRA CLUB AND SON ARGUED THAT ALL OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FAYETTE POWER PLANT SHOULD BE DISALLOWED BECAUSE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD SUPPORTING THE PRUDENCE OF THE UTILITIES.
CONTINUED INVESTMENT IN THE PLANT.
UM, AUSTIN ENERGY, UM, PROPOSED NO ADJUSTMENT.
UM, AND THEIR POSITION WAS THAT, UM, THE PRUDENCE OF THE PLANT'S INVESTMENT, UM, HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADDRESSED, UH, AND IS APPROPRIATE.
AND ME MOREOVER, UH, THE, THE POWER THE PLANT, UH, IT CONTINUES TO OPERATE AND PRODUCES, UH, ELECTRICITY THAT HAS VALUE TO CUSTOMERS, UM, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO, UH, IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
AND BASICALLY THEIR ARGUMENT IS AS LONG AS THE PLANT'S OPERATING, THEN IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN RIGHTS.
AND IF THEY HAVE TO CONTINUE TO MAKE, UM, EXPENDITURES TO KEEP THE PLANT RUNNING, THEN THOSE ARE, ARE REASONABLE AND SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITHIN RATES.
UM, I I THINK THAT SIERRA CLUB AND SON'S ARGUMENT WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE POLICY OF THE CITY TO, TO TRY TO SHUT THE PLANT DOWN.
AND WHILE I DON'T SPEAK TO THAT TODAY, UH, THE FACT IS THE PLANT IS CURRENTLY RUNNING AND AS LONG AS IT'S RUNNING, THEN IT'S PROVIDING SOME BENEFIT AND THE COST SHOULD BE, UM, RECOVERED THAT YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE PLANT.
AND OF COURSE, ALL ENERGY ALSO POINTS OUT THAT THEY'RE ONLY A JOINT OWNER.
UH, AND SO LC A HAS A SAY IN THIS AS WELL.
UM, OTHER EXPENSES, AN NACODOCHES MR. ROBBINS PROPOSED LOWERING THE COST OF THE NATS PLANT, UM, THAT, THAT IT BE ANALYZED AND PROPOSED TWO POTENTIAL POINTS OF SAVINGS.
UM, NACODOCHES IS NOT INCLUDED IN BASE RATES AND SO WAS DETERMINED TO BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE CASE.
UM, INTERNALLY GENERATED FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION NX, P T I C, AND I BELIEVE CCARE ALL RECOMMENDED THAT THE UTILITY CHANGED THE LEVEL OF DEBT TO EQUITY FUNDING.
UH, WHEN THEY INVEST IN CAPITAL PRO, UH, PROJECTS SPECIFICALLY, UM, NXP RECOMMENDED THAT AUSTIN CHANGE ITS INTERNALLY GENERATED FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION LEVEL SO THAT IT TARGETS A 35% RATHER THAN 50%, UM, EQUITY, UM, BASIS AND BASICALLY TAKE ON, UH, GREATER DEBT.
T UM, MADE A SIMILAR PROPOSAL BUT SUGGESTED THAT IT BE REDUCED TO 40% AND THAT WAS SHARED BY CCARE.
UM, AUSTIN ENERGY'S PROPOSAL WAS THAT WHEN YOU TAKE ON MORE DEBT, IT DOES COME AT A COST TO RATE PAYERS, IT CAN POTENTIALLY IMPACT YOUR CREDIT RATINGS, UH, AND THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO, UM, MAINTAIN IT'S, UM, GOAL OF ACHIEVING A 50 50, UM, CASH TO DEBT APPROACH.
UM, AND THAT AGAIN, WAS ADOPTED BY THE I GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.
I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
AUSTIN, UH, ENERGY INCLUDED $120 MILLION IN RATES FOR THE GENERAL FUND, UM, AMOUNT.
[02:40:01]
A KNOWN AND MEASURABLE ADJUSTMENT TO THE TEST YEAR.UM, GENERAL FUND TRANSFERRED TO ALIGN IT WITH THE PROPOSED BASED RATES.
A NUMBER OF PARTIES INCLUDING TWO WOMEN RATE PAYERS, NXP C CARE AND ICA, ALL PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.
THE, UM, THE I E AGREED, UM, AGREED WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND SAID THAT, THAT IT SHOULD BE REDUCED TO 115 MILLION AND THAT THAT SHOULD BE THE AMOUNT THAT IS INCLUDED IN RATES.
AND THAT'S HOW YOU GET THE, THE DELTA BETWEEN THE 135.7 RECOMMENDED BY AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE 131.3 RECOMMENDED BY THE IE.
AND YES, I, I'M AWARE THAT THAT'S NOT EXACTLY A $5 MILLION DELTA AND THAT'S BECAUSE IN PART, UM, CUSTOMERS PAY A GFT ON THE GFT.
I WANNA UNDERSTAND, UM, AS I READ THE IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINERS COMMENTS AND COLLECTED SUMMARIES, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE POINTS THAT WERE BEING MADE IS THAT THE POINTS THAT WERE BEING MADE WERE THAT THE PREVIOUS YEARS DID NOT AMOUNT TO AS MUCH AS AE WAS CLAIMING AS A REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
WHEN I HEAR FOLKS TALK, UM, LIKE CCARE AND OTHERS, THEY SEEM TO BE ASKING FOR A FREEZE ON THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.
TO ME, THERE'S A, A DIFFERENT POSITION, WHICH IS TO SAY THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE, OF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, WE THINK IT SHOULD BE CLOSER TO, I'M DOING IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD CUZ I CAN'T FIND THE AMOUNT HERE.
I CAN ACTUALLY NOW 32 ON PAGE 32, I THINK, I THINK THE INTERN, UM, IMPARTIAL HEARING EXAMINER WAS SAYING IT SHOULD BE CLOSER TO 1 14, 1 15 BASED ON HISTORICAL DATA.
WHAT I THINK I HEAR SOME OF THE IMPART, SOME OF THE INTERVENERS SAYING IS THAT WE WANT THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER FROZEN AT THAT AMOUNT.
WHAT, WHAT I'M WEIGHING, BECAUSE I MENTIONED THIS THE OTHER DAY, WHAT I'M WEIGHING IS HAVING, HAVING THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AMOUNT IN THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT CLOSER TO WHAT THE HISTORICAL RECORD TELLS US, WHICH IS 1 14 1 15, NOT THE ONE 20 THAT'S IN AUSTIN ENERGY'S CALCULATIONS, BUT NOT ACTUALLY FREEZING IT AT THAT AMOUNT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT POSES A PROBLEM IF, IF IT'S NOT, IF IT'S COMING IN HIGHER AND THEN WE HAVE TO ADJUST THE RATES POTENTIALLY.
BUT, UM, MR. BACCATO DOES THAT, CAN YOU BETTER ARTICULATE WHAT I'M STRUGGLING FOR HERE? I JUST, I JUST WANNA, I'LL TRY, I JUST WANNA RECOGNIZE THAT I SEE A DIFFERENT, I HEAR PEOPLE SAYING DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT THE, ABOUT IT.
ONE IS ABOUT HOW MUCH WE INCLUDE IN THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, WHICH I BELIEVE I MAY AGREE WITH.
I'M STILL DELIBERATING ON IT, BUT BY NO MEANS DO I WANNA SEE THAT THEN DICTATE, YOU KNOW, BE THE CEILING FOR THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER IF THE REVENUES ARE HIGH ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD AMOUNT TO MORE THAN ONE 15.
