[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6509969,"mediaKeyId","5418317-b4823e6cb819237dc1508a338386ae04","parentId",5418317,"title","Austin Energy proposes FY2026 budget with 5% base‑rate increase; projects $43.5M 2026 shortfall","audioSeconds",3421,"startMs",3574000,"endMs",6995000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418317-b4823e6cb819237dc1508a338386ae04&start=3574&end=6995","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418317-b4823e6cb819237dc1508a338386ae04/thumbnail_3574000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6509969/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Austin-Energy-proposes-FY2026-budget-with-5-baserate-increase-projects-435M-2026-shortfall","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6509969-8976c2c33411ed98a760ce35dd380ebb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770545413&Signature=bu0RzHMT78ZWQiFmp88T36C9OykGg~y7o5kEYhakyh76udq-HLnkXWhe-7zKUIo18L~3NBYUNCy7dfeMDx7tq1Me2jc1RXsjtR8Xnn~TNIlcYjL~tyi4urhOvTDSW~hDSCTomd55xfQP1NcDVZ0df1YEN1tA1efzGW-SY5dLIXbL9btpG1QOusZ5qel-jE~fuumn-wcNMgxCeNUypSH8WgK1GLC9FPFtwkkHDqfnJkZXIUSP9t4Pu2XPo2qJioXSqsF-oQ6~nkjKasHJMUvI0eb~TSwv6cfhj7KK0YpbHaq3bvAfCOzrsQzOK1GBkX22HmuRqQIuY4fMqjI6C2DQqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Austin","date","2025-07-17T00:00:00Z","article","Austin Energy staff on July 17 presented the utility’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget and recommended a 5% increase in base rates to address rising costs and support capital projects.

John Davis, acting senior vice president and chief financial officer, said the proposed FY2026 revenue budget is roughly $1.95 billion while budgeted uses total about $1.99 billion, producing a projected 2026 deficit of about $43.5 million. Staff told the Electric Utility Commission (EUC) the gap narrows in later years as the plan relies on continued cost control and projected base‑rate revenue growth.

Staff highlighted key cost drivers: higher operating and maintenance expenses including personnel and contractual costs, increased transmission and joint‑project charges, higher debt service related to a larger capital plan and growing general fund and other transfers. The five‑year capital improvement program totals roughly $1.741 billion, split across electric service delivery, power production and district cooling. Staff said $83 million of the five‑year CIP is earmarked for resiliency work identified in the overhead resiliency study.

The proposal includes a residential customer charge increase to $16.50 and a reallocation of the remainder of the 5% across the first energy tier; staff said the increase is spread across all customer classes, not only residential customers. Staff emphasized that the utility is a cost‑recovery entity: power‑supply costs are passed through via the power‑supply adjustment (PSA). Because PSA amounts have fallen since the prior budget, staff showed a modeled typical residential bill that is roughly $4.89 per month lower in 2026 than in the 2025 budget, primarily because power‑supply costs have declined.

Commissioners pressed staff on transparency, the method for recovering costs outside of a full rate case, and the size of transfers to the city general fund. Staff replied that council approves rates via the budget process, that the utility follows a five‑year cost‑of‑service cadence to limit rate shock, and that planned transfers reflect city policy and rising obligations; staff noted a portion of the 5% uplift will flow to the general fund transfer.

Staff reported key financial targets and metrics: operating margin that grows in outer years, a target minimum days‑cash‑on‑hand around 150 days (with a longer‑term goal of about 200 days), and debt metrics that reflect higher CIP borrowing needs. Personnel changes in the FY26 budget include net additions (conversions and new FTEs) at a net personnel cost of about $2.28 million. Staff said they will not typically release proprietary financial modeling used for project‑level decisions.

