WEBVTT

00:00:08.603 --> 00:00:10.260
<v ->This meeting of Public
Utility Commission of Texas</v>

00:00:10.260 --> 00:00:11.750
will come to order to consider matters

00:00:11.750 --> 00:00:14.610
that have been duly posted
with the secretary of state

00:00:14.610 --> 00:00:18.180
of Texas for may six, 2021.

00:00:18.180 --> 00:00:19.750
For the record, my name is Peter Lake.

00:00:19.750 --> 00:00:22.230
With me today is
Commissioner Will Adams.

00:00:22.230 --> 00:00:25.090
Welcome, new Commissioner.

00:00:25.090 --> 00:00:26.900
<v ->I'm so glad to talk to you now.</v>

00:00:26.900 --> 00:00:28.770
<v ->Likewise.
(laughing)</v>

00:00:28.770 --> 00:00:31.240
Likewise, it's been a
big couple of weeks.

00:00:31.240 --> 00:00:32.500
<v ->It has.</v>

00:00:32.500 --> 00:00:35.300
<v ->A lot of work's been done,
a lot more work to be done.</v>

00:00:37.230 --> 00:00:38.320
I think we have...

00:00:38.320 --> 00:00:43.320
Well, any opening comments
or welcome the board?

00:00:43.370 --> 00:00:45.480
<v ->Thank you, chairman.</v>

00:00:45.480 --> 00:00:48.440
I think it's fair to say
that I am still in shock

00:00:48.440 --> 00:00:50.093
that I am sitting at this table.

00:00:52.510 --> 00:00:56.233
Years ago when I was a
staffer out there in the audience,

00:00:57.160 --> 00:00:59.610
I never imagined that
I would be up here,

00:00:59.610 --> 00:01:04.610
sitting in this seat, nor
with the caliber of partner

00:01:04.800 --> 00:01:06.100
and colleague like yourself.

00:01:06.100 --> 00:01:09.840
So this is a bit of a dream.

00:01:09.840 --> 00:01:12.380
I hope it's a good
dream and not the other.

00:01:12.380 --> 00:01:15.220
And I will do everything I can

00:01:16.322 --> 00:01:18.240
to help you make myself a good partner.

00:01:18.240 --> 00:01:21.040
And I'm a member of the PUC Community.

00:01:21.040 --> 00:01:24.110
So thank you for working with me.

00:01:24.110 --> 00:01:25.030
<v ->Glad to have you.</v>

00:01:25.030 --> 00:01:27.610
And I think it's big for both of us.

00:01:27.610 --> 00:01:31.670
When I say we're honored to
be entrusted with this mission.

00:01:31.670 --> 00:01:32.503
<v ->Seconded.</v>

00:01:34.850 --> 00:01:38.423
<v ->Mr. Janae, we have a
few Consent Agenda items.</v>

00:01:39.639 --> 00:01:41.010
<v ->Good morning, Commissioners,
by individual ballot,</v>

00:01:41.010 --> 00:01:43.650
the following items were
placed on your Consent Agenda,

00:01:43.650 --> 00:01:46.943
11, 14, 28 and 29.

00:01:48.390 --> 00:01:50.540
<v ->Is there a motion
to approve the items</v>

00:01:50.540 --> 00:01:51.980
just laid up by Mr. Janae?

00:01:51.980 --> 00:01:53.310
<v ->So moved.</v>

00:01:53.310 --> 00:01:54.780
<v ->I'll second.</v>

00:01:54.780 --> 00:01:56.913
Seeing no objection motion's adopted.

00:02:00.693 --> 00:02:03.093
At this point, we'll
take public comment.

00:02:04.470 --> 00:02:09.430
Paul, can you please arrange
for a member of the public

00:02:13.046 --> 00:02:14.158
who would like to
address the Commission?

00:02:14.158 --> 00:02:16.650
<v Paul>For public comment,
please press one that then zero</v>

00:02:16.650 --> 00:02:18.410
on your telephone keypad.

00:02:18.410 --> 00:02:20.940
Repeating the one zero
command will remove you

00:02:20.940 --> 00:02:23.320
from the public comment queue.

00:02:23.320 --> 00:02:26.520
Once again, for comments at this time,

00:02:26.520 --> 00:02:28.433
press one then zero.

00:02:35.080 --> 00:02:38.373
One moment for our
first person in queue.

00:02:41.680 --> 00:02:43.270
<v ->Before we get
to our first person,</v>

00:02:43.270 --> 00:02:48.270
I trust it's okay with
you if we limit comment

00:02:48.400 --> 00:02:49.900
on all items to a four minutes.

