All right, we'll go ahead and get started.

Do you want to do roll calls?

Okay, roll call.

Okay, good morning.

Good morning, Council members.

Uh, Councilmember Green.

Councilmember Morrill.

Councilmember Willard.

Councilmember McCarran.

Here.

Council Member King.

President.

Okay, thank you.

We have a quorum.

Perfect.

All right.

I will move to for approval of the minutes from the December 2010, 2025 joint utility, cable, telecommunications technology, and climate change sustainability committee.

Our machines aren't working.

I have a second from Councilmember King.

All those in favor.

Approval of the minutes.

Everyone.

Since the machines aren't working, we'll do a roll call back.

Okay, Councilmember Green.

Councilmember Morrill.

Yes.

Councilmember Willard.

Councilmember King.

Councilmember McCarron.

Okay, the motion carry.

Okay.

All right, perfect.

So I'm just we're gonna start off with it agenda item number three, the distributed energy resource program docket.

Um this is another exciting day here to take a step with our what we're calling the neighborhood power plan.

And once this is up and running, these incentives could support batteries at around 1500 homes and 150 community institutions.

These systems would provide backup power for properties, but also inject power back into the grid when it is streamed.

This would propel our city to the forefront of localities adopting virtual power plants.

This is the concept of aggregating energy devices in homes and businesses and wielding them like a traditional power plant for the good of the broader community.

So with that, I will have a presentation by our council advisors.

Um then we'll go through the resolution and then I'm gonna allow public comment.

Since we have a lot of um public comment here today, I am gonna allow five minutes per person for public comment.

So you all that have I know some of you have traveled in for this day to allow you to speak and give us some feedback.

So uh with that, I'll have Cecile.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Bobby Mason, and I serve as Deputy Chief of the Council Utilities Regulatory Office.

Basil, you want to introduce yourself?

I'm Basile Udo from the local office of Denton's Law Firm, which is a utility advisor to the council on uh regulatory matters.

Okay, today we are here to give some general background information on distributed energy resources, uh, what they do, and a brief overview of today's resolution.

Distributed energy resources, or commonly referred to as DERs, are localized power generation or storage technologies such as rooftops, solar panels, and battery systems close to where electricity is used.

DERs allow homes and businesses to generate their own power, reduce strain on the electric grid, and strengthen our local distribution system.

Working together, batteries that store power generated by solar panels can form what is known as a virtual power plant or a VPP.

This coordinated network can dispatch and support the grid, providing electricity during times of peak demand.

In some cases, the distributed network of batteries allow the utility to avoid purchasing higher cost power while maintaining reliability for residents and businesses.

Batteries provide power that would otherwise not be available during outages or storms affecting the utilities system.

The resilience benefits batteries provide should provide should strengthen and improve all overall performance of the city's electric distribution system.

This council has already shown tremendous leadership in advancing distributed energy resource technologies alignment with clean energy and climate goals, and today's DER resolution continues that momentum, furthering the city's commitment to innovation, sustainability, and local energy resilience.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Basil so that he can give an overview of the DER resolution today.

Thank you, Council members.

What I was asked to do, and what we're going to take a few minutes to do is to sort of explain how we got to where we are, give you a little bit of quick background, and then kind of put it into the context of the resolution that you're going to consider today.

First slide.

Next slide.

The initiating resolution and established a 10-month procedural schedule, which included a very high level of participation.

We had over 20 interveners in the process.

We received eight proposals, some very extensive, some more abbreviated, but eight proposals.

There were two extensive technical conferences among the parties to discuss the different proposals, and there were three rounds of comments that were submitted.

And from that, the council enacted R25669, which was the resolution that approved the DER program as part of the battery energy storage system phase three pilot program.

And that resolution directed that the Entergy and the parties were work through a 10-year program with a three-year ramp up period.

And to accomplish that, the council directed that there be upfront incentives that would be paid to encourage participation.

And just as an aside, the council also was very concerned about making sure that this was a program that was accessible to all customers at all income levels.

So there is a specific 40% set aside for low and moderate income customers among the residential portion of this program.

So that's considered an additional inducement to get the participation to be brought broadly accepted.

And the advisors and CURO reviewed the implementation plan that they filed and found that it was generally compliant, that it covered the topics that were directed by the council that it cover and address, like program design eligibility criteria, incentive and clawback structures, performance requirements, deployment targets, and then some specifics with respect to how the upfront incentive levels would be set.

And let me just sort of say that the overall apportionment of these incentives, as directed by the council, was 50% for residential and 50% for commercial, with the 40% set aside for low and middle income customers out of the 50% that encompass the residential portion.

Also proposed non-LMI customer incentive levels of $400 per kilowatt hour installed, which is also the same amount of incentive for commercials for kilowatt hour installed.

And then there's a LMI bump that increases the amount that an LMI customer gets in terms of an upfront incentive, and that would be $480 per kilowatt hour.

The implementation plan also proposed to implement the council's direction to have ongoing incentive levels because the program is intended to spread out over a time period of 10 years, and in order to be able to recover the investments that are made in these facilities, there's ongoing incentives, and the implementation plan set the residential customer incentives at the level that the council had directed, which is 125 for average kilowatt delivered across all events with a $600 annual cap and commercial customers at $250 average kilowatt delivered across all events with an $1,800 annual cap.

Subsequent to the filing of that plan, TNO filed comments.

And subsequent to that, the alliance filed a motion asking for clarification about when the comment period uh was uh due because there was some confusion about that.

So this resolution today actually addresses three things that need to be resolved.

Uh the first thing is TNO's comments did make some new proposals uh offer some new analysis and uh proposed revising incentive levels and caps, which were things that were not originally considered in the record that was presented in connection with resolution 669.

