Economic Development, Technology & City Light Committee Public Hearing 7/27/22

Good morning, everyone.

The July 27th, 2022 meeting of the Economic Development Technology and City Light Committee will come to order.

It is 931 and 72 degrees outside.

I'm Sarah Nelson, chair of the committee.

Council President Juarez and Council Member Sawant are excused from today's meeting.

Let's see, will the clerk please call the roll?

Council Member Strauss?

Present.

Council Member Herbold?

Chair Nelson.

Present.

Three present.

All right, we've got a pretty packed agenda with four items.

We'll first have a discussion and possible vote on the appointment of Mark McIntyre as Director of the Office of Economic Development.

Then we'll have a, I'll discuss the order of items later.

An item on the agenda is a discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 120379, making the 15% cap on delivery service fees permanent.

The third will be a discussion and possible vote on Council Bill 120378, authorizing City Light to execute an operations and maintenance agreement and a telecommunications agreement with the Snohomish County PUD.

And then the fourth item is a briefing, public hearing, and discussion of Resolution 32061, which would approve City Light's 2022 Integrated Resource Plan.

Okay.

If there's no objection, the order of the agenda will be changed to move Council Bill 120370 from item four to item two, as I just indicated, to accommodate the bill's sponsor, Council Member Peterson's schedule.

Hearing no objection, the items will be heard in this order on the agenda.

The first will be the appointment, the next will be the Council Bill 120379, third will be the Council Bill 120378, and then the fourth will be the resolution.

Okay?

All right.

Hearing no objection, the agenda is approved.

We'll now move into public comment on items listed on the agenda, and we will show the video first.

Hello, Seattle.

We are the Emerald City, the city of flowers and the city of goodwill, built on indigenous land, the traditional territory of the Coast Salish peoples.

The Seattle City Council welcomes remote public comment and is eager to hear from residents of our city.

If you would like to be a speaker and provide a verbal public comment, you may register two hours prior to the meeting via the Seattle City Council website.

Here's some information about the public comment proceedings.

Speakers are called upon in the order in which they registered on the council's website.

Each speaker must call in from the phone number provided when they registered online and used the meeting ID and passcode that was emailed upon confirmation.

If you did not receive an email confirmation, please check your spam or junk mail folders.

A reminder, the speaker meeting ID is different from the general listen line meeting ID provided on the agenda.

Once a speaker's name is called, the speaker's microphone will be unmuted and an automatic prompt will say, the host would like you to unmute your microphone.

That is your cue that it's your turn to speak.

At that time, you must press star six.

You will then hear a prompt of, you are unmuted.

Be sure your phone is unmuted on your end so that you will be heard.

As a speaker, you should begin by stating your name and the item that you are addressing.

A chime will sound when 10 seconds are left in your allotted time as a gentle reminder to wrap up your public comments.

At the end of the allotted time, your microphone will be muted, and the next speaker registered will be called.

Once speakers have completed providing public comment, please disconnect from the public comment line and join us by following the meeting via Seattle Channel Broadcast or through the listening line option listed on the agenda.

The council reserves the right to eliminate public comment if the system is being abused or if the process impedes the council's ability to conduct its business on behalf of residents of the city.

Any offensive language that is disruptive to these proceedings or that is not focused on an appropriate topic as specified in Council rules may lead to the speaker being muted by the presiding officer.

Our hope is to provide an opportunity for productive discussions that will assist our orderly consideration of issues before the Council.

The public comment period is now open.

and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

Please remember to press star six after you hear the prompt of, you have been unmuted.

Thank you, Seattle.

So we will start with in-person commenters and everyone both present and online will have two minutes to speak.

Clerk, could you please grab the list?

And if you would like to speak, you're welcome to sign up on this list throughout the course of the public comment period.

We'll get to you at the end if you haven't signed up yet.

Okay, our first speaker is Alex Zimmerman.

Sieg Heil, my dirty, damn Nazi, fascist, mob, bandit, and psychopath, and clown who spit from the heaven.

My name Alexander.

I must speak about appointment this manager.

Yeah, new manager in agenda number one.

I don't know who this guy, you know, what has been the soul for a freaking circus and clown all in mask.

I never know his faces.

So how, when I don't know his faces, how I know how much money he can cut?

Because face, by freight, very nice psychologist, so by face you can understand who these people.

So my experience right now for many years, and I speak in this chamber 3,000 times, see almost every management, what is your appointment, very simple.

Look what's happened.

We have crook and clown, Mayor Murray.

We have crook, and Clown Durkan.

We have Crook and Clown Harrell.

These people choose who.

Can they choose?

Same clown.

But when clown pay $30,000 or $400,000, it's different.

You know what this means?

So they appoint people and pay them for approximately $400,000, maybe $300,000, maybe $400,000, thinking they're smarter.

But it's not working.

This is exactly what's happened.

And my question, and I talk about this 100 times here, managers don't possibly have more than average Seattle salary.

And I spoke about this 100 times here for many years.

100 grand right now, where our income in Seattle, all manager, no more than 100 grand.

Problem right now, it's not matter how much you pay, this is go absolutely identical.

Look, they all in mask, so identical, they all zombie.

It's exactly what's happened.

This train go, go, go, go.

It will be stopping.

I know this today or tomorrow.

Stand up, America.

Clean this zombie.

Thank you very much.

Okay, if there are no other commenters in person, we will now move to the online people on the list.

So first will be Brian Rodriguez followed by Steve Hooper.

Brian, take it away.

Hi, my name is Brian Rodriguez, and I'm a Dasher and constituent based in Seattle.

I'm here to speak against the new price control on App-Based Food Delivery Commission your committee is considering today.

This kind of policy hurts independent workers like me.

Working as a delivery driver with DoorDash over the past year has given me the flexibility to pick up additional work.

when I can to save up to finish college and have more financial freedom to support myself and my family.

Dashing is not my only job.

In fact, I have a full-time job as a cruise transportation coordinator for the Port of Seattle.

But even just delivering for a few hours each week with apps like DoorDash has gone a long way in reaching all of my life goals.

While well-intentioned, the city council could ultimately hurt the very restaurants that they are looking to help with this bill and hurt hard-working people like me in the process.

I urge you to amend the legislation so that I will not include increasing customer fees and bring me and other app-based delivery workers to the table alongside restaurateurs and small business owners to discuss how we can continue to work together to preserve economic opportunity for independent contractors like me.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Steve Hooper.

Steve, you need to press star six.

Hi, Council Member, Chair Nelson.

Thanks for having me today.

My name is Steve Hooper.

I'm the president of Ethan Stoll Restaurants and the president of the Seattle Restaurant Alliance.

I wanted to thank you for your hard work and the hard work of Council Members Strauss and Peterson to co-sponsor the legislation coming before your committee today.

As everyone knows, restaurants have been the hardest hit throughout the pandemic, and for a long time, delivery fees were the only way to get food to our guests.

With the pandemic seemingly winding up, we're now in a position where the pricing power of the duopoly of DoorDash and Uber Eats will come back to the forefront, and small and independent restaurants with no negotiating leverage will again face 30% plus delivery fees just to reach their customers.

We think it's economically fair and just that the city council take up this action and make permanent what they started in the pandemic.

We also believe that this will not impact the drivers as the previous caller just stated, because DoorDash has the ability to charge other kinds of fees through this legislation.

This is not a price fixing, as some have suggested.

It's just a simple economic argument for parity within the industry.

I appreciate your time today.

I appreciate everybody's support.

And I look forward to hearing the full vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Steve.

Next, we have Fox Matthews, followed by Beth Jackson.

Hi my name is Fox Matthews and I am a Dasher in the Seattle-based area.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the committee regarding this issue.

I'm here to urge the committee to reconsider the new price control on app-based food delivery commissions.

This type of policy could negatively impact independent workers like me.

I've been relying on my work as a Dasher over the past few years to pick up work around my own schedule while prioritizing my newborn child and my passion for the arts.

Raising fees due to the council's proposed rules won't just hurt dashers like me, but all the small businesses and stores as well.

We've worked together to get critical items, including food bank deliveries to residents across the region and helped many of our neighbors keep their business doors open.

I understand the good intentions of this regulation, but this new rule could ultimately hurt the very restaurants that the council is looking to help with and hurt hardworking people like me in the process.

I urge you to amend the legislation so that it will not include hurtful customer fees and bring app-based delivery workers to the table alongside restaurant and small business owners to discuss how we can continue to work together to preserve economic opportunity for independent contractors like me.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Beth Jackson.

Hi, my name is Beth Jackson.

and I am a Dasher and a continuing faith in Seattle.

I was made aware that the city council is once again taking an aim at independent contractors who work on app-based platforms, like DoorDash, through new rules that would permanently limit the fees that restaurants agree to pay these delivery platforms in exchange for delivery services.

This kind of policy hurts independent workers like myself.

Working as a delivery driver with DoorDash in Seattle over the past several years has given me the flexibility to pick up work around my doctor's appointment.

I'm a cancer patient.

I am able to prioritize my health without the fear of losing my income.

While intended the City Council isn't taking into consideration how their proposed policy will impact those of us working to better our lives.

If the council puts fees in place, it will force these platforms to raise their prices on consumers to meet costs that come with the services that these platforms offer restaurants, including paying dashers like myself.

And that means fewer orders for restaurants and fewer opportunities I have earned.

If there's not as much work to go around, then I would lose the income that has become so crucial for me and my family.

Cities consider dashers and delivery drivers like myself before passing price control rules that can harm my income.

This is all I have.

If I lose this, I lose it all.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Mark Johnson followed by Trey Lamont.

Thank you, Chair.

Members of the committee, Mark Johnson, Senior Vice President of Policy and Government Affairs for the Washington Retail Association, and on behalf of our Retail Industry Coalition of Seattle, we represent over 4,500 storefronts throughout Washington, many with operations in the city of Seattle.

Our members range in size from the sole proprietor to companies with thousands of employees, 90% of our members are small businesses with 50 or fewer team members.

I am offering comments on agenda item CB120379, permanently imposing price controls on third-party delivery platforms.

Many retailers, especially smaller ones, pivoted during the pandemic to start using delivery platforms to help keep their businesses afloat.

At that time, a temporary price cap was reasonable to help keep our members open.

However, as the economy continues to recover and retailers start to grow and look to the future, the price cap should expire.

This will allow merchants to choose various tiers of service to best provide to their customers.

The proposed fee cap will lead to higher prices for consumers, which means lower sales for retailers.

Coupled with ever-increasing inflation, this is a dangerous course to head down.

Instead, if an ordinance is truly necessary, It should be modeled after the approach taken by Minneapolis where transparency and flexibility were incorporated into the final legislation.