00:02:49.900 --> 00:02:50.733
<v ->Absolutely.</v>

00:02:50.733 --> 00:02:52.026
<v ->Thank you.</v>

00:02:52.026 --> 00:02:52.859
<v ->Thanks sir.</v>

00:02:52.859 --> 00:02:53.692
<v ->Go ahead, Paul.</v>

00:02:57.010 --> 00:02:57.960
<v Paul>Thank you.</v>

00:03:01.780 --> 00:03:02.860
Still obtaining.

00:03:02.860 --> 00:03:04.540
Okay, there we go.

00:03:04.540 --> 00:03:09.540
The first commenter will
be Soledad Valenciano.

00:03:12.650 --> 00:03:14.533
One moment for your line to be open.

00:03:15.980 --> 00:03:17.790
Soledad, please go ahead.

00:03:17.790 --> 00:03:21.930
<v ->Excuse me, Soledad, are you
intending to make our argument</v>

00:03:21.930 --> 00:03:26.493
on the item 18 on the CCN case?

00:03:27.620 --> 00:03:28.600
<v Soledad>Yes, I am.</v>

00:03:28.600 --> 00:03:30.840
<v ->We will do that at
a later point in time.</v>

00:03:30.840 --> 00:03:33.673
This is just for a public
comment in general.

00:03:35.310 --> 00:03:36.880
<v Soledad>Yes, should
I just remain on hold</v>

00:03:36.880 --> 00:03:38.200
or call back in?

00:03:38.200 --> 00:03:40.880
<v ->You can stay on the phone,
but Paul, you should take her</v>

00:03:40.880 --> 00:03:43.520
back out of the meeting at this time.

00:03:43.520 --> 00:03:44.840
<v Paul>Very good.</v>

00:03:44.840 --> 00:03:49.800
When re prompted for
comment, then you can press

00:03:49.800 --> 00:03:51.200
one zero again.

00:03:51.200 --> 00:03:53.340
We'll move to our next public comment.

00:03:54.360 --> 00:03:55.353
<v Soledad>Thank you.</v>

00:03:58.630 --> 00:04:01.720
<v Paul>Which comes from
the line of William Connolly.</v>

00:04:01.720 --> 00:04:02.583
Please go ahead.

00:04:04.930 --> 00:04:05.920
<v William>Thank you very much.</v>

00:04:05.920 --> 00:04:09.290
And thank you Commissioners
for hearing oral arguments

00:04:09.290 --> 00:04:10.123
on this docket.

00:04:10.123 --> 00:04:12.175
<v ->Is this another
item that we're in?</v>

00:04:12.175 --> 00:04:13.008
<v William>My name's
William Connolly.</v>

00:04:13.008 --> 00:04:16.780
<v ->Mr. Connolly, you're
here to make oral argument</v>

00:04:16.780 --> 00:04:18.933
on the AAEP CCN case, right?

00:04:20.660 --> 00:04:21.700
<v William>Yes, I apologize.</v>

00:04:21.700 --> 00:04:26.700
It's docket 50545 PCN
from Brackettville to--

00:04:27.750 --> 00:04:30.910
<v ->We are gonna do that a
little bit later in the meeting.</v>

00:04:30.910 --> 00:04:33.720
So this is more just a general
public comment session.

00:04:33.720 --> 00:04:36.150
We'll call you back in
when we get to that item.

00:04:36.150 --> 00:04:38.950
<v ->We appreciate your
both of your promise.</v>

00:04:38.950 --> 00:04:40.940
We'll do these oral arguments

00:04:40.940 --> 00:04:42.710
at the appropriate point on the agenda.

00:04:42.710 --> 00:04:47.540
But I do appreciate your
promptness and preparedness.

00:04:47.540 --> 00:04:49.650
<v William>Okay,
appreciate you correct me</v>

00:04:49.650 --> 00:04:51.280
on that procedural piece there.

00:04:51.280 --> 00:04:52.600
Thank you very much.

00:04:52.600 --> 00:04:53.855
<v Paul>Thank you.</v>

00:04:53.855 --> 00:04:56.110
Then if Mr. Connolly
stays connected to the call,

00:04:56.110 --> 00:05:00.110
you can reach queue
later at using one then zero.

00:05:00.110 --> 00:05:03.310
There have been no other public comments

00:05:03.310 --> 00:05:04.670
in the comment queue.

00:05:04.670 --> 00:05:06.454
Please continue.

