Good morning, everyone.

My name is Charles Allen.

I'm the Ward 6 Council member and chair of the Council's Committee on Transportation and the Environment.

Today is Monday, May 11, 2026, and we are meeting in room 412 of the John A.

Wilson building as well as over the Zoom virtual platform.

The time is now 9 40 a.m.

and I'm calling to order this public oversight budget hearing of the committee.

This is the committee's final budget oversight hearing for the FY27 budget.

And today we're going to hear from public and government witnesses for the Public Service Commission.

The Public Service Commission, often referred to as the PSC, or simply the Commission, was established to ensure that every public utility doing business within the district provides safe and adequate service, and the charges imposed by utilities are reasonable, just and non-discriminatory.

The commission has general supervision of all gas companies and electrical companies and is responsible for reviewing proposed rate increases or other surcharges.

Given the role the commission plays an influential role in electric grid modernization, gas pipeline infrastructure and safety in advancement of the district climate policy commitments and environmental preservation goals.

The Commission is governed by three commissioners who are appointed by the mayor and then confirmed by the council.

The mayor's proposed FY27 operating budget for the Public Service Commission is 20.8 million dollars, which is a nominal increase of 0.2% from the FY26 approved budget.

The Commission is funded almost exclusively from special purpose revenue that is generated from an assessment placed on utilities.

The PSC does not have a capital budget.

While today's hearing is going to focus on our testimony, please note the committee will be accepting written testimony from the public until the close of business on May 14th, 2026, and individuals are encouraged to submit testimony through the council's hearing management system, which can be found on the council's website at Limbs.dc Council.gov backslash hearings.

We have a panel of two public witnesses, and then we're going to turn to the commission itself.

We have Barbara Briggs, who's a the member in the FMW piece of social concerns, who's joining us online via Zoom, and Fritz Mulhauser, who's a public witness who's here in person.

So Mr.

Mulhauser, I'll go ahead and pull you up to the table.

We're going to move Ms.

Briggs onto the Zoom, and it looks like she is there.

All right, Miss Briggs, we'll turn to you for your testimony first, then Mr.

Mulhauser, and then we'll turn to some questions.

Good morning, Councilmember Allen.

Sorry not to be able to join you in person today.

My name is Barbara Briggs.

I am a member of Friends Meeting of Washington and convener of the Beyond Gas Climate Faith Initiative, in which our Quaker meeting is deeply involved.

It's obviously truly an awful budget year.

But while the proposed FY27 budget would result in the Department of Energy and the Environment losing 34 staff positions, the Public Service Commission is to keep all 90 of its current positions.

That is all well and good as long as the Public Service Commission does the job we are paying it to do, including playing a leading role in managing DC's transition off fossil fuels to clean renewable electric energy in DC homes and buildings.

Managing this once in four generations shift is a big job, and we should insist on adequate funding and leadership expertise.

We also need to assure that the resources invested are being used to implement a fair and managed transition off to uh modern to a modern energy system.

Given limited time, I will focus on one action.

Our Public Service Commission has the authority to take now that will both move DC in the right direction and help make rates more affordable.

The PSC should move immediately to end the practice of forcing existing customers to pay for new gas lines.

As the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, their PSC did last year, joining California, New York, Oregon, Washington State, and Maryland.

It's been Washington Gas' practice to cover the cost of new line extensions and to pass those costs to existing customers, raising their rates.

That practice no longer makes sense in the present circumstances.

That is, we know that to meet DC's commitment to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 under the carbon-free DC plan and our legal obligations under climate the Climate Commitments Act and other legislation passed by council.

We must wind down DC's reliance on natural gas and transition to modern electricity-based energy system.

We also know that the technology is ready and terrific.

High efficient, high efficiency electric heat pumps, and water heaters are safer.

They don't pollute the air, they use less energy.

Users find induction stoves far superior to gas.

Solar panels and network networked geothermal can provide heating costs down, can bring key heating costs down to a fraction of the old gas bill.

As the owner of a new building, if the owner of a new building insists on a gas hookup, let them pay for it.

Let the expense become part of their mortgage and not ours.

The Public Service Commission's duty is to represent the District of Columbia and its residents in our relationship with the utilities.

The Clean Energy DC Amendment Act of 2018 specifically mandates that the Public Service Commission should take DC's climate commitments into account.

In other words, business as usual, and putting the utilities interests ahead of our government's policy priorities and ahead of the health and economic interests of DC residents just does not cut it.

Thank you.

That is my testimony for today.

I see I have another five minutes, so we'd be happy to discuss this further.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thanks very much.

Good morning, Chairman Allen.

I'm Fritz Mulhauser.

I'm a longtime Ward 6 resident, and typically uh visit the council to talk about open government, but not today.

I'm here individually, and I'm here to take some positions and ask the council to get involved more aggressively in the problem of electricity.

We all hear the electric rate problems for our constituencies and friends and neighbors.

That's to be worried about.

But the long-term issues are the ones that I don't see getting addressed by our institutions.

The diagnosis is public, the action, not yet.

Six weeks ago, Chairman Thompson wrote that his commission regulates only 27%.

27% of a typical PEPCO bill.

The right people know these facts.

But it's not a local political failure.

Should be aggressively working in the forum that matters.

They don't appear in the FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission docket on the active proceeding on data center cost allocation.

Maryland's all over the FERC docket.

DC is not apparently at the table.

I checked the docket just last week.

Maybe I missed something.

The CEO of PJM, the nonprofit that manages our source of electricity that we buy through them, wrote just five days ago.

Maybe staff hasn't gotten to it yet, but a really important white paper in which they say the market is structurally broken.

I quote him directly, fixing it requires choices belonging to the people and institutions with democratic accountability.

State regulators, legislatures, and so on.

This committee should be at that table.

The city should be at that table, and I think we're not.

D.C.

pays more than Virginia.

It's crazy.

Our roads rates went up 68% in the last eight years.

Virginia, 30%.

Despite having a third of the world's data centers.

Our deregulation told PEPCO not to generate anymore.

Virginia kept on generating Dominion energy kept its plant.

When the rate spiked.

We had no hedge.

That's a fundamental problem we have to think about.

Rate payers in Virginia were buffered by the continuing generation capacity there.

We had nothing.

Four things I ask orally, they're more in my written statement.

One, direct OPC, the Office of People's Council, to intervene in the FERC docket, which is dealing with data center cost allocation.

I don't see them in that docket.

They have the capability to intervene at fork.

They've done it in the past.

Whatever has constrained our OPC from getting involved, you should ask about it, find the problem, and fix it because we need more aggressive representation in the places that count.

Second, direct the PSC to commission a new study of alternatives.

It goes by the wonky title, fixed resource requirement analysis, but it's a study of alternative ways to get power here.

The last time we studied that was years ago.

The prices have totally changed.

The whole economics of the field has changed.

We need a new study to look at how to hedge our vulnerability to that price auction that we're now screwed by.

And third, ask today is OPC resourced to do the job that it needs to do on behalf of the ratepayers.

In all the forums where our electric prices are really set.

California, public advocates office, 200 people almost in just the Office of Public Counsel version for that state.

And they think they're understaffed.

You should ask today is there a resource gap, which underlies the engagement gap that were not at the tables.

This is the moment for you to ask and to fix it in the budget.

Fourth, I do have some transparency suggestions.

I'm happy to talk about them, but the good information that OPC has about where your electric bill comes from and why is nowhere visible.

It's on their website.

Public Service Commission, in its short-term rule making and in the next round of uh tariff rulemaking should direct a better bill information in which the share that we don't control of our costs, the 70% that comes through the auction, is explained, or at least there's a QR code linking people to where they can get the OPC good information.

The chairman you'll talk to.

He he wrote the right diagnosis.

PJM, the CEO's paper five days ago confirmed it.

What hasn't happened is that DC doesn't have the institutional action demanded by this moment.

My full written testimony gives a lot more detail and further recommendations, and I'd be happy to answer questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mulhauser.

And thank you to both of you.

A couple of quick questions.

Thank you for your testimony.

And you know, I hear you, and it's certainly something that concerns me just from a big picture standpoint as we look at DUEE, for example, which is not this hearing, but as we had that a couple of days ago, losing almost three dozen uh FDE positions, and so looking at what is being asked of all agencies in a tough budget.

I hear you and and note the distinction there you make.

Um obviously, today is the Public Service Commission's budget hearing, so I am going to focus a lot of my questions were related to staffing, funding increases, uh division budgets, for example.

Um, but I do agree, obviously, that we've got to continue to transition to common sense clean energy sources and technologies are gonna allow that.

Fro, so just briefly, what are some of the most important strategies you think DC should be using in the short term that are before the Public Service Commission now?

And to link it from a budget perspective, do you feel the Public Service Commission in this budget is resourced in a way to be able to take that action?

I think that the and eliminating the line extension allowance would be one common sense move that the public service commission now has the authority to take.

Uh I think taking the future of gas docket seriously and actually facilitating uh managing that transition and working with DOEE and other DC agencies, but really taking it seriously.

In other words, this is not a fuel neutral situation.

We know we need to move off fossil fuels, and the fact that our uh public service commission has really been sitting on it uh fairly endlessly is problematic.

Uh does the public service commission have the uh expertise they need?

Uh frankly, I doubt it.

Uh if you look at uh the commission, even just the two commissioners whose uh whose terms are up this year, if you look at their backgrounds compared, for instance, to the Maryland public service commission commissioners' backgrounds, you will see that in Maryland, their commissioners have decades of experience in energy management, in grid management.

Um, it's just it's it's a very big difference.

I think what we need now is leadership.

We haven't seen uh a very quick ramping up uh of that expertise, and it's it's problematic.

Okay, all right, thank you, Miss Briggs.

Um, Mr.

Melhauser, thank you for your testimony.

I know um you had submitted a longer written testimony, so that'll certainly be part of the full record.

Um, you know, and as we've looked in California or other places too, we know that uh just market regulation alone isn't gonna be uh the end all be all of control and cost, but it certainly is a part of what we're looking at and trying to learn from other jurisdictions as well.

Um you had outlined a couple of different asks.

I want to one of the questions I'll ask you is you said it sounded like you had more recommendations you had on transparency, so I'll ask you that in just a second so you have a chance to explain that more.