So this resolution sets an extension on the discovery period to May 26, uh 2026 to allow parties to propound discovery to gather more information specifically about the TNO proposal.

The second thing this resolution does is that it directs entergy to make a supplemental filing on its proposed implementation plan and to address a list of things that the consultants, including our uh the council's DER uh consultant, um, developed as things that needed to be fleshed out for the plan to be functional.

So I I don't have to read the list to you, it's on the slide, but there's a number of things that they're directed to flesh out in a supplemental filing, and that's due by May 26, 2026.

The next thing that this resolution does is it re-establishes a comment deadline of June 22nd.

And the way the resolution reads, comments on all of these things can be made at that time.

So you can the alliance can go back to the 669 resolution and make whatever comments they intended to make with respect to that.

And they can also, and all parties can make comments on the TNO proposal and on ENO's uh supplemental implementation plan.

So it's going to be a comprehensive comment period where all parties are going to get the opportunity to comment on all of this stuff, and then that will ultimately culminate in an advisor's report analyzing and summarizing everything that goes on in this extended procedural schedule uh for the council uh and it will terminate with uh a record certification by the hearing officer on August 6th.

So that's the intent and the purpose of the resolution uh you're being asked to vote on today, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Councilmember Willair?

Thank you.

Um thank you, Bazil for um giving us some information on this.

So my understanding is the resolution that passed in December set up a process for upfront and ongoing incentive levels uh that was subject to feedback from the advisors and from the council.

Um I wanted you to touch on um you guys' evaluation of those levels and the intergy uh implementation plan and how you think that lays out a process to help achieve the goals of the program.

You want to comment on the levels that were in the six the resolution in December?

No, the filing from entergy, the ongoing and upfront incentive levels.

Uh I think they adopted the ones from the council resolution.

The upfront incentive levels and ongoing incentive levels were the ones that were in the 669 resolution.

And we they didn't specify like uh what would be upfront and what would be ongoing, right?

In that resolution?

The council?

Yeah.

Uh I believe the council did.

The the council specified.

Oh, I'm I'm sorry, the the ENO ongoing resolution proposal was a reflection of the direction from the council set the ongoing incentives.

I guess uh when I was reviewing it, I just I I was just overall um had a concern that the upfront incentives would not be enough to actually get people, especially for the low to moderate income uh classification, which I think was set aside at 40 percent, um, to actually be able to participate in this program.

Um so do you think going through more of a discovery process to kind of flesh that out as a step in the right direction?

Yeah, I I think it's not just a step in the right direction.

I think it's required at this point to to make any changes to what was uh authorized by the council in in 669.

And let me just say the LMI set aside is 40 percent of the 50 percent of residential upfront incentives, not of the total project, but of the 50 percent that's assigned to residential.

Okay.

And then on the clawback, the club act mechanism and the integral filing.

Did you have a chance to review that?

Yeah, uh, we did actually that was something the council had directed the advisors in CURO to conduct some meetings before the implementation plan came out to discuss how some of these things were going to be addressed.

And um the Club Act provisions uh I think were particularly influenced by uh Mike Goldman, who was our DER consultant to try to uh honor the council's direction to have a clawback provision, but to do it in a way that's reasonable and fair and and um isn't in and itself a discouragement to participation.

Did do you think they achieved that with the mechanism that they laid out, or do you think we could use some more work on that the problem with that council member is we we just haven't done it before.

I mean, one of the things 669 did that's gonna be very, very valuable is the council built in lots of reporting requirements and lots of ongoing reporting requirements to have pretty constant feedback on what's working and what's not working, and reserved the right to make any modifications and changes to the program as that feedback came in.

Um so not having done it on this level before, and I can say, I mean, I think I think some of the input came from the DER consultants' experience other places.

I I can say you know, nobody really likes clawbacks.

I mean, they there's something that um uh people who want to participate in this do get uncomfortable with.

I think Mike's input was you know, there are ways to do it that are less discouraging, but not having done it before on this scale, I think it's gonna be the feedback, the collection of data, and the constant monitoring that the council is going to be able to do to at any point say look, if the feedback you're getting is people aren't signing up because of the clawback provision, we need to do something about it.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Green.

Thank you for your presentation.

I do want to um thank Together New Orleans for your comments and for your true interest in our residents um that have brought forth, you know, the council's sensitivity relative to this issue.

Um I said this before, I just want to say it on the record.

Again, you know my concern.

I've talked to you about it.

It's um it's eligibility and it's also customer protections.

What I don't look forward to is kind of hearing that later on later on down the line, and I hope that we don't have to hear that some of the assets are being taken back because of some criteria that we didn't really think through completely.

We have an additional period to do so.

The last time that I mentioned it, I thought that in our latest proposal, as I mentioned that the latest one presented to us, that we were gonna have that in place.

So I just want to say to I appreciate together new alliance for your comments.

I appreciate um your presentation.

I want to emphasize to integers how much attention that I and I know other members of the council will be given to the issues of customer eligibility and protections.

Um because that is something that is a long-term concern.

I mean, we could be talking years from now, and then somebody lose an asset because of a change in situations that we didn't contemplate, you know, early on.

I just want to make sure that we contemplate that in between now and May 26th, entergy comes back or has some very detailed information as to how people are going to be eligible and also how they're going to be protected.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else from the dais?

Okay.

So with that, we'll start public comment.

Okay.

First up, I have Natalie Geordy, followed by Broad Bagger.

Good morning, Councilmembers.

Morning.

My name is Natalie Jordy.

Um, I'm with Together New Orleans, and I've been working closely with all the parties in this docket for over a year since its inception.

