Insurance & Commerce- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (1)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB307
Act 373
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB307 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC UTILITIES; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC UTILITIES; TO CREATE THE GENERATING ARKANSAS JOBS ACT OF … | J. Dismang | Notification that SB307 is now Act 373 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Speaker 3
0:16
Representative Les Eaves, District 58. Thanks, sir. You may proceed with your testimony. Members are bringing you Senate Bill 307, and
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
0:25
I want to give you a little information about where Arkansas is currently. And most of you know this, but I'll go ahead and say it. We are in a situation now where we are about to lose a significant amount of power at two locations, we're gonna lose about 3.2 gigawatts of power. So we have to rebuild that power. Just to maintain the status quo,
just to stay where we're at, we've got to build at least those two, rebuild those two locations. If we replace those locations with the current traditional finance method, it's going to be more costly for the ratepayer than the method proposed in this bill. So when it comes to power in Arkansas, we have 3 choices to make. We can purchase power from other states that have invested in their power infrastructure. And I can assure you that that is the most expensive way for us to provide power for our citizens.
The second way is to build power utilizing the traditional method of financing that we currently have today, which capitalizes all of the borrowing costs spread out over the lifetime of that operation. That is the 2nd most expensive way to build power in Arkansas. The third way in in is outlined in this bill is the least expensive. And I, I think it's important to note that Not only are we trying to build power to maintain the status quo. The co-ops. The other investor owned
utilities all have probably 4 gigawatts of power request in the state. That they cannot meet. These are companies that want to bring their businesses to Arkansas and bring jobs to Arkansas and tax revenue to Arkansas. And I think that's something that's important to do. So this bill has a couple of things that we need to talk about. One is how it works. And I know that you've received emails just like me saying that this removes PSC authority. That's not true, that they're going to be automatic rate
increases. That's not true. So I want to tell you how the system works. So when a utility comes to the PSC with an application to build a strategic investment. They will apply to the PSC and the PSC has 6 months to look at that investment, uh, application and 6 months they have to approve it or deny it. If they deny it, they'll tell them the reasons why. I believe they have 30 days to to cure whatever the situation is, and that can go back and forth until the utility gives up or until they meet the requirements that the PSC deems
necessary. Once the project is is approved by the PSC. Uh, they can apply the rider rate application. What that means is how much is the utility rate going to go up for that first year of cost of building the plant, and that's the difference in how we're building them now in this bill versus how we would traditionally build those things. So the PSC would approve the first year of operations or excuse me, of construction at the end of the construction of the first year, the PSE would look back 12 months and see
where the rates prudent, was it built according to what they said it was, how that it was gonna be built, and then they also look forward 12 months to make sure that the next 12 months looks appropriate and what that rate looks like to our ratepayers. That goes back and forth until the project ends. When the project ends, the PSC has 12 months to review the project overall. And make sure that it was done prudently and more importantly to make sure that it was done in the public interest. If there are any cases where the rates were too high, those can be
refunded to the ratepayer. That in a nutshell is how that program, uh, that program would work. Um, I think it's important to realize too like we talked about a minute ago that there are plenty of requests for power coming into this state that we need to look at. I've got a, a chart here of on a bill we passed not long ago about data centers. the only state in our area. That doesn't have them. Why is that? We don't have enough power. So I propose we build these
power plants using the new method which will be in the long term overall cheaper for the ratepayer. There is no scenario where the utility rates and the utility bill is is not going up. They're going up whether we run this bill or not. The question is, do we want them to go up? A lot, or do we want to run them under this bill so they go up a little bit over time. I think that's easier for the consumer, and they will end up in the long term with rates that will be significantly lower
otherwise. There are huge data centers that are looking at Arkansas. I know there's been some talk about cost shifting if one of these data centers comes talking so, by the way, a data center in the terms that we're talking about today is not a crypto mine. This is a big data center. One is going into Mississippi that is around a $10 billion investment that will bring in over 1000 jobs. That's pretty significant investment in a state. Um The the idea that this would cost shift to ratepayers is also
untrue. If a business comes to Arkansas and they want to use 90% of the power on a new plant, then they are responsible for paying for 90% of the, of the, of the power plant. You have to pay for what you use. It will not be cost shifted onto other ratepayers. Uh, the co-ops operate in a similar manner in this bill again, full PSC oversight. And we, I know we've all talked about these bills quite a bit, and that is in a nutshell what
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
6:03
the bill does. I'd be happy to answer any questions. And Represent McGurk, you're recognized. Thank you, Chairman. Well, Representative Lee, I absolutely agree that we need more power and we need to keep the competition with the other states and coming from kind of the electric industry, I definitely understand that. I have a few different questions. One of mine. Well, we'll give you 22 to start out with. One is that, We
Well, I guess one of them on page 23, you see it takes a doesn't affect the public service commission, but it says except this other one provided in this subchapter. This does not alter the powers of the authority of the commission. I wonder what that accept is, what are they, what are they taking away? What are you looking at? It's line 33 on page 23.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
7:06
I think Senator Dising just walked in. I may let him answer that
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
7:11
question. He's a little more familiar with the It just caught my eye because it's saying it doesn't affect him except for this. So give me just a second, I can tell you. And let me, let me go ahead and ask another is that uh When you talk about data centers. I have a crypto mining in my silly. It's similar in the power consumption. It's a lot of power consumption, and I know enough about it to know that they got a very special, very, very low rate.
I'm concerned that some of the manufacturing coming in that we're building electric for, we're going to get a much better rate than the people that are already
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
7:44
here. Is that possible? Well, again, that would all be up to the PSC to make sure that it's in the public interest, that it's prudent. I mean there are, there are already
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
7:51
facilities to get a special rate. It depends on how much power they use, you know, what they bring to our state. Again, public interest is
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
7:59
the key word there. OK. And also coming from construction, the oversight that is on them.
is through this rider and through the PFC. And I guess it's just, yeah, I don't even know what's a question you can really answer. How to, when you talk about construction, there's lots of times a lot of construction overruns. You can hire, you know, your Someone that runs the prices up because you want it, you want it fast and, and you're spending somebody else's money, so you don't care what it costs. So how do we know, and I don't know if that, I don't know if
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
8:31
we can though, but well, I think how we know is that we have the PSA looking at it before it starts, during the construction process,
and after the construction construction process to make sure that all of the costs that are incurred were prudent. That, that to me is more than they are doing now. And this, this method of CWI construction on progress is not, is not new. It's, there's a lot of states doing it. I mean, I could give you a list of 12 or 15 states that do this and what they have found that over time, like I said, it ends up resulting in lower
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
9:02
costs for the consumer. And I guess I hope that is because essentially we're loaning them money before the
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
9:10
process. So we get a return on investment and I guess we are by lower rates in the future,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
9:16
so that's that's, yeah, I think I could agree with that. I think that doing it the old way, you borrow money and you know they're going to put their own money in it, borrow a bunch of money. At the end of the day, some of the numbers I've seen would be the difference in doing it the old way versus the new way would be over $200 million on a billion dollars project that is not capitalized. and that is not put into the rates, so over time that's going to be a lower rate for the consumers. Look, I don't want my
bill to go up, right? I don't, I mean, I, I don't know that any of us want our bills to go up, but the fact is they're going up whether we run this bill or not, because we have to produce power to replace what we're losing, and we have to produce more power to try to attract those businesses here that are going to supply jobs. This is a cheaper
Chair
Unverified
9:59
way to do it for the ratepayer. Thank you, thank you.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
10:05
Thank you, Representative Ladyman. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, to kind of expand on what Representative McGrew just
asked, um, and I think you call it the sea whip. Well, in production, uh, so the PSC, uh, they have engineers. That look at this process and review it to make sure that we're, that we have good design and we're the quality of the construction is really what I'm talking about. So these engineers, are they trained in quality of construction. In other words, watching what the process is where you don't waste
money like representing Grew talked about, and you're using the best practices in the industry. I mean, do they have people in their engineering department qualified to do those sort
of inspections and they have people in their organization that are qualified to make sure that a project like this is prudent. Um, I, I do understand that this is going to put a lot more work on the PSC and if if they need to hire more people to make sure that these projects are done the right way and done economically, then that's what they'll do.
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
11:17
Thank you, Representative Ferguson. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, I've got two questions to start now. I'm we'll get back into Cuba. My first question, uh, you've mentioned a little bit about if we don't pass the bill. Uh, I've had numerous of text messages saying that our bills for residential customers will go up 25%. I want you to uh Just give me your comments about that, and then I'll get to the second question. I've
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
11:44
seen some of the emails that say they're
going to go up 25%. I, I don't have any idea where that number comes from. Maybe it's from an old draft or or I don't know. I don't see any possibility of a residential rate going up 25%. 1 of the reasons is because in the bill is a provision that says we must stay 10% below national average. Um, that in and of itself would keep that from happening. And the numbers that I've seen spoken about the average utility rate is going to be somewhere in
the five-ish dollar range for the first year of an
Speaker 41
12:27
amount would equal 25%. OK? And my second question. You say. If we
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
12:37
don't pass this legislation. The process now Uh, utility companies will have
to Since the gap, I know they've got to close some coal power plant. And so if we don't pass this legislation.
And Process now is the utility company will have to do something to their infrastructure of some kind, so we've got to build more power plants. Now the process now I see the Public Service commission here and maybe you can answer this question. What is the process now? They build the power plants and then 2
or 3 years later they come and ask the public service commission for a rate increase. Is
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
13:16
that the process? Yes, Yes, sir. You know, they're going to, they're going to
replace the power that's already they're going to replace the power that we're losing, right? And, and those plants are in the in the billions of dollars to replace, and so they'll gather, they'll borrow money, they'll use some of own, um, and those the funds that they borrow will incur interest and at the end of the project they're going to capitalize all of those things, come up with what they uh determine that the new rate for our our ratepayers will be PSC will look at that and that's what they'll go with. That's going to end up being a higher rate than if we do it this way.
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
13:54
And well, I, I'll get back in the cube, but I have one more question for and maybe you can answer it maybe public service commission can answer, but I'll I'll just say it. The process that we now have for the public service commission in that regard. They don't have any input. In terms of How the utilities We go about constructing or getting financing or creating this process.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
14:25
establishing new power plants in the in the current method in the current, yeah, I would let them answer that question. OK, I'd like to have that Ferguson, um, let's
Speaker 47
14:32
bring someone from PIC to the table right now if you'd
Speaker 49
14:35
like that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you could come up, introduce yourself and who you're with and If you can respond to the question or if you need him to repeat it, just let us know. I'm.
Speaker 53
14:55
Danny Holford, chief of staff at the PSC. I did hear your question,
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
14:59
but I would love if you would repeat it, please. Well, just kind of walk me
through the process. Right now at this moment. Uh, whether it's energy or co op. Rate increase they need to build
Another power facility. So what's the process? Sure, you just want me to walk you through it?
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
15:22
Yes. OK, so currently if a utility wants to
build, say, a new gas plant, they'll come to the PSC, they'll file an application and they will essentially ask to be able to build that plant. Uh, we'll go through our internal processes of review and assuming they get approval, they get approval, that's when they start their construction. Uh, however long it takes to construct, you know, say it's 3 to 5 years. Once construction is
complete, we call the asset used and useful, so it goes into service and it's actually serving Arkansas ratepayers. That's the point at which the utility can come back to the PSC and ask to be able to recover what they spent. What is that time frame? In terms of how long 6 months,
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
16:19
a year. How long does it take? Which part? Uh, the part that the utility company will say, I need to recoup some of my costs after they get approval to build the facility.
Do they start recouping costs. When they start
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
16:33
building the facility currently no. Currently it's not until the plant goes into service. And even then
Speaker 53
16:39
technically, it's only when the plant goes into service that they
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
16:43
can ask to recover their costs. It's not an automatic recovery. Um, but they come in after it goes uh into service and that's when they asked to be able to recover costs. They show everything that they spent and incurred during that time, um,
our staff goes through it. Uh, on a line item basis, uh, there's, there's a number of parties that are involved in the process so when they go into service.
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
17:07
If it's 2 years from now or 3 years from now when they build the plant, that's when they ask. For the rate increase. That is correct. OK. OK, I'll go
back in the queue queue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Baker. You're recognized.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
17:30
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, question for the bill sponsor, so I agree with you. I think that um this is a very uh fiscally responsible way to go about building these plants. Can you speak to what benefit the power companies find
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
17:48
in this. Arrangement Well, yeah, the The power companiesy specifically and the other investor-owned utilities since they are regulated monopoly, they are guaranteed a rate of return that is determined by the
PSC. So they have investors that want to, you know, make money on the money they've invested in these companies. So the more, uh, the, the more profitable they are, the more money they make is, is good for them, but at the same time, you have to remember that is regulated by the PSC. It's not a free for all here. And, um, you know, Energy, for example, I think it's done a pretty good job of keeping rates as low as possible over the years. Um, one of the biggest benefits that I've seen in this is the companies that are looking to come to Arkansas and bring jobs are Bigger companies than I think
we're used to seeing. And, and there is the possibility that 1 or 2 or more of these companies would, you know, write a
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
18:39
check or otherwise invest in a power plant, which means we get the excess power at a
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
18:45
much cheaper price than if we had to pay for
the plant on our own. Follow up. And uh members questions for PSC when you review these cost analysis, what, what, how in depth
is the audit because I'm not familiar with how that is guaranteed and that these, these bills that they're presenting
are, I guess, within. Uh,
Speaker 56
19:07
fair and reasonable. Yeah, so it, it's a very in-depth process, our
Speaker 53
19:13
review, uh, we scrutinize everything through a lens of prudency. So if the costs were prudently incurred, uh, Then, then they're deemed recoverable. Typically there are, uh, a number of adjustments made throughout the process. So, uh, parties will, you know,
Go back and forth in terms of where they think that. Prudent number lies, but it
Speaker 56
19:39
is, it's certainly an in-depth process on our
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
19:42
part. So there are opportunities where you negotiate down what the bill submitted, or do you have the ability to line item costs that
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
19:53
are not found to be prudent. Yeah, so. Yes, I, I guess the, the, the
Speaker 53
19:58
shortest way to get to that answer is yes, we, throughout the process, there is negotiations that occur and you can pull certain line items out.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
20:06
It's not just that the whole number, um, as a whole gets reduced. I mean, that it does have that impact, but there are
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
20:14
line items within that capacity in this ongoing method of correct. OK, thank you. Where's Alan,
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
20:25
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Representative Es for this bill. I, I do have a question for you. When we look at the tariffs. On utilities today.
