Good morning, everyone.

My name is Charles Allen.

I'm the Ward Six Council Member and Chair of the Council's Committee on Transportation and the Environment.

Today is Monday, June 29th, and we are meeting in room 500 of the John A.

Wilson Building, as well as over the Zoom virtual platform.

The time is now 9 45 a.m.

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

During today's public hearing, we're going to hear from public witnesses on Bill 26-596, the Utility Rates and Rate Making Amendment Act of 2026.

The committee has also convened this hearing to be able to discuss additional policy solutions to make energy more affordable across the district.

As everyone in this room knows well, utility costs have been rising across the country.

One in six households nationwide were behind on their energy bills in late 2025 due to record high summer cooling costs and rising winter heating rates, and the average overdue balance for all utility bills was nearly $800.

Here in the district, average energy costs have surged by nearly 70% from 2017 to 2025.

Calls about utility shutoff notices have surged, and many families are in the uncomfortable position of determining which essential bills to pay.

The district's public service commission is the district's energy utility regulator.

It is meant to serve on it as a check on those utilities by approving rates and monitoring industry practices.

The PSC approves spending for around one-third of the electricity rates and two-thirds of gas rates.

And I'm increasingly concerned the commission has not used all the tools available to it to push back against proposals to increase those rates.

Just this year, the PSC approved a modified version of Washington Gas' District Safe Plan, a decision that writes a ratepayer check of 50 million dollars or more for the next three years, and one which the Office of the Attorney General has called, quote, simply a more expensive continuation of project pipes with fewer guardrails.

And just recently, the PSC had one of their rate increases vacated by the Court of Appeals decision, which implicates a need for process reform.

While the cost of generating power outside DC has skyrocketed, the cost of distributing power within the district has risen in kind.

And we continue to rely on imported electricity and natural gas.

Planning a better future at a reasonable cost to ratepayers will be essential to avoiding stranded costs and paving the way for more affordable energy dependent DC.

While higher costs are a substantial factor driving utility affordability crisis, building inefficiencies also play a large role.

It may not be exciting to talk about weatherization or insulation upgrades, but the reality is that we have to improve energy efficiency in our multifamily properties so that our neighbors are not paying more than they should or actually are even using.

We need to make bill assistance, energy efficiency upgrades more accessible to low-income households, and it's important that we improve access to our utility affordability programs, but we also have to address the root causes.

Today's hearing is aimed squarely at reassessing what is possible for helping district residents and businesses deal with skyrocketing prices as extreme weather events and warming continues.

Here's a quick review of the bill that is in front of us today.

Bill 26-596 was introduced on February 13th of 2026 by Councillors White, Parker, Pinto, and Nadeau, and is referred to this committee on March 3rd.

The bill would require the Public Service Commission to approve multi-year rate plans only if the plans are based on historic test years and do not include reconciliation.

It would specify how excess return on equity would be refunded to customers and also requires the Public Service Commission to approve gas infrastructure projects only if the company demonstrates customer benefit and that the company analyzed cost effective alternatives.

As I mentioned earlier, today's hearing is going to be reserved for our public witnesses.

The committee will receive government witness testimony on Thursday, July 2nd at 1 p.m.

And that's we're going to reconvene that afternoon to make sure we hear there.

We uh have been joined by Councilmember Trayon White, so I'm gonna turn to Councilman Trayon White for an opening statement.

Then after that, we will call our first panel of witnesses.

And I do expect other members will be joining us during the day today, and I'll make sure they have time for an opening statement when they join us.

But Councilmember Trayon White, let me turn to you and good morning.

Good morning, good morning.

Um, I want to thank you, Councilmember Allen, for hosteless this morning.

Uh, we are in a situation now where residents are forced to make hard decisions up about everyday bills, including utility bills.

Um, today's hearing on bill 26 uh 0596 to utility rates and rate making amendment act of 2026 and this morning policy solution to improve utility affordability.

This bill will require the public service commission to approve multi-year rate plans.

Only the plans are based on historical test years and do not include reconciliation.

It will specify how access return on equity will be refunded to customers.

Also, also requires the Public Survey Commission to approve gas infrastructure projects only if the company demonstrates customer benefits and that the company analyze cost-effective alternatives.

The council just passed uh one of the most um comprehensive budget reforms relates to the urgent resuscitation when it comes to uh utilities and in effect in the working class and lower class residents in the district who are struggling to stay in the district.

Yes, but now many water residents and many residents across the district have been selling the alarm on affordability being DC, particularly when it comes to utility bills.

With so many rent burning and struggling, people struggling to make ends meet the additional pressures uh rapidly rising and uh forcing people to make a decision about life choices, uh especially those with families and have working minimum wage and livable wages.

The way their families are the rest of the instability is a result is a result of the lack of infrastructure, strategic planning, and local government working for the people.

I appreciate the assistance of relief that utility companies' nonprofit organizations, DC government has to offer, but we can do a whole lot more.

And if not, a lot of families will be forced to make decisions on what to do.

Um I want to thank the long list of today's witnesses.

I look forward to figuring this thing out.

So I want to thank you, Councilmember Allen and the committee today.

I look forward to hearing from uh the witnesses today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember White.

Uh, we're also joined by Kelsey Christina Henderson, a member of this committee, and just confirm you didn't have any opening statement.

All right, thank you very much.

Um, then we're gonna turn to our first panel of public witnesses.

Uh, just to note, we have four chairs.

We have tried to organize it between people that are here online as well as in person.

If we missed somebody and we need to just drag an extra chair up, we can make that work.

We'll just have them share a microphone.

Uh, but I think for our first panel, we have got this squared away.

So, Claire Mills, who is the DC campaigns manager with C CAN Action Fund, Macy Brigham Hill, DC campaign with uh Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Laura Levinson, Energy Committee Chair with Sierra Club at District of Columbia Chapter, and De Boys, who's a public witness, and I think joining us online, and Bethany Costello, who's also joining us online with WePower DC.

So to our members that are online, we're just gonna promote you to a panel.

All right, tell you what, while we are promoting uh Ann and Bethany onto the panel, which we'll do very shortly, we'll go and get started with folks that are here in person.

So, Ms.

Mills will turn to you first.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chairperson Allen, Council members.

Um, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for calling this hearing to address the utility affordability crisis that is impacting thousands of DC residents.

You will notice a theme with my recommendations for how to address this crisis today.

Direction and deadlines to the public service commission.

So they begin actually taking up the tools in their toolbox.

Ten years ago, the PEPCO, Exelon, and then Washington Gas Alta gas mergers changed the very landscape of DC's utilities.

Our commissioners are frankly no longer regulating local utilities.

They're tussling in legal proceedings with national and multinational companies that are invested in the DC utility market.

The council needs to push the public service commission to better meet that challenge, providing clear direction, not just to prioritize rate pair protection, utility affordability, and DC's climate commitments, but specifically what tools to deploy in order to do so.

The hands-off approach of the last several years has failed, or rather, it has worked only for those who designed it, the utilities.

First, I'll turn to how to bring down the cost of energy itself.

PJM's confidence in a growing data center build out in our region has led to exorbitant increases in energy supply costs and contributed to the current crisis over this winter.

To protect DC residents, we need to buy less of PJM's energy.

And to do that, we must generate more of our own power with local solar.

So the council should pass the grid act to address holdups in tier one solar deployment and should prioritize fully protecting sustainable energy trust fund funds in future budget years to allow for more funding for community solar within the Solar for All program.

And the council should give explicit direction to the PSC to enter into renewable power purchase agreements far more stable than PJM's market, as well as establishing a demand response program that can reduce demand during the most expensive peak hours.

The failure to use these regulatory tools already in their toolbox by our current PSC has cost DC residents too much already.

And it's clear that the council needs to give explicit guidance with deadlines to ensure that the PSC acts.

And there's another brewing crisis that is driving bills up, distribution costs.

CCAN has actively opposed increases in distribution rates at the PSC for several years through repeated approvals of rate increases by the PSC.

We may be in a utility bill crisis already now, but the brewing crisis under the surface is the ballooning of rate bases of our utilities in the district.

Over the last six years, the rate of increase of PEPCO's rate base has tripled from the prior 13 years.

In other words, the value of PEPCO system used to increase at about 4.2% per year, and for the last six years, it's 13.7% per year.

It's no better for Washington Gas, where the rate base has increased by over 70% in just the last two years.

That brings the size of Washington Gas' rate base in DC to 55% the size of its rate base in Maryland, despite the footprint of Washington gas's operations in DC being just about 36% of its footprint in Maryland.

A huge driving force behind this rate base increase is Project Pipes, which has been ongoing for years now through 25 million dollars six-month increment extensions and potentially the approval of districts safe for the next three years, and is contributing every day to the ballooning of costs in Washington gases system.

These growing rate bases form the backbone of future energy supply, future requests for rate increases that will keep bills growing and growing even if we adequately address the energy supply crisis PJM has forced us into right now.

So to stop this trend, the council must ensure rate proceedings at the PSC are fair and transparent, and that the PSC stops allowing DC's utilities to pick the most expensive investments because that is what drives their bottom lines.

I recommend the council require regular audits of the utilities' rate bases, which they which haven't been done by the PSC in years, and I encourage the council to prohibit the exclusion of any frivolous costs into the rate base, such as lobbying costs.

And the PSC needs to complete a useful and meaningful benefit cost analysis framework so investments can actually be fairly analyzed.

In closing, I'll just reference the Utility Rates and Rate Making Amendment Act, which addresses some of these issues.

I support requiring additional information up front from utility companies asking for multi-year rate increases or gas infrastructure projects, but this will only get us so far.

Utility companies are always going to present the affirmative case for these proposals to spend more ratepayer money.

And I'm concerned that requiring a cost-benefit analysis focusing on only quantitative costs and benefits will undermine the commission's development of a more comprehensive model to use across all investments.

And more broadly, I'm concerned that just the information sharing approach of this bill fails to recognize that's only part of the problem.

What the PSC chooses to do with that information is even more critical.

So again, I urge the council to take a more directive and involved approach and provide the commission with impossible to misinterpret direction and deadlines for how to move forward utility affordability in addition to requiring more information from the utilities up front.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Macy Bringham Hill.

Good morning.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Macy Brigham Hill.

I was born in DC and I've lived here my entire life.

I'm here today to testify for policy solutions to improve utility affordability.

DC can significantly lower energy bills for residents by focusing on solutions that prioritize local clean energy generation and move away from utility companies reigning in the power and profits.

Between March 2021 and March 2026, average electricity bills for DC residents rose nearly 67%, driven significantly by surging generation costs from the regional grid operator.

Next month, DC energy bills may increase by 20 to 30 dollars.

This is a direct result of the unreliability of fossil fuel energy sources, and PJM must do everything it can to get more clean energy online and lower prices.

The solutions are straightforward and start with understanding that clean energy is affordable energy.

More local solar generation and battery storage in DC directly reduces PJM generation costs and lowers energy bills.

In fact, PJM found that with enough battery storage, it could reliably run on 93% clean energy.

Fast tracking renewable sources of generation, battery storage options, and other demand side measures will allow DC's grid to reduce system strain and lower bills for residents.

There must be district government and regional coordination on engaging PJM to accelerate interconnection reform and prioritize clean power.

The DC council must act now to address utility affordability for residents and businesses.

The current utility affordability crisis shows no signs of stopping.

Every day, every delay in legislative action centering customers and affordability and decision making will lock in higher costs for years to come.

Thank you, Councilmembers, for your time and consideration today.

Thank you very much.

Ms.

Levison.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

My name is Lara Levison.

I'm the Energy Committee Chair for the Sierra Club District of Columbia chapter, and I'm testifying on behalf of the chapter.

Affordable energy, clean energy, environmental justice, and economic justice are entwined goals.

That's why the Sierra Club joined a broad coalition of environmental justice and national environmental groups to sign the 2019 Equitable and Just Climate Platform.

That is why our DC chapter asked you to enact you, the Healthy Homes Act, to electrify the homes of 30,000 low and moderate income DC residents free of charge, and why we fight for funding to implement it.

Affordable energy is a central principle of our advocacy in DC.

The Sierra Club appreciates Councilmember Robert White's efforts to draft a bill that addresses the sharp and sustained increases in utility bills of DC residents and businesses in recent years.

But DC really needs an ambitious energy bill that will directly rein in utility spending, reduce consumer bills, and meet the district's climate commitments.

After careful consideration, we have determined that this bill does not meet those needs.

PEPCO and the Public Service Commission have used multi-year rate plans to allow electric rates to soar, and DC families feel that pain every month when paying utility bills.

Unlike traditional retroactive rate cases, which require utilities to justify spending after the fact and create an incentive to control costs, multi-year rate plans guarantee cost recovery in advance and can encourage excessive spending.

We think reforms beyond limiting multi-year rate plans are needed.

Ultimately, no matter what the rate schedule is, the onus is on the commissioners at the Public Service Commission to do their jobs by providing adequate oversight of DC's utilities.

The Sierra Club opposes the provision that would allow the gas utility to recover costs associated with eligible gas infrastructure replacement projects.

This bill does not define what constitutes an eligible gas infrastructure project, and therefore would not compel the commission or Washington gas to deviate from business as usual.

Instead, gas infrastructure projects should be limited to leak detection and repair.

And the commission should make clear to the gas utility that DC is committed to moving toward a clean energy future and away from methane gas, and that the company should develop a real plan for that eventuality.

The committee asked for comment on delays in implementing the district's climate and energy affordability laws.

Unfortunately, we could talk all day about the delays on the part of the mayor and the public service commission.

Delays by the mayor include but are not limited to the following: rating millions of dollars that should have gone into DOEE's clean energy and energy efficiency programs.

These are programs that make energy more affordable for DC residents.

Delaying and undermining net zero energy building code standards for new government and private buildings, repeatedly attempting to weaken and delay the building energy performance standards, failing to release the Clean Energy DC 2.0 plan, the roadmap for the district to reach our clean energy future, selecting a majority of public service commissioners who serve the needs of the utility companies and their shareholders, not the needs of DC ratepayers.

Delays and failures by the Public Service Commission include but are not limited to the following.

Taking no effective steps to achieve the district's legal requirements to reduce climate emissions, failing to make it clear to Washington Gas that the company must stop its massively expensive project of replacing gas pipelines and instead develop a new business model that is not based on fossil fuel combustion.

Failing to make it clear to PEPCO that the company should energetically support the deployment of solar energy and battery storage rather than throwing up roadblocks and failing to protect DC consumers from predatory energy providers.

I'd like to expand on that last point.

The Mayor's Budget support act included a welcome provision to reduce predatory practices by suppliers of electricity and methane gas that compete with PEPCO and Washington Gas.

I'm referring to subtitle E Retail Energy Market Consumer Protection.

Some companies have taken advantage of consumers by enrolling them in plans without their permission, failing to provide clear terms in their contracts, significantly overcharging or charging large cancellation fees.

This provision will provide necessary protections for consumers, and we urge the council to retain it in the final version of the Budget Support Act.

The DC Council can and should do more too.

Just this year.

The Council has several energy-related bills on deck that we want to see enacted, including the Grid Act, Automatic Enrollment and Energy Affordability Programs, and the Shine Safely Act to eliminate light bulbs containing Mercury, toxic mercury and improve light bulb efficiency.

Our testimony also includes a summary of our Sierra Club testimony to the PSC on affordability, including some of the same points that Claire just made, recommendations for engaging with PGM, the regional regional grid operator, and there's some sort of technical conference that we're encouraging electrical elected officials to go to, support for prohibiting utility charges that only benefit shareholders, and we also have listed some resources on energy affordability from RMI and other forward-looking think tanks and sources.

Oh boy, I'm only 13 minutes over.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Anna Boyce who's joining us online.

Good morning, Ann.

Good morning, Chair Person Allen, Councilmember Hawaii, members of the committee and staff.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Anne DeBuys, and I will focus on my concerns about the quantitative cost benefit analysis language in Bill 260596.

Developing a comprehensive, systematic and disciplined benefit cost analytical methodology is a complex undertaking.

The DC Public Service Commission took the right step when it approved nearly all of the 30 plus recommendations for a standardized BCA from the Clean Energy Act Implementation Working Group, the CEAI working group.

These recommendations were informed by the National Standard Practice Manual for Evaluating DER costs and benefits, which was used by the Commission staff in conducting the working group.

And importantly, these recommendations comprise the essential set of elements for a comprehensive framework for consistently evaluating the cost effectiveness of district utility actions and investments in connection with global climate impacts and the achievement of our climate and energy legal commitments.

The problem is that the CEAI working group's elements approved by the Commission were not placed in the context of a holistic narrative framework that explains each element in clear and understandable terms.

The CEAI working group recommended recommended to the Commission to complete this task by reconvening the working group for phase two, initiating a rulemaking process, or doing both.

Instead, the commission charged a PSC hired consultant to move ahead with a screening tool before such a framework was in place.

This was like putting the cart before the horse.

To repeat, the holistic narrative framework was not developed first, setting out guidance as to each DERBCA element as well as distinguishing different types of DER to precede the use of the XL tool, now confusingly called the BCA model.

Nonetheless, the excellent DER BCA framework elements that the Commission has already approved remain foundational for the development of the Commission ordered, consistent, systematic, and coherent benefit cost analytical approach that aligns with best industry practices.

But where is the framework?

I appreciate the intent of B 260596 in supporting the interest of ratepayers, but for the committee to take on the critical work of BCA development under the time pressure of the bill's markup would be a serious mistake.

I encourage this legislative body to continue in its oversight role.

I ask the committee to table B 260596 while you educate yourselves, taking into account what the PSC has done well and what is still missing in the BCA development process.

I'm happy to answer questions, and I'm available for follow-up.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And then next, let me turn to Bethany Costello, also joining us online.

Good morning.

Good morning, hello, Councilmember Allen and the other members of the committee.

My name is Bethany, I live in Ward 1, and I also organize with We Power DC on his behavior from speaking today.

We Power DC is a coalition of community members fighting for a power system that works for and is operated by or is owned by the residents of the District of Columbia.

A power system that works transparently and democratically to fight the climate crisis and meet everyone's needs, regardless of their ability to pay.

I'm here today to discuss the utility rates and rate making amendment act as well as some systematic medium and long-term solutions to DC's energy affordability prices that the council should pursue in the coming years.

We know that public power and true energy democracy are the only way to deliver affordable rates while shifting away from fossil fuels, two goals imperative to the well-being of our community and which our investor-owned utilities cannot achieve.

Nonetheless, these interim steps are crucial to address the immediate pain of high bills and rein in the power of the Washington Gas.

The bill in question today takes small but important steps to address these immediate issues.

It puts important controls on multi-year rate cases, which our utilities have used in recent years to lock in higher rates for customers with flimsy reasoning that has gone unscrutinized by PSC Commissioners Thompson and Tribut.

This bill would require that utilities demonstrate the customer benefit of using a multi-year rate plan, use an actual historic test year to base rates upon, require that excess return on equity be returned to customers instead of landing the hit of shareholders, and prevent reconciliation, a practice that utilities use to extract even more money money from ratepayers.

We also appreciate the measures to rein in reckless planning and spending in the never-ending boot and doggle that is project types.

However, we do recommend revisions for this bill.

As written, utility companies have used their resource advantage to subvert the bill's intent and even raise rates, especially regarding the cost-benefit analysis requirement.

WePower DC supports the revisions proposed by CCAN to successfully achieve this bill's intent.

Building on these important initial steps, we urge the council to pursue more forceful legislation in this legislative session and the next.

Overall, it is crucial that the council take concrete steps to enhance transparency and scrutiny of all utility activities, protect ratepayers, and wherever possible, take power from the utilities and put it in the hands of the district.

This includes but is not limited to the following requiring far greater transparency into utility finances, including monthly reports of PEFCO and Washington gas estimated operating profits, annual full audit of utility assets, line item expenses for activities related to lobbying, advertising, trade associations, and similar expenses, and additional monthly data about disconnections and utility debt broken down by Ward.

We should also fund dedicated staffing to navigate official intervention in public service commission hearings by and on direct behalf of public officials.

This would help ameliorate IOU resource to manage and provide additional political backing for the Public Service Commission to stand against utility commission or utility companies.

We should also bar utilities from using ratepayer funds for lobbying, trade association membership, and other such expenses, thus preventing utilities from using our utility payments to increase our rates.

We should require that utilities conduct a robust standardized cost benefit analysis for all rate cases that involve investing in energy infrastructure to ensure public benefit, and we should also require that the utilities' votes to PJM be made public.

The council should also restrict the revolving door of staff between the PSC and utility companies, which threatens the PSC's ability to function as an independent, effective regulatory body.

The Council could, for example, enact a cooling off period for commissioners and PSC staff for at least two years before hiring and after leaving the PSC.

Finally, in addition to these reforms, the council should also take the following steps to put greater control over energy infrastructure and planning in the hands of the district, including exploring the expansion of DC owned and operated solar generation.

This could be managed by the DC sustainable energy utility and start small, focusing on energy burdened neighborhoods.

PEPCO does not have a franchise agreement with DC, meaning there is nothing preventing the district from creating a competing energy provider.

We should also create a distributed energy resources authority, putting power over grid planning and management into the hands of the district instead of our investor-owned utilities.

While these reforms would all constitute important progress towards reigning in our utilities and lowering rates, the goal of true affordability is fundamentally hamstrung by the investor-owned utility model.

The priorities of our utilities are structurally opposed to the needs of DC residents.

PEPCO and Washington Gas are legally obligated to maximize profits to their shareholders, which means extracting as much money from DC residents as possible.

As you already know, the people of DC want clean, affordable, reliable power, and the best way to achieve those goals is to establish a municipal utility.

Municipal utilities provide service at rates of on average 13% lower than IOUs.

And instead of being answerable to wealthy shareholders across the country, they answer to the communities they serve.

Thank you for your work in progressing towards this democratic affordable and clean energy future, and thank you for your time today.

Great.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Costello.

All right, let me just kind of jump in with some questions here.

Thanks everybody for your testimony.

Ms.

Mills, I want to start with you.

One of the recommendations you had, but correct me if I didn't capture this the right way, is essentially you said that we need to require audits of rate bases.

What do you what would that tell us, the council?

What would that tell the public service commission?

What would that tell the public?

And why do you think that an audit of the rate bases is an important step?

Yeah, so um, you know, there is some review, of course, of what is in utility rate bases already in rate making procedures because what gets approved into a rate base, that goes through the rate making procedure.

Um, I think that more regular audits are necessary as an additional step to that.

Um, so that we have more context in rate making procedures proceedings about um not just what is being considered to be added into a rate base in a given instant, but the context of what already exists in the rate base.

Um I think that we've seen um incredible growth in the rate base of the DC utilities that is not comparable to um to Maryland or other jurisdictions where we're just not seeing the same rate of increase.

Um I think, you know, just speaking very simply, um, a 13% increase on average per year of PEPCO's rate base is very, very high.

Um, you know, saying that the value of the system has gone up that much annually.

Just to me, it's a bit of a red flag that there's something in there that doesn't make sense.

So I think it would be helpful for the public service commission to more regularly conduct these audits as a way to go back and track like what is driving that increase.

Um, and I think you're talking about utility affordability if we're interested in actually lowering rates, bringing down rate bases is really a key part of the math in doing that.

Um, you know, you can change how much um rate of return is happening, and that can help as well.

But the rate base is like the biggest number in the equation, essentially.

And so it's the place we have the most ability to have impact in lowering bills.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Um, Miss Levison, in your testimony, I was trying to make sure I'm gonna get sure I followed this correctly.

Your testimony in terms of the bill at least in front of us.

Obviously, our hearing today is broader than just the bill, but what I heard was not support for the bill.

Is that because you believe that the district shouldn't allow multi-year rate plans altogether or just not provide a like is it just that the information that would be required under this legislation just isn't sufficient, and that is the position that we just shouldn't allow multi-year rate plans all together.

We do think the information required is insufficient and you know, refer you to and we've testimony on benefits cost analyses, for example, is you know, really that's really a very tricky uh process and incomplete so far in our commission.

Uh, but generally, having seen what happened with this multi-year plan, we're just not inclined to support to to promote multi-year plans.

I know, you know, the RMI toolbox that I listed in our testimony includes multi-year rate plans as a tool that states can use, but it really requires very deft implementation.

So at this time we don't recommend it.

Okay, that's helpful.

Um, you also talked about one of the subtitles that's in front of us right now, actually, in the Budget Support Act related to third-party electricity suppliers.

Um we have heard from some of those third-party suppliers that Maryland took similar action and had a detrimental impact on their consumer marketplace, not the consumer protection that we want, but we're trying to dig into that to understand what took place in Maryland.

What are some of the upsides that you would say align with the Budget Support Act as proposed when it comes to consumer protection?

Well, the um there has been some unfortunate activities by some of these companies of signing people up without their knowledge, um, charging penalties for early, you know, early withdrawal from a plan, um, overcharging.

So, there's just there are some significant problems and they really need to be addressed.

If if there's a need to tweak the provision, maybe that's the case based on you know very specific information that Maryland can provide that might be necessary.

But we would strongly recommend keeping something along these lines in the Budget Support Act.

It's um, you know, our our strongest interest would be seeing uh PEPCO obtain more power purchase agreements for standard offer service, and that would provide a really um great avenue for you know most of DC to lock into to help lock into rates from an electricity source that that doesn't require fuel.

Um but um I mean I I purchased from an alternative supplier myself and appreciate the opportunity to purchase more renewables, but um, but I do think there's been a lot of abuse.