Thank you for this opportunity to share our views.

We stand ready to work with you and the entire council on addressing this issue.

Thank you.

Trey Lamont.

Trey, press star six.

Hello, everyone.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

We can.

Go ahead, please.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

My name is Trey Lamont.

I'm the chef and owner of the Jerk Shack in Belltown, downtown Seattle.

And being the only 100% Black-owned restaurant in downtown Seattle, I made it a point to be in this conference call, this council meeting, so that I could express that the 15% cap is actually a good thing to be permanent.

Because before the pandemic, I refused to be on third-party delivery apps because a 30% or higher or even 20% or higher fees take away all of the profits that the restaurant would be able to make on the delivery service.

So when the fees were dropped to 15%, I said, okay, I can do that.

But I would like to express that before the pandemic happened, I used to have to fight with other third party delivery companies that would put us on their platforms anyway without our permission.

They had bad practices of bringing us into the loop and putting the wrong menus on their website and having delivery drivers just come and pay for food with a credit card, a separate credit card.

And when customers would get the wrong items or items that we didn't even serve anymore due to the fact that we were not in partnership, they would complain to the restaurant.

So what I'm saying is, if they go up, I will no longer be able to use third-party delivery services because I'd rather for a customer come.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next up is Anna Powell followed by Susana Damadir.

Dear Chair Nelson, members of the committee, my name is Anna Powell and I am the Government Relations Manager for DoorDash.

DoorDash knows that price controls lead to higher costs for customers fewer orders and revenue for local restaurants and fewer earnings opportunities for dashers.

That is why we urge the city council to find a better solution that won't hurt consumers, workers, and restaurants.

In April 2021, DoorDash debuted new pricing plans that give small and medium-sized restaurants the ability to choose the level of service they want.

This includes a 15% commission rate and the flexibility to change their plan whenever they want.

DoorDash does not support permanent price controls.

And we know it is imperative to get the details.

And then you cut out after pricing plans.

So are you there?

Would you like to continue?

Over.

Yes.

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

OK, great.

I'll pick up where I left off.

DoorDash does not support permanent price controls.

and we know that it is imperative to get the details of this legislation right.

For instance, one of the amendments you will vote on today could lead to inflated prices for customers, further exacerbating the problem of reduced orders for restaurants and fewer earnings opportunities for dashers.

In fact, the council has two amendments to this legislation, which have been made available only minutes before today's hearing.

I ask that you please provide more clarity on these amendments during today's hearing, and ensure that they won't further hurt the very restaurants you're trying to protect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up is Susanna.

Susanna, press star six.

Okay, you're listed as present, but we will move on and then come back to you.

Next up is Marcos Juanles, please.

Go ahead.

My name is Marcos Juanles.

I am the president and founder of the Seattle Metropolitan Latino Chamber of Commerce.

Good morning, Chair Nelson and council members.

We are speaking this morning against the cap proposition of Mobile Apps.

To start, I would like to state that we were not consulted by anyone on the Seattle City Council about the impact that this initiative can have on small Latino businesses.

So what happened to the promise of including diversity and inclusion on the actions taken by the City Council?

I don't know, but clearly not happening for the Latino small business community.

Now, as business owners, we know the needs of our businesses more than anyone.

Many of our members have entered partnerships with third party delivery apps With a clear understanding of the terms, products and services of working with delivery platforms, DoorDash for one has flexible and transparency pricing structure enabling business owners to choose delivery commissions already at the proposed cap rate of 15% with the ability to add additional services and options.

The bottom line is this proposal not only tells businesses what to do, but also strengthens their very support system that helped them through the pandemic.

Our mission at the Seattle Latino Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce is to protect jobs and the employers who provide them.

City Council should be more thoughtful and proactive in helping local businesses recover.

We suggest the city consider, like the Washington Retail Association also proposed, the approach taken by City of Minneapolis, where transparency and flexibility were considered before final legislation.

In short words, we hope this initiative does not pass.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And next up is Travis Rosenthal, please.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Travis Rosenthal.

I'm the owner of Pike Street Hospitality Group in Seattle.

I'm calling in to support continuation of the 15% delivery fee cap.

Many things have permanently changed since this pandemic.

One of these things is people's expectations and desires to have food from their neighborhood restaurants delivered right to their doorstep.

This is a new normal for dining and is now expected by guests of our restaurants.

Unfortunately, I cannot create my own app to compete with Uber Eats, Grubhub, and DoorDash, so this leaves me relying 100% on their platforms to reach my guests, what is now considered the new normal course of business.

Don't be fooled, delivery drivers will not be affected by this legislation.

There are other tools large corporate third-party delivery services can use in order to increase prices for customers and maintain the high wages to its drivers, just as the third-party delivery companies have done throughout the entire pandemic.

I've got a friend in Dallas who owns a dumpling shop.

His fees to these delivery services, 30% of his delivery sales.

These just are unsustainable for small business.

And unfortunately, we need government to step in and help put a cap on these fees.

Thank you for your time this morning.

Thank you.

And we'll go back to Susanna.

If you're there, press star six.

I'm here.

Hi, my name is Susanna Domberry, and I'm the owner of Lasky and Spice Cafe.

We have two locations, one in South Lake Union and one in Wallingford.

I'm a member of the Seattle Restaurant Alliance, and thank you for the opportunity today.

My restaurant, along with all of your favorite neighborhood restaurants, has been through a lot during the pandemic.

Most of us are nowhere near being out of the woods.

My restaurant currently carries over $200,000 in debt, and I have been fortunate to survive, but this debt is the equivalent of many future years of profit, and I am not unique in this space.

I should the delivery left by could not do any delivery business or work with 3rd parties due to the 30% plus delivery commission.

However, when the stay home order was enacted we came to rely on the services because of the 15% commission cap that made it reasonable for us.

And these deliveries quickly began to represent about half of our sales.

3rd party delivery services were an important tool for many local restaurants to get it through this impossibly difficult time providing that valuable connection to customers that might otherwise have been unavailable.

Even as customers have returned to dining in, we have not seen our third-party sales diminish.

Customers continue to rely on third-party delivery as a very routine dining option.

We've been so grateful that the City of Seattle has maintained the 15% delivery commission cap.

The rationale for capping third-party delivery fees is as urgent and sound today as ever, perhaps maybe even more.

Unless delivery fees are permanently capped at 15%, we will expect high commissions to return up to 30%, as some of my fellow restaurant tours have mentioned.

And that's going to force impossible choices on our diverse network of locally owned restaurants like myself.

We will simply opt out.

That's going to mean reduced business for delivery drivers.

It's going to mean reduced sales to our restaurant and reduced opportunities for us as a business.

So with margins as razor thin as they are, we all know that supply chain costs and labor costs rise.

We urge you to make the 15% cap per minute.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

This concludes our public comment period.

Thank you all for speaking.

Will the clerk please call, please read item number one into the record.

Agenda item number one, appointment 02279, appointment of Mark McIntyre as Director of the Office of Economic Development for briefing and discussion.

And possible vote.

And possible vote.

All right, well, they're settling.

I just want to note that Markham McIntyre would be the first OED director with formal professional experience in advocating for and in developing economic development policy.

He's had many years of direct work and and just sitting down at the table and hashing out the details of solutions with the private sector.

And this is important because knowing how to help businesses start and grow in Seattle isn't self-evident.

And nor is it obvious that helping BIPOC entrepreneurs access capital, create jobs, and build generational wealth for themselves, their families, and their community is central to attaining the anti-displacement equity and social justice policy goals of the city of Seattle.

So that's been Markham's day job for years and years and years.

He gets it.

As a small business owner myself, I've seen him in action advocating for businesses all over Seattle.

So his resume speaks for itself, but it's more compelling to let Manisha speak on behalf of Mr. McIntyre.

So take it away.

Thank you, Council Member Nelson and fellow committee members.

It is my privilege to be able to introduce to you today Mayor Harrell's nominee for the Director of Seattle's Office of Economic Development, Mark McIntyre.

I have had the good fortune to work closely with Interim Director McIntyre these last few months and have been truly, truly impressed with his ability to strategically develop new initiatives and act with intention to support Seattle's historically marginalized communities.

In the time since Markham has taken the helm as interim director, the department has found sure footing on the wake of high turnover.

In the last five years, we've had five OED directors.

We have had 78% staff turnover in the last 16 months.

Markham has worked to diligently rebuild the team, create some solid foundation, triage an array of city priorities and connect with businesses large and small to identify the best ways the department can be of service to the greater Seattle community.

If Interim Director McIntire's impressive work didn't already speak for itself, which Council Member you spoke to, our office also consulted with stakeholders, other stakeholders to inform Mayor Harrell's decision whether to refer Markham's nomination to you, including representatives from businesses and organizations, including the Workforce Development Council of Seattle King County, the Washington State Department of Commerce, the Seattle Kraken, the Urban League of Greater Seattle, Fair Start, the Crescent Collaborative, and the Business Impact Network, and more.

Collectively, these stakeholders see Markham as a more than competent leader who brings great judgment, solution-oriented thinking, and who works hard to deliver for entrepreneurs, business owners, and employees across Seattle.

With 39 staff, OED is a relatively small department, but with a calm, capable leader at the helm, its impact across our city can be almost immeasurable.

from expanding access to training and career opportunities to connecting struggling businesses to technical information and low cost capital.

The department and its employees are essential and we are so lucky to have Markham's leadership to supercharge a team that is critical for the city of Seattle's economic engine.

I present to you Markham McIntyre.

Thanks very much.

I really appreciate the kind words.

Thanks for the kind introduction.

My name is Mark McIntyre.

I'm really excited about this role.

We have all the right ingredients here in this region to really lead the nation in the future of equitable economic development.

We've got the brainpower, we've got the resources, and we certainly have the right set of values to kind of pull everything together and really figure out what the future of Seattle's economy is going to be like, what the future of the national economy is going to look like.

However, we can only achieve that if we've got the right intention, the right organization and the right creativity.

And that's really what I'm hoping to bring to this role.

I'm looking forward to working with you all on council as we design that future.

So very excited for the discussion today and for hearing your thoughts on where we go next.

Thank you very much.

And I am sorry for, uh, being so casual in my introduction, Senior Deputy Mayor Harrell.

Okay, so committee members have, well, council members have submitted questions for Interim Director McIntyre, and they are linked on the agenda.

And right now I will open the floor to my colleagues to ask any questions or ask for any clarifications.

Or make any comments.

Sure, I guess I was waiting for other people to go first, but Council Member Herbold, let her go first.

She's right there.

Council Member Herbold.

