[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:02] Good morning. Today is September 3rd, 2026, and this is the regular public meeting of the Public Utility Commission, Oregon, and all three commissioners are present today.
[0:15] We designate time at the beginning of each meeting to provide the public and opportunity to comment on issues that are not listed on our agenda.
[0:24] If anyone wishes to comment, please use the raise your hand feature.
[0:28] Press star 9 if you're dialed in, and if you can't find either, please feel free to unmute yourself and speak up.
[0:36] So we'll pause for a moment and see if there's any comment on items that are not on our agenda this morning.
[0:51] Okay, I'm not seeing anything.
[0:56] And on our agenda this morning, I just want to note in case folks are having trouble getting it open,
[1:03] given the prior challenge that we had with the Nationwide Granicus Outage, CA3 was removed.
[1:14] RAA1 was removed, and RAA3 was added, some earlier versions of the agenda, may not have had RAA3.
[1:23] But it seems to be working on the website now, so hopefully folks are finding the resources they need.
[1:29] So with all that preamble, I do have a motion for the consent agenda.
[1:36] Good morning, Chair Tony. I would move that we approve the consent agenda as presented.
[1:40] I'll second. I concur and the consent agenda is adopted.
[1:46] All right. Let's head into our rulemaking agenda.
[1:49] RM1, Dr. AR673.
[1:52] on the belief stuff you're motto is presenting this morning for staff. Good morning
[1:59] stuff. Good morning. Good morning.
[2:03] Good morning. Tertani, Commissioner of Rook, and the Commissioner of Power. For the record,
[2:07] my name is Staff Yamato with staff. And I'm joined by Staff's Council in this matter in
[2:12] Natasha Smith. I'm here to discuss doc at number AR 673, which is the rule making to
[2:17] implement. 2025 Senate Bill 845. This new law primarily enables the PUC to order the sale of
[2:27] water utility that is unable to provide safe and adequate service. These provisions would serve
[2:33] as a last resort option to protect customers access to safe, potable water when no other alternatives
[2:40] are viable. Over the last several months, staff has worked with stakeholders to identify and address
[2:47] concerns related to implementing this law.
[2:50] Staff strafed rules included as attachment A to the staff report
[2:54] provide sufficient direction to address an ordered sales situation
[2:58] while allowing flexibility to account for
[3:01] specific unpredictable situations that may arise.
[3:05] If enacted, the new rules related to commission ordered water utility sales
[3:10] would appear in a new division to 25 of chapter 860 of the Oregon
[3:15] administrative rules with a minor change to an existing rule in division 36. Staff
[3:22] are recommends the commission issue a notice of proposed rule making to implement these changes
[3:28] and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
[3:33] Thank you. The memo was very clear. I
[3:35] appreciated the detail on the issues that he addressed with stakeholders. Any questions for staff?
[3:44] No? Okay. Thank you, Steph. Thank you. I will look for public comments on this move to formal rule making.
[3:58] Looking for hands and anyone who would like to comment on AR673.
[4:12] Not seeing any.
[4:14] So I think we can move to deliberation, and I, for one, am very comfortable, I think the flexibility that staff has baked into this is really important.
[4:27] In my experience, water utilities that are struggling are often struggling in a very
[4:36] fact specific way, coming from a very specific history, a very location specific challenge.
[4:46] And so I think flexibility is key, but I also see in here really critical safeguards that
[4:52] or not sort of pushing a utility to be sold
[4:56] on necessarily, or...
[5:01] So I'm quite comfortable. Thoughts colleagues? Yeah, I am, I am as well. Yeah, these are not difficult. Are these are not easy situations to resolve? And I think each of them are unique. So I appreciate the flexibility and appreciate the additional funds available to address issues that came with this bill. I hope we don't see a lot of these, but we know that they're not
[5:29] there are a lot of systems out there that are in various stages of disrepair and so I do
[5:38] appreciate that the criteria for implementing this, it's not this or this or this, it's this
[5:47] and this and this and this. So it's a pretty hefty list of criteria that have to be met before we
[5:52] actually would enact this. So it truly is a, it's a, it's a, it's a last resort. It's so if we've been
[5:57] down this road, we've been trying to fix it.