Okay, thanks.

Um Ms.

Costello, I was gonna pull you in here.

Um I think you mentioned your testimony a fundamental aspect of multi-year rate increase or rate processes is forecasting versus using prior utility spending.

Can you describe some of the pros and cons of using forecasting for rate cases?

Why are you concerned with the way in which and the models in which we use or rely on the forecasting rather than looking at the uh utilities prior utility spending?

Yeah, I think I will first say that this is not my area of expertise, but that um in general forecasting often uses proprietary formulas that we don't have much insight into to understand uh what the utility is planning, how they're coming to these conclusions, what they think they're going to spend, and especially in this time of such rapid development across the energy industry, both in new technologies but also in expansion.

Um, I think that it's really difficult to understand or forecast accurately uh what we can expect in the coming years.

Um, and so I think that forecasting can often lead to just inflated expectation without much room to really verify uh what they're predicting.

Um, and we can see that a lot with data center expansion, right?

Like we have huge insane predictions, it's the exact thing that caused the extreme inflation of our capacity market.

That is then what is contributing to our bills, and that also happens with the distribution level as well.

So I think in general, forecasting just is a very sticky subject, and it's very hard to verify what might end up in a forecasting formula and how uh how based in reality it is.

Okay, all right, and then um Ms.

Mills was going back to you.

Um one of the things I've I kind of heard a common refrain around in terms of the public service commission and their reviews is how do they, or maybe are there any examples you want to point to of how they help guarantee that energy burdens are being considered as a part of their decision making or it's not at all.

Um in your mind, what would what would help make or how would the public service commission better be able to determine what is a just and reasonable rate when taking into consideration um energy burdens?

And I'll say this is not just for residents but also for our local businesses who are also seeing these huge spikes.

Um, just want to give you a chance to if you wanted to expand on that a little bit.

Yeah, well, um I do want to acknowledge the fantastic work of our Office of the People's Council who consistently presents a lot of the evidence and information that we do have about rate payer burden, how proposed infrastructure projects or rate increases would impact residents.

Um, and I think really what I have seen is um it's always beneficial to have more information.

I think one example of that is better understanding um utility um uh debt and information broken down by Ward, um, to have more of an understanding of like what um residential customers, how the experience of resident residential customers is different in different areas of the district, I think would be very helpful for planning um infrastructure work as well.

Um so that's one example of more information, but I do think on the whole, um, none of the impacts of the high utility bills that we have seen over the last couple of years came as a surprise to the public service commission.

If it did, it's because they didn't listen to the testimony provided to them by OPC on the residential side, um, also AOBA for um larger buildings.

So I think there is a a lot of information available that shows um both the solutions that are available and the impacts of the decisions the PSC has made that they really just haven't taken up.

And so that's why I think um in my testimony I was giving the advice to the council to be a bit more prescriptive in the outcomes.

I think that that is what's helpful to the commission.

Um they are balancing the interests of all of the different parties that they are um hearing from in these cases.

The utilities have the advantage of being better financed um and being the experts on what they are proposing, and that is a big advantage in the proceedings.

And so I think that the commission needs the direction to prioritize um ratepayer protection, DC's climate commitments, um, because they're not getting those incentives from their proceedings itself.

I I think that's what I would think of as a structural imbalance is very real, and my experience has been when we give more clear direction, either legislatively or even sometimes through just having the council speak in one voice, it helps both empower and direct the PSC towards making decisions um rather than just kind of being a hands-off.

So I think that's important.

So I appreciate that.

Um, I want to turn to Councilman Henderson is a member of the committee, so I was gonna turn to first.

Nope, okay.

She's waving me off.

We're gonna go to Councillor Treon White first, and then we'll turn to Councillor Henderson after that.

Thank you.

I did want to jump to Ms.

Costello.

Um, I want to thank you for your recommendation on the changes to this legislation.

Um could you speak more to the recommendations about the public power public energy generation generation?

You can give us clarity on that.

That'd be helpful.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um so there's two different sort of pieces here.

There's one government-owned uh electricity generation here in DC.

I think that that uh we've already seen a version of that through DC solar for all.

Um, and we would love to see that expanded through um, you know, plans to put more solar on the government buildings, for example, things like that.

But that is very much an interim stuff.

Um WePowers vision for the future uh of energy in the district involves a public utility entirely.

So that would be getting rid of PEPCO, replacing it with a municipally run and operated and owned um energy utility that wouldn't have any profit motive.

Um and so it means that none of our rates would be going off to Faro shareholders, and instead, like the entire rate base would be built off of so 100%.

Okay.

Yeah, 100% owned by owned by the district and operated by the district as well.

So just any rates, anyway.

Other places like a major city at all.

Yeah.

Yeah, Seattle and um Los Angeles both have public utilities.

So it's definitely a model that can be replicated for sure.

Was it 100% or do they have a yeah?

They have they have fully um fully municipal utilities there.

Good check out.

I want to jump to um Miss Brigham Hale.

Yes.

That's great.

What out action?

Uh, what do you project will be the reality for DC residents related to utility affordability health and sustainability overall?

What actions?

Sorry, could you repeat the beginning of that question?

Without that.

Councilor White, I think your your audio broke out just for a second.

If you could repeat that so we could hear it.

So, yeah, without action, what do you project will be the reality for DC residents?

I heard you, you know, has some issues with the current bill as is.

Um, just wanted to get your take on what will be without action, what will be the state uh residents that related to utility affordability, health, and sustainability overall?

Um, yes, I think I mean bills will continue to rise, as I said, even this month, their predicted um energy bill increases.

And so I think it's imperative that the council acts and we help lower these bills immediately because in the coming years there's already projected increases in bills, and residents will have to choose between um cooling their homes and paying rent, as you had mentioned in the beginning opening statement.

So, yes.

Yeah, yeah, we are definitely concerned about that.

And I remember being in a council meet breakfast, and two council members will was talking about their utility bills, and I know I'm feeling it, so I can imagine um every what everyday residents are feeling have to make those hard decisions, but thank you for that.

I'm gonna jump to Ms.

Meals.

I'm not sure you answered this already, but I know you uh you recommended requiring uh regular audits or the rate basis and other transparencies in the event that audits revealed a new problem or additional problems.

How would you recommend the council respond within its legislative ability at all?

Um thank you for the question.

Yeah, I think that um if the it, you know, hard to know exactly what the audits will uncover, but I think if we find that there are um there's content within the rate base that we feel um isn't responsible, I think to me the biggest sort of next step from the council side um is that tells us a lot about um the decision making of the public service commission to allow those things into the rate base in the first place.

So it tells the council um a lot about the rate making procedures because everything that ends up in the rate base it goes through a rate making procedure.

So to me, if we do an audit, which hasn't happened in several years, so it might reveal some interesting information.

Um it tells us that you know investments have been approved through the rate making process that perhaps now with right in in retrospect we wish hadn't.

So I think the next steps from the council there are to do more to um privilege other parties in the rate making um procedures as of right now.

Um they they really advantage the utilities, they come with their the proposals, and the PSC has frequently allowed those proposals to be a little bit bare bones.

Um they don't really detail um, they don't give enough details, which makes it very hard for the Office of the People's Council or the Department of Energy and Environment or residents to give um good testimony that tells the public service commission what the impacts of those will be, and that's how you're gonna get things into the rate base that you know we wish hadn't been there potentially, if that's what an audit would reveal.

So to me, I think audits give us a valuable information that tell us how well our our rate making procedures are working, and um that would be the path forward for council action.

Thank you.

And anybody can chime in on this.

I know historically, over the last decade plus, uh, we have been trying to focus on any sustainable buildings, you know, through credits, um, lights, uh even the rules.

Um, this has helped some.

Do you think that we are going in the right direction with this?

Do we need to push a little harder?

Is there something drastic we need to do differently?

Just want to gain your you guys' thoughts on how that's affecting affordability.

Um I can start by just saying that um I do think that the the goals and direction that the council has outlined at a high level uh project moving us in the right direction.

Um, but we've made far too slow progress, which has um sort of created this crisis moment we're in now.

Um I do think that moving towards more energy efficient buildings, um, electrified buildings, pairing that with the expansion of local solar is really like the key to success and the future that will bring will bring utility bills down for residents and businesses.

Um, but we've been a bit too slow, and so I think we need to do better at using sustainable energy trust fund funding for that purpose of energy efficiency and and solar um and and really staying committed to that future.

I'm sure Laura has something to add to you.

Just wanted to emphasize that the mayor by rating $80 million dollars from the sustainable energy trust fund has extremely undermined those efforts of building energy efficiency and particularly the programs that benefit low-income DC residents.

So it's it's really a crying shame.

And here we are heading into a you know 100-degree heat wave.

People are gonna have to, you know, they're not gonna be able to pay their electric bills, they're gonna be turning off the AC.

Heat is the most deadly natural disaster.

You might think hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc.

No, it is heat.

More people die in heat waves than anything else.

They're dying now in Europe, and they will die here, and they quietly in their homes.

This is a crisis.

Thank you for asking.

Get it.

And in close on one out of time, we're also thinking about these data centers that came up several times in this conversation, and is the usage of it, even seeing that the amount of water it takes to run a data center, um, and the crisis that can put the United States in.

This uh we are trying to figure out what to do as a government is released to that to keep calls down to keep uh utilities affordable as related to technology influencing utilities.

Sure.

I know it came up in a conversation.

So, turn it back over to you.

Oh, well, uh the Sierra Globe has some recommendations on data centers, but the bottom line is that if companies want to build these data centers, they need to bring their own electricity supply, and it should be clean and renewable.

They should use solar, they should use ground source geothermal, they should use wind, and they should not put the costs on uh the regional grid and on us here in DC.

But our costs in DC have gone up more than our electricity costs have gone up more than Maryland more than Virginia and more than Pennsylvania.

So there's something going on here that's not just it's not just data centers.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilman White.

Next let me turn to Councilman Henderson now.

Thank you.

Um is Ann still online.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Woods, you um, in your testimony basically said that we should table the legislation, uh, the bill that is part of today's agenda.

Instead of tabling it, are there any particular recommendations that you would make to amend it to make it stronger or no?

Well, I'm my focus is pretty narrow.

It's really on the cost benefit analysis language, which is is too vague in the bill.

It's very concerning, and there isn't actually a commission-approved uh functional cost-benefit cost benefit analytical methodology in place.

So you know, the the bill is premature.

That's that's the issue here.

Um, there are elements of the bill that I that I really agree with.

I and I think the again the intent of the bill is good.

Uh I just am concerned about going forward with you know, with the language on the on the BCA the way it is.

Okay.

Um, what uh you said premature, what should come first?

I know you spoke a little bit about a holistic narrative framework.

Well, the dilemma is unless there's unless there is a comprehensive, consistent, systematic benefit cost, analytical methodology to review these to review these utility proposals for action and investment.

Nothing else can happen.

It's foundational.

Okay, so would a cost benefit analysis or the methodology that you're talking about be something that comes from one of the working groups that already exists first.

I'm just trying to understand like where would this come from because you're sort of speaking about it as though like, well, we need this thing, okay.

Well, how do we get to this thing?

So there's a dilemma here.

This consultant was hired, who was, I'll just say it bluntly, and was really not qualified to develop a BCA model, but the consultant went ahead with a with an Excel tool, right?

Instead of laying out the the foundation, the framework for using the tool.

And um, I think I think again that the committee needs to educate themselves on what the what the commission has done and what needs to happen, and then give the commission some direction about how to move how to move forward.

I really am concerned about this committee undertaking the development of a BCA model to fit in with this bill.

That's concerning to me because the P the PSC has already done some good work, made some good approvals.

How do we get how do we push them forward to complete this process by including this framework with uh elements and principles that have already been recommended by the C the working group?

I don't think it's practical.

My understanding is it's not really practical to reconvene the working group at this point, okay.

Um, but the national standard practice manual team that advised the working group before under the commission's direction.

The team is ready to meet with this committee and talk about, talk about their their view.

They just have come out with a new edition of their guidance for DERBCA methodology.

And they're they're willing and ready to talk with this committee about that.

So that would be a great step, I think.

Okay, thank you.

Um, uh I appreciate the rest of the witnesses for your testimony and some of the recommendations that you raise.

Um, Bethany, um, your recommendation around a cooling off period.

I think that makes sense.

Um, frankly, in some other professions, I think we should have that as well.

Um, like in the on the federal side around FDA and other things.

Um I think Macy and Claire, you both talked about needing a regional approach, which I think is important, not just from the perspective of just in terms of data centers, but DC doesn't have the same type of land as everyone else in terms of being able to do generation.

So we have to talk about this regionally in terms of how do we partner with other jurisdictions to be able to offset some of the pieces.

Um I think uh Claire, you talked about earlier, right?

What do the diff demand response programs look like?

Um, that could help in some cases.

Um I know that sometimes there are these sort of voluntary calls of like please reduce or turn off things that you don't need.

I'm sure we'll probably see some of that this week with the temperatures anticipating to be as high as they are.

Um, but should that not just be sort of an ad hoc, but should that be something that's sort of built in to the work that we're doing every day?

So I know we're a little bit behind, so I'm gonna stop there.

Thank you.

Can I add something on demand response?

PEPCO had a program, I don't know if they still do, but they put a thermostat in my house and they said we'll give you a little price break, and when we need to shave the peak of electricity use, we'll turn it off.

And they did twice in May on those two hot days.

A little warm, but it, you know, it's a it wasn't it's it is a voluntary program, but it's like all set up.

They don't just uh don't have to just say, hey, everybody turned on turn up your thermostat.

They they took it over and they did it.

Yeah, thank you.

Yeah, thanks.

Uh yeah, your point on demand management, especially in those peak spaces or where are certainly ways where across the whole grid, across the whole region, we can actually shave off little bits, but they make a huge impact in terms of overall cost.

So um absolutely something we're gonna continue to work on.

So thank you very much.

Um, thank you to this entire panel for your testimony and your work here.

I'm gonna move to our next panel, but thank you all very much.

Uh so let me next, I'm gonna call our next panel of public witnesses.

And I might have more people than I have chairs, so hang tight for a second.

But I have Sayla Goodson Bell, policy and advocacy campaigner with Solar United Neighbors, Robin Dutta, executive director with Chesapeake Solar and Storage Association, Nicole Rentz, Director of Market Development and Policy with New Columbia Solar.

Jennifer Spinosi, Executive Vice President and General Counsel with Clean Choice Energy, who I think is joining us online.

I was actually, oh, yep, all right, here in the room.

I'll see my screen.

No, come on up.

Everyone gets a chair.

It's okay.

All right.

What I'm probably gonna do then is I have Mason, Imnett, and Kimberly Manning.

Uh, just so that I don't overly crowd the table.

I'm just gonna call you up on the next panel.

Uh, we'll just do the two of you as the panel right after this if that works for everybody.

Okay.

All right, so Sailor Goodson Bell will turn to you to kick us off.

Thank you.

Um, on behalf of my organization, Solar United Neighbors Action, I urge you to consider policy solutions that maintain and shrink the district's nation-leading suite of incentives for rooftop and community solar.

Distributed solar, especially when complemented by other behind the meter resources like energy efficiency, demand response programs, customer-sided storage and virtual power plants or VPPs, provide meaningful pathways out of our growing energy affordability crisis and is well suited to help resolve the district's ongoing economic disparities too.

DC can begin unlocking this critical resource if it passes the grid act, advances an equitably designed VPP program, locks in renewable power purchase agreements, and maintains long-term funding to deploy more rooftop and community solar.

The district, as everyone has mentioned, is currently weathering one of the worst energy affordability crises in the country.

These rising energy costs are forcing many families to make difficult sacrifices, whether that's foregoing medicine, car payments, healthy food, school supplies for the kids, and other needs to keep the lights on at home and roof over a household of families' heads.

These financial hardships again hit income-eligible black, Latino, and other overburdened communities first and worse.

64% of low-income families in the district are energy burdened, and the median energy burden for black and Hispanic households is 45% higher than that of white non-Hispanic households.

Regional capacity prices, utility greed, and regulatory neglect are all fueling this crisis.

Capacity prices at PJM have skyrocketed by almost 14 billion dollars over the past two years.

As you know, PEPCO buys a significant amount of its wholesale electricity from PGM and passes the costs on to customers' bills on the generation and transmission portion specifically, which often make up two-thirds of customers' bills.

And although these capacity prices aren't fully under the control of the district, our public officials can change our overreliance on that power that is imported from other jurisdictions.

Again, long-term renewable power purchase agreements and more clean local solar generation and storage could safeguard the district from these regional price hikes.

However, as others have flagged, in 2018, PEPCO aggressively lobbied to block legislative attempts to lock DC into clean, stable, affordable renewable energy contracts.

Experts have estimated that this cost rate payers about 137 million dollars a year.

Similarly, PEPCO has used interconnection delays, fees, and miscrediting practices to obstruct the widespread and equitable deployment of rooftop and community solar.

The district has also suffered from regulatory neglect as the PSC has consistently rubber stamped devastating rate hikes that have made utility bills unaffordable.

Residential customer debt has increased by nearly 20.5 million dollars, a jump of almost 61% since May 2022.

Local solar, again, when paired with a suite of DERs or distributed energy resources, is a holistic vehicle for financial relief, energy independence, and lasting local economic prosperity.

These resources directly lower our energy bills for participating customers and also reduce energy costs system wide, again by minimizing the amount of expensive wholesale electricity that the district has to import from the PJM market.

Quantitative independent studies like Synapses study back in 2023 have proven that these resources are a worthwhile investment and net positive for ratepayers to grid and society at large.

Importantly, the small and modular nature of local solar storage and other DERs also allows them to be localized in communities that need them the most, particularly black, brown, and income eligible communities.

This has held true in DC as local incentives and programs like the Solar for All program, our local solar carve out and our nation-leading renewable portfolio standard, our solar renewable energy credits, and our net metering program.

These have all worked together to concentrate solar in neighborhoods that are on the front lines of the affordability crisis.

And as advocates have flagged in previous hearings, nearly 70% of solar systems are located in wards four, five, seven, and eight, where communities are primarily black and income eligible.

Through the end of 2025, Solar for All in particular has delivered $80 million plus dollars in lifetime energy savings to more than a 11,000 participating families.

Federal tax credits for residential solar expired last year, making rooftop solar even more difficult for income eligible families to access.

Similarly, as people have mentioned, year after year, the mayor continues to try to slash local funding to support free or no upfront cost, rooftop and community solar installations for energy burdened communities.

These troubling developments make it even more important for the DC for DC to maintain and shrink in its local incentives for solar and other customer-sided resources.

If we're serious about ending our economic and energy disparities and making utility bills affordable for all.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Robin Dutta.

Thank you.

Our purpose is not just to uh rise up and be a voice for our members in the industry, but to help promote the mainstream adoption of uh all kinds of solar and battery storage, both for the uh consumer and integrated into the electric grid.

Um, what we're facing today with regards to energy affordability and the oversight and planning and and uh you know forecasting of the electric grid is complex.

And because it also spans multiple levels of government, that only adds to the complexity when we can only say this body can only you know take so many actions, this other body needs to do something else.

And so, you know, one, I think it's it's important to recognize the complexity of that uh reality, um, but then also recognize that there are still a lot of opportunities and and levers to pull from a policy standpoint.

First, regarding council member White's uh legislation, we are in support of it.

Um for us, it's not a question of looking back or looking forward, it's a it's more a question of what is the type of review uh of the rate plan, what is the criteria, what is the scoring uh methodology, and how is there a recognition of the types of energy technologies, funding strategies, and um energy strategies that are being employed in the plan.

Um we appreciate the amount of transparency that this bill uh tries to add to the process.

Um, but the biggest the biggest positive that we see here is in regards to um the recognition of local generation advanced energy technologies that can create more load flexibility and treating that on par with more top-down traditional 20th century grid strategies.

It's not just about central generation anymore.

Local solar and storage, as other witnesses have said, can play a very powerful role.

And I think most folks would be surprised to understand just how much that can scale.

It's not just shaving a little here or there, it can take a very active role.

And that gets me to the broader points with regards to um affordability.

There are, first, it's the the important amount to maximize the amount of local generation and load flexibility in the district.

Um for starters, this can happen with uh extending the expedited uh authorization to interconnect program currently uh going on at the PSC.

This helps to get uh local solar systems turned on faster with the repeal of the federal investment tax credit on time is of the essence.

Every day matters, and the more systems that can come online in the district before the end of 2027 means that they can take advantage of the credit before uh federal uh caps take effect.

Passing the grid act, and I think expanding it to also recognize some of uh you know the needs to just try to uh reduce the obstacles, not just helping with uh streamlining interconnection costs and processes, but looking at uh deploying standalone storage and helping to attract more private capital that can help to deploy these assets will be really important and look forward to working with you potentially on that.

Just the emphasis around load flexibility.

It it's you know what we're gonna see this and experience this week with regards to the weather.

I mean, it's going to it's gonna be horrific for everyone.

And and just taking the metro in, you know, I was like, oh no, this is gonna be a hell of a day and week.

Um, load flexibility doesn't just provide the benefits on weeks like this.

Load flexibility can become a more active piece of demand management.

Managing the grid, uh, as is the role of utilities is increasingly difficult.

Distributed energy resources can help to sh not just shave peak, but to try to flatten distribution loads.

What that can then create is lower predictable peak demand, but also lower the planned capacity requirements.

PJM, and this is the part where this falls outside the council.

PJM does not treat front of meter systems as load modifiers like they do behind the meter.

Community solar, standalone storage count as front-of-meter systems.

If this is getting deployed in the district and they're not uh being taken into account by PJM, that means that what the PEPCO load zone is required to then procure in capacity auctions is artificially high, and it's ignoring district policy and the results of benefits of district policy.

So, you know, urge, I think there can be some advocacy work done there, because if the district has to always be taking the energy from the grid, then the law of elasticity kind of applies.

You gotta you know be a price taker, and you don't have much of a choice, and the consumers then don't have much of a choice.

The last thing I'll say, and I apologize, I'm slightly over time.

Getting there, I think is going to over the long term require aligning utility financial interests and the utility business model with deploying and enabling ratepayers and residents in the district to be able to adopt a broad range of advanced energy technologies, not just solar and storage, and then to deploy the policies like virtual power plants, demand response policies, and others that can achieve these outcomes because a flatter load curve and less demand and less capacity demanded will translate to downward pressure on rates for everyone.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Uh, next I'm gonna turn to Nicole Rinz.

Thank you, Councilmember Allen, uh, some birds White and Henderson and uh members and staff of the committee.

Umtility oversight and rate making are topics that haven't been given enough attention in recent years, and there are many areas in which we can improve them for the benefit of district ratepayers.

Um I'm Nicole Rinz, I'm uh Ward 6 resident, and I am here testifying today on behalf in my role as director of market development and policy for New Columbia Solar.

New Columbia Solar is a district CBE with headquarters in Ward 5.

Um, it's majority owned by a district resident and now a decade old.

Uh since our establishment in 2016, we've become one of the most successful commercial solar developers in the district, enabling us to expand operations to other states in our region as well.

We've seen firsthand how the systems we build combined with the strong policies supporting solar in the district can help people save on their electricity bills.

We've built solar on charter schools and churches and office buildings that are now saving tens of thousands of dollars on their operational costs.

Um those savings are increasing even more now that rates are going up more than expected.

Um the PJM capacity prices that has caused energy prices to spike in the district, um, is affecting us because we rely so heavily on imported electricity.

Um, and the primary way residents and businesses have to avoid those costs directly and quickly is to generate electricity on their own.

Solar is the fastest, cheapest way to do that.

In the district, solar's now meeting about 5% of total electricity demand.

Um PSC data shows that there's over there's 20,600 solar systems in the district, totaling um 323 megawatts.

Uh that's the size of about two PJM gas peaker plants.

Um that includes about 470 community solar systems that make up 75 megawatts, and they're serving roughly another 20,000 residents, likely.

That's a total of over 40,000 ratepayers who are currently not paying the higher PJM driven rates on their electricity bills or for their whole electricity bill, thanks to the district's solar policies.

At current prices, we estimate that nearly 12,000 DUE solar for all subscriber households are now saving about a thousand dollars per year.

Um avoided electricity costs from installed solar in the district will likely total roughly 90 million this year.

And unlike other places, the district has established truly equitable solar policies as CEA was outlining.

Um over half of all installed systems and over half of all megawatts installed are in wards five, seven, and eight, um, the areas of the district with the highest energy burdens.

The best fastest way we can help reduce electricity bills for district residents is to further expand solar adoption in the district in the equitable way that we've already been doing it.

Um in addition, as Robin was outlining, uh we can adopt policies that target in-state solar energy use to the times when grid electricity is most expensive, the peak times.

Doing this will reduce the cost for all ratepayers.

To expand the rate of solar adoption and target solar energy use, we recommend adopting the following policies.

First, adopt the majority recommendations of the PSC's Interconnection Technical Conference, either through the Grid Act or by the PSC itself.

This group was established in 2024 in response to numerous reports filed by Chessa, DOE, and OPC since 2021 that were detailing unnecessarily high and lengthy and unpredictable interconnection processes in the district.

The group has now filed at least a couple of reports detailing recommendations over the past year that could greatly speed up and reduce the cost of solar installation in the district.

We estimate ourselves that utility permitting and interconnection costs at about a third of the cost of solar in the district.

And if that amount could be reduced, it could significantly offset the loss of the federal tax credit in 2028.

Second, adopt the technical conference recommendations to extend the availability of the federal tax credit that would effectively do that for the next year, as Robin outlined.

