Announcer: .com will begin momentarily.
-: This meeting of the Railroad Commission of Texas
will come to order to consider matters
which have been duly posted
with the Secretary of State for March 4th 2020.
The Commission will consider the items on the agenda
as posted on the agenda
on our public participation policy.
Anyone designed to offer public testimony on any items
that are not noticed on the today's agenda
will need to fill out a testimony form found
in the back of the room
and submit it to the Commission Secretary Kelly Farrar.
Please silence all cell phones before we begin.
Let's start with item number one.
-: Good morning chairman and commissioners.
I'm the Marlo Chico Administrative Law Judge
with the Hearings Division.
Item number one is the rate case expenses severed
from the completed Atmos Energy Corporation,
Mid-Tex Division rail case docket
in GUD number 10779.
These expenses were incurred by the utility Atmos
and the intervener upper Texas municipalities.
The parties ultimately settled this case
and wait the issuance of a proposal for decision.
The examiners recommend approval of the terms
of the settlement agreement
as reflected in the proposed final order.
I'm available for questions.
Chairman: Are there any questions?
-: I move we approve the examiners recommendation.
Is there a second?
Sitton: Second.
-: Second by Commissioner Sitton, all in favor say, "Aye.".
Members: Aye.
-: Any opposed?
Motion passes.
That item is approved.
-: Item number two.
-: Morning chairman and commissioners.
-: Morning.
I'm John Dodson Administrative Law Judge
with the Hearings Division,
agenda item two GUD 10897
is an unprotestive request filed by Ocelot Energy Management
for a waiver of certain commission rules and requirements
to rehabilitate a pipeline segment utilizing FlexSteel pipe
and fitting materials.
Pipeline safety administratively review the application
and recommends approval subject to certain conditions,
Ocelot was given an opportunity
to review those conditions and does not oppose them.
Staff forwarded the application to hearings
to prepare a written order,
the proposed order provided
to the commissioners approves Ocelot's waiver request
and incorporates all of staffs recommended conditions.
I'm available for questions
-: Are there any questions?
-: Nope.
-: I move we approve the examiners recommendation.
Is there a second?
-: Second.
-: Second by Commissioner Craddick.
All in favor say, "Aye.".
Members: Aye.
-: Any opposed?
Motion passes, that item is approved.
Item number three.
-: Agenda item three is a continued item
from the previous conference GUD 10606.
The discrimination complaints of CNOOC Energy
and EXCO against respondents Williams MLP Operating
and Mockingbird Midstream and Gas Services.
At previous conference, there was conversation,
there's some questions,
I gave some answers.
If I may, I'd like to circle back
and just kind of provide some clarity
with some of the things that I said
just to make sure I'm giving all of you all the information
-: Sure
-: That you need.
Number one, the issue of the effects
of prior contracts was raised.
I'm gonna be clear on my answer to that.
Whether or not a pipeline
or utility is bound by its own steel.
Not with this PFD ,that's not what this PFD says.
So the discrimination that we find in the PFD,
it relates to capital expenditures,
not the underlying fee itself.
But the PFD acknowledges and says what this record supports
is that Williams has a lot of customers
and they all have unique customer needs,
different contracts, arm lengths,
different priority of service, priority 123.
Everyone gets a unique deal,
and everyone's paying a different rate in this case,
that's fine also.
The fees for the service is different
than the capital expenditures that a utility may incur,
and if it does can like add to those fees.
So that's not what the PFD is saying there.
As far as affects of a prior contract, a private contract
that the parties enter into.
The PFD does talk about that a bit in recommendation,
the regulator should not not get anywhere near that.
Private contracts are what they are.
In this case to be private contract,
It's that we're talking about this 2012 Anchor Agreements
between the pipeline Williams
and its Anchor Shipper customer Chesapeake.
And this was an anchorship or contract,
It's called the Mockingbird Agreements,
it's also a financing agreement.