[6:00] We haven't been able to get there.
[6:01] So, appreciate the hard work that staff's done.
[6:03] I'm entirely comfortable, and I would,
[6:06] look, I'll let Commissioner power weigh in and then.
[6:08] No, go ahead, I think the rules for me strike the right balance
[6:15] of expeditiousness, and when we are going to need it,
[6:19] and center customer service and reliability, which is what
[6:24] want in a circumstance like this. So I'll defer to you on the motion.
[6:29] Yeah, I would move through the approved the proposed mission motion.
[6:32] Second. I concur. The motion is adopted. We'll look forward to the normal
[6:38] rulemaking process.
[6:41] Excellent. As I mentioned before,
[6:44] our one was removed. We'll look forward to that coming back in a later date.
[6:48] So let's take up our A2,
[6:51] Docket number U.M. 2398, is it please surface quality performance plan?
[6:58] Good morning, Joe.
[6:59] Good morning and good morning commissioners.
[7:02] For the record, my name is Joe Weith all new with PUC staff.
[7:05] I'm joined by Staff's Council in this matter in Tosh Smith with the Oregon Department of Justice.
[7:10] I'm here to discuss Dr. UM2398 and give an update on Ziple's Fiber Service Quality throughout the state of Oregon.
[7:17] The Commission approved to put them on a performance plan in Dr. U.N. 2398 for six months
[7:22] starting in October of October 1, 2025, and any in March 31st of 2026.
[7:29] Related to today's memo, staff recommended two things. First, staff recommended the extension
[7:35] of the performance plan. For an additional six months, starting on June 1 and ending on November 30th
[7:40] of 2026, to which the company will file to the docket its results of the six-month period
[7:46] no later than January 15th or 2027.
[7:50] Second, staff recommended recommendation was
[7:52] to file complaining as the company for violating
[7:55] order 25371, which required them to submit
[7:59] their final results of the first performance plan to the document.
[8:03] At the time, this memo was being added to the agenda,
[8:06] staff believed they have not submitted
[8:08] appropriate information to the document.
[8:11] Substance of the memo being uploaded to this document
[8:14] are true that the company reached out to the staff in regard to the potential complaint.
[8:20] There is confusion from the company on what staff meant by filing its final results of the
[8:24] first six months performance plan. Staff understood that the company would file results of the
[8:30] six months to the docket in their own format, showing how the company did over the period of time.
[8:36] The company understood staff's request to mean that they would file the normal service quality
[8:40] ports to staff by the deadline of the order. They did supply staff with those documents and staff
[8:46] took them as just their normal filing, not the compliance file required by the order.
[8:51] Staff read our staff read over the language in both the order and staff report and agrees with
[8:57] the company that it could have been interpreted the way the company understood and not the way staff
[9:01] understood or intended it to be. Staff did its own analysis on the service call reports submitted
[9:07] by the company and does notice some improvements since the start of the plan, but the company
[9:12] is still out of compliance.
[9:13] Staff believes another six months allows an opportunity for them to be fully in compliance
[9:18] with the service quality standards.
[9:20] Because of these new details provided by the company, staff is no longer recommending a complaint
[9:25] against the company, but is requesting that the commission extended performance plan for
[9:30] the time period stated and that the commission or the company provided narrative update
[9:34] to the docket of the first performance plan within 30 days of today.
[9:38] Based on the improvements measures,
[9:40] based on the improvement measures put in place related
[9:43] to the first performance plan.
[9:45] The company could use the Luminfiling UN-2399 as an example
[9:50] of what to file.
[9:51] Staff will work with the company regarding the compliance
[9:53] filing at the end of the second plan period
[9:55] to make sure that all parties understand
[9:57] what is being asked.
[9:59] This includes...
[10:00] My remarks at this time, and thank you very much.