Third, adopt policies that enable energy storage and virtual power plants.

Specifically, those policies would be time of use rates that incentivize battery adoption.

Those could that could be adopted quickly as sort of a very first step.

While we while we work on more detailed policies, we also need customer meter data sharing requirements for the utility and directives to identify the feeders in the district that can most benefit from local generation to avoid system expansion costs and quantification of those costs and benefits.

Fourth, I would recommend revising the PSC's working groups procedures, taking a good look at them so that they can drive regulatory change faster.

We've fallen behind some other jurisdictions on interconnection policies and energy storage policies.

It seems to primarily be the result of a working group process that is somewhat broken and doesn't efficiently drive results.

And finally, expand the solar for all program.

This has lacked funds over the past few years, but has proven hugely effective at reducing energy burdens for LMI households in the district.

One of the reasons that solar businesses like ours have been able to remain strong enough to survive the federal policy roller coaster that we're all experiencing right now, and continue bringing cost savings to district customers and ratepayers is because of the district's strong local policies.

Thank you for holding this hearing, and we look forward to continuing to work with you to the benefit of ratepayers.

Thank you.

All right, and next let me turn to Jennifer Spinocsi.

Good morning, Chairman Allen, members of the committee.

My name is Jennifer Spinocy.

I'm the general counsel and EVP of corporate affairs at Clean Choice Energy.

I'm pleased to be here today.

Clean Choice was founded in 2012 and is based right here in the district.

We have an office over in the West End.

Today we're one of the country's leading independent retail energy providers, exclusively supplying 100% renewable energy to our customers.

In addition to being a renewable retail supplier, we've also long advocated for renewable policy in the district.

I'm the former president of Mr.

Detta's organization, and several years ago, Clean Choice and New Claim New Columbia Solar partnered to be one of the first providers of community choice in the district.

More recently, we've pivoted out of community solar and are now developing utility scale solar projects to bring more clean renewable energy onto the grid.

More specifically, we cite those projects in areas that are proximate to our retail customers.

Our first fully operational project went online last year in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, less than 100 miles from our customers here in the district.

We have another project in Pennsylvania that's scheduled to go online mid next year.

I'm here today to talk about subtitle E because a competitive retail energy market is key to providing customers both with price stability while continuing to advance the district's clean energy goals.

Customers in the district have had the choice to shop for energy since 2001, and customers who choose to do so do for do so for a variety of reasons, including fixed price contracts, 100% renewable energy, or other energy supply services, monitoring services, energy efficiency programs that help them use less energy.

We're concerned, however, that the council is potentially preparing to eliminate those choices.

Subtitle E will eliminate customer choice if enacted.

This provision includes price caps, and the purported intention of these price caps is to protect consumers, particularly low-income consumers from unnecessarily, unnecessary utility price increases.

However, we know from experience that a price cap is likely to have the opposite effect, forcing consumers back to utility default service at a time when those prices are rising.

Price caps were at the core of legislation that was passed in Maryland just two years ago.

And prior to the implementation of that legislation in Maryland, there were nearly 300 different energy supply offers available to Maryland residents, including almost a hundred products that included increased renewable energy like clean choices, 100% product.

Today, none of those products are available to Maryland customers.

And in the wake of the implementation, thousands of customers had their contracts canceled and were not able to shop for their energy.

We know that the same thing will happen if subtitle E is passed.

It's it's not an if, but but a guarantee.

And so I'm urging you to take a closer look at this provision and consider it in a broader conversation.

I do want to address some of the consumer protection concerns that were brought up earlier.

As a lawyer, you know, consumer protection is super important to me.

And I want to be clear that switching a customer's supply without their consent is illegal.

And if that's happening in the district, the commission needs to take swift action against suppliers that are engaged in that type of behavior.

For clean choice, a majority of our customers have enrolled either through a direct mail or online, and that includes, you know, kind of a more private way of engaging in the shopping experience.

For customers who might encounter an interaction with an agent, whether that be at a tabling event or a community event, those enrollment channels always include strong protections to ensure that the customers' consent is valid, including a third-party independent third-party verification.

So I want to be clear that we do support a conversation around additional customer protections, and as an industry, we've shared multiple recommendations on that, including ways that we've seen in other jurisdictions low-income customers be protected.

I encourage you to have a more complete conversation around retail energy market reform, and the industry stands ready to partner with you on effective solutions.

Thank you for your time.

Absolutely.

Thank you all very much.

Appreciate it.

Let me start.

Sailor Goodson Bell.

Appreciate your testimony.

One of things I wanted to touch on, you said about 70, roughly 70% of the solar systems in the district are located towards four, five, seven, and eight.

Do you believe that would be the case if the district did not have policies to incentivize and create a solar marketplace, invest in solar for all, invest in the SETF.

What would we see?

I think our solar systems look like if we did not have some of our intentional policies around ensuring solar more equitably across our city.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

And yeah, just for folks who don't know, that's from the PSC's 2025 RPS report.

I think we see the opposite effect, and you see that in other jurisdictions across countries that don't have these more explicitly equitable solar incentives.

Again, like reducing the upfront cost of installation is just huge for families that could would really stand to benefit um from these savings, but can't afford to put down, you know, a couple tens of thousands of dollars, um, let alone um afford even lower amounts, you know, if they have access to third-party leasing, they still might not be able to afford that again if they are uh income eligible, low income, etc.

And just especially right now, the cost of living is surging.

And so that's even less accessible for most folks.

And so, yeah, I think we would see the complete opposite.

Um, I think right now one of the richest wards in the district is ward three, and that actually has one of the lowest solar adoption rates, and it that doesn't mean we shouldn't put more solar there, but it just goes to show the impact um of our policies, which again aren't perfect, we need to maintain them and we need to strengthen them, and I and I want to again like um emphasize a lot of what the other witnesses said.

The importance of load flexibility is one that the district I think still has a long way to go and can look towards other neighbors to continue to make sure that we don't just get solar uh on households, but that we continue to get more customer-sided resources too, particularly storage and demand response programs as the grid continues to get a little bit more complicated.

Yeah, thank you.

Well, I appreciate that.

And just quickly, when we think about the public service commission's RPS report that you mentioned, does it account for the benefits to rate payers from solar, or does it just focus on the costs?

I think the RPS is just focused on the stuff that I was referencing, that's specifically focused on the amount of solar the benefits and costs that I mentioned earlier from the 2023 synapse study, and that looks at both benefits and costs, and it's actually very narrow.

Um solar is a net benefit, and that in that study, it doesn't actually consider some of the local economic development benefits, the boost to local jobs, some of the avoided health impacts, it doesn't get too into the weeds of, and so from our perspective, like looking at it from even the most conservative lens, solar is still a net positive, not just again for customers who get the resource on their house, but for everyone in the district, regardless of if you're actually participating, it's lowering all of our energy costs because of all the reasons we mentioned earlier in terms of reducing our reliance on the reasonable regional uh power market.

Yeah, thank you.

Appreciate that.

Um, Mr.

Dutta, Ms.

Rentz, you mentioned load flexibility.

Um, can you just walk us through what a future that prioritizes local solar battery storage and demand side solutions would look like for the district?

Um, and then are there specific policy initiatives you outlined some of them in your testimony that you recommend the council move forward with?

And the grid act will be moving forward, but we also have opportunities to continue making sure it's the strongest version possible.

Uh thank you for the question.

Yeah, I think a future that prioritizes you know deployment of district solar and storage and and those types of policies.

One, we see a lot more solar and storage uh built uh and uh on rooftops in the district for residences for uh apartment buildings, and obviously balancing all number of different policies, uh, more carports where uh where they can be built, um, and figuring out battery storage uh permitting rules, um, because right now the district really doesn't have a set of criteria for how to site and permit batteries.

Um, and so there's you know, and there's a lot of catch-up that has to be done.

But what that then looks like from a grid standpoint and the economic standpoint is we would have programs that that, you know, similar to when we talk about demand response, would be uh more of a conversation between these privately owned assets that are managed by you know, this is where you can aggregate them, you can work them individually, but they'd be participating in in district-wide programs with the goal of uh generating and discharging energy when the grid is seeing higher demand, not just really peak demand, but just any kind of higher demand.

What that then can lead to is the you know, PEPCO as the utility shaving and structurally lowering uh the maximum capacity and maximum energy that they're having to manage.

Um, by doing that, that's going to translate into savings versus business as usual for all for all residents.

So the the benefits of going mainstream uh mainstream adoption of solar and storage is that one, the people who are doing the adoption are are benefiting quite directly and quite greatly, but that is translating to every every resident and every ratepayer in the district.

Yeah, and then and Ms.

Rinsel, obviously, if you want to jump in on this as well.

Uh you commented that what's in our control is out of our control, and when we also have a PJM that is not taking into account the solar policies here, and then what it is that PEPCO on the market is having to purchase, means that everybody's costs go up.

Can you just expand a little bit more about uh your point that you were trying to make there about the the limitations necessarily and in terms of what PEPCO is having to purchase from PJM, but they may maybe don't have to.

So currently PJM has, you know, so every time there's a forward capacity auction, and it's usually typically three year forward capacity auction.

That's where we've seen the that's where the the price caps have been instituted, and and that's where we've seen huge spike in prices uh since 2022, since the that was for the 2024 25 um uh base year.

PEP uh PJM calculates for each load zone.

What is the capacity that has to be procured?

And uh among the variables that they have are you know, they do say that um that the behind the meter systems you know are taken into account.

So that's an offset for the capacity demanded and the energy demanded um for the utility.

However, they don't do the same thing for community solar systems and any other distribution-level connected asset that is generating or offsetting.

Um they do actually in one place in Illinois, in the Commed territory in Illinois, they do do this, but in the rest of PJM, they do not.

So that does mean that district policies that are geared to deploying community solar, and if there were policies to promote the deployment of front of meter battery storage, that is that's not going to be considered as an offset.

So it's you have these systems, the 75 megawatts more of community solar in the district that are generating that are active that are not that are due that are having the grid benefit, but PEPCO or sorry, uh PJM is saying too many Ps.

Uh PEP uh PJM is saying uh we're ignoring you.

And so where our capacity calculation doesn't subtract from uh the capacity that is already online in the grid.

So it's art for that reason it's artificially high.

And that's true when we look at the Pepco load zone, it's the same in Maryland.

So DC's getting dinged because you know, the Maryland systems and their their robust community solar program that uh those assets are not being taken into account as well as uh the district-sided systems.

Okay, I appreciate that.

I know I'm out of time here.

Um Ms.

Spinocy, I do have I definitely have some questions I want to come back to you.

So either I'll do that in a quick second round, or because I believe the next two witnesses may be testifying on similar topic with you.

I might have you stay at the table just for a second, so that way when they testify, all the questions will be topical.

So either way, hang tight.

I promise I have some questions.

Alright, let me turn to Councillor Trayon White.

I'll also note we've been joined by Counselor Lewis George, so Councillor Lewis George, I've got Councilor Tran White, Council Henderson, and I'll turn to you for some questions too.

Uh thank you, Chairman.

Uh, I don't have any questions for this panel.

You transition to a staff meeting, but I'll be listening to the MSD, I'll be taking those.

But I want to thank the panel for this insight and and this all the information that's given and help us to get some guidance on how we can make DC more affordable and sustainable without utilities.

We're listening to that.

Thank you, Chim.

Okay, absolutely.

Thank you, Counselor White.

Counselor Anderson.

Um thank you to this uh panel of witnesses.

Um I'm gonna ask a couple of questions.

Okay, so um I missed your name and on the uh agenda, it is I you're not Robin.

Oh, you are Robin.

Okay, never mind.

All right, cool.

Um sorry, I just I didn't want to make any um assumptions.

Um okay, so you uh provided in your testimony some comments about the methodology as well, similar to the conversation that I was having with Ann earlier, and you said, you know, what's the scoring for this methodology, et cetera.

Well, how should this be set?

Similar to what I asked her, but I didn't really get a direct answer.

Um so I was I was referring to what what PJM is doing at the regional level for their capacity auction, so it's a little different, but my suggestion would be if there is if if there's a determination that there needs to be methodology set prior to any implementation, you could just do kind of a phased uh implementation approach, develop the methodology, set it in place before any kind of further um reform is done, because then the reform can be based on formula and other criteria that whether it's a working group or a full perhaps commission proceeding, uh they can be directed to create said methodology based on a criteria um you know determined by the council.

So that that would be I think one way to accomplish what you were asking about before.

Um I had a good speaking of PJ, I'm at a good meeting with um their folks in May, and um they have some particular reforms that they are on track to go forth in terms of implementation, although I would say in some cases it feels like PGM is a little bit behind.

Would you agree with that?

Yes, respectfully to the folks at respectfully, of course, but like uh it's the being the son of two engineers, I'll say you know, there's there's a very conservative mindset that comes from the engineering perspective.

And I think you know, whenever I I hear PJM comment and and kind of see what what work they're doing, and we don't uh you know engage directly.

Our our uh national partners at the solar energy industries association engage directly with PJM in in a lot of process, but you know, they really just look at it from the top-down framework.

And I think when they're talking about the options at the table, you know, they're a regional transmission operators, so they're looking at that at the bulk power system at large generators at transmission uh balancing, and and I think that it creates kind of a blind spot in the broader conversation because what we really should be talking about is not only that side, but behind you know, I've started to use the phrase behind the transmission node.

Everything at the distribution level that is within the purview of state and the district's public service commissions and legislative bodies, anything that can be done to be adding local generation and reducing peak capacity and peak demand of electricity is something that will influence everything that you know is all the inputs into PJM.

And if that if that is the goal then of the local bodies, that's cool, that is something that I think PJM should be talking much more about um in their conversations with their member uh jurisdictions, and and I think can be the focus of policies here and and elsewhere.

Yeah, I just in sort of thinking about um sort of the quick proliferation of data centers.

Now, that of course is not driving everything, but when we're talking about who's on the load, those are that.

Um, but then also some of the larger projects as well.

Um, so you know, in the district, for instance, once RFK comes online, that is a large load project, um, that I feel like we probably should have been having earlier conversations around what does the offset look like um either on site, whether they're solar, etc.

Um, in that nonetheless.

Um Ms.

Rentz, hi Nicole, it's good to see you.

Um so you talked a little bit about the PSC working group process um being sort of broken.

Is that more or less driven by the operations of the commissioners, how it's set, like the working group will the process improve if there were different members of the body?

I I think it could, yeah.

I think the so the process is driven by the PSC staff primarily.

Okay, um, but the direction of the staff is set by the commission.

So it's sort of like the mayor and all the executive agencies, right?

Like um, you know, they could set expectations, they could define procedures and policies that the staff was expected to follow, and they could exercise oversight over their staff.

So there are definitely things that the PSC commissioners could do to improve that that process.

I don't think it's been a priority uh, you know, lately or for the past several years to do that.

Um but I think it's definitely time for it, needs an overhaul.

Okay.

I mean, I kind of think sometimes working groups, task force, et cetera.

Sometimes we do those things when we don't want to do the thing, um, that everybody knows we should just do the thing.

Um, but that's okay.

Um, you also talked a little bit in, I guess this is for anyone in terms of the solar conversation in general, right?

So Ms.

Rentz, you talked about how right now solar is about five percent or so in terms of DC.

Um, oftentimes when we're talking about alternatives, we're mainly focusing on the solar as part of the conversation.

But is it reasonable for us to anticipate that solar can take over everything?

In the district, yes.

I mean, our goal right now is 15% by 2041.

Um we're third of the way there, which is pretty good.

Um, the, you know, can it serve 100% of the district's load?

Probably not in the near future.

Um, maybe in some distant sci-fi universe.

We're not, I haven't imagined yet.

Um, but you know, anything can happen.

So, um, I mean, I well, I'm asking this question in that I feel like we often talk a lot about solar.

Yeah.

Um, and a lot of our works and projects have been geared towards that because frankly, in terms of a city like ours, solar is one of those quick ways to be able to help in terms of individual families or multifamily housing, um, commercial complex, etc.

But should we be doing both and something else as well?

Yes, absolutely.

Um, so one of the things we've been doing really effectively in the district is uh keeping our demand flat through solar and through our energy efficiency programs like FEPS and our building codes over the years.

Our demand in the district has remained largely flat over the last several years, even declined, despite the fact that we're adopting more electric vehicles, we're moving towards electrification of buildings, and that's because of the policies that we've been implementing for the last 10-15 years so effectively.

Um, and you know, unfortunately now our regional demand is really increasing, and that's gonna affect us no matter.

So it doesn't matter that our demand is flat.

Um, so that's why it's really important to target the demand reduction now towards those peak periods.

Um, that's where we're gonna have the most impact.

Um, and you know, I should clarify that, like, even though we probably can't generate 100% of our electric use here in the district with solar in the districts, the regional grid could become, I think 100%, you know, renewable in in the not so distant future, and that is not a sci-fi really.

So thank you.

Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you very much.

Next, we turn counselor Lewis George.

Uh thank you.

And Chairman Allen, can I have time for an opening and then also time for questions?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Uh good morning, Chairperson Allen, and thank you to our public witnesses joining us both in person and remotely to discuss an issue that is top of mind for so many district residents as the heat of summer sets in the rising cost of utility bills.

Across the district, families are feeling the impact of higher electricity and gas costs at the same time they are facing increased housing, grocery transportation, and child care expenses.

For many households, utility bills have become one more monthly cost that is increasingly difficult to manage.

The district also has also missed opportunities to better prepare for this moment by not adequately investing in climate resiliency.

We have underfunded programs that it could that expand access to local solar generation, weakened policies that could help residents produce more of their own energy, and seeing the approval of rate plans that force residents to bear the cost of significant capital investments without always understanding whether those costs are fair or whether more affordable alternatives were available.

At the same time, we know that some of the pressures driving utility costs extend beyond the district's borders.

Growing regional electricity demand, including demand from large data centers, is affecting the broader grid.

While these market forces are not within the council direct control, district residents should have confidence that they are paying only for costs that are necessary, reasonable, and as a result of the choices of their representatives, not those in Virginia.

That is why today's hearing is so important.

The legislation before us raises important questions about how utility rates are established, how infrastructure investments are evaluated, and how we can better protect ratepayers while ensuring reliable service.

I look forward to hearing uh from our witnesses about the potential benefits, challenges and implementation of these proposals, as well as additional ideas for addressing utility affordability from household level solutions such as expanding access to balcony solar to broader reforms that strengthen accountability throughout our utility system.

This hearing builds on months of work by the Committee on Transportation and Environment and the entire council, as well as many others who have brought attention to the growing challenge of utility affordability, including the introduction of my bill, the Public Trust and Utility Regulation Act, which uh is important for us and focuses on creating greater transparency so that the public service commission, the council, and the whole of DC government is best equipped with the information we need to effectively bring costs down and make our energy procurement more sustainable by creating more requirements for information provided both during rate proceedings and in general.

Mandatory audits.

I hope to see this bill uh get a hearing very soon.

I appreciate everyone who has taken time to participate today, and I look forward to a thoughtful discussion about how we can ensure district residents have access to safe, reliable, and affordable utility service.

Um I will now begin my questions.

Uh Salad Goodson Bell.

Um I want to thank you for highlighting how it is that how it is that we have managed to equitably distribute solar generation across the district.

I know we have done a lot for homeowners, but I'm wondering if you have any recommendations on how we can better expand these benefits to tenants who are responsible for paying their own electricity bills.

Thank you for the statement and the question.

It's a great one.

And I think it directly connects to one of the bills, one of the resources you mentioned, balcony or plug-in solar, um, is a very low-hanging fruit that the Grid Act is currently trying to remove the barriers to.

And for folks who don't know, these are small portable solar systems, usually under 1,200 watts, that can reduce on-site energy consumption.

Um, and a very easy to install, although right now there are some safety um standards that um we're abiding to that can that still require some professional electricians to come in and help um with that process.

But across the country, I think eight or nine or maybe even ten plus states have already um basically allowed pass legislation um allowing residents to access this without the utility interconnection.

And so it's one of those easy ways that we can democratize access to solar and reduce some of those costs.

Um, another important way that tenants can access some of the financial benefits of solar is through community solar programs.

And I believe solar for all also uh provides that option for folks again.

And so those are two that first come to mind for me that the district has in place and that we can continue to fund and prioritize.

Or sorry, the first the district, there's pending legislation, the grid act, which we're hoping um will be before the whole, we'll get a committee to vote soon, we'll be before the whole committee as soon as possible.

Um, and then the other is already available, and as other folks have mentioned, we just need more funds in I believe the Renewable Energy Development Fund and the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund to just make sure that solar for all is able to expand and more folks can benefit from community solar.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um, Robin, that wanted to come to you as well.

You talked about deploying standalone storage and expanding attracting capital in your testimony.

I know we've had the hearing on the grid act already, but I'm curious to hear a bit more about what interventions you see the council being able to make either in the grid act or through other legislative action to do this.

Thank you for the question.

You know, broadly when when I talk about uh attracting capital, that is, you know, the ability to have distributed resources get deployed and adopted throughout the district.

Um, so you know, it's gonna be the homeowner or the business getting getting behind the meter resources on their property, or perhaps they're hosting uh a community solar system on their rooftop or or nearby on their property.

And that's bring that's attracting you know, just those projects, you know, the residential level, it's you know, just a couple tens of thousands of dollars.

Community solar, you get into a couple hundred thousand dollars of you know the what it costs, but that is that is financial you know, capital coming coming into the district or being utilized by by uh entities in the district.

Standalone storage is going to look uh quite similar as community solar.

It's you're gonna have project developers who want to come in, and they're gonna, you know, hopefully there's a there's good transparency.

So developers and other stakeholders know, hey, these are the areas, these circuits, this location, this neighborhood, where where storage assets can be uh most valuable to the district.

And it's important to, if you have if you're gonna encourage front of meter storage to develop a tariff that reflects the grid benefits that any asset would have based on its location and it and the time at which uh that asset would be operating.

So if it's discharging in peak demand or it's charging in an off-peak period, you know, you have you have this tariff, you have this document that then you know the storage has the rules of the road for how it can best operate for the grid, and the developer can develop can put that whole project together and the financials in a way that reflects and is based on the tariff in order to um you know take the project from concept to reality.

Absolutely.

Thank you for that.

And Nicole, good to see you as well.

Um you mentioned that we have fallen behind other jurisdictions on energy storage solutions.

Can you speak to who you see as serving as a model for energy storage and what steps can we take to uh improve our energy storage both in the short term and the long term?

Sure.

Um, and thanks.

Yeah, um, I think Connecticut and Massachusetts are really good examples of states that have adopted good energy storage uh policies and that have as a result expanded energy storage in their states.

Um, you know, I think the connected solutions program there is definitely one we should be looking at.

And um, you know, I think there's also just sort of interim steps we could be taking as we try to adopt that program here that would create value or incentives for people to go ahead and adopt those energy storage systems and start using them even on a crude crude basis in the near term at the times where our peak load roughly exists.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um thank you for that.

And Jennifer, I wanted to come to you.

Thank you for highlighting some of your concerns related to BSA subtitle E.

Do you know if there are examples of low income residents being transferred to third party suppliers?

It would be helpful to understand how common of an issue this currently is in the district.

Sure.

Um, thank you so much for the question.

So in the district today, there are no unique protections that apply to low-income customers or customers who are receiving utility assistance.

So the same rules of the road and the same processes that would apply to marketing to or enrolling a low-income customer, it would be the same as as any other customer in the district.

In a number of other jurisdictions, there are specific protections that apply to low-income customers.

For example, um, in some states, a supplier can only enroll or provide a product to a low-income customer if that customer is paying no more than they would have paid on default service.

So basically, there's there's kind of like a guaranteed savings provision that's incorporated.

Or another example that's a little unique comes from my home state of Ohio, where similar to DC, um, basic service pricing is set through an auction.

And in Ohio, we actually aggregate low-income customer load, and there's a separate auction mechanism that occurs that for the past 20 some plus years has typically resulted in a price that's even lower than default service being set.

So those are two examples of um alternative ways that the district could look at um providing some unique protection to low-income customers.

Thank you.

I appreciate those examples.

Um, thank you to this entire this panel of witnesses, has been really helpful.

Um, and thank you, Chairman Allen.

Um, I will uh yield back the remainder of my time to you.

All right, thank you very much.

Um Ms.

Spinocy, what I might do if you're okay staying at the table, I'm gonna call up um Mason Imnett and Kimberly Manning because I think we're talking about similar topics and then nope.

Janique Williams, you said.

Okay.

Got it.

I can make that adjustment.

Thank you.

Um, okay, so thank you very much to this panel.

I appreciate it.

Um, all right, so Ms.

Spinocy, if you'll stay here, Mason Emnett, Kimberly Manning, and Janique Williams.

And Ms.

Spinoza, you don't have to repeat all of your testimony.

Um, but it'll be helpful this way our conversations focused on a similar topic there.

Yeah, thank you.

All right, so Mason Emnett will start when you're ready.

Great.

Good morning.

Uh, Chairman Allen and members of the committee.

My name is Mason Emnett.

I am a district resident, and I'm here on behalf of Constellation Energy, a competitive energy supplier serving over two million customers nationwide, including customers here in the district.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Constellation shares the council's goal of making energy more affordable for residents and businesses.

In our view, in our view, affordability is best achieved by expanding customer choice while also maintaining strong consumer protections.

Competitive retail markets give customers the ability to select products that fit their needs, whether that means price stability, clean energy options, or innovative options that help manage energy usage and costs.