So this is a private contract back in 2012,
and the PFD says that the regulator should not go meddle
in that.
The parties agree to what they agreed to.
It's private contract.
That's just contract law, that's not even going
to be saying anything.
The parties you make a bargain you live with it.
And my recommendation to you
is that the regulator should not go anywhere near that stuff
to help the party out or anything.
Excuse me.
And that cuts both ways in this case against the parties,
so on the one hand,
there's some different theories of discrimination
that were offered by CNOOC and EXCO.
One of those theories which we rejected was
that this private contract itself on its face
was discriminatory.
Because it has this apparently unique approval term,
if parties worked out between themselves.
I say no, PFD says no.
What the regulator cares about his actions,
is conduct of utility, not private contract terms.
And so they can agree to what they wanna agree to,
but my recommendation to you is
to not meddle with that contract at all.
The parties agree to it.
So as far as living with that,
those parties should live with their own contract.
And that is gonna bind them just under contract law.
Cuts against Williams also, though,
because what the PFD talks about
as far as these capital expenditures
that utilities can recover from certain customers.
That contract that Williams agreed to
the 2012 Mockingbird Agreement,
it assured them about two thirds of the volumes
on all Chesapeake's wells,
at a price that Williams liked for about 20 years.
Two thirds is what they agree to,
they didn't get it all not 100%.
And so they might have been a good deal, who knows?
We don't really care.
It's not really for us to pry on.
It's private contract, they agreed to it,
they're gonna go ahead and presumably,
they got what they wanted out of the contract.
But they got two thirds of the volumes, not 100%.
A few years later,
that remaining outstanding one third
of the volumes comes along,
CNOOC does actually try and take its gas in kind.
Williams didn't get that with his contract,
and so how I view the case
is that Williams is holding CNOOC
to the same contract terms
that the Chesapeake agreed to back in 2012.
And Williams didn't get CNOOC's one third by contract.
So this case as I see it is, Williams is trying to get
the regulator to try and give them that one third.
Under the same terms Chesapeake agreed to
under their private deal.
I say no to that, too.
I say Williams walked away from that deal,
probably getting everything they wanted,
might have been a good deal for them,
but what they didn't get at all.
They didn't get CNOOC's guaranteed volumes
for a guaranteed price like they did for Chesapeake.
So as far as that goes also, Williams made a deal,
and the regulator now ,I'm not recommending any regulator
to go back and strengthen a contract
for a party or make it weaker or help out at all.
It is what it is, it's a party's deal.
So my recommendation there as far as going back
and maybe helping Williams out a little bit.
If I kind of read Williams right
on what they're asking you to do I say no.
I mean, they got what they bargained for,
they got two thirds, they didn't get CNOOC's.
So the one third, they didn't get by contract.
In this case I see it,
as they're trying to get that in the regulatory process
through some kind of a Commission imposed order
to impose contract duties through an order,
if that makes sense.
I say no.
I say that's not really a regulator's job
go ahead and do that.
As far as effects of prior contracts,
I wanna touch on that.
The other thing if I may, is issue of benchmarking.
Benchmarking is a featured argument in this case
by Williams.
Williams' central argument to get out of discrimination
is they're treating CNOOC and EXCO.
CNOOC is not operating working interest owners
offering him same rate
as their operators paying Chesapeake.
And Williams' argument their theory there as well,
we're benchmarking a non operating interest working owners
on volumes who's taking their gas and kind
against the same price paid by the operators.
How can that be wrong?
Who else are we gonna benchmark it against?
That's not exactly what they're doing as I see it.
There are a lot of operators, I mean, there's a lot
but there's not that many Anchor Shippers,
only one Anchor Shipper that we're talking about here.
So not every operator is an Anchor Shipper.
So when Williams benchmarks are rate
against this operator, that may be fine.
But when then operators also the only Anchor Shipper
who also used to own the pipeline.
