Okay. Alright. Well, good afternoon, everybody. We're gonna go ahead and call the staff meeting to order. Thanks. There we go. So today's staff meetings is to discuss and consider and possibly vote on bills, that are introduced at the legislature and also to provide direction to our executive director staff and Ryan DeMenna regarding the commission's, budget request at the the legislature. So vice chair Walden, do you mind moving item one, please? I move item one for discussion. Thank you. And, actually, I'm not do we do do we have Ryan Domena?
Yes. I don't see him on there. He's an important part of this process. I guess we may have to. That's true. He is. Should we text him? Maybe we jump the jump the gun a little bit here. It was one on the other. Yeah. He thought we were gonna take a longer lunch than than we did. There he is. He's calling it. There he goes. Just popped in. Mister Dimena, it is now your turn. We're on item one. So Okay. Thank you, mister chairman. Apologies for the delay. Can y'all hear me okay? We can. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Good deal. Deal.
And again, I'm sorry. I just rushed back from the capital, so I'm doing a little bit of catch up here. Item one. Thank you. Okay. Well, mister chairman, madam vice chair, and commissioners, if I could, I'll begin by just giving you a quick overview of kind of where we are in the legislative session. Please. So, mister chairman, madam vice chair, and today is day 24 of the, twenty twenty six legislative session. We are on track, and I think I may have mentioned this, in our previous discussion, for an absolute record number of bills, to be introduced.
As of this discussion, there have been 1,827 bills introduced, which does not include memorials or resolutions. The, house has introduced 997 bills, so we are on track to shatter the the, number of bills introduced in that chamber. The senate has introduced 830 bills. Now, it's important to note that on Monday at 5PM was the deadline for members of the senate to bills.
This upcoming, Monday the ninth at 5PM is the deadline for house members to introduce their bills. So what I always like to say is that once the bill introduction deadlines have passed, for the most part, you know your universe. From there, there are a few deadlines I'd like to share with the commission. And what that will result in is effectively that universe starting to shrink. The last day for, senate and house committees to consider bills, in committee in their chamber of origin,
meaning house bills in the house and senate bills in the senate, is, Friday, February 20. And so, again, any bill that didn't receive a hearing in committee in chamber of origin is considered dead. The, bills are then sent over to the opposite chamber. House bills to the senate, senate bills to the house. And the last day for those bills to be heard in committee is Friday, March 27. And having said that, the hundredth day of the legislative session falls on April 21.
And that, mister chairman, madam vice chair, and commissioners is, where we are presently with the legislative session. Alright. Thank you, sir. I I did have a a question on, can can you fill us in a little bit on 2756? Yes, sir. 2756 was heard in the house, natural resources, energy, and water committee. This occurred yesterday afternoon. This is sponsored by chairwoman Gail Griffin, and this legislation, was amended and received a unanimous vote out of that committee.
The next step in the process for this piece of legislation, and that's if it's moving fairly quickly, it will likely show up in, a I'm sorry, on a rules committee agenda on Monday, February 9, at which point it is positioned to head to the floor. Okay. Well, I think, since it can be heard as early as next Monday, I think it might be beneficial for the commission to to reach out to the sponsor, and to the house rules attorney because, while the amendment that was recently adopted did remove most of the legal concerns I had with the bill,
there's still some that that have been identified, by our our office of general counsel. So I guess I would recommend, that we direct Ryan Domena to reach out to the sponsor to share some of those remaining cons concerns. How about comments, questions from fellow commissioners? Commissioner Marcus Peterson? I just wanted clarify. We're talking twenty seven fifty six? Correct. Okay. I'm just trying to find it in this big document. So no no questions at this time, but I I would agree that sending Ryan to speak to the sponsor would be a good idea. Okay. Yeah. I'm I'm glad to see that the sponsor is focusing on really on large loads
and not just narrowly focused focusing just on data centers. I know there's a requirement, Ryan, that, we hold a workshop on this matter within ninety days of the bill, enactment, if it is signed into law. But, you know, we, my office will be holding a workshop in sometime in April, finally, That may that's gonna be it's gonna be focused more closely on data centers, not just large users. Even though I think the themes of the conversation and the outcomes will be very
similar in nature, do you believe that the, that this may be enough, to request the sponsor, remove that language? Or would we need to have another workshop sometime before Thanksgiving? You know, because that ninety day window is pretty narrow if, if that bill is signed into law. You're muted. I don't think he's muted, but we can't hear him. But we can't Now is there There you go. Okay. Sorry about that. Lot of devices trying to take over here. Mister chair, commissioner Thompson, I think, it'd be important for chairman Griffin to know that there is a a a workshop
planned that will cover, you know, similar areas. I think in any scenario, we have a great working relationship with chairwoman Griffin. We'd be happy to go and and set up that discussion to just to let her know what the commission is up to in this area and, to discuss any, you know, possible changes to the legislation. K. Great. Thank you. That's all I had here. K. You know, just to to add for, Ryan Dimena, I there are concerns about the bill, overreach into the plenary rate making authority of the commission, and I don't believe that that would be the sponsor's intention at all.