Um, but when you talk about directing the PSE to commission a new study of alternative power generation, for example, um have you looked at where the PSC has the ability to do an action currently versus when they have to be directed to take an action?

Any thoughts around where you believe greater direction is necessary?

And obviously, if we are going to more explicitly direct the public service commission to take an action, we have to make sure they've got the staffing and the resources to do the thing that we're directing them to.

But when you think about studying alternative power generation, is that something you think they could do today, or they need to be more directed to it?

And then any suggestions you have around the resources to make sure they can.

The questions are yours for this hearing to say if we agree that some broader thinking about the sources of our electric supply is needed.

Are you including in your work plans of the commission and the Office of People's Council, a review of the alternative of bilateral contracting for power, so that we have some other prices to pay after careful negotiation?

These are deeply technical questions to carry out, but your question is: don't we need to look at some alternative sources and their prices and get the best deal?

And are you equipped and energetic to do so?

We did it five years ago, and the parameters of that study were based on a price of electricity that's totally out of date after five years.

It's everybody in the energy field knows about this, the fixed resource requirements analysis is a well-known study.

Ask them if they're going to do it and say, we kind of hear this would be useful.

And don't you think you ought to be on that and hear from them?

Oh, we don't have the 500,000 it would take for the consultant contract.

Well, put it in the budget.

And if they say we think the pricing mechanisms we face today are not ours to challenge, then you can have a conversation, why not?

Because our customers are paying the freight right now for a market auction price system that doesn't work.

And we're paying enormously for that because of our past policy choice to not generate ourselves.

So the question for PSC in the long term is how to rethink the sources, bilateral contracting, or new generation that we own.

Yeah.

You also, it seemed like you kind of mentioned several different transparency recommendations you had.

I didn't get to touch on a couple of them, so I just want to give you a chance if there were any others that you felt like you didn't uh have time in your testimony to give that you wanted to highlight for us.

Sure.

Three in particular, do require automatic enrollment in the existing assistance programs.

It's very important for our neighbors who are having trouble with these spiking rates, whose solution is the part of a much broader conversation, as I've indicated.

But for the short term, you need to make it easy to get the assistance people need, and automatic enrollment is a way to do that.

Tell our folks to do that if they're not already planning it.

And there are some implementation issues about how do we know who's eligible?

I don't want the IRS to open its tax returns so that the energy department can decide who's eligible for low-cost energy, but prior eligibility for SNAP or TANF can be used as a proxy.

You're very familiar with that kind of thing.

So require automatic enrollment with some implementation safeguards.

Second, do require PSC commissioners with relevant experience.

It's terrifically important.

And if the nominations that you discuss with the mayor and hear about before they come to you, don't seem right, then you have to consider putting in the statute some qualifications requirements, which you know how to do in many other parts of the DC code.

And another thing I would recommend is ask the PSC to issue annually a report, which transparently and accessibly, not a legal brief or a FERC filing, but explains rate drivers.

What the present discussion lacks is an acknowledgement of where the price comes from that we're all feeling injured by, but we have to get up root causes, and there isn't a publicly accessible really clear statement.

That's why I, as an amateur, spent some weeks getting ready to visit with you today just trying to understand where did these big numbers of power rates come from?

And PSC could help with an annual report on rate drivers.

Those are three things.

Plan proceeding as a vehicle for other reforms.

And we've talked about getting OPC to intervene in the FERC filings to demonstrate that they're on top of the federal setting where our rates are being set and determine if OPC really has the horsepower.

They need FERC experienced economists, FERC experienced attorneys.

And if they don't have them, you should find that out and help them get the resources to get them.

Got it.

Well, I appreciate it.

Thank you.

On a couple of those, in terms of the automatic enrollment, for example, we've got legislation that we're going to be moving forward soon that could add 30,000 low-income residents to be able to get the assistance that they need and is sitting there and available, but we create so many barriers for folks to be able to actually get the help that we already have programs for.

Have you considered what which in my reading comes up the interesting problem that helping some people, subsidizing some people's rates puts a burden on others, and studying that how that works out for other people, because the other people will have to pay the extra rate of the subsidy that's granted those who can't afford it.

Studying those equity aspects is an interesting piece of moving in that direction.

You could ask OPC to take a look at that if you do do the automatic enrollment.

And second, um, the uh uh source of income verification is a is a privacy issue to be aware of and to think about.

So in that regard, our so our legislation works with the programs that we have with those safeguards in place already.

Um, and so that's why I think it it works to help do what you're talking about to protect.

Um, but it also is a recognition.

Anybody who says automatic enrollment um is the way that we address affordability, they're not looking at the full picture.

Yes, it is a way that we help working households, lower-income households be able to lower the costs.

It doesn't do a thing to lower the overall costs of energy, and that's why we have so many other efforts, but it is meaningful, I think, for working households, lower and moderate income households that need the help now.

Nobody should mistake that for the bigger efforts of actually controlling and lowering the costs.

I wanted one more quick thing, and I do want to be able to turn to the PSC.

Um, you talked about a you know an annual report and more information.

I do agree with you that we want to have the PSC and others be able to help inform folks about what is in their bill, why are they seeing that change?

I will acknowledge though, recently in particular, I've seen the PSC making an effort to really try to help get that type of public information out.

Um, and so I do think that I'm seeing the PSC kind of respond to the pressure points they're hearing around those concerns.

And so I you know, I do want to acknowledge, I think we've seen them try to put forward more information around this, try to help break down those costs for folks.

Um, obviously, we have to do more than just explain to people why their bills are going up, we got to figure out how to stop the bills from going up.

But I do think that I've seen a better approach and a more intentional approach on some of that communication.

We don't ask Safeway to explain why tomatoes are costly in a package insert.

Um, so it's it's it's tough to ask PEPCO to explain the energy markets, uh, but PEPCO could be through a rate proceeding required to put on the bill not only the disaggregation of transmission and generation, which is on the bills now, but for instance, a QR code that says, want to know where your power comes from and why it costs what it does.

Click on this or go through this QR code and you'll get to it.

But I don't view the utility flow, which they already have.

I don't view the utility companies as the neutral arbiter of just saying, Let me tell you why it costs so much, because I have a hunch what they're gonna say.

That's where I think the public service commission, OPC, and others who are to work for the benefit of the public, are and should be a more trusted space for that information because the utility companies themselves, because I think we've seen it, they are certainly gonna point the fingers in other ways, right?

My point is that's where they the PSC is a better position, I think, to hold.

PC and PSC have good information buried in websites.

The QR code would go not to a PEPCO corporate statement, but to the OPC and PSC, vetted and good.

Explanations that are out there now.

Got it.

The third thing about I thought you were saying to have a QR code, for example, or information from PEPCO to tell PEPCO's story.

Um, you're saying have public service commissioner OPC create a space, and then require the bill to have something that points back to them.

The third thing about enrollment that's important, and I hope you're thinking about is that many people are renters and they have building metered.

And how do you get the subsidy to reach them if it's not reflected in rent?

That's a tough problem.

Yep.

That's all part of the challenges we're working on.

Um, and within the um the grid act, for example, helps renters be able to find other ways to help lower their bills too.

But a lot, a lot has to go into this.

So I appreciate it and look forward to following up with your written testimony as well.

Um, and then I saw heads nodding behind you from the PSC commissioners themselves, so I know they'll be able to help address some of that too when they come up.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Mulhauser.

And thank you, Miss Briggs.

I appreciate your testimony.

All right, we're gonna move now to the Public Service Commission.

And we have Chairman Emil Thompson, who's here.

Mr.

Chairman, if there's anybody else from your team you want to bring up, of course, please feel free.

Uh what we'll do is we'll do our quick oath, and then I'll turn it over to you for your testimony, and then we'll turn to questions after that.

Oops, sorry, I'm being told to wait one second.

Sorry, apparently we need to we're rebooting our system to make sure the broadcast and recording is coming through correctly.

So just bear with us a second.

And it has been rebooted.

So it is done now.

All right, Mr.

Chairman, let me uh swear you in real fast, and I'll turn it over to your testimony and we'll turn to questions after that.

So please raise your hand.

Committee Rule 603 requires testimony under oath or um or affirmation.

So do you swear or affirm it'll plenty of perjury, the testimony about to give the committee on transportation and the environment is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you very much.

All right, good morning to you, and let me turn it over to you.

Alright, good morning to you as well.

Uh, good morning, Chairperson Allen, members of the committee uh on transportation and environment.

I'm Emil C.

Thompson, Chairman of the DC Public Service Commission.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you this morning in support of the mayor's fiscal year 2027 budget request for the commission.

For FY 2027, the mayor has proposed an operating budget for the commission of 20 million 20 million eight hundred sixty-five thousand nine six hundred ninety-four dollars and ninety three point two full-time equivalent positions.

This represents an increase of 0.2% over the FY2020 budget and a decrease of 0.4 FTE positions from the FY 2026 budget.

The proposed FY 2027 budget includes no local funds, 20 million one hundred forty seven thousand, seven hundred and four dollars in special purpose revenues, O-type funds, six hundred and seventy thousand dollars, six hundred and seventy three thousand nine hundred and ninety thousand dollars in federal grant funds and fourteen thousand dollars in private donations.

Special purpose revenues remain the funding source for 97% of the commission's budget according to DC Code.

This revenue comes from assessments left on PEPCO, Washington Gas, Verizon, and all competitive electric, natural gas, and telecommunication service providers licensed by the commission.

In addition, the DC code explicitly states that the public service commission agency fund shall be used exclusively by the commission by the commission for its expenses regarding the commission's federal grant funds.

There is a net increase of 43,163 to align the FY 2027 budget with projected grant fund grant awards from the US Department of Transportation for the district's pipeline safety grant program.

This is why the Commission's operating budget has increased 0.2% from FY 2026.

Turning to the FY 2027 Budget Support Act includes a subtitle called the Enhanced Consumer Protections and Retail Energy Market Act of 2026.

The subtitle is designed to protect residential utility customers from bad actors and third-party energy supplier market by significantly strengthening consumer protections.

Among other things, the subtitle requires the commission to impose price caps on third-party electricity and natural gas suppliers, eliminates early termination fees, and expands reporting and oversight by the commission.

In furtherance of this subtitle, the commission is asking for one additional FTE in its FY27 budget that is not presently included.