And so I want to take a moment to set the scene and zoom out a little bit and remind people why we're doing this in the first place.

Um the council members have a PowerPoint in front of them that um I'll run through, and the rest of you can use your imagination.

Um, as you can see from the first slide, in any given month, New Orleans needs between 800 and 1200 megawatts of power to run the city.

On to the next slide.

Where does New Orleans get that power?

About 85% of it comes from six power plants.

Another 7% of it comes from solar, 2% from demand response, and we buy some of it from the open market, but the bulk of it, 85% of our power supply, comes from six power plants that are mostly pretty far away from us.

And New Orleans is in what's called a load pocket.

That is an area where transmission bottleneck make it costly and risky to import power.

And that's because it's difficult and expensive to build transmission because we're surrounded by water, and because not enough power is generated locally to meet our needs.

And to be clear, we're not against transmission, but we don't have enough of it here for a bunch of different reasons.

And what we want to do today is get into one solution to that.

So New Orleans relies on imported power, about 76% of our power comes from outside the load pocket and 24% from inside of it.

And the distance between where our power is generated and where it's used can cause two big problems.

I'm on page four now.

Distance creates a risk of disruption, which can be deadly, like when hurricanes destroy our infrastructure.

And distance also exacerbates congestion, which is really expensive.

You can see on the slide that during the Memorial Day incident last year, a huge part of the cost of electricity was due to congestion.

So the distance between where our power is generated and where it's used creates a lot of vulnerability in our power supply.

And what we found is that microgrids abolish that distance.

Because instead of getting it from hundreds of miles away, we're getting it from directly on top of where it's being used.

So microgrids help to solve disruption by providing a source of backup power that stays on when the grid fails.

That's you know, the solar and the batteries that stay on when the power goes out.

And they also help to solve congestion by providing the grid with a source of local and dispatchable power during times when the grid is stressed.

So what we believe that we need is three things.

LGR, power that is local, meaning generated inside our load pocket, power that is grid tied, meaning able to discharge the grid when it's needed, and power that is resilient, meaning able to island from the grid and keep operating during outages.

And that is what the neighborhood power plan is.

So I want to turn the mic over to my colleague Broad Bagger to talk further about the neighborhood power plan.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Natalie.

Thank you, Council members.

Um chairs.

So we need power that is L, G and R local, grid tied and resilient.

Programs that look good on paper, but that people cannot afford do not lead to the deployment of that kind of power.

We saw this once before in the community solar docket.

Uh it was before Together New Orleans was active.

Um, but we followed it retroactively.

Uh there was a dispute, and uh I'm sorry, could I be clarified about five minutes or two minutes to okay?

Yeah, five minutes where we're gonna reset.

Yeah.

Um of the issues in 2018 and 2019 in the community solar docket was the credit rate attributed to a kilowatt hour of solar.

Uh and entergy wanted it to be avoided cost, the alliance had it uh uh at full market rate, and the recommendation from the advisors was well, you know, let's more or less split the mint middle or uh or or they ended up at about six and a half cents.

Not on the basis of any analysis of the feasibility or the value of solar, but because it was uh a number between the two parties.

Uh the result was a program that had no applicants in five years, um, and that was fundamentally not viable economically.

Uh when it was the docket was reopened, uh Together New Orleans commissioned a feasibility analysis and a value of solar analysis, which resulted in the credit rate being set at uh full market rate with a two cent adder in six months.

Uh 15 development proposed filling up the entire queue because programs uh that people can't afford don't lead to the deployment of projects.

Um we created a uh calculator tool for the purpose of this docket, and to be frank, it has been our understanding that the advisors were going to be conducting an analysis that was in the resolution.

It said uh these incentive levels uh will be adjusted based on the recommendations of the advisors and the VPP advisors.

Uh the um so it was somewhat of a surprise that there they were exactly the same numbers and no analysis was conducted.

Uh we created a tool that allows anybody to see uh what the gap would be under entered's proposal, what the gap would be under our proposal, and to put in their own numbers and determine the gap.

And our recommendation is let's all do that, but let's not create a program that looks good on paper but people can't afford.

Uh, if this program were approved today, low-income people would have an incentive gap of five thousand six hundred dollars, which would take fifteen and a half years to pay off on a 10-year asset.

Uh and if you know low-income people uh that either have that amount of money or are that uh unwise about their economics, um, then you know more than I do.

Uh residential that are not low-income would have a 7100 gap and a 25.7 year payoff.

Uh commercial uh that is kind of regular commercial would have it would actually never pay off uh and a $52,000 gap.

Um so there are a couple levers to make the program affordable.

Uh and you see in the our filing in this presentation what TNO propose.

The first uh throughout the second year of the battery pilot, at least, maybe it existed before, but we weren't familiar with it.

Uh entergy has had an incentive level that's arbitrarily double for businesses than it is for residents.

So if you have exactly the same power wall and it's in a house, you get 150 dollars uh per kilowatt ongoing payment.

Sorry, 125.

And then if you have uh the exact same power wall and it's in a business, it's 250.

Why?

There's no rationale or justification.

Uh the and we think that needs to be addressed.

So one lever is bring the ongoing payment up to the full uh uh 250 that businesses get today.

The second, there are caps that make it so that if you have three power walls, you get the same amount per year as if you have 10 power walls.

That's both unfair and it's unwise because it disincentivizes larger systems where the economies of scale make it cost effective.

Uh the third is the incentive level itself.

You see our recommendations there.

Uh, but we encourage people to look at the tool, have the advisors look at the tool, adjust the assumptions.

We have to get to a place where people can afford these systems, otherwise they won't be deployed.

Thank you, Rod.