One of the things that jumped out in the Q&A, a couple of things jumped out in the Q&A.

and would love to hear you sort of riff on your thinking on the first.

You write, what I want to avoid is a variety of rogue expectations that we cannot deliver on.

Can you talk a little bit more about what you mean about rogue expectations and how you'll address which delayed initiatives fit the category of rogue expectations?

One of the things I'd inquired about was the legacy business initiative that I've been working on with Director Lee for several years, and we're ready to launch a pilot.

Just want to, and I was really excited about it, did not see it as a rogue expectation, and like I said, I've been working closely with OED on that.

So just want to hear from you directly on what your what things you might think of as being rogue expectations.

And then I have one more question.

Sure.

And to be clear, my response is I wasn't meaning to characterize the legacy business work as a rogue expectation.

And really often it shows up more in kind of soft conversations where OED hasn't, I think I've been clear to in taking this role that A foundational thing is OED needs to be clear about what its role and function is in the regional economic development ecosystem.

What we can do, what we can't do, and where the city can make the most impact.

But I've found both working as an outside stakeholder OED and then coming into this role, we get stretched and pulled within the city in a variety of different ways.

We get pulled by other departments, we get pulled by the executive's office, by council, kind of in pushed and pulled in different ways so that we don't have focus and that doesn't allow us to actually execute on kind of key priorities that we need to.

to do to make sure that our economy is moving forward and evolving.

So it's more about us being clear about our identity both inside and outside the city and sticking to it so that we don't kind of dilute our ability to have an impact and make change.

Thank you so much.

And can you talk a little bit about the Stalled Legacy business initiative?

Like I said, before COVID, we were poised to launch.

It was going to be small, it was going to be targeted, and it was built off of the recommendations of a couple of reports that the commission had worked consultants on.

I had heard loud and clear that folks were concerned that we were going to be going down this road of identifying businesses as legacy businesses just because they've been around for a long time, and that indeed wasn't the case.

It's really about businesses that are integral to a community's identity, focus on BIPOC cultural gathering places, and really The thinking is, of course, we want to support all small businesses, new as well as old, but that old businesses do have a special role in the city's history and the identity of a community.

Yeah, well I first of all I think our team still is working on the specifics around the legacy business proposal including succession planning and legal support.

But to me I think the idea of legacy businesses builds into this broader issue of commercial affordability.

And so we're, we're very excited having been able to work with some of the federal relief funds to develop some new ideas around commercial affordability and ways that the city can support businesses, returning to neighborhoods if they've been displaced and want to get back to the neighborhoods I was just visiting with a couple of businesses up on Beacon Hill that were displaced for a variety of different reasons that are now working with the landlord and our tenant improvement program to build out some new space in return.

So that's really exciting, but there's really a continuum of affordability issues, commercial affordability issues.

And we need to figure out again, where can we make the most impact?

Where can we actually help those businesses find a pathway forward to stabilize and then grow?

So legacy businesses are a part of that, but I do believe that it's a broader issue around commercial affordability across the city.

And on that note, just closing out, just really, we have legislation, regulations that are tied to the public health state of emergency.

The ban on rent increases for small businesses and nonprofits is one of those bills.

And so right now, there is a ban on rent increases in the city of Seattle for small businesses and nonprofits that will be going away when the state of emergency is lifted.

And so I'd really like to spend some time talking to you and of course Chair Nelson about whether or not there's something that should be put in its place.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Herbold.

I think that I wrote into council when Legacy Businesses was in development and I had a question about which businesses the city is targeting to help.

The resources of OED are very thin.

And so my question, I believe, back then was, should we be helping businesses that are already well established, or should we be helping businesses that are new and really struggling to get a foothold, many of them being owned by immigrant families that see owning a small restaurant as the first way to get a foothold.

So we do have to think about how our policies are applied and if they benefit our constituents in a consistent manner.

But we can continue talking about that.

Okay.

Are there any other questions?

Council Member Strauss?

Yeah, good morning to both of you.

How are you today?

Morning.

Morning.

Well, I'm just very excited to have you here.

So I know everyone else has been a little bit formal, but I'll take it back a notch.

I mean, Senior Deputy Mayor, you put it very well, and Director McIntyre, you wrote it in your questions and response that we've had such high turnover with so many different directors over the last year, just that consistency.

has gone by the wayside and that's no fault to anyone.

It's just the situation we're in.

And I think that's just one of the most important tenants of being a leader is just understanding the situation we're in.

And so you're well poised in this moment to take us to a place that I don't think OED has been in a long time.

I'm very excited for this.

I think, you know, I'll ask you some questions in just a minute, but I guess I'll start with my remarks first.

And similarly as to OED, downtown is really well positioned for a comeback.

I don't necessarily think we were ever as bad as the news media made it out to be.

I know they had to sell advertising to the suburbs, but I'll just state from, you know, during Downtown Seattle Association's annual gala this year, they had Richard Florida who came and spoke.

He'd been here 25 years ago.

He's quoted in Seattle Times as saying, when I compare this downtown today to what I saw 25 years ago, you've already done the hard work.

You've already built up your downtown.

You've already positioned the city for success.

We do have a tough road ahead of us and we can do it together.

And I think at this very moment, you both have a department and a downtown and the rest of the city ready to go.

And I couldn't think of a better person to do it than you.

I know in our conversations, we talked about the farmer's markets, right?

Like literally the smallest businesses that might not even be in Seattle and provide food and nutrition for Seattleites.

I mean, that's how Pike Place started was a farmer's market.

And now we have them all throughout the city.

And so I'll ask you a question about what you can do to help support farmers markets and just for the general public, our Director McIntyre and my discussion has been in the past I've requested reports from OED about how OED can better support farmers markets as a as a constellation, because they're all separate farmers markets, technically.

When I made this request, I was told that I had to fund a staff position for it.

I did.

I attempted to, and then we had some backroom not deals, it's not even backroom.

I guess it was here on the dais just saying, yeah, it was on the record actually.

So it wasn't, it was in the front room just to say, look, I'll fund a special events coordinator because that's what I'm hearing from OED is the need, but I need this report manual.

And it's no fault to anyone in the department or in the room, but the report was never done.

And the farmers markets still don't have that support.

And that's okay.

It's just, again, this is just where we're at.

Director McIntyre, I know you have a love for farmer's markets.

I'll punt it over to you.

What can we be doing to support our farmer's markets?

Sure, you know I have a love of farmer's markets.

Having been a farmer's market manager for Full Circle Farm many years ago, food is near and dear to my heart.

And food as a business is near and dear to my heart.

Um, we're, we have an interesting role at OED where we, we handle events permits.

So special events, permits, film permitting.

Um, and now this, we, we want to take on this farmer's market permitting.

And, and really what I want to do is make it as easy as possible, um, for our smallest businesses, uh, working with bureaucracy is a burden.

Um, and so we need to do everything we can to try and streamline and make it as easy as possible and as clear as possible why we're asking for whatever forms or information or fees that we're asking for.

And so we're gonna undergo, we have an ambition to undergo kind of a process to clean up all varieties of those activity permits, including farmers markets, so that they have kind of a one-stop shop when they're coming to the city, they're not having to go to multiple different departments, which I think was your ambition and aim as well.

Our special events team has already been working individually with some farmers markets on some lingering issues that have been causing some problems, for instance, alcohol sales for kind of tastings on public land.

So I think we're trying to build a rapport with them while we're trying to get organized ourselves and stabilize ourselves in-house so that we can then provide better service for them ongoing.

Wonderful.

I'm excited to endeavor in that work with you.

You know, another really important sector of our economy here is our maritime economy.

When I look at Ballard, Ballard's always had a strong economy, even when it was not desired by folks outside of Ballard to go.

You know, we always kind of liked it back then, but, you know, things change and it's okay, right?

And so now, you know, Ballard Avenue used to be a place where you wear Carhartts, now it's really nice jeans, and that's okay.

Ballard's strong economy has always been there because people can have a job that pays them a family wage without going into debt for education or anything else.

And the reason that this economy and when I look at Fisherman's Terminal, I see each of the masks on every vessel as being a small business directly employing four to 10 people and indirectly thousands in our community.

With that within you know the ship canal and the fresh water, as well as a if a vessel, whether it's a yacht a fishing vessel or anything else if they can't get full service.

then they'll choose to go to a different port.

And that's just the importance of each of these different businesses because each of them have such a high overhead that they can't, you know, they can't all just be under one business.

So I guess, you know, understanding that that constellation of businesses really creates a port that attracts many different types of work What are your thoughts on – in ways to support this constellation of maritime businesses?

Sure.

I mean, first of all, our maritime economy is incredibly important, both from a historical perspective, as you were mentioning, but also as we're coming out of the pandemic, there's a strong focus on economic resilience, and a resilient economy requires a diversity of industry.

And so having a strong maritime economy is certainly part of our economic resilience play.

Second, I know we've talked a lot about the turnover at OED, but I do want to mention that we've got some really incredible talented staff at OED, both new and folks that have been there for a while, working on all of these issues.

So it's not as if we're floundering, it's more a matter of how do we organize and how do we have focus going forward?

And I'll just mention John Persak, who's our Maritime and Manufacturing Lead, is one of those rock stars, and comes in highly networked with the maritime community, understanding what they need, understanding different perspectives, And able to deploy his talent in a on land use issues on workforce issues and a variety of others, so that we can have kind of a direct point of contact for support.

A couple things that we are going to work on, I just mentioned a couple of them, but focus on land use and how do we preserve maritime industrial lands, while we're still a growing city and have diversity of needs for our land.

Second, they have an aging workforce.

And so what are we doing to support them?

And so certainly the partnership that the city brokered with the Seattle colleges around the Seattle Maritime Academy is the perfect example of a way that we can come in and be supportive of the maritime future, not just the current.

And so we wanna see more opportunities for partnership like that, where we can work with the port, work with the colleges, work with a variety of players to support our maritime industry.

You actually answered all my follow-up questions.

Oh, good.

So, I mean, and I think that it's just, again, another demonstration of your leadership to be able to hire John Scott Pluskarek in your department I've relied on for so many years.

You're well-poised to accomplish great things.

We've got a lot of work to get done, and I'm excited to get it done with you.

Me too.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I have a question in your responses, and I think you might've mentioned it in your presentation, I think it was on June 22nd, when you talked about the new vision for OED.

You say that OED needs to build out our research and data capacity.

So what do you mean by that?

And what data do you wish you could have gotten from the city when you were working for the chamber?

So what are you talking about?

Well, and you hit it on the head Council Member Nelson, this is part of coming from being an external stakeholder working with OED to now on the inside.

