Sustainability, City Light, Arts and Culture Committee 8/16/2024

Call to Order >>>. THE AUGUST 16 MEETING OF THE SUSTAINABILITY, CITY LIGHT, ARTS AND CULTURE COMMITTEE WILL COME TO ORDER. IT IS 9:30 3 AM I AM TANYA WOO, CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE. WILL THE COMMITTEE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? >> VICE CHAIR MOORE? >> PRESENT. >> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES ? COUNCIL MEMBER SAKA? COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS? >> PRESENT. >> HERE. SORRY. >> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS? >> PRESENT. >> CHAIR WOO? EXPECT PRESENT. >> FIVE NUMBERS PRESENT. >> THANK YOU. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION HEARING NO OBJECTION, THE AGENDA IS ADOPTED. WE WILL NOW OPEN THE REPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD RELATE TO ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA AND WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMITTEE. WORK, HOW MANY SPEAKERS ARE SIGNED UP TODAY? >> WE HAVE NO IN PERSON SPEAKERS SIGNED UP AND NO REMOTE SPEAKERS. >> AS A REMINDER, NUMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE SIGN-UP CARDS AVAILABLE ON THE PODIUM OR EMAIL THE Res 32139: A resolution related to the City Light Department COUNCIL. >>> WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ THE FIRST ITEM INTO THE RECORD? >> RESOLUTION 32139, A RESOLUTION RELATED TO THE CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT, ADOPTING A 2025-2030 STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE FOR THE CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT AND ENDORSING THE ASSOCIATED SIX-YEAR RATE PATH. FOR BREATHING, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE. >> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE CAN CONSIDER THE RESOLUTION AMENDMENT, WE WILL NEED TO PLACE THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US. I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 32139. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 32139. THANK YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEPARTMENT COORDINATORS AND PRESENTERS ARE READY. I WANT TO REMIND US THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS HEARD AND DISCUSSED THE SAFETY PLAN INCLUDING THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE SIX-YEAR RATE PAST IN THREE COMMITTEE MEETINGS. WE ALSO HAD A MEMO. WE DOVE INTO THE PROPOSAL RATE INCREASES FOR 2025 THROUGH 2026 WHICH INCLUDES POWER COSTS, WAGE INCREASES, INCREASED COST OF SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT AND UNPREDICTABLE CHANGES IN CLIMATE. I APPRECIATE HEARING THE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY FOR OUR MOST VULNERABLE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS INCLUDING A LOWER IMPACT ON OUR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS IN A SYSTEMWIDE 5.4 AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL RATE INCREASES. IT IS MORE ACCURATELY AT 4.3% IN 2025 AND 4.9% IN 2026. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. WE WILL HEAR AND DISCUSS AND VOTE ON AMENDMENT ONE FIRST . AFTER THAT, WE WILL DO THE SAME FOR AMENDMENT TWO. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, PLEASE PROCEED WITH AMENDMENT ONE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR. EXCUSE ME. JUST A MOMENT HERE. I MOVED TO AMEND RESOLUTION 32139 AS PRESENTED IN AMENDMENT ONE ON THE AGENDA. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED TO AMEND RESOLUTION 32139 AS PRESENTED ON THE AMENDMENT ONE. >> THANK YOU. I AM BRINGING FORWARD THIS AMENDMENT FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY WITH OUR SEATTLE CONSTITUENTS AND TRANSPARENCY FOR ALL SEATTLE CITY LIGHT CUSTOMERS. IN ME BRIEFINGS ON THE RATE PATH, THE RATES FOR THE FIRST YEARS, 2025 AND 2026 WERE ACHIEVED FROM SIGNIFICANT AND TIME INTENSIVE ANALYSIS AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT. THE OUT YEARS ARE CLOSER TO A BEST GUESS AND WILL HAVE DEEPER ANALYSIS. I HAVE ALSO HEARD STAFF, BEING FRANK AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE 5% FOR THE OUT YEARS IS LIKELY LOW AND ANTICIPATE NEEDING TO RAISE THE RATES AFTER FURTHER ANALYSIS. I THINK THAT IS PRETTY MUCH A GIVEN WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DATA ON THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASE AND ENERGY DEMAND THAT WE SEE IN YEARS TO COME. IT IS POSSIBLE THE RATES COULD VERY WELL GO UP TO 5.9%. GIVEN THAT THE STAFF THINGS THAT THIS IS A LIKELY OUTCOME, IT IS NOT REALLY FAIR TO PASS SOMETHING TODAY THAT TELLS OUR CONSTITUENTS AND OTHER CITY LIGHT CUSTOMERS THAT THE PATH WILL BE DECREASING AND THE OUT YEARS -- I AM BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT FOR 5.4%. WE ARE JUST KEEPING IT CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD. THE DEPARTMENT CAN STILL DO THEIR ANALYSIS AND BE IN POSITION TO DO EITHER A SMALL INCREASE OR HOPEFULLY A LOWER RATE. AGAIN, THAT SEEMS HIGHLY UNLIKELY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE US IN THE COMMENTS MADE ALREADY. EITHER WAY, I THINK IT IS BETTER TO SUPPORT A PROPOSED RATE PATH THAT IS CLOSER TO WHAT WE WILL WIND UP WITH IN THE OUT YEARS. I WILL BE ASKING FOR A YES VOTE ON THAT. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION. ACTUALLY, TWO QUESTIONS HER SEATTLE CITY LIGHT. FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST TUNING IN WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT GOES ON BEHIND THE RATE CHANGES, COULD WE TALK ABOUT THE NUMBERS BEHIND -- THE INCREASED DRIVERS AND THE PERCENTAGES AND WHAT ALL GOES INTO THE DIFFERENT BUCKETS OF POWER COST INCREASES? I WAS HOPING WE COULD GO THROUGH EVERY LINE ITEM AND TALK ABOUT HOW IT AFFECTS THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE. >> SURE. ERIC, CAN YOU BRING UP THE SLIDE? >> SURE. I GET IT UP THERE? >> FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE WATCHING, WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE 2025 THROUGH 2030 PLAN FINANCIAL FORECAST. IT IS A DOCUMENT THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA AND REALLY GOES INTO DETAIL WITH ALL OF THE NUMBERS. I AM HOPING WE CAN HEAR A BRIEF OVERVIEW IN CASE PEOPLE ARE NOT FAMILIAR. >> THANK YOU. I AM KRISTY GRAINGER, CITY LIGHTS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. THIS IS A TABLE THAT WE PUT TOGETHER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT DRIVER BETWEEN THE RATE INCREASE THAT WE SHOWED IN OUR LAST STRATEGIC PLAN WITH THE 5.4% PROPOSED IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE. THE FIRST AND LARGEST INCREASED DRIVER IS POWER COST. THESE ARE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTRACT THAT CITY LIGHT HAS FOR PURCHASING POWER. WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT THE PRICE PER THE CONTRACT WILL INCREASE. THIS ALSO INCLUDES COSTS FOR NEW POWER RESOURCES TO DISCUSS HOW