SO IF YOU INCLUDE 115 OR 120, WHATEVER NUMBER, WE'LL SELL YOU 115 FOR, UH, FOR NOW, IF YOU INCLUDE 115 MILLION IN RATES, THAT'S WHAT THE UTILITY'S GOING TO COLLECT FROM CUSTOMERS AND RIGHTS.
SO SHOW WITH THE GFT, IF YOU DON'T FREEZE IT AND REVENUES GROW, THE UTILITY WILL CONTINUE TO PAY 12% OF, OF REVENUES TO THE, TO THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.
AND SO, UM, THEY WILL PAY MORE THAN THE 115 THAT THEY'RE COLLECTING FROM CUSTOMERS, HOWEVER, THEY WILL BE COLLECTING MORE REVENUES.
AND SO, UM, THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS THERE THAT'RE JUST HAVING TO CONTINUE TO PAY THAT 12% OVER TO THE CITY.
AND I THINK WHAT MR. UH, SALINAS WAS SAYING IS THAT IF YOU FREEZE IT, IT MEANS THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT RATE PERIOD, WHAT AUSTIN ENERGY IS COLLECTING AND WHAT THEY PAY TO THE CITY WILL REMAIN THE SAME OR FROZEN.
UH, SO THAT THERE'S, EVEN IF REVENUES CHANGE LIKE, AND THEY CAN GO DOWN AS WELL, THEN THE AMOUNT IS FIXED.
I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING.
I YEAH, AND I AND I THINK THAT'S, THANK YOU.
I, AND THAT HELPS ME MAYBE BETTER ARTICULATE WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD FREEZE THEM.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THEM AT 12%, BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE THERE'S A PRETTY REASONABLE CASE THAT THE NUMBER THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT IS CLOSER TO 1 14 1 15 THAN IT IS ONE 20.
AND I THINK ANOTHER APPROACH, I DUNNO, COLLEAGUES HAVE HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT AT THE MOMENT.
I THINK THAT'S CLEARLY ONE OF THE PLACES WHERE WE COULD GET, UM, SOME MOVEMENT IN THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
BUT AUSTIN ENERGY, AS THEY'VE NOTED, DOESN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING THAT CONCESSION WITHOUT DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL.
AND I'LL JUST ADD IN, THAT'S WHY I'M TALKING ABOUT 31.3 MILLION BECAUSE OF THE REVENUE.
SO YOU'RE ADJUSTING THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT AT THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER, BUT ARE YOU, ARE THAT'S 20 ALSO PROPOSING THERE BE A FREEZE? OR ARE YOU JUST SAYING THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT? YEAH, I THINK IT'S NOT FOR YOU CUZ IT'S ALSO, YOU AGREE WITH THE, YOU AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION THAT IT SHOULD BE ABOUT
[02:45:01]
$4 MILLION LESS.I SEE THE, UM, THE GENERAL REVENUE TRANSFER AS A PIECE OF THE CALCULATION TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE CURRENTLY.
I WOULDN'T WANNA FREEZE IT BECAUSE THAT SETS IT AND, AND CALCIFIES IT GOING FORWARD.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARY.
BUT I DO SEE THAT AS A SOURCE OF, UH, SOME OF THE RESOLUTION FOR THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE UNTANGLING HERE.
MARK DOMBROSKI, CFO OF LOST ENERGY, I CAN EXPLAIN THE ONE 15.
SO OUR GENERAL FUND TRANSFER IS 12% OF NET REVENUES AND WE USE A THREE YEAR AVERAGE.
SO FOR THE 23 BUDGET WE USED 2021 AND 22, AND THAT NUMBER IS 115 MILLION FOR OUR RATE REVIEW, WE USE A TEST YEAR AND WE USED 12% OF THE TEST YEAR REVENUE, AND THAT IS 120 MILLION.
AND WHEN WE WERE HAVING A HEARING WAS THE EXACT SAME DAY THAT THE COUNCIL, UM, WAS PRESENTED TO BUDGET BY THE CITY MANAGER.
AND I WAS PRESENTED A PAGE OUT OF THE 23 BUDGET BY ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS AND THEY SAID, CAN YOU READ WHAT THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER IS? AND I SAID, IT SAYS 115 MILLION.
AND THEY SAID, WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO COLLECT 120? THE DIFFERENCE IS ONE IS A HISTORICAL NUMBER THAT'S IN THE BUDGET.
THE OTHER ONE IS A TEST YEAR CALCULATION.
FY 23 BUDGET IS NOT THE SAME AS THE TEST YEAR.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION ARISES.
MAY I, MR. TIM BROSKI? YEAH, I THOUGHT THAT IT NEEDED TO BE, I I THOUGHT THAT THE INTERVENERS WERE SUGGESTING LOOKING AT IT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND THAT IT TYPICALLY IS ONE 15.
SO FOR, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS.
I BELIEVE IN FY 23, IT'S 115 MILLION, I BELIEVE IN 22 IS EITHER ONE 14 OR W ONE 15.
IT GOES UP ABOUT A MILLION MILLION A HALF EACH YEAR BECAUSE OUR REVENUES ARE GROWING EACH YEAR.
SO WE'RE ADDING MORE CUSTOMERS FROM GETTING MORE REVENUE AND IT'S ALWAYS 12% OF THE THREE YEAR AVERAGE.
BUT WHAT YEAR WAS IT? SO IF IT WAS ONE 15 AND 2022 AND ONE 15 AND 2023, BUT YOU ARE USING ONE 20 MEN RIGHT, WHICH IS BASED ON 2020.
I MEAN, IT DOES SOUND LIKE 2020 WAS A HIGHER YEAR THAN 2022 AND 2023.
AND SO THAT SEEMS TO ME THE CASE THAT'S BEING MADE THAT YOUR, THAT THE TEST YEAR WAS OUT OF WAS WAS OUT OF THE ORDINARY OR WAS HIGHER THAN THE TWO YEARS OR THE, THE SEVERAL YEARS THAT CAME AFTER IT.
YEAH, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER COMES OUT, IT IS 12% OF NET REVENUES.
IT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE CALCULATION PULL OF ALL YOUR NET REVENUE TIMES 12%.
IF REVENUES GO UP AND DOWN THAT THREE YEAR AVERAGE, YOU'RE GOING TO GET, UH, MORE OR LESS OVER OVER TIME.
AND WE DO A THREE YEAR AVERAGE TO SMOOTH IT OUT SO YOU DON'T GET WILD SWINGS.
LIKE IN 22 WE HAD A REALLY HOT SUMMER, UH, SO WE GENERATE A LOT OF REVENUE, SO THE GENERAL FUND WILL WOULD'VE GONE UP, RIGHT.
BUT USING A THREE YEAR ROLLING AVERAGE, IT SMOOTHS THOSE REVENUES OUT AND THAT'S THE WAY WE DO IT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME, THERE'S SOME MOVEMENT ON THE DIAS TO, TO KIND OF GO TO THAT ONE 15 NUMBER, BUT SO WE'LL WE CAN CONTINUE TALKING ABOUT IT.
CAN I ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION? YOU START AGAIN.
SO, SO THE THREE YEAR AVERAGE IS, SO COUNCIL MEMBER TOBO, ARE YOU SAYING THE THREE YEAR AVERAGE IS THE 1 14, 1 15? IS THAT, WHAT DOES THAT COMPORT WITH WHAT YOU ALL ARE THINKING? RIGHT.
