A RESOLUTION relating to the City Light Department; adopting a 2019-2024 Strategic Plan for the City Light Department and endorsing a six-year rate path required to support the Strategic Plan.
The bill passed and the chair sign. And thank you again, Katherine Gonzales. Please call the next agenda item from the Select Committee on the 2018 Seattle City Strategic Plan. Report to the Select Committee on the 2018 Seattle City Wide Strategic Plan Agenda Item 11 Resolution 31819 relating to the City Department adopted in 2018 through 2024 Strategic Plan for the City Department and endorsing a six year rate path required to support this strategic plan. The Committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Okay. So, Councilwoman ROSQUETA, why don't you describe the basic legislation and there may be an amendment or two. So, Councilmember Mesquita, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to say thank you to Seattle City Life, the mayor's office, the review panel, community stakeholders at large, our council staff, Tony Kilduff, who's here in the audience with us and the entire council for participating in this process. Just by way of background, Seattle City Late updates its strategic plan every six years with two year updates in between. This was the first opportunity for us to provide the second of two six year strategic plans so far. The first one was passed by this council in 2012, and we now have the opportunity to set the direction, identify priorities, identify strategic initiatives, and really put our fingerprints on what we'd like to see this public utility invest in to meet our public good and our community needs. With that in mind, perhaps I could identify the amendments that are in front of us. And Mr. President, if I might save my additional comments for the end, that would be preferred. Very good. I didn't even like to speak before we get into the amendments. Or should we just dove into the amendments, is what I'm thinking. Okay. Let's go through the amendments now. And Catherine said you had Amendment one. Would you like to start off with that one? Yes, Mr. President, thank you. I'd like to move Amendment One, which is version D three, which has been provided to the council. The second second are those in favor of the amendment, which basically a substituted version that was introduced properly. Any comments on that? Just the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment. But I. I opposed the ayes have it. Go ahead, Councilmember Mesquita. Thank you, Mr. President. And I'll just say a brief comment on the amendment that we just discussed. And then I know our good council colleague Herbert has another amendment. This was an attempt to fix a few technical concerns and edits that a law had suggested. We want to make sure that the work of this council is clear, that our direction is to make sure that we have all the ability for the review panel, which you will see as detailed in the resolution that the review panel has the ability to look at all financial policies and makes it clear that we want to evaluate our existing public utility, but not in a vacuum, that we want to comparison with other public utilities. We want as much as we can to get close to an apples to apples comparison, but that we also recognize that there's varying cigarets, varying state regulations, energy sources, markets and other utilities that are served. So that was more of a technical amendment. And I welcome a good council colleague, council member, Herbert's friendly amendments as well, if we might. Very good. So, Councilmember Herbold, you'd like to amend the introduction? Yes, I would. Like to move Resolution 31819 to add a new Section seven and this. New while I pause since. Their second. Second. Okay. What do we just go ahead. This new Section. Seven combines the two items that we discussed in council briefings meeting this morning into a single amendment that accomplishes both the tasks. One is to relate specifically to the employee to manager ratio and a requirement that Seattle City Light report to the City Council on measures and policies that address that ratio to be consistent with best practices and deal with span of control issues that often are identified. For four large utilities. The second issue relates specifically to the desire to identify efficiencies within the utility, both business practice efficiencies, as well as efficiencies related to project delivery specifically. You know, one of the things that we looked at during the Seattle Public Utilities. Strategic Business Plan discussion. Is that often rates are set within a based on the proposed CIP obligations without. Actually looking at what the actual accomplishment accomplishment rate is. And often that accomplishment rate is more in line with reality and is less than what is actually in the CFP. So the result sometimes is that rate decisions are being made based on much larger numbers than the utility is actually realizing costs for, because they're not they're not they're not finishing these ship projects as quickly as as they anticipated. And so the the request is to look at the CFP accomplishment rate. And together with this efficiency study, look at whether or not rates can further decrease consistent with the timeframe that the council's already identified for for looking at at the rate path. So that's. The over. Arching goals and steps that this amendment to create a new Section seven would accomplish. Very good. This moved in second, and this amendment articulated by Councilmember Herbold or any comments on just the amendment. I'd like to just say thank you. When we start talking about USPI accomplishment rate, I mean, we all are watching closely and very concerned about the cost overruns on several projects and not only the cost overruns in and