We are concerned the subtitle E of the Mayor's FY2027 Budget Support Act would move in the opposite direction.

The proposal would significantly limit the competitive marketplace, reducing customer options and making it harder for residents to access products that could help them manage their energy costs.

The district already has tools to address deceptive or unfair practices, and we support strong enforcement against bad actors, but restricting the market itself is not the right solution.

In particular, we urge the council to avoid price regulation that effectively eliminates competitive offerings.

Supplier products can provide features not available with standard utility service, such as fixed pricing, clean energy attributes, time of use structures, and demand response programs.

A pricing framework tied to default service does not account for these differences and would make it difficult for suppliers to offer these products at all.

Our experience in Maryland and other states shows that the restrictions contained in subtitle E reduce innovation, drive suppliers out of the market, and leave customers of fewer choices.

Changes changes of this magnitude deserve to be considered and deliberated openly so that solutions can be offered that are tailored to the concerns raised.

This could achieve consumer protections without taking away consumer choice.

As we heard earlier, the district also could pair consumer protections with longer-term contracting for SOS customers to stabilize their costs over longer periods of time.

As we also heard, maintaining customer choice furthers the district's clean energy goals, competitive suppliers can offer carbon-free energy options, advance electrification, and reduce peak demand, choices that are not available under the utilities default service.

At a time when these goals are more important than ever, the district should be finding ways to enable rather than limit customer options.

I respectfully urge the council to remove subtitle E and instead work collaboratively toward a balanced approach that protects consumers while preserving a vibrant and competitive energy market.

Thanks, and I look forward to any questions you might have.

Thank you very much.

Then next, let me turn to Kimberly Manning.

Good morning, Chairperson Allen and members of the Committee on Transportation and the Environment.

My name is Kimberly Manning.

I'm a district resident, Ward 6, and the owner of TBA, a woman-owned and diverse CBE located here in the District of Columbia.

We work with utility partners, including PEPCO, DDAT, and DC Water, on some of the most critical infrastructure projects in the city.

The DC Plug Project, the Capital Grid Project, the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge, and currently working with DC Water on the Clean Rivers, on many of their Clean Rivers projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding Bill B 2605 and 96, Utility Rates and Rate Making Amendment Act of 2026.

While I deeply respect the committee's goals to ensuring affordability for residents, I'm here today to urge you to proceed with caution regarding the unintended economic consequences of this legislation.

Specifically, I am concerned that the proceeding, excuse me, the proposed restrictions on the multi-year rate plans and infrastructure project approvals will negatively impact local businesses like mine and other CBEs.

The district's economic future depends on three deeply connected pillars modern infrastructure, resilient energy systems, and a thriving local business.

PIPCO's multi year rate plans and long term modernization investments have successfully advanced all three of these goals by providing a predictable, stable pipeline of work.

TBA's story is proof of what is possible when a utility provider has a long-term regulatory certainty to make the required and genuine multi-year commitments to supplier diversity.

Our business has grown because of working on PEPCO's Capital Grid.

This 10-year project to up our 10-year project to upgrade the capital grid.

What began for us as an infrastructure to opportunity to support a single project has evolved into sustainable partnerships.

Because of PEPCO's consistent local business engagement, our firm has been able to grow our workforce, expand and diversify our services, and become a trusted partner on other major infrastructure initiatives, as I mentioned earlier.

If B260596 restricts the ability to plan and invest long term, it will create a chilling effect on our local contracting.

When infrastructure projects are delayed or scale back due to rigid historic cost constraints, local CBEs, like ours, are the first to fuel the impact.

The success of the district-based firms is not accidental.

It relies on organizations having predictability and the ability to open their doors to local business.

As you consider right-sizing rates and increasing utility oversight, I urge the committee to protect the local supply chain.

Restricting infrastructure modernization does not just alter the utility ledger, it directly impacts small businesses that employ district residents.

I encourage council to find a balanced approach that maintains a strong oversight framework without dismantling the reliable project pipelines that sustain our local infrastructure.

Thank you for your time and your continued commitment to supporting infrastructure and the small business community.

Thank you very much.

And then Janique Williams now.

Good morning, Chairman Allen and committee members.

I'm Janique Williams from WGL Energy, and I serve as the manager of regulatory affairs and strategy.

And I'd first like to say I appreciate the opportunity to be here to discuss energy issues affecting the district and its residents.

WGL Energy is a homegrown company within the district and has been operating within DC since deregulation in 20 in 2001.

And we are committed to the district residents as well as we serve commercial entities.

And it's with that that we are here today to oppose subtitle 6 subsection E of the BSA entitled enhanced consumer protection in the Retail Energy Market Act.

First, I would like to say that we respect and see the importance of consumer protection within the energy marketplace as consumers really need to trust whomever they're dealing with.

However, we do believe that the proposal within the BSA is more of a market reform rather than consumer protection.

We believe that robust competition should be free of artificial price ceilings, and that and with that we object to the 110% price gap within the proposal, wherein suppliers cannot enroll a customer if it is that their rate exceeds the price gap stated.

And one of the most important differences is the way that utilities procure their supply versus a third-party supplier who procures energy in real time versus a utility that does it in a more staggered approach across one to three years or more.

And with that, we do feel that it is unfair because as we know that the PGM marketplace, that it's a very volatile market that suppliers are currently operating in.

And on that basis, we do believe that price certainty is important for consumers and should be looked at.

And because this proposal has such over has such ripple effects on the supplier market, we do believe that more consultation with industry stakeholders necessary to look at consumer protections that can be implemented, such as improving bond increasing bonding requirements for suppliers, or as Jennifer stated, looking at measures to protect lower income customers, such as ensuring that they cannot enroll in with a supplier if if the rate is greater than the utility SOS.

And consultation with industry is important, and we do not believe that this was done within the BSA process.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, so it's close.

Three out of four.

We're testifying on the same topic.

I'm gonna come back in a second, focus first on their testimony, then I'll come back to you in just a second.

Um Ms.

Spinocy, Ms.

Williams, and um Mr.

Emmet, thank you for your testimony on this.

Obviously, we're not actually at a BSA hearing, but I appreciate it here so we can kind of engage in the conversation around this.

Um, so as I understand from the mayor's proposal, which was in the introduced Budget Support Act, which is what you're coming to testify about and we'll be voting on in a week or two.

Um they made significant changes from what was passed in Maryland.

So I want you to kind of help address what you think the impacts would be, or if you don't think there would be any.

So in Maryland, they had a price cap of 105%.

The mayor's proposal is 110%, so they increase it.

Uh, they also give the public service commission the ability to go in and change that price cap so that it could be even higher if that were deemed necessary.

Why does that not address the issues that you're bringing?

Or is it that you just believe there should be no price cap, be it 110, 115, 120%, there shouldn't be a price cap um at all, and that defeats the overall purpose of what you're trying to put forward.

Does that make sense to what I'm trying to ask?

Yeah.

And I'll kind of turn over to whoever wants to jump in on that.

Uh with the passage of the Maryland, it goes up to 110%.

Depends on the term length of the contract, and even with the changes in the law, there still are no offers in Maryland.

Therefore, we believe that the changes has not been effective to really uh encourage suppliers to make these offers, or suppliers are just not willing to make the offer because the margin is just not there, based on the marketplace itself.

So therefore, if this proposal were to be uh implemented, we believe that the similar would occur where suppliers within the district would not be able to make offers within uh the price ceiling.

Do the suppliers offer in other states?

So the uh I think you're right, based on empirically what we can see, the number of suppliers offering in Maryland drops.

Um each of you as suppliers or who you're representing offer in other states?

Uh we offer in about seven states and the district.

Okay.

Yep, we do as well.

Um, and we participate in the Maryland market, and we have no offers in the Maryland market.

It's a it's a going forward the the price to compare in terms of the utility rate is set looking backward.

And we as suppliers set our rates looking forward.

So we're locking in as said, we're locking in for a period in time, 12, 24, you know, some customers up to 36 months, but kind of 12 to 24 is normal.

And so, you know, you're operating a gas station.

As the operator of the gas station, you're looking forward at what your costs are gonna be.

And if you're you have a customer coming in wanting to lock in for a period in time, you're gonna be looking at your forward costs.

That's what we are doing as suppliers.

The utility rate is a what are costs that have been incurred in procurements that have been running, and the rate represents the outcome of that math.

It's just apples and oranges.

And so when we have a cap that's imposed based on an apple, when we are selling an orange, we just can't make the math work.

Okay.

And then Ms.

Spinosi does clean, sorry, make sure I say it correctly, clean choice energy.

Do you operate in other states or offer other states too?

Yes, we serve residential customers in 12 states across the country.

And I think Mr.

Emmett did a good job of kind of explaining the logistics.

If I could put it into a shorthand phrase, one of my favorites in energy is that historical pricing is not indicative of future pricing.

So I think to to maybe provide a succinct answer to your question, I don't think the percentage of the price cap really matters.

As a fundamental, it's anti-competitive and really not consistent with having a functional market to require suppliers in present day to stay within a cap that's based upon a price that was set on historical information.

Got it.

All right, devil's advocate.

If I'm a cynic, why wouldn't I say you offer and operate in many other states?

Uh so one state, Maryland in this example, makes a policy choice.

Um you operate in other states, so you just choose the other set, go to the other states that don't have price caps and just exit the marketplace of Maryland.

Um, because you can just operate in those other states.

Why is that not hold?

Um we can.

Customers aren't happy about it.

Over 70% of customers in Maryland are complaining that they've lost the choice.

Their only option is the utility, which they are deeply unhappy with.

Right, but that's not my question.

What I'm asking is you you, as the supplier, you can operate in other states.

I think a cynical person would say you just have choices.

You can go make your money by offering in other states rather than in Maryland that's put a price cap, which is gonna uh artificially say this is the this is the maximum amount that you're able to earn.

So logically, as a business, you'd say, I'm not gonna deal over there, I'm gonna go over into other states.

I know that's I guess I want to push back really quickly though on the premise.

It's it's not a this isn't about returns.

None of us have a guaranteed rate of return.

This is about the price that can be offered.

And I do think it's important to underscore we don't our cost of goods is not the same as the utility.

Our um operating expenses not the same as the utility.

And so it's really, it's not a this isn't at least in my view, as drafted, this isn't about regulating our company's profit margins.

This is about how or whether we can go to market.

And I mean, I think your your question is is a valid one.

What we saw is that when Maryland priced, you know, passed a policy that included a price cap, suppliers did exit the market, and consumers suffered as a result.

And we're very, as Mr.

Emmett said, we're very upset when the choice that they had made was taken away by their state legislature.

Okay.

And then it's not, you know, nobody has to shop.

There's no, it's not an obligation to shop.

It's it's a choice.

And today in the district, there are about 20% of residential customers that have chosen.

And so, you know, even then it's not.

As a customer, like what's what's the benefit to me to purchase something that's 115, 120, in other words, over 110% the rate of SOS.

Uh, firstly, I would say it depends on the product.

Uh, a lot of times it's uh, as Mr.

Emmett said, it's not really apples to apples, it might be a hundred percent renewable product, or a customer might be getting special benefits attached, whether it's like incentive programs, reward programs, that would make it worth their while to pay a little bit extra for that product.

And then, as mentioned earlier, there's also price certainty over time.

We are in a, we operate in the PGM market, we have both generation and we sell we serve customers across the PGM footprint.

It is a very volatile market.

As mentioned earlier, we saw this coming.

We could have all within the regulatory community been doing more to prepare the um the suggestion of longer-term contracts to protect the default customers is a great one, but we are in a moment where the wholesale market is going to have fluctuating prices for probably several years to come, and customers that would choose to on the retail side like to lock in their price for a period in time.

I have a fixed rate mortgage instead of a variable rate mortgage.

The variable might save me a little bit of money in the short run, but when it when the price hits, it might not be good for me in the long run.

That's the choice that some consumers will make when they are given the choice.

Okay.

That's helpful.

I do want to make sure I asked a question, Ms.

Manning, which is a different topic, so thank you for your patience there.

Um, one of the questions I was gonna ask.

So part of what I took from your testimony is opposition to the bill in front of us because it would make it harder to do multi-year rate plans.

Um, and if I followed your testimony correctly, the growth of that work as a small business, you're able to count on longer terms of work.

Absolutely.

But if we also saw a multi-year rate plan struck down from the courts, how does how destabilizing is that for you?

One of the things when I've talked about our utilities, when the decision a PSC makes then gets vacated by a court and remanded back, it's actually very destabilizing to everybody because the utility company had to make a series of choices, assumptions, hiring expenditures based on what they thought was a plan, and a court vacating it really upends some of their own planning process, right?

So as a small business, how does that impact yours?

I mean, we really haven't had very many multi-year rate plans.

So as a business that's been growing over years, why did that one decision be better for you as a small business in our city and how destabilizing is it when that gets vacated?

Well, so we I testified before the PSC on this same topic.

Um we were allowed at that time to train, to hire, to um make sure that we were staffed up for this particular project and other projects as well.

So if we were not able to have those long-term planning, every project takes a long time.

The bridge took a long time, the tunnels take a long time, everything is planning.

But we're able to, when we know we get those contracts, we know that we have this, you know, that infinite amount of time, or not infinite, but that finite amount of time.

If we were to plan annually, it definitely denigrates our ability to plan and budget as a small business.

Um, yes, we've grown and we've diversified, but I have dedicated staff to Pepco that are working on Pepco projects that rely on that long-term planning.

Okay.

All right, that's helpful.

Thank you very much.

Um, all right, let me turn to Council Patreon White.

Although I think he had said he was he's still logged in, but I think he was stepping away for a staff meeting.

So let me turn, let's say Councillor Henderson stepped away for a moment as well.

So council member Lewis George, let me turn to you.

Uh thank you, Chairman Allen.

Um, I think you covered most of it, but uh Mason, I wanted to come to you and understand something.

So if utility pricing is historical and suppliers are using future forecasting to set pricing.

If these are Apple and Oranges, as you said, um what policy solutions can help attract suppliers to offer to customers in the district.

Sure.

Um, so the the ability, the flexibility from a supplier perspective, the ability to tailor products to customer needs, and they will be chosen or not, um, right?

If we're in a period where right now the default offer rate is lower than a lot of third-party supplier rates, now the third-party suppliers are offering other types of products, renewable, 100% clean products.

Um, and so again, back to the Apple and Orange.

It may be that they're just two different things, and people are choosing the Apple versus the orange based on their preference.

Um, in terms of policies of the district, in order to maintain that choice, you know, I think it is maintaining just the flexibility for customers to offer.

That's not to say don't do other things like evaluate consumer protection, some of some of the practices that um people have concerns about, really.

Let's dig in on them and tailor the solutions to those concerns.

It's just what we've seen in other states, is the um knee-jerk reaction to a price cap leads in a total closure of the market, not achieving what the actual goal was going into the conversation.

Got it.

And you had mentioned Maryland earlier as an example of what could happen by limiting customer options.

Can you share more about what Maryland utility customers have experienced?

Um, sure, from our customer perspective, it's complaints, not being happy about returning uh back to the utility service, um, and asking us what we can do to provide them products going forward, and we don't have the ability within the current market structure.

Um so there was a lot of conversation in Annapolis over the past session, uh, and there were some changes that were made, but as mentioned, um they didn't go far enough to fix the problems with the earlier solutions that were adopted that were again in good intent.

They they became unworkable.

And so that's what we're encouraging is to kind of look to the Maryland experience and tailor solutions that are better suited for the district.

Got it.

Okay.

And Jennifer, thank you for staying on to bring your perspective to this panel as well.

You brought forward some very helpful examples earlier.

What are the most important priorities that we should be focused on in terms of consumer protection that will protect consumer choice?

Thank you so much for the question.

It's an excellent one.

I think that customer education goes hand in hand with advancing customer choice.

A customer who understands what the difference is between a utility provider and a competitive supplier, understands some of the basic parameters of the contract, like is the price fixed or is it variable?

Is there an early termination fee?

You know, Clean Choice, for example, has a product that's priced at a premium because it's renewable energy, but we never charge early termination fees.

So if a customer wants to cancel their contract, they can get out of it at any time.

I think if you one of your questions earlier, you know, asked about a model state.

And I think Pennsylvania is a really great example.

They've had a very robust market.

I think close to 50% of the residential customers in Pennsylvania choose a supplier.

And they have a wonderful public affairs office at their utilities commission.

So when utility prices change, they send out public, they send out press releases, they've engaged in a multi-dimensional multi-year campaign around customer education.

Their shopping website on an annual basis receives a million visitors, and that's just a wonderful tool for you know frequently asked questions and some basic information.

It also has a shopping site, so that if customers want to compare, you know, what's the best available price for me in my utility territory at this at that time, they can do that.

They're the director of their public affairs office has done several you know webinars.

So I really think that the most effective tool for consumer protection is customer engagement.

You know, this can be a complicated market, and the more information access that customers have, the better empowered they will be to make the choice that's right for them.

Yeah, and particularly here in district, the customers I worry the most about are most vulnerable customers, particularly our seniors, where things that can become complicated is a hindrance.

And so I think we also have to think about what are best practices for seniors, and then also as you know, language access is a huge gap here and important for us to address here in the district, and so yeah, just thinking about language access and that that issue we have here, and as well as making sure our seniors are fully informed before making decisions and are protected against some of the vulnerabilities as a result of their age.

Yes.

One other just very quick idea on regarding seniors and other vulnerable folks.

Some states also have a process in place that's called a utility block or a do-not transfer list.

So if you're a person who, you know, if you're caring for your parents or an aunt or uncle, and you, you know, aren't sure that they really understand this market, or you don't think that they should be engaging in competitive choice because you know they might not make a good decision.

There are programs where that customer can actually request to their utility that a block be placed on their account so that they wouldn't be switched and they would just, you know, stay on standard service.

And and we think that that's a great tool for customers, you know, who might not be interested in participating in the market, or when there's those unique vulnerability uh situations.

Yeah.

Uh thank you so much.

Thank you again to this this panel of witnesses, and I will uh yield the remainder of my time to the chair.

All right, thank you very much.

Um I appreciate your testimonies, all of you.

Uh thank you very much.

All right, next, let me move to our next panel.

I'm gonna call up Rob Lemming from Pepco, Amber Perry from PEPCO, Nikia Crossley, Director of Regulatory Affairs for DC with Washington Gas Light Company, and Cynthia Quarterman, independent consultant with Washington Gas Light Company.

It's still morning.

It's not quite at noon.

So good morning to you.

And maybe we'll just go straight down the line this way.

Uh so Mr.

Lemming, we'll start with you.

Mr.

Lemming, sorry to interrupt you.

If you could push the buttons, the red light comes on, and then you're all set.

There you go.

Good morning, Chairman Allen, members of the committee, and members of the community.

My name is Rob Lemming, and I serve as Pepco's vice president of regulatory policy and strategy.

Let me start by acknowledging what we all know.

Families across the district are feeling real pressure from rising energy bills.

We hear that concern clearly, and we share it.

Today I want to focus on one key question.

How do we keep the lights on reliably while keeping costs as predictable and manageable as possible?

I'll briefly explain how your energy bill works, what a multi-year plan or a budget and improvement plan is, and why we believe it benefits our customers.

Then my colleague Amber Perry, Pepco's region president, will discuss the specific actions Pepco is taking to support customer affordability.

Let me start with something important.

Pepco does not control most of your energy bill.

Think of Pepco like a delivery service.

We deliver electricity safely and reliably to your home or business, but we don't produce the electricity itself.

On a typical bill, more than half is the cost of generating electricity.

This is what we call supply.

That supply cost is set by regional markets and it's passed through directly to customers.

Pepco does not control or profit from these charges.

About 25% is the cost of maintaining and upgrading the local distribution grid.

This is the infrastructure that delivers power to you, and this is what Pepco does control.

Here's why that matters.

Most of the increase in costs to customers over the past few years have come from supply, not from PEPCO's delivery charges.

These increases are being driven by factors like increasing demand for electricity, including from data centers and electrification, the retirements of older power plants, and a transition to cleaner energy resources as a result of local and federal policies.

So if PEPCO does not control supply costs more than half of the bill, what can we control?

This brings me to how we plan and manage our investments into our delivery system.

A multi-year plan is simply a long-term budget improvement plan for the electric grid.

It allows PEPCO, the Public Service Commission, and customers to see what work will be done, how much it will cost, and how rates will change over several years.

Instead of making first investments first and asking to recover those costs later, MYPs allow us to lay out the work up front, explain why it is needed, show the costs and bill impacts to customers, and allow the commission, advocates, and the public an opportunity to review and challenge that before anything gets built.

A simple way to think about it, a multi-year plan is actually very similar to something the council does every year or five-year capital plan.

Just like the district lays out a multi-year plan for investments in roads, schools, and public infrastructure and votes on those priorities in advance.

PEPCO's multi-year plan lays out the investments needed to maintain and strengthen the electric grid over several years along with the expected costs.

That process allows the commission stakeholders and the public to review what's being proposed, ask questions, make adjustments, and understand the impacts before decisions are finalized.

Without that kind of forward planning, investments would be handled one at a time after the fact and with far less visibility and opportunities for input.

So it really comes down to this.

Would you rather see the full plan ahead of time, understand the cost, and have a voice in shaping it, or would you rather get the bill after the work is already done?

Multi-year plans follow that first approach, planning ahead with transparency and accountability built in.

So what does this mean in real terms for our customers?

First, predictability.

Costs are spread out over time, which helps avoid sudden spikes in costs on bills.

Second, transparency, everything is reviewed before the dollars are spent, not after.

Third, accountability.

PEPCO's plans are heavily scrutinized by the Public Service Commission, the public, and other stakeholders, and require ongoing reporting and audits and oversight.

Most importantly, the commission still decides what rates are just and reasonable.

But I also want to address a key concern we've heard.

If bills are rising, how can MYPs be working?

Rising bills are real, and I want to acknowledge that upfront.

Ms.

Perry will walk through the details, but at a high level, most of what's driving those increases is happening outside of PEPCO's control, particularly on the supply side.

What I want to focus on is the portion we do control and how we manage it responsibly.

First, our investment levels under multi-year plans are not increasing faster than they have historically.

In fact, PEPCO's residential distribution charges rank in the lowest 10% of investor-owned utilities in the country.

Second, multi-year plans allow those investments to be planned, reviewed, and spread out over time rather than showing up as larger, more sudden increases.

And that matters because those investments are what keep the system reliable, especially during extreme weather, support a more modern grid that can handle growing demand and enable the district to meet clean energy goals.

So while we cannot control the broader market pressures driving much of today's bill increases, multi-year plans are one of the key tools we have to manage the portion we do control in a more transparent, predictable, and disciplined way.

We appreciate the council's focus on affordability and the intent behind the utility rates and rate making amendment act of 2026.

At a high level, our concern is that parts of the bill, as written, could make it difficult to plan effectively because they combine forward-looking planning with requirements based strictly on historic costs.

We believe there is an opportunity to preserve the transparency and accountability of multi-year plans while also strengthening customer protection and affordability tools.

And we're committed to working collaboratively with the council and other stakeholders to achieve this.

So let me close with this.

PEPCO is committed to being a transparent, accountable partner in addressing the affordability challenges DC customers are facing.

Multi-year plans are not a departure from customer protection, they're an enhancement to it.

They give customers, regulators, and advocates more visibility, more control, and more predictability than traditional rate making ever could.

Our communities across other communities across the country have successfully adopted multi-year plans because they recognize the value these frameworks provide.

Predictability for customers, transparency for regulators, and alignment with policy goals.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

We know there's more work to do.

We know affordability must remain at the center of everything we do, and we're committing to working with the council, the public service commission, consumer advocates, and all stakeholders to get this right.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Perry.

All right.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairman Allen and members of the committee.

My name is Amber Perry, PEPCO's region president, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

It is an honor to serve the nation's capital.

And Washington, D.C.

must have a top-tier utility company capable of supporting the needs of a growing modern capital city.

That responsibility guides the investments we make, the way we serve our customers, and how we prepare the electric system for this for the future.

We recognize the strain higher energy bills are placing on customers and remain focused on supporting the community to address rising energy costs while continuing to deliver safe, reliable energy service every day.

While PEPCO does not control the cost of energy supply, which is set through regional electricity markets, we are focused on what we can control, maintaining a reliable and resilient local grid, connecting customers with assistance, improving customer experience, and working with policymakers on practical solutions that improve affordability.

Today I want to focus on three areas: what PEPCO controls and the value customers receive from our investments, what is driving higher energy bills, and how we can work together on solutions for district residents.

PEPCO manages the local distribution grid, the polls, the wires, which are the infrastructure that safely delivers electricity to homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, critical services across the district.

That portion of the bill reflects the investments we make and the costs we directly manage.

Since 2021, the average residential distribution portion of a customer's bill, the portion associated with PEPCO's delivery of safe and reliable service, has increased by approximately $13.

During that same period, supply-related costs have increased significantly, driven in part by regional capacity auction prices established through the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland Interconnection known as PJM energy markets.

These capacity costs are a direct pass-through to customers and are not set or controlled by PEPCO.

For a perspective, capacity auction prices have increased from approximately $29 to more than $330 for the same amount of electricity capacity.

This dramatic increase in regional supply costs, along with growing electricity demand, power plant retirements, and limited new generation coming online are the biggest drivers behind higher customer bills.

And while cost matters, performance and customer value matter as well.

Over the past decade, targeted investments in the district's electric system have delivered clear results, outages are down nearly 60%.