00:05:06.454 --> 00:05:07.360
<v ->Thank you, Paul.</v>

00:05:07.360 --> 00:05:09.240
No other member of
public would like to address

00:05:09.240 --> 00:05:10.635
the Commission.

00:05:10.635 --> 00:05:12.085
Public comment is now closed.

00:05:12.930 --> 00:05:16.660
Starting our agenda,
I don't have anything

00:05:16.660 --> 00:05:19.053
for the first seven items, do you?

00:05:22.290 --> 00:05:23.413
<v ->No, I do not.</v>

00:05:24.594 --> 00:05:27.290
<v ->In that case, we'll
move to item number eight</v>

00:05:27.290 --> 00:05:29.740
project number 51871.

00:05:29.740 --> 00:05:32.540
Commissioner Janae, could
you please lay out this item.

00:05:32.540 --> 00:05:35.770
<v ->Commissioners, before you
have a proposal for publication</v>

00:05:35.770 --> 00:05:40.514
of a rule amendment dealing
with the scarcity pricing issue?

00:05:40.514 --> 00:05:45.383
Our rule 25.505 staff has a
memo with the recommendation.

00:05:46.670 --> 00:05:47.520
<v ->Thank you, sir.</v>

00:05:48.770 --> 00:05:50.873
I know we've been briefed on this.

00:05:50.873 --> 00:05:52.630
Do you have any thoughts on this item?

00:05:52.630 --> 00:05:54.223
<v ->Yeah, I do.</v>

00:05:55.685 --> 00:05:58.730
I'd like to say that
scarcity pricing mechanism.

00:05:58.730 --> 00:06:01.500
The rule in this proceeding
is very important.

00:06:01.500 --> 00:06:04.440
I consider it one of the more
important ones that we have

00:06:04.440 --> 00:06:05.513
in the near term.

00:06:06.430 --> 00:06:09.220
We need to be able to
provide certainty to the markets

00:06:09.220 --> 00:06:13.903
when we can and approach
these signals in a systematic way.

00:06:15.270 --> 00:06:19.200
The rule as proposed
by staff, I believe provides

00:06:19.200 --> 00:06:21.500
that certainty for the
market in the near term

00:06:24.620 --> 00:06:27.250
and protections
fundamentally for consumers,

00:06:27.250 --> 00:06:29.363
especially going into the summer of '21.

00:06:30.900 --> 00:06:34.100
I believe it helps smooth
out over the long-term,

00:06:34.100 --> 00:06:36.400
some of the distortions
that were experienced

00:06:36.400 --> 00:06:37.600
during the winter event.

00:06:38.450 --> 00:06:42.480
In effect, just for
the public in my view,

00:06:42.480 --> 00:06:45.950
I believe we are setting
a lower cAEP for this year

00:06:45.950 --> 00:06:48.450
and cleaning up the disruptive force

00:06:48.450 --> 00:06:50.730
of the fuel recovery factor,

00:06:50.730 --> 00:06:54.260
the so-called 50 times FIP that had

00:06:54.260 --> 00:06:57.580
such devastating
consequences in February.

00:06:57.580 --> 00:07:00.710
Now having said that, I
don't wanna do anything

00:07:00.710 --> 00:07:03.390
as a part of this project and rule

00:07:03.390 --> 00:07:07.110
that would slow this down
because I believe for the purposes

00:07:07.110 --> 00:07:11.060
of signaling the markets for
July, September and August.

00:07:11.060 --> 00:07:13.160
I'm sorry, July, August, and September,

00:07:13.160 --> 00:07:15.313
it's important to be timely on this.

00:07:16.170 --> 00:07:20.190
Not to say that other
questions regarding the scarcity

00:07:20.190 --> 00:07:22.790
pricing mechanisms are not warranted.

00:07:22.790 --> 00:07:24.670
They certainly are, but
it's just a question to me

00:07:24.670 --> 00:07:25.930
of process.

00:07:25.930 --> 00:07:29.500
And I think it's fair
to say that the views

00:07:29.500 --> 00:07:32.680
of the legislature had
been heard loud and clear.

00:07:32.680 --> 00:07:37.680
And I would just say that
hearing the discussion

00:07:39.340 --> 00:07:43.200
in the Senate, we are in alignment that,

00:07:43.200 --> 00:07:44.600
or I am in alignment that we should take

00:07:44.600 --> 00:07:46.200
a systematic approach to this.

00:07:46.200 --> 00:07:48.003
So that's all I'd say on it.

