Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2602-59201.Re-Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on December 3, 2025 Supplemental Report Added Item No. 1 Page 1 of 1 9 3 3 3 Utilities Advisory Commission Staff Report From: Alan Kurotori, Director Utilities Lead Department: Utilities Meeting Date: March 4, 2026 Report #: 2602-5920 TITLE Re-Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on December 3, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Utilities Advisory Commission re-review and approve December 3, 2025 minutes. Commissioner ______ moved to approve the draft minutes of the December 3, 2025 meeting as submitted/amended. Commissioner ______ seconded the motion. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: December 3, 2025 Draft Minutes AUTHOR/TITLE: Alan Kurotori, Director of Utilities Staff: Kaylee Burton, Utilities Administrative Assistant Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 1 of 12 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2025 REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Mauter called the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to order at 6:04 p.m. Present: Vice Chair Mauter, Commissioners Croft, Metz, Phillips, and Tucher Absent: Chair Scharff, Commissioner Gupta AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS Utilities Director Alan Kurotori highlighted the updates to the financial analysis on the informational item and noted this will be Assistant Director Karla Dailey's last meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dave Warner gave a summary of the recent Water Supply Amendment (WSA) activities. Commissioners Gupta and Tucher had found significant problems with the WSA, including that BAWSCA cost estimates were understated; however, Hayward approved the WSA amendment. Mr. Warner opined that declining water demand was the future and was concerned about organizations projecting demands that will not occur. Mr. Warner referenced the alternative water supply projects San Diego had developed. Due to an inability to cover the costs of the projects because of a lack of demand, the San Diego County Water Authority and City of San Diego had agreed to increase rates by 30 percent in 2 years. Mr. Warner believed a similar outcome would occur with BAWSCA with worse financial consequences due to the SFPUC regional water system being a heavily debt-laden and fixed-cost system. The WSA amendment subsidized other agencies that develop alternative water supplies, which increases cost. Mr. Warner did not agree with the half-billion-dollar cost of the One Water study. Mr. Warner hoped the Commission and staff would be more vigilant and skeptical of BAWSCA. Avivit Katzir believed Urban Forest abused their power by clearing power lines in her property easement in October and November of 2025. The solution was to underground the utilities. Ms. Katzir read information from the City's website to understand the City's undergrounding plan. Ms. Katzir quoted material from the website, which stated the City's process and plan to underground approximately 100 homes per year. One percent of the electric revenue was to be spent on undergrounding each year. Ms. Katzir referenced the underground conversion plan map, which showed that no district was undergrounded in the years 2011 to 2019 and 2022 to 2025. Ms. Katzir asked where the money allocated to undergrounding went and if it had been repurposed. Ms. Katzir was told that, based on another Council decision, Utilities was focused on upgrading the grid and did not do undergrounding. Ms. Katzir wanted to know why the City was not moving forward with undergrounding utilities. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 2 of 12 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES ITEM 1: ACTION: Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on November 5, 2025 Vice Chair Mauter invited comments on the November 5, 2025, UAC draft meeting minutes. ACTION: Commissioner Phillips moved, seconded by Commissioner Metz, to approve the draft minutes of the November 5, 2025, meeting as submitted. Motion approved 5-0. Chair Scharff and Commissioner Gupta absent. UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT Utilities Director Alan Kurotori said that on December 1, Council approved the 2026 Gas Cost of Service study and rate changes, which went to the Finance Committee on November 18. In November, Council approved a resolution to defer utility late fee collection actions given the federal government shutdown. There were program design guidelines to the successor of the multi-family electric vehicle charger program and advanced HVAC pilot program. There will be an S/CAP community workshop on Saturday, December 13 to discuss the GHG emission reduction goal. No more than 3 UAC Commissioners may attend the workshop. Any commissioners absent from this meeting may attend. The City received the gold-level designation from Charging Smart. Vice Mayor Veenker participated in COP30 and represented the City of Palo Alto and Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The Fiber to the Premises contractor, MP Nexlevel, began work on the first phase of construction in the pilot area. The work will be done by early January. Mr. Kurotori expected the hydroelectric resources will produce more than the longer-term average for the rest of 2026 and 2027. As of November 1, the regional system for the SFPUC, the Hetch Hetchy system, was at about 160 percent of median. Vice Chair Mauter asked if any Commissioners were planning to attend the workshop. Commissioner Croft will attend the workshop from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Commissioner Metz will not be able to attend the workshop. Karla Dailey thanked the City for the career and lots of opportunities. Ms. Dailey acknowledged the employees that worked for the organization and highlighted Resource Management, which Ms. Dailey led for 4 years. Commissioner Phillips thanked Ms. Dailey for the service. Commissioner Croft wished Ms. Dailey the best. Vice Chair Mauter appreciated Ms. Dailey's mentorship. Mr. Kurotori expressed pleasure of having served with Ms. Dailey, who was well respected, and thanked Ms. Dailey for the service to the community. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 3 of 12 A slide provided a list of action and activity items the Commission wanted to discuss. The UAC discussion on Policy and Procedure will occur at this meeting. Microplastics and forever chemicals will be addressed in the workplan on source water quality; wastewater was not in the UAC workplan. The preliminary results of the Gas Utility Transition study were presented to the UAC in September and October of 2025 and were expected to return in early 2026. The time-of-use (TOU) rate implementation update will be included with Electric Rates in 2026. Utilities will complete an internal reserves evaluation and will bring recommendations in the first quarter of 2026. Work was ongoing regarding the affordability and federal impacts on rates, which may be part of a potential discussion on the subcommittee. The initial estimates will be included in the FY27 Rate proposals. Mr. Kurotori wanted to follow up with Commissioner Metz' comment from the last meeting regarding the Reliability and Resiliency Strategic Plan standard versus emergency operations. Vice Chair Mauter clarified the items on the list in the Director's Report were not agendized, so there could not be discussion. The purpose was to provide stronger feedback about topics brought up at past meetings and follow up as to when, where, and how those topics will be discussed. Vice Chair Mauter asked the list to be a standing component of the Utilities Director's Report. Commissioners were able to ask about how to address different items and whether there was a need to accelerate or change the process to address certain items. Commissioner Croft said Commissioners were usually able to ask questions of the things in the Director's Report. The time-of-use rate implementation updates will be in 2026, which was later hoped. Commissioner Croft wanted more up-to-date information on a monthly basis of the time-of-use rate implementation. Mr. Kurotori explained that the slide showed the high-level overview of items. There was a small subset of customers who will act as beta testers for the TOU rates. Commissioner Tucher liked the list of items but wanted more precision with the timing. Commissioner Tucher wondered if it were possible to put the slide showing the list of items on public record. Commissioner Metz asked if the Commission could agendize items for future meetings to hold a brief discussion of the timing and scope of each topic. Vice Chair Mauter explained a discussion around each topic could be agendized on a bi-monthly basis. It could be brought up when the Commission had the standing item of topics for future meetings. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 2: Recommendation that the City Council Accept the “Evaluation of Local Energy Resources to Lower Costs and Improve Reliability and Resiliency” Report to Complete Reliability and Resiliency Strategic Plan Strategies Four and Five, and that the City Council Direct Staff to Pursue Various Activities Related to Flexible Energy Resource and Efficient Electrification to Improve Reliability and Resiliency; CEQA Status - Not a Project Assistant Director Jonathan Abendschein said the objective of the presentation was to recap the study and results and discuss the staff recommendation, which was to accept the consultant report and recommend that Council direct staff to focus primarily on barrier reduction with different technologies, periodically update the cost-benefit analysis, look at certain projects as opportunities arise, and bring forward a discussion on long-term resiliency in 2026. The study objective was to evaluate the value of Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 4 of 12 flexible energy technologies and efficient electrification in reducing electric supply costs, deferring distribution system investment, and enhancing short-term reliability and long-term resiliency. A slide showed the study timeline. The study evaluated the potential benefits and costs of various technologies. All technologies had benefits, which made barrier reduction, promotion, and low-cost technical assistance worthwhile. No technologies had benefits that outweighed the cost. Large-scale local commercial solar and storage broke even and could be cost effective on a case-by-case basis. Time-of- use rates were not evaluated but the potential impact was estimated. A slide showed a chart of the residential results. The costs did not outweigh the benefits but residents saw a benefit in long-term resiliency, which was not captured on the charts. Another slide showed a chart of the commercial results, which reflected gaps in the technologies evaluated. Solar and storage (BESS) broke even when counting the utility supply cost benefit and short-term