Policy Sep 09 2026

Unknown: Thank you.

Unknown: Let's do the 30 second count.

Unknown: Okay, that was five seconds.

SPEAKER_15: Not 30, but that's okay.

Unknown: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the policy committee and special board meeting

SPEAKER_15: of September 9, 2026.

SPEAKER_15: This room is equipped with a safety alarm.

SPEAKER_15: If the alarm sounds, please leave in an orderly manner via the exits to the lobby or behind

SPEAKER_15: the dais.

SPEAKER_15: Assemble in front of the building and wait to hear the all clear announcement from security

SPEAKER_15: before reentering.

SPEAKER_15: This meeting is being recorded and can be accessed on SMUD's website.

SPEAKER_15: Please remember to unmute your microphone when speaking in order that our virtual attendees

SPEAKER_15: may hear.

SPEAKER_15: The microphone will display a green light when the microphone is on.

SPEAKER_15: For members of the public attending in person who wish to speak at this meeting, please

SPEAKER_15: fill out a speaker request form located on the table outside of this room and hand it

SPEAKER_15: to SMUD's security.

SPEAKER_15: Members of the public attending this meeting virtually who wish to provide a verbal comment

Unknown: during the committee meeting may do so by using the raise hand feature in Zoom or pressing

SPEAKER_15: star 9 when dialed into the telephone toll-free number at the time when public comment is

SPEAKER_15: called.

SPEAKER_15: Technical support staff will enable the audio for you when your name is announced during

SPEAKER_15: the public comment period.

SPEAKER_15: You may also submit written comments by emailing them to public comment at SMUD.org.

SPEAKER_15: Written comments will not be read into the record but will be provided to the board electronically

Unknown: and placed into the record of the meeting if received within two hours after the meeting

SPEAKER_15: ends.

SPEAKER_15: Chief legal officer, please conduct the roll call.

Unknown: Director Kurz?

SPEAKER_05: Here.

Unknown: Director Rose?

SPEAKER_05: Here.

Unknown: Chair Herber?

Unknown: Here.

SPEAKER_05: All committee members are present.

SPEAKER_05: Also present are directors Fishman, Sanborn and present Tamayo.

Unknown: Wonderful.

SPEAKER_15: Okay.

SPEAKER_15: Well, this first item tonight is something that the board and the board at Ad Hoc Committee

SPEAKER_15: has been working on with the community and lots of environmental groups.

SPEAKER_15: And so we're really excited to see what you all have come up with.

SPEAKER_15: This is item number one, to discuss the monitoring report for strategic direction 7, which is

SPEAKER_15: environmental leadership, and to discuss with possible amendment, strategic direction 7,

SPEAKER_15: environmental leadership.

SPEAKER_15: So in other words, we may make a few changes to it.

SPEAKER_15: Please welcome Emily Bikini, who is our director of safety, environmental and real estate.

Unknown: Good evening.

Unknown: Thank you, Chair Herber.

SPEAKER_00: My name is Emily Bikini and I'm the director of safety, environmental and real estate services.

SPEAKER_00: I'm here tonight to provide a report on how SMUD's actions in 2025 demonstrate compliance

SPEAKER_00: with strategic direction 7, environmental leadership, and provide an update on SMUD's

SPEAKER_00: process and principles for renewable energy development, which includes a proposed update

SPEAKER_00: to SD7.

SPEAKER_00: Here's the SD7 language.

SPEAKER_00: It's been pretty consistent for the past several years.

SPEAKER_00: But I do want to point out in 2024 we added some new language to part A, the phrase enhancing

SPEAKER_00: regional biodiversity.

SPEAKER_00: And I'll be able to speak to some of the work we've done in that space this year.

SPEAKER_00: One of the key areas for which we demonstrate environmental leadership is in reducing our

SPEAKER_00: greenhouse gas emissions.

SPEAKER_00: For 2025, our greenhouse gas emissions were approximately 1.477 million metric tons.

SPEAKER_00: This is a decrease of 215,000 metric tons from 2024 emissions.

SPEAKER_00: The graph on the left presents the trend going back to 2015, which was an especially

SPEAKER_00: severe drought year.

SPEAKER_00: Fluctuation and total emissions year to year are primarily due to changes in hydroelectricity

SPEAKER_00: production, increases or decreases in customer demand, and the availability to purchase low

SPEAKER_00: carbon power.

SPEAKER_00: As we continue to purchase greater quantities of zero and lower emissions power, we expect

SPEAKER_00: our emissions to meet customer demand to decrease.

SPEAKER_00: The table on the right provides our greenhouse gas emissions from our thermal plants and

SPEAKER_00: specified power purchases, which is primarily calpine setter.

SPEAKER_00: Overall emissions accounting for the net wholesale adjustment decreased approximately 13% from

SPEAKER_00: 1.692 million metric tons in 2024, again to 1.477 million metric tons in 2025.

SPEAKER_00: Emissions decreased from all of our thermal facilities, while emissions associated with

SPEAKER_00: the specified power purchases increased by approximately 10%.

SPEAKER_00: This slide shows a couple of the efforts in 2025 we undertook to minimize environmental

SPEAKER_00: impacts and conserve resources.

SPEAKER_00: In early 2025, the invasive golden mussel was found in the lower San Joaquin River and

SPEAKER_00: upper Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

SPEAKER_00: We promptly began implementing a robust mussel monitoring and inspection program at our Rancho

SPEAKER_00: Seiko Lake and increased our monitoring effort up at our upper American River Project hydro

SPEAKER_00: facilities.

SPEAKER_00: We received a grant of a little over $91,000 from the California Department of Fish and

SPEAKER_00: Wildlife, which allowed us to purchase a solar and battery powered boat cleaning system

SPEAKER_00: that our guests to Rancho Seiko Lake can use to clean their boats, which will prevent the

SPEAKER_00: introduction of golden mussels at Rancho Seiko Lake.

Unknown: 2025 was the first full year of implementing our habitat conservation plan.

SPEAKER_00: The environmental services team reviewed 364 projects that were located either near a sensitive

SPEAKER_00: biological resource in an area that has naturally occurring asbestos or in an area that has

SPEAKER_00: a special soil management plan.

SPEAKER_00: Of those projects, avoidance and minimization measures were prescribed for 43% because of

SPEAKER_00: their potential to have an impact.

SPEAKER_00: Then we completed 48 projects using our habitat conservation plan to minimize or mitigate

SPEAKER_00: impacts on federally listed species in accordance with the conditions of the HCP, again reinforcing

SPEAKER_00: our commitment to responsible environmental stewardship.

SPEAKER_00: The warehouse team had a remarkable year with the Investment Recovery and Sustainable Solutions

SPEAKER_00: Program.

SPEAKER_00: They generated $1.1 million from recycling materials and diverted 957 tons from the landfill.

SPEAKER_00: This effort also helped avoid approximately 5,200 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions

SPEAKER_00: by being able to reuse materials instead of producing new raw materials.

SPEAKER_00: Warehouse material specialists saved over $2 million by implementing their circular

SPEAKER_00: economy model, which allowed where they redeployed, reused, repurposed or recycled equipment.

SPEAKER_00: We recycled 388 wood reels and received 74 of those back with new wire.

SPEAKER_00: Then we were able to recycle or reuse 2,245 wood pallets keeping them out of the landfill.

SPEAKER_00: In the spirit of enhancing regional biodiversity, our internal biodiversity and habitat conservation

SPEAKER_00: working group remained active throughout 2025 with members coordinating on initiatives to

SPEAKER_00: support enhanced regional biodiversity.

SPEAKER_00: Our Pine Hill Preserve Restoration Project, a partnership with state and federal agencies,

SPEAKER_00: Sac State and multiple SMUD departments, won the 2025 North American Pollinator Protection

SPEAKER_00: Campaign's Electric Power Award for its right of way management practices supporting rare

SPEAKER_00: and endemic species in addition to supporting pollinators and wildlife.

SPEAKER_00: We launched a first of its kind nature-based carbon solutions and biodiversity feasibility

SPEAKER_00: study that will allow us to understand the potential for land-based carbon storage that

SPEAKER_00: will co-benefit ecosystems on land owned or managed by SMUD.

SPEAKER_00: And then we also joined the Regional Power in Nature Initiative, a collaborative effort

SPEAKER_00: to support the state's 30 by 30 program.

SPEAKER_00: The Sacramento Tree Foundation distributed 11,203 shade trees as part of its Sacramento

SPEAKER_00: shade program serving 2,695 customers.

SPEAKER_00: This was an increase of 155 customers compared to 2024.

SPEAKER_00: A total of 4,164 trees were planted in under-resourced communities, which was an increase of 28 trees

SPEAKER_00: compared to 2024.

SPEAKER_00: The total carbon captured either stored in biomass or avoided associated with these trees

SPEAKER_00: is estimated at 34,000 at 44 metric tons.

SPEAKER_00: And then in the fall of 2025, we piloted a program distributing native shrubs.

SPEAKER_00: This is an opportunity for us to engage with residents in multifamily units that may have

SPEAKER_00: limited space or renters who aren't able to plant trees on the property that they're

SPEAKER_00: living on.

SPEAKER_00: Working with the local vendor, Cornflower Farms, we were able to provide 50 shrubs in

SPEAKER_00: 2025.

SPEAKER_00: And then last but not least, our Avian Protection Program upgrades were made to 53 poles in

SPEAKER_00: 2025 to make our overhead facilities safer for birds and more reliable for our customers.

SPEAKER_00: Avian mitigation projects included adding avian protection guards, flight diverters,

SPEAKER_00: or pole reframing.

Unknown: Additionally, we were able to install three nest platforms on wood poles along the garden

SPEAKER_00: highway and relocate osprey nests, which again, increases system reliability and helps support

SPEAKER_00: the local osprey population.

SPEAKER_00: In 2025, we invested over 4.6 million in community-based partnerships and programs.

SPEAKER_00: Brian is going to cover a couple of these projects in his presentation of SD9, but I'm

SPEAKER_00: going to speak to our partnership with the Volunteers of America.

SPEAKER_00: We partner with them and they provide services to unhoused individuals in unsafe situations

SPEAKER_00: near our infrastructure.

SPEAKER_00: Through this partnership, a VOA social worker connected with 200 individuals experiencing

SPEAKER_00: homelessness and connected them to general services, clothing and hygiene supplies, and

SPEAKER_00: education on being safe around our facilities.

SPEAKER_00: We also partnered with the American River College's Native American Resource Center

SPEAKER_00: to support Native students and strengthen relationships with local tribes.

SPEAKER_00: As a major sponsor of the American Indian Summer Institute, we provided funding and

SPEAKER_00: employee engagement opportunities, including hands-on demonstrations for students at our

SPEAKER_00: East Campus Operations Center, led by staff from distribution system operations, warehouse,

SPEAKER_00: network substations, and line.

SPEAKER_00: And SMUD also helps support the Elder in Residence Program, which provides opportunities for

SPEAKER_00: tribal elders to share traditional cultural practices and ecological knowledge with students.

SPEAKER_00: To promote the efficient use of energy by our customers, we proactively reach out to

SPEAKER_00: our residential and commercial customers through our building electrification and

SPEAKER_00: energy efficiency programs.

SPEAKER_00: As part of our Advanced Home Solutions Program, hundreds of homeowners attended quarterly

SPEAKER_00: energy education courses and hundreds of trusted contractors in our SMUD contractor network,

SPEAKER_00: joined weekly office hours and monthly webinars.

SPEAKER_00: These events help to educate our customers and contractors about the benefits of all

SPEAKER_00: electric appliances and energy efficiency.

SPEAKER_00: This program has supported the installation of over 25,000 heat pumps for both space and

SPEAKER_00: water heating since 2018, including almost 5,000 in 2025.

SPEAKER_00: Last year, we increased outreach with targeted email campaigns, bill inserts, and digital

SPEAKER_00: advertising as part of our Go Electric campaign.

SPEAKER_00: These efforts help us to reach more customers with the benefits of energy efficiency upgrades.

SPEAKER_00: We also launched Zero Home, an on-lane tool that lets customers understand how they can

SPEAKER_00: make their homes more energy efficient and reduce their carbon footprint.

SPEAKER_00: Customers simply enter their address and Zero Home creates a personalized model of their

SPEAKER_00: home and identifies potential electrification improvements that will reduce energy use and

SPEAKER_00: lower bills.

SPEAKER_00: Our transportation electrification portfolio includes outreach to residences and incentives

SPEAKER_00: for both residential and commercial electric vehicle chargers.

SPEAKER_00: Our goal is to have our vehicle electrification programs reduce transportation-related greenhouse

SPEAKER_00: gas emissions by 1 million metric tons by 2030, which would be the equivalent of electrifying

SPEAKER_00: 288,000 vehicles.

SPEAKER_00: Brian is going to talk a little bit more about those wins in his presentation.

SPEAKER_00: But I also want to share the work that we've done in reducing emissions generated by our

SPEAKER_00: fleet.

SPEAKER_00: This is being accomplished through alternative fuel usage, idle reduction, and vehicle electrification

SPEAKER_00: where the technology is available.

SPEAKER_00: Through these efforts, we've been able to increase our electric vehicle miles driven,

SPEAKER_00: reduce our greenhouse gas emission reductions, reduce our total fossil fuel emissions, and

SPEAKER_00: increase our fuel economy.

SPEAKER_00: You can see the numbers by which we've done that on the slide there.

SPEAKER_00: We've also been continued to work to replace gas and diesel powered handheld equipment

SPEAKER_00: with equivalent electric or battery powered tools when they are available, such as trimmers,

SPEAKER_00: blowers, and generators.

SPEAKER_00: By researching market availability and capitalizing on technological improvements, we've achieved

SPEAKER_00: a 98% hand tool electrification in 2025.

SPEAKER_00: So that completes my report out on SD7.

SPEAKER_00: Before I transition to the next part of my presentation, I want to pause to see if there

SPEAKER_00: are any questions.

Unknown: It doesn't seem like there are yet.

SPEAKER_15: One thing I did want to call out and say thank you.

SPEAKER_15: I know Director Sanborn and myself and I think Director Fishman participated in a group really

SPEAKER_15: working hard to help folks change out their gas powered equipment to electric.

SPEAKER_15: And I'm glad to see that SMUD is at 98% because that was really important to us.

Unknown: Yeah, go ahead.

Unknown: Yeah, it was funny because we were just, Director Fishman and I were just at the celebration

SPEAKER_06: of 30 years of the Sacramento Regional Air District event and I was talking to a couple

SPEAKER_06: of folks about, and Councilmember Guerra about this because he's on the Air Board, that we

SPEAKER_06: banned the sale of these gas powered handheld equipment two years ago but they're still

SPEAKER_06: being used a lot and maybe that's something that we could partner with the parks departments

SPEAKER_06: and others to educate them how we did it and show them how we did it and kept the cost

SPEAKER_06: down and trained everybody and all of that because I think the first generation of that

SPEAKER_06: equipment was kind of sketchy and the batteries maybe didn't work as long and so forth as

SPEAKER_06: they do now but I just think it's a wonderful thing that we've done it and it would be great

SPEAKER_06: to share the information with other folks in the community.

Unknown: Yes.

SPEAKER_06: I'll send information about this through the board office and we can decide if we would

SPEAKER_12: follow up or not but they still have a map of where every tree that SMUD has helped plant

SPEAKER_12: sits relative to people's homes and whatnot and there's now a public website where you

SPEAKER_12: can put in your address, describe where the tree is, how big it is, what species of tree

SPEAKER_12: it is and it will give you a breakdown of how much carbon it has captured, how much

SPEAKER_12: rain, storm water runoff it has prevented, a ton of different and how much it's worth,

SPEAKER_12: how much value it's added to your home so there's just a ton of information out there.

SPEAKER_12: It would be fun to kind of try to quantify some of what the now more than half a million

SPEAKER_12: trees that we've planted over the years, what the value is to that.

