COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, May 14, 2003 12:38 p.m. - - - BILL 030244 - An Ordinance approving the Fiscal Year 2003 Capital Budget providing for expenditures for the capital purposes of the Philadelphia Gas Works, including the supplying of funds to be obtained in connection therewith, and acknowledging receipt of the Forecast of Capital Budgets for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2008. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL, Chair COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN TASCO, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ - - - V A R A L L O, INCORPORATED LITIGATION SUPPORT SERVICES 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 030244 CRAIG WHITE, PGW ............................ THOMAS KNUDSEN, PGW ......................... 3 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224
Good afternoon. We are happy to call into Session our hearing before the Finance Committee with regard to PGW and Bill 5 No. 030244. The Clerk will please read the title of the bill. Before he does, let me note that we have a quorum. To my right is Vice Chair of the Committee, Councilwoman Marian Tasco; to her right, Councilman Michael Nutter; and on the floor, Brian O'Neill; all members of the Finance Committee. As he reads the title of the Bill, we would ask Mr. Craig E. White, Senior Vice President, COO, PGW to please join us at the witness table. AND thank you all for your patience. The Clerk will read the title of the Bill.
Bill No. 030244, an ordinance approving the Fiscal Year 2003 Capital Budget providing for expenditures for the capital purposes of the Philadelphia Gas Works, including the supplying of funds to be obtained in connection therewith, and acknowledging receipt of the Forecast of Capital Budgets for Fiscal Years 2004 through 4 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 2008.
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Would you begin your testimony?
Certainly. I'd first like to begin by thanking the City Finance --
Excuse me. Would you identify yourself for the record and pull your mike a little closer?
My name is Craig White. I'm the acting Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President at Philadelphia Gas Works, and I'm responsible for the operation side of the business. I filed written testimony, which I believe has been delivered to the Council. I don't intend to read that into the record, of course. But just as an opening remark, I would like to state that this past 2002-2003 Fiscal Year Capital Budget, similar to the upcoming 2003-2004 Capital Budget are basically a two-year program that PGW has embarked on to ensure the efficiency and capabilities of our operating systems. And you will see from the testimony that I filed that the majority of the dollars that we are 5 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 asking for in this budget deal with the core business of Philadelphia Gas Works, our distribution, our field services, and our gas processing. As I said, I have filed written testimony, and I'm available for questions.
Thank you very much. Regarding the gas processing department, we have heard that the previously approved project to replace the PGW's L & G at Richmond is behind schedule. What's the status of this project?
Yes, it's true that it is behind schedule. The project is to replace the liquefaction plant. When you refer to liquefaction, you actually have storage tanks, you actually have a vaporization plant and a liquefaction plant. It is the liquefaction plant aspect of this facility that we are replacing. At the present time, the project is in a final negotiation to make a fix -- I guess that's the best way I could put this -- to repair the facility to ensure that it will work at an agreed-to level. As I said, we are in the final stages of completing an agreement where there are 6 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 only a couple of minor hurdles that we still have to cross. But we have been working -- the engineering folks have been working forward, and as I said, at this point it's pretty much the legal documents that are trying to be squared away. We should be testing the plant between November 15th and December 15th of this upcoming calendar year. And we anticipate that at that time, we will have a plant and it will be functional and we will be able to use that for liquefaction in the following season in addition to some of our existing facilities.
Thank you. So then we need not see a request or expect one for additional capital funding for this?
Not for this phase. But we should expect in the forecast that there will be discussion regarding a Phase II plan. And, of course, we will be bringing this forth before the Philadelphia Gas Commission before it reaches the Finance Committee and the Council. So I'm sure the issue will be fully ventilated at the Gas Commission and then move forward from there.
Thank you. Regarding automatic meter reading, on 7 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 , you discuss the need for close to $4 million to complete this phase in order to install another 12,000 AMRs. So do we assume then you have installed approximately 548,000 residential AMRs for our customers? Give us a status check on that.
Certainly. That is true that we have installed the 548,000. This remaining to 15,000 -- I can't recall specifically the 10 number -- will complete, as far as PGW is concerned, 11 the installation of AMRs. Now, we expect, if you 12 look at the statistics, that the last 12 to 15,000 are probably going to be the homes that have been most difficult to get into for whatever reason. We will pursue that as appropriately as possible to get into those homes and get the AMRs installed.
