>>>. 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
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
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
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.