SO FOR PHYSICS YEAR 23, THE CURRENT YEAR WE'RE IN OUR GENERAL FUND TRANSFER IS 115 MILLION, AND THAT'S A THREE YEAR AVERAGE OF 2021 AND 22.
OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONFIRMING.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT I'M LEANING TOWARDS THAT REDUCTION AS WELL.
I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT THE RATIONAL, NOT CERTAIN WHAT THE RATIONALE IS TO BE TO, AND PERHAPS SHOULD WANNA SPEAK TO THAT, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT THE RATIONALE IS TO STICK TO THE TEST TEST YEAR.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WE LOOK AT THAT FOR PURPOSES OF ANALYSIS, BUT WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT WAYS TO, UM, TO ADJUST THE IMPACT ON THE, UM, RATE PAYERS, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THAT THAT'S RATHER ARBITRARY JUST LOOKING AT THE, UH, TEST YEAR.
SO I'M NOT HEARING A RATIONALE FOR IT OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT'S A TEST YEAR.
THE OUTSIDE CITY RATE PAYERS HF ALSO MADE A RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO THE GFT.
THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE REDUCED TO, FOR THOSE CUSTOMERS TO ELIMINATE, UM, THEM PAYING A GENERAL FUND TRANSFER ALTOGETHER.
UM, AUSTIN INTERVIEW'S RESPONSE TO THIS WAS THAT THE SETTLEMENT IN 2013
[02:50:01]
AND DOCKET 4 0 6 27 OVER THE COMMISSION WAS A BLACK BOX SETTLEMENT THAT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER.AND SO THERE'S NO LASTING BINDING, UH, AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AND THE OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS.
MOREOVER, UM, IS THERE POSITION THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO COLLECT A, A GENERAL FUND TRANSFER OR WHAT CAN BE ANALOGIZED AT TIMES TO A RETURN FOR AN INVESTOR ON UTILITY FROM ALL CUSTOMERS? UM, THAT THERE'S NOT REALLY A TEST OF WHETHER YOU RECEIVE A DIRECT BENEFIT OR NOT, UH, BEFORE YOU'RE, UM, REQUIRED TO PAY A, A GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AND THAT IT'S AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
UM, AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER THREE ACTUALLY, UH, ISSUES, UM, THAT WERE CONTESTED IN THE CASE.
SO LATE PAYMENT FEES ARE REVENUES THAT THE UTILITY COLLECTS SEPARATE AND APART FROM ITS BASE RATES AND THAT REVENUE IS USED TO, UH, REDUCE THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
IT'S AN OFFSET TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT.
AUSTIN ENERGY DID NOT MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE TEST YOUR LATE PAYMENT FEE AMOUNT, BUT THE ICA PROPOSED AN UPWARD ADJUSTMENT, MEANING THAT THE, IN HIS OPINION, THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE REDUCED BY 2.2 MILLION.
UH, AND HE EXCLUDED FISCAL YEAR, UH, 2020 AND 2021 DUE TO C AND INSTEAD PROPOSED AN AVERAGE OF FISCAL YEARS 18 AND 19 TO DEVELOP A NEW LATE PAYMENT FEE ADJUSTMENT.
AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESPONSE WAS THAT IT WAS, IT WAS IMPRO USED THE 2018 AND 2019 TIME PERIOD BECAUSE THOSE, UM, TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE CURRENT TEST YEAR OF 2021 ARE OUTDATED, THAT THEY'LL BE FOUR YEARS OLD BY THE, UM, PRIOR TO THE FISCAL YEAR, UM, EXCUSE ME, PRIOR TO THE RATE YEAR WHEN RATES GO INTO EFFECT, UH, AND THAT COVID AND ITS IMPACTS ARE, WERE ONGOING AND, AND REACH BACK IN TIME, UM, BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, UM, DOES NOT REFLECT THE CURRENT ONGOING REALITY OF THE PANDEMIC'S EFFECTS.
AND THE, I ACTUALLY AGREED WITH, WITH AUSTIN ENERGY ON THAT POINT AND, AND, UH, RECOMMENDED REJECTION OF THE ICAS PROPOSAL.
UM, ALSO ON OTHER REVENUES THAT FACILITIES RENTALS, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY MADE THREE ADJUSTMENTS TO OTHER REVENUES, INCLUDING REDUCING FACILITIES RENTALS BY ABOUT 1.8 MILLION TO REFLECT, UH, AN ADJUSTMENT FOR POLL ATTACHMENT REVENUE THAT AUSTIN ENERGY DOES NOT EXPECT TO COLLECT FROM A, A CUSTOMER.
THE ICA RECOMMENDED THAT, UM, THERE BE AN ADJUSTMENT TO REDUCE OTHER REVENUES BY 1.8 MILLION, THAT IT SHOULD, THAT, THAT IT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED, UM, AND THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY THAT, THAT THERE WILL BE NO RECOVERY OF THE BALANCES THAT ARE DUE IN RESPONSE AND REBUTTAL.
AUSTIN ENERGY ARGUED THAT THE THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS ASSOCIATED WITH A DISPUTED BILL FROM ONE CUSTOMER, A LARGE CUSTOMER, UH, AND THAT IT HAS BEEN, IT HAS BEEN PASSED DUE FOR OVER A YEAR, UH, AND THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE IN THEIR MIND TO, UM, MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE BOOKS, UM, AS THEY DO NOT EXPECT TO COLLECT THAT AMOUNT GOING FORWARD.
UH, AND SO THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO SO UNDER GENERALLY ACCEPTED, UM, ACCOUNTING OF PRINCIPALS AND THE I E RECOMMENDED, UH, THAT, THAT, UH, THE RCAS RECOMMENDATION BE, UH, REJECTED ON THAT POINT.
AND THEN LASTLY, UM, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BILLING DETERMINANTS AND WHETHER IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO, TO THE 2021 TEST YEAR ADJUSTMENTS.
UM, THERE WERE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE T AND X P C CARE AND TWO WOMEN RATE PAYER BASICALLY ALL ARGUING THAT THE, UM, IMPACTS OF WINTER STORM U AND COVID ON THE TEST YEAR SALES, UM, MADE IT APPROPRIATE OR MAKE IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE BILLING DETERMINANTS.
UM, AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESPONSE WAS THAT, UM, TEST YEAR SALES WERE WEATHER NORMALIZED.
UM, THEY DID PRESENT THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER ON WINTER STORM YU, UH, IN THEIR EXCEPTIONS AND POINTED OUT THAT WHEN THEY LOOK BACK AT THE ACTUAL KWH SALES FOR FEBRUARY AND MARCH OF 2021, WHEN, WHEN WINTER STORM YURI AND ITS EFFECTS WERE OCCURRING, THAT THE ACTUAL SALES EXCEEDED THE BUDGETED AND TEST YOUR NORMALIZED ENERGY SALES.
AND SO THEREFORE IT WAS THEIR VIEW THAT IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT TO, TO THE BILLING DETERMINANTS.
AGAIN, THE IE, UM, AGREED WITH AUSTIN ENERGY ON THAT POINT AND, UH, RECOMMENDED NO CHANGE BE DONE.
SO THAT'S A, I WOULD SAY FAIRLY HIGH LEVEL, UH, SUMMARY OF, OF, UH, THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED BY SOME OF THE INTERVENERS AND AUSTIN ENERGY'S RESPONSES TO IT.