[10:05] Joe, I appreciate the back and forth. I want to be really clear, in my own head, what it is,
[10:15] you're asking of us, given the shift. I'm glad to hear you see you in the company sort of
[10:32] To keep the first portion of that adopt staff's recommendation to extend the plan another six
[10:38] months, starting June 1, ending November 30.
[10:42] Are you also asking for that second phrase, order the company to submit the final results
[10:47] no later than January 15?
[10:50] For the second plan, yes, and for the first plan, I would still like to see them submit final
[10:54] results to the doctor within the next 30 days.
[10:57] using the example that Lumen provided or that Lumen submitted to their Gautet, you know,
[11:02] I'm 2399. So you're asking us in terms of if I were to think of a motion, if I were
[11:08] going to make a motion, I would need to, I would, you're asking me to make a motion that would
[11:16] be or us to be a motion that would be order that company to submit what by when. So first, we want
[11:27] them submit their final result so the first performance plan within the next
[11:31] or the least.
[11:32] This is the final result of the first plan.
[11:38] Within the next 30 days to the docket, using lumenswiling as a template.
[11:44] Because part of their email state that they didn't know what format we wanted them to
[11:47] submit it in.
[11:49] So that would be a performance for them to use.
[11:51] Okay.
[11:52] And then the second request is that we would like to put them on another performance plan.
[11:57] second one over the time period as I say it can remember exactly, but any in November 30th, I believe,
[12:03] and then have them submit those final results no later than January 15th to the same doctor,
[12:09] using the same format that they're going to submit within the next 30 days.
[12:13] Okay, so when I look at your memo, I'm note that I'm what I'm seeing is that you are not asking
[12:19] us any longer to have staff file a complaint to direct staff to file a complaint.
[12:25] But you are asking us instead to direct the company to file the final results of their first plan within 30 days using Lumen's filing as a template.
[12:37] Yes, correct.
[12:39] Okay.
[12:40] Because I think we're changed with them and we're lighting us on what they thought we were asking them to do.
[12:47] So we could understand the confusion where it could come from.
[12:50] Based on the language of our first memo and the order so.
[12:53] Okay. All right. Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate that you're working with me to get some specific city.
[13:04] Questions for Joe, colleagues, or follow up with Joe?
[13:13] No, I appreciate the clarification from Joe regarding the clarity of the previous order, but I will note that
[13:24] I don't want to see this again. I want to see this result, so I really hope the company pays attention to the detailed provided and make the filings as directed by staff.
[13:38] Mm-hmm.
[13:40] Mm-hmm.
[13:42] Mm-hmm.
[13:42] Mr. Power, any questions for Joe?
[13:44] Agreed.
[13:44] I think burden is not on staff, too.
[13:48] I'm sure that the company is compliant.
[13:53] So I appreciate the path we have laid out and with look for them to be more proactive in their communications.
[14:07] Mm-hmm.
[14:09] agreed. All right. Well, with that, Joe, I think I'll turn to public comment. Thank you.
[14:17] Any public comment on this item?
[14:35] So, not look like we have any comment on this item.
[14:38] Any further deliberation beyond what we've discussed? No, okay.
[14:45] I'll echo if there is confusion about what to file and staff is reaching out to a company and asking
[14:52] for filings. We just don't need to come all the way to the point of a public meeting memo. There's a huge amount of labor.
[15:00] Involved and getting to this point, and I'm disappointed that we had to get to this point to get clarity on what was required.
[15:08] So that is disappointing. And I echo both of you on not wanting to see that again. We don't have the staff bandwidth to chase compliance. Companies should be offering it. And if they're not clear on what they're supposed to be filing, they should be clarifying it.
[15:27] Okay. So based on the conversation with Joe and his recommendation, I would move, we adopt
[15:35] staff's recommendation to, let's see, let me get all the pieces in front of me here, so I do this correctly, because now I'm trying to piece two things together.
[15:51] Okay.
