Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

INTO THE CITY GIRL AND LEGISLATIVE

[00:00:01]

AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING, UM,

[Legislative Affairs Committee]

CHAIRMAN ROBERT SMITH, UH, WITH ME TODAY HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, BJ WILLIAMS AND RICH ROBYN, AND A NUMBER OF, UH, OF OUR CITY STAFF WITH US.

UH, ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, UM, AS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES.

AND IS THERE A MOTION SECOND CHAIR.

ALL RIGHT.

I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROBYN SECOND BY COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE.

NOT OPPOSED THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

MOVING ON TO ITEM TWO, UH, PUBLIC INPUT, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY SPEAK FOR THREE MINUTES ON ANY ITEM RELEVANT TO THE COMMITTEE.

UH, WE DO HAVE ONE ATTENDEE HERE TODAY WITH US AND TRISHA.

IF YOU HAD ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU WANTED TO MAKE, FEEL FREE TO RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE WILL BE HAPPY TO HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU.

AND IF NOT, THAT'S OKAY TOO.

ALL RIGHT.

I'LL KEEP AN EYE ON THE ATTENDEE LIST FOR LATER ON IN THE MEETING, UH, MEMBERS, AND IF, UH, PATRICIA WANTS TO JUMP IN AT SOME POINT, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE HER INPUT.

UH, MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, UH, THREE A'S ENERGY-RELATED BILLS UPDATE.

UH, WE HAVE, UH, MR. RAY SHORTENER, UH, CITY ATTORNEY, BRAD NEIGHBOR.

UH, WHOEVER WANTS TO START OFF, GO AHEAD AND LET'S, UH, LET'S GET THE PARTY GOING.

UM, VERY BRIEFLY CHAIRMAN, VERY BRIEFLY.

WE THOUGHT WE'D GIVE, UH, WE CIRCLE BACK AROUND ON THE STATUS SEVEN, EIGHT ELECTRIC BILL, UM, UH, RIGHT.

JUST GOING GO OVER THEM, UH, AT LEAST APPEAR TO ANSWER THEM LIVE TO THEM.

IT'S STILL THE LINGERING QUESTION OF, UM, WHAT THE STATE DOES MOVING FORWARD TO, UM, RESPOND TO SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS.

UM, AND A LOT OF IT'S STILL UP IN THE AIR, BUT WITHOUT EXPANDING ON THAT, I'LL PASS OVER TO RIGHT.

AND BY THE WAY, RIGHT, YOUR MICROPHONE IS MUTED.

IF YOU'RE READY TO GO, I'M READY TO GO.

I THOUGHT ABOUT JUST LEAVING IT MUTED AND THEN Y'ALL READ MY LIPS, CHECK OUT READING LIPS.

UM, YOU KNOW, THE, I GUESS THE THING I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IS A CALENDAR.

UM, WE'RE KIND OF RUNNING OUT OF TIME FOR BILLS TO MOVE.

IF THEY HAVEN'T MOVED.

I HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT, UH, I JUST GOT OUT WHILE AGO.

I PROMISED BREAD.

I'D HAVE IT LAST FRIDAY, SO I'M APOLOGIZING, BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY BILLS CAME OUT WITH A COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE ON FRIDAY.

I KNOW AT LEAST FOUR MAJOR BILLS CAME OUT AND, UM, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN A LOT OF THEM.

SOME OF THEM WERE JUST BILLS THAT WERE THERE TO BE A PLACEHOLDER FOR SOMETHING.

AND THEN WHEN THEY CAME OUT WITH A SUBSTITUTE, IT WAS A WHOLE NEW BILL BASICALLY.

AND SO, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, I'LL GIVE YOU ONE WORKERS, 2109 WAS THOUGHT TO BE A BILL FOR A PLACEHOLDER FOR THE BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HATHAWAY DEAL, WHERE THEY WERE COMING IN AND BUILD PICKING UNITS.

AND, UM, UH, THAT BUILD THAT, THAT IDEA WITH BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY IS DEAD NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

SO HE'S COME UP WITH A WHOLE NEW SET OF RULES AND REGULATIONS HAVING TO DO WITH, WITH THE VARIOUS AND SUNDRY THINGS, BUT, BUT THE PC RAILROAD COMMISSION AND SOME OTHER THINGS I HAVEN'T STUDIED IT.

I JUST GIVING YOU AN EXAMPLE.

IT'S IT'S, IT'S ORIGINALLY WAS TALKING ABOUT A RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS AND HOW WE WERE GOING TO TREAT RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS, HOW THEY COULD PARTICIPATE IN DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. AND NOW IT'S A WHOLE LIST OF OTHER THINGS.

SO THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT'S GOING ON, UH, SEEMS LIKE, UH, WITH SOME REGULARITY RIGHT NOW, BUT ON THE CALENDAR AND IT, AND WHAT, UH, I HOPE WILL HAPPEN.

UH, BRAD IS AFTER THIS MEETING SEND OUT THIS PRESENTATION AND THEN EVERYBODY WILL KIND OF HAVE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS LATER, WE'LL BE GLAD TO, YOU KNOW, ANSWER THOSE.

BUT, UH, MAY THE 13TH, UH, IS THE LAST DAY FOR THE HOUSE TO CONSIDER ANY BILL ON THE SECOND READING, UH, THIS CALL.

THIS IS ALSO, UH, ANY JOINT RESOLUTIONS,

[00:05:02]

UM, AS WELL.

UH, SO THIS IS FOR THE, ANY OF THE JOINT RESOLUTIONS ON THE DAILY CALENDAR, SUPPLEMENTAL CALENDARS, JOINT RESOLUTIONS ARE REALLY JUST BILLS.

THEY STILL REQUIRE THE SENATE APPROVAL AND THE GOVERNOR SIGNATURE.

I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHY WE HAVE JOINT RESOLUTIONS.

DO YOU KNOW BREAD, USUALLY A JOINT RESOLUTION IT'S THEY INTRODUCE, UH, AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND CALLED FOR A VOTE TO AN ALASKAN ON AND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION.

YEAH.

OKAY.

SO IT'S A SPECIAL PURPOSE.

UM, THEY HAVEN'T DECIDED MAYBE, MAYBE THIS IS, UH, HAS TO DO WITH, UH, CARRY CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY.

I DON'T KNOW IT COULD BE A JOINT RESOLUTION, RIGHT? UH, SO MY, THE MAY THE 14TH IS THE LAST DAY THAT A HOUSE CAN CONSIDER CONSENT HOUSE BILLS ON LOCAL AND CONSENT CALENDARS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD READING.

SO WHAT THIS IS SAYING IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE IN THE WEEK OF THE LAST OF THE LAST CHANCES TO GET SOME OF THESE BILLS OUT.

AND, UH, WHEN I SAY GET OUT, THAT MEANS MOVE OUT OF THE HOUSE TO THE SENATE FOR CONSIDERATION MAY THE 21ST, LAST DAY FOR THE HOUSE TO CONSIDER ANY, UH, LOCAL HOUSE BILLS, UH, ON THE CONSENT LOCAL CALENDARS.

AND IT'S THE FIRST DAY FOR THE SENATE TO CONSIDER BILLS, RESOLUTIONS AND SO FORTH.

ON THE FIRST DAY, THEY'RE POSTED ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT.

SO IT BEGAN AS THE SENATE CALENDAR COUNTDOWN AND ENDS THE HOUSE COUNTDOWN.

UM, THE 26, UM, IS AGAIN A DATE THAT, UH, SOME LOCAL AND CONSENT, UM, THIS, THIS IS CONSIDERING, EXCUSE ME, LET ME GO BACK TO THE 25TH.

SO THE LAST DAY THE HOUSE CAN CONSIDER ON SECOND READING SENATE BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT TO THEM, UM, OR JOINT RESOLUTIONS FROM THE SENATE ON, ON THE CALENDARS, ON THE DAILY LOCAL CALENDARS.

AND THEN THE 26 IS THE LAST DAY FOR THE HOUSE TO CONSIDER ON LOCAL CONSENT, THE SENATE BILLS ON SECOND AND THIRD READINGS.

SO THAT'S THE NEXT STEP CONSIDERING WHAT COMES OUT OF THE SENATE? UM, MAY THE 30TH, THE LAST DAY FOR THE HOUSE TO ADOPT, UM, OUR DISCHARGED HOUSE CONFERENCE CONFEREES AND CONVERT IN THE SENATE AMENDMENTS.

SO IT'S THE LAST DAY FOR THE SENATE TO CONCUR IN THE HOUSE AMENDMENTS TO ADOPT THE CCRS.

AND THEN THE 31ST, THE NEXT DAY IS THE LAST DAY OF THE SESSION.

JUNE THE 20TH IS THE LAST DAY FOR THE GOVERNOR TO SIGN OR VETO BILLS.

AND THEN THERE'S ALWAYS DISCUSSION OF A SPECIAL SESSION.

UM, THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION THAT IT COULD BE ONE, UH, UH, CALLED IN JULY FOR MEDICAID FUNDING AND FEDERAL FUNDS.

I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THAT ONE AT ALL.

UH, I HAVE HEARD SOME ABOUT A SEPTEMBER SPECIAL SESSION FOR REDISTRICTING.

UM, BUT RIGHT NOW THERE'S ON THE ELECTRIC POLICY ENERGY POLICY.

IT'S TOTALLY UNKNOWN TO ME AND OTHERS AS TO WHETHER THERE'LL BE A SPECIAL SESSION ON THAT.

I DON'T SEE IT MYSELF JUST BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE SEEM TO BE CONCENTRATING ON SOME BILLS.

I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT IN JUST A MINUTE AS A WAY TO SAY WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF THE, OF THE CRISIS.