This request will be included in an errata letter from the mayor to council to adjust budget omissions.

The new FTE will be for an economist to support implementation and oversight of the price cap, contract transparency, and reporting requirements.

As stated above, the commission's operation, the commission operations are funded through assessments imposed on utilities and regulates.

The additional FTE will not change the assessment revenue expected from the utilities, but the budget, but the budget will be needed to adjust it to accommodate the hiring of a new FTE.

Regarding the current fiscal climate, the commission is committed to operating efficiently within its proposed budget as we remain in an era of austerity.

Recognizing the importance of financial responsibility, we will continue to prioritize careful planning and resource allocation.

The commission will undoubtedly uphold its financial obligations while adapting to the economic constraints of the current environment.

In closing, is our hope that you agree with the mayor's proposed FY2027 budget for the commission.

As currently envisioned, it will help us carry out our mission of ensuring that utilities provide safe, reliable, and quality services at reasonable rates while advancing the district's climate district's climate policy commitments.

Thank you for your consideration.

I'm happy to answer any answer any questions you may have.

Great, thank you very much.

Um, probably focus for a little bit on just kind of walking through the funding sources and the operating budget, and then definitely we'll turn to the BSA subtitle in a little bit too to make sure we walk through that.

Um, start with some of our funding sources.

So there's almost no change to the commission's overall funding, um, but it looks like there's an additional 43,000 in federal grant payments.

Yes.

Relatively modest, but what's the basis of that small increase in grant funding?

Correct.

So that um increases to align with our federal grants every year, our FEMSA, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, the gas team, there is a FIMSA grant that funds a lot of the work they do, and so to match those funds, we had to increase our budget to match those funds.

Got it.

All right, so that's 40.

So the increase is 43,000 of our local funding to then match whatever federal dollars we get back.

Correct, in local SPR.

Roughly.

Okay, got it.

All right, thanks.

Um, as we noted, the commission is largely funded through special purpose revenue.

I think you said 97% of the overall budget.

Um, this may be the same grant, but the commission received one grant from the federal government in both FY25 and FY26 to support the natural gas pipeline safety program.

The commission was awarded 477,000 in FY25, and it looks at the commission's has a lower amount set to receive from the feds in FY26 of 98.

Were we expecting more?

In other words, we've seen obviously in other agencies where the federal government is either rescinded or clawed back federal appropriations, or was this an expected reduction?

Just checking my notes here.

Um, I believe this was expected, which is why we're budgeted for it, but this is just one thing I will look at.

Okay.

Okay.

We can get specifics from you on that.

Got it, okay.

Thanks.

Um, and that's but that's all related to the natural gas pipeline safety program, as I understand.

Yes.

Okay, all right.

Um is that one where the federal government grant dollars support the full costs, or that's one where we have to put up public matching to then draw down the federal dollars.

We do have to put up matching dollars for that one.

Okay.

When we think about other federal grants, when other within DOEE and other agencies, we always are looking at how do we help maximize federal grant opportunities or federal dollars.

Are there any federal grant funding opportunities the PSC is not pursuing or not putting local dollars towards that we could otherwise have?

Yeah.

Let me answer this way.

I'm not aware right now of any funding opportunities for public service commissions from federal dollars.

Um, a lot of times what you'll see, at least out of the current administration or previous administration, is grant dollars that will go to utilities for infrastructure investments.

We have certainly encouraged the utilities to go after that.

And they made they made they put applications, both Washington Gas and PEPCO put applications in under IJA and some of the other uh big programs that came out under the Biden administration, but they did not receive any actual funding.

Okay.

Got it.

Um let me dig in now for a little bit for funding by division and program.

Um this is one where we frequently will see within the budget book, it looks like large amounts of funding either being increased or decreased.

Budgets are not always uh clear documents, and so being able to help do a crosswalk and understand where and what's happening is important here.

So again, despite overall relative flat funding for the public service commission, there are several large funding shifts within the commission.

So there seems to be an entirely new program being stood up, the real property appeals program funded at $2 million.

The single largest reduction in the commission's budget is within the utility regulation services division, where the budget book at least is showing a $5.6 million reduction to the utility regulation program, accompanied by a loss of 31.4 FTEs.

The CFO reached out to us recently to inform us there perhaps was an error in the budget book with respect to these enhancements and reductions.

Have you been notified of the error?

Are you aware that give you a chance to explain?

Do you believe that this budget change these budget maneuvers and changes and reductions reflect what's actually happening with the public service commission?

And can you add some more clarity to this?

Yeah, so what what's happened here is um in the interest of trying to create greater transparency to where some of our FTs are, it's created, I believe, more confusion.

And so when you look at the um the changes, especially with utility regulation, you see a minus of uh as you talked about the total of almost 26 FTEs, um, but then there's an increase in the legal services division of 15 FTEs.

And then you see, then you mentioned already the change in the commission uh real property appeals process, which I believe is our consumer affairs division.

So it's really trying to align our budget book a little bit more clearly with where the FTEs are in our agency.

Okay, so is so the you what's been previously categorized as utility regulation services division, what at least in the book is looking like a $5.6 million reduction and 31.4 FTEs.

There is a chunk of that that is going to real property appeals process, a chunk of that's going to litigation services.

Like one of the things that we need is a kind of a crosswalk to understand where things are going.

And then if the CFOs reached out to us and said uh this may have had some errors in it, obviously that leaves us fairly opaque as to what is in the budget and what's correct.

Okay.

We can certainly provide a detailed crosswalk for you.

Um, but I will say that it yes, it is it was intended to create a little bit greater transparency into where our FTEs are actually allocated, right?

Um, but we can certainly provide the committee with a crosswalk.

So you can see position number by position number where people have gone.

I mean, because like real property appeals process, that's I'm familiar with offstacks and revenue that does a real properties uh appeals process.

The public service commission doesn't do real property appeals process.

Like this is where I think this is an error and is hard to track and make sense of this one.

And it's certainly feel free if you want to bring up anybody from the team.

And if you would just for the record help identify yourself, thank you.

Good morning, or Shikamore, agency fiscal officer, OCFO office here with Public Service Commission.

So if you look at the book, the real property is actually commission operations staff, and so when I realign them and put them where they should be, which should really be utility regulations.

We did not know that it was tied to real property.

So that's when we reached out to your office or the committee to see if we can get this corrected, and they can be moved to utility regulations.

So there was a number about five million.

Um $5 million dollars worth of people and funding in the OCFO's budget that we have to shift and realign, as we brought up, or he mentioned about the legal department.

You see one FTE, but I believe we have around 15 attorneys at the public service commission.

So that's why you see the increase there at the general in the general counsel's office for legal.

So we're just shifting people according to where they are operationally as well as the funding as well.

Got it.

Alright, so what I'm hearing a little bit of is that there's within the budget book, there's a realignment that is just trying to categorize folks into the right division in which they are operating.

And then in addition, we certainly will work with your team uh in the committee after the hearing, but there needs to be the budget book may have not necessarily correctly captured the uh real property appeals process in the right way, and we kind of clean that up for the committee budget moving forward.

Yes, okay, got it.

Alright, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Okay, so for the utility regulation program then, can you make sure we know how many FTEs are being supported with the funding?

And how many do we need to make sure is reflected correctly in the budget book?

Absolutely, we can.

I'm sorry.

Do we know how many it is?

Or that's what we need to follow up afterwards.

And the all important three ring binders being passed right up.

So it looks like in FY26 it was sixty six point seven.

Uh drop down to forty-one proposed for FY27.

Uh Ms.

Moore will verify that number for us.

Yes, I'll verify the number for you.

Okay.

Obviously, externally, people could read this and look and say, we got a significant cut to utility regulation, which I don't think would be what the PSC wants or should do.

Not what I want to do.

So this is one, at least from my out external and public perception, we got to make sure we're working together to uh get that corrected and then make sure that we can help explain it as well to my colleagues and through the council.

Certainly.

Okay.

Um, does the from the docket perspective?

You've got uh obviously the remanded case in front of you right now.

Then you have the other work that is always going on.

From a staffing perspective, do we have the the same number of staff?

Does public service commission this budget support the same number of staff and utility regulation and work the litigation services working on these dockets?

The same number of staff we had last year.

Is there any increase or decrease in the overall number?

I know we're moving and recategorizing a little bit, but is there any change overall?

There is no change overall.

Okay.

And then what is your confidence as you have the um the remanded case coming in from a workload perspective and the rest of the docket materials coming in front of you?

What is your confidence that with the same number of staff you're able to continue all the work that's required?

I feel very confident.

Um, we do have some NPS funds that allow us to bring outside contractors in when necessary um to help buttress the organization, and so I feel confident that you know, with our 16 attorneys, or at least 16 um FTEs in the attorney's office are our UTRA team, and those contract dollars will be able to fill the agency's mission.

Okay, um what is help me understand that my breakdown between the staff that you have on staff, you know, obviously within the public service commission and then the contracted staff.

So, how many people are we bringing on through the contracted services?

So typically when we bring on that when we have a contractor, it's not necessarily individual people we're bringing on.

It's really we're bringing on um and specifically around these big rate cases, uh, a little bit of additional technical expertise to uh whether it's review filings, uh would review different assumptions, serve as a third-party validator for some of the staff's work to assist.

Also, sometimes uh in a legal in a legal and illegal effort to review pleadings to ensure legal sufficiency, things of that matter.

So I wouldn't say it's a one-to-one staff person we're bringing on, it's more of a skill set.

Okay.

In the contract and procurement line, it looks like you're receiving a 1.1 million dollar enhancement.

Is that part of a reorganization, or is that or a realignment, or is that bringing on more resources for the purposes of contract and procurement?

And I'm a and correct me if I'm wrong here, is that contracting for those services you were just describing, or is that a different contract and procurement line?

It's a realignment.

Okay.

So does it, does that realignment represent any actual increase of 1.1 million dollars?

It was realigned for one program to another.

It was real from one program to another.

So we put in the contracts and procurement because I didn't know where the we didn't know where the ownership was.

So to make things kind of clean and consistent is contract that's going to be awarded.

So we put in contracts of procurement.

Okay.

But it does not represent a 1.1 million dollars increase in contracting needs.