SPEAKER_12: So I'll send that on through the board office and we can decide if we want to follow up

SPEAKER_12: or not.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you.

SPEAKER_15: Director Fishman was that Anne Thanker?

SPEAKER_15: Yes.

SPEAKER_15: Yes, she talked to me about it too.

SPEAKER_15: I think it would be a wonderful thing to do is to quantify what has come from that work.

Unknown: Yes, Director Sanborn, did you?

Unknown: Yes, there was one other question.

SPEAKER_06: I'm sorry.

SPEAKER_06: The feasibility report on nature-based solutions, when do we expect to see that?

SPEAKER_00: Great question.

SPEAKER_00: Josh will be coming to the Strategic Policy Committee.

SPEAKER_00: Sorry, that's not the right name.

SPEAKER_00: The Strategic Development Committee on November 11th, Josh Langdon will be here to provide

SPEAKER_00: an update on that study.

SPEAKER_00: Great.

Unknown: Thank you.

Unknown: Yes, Brandon.

Unknown: And in terms of this, this is the slide we're on, vehicle electrification work.

SPEAKER_09: Maybe next year we can get a little bit more information about where the status of the

SPEAKER_09: fleet changes actually are versus these really large emission reductions, because I'd be

SPEAKER_09: really curious to see exactly where our light and heavy duty fleets stand in terms of that

SPEAKER_09: transition.

SPEAKER_09: Often we periodically will do a separate board committee item just on fleet electrification,

SPEAKER_09: but we don't do it every year, so just something to think about in the future.

Unknown: Okay.

SPEAKER_15: Take that back.

Unknown: Thank you.

SPEAKER_15: Any other questions?

SPEAKER_15: Seeing none, please proceed.

Unknown: Great.

SPEAKER_00: Thank you.

SPEAKER_00: So next I'd like to provide you with an update on the work staff has undertaken since our

SPEAKER_00: March Policy Committee, where we discussed SMUD's process and principles for renewable

SPEAKER_00: energy development.

SPEAKER_00: As an outcome of that meeting, as you mentioned, Chair Herber, an ad hoc committee was formed

SPEAKER_00: to review those processes and principles, and staff worked with several local environmental

SPEAKER_00: coalition representatives and solar developers to right size our processes.

SPEAKER_00: An outcome of this work is ultimately wrapped up in a proposed revision to SD7, but first

SPEAKER_00: I want to share more on those efforts.

SPEAKER_00: So from March through August, staff held multiple meetings with environmental coalition representatives

SPEAKER_00: and solar project developers to collaborate on these changes to our renewable energy

SPEAKER_00: development procedures and policies.

SPEAKER_00: This slide shows the organizations and individuals that we worked with, and we want to thank

SPEAKER_00: them again for being a part of this process.

Unknown: Additionally, I want to thank staff from our renewable project development team and energy

SPEAKER_00: contracts who worked with me and others from the environmental services team to develop

SPEAKER_00: the proposed changes.

SPEAKER_00: There were a couple of areas we focused on as part of this process.

SPEAKER_00: First we saw the need to update our principles for renewable energy development, the first

SPEAKER_00: update being adding procurement to that title, so that it was clear that this work applies

SPEAKER_00: to both SMUD developed projects and power purchase agreement projects.

SPEAKER_00: Second, we needed to formalize and update the process that the environmental services

SPEAKER_00: team undertook when reviewing projects and ensure that there was transparency around

SPEAKER_00: those results.

SPEAKER_00: And we wanted to make sure the process followed by the energy contracts team clearly included

SPEAKER_00: that principles document along with our environmental screening process.

SPEAKER_00: All of this work was captured by the proposed change to SD7, which I will share with you

SPEAKER_00: in a minute.

SPEAKER_00: This SD7 change will allow for the board and the public to understand how PPA projects

SPEAKER_00: meet the principles for renewable energy procurement and development prior to contract execution.

SPEAKER_00: As a reminder, the principles for renewable energy procurement and development, also known

SPEAKER_00: as PREP, and probably what I'll use for the rest of the presentation, is a SMUD document

SPEAKER_00: that outlines SMUD's commitment to developing and procuring carbon free renewable energy

SPEAKER_00: as a matter that supports the community, protects the environment, including tribal and cultural

SPEAKER_00: resources, and respects human rights.

SPEAKER_00: Updates to the PREP included again clarity around that these principles apply to the

SPEAKER_00: PPA projects.

SPEAKER_00: We've also added language around transparency and community engagement, including with

SPEAKER_00: the authority having jurisdiction.

SPEAKER_00: We've clarified that consultation with local tribes is required, and we've streamlined

SPEAKER_00: the sustainable communities language so that it focuses on measurable outcomes.

SPEAKER_00: The principles document will also be posted on SMUD.org as soon as the website is updated.

SPEAKER_00: Specific to the environmental screening process, we've always had an internal process, but

SPEAKER_00: we now captured that work in a formal process document.

SPEAKER_00: The objective of the environmental screening is to understand how a potential project could

SPEAKER_00: impact the environment, focusing on biological resources, impacts to tribal or cultural resources,

SPEAKER_00: and impacts on agriculture.

SPEAKER_00: We've developed a rubric that we can use to categorize and score impacts.

SPEAKER_00: Under this process, we will be reviewing habitat connectivity and how the project under review

SPEAKER_00: could impact adjacent habitat that may be sensitive or protected.

SPEAKER_00: This clarifies that for PPA projects, we expect the developer to communicate updates on their

SPEAKER_00: permitting process, including any concerns raised by the authority having jurisdiction,

SPEAKER_00: and it requires a site visit for local projects.

SPEAKER_00: This screening process happens right at the beginning of a project review and will allow

SPEAKER_00: us to ensure that the project is on track to align with SMUD's values.

SPEAKER_00: For the power purchase agreement procurement process, this is an internal process used

SPEAKER_00: by energy contracts, and it clarifies the requirement again to document and share how

SPEAKER_00: the project aligns with the PREP, along with following our environmental screening process.

SPEAKER_00: Again, these were already part of the process, but their document has been updated to explicitly

SPEAKER_00: require them.

Unknown: Additionally, the environmental coalition asked that we post information on PPA projects

SPEAKER_00: that would come to the board 30 days prior to its approval or to its review.

SPEAKER_00: We agree to the concept and believe that we'll be able to accommodate the request or something

SPEAKER_00: very close to it, but we're still working internally on the logistics of how to ensure

SPEAKER_00: transparency around how SMUD is applying its principles without making risky public disclosures,

SPEAKER_00: creating unnecessary governance delays, or weakening SMUD's market position.

SPEAKER_00: This slide provides an overview of our governance process for renewable projects.

SPEAKER_00: This slide may look familiar.

SPEAKER_00: We shared a version of it back in March, but we've provided updates shown in red.

SPEAKER_00: Walking through those updates, first again, the principles document will be posted on

SPEAKER_00: SMUD.org.

SPEAKER_00: They had all been shared with developers previously, but now they'll be available for everyone.

SPEAKER_00: After a developer submits their proposal, the environmental team will screen the project

SPEAKER_00: following our formalized process and rubric, along with understanding any concerns that

SPEAKER_00: may come from the authority with jurisdiction.

SPEAKER_00: After the developer receives our principles and before the contract negotiations are complete,

SPEAKER_00: the environmental services team will review how the project aligns with the principles

SPEAKER_00: based off of information that we're receiving from the developer on how they can or cannot

SPEAKER_00: achieve those.

SPEAKER_00: Energy contracts will document how the project aligns or doesn't align with the PREP and

SPEAKER_00: will bring that information to the board for its consideration.

SPEAKER_00: And then SMUD staff will monitor alignment with the principles, including review of more

SPEAKER_00: detailed plans as they become available and those outcomes.

SPEAKER_00: If there's a material change, then we would come back to the board with an amendment to

SPEAKER_00: the PPA.

SPEAKER_00: And again, the way that we've captured all of this work is through the addition of item

SPEAKER_00: F, which is bolded and underlined to SD7, which says that we will address SMUD's principle

SPEAKER_00: for renewable energy development and procurement.

Unknown: I said that wrong.

SPEAKER_00: Renewable energy procurement and development.

SPEAKER_00: One additional item we'd like the board to become aware of is that coming out of this

SPEAKER_00: work, we recognize the value of continuing to work with the environmental community on

SPEAKER_00: our efforts.

SPEAKER_00: And so we'll be piloting an environmental forum.

SPEAKER_00: This will allow us to continue our dialogue, increase awareness of what may be happening

SPEAKER_00: in the environment locally, allow for streamlined communications, and ultimately improve the

SPEAKER_00: environmental outcomes on SMUD projects.

SPEAKER_00: We're working to bring a facilitator on board, the person that worked with SMUD through our

SPEAKER_00: UARP negotiations, and we'll be engaging in future conversations with the environmental

SPEAKER_00: forum on upcoming efforts, including our integrated resources plan.

SPEAKER_00: And with that, I'm asking the board to approve or accept the monitoring report for Strategic

SPEAKER_00: Direction 7 and approve the proposed revisions to Strategic Direction 7.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you, Emily.

SPEAKER_15: Do we have questions from Emily?

SPEAKER_15: We have several people who want to speak, but before we move to that, are there any

SPEAKER_15: specific questions?

SPEAKER_15: Yes, Director Kurth.

Unknown: Thank you.

SPEAKER_04: Impressive work.

SPEAKER_04: I think this meets the goals that we've had so far that we're aware of.

SPEAKER_04: Appreciate that.

SPEAKER_04: One question always worried about the cost of things.

SPEAKER_04: What's the cost of implementing this process on the proposals that come through to us?

SPEAKER_00: That's a really good question, and I don't think we've captured those costs thus far.

SPEAKER_00: We've just kind of incorporated the work into part of our greater efforts.

SPEAKER_00: The environmental review process initially takes probably a day, especially including

SPEAKER_00: a site visit, maybe longer with a site visit, but that's something we could look into more

SPEAKER_00: and get back to the board on.

SPEAKER_04: Yeah, that and I would add to that, what's the time it takes?

SPEAKER_04: How long is this going to take to implement and will that affect the delivery of projects?

SPEAKER_04: And if so, how much?

SPEAKER_00: It doesn't appear that it's going to affect the timeline for delivery of projects.

SPEAKER_00: We can incorporate this as part of the contract negotiation process.

SPEAKER_00: The environmental screening, though, we think is going to take four to six weeks to do all

SPEAKER_00: the background work and run all the reports and get information from all the agencies

SPEAKER_00: we reach out to.

Unknown: Thanks.

SPEAKER_00: But again, that's within the larger work.

SPEAKER_04: Things that need to be done, but these projects also have a tremendous benefit.

SPEAKER_04: I mean, in round numbers, every solar panel prevents about two pounds of CO2 per day.

SPEAKER_04: And so the longer these things go before they're delivered, the more CO2 we dump.

Unknown: Thanks.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you.

SPEAKER_15: Any other questions before we go to public comment?

SPEAKER_15: Seeing none, thank you, Emily, and we'll take some public comment now.

SPEAKER_15: Our first speaker will be Kate Kelly with Defenders of Wildlife.

SPEAKER_15: And we're actually going to give her five minutes just because she has kind of led the

SPEAKER_15: effort with the environmental groups meeting up with our staff and our ad hoc group also

SPEAKER_15: joined in.

Unknown: But welcome, Kate.

SPEAKER_17: Thank you, Kate Kelly, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife.

SPEAKER_17: And I appreciate the extra time.

SPEAKER_17: I think that's the reward for running all of the doodles over the last however many

SPEAKER_17: months.

SPEAKER_17: We're here this evening because we asked to work collaboratively with you in March.

SPEAKER_17: And what you saw today is some of the products of that collaboration.

SPEAKER_17: And for that, we are grateful for the opportunity to work with staff, the transparency, the

SPEAKER_17: thoughtful conversations, the frank conversations that we had.

SPEAKER_17: And we're grateful for the work of the ad hoc committee working on this as well.

SPEAKER_17: As a result of that, we've got some great products that have come out of this, updated

SPEAKER_17: principles that clearly address the third-party projects, environmental screening procedure

SPEAKER_17: that's been codified so we can all understand what the process is, and adjustments to procurement

SPEAKER_17: process in response to Director Kerr's question about cost.

Unknown: I'm going to flip that question.

SPEAKER_17: This is actually cost savings because when you get involved in a bad project that falls

SPEAKER_17: out of your portfolio because it's not viable for a variety of reasons that could have been

SPEAKER_17: caught by these processes, that's expensive.

SPEAKER_17: You've lost time, you've lost staff money, and your portfolio's been blown up.

SPEAKER_17: So this is a cost savings work of getting good projects up front so that you have certainty

SPEAKER_17: in your process so that you can build your portfolio.

SPEAKER_17: So for all of those things, we think that this has begun a good process and we've gotten

SPEAKER_17: some good products out of it.

SPEAKER_17: We do have a couple items, because we always do, that still need work.

SPEAKER_17: Emily spoke to one of them, which is the 30 days thing.

SPEAKER_17: And to be absolutely clear, we're not asking for the whole financial package to be released.

SPEAKER_17: We're asking for location, technology, basic project information to be posted 30 days in

SPEAKER_17: advance.

SPEAKER_17: You know, within the principles, there is a standard requiring the developer doing community

SPEAKER_17: engagement.

SPEAKER_17: It's not material that they would be engaging with the community.

SPEAKER_17: I was like telling them where the project is and how many megawatts of solar or whatever

SPEAKER_17: it is.

SPEAKER_17: So it's not like super squirrel secret stuff.

SPEAKER_17: This is stuff that should be easily available and is probably likely available in the very

SPEAKER_17: immediate community.

SPEAKER_17: We just want it to be on the SMUD website in advance, the board means that there's better

SPEAKER_17: informed decision making there.

SPEAKER_17: The other item that we've asked for is on community engagement.

SPEAKER_17: The principles direct that responsibility to the developer.

SPEAKER_17: We argue that SMUD has a role in that as well, to at a minimum verify the information that

SPEAKER_17: you're getting from the developer as to the host community's concerns and input on a project

Unknown: and not rely on that.

SPEAKER_17: You can't advocate your responsibility to have all the information you need to make

SPEAKER_17: a decision on a project to the developer who may have conflicts of interest.

SPEAKER_17: And unfortunately one of the best examples of that is your letter of termination to Desiree

SPEAKER_17: on Coyote where you state that it was represented by the seller that there was buy-in from the

SPEAKER_17: key stakeholders and yet the key stakeholders were the litigants on the project.

SPEAKER_17: So it's an easy thing to avoid and we ask that you work further on trying to develop

SPEAKER_17: a process so that you can also check in with the community to make sure that you know what

SPEAKER_17: you're getting involved in.

SPEAKER_17: But again thank you for the time and effort that everyone put into it.

SPEAKER_17: We appreciate it.

SPEAKER_17: We hope that this is going to be an iterative process both through the technical environmental

SPEAKER_17: form process but also in working with your communities early on so that you're getting

SPEAKER_17: the information that you need.

SPEAKER_17: You know there's a significant difference between engagement to seek meaningful input

SPEAKER_17: and that kind of conversation versus just doing a PR event.

SPEAKER_17: Everybody hates the PR event with the posters and the cookies.

SPEAKER_17: Don't do that to the communities.

SPEAKER_17: Come back and have those kind of conversations where you can really hear what they think.

Unknown: And with that I see I've got a couple minutes, almost a minute left, I'm happy to answer

SPEAKER_17: any questions that you have.

SPEAKER_17: And again thank you.

SPEAKER_15: Can we allow that?

SPEAKER_15: I'm curious the 30-day window.

SPEAKER_15: You know I'm guessing developers are not going to tell you where they want to do this

SPEAKER_15: until they have you know a signed deal with SMUD.

SPEAKER_15: Somebody else could buy the land.

SPEAKER_15: I mean what do you do with those concerns?

SPEAKER_17: Well as I read the principles that we've been working on is the developer's responsibility

SPEAKER_17: to do that in community engagement as part of bringing a project to SMUD for consideration

SPEAKER_17: of a PPA.

