BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES - REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2026 - 5:30 p.m.
LOS ALAMOS COUNTY
COUNCIL CHAMBERS

00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:18.000
I call to order this August 19th, 2026 meeting, regular meeting of the Board of Public Utilities

00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:25.000
Welcome to another evening of fun and frolic. We appreciate everyone's participation

00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:28.000
I

00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:31.000
Is there anyone before we go into

00:00:31.000 --> 00:00:38.000
Any more substances. Is there anyone here or online for the

00:00:38.000 --> 00:00:40.000
water rate hearing

00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:44.000
It was incorrectly published

00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:50.000
For tonight, when it's actually going to be two weeks from now.

00:00:50.000 --> 00:00:53.000
Do you have anybody online for that?

00:00:53.000 --> 00:01:04.000
No, Chair Gibson. Okay. Thank you. With that, we will open the floor to public comment. Is there any public comment on any item this evening?

00:01:04.000 --> 00:01:08.000
It is not otherwise on our agenda

00:01:08.000 --> 00:01:11.000
I don't see any in chambers

00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:28.000
We have any online? Thank you, Chair Gibson. For members of the public who are joining us tonight on Zoom, when Chair Gibson calls for public comment, please use the raise hand function. If you are participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand. If you wish to make a public comment at this time, please raise your hand.

00:01:28.000 --> 00:01:31.000
There is no public comment. Thank you.

00:01:31.000 --> 00:01:38.000
That takes us to the approval of the agenda. And there's

00:01:38.000 --> 00:01:47.000
Several things we need to deal with there first. Item 4C on the consent agenda. Got

00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:57.000
The agenda got published last Friday without a title for that. So, without a title, there's no description, there's nothing for the public to know what we're doing.

00:01:57.000 --> 00:02:07.000
And by the time that was caught and corrected, it was too late for the normal 72-hour notice requirement, so we will not hear that tonight. That'll be postponed

00:02:07.000 --> 00:02:20.000
Secondly, there are two board members, Eric and myself, who both wish to pull item 4B from consent and have a normal discussion on that.

00:02:20.000 --> 00:02:29.000
and I would propose putting that after the discussion of the electric coordination agreement.

00:02:29.000 --> 00:02:32.000
And third is a

00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:44.000
We don't know how long the ECA is going to take. We have a full meeting again tonight. In part because we had to roll over some things from last meeting

00:02:44.000 --> 00:02:49.000
The Foxteale Flats business plan could take a long time by itself

00:02:49.000 --> 00:02:51.000
So

00:02:51.000 --> 00:02:53.000
I'm thinking that either

00:02:53.000 --> 00:03:01.000
We may, depending on how our clock is running when we get to that under department business

00:03:01.000 --> 00:03:06.000
We may just say we're only gonna

00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:15.000
get started on it and limit the discussion to 30 minutes, or limit the total time for that to 30 min, or something like that, depending on how our time is going.

00:03:15.000 --> 00:03:22.000
Or we could push it to the end of the meeting, and then we'll know how much time we have left.

00:03:22.000 --> 00:03:29.000
And what would be the board's pleasure? How time urgent is that particular topic?

00:03:29.000 --> 00:03:40.000
Well, I wonder if we could just go ahead and set it aside for another meeting. It is something that we need to get started on. It's a big deal. But it's not an action item tonight.

00:03:40.000 --> 00:03:44.000
So

00:03:44.000 --> 00:03:56.000
I was thinking we might get started on it, let Ben do his presentation so we kind of get it out on the table and know what we're dealing with to start with anyway. But it's a complicated issue.

00:03:56.000 --> 00:04:04.000
might take quite a while, and I had never expected that we'd get it all done tonight anyway. That's the sort of thing you need to look at and think about and

00:04:04.000 --> 00:04:10.000
And ruminate on a bit. So

00:04:10.000 --> 00:04:13.000
Anyway, that one

00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:28.000
We could wait until we get to 7. What is would now be the 3rd item in department business and decide at that point. I don't think anybody would be terribly inconvenienced if we did that, since we don't have a lot of public interest tonight

00:04:28.000 --> 00:04:38.000
That's fine. If if everyone is okay with that. then I would

00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:48.000
Seek a motion to approve the agenda as amended with the understanding that the Foxtail Flats Business Plan

00:04:48.000 --> 00:04:59.000
may be shortened or postponed. Okay, so let me understand the amendments. I'll make the motion, but the amendments, as I understand them, is that 4C is off the table for tonight. Correct.

00:04:59.000 --> 00:05:11.000
4B is pulled off the consent agenda and put after the ECA discussion. Correct. And then we will see what happens when we get to the Foxtail Biz Flats business plan.

00:05:11.000 --> 00:05:26.000
Correct. All right. Given that, I move that the Board of Public Utilities approve the items on the consent agenda as amended, and that the motions and the staff reports be included in the minutes for the record. I think you're a step ahead here.

00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:37.000
Now we're approving the agenda. Then we go to the consent. Given all that I move that the Board of Public Utilities approve the agenda for tonight's meeting as amended

00:05:37.000 --> 00:05:39.000
Second.

00:05:39.000 --> 00:05:48.000
Thank you. You're… I think I did that last month or sometime recently, so… Well, we'll get it out soon.

00:05:48.000 --> 00:05:53.000
Anyway, okay, moved and seconded to approve the agenda tonight as amended.

00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:57.000
Consider that a procedural. All in favor.

00:05:57.000 --> 00:06:02.000
and we have a thumbs up from Eric. So let's passes 4 to 0.

00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:07.000
Now we get to the consent agenda, which only has one item left on it.

00:06:07.000 --> 00:06:20.000
So, would someone like to make that? Sure. I move that the Board of Public Utilities approve the items on the consent agenda as amended and that the motions in the staff reports be included in the minutes for the record.

00:06:20.000 --> 00:06:25.000
Okay, moved in. Let's consent agenda has been moved and seconded.

00:06:25.000 --> 00:06:26.000
Any discussion?

00:06:26.000 --> 00:06:30.000
Seeing none, Cassie, would you please call the roll?

00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:32.000
Member Stromberg.

00:06:32.000 --> 00:06:33.000
Yes

00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:39.000
Member Hebner. Yes. And Member Gibson. Yes. Thank you.

00:06:39.000 --> 00:06:42.000
Q. Motion passes 4 to 0.

00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:48.000
That takes us to public hearings. Item 6 a

00:06:48.000 --> 00:06:50.000
Which is

00:06:50.000 --> 00:06:59.000
a recommendation for a contract approval. Wait a minute. Let's see here.

00:06:59.000 --> 00:07:20.000
Oops, I'm sorry, I'm on got my pages mixed here. I apologize.

00:07:20.000 --> 00:07:28.000
Okay, item 6A, which is ordinance to public hearing on ordinance 759

00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:42.000
has to do with authorizing execution of a water project fund loan grant agreement with New Mexico Finance Authority and James Martinez will be presenting. Thank you, James.

00:07:42.000 --> 00:07:57.000
Chair and members of the board. This ordinance 759 that we are bringing for you tonight is to execute a 52

00:07:57.000 --> 00:08:13.000
dollar amendment for the Denver Steels Phase 2 project. We have since completed the project, all the infrastructure and road work has been completed. However, in

00:08:13.000 --> 00:08:24.000
Doing the connections, the service connections Some of the water meters that were near the residents homes

00:08:24.000 --> 00:08:39.000
When we try to do the tie-ins. We found that the lead service lines were like galvanized steel and very, very corroded. So in effort, we were

00:08:39.000 --> 00:08:46.000
We worked with legal in order to work on replacing the lead service lines. It was

00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:53.000
considered, like, an anti-donation type of deal. But however, like in our our

00:08:53.000 --> 00:08:58.000
standards we own up to the water meter. So

00:08:58.000 --> 00:09:14.000
and just trying to do our due diligence. We worked with New Mexico Finance Authority and went towards asking them for additional funding in order to do the replacement all the way up to the service line, up to the home, should I say

00:09:14.000 --> 00:09:20.000
We worked with legal with some documents to

00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:22.000
Pretty much

00:09:22.000 --> 00:09:40.000
vacate the implied easement that we have at the moment and then in the future they take ownership of of the lead service line that we're installing now that's going to be owned by the home owner, and if there's any

00:09:40.000 --> 00:09:50.000
Repairs that are needed, they'll have to do it on their dime, but we will continue to own up to the meter, which is now at the property line.

00:09:50.000 --> 00:09:52.000
So

00:09:52.000 --> 00:10:09.000
James, I just wanted to correct you. It's not a lead service line. Galvanized service. Correct. Thank you. Correct. The loan program is called lead service line. Thank you. Yeah.

00:10:09.000 --> 00:10:17.000
Correct. L-E-D, or L-E-A-D. L-E-A-D. Thank you, Philo.

00:10:17.000 --> 00:10:28.000
But that is essentially what it is. We're amending the contract in an amount of $525,000 for those repairs.

00:10:28.000 --> 00:10:46.000
Thank you. Can I just ask, why did NMFA have to get involved for this? Was this the anti-donation stuff that I don't follow. Right, okay, so originally we have, drinking water funding for Denver Steel's Phase 2 and Phase 3

00:10:46.000 --> 00:11:03.000
So we have to go through NMFA for the… for the funds. We did request, we did ask if we could utilize the current funding to do the repairs, and that funding did not allow for us to

00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:22.000
Work on the service lines, being that it was anti-donation and such, but they did have this separate program, the lead service line replacement, that would reduce that.

00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:25.000
James, I'm not sure I followed completely

00:11:25.000 --> 00:11:29.000
Why

00:11:29.000 --> 00:11:35.000
Line, I think it's called the service line between the meter and the house

00:11:35.000 --> 00:11:41.000
Which is normally the responsibility of the property owner. Why we are

00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:45.000
taking responsibility for replacing that this time around

00:11:45.000 --> 00:11:50.000
Being that the meter was next to the home

00:11:50.000 --> 00:12:06.000
We would con… well, normally we would repair the line up to the meter. So with this project, we move the meters away from the home, and they now are located at the property line.

00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:10.000
So in this just doing our due diligence and

00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:30.000
Being consistent with what we've done in the past, preparing the line, we went ahead and we asked for these funds in order to repair the line. And then from here forward, they will be the owner past the meter, past the property line. Okay, I follow now. Thank you.

00:12:30.000 --> 00:12:34.000
Okay, we have any other questions from board at this time?

00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:37.000
Do we have any public comment?

00:12:37.000 --> 00:12:41.000
I do not see any in chambers. Do we have any online?

00:12:41.000 --> 00:12:48.000
Thank you, Chair Gibson. Anybody wishing to make public comment regarding this issue, please raise your hand.

00:12:48.000 --> 00:12:57.000
Troy Gibson, there are no hands. Thank you. Is there any further discussion from the board?

00:12:57.000 --> 00:12:59.000
If not

00:12:59.000 --> 00:13:00.000
We're ready for a motion

00:13:00.000 --> 00:13:16.000
Sure, I move that the Board of Public Utilities recommend to Council approval of incorporated County of Los Alamos Ordinance number 759, an ordinance authorizing the execution and delivery of a water project fund loan grant agreement between the New Mexico Finance Authority

00:13:16.000 --> 00:13:23.000
NMFA and the incorporated county of Los Alamos, New Mexico, in the amount of $3,252,

00:13:23.000 --> 00:13:30.000
For the purpose of financing the cost of Phase 2 and 3 of the Denver Steel's waterline replacements, and forward to Council for introduction and adoption.

00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:35.000
Second that. Okay, moved and seconded.

00:13:35.000 --> 00:13:37.000
Suggested motion.

00:13:37.000 --> 00:13:40.000
There's no other discussion.

00:13:40.000 --> 00:13:43.000
Kathy, would you please call the roll?

00:13:43.000 --> 00:13:44.000
Member Stromberg.

00:13:44.000 --> 00:13:45.000
Yes?

00:13:45.000 --> 00:13:51.000
Amber Nokley? Yes. Member Hefner. Yes. And Member Gibson. Yes. Thank you.

00:13:51.000 --> 00:13:55.000
Okay, thank you. Motion passes 4 to 0.

00:13:55.000 --> 00:14:00.000
It takes us to item 6B. Which is

00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:06.000
Resolution 26-22. This is also a public hearing.

00:14:06.000 --> 00:14:07.000
on

00:14:07.000 --> 00:14:13.000
An uncollectible utility accounts, something that we do every year.

00:14:13.000 --> 00:14:15.000
Joanne

00:14:15.000 --> 00:14:36.000
Good evening, Chair and members of the board. I'm bringing resolution number 2622 for our FY21 uncollectible accounts. These are all our accounts that are over four years old that we have been unable to collect, either through liens or collections or they haven't come back to town

00:14:36.000 --> 00:14:45.000
We look at the APPA numbers of uncollectible accounts for utilities between 5,000 and 10,000 customers. Their average

00:14:45.000 --> 00:15:01.000
It's .008. We're right under that at .007 or 00079, so we're just slightly under their average for that utility size. The board will notice that you

00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:16.000
I'm asking for you guys to approve the subtotal amount of $28,851.59, the additional $2,948 is for refuse fees that we bill on our utility bill that will go to council

00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:24.000
for their approval, and we will take this to Council on September 29th with all the other write-offs for the general county.

00:15:24.000 --> 00:15:35.000
So I don't know if you have other questions. I did break down the different amounts for each of the utilities in the staff report if you'd like me to go over that.

00:15:35.000 --> 00:15:39.000
Does anyone have any questions?

00:15:39.000 --> 00:15:41.000
No.

00:15:41.000 --> 00:15:46.000
So this is pretty routine. We do it every year.

00:15:46.000 --> 00:15:54.000
And we appreciate you working hard to try to get those numbers down as low as you can. It's getting better and better every year.

00:15:54.000 --> 00:15:58.000
Okay, is there any public comment on this resolution?

00:15:58.000 --> 00:16:00.000
Don't see any in chambers.

00:16:00.000 --> 00:16:06.000
Online. Thank you, Chair Gibson. Anybody wishing to make public comment, please raise your hand.

00:16:06.000 --> 00:16:09.000
Chair, there is no hands raised.

00:16:09.000 --> 00:16:18.000
Thank you very much. Come back to the board for further discussion, which I don't see for a motion. All right, I'll make a motion.

00:16:18.000 --> 00:16:34.000
I move that the Board of Public Utilities recommend to Council the approval of incorporated County of Los Alamos resolution number 26-22 a resolution removing uncollectible utility accounts from the incorporated county of Los Alamos Accounts Receivables list

00:16:34.000 --> 00:16:38.000
For fiscal year 2022.

00:16:38.000 --> 00:16:40.000
I'll second.

00:16:40.000 --> 00:16:42.000
Okay, moved and seconded.

00:16:42.000 --> 00:16:47.000
Last chance for discussion on this controversial issue.

00:16:47.000 --> 00:16:50.000
Seeing none, Kathy. Member Stromberg.

00:16:50.000 --> 00:16:51.000
Yes.

00:16:51.000 --> 00:16:59.000
Member Knockley? Yes. Member Hefner? Yes. And Member Gibson. Yes. Thank you. Okay, motion passes 4 to 0.

00:16:59.000 --> 00:17:01.000
That takes us

00:17:01.000 --> 00:17:04.000
to the Electric Coordination Agreement

00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:07.000
And

00:17:07.000 --> 00:17:14.000
Philo, did you want to start or you want to just go straight to Ben here? Well, I'll start a little bit.

00:17:14.000 --> 00:17:21.000
We've been negotiating this agreement for over seven months, eight months now.

00:17:21.000 --> 00:17:23.000
And

00:17:23.000 --> 00:17:31.000
I guess everyone needs a deadline to get to the finish line and literally we

00:17:31.000 --> 00:17:47.000
Added some additional provisions to the contract, which Ben will go through essentially what changed from July to today. And literally till today at four o'clock. And so I apologize for cover page missing

00:17:47.000 --> 00:17:59.000
The correct incorrect cover page, but the document is that's printed is the ones that had changes to it and online we have Seth Kirshenberg

00:17:59.000 --> 00:18:15.000
who also was assisting us with these negotiations, and he'll be able to provide more clarity to what these additional clauses that were added. So I'll turn it over to Ben, and I appreciate the board's patience

00:18:15.000 --> 00:18:19.000
How long it's taken us to get here.

00:18:19.000 --> 00:18:29.000
We appreciate your… everybody's considerable efforts to try to get us here over actually four and a half years.

00:18:29.000 --> 00:18:31.000
Right.

00:18:31.000 --> 00:18:38.000
It's gotten more intense over the last almost eight months. Affected his eight months to the day since

00:18:38.000 --> 00:18:43.000
The first draft was received from DOE.

00:18:43.000 --> 00:19:00.000
Hello, Chair, members of the board. Happy to be here again before you. You've been seeing a lot of me lately, so I hope I haven't worn up my welcome. I'll be quick here as quick as I can be. There are a number of changes that we've been tracking since our last

00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:08.000
Visit with you for consideration of approval on July 22nd

00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:17.000
And I have those all mapped out. And for the interest of being quick, I will say there are five separate documents that are part of the ECA

00:19:17.000 --> 00:19:32.000
Only 3 of them have changed since we last met on July. That is the first one, the terms and conditions document. The second piece of it is the performance work statement. And then finally, the third part of that that changes the operating procedures

00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:39.000
The other 2 documents remain unchanged from their form that we viewed last time.

00:19:39.000 --> 00:19:51.000
I'm going to jump right into the biggest hurdle that we had faced. That is under the termination for convenience. So that is what we've been working on for the past

00:19:51.000 --> 00:19:55.000
Three plus weeks to get us here.

00:19:55.000 --> 00:19:59.000
I will say that

00:19:59.000 --> 00:20:05.000
the structure of the terms and conditions remains the same

00:20:05.000 --> 00:20:11.000
They did the DOD did add an explicit reference to the

00:20:11.000 --> 00:20:17.000
Federal Acquisition Register Clause covering termination for convenience

00:20:17.000 --> 00:20:25.000
They added that to it. That's one of the changes, and I'll go over that… all the changes after we discuss this termination for convenience matter.

00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:31.000
They also added in the performance work statement a four-page additional

00:20:31.000 --> 00:20:35.000
part to that and again, I'll go over that

00:20:35.000 --> 00:20:49.000
later, but just so you know where we're talking about, that is on page 9, not in the agenda packet, but 9 of the handout packet that you received 9 of 33. It starts there at the bottom

00:20:49.000 --> 00:20:52.000
of that page under H.4

00:20:52.000 --> 00:20:56.000
If you're following along.

00:20:56.000 --> 00:21:02.000
Page 9 H.4. So you have to jump through the TNC, which is 22 pages.

00:21:02.000 --> 00:21:17.000
Attachment C. Ben, while they're looking for that, what… where is the change in the terms and conditions? The change in the terms and conditions is simply the addition of the

00:21:17.000 --> 00:21:28.000
Clause 52.249-2, which is on the last page, page 22 of the first section of your package.

00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:37.000
So Ben, can we just take a timeout? I wanted Abby to load up the actual page.

00:21:37.000 --> 00:21:49.000
Yeah. And then go to page 22 is what you said the last page of it. Yeah. But it's Looks like these are combined, no

00:21:49.000 --> 00:21:53.000
It should be

00:21:53.000 --> 00:22:02.000
Nope, this is the operating procedure, so that's the third. Attachment B. Yep, last page.

00:22:02.000 --> 00:22:10.000
So right there at the top, 52-249-2, termination for convenience.

00:22:10.000 --> 00:22:12.000
of the government

00:22:12.000 --> 00:22:15.000
They added that as a reference to the

00:22:15.000 --> 00:22:19.000
Federal Acquisition Register clause covering that sort of thing.

00:22:19.000 --> 00:22:31.000
That line is not in there previously. Yes, so this is an explicitly includes it now.

00:22:31.000 --> 00:22:35.000
And has everyone found it and seen it now

00:22:35.000 --> 00:22:50.000
And everyone was able to locate H4 that is on the second document. The performance work statement. C, I think. I guess I should have asked Ben whether you'd like us to make question or

00:22:50.000 --> 00:23:03.000
Ask as you go through, or wait till you're done. For this one, please fire away. The rest of the changes are much smaller in substance than this one

00:23:03.000 --> 00:23:06.000
Okay, well, I'll ask a question that's

00:23:06.000 --> 00:23:13.000
Not really related to that, but it's on the terms and conditions, but I just happened to see as I was scanning through here

00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:15.000
On page 20

00:23:15.000 --> 00:23:19.000
Option to extend the term of the contract

00:23:19.000 --> 00:23:33.000
The government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the contractor within 15 days of the period of performance end date. It used to say 30 days, which is ridiculous also, but now it's changed to 15.

00:23:33.000 --> 00:23:36.000
What goes on there? I mean

00:23:36.000 --> 00:23:49.000
We need three years, not a few days, but if the last experience is any guide, but why did that change? So there's two parts to this section. The one is the actual

00:23:49.000 --> 00:23:57.000
If you read further down, what changed what we asked for and got was changing the

00:23:57.000 --> 00:24:13.000
Giving here, we'll start with this third line, giving the contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 90 days before the contract expires. That sets the clock going that gives us time to go and run through our process. Sorry, we've got confusion here. We're talking about

00:24:13.000 --> 00:24:32.000
Attachment B and up on the screen is attachment whatever C. Right, that's the DOE's labeling on these documents set here. No, no, no, I'm just saying, like, we're talking about some set of text. It would be very confusing to be watching this at home right now. Let me put it that, if anybody's at home, I don't know if anybody's out there or not.

00:24:32.000 --> 00:24:39.000
But I mean, maybe we could put up, go back to the terms and conditions because that's where you are right now, right?

00:24:39.000 --> 00:24:54.000
Aren't you there on page this guy, right? Page 20. Page 20 detachment B in the middle, sort of the… Did she switch it over? Yeah. Okay, good. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

00:24:54.000 --> 00:24:55.000
Maybe it's difficult to follow even if you're not.

00:24:55.000 --> 00:25:11.000
And let me… maybe I could jump in here, Mr. Chairman. Hello, I hope you're doing well today. This is Seth Gershenberg. So let's just take a step back. The renewal option, remember, we

00:25:11.000 --> 00:25:26.000
work to add a clause that basically provided that the contract could be renewed. So most typical contracts are just the 10 years. Here we have the 10 plus 10. So that was very positive.

00:25:26.000 --> 00:25:38.000
The reality, and we've been through this before, regardless of what it says in the contract, and you're correct, these are short periods of time, whether it's 60 days, 90 days, or even 180 days

00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:46.000
The reality is, is we're going to want to know years before if they're going to continue the contract as they have for the last

00:25:46.000 --> 00:25:57.000
you know, 41 years or whether they're going to be terminating because there's a lot of other issues and obligations. And I think it's going to be dependent upon us

00:25:57.000 --> 00:26:01.000
To be asking those questions and going forward

00:26:01.000 --> 00:26:08.000
By law, by contract, they will only have to provide us this notice with a short period

00:26:08.000 --> 00:26:09.000
That's here.

00:26:09.000 --> 00:26:14.000
But by practice, in order for this to work for either

00:26:14.000 --> 00:26:25.000
The NMSA or the county, this discussion is going to have to happen a lot sooner

00:26:25.000 --> 00:26:30.000
Discussion is one thing, but action something else. Okay, thank you.

00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:39.000
And that does tie in. Thank you, Mr. Gershenberg. That does tie in with the other chain, one of the other changes that we made to the

00:26:39.000 --> 00:26:47.000
operating procedures where we now have an explicit statement directing the operating committee who administers this contract

00:26:47.000 --> 00:26:50.000
To go and start looking at

00:26:50.000 --> 00:27:06.000
The potential for the DOE to exercise their option to extend and do that 3 years in advance. Start looking at it. Figuring out what changes do we need to make in the resources? Is anything changing in the past seven years

00:27:06.000 --> 00:27:12.000
And be prepared well in advance, and that aligns with what Mr. Kirshenberg just said

00:27:12.000 --> 00:27:17.000
We would never wait until 15 days to get a notice.

00:27:17.000 --> 00:27:20.000
So regardless of what the value is.

00:27:20.000 --> 00:27:27.000
We're going to be looking at it sooner than that. And hopefully I'll still be around in 10 years.

00:27:27.000 --> 00:27:36.000
So, since we have board member Stromberg has a question. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Go ahead, Eric. Sorry, I missed you there.

00:27:36.000 --> 00:27:53.000
Oh, yeah, thank you. So my question considers concerns the FAR clause, because when I read the FAR clause and I brought this up last time, the FAR clause was all about work being done. I mean, everything in the FAR clause was about it had the flavor of

00:27:53.000 --> 00:28:08.000
a construction project. And so, you know, say it was a one-year construction project, and termination was done at 6 months. The FAR clause talked about the work that had been done up to date and recompense, and all these things

00:28:08.000 --> 00:28:30.000
But I'm having a little bit of confusion here, because I don't see how a far clause that has to do with work being done is being applied to a contract where it's just a electrical agreement. There's no work being done, and it just looks to me like a misapplication

00:28:30.000 --> 00:28:33.000
I was wondering if someone could explain that to me.

00:28:33.000 --> 00:28:34.000
What?

00:28:34.000 --> 00:28:37.000
Yeah, maybe if you don't mind, if I jump in, Ben, on this one

00:28:37.000 --> 00:28:38.000
Please.

00:28:38.000 --> 00:28:39.000
So

00:28:39.000 --> 00:28:43.000
Taking a step back, this conversation that we just had earlier today

00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:47.000
This we've got a fixed price contract here

00:28:47.000 --> 00:28:52.000
Typically utility contracts are service contracts that are

00:28:52.000 --> 00:29:05.000
structure differently than this, but they are only 10-year contracts 100% here. NSA has asked and they've proffered a fixed price contract

00:29:05.000 --> 00:29:08.000
And so we've got terms

00:29:08.000 --> 00:29:17.000
Basically, from a fixed price contract that don't fit perfectly with a utility contract in all places

00:29:17.000 --> 00:29:22.000
And that's why we… we have clauses like this

00:29:22.000 --> 00:29:25.000
The other thing is, once again

00:29:25.000 --> 00:29:28.000
We never see

00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:32.000
Nearly anybody ever sees utility contracts with even an extension.

00:29:32.000 --> 00:29:42.000
And so they took their FAR clauses for normal extensions and put them in just so they would have a clause to actually pull the trigger

00:29:42.000 --> 00:29:47.000
Where most just ended 10 years, and then that's it

00:29:47.000 --> 00:29:55.000
And so that's why we looked at it as a positive that it has it, but we don't disagree with your conclusion.

