AN ORDINANCE relating to the rates, terms, and conditions for the use and sale of electricity supplied by the City Light Department for 2017 and 2018; amending Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Sections 21.49.030, 21.49.040, 21.49.052, 21.49.055, 21.49.057, 21.49.058, 21.49.060, 21.49.065, 21.49.081, 21.49.082, 21.49.085, and 21.49.110, and repealing SMC Section 21.49.080, in connection therewith.
Please read the next agenda item into the record. Agenda. Item to cancel 118802 relating to the rates, terms and conditions for the use and sale of electricity supplied by the City Light Department for 2017 and 18. Amending C.R. Mr. Code Sections 21.40 9.3 or 30.0 40.0. 52.0. 55.0. 47.0. 58.06 60.0. 65.0. 81.0 82.3 85.1 ten. And repealing CMC Section 21.40 9.0 80 in connection with the committee made no recommendation with the divided report with Councilmember O'Brien in favor and council member. So want to. Post. Can I'll turn to Councilmember O'Brien for this one to present it or have you guys cast member branch like to present the in favor position. Actually looks to me typical of the other work. That. The bill just in general in adopted highlights 2017 2018. Customer rates on average rates are increased in 2017 by this ordinance by 5.6%, which is consistent with the revenue requirements that were laid out in Seattle City Lights strategic plan, which we all voted on. But as I've explained several times in the past, I'm opposed to these rate increases because it really divides its costs into rate clauses that result in residential customers paying a significantly higher rate per kilowatt hour than big corporations like Boeing and Nucor Steel. I don't think that is right. And what I have recommended in the past, and I continue to recommend that we revisit the way the rate classes are organized and actually eliminate the rate clauses. And in that case, we could have revenue requirements met by a different rate structure in which the increases proportionately go out to big business as they do on residential customers. But I've not heard agreement on that from other council members, which is why we had the rate we have the rate ordinance that we have in front of us. So if council members agree with me, then we can vote against it and come up with a different scenario. But otherwise I will be voting no on this ordinance. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember O'Brien, for the in favor position. Thank you. So as Councilmember Swan said, this does implement the rates generally and consistent with the strategic plan. I share some of the concerns from councilmembers who want about the different rate classes. At the same time, I have not seen a new rate policy that wouldn't have unintended consequences that undermine some of the other policies that are really important to me. And so in the interim, I continue to support the existing rate classes and do support the the rate path as outlined in the strategic plan and these rate increases that would achieve that. Thank you. Comes from Brian. Any further comments or questions from my colleagues case? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. I'm sorry, i move to pass council bill 118802 second. Okay. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Whereas now O'Brien, I so want. To. Make sure. Burgess Gonzalez I Herbold Johnson, President Harrell. High. Eight in favor one. Opposed the bill passes and the chair will sign it please read agenda item number three. So for as. I said, nine. Seven, nine. What is a nine. I know. We can't. That is a yes. I'm on the yes side so yeah. Yes. 77 in favor to opposed. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. Old English. On back some credibility their. Agenda item number three please please read that into the record.