SPEAKER_17: So that's already occurring and should be known within the community before you enter

SPEAKER_17: into a PPA.

Unknown: Kate, anybody else have any questions for Kate?

SPEAKER_15: Seeing none, thank you very much for being here tonight.

SPEAKER_15: The next person that we have is Shawn Wirth from the Sierra Club.

Unknown: Good evening.

SPEAKER_08: I want to take the opportunity to thank the leadership on the board, particularly directors

SPEAKER_08: Tamayo, Sam Byrne and Herber for having the ad hoc committee directing staff to do this.

SPEAKER_08: I want to thank staff, particularly Ammon, Kathleen, Emily, Amanda, Chad for tolerating

SPEAKER_08: all this.

Unknown: Definitely had a Chad's wheelhouse but he was very gracious at listening to considerations

SPEAKER_08: that would make his job more difficult.

SPEAKER_08: And I just want to present a contrary look at the cost and time issue here.

SPEAKER_08: This whole thing was about due diligence.

SPEAKER_08: It was about taking all of these processes and doing it as effectively as possible to

SPEAKER_08: find those early pitfalls to avoid expensive mistakes in the future.

SPEAKER_08: There was no effort at all to increase the complexity for the purposes of drawing out

SPEAKER_08: the timeline or creating more expense.

SPEAKER_08: It was quite the opposite.

SPEAKER_08: It was to simplify it, find those problems early on.

SPEAKER_08: I think that the work product does a really good job of that.

SPEAKER_08: I also think the work product is part of a longer iterative process.

SPEAKER_08: We did our very best effort, staff did their very best effort.

SPEAKER_08: Things can change.

SPEAKER_08: Things like AI centers could go in that might require a new look at some of the processes.

SPEAKER_08: We want to continue that dialogue and continue trying to do that in the future.

SPEAKER_08: So I'm mostly here to thank you.

SPEAKER_08: I also agree with Kate that there are two adjustments that would be very helpful.

SPEAKER_08: That 30-day additional time to look at the...

SPEAKER_08: You need time to look at stuff.

SPEAKER_08: This is right before it's going to be approved.

SPEAKER_08: Another due diligence thing.

SPEAKER_08: And in terms of outreach to the community, you've got to trust but verify.

SPEAKER_08: I mean, I was in real estate for my professional life and I trusted everybody, but I verified

SPEAKER_08: everything.

Unknown: Thank you.

SPEAKER_08: Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_15: Next up we have David Wright with 350 Sacramento.

Unknown: Hi, everybody.

Unknown: I'm David Wright.

SPEAKER_18: And again, I want to echo the thanks that the previous two people have expressed to

SPEAKER_18: SMUD as staff and for the work together with the environmental groups.

SPEAKER_18: 350 Sacramento's hope is that this will result in speedy and secure procurement and development

SPEAKER_18: of clean renewable energy and avoid any more coyote creeks.

SPEAKER_18: I do think that what's been presented here tonight is a little bit incomplete.

SPEAKER_18: We would definitely endorse greater public transparency about projects before, you know,

SPEAKER_18: four days before the meeting when they're going to be reviewed in public as it would

SPEAKER_18: normally happen now.

SPEAKER_18: And if the developer doesn't have their ducks in a row, 30 days in advance of that action

SPEAKER_18: date, that doesn't seem like they've done their work properly.

SPEAKER_18: So I'm going to ask that you tonight and the board on next Thursday defer action on SD7,

SPEAKER_18: the report on SD7 until October until we have some things in writing about that transparency.

SPEAKER_18: And I also note that the principles document, the PREP-D, was not included in the public

SPEAKER_18: meeting materials tonight.

SPEAKER_18: So I assume that the members of the committee were able to see that, but the public has

SPEAKER_18: not been able to see that.

SPEAKER_18: And so in the interests of full public information and transparency and good public process,

SPEAKER_18: I would recommend deferring action on SD7 until October.

SPEAKER_18: Lastly, I would like to see a meeting scheduled on NDA's non-disclosure agreements.

SPEAKER_18: I feel like these things have gone way too far.

SPEAKER_18: There needs to be more attention to the public's right to information.

SPEAKER_18: You are a public agency and you're owned by your customers.

SPEAKER_18: And it's your first responsibilities to them.

Unknown: Okay, you have to do good business.

SPEAKER_18: And there may be some things that are valid to withhold for a period of time in the interests

SPEAKER_18: of facilitating business.

SPEAKER_18: But I think the other side of that balance needs to be weighed more clearly and more

SPEAKER_18: publicly.

Unknown: There have to be limits on how far these NDAs go.

SPEAKER_18: And I'd like to see a meeting about that.

SPEAKER_18: Thank you.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you for your comments, David.

SPEAKER_15: Next up is Luce Lim from the Environmental Council of Sacramento.

SPEAKER_15: Welcome.

Unknown: Thank you.

Unknown: Good evening, everyone.

SPEAKER_02: My name is Luce Lim.

SPEAKER_02: I'm the policy staff for ECOS.

SPEAKER_02: I want to echo my colleagues here put it really well.

SPEAKER_02: But formally on behalf of ECOS, I'd like to thank you all for the work that you've all

SPEAKER_02: committed to and really carried out over the past few months and are committing to

SPEAKER_02: carrying forward to continue engaging with the environmental community.

SPEAKER_02: And just really emphasize how important early and effective engagement and incorporation

SPEAKER_02: of public input to the degree that you can publish information.

SPEAKER_02: It's just so important.

SPEAKER_02: It's what gains trust with the community.

SPEAKER_02: And it's really what's necessary to avoid significant opposition and delays further

SPEAKER_02: down the process.

SPEAKER_02: So thank you so much.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you for your comments, Luce Lim.

SPEAKER_15: Next up is Tim Washburn with Third Act Sacramento.

SPEAKER_15: Welcome.

SPEAKER_07: Thank you, board members.

SPEAKER_07: And I, too, appreciate the support that this board and staff have given us to go through

SPEAKER_07: this process.

SPEAKER_07: I want to preface my specific comment on the policy with some observations about the emerging

SPEAKER_07: local, state, and national debate about the advancement of large-scale data centers and

SPEAKER_07: artificial intelligence.

SPEAKER_07: And then I'll swing back to say how I think is relevant to this discussion.

SPEAKER_07: So first of all, I think we need to slow down and take time to consider the tradeoffs

SPEAKER_07: that are involved in large load, as you call it, or the mega-scale data centers and the

SPEAKER_07: rapid advancement of the frontiers of artificial intelligence that are clearly causing a lot

SPEAKER_07: of anxiety for all of us.

SPEAKER_07: Toward that end, slowing down, my organization has submitted a letter to the B. We expect

SPEAKER_07: it to be published on Sunday, calling upon Sac County and its incorporated cities to

SPEAKER_07: follow the lead of Seattle and adopt a 12-month pause in permitting large-scale data center

SPEAKER_07: projects in order to give us time to consider these tradeoffs.

SPEAKER_07: At the local level, it means time to develop best management practices on how we're going

SPEAKER_07: to manage the adverse environmental effects of these kind of projects.

SPEAKER_07: For SMUD, it means taking time for the large load policy to be developed to ensure that

SPEAKER_07: ratepayers don't bear the cost and liability of these kinds of projects, and equally importantly,

SPEAKER_07: giving you time to complete your integrated resource plan to tell us all how could these

SPEAKER_07: large load projects affect, for example, our effort to achieve carbon neutrality.

SPEAKER_07: How much large load development can we accommodate before we have to reset our carbon-neutral

SPEAKER_07: goals?

SPEAKER_07: And then also, it'll give us time to see how actors at the state and federal level grapple

SPEAKER_07: with the guardrails we clearly need to manage these developments.

SPEAKER_07: So back to the policy.

SPEAKER_07: We've developed a screening tool, and we've talked about having an advisory group, which

SPEAKER_07: group I believe would have significant competence in taking that screening tool and looking

SPEAKER_07: at the landscape in the county and determining what is our actual capacity for accommodating

SPEAKER_07: solar array here.

SPEAKER_07: Because that's going to influence what you tell us about how we're going to accommodate

SPEAKER_07: the large load and still meet our carbon neutrality goals.

SPEAKER_07: And I would like to see that information incorporated into the IRP, a realistic estimate of what

SPEAKER_07: we think our capacity is for solar array development and procurement in our service

SPEAKER_07: area.

SPEAKER_07: And I think the advisory group that's being suggested here has the competence and the

SPEAKER_07: knowledge in terms of mapping the landscape of the county to help determine what that

SPEAKER_07: capacity is and communicate it to the land use agencies as they then have to grapple

SPEAKER_07: with the trade-off of moving forward with large load and meeting carbon neutrality.

SPEAKER_07: Thank you.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you, Mr. Washburn.

SPEAKER_15: Next up is Gabriel Katani with Save Coyote Creek Coalition.

Unknown: Hello.

Unknown: I'm Gabrielle.

SPEAKER_01: Good evening.

SPEAKER_01: First of all, thank you so much for the opportunity to comment.

SPEAKER_01: And I want to start by thanking SMUD for the work that you have done to revise your policies

SPEAKER_01: and make stronger environmental protections.

SPEAKER_01: I know these changes didn't happen overnight.

SPEAKER_01: And I especially appreciate your willingness that we've seen from SMUD staff and leadership

SPEAKER_01: to listen to the concerns of the community and work towards meaningful change.

Unknown: I'm here because of my experience with the Save Coyote Creek campaign.

SPEAKER_01: And I do think that there are two additional things that can make these policies even stronger.

SPEAKER_01: And I am glad to have already heard from public comments and even from your own staff that

SPEAKER_01: these are already on your mind.

SPEAKER_01: So that's great.

SPEAKER_01: First I would like to encourage SMUD to build that 30-day public comment policy to build

SPEAKER_01: that into the process for proposed projects at a very early stage.

SPEAKER_01: This isn't really like asking the public to approve a reject a project.

SPEAKER_01: It's simply creating an opportunity for people to see what is being proposed while there

SPEAKER_01: is still time to identify any problems or community concerns and hopefully provide useful

SPEAKER_01: information before any major decisions have been made.

Unknown: Second, I would like to encourage SMUD to make meaningful community outreach a priority.

SPEAKER_01: And importantly, I think that outreach should be conducted by SMUD rather than the project

SPEAKER_01: developer, or they should at least be heavily involved.

SPEAKER_01: Developers have an understandable interest in seeing their project move forward.

SPEAKER_01: So they shouldn't be the sole party responsible for engaging communities.

SPEAKER_01: I think SMUD is in a much better position to serve as a neutral conveyor and making

SPEAKER_01: sure that communities are actually informed and create genuine opportunities for people

SPEAKER_01: to ask questions and raise concerns.

SPEAKER_01: I believe that ultimately this ultimately benefits SMUD as much as it benefits the communities

SPEAKER_01: because people are much more likely to understand and participate constructively in a process

SPEAKER_01: that they feel like they've been included in.

SPEAKER_01: That's really what we learned from Coyote Creek, a project that raised significant concerns

SPEAKER_01: about the loss of intact ecosystems moved forward without any kind of early community

SPEAKER_01: engagement.

SPEAKER_01: We really appreciate that SMUD has listened since then and is willing to work with our

SPEAKER_01: coalition to improve their policies.

SPEAKER_01: So thank you so much.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you for your comments.

SPEAKER_15: General Counsel, do we have any virtual attendees who want to speak?

Unknown: Okay.

SPEAKER_15: Now we have the opportunity for board members to speak.

SPEAKER_15: We'll start first with Director Fishman, then Director Sanborn.

Unknown: I do have a question for you.

SPEAKER_12: I'm wondering if you can bring up your presentation again and go to slide 15.

SPEAKER_12: It sort of shows a – it's not really a timeline, but it's the process.

SPEAKER_12: That one.

SPEAKER_12: At what point in that process would a potential project go public?

SPEAKER_00: We see and receive PPAs on a variety of projects in a variety of stages of project development.

SPEAKER_00: Meaning this is a new project, a green field project.

SPEAKER_00: And this also depends on the county or location in which the project is located.

SPEAKER_00: In some cases, counties require a PPA to be signed before they'll start and work through

SPEAKER_00: the environmental review process.

SPEAKER_12: Okay.

SPEAKER_12: So this would not happen necessarily concurrent with the environmental planning with the Land

SPEAKER_12: Use Authority, correct?

SPEAKER_12: That's correct.

SPEAKER_12: This would be before they get to the CEQA process.

SPEAKER_12: And I understand that the timing of things can change dramatically, right?

SPEAKER_12: There's no set times for these.

SPEAKER_12: But roughly how long do you think that process would take?

SPEAKER_12: From the time the developer submits a proposal to the time that it would come to the board?

Unknown: I'm going to phone a friend and ask Chad to speak on behalf of the contracting process.

SPEAKER_11: Chad Adair manages the energy contracts team.

SPEAKER_11: So it depends is the answer.

SPEAKER_11: Because as Emily stated, projects can come in in a number of different ways.

SPEAKER_11: This process, depending on the complexity, can take anywhere from, I would say, six months

SPEAKER_11: as an ideal if you have just a rapid everything, all the ducks are in a row, just an awesome,

SPEAKER_11: perfect process.

SPEAKER_11: It can take two years to negotiate a deal.

SPEAKER_11: Depends on where it is in the development life cycle.

SPEAKER_11: So it just depends on the project.

SPEAKER_11: As far as the publicly available, you know, when it goes public, that also depends.

SPEAKER_11: As Emily was stating, it depends on the authority having jurisdiction, whether CEQA has started.

SPEAKER_11: If CEQA has started, then the project is public.

SPEAKER_11: Right?

SPEAKER_11: So if we then by the time we get to the PPA approval process, CEQA is out there, the public

SPEAKER_11: knows about it, there's been a ton of different engagement.

SPEAKER_11: Going forward, I don't see how except maybe in some very rare instances where we can be

SPEAKER_11: in a position to present a PPA to you in the future with these principles where it hasn't

SPEAKER_11: at least started the CEQA process if it's a project in California.

SPEAKER_11: We do sometimes procure projects that are outside of California so it will be a different

SPEAKER_11: states CEQA type process or say the federal government's NEPA process.

SPEAKER_11: So it depends.

SPEAKER_11: But there's different ways projects can go public.

SPEAKER_11: There's an interconnection queue.

SPEAKER_11: Sometimes there's going to be aspects of the project that are already public.

SPEAKER_11: Now they keep some of that information confidential.

SPEAKER_11: So you kind of have to work to connect some dots to view it in an interconnection queue

SPEAKER_11: process.

SPEAKER_11: But that's one of the earliest ways projects will go public is through the interconnection

SPEAKER_11: queue process.

SPEAKER_11: But there's different ways projects will become public.

SPEAKER_11: Because going forward, by the time we get to a board approval for a PPA, most likely

SPEAKER_11: everything as Ms. Kelly mentioned earlier, most everything is going to be public by that

SPEAKER_11: point.

SPEAKER_12: Thank you.

SPEAKER_15: Director Sanborn?

SPEAKER_15: I was going to defer you to it.

Unknown: Oh, I didn't hear that.

SPEAKER_16: So you were deferring to me.

SPEAKER_16: You know, I actually am very supportive of the 30-day window before it actually comes

SPEAKER_16: to a board meeting.

SPEAKER_16: And I know I've spoken to staff.

SPEAKER_16: It's really working out sort of the details on what makes sense.

SPEAKER_16: I think that what Kate has proposed, a very simple set of information about, okay, where

SPEAKER_16: is it?

SPEAKER_16: What's the technology?

SPEAKER_16: That sort of thing.

SPEAKER_16: Those are all things that we would expect would already have been shared with the community.

SPEAKER_16: So I don't see that that would be any sort of impediment.

SPEAKER_16: No, nothing that's covered by an NDA.

SPEAKER_16: It's not the proprietary stuff that they want to protect.