of themselves, but the processes that lead to them, the whys and. And again, as we work with our utility and it's our utilities of public utility, we have to be that steadfast, I think, in how we approach these issues. So I think this is a really good, good amendment and it's my pleasure in in supporting it. Any further comments on just the amendment? Yes. Yes. Just to clarify, is adding sections seven and eight. My apologies. I did not realize that the second section was incorporated in this amendment. I thought I had gone from potentially three amendments to one, but potentially three of them to two. But it sounds like it's all in one. Okay. So if I could just describe Section eight as well. Yes, please. Fantastic. So section the changes to Section eight are a little bit different than what y'all received via email this afternoon or this morning before noon. What I proposed in that amendment was to actually make a change within the strategic business plan document, and the executive asked that we not do that. Instead, we include this language in the resolution so that they would not have to go through the republishing process. That would. Result in actual changes being made in the in the very large strategic business plan document. So basically what this does, again, it's replicating work that I had the pleasure to do with Seattle Public Utilities and the and my committee members as it relates to system development charges and looking whether or not there is possibility for further increases by making sure that growth is paying for growth and looking that there are these particular types of system development charges relates to customer connections and the fact that some some of these costs are passed on to the general ratepayer rather than to the person who's building the building. And so this is just asking for them to come back to us with a report on how they would go about shifting these practices. There is a nod to their interest in doing it within the strategic business plan. It's just calling it out a little bit more. Very good. Thank you for that explanation. So any other comments on Councilmember Herbert's amendment? Okay. It's been moved in second. And so all those in favor of the amendment please vote I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So Councilmember Herbals amendment has passed as well. Councilmember skater, would you like to describe the legislation as amended a little more? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. So, again, I want to make sure that everyone has received the comprehensive packet that was compiled by our staff. Michael Maddox thinks that all of his work throughout the last few months here as well, getting us prepared for the strategic plan discussion. As you'll see in this comprehensive packet, we have incorporated various letters from community, from the rate panel, from individuals at Seattle City, like who responded to our requests for information, a question and answer documents, and what you see in front of you as a compiled packet that we are now considering today. I want to thank the specifically the Seattle Satellite Review panel for their work. This is an all volunteer group who was initially tasked with reviewing the original strategic plan and redesign a rate path that was put in front of you. We know that this involved many conversations with the community as well. And I want to thank City Light for your engagement in this effort to be heavily involved in community. This conversation started before I even arrived, and as you will see as an amendment in the packet in front of you, we began receiving letters in the last June of 2017 asking for the Council to consider progressive policies that create more equitable structures so that we can have a city like structure that is well financed and also funded. Any kind of review in a renewed process based on a more equitable structure. As the Chair of the Select Committee, I was happy to receive the draft plan. The second meeting that we had, again, we had three meetings over the last two months and I asked the mayor's office if they would come and do a presentation on how we got where we are, but we received a letter instead. I want to make sure everybody has the chance to receive this. Just a little bit of background for your information on how we received this proposed rate increase and select our strategic plan in front of us. I think that what's been clear, if anybody has had the opportunity, the good fortune, I will say to participate in the conversations that we've had in the select committee, you will hear a renewed sense of oversight, accountability, an interest in working collaboratively to make sure that the rate design mirrors our public utilities needs, and that we're thinking proactively about how we can continue to be the public utility of the green energy economy of the future. What we talked a lot about was making sure that we're reining in cost, that we're looking at oversight and management, that we're creating a workplace environment that promotes equity and safeness. For all those who work at Seattle City Light and for its customers, the rate path has. Receive some attention. And I want to make sure that folks have a clear understanding that the mayor's rate increase does have an impact of about $3.77 a month for the typical resident residential customer. And we know that this will have an impact on some working families and working people, including small businesses. And we're asking for additional feedback and thought about how we can get more folks in the utility discount program as we think about affordability and that we're going beyond that, as we think about greater ways to ensure accountability and oversight. We want to make sure, as Councilmember Herbal, then President Harrell said, that