So what the affiliate did the parent company,
sold the pipeline got $2 billion
as part of this links transaction
and immediately flipped to being the Anchor Shipper.
That's a lot of that money to be repaid
over the course of 20 years plus interest rate of return.
That is a very specific
and individualized financial financing agreement.
The Chesapeake agreed to it no one else did.
So and William says,
"Oh, we just benchmarked CNOOC and EXCO's rates
"against the rates of this company
"that looks a lot like them physically."
That's not all they did.
I mean, they benchmarked all these private individualize
Chesapeake only contract terms also.
But they didn't do that for any other customers also,
I mean, the PFD talks about for extra customers
for similar customers 14, 15, 27, 33.
Those are for the complainants came in here with
I mean really it was probably about 30 more.
No one had to pay.
Williams didn't make any other customers have to pay
all that separate financing stuff.
So a lot of companies or maybe a few but some companies
Williams is saying,
"Well look how similar CNOOC looks to Chesapeake."
I mean, physically they do look similar,
I think it makes sense
to benchmark it against that
they look a lot alike physically.
Contractually, nobody is like Chesapeake.
I mean nobody agreed what they agreed to.
There's really unique
and individualized anchor financing terms
to pay back for a lot of this loan,
a lot of the $2 billion they got back in 2012.
No one agreed to do that for Chesapeake.
So that's Chesapeake's own hat to wear.
Chesapeake does wear two hats in this case.
So if you're gonna benchmark against a company
that looks like you like on a map,
no problem there,
but what Williams ought to have done
is to adjust it out all that extra financing stuff.
It didn't really pertain to or even involve CNOOC and EXCO.
They didn't put that stuff in the rates
of their other customers.
And that's the discrimination finding there.
You can't really tell that stuff from looking at a map
or physical factors, but as the case is presented to me,
that's how I see it.
I see that Williams,
they didn't make any adjustments to Chesapeake's, rate.
They just said okay,
"Chesapeake is paying this with their contract
"and we're gonna go ahead and give that number to you
"and you pay it too."
Well when you do that, you're telling CNOOC and EXCO
to pay for everything Chesapeake is paying.
And we know from Chesapeake, I'm sorry,
we know from Williams.
Williams' own two witnesses told us that Chesapeake's rate
it's for two different products.
It's for gathering service
which is about 20%, according to Williams' experts
which is what everyone else gets also.
Everyone else is paying for gathering service,
so that 20% would be the right benchmark
but the other 80%, that's custom financing
that only Chesapeake is doing.
So when the whole thing got benchmarked over to Chesapeake,
I'm sorry, over to CNOOC and EXCO,
there should have been an adjustment there.
That wasn't apples to apples benchmark,
It was benchmarking the anchor rate.
I mean, benchmarking the gathering rate,
which by itself would be okay,
based on fiscal factors looking at math and stuff like that.
But all that other stuff, that financing stuff,
that's only for Chesapeake to pay back.
So the discrimination that we find the PFD
isn't for the map, it's not for the physical stuff,
it's for taking private financing agreement terms
and really forcing them on two companies
that were not involved in any of that stuff.
And so for that, the relevant factor there,
for us the relevant decider,
who's in who's out?
Who is similar who's not?
You go to the contract,
and you see who actually signed on for those duties.
The Anchor Shipper Agreement signatory page.
I mean, it tells you all right there,
who's in who's out.
And only one corporate entity, signed that signature page.
I didn't misspeak on that,
I mean Chesapeake signed in both blocks.
I don't know how that works but they did.
We're not here to talk about arm's length contracts,
but the point is that CNOOC and EXCO didn't sign
or agreed to those duties.
And no looking at a map
or no physical geographical footprint type characteristics
are ever gonna put EXCO and CNOOC's name on that contract.
That's the discrimination finding there.
If I was clear on that, I hope I was.
Lastly, I won't even go into this,
but lastly, there was, I think, a concern voiced
about precedent.