SPEAKER_16: So I'm very supportive of that.

SPEAKER_16: And I know that you're still working on, okay, how does that get worked out?

SPEAKER_16: So that's one of the expectations that we'll have is that as this moves forward, that that

SPEAKER_16: will be incorporated in our procedure.

SPEAKER_16: And then as far as the community engagement, I also agree that we need to be able to evaluate

SPEAKER_16: how well they're doing.

SPEAKER_16: I don't necessarily think that we should be responsible for doing the community engagement.

SPEAKER_16: But I do, will be held responsible for, you know, as an organization, if it's ineffective

SPEAKER_16: community engagement, that's going to be pretty evident by the time it gets to the board.

SPEAKER_16: And the implementation of this will be judged, at least by me, like, okay, if they didn't

SPEAKER_16: do good community engagement, and then that comes and bites us once it gets to the board

SPEAKER_16: or like right at that 30 day, if it's very clear that they didn't do good community engagement,

SPEAKER_16: that would not meet my expectations of how this is supposed to work.

SPEAKER_16: So I'm hoping that we have a mechanism to be maybe participating in some of their community

SPEAKER_16: engagement, but at least also evaluating are they really doing it.

SPEAKER_16: So I don't expect that we'd take full ownership of their effort to do that.

Unknown: The result of it is, I think, what we're going to be holding staff responsible for at the

SPEAKER_16: end if it wasn't good enough.

SPEAKER_16: So that's my expectation.

SPEAKER_16: One of the comments was about the integrating the large load considerations into our IRP.

SPEAKER_16: And I just wanted to point out that we've delayed a discussion, sort of a separate discussion

SPEAKER_16: about our large load policy, and it's already been recognized by our CEO that we really

SPEAKER_16: needed to do that in the context of the IRP.

SPEAKER_16: So that is something that we're already planning to do because it just makes sense because

SPEAKER_16: we can't really have a realistic IRP unless we're thinking about how those large loads

SPEAKER_16: are going to affect us.

SPEAKER_16: I will say, though, that I am very pleased that we've made a lot of progress.

SPEAKER_16: I think that this is a much better framework for us to be evaluating the impacts of these

SPEAKER_16: projects early on in the process.

SPEAKER_16: And I think that we're going to end up with a much smoother process overall because the

SPEAKER_16: expectations and the requirements that we're placing on the developers that want to do

SPEAKER_16: business with us.

SPEAKER_16: So I want to thank staff.

SPEAKER_16: I want to thank the folks from the environmental community that participated, put a lot of

SPEAKER_16: time and effort and thought and thank you for your contributions on what makes sense.

SPEAKER_16: So anyway, thanks and also thanks to Director Herber and Director Sanborn for participating

SPEAKER_16: in the ad hoc.

SPEAKER_16: So thank you very much to everybody who helped bring this forward.

SPEAKER_16: I'm not supportive of delaying this.

SPEAKER_16: I think we're better off just having this as a policy with the understanding that there's

SPEAKER_16: certain things that we expect to be incorporated in how this gets implemented.

SPEAKER_16: Thank you.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you, Mr. President, Director Fishman and then Director Sanborn.

Unknown: Emily, I'm just having just a moment here, spitballing some thoughts.

SPEAKER_12: So that's when I get dangerous, so reel me in.

SPEAKER_12: I'm a little loathe to tell a developer you have to go public with some information about

SPEAKER_12: your project now because we're going to come to the board in 30 days or less.

SPEAKER_12: So you have to.

SPEAKER_12: I don't want to do that.

SPEAKER_12: But I am willing to say maybe we ought to tell developers we're not going to go to the

SPEAKER_12: board until 30 days after you start the CEQA process.

SPEAKER_12: So my question for you is, I guess, if most of our projects already are past that threshold,

SPEAKER_12: is there an issue with either writing that into the policy or at least making that an

SPEAKER_12: understanding that that's going to be what we do?

SPEAKER_00: That's a great question.

SPEAKER_00: So I do want to say, and, Chad, feel free to supplement, as part of the updated PREP,

SPEAKER_00: we have included a piece that requires the developer have that community engagement.

SPEAKER_00: So we haven't seen how all of these pieces necessarily line up yet.

SPEAKER_00: We haven't had a project to run through this from start to finish.

SPEAKER_00: So some of that will occur.

SPEAKER_00: And I don't think we need to tie it to the CEQA process because it's already captured

SPEAKER_00: in the PREP document.

Unknown: Okay.

Unknown: Thank you.

SPEAKER_06: You can go back.

Unknown: Okay.

SPEAKER_06: Yes.

SPEAKER_06: Thank you, Emily.

SPEAKER_06: And thank you again to the public and to everybody who participated in this.

SPEAKER_06: We deeply, deeply appreciate that you spent that much time and you've been so thoughtful

SPEAKER_06: and to our staff, too.

SPEAKER_06: I do find it ‑‑ I think we did not include this, the principles in the packet because

SPEAKER_06: they might change over time.

SPEAKER_06: Is this a plan, do, check, adjust sort of thing?

SPEAKER_06: Is that why it wasn't in the packet?

SPEAKER_06: I'm just curious.

SPEAKER_06: That was raised.

SPEAKER_00: I think that was just an oversight.

SPEAKER_00: It's going to ultimately be published at SMUD.org.

SPEAKER_00: The website is just not ready to take it yet.

SPEAKER_00: So there's nothing ‑‑ we expect that it's in a final form for all intensive

SPEAKER_00: purposes and if we were to be making any updates to it, assuming the board approves

SPEAKER_00: the language to add it to SD7, we would be coming back to the board if we were going

SPEAKER_00: to change or update that language.

Unknown: Well, just for me, it just seems a little odd that we're approving a principle.

SPEAKER_06: Well, we're approving the environmental ‑‑ the changes to the environmental policy.

SPEAKER_06: But if it's our approval of the document and it's not in the packet, that feels odd for

SPEAKER_06: the public.

SPEAKER_06: I understand that comment.

Unknown: If I can chime in on this.

SPEAKER_05: Yeah, I thought there was a legal reason.

SPEAKER_05: If the board wants to go forward with the revisions to SD7, the board packet will be

SPEAKER_05: posted on Friday and we can include in that the principles as part of the board packet

SPEAKER_05: for next week.

Unknown: It would be great.

SPEAKER_06: Thank you.

Unknown: Hopefully that helps.

SPEAKER_06: Thank you.

Unknown: I just ‑‑ when I first got on the board, I remember hearing about the business council

SPEAKER_06: and I thought why don't we have an environmental council?

SPEAKER_06: Why don't we have environmental folks have the same sort of elevated access to our staff

SPEAKER_06: and input to what we do?

SPEAKER_06: And I'm sorry we had to go through the situation we did in order to get to this place, but

SPEAKER_06: I do really strongly believe that this is the right thing to do permanently and that

SPEAKER_06: it is going to save us money in the long term if we have community engagement early and

SPEAKER_06: understanding and we have a lot of really smart people in this county and sometimes

SPEAKER_06: they point out things.

SPEAKER_06: I know we talked in the ad hoc about how we learned things from the folks.

SPEAKER_06: I mean, it's just a better way to go.

SPEAKER_06: So I just strongly encourage us to keep that forum like we do for the business community.

SPEAKER_06: And increasing our transparency to me is very, very important and I know our new CEO has

SPEAKER_06: spoken to that as well.

SPEAKER_06: So I just want to say thank you and I strongly support everything, Director President DeMile

SPEAKER_06: said and moving it tonight.

SPEAKER_15: Director Rose.

Unknown: Yes, thank you.

SPEAKER_09: I do want to also thank the committee for their time and work on this.

SPEAKER_09: A lot of this that we're seeing, especially on the slide here, is things that should generally

SPEAKER_09: already be happening.

SPEAKER_09: And so I feel like this is sort of our third try to get this right over the last eight

SPEAKER_09: years.

SPEAKER_09: So I think it's a step in the right direction.

SPEAKER_09: I was going to ask what Director Samberg just said, seeing the document.

SPEAKER_09: So I would definitely like to actually take a look at it and find writing the language

SPEAKER_09: in.

SPEAKER_09: I guess my question would be, is this a document that we think the board would review on like

SPEAKER_09: an annual basis?

SPEAKER_09: Would it be sort of a staff policy document once it's approved?

SPEAKER_06: Could be brought back every year with the environmental policy, too.

Unknown: I guess my overarching thought is some ability to track it, at least for the first year and

SPEAKER_09: make sure the process is working.

SPEAKER_09: I have some concern.

SPEAKER_09: There's a balancing act there between the developer and wanting to lock up land and

SPEAKER_09: not getting ‑‑ not overpaying for something or having somebody come and buy it out for

SPEAKER_09: a new and then have a new domain to get it and pay 50% more.

SPEAKER_09: So just there's a balance there.

SPEAKER_09: I just want to make sure we're finding that correct balance, though I'm supportive.

Unknown: So Emily, I don't remember ‑‑ sorry, Lori, CEO.

SPEAKER_20: I don't remember if we had ‑‑ I know we were going to post it on some of the dog

SPEAKER_20: and not have it necessarily as part of SD7 language so that way it was easier to update.

SPEAKER_20: But I think it was something that we said we would review with the board annually.

SPEAKER_20: That was my understanding as well.

SPEAKER_00: And I do plan to report out on progress that we make as part of the SD7 report every year.

SPEAKER_00: Okay.

SPEAKER_09: That's good.

SPEAKER_09: The only other couple other things I wanted to mention a question to, I did ‑‑ I agreed

SPEAKER_09: with ‑‑ on the cost question, this saves costs in the long run.

SPEAKER_09: I think this is part of business as usual as well, making sure projects are coming through

SPEAKER_09: that are good.

SPEAKER_09: I do wonder ‑‑ this definitely has a Sacramento County focus.

SPEAKER_09: We put plenty of thought into these distant PPAs.

SPEAKER_09: We have a project in the Mojave.

SPEAKER_09: We did one down in Imperial with Navajo Nation years back.

SPEAKER_09: So I wanted to make sure ‑‑ this is a good balance for both near and far projects.

SPEAKER_00: We do think it's a good balance.

SPEAKER_00: And we did consider projects in Sacramento, in the state, and then also outside of the state.

SPEAKER_09: Okay.

SPEAKER_09: Perfect.

SPEAKER_09: And then just the last thing, in terms of just trying to keep control of these projects,

SPEAKER_09: right, you saw with Cody Creek, it just went off the rails.

SPEAKER_09: What was said to the board years back turned out to not be entirely true.

SPEAKER_09: As the environmental review progressed, the impacts got worse and worse, and we had no

SPEAKER_09: ability to comment on it at risk of litigation.

SPEAKER_09: So it's definitely a challenge.

SPEAKER_09: So hopefully this will avoid those problems in the future as well.

SPEAKER_09: And then I also would echo Director Sanborn the idea.

SPEAKER_09: We brought it up just informally over the years, the environmental council makes a lot

SPEAKER_09: of sense as we do with our business advisory council, the BACT.

SPEAKER_09: So those are my thoughts and comments, and thank you, everybody, for being here.

Unknown: Are there any more comments from ‑‑ yes, Director Kerr?

SPEAKER_04: Yes, thank you.

SPEAKER_04: And I too want to thank everyone who worked on this.

SPEAKER_04: This is a good policy enhancement for us, and I'm looking forward to it.

SPEAKER_04: One of the assumptions in all of this is that because of SMUD's agreement to a power purchase

SPEAKER_04: agreement, the project then becomes constructible.

SPEAKER_04: And so this is a construction‑related activity.

SPEAKER_04: What happens when someone just comes to us and says, hey, we're a generator and we want

SPEAKER_04: to sell you renewable power?

Unknown: Would it be part of this system if they have an existing generation facility?

Unknown: Or would that be separate then?

SPEAKER_00: This would be specific for renewable energy, so not for a thermal generation.

SPEAKER_00: But if someone came to us with an existing wind project, we would still work through

SPEAKER_00: this process.

SPEAKER_00: We may be coming to the board to say this doesn't align with all of the principles because,

SPEAKER_00: for example, they couldn't meet the sustainable communities requirement because the project

SPEAKER_00: has already been built.

SPEAKER_00: But we would highlight those exceptions to the principles through that process.

SPEAKER_00: The process, regardless of whether it's a built project or not, Chad brings the project

SPEAKER_00: to my team, my team reviews it, we'll work through the whole process here.

SPEAKER_00: It's a little easier if it's already a built project because impacts are ‑‑

Unknown: Yeah, there's not much decision.

SPEAKER_04: We can't influence the project very much after it's built.

SPEAKER_04: Exactly.

Unknown: Appreciate that.

SPEAKER_04: Thank you.

Unknown: And now I get a chance to comment on this stuff.

SPEAKER_15: I do want to thank Director Sanborn and Director Tamayo for taking the time to go to the meetings

SPEAKER_15: with our staff and work through different things.

SPEAKER_15: Also want to thank the public.

SPEAKER_15: It's really great to have you working with us.

SPEAKER_15: We know that we needed something to change after the last development that went off the

SPEAKER_15: rails.

SPEAKER_15: And I believe that this is going to put us in a much better place.

SPEAKER_15: I like the transparency.

SPEAKER_15: I like the communication with the neighborhoods.

SPEAKER_15: I like the ability for people to know what's going on and not find out, you know, the last

SPEAKER_15: couple of days before the project comes forward to be approved.

SPEAKER_15: I don't think there's a reason to wait.

SPEAKER_15: I do want to see us go ahead and adopt this if it's possible.

SPEAKER_15: But overall, I think staff did a really great job and so did the public.

SPEAKER_15: And lo and behold, even the board members.

SPEAKER_15: So thank you for that.

SPEAKER_15: So now what is the board's pleasure in terms of are we going to bring it forward or hold

SPEAKER_15: off or do people have comments about that?

SPEAKER_06: I'd recommend to just go on to the consent agenda, but along with the actual full document,

SPEAKER_06: the principles attached and the full board packet.

Unknown: Okay.

SPEAKER_15: I definitely would agree.

SPEAKER_15: I'm not seeing any disagreement.

SPEAKER_15: Okay.

SPEAKER_15: Well, then, Chief Legal Officer, you know where we all stand with this.

SPEAKER_15: And thank you again for coming out.

SPEAKER_15: You're welcome to stay.

SPEAKER_15: There's more good news.

SPEAKER_15: We're going to move on to item number two, which is to discuss the monitoring report

SPEAKER_15: for strategic direction number nine, which involves resource planning.

Unknown: All right.

SPEAKER_19: Great.

SPEAKER_19: Thank you, Chair Herber.

SPEAKER_19: Great group out here tonight.

SPEAKER_19: Good to see everyone here.

SPEAKER_19: Tonight I have the pleasure of presenting the highlights of SD9, which is our resource

SPEAKER_19: planning directive here at SMUD.

SPEAKER_19: It's a very far-reaching directive for the organization.

SPEAKER_19: I might brag that it's actually the widest-reaching SD here at SMUD.

SPEAKER_19: So really there's a lot of folks here at SMUD that contribute to this work.

SPEAKER_19: So I just want to say thank you to all the SMUD Army out there that are really working

SPEAKER_19: every day towards these goals and their jobs here.

SPEAKER_19: I also want to thank the board members, our seven-member board of directors here at SMUD.

SPEAKER_19: They're out in the community.

SPEAKER_19: They're educating our customers about the offerings we have, the goals we have, some

SPEAKER_19: of the rates we have, you know, really trying to improve the life and comfort of some of

SPEAKER_19: our customers through our program.

SPEAKER_19: So thank you to our board as well for your hand in the progress report here tonight.

Unknown: First, I want to cover our emissions for the year.

SPEAKER_19: We saw this in Director Emily Bikini's presentation.

SPEAKER_19: But our emissions for retail sales in 2025 were about 1.4 million metric tons to meet,

SPEAKER_19: again, customer load.

SPEAKER_19: So those are emissions associated with meeting our retail sales.