we look at overruns, that we make sure that we don't have 20% overruns or 130% overruns for substations that we find out about after the fact. We want to know about these upfront and be good partners with the public utility and the customers throughout this process. We've made it clear that we want to make sure that our largest and part of the city's overall budget has the oversight it needs, that we have close attention paid to how the utility is running, how workers feel in the workplace, that we're moving forward with good energy economy initiatives, and that we have good governance over the public utility. And I look forward to living and that collaboration that we talk about every day by working together with the rate review panel, with the mayor's office, with the utility, and with the community at large to make sure that we can realize many of the strategic initiatives that are included in this packet. If you have a chance to take a look at the strategic plan, there's four major areas of strategic initiatives. I want to call out just a few, if I might, Mr. President. We talk a lot about affordability, and that includes affordable affordability for residential customers and for small businesses and for large industries. I'm really interested in working with utility as we think more about how we get folks into the utility discount program and the impact that that might have on our rates going forward. We talk a lot about accountability and oversight. I specifically want to draw attention to some of the language that we included in the select committee that I chaired on making sure that we are creating a workplace where people are free of harassment, intimidation, where they don't experience discrimination based on gender or race, and that they also believe that they can excel in the workplace and get promoted and that we've created strategic processes so that we're recruiting more women and minorities and folks from within to move up within the ranks, because we know that these are good living wage jobs in our public utility. We also want to have a clear system in place to manage capital costs, larger capital projects, and ensure that we're catching issues like the overruns that were mentioned before the erupt into overruns and before they're actually noted in the press. I look forward to working with our colleagues here to make sure that we follow through on the customer service initiatives that were really driven by Seattle City life. This came directly from them and some of their internal workings to make sure that they have a better handle on any potential billing errors and that we look at how we implement new technology initiatives in the future. I want to note for the viewing public, if you believe that there is a problem with your bill, make sure you call our office or the number on your bill as the delay is there to help. There has been no rate increases implemented and there will not be the $3.77. You will not see that monthly until 2019. And so if you do believe that you see an increase in your bill, please do call us because we want to make sure that we're addressing any of those overruns now, and that is not related to the strategic plan in front of you. Lastly, I'll just say this. What I'm most excited about in this strategic plan and the accompanying resolution is not just an acceptance of the status quo as it relates to rate design, but that we're actually creating a process led by the review panel in collaboration with the community stakeholders who sent us this letter in June and June of 2017 to work together with the public utility, with the mayor's office, with us as council and with the community at large to address possible rate design changes, to look at progressive rate structures and progressive rate designs. Because in the last two months, we've really talked a lot about rate design, debt service ratio rate classes and rate blocks. And terminology like this can easily exclude many people who aren't living and breathing satellite and public utilities on a day to day basis. Again, I've had the benefit of having folks on central staff and my own staff help walk through the process on how we can actually distill some of these issues so that newcomers to the conversation can be involved. I want to make sure that in the next 12 months, beginning this fall, quarter four, that we're working with the leadership of the of the review panel in collaboration with community partners such as Climate Solutions and our Solar Emerald City. Scott Green, Latino Community Fund. McDonnell Miller, Northwest Energy Coalition. Northwest Energy Efficiency Council. Puget Sound Sage. Robert K Harmon and Company. Washington Conservation Voters. Washington Environmental Council. And so many more. To make sure that our rate design catches up with the modern day needs. As we mentioned, and as the City Light strategic plan mentioned, the rate design has not really been updated since the 1980s. So it's time for us to take a robust look at this. I also want to make sure that folks are clear about the type of impact that this could have with the initial rate that's being proposed. You'll see on this comprehensive packet on pages 32 and 33. Again, for your typical residential customer, we're talking about $3.77 a month. But this is just a placeholder starting position because the review panel is going to come back to the City Council in mid 2019 for considerations for us to take up. That would look at rate design going forward so we could see changes to that process beginning as early as summer next year. So my office will be working hand in hand with you within you and the community, the community at large, the review panel and with the next general manager, with our colleagues, with the Mayor's office to ensure that the utility has the