00:29:55.000 --> 00:29:57.000
So it's just a square peg in a round hole

00:29:57.000 --> 00:29:59.000
Yeah

00:29:59.000 --> 00:30:03.000
Okay.

00:30:03.000 --> 00:30:07.000
Thank you.

00:30:07.000 --> 00:30:19.000
There's no other questions right now, we'll let Ben go. Try to creep a little bit forward. Well, since we have already started talking about this topic, I do want to point us to the

00:30:19.000 --> 00:30:25.000
Performance work statement. Let's go. Abby, if you'd bring that up.

00:30:25.000 --> 00:30:31.000
That is gonna be C, yes. Let's see where you need to go to page

00:30:31.000 --> 00:30:38.000
Back to page 9.

00:30:38.000 --> 00:30:51.000
And at the bottom of the page there is this is the added language that was drafted up by prepared by

00:30:51.000 --> 00:31:04.000
tandem with the operating committee members, Philo Shelton and Cassandra Begay, and myself. And with input from DOEs attorney and our council.

00:31:04.000 --> 00:31:21.000
There's 4 pages of material here. I would ask that Mr. Kirshenberg apply a quick summary of this because I'm not sure everybody wants to read through it in its entirety right here at the meeting

00:31:21.000 --> 00:31:29.000
Sure, and this is the… I'm seeing something else on the screen that I think you're referring to the Foxtail Flats, Ben

00:31:29.000 --> 00:31:31.000
Okay

00:31:31.000 --> 00:31:32.000
Yeah.

00:31:32.000 --> 00:31:35.000
Yes, so if we scroll down, this is just the heading, and then we get the first page of actual body.

00:31:35.000 --> 00:31:44.000
Okay, so this goes back to Mr. Chairman, this goes back to the discussion that we had

00:31:44.000 --> 00:31:54.000
Several weeks ago related to the termination for convenience and a limitation of the dollar amount and the liability for the Department of Energy

00:31:54.000 --> 00:32:05.000
And everyone's concern that said, hey, the county's investing in various resources were concerned about a limitation on liability as we move forward

00:32:05.000 --> 00:32:09.000
Once again, this is the fixed price contract, so we've got

00:32:09.000 --> 00:32:21.000
a limitation, but I think you'd have the limitation also in the service contract to what is, basically allocated on the… during the year, but what we negotiated and discussed

00:32:21.000 --> 00:32:28.000
was the one larger resource that the county has outstanding as this Foxtail flats

00:32:28.000 --> 00:32:42.000
And so we provided a clause that basically doesn't bind DOE or NSA, but it allows NNSA to potentially take assignment of the contract or a portion of the contract

00:32:42.000 --> 00:32:47.000
And take it over to the extent there's a termination for convenience

00:32:47.000 --> 00:33:03.000
To be able to then take that obligation of the county out of the county and undertake that the payment obligation and receive the resources.

00:33:03.000 --> 00:33:18.000
the county, on the other… on the other side of it, wanted to… we appreciated that. We wanted to make sure also that any future resources that may come into the project could be added to this clause. So as we continue to invest, we look at those things.

00:33:18.000 --> 00:33:23.000
And then we also wanted this to be basically

00:33:23.000 --> 00:33:36.000
Also at the county's option and request that they would take over some of these contractual obligations because right now the value of electrical resources

00:33:36.000 --> 00:33:49.000
Throughout the country, in the Southwest is very high and you know the county may at the time be better off selling the resource to someone else if there is a termination

00:33:49.000 --> 00:33:53.000
of this contract as we move forward. So

00:33:53.000 --> 00:33:58.000
We put in a clause that provides this opportunity

00:33:58.000 --> 00:34:10.000
DOE is not bound to do it, because they couldn't bind themselves to do it. But it still creates at least a process and an opportunity for this to occur.

00:34:10.000 --> 00:34:11.000
I'll stop there.

00:34:11.000 --> 00:34:13.000
So are you just talking about clause 2? I mean, which clause? We got four pages of stuff here.

00:34:13.000 --> 00:34:17.000
The whole… all four pages

00:34:17.000 --> 00:34:21.000
That was

00:34:21.000 --> 00:34:22.000
Yes.

00:34:22.000 --> 00:34:23.000
And is this all changed from last time? This is all new text.

00:34:23.000 --> 00:34:24.000
I'll do text

00:34:24.000 --> 00:34:25.000
Okay.

00:34:25.000 --> 00:34:28.000
We received it yesterday

00:34:28.000 --> 00:34:32.000
To give you an idea, and then we sent comments back last night

00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:41.000
But we had talked about it with them for a couple of days.

00:34:41.000 --> 00:34:44.000
Okay, just to, I mean

00:34:44.000 --> 00:34:57.000
I thought we were going to have much fewer changes. I mean, I don't see just to raise this question, I don't see how we're going to approve it tonight. I mean, if it was a minor change here or there, right? That'd be one thing, which is what I was kind of expecting

00:34:57.000 --> 00:35:02.000
But this is this is a lot more than I was anyway

00:35:02.000 --> 00:35:06.000
I think we need some… I would like some time to look at it, personally.

00:35:06.000 --> 00:35:11.000
Well, that makes at least two of us. Okay.

00:35:11.000 --> 00:35:18.000
The one thing that I will say, and believe me, I'm the same way you all are, I like to read everything

00:35:18.000 --> 00:35:23.000
But once again, this is a

00:35:23.000 --> 00:35:29.000
trigger for an action. It's not a requirement from DOE or the county

00:35:29.000 --> 00:35:35.000
It's an option that's put in in case there is a termination

00:35:35.000 --> 00:35:41.000
For DOE to potentially acquire

00:35:41.000 --> 00:35:47.000
a portion of our obligations on the Foxtail Flats resource

00:35:47.000 --> 00:36:03.000
Moving forward. So there's no real obligation on either party in this. It's just this is an optional provision, and I don't know, Philo or Ben, if you want to add anything

00:36:03.000 --> 00:36:08.000
I just wanted to add

00:36:08.000 --> 00:36:14.000
the board and Council has purchased Foxtail flats. that's a done deal

00:36:14.000 --> 00:36:19.000
This is a risk business risk mitigation measure that

00:36:19.000 --> 00:36:20.000
Allows

00:36:20.000 --> 00:36:24.000
You know, should in the event of

00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:30.000
everything break apart, we have an option to assign

00:36:30.000 --> 00:36:35.000
to the DOE this… this amount, the 80%

00:36:35.000 --> 00:36:43.000
At our option. It's what you know if it makes sense at the time. So

00:36:43.000 --> 00:36:58.000
I'm saying I trust you guys entirely on this, but I mean like I've just got 4 pages. I haven't even started to read it, so I don't I understand that. I believe you. I just don't know what it is. And then on the other side, if the board decides they want to delay, I think we need

00:36:58.000 --> 00:37:02.000
To decide having a special meeting

00:37:02.000 --> 00:37:06.000
Maybe it's this Friday, whatever it may be that we have to

00:37:06.000 --> 00:37:20.000
We have a deadline of the end of the month. Well, let's discuss that after we get through the substance here, and then we'll try to figure out what our path forward might be. Yeah, thank you.

00:37:20.000 --> 00:37:38.000
With that said, are there any other questions on this particular topic? Matt. Yeah, I'm trying to scan through it and make sense of it, and at least the bold parts must be the important parts. So important parts are the new parts? Yeah, well, the bald part of the new part

00:37:38.000 --> 00:37:47.000
What's up on the screen right now? There's 80% of the applicable foxtail Flats resources shall be allocated to landlord, and this is upon commencement subservice, so this sounds like

00:37:47.000 --> 00:37:53.000
It's a resource. We use it as it's going, and I think if you scroll down just to the bottom of this page, Abby.

00:37:53.000 --> 00:37:56.000
This one I don't quite understand.

00:37:56.000 --> 00:38:04.000
And maybe somebody can quickly explain it. The 80% Foxtail Flats allocation shall not automatically apply for future resources.

00:38:04.000 --> 00:38:05.000
And this is all

00:38:05.000 --> 00:38:06.000
Yeah.

00:38:06.000 --> 00:38:12.000
In the context of termination, or in the context of regular operation in these sections right here?

00:38:12.000 --> 00:38:20.000
I think the simplest way to look at it is that right now, 80% of Foxtail Flats is allocated to

00:38:20.000 --> 00:38:24.000
the lab or to NNSA

00:38:24.000 --> 00:38:31.000
In future purchases of power resources, the lab may be 50%, it may be 90%

00:38:31.000 --> 00:38:43.000
So it was really just trying to identify that the 80% is not a fixed amount for future resources. The future resource will have to decide on what that is.

00:38:43.000 --> 00:38:44.000
Okay, thanks.

00:38:44.000 --> 00:38:45.000
It'll be based on the requirements at the time. Yeah.

00:38:45.000 --> 00:38:49.000
Okay, so this is setting the stage for how things work right now. That's what this page is about.

00:38:49.000 --> 00:38:56.000
It's setting the stage for if we add additional resources to this provision in the future.

00:38:56.000 --> 00:39:04.000
That, you know, whatever the allocation is for the lab, that will be what is added to this provision, probably.

00:39:04.000 --> 00:39:21.000
Okay, thanks. That helps. So I don't understand why is the 80%, maybe you can help me with this. Why is the 80% in this contract, right? 80% is just a convenient way to think of the lab's usage, right? It's a roughly 80%. It's not exactly 80%. It's whatever it is

00:39:21.000 --> 00:39:32.000
Would… I mean, would we have done that with any other resource? When we were doing San Juan, did we say the lab owned 80% of San Juan? I just don't understand the language, right? Does that make sense? I don't get it.

00:39:32.000 --> 00:39:47.000
That's a good point. I will point out that when we did San Juan, we had no protections. This same sort of contract structure applied. So if there was a termination convenience, we would have had no language even suggesting what we might do

00:39:47.000 --> 00:39:54.000
So this is the best approach we have. The 80%, it could be more, it could be less, as Mr. Kirchenberg said

00:39:54.000 --> 00:40:12.000
But to speak to the… Yes, to speak to the specific question about other resources, that's addressing that Foxtail Flats is a known contracted resource. We are… the county is currently contracted for it, for its full 20-year lifespan

00:40:12.000 --> 00:40:21.000
Under the PPA, we accepted all that risk when we signed the contracts and we carry them forward for the next 20 plus years.

00:40:21.000 --> 00:40:25.000
Without this, we have no

00:40:25.000 --> 00:40:29.000
nothing that actually speaks to that.

00:40:29.000 --> 00:40:37.000
commitment that we have and what the what the DOE is signed up for whether or not they choose to terminate.

00:40:37.000 --> 00:40:49.000
any new resources will have to be handled entirely separate, and that's what that language you mentioned says. It's that this only covers Foxtail Flats, because that's the only current long-term new

00:40:49.000 --> 00:40:52.000
contracted resource that we have

00:40:52.000 --> 00:41:18.000
Future resources, if we choose to enter into them, are either covered under this exclusion language here or other provisions in the contract documents that's addressed specifically how we handle new resources and the whole process that goes through

00:41:18.000 --> 00:41:23.000
Okay, so can someone walk me through the actual

00:41:23.000 --> 00:41:29.000
Termination for convenience clauses. Let's put Foxdale Flats to one side.

00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:33.000
Because that was one of the issues, right? So I see this… what is that, clause 5?

00:41:33.000 --> 00:41:38.000
Changes in requirements and mitigation or is that where that starts?

00:41:38.000 --> 00:41:44.000
I guess there's down to clause 7, too.

00:41:44.000 --> 00:41:52.000
Maybe I'll start, and then other people can jump in. So the first, and I'm in

00:41:52.000 --> 00:41:55.000
What page is this

00:41:55.000 --> 00:42:00.000
11. 33.

00:42:00.000 --> 00:42:08.000
Okay, I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about just generally the termination for convenience in the contract clauses, not in the statement of work.

00:42:08.000 --> 00:42:12.000
Maybe we start in the contract clauses and then come to the statement of work and come to this

00:42:12.000 --> 00:42:33.000
How about this? Yeah, why don't you guys walk us through all of this text and tell us what you think it means, and then we can ask questions about it, because right now it's just kind of like, oh, here's four pages. Do you have any questions? I have no idea what we're talking about. So maybe, Seth, you could take a step back and walk us through all of the stuff that we've been

00:42:33.000 --> 00:42:35.000
Wondering about for the last couple of weeks. That would be great.

00:42:35.000 --> 00:42:44.000
Yeah, and so in the contract itself versus the attachment, which is what we're in right now, the statement of work.

00:42:44.000 --> 00:42:49.000
There's a provision on limitation of government's obligations

00:42:49.000 --> 00:42:53.000
And that is the issue that we focused on during the last meeting.

00:42:53.000 --> 00:42:54.000
So

00:42:54.000 --> 00:42:56.000
Sorry to interrupt. That's page 7.

00:42:56.000 --> 00:42:59.000
of the terms and conditions document.

00:42:59.000 --> 00:43:12.000
And I'll start talking as it starts to come up. But basically in that particular provision, there's a current limitation of $6 million that limitation will change over time

00:43:12.000 --> 00:43:26.000
As we move forward with the contract. As you remember, everyone's concern was, well, there's additional obligations that are out there that the county has undertaken certain obligations that exceed that $6 million

00:43:26.000 --> 00:43:33.000
And when we enter into this contract, there were a couple of different things, which is

00:43:33.000 --> 00:43:39.000
There's the price that the Department of Energy is paying for the services

00:43:39.000 --> 00:43:52.000
And we would be arguing that the limitation is based on the price or the current purchase of the utilities. It's not on the assets

00:43:52.000 --> 00:43:57.000
Those are contingent liabilities, as we talked about yesterday with DOE

00:43:57.000 --> 00:44:11.000
That exist that the county has incurred. So we would be arguing once again that the 6 million dollars right now would be related to the payment of the utilities.

00:44:11.000 --> 00:44:13.000
As we move forward.

00:44:13.000 --> 00:44:24.000
The reason why we wanted as restatement of the FAR Clause 52 249-2 is there's a process within the FAR clause itself

00:44:24.000 --> 00:44:40.000
that basically and those… I'm boring everybody who lives on federal government contracts in this room, but there's basically a process and a provision for if the government terminates and you have invested or undertaken certain

00:44:40.000 --> 00:44:55.000
actions under the particular contract, you've incurred certain costs that you cannot basically mitigate by selling to other parties. Once again, under a construction contract. This is the way it works

00:44:55.000 --> 00:45:08.000
Then, DOE will negotiate with you on the potential costs for that. DOE is going to argue that they're going to have a $6 million limit. We're going to be arguing that

00:45:08.000 --> 00:45:23.000
Our long-term investments that we've made under the contract would allow us to sell this prop this utilities to them. And these are liabilities of NNSA as well as the county

00:45:23.000 --> 00:45:33.000
Or that the county has incurred, and we're asking for reimbursement for that. And so under this clause, it goes through in depth and says, hey, look

00:45:33.000 --> 00:45:44.000
What we've performed and what the costs are and the subcontracts and everything else and their liability is limited

00:45:44.000 --> 00:45:48.000
And we need to recognize that

00:45:48.000 --> 00:45:56.000
But we would go through and once again, we'd be making a

00:45:56.000 --> 00:46:01.000
A claim for more under this particular provision.

00:46:01.000 --> 00:46:06.000
Now, when we looked at this, we said to our we said to DOE

00:46:06.000 --> 00:46:16.000
We've got these long-term obligations. Can you make more of a commitment? Can we get rid of the $6 million limitation? And we went back and forth on that. They would not

00:46:16.000 --> 00:46:25.000
get rid of that. But what we did come up with is another solution which was to point the future us

00:46:25.000 --> 00:46:34.000
to a provision in the statement of work that basically identified that maybe let's go to the statement of work

00:46:34.000 --> 00:46:49.000
that basically said, we've got these long-term commitments like foxtail Flats, and right now the county identified for DOE, that's really our long-term commitment that we're most concerned about

00:46:49.000 --> 00:46:59.000
And so let's set up a provision over the four pages where we go through and you keep scrolling down at least maybe stop there.

00:46:59.000 --> 00:47:04.000
Where we've got a provision where we go through

00:47:04.000 --> 00:47:19.000
And they notify us that they're going to terminate. We do the things that are required by termination for convenience clause. We reduce our expenses, we mitigate our costs and those types of things

00:47:19.000 --> 00:47:32.000
We recognize that the government has a process in FAR 52 249-2, a termination for convenience, and we also recognize that they have a limitation of funds

00:47:32.000 --> 00:47:33.000
But then

00:47:33.000 --> 00:47:40.000
If you keep going down, they go through and they say, yeah, but

00:47:40.000 --> 00:47:42.000
Well, maybe it's farther up

00:47:42.000 --> 00:47:48.000
But we recognize that you have this long-term commitment in Foxtail Flats

00:47:48.000 --> 00:47:53.000
And we are going to work with you to look at potential purchasing

00:47:53.000 --> 00:48:00.000
the commitment that the county's made for at least 80% of the Foxtail flat resource

00:48:00.000 --> 00:48:15.000
And once again, there's a clause in here that basically this will really be at the county's option, and we don't have to give up this resource in case we decide it's more valuable at the time or in case we're

00:48:15.000 --> 00:48:27.000
Actually negotiating with them and don't want them to have that resource and making them recognize they have to purchase it from somewhere else in whatever may be available at that time

00:48:27.000 --> 00:48:42.000
And then it talks about the process for the committee to work together to look at this resource, and it talks about future long term power resources and the process. If you remember elsewhere in the contract, there's a provision that basically says

00:48:42.000 --> 00:48:56.000
We'll work with the Department of Energy to look at future resources. We'll talk to WAPA, who can enter into long-term agreements with the county where DOE may not, WAPA can enter into a 30-year agreement

00:48:56.000 --> 00:49:12.000
And so we will look at the best way to mitigate cost for the county going forward in future contracts and work together on that. And then here it talks about adding those particular resources as well

00:49:12.000 --> 00:49:19.000
to this particular provision. So in addition to Foxtail Flats, we may have another future

00:49:19.000 --> 00:49:27.000
project that we buy part of and then we would add that to this clause through an amendment to the agreement.

00:49:27.000 --> 00:49:36.000
And Ben and Philo, is there anything else that I missed that you all want to highlight?

00:49:36.000 --> 00:49:39.000
I think that covered the

00:49:39.000 --> 00:49:43.000
what I wanted to see

00:49:43.000 --> 00:49:54.000
So if we were to do another future foxtail flats or something else that was a large investment that was over a long time, tell me again, would we go through WAPA? Is that what we're saying now? Or would we

00:49:54.000 --> 00:49:58.000
Try to adopt this clause to that.

00:49:58.000 --> 00:50:13.000
I'm saying that the county will have a lot of options. So when the county was investigating investing in the small modular reactor. We were going to enter into obligations, the county, if it did that

00:50:13.000 --> 00:50:26.000
What we were looking at doing was bringing WAPA in. So WAPA can sign a 30-year memorandum of agreement with NNSA. Remember, NNSA is limited to 10 years with us

00:50:26.000 --> 00:50:34.000
So they can enter to a 30-year agreement with NNSA, WAPAC, and then WAPA can enter into a 30-year contract with the county.

00:50:34.000 --> 00:50:47.000
So the county would then have an obligate would have an NSA through WAPA on the hook for a full 30 years for payments. So we put that in the contract just to point to the future us

00:50:47.000 --> 00:50:56.000
As negotiations are ongoing. It may be that we use this contract. I've seen other places where there's a renewal of a contract

00:50:56.000 --> 00:51:07.000
We're looking at in, you know, I know I've worked with Philo in the past on this. We're looking at new legislation to allow DOE to buy power for 30 years.

00:51:07.000 --> 00:51:16.000
So that may be enacted at that time. So we wanted to leave open all the options, but we also wanted to add this clause to say

00:51:16.000 --> 00:51:25.000
You know, if we're still in this 10-year contract, and we're not going through third parties, there's still a way to add that as an additional

00:51:25.000 --> 00:51:45.000
piece to our existing contract

00:51:45.000 --> 00:51:47.000
We still have the floor, Charlie.

00:51:47.000 --> 00:51:52.000
Okay.

00:51:52.000 --> 00:51:54.000
A couple of questions

00:51:54.000 --> 00:52:06.000
On this page 10 that we've been looking at on completion of service, 80% of the applicable Foxtail flats resource shall be allocated to Lanell.

00:52:06.000 --> 00:52:08.000
What is the applicable

00:52:08.000 --> 00:52:11.000
Fox Hill Flats Resource since

00:52:11.000 --> 00:52:15.000
We're anticipating that part of that

00:52:15.000 --> 00:52:28.000
Power from there will go to the county. Part will go to Lanell, part will go to Sandia, Kirtland, and part of it, at least to begin with, will be sold, presumably to some other entity, and all of those

00:52:28.000 --> 00:52:36.000
Percentages may change over time, so what is the applicable Foxtail Flats resource that this is 80% of?

00:52:36.000 --> 00:52:38.000
That would be

00:52:38.000 --> 00:52:58.000
That question. Yes, that would be 80% of 120 megawatts of the photovoltaic capacity and an equivalent share of the battery.

00:52:58.000 --> 00:53:06.000
And this talks about foxtail Flats, which of course is the major current issue. Let me make a correction to that. Yeah.

00:53:06.000 --> 00:53:13.000
We have to take off 30 megawatts for Cynthia Kirtland. So it's 80% of 90 megawatts.

00:53:13.000 --> 00:53:15.000
Okay.

00:53:15.000 --> 00:53:20.000
I think to answer more generally applicable, meaning

00:53:20.000 --> 00:53:24.000
What's being used within the power pool

00:53:24.000 --> 00:53:35.000
Okay, and that was the reason for, you know, the future allocation could be something different. So the lab add supercomputing and they're using 90% of it

00:53:35.000 --> 00:53:40.000
They would do 90%. That's what we'd negotiate at the time

00:53:40.000 --> 00:53:42.000
Okay.

00:53:42.000 --> 00:53:45.000
Slightly different topic.

00:53:45.000 --> 00:53:51.000
This talks about Foxteale Flats. It talks about future resources, but we also have Laramie River.

00:53:51.000 --> 00:53:57.000
And it doesn't say anything about Laramie River, which is a long-term obligation of the county also

00:53:57.000 --> 00:54:00.000
How is that to be treated?

00:54:00.000 --> 00:54:12.000
If there were a termination. That asset capital asset, because we have to pay for its closure, we're collecting on those funds. This

00:54:12.000 --> 00:54:24.000
applies to the power purchase agreement. Contract for services. How but it doesn't work with assets. Assets we can sell.

00:54:24.000 --> 00:54:30.000
And I think Seth mentioned that earlier in the description.

00:54:30.000 --> 00:54:50.000
About capital assets versus purchase agreements. So you're assuming that we can sell it, but we may sell it at a we may sell it at a loss. We might sell it at a gain. Don't know. Or maybe just keep it because it's 10 megawatts around the clock. But again, it's a risk that we're taking

00:54:50.000 --> 00:54:56.000
That there doesn't seem to be anything in here that addresses that risk. That's correct.

00:54:56.000 --> 00:54:57.000
Well, and Mr.

00:54:57.000 --> 00:55:05.000
That's the same risk that we've held since we signed up for in the late 80s for that for LRS.

00:55:05.000 --> 00:55:08.000
So that's a continuation of that. Go ahead, Mr. Gershenberg.

00:55:08.000 --> 00:55:16.000
Yeah, the only thing that I would add is that to the extent that the county has certain obligations that it can't

00:55:16.000 --> 00:55:27.000
mitigate through sale, and we have certain losses and we can show those particular losses. That's where we would try and make certain claims.

00:55:27.000 --> 00:55:35.000
To NNSA under our contract. It would be hard, but we would try and make those.

00:55:35.000 --> 00:55:39.000
Seth, at some point I want to follow up on that statement.

00:55:39.000 --> 00:55:43.000
And we can do that now or we can do it later

00:55:43.000 --> 00:55:46.000
Whatever works for you or Ben.

00:55:46.000 --> 00:55:48.000
Let's go now

00:55:48.000 --> 00:55:54.000
Okay.

00:55:54.000 --> 00:55:58.000
In response to a question that I sent

00:55:58.000 --> 00:56:01.000
Yesterday

00:56:01.000 --> 00:56:04.000
Your response said

00:56:04.000 --> 00:56:09.000
And this has to do with

00:56:09.000 --> 00:56:11.000
These long-term

00:56:11.000 --> 00:56:24.000
Contracts. The county would have a claim pursuant to the old ECA. In other words, the present one for NNSA to pay for its share of a contract if DOE terminated the contract.

00:56:24.000 --> 00:56:29.000
But the county would not have a claim if the contract expired.

00:56:29.000 --> 00:56:36.000
Which the current contract is going to expire at the end of this month, if not extended.

00:56:36.000 --> 00:56:38.000
So

00:56:38.000 --> 00:56:41.000
This statement

00:56:41.000 --> 00:56:44.000
Seems to suggest that

00:56:44.000 --> 00:56:53.000
Today, we would have a claim as you just suggested for Laramie River or for that matter, Foxtail Flats, because it's an approved resource.

00:56:53.000 --> 00:56:55.000
But we wouldn't

00:56:55.000 --> 00:56:58.000
On the 1st of September

00:56:58.000 --> 00:57:04.000
Is that true?

00:57:04.000 --> 00:57:09.000
I guess as a lawyer, of course, I'm going to answer a little different

00:57:09.000 --> 00:57:13.000
It is to say that we will make a claim

00:57:13.000 --> 00:57:15.000
for costs

00:57:15.000 --> 00:57:29.000
that are incurred by the county for which there's a loss as we move forward with the contract, if there are resources that we're paying for, you know at the time we're providing these services, but DOE's defense

00:57:29.000 --> 00:57:36.000
Would be that it's not under this particular contract, or we didn't incur the cost under this particular contract as we went forward. So

00:57:36.000 --> 00:57:48.000
I don't think it's as black and white as me just giving an answer saying yes or no. I think that's where we would be in in this analysis

00:57:48.000 --> 00:57:51.000
And in that process

00:57:51.000 --> 00:57:57.000
So, are the two contracts different in that respect?