I always wanted to kind of have the city produce kind of a finger on the pulse of Seattle's economy so that external stakeholders can all have a kind of a clear sense of what's going on and where they can make an impact.

And so I'd love for OED to be able to deliver that product.

We've recently just hired a person to lead our research and data efforts.

We've got to figure out kind of what are those key indicators that we want to track for the economy.

Again, we have an opportunity to do things differently coming out of the pandemic.

We don't need to just go back to try to measure local GDP and assume that that's going to suffice for understanding the nuances of our economy.

And the key question that I always want us to be thinking of whenever OEDs working on projects or designing products like a finger on the pulse type of survey is who benefits, right?

Because that's I think the question that we've got to ask ourselves in a new and hopefully more equitable and inclusive economies, who benefits?

That's gotta be guiding our decisions always.

And so as we develop research and data, that'll help us answer who benefits and help us make smart choices about where we put our time, where we put our resources, where we put our energy.

And it's not just us like I wanted to help inform Council I wanted to help inform external stakeholders, it's not just a thing that we hold for ourselves, it should be something that helps align us so that we we can make choices about shared objectives that are actually going to again move us towards that more equitable economy.

Yeah, I was wondering back in the day, how many small businesses are there in Seattle with X number of employees or fewer?

Or what's the change in small business revenue since the pandemic started?

So these, I definitely see the need for more data and congratulations on getting higher.

Thank you.

Let's see.

I had, let's see.

I had a question that I submitted to you, which was the need to work well with other departments and not recreate the wheel, which is basically just avoiding silos in city government.

Can you talk a little bit more about what you're planning with the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs?

Sure.

I mean, this is, I think, is one of the opportunities where intent and organization are really going to bear fruit.

Figuring out our working relationship with other departments, again, being clear on the role that we play and staying focused and disciplined on our priorities.

will help how we relate to those other departments.

We've got to have some discussions about their priorities and figure out how they kind of mesh together.

So the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs, I've actually been lucky enough to go with Director Muhammad to a number of walking tours to different parts of the city to meet with different businesses, hear what they're doing.

And we have an incredible immigrant business population here who doesn't get the time and attention that they deserve.

And so we need to figure out how do we work together, both to do the outreach, to listen to them and understand the needs, but then internally, how do we develop programs that support those businesses, programs that support those workers in thoughtful and considerate ways.

And one of the key things that OED did a really good job of over the pandemic and we'd like to continue to scale up is our language access work.

So we worked with a group called Lake City Collective up in Lake City to build out a language resource line, which was hugely helpful for businesses who needed in language support to figure out how to access relief funds or deal with new regulations or public health mandates.

And we want to make sure that we continue that because it's just such an incredible resource for businesses that have English as a second language.

And so we want to figure out how do we work with the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs on the outreach side and then the program development side.

It's pretty exciting.

And I think there's a lot of interest from both departments to collaborate in a new and creative way.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right, I don't see any other questions I'll just basically say senior deputy mayor, I did not realize the breadth of the, the vetting that that occurred, and Again, speaks for itself so all I will say is that I can't think of a better person for this position, you understand the impacts or the potential impacts of well intentioned policy how it might play out in reality, and you also lead with.

the goals that I think that all departments share and are in line with Seattle's progressive values.

So I will close discussion now and move to a vote if that's okay with everyone.

I will first move passage of appointment 02279. Is there a second?

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of this appointment.

Are there any further comments?

Okay.

No further comments for the clerk.

Please call the roll on the committee recommendation that the appointment pass.

Council Member Skrouse.

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Serene favor, none opposed.

Congratulations.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation.

I'm just gonna stop talking right now.

Congratulations.

And we will have the vote at next council meeting.

You are welcome to come, but you are not required to.

So congratulations.

Thank you.

Okay, will the clerk please read item number two into the record.

Agenda item number two, Council Bill 120379, an ordinance relating to regulations of food delivery platforms, establishing requirements for food delivery platforms, providing delivery services to restaurants, and amending chapter 7.30 of the Seattle Municipal Code for discussion and possible vote.

Thank you very much.

This is our second discussion.

Last time we had a presentation from central staff and we discussed the details of the proposed legislation.

I just want to say that making this 15% cap on restaurant delivery service fee permanent will provide desperately needed relief to restaurants and predictability.

So I think council member Peterson, who is joining us today and co-sponsor Strauss for bringing this forward.

So first we have to, we have a couple of amendments and first we need to move the bill.

So council member Strauss, would you like to All right, I will move and I will ask for a second.

I move Council Bill 1203789. Is there a second?

I'm just waiting for a second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded Councilmember Peterson, I will, I will give you the floor.

Thank you, Chair Nelson.

Thanks for hearing this bill two weeks ago and your economic development committee and for making time again today to discuss and ideally vote on this bill, Council Bill 120379. I wanna thank Karina Bull on central staff for her hard work on this bill with our council offices.

I believe this bill is consistent with this committee's steadfast support of Seattle's small business community.

Even though I don't serve on this particular committee, I appreciate this opportunity to speak briefly about why I hope you all vote in favor of Council Bill 120379 today.

To support Seattle's diverse restaurants, I'm co-sponsoring this small business legislation with Council Member Strauss to make permanent the 15% cap on fees that third party delivery corporations can charge.

This legislation adds flexibility by enabling a restaurant to opt out of the 15% cap if it wants to receive additional services from the delivery corporations.

A sensible 15% cap on fees was originally adopted as part of the mayor's civil emergency order in 2020, and has been helping many local restaurants survive the pandemic.

Before the pandemic, out-of-town delivery corporations are charging Seattle restaurants delivery fees as high as 30% on each food order.

And because the pandemic-related civil emergency could end soon, our diverse local restaurants face a financial cliff unless we take action.

After receiving additional feedback, Councilor Strauss and I crafted a balanced amendment to clarify a couple of sections.

He or I can speak to that later, but I just want to encourage the committee to adopt the legislation as soon as you can.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I would like to note that central staff member Karina Bull is here to talk about the amendments and also answer questions.

Council Member Strauss, I open it up to you.

Thank you, Chair Nelson.

Thank you, Council Member Peterson for allowing me to co-sponsor with you and thank you to Seattle Restaurants.

for bringing this bill to both of us.

Capping food delivery fees at 15% during the pandemic benefited both our smallest businesses and consumers alike.

This was good for Seattleites during the pandemic and remains good policy today as we emerge from the pandemic in whatever sense this is occurring.

This small business legislation means restaurants will have more control over the cost of their product and people ordering food from home won't get price gouged.

This is a common sense protection for our local restauranteurs and foodies alike.

I'm just, I've seen from the restaurants in my community, the need for this legislation that it's worked during the pandemic and that this is the type of legislation that we want to keep in our city as we emerge from, from the last two years.

This is a balanced approach.

It's good governance.

I appreciate everyone bringing this forward today and chair Nelson for hearing it in your last committee in this committee.

Thank you.

Thank you, so are there any questions right now before we go into discussing the amendments?

All right, seeing none.

Let's see, Council Member Strauss, would you like to move amendment one?

Yes, I'd like to move amendment one to, looking for the bill number, excuse me. 120379. 1, 2, 0, 3, 7, 9. I'd like to move Amendment 1 to 1, 2, 0, 3, 7, 9. Second.

Thank you.

Oh, would you like me to, uh, I'll go ahead or, or, um, creamy.

You can speak to it.

Sure.

Thank you.

Jane Nelson.

After hearing from both delivery platforms and our local restaurants, this amendment is balanced approach to remove some duplicative language and to make our legislative intent more clear.

Always a good day for good governance chair.

Uh, restaurants were among the hardest hit businesses during the pandemic.

And as we continue transit transitioning out, this is a protection I believe we need to keep.

So, um, just check in here.

So this amendment would just clarify in technical ways, two pieces, one about delivery location and the second about refusal of service.

Thank you very much.

Do you have anything to add or for our audience, is there a way to put this amendment on the screen?

Hi, this is Karina Bull with Council Central staff.

I'm happy to go ahead and put this amendment on the screen and I'll go ahead and do that now.

Okay, are you able to see this head nod?

Yes.

Okay, so this is the amendment.

This is the effect statement.

It would clarify the scope of the fee requirements and the definitions of delivery services and food or beverage order.

to include pickup or delivery to any location within Seattle city limits.

Right now the legislation says two locations.

So this is a clarification to any location.

And it also would make a drafting correction to remove redundant language, prohibiting food delivery platforms from refusing service to restaurants that choose the 15% option for delivery services as receiving, Receiving service is a manner of penalization.

So I will scroll down and you can see where these amendments would take place and the definition of delivery services and the definition of food or beverage order and the actual fee and charge requirements.

Prohibiting a food delivery platform from charging a restaurant a fee for delivery services to any location and Seattle city limits, that is the scope of the fee requirement.

And then last, removing that language about refusing service as it is duplicative.

Okay, I see, thank you very much.

And I see that Council Member Herbold had her hand up.

Thank you so much.

I just want to say my inclination and, well, more than my inclination, my intention is to support this amendment.

I appreciate Council Member Peterson walking me through it late afternoon yesterday.

I hadn't had a chance yet to see it, though, so I just want to clarify.

The insertion of the word any, the effect of that would be so that the platforms couldn't carve out parts of the city to not serve because of the, as a way to avoid the fee, is that more or less correct?

So I'll try another way and hopefully it'll make sense.

It would not apply to delivery orders outside of Seattle.

So this legislation covers delivery orders to any location in Seattle.

If a restaurant is purchasing services through a food delivery platform for a delivery outside of Seattle, this legislation would not cover it.

And so that it is the scope of the fee requirement.

And this is a chance to make it clear that it's to any location, not just location.

So it's, it provides more, refinement to that language.

All right.

Very helpful.

Thank you so much, Karina.

And the removal of the refusal of service, there's no actual policy impact on that.

That was just a concept that those words made duplicative in the bill?

Correct.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

So I had a question, or maybe it's just clarification.

So this does not change, or I'll just say, does this legislation apply to restaurants outside of Seattle that are delivering to customers inside Seattle?

Is that part of the geographic focus of this amendment?

My understanding is that this is for restaurants in Seattle, that are purchasing delivery services to any location in Seattle.

So city of Seattle has jurisdiction over food delivery platforms offering services to restaurants in Seattle.

Got it.

Thank you very much.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Okay, the amendment has been moved.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the adoption of amendment one.

Council member Strauss.

Yes.

Council member Herbold.

Yes.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Three in favor, none opposed.

All right.

And so that will be included in the body of this legislation as we vote later.

So Council Member Herbold, I understand that you have an amendment.