It is essentially flat level of what your contracting was, it's just realigning it internally.

Yes.

Correct.

All right.

For the remanded rate case right now, are there any additional contracted services that you're bringing on to handle that case?

We we are exploring that right now.

Typically, again, on our rate case, we we do bring in um an expert, and so we are looking at that right now.

Okay.

How does your budget for the fiscal year we're in right now or this proposed budget for the fiscal year we would begin?

How does that help support what you need to be able to bring in contracted services?

Um I think the quick answer is we believe that we have the money to support that.

Um a little bit more detailed question, we can certainly talk a little bit more offline.

Is it it depends on how we bring the contractor on?

Um, whether we tap into an existing contract or if we have to put a new solicitation out that can certainly affect it, but we certainly believe that we have the the current budget to support that.

Okay.

And you're not gonna have an exact dollar amount, but like from a ballpark perspective.

What to be able to bring on contracted services, for example, help us understand like is that in the realm of 250,000?

Is it 500,000?

Like what does a ballpark look like for how much funding you have to bring in?

I'm assuming it's case-by-case specific of what you actually are purchasing or contracting for.

Yeah, and and let me go back a little bit because I I think uh I should mention this.

Um, and please correct me or she if I get this wrong.

So for certain types of cases, for instance, a rate case, we are able to assess the utilities, the cost it takes for us to and as well as OPC to bring contractors on to help adjudicate the case.

So in those instances, it's actually not coming out of our line budget.

Um, it's coming from assessments that we place on utilities.

So it's coming out of the utilities uh budget.

So you anticipated my next question, which is gonna be is this coming from the special purpose revenue that's being generated already?

Right, or is it a special assessment?

Maybe you it's a special assessment where we we um issue what we call a no way for a no uh notice of um assessment that we put out and we say that we're assessing the utilities X amount of dollars, and then they if we don't receive any comments, we then the utilities and deposit the money in our account.

Got it.

How does the utility company pay for that assessment?

I imagine a check.

Sorry, no.

Sorry.

What I mean is uh Oh, how do they get cost recovery for it?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, I assume it's either uh a direct line, yeah.

I'm curious about the cost recovery for what those assessments are.

Right.

So there's a there's a line item in our rate cases that contain litigation expenses associated with rate case filings, and so that that's where they're able to recover those funds.

Okay.

I guess at the end of the day, is the rate payer the one who's helping pay those costs, right?

Like they're doing cost recovery, so I'm assuming they're putting that on the ratepayers to then cover the costs.

Yes.

Okay.

Why not use those costs?

Like, help me understand the scale of what those costs are.

Like, why not use the the special purpose revenue that they're already being assessed for that's built in and baked in?

Why is that not sufficient to help cover the costs?

And again, you're gonna help educate us here.

Like how much are we talking about is for a case?

So I would have to, and I would have loved to provide you a little bit more detailed breakdown, because again, this is not just PSCs who does this, OPC does it as well.

It's written into the statue.

And so I don't know off the top of my head what OPC's costs are.

To answer your question as to why the typical agency funds aren't sufficient, I don't have what we spent on FC 20116.

But rate cases, okay.

One second.

And while you're pulling it up, I I think you'll understand my point, which is it if we're trying to fight and evaluate whether or not a rate request is a fair and equitable request, and then the costs to make that argument and do that research are then passed right on to the ratepayers as part of their cost recovery.

Mm-hmm.

It logically, it feels like we're asking ratepayers to pay even more for the to argue the rate case that's coming in front of them.

Or coming in front of you.

Okay.

Rather than having it just be paid for the special purpose revenue that are already being assessed.

Okay.

So to um let me first give you an answer to what we spent on uh FC 1176.

We spent approximately uh 496,392, so a little under $500,000 paid to um four different entities.

Uh so that's the answer to the first question.

And that was and that was for which case?

The case that's currently on remand, FC 1176, the PEPCO multi-year rate plan.

And that was what was paid on the two consultants.

The first, when the case was coming through.

That's not what's being paid currently as the cases were mandated back that you the PSC is now going to do correct on the docket.

Correct.

Okay.

Um to answer your question as to why the dollars are not sufficient within the current budget.

Um I think as as just discussed, that was about $500,000.

Um, you know, our contracting procurement dollars are about two million, about two million for the year.

And so there's certainly a number of other contracts and procurements we have to make throughout the year.

I would also note that this is certainly how um not our rules read, but the statute reads.

And so this is the way it's been done, I think, since whenever.

Um, and so if if there is to be a change there, I think that would certainly need a legislative change from the council.

Um, but that's about as much as I can give you.

Okay.

I obviously we need a PSC that has the resources you need to be able to do the job.

Um I'm also trying to think about where do we find the current assessment of special purpose revenue that if that 500,000, for example, is insufficient within your budget, so you have to go through that cost recovery, at the end of the day, that 500,000 if it's being paid for by the utility and then rate recovered back from ratepayers.

It didn't it shows up on a bill somewhere.

Uh so trying to think about it, you know, we're we're trying to think about every little thing we can be doing to try to help control these costs, trying to make sure I understand the process.

Yeah, and I'll give you two additional just pieces of food for thought.

Um, so the way the assessments work are we assess everybody, you know, the utilities as well as the um third-party suppliers, and we do it on a pro-rated basis, and so I think perhaps some of the thinking may be that, or could have been that if um this is an amount, this is just for PEPCO, right?

And so should the third party suppliers be paying it, or somebody who doesn't have a rate case at that time paying for PEPCO's rate case or paying for Washington.

So that's certainly one thought.

And you know, one of the things I would also say, and it's certainly that's this is part of what was being looked at in lessons learned Working Group was the idea that if you have multi-year rate plans, perhaps this reduces.

Perhaps this might reduce that line item because instead of having a rate case every year, every year and a half, you have a bigger gap, and therefore your expenses to do a rate case may be lower.

Um that was something that was being looked at in the working group as part of 1176.

Got it.

Okay.

Um, we can join my counselor Robert White.

Counselor White, I'll turn to you just a moment for a round of questions as well, but wanted to acknowledge that you are here online via Zoom as well.

So thank you for joining us.

Um thank you very much, uh Chairperson Allen.

Thank you to the PSC.

Um I will uh forego uh statement and jump into questions if that's all right.

Uh let me finish one quick question I had on this line of thought that I'm gonna turn to you for a round.

Um, so I just want to finish this quick line on the contracting.

Um so, Chairman Thompson, the PSC has independent contracting authority, correct?

Yes.

So when you're making choices about the contracts, is that a or is the solicitation one that goes out competitively?

Is it one that goes out and the chairman's office makes choices?

Is that one that the like I'm thinking for our contracting for the council, for example, it comes before the full body at some point.

Do all three commissioners have to approve a contract?

Can you just walk through what that process looks like for contracting?

Yes.

So while we do have independent contracting authority, I believe our contracting statute largely mirrors the districts.

Um I think the only difference is I serve as a uh serve as the chief procurement officer of the agency.

And so therefore, typically what will happen is uh for contracts, we will competitively bid them.

Uh, we'll have an evaluation panel, just like any other um solicitation, and then a recommendation comes to me as the ultimate uh contracting officer, and then I will approve it.

The biggest difference, I would say, is um in terms of contracts through the governance board, pilot projects governance board.

We follow a little bit of a different process just because that's set up a little bit differently with monies from the uh merger, and typically I believe either all three commissioners either vote on it or we assent to it something of that sort.

But um that would say that's the one that's probably a little bit different than the general contracting matters.

Okay, and is there any sole source contracting or are all contracts competitively bid?

I think we do some sole source contract in accordance with district government procedures.

So I think it's like for low dollar amounts and things of that nature, but there is um I'm certainly not aware of any large contracts that are done in a sole source.

And if you would like, we can certainly get you a copy of our procurement regs.

Yeah, that'd be helpful in the follow up afterwards that.

Okay, now let me turn to Councilmember Robert White, who's here for a round of questions.

Thanks so much, Chairperson uh Alan, and uh uh thank you, Mr.

Thompson, for for being with us.

Um so when I'm talking to people around town and increasingly these days, biggest concern they have is utilities, and people are frustrated, people are angry.

The the increase in utility rates, especially PEPCO, are unsustainable.

I I can't see most of us making it if rates continue to increase at this rate.

But when I'm uh sort of, you know, out and about, and I see somebody from PEPCO or PSC, uh, or one of the other utilities, what they want to do is explain to me why the rates are so hard.

I'm not looking for somebody to do a high, I'm not looking for somebody to explain why the rates are so high.

I'm looking for someone to explain what we're going to do to lower the rates, and I think that has to be what we start to get at.

So, let me start here.

Um, how does PSC separate rate increases that are truly unavoidable from those that come from the utility's own spending choices or planning mistakes?

Well, thank you for that question.

So typically rate increases come through on the distribution side by the company filing a an application, right?

And then at that point, you certainly have all the institutional stakeholders, OPC, DOEE, the federal government, um, AOBA, DC Water intervene.

And that kicks off a very intense process that typically takes, I would say, no shorter than 14 months, right?

It's an extended court case, thousands of pages of filings, to determine what the appropriate revenue requirement is for the utility, and then how that revenue requirement is then allocated amongst the various classes.

Residential, commercial, uh large commercial, et cetera.

And so that's the primary way we go about looking at the rate increases.

One of the things that we we see and we know is that we only control 27% of the bill as opposed to 73% that's controlled by outside forces.

And so that 27% of the bill that we do control and regulate, we look at it very carefully.

We scrutinize every expenditure and make sure that there is justification for it.

When parties raise issues of prudence, which is basically did the utility need to make this investment, uh, we then go down that road and make sure that it was either a prudent or non-prudent uh expenditure.

And so it's it's a very detailed and intense process that again takes several several months over a year, and that's when we do our our hard work.

Can you identify any recent case or cases where PSC pushed back and significantly reduced or rejected a utilities request because you didn't believe they justified the cost?

Yeah, I mean, I'll start with um PEPCO's the case everybody's talking about PEPCO, the multi-year rate plan.

I believe that was originally proposed, it was for um a hundred and eighty million dollar increase over three years.

We cut it to, I believe a total of a hundred and twenty-three over two years.