So I think that, you'll find good progress in in meeting and getting that language fixed. Mister chair and and madam vice chair, I absolutely agree with that. Thank you. K. Commissioner Lopez? Yes. So, I was, when this first came up, also very, very concerned again on their, you know, getting into our sandbox. But after talking with, Steve O earlier today and getting some of the rules, I think we might be covered because some of these requirements, again, for preapproval and contracts, extra high loads, again, making sure they're doing their own, you know,
cost of service or or making sure that they're paying for things, I think this may already be built into our rules. So if we can just clarify if it again, don't wanna necessarily I know this is public, but I don't wanna take necessarily, Representative Griffin's, you know, wind out of her sails, but she's kinda doing something that we already do. She's kind of fighting in law, but I'm like, okay. So, you know, something we're already covering. So maybe close the loop with with Steve and making sure that, you know, it's something we're already doing, so maybe we may not have as big of an issue. But there may be some unintended consequences with,
you know, going through legal to say, well, if this is codified in legislation, what does that do and limit us in our rules even though maybe something we already do if there's something that, we need to put some asterisk on saying, you know, as per approved rules by the ACC or something like that. So you know what I mean? So that that's not only put on there definitely to to monitor this and make sure that, we're keeping an eye on it. Alright. Thank you. So, I guess, given what I've just heard, we don't you don't really need anything from us then, Ryan, at this point for that bill, or do you need some direction or no?
Mister chairman, no. I I believe I've got my marching order, sir. And and I think that similar to the discussion that we had, in the last staff meeting that, you know, I think we've done a good job of of showing lawmakers that we wanna serve as a resource, be as helpful as we can. And I think just having that dialogue, with chairwoman Griffin will go a long way. Okay. So Chair. Sorry. Oops. Sorry. Will we will we make motion as a as a down the list, or do you wanna do this one in particular whether we decide to, you know I don't know. Was it monitor or say approve?
Do you wanna do that now? Or Well, I guess, let me ask legal. Do we do we need an actual motion to to direct the new minutes to to do this? Or I don't think you do in this informal of a context. He he's been hired, to do this as part of his job. I don't think you have to vote to micromanage every Right. Every decision. Okay. I I will say you did, ask the OGC to give you an opinion on this bill, and we're finalizing it now. We'll have an opinion for the commissioners probably tomorrow, once everybody on my team has had a chance to look at it. And there is some concerns on section d under 42 dash two zero seven.
That section mandates that the commission takes certain actions that are your sole exclusive responsibility. If it said we'd like you to consider or in some other language, but it says shall, and that's our concern. But we'll explain that more in in detail. Okay. Alright. Well, I guess, commissioner Lopez, are you happy? Are you satisfied with that? Yes, sir. I'm sorry. Alright. Well, and for for this item, I I I'm still working with staff on researching and evaluating many of the other bills. I am pleased to see that there's a lot of SMR bills out there, but, they are more directly impactful,
to the counties and the municipality. So, I'm I'm thinking we should just monitor these at this point. Everybody good with that? Just looks like it. I would agree. Alright. Any follow on questions or comments for item one before we go to two? Alright. That was easy then. K. I move item two for discussion. Okay. For this one, let's go ahead and begin with staff. So, Doug, we'll we'll talk to you. Number two. Number two. We have been working with the Dementos on this, and the budget ask we're seeking is $800,000
in general funds or other options. The best option that we have come up with is general funds. Just due to how this fund is funded. It's convoluted at best, and we have certain or certain individuals are paying four times in the fund. Some individuals are paying zero into this fund. And so to balance this out for statewide services, which these are, we're gonna recommend that we ask for a general fund appropriation of $800,000.