revenue it needs, but that we also rein in cost, that we ensure greater accountability and oversight, and that we continue to grow into the green energy economy that we know we can be. Seattle City Light is the greenest utility in the nation. By 2030, we will have no nuclear energy. We can continue to make great strides on energy conservation by working together and making sure that our public utility remains public and is driven by public priorities. And those who haven't been able to make some of the improvements in their homes or their offices, we want to make sure that you're also able to benefit from green energy conservation strategies and that you see a more equitable and progressive rate design in the future that ensures that all residents can afford to heat their homes or to keep their food cool in the refrigerator, or to make sure that renters aren't overly affected by the fact that they don't have control over their windows or their energy efficiency. Often, I want to make sure that we continue to work to improve our process, but I think that this is a good first start. I think you all see Seattle City Light, the review panel for the community at large who sent the letter in June of 2017 and all of you for participating in the last three months in this process. And I look forward to working with you in 2019 as we consider the recommendations from the review panel. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Kathryn. Mosqueda Any comments? Councilmember. So I want to believe you have a comment. Thank you, Bruno. I want to thank city staff, central staff council senators Jeff, and also those who serve on the City Light panel for the work that has been done year after year. I wanted to thank environmental activists in the city who have over the years pushed for conservation. And you've seen you're seeing some of those impacts to city policy. Over the past several years, I have voted against three large rate increases, and I will be voting no on this resolution also, which will be the basis for a future ordinance on rate increases. There continues to be a structural problem and this is not nothing new with how city lights sets its rates. It's a structure that puts the cost disproportionately on working families rather than on big businesses. And this is especially problematic not only by itself, but also in the context that we have a model where revenues need to be received from ratepayers the same time that the same ratepayers are being told about conservation. And so that is mathematically is it's just not a it's not it's not a program that can work. And it has already shown itself to be quite deficient. Utilities have a process called cost allocation in which they divide customers into clauses and have a formula for deciding which of their costs. Each class is responsible for the result of city lights cost allocation methodology is the average residential customer pays almost twice per kilowatt hour compared to a big business like Nucor Steel. Again, this is nothing new. If you go and watch the Seattle Channel videos, you will have seen me making the same comments for several years. The problem is buried in technicalities, but the solution is not beyond the technical capacity of the city's experts. It's the real question is the of the failure of the political will of elected officials to shift the burden of who pays and making that a priority. My my office headed the Energy and Environment Committee in the past years, and we have discussed the questions of question of rates for City Light a lot. And I have made it clear year after year that I do not support a rate structure that puts the cost rate increases and the cost disproportionately on the shoulders of working families and also those some of the most struggling businesses. In two 2014, my office proposed one solution which which would be to eliminate all the rate clauses if this happened. Residential customers. Would see a rate cut, not an increase. Unfortunately, the majority of the council at that time did not support this. And and if the council today has a desire to support this, then I am happy, more than happy to work on this. At that time, in fact, we requested that we provide council with cost estimates for making this change so the Council can clearly see their choices when voting on the rate bills. But that was never done and that has not been included in this year's strategic plan. Then last year, the Energy and Environment Committee, headed by my office, discussed another solution, which we do include something called the public benefit in the cost allocation structure and applied fairly to all rate clauses. Because utilities are publicly owned utilities, Seattleites are charged less for power than customers of the, you know, profit making utilities and the surrounding region. Like purchasing that difference is a benefit that could be evenly applied to all customers of satellite rather than concentrated in the especially low bills of the largest customers. So as you can see, there are options that we could look at to make satellite bills more equitable. But none of these options have been taken up so far, which is especially galling given how much of satellite's real costs are driven by the changes to the city driven by big business. Amazon's expansion, for example, in Salt Lake Union, has necessitated new substations, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The Alaskan Way Tunnel, which primarily benefits the property values of downtown owners. As for satellite to spend hundreds of millions moving lines. So these you know, these businesses disproportionately benefit from the city's public resources and they also make huge profits. And so in the context of them being the primary beneficiaries, every which way, I think it is absolutely necessary