00:07:50.120 --> 00:07:55.120
<v ->Well put, I think this
addresses a very specific problem</v>

00:07:57.130 --> 00:08:01.243
that was acutely felt
in the February event.

00:08:02.120 --> 00:08:03.670
I think it's safe to
say this is not the end

00:08:03.670 --> 00:08:08.670
of the conversation by any
means, but it provides a clear,

00:08:08.970 --> 00:08:13.300
and this is a one step in the process.

00:08:13.300 --> 00:08:16.210
We do need to go
through the entire process,

00:08:16.210 --> 00:08:20.153
but it provides a clear
resolution to a very acute issue,

00:08:22.330 --> 00:08:25.053
but certainly not the end
of the broader conversation.

00:08:28.470 --> 00:08:32.770
I'm certainly happy to hear a
motion to approve the proposal

00:08:32.770 --> 00:08:35.120
for publication in the Texas register

00:08:36.140 --> 00:08:36.973
for review of...

00:08:38.030 --> 00:08:39.310
<v ->So moved.</v>

00:08:39.310 --> 00:08:40.943
<v ->I'll second that.</v>

00:08:40.943 --> 00:08:43.563
And having no objection,
the motion is adopted.

00:08:45.219 --> 00:08:48.090
I don't have anything for
nine items nine and 10.

00:08:48.090 --> 00:08:48.923
<v ->Nor do I.</v>

00:08:50.070 --> 00:08:53.200
<v ->Case 11 was consented.</v>

00:08:53.200 --> 00:08:56.303
Item 12, docket number 50521.

00:08:57.267 --> 00:08:59.460
Mr. Janae, could
you lay that out for us.

00:08:59.460 --> 00:09:03.030
<v ->Commissioners, before
you as a proposal for decision</v>

00:09:03.030 --> 00:09:05.430
that would dismiss the application

00:09:05.430 --> 00:09:07.763
for a pass through
charge with prejudice.

00:09:09.080 --> 00:09:09.930
<v ->Thank you, sir.</v>

00:09:12.653 --> 00:09:17.047
I think generally got
it right on this one

00:09:17.047 --> 00:09:20.333
and the PFD nails it on
the double recovery issue.

00:09:22.338 --> 00:09:24.230
<v ->Especially since they
have a separate proceeding</v>

00:09:24.230 --> 00:09:26.650
that's trying to clear a
lot of these issues up.

00:09:26.650 --> 00:09:28.250
So absolutely, I'm in alignment.

00:09:29.948 --> 00:09:32.210
<v ->Is there a motion to adopt
the proposal for decision?</v>

00:09:32.210 --> 00:09:33.070
<v ->So moved.</v>

00:09:33.070 --> 00:09:33.903
<v ->Second.</v>

00:09:33.903 --> 00:09:35.560
No objection, the motion's adopted.

00:09:38.190 --> 00:09:41.990
Item 13, docket number 51166.

00:09:41.990 --> 00:09:43.290
Mr. Janae.

00:09:43.290 --> 00:09:46.967
<v ->Commissioners, before you is
an appeal of order number 10,</v>

00:09:46.967 --> 00:09:50.560
and order 10, the Administrative
Law Judge found good cause

00:09:50.560 --> 00:09:52.880
to grant a one day
extension of the deadline

00:09:52.880 --> 00:09:56.403
for the filing of
appraisals in this case.

00:10:00.080 --> 00:10:04.023
<v ->Deadlines are deadlines
and they're there for a reason.</v>

00:10:05.403 --> 00:10:09.670
I don't know that there's
been any good cause

00:10:09.670 --> 00:10:11.193
for missing that deadline.

00:10:12.076 --> 00:10:15.403
I realize that it has
consequences, but so do rules.

00:10:16.380 --> 00:10:18.030
<v ->So I've been fascinated
to hear your thoughts</v>

00:10:18.030 --> 00:10:19.530
on this case.

00:10:19.530 --> 00:10:22.420
I have gone back and forth
on this one so many times

00:10:22.420 --> 00:10:27.420
'cause I think the interest
of owners in any event

00:10:27.650 --> 00:10:30.060
should be taken very
seriously, either property owners,

00:10:30.060 --> 00:10:31.733
corporations, or companies.

00:10:33.010 --> 00:10:36.740
But I will say I'm in alignment with you

00:10:36.740 --> 00:10:39.820
and I would just say with
an eye toward establishing

00:10:39.820 --> 00:10:41.530
a precedent on these things.