What is the possibility Um But it might be if, if we have to pay tariffs on, on this in the state of Arkansas. I know Canada is talking about 30% tariffs.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
20:51
So tell me how this works. You're talking about if we get to a position of buying power from Canada. Absolutely entity. That would be the the most expensive way for us to supply power to our citizens in Arkansas. Like I said at the beginning, the least expensive
way to provide power, I think is doing it under this bill. The most expensive way for us to buy power is to buy it from someone who is doing what we're going to do in this bill. That's the most expensive way to buy power. That's not something I'm interested in doing for the citizens that I represent. I want to make sure that the things we're doing here are keeping the, the rates that we have to pay as as possible over
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
21:33
time. OK. Follow. Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. Whether this bill passes or not.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
21:41
We're going to have rape increase. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Pertaining this bill does not exist, your constituents' rates are going up when the electric companies build new power that they have to build just to maintain the status quo. So just that means that your ratepayers are going to pay more. This
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
21:59
bill would mitigate those rates and keep them as low as possible over time. Thank you. Perhaps Richardson he recognized, yeah.
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
22:13
Representative Ferguson. Yeah, thank you again, Mr. Chair. Public Service commission. So right now there's a Public Service commission,
do they have any oversight when a utility builds a new power plant in terms of the cost, in terms of
Speaker 73
22:35
cost overruns. So, are you talking? God Let me back
Speaker 53
22:41
up. So the way our current process works, um,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
22:47
Overrun isn't something that happens, um. Conceptually, just a minute, um, The approval is granted on the front end for the project itself, but the prudency of cost doesn't come until after the costs have been incurred and the plant is complete. So, um, They offer, you know, projections to us, but really we're not looking at it from a
Speaker 53
23:17
standpoint of If it overran a certain number, we're just looking at it at the end of the
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
23:25
day, where these prudent costs. And, and Representative Es based on this
legislation. What happens in terms of the oversight of the Public Service commission when the utility company commenced to build in their facility. Well,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
23:38
like I said, they have to approve the the strategic investment upfront, then they have to approve the rider rate going forward. And then that's when
they have this look back, look forward every 12 months to make sure that what was done was done prudently. What is about to be done is also done in the public interest, done prudently in the rates appropriate. Then at the end of the strategic investment when it goes into service, they have 12 months to review the entire project and make sure that everything was done as it was supposed to be done, including was the
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
24:09
rate appropriate. And one more follow up this chair. Usage Now that's not in the bill, and I guess it wouldn't be in the bill.
But would that be based on How much power is used, could
uh it could attribute how much uh the rate might be for a customer, whether he was a residential or
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
24:33
a commercial customer. Well, you, you're billed by the kilowatt hour.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
24:37
So I, I think you're asking if a big company came in and used say 90% of the power of a new plant, they would be responsible for paying for 90% of that power and that
plant, excuse me. I mean, we're not going to cost shift to the individual ratepayers so that
Speaker 40
24:55
a big company gets cheap power. That's just not something
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
25:01
that's in the bill. In fact, that's prohibited in the bill. That's prohibited in the bill. So if Tyson's in Jefferson County decides that they want to. Increase their facility. In which they may have to use quite a bit
of power. Uh, so the bill prohibits them from cost shifting. And, and Public Service commission actually has
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
25:22
oversight over that process. Yes sir, that's exactly right. And hey, look, I hope you get a Tyson in your area and I hope they use a lot of power, and
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
25:31
I hope that they pay for most of the plant, which is what
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
25:38
would happen in this bill. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Where's the Dobby, very nice. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize if this question was asked while I was out of the room, but this is for the PSC, uh, are y'all satisfied that this bill gives protections to the consumers of Arkansas. It appears to me that it does, but I want to hear from y'all.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
25:58
I think that the question, the better question is in terms of, uh, what is this bill ultimately seeking to do and does it meet the goals of y'all, um, in terms of consumer protections, um, you know, we've, we have touched on uh the ways that PSC authority is and isn't impacted, uh, so, you know, as far as being able to
The PSC identifies, you know, on the front end, uh, whether or not uh the project should get approval, um, we review the prudency of costs, things to that effect. Um,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
26:40
so. Well, I guess I guess actually the better question is, is this is not abrogating what the PFC does. You still get to do those kinds of things that you were there looking out for, for consumers to make sure that rates are not
too high, but also looking to uh industry to be prudent in their building of their facilities. Am I
Speaker 56
27:05
correct in that regard? We will continue
Speaker 102
27:07
to make the same prudency findings that we currently do.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
27:12
Thank you. That's what I thought. Thank you. Representative Ferguson, you, your, your question about cost shifting,
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
27:18
um, There are 3 provisions in the bill, number one, the rates must be set in the public interest, they cannot be unfairly shifted, and any contract must be approved by the PSC and be in the public interest. So there's
a section on page 10, page 18, and page 33 that talk about that and, and just to give you an example of what it says to support economic development in Arkansas. Nothing here and is intended to develop rates that would unreasonably shift costs from a customer or customer class to other customers in a manner that would result in rates that are not just and reasonable, not consistent. applicable law or not in the public interest. That's just one of the sections that talks about Not being able to shift those costs off to other ratepayers. Just wanted to throw it out there since you asked the question.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
28:04
Trips be in Wharton, you are recognized. Representatives want. Can you identify the two plants that will come down
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
28:14
offline. Yes, sir. There's a a coal plant in uh Newark and there's a coal plant in White Bluff, I believe just outside
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
28:22
of Pine Bluff. OK. What is lead time in order to have a new plan come online. 3 to 5 years, something in that ballpark depending on what needs to be done. 5 years.
How many do you know offhand how many plants China is opening every month. The last
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
28:45
I heard that number was between 13 and 14 every month. 13 and 14 power plants of the size we're talking
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
28:53
about now every month, every month. And do you agree with the fact that energy
independence of the nation comes, trickles down to Arkansas that we have to be or we're going. have
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
29:06
to purchase our energy from
outside the border. Yes, sir, I don't think I could have said it better myself. There's a
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
29:17
lot of other things that go into that. Um. Speaking of power. There's
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
29:23
an outage right there. Point made John back there. I, you know, there's a lot of arguments, you know, that How it should be done. It is concerning to me that China's building as many plants as they're building because what they're building them for is waiting on data centers to be put in. And again, data centers
that we're talking about are cloud storage, AI, all of these things. And, and I'll be honest with you, there is, there is Nothing I want more than to make sure that China does not capture AI and keep it in their country. That I don't know that we all know, uh, and I certainly don't know the extent of what AI is going to mean in the future. But if it is what we think it may be, I want it to be kept here. And we can't do it without power. And the other interesting thing I would say too is we all
talk about, you know, such and such company was going to move to Arkansas, but we don't have power. I mean, we know some of those stories, but the The most interesting thing that I heard was what we don't
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
30:23
know are the ones that just bypass us anyway because they know we don't have power. We
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
30:30
don't know what we're missing at this point. So if we're, if I may, if we're self-sufficient. And energy. We'll be able to remain competitive and be able to maintain the lowest consumer
rates that we have now, but we have to build these plants in order to be able to do that. Absolutely, yes, sir. One more question. AI is the coming thing. It's the future for us in this nation, and we have to be competitive if we're going to lure those people into this. Yes, sir. That's exactly right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
31:09
Richardson recognized him. Thank you. So I just want to
make sure I'm understanding what I heard you say with the PSC, um, currently, the process is, it's 3 to 5 years if they want to build something, right? Upon completion and when it begins to produce power and operating, then they come and ask to be to recoup what they spent in the form of a rate increase. Correct. Uh, yes, that is correct. So how often When they come and ask for that,
do they not get it? Um So when you say do they not get it, do you mean do they not get the full amount
Speaker 53
31:57
or do they just get denied total cost. Um Off the top of my head, I can't think of uh There's one circumstance where
there was um something that was denied the ability to be placed in
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
32:19
the rates, but it didn't go through the normal process to, um, It didn't go through the process that I have
Speaker 115
32:28
kind of outlined in terms of application first and then OK,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
32:31
so typically it does not happen. That's the easiest way to answer that. OK, so, but in this bill, when if it passes, they will have to come back every year to get approved. Right? Based on what they've spent. To look back and see what they've spent if it was in line
or if it wasn't in line to you guys for you guys to approve. They will file with us
Speaker 53
32:54
on an annual basis, uh, an annual report for the PSC
Speaker 124
32:58
to review, um, and the PSC will, um, complete its review within 60 days of that annual report. So basically the bill gives you more oversight
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
33:04
into what they're doing as opposed to where it is today. It gives us different oversight, I think is the best way to
explain it because we don't, and I don't, I don't say that as that it gives it that there's more or less, it just, it gives us oversight because conceptually this
Speaker 53
33:28
is a process that doesn't currently exist in Arkansas, um, in terms of Real time recovery. So We don't currently review recovery in that sense because there currently isn't real-time recovery. Does that make sense? Yeah
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
33:49
Yeah, kind of, yeah, I guess I'm I'm, I guess I was just trying to get to the point of where we are now and where we're trying to go with the bill gives us a little better understanding of what's happening in real time rather than waiting till the end of
Speaker 53
34:02
it all. I guess that's what I was trying to understand. Sure, yeah, I think in terms of um is, does this reflect real-time,
Speaker 56
34:09
um, there, there's real-time recovery occurring and there's, there's going to be annual reports filed. OK, thank you. Represent Tosh recognized.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
34:21
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to go back to Representative Darby's question a while ago to the PSA and I know you held up a chart, representative where we was the only state in all the surrounding states had already gone, I guess apparently to legislation what you're proposing here today. It's my understanding that some of those states are now pushing legislation to push back against this very legislation to protect
the the ratepayers. Do you know if there's any truth to that or not from
Speaker 56
34:58
PFC? Have you heard anything? Is that, is
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
35:01
that factual or do we know? Um, do you mind stating your question or the states that have already implemented this legislation that we're is being proposed today. They already have it in place. We saw a chart a while ago where the surrounding states around Arkansas already have passed this legislation. My question is, are any of those states now passing legislation or pushing
for legislation that would push back
Speaker 56
35:29
against this legislation to help protect the ratepayers. Let me make sure I have your question correct.
Speaker 53
35:36
OK, so in terms of other states that already have similar C whip in place are they current am am I aware of legislation that they're in the works that would Walk it back
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
35:48
or that, is that what you're asking? No, the question is, are they pushing legislation now, now that
they've implemented this type of legislation. Are they pushing legislation now because there's a concern has, uh, I guess, a developed for the ratepayers that didn't work out quite like they thought it would, and now they're pushing for legislation to protect those ratepayers after implementing this type of legislation,
Speaker 53
36:18
you. I'm sorry. Um, I am truthfully not aware, um, whether or not Such legislation exists.
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
36:27
With that specific theme. One of y'all, can y'all answer that? It, it's actually the opposite. So Mississippi, you know, had a one-time deal they did for a data center and my understanding is that their CWIP legislation is making its way through the legislature. It's also my understanding that Oklahoma already has a CWIP process and they're expanding that for two, with two natural gas bills is my understanding. So there's actually an expansion of what
we're talking about because the entire world recognizes the need to produce more power. And as a country we had best recognize that need in more locally as a state, because if we were behind the curveball, and we do not make these changes and make these improvements and get ahead and do everything we can to create reliable, affordable power in this state, we will be buying it from someone else that is already having its data centers consume its power, and when it's all said and done, that will be the most expensive way and the
Chair
Unverified
37:28
hardest hit our ratepayers will have. Thank you. If you don't mind, Senator, um, we all know who you
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
37:36
are, but would you introduce yourself? John Doe, Cersei, Arkansas. Jonathan Dismay. Senator District 18. Thank you, Senator. I want to add to that too. You've got Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, South uh South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia have all implemented what we call CWIP, which is the thing in
this bill to to recover funds on capital investments so that lowers the cost to your customers. You also have Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Missouri. Georgia, and Florida either have or are adopting the CWIP treatment similar to this bill but with fewer safeguards than we have in this bill. Bank Representative
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
38:17
Representative Lunstrom, you are next in the queue. Um, just
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
38:22
a couple of questions and then I'll get back out, uh, I get it. I thank you for all your work on
this. This is um pretty intricate legislation, to say the least. Um, and there's no argument we need power plants. Currently, when a power plant wants to come online, they go through the cost first, and then they come to the PSC. This completely changes that, turns it around, we start collecting money now, um. So we've collected from the ratepayers what happens when there
isn't a project or the project goes awry, that type of thing. it
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
39:04
Well, there are safeguards for the ratepayers. They, they can refund the overages to the ratepayer. There are some uh one or two other examples if they, if there's an uh an overage and there's another strategic investment going on, they can apply it to that one. But the
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
39:18
real safeguard for ratepayers is that if the PSC finds that that there's an overage that can be refunded to
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
39:24
the ratepayer uh via bill credits. OK. Um, I get the refund part, that's gonna be expensive and involve lawyers and all kinds of rigmarole to get that done, correct?