UM, OKAY, SO I'LL GET THIS OUT WITH A COPY OF THIS CALENDAR, BUT BASICALLY FROM NOW, TILL THE END OF THE 31ST END OF THE SESSION, THINGS ARE GOING TO BE MOVING EXTREMELY FAST, YOU KNOW, DAY BY DAY.

SO IF

[00:10:01]

YOU'RE TRYING TO STAY TUNED IN CHECKING IN EVERY DAY, UH, IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT A PARTICULAR BILL OR YOU WANT US TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT ON A PARTICULAR BILL, LIKE THAT'S WHY WE'RE SEEING AMONGST THESE SUBSTITUTES COME OUT IN FINAL VERSION SO THAT THEY CAN GET HEARD.

THE NEXT SLIDE I HAVE IS, UH, BROKEN THINGS DOWN INTO THE BUCKETS THAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IN, UH, THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION.

I HAD MORE BUCKETS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S REALLY GOTTEN DOWN TO TWO, FOUR PRIMARY ISSUES.

AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH, UH, IN MY OPINION, THE CUSTOMER CUSTOMER INTERFACE, UM, AS A RESULT OF THE STORM, THE SECOND BUCKET IS FINANCIALS, UH, WHICH IS REALLY SECURITIZATION BILLS.

UM, THERE IS, UM, A MOVEMENT OF A COUPLE OF BILLS THERE AND AN INTRODUCTION OF A NEW BILL THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.

UM, AND THEN THERE'S A WHOLE HOST OF BILLS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH RELIABILITY.

AND YOU'LL FIND IT INTERESTING WHEN I TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE IN JUST A MINUTE ABOUT WHAT THEY CONSIDER RELIABILITY.

AND THEN THE LAST IS, UH, KIND OF THE GOVERNANCE REFORM, UH, WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO TO ERCOT, WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO THAT PUC, THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.

UM, AND THESE, THESE ARE AGAIN, ARE FAIRLY, UM, OH, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY IT, BUT IT, WHEN I GET INTO THEM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS YOU'LL SEE HOW MUCH MEAT IS REALLY ON.

SOME OF THESE IS WHAT THEY'RE REALLY, WHAT, WHAT ARE THEY REALLY DOING? WHAT THEY CALL REFORM, UH, ON SENATE BILL THREE, I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THIS BILL IS PASSED THE SENATE, IT'S IN THE HOUSE AND IT'S BEEN WORKED ON PRETTY GOOD BY THE HOUSE.

UH, WE HAD SOME MAJOR CONCERNS WITH SENATE BILL THREE, UM, NUMBER ONE, IT REQUIRED WEATHERIZATION OF THE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO, UH, REALLY WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH, UH, WITH THE, UH, POWER PLANTS AND GAS SUPPLY TO THE POWER PLANTS, WHERE THE MOST CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE IS AFFECTED.

BUT, UM, IT WASN'T THE WEATHERIZATION THAT WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT.

IT WAS THE COST OF THAT WEATHERIZATION ON MARGINAL UNITS.

AND THIS BILL DID NOT PROVIDE ANY FUNDING WE ESTIMATE.

UM, WE DON'T ESTIMATE THE, UM, SENATE AND HOUSE, WHOEVER DOES THEIR ESTIMATIONS AS ESTIMATED THAT IT'S JUST TO THE MUNIES OVER A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OF ADDITIONAL COSTS.

SO WHEN YOU BREAK THAT DOWN TO THE OLD LONGER UNITS AND SAY, WOULD SAY IT'S $5 MILLION OF ADDITIONAL WEATHERIZATION, WOULD, WOULD YOU SPEND $5 MILLION ON THOSE UNITS TO KEEP THEM AROUND, UH, ARE NOT WHETHER THEY BE ECONOMIC, YOU SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY ON THEM OR NOT PAST EXPERIENCE WOULD BE, YOU PROBABLY WOULD NOT.

UM, BECAUSE IT PROBABLY ISN'T A DEFINABLE PLAN THAT WOULD GIVE YOU SOME COMFORT.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET YOUR $5 MILLION BACK.

UM, SOME OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE SENATE BILL THREE, UM, HAD TO DO WITH REQUIRING MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS TO HAVE BACKUP GENERATION.

BUT I THINK WE HAD THAT NORMALLY BREAD GARLAND WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.

BUT, UH, THE BIG, BIG KICKER IN THIS DEAL WAS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE RENEWABLES ARE THEY CALL THEM INTERMITTENT RESOURCES.

NOW, UH, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE ANCILLARY SERVICES AND TO SUBMIT FROM ENERGY SCHEDULES TO ERCOT.

UM, THIS WOULD DISRUPT THE ENTIRE RENEWABLE INDUSTRY.

IT WOULD DISRUPT ALL OF GARLAND'S CONTRACTS AS FAR AS I KNOW.

UM, AND THE REASON IS IS THAT THIS, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.

IT'S A CHANGE IN LAW.

AT

[00:15:01]

LEAST CONTRACTS HAVE CHANGED IN LAW PROVISIONS AND IT HAS SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL IMPACT.

SO, UM, THAT THAT'S THE BIG KICKER.

AND I WILL SAY IT'S THE ONE THING THAT I BELIEVE THE HOUSE IS STRIPPING FROM THAT BILL.

UM, MOST OF THE WELL CHAIRMAN PATTY IN PARTICULAR HAS NEVER LIKED THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD CHANGE THE GAME, BUT IN THE MIDDLE OF, YOU KNOW, HALFTIME AND, UH, REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT, UH, QUITE FRANKLY IS PROBABLY NOT DOABLE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH NATURAL GAS, POWER PLANTS, UH, TO POINT TO, OR TO BACK UP 28,000 MEGAWATTS OF RENEWABLES TO CONVERT THEM INTO FARM SCHEDULES.

SO THOUGH THAT, UH, RIGHT NOW IS IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEE AND IT WILL STATE AFFAIRS, UM, IT'S LEFT PENDING IN THERE AND IT'S, UM, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF IT COMES OUT AND WHAT COMES OUT OF STATE AFFAIRS, BUT RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE A PRETTY STRIPPED DOWN VERSION OF WHAT SWORN IN HER HEAD.

UM, I, IN THE SENATE QUESTION FOR YOU, RIGHT? IF BOTH THE WINTERIZATION COSTS AND THE RENEWABLE BACKUP PIECE PASS, DO WE SENSE THE ABILITY THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO BREAK EVEN AT ALL UNDER, BY PROVIDING THOSE BACKUP SERVICES TO THE RENEWABLES, KNOWING THAT WE HAD TO PUT THE 5 MILLION IN THE WINTERIZATION, CAN WE, CAN WE PLAY BOTH ENDS OF THAT? YEAH, YOU CAN, IF YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH CONFIDENCE IN THE RELIABILITY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU, IF YOU MAKE A COMMITMENT TO FIRM UP THAT RENEWABLE AND YOU, YOUR UNIT GOES OFF, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO PAY THE MARKET TO DO THAT.

YEAH.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY BE LOOKING AT 40 50 BUCKS OF COSTS TO DO IT AT, UH, OH.

AND YOUR, UH, BUT THE MARKET MIGHT CHARGE YOU 250, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT'S THE SENSITIVITY I WOULD LOOK AT, UH, UH, WHERE YOU, YOU, YOU COULD ADD A SERVICE, UM, TO WHAT THOSE UNITS CAN PROVIDE BY, BY AFFIRMING THESE UP.

UM, BUT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE RELIABLE ENOUGH TO DO THAT, I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE SENATE WAS TO PUT THE WINNERS WINTERIZATION COSTS OF THE NATURAL GAS PLANTS BACK ON THE RENEWABLES AND TRANSFER SOME WEALTH IN THAT MANNER.

AND I'M JUST TRYING TO GET IN A BETTER FEEL FOR WHAT THEY'RE THINKING OR IF THEY'RE THINKING, OKAY.

SO REALLY WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD DO IS, UH, BRING ON NEW GAS PLANTS.

UM, BUT THERE ISN'T, I MEAN, IF YOU KNOW THE BUSINESS VERY WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT ISN'T ENOUGH REVENUE TO BUILD A NEW GAS PLANT TO FIRM UP, UH, RENEWABLES, BUT THAT WAS WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING WITH THIS.

AND IT, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY HAD, UH, SOME GAS PLANTS, UM, YOU KNOW, NEWER VINTAGE THAN WHAT WE HAVE AND SO FORTH, THOSE UNITS COULD FIND EXTRA REVENUE THROUGH THIS, BUT THEY HOPED THEY HAD HOPED TO BRING OUT SOME NEW RESOURCES AS WELL, WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE.

GOOD QUESTION THOUGH.

I MEAN, IT'S EXACTLY WHAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN OLIGER TO THINK ABOUT IT AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE GOING TO KEEP THOSE UNITS AROUND AND, UM, LOOK AT ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR REVENUE, AS WELL AS WHAT THE COST IS OF THE WEATHERIZATION.

RIGHT.

ON AS FAR AS WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW.

SO I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER.

I'M JUST TELLING YOU MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT IT'D BE VERY DIFFICULT TO SPEND, UM, QUITE A BIT OF MONEY ON THE WEATHERIZATION AND TAKE A MARSHALL UNIT AND KEEP IT.

GOTCHA.

YEAH, IT'S A, IT'S A TOUGH QUESTION FOR ME TO ASK TO UNDERSTAND THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE COMPETITIVE MATTERS OF THE BUSINESS.

SO I'M TRYING TO WALK THAT VERY FINE LINE HERE.

I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS WORKING WITH ME.

YOU BET.