[15:51] months starting June 1, 2026, ending November 30, 2026. Order the company to submit the final
[15:59] results from the plan to the commission no later than January 15, 2027. And order the company
[16:08] to submit the final results of the first plan within 30 days of today. Both submissions should
[16:16] Lumin's filing as a template.
[16:21] I think that's what I need.
[16:24] All right. Thank you.
[16:28] I will second.
[16:30] I'm Conquer.
[16:32] Excellent. The motion is adopted.
[16:36] If there's confusion about what we mean when we say Lumin's plan,
[16:40] I think Joe has very clear picture in his head,
[16:42] so the company should be able to understand that,
[16:46] if they don't. And they should talk to staff early. Okay,
[16:53] right now, let's go on to
[16:56] R.A. 3. Dr. Iwai, I'm 23.83.
[17:03] A waiver for Pacific Corps, 2025, RFP phase 2. Good morning, Benadeck.
[17:10] Good morning, Chetani Commissioners, Crookins and Power. For the record, my name has been an
[17:16] springer of senior utility analysts with the PUSC and I'm also joined by Natasha Smith from the
[17:22] Harry Indian Department of Justice. So today I'm addressing Pacific Coast request regarding a
[17:28] second phase for its RFP. The Commission previously directed the company to initiate a phase
[17:35] two of its RFP by August 26 to meet the company's outstanding reliability and HP2021 compliance needs.
[17:44] and phase two is supposed to incorporate updated transmission information on B2H and address a narrow set of additional modifications.
[17:53] Specific course August 21st filing includes several requests, multiple waivers of competitive bidding rules,
[18:01] it's draft phase two RFP, and a request to continue using PA consulting as the independent evaluator.
[18:10] The company's favorite request align very closely with the joint proposal filed by Pacific
[18:15] Corps, the North West and Intermont, and power produces coalition and renewable North
[18:21] West in Docket, UM-2417, which intends to streamline procurement processes consistent with
[18:28] the recent executive orders, and staff is pleased to see this kind of diverse stakeholder
[18:34] collaboration built into the filing. That said, staff is not addressing all of the
[18:40] specific course requests today. Instead, we just focus on two items needed to keep
[18:46] face to one schedule. And those are appointing PA consulting as the independent
[18:50] evaluator and granting a narrow waiver of the rule of requiring bidder and
[18:55] stakeholder workshops prior to filing a draft RFP. Staff will address the remaining
[19:01] very requests alongside the RFP approval after one round of comments, and the schedule posted
[19:08] in the docket anticipates RFP issuance by November 3rd in line with what the company requested.
[19:15] On the IE appointment, PA consulting has served as the IE for specific requests last three
[19:21] solicitations, including phase one of the RFP, and so staff believes returning the same IE for
[19:27] largely identical RFP promotes continuity and efficiency,
[19:33] and in line with that P.A.
[19:34] consulting has offered a substantially lower price for phase two, and on the works of
[19:41] favors, that finds good costs to wave the requirement of a workshop, since phase two is
[19:48] suddenly similar to the version the commission approved last year, and stakeholders then
[19:54] participated in workshops and multiple rounds of comments and additionally phase 2 builds.
[20:00] The link to an opportunity for comments before the RFP is considered by the Commission for approval.
[20:07] So in summary, staff recommends the Commission authorized PA Consulting as the IEEE for Phase 2 of the RFP and grant the waiver for the pre-filing workshop requirement.
[20:19] This concludes my comments and I'm available for questions.
[20:23] Thank
[20:26] you. I have appreciated working with PA consulting, so this makes sense to me, but I don't
[20:34] call you if you have questions for Benedict.
[20:40] Yeah, okay. I also appreciate the stakeholders working together.
[20:47] It's a, it's a, it's a good sign.
[20:51] I will, there's since there's no questions for staff.
[20:56] I'll turn to public comment on this item.
[21:03] Amy,
[21:08] morning to fair tawny commissioner.
[21:10] Perkins and commissioner power.
[21:12] There we go.
[21:13] Okay, sorry for those for a second there.
[21:15] My name is Amy Webster for New Southern Energy.
[21:18] New Southern recommends the commission
[21:20] create a specific directive for the IE as a condition of being approved and
[21:25] you're sent as opposed to the waiver for the bidder workshop. So we recommend
[21:31] the Commission direct the IE to evaluate all information relevant to its
[21:36] claims in its closing report and conducting its duties and we are referring to the
[21:42] stakeholder and he concerns race-based stakeholders throughout the process. So as an
[21:47] For example, the current appendix in the staff report has in the draft RFP scoring modeling methodology report.
[21:55] The staff should address or the report should address whether staff and stakeholder comments and concerns were addressed.
[22:03] In the final draft RFP and we think that similar language should be included for their duties related to the closing report.
[22:11] And that the IE should respond to any stakeholders and bitter concerns raised throughout the duration of the process.
[22:21] And this is necessary to support the IE's conclusions and findings related to their role to oversee the process and ensure it's conducted fairly, transparently and properly.
[22:35] And let me just scroll through my notes.
[22:38] The commission we know and relies on the IE report and has used it for approving the final shortlist and relying on that analysis and so we think that the report should address all the concerns and any thing that came up during the process of the RFP.
[22:56] And second related to the workshop requirement, the commission should delay the current schedule to allow time for a workshop on the RFP is currently filed, then allow the comment deadline.
[23:10] And we recognize that there is currently a comment deadline for stakeholders to raise concerns prior to commission review.
[23:16] But, better workshops allow for more benefits than just raising concerns.
[23:21] It allows the business to assess whether it is worth it and whether they should submit bids
[23:28] and ask questions to the utility that helps inform whether it makes sense to submit a bit into the RFP.
[23:37] Additionally, the workshop provides an opportunity for interested parties to offer feedback directly to a specific core prior to the commission review
[23:45] And New Sun has questions that would like to ask the Pacific court in this workshop format, where there's ability for participation and discussion with other stakeholders.
[23:56] So due to the value of having this discussion in a workshop, New Sun urges the Commission to reject the waiver of this requirement and adjust the timeline to allow for a workshop, then written comments prior to the decision related to the RFP design.
[24:11] And we also, again, request that you direct the IE to evaluate all information relevant to its duties to address stakeholder concerns as well in its closing report.
[24:24] Thanks, and I'm available for questions.
[24:29] So Amy, if I were to summarize, you're asking us to, I'm so I'm trying to track them. I apologize. You're asking us to add the workshop back in and extend the schedule.
[24:45] And you're asking us to change the scope of work for the I.E.
[24:51] Correct.
[24:52] And perhaps not changing the scope of work because I understand there's some
[24:57] contract obligations between the Cificor and
[25:01] Regarding the scope, we just asked that you kind of direct them to address any concerns that were raised throughout the process in their closing report at any other communications that informed the commission's decision.
[25:16] And your concern is that in the past, we have not had that completeness from PA consulting.
[25:25] The concern is that, yes, in the phase one specifically news summaries, concerns regarding the bitter, the very criteria, the PTA, is the bidding to the pro forma, and none of those sorts of concerns were addressing the closing report.
[25:42] And so we just think that having the complete picture in one place for commission review, staff review, stakeholders is helpful for a decision-making.
[25:54] And then you feel like that's PA Consulting's job to capture those comments and and provide that response.
[26:02] And these capturing the concerns raised, yes, as it is related to whether the process was competitive and fairly done and whether there was broad participation and all those sorts of things that are related to it's closing report findings.
[26:23] mostly. Okay. If PA consulting was concerned that those issues raised, we're creating a competitiveness
[26:36] issue, wouldn't we expect that earlier in the process? I mean, I suspect you're you're
[26:42] what you're asking before in some ways, is it a report that says someone raised these concerns
[26:46] P.A. Consulting doesn't see them as impacting competitiveness.
[26:52] Yeah, so raising them in the closing report and in addition any other communications or reports submitted.
[27:01] Yeah, earlier we just saw that this scope of work in the appendix included listed out those reports as.
[27:09] The few say these in the appendix would kind of focus on that but.
[27:13] communications that you're raising of that would be necessary.
[27:19] Okay, so you're essentially asking
[27:22] PA consulting to consider all comments, all comments, and address them, whether they consider
[27:31] them in material to what they're analyzing or not. Okay,
[27:41] and then you're asking for a schedule change
[27:47] I'm trying to track the schedule changing,
[27:49] just asking for, so, okay, I think I have the schedule
[27:53] and the docket from staff so that I can,
[27:57] I can track what you're talking about.
[27:59] Okay, colleagues, any other questions for a new son?
[28:01] I'm sorry to dominate,
[28:03] I'm trying to wrap my head around it.
[28:07] Irmuted, Commissioner Birkin.
[28:10] Yeah, but it gets me every time.
[28:12] I appreciate you asking for clarity,
[28:14] because I was struggling with the same,
[28:15] trying to understand what exactly was being asked for.
[28:17] So thanks for, thanks to you and thanks to Amy for clarifying
[28:24] any thing additional commissioner
[28:26] power.
[28:28] All right.
[28:30] Amy, I know this was a very short turnaround, but written comments are super helpful for trying
[28:36] to get to these details, if you can manage them for public meeting items, so appreciate that.
[28:43] But I appreciate you dialoging with us.
[28:47] Okay.
[28:49] Other comments on this item?
[29:08] Not seeing any hands.
[29:18] Ben, can I follow up with you on the schedule?
[29:24] Yeah, of course.
[29:28] News on Amy's requesting the work shop. Is there a way in where our bidders
[29:35] barred from asking clarifying questions of specific court can
[29:41] can a bidder follow up with questions to decide whether they want to bid or not?
[29:48] Yeah, thanks for the question. Commissioner Tani, the RFP schedule after issuance already
[29:56] includes the ability for bitter.
[30:00] First to ask questions. It also includes a bit of workshop for developers to participate in and figure out whether this RFP is a good opportunity for them.
[30:15] So the requirement we are talking about here with the labor is simply a workshop that addresses how the RFP should be designed.
[30:26] And we recommend waving that requirement because the intent is not to create a whole new RFP.
[30:34] The intent is to continue with the same RFP with slight modifications that address the things the commission has directed us to address.
[30:45] So rinse and repeat.
[30:47] So it's okay.
[30:49] Thank you.
[30:50] That's helpful.
[30:51] I appreciate that.
[30:54] Thomas.
[31:01] Good morning, Chair, Tony, Commissioner, Power and Commissioner Perkins.
[31:05] I'm Thomas Burns from Pacific Corps, Vice President of Resource Planning, and acquisitions
[31:10] for the record. I want to start off by absolutely thinking staff and stakeholders for
[31:18] their very productive collaboration in UM-2417 as well as it overlaps into this with
[31:27] with 2, 3, 8, 3, absolutely want to voice support for the comments that staff is made.
[31:39] And also would very much like to point out that all of our comments as well as stakeholder
[31:46] comments and participants in the RFP are all trying to be productive and move the timeline
[31:57] forward to facilitate procurement as quickly as possible in this environment, especially when
[32:04] there are more than just jurisdictional loads that are seeking resources, a fast timeline
[32:11] is paramount.
[32:14] And that is all the comment that I have right now. I am available for questions.
[32:23] Thank you. Thomas, I'm curious whether there is any additional clarity on the B2H longhorn situation to shape this RFP, but that was the most material sort of piece, and I'm, do you have a sense of the status that will this RFP offer us any more clarity on that transmission leg?
[32:53] We are dependent upon input from Bonneville power on whether or not there's going to be any material impacts from B2H.
[33:05] And as of right now we don't have that input from Bonneville that would give us indication that anything is materially changing.
[33:14] That being said.
[33:15] We don't know that read those redirects. We don't have any more clarity on when that study is going to be.