So then this affects the budget by what amount? Or is the money already there?
And this finishes that automatic meter reading Citywide, all right. On pages 10 and 11, you discuss and 8 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 support line item transfer proposals recommended by the Gas Commission. It's important to note that the recommended proposal is tied to this one Capital Budget only; and that under the proposed ordinance, the Gas Commission will review PGW's implementation of this proposal to make further recommendations to City Council. Can you assure us that PGW will use this line item transfer or will not use it to fund new projects which should be presented to us as proposed amendments to our budget?
Yes, I would like to go back to Councilwoman Blackwell's question. You have about 500,000 residential customers; so why are we installing 560,000 automatic meters?
That's an excellent question. It was the first question that I asked. We have a lot of residences within the City that either go vacant over time or new construction and so forth. So in essence, we still maintain 512 to 9 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 520,000 active customers, but we have approximately 560 facilities or residences in the City of Philadelphia that will have an AMR. It's just that at any one time, not all of them are active gas customers.
There's about 560,000 AMRs that have been installed over the life of the project. There may be facilities that had AMRs where they've actually been demolished and new homes have been built in the same locations. In that case, that would be part of that overall number of 560,000. But, of course, those structures don't stand any longer and they've been replaced. So the number of 560 just addresses the actual amount that we've installed since the inception of the program.
Well, what discussion are you having with the City's NTI Department? Because they have a massive demolition program. If you have on your books to install AMRs 10 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 in facilities that are destined to be demolished, do you have any ongoing or have you had any discussion with the NTI Office about this?
We coordinate with the City on all fronts. I'm assuming that -- and I would have to get to the Councilwoman specifically on this question. But I would expect that if facilities are scheduled for near-term demolition that we would not be installing an AMR. But I will be happy to report back to you as to specifically how we address that.
I think that's very important that you -- I know you personally don't know that. Whoever is in PGW that's in charge of the AMR program, I think you ought to make sure that they have some discussion with NTI and know in advance the properties that are designated for demolition, because there are a number of them. There's no point in installing an automatic meter if the building is going to be demolished. And it may cut down on the number of AMR's you need. And that's throughout the City. And even if they're not scheduled for demolition next week, they're on the list to be demolished so they should not be counted in your facilities count. And I'd like for you to 11 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 get back to the Chair of this Committee in terms of that information, which she will share with us, because I want to make sure that that doesn't take place. Mr. Knudsen is here, and he understands what I'm talking about, along with the other staff members. That would be a waste. Sometimes we just don't think of the coordination. That's over here, and you've over here. It just came to me. So I want you to think about that. The question I have is, when do you think that at some point we will get away from funding our capital improvements solely from long-term debt?
Councilwoman, I will have to defer to our finance people on that. We provide them with the request and, of course, Mr. Knudsen and I review, in conjunction with our operations people, to see what are the critical path items to ensure safety and reliability. And then at that point, we have to rely on the financial people. And I think Mr. Knudsen has come up to answer that question. 12 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224
Councilwoman, I'm Tom Knudsen. I'm CEO of the Philadelphia Gas Works. Councilwoman, the Five-Year Plan that we have shows us generating internally-generated funds, which is what your question goes to, in the 2006 time frame. Prior to that, all of the funds that we have are going to pay down our short-term debt and also the $45 million City loan. So our projections are actually showing that we have funds from our own internal activity starting Fiscal 2006, so it's two years away.
Mr. White, you are working with the Water Department. In your testimony on to 7 you discuss the minimal reimbursement PGW gets for reinforced relocation of gas mains caused by City, State, and Federal work. And you also state that PGW is in the process of finalizing a new reimbursement agreement with Philadelphia Water Department to increase the reimbursement rate to PGW. What is the status of PGW's discussion with the Water Department? And since PGW and the Water Department are both part of the City, why is this an issue for PGW.