And recent severe weather like winter storm Fern this past January caused far fewer disruptions than similar events in the past.

The grid's strong performance reflects years of deliberate, sustained investment.

Those investments are also preparing the district for the future.

Through programs like Capital Grid and other infrastructure modernization efforts, we are building the energy foundation needed to support housing growth, economic development, electrification, and the district's clean energy goals.

Turning to the issue we're all focused on, affordability.

The energy industry is undergoing significant change and we are at an important inflection point.

Several regional factors are coming together at the same time across the energy industry.

Less local power plants to generate energy, more demand for electricity as customer electricity needs grow across the region, and increasing cost of achieving important clean energy policy objectives, including the district's transition towards 100% renewable energy by 2032.

While the system is under pressure, it comes with real cost implications.

That is why careful planning, regional coordination, and a focus on affordability are so critical right now.

It is important to understand what makes up a customer's bill.

Approximately 25% is distribution, the portion managed by PEPCO, the poles, the wires, the crews.

Approximately 60% is energy supply, currently the largest driver of increases, and the remaining portion includes transmission, taxes, and other required charges.

I will also note that a portion of the 60% of supply includes cost to support renewable energy compliance requirements.

As electricity demand continues to grow, including from larger energy users, we also believe it is important to ensure policies are structured so residential customers are protected and costs are allocated fairly.

As we work together to provide near-term and long-term solutions, no single organization can solve affordability alone.

It requires partnership among utilities, policymakers, regulators, advocates, businesses, and communities.

We must all do our part to support our customers and the residents of the district.

In the near term, there are opportunities to support our customers.

These include reviewing regulatory requirements to better balance customer affordability with continued progress on clean energy goals, and strengthening consumer protections and oversight of third-party energy suppliers.

At the same time, advancing the following actions can deliver immediate tangible benefits.

Expanding energy efficiency programs in the district to reduce energy usage, enabling virtual power plant capabilities that leverage customer-owned resources to reduce demand on the grid, piloting battery storage to reduce peak demand and lower system cost, and expanding community solar access for limited to moderate income customers.

Together, these steps can drive near-term bill savings, improve grid performance, and position the region to meet growing demand driven by electrification while delivering reliable, affordable service for customers.

Reliability, resilience, affordability, and clean energy cannot be viewed separately.

Customers experience one energy system, and our responsibility is to ensure that system works and is accessible to everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity today to talk about this important issue.

I look forward to our continued collaboration and welcome your questions.

Thank you very much.

And Ms.

Crosslake.

Thank you and good morning, Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Nikia Crosley, Director of DC Regulatory Affairs at Washington Gas, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to provide testimony concerning the legislative proposal before us today.

Washington Gas provides safe and reliable natural gas service to approximately 165,000 customers in the district and more than 1.2 million customers across the region.

Safety is our top priority and the foundation of every investment decision that we make.

We recognize and share the concern driving this legislation.

District residents are facing rising utility costs and affordability must remain central to the council's work.

We are committed to being part of that solution.

At the same time, the bill's provisions would materially change how safety investments are evaluated in ways that could increase both long-term costs and system risk.

Today, the Public Service Commission already has the authority and expertise to balance affordability, safety, and reliability.

The commission reviews these decisions in detail, including alternatives and cost effectiveness on a case-by-case basis.

Under long-standing rate-making principles, the question is whether an investment is prudent and used and useful in providing safe and reliable service, not whether its benefits can be fully quantified in advance.

Replacing that flexible framework with prescriptive statutory requirements risks limiting the commission's ability to apply its judgment to what our real-world system needs.

A key concern is the requirement to demonstrate positive net benefits.

For safety-driven investments, the primary benefit is risk reduction.

Much of our system includes approximately 400 miles of cast iron pipe, some more nearly a century old, which are widely recognized as leak-prone and higher risk.

Replacement of this infrastructure is driven by the need to reduce the probability and consequences of failure over time and to meet federal safety expectations.

These are preventative investments.

Their value is in avoiding low probability but high consequence events.

That type of benefit does not lend itself to precise quantification in advance, but it is fundamental to protecting residents and maintaining system integrity.

From an affordability perspective, delaying necessary replacement does not eliminate the costs.

In fact, it shifts them.

A more reactive approach increases reliance on repairs, creates operational inefficiencies, and can lead to higher long-term costs and greater rate volatility while introducing a higher level of system risk.

The practical effect is fewer proactive replacements, greater reliance on reactive repairs, and ultimately higher long-term costs with increased risk to the system.

The bill also emphasizes alternatives such as leak detection and repair.

While those practices are important, they are reactive and do not address the underlying condition of aging infrastructure.

Replacing high-risk pipe remains the most effective way to reduce long-term system risk.

Any alternative must reduce the risk to the same extent as replacement.

If it does not, it is not consistent with established safety practices.

In total, these provisions could delay needed safety investments, increase overall system costs, and reduce the commission's flexibility to respond to changing conditions, outcomes that do not ultimately serve customers.

In closing, we believe the path forward should not be a choice between affordability and safety.

Both are essential, and both can be achieved through thoughtful data-driven regulation.

We respectfully ask to work in partnership with the council to identify solutions that address affordability concerns while preserving the ability to make critical safety investments.

Together, we can determine the best course of action to protect district residents and ensure a system that is both safe and affordable.

We will be submitting more detailed written testimony following this hearing, and of course, we remain available at any time to discuss this proposal further or provide any additional information that might be helpful to you as you continue your deliberations.

Thank you again.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Crossley and Ms.

Quarterman.

Good afternoon, Chairman Allen, members of the committee.

My name is Cynthia Quarterman.

I am the former, a former administrator of the Pipeline and Hazards Material Safety Administration of the Department of Interior, the U.S.

Department of Dis Department of Transportation.

It's a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak before the DC Council's Transportation and Environment Committee today about the utility rates and rate making amendment act of 2026.

As the FIMSA, as a short-term shorthand name for the Pipeline Hazard Material Safety Administration administrator, during the Obama years, I personally witnessed several low-probability, high-consequence pipeline incidents involving vintage pipe that destroyed communities and caused catastrophic injuries and deaths.

In fact, so many of them occurred within a few months while I was the administrator, I led a nationwide call to action in 2011.

At that time, national data showed that certain pipeline materials, such as cast or wrought iron, bare steel, early vintage plastic pipe, and pipelines that used certain old-fashioned joining practices installed prior to the 1970s and largely before federal pipeline standards were created, were well beyond their forecasted lifespan and failing at disproportionate rates.

Gas distribution lines were specifically targeted because of their proximity to homes, businesses, and communities.

Forty-one states and territories, including the District of Columbia, introduced accelerated removal of those pipeline materials.

Since the call to action, remarkable improvements have occurred nationwide, with the removal of more than 59% of cast iron mains and 49% of bare steel mains and 56% of services.

24 states and one territory have eliminated cast iron from their systems.

By comparison, the District of Columbia has removed only 11% of its cast iron mains and 36% of its bare steel mains and 34% of its services.

As one of the earliest natural gas pipeline adopters, DC has the unfortunate distinction of currently having the largest percentage of pre-1940 cast iron pipe, accounting for 31% of its system, which is more than twice the percentage of cast iron in any other state, any state.

The reason removing this pipe remains important is that while only one percent of distribution mains across the country are cast iron, they account for 8% of incidents, and 38% of those incidents lead to a fatality or an injury while comparing to only 19% for the remaining 99% of distribution mains.

Indeed, 33% of all fatalities on gas distribution mains involve cast or wrought iron pipes.

The DC Council, this committee, the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia should be proud of DC's safety achievements and efforts so far.

But as those numbers show, DC must stay the course.

FIMSA requires a proactive replacement focused approach to this ancient pipe.

In most instances, repair of the fragile pipe is never sufficient or even appropriate.

And trying to do so can increase the risk of an incident.

DC should do everything in its power to remove vintage pipe materials faster and not slow down or add barriers to its removal.

To the extent this act would inhibit pipeline safety, I recommend the committee reconsider its current composition or its enactment.

I urge this committee to continue to support the effort to remove high-risk vintage natural gas pipeline materials as soon as possible, even as DC advances, its important climate goals.

It is of the utmost urgency that all gas pipes be operationally safe and reliable when customers need service.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today.

Thank you very much.

Thanks to everyone on this panel.

Or just keep going.

So when I think about potential upsides of a multi-year rate process, looking at other jurisdictions as well, it does feel like it helps us incentivize long-term planning, and can think about how do we help incentivize utilities to lower overall emissions and reach renewable energy goals through a plan and through performance incentive mechanisms.

PIMs can come to mind.

So in the original pilot for DC's multi-year rate, it included a PIM incentive incentivized the utility to stay aligned with the district's goal of reaching 100% renewable by 2032.

Why was that not implemented for this multi-year rate plan?

Great question.

I certainly appreciate the sentiment there.

Um I will say from our perspective, we do want to make sure these plans are aligned, and I think uh one of our earlier panelists talked about the importance of aligning utility incentives with customer and district policy incentives.

Uh the reason that that PIM was not included in this most current plan that was brought forward was we've been going through a working group process with the commission to evaluate those performance incentive metrics, how we measure them, how they should be uh financially rewarded or considered in the construct, and we wanted to be mindful from our perspective to not front run that process and move them forward into the plan before that work group had gotten consensus on exactly how they would work.

So that was logistically why we did not see them here in this proposal.

Okay.

I mean, I have yet to have anybody ever come tell me you know what moves fast, public service commission.

And that could be whether it's a work group or whether it's a rate-making case.

I hear complaints from our utilities as well as advocates that just say it is a grinding entity to get to a decision.

So I I'm concerned when we think, okay, here's a here's a policy rationale or a policy goal we want to place, and we'll kick it to a work group, and there it's convenient to kick the dog.

Uh, the work group's the thing we just got to beat up on.

They haven't finished that work, so therefore we can't do this.

Um, so in lieu of a PIM, how does PEPCO, for example, say, alright, we we've got the, you know, that 2032 goal.

Um, so here's how we're meeting it.

How does PEPCO say here's how we're trying to meet that emissions goal, and here's how we're gonna reach 100% renewal by 2032?

Yeah.

Uh, absolutely.

I think the multi-year plan process really gives us that form to lay out that plan for all stakeholders to see what are we doing?

What technologies are we going to be leveraging and implementing over that time?

How are we gonna get there and support the district in getting there?

And so, from our perspective, that's why we see it as a critical tool for alignment to be able to lay that out.

Um, I think I hear your your concern and share uh, you know, I think you referenced utilities have expressed frustration with timelines as well, and we're more than open to considering how we might collaborate with uh either the council or other parties in these proceedings to advance that PIMS construct.

Because candidly speaking, from where I sit, I do think it is of the utmost importance for us to find ways to align utility incentives with that of the parties in these proceedings.

So we're all working towards that common goal around alignment.

So you know, I offer that as an area that we are more than willing to you know figure out maybe independently how we can collaborate on it and move more uh expeditiously.

Okay.

Um we heard some of our witnesses earlier highlight the fact that over the last couple of years we've seen 70 million dollars swept out of the sustainable energy trust fund.

Um these are funds that we pay on our PEPCO bill uh and gas bill, uh, but they're coming through there.

They get reinvested back into Solar for All and many other programs, um, and we know that they provide a benefit and move us toward our goal.

When is PEPCO come to advocate for the SETF restoration of dollars that are being swept?

So let's speak to them.

So, Chairman Allen, I think when it comes to um the fund itself, I think some of the things that we're looking at on the bill, and I kind of went through some of the details of the breakdown of the bill.

I think our position is really reassessing the the portion of increasing costs that are associated with clean energy uh targets, clean energy requirements.

One of the very specific areas that I mentioned is the are the SREX, which is about 15% on a customer's bill.

So I think our position is really looking at all of the costs, whether they are related to clean energy targets, whether they're significantly rated uh related to 60% of the bill, which are the supply costs.

But I think what we've got to do, as I mentioned in my testimony, we're at an inflection point right now where I think every bit of uh cost sensitivity that our customers are feeling is a time to go back and think about where do we need to seek reform, where do we need to seek um areas that are too aggressive right now for our customers because we've got this uh you know supply and demand imbalance that we're trying to manage, while also in addition to that managing clean energy targets.

So, you know, our position is reassessing all of those right now to understand what's the right balance as we're moving forward.

Okay, but that didn't answer my question, which was you have an SETF fee, 70 million of which has been swept taken, and we don't PEPCO's never once come said we got to restore that.

In other words, that money's being taken from ratepayers from residents from businesses, and it's just being spent on the city's electric bill.

But we've never once had PEPCO come say, you gotta restore that.

Rate payers paid it.

It needs to be reinvested back into uh whether it be solar for all, energy efficiency, the SEU, hadn't happened.

So let me get back to the multi-year rate case though.

So this legislation in front of us doesn't prohibit multi-year rate cases.

So I want to understand a little more about your objections to it, because it still allows you to have a multi-year uh plan, but it has put conditions on it.

So one of those conditions is the rate proposal sets the proposed base rates on the basis of actual historic costs.

I'm quoting here, sets proposed base rates on the basis of actual historic costs with allowance for adjustments to reflect known and measurable changes and costs for the rate effective period.

Would that be new, or would that be something you already do?

The legislation as it's proposed.

Correct.

As proposed in front of us sets that.

Does that create a new requirement on you, or that is a practice you already have?

I think my concern is um perhaps the ambiguity in terms of how you define what is an adjustment for a known and measurable change.

And I'd maybe analogize our concerns back to I think a lot of what we heard from suppliers in terms of we operate a business and we we compare it to exactly what the council does, where we look forward in time, figure out what we need to do and what what it's gonna take to fund that important work from our customers.

If we're looking back in time to seal a line from one of my earlier panelists, that the math won't math for us, right?

Um and so, you know, just putting it in context, and we've talked about the the timelines in front of the commission.

If we file a plan in 26 here, it's taken us between 18 months and two years to have those heard and decided.

So if we filed a plan in 26 that was based on 25 costs, we might not get a decision until 28 in terms of what we're doing for 28, 29, and 30.

By then we're looking at customer programs and customer offerings and trying to figure out how to make them work with what it took to run our business in 2025.

And our concern there is just that we will we will be dramatically underfunded in our ability to support critical customer programs and deliver them the service that they expect at that time.

So, as I said, we appreciate the um I think spirit of the bill in terms of enhancing guardrails.

We certainly think there's opportunity for that and are happy to work with the council on how we might enhance those guardrails.

But I think our concern is just that that kind of ambiguity in terms of how do you get from 25 to 28, 29, 30 cost with just known and measurable changes.

Okay.

I guess this might be somewhat related to this.

So another restriction that's in the proposed bill uh would say that it does not allow for the public utility to file for reconciliation of cost or revenue variants of the approved revenue component used by the commission to establish just and reasonable rates.

Is that in line with what you were just talking about as well?

Yes, and I think um that's a great question.

That's something there were the commission actually stood up a lessons learned working group to look at MYPs, how they've been working.

Candidly speaking, we in that working group offered up that we don't know that these reconciliation processes should be part of a multi-year plan.

We've heard the feedback, uh we've we've lived through them and experienced them ourselves.

We don't know that they're the most effective mechanism and procedure, and we've proposed ourselves that um they perhaps be removed and there's other things that we can look at to align our incentives better going forward that we'd be happy to talk with folks about as well.

All right, and just for the public's sake, could you what is reconciliation mean?

Uh, just in layman's terms, so folks know that next week.

Reconciliation is basically the commission sets forth a plan and says, you know, we approximate this plan will cost uh 10 million dollars for the next year.

It's 10 million dollars to go do that.

If it ended up at that plan cost 11 million dollars or 9 million dollars, the reconciliation would effectively true up to say, you know, the utility gets an additional one million or gives back an additional one million if the plan varied at all.

Okay, so what would be the practical impact of limiting reconciliation then?

Um it would give us every incentive to uh drive down costs as effectively as we possibly can uh to ultimately benefit our our customers in terms of driving our cost of service as as low as it possibly can.

And I want to be clear that is an obligation and a focus we take very seriously and we do today.

Um, you know, but but sending signals to utilities are are impactful and financial signals are impactful things to say if this is your revenue and that's what you have to live with in.

Uh it sends a very direct signal to the utility to make sure we are absolutely optimizing every opportunity for savings.

Okay.

And we've been rejoined by counselor Lewis George, so I'll just ask one more question on this theme and then I'll turn to Counselor Lewis George for a round.

Um, would the standard offer service process be used if the PSC suspended multi-year rate planning, for instance?

Uh those are those are two different uh constructs.

The standard offer service construct is how we go out and procure supply for our customers.

So uh if a customer's not shopping for their actual electrons that they're gonna buy, we hold auctions every year to buy power for a three-year period.

And so that standard offer service processes is how we procure supply for customers that aren't shopping.

The multi-year plan process is how we set our distribution rate to deliver those electrons to customers.

So they're they're two separate kind of mechanisms that handle different parts of the bill.

And I guess what I'm trying to get is our SOS essentially would be unchanged, regardless of the reconciliation process or multi-year, yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Alright, thank you.

All right, Counselor Lewis George, let me turn to you for a round of questions, and thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, Mr.

Leming, I want to start with you.

Um, you mentioned that multi-year rate plans are more transparent.

Um, how do you actually calculate prospective pricing?

And how is that how is it that this process is more transparent when costs are speculative?

Uh certainly, and thank you for the question.

Under multi-year plans, what we do is we uh we present parties with a historic test year, so we'll look back at a prior year and say, here's here's what it costs to run our business, here's all the investments we made, here's all the operating expenses we have to incur, and then we provide our forecast for our next three years in terms of what work are we gonna do?

What's that work gonna cost?

How are we gonna staff and execute that work uh so that we can have that proactive conversation before we go off and do the work to say, are these the right priorities for PEPCO to be focusing on?

Do we agree with all these projects?

Do we think they're all necessary now, or can they perhaps be delayed and spaced out?

Um, and that that's the transparency I'm talking about in terms of a multi-year plan that we we have that information available to parties to look at what we're going to do for the next three years and align on if we should do it and if we should do it at that pace or perhaps slow it down, which um candidly speaking is actually what we've heard in the past two plans that we had approved by the commission that these plans look great, but you know, from an affordability perspective, we need PEPCO to curtail investment and slow down, and so from our perspective, that's been a tremendous benefit we've seen in terms of that feedback happening before we go off and spend uh customer dollars.

And thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um why has your rate base grown so much more after we started using multi-year rate plans?

And do you expect your rate base to continue growing under future multi-year rate plans?

Thank you for that question, and that's something I would very much like to uh clear up.

I um I want to be clear our rate base has not grown more under multi-year plans than it has under traditional rate making.

Uh I believe I saw a letter that was filed perhaps from Commissioner Beverly in a docket this morning that referenced some figures I heard earlier this morning uh from one of our panelists.

Um we are we are going to review and and respond to that with some information that we feel may have been misstated in that letter.

Um that will show our rate-based growth before MYPs was about six to seven percent, and after MYPs has been about six to seven percent.

It has remained unchanged.

Um, and so we want to make sure it is abundantly clear to folks that this mechanism has not resulted in uh increased investment.

In fact, in my comments, I talked about our rates being in the lowest 10% of investor-owned utilities in the country.

Before our first MYP was approved, we were in the about 16th percentile, so still a I think a great spot to be in the country, but we've actually used that mechanism to to further improve and get down to the top 10th percentile.

So we believe the proof's kind of there that it's been working well for our customers here in the district.

So if someone asked me, do well, let me ask, do you think that using a multi-year rate plan drives these increases?

Your answer would be no.

My answer would be no, that's correct.

Okay, I don't understand.

Um, okay, I want to come to uh Ms.

Crossley.

Uh you mentioned that you think that the Public Service Commission's flexibility allows for them to be more responsive to real world issues.

I'm wondering then what compromises has Washington Gayus made due to requirements of the public service commission.

Thank you for the question, Councilman.

Um I think if I'm understanding your um question correctly, you're asking if um if what we propose to the commission is um always approved, and like and the answer is no.

We come before the commission um with uh proposals, and um the commission as well as um interveners, including the Office of People's Council and other stakeholders, um uh do weigh in, and um the current regulatory framework allows us to um earn a return nine times out of ten based on a scaled back uh measure of what we originally uh proposed based on a prudency review.

Yeah, I get um I appreciate that.

I'm wondering, I know that flexibility, you spoke to flexibility, and I'm just wondering if there's an instance where what has the commission required you to change about your plans in order to protect ratepayers?

Is there uh is there examples of what the commission has required you all to do that um in order for you to protect ratepayers?

Thank you for the question.

Um I think um in order to answer your question, um I don't have a, I can't come up with like a specific project.

I think that's what maybe what you're you're um getting at.

Um I want to be cognizant of um open proceedings that we might have before the commission right now, um especially um concerning like the relevant projects related to uh district safe and pipes two.

Um but generally speaking, when we come forward with a proposal, um uh the uh proposal is reduced uh as most recently by about 30 percent.

So there are changes that uh need to be made in order to make those adjustments to get to that to get to that um proposal.

Got it.

What are the biggest cost pressures for WGL infrastructure?

Um thank you for the question, uh Councilman.

I would say the the cost pressures um lend themselves to uh probably um emergency repairs.

Um so um on our most risk-prone pipe, we'll see um we may see um additional um leaks or recurring leaks over a shorter period of time.

Um those types of like reactive or emergency repairs uh require um additional costs such as excavation, overtime labor, um, and so um the reason why we're here today um to address uh this particular proposal is because um oftentimes um the replacement of a high risk pipe may actually cost less to customers, especially over the long period of time.

Got it.

And that brings you a question I wanted to ask uh Cynthia, how many fatalities have there been in DC over the last five years related to cast iron pipes?

I don't have that number in front of me.

That's something that I can I do plan to submit written testimony and I can provide that to you.

I can tell you that when I was administrator in in uh February of 2001, there was a huge incident in Allentown where a 12-inch cast iron distribution main operated by UGI resulted in three people being injured, five people being killed, and the destruction of eight homes.

It was a catastrophic situation.

Um before that the San Bruno incident, which is the one that really I think woke people up.

Uh, it wasn't on a distribution pipe, but it was on an old pipeline, uh, where they really didn't even know what was in the ground, it appeared until after it um a 72 foot inch by 26 foot uh not inch feet of pipe flew a hundred uh feet and it really destroyed an entire neighborhood in San Bruno, killing um many, many people, injuring 51, destroying 38 homes you walked in, and it was an entire neighborhood just gone.

So I can get you the specific numbers on cast iron pike.

As I mentioned, more than 56% has already been removed across the country, which is, you know, since 2011, a fantastic statistic.

I didn't mention that I too am a resident of DC here for the past 30 years, and I would not like to see any of these incidents occur anywhere in the district.

So that's why I'm here as well.

Thank you.

Yeah, and if you get a chance, I've just if you if you do have opportunity to get to obtain information around the fatalities and also how many injuries have there been in DC over the last five years, that would help really uh help paint that picture.

The other thing I'm trying to understand is the impact of complete replacement of these pipes on our rate base as we work to move towards greener and more sustainable energy solutions, which often rely more on electricity than natural gas.

I hear Miss Crossley that complete replacement might be more cost effective in the long term, but I want to understand the dangers here in the district, the risk actually posed to our residents, and what makes sense when it comes to investing in infrastructure for utility.

Council Willis George, sorry, were you directing that to somebody we couldn't quite hear from here?

Well, it was I guess to Cynthia or to Ms.

Crossley around how many trying to understand the impact of complete replacement of these pipes on our rate base as we work to move towards greener, more sustainable energy solutions, which often rely on more electricity or gas.

So I know that Ms.

Crossley spoke about that complete replacement might be more cost effective in the long term, and so I just want to understand from the perspective of the what are the risk actually posed to our residents and what makes sense when it comes to investing in infrastructure for a utility that is shifting in how we use it.

I wanted to hear their perspective around that.

Well, I should clarify, and thank you for the question, I should clarify that.

It provides benefits to customers as soon as it's placed into the ground, um, whether that's enhancing the safety, the reliability and resiliency of the system, and also avoiding potential risks like the ones that Miss Quarterman mentioned, and also the uh the decrease of recurring repair and extensive monitoring and the like.

In terms of the district's climate goals, I do not view the um the the district's goals as mutually exclusive um from uh maintaining um and enhancing the system that customers, the majority of who rely on that exist today.

Um so I think both can be done or advanced together.

Um, and that's why you know conversations like this are really so important.

Um we look forward to continuing to be a partner and um addressing all of these concerns as you all um advance your climate goals.

Can I just add to that?

Not on the rate these pieces, but just on the safety piece of the ability to uh repair some of these pipelines.

You have to understand that I think DC is the second uh city in terms of using natural gas pipelines and its pipelines date back into the 1800s.

I think originally people thought these pipelines would last 50 to 60 years, and then as time went on, they didn't seem to have much of a problem, and so that got extended, and what we saw was that despite uh the the thought that they might be able to last maybe forever or something, um, that the rates of incidents were horrific and something needed to be done.

As a practical matter.

When you're looking at a pipe that's more than a hundred years old, cast iron pipe, for example, which is uh a combination of uh essentially iron and copper.

And what you I mean, if you have a cast iron fire uh uh frying pan, you have a sense of what it looks like over time.

I mean, I had my mother's, and at some point it had to go.

Um, what you find in the ground may be just flakes of uh graphite around a space where the gas flows.

So trying to repair something that is not necessarily a whole piece of pipe is a very difficult process.