I I just want to say that uh we the reason for including discovery period in this resolution is to assess those numbers and the tool and see if we need to make adjustments, and after discovery period, council will revisit and look and see if we need to make any adjustments.

Okay.

Uh Deborah Salvador, followed by Brandon Dubois.

Good morning.

My name is Deborah Salvador, and I am the board president of Community Church Unitarian Universalists.

Our church is honored to be among the first of the 19 community lighthouses established in Louisiana.

The decision to become a lighthouse was a natural step for us, given our history and commitment to resilience and sustainability.

Our building was destroyed during Hurricane Katrina as we are situated just blocks from the canal levee break in Lakeview.

In the process of rebuilding, we made a deliberate choice to go entirely solar, becoming one of the first churches in Louisiana to do so.

As a result, we were already experiencing the economic and environmental advantages of solar power when the lighthouse project was launched after Hurricane Katrina.

As a result, we were already experiencing the economic and environmental advantages of solar power when the Lighthouse Project was launched after Hurricane Katrina.

Joining the Lighthouse Initiative has enabled us to extend those benefits to the larger community.

Whenever a power outage occurs, whether due to a storm or an event like the Memorial Day weekend brownout, we are able to open our doors to our neighbors.

Our facility preside provides safe place with air conditioning, power for charging phones, computers, and essential medical equipment, as well as refrigeration for food and medications.

Equally important, we offer a helping hand and a friendly presence during times of great stress.

We take great pride in our ability to offer these basic necessities when they are most needed.

But we recognize that we and the other community lighthouses cannot do it all.

The neighborhood power plan would allow more locations to serve as safe havens during extended power outages, such as the nearly two-week outage following Hurricane Ida.

This plan would enable grocery stores, hardware stores, and gas stations to remain operational during emergencies.

Individuals with medical needs that require electricity or refrigeration cannot afford to wait in long traffic lines or travel far to receive assistance.

The intense heat commonly experienced during hurricane season can have serious health consequences, and many residents are unable to leave town and wait for power to be restored.

Therefore, it is essential to meet those needs within our communities in accessible locations throughout the city where we live.

The best way to address these challenges is by broadening those incentives to provide more participation in the neighborhood power plan throughout our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Brandon, good morning, council.

My name is Brandon Dubos.

I'm a homeowner at 110 Sharon Drive in New Orleans, 70124.

I currently have solar panels on my home, but do not have a battery.

That is primarily due to the initial upfront cost to acquire a solar battery.

I feel, which has been stated by various people so far, that the upfront cost is a huge barrier to folks acquiring batteries, and I would urge uh the council to look at a plan to further and um additionally incentivize folks monetarily to acquire a battery.

As has just been said, batteries allow residents and homeowners to do so many things like charge phones, stay in touch with the media regarding updates for outages, um, keep food cold and fridges, uh, operate medical devices, and this is doubly important for those folks who are low and moderate income here in the city.

Um I do feel like in addition to the individual households, when you talk about overall resiliency here locally, the idea is that more people have batteries, um, the greater resilient the grid becomes and uh more secure power is and the brownout or blackout becomes less of an issue longer term.

So this is quite literally something that will help the entire city benefit from.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brandon.

Okay, up next I have Jesse George, followed by Margaret Washington.

All right, Jesse George, on behalf of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, my comments will be brief.

I just wanted to thank the council for responding to our motion and for providing this procedural clarity.

Uh procedure is not always the most exciting thing, but it is important, and we look forward to uh offering formal comment and creating a program that provides maximum benefit for the citizens of New Orleans.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jesse.

Margaret Washington.

Good morning, Councilman.

Good morning.

I'm Margaret Washington, 7241, Camberley Drive, and I have been a resident of New Orleans East for more than 40 years.

I rise to speak to the fact that we need neighborhood power plants.

I am a retired citizen, and I do not have solar pounds nor battery backup because I cannot afford it.

But I need the power plant because I am on a CPAP, which is necessary to assist me doing hours of sleep that I experienced sleep apnea.

And I do want to say that if you understand what sleep apnea is, it could result in my death.

And I do want to live long, longer than I have.

Additionally, I incurred more expenses because of that.

Whereas if I had had a neighborhood power plant in my uh area of New Orleans East, I would not have had to sojoin out of state to provide for safety and maintain my health as it is.

Additionally, I want you to know that there are other citizens in our area who have other medical devices that they need.

And when we have a power outage that limits our being able to take care of ourselves as it relates to our health.

So I do want you to please consider the neighborhood power plants and what it does for the citizenry.

That I, as a homehomer, am still a taxpayer, and I think that the city needs to address those issues of the citizens that contribute to the upgoing of our city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Margaret.

Next up, I have Jeff Canton and then Christopher Walker.

Um thank you, Council.

Um the Jeff Canton with Solar Alternatives and Gulf States Renewable Energy Industries Association.

Uh, my comments will also be brief.

Just want to speak in support of the ordinance and this effort to bring distributed energy resources to the city in more volume than we have seen in the past.

Uh it is very timely.

Uh the resources are becoming uh more accessible.

They're becoming the technology is already very mature, but it is becoming more uh diversified in a way that it is uh accessible to all New Orleans if we put a program like this in place.

We've been integrating these systems for almost 20 years now, uh, and we can attest to the reliability, some of the systems that we've originally installed are still functioning as designed and supporting uh the owners and site hosts and communities when there is an outage in a way that traditional generators uh cannot.

During Hurricane Ida, we saw that many of the property owners that lost power that we were working with, their systems continued to work for days and weeks during the outage.

Uh the systems that we had uh when the prior we had to install generators, traditional generators, and those failed in a way that we had not expected due to the duration of the outages and just the nature of the technology and the gas grids that are becoming overloaded.