that city council really put the interests of working people first. And it also should be mentioned that many of these businesses were among those who blocked the Amazon docks some months ago, and also they are also the same who don't pay their fair share of city light bills. All of these issues are large structural issues and they are not specific to this or that detail of the strategic plan. They also don't reflect the willingness and commitment of staff at any level. It is a it is a political question of whether or not the city council will fight for a strategic plan that puts the increases rate increases on big business and not on working families. I also wanted to mention one other issue that is not directly related to strategic plan, but is related to City Light and which is the uncharacteristically high utility bills many people are getting. This has been reported in the media. My office continues to hear from constituents both through email and phone who are concerned about this. And I wanted to encourage City Light and Seattle idea to find the root of the problem and look forward to hearing about that. And just lastly, if council members are interested in working together on making the rate structure progressive, then I absolutely welcome that and I'm happy to work on that and look forward to actually making that change. Thank you. Thank you. Comes from our on any ghetto a too. Mr. President. Further comments. I just want to say thank you one more time and I appreciate the interest in working on progressive redesign precisely because of the need to write legislation that makes political steps forward, makes policy change possible. And that is why we have tasked the review panel with coming back to us with recommendations. So this is an ongoing conversation, and I think it's one that will result in a progressive rate structure. My office is always interested in getting edits and amendments so that we can do this all together. And while I understand that we may not have a unanimous vote on this, I look forward to future conversations so that we can have a rate design discussion that is truly reflective of the panel's recommendations that will be coming back to us in the spring. Unfortunately, I just learned about some of the concerns today, but very excited to move forward and ask the design panel in condition in addition to the a dozen or so community partners that I mentioned , environmental activists, low income activists, communities of color activists, and not just advocating for individuals, but directly within the community to come to the table so that we can create a table that equitably hears people and creates design change that is long overdue. Thank you for the comments, Councilman Gonzalez. Thank you, Council President. I just wanted to start off by commending the work of Councilmember Mosqueda, who chaired the Select Committee on the Seattle City Light Strategic Plan. I know it's a highly technical work and very dense and really appreciated an opportunity to attend several of those committee hearings to learn a little bit more about how you were envisioning moving this conversation forward. And I think we've been able to strike a really healthy balance in this resolution, which essentially focuses in on a couple of just from a high level concerns. One is that there is a reality that the cost issues related to capital projects and infrastructure projects that are necessary to Seattle City Lights , ongoing functioning and delivery of service, which the Seattle City Light Review panel acknowledged in their initial letter and I believe it was dated in May. But but the reality is, is that we need to take a look at how the agency, the utility, is forecasting those capital costs to make sure that it is an accurate assumption that we saw that with the advanced metering project, there was a miscalculation in terms of the estimate of those costs. And we need to make sure that there are systems in place to ensure that as the utility is projecting costs related to capital projects, that those costs estimates are reliable, accurate and current so that we add on the City Council as the budget appropriation authority have the best information available to us to continue to support the infrastructure work that is necessary for the utility to continue to do. And it's important for us to make sure that we are being honest and transparent with ratepayers when when mistakes are made so that we don't lose the confidence that we create a clear path forward on how we are going to make sure that this is not going to occur in the future. So this resolution, in my mind, really does address what is the biggest driver of costs at Seattle City Light, which is around the capital cost project. It is. It is it is a reality that the way that that program and those programs are managed right now is resulting in. I think the city light review panel said 48% increase. It represents 48% of the of the increase to the Seattle City Light utility. And so I think I think getting a better sense of how the utility is going to get to get that under control is going to be key to any future decisions on the rate design. And then secondly, the big issue that I think is important is around rate design, obviously. And forecasting in that context was also a significant issue that was highlighted by the review panel that the utility has agreed needs to be tightened up and looked at again. And I think that the reality is, is that that what this resolution has done is doing today is creating a process by which the Utility and city council and the executive can come together with the expertize represented on the review panel to really dig into how to systemically change the rate design at the utility, to be equitable and to be as good steward of taxpayer dollars, and