I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO MORE DETAILS IF YOU'D LIKE, UM, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE ALL, UM, REAL FACT SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH,
[02:55:01]
UH, EACH WITH A HISTORY OF THEIR OWN OWN COUNCIL MEMBER.ARE YOU READY TO GO INTO QUESTIONS, JUST GENERAL QUESTIONS? SURE.
IS THERE MORE OF YOUR PRESENTATION? NO, THAT'S ALL.
JUST WANNA REMIND FOLKS THAT THEY ALSO WANTED TO PRESENT ON THE CAP.
UM, SO WE CERTAINLY CAN GO AHEAD AND, AND ASK QUESTIONS, BUT WE'LL ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE WE LEAVE TIME TO DO.
I WANTED TO TALK TO AUSTIN ENERGY ABOUT THE GRADUALISM.
UM, WHO WANTS TO TAKE THAT OFF? AND THIS IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, AND WE EMPLOYED THE STRATEGY OF GRADUALISM WITH OUR ADOPTION OF THE, UM, THE, UH, APPROVAL OF HOW WE WERE GONNA HANDLE THE POWER SUPPLY ADJUSTMENT LAST MONTH.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COLLECTING OVER AMORTIZING OVER A PERIOD OF TIME IN THIS CONTEXT AS WELL.
WE, WE ARE CALLING THAT GRADUALISM.
SO I WANTED TO ASK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT, WHETHER IMPLEMENTING A THREE YEAR, UH, PLAN TO AMORTIZE THE DEBT, A THREE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THESE INCREASES TO THE CUSTOMER CHARGE, IF THAT WOULD WORK HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE WERE TO INCREASE OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS WHAT THE CUSTOMER CHARGE WOULD BE, AND I'M INTERESTED IN ANY APPROACHES THAT WOULD LESSEN THE RATE SHOCK THAT MAY BE EXPERIENCED FOR UTILITY CUSTOMERS.
I THINK WE ALL ARE IN AGREEMENT ABOUT THAT, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE ABOUT THIS PIECE HERE BECAUSE THE, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT, THAT WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO PAY BACK AND THE WHOLE WE'RE TRYING TO FILL DOESN'T, ISN'T STATIC.
SO IS A GRADUAL APPROACH TO THE REVENUE REQUIREMENT OVER THREE YEARS, IS THAT A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH? AND WOULD YOU RECOMMEND IT? YES, YOU COULD DO THAT.
SO THERE'S A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THE ENERGY CHARGE.
AND SO IF YOU WERE TO INCREASE THE CUSTOMER CHARGE A SET AMOUNT EACH YEAR, UM, YOU COULD THEN REDUCE THE ENERGY CHARGE A PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT EACH YEAR AS WELL.
EACH ONE WOULD BE DESIGNED TO COLLECT THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE, BUT IT WOULD BE SEPARATE BETWEEN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE AND THAT.
SO DO WE EVER CATCH UP? WELL, IT WOULDN'T BE CATCHING UP.
IT'D JUST BE HOW YOU WOULD COLLECT IT, WHETHER IT'S IN THE CUSTOMER CHARGE OR THE ENERGY ENERGY RATE.
UH, THE MORE YOU LEAVE IN THE ENERGY RATE, THE MORE VOLATILE IT IS.
SO IF YOU HAVE A MILD YEAR, YOU'LL UNDER COLLECT.
IF YOU HAVE A HOT YEAR, THEN YOU'LL OVER COLLECT.
UM, BUT THE RATES WOULD BE DESIGNED TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE FROM THAT CLASS OF CUSTOMER THE SAME AMOUNT EACH YEAR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? NO, THIS TIME.
UM, I WOULD JUST ADD ONE LAST THING TO THAT JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THE GRADUAL APPROACH WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EUC, UH, MEMBERSHIP.
COUNCIL MEMBER POOL, UM, WHO IS PRESENTING FOR THE CAT, CARRIE, START OVER 10.
AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE, UM, SOME COLLEAGUES WHO ARE NOT ON THE DIAS WHO REALLY CARE ABOUT THIS.
I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOUR STAFFS PLEASE, UM, BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION.
WELL, AND, UH, CITY MANAGER, MY NAME IS CARRIE OVERTON.
I'M THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER AND CHIEF CUSTOMER OFFICER AT AUSTIN ENERGY.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE, UM, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW WE CAN EXPAND, UH, THE CAPS, UH, DISCOUNT PROGRAM.
I ALSO HAVE WITH ME AS PART OF THIS PRESENTATION AND ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE IS JERRY GALVAN, HE'S THE VICE PRESIDENT OF CUSTOMER CARE SERVICES.
AM I GONNA DO THAT? I'M JUST GONNA, OKAY.
UH, BEFORE I GO TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE EXPANSION, UH, I'D LIKE TO FIRST, UH, SHARE WITH YOU SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, JUST A LEVEL SET.
AUSTIN ENERGY MANAGES THESE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN UTILITY SERVICES.
THESE PROGRAMS SUPPORT OUR COMMUNITY THAT ARE THE MOST IN NEED FOR SUPPORT AS A FINANCIAL TEAM HAS MENTIONED TO YOU THROUGHOUT THESE, UM, DELIBERATIONS THAT THE COST FOR THE SHARED SERVICES IS ALLOCATED TO EACH, UM, DEPARTMENT, UM, ACCORDINGLY.
TODAY I'M GOING TO SPECIFICALLY FOCUS ON THE DISCOUNT PROGRAM, UH, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MAIN, UH, ASPECTS
[03:00:01]
OF THE CUSTOMER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.AND I'LL REFER TO IT AS THE CAP.
PROVIDING THESE BENEFICIAL SERVICES TO OUR MOST VULNERABLE CUSTOMERS, HELP THEM IN DAILY, UH, LIVING AND ALSO IN A MULTITUDE OF WAYS.
UM, AND YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT AS WE GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.
WE HAVE A DESIGNATED TEAM WHO WORKS WITH THE COMMUNITIES, OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS, AND DIRECTLY WITH OUR CUSTOMERS, UM, WHO HAVE THE MOST NEED, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT ARE MOST VULNERABLE TO PROVIDE A WRAPAROUND SUITE OF SERVICES FROM ALL OF OUR CAPS PROGRAM.
THESE PROGRAMS, AS REFERENCED IN THE SLIDE, ARE PROVIDED TO CUSTOMERS AT 200% OF FEDERAL POVERTY INCOME LEVEL.
AND THROUGHOUT THE PRESENTATION, I'LL REFER TO IT AS THE, UH, F P I O.
UH, I WANT TO, THIS, THIS THAT I'M SHOWING YOU NOW GIVES YOU, UM, OUR PLAN FOR THE DISCOUNT PROGRAM.
THE PLAN HELPS US MITIGATE SOME OF THE IMPACT OF THE NEW RATE RECOMMENDATIONS TO OUR LIMITED INCOME CUSTOMERS.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE 450,000 RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS IN OUR AE TERRITORY OUT OF THOSE CUSTOMERS YEARLY ANALYSIS THAT WE LOOK AT AND DATA SHOWS AT 93,000 JUST ABOUT, UM, AS A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF DISCOUNT ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS THAT ARE IN OUR TERRITORY.
THIS DATA ALSO IS CONFIRMED BY THE, UH, RECORDS THAT WE RECEIVE FROM THE TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICY, UM, AND PERFORMANCE.