00:10:41.530 --> 00:10:43.140
If we have rules for a reason,

00:10:43.140 --> 00:10:44.640
we have deadlines for a reason

00:10:46.450 --> 00:10:48.850
and everybody's gotta know that,

00:10:48.850 --> 00:10:50.270
especially, since
we're starting out fresh,

00:10:50.270 --> 00:10:54.370
we have to reaffirm that
when we have the opportunity.

00:10:54.370 --> 00:10:58.280
So now I agree, they missed the deadline

00:10:59.441 --> 00:11:01.120
and there are consequences.

00:11:01.120 --> 00:11:02.623
<v ->Agreed.</v>

00:11:02.623 --> 00:11:03.500
The motion to grant
the Colorado river...

00:11:03.500 --> 00:11:05.620
Is there a motion to grant
the Colorado river projects

00:11:05.620 --> 00:11:08.030
appeal to reverse the
Administrative Law Judge's decision

00:11:08.030 --> 00:11:10.820
finding good cause to grant
Hort Hornsby Ben Utilities

00:11:10.820 --> 00:11:13.810
motion for a one day
extension of the deadline

00:11:13.810 --> 00:11:16.140
to file an appraisal report.

00:11:16.140 --> 00:11:17.360
<v ->So moved.</v>

00:11:17.360 --> 00:11:20.290
<v ->Second, seeing no
objection, the motion is adopted.</v>

00:11:20.290 --> 00:11:24.140
14 was consented, I don't
have anything for item 15.

00:11:24.140 --> 00:11:25.650
<v ->No sir, not on my end.</v>

00:11:25.650 --> 00:11:28.123
<v ->Item 16, docket number 50383.</v>

00:11:31.056 --> 00:11:32.400
Mr. Janae.

00:11:32.400 --> 00:11:34.430
<v ->Commissioners,
before you is a petition</v>

00:11:34.430 --> 00:11:36.130
for declaratory order.

00:11:36.130 --> 00:11:39.230
The city is of Hearne
is seeking a declaration

00:11:39.230 --> 00:11:41.250
that it may provide electric service

00:11:41.250 --> 00:11:45.093
to the GATX railcar operation
and the city of Hearne.

00:11:48.150 --> 00:11:49.303
<v ->Thank you Mr. Janae.</v>

00:11:54.093 --> 00:11:56.960
It's not straightforward,
but also don't really,

00:11:56.960 --> 00:11:59.650
I don't feel that this is a proper case

00:11:59.650 --> 00:12:03.830
for this kind of clerk declatory order.

00:12:03.830 --> 00:12:04.663
Beltsville.

00:12:05.669 --> 00:12:07.519
<v ->Same, I'm bopping
my head with you.</v>

00:12:08.900 --> 00:12:12.101
Bottom line is man,
there's so much unknowns

00:12:12.101 --> 00:12:13.101
about the situation.

00:12:14.543 --> 00:12:16.330
One of the things, and I
have stared at the maps

00:12:16.330 --> 00:12:19.740
and they have changed for over 40 years

00:12:19.740 --> 00:12:22.530
since the 1970s to now.

00:12:22.530 --> 00:12:26.360
Read staff's comments and
then stared at the maps again.

00:12:26.360 --> 00:12:29.150
And at the end of the day, I don't know

00:12:29.150 --> 00:12:32.690
that GATX is actually
officially requested service.

00:12:32.690 --> 00:12:36.540
I mean, they sort of
floated it out there an inquiry.

00:12:36.540 --> 00:12:40.150
But when rejiggering
the service territories,

00:12:40.150 --> 00:12:44.100
that's a big deal and we've
gotta weigh that heavily.

00:12:44.100 --> 00:12:47.950
And so a declaratory
judgment in my view would,

00:12:47.950 --> 00:12:49.973
with the facts that we have on hand,

00:12:50.990 --> 00:12:52.140
I'd be uncomfortable with that,

00:12:52.140 --> 00:12:53.630
I am uncomfortable with that.

00:12:53.630 --> 00:12:57.180
And in my view, petitioner's
need to refile a request

00:12:57.180 --> 00:12:59.340
so that this goes to
SOA that has appropriate

00:12:59.340 --> 00:13:01.690
discovery mechanisms,
bring these facts forward

00:13:03.144 --> 00:13:04.160
and come forward with a recommendation.

00:13:04.160 --> 00:13:07.960
So I would advise them to do
that or it should be dismissed

00:13:07.960 --> 00:13:08.983
within 30 days.