Just uh, you know, what we call the freeze thaw cycle, for example, this winter of the earth seizing up and freezing and then thawing, that could very easily break a pipe like this.

And and I think if you look at the statistics, probably a lot of that happened at the beginning of the year.

You had lots of incidents.

Um in addition, uh to be able to ri even try to repair it, you have to support it very in a very structural way.

Uh it's almost impossible to fix this stuff.

I mean, really.

Um, even driving, you know, you have your DC plug going on, driving over a heavy piece of equipment uh could cause breakage, somebody hitting with a shovel.

So we're talking about, you know, pipe that really cannot be uh replaced.

I mean, uh FIMSA since the uh I would say the 1980s have been calling for states to get a process in place to replace this pipe.

Um it was only after those big instances in 2011 that all the states really came together and said, yes, we have to do this and do it now.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Allen.

Thank you, Counselor's George.

Um, I'm gonna come back for a second round though, because I do have still more questions on the bill in front of us too.

It can show work through.

Um, I pick back up regarding the multi-year rate bill that's in front of us and some of the questions that I've got around this.

So one of the other parts of the proposal um to allow for a multi-year rate plan would be that uh the proposal quote has to clearly define a mechanism for returning refunding or crediting any excess return on equity to customers within a specific time frame after the conclusion of the rate plan, end quote.

Are there current processes at all in place to refund customers for payments that exceed the allowable return on investment?

And can you outline what that is?

Yes, under both uh of PEPCO's multi-year plans that have been approved, the commission did uh approve a procedure for uh reconciliation, which we talked about before, and then there was a process where if there was an over-recovery found for that to go back to to customers and both of that plan, so it did it did exist in them.

Okay.

Does that so I would interpret that to say then you don't have a problem with that provision within the bill, since it already exists essentially essentially?

Not necessarily from our perspective, like we said, we don't think there necessarily needs to be a reconciliation.

We think there could be things like uh earning sharing mechanisms are pretty com uh common in a lot of jurisdictions where those actually align utility interests around cost control with customers.

I think that's an example of a type of mechanism where you're clearly defining how that would operate and how money would flow back to customers.

Um so as long as there's space within the bill for that mechanism to be defined how it works, I I think we're more comfortable with that.

Okay.

Ms.

Crossley, from your perspective, similar perspective to that of PEPCO.

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

Uh one of the requirements here is that uh for an approved multi-year rate plan, there'd have to be a clearly defined mechanism for returning refunding or crediting any excess return on equity to customers with a specified time frame after the conclusion of the rate plan, end quote.

Um, and so as we discussed, there already is a current process in place.

The Public Service Commission can approve to refund customers for payments that exceed the allow return on investment.

So, would Washington Gas agree that that's not necessarily a new requirement?

Um, you know, I I am actually here to speak about the the bot the the ending of of the um excuse me, the last portion of the proposal.

Uh Washington Gas doesn't currently have a position on the multi-ready plan.

Okay.

Proposal.

All right then.

Um, let me turn back to this one.

The final requirement of the legislation is that quote, the cost benefit analysis shall include a summary of available alternatives and a description of why those alternatives were not pursued in order to aid the commission's prudency review.

Any concerns around that?

Uh around consideration of alternatives.

Uh I I don't think so.

We um we in our our current plans have had uh presentations of projects and alternatives considered on them.

So that's something I think we're we're open to or and more than happy and willing to continue to pursue.

Um I think we've gotten feedback that perhaps maybe that could be strengthened a bit, and so we're we're looking at how to do that, so no concerns there.

Um how does the how does the commission currently review alternatives either to reject or compel uh a proposal based on alternative review?

So for each of our our projects, we'll present a portfolio of say 100 projects that we're gonna do.

We'll say here here are all the projects, and then for each one within that portfolio, we'll have a section where we say this was the problem that the project is intended to address, and here's every alternative that we looked at that could address that same problem.

Uh, and we kind of have a scorecard in that presentation about why those were or were not good alternatives, and you know, they are usually not good alternatives because we've selected a different one, but we we kind of lay all that out in um in those presentations there.

So um it's kind of done on a project-by-project basis to see if that project's the best fit.

I I can't think of a good example in DC, maybe where that's kind of gone into consideration, but in some of our Maryland plans, we've we've certainly had projects where there's been uh a lot of active discussion and debate about whether the ultimate solution that got landed on was the right one and it's factored into decisions from the commission.

Right.

I guess what I'm trying to get is how broad are the criteria by which we're evaluating this alternative is the one to pursue or not.

How does the how does the public service commission push you to say you made the right decision by exploring alternative A B and you land on C.

Well, I'd say if we if we haven't thoroughly justified our decision or made the right one in their minds, they will tell us we're not gonna give you recovery for that.

So the dollars we've put into those projects are at risk, and then we we lose recovery of those and and suffer that loss.

So for us, it's in our our best interest to make sure we're pursuing the most justified reasonable projects that best uh address the challenges we have ahead of us, otherwise we we're um at risk of of losing that prudency review.

Okay, I think it gets back to things we've talked about in previous hearings around how we define prudency and whose benefit we're looking at overall.

So it's unclear to me how well we're moving forward with our climate business plan docket, for example.

Um, in terms of reviewing alternatives to make those decisions, yeah.

And we're we're certainly open to collaborating and discussing how we might be able to better create a framework and structure for alignment around that.

Like I said, our one of our primary concerns and considerations is making sure that we're we're finding good frameworks to align utility incentives with that of the district with that of our customers, um, and so that's a discussion we're we're very happy to engage in and have about how we can create that framework.

Okay.

Um, Ms.

Crossley, Ms.

Cordman, try to pull you back in into the conversation a little bit here as well.

So Ms.

Corterman is one stat you shared earlier in your testimony.

I want to make sure I understood because DC, uh sometimes we're compared to states, sometimes we're compared to cities.

One of the stats you shared in your testimony was saying that when it comes to um older pipe material, DC has more than the other state.

I think is the way you stated it.

I I may not be saying it correctly, so clarify for me.

From a percentage basis, comparing DC to the other states that have moved forward with trying to get rid of some of this over the pipe.

Um DC has the largest percentage of any state or territory of cast iron pipe.

The second behind it is Rhode Island, which has half as much, I think they say 30, 31.4% of the system is cast iron in Rhode Island, it's 15 something.

So how would we stack up cities?

I mean, so Rhode Island, also geographically a little smaller.

Uh we're never gonna stack up well with Wyoming or Montana.

Um so when we think about what I'm trying to get at is what's the right comparison to make?

Is it city to city?

Is it state to state?

For district 100% urban jurisdiction, we're just structurally gonna be very different than a state comparison for that.

Well, it's a percentage basis.

It's not a mileage basis.

In terms of miles, I think they're 300 and something miles uh compared to some states which still have over a thousand miles of uh cast iron pipe, but on a percentage basis, it I think that's a relevant comparison.

I can tell you in 2011 there were states who had as much as northeastern states like Pennsylvania and New York had a hundred a program to get rid of this old pipe over a hundred years.

They have crashed that down to say a 30-year program, and that is where most people are sort of 20 to 30 years to get rid of this old pipe.

And right now, DC is far behind that with some of the oldest pipe, obviously.

So when we look at some of the recent decisions, so for uh wash and gas rate decisions based off uh from the PSC.

Um so this year, public service commission has initially approved a three-year planning period from July 26 to June 29 for 150 million dollars for district safe.

Um it's a as you noted to Counselor Lewis George who asked, you know, have they ever made any changes to what you asked for?

So that's a 30% reduction from the proposal that uh Washington Gas have put forward.

What are some of the factors that led to the commission reducing the overall budget for that?

Are you speaking um uh chairman to uh DC SAFE?

Um, unfortunately, I can't speak specifically to that uh proceeding as it is um an open proceeding at the DC Commission.

Um, and there's an evidentiary hearing coming up in a few weeks.

Um, so unfortunately I can't I can't speak specifically to um that as I don't want to impede the evidentiary investigation.

Got it.

That's okay.

All right, thank you.

Um the district government, different question then.

The district government, through our office attorney general, had outlined in its final brief on formal case 1179 that the new district safe program will not improve any of the issues originally identified by the commission in its rejection of Project Pipes 3.

Uh in short, the project continues to focus on pipeline replacement to address gas safety, does not seem to consider pipe age or material and replacement and seems to only address emissions tied to leaking pipe infrastructure, yet public service commission called district safe, quote, a structural departure from project pipes.

Are there any distinctions between project pipes and district safe that you would want to point to?

There aren't any specifics that I would point out specifically for this form.

No, okay.

Um we look at the pipes overall, and Ms.

Quarterman, you outlined concern around that, and I'm I am going to hope that every single person is gonna agree we do not want to see uh leaks, we don't see explosions, we don't want to see any of that harm.

So let's just level set, I think uh uh hopefully a very shared baseline on that.

Um, how many leaks or catastrophic events or explosions have been prevented by washington gas repairs or replacements in the last five years?

I think that's a question for the company, but I don't think that uh it's clear to be there is a number that probably can be generated.

I mean, I know that they use a risk model, which tells you what the risks are.

I don't know how you would say what has been prevented.

So how would we measure that?

Well, the commission measures it based on well, I'll say um the that FIMSA has its own um integrity management um framework that we adhere to.

Um the commission also evaluates those projects, as you mentioned, formal case 1179 as well as our pipes two, um, both of which are um open proceedings with a full evidentiary record, um, will detail um just how uh the commission reviews and um approves those programs, and I'm happy to provide additional information via our written testimony, but I'd or defer you to um those formal cases.

Okay, but Washington Gas is currently monitoring leaks or leak sources around the district.

Yes, correct?

Yes, okay.

So I understand it's a hard question to answer.

How do we measure the thing that didn't happen?

But how do we measure the thing that didn't happen?

Correct.

To justify then the expenditure of the thing that we're doing.

Yes, um, this comes through um engineering and safety stands are standards, um, utility practice and commission expert review as well.

Um I think, and I think that's sort of the um our our major concern with the proposed legislation uh is that the existing framework does allow for both those qualitative and quantitative um uh benefits to be reviewed holistically.

Um the proposal here um would seem to limit that to simply quantitative.

Okay.

Um, and then I guess this is for Miss Crossover Ms.

Quarterman.

Um, do you have any thoughts in pre some of our previous hearings?

We've had testimony about some of the actions taking place um in our neighbors in Maryland.

So as Maryland goes through their process of the uh future gas proceedings that Maryland's undergoing right now, and the current pause on charging ratepayers for new gas lines.

In what ways are you engaged in those conversations or whether the district should have that conversation uh as well?

Chairman, um maybe I misheard you, but did uh did you say that Maryland has a pause on current pipeline infrastructure?

I'm not sure that that's um, Maryland has a pause on charging ratepayers for new gas line construction.

Okay.

I thought that was pending review.

Um but in any case, um I think um to your question about um I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank just because I was over I was thinking about the rate case for gas line extensions.

Um you're asking again how should we review or how should DC review?

Just welcome any thoughts you have on as Maryland undergoes the future gas conversations that it's having.

Um, should the district public service commission undergo a similar process?

They in fact they they will be.

Um they have an open proceeding that uh I believe kicks off here in June.

And how how does Washington Gas engage in that conversation process?

We are a party to the process.

I would assume you're a party of the process.

How do you engage in the process?

Well, we're asked to provide um it depends on the scope of the project.

Right now that's being, I mean, not the project, the proceeding that's currently being defined by um the utilities and all of the stakeholders who are um who have elected to be involved.

So unfortunately, I don't have a specific answer as to how we engage, but um we intend to do so um transparently and um as that scope is being defined over the next couple of months.

And just this do you think the scope is going to focus just on safety, or the scope can also include conversations around emissions, around our climate goals, around renewable energy?

I um based on the future of gas, I I would venture to say yes, it may have a similar scope and similar conversations as what's occurring in Maryland.

I think it has to.

Yeah, okay.

Um and then to our PEPCO friends.

Don't want to ignore you over there for a second.

Um, so throughout, when you gave your testimony earlier, you did talk about um the price of generation is the sort uh is the source of the highest price spikes, not the distribution.

Interesting conversation we had with um uh Mr.

Dutta, for example, on a previous panel.

I know you were here earlier, so I appreciate you being here to listen to some of that.

Um any thoughts that you have around the point he made around PJM essentially not being able to take into consideration district policies and I would argue some realities in a way that then puts PEPCO in a position where you're purchasing either more or at a higher price from a supply side than you otherwise would because they're not taking to consideration what's taking place in the district.

And uh Chairman Allen, just to kind of clarify on this, was this the statement just around solar specifically that that may or may not be considered in the part of the part of what I took away from one of his comments was that um there are things that are in our control and there's things that are outside of our control.

And that part of what if PJM is not fully looking at the districts, both policies as well as investments in solar, for example, then when it goes into the market for the uh for the auction, essentially PEPCO is having to purchase at a rate that is higher than otherwise would be, should some of the solar generation be more in consideration.

Yes, I'll start and then um Mr.

Lemming, if you have additional comments on it.

So in general, uh we do agree with some of those statements that were made.

Um we certainly are very focused on affordability for our customers, and as I mentioned, many of the the um investments that we are encouraging are around solar, whether it's rooftop solar, balcony solar, bat, you know, and and we um talked about the battery storage as well.

If those um assets are not being counted in um the demand side uh or supply side properly uh by PJM, then yes, um, we we want to make sure that that is accurate so that we are um we have accurate forecast, we're purchasing from an accurate um estimate of what is needed.

So certainly I think in general uh we would agree.

Now we would need to get back to you on any specific numbers, but in general, yes.

Yeah, I don't know if you have additional.

No, just I agree.

I think we're very aligned with them from our perspective of if we want VPPs, batteries, solar, all of that to have the greatest impact that it can, it needs to be valued fully and appropriately, and that's uh that's a missing part of the value stack.

Yeah, I think there's a whole host of things we can be working on to improve coordination between district government, policymakers, PEPCO when it comes to PJM.

Um I think there's a lot better ways we can probably coordinate where uh the district's voice, be it from different circles, can also be putting and applying more pressure on PJM and its decision making as well to the benefit of our businesses and ratepayers, yeah.

Okay, um, all right.

I appreciate it.

Um I don't know if Council George, if you had a second round of questions you wanted to touch here on this panel, otherwise I was gonna move to our next panel.

Um I just had one.

Um Mr.

Leming, I want to come back to you for one thing.

Um I know you said that the rate that the rate base has not increased significantly since the initial implementation of the multi-year rate plans in 2021.

I think you were speaking about this earlier from the data that was just um shared.

If we look at that data from the PSC, there was a drastic jump in the rate base at that time, going up almost one billion dollars in just two years from 2021 to 2023 from 1.5 billion to 2.5 billion.

Can you help me understand why that was the case?

Uh certainly.

So my team is actively looking at that that letter and filing right now that was submitted.

I I will say I looked at it quickly this morning, and there's a there's a 1.6 billion dollar rate base number that's referenced from 2020.

I opened up a commission order that had our authorized rate base in 2020 at 2.2 billion.

So there's a $600 million difference in the rate base that's used in that letter that you know we just see very differently based on the commission order that we're reviewing that said PEPCO's rate base in 2020 was 2.2 billion, not 1.6 billion.

So that that understatement of rate base would lead you to believe our rate-based growth was much lower before and then was much higher going forward.

If you correct for that, you actually see a very consistent glide path.

Okay, okay.

Well, I look for, I know you all are going looking at it, so I look forward to that updated information.

Um thank you, Chairman.

I will I yield the remainder of my time back to you.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

And um obviously give you a chance to take a look at that letter and respond.

But whatever you put that response together, if you're able to share that with us, that'd be helpful for us.

Absolutely.

We'll do.

Thank you.

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you all very much for your time.

Thank you.

All right, let me turn to our next panel, and this is gonna be a panel that is both folks that are here in the room in person as well as folks that'll be joining us online.

But I have Pat Garafalo, who's the director of state and local policy with the American Economic Liberties Project.

Keith Fox, who's the president and CEO of Fox STEM, who I think is joining us online.

Christy Walika, executive director of the National Utility Contractors Association with the DC Chapter.

Rosalind Stiles, President of the National Association of Minority Contractors, the DC Metro Area Chapter.

Frank Khaliva, Calava, member of the Retail Energy Supply Association.

Dean Hunter, CEO of SMOA.

Kevin Carey, VP of Operations for AOBA.

And Fran G.

Francis, senior VP in general counsel of AOVA Alliance.

All right, Mr.

Kerry and Ms.

Francis both AOVA, correct?

Alright.

Since you're both Ayoba, if you're okay sharing a microphone, that'll be great.

All right, excellent.

All right.

So I have Pat Garifello.

Did I pronounce that correct?

Close.

All right.

Well, no, it's important.

We gotta get it right.

All right.

Keith Fox is online.

Uh Christy Walika.

Walaka, I'm gonna mess it all up.

Uh, and Rosalind Styles.

I every single one I got wrong.

All right, excellent.

Okay.

Um, fantastic.

Then Pat, we're gonna have you start us off, and you're gonna pronounce it correctly for me.

Sounds good.

Chairman Allen, members of the council, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Pat Garofalo, and I am the director of state and local policy at the American Economic Liberties Project, a research and advocacy organization dedicated to reducing the power dominant corporations wield over our economy and democracy.

I'm also a Ward 5 resident.

So families across the district are facing a growing affordability crisis, and for many households, utility bills have become a main source of financial stress.

Too often those rising bills are treated as an unavoidable consequence of inflation, aging infrastructure, or growing electricity demand to fuel AI data centers.

And those factors certainly matter, to be clear.

But they are not the whole story.

One of the biggest drivers of utility costs is something far less visible.

The profit margin regulators allow monopoly utilities to earn, which is exacerbated by the problematic utility business model as a whole.

Investor-owned utilities are unlike almost any business in America.

They operate as government sanctioned monopolies, and in exchange for that exclusive service territory, utilities are supposed to receive a fair but not excessive return on their investments.

Unfortunately, that premise has been violated in recent years.

Across the country, utilities routinely receive authorized returns on equity approaching or exceeding 10%, despite facing relatively low business risk compared to competitive industries.

Independent financial analysis increasingly shows that these authorized returns exceed what investors actually require to finance utility investments.

The result is billions of dollars in excess profits paid by customers every year through their monthly utility bills.

Research by my organization estimates that excessive authorized returns cost American ratepayers roughly 50 billion dollars annually.

In its most recent rate case, PEPCO requested a 10.5% return on equity, which is significantly higher than the 9.75% median authorized in all electric utility rate cases in the first quarter of 2025, and well above the 6.7% long-term aggregate market return that Wall Street asset managers project.

The question should not be simply whether new infrastructure is needed, but whether district residents should pay monopoly utilities more than is necessary to attract the investment required to finance that infrastructure.

We believe the answer is no.

To be clear, lowering excessive returns does not discourage investment.

It simply ensures utilities earn what is sufficient to finance reliable service and achieve their mandate.

States across the country, red and blue with utilities serving earth serving urban and rural constituencies are examining legislation to more adequately align rate of return with market fundamentals.

DC should do the same by requiring the public service commission to ensure that authorized returns on equity reflect actual market conditions and the true cost of capital, not historical assumptions or bloated utility requests.

We've released model legislation to accomplish just that and are happy to advise the council on adoption and implementation.

Notably, the Pennsylvania House recently approved unanimously legislation that was based on this model.

Beyond return on equity, there are additional reforms that can help protect consumers.

For instance, we encourage the council, like others have today to prohibit recovery and rates of utilities political influence activities.

Several states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, and Maine, have adopted gold standard reforms and thereby prevented ratepayers from paying for the very lobbying that results in their bills being pushed ever higher.

We also recommend tying executive compensation at DC utilities to specific customer affordability metrics.

The most comprehensive legislation to do so was adopted in Connecticut in 2020 and implemented through numerous rate cases in the years following.

The district has an opportunity to lead by demonstrating that utility affordability and financial stability are not competing goals.

They're complementary.

Well-regulated utilities can remain financially healthy while charging rates that are fair, reasonable, and grounded in today's financial realities.

Thank you for your time and I welcome any questions.

Thank you very much.

Next, let me turn to Keith Fox, who is online.

Mr.

Fox, if you're there, let me turn to you for your testimony.

Yes, hey, good morning.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Good afternoon, whenever you're ready.

All right.

Uh good afternoon, Chair Person, Alan.

Good to see you again.

And Council members of the Transportation and Environment Committee.

My name is Keith Fox.

I'm a professional engineer and president and CEO at Fox Dem Engineering, a DC-based civil engineering firm located here in Navy Yard neighborhood and a proud partner of PEPCO in our shared mission towards a sustainable, resilient, and affordable future for Washington, DC.

I testified before the DC Public Service Commission in 2024 regarding my support for the multi-year planning efforts of PEPCO.

I want to emphasize that as a DC utility ratepayer, we are in support of thoughtful solutions that will reduce the burden of ratepayers, but also allow our teams to plan and fund utility work in the future.

This is important.

Planning smart, proactive, and cohesive solutions are almost impossible for us utility partners without dedicated and predictable funding beyond 12, 24 months.

As a service provider, our company, Fox STEM, has worked closely with PEPCO on various projects aimed at enhancing the reliability and sustainability of energy service in the region, including the Capital Grant Project, DC Plug Project, and now Downtown Resupply Project.

All of these projects have contributed to the great modernization, security, and expansion of capacity for future clean energy resources.

In conclusion, I stand before you to express my strong support for PEPCO's ongoing initiatives and the multi-year rate plans, which drive the success of our future utility plans.

As a utility partner, ratepayer, and member of this beautiful community, I am confident that PEPCO will continue to explore solutions for utility affordability that do not impede the proper planning for our future needs.

Thank you for this opportunity to share my perspective today.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Fox.

Next, let me turn to Ms.

Wallaca.

Good afternoon, Chairperson Allen and members of the committee.

My name is Christy Wallaca.

I'm executive director of the National Utility Contractors Association of Metro DC.

It's a long name, so NUCOV DC is what we call ourselves.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today.

Nuke of DC represents more than 70 member companies that employ thousands of workers who live and work across the district and surrounding region, from larger companies to many family owned small businesses.

Our members build and maintain the underground infrastructure that delivers electric, gas, water, sewer, and telecommunication services.

We work closely with the utilities, including PEPCO, Washington Gas, DC Water, DDOT, to keep the district's infrastructure safe, reliable, and resilient.

NUCOV DC supports transparency and accountability and utility regulation.

However, we are concerned that adding additional regulatory approvals or hurdles to the existing multi-year rate making process will create uncertainty, delay critical infrastructure projects, and untimely increased costs, ultimately increased costs while slowing improvements that the district residents depend on.

Our contractors rely on certainty.

They invest in skilled workers, specialized equipment, materials, months, sometimes years in advance.

They depend on utilities awarding projects on predictable schedules so they can plan their workforce, manage resources, and deliver projects efficiently.

When that certainty disappears, contractors are forced to delay hiring, postpone investments, and absorb additional costs.

Multi-year rate plans are essential because they fund large-scale modernization, reliability improvements, and infrastructure upgrades.

It is far more expensive to fix something broken rather than to proactively upgrade our much needed infrastructure.

These are carefully engineered projects that are planned years in advance to meet the district's growing infrastructure needs.

Our members are contractors who build this infrastructure, and interruptions to that planning have real consequences.

Additional regulatory layers also create impact beyond a single project.

Utility construction is closely coordinated with other utilities, government agencies, and work taking place in the public right of way.

Delays to one project often delay many others, disrupting schedules throughout the contracting community and creating cascading impacts across the local workforce and supply chain.

As we testified in support in 2024, the Public Service Commission has already established a structured multi-year rate making process and include significant opportunities for public participation and oversight.

We encourage the council to avoid changes that would introduce unnecessary uncertainty into the process that is intended to provide long-term planning and investment stability.

We respectfully respectfully ask the committee to consider the real-world impacts these additional regulatory requirements would have on the contractors building the district's critical infrastructure and on the timely delivery of projects that residents rely on every day.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Stiles.

Good afternoon, Councilmember Allen.

Members of the uh of the Committee on Transportation and the Environment.

The national I'm here to present the wishes of the National Association of Minority Contractors, Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Chapter.

The National Association of Minority Contractors was founded in 1969 in Oakland, California.

Is the oldest minority construction grade association in the United States with a combined annual project capacity of over a billion dollars nationally.

The association is the leading voice and advocate that represents the interests of millions of skilled minority workers across this country through a network of chapters in collaboration with strategic partners and corporate sponsorships.

The National Association of Minority Contractors, the Washington chapter, and I'm just going to refer to it in the future as Washington, D.C., organized in 2005, works with federal, state, and local agencies and construction industry professionals to develop and implement programs and services designed to enhance the competitive viability of local minority and women-owned businesses in the Washington, D.C.

metropolitan area that encompasses Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Northern Virginia.

Our strategic partners with major corporate, major construction related businesses and other organizations and corporate sponsors advocates for aggressive policies that encourage strong business growth of local, small, disadvantaged, and minority-owned businesses to ensure that our businesses receive a fair share of contracting opportunities.

NAMAC DC enjoys a long-standing productive relationship with PEPCO.

Our organization consistently supports their capital initiatives because they create reliable, high-quality jobs for our members and establish sustainable career pathways in historically underserved communities.

For example, NAMAC DC collaborated with PEPCO to host a major contractor forum for the support of the Capital Bridge Grid project.

The initiative provided an exclusive platform for local, small, disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned contractors to engage with utility executives and project managers that open doors for procurement opportunities.