CURRENTLY WE HAVE 35,000 DISCOUNT PARTICIPANTS AND WE, AND OUR PLANS ARE TO GROW THE, UM, PROGRAM OVER TO 50 TO POSSIBLY 60,000 CUSTOMERS, UH, WHICH ARE HOUSEHOLDS.
UM, IN THE PRES PRESENTATION THAT WE'RE MAKING, OUR PLAN IS TO INCREASE THIS INCREMENTALLY OVER A PERIOD OF TIME OF TWO YEARS FROM 15 TO 25,000 HOUSEHOLDS DURING THAT TIME PERIOD TO GRADUALLY BRING THAT ON BOARD.
THE FOCUS OF OUR EXPANSION IS BASED ON THE F P I L AND THIS HELPS IT ALIGN WITH OUR ALREADY CURRENT AND EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF MFI, WHICH OFTENTIMES COME INTO THIS CONVERSATION.
WE THINK THAT THEY SUPPORT EACH OTHER, BUT WE'LL ALSO MAKE SOME REFERENCES TO THE, UM, F UH, F P I L.
UH, IT HELPS, UH, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE MFI, UM, IT IS, UH, THE MULTIFAMILY, UH, INCOME, UH, INDEX.
IT HELPS US TARGET MARKETING AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY.
IT REALLY IS MORE OF AN ECONOMIC SIGNAL FOR THE REAL ESTATE MARKET TO DETERMINE HOME, UH, AFFORDABILITY AS WELL AS EVEN WITHIN THE CITY FOR THOSE TO USE AS IDENTIFIERS FOR SECTION EIGHT HOUSING.
WHEREAS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE F P I L, IT'S AN INDICATOR OF POVERTY.
IT HELPS US TO UNDERSTAND HOW A FAMILY, UM, IS STRUGGLING TO MEET BASIC NEEDS SUCH AS FOOD, UTILITY AND HOUSING IN THE ENTIRE WRAPAROUND SERVICE, MEDICINE, ET CETERA.
UM, AND THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT IN THE CAPS PROGRAM.
HOLISTICALLY, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, UH, TO PROVIDE SOME OF THAT RELIEF AND EXPANDING THE PROGRAM HAS A COUPLE STEPS TO IT.
IT INCLUDES, UH, QUALIFYING THOSE THAT ARE ALREADY MEETING THE 200, UM, FPI.
PART OF THE BEGINNING OF THAT IS THE FREE LUNCH PROGRAM.
IT TARGETS ADDITIONAL LIMITED INCOME HOUSEHOLDS THROUGHOUT OUR SERVICE TERRITORY.
PRELIMINARY DATA INDICATES THERE ARE 74,000 POTENTIAL HOUSEHOLDS.
HOWEVER, ASSESSING AND RAMPING UP TO INCLUDE THIS PROGRAM WERE REQUIRE SECURING DATA USE AGREEMENTS, THIRD PARTY CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA.
ONCE WE RECEIVE THAT TO REMOVE ANY UNINTENTIONAL CROSS PROGRAM DUPLICATIONS FOR AN EXAMPLE OF HOUSE RECEIVING SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE, UH, PROGRAM KNOWN AS SNAPS AND FREE LUNCH WILL ALREADY BE ENROLLED IN THE PROGRAM.
AND THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SEE THAT NUMBER GOING TO 74,000 HOUSEHOLDS.
IT IS A, A NET FACTOR AFTER WE DO SOME RESEARCH AND CLEANUP WORK.
UM, AN ADDITIONAL CHANGE IS TO THE AUTO ENROLLMENT LIFELINE PROGRAM.
ALTHOUGH THE LIFELINE PROGRAM IS ALREADY CURRENTLY PART OF OUR SELF ENROLLMENT INITIATIVE, CHANGING IT
[03:05:01]
TO AN AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT PROGRAM WILL REQUIRE, UH, DATA USE AGREEMENTS AND THIRD PARTY CHANGES AS WELL.OPERATIONALLY, WE HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE ENROLLMENT EXPEDITIOUSLY BY IMPLEMENTING A FEW MODIFICATIONS.
THESE POTENTIAL DISCOUNT CUSTOMERS ARE ALREADY MEETING THE CURRENT PROGRAM QUALIFIERS.
WE CAN MAINTAIN QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES AND SIMULTANEOUSLY GROW THE PROGRAM.
FIRST, WE CAN MODIFY THE AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT PROCESS BY CHANGING THE NAME MATCH SENSITIVITY INDICATOR, WHICH PROVIDES MORE CUSTOMERS INTO THE AUTO ENROLLMENT.
AND WHAT I'M REFERRING TO HERE IS BY US TAKING A LOOK AT, UM, I'M SORRY.
THE WAY WE, WHEN WE GET OUR DATA, WE DO A MATCH ON DRIVER'S LICENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND ADDRESS.
WHEN WE LOWER THAT SENSITIVITY THAT I'M REFERRING TO WHO JUST ONLY FOR THE NAME MATCHED FROM 95 TO 85, THE CONTROLS THAT WE HAD ARE SO TIGHT THAT IF ALL OF THE OTHER INDICATORS CHECK, BUT A PERSON WHOSE NAME WILLIAM REALLY IS LISTED AS BILL, THEY ARE KICKED OUT OF THE AUTOMATIC PROCESS AND THEN THEY HAVE TO SELF-ENROLL.
UM, BUT ALL OF THE OTHER INDICATORS ARE INDICATING THAT THAT IS THE RIGHT PERSON, THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE AND ALL, ALL OF THE ADDRESS AND INFORMATION, UM, IS ACCURATELY, UM, UH, PRESENTED TO US.
SECONDLY, WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE HOME IMPROVEMENT VALUE FROM, WELL, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT FROM 250,000, UH, TO AROUND 450, UH, THOUSAND DOLLARS.
THE HOME IMPROVEMENT VALUE DEFINED BY THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, UM, IS ABOUT STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY AND NOT ABOUT LAND VALUE.
WE ONLY USE HOME IMPROVEMENT VALUE AS A QUALIFYING MEASURE IN ORDER TO MITIGATE RISING LAND, UH, VALUES ACROSS THE SERVICE TERRITORY.
THIS VALUE IS USED AS PART OF OUR QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL.
THE INCREASE IS SUPPORTED BY HIGHER THAN AVERAGE HISTORICAL DATA FROM THE PAST SEVEN YEARS OF APPRAISAL DISTRICT EVALUATIONS.
THE $250,000 THRESHOLD, IT'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE TWO, UH, 2013, AND IT IS, UH, HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED AND IS NOT KEEPING PACE WITH THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.
BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED ROLLING OUT THOSE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF OUR PLAN, I WANTED TO JUST SIMPLY SHARE WITH YOU THE TIMELINE.
AND I THINK THAT WAS COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN'S QUESTION.
UM, BOTH OPERATIONAL CHANGES AND PROBLEMATIC CHANGES, UH, WILL BRING NEW PARTICIPANTS ON AT ABOUT SIX TO $8,000, UH, UH, SIX TO 8,000 CUSTOMERS, UM, AS EARLY AS JUNE, RIGHT AROUND THE SUMMER OF THIS, UH, UH, NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
AND WITH THE REMAINING OF THAT 20 TO 24,000 THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING COME ON BY THE SUMMER OF 2024, THIS WILL REQUIRE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, DATA ANALYSIS, RESEARCH, AND CONTRACT CHANGES TO, UM, ENSURE THAT WE ARE CAPTURING THE CORRECT POPULATION.