00:13:10.790 --> 00:13:15.020
<v ->I agree with your
point that this is an issue</v>

00:13:15.020 --> 00:13:20.020
that requires much
more evidence and facts

00:13:20.460 --> 00:13:22.090
and discovery of the issues at hand

00:13:22.090 --> 00:13:23.433
than we've got right now.

00:13:30.478 --> 00:13:32.280
And I think there's just,
we're not in the business

00:13:32.280 --> 00:13:33.280
and we don't have the resources

00:13:33.280 --> 00:13:34.610
for providing legal opinions.

00:13:34.610 --> 00:13:35.860
<v ->Exactly.</v>

00:13:35.860 --> 00:13:38.280
<v ->Without the necessary facts.</v>

00:13:38.280 --> 00:13:41.740
At this point, I'd be
prepared to entertain a motion

00:13:41.740 --> 00:13:43.810
to deny the petition.

00:13:43.810 --> 00:13:44.930
<v ->So moved.</v>

00:13:44.930 --> 00:13:47.157
<v ->And just for clarity to
make sure that the base</v>

00:13:47.157 --> 00:13:51.741
of the denial is that
it's not a proper case

00:13:51.741 --> 00:13:53.430
because I haven't clearly
demonstrated on these facts

00:13:53.430 --> 00:13:55.470
that there's a dispute
to be resolved here.

00:13:55.470 --> 00:13:57.060
<v ->It's not right for decision.</v>

00:13:57.060 --> 00:13:58.495
Thank you, Mr. Janae.

00:13:58.495 --> 00:13:59.328
<v ->That's right?</v>

00:13:59.328 --> 00:14:03.660
<v ->Not ripe for decision
and there's not a pressing</v>

00:14:03.660 --> 00:14:06.103
legal matter at hand
that this would resolve.

00:14:07.030 --> 00:14:08.083
<v Janae>Thank you, sir.</v>

00:14:10.097 --> 00:14:11.490
<v ->Motion's been
offered and seconded.</v>

00:14:11.490 --> 00:14:13.293
Having no objection, is adopted.

00:14:14.720 --> 00:14:18.950
Item 17, docket number 50410.

00:14:18.950 --> 00:14:19.783
Mr. Janae.

00:14:20.800 --> 00:14:23.470
<v ->Commissioners, before
you have a proposed order</v>

00:14:23.470 --> 00:14:25.580
that would amend the application,

00:14:25.580 --> 00:14:28.570
the CCN of both wet
non-core for an electric

00:14:28.570 --> 00:14:30.460
transmission line.

00:14:30.460 --> 00:14:33.920
I filed a correction memo
with suggested changes

00:14:33.920 --> 00:14:35.383
to the proposed order.

00:14:36.702 --> 00:14:38.520
Unfortunately, my memo
is not comprehensive

00:14:38.520 --> 00:14:41.430
and I today have another recommendation,

00:14:41.430 --> 00:14:45.480
which would be to delete
conclusion of law number six

00:14:45.480 --> 00:14:46.813
in the proposed order.

00:14:48.418 --> 00:14:51.590
It makes a reference to a
solar rule on the burden proof.

00:14:51.590 --> 00:14:54.790
I think that conclusion
of law is incorrect

00:14:54.790 --> 00:14:56.920
because that rule only provides factors.

00:14:56.920 --> 00:15:00.890
The ALJ has to
consider it doesn't specify

00:15:00.890 --> 00:15:02.690
which party has the burden of proof.

00:15:04.290 --> 00:15:05.613
<v ->Noted, thank you, sir.</v>

00:15:07.450 --> 00:15:10.350
Bearing consideration of the adjustment

00:15:10.350 --> 00:15:14.420
or the comments related
to the conclusion of law

00:15:14.420 --> 00:15:15.283
on that item.

00:15:20.420 --> 00:15:23.890
That being considered, I
think the proposed order

00:15:25.565 --> 00:15:28.040
is something we should adopt.

00:15:28.040 --> 00:15:28.873
<v ->I agree.</v>

00:15:28.873 --> 00:15:32.817
I'm looking at right now
and I would still move

00:15:33.790 --> 00:15:37.780
to approve the proposed
order with staff corrective memo.

00:15:37.780 --> 00:15:41.370
<v ->Is there a motion to
approve the proposed orders?</v>

00:15:41.370 --> 00:15:42.203
<v ->So moved?</v>

00:15:42.203 --> 00:15:43.810
<v ->No objections, the
motion's adopted.</v>

00:15:43.810 --> 00:15:46.010
<v ->Correct with the
changes as well--</v>

00:15:46.010 --> 00:15:47.530
<v ->With the changes as noted.</v>

00:15:47.530 --> 00:15:49.373
Yes, sir, so adopted.