WELL, I'D BE GLAD TO TALK WITH YOU OFFLINE, EVEN MORE LIKE, UM, OWN THE, I DON'T KNOW REALLY WHAT TO JUMP IN NEXT.

I

[00:20:01]

GUESS SECURITIZATION MIGHT BE, UM, UM, SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING HARD ON.

I WANT TO THANK DARRYL KLEIN AND TOM HANCOCK AS WELL, BUT THERE HAS BEEN, UH, RECOGNIZED IN THE MUNICIPAL GROUP AS THE EXPERT AND HE IS, IS DONE YEOMAN WORK ON A LOT OF THESE BILLS.

UM, SO BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE IS, UH, WE HAVE ONE BILL IN THE HOUSE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE BY, BY CHAIRMAN PETTY.

IT'S A HOUSE BILL 44 92.

UH, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO HANCOCK'S 1757.

AND THEN WE HAD A NEW BILL INTRODUCED BY SENATOR HUGHES FROM TYLER, INTRODUCED A HOUSE.

I MEAN, SENATE BILL TWO, TWO, TWO SEVEN.

AND I'LL TALK ABOUT TWO, TWO TO SEVEN FIRST.

UM, BASICALLY ALL OF THESE, UH, BILLS CREATE A SEPARATE ENTITY TO SELL BONDS TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE, UM, SUFFERED THROUGH THE WINTER STORM ENTITIES, REPS, LOAD SERVING ENTITIES PROMISES.

IT'S REALLY ABOUT LOADS.

THOSE THAT HAVE PAID 9,000 BUCKS, 26,000 FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES AND ARE SUFFERING, UH, PAYING FOR UPLIFTED THOSE COMPANIES THAT HAVE FAILED.

AND, AND IF YOU ADD ALL THAT UP AND YOU, YOU TAKE A GARLAND, FOR INSTANCE, YOU GET HIT WITH A PRETTY GOOD WHACK OF MONEY AND, UH, WITHOUT SOME TYPE OF FUNDING OVER A LONG TERM, YOU WOULD BE FORCED TO RAISE RATES SIGNIFICANTLY.

AND SO WHAT THE STATE'S TRYING TO DO IS FIGURE OUT A WAY TO LET LOADS, UH, QUALIFY FOR THESE LOANS AND PAY THEM BACK OVER 25, 30 YEARS OR SOMETHING WHERE THE, WHERE THE COST OF THAT IS, IS PRETTY MINIMAL.

UM, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN A DOLLAR A MONTH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR A RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER OR SOME OF THE NUMBERS THAT BEEN KICKED OUT, BUT IN HUGHES'S BILL, HE BREAKS IT DOWN INTO THREE PARTS.

ONE IS THE, UM, ANCILLARY SERVICES, UM, THAT THAT WENT WAY UP, UH, IN PRICE.

THEY WENT UP TO OVER $26,000 AT ONE TIME.

UH, THESE ARE ANCILLARY SERVICES.

I THINK GARLAND TOLD ME THEY PAID IN ONE WEEK, WHAT I NORMALLY PAY IN 18 YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES, THEIR BILL FOR THAT WAS IN THE MILLIONS FOR THAT WEEK.

UM, SO WHAT THEY DID WANT TO DO HERE IN THIS BILL IS GO BACK TO 9,000, WHICH WAS THE ENERGY CAP AND, AND REPRICE.

I WON'T, I GUESS YOU CAN'T USE THE WORD REPRICE BECAUSE THE HOUSE DOESN'T LIKE THAT WORD, BUT RECALCULATE, UH, WHAT THE ANCILLARY SERVICES WOULD BE AT 9,000 BUCKS.

AND THAT DIFFERENCE BEING BROKEN DOWN BY EACH LOAD, SERVING YOU, IT WOULD BE HOW MUCH THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR IN BUCKET ONE.

AND IN BUCKET TWO, UM, HAS TO DO WITH THE UPLIFT CHARGES, UH, GARLAND WAS HIT WITH UPLIFT CHARGES.

THESE ARE THE PARTIES THAT DEFAULTED AND DIDN'T PAY OR COD OF THE WAY ARCOT SET UP.

IF SOMEONE DEFAULTS THAT'S SPREAD AROUND TO THE REST OF THE LOAD, SERVING ENTITIES AND EVENTUALLY TO THE CONSUMER.

SO THE SECOND BUCKET HAS TO DO WITH THOSE DEFAULT UPLIFT CHARGES AND THE THIRD BUCKET, UH, THAT HE USES ED THAT NOBODY ELSE DOES HAVE IS A RECALCULATION OF THE LAST 32 HOURS OF THE, UH, $9,000 PRICE CAP.

UM, THE INDEPENDENT MARKET MONITOR IDENTIFIED THAT ERCOT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGING $9,000 DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE ALL OF THE, UM, ROLLING OUTAGES WERE OVER WITH, AND, UH, THE MARKET HAD RESERVES OF 16, 15 TO 16%, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE GONE BACK TO THE LOCATION OF MARGINAL PRICE,

[00:25:01]

UH, THAT IS THE NORMAL CALCULATED PRICE.

SO SHE CAME UP WITH A NUMBER IN, IN SENATOR HUGHES'S BILL.

UH, HE WANTS TO MAKE A LOAD SERVING ENTITIES THAT PAID 9,000 INSTEAD OF WHAT THE MARKET CLEARING PRICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR THAT BEING PUT INTO THEIR LOAN.

SO WHEN I GET TO SENATOR HANCOCK, I'LL GO AHEAD.

I PUSHED THE CHAIRMAN TO GET A QUESTION FOR YOU, RAY, JUST TELL ME IF IT'S FOR A FENCE, BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING, I WAS STILL LISTENING, UH, WATCHING THE OTHER DAY, SOME COMMENTS FROM OUT OF DENTON AND, UH, THE, UM, UTILITY DIRECTOR OUT OF SAN ANTONIO ON THE LEGAL ACTION, THAT LAWSUITS.

DO YOU THINK THAT, THAT THOSE LEGAL LAWSUITS, ET CETERA, WILL W WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON WHAT FINALLY COMES OUT IN THESE BILLS? I KNOW PROBABLY NOT DIRECTLY, BUT I WOULD JUST, THAT'S JUST MORE OF A CURIOSITY QUESTION ON MY PART, BECAUSE I WAS LISTENING TO, LIKE I SAID, COMMENTARY OUT OF UTILITIES OUT OF, UM, OUT OF DENTON AND, UH, UM, UH, SOME FOLKS OUT OF SAN ANTONIO TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, UM, THE LAWSUITS THAT THEY'VE GOT GOING.

SO DO YOU SEE THAT HAVING ANY KIND OF IMPACT AT ALL ON WHAT MAY COME OUT OF THE FINAL, WHAT MAY COME OUT IN YOUR WASH ON THESE FINAL BILLS? OR ARE THERE A NON-FACTOR WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR, WELL, UH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

AND IT DOES HAVE AN IMPACT ON THESE BILLS BJ.

UH, THEY, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY'RE SUING OVER IS REALLY THE 32 HOURS WHERE, UH, THAT'S THE MAJOR THING THAT SEEMS TO BE FAIRLY OBVIOUS THAT, UH, THERE WAS NO REASON TO HAVE PRICES AT THE CAP WHEN THE MARKET WOULD HAVE CLEARED QUITE EASILY.

WE HAD RESERVES WEREN'T IN AN OUTAGE SITUATION.

SO IF THEY WIN THE LAWSUITS, THEN THEY GET THEIR SON TO GET THE MONEY BACK AND, UH, THAT THEY PAID.

UH, SO THAT WOULD BE MONEY THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, I GUESS OTHERS WOULD QUESTION, WELL, SHOULD WE SAY, SHOULD WE NOT ASSUME AND GET OUR MONEY BACK? AND IT, AND IT WOULD BASICALLY TAKE THAT THIRD BUCKET OUT, UM, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND CLAIMS AGAINST THESE OTHER, UH, TWO BUCKETS.

UH, IT'S PRETTY HARD.

UM, AND IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY HARD TO WIN ANY OF THAT, BUT THINK THE 32 HOURS MIGHT, AND IT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT ON THE AMOUNT THAT'S AVAILABLE.

UM, AND, UM, THOSE THAT HAVE ALREADY SIGNED UP FOR THESE LOANS, THAT IS ONE OF THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR, BUT IT IS A GOOD QUESTION.

AND IT, IT'S, IT'S A REAL GOOD QUESTION IN THAT IF THAT'S SOMETHING OF INTEREST, UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THESE LAWSUITS GET SETTLED, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE AWHILE AND PROGRAM'S GOING TO GO AHEAD IF IT'S, IF IT'S APPROVED IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE THESE LAWSUITS GOING AND, AND, AND, AND BRAD, IF RE READ, IF, IF, LET'S SAY IF, IF THE LAWSUIT OR AURA SUCCESSFUL TO ANY DEGREE AFTER THE LEGISLATION IS PASSED, IS THERE EVERY PROVISION WHERE THE, THE RULING OR THEY'VE REALLY CAN, THE LAWSUITS THEN WOULD REQUIRE, UH, WOULD BE RETROACTIVE AND REQUIRE SOME KIND OF ADJUSTMENT, UM, THAT WOULD RENDER A PORTION OF THE LEGISLATION NULL AND VOID, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE, BUT I GUESS I'M REACHING FOR US, BUT IS THAT SUCH A THING THAT THE BILL PASSES, IT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON, ON LEGISLATION LEGISLATION THAT COMES OUT, UM, I'LL ADD THIS, UH, THE DENTON LAWSUIT, UM, IS MORE THAN A CON FROM A PLAY ON UTILITY.