00:57:57.000 --> 00:58:04.000
Yeah, so the other contract was a 30-year contract and it is different

00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:10.000
In many respects

00:58:10.000 --> 00:58:13.000
The similarity was that they were purchasing power

00:58:13.000 --> 00:58:28.000
But it was very much more of a, I almost similar to like a cooperative agreement of whereas this is, you know, a contract where they're buying power

00:58:28.000 --> 00:58:35.000
Were their contractor, even… the same was true under the other one, but this is… this is more so

00:58:35.000 --> 00:58:36.000
But because

00:58:36.000 --> 00:58:44.000
the laws that they have to follow now are different than the laws that they had to follow 30 years ago, even though both laws are still in

00:58:44.000 --> 00:58:49.000
in place but the rules and regulations are different.

00:58:49.000 --> 00:58:51.000
And also

00:58:51.000 --> 00:58:59.000
Mr. Schomburg also has his hand up as well. I just want to identify that

00:58:59.000 --> 00:59:03.000
Let's see. Eric, let me go to you, but I want to come back to that

00:59:03.000 --> 00:59:04.000
We can continue this discussion.

00:59:04.000 --> 00:59:09.000
Yeah, thank you. I was wondering if the

00:59:09.000 --> 00:59:25.000
If the lab exercises termination and they're paying us this, what I guess what I'm going to call a severance fee, is that 80% of the total 20 year contract

00:59:25.000 --> 00:59:26.000
No

00:59:26.000 --> 00:59:35.000
Now, it would be they'd first only pay what they have allocated for that particular annual basis

00:59:35.000 --> 00:59:47.000
The contract is only 10 years with a 10-year option as well. So, yeah, I don't want to mislead anybody to say that it's a 20-year contract. It isn't it's a 10-year contract

00:59:47.000 --> 00:59:51.000
With a 10-year option, a DOE's option to extend it

00:59:51.000 --> 00:59:58.000
So would it be 80% of a 10-year contract or 80% of one year?

00:59:58.000 --> 01:00:09.000
They would pay the costs that we would claim. I don't think we would break it up as 80%. I think what we would say is here's our long-term

01:00:09.000 --> 01:00:21.000
costs that we can't recover for that we can't sell, we can't do other things. And I have a feeling that, for example, on this foxtail flats, we would probably say

01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:33.000
We still need this 20% to provide power to the county. So yes, it is 80% in that. With each one, I don't know enough about it to tell you whether that would be the response.

01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:40.000
So we would reach for the sky and they would give us the parking lot.

01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:55.000
Probably. I've been through a fair amount of claims with the county and with NSA. And in each one of those instances, I think the county's come out well. Irregardless of the law

01:00:55.000 --> 01:01:09.000
On these issues. So I think that there would be more than a negotiation going on between the contracting officer and the utility department. I think this would be

01:01:09.000 --> 01:01:14.000
Higher level issue that would be discussed and tried to figure it out.

01:01:14.000 --> 01:01:17.000
Okay, thank you.

01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:21.000
The county may have come out really well because we have a good lawyer

01:01:21.000 --> 01:01:25.000
Good team, good team.

01:01:25.000 --> 01:01:28.000
The

01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:33.000
Seth, if the existing contract

01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:35.000
Is

01:01:35.000 --> 01:01:40.000
In structure a little bit more favorable in some of these respects.

01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:52.000
And it was a 30-year contract to start with, but it's been extended by 10 years. And then it's now been extended by 14 months. So obviously it can be extended.

01:01:52.000 --> 01:01:57.000
Instead of this new contract, why don't we take the old contract

01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:12.000
Extend it for 10 or 20 years. And put basically the new provisions that have been discussed here in it as a contract mod And basically get the provisions of the new contract

01:02:12.000 --> 01:02:24.000
with the benefits of the old one together and make it, you know, just continue the old contract, which would then be under the old laws and the old regulations that seem to be

01:02:24.000 --> 01:02:27.000
less onerous

01:02:27.000 --> 01:02:37.000
I'm going to answer it two different ways or two ways, which one which is I don't think that they believe that they have the authority to extend it

01:02:37.000 --> 01:02:50.000
That much longer, they keep extending it because they're trying to enter into a new agreement there. Their regulatory requirements are to have a different

01:02:50.000 --> 01:03:00.000
A different agreement. The other option, and Philo, Ben, and I talked about this with the county attorney's office

01:03:00.000 --> 01:03:05.000
You know, more than once, which is… the other option is always just not even to have a contract

01:03:05.000 --> 01:03:15.000
And just sell them the power, like any other customer. But we just said that doesn't work because of the interrelated nature

01:03:15.000 --> 01:03:25.000
of the way we sell power, buy power, and how we need to work together to make all these things work.

01:03:25.000 --> 01:03:31.000
And so that's why we're, you know, entering into a new contract

01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:39.000
There are different forms of contract that we could have gone with as we did it, but we're with a fixed price contract

01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:42.000
But I think… I don't think that they would

01:03:42.000 --> 01:03:46.000
Extend the contract much longer

01:03:46.000 --> 01:03:52.000
And I think everyone thinks we're better off with a contract.

01:03:52.000 --> 01:03:56.000
Well, I think we do all appreciate the

01:03:56.000 --> 01:04:02.000
complexity of the interconnections at multiple… in multiple dimensions that we have

01:04:02.000 --> 01:04:18.000
have had and have generally worked for us. But on the everyday basis, both the physical connections and the personnel connections and the scheduling and all that stuff. It would be complicated to unwind

01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:22.000
But this is complicated too.

01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:25.000
Okay.

01:04:25.000 --> 01:04:33.000
I guess that's what I have on that topic at the moment.

01:04:33.000 --> 01:04:37.000
Do we have other questions at the moment on this?

01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:39.000
Or do you want to

01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:54.000
keep going through this. All right. Well, if we don't have any more discussion for now, we can always bring it back up again on the termination for convenience and the associated language there. I'd like to step through all the other changes which, as I mentioned.

01:04:54.000 --> 01:05:02.000
far less significant in scope. So let's go back to the first document, the terms and conditions, contract terms

01:05:02.000 --> 01:05:10.000
And we will start with page two.

01:05:10.000 --> 01:05:26.000
So one change here, as was necessary, was the very last sentence in this text block was changing the period of performance to reflect the latest one month extension that takes us out to September

01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:41.000
And so going out from there 10 years gets us approximately to one further month from July 31 to August 31, 2036. So that was one change

01:05:41.000 --> 01:05:49.000
And if anyone has any questions or wants to discuss anything, please speak up. Otherwise, I'll move on to page 4.

01:05:49.000 --> 01:05:51.000
Which

01:05:51.000 --> 01:05:54.000
is essentially the same thing.

01:05:54.000 --> 01:06:11.000
Scroll back to the top of page 4 right there, the very first line, this is if you scroll up a bit more, we can see the heading, and this is the period of performance necessary section under this, but it just duplicates those dates, which are also likewise changed to September 1st, 2026

01:06:11.000 --> 01:06:15.000
Through August 31st, 2036

01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:21.000
The next change in the terms and conditions is jumps us ahead to

01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:23.000
page

01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:28.000
20.

01:06:28.000 --> 01:06:33.000
And we already talked about that. That was changing the 60 days

01:06:33.000 --> 01:06:36.000
Notice of Intent to 90 days

01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:43.000
Along with the 30 to 15 days reduction in the actual

01:06:43.000 --> 01:06:46.000
written notice to exercise that option.

01:06:46.000 --> 01:06:51.000
And Mr. Kirchenberg went into some detail explaining the

01:06:51.000 --> 01:06:53.000
Actual

01:06:53.000 --> 01:07:00.000
Implementation, how we would do that and how it may not align with those dates in reality and practice.

01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:05.000
And then the last two changes are on page 22, the last page is

01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:14.000
section of the document, and that is to insert at the very top of the page that termination for convenience clause.

01:07:14.000 --> 01:07:29.000
And then in the table, section J list of documents, exhibits and other attachments. Attachments number one and two, the performance work statement and the operating procedures were revised today.

01:07:29.000 --> 01:07:31.000
with their final form

01:07:31.000 --> 01:07:35.000
And those dates were updated to reflect that.

01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:44.000
Is there any questions on any of these, please speak up. Otherwise, we'll move on to the next section of the package, the performance work statement

01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:53.000
Hold on just a moment. Are there any questions? Anybody else have any questions?

01:07:53.000 --> 01:07:58.000
It was my understanding that there is a second

01:07:58.000 --> 01:08:04.000
Terms and conditions document that would cover a second 10 years.

01:08:04.000 --> 01:08:08.000
But that's still confidential to DOE

01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:13.000
Does that really exist? And if so, how do we know that it exists

01:08:13.000 --> 01:08:18.000
Where is it referred to any place?

01:08:18.000 --> 01:08:21.000
Or is that just hearsay

01:08:21.000 --> 01:08:40.000
So in the DOE contracting side of things, there is one contract. That's what we've seen here, that this is the sole terms and conditions. The option to extend is expressed as a separate contract line item number, CLIN is the way they say that. So there is one CLIN contract line item number

01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:55.000
For the first 10-year term and a separate clean for the second 10-year option if the DOE chooses to exercise it. My understanding of that content is it simply says, here's the dollar value of that $509 million, and here's the extended term.

01:08:55.000 --> 01:09:01.000
How many dollars was that one? Excuse me? 590 million.

01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:06.000
Okay, but it's still invisible. We can't see it. That's the substance of it, though. It's the dollar amount.

01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:08.000
But we still can't see it.

01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:14.000
Yeah, there is no separate contract though

01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:16.000
If that's helpful.

01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:18.000
There is a separate say that again, please, Seth, separate what?

01:09:18.000 --> 01:09:24.000
Sorry, there is no separate contract

01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:36.000
I think all Ben is identifying is that there's just a separate line item for just like there is here for the full dollar amount of the 400 and some odd million

01:09:36.000 --> 01:09:42.000
There's just another dollar amount that they've got listed that

01:09:42.000 --> 01:09:49.000
If they ever trigger the second 10 years, that's what they estimate the cost is going to be right now

01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:58.000
But they would do a re-estimation. So that's a long way of saying there's no other contract. This is it.

01:09:58.000 --> 01:10:07.000
Well, that's kind of what it looks like because we don't see anything else. So okay, thank you.

01:10:07.000 --> 01:10:15.000
All right, if there are any other questions, please speak up and we can go back to them. Well, let's move on to the performance work statement then.

01:10:15.000 --> 01:10:18.000
So that's attachment

01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:21.000
Oh, one, my mistake.

01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:27.000
So 1st page where we have a change is on page 4

01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:31.000
And it is in section B4

01:10:31.000 --> 01:10:32.000
Three

01:10:32.000 --> 01:10:34.000
Right there

01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:49.000
The board member Hebner noted like this one, notwithstanding this classification projects with total cost less than $250,000 shall be the previous version had will

01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:53.000
Followed by shall. So the will was deleted. That's the only change

01:10:53.000 --> 01:11:02.000
Yay, we got something fixed. We got the cleanup. I made sure that every one of the items that had been flagged prior.

01:11:02.000 --> 01:11:09.000
for prior reviews had been cleaned up moving on to page

01:11:09.000 --> 01:11:26.000
9. That gets us back to H4, and we've gone over that already. The four pages adding foxtail flats and about all the options that are to be considered if in the, and I want to point out what we perceive to be a very unlikely scenario of a termination

01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:34.000
So I do want to come back to this, but only after you finish the other go through the other changes, then we can come back. Okay.

01:11:34.000 --> 01:11:41.000
And that gets us through all the changes in the PWS.

01:11:41.000 --> 01:11:47.000
That get far. Now we'll go to the next attachment, which is the operating procedures.

01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:53.000
The changes here are on the first page, what we see in the title.

01:11:53.000 --> 01:12:10.000
On the 3rd line of the title, operating procedures prepared pursuant to the terms of the electric coordination agreement, prior version retains some old labeling and said the electric energy coordination agreement. We're no longer calling it that. Just so we deleted the energy

01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:19.000
Then we move down to the middle of that text block there, following that long contract number, the 89233, and so on, for so forth

01:12:19.000 --> 01:12:34.000
With the parenthetical, the ECA behind it, originally the version you saw last month had the date of the ECA in it, and I removed that date because I didn't see any reason to have another date to update in any of these documents

01:12:34.000 --> 01:12:40.000
That's always a buggerbear trying to remember where the dates are hiding and keeping them current.

01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:45.000
Let's go to page one now.

01:12:45.000 --> 01:12:53.000
Following the table of contents, here we go. At the bottom of the page here, you will see section H is new.

01:12:53.000 --> 01:13:02.000
And this is the associated language that I'd already discussed about how we are directing the operating committee to

01:13:02.000 --> 01:13:08.000
consider what the deal, what needs to be done if the DOE both either

01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:18.000
Or either decides to exercise their option, we'll be planning for that well in advance, and at the same time that we're considering and getting the

01:13:18.000 --> 01:13:24.000
status of where can Sandy or Kirtland wants to go with their portion of

01:13:24.000 --> 01:13:26.000
Foxtail Flats

01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:42.000
And then you see the next page is two bullets there at the top of the page. We're going to look at both scenarios. We'll plan for the DOE to exercise their option to extend, and we'll also plan to have them not extend it. And whichever one comes to rise

01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:47.000
And we'll be prepared for it

01:13:47.000 --> 01:14:03.000
All right. And there is only one more change to this document. Sorry, this is a little peculiar. Just a question about that. When I look at A through A through G, they're all sort of ongoing responsibilities. This is what the this is what the operating committee does, right?

01:14:03.000 --> 01:14:23.000
So that the planning thing is interesting. I can understand why you want it there, but it's I mean, presumably that's if it all goes well, there's not going to be any work on this for seven years and then three years we'll have a panic or something, right? Is that kind of how it's going to work? You know, or is this, in other words, is the committee supposed to be sort of continuously planning for termination

01:14:23.000 --> 01:14:38.000
For all of its lifetime, you know, or what does that make sense? It just seems I I think I understand your question. There is a whole bunch of things that the operating committee is expected to do just

01:14:38.000 --> 01:14:42.000
to maintain their relationship and administer the contract.

01:14:42.000 --> 01:15:01.000
So those things always happen. Our budgeting process, you know analyzing our long-term resource needs, deciding what to do with the generation that we have, how it fits in with our portfolio, doing long-term planning under an IRP, it's all built into here. This is specifically called out, and there was really no other place to put it that it

01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:11.000
Anyway, but this is a key place right up front where anybody reading this document will hit upon that in the first page and be aware that this is something you need to be aware of.

01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:29.000
Whether it's, and I don't expect it to be 3 years out, we're not going to be looking at massive changes. If there are any changes needed along the way, we'll be addressing them through a contract modification as needed. Whether it's to bring up new resources, old resources are retired, and whatnot.

01:15:29.000 --> 01:15:39.000
So this is really just an evaluation and understanding that there may be changes needed. What might happen in the next 3 years that we need to plan for

01:15:39.000 --> 01:15:47.000
In either case.

01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:52.000
And if there are any other questions, please speak up. Otherwise, we'll move on to page 45.

01:15:52.000 --> 01:15:59.000
And this is another. Before you leave question

01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:03.000
One of the other one of the factors

01:16:03.000 --> 01:16:09.000
that the operating committee will need to consider, I would think

01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:14.000
Is changes in DOE rules and regulations, which might drive

01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:18.000
Changes in the relationship after 10 years

01:16:18.000 --> 01:16:21.000
How do those get

01:16:21.000 --> 01:16:24.000
recognized and folded in.

01:16:24.000 --> 01:16:39.000
So there are other sections of either the primary, the PWS, the performance work statement that speak to those sorts of changes. So we don't know what these future unknown unknowns may be, but there is language in there to address changes

01:16:39.000 --> 01:16:50.000
Whether there are statutory changes, you know, a new executive order comes along that the DOE is required to follow, that all flows down into the operating committee to address. And there are specific

01:16:50.000 --> 01:17:06.000
pieces of language that say, yeah, you need to do this. We'll allocate the costs appropriately. We have specific language that says if the costs associated with these compliance type requirements or other statutory or executive order requirements

01:17:06.000 --> 01:17:14.000
Benefit only are only required to serve one party that that party can pay the full cost of that.

01:17:14.000 --> 01:17:27.000
So, the general language in this in the document addresses those sorts of unknown unknowns, as well as unknowns that we expect to come along, such as market changes and that sort of thing.

01:17:27.000 --> 01:17:35.000
Does that answer the question? Well, it seems like the operating committee's job is somewhat broader.

01:17:35.000 --> 01:17:38.000
than is stated in

01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:45.000
The first bullet here, because it's more than evaluating, preparing for all resource needs. It's

01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:49.000
Understanding

01:17:49.000 --> 01:18:00.000
Contractual environment or the potential contractual environment at that point. Which may be more complicated than looking at resource needs.

01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:06.000
If this is any guide

01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:14.000
You know, we're all engineers. We understand electrons, but this is different.

01:18:14.000 --> 01:18:25.000
I didn't hear a question in that though. But I didn't hear a question further question than what you said, Chair.

01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:33.000
All right. There were no further questions. Okay. And if Charlie wants to share his comment, he can. Okay.

01:18:33.000 --> 01:18:51.000
Well, with that, we are free to go back to any discussion topic that the board wishes because that is the sum total of the changes that have been made to the package. You had said something on page 45, then we went back. It looks like it was a date thing. It was a date thing. It was another

01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:57.000
Date of the date, I'm sorry. Yes, page 45. Again

01:18:57.000 --> 01:19:04.000
This particular section on the how we do some of the financial calculations

01:19:04.000 --> 01:19:10.000
has its own term, and it's coincident with the term of the agreement.

01:19:10.000 --> 01:19:12.000
Okay, so

01:19:12.000 --> 01:19:19.000
If it's okay, I would like to go back to the famous H dot 4 clause

01:19:19.000 --> 01:19:35.000
Under the performance work statement. Yes, exactly. Paige nine. I kind of like that. I feel like we're going to have to figure this out at some point. And so it might as well be now, I think.

01:19:35.000 --> 01:19:51.000
Let's just go through one section by section. So the first section seems fine, right? The whole purpose of this section H.4 subparagraph or paragraph one purpose, that makes sense, right? It says that the whole purpose is to is to have the government

01:19:51.000 --> 01:20:04.000
and the county join up sensibly in trying to procure long-term electric resources that make sense, mutual sense right and to allocate costs, benefits, etc, etc

01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:07.000
Reasonably.

01:20:07.000 --> 01:20:17.000
So that's good and we want to promote things that are economically advantageous and the like. So that all seems good to me.

01:20:17.000 --> 01:20:26.000
Let me… let me just ask a question. So, sorry, let me back up. If we… if we were doing another 30-year agreement, say, would we even have this section at all?

01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:30.000
H… the H section, H.4 section.

01:20:30.000 --> 01:20:42.000
Or is this all because we're trying to figure out what happens if in the unlikely event that the government decides to terminate it 10 years? Is that just could someone? Can you calibrate me on that?

01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:57.000
Yeah, I think this was added correct only to deal with if the contract is terminated really in the next 10 years.

01:20:57.000 --> 01:20:59.000
Okay, so that's

01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:00.000
Okay.

01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:01.000
Before the foxtail flat… well, will the foxtail flats obligation is still outstanding. If this were a 30-year contract, we wouldn't be doing this.

01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:10.000
Okay, that's good. All right, thanks. That's very helpful. So if we go to Section 2 just says Foxtail Flats

01:21:10.000 --> 01:21:15.000
I was actually… if the whole purpose is of these pages is to

01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:25.000
anticipate what might… what would we do if the government terminates at year 10 minus 15 days, or whatever it is

01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:36.000
Why do we have this site? What are we? What are we agreeing to do with this paragraph? Because this just says, as far as I can tell.

01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:46.000
We agree that when we turn it on in 2027, the government gets a claim on whatever it needs out of foxtail Flats. Isn't that all that it says?

01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:48.000
Did I miss something in there?

01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:49.000
Correct.

01:21:49.000 --> 01:21:50.000
So why do we have that even?

01:21:50.000 --> 01:21:53.000
I think what they're trying to do

01:21:53.000 --> 01:22:01.000
Yeah, we didn't draft this, we got this yesterday. I think what they're trying to do is provide background for the 80%

01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:06.000
And to basically set it at the 80%

01:22:06.000 --> 01:22:09.000
That's the way I read it.

01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:15.000
I read the same way as they're equivalent to like whereas statements that you would typically see at the start of a contract.

01:22:15.000 --> 01:22:24.000
Okay. Just setting some… setting the stage. I mean, if… if we turn it on in 2027 and… and the government uses

01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:30.000
78.3% or 82.4%. I mean, have we failed in an obligation in our contract or not? That's the

01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:35.000
No, because it still says consistent with the applicable power pull and contractual arrangements.

01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:41.000
Okay, so it's kind of boiler in a sense kind of boilerplate. Is that fair then

01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:50.000
I won't say boiler, but I'll say that it's at least a sentence that tries to set an amount with a lot of wiggle room afterwards.

01:22:50.000 --> 01:23:03.000
Okay. All right, so we can put that one. We can go. Charlie, can I ask you a question relevant to that? Yeah. You're talking about terminating in 10 year or the contract expiring in 10 years.

01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:05.000
But

01:23:05.000 --> 01:23:20.000
The government could terminate the contract at any time. Correct. They could terminate it at 6 months in. Fair. So it could happen anytime, not just at the 10-year point. Yeah. I mean, we have the same problem, whether it happens at one year or 10 years. Fair, totally fair. Okay

01:23:20.000 --> 01:23:32.000
Just wanted to make sure that's indeed where we are. Just to follow up on Robert's question, out of curiosity, I mean, this is very standard, right? In every government contract I've seen, it always says government can

01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:36.000
Can stop almost any time, right? But

01:23:36.000 --> 01:23:44.000
Did the old ECA have that implicitly or explicitly as well? I mean, I'm trying to compare, like, what risks do we think we're taking on now compared to the existing one?

01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:58.000
It's really funny, been throughout the Christian doctrine to me today. So, which basically says that every federal government contract, whether it says it or not, has a termination for convenience clause included in it

01:23:58.000 --> 01:23:59.000
I thought I kind of did.

01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:12.000
So, yeah, I mean, I believe that it does. I, you know, I don't remember the old contract quite as well. But even if it didn't, it still has a termination for convenience plus

01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:16.000
Okay.

01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:22.000
Chair and board member Knockley, I can tell you on the old agreement

01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:31.000
When uniper settlement came through, we combed through that agreement. It was Thomas Wyman and I

01:24:31.000 --> 01:24:43.000
In that termination of that resource, the county was completely at risk for all of that. So the DOE didn't have any share in that. So

01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:49.000
We kept all the proceeds of the settlement funds and put it into the reserves.

01:24:49.000 --> 01:24:57.000
Because there was no chi this here it's a you know similar but

01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:08.000
Quite larger energy supply agreement than we had in the past and there's risk to the county and I think here

01:25:08.000 --> 01:25:22.000
No, and it's a renewable project that meets all our goals and we just wanted some assurance they'd be taking this energy or have the option to take the energy if they choose to walk away. Yeah, okay.

01:25:22.000 --> 01:25:38.000
It's a risk mitigation. This is not perfect by any means. This is just risk-free approach to the future, right? I'm with you on that. It's just a… it's setting the business framework. Should we terminate, we have some pathways to explore

01:25:38.000 --> 01:25:45.000
And that it was contemplated here. So, as Seth mentioned, when he goes to make a claim to the

01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:55.000
office in DC that we, you know, there was some intention here and that's about the best we could frame up. Yeah.

01:25:55.000 --> 01:26:00.000
No, that's all good, but, you know, we're reading through it now, and

01:26:00.000 --> 01:26:05.000
And I'm conscious of the fact that there is a deadline, so I just want to make sure that the words like

01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:17.000
That I understand, at least that I understand the words. Yeah, and, you know, universe is the reverse. That was an energy supplier that canceled, so… Yeah. But if the DOE had canceled

01:26:17.000 --> 01:26:24.000
We wouldn't have had any recourse either on that in that case. Yeah, no, I get that.

01:26:24.000 --> 01:26:27.000
So could we go into to three? So

01:26:27.000 --> 01:26:35.000
you know, then the first paragraph says, okay, yes, parties use the operating committee to do smart things, that's good.

01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:38.000
and then they should document

01:26:38.000 --> 01:26:41.000
all of these things that all makes

01:26:41.000 --> 01:26:49.000
Good sense to me. Then the paragraph after that, after H.

01:26:49.000 --> 01:26:53.000
The allocation for each resource

01:26:53.000 --> 01:27:05.000
shall be based on the requirements, expected benefits and the 80%. This all this all reads because so maybe, Seth, you could explain this to me. This all reads in case of termination

01:27:05.000 --> 01:27:09.000
These things apply. Is that what that passage really means?

01:27:09.000 --> 01:27:13.000
If you go to number five

01:27:13.000 --> 01:27:15.000
That's where we get to

01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:18.000
What you're looking for, I think

01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:28.000
Okay, well, I just wanted to know what that paragraph actually means. Does it mean anything in like what's the

01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:29.000
Yeah

01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:30.000
What's the intent of that paragraph back in 3? Sorry.

01:27:30.000 --> 01:27:31.000
Back in through the allocation for each

01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:32.000
Yeah.

01:27:32.000 --> 01:27:33.000
I think

01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:35.000
What are we signing up for with that paragraph, I guess

01:27:35.000 --> 01:27:41.000
I think this is what the power

01:27:41.000 --> 01:27:44.000
Who does anyway

01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:56.000
that this is already basically what you're doing. You're kind of, as you're signing up for things, and it becomes part of the power pool, you're deciding what is the percentage that's allocated to

01:27:56.000 --> 01:27:59.000
And then say

01:27:59.000 --> 01:28:08.000
So in the future, if Ben and team find a great new geothermal resource someplace

01:28:08.000 --> 01:28:14.000
Then the power pool can discuss

01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:15.000
Yeah.

01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:16.000
Exactly.

01:28:16.000 --> 01:28:22.000
what the allocation should be, and chances are high. If it's reasonable, it'll still be 80%. But anyway

01:28:22.000 --> 01:28:23.000
Okay.

01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:33.000
Yeah, and that will go into whether the county decides to purchase it or not as well. You know, all those different things, you know, as you're kind of going forward. And what's funny is I went through the same things. I was reading this

01:28:33.000 --> 01:28:57.000
You know, for the first time yesterday, trying to go through and say we're, you know, you're basically, as Ben said, these are kind of background things. These are things that are that the committee's supposed to do, but I think whoever wrote it was trying to lay the framework for

01:28:57.000 --> 01:28:58.000
Okay.