00:15:50.730 --> 00:15:53.760
Item 18, docket number 50545.

00:15:53.760 --> 00:15:55.150
Mr. Janae.

00:15:55.150 --> 00:15:57.750
<v ->Commissioner, before you
have a proposal for decision</v>

00:15:57.750 --> 00:16:01.740
that would recommend
amending AEP Texas CCN

00:16:01.740 --> 00:16:03.330
for an electric transmission line

00:16:03.330 --> 00:16:06.310
and proposals using route H revised.

00:16:06.310 --> 00:16:10.100
The Commission has granted
oral argument in this case.

00:16:10.100 --> 00:16:13.803
I had requested people to
notify me of who is interested.

00:16:15.017 --> 00:16:19.530
I have five people that
responded is possible

00:16:19.530 --> 00:16:22.870
that people will come online
that did not respond to me,

00:16:22.870 --> 00:16:24.350
but we have at least that many.

00:16:24.350 --> 00:16:27.610
So if you're ready at this time,

00:16:27.610 --> 00:16:31.480
Paul could you instruct
the people how to come in

00:16:31.480 --> 00:16:33.253
and make comment on this item?

00:16:34.258 --> 00:16:36.237
<v Peter>Good for you for
opening over for comment.</v>

00:16:36.237 --> 00:16:37.070
<v Will>Good for me.</v>

00:16:37.070 --> 00:16:38.950
<v Peter>All right, go
ahead and proceed, Paul.</v>

00:16:38.950 --> 00:16:40.330
<v Paul>Once again,
ladies and gentlemen,</v>

00:16:40.330 --> 00:16:42.810
for public comment is one then zero

00:16:42.810 --> 00:16:44.250
on your telephone keypad.

00:16:44.250 --> 00:16:45.540
An operator will gather your name

00:16:45.540 --> 00:16:46.980
and return you to the queue.

00:16:46.980 --> 00:16:49.410
So one then zero for public comment.

00:16:49.410 --> 00:16:52.050
<v ->As a reminder, public comment,</v>

00:16:52.050 --> 00:16:56.430
oral arguments will be limited
to four minutes per speaker.

00:16:56.430 --> 00:16:57.263
Thank you.

00:17:02.600 --> 00:17:04.010
<v Paul>We have several queuing up.</v>

00:17:04.010 --> 00:17:06.973
There'll be one woman
per first public comment.

00:17:22.830 --> 00:17:26.683
And our first person in
the public comments queue.

00:17:28.160 --> 00:17:30.693
Mike Thomsu, your line is open.

00:17:32.990 --> 00:17:36.383
<v Mike>Thank you, chairman Lake
and Commissioner McAdams.</v>

00:17:36.383 --> 00:17:37.216
Good morning.

00:17:37.216 --> 00:17:38.049
My name is Mike Thompsu.

00:17:38.049 --> 00:17:40.760
I'm here from Vincent and Elkins

00:17:40.760 --> 00:17:44.060
on behalf of Eagle
Pass Ranch partnership

00:17:44.060 --> 00:17:46.083
as an intervener in the proceeding.

00:17:47.320 --> 00:17:50.970
I'll be very brief, Eagle
Pass Ranch partnership

00:17:50.970 --> 00:17:53.923
supports the ALJs proposal for decision.

00:17:54.830 --> 00:17:57.890
When you take into account
the statutory certification

00:17:57.890 --> 00:18:01.920
factors and the routing
criteria and Commission rule

00:18:01.920 --> 00:18:06.920
25101, including efforts to
maximize existing paralleling

00:18:10.180 --> 00:18:13.230
existing right of way
and prudent avoidance

00:18:13.230 --> 00:18:15.640
of habitable structures.

00:18:15.640 --> 00:18:18.660
We believe the evidence in
the record supports the selection

00:18:19.892 --> 00:18:23.780
of route H revised and
support the ALJs proposal

00:18:23.780 --> 00:18:24.613
for decision.

00:18:24.613 --> 00:18:25.446
Thank you very much.

00:18:26.289 --> 00:18:30.335
<v ->Thank you Mike.</v>

00:18:30.335 --> 00:18:31.168
<v Paul>Thank you.</v>

00:18:31.168 --> 00:18:34.410
Then next we'll go to line
of Ryan Cedars or Ceders.

00:18:34.410 --> 00:18:35.243
Please go ahead.