Um the majority of that increase were for investments that um were decided upon before I came here, but were now time to be paid for, uh things associated with capital grid, which included a new substation in Mount Vernon, a new substation uh or rehab substation in Southeast Waterfront.

And so um that that that's there.

In the Washington gas rate case we just had, we cut their revenue requests I believe by like 35%.

Um, that was actually on par with what AOBA um had recommended.

So in every rate case, we're always cutting back what the utilities ask.

Um but we we can't we can't cut it to zero.

And for the PEPCO example, you're talking about what PSC did or what the courts did.

That's what PSC did.

Okay.

Um, so you said we only control 26 or 27% of the the cost.

Yes, 27%.

Okay, so that that means that 73% is I guess out of our control.

What is what does that mean?

Yeah, what would have yeah, what would have to happen for that part of the rates to decrease?

So you have about 57% that's the wholesale market.

I'm just gonna put that in the corner for a second.

You have about uh eight or nine percent that's transmission, then about eight or nine percent that's legislative surcharges and taxes.

So SETF, uh the mayor's energy, um, mayor's energy fund, um, and a few other small ones.

The biggest thing I would probably say um, so transmission costs are about 8%.

Those are those are wholly regulated by FERC.

FERC sets up the cost allocation, um, the regional grid operator determines or XMON, the parent company of PEPCO, decide when new projects need to be built, typically either for reliability, um, or other needs, and then they get that cost recovery approved from FERC.

There are some legislative changes that could be done there to maybe affect um some of the incentives that FERC's FERC gives to transmission owners that are part of RTOs.

So that's that's one thing.

On the wholesale side, that's a that's a much trickier conversation.

Um, primarily because there's a lot of factors there.

Um the two biggest cost increases we're seeing on that side are the capacity increases that are a result of tightening supply and demand of electrons on the regional grid, primarily due to large load increases, data centers, right?

Um, larger data centers come online, there's less electricity goal to go along.

The other part of it is our compliance fees associated with our Clean Energy Act.

And this is always a tough conversation because when you talk about these, some people confuse talking about the fees associated with commitments to being having 100% electricity by 2032 and 15% of electricity coming from DC by 2041.

But it's a very known fact that 15% of our bill is made up of those clean energy mandates.

That was in 2024, when the numbers come out for 2025, my suspicion is going to be higher.

Other states, such as Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, they all had very S Rec prices at one time, and they had to reform their their model because they knew that was leading to costs that were unsustainable for ratepayers.

And so those are certainly some things that we're seeing on a macro level.

And can certainly dive more into it more if you would like.

But unless we do it in a smart and sustainable way, and when I say that, I mean by pairing with battery, long duration battery, you're going to still need to rely on the regional grid for power because just like today it's rainy outside, we can't say that there's no power in DC because it's rainy and the solar panels can't produce, right?

And so we have to make sure that we're not only incentivizing solar at the right level, but also battery storage to build that redundancy so that we can then reduce our overall usage at any given time on the regional grid.

One of the things that we see is because we have the highest SREX in the nation, um, by a large magnitude, I think we're about six or seven times higher than Maryland's S Rec prices is just causing that disconnect for ratepayers.

Let me let me switch to to uh last topic before my time is.

So on multi-year rate plans, many jurisdictions have found that MRPs increase rates and weaken cost discipline.

What evidence does the PSC rely on to conclude that multi-year rate plans are actually helping DC rate payers?

That's a great question.

So, as part of 1176, uh, we did a few things to, and it's kind of to talk about it because as you know, the case has been remanded.

But one of the things that we did as part of 1176 is we had a lessons learned working group to look at that exact proposition right there, right?

Is it doing is it fulfilling the promise that they say?

Now, there are some jurisdictions that have moved away.

There are certainly some other jurisdictions who have been doing multi-year rate plans for a longer period of time who have stuck with them.

I think it's um it's all about having the right kind of mechanisms in place, making sure you have the right safeguards, so not allowing reconciliations for the for the um utility to come back and and get additional money at the end of the rate plan, which is something that we don't do, ensuring that there is a cost, um, basically a cost credit that go to rate payers if the utility is over-earning, which is what we had in our rate plan.

And so I think there's there's certain things you can have tailored within your rate plan that uh multi-year rate plan to protect customers, but it has to be done in the right way.

So, the the most recent increase, the um, if we look ahead, let's say the PSC holds a proper evidentiary hearing and then approves the same rate plan again.

How will you explain that to residents who have already been paying higher rates under uh an order that the court struck down?

I'm not sure I follow you there.

So, why not refund?

Let's say you you do uh a proper evidentiary hearing and then approve the PEPCO rates again.

How how do you justify not refunding residents who have been paying higher rates under a plan that the court struck down?

Well, I think the case law in this space um certainly is very very informative, and we issued an order on Friday regarding this, and so we can make sure you have a copy of that.

Um but the case law is is fairly clear in this space.

Also, I think we would point to the fact that it adds a degree of stability.

Um let's take your your proposition that um we issue re we issue refunds at this point, we change rates, we issue refunds, and then four months later we come back and say, okay, well, now you have to give that money back.

I think residents would be actually madder at that point, um, having had some temporary rate relief, then have to pay a new rate plus refunds, um, and that would cause even greater problems rather than putting uh temporary band-aid on the situation.

But the rate increases are not valid, and you can't, to my knowledge, do retroactive rate increases.

So once you go through the procedure properly, then you can issue a higher rate.

So, again, I we issued an order on this on Friday.

I would encourage you to read it.

I'll certainly share it with you.

Um, I think perhaps some of some of what you think might not be accurate, and so I would I would encourage you to read our order and then we can have a discussion about it.

Okay, I will do that.

And I apologize for going out of uh over time, uh, Chairman Allen.

No problem, Council.

I know you want to finish that line of questioning, so no problem.

Um, all right, thank you.

I'm gonna turn to um vacancies for a moment.

All right, so the budget notes, I believe, seven current vacancies.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Are is there any specific part of the organization where these vacancies are housed?

In other words, is there a place where those vacancies are having a greater impact than others uh in terms of operations?

Um so currently, as I look at it, we have um, like you said, seven vacancies, um, and that actually might be updated.

Now we have six as of May 1st.

Um, excuse me.

We have two in the uh general counsel's office, we have two in OTRA, um, one in the commission secretary's CNS.

Yeah, Commission Secretary's office, and one more in my office.

Uh I wouldn't say these are necessarily impacting work.

I think it's always good to be fully staffed.

I will note, I mean, six vacancies is the lowest we've been, certainly since I've been chair, um, actually since I've been on the commission.

I think we talked about this performance oversight here, and we've benefited to a great degree of unfortunately some of the federal layoffs and uh the j the general economy to really be able to staff up and get some high high high-quality staff.

Okay, so where are we in the hiring process for each of those seven?

So in OCMS, this is a program analyst position.

Um there's a contingent offer of employment that's out.

Um the two positions in the general counsel's office, um, one is an interview stage, and we have to post the other an ultra um office of technical and regulatory analysis.

There are sorry, there is one that um one's in the interviewing stage, and the other one is a white awaiting action from the hiring manager, and then the one that's in my office is on hold for the time being.

Okay.

Um, as we think about vacancies, and we're gonna get to the BSA in just a moment, but why do we need to request an additional FTE if we have seven vacancies uh currently?

Why why can't any of those vacant positions help fulfill what the PSC feels like it needs to implement the the BSA?

Yeah, well, you know, first thing I'll mention is certainly with the FTE.

Um it's our belief we can we just need the butt we just need the authority to have the FTE.

We think we can absorb it within our budget.

So let me make that's helpful.

That's clear.

Um, and primarily because you know, we don't have we've never our organization just doesn't have extra people that we can assign for the for what the BSA calls for, we think we need an economist, um, somebody who can really do the deep dive on the numbers and ensure compliance, and a lot of the other positions are positions.

So it one is the chief of office of uh infrastructure and systems planning, another sustainability officer.

I mentioned two attorneys, uh program analysts and office of the commission secretary, and so we all view the we view all those as mission critical positions, and so uh we would want to hire somebody specifically to do the duties as described in that legislation.

Got it.

Okay, so um, I guess I'm jumping ahead for a second then on the BSA, but for that vacant or sorry, for that FTE position, you believe that you need the just the authority for the FTE, but you have said you're you would be able to absorb the costs associated with salary infringement.

Yes, okay.

All right, got it.

That's helpful.

Okay.

Um when we look at, I mean, the commission obviously has highly technical work, highly legal work.

So when you look at the different staff that's working on audits, financing, um, we talked about the contracted services.

You've got budget analysts, you've got economists, you've got different people that are on staff.

Is there a specific type of employee or skill set that you are contracting for on a fairly regular basis that would make more sense to bring in-house and have it have that be a position, or are you finding wide variability in the skill set you need for that that you contract for?

It's it's a matter of it being not only just wide variability, but also on specific instances, right?

And so um I like to use a rate case example, you know, we we like to staff up for the rate case because that is something that's very intense, and it may just be for a sort of certain portion, it might be for the revenue analysis or building a model to figure out how that revenue is then distributed amongst the classes.

We don't need somebody or a set of people to do that for the entire year.

Uh we just need it for that particular time for that point in time in the case.

And so um as opposed to staffing up and having people who would then you know not have something to do for the entirety of the year, it makes in our mind more sense to have it just that limited contracting capability.

Okay.

Does if we were to see, and I'm not sure, as you talk to peers and other public service commissions, if the district moves to more and more multi-year rate cases, which would mean higher peaks, perhaps, of demand on staff time, but also a multi-year rate case is that.

So you're not having a rate case every year, you're going every two to three years.

Does that mean that the agency over time is moving more towards that type of contracted staff support to handle the intensity of one case rather than the continuity of if we were going through you know every year or so?

Yeah, you know, uh, when I talk to my colleagues across the nation, the different, you just have different different, you know, uh different operating concepts.

Almost all of them are funded through SPRs.

Um, but some of them rely more so on contractors than others.

For instance, I think like the Delaware Commission, certainly the commissioners are part-time.

Um, and so then their staff, they they rely heavily on contractors, Kentucky come to mind.

Um some commissions, for instance, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, they have a lot more utilities.

Uh, because they also regulate water, they have about five or six different electric, five or six different gas, and so they need to have more capability in-house because they're doing they're doing multiple rate cases a year.