UM, AND, BUT, UH, ALUMINUM, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, THE MORE, THE BIGGEST, IF NOT THE BIGGEST, UM, OUR COMPANY GENERATOR, THEY HAVE A SIMILAR LAWSUIT, IT'S

[00:30:01]

A DIFFERENT, UM, UH, SORT OF OUR, WELL, IT'S A DIFFERENT PROVISION OF THE LAW THAT THEY'RE ARGUING, BUT, UH, THEY HAVE A VERY SIMILAR ARGUMENT.

SO THIS ISN'T UNIQUE TO MUNICIPALLY-OWNED UTILITY MARLIN DIDN'T JOIN IN THAT.

WE'RE NOT IN EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION WITH DENTON, UM, THE DENTON LAWSUIT.

SO IT'S SUCCESSFUL.

IT COULD IMPACT OREO OPERATIONS AND HOW WE INTERACT IN ERCOT MARKET.

UM, THE ILLUMINANT LAW, THE SAME THING IT'S COMING FROM AN INVESTOR ROOM, AND IT COULD CAUSE A RESHAPING OF THE TEXAS ELECTRIC MARKET, THE PROBLEM BEING THAT, UH, PERHAPS SOME OF THE PLAYERS AND, UH, THE ELECTRIC MARKET, PARTICULARLY THE RETAIL LICENSE PROVIDER, YOU CAN, YOU CAN GET INTO THE MARKET WITHOUT A LOT OF, UH, A LOT OF COLLATERAL, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN BE, UM, UH, UH, OR A RAPPER RECOUNT PROVIDER WITHOUT HAVING ENOUGH COLLATERAL TO COVER YOUR OBLIGATIONS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE SAW GREAT IS BECAUSE EXAMPLE, UM, AND IT CAUSES THAT THAT SORT OF SHORT PAY AND UPLIFT PROBLEM, UM, THAT THE ERCOT PARTICIPANTS IN DEALING WITH AND, AND THAT'S WHAT THE DENTONS AND ELIMINATES OR ARE WORRIED ABOUT.

AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO, UH, ALLOW TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR ELECTRIC MARKET, UH, AT LEAST HAVE SOME BETTER COVERAGE FOR YOUR OBLIGATION, EVEN IF YOU WERE TO TAKE A BANKRUPTCY, IF YOU WERE BACKED BY SOME KIND OF PERFORMANCE OBLIGATION AND PAYMENT, A BARN, AND THERE'S SOME SECURITY LEFT FOR THE REMAINING PLAYERS IN THE ELECTRIC MARKET, WE MIGHT SEE THAT AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THIS LITIGATION.

YOU, YEAH.

UH, JUST TO ADD, YOU KNOW, UH, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU HAVE THIS KIND OF KIND OF LITIGATION GOING ON, IT MAKES IT REAL DIFFICULT TO MAKE DECISIONS.

I WILL SAY GARLAND IS IN A FAIRLY GOOD POSITION RELATED TO, UM, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO DENTON AND, UM, THEIR, THEIR ISSUES, UM, BECAUSE GARLAND HAD TAKEN SOME ACTION EARLY ON FINANCIALLY TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THESE MATTERS.

SO, UM, THE SECURITIZATION BILLS MAY BE MORE CRITICAL TO DENY OR TO SOME OF THE PEOPLE LIKE, UM, LIKE THAT, THAT ARE IN MORE DIFFICULT, UH, CONDITION.

UM, THEN GARLAND, WE'LL JUST MAKE THAT STATEMENT DRAWN, DONE SOME GOOD THINGS, UM, EARLY ON TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AS BEST THEY COULD.

UM, I GUESS THE NEXT, UH, I MEAN, THE OTHER TWO BILLS BOTH BY PAT PATTY'S COME OUT WITH A NEW, UM, UM, SUBSTITUTE, UH, ON 44 92, UH, I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES THE BASIS OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN IT'S STILL ONLY LOOKING AT ANCILLARY SERVICES AND THE DEFAULT, UH, PAYMENTS MY IS NOT LOOKING AT THE 32 HOURS.

UM, BUT WELL, I JUST GOT THAT VERSION LAST FRIDAY AND, UH, TPA IS SET UP TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH HIM, UM, THIS WEEK.

I THINK THE BOYS, SOME OF OUR CONCERNS THERE AGAIN, UH, WHEN WE, WHEN WE MADE ON THESE BILLS WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, LIKE PATTY IS, UH, THEY, WE TEND TO COVER SEVERAL ISSUES AND WILL WE COVERING OUR CONCERNS ON SENATE BILL THREE, WHICH, UH, ARE PROVIDED MOST OF THAT TO A TPA, UM, THAT HAD TO DO WITH OUR CONCERNS.

AND THE NUMBER ONE THING IS THAT WEATHERIZATION WITHOUT FUNDING IS DONE, UH, CAUSE MUNICIPAL, I MEAN, UH, MARGINAL UNITS TO GO OFFLINE AND CREATE A BIGGER PROBLEM FOR ONE OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF

[00:35:01]

THAT.

UM, I'M JUST BRIEFLY MENTIONED THAT LOOKS LIKE, AND BRAD, YOU CAN PROBABLY JOIN IN ON THIS ONE, SENATE BILL 10 AND HOUSE BILL SEVEN 49, UM, YOU KNOW, MOVED OUT OF THEIR COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

THESE BILLS ARE THE ONES THAT WE CALL THEM, SENSOR CITIES AND THE COUNTIES, BUT NOT ALLOW YOU TO SPEND ANY MONEY ON A TAX TAXPAYER MONEY, EXCUSE ME, ON LOBBYING.

UM, BRAD, YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? I, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND NOBODY ELSE REALLY DOES MAYBE RIGHT.

HAS A BETTER INSIDE TRACK.

UM, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SAY THE TRANSPARENCY BUILDS AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, UM, COME THROUGH AND, UH, THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION ON, UH, OUTSIDE LOBBYISTS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH SANCTIONS OR TEMPERATURE'S STILL GOING TO BE ON ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED.

I'M TRACKING THROUGH BILLS TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING DOWN THERE TODAY.

UH, THE TAXPAYER FUNDED MOBBING BILL.

SO IT COULD JUMP UP AT ANY MOMENT AND BECOME LAW, BUT, UH, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, UM, AS THINGS SLOWED DOWN ON MANDY, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW, MITCH CHAIRMAN SOME NEWS ON THAT, BUT, UH, IT'S, IT'S QUITE A DOWN CONSIDERABLY DOESN'T MEAN IT'S GONE, GONE AND DEAD FOR THE SESSION.

UM, BUT RIGHT NOW THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHERE THE FOCUS HAS BEEN.

IT HADN'T BEEN IN LAST WEEK, IT'S BEEN FLOODED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY ISSUES.

THAT'S CAPTURED EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION SO FAR.

SO I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING.

RIGHT.

GO AHEAD.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.

CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY SEEMS TO BE THE DOMINANT THING.

SO MAYBE A IN COURT, IN, UM, IN MILTON, THEY'LL GET AT A GUNFIGHT OR SOMETHING AND WE'LL NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.

DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT.

IT WASN'T HURTING MY FEELINGS.

UM, I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOUSE BILL 10.

UM, IT'S BEEN, UM, IT'S BEEN LEFT PENDING IN THE JURISPRUDENCE IN THE SENATE.

UM, THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE GOVERNANCE OF THE, OF ERCOT, AND IT REQUIRES, UM, THIS BILLS ABOUT PATTY AND THIS, IT REQUIRES, UH, THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF ARCOT BE TEXAS RESIDENTS, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE THEME THROUGHOUT ALL THIS, YOU KNOW, OUR BIG PROBLEM WAS WE HAD FIVE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS AND THEY ALL LIVE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

YOU KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY, OUR FIVE INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS WERE PROBABLY THE BEST DIRECTORS WE HAD IN OUR COT.

AND THE ONE IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE EXPERTISE IN THE ENERGY SECTOR.

THEY ALSO BRING IDEAS FROM THE OTHER REGIONS TO TEXAS THAT WE WOULD NOT KNOW OF OTHERWISE, BUT YOU KNOW, TEXANS KNOW MORE ABOUT ANYTHING THAN ANYBODY ELSE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF THOSE GUYS AND WE'RE GOING TO FILL IT.

UH, SO WHAT HOUSE BILL 10 DOES IT, IT SAYS THAT, UH, THEY'RE ALL TEXAS RESIDENTS, THE GOVERNOR PICKS THREE, THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR PICKS ONE AND THE HOUSE GETS TO PICK ONE.

SO I'M SURE THE SENATE IS GOING TO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT OTHER THAN THE SENATE'S ROLE IS TO, TO, UH, APPROVE THESE APPOINTMENTS.

SO, UM, IT'S HUNG UP IN JURISPRUDENCE.

WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS, BUT, BUT THERE'S A, THERE'S A WHOLE THEME HERE ABOUT, UH, ABOUT THE GOVERNANCE THAT PUC AND OUR COT OF MAKING THESE CHANGES, UM, AS IF THAT'S GOING TO SOLVE THE WINTER PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, AND, UM, MAYBE SO MAYBE NO, BUT THE WINTER PROBLEM WAS A CAPACITY ISSUE.

UM, WE LIKED TO BLIND PEOPLE'S DECISION-MAKING AND OTHER, OTHER THINGS, BUT THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT KIND OF CAPACITY AVAILABLE

[00:40:02]

IS THE PRIMARY REASON THAT THE SYSTEM FAILED, UM, UH, HB, UH, 13, UH, CREATES THE TEXAS ENERGY DISASTER RELIEF COUNCIL, UH, MIGHT BE SOMETHING SO WE ALL WOULD LIKE TO SERVE ON, BUT UNFORTUNATELY YOU WON'T GET A CHANCE BECAUSE IT'S MADE UP OF THE PUC CHAIRMAN, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PUC, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION AND THE, UH, THE, UM, CHAIR OF THE RAILROAD COMMISSION.