Okay. Comments, questions from fellow commissioners. Just clarification. Doug, so that's specifically for railroad safety funding? Okay. Correct. Got it. Thank you. Again, further point of clarification. Sure. Sure. Above and beyond the current budget. Budget. Pardon? Above and beyond the current budget. No. This keeps us even. It does not add or subtract from our current budget. It replaces the 800,000 from the IRF fund. I I let me correct myself.
It does add 800,000. The 800,000 would go back to the IRF fund, and Christie's setting over here, so she'll correct me quickly if I'm incorrect. But the that 800,000 would go back into the IRF fund and would be available to for pay of individuals and would allow us to finish hiring the five folks that we are short in utilities. It would help pay for the FERC attorney that we are requesting.
We would not need additional funds to hire a FERC attorney, which we are requesting permission, in this bill to hire. So while the monies come back to the IRF fund, the the other factor that people should understand is if that money isn't utilized in 2026, then we don't bill those that are paying for the monies that remain in the fund. Does that make sense? So, basically, it's a re it's a return to the utility rate payers or customers.
Right. They just aren't billed for additional funds because the funds still exist inside the IRF fund. Have I done okay, Christie? Okay. So just to clarity, and we're not going in the weeds, but I just wanna be sure sure because it's a $800,000 ask It is. To be able to put into the railroad fund, and that 800,000 then is, lack of a better word, shell gamed back into IRF so that we can use it for utilities. Correct. Okay. I'm good. My apologies for any confusion. I guess I I have a little bit of concern, because I know for the last two years or at least the last few sessions,
we spent a good portion of our time down talking to the legislators about getting us out of the general fund, to be a stand alone, funding mechanism, you know, for, Railroad. And now we're all of a sudden switching and going back the opposite way coming back to the legislature saying, we really want to be in the general fund. And I have some concerns that that sends a conflicting message. I think we need to decide once and for all, do we want to get out of the budget or do we want to stay in the budget or the general fund? I I know that,
you know, the IRF funds could still be available for other purposes, you know, that are critical to the commission. But I just think we need to be ready to be able to explain ourselves to the to those legislators that for the last two years, we've been telling our story about how we want to be out of the general fund and be, self sustainable. Also, now we're going back with our handout asking for them to fund us again. And so it sends mixed messages, and I would hope that my colleagues would agree that we should probably continue to
ask to be out of the general fund altogether and not be reliant upon the legislature to fund us. Brian, you kinda look like you've got something to add to that. If not, please add something to that. Absolutely. Mister chairman and, commissioner Thompson, you make a you make an excellent point. I think that, the expression I'll use is it comes from golf, which is this is the shot before the shot. And, I think that in this case, given the, existing budget constraints and other considerations down at the legislature, in in our opinion, it makes the most sense to go and ask that the legislature fully fund rail
safety, which presently is about $800,000 out of the general fund. It's a $1,600,000 annual program, though. So that $800,000 coming out of IRF is effects is is effectively subsidizing rail safety, but that's not what those funds are intended for. And so this, again, alluding to the shot before the shot, is to sort of address that issue, meaning that IRF and rate payers, and then as director Clark pointed out, in some cases, no rate payers or in some cases, rate payers being hit as many as four times,
that they're no longer subsidizing rail safety, sort of get that sorted out. And then that, is is is our moment to go back to the legislature and begin a much broader dialogue about, as I've been characterizing it, retooling the financial plumbing of the commission to ensure that the general fund, continues to receive what it has from the commission and that the commission can be a self sustaining agency. I love the golf, analysis there. But, you know, I just wanna make sure that if the shot before the shot ends up in the sand bunker,
that our actual shot is the right shot that we're taking to to get a hole you know, see to put it put the ball in the hole. But I know that we have to always be ready to pivot, in the event that our, shot fails. And, so, yeah, I just wanna make sure that we're that the shot before the shot and the final shot are in alignment with where we need to be to make sure that we're fully funded. Mister chairman and commissioner Thompson, absolutely. That is the goal, sir. Mister Diminah, maybe, we we had,
I believe, three different options on the table. Why is this the best one? You kind of touched on it, I think. But mister chairman, my understanding of the three options, was, one was to ensure that the entirety of rail safety was being paid out of the general fund. The second was a change in the security statute, that would allow for, those dollars to be used for safety. But, again, that's coming out of the security statute. So, again, I don't know that that is the best and intended use of those funds. The third option,