At this point, the status is 13 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 that we have had a number of meetings with the staff of the Water Department, with PGW operation staff. PGW has created a model that we provided to the water company, a computer program that allows them to enter different scenarios with respect to how reimbursement would change based upon the proposals that we have made. One of the main reasons we're going in this direction, we spend about $8 million a year, which is part of our Capital Budget, on enforced work with the Water Department. As you know, PGW replaces under a prudent cast iron main replacement program the riskiest main in the streets of Philadelphia. When we have to spend funds to do enforced work, it obviously impacts our overall capital dollars. What we have experienced over time is that we spend about $8 million and we get about $200,000 worth of reimbursement for pipe that we would not disturb if not for the fact that the water must be in there to address water work. What we're looking for is a more equitable distribution and a situation where PGW and the Water Department would be pretty much sharing the burden of the cost associated with that. 14 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 Certainly, as we try to restore or retain PGW's assurance of delivery and reliability and so fourth, we have to maintain these assets. There was a point in time where the assets were not maintained as well as they should have been, and in essence, we're playing catch-up right now. And that is in essence what drives this budget this year and will drive next year's budget.
I'm wondering if the Water Department in their costing out their work, the costs of you to come in -- I mean, even though you're both City agencies, it cost you money, each of you, to do it. So they should calculate in their budget the cost for doing this, right?
Let me just go back to the L & G plant. When do you think we'll get the new plant straightened out, the issues with that?
I would expect that the new plant will be at a test mode on November 15th. The outstanding issues at the present 15 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 time are very close to being resolved. The most important of which was the test period, the November 15th to December 15. And we believe we've come up with a resolution that will -- if PGW is unable to enable the vendor to test during that period, then the vendor would have until the following June, and that would be drop-dead date. We expect that we will be able to provide sufficient gas flow to enable the vendor to test during that November 15th to December 15th period. In the event we do provide that, they must have this plant fully operational on December 15. That's our expectation. As you know, we ran into a problem when the Plant came on initially. It did not work. There were problems with a number of aspects of it. The contractor, Chicago Bridge and Iron, and their subcontractor, Air Products, have worked diligently in creating a modification which has been reviewed by both PGW engineers and PGW's consulting engineers Crios (ph). That's a company that PGW had entered into a contract with to review this. A lot of this material is proprietary so we had to work our way through that, proprietary to Air Products. And once we worked our way through that, and we believe that 16 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 we have it fixed that at this present time we believe is very reasonable. We expect that we will have a plant that's up and running at the end of this liquefaction season. As far as this liquefaction season, I think it's important to note that we have our old plant. It us fully functional. It is running at a very high rate, which is what we have seen over the last five years. The issue with the old plant is, it is 35 years old and there are pitfalls when you're running a 35-year-old plant and it is absolutely critical to the City of Philadelphia.
You're welcome. The Chair notes the presence of Councilman James Kenney, and we also thank Councilman Angel Ortiz for being here as well. Are there any other questions from Members of the Committee? Councilman Ortiz.
I have a question for Mr. Knudsen. Mr. Knudsen on April 30th, Council 17 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 President Verna sent you a letter. You did receive the letter?
I don't think that's what the Council President asked you, in terms of your response. We did pass legislation in this Council. Legislation was passed. It was not vetoed by the Mayor. I believe that legislation does have the force of law. Here, before in a previous hearing, you 18 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 told us that you were going to communicate with the PUC and amend the request that you had made in terms of the percent discount. You never did that, did 5 you? 6
I don't think I said I 7 would amend it. I said I would communicate with 8 them, which -- 9
I don't know what -- 10 I believe that you said that you would ask the PUC 11 to -- you were amending your previous request about 12 the 20 percent discount. That's my recollection. 13
Well, I wouldn't have been 14 in a position to do that, only because it would be a 15 complete tariff application. I can't just request 16 the PUC -- I think the conversation was in the 17 context of what they were intending to do at the 18 time of that hearing. 19
Well, they were 20 intending to do something you asked them to do. And we were asking you to retract that request that you had made; and you said that you would do that.
I communicated with them and I was informed that in fact the process was essentially complete and that there would be no 19 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 recourse to change --
I would like to see your communications and the responses to you.
I have communication from my Council, and I will provide that to you.
What did you communicate to them in that letter that you sent to them?