Speaker 106
39:35
I'm not a lawyer. I don't know how to answer that, but
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
39:38
I think that that's something that the PAC is well equipped to handle, OK. Right now in the bill, it calls for a yearly report for this amount of money, is this something we need every 6 months, or quarterly report, there's going to be a lot of ratepayer money piling up. And this is not a surprise. We've known these power plants are going offline, um. And yet we kind of kick the can down the road some, but we've known this is coming, so why
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
40:06
haven't these entities been already going through the PSC process. I, I, you want to answer
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
40:14
that one? Currently we're an exporter of energy, and we've been in that position for a long time. When you ask the question of these projects been denied. I think the last project that would have been proved that would have created new generation of this kind of level, I would have been in South Arkansas a decade
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
40:29
ago. Um, I don't, so there's nothing new that's happened. I don't think anyone sitting at this table understood what data centers were going to mean and
how much energy they were going to consume. So just by example, uh, Big River Steel uses about 800 megawatts of A data center will use a gigawatt of power. And again, you know, built here or not, that power is
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
40:48
going to have to be created somewhere, or China will do it for us, which is the last thing that anyone has won. So again, I don't think that anyone was able to foresee the need and the, the, the growth of energy need as rapid as it's
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
41:03
been in the last 5 years. Um,
this is a response to that. I mean, it is, we can either be proactive or not, this is an attempt to be proactive. And one thing I want everyone to keep in mind when we're talking about What that rate is going to be in construction right now, they are guaranteed a rate of return on every dollar they spend through the construction process, right? So if they spend, uh, you know, $100 million in the first year. They are guaranteed a rate of return on that $100 million that accumulates that 100 million accumulates, plus the rate of return they were guaranteed, which say it's 7% the first
year. And every year that grows. And so in a billion dollar project, if you had a 7.7% rate of return, that would, that Guaranteed rate of return at the end of the project that would be capitalized as $231 million. That ultimate amount would go into the rates of the consumer. The bill is trying to keep it at a billion dollars. The actual cost of the construction, not the guaranteed rate of return during construction. So that's what we're talking about is that amount of money. And again, on a billion dollar example with a
roughly 7% rate of return, which they're guaranteed a rate of return in the state of Arkansas, that would be about 231 million. So you can either realize it to the ratepayers can pay for that $231 million over the next 30 years or the life of the project. In depreciation, and we won't go into the, the, the equation or that can be paid for in the 1st 5
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
42:27
years. That's the amount of money we're talking about, OK, that, that helps. Um, are we asking the right payers of Arkansas to pay for the building of a power plant in another state that's been going around
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
42:39
and I'd like to clear that up because it's, it talks about it in the bill. We
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
42:45
do that now. I mean, there are power plants that we have partial ownerships or our co-ops have partial ownership in or whoever. That then powers back to Arkansas and you do that when it makes economic sense for Arkansan. So in, for instance, if there is already um all the transmission that's needed out of state, and it is cheaper for the ratepayer to tie into that transmission at a site, you would want to build that power plant out of state. Now, there's
a provision in this bill that is going to make sure that we give preference to power plants created in Arkansas. I'm not aware of one that would be created out of state. Obviously, we're talking about replacing 4 at 2 different sites. That are in Arkansas right now, um, but again, that is contemplated in the bill, but also you want to protect ratepayers. And if it is cheaper to build out of state because of the transmission or whatever being there, then that should be an option, um, or your constituents should be upset because we're not forcing the cheapest avenue possible for new energy.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
43:39
OK. All right, thank you. I'll get out of the queue and get back one more thing though, it's not, this is not just about data centers either. I mean, we are uh the number one export in Arkansas is aerospace related parts and components. We have a lithium play that's happening or getting ready to happen in South Arkansas. We are likely, very possibly going to be the steel capital of the world. All of those
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
44:02
use energy and we don't have enough. Thank you. Thank you, Represent Baker, you're recognized. Thank you. I appreciate you addressing the
uh the cost sharing issue, um, I guess. In my simple understanding, the current model requires them to start paying once the power is being generated. So
if they use 90% of the power being generated, they would be responsible for it. If there's no power being generated. How is the cost sharing allocated along the way since there's no power to I guess identify who
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
44:30
should the biggest rate increase. So I mean, I think on the, and you may be able to speak to this better than me, but on if we're replacing a power plant, we already know who the ultimate users are going to be. And if
there's going to be a strategic investment and we know that there's an entity that's going to come into the state and they're going to utilize 75% of the power that's being proposed in a strategic investment, then that's when they would take that allocation into account in that initial rate
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
44:57
setting. So the, the rider rate within the 1st 60 days. Um, and so that's, I think that's not 60 days, it's 60 days review. I just went blank. 90 days. I'm sorry,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
45:05
90 days to review on the but so that's They will know because that's part of the strategic investment, who the utilizer is
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
45:13
going to be, so they have the ability to
Speaker 74
45:17
allocate the overall cost. I guess per diem or per user. So even though there may be some cost increases for the constituents, it's actually, it's not equitable across the entire cost of the project. Those rate increases would have
Speaker 151
45:28
to be tied to a benefit. Understood. OK. Thank you. Representative Warren recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
45:45
Just for my own understanding. So we got two pieces to this. Number 1, we've got 2 plants coming offline, so we're replacing that energy. So, uh, you talk about finance, financing this over basically a 30 year period, is that right? So OK, somewhere. But over a period of years, So with what we're talking about trying to attract data centers.
Get new business in Arkansas. How far does this take us? With, with what you're proposing the energy that we would build. How, how competitive does that make us guys? I don't think
it I think it brings us in line with our neighbors. That that's what this bill does. Again, this is not a reinventing of the wheel that some folks have made it out to be. CWIP is a utilized process in all of our surrounding states.
We don't have the ability to do that, and it is to the detriment of our ratepayers that we do not have the ability to do and
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
47:01
utilize CWI. Thank you, Repton McGrew, you recognized. Thank you, uh, a couple of questions. One, back to the first one it says there on page 23 line 31. It essentially does not affect the public service commission except is provided in this subchapter. Can you tell me what that exception is, how to fix it.
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
47:20
And the second question I think it some actions and sets time time frames for orders and reviews, but I, I'll let Danny, if you
Speaker 106
47:27
want to. Look at that one. That's, that's specifically where you're at page 23. Rich, what line are you on
Speaker 46
47:38
Group 33. And I apologize. I should have read more yeah I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
47:42
mean it's because we're setting up a new process and so this is a bill that outlines the new process, a new code section that doesn't exist and so it's saying
I mean, it's Unless it's provided for in this chapter, everything else stays the same when we're providing
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
47:58
for the guide guide rails in this subchapter that makes sense. I think it's, it's a catch language to make sure that you're not into unintentionally undoing something for the PSC in another coach section. It
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
48:10
just makes what I'm reading it says it doesn't accept someone and he says except for what's in this
Speaker 151
48:16
section, so I didn't we're providing for a new method.
That does not exist today in this subchapter. Everything else as it rates the PSC stays
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
48:27
the same. That that's the That's the sentence. OK. And next question, since other states have done this, and I know a lot comes into play at the cost of this, and we don't know what the costs are. OK. But do we have any idea? How we're going to step up as far as how much percentage and, and over the first 1 to 3 years
Speaker 6
48:45
or whatever, do we have any idea how much we know that our costs are going to go up to the, to the ratepayers.
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
48:54
I don't think any of us can know exactly what is going to happen because
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
48:57
we have a program for anyone to apply to be able to utilize, uh, but one of the things this does is require a uh reporting back to the Legislative council and what's happening, um, and so we'll be able to keep track of what we're doing if we utilize this code section. Thank you. Resent Lustrom. Let's
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
49:15
go back to that reporting component. How often will they be coming to LIC? I knew you were
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
49:21
going to ask that, and I don't have that one
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
49:24
flag that was not a question in the Senate. Give me just a second. That's OK. Uh, while you're working on that, um, I'm trying to get comfortable with this because I agree with the concept overall, but it just feels like we're doing an open checkbook to our ratepayers and I want some comfort with the fact that this could be a billion dollar project. And it's gonna take years. So what assurance does the, do the ratepayers have at the end of that project that all the money they've invested.
She's really going to be worth, is the juice going to be worth the squeeze because that's, they're gonna come looking for us when this is done, and they don't, the power plant's taking longer. The cost has gone up. What kind of assurance can you give the ratepayers that this is a
good decision versus having the utility pay for it upfront and watch every dime, P and Q and then coming to the PSC. And then
Speaker 22
50:22
the ratepayers are are tapped in the reporting is
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
50:27
annual to the PSA and to the legislature, and I, I would say there's no open, open checking account like you referenced because everything they do would be
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
50:37
reviewed and approved by the PSC. that happens now. They're reviewed now before the project starts, then the project starts, it's paid for, and then they come back with the bill. This is the billion dollars, and here we're gonna divide it up. This turns that model upside down. The ratepayers are paying ahead of time. And that money's going to the project.
Speaker 162
51:00
The ratepayers are only paying for the
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
51:03
guaranteed rate of return during the construction process, not the whole project. There was some confusion in the Senate that somehow we were going to force ratepayers to pay for $1.5 billion project in five years. That is not what this bill does. Um. You know Again, I, I don't know
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
51:21
how to elaborate more than I think it's already been said about the number of steps that are in play for this process, the review,
the same exact audit that is required at the end of construction is required here. And if they have overcollected, then there are two things that can happen if there is already a strategic investment approved by the PSC. It can be applied, that overage can be applied to that which we would want to happen. And the second thing is it can be returned to the ratepayers through build credits. So, again, it's the same process that takes place if there was an overage of collection that is proven out by the PSC when they're making the determines or determination for prudency, then
it's going to be reapplied. If at any point that they believe the, the, let's say a utility comes forward and realize that they're above projections and things are happening. They were required to immediately notify the PSC that this is happening. Uh, so there are multiple protections in place to ensure the ratepayers are going to be at the same. Point at the end of the day underneath the one-year audit. It is, it is
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
52:21
again, how high do you want that rate to be? Do you want a ratepayer to go through the normal process where their rates are going to stay the same
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
52:32
and then have a substantial increase in new rate as they pay for the new, uh, energy or
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
52:37
are we going to allow it to ease through. I
get that part. I'm, I'm looking at. How do we assure that the other because there's I've never seen a project come in on time or on budget. So, and that's, that's regardless of how much we sit on it. And watch every dime, so
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
52:57
I just wanna make sure that. I would say that the, the, the
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
53:02
12 month look back and the 12 month look forward. Gives ratepayers more protection than waiting for 5 years to see how
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
53:08
the project worked out. They're looking at it every single year. What happened in the previous 12 months and they're
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
53:16
looking at what's going to happen in the next 12 months. Did you find out about LAC how often they
Speaker 9
53:25
report annually, that's it. OK. Right. Thank you.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
53:29
Thank you Representatives to Mercy would be recognized. Representative Eaves and Senator
Demain, does this not Really improve the PSC's position so far as uh Protecting the small consumer faster and quicker, being able to evaluate and review on an annual basis rather than waiting until the end of a construction project. I think it does. I agree with
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
53:52
that. It gives me a comfort level knowing they're
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
53:55
watching, you know, every dime and they're watching
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
53:59
it every year. OK. Would this be fair to assume
this is a a form of pay as you go, construction. Yes, sir. Would
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
54:12
that be? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you with the with the ultimate goal of making sure at the end of that, our rates stay as low as possible. I mean,
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
54:20
that's the goal, right? We want our rates to be as low as possible in this state and provide plenty of
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
54:28
power, cheap power, reliable power. You made the point earlier, did you not, that rates are going to go up. That's a sure, that's a
surety. Or are we face brownouts and loss of energy and forget about the economic development.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
54:43
I think that could be a possibility. I think the other side of that would be that we have to start buying it from out of state, from other states that are doing things like this. And I think that's a pretty expensive option, but either way, the rates are going to go up. And again, that's the whole. purpose is to make sure we mitigate those rate costs so they don't, you know, have a sudden rate spike and we end up with lower rates as a result of this bill.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
55:08
So it puts us in a position of that the PSC will be in control of what's happening out there. If we had to go and buy them from out of state, we'll be at the mercy of others relative to what Representative Alan talked about, uh from Canada. Yes, sir, I agree. And then we're going to have the situation, which, which I agree with. I don't agree with Canada charging us for.
electricity, but we've got to get a position to where we are in control of our own destiny. I, I
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
55:44
would prefer not to rely on Canada or any other state for the power needs of this state. Well, thank
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
55:52
you. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Ladyman, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I think when we say rates are going to go up, no matter what we do, some people are confused with why are they going up if we do nothing, right? People are confused about that because if we go, we do the same thing
we're doing now, they shouldn't go up. But the reason and you tell me if I'm right about this, but the reason rates would go up if we do nothing or we don't improve is because these states around us are going to build data units and they're gonna get more. power So what that does is it puts more demand on the cost of natural gas. So when the demand goes up on anything, what happens? The price goes up. So we're gonna
have to pay a higher price. If we do nothing, and if we implement, I, I think what you're saying if we implement this bill. Then that increase would be less for a couple of reasons. The price of gas going up and also the cost of money. Isn't that a big issue here?
Yeah, I'd agree with that. And again, if we do nothing, they're still going to build plants to replace the ones we're losing, using the traditional method again, which is going to be a more expensive rate for the ratepayer. But I
agree with everything you said, and I believe that to be true. Well, I think, you know, I visited Canada and, and there's 3 states in northern US that get their power from Canada, from Toronto, where I was at. And what what they're doing in Toronto, that's the largest nuclear plant in the world, and instead of building a big plant, they're building 4 small plants. They're doing that because they don't want to pay for that money upfront. For 1500 megawatts instead of 500 at a time. And I think that's what we're
talking about here is we, we pay as we go. And not wait until the end where we got to pay the interest on
Speaker 49
57:52
all these funds. Is that correct? Yes, sir. That's correct. OK. Thank you members saying no further any other questions
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
58:02
from, oh, sorry, Represent Ferguson. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're representative Allan, I'll make it brief. Uh.
Last night, yesterday, I did some grilling and I took my brother-in-law, a plate. First question out of his mind, he's disabled. And uh during the summer months. Uh, well, doing the, uh, other march, and his, his, his energy build maybe $54 or $60 and then when summer months come and he uses his one little air conditioning unit. It goes up
a little bit. So he was asking me a question
and uh he didn't get a text message because he didn't know how to read his text messages, but he was watching the news. He always watching the news. So we hear about this legislation, and he said, Ken, how much are you going to raise my rate? I said what do you mean? He said, well, not being runs about 54, 60 bucks. How much is that gonna cost me extra? Now you guys may not be able to answer that question, and maybe, I don't know what the Public Service Commission can answer that question or one of the utilities that are here, but then I thought about it and it
was a valid question, you know, he gets maybe $1000 a month and so me and my wife, we help him out, but you know, he was concerned about that. He didn't get a text. all the news, and he, he knows I'm up here. And so he immediately said, OK, how much you gonna raise my, my light bill. So at some point, Mr. Chairman, uh, if I can get maybe sort of a hypothetical
answer for that, for that. Maybe you guys can
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
59:43
maybe address it and have some comments. I don't know. The Information that I've received is that the average Utility bill would go up somewhere in the generality of $5 a month on an average user. And I think that average user, 1000 kilowatts, I don't know, but there are other programs that um So, so it will be less than that for him because he's significantly below that average. But there are other programs that um the investor
owned utilities, um, like Egy or Swepco and then the co ops, uh, and specifically energy, um, is they have a program called Lehip, I think is how you pronounce it, um, they have a program that's to help low income folks with their electric bills. They have other, um, the power to care single stop, the build tool kit and and other flexible payment plans to help users. So, um, you know, that and then philanthropy sponsorships, and other volunteer things they do. I
think the utility companies, um, understand the need to help
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:00:49
those of our citizens that are lower income with their energy bills, especially in the
Chair
Unverified
1:00:58
summer months and in the winter months. OK, uh, Thank you, Mrs. Chia.