Several commissioners asked to put the FY26 budget and associated rate changes on the EUC’s August 11 agenda for potential recommendation to council. Staff said they would accommodate a brief, commission‑sponsored recommendation item on that agenda so the EUC can advise council before the council vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Austin - Special Electric Utility Commission - Jul 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Austin Energy presented its FY2026 proposed budget July 17 seeking a 5% base‑rate increase, forecasting $1.95 billion in revenue and $1.99 billion in costs for a $43.5 million shortfall in 2026; staff said the deficit narrows in later years and typical residential bills may fall as power‑supply costs decline.","taxTitle","Austin, Travis County, Texas","taxId",2819,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6509974,"Austin Energy presents overhead distribution resiliency study; consultants recommend reclosers, automation and phased investments",1037,2089000,3126000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418317-b4823e6cb819237dc1508a338386ae04&start=2089&end=3126","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418317-b4823e6cb819237dc1508a338386ae04/thumbnail_2089000.jpg","/articles/6509974/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Austin-Energy-presents-overhead-distribution-resiliency-study-consultants-recommend-reclosers-automation-and-phased-investments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6509974-8e33040d0d7cc37659d2c971044b335f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770545413&Signature=e7o8SSSY5DpW-F26TBD6dQCmstCJr15NrFnxF6wKmpdKU~etXbVP0~3kWqa4XoFuSDbkmPUijAMqVDUdxHYL1q7-ThBLlJvaOC67Ix0mIccFIWLLnhoxQBbtPw1Oiz5mPzHQotHbtJU92Wadv40S2CM~nqqs5aVRaqPryTvEIEpGQv7qlwvCYh3VDXeR5xl-SAz3cr8i2Mh2Nno~kzVKaDiMD0m~76lar1ENqLRZNmqc3qv7kpCK33gl3bPKN-wktfDdm0GX0nv4rA73ODRkgz4OxQvWFDDh~CQaRnhzMh2lf6~OftEMOCOpYQwo5PJTGHdPD2W-kbJRxoD1eyZF4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Austin Energy staff and consultants on July 17 presented an overhead distribution resiliency study that examined the utility’s roughly 5,000 miles of overhead lines and produced a set of feeder‑level device recommendations and a prioritized list of resiliency initiatives.

David Tomcheson, vice president for electric system engineering and technical services at Austin Energy, and Michael Cody of 1898 & Company (the consulting arm of Burns & McDonnell) told the Electric Utility Commission the study was funded through a FEMA BRIC (Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities) grant and took more than a year to complete. The study assessed system standards compliance, asset age, capacity limits, load‑shed capability and the hosting capacity for distributed energy resources.

Key findings and recommendations included: prioritizing replacement of legacy or high‑risk infrastructure (some assets are 40–50 years old); tracking 14 substations that are nearing operational limits; and expanding automation and sectionalization by deploying reclosers and feeder ties. The consultants said they identified specific deployment options — more than 600 mainline reclosers and more than 1,000 lateral reclosers — as candidate device placements to reduce outage sizes and speed restoration.

The report recommends a phased, parallel approach: take early “low‑hanging” actions for near‑term benefits while building a longer‑term, enterprise‑level resiliency program. The consultants also delivered 24 independent resiliency initiatives grouped into five themes: infrastructure resilience, data‑driven operations, grid connectivity, emergency readiness and operational excellence.

Tomcheson emphasized the study is an input to a broader distribution resiliency plan now being drafted. He said the study will allow a feeder‑by‑feeder comparison of overhead versus underground options; by contrast, a separate undergrounding study estimated the cost to put the remaining 5,000 overhead miles underground at about $50 billion and a build time measured in decades. Because the detailed study includes sensitive mapping of critical infrastructure and protection schemes, Austin Energy said only the executive summary will be made public at this stage.

Commissioners asked several implementation questions. One asked whether batteries had been assessed as a substation‑level resilience option; staff said the study focused on distribution feeder improvements but noted batteries, solar and other DERs are part of hosting‑capacity considerations. A commissioner asked whether advanced metering could be used to shed load at a more granular customer level; staff said that approach was not part of the study but that internal discussions are under way about additional sectionalization methods for load‑shed purposes.

Financial and timing questions: staff said some funding exists in the current and upcoming budgets and that the city’s five‑year capital improvement plan will increase resilience‑related spending over the next five years. In response to a commissioner, staff said they expect to present a draft distribution resiliency plan to council later this calendar year and will engage stakeholders beforehand. The commission voted to note the briefing; commissioners discussed placing the study on the August 11th agenda if the commission wants to make a formal recommendation before council consideration.