I'm trying to recall exactly what the nature of that was, but the inquiry that I made was whether there was any possibility of there being adjustment or way of influencing the PUC at that time; and the answer was no, that the process -- and I've forgotten when we were in hearings last. It was some time in the latter part of March, as I recall. It would have been early part of March. And the process at the PUC, any opportunity for intervention or changing of positions was closed and they were in the decision phase at that time. 20 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224
No, my Council did. I went through Council to say, "Is there a possibility here of opening this issue up again?" And the answer was no. 8
I don't remember whether we did or not. I'd have to check with Counsel.
I don't believe you ever communicated to us. You made a statement here. You went back. You said you got the advise of Counsel. Counsel told you not to do it, obviously, and then you did not communicate back to us that you were not going to abide by the request we had made of you.
Forgive me, Councilman. I will clarify that. I made the proffer to see was it possible, I think, and the answer was that at that time, there was no room within the process to change 21 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 anything. The PUC would go on the basis of --
Well, I don't know who decides whether there's room in the process to modify a request that you're making to the PUC.
I understand. And there is a legal ordinance passed by this Council that you have seemed to wish to ignore and you're saying that it has no validity whatsoever.
No, there are two issues, Councilman. The first deal is with my conversation with the PUC back --
Well, if I read PUC correctly, they said that it is the prerogative of Council by ordinance. And we follow the PUC direction as to their opinion. You made a certain representation to us at the time of that previous hearing and you ignored to communicate back to us in a timely fashion what your communication with the PUC was going to be. Then, President Verna writes you a letter on April 30th, and you file a response to her today, the day when you're supposed to come before this Council. And you're saying to us that because 22 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 you already filed you were not able to communicate, or you did communicate the PUC -- I don't know how you communicated because I don't have it in front of me. The desires of this Council, the wishes of this Council that our filing before them include the maintenance of the percent discount and that 9 you were going to amend that filing to reflect that. 10 Now you say you didn't say that. I do believe you 11 did say that. That's my recollection. I left that 12 hearing believing that you were going to communicate 13 to the PUC that it was the desire of this Council 14 and that and that you as representative of the PGW, 15 our corporate structure, that you were going to ask 16 for a modification and maintenance that reflected 17 the maintenance of the 20 percent discount. Now you 18 say you got an answer from the PUC that was not 19 possible. 20
No, let me be clear what my intention was, just so there's no confusion on this. When this was in the works, when this was being processed, we had the hearing. And the inquiry was made whether there was any possibility of amending the filing at that time. 23 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224
I know, but the inquiry was of me. And I responded saying I didn't believe that it would be changed but I would inquire if that was at all possible. I went to my counsel and I said look, "Is there any opportunity within the process at the PUC?" And the answer was no. What is necessary at this juncture to change the Senior Citizen Discount Program is that we anew under a separate docket with this as a specific request, not in the restructuring because the restructuring has already gone too far, but the law allows that we can file anew for a change. Now, the issue for management is that it is our understanding that there are some legal issues surrounding the making of such an application, and I basically --
Sir, we had hearings on this. We made it very clear what the desire of this Council is. We passed legislation, unanimously passed legislation that reflected the wishes, the desires of this City's Legislative Body. We said to you at that time, "This is what is required of your 24 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 organization as per the legislation and the desires of this Body, for you to go back and give PUC an amended request about the percent discount. And 5 my recollection is that you were going to do that. 6 Now, I may be mistaken, but I think I 7 have a good memory that you were going to 8 communicate with the PUC. And we had not passed 9 legislation at that point. 10