SPEAKER_19: So that orange row there on the table on the left.

SPEAKER_19: That result was slightly higher than what we could have planned for the year.

SPEAKER_19: So on SC9, we like to describe some of the big impacts to our emissions for the year.

SPEAKER_19: And thankfully, they're relatively small.

SPEAKER_19: We've seen them much larger than this.

SPEAKER_19: But our hydro underperformed by about 6%.

SPEAKER_19: That's a big swing variable in our portfolio.

SPEAKER_19: We know it's really up to the whim of weather, right, whether or not we get that rain or

SPEAKER_19: that snowpack, right, throughout the year.

SPEAKER_19: And so that increased our emissions by about 53,000 metric tons for the year.

SPEAKER_19: Wind variability as well.

SPEAKER_19: We had a lower production from our wind portfolio in 2025 as well, increasing our emissions

SPEAKER_19: by about 82,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

SPEAKER_19: So had those things kind of gone our way, our emissions could have been about 1.3 million

SPEAKER_19: metric tons.

SPEAKER_19: Anytime hydro doesn't show up, any time other variable energy resources don't show up, we

SPEAKER_19: have to go out and procure more power to kind of backfill that power, right.

SPEAKER_19: And typically that's going to be run the thermal plants more or by market purchases.

SPEAKER_19: Either those usually come with an emission intensity factor, right.

SPEAKER_19: So again, our emissions for the year in 2025 were 1.47.

SPEAKER_19: But again, had hydro and wind delivered about to plan, we could have been a little bit lower.

SPEAKER_19: Now some highlights across the year, across the portfolio I should say, include the expansion

SPEAKER_19: of new renewable resources.

SPEAKER_19: We added 151 megawatts of solar and wind generation.

SPEAKER_19: We also continue to push on almost nearly 1,000 megawatts of new renewable and storage

SPEAKER_19: projects committed to come online between 2026 and 2030.

SPEAKER_19: Our customers continue to add clean distributed solar and storage to their homes and businesses

SPEAKER_19: as well as participate in our load flex programs.

SPEAKER_19: And we saw a big increase in electric vehicles and homes and the associated greenhouse gas

SPEAKER_19: emission reductions.

SPEAKER_19: Our community impact plan, our sustainable communities initiative and our income qualified

SPEAKER_19: offerings all continue to support some of our customers that need more support in the

SPEAKER_19: clean energy transition.

SPEAKER_19: I'll kind of go into each one of these areas as we step through this presentation.

SPEAKER_19: Based on the utility scale side of things, since 2022 we've added about 441 megawatts

SPEAKER_19: of new renewable carbon free resources.

SPEAKER_19: In 2025 the Sulu house solar project joined the portfolio.

SPEAKER_19: It's a 50 megawatt solar project here in Sacramento County.

SPEAKER_19: We also brought online a power purchase agreement, hatchet ridge for some additional wind.

SPEAKER_19: That project is out in Shasta County.

SPEAKER_19: We also completed the power plant retooling project or as we like to call it the turn

SPEAKER_19: down project.

SPEAKER_19: That's an interesting project that doesn't generate anything but allows that unit to

SPEAKER_19: be more flexible, reducing fuel commodity by somewhere between $10 to $12 million a

SPEAKER_19: year, reducing emissions at that project by about 100,000 metric tons.

SPEAKER_19: As we highlighted in the April presentation to the board on the ZCP on the utility scale

SPEAKER_19: update, we are looking at other retooling options at several of our other thermal plants.

SPEAKER_19: More to come on that soon.

Unknown: Of late, 2026 we had the sun Zia wind project join the portfolio.

SPEAKER_19: It's 150 megawatts of wind.

SPEAKER_19: The largest solar and storage project to date for smud country acres is currently under

SPEAKER_19: construction with an online date planned for 2027 as well as the dry creek BES project

SPEAKER_19: down at ranch of Saco.

SPEAKER_19: Also expected to come online in 2027.

SPEAKER_19: A lot of progress in this area.

SPEAKER_19: Total about 1433 megawatts between 2022 and 2030.

SPEAKER_19: We're also on track to meeting the state's requirements for renewables portfolio standard,

SPEAKER_19: which is a 60% standard by 2030.

SPEAKER_19: The last thing I'll mention here is there are cost pressures.

SPEAKER_19: We talked about the significant cost pressures on utility scale resources in April.

SPEAKER_19: That's really kind of a head wind that we're dealing with at this time.

Unknown: Yeah.

Unknown: Director Rose.

Unknown: Online dates, memory serves a half-serve raised income online until the last day of the year.

SPEAKER_19: That's correct.

SPEAKER_19: Yeah, nearly the last day.

SPEAKER_19: You're right.

SPEAKER_09: I know it's a really, really big, some of these, some of them coming out in the beginning of

SPEAKER_09: the year, so you don't realize it's kind of it for a while.

SPEAKER_09: Good point.

SPEAKER_09: So, since we've been in the Zia, we've queried the present of the ISO here in June.

SPEAKER_09: Are we actually getting our full delivery of our portion of that Zia project at this point?

SPEAKER_19: To my knowledge, we are.

SPEAKER_19: I haven't looked too much at the hourly delivery.

SPEAKER_19: I don't know if John's...

SPEAKER_19: After they're taking it at just.

SPEAKER_09: Okay.

SPEAKER_09: Okay.

SPEAKER_09: That was a little bit of a question mark when we actually start seeing that production as

SPEAKER_09: well.

SPEAKER_09: Sure.

SPEAKER_09: Good question.

SPEAKER_09: Good.

SPEAKER_19: Thank you.

Unknown: Okay.

Unknown: Okay.

Unknown: All right.

Unknown: All right.

Unknown: Next slide here.

Unknown: This is a new one.

SPEAKER_19: This probably doesn't look familiar to anyone, but this slide was created to address some

SPEAKER_19: of the discussions we had in April.

SPEAKER_19: The progress slide we had shared was a megawatt-based slide.

SPEAKER_19: I think the discussion here was like, what would that be in terms of greenhouse gas emissions

SPEAKER_19: avoided, right?

SPEAKER_19: So we produced this slide here to try to address that discussion and those questions.

SPEAKER_19: If we focus on the graph here between 2022 and 2025, as we mentioned on the previous

SPEAKER_19: slide, we added 441 megawatts of wind, solar, geothermal, right?

SPEAKER_19: Between that time period, the generation from those resources is estimated to avoid about

SPEAKER_19: 700,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually.

SPEAKER_19: Between 2026 and 2030, we're adding an additional 992 megawatts of clean resources, increasing

SPEAKER_19: that 700 metric tons avoided annually to about 1.3 million metric tons.

SPEAKER_19: I will note that the 992 megawatts between 2026 and 2030, nearly half of that is actually

SPEAKER_19: in storage, so it doesn't produce energy, right?

SPEAKER_19: It can store clean energy, but doesn't necessarily produce it.

SPEAKER_19: So that's why, you know, you might ask, like, why wouldn't the emission reductions be higher,

SPEAKER_19: right?

SPEAKER_19: But because a lot of it is storage, yes.

SPEAKER_12: Real quick, Brian, we've already added 151 megawatts, and we're adding another 992 between

SPEAKER_12: now and 2030.

SPEAKER_12: I just want to point out our peak demand is about 3,000 megawatts, and so we're adding

SPEAKER_12: a significant amount of capacity, but it's intermittent.

SPEAKER_12: It doesn't always produce, obviously.

SPEAKER_12: Solar doesn't produce at night, or when it's really, really cloudy, wind doesn't always

SPEAKER_12: blow.

SPEAKER_12: So it's, I mean, it sounds like a huge amount of power, but in terms of how much it actually

SPEAKER_12: is going to produce, it's not that much.

SPEAKER_19: That's correct, yeah.

SPEAKER_19: You know, with respect to things like geothermal, obviously that's a very dense energy resource,

SPEAKER_19: right?

SPEAKER_19: 90% capacity factor solar, 25% capacity factor, yeah.

SPEAKER_19: So this is kind of, you know, giving you a sense of nameplate capacity, but sure, the

SPEAKER_19: production by technology type will vary.

SPEAKER_19: Good point.

SPEAKER_06: Yes.

SPEAKER_06: I want to clarify, because we've had it reported it's going to be very difficult to hit our

SPEAKER_06: zero by 2030.

SPEAKER_06: The way that chart is laid out, it looks like we're hitting it.

Unknown: Yeah, so the, that's kind of where I was going with next, is that orange point on the graph.

SPEAKER_19: You know, it's labeled as 2030 estimated SD7 emissions.

SPEAKER_19: So that's kind of where we think we will be in 2030, which is somewhere around 1.2 million

SPEAKER_19: metric tons.

SPEAKER_19: The 700,000 has occurred already, right?

SPEAKER_19: So we've had that through 2025.

SPEAKER_19: And so it's, from here it's an incremental 600,000 metric tons decrease.

SPEAKER_19: And so where that gets us to is about 1.2 million metric tons in 2030, excuse me.

SPEAKER_19: There's some other things going on here too with this graph.

SPEAKER_19: There's load growth.

SPEAKER_19: That's a big part of it.

SPEAKER_19: We anticipate a pretty significant amount of new transportation load due to our electrification

SPEAKER_19: efforts.

SPEAKER_19: So that increases our loads.

SPEAKER_19: That increases our emissions.

SPEAKER_19: But on a net basis, when you think about the emissions reduced on the transportation side,

SPEAKER_19: it's a gain, right?

SPEAKER_19: So that's also one of those kind of, one of the aspects of this that comes into play.

SPEAKER_06: So just for the graphic though, because the way it looks to me, it looks like we're hitting

SPEAKER_06: the goal.

SPEAKER_06: But that's not the goal.

SPEAKER_06: The goal is higher than that.

Unknown: Yeah.

SPEAKER_19: So we have, on the area chart we have emissions avoided.

SPEAKER_19: But then the little kind of orange striped diamond is where we think our emissions are

SPEAKER_19: going to end up in 2030.

SPEAKER_19: So the emissions result in 2030 are estimated right around 1.2 million metric tons.

Unknown: All right.

SPEAKER_19: Transitioning to the customer side of things.

SPEAKER_19: This is clean distributed energy resources as well as load flex programs.

SPEAKER_19: On the customer solar side of things, our customer behind the meter solar increased

SPEAKER_19: by about 9% year over year bringing total solar in the region behind the meter solar

SPEAKER_19: to over 450 megawatts.

SPEAKER_19: I think we can recall back to maybe 2020, 2021, we're more in the 200 megawatt range.

SPEAKER_19: So again, our customers continue pitching in and adding solar to their homes and businesses.

SPEAKER_19: On the storage side, we saw almost a doubling of the storage capacity at customer sites

SPEAKER_19: incentivized by our programs.

SPEAKER_19: Saw 17 megawatt growth year over year bringing total storage at customer sites to over 35

Unknown: megawatts.

SPEAKER_19: On the flexible demand front, these are the programs here listed.

SPEAKER_19: My energy optimizer, partner, partner plus, peak conserved, that's our new ACLM, air conditioning

SPEAKER_19: load management program as well as our commercial power direct program.

SPEAKER_19: These programs help us reduce the need for power at peak, reducing costs, but also reducing

SPEAKER_19: emissions at those highest emitting hours.

SPEAKER_19: This program to really help us in that way provide capacity, reduces the need for capacity

SPEAKER_19: at peak as well.

SPEAKER_19: In total, we've got about 70 megawatts in this portfolio here growing about 27% year

SPEAKER_19: over year.

SPEAKER_19: So great job by our customers continuing to participate in our programs here.

SPEAKER_19: Now on the electrification side of things, we took some big steps in this area as well.

SPEAKER_19: We had a good discussion last night.

SPEAKER_19: Dr. Alberto Ayala from the Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District was out and

SPEAKER_19: really highlighted the importance of electrification in Sacramento.

SPEAKER_19: Really highlighted that the air quality is very impacted by transportation and that really

SPEAKER_19: the key here is to keep the economic signal to electrify buildings, to electrify homes.

SPEAKER_19: By SMUD's role, that of course is providing affordable rates.

SPEAKER_19: The more we can keep affordable rates, the more impact we can have across the economy

SPEAKER_19: with respect to the electrification of buildings and transportation.

SPEAKER_19: On the building side, total equivalent all-electric homes, top 27,000, emissions reduced, equaled

SPEAKER_19: over 150,000 metric tons.

SPEAKER_19: And on a couple of notables here on the left here, income-qualified residential gas to

SPEAKER_19: electric conversions equaled 571 individuals.

SPEAKER_19: Total residential gas to electric conversions, nearly top 5,000 units.

SPEAKER_19: So a lot of great work going on on the building electrification side.

SPEAKER_19: On the transportation side, we saw EV vehicles registered in the region exceed 76,000.

SPEAKER_19: I believe that was a 23% increase year-over-year in electric vehicles.

SPEAKER_19: Total emissions reduced are now nearly 245,000 metric tons annually.

SPEAKER_19: Some notables on the transportation side, we helped electrify 610 customers on the income-qualified

SPEAKER_19: side of things.

SPEAKER_19: And in total, we installed over 2,600 home chargers and EV circuits through our programs

SPEAKER_19: and incentives.

SPEAKER_19: I'll also mention EV rate credit.

SPEAKER_19: We have 47% participation rate right now.

SPEAKER_19: For anyone that's listening that's here in this room or maybe at home, it's important

SPEAKER_19: to look at that EV rate credit.

SPEAKER_19: If we have a cent and a half reduction in our rates, if you charge your vehicle between

SPEAKER_19: 12 a.m. and 6 a.m.

SPEAKER_19: So an additional credit on your bill during those hours on our already pretty low rates

SPEAKER_19: overnight.

SPEAKER_19: So do look into that.

SPEAKER_19: That helps us kind of manage the EV load.

SPEAKER_19: Really kind of pulls it off the peak and puts it where we can better manage it on the system.

Unknown: All right.

SPEAKER_19: So on to customer resiliency and community benefits.

SPEAKER_19: We had a great presentation several weeks ago by Dr. Webster and Director Tara Porter

SPEAKER_19: on the customer side.

Unknown: They presented the detailed community impact plan presentation highlighting all the great

SPEAKER_19: things that we're doing in this area of the plan.

SPEAKER_19: As a community organization, this work is very near and dear to SMUD staff and we have

SPEAKER_19: teams focused on improving the lives of some of our customers that need our help the most.

SPEAKER_19: Through our community impact plan, sustainable communities initiative and our income qualified

SPEAKER_19: programs, we've widened our reach by providing clean energy outreach and education, workforce

SPEAKER_19: development programs and incentives while partnering with many community-based organizations

SPEAKER_19: to achieve our goals in this area.

SPEAKER_19: Through our community impact plan, we installed over 2,700 energy efficiency and electrification

SPEAKER_19: measures in the Meadowview neighborhood.

SPEAKER_19: That work was funded through partnership with Congresswoman Doris Matsui via a matching grant

SPEAKER_19: to electrify these homes again in the Meadowview neighborhoods.

SPEAKER_19: Total homes electrified were equal to about 300 homes there.

SPEAKER_19: So a lot of great work there in Meadowview.

SPEAKER_19: So through our SHINE program, we awarded $534,000 to 22 local nonprofits for projects

SPEAKER_19: focused on energy efficiency, building electrification, community education and demonstration of clean

SPEAKER_19: energy technology and other vital community services.

SPEAKER_19: On the workforce development front, we continued to partner with our local workforce training

SPEAKER_19: and education partners, including Northern California construction training, the Kazoomis

SPEAKER_19: River College, grid alternatives, Salvation Army and many more.

SPEAKER_19: Through these partnerships, we provide workforce training and clean energy technologies to

SPEAKER_19: individuals and under-resourced communities.

SPEAKER_19: Between 2022 and 2026, we've had over 21,000 individuals from our community go through

SPEAKER_19: more sponsored workforce training programs with our partners.