So the technology is mature, it's appropriate, and um I I do uh agree with Councilmember uh Green's notion about uh consumer protections.

I think it is very important we think through the measures both in the impact of uh changes and clawbacks, but also in the the design and incentivizing of the program and approvals for who and how and what um is integrated to make sure that we uh protect consumers across the board in the matter of rolling the program out.

So uh we are very excited to see the program go forward and uh very much appreciate the council's leadership.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kat.

Christopher Walker.

Good morning, Council President Morel, esteemed council members, thank you for the opportunity to provide remarks on the neighborhood power plan.

My name is Chris Walker, and I'm here today to provide remarks to the council, adding to those submitted in writing uh via our comment letter on March 27th.

I represent Grid Alternatives, the nation's largest nonprofit clean energy provider.

For 25 years, grid alternatives has advanced economic and environmental justice via renewable energy through programs like the neighborhood power plan.

Our work is exclusive exclusively focused on serving the underserved, and we only work with in and for low-income environmental justice in tribal communities.

Equity is our sole focus and always will be.

We've delivered projects that serve over 30,000 households through direct installations while benefiting tens of thousands more through our equitable program administration work.

These projects will operate for a generation and generate over 800 million dollars in savings.

And in building them, Grid has provided workforce training to over 30,000 trainees, volunteers, and fellows in the process.

So why the resume?

We're here for two reasons today.

First, we want to recognize and commend the people of New Orleans and the council's leadership in advancing this important virtual power plant program, which has the potential to be a national model.

And second, we're here to come together with local organizers and industry to advocate to make sure that this program delivers on its promise for low-income New Orleanians.

In Grid's deep history in this space, we've seen well-meaning program design concepts fail to translate into real projects or real benefits for the intended recipients.

Based on our mission, we believe that the neighborhood power plan must be of, for, and by New Orleans.

And while the neighborhood power plan must be homegrown, we humbly offer the following uh design imperatives that we believe will help to decide whether the program is successful.

Based on our experience implementing similar programs across the country, there are three elements that we want to emphasize today that can support the success of the neighborhood power plant, specifically as it regards low-income residents.

First, the program should provide free battery systems for low-income residents.

For the many thousands of low-income households we've served, trust me when I say it's hard enough to give it away for free.

Under the current structure, even after incentives and tax credit monetization, we estimate that households will still face a gap of roughly $5,000 to install a typical system.

For most working New Orleans families already facing energy insecurity, that's a non-starter.

Having grown up in the same kind of household that many of us hope the neighborhood power plan will serve, $5,000 doesn't pass my Gandhi test, which is a question I ask myself in designing programs.

Would this program work for my Gandhi?

Currently, the answer is no, uh, but Grid Alternatives believes that Together New Orleans proposal takes us substantially closer.

But if that gap remains, the program risks low participation at best, or worse, reliance on financing structures that may not serve households' long-term interests like predatory loans or deals that greatly erode any savings.

Second, the upfront incentives should be calibrated to fully close that gap within the low-income portion of the program.

We've seen this work in practice.

When incentives are set appropriately that fully cover project costs, programs achieve meaningful participation and deliver real benefits to low-income households while avoiding consumer protection nightmares.

Third, the income eligibility threshold should be set at or below 80% AMI for the low-income portion of the program.

Aligning low-income eligibility criteria with many other programs will help to efficiently process applications.

And if you've seen those AMI tables lately, we know that people at and below 80% AMI need help.

If these elements are incorporated, the program can greatly reduce energy burden, improve resilience during outages, and provide meaningful economic relief for families across New Orleans.

If that happens, Grid Alternative stands ready to work with the city and local organizations to help implement a program that works and makes it a difference for working families.

For low-income households like the one I grew up in, where folks are spending too much of their incomes on electricity and still struggling to keep the lights on, or who are suffering through long outages, this program will change everything, but only if it reaches them.

So we're excited to help make it a success for the people of New Orleans and call upon the council to continue its good work improving the neighborhood power program concept.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Chris.

Okay, next up we've got Douglas Malançon, followed by Becky Merriweather.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Douglas Malanzon, 7910 Lady Gray in New Orleans.

I had a lot to say, but I don't know much more I can add to what this gentleman just said, other than to represent a homeowner with solar retire.

And so those incentives are very important, not just for my family or in my home, but family members who don't have solar that will need a place for refuge.

So I want to thank you for considering everything that's presented this morning.

And once again, Douglas Malone Son.

Thank you.

Becky Merriweather.

Good morning.

Becky Merriweather, 7744 Belfast Street, New Orleans, 70125, Council District A.

I'm here to support and say thank you to the council for its vote last December to move this docket forward in the way that you did.

I have a number of concerns, however, about the implementation plan that Energy has put forward.

And I'd like you to focus, please, on what has already been said about making uh the upfront incentive adequate to enable people to actually do this.

I'd also like to suggest that you consider a differential incentive for commercial entities that would be willing to actually be community-facing and agree to be a resilience hub in long-term power outages like after storms and so forth.

A little bit of context.

And I are living on pensions basically.

And so when we moved back to New Orleans 10 years ago, we intentionally put solar panels and batteries on our house that hedge against rising power costs, knowing it was going to happen.

The battery we have works well in those really short power outages, but we don't have enough battery to stay lit and run our air conditioning, even for one room on uh when there's a full-time full power outage, like after a storm.

And that makes my husband with congestive heart failure and a recent cancer diagnosis even more vulnerable than his age and its medical conditions alone.

We know from Ida that a lot of people died because the power is out.

Most of the people who died was because the power was out.

This plan offers the opportunity for us to actually make a difference for those folks, keep them out of the emergency room, keep them alive, batteries safe power.