01:28:58.000 --> 01:28:59.000
Basically, paragraph 5 on this whole thing and trying to restate what they think that the power pool is going to be doing.

01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:05.000
And so just, all right, let's move on to four then. So four is again more background. Basically.

01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:09.000
It just says things that are not, I mean, there's nothing.

01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:11.000
I don't think

01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:15.000
These are all things that I think, and Ben, correct me if I'm wrong, these are things that the power pool is doing and

01:29:15.000 --> 01:29:18.000
Yeah, as you're as you're moving forward anyway, right?

01:29:18.000 --> 01:29:22.000
That's correct. These are restatements of

01:29:22.000 --> 01:29:30.000
General practices of the operating committee as already described elsewhere in the package.

01:29:30.000 --> 01:29:46.000
Are there any analogous statements that one would want? I'm not arguing necessarily to do this, but this is all written from the perspective of the federal government, right? Are there any analogous statements that the county should have in there for its, I mean God knows I don't want to add more words, right? But

01:29:46.000 --> 01:29:53.000
Is there anything that the county should have in there to protect its interests in this?

01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:59.000
So we had added some yesterday. Some of them made it in, but the most important one that made it in

01:29:59.000 --> 01:30:10.000
is at the bottom of seven that basically says nothing here requires Los Alamos County to assign or take any action to relinquish a power resource to the government

01:30:10.000 --> 01:30:15.000
So once again, if there's a termination

01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:16.000
of this

01:30:16.000 --> 01:30:25.000
Contract, and then we decide there's value in that existing resource. We don't have to sell it to them.

01:30:25.000 --> 01:30:32.000
Okay, can we just go back to five? I'm sorry to be so

01:30:32.000 --> 01:30:33.000
That's good.

01:30:33.000 --> 01:30:42.000
Pedantic about this, but I just like this. Let's go through it. So you said a lot of one through four was all background to get us to five. So let's walk through five.

01:30:42.000 --> 01:30:49.000
So what are we committing to in five?

01:30:49.000 --> 01:30:50.000
What is everybody committing to? I guess is the right way to say it. What's

01:30:50.000 --> 01:31:04.000
So this goes back and it's pretty much, and I'm sorry for not being on camera as well, so take that off. Some reading from my screen. So basically, if

01:31:04.000 --> 01:31:19.000
You know NSA decides to terminate either partially or fully as they go forward that the parties will cooperate to minimize

01:31:19.000 --> 01:31:21.000
the financial impact

01:31:21.000 --> 01:31:33.000
of the government's exercise of its rights. So this is saying they'll work with us on this particular issues. We'll both consider reasonable mitigation costs

01:31:33.000 --> 01:31:42.000
Including reallocation, sale, all those types of things. The objective is to protect the county and its rate payers.

01:31:42.000 --> 01:31:55.000
From costs attributable to an authorized landhold resource commitment while protecting the government from cost. So, you know, they're trying to say, hey, look, we're both trying to protect our each other or ourselves

01:31:55.000 --> 01:31:58.000
As we go forward, we're both saying that

01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:06.000
And then the credits, basically, that's how termination for convenience is supposed to work anyway

01:32:06.000 --> 01:32:12.000
That we're both trying to avoid these costs and

01:32:12.000 --> 01:32:18.000
You know, any amount considered to be payable by the government shall be based upon

01:32:18.000 --> 01:32:24.000
Unavoidable costs attributed to the government's properly authorized share. This gets to the 80%

01:32:24.000 --> 01:32:25.000
Yeah.

01:32:25.000 --> 01:32:28.000
Piece that we talked about up top. And

01:32:28.000 --> 01:32:35.000
And then after mitigation, which we're required to do under FAR 52 249-2 anyway

01:32:35.000 --> 01:32:42.000
And then no cost shall be recovered more than once. That's once again a part of the FAR

01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:44.000
As we go forward

01:32:44.000 --> 01:32:56.000
And then in 7, this basically goes to, hey, you know, to the extent that we request it. So we added this language to the extent the county request is

01:32:56.000 --> 01:32:59.000
If this contract expires was terminated by the government

01:32:59.000 --> 01:33:12.000
and the government wants to continue to buy a portion of foxtail fats or others, then we'll cooperate to evaluate that. So we don't have to do it

01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:19.000
And then once again, to the extent we request it, we're legally and commercially permissible, the government may consider contracting

01:33:19.000 --> 01:33:23.000
Directly with the resource provider to take over this obligation

01:33:23.000 --> 01:33:32.000
And then, you know, it kind of goes through government, you know, shall seek to do these things that they would want to do if there's a termination.

01:33:32.000 --> 01:33:39.000
And then this says, hey, I know we said all these things, but we're not really binding the government.

01:33:39.000 --> 01:33:49.000
And the government has no requirements, and the county is saying we're not basically we're not required to sell this to you

01:33:49.000 --> 01:33:52.000
We may want to keep it ourselves as well.

01:33:52.000 --> 01:34:03.000
And then they go through their limitation of liability again in eight.

01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:05.000
Which are restatements again.

01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:13.000
Yeah, no obligation to seek appropriations, those types of things. And then how we're going to work together

01:34:13.000 --> 01:34:19.000
And look at these things in the future

01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:29.000
And I think this was the intent of the whole contract anyway. That's kind of what I, this is a very unique contract and one of the pieces that I really like about it is that you have this

01:34:29.000 --> 01:34:45.000
piece where you're working together all the time and that you've got a committee that meets to make decisions that benefits both landlord and the county. That's very unique that this is built in. I think it's a very big positive and I think

01:34:45.000 --> 01:34:59.000
That's what this last section is trying to identify as well.

01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:22.000
So my calls with the Air Force, Navy, and Army, I say over. So maybe I'll start doing that here. So it's not quiet.

01:35:22.000 --> 01:35:25.000
Be done for now, Joey? I think so.

01:35:25.000 --> 01:35:27.000
Thank you.

01:35:27.000 --> 01:35:33.000
Or while you're thinking question

01:35:33.000 --> 01:35:41.000
Page 10. This is the performance work statement, page 10.

01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:51.000
Section 3 below H, that paragraph that begins the allocation for each power resource shall be established based upon the requirements and expected benefits

01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:54.000
associated with that resource

01:35:54.000 --> 01:36:03.000
I'm not sure I understand what that sentence means.

01:36:03.000 --> 01:36:10.000
Does this only apply? Is this only referring to an allocation of the

01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:16.000
Cost of the resource. If we were to split up

01:36:16.000 --> 01:36:23.000
Or is this some more general allocation of resources? I don't understand it.

01:36:23.000 --> 01:36:33.000
Yeah, I think it's that as we look at future resources and we decide whether or not to bring them into the power pool, that there'll be a discussion between

01:36:33.000 --> 01:36:46.000
NSA and the county and you know if it continues along the way it's been continuing will be an 80%, but it could be 50% or it could be 90%, could be 100%.

01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:55.000
You know, those are things that would be worked out as the county and NSA are looking at bringing in future long-term power resources

01:36:55.000 --> 01:37:04.000
And it was just saying, we're not stuck with the 80%. There's… we'll look at each individual case and make that decision.

01:37:04.000 --> 01:37:06.000
But when we're looking at

01:37:06.000 --> 01:37:10.000
power, all the power goes into a pool

01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:17.000
And it gets pulled out, drawn out according to need. So the the

01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:24.000
The allocation of power and the allocation of the associated energy expense

01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:35.000
varies. It's not always 80%, it's somewhere in that range, typically, but that just… that's kind of automatic in how the pool works

01:37:35.000 --> 01:37:42.000
And hence my question as to what this allocation refers to here

01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:57.000
I'll speak to that, Chair Gibson. Sure, I'll give you with an example. We had our uniper contract. There were 2 parts to it. It was a 15 megawatt piece, and that county signed up for that entirely on their own. The DOE did not participate in that resource. Therefore.

01:37:57.000 --> 01:38:14.000
And it was a fairly inexpensive, I believe it was less than $30 a megawatt hour for 15 megawatts for 15 years, I think. The county signed up for that and we got the benefit of that price-wise. It did not get accounted for in the pool cost

01:38:14.000 --> 01:38:30.000
Do not get blended in with other people. It was not an approved resource, I think you're saying. Yes, so that's what this is speaking to. We have the flexibility, and we retain that flexibility to address new resources as needed. And again, the second piece of Uniper was a 25 megawatt block

01:38:30.000 --> 01:38:37.000
the DOE was able to participate in that. So the cost of that were blended in for the pool

01:38:37.000 --> 01:38:50.000
So we've done it in the past and we expect to be able to do that in the future. So when something new comes down the line and let's say it becomes an approved resource, a new Uniper or whatever.

01:38:50.000 --> 01:39:05.000
Then, at that point, you would put it into the… it would basically be a mod to the contract. Something like that. You would say, okay, now we have a new approved resource, and we've agreed the allocation is, let's say, 80-20.

01:39:05.000 --> 01:39:11.000
And therefore, then, that would be binding in these senses

01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:31.000
Until, you know, some future possible termination, something like that, right? Is that how this would work? Chair member Nakley? That's correct. So that's defined. It's it's paraphrased here in section what's it 3 itself, those stepwise process, and it's described in the performance work statement as well

01:39:31.000 --> 01:39:50.000
How we do that, starting with the operating committee, myself, the operating operations manager, looking for new resources, presenting them to the operating committee for consideration, a decision by the operating committee, whether they proceed or not, and how to proceed, what the allocations will be, and then going through the appropriate contracting offices, whether it's the

01:39:50.000 --> 01:39:58.000
DOE and NSA contracting officer and or representative and the county side through the Board of Public Utilities and County Council

01:39:58.000 --> 01:40:04.000
So that whole process is always there. Okay.

01:40:04.000 --> 01:40:16.000
Okay, thanks.

01:40:16.000 --> 01:40:20.000
Does that conclude your presentation, Ben?

01:40:20.000 --> 01:40:31.000
That is, as I mentioned, that's all the changes that I wanted to bring up. Okay. So that's unless there's more questions, I

01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:38.000
I think we ever let him get to his presentation. There was no formal presentation slides to go with.

01:40:38.000 --> 01:40:40.000
Okay, well

01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:47.000
Or to prepare slides when you only get this at 4 o'clock in the afternoon

01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:49.000
Let's see

01:40:49.000 --> 01:40:57.000
I've got a couple questions

01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:02.000
Or either questions or comments on the staff report

01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:04.000
The

01:41:04.000 --> 01:41:07.000
The statement is made

01:41:07.000 --> 01:41:15.000
That much effort has gone into making this new ECA into a foundation for a balanced partnership

01:41:15.000 --> 01:41:19.000
between DOE and NSA and the county

01:41:19.000 --> 01:41:34.000
and I'm wondering how you call this a balanced partnership when it is not structured that way. It's structured as a buyer, vendor or buyer seller partnership. That's the way DOE insists on doing it

01:41:34.000 --> 01:41:36.000
And you see that

01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:43.000
All the way through, you know, DOE writes the rules and the county is expected to live by them.

01:41:43.000 --> 01:41:53.000
If we… if we sign the agreement, how do you call this a balanced partnership? It's one of the most asymmetric things I think I've ever seen.

01:41:53.000 --> 01:42:12.000
Sure. Well, I, as the operations manager, I work closely with the DOE contracting office representative. I work with LANL staff and utilities on a daily basis, you know, planning out strategically tactical decisions, daily decisions, hourly decisions, and so from my perspective.

01:42:12.000 --> 01:42:16.000
This contract supports all those functions working collaboratively

01:42:16.000 --> 01:42:32.000
Now, structure-wise, as Mr. Kirshenberg referenced or mentioned, we are the DOE has imposed certain restrictions on what they are able to do and what they believe they're able to do from a contracting perspective. And Mr. Kirchenberg can speak more to

01:42:32.000 --> 01:42:34.000
But from my perspective.

01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:49.000
I believe that all of the pieces that are built into here do speak to this partnership, even if we can't necessarily have an equal, fully equal partnership from the standpoint of that the county has the exact same

01:42:49.000 --> 01:43:03.000
rights and privileges as the DOE. I believe that's the nature of any contract with the government that you typically would get. And Mr. Kirchenberg, you can add in here from your experience if you have anything to add.

01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:07.000
And Philo as well

01:43:07.000 --> 01:43:16.000
Yeah, I don't necessarily have anything else to add. Yeah, I will say once again that you do have a unique piece that

01:43:16.000 --> 01:43:30.000
causes the county and NSA to work together and work collectively throughout the whole term. That's unusual and I think it's a big positive

01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:48.000
And the only thing else I'll add is, you know, on the we didn't go over paragraph 9. I mean, this was the last paragraph of the four pages inserted was, you know, the DOE wrote this and they, you know wrote the mutual benefit and future application paragraph, but

01:43:48.000 --> 01:43:57.000
You know, it's basically saying we're going to work together to to find resources and

01:43:57.000 --> 01:44:02.000
that are economical, reliable, advantageous. That's

01:44:02.000 --> 01:44:09.000
They added that. They didn't have to put that in.

01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:13.000
My sense, for what it's worth, is that

01:44:13.000 --> 01:44:19.000
I do believe that the NNSA slash DOE has

01:44:19.000 --> 01:44:35.000
has tried and is negotiating in good faith to try to get a good agreement within the constraints, I will say within the constraints as they perceive them to be. And but those constraints are, as Robert points out, like quite asymmetric

01:44:35.000 --> 01:44:45.000
You know, I don't think the county has a termination for convenience clause, right? I mean, I suppose we could invent one probably, but you know, so those aren't quite

01:44:45.000 --> 01:44:49.000
quite asymmetric

01:44:49.000 --> 01:44:53.000
But I do believe that

01:44:53.000 --> 01:44:59.000
There's a lot of work to try to get to a positive, mutually beneficial agreement, right?

01:44:59.000 --> 01:45:02.000
I do. I do think one thing is, though, that

01:45:02.000 --> 01:45:26.000
You know, Utilities used to be super boring. Government contracts used to be super boring. Nothing's boring anymore. I would love a little more boring, you know, on occasion, right? So, you know, it's hard to look into the future. How many times did you read through this? Gosh, doesn't it get boring? I mean, boring is different. I guess boring kids in the eyes of Boulder. Maybe as I get older, less things are boring too.

01:45:26.000 --> 01:45:36.000
Yeah, so I think that is part of the challenge in trying to think through this.

01:45:36.000 --> 01:45:43.000
Continuing comments on the staff report. This is just a comment.

01:45:43.000 --> 01:45:57.000
The next paragraph in the staff report talks about there were 67 review comments were identified by these reviewers. This is the first review back at Christmas time last year.

01:45:57.000 --> 01:46:01.000
says every one of the 67 comments has been addressed.

01:46:01.000 --> 01:46:14.000
That shouldn't be interpreted as favorably resolved. I mean, as is true of most any negotiation, you don't get everything you want. But the fact that it's addressed doesn't mean

01:46:14.000 --> 01:46:21.000
addressed the way we'd like it to be. Some cases, in many cases, they just said DOE said, we can't do that

01:46:21.000 --> 01:46:32.000
Which is… and left it at that.

01:46:32.000 --> 01:46:34.000
And

01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:43.000
Item 5 in that listing there says contracting office and field office staff were deeply involved throughout the review

01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:53.000
process and coordinated effort with DPU staff, the effort was essential for working through difficult contracting issues to the satisfaction of both parties.

01:46:53.000 --> 01:46:56.000
The problem here is

01:46:56.000 --> 01:47:01.000
DPU's not the policymaker on the county side.

01:47:01.000 --> 01:47:06.000
They're an intermediary really done a lot of the work

01:47:06.000 --> 01:47:15.000
But the parties are the county and DOE. And the county is represented by the council and the board.

01:47:15.000 --> 01:47:17.000
And

01:47:17.000 --> 01:47:30.000
that you know we're trying to decide whether this meets is satisfactory to to this side of the of those both parties

01:47:30.000 --> 01:47:37.000
So let's keep straight who the parties are here

01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:41.000
And

01:47:41.000 --> 01:47:49.000
That's all I had on that part of the staff report.

01:47:49.000 --> 01:47:51.000
I'll ask

01:47:51.000 --> 01:47:54.000
Or more likely philo

01:47:54.000 --> 01:47:58.000
The staff report has a recommended action that we approve this.

01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:02.000
But that recommendation was made before we even had it

01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:09.000
So is that still your recommendation based on what you got at 4 o'clock this afternoon?

01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:16.000
Because I don't think I don't think you had a basis to make this recommendation

01:48:16.000 --> 01:48:21.000
when you made it. So I'm asking about now. Yes, Chair

01:48:21.000 --> 01:48:34.000
That's why I wanted you know I had outlined that even over the weekend we knew we were getting close on the negotiation, and we were getting to a break point where we said we think we got it.

01:48:34.000 --> 01:48:43.000
The language is, yes, there's a little back and forth towards the end to get there, to get over the finish line.

01:48:43.000 --> 01:48:59.000
I think Ben and I recommendation is, yes, we need to move forward with this. Now, I realize you need time to consider it. I do appreciate the board deliberating on the 4 pages, because that was the bulk of the changes

01:48:59.000 --> 01:49:14.000
And then obviously there's some FAR language added that we pointed out that gave us this ability to make this insert into the document. I think while it's not perfect.

01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:31.000
provides some risk mitigation based on our current power purchase agreements and gives us a framework to move forward on future power purchase agreements. So I still recommend we

01:49:31.000 --> 01:49:36.000
Move forward with, you know, I'd recommend approval of this as

01:49:36.000 --> 01:49:40.000
changed here at 4 o'clock today.

01:49:40.000 --> 01:49:49.000
Okay, thank you.

01:49:49.000 --> 01:49:51.000
Ben, here's

01:49:51.000 --> 01:49:56.000
question that's a little separate from some of the others. I just happened to find it in my my notes here

01:49:56.000 --> 01:50:02.000
What is approximately or maybe you have it exactly, our total obligation

01:50:02.000 --> 01:50:08.000
Over the 20 years for Foxtail Flats. And our total obligation

01:50:08.000 --> 01:50:12.000
For the life of the plant, the Laramie River

01:50:12.000 --> 01:50:25.000
What are we at risk for? Lower Mary River runs around $2.5 million a year, and we have a life of the plant agreement with that, which is expected to be through 2042.

01:50:25.000 --> 01:50:32.000
I haven't done the math on it, but I see you writing there, so almost 20 years, 2 million

01:50:32.000 --> 01:50:34.000
Okay.

01:50:34.000 --> 01:50:41.000
And then Foxtail Flats is approximately just under $25 million a year between the PV and the

01:50:41.000 --> 01:50:43.000
Energy storage

01:50:43.000 --> 01:50:48.000
contracts for 20 years. Okay, so that's 500 million

01:50:48.000 --> 01:50:53.000
I think it actually comes out if you math it out to like 480 million or something like that

01:50:53.000 --> 01:51:04.000
Okay, what's 20 million between friends here? All around. And Laramie River over 15 years approximately 16 years

01:51:04.000 --> 01:51:11.000
is going to be something a little less than 20 million

01:51:11.000 --> 01:51:17.000
Now, let's see. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Wrong.

01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:22.000
2.5 million by 1625. It was about 40 million, I guess.

01:51:22.000 --> 01:51:36.000
Avoiding the order that… that makes up some of the 20 million difference. Okay, it's a half a billion dollars is what we're at risk for. Now, the reality is, worst case, if DOE walked away

01:51:36.000 --> 01:51:45.000
We could sell that power. We might even make money on it, but we also could lose it. We're at risk.

01:51:45.000 --> 01:51:51.000
So the risk isn't $500 million dollars, but it

01:51:51.000 --> 01:51:53.000
It's significant

01:51:53.000 --> 01:52:06.000
Okay. I guess if we… sorry, just thinking it through, really, obviously, just to be obvious, it seems like if we don't approve it, and the county doesn't approve it and elapses, then we realize the risk right straight away, more or less, right?

01:52:06.000 --> 01:52:15.000
Yes.

01:52:15.000 --> 01:52:20.000
Do we have other questions right now for

01:52:20.000 --> 01:52:22.000
Staff

01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:35.000
Sure, we'll ask them as they come up further, but we have to figure out what we're going to try to do here.

01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:38.000
If I don't see any

01:52:38.000 --> 01:52:43.000
Then I guess the first question to the board is

01:52:43.000 --> 01:52:49.000
Do we even want to attempt to make a substantive decision on this tonight?

01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:59.000
Or would people like to actually read it and try to absorb it and try to understand it, in which case would undoubtedly have more questions

01:52:59.000 --> 01:53:04.000
The recognizing that the current

01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:07.000
deadline really is

01:53:07.000 --> 01:53:09.000
It's the end of this month

01:53:09.000 --> 01:53:16.000
Council meeting is next Tuesday night. They need to if we're going to

01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:26.000
Approve. We need to do something with that, or if we're going to say, hey, we need more time, we need an extension. We need to

01:53:26.000 --> 01:53:41.000
We need to request that because DOE has to issue it. We can't request the extension, DOE has to do it. And we know they can do it quickly in spite of what they said last month. Gee, when they wanted to do it, they did it the next day.

01:53:41.000 --> 01:53:52.000
And no, they don't want to do an extension into September because it's inconvenient for them. Of course, they don't consider us in all of this, which is part of the asymmetry of this whole thing.

01:53:52.000 --> 01:53:57.000
So let's think this through for a second then

01:53:57.000 --> 01:54:05.000
Council meets Tuesday. If we decide we want to have a 24 h or something to

01:54:05.000 --> 01:54:10.000
to read it, we still have to approve it before it goes to Council, right?

01:54:10.000 --> 01:54:29.000
So what's like the… if we were to do an emergency meeting or a special meeting and we still have to get out the notification, whatever, 72 hours ahead of hours. So could we even we couldn't even do a meeting on Friday, right? Like that's not doable, right? The meeting

01:54:29.000 --> 01:54:34.000
Can we recess this meeting and still meet?

01:54:34.000 --> 01:54:40.000
sooner than 72 hours.

01:54:40.000 --> 01:54:51.000
We do with budget hearings like that.

01:54:51.000 --> 01:54:57.000
Well, she's looking at the legal side of this. Let's ask the practical question about availability

01:54:57.000 --> 01:55:01.000
Friday or Monday

01:55:01.000 --> 01:55:04.000
those being basically the only options

01:55:04.000 --> 01:55:05.000
However

01:55:05.000 --> 01:55:08.000
How inconvenient is it for people?

01:55:08.000 --> 01:55:19.000
I knew I'm on travel. Sorry. Monday's out for me, so Friday I could do I could do Friday afternoon slash but not the my morning's shot.

01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:26.000
Okay.

01:55:26.000 --> 01:55:29.000
I can do Friday.

01:55:29.000 --> 01:55:32.000
You can do Friday anytime

01:55:32.000 --> 01:55:35.000
Pretty much, yeah.

01:55:35.000 --> 01:55:37.000
Are you online then or are you back

01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:42.000
No, I'm gonna… I'm still gonna be at Oak Ridge on Friday.

01:55:42.000 --> 01:55:48.000
Okay. And I see Juan has his hand up. Juan.

01:55:48.000 --> 01:55:54.000
Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to add to the discussion. There was a question about

01:55:54.000 --> 01:56:04.000
When we could add this item to the agenda for Tuesday. And we will publish that agenda Friday afternoon, preferably around 3 ish

01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:16.000
But no later than 5ish, just so if if the board does hold a meeting and that action is taken, we can prepare the item as if

01:56:16.000 --> 01:56:25.000
The item is going to go on Tuesday, but we would just really need to have that by at least 3 o'clock, if possible. So I just wanted to add that just for the board's discussion

01:56:25.000 --> 01:56:34.000
But am I correct that all you really have to have legally on the agenda is the item. It doesn't have to have

01:56:34.000 --> 01:56:39.000
The supporting documentation. It doesn't have to have the

01:56:39.000 --> 01:56:47.000
It doesn't have to at that point have the board's recommendation. It just has to be listed as an item on the agenda. I think that's the case.

01:56:47.000 --> 01:56:58.000
Jared Gibson, I do seem to recall the exact same way. And then if there is attachments, those could be

01:56:58.000 --> 01:57:05.000
added later or by we refer to them as green sheets on the dais and then we issue those out to the press prior to the meeting on Tuesday

01:57:05.000 --> 01:57:13.000
So we have some flexibility. Yes, it'd be nice to have things done before it goes into the council's agenda package.

01:57:13.000 --> 01:57:15.000
But

01:57:15.000 --> 01:57:18.000
We have to

01:57:18.000 --> 01:57:20.000
It'd be nice.

01:57:20.000 --> 01:57:23.000
We may or may not make that

01:57:23.000 --> 01:57:29.000
So you're available Friday afternoon. Yeah. You're available Friday.

01:57:29.000 --> 01:57:42.000
I'm available Friday. Eric's available Friday. So it sounds like if we can recess this meeting and reconvene Friday afternoon, is that legitimate?

01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:56.000
Mr. Chair, the board could recess and reconvene if they announce during this meeting the exact date, time, and place for the reconvene meeting. Okay.

01:57:56.000 --> 01:57:59.000
Let's get the easy part nailed down time

01:57:59.000 --> 01:58:03.000
1 o'clock.

01:58:03.000 --> 01:58:06.000
Just throwing… and Eric, you might be the one most constrained here.

01:58:06.000 --> 01:58:09.000
No, that's fine, because that's 3 o'clock my time. I'm okay.

01:58:09.000 --> 01:58:14.000
Right. One o'clock, I can do one o'clock. Okay. And

01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:21.000
Can we talk about maybe a little earlier? That way we can get the packet to the council

01:58:21.000 --> 01:58:37.000
I got meetings up till noon. Okay, noon. Okay, well, I think you got your answer there. Sorry. I'm just asking just a good question. And we also ought to try to contact Jen and see if she is available Friday

01:58:37.000 --> 01:58:51.000
She wasn't available tonight, and I don't know whether she'd be available Friday, but we had asked. We'll ask. I think we go ahead anyway. I'd certainly like to have as many people on board for this as we can

01:58:51.000 --> 01:58:58.000
If she is available

01:58:58.000 --> 01:59:01.000
Will the video be available

01:59:01.000 --> 01:59:08.000
In a timely manner. That she could if she has time, look at the video of this discussion before.