We did pass the 12 legislation subsequent to that. 13 Ms. Verna, the President of the Body 14 writes you a letter in which she says -- and I'm 15 going to read. "As you know, on April 10, 2003, 16 City Council passed two bills, copies of which are 17 enclosed herewith, reaffirming its commitment to 18 continue PGW's existing Senior Citizens Discount for 19 all customers who reach 65. 20 "On April 25, 2003, the Mayor returned these Bills to Council without his signature, disallowing them to become law. "I now call upon PGW to implement these Ordinances, in particular, Section 2 of Ordinance 25 030123 requires that whenever a proposed rate filing 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 is made to the Public Utility Commission on behalf of PGW, such proposed rate filing shall include a proposal to continue the discount afforded to senior citizens under the same terms that the senior citizens discount was last approved by the Philadelphia Gas Commission. Section 3 goes on to require that if any proposed rate filings have been made to the PUC on behalf of the City's Natural Gas Distribution Operation before this ordinance became law, the entity making such filing shall within one week after this ordinance become law, file an amendment to such proposed rate filing that conforms with the requirement of Section 2 of this ordinance. "As you know, PGW has recently made a filing before the PUC, calling upon that agency to end the discount for customers not already receiving it as of September 1, 2003. The PUC in an order dated March 21, 2003 accepted that recommendation. "Under Ordinance 030123, PGW is now required to amend its filing to propose that the PUC reconsider its ruling and reinstate the discount for new applicants. Ordinance 030138 reinforces PGW'S obligation to seek an amendment of the PUC's order. That measure adds a new Section, 19-2003 of the 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 Philadelphia, which in no uncertain terms requires that the Philadelphia Gas Works shall establish and maintain a reduction in charges for natural gas distribution and supply services for any eligible senior citizen in the amount of up to percent of 7 the charges for heating and non-heating purposes to 8 his or her residence. 9 "This is the clear policy of the City as 10 expressed in these two ordinances is that PGW 11 maintain the existing senior citizen discount and 12 that PGW must make clear to the PUC that it desires 13 and intends so to maintain it." 14 Then she asked you to please advise her 15 of the steps you will be taking within the time 16 restraints set forth in Ordinance 030123 to comply 17 with the mandate of the new legislation. 18 You didn't answer that letter until 19 today. In fact, you brought the letter here. And 20 that's what we're asking. And that's what we're requiring of you to do.
Councilman, let me respond. I apologize for the letter being late. I was not in the City. I was out of the City on personal issues last week. Be that as it may, the 27 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 letter is here. The issue for PGW management is that we are confronted with a legal interpretation or some legal issues that --
No, they're not. There are no legal issues here. I don't even know why you're here even. You don't recognize City Council; we're not going to recognize you. I'm going to be fighting, not only voting no on this, but voting no and fighting actively against Council action on behalf of PGW on every issue until two things occur: Until you change the request and the PUC acts favorably on it. You have no right to Philadelphia's support. I don't know why you're sitting here asking of us to do anything for you. You don't feel we have any authority; sobeit, go your own way, do your own funding. Don't come to City Council for it, because you reject our authority. You should not be here. We ought to terminate this hearing at once because you have no 22 call on us for anything.
I have those two 28 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 conditions. Until PUC acts favorably on your recommendation that the senior citizen discount be fully restored, I'm going to vote no and campaign actively throughout the City that the City has no 6 obligation to PGW, it's an outlaw body that has no 7 support and ought to have no support. I don't know whether I'll win or not, but I'm going to do it and I'm going to do it as hard as I know how. And you know how hard I can fight on issues. I don't see any good to PGW as far as the City is concerned. If the Mayor supports you, if he supported you on this, sobeit; get support from the Mayor. Have the Mayor find the money that you need without Council action. But you forfeited any right to Council action on your behalf at all. I think you entered into a conspiracy with unknown people to prepare PGW for sale or private ownership that you decided that to do it you had to have an elimination of the senior citizen discount and you with full forethought decided that this is the way you're going to do it and you were going to override the City Council. You knew the City Council felt strongly. Even the Act contains a provision for City Council to state its opinion. 29 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 And you acted hurriedly to make certain that you represented the City of Philadelphia's opinion when you knew you did not. I think you forfeited any claim to credibility or any claim to any assistance whatever if on the way to assistance you need the support of City Council. That's my position. I'm going to fight you every inch of the way. I don't think you ought to be in existence because you defied the City Government. And by the City Government, I mean the governing body, the City Council of Philadelphia. And you did it knowingly with full intent to do so. I think you have no right whatever to any support, any assistance from City Council at all. Maybe the best thing might be for you to go out of business and become again an accumulation of buildings just separate and apart and we can set up just like we have a Water Department, we can set up a Philadelphia Gas Department and operate it through the City just as we operate the Water Department.