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL MEASURES WILL BE INTER INTEGRATED INTO THE PLAN THROUGHOUT.
BUT THERE ALSO IS ROOM THAT WE PUT AN INTENSIFIED REVIEW DURING 2025 TO STABILIZE THOSE SYSTEMS, CONTRACT CHANGES AND THE REVIEW OF THE CUSTOMERS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVING THOSE BENEFITS, WE WILL BRING BACK FINDINGS AND OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS FOR FUTURE GROWTH OF THAT SAME TOP UH, UH, TARGETED POPULATION.
SO IN CLOSING UH, HERE ARE JUST FEW OF OUR KEY TAKEAWAYS.
OUR PLAN RECOGNIZES THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND THE DISCOUNT PROGRAM BY IMPLEMENTING OPERATIONAL AND PROGRAM DESIGN CHANGES.
WE ARE TARGET AN INCREASE FROM 35,000 PARTICIPANTS TO 50 ON AN AVERAGE OF 50 TO 60,000 HOUSEHOLDS OVER A TWO YEAR PERIOD.
THROUGHOUT THIS TIME PERIOD, WE WILL IMPLEMENT AND EXECUTE A MULTITUDE OF OUTREACH AND MARKETING, UH, CAMPAIGN EFFORTS.
HOWEVER, RIGHT NOW, AT THIS MOMENT, UNTIL MORE DECISIONS ARE MADE THROUGHOUT THE RACE CASE, IT'S TOO EARLY TO QUANTIFY THE SPECIFIC O AND M BUDGET IMPACTS.
BUT I'LL GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THOSE PARTICULAR COSTS THAT COULD INCLUDE EITHER THIRD PARTY ENROLLMENT, CONTRACT CHANGES, AND STAFFING SUPPORT.
OUR TOTAL EFFORT, INCLUDING THE STABILIZATION PERIOD, UM, AS I MENTIONED, WILL TAKE PLACE OVER TWO YEARS.
BUT ALSO SOME OF THAT BE WORKING, WE'LL BE WORKING SIMULTANEOUSLY.
IF WE CAN ACHIEVE MORE, UM, SUCCESS THROUGHOUT THAT TIME PERIOD, OR WHILE WE'RE DOING REVIEWS, WE CERTAINLY WILL ADD MORE, UH, CUSTOMERS TO RECEIVE THAT.
[03:10:01]
ALLOW US TO EVALUATE OUR PROGRESS AND PROVIDE INFORMATION FOR ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE EXPANSIONS.THANK YOU COUNCIL, FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR PLAN TO EXPAND, UH, THE DISCOUNT, UH, CAP PROGRAM.
UH, YOUR HELP IS THOUGH NEEDED AND THAT IS IF YOU AGREE TO THIS RECOMMENDATION, THERE ARE SOME, THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S QUANTIFIED INTO THE TARIFF THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED, BUT THAT WOULD, COULD BE DONE VERY ON SHORT ORDER.
UM, AND THEN ALSO WHAT WE WOULD ASK FOR YOU, WE HAD GIVEN YOU SOME MATERIALS.
UM, MANY OF YOU MAY HAVE HAD SOME MATERIALS HERE, UM, THAT EXPLAINS THE ENTIRE CAP PROGRAM AND THE MARKETING.
BUT AS WE INCREASE OUR MARKETING EFFORTS, WE THINK THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOU TO CONTINUE TO SHARE THIS NEW INFORMATION, WHAT YOU HAVE ADOPTED TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS, BUT ALSO TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT LARGE.
I'LL STOP THERE AND TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL TRY TO ADDRESS THOSE AS MUCH AS AS POSSIBLE.
I THINK THESE ARE REALLY PROMISING DIRECTIONS.
I WANTED TO CLARIFY, UM, WHEN YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES FROM BY COUNSEL FOR THE TARIFF CHANGES IN THE, FOR THOSE TARIFF CHANGES, I WOULD IMAGINE, AND MAYBE LEGAL CAN HELP ME, BUT I THINK WE CAN DO THAT WITHIN, UH, MAYBE A WEEK OR TWO.
BUT IT'S JUST WHAT, WHAT IS THE FORMAL PROCESS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE HIM IS EITHER AT A, AT A POST IT MEETING OR, OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, BUT FOR US TO PREPARE THE DOCUMENT FOR YOU, UM, THAT CAN BE DONE READILY, PRETTY QUICKLY.
DOES THAT HAVE TO BE SEPARATE FROM WHAT WE'RE SETTING THIS RATE WHEN WE SET THE RATE? UM, I'M GONNA REFER TO MARK.
WOULD THAT BE SEPARATE FROM THE RATE PROCEEDING? YEAH.
UH, THE TARIFF CHANGES FOR, UM, YEAH, FOR THE IMPROVEMENT VALUE.
UM, WE COULD INCLUDE IT AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE DOING THE BASE RATE CHANGES, UM, IF, IF THEY SYNC UP.
SO YES, WE COULD DO IT AT THE SAME TIME.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE WOULD DO THAT, LET'S SAY WE'RE VOTING IN DECEMBER, WE WOULD DO THAT IN, THAT'S CORRECT.
DECEMBER, IF YOU AGREE WITH THE, THE POLICY CHANGE, I BELIEVE WE COULD UPDATE THAT.
I MEAN THE, THE CAP PROGRAM IS EMBEDDED IN THE, UM, IN THE RESIDENTIAL RATE TARIFF.
SO IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAD, I THINK A HAD BEEN PLANNING TO BRING THIS TO COUNCIL, UH, AF AFTERWARDS, BUT IT IS PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL RATE TARIFF AND IF IT WAS A DESIRE TO COUNCIL, IT COULD BE INCORPORATED IN WITH THE, WITH THE CHANGES TO THE OVERALL RATES.
I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR MY COLLEAGUES, BUT I THINK THERE'S, WHAT I'VE BEEN HEARING IS A, A BROAD DESIRE TO BE ABLE TO IMPROVE THE CAP PROGRAM.
UM, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S A SCENARIO AT THIS POINT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO RAISE RATES AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT, UM, AND LIKELY A LOT.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I KNOW, KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, TO ADVANCE THESE IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, ALONG WITH THE RATE CASE OF
THE, THE, THE PART, THE MENTION THAT OF, AND SOME OF THOSE OTHER COSTS WON'T BE REALIZED IS PART, PART, UM, THE BASE BASE RATE, BUT TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROGRAM, THIS IS PAID THROUGH THE CBC AND SO WE WON'T SEE THE IMPACTS OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE HERE UNTIL WE RAMP UP AND ADD NEW CUSTOMERS ONTO THE PROGRAM.
AND THAT'LL TAKE SOME TIME TO STABILIZE.
YOU MAY RECALL THE LAST TIME YOU APPROVED US TO GO INTO THE AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT, UM, TO MOVE FROM SOMEWHERE AROUND 10, 10,000 CUSTOMERS, TWO TO 35.
WE STARTED THE PROGRAM AS WE WERE FASHIONING A LITTLE BIT OF THE QUALITY CONTROLS IN IT.
WE ACTUALLY, UM, HAD THE APPROVAL, BUT IT TOOK SOME TIME TO ACTUALLY ADD THOSE CUSTOMERS ON AND WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVER COLLECTION AND IT TURNED OUT THAT IT WORKED WELL BECAUSE WE USED EVERY BIT OF THAT MONEY DURING THE EMERGENCY, UM, UH, PANDEMIC STORM.