Speaker 49
1:01:05
Thank you, Reverent Ferguson. Any other questions from the committee? saying no. We do have numerous witnesses signed up to speak, so I'm just gonna start and order going down the list, the first person and
Forgive me if I mispronounce it. It looks like a Bali to
Chair
Unverified
1:01:26
speak against. If you would, sir, just introduce yourself and who you're with and you can proceed with your
Speaker 179
1:01:40
testimony. My name is O Cyrus Bali. I'm here with the uh Arkansas Public Policy Panel, Little Rock Freedom Fund and our Kansas for Fair Utilities.
Speaker 180
1:01:51
Utility rates. Today we're going to hear from a lot of people who speak in favor of this bill that don't struggle to pay their utility bills and aren't offering any assistance to those who need to keep their lights on. The house is cool or warm and the water running. Arkansas used to be a state with some of the lowest utility rates. I'm here to speak for those who work, while some people are working to make life harder. The least expensive way to generate new power and build better power plants is to tell
utility companies to fund their own projects. Seek federal grants for infrastructure and not use their customers as ATMs. Just last November, the AP Arkansas Public Service Commission just approved rate increases for residential customers for all the Summit's utility gas customers, but they didn't increase the rates for the commercial, commercial customers. Which to me seems like These are not the priorities of the people that elected you. They also had meters reading incorrectly, but did not offer
to refund the customers that they charged double sometimes tripled the amount monthly. I want to voice this collective frustration and concern over sensitive Senate Bill 307, a bill that would increase utility rates for hardworking families across the state. Under current legislation, former races have already been put in place and it allows power plants to be built. New ones to be built as well. And we, it would not require us to make to Pay for those investments. Some
of these investments, they may not even be complete. Let's be clear, this bill is not only a bad bill with its bad policy. It's a betrayal of the people and it also reduces the oversight of the Arkansas Public Service Commission. At a time when inflation is already stretching family budgets to the breaking point. Many of us are struggling to make ends meet. SBO 307 proposes to put more burden on the shoulders of those who can least afford it. It's not just a rate hike, it's a direct attack on the economic stability of everyday Arkansans,
your neighbors, your families, your friends. It hits the hardest and most vulnerable. people, low-income households, seniors, the elderly, and the rural communities who have already bearing the brunt of sky-high living costs. How can we justify a rate hike to line the pockets of utility corporations who are already making billions in profit while hardwork in Arkansas are choosing between heating their homes in the winter or feeding their families. How can we sit idly by and watch these corporations already enjoying immensely the prophets.
Get even more power to increase prices with with little to no accountability to the very people that they just that that they're supposed to be serving. This is not just a bill about utilities, it's about fairness, justice, and protecting our communities. We cannot allow elected leaders to sell us out to the highest bidder. Our Kansas deserve better. We deserve a future with utility rates are affordable, or corporate greed does not come at the expense of our livelihoods where families have the right to dignity. I actually reject SB 307. Similar legislation was
passed in Georgia and it started a new construction on a power plant in 2008. Initially it was $12 billion to complete this construction. Construction was finally completed in 2024. At 35 billion. For 16 years, the people of Georgia We asked to pay these increases at almost 3 times the amount. Georgia is now one of the Highest uh cost for utility rates in the country outside of Hawaii to that that does have to have their power imported.
I'm asking you again to reject Senate Bill 307 because that's where we're headed. It will increase rates. It invites cost overruns, and it hides the rate increase for customers. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 47
1:05:40
you, sir. Next person to speak for the bill is Alison Thompson. Ma'am, if you
Chair
Unverified
1:05:49
would just come up, introduce yourself, who you're with, and you can proceed with your testimony.
Speaker 183
1:06:01
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Alison Thompson with the Economic Development Alliance for Jefferson County, Arkansas, and the uh alliance is a combination of economic development services and the Pine Bluff Regional Chamber of Commerce. I'm here to speak in favor of the bill. Uh, you know, white bluff is in Jefferson County and this bill and the provisions thereofs, uh, would appear to facilitate the redevelopment of that property, which is in the
best interest of jobs, uh, and, uh, and the, uh, the use utilization of that site within Jefferson County and then, uh, from the larger perspective, of course, whatever plant is there, uh, puts energy into the grid and so it benefits the entire state. As an economic developer, of course we work uh new projects looking at coming to the state and one of the first questions we get asked is about power.
And is it, is it reliable? Is it redundant? Is it, uh, is there enough of it? And is it available? And when those projects come in, they're not coming in for. Down the road, they're coming in right now. They're looking right now those businesses are making decisions about today. And so, uh, so I'm here to speak in favor of for, for our region as well as for the development of our state. And I take any questions or comments if you all want. Thank
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:07:35
you for your testimony. It appears we do have a question, Representative Lederman. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you for being here, ma'am. Um, when you talk about economic development and people coming and talking to you, where do we stand in Arkansas on utility rates? I think we're one of the lowest, at least we used
to be when I worked in that area. Are we still very competitive with other states. What do
Speaker 183
1:07:57
people think about us, about our electric rates? Yes, sir, our, our rates are competitive and, and to be, to be real um transparent. We focus
on industrial development and industrial uh attraction because of the industrial parks that we have and so the ones we're talking to our industrial companies and yes, our rates are competitive and that's one of the things we tout. Uh, but I'll tell you, you can be in competitive as rates, but if you don't have the capacity, then That that that isn't as much benefit as it could be and capacity has been one of the issues that we've been dealing with for some of those, uh, and
when we talk about data centers, we can look at the, the big investment they make initially, but keep in mind, they reinvest in equipment over the years. They have to keep those up to date, so it's not just the initial investment that uh is is important. It's that reinvestment that continues, so. So when we look at our company's uh current companies expanding and, and Tyson is one of them. Uh, we look at companies
expanding and or new companies coming in, power is one of the things they want to
Speaker 49
1:09:13
know about and it's important to them. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you very much. Well, I'm sorry, if you would like to stay for another question.
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:09:22
Represent Ferguson would like to ask you a question. You're right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Le and get me started. I wasn't going to say anything, but anyway,
uh, How do you and I know how it affects Jefferson County. I think I have an idea, but how do
you think it affects Southeast Arkansas, those other counties, uh, not only surrounding Jefferson County but going south, uh this, this
Speaker 183
1:09:46
piece of legislation. Well, I think it affects all of Arkansas because it's it with that white bluff closing, it reduces the amount of power that, you know, that's going onto the grid from that location, you increase that in the future, you replace that or increase that, it benefits the entire state and that absolutely
then you know, benefits, uh, Southeast Arkansas with a potentiality. We have lots of land, we have lots of potentials for development, uh, and then. But you're gonna need to have the power in order
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:10:21
to facilitate that. One more quick question, Mr. Chair. Do you know At the facility in White Bluff. How much land There that's not being used that's associated with that plan. Do you have an
Speaker 184
1:10:35
idea? I'm sorry, I don't know that. OK,
Speaker 49
1:10:40
thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Reverend Ferguson. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. The next person signed up is Simon
Chair
Unverified
1:10:53
Mahan, who is speaking against the bill. Sir, if you would just introduce yourself and you're with and you can present your testimony. Thank you. I have copies
Speaker 190
1:11:01
of my testimony, uh, how can I distribute that? What we can have staff assist
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:11:22
Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman, members and committee. My name is Simon Mayhan. I'm the executive director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association. We are a trade association of large scale renewable developers, that's wind, solar, batteries, and transmission. I printed off a copy of my testimony today because as you
well know, this legislation is quite lengthy. It's very complicated and it is potentially going to impact billions and billions of dollars' worth of investment here in Arkansas. Uh, and, uh, just to be clear, my, my family and I, we live here in Little Rock, so we are Arkansans. First and foremost, I appreciate the intent of Senate Bill 307 to support the economic development here in the state. All of the states that we work in, we work in Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Georgia, Kentucky, all of these states are wrestling with this power dilemma. We are heavily involved in the state public Service Commission regulatory processes in all of those states, we are involved in the legislatures with those states as well, so you all are not alone in working on promoting economic development while dealing with power demand problems. However, with that in mind, I
would like the legislature to consider modifications to ensure that Senate Bill 307 truly enables a cost-effective and resilient energy mix that generates economic growth and jobs here in Arkansas. We have a number of concerns about this legislation and some proposed amendments for you to consider. First and foremost is the exclusion of wind energy for cost recovery mechanisms. Senate Bill 307 explicitly excludes Arkansas-based wind energy from
eligibility for cost recovery under the proposed writer system. This exclusion is problematic for a number of reasons. I won't read those reasons. You can read those on your, on your own. However, generally when energy resources are some of the lowest cost resources, Arkansas, we do believe, needs more power, and we shouldn't be restricting the types of power that we can develop sooner rather than later. So our recommended amendment on this issue is to remove the restriction on Arkansas-based
wind energy eligibility and to allow it to compete on an equal footing for other with other energy resources, including out of state wind, which actually is eligible under the current legislation. The legislation also includes burdensome and vague treatment of solar energy resources, while the bill does permit some renewable energy projects to be included in the cost recovery mechanisms. It creates a higher level of scrutiny than other more expensive and financially
risky generation options without any justification for this different treatment of the solar resources. The draft legislation would require the Arkansas Public Service Commission to make findings that renewable resource strategic investments result in benefits to customers and the electric utility before approving the cost recovery. However, this standard is vague and could create unnecessary regulatory delays that will discourage investment in solar energy. So our recommended amendment on this issue is to
add renewable energy technologies to the strate to the definition of a. Strategic investment and to remove unnecessary additional and vague requirements for special PSC findings for certain generation. There's also in this legislation, an overemphasis on dispatchable generation resources without acknowledging some alternatives. So, for instance, the bill prioritizes dispatchable resources such as natural gas and nuclear for cost recovery without considering how
renewables paired with storage can provide similar or greater flexibility benefits and lower costs. And as I mentioned before, we work in so many of these other states across the Southeast. Everybody is running towards natural gas. If everyone runs towards the same type of generation resource, the costs of that type of resource is going to go up. We're going to face supply chain difficulties in trying to achieve those power plant construction timelines. And so having a variety of resources
available to Arkansas would ensure that we're going to be able to provide the power that we need. So I recommended here is to amendment here is to ensure that renewable generation and hybrid renewable energy storage solutions are explicitly considered as a potential for resource adequacy requirements. Uh, next, limits on on on consumer protection and competitive procurement. The bill allows automatic cost recovery for investor-owned utilities without requiring a
competitive procurement process, a request for proposal process. This risks locking in high cost investments that ratepayers must bear even when cleaner, lower cost options are available. So our recommended amendment here is that we should require utilities to demonstrate that strategic investments were selected through a competitive, all-source procurement process that includes clean energy options. This is what's done in places like Louisiana and
Georgia. So when we're comparing what we're doing to other states. It's important to note that one of the things that Georgia and Louisiana do is they require competitive procurement of generation resources to help keep costs lower. Our view as a trade association is if renewables aren't in the money, if we're not going to lower the cost or be the best option, then we shouldn't be chosen. I think that's a reasonable thing to expect, but what we do want is we want the ability to
compete and currently right now Senate Bill 307 eliminates our ability to do that competition. I do have one final recommendation. We've all heard that part of the reason for this legislation is to help attract new major businesses like data centers for artificial intelligence. My recommendation is this. Take the legislation
Speaker 195
1:17:46
and put it into chat GPT. Ask Chat GPT any question you have about this legislation.
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:17:59
How will it affect ratepayers. How will it affect renewable energy resources. We can use artificial intelligence today to help make a better future for tomorrow. It's free to use. There are many other AI options out there that that you can choose, uh, but there are plenty of ways to attract data center development if that's really what we're interested in here in Arkansas. And this legislation is not a silver bullet. There are many different ways that we can attract these
large loads. For instance, Texas is one of the leading states for data center growth in the country. Maybe we could evaluate some of the ways that Texas has their system run in order to invite more businesses to Arkansas. So I appreciate again your willingness to have me up here, um, and to discuss Senate Bill 307, you know, I think there are some modifications that can be made to help improve it, to make sure that we have the power that
we need, and by making some of these reasonable amendments the Arkansas can attract private investment in clean and renewable energy, while we make our energy mix more resilient and and strengthened against, for instance, extreme weather events and Fuel price volatility. We don't want to put all of our eggs in one basket, and there are some things that can be done to help improve this legislation. So with your time,
Speaker 196
1:19:26
thank you so much for your consideration and
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:19:31
if you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them. represent to you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I asked a question earlier and uh to my colleagues near the table, but from listening to your testimony, it sounds like you've worked closely with a lot of these other states and the legislative. So let me ask you the same question. Do you know in those stages how smoothly this uh, this has gone for those states when they adopted this type of legislation, and are you aware of any legislation they're
Speaker 195
1:20:03
having to run now to correct anything that they did with this legislation. So,
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:20:10
to be clear, this, this bill is really extensive, and there are a lot of different policy changes in the bill. The primary one that I've heard about in the the hearing today is about construction work in progress, or CWIP. Uh, CWIP is a policy that has been adopted in many states across the country decades ago, even, and so they weren't adopting it in anticipation for
data centers or AI or anything like that. There are several examples of where CWIP has been used and then a power plant that was being planned for either gets canceled or goes way over budget. And so what that does is it makes the ratepayers The backstop to pay for them. So there are 3 primary examples of this. One is the Vogel nuclear unit in Georgia. You heard a gentleman earlier talking hear testimony about that nuclear
reactor was planned starting in 2007, 2008 with CWIP. Uh, for about $15 billion. They were so significantly delayed in that project that ended up costing them $30 billion for a single plant. Uh, the, the ratepayers over in Georgia, their rates are significantly higher now. Thankfully, the power plant is up and running comparatively, another example of of CWIP was the VC Summer nuclear reactor in
South Carolina. There they didn't have such good luck because they ended up spending $9 billion on a nuclear reactor that never went online. And so the ratepayers in South Carolina are still paying for a nuclear reactor that never generated a kilowatt hour of power. And then finally, the the another third example here is over in Mississippi where they passed what they called the baseload Review Act, a number of
years ago. And that bill was designed to provide CWhip to Mississippi Power, one of their main electric companies there. And what Mississippi Power did with the CWIP power that they were given was they tried to build the Kemper Integrated gasification combined cycle, natural gas unit with carbon capture sequestration. So what they were trying to do was they were Trying to do this new novel technology to capture the carbon from this new natural gas plant. The problem was the technology never worked.