would be to, explore the establishment of a a fee on the railroads, effectively, to pay, for rail safety, similar to what they have, in other states. But that's a much, broader discussion. We need to have some stakeholder discussion, try and ensure that everybody's on board with the concept like that. Because the makeup of this legislature is one where if, you try to bring forth a fee increase, let alone on an industry that, doesn't have buy in on the front end, I I don't think that would, don't think that would turn out well, mister chairman. Alright. Thank you. So the way I'm viewing this,
I guess, is we're kind of trying to to commissioner Thompson's point. We're trying to untangle the web a little bit before we we, throw some bugs in it. Right? Yes, sir. Okay. Close enough. Alright. So I believe we need a vote to solidify this as our our marching, order. Right? Because we we had a vote before that said we were gonna go look at them, and now we've come back with this is the one. You can ratify what you've seen and instruct them to continue. Okay. With that said, vice chair Wallen? Yeah. Can just I wanna make sure that commissioner Thompson's concerns are are met with that
response because I I completely hear what you what you're saying about what's been asked for the last couple years. Rail rail safety is a a little bit different, so I just wanted to make sure we heard from you to see if you had other, concerns or how you feel about moving forward before we make a decision. Yeah. I I I guess at the end of the day, as long as our railroad, is, you know, our division, is completely funded, I really don't care how it gets funded as long as it's completely funded. But with the budget shortfall that they're anticipating, I just don't know that the legislature is
gonna say, hey, here's $800,000 commission, because there's a lot of other agencies that are gonna have their handout too. And and so I just want to be prepared to be able that we or know that we're prepared to pivot, to go back and have the discussion about, allowing us to either shift funding over from securities or some other avenue that we've been talking about for the last two to three years about being self sustainable and getting out of the general fund. So we're not every year having to go back down and convince them and JLBC
to fund the corporation commission over $800,000. It ends up being being a fight. And so, you know, I I just wanna make sure that that we're fully funded and, not half funded. Alright. Thank you. If I could please add something, would that be okay, vice chair wellness? Absolutely. We are limited on the amount of IRF funds we can collect. Am I correct? So this 800,000 eats up monies that could be used for the management of our utilities and rate
cases and so forth. So it it is intertwined in a way that is very until you have the hard conversation. And I have I agree totally with you, commissioner Thompson. This is a tough discussion in a year when the general fund is gonna be under a lot of pressure. But from the staff perspective, we feel like we have to start the conversation, if that makes sense. I think that's a a very good point you bring up because, you know, we we are seeing a lot of changes in the utilities,
moving forward. Markets are a perfect example. Lots of federal activity. We're gonna need the staff funding to to to deal with that, especially coming up in 2027. So, it is critical that we get the get the funding right now. And if this is the step we have to take to get to the the bigger ask, I'm okay with that. I don't know. Again, I really don't care how we get there as long as we get there. I just think we need to be prepared to be able to make that pivot Mhmm. Because I just don't see that,
you know, again, with the shortfalls that they're gonna have in the budget that we're gonna get fully funded for 800,000. I could be wrong. It's happened before, believe it or not. But, you know, if I mean, you know, the budget is pretty much already upside down, and we're going in asking for 800,000 from the general fund. And so I just wanna make sure that we're prepared and and ready to shift or to pivot in the event that that, again, the the shot before the shot ends up in the sand. Right? We need to be able to pivot pretty quick and and move to,
you know, to where we need to be to be completely funded. And again, I don't care how we get funded as long as our staff is fully funded. So, I guess, Ryan, why why go through the extra step if if commissioner Thompson's thinking we can just go straight for the straight for the shot instead of doing the shot before the shot? That's, chairman, I think that, we you know, we've had a number of discussions about how to, become completely self funded, not relying on the general fund. I think that the best approach is to engage,
legislative leadership, legislative staff, who focuses on the budget, and by extension, work with, the folks over at JLBC as well. I think that that our best chance at what we have, as commissioner Thompson pointed out, been discussing for a few years now, is ensuring that it's a collaborative approach on the front end. And again, one where you have the right lawmakers, budget staff, and JLBC staff, involved as well. And we're just given where we are in the legislative, session, how do I put this, diplomatically?