SO IT, IT DID GO RIGHT BACK TO, UM, THE CUSTOMERS THAT NEEDED THE MOST HELP.
I, I JUST THINK WOULD BE GOOD IF WE HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF, OF HOW WE'RE MOVING FORWARD ON THAT PIECE.
UM, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RATE CASE, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE THAT I HEARD WHAT THE ANSWER WAS, BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GET GREATER CLARITY ON THAT IN TERMS OF THE OVERLAP OF THE TIMING.
UM, AND HOW WE, HOW WE WOULD DO THAT.
COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE TIMELINE SLIDE? THE WORK LINE SLIDE? YES.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE, SO THE, THE SIX TO EIGHT, UM, THOUSAND IN JUNE OR JULY, THAT COMES FROM THE, UM, THE, THE CHANGES RELATED TO THE NAME MATCHING, RIGHT? UH, PRIMARILY YES.
IN THE HOME IMPROVEMENT VALUE, YES.
SO LET ME ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE NAME MATCHING.
[03:15:01]
UH, HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S 75 AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, 50 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.IS IT, IS IT, UM, IS IT JUST THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO CATCH THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT YOU MENTIONED EARLIER? CUZ RIGHT NOW IT KICKS OUT EVEN IF RIGHT NOW IF EVERYTHING MATCHES EXCEPT FOR LIKE THE FIRST NAME, THEN IT KICKS PEOPLE OUT.
SO AT 75, IS THAT WHERE YOU CAN, YOU CAN MATCH EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE FIRST NAME COUNCIL MEMBER? I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING AS GO FROM A 95%, UM, ACCURACY MATCH TO 85.
BUT THE SAME CONCEPT IS WHAT YOU, WHAT YOU SAID WAS CORRECT MM-HMM.
UM, AND SO WHAT WE HAVE FOUND OVER THE YEARS THAT, UM, WE WERE ALSO ASKED TO, UM, ADD A LOT OF QUALITY CONTROLS.
BUT WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT DIFFERENCE ABOUT 10% BY MOVING 85, WE WOULD STILL GET THE SAME 100% MATCH ON THE PERSON'S, UM, DRIVER'S LICENSE AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
THE DIFFERENCE MIGHT BE, AGAIN, AS I SAID, WILLIAM VERSUS BILL OR DANIEL VERSUS UM, DAN.
AND, BUT, BUT, UM, THAT IS THE SAME, UM, ADDRESS FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL.
SO IF IT KICK OUT, WE WERE ALREADY LOSING 10% OF THOSE ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS THAT COULD NOT AUTO ENROLL MM-HMM.
UH, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.
UM, FLYERS AND, UM, ANOTHER OUTREACH TO GET THAT PERSON TO, TO APPLY.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, FROM WORKING WITH THE SOCIAL SECUR, UM, THE SOCIAL SERVICES COMMUNITY, IT GETS MORE DIFFICULT TO GET THEM BACK INTO THE PROGRAM.
I'M JUST, MY QUESTION REALLY IS, IS THAT ENOUGH? YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M FAMILIAR WITH NAME MATCHING.
I'VE DONE THOSE KINDS OF THINGS BEFORE IN PREVIOUS PREVIOUS LIFE, SO I KNOW YOU HAVE TO DO THAT.
I MEAN THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND IT'S HARD TO, IT'S HARD TO SPECIFY.
I'M JUST EXPLORING WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UM, IS THAT DROPPING DOWN 10% SUFFICIENT? CUZ I, I PERSONALLY WOULD RATHER ERR ON THE SIDE OF INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING SOMEONE.
I'D RATHER HAVE SOMEONE STAY IN THE PROGRAM THAN FALL OUT OF THE PROGRAM, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
YEAH, I THINK YOU RAISED A VERY GOOD POINT AND THAT, AND THAT'S PART OF, UM, IF I COULD HAVE THAT, WELL, I, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT UP THERE, BUT THE SLIGHTEST PART OF THAT STAB STABILIZATION PERIOD YEAH.
AS WE GO, IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO MOVE THAT FROM 85 AND, AND TILT IT DOWN ANOTHER 5%, ANOTHER 10%, UM, WE THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY APPROPRIATE, UM, MEASURE TO DO.
I THINK I, I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT BECAUSE I KNOW IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, SORT OF WORKING WITH IT TO SEE, TO SEE WHAT PERCENTAGE REALLY WORKS.
UM, AND MY PERSPECTIVE TO WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE ALREADY SAYING IS THAT BASED ON THE NUMBERS, WHICH OF COURSE ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, EXACT RIGHT.
BUT, UH, BASED ON OUR ESTIMATE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE LOW INCOME IN OUR COMMUNITY, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GETTING THAT MANY OF 'EM AT THE MOMENT.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE A THIRD OR SO THAT'S, THAT'S ROUGH, BUT YOU KNOW, IF WE THINK THERE'S 95 OR WHATEVER THAT NUMBER WAS THAT ARE AT 200% FPL AND, UM, AND WE'RE ONLY GETTING 35 OF THEM OR SO, WE'RE NOT HITTING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL PRETTY FAR BELOW AND 200% OF FPL IS, IS NOT, I MEAN, THAT, THAT NUMBER IS MISLEADING.
IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR, FAMILIAR WITH THE NUMBER, THAT'S THAT'S NOT A LIVING, LIVING WAGE LEVEL EVEN, YOU KNOW, SO, UM, OKAY.
WELL I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BUILT IN THE ABILITY, YOU KNOW, TO ADJUST THAT AS YOU, AS YOU LOOK AT IT.
UM, OKAY, SO THEN MY OTHER QUESTION, OH, CAN WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TIMELINE AGAIN? I'M SORRY.
SO THE THINKING IS THAT, UH, IT'LL TAKE THAT LONG AND THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME, YOU KNOW, TO, TO MAKE THOSE KINDS OF ADJUSTMENTS.
SO, BUT HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY IT TAKES A YEAR AND YEAR AND A HALF TO LOOK AT ADDING THE, UM, WELL, IT'S FREE LUNCH BASICALLY THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING, RIGHT? YES.
WHAT, WHAT'S THE THINKING IS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DOING THESE THINGS SEQUENTIALLY OR SIMULTANEOUSLY? THEY WILL HAPPEN, UM, SIMULTANEOUSLY.
SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF OVERLAP IN THAT CHANGE, AND THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE, THE RESEARCH ON THE CONTRACT CHANGES.
BUT THAT'S GONNA REQUIRE US TO HAVE NEW DATA AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER ENTITIES THAT WE DON'T HAVE, LIKE THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND OTHERS.
UM, AND THEN ALSO WHAT HAPPENS IS, THERE'S TWO WAYS TO THINK ABOUT WHEN WE GO TO THE FREE LUNCH MM-HMM.
[03:20:01]
SO PART OF OUR DATA REACH ON THOSE SCHOOLS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO A DIFFERENT WORK MM-HMM.SO THAT WORK WILL GO A LITTLE BIT FASTER AND IT WILL BE A LITTLE BIT OF OVERLAP BETWEEN THAT PROGRAM DESIGN CHANGE.
AND SO EVEN THOUGH WE HAD THE SIX TO 8,000, WE COULD ACTUALLY BE PICKING UP SOME OF THE FREE LUNCH, BUT IT'S GONNA MOSTLY COME FROM THE FIRST SET OF SCHOOLS MM-HMM.