There were no questions for me on that
so I won't go there, unless you have some for me.
I'm happy to answer that if you do,
but that was also raised at the last conference.
So appreciate the time,
I'm available for questions right now,
if there are any more.
-: Thank you for those comments John,
I Appreciate you explaining that to us.
Are there any questions?
-: I have a motion.
-: Motion.
-: Do you have any questions?
-: I do, actually, as far as so John
make sure clarification.
That was a really good breakdown,
and I'll repeat back to you
kind of in the simple terms for understanding.
From a natural resource,
sorry Texas Utility Code perspective,
the question is, is there discrimination?
And it seems like where you didn't mention this morning,
but yes that CNOOC is being asked to pay rates
different than most other people.
And you said there's two reasons
that Williams is explaining that difference.
One is the benchmark, hey,
we benchmark them against this one shipper.
And two is that we have a contract that stipulates
that they would be different.
And what I understand you to say is,
neither of those really absolve or provide a validation
for why they could be appropriately discriminated against.
You can't benchmark against one,
only one of the shippers,
if that one is the only Anchor Shipper
and your contract doesn't say you are.
So therefore that means that
the benchmarking argument is no good.
And from the contract perspective hey,
that's a private contract issue,
that's a civil court issue that's not us.
So therefore, the simple question is,
are they being asked to pay,
are they being treated differently than everybody else
who's in the same point,
who has a regular just service contract,
not an anchor/capital cost contract?
And you said yes, that's where the PFD landed
Did I summarized correctly?
John: Absolutely.
-: That's a very good explanation,
thank you for that John
-: Commissioner Craddick.
-: John thank you for your work on this.
So I appreciate your explanations this morning too,
but I have a motion that I wanna send this back down
for a very limited purpose
'cause I still want to develop the record a little bit more.
So, if you all will allow me,
it's kind of a long motion for a second.
I move that we remand the case back to the examiners
for the limited purpose
to reconsider the discrimination issue
by reopening the hearing to further develop the record
by giving the parties an opportunity to present evidence
and argument on which parties if any,
are similarly situated with particular consideration
to A, whether CEU and Chesapeake are similarly situated,
B, whether EXCO and Chesapeake are similarly situated,
C, whether CEU and EXCO are similarly situated,
and D, whether CEU and EXCO respectively,
are similarly situated to shippers 14152723.
And thereafter for the examiners to provide
an in depth analysis of the evidence
on the similarly situated requirement
in their PFD.
John: Understood.
-: Do you have any questions?
I'm sorry, it's was long motion.
-: I got my folks writing it all,
so we'll go ahead and review it
and we'll get you a conforming order for that today.
Craddick: I appreciate.
So that's my motion.
Chairman: Can you now second that?
All in favor say, "Aye.".
Members: Aye.
-: Oppose Sitton: Sorry, aye.
(laughs)
Sorry, got a question.
-: Motion passes.
This item is remanded back
to the Hearings Division for further processing.
-: Thank you John from your work.
John: It's our pleasure, thank you.
-: Item number four.
-: Good morning chairman and commissioners
for the record my name is Ezra Johnson
Administrative Law Judge with the Hearings Division.
I will be presenting items four and five today.
In item four,
Terry and Barbara Alexander filed a complaint,
claiming that Royal Texan Resources
Endrologics Exploration LLC
do not have a good faith claim
to operate the subject wells.
The Alexander's are the owners of the surface track
where the subject wells are located.
They claim that Royal Texan Endrologics
have no good faith claim
to operate the wells due to insufficient production,
and that wells should be ordered plugged.
Royal Texan Endrologic claim
that they hold a good faith claim right
to operate the wells.
These parties provided two contractual oil
and gas leases whose primary terms have not yet expired.
These leases grant a continuing right
to maintain the subject wells until September of 2020
before production must be restored.