You just stated that before that you can do a new rate filing before the PUC. I think that is what is required. That is 30 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 what we required you to do last time. That is what we require of you to begin doing by ordinance. That's what President Verna required you to do. And you come here with excuses that you can't do that. And I'm telling you that the ordinance passed. It is the law of the City, and we're asking you to go back and re-file and make clear to the PUC what the wishes of this Legislative Body are.
Councilman, if I may. I'm insisting further that the PUC act favorably, because I think you are in a conspiracy. Maybe PUC may be one the conspirators. So that if you do that filing and you fail, I will take the same position I'm taking now. I will always be against PGW until they comply and that senior citizen discount is restored. Otherwise I will vote against and campaign against every piece of legislation requested by PGW.
I want to see an effort made, a very strong effort made to go back to PUC and comply with the letter of this law.
Councilman, I am pleased to file with the PUC when it's clear to me that I have the legal structure to do that. 31 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224
Then go back and find out and give us the opinion which says that you don't have that authority.
And maybe we'll have to spend a couple years in court before we can consider your --
Councilman, I am not the person for that discussion. I'm not a lawyer.
Well, the only way you can do that is to challenge the law that this Council passed in court. And PGW can then sue City Council or the City of Philadelphia.
If that's the course, then that's what we have to do. But I don't --
Up until that time, the law of this City was passed by Ordinance 23 unanimous. It was done.
How could you dare state an intention of the City with respect to 32 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 senior discount, our desire, in face of the 1973 action by this Body which remained on the books? How could you have disregarded that when you stated a City position? That was the City's position. You were not free to distort and conceal the truth from the PUC.
Councilman, I am an agent in this circumstance. I would prepare all of the papers and when --
Well, go back to the people that are controlling you. If you're an agent, go to the principal who directed you to tell an untruth to the PUC with respect to the City's point of view on the senior citizen discount.
Did you not know that we passed this legislation? Did you not know that these activities had happened in this City Council?
I mean, do you wait to hand us a letter on the day you come before us answering the President of this Body's letter that was given to you on April 30th asking you to answer 33 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 several questions. It is totally disrespectful of this Body.
There was certainly no 5 disrespect intended on my part. There were some issues that arose as to --
Well, sir, if there were some issues, then you should have communicated those issues immediately.
Madam Chair, I don't believe this Bill is in position for Council to take any action.
Councilman Cohen, in fact, we did not introduce you, but as they say you came in with a bang. And we hear your concerns. We've tried to have some side-bar discussions. We are prepared to hold this hearing until May 27th at 2 o'clock, if that is the will of the Body.
At that time, we will ask that you respond to the whole issue of senior citizen discounts and the issues of whether or not you have the legal authority -- Councilman 34 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 Cohen expressed himself well. I need not repeat it, to respond to those issues with regard to authority and the issue of the senior citizen discount.
Madam Chair, there can be no such thing as a chairman of PGW not having the authority to communicate the view that he was wrong when he stated the City's position before and he wishes to correct it. And in any actions taken by PUC based upon his incorrect statement to them -- and he must admit that he was incorrect in stating the City's intention -- any action based on that statement by the PUC was based on a wrongful statement by him, and he must request that that action be terminated and the senior citizen discount be restored. It's not going to be enough for him to come in with some so-called legal opinion that he lacks the authority. If he lacks the authority to correct the error he made, he lacks the authority to request action on the Capital Budget.
Thank you, Councilman. And the Chair also notes that this 35 05/14/03 - FINANCE - BILL 030224 entire body voted to maintain the senior citizen discount, all of us, the entire Body voted unanimously, that is correct. Councilman Kenney, you wanted to say something?
Thank you. I'm just curious as to what one of the local editorial board writers thought when they asked for someone more vigorous than Councilman Cohen to replace him when they didn't endorse him. I'm frightened that if he gets replaced by someone more vigorous, Mr. Knudsen will have to hide under the table. (Laughter.)
All lines clear, this hearing regarding to Bill 030244 will be continued on May 27th at 2:00 p.m.. Thank you all. (Council adjourned at 1:20 p.m.) - - - 36 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of May 14, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public