reliability benefits. The Policy Straw Proposal focused on outreach and barrier reduction rather than incentives. Feedback on the proposal found that most comments agreed on the general focus of the policies. Recommendations included: to explore low-cost technical assistance, regularly update the cost-benefit analysis, and forecast technology cost decreases. There was agreement that no further analysis was needed on deferring distribution investment using flexible energy technologies. There was a desire for additional discussion on long-term resiliency. A slide showed technology cost projections. Even without ITC, commercial batteries and solar were forecasted to become cost-effective in the next 5 to 10 years. Residential solar and batteries would not become cost-effective until 2040 or later. Slides showed the staff recommendation. On November 20, the CASC heard the same topic and voted unanimously to approve the staff recommendation. The CASC chose to look at alternative 2b shown in the staff report. Additional resources would be needed to take a proactive approach to demand reduction, which would include finding a 0.5 hourly FTE in the FY27 budget. Vice Chair Mauter invited Commissioners Croft and Metz to speak and offer comments because of their role as S/CAP liaisons. Commissioner Metz thought the group was diverse and there was excellent discussion about how to address energy needs. Commissioner Croft was disappointed when the topic came to the UAC before that there was no incentivizing, only promoting. Commissioner Croft had made 2 suggestions. One was to update the model annually versus every 2 years just for the electricity costs. Commissioner Croft was concerned about electricity prices changing rapidly due to increasing demand. The second was to reword item D in the packet to say "solar and/or battery opportunities." Commissioner Croft wanted to know if it was possible to include those edits given the CASC had already voted. Commissioner Croft asked what the resource requirement would be if the optional alternative 2b moved forward and what the approximate financial impact would be. Commissioner Phillips asked for clarification on what voting for the staff recommendation would include. Mr. Abendschein confirmed there was room to incorporate edits as the item will go to Council as an action item. Mr. Abendschein clarified the staff recommendation would be the recommendation in the staff report without the optional alternative 2b. If the Commission wanted to align with CASC and Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 5 of 12 incorporate the optional alternative, that would need to be included in a motion. The working group noted the suggestions made by Commissioners Croft and Metz about long-term resiliency and expressed support for a continued focus on permit and other forms of streamlining. The CASC had questions about batteries at substations and were optimistic about the trends with commercial cost benefits. The CASC believed residents valued long-term resiliency and expressed an interest in having more discussions around resiliency in 2026. Mr. Abendschein cited the fiscal impact section of the staff report and said the optional alternative 2b would require a half-time hourly position. Staff would have to return via the budget process to determine the financial impact. Public Comment: None. Commissioner Croft was concerned about the readiness of the market for adopting the technologies the City was promoting. Commissioner Croft asked if the City had a demand response program. Commissioner Croft supported the other items listed but felt it was inaccurate to include demand response programs and proposed removing that. Vice Chair Mauter believed there was a program for a large industrial customer and asked if it was time- of-use or demand response. Commissioner Metz said there was a program called demand management, which was an energy conservation program, not a demand response program. Commissioner Phillips referenced packet page 47 and noted that years ago, the City implemented a commercial customer demand response program, which had 6 commercial customers but was not effective. Commissioner Phillips asked why that program failed. The consultant's report noted that part of the challenges were the City was small and the overhead of running such a program was a fixed cost. Commissioner Phillips questioned if there was a way to cooperate with other small agencies to run a program jointly and save money. Commissioner Phillips did not support the optional alternative 2b due to rate increases and budget deficits. Vice Chair Mauter supported an annual rate analysis due to frequent rate changes, which could affect the calculations behind the programs. Vice Chair Mauter wanted staff input on whether that would be valuable. Commissioner Tucher asked how the staff recommendation improved upon the things decided and implemented in Strategy 3. Commissioner Tucher opined there were 2 large assumptions behind the analysis that set it up for failure. One was there was no value assigned to the long-term resiliency that may come from demand response or local resources. The second was not calculating the savings from deferred or avoided spending on grid investment. Commissioner Tucher stated there were mentions of a previous consulting study on deferred grid investment in the consultant's report but felt the summary was not persuasive and asked if there was a link to the full study. Commissioner Tucher cited a study which