AND THEN THERE'S A FEW OTHER APPOINTMENTS THAT ARE HOUSE MEMBERS AND POLITICAL MEMBERS.

SO TED RACK IS IT'S CALLED, IS, UH, THEIR CHARGE IS TO DEVELOP A WHOLE NEW, UM, PROGRAM, UH, FOR, UM, SECURITIZATION, NOT SECURITIZATION, BUT, BUT FOR THE SECURITY OF THE NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT GAS IS ABLE TO FLOW.

AND, AND THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE EXPERIENCED THIS LAST WINTER, WHERE POWER PLANTS IS WE HAVE A PLAN TO FIX THAT.

AND, UH, AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, THEY WANT TO PLAN, UH, FOR THE ELECTRIC GENERATORS POWER GENERATORS.

SO THAT, THAT THERE'S SOME INSURANCE THAT IN A STORM, UH, EVERYTHING'S COORDINATED THROUGH THIS GROUP.

EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THE PLAN IS THAT'S BEEN ADOPTED AND WE WILL AVOID THESE KIND OF ISSUES IN THE FUTURE.

AGAIN, UM, IT'S A LOT OF BUREAUCRATIC, UM, ACTION.

UM, IT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A GOOD THOUGHT ABOUT DEVELOPING THESE PLANS, BUT WHEN YOUR PLAN DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY IN IT TO SERVE THE LOAD, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT KNOWS YOUR PLAN RUNS OUT.

AND IT RUNS SHORT.

A COUPLE OF THE BILLS I WANT TO MENTION, UH, SENATE BILL TWO BY HANCOCK, UH, IS BASICALLY, UH, BASICALLY THE SAME, UH, SAME TYPE OF BILL THAT TALKS ABOUT, UH, THE PUC AND ERCOT.

HE CALLS IT REFORM, UH, REQUIRES EVERYBODY TO BE A TEXAN.

UH, THE BIG CHANGE THERE IS, UH, IN THIS BILL, IT REQUIRES ALL THE PROTOCOL CHANGES THAT ARCOT COMES UP WITH.

IT GOES THROUGH ALL THESE COMMITTEES.

I DON'T KNOW HOW FAMILIAR YOU ARE WITH ARCOP, BUT OUR COD HAS, UM, A, AN ABUNDANCE OF COMMITTEES THEY DEAL WITH, WITH TRANSMISSION PLANNING.

THEY DO WITH, UH, UM, CUSTOMER, CUSTOMER METERS PROFILE.

I MEAN, THEY JUST GOT IRA KIND OF COMMITTEE.

YOU CAN THINK OF, YOU CAN LOOK ON THEIR WEBSITE.

SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

THE PRIMARY COMMITTEE IS THE TAC, WHICH IS THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND EVERYTHING GOES THROUGH TAC.

IT COMES FROM THESE OTHER COMMITTEES AND THEN TAC APPROVES, WHAT GOES FORWARD TO THE BOARD.

SO, UM, WHAT THIS BILL DOES, IT SAYS, OKAY, EVERYTHING WILL GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION FIRST.

AND THEN THE PUC WILL DECIDE WHAT GOES TO TAC FOR CONSIDERATION, AND THEN POTENTIALLY OWN TO THE BOARD.

THIS IS A HUGE CHANGE BECAUSE, UM, THE PEOPLE THAT SERVE ON THESE COMMITTEES COME FROM THE INDUSTRY, UH, GONE IN POWER IN LINE, HAS A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE KEY COMMITTEES.

AND, UM, WE HAVE INPUT THAT WAY, BUT WHEN IT GOES OVER TO THE PUC, UM, YOU KNOW, IT BRINGS IN EVERYBODY POSSIBLE THAT, UH, MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH A PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT CAN BE HEARD.

AND, AND, UH, THE SECOND ISSUE I HAVE IS THE PUC ALSO HAD IS A, UH, UH, OH, RAD.

I'M LOOKING FOR THE WORD.

THEY'RE A BOARD MEMBER OF ERCOT AD HOC,

[00:45:01]

AN AD HOC BOARD MEMBER OF ERCOT.

THE PUC CHAIRMAN IS, AND ALL THREE COMMISSIONERS CAN ATTEND THE, UH, ARCOT BOARD MEETING.

UH, IF IT'S FIVE COMMISSIONERS, SUNDAY, ALL FIVE CAN GO AND YOU GET, YOU GOT TO REMEMBER THAT ERCOT APPROVES OR COTS BUDGET.

SO THEY HAVE A LOT OF INFLUENCE ALREADY BY JUST BEING AT THE BOARD MEETINGS, BUT NOW TO SEND ANY KIND OF PROTOCOL CHANGE, THAT'S RECOMMENDED BY COMMITTEE THROUGH THE PUC IS GOING TO BE NUMBER ONE, SLOW THINGS DOWN CONSIDERABLY.

IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET A PROCESS THROUGH THE PUC.

AND SECONDLY, IT'S GONNA, IT'S, IT'S LIKELY TO COME OUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN MANY CASES THAN WHAT THE COMMITTEE INTENDED, IF IT COMES OUT AT ALL.

SO I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S A HUGE CHANGE WHERE WE'RE TAKING IT FROM THE TECHNICAL FOLKS OF THE INDUSTRY, AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT OVER TO THE POLITICAL BODY AND SAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK? AND THE POLITICAL BODY WILL MOVE IT OR NOT MOVE IT.

THAT'S QUITE A CHANGE FROM THE PAST THAT SAID BILL TO MY HANCOCK.

UM, GREAT.

WHAT'S THE, UH, WHAT'S THE LIKELIHOOD THAT, THAT MOVES FORWARD? I THINK IT'S, UH, I THINK IT'S GOT A CHANCE OF MOVING FORWARD.

OKAY.

IT'S WHAT I TOLD YOU IS KIND OF IN THE WEEDS OF THAT BILL.

YEAH.

AND IT'S JUST FROM STUDYING THAT BILL THAT I CAME ACROSS THAT, UM, THE REST OF IT'S GOT THIS, UH, FRONT ON IT AS IF, UH, WE'RE JUST CHANGING UP ERCOT AND WE'RE GOING TO GET TEXANS ON THE BOARD SEATS AND YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF STUFF.

UM, BUT THEN AS YOU GET DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER INTO THE VEIL, YOU FIND, OH, BY THE WAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO POLITICIZE THE INDUSTRY EVEN MORE.

SO YEAH.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALREADY COME OUT OF THE SENATE AND IT'S LEFT PENDING IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEE.

IS THAT IN PATTIES? CORRECT? YEAH.

YES.

OKAY.

OKAY.

HAVE WE LODGED THESE CONCERNS WITH THE CHAIRMAN OR WAS THAT AT THAT MEETING THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT? UH, WE HAVE, UH, I HAVE TALKED TO SENATOR JOHNSON ABOUT THESE BILLS, AND THEN WE HAVE, UH, ARE WORKING THROUGH TPA TO LODGE THESE CONCERNS IN THE MEETING WITH THE, WITH THE CHAIRMAN OVER THERE.

BUT, UH, THAT DOESN'T KEEP US, IF WE THINK THIS IS GOING TO MOVE THAT, KEEP US FROM GOING TO SEE PATTI OURSELVES.

UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE SOME EXAMPLES.

I MEAN, WE'RE NOT AFRAID TO GO OVER THERE AND DO THAT OURSELVES.

WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH PPPA AND A LOT OF TIMES WE DO IT BECAUSE WE DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH DPA.

UM, RED RED IS FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES IN THE PAST ABOUT AUSTIN AND SAN ANTONIO, UH, CONCERNS.

AND I'LL GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE.

WE THERE'S A BILL THAT 1281, UM, HOUSE BILL THAT CAME OUT THAT ALLOWS FOR TRANSMISSION COMPANIES TO EXTEND OUTSIDE OF THIS POLARIA THREE MILES WITHOUT HAVING TO GET A CCN.

OF COURSE IT REQUIRES IT, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NO HERTZ OR ONE OF THE SAGGING OF THE PROPERTY OR WHATEVER, AND THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE TRANSMISSION LINE.

AND THERE'S THREE OR FOUR THINGS THAT QUALIFY YOU FOR THAT.

WELL, WE ALREADY HAVE A BILL SENATE BILL SEVEN, SEVEN, SIX THAT BRAD'S FAMILIAR WITH.

WE PASSED BACK WHEN FRAZIER WAS IN OFFICE AND IT GAVE US A 10 MILE BUFFER.

UM, THE PROBLEM IS THAT IS IN 2021, SEPTEMBER ONE, 2021.

SO WE WENT TO THE SPONSOR, UH, WHICH IS PHIL KANE AND SAID, WELL, THERE'S TWO OPTIONS HERE.

YOU CAN DO 1281 THAT DEALS WITH EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT THE CITIES ALREADY HAVE THIS BILL THAT COULD JUST BE EXTENDED.

AND, UM, THEY LIKED IT JUST EXTENDING CURRENT LANGUAGE IN SEVEN 76, BUT TPA CAME BACK AS OPPOSING, UH, DOING THAT.

THEY'D RATHER BE PART OF THE NEW BILL, WHICH

[00:50:02]

ONLY GIVES US THREE MILES.

SO WE HAD ALREADY VISITED, EXCUSE ME.

WE HAD ALREADY VISITED WITH THE CHA, UH, WITH THE L KING ON THAT.