The examiners recommend the commission find
that Royal Texan Endrologics
provided a reasonably satisfactory showing
of a good faith claim to operate the subject wells
and deny the complainants request
to have the wells plugged.
Exceptions and replies were filed
and I'm available for questions
Chairman: Are there any questions?
I move we approve the examiners recommendation.
Is there a second?
Sitton: Second.
-: Second by Commissioner Sitton
All in favor say, "Aye.".
Members: Aye.
-: Any opposed?
Motion passes that item is approved.
Number five.
-: Thank you.
Item five concerns a motion for rehearing
of a final order finding that NHRG Inc
did not have a good faith claim right
to operate the subject wells and lease,
and ordering that the wells be plugged.
The final order followed in NHRG's failure
to respond to the notice of opportunity
for hearing sent in NHRG on October 22 2019.
A timely motion for rehearing was filed
on January 10 2020 and no response to that motion was filed.
Under applicable legal precedent and rules
NHRG's motion fails to allege facts
and circumstances sufficient to show a valid basis
for rehearing the Commission's final order in this docket.
It is recommended that the Commission deny the motion.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled
by operation of law on March 26th 2020
and I'm available for questions.
-: Are there any questions?
I move we approve the examiners recommendation.
Is there a second?
-: Second.
-: Second by Commissioner Craddick.
All in favor say, "Aye.".
Members: Aye.
-: Any opposed?
Motion passes.
That item is approved.
Thank you.
Move on to item six.
-: Good morning Chairman, commissioners, Kristi Reeve
Administrative Law Judge with the Hearings Division.
I'll be presenting items number six through eight.
Item number six is the application
of Double Play Oil and Gas
for two year lease line spacing exception permit
under the provisions of Statewide Rule 37.
The exception is protested by the MacGuffin family,
owners of unreleased acreage adjacent to the proposed well.
The proposed location of the well is approximately
102 feet south of the MacGuffin family's property line.
Statewide Rule 37 requires a 467 foot
minimum lease line distance
to tracks externally adjacent to the lease.
Double Play has met the requirements for an exception
to Statewide Rule 37 by providing evidence to show
that unusual local conditions exist,
namely two water dry fault trap reservoirs
at the lease line, which are located
within the two primary target reservoirs
the main Hawksley and the Yehuwa
such as the proposed well location is necessary
to prevent waste.
It is recommended the application be approved.
No exceptions or replies were filed.
I'm available for questions.
-: Are there any questions?
Sitton: No.
-: I move we approve the examiners recommendation.
Is there a second?
Sitton: Second.
-: Second by Commissioner Sitton.
All in favor say, "Aye.".
Members: Aye.
-: Any opposed?
Motion passes.
That item is approved.
-: Thank you very much.
-: Item number seven
-: Item number seven.
Venable LL filed a complaint against MD America
regarding the subject well.
The subject well is a horizontal well,
that is drilled across multiple leases and, or pulled units
without pulling of all leases traversed
by the well commonly known as an allocation well.
Venable assert the Commission does not have authority
to issue drilling permits for allocation wells
and MD America does not have a good faith claim.
The Commission has already rejected Venable's argument
and prior similar cases.
Filing a motion for dismissal filed by MD America,
a response for Venable
and a pre hearing conference
where the parties argued their motions.
On January 2 2020,
the Hearings Division director signed an order
dismissing Venable's complaint with prejudice.
Venable filed a timely motion for rehearing.
It is recommended that the motion be denied,
the motion be overruled
by operation of law on April 30th 2020.
I'm available for questions.
-: Are there any questions?
I mean, we approve the examiners recommendation
is there a second?
Craddick: Second.
-: Second by Commissioner Craddick.
All in favor say, "Aye".
Members: Aye.
-: Motion passes.
That item is approved.
Number eight.
-: Item number eight.
Apache filed a protest
to Jetta's Statewide Rule nine application.
Jetta filed a motion
to dismiss Apache's protest.