Amendment number two, would you like to move that?

Sure, I move amendment number two.

Second.

Thank you.

Oh, can I address it?

Go ahead.

Thank you so much.

So amendment number two would simply extend a practice that restaurants have become accustomed to, used to be standard contract language, but it just simply says that the platforms themselves cannot restrict the prices that a restaurant may charge for food and beverages on the platform.

This amendment was brought to us by Restaurants United, coalition of 240 small restaurant owners and operators.

And it's very similar to language in similar policy in San Francisco, where they prohibit app-based delivery companies from restricting or setting restaurant prices.

Thank you.

So was this a problem before?

I mean, I'm just wondering.

It was not a problem before, and then it became a problem.

It used to be standard contract language.

It stopped being standard contract language.

OK.

Are there any other questions?

I have to admit that I am just getting my mind around both of these.

But if there aren't any other questions right now, It's been moved and seconded to amend the bill as presented on amendment two.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Council member Strauss.

Yes.

Council member Herbold.

Yes.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Three in favor, none opposed.

Okay.

The motion carries and the amendment is adopted and the bill as amended is before the committee.

Any, Other opening comments from the co-sponsors, since we have both of you here still.

Nope.

Sure.

I mean, it's a good go for foodies and restaurateurs.

I'm excited to pass it.

It's a balanced approach.

It's just good for business.

So Council Member Peterson might have more to say.

So when I think about policy, I always lead with the idea of, oh, well, avoiding unintended consequences.

And so I was trying to think about what could be the potential unintended consequences.

And this legislation restricts one part of what customers ultimately pay, which is reflected ultimately in the bill, but it's the portion that restaurants pay to the delivery service platforms.

it does not impact the delivery service fees.

And so one of the questions I had was whether or not to recruit perceived loss revenue, would the delivery platforms then increase the service delivery fee, which would ultimately be bad for customers and for restaurants if their business goes down.

And so when I was thinking about this, I was really considering that, but I have to weigh the, the potential long-term consequences against the very immediate need that is being voiced by my constituents, the restaurants and as well the people that enjoy these restaurants and depend on them now that we're still living with the pandemic.

And so that is how I go about thinking about this legislation.

So I appreciate that we are really listening to what our restaurants have said.

I thank the Seattle Restaurant Alliance for bringing this forward.

You are here in the room, thank you.

I see that Council Member Herbold has her hand up, so I will yield the floor to Council Member Herbold.

Sorry, real quick, I want to thank the sponsors for bringing this forward.

This was legislation, or this was language in Mayor Durkin's executive order two years ago that myself and former Council President Gonzalez worked with small restaurant owners to make sure was included in an emergency order.

I've had a lot of anxiety, particularly as we pass pay up about it going away.

And just again, this is policy that's been in place for two years now.

And I'm just really, really appreciative of the sponsors for bringing it forward to ensure that it continues.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

So if the council member Peterson.

I just, I also wanted to, in addition to thinking Karina Bull on such a staff wanted to thank my legislative assistant, Gabby Lackson for her hard work on this too.

Thank you.

Chair, I'll add Kate Hoffman to that list.

Pardon me?

I'm just thinking Kate Hoffman for my office.

Good work everyone.

There was a lot of work in a very short amount of time frame.

So I appreciate everybody's hustle to get this before us today.

And I just want to remind that we were really nervous about the, this was tied to the civil emergency.

And so what was driving the timeline was the need to put something in place before the civil emergency was over and not having a gap.

And so I really appreciate, we don't know when that's going to happen, but I do appreciate the hard work that people put into this.

Okay, if there are no other questions or comments, will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that the amended bill pass.

Council Member Skrouse.

Yes.

Council Member Herbold.

Yes.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Three in favor, none opposed.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the amended bill pass will be forwarded to the city council on August 2nd, 2022 for final consideration.

Congratulations.

Yeah.

Okay.

Will the clerk please read item number three into the record?

Agenda item number three, CB120378, an ordinance related to the City Light Department authorizing the general manager and CEO of City Light to execute an operation and maintenance agreement and a telecommunications agreement, both with Public Utility District number one of Snohomish County and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts for briefing discussion and possible vote.

Thank you all our presenters are coming I'll just say that this legislation renews agreements executed in 1991 obligating city light to maintain North Mountain substation and facilitate telecommunication services until August 1 2024. and providing a mechanism for the district to reimburse City Lights costs.

And the main difference with the updated agreement is that the district will be directly billed for that work as it occurs instead of an estimate based on previous year's costs.

So presenters, I welcome you and please introduce yourselves.

Good morning.

Thank you so much for having us here today.

My name is Deborah Smith and I'm the general manager and CEO of Seattle City Light.

And we are here to talk with you about an agreement and I am going to let my colleagues introduce themselves beginning with Mr. Mike Haynes.

Good morning, Mike Haynes.

I'm the assistant general manager and I'll defer to my smart person here who's gonna present today.

Hi, I'm Michael Watkins.

I'm a strategic advisor for Seattle City Light.

Notice he didn't say I'm the smart person here, but in fact, that was the idea, so go for it.

Well, I see another smart person on the screen.

Brian Goodnight, please introduce yourself.

Thank you very much.

Brian Goodnight from Council Central staff.

And today I'm filling in for Eric McConaghy, my colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I will leave the presentation to you.

I thank you.

Today we're gonna be presenting a rule of agreement with North Mountain Substation with Snohomish County Public Utility District.

Next slide, please.

North Mountain Substation is approximately 75 miles driving distance from here.

It's just west of Darrington, Washington.

The electrical customer's areas are served by Snohomish County Public Utility District.

Next slide, please.

The history of this agreement is that Snohomish County PUD in the 1980s recognized that they had a growing load of customers in Darrington, Washington.

The least cost way for them to serve those customers in Darrington was to tap into a City Light transmission line that existed, one of City Light's Skagit transmission lines.

The relationship was proposed that City Light would provide bulk power services to Snohomish County PUD, and Snohomish PUD would continue to serve their retail customers there.

The substation was designed and built, paid for by Snohomish County PUD.

The original agreements were signed in 1991. And the principle behind the agreements was that Snohomish County PUD would reimburse Seattle City Light for the costs associated with that substation.

Next slide, please.

The new agreement that's been restated and amended is a 20-year contract.

It has a cost recovery mechanism, slightly different.

It provides more transparency to Snohomish County PUD for what the costs actually are and ensures complete cost recovery for Seattle City Light using a monthly method.

This agreement continues the principle that Snohomish County PUD reimbursed City Light for the operations and maintenance costs associated with North Mountain Substation.

Thank you very much.

This is what we would call a somewhat of a housekeeping item, but it's an agreement that has served us well.

And it also serves the communities that Snohomish PUD serves.

So we're happy to answer any questions that you might have.

I'd just like to acknowledge Chair Nelson, the hard work that Mike Watkins and my staff has been diligent over the last two years, bringing this thing to fruition, a lot of back and forth with Snohomish PUD staff and executives.

And we've had a great relationship that's gotten better because of the work that Mike has done on this.

Thank you.

I have a couple questions.

So how much of a reimbursement are we talking about?

I mean, what is, I have no idea.

In city life terms, the big cost was when the substation was originally built in 1990, 91. Monthly now we're really only talking in the around $20,000 a little more than that, depending on the month.

Some months we do a lot of maintenance there, some months we do a few visits to check on alarms and housekeeping.

So in the future it's going to vary by month greatly, but on average it's going to be between $21,000 and $25,000 a month.

Got it.

Thank you very much.

My other question is that, you know, we have three dams along the Skagit and covering a lot of distance to get finally to City Lights customers.

So, are there other jurisdictions with whom you have similar agreements?

No, this is really the only relationship for Seattle City Light where we have and maintain a substation for another utility to serve their customers.

There are some easements along our schedule right away that other utilities use for their transmission lines or equipment, but no connection with our transmission lines along there.

Got it.

Well, it does seem to just make sense, so thank you.

Colleagues, are there any questions?

Let's see, pulling up.

Chair, may I?

My questions are not about the agreement.

So this is the Mid-Mountain, High-Mountain?

North Mountain.

North Mountain substation in Darrington.

So are we changing the transmission?

Here, this is why I'm, I usually ask these questions in private because I don't want to embarrass myself.

So it's the voltage, is that correct, right, so the voltage coming out of Skagit, are we changing that along the transmission lines or is this substation simply to provide Darrington with their electricity?

So this substation just provides all power services so much so they can serve their customers in Darrington.

So the schedule, what happens the schedule is our generators step up the voltage to what's a transmission voltage 230,000 volts.

And then that line is tapped into a small substation there North Mountain substation and then there's a step down transformer.

that is actually owned by Snohomish County PUD.

So we provide the bulk side, the 230,000 volt side, and Snohomish's equipment is at their distribution voltage, which is 12,000 volts.

And Council Member, just one of the four transmission lines coming from Skagit, we call Gorge North Mountain, and that's the line we're talking about, comes from Gorge Powerhouse to this North Mountain substation.

Great.

That's a great question, and not a stupid question.

So the customer, in this case, Snohomish PUD, transforms the power.

Great, so we've got four lines coming out of Skagit, this taps into one of them.

That's correct.

I've got so many more questions, but I'll save them for another day.

Just because it's not related to the bill before us.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Council Member Herbold.

Okay, I'm gonna preface my questions as well as one that's gonna maybe show that I'm being a little dense here.

The slide, it says, cost recovery mechanism is now direct billing to Snow PUD for work performed by City Light.

But I thought the agreement is to direct the cost is to use a cost recovery mechanism and have it be direct billing.

I thought that was the change, but it says that's what we're doing now.

The current agreement since 1991 has a look back feature.

It looks back over the past two years, looks at the cost of overall cost for city light of operation and maintenance at North mountain.

And then through a fairly complicated accounting mechanism as a kind of loading cost for our general costs that we proportioned to that portion of our system on top of that.

And then so much through that receives the same monthly bill every month.

Snohomish asked for these negotiations for Seattle City Light to provide them more transparency on a monthly basis on what work was actually done.

So under the new amended agreement, we are going to actually track hours worked by employee at North Mountain Sub and provide Snohomish a detailed invoice monthly on what work was actually accomplished.

That's the change in actually how we're covering the cost this way.

And it provides more transparency for Snohomish, which was unasked by them.

Did that help?

A little bit.

So that second bullet on that slide, it says cost recovery mechanism is now direct billing to snow PUD for work performed by City Light.

Does that mean, do you mean to say cost recovery mechanism will be under the new agreement, direct billing?

That's correct.

Thank you for correcting me.

All right.

Sorry.