SO SINCE THEY WERE EXCITED, HAPPY TO DO THE EXTENSION OF SEVEN 76, WE DIDN'T GO BACK AND SAY, OH, WE'VE CHANGED OUR MIND.

YOU KNOW, THE TEXAS PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION WOULD RATHER, YOU DO 1281.

WE JUST LEFT IT ALONE.

UM, IT'S THEIR DECISION ANYWAY.

SO, SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, UH, THEY SAID THEY WERE WITH US, THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND WITH THE OTHER DIRECTION WE HAD ALREADY MADE THE CALL.

WE DECIDED WE WOULDN'T GO BACK AND JUST DECIDED THERE'S BEEN A DIFFERENCE.

LET'S UM, LET'S TRY TO WRAP UP OUR HERE IN THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES OR SO.

AND THAT WAY WE'LL GET US OUT OF WRAPPING UP BECAUSE I'M LOSING MY VOICE.

OKAY.

UM, BUT, UH, I THINK, UH, I THINK THE SAD THING HERE IS THAT, UH, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE TESTIFY THAT THEY WERE HEDGED PROPERLY.

THEY DID THE RIGHT THING, AND THEREFORE THEY DIDN'T SUFFER THROUGH THIS STORM AS MUCH AS OTHERS.

AND IT WAS THROUGH THEIR ASTUTE MANAGEMENT, UM, THAT THIS IS THE OUTCOME THAT THEY'RE THEY'RE BENEFITING FROM.

AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW DIFFERENT, UM, I KNOW DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THESE THINGS AND, UM, PROVIDING SOME INFORMATION TO SENATOR JOHNSON BECAUSE HE CHALLENGED THE CITY OF AUSTIN THE OTHER DAY WHEN AUSTIN MADE THE COMMENT THAT, UH, THEY DON'T FAVOR ANY OF THESE SECURITIZATION BILLS.

UH, THEY DON'T WANT ANYBODY ELSE TO HAVE A LOAN PROGRAM BECAUSE THEY'RE AFRAID SOMEHOW THEY MIGHT GET ASSIGNED SOME OF THE COSTS.

AND I MADE THIS STATEMENT, YOU KNOW, WELL, WE, WE DID SO WELL.

WE FOLLOWED THE RULES.

WE WERE PROPERLY HEDGED.

AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE ONLY LOST A COUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS OR 20 MILLION, EXCUSE ME, 20 MILLION, NO BIG DEAL.

AND SO, UH, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS, SINCE I LIVED DOWN HERE, AUSTIN WAS NOT ONLY EXPERIENCING OUTAGES LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE FROM ROLLING OUTAGES, BUT THE TRUTH OF MATTER IS THEY HAD ICE STORM DAMAGE, UNLIKE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AREA, WHICH WE DID HERE AT GEORGETOWN AS WELL.

AND THAT AST ARM KEPT 40% OF THEIR LOAD OFF FAR BEYOND THE ROLLING BLACK, BLACK, UH, THE OUTAGES.

SO THINK ABOUT THAT THEIR GENERATION WAS RUNNING AND GETTING PAID $9,000 AND 40% OF THEIR LOAD WAS OFF WHEN EVERYBODY UP, WHEN YOUR LOAD WAS BACK ON, OKAY, YOU WERE HAVING TO SERVE YOUR LOAD.

UH, SO THE, THE DIFFERENCE THERE IS YOUR GENERATION PLUS YOUR PURCHASES COVERED YOUR LOAD, BUT IT WASN'T A BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE.

IN AUSTIN'S CASE, THEY HAD EXCESS GENERATION THAT THEY WERE GETTING PAID FOR, THAT THEY WEREN'T SERVING THEIR LOAD BECAUSE IT WAS OUT, BUT BECAUSE OF THE STORM, NOT BECAUSE OF MANAGEMENT, JUST PURE LUCK.

OKAY.

BUT THEY HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THAT.

THEY'VE TESTIFIED HOW WELL THEY'VE DONE, UH, AND ALL THAT.

AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS THAT HAVE DONE THE SAME THING.

UM, AND I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT IT.

SO I'M PROVIDING SOME ACTUAL FACTUAL INFORMATION ON SOME OTHER FOLKS BECAUSE JOHNSON ASKED THE QUESTION OF THE GUY FROM AUSTIN, UH, THE CFO, UH, HE SAID, ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL ME THAT Y'ALL ACTUALLY WERE ABLE TO PLAN AND HEDGE FOR ONE AND A HUNDRED YEAR EVENT SUCCESSFULLY? UH, AND THE GUY SAID, YES, WE JUST FOLLOWED THE RULES.

UM, AND JOHNSON WAS LIKE, YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME.

NOBODY PLANS FOR A ONE IN A HUNDRED YEAR EVENT.

AND, UH, IT WAS OBVIOUS.

SO I THOUGHT I'D GIVE HIM A LITTLE LETTER, SOME OF THE FACTS AND MAYBE FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT SOME OF THESE FOLKS THAT ARE SAYING PEOPLE DON'T NEED HELP, BECAUSE IF YOU HAD DONE THE RIGHT THING, YOU WOULD NEED HELP.

[00:55:01]

UNDERSTOOD.

ALL RIGHT, SIR.

WELL, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT FOR ME, UNLESS YOU GOT QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

YEP.

UH, BRAD, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND GIVE US THE OTHER UPDATES THAT YOU GUYS HAD PLANNED FOR.

AND, UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START THINKING ABOUT CLOSING THIS DOWN FOR THE DAY.

SURE.

SORRY.

WOULD IT BE OKAY IF I DROP OFF OR DO YOU NEED ME ANY LONGER? YOU'RE GOOD.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR WAY.

OKAY.

COME SEE US.

THANK YOU, BREAD.

UH, I WANT TO GO OVER REAL QUICKLY.

SOME OF THE BILL HAVE MADE IT THEIR WAY OR ARE STILL REMAINING AT THE PEAK OF THE PYRAMID, THE PYRAMID DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PYRAMID PYRAMID PROBABLY DON'T HAVE MUCH CHANCE OF MAKING IT THROUGH INTO LAW.

THAT'S A GOOD THING.

IT TIMED OUT THAT WE WOULD EITHER SUPPORT OR, OR, OR, UH, WE LIVE.

UH, BUT IT'S THE NATURE OF A LEGISLATURE THAT MAY ONLY EVER TWO YEARS.

AND, UM, AND IN A PARTICULAR SECTION, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MEMBER IS THIS YEAR.

I THINK IT'S AROUND 7,500.

AND SO, UH, THESE ARE SOME OF THOSE BILLS THAT ARE STILL AT THE PEAK OF THE PYRAMID.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THOSE ARE SOME CAN JUMP UP AND HAVE SOME LIFE.

UM, AND THEN, OR THOSE THAT ARE OUT THERE LINGERING SORT OF LIKE TAXPAYER FUNDED, SO-CALLED TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBING BILLS, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON.

UM, I'LL GIVE YOU A SHORT EXPLANATION.

I DON'T THINK ANY, WE HAVE ANY VISITORS, SO PERHAPS I WON'T GO INTO ANY GREAT DETAIL, BUT I WANT TO HIT SOME OF THOSE THAT ARE STILL A BIT CONCERNED AS TO WHY.

UM, THERE THERE'S A BILL 1878.

UH, I CAN SEND YOU THIS LIST.

UH, THIS RELATES TO VACANT RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.

THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM ONE COUNCILMAN WILLIAM SENT ME, UH, TO LOOK AT AND WE ALERTED TY ON IT.

UM, THIS VERSION AS IT'S BEEN AMENDED AFTER THE COMMITTEE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN THE INITIAL VERSION.

UM, WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO DO, I THINK IS TO KEITH SAID AGE FROM WHEN THERE'S AN EMERGENCY DISASTER, IT'S A HURRICANE OR, UH, FOLKS WANT TO GO IN AND START DOING SOME REPAIRS ON THEIR BUILDINGS, THEIR HOME RIGHT AWAY.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE INITIAL BURGEON TYPICALLY PROHIBIT CITY FROM REPAIR IN A PERMANENT, IN AN EMERGENCY AT ALL.

AND THE PROBLEM IS FOLKS GO IN AND, AND DO QUOTE PREPARES.

AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT, UPSTANDARDS, THEY'RE NOT UP TO CODE.

UM, THE WORK COULD BE THE FACT THEY'VE BEEN YET.

IT GETS COVERED UP IN THE COURSE OF THE WAR, REGISTERING, LIKE PITCH ME OR WHATEVER, AND THEN YOU PUT OVER IT AND THERE'S NO WAY TO LATER ON.

AND THAT'S A CONCERN THAT THE CURRENT VERSION A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

UM, IT STILL, IT ALLOWS RENT HOMEOWNERS TO GO IN AND, AND WORK ON THEIR RESIDENCES.

YOU GET WHAT'S CALLED AN EMERGENCY PERMIT AND THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE COULD WORK WITH HERE HAVING NON-FOOD NANDO'S WE UNDERSTAND WHAT RESIDENTS ARE WORRIED ABOUT AT THE SAME TIME.

YOU DON'T WANT SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND DO SLOPPY WORK, SELL THAT BUILDING, AND THEN HAVE A DISASTER LOOMING IN THE FORM OF SOME DEFECTIVE WORK FOR THE OWNER.

UM, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF, UH, CHALK CLOG BUILDS THAT HAVE MADE THEIR WAY UP ON THE PYRAMID.

THERE'S HB FOUR, FOUR SEVEN, AND GET SOME NUMBER ON OTHER WARD.

UM, I'VE LOST MY LIST HERE.