01:59:08.000 --> 01:59:24.000
Pardon? It would probably be available tomorrow morning. It has to have time to render. Zoom is usually available first. So I could send her the link for the Zoom. So there are options if she's even available to hear. Yeah.

01:59:24.000 --> 01:59:28.000
Yeah, would be okay.

01:59:28.000 --> 01:59:43.000
I think in terms of place, do we have to say anything beyond the county building? Because I don't know what room unless Kathy can look at I'm looking right now. Oh, okay. We'll give you time to look then.

01:59:43.000 --> 01:59:55.000
Yes, Mr. Chair, I recommend that it has specificity to the location because the intent is that members of the public who want to listen and

01:59:55.000 --> 02:00:07.000
Listen to the deliberations of BPU with regard to this item will have the opportunity to do that and they'll know exactly where to go. So it has to be announced in this meeting and then we have to immediately post

02:00:07.000 --> 02:00:12.000
that information in a conspicuous location as soon as this meeting is recessed.

02:00:12.000 --> 02:00:15.000
Okay.

02:00:15.000 --> 02:00:29.000
Okay, well, we'll let Kathy work on that. Back to formalities here. So if we just take no action on this right now, and then at the end of the meeting we recess the meeting instead of adjourn it.

02:00:29.000 --> 02:00:34.000
and to one o'clock Friday afternoon at such and such a place. Does that

02:00:34.000 --> 02:00:40.000
Accomplish what we're trying to accomplish here. Yes, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you.

02:00:40.000 --> 02:00:45.000
I have two locations available Friday. We have

02:00:45.000 --> 02:00:50.000
Actually, the DPU conference room is available.

02:00:50.000 --> 02:00:57.000
And… let me check one other conference room. I thought 3.30 was available, but it is not.

02:00:57.000 --> 02:01:07.000
Chambers is not available. No. Well, I don't have access to that calendar. I'd have to check in the morning. Oh, it's chambers and and

02:01:07.000 --> 02:01:10.000
B and C are only scheduled

02:01:10.000 --> 02:01:15.000
By reservation because they're open to the public as well.

02:01:15.000 --> 02:01:26.000
Hmm, because this would be the best room to do it, but we have to specify tonight where it's going to be

02:01:26.000 --> 02:01:29.000
And we have video

02:01:29.000 --> 02:01:31.000
Zoom capability

02:01:31.000 --> 02:01:41.000
in the DPU conference room. Not we wouldn't have the Granicus, but we have the Zoom

02:01:41.000 --> 02:01:56.000
That's probably the best location, because room 330 is not available. And that's the only other one that has Zoom and Granicus. Well, it doesn't have Granicus, just Zoom. Does that cause any issues if someone from the public wants to actually physically show up or not? Well, no.

02:01:56.000 --> 02:01:59.000
They can come in.

02:01:59.000 --> 02:02:00.000
Question

02:02:00.000 --> 02:02:02.000
If we

02:02:02.000 --> 02:02:08.000
recess tonight to one o'clock Friday at the Dpu conference room

02:02:08.000 --> 02:02:15.000
And this is available. Can we put a sign up that says the meeting is moved to here?

02:02:15.000 --> 02:02:23.000
Is that legit?

02:02:23.000 --> 02:02:33.000
Mr. Chair, I believe the meeting could be moved if you post, but it would have to be clearly posted and think someone would need to be

02:02:33.000 --> 02:02:43.000
available at least at the beginning of the meeting at that location to direct individuals to this location. Someone would have to be there, you saw? That's my recommendation.

02:02:43.000 --> 02:02:52.000
Okay. More than just a sign. So I was thinking because I've seen signs up front where people come in and say, the meeting has moved to this

02:02:52.000 --> 02:03:06.000
Blaze or that place? Yeah, I think posting is what the law requires, but the recommendation would be to ensure that the public could find the meeting in the event that it's okay. So we have with a little effort. We have some flexibility there, too.

02:03:06.000 --> 02:03:09.000
Okay.

02:03:09.000 --> 02:03:20.000
Is that okay with everyone? No. I'd like to just think about

02:03:20.000 --> 02:03:26.000
If proposed, I mean, I think we've been talking about could we? And I want to ask, should we? I think we shouldn't

02:03:26.000 --> 02:03:28.000
table this.

02:03:28.000 --> 02:03:31.000
Because I think

02:03:31.000 --> 02:03:39.000
Through going through and reviewing it tonight, I feel comfortable. I mean, I think my responsibility is to make sure we're better off with the contract. I think we are.

02:03:39.000 --> 02:03:56.000
I think making sure that showstoppers have been addressed, and I think we've done that over the last eight months or more, we've identified showstoppers, we've worked through them. And I think we need to make sure we're mitigating our risks. And I think what we reviewed tonight convinced me that we've got reasonable risk mitigations in there

02:03:56.000 --> 02:03:58.000
And

02:03:58.000 --> 02:03:59.000
That's

02:03:59.000 --> 02:04:15.000
My understanding of our responsibility. I feel personally like I would like to understand it more, but I think I recognize that I would have to go to law school. I would have to get utility manager experience. I would need all of Ben's experience. And so at some point we need to really rely on these guys and the team and the work

02:04:15.000 --> 02:04:27.000
And I feel like the time is now. And I think if we tabled it until Friday, what would change? We might understand it a little bit better, but I don't think their recommendation is going to change.

02:04:27.000 --> 02:04:30.000
And I don't think

02:04:30.000 --> 02:04:37.000
you know, sort of playing through if we did that, what would happen, then we decide not to go forward with this contract.

02:04:37.000 --> 02:04:39.000
We need an extent from DOE

02:04:39.000 --> 02:04:44.000
We need another special meeting before September 1st to approve that

02:04:44.000 --> 02:04:55.000
And I just don't feel like that's in the country, in the counties or the utilities best interest. So I feel like personally, the contract is in our best interest. We've identified and mitigated risks

02:04:55.000 --> 02:05:08.000
And I think we've addressed the showstoppers that are in here. So I don't see what two additional days of time would provide me as a board member that would change my analysis of that.

02:05:08.000 --> 02:05:10.000
So that's

02:05:10.000 --> 02:05:15.000
Where I think the board should go. Thank you.

02:05:15.000 --> 02:05:32.000
Can I ask you a question, Matt? Is that legitimate? I'm going to do it anyway. You just did. You already asked me. Oh, I did, of course. And yes, it's all good. Because I'm kind of I'm torn, right? I'm sympathetic to everything you just said

02:05:32.000 --> 02:05:34.000
I'm also sympathetic to

02:05:34.000 --> 02:05:41.000
trying to go through… I'm really glad we went through the four pages in some detail, so that's… that's good, too.

02:05:41.000 --> 02:05:56.000
Yeah, and I really don't have like a great answer to your question. What are we going to learn in the next day and a half, right? Especially just at home because we can't talk to each other and stuff like that. I'm just going to be sitting. We can't talk to staff. We can talk to staff. That's actually a great point

02:05:56.000 --> 02:06:03.000
I guess one question I'd like to get your take on or everybody's take on is, have we done

02:06:03.000 --> 02:06:18.000
We have to do appropriate sort of staff work ourselves for council, because Robert made the point quite rightly that you know the way this works is now Dpu and and say have negotiated something, and it's up to us

02:06:18.000 --> 02:06:34.000
To go put our due diligence and take on it and then report out to Council. So in effect, you know we're doing staff work for Council. Have we done adequate? Do we have enough to do to say, No, we've really done adequate staff work for council, because I think they're relying on us

02:06:34.000 --> 02:06:42.000
Pretty heavily in their approval. And that's what I'm wrestling with. I don't have a great answer to either of them.

02:06:42.000 --> 02:06:53.000
I think that's a good question. And I don't know how I would measure, what's the metric to say yes, we have, but how do we know? And so maybe I don't know if Ryn.

02:06:53.000 --> 02:07:06.000
Have we done our… have we done enough for you? You're our customer. No, that's our customers are the people that we supply power to. Right

02:07:06.000 --> 02:07:16.000
You've been working on this for four years. No, we haven't. Staff has. Staff has.

02:07:16.000 --> 02:07:19.000
I would agree with Matt.

02:07:19.000 --> 02:07:22.000
It seems

02:07:22.000 --> 02:07:31.000
Like you have addressed the changes

02:07:31.000 --> 02:07:34.000
Okay, thank you.

02:07:34.000 --> 02:07:46.000
And to continue the dialogue, I mean, this is the largest contract I've ever gotten to vote on. So we need to do some work. But I do try to say, okay, what are we doing?

02:07:46.000 --> 02:07:50.000
We're better with this contract than without it

02:07:50.000 --> 02:08:02.000
We've identified risks. We've worked with trusted our lawyers to mitigate those. There's no big showstoppers I see. Could it be better? Maybe. Could it be worse? Definitely.

02:08:02.000 --> 02:08:17.000
We're kind of stuck with it. And so I guess maybe this is to be provocative. Maybe what the board needs to consider is a policy that like by 2070 we need to have the county in a position where we could walk away from the ECA. Right now we can't. We're stuck, right? So

02:08:17.000 --> 02:08:21.000
Maybe we need to define some new policy that will get us out of this

02:08:21.000 --> 02:08:29.000
Mess in 10 years and 20 years, something like that. But right now we can't. We have we need this contract.

02:08:29.000 --> 02:08:31.000
And so

02:08:31.000 --> 02:08:37.000
I think we've made the improvements we need to to mitigate the risk.

02:08:37.000 --> 02:08:52.000
Well, one, I don't expect the staff recommendation to change, but that's only a recommendation. We're the ones who make decisions. And we greatly appreciate all the staff work and the staff recommendations, but ultimately

02:08:52.000 --> 02:08:59.000
We're the ones who have to make the decisions. We haven't had time to read this yet

02:08:59.000 --> 02:09:08.000
As we know, there are often errors in things that anyone writes. And certainly there have been many in the

02:09:08.000 --> 02:09:10.000
In the

02:09:10.000 --> 02:09:21.000
the several different drafts of this. So I, for one, am not prepared to approve a contract of this importance. This magnitude, this duration

02:09:21.000 --> 02:09:22.000
That I haven't read yet

02:09:22.000 --> 02:09:28.000
So I couldn't support this tonight.

02:09:28.000 --> 02:09:29.000
the

02:09:29.000 --> 02:09:33.000
We'll see about Friday, but I have to read it first.

02:09:33.000 --> 02:09:40.000
This idea that, I mean, this has been going on from the very beginning, that DOE's been giving us things

02:09:40.000 --> 02:09:45.000
Long after they promised them, right up at the deadline

02:09:45.000 --> 02:09:50.000
I mean, they seem to know when they know what our deadlines are, and we get stuff right then

02:09:50.000 --> 02:09:55.000
And that's what happened again today. We didn't get this until the meeting

02:09:55.000 --> 02:10:02.000
County didn't get it till 4 o'clock. So they didn't have much time to look at it either.

02:10:02.000 --> 02:10:06.000
So I think it's more important that we do it right

02:10:06.000 --> 02:10:10.000
Then we do it fast. And I don't know

02:10:10.000 --> 02:10:21.000
That will necessarily do it any better on Friday. But presumably no worse anyway. So I think we should hold off.

02:10:21.000 --> 02:10:25.000
Continue the discussion Friday afternoon.

02:10:25.000 --> 02:10:36.000
And maybe it won't be a long one, but at least we'll have had a time to sleep on it.

02:10:36.000 --> 02:10:39.000
I don't see Mr. Stromberg saying anything

02:10:39.000 --> 02:10:51.000
Well, okay, so I agree with all of you, which is which is which really means that I agree with Mr. Knockley that saying I'm torn

02:10:51.000 --> 02:11:07.000
Because I don't know that, I mean, I appreciate what Matt said, and I think that I don't know what we can really do. It seems like we're backed into a corner and if we came up with something on Friday

02:11:07.000 --> 02:11:25.000
Would legal actually go to DOE and suggest changes? Would DOE accept them? I mean, we're kind of backed up against a wall and it's not good. It's not a comfortable position to be in, but

02:11:25.000 --> 02:11:31.000
You know, trusting our legal, I'm kind of agreeing with Matt. I don't know what else we can do.

02:11:31.000 --> 02:11:37.000
But I'm willing to wait till Friday

02:11:37.000 --> 02:11:57.000
Well, Matt, if you feel strongly you can make a motion and see if you get a second. I'll make a motion. I move that the Board of Public Utilities recommend Council approve the electrical coordination Agreement between the incorporated County of Los Alamos and the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration and forward to Council for approval

02:11:57.000 --> 02:12:03.000
Is there a second?

02:12:03.000 --> 02:12:06.000
I'll second it.

02:12:06.000 --> 02:12:18.000
Okay

02:12:18.000 --> 02:12:23.000
Is there a motion to table?

02:12:23.000 --> 02:12:37.000
Can we have some discussion on the motion? Yes, Mr. Chair, you have a motion on the floor, so I believe that needs to be voted on before a second motion can be made. Well, a motion to table them can be made

02:12:37.000 --> 02:12:42.000
the motion to table is not debatable, so if there's going to be discussion

02:12:42.000 --> 02:12:44.000
needs to be before a motions made

02:12:44.000 --> 02:12:48.000
Is that correct?

02:12:48.000 --> 02:12:56.000
I mean, what's the point of having a motion to table if you can't make it?

02:12:56.000 --> 02:13:04.000
Mr. I believe the motion to table should have been made before motion on an action item was

02:13:04.000 --> 02:13:05.000
What's the need

02:13:05.000 --> 02:13:20.000
But there was nothing to table at that point. The motion that has just been made that it would be the subject of tabling. Before that we were talking about recessing the meeting and continuing the discussion later

02:13:20.000 --> 02:13:25.000
But now we have a motion on the floor.

02:13:25.000 --> 02:13:32.000
So just for clarification, you're asking if the discussion and action on the

02:13:32.000 --> 02:13:41.000
Motion that was made can be tabled to a future time, not the action item on the agenda.

02:13:41.000 --> 02:13:45.000
We're discussing the motion now, yes.

02:13:45.000 --> 02:13:49.000
So that, I believe, can be tabled

02:13:49.000 --> 02:13:52.000
Is that correct?

02:13:52.000 --> 02:14:01.000
That's really unusual procedural issue that I've never encountered.

02:14:01.000 --> 02:14:11.000
I'd like to invoke my right to terminate for convenience. Just thought I would try it out.

02:14:11.000 --> 02:14:20.000
What are you terminating? Confused by that everywhere

02:14:20.000 --> 02:14:26.000
Let's see here.

02:14:26.000 --> 02:14:31.000
I guess there's actually no

02:14:31.000 --> 02:14:34.000
Requirement

02:14:34.000 --> 02:14:41.000
Let's see the straightforward way to deal with this would be to table the motion.

02:14:41.000 --> 02:14:50.000
If we wanted to table it, if there's a decision to do that.

02:14:50.000 --> 02:14:55.000
If we recess the meeting without taking action, that's a little bit

02:14:55.000 --> 02:15:02.000
It's almost the same thing, but it's done a different way. That would be weird.

02:15:02.000 --> 02:15:13.000
Can we, let's say I'm beyond my competence and Robert's rules here for sure. But let's play this out for a minute. So Matt's made a motion, it's been second. We have a motion in front of us.

02:15:13.000 --> 02:15:23.000
The normal thing to do would be we would discuss the motion, and then have public comment, and then have a vote, right? So suppose

02:15:23.000 --> 02:15:38.000
Just to play it out. If we have a vote and then it's approved, then it's approved. Or now what happens if we have a vote and it's rejected or tied? How does that play out?

02:15:38.000 --> 02:15:51.000
Can we… could we pick it up on Friday, in other words, again, or, like, how does that work? Then there could be a motion for reconsideration. We'd go to another motion, okay. Right. So, if it was turned down tonight

02:15:51.000 --> 02:15:53.000
We could

02:15:53.000 --> 02:15:56.000
Still recess the meeting, meet again on Friday

02:15:56.000 --> 02:15:59.000
One of the folks who voted

02:15:59.000 --> 02:16:03.000
against it, voted on the

02:16:03.000 --> 02:16:17.000
non-prevailing… voted on the prevailing side, excuse me, would have to make a motion for reconsideration. And of course, that motion has to pass and then you can bring the issue back up again. Okay. So we could

02:16:17.000 --> 02:16:19.000
do that route, too

02:16:19.000 --> 02:16:34.000
If it were to fail tonight, if it passes tonight, I guess actually we could do the same thing. We could meet again on Friday and reconsider it. I don't know if anybody has a stomach for that. But there is that option

02:16:34.000 --> 02:16:36.000
Okay. I think

02:16:36.000 --> 02:16:44.000
waiting for our legal beagle here to tell me I'm dead wrong.

02:16:44.000 --> 02:17:02.000
I think the purpose, again, while we're waiting for legal counsel on this one. I mean, the purpose, what we're trying to do here, Matt, I would say, I'm not going to speak for him, but Matt's made a motion to try to test the waters to see is there energy sufficient energy to go ahead and pass it tonight.

02:17:02.000 --> 02:17:04.000
Okay

02:17:04.000 --> 02:17:18.000
I mean, if there's four votes for it or there's three votes for it, then it passes. If there's only two votes for it, it fails. But that does mean we could bring it back Friday for reconsideration. Assuming that we

02:17:18.000 --> 02:17:29.000
Decide tonight we're going to hold a special meeting on Friday with that on the agenda at 1 o'clock, blah blah blah.

02:17:29.000 --> 02:17:48.000
Which is kind of a tenuous way of doing this, but I think it's legitimate.

02:17:48.000 --> 02:18:01.000
Skies are opening up. This is what brings rain, we'll take it. Mr. Chair, under the Robert's rules

02:18:01.000 --> 02:18:11.000
If there's a motion to table the motion. Then it would require a majority vote. Right, yes.

02:18:11.000 --> 02:18:13.000
Yeah.

02:18:13.000 --> 02:18:21.000
A motion to table is a motion and it requires a majority to pass that.

02:18:21.000 --> 02:18:28.000
And that's not debatable. So once that motion is made, we have to then immediately vote on it.

02:18:28.000 --> 02:18:35.000
And you need a second. Still? That's correct. You need a second on motion to table.

02:18:35.000 --> 02:18:40.000
Okay, so have you made a motion to table then? I have not. Okay.

02:18:40.000 --> 02:18:48.000
I'm just trying to figure out what our processes are here because I said, once that motion is made, we can't discuss it. So we have to vote on it.

02:18:48.000 --> 02:18:51.000
So

02:18:51.000 --> 02:18:56.000
But a motion to table then can supersede

02:18:56.000 --> 02:19:04.000
Any discussion on the original motion, or do we have to have the discussion on the original? How does that work? If the motion to table passes

02:19:04.000 --> 02:19:14.000
then the item is table. If it does not pass, then we come back to the original motion, and discussion can continue.

02:19:14.000 --> 02:19:17.000
Is that all correct?

02:19:17.000 --> 02:19:20.000
Yes, that is correct. Okay.

02:19:20.000 --> 02:19:23.000
Okay.

02:19:23.000 --> 02:19:29.000
Then I will make a motion to table the

02:19:29.000 --> 02:19:32.000
the motion to approve the ECA.

02:19:32.000 --> 02:19:34.000
I will second that motion.

02:19:34.000 --> 02:19:35.000
Okay

02:19:35.000 --> 02:19:39.000
So that one we have to vote on.

02:19:39.000 --> 02:19:46.000
So a motion is made to table the discussion of the ECA motion.

02:19:46.000 --> 02:19:51.000
Kathy, would you please call the roll on the motion to table?

02:19:51.000 --> 02:19:53.000
Member Stromberg.

02:19:53.000 --> 02:19:57.000
Yes.

02:19:57.000 --> 02:20:01.000
Member? Yes

02:20:01.000 --> 02:20:03.000
Member Heppner. No

02:20:03.000 --> 02:20:06.000
And Member Gibson. Yes.

02:20:06.000 --> 02:20:11.000
So motion passes 3 to 1. This discussion is tabled.

02:20:11.000 --> 02:20:17.000
and the end of the meeting will announce a recess of the meeting until Friday.

02:20:17.000 --> 02:20:31.000
So therefore, we don't have to make a motion for this Friday meeting. That's correct. This motion when we start the meeting up again, this motion is on the table. It's already on the table. Okay.

02:20:31.000 --> 02:20:34.000
Oof, that was complicated.

02:20:34.000 --> 02:20:40.000
Well, it doesn't happen very often, but

02:20:40.000 --> 02:20:41.000
The

02:20:41.000 --> 02:20:44.000
Okay.

02:20:44.000 --> 02:20:50.000
It's 8 o'clock. We have a bunch of meeting left. What is the

02:20:50.000 --> 02:20:54.000
Pleasure of the board.

02:20:54.000 --> 02:20:57.000
The next item would be the

02:20:57.000 --> 02:21:01.000
The long range water supply plan contract

02:21:01.000 --> 02:21:07.000
Then we'll figure out what we might want to do, if anything, with the Foxteel flats business plan

02:21:07.000 --> 02:21:09.000
Then we have

02:21:09.000 --> 02:21:17.000
Several items of board business, status reports, tickler file, transaction survey report left.

02:21:17.000 --> 02:21:21.000
Let's keep going. Yeah

02:21:21.000 --> 02:21:25.000
Eric, I'm hearing from here that people want to keep going. How about yourself?

02:21:25.000 --> 02:21:27.000
Yeah, we keep going.

02:21:27.000 --> 02:21:29.000
Okay, we'll keep going.

02:21:29.000 --> 02:21:33.000
That takes us then

02:21:33.000 --> 02:21:44.000
No, everybody take a break, deep breath first.

02:21:44.000 --> 02:21:47.000
And then we will move to

02:21:47.000 --> 02:22:01.000
The long range water supply plan contract, which is on page 34 of our agenda doc.

02:22:01.000 --> 02:22:03.000
So this is a

02:22:03.000 --> 02:22:20.000
Recommendation to approve a contract for a long range water supply plan. And that is Mr. Martinez. James, go ahead. Chair and members of the board. I'll be presenting

02:22:20.000 --> 02:22:37.000
The purpose of the 40-year water plan, the strategic update. We would like to proactively just update our long range, the current long range water plan to ensure our long-term community resilience

02:22:37.000 --> 02:22:42.000
So let me continue to the next slide, please

02:22:42.000 --> 02:22:48.000
So, purpose, the need for the long range water plan.

02:22:48.000 --> 02:22:59.000
And the plan will account for any of our combined pool of water rights. We have 5,541.3

02:22:59.000 --> 02:23:05.000
acre feet of groundwater, water right

02:23:05.000 --> 02:23:08.000
It's a 30-70 split with LANO

02:23:08.000 --> 02:23:25.000
Us being the 70%, which includes it's about 3,800 and some change of acre feet of groundwater right, and Llano has, 1,600 and some

02:23:25.000 --> 02:23:29.000
of their acre feet for the Llano groundwater

02:23:29.000 --> 02:23:37.000
In addition, we have 1,200 acre feet of undeveloped San Juan Chama project surface water.

02:23:37.000 --> 02:23:39.000
So

02:23:39.000 --> 02:23:54.000
What we would want to do with this updated plan is we would update the Lannels recent swice which projections show that there's going to be an increase in water consumption

02:23:54.000 --> 02:24:07.000
In addition, we'll also address or we'll also mention the shutdown of our county's highest producing water well due to the groundwater contamination.

02:24:07.000 --> 02:24:14.000
Which we've had to reevaluate our available safe yield

02:24:14.000 --> 02:24:17.000
And then

02:24:17.000 --> 02:24:30.000
the need for the plan also is a prerequisite for us to remain eligible for state funded and infrastructure grants or to request federal funds to

02:24:30.000 --> 02:24:36.000
build hopefully our new water well at Overlook Park

02:24:36.000 --> 02:24:45.000
James, you want to go? The slides. You might have missed advancing one slide. Oh, I'm sorry.

02:24:45.000 --> 02:24:48.000
Did I go

02:24:48.000 --> 02:24:52.000
Was that the one we were on? Yeah, I think we're on probably

02:24:52.000 --> 02:24:54.000
5 now

02:24:54.000 --> 02:24:57.000
Okay.

02:24:57.000 --> 02:25:00.000
Let's see…

02:25:00.000 --> 02:25:14.000
Okay, so quantifying our current water usage and unused water rights. The update updated plan will clearly map out the total water right portfolio

02:25:14.000 --> 02:25:33.000
And active institutional demands and critical regional safety allocations. So the objectives mainly are conduct audit of our current operational water pumping in the county's unused water rights to secure our future expansion. So

02:25:33.000 --> 02:25:47.000
But we got a show to New Mexico Office of State Engineer is we got to demonstrate our current water usage and our proposed future projections

02:25:47.000 --> 02:26:06.000
That is mainly the purpose for the 40 year water plan per the unique school office of state engineer. Furthermore, we'll delineate specifics as such the 188 acre feet that is going to be applied towards the Jemez Mountain Fire Protection

02:26:06.000 --> 02:26:20.000
The emergency reserve. And in that, we also plan to look at what return flow credits that that would be available to us

02:26:20.000 --> 02:26:26.000
So we'll look… we'll look at that with the consultant as well.

02:26:26.000 --> 02:26:42.000
We'll also look at the landlord's future projections for their supercomputing. What is that going to entail? What do we need to account for on that? And like I mentioned

02:26:42.000 --> 02:26:58.000
The consultant will help us look at how we can utilize the San Juan Chamo Water Rights which is the 1,200 acre feet. Next slide.

02:26:58.000 --> 02:27:01.000
So how do we integrate

02:27:01.000 --> 02:27:07.000
the surface water with our groundwater

02:27:07.000 --> 02:27:20.000
So we'll assess the integration of the San Juan Chama Project surface water into our water production system. Right now, we have 1,200 acre feet, but

02:27:20.000 --> 02:27:35.000
What is actually available in recent data, the firm yield has actually dropped down to about 350 to about 400 acre feet, so that's been a reduction of

02:27:35.000 --> 02:27:40.000
Around 40%, roughly.

02:27:40.000 --> 02:27:48.000
So that will be documented and noted in our study here that we're going to plan to do

02:27:48.000 --> 02:28:04.000
Another point is the Rio Grande is fully allocated and heavily appropriated, so the New Mexico Office of State Engineer, will not issue any new water rights. So,

02:28:04.000 --> 02:28:12.000
You know, we would like to look at utilizing our current water right, surface water rights

02:28:12.000 --> 02:28:17.000
At this… at this time.