I'm very, for these types of agreements, I'm very focused on sort of temporal language to orient what's changing.

And so that's super helpful.

Thank you.

And good feedback for us for the future, Council Member Herbold.

Yeah, so it sounded to me like there was an estimate before and now there's more detailed specific tracking of the actual costs, labor costs, et cetera.

That's correct.

Thank you.

And more immediate for them to understand.

It puts them more in a situation where they understand what's gonna be coming rather than a two year look back where then suddenly they can be surprised.

Got it.

Okay.

One moment, finding my script.

All right, I move to recommend passage of Council Bill 120378. Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to recommend passage of the bill.

Are there any further comments?

And Brian, I realized that I did not invite you previously to add anything.

So now would be your opportunity.

Thank you council member, I don't have anything to add.

The bill has been reviewed by council central staff and we don't have any comments, so thank you.

Thank you very much.

Will the clerk please call the roll on the committee recommendation that the bill pass.

Council member Strauss.

Yes.

Council member Herbold.

Yes.

Chair Nelson.

Aye.

Three in favor, none opposed.

Okay.

The motion carries and the committee recommendation that the bill pass will be forwarded to the city council on August 2nd, 2022 for final consideration.

Thank you very much.

Thanks chair.

Thanks committee.

Absolutely.

Great to see Mike.

All right.

Well, the clerk, please read item number four, our last item into the, into the record.

Agenda item number four, resolution 32061, a resolution relating to the city light department, acknowledging and approving the 2022 integrated resource plan as conforming with the public policy objectives of the city of Seattle and the requirements of the state of Washington and improving the integrated resource plan for the biennium September, 2022 through August, 2024 for briefing public hearing and discussion.

Thank you, so while our presenters are getting settled, I'll just say that Seattle City Lights 2022 Integrated Resource Plan is a long-term strategy to meet anticipated customer needs over the next 20 years.

As mandated in the revised Code of Washington, Chapter 19-280, utilities within the State of Washington must develop comprehensive resource plans that meet the customer's electricity needs in the short and long-term.

Seattle City Light is required to file a full integrated resource plan due every four years with a progress report due every two years in the interim in between full IRP updates.

IRPs or integrated resource plans are comprehensive resource plans that explain the mix of generation and demand side resources that the utility plans to use to meet the customer's electricity needs over the period covered in the plan, whereas progress reports reflect changing conditions and developments in those interim protocols.

So that's what we're talking about here.

So I will open it up for our presenters.

Please introduce yourselves and take it away.

Great, thank you so much.

Again, I'm Debra Smith, General Manager and CEO of Seattle City Light.

This is a really exciting piece of work.

And really, as we go through this, and we've had the opportunity to brief a couple of you on it, but this represents kind of a turning point for Seattle City Light.

So very exciting.

And we also have two of our smart, bright, amazing upcomers at the utility here to present.

And it's a pure coincidence that their names are Saul and Paul, but it does help make the thing roll.

And so with that, I'm gonna turn it to Emeka, and maybe Emeka, you'd like to introduce the rest of the team.

Sure, yeah, I'm happy to introduce myself.

the rest of the team as well, or maybe let the rest of the team introduce themselves.

So my name is Emeka Anyao.

I am the Energy Innovation Resources Officer at City Light.

So among other things, I have responsibility for the work we do around our portfolio strategy, our supply portfolio, and this work falls under that.

And Paul, why don't you go first?

Hi, I'm Saul Villareal.

I'm part of the Resource Planning, Forecasting, and Analysis team for the Power Management Division.

And Paul?

I'm Paul Nestle.

I'm also part of the Resource Planning Department in the Power Management Division.

And Andy.

Good morning, Andrew Strong, the Interim Director of Power Management and the Director of Engineering.

He's wearing many hats right now, Andy, so he's a busy, busy guy.

Great.

You guys ready to go?

Yeah, sure.

So I'll just give some really quick introductory comments and then I'll throw it to our technical experts here to walk us through.

So I'll just say that this work here represents thousands of hours of analysis and study, as well as some really deep engagement with a great group, a great panel, who you'll hear about, of advisors that we work with from outside the utility.

We consider it in the context of many evolving factors within the Western United States and the Pacific Northwest.

And it's consistent with our statutory obligations, as Council Member Chair Nelson mentioned, to the State of Washington, as well as the policy provisions and guidance of the City of Seattle.

We're continuing, of course, this is not a static process.

Even after we get through this process, we continue in dialogue about the development environment of resources in our region, electrification and changing customer behavior and customer usage patterns, as well as the impacts of climate change, which we're all contending with.

So with that, I will throw it over to Paul to get us started.

Thank you very much, Mecca.

And thank you, council members.

We're very excited to be here today.

to talk about the 2022 integrated resource plan.

So why don't we go ahead and get started and look at the agenda, what we're gonna talk about today.

So on the agenda, we're gonna talk about- Can you pull the microphone closer?

Sure, eat the microphone.

It's totally fine.

How's that?

Eat the mic.

Is that better?

Yeah, bring it in.

All right.

So we're gonna talk about what is an integrated resource plan first.

And then we're gonna talk about why we do integrated resource plans, the IRP process, and then the 2022 IRP conclusions.

All right, so to get started, what exactly is an integrated resource plan?

So it is, it's a biannual plan describing a path to meet the Seattle City Light Service Area's electric power needs for the next 20 years.

It's an opportunity for customers and stakeholders to share their vision for our future power supply mix.

IRPs are reviewed and updated every two years, and they must be approved by Seattle City Council.

IRPs are not really intended to represent specific resource actions to be taken.

In other words, it isn't an exact prescription for resource decisions, but it's a directional and proportional start to resource actions for City Light.

And we're going to see that in the conclusion section later in the presentation.

So why do we create integrated resource plans?

First and foremost, it's a vital feedback loop and communication plan between customers, stakeholders, governing bodies, and City Light.

We need to meet projected loads and clean energy policies.

Secondly, it's also revised code of Washington State.

So RCW 19.280, this has been in place since 2006. And it basically says that all Washington State utilities that have over 25,000 customers are required to produce an IRP.

Thanks.

All right, now let's talk a little bit about the 2022 integrated resource plan process.

So like Emeka said, it's a two-year process.

There's a lot of moving parts.

And so we've tried to condense it into kind of four main categories today.

And so on the far left of the screen is there are existing resources.

And so that's our starting place.

And so we look at our existing long-term contracts, our power purchase agreement contracts.

And we also, we have owned hydro generation.

So we look at our existing resources, and then we look to, in the next step, identify our resource needs.

So we start that process with a load forecast.

The load forecast, that estimates City Light's demand for electricity over the next 20 years.

And then we need to account for variability and risk.

And we do this by using different historical temperature conditions on the load forecast.

And we use different historical water supply conditions on our generating resources.

And then, in addition to identifying our energy needs, we also look at policy needs.

And so the point here is that the identification of resource needs accounts for both energy and these policy needs.

Which brings us to the next step, which is resource options.

Those we look around the state, the region, we look for supply resources.

So wind, solar resources, where are they located?

How much do they cost?

What's their generation profile look like?

Do they have feasible transmission paths home to Seattle City Light Service Territory, things like that.

Other parts of resource options include the demand side or the customer side.

So these are things like energy efficiency, energy conservation measures, demand response measures, or even customer solar programs.

And then one thing I just want to point out that's new in the 2022 IRP that was very exciting is the electrification and the climate change scenarios that we put.

The electrification scenario was derived from the electrification assessment that Seattle City Light produced with EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute.

That electrification assessment was delivered earlier this year in 2022. And the climate change scenario was a scenario that was produced with the help of the University of Washington Climate Science Team.

as well as our in-house climate science team.

So those are two new scenarios for the 2022 IRP we're excited to talk about.

And then the final step in this process is to create a portfolio.

And so we just want to design and we want to go through and figure out the best mix of resources to meet Seattle City Light's energy and policy needs.

And I just want to note to that the last three of the four steps in this process, we have a feedback loop with the IRP advisory external panel.

And so, if we go to the next slide.

These are the Members that are on this external advisory panel.

It's a great group.

We had nine meetings for this IRP cycle with them, where we gave presentations, we shared written documents, and we asked them for feedback.

And they provided great feedback.

We really appreciated their participation in the IRP process.

And this is a great opportunity because it allows others to have a say in the process and not just City Light.

Thank you, Paul, for walking us through the process of the 2022 IRP.

So we'll start with the first category, which are existing resources.

As we can see here from the 2020 power mix, we can see that our portfolio has a lot of renewables, over 90%, and a lot of that is hydro.

Also, I just want to highlight a certain percentage of our portfolio has unspecified purchases.

And those are purchases that we don't know where they're necessarily coming from or, and they're not necessarily greenhouse gas neutral.

Additionally, thank you.

Our BPA block contract has also some unspecified power.

Next slide.

Okay, so here's another look at our existing resources, but on a monthly basis.

So here I just want to highlight a couple points so we look at that black line, we can see that are that we're still very much a winter peaking utility, if we look at the December and January loads.

But if we look at the summertime, specifically August, we can see that on an expected basis, we have some deficits that we fill with market purchases.

And we also see that July, it's a little bit tight.

So as part of this 2022 AARP work, we looked at a climate change scenario that shows that in the summer, this deficit could even have more risk.

Now, if we look at the December or the winter time, we can also see that the needs or the gaps are becoming a little bit tight.

And as a part of our electrification scenario, we identified that the winter need could also become even greater and tighter.

Next slide.

Chair, may I?

I'm just gonna ask you guys questions.

Thanks.

So on this slide, are we looking at The desire is for the green to be all the way up to the black line so that we're having our own owned resources meeting the load.

Is that the goal here with the integrated resource plan?

So we identify resource needs, and one of them is the resource adequacy that we'll be talking over in the next slide.

But definitely we, for this IRP, something that is new is we're looking at the summer need a little bit more closely, and we'll discuss some points about that.

Yeah.

To your question, council member, the green, because we are a hydro utility, there's always going to be seasonality to that generation.

And just because that's when the water comes down.

And as you know, we don't control the weather and we also don't control the timing to when external parties who do control water levels that use for flood control and other purposes, release water.

That's especially true at boundary.

So what you would expect though, is to have that to have a safety cushion with the combination of BPA, other contracts and own generation.

And so that's what this plan does.

It drives us to the need to begin to look for additional resource.

Yeah, it's important to remember, right?

That stuff, especially BPA, right?

That is an allocation of energy that we are entitled to by federal statute.

And so it necessarily is part of our portfolio that helps us keep costs down for our customers.

So what happens on this graph in the month of August when blue, orange, and green dip below the black load?