And so they spent $7.5 billion on a natural gas plant that they actually turned off. And so there is Some possibility that you can use CWIP to reduce the construction costs. But there's some very big risks that if you don't have things like the public Service Commission double-checking what the utilities are planning on doing or if you don't have competitive procurement of generation assets like what
we're recommending in our testimony, there are some very, very multi-billion dollar risks involved in doing this, and just to put kind of a finer point on this. With Kemper, when they had to pay the 70 or the $7.5 billion over in Mississippi. Their parent company Southern Company, was so endangered of going bankrupt, they sold off one of their assets, one of their utilities. They sold off Gulf
Power, which is a utility down in Florida. And the utilities over in South Carolina with the VC Summer nuclear reactor, those utilities almost went bankrupt. In fact, one of them had to be sold off to a separate utility, so now Dominion Energy, which is a Virginia-based utility, actually owns one of the utilities in South Carolina now. So I, I wish I, I could come up here and give a rallying cry of, you know, this is, this is the
best way to do it. This is, it's going to work just fine, but without the public Service Commission doing the due diligence and really doing a deep dive on is this the right thing for the customers, either the present customer in the future future customers, it makes me very concerned. Representative Ferguson, we're going to ask for a
Speaker 200
1:24:33
question. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick question. You talk
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:24:38
about wind energy. Uh, several years before I was elected, I worked for the
Department of Workforce Services and I was involved with workforce Investment Board, and we did a lot of work along the workforce. job training, those kinds of things, but I was working with some organizations, and they were trying to talk about renewable energy. So we got to talking
about the wind energy. So in Arkansas, I was told that we don't have that influx of wind, so we don't at that time, I don't think we had a
wind farm here in Arkansas. So we would
Speaker 195
1:25:15
have to purchase wind energy from outside the state, correct? Not anymore, so the technology for wind farms has, has gotten a lot better, uh, mostly
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:25:24
the turbines have gotten taller. The blades have gotten longer. If you think of maybe like a sailboat. It's, it's if you have a larger sale, you will capture more of that wind energy. And so we actually have a number of our members are are building some of the first wind projects here in Arkansas. Uh, it's, you're not going to have as much wind built here in Arkansas as you have,
say, in Oklahoma, uh, Oklahoma. readily gets 40% of their energy from wind energy, and I was checking this morning. They were getting about 60% of their power this morning from wind. Um, swepcode Southwestern Electric Power Company. They actually contract for wind energy out of Oklahoma and Kansas right now. And then also the cooperatives do as well. And so There's value in being able to buy things from your neighbors where there where there are good reasons for that or resources
Speaker 195
1:26:16
for that. So we don't have any wind farms here now. There's one that's being built in
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:26:22
Cross County over by when it's about 180 megawatt wind project, but we do have several more that are coming in behind that that would like to get developed. So right now
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:26:32
co-ops or utility entities, they have to buy their wind out of state or the energy out of state through wind farms. They don't they
Speaker 195
1:26:39
have that opportunity to do that. They don't have to again, you know, based on my testimony,
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:26:46
we think Everything should compete against one another and then whatever is best for the utility and the ratepayers based on commission oversight and review,
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
1:26:55
that's what should be done. OK, thank you,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:27:01
thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Wooton. Thank you, Mr. Mayhan, for being here.
Um. Your, your organization represents a whole different source of energy, so you're competing against the other
normal sources that we've used for years in this state. Yes, sir. OK. How many kilowatts or
gigs to your plants produce or require and how much do they cost and how much land do they take up? How many failures have they had with the windmills with the, the motors and the engines and the, the environmental consequences and that type of thing, but, but
how much does a, has a, does a normal what
Speaker 195
1:27:54
you would consider a normal win array cost. So it's a complicated answer because there's wind projects
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:28:01
that could be done here in Arkansas. There's wind projects that could be done out in Oklahoma and based on their ability to produce power if they have more wind energy, they produce energy at a lower cost. Our electric utilities here in Arkansas do a process called integrated resource planning.
Or or IRPs. It's a process that we go through the public Service Commission, where the utilities pick and choose how much these things cost, wind, solar batteries, natural gas, nuclear resources, they take all of those generation resources and put them into a really complicated model to figure out what needs to be built. And we participate in that process. Oftentimes what we see is when the utilities are incorporating
wind and solar and batteries as options to be selected by their own models. The models come back and say, yes, we would like some wind and solar. So I'm not here to tell you that my members can provide 100%. We can't. But what we can do is we can supplement, we can provide a little bit of a lower cost resource to help hedge against potential volatile resources, but to be more direct, um how, how much do these, these
turbines cost, for instance, so you know maybe a 3 megawatt wind turbine. Might cost somewhere between a million and a million dollars, $1.5 million per megawatt. So, you know, that's somewhere between 3 to $4.5 million per
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:29:41
wind turbine. So If I may, Mr. Chairman. So really, You can't supply the amount that's needed that the PSC is reviewing.
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:29:55
So where, where does that leave Arkansas? As I was mentioning earlier, many of the other states that we're working in, everybody is rushing to build more natural gas power plants. There have been reports in trade publications for for General Electric,
Speaker 195
1:30:12
for instance, who is one of the biggest manufacturers of natural gas turbines. They are 5 years out on their on their book on their booking for
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:30:23
their new plants. And so other
states like Georgia, which is really going very quickly into more natural gas. They are already ahead of the pile here. And so what we're able to provide is the ability to generate more power sooner if there are supply chain problems in the natural gas industry. So if it's more difficult or more expensive to build those natural gas power plants, we can provide some of that power in the meantime while we're getting to more of those gas units.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:31:00
So you feel that your firms have been left out, but yet they're included in this bill. Not not they just don't meet the way you want the
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:31:09
bill written. Well, there's a higher level of scrutiny for wind and so, well, for, for solar and for batteries than there is for nuclear and natural gas. In addition, wind energy is entirely excluded or at least state-based wind energy is excluded from this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Represent Gramley.
Speaker 205
1:31:33
Just a question, um, you know, obviously there's a bunch of federal renewable subsidies that help the wind and solar. If those were to go away, do you think you could still be helpful or
Speaker 195
1:31:41
that it wouldn't be economical to do these, I think if you go through a competitive procurement process, we will find out, right? So if we don't have those federal incentives anymore, and we're bidding in at a higher price. You'll be able to see that cost differential, but the only way that you're going to get a competitive procurement process like that is if we include it into the bill.
Speaker 199
1:32:03
Thank you, sir. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate you.
Speaker 96
1:32:09
Thank you. Ross Noland Yeah Do you really want to ask it? OK. Thank you. Ross Noland. So
Speaker 49
1:32:21
you didn't list if you were for or against, so I thought you were, so we, so I'm gonna have to ask you to take a seat. We're going to have to go to someone who is for the bill next, so sorry about that.
Speaker 47
1:32:34
Jeff Marcusson. It's Jeff Marcusson. Just introduce yourself and who you're with
Jeff Marcusson
Unverified
1:32:48
and you may commit your testimony. Sure. My name is Jeff Marcusson with Namholtz Construction and also representing the Associated General Contractors of Arkansas. I'm here to express our support for this legislation and its potential positive impacts on our industry and our state.
Economic development and job growth helped fuel construction and keep our workers employed. As we serve our clients and improve communities across the state. Professionally, I'm involved in developing and securing new projects for our company. Capacity and speed to market are two common questions of prospective client will ask regardless of the industry being served. Simply meaning, do you have the resources to construct the project. And how fast can you do it? This ties directly with current
and future utility availability. Do we have the needed services available to aid and construction, and is there is there capacity to sustain the project once complete. In our industry we employ over 62,000 construction tradespeople in Arkansas. We build and maintain projects of all types for communities across the state. Reliable energy is essential to continue serving these facilities. Increasing new generation capacity will not only help to provide for current construction
professionals. It can spur job growth across our industry as potential new projects come online as new industry looks for our state, looks to call our state home. Again, thank you for this opportunity to express our support for this bill. I'm happy to ask or answer any questions the committee may have. I don't see any questions. Thank you for your testimony. Thank
Speaker 49
1:34:26
you. Uh, Ross Noland, you are up next. You can bring whoever you'd like and just introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony. Thank you.
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:34:47
Mr. Stevenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Brent Stephenson. I serve as executive director of
Speaker 215
1:34:58
the Arkansas Forest and Paper Council, which represents the forest products industry in the state of Arkansas on the manufacturing side of things. But just to give you some quick numbers. There's 54,759 jobs in our industry, $3.4 billion in income, labor income and $7 billion contributed to
Arkansas's. GDP. Arkansas's economy is the 2nd most dependent on forest industry in the nation. Only Wisconsin has a higher percentage of state GBT GDP for forest industries. Just got a few comments. I am not a regulatory expert. I'm not here to pass myself off as one, OK. Nor am I an attorney, so a lot of this gets complicated on me real quick, but We do have people in our
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:35:48
industry that are very good understanding energy dispatchable energy resources available, that type of thing. The Arkansas Forest and Paper Council appreciates the opportunity to public comment on SB 307. for this committee and thank this committee for giving us this opportunity. The council wants to first say that we are not opposed to the bill. But want to ensure that the bill contains sufficient guardrails in place for ratepayers.
As currently drafted, we do not believe there are such sufficient guardrails. Following are some examples that we have found after review of this piece of legislation. Construction work in progress. We believe construction work in progress can be a useful tool. However, this
Speaker 215
1:36:38
bill does not provide proper guardrails on its use. The bill allows almost unfettered use of CWIP. As indicated on page 11 lines of 33 through 36.
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:36:55
On page 12 lines 11 through 20. On page 17 lines 22 through 27. has been said in testimony here provided a most surrounding states allow for some use of C whip. But they contain guardrails that limit it to generally a project by project basis. As approved by the Public Service commissions. And I might note that Tennessee, just for clarification, does not allow for C whip.
I would, I was going to bring you the information about how this is in other states and the cost overruns, but the gentleman before us took care of that and you can see by you used to see where, even though it can be a very useful tool, there is risk. The timeline for the writer approval. This bill does not contain adequate ratepayer guardrails for the approval process for the rate riders. The commission is only given 90 days to approve a rider as indicated on page 17, lines 4 through 7.
Or else it automatically goes into effect. As indicated on page 18 lines 23 through 27. This timeline does not give adequate time for meaningful participation and input from ratepayers. The bill also says nothing about a public hearing. On the writer request. Also note That with respect to the annual update to the rider. The section of the bill. One sex bill states that the commission has 90 days to
approve, while another section states it has only 60 days. That's on page 17 lines 4 through 7. And lines 31 to 32. Now I was told a while ago, maybe the Code commission can pick that up. OK, I'm just not giving you all transparency I know of God, OK. But there is a difference in the language. Approvals of large projects. The bill severely curtails the entities and ratepayers who are statutorily entitled to
participate in public Service commission proceedings concerning the approval of large utility projects as indicated on page 60, lines 2 through 19. In addition, it mandates timelines that diminish the ability
Speaker 215
1:39:14
of ratepayers to actively participate in these proceedings as they have done for many years. The bill directs that
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:39:22
the Public Service commission hold a hearing on these matters within 90 days, page 59, lines 29 through 34. The commission must also approve
the project with 180 days, page 61 lines 2 through 3. Under present law, it is up to the commission to set the timelines as they see fit for the particular project. More stringent ratepayer guardrails must be put into the process for
Speaker 215
1:39:49
approving large utility projects. Utility projects built outside the state of Arkansas. This bill exempts large utility facilities built outside of the state of
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:39:58
Arkansas from the Public Service Commission, large project scrutiny and approval.
Page 52, lines 36, page 53, line one. Therefore, there are no guardrails for ratepayers for
Speaker 215
1:40:10
such projects, which they will pay for through their rates. Given this, it is unlikely we'll see more large utility projects built out of state. If this bill passes that drafted, we will see more large
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:40:23
utility projects built out of state at this bill is drafted. There's some clarifications needed. For example, the bill states that the revenues from riders will be included in calculating the 4% rate increase cap under the formula Rate
Review Act. But then states that the rider revenues will be excluded from revenues included in the formula rate plan under the Formula Rate Review Act, page 21 lines 18 through 23. Ratepayers deserve clarification and a guardrail to keep subsequent utility interpretation of this provision from adversely affecting them. The commission oversight of co-ops. This bill significantly reduces the oversight of electric cooperatives without adequate ratepayer guardrails.
See generally sections 5 through 15 in the bill. Although cooperatepayers are members unless the members on the board of the cooperative, the average member has little influence on how the carpet was run. Better guard rails need to be had this bill
Speaker 215
1:41:19
to protect those ratepayers. As I stated earlier, we do not want to stop this bill, but only to
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:41:26
make it a better bill by providing more guardrails for ratepayers. We will be happy to provide proposed and amendments that will set forth such guardrails. I for some numbers, Mr. Ferguson, you were asking.
Speaker 215
1:41:40
About your folks, about the 25% rate increase. If you get to the 10% below the national average. From the rate we have today. So the rate that would be represented by 10% below the national average. That's a 20 to 25% rate increase. One of my facilities called me that day and sent me a note and said, once we get to the 10% level. No further than that. It's over $2 million a year
increase in their electric cost. So the numbers are real. Uh, I'm, I'm really glad that
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:42:20
someone talked about and Representatives brought it up. There's going to be billions of dollars of improvements needed. For generation. Just to replace the red field. And what's the other one, Newark. Independence is $3.2 billion with natural gas. $1 million per megawatt.
It's $3.2 billion just to replace those two decommissioned coal plants. OK.