So I would urge you to address that upfront incentive.

I would also urge you to really seriously consider um making sure that those incentives ongoing are equalized.

As TNO has said, it makes no sense to pay more for an electron from a commercial battery than one from a residential battery.

And that ongoing incentive could make this more affordable for people with long-term medical problems.

So batteries save lives.

Frankly, while InterG kind of did not oppose the resolution last uh uh set uh December.

Um their implementation plan appears to me to be death by a thousand cuts.

And I would encourage you strongly to be sure that the administrator is accountable to council rather than to enter G ongoing, and that you would very seriously instruct the advisors and the ongoing process to revise these upfront and ongoing incentives.

Thank you.

Thank you, Becky.

Okay, next up I've got Sean Moses and then Calvin Lawrence.

Good morning.

I'm good morning.

I'm Sean Moses Angle.

I live at 920 North South SEDO, and I'm also the pastor of First Grace, and as of last week, I'm a former member of the board of Together New Orleans.

A few things we have solar on our house, we've had it for 10 years, we couldn't afford it.

We got a small interest loan because we um it was about five or six thousand dollars.

We paid it off in about six years.

Ever since then, about every few years we investigate getting batteries on our house most recently in November.

It would cost over 20,000 for us to do that.

So we're not going to do it.

We're not a low-income family.

And I I don't, I'm not feeling sorry for myself at all.

But I am a New Orleans.

I've lived here twice now for over now, over 20 years since Katrina.

And I just want you to know several months ago, I wrote a new song.

I write a song about once a year.

And this song I wrote on the day that I got my 13th traffic ticket through a school zone that does not have uh a light saying 20 miles an hour, but it has a camera.

And um I read the statistic about all the people leaving the city we love, and so the song was I think I I'm thinking about flying away.

Um maybe buying a spaceship today, Venus or Mars, someplace far.

There's room for you.

Da-da-da.

But the last verse is I'm sticking with New Orleans today.

Maybe buying a trumpet today, uptown or treme, there's a parade on the way.

There's room for you if you can dance to this tune.

So I'm here, and we are talking about a sustainable future.

And a lot of the people in New Orleans do not believe that we are interested in that, or that the power company is interested in that.

They're interested in making money.

And I don't blame them.

That's what they do.

I'm my question is what do I do?

What do we do?

We talk about a sustainable future.

Now, the one way to look at a sustainable future with energy is who has the data?

Who presented data today for you to make a good decision about the future of this city?

Together, New Orleans presented the data.

And we have to fight constantly to present good data.

So the one thing we would ask you to do is look at the data.

What does it tell you?

A compromise in the middle.

May not, we all believe in compromise.

I'm married, I have a teenager, you gotta compromise.

But we're compromising about what is good for us to do.

We have evidence.

My church is a community lighthouse, and we know that those lighthouses will save lives.

And we know that it is provided energy in that neighborhood.

In one little power outage for about 42 hours, the place was packed with hundreds of people.

And who called us?

The city of New Orleans called us and said, can we distribute oxygen tanks out of your church?

Because you have power.

Wow.

The city came with their oxygen tanks distributed, and the Salvation Army called us.

The uh food bank called us.

Can we distribute food?

Because we have power.

We have a path ahead for a sustainable future in this city.

And it's just waiting for us to grab it.

And finally, I want to tell you what my favorite gospel is.

It is not Matthew's, it is not Mark's, and it's not Luke's, and it's not John's.

It's the movie Training Day with Denzel Washington and Ethan Hawke.

If you've ever seen you should see the movie.

Told me to go see this movie that it was the gospel.

It basically, you know, Denzel is in this, he's a detective.

We need police, we need good systems, but he's corrupt.

And he's it's training day for Ethan.

Will he be corrupted into this system?

It's not that the system is bad, but the culture of the way the system works is.

The more, the more of these battery plans, the battery backup that we have will be better for our community and a whole, man.

It just that just makes sense.

But I ain't coming for cap be captain I with that.

I'm coming that.

I just want to congratulate y'all on that, man.

I know the hard work that y'all do.

I just want to bring up the when all this do come to pose.

Let's make so that the working man get his fed do.

Make sure y'all have local hires, that local people get these jobs, and that is prevailing wage that is preventable, that is apprenticeship programs, so that our people here can have a better future, man, and give them an opportunity to succeed and to thrive to win a thing that the city is putting forward financially, man.

I just want to thank y'all again for that.

Thank you, Calvin.

Mr.

Larry Morgan, followed by Morgan Clevinger, and that will get us to the end.

Mr.

Larry Morgan's first.

Morgan.

Good morning.

I am Larry Morgan.

I'm up of New Orleans.

The people sent me here today.

They all are in favor of the power plan.

Mostly the people, a large percentage of them that called me and come to the house, their children bring them.

I was surprised, they're from senior citizen home.

And they state that the power plant is long overdue.

But this is some of them fear is a question that I couldn't answer.

They asked me.

If it comes to that, they're afraid that those batteries when begin the game, they will be cheap and reasonable.

And the price will decline like the light bill today that can't even afford the energy.

That's the way the system of the battery price will generate.

What we say to you all, you are the representative of the neighborhood of the people who put you on in that office.

And I say to you, you better do your job and serve the people.

Because I'm gonna tell you, these people believed in you all.

And because they believe in y'all, I'ma make sure that they get what they put you in there for.

Serve these people, whether you like it or not.

Because they put you in there.

Thank you, Mr.

Morgan.

Morgan Clevinger.

Good afternoon, Council, Chair.

Good morning.

And thank y'all for considering this.

You know, in the I'm Morgan Clevinger, 1653 North Broad in the 7th ward.