This forum demonstrated PEPCO's tangible commitment to ensuring that local small minority and women-owned businesses are given an equitable stake in the district's major infrastructure investments.

PEPCO has supported NAMAC DC for over 17 years.

During that time, we have produced jobs not guns and jobs not and jobs not gut, jobs not guns, gut drugs resources.

Since that time, we are excited that we have assisted in creating jobs and creating and building careers for district residents, including our high school youth.

Our goal is to build a strong workforce that is job ready and will lead to a systematic decrease in the violence and drug usage in the nation's capital.

Throughout our partnership, PEPCO has actively recruited through the DC Infrastructure Academy, a program that has successfully graduated more than 200 district residents to date.

These graduates are going to have successful careers, not just at PEPCO, but Washington Gas and their contractors.

This is significant and aligns with NAMAC DC's mission.

Large-scale multi-year infrastructure initiatives like DC Plug and Capital Grid provide the long-term project predictability that local small and minority contractors need to scale their operations and create permanent jobs for district residents.

To date, more than 43% of PEPCO's spending on these projects has been directed to small and local businesses.

At a time when many corporations are scaling back on their diversity, equity, and inclusion commitments, PEPCO has expanded theirs to our minority workforce.

So I'm going to move on.

PEPCO urges the committee to reconsider the accountability process for implementing a program of working with our organization and other community advocates to address the cause and effect of the increase of rates.

We consider any possible delay in the delivery of cost of the public utilities could instill economic consequences to our local and small minority contractors and our local workforce.

Thank you for your time for the opportunity to testify today.

Thank you, Ms.

Stiles.

And then next, let me turn to uh Mr.

Kerry and then Ms.

Francis.

Both testifying on behalf of APOBA, right?

Okay.

Good afternoon, Chairman Allen and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

My name is Kevin Carey, and I'm testifying on behalf of the Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington, another long name, or AOBA.

Also with me is Fran G Francis, General Counsel of AOBA.

In addition to our oral testimony, we will be submitting our written testimony.

AOBA would like to take a minute to thank the council and the sponsors of this bill.

AOBA supports this legislation and appreciates the council's understanding and commitment to helping solve this very complex issue.

AOBA represents owners and managers of multifamily and commercial properties across the district, including more than 118,000 apartment units and 72 million square feet of commercial space.

Our members are seeing firsthand the impact of rising electric costs on residents, housing providers, businesses, and the broader district economy.

Electric bills are increasing because of several factors, including wholesale, higher wholesale energy costs, PJM capacity costs, tariff surcharges, and the increasing cost of renewable portfolio standard compliance.

That's what we see on the supply side.

But a major driver within the district within the district's control is the way PEPCO's distribution rates are now being set.

AOBA believes that current multi-year rate plan framework has led to higher rates from district payers and has shifted too much risk from PEPCO to customers.

MYPs or multi-year plans have also undermined transparency and increase the complexity of rate cases, leading to higher costs of litigation borne by all ratepayers.

Instead of relying on actual verifiable costs, multi-year rate plans allow rates to be faced based on future forecasts, future number of customers, future demand, and future economic conditions.

When those forecasts are wrong, ratepayers can be left paying more, while transparency and real-time scrutiny are reduced.

Based on AOBA's experience litigating multi-year rate plans, two in Maryland and two in the district, we urge the council to restore more balanced evidence-based rate making framework.

First off, the council should sunset the multi-year rate plan pilots and return to rate bake rate making based on a historical test year.

Second, if alternative forms of regulation remain available, the law should require a revenue requirement based on 12 months of actual data and should limit forecast-based recovery to known and measurable changes for capital projects that are used and useful with costs that have been determined as prudent.

Third, there should be no reconciliation of costs or revenue variances from the commission approved increase in revenue if the reconciliation will result in additional charges to customers.

Fourth, major capital investment plans that materially increase rates should be supported by a quantified quantified cost-benefit analysis and a prudence review before those costs are included in rates.

Reliability is important.

Customer should not be required to fund unnecessarily expensive upgrades without a clear showing of public benefit.

AOBA also urges the councils to support rate payer relief in the formal case number 1176 remand proceeding.

The DC Court of Appeals on March 5th vacated the commission orders approving PEPCO's two-year rate increase that took effect January 1, 2025.

Both AOBA and the Office of the People's Council have asked the Commission to hold a full evidentiary hearing and restore the rates back to what were in effect prior to January 1, 2025 until a new lawful rate order is issued.

To date, the commission has refused to do so and has only scheduled a limited evidentiary hearing.

We asked the council to urge the commission to take those steps to minimize ongoing financial harm to ratepayers.

Finally, AOBA recommends that the district slow future increase in its renewable portfolio standard requirements to reduce unnecessary pressure on electric supply costs while still advancing long-term decarbonization goals.

Current pace places significant cost pressure on district customers, particularly compared with neighboring neighboring jurisdictions.

In short, AOBA asks the council act on five priorities to improve affordability of electric rates for DC ratepayers.

Restore rates to the pre-January 1, 2025 levels during a full evidentiary remand hearing, sunset or substantially limit multi-year rate plans, return to historic test year rate making, which uses actual cost to set rates, require stronger benefit and cross-prudent reviews for major utility investments prior to them being included in customer rates and slow the pace of RPS cost increases.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Ms.

Francis.

Thank you again, Chairman Allen, for this res for this opportunity to speak on this bill.

We fully support it.

But I'm here today to urge you to do more and to do more on an expedited basis.

DC ratepayers need your help.

I'm going to ask you to do what what Maryland has done, the Maryland legislature.

Last year, the Maryland legislature passed the Next Generation Energy Act, which limited reconciliation, said the utilities could not file for reconciliations under an MYP.

That was good this year, they did better.

They said you cannot file for a reconciliation unless it means that rates come down for ratepayers.

But what they really did that was critically important to us that I'm going to ask you to do, they sunset MYPs in Maryland at least for the next 12 months at least.

So that's what I'm asking you to do.

If you sunset MYPs, that will help ratepayers immediately with the case that we are litigating.

People's Council has already asked the Commission in a filing to drop the multi-year rate plan under the remand proceeding and proceed with the historic rate case, a historic based rate case.

We support that OPC request.

That is what Maryland has requested.

I am in the process of concluding that Maryland case.

PEPCO was forced to withdraw its forecasted rate case and proceed on a historic test year.

We need your help in that regard here.

We also need your support for getting refunds for customers from just prior to January 1, 2025 through now.

We are ratepayers in the process of paying a 221 million dollar rate increase that the Court of Appeals has already declared is completely null and void.

We have asked to roll back rates, we've asked for refunds.

To date, the commission has refused to do both those things.

We ask in your help for accomplishing those goals.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, everybody on this panel.

All right, I might kind of work my way backwards from the end of this uh portion of the hearing.

Alright, so to Mr.

Kerry and Ms.

Francis, um, we'll spend just a second on reconciliation and a multi-year plan.

So we talked about earlier.

If the if I'm gonna make an argument of why a multi-year rate plan could be good, it's that I am essentially saying this is what I'm forecasting over a number of years, this is what my costs are gonna be, and I can provide some predictability over a multi-year plan.

On the flip side, in exchange for that multi-year plan, what I'm hearing you say is uh if you're gonna have a multi-year plan, the reconcil you can't have a reconciliation that increases your costs because that was the whole bargain you made to have a multi-year plan.

The only reconciliation could be that costs go down to the consumers, you can't go up.

Is that am I hearing that correct?

I understand you're advocating for no multi-year rate plans, but if there is one, is that how I'm hearing you talk about reconciliation?

So, here's what was happening in Maryland.

Just as an example, company filed, PEPCO filed for a hundred million dollar rate increase.

And uh let's just say the commission granted them 60 million.

So we had tried, we were trying the case, 60 million was granted on day one.

Then when they filed for reconciliation, PEPCO filed for okay, we need reconciled rates for another 35 million, basically bringing them up to their original request.

That was the problem.

They were looking for that's basically guaranteed rates.

Basically, this is what we promised to do, but you know what?

It cost a little more.

We actually did 10 more projects than we thought, things increased.

Everything is an exogenous circumstance.

And so that's what was happening in Maryland.

It happened with BGE, it happened with PEPCO.

Legislature said enough, no more reconciliations, which did affect the case that we were in, and PEPFO is not able to reconcile their rates.

Got it.

Okay, so you believe it it kind of ends the gamesmanship that it ends up costing people money.

Yes, I do.

And I heard everything that witness Lemming said today, and everything he said was the same arguments that he made pre-2020 when they had this concept of multi-year rate approved as a quote pilot basis in formal case 11-756.

So what happened was we never got to examining the pilot that's sitting out there in some working group for the past six years, but we've never had a ruling on that pilot.

So rates went up substantially.

Also, what happened was if PEPCO said we're going to spend $100 million on projects A through F.

Well, actually, they never did projects A through F.

They did projects A, B, M N and O.

So they were not doing the same projects.

They were not spending the same amount of money.

We've seen huge increases in cost per project, and we saw other projects that they said they were going to do fall by the wayside.

Okay.

All right.

That's helpful.

Thank you very much.

All right.

So we will look at Maryland's Next Generation Energy Act to make sure we can look from there.

You want to look at the for this year, House Bill 15, 1532.

It was passed on an emergency basis.

That's what prohibits the MYPs for a short period of time.

And it was done, there are different sections of the bill.

It's quite a long bill.

It was passed on an emergency basis.

So I'll put that in our comments.

Yeah, please do, and we'll make sure we look through both both of that, uh, those bills there.

Um to Ms.

Stiles, Miss Wallaca, totally.

Understand you're advocating on behalf of your members and other local businesses.

Um, question I had asked, and I think you were here when I asked a previous panelist around this.

So, one of the things that I've heard from our uh our utility companies, for example, their frustration over um the public service commission approving a multi-year rate plan, it goes into court, court remands it, um, it is destabilizing for them as well, it's destabilizing for everybody.

It's bad for ratepayers, bad for our consumers and customers, it is actually bad for utilities as well.

How is it for our contractors?

So, in other words, if if the argument that I'm hearing you say is a multi-year rate plan allows uh a greater sense of predictability for your contractors and members you're helping represent here today.

Um, when that multi-year rate plan gets upended and remanded back, doesn't that destabilize the very predictability that your members would be seeking or wanting?

Well, I'll start first.

Um I'm not a lobbyist nor a general counsel, so I have not, you know, had delved into this maybe as much as much as many by many other people.

But I would say for our contractors, what I'm hearing is um any time they can predict going forward.

I mean, a lot of our members are small businesses in DC.

So any time a project goes away.

I mean, if if they if they wanted to do A through K and they didn't get to all of them, typically what would happen is infrastructure's crumbling around us.

So a lot of times you heard earlier, pipes are breaking, the Potomac Interceptor, the FESDA had a big, you know, water main break.

There's things happening all underneath that people can't see.

Um, some of the problems were identified back in like 2018, and then we're here we are eight years later, and things are not getting done.

So I think the more predictability we can have and have a plan going forward for our contractors is better because they can plan on another thing about um the rates are supply chain.

That's a bit a big deal.

You know, we we couldn't have predicted the tariffs that happened, but that still has you know impacted some of the cost going forward.

So I I think there is an unpredictability, but as much as we can predict going forward, these contractors can, you know, can plan for that.

Yeah.

Oh, and I I understand that.

Um, but you get transferred.

So what I'd really like to to piggyback on what she said is that number one, I'm not a specialist in in letter legislation and litigation, so you need to understand.

I'm my goal is in terms of the consumer.

I'm a consumer as well as working for working for the for the betterment of minority businesses.

The challenge that we had in putting together the rate plan was a lot of the businesses and and within the communities that fit our profile had never been able to compete in the marketplace along of that PEPCO offered.

So that was the first thing and that we found very exciting was that we were able to bring a b a larger grid of minority and local businesses to be able to compete.

They were then were able to do their projections moving forward based on the approved plan.

So what you're doing is saying, okay, well, we can't afford to do that right now.

So you're gonna have to back up.

Now, if we back up, that means that the that the city will then have to pay accelerated rates for over cost on businesses that are already available to do the work.

You're displacing the minority consumer and you're replacing it with the you know, with the consumers that have have had years of capacity to be able to deliver at the rate that they have now.

We have a plan as we see and we know it's been working, and it's been benefiting the contractors.

Now, what has not been benefiting, as she said, is the is the is the consumers.

I mean, not the consumers, the um the um I'm sorry, missing my word.

No, the the suppliers, I'm sorry, the suppliers.

I personally have suffered from having an accelerated rate that has that has mushroomed over these past six months.

But the suppliers, I don't think that they are working, we are working with the suppliers in terms of curbing their rates that has been passed on to PEPCO.

So I think that working with the community and our organizations and suppliers to to look at what's going on with the suppliers and why where the actual rate increase is coming from is a better plan than just saying, look, let's just stop, and we're gonna we're gonna stop your plan.

I don't think that's the answer.

I think that we need to look at if there's a working group that's not working, then get them get rid of them and get a new one.

Because what we have to do is not put the burden on reducing or expanding or or stopping what's working for those things that are not working at no fault of our own.

I really think that moving forward with what you're doing now in terms of monitoring the affordability and the and the cost is a great thing, but how you do it is what we need what we're here to support and to talk about a different way of getting it done.

Does that make sense?

Yes, thank you.

Just my last comment is I I don't think anybody when everybody goes to flip on their light switch and it's working, it's working.

Um and what we do, and same with the water, you turn on your faucet.

What we do is underground, people don't see it.

So it's all it's it's kind of hard to say, oh well, you have clean, well, I always say I have clean water, I can turn on my faucet, I can turn on my lights, I can I have those things.

It's hard to see the infrastructure underneath and what's happening.

Um the fact that we have to invest in that.

I mean, that just has to be a constant investment.

I agree.

I just want to make sure it's clear.

Yeah.

Nothing that's in front of us decreases the investment.

So the bills in front of us says you can move, you can you can have multi-year rate plans.

It's just you have to have these conditions by which you could approve them.

So it doesn't say we can't have multi-year rate plans.

It just kind of raises the bar to say if you're gonna do this, this is how you gotta make sure you're trying to protect the consumers, which I think also means trying to protect our local businesses.

So I I totally hear what both you're saying.

I know you're coming to represent stakeholders and the contractors that you represent.

Um, nothing in front of us right now reduces the need for the contractors, the engineers, the electricians, the work that takes place.

So I just want to make sure I clarify that as well.

But we would have a we would have a better um structure.

You would you would not be expanding the the time frame for the approval process.

Maybe what we're talking about is how you build up the approval process of the public service commission.

We just want them to also make good decisions.

Yeah.

Um, and part of what my the first part of my question was around how they made a decision, it ended up getting overturned.

And that actually creates a lot of instability as well, as we heard from our partners at AOBA on the panel, about what that impacts their stakeholders.

It impacts your PEPCOs and Washington Gases, it impacts everybody.

But I totally hear where you're from.

I want to make sure I turn to Mr.

Garoflo for a couple of questions too before I wrap up and move to the next panel.

I do appreciate your testimony as well.

And yeah, most people would kind of fight and love to have a return on equity of a guaranteed 10.5%.

Assume your contractors would love to have a guaranteed 10% return on equity.

But so that's what we got with monopolies.

So I was gonna ask you, we've heard us mention a couple of times today.

Right now, as ratepayers, so is our businesses, if you're just a resident.

Um what you're paying, keep that light turn on, also means you are paying the lobbyists for those entities.

You're paying for uh different corporate salaries, and there have been other states that have tried to say, all right, maybe that's not what rate payer money should go towards.

The rate payer money should go towards distribution, should go towards the supply.

Um, the counter I hear sometimes is does it really impact my rates that much?

Um, and I was curious if you've looked at other states or other jurisdictions that have tackled this.

Can we show that it actually reduces overall costs and is it quantified in some way?

So most of these laws are pretty new, so the data is not fully there yet, but um, in states, particularly in Colorado and Connecticut, they have started excluding some of these better costs.

So you can definitely see that trickling down onto bills.

Yes, it's not a huge amount of money.

There are things you can do that are much more significant, but at the rates that we're talking about, every little bit helps.

Um, and in Colorado specifically, I mean I'm happy to send you the data from there.

They have been um several very large um expenditures from the electric utility that were excluded from the rates trade association does a lot of lobbying, advertising, um, and it it can absolutely make a difference.

Okay, all right.

Um, you also talked about some of the transparency measures.

Um, I know some people will be always interested in what Maine is doing.

What did Maine do in transparency measures?

Uh that are Maine also passed this same law that Colorado and Connecticut uh and several others did to exclude these um, were there and were there any other transparency measures that were passed?

Uh there might have been, but I don't know.

Okay, but you're just focusing on that piece of it.

Yeah, yeah, and then maybe the the other one was Connecticut tied their um executive compensation to performance metrics by the um utility.

Maybe that's the one you were thinking of.

Got it.

Okay, and was that all part of one bill that was passed in Connecticut?

Both the It was part of a larger um piece of legislation and then was implemented over several rate cases.

That bill passed in 2020, but was implemented um over rate cases in the next uh several years.

Got it.

And I do agree with you that um, you know, right now every every little bit helps.

Uh so whether you're a small business struggling uh because those costs just keep piling up, or whether you're the ratepayer, um, whether you're a resident who's just trying to pay the rent, put food on the table, and keep the lights on at the same time.

Uh it's it's a lot, and so every little bit can be helpful.

Um, and again, when you have a guaranteed return on equity, uh it's pretty nice.

Okay, I appreciate it.

Thank you all very much for your testimony.

All right, let me turn to our next panel, and I believe uh Frank Khaliva, who I'd called in this panel, I think is here now, uh, so with the retail energy supply association.

So Frank, we'll put you on to this next panel.

We have Rebecca Levinson, public witness, but I think we got an email from Ms.

Levinson this morning that she is unable to attend, but hopefully we can get her testimony.

We have Isla Newmeyer, public witness.

Adrian Mountain Henderson, public witness.

I believe is joining online.

Ann Walters, public witness is joining online.

We have Frank here already.

Okay.

Daniel Greenberg also joining us online.

Uh then I'm gonna go ahead and call a few more names to fill out our panel here.

Jerry Willeford, who is also joining us online.

Is Dusty Harbaugh here?

Alright, Mr.

Hoboff, you're coming up to grab a seat.

Benjamin Morad.

Alright.

It's Frank Coles here.

Phil Campbell.

If you'll come on up.

I don't see Emmanuel Jackson.

And is Wilma Mason here.

Alright, that worked out perfectly.

So we have all four seats filled at the table.

And we have our online witnesses.

Alright, so let me run back up to the top then here.

So I'm gonna follow the order that we called everybody in.

So Frank Khaliva, I've got you first, and Adrian Mountain Henderson, Ann Walters, Daniel Greenberg, Jerry Williford, Dusty Harbaugh, Benjamin Maraud, Phil Campbell, and Wilma Mason.

All right.

Frank, we'll turn to you first.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Chair Allen and members of the committee.

My name is Frank Khaliba, and I serve as the national spokesperson for the Retail Energy Supply Association, or RESA.

RESA is a nonprofit trade association of about 19 retail energy suppliers, several of which are licensed by the DCPSC to serve customers in the district.

And I'm here to offer testimony on an urgent issue that subtitle E of Title VI of the BSA should be removed and considered through the council's ordinary legislative process.

As was discussed at length earlier, subtitle E would cap competitive retail energy supply prices at 110% of the SOS rate.

And RESA understands and shares the goal of protecting consumers, especially low-income consumers from unexpected price increases.

But this mechanism does not target bad conduct nor make needed market reforms.

It would effectively eliminate residential energy choice in the district.

And retail choice here is not theoretical.

Over 25 years, retail supply has grown from essentially nothing to serving roughly 20% of district customers.

And these customers choose suppliers for the reasons that default utility products often can't meet, or the needs that default utility products can't meet, including budget certainty through fixed price contracts, renewable energy options, demand response, smart devices, and other value added offerings.

The point of choice is that not every customer needs the same product.

The proposed cap fails because SOS and competitive supplier offers are not comparable products.

SOS rates, as we discussed earlier, are produced through a procurement process with regulated cost recovery.

Supplier offers are forward-looking, voluntary contracts with no guaranteed recovery or return.

If the market costs exceed the cap, suppliers cannot recover the difference.

Capping a competitive product against the default rate doesn't create sustainable discounts, it makes offers disappear.

We don't have to speculate.

Again, as discussed earlier, when Maryland adopted price caps as part of SB1, suppliers warned that they could not operate under those constraints.

And after the law took effect, every one of Maryland's 274 suppliers, including 98 that offered 100% renewable products, ceased residential operations.

Market did not reform, it vanished.

And Maryland consumers didn't see affordability anxiety disappear with it.

In January of this year, RESA released a poll of 808 Maryland consumers.

73% reported that their electric or natural gas bills had increased over the previous year.

And of those customers, 59% described the increase as significant.

That experience is directly relevant here.

Eliminating the competitive market did not insulate consumers from the larger cost pressures driving utility bills.

It simply removed voluntary options that some customers used for price certainty, clean energy, and added services.

Now I understand the supplier community has offered the committee five other proposals for enhancing affordability that were drawn from other competitive market states.

And these proposals can protect customers from unexpected increases while preserving choice.

And we respectfully submit that those proposals to serve consideration.

In summary, we view this as a sweeping redesign of the district's energy market that deserves a standalone hearing, a full record, and a transparent stakeholder process.

We respectfully urge the council to remove subtitle E of Title VI and consider consumer protection and affordability legislation separately protect consumers absolutely but we can do it in a way that preserves competition innovation and customer choice.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much.

Next I turn to Adrian Mountain Henderson.

Afternoon chairman and members of the committee my name is Adrian Mouton Henderson and I am a DC resident and a former DC OBC staff attorney who worked tirelessly with the DC SEU board and fought the good fight for DC ratepayers.

Now as an in-house counsel at Constellation Energy I sit in a unique seat as I have been on both sides of what ratepayers want in energy markets.

I understand the desire of the committee to protect our residents against rising energy however subtitle E would actually in my opinion eliminate competition and leave residents with little to no energy choices.

Similar to our neighbors in Maryland legislation SB1 has caused a mass exodus of residential suppliers from the market that the legislature attempted the spring to make fixes via the Utility Relief Act but the damage has been done and Maryland ratepayers are feeling the effects as one of the attorneys who worked with the Commission on grid modernization and energy efficiency matters in the district to enhance innovation and create options for ratepayers to have cost effective solutions and options this step seems counterintuitive to all the work that the district has done thus far.

DC has an RPS of 100% clean energy by 2032 and if this subtitle is adopted it will reduce competition eliminate clean energy choices and remove price stability options.

I strongly support protecting District residents as I am one of them and from rising energy costs that come from not only our suppliers but from other areas SOS rate players are failing the bait but this proposal will have real consequences for families across the district and as such it should be debated openly and carefully not added to the budget as a footnote without full public discussion and due process every district ratepayer has the right at present to choose to stay with the SOS default service provider or try a supplier who must earn their business no one is forced to do anything it is a choice and you have the right to make that choice presently but there is no guarantee that removing this option via subtitle E will improve the affordability in the district at all.

In fact if you heard from other witnesses today it's been proven that competitive markets outperform traditional monopolies by shifting financial risk away from ratepayers I urge the council to strengthen consumer protections through a transparent process with real public input rather than through subtitle E in the budget as all residents in every ward deserve to be heard and protected.

Thank you for affording me this time today.

Thank you very much.

Next let me turn to Ann Walters also joining us online.

Good afternoon Chairperson Alan and members of the committee my name is Anne Walters and I'm a proud resident of Ward 4.

I'm here today to make my voice heard regarding Bill B26-0596 the utility rates and rate making amendment act of 2026 I know that utility affordability is a massive concern for everyone in our city right now and I'm grateful that the committee and the council are looking into solutions.

However placing more approvals for PEPCARI upgrades is not the right way to address these affordability challenges having lived in ward four for many years I remember when we would routinely suffer power outages outages sorry even when there wasn't a single storm in the area but over the last years I've noticed a major difference significant grid investments like the DC plug and capital grid project in ward four um to improve our local reliability sustainability.

Upgrading the grid is extremely important because ward four is a growing is a growing rapid is growing rapidly, sorry, with new town homes, local stores, and apartment buildings that require a reliable grid.

Because the capital grid project was on my street, I attended several community meetings with PEPCO regarding the capital grid project when work was happening on my very street.

In fact, I supported the utilities' last multi-year rate plan by testifying before the public service commission.

I believe the best way to tackle affordability is to expand targeted assistance programs to help customers pay their bills and to directly address the impact of power hungry data centers that drive up electricity costs.

We must protect vulnerable residents from rise in prices without halting the critical grid upgrades that keep our lights on every day.

Thank you for your time and for consideration of my perspective.

Thank you very much, Ann Walters.

Appreciate that.

Next, let me turn to Daniel Greenberg.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity.

Can you hear me all right?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

So I'm a uh 40-year district resident and small business owner, and I'd like to provide a ratepayer perspective on having to deal with the utility monopolies.

Uh both PEPCO and Washington Gas discriminate against customers who pay by credit card by refusing to allow access to their auto pay systems.

You can only auto pay if you use a bank account, um, which is uh, according to consumer advocates, a bad idea to allow any company unlimited access to your bank account where they can reach in and pluck out as much money as they want to.

Uh the problem here is that if you pay by credit card, uh and and if the utility overcharges you, you have the option of going to your credit card company saying I was overcharged, and there's no damage done to you personally.