02:28:17.000 --> 02:28:23.000
Looking, we're also our consultant who is BHI

02:28:23.000 --> 02:28:26.000
We included an optional

02:28:26.000 --> 02:28:32.000
contract service which they would be for them to help us

02:28:32.000 --> 02:28:43.000
file for a formal new point of diversion permit application for the state engineer for the Overlook park well

02:28:43.000 --> 02:28:59.000
They'll assist with doing some hydraulic modeling development and verification to test the system flow. Of course, this, sorry, let me back up. Looking further down the line, should I say

02:28:59.000 --> 02:29:03.000
When we start doing the design of the well.

02:29:03.000 --> 02:29:22.000
Things will need to be looked at such as the hydraulic modeling, verification of the phase to test system to test the system flow, which will include doing, like, a pilot drill and determining what the capacity is

02:29:22.000 --> 02:29:23.000
And then

02:29:23.000 --> 02:29:27.000
Let's see

02:29:27.000 --> 02:29:41.000
Furthermore, investigate the specialized surface water treatment infrastructure. So looking at what type of treatment we may possibly need, being that it's surface water.

02:29:41.000 --> 02:29:42.000
So

02:29:42.000 --> 02:29:49.000
The consultant will also look at things of that sort once we get into the design portion at a later date.

02:29:49.000 --> 02:29:52.000
And then

02:29:52.000 --> 02:30:00.000
We'll also need some assistance with handling any legal and regulatory state water permitting

02:30:00.000 --> 02:30:19.000
For the continuous supply and compliance. So of course, these 3 bullets are further down the line after we have the 40 year water plan that will go more into the design portion of the new well

02:30:19.000 --> 02:30:24.000
Next slide. Next slide.

02:30:24.000 --> 02:30:31.000
Here I put a slide in here of mitigating contamination risk from the contamination plume.

02:30:31.000 --> 02:30:49.000
In the updated plan, we'd want to talk about and document the operational shifts that we've had to do over the years in order to reduce the the water water quality threats to our primary aquifer. So

02:30:49.000 --> 02:31:05.000
you know, the complete shutdown of the Parito Well 3, that was in hopes to stop pulling that plume further south, so we will document that in this updated plan and mention it that way it's well-known, and as we

02:31:05.000 --> 02:31:12.000
you know, use this document for future reference and planning that's well established in there.

02:31:12.000 --> 02:31:16.000
Next slide.

02:31:16.000 --> 02:31:24.000
Climate change and environmental pressures. So as we all know, climate's changing. It's getting hotter

02:31:24.000 --> 02:31:33.000
Like I mentioned, our 1,200 acre feet of water right, surface water right

02:31:33.000 --> 02:31:39.000
What will be available by the time it gets down from from the

02:31:39.000 --> 02:31:56.000
Elvado and the lakes from up north. By the time it reaches the point of diversion down at the bottom. So, we'll have the consultant assist with utilizing existing data to study the regional evapotranspiration

02:31:56.000 --> 02:32:06.000
maps and look at the actual evaporotranspiration records. That way we can kind of gauge

02:32:06.000 --> 02:32:12.000
What may happen in the future?

02:32:12.000 --> 02:32:28.000
And then also just incorporate a water balance map rather than launching any costly new field data collection. So if the state engineer's office has information that we could utilize to do our studies, we'll have our consultant do that.

02:32:28.000 --> 02:32:36.000
Rather than creating new models from scratch

02:32:36.000 --> 02:32:38.000
And then

02:32:38.000 --> 02:32:44.000
Ultimately, just evaluating any long-term climate vulnerabilities

02:32:44.000 --> 02:32:51.000
Using verified baseline assets.

02:32:51.000 --> 02:32:54.000
Right.

02:32:54.000 --> 02:32:58.000
So as we plan to construct

02:32:58.000 --> 02:33:04.000
As we're planning to construct the new overlook well

02:33:04.000 --> 02:33:08.000
As we move forward with asking for federal

02:33:08.000 --> 02:33:12.000
funding to do so. We'll need a

02:33:12.000 --> 02:33:14.000
Show

02:33:14.000 --> 02:33:23.000
more precise engineering designs and updated capital cost projections in order for us to pursue these avenues for

02:33:23.000 --> 02:33:37.000
funding. So the consultant, what we would like them to do is formulate some comprehensive updated cost estimates from what I believe it was a Cdm had produced

02:33:37.000 --> 02:33:43.000
Probably, what, about 10 years, Philo? About 10 years ago.

02:33:43.000 --> 02:33:47.000
And that would help us

02:33:47.000 --> 02:33:54.000
Updated costs in order for us to construct the new water well. And then

02:33:54.000 --> 02:34:02.000
Also, looking at the dedication of the transmission pipeline from the overlook

02:34:02.000 --> 02:34:05.000
How do we get it to

02:34:05.000 --> 02:34:26.000
Rover… the rover boulevard and New Mexico for what is the route? How much is that going to cost? So the consultant will assist us and determining… determining the best route and the cost in order for us to do that.

02:34:26.000 --> 02:34:31.000
Next slide.

02:34:31.000 --> 02:34:34.000
So right here, I have

02:34:34.000 --> 02:34:37.000
A breakdown of what we have

02:34:37.000 --> 02:34:47.000
In our fiscal year 26 for our CIP, what's budgeted? We had budgeted 75,000 for the updated water

02:34:47.000 --> 02:34:49.000
Plan

02:34:49.000 --> 02:34:56.000
In there, we also had design of a new water well at Overlook Park. That was mainly looking at

02:34:56.000 --> 02:35:05.000
Or assisting us in modeling and looking at the evapotranspiration, assisting us with

02:35:05.000 --> 02:35:16.000
doing some of the legwork with the New Mexico Office of State Engineer, filing that new point of diversion. So we had budgeted 230,000

02:35:16.000 --> 02:35:20.000
So a total of CIP money, we had 305.

02:35:20.000 --> 02:35:24.000
The proposal that came in

02:35:24.000 --> 02:35:26.000
You

02:35:26.000 --> 02:35:36.000
It was at 142,000 and some change for the plant itself. However, the optional services Like I mentioned

02:35:36.000 --> 02:35:51.000
for the… assisting us with maybe looking at some of the evapotranspiration, the new point of diversion that came in at 56,000, which was under what we thought would have been the 230. So, I guess

02:35:51.000 --> 02:36:06.000
It was swapped. We're applying a 12.4 contingency, which is 24,000, almost 25,000 for a total cost of 224 plus NMGRT.

02:36:06.000 --> 02:36:11.000
Just to mention, which I didn't put on this chart here, but

02:36:11.000 --> 02:36:19.000
For fiscal year 27 and 28, we have budgeted

02:36:19.000 --> 02:36:22.000
About 1.8 million

02:36:22.000 --> 02:36:24.000
Just for

02:36:24.000 --> 02:36:33.000
the overlook well design. That's just for the design of the well that's looking at doing a test drill

02:36:33.000 --> 02:36:39.000
Checking the capacity. Hydrological studies and modeling.

02:36:39.000 --> 02:36:43.000
And that's just to demonstrate how we're

02:36:43.000 --> 02:36:46.000
pulling water from

02:36:46.000 --> 02:36:53.000
or knew well, demonstrating that we're going to pull it from the surface water of the Rio Grande. So

02:36:53.000 --> 02:37:03.000
We gotta demonstrate that to New Mexico Office of State Engineer. And then, of course, assisting us with the permits. So we're estimating

02:37:03.000 --> 02:37:09.000
Roughly 1.8 to $2 million for just the design portion of that

02:37:09.000 --> 02:37:10.000
And

02:37:10.000 --> 02:37:14.000
By establishing or

02:37:14.000 --> 02:37:28.000
Initiating this updated plan that puts us in a position to better ourselves in order for us to go ask for state funding or federal funding for the new well.

02:37:28.000 --> 02:37:32.000
So, next slide

02:37:32.000 --> 02:37:34.000
Oh.

02:37:34.000 --> 02:37:35.000
Okay.

02:37:35.000 --> 02:37:50.000
So ultimately, staff recommends awarding the contract to BHI, who's a highly specialized technical team that's assisted us for our wastewater treatment plants

02:37:50.000 --> 02:38:01.000
they're in the know of the current New Mexico water rights, and that way they could help us navigate through these these hurdles that we

02:38:01.000 --> 02:38:04.000
that we foresee.

02:38:04.000 --> 02:38:11.000
We really

02:38:11.000 --> 02:38:28.000
Thought highly of the proposal being that they showed the engineering strengths of behind in Houston and then they partnered with the sub, the geohydrology expertise of John Shoemaker and associates. So

02:38:28.000 --> 02:38:35.000
We thought that they had a pretty well-rounded proposal. And so

02:38:35.000 --> 02:38:49.000
Just to shorten my presentation, we request a formal vote to execute the contract and begin our meetings with our stakeholder workshops

02:38:49.000 --> 02:38:52.000
And next slide.

02:38:52.000 --> 02:39:00.000
And I think that's if you have any questions. Thank you.

02:39:00.000 --> 02:39:12.000
Okay, let's start with Matt for questions. Okay, sure. First, James, thank you very much. I think we spend a lot of time on energy and looking at my crystal ball in 40 years

02:39:12.000 --> 02:39:22.000
I think water is going to be at least as important, so we should be spending 50% of our time. So this is great. I really appreciate this looking at the budget slide 2 slides back

02:39:22.000 --> 02:39:28.000
It seems to me that a lot of your discussion is about the Overlook well

02:39:28.000 --> 02:39:36.000
And to me, that's an important part of. But the bigger issue is the 40-year plan, and it looks like

02:39:36.000 --> 02:39:51.000
The DPU budget said, yeah, the Overlook Park is the important thing, and it looks like the consultants came back and said, no, the 40-year plan is really the important thing. So I think it's a good balance in there. We need… we need to think about both, but for the… my question is, for the 40-year plan

02:39:51.000 --> 02:40:06.000
Are we thinking about fire at all in our water planning? And I think part of that is reading Philo's report and looking that we're selling water right now to firefighting efforts. The fire regime is going to change a lot in 40 years, but there's a lot of fuel. So I don't know how

02:40:06.000 --> 02:40:23.000
Fire activity is impacting our water right now, much less in 40 years, so I don't know if there's some small part of that 40-year plan that thinks about fire and what that will mean for a 40 year water planning or not, but I'd encourage that should be at least considered. Those are one of the things that we will incorporate.

02:40:23.000 --> 02:40:41.000
We will mention the allotment, the water that's going to be allotted for the new ski or snow making, which is, I think I have put 188 acre feet towards that. The other thing to note in there was the chromium plume remediation

02:40:41.000 --> 02:40:47.000
Which in doing some digging on that, just, I think they were allotted an interim measure of

02:40:47.000 --> 02:41:01.000
7… about 700 acre feet, or 700 and some change, right? So we'll document that in in the 40 year water plan. And then, like you mentioned, we'll

02:41:01.000 --> 02:41:13.000
We'll see if they have any other recommendations on looking at fire or those things and the chromium plume, of course, is a huge important thing for the 40 year water plants. Yeah, thanks. Sounds good. Thanks.

02:41:13.000 --> 02:41:14.000
Eric

02:41:14.000 --> 02:41:20.000
Yeah, thank you, Chair Gibson. So I know it kind of sounds heretical, but

02:41:20.000 --> 02:41:32.000
The last time that I guess it was NMED or whoever it was, no, wait a minute, it was EM, it was N3B, whatever it was, making a presentation

02:41:32.000 --> 02:41:48.000
And I asked the question, I said, well, what about if we just maybe we started up Tahrito Well three again and hooked it up to the two ion exchange and instead of filters and instead of re-injecting it

02:41:48.000 --> 02:41:56.000
We just use that as drinking water. I mean, the Pajarita Well 3 is already licensed for drinking water.

02:41:56.000 --> 02:42:06.000
And then and the guy from N3B or EM said, you know, actually, yeah, we've done that and it's been in other places been pretty successful.

02:42:06.000 --> 02:42:13.000
So why don't we just do that instead of just re-injecting the stuff

02:42:13.000 --> 02:42:17.000
We can just use that as a drinking well.

02:42:17.000 --> 02:42:26.000
Can we start up those discussions?

02:42:26.000 --> 02:42:42.000
Let me, if I can interject on that. The challenge right now, what's the scope before us is a 40 year water plan. Getting into the chromium plume remediation, taking that water and

02:42:42.000 --> 02:42:56.000
Serving it to the community. Is that possible? Yes, but that's a that's a whole different application of technology that would have to be permitted and considered. But

02:42:56.000 --> 02:42:59.000
It's

02:42:59.000 --> 02:43:06.000
would be… there's still a need for a 40-year water plan. We need the water for the community

02:43:06.000 --> 02:43:07.000
Now, if

02:43:07.000 --> 02:43:20.000
What we're asking for with the overlook well is have an ultimate alternate point of diversion that's not related to the plume because it's been stymied with

02:43:20.000 --> 02:43:25.000
Between the DOE and NMED for

02:43:25.000 --> 02:43:39.000
The last decade, and we're not seeing a good path forward with that. So that would be another long-term discussion. Maybe it's an alternative to consider. But it would

02:43:39.000 --> 02:43:44.000
It would be difficult

02:43:44.000 --> 02:43:45.000
Yeah.

02:43:45.000 --> 02:43:56.000
Yeah, I'm just thinking it could be another arrow in the quiver. It's just something we could think about because like I said, if a well's already permitted, wells are extremely expensive to drill. And if we've already got the well, it's already permitted

02:43:56.000 --> 02:43:57.000
Yeah

02:43:57.000 --> 02:44:02.000
If it works out, maybe we could kill two birds with one stone by doing that

02:44:02.000 --> 02:44:18.000
And, you know, I appreciate that, but I also want to remind the board that we do have well replacements in the plan. The Pajarita Well 3 is was built in the 60s. It's starting to age. And so you gotta

02:44:18.000 --> 02:44:26.000
You have to balance some of those issues, and I think that's been maybe one of the challenges why

02:44:26.000 --> 02:44:28.000
N3B hasn'

02:44:28.000 --> 02:44:42.000
Developed a work plan for spinner log test to utilize PM3 as a re-injection site, for example. But there's a lot of considerations that we'd have to think about there. But

02:44:42.000 --> 02:44:44.000
I don't think it

02:44:44.000 --> 02:44:56.000
One way or another, the plume's gonna be there, they still need to extract water and treat it, so we'll… we'll need to include that in the 40-year water plan, but that could be an alternative for it. So thank you.

02:44:56.000 --> 02:45:13.000
Yeah, and I appreciate that, and we could even drill a well right in the middle of the plume and use that and, you know, bring it through the two ion exchange beds and use it for drinking water. Anyway, just wanted to throw that out there. That's all

02:45:13.000 --> 02:45:17.000
So thank you.

02:45:17.000 --> 02:45:18.000
Thank you.

02:45:18.000 --> 02:45:21.000
Charlene. Yeah, just a question.

02:45:21.000 --> 02:45:35.000
Is the, is this a… having a 40-year plan, is that… I had the impression it was a requirement of the Office of the State Engineer, is that… Correct. It's a… it's a requirement. We got a

02:45:35.000 --> 02:45:38.000
the way that I was reading it, you gotta

02:45:38.000 --> 02:45:44.000
Show that the way you're going to use it or lose it type of deal. We got a

02:45:44.000 --> 02:46:00.000
We got to demonstrate what our future use is going to be with our projections, of course, we've got to be realistic of what those are. Right now, I think we have a little bit of a buffer and unused water rights, but essentially, yes, we need to it

02:46:00.000 --> 02:46:06.000
a requirement in order for us to maintain the current water rights that we

02:46:06.000 --> 02:46:21.000
have currently and when will we… when will we be out of compliance with that requirement? In other words, is this is this essential to have this now in order to be compliant with we just filed

02:46:21.000 --> 02:46:31.000
extension of time through the New Mexico's Office of State Engineering. In my communication with them is

02:46:31.000 --> 02:46:47.000
That extension of time is good through September… the end of September of 2026, following that, they're going to send an email letting us know when the 40-year water plan, the new 40-year water plan, needs to be

02:46:47.000 --> 02:47:02.000
In effect, and that way we will go based off of that for any future, you know, like the construction of the new well, anything of that sort, they'll be based off of that, because it'll be our plan for our future

02:47:02.000 --> 02:47:04.000
water usage

02:47:04.000 --> 02:47:08.000
How long is this proposed contract? When do you think

02:47:08.000 --> 02:47:10.000
Are we gonna have it

02:47:10.000 --> 02:47:11.000
Done

02:47:11.000 --> 02:47:22.000
Is this for a year or something? It's two years. Yeah. Okay, thank you.

02:47:22.000 --> 02:47:27.000
I'd like to follow up a little on Charlie's question. What triggers

02:47:27.000 --> 02:47:41.000
A new 40-year water plan. Does it have to be done every 5 years, or is it when the state engineer says we need one or is it from when there's a significant change in the situation? What triggers it?

02:47:41.000 --> 02:47:53.000
Phylog, do you know the specific? Yeah, I believe it's about every decade you need to update it and we're past that time period, as James mentioned

02:47:53.000 --> 02:48:06.000
They gave us a temporary extension through the end of September, assuming we'll have an award, we'll have a schedule to develop one

02:48:06.000 --> 02:48:14.000
The contract is for two years

02:48:14.000 --> 02:48:18.000
5 consecutive one-year extensions

02:48:18.000 --> 02:48:30.000
It sounds like what you just said is that the state engineer would like to see something by the end, basically a year from now.

02:48:30.000 --> 02:48:34.000
It doesn't seem like these timelines are adding up or

02:48:34.000 --> 02:48:44.000
are consistent with each other. And the second part of the question really is, what happens in the… what might happen in those succeeding five-year extensions

02:48:44.000 --> 02:48:52.000
So in talking to our procurement and my thinking was that

02:48:52.000 --> 02:49:07.000
further down the line, maybe like doing the preliminary design, maybe utilizing Bohan and Houston for their services on some of some more of the preliminary design efforts

02:49:07.000 --> 02:49:23.000
Chair, I'd also like to add permitting is a lengthy process that's unknown timeline and that having the ability for extensions is real important. I think the plan will be done within a year. It's the

02:49:23.000 --> 02:49:30.000
We might have an emergency flood warning.

02:49:30.000 --> 02:49:40.000
So it's the plan will get done. It's the permitting elements of this part of the project that could take some time.

02:49:40.000 --> 02:49:50.000
Yeah, two years seems like a long time to do this kind of a plan, but be nice if it's done in a year. Yeah, particularly if the OSE wants it

02:49:50.000 --> 02:49:58.000
would like to see something substantive just in a year. Just to give you an example, OW2 took five years to permit

02:49:58.000 --> 02:50:01.000
So

02:50:01.000 --> 02:50:06.000
Okay.

02:50:06.000 --> 02:50:15.000
We only get eight permits done in 40 years.

02:50:15.000 --> 02:50:22.000
Question on the financial estimates here. The budget for the water plan

02:50:22.000 --> 02:50:25.000
was 75,000

02:50:25.000 --> 02:50:31.000
Yet the proposal for that is almost twice that much

02:50:31.000 --> 02:50:35.000
Why were we that far off

02:50:35.000 --> 02:50:40.000
Or why is it twice as expensive as we estimated?

02:50:40.000 --> 02:50:42.000
Conversely

02:50:42.000 --> 02:50:45.000
the design

02:50:45.000 --> 02:50:51.000
Of course, it may be a change in scope, and that's kind of what I'm trying to figure out here. The design was budgeted at $230,000

02:50:51.000 --> 02:50:56.000
and the proposed cost is 56,000 and change

02:50:56.000 --> 02:51:06.000
Is it that it's going to be a lot less expensive than we expected, or is there a change in scope in there? It was just the more expensive for

02:51:06.000 --> 02:51:10.000
I guess their… their rate

02:51:10.000 --> 02:51:26.000
When we initially looked at this, James Allerid was still on board, and I think we had looked at the previous, 40-year water plan, and we estimated, you know, roughly be about $75,000

02:51:26.000 --> 02:51:42.000
You know, with the proposal when it came in, we were actually, well, I was actually surprised with the amount that it came in. So we negotiated with Bohan and Houston to better understand exactly what that was. It was actually a little higher than what this was

02:51:42.000 --> 02:51:54.000
We negotiated him being that, they were anticipating having to do a lot of legwork to get information from LANO on their water… water usage

02:51:54.000 --> 02:52:05.000
So I mentioned we could probably do a lot of that legwork and get get those numbers for you. We have the data. So that cost actually came down by another like

02:52:05.000 --> 02:52:21.000
$30,000. And then reduce the scope as well for looking at having them come in and do some some presentations as well I think

02:52:21.000 --> 02:52:28.000
I asked him to maybe do some remotely rather than doing the travel that would save a little bit of the cost there.

02:52:28.000 --> 02:52:31.000
But essentially, yeah, just the

02:52:31.000 --> 02:52:33.000
the overall rates of

02:52:33.000 --> 02:52:37.000
the hydrologist and engineers, I guess, of

02:52:37.000 --> 02:52:41.000
More recent

02:52:41.000 --> 02:52:51.000
But the more recent time that we're in, I guess now.

02:52:51.000 --> 02:52:56.000
The lab until recently was telling us they needed a lot more water.

02:52:56.000 --> 02:53:04.000
Now they're telling us they can actually live within their existing water rights, at least that's the last thing we heard

02:53:04.000 --> 02:53:09.000
How does that

02:53:09.000 --> 02:53:25.000
discrepancy play into this? Will we be basically doing the plan, assuming that the lower usage from LANL, because that's what they're currently saying. Or will we be looking at contingencies if they're

02:53:25.000 --> 02:53:29.000
Demands really are substantially greater than

02:53:29.000 --> 02:53:33.000
What they're now telling us, closer to what they had originally told us.

02:53:33.000 --> 02:53:48.000
Or at least in that direction. So, what do we plan on for LANL? So I think in part of that, we would probably sit down and have these negotiations with them to kind of just make sure, have a better understanding of

02:53:48.000 --> 02:53:57.000
More exactly what they're prop planned future projections are. So we will

02:53:57.000 --> 02:54:04.000
have Bohan and Houston assist us with these with these meetings.

02:54:04.000 --> 02:54:12.000
Okay.

02:54:12.000 --> 02:54:17.000
need for

02:54:17.000 --> 02:54:22.000
A new well that overlook, we're presuming we'd put it.

02:54:22.000 --> 02:54:29.000
is driven by one or two things. One is the chromium plume and BM3 being taken out of service

02:54:29.000 --> 02:54:37.000
And the other is the potential for the lab wanting more water than they're currently telling us.

02:54:37.000 --> 02:54:43.000
Both of those are laboratory or DOE driven

02:54:43.000 --> 02:54:45.000
needs

02:54:45.000 --> 02:54:55.000
Why are we asking, why should we ask our citizens, our rate payers to pay for any of this?

02:54:55.000 --> 02:54:59.000
So, the 40-year water plan that's

02:54:59.000 --> 02:55:11.000
Mainly a requirement for us to stay in compliance. The other portion, like I mentioned, to to document the chromium plume

02:55:11.000 --> 02:55:24.000
The need for overlook well and essentially look at utilizing our surface water

02:55:24.000 --> 02:55:27.000
water rights

02:55:27.000 --> 02:55:39.000
I think once we have it documented in the 40 year water plan, that puts us in a position where we can then tell the federal government, hey, these are the reasons why we don't have

02:55:39.000 --> 02:55:54.000
PW3, the contamination was… was your, you know, your cause. So having it documented in that plan just further assists us to

02:55:54.000 --> 02:56:00.000
to ask for that federal appropriation.

02:56:00.000 --> 02:56:05.000
But we know today why PM3 is out of service.

02:56:05.000 --> 02:56:11.000
Why should we be spending another couple million bucks

02:56:11.000 --> 02:56:13.000
To document that

02:56:13.000 --> 02:56:20.000
To before we start going to DOE and saying honey up.

02:56:20.000 --> 02:56:22.000
That

02:56:22.000 --> 02:56:24.000
So, Chair, I think what

02:56:24.000 --> 02:56:33.000
I wanted to show the budget. This is DPU's budget, the $305,000. That's out of the water fund

02:56:33.000 --> 02:56:48.000
We do serve water to Lanell. They're 20%, 25% customer, depending on time of year. And then but we don't have current cost estimates of what it's going to take to move water

02:56:48.000 --> 02:56:56.000
or the feasibility to move water from overlook into our system. So the 40 year water plan

02:56:56.000 --> 02:57:07.000
Is a planning document we need to do required by state engineer. We also need to understand how we can perfect our San Juan Chama project water

02:57:07.000 --> 02:57:22.000
And bring it into our system. And we'll get some cost estimates. Now, James mentioned future budgets, but that was contingent on federal allocation. It was not coming from the water fund.

02:57:22.000 --> 02:57:26.000
That's important to me anyway.

02:57:26.000 --> 02:57:44.000
We need an ask. That's what they call it when you go to the feds. I need a number for an ask. I don't know what the right number is because the numbers we had were over a decade old and we've had all the inflation

02:57:44.000 --> 02:58:01.000
and new permits and regulations, for that matter, that I don't think we have good number for an ask today, but we'll get one through this plan.

02:58:01.000 --> 02:58:09.000
Excuse me just a moment, because that's an important concept there to me anyway.

02:58:09.000 --> 02:58:16.000
I need to capture it. Okay

02:58:16.000 --> 02:58:31.000
All right.

02:58:31.000 --> 02:58:33.000
Do we have any other

02:58:33.000 --> 02:58:38.000
questions right now.

02:58:38.000 --> 02:58:43.000
Do we have any public comment?

02:58:43.000 --> 02:58:50.000
Thank you, Mr. Gibson. Any members of the public wishing to make comment, please raise your hand.

02:58:50.000 --> 02:58:53.000
No hands, Chair Gibson. Thank you.

02:58:53.000 --> 02:58:59.000
Discussion or motion

02:58:59.000 --> 02:59:14.000
I move that the Board of Public Utilities recommend approval of AGR 26-62 with Bohannon Houston Inc, BHI and their sub-consultant John Shoemaker and Associates, Inc, JSAI for the 40-year

02:59:14.000 --> 02:59:20.000
long range water supply plan update in the base amount of $142,650.

02:59:20.000 --> 02:59:30.000
Plus the optional services in the amount of $56,550 to complete a new point of diversion permit application and hydraulic model

02:59:30.000 --> 02:59:46.000
Development slash verification and a 12.4% contract contingency of 24,800 for a total authorized contract amount of $224,000 plus applicable gross receipts tax and forward to Council for final review and approval.

