[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6588484,"mediaKeyId","5602224-382ba00cec28de39a5197149e7a7d9e4","parentId",5602224,"title","Commission discussion criticizes gas utility conservation rebates, urges city to consider franchise changes and alternate program delivery","audioSeconds",1466,"startMs",2050000,"endMs",3516000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5602224-382ba00cec28de39a5197149e7a7d9e4&start=2050&end=3516","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5602224-382ba00cec28de39a5197149e7a7d9e4/thumbnail_2050000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6588484/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Commission-discussion-criticizes-gas-utility-conservation-rebates-urges-city-to-consider-franchise-changes-and-alternate-program-delivery","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6588484-003a8476a4a39387499b3c97776be93c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770500806&Signature=S1cWTTmOGaii4VctaX~GBexb66DWq9awiOoFi0Pq9m91KCZGCN-dxxEsLujx7dGa7cCPbhR7DMiff1e~ZkRcvkKFE4QaLrU0SkagRm4-4CYjuy30g4skU7IoLTSrdTBGVuPHbl~OPOAIJPauG1Ne8OEEV4AeSGt6lsRwbQehn96djivLmsyaHlH3gtpgnsN-abNc1R1NBllRTzjkDQ~3dER2hqyKfvbIF7~5j6Jw3ZqX1xoxSMMwnLRxlJXUyWfycvZvNRehP-HrXEwJdRJcHLLKjHSMTR1wYI0sNuauYVNdzfz6x7qfjec7a~u74yDpEu6WXDC7yzmXOG~0dWc6iQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Austin","date","2025-08-19T00:00:00Z","article","Commissioners discussed a presentation (delivered by Commissioner Silverstein on behalf of Vice Chair Robbins) that examined rising natural gas bills, the role of exports and winter storm Yuri in recent price spikes, and the cost-effectiveness of Texas Gas Service’s proposed conservation rebates.

Silverstein summarized several components driving high bills, including fuel costs, securitization from Winter Storm Yuri and export-related pricing. The presentation’s author (identified in the slides as Paul) had compared Texas Gas Service rebate levels for measures such as tankless water heaters, gas dryers with moisture sensors, furnaces, range stubs and backup generators against national norms and concluded some proposed rebates were excessively high and not cost-effective.

Presenters and commissioners flagged several specific concerns: proposed high rebates for tankless water heaters versus conventional tank units, rebates for gas dryer stubs and range stubs that provide little customer savings, and inclusion of standby generators in a conservation program. The presenter argued backup generators are not conservation measures and that rebates for them are effectively load-building, not energy-saving.

Commissioners and presenters discussed alternatives for city action, including requiring preapproval of capital expenditures as part of a franchise agreement, insisting on fuller contribution-in-aid-of-construction (so new hookups do not shift costs to existing customers), lowering storage/reservation fees where feasible, and asking the city to demand a new customer-assistance program funded in the franchise. Silverstein also suggested Austin should advertise when gas utility conservation programs are not cost-effective and consider having Austin Energy manage conservation program delivery under franchise negotiations because Austin Energy has demonstrated cost-effective delivery of efficiency programs.

No formal action was taken on the recommendations during the meeting; commissioners asked for source materials and underlying data to review the comparisons in greater detail. Commissioner Schwartz asked for the data sources to be circulated so the commission could examine Texas Gas Service filings and comparator utilities’ proposals side-by-side.

Why this matters: the critique raises questions about program design, rate impacts and who should deliver efficiency programs — the gas utility or the city’s electric utility. Commissioners asked staff and the presentation author to provide the underlying data and to consider how franchise negotiations could be used to protect Austin customers from high costs or cross-subsidies.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Austin - Resource Management","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners heard a presentation critiquing proposed Texas Gas Service conservation measures and rebate levels and discussed options including franchise conditions, capital preapproval, and having Austin Energy deliver conservation programs instead of the gas utility.","taxTitle","Austin, Travis County, Texas","taxId",2819,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6588489,"Texas Gas Service says Railroad Commission denied its energy-efficiency program application for Central Gulf service area",748,1214000,1962000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5602224-382ba00cec28de39a5197149e7a7d9e4&start=1214&end=1962","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5602224-382ba00cec28de39a5197149e7a7d9e4/thumbnail_1214000.jpg","/articles/6588489/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Texas-Gas-Service-says-Railroad-Commission-denied-its-energy-efficiency-program-application-for-Central-Gulf-service-area","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6588489-87ba12f0ab2208b465c90ebfb896aa8a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770500806&Signature=H5NbSHfWw0iOwKcEhN7dlXHh3IRlXeRut6Wbls~jjqL5bSQLNZrn9z~-phM-954ryfNIrBLslXput~dUhMIBaOPWuspPlNYLPmmSx40V4l6DQjkzrATH0Sk1cYo8hFwi0GuxbuJyZ65eQwBpwgFh62IYpSJv0H0gsBsg4ogqYYj0wV2WiJbdjb4zpNI3Pyi52JaZYTUeaJD7P591r8QPyZiZIT7Qzs8NNqyxnZtwJoAvz7L7U~8HNnXUfP-MpPusb56FxYXZczujNogySfpezanf1hwK6J-44djhCIMvS14Edf2mAJteZYczBNckIs7VKIbXSHOssrKGQeq21~0Eyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Texas Gas Service representatives told the Resource Management Commission that the Texas Railroad Commission issued a final order the morning of the meeting denying the company’s application for a customer-funded energy-efficiency program in the Central Gulf service area.

Larry Graham of Texas Gas Service said the denial arrived “literally this morning” and that the company had not yet had time to digest the order or determine next steps. “At the moment, we do not have an energy efficiency program,” Graham said.

Judy Heich, managing attorney for Texas Gas Service, said the commission’s order reflects a precedent that utilities should not file fully customer-funded programs without proposing a cost-sharing structure. “It appears that the commission does not agree with a fully customer funded program of this nature,” Heich said, and she referenced older commission precedent in which a utility was previously denied for failing to seek a 50/50 cost split. Heich said the regulatory venue for approval of such programs moved under House Bill 2263 (2023) to the Railroad Commission and that the company’s original program as filed was therefore before the Railroad Commission.

Heich said Texas Gas Service remains committed to customer education where permitted but that the company had not yet determined whether it will file a revised proposal or what form any resubmission would take. Commissioners asked about elements of the denied filing; Heich and Graham said the proposed program included expanded measures such as rebates for tankless water heaters, gas ranges and (contentiously) standby generators and that the Railroad Commission directed that the CGSA filing be denied under the precedent cited in the order.

Commissioners requested a copy of the final order and a case number. The company left a copy of the order and provided the case number 00018221; Heich confirmed it was the final order issued that day. The company said it would share additional information as its internal review proceeded.

Why this matters: denial by the Railroad Commission halts the company’s customer-funded conservation program in the CGSA service area and shifts questions about how gas-efficiency measures are funded, designed and delivered back to utilities, regulators and affected municipalities. The denial also prompted commissioners to ask whether future approaches should rely on different funding splits or on city-led program delivery.","Texas Gas Service informed the Resource Management Commission the Texas Railroad Commission issued a final order denying its application for a customer-funded statewide energy-efficiency program for the Central Gulf service area (case 00018221). Company representatives said they were still evaluating next steps.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6588495,"Commission recommendation to let staff email commissioners’ personal addresses fails 5-1",298,622000,920000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5602224-382ba00cec28de39a5197149e7a7d9e4&start=622&end=920","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5602224-382ba00cec28de39a5197149e7a7d9e4/thumbnail_622000.jpg","/articles/6588495/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Commission-recommendation-to-let-staff-email-commissioners-personal-addresses-fails-5-1","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6588495-0d6fb8291d9f3f630be1d8fc8a73588e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770500806&Signature=CYvrodw8ZZfluRgItnpyQKtK6j1y4rv32CDjAojaH46nqdc3XOfsscpJi2DAsqFxgvpd79JU2-XZ6RIwr6lZ0AFqDBelxQygDoNCo8dTK2jRus~TrBDhtr3EMH1afFrPe-Phr5yee-K6H18nQNeMhGJtmUEbOKx9pHHMF5M957rMR8QNsVUrjgZjuv9~W1HjIHA9EGBj2IqOnPAj9P1jCQTz6CRSlPtkf-Zn6t8r0HEuG3T42yWdxpFf~vu0iAIvWB62l2Z3fS7TxbkoTzyQKrFcurdiZQE49wGQtnvmj9LA4vdmX2CndaO736Sn70ALA67xYwpR3kSVeMbb6n03kQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Resource Management Commission considered and rejected a recommendation asking City Council to change city code so staff communications to volunteer board and commission members could be sent to both official city email addresses and personal email addresses.

Commissioner Silverstein introduced a near-copy resolution previously adopted by the Electric Utility Commission asking that staff be permitted to send communications to personal email addresses as well as city accounts. “I have a heck of a time remembering to look at my city email,” Silverstein said, citing difficulties with the city email login process.

Commissioner Zagan said the idea sounded useful but asked whether making emails public in real time could avoid quorum problems. The staff liaison and legal counsel cautioned that Texas open-meetings rules and discovery requirements limit how board communications may be conducted; legal counsel said the issue implicates the Texas Open Meetings Act and noted commissioners had signed an agreement to use city email accounts.

When the commission voted on the recommendation (the “be it resolved” language asking council to allow communications to both official city and personal addresses), five commissioners voted in favor and one voted opposed; the motion failed 5-1. Commissioner Geary explained her no vote by saying city email accounts are set up to protect commissioners and to ensure public-record handling of requests for communications. “I’d rather keep it separate,” she said, adding that city email makes records retrieval straightforward.

Commissioners discussed possible compromises, including an opt-in approach that would allow individual commissioners to provide a personal address if they chose to do so. Several commissioners asked staff liaison Natasha Goodwin to consider operational alternatives such as calendar invites or reminders that surface material posted to city accounts. The Electric Utility Commission has already sent a similar recommendation to City Council; changing practice would require a city ordinance amending the usage agreement commissioners signed.

Why this matters: the discussion centered on balancing convenience for volunteer members with public-records requirements and open-meetings constraints. Commissioners asked staff to explore less intrusive reminders and process options while noting any change to email practice would require a council ordinance.","A proposal asking City Council to change city code to allow communications to and from commissioners’ personal email addresses failed 5-1 after commissioners debated record-keeping and public-records concerns.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6588500,"Resource Management Commission approves Austin Energy aggregate authority for commercial/multifamily rebates and solar incentives",497,123000,620000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5602224-382ba00cec28de39a5197149e7a7d9e4&start=123&end=620","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5602224-382ba00cec28de39a5197149e7a7d9e4/thumbnail_123000.jpg","/articles/6588500/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Resource-Management-Commission-approves-Austin-Energy-aggregate-authority-for-commercialmultifamily-rebates-and-solar-incentives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6588500-bd7d9fe90c1a6bf4d1788d661fdf3959/orig.mp4?Expires=1770500806&Signature=Flfo0Is9NarK0--BsGnShsu-rRiyQ2fW3ufxsyZ5Zks578YsfOinN5TXhclwDOzv4qXe56SvXL~cAXqgFW-uTRHTviUDjwqq~u3YwhalO9J8tLPXS-wo3X2ooSQk5Gj-QAPr3LfiZterR1rzEill-Xcw0~Mecpk3I2XnwVKJZcNtipT701PcZJDV8cafLMXRy8Rtga3H9yFcw9GclaveVNzzOg7sBC0f2YoO0dEVtrGD0yTdfhA8ilI9Pf7y-iOpTxUc-Un3IrDgj9FC-gYzBiwsumC9U4gBXVde03q7hFHsUw8odYoPYkluJklhe76kT7~Nl~BAWso1tQiqHEVx6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Resource Management Commission voted unanimously to approve two Austin Energy items that authorize aggregate issuance of rebates and incentives so contractors are paid without project-by-project council approvals.

Richard Genesee, vice president of customer energy solutions for Austin Energy, told the commission the two items (items 2 and 3 on the meeting agenda) extend existing authority that lets the utility issue payments quickly rather than sending each contractor reimbursement to City Council for separate approval. “The sole purpose of these is to get contractors paid quickly and, so that there isn't any delay in getting, their, projects paid fully,” Genesee said.

Genesee said item 2 represented the fifth consecutive year of aggregate authority for commercial and multifamily energy-efficiency measures and item 3 was the second year for the commercial and multifamily solar incentive authority. He told commissioners that the details and individual project payments are included in the utility’s monthly reports provided to the Resource Management Commission and the Electric Utility Commission.

Commissioner Silverstein asked about year-to-date megawatt savings and noted that the report in the backup materials ran only through June even though the fiscal year extends to Sept. 30. Genesee said Austin Energy expects 2025 to exceed 2024 solar installs (13.1 megawatts in 2024) and that energy-efficiency progress is being tracked against the utility’s resource and generation plan. “We’re comfortably on track for the annual number or where we expect to come end up at the end of the fiscal for both energy efficiency and solar,” Genesee said.

Silverstein also called attention to demand response results in the backup and said those numbers looked “disappointingly low” and asked staff to examine how demand response could better serve savings and resource needs in future.

Motion and vote records show Commissioner Silverstein moved to approve item 2; Commissioner Lukey seconded. The commission approved item 2 by a 6-0 voice/hand vote. Commissioner Swartz seconded the motion to approve item 3; the commission approved item 3 by a 6-0 vote.

Why this matters: aggregate authority is intended to shorten payment timelines for contractors and keep energy-efficiency and solar projects moving. The commission emphasized continuing oversight through monthly reporting and asked staff to monitor demand response performance.

Votes at a glance

- Approval of minutes from July 15 (agenda item 1): approved by roll-call/hand vote (6-0). Motion moved and seconded; minutes approved.
- Item 2 — Authorize issuance of rebates for multifamily and commercial customer energy-efficiency measures (Austin Energy aggregate authority): moved by Commissioner Silverstein, seconded by Commissioner Lukey; outcome approved, 6-0.
- Item 3 — Authorize issuance of commercial and multifamily solar incentives (Austin Energy aggregate authority): moved and seconded; outcome approved, 6-0.

No additional ordinances, resolution numbers, or dollar amounts were specified in the discussion; project-level payment details are contained in the monthly reports Genesee referenced.","The Resource Management Commission unanimously approved two Austin Energy items giving the utility aggregate authority to issue rebates for commercial and multifamily energy-efficiency measures and to issue commercial/multifamily solar incentives, intended to speed contractor payments.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission discussion criticizes gas utility conservation rebates, urges city to consider franchise changes and alternate program delivery

Texas Gas Service says Railroad Commission denied its energy-efficiency program application for Central Gulf service area

Commission recommendation to let staff email commissioners’ personal addresses fails 5-1

Resource Management Commission approves Austin Energy aggregate authority for commercial/multifamily rebates and solar incentives