UM, THE TWO SHARP CLOCK BILLS, ONE OF THEM ARE BROAD WOLVES, THE SCOPE OF THE SHOT CLOCK RULE.

THEY INCLUDE THINGS THAT WEREN'T PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED

[01:00:01]

AND IT PROHIBITS US FROM REQUIRING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN APPLICATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAS THIS PLAN SAYING NOT NECESSARILY THE ZONING, BUT SOMEBODY HAS A SUBDIVISION PLAN OR DETAIL PLAN.

UM, SOME CITIES APPARENTLY WITH YOUR, YOUR APPLICATION AND THE ADMINISTRATOR COMPLETED, WE CALL IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THIS IN THERE.

AND THE LEGISLATURE IS TRYING TO SAY, WELL, IF, IF THEY HAVE THE PLAN THAT TRIGGERS THEIR SHOCK CLOCK, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH.

YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM MAKE THAT APPLICATION.

IT'S ADMINISTRATIVELY PLATE.

THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THERE THAT BUILDS ON THAT AND CHUNKS DOWN, OR ABILITY TO, UM, SLOW DOWN OR ASK FOR, UH, OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD IMPACT THE RUNNING ON THE SHARK CLOCK.

AND THAT'S PROBLEMATIC TOO, WHETHER THOSE WILL ACTUALLY MAKE IT THROUGH THE CENTER PART.

THEY'RE BOTH.

UM, WE'LL HAVE TO SAY, WE KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF FRAMES ON THAT SIDE FROM THE CHAMBER EITHER.

UM, THIS NEXT ONE, UH, ALL THIS SIDE, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN DIRECTLY, BUT WE DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT AS B 22 IS RELATING TO THE PRESUMPTION.

I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE OF HOUSE BILLS TO THE SAME THING.

AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT WERE STATUTORILY INCLUDE AND OTHER FUTURE PANDEMIC DISEASES AS, UH, A PRESUMPTIVE ILLNESS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND THINK, WELL, GEEZ, THAT'S KIND OF MAKES SENSE.

IT'S KIND OF FAIR.

YOU'RE OUT THERE ON THE STREETS, UH, EXPOSED TO THE PANDEMIC.

UM, THE QUESTION IS, WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO IT OTHERWISE? AND, UH, THE, THE BIG PROBLEM IS, IS GOOD AS THE SOUND THEY'RE EXPENSIVE.

HOW MUCH VALUE YOU PUT ON A PRESUMPTIVE ILLNESS? WORKER'S COMP CLAIM? I DON'T KNOW, 50 MILLION.

I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER ROBYN AND RAISED WAS, YOU KNOW, ARE WE STILL GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THESE PRESUMPTIVE ILLNESSES WHEN, UH, UH, WHEN A VACCINE HAS BEEN REJECTED FOR AN ILLNESS THAT YOU CAN BE VACCINATED FOR? RIGHT.

AND HAS THERE BEEN ANY MOVEMENT ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT OR ANY DISCUSSION? I KNOW WE'RE IN TEXAS AND IT'S UNLIKELY, BUT I THOUGHT I'D RAISED THE POINT.

OKAY.

NO, I HAVEN'T.

AT LEAST SO FAR THERE HASN'T BEEN SUCCESSFUL.

I MEAN, I DOUBT IT WOULD FLY.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR BACK.

NO, NOTHING MANDATORY.

JUST IF YOU WANT IT TO BE PRESUMPTIVE, THEY WOULD CALL THAT MANDATORY.

WELL, YEAH.

I DON'T KNOW.

I'M TRYING TO SAY IT'S LIKE, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, PRESUMPTIVELY, IF YOU GET BURNT IN THE FIRE.

YES.

BUT IF YOU RAN IN THERE WITHOUT YOUR PROTECTIVE GEAR ON, THERE'D BE QUESTIONS, AND THIS IS KIND OF THE SAME THING.

SORRY, RICH, I'M TAKING YOUR POINT CLASS.

OH, YOU'VE ACTUALLY DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING WHY.

I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, ON PRESUMPTIVE, I MEAN, WE'VE MADE IT AND I, AND I THINK THE PRESUMPTIVE ILLNESS REGARDING COVID IS, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

PRESUMPTIVE ILLNESS REGARDING COVID IS, IS I THINK A FUNCTION.

I MEAN, COUNSEL TALKS ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO A FUNCTION OF THE GOVERNOR'S ORDER.

I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, THE EMERGENCY ORDER.

AND, AND SO QUERY ONE, WHETHER THAT WOULD GO AWAY, BUT, BUT FROM THIS KIND OF PERSPECTIVE, I MEAN, MY CONCERN IS, I MEAN, WELL, AS WE KNOW, LIKE I'VE BEEN UNABLE TO GET ANY, UH, INFORMATION FROM OUR STAFF ABOUT WHO HAS TAKEN THE VACCINATION AND WHO HAS NOT.

UM, BUT, UM, BUT I'M NOT INCLINED TO, YOU KNOW, ON PRESUMPTIVE ILLNESS TYPE THING TO PRESUME THAT THAT'S WHERE SOMEBODY GETS THE ILLNESS, PARTICULARLY AS THE NUMBERS GO DOWN.

UM, AND PARTICULARLY IF WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS ILL ONLY BY THE, THE, THE, THE NATURE OF THEIR OWN INACTION OR REFUSAL TO, TO TAKE SOMETHING THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THEM.

BUT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NOT REALLY A PATH FOR US TO PURSUE THAT LEGISLATIVELY, LIKE THE FEEL OF THE LEGISLATURE.

YEAH.

IT'S A TURN LANE, AN UNFUNDED MANDATE, HOW BIG WE DON'T KNOW, AND THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO MITIGATE IT.

[01:05:02]

I JUST LOOKED AT THE BILL VERSION AND THOSE AMENDMENTS HAVE NOT GONE IN AS FAR AS THE AVAILABILITY OF THE VACCINE VACCINATE.

HAS THERE BEEN ANY PUSH IN TEXAS? I MEAN, I, I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY NOT A POPULAR POSITION, BUT HAS THERE BEEN ANY PUSH IN TEXAS TO, UH, PRECLUDE EMPLOYEES FROM REQUIRING VACCINES? I KNOW OTHER STATES HAVE DONE THAT.

PRECLUDE THEM FROM GETTING EMPLOYERS CAN NOT REQUIRE IN SOME STATES.

I THINK IT WAS IN NORTH DAKOTA.

THEY, THEY JUST CAME UP WITH A LAW THAT SAYS THAT AN EMPLOYER CANNOT REQUIRE THAT THEIR EMPLOYEES BE VACCINATED.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS, THERE WAS A PUSH FOR THAT.

I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT BILL.

OF COURSE I HAVEN'T READ IF THERE IS SUCH A BILL, IT HASN'T SHARED A POINT WHERE PEOPLE ARE GETTING ANY ATTENTION.

UM, OKAY.

HEY BRAD, LET ME BRAG PIGGYBACK ON RACHEL.

AND I AGREE WITH HIM, IT'S THERE.

I DON'T KNOW, FROM OUR SIDE OF THE HOUSE, IS THERE ANY WAY TO, AS FAR AS NOTIFICATION TO ALL EMPLOYEES, THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE A VAST STAGNATION IS AVAILABLE, THAT, THAT THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED.

AND IF WE, IS THERE ANY WAY OF DOCUMENTING THAT PIECE TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY GETS THAT NOTIFICATION SO THAT TO LINK THIS WITH, WITH RICH'S CONCERN, OKAY.

SOMEBODY DOESN'T, AND THEN THEY CLAIM, YOU KNOW, SOME ILLNESS OR SOMETHING BECAUSE OF IT, WITH THAT AT ALL, UM, KEPT , YOU KNOW, MAYBE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.

SOMEBODY SAYS, WELL, YOU KNOW, I DID KNOW THAT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I COULD GO TO THE HEALTH TURNING AND GET AND GET A SHOT AT THEM.

MY SUPERVISOR DIDN'T TELL ME THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M OUT ON THE ROAD, I'M DRIVING THE TRUCK, WHATEVER THEY'RE DOING.

YEAH.

NOBODY OFFICIALLY TOLD ME THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT I COULD GET THAT.

SO I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAY.

LET ME INTERRUPT FOR JERMAINE ON THAT.

LET'S, LET'S HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AFTER, UNLESS YOU'RE TRYING TO TIE IT BACK TO OUR LEGISLATIVE, UH, RIGHT.

I WAS TRYING TO DO THAT, BUT I'LL DEFER MR. CHAIRMAN AND WE'LL, WE'LL LOOK AT THIS NEXT TIME.

I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO DO A STRETCH RUN, SO I'LL DEFER MISS JIM.

THANK YOU, SIR.

UM, VERY BRIEFLY RELATED TO LIKE THE PRESUMPTIVE ILLNESS, WELL-INTENTIONED, LET'S SAY, UM, THERE WAS A BILL THAT HAD A CONCERN, ALTHOUGH IT DIDN'T STAY THERE BEING MOVING.

AND NOW IT IS, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS RELATES TO ANIMAL SHELTERS AND DISEASES.

ESSENTIAL.

VIRGIN WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY EXPENSIVE.

UH, IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED US TO PROVIDE A NOTICE TO ANYBODY WHO, UM, A DOCTOR, THE ANIMAL OUT OF OUR ANIMAL SHELTER.

UM, IF THERE HAD BEEN, UH, AN EPISODE OF, UH, DISEASE BREAK OUT, UM, YOU'D HAVE TO TRACK PEOPLE DOWN, UH, SEND THEM LETTERS, EMAILS, WHATEVER, UH, VERY PROBLEMATIC AS THE BILL HAS SINCE BEEN AMENDED DOWN, UM, TO WHERE WE AT LEAST HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME WARNING THAT IF YOU ADOPT AN ANIMAL AFTER THAT SHELTER, WE'VE HAD, LET'S SAY THAT THERE'S BEEN A, UH, TEMPORARY OUTBREAK THAT HAD SHOWN UP AT OUR SHELTER.