SPEAKER_19: This work continues to provide the needed workforce to continue pushing clean energy

SPEAKER_19: technologies in the region, but also has a lasting impact on individuals participating

SPEAKER_19: in these programs.

SPEAKER_19: I have a few kind of anecdotes from folks that have gone through the programs.

SPEAKER_19: One individual hired by the utility partners of America to work on the meter replacement

SPEAKER_19: project in 2025 was hired onto SMUD as a meter tech apprentice because of this valuable

SPEAKER_19: experience that he gained through that UPA partnership and work experience.

SPEAKER_19: Another individual that had graduated from our electrician apprenticeship with Northern

SPEAKER_19: California construction training went on to pursue higher education in electrical engineering,

SPEAKER_19: prompted by our workforce development program.

SPEAKER_19: These stories are really a testament to our workforce development efforts and are so much

SPEAKER_19: more than providing job training.

SPEAKER_19: It's the life-altering aspect of this that we are so enthusiastic about.

SPEAKER_19: The last thing I'll point out here are the income-qualified progress through our Clean

SPEAKER_19: Cars for All program.

SPEAKER_19: We supported the growth of clean electric vehicles with the installation of 610 EV

SPEAKER_19: circuits and chargers.

SPEAKER_19: Through our partnership with the Habitat for Humanity and Grid Alternatives, we supported

SPEAKER_19: 54 solar and battery storage installations for income-qualified customers, enabling these

SPEAKER_19: customers to participate in our virtual power plant program.

SPEAKER_19: Great job getting those individuals electrified, providing green energy, and engaged in our

SPEAKER_19: low flex programs.

Unknown: On this last slide, the 344 EV circuits, what does that mean?

SPEAKER_19: That is running chargers to the circuit box, a lot of that, so preparing a home for charging

SPEAKER_19: a vehicle.

SPEAKER_19: And then, of course, the EV chargers as well.

SPEAKER_19: Okay.

Unknown: Go ahead.

Unknown: Thank you.

SPEAKER_19: That brings me to my last slide.

SPEAKER_19: Just to wrap it up here, we continue to make progress towards SD9 goals.

SPEAKER_19: We are cognizant of some of the headwinds, as we talked about back in April in this portfolio.

SPEAKER_19: But the zero-carbon energy supply continues to build.

SPEAKER_19: Again, we added 151 megawatts of solar and wind in 2025, nearly a gigawatt expected

SPEAKER_19: to come online between now and 2030.

SPEAKER_19: We're on track to meeting the state renewable portfolio standard goals.

SPEAKER_19: We continue to evaluate emerging technology.

Unknown: Electrification, GSE savings continue, as well as those criteria pollutants that are

SPEAKER_19: being reduced as we electrify.

SPEAKER_19: Our resiliency and community benefits continue to benefit the community at large.

SPEAKER_19: And our distributed energy programs and incentives continue to engage with our customers and

SPEAKER_19: expand clean, distributed energy resources in our territory.

SPEAKER_19: So with that, I'll go ahead and ask the board to accept or request the board to accept the

SPEAKER_19: staff's report on SD9 for 2025.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you, Brian.

SPEAKER_15: Are there questions?

SPEAKER_15: President Tamayo?

Unknown: Yeah.

SPEAKER_16: I'm looking at the slide that you have on emissions avoided.

SPEAKER_16: On my version, it's, yeah, that's the one.

SPEAKER_16: So we've got estimated emissions at about what was that?

SPEAKER_16: 1.2 million?

SPEAKER_16: 1.3 million?

SPEAKER_16: 1.2 million.

SPEAKER_19: Those are the emissions that we expect that we'll still have, correct?

SPEAKER_16: Correct.

SPEAKER_16: Yeah.

SPEAKER_16: So the avoided emissions, you know, by adding all these renewables is 1.3.

SPEAKER_16: So that we're very short of our zero carbon then.

SPEAKER_16: I mean, am I interpreting this incorrectly?

SPEAKER_16: Because it seems like it's about 50%.

SPEAKER_19: That's correct.

SPEAKER_19: Yeah.

SPEAKER_19: So we're on the build out today meeting the state standard for renewable procurement

SPEAKER_19: standards.

SPEAKER_19: 60% with our large hydro gets us to about 1.2 million in 2030.

SPEAKER_19: Yes.

SPEAKER_19: So we are a ways away from zero in 2030.

Unknown: All right.

Unknown: I mean, I understand the load is growing.

SPEAKER_16: We have, you know, more electrification of homes and buildings and cars.

SPEAKER_16: But as far as what our actual percentage, it's really far short of our 2030.

SPEAKER_16: And I understand that we've had significant headwinds in the last few years.

SPEAKER_16: Yeah.

Unknown: Yeah.

SPEAKER_19: We do, as we talked about in April, we do still anticipate being somewhere with these

SPEAKER_19: committed resources somewhere around 80% carbon free.

SPEAKER_19: So I do want to kind of remind folks of that.

SPEAKER_16: So this is not including then our large hydro and other that we own and also?

SPEAKER_19: The orange result for 2030.

SPEAKER_19: So that kind of diamond shaped thatched mark there in 2030.

SPEAKER_19: That does include the benefit of our large hydro and all the other resources in our portfolio.

Unknown: Hang on just a second.

SPEAKER_15: We have Director Sanborn and then?

SPEAKER_15: Thanks.

SPEAKER_06: This is what I was trying to get at with this slide.

SPEAKER_06: I just feel like we have to be really transparent about where we are.

SPEAKER_06: And I don't feel like this slide demonstrated that.

SPEAKER_06: And it wasn't totally clear at the presentation.

SPEAKER_06: But we also have the renewable standards, which are the state standards of what.

SPEAKER_06: And then there's carbon free, which is our goal.

SPEAKER_06: Zero carbon versus their definition of renewable.

SPEAKER_06: We're going to get closer.

SPEAKER_06: So 80% about towards zero carbon by 2030 with today's information.

SPEAKER_06: Is that what I'm hearing?

SPEAKER_19: That's correct.

SPEAKER_19: Yeah.

SPEAKER_19: So this result you see here, about 1.2 million metric tons gets you about 80% carbon free

SPEAKER_19: on a retail sales basis.

SPEAKER_19: So we're way short.

Unknown: Okay.

SPEAKER_06: I just want to make sure.

SPEAKER_06: We should just be really clear where we are and tell people this is where we are.

SPEAKER_06: It's going to be really hard.

SPEAKER_06: We've got a lot of headwinds.

SPEAKER_06: We've got tariffs all over the place.

SPEAKER_06: It's hard work.

SPEAKER_06: And we've made huge progress though.

SPEAKER_06: So thank you.

Unknown: Director Rose.

SPEAKER_09: So the question is if we have 80% carbon free and we're somewhere between around 1.4 million

SPEAKER_09: and so you multiply that by five.

SPEAKER_09: So our base carbon emissions would be somewhere around 6 million.

SPEAKER_09: How can we have that many carbon emissions and be so carbon free?

SPEAKER_09: I guess is the core question.

Unknown: Yeah.

SPEAKER_19: So our retail sales are about say 11 million today.

SPEAKER_19: So if you're 80% carbon free of 11 million, I'm not quite prepared to do that on the

SPEAKER_19: spot here.

SPEAKER_19: I guess let me say this regarding the presentation though and it will echo President Tomayo's

SPEAKER_09: comments.

SPEAKER_09: A lot of these numbers, right, you have up there avoided emissions in terms of greenhouse

SPEAKER_09: gases.

SPEAKER_09: Like I know we go through about 11,000 gigawatt hours per year which was shown on the slide

SPEAKER_09: in the SD7 presentation where we showed that.

SPEAKER_09: It's that zigzagging line.

SPEAKER_09: And so we had these numbers in this presentation at least in terms of gigawatt hours, right?

SPEAKER_09: And then when we're listing the power projects, we're listing them in the equivalent homes

SPEAKER_09: powered.

Unknown: And it's like I really want to know how many gigawatt hours we have and how many of those

SPEAKER_09: are carbon free or low carbon.

SPEAKER_09: So we could definitely see some room to make the slides a little bit clearer in future

SPEAKER_09: years to tell that story.

SPEAKER_09: Right?

Unknown: Yeah, I appreciate it.

SPEAKER_19: Yeah, I'd say with that chart, we thought we were doing a pretty good job at laying

SPEAKER_19: out the story here but we'll take the feedback and do better next time.

SPEAKER_19: Appreciate it.

SPEAKER_15: And then to Tamaio and then Director Fish.

Unknown: No, he doesn't.

SPEAKER_15: Okay, Director Fish.

SPEAKER_15: I want to ask the same question maybe with a different way to make sure that I understand

SPEAKER_12: it.

SPEAKER_12: When we talk about 80 percent or whatever, we're not comparing it to a given year.

SPEAKER_12: So let's say whatever year we benchmark, we produced 100 units of carbon and then in 2030

SPEAKER_12: we're only going to produce 20.

SPEAKER_12: That's not what we're saying.

SPEAKER_12: We're saying that in 2030, all of the power that we produce, only 20 percent of it is

SPEAKER_12: going to come from carbon producing resources.

SPEAKER_12: Is that correct?

Unknown: That's correct.

SPEAKER_12: And that's if the number is 80.

SPEAKER_12: It might be more than that, whatever that number is.

SPEAKER_12: Yeah, that's correct.

SPEAKER_19: Yeah.

SPEAKER_19: And the other thing to think about too is the hydro, how that swings this picture.

SPEAKER_19: That could be 300,000 one way, 300,000 the other way.

SPEAKER_19: So here we've assumed that this is under normal circumstances.

SPEAKER_19: And so there's a number of things that could happen.

SPEAKER_19: Load growth, more load growth than expected, less load growth than expected, delay of projects.

SPEAKER_19: There's all kinds of things that can change that result.

SPEAKER_19: Plus or minus several hundred thousand metric tons in 2030.

SPEAKER_15: Any other questions for Brian?

Unknown: Seeing none, we do have a public comment.

SPEAKER_15: And so I would like to welcome to the microphone David Wright with 350 Sacramento.

SPEAKER_15: And you don't have to adjust the microphone.

SPEAKER_15: They'll take care of that for you.

SPEAKER_18: Oh, great.

Unknown: Thank you.

SPEAKER_18: David Wright.

SPEAKER_18: It's a very interesting presentation.

SPEAKER_18: And I appreciate it.

SPEAKER_18: And I appreciate all the work that you all are doing.

SPEAKER_18: It's fantastic, the scope of things that you do.

SPEAKER_18: I do worry, and I hear some of that worry reflected in board comments, I worry about

SPEAKER_18: the zero carbon achievement.

Unknown: I mean, you have been very public about the zero carbon goal, right?

SPEAKER_18: 2030 arrives and you're far from it.

SPEAKER_18: That's going to be embarrassing.

SPEAKER_18: I really want you to achieve that goal.

SPEAKER_18: So I have questions.

SPEAKER_18: I just have a lot of questions.

SPEAKER_18: I'm wondering if batteries are an energy dense resource.

SPEAKER_18: I wonder if batteries have a high capacity factor.

SPEAKER_18: Could they be something that maybe would be a possibility to increase your amount of

SPEAKER_18: carbon free energy?

SPEAKER_18: Only 17 megawatts of battery storage so far.

SPEAKER_18: That seems pretty tiny.

SPEAKER_18: And even if residences are not partnering with SMUD on their batteries where the energy

SPEAKER_18: goes, SMUD still benefits from the reduction in load, right?

SPEAKER_18: So programs to encourage residential batteries and commercial batteries, that's an avenue.

SPEAKER_18: Having some batteries, maybe tariffs are a problem there.

SPEAKER_18: So maybe schedule your big purchase for 2029.

SPEAKER_18: I don't know.

SPEAKER_18: And then what's the relative cost of battery energy versus geothermal?

SPEAKER_18: I'm wondering if the headwinds for geothermal are not so great as some of the other headwinds

SPEAKER_18: that you're talking about.

SPEAKER_18: So there was a very interesting presentation on geothermal here not so long ago.

SPEAKER_18: It seemed like it was somewhat cost effective.

SPEAKER_18: I mean you're looking at more expensive forms of energy for those non daytime solar and

SPEAKER_18: wind times, right?

SPEAKER_18: So questions.

SPEAKER_18: Thank you.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you, David.

SPEAKER_15: All right.

SPEAKER_15: Next up, do we have any digital comments?

SPEAKER_15: Yes, one comment from John.

SPEAKER_15: Are you there, John?

Unknown: I am there.

SPEAKER_15: Can you hear me?

SPEAKER_15: Now we can, yes.

SPEAKER_10: Good evening, Chairwoman, board and committee members.

SPEAKER_10: My name is John Weber.

SPEAKER_10: And I just had a suggestion that might be helpful to really explore and do a feasibility

SPEAKER_10: project on floating solar.

SPEAKER_10: Besides the benefits of the direct renewable energy generation, you get a double whammy

SPEAKER_10: with floating solar.

SPEAKER_10: You reduce the evaporation from the reservoirs.

SPEAKER_10: So some reservoirs can lose 50% of the water through evaporation every year.

SPEAKER_10: So if you were able to save even a portion of that, you would have more hydropower and

SPEAKER_10: also more water for the community.

SPEAKER_10: So really look into floating solar behind some or all of your dams that it's viable.

SPEAKER_10: Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_10: Have a good evening.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you for your comments.

Unknown: Okay.

SPEAKER_15: Item number three is to discuss the contract award for civil annual construction services.

SPEAKER_15: And our presenter is Joe Scofield, the deputy general counsel.

Unknown: Deputy general counsel, Joe Scofield, as of April, corporate legal, which is the area

SPEAKER_13: that I direct, I guess, took over procurement.

SPEAKER_13: So I'm giving you a procurement to talk about.

SPEAKER_13: I guess we started out with buying renewable energy.

SPEAKER_13: Then we moved on to planning energy.

SPEAKER_13: Now we're going to talk about building stuff.

SPEAKER_13: So this is for civil annual construction.

SPEAKER_13: It's a term that didn't leap off the page for me.

SPEAKER_13: But it basically is fundamental construction activities that you expect people to do when

SPEAKER_13: they have a hard hat on.

SPEAKER_13: Pouring some concrete, installing some rebar, putting some fences up, grading a site.

SPEAKER_13: Not like installing transformers, not building buildings, none of the high profile stuff

SPEAKER_13: that you oftentimes would go to like a groundbreaking for.

SPEAKER_13: But day in, day out foundational work that's critical to SMUD's success, both in a maintenance

SPEAKER_13: perspective and in a construction perspective.

SPEAKER_13: Is that okay?

Unknown: Yeah, talk about that, Eric Poff.

SPEAKER_13: But you wouldn't be able to install that transformer if the concrete pad hadn't been installed by

SPEAKER_13: your civil construction people.

SPEAKER_13: It all fits seamlessly together.

Unknown: Can we move off this embarrassing slide?

SPEAKER_13: Actually go one more slide if you wouldn't mind.

SPEAKER_13: So this is a really expensive contract.

SPEAKER_13: We came to two weeks ago for $250 million.

SPEAKER_13: We're going to ask for $150 million.

SPEAKER_13: A lot of thought went into how can we design this procurement to save SMUD as much money

SPEAKER_13: as we possibly could.

SPEAKER_13: So one of the key things that we decided to do was to get as much granular information

SPEAKER_13: about the pricing that was coming from each of the proposers as we could.

SPEAKER_13: We had them break down labor into multiple different categories and subcategories.

SPEAKER_13: We had them break out their pricing on weekly and daily rentals of different kinds of equipment.

SPEAKER_13: We had them break out all their markups.

SPEAKER_13: We had them get really deep into supplies.

SPEAKER_13: And we'll talk a little bit later about why that was successful.

SPEAKER_13: We also did a lot of work in trying to get as many people as possible to put proposals

SPEAKER_13: in for this project.

SPEAKER_13: It's a lot of money, so there's a huge incentive to do it anyway.

SPEAKER_13: We used to get about three participants in our procurements on average.

SPEAKER_13: We've been able to squeeze it up to about five, which is a huge success and probably

SPEAKER_13: gets us a lot of money.

SPEAKER_13: We had 11 participants propose on this project.

SPEAKER_13: I'm not sure how many we've had that have equaled that, but it's a pretty impressive

SPEAKER_13: number.

SPEAKER_13: And we also decided we noticed that as contracts go on year to year and prices continue to

SPEAKER_13: escalate, people come to us and they really want to get more money.

SPEAKER_13: And there's tariffs as people were commenting, other financial pressures.

SPEAKER_13: And unless there's an escalation mechanism in the contract itself, we're sort of left

SPEAKER_13: with negotiating with people on one-offs.

SPEAKER_13: And those don't always go that well for us.

SPEAKER_13: We decided to put in a mechanism to gradually escalate things on an annual basis.

SPEAKER_13: So we would have certainty, they would have certainty, and they wouldn't have to bake

SPEAKER_13: and hire prices from the get-go knowing that they wouldn't, thinking they might not be

SPEAKER_13: able to get the kinds of escalations.

SPEAKER_13: So from a strategic perspective, the staff did a wonderful job on this procurement.

SPEAKER_13: Next slide.

SPEAKER_13: Sorry, back to the original slide.

SPEAKER_13: So when we got the numbers in, they were not low.

SPEAKER_13: The prices that were proposed by our contractors were pretty rough.

SPEAKER_13: That's when the strategy came into effect.

SPEAKER_13: We looked at all the detailed numbers on crafts and other things, and we really were able

SPEAKER_13: to talk turkey with all the different proposers about why are you charging this much for this?

SPEAKER_13: This is what we've seen in the market.

SPEAKER_13: We had lots of market research so we could push back on those individual things.

SPEAKER_13: And as a package, we were able to get the top two proposers to come down by over $5 million a year.

SPEAKER_13: So collectively.

SPEAKER_13: Think about that.

SPEAKER_13: Over a five-year period, that would be it was over $17 million.

SPEAKER_13: It's a lot of money.

SPEAKER_13: That's more than a rate increase.

SPEAKER_13: So can we go one more slide ahead, if you want to mind?

SPEAKER_13: And one more.

SPEAKER_13: So here's the ranking.

SPEAKER_13: If you look at the top two, we have Sierra National Construction and Doug Veer Camp Construction.

SPEAKER_13: And those two, we were able to come down that really huge amount of money that I just mentioned,

SPEAKER_13: over $5 million a year.

SPEAKER_13: And then the next ones who come down aren't quite as impressive.

SPEAKER_13: And we negotiated hard with them too.

SPEAKER_13: And this is where we ended up landing on the numbers.

SPEAKER_13: Let me talk a little bit about how we ranked the...

SPEAKER_13: ...confusion about the sample project.

SPEAKER_13: We took all the different numbers I talked about, craft labor, supplies, materials.

SPEAKER_13: We weighted those according to historical averages and how much money, how much each category we had used historically on jobs under this contract.

SPEAKER_13: So we had a lot of historical data.

SPEAKER_13: We have a pretty good sense going forward on how all that is going to come out.

SPEAKER_13: And we were able to compare them all, apples to apples in that category.

SPEAKER_13: In addition to that, we also did a sample project.

SPEAKER_13: Coming up with a project that had 80% of the different cost categories in it, just to sort of a ground truth how we did the financial ranking.

SPEAKER_13: So the vast majority of the ranking was the raw numbers.

SPEAKER_13: The sample project was a relatively small thing, but it was kind of a vivid real world example.

SPEAKER_13: It also was a way for us to test whether or not the proposers were understanding the nature of how SMUD would normally pitch a project.

SPEAKER_13: So if they didn't do a very good job on understanding how our project should be built, then they didn't get as many numbers.

Unknown: Hang on just a minute, Director Louie Thompson.

SPEAKER_03: So I understand you use historical data.

SPEAKER_03: You asked them to extrapolate based on this hypothetical project.

SPEAKER_03: So when you actually look at SIB-LON compared to CIRA, it's a $10 million difference over a fairly large amount.

SPEAKER_03: So when you look at percentages, I guess I don't see it as that dramatic.

SPEAKER_03: I do feel that Doug Verkamp is significantly lower, but this is, there's many different types of tests I went through.

SPEAKER_03: So based on what the task object is, it could depend, right?

SPEAKER_03: It may not be that CIRA is the cheapest or Doug Verkamp.

SPEAKER_03: This is the grouped hypothetical of what it could be.

SPEAKER_03: So why, I guess my issue is when I was looking at past contracts is like in 2023 for the substation construction, we did $200 million and we chose four contractors.

SPEAKER_03: You know, in 2025 for IT, which is a lot smaller, $50 million, over seven years, we chose 72 out of the 80 because we're hoping to get a competitive price.

SPEAKER_03: And now that you know their baseline, what prohibits us from expanding it to five or four or what have you, because market conditions can change over the next three years and only having two vendors, I guess concerns me, especially if their technical scores are very close.

SPEAKER_03: If you look at Mountain, it's very close to Van Camp. It's the same, right?

SPEAKER_03: If you look at, you shortlisted five because you felt like they were qualified.

SPEAKER_03: Their technical scores are very good.

Unknown: Pricing can vary, but because projects can vary, wouldn't we always be getting the best price based on what they've already proposed?

SPEAKER_03: So what would be the harm, I guess, in expanding from two to five?

SPEAKER_03: Okay, so the technical scores are so close because that's really what I mean, pricing obviously is a consideration, but that's what we'll be evaluating by the task base.

Unknown: I look at, are they equipped and able to do the work?

Unknown: And the top five appear within points of each other. It drops significantly.

SPEAKER_03: All the top five are equipped to do the work. They wouldn't have been the top five if we didn't think they could get the job done.

SPEAKER_13: The pricing is weighted according to the historical averages in every single job category that we thought were important in putting the RFP together.

SPEAKER_13: We work with the civil team to come up with five different labor categories. All the different kinds of equipment that are normally coming out.

SPEAKER_13: So you design different projects based on what you actually need, you're right.

SPEAKER_13: So they can vary from project to project.

SPEAKER_13: The historicals over the last five years give us a pretty good picture of what the total amount of work is going to be overall over that period of time.

SPEAKER_13: So I have a pretty high level of confidence that the rankings that you see and the amount of savings that you get over an annual period with just choosing the top two is going to be,

SPEAKER_13: I believe the numbers were $2 million a year collectively, over going with the top five.

SPEAKER_13: So if you had a three-year contract, it would be a $6 million savings.

SPEAKER_13: If you had a five-year contract, it would be a $10 million savings.

Unknown: Yeah, I think that's right.

SPEAKER_13: Does that answer your question?

Unknown: It's still, I mean, again, $6 million, $10 million.

Unknown: It will be interesting to see, again, how it actually plays out because at the end of the day, they could end up being always the same two companies based on price, right?

SPEAKER_03: But again, what's the issue?

SPEAKER_03: If you're saying if we awarded the top five, we did task orders and the top two won most of the work anyway, would the pricing come out?

SPEAKER_13: Well, it depends because it may not always be that they're always the lowest every time, right?

SPEAKER_03: I mean, I'm sure there's some deviation that may be arrow or not.

SPEAKER_03: The pricing is baked into the contract.

SPEAKER_13: So when they put a task out, we use the numbers that were in the contract that was awarded.

SPEAKER_13: So we have a pretty high level of confidence that arrow is going to cost fairly significantly more on bottom of your gear camp.

Unknown: I'm taking arrow aside because previously we've had five.

SPEAKER_03: So when you look at the pricing of Siblon, 271 is pretty close to Sierra, right?

SPEAKER_03: Again, and Doug Verkamp may always come out on top because they are significantly less.

SPEAKER_03: But again, when I look at technical scores and the deviation of price, I'm not, again, from the top award, Sierra National.

SPEAKER_03: You kind of have to take Doug Verkamp out because they are 20, you know.

SPEAKER_03: Arrow probably would not, but I'm looking at Mountain and Siblon who have very good technical scores

SPEAKER_03: and in the same ballpark, give or take, five or ten million when you expand that over three years.

SPEAKER_03: Again, I'm just, I'm looking at it as security, safety, having options, not putting all your eggs in two baskets.

Unknown: And again, I would have to look in because I didn't see it to see specifically if Sierra and Doug across the board, every category was the lowest.

SPEAKER_03: This is a conglomerate, so it's hard for me to tell.

Unknown: So I guess...

SPEAKER_03: There's variability from category to category.

SPEAKER_13: And I could have broken that out more detailed before, if I thought you might want to.

SPEAKER_13: There could be times where Mountain and Siblon could be the lowest based because it's not, you know, the $40 million difference.

SPEAKER_03: It's not inconceivable that Siblon could come out, but we would use exactly the same rankings that we used here, like on a task.

SPEAKER_13: So the odds of it coming out very similarly, what you're buying here, it seems very, very high to me.

SPEAKER_13: But it's not inconceivable, you might have a task, it might go to somebody else once in a while.

Unknown: And what would be the harm in that if we get the lowest price based on what is on the task?

SPEAKER_03: To me, part of the strategy was to figure out a way to save somebody as much money as we could.

SPEAKER_13: If you go with the two people who came down the most and are giving some of the best deal day in and day out,

SPEAKER_13: and you're not giving the work to the folks who didn't come down as much, and I'll tell you right now,

SPEAKER_13: Aeros, Siblon, and Mountain G did not come down as much as Sierra National and Doug Bierkamp.

SPEAKER_13: You incentivize your contractors to propose things that are going to be maybe not quite as much in their self-interest as in our interest.

SPEAKER_13: So, you know, negotiations are hard.

SPEAKER_13: To me, awarding the top two sends a message to Aeros, for example, that maybe they can come down a little bit lower in price,

SPEAKER_13: and they would be more likely to get a contract.

SPEAKER_13: We do have the top two recommended, and I have high confidence from the civil team that they would be able to handle the work.

SPEAKER_13: In fact, one member of the team told me that the top one could handle the work based on how effective Sierra has been on the job in the past.

Unknown: But having at least two is a good idea, so you have a deep enough branch to make sure that you can mitigate for circumstances

SPEAKER_13: or you have a really busy period of life.

Unknown: Director Cirth.

Unknown: Thanks. Just a suggestion, maybe when this contract comes back to us again sometime in the future,

SPEAKER_04: we're kind of used to seeing a congruence between the price score and the actual price.

Unknown: And so if I look up there, you know, Sierra National got 37 points on the price point,

SPEAKER_04: and yet Underground Electric, who had a lower total price, got fewer points for their score.

SPEAKER_04: And so I think that's partly what's triggering the confusion here, is why are these points not congruent to the bid price?

Unknown: Well, you get more points for having a lower proposal. That way you get a higher ranking?

Unknown: That's right. The lower the score, the higher the points, right?

Unknown: The lower the price, the more points.

Unknown: Yeah, so Sierra at about 263 million got 37 points, and Underground Electric got 33 points, even though their bid was 5 million lower.

Unknown: Jesse, you want to explain that one?

Unknown: It sounds like you didn't really use the proposed amount. You used a bucket comparison across likely work.

Unknown: My supervisor is...

SPEAKER_13: Or say Lund's price in Underground Electric, they got about the same score, but their price is 13 million apart.

SPEAKER_04: The computator is running. It could very well be that that was part of the model project.

Unknown: The problem is, the calculator is intuitive without a track.

Unknown: Well...

Unknown: Joe, is it seed?

Unknown: I don't know if it's a typo, honestly.

SPEAKER_20: Joe, is it because of the seed?

SPEAKER_13: Well, the price points are the price points, so each of those categories should be ranked independently of each other.

SPEAKER_13: The price point category includes 75% weighting on each individual price category, and 25% of the ranking was based on the model project.

SPEAKER_13: So it's not impossible that the abstract is showing model project points as influencing the overall cost.

Unknown: Or it could be a typo, I don't know.

SPEAKER_13: So...

SPEAKER_15: Joe, could you let the audience know what is happening in...

SPEAKER_15: As we are in silence here?

SPEAKER_15: What we have is, as a staff member is looking up and trying to figure out why the price points for Sierra National, which has a 37.54 price point, has more points than Siblon Reed, which has a lower price.

SPEAKER_03: And you look at the math too, it's between 37.54 and 38, which stood for camp, but that's a $20 million difference, but that only equated to a .54 differential.

SPEAKER_03: So there's math hinkiness not even just between Outback, but if you just look at Sierra versus Doug, that's, you know, to your point, they significantly decreased, but they only got a .55.

SPEAKER_03: That seems pretty dramatic.

SPEAKER_03: One of the team members walked me through one, the only thing that I can think of that explains that is the model project was 25% of the price points.

SPEAKER_13: And what we asked each of the individual proposers to do is to tell us how they would staff the model project.

SPEAKER_13: And if they staff the model project, let's say using more of a certain kind of craft or using more of a certain kind of equipment, they got lower price points if it didn't match up with how we would ordinarily do that.

SPEAKER_13: So we had a project staffed.

SPEAKER_13: In other words, if they didn't really understand what the work was supposed to be like.

SPEAKER_13: So the true price point is reflective of that.

Unknown: You want to stand up, please?

SPEAKER_15: Please come forward and identify yourself.

SPEAKER_04: What's there make sense to me?

Unknown: Because there's just information that's not presented.

Unknown: I'm Jesse Mays, procurement supervisor.

SPEAKER_14: So underground, for example, the pricing piece was a total of 40 points.

SPEAKER_14: A portion of that, as Joe mentioned, was for the sample project.

SPEAKER_14: And they did not achieve any points for that piece.

SPEAKER_14: So they only achieved the 33 out of the 35 possible for that portion of work.

Unknown: And they put that, and my understanding from the team was that they put the price points, they put the model project into the price points because it showed a level of understanding of how they would actually build that project in a way that would use lower cost resources.

SPEAKER_13: So it makes sense to me that Sierra National would have gotten more points if they were able to figure out how to design staffing and equipment for a project in a way that would yield lower overall costs just basically knowing how to do the job better.

Unknown: Okay.

SPEAKER_04: Thank you, Jesse.

SPEAKER_04: That makes sense to me.

SPEAKER_04: It's just distracting.

SPEAKER_04: I agree.

SPEAKER_04: The way it's presented.

SPEAKER_13: They put me into vapor lock.

Unknown: Thanks.

Unknown: Okay.

SPEAKER_15: Is that your last slide?

SPEAKER_15: Oh, yes.

SPEAKER_15: I wanted to make one point.

SPEAKER_13: At the last meeting, it was postulated that Sierra National might have had an inadequacy of performance in 2018.

SPEAKER_13: I think one or two board members might have questioned that.

SPEAKER_13: We researched that.

SPEAKER_13: It was not Sierra National that you were thinking of.

SPEAKER_13: So by all accounts, Sierra National has been a very stand-up performer in all the contracts they worked on.

SPEAKER_15: Thank you for checking into that.

SPEAKER_15: Director Rose, did you want to?

SPEAKER_09: One thing.

SPEAKER_09: I pointed out the board meeting, the inconsistency between the price points.

SPEAKER_09: So I would like to have an explanation, just an email, just a paragraph or two explaining the methodology and how that sample project is built into the total score.

SPEAKER_09: My real question is, is it possible to include more contractors right in this?

SPEAKER_09: Or do we require to use this to top two?

SPEAKER_09: And are there repercussions for that?

SPEAKER_09: There is no requirement to just do two.

SPEAKER_13: You could do one, two, three, four, five.

SPEAKER_13: You can't change the order because our process resulted in this being the ranking as all the standards that we published in the RFP were put out.

Unknown: Again, the key thing to me is that if you pick the top two, our calculations are that you would have greater savings of money for SMUD by $2 million a year on average, assuming you did 20% allocation amongst all of them.