And we know that our communities in the heart of New Orleans, um, many of them working class, middle class, low income, we are already underserved.

Um we are already cost burdened.

Um, and there is a lack of trust in InterG as a for-profit company.

They made uh, I believe a profit of 9.5 billion dollars last year.

Um, and we know also that post-Catrina, a lot of our seniors were approached by intergy, low-income and fixed income seniors to put solar panels on their roof for free in a program.

Um, and but they would be connected to the integrated.

And the contractors, these solar companies that were came out on entergy's behalf, installed these solar panels, but over time, over time, the benefit decreased because there were lack of batteries, lack of storage, but also lack of maintenance, and also because entergies cost and to the ratepayers continued to rise.

So the actual benefit over time to these low-income homeowners decreased heavily.

And then after Ida, um, when the roofs were compromised and you can't get a new roof unless you take those solar panels off, many of these companies were no longer around.

So we have a really hard situation with that.

We also know that you know, in our area, um we don't have any community solar places.

We want one because we don't have any churches or schools close to us.

After Ida, it was very very clear that uh the city stood up uh it's Tremay Center, they stood up at Milney, and between those two points, vast neighborhood without cars, without resources, without ability to travel to these places.

So we uh convinced Nord, literally two days after the storm to let us stand up food and water and ice and supplies for 10 days in Stallings Playground, which had no power.

And our homes, the people who stayed for Hurricane Ida, we didn't have any power.

And we have a vast amount of seniors and folks on various dialysis, CPAC, oxygen tanks, um, and there really wasn't any choices for them.

And our folks cannot afford to get in a car and drive out of town every time we have a power outage.

Can't afford a hotel, can't afford really anything, and so deaths are attributable to this.

Um, we support this idea, but it needs, as Broad uh said earlier, what looks great on paper with entergy does not always translate into accessibility and affordability for our people.

And that's really really important to carry with you in these um deliberations because we cannot trust a company that is just there for profit and continues to create programs, but that really don't help anybody.

So we definitely support community solar, community power plants, um, but we also advocate for Nord, especially in underserved areas, to become community solar hubs as lighthouses as well.

We could really use that in our neighborhood.

So we appreciate all the work that Together New Orleans has done and all the citizens that support this, and we support it as well, with also uh to make sure that it's not just it's too low of an income because as we see our middle class continues to roll back.

Um we it's not affordable.

Our utility bills are not affordable at all.

So people are losing ground, and we need to make those income levels not just accessible to low income and fixed income, which we wholeheartedly support, but also the tax base, the people that are paying the taxes in this city and keeping everything going.

So thank you, and we appreciate all the work that you're doing on this and keep the community front and center.

Thank you.

Thank you, Morgan.

Okay, any other comments from the day as okay.

With that, I'll motion to approve.

We have we have two online comments.

Oh, two online comments.

Sorry about that.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Um the first comment is from Patricia Bernstein.

Uh we must demand better for our electric grid.

Today's outage in the French quarter only reiterates that things are not stable here.

No more rate hikes, no more excuses.

Demand entergy do more.

The next comment is from Sharonda Williams.

Entergy New Orleans participate the opportunity to comment.

ENO filed is plan for a battery system BPP to be implemented through Energy Smart after working closely for months with the council's advisors and independent consultants, as ordered by the council.

The ENO implementation plan is fully compliant with the council's December resolution, and it is designed to serve all customers in a responsible and efficient manner.

A few weeks later, Together New Orleans filed its alternative proposal, a rehash of an earlier proposal it made in this docket, one of which the December resolution declined to opt.

The big difference between ENO's implementation plan and the TNO proposal is the rate impact.

Under Entergy's plan, all program costs are considered by existing theory settlement credits.

That means no increase in rates.

Customers who do don't participate in the program are not asked to pay for those who do participate.

This is what the December resolution contemplated and is consistent with fair rate making policies.

By contrast, the Together New Orleans proposal would use the Siri credits only for upfront incentives and shift the remaining and ongoing program and administrative costs to other customers.

That means customers who receive no direct benefits are going to pay higher bills to cover additional program costs.

That is not fair and not compliant with the council's resolution.

The charts distributed by Together New Orleans omit that critical part of the story, and the so-called funding gap they identify would be more fairly described as representing the additional cost beyond the 30 million in theory credits already allotted to the VPP program that will be shifted to non-participating customers under their proposal.

We are also concerned about timing.

Reopening the program design now, after all the work that's been done, pushes a final decision past August into the heart of hurricane season.

We encourage the council to keep the focus on a solution that is fair, practical, sustainable, and compliant with this December resolution.

Those are all the comments.

Yeah, got it.

Okay.

With that, I will motion to approve the resolution.

Thank you.

Second invite Councilmember Willard.

All those in favor.

Five years, no nays.

The motion passes.

Or resolution.

All right.

Thank you, everyone, for being here, and now we'll move on to the uh utilities committee portion.

All right.

Next up we have item number four, which is ordinance calendar number 35422.

All right, where's Aaron?

Aaron, give us a brief overview.

I know Broderick has a card in for this one.

Good morning, Council members.

As you'll recall, about a month ago, the utilities committee considered this draft of chapter 158 as part of a resolution.

In order to amend the code, however, you have to do an ordinance.

The ordinance was introduced as the last council meeting.

It has it is laying over and will be on the agenda for next week's meeting.

So we're just considering the same thing we've already considered.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Baggart.

Thank you, Councilmembers.

I wanted to take this opportunity to talk about a part of the resolution that deals with ex parte communications.

Um, and it's out of now about four years of experience, which is which is compared to most of the people who do it, a very small amount of experience of being a part of uh dockets in a formal way as a party.