They also have suspension statutes, which means you have to turn them around a lot faster.

And so I think I think it's it's sometimes hard to compare commission to commission just because the business varies so much.

I'm not sure if the answers your question.

Yeah, um a little bit.

I mean, I'm trying to think, obviously, what parts of the district's experience is unique, and then where do you find parallels on the public service commissions?

It just seems that if we are moving more to a multi-year rate case, that that would be time-intensive, certainly, but that the frequency of the intensity would get more spread out, which feels like that would move you more towards a contracting model where you need to ramp up for a high intensity, but then there's longer periods of time where you don't have that intensity, and that means less permanent in-house staff.

Right.

Like is that is that logical to see that flow of increasing contracted services and decreasing permanent staff?

Yes and no.

Um, and and perhaps I think it's actually my fault.

I I shouldn't have given you this example.

Um, because remember, we we we assess the utilities for for that.

Um there's still a lot of work that we do within the commission that I would say um is pretty steady that still requires contracting work.

Um also you have Washington Gas that does not use uh multi-array plans, and I don't want to also presuppose that we're gonna be strictly going to multi-array plans.

Um I I mean I I think there's a lot of ways that the contracting could ebb and flow.

Okay.

All right.

Um from the staff that's there to help look at and analyze or audit submissions from utilities.

So when the commission is reviewing audit reports, let's say for project pipes, for example, um, what's the staff and what are the metrics they're using to help manage their workload and determine are those reports sufficient?

Are they lacking?

How what does the staff look like to be able to do that type of evaluation, which I assume is again a fairly stat, I don't want to use the word static necessarily, but it's it's fairly predictable.

Is that the right framing to think of, you think?

I would I would say is is fairly predictable.

Um, and that's typically done in-house.

Um, and we so we have uh the office of um OIISP infrastructure and system planning that typically does the majority of that in consultation with our general counsel's office as well as a few other offices within OTRA.

And so um they're certainly not only well versed in this, but they also have support throughout the agency to make sure that uh filings that when they come in the in compliance or denied in compliance, they're certainly rejected, and the the utility is told to supplement or correct our filing.

Okay.

When we look to the schedule A, we see one pipeline safety engineer and one pipeline safety inspector.

Does that represent the in-house expertise needed, or are there other people who are doing that type of work?

And I guess one am I reading it correctly that that would be the folks who are doing that type of audit and analysis, or is that found in a different section or division?

So it's found in a different section.

Um those positions that you're referring to there are the positions that are in the in the it can be confusing, but those are the positions that are in the office of compliance and enforcement.

And so those inspection people are people who go out to the site to make sure digs are done correctly, they'll do spot visits as Washington Gas is doing replacements to ensure that they're using the best protocols.

I would note that they're part of a division that I think maybe seven years in a row now have gotten a perfect score from federal FIMSA for their inspection oversight and work.

Got it.

So those folks are inspecting work sites and spaces that's different from uh doing the analysis and auditing, okay.

Correct.

And so the people who look at using the project, let's just use DC or project pipes, whatever it's called, um, that is in the office of infrastructure and system planning.

Um it's a five-person office.

It's you have a chief, um, and then you have basically a head of the gas side and head of the electrical side, and then you have people that support each of them.

And so they're the ones who are doing the reviewing of the project list, and they're also again supported by other people outside, right?

Because not only do you have project lists, but you then have estimates, which then call on to play some of the um review by the economists that we have on staff, and so it doesn't live specifically there, but they are the certainly the ones who take the lead on it.

Got it.

Okay, that's helpful.

Alright, let me turn to the BSA subtitle for a moment.

Um, so I will say I was pleasantly surprised to see this subtitle uh for um on consumer protection third-party energy suppliers.

We heard some testimony at the hearing um, but seemed like relatively folks in support of it.

So the subtitle requires Public Service Commission to set a price cap for third party suppliers of electricity and natural gas, requires standard contract terms to be published and prohibits early termination fees.

I think this is something that public service commission uh is supportive of based on your testimony.

It's also a serious issue that the OPC and OAG have been tracking closely.

Um it's a fairly lengthy and technical subtitle.

While I appreciate hearing the support in the public here function so far, as well as from yourself, pose a similar question to DOE.

Why do you believe the executive is choosing to take this action on third-party energy suppliers now, which is through an abbreviated process through the Budget Support Act versus introducing permanent legislation to gather more input from stakeholders?

Yeah, um, I think I think the mayor is doing this because she recognizes the urgency of the situation, right?

So when we hear about or we we hear about the high electric bills, um, I think those have spiked, and this is certainly anecdotal, um, but it's certainly my belief that a lot of the spiking has happened with those who have had third party suppliers.

Um, is there is more typically more price volatility that is locked in with those because those contracts aren't necessarily hedged for the customer in times of higher explosive growth.

So when you look at the SOS that DC had the SOS service through PEPCO, it's a three-year product to kind of help level out price increases, same time price decreases.

Um but what happens as a result is if a capacity price spikes, you don't feel that all at one time.

You feel it level lives out over a three-year period.

It's our understanding that a lot of the third-party supplier contracts don't have that same type of hedging built in.

And so when you get those capacity spikes, those pass customers right away.

And as a result, they are feeling in many instances the brunt of these costs immediately.

And so we think this is a great consumer protection item for customers and allows them um greater protection.

Got it.

Okay.

Um have you received feedback from other stakeholders on this?

Again, we've heard public testimony that uh not from a large number, but from a couple of folks who were in supportive of the who were supportive of this.

Um there any other stakeholders you feel like need to be uh encouraged or involved so that we're hearing this.

I and and this, I think this BSA subtitle makes sense, but I also recognize the BSA is an abbreviated uh process, so we often try to really go uh over to make sure that we're getting that feedback.

Um, well, I think I think you've had certainly um input from the institutional players in terms of government agencies.

Um the BSA primarily affects residential customers.

Well, actually, I think it's only for residential customers, correct?

Um, and so the large amount of third party suppliers and the district do business on the commercial level.

Uh, I think I believe it's only 20% for residential homes.

Um, and so I mean, I think if you you have the main institutional players who have commented, I'm not sure if there's been any input from the third party suppliers, but that would perhaps be the only entity that I can think of that has not had our opportunity to speak.

Okay, got it.

Is there is the public service commission precluded from setting a price cap for a third-party suppliers without this BSA subtitle?

I mean, obviously the BSA subtitle is more directive, right?

So it's directing the PSC to do something.

Right.

Is there anything precluding the PSC from taking this action?

Should they choose?

I'd have to research that.

Um my initial thought would be we do not have the power.

And the only reason why I say that is while we certainly certify them, uh, we don't regulate them, right?

And so, and using that distinction between how we do with the utilities, and so I think there would certainly be some some questions as to our authority to set price caps on it.

But I I don't know that I don't know that for sure.

I could certainly have some people look into that and get back to you.

If you could, I'd appreciate it.

It'd be helpful.

Within the BSA subtitle outside of the third party piece, there also seem to be some additional reporting requirements for PEPCO in the subtitle as well.

Do you know if the utility was consulted by the executive beforehand?

I do not know.

Okay.

Do you have any concerns or uh issues around the reporting requirements that are laid out in the subtitle as well?

You know, I think my thing with reporting requirements always are, you know, we need to make sure that the reporting requirements actually lead to something.

And so ensuring that the reporting requirements are being either reviewed and actions being taken, but you know, reports that go places and just sit and collect dust and never never any good.

Okay.

So should I hear your testimony as support for the third party supplier language, but I don't hear you as strong in support of the reporting requirements or help me help me translate what I'm hearing?

No, you're not you're not you're not hearing me say that.

Um, no, uh we're certainly supportive of of both.

I just um I just like action.

So um let's use those reports to make sure we're meeting the intent of the legislation and the intent that the executive has in mind.

Okay, and similar question around what the PSC's authority is today, exclusive of this PSA.

Does the public service commission have authority to require that reporting information from PEPCO today?

I believe we do, yes.

Okay.

So in this, at least in this unknown, and you're gonna get back to us on the third party question, but in this is more indicative of the mayor, uh, and should the council approve it, the council as well directing the PSE to then direct PEPCO to report.

Yeah, I I think we we have the ability to direct PEPCO, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um, what would be like can you help us walk through and understand the difference between what are PEPCO's current reporting requirements versus what would be additional now in the subtitle?

Let me see, do I have a wanted to make sure I have the BSA in front of me?

I don't have it.

I don't have the exact legislation in front of me right now, so I cannot give you a walk through side by side, but I can certainly have that to you before the end of the day, so you can that'd be helpful.

Yeah, okay.

We can follow up after that.

Okay.

Um all right, let me move to a couple other items here.

Um looking at some of our dockets.

So I'm looking at one of the consultant proposals in FC 1182, the integrated distribution system planning for PEPCO, and that's for about 750,000 for quote traditional distribution planning that the District of Columbia's utilities undertake.

IDSP incorporates advanced technologies, data analytics, and distributed energy resources such as solar panels, energy storage, electric vehicles, demand response, energy efficiency, and federal and local policy, end quote.

So I'm excited to see the commission's proposing to do more planning for that clean energy infrastructure and distribution.

I'm curious for for all the documents, how much of this analysis is conducted again by consultants versus in-house?

So is this something where you need to bring in consultancy using this specific case versus using in-house capacity?

Correct.

Okay.

Um contract like this, is this a um does the contract roll year to year?

Are they typically one-year contracts?

Like what is from you of receiving what you're looking for, that expertise that you were trying to pull in, is it the turnaround three months, six months, or it's gonna vary specifically for each case?

So this is one um I believe it's gonna vary on the case because part of the contract certainly involves dealing with uh dealing in working with the stakeholders, and so getting and and so it's gonna be also based upon how the process moves, and so um it would not surprise me if this does end up being a multi-year because it could drag and then there needs to be a final report, and so we would want the consultants on.

Um, and so to your point, this is a great example of being able to scale up because while we still need to do the day-to-day work of the commission um ensuring proper oversight of the utilities, this gives us the additional capacity to then um move this distribution system planning framework forward in a timely manner.

Okay, and since this isn't in response to a rate case, right?

This is an initiated docket item.

Does that mean that the funding for the contracted services comes from that special purpose revenue and from the PSC's general budget, or is it coming from a different place?