So we have access to bilateral market purchases or short-term contracts, and that is part of the hedging strategy for City Light.

And could I go out on a limb and say this demonstrates the need for dispersed energy resources so that we can save?

Well, certainly.

I mean, when we think about distributed energy resources are, you know, more and more we think of them as renewables and distributed energy resources are the same.

I mean, so I think you're absolutely right.

I think I think when Seattle looks at opportunities to fill that gap and you'll see this in the portfolio that that will be presenting the proportional portfolio as we look at how to do that.

Obviously, it is through use of renewables and distributed energy resources in the future, and we'll be moving more and more into that arena as time goes on.

Yeah, different resources like, you know, sort of the distributed renewables, as well as demand response energy efficiency, right, they also add kind of a resiliency factor, right, because they're close to load.

So, you know, in this changing environment, where we know there are wildfires all over the place, and things that could disrupt the transmission of energy over long distances, it's all it's increasingly important for us to have that that factor as well as part of our portfolio.

but a little energy geek stuff since you love that.

And long before I came here, Seattle made the decision to move from being a slice customer to being a block customer.

So if you look at that block, the blue, and we do have the ability to shape the blue from Bonneville.

If we were a slice customer where we were just getting a slice of the hydro project, you would see blue, peaking at the same time as our green peaks because it's all the same water system.

So that's, that's what drove a very simplistic view, but that's what drove the decision to move because otherwise we had even more hydro risk and under the block product that we now take from Bonneville, again, because we're able to shape it, we're able to use it more when our water levels are lower.

Thank you.

Very helpful.

Thank you.

Okay, so now we're gonna talk a little bit about the second category, which are our resource needs.

So here we essentially have three items to discuss.

The first one is a policy, a green policy, which is I-937, or the Energy Independence Act, which requires a certain percentage of our load to come from non-hydro renewable resources.

We also have the Clean Energy Transformation Act of 2019, and this sets the path for 2045 to have a greenhouse gas-free portfolio.

And then as we discussed, we also have our own resource adequacy metric that looks at the risk of supply in the summer and the risk of demand in the winter.

Next slide.

So now let's just briefly talk a little bit more about our resource adequacy needs, which are part of our portfolio needs.

Here, as we can see in the graphs, we can see that the winter and the summer needs are both growing.

In the winter, the main reason for growth is electrification.

That is a risk for City Light that we identify in our electrification scenario because the pace of this winter need could grow if electrification grows at a faster rate than expected.

Now, if we look at the summer need, we can see that historically Seattle City Light has relied on the market in the summer.

So for this IRP, we're gonna look more closely at how to address that gap.

Some of the reasons for that is that by SETA, more than 2,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation will be retired by 2027. The risk of climate change and also the higher penetration of renewables in the market might make that energy less reliable for us.

Next slide.

Now here, we're gonna look at our portfolio needs from clean energy policies.

Again, this is more looking at the status of these different policies that we're talking about.

So for I-937, we have a short-term need, likely in 2024 and 2025, and this is due to COVID-19 loads that put us in a low-growth condition.

But after that, we don't expect any significant needs until the early 2030s.

Again, this could change if the pace of electrification is greater than expected.

Then we have the Clean Energy Transformation Act.

And as we mentioned before, we have a pretty clean portfolio.

That's already over 90% greenhouse grass free on a monthly basis.

So Seattle is well positioned to meet this policy.

Next slide.

Okay, so now we talked about the resource needs.

Let's talk about the third category in our process, which are the resource options, how we fill those needs.

So for this IRP, we looked at two types of options, supply side and demand side options.

For demand side options, we looked at energy efficiency, demand response, and customer solar, and these are for Seattle area customers.

for supply-side needs, or resources, we looked at solar resources and wind resources.

Something that I want to just highlight here briefly is for Montana wind and offshore wind, which is an emerging technology, those resources are not available for selection until after 2032 due to transmission constraints.

Next slide.

But we're participating in conversations about both, so that's important to know.

That's correct.

Okay, so now how we put this all together, that is the 2022 IRP framework, where we design the best mix of resources to meet City Light's needs over the next 20 years per certain strategies.

Again, we look at the resource options and we quantify how these resource options help meet some of these regulatory requirements while minimizing total portfolio cost.

Next slide.

But as part of this process, what we do is we look at different portfolio strategies where we assess risk for City Light, such as transmission availability policies, and also feedback from our stakeholders, where we go over these results, capture metrics, and we identify what might be a good robust option for Seattle City Light.

Next slide.

Sorry.

The metrics that we capture across different portfolios and choices are the cost, greenhouse gas emissions, customer program opportunities, transmission risk, climate change, and electrification preparedness.

With this, we identify which portfolios have the most robust characteristics to come up with a recommendation for the 2022 IRP.

Next slide.

Okay, so here is the 2022 IRP top portfolio.

In other words, this is a graph of the resources that are going to be coming out of the 2022 IRP over time.

And so you'll notice a diverse array of colors here.

And that's because there's diversity in resources, which is a good thing.

And so we have new wind resources are in orange.

And we have green is the energy efficiency programs.

And you can see those ramp up over time.

And then in the gray bar, that represents requests from large city-like customers to invest in renewable energy projects.

And then the yellow bar is for big solar projects.

And then those smaller bars, which are also increasing over time, are demand response and distributed local solar programs.

And so the big takeaway from this slide is that most of these resources are planned for the next five to eight years.

So it's expected that they will be in place before 2030. Chair, may I?

Yes.

Thank you.

Saul, Paul, correct?

All right.

Wonderful, this is great guys.

Oh, sorry, can we go back to the last slide?

I don't know who's, so I just wanna understand the average MW megawatts, is that correct?

Average megawatts, yeah.

Great, and so when we're looking at this, these, I know I went back and forth with you all, and then Maura tried to help me out, and it's just, it's hard to visualize this information in a graph.

I'm just gonna start there.

And so just to understand, we are gaining megawatts through these efforts.

And so the green line is actually a reduction in use, whereas the orange line is an increase in our access.

No, those are all, I believe those are all resources that we will acquire.

So that, with that slide, am I wrong guys?

No, but that slide should show you is at the very beginning, I think it was Saul who said it's going to be a, percentage type of approach, that's what the framework works.

So it looks and says, hey, if I need 100 megawatts, I'm going to roughly acquire 70 megawatts of wind, I'm going to acquire, you know, 20 megawatts of energy efficiency, etc.

And then over time, you see that changing.

So those are the incremental resources that we need from what we have today by 2026, 2030, and 2040.

So maybe where I'm getting mixed up, the energy efficiency, isn't that a reduction in use?

Yes, but we think of it as a generation resource.

Right, exactly.

Exactly.

So yes, it is a reduction in use, but we think of energy efficiency as a generation plant that we have purchased.

And in fact, the city of Seattle has invested heavily in a plant that we call energy efficiency.

And so if it helps Council Member, maybe a way to think of it is that the reduction, as you described it, has the net effect of increasing the capacity we have available, right, to serve.

And so that's why we think of it, as Deborah said, as a resource.

And we have to, of course, acquire it, because that's how we get it as part of the portfolio.

And I think one of the things this slide is really intended to show, and it's really important, so it's a really important takeaway, is that electrification and energy efficiency work hand in hand.

And the path for the city of Seattle and the communities we serve, the path to electrification is certainly about acquiring new resource, but a big part of that path is to increase the amount of new resource we acquire through less use of power.

So that's how we're going to make it work.

And it is a very interesting dynamic because electrification means we are actually encouraging customers to use more power, which is different than we've ever done.

But at the same time, we're encouraging them to electrify.

We're encouraging them to be even more efficient consumers of the products that they need and use.

And that's how we deliver on the energy efficiency.

That's fantastic.

Thank you.

And last clarifying question here.

These are, this is not cumulative, correct?

These are standalone.

So when I'm looking at 2040, the wind and energy efficiency is so high, that's not because of 2026 and 2030. That's actually what we're targeting for that decade.

Is that correct?

It is a cumulative graph over time.

And so yeah, I think the main point here is there's not a whole lot of change between 2030 and 2040. Most of these resources are coming in before 2030. Okay.

Yeah.

So thanks.

Yeah.

And on efficiency, I just wanted to say that we can't just go out and say, OK, conserve energy.

City Light does have fairly robust.

I think that I would always plug more energy efficiency incentives that you offer your customers.

And those are not limited to customers in Seattle.

You also offer those incentives to your whole customer base, even outside Seattle.

That's absolutely true, and yes.

And the incentives that we offer change over time, and they will certainly change over the period of time that we're looking at, because there are a lot of people out there who are very, very smart about both moving the market which is when you actually encourage changes that don't require action on the part of customers.

So think about energy efficiency, appliances, energy efficient appliances over time, the incentives for those appliances have dropped because all of the appliances are efficient.

So that's, that's where you actually move the market.

But then we also provide incentives to customers to take specific actions and those will change over time.

Thank you.

Okay, well, let's talk about why do we need more resources.

And so we do have some long-term contracts, some power purchase contracts and exchanges that are gradually expiring by the year 2026. And we also have some clean energy policies forcing coal plant retirements.

We heard about the Clean Energy Transformation Act and close to 2000 megawatts of coal plants in the region that are gonna be retiring by 2027. What this will do is this has the potential to increase regional resource adequacy concerns, which could result in less certainty that City Light can buy affordable and reliable energy in the markets, like we talked about during those low August times.

Another reason is the pace of climate change and electrification.

So climate change impacts not only temperatures, but also the water cycle that City Light uses for electricity.

And then electrification we know electrification is happening right now it's underway, not only in Seattle, but also in the rest of the region.

And lastly, certainly an increasing customer push for greenhouse gas free portfolio.

Okay, now we can go over the 2022 IRP conclusions.

So these are conclusions as compared to the 2020 IRP progress report.

So summer needs still a concern.

That hasn't changed.

The winter needs are higher in this 2022 IRP and that's due to a more recent load forecast or demand for electricity forecast.

which incorporates additional electrification from new codes, additional electrification from buildings, and faster electric vehicle growth.

This is the first full IRP actually that's calling for new resources in the strategic planning period window.

We talked about that near term five to eight year planning period window.

And it is up to 400 megawatts of renewables coming online by 2026. And some risk and uncertainties, certainly with the pace of electrification.

Again, not only for City Light, but for the region.

And when we think more region wide, we think about the increased electricity use and the impact on the transmission availability to get new projects home to Seattle City Light service territory.

Certainly, there is risk and uncertainty with climate change.

And then intermittent resource reliance as electrification loads increase.

What I mean by intermittent resource reliance is weather dependent supply resources.

Think solar and wind and how they depend on the weather to produce electricity.

And so as electrification loads increase, there's some risk associated with too heavy of a reliance on those.

And lastly, the development of renewable energy projects.

We've been hearing a lot lately about inflation.

tariff investigations, supply chain of components.

And so that is a last risk.

Next slide.

Okay, next.

And these are a few themes that came up during the external IRP advisory panel kind of feedback loop that we go through for the IRPs.

So the first thing they'd like to talk about was the risk of supply demand resource development.

We already kind of touched on that given the current economic conditions.

In other words, can we get the wind or the solar energy that we want?

And the second point is to ensure that equity outcomes are in place for the demand options program design.

In other words, equity outcomes in place for those customer energy efficiency programs, demand response programs, or customer solar programs.

Thirdly, we want to consider development of new energy technologies.

So there's more and more clean energy technologies that are being developed.

and they're out in the market and City Light really should be closely monitoring these developing technologies, especially as electrification loads develop.

And lastly, speaking of electrification, the City of Seattle should transition to electrification strategically.

And so in other words, I think this means that all City of Seattle departments should strive to be electrifying together and at the same pace, so to accomplish our electrification goals.

Okay, there's a lot of activity in this slide, but this is the 2022 IRP 10-year important milestones.

I'm not gonna go through every single item on this screen, but we'll pick out a few years and go over them.

We're gonna start with the year 2022 since we are, that's current.

We have a demand response pilot program that we are currently working on, and that's set to kick off either later this year or in early 2023. We also have ongoing a time of use rates pilot program And also in 2022, earlier this year, we delivered the Clean Energy Implementation Plan.

And this was one of the first, if not the first planning document that we submitted to Washington State Department of Commerce as part of the Clean Energy Transformation Act.

And then we'll move on to the year 2024. So we will submit an IRP progress report that year.

So 2022, we're doing a full IRP.

2024, we'll do a IRP progress report.

And then in 2026, we'll do another full IRP analysis.

And there also are going to be some other full sets of analysis and plan documents released in 2026. So that'll be another big year.

So we'll have the full IRP, a full conservation potential assessment, which will outline energy efficiency, energy conservation programs.

We have the full strategic plan to kick off that year.

And then we'll do another clean energy implementation plan.

So with that, feel free to reach out to us, the IRP team or any others at scl.irp at seattle.gov.

So I think now would probably be a good time to open it up for any questions.

I have a couple of questions, but I think that I'll wait until after our public hearing.

And I remind folks that we are not voting on this today.

Our vote will be next week.

Can you put that last slide back up again?

not next week, but at our next meeting.

Yeah.

What is that?

Is that the table that explains that?

Yeah.

I just wanted to make sure that we touched on that because it, although you can see the proportionality of the resource acquisitions in that other chart that we saw with the, the buyers, this one is, is perhaps depending on how you like to look at things, this one can be easier.

You would have to sum those up, but basically you could sum up those for each of those periods of time.

you could sum those up at the bottom and then you could look proportionally.

This is the kind of proportion that we are looking at for each of these resources.

So over this period that we just discussed that includes the need for up to 400 additional megawatts in power, you could assume that we would be, our goal would be to acquire those resources in the proportion that you see roughly above.

And maybe just to add some context to this, you know, part of what goes on here as you look at the timelines is, you know, we're actively monitoring and in conversations with various resource developers and other resource providers regionally and otherwise to make sure that we're prepared to acquire the resources that we need to meet these timelines, to meet these proportions as described on the chart.

And so if you think about the 400, that's the top two.

And that's that's the main thing I wanted you to connect back is that energy efficiency, customer solar, demand response, and we're just getting our feet wet in those areas.

Those all primarily result in either shifting load.

So demand responses that can be a It's primarily a shifting from one time to another.

So demand response and then, of course, energy efficiency, as you pointed out, is actually a reduction.

So it is reducing the need to acquire new resources.

When we talk about 400 megawatts, the thought there is that when we look at acquiring those, the ratio between that wind and solar is approximately what you see.

And then over time, as some of these other resources become more mature and we're able to lean into them more fully, you see those numbers increasing.

Okay, if there are no other immediate questions, I will move into our public hearing.

And I, and then after that, we'll briefly discuss and then close the meeting.

So as presiding officer, I'm opening the public hearing on resolution 32061, relating to a resolution, to the City Light Department acknowledging and approving the 2022 Integrated Resource Plan as conforming with the public policy objectives of the City of Seattle and the requirements of the State of Washington and approving the Integrated Resource Plan for the biennium September 2022 through August 2024. The online registration form has been up for a while and to my knowledge, no one is signed up.

Is that still correct?

No online, yes.

Okay, so we only have one in-person person signed up for the public hearings, so I will open it up to Alex Zimmerman.

Yeehaw, my dirty damn Nazi fascist mob bandit and psychopath.

who speak to us from the heaven.

My name Alex Zimmerman.

I listen, it's cool here outside, 100 degree, too hot here, nice environment.

I see this fake, stupid plan made by CEO, City Light, who we pay $400,000 per year.

It will be approved by nine clown, what is we pay $150,000 per year.

And now last year, I see a similar plan that is made by, say, a manager who will pay $400,000 per year and approved by nine clowns, what is to be paid $150,000 per year.

The year before, I see a similar plan that is made by a manager who will pay $400,000 per year, approve nine clowns, what is to be paid $150,000 per year.

And before, I see similar plan, what is made by manager who make $400,000 per year and approved by council who make $150,000 a year.

My question right now, very simple, why life in Seattle go bad for 750,000 people?

Can somebody explain to me?

Plan goes every year, same, same, same, and life go worse and worse and worse every year.

What's going on?

Who's this clown who make us life miserable in cost of life in Seattle right now for the last 10 years, double, maybe triple right now?

Where are you freaking idiot, bandit, criminal, Democrat, and progressive?

We start listening and talking and make life for 750,000 slaves and zombies better.

So I think we've become accustomed to Mr. Zimmerman's public comments and usually starting with addressing us by Z Kyle and fascist and I just want to let our audience know that we do say that that kind of languages is not allowed, and we try to stress civility in chambers but we do also have restrictions on how we can restrict free speech.

Okay, so I have a couple questions.

Let's see.

So, this plan and I did read the integrated resource plan.

When we talk about our portfolio, wind and solar are the only sources of non-hydro renewables in here.

But I just want to make sure that in the future, we are not precluded from incorporating other sources.

And I'm always plugging bioenergy, which is the anaerobic digestion of biosolids like spent grain that our breweries produce, for example, that's made into methane, which is converted into electricity, and when the technology evolves, could be significant enough to add to our grid.

So I just want to talk about the fact that, or ask, In your work plan in future integrated resource plans, do you ever think about other sources of renewables that we might not have the technology for or even have imagined yet?

That is correct.

So we monitor emerging technologies such as offshore wind, for example.

But yeah, as part of the integrated resource plan, we're monitoring technologies and when they become feasible, we're definitely going to be looking at them and making them part of our plan for the future.

And another source is all that water, wave energy, etc.

My prior utility, we were working on offshore wave energy in Oregon.

Right now, there's a lot of activity happening around offshore wind in Oregon.

And it was mentioned that they don't have transmission routing available yet, but it will happen.

And many of us are tracking, for instance, those offshore wind conversations, including myself, because they're pretty exciting.

And they also represent potential economic development opportunities for Washington State and even the Seattle area.

And just to to also add to that you know a couple things that are worth noting is we do have some experience with, you know, the Columbia Ridge project landfill gas that is currently part of our portfolio we also have a contract with the King County.

King County on their sewage plant as well for some energy there.

So we have some experience with that and integrating it into our portfolio.

We certainly don't preclude any of those technologies as they become available.

Certainly things like hybrid intermittent wind and solar with storage, those are things that could be part of our future.

So all of those are in play for us.

And my other question is, you made a point of emphasizing the fact that this plan does integrate are growing electrification needs and.

climate change and the impacts of climate change to perhaps in ways that we can't even account for yet.

So what that was not included in the authorizing or not the authorizing legislation, but rather the RCW mandating integrated resource plans, and you just did it on your own.

Yeah, that's correct.

So this is maybe a good opportunity for me to acknowledge this team, which really has weathered through lots of different things.

You know, Mr. Strong, to my right over here, really stepped in the leadership role.

We have members of the team in the audience here who have really stepped up and stepped in to help us sort of pull this together.

But these two rock stars to my left, really have done remarkable work and have received really, really incredible feedback from the advisory panel, you saw the, the, some of their credentials, when they were arrayed on the screen and just about how forward looking and forward thinking the work they've done on the the climate change portfolios and certainly the electrification portfolios that we put together, analysis that we put together.

And I think it's worth acknowledging how much this is really sector leading work that these folks have done.

Thank you very much for emphasizing that because City Light does stand apart other utilities and this is a publicly owned utility.

So thank you very much for noting that.

And this was a change.

So the notion of the framework and the proportionality of the resources that we would acquire over time, I think really, and these guys did it, it was an indication or a move towards greater agility and flexibility.

Because as you point out, I mean, we don't know how electrification or climate change will roll out.

So rather than calling for specific resource acquisitions, the proportionality is super important in an uncertain future.

Thank you.

Brian, do you have anything to add?

Thank you, Chair Nielsen.

I don't have any comments at this time.

Okay.

And Council Member Herbold or Strauss, any further questions?

Not at this time.

Well, this is, I remind folks, our first discussion, and we will take this up at our next meeting on August 10th.

We are on a timeline, so could you please walk us through the deadline here?

Sure, I can take that.

So the statutory requirement we have for the state of Washington requires that we have an approved IRP by our governing body, which is the city council, by the beginning of 2023. And what they require is that we submit that plan in advance, four months in advance, which puts us on September 1st.

So ideally what is intended is so that we have this approved plan that we submit to the Department of Commerce by September 1st, and that's what is attending to the timeline of August 10th.

That gives us some time for the filing period and any comments that might be attendant to that.

Chair, I won't be in attendance at that committee meeting, and I'm just here signaling I support and would vote in favor of it.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

And then there will be the full council vote right after the, assuming that it is unanimous coming out of committee.

So, all right.

If there are no further questions, thank you everybody.

I really appreciate you walking us through this and look forward to our next discussion and vote out of committee, hopefully on August 10th.

Thank you so much, Chair Nelson and members of the committee.

We really appreciate your time today on both of these important pieces of work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, this concludes the July 27th meeting of the Economic Development Technology and City Light Committee, assuming there is no other business.

Our next committee meeting is scheduled for August 10th at 9.30.

It is 11.43 and this meeting is adjourned.