Speaker 215
1:42:46
So those are, those are actual numbers gonna be close and the gentleman before said we need competitive bidding. Otherwise, you will have overruns like you had in Georgia and Mississippi and other places. So competitive bidding would
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:42:59
be a good thing to put in this bill. I, I'll take a question, but Mr. Nolan here is going to talk about
Speaker 215
1:43:05
the procedures of the Public Service commission that's in this bill because that's not something I I can do very well.
Speaker 218
1:43:14
Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chair. I'll provide a little context to some of the things that Mr. Stevenson, I said a moment ago, um, but also to frame the issue, uh, we're asking for a delay in order to afford the opportunity for those impacted by this bill to better understand its implications and uh be afforded the time needed to improve its outcomes, um, the initial focus of my, my testimony is how the procedures before the Public Service.
or changed by this bill, and I think the previous um gentleman from the Southern Renewable Energy Association certainly framed it for us there's billions at stake. So this is not a procedure that should be rushed, but there are elements of this bill that do exactly that to these very important decisions. The first of those is the um procurement or the achieving a certificate of need or public necessity in order for the public Service commission to determine
Uh, that there is a need for additional generation. Here this bill truncates the existing procedure down to 180 days or less depending on what happens. This is an extremely tight timeline for ratepayers, for interveners at the Public Service commission to receive notice of the proceedings that are going on there, understand the filing that has been made and then acquire the experts uh both engineering and technical and accounting. Because this is really about
accounting. Uh, that would be needed to, to fully vet and understand what is happening when additional need is applied for at the Public Service commission. That is not something that we should hastily go through. Uh, the same is true for the writer provisions here, which you've heard testified to today are down to 90 days. This is a new time limit. This is something that is not found elsewhere in the public service commission proceedings. This too will truncate what should be
a very, very important, uh, decision on how the writer and the uh cost of these facilities will be allocated during the time of their construction. So to frame it to you, we are making decisions in pursuant to this bill in 180 days or 90 days that will be on our Children's bills because in some ways these facilities, uh, will be in operation for 30 or 40 years after they come online and the cost we pay for that now is determined in proceedings before
the Public Service Commission. So I would ask that to implement CWIP you do not need to truncate what is going on in the public service commission and how these costs and the need, the certificate of need, and the cost are determined in the rider. Those are things that need. most scrutiny by interveners, by ratepayers, people that are your constituents, businesses and individuals that participate in these proceedings before the Public Service Commission. Uh, I would also like to back up a few
things that Mr. Stevenson said on the need for, for clarifications in this bill, um. It's a little unclear or exactly what should go in to CWIP financing. This bill is very, very expansive and what is allowed to go into financing new generation, improvements, transmission. It is, it is very wide, but there are things in the bill, for example, on page 12, um, as Mr. Stevenson has looked at, that taxes can go into CWIP. That has nothing to
do with construction. Why would we be financing that, uh, with a writer. On everyone's utility bill. There's also very, very little in this bill about accounting standards. And this again is a bill about accounting and how they are going to allocate cost on that same page, there's just a few mentions of uh generally accepted accounting principles, but throughout here where there's been discussions today about what goes wrong or what happens when a project is
stalled. It's unclear who receives the interest on on funds that must be refunded, or what happens and how it's allocated for when a project is stopped, how that's going to get returned to the customer and in what manner. So again, there are so many clarifications and I know I'm cherry-picking just a few. But the point is, is that there needs to be more time and consideration and understanding of this bill. And then finally, there's a few things, several things in this bill that just aren't necessary to implementing CWIP in the
state. Uh, Mr. Stevenson, uh, mentioned the co ops. They are massive changes in here for the, for the co ops, uh, that, that again, aren't necessary to implement CWIT. Um, it makes it harder for co op members to contest the rate change. Used to, they could get 10% of the signatures of their members. Now it takes an investigation by the Public Service Commission, who then may or may not initiate a right procedure. Again, not necessary to implement CWIP. Cost of service studies are basically eliminated when
considering rates and co-ops in this bill. That is not protective of the consumer, that is not keeping the guardrails up on, on rate increases. Uh, and finally, uh, one of the clearest ones in here, section 15 on pages 8 through 9, eliminates a cap on 8% increase in rates with co-ops over a two-year period, just eliminates it. And again, is not necessarily protective of ratepayers. So, um, in clothes, it's, uh, this bill is not necessarily good for right
ratepayers. The procedures that it puts in place for a hastened determination of some very important billion dollar decisions, which is not good for ratepayers and your constituents. So we would like the opportunity to clarify some of those things and to improve this bill to make sure the outcomes are positive for the state of Arkansas. Thank you. For recognizing me, Mr. Chair. Thank you for
Chair
Unverified
1:49:13
your testimony. It looks like we have numerous
member questions, if you would, guys will take some questions. The first one is Representative Allen, you'll recognized. Uh,
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:49:23
thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So OK. And thank you for being here. My question to you is this, the, the attorney General. Reviewed this bill. Correct? Are you aware that he OK. In his conclusion was that there were guard rails inside of this bill. To protect the consumer. It my status? Hispanic, I think that was his finding, yes, sir. OK. Now,
What the gentleman at the end of the table just said they contradicts what the attorney general's findings are. So can you explain to me why you're findings is totally
Speaker 215
1:50:07
different from the Attorney General contradiction as it is, we may disagree on what what constitutes
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
1:50:13
a guard rail or protection, so. Uh, we have a difference of opinion, so can you tell me why you was different from what they say I don't know what
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:50:28
Representative. I just know that our people who are Experts in energy. have looked at this, and this is what they've come up with and we also had this, these
Speaker 215
1:50:38
questions in my testimony reviewed by a former public service commissioner. OK. So this is not something that we
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:50:47
sat down to the table. To make up, to bring to you guys, OK? So there's differences of opinion here and that's part of the reason for us asking for some time to look
at this bill continuously or at least a little longer to understand more what's in the bill, OK? We agree. The demand for energy is going up. We agree rates are going to go up anyway to some degree, but my question to you guys are two questions. Number 1, why the rush for this bill today. Not, not denying that we don't need to do something. Why the rush for this bill today. And what's in this bill is this the only pathway forward. OK. Thank you. I, I'll get back in.
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:51:34
Representative Wootton, you are next in the queue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me get clear. What, what is your position? Are you opposed to the bill? I'd like a
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:51:51
straightforward answer to that question. Representative Luton. The CWhip and the idea of saving direct payers as much money as possible on their, uh,
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
1:52:01
The utility bills is excuse me,
Mr. Stevens, I ask you a direct question. Are you opposed to the legislation. We're opposed to pieces of this legislation, sir, not all of asking you that. I'm not saying pieces because if you are against it, you need to say so. And I don't come in here straddling the fence, either say yes or no. If you're against it, say yes or no, at this point, the way this bill is written, we are opposed to the bill. Paul.
Are you aware? That there's a proposal that we had before revenue and tax last week to build a $3 billion plant in southwest Arkansas, where they've lost 3 paper mills, and they have a large unemployment and
you're saying that this bill would prevent that from taking place. No,
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:53:02
sir, I said no. I said in
that committee and heard some of that testimony. I don't think this bill will prevent that from taking place or
Speaker 224
1:53:15
this will enhance it. to take place. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
1:53:21
McCollum, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I heard earlier maybe some suggestions of Delay or maybe there are amendments. Do you, do you all have language of suggested amendments. I've heard kind of descriptions of some issues that
Speaker 218
1:53:39
You have with the language, but any, I believe that the council's offer is to work with sponsors of the bill to provide those, those amendments and suggested changes. Have y'all sent those suggested
Speaker 226
1:53:48
amendments to the sponsors. Not at this point. We're still working to
Speaker 220
1:53:53
try to have a meeting to discuss it with them. OK.
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
1:53:58
I guess my I agree. I always need more time because that's the way I am. But at some point this is the
process. Kind of taking your question seriously about why we're here today. I think the bill was filed 225. I can only look at language that's in front of me and try to make decisions from that, so I guess if there is anything, language wise, that would be helpful.
Chair
Unverified
1:54:26
Thanks. Represent Richardson, you are recognized for a question. think you
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:54:32
actually Representative McCullin took one of my questions. Um, I, I did want to follow up. You said that, uh,
Based on the rates that if we got below that 10% national level, it would be at 25%. The rate would be for customers would be around 20
to 25%. Where are we right now nationally. Do you know what, what percentage we rank nationally.
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
1:55:00
No, sir, but I think as far as the pricing of Arkansas's electricity, we're on the lower
Speaker 215
1:55:04
end of all the states in the country, so we're on the low end are very competitive with our pricing.
Speaker 78
1:55:13
OK. OK, thank you. Resident Baker, you're recognized
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:55:19
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, thank you for your testimony. I guess some of the things that I
try to empathize with on a lot of your concerns, um, really centered around y'all's opinion of the Public Service commission because it seems like the guardrails, a lot of the main language, whether taxes are or aren't included, the rush and the path forward. Um, All center around your perception of the public service
commission and its capacity to see this through. It's my understanding the Public Service commission is not there to protect power companies but to protect the ratepayers like yourselves. So do you have some sort of concerns that the Public Service commission can't. Make these calls. I just don't believe it's in our purview to hamstring commissions, but actually give them the flexibility that's in this bill to allow them to see issues in real time. I, I
Speaker 218
1:56:07
generally agree with you except for the end there that you say. This bill frees them up to do
so. This is truncating things in their time to consider uh matters and issue orders by A significant amount. It it limits their ability of the to extend their deliberative process again with multibillion dollar commissions feels
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:56:28
confident in their capacity to meet those needs. Do you not believe them?
Speaker 218
1:56:33
Um It's not that I don't believe them. I know that this is shortening the process and You don't want to make a Like Georgia, a $15 billion
decision in a 6 month. Period. That seems extreme from I, I've, I've litigated administrative litigation before the Public Service commission for over a decade now, getting things done in 6 months is Beyond a challenge when you consider the need for engineers, accountants to crunch the data that's going to be submitted in the second proceeding, the writer proceeding, uh, before we put something on somebody's bill, like to do that in 90 days, that is wild. Like that is
intense and there's a level of expertise that is needed before we start charging the ratepayers of the state of Arkansas for a prospective project that I don't think you can accomplish
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:57:26
in a 90 day period, even in the small pieces that
this requires him to do. Again, it's not the entire project that is done. They requested approval for small pieces, and you don't believe the Public Service commission currently today has the ability to review those, audit those, and offer a ruling in that time frame. I I don't
Speaker 218
1:57:42
want to say that because I think they do a great job. I've always had great interactions with their staff,
but why would we, now we have two different things the certificates. Why would we? Keep them to 6 months on the initial approval and why would we pigeonhole them to 90 days. And, and let, let me say something else. About the process that's set up here. It, it's almost as if they can't lose. If, if they don't get the certificate on their first go round, they can submit additional information, and then the Public Service Commission has to make a decision in 30 days. And that loop can go on
forever until either the applicant gives up, uh, or decides to appeal. Um, but that, I mean, that could be significant information that's submitted in the 30-day cure period if will, that is not subject to an administrative hearing or discovery or being vetted. So I mean, there, there's, there's an opportunity for abuse there that, that I don't like from a procedural standpoint. I mean, it, it, you know, I don't want to say ill will on our publicly owned utilities, but they could
sandbag in the six-month period, hold back information, find out that the that the commission's not with them yet and then present something very important in that 30-day cure period and not subject to scrutiny. And and that that system can repeat. Like if, if you're going to submit information and try to get this initial certificate, it should be subject to administrative litigation depositions, discovery, and vetted before there's a decision made on it. And this is a big, a big departure from what I would say is the existing or standard process, and I don't think that
is a fair means of going about considering uh information that's going to have implications for years and decades to come.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:59:31
on our bills. But again, I guess I would just continue to defer that the Public Service commission feels
that they have the ability to root out fraud, waste, and abuse continually. This process actually allows them to find it sooner rather than having to figure out through a final $20 billion project that they have to review. I mean, this seems like a much more stepwise to find that fraud earlier in the process.
Speaker 231
1:59:51
Are, are you talking about the annual review of the
Speaker 218
1:59:57
writer? OK, um, that I think an annual review is great. I'm more worried about how we make the initial decision and On what on what information that's done and in what time period that's done, that's doing the annual
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
2:00:07
review sounds great to me, and it just, it seems to center around just a perception of the Public Service commission's capacity that you guys don't feel that they have the capacity
Speaker 218
2:00:16
to meet the needs of this bill. I don't want to say that about them. I mean, I, I'm just saying that 6 months to consider projects of this for the initial certificate in 90 days to make determinations on what it's
Speaker 233
2:00:29
going to cost, that is, that that is asking
Speaker 154
2:00:35
a lot. I understand, but you're not on the Public Service commission. No,
Speaker 205
2:00:40
I'm not. Absolutely not. Representative Grandma, you're right. Thank you so much, Mr. Nolan, um, do you represent Audubon? Yes. Were you involved in any of the work that closed
Speaker 219
2:00:49
some of our coal plants in Arkansas, um. No, that was more.
Speaker 205
2:00:53
I mean, I look, look here, it says Audubon and the Sierra Club. If you could give me a docket number, I could, I'm, I'm
on the Audubon website, so it says Audubon and Sierra Club when major environmental benefits for Arkansas and Turk settlement, which is a coal plant in southwest Arkansas or was going to be, I guess my point is, Mr. Stevens, you had a question. What's the rush? Well, it seems to be the rush is due to some of the work of, of at least the company Audubon that you represent, um, you know, if some of these coal plants weren't where we are today, we wouldn't probably have to be
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
2:01:25
doing this. No, you'd still be doing this, but let me say this. Trying to find a lawyer in the
state of Arkansas or in Little Rock who could represent any type of familiarity with the public Service commission is exceedingly difficult to find. It's not conflicted. are already working for the utility companies. We were able to procure the services of
Chair
Unverified
2:01:49
Mr. Nolan on Saturday. It took us a while to find an attorney. Representative Ferguson,
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
2:01:56
you are next in the queue. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Quick question for Mr. Stevenson, uh, because you heard my question
about I got an email about 25% increase, and I was originally talking about my brother-in-law, uh, a residential customer, but I heard you say something about
an entity that had contacted you about their fear of a rate increase.