They will the credit card companies will usually uh either credit you or uh not charge you or refund you outright.

However, if you pay by bank account, if you allow auto pay by bank account, what the utility companies can do is they can reach in your bank account and take as much money as they want to, not simply the amount that you owe.

And if you think this is purely theoretical, here's a bill that I just got from DC Water, instead of uh for 128 dollars, it's for 1,385.

Now, for someone who was using auto pay from a bank account, and if they had less than a thousand dollars in their bank account, they would suddenly be in a bounce check situation.

All the payments they're making would bounce, and they could potentially be liable for writing bad checks, all because companies make mistakes, they mischarge uh all the time.

And if you if you pay by a bank, if you let them take as much money as they want out of your bank account, uh you could be in a lot of trouble as opposed to credit cards.

So why don't the utilities allow people to auto pay by credit card?

They allow payment by credit card and they allow auto pay.

They just don't allow the two together, they only allow auto pay by bank.

I've asked utility monopolies why they do this, and they've refused to answer why they discriminate against people who want to pay by credit or auto pay by credit card.

And this is a problem with having monopolies, is they're not required to be consumer focused.

They're not required to answer questions, they're not required to pay attention to anything that the consumers want.

Uh there's a uh secondary problem also, in addition to uh the auto pay issue is that these companies also charge fees for paying by credit card, but they charge them arbitrarily.

In fact, Washington Gas has a um a note on its website that says that DC residents will be charged a fee for paying by credit card, but Virginia residents will not, and I have submitted this to um the council members' office.

Uh it's uh it's unfair, it's uh unjust, it's discriminatory, and I hope that the council and our new uh our next mayor will stop these practices.

And I'm just out of time, so thank you for your attention.

Alright, thank you very much.

Uh next, we've got Jerry Willford, who I think is also online, and then Dusty Harbaugh, we turn to you after that.

Yes, good afternoon, Chairman Allen, members of the committee and staff.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding Bill 26-0596, utility rates and rate making amendment of 2026.

My name is Cherry R.

Woolfort Jr.

I am the president, business manager, and financial secretary of IBW Local 1900.

We represent 1,200 members working in the utility sector across the Washington metropolitan area.

Many of our members live in DC who earn a living wage and receive excellent benefits.

They're deeply committed to their communities, working every day to ensure that the electrical service remains safe and reliable.

Today I stand in opposition of the utility rates and rate making amendment act of 2026.

While I understand the bill's intent is to address consumer affordability, restricting the public service commission's ability to approve multi-year rate plans will severely delay critical infrastructure projects.

This will have a negative consequences on our members and a broader district workforce at a time when local unemployment is already rising.

IBEW Local 1900 supported PEPCO's most recent multi-year rate plan, the climate ready pathways plan.

That plan included vital initiatives like the Capital Grid Project, a one billion, excuse me, a one billion dollar 10-year plan designed to increase grid capacity, upgrade aging infrastructure, and network the system.

This aggressive grid modernization is desperately needed to meet the district's growth, accommodate new affordable housing, and support expanded solar integration.

Projects of this scale employs thousands of district residents, utilize local contractors and union labor to provide family substaining wages.

The multi-year rate plan is already deeply public and transparent.

Residents and stakeholders have extensive opportunities to make their voices heard before the PSC.

Adding rigid statutory restrictions through this bill will only create regulatory grid lot and delay essential work.

For example, PEPCO is currently planning future capacity upgrades downtown to accommodate commercial to residential building conversions.

Any delays to the multi-year rate plan will directly stall the district's ability to handle the increased electric load once these new residents residential units come online.

Finally, we strongly support PEPCO's commitment to hiring local talent.

PEPCO has partnered with the DC Infrastructure Academy since its inception, creating vital career pathways for residents at a time when many other companies are scaling back such in this initiatives.

These are real jobs with living wages supporting local families.

Over a hundred and ten graduates of the DC Infrastructure Academy are still employed at PEPCO since 2018.

Subjecting infrastructure planning to unnecessary delays threatens both the reliability of our grid and livelihoods of our working families.

For those reasons, I urge the committee to oppose Bill 26-0596.

Thank you for your time in allowing me to speak today.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Harbaugh.

Sorry to interrupt.

If you can push the buttons, the red light comes on.

That way the mic picks you up.

There you go.

You got me now.

Yep.

Alright, try again.

Good afternoon, Chippers now, and members of the committee.

My name is Dusty Harbaugh.

I'm the president of CW and Sons Infrastructure.

We are a proud local contractor, deeply rooted in the District of Columbia.

Founded in 2009, CW Suns began our journey with our very first project doing excavation work for a local mechanical contractor.

Since then, we've grown sustainably alongside the district.

And today we're proud to employ over 125 workers providing high quality local jobs over the last 17 years.

We become a trusted partner of PEPCO and other regional electric utilities to deliver some of the largest, most critical underground infrastructure projects in Washington, DC, including PEPCO's landmark capital grid project and other large-scale developments across the area.

The heavy civil infrastructure, deep excavation, tunneling work we perform cannot be executed overnight.

These massive grid resilience efforts are inherently multi-year undertakings.

They require rigor rigorous sequencing, extensive preliminary substation work and long-term asset management.

For example, Cedaman Swans is currently executing the final stage of the Capital grid project, upgrading the champlayed substation at Adams Morgan.

This critical project will not be completed until 2028.

However, actual construction began last year following nearly three years of preliminary engineering work that spanned from 2022 to 2024.

Furthermore, its timeline is carefully sequenced to support another large upcoming project slated to start in 2029, for which preliminary civil engineering work is already actively underway as we speak.

The predictable multi-year rate making structure currently utilized by PEPCO is the operational bedrock that allows local contractors like CW and Sons to function.

It gives us the multi-year visibility required to responsibly allocate capital, invest in heavy specialized equipment, most importantly, hire and retain a skilled local workforce.

It allows us to plan our bidding pipeline years in advance, ensuring that complex, high-risk infrastructure projects are properly staffed and executed safely.

If Bill B 260596 passes and abruptly eliminates forward-looking multi-year rate plans of financial stability required for these long-term investments will vanish, utilities could be forced to scale back or indefinitely delay major capital projects.

For local businesses like CW and Sons, this means a sudden disruption to our project pipelines and local jobs we support.

More broadly, it threatens the long-term reliability and capacity of the district's electrical grid at a time when there are so many vital future development projects on the horizon, including the redevelopment of RFK Stadium, a critical and a critical citywide focus on building more housing.

On behalf of our over 125 employees and the local infrastructure network we build every day, I urge committee to consider the unintended cascading economic impacts of this legislation on the local construction network and in the district.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Mr.

Haba.

Mr.

Harbaugh, I just want to note Frank Coles is here.

I called his name earlier.

I think he was out of the room when I called him, so Mr.

Coles, we're just going to have to kind of tuck in there on the edge.

Um, I'm not I'm gonna come to you in just a moment.

I just want to make sure everybody knows we got Mr.

Coles here.

So next on my list, I had Benjamin Morad.

Sorry, I'm confused, right?

But just let anybody know who you are, that you came up to the table.

All right, so we're gonna do Benjamin, then Phil, then Wilma, then Frank.

Thank you, Chairman Allen for hosting this hearing and allowing me to testify as an affiliate of We Power DC.

Uh, the solutions offered by this bill and the additional ideas being considered by the committee are major steps in the right direction.

The proposed bill's requirement for explicit timelines and procedures when a utility over earns are necessary, particularly given PEPCO's over earnings during nearly the entirety of the first MRP and the fact that residents will still not have been made whole nearly three years later.

The council should also focus legislative efforts on automatic enrollment for assistance and affordability, lowering the allowed return on equity, expanding government-owned solar programs, and solar for all.

And finally, addressing imbalanced public service commission proceedings.

This last priority is perhaps the most important because it undergirds the success the successful implementation of all these proposed reforms.

To regulate effectively, even with new commissioners, the PSC will need visible and public support from the DC Council.

As noted in the recent DC specific issue brief written by former Connecticut Commissioner Marissa Gillette.

Former intervention in PSC proceedings and the leveraging of the bully pulpit are some of the most effective ways to support strong commissioners.

However, formal intervention is time-consuming, legally complex, and resource intensive.

To address this gap, DC should fund dedicated staff for public officials to formally intervene in PSC proceedings.

Recent examples from other states show what show why outside support matters.

In Connecticut, Gillette's tenure at PRA shows how quickly a regulator who attempts more aggressive utility oversight can become the center of political controversy.

Even with a strong record of court victories, including repeated affirmants by the Connecticut Supreme Court, she ultimately chose to resign after only six years after only a six-year tenure.

In Kentucky, consumer advocates described Kent Chandler's departure from the Public Service Commission as a major loss for ratepayers as he was not reappointed amid political pressure tied to his willingness to challenge utilities.

In Michigan, advocates raised similar concerns after Alessandra Caron was not reappointed while major DTE and consumer energy proceedings were pending.

It is clear that commissioners who take utility oversight seriously face severe political pressure.

If DC wants the PSC to protect rate pairs, enforce climate mandates, and effectively plan our grid, then DC must proactively build the record and public attention that allows the Commission to do so confidently.

Thank you very much.

Alright, next, let me turn to Phil Campbell.

Mr.

Campbell.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chairman.

Now, and Council members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is Phil Campbell.

I'm awards six president and business owner.

I've called DC Home since 1993.

I'm a proud solar owner.

I'm here to remind everyone that DC solar initiatives incentives are some of the strongest in the nation are changing lives every day and remain one of the most effective ways we can lower our utility bills.

Thanks to Solar for All program, I was able to go solar with no upfront cost at the end of 2018.

Rooftop solar in DC is a worthwhile investment, but an expensive one that most owners can't afford on their own.

The average system is seven to eight kilowatts and can cost anywhere from $26,000 to $36,000 once you factor in adders like critagards, no guards, and flat roofs fees.

Even with third party leasing, which lower upfront costs, solar would still be out of reach for the district residents who stand to benefit the most.

Solar for all removed these financial barriers and gave me access to something that started cutting my utility utility bill significantly, even more than $100 a month, and some months I even had credits.

On top of that, solar noble energy credits certificates, sorry, SREX created a real additional revenue stream that compounds those monthly savings.

I'm self-employed and my income changes month to month.

The study reliable savings from my system has really taken a real weight off my shoulders at a time when much of our community is undergoing under growing financial pressure.

One of my system also means my home value has risen, which gives my family a chance to build lasting wealth.

Um I've already put some of these savings towards retirement, towards supporting my children, and let's try and electrify and electrifying my home.

Everyone, everyone deserves access to opportunities like these, and that'll only happen if the district maintains and expands its local equitable solar initiatives.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Campbell.

Next, let me turn to Wilma Mason.

Thank you.

Chairman Allen and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding affordability for district residents.

My name is Major Wilma Mason, and I serve as the area commander for the Salvation Army National Capital Area Command.

For decades, the Salvation Army has worked with individuals and families across the District of Columbia who are struggling to meet their most basic needs.

We provide emergency financial assistance, food, case management, and other supportive services to help households remain stable during times of financial hardship.

One challenge we continue to see is the increasing difficulty many residents face in keeping up with the utility cost while also paying for their other most essential needs.

For the families we serve, electricity is not an option.

It allows parents to safely care for their children, seniors to remain healthy in extreme temperatures, such as what we're expecting later this week, and medication to be properly stored, and working families to maintain the stability needed to remain employed.

The PEPCO Customer Service Fund has been an invaluable resource for district residents experienced by experiencing financial hardships.

The PEPCOS as PEPCO's sole customer relief fund provider in the District of Columbia.

The Salvation Army has distributed more than 3.25 million dollars of fund assistance to help more than 9,000 households over this past year.

Through this program, families have been able to reduce or eliminate past due balances and avoid uh service interruptions and stabilize their uh household finances.

For many, this assistance has uh prevented larger crises like evictions that can result from the loss of essential utility services.

The impact of the custom relief fund extends well beyond a single utility bill.

Families who first come to the Salvation Army for utility assistance feel more comfortable connecting for additional services, which includes case management, budget assistance, food assistance, housing resources, and referrals to other community services.

When we address an immediate financial uh emergency, it creates the opportunity to build trust and connect households with the tools and the resources that promote long-term stability.

We have seen firsthand how relieving one urgent urban uh can be can become the uh first steps towards uh lasting financial resilience.

The need for utility assistance remains significant.

Uh demand continues to grow as many district households struggle with rising living expenses and limited financial flexibility.

Uh continued investment in affordability programs like the Customer Relief Fund.

Not only helps families keep their lights on today, but it strengthens partnerships that connect residents with broader services designed uh to improve financial stability and prevent future crises.

Thank you.

Thank you for your continued commitment to supporting district residents, and for recognizing the importance of programs that promote utility affordability.

The Salvation Army appreciates the opportunity to stand in the gap uh for our neighbors in need to work alongside PEPCO, community partners, and district leaders to help our neighbors so that they can achieve greater financial stability.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And Mr.

Coles.

Now we're gonna turn to you if you'll pull that mic towards you.

There you go.

Uh thank you for allowing me to be the period for the day.

I only have a couple of things to say.

I'm a senior uh living on a fixed income.

Um, and they have the ability to have credits applied to one's utility bills is helpful.

Um I guess three decades and a half into life right now.

Uh and so every minute, every hour, every moment is very precious in terms of living my life the way I need to live the way I have lived it.

Um we have no access to our system right now in terms of seeing what we use and what we what we use and how much it cost us.

We initially bought the system, we've the system is five years old plus.

Uh we had the ability to see what S racks we use, what credits we have, what kind of money was uh also uh accredited to our account.

That no longer happens.

Uh we're unable to see our account.

Uh when you do go on the account to look at the system, you only get uh what you uh could what you were receiving um in terms of power from the sun, the solar, and that's it.

We everything else calls a fee.

I think it's like 50 to 60 dollars a month just to see what I saw for free five years prior.

So uh that made no sense to me either.

So that's one of the reasons we're here today testifying.

Um, summary uh basically uh whether well no no extra no extra fees.

We've been on the system for five years, and I'm confused as to why PEPCO disconnected our meter that allowed us to read what we were using.

I mean, we no longer are able to see what what our usage is, how much we're spending, why we're spending it.

So that's why I'm here today.

That's why I'm a period here today.

And I guess the Lord made that happen because I guess uh we were here at nine o'clock this morning, and so we've sat through the whole process and seeing you guys really suffer through it all.

So uh thank you for your time and your energies and your and your attention to this matter.

Thank you for having me.

Good day.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Coles.

Uh I I I noted you were here at the very beginning, so yes.

Um, I thank you for sticking through all of it.

I tell you what, um, I'm gonna ask uh Connor Fagan, who's to my left after we wrap up to talk to you so we can make sure we understand what's going on with this specific provider.

What you describe doesn't make sense to me.

There's terms that you're you should have the ability to see what's being generated, what those costs are or what the savings are.

So I may not we may get all the details just right here in the back and forth, but let me follow up with you and we'll see what we can do to find out what's going on there.

Um, and if PEPCO disconnected a meter without you know when that seems weird too.

So let's we'll we'll dig in with you and we'll see where we can help you out on that.

Um to everybody on this panel.

Thank you all for for your testimony as well.

To kind of run through a couple things here.

Um, you know, uh Miss Mason, talking about the support and the help that your and Salvation Army is providing.

Thank you.

Start with that.

Um, you know, we are well uh some legislation that we're working through right now uh has to do, will greatly expand how we make sure we connect households that need utility assistance to the actual utility assistance.

It's something like 80% of eligible households aren't connected into the assistance programs that exist already.

So we've got legislation that I've written that creates just automatic enrollment.

We make people jump through so many hoops just to get the help that they need, and so we're looking forward to moving that legislation through quickly, and it'll hopefully help hope with some of the households you're already working with as well.

One of the pieces why this is so important though is we don't want to just connect people to utility assistance programs.

Um we also want to do is say, how do I help lower the costs overall, or how do I help connect people to you can become your own energy generator off your roof and be able to reduce the overall cost, or with an SREC, you actually have some income coming in that helps manage all of that.

So that's why we fight really hard also for our solar for all programs and others, and we heard Mr.

Campbell talking about what that impact has been for yourself, and thank you for showing up to advocate for that as well.

We got to do all those things at the same time.

Um Mr.

Harbour, I did want to touch in with you on this around long-term projects.

So we absolutely have had in the past and will continue to have significant projects, infrastructure investments that span over many, many years.

And they're great ways that we help support our local businesses, it's a great way that we create jobs, it's a great way we create the next generation of jobs.

Um I've gotten the sense over the course of today that that at least somebody is telling a lot of the folks that do the work that by changing multi-year rate plans, somehow we're not gonna be doing long-term investments in projects.

We absolutely will be, no matter what.

Um the bill that's in front of us has to do with if we approve a multi-year rate plan, these are the this is the bar that has to get met to make sure that it's justified because we've heard over the course of the day the trade-offs that could potentially come with uh a multi-year rate plan that gets approved, and then this kind of reconciliation process all of a sudden that happens afterwards.

So, I'll give you a chance to respond to that.

But I I don't want you to walk away from today feeling like there's not a recognition.

We have long-term major projects that provide stability jobs uh in our city, but clearly something has resonated with some folks today that have come in thinking this bill's gonna somehow threaten our ability to have long-term projects.

I think some of the either confusion or hesitation, it comes around anything that gets added to any process, causes a slowdown.

Um things are slow enough already.

Um so the hurdles that we already have to jump through.

Um anything that gets in the way of that or adds to that, causing slowdowns in these things expands those processes.

We're looking for more work in between.

It just um I think I think that's where some of the confusion maybe lies or whether some of the some of the hesitation is in this.

So that's fair, and I want to make sure you know uh, I think that we have a lot of small contractors across our city that employ a lot of great people, and yeah, we're one of them.

We're a C V E the district infrastructure academy's been mentioned a number of times.

I've got I'm doing some training over there on Wednesday.

I mean, it's it's valuable resource, and being able to employ these folks and get them into an industry that um is is challenging yet could pay their bills.

Um, you know, uh we take a lot of pride in that and want to want to fast track as much work as possible, not do anything that possibly slows it down.

So yeah.

No, but here's fair enough.

No, I hear you on that, and I know uh Mr.

Willford from IBEW is here.

Uh, we saw a reference from Lyuna that were here earlier as well.

So I know that from a job creation standpoint, uh a pipeline of young people moving into apprenticeships and then moving into careers is important as well.

Uh so just know that's we we recognize that.

Um, Mr.

Khaliva, I was gonna ask you, um, we've kind of heard some testimony throughout the day around the the BSA subtitle.

So for folks who aren't deep into legislative processes, the Budget support act, the mayor proposed uh a subtitle as part of the budget.

So it's it's not through the normal legislative route, and that's what I think folks are saying is pull that out, introduce a standalone piece of legislation.

Let's have a hearing on it.

All right, let me give you devil's advocate.

Um, we got low-income residents that are enrolled in third party retailers that are paying 50 as much as 80% more than the SOS rate for utilities.

About 25% of people that are enrolled in these third-party retailers fall into that category.

Why shouldn't I?

Why shouldn't I take action right now to help lower the cost for those residents and then introduce a permanent bill to think about longer changes, longer term changes that might be necessary?

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I think we we absolutely share, at least RESA shares those concerns about low-income customers.

And in fact, from what I understand, some members of our industry coalition have actually proposed some ideas on how we could deal with the low-income customer issue, and that can, you know, be has been done in other states in a number of ways, whether that's actually prohibiting low-income customers from shopping at all, or requiring a price guarantee for low-income customers compared to SOS, or procuring a product on behalf of low-income customers that meets a particular benchmark.

So we are certainly very open to having a conversation about addressing the low-income issue.

Our concern is we don't think that that means the entire residential market should be effectively shut down.

So we share your interest and desire to protect low-income customers, but we think that can be done without shutting down the entire residential market.

Okay.

And um, Ms.

Mouton Henderson, I think you were testifying about the same topic.

So I want to give you a chance to respond if you'd like as well.

Same comments as Frank, someone who worked as a DC OPC attorney, and then now who actually serves as a staff attorney with Constellation Energy.

We understand that those are real problems, but I echo what Frank said.

I don't think that is the right mechanism to do what you want to do.

I think you're trying to, the district is always trying to solve low-income issues, right?

That's across the board.

And I think that there are other ways to be more cost-effective and ensure that low-income residents receive the same choices that all customers have because you don't want to be discriminatory against them.

But there are certain protections that need to be put in place.

I just don't think this is the correct mechanism.

Got it.

Okay.

Um, Frank, if I think you said there were several recommendations made.

Uh, so we'll definitely keep an eye out for that.

And if you got a copy and you want to make sure you send whatever recommendations you've got as well, we'll happy to take a look at that.

Um, yeah, absolutely.

Um, and uh Benjamin, appreciate your testimony in terms of um support for the overall bill around how do we help try to help uh create more cost savings and lower costs for folks.

And I know um we Power DC has been uh advocating not just on this bill but on uh a suite of issues to get at that.

So thank you very much.

Uh Mr.

Greenberg, uh we might need a follow-up outside of the hearing too, just to get more specifics on the auto pay system you're talking about with PEPCO and Washington Gas.

Um, and that might be something we need to reach out to PSC and OPC as well to find out exactly what's happening with that.

I can provide you with uh, I provide your your staff with some of the information, I'll be glad to give them the rest.

I'll I'll be glad to take any context about that.

Got it.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Um, okay, I don't think I have any further questions at this point, but very much appreciates everybody, everyone's advocacy and testimonies today.

So thank you all very much.

Um, all right, and I don't have any other witnesses.

Oh, wait, no, we get a hand in one up.

All right.

I will dismiss all of you.

Thank you all very much.

We have one more witness then.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh, and if you would just introduce yourself.

Um, with Margaret, I'll get to that.

Okay, and if you could actually push the buttons, the red light comes on.

There you go.

Chairperson Allen and members of the Transportation and Environment Committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding regarding B 260596 and the utility affordability more broadly.

My name is Delaney Brown, and I'm here on behalf of Power for Tomorrow, an organization with deep consumer advocacy routes dedicated to educating the public on how well regulated electric utilities benefit customers.

As context, it's important to understand this moment in the country and DC.

Curring demand from data centers, AI, and Raptor Electrication is straining the grid, putting pressure on energy providers, regulators, and most importantly, customers.

This council, as well as policymakers and regulators across the country, have the challenging task before them to find meaningful solutions that will achieve affordability without jeopardizing reliability.

Multi-year rate plans for utilities, one of the areas of reform, the utility rates and rate making amendment act, represent a meaningful shift in the process of rate setting.

These plans are used across the country and are gaining traction for their ability to move bring more transparency and predictability to the often opaque utility rate making process.

These are surely factors this council is weighing as it considers the merits of this reform.

But it is also critical to understand that multi-year rate plans will have a targeted but not transformative impact on customer affordability.

They will not on their own address the underlying cost drivers behind the rising bills in the district.

The district's utilities and its regulator, the Public Service Commissioner PSC, have little ability to address the majority cause of price shocks in supply shortages.

The DCPSC has confirmed that the majority of a DC customers' electric bill, 66 cents of every dollar is outside of their control.

So where do these costs come from?

They come from PJM, which is the region's sole supplier of electricity, leaving DC and every other jurisdiction in the PJM's deregulated market beholden to its prices.

This is where PJM is truly faltering.

Not only do PJM fall 6.6 gigawatts short of its reliability requirement in the last capacity auction, which for perspective is roughly the equivalent to the entire residential domain of the state of Maryland for a year.

But PJM's capacity prices have skyrocketed more than 800% in recent years.

As I've noted, this price and supply crisis is not something multi-year rate plans can fix.

There are, however, some intriguing options this council is rightfully considering, including fast tracking access to renewables and distributed energy resources that would create more supply options for the district.

I'll leave you with one final thought.

My organization tracks residential electricity rates across the country.

We know that residential customers in deregulated states, including the district, where utilities are barred from owning or operating electric generation, pay significantly more on average for electricity than customers in regulated states.

This is largely because regulated utilities with the ability to own and operate generation have more options available to them, are not price takers in a wholesale market and operate under long-term planning requirements that help prevent the kind of price spikes the district is experiencing through PJM.

This council has a tough job before it, and I hope my testimony and the data from Power for Tomorrow provide useful perspective about what can and cannot move the needle on affordability for the district customers.

Thank you for the time and for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Great.

Thank you very much, Ms.

Brown.

And did you submit testimony?

Or can we make sure you do so it's a part of the record?

We yeah, it should be sp like if should I submit my spoken.

Okay, amazing.

Well, whichever version you'd like, but just to make sure that's a part of the record.

That's great to know.

Thank you.

I can do that.

Okay, excellent.

All right, we'll make sure that happens.

Um, all right, thank you very much.

I appreciate your testimony today.

Thank you.

All right.

Now I don't believe we have any more witnesses to testify.

So uh just gonna conclude the public's or the committee's public witness portion of the hearing on Bill 26-596, the utility rates and rate make amendment act of 2026.

Again, I want to thank everybody who provided testimony today.

The record for today's hearing is going to close on July 16th, 2026, and anyone uh can submit written testimony through the council's hearing management system at LIMS.dccouncil.gov backslash hearings until then.

So there being no further business before the committee, the time is now 2.32 p.m.

And this public hearing, the Committee on Transportation and the Environment is now recessed until this coming Thursday at 1 p.m.

when we will pick back up this hearing with our government witnesses.

Thank you all very much.