to provide the utility services that our ratepayers expect us to do. And and so I just wanted to sort of frame the conversation in that way, because that's the way I'm viewing this resolution. And I really wanted to just commend you again, because rooms get up for the work that you've done to get us to this point. We went from a letter in May of 2000 and in May from the review panel that was really critical of the proposal that we received at City Council. We went from a very critical toned review panel to a much more positively toned review panel letter that was delivered to us on June 26th of 2018. And I read this part of the excerpt of their letter in committing, and I think it's important to read it here at full council today as well. And they they said in their letter in June of 2018, quote, The issue of rate design was raised at the June 14th Select Council session on the Strategic Plan. We note that rate design is a core part of the review panel's mission approved by the City Council. The nine members of the review panel are prepared to take on that task over the next year. Stakeholder engagement is an important part of rate design, and stakeholder outreach is also part of our mission. Rate design is a challenging. Policy discussion as it is essentially a zero sum game. Any changes to the current design mean some will pay more, while some may pay less. And there is still the issue that Seattle City Lite faces declining demand with a consumption based rate model. Identifying agreed upon principles to guide rate design will be critical. We look forward to engaging with you on that subject. To ultimately be successful, we will need the mayors and councils backing and I think that this resolution is exactly the backing that the review panel is looking for, and I appreciate the opportunity to support this resolution. Very good. Further comments from any of our colleagues. I mean, just say a few words. But Councilmember. O'Brien, you have to say a couple of points. First of all, Councilmember ROSQUETA, thanks for your leadership on all this work. This is complex and really important stuff to get into, and I really appreciate that and I appreciate central staff to be killed off and all the great folks to Seattle citywide for their ongoing stewardship of this public asset. The one thing I want to just reiterate for the public is the importance of conservation in the work that Seattle City Light does. They've been a leader in conservation for decades and continue to be that leader. And as a result, what we see is, despite being one of the fastest growing cities in the country, both in terms of growing employment and people moving here, our load growth is declining, meaning even as the city is growing collectively, we're using less electricity in an individual basis, even more so. And that is in part because of the ongoing investments that the utility and other things that are happening throughout the city allow people to keep their their home, let their business, let their house warm by using less electricity overall. And so when we look at this rate path, what we see is what the actual rates are doing. And I understand why we do that, because the rate is an easy thing to compare from last year to this year, from Seattle to Bellevue or Seattle to San Francisco at the end of the day. What would most consumers really care about is how big their bill is, how big of a check are they riding? And if the rate is going up a little bit because we're making more investments in energy efficiency and the the individuals benefiting from that energy efficiency, whether it's through LED light bulbs or heat pump or whatever it is. And so the bill they're paying at the end of the year is less. And that's what we've seen on an ongoing that energy efficiency is offset a lot of the rate increases. It's a really great thing. And so as we move forward, I think it's really important that we continue to focus on the rates for sure , because that's an important metric, but really prioritize those investments in energy efficiency and what is the net effect to our residential and business customers? Because if they can actually save money through modest investments in energy efficiency, we're all better off. Not even to mention the benefits to the climate and other sources like that. So city like knows this. These guys have done an amazing job on this. And I just want to make sure that we're all staying focused on that piece of the pie, which I think is a really important piece. Thank you. Comes from a Brian said just a few words comes from honorable thank you. I just want to speak a little bit to an action that was taken in committee and I was not there. And my concern about this action is not going to impact my willingness to vote for this resolution today. But there was I just see there's a lot of controversy around the concept of a single. Single rate class rate path. And there was some language that was in the proposed resolution in Section five that was struck in committee. And this. Was carryover. Language from the resolution that had been passed the previous year, Resolution 31, 67, eight. And the work that the council asked in this resolution to be done wasn't done. And I'm just concerned that, you know, even for looking at alternatives that may not be strongly supported by the utility, that when this council asked for that work to be done, it should still be it should still be done. And I'm concerned that simply, you know, not recognizing that, one, the work wasn't done. And to sort of forgiving the utility for not doing the work by simply striking the language, I'm just concerned it creates a bad precedent for. For. The departments, any departments. Obligation to this council to follow through on the work that's requested. And just to for the purposes