So we're talking about a commercial customer. Yes, sir. An industrial customer. Yes, sir. So let me ask
you this final question though. Do you think this legislation affects
Speaker 215
2:02:39
A commercial customers, adversely. Whatever, however those costs are apportioned
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
2:02:44
today. More than likely they're gonna be a portioned the same way or very close to it under
Speaker 215
2:02:49
any financing mechanism. So the price is going to go up. Yes sir, if you consider that to be adverse, then that's the case, but prices are going to go up, rates are gonna go up, costs are going to go up. We understand that. I ask a question again. Is this the only pathway forward.
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
2:03:11
OK, yeah, I just wanted to be clear, you, you were talking about commercial customers. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Richardson, you're
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:03:18
recognized. So I just want to, I keep hearing Georgia coming up, so I want to make sure that I understand what we're talking about. So what, when you guys mentioned the state of Georgia and the plant that was built there. Tell me what kind of plant that
was. Nuclear nuclear. OK, how many more nuclear plants have been built since that one. I don't know.
Mr. Has, you say 30, OK. OK, so I, I just, cause it feels like we're saying Georgia and we don't want to be Georgia, but it doesn't seem like we have opportunity to be
Speaker 215
2:04:02
Georgia if we're not building any nuclear plant. Would you agree? But Just keep in mind as you go forward. And it's undeniable natural gas is one of the best resources available to us today, price-wise, economy-wise, and able to get to the marketplace,
OK? But when, if everybody goes for that one resource. The price is gonna go up substantially, OK? So, How you get to the mix of what the utilities we use as their fuel resources is going to be a good question going forward and one that needs to be scrutinized fully. With all the mix that's available, not only just for this state, but probably in the region to understand how that's going to work. And there may be a need. The only, the only options today.
If I'm, I may make this too much of a firm statement, but there are only 3 options for
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
2:04:56
firm power. That's 24/7 power. That's coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Coal is not going to be an option. OK, except for what we got, as long as they, they're lasting right now. So you got natural
Speaker 215
2:05:06
gas and nuclear. If everybody goes for natural gas. Everybody in the country, then you're gonna have a natural gas shortage unless it's there, unless they can get it there, maybe not. Maybe there's enough, don't know. But I can remember when, I don't know what gas is today, but I remember when it
was $3 per cubic. $33 per 1000 cubic foot. And I've seen over $15 per 1000 cubic foot without any pressure like this on it, OK? So nuclear will be an option. It will be an expensive option. But it will be an option. And there may be ways to make nuclear more modular. OK. Now, what the
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:05:43
cost that's gonna run I'm not, I think I was just trying to get to, to, to a better understanding because I've heard that the planning
Georgia, I think the other one was South Carolina, but if we haven't created any more plants like that.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:06:00
Thank you, thank you. Virgin Laman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I want to ask you a question, sir, about you, you
were talking about Georgia, South Carolina, and I forgot where the gas plant was that had the carbon capture on it, but Do you know what the average size of a nuclear plant is? I do not. It's 900 to 1000 megawatts. Do you know what the average size of a gas?
Well, let's talk about the, the, the generator, not the plant. But, you know, in a old nuclear, it's 900 to 1000 megawatts. Do you know what the size of a gas, natural gas generator is. They're usually 3 or less of that. It's 20 megawatts up to about 110 per each individual generator. So when you talk about comparing the cost of a nuclear plant to the cost of the natural gas plant.
That is not really what we're doing here. I mean, that's to me that's a scare tactic because there's a whole lot of difference in those plants. The plants that were built in Georgia were the old nuclear huge plants. There were 2 of them actually. And it took years for them to come online because they had some issues and As you said, there's not going to be any more big nuclear plants built. There's not going to be any more big coal plants, Bill. We've lost that technology. But you can't compare the cost of a nuclear plant and talk about what you're going to do to
build that plant to a gas plant. The gas plant is much smaller, maybe 500 megawatts or 600 megawatt. A nuclear plant is going to be over 1000. So that's an unfair comparison in my mind. And when we talk about um The gas plant that went over maybe well I forgot the, it's been so far back. I forgot the details of that, but you talk about carbon capture. You know, the plant up in Northwest Arkansas that was a
carbon capture util facility was added to that plant up there because it was so expensive to build a new plant. That carbon capture costs more than the plant. So, again, you're saying things that are not apples and apples
here and I, I don't like that. I like to see, I want the facts, OK? I've made no testimony today about
Speaker 154
2:08:14
carbon capture. Well, somebody mentioned it. Sorry if
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:08:17
it wasn't you, but right, I'll stop there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. OK, thank you.
Speaker 111
2:08:24
We have no other questions just one second to that.
Uh, very quickly. I'll give you a little more than 1 2nd, but not much.
Speaker 215
2:08:33
We've got to get this moving. We weren't intended to try to scare anybody. Those are the two options that are available out there. The cost difference is tremendous between them, and that's, that's the way it is. I mean, yes, it's not fair to compare because of the cost, but that, that is, it is, it
Speaker 49
2:08:51
is an option. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next on the list is Jack Thomas, members, I do want to point out we still have numerous people
signed up. So let's try to move this along if we can, if the question's already been asked, let's not be cumulative. And I also ask the folks who I'd also ask the folks who signed up to speak, um, try to be as brief as you can. So go ahead and introduce yourself and proceed.
Speaker 246
2:09:15
Yes, sir. Jack Thomas with the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Uh, I'm grateful for the chance to be here with you today. I, I, I'm here to speak today on the reality of the economic development opportunities that are in front of us as a state. I think you've heard a lot of that
today, but I want to emphasize and make this real. And also talk about the unseen challenge that is preventing us from capitalizing on these opportunities, which is the lack of power capacity in the state of Arkansas. I described this as an unseen challenge because for many of us, we expect that when we flip the light switch on, lights come on. Uh, that, that takes energy. When we walk into a building like this, In the heat of the summer, a day that there's a foot of snow on the ground, and it's still somehow 70 degrees in this building, that takes energy.
When we have the ability to access 15,000 photos and all the information we could ever want in our pockets, that, that takes energy. When we talk about bringing home manufacturing and ensuring that we make things in America, that requires a level of energy unlike anything we've ever seen. There's much talk and, and rightfully so about what this bill could unleash in our state in terms of support for the steel industry or the lithium industry, technology jobs, perhaps the state's first automotive plant. Those sectors are important.
But it's also important to note that energy is not a sector of the economy. Energy is the sector that enables every other sector that I just mentioned. Now, there are all kinds of implications, some of which you've heard today, for what happens if we can't produce our own energy supply. But I'll limit my testimony to the opportunity that's in front of us from an economic development perspective. Prior to working at the local level, I had the chance to work in state government at the Arkansas Economic Development Commission. And in that role, I had the chance to work projects all over the state and some of your districts, uh, projects like Majestic Steel in Mississippi
County, projects like Hostess Clark County. Sig Sauer in Jacksonville, uh, with nearly every project opportunity, it was competitive. They looked at Arkansas and they looked somewhere else. And I share with the Senate committee that I, I'm often asked, who do we compete against as a state. You've heard some of this today, but just like the Razorbacks compete in SEC against Mississippi and Alabama and Tennessee. What we compete with those, those other SEC states when it comes to jobs. You all know this, it's, it's part of the reason why, uh, why we've lowered taxes to become more
competitive with those, those states around us. Companies have a choice of where to spend their money and where to create jobs, and many of them higher location advisors called site selection consultants to guide them on where to locate. They fly here, they check us out, and they fly to the next state and they check them out. They call it site selection, but truly it's, it's site elimination. They start with dozens and dozens of potential locations and, and ultimately there's one winner in everybody else loses. It's highly, highly competitive. And it is hard to win.
We're a state of 3 million people, a third of the size of the Dallas Fort Worth metro and so many times we're not even on the radar screen. And certainly our smaller communities are on the radar screen. Improving power generation gives us a chance to be on the radar screen. Reason I know this, I, I was at a meeting last week, uh, where the nation's top site selectors were asked to rank the most important factors to their clients when looking for a place to invest. Skilled labor was a factor. Supply chain optimization was a factor, shovel-ready sites were a factor. But number one,
Electric power capacity. Given our transmission network in Arkansas, those who have been in the business a long time can tell you that there are more projects looking in rural locations today than any time in recent history. But to be able to serve those locations and ultimately to bring jobs, we have to energize that transmission network. Give him my line of work, I, I get, get the, get the chance to see the interest that companies have in our state. And, and thanks to the work that this body has done to cut taxes and invest in our workforce and
invest in shovel-ready sites. I, I can tell you that interest in our state is at an all-time high. But it's this simple. We simply don't have enough power to meet the demands of these opportunities. And, and I can tell you this too. Power as it pertains to economic development is not some Trojan horse. Power as it pertains to economic development is the number one economic development issue, period. The first question that perspective companies ask isn't about our corporate tax structure or what business incentives we have, those, those questions come later. The first question they're asking us is,
do you have the power? They're asking us, can you supply 65 megawatts in the next 12 months. Can you replace that 115 kd line with the 500. Can you bring on a new generation asset in the next 36 months? Can you provide us with bridge power until that generation asset comes online. If we can't, if we have to answer no to to questions like that. They move on to states where the answer is yes, and it's that simple. The reality in economic development is this, the states and the communities that have the power and are prepared to move the fastest when it really is that simple.
So far in the first quarter of 2025, we've now hosted five Fortune 200 companies looking at various sites. Collectively, they want to invest $30 billion.30 billion dollars, mind you, the largest announced and completed private investment state of Arkansas is, is big river steel too at $3 billion. This is $30 billion on the table. Whether that's an Arkansas or somewhere else remains to be seen. These are not speculative projects. These are real companies looking to create
private sector jobs. And with each of these deals, there's an opportunity for unprecedented new tax revenue. There are projects evaluating the state right now that would provide annual revenues to individual school districts in excess of $10 million per year. Per year. There's one project, mind you, there's multiple projects of this scale looking across the state, that over the 1st 10 years in property taxes alone could provide $52 million to city government, $22 million to
county government, $9 million to roads, $6 million to police and fire, $2 million to children's hospital and $128 million to the schools. This is a real project looking at our state right now. And there are many others just like it. This is unprecedented, but there's one catch.
Speaker 245
2:15:28
We simply don't have the power available to meet the demands of these opportunities. It's that simple. I've said before
Speaker 246
2:15:35
that I do think we have the opportunity to capitalize on 1 to 2 more major investments somewhere in the state. I, I do think that's getting harder and harder to
say, but the reality is if we do, those, those investments are, are limited to those one or two communities. And what this bill does is it gives us a chance to create an opportunity to unleash power all across the state, giving communities both urban and rural, the chance to say yes. The chance to attract jobs that create higher salaries for the people and the chance to capture revenue that goes to fund the roads we drive. on the police and fire departments that protect us, and perhaps most importantly, our schools. If we can't produce enough energy for our economy, not only
do we lose out on these economic development opportunities. Worse than that, we become dependent on someone else, somewhere else to tell us what our future looks like. And when we talk about the tens of millions of dollars on the table with companies looking to come into our state. Here's the reality. Those generational investments are going somewhere. They are, they're going somewhere. We've started to see the first wave of those going somewhere. And the high paying jobs with them. When we talk about all of this, this infrastructure that's needed. There is a sense of
urgency because these, these companies are looking now. And I think those of you in construction or banking know that the cost to develop projects are going up and they're going up drastically. So there is a sense of urgency. It reminds me of, of the saying that, that the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. And the next best time is, is now. The cheapest time to build infrastructure was 20 years ago. The next best time is is now. I'll close with this, uh, last June, I had the chance to take a few executives from a company that we were recruiting to the governor's office while, while
you were in this building for a special session, cutting taxes. The company traveled here from Europe, and it was a perfect day for them to be here. They didn't meet a single legislator that day, but the message that you sent was loud and clear. Arkansas is open for business. Four months later, the company announced that after looking at multiple states, they were choosing Arkansas to invest $120 million and create 500 new jobs. Now, when you see SpaceX rockets going to launch or missiles going to our allies across the
world, they're being transported on high-tech trailers that will be made in Arkansas. When they were evaluating us and came here to visit us in June, you sent a message. With the generating Arkansas Jobs Act, we have the chance to send another message. We can stand on the sidelines and watch the world's most innovative companies choose to invest in those other SEC states, states like Mississippi, states like Alabama. Well we can send a similar message that you guys sent that day in June that Arkansas is open for business. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Chair
Unverified
2:18:20
Next on the list to speak against the bill. I believe it says Pete Gass. Sir, if you would just introduce yourself and who you're with. And like I stated earlier, Be as brief
Speaker 247
2:18:33
as you possibly can with your testimony if you have that ability. Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. I will certainly try.