WE GIVE NOTICE TO POTENTIAL ADOPTEES POTENTIAL ADOPTEES THAT, UH, WE'VE HAD, UH, CERTAIN OUTBREAKS AND, UH, YOUR BEST ADVICE TO, UH, ADOPT THE ANIMALS, TO TAKE THE ANIMAL AND HAVE IT CHECKED OUT BY A VETERINARIAN.

GOOD IDEA, AND NOT REALLY EXPENSIVE CURRENTLY.

I THINK IT'S ALREADY PART OF OUR POLICY TODAY THAT, AND THE PAPERWORK IS THE FIRST THING YOU SHOULD DO IS TAKE YOUR ANIMAL TO THE VET TO HAVE AN EXAMINED.

I MAY BE WRONG ON THAT.

I DON'T KNOW, UH, THIS WOULD HAVE LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED IT, THE WHOLE NOTICE PROVISION WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY EXPENSIVE.

THERE'S SORT OF POSTED WARNING

[01:10:01]

OR ADVICE ADVISORY.

UH, I THINK WORKABLE FOR HER, UM, HB 1869, JUST REAL BRIEFLY.

THAT'S THE SHORT TERM DEBT.

SO YOU WAS BILL AS WE'VE BEEN CALLING IT.

I JUST PUT IT THIS WAY.

IT'S GONE OVER THE SENATE.

UH, IT'S IN A FORM THAT WE CAN LIVE WITH.

UH, THE PROBLEM IS THAT, UM, IF IT STAYS THAT WAY FINE, AS SOME CITIES, UH, WROTE IN THEIR OWN SORTA SINGLE CITY EXEMPTIONS, UH, SOME OF WHICH DON'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE, BUT THAT'S THE NATURE OF TRYING TO BRAG THAT YOU FEEL PROUD OF THE BILL, UH, I'M TOLD, AND EVERYBODY AGREED, UH, THAT I'VE TALKED TO THAT THOSE SINGLE CITY EXEMPTIONS ARE GOING TO BE STRIPPED OUT OF THE SENATE.

IF IT COMES BACK FROM SENATE, THEY'RE GOING TO STRIP OUT THOSE SINGLE CITY EXEMPTIONS.

UM, CAUSE THEY'RE JUST NOT IN KEEPING WITH YEAH.

UM, THE SPIRIT OF THE BILL AND THEY DON'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE.

THERE'S NOT A SINGLE CITY EXEMPTING BRACKETS AT ORLAND, NOR DID WE SEEK ONE, BUT WE GOT WHAT WE WANTED AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO USE THAT SORT OF DATA FOR THE LANDFILL OPERATIONS, MORE, UH, HEAVY EQUIPMENT.

UH, THERE'S AN EXCEPTION FOR, UH, POLICE AND FIRE FACILITIES, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST EQUIPMENT THAT'S SILLY.

UM, IT, IF IT SAVES AN APP FORM, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE ON A PAY IF IT IS SIGNED INTO LAW.

UM, ONE MENTIONED THIS ONE'S KIND OF INTERESTING.

WELL, LET ME, LET ME SAY REAL QUICK, CAUSE THIS IS ALWAYS ONE OF MY FAVORITES, UH, HB 1868 CHICKEN LIBERATION.

YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS GOT IT FROM THE SENATE SIDE, SOME KIND OF A BILL THAT PREEMPTS US FROM REGULATING CHICKENS, RAISING CHICKENS IN YOUR, AT YOUR HOUSE.

UM, HERE IT CAME THROUGH ON THE OUTSIDE.

THIS ONE INCLUDES A RABBIT.

IT SEEMS LIKE A TRULY, TRULY LOCAL ISSUE.

BUT HERE IT IS, AGAIN, DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO MOVE OR NOT, BUT IT, IT GOT SOME INDICATION ON TML THAT IT WAS MOVING THROUGH, UM, HB 1925.

I THOUGHT THIS IS INTERESTING.

CAUSE OUR DISCUSSION DURING THE ZONING HEARING, RELATING TO CAMPING IN PUBLIC, THIS WOULD PROVIDE A STATEWIDE PROBATION ON CAMPING IN A PUBLIC PLACE.

EVEN THOUGH IT SOUNDS LIKE A SIMPLE CONCEPT PRIMLY COMPLEX BILL.

UM, THE REASON I MENTIONED IS BECAUSE IT KIND OF TAKES THE BURDEN OFF OUR BACK.

IF WE WANT TO TRY TO REVISE OR EXPAND OR OUR PROBATION ON CAMPING ORDINANCE, AT LEAST SUSTAINABLE, WE'LL LIKELY HAVE TO DEFEND THE BILL RATHER THAN US.

AND YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE CHALLENGED BECAUSE I'M NOT THE ONE THAT I, I THINK IT'S TRULY LOCAL AND WHY IT GOT STATEWIDE ATTENTION.

AND THE BILL DOES SAME DAY, BEST PAGE 14, 86 PROHIBITS TO GO.

NOW WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO Y'ALL EVERY THREE YEARS AND GET YOUR AFFIRMATION REAFFIRMATION THAT WE WANT TO KEEP OUR, THE CURFEW BILL INTACT, UH, ORDINANCE IN TACT.

UH, THIS WOULD DO AWAY WITH ALL JUVENILE CURFEWS.

AND IT SEEMS TO HAVE SOME MOVEMENT.

I DON'T KNOW, UH, DEFUNDING BILLS, UH, ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

THERE'S A BUNCH OF THEM.

THERE ARE A BUNCH OF THEM, UM, WHICH ONE IS GONNA HANG PROMINENT.

I DON'T KNOW, UM, THE CHALLENGE THERE AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN TRYING TO FIGHT THOSE CAUSE WE HAVE NO INTENTION AND ISN'T DEFUNDING POLICE THE PROBLEM.

OR IF THERE NOW THE, A DEFINED DEFUNDING, IS IT A DOLLAR? IS IT A POSITION? UH, AND THE PROBLEM IS DEFINING POLICE.

UH, MOST OF THE INITIAL FORMS OF THE BILLS INCLUDED EVERY KIND OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ASPECT AND MARLA AND A LOT OF LARGER CITY, MULTIPLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, CINDY MARSHALL, UM, THAT'S A

[01:15:01]

SEPARATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, NOT UNDER THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE NEUTRAL FORM TO THESE BILLS OR FIRE MARSHALS OR PERMISSIONS.

UM, SO IF YOU DECIDED, WELL, THEY NEEDED FOUR FIRE MARSHALS INSTEAD OF FIVE OR WHATEVER.

AND I REALLY DON'T KNOW, UM, I COULD CREATE TO MOVE ONE OF THOSE, OUR MARSHALS TO A DIFFERENT POSITION, OR WOULD THAT GO TO P FUNDING? THE POLICE, AT LEAST THE VIRGINS NOW SEEMS TO BE MORE CENTERED ON, UM, THE MAIN POLICE AGENCY.

YOU KNOW, WHAT WE THINK OF AS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AS FAR AS WHAT CONSTITUTES DEEP FUNDING, UM, THEY THEY'VE LIED IN A BURDEN IS IT WILL WHERE IT'S NOT EVERY PENNY AND DIME THAT'S MOVED AROUND, UH, THAT WOULD TRIGGER ONE OF THESE DEEP FUNDING BILLS.

THE BIG PROBLEM PENALTIES ARE SO MASSIVE IN SOME OF THESE BILLS, THEY WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM RAISING TAXES.

THEY WOULD PROHIBIT YOU FROM WRITING ANY RIGHTS, BUILDING, PERMIT, PARK, ALL THAT SORT OF THING.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S CRITICAL THAT THEY GET THE WORDING, RIGHT? IF THERE'S ALL THESE CITIES IN A LAST VERSION, I SAW THEM, THEY'RE BEING, UH, ONLY APPLIED TO CITIES OVER 250,000.

NOW YOU THINK THAT WE MAY BE THERE, THERE'S ANOTHER BILL WORKING.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING AT, UH, IN THE BACKGROUND IMPORTANT TO US.

I DON'T HAVE THE BUILDING UP RIGHT HERE.

UM, THE CENSUS NUMBERS ARE TITLED WAIT 2025.

UH, WE COULD BE OVER 250,000, THIS ONE KIND OF FREEZES, UM, BRACKET NUMBERS, POPULATION CAPS ARE TRIGGERS THAT ARE RIGHT NOW.

SO EVEN IF WE'RE OVER 250,000, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, THIS PHIL SAYS UNTIL, UM, UNTIL WE GET FINAL CENSUS NUMBERS AND THEY'RE ALL RESOLVED, UH, CARLIN WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE UNDER 250,000.

UH, AND THAT'S IMPORTANT TO US TOO, ON THE EMERGENCY SERVICE STAGE THAT WE'RE STILL ABLE TO COLLECT ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IMPORTANT.

UM, ONE FINAL ONE, AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT THERE'S BEEN A BUNCH OF CHATTER TODAY, UH, AMONGST THE MAJOR CITY, UH, LOBBYIST LEGISLATOR.

AND, UM, WARREN IS PROBABLY SEEN AS, UH, WORKING THROUGH A BILL THAT WASN'T ON OUR RADAR BECAUSE, UH, WAS DEALING WITH NO REGULATION OR PREEMPTING REGULATION FOR HITTING REGULATIONS ON MUNICIPALITIES AND EXTRATERRITORIAL