of knowing a little bit more what I'm talking about, the the amendment language passed in the previous resolution would be that the council requests that city light include with its nest next strategic plan update a report that identifies the impacts on existing customer rate. Classes of establishing. A single rate class while preserving the existing low income discount program. For low income customers. The report. Should identify any legal, technical or practical issues with establishing such a single. Class structure, especially as it. Relates to City Lights franchise agreements with neighboring jurisdictions. Thank you. Thank you for the comments. I'll just say a few words and we could pretty much. Just very briefly thank you for acknowledging that. And I think that as as I learn more about what we would like to see the review panel consider, I would be really interested in working with you to see if we can incorporate that as part of what the panel considers given we've passed them with looking at various rate options. Let's include that back in there. If we could work on that together, I'd love to do that. So thank you for flagging that. So a few ideas. Number one is I think I had the pleasure of chairing this, the utility committee. And I think Tony Kilduff always starts off every chair by saying the same thing. People don't pay rates, they pay bills, and that's what they concern themselves with the most. And I want to thank customers Mr.. For doing the hard work, which is very granular times and making sure that the Select Review Panel has all the information that we have and that the executive has. And by all accounts, I believe they're getting that so such that the utility has opened up the hood. And so to show their soft underbelly to those that are paying rates that are like $1,000,000 a month, bowing as an example and making sure that jobs are depending and are dependent upon a very competitive per kilowatt hour usage rate, whether it's business or residential. And so so thanks for for doing the hard work and making sure that sort of the, the existing ecosystem and how we look at these rates sort of works on this single rate class notion only to take the blame and the credit for talking about that IT committee. No one forgave the utility for not doing it. We just admitted it. I said at the committee and I'll say it now, I just think it's a bad idea. Personally, no utility in the country has one single rate class, and it just seems to me that everything we asked utility to do again results in higher rates, that this is management time, this is operational time. And unless there's some data to suggest this is a path really worth pursuing and there doesn't seem to be any data to suggest that at all. By eliminating that scope of work, we probably could get some very smart people doing some more meaningful activities. And so it wasn't a question of if there's if there's precedent to be set, it's presented look to say we are protecting the ratepayers and our directors. And so I'm very proud of that precedent. But I did suggest we strike that language. It had very little to do with forgiving them and had to do with making sure that they are focused, their resources and attention on at least priorities under the existing council. So that was that discussion was not forgiving. It was in fact, if anything, it was redirecting what they do. Again, this is granular work that has to be done. If you still look at the rates at less than $0.10 per kilowatt hour and you look at the top 25 cities, we are still one of the lowest in the country. And this becomes critically important, as Councilmember O'Brien said, when we look at how much we are pushing conservation. One thing I learned very early in this, looking at the rates is people not only want very competitive rates, very low rates, they want rate predictability. That becomes critical. And so when we look at a rate path that changes the discussion, ten years ago, ten, 11, 12 years ago, there was not this kind of rate assurance of rate predictability. Again, that is a hard work that the utility's doing in conjunction with the executive and the department and the Select Review Panel. But again, if you look at the at the major cities, Seattle remains in one of the like the top three in the country in terms of per kilowatt hour. People are always concerned about outages. Right. And this kind of they're concerned about how we incentivize green buildings. They're concerned about how we subsidize low income. Are people on fixed income. All of these come with a cost as well. So as we continue to talk about low rates and competitive rates, again, we have to make sure that we are using every penny of ratepayer money wisely. And I think that's what this present this plan presents. As so Councilmember said, I want to thank you for this work. And did you want to say anything else before we vote or are we ready? Thank you all for your work. And we know this. There's more there's more to come. So we'll be working on this with the review panel, with the community at large. Thanks again. Okay. Any further comments from our colleagues before we vote? Okay. So those in favor of adopting the resolution as amended, please vote i. I. Those oppose vote. No. No. No. And I believe the motion carries and resolution adopt and Charles, sign it. And that was our last agenda item. Is there any further business cover for the council? Councilmember Johnson. I'd like to ask to be excused on Monday, August the 13th and. August 13th. Very good. It's been moved in second and the council member just be excused for August 13th. Any comments? All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Any further business come up for the council? If not, we stand, adjourn and everyone have a great rest of the afternoon. Thank you.