showed a difference of $1.0M of CapEx versus $1.3M of debt service and believed there were ways to reconcile those differences. There was no discussion in the report around other utilities in the state who deployed substation-level grid scale battery storage and whether those were a success. There were several references in the report about reducing the strain on the grid. Commissioner Tucher asked if that reduced some of the investment required to modernize and expand the grid. Commissioner Tucher did not support the staff recommendation and opined the approach lacked vision and commitment. Commissioner Tucher referenced the Palo Alto Climate Action Strategies and said that the Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 6 of 12 future of energy was in local energy resources, microgrids, battery storage, etc. Commissioner Tucher wanted to consider a program that would target commercial prospects. Commissioner Tucher asked what happened to the airport and Wastewater Treatment Plant projects. Mr. Abendschein confirmed there were no active demand response programs. The earlier commercial customer demand response program was a failure because of the amount of savings it generated compared to the amount of time it took to run the program which, at a small scale, had a negative cost benefit. Staff's intent was to promote and reduce barriers to adoption of technologies and demand response was only one way to do so. Mr. Abendschein clarified that the intent of Strategies 4 and 5 was to see whether there was a positive cost benefit, not to add to Strategy 3. The report took into account short-term reliability and long-term resiliency from a qualitative perspective, with some points in section 7 to be brought back in 2026. The deferred grid investment study was conducted in the summer and had no formal report. The $1.3M per year versus $1.0M in benefits was capital cost only and did not include the cost of operating the program or operations and maintenance on equipment needed and did not address feasibility. The report did not address substation transformer deferral. The study focused on whether the City could avoid replacing transformers at the distribution level, which were needed to accommodate the additional capacity required for vehicle and building electrification. Staff had a $200,000 budget to conduct a comprehensive study on whether it were possible to avoid distribution upgrades. However, staff decided to do a smaller study to save money. There were a limited number of transformers eligible for deferral due to the age of the system. Mr. Abendschein said that reducing strain on the electric grid from a supply standpoint was at an aggregate as opposed to reducing strain on individual transformers. Director Alan Kurotori said staff did active outreach to other agencies. SMUD had a virtual powerplant program. The challenge was that rates were low. Some VPP programs, like those offered in PG&E's service territory, will have higher per-kilowatt costs. There was a transmission corridor that came into Palo Alto. CAISO will put in a second transmission line. Mr. Kurotori said affordability was important when looking at battery storage and technologies. Mr. Kurotori opined it was important to remember that technologies change over time and may become more effective. Palo Alto was moving forward on S/CAP and was looking at affordable, scalable technologies. Assistant Director Karla Dailey said that updating the energy prices annually was manageable, however it would be more difficult to redo the TOU rates each year. Vice Chair Mauter appreciated staff's desire to bring the technologies to Palo Alto while balancing affordability and progress. Vice Chair Mauter questioned whether the optional alternative 2b would yield the greatest benefit. Vice Chair Mauter believed that engagement with key large customers where the breakeven costs were closer made the most sense and included City facilities. Vice Chair Mauter opined there was no need for an additional FTE. Vice Chair Mauter suggested the key account manager for City property be empowered to encourage facilities to adopt these technologies where financially appropriate. Most municipal utility investments on the water and wastewater side had 30-to-50-year investment cycles. Commissioner Phillips agreed the focus should be on the City and large commercial customers. Commissioner Phillips opined that solar and BESS for large commercial customers was close enough that some would move ahead without subsidy from the City due to the resilience benefit. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 7 of 12 Commissioner Metz believed the cost-benefit analysis approach to long-term resilience, as suggested on page 6 of the presentation, was not the correct approach. Commissioner Metz opined CPAU should invest in electrical emergency preparedness and resilience even if the cost benefit was not positive because it was the right thing to do. Commissioner Metz thought that investments made by residents had community value because the community required people to be able to stay home during an emergency. Commissioner Metz felt it was important to explicitly consider the risk of major emergencies when conducting analysis and planning for CPAU reliability and resilience. These technologies will not have a positive cost benefit if the risks were not considered because the grid was already optimized to operate without problems or risk of failure. Commissioner Metz suggested using a scenario-based approach