DOES THAT YEAH, THAT, THAT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND.
SO THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE THEN JUST HAS TO DO WITH THE, UM, AND I'M, I'M SORRY I SHOULD KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT, UM, WHEN PEOPLE SIGN UP, YOU KNOW, UH, WHEN THEY FIRST BECOME A CUSTOMER, ARE THEY, UM, WELL ACTUALLY I HAVE A BROADER QUESTION TO THAT.
WHAT, WHAT DO WE DO RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF OUTREACHING TO PEOPLE TO HELP HELP THEM UNDERSTAND THIS PROGRAM? OKAY.
DO WE DO THAT AT THE POINT THEY SIGN UP OR HOW DO WE DO THAT? WE DO IT AT THE POINT OF SIGNING UP.
UM, THEY ALSO GET, UM, SOME OF THE MATERIALS THAT YOU SAW AND IT'S VERY EXTENSIVE MM-HMM.
THAT GOES OUT BY MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION GROUP.
UM, SHORTLY AFTER THEY SIGN UP, THEY ALSO GET FIND UP, UH, UM, A FOLLOW UP INFORMATION TO ACTUALLY, UM, RECOMMEND MORE OF THE, UM, THE CHANGES IN THE PROGRAMS MM-HMM.
WE DO, UM, CALL OUT TO THOSE CUSTOMERS.
WE, UM, CONTINUE TO PUT INFORMATION IN OUR MONTHLY, UM, UH, UM, FLYERS.
AND WE MAKE SURE THAT WE GO THROUGH THOSE PROGRAMS. AND IN FACT, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, IF THEY DON'T FINISH THAT CONVERSATION, IT'S AUTOMATICALLY REFERRED TO THE SET ASIDE.
WE HAVE 16 EMPLOYEES THAT ONLY DO, UH, CAPS WORK.
THEY WILL DO AN ACTUAL OUTBOUND, UH, CALL TO THEM.
WE ALSO, AS YOU KNOW, WE DO COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS AS AN OUTREACH EFFORT.
WE GO WITH OUR PAR AND OUR PARTNERS ARE VERY, UH, INTERVAL OF THAT OUTREACH OF MARKETING.
SO IT'S VERY EXTENSIVE IN TERMS OF THE WORK THAT WE DO, BUT WE WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.
WE CAN ALWAYS JUST KEEP DOING MORE.
WELL, I'M JUST THINKING OF THE, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE DOING THIS ALREADY.
I WAS THINKING MORE OF THE, UH, RATHER THAN THE, YOU KNOW, THE HIGHER OR BROADER MARKETING MORE THAN JUST ONE TO ONE, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU'RE REACHING OUT TO CUSTOMERS THAT YOU THAT, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE Y'ALL ARE DOING THAT.
WELL IF WE GET, UM, INDICATIONS, UM, AND I'LL GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE FOR AN EXAMPLE, WHEN WE HAD THE EMERGENCY SERVICE AND WE'LL KEEP, WE'LL KEEP, UH, INFORMATION ON THIS AS PEOPLE GO INTO THE WEBSITE AND UH, AS THEY SEARCH AND THEY GO INTO THE AREA, BUT, UH, THERE WAS NO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
WE ACTUALLY WOULD THEN GENERATE A TELEPHONE CALL TO SAY, LOOKS LIKE THIS IS AN AREA OF INTEREST.
UM, IS THAT OKAY? YOU KNOW, UM, SO WE HAVE ALL KIND OF, UM, INNOVATIVE WAYS, UH, TO DO IT.
UM, AND ALSO, BUT AS YOU'RE SAYING, THE INDIVIDUALS THAT COME INTO, UM, WHEN WE LOOKING AT THE DATA, OUR DATA RESEARCH, WILL WE DO, DO INDIVIDUAL MARKETING TO THOSE HOUSEHOLDS.
SO WHEN IN LOOKING AT, UH, OTHER, UH, SERVICES TO AUTO ENROLL, I SEE THE FREE LUNCH, DO YOU SEE ANY, WERE THERE ANY OTHERS THAT YOU CONSIDERED? I KNOW YOU ALREADY HAVE A PRETTY EXTENSIVE AUTO ENROLLMENT PROCESS, BUT YEAH.
UH, THE ONES THAT WE PRESENTED HERE INCLUDED THE LIFELINE.
THOSE ARE ALREADY PART OF THAT PROGRAM.
AND THEN THE OTHER TWO, THEY'RE ALREADY IN OUR PROGRAM AND YOU, UM, AND WHAT YOU'RE REALLY GETTING AT, IF SOMEONE, UH, MAYBE THE NEXT PHASE OF EXPANSION, IF THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF THAT, WE WILL MARKET TO THEM.
UM, AND, AND IF THEY COME INTO THE PROGRAM, THEY WOULD JUST SIMPLY HAVE TO SELF-ENROLL AND THAT PROCESS IS GONNA CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT YEAH, NO, I WAS JUST MEANING IF THERE WERE WONDERING IF THERE WERE OTHER PROGRAMS THAT YOU LOOKED AT BUT DECIDED FOR SOME REASON NOT TO INCLUDE AS AUTO-ENROLLED? UH, NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.
UM, BUT, BUT IT IS PART OF OUR RESEARCH AND SO A HOST OF OTHER OPTIONS, UM, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE LIMITED BASICALLY TO THE FOUR MAJOR STEPS THAT WE ROLLED OUT TODAY.
THAT'S PART OF THAT RESEARCH PERIOD THAT YOU SEE THERE.
PRETEND I HAD SOMETHING TO ADD ONTO WHAT, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN WAS TALKING ABOUT, UM, AND ALSO IN CONJUNCTION WITH WHAT MR. ROBERTSON WAS TALKING, TALKING ABOUT, UM, MAYOR ADLER IS PLANNING TO BRING AN IFFC, UM, ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT YOU WERE BRINGING UP.
AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DIGGING IN ON THOSE.
UM, THIS IS A SETTING GOALS AND REPORTING ON THE, UH, COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE, UH, PROGRAM AND THE OUTREACH WORKING WITH
[03:25:01]
AUSTIN ENERGY.I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME SLOTS ON THAT IFFC, UH, FOR ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN JOINING THAT FOR ADDITIONAL CO-SPONSORS.
UM, AND I THINK THAT'S THE WORK THAT THE MAYOR IS DOING AT THIS POINT ON THIS TOPIC.
UM, DID AUSTIN ENERGY HAVE OTHER PRESENTATIONS? NOPE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR THINGS THAT ANYBODY WANTS TO, TO SURFACE? I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE RECEIVED THE EUC RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, SO JUST A REMINDER THAT WE HAVE, THANK YOU.
UH, JUST A REMINDER THAT ON MONDAY MORNING AT NINE 30 THE START OF THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING, WE WILL HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING, UH, TO CANVAS THE ELECTION AND CALL THE ELECTION.
UH, WE DO NEED TO HAVE SEVEN OF US PRESENT IN ORDER TO, UM, TO VOTE, UM, FOR THE CALLING OF THE ELECTION.
SO IF YOU CAN PLEASE MAKE SURE IF YOU'RE NOT ON AUDIT AND FINANCE THAT YOU'RE TUNING IN VIRTUALLY, UH, THAT WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED.
SO WITH THAT, IT IS 4:30 PM AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING.