Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Franchise topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, resource-commission members urge council to rethink Texas Gas Service franchise terms
Summary
Two speakers from the Austin Resource Management Commission warned the committee that the new Texas Gas Service franchise calculation would under-collect revenue from large customers and urged delaying the third reading and requiring the company to fund home leak detection; staff responses were noted but no council action was taken at the meeting.
Paul Robbins told the committee he had "incontrovertible evidence" that the proposed franchise agreement would under-collect franchise revenue from large Texas Gas Service customers, citing documented 2025 figures that he said would have produced a shortfall of "over $1,000,000" to the city’s general fund. Robbins urged the committee to delay the franchise’s third reading and to use the committee to hold open negotiations with Texas Gas Service so the company would publicly explain discounts for large customers and why it won’t fund residential leak-detection programs.
Lisonbee Silverstein, who said she also serves on the Austin Resource Management Commission, echoed Robbins and recommended changing the franchise’s pricing benchmark. She urged calculating the franchise fee at 125% of the Houston Ship Channel wholesale price—described in the presentation as a 25% markup over the current 100% benchmark—and said that change would yield roughly $200,000 a year in additional franchise fees. Silverstein also urged that the city require Texas Gas Service to conduct leak detection, remediation and reporting, framing that as both a public-safety and greenhouse-gas reduction measure.
The two speakers said the Resource Management Commission had proposed revenue-neutral edits and a 25% multiplier to better align the benchmark with local costs; they reported staff and the company accepted only limited changes during negotiations. Robbins said he had submitted supporting data to the committee by email.
No committee action was taken on the franchise agreement during the meeting. The comments were received under the public-comment portion of the agenda; staff and council members did not offer a technical rebuttal during the remarks. The committee proceeded to its scheduled briefings after the public testimony.