and coordinate with the Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services, which used a methodology called Assets At Risk. Commissioner Metz wanted the results of such an analysis to be communicated to Council and residents in a detailed and transparent manner. Commissioner Metz said the report was not detailed enough to determine whether the calculations were correct. Commissioner Metz wanted the City to build and maintain competencies in reliability and resiliency, including emergency preparedness. Mr. Abendschein agreed there should be focused outreach on major facilities, which were called out by evaluating projects on a case-by-case basis. There was a push to see whether solar or storage was of value with City facilities when projects were developed, such as with the public safety building. Mr. Abendschein said that break even for a large commercial customer was an 18-to-20 year payback. Mr. Abendschein stated that some of Commissioner Metz' topics will be discussed in 2026. Mr. Abendschein referenced section 7.6 on packet page 83, which detailed the City's current policies around incentives for microgrids, etc. Mr. Kurotori said there will be an update in January after staff has had time to complete an analysis of the substations. Commissioner Croft asked if there was an emergency plan and stated that any emergency plan did not need to be carbon neutral due to its low likelihood and high criticality. Commissioner Croft wanted to amend the staff recommendation to include an annual update for electricity prices in the model. ACTION: Commissioner Croft moved, seconded by Commissioner Phillips, to approve the staff recommendation plus the edits to item 2c: • Update the cost benefit analysis annually for electricity prices and update the cost benefit analysis for other flexible energy technology inputs within 2 years The motion carried 3-2, with Commissioners Metz and Tucher voting no. Chair Scharff and Commissioner Gupta absent. ITEM 3: Approval of Utilities Advisory Commission Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Budget Subcommittee to Serve a Term from December 3, 2025 through June 3, 2026 Director Alan Kurotori gave guidance for the UAC subcommittee: it will operate as a temporary body and be composed of fewer than quorum of the UAC; it will serve a single, limited purpose; and it will be dissolved upon completion of the defined scope selected at this evening's meeting. Commissioner- proposed topics included a review of CIP in the FY27 rates forecast, FY 2027 Utility reserves and cash on hand, and a review of the FY27 Utility Rate Assistance Program options. The staff recommendation was to review the FY27 financial plan and 5-year forecast regarding affordability for the electric utility. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 8 of 12 Public Comment: None. Vice Chair Mauter explained there needed to be a rotating membership so there was no de facto standing committee. Commissioners Phillips, Croft, and Gupta served on the budget subcommittee over the last year. Vice Chair Mauter clarified the scope of that subcommittee was primarily around the rate and did not include a broader review of the utility reserves or rate assistance programs. Commissioner Phillips confirmed the scope of the prior subcommittee was as Vice Chair Mauter described and also looked at financing for Fiber to the Home. Vice Chair Mauter determined, in conjunction with Utility staff, that the proposed scope was different than past committees and was passable. The subcommittee will have no decision-making ability; the responsibility will be to come back to the UAC and report on findings. There was a Utility-wide review regarding the reserves policies. Vice Chair Mauter asked if that will come to the subcommittee first for review before going to the UAC as a whole. Commissioner Croft said the prior finance committee offered pre-engagement for staff before topics were addressed to the full UAC and asked if that would be the case again. Commissioner Metz asked for clarification on what the topics were. Mr. Kurotori explained that staff would be able to have discussions with the subcommittee about anything relating to the subcommittee's topic. Staff's recommendation was the official topic, which included the 3 commissioner-proposed topics. There will be an evaluation of the reserves across the entire Utilities with the intent to bring those results back to the UAC. Vice Chair Mauter clarified that the staff recommendation was to not address the Utility reserves, which was item 2, but rather items 1 and 3 in reference only to the electric utility. Commissioner Tucher asked if the subcommittee could change course mid-year to address something other than electric should an issue regarding a different utility come up. Commissioner Croft was concerned about the large rate increases 5 years into the future and noted the increases were not only due to electric. Commissioner Croft wanted to identify areas to lower costs, which could be beyond the electric utility and went beyond the rate assistance program. Commissioner Croft recommended broadening the topic to include affordability of all utilities. Commissioner Metz agreed to broadening the topic and suggested removing all wording from the staff recommendation after the word "forecast" and adding "for cost reduction opportunities." The entire UAC will look at the budget. Commissioner Metz stated subcommittees were valuable to look at issues more deeply than could be done in a meeting and opined a few commissioners doing a deep dive on the budget would be valuable. Mr. Kurotori wanted the scope of the subcommittee to stay narrow and was concerned the proposed changes made the topic too broad. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 9 of 12 Mayor Lauing reiterated the review of the FY27 Financial Plan and the 5-Year Forecast will happen for all utilities and be brought to the UAC. Mayor Lauing clarified that the members on the subcommittee could not talk to the other UAC members to ask for input on the topics outside of UAC meetings. Mayor Lauing believed addressing budget issues across all utilities would have a large impact on staff workload. Vice Chair Mauter suggested the subcommittee be a study of administrative opportunities for long-term cost savings or cost cutting measures across all utilities. The scope of the past year's subcommittee was not allowable going forward. Commissioner Metz wanted to look at the top opportunities for cutting costs. Commissioner Phillips thought the proposed changes would significantly alter the topic of the subcommittee as recommended by staff. Commissioner Phillips believed a subcommittee should probe the topics staff proposed and liked the staff recommendation. Commissioner Phillips wanted to see a recommendation of a process for identifying options for reducing cost increases in the future. Mayor Lauing asked if there needed to be 2 subcommittees. Vice Chair Mauter confirmed there would need to be 2 subcommittees to address both topics and asked what items would be included in the first subcommittee. Vice Chair Mauter clarified that everything would come back to the UAC eventually and the subcommittee should address what the Commission would most benefit from a deep evaluation of. Commissioner Phillips suggested looking at the Financial Plan and 5-Year Forecast for the electric and other utilities, particularly gas. Mr. Kurotori opined there would be no value in addressing the fiber utility, as that was already done. Staff had communicated challenges with wastewater and had already deferred projects. Mr. Kurotori said that the electric and water utilities would be a narrow enough scope. Commissioner Croft pulled up the rate schedule from the last meeting. Electric and water were the 2 whose rates were significantly above inflation, especially water. Commissioner Croft opined that administrative could be a good place to look at cutting costs. Commissioner Metz noted that labor costs had become a large part of the gas utility cost. Mayor Lauing said Mr. Kurotori suggested adding the water utility to the motion. Vice Chair Mauter clarified there would not be 2 subcommittees. Commissioners Tucher and Phillips volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. ACTION: Commissioner Metz moved, seconded by Commissioner Croft, to have Commissioner Phillips and Commissioner Tucher serve on a budget subcommittee from December 3, 2025, through June 3, 2026, with a defined scope of reviewing the FY27 Financial Plan and 5-Year Forecast regarding affordability for the electric and water utilities. Motion carried 5-0. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 10 of 12 Chair Schaff and Commissioner Gupta absent. ITEM 4: Utilities Advisory Commission Discussion on Policy and Procedure Assistant City Manager Kiely Nose showed a slide regarding the purpose of the UAC for reference. The UAC wanted to discuss how the Commission could effectively communicate advice to Council. Another slide showed a visual of the workflow. City Council and Council Committees were governing bodies. The UAC was an advisory body to Council. The work of the UAC was shaped by regulatory and legislative principles, the municipal code, Commission workplans, and Council priorities. The UAC could communicate advice by making recommendations via staff reports, Commission letters, having representation at Council meetings, or holding joint sessions. The UAC asked when the Commission should send representation to Council. Staff suggested the Commission ask what the standard practice for representation was. Staff recommended representation for complex or high-impact items. Staff proposed the UAC consider how to identify which member represented the UAC. The UAC asked when there should be a joint study session. Staff suggested the UAC consider what topics would be of interest to explore in a joint session and what the desired outcome would be from a joint session. Vice Chair Mauter asked what role the Council Member appointed to the UAC played and if there were other mechanisms by which Council could ask for UAC input more directly. Ms. Nose said Council could make a referral at any time to the UAC or the UAC could recommend that Council refer a topic to the UAC, like with Gas COSA, for example. Mayor Lauing said the UAC had a Council liaison because it was an important Commission. If the UAC wanted a representative to go to a Committee or Council, that would be deemed a request to Council. Study sessions used a lot of resources. Council was not trying to limit or cut off communication from the UAC. Public Comment: None. Commissioner Phillips noted that Council spent much more time on PTC items than UAC items and therefore did not believe it was worthwhile to appoint a UAC member to attend every Council meeting. Commissioner Phillips noted that any representative would represent the UAC's position on an item, not a personal opinion. Vice Chair Mauter asked if Mayor Lauing could advise on when someone from the UAC should come before Council on a specific issue. Commissioner Metz wondered if the Commission should generate a list of topics that would fit the situations in which a representative would be needed in advance. Commissioner Metz noted it would take the UAC time to reach a conclusion on representation, to schedule, and to coordinate with Council or a Committee. Mayor Lauing said the PTC was on-call. Mayor Lauing would not advise on when someone from the UAC should come to Council. Any time a representative wanted audience with Council, it would go to the Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 11 of 12 liaison first, who would then discuss with the Mayor. Mayor Lauing explained it may be more appropriate for the UAC to go more frequently to the Finance Committee than to Council. Ms. Nose encouraged the Commission to think about representation in broader terms and not to identify specific projects this evening. Commissioner Tucher briefly discussed the 3 items in the Commissioner's Memo. Commissioner Tucher highlighted the recommendation that the UAC should offer advisories on some of the items that were discussed and voted on in addition to the staff report. Commissioner Tucher suggested a 3-part process. First, in the Director's Report at the start of each meeting, all CPAU-related discussions that took place at Council or the Finance Committee would get listed. Second, the items on the Finance Committee and Council agendas for the next 3 to 4 weeks would be mentioned. Third, at the end of each new business item, the Commission would decide and vote on whether the item merited an advisory, which could be written or in person. Commissioner Phillips supported the list as part of the Director's Report at the beginning of each meeting. Vice Chair Mauter asked if staff would call out the upcoming agenda items for the Finance Committee and Council or refer Commissioners to the 12-month rolling calendar. Commissioner Tucher clarified the Commissioner's Memo was a draft and did not want to discuss all 3 components. Commissioner Phillips asked how a written advisory differed from a motion. Ms. Nose was concerned written advisories could take a lot of time properly drafting the wording and noted that any written advisories must speak on behalf of the full Commission. Motions were the most effective way to communicate advisories. Vice Chair Mauter had no objection to commissioners proposing to include representation at the Finance Committee or Council when discussing a motion. However, Vice Chair Mauter did not want to make that a standard procedure for every motion. Commissioner Metz clarified that, as an agenda topic concluded, if anyone wanted representation at Council, it could be raised as a suggestion and voted on as an amended motion. Vice Chair Mauter confirmed that during the discussion of a motion, someone could raise the suggestion to represent at Council, which would then be discussed and either formally made part of the motion or taken as a separate vote of who and how. Vice Chair Mauter asked if UAC members could speak as private citizens during public comment at Council meetings. Commissioner Croft asked what would happen after the UAC agreed to have representation at Council and how that would be arranged. Mayor Lauing said if there was a controversial item and/or a split vote, the representative should explain both sides of the story to Council. Mayor Lauing said the request for representation would start with the Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 12 of 12 liaison, then go to the Mayor. Mayor Lauing opined it would be better to speak at Council on behalf of the UAC versus as a private citizen, although private citizen comments were allowed. Ms. Nose gave the example of Commissioner Gupta representing the UAC at the Finance Committee with the Gas COSA item. ACTION: Discussion Item, no action required. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS and REPORTS from MEETINGS/EVENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Metz moved to adjourn. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 1 1 0 0 9 5 Utilities Advisory Commission Supplemental Report From: Alan Kurotori, Director of Utilities Meeting Date: March 4, 2026 Item Number: 1 Report #:2602-6025 TITLE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT: Re-Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting Held on December 3, 2025 ANALYSIS At the December 3, 2025 Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) meeting, the minutes reflected the appointment of Commissioners Phillips and Tucher to the FY 2027 Budget Subcommittee. At the January 7, 2026 meeting, during review of the December minutes, the Commission amended the minutes to include Commissioner Croft as a member of the subcommittee. However, Commissioner Croft’s appointment occurred outside of the December 3, 2025 meeting by action of the Chair. As such, modifying the December minutes to reflect an action that did not occur during that meeting resulted in the minutes no longer accurately reflecting the record of that meeting. The proposed recommendation re-approves the original December 3, 2025 minutes to ensure the official record reflects only actions taken at that meeting and supersedes the amendment made in January. This action is only a procedural correction and does not affect Commissioner Croft’s current appointment to the FY 2027 Budget Subcommittee. ATTACHMENTS: None APPROVED BY: Alan Kurotori, Director of Utilities