Uh what you have before you, and it it mirrors the former um policy says that ex parte written communication is any substantive information provided in writing to a council member uh or staff member serving in an individual council member's office transmitted outside of an electronic communication to the dockets service list.

Uh my understanding of what the intent here is if you've got an idea that you want considered, you don't go talk about it behind closed doors with decision makers.

You submit it to the entire service list.

So everybody knows what's being considered and deliberated.

What this is saying is everyone should know what's being considered.

It is not saying no one should discuss what's being considered.

And the way in which ex parte has been administered in practice has a far more uh uh restricting effect and has explicitly prohibited uh conversations about already submitted proposals.

I think it's an informal kind of prohibition, but but like uh we know that that uh the advisors have been told not to talk to us uh while that same standard doesn't apply to all the parties and shouldn't apply because human beings do a lot better job at solving problems when they have conversations with each other.

So we uh are supportive of this, but want to work with CURO and you guys to have a uh interpretation and putting in practice of expartheid that uh really holds the line on submitting proposals to the entire service list, the way this is intended, but also doesn't gatekeep and prohibit conversations that allow for understanding.

I think we could have fleshed out uh mutually the disconnects around the incentive levels six months ago because we have been raising those six months before, uh, and apparently that did not get to the ears of the advisors.

Um so I think it would move more collaboratively, it would move more constructively, uh, and that this doesn't require any kind of change.

It means actually implementing the expartheid provisions the way they're written, uh not the way they've been interpreted over the past few years.

Thank you.

Thank you, Morgan Clevelander.

Hi, thank you.

Um to be honest with you, I have not been able to read Chapter 158 or resolution R26129, and I just got informed by your staff member that that was at a previous meeting.

So it's gonna take a minute to to really look into that.

But I would like to take this opportunity very briefly to ask all of you to consider what is the impact of uh the technology situation in the area's residential neighborhoods surrounding Jazz Fest.

It is completely overwhelming us at this point.

We have a geofence that's been compromised that forces residents to be unable to call for a taxi.

I would like to finish.

And we also have the cashless system that so everyone knows the council rule is that you can comment on items and make pertinent comments based upon what is on the agenda.

I appreciate that you are concerned regarding the neighborhoods at Jasmine's that has nothing to do with what's before us today.

You are talking what we're talking about is the rules that deal with ex parte communication, other related matters in regards to utility considerations.

What you're talking about has nothing to do with that.

I judge it as not germane.

Thank you for your time.

You could probably go to a community development meeting and find an item that is germane to that.

Have a nice day.

Is there any other comment?

All right, thank you very much.

I will move.

Take a second.

Second by Councilmore Willard.

Please vote your machines.

Five years, no nays, thank you.

Next up, we have two resolutions that are arbitration appeals from the Seward and Water Board.

The first is by Michael Stevens.

Mr.

Stevens here.

Councilmember, we don't have any comment cards on either resolution.

So I can just give a brief overview on how we get here.

Knock it out.

Thank you for me.

Uh so council members, as you know, state state law has the council serving as the regulator with regard to billing matters.

The process starts with sewage and water board, then goes to an appeals manager that was elected by the council.

Currently it is HDI.

From there it goes through an arbitration process.

The council receives appeals related to an arbitration decision.

Both Mr.

Stevens and Ms.

Moliere have appealed their decisions, the resolutions before you uphold the arbitrators' decisions.

I will entertain a motion.

Thank you.

I will move.

Sorry.

Move by Council Mr.

Willard, second by Councilmember McCarron.

Please vote your machines.

All right.

All in favor?

All right.

Any opposed, hearing none.

She damn this five, yes, no nays.

I do have a question.

Are we voting?

Are we voting on both resolutions?

Do we need to do individual?

We we do need to do individual.

Also, Mr.

Morgan has put in a comment card.

Okay, I'm sorry, Mr.

Morgan.

You had a comment card.

Oh, come on.

Mr.

Morgan?

No.

I move for approval of the second resolution.

He's getting his cane.

Oh.

Let him get the comment card in.

I didn't have it in hand, but this is good errand.

Are we back to two minutes or five?

Yeah, which two minutes about two minutes, and it is on the Michael Stevens uh sewage and water board appeal.

Mr.

Morgan.

Every time it comes.

Morgan, don't hold the front of the mic, hold up.

There you go.

There you go.

The people's angry at you all with the high water bill.

Every time they come to me, I say I can't do nothing about it, but I know a solution that pop up in my head.

Jeff Land, you're gonna take care of it.

If you can't do the job of saving the people or helping the people with the water bill, I will go to Jeff Landry and plead to him to help the people.

All right, thank you.

I know y'all say it's been moved.

Yep, it's been moved and seconded, already voted on.

Appreciate your comments, Mr.

Morgan.

All right, one in a mole.

If that if the machines are working, otherwise we need to do a voice vote.

We already did the vote on this on the first one.

It was moved by McCarron, seconded by vote on it again.

All right.

So now we're on B, right?

This is still A, because we have to use Mr.

Morgan's comments.

Okay, all in favor?

Five years no nays.

Can I or can I just do the quick roll call?

Yes.

The machine.

Councilmember Green.

Yes.

Councilmember Morrell.

Yes.

Councilmember Willard.

Councilmember King.

Councilmember McCarran.

Yes.

Oh all in f all yeas, no nays, the resolutions will go to the full council with the recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Wait.

Councilman to confirm.

We just voted on the second one too, right?

I believe both resolutions for the record have been voted on and passed unanimously and will go to the council for full consideration.

All right, Councilman Willard moves to adjourn.

Councilman McCarron seconds.

All in favor, none opposed, five years, no nays.

We're adjourned.