Speaker 249
2:18:39
Uh, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Pete Gus. I serve as economic policy director for Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. As you may know, Arkansas advocates has been around for
almost 50 years now. Our mission is pretty simple. It's to ensure that all children and families in the state have the resources and opportunities they need to survive. So, given the importance of economic resources for families in Arkansas at this time we oppose Senate Bill 307 in its current format. Um, our primary concern is what this means for ratepayers, and I know there was a lot of questions about this from some of you here. Uh, we talked in terms of sort of
commercial interests and some of the rate increases companies will be facing. I of course am very interested in what households will see what families We see in these increases, um, and it, you know, it is, it is possible to run the numbers on this. Um, the, the bill refers specifically to, let me get it right, the US Energy Information Administration Electric Power annual report as the guide for how much the increases can go up. Uh, the latest published
version is 2023. This is publicly available. You can look it up, of course, um, and the good news there is, uh, Arkansas presidential, commercial, industrial electrical rates are all well below the national average. The fact across all sectors, it's 23% below the national average. So what this means when you do the math, because, you know, the numerator and dominators both change, uh, electrical bills can go up by, I know this was a question before, 18% instill
meet the much referred to 10% under the average rule. We do know the PSC could approve rate increases even beyond that, but for the sake of argument, we'll stick to that 10% rule. Um, I don't know without more available, more recently available data, how much it has changed, but we know that prices are going up around the country. There are things like California wildfires and other natural disasters. Higher fuel costs and increased technology demands, all things we've heard about
here so far today that these prices do continue to rise and, and, and, and most experts agree that Arkansas is even more below the national average than it was in 2023. Um, I heard some of your colleagues on the Senate floor say that maybe it's 30% below. If you take that number, 30% below um then rates can be raised by nearly 28% and keep us below the 10% line. But whether a typical rate player will see an increase of
18% or 28%. This place is a tremendous financial hardship on residential and commercial customers alike. Um, speaking specifically of households, we know that almost half of households in Arkansas really struggle to meet basic financial needs. And then the increase of this kind of magnitude, even only 18% can prove disastrous. This is especially true during this time of national economic uncertainty and high inflation. There are ways, this bill could be amended to protect our low-income families. For
example, uh, increase the required percentage below the national average. I don't know what the magic number is. It's a 15%, 20%, something that that helps more. Uh, second, how about a hard percent raise cap that limits possibly tied to inflation because we know that's an important marker of how costs go up. Um, or third, uh, create provisions in the bill to protect low-income families by tying protections to
participation in other public assistance programs or, as was mentioned before by the sponsor, um, tying it to participation in the federal low income home energy assistance program. So there are, I think two important reasons to uh consider voting no on SB 307. We can't both tout our low energy costs in Arkansas, while at the same time putting in place a mechanism that will drastically increase them. Um, and in this current form, uh, the bill was significantly
Speaker 97
2:23:01
harm many of your low income constituents. Thank you. Thank
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
2:23:14
you for your testimony. Representative Darby. Excuse me, Mr. Chair, in light of the, the late hour of this meeting and and I appreciate everyone who has signed up, uh, I would ask the chair's indulgence to entertain a motion that we limit each of the testimony to 3 minutes per
person because they said some very valuable things, I think, and I've learned a lot, but at the same time we're beginning to repeat a lot of the testimony
and so in that regard, I would like to make
Speaker 49
2:23:44
a motion to limit. each person to 3 minutes. Her Dalby has made a motion that each witness be limited to 3 minutes of testimony. That is a proper motion. That is a non-debatable motion. So all in favor say aye. In your posts, say no. That motion has carried and each
witness will still have the opportunity to testify, but your testimony will be limited to 3 minutes. Brad Lacey is next to speak for the bill. Mr. Lacey, unfortunately, you're the first one who gets to test the 3 minutes. So introduce yourself and who you're
Speaker 253
2:24:22
with and proceed, please. Hey dear, I'm Brad Lucy. I'm president and CEO of the Conway Area Chamber of Commerce and the Conway Development Corporation,
also known as the CDC, uh, the CDC was formed in 1959 as the tax exempt economic development agency that works on behalf of the city of Conway, uh, 28 years ago, I walked into the doors of the Big Mac building behind us here to start my career in economic development for the then Arkansas Industrial Development Commission. Uh, that was the late 90s and I can tell you a lot of things. changed about economic development in those almost 30 years, um, today, the numbers are a lot larger, and I think a
really important thing that you've heard here is the time frame is much shorter in our ability to respond to these things. Uh, the competition is greater and the stakes are a lot higher. Um, You heard Jack talk about site location consultants, my team visits with those folks a couple of times a year. Last year, we went to Atlanta and Greenville to visit with a group of those consultants thinking we were going to talk about the normal things that we talk about, which is workforce and, and the
taxation and quality of place, but in every circumstance, the first question they asked was how much power do you have? I couldn't answer that question. So we weren't prepared for that. Um, I hope that was anomaly, but it was not. It happened every time that we went anywhere, and they told us these sites are harder to find today and our customers are using more and more power. And so, you know, I can tell you right now, we're working the two largest projects I've ever worked in my
30 years in this business. One of those projects just to give you, uh, some reference to how big these things are on Our peak day in the city of Conway, which would be in the summer, the entire city of Conway uses 220 megawatts of power as a community. We are working with one company who will use 1000 megawatts of power a day, so almost 4.5 times the amount of power that the city of Conway uses today. And
The opportunities are great, you know, I mean, I'm sitting here today telling you the opportunities are great in a way that I haven't seen in my 27 years, uh, in this business. And in order for us to win people like Jack and I need to be able to answer yes when people ask, do you have excess power. Um You know, Fordyce entrepreneur AB Banks is often quoted as asking who will build Arkansas if her people do not.
And today I hope that we're the generation who steps up, uh, to build the state in a different way in order to do so, we need every tool possible and Senate Bill 307 gives us a very powerful one.
Chair
Unverified
2:27:22
Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much. You time
Speaker 49
2:27:27
that perfectly. You did a great job. Next on the agenda is to speak against the bill as Kamara seals. OK. Then we will drop down to Kristen Wynn.
Chair
Unverified
2:27:42
OK. Missy, take, um, Please go to the end of the table, introduce yourself, and proceed with your testimony. As you probably heard, unfortunately due to the hour, we're limited to 3 minutes for your testimony.
Speaker 255
2:27:59
It's perfectly fine. Thank you. Thank you. Kristengu, Arkansas Public Policy Council. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. I know you guys are tired. I know you've had some long days and I know you've had a lot thrown at you. Um, what my job is every day is
I go in and look at policy that comes out of the governor's office. I look at legislation and my job is to say, here's what the average Arkansan makes. How is this piece of legislation going to affect them. And I know as we get further in life. We start to go around people that are like us. They make the same amount of money. We get the daycare monkey off our back. We're not paying orthodontics. We get all these things are going with us and we forget.
The average Arkansan makes. $48,0005072. That's the average Arkansan. If we take the 20 people here. Right here. more of these people. are at the National Federal poverty line. That's not even touching this 48,000. 4 right here. If we talk about the most wealthy in this state. We've got
One person over here making over $250,000. Everyone else besides these 4 and this 1 person. Thank you for that laugh. They are the ones that are going to feel this. I'm not gonna feel this. I'm just being honest. People sitting here, y'all are not gonna feel this. You know you're not. But the average person in this state will, and here are the other things that we have to
look at. We've got some federal stuff coming down the pipe. We've got Medicaid cuts. We've got a lot of things, tariffs. They're going to hit and they're going to hit hard. And what we've got to do as a state is not only we got to take care of the people now. We've got to take care of what's coming down. And I'm going to give you an example. We hear a lot in this state about the surplus we have. I know you guys hear it because I hear it a lot. What we don't talk about is the amount that we take in federal subsidies because our people are
so poor. For every $1 that we spend in to the Federal Reserve. We get back. Over $1.70. For every $1 that we pay into the Federal Reserve. Our people are so poor. We're getting back almost $1.70. That money subsidizes our law enforcement. It's subsidizes our schools. It subsidizes our hospitals. I live in Cross County. My hospitals in the red.
I grew up down in Ashley County. They've closed two wings in that hospital. And I've got parents who are 76 years old sitting down there. These are the things that concern me. I'm not saying we don't have economic issues or that we're not doing what's right for business, but don't do it off the backs of the poor. Send this bill back, get it redrafted. That's it. Go into special session. I'm, I'm sorry, ma'am. You've um I'm sorry, I didn't hear the alarm. It just went
off. No, you just, you just exceed it, but thank
Speaker 49
2:31:30
you so much for your testimony. Well, I would offer questions, but I don't think you have any. I don't see
Chair
Unverified
2:31:37
any questions, but thank you. Y'all have a good night.
Speaker 111
2:31:40
Next on the agenda is Mark Robinette to speak against the bill. Same for you, sir. Just introduce yourself, who you're with and um unfortunately, we're limited to 3 minutes at this point. Thank
Mark Robinette
Unverified
2:31:46
you, Chairman Maddox, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. My name is Mark Robinette and I represent
Arkansas gas consumer. We are a nonprofit. Our membership consists of industrial gas users who rely on affordable and predictable utility rates to keep their businesses running, their employees working, and their products competitively priced. We come before you today to oppose SB 307. We feel that this bill will significantly increase the financial burdens on our membership. Bye Allowing a very immediate rise in rates.
I believe that this bill has been discussed inside and out. Some of the possible downsides to CWIP or QIP financing have been discussed in various projects in other states where things didn't go so well. Now, utilities make their money based upon what goes into base rates. You have to ask yourself, does this bill incentivize them to keep more in base rates or not ostensibly, superficially, it
would seem not. But reading it closer, there are provisions in this bill that allow things such as allowing the payment of non-capitallizable expenses. Out of Ryder funds and what that means Is that the capitalizes expenses, which ultimately go into base rates. They may remain all the way to the end of the project. This money could be used to pay non-capitallizable expenses, and there are loopholes in this bill. For instance, I think this
has been brought up by Mr. the gentleman that was maybe 2 before me. That there is in fact A loophole where we don't have to stop at 10% below the national average. I believe upon some application to the Public Service commission and the showing that the increase in rates will not deter economic development in Arkansas. It will permit a rate increase in excess above 10% above the national average and a particular concern to gas consumers. Our rates are already above the
national average, and this bill allows natural gas utilities to continue to increase their rates under the formula rate plan, possibly apply for strategic investment riders and be in excess of the 10% cap. I mean, there, there are plenty of ways this bill is stacked in favor of the utilities. It will allow them to maximize their returns, and we do not support the bill. I have nothing further to add to the committee today. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, sir.
And my colleague Kelly McQueen will be going separately for electric
Speaker 49
2:34:36
consumers. She should be signed up as well. She is actually next on the agenda. It actually is Kelly McQueen or Mark Robinette. So, OK. So does that mean Mr. Robinette is not coming? OK. Thank you. Just introduce yourself
Speaker 178
2:34:50
and who you're with and you may proceed, ma'am, and remember, try, you have to limit your
Speaker 262
2:34:56
remarks to 3 minutes. Thank you so much, Kelly McQueen, Arkansas Electric
Energy Consumers Group. We're the large industrial group. Our group represents industry for manufacturing, forestry, still, uh, agriculture, uh things like uh Reynolds metals, Acme brick, Delic oil. These are things that, uh, these are Arkansas companies here. Now, and we are opposed to the bill as a group, as it is written now. And is there ways that it could be amended, the ways could it be worked on? You bet. That's
what legislation's for. We can make this better, but the way it is right now, we quit jokingly that it's the utilities welfare Act, because what I have to ask you is this, we're in our 3rd wave of replacement of our generation capacity in Arkansas. Our forefathers have already done this once, and you know what happened with what they created, way below. National average rates, large robust, diverse energy sources, lots of coal, plenty of gas. In fact, we got 2 gas units down in El Dorado right now that we're
exporting to Louisiana. If we're gonna do something, let's make those our first strategic investments. Arkansas should have the units that are already in Arkansas. Before we start constructing things and putting it on CWIP. We already have units here. Let's start there. If we're going to do something like this, we need to find out why does our utility. needed the help. Why does the head of EG Arkansas make $1.3 million a year. 10 times of our governor? Are we saying that our utility
executive jobs are harder than our governor's job. No, so what I'm saying here is this, there's a way to do this, and this isn't it. A little bit of my background. I've been doing this for 30 years. I started at the Attorney General's office in the utility ratepayers advocacy division. I then worked for the utilities for many years, created their first trade organization where we all work together so that we can address the issues about the coal plant closures. After I left Entergy, I then went into private practice. And now I work for industrial
consumers and all consumers and ratepayers, and I can tell you this is a wholesale re-regulation of utilities in Arkansas. Do not be deceived. It is not what you are being told. We are currently paying for all the coal plants, and we are long in megawatts. Will we need to replace? Absolutely. That's what this is. We've had to do it. This is the 3rd time, like I said before, but when we're doing it, why would we be paying for that and paying for new stuff. that we don't have now. There's no reliability. It's just the
cost. Do we know that that, you know, Will lead us somewhere that'll be cheaper later on? No. Have they been able to provide me an expert that would show that to me? No. Is there a chance that it could be actually not a sloping lower curve that saves us money, but something that's much higher, absolutely. There's no constraints in the bills to prevent that. So I want to work with you, the industrials want to work with you, but this is not the way to do it. Do not be deceived that economic
development is at risk. We are your economic development. here now and we oppose the
Speaker 49
2:38:16
bill. Thank you for your testimony. Members, we have no one left to who signed up to speak for or against the bill, um, representative Eaves, you
Chair
Unverified
2:38:22
are recognized to close for your bill. All right, colleagues, thank you
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:38:38
for your time. I know it's been a long day and, and I'm sitting here trying to decide if I want to Point out some inaccuracies that we have. just heard Um, but I think you've heard the presentation of the bill, um, what it does. I, I think it's
got plenty of guardrails in it. Is somebody getting married. That don't make sense.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
2:39:09
Come. very much. Members, real quick, one of the comments was made that at the very beginning that, uh, why should we be required to pay for the infrastructure. We already do that. That's not something new. Um, I, I would Proposed that a bill like this might have prevented the disaster that we all are aware of with Center Point, Energy, and Summit. utilities in this bill are required to seek federal funds
to help seek assistance with construction. The bill includes renewables and storage. PSE already has resource planning, utilities will have plenty of skin in the game. At the end of the day, this is a better way to produce energy so that we end up with the lowest rates possible for our consumers. Um, I know we're all tired and we've learned probably more about energy than we ever thought we would. So with that, I am closed and I'll make a motion
Speaker 49
2:40:06
to pass. Press has closed for his bill, and he has made a motion to pass
members is there any discussion on the motion. Good seeing none, all in favor of the motion do pass, say aye. In your post, say no. Congratulations, your bill is
Speaker 261
2:40:23
passed. Members, thank you for your patience. This meeting is adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
SB307 J. Dismang TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PUBLIC UTILITIES; TO CREATE THE GENERATING ARKANSAS JOBS ACT OF 2025; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — INSURANCE & COMMERCE- HOUSE, Mar 17, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 3
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 41
Speaker 47
Speaker 49
Speaker 53
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 56
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 73
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 102
Representative Jim Wooten
Unverified
Speaker 115
Speaker 124
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Representative Les Warren
Unverified
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 106
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 74
Speaker 151
Speaker 46
Speaker 6
Speaker 22
Speaker 162
Speaker 9
Speaker 179
Speaker 180
Speaker 183
Speaker 184
Speaker 190
Speaker 193
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
Speaker 195
Speaker 196
Speaker 200
Speaker 205
Speaker 199
Speaker 96
Jeff Marcusson
Unverified
Brent Stephenson
Unverified
Speaker 215
Speaker 218
Speaker 224
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
Speaker 226
Speaker 220
Speaker 78
Speaker 231
Speaker 233
Speaker 154
Speaker 219
Speaker 111
Speaker 246
Speaker 245
Speaker 247
Speaker 249
Speaker 97
Speaker 253
Speaker 255
Mark Robinette
Unverified
Speaker 178
Speaker 262
Speaker 261