02:59:46.000 --> 02:59:51.000
Second

02:59:51.000 --> 02:59:59.000
Further discussion.

02:59:59.000 --> 03:00:03.000
The

03:00:03.000 --> 03:00:09.000
I think, you know, we probably we apparently we do need a new 40 year water plan

03:00:09.000 --> 03:00:12.000
Although part of that is for DOE.

03:00:12.000 --> 03:00:16.000
But

03:00:16.000 --> 03:00:20.000
I'm not yet convinced that it should be our responsibility

03:00:20.000 --> 03:00:23.000
To do a new well at overlook

03:00:23.000 --> 03:00:36.000
But the amount to generate a cost number for that is only $56,000. That's probably not worth fighting over at this point.

03:00:36.000 --> 03:00:39.000
I remained

03:00:39.000 --> 03:00:45.000
Concerned that I don't want our customer

03:00:45.000 --> 03:00:50.000
Us, the county to be paying for DOE's

03:00:50.000 --> 03:00:55.000
issues out there. And that's something that I'll be looking at as we go along.

03:00:55.000 --> 03:00:57.000
But I guess I'm

03:00:57.000 --> 03:01:03.000
Not real comfortable, but okay with this as at this point.

03:01:03.000 --> 03:01:06.000
Other discussion?

03:01:06.000 --> 03:01:10.000
Yeah, I wonder why we

03:01:10.000 --> 03:01:14.000
Pay so many consultants so much money

03:01:14.000 --> 03:01:27.000
Do we not have the competency to look at this stuff ourselves and come up with our own plans

03:01:27.000 --> 03:01:31.000
I'll let Philo address that if he'd like.

03:01:31.000 --> 03:01:35.000
Chair and Member Stromberg.

03:01:35.000 --> 03:01:50.000
This new water balance with drought conditions. The State engineer just recently completed their 50 year water plan. There's a lot of things that have changed in the regulatory environment that

03:01:50.000 --> 03:01:58.000
We need to consider that we're not experts in, and that's why we retain this consultant.

03:01:58.000 --> 03:02:00.000
Okay.

03:02:00.000 --> 03:02:01.000
Thank you.

03:02:01.000 --> 03:02:13.000
Follow up to that, is this one of those situations where the OSE expects to see a consultant that they trust developing the plan versus

03:02:13.000 --> 03:02:16.000
Them not trusting us to do it.

03:02:16.000 --> 03:02:24.000
Chair, I do think when we make permit applications for points of diversion, they're going to want

03:02:24.000 --> 03:02:30.000
A certain level of professional analysis to be presented for that

03:02:30.000 --> 03:02:41.000
And this, you know, as James mentioned, the professional hydrologist that can do the analysis. It's a complicated

03:02:41.000 --> 03:02:48.000
Engineering and groundwater type of problem.

03:02:48.000 --> 03:03:09.000
So as you know, with acromium plume, they have all kinds of groundwater hydrologists doing analysis and still haven't contained it. But I'm just saying that tells you how valuable that is. It's one of those things that we just don't have that in-house capability to do that work

03:03:09.000 --> 03:03:17.000
It's technical work. It's consulting kind of activities.

03:03:17.000 --> 03:03:18.000
Okay.

03:03:18.000 --> 03:03:21.000
Any other discussion?

03:03:21.000 --> 03:03:38.000
Maybe just following on that, I agree that it is technical consulting work, but I think, as I said earlier, water is just going to become more and more important, so I don't… I don't think we need that expertise in-house, but I think focusing on water more and more is going to be important. Absolutely, thanks

03:03:38.000 --> 03:03:42.000
Okay, if there's no further discussion.

03:03:42.000 --> 03:03:46.000
Cathy, would you please call the roll?

03:03:46.000 --> 03:03:48.000
Member Stromberg

03:03:48.000 --> 03:03:49.000
Yes.

03:03:49.000 --> 03:03:54.000
Member Knockley? Yes. Member Hebner. Yes. And Member Gibson. Yes

03:03:54.000 --> 03:03:58.000
Thank you. Motion passes 4 to 0.

03:03:58.000 --> 03:03:59.000
Thank you

03:03:59.000 --> 03:04:01.000
Thank you.

03:04:01.000 --> 03:04:09.000
That takes us to a decision point at 840 about whether we want to, or to what extent we want to

03:04:09.000 --> 03:04:14.000
address the foxyal plant's business plan tonight.

03:04:14.000 --> 03:04:17.000
What's the board's preference?

03:04:17.000 --> 03:04:21.000
If you look at the agenda, we still have a fair amount to go.

03:04:21.000 --> 03:04:24.000
We can

03:04:24.000 --> 03:04:26.000
Postpone it, we can

03:04:26.000 --> 03:04:31.000
him have been to his presentation and maybe a first round of discussion

03:04:31.000 --> 03:04:36.000
and limit it to, let's say, no more than maybe 30 minutes, maybe less

03:04:36.000 --> 03:04:40.000
Or we can go full bore into it.

03:04:40.000 --> 03:04:43.000
What's your preference?

03:04:43.000 --> 03:04:56.000
Open the discussion. I think we have a lot to do still, so I think deferring it would be good. I'm excited to hear about it, and I enjoyed looking through it, but I think deferring makes sense tonight.

03:04:56.000 --> 03:05:01.000
All right, which did you want? I'm deferring makes sense. Deferring makes sense.

03:05:01.000 --> 03:05:08.000
Okay, we've got a couple of preferences for deferral. Eric, you got any comment or preference?

03:05:08.000 --> 03:05:17.000
Well, I'm kind of, you know, I'm looking forward to hearing about it. I'd like to hear at least a few minutes of it to begin with.

03:05:17.000 --> 03:05:20.000
Okay.

03:05:20.000 --> 03:05:23.000
I see Charlie sort of nodding his head.

03:05:23.000 --> 03:05:34.000
not gonna fight. We don't want to go full board. No, I don't think we want to do that tonight. I mean, I guess I'm thinking we've got

03:05:34.000 --> 03:05:36.000
A full back page of

03:05:36.000 --> 03:05:42.000
Board business status reports if that looks like significant

03:05:42.000 --> 03:05:48.000
Okay, well, I see a little bit of division here. Yeah, I would be interested in it also

03:05:48.000 --> 03:05:50.000
But I think

03:05:50.000 --> 03:05:54.000
I'm going to make a decision from the chair here and say we defer it tonight, and

03:05:54.000 --> 03:06:01.000
pick it up again probably in two weeks, but we'll have to look at that agenda too.

03:06:01.000 --> 03:06:03.000
Okay

03:06:03.000 --> 03:06:07.000
That takes us on then to board business.

03:06:07.000 --> 03:06:09.000
Which

03:06:09.000 --> 03:06:15.000
starts with the chair's report.

03:06:15.000 --> 03:06:21.000
Number one

03:06:21.000 --> 03:06:26.000
I flew over Foxtail Flats again yesterday morning

03:06:26.000 --> 03:06:32.000
There's a lot more ground cleared and things happening

03:06:32.000 --> 03:06:41.000
What we… what is not particularly visible from the air, or isn't… doesn't really exist yet much, is structures

03:06:41.000 --> 03:06:57.000
You see lots of things that look like they're beginnings of structures or pilings for structures and things like that. There's no buildings of consequence, or you can't say, oh, there's a whole bunch of inverters already there, or anything of that variety

03:06:57.000 --> 03:07:12.000
There's a… there's about I wanted to take a picture, but it's so spread out into about six different work areas, each one of which is a bunch of trucks, a bunch of people, and a bunch of stuff, but nothing that would really show much of anything.

03:07:12.000 --> 03:07:27.000
So I didn't take a picture. And that's consistent with what the website says their progress is. It talks a lot about pilings and this, that, and the other. But it doesn't say anything about

03:07:27.000 --> 03:07:35.000
real structure yet, and that's consistent with what I saw. But there's… there's a fair amount happening. It certainly is

03:07:35.000 --> 03:07:39.000
more extensive than what I saw

03:07:39.000 --> 03:07:53.000
On the 10th of June, I think it was up there. Flying over it. So anyhow, things are happening up there. Sorry, Eric, you were gone this week when I had to go that direction anyway.

03:07:53.000 --> 03:08:08.000
So I didn't get a chance to let you see it firsthand to convince you it really is a project.

03:08:08.000 --> 03:08:09.000
Yes, I am.

03:08:09.000 --> 03:08:17.000
Well, you know, and I really appreciate that. And again, you said website, but you're not talking about the foxtail flat solar website because well, the last update was the December 2024.

03:08:17.000 --> 03:08:20.000
The

03:08:20.000 --> 03:08:27.000
Let's see someplace I have that written down, but it sure looked like a much more current website to me.

03:08:27.000 --> 03:08:28.000
Yeah, I guess that

03:08:28.000 --> 03:08:31.000
I mean, it talked about activity that was consistent with what I saw

03:08:31.000 --> 03:08:44.000
Yeah, it's not Foxtail Flat Solar. I'm looking at that right now. And the last update was December 2024. So I sure wish they would update it.

03:08:44.000 --> 03:08:47.000
Well, okay, I'll tell you, I'm telling you what I saw anyway.

03:08:47.000 --> 03:08:48.000
Yeah, okay

03:08:48.000 --> 03:08:52.000
Okay. Moving on

03:08:52.000 --> 03:08:59.000
Oh, by the way, on that same flight, of course, I flew up over those mud puddles that we used to call reservoirs up there

03:08:59.000 --> 03:09:12.000
That's math. Actually, they look pretty similar to what I remember from the last flight over flight

03:09:12.000 --> 03:09:23.000
you know, Abiquiu's got water in it. Delvado's really low. The one that looks even worse is Herron that's above Elvato. I mean, that's there's just nothing there.

03:09:23.000 --> 03:09:36.000
And Navajo, which of course doesn't feed us, but I fly over it anyway just to see what else is going on. It looks like it may not be too much worse than it was. I think it's down some

03:09:36.000 --> 03:09:45.000
But that's all eyeball stuff. The numbers are available if we really cared. Just eyeball observations.

03:09:45.000 --> 03:09:53.000
Second item. The state NMED has put out a proposal

03:09:53.000 --> 03:09:55.000
To

03:09:55.000 --> 03:10:01.000
Basically regulate methane leaks, natural gas leaks

03:10:01.000 --> 03:10:08.000
It sounds like, and I didn't drill too deeply into it, that they're planning to use modern technology, satellite and aircraft

03:10:08.000 --> 03:10:12.000
to look for leaks

03:10:12.000 --> 03:10:14.000
the way I read it was

03:10:14.000 --> 03:10:20.000
Report those to the owner and expect something to happen within three days

03:10:20.000 --> 03:10:30.000
Now, this still has to go to the environmental improvement board. So it's the beginning of a rulemaking process, I believe.

03:10:30.000 --> 03:10:36.000
But interesting, because that is a huge

03:10:36.000 --> 03:10:55.000
Contributor to greenhouse gases. Our climate action plan ignores it, but it's a huge it's a huge contributor that we ignore one of the several things that's wrong in our Yeah, I remember you. You included that in your model. I did in my model

03:10:55.000 --> 03:11:11.000
Very rough guess, and if they get better numbers, that would be great. Can you monitor that using, like, commercial satellite imagery or technology in some way? Well, what they did before, there was a satellite up there specifically designed and used for that purpose

03:11:11.000 --> 03:11:15.000
However, a year or so ago, I saw something about

03:11:15.000 --> 03:11:26.000
That satellite might not be there much longer. So whether there's another one, I haven't followed that, but aircraft are another way it can be done

03:11:26.000 --> 03:11:34.000
And has been done. Both of them have been done. So hopefully we will at least get much better numbers

03:11:34.000 --> 03:11:43.000
Then just the kind of anecdotal surveys done by aircraft and satellites a few years back

03:11:43.000 --> 03:11:50.000
And the last item I have, I'll mention it here before we're all asleep

03:11:50.000 --> 03:11:52.000
Matt

03:11:52.000 --> 03:11:56.000
that scheduling meeting scheduled for, I think, the 28th

03:11:56.000 --> 03:12:10.000
He is tough for me to make. If I do it at all, it'll be remote. Can you two guys do a different date? Yes. Oh, good. All right.

03:12:10.000 --> 03:12:16.000
We can try to do that now, or we can have Kathy coordinate later.

03:12:16.000 --> 03:12:25.000
Pardon, but later it might be best just to look at calendars, but let's move it. Okay.

03:12:25.000 --> 03:12:33.000
want to move August 28th, you're saying? Yeah. Okay. I'll get in touch with both you and Matt. Okay, great. Thank you.

03:12:33.000 --> 03:12:36.000
That's all I have for chairs report.

03:12:36.000 --> 03:12:40.000
Do we have any board members reports?

03:12:40.000 --> 03:12:58.000
Don't see any that moves on to utility manager's report. Yes, Chair and members of the board. We had our time of use and demand rates put in place on July 1st and the AMI portal is now back up and running

03:12:58.000 --> 03:13:08.000
But despite months of testing, the production of the bills didn't go smoothly. And so we have many

03:13:08.000 --> 03:13:26.000
Billing cycles delayed and bills corrected. We anticipate our September bill going much better and have corrected GRT amounts applied to the time of use portion of the bill. We have issued and I'm sure you've

03:13:26.000 --> 03:13:42.000
Several press releases going out to explain what's occurred between those two functions. But I do want to acknowledge the hard work that our customer care staff has been doing in this transition

03:13:42.000 --> 03:13:49.000
So it's been a heavy lift. So thank you.

03:13:49.000 --> 03:14:04.000
I had mentioned that DPU, we are selling water to the fire department enforcers to help with the firefighting efforts that's basically staged out of the airport for the free holies fire

03:14:04.000 --> 03:14:14.000
Elk Ridge, we are working on the closeout documentation and easement to acquire the gas assets from yes, communities

03:14:14.000 --> 03:14:33.000
For the White Rock substation, R&M installed all the concrete piers, and next week we'll be installing additional rebar in the oil containment vessel. And then, once all the concrete is poured and cured delivery of the transformer will be scheduled shortly thereafter.

03:14:33.000 --> 03:14:38.000
And then

03:14:38.000 --> 03:14:54.000
We had an issue that we identified to Lanell flicker and drop in voltage. And actually board member Stromberg had a graph he shared with us too. He experienced it. And so

03:14:54.000 --> 03:15:09.000
We have been we identified that it's on the TC. One circuit, and but we haven't figured out the reason of why that's occurring. When we moved everyone over to TC. 2, there's been no flicker issues

03:15:09.000 --> 03:15:21.000
So we requested that we stick on TC2 till they can hunt down the gremlin that's causing the voltage regulation

03:15:21.000 --> 03:15:39.000
Then in White Rock, I know, Chair, you asked about what occurred with that outage that happened. And they found the fault on early Friday morning. It ended up being located in the intersection of Aragon and Grand Canyon

03:15:39.000 --> 03:15:50.000
And then the crews were able to restore power to all but the swimming pool over the weekend. The cable fault was on an old

03:15:50.000 --> 03:15:56.000
style concentric neutral, and it showed signs of deterioration.

03:15:56.000 --> 03:16:10.000
And on Monday, the crew was able to remove the failed cable and replace with new. In about three hours because that actual failure point was within a conduit. It wasn't a direct berry one

03:16:10.000 --> 03:16:25.000
Then New Mexico Gas with their virtual pipeline, that operation is going to continue through Labor Day. They've complete about half of the hydro tests

03:16:25.000 --> 03:16:42.000
The recruitment status. We hired a superintendent last month, so we're in the process of interviewing for the supervisor. So we have people moving up through our organization. And then the locator

03:16:42.000 --> 03:16:58.000
A position closes tomorrow, and then next week our August 31st, we'll have close on the ads for our 3 power system operators and electrical distribution engineering manager

03:16:58.000 --> 03:17:12.000
And other vacancies are in water production operator and associate engineer and management analyst. So we're making some progress, but there's always plus and minuses each month

03:17:12.000 --> 03:17:30.000
And then the Hemis Mountain Fire Protection Project we had approved procurement package for the wire and we received some formal quotes, but FEMA ended up rejecting them because they wanted the procurement method to be through a formal bidding process

03:17:30.000 --> 03:17:37.000
So we're on a do-over. That obviously is delayed

03:17:37.000 --> 03:17:53.000
The installation of underground wire on the project so staff has pivoted and working on a temporary overhead power feeds for the 4 pumping stations because our goal is to begin pumping water in November

03:17:53.000 --> 03:18:01.000
It's for snowmaking, and also the lodge does not have a functioning well, so they trunk water, fresh water up

03:18:01.000 --> 03:18:12.000
to serve their customers currently and it's not a very sustainable arrangement. So the FEMA grants a two-year

03:18:12.000 --> 03:18:20.000
programs, so we have time to do this a little more slowly, like they want, and we'll

03:18:20.000 --> 03:18:29.000
be extending that into the 2027 construction season to do all the undergrounding wire and hookups from there.

03:18:29.000 --> 03:18:44.000
With UAMPs, I'm still the chair of this carbon-free power project. The holdup is the intellectual property transfer with the DOE and all the parties that participated

03:18:44.000 --> 03:19:00.000
However, they expect some resolution between October and November, so hopefully I'll be out of a job by the end of the year. And there were no updates on the geothermal projects this month

03:19:00.000 --> 03:19:18.000
The San Juan Generating Station, the mine reclamation work, they worked out we can complete all the site grading a year early. However, there's a limiting factor of the amount of irrigation water available to revegetate those sites

03:19:18.000 --> 03:19:36.000
They only have enough water to irrigate 600 acres at a time. So essentially they're doing like 300 acres, then they move over. When that gets signed off, then they move over and there you get another 300, while the middle one is

03:19:36.000 --> 03:19:48.000
you know, growing in, so it's a two-year process per site, so they… so they'll be done in 27, but they'll need to catch up on the irrigation

03:19:48.000 --> 03:19:51.000
through 2030.

03:19:51.000 --> 03:20:08.000
I was hoping they could wrap up sooner, but it's as we know, it's we're not seeing the rain except for tonight. And then strategic planning. Our workshop is next Wednesday. And so

03:20:08.000 --> 03:20:23.000
you know, I think I shared that the senior management team did a SWOT, so we're going to share that with the board, and then we're going to review the strategic focus areas, goals, and objectives. And as we went through them

03:20:23.000 --> 03:20:41.000
This year we divided between the objectives that are ongoing, meaning we need to continue that year after year versus others that are more measurable. And then we're going to break up into little work groups

03:20:41.000 --> 03:20:52.000
And then come back and make a final recommendation as a team effort between the board and senior staff.

03:20:52.000 --> 03:20:58.000
So that we'll do next Wednesday.

03:20:58.000 --> 03:21:14.000
And then we're working with procurement for non-call contractor for the overhead make readies for the atomic fiber installation. They finally got green light to go, so they're

03:21:14.000 --> 03:21:29.000
Needing a little more speed and finishing the the make ready installations, and that will be paid for by the project. And Chair Gibson, you gave a a good update on Foxtail flats

03:21:29.000 --> 03:21:42.000
The solve PV team, 93% done with grading, 60% on seeding, 83% with the roads, 29% on fence.

03:21:42.000 --> 03:21:50.000
34% on the piles and 67%

03:21:50.000 --> 03:22:05.000
Oh, on the pile survey, and then 67% complete on the pile installation. So you only saw the piles and that's hard to see from the air. But they will be installing racking systems here very soon

03:22:05.000 --> 03:22:11.000
As well as the best energy battery energy storage system

03:22:11.000 --> 03:22:29.000
And then the high voltage side, they're working on the foundations for the tide lines, and then Desiree's expecting the modules to show up the end of August and and they'll start

03:22:29.000 --> 03:22:34.000
Delivery of the best technology in October. So things are

03:22:34.000 --> 03:22:42.000
They're getting all the foundation work in place, and then we'll start hopefully seeing panels on your next flight in a month or two

03:22:42.000 --> 03:22:46.000
And that completes my report.

03:22:46.000 --> 03:22:51.000
Okay, thank you. Questions or comments? Eric?

03:22:51.000 --> 03:23:03.000
Yeah, thank you, Chair Gibson. Philo. Can you give me an update? What's the Lanell tie line to the White Rock substation? Was that completed?

03:23:03.000 --> 03:23:09.000
Yes, that was completed some months ago.

03:23:09.000 --> 03:23:10.000
It's

03:23:10.000 --> 03:23:11.000
And it's all been tested and have they

03:23:11.000 --> 03:23:16.000
It's programmed, ready to go. We haven't tested it with an outage, though, so…

03:23:16.000 --> 03:23:23.000
Okay, excellent. Thank you very much.

03:23:23.000 --> 03:23:31.000
Okay, first, I would like to thank Joanne and your team for what I know has been a Herculean effort to

03:23:31.000 --> 03:23:34.000
get the new billing system operating

03:23:34.000 --> 03:23:42.000
Yeah, you can test it all you want before it goes live. But once you go live on anything like that, you discover more issues and

03:23:42.000 --> 03:23:51.000
That's not a big surprise that we're seeing them, and you're having to slug your way through them. Thank you.

03:23:51.000 --> 03:23:55.000
A question on the White Rock failure.

03:23:55.000 --> 03:23:58.000
First

03:23:58.000 --> 03:24:04.000
Get out there, Dennis. He was there, so I can't… Okay.

03:24:04.000 --> 03:24:08.000
Yeah. We'll go straight to the expert here.

03:24:08.000 --> 03:24:21.000
Or the Stucky, depending how you look at it. First, it was said that there was a, it took three hours to replace that cable Monday morning. Did that involve another outage? No.

03:24:21.000 --> 03:24:38.000
Well, it did. The Mormon Church and the pool continued to stay off until the new cable was pulled in. We had to take the Mormon Church out, because we replaced the switch that, served their cable as well. It was one of the old

03:24:38.000 --> 03:24:49.000
Live front switches that when they tried to open it, it took a few seconds to operate, so it was due to be replaced, and it's not one of the safe ones, so

03:24:49.000 --> 03:25:02.000
We had two services off for the cable replacement, but none of the residential services were off. Okay, thank you.

03:25:02.000 --> 03:25:10.000
We had one cable failure, but there seemed to be an outage all over the main part of White Rock.

03:25:10.000 --> 03:25:25.000
Is it just one feeder that covers that? I thought there were more than one there. There are three feeders in White Rock total. One is Mirador on that side of Highway 4, and then the rest of White Rock is covered by 2 feeders

03:25:25.000 --> 03:25:36.000
And because there was no upline protective device except the circuit feeder at the substation, it took out all of White Rock circuit number one

03:25:36.000 --> 03:25:42.000
Which covers a very large geographical area in White Rock.

03:25:42.000 --> 03:25:56.000
Okay, so it was… it was the one circuit that it took out? Yes. Not… it didn't propagate beyond that one, although that covers a lot of our customers. And it took a while for the crew to find out

03:25:56.000 --> 03:26:01.000
By trial and error. At what point

03:26:01.000 --> 03:26:10.000
will it hold and then we know that we're very close to where the failure was. It took them quite a while to do it, and it took 6 of our linemen to get it done

03:26:10.000 --> 03:26:15.000
Because we only had four when I got in on Friday morning

03:26:15.000 --> 03:26:24.000
Oh, I'm glad we had those resources available. Yes. These guys are very good and several of them come from Taos.

03:26:24.000 --> 03:26:27.000
Okay,

03:26:27.000 --> 03:26:33.000
I think that's all the questions I had on that. Thank you. You're welcome.

03:26:33.000 --> 03:26:39.000
You said there was, among the job ads that you listed as closing on the 31st

03:26:39.000 --> 03:26:44.000
Was this electrical engineering manager.

03:26:44.000 --> 03:26:59.000
Can you say whether we've yet seen any interest or can you not say that? I don't know that information to say one way or another. So all right. It's easy to put out an ad, but getting interest is the hard part.

03:26:59.000 --> 03:27:04.000
That's where we have real progress. We've got interest, and then hopefully qualified interest

03:27:04.000 --> 03:27:06.000
And finally.

03:27:06.000 --> 03:27:20.000
It sounded like you're proposing changing the format of the strategic planning meeting a little bit to do some subgroup work. Can you elaborate on that a little bit so we can think about it before we go into

03:27:20.000 --> 03:27:37.000
We realize there'll be a couple people online. So there'll be a group and then we want the board to work collaboratively with the team members on site. We'll try to the ones online will try to put a couple team members with them

03:27:37.000 --> 03:27:47.000
They call it little… I don't know, they call it, like, a classroom in Zoom. You can create a break room, or whatever it's called. By team members, you mean staff? Yes. Okay.

03:27:47.000 --> 03:27:50.000
So what

03:27:50.000 --> 03:27:56.000
So you're going to break up into two groups. Oh, just two groups. Okay. And what are

03:27:56.000 --> 03:28:04.000
What are the two groups going to be dealing with? You'll be going over that long list of of

03:28:04.000 --> 03:28:06.000
Objectives

03:28:06.000 --> 03:28:14.000
You know, we have the six focus areas and then the long list of objectives that go under each of those. So are you proposing that each group work?

03:28:14.000 --> 03:28:22.000
the whole thing, and then we get together and we each do half okay and then come back and

03:28:22.000 --> 03:28:34.000
present. So that will be, you know, and then public comment after that. Okay. Well, it'll be different anyway. We'll see. We'll try it. We'll see how it works. Yeah

03:28:34.000 --> 03:28:43.000
Okay. It's a workshop, so we're gonna make you work. You haven't been already, I said.

03:28:43.000 --> 03:28:48.000
Now we actually have to do something. Okay.

03:28:48.000 --> 03:29:01.000
And Eric, by the way, I did find my notes, and I think what Philo just read about Foxtail Flats just came also came from Foxtail Flatsolar.com, so I don't know why you're having trouble finding it, but

03:29:01.000 --> 03:29:04.000
That's that's where we're getting our information.

03:29:04.000 --> 03:29:10.000
Okay, county Manager's report.

03:29:10.000 --> 03:29:11.000
Thank you.

03:29:11.000 --> 03:29:12.000
Juan, are you still with us?

03:29:12.000 --> 03:29:15.000
I am. Thank you, Chair Gibson.