Things are moving quickly. Those types of thoughtful deep dive, you know, massive statutory overhauls, are really not what's on the menu in the moment. And so, I mentioned this as a shot before the shot, because I think that for an agency the size of the commission, setting budget constraints aside, an $800,000 ask, to ensure that rail safety is fully funded and no longer being subsidized by rate payers, which I do believe this commission believes is not the appropriate use of those dollars, I think is a good first step to at least addressing that issue,
which then puts us in the place where, you know, the off season, which we call the interim, is when we'd really begin to focus on discussion with policymakers and their budget staff about how do we partner in sort of, as I mentioned earlier, retooling the financial plumbing of the commission. K. Thank you. I just wanna ask another question for executive director Clark. So with the 800,000, like, if you got it, what would that put the budget at for the railroad division? 1.6. 1.6. Okay. And so in the past,
I think they've said, like, to truly be fully funded, though, they're still looking at where they'd want more than that to truly be fully funded. I think we've heard that $2,000,000 before. So it's so even if you got the 800,000, it's still not like the the full amount of what I think they would want for their to say that, yeah, we are fully funded. I I don't have an ask for $2,000,000. Oh, I know. That's why I wanted to know, though, because I think when we're talking about are we gonna get an 800,000 or not, even even with that, like, if you do get it,
it's still not truly fully funding the organization from what we've heard. To my knowledge, it is. The one point six? Yep. Okay. I I hear other other staff saying that it's one point one point six would be fully funding it, not not 2,000,000. Okay. Yeah. I staff, so she can come up right. Yeah. Hi. Christy Thatcher for the record. Chairman, vice chair. The 2,000,000 we used to ask for was for growth. Is was for the growth. So we were, with the FRA, they were subsidizing our,
out of state travel and we were planning for that grant to just die. So, if we continue with the grant, we don't need the 2,000,000. If we don't continue with the grant, then there could be, you know, increases as training and flights and everything increase. And so that's why we asked originally for the 2,000,000 in the past. But the 1.6 would absolutely cover them and give them room to grow a little bit on salaries and positions and things like that. Obviously, when I say positions, we need the FTEs to partner with the money.
It's a twofold, right? But that 1.6 would give us cushion to at least grow a little bit in that program for at least a couple years. Alright. That's that really clarifies it, and that's great to hear. Thank you so much. Alright. Now don't go away. This is Crystal. Hold on. So, for fear of not, opening up a massive account of worms here, so we talked about we're paying railroad safety out of the IRF funds. Supposed to be for utilities only. Are there other divisions that are repaying out of earth funds that we also need to be pursuing down the road,
maybe not for this cycle, but for later on? No. Vice chair, vice chair, commissioners, no. We are, that's the only program that historically because in the past, before Christie time, railroad and safety pipeline was all part of the utilities division at one point, which is how they got attached to the utility fund in the first place. Then they turned into their own separate division after a reorg of things. And so that's where the tether is. And so if we separate that completely with this general fund ask or whatever else
we choose to do, that would completely sever that last bit of the ties. Everybody else is, in their own buckets, like the corporations division, securities division, we are following statute on those. K. Perfect. Not a can of worms then. Thank you. So we're not following statute right now? Well, that's where the gray area turns in, right? And I'm definitely not the legalese person, but the IRF statute, and all the other fund statutes do tell you what divisions can be funded out of what. Safety, the word safety isn't really in any of them.
That seems like a heck of an argument to go back to the legislature then. Yes. The statutes are very specific. So if we establish a new fee and things, if it's not specifically, in written in those statutes, we can't collect that revenue. It has to go to the general fund, things like that. K. Yeah. Alright. Any more? You wanna make a motion? I am not a 100% sure what the motion is because we talked about modifying We need the prior motion. We need a a motion to adopt staff's recommendation regarding the budget request for railroad safety funding. Alright. So I moved to vote on the motion for staff's request to fund what what
Railroad safety. Railroad safety funding in fiscal year twenty twenty seven. K. Alright. Caroline, please call the roll. Commissioner Lopez? Aye. Commissioner Thompson? Aye. Commissioner Marquez Peterson? Aye. Vice chair Walden? Aye. Chair Myers? Aye. And, by a vote of five zero, this one passes, and I believe we are done. Thank you all, and we're adjourned.