I am fairly certain this is a no-sign.

I'm 99% sure this is this was a special assessment on PEPCO.

So this is outside of our dollars.

Okay, got it.

Um, if you could, I trust the 99%, but if you could get back to the lesson, yeah, but we'll we'll double check that.

Okay.

Is the how what is the breakdown then look like?

Are there any other contracted, like contracts for that type of expertise or specific service that's not gonna be then a rate recovery and through a special assessment?

It sounds like the majority of what you're talking about of contracted services are gonna be through a special assessment.

So Ms.

Moore reminded me that pretty much so anytime we get a consultant related to a formal case, that's gonna be a special assessment.

So that's kind of a demarcation there.

Okay, um, anything else we typically use with our own contracting dollars.

Got it.

Okay.

Um if you're reliant on this type of contracting for different expertise and skill sets, what is the internal contract management look like for PSC?

Again, you've got independent contracting authority, so you go through that process.

You talked about roughly mirroring the district's process, but from a contract management perspective, then if you've got multiple contracts going, how what is your contract management system look like?

Yeah, so we have uh a three-person contracting team at the commission led by um a very incredible, very capable um person who's been doing contracts in DC for over 20, 30 years.

Um she leads a team.

She then reports to the deputy director, uh deputy executive director, who then reports the executive director.

So you have that line of oversight there.

Uh you also have contract managers.

We often do contract management uh training that's I believe offered through OCP, make sure our contract managers have that understanding of the contracts to ensure that we're in compliance and that they're managed in an appropriate way.

Okay.

Um, when we look at and counselor Robert White asked about this a little bit, talking about the multi-rate case that's back in front of the PSC now.

Um we talked about this a little bit earlier when I was asking through from a staffing perspective, and I think you said you don't feel like you need any additional staff resources that you have the staff resources and budget necessary to run through that um that case remanded back to the PSC, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um what is the so that people also gonna have a sense of what what this next process looks like.

Um I know you issued on Friday um, I don't know what the right terminology here is, but you issued something on Friday outlining kind of some of those next steps.

What what is a expectation that people should carry forward about what the timeline looks like?

In other words, um, is this a process that'll take three to four months?

Is it six to nine months?

I know you can't predict exactly what the timeline looks like, but to give people a sense of what to expect.

No, thank you.

And and I think that's a it's a very good question.

And so, um, as you may recall, we had issued an order saying that we're gonna have hearings beginning tomorrow, May 12th.

Um both DC uh DC government, OPC, and AOVA, uh, had all filed motions to either stay or extend the procedural schedule for a number of reasons that we felt to be compelling.

And so as a result on Friday, part of our order not only maintained what rates are for the time being, depending the outcome of the case subject to adjustment, um we changed procedural schedule, and so now the um PEPCO is required to file additional testimony.

Give me one second here, I want to make sure I give you the correct dates.

Golly, the paper there it is.

PEPCO is required to file additional testimony, and the hearings will now occur in October, because once PEPCO files, once PEPCO files testimony, parties have a opportunity to file uh data requests, then the parties get to file direct testimony, and then PEPCO then files rebuttal testimony, and then we'll have an uh evidentiary hearing on October 13th, uh beginning October 13th until the conclusion of them, post-hearing briefs are due on October 21st, and then it will be time for us to issue an order.

Alright, so October is the last date on our schedule.

That's when post-hearing briefs occur, and that's provided that the schedule is maintained.

Okay.

What's the window once we hit that timeline in terms of when the final decision comes?

So, our KPIs say that 90 days after the brief.

I think in the gas case uh that we just had 1180, we did it maybe within 60 days.

Um this situation is certainly um unique because it's a multi-year excuse me rate case, and so it's hard to give uh an exact date, but yeah.

Yeah, and then again, as much as I want to pin you down on an exact date, I know that I can't get you to give exact date, but it would be a reasonable expectation that somewhere between 60 and 90 days after that final date, yes, if it continues to be in October, is a roughly is gonna be a time people that expect to see some finality, definitely.

Okay, all right.

Um what does the process and how do you again make sure you have the resources you need, as you have to go through and the auditing of what were anticipated costs versus actual costs because this was approved a while ago.

So you now have not just estimates but very concrete data about spending.

Um that is your resource to be able to do that evaluation.

Yeah, and so I'm I'm glad you brought up because that's part of the argument from the parties in terms of why they wanted to delay the procedural schedule.

Um, when this case was decided, it was decided at the end of 24.

We didn't have any actuals for 25 and 26, and so the party said that you know, now that we have actuals for 25, um, that needs to be included in this discussion.

And so we agreed with the parties.

Um, so they're gonna file testimony.

Um it's our hope that you know the lion's share of this work can be done internally, um, but we recognize we probably will need to have those consultants to help deal with this peak to make sure we we we work in a timely fashion.

Okay, and in terms of what was um announced on Friday, so previously the public service commission had stated that they may set an interim rate, the decision we saw on Friday, and for public, the current way if I'm not explaining this the right way, that the public service commission was saying we may issue an interim rate, meaning that from whenever you issue an interim rate until the final decision, that rate may not be the same rate as the rate previously approved.

I believe your decision was we're sticking with the rate as is for now.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So there is no one should be looking for expecting an interim rate.

The rate that's already been assessed for the last 18 months or so is what will continue until a final decision.

Since the beginning of the year, yes.

Okay.

And then Council Robert Wright was asking about this.

What would the public service commission do?

How would you handle it if after this process and after you do a final report, there is a different outcome?

How does the public service commission direct the utility?

Is it through a refund, a rebate, a credit?

What does that look like?

Right.

So if we come to a different conclusion, let's say, and there's a myriad of different ways this can play out, right?

Um the revenue requirement can stay the same, and we accept AOBA's argument that the class the cost allocation is wrong, that could cause that could cause an increase for residential customers.

We could say that uh it's the same, and so there would be no action taken.

There could be a number of different ways, but if there is, in fact, let's say uh a credit um when we issue our final order, we would say that PEPCO is directed to issue credits to ratepayers and have them detail and probably file some type of staff reports about how it's being done, and it would be very a very clear process, and we would give very explicit directives and would probably start some type of outreach to make sure that customers knew these credits were coming and what they needed to do if they had questions about them.

Okay.

So the one of the takeaways I have from that is the public service commission directs what a credit, a rebate, a refund would look like.

It is not up to the utility to make that decision, it would be directed from the PSC based on whatever the decision you make is after you run through the next several months of this case.

Correct.

We would direct them and then there would be compliance files, yes, to ensure it's done correctly.

All right, got it.

Um, because I've asked multiple times, you don't need any additional staff or resources for that work.

We do not.

All right.

Or let me say we have the plan to take care of it.

Okay.

Um does the I think the answer is yes.

Does the you if you need to bring in a contract for more services, that becomes an assessment back on the utilities for handling this case?

I believe it would be, yes.

We would have to.

But yeah, if it was if it was an associate, if it was associated with compliance with filling out the directives of FC 1176, we would assess the company.

All right.

But let me just say this.

I think we would most likely be able to do that in-house, but you know, we have to see when we get there.

Yeah.

Because one of my concerns would be that we create this kind of perverse space where as we're arguing over a rate increase that's been remanded back from people arguing that it was not the right amount, it was too high, we then assess the utility company and they have to pay to cover your costs.

Right.

But they have to go right back out to the ratepayers to do the cost recovery from that, which feels uh not just feels I think would be wrong for the rate payer themselves.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um right, a couple more questions.

I'm gonna switch over to some of our pilot projects.

Um, so I want to hone in for a few questions on some of the pilot projects that feel like they've been pending for a bit and maybe perhaps aren't shovel ready, but for folks as a condition of the PEPCO Excelon merger back in 2015, there an energy modernization fund uh was created, and there were pilot projects that were supposed to be done as a part of this.

Do we have FTEs that are specific to the pilot projects?

Um, for example, I believe you've got a newly hired chief of climate action, or perhaps they're in a different division.

Is that where those pilot projects live?

So the pilot projects don't.

You know, so the pilot projects aren't actually effectuated by the commission, right?

So it we essentially there's a pilot project governance board made up of um a number of members in the community, as well as I think representatives of DOE and a few other places who vote um who do who've developed the pilot projects, mostly developed the scope.

We then issue them, and then they evaluate the projects, and then a third party is the one who actually gets them going, right?

And so I don't necessarily want to say they live in the Office of Climate Action, because our role in there is primarily as a contracting vehicle.

Does that make sense?

And so the first pilot project, the geothermal one, was two grants were given to two different companies.

One company is well on the way.

Some of the other ones are in different phases, and I don't know where my notes are here for the pilot projects.

But they have moved along at a good speed.

Um I think there's only one that is yet to be awarded.

Um I don't know what I did with my.

And do we while you while you're looking for that, do we have a breakdown of if the merger required 21.5 million dollars to be set aside in the PowerPath pilot projects?

How much of that's actually been expended?

Yeah, and again, these aren't PSC funds, to be clear, but you're helping oversee.

Yes, uh what I had a whole section.

Oh, I apologize.

Uh I can I can give you a little bit here.

I think roughly looks like maybe about five million of it, a little bit less has been awarded thus far.

Um about three million for the solar aggregator aggregation and advanced inverter project and about one point seven five for the two heat pump pilot projects.

Um I know the microgrid solicitation is still underway, um and the VPP is still underway as well.

So money hasn't been dispersed for those, but about five million of those dollars have been dispersed on actual projects.

Well, I want to make sure that I'm hearing it correctly.

So of the 21.5 million dollars that was required by the merger, approximately 5 million has been expended?

Correct.

For a merger that took place in?

Uh 2015.

2016, 2015, okay, 2016.

So it in 10 years, less than 25%'s gotten out.

Yes.

So who I as as you noted, no, um, these aren't 21.5 million dollars sitting in the PSE's bank accounts, but the public service commission oversees these, correct?

So, like you, I'm somebody who you like you said, you've got the report, you don't want to report this just for the sake of a report, you want to do something with it.

Why would we be at a decade later?

Only 25%'s been expended.

So I can only talk about my time as chairman, right?

And so when I came in 2020, um, none of these monies had had been expended yet, and I don't even think we had a contract that was out for solicitation yet.