SPEAKER_13: And if the overall price of Siblon Reed, for example, is slightly lower than the Sierra National one, but Sierra National knows how to staff it in a way that's more efficient, then they're going to save us money.

Unknown: Director Sanborn?

Unknown: Thank you.

SPEAKER_06: Thank you for explaining all this.

SPEAKER_06: I mean, I think these are all excellent questions, and it was helpful to go through all this in detail.

Unknown: I still think that price-wise, those top two are it.

Unknown: And if we don't need more than one, really, but we're going with two as backup, it doesn't make sense to me that we would reward the third one down to add them to this if they're way over price on the two on the top.

SPEAKER_06: So I'm just throwing it out there, because otherwise, that's where I'm at.

SPEAKER_15: Director Fishman?

SPEAKER_15: Yeah, I had some initial concerns about the original contract as it was brought forward.

SPEAKER_12: I still have some of those same concerns, but I appreciate that staff has reduced the total amount, which means we're going to come back to see this process again in a somewhat shorter period of time.

SPEAKER_12: So again, we bring back that competitive bidding a little bit earlier.

Unknown: There's still, I think, some occasional friction between our SEED program, which I think is very important.

SPEAKER_12: We all support, and we want to support those small local businesses that qualify for SEED, and supporting organized labor and the contractors that hire and use union labor.

Unknown: I just want to recognize that that friction exists, and there's no perfect solution to that.

SPEAKER_12: I'm willing to go ahead and support this contract at the reduced amount, again, recognizing that we're going to come back and see this again a little bit sooner.

SPEAKER_12: And I think overall that's a good thing.

Unknown: And I'm sorry I forget the gentleman's name, but I just want to acknowledge that somebody from Sierra National is here in the audience and spoke to us last time.

SPEAKER_12: Appreciate your presence and understand how this is important to you, and we get it.

SPEAKER_12: So I'm willing to move forward.

SPEAKER_15: Director Kurth or President Tumayo, you have your microphones on. Did you want to speak?

Unknown: No? Okay.

SPEAKER_16: Yes, thank you.

SPEAKER_16: Okay.

Unknown: What would be the downside of including, let's say, the top four or five bidders on this, just based on the order that we have here?

Unknown: The biggest downside is probably that it would send a signal to bidders three, four, and five that they would get work out of this.

SPEAKER_13: And the way that the rankings came out for this overall contract is probably a good indicator of how the rankings would come out on the individual task orders that would be awarded.

SPEAKER_13: And it feels like it might not be super earnest to a contractor to give them a contract for three years worth of civil construction work, knowing that the odds of them getting work aren't super high.

Unknown: And since we know that the top two contractors can handle the work, that their proposals would come out high on the task review, I'm not sure that it would, it doesn't feel like it's necessarily as in good faith as it would need folks that would be getting work anyway.

Unknown: So you're saying it's just that you feel that it would be misleading to them by including them and giving them a chance and an opportunity.

SPEAKER_03: Have you maybe asked them to say, if we were to expand to four or five, would you like to self-select out so that you never have a home?

SPEAKER_03: I mean, that seems...

SPEAKER_13: We did not ask them.

SPEAKER_13: Okay. So I have a hard time saying we don't want to include more people because we may never give them work and they would feel bad about never getting work.

Unknown: To me, that's not an insignificant factor. The other one is, frankly, if you look at the era of construction, their price is really, really high.

SPEAKER_13: So if you expand the bidding pool to the highest proposer, then that sends a message to me that you may just go ahead and get a contract even though you're bidding really, really high prices.

SPEAKER_13: So there's a lot of factors...

SPEAKER_13: But at the end of the day, it's going to be the lowest task item in person. And if you look at CIRA and CIBLAN, for example, it's a $10 million, $9 million difference.

SPEAKER_03: I've been on the other side as a bidder, and I've seen contracts change and expand, and we thought we were out of it.

SPEAKER_03: And over the course of time and staffing changes and resources by having a larger...

Unknown: I was on a project that we were... Deloitte was the highest, and we ended up being the last man standing, and we were very fortunate to have been included because the other bidders for this certain...

SPEAKER_03: It was back in the day, it was PeopleSoft, but we ended up getting the work, and it was a small sliver.

SPEAKER_03: So I'm just saying that I've been on the other side where, for whatever reason, our bids were higher, but through time and resources because the people that you thought you had are no longer with the firm, that having a larger pool gave the state of California more flexibility in those times where the people were doing other things in Southern California and they couldn't get resources.

SPEAKER_03: Things change and things can happen.

SPEAKER_03: I know, we've never said no to not be included because you just don't know when your number might be called up to the major leagues.

SPEAKER_03: You may have been relegated to the minors, but weird things happen, and whether it's a million-dollar project or two million projects, that's jobs for people.

SPEAKER_03: And when it comes to Mountain and Siblon, those are union-supporting contractors that even if it's just one out of three years, those are jobs that we, or me, I can speak for myself, value because of their principles.

Unknown: So I just don't know any vendors that would be like, don't include us for the opportunity.

Unknown: Fair. Another thing is if you have five contractors and you're putting together and reviewing tasks by all five each time you go out, or you're developing relationships with five companies when that takes staff time and takes management to do that.

SPEAKER_13: So there are pluses and minuses, I suppose. If things bust or depart and unexpected things happen, it's conceivable that some work might go to some other contractors.

Unknown: President Tumayo? And then Director Rose?

Unknown: Well, I'd kind of like to test the water and see what other board members think about expanding the contract to include the top five rated bidders.

SPEAKER_16: Well, should we start with Ward 1, or how do we want to do this?

SPEAKER_15: I was going to say, for me, I had some questions on some of the methodology I'd like answered. I would be comfortable continuing this item and putting it with the Finance and Audit Committee next week and have more discussion at that time if anybody else is interested in doing that.

Unknown: Go ahead, Rob.

SPEAKER_15: To the question of the five, I can support that. I'm not sure the questions you need answered, but we definitely should get those done before the board meeting when we'd be voting on this.

Unknown: Yeah. For me, I don't see any reason not to move forward. I think staff has done a really good job of squeezing to make sure that they're saving the most for SMUD.

SPEAKER_15: I don't have as many questions about the ratings as others do. I think it's important that we have this contract so we can get going with building some of the things that we need to build.

SPEAKER_15: And the fact that it's only gone from $2.50 now to $1.50, and we're going to be seeing it again in three years, I guess.

Unknown: To me, I think staff has done their work well. And I don't see anything here that would make me not want to support staff's work and what they've done, but that's where I am.

Unknown: Dido, Dr. Herver.

SPEAKER_15: How about the rest of y'all?

Unknown: In a worse way.

SPEAKER_03: In my opinion, I think the most likely CRN for a camp will get a good chunk of the work. I guess I like opening to opportunities to more companies. I feel like it's a safety net to have more.

SPEAKER_03: I mean, again, based on scoring, they will probably get a lion's share. But like I said, one small contractor too can make the difference in a group of people's lives.

SPEAKER_03: And if we can include contractors that support union employees, and maybe they'll only get one out of the three years, but just having that chance, I think, is valuable.

Unknown: Well, I would prefer that we expand it to five.

Unknown: Brendan, Greg, Rob.

Unknown: Well, so I'm not sure where we are, folks.

Unknown: At this point, I feel like I need a little bit more time to think about this and maybe ask some questions that I haven't thought of and aren't going to come to me right now.

SPEAKER_12: Joe, you've answered this a little bit already. What would the cost be to SMUD to expand this to the top five?

SPEAKER_12: And I know that you can't know exactly how each of these jobs are going to come in, but in general, can you give us an estimate?

SPEAKER_13: The fictional world would be, if you divided it up 20 percent each, and that would cost...

SPEAKER_15: Would you have to do that?

SPEAKER_13: You wouldn't have to. That would be one way to analyze how to talk about where the cost implications would be.

SPEAKER_13: If you said it would be fictional and it would probably cost SMUD an additional $10 million over 10 years or $6 million over three years.

SPEAKER_12: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the amount. You said...

Unknown: Oh, I said if you fictionally allocated the work evenly across all five contractors, it would cost SMUD $6 million more over three years.

SPEAKER_13: If the numbers came out the way that the rankings indicate that they probably would, then it might not save much at all.

Unknown: Because we would allocate most of the work to the top two anyway.

SPEAKER_13: But honestly, it's a lot of forecasting. These numbers indicate the top two folks based on efficiency and price.

SPEAKER_13: That's been tried and true by historical numbers and by hard negotiation.

SPEAKER_13: So if you did five, it would probably come pretty close to the top two, let's say 80 percent of the time.

SPEAKER_13: It would just be speculation for you to indicate a price, honestly.

SPEAKER_13: You're set. Thank you.

Unknown: Anybody else have anything to say?

Unknown: So I'm not seeing anybody. What do we do with this, Chief Legal Officer?

Unknown: I may make one more comment, if I may. I'm not overstepping.

SPEAKER_13: To me, the key thing about the two is really if you look at the price difference for number three,

SPEAKER_13: the top two folks worked with us in very, very good faith and dropped their prices a lot.

SPEAKER_13: The next three did not.

SPEAKER_13: And it's hard to develop a good relationship with folks, bring their best to SMUD.

SPEAKER_13: And we really encourage that in every way that we can think of, through relationship building, feedback to them,

SPEAKER_13: but also sometimes not giving you as much work because you didn't come down, honestly.

SPEAKER_13: And we have tight budgets. We have people who don't make the most money in our county, in our service territory.

SPEAKER_13: So we worked really hard to develop a proposal that would save SMUD the most money to do the best work that we could.

SPEAKER_07: Okay. Thank you.

Unknown: Director Rosick suggested that we bring this back to the Finance Committee meeting next week.

SPEAKER_05: We can certainly do that. At this point, I think, on the agenda, I would just discuss potential award.

Unknown: I don't believe we have a clear direction from the board on which way, unless I missed it.

SPEAKER_15: No, I think you are absolutely right. Do we have any digital comments?

SPEAKER_05: I don't see any hands.

SPEAKER_15: Okay. Then I think we will go ahead, if no one has any objections,

SPEAKER_15: with Director Rose's suggestion to move this item to the Finance Committee.

SPEAKER_15: We don't have a speaker that wanted the gentleman from the City of Ashmore.

SPEAKER_16: I don't have a card.

SPEAKER_16: He's not X. Okay.

Unknown: Can I clarify, were there some questions? Director Rose, you wanted to have...

Unknown: Oh, okay. So it's just an open conversation at the next Finance meeting.

SPEAKER_15: Yeah. I mean, that will give time for others who might have questions to talk to staff, to see the methodology.

SPEAKER_15: And obviously, we're not going to resolve this tonight.

SPEAKER_15: So with that, we will go ahead and move this to the Finance Committee next week.

SPEAKER_15: And thank you, Joe. We don't have any virtual discussions.

SPEAKER_15: So we're going to move on to a really easy thing here, which is item number four, our board monitoring and staff linkage.

SPEAKER_15: And the first slide tells us we're looking at delegation to the CEO.

Unknown: Next slide. And basically, in a variety of ways, it appears that five board members think we have high compliance, and two board members did not respond.

SPEAKER_15: Let's move on. The next one is a delegation to the CEO with respect to grants.

SPEAKER_15: And here we have four board members who feel there's high compliance, one board member who feels there's medium.

SPEAKER_15: And the comment was, there are many conceivable circumstances where providing, quote, advance notice, unquote, of the risks described in E would not be possible.

SPEAKER_15: I would be happy with, quote, shall provide notice to the board as soon as possible if grant commitments create material, financial, reputational, or operational risk.

SPEAKER_15: So that's the suggestion. Who's the board member who's made this suggestion? Would you like to speak to it?

Unknown: That was me.

Unknown: That was you, Greg. Okay.

Unknown: What was I thinking?

SPEAKER_12: No, I just think, you know, asking a lawyer to provide advance notice to us of something that she may not know about until after the fact, you know, it just seems like, you know, this gives her a little bit of flexibility.

SPEAKER_12: And I think she completely understands that we still fully expect to hear about problems like this as soon as practical.

Unknown: But, you know, it's also, I've been on the board almost 12 years. I don't think it's ever come up. So maybe I'm tilting a windmills.

Unknown: Say what?

Unknown: I would suggest you do that.

SPEAKER_15: Okay. So...

Unknown: I think there's even a possible reputational risk, especially if that has been an issue. Yeah, I like the suggestion.

SPEAKER_06: I personally think it is a needed. I personally think that our CEO is going to come to us right away if there are any financial reputational or operational risks.

SPEAKER_15: But, you know, if you want to add more words, I won't oppose it.

Unknown: All right. With you, Chair Herber, and that I don't really think it's necessary. I think it's already said, give advance notice in the meeting room.

Unknown: I think we can... I think it's safe to assume that our CEO would do that as soon as possible.

SPEAKER_16: I'm fine with leaving it. I'm just saying it sort of boxes Laura in. I mean, she might come to us as soon as possible, and it's not in advance of the problem.

SPEAKER_12: But, you know, it's fine.

Unknown: Okay. All right. Well, thank you for your flexibility.

SPEAKER_15: Moving on to BL14, it's delegation to the CEO with respect to products, services, and programs.

Unknown: And here we have four board members who feel there's high compliance, one board member who feels that there's medium compliance.

SPEAKER_15: Does anybody want to say anything?

Unknown: Hearing nothing, then let's move on. Oh, do we have any digital comments?

Unknown: No, we do not.

SPEAKER_15: All right. Well, then I was just asked by the chair of the ERCS that we go ahead...

SPEAKER_15: Finance and audit.

Unknown: Oh, I thought you said ERCS. Okay. All right. Well, not only do we want to send that contract to the finance, but also the...

SPEAKER_15: The work plans. See, I'm so tired, I can't even think.

SPEAKER_15: So anyway, Brendan suggested that because it's getting late, and anybody... If there's no objections, then...

Unknown: Okay. All right. Well, then let me just say that...

SPEAKER_15: Do we have anyone who's asked to speak not on the agenda?

Unknown: No, we're not.

Unknown: Okay. I just want to remind folks that written comments received on items and out on the agenda will be included in the record if they are received within two hours of the end of this meeting.

SPEAKER_15: And the last item is to provide a summary of committee direction.

Unknown: So are we skipping the work plan? I did have a question about... that's related to the...

SPEAKER_16: Our inability to schedule our offsite, and I wanted to see if there was any appetite for combining committee meetings to make room for that.

SPEAKER_16: One would be, although I think... I was thinking of doing... combining the finance and audit with ERCS, but I don't think that... since we've just added something that I think will take some discussion.

SPEAKER_16: Not going to do that. And then we were thinking about doing it in December and combining the finance and audit and policy committee, but that would end up being a three-hour, at least combined committee meeting.

Unknown: Pardon me?

SPEAKER_16: Yeah, we picked a date in February.

Unknown: Well, I mean, there were dates that were in February, but I'm... we don't have a date in February available. I'm not available in the beginning of February.

SPEAKER_16: So... yeah. So it's not going to work out in February. Anyway, I mean, it doesn't look like it's going to work out, so...

Unknown: Well, I think we can discuss it at the finance committee meeting. I just think it's getting late, and it's hard to think.

SPEAKER_15: You know, I personally feel like we should have a retreat away, and we shouldn't, you know, combine meetings, but that's just me, and we'll talk about it next time.

SPEAKER_15: So, no, we're not going to talk about the board calendar or whatever it is. But we are going to hear the summary of committee direction.

Unknown: And staff will include where our light and heavy duty fleet vehicles stand in terms of electrification. We'll provide additional information about the costs and time involved in implementing the principles for renewable energy development.

Unknown: We'll include the principles for renewable energy development in the board packet for next week. Staff will provide additional information about the methodology and how the price points were calculated for the sample project in the civil annual construction RFP.

SPEAKER_05: Staff will bring the civil annual construction services contract to the finance and audit committee next week, as well as the board work plan.

SPEAKER_05: Okay. Thank you. And since there's no further business coming before this committee, we are adjourned.