At the pre-hearing conference.
Jetta argued Apache is not an affected party,
per the definition and statewide rule nine
and should be dismissed as a protestant.
Apache argument is an affected person entitled to standing
because it will suffer economic harm or actual injury.
And economic damages as a result
of the proposed disposal operation.
Apache stated it has a concern for its social license.
Additionally, Apache stated it has data unavailable
to the commission regarding the proposed well location
and faulting in the area.
After review the filings and argument presented
it was found that Apaches argument
of entry to its social license did not elevate Apache
from a member of the general public
to one of an affected person.
Subsequently, on this December 19 2019,
the Hearings Division director signed an order dismissing
the docket along with the protest of Apache.
The timely motion for rehearing was received
from Apache, Jetta filed a timely reply.
It is recommended that the motion be denied,
the motion will be overruled
by operation of law on March 30 2020.
I'm available for questions.
Chairman: Are there any questions?
We approve the examiners recommendation
is there a second?
Sitton: Second
-: Second by Commissioner Sitton.
All in favor say, "Aye.".
Members: Aye.
-: Any opposed?
Motion passes.
That item is approved.
Kristi: Thank you very much.
-: Let's move to the oil and gas consent agenda.
There are now only 49 items on that consent agenda.
I move we approve items nine through 60
except items 42 through 44,
which will be passed to the next conference.
Is there a second?
-: Second
-: Second by Commissioner Sitton
All in favor say, "Aye.".
Members: Aye.
-: Any opposed ?
Motion passes those items are approved.
Rule 15 inactive wells items.
There are now only 15 items
on the rule 15 inactive wells list,
I move we approve item 61 through 76 except for item 75.
Is there a second?
Craddick: Second
-: Second by Commissioner Craddick
All in favor say, "Aye.".
Members: Aye.
-: Any opposed?
Motion passes.
Those items are approved.
Move on to Master Default Orders.
There are 36 Master Default Orders.
I move we approve item 77 through 112.
Is there a second?
-: Second.
-: Second by Commissioner Sitton.
All in favor say, "Aye."
Members: Aye.
-: Any opposed?
Motion passes.
Those items are approved.
Move to the Agreed Enforcement Orders.
There are 201 Agreed Enforcement Orders.
I move we approve items 113 through 313.
Is there a second?
Craddick: Second.
-: Second by Commissioner Craddick.
All in favor say, "Aye.".
Members: Aye.
-: Any opposed?
Motion passes.
Those items are approved.
That concludes the hearing sections
We will now take up our administrative agenda.
-: Morning Chairman and commissioners.
For the record, Wei Wang,
the executive director.
I'm glad to report that as of today,
our headcount is 829.
That put our vacancy rate as less than 5%.
So it's a win for us.
And also just an update on the dream
from the processing we're holding steady below three days
and for the GA EU letter,
where expedited processing is two days.
And for well plugging, as we conclude,
the first half of the year,
we have plugged so far 730 wells,
and for site remediation,
we have completed 165 sites.
And that's against the goal of 230.
So we're well above the half year mark, as well.
That concludes my report today.
Chairman: Are there any questions?
Craddick: Above 820 for the first time.
-: Thank you Wei for the good work that you
and all your people across here
and across the state are doing.
We appreciate it.
Wei: Thank you very much.
-: Item 315 is the adoption of revisions
of the delegation of authority.
-: It's not easy for me.
Chairman: It's not, it's a mouthful.
I couldn't pass for reading it,
-: Good morning, commissioners.
For the record, I'm Randall Collins,
chief operating officer.
Item 315 on the agenda pertains
to the commissioner adoption of delegation
of authority as set out
in 22 61.254 and 21 55.088.
The Texas government code.
The commissioners' current internal delegation authority
requires Commissioner approval of contracts,
and associated amendments greater than
or equal to $500,000.