Uh since I've been here, we got the first one out the door, which was the community heat pump.

Um, like I said, we actually have steel in the ground, those projects are moving.

That was about 1.75.

With respect to the uh solar aggregation and advanced inverted, three million has been dispersed there.

So those votes have happened since I've been chairman.

Um in the last two projects, I believe, like I said, that there those RFPs have been issued.

Um I know there were certainly delays because you can, these weren't issued all at the same time.

They were issued sequentially.

So as one got issued, then the next one came, became ripe.

Um, is it as fast as I would have liked?

No.

Um I can say that definitely.

I don't think it's a fault of any particular person or entity.

I think it's just not moving as fast as it should be.

And so I.

Does it from an oversight perspective, does it live somewhere?

Like is there a division that this project or oversight of it lives within the PSC?

So, in terms of the contracting portion of it, yes.

It sits um at the intersection of our contracting office as well as with the people who have the subject matter expertise.

I mean, I love a good contracting officer, but typically they're helping make sure the contracts are legal, the things are going the right way, right?

They're not setting the pace or setting the vision of this is how we want to expend these dollars.

This is the policy goal we're trying to achieve.

Right.

And so that right there lives with the pilot project governance board.

They're the ones who determine the projects, who determine the pace at which it moves.

And so part of this is also working in consultation with the governance board to ensure that it's moving uh in the right direction.

All right.

Pilot project governance board.

Yes.

All right, who's on the governance board?

Oh.

And if you don't know all the people off the top of your head, we could follow up, but I can certainly get you get you a list of them, but you do have representatives of DOEE.

I think you have some people from the community who are very engaged and involved.

So there's a number of people.

Okay.

But are they direct, do they get to direct the projects or they're there to try to help the advice?

They're the ones uh who have voted on the projects, the type of projects, who have developed rough scopes for the project who evaluate the project solicitations when they come in.

So they're they are this isn't just a check the check the uh box type of board, they're they're a very active board.

But I mean they're a volunteer board though, right?

Correct, yes, they are.

Okay.

So they and they don't live within public service commission.

They do not, no.

But they also don't direct PEPCO.

They don't.

Okay.

All right.

So I'm not sure how much rests, how much power rests.

Well, they they evaluate the projects, right?

And so But they can only evaluate what comes to them.

Correct.

Like they're not setting saying, in the next 60 days, I need to see X, Y, and Z.

They will review what comes to them.

Right, the solicitations, yes.

Right.

So who, where does the power rest to say this is the commitment, the 21.5, these projects have to move forward, get it to the governance board for their review.

So wouldn't that be a PSC function?

I think it's a joint function because the PSC does not develop the RFPs in isolation.

Um the governance board has been very involved in helping with the solicitations and to define what the scope of work looks like.

Um and then once those scope works are defined, PSC does issue and put it out.

Once those solicitations come in, we then convene an evaluation uh board, which then consists of not only PSC members, but the uh members from the governance board, and then once the award is then given out, it's then up to the developer to initiate their project.

Okay.

I'd like to try to think through how either through this budget or continued work, we move and advance these more quickly.

And I am somebody similarly, like I they need to drive towards something, yeah.

Um, and I also feel like this was a I mean, there was a lot of concern and opposition to the merger back in 2015, and this was part of what was the deal.

This was part of what was negotiated to say if we're gonna allow this project and merger to go forward, these are the investments we want to see.

And when a decade later, less than 25%'s actually gotten out the door, um, somebody's gotta help hold their feet to the fire.

And so I think we've got to do a lot more and be a little more aggressive on what that looks like.

What is the appropriate role for the governance board?

Yeah, and then how are we getting these projects moving?

So the speaking of one project, if I understand correctly, the um geothermal project.

Yeah.

So this is the one that's uh part of the berry farm redevelopment more date?

Yes.

Okay.

So this one is, I think you said is in the ground and is working.

Right.

So there's two um in Barry.

There's two.

There's one Barrie Farm, there's one Meadow Greens.

It's my understanding.

The Meadow Greens is the one that's actually a little behind.

But the community, uh the Barry Farm ones is that is moving steel on the ground.

Okay.

And do we know what the delay is on Meadow Greens?

I believe there was a uh property transfer that occurred, so that required um things to, I think I don't want to necessarily say halt, but certainly slow down while that property transfer occurred, but we don't think it's anything that's that's fatal or gonna disrupt that project.

Okay.

And then the ballpark roughly three million dollar contract for I may not be pronouncing it correctly.

Ecoji energy.

Um, and this is trying to work on the distributed energy resource project, um, including solar load flexibility, battery storage.

Um, what do you think the future of DERs looks like in the district?

And how does does this budget help you move in that direction at all?

Well, I think this the so I think let me answer those questions in reverse.

I think this project helps um certainly show the adaptability and flexibility of what we can do in the district in terms of DER, especially when you start talking about um trying to avoid the need for grid upgrades because you're able to use some advanced inverter settings.

The solar aggregation part is particularly of interest to me because I've talked about it before, but we have about 350-400 megawatts of distributed nameplate distributed solar throughout the city, but because it's not aggregated, because it's not connected, it's not supported by battery, it's not able to participate in the wholesale energy market, and so therefore we're not able to reap the full benefits of this energy, and it doesn't really allow us to reduce how much we must procure from the wholesale grid.

But having aggregation um and some of the other projects talk about battery storage, this will give us an opportunity to really create some of the resilience that you guys have talked about um by generating our own power within DC.

So I think these pol the these projects are very transformative and can ultimately deliver some real savings to customers.

Okay.

And one of the things, you know, when we had the SCU and DOE here, we talked a good bit about how and the shift that they are making to think about incentives for not just how do you help install solar, but the battery storage, both to help offset peak demand, but whether it's a rainy day or whether we're trying to just cut that peak demand, which has huge savings across the system.

Um do any of these projects or pilot projects you believe move us in a way to where we can more seamlessly start to integrate what battery storage looks like in the same way we do energy generation through solar, for example.

Yeah, I think the there's a pilot project with the microgrid that that contemplates battery storage, and then also the other pilot project, the VPP uh virtual pilot virtual power plant that also contemplates battery storage as well.

So I think all these again are hugely important when we start talking about the future of energy in the district.

Okay.

Um another pilot project is the renewable power purchase agreements.

Um, and it looks like PEPCO finally this past year signed a contract for the first PPA with a renewable energy system that should cover 5% of its total sales.

Um do we are we still thinking of this as a pilot program?

Are we trying to make this more mainstream?

Yeah, so this is a pilot project in a different sense.

That is because it's not part of the meds.

Correct.

Sorry, I'm moving to a different pilot project.

Yeah, so um, this is a pilot because we're trying to.

Well, somebody back up and give a little bit of history on this.

Uh, because you said this they finally signed the contract.

You know, this is my words, yeah.

Yeah, this is the second contract that we've had for the the contract.

The first one, if you may recall, was I believe in 2022, and we had a developer that signed that developer then pulled out because in costs and the deal was no longer in their favor, and they used uh a cause in there to withdraw.

So Pepco then had to re-sign us, go through the process again and get another one.

Um, you asked if this is still a pilot.

I think the question is: is it cost effective for ratepayers to procure energy in this manner?

Um, and so when we did this 5%, uh there was a vote that also expanded next elicitation, I believe, the 20 or 25 percent.

Um, and uh majority of the commissioners voted on that, and so the project is looks like it's being expanded.

Okay.

Um I want to try to ask a question as well around the um consumer services specialists.

I'm asking this in the context of the grid act.

Um, so kind of final questions here is we look at the nexus between our budget and pending legislation.

Um so current public service commission FTEs in the legislative hearing on various utility bills that we held earlier uh this year.

You talked about you have five consumer services specialists.

Do they focus on just complaints that come before the commission?

Or is this uh like, for example, is there one who's dedicated towards solar interconnection issues, or are all five deal with solar interconnection issues plus whatever other myriad of issues they have in front of them?

Yeah, so there's there's five uh specialists.

Typically, when there is a solar interconnection issue that comes up, it is elevated to their supervisor who's done a lot of work in this space.

Um she plays a I would say a pivotal part in making sure that um the right questions are being asked of the complaint and then the right questions are then being asked to the utility.

Um so that's a long way of me answering, saying no, there's not one person that handles all the complaints, but there is one person who is who is, I guess, serving as point on making sure that everybody is getting consistent responses.

Okay.

Do we how many complaints do they receive?

Like, do you I'm assuming you've got some type of a way you're you're measuring this per month or per quarter per year.

How many complaints are they managing?

Um I do not have overall numbers right now for you, but I can provide you a breakdown of overall complaints as well as solar interconnect interconnection complaints.

And the solar interconnections is what I'm really getting at as well.

Um, because I think they are sometimes a little more complex to navigate, but at the same which is probably why you're talking about having the supervisor get involved and helping navigate those.

Um, but we just continue to get very regular complaints from residents um of navigating this both with rising utility costs but also with significant charges that might be assessed for interconnection or delays they may be facing.

And so um if we could follow up after the hearing to get a sense of the volume of complaints you're seeing, and then which ones are the solar interconnection issues.

Um, because one of the things that I find is that the residents, one of my general rules is when I am getting and receiving complaints, it's indicative of a larger problem because not everybody has the time, the capacity, the wherewithal to say, you know what, let me call my council member.

Let me email my council members.

So when I'm getting a good number of the similar complaints, I know it's actually representing something that's probably a little bit bigger in scale.

Um, and so making sure that we both help empower and resource your um consumer specialists to be able to know how to navigate this, have the resources they need, and then on the policy side, we're looking to figure out how to fix it.

Yeah, definitely.

Okay.

Um all right, I don't think I have any other questions right now.

Sounds like we got several follow-ups we identified throughout the hearing today.

And it's always better when you tell me um you need an FTE, but you can absorb the costs.

We'll work with you and your team on that to make sure we uh finish that up in the next couple of weeks as we're moving forward.

Okay.

So thank you very much.

Appreciate your time.

This is going to conclude the committee's budget oversight here on the public service commission.

Again, thank you to everybody who provided testimony.

The record for today's hearing is going to close on May 14th, 2026.

Witnesses can again submit testimony to the council's hearing management system, which they can find at Limbs.dc Council.gov backslash hearings until that time.

So there being no further business for the committee.