03:29:15.000 --> 03:29:31.000
I don't want to step on Councilor Herman's toes here in a bit, so I just want to just focus really on. Philo did mention it, though, the broadband atomic fiber project has started, and it began in Karen Circle

03:29:31.000 --> 03:29:34.000
Down in White Rock

03:29:34.000 --> 03:29:53.000
It is the first of eight phases underway, so that's a big milestone for the community and also like to just echo Manager Shelton's sentiments regarding this is a really strong partnership with the Department of Public Utilities because if we're not going underground through micro trench

03:29:53.000 --> 03:30:08.000
We're going to be hanging fiber on existing power poles, and so there's going to be a lot of coordination that's already happened, but we'll continue to happen for the next three years during this construction. But we are underway. And so I just did want to report that to the board.

03:30:08.000 --> 03:30:11.000
So that's it for me. Thank you.

03:30:11.000 --> 03:30:14.000
Okay, thank you.

03:30:14.000 --> 03:30:23.000
And since people like to look at things that are actually happening, if you wander out to Airport Road, you'll see a massive amount of

03:30:23.000 --> 03:30:30.000
of supplies accumulated at the old airport parking lot out there.

03:30:30.000 --> 03:30:36.000
Okay, that takes us, thank you. That takes us to council liaisons report.

03:30:36.000 --> 03:30:53.000
Thank you, Chair Gibson. We had a working session last night down in White Rock. We had presentations about the lodgers Tax Advisory board and the personnel board, and then we had a briefing on the Eca. From Mr. Ulbrich

03:30:53.000 --> 03:30:55.000
who did a great job telling us

03:30:55.000 --> 03:31:01.000
giving us the update for how things stood yesterday. So

03:31:01.000 --> 03:31:17.000
And then we also had three public hearings. Well, public hearings on three possible charter changes that will be on the November 3rd general election ballot

03:31:17.000 --> 03:31:32.000
and tweaked some wording on these. The first is to amend term limitations for standing boards and commissions and ad hoc advisory committees from two terms to three

03:31:32.000 --> 03:31:40.000
Just to make your night. So, and then the second one was amending

03:31:40.000 --> 03:31:43.000
Let's see

03:31:43.000 --> 03:31:55.000
To remove party affiliation requirements for all standing boards and commissions, with the exception of planning and zoning, BPU, and one other

03:31:55.000 --> 03:32:01.000
So, and then the third one is, actually for

03:32:01.000 --> 03:32:07.000
Utilities for all remaining operating profits

03:32:07.000 --> 03:32:11.000
To be transferred to the general county fund

03:32:11.000 --> 03:32:16.000
removal. What's that removal removal of that. Yeah.

03:32:16.000 --> 03:32:28.000
And, and then we also had a an overview about the streetlight maintenance

03:32:28.000 --> 03:32:44.000
There are… there are short, some folks that are able to do that work, replacing those street lights, so there are about 60 lights out, but they have filled those positions, and so it will take a little while to get all of those

03:32:44.000 --> 03:32:55.000
Changed out, but they're working on it. So and that is about it. I will steam for questions. Thank you. Are there questions?

03:32:55.000 --> 03:33:07.000
I have one in any of the discussion that's been held on the ordinance, excuse me, on the charter amendment or the proposed charter amendment that has to do with utilities.

03:33:07.000 --> 03:33:23.000
Has there been any discussion of if that amendment passes the transfer is still in county code and the authorization to transfer back is still in county code. Will that automatically go away if the charter

03:33:23.000 --> 03:33:35.000
Amendment passes, will that require a separate council action to remove that from county code? I'm not sure on that. I can find out though

03:33:35.000 --> 03:33:45.000
And get back to you on it. I'd be curious, no worry, but curious. Okay, I'll get back to you on it. Thank you. You bet. Thank you.

03:33:45.000 --> 03:33:48.000
Thank you for the report.

03:33:48.000 --> 03:33:57.000
And that takes us to environmental sustainability board and Carly, thank you for your

03:33:57.000 --> 03:33:59.000
Patience this evening

03:33:59.000 --> 03:34:02.000
If you're still there

03:34:02.000 --> 03:34:03.000
Thank you.

03:34:03.000 --> 03:34:14.000
Yeah, I'm still here. Yeah, of course. Yeah, so last month the main thing that was covered at the ESB was the

03:34:14.000 --> 03:34:22.000
Deliberation on whether or not to recommend a plastic bag ban ordinance in Los Alamos County.

03:34:22.000 --> 03:34:33.000
And so we heard from many members of the public and ultimately decided to vote against recommending the plastic bag ban

03:34:33.000 --> 03:34:42.000
And then for tomorrow's meeting, there isn't a ton on the agenda, it looks like

03:34:42.000 --> 03:34:48.000
There's going to be an update on the biosolids composting operation

03:34:48.000 --> 03:35:01.000
We're going to discuss and determine some new working groups. And then outside of that we'll just be sustainability manager updates

03:35:01.000 --> 03:35:11.000
And it looks like they did mention an upcoming agenda item, which will be the energy efficiency pilot program with Burning Box.

03:35:11.000 --> 03:35:14.000
And that's it.

03:35:14.000 --> 03:35:16.000
Okay, thank you.

03:35:16.000 --> 03:35:17.000
Thank you.

03:35:17.000 --> 03:35:22.000
And any questions?

03:35:22.000 --> 03:35:25.000
Thank you for sticking it out this long this evening.

03:35:25.000 --> 03:35:27.000
You're welcome.

03:35:27.000 --> 03:35:30.000
I hope it was maybe a little bit interesting to you.

03:35:30.000 --> 03:35:33.000
Oh, yeah, especially the

03:35:33.000 --> 03:35:37.000
especially the water updates. That's very important.

03:35:37.000 --> 03:35:39.000
Thanks again.

03:35:39.000 --> 03:35:40.000
Yep.

03:35:40.000 --> 03:35:48.000
Okay, that takes us on to general board business. The Open Meetings Act and IPRA presentation.

03:35:48.000 --> 03:35:53.000
Which starts on page 170 of our agenda, doc.

03:35:53.000 --> 03:35:55.000
And Christella, it's your turn

03:35:55.000 --> 03:35:58.000
Finally

03:35:58.000 --> 03:36:00.000
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

03:36:00.000 --> 03:36:05.000
We have the first slide, please.

03:36:05.000 --> 03:36:13.000
The Open Meetings Act and the inspection of Public Records Act are New Mexico's fundamental sunshine laws.

03:36:13.000 --> 03:36:18.000
And it's discussed further in greater detail in this presentation.

03:36:18.000 --> 03:36:32.000
the open meetings act or OMA sets forth the requirements to allow the public to attend and listen to meetings so that they can be informed about the affairs of public entities.

03:36:32.000 --> 03:36:43.000
And the inspection of Public Records Act, or IPRA sets forth the requirements for public access to government records so that we can have an informed electorate.

03:36:43.000 --> 03:36:47.000
That's the general purpose of both of those sunshine laws.

03:36:47.000 --> 03:36:51.000
Next slide, please.

03:36:51.000 --> 03:36:59.000
So the general requirements of the Open Meetings Act, among other things, are

03:36:59.000 --> 03:37:05.000
be quorum notice and agenda. I believe this is an outdated

03:37:05.000 --> 03:37:23.000
This is not the one in the agenda packet, but that's okay.

03:37:23.000 --> 03:37:36.000
I shortened it, so that's why I'd like to move to the other slideshow, just so that we could move a little more quickly through, I think the other slideshow is a little repetitive.

03:37:36.000 --> 03:37:43.000
And by the way, everybody here has been through this a couple times before. You don't have to

03:37:43.000 --> 03:37:52.000
We have some knowledge and understanding of it, although a reminder is always helpful.

03:37:52.000 --> 03:37:55.000
And so, what is a public meeting?

03:37:55.000 --> 03:38:11.000
A meeting is an open meeting, a public meeting is a meeting of a quorum that is held to formulate public policy, discuss public business, or take any action within the authority of a board or a commission.

03:38:11.000 --> 03:38:15.000
Next slide, please.

03:38:15.000 --> 03:38:24.000
And what constitutes a quorum of the BPU for the BPU, that is three members.

03:38:24.000 --> 03:38:27.000
Next slide, please.

03:38:27.000 --> 03:38:39.000
So for the BPU public business as defined in the open meetings act would include those items that fall under BPU's powers and duties

03:38:39.000 --> 03:38:51.000
So the powers and duties include, as you know, jurisdiction and control over utility systems owned by the county, and also proposal of policies

03:38:51.000 --> 03:39:03.000
And so those policy discussions and all of those items that fall within powers and duties would require an open meeting except for certain exceptions.

03:39:03.000 --> 03:39:06.000
Next slide, please.

03:39:06.000 --> 03:39:22.000
So one thing that really has to be cautioned that I think all boards and committees have to be careful with and I think a lot of the open meetings act requirements are handled before a meeting is held, but the biggest caution is that

03:39:22.000 --> 03:39:38.000
Members don't engage in what's called a ruling forum. So that's where communications happen outside of a meeting in a series of communications where policy might be formulated, for instance, through email or telephone communications where

03:39:38.000 --> 03:39:49.000
Communications certainly happen amongst a quorum, even if they're not all physically present at the same time or all communicating together at the same time.

03:39:49.000 --> 03:39:51.000
Next slide, please.

03:39:51.000 --> 03:39:57.000
The next element is notice. Next slide.

03:39:57.000 --> 03:40:08.000
So the Open Meetings Act requires notice of public meetings to be published. And it allows local bodies to determine what reasonable notice is

03:40:08.000 --> 03:40:13.000
The county council has determined that reasonable notice for county boards and commission

03:40:13.000 --> 03:40:19.000
on committees is 10 days prior to the meeting. Next slide, please.

03:40:19.000 --> 03:40:27.000
So the next element is an agenda. So there has to be an agenda published for all public meetings, including BPU meetings.

03:40:27.000 --> 03:40:30.000
Next slide.

03:40:30.000 --> 03:40:36.000
And so the agenda has to include specific items of business that are to be discussed.

03:40:36.000 --> 03:40:43.000
And it must be made available to the public 72 hours prior to the meeting.

03:40:43.000 --> 03:40:46.000
Next slide, please.

03:40:46.000 --> 03:40:52.000
So only items or topics listed on a published agenda may be discussed by the BPU.

03:40:52.000 --> 03:41:01.000
And only those items that are marked as action items can have action.

03:41:01.000 --> 03:41:13.000
The posting of agendas, the county's Open Meetings Act resolution requires meeting notices to be posted in the vicinity of the municipal building and the county's website.

03:41:13.000 --> 03:41:20.000
Next slide, please. So meeting minutes. That is the who, when, and the content. Next slide.

03:41:20.000 --> 03:41:38.000
So the Open Meetings Act requires minutes to be taken prepared within 10 days and considered at the next meeting after the meeting for those minutes were taken. It has to include the date, time, and place of the meeting, the names of members in attendance

03:41:38.000 --> 03:41:52.000
And those absent the substance of the proposals considered and a record of any decision and votes taken that show that how each member voted, and the purpose of that is so that secret votes are not

03:41:52.000 --> 03:41:53.000
taken

03:41:53.000 --> 03:41:57.000
Next slide, please.

03:41:57.000 --> 03:42:08.000
So failure to comply with OMA. If OMA is not complied with, actions are invalid and it also could result in criminal penalties

03:42:08.000 --> 03:42:16.000
So that's a very stringent requirement that New Mexico has that many other states don't have criminal penalty provision.

03:42:16.000 --> 03:42:25.000
Next slide, please. So the inspection of public records act states that every person has a right to inspect public records with limited exceptions.

03:42:25.000 --> 03:42:41.000
And so that includes all documents, papers, letters, books, maps, tapes, photographs, recordings, and other materials. that are used, created, maintained, or held on our behalf any public body.

03:42:41.000 --> 03:42:57.000
And so that would include and relate to public business. So that would include also materials held by members of the Board of Public Utilities that are related to public business and communication.

03:42:57.000 --> 03:42:59.000
Next slide, please.

03:42:59.000 --> 03:43:05.000
If you have any questions, you can obtain information from the New Mexico Attorney General's Office

03:43:05.000 --> 03:43:09.000
And also, please reach out to the county attorney's office with your question.

03:43:09.000 --> 03:43:11.000
Thank you.

03:43:11.000 --> 03:43:13.000
Thank you.

03:43:13.000 --> 03:43:19.000
Questions

03:43:19.000 --> 03:43:21.000
Let's see

03:43:21.000 --> 03:43:27.000
I have one probably more of a comment than a question

03:43:27.000 --> 03:43:33.000
This, let's see, this is page 14 of your presentation, 184 of our agenda doc.

03:43:33.000 --> 03:43:38.000
quotes the annual county resolution 260

03:43:38.000 --> 03:43:49.000
Which pretty much gets repeated each year. But it talks about providing notice to broadcast stations and newspapers of general circulation

03:43:49.000 --> 03:43:59.000
It would seem to me that that needs to be updated a little bit, since we don't have broadcast stations, we don't have traditional newspapers

03:43:59.000 --> 03:44:09.000
Although I know the LA Daily Post is called a newspaper of record, I guess it does get published once a week, so maybe it is a newspaper still.

03:44:09.000 --> 03:44:23.000
Anyway, just a comment that maybe that needs to be updated or at least reviewed. Yes, Mr. Chair, and I believe that may actually come directly from the open meetings act. I will… I will check into that, but I believe it does not. You might be right. That requirement.

03:44:23.000 --> 03:44:26.000
Which case, we don't have discretion

03:44:26.000 --> 03:44:30.000
I think you're right. You mentioned it. Thank you.

03:44:30.000 --> 03:44:34.000
Anyone else have any comments or questions on this?

03:44:34.000 --> 03:44:36.000
Matter

03:44:36.000 --> 03:44:39.000
I think we're all pretty well used to it.

03:44:39.000 --> 03:44:40.000
Whereas I know

03:44:40.000 --> 03:44:44.000
Comply with it religiously

03:44:44.000 --> 03:44:48.000
Okay, that takes us to

03:44:48.000 --> 03:44:55.000
Item 8G2 Annual review of our procedural rules.

03:44:55.000 --> 03:45:04.000
We'll take this back to Cristella. Mr. Chair, pursuant to section 1.5 of the

03:45:04.000 --> 03:45:16.000
The board's procedural rules. The board is required to review and revise as necessary the rules at least annually. At a regular well July BPU meeting.

03:45:16.000 --> 03:45:30.000
And so the Utilities Manager and staff will help formulate new language in the procedural rules and distribute those changes. Staff has recommended 2 changes this year

03:45:30.000 --> 03:45:36.000
The first is to a provision in Section 4.6

03:45:36.000 --> 03:45:52.000
And that's B to allow a rate ordinance presented to the BPU for a minor correction or amendment regarding a clerical error within 30 days of presentation for public hearing before or adoption by the county council

03:45:52.000 --> 03:45:59.000
does not need to be submitted in advance of the public hearing, but may be acted upon by the BPU when submitted.

03:45:59.000 --> 03:46:09.000
And I think that's just to allow an expedited consideration rather than having introduction. That's the reason for that recommendation. And then

03:46:09.000 --> 03:46:16.000
The DPU administrative staff has also requested a change on page 16.

03:46:16.000 --> 03:46:19.000
to the schedule for August

03:46:19.000 --> 03:46:34.000
To allow the approval of the resolution to remove the 5-year uncollectible utility accounts from the accounts receivable list to September so that it can align with the county's general schedule for

03:46:34.000 --> 03:46:46.000
approval of the resolutions. I think that our finance staff has indicated that they prefer to take those in October.

03:46:46.000 --> 03:46:52.000
So just move that approval bullet from August to September. Yes. Okay.

03:46:52.000 --> 03:46:57.000
And I don't believe staff has any other recommended changes.

03:46:57.000 --> 03:46:58.000
Okay

03:46:58.000 --> 03:47:08.000
questions or comments from the board.

03:47:08.000 --> 03:47:10.000
I've got a couple

03:47:10.000 --> 03:47:16.000
Well, first, I guess I should ask

03:47:16.000 --> 03:47:19.000
Does anyone have any

03:47:19.000 --> 03:47:23.000
Changes or comments on how we're conducting business

03:47:23.000 --> 03:47:30.000
You'd like to suggest here for consideration, because this is the time to do it.

03:47:30.000 --> 03:47:37.000
ask that general question first.

03:47:37.000 --> 03:47:42.000
I'm not hearing any. Guess that's a vote of

03:47:42.000 --> 03:47:44.000
Approval or

03:47:44.000 --> 03:47:51.000
acquiescence, at least.

03:47:51.000 --> 03:47:58.000
there is an error in the table of contents

03:47:58.000 --> 03:48:06.000
When you get down to around page 16 or 17, there's a registration error. It's the table of contents is off

03:48:06.000 --> 03:48:10.000
by a page from the actual text.

03:48:10.000 --> 03:48:16.000
Which is something that should be easy to fix before we

03:48:16.000 --> 03:48:19.000
do a final approval on it

03:48:19.000 --> 03:48:25.000
I'm not so sure that I'm very enthused about this amendment that's proposed

03:48:25.000 --> 03:48:31.000
The long one here, the rate ordinance presented to BPU for a minor correction, blah blah blah.

03:48:31.000 --> 03:48:36.000
It seems to me that this is a reaction to a very

03:48:36.000 --> 03:48:39.000
Thankfully, very rare occurrence

03:48:39.000 --> 03:48:45.000
And I'm not sure that we need to put a long

03:48:45.000 --> 03:48:48.000
Addition to our rules

03:48:48.000 --> 03:48:50.000
To deal with something that

03:48:50.000 --> 03:49:01.000
May not happen again or is unlikely to happen again since that's how rules and things like this just get longer and longer and longer and longer. If we try to

03:49:01.000 --> 03:49:10.000
react to every little thing that happens. So I would rather see that not included in a new one, but

03:49:10.000 --> 03:49:15.000
That's one board member's opinion.

03:49:15.000 --> 03:49:21.000
Others

03:49:21.000 --> 03:49:31.000
Brevity is the soul of wind. Brevity is the soul of wit. No, but I think I'm compelling. I think keeping it shorter is probably good, just if it's a one off.

03:49:31.000 --> 03:49:34.000
I don't see the need for it, so I agree with you.

03:49:34.000 --> 03:49:36.000
I'm happy with that as well.

03:49:36.000 --> 03:49:40.000
Okay.

03:49:40.000 --> 03:49:45.000
Eric, any thoughts from you on that one?

03:49:45.000 --> 03:49:50.000
Yeah, I'm not a fan of knee-jerk reactions either.

03:49:50.000 --> 03:49:55.000
Okay, well, I think there's consensus on that point then.

03:49:55.000 --> 03:50:01.000
So when the final version comes back for approval

03:50:01.000 --> 03:50:05.000
That should be taken out

03:50:05.000 --> 03:50:07.000
And a correction

03:50:07.000 --> 03:50:14.000
And presumably the table of contents will get corrected.

03:50:14.000 --> 03:50:19.000
Anything else on that subject this evening?

03:50:19.000 --> 03:50:26.000
Now, if we put that early on the agenda, we could have talked about it for 30 minutes.

03:50:26.000 --> 03:50:29.000
Okay.

03:50:29.000 --> 03:50:34.000
That takes us on to status reports.

03:50:34.000 --> 03:50:38.000
Does anybody have anything on status reports?

03:50:38.000 --> 03:50:45.000
Comments or questions?

03:50:45.000 --> 03:50:47.000
I have one comment

03:50:47.000 --> 03:50:53.000
I think the ASAI calculation here is wrong.

03:50:53.000 --> 03:50:57.000
In the electric reliability report.

03:50:57.000 --> 03:50:59.000
If

03:50:59.000 --> 03:51:15.000
Reliability was only 98.5%. That would be equivalent to a SADI of 126 hours, and I don't think we're anywhere near that bad to suggest that one might need to be looked at again.

03:51:15.000 --> 03:51:24.000
As I calculated it, it was more like 99.97%, not 98.56, which sounds a whole lot better.

03:51:24.000 --> 03:51:32.000
Anything else on status reports?

03:51:32.000 --> 03:51:37.000
If not, then we'll go to the transactional survey report.

03:51:37.000 --> 03:51:50.000
Abby, you're on. Thank you, Chair Gibson. I only have a few things I want to share out of this. Let me get to the right pages. The demographics pretty much stay the same. Transactional survey to transactional survey

03:51:50.000 --> 03:52:09.000
So some of the key findings, the number of visits to the customer care center have dropped since last 6 months ago, down from 29.4% to 16.2. This is mostly, I'm guessing, because a lot of services through customer care. They've also given online versions of to not have to have people come in so much

03:52:09.000 --> 03:52:14.000
So, I'm assuming that's probably why it's reflected.

03:52:14.000 --> 03:52:16.000
Let's see

03:52:16.000 --> 03:52:25.000
Here's just some reflections of why people are coming in. They're pretty standard. Nothing really stands out there.

03:52:25.000 --> 03:52:28.000
Let me use this

03:52:28.000 --> 03:52:46.000
Number of times the issue it took for the issue to be resolved. One time, 86% roughly. So we've gone up in resolving issues sooner. That's a good reflection that our customer care team and the DPU staff that they've interacted with know what they're doing. They're well educated, they're well trained, they're all that kind of thing.

03:52:46.000 --> 03:52:52.000
And you know you never know what these people are concerned about, what the issue is. So

03:52:52.000 --> 03:52:56.000
It's hard to say about some of those further ones.

03:52:56.000 --> 03:53:11.000
And then our overall average for our customer care is at 91% down here. That's pretty good given what the customer care team had to deal with in terms of what came up over the last six months, time of use rates and power outages and

03:53:11.000 --> 03:53:19.000
And how they're handling all those calls and questions. So that's a really high level of what happened on the transactional survey. So I'll stand for questions.

03:53:19.000 --> 03:53:21.000
Thank you.

03:53:21.000 --> 03:53:26.000
Questions

03:53:26.000 --> 03:53:36.000
Let's see, this was through June. Have you seen a significant increase in contacts since the time of use?

03:53:36.000 --> 03:53:38.000
rates went into effect

03:53:38.000 --> 03:53:49.000
Joanne, do you have a he wants to know if there's more contacts with customer care since time of use.

03:53:49.000 --> 03:53:54.000
I'm sorry, I was working on time if you stop.

03:53:54.000 --> 03:54:09.000
Actually, our first bills went out on Monday, and we waited to send our e-bills out till Tuesday morning, so that if there was questions or errors, the customers could call us versus getting it at night, and then having to wait for the next day. So we kind of wanted to that presentation

03:54:09.000 --> 03:54:27.000
But actually, we did not get an increase of calls with the time of use. We've got a few calls because of the GRT, not that many, but really we did not get I thought we would be bombarded once the e-bills went out, because they get those a lot sooner. The papers are probably going to start arriving

03:54:27.000 --> 03:54:37.000
I'm guessing tomorrow or Friday, so we'll see how that goes. Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

03:54:37.000 --> 03:54:41.000
Any other comments or questions on

03:54:41.000 --> 03:54:48.000
Customer service, excuse me, on the transactional service survey report.

03:54:48.000 --> 03:54:53.000
And tight tongue before speaking. Thank you very much, Abby.

03:54:53.000 --> 03:55:03.000
Yeah, this is useful feedback. Even though we don't often spend a lot of time talking about it, but we look at it and

03:55:03.000 --> 03:55:06.000
As long as the things are going in the right direction

03:55:06.000 --> 03:55:13.000
That's great. And they tend to go in the right direction. Thank you.

03:55:13.000 --> 03:55:22.000
That takes us to the tickler file.

03:55:22.000 --> 03:55:28.000
Things, anything that anyone would like to have added or moved or whatever

03:55:28.000 --> 03:55:35.000
I mean, we'll wind up doing some juggling anyway, because we've carried 2 things from tonight into next

03:55:35.000 --> 03:55:46.000
The next meeting, and we'll have to see what that does to that meeting

03:55:46.000 --> 03:55:51.000
And we don't yet know exactly when we're going to have the scheduling meeting that

03:55:51.000 --> 03:55:54.000
Normally, it would be Friday next week, but

03:55:54.000 --> 03:56:01.000
We're going to move that to some data uncertain

03:56:01.000 --> 03:56:05.000
Okay, if there's no comments on that

03:56:05.000 --> 03:56:08.000
We'll provide a final opportunity for public comment

03:56:08.000 --> 03:56:17.000
Don't adjourn right right I have it in. I have it circled here.

03:56:17.000 --> 03:56:22.000
Anyway, is there any public comment in chambers?

03:56:22.000 --> 03:56:30.000
Don't see any Abby. Thank you, Chair Gibson. Any remaining members of public would like to make public comment. Please raise your hand now.

03:56:30.000 --> 03:56:32.000
No, Chair Gibson

03:56:32.000 --> 03:56:40.000
Okay. Before I make the critical announcement here, what is the room number for the DPU conference room?

03:56:40.000 --> 03:56:43.000
Do we know that

03:56:43.000 --> 03:56:53.000
We're suite 130 DPU conference room. There's only one conference room.

03:56:53.000 --> 03:56:56.000
Okay.

03:56:56.000 --> 03:57:01.000
We'll advertise it that way, I guess.

03:57:01.000 --> 03:57:05.000
It's you right there. It might be room 128.

03:57:05.000 --> 03:57:11.000
Might be, huh? That's what the consensus is from the staff. Oh, okay.

03:57:11.000 --> 03:57:17.000
And is the staff sufficiently confident in that we can publish it. Someone should look.

03:57:17.000 --> 03:57:30.000
Sweet 130 work. So the suite is the first door you will

03:57:30.000 --> 03:57:36.000
Well, I want to thank everyone for a lot of hard work getting ready for tonight's meeting.

03:57:36.000 --> 03:57:38.000
And

03:57:38.000 --> 03:57:40.000
And for sitting through it

03:57:40.000 --> 03:57:52.000
Joanne, I just wanted to add for your meeting on Friday, it will have somebody from my team outside if we do move the room directing, if that room changes. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

03:57:52.000 --> 03:58:10.000
We're bound to have lots of adoring public that didn't come tonight who want to discuss that issue. Mr. Chair, for the record, the DPU conference room number is 135. 135. Okay

03:58:10.000 --> 03:58:12.000
Good.

03:58:12.000 --> 03:58:17.000
Thank you. Okay.

03:58:17.000 --> 03:58:27.000
We will recess this meeting until one o'clock this Friday afternoon, the 21st of August in the county

03:58:27.000 --> 03:58:31.000
Building room 135, the DPU conference room

03:58:31.000 --> 03:58:40.000
Got it all