Section 22 61.254, the Texas Government code
allows the commission the delegation
of contract approval and execution
of contracts less than $1 million
to the executive director.
contracts or amendments equal to
or greater than $1 million would still be subject
to the commissioner approval.
Section 21 55.088 will require Commissioner consideration
for material changes to contracts,
including an increase of greater than 10%.
Approval of the items today
will ensure agency operations remain on schedule
and necessary approvals will be in place pursuant
to the Commission's delegation of authority and state law.
In full summary,
the delegation of authority is included
in your notebooks.
Staff asked the commission
to approve the change percentage commission's delegation
of authority and state law
and I'm available if you have any questions,
-: So you stumbled on delegate
the first time too?
Those of us that weren't bi phonics,
we look at D and that's what we say first,
and that screws it all up.
Are there any questions?
I move we adopt these changes
to the delegation of authority,
excuse, I'm kidding. -: Pressure is on now.
-: Oh I know.
Is there a second?
-: Second.
-: Second by Commissioner Sitton.
All in favor say, "Aye."
-: Aye.
-: Any oppose?
Motion passes.
That item is approved.
Randall: Thank you.
-: Thank you much.
Item 316 is our Office of General Counsel item.
Morning Chairman and commissioners.
For the record, my name is Alex Schoch,
the General Counsel of the Railroad Commission of Texas.
We've got no matters
to report on this morning under Item 316.
-: I can handle those.
Any questions?
Thank you, Alex.
Appreciate that.
Finding my page turn.
Item 317 is the adoption of amendments to form PS-48.
-: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
For the record, my name is April Richardson,
director of Alternative Fuel Safety
within the oversight and safety division.
And oversight and safety would like to pass
on item 317 today.
-: At the request of staff,
this item will be passed
to the next conference.
Item 318, is a proposal
to make changes to LPG Form 16.
-: Correct, item 318
as alternative fuel safety departments requests
for approval to publish proposed revisions
to LPG Form 16
on the Commission's website for a two-week review period.
The request also includes minor changes to 27 LP gas forms.
The changes to LPG Form 16
are related to the chapter nine rule changes
that were made effective on January 6th of 2020.
And combine the class attendance form used
to collect information for individuals
who attend an LP gas training class,
and one or more LP gas certification exams.
The changes update the division
and department names,
as well as add information regarding,
training class attendance and payment information
for attending a training class, exams taken
and any renewal fees paid.
The changes made to the other 27 forms
are corrections to remove previous designations
for the Alternative Fuel Safety department,
and update those references
to the current department name.
All headers and contact information
were updated on these forms
to the current division and department names
and any outdated contact information was also corrected.
May I answer any questions?
-: Are there any questions?
I move we approve the proposal to amend LPG Form 16
and make minor changes to other LP gas forms.
Is there a second?
-: Second.
-: Second by Commissioner Craddick.
All in favor say, "Aye.".
Members: Aye.
-: Any oppose?
Motion passes, that item is approved.
Item 319, is our public participation item.
No one has turned in cards indicating
that they wish to speak on any non-posted items.
Item 320 is our executive session items
which we will not be going into today.
Are there any other duly posted matters
to be brought before the commission at this time?
Randall: Mr. Chairman, I just like to note
that for item 318,
the document that was in the book
did not have a T-bar on it for signature.
So we have two options.
We could either have April prepare a T-bar,
and bring it by for signature,
if that's your preference,
we could rely on the motion in the record as well
and vote in the record.
If we're going to order since everything else has two bars.
If we prefer we could have that prepared
and then brought up to in due course.
-: If you can do it just by record,
I would think that saves ink,
with the taxpayer dollars
and whatever, sound good.
-: Doesn't matter.
-: Yeah just roll without wasting resources.
Okay, sounds good.
Thank you.
Any other posted items
do need to be brought before this commission at this time.
Hearing none, the meeting
of The Railroad Commission of Texas is adjourned.
Papers are signed.