WE HAVE DEMAND FOR ELECTRICITY WILL INCREASE IN SEATTLE AND WE WILL NEED TO CONTRACT NEW RESOURCES SO THAT WE CAN RELY ON THE NEW DEMAND. THE NEXT IS WHAT WE ARE CALLING THE NET WHOLESALE REVENUE REDUCTION. IT ALSO HAS TO DO WITH POWER COST AND THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED MARKET RISK. THIS HAS TO DO WITH REPLENISHING THE RATE STABILIZATION ACCOUNT WHICH HAD BECOME DEPLETED WITH HIGH WHOLESALE MARKET PRICES. THIS REPRESENTS A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH FOR BUDGETING FROM REVENUE WITH SURPLUS ELECTRICITY SALES AND THIS IS COUNTRY MEETING THEY ADDITIONAL 1.9% TO THE RATE PRESSURE. NEXT IS O&M AND THIS IS THE INFLATION, THE IMPACT OF INFLATION. TWO THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED IS, WE ARE ANTICIPATING WAGE INCREASES FOR OUR EMPLOYEES AND WE SUPPORT THIS. WE NEED TO KEEP PACE WITH MARKET SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER OUR CRITICAL SERVICES. AS WELL AS THE COST OF MATERIAL WITH MAINTAINING INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE COST OF OTHER MATERIALS INCREASING. THIS IS CONTRIBUTING 1.6% OF THE RATE INCREASE AND THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE MERCHANT WORK, WHICH WE ARE PROPOSING TO FIND THROUGH SAVINGS AND THE ALLOCATION. THE OTHER IS PRIMARILY TAXES. ANY TIME THAT WE INCREASE RATES, OUR TAX COST WILL INCREASE. FINALLY, CAPITAL RECOVERY. IF NOT A RATE DRIVER, OUR CAPITAL PROGRAM IS NOT GROWING IN THE NEAR TERM BUT WE DO PREDICT IT WILL GROW IN THE OUT YEARS AS WE ADDRESS AGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND INCREASE CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE HIGHER ELECTRICITY DEMAND. THESE COSTS ALTOGETHER CONTRIBUTE 7.1% TWO AN INCREASE IN RATES BUT WE DO HAVE A REVENUE OFFSET BECAUSE WE ARE ANTICIPATING HIGHER ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION WHICH TRANSLATES TO HIGHER RETAIL SALES. THIS REDUCES THAT IMPACT BY 4.7% AND THAT BRINGS US TO THE 5.4% THAT IS IN OUR STRATEGIC PLAN. >> WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT FINDING NEW POWER SOURCES. WHERE IS THAT ON THIS GRAPH? >> THAT IS IN THE POWER COST INCREASES. >> WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE AGING INFRASTRUCTURE. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT REPLACING UNDERGROUND -- WHERE WOULD THAT FALL IN THIS PROJECTION? >> SURE. SOME OF IT WOULD BE CAPITAL AND SOME OF IT WOULD BE O&M. >> THEN, THERE IS A LINE ITEM FOR RENEWABLE CREDIT. THAT IS UNDER O&M. CAN WE TALK MORE ABOUT THAT? >> SURE. SO, AS PART OF OUR -- IT IS ACCOUNTING LIES. WE CATEGORIZE IT AS O&M BUT THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE COST OF MEETING STATE REQUIREMENTS AROUND RENEWABLE ENERGY. PART OF OUR BUDGET GOES TOWARD PURCHASING RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS WHICH IS PART OF US MAKING OUR GREEN POWER PORTFOLIO AND MEETING THE STATE REQUIREMENTS AROUND THAT. >> COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING RATE INCREASES? >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS. >> GREAT. >> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DRIVERS? >> NOT AT THIS TIME, CHAIR. >> I REALLY HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS REGARDING COUNCILMEMBER MOORE'S AMENDMENT? ANY CONCERNS THIS BRINGS AND WHAT WOULD IT TAKE FOR CITY LIGHT TO MAKE THESE CHANGES? >> SURE. WE APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD AROUND THIS AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE UNCERTAINTY IN THE RATE PATH MOVING FORWARD. THE RATE PATH THAT WE BROUGHT FORWARD IS THE RESULT OF A LOT OF OUTREACH WORK IN COLLABORATION WITH OUR PANEL. WE WOULD NOT BE COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING A RATE CUT THAT WAS NOT APPROVED BY OUR PANEL SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING STAYING WITH THE RATE AS PROPOSED BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONE THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY THE REVIEW PANEL. >> COUNCILMEMBER MORALE IS? >> THANK YOU. I DID WANT TO CLARIFY, I WILL ADMIT BEING A LITTLE UNSURE ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT. THE LEGISLATION -- THE UNDERLYING LEGISLATION IS A BIENNIAL CHANGE IN THE PROPOSED RATE AND THE OUT YEARS OUR PROJECTIONS. THEY DON'T ACTUALLY SET THE RATES. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT. THIS IS PERHAPS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT MIGHT BE AN INCREASE LATER BUT NOT ACTUALLY SETTING THE RATES FOR THE OUTER YEARS. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> JUST A LITTLE CLARIFICATION. THE RESOLUTION THAT IS BEFORE YOU THAT COUNCILMEMBER MOORE'S AMENDMENT WOULD CHANGE, THOSE ARE THE ANNUAL CHANGES YEAR-OVER-YEAR THROUGH THAT SIX-YEAR PERIOD. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT WOULD BE THE ACTUAL RATE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD SET THE RATES AND PUT THOSE ACTUAL RATES FOR EACH CUSTOMER CLASS INTO THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE AND ONCE WE ARE IN THE CODE, THAT IS WHAT THEY USE FOR BILLING. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE 'S AMENDMENT WOULD EXTEND THROUGHOUT THE NEXT YEARS AND IT WOULD TAKE THOSE FOR 2025 AND 2026 AND TRANSLATE THEM TO THE ACTUAL RATE CHANGES FOR OTHER CUSTOMER CLASSES. THOSE MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT CUSTOMER CLASSES. THEY WILL NOT ALL BE 5.4. IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO PROVIDE POWER TO DIFFERENT KINDS OF CUSTOMERS. HOPEFULLY THIS IS HELPFUL. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT, ESPECIALLY FOR THE DISCUSSION. EVERYTHING THAT YOU WERE JUST ASKING ABOUT IS VERY REAL AND THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS THAT THE PROJECTIONS MIGHT BE HIGHER THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN THE PLAN. THERE IS NO UNCERTAINTY. I DON'T KNOW AND I DO KNOW THAT THROUGH ALL OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED HERE IN COMMITTEE AND THEN THE MULTIPLE PRESENTATIONS THAT YOU HAVE DONE WITH ME IN MY OFFICE WHERE WE HAVE GOT TO DIG INTO DETAILS, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE THRIVED THROUGH A LOT OF ANALYSIS AND A LOT OF OUTREACH WITH THE RATEPAYER REVIEW BOARD. COUNCILMEMBER MORE -- MOORE, YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT, BUT I DON'T KNOW. WHERE I WOULD NEED TO SEE THE PROCESS GO FROM HERE IS IF WE WERE TO ADOPT THIS AMENDMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT GO BACK TO THE RATEPAYER REVIEW BOARD AND THEN HAVE CITY LIGHT DO SOME OF THAT ANALYSIS AND THEN BRING IT BACK JUST SO THAT WE GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS FOR THESE CHANGES WHICH PROVIDED US THE NUMBERS THAT ARE BEFORE US TODAY. I THINK THAT IS A LITTLE CUMBERSOME AT THIS POINT. AS ERIC MENTIONED, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME BACK WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN IN THE FUTURE BEFORE WE SET RATES AGAIN. TODAY, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE MOVING THE STRATEGIC PLAN FORWARD FOR NOW BUT ALSO, JUST TO ECHO COUNCILMEMBER MOORE'S AWARENESS THAT WE NEED TO BE PRETTY KEEN EYED ABOUT THIS. THINK YOU. >> I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING COUNCILMEMBER MOORE'S AMENDMENT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE 2025 RATE INCREASED RAVERS. HOW DID WE COME TO THE 5%? >> JUST TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT, GIVEN THE 5% OF THE YEAR STARTING IN 2027 -- FURTHER OUT? I WANT TO ANSWER THAT. THAT IS JUST A CLARIFICATION. THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE WHO ARE BETTER AT THAT. >> THERE IS, IN APPENDIX 1, THE STRATEGIC PLAN DOCUMENT, THE ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND THE 5% WHERE WE HAVE COST ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL PLAN AND THEN USE THAT TO DEVELOP A REVENUE REQUIREMENT WHICH TRANSLATES INTO THE DEBATE PATH. LIKE I SAID, THOSE ARE ALL DOCUMENTED IN APPENDIX 1 FOR THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK. IN THE OUT YEARS, THE COST ASSUMPTIONS ARE INFLATED. IT IS WORTH MAKING AN ASSUMPTION ABOUT INFLATION. IT IS -- THERE IS A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY. WE ARE TAKING COSTS AND INFLATING THEM ALONG. THE FURTHER OUT WE GET EACH YEAR, THE MORE UNCERTAIN THAT COST BECOMES. >> BECAUSE THAT RATE IS LOWER THAN PREVIOUS YEARS, IS THAT COST SAVINGS? RATE PAYERS? HOW DO WE GET THE NUMBER LOWER? >> PART OF IT IS THAT THERE ARE NOT -- THERE IS NO PLACEHOLDER FOR NEW THINGS. WE DON'T HAVE A PLACE WHERE WE HAVE ADDED BUDGET FOR A PLACE WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT YET. IT IS ALWAYS A CHALLENGE WHEN YOU ARE CREATING A DRAFT BUDGET. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN NEW THINGS THAT UTILITY WILL BE TAKING ON. THAT IS ONE REASON WHY WE STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT AND MAYBE THAT IS WHY THERE IS A BIASED. WE DON'T LIKE TO INCREASE COSTS IN OUR PROJECTIONS FOR NOTHING BUT INVARIABLY, THINGS DO COME UP THAT THE UTILITY NEEDS TO ADDRESS. >> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, I APPRECIATE THE INTENT OF THIS AMENDMENT. GIVEN FROM WHAT WE HEARD FROM CITY LIGHT ON THIS AMENDMENT, I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH CHANGING THE NUMBERS THAT THE PANEL HAS ENDORSED. NOT TO MENTION, THEY HAVE HEARD FROM SO MANY COMMUNITIES AND KEY STAKEHOLDERS ON THAT. WE NEED MORE INVESTMENTS. ALL OF THOSE ARE COSTLY. WHILE I WILL BE VOTING -- I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT TODAY. YOUR AMENDMENT DOES HELP US THINK ABOUT HOW WE NEED TO IMPROVE OUR FORECASTING FOR THE OUT YEARS AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM CITY LIGHTS ON IMPROVEMENT FOR FORECASTING AND HAVE ONGOING DISCUSSION OF RATES. WE WILL DEVELOP TOPICS FOR CITY LIGHTS TO COME WITH COMMITTEE TO UPDATES AND WHETHER THAT IS THROUGH LEGISLATION OR WITH QUARTERLY CHECK-IN'S, I WILL COMMUNICATE WITH CITY LIGHT AND THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR BRINGING THIS CONCERN TO THE FOREFRONT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> CHAIR, MAY I MAKE A FEW CLOSING COMMENTS? I APPRECIATE THIS WILL GO DOWN IN FLAMES BUT I REALLY DO WANT TO BOTH PROVIDE THINGS THAT PERMISSION TO GIVE US A RATE THAT IS REALLY CLOSER TO WHAT TRULY REFLECTS THE COSTS TO US AND I KNOW THAT IS A DIFFICULT POSITION TO BE IN AND EVERYBODY WANTS THE RATE TO BE LOWER BUT AGAIN, THIS IS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU THE COVER. I THINK IT HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT THESE RATES ARE VASTLY UNDERSTATED. I GUESS I WOULD ASK THAT THE RATE REVIEW BOARD ALSO TAKE IT ON BOARD THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO GIVE US A MORE REALISTIC SENSE OF WHAT THE RATES WILL BE GOING FORWARD. I DON'T LIKE BEING IN A POSITION OF COMING BACK AND PROMISING SOMETHING AND THEN NOT BEING ABLE TO DELIVER ON THAT. THAT IS REALLY THE INTENT BEHIND THIS. I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE, TRYING TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE FUTURE. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. >> WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE OPTIONS OF AMENDMENT ONE? >> VICE CHAIR MOORE? >> AYE. >> COUNCIL NUMBER MORALES? >> NO. >> COUNCIL NUMBER SAKA? >> NO. >> COUNCIL NUMBER STRAUSS? >> NO. >> CHAIR WOO? >> NO. >> ONE IN FAVOR AND FOUR OPPOSED. >> AMENDMENT ONE FAILS. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, PLEASE PROCEED WITH AMENDMENT TWO , VERSION 2. >> THANK YOU. MOVED TO AMEND RESOLUTION 32139 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT TWO, VERSION 2 THAT WAS CIRCULATED TO THE COMMITTEE YESTERDAY VIA EMAIL. EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THAT. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VERSION 2 AND VERSION 1 ARE A FEW LANGUAGE TWEAKS THAT WERE REQUESTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT REMAINS THE SAME. WE HAVE A WONDERFUL, AMAZING UTILITIES DISCOUNT PROGRAM. I HAVE BEEN REALLY PLEASED THAT WE HAVE IT, REALLY PLEASED TO SEE THAT IT IS EXPANDING. UNFORTUNATELY, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, IT IS VASTLY UNDER SUBSCRIBED. THIS AMENDMENT REQUESTS A PLAN TO ACHIEVE FULL ENROLLMENT BY ALL INCOME ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS WHO WISH TO PARTICIPATE. NOT EVERYBODY DOES. I RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PERHAPS IDENTIFY EVERY SINGLE INCOME ELIGIBLE CUSTOMER BUT THE GOAL IS TO IDENTIFY AS MANY AS POSSIBLE TO HAVE MAXIMUM ENROLLMENT. I DO APPLAUD THE DIRECTION TO OPEN THE PROGRAM TO SERVE HOUSEHOLDS UP TO 80% A AND I AND AGAIN, WITH THE RATES GOING UP NOW AND IN THE FUTURE, IT WILL BE EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAT WE BRING AS MUCH FINANCIAL RELIEF TO AS MANY ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS AS POSSIBLE. IF I MAY, ASK ERIC TO DESCRIBE THE AMENDMENT. IS THAT OKAY? >> HAPPY TO DO SO. IF I SAY UDP, UTILITY DISCOUNT PROGRAM, FORGIVE ME. MAYBE AN ABBREVIATION THAT COMES OUT. THE UDP IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING WE CAN OFFER TO CUSTOMERS. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE 'S AMENDMENT WOULD ENCOURAGE ENROLLMENT. I WILL COVER HOW IT WORKS. TO BE ELIGIBLE, A TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME MUST HAVE 70% OF THE CURRENT STATE MEDIAN INCOME. FOR FOLKS WHO MEET THAT STANDARD, THAT THRESHOLD, A 60% DISCOUNT OF CITY LIGHT BILL. THAT REALLY MATTERS. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO A FEW THINGS. ESSENTIALLY, IT IS AN AMENDMENT ANALYSIS FOR REPORTING. THE FIRST REPORT WOULD BE DUE BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. THE SECOND REPORT WOULD BE DUE BY APRIL 1 OF NEXT YEAR. THE MEAT OF THE REPORTING WOULD BE TO SAY, LET'S HEAR FROM CITY LIGHT ABOUT THE TRACK RECORD OF ENROLLMENT OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS AND THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MODIFICATIONS TO THAT PROGRAM I WOULD ALSO SAY WE UNDERSTAND THE AMENDMENT WOULD COMMUNICATE TO THE UTILITY THAT THERE MAY BE STAFFING CHANGES DURING IMPACT AND THIS REPORT WOULD ASK FOR THOSE. THEN, IT WOULD ALSO ASK FOR A FORECAST FOR ENROLLMENT INCREASES THAT CAN RESULT IN TERM CHANGES BY THE MIDDLE OF NEXT SUMMER AND THE SUMMER AFTER. >> THE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THERE IS ONGOING WORK TO BOTH THE PROGRAM EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT TO THE U.D.P.. WITH THAT FIRST REPORT AT THE END OF THE YEAR, IT WOULD EITHER EITHER NEED TO BE IN TANDEM WITH THE REPORTING THAT IS EXPECTED ON THE ONGOING WORK THAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THAT IS INITIATED AND WE EXPECT SOME RESULTS FROM THAT, REGARDLESS OF THIS AMENDMENT. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, I THINK THAT HITS THE HIGH POINTS. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT AS DRAFTED BUT I THINK THAT COVERS IT. >> IT IS MOVED. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS? >> GREAT AMENDMENT . IT IS SOME OF THE WORK I WAS TRYING TO DO A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO TO IMPROVE THE PROGRAM. I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK WITH YOU TO SEE IF WE CAN'T MERGE SOME OF THESE EFFORTS BECAUSE THE CLIFF, INSTEAD OF THE STEP DOWN FOR ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS -- I KNOW THAT RECERTIFICATION CAN BE CUMBERSOME FOR ALL AND IS NECESSARY FOR SOME JUST AS AN EXAMPLE AS A PERSON WHO IS ON A RETIRED FIXED INCOME. WE KNOW THAT WILL NOT CHANGE. HAVING THEM RECERTIFY SO OFTEN CAN PUT PEOPLE OFF OF U.D.P. WHEREAS SOMEBODY WHO IS -- WHO WON'T HAVE A FIXED INCOME FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO CERTIFY. THANK YOU FOR THE AMENDMENT. >> I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION. ARE THERE PLANS TO INCORPORATE DIFFERENT LANGUAGES ON THE WEBSITE TO LOOK AT EXPANDING THE U.D.P. PROGRAM? >> YES. I THINK WE HAVE SOME RESOURCES AVAILABLE NOW AND WE WILL COMMUNICATE IN THE LANGUAGES GOING FORWARD, BOTH WITH OUR DIGITAL APPLICATIONS AND THEN AS WE WORK THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY PARTNER CHANNELS TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE FOLKS IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES. >> THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER MOORE FOR BRINGING FORWARD THIS AMENDMENT. IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO? >> VICE CHAIR MOORE? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER MORALES? >> AYE. >> SAKA? >> AYE. >> STRAUSS? >> YES. >> WOO? >> YES. >> FIVE IN FAVOR, AND UNOPPOSED. AMENDMENT TWO PASSES. NOW THAT ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN HURT, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON RESOLUTION 32139 AS AMENDED? >> CHAIR, IS THIS REGARDING THE UNDERLYING BILL? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. I MADE SOME OF MY COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT BUT I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE TIME, BEING HERE WITH YOUR THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS, ENGAGEMENT OF THE RATEPAYER REVIEW BOARD AND COMING TO COMMITTEE THREE TIMES AND THEN MEETING TWICE, COULD BE THREE TIMES. WE HAVE MEANT A LOT ON ALL OF THE ITEMS OF THE AGENDA TODAY. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO IT AND ERIC, FOR CENTRAL STAFF. I AM PREPARED TO VOTE YES AND I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION. >> SAKA? >> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO THANK COUNCILMEMBER MOORE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CITY LIGHT TEAM . THIS WAS A REALLY THOUGHT-PROVOKING DISCUSSION AS WE CONSIDER THIS WITH MULTIPLE BRIEFINGS OFF-LINE . IF IT IS NOT CLEAR BY THE COURSE OF THIS DISCUSSION AND WHERE WE LANDED TODAY, CITY LIGHT, YOU HAVE PLENTY OF GREEN SPACE AND LIKES ABILITY IN YOUR FORECASTING TO BE REALISTIC AND TRANSPARENT ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS AND I DO UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THAT THIS TIME AROUND, WE LEARNED DURING THAT LAST MEETING, I THINK, DURING AN EXCHANGE WITH COUNCILMEMBER MOORE THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN RELEVANT MATERIAL INFORMATION THAT SORT OF EVADED -- BECAUSE OF DEADLINES AND GETTING -- KEEPING THIS MOVING FORWARD, MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE IMPACTED THE FINAL PROPOSED RATES BUT REGARDLESS, I JUST WANT TO SAY YOU HAVE PLENTY OF SPACE AND GREENWAY FROM THIS COUNCIL, CERTAINLY TO BE VERY TRANSPARENT AND CLEAR AND REALISTIC ABOUT THE RATE THAT WILL MEET THE NEEDS OF ALLOWING US TO ADDRESS OUR AGING INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP POWER ON AND RELIABLE AND KEEP RATES AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. THE STRAIN AND THE DEMAND IS HIGH. IN ANY EVENT, WE THANK YOU ALL. APPRECIATE THE COLLABORATION IN ALL OF THIS. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP ON THIS AS WELL. >> I WANT TO ECHO THAT THANK YOU. FOR MULTIPLE MEETINGS COMING INTO COMMITTEE MEETINGS AS WELL AS BEING AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE RATE INCREASES BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS IS JUSTIFIED. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE POWER ON. WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT BROWNOUTS OR ROLLING POWER OUTAGES OR OUR AGING INFRASTRUCTURE. WE DO WANT TO MAKE SPACE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS BY INVESTING IN CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCES AND DIVERSIFYING OUR PORTFOLIO. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS VERY MEANINGFUL AND COMPREHENSIVE AND TAKING A LOOK AT THESE INCREASED DRIVERS AND BEING AVAILABLE FOR ANSWERING QUESTIONS AND HAVING THE PATIENTS TO EXPLAIN ALL OF THIS TO US AND COMING BACK MULTIPLE TIMES. THANK YOU TO ERIC AT CENTRAL STAFF FOR EXPLAINING THIS AND FOR ALL YOUR WORK. I AM EXCITED ABOUT THESE INVESTMENTS AS WELL AS BEING ABLE TO HELP AND INVEST IN INFRASTRUCTURE GOING FORWARD AND THAT WE DO NOT TAKE THESE INCREASES LIGHTLY , ESPECIALLY HERE ON COUNCIL. WITH ALL OF THE OTHER INCREASES WITH OTHER COMMITTEES AND OTHER LEVIES, IT WAS A HARD DECISION AND WE HAD A LOT OF WESTERNS. I AM HAPPY WITH WHERE WE LANDED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COMMITMENT AND EFFORT. >> IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE RESOLUTION -- ON THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 32139 AS AMENDED? >> MOORE? >> AYE. >> MORALES? >> YES. >> SAKA? >> AYE. >> STRAUSS? >> AYE. >> WOO? >> AYE. >> THE MOTION CARRIES ON THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION 32139 AS AMENDED WILL BE SENT TO THE SEPTEMBER 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU. >> WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS. WILL THE Res 32130: A resolution relating to the City Light Department CLERK PLEASE READ THE NEXT ITEM INTO THE RECORD? >> RESOLUTION 32130, A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT, ENDORSING CITY LIGHT'S WHOLESALE ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT, WHICH GOVERNS WHOLESALE ENERGY, TRANSMISSION, AND ANCILLARY SERVICES TRADING, INCLUDING RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS AND GREENHOUSE GAS OFFSETS, ESTABLISHING THE WERM POLICY AS THE GUIDING POLICY FOR MANAGING RISKS RELATED TO WHOLESALE ENERGY, ANCILLARY SERVICES, RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS, AND GREENHOUSE GAS OFFSETS WITHIN THE CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 31616. FOR BREATHING, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE VOTE. THANK YOU. I SEE THE DEPARTMENT COORDINATORS AND PRESENTERS ARE AT THE TABLE. I WANT TO REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THAT THIS ITEM WAS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL BACK IN MARCH AND WITH THE ADVICE OF COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF AND WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE SEATTLE CITY LIGHTS, WE DETERMINED WE NEEDED EXTRA TIME TO CONSIDER CONCERN. I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF AND THE STAFF FOR DEDICATING SUCH TIME AND ATTENTION TO WORK TOGETHER, STRENGTHENING AND CLARIFYING THE OVERALL LANGUAGE OF CITY LIGHT'S POLICIES, SUPPORTING AND OVERALL COLLABORATIVE ENGAGEMENT. TODAY, I AM SPONSORING TWO AMENDMENTS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT WOULD REPLACE THE WARM POLICY AS TRANSMITTED WITH A REVISED VERSION. AT THE FIRST AMENDMENT PASSES, THE SECOND AMENDMENT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO UPDATE THE RECITAL BUT BEFORE, WE WILL NEED TO PLACE THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US. I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 32139. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 3213 -- 32139 -- 321390. SORRY, RESOLUTION 32130. WE WILL NOW CONSIDER THE RESOLUTION AND THEN AMENDMENTS. SO, PLEASE, PRESENTERS AND COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF, INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AND BEGIN. >> ERIC McCONAGHY, COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF. WE SHOULD DO A QUICK RUNDOWN AT THE TOP OF THIS TOPIC? >> KRISTY GRAINGER, CITY LIGHT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. >> RAMAN VISHWANATHAN, DIRECTOR OF SEATTLE CITY LIGHT . >> GOOD MORNING. CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER. >> AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED, THERE WAS AN IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION ABOUT WHOLESALE ENERGY, HOW CITY LIGHT IS IN THOSE MARKETS. FROM TIME TO TIME, THERE IS A PURCHASE POWER. IT HAS ITS OWN POWERFUL GENERATORS AND IT IS FORCED TO BE ABLE TO GENERATE POWER BUT WE CAN'T GENERATE ALL THE POWER NECESSARY FOR ALL THE CUSTOMERS. WE HAVE TO PURCHASE IN BULK IN THE WHOLESALE MARKET. ALSO, FROM TIME TO TIME, CITY LIGHT THEMSELVES POWER THE NEEDS OF ITS RETAIL CUSTOMERS AND THAT IS ON THE UPSIDE FOR CITY LIGHT. ANY PARTICIPATION HAS RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THIS RISK POLICY GOES BACK A NUMBER OF YEARS AND WAS FIRST SET UP IN 2008 THROUGH RESOLUTION 31053. THERE IS LITTLE HISTORY FOR YOU ON THE SLIDE. THE BEGINNING OF HAVING WHOLESALE ENERGY RISK MANAGEMENT, WE LIKE TO SAY WERM FROM TIME TO TIME. THAT IS AN ACRONYM . TODAY, BEFORE YOU, IS A REVISED POLICY BASED ON THE POLICY THAT WAS TRANSMITTED EARLIER THIS YEAR. IT IS IN THAT SEQUENCE OF UPDATES THAT HAS HAPPENED AS CITY LIGHT HAS GROWN MORE ROBUST AND VERY CAPABLE RISK MANAGEMENT FACILITY . MAYBE I SHOULD JUST PAUSE HERE AND ACKNOWLEDGE AND ALLOW HIM TO SAY ANYTHING HE MIGHT LIKE TO SAY ABOUT THAT WORK. >> YEAH. THANK YOU, ERIC. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK ERIC McCONAGHY FOR THE COLLABORATION TO THE AMENDMENTS. IN TERMS OF THE POLICY, THERE IS THE RISK OF WHOLESALE TRADING ACTIVITIES. THIS ONE HAS MATURED OVER THE YEARS AND RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING WHEN WE DID THIS IN 2008 AND IN THE LAST 15 TO 20 YEARS, NOT ONLY THE MARKETS HAVE MATURED BUT THE INDUSTRY HAS MATURED AND THE OVERSIGHT WITHIN THE CITY LIGHT AND EXTERNALLY IS -- WE HAVE TO REFLECT THAT. WITH ALL THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT AND TRADING AS WELL AS MARKETING AND SO FORTH, THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT NEEDS TO BE FLEXIBLE FOR THESE AMENDMENTS. >> SPECIFICALLY, THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS VERSION 2 THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS FIRST AMENDMENT WOULD MAKE CLEAR THAT COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE WERM POLICY. IT WOULD CALL FOR REGULAR FINANCIAL RISK TO SUPPORT TO THE COUNCIL. I WANT TO SAY THAT THOSE ARE ONGOING. THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING. THIS JUST MAKES CLEAR THAT THAT IS EXPECTED. THIS IS NOT A NEW THING. WE DO RECEIVE REGULAR FINANCIAL RISK REPORTS. IT WOULD CALL FOR ANNUAL INTERNAL AUDITS, REPORTING TO COUNCIL AS WELL. AGAIN, THERE IS AN INTERNAL AUDIT PROCESS THAT IS ONGOING AND THIS WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR IN THE POLICY THAT THIS IS SOMETHING TO BE PROVIDED TO COUNCIL. EVERY FIVE YEARS, THERE WOULD BE A NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN SCOPING FOR THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT AND THAT COULD LEAD THEN TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE NEEDS TO BE A TUNEUP OF THE POLICY ITSELF. FINALLY, IT MAKES CLEAR TO AFFIRM THE RESPONSIBILITY TO AFFORD ANY FAILURES TO IMPLEMENT THE POLICY BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, THE DIRECTOR OF RISK OVERSIGHT AND THE CITY LIGHTS INTERNAL AUDIT TEAM. THERE WERE SOME OTHER FORMATTING AND STYLE CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT FOR CLARITY. I WAS REALLY PLEASED TO BE ABLE TO WORK ON THIS. IT IS GREAT TO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK TOGETHER WITH FOLKS FROM CITY LIGHT. IT IS A BIG PART OF THE WORK I DO AND IT GIVES ME A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND THE WORK THEY ARE DOING AND WE CAN UNDERSTAND LINES OF QUESTIONING SO THAT WE STAY AHEAD OF ANY CONCERNS THAT MIGHT COME UP. THAT IS JUST MY SELFISH INDULGENCE THERE, BEING THANKFUL FOR HAVING THAT OPPORTUNITY. >> SO, -- SORRY. THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION. CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL POLICY IN THE REVISED POLICY? >> YEAH. THE FIVE ITEMS ON THE SLIDE HERE ARE THE TOTAL DIFFERENCES OR THE HIGHLIGHTS. >> ERIC, I'M SORRY, YOUR SLIDESHOW IS NOT UP IF YOU INTENDED TO HAVE IT. >> I SEE IT HERE. >> YOU DO? >> I AM NOT SEEING IT ON MY SCREEN. AM I THE ONLY ONE? >> I APOLOGIZE. >> OKAY. FIVE YEARS LATER, I AM STILL LEARNING ZOOM. >> I COORDINATED THIS MORNING AND I THOUGHT I WOULD HAVE TO ASK FOR THE HELP AND I ASKED FOR HELP. HERE WE ARE TOGETHER. >> COUNCILMEMBER WOO, THE POLICY DOCUMENT THAT WAS SENT OVER , MUCH OF IT DID NOT UNDERGO CHANGES IN THIS REVISION. THESE FIVE ITEMS THAT I OUTLINED WERE ITEMS THAT CENTRAL STAFF IDENTIFIED WITH CITY LIGHTS COMMISSION. THEY WERE CLEAR. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE WERE A LOT OF CHANGES THAT WERE LARGELY TECHNICAL THAT WE THOUGHT WERE JUST FINE. ONE THING THAT I WILL ADD WHICH IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE NOT TOUCHED ON TODAY IS THE POLICY ITSELF AND THE DOCUMENT IS NOT VERY LENGTHY. THERE IS A VERY COMPLETE AND DETAILED PROCEDURES DOCUMENT AND THAT IS THE DAY TO DAY WORK OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN CITY LIGHT WHO WORK IN MANAGING THE RISK AND THEY ARE SEPARATE PIECES. THIS POLICY WOULD MAKE THAT CLEAR AND ALLOW FOR CITY LIGHT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT. ALL THE FOLKS THAT WORK IN THIS AREA FOR CITY LIGHT ARE BEHOLDEN TO THE PROCEDURE AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY SIGN AND AFFIRM THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE AND THEY WILL ABIDE BY THEM. I THINK THAT HAS TO BE PRETTY SERIOUS AND THERE IS A LOT OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY WORK WITH DAY IN AND DAY OUT WHICH IS NOT WITHIN THE POLICY BUT THE POLICY DOES ADDRESS IT IN THE PROCEDURES DOCUMENT. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS? >> CHAIR, COMMENTS ON THE UNDERLYING BILL OR THE AMENDMENT? >> THE AMENDMENT. >> YES. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY I ASKED. I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT BOTH AND THEN I WILL NOT TALK AGAIN ON THIS POLICY. THANK YOU. I KNOW THIS ALL STANDS OUT OF THE ENRON FIASCO MANY DECADES AGO AND THE CONTROL AROUND OUR FINANCES. CITY LIGHT HAS ABSOLUTELY GOTTEN BETTER ABOUT THE INTERNAL CONTROLS. THERE IS STILL THE OUTSIDE PRESSURE THAT HAS NOT DONE AS WELL. WE HAVE BEEN LEADING THE INDUSTRY IN THAT WAY. WHAT I REALLY APPRECIATE IS, ERIC, YOUR WORK WITH BEN, WHO STARTED OFF IN THE SAME ROLL AS YOU DURING THAT ENRON CRISIS. THESE AMENDMENTS REALLY TIGHTEN IT UP IN A NICE WAY . WE TRUST YOU. THINGS WERE WAY BETTER THAN THEY WERE WHEN THE POLICY WAS INITIALLY ADOPTED AND I APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENT AND THE UNDERLYING POLICY. OVERALL, GREAT WORK. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE? >> I JUST WANTED TO SAY, APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT WAS DONE TO DEVELOP VIRGIN TWO. I JUST WANT TO THANK CHAIR WOO AND CENTRAL STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON ALL OF THIS AND THE RISK OVERSIGHT COUNCIL. I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE COUNCIL CONTINUE TO HAVE A ROLL. THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING THAT ISSUE AND WORKING COLLABORATIVELY TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE IN BRINGING THIS FORTH. THANK YOU. >> I NEED QUICK CLARIFICATION. DID I MOVE THE AMENDMENT? OKAY. SO, DO WE GO FOR A VOTE? >> OKAY. >> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS -- I WILL FIRST ADDRESS THE AMENDMENT BEFORE WE GO TO A VOTE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS SEEKING THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN THE ANTI-MARKET CONDITIONS AND INSIGHT TO CONFIDENCE IN THE PROCESS. I AM THANKFUL THAT WE HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK BEFORE AND SEE WHAT THE MARKET LOOKS LIKE. AND, TO GO TO THE FACILITIES. JUST TO PUT IT VERY PLAINLY, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MARKET RATES MIMIC THE STOCK MARKET. I AM ALSO PLEASED THAT WE HAVE THE ROLL OF THE INTERNAL AUDIT TO INDEPENDENTLY SHARE THE ANNUAL AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH COUNCIL CENTRAL STAFF AND CITY LIGHT LEADERSHIP AGREE THAT PRESENTING THE WERM TO COUNCIL EVERY FIVE YEARS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS VALUABLE . WE ENGAGE IN THE IMPORTANT FUNCTION AT CITY LIGHT. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK AND YOUR PATIENCE AND TAKING THE TIME TO HELP US UNDERSTAND THIS AND DELVE DEEP WITH SOME OF THE GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS. >> IF I MIGHT, I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE ENGAGEMENT THAT HAS BEEN AWESOME FROM CITY LIGHT. WE LOVE TALKING ABOUT OUR BUSINESS. WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE ENGAGEMENT BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT BUSINESS AND I AM GLAD YOU ARE TAKING IT SUPER SERIOUS. AS I SIT HERE IN DAWN'S SEAT, I THINK SHE WOULD ECHO THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL OF THE ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT ONE? >> MOORE? >> AYE. >> MORALES? >> SAKA? >> AYE. >> STRAUSS? >> AYE. >> WOO? >> YES. >> FIVE IN FAVOR. >> AMENDMENT PASSES. I MOVED TO AMEND 32130 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT TWO ON THE AGENDA. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED TO RECOMMEND RESOLUTION 32130 AS PRESENTED ON AMENDMENT TWO. BEFORE CENTRAL STAFF PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW, I WILL DIRECT THIS AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE LANGUAGE OR RECITAL WITH 32130 TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE EFFECTS OF VERSION 2. >> GO AHEAD. >> THERE ARE SOME RECITALS THAT DESCRIBE WHAT THE POLICY DOES AND THIS IS A GOOD PIECE OF HOUSEKEEPING TO HAVE THE RECITALS COINCIDE WITH WHAT JUST PAST. >> ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENT TWO? >> WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL FOR ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TWO? >> MOORE? >> AYE. >> MORALES? >> YES. >> SAKA. >> AYE. >> STRAUSS? >> AYE. >> WOO? >> YES. >> AMENDMENT TWO PASSES. NOW THAT ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN HURT, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON RESOLUTION 3210 AS AMENDED? >> CHAIR? >> COUNCILMEMBER STRAUSS? >> THANK YOU FOR THE EXTRA PARAMETERS THAT YOU PUT AROUND THIS POLICY. GOOD WORK. >> THANK YOU. WILL THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 32130 AS AMENDED? >> MOORE? >> AYE. >> MORALES? >> AYE. >> SAKA? >> AYE. >> STRAUSS? >> YES. >> WOO? >> AYE. >> MOTION CARRIES ON THE COMMUNITY RECOMMENDATION THAT CB 120840: An ordinance relating to the City Light Department COUNCIL ADOPT 32130 AS AMENDED AND BE SENT TO THE SEPTEMBER 30 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK. >> MOVING ONTO THE LAST ITEM OF BUSINESS, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ THE THIRD ITEM INTO RECORD? >> AGENDA ITEM 3 COUNCIL BILL 120840, AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CITY LIGHT DEPARTMENT, AMENDING SECTION 21.49.100 OF THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS TO SUBMETER ELECTRICITY. FOR BREATHING, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE VOTE. >> AS THE COORDINATORS AND PRESENTERS ARE COMING TO THE COMMITTEE TABLE, ONCE YOU ARE READY, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELVES AND BEGIN. >> GO AHEAD. >> CHAIR WOO, I WILL KICK THIS OFF. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US THIS MORNING. THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR A LOT OF REASONS FOR OUR CUSTOMERS, FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR EFFORTS ON THE HEELS OF OUR TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIC STRATEGIC INVESTMENT PLAN. YOU WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT. THIS IS STEP ONE OF SEVERAL STEPS WE WILL HAVE COMING TO YOU. THE LEGISLATION WILL BE COMING FORWARD IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME AS WELL, WHICH IS ANOTHER REVENUE SOURCE THAT WILL APPLY TO THE STATE LAW AND BY VIRTUE OF OUR CLEAN POWER SUPPLY AND OUR DESIRE TO BUILD A CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE. TODAY, WE ARE SEEKING APPROVAL ON THIS ORDINANCE FOR SUBMETERING. I WILL LET THE SMART PEOPLE TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS AND THEY CAN INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AS THEY GO. >> JACOB? >> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JACOB ORENBERG AND I AM PART OF THE SEATTLE CITY LIGHT TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL TEAM. >> DAVID LOGSDON, DIRECTOR OF ELECTRIFICATION FOR SEATTLE CITY LIGHT. >> CRAIG SMITH, CHIEF CUSTOMER OFFICER. >> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS ANGELA SONG. I AM THE TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION MANAGER. >> TODAY, I WILL BE PRESENTING TO YOU A PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT WILL PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION TO AN EXISTING PROHIBITION ON SUBMETERING SPECIFICALLY FOR EV CHARGING. SUBMETERING IS THE PRACTICE OF INSTALLING A CUSTOMER OWNED ELECTRIC METER DOWNSTREAM FROM A UTILITY METER WITH THE SUBMETER BEING USED TO MEASURE HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY IS CONSUMED BY A TENANT. THE SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE HAS A LONG-STANDING PROHIBITION ON RESALE OF ELECTRICITY THROUGH SUBMETERING AND THIS IS MEANT TO PROTECT TENANTS FROM BEING OVERCHARGED FOR ELECTRICITY. THE CODE CONTAINS EXEMPTIONS FOR HOUSEBOATS AND MOBILE HOMES AND ALLOWS THOSE PROPERTY TYPES TO SUBMETER ELECTRICITY TO THE TENANT AS WELL AS PROTECTIONS FOR THE TENANTS THAT THE PRIMARY SEATTLE CITY LIGHT SERVICE CUSTOMER MUST COMPLY WITH. THIS PROHIBITION ON SUBMETERING RESULTS IN TWO UNANTICIPATED BARRIERS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING THAT WE WERE PROPOSING TO REMEDY TODAY THROUGH THIS ORDINANCE. FIRST, THE PROHIBITION AND THE INTERPRETED TO DISALLOW EV CHARGING BILLING BASED ON THE ACTUAL ELECTRICITY DISPENSED TO THE VEHICLE AND SECOND, IT PROHIBITS CERTAIN TYPES OF LOWER-COST EV CHARGER INSTALLATION I CAN BENEFIT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. THE FIRST USE CASE THAT THIS ORDINANCE WILL ADDRESSES TO ALLOW EV CHARGERS TO BILL CUSTOMERS BY THE KILOWATT HOURS. CHARGING PROVIDERS HAVE SEVERAL OPTIONS FOR COLLECTING PAYMENTS FROM CUSTOMERS. THEY CAN REQUIRE CUSTOMERS PAY A FLAT FEE FOR THE CHARGING SESSION. THEY CAN MAKE THE CUSTOMER PAY BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THE CHARGER IS USED OR THEY CAN MAKE A CUSTOMER PAY BASED ON THE ACTUAL ELECTRICITY DISPENSED TO THE VEHICLE AS MEASURED IN KILOWATT HOURS. BILLING CUSTOMERS BASED ON THE ACTUAL ELECTRICITY DISPENSED TO THE VEHICLE IS THE STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THE INDUSTRY AND IT IS THE FAIREST WAY OF WILLING CUSTOMERS. HOWEVER, CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE COULD BE INTERPRETED TO DISALLOW THIS PRACTICE BECAUSE IT REQUIRES THE USE OF AN ELECTRIC METER INTEGRATED IN THE CHARGER WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED A SUBMETER. TO ELIMINATE ANY AMBIGUITY, THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE WOULD CHANGE THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXPLICITLY ALLOW EV CHARGER PROVIDERS TO BUILD -- BILL CUSTOMERS ON A PER KILOWATT HOUR BASIS. THE SECOND USE CASE WE ANTICIPATE IS THAT THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL ALLOW SUBMETER BILLING OF ELECTRICITY FOR EV CHARGERS AND COMMON PARKING AREAS AND THIS IS A PRACTICE THAT IS CURRENTLY BANNED UNDER MUNICIPAL CODE. THESE TYPES OF INSTALLATIONS ARE BENEFICIAL BECAUSE THEY CAN PROVIDE CHARGING TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING RESIDENTS AT A LOWER COST. IF APPROVED, THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CODE WILL PROVIDE THE SUBMETER CHARGERS WITH THE SAME PROTECTIONS TO THE END-USER THAT ARE ALREADY GRANTED LIKE HOUSEBOATS AND MOBILE HOMES. THIS USE CASE PROVIDES A ROUTE FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING TO INSTALL EV CHARGERS THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE INTEGRATED METERS, INTERNET CONNECTIONS OR PAYMENT PROCESSING SYSTEMS WHILE STILL PROVIDING FOR THE EV DRIVER TO PAY ONLY FOR THE ELECTRICITY PROVIDED TO THEIR CHARGER. THIS INCURS COST SAVINGS FOR BOTH THE COST OF THE CHARGER WHEN THE ONGOING OPERATION WITHOUT BURDENING THE PROPERTY MANAGER OR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH THE COST OF ELECTRICITY. RESIDENTS WILL BE BILLED BY THE PROPERTY MANAGER OR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF ELECTRICITY DISPENSED THROUGH THE CHARGER AS MEASURED BY THE SUBMETER WHILE AVOIDING THE ONGOING COST THAT WOULD BE INCURRED FROM INSTALLING CHARGERS WITH INTEGRATED PAYMENT PROCESSING SYSTEMS AND THE REQUIRED INTERNET CONNECTION. AGAIN, THIS IS BENEFICIAL BECAUSE IT PROVIDES A ROUTE FOR LOWER-COST EV CHARGING WHILE STILL ENSURING THAT THE ELECTRICITY IS PAID FOR BY THE END-USER. TO SUMMARIZE, WE REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO AUTHORIZE THE SUBMETER BILLING UP SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ELECTRICITY FOR EV CHARGING. THIS WILL ALLOW EV CHARGER OPERATORS TO RESELL ELECTRICITY DISPENSED THROUGH AN EV CHARGER ON A PER KILO OUT HOUR BASIS AND ALLOW PRETTY OWNERS AND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS TO BUILD FOR SUBMETER ELECTRICITY PROVIDED IN PARKING SPACES DEDICATED TO A SPECIFIC TENANT OR OTHER USER. AT THIS TIME, WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> STRAUSS? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME YOU SPENT IN MY OFFICE DISCUSSING THIS. THIS IS CHANGING THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. EVEN FIVE YEARS AGO WE DID NOT HAVE A FORD 150 THAT WAS ELECTRIC THAT WE DO TODAY. WE ARE SEEING THE ELECTRIFICATION OF THE VEHICLES OUTPACE OUR ABILITY TO DIVIDE ELECTRIC CHARGING AND ONE OF THE BARRIERS IN MULTIFAMILY UNITS WITH MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS IS THIS THIRD-PARTY CHARGING BECAUSE IT IS NOT FREE TO SET UP WITH THIS CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION AS WELL AS THE ABILITY -- I APPRECIATE THE ABILITY WITHIN MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS THAT YOU CAN TIE IT TO YOUR UNIT. IN THAT SENSE, IF A BUILDING WAS TO SET THAT UP, THEY WOULD NOT BE INCURRING THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE BUT IF THE BUILDING DOESN'T HAVE THAT CAPABILITY, THERE IS A PROGRAM THAT POKES IN THE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING WOULD HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THEIR GARAGE. THIS IS THE WAY OF THE FUTURE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME ON IT. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER MOORE? >> OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. MY QUESTION IS -- IT LOOKS LIKE THE BILL LIMITS RESALE OF ELECTRICITY TO THE COST OF ELECTRICITY AND I AM JUST WONDERING HOW INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR? >> THE COST OF THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF THE CHARGER IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE CODE. THAT WOULD BE HANDLED SEPARATELY AND BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS AND THE PROPERTY MANAGERS AT THEIR DISCRETION. >> OKAY. >> SO, I IMAGINE THAT COULD BE RELATIVELY EXPENSIVE TO DO THAT, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE? >> YES. TYPICALLY, INSTALLATIONS OF EV CHARGERS AT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, ESPECIALLY IN PARKING GARAGES CAN BE QUITE EXPENSIVE. >> SO, HOW WILL THAT COST BE DISTRIBUTED OR ACCOUNTED FOR? >> THAT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE CODE. THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE TENANTS AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OR PROPERTY MANAGER TO DETERMINE WHO PAYS FOR WHAT AND HOW. >> THANK YOU. >> DO YOU SEE THAT AS AN OBSTACLE TO BEING IMPLEMENTED? >> THE COST OF INSTALLING THE EV CHARGER IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IS OVERALL AN OBSTACLE. IT CAN BE QUITE EXPENSIVE BUT THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS REVISION OF THE CODE. THIS IS TO ALLOW THESE TYPES OF INSTALLATIONS. SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ALSO OPERATES INCENTIVE PROGRAMS TO REDUCE THE COST OF THESE INSTALLATIONS. >> HOW DO YOU ACCESS THOSE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION ONE MORE TIME? >> HOW WOULD SOMEONE, AN ENTITY, ACCESS THE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS? >> THERE IS A FEW TACTICS THAT WE HAVE FOR PROMOTING OUR PROGRAM. FOR MULTIFAMILY IN PARTICULAR, ONE, A RESIDENT CAN REACH OUT TO OUR PROGRAM TEAM AND WE WILL FOLLOW UP WITH THE PROGRAM MANAGER IN PARTICULAR AND WORK WITH THEM TO IDENTIFY THE BEST SOLUTION FOR THEM AT THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. WE ALSO WORK WITH COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS TO GO OUT TO COMMUNITY EVENTS AND TALK ABOUT OUR PROGRAM. NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE MULTIFAMILY BUT WE HAVE A FLEET PROGRAM AS WELL. AS WE GO OUT INTO COMMUNITY EVENTS, FOCUS GROUPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE WILL PROMOTE OUR PROGRAM AS WELL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> COUNCILMEMBER SAKA? >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND THANK YOU FOR THIS PRESENTATION HERE . I THINK IT IS VERY RATIONAL AND REALISTIC APPROACH TO HELP US IMPLEMENT OUR CITY'S CLIMATE GOALS AND COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY WITH RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION AND ELECTRIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION. THERE IS TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS AND MODES FROM THE PORT TO ELECTRIFYING OUR TRANSIT SYSTEM. OF COURSE, PERSONAL VEHICLES WHICH IS WHAT THE THRUST OF THIS IS AS WELL, ALL OF WHICH ARE VERY IMPORTANT. CHAIR, THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE -- AS YOU KNOW, IN THE LEVIED PROPOSAL , THERE WAS $32 MILLION ALLOCATED SPECIFICALLY TOWARD BUILDING AND EXPANDING OUR PERSONAL CHARGING NETWORK ACROSS SEATTLE TO MAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE FOR ALL. WE HAVE A GOAL OF ADDING THESE EV CHARGING, THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE TOP VISITED PARKS, LIBRARIES, ET CETERA. OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT AND WIDELY DEPLOY THESE IN VARIOUS MULTIFAMILY HOMES AND BUILDINGS, FACILITIES, ET CETERA. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT STEP TO HELP US IMPLEMENT THESE BROADER GOALS AND VISIONS FOR ELECTRIFICATION IN OUR CITY AND PROUD TO SUPPORT IT TODAY. IT IS THE CLAIMANT FRIENDLY THING TO DO. IT IS THE PLANET POSITIVE THING TO DO. IT IS THE THING TO DO TO SUPPORT GOOD PAYING LIVING WAGE UNION JOBS IN THE TRADES TO HELP BUILD, MAINTAIN, SUPPORT THIS INFRASTRUCTURE. ANYWAY, THIS IS A GREAT PROPOSAL. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED THAT SOMETHING WAS BANNED . CAN YOU TALK MORE ABOUT THAT AND WHY IT WAS BANNED IN THE FIRST PLACE? >> YES. THE PRACTICE OF SUBMETERING ELECTRICITY WAS BANNED BACK BECAUSE LANDLORDS -- NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT SOME, WOULD END UP OVERCHARGING TENANTS FOR ELECTRICITY AND MAKING PROFITS ON THE ELECTRICITY PROVIDED TO THEIR TENANTS. >> THANK YOU. >> I APPRECIATE THAT THIS WILL ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS TO HAVE EASY CHARGING STATIONS IN PARKING SPACES DEDICATED TO SPECIFIC TENANTS WHILE ACQUIRING THE SAME PROTECTIONS ALREADY ESTABLISHED FOR OTHERS. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS . I THINK THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS -- COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR IS YOUR HAND UP PREVIOUSLY? >> PREVIOUSLY. THANK YOU. >> I MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL BILL 120840. IS THERE A SECOND? >> MOVED AND SECONDED TO RECOMMEND PASSAGE OF COUNCIL BILL 120840. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS? WILL THE CLERK THESE CALL THE ROLL? >> VICE CHAIR MOORE? >> AYE. >> MORALES? >> AYE. >> SAKA? >> AYE. >> STRAUSS? >> YES. >> WOO? >> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES. THE RECOMMENDATION TO PASS THE BILL WILL BE SENT TO THE SEPTEMBER 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WE HAVE REACHED THE END OF TODAY'S MEETING AGENDA. IS THERE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE BEFORE WE ADJOURN? HEARING NO BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, THE TIME IS NOW 10:35 AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. >> THANK YOU.