[33:21] No, we do not.
[33:24] No, we do not.
[33:25] No, we do not.
[33:26] Now, that being said, this RFP is largely a rinse and repeat, as you stated, there are
[33:35] diminimous changes that have been made, bidders, or potential participants are always welcome
[33:43] to submit questions into our mailbox, at any time we will respond to those.
[33:50] And there aren't material changes to really justify having a workshop pre-assurance.
[34:00] I appreciate that.
[34:04] I'm a little being no surprised to anyone that I'm frustrated that we continue to not have progress on that.
[34:12] Last leg, but I understand the complexity, I understand the complexity.
[34:21] Questions for the company colleagues?
[34:26] No.
[34:31] Thank you.
[34:34] All right.
[34:35] Any other follow-up with staff colleagues or anything you want to follow up on?
[34:44] All right.
[34:47] Then let's turn to deliberation.
[34:52] Thoughts?
[34:53] Perspectives?
[35:00] I think I am comfortable moving ahead with staff's motion, appreciating the feedback.
[35:12] I would imagine this
[35:13] would occur anyway, given the pace at which I think the parties are looking to move ahead with
[35:18] this and the consistency that they're looking to emulate with the past process. Nonetheless, if
[35:26] it's worth saying, of course, it encouraged the company to be responsive from any potential
[35:32] bit of questions, and the independent evaluator, I think is entrusted to include all information
[35:43] relevant to the integrity of the solicitation process.
[35:47] If there are things that are omitted in the final report, of course, I can be placed in the
[35:51] as comments relevant to our later information, but for now I think I appreciate
[35:58] stuff balancing the issues and moving ahead with pace.
[36:11] I see you nodding commissioner Perkins. I am in a agreement commissioner power. The PA consulting
[36:21] Scope is to watch for competitiveness issues if they are not flagging issues as creating
[36:31] competitiveness problem, then I'm not really interested in spending expensive dollars
[36:41] on their time. So I'm comfortable with their scope and I've been very comfortable with their
[36:50] detailed analysis of the competitiveness of the procurement.
[36:58] I am, I continue to be a little bit worried that with out of resolution to sort of the last
[37:06] mild problem on B2H that the selection of projects we will have for this RFP will not be
[37:15] What could have been that that is a challenge that sort of outside our scope and just speaks to the challenge of working regionally that meeting our load our load serving entities needs is going to require cooperation across a whole host of parties in particular Bonaville.
[37:46] So there's, that is what it is and isn't what's before us today.
[37:52] So, well given that, I'll move we adopt staff's motion as laid out in the memo.
[38:01] As second.
[38:03] And I'll concur.
[38:05] The motion is adopted.
[38:06] We'll look forward to the revisions or if there is any of the RFP when it comes to us in the future.
[38:13] And I appreciate everyone's work, I really do appreciate Ipsia and R&W and the company working together.
[38:24] I'll say in my time on the commission that's somewhat unprecedented and really, really remarkable.
[38:30] I'm really points to everyone being very focused on getting the job done for customers, which I appreciate.
[38:36] So, um, well, with all of that, um, I'm gonna check them in the agenda. I see nothing
[38:44] further on our agenda. And I don't believe there's anything further to come before us this
[38:48] morning. Just pause, make sure. Excellent. I appreciate everyone's patience with our
[38:57] granicous outage. And particularly, I appreciate our staff scrambling this morning to make
[39:03] we met all of our notice requirements and folks could alternatively get access to the agenda while
[39:08] granicus was down. Folks don't see that really hard work by staff behind the scenes to pull off
[39:15] these public meetings. In compliance with a law and our intention for engagement from stakeholders,
[39:24] they just they worked very hard to make sure we get comments that everyone can get into the
[39:28] meeting that meeting works properly. So just really want to appreciate how on it they were on this
[39:33] morning with the outage. So here's hoping we get calmer public meetings going forward. So with all
[39:44] of that, we are adjourned. Thank you.