The study gives Austin Energy a detailed, device‑level menu for resilience investments that staff said will be used to prioritize work to improve reliability, reduce outage durations and increase the system’s ability to host distributed energy resources.","Consultants for Austin Energy presented a year‑long study of the city’s 5,000 miles of overhead distribution lines on July 17, identifying device placements and a 24‑initiative future state to improve resilience faster and cheaper than full undergrounding.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6509977,"Austin Energy approves 100‑megawatt, 4‑hour battery contract; location not disclosed",1805,157000,1962000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5418317-b4823e6cb819237dc1508a338386ae04&start=157&end=1962","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5418317-b4823e6cb819237dc1508a338386ae04/thumbnail_157000.jpg","/articles/6509977/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Austin-Energy-approves-100megawatt-4hour-battery-contract-location-not-disclosed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6509977-8b2eadcbf751daf4a75d2a22d768fe03/orig.mp4?Expires=1770545413&Signature=kmMBP8mIQNoa65U-ZAqSfZ8o8Bw-H5gG-ejQvwH6NToOJdola-OC-sjBdNA-0bjyCNen9YpBXqsM3l6mYB1dCW-4saX6PwHOnSA5OaYyDS1v1MW~QxdnaEa3UAzAsG~A29QGwx8ZV-6y3Rr9SYW~fmcMFW6RKGgzjjSIA-IXqx-Gf7GyFpXsEAktnuOjBm2qmNWajeRbpU~5E1Sh-V80xPd5vHq8i8LbpCvwp0SiL6Ja6VGOhNVTKb~2gFANRFDj9L0StcxP47HCJ~rF69ytRD867WscYzpx9eVug~KrHV59roHEK6EgYVJcBUwL-Ph62AGCsBo2Pp9djyE~ryV7nQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Electric Utility Commission on July 17 approved a contract for a 100‑megawatt, four‑hour utility‑scale battery project, though staff said the exact site is not yet public as terms are finalized.

Austin Energy officials and the project developer told commissioners the battery is intended to provide capacity for afternoon and evening ramps, carry ancillary services and produce market revenues that help offset capital costs. Michael Langer, vice president for Energy Market Operations, said the project is being sized and contracted to allow monetization of federal investment tax credits under current rules and that the company expects the project to meet domestic‑content thresholds that extend eligibility through 2033.

The contract is one of at least two battery procurements staff are pursuing: Langer said a second contract under development is targeted at about 40 megawatts, so the two projects together would reach roughly 140 megawatts — a level staff said would meet the city’s Generation and Climate Protection Plan goal for local, utility‑scale batteries by 2027.

Public speakers and several commissioners urged a larger or faster deployment. Neighbor Robert Foster urged the commission to “consider proposing more than a 100 megawatts” and said Austin’s public commitments call for 125 MW by 2027. Camille Cook, representing community interests, said she supports the proposal but called for stronger community outreach and “reassuring the surrounding community that they have a voice,” recommending firefighter briefings, open forums and a hotline for questions.

During questions, commissioners pressed staff on siting, safety and economics. Langer said the battery before the commission is sited within Austin’s load zone but that the exact parcel is not yet released while contract terms are negotiated. Staff confirmed the project is being planned as a four‑hour system, which affects how it will be used for grid services, and that contracts typically limit total cycles but allow multiple partial cycles in a day.

On safety and community readiness, staff told commissioners the contract will include provisions reflecting utility best practices and explicitly address fire‑safety measures. Commissioners asked about design features to limit fire spread and whether the project will be broken into sections to limit risk; staff responded that contract terms require good‑industry practices and firesafety provisions but did not detail specific engineering designs at this meeting.

The commission approved the item without a recorded roll‑call tally. Staff said the project remains contingent on successful interconnection through the utility interconnection queue and that terms, including the precise site, will be disclosed when appropriate. The item will move forward to council for final approval as required by the city’s procurement rules.

Votes and formal approvals on other agenda items were also handled during the meeting; the battery contract was one of several items the commission approved on July 17.","The Electric Utility Commission approved a 100 MW, 4‑hour utility‑scale battery contract July 17, 2025; staff said the site is within Austin’s load zone but the location is not yet public. Commissioners and public speakers urged larger capacity and community engagement around siting and fire-safety planning.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Austin Energy proposes FY2026 budget with 5% base‑rate increase; projects $43.5M 2026 shortfall

Austin Energy presents overhead distribution resiliency study; consultants recommend reclosers, automation and phased investments

Austin Energy approves 100‑megawatt, 4‑hour battery contract; location not disclosed