00:18:36.310 --> 00:18:38.430
<v Ryan>Good morning
Commissioner Lake and...</v>

00:18:38.430 --> 00:18:40.600
Chairman Lake and Commissioner McAdams.

00:18:40.600 --> 00:18:43.180
My name is Ryan Cedars of Poloma Aye

00:18:43.180 --> 00:18:46.690
and I am intervener in the CCN case.

00:18:46.690 --> 00:18:51.400
We are opposed to route
H and we support route A.

00:18:51.400 --> 00:18:53.870
While I understand that
most of the routing cases

00:18:53.870 --> 00:18:56.650
involve land that are simply
not wanting to be towers.

00:18:56.650 --> 00:18:59.170
And believe me, we're
not interested either.

00:18:59.170 --> 00:19:01.180
The breaking point
for us was (indistinct)

00:19:01.180 --> 00:19:04.350
in addition to 40
powers on our property,

00:19:04.350 --> 00:19:08.610
AEP needs seven miles of
access roads through our property

00:19:08.610 --> 00:19:11.460
to actually reach H revised.

00:19:11.460 --> 00:19:14.880
Commissioners in 2013, my
younger brother, Roy Cedars

00:19:14.880 --> 00:19:17.490
and I fulfilled a lifelong
dream to purchase a large

00:19:20.589 --> 00:19:22.700
South Texas ranch under
the name Paloma Aye.

00:19:22.700 --> 00:19:25.240
The use of the term ayes
was a nod to Yeti Coolers

00:19:25.240 --> 00:19:28.840
the company, my brother,
Roy and I founded in 2006.

00:19:28.840 --> 00:19:31.780
This ranch is where Roy and I
spend numerous days every year

00:19:31.780 --> 00:19:34.980
with our children, family,
friends, joining the outdoors.

00:19:34.980 --> 00:19:38.710
We absolutely love the
outdoors and our families do also.

00:19:38.710 --> 00:19:41.940
With eight children between
us between the ages of two

00:19:41.940 --> 00:19:44.810
and 16 and their friends and so.

00:19:44.810 --> 00:19:47.640
And given this love for the outdoors,

00:19:47.640 --> 00:19:50.490
it is not unusual to see
many children riding their bikes

00:19:50.490 --> 00:19:53.480
along the ranch, exploring the
area around the headquarters,

00:19:53.480 --> 00:19:55.280
hunting arrowheads and just being kids

00:19:55.280 --> 00:19:57.020
and having fun out there.

00:19:57.020 --> 00:19:58.270
Roy and I put a lot of thought

00:19:58.270 --> 00:20:00.300
into making the
headquarters areas special

00:20:00.300 --> 00:20:01.890
for our families and guests.

00:20:01.890 --> 00:20:03.520
We built two new homes on a hillside

00:20:03.520 --> 00:20:06.080
on the far western portion
of the Poloma Ranch

00:20:06.080 --> 00:20:08.880
far away from highway
57, which is the highway

00:20:08.880 --> 00:20:11.090
we use to access the ranch.

00:20:11.090 --> 00:20:13.600
Building this far west
gave us a lot of privacy

00:20:13.600 --> 00:20:16.580
and we have incredible size
that you can see the west.

00:20:16.580 --> 00:20:18.430
So of course we were
not happy when we learned

00:20:18.430 --> 00:20:22.500
that AEP wants to build a
five mile transmission line

00:20:22.500 --> 00:20:24.500
near our western boundary.

00:20:24.500 --> 00:20:28.290
These 40 towers would
hurt our sunset views.

00:20:28.290 --> 00:20:32.610
Despite this, we tried very
hard to accept H revised.

00:20:32.610 --> 00:20:35.690
This is until AEP informed
us that they could not reach

00:20:35.690 --> 00:20:39.060
H revised without a seven
mile permanent easement,

00:20:39.060 --> 00:20:42.470
access easement from
highway 57 to our ranch

00:20:42.470 --> 00:20:44.650
to get to that route.

00:20:44.650 --> 00:20:47.350
According to AEP, they
need seven mile access road

00:20:47.350 --> 00:20:50.080
because AEP can't get
to the route H revised

00:20:50.080 --> 00:20:52.540
by traveling parallel to
the Union Pacific Railroad

00:20:52.540 --> 00:20:54.970
due to all the floodplain in that area.

00:20:54.970 --> 00:20:57.840
When it is wet out
there, it is impassable,

00:20:57.840 --> 00:21:00.620
it's a low area, so that's often wet.

00:21:00.620 --> 00:21:02.943
And that area is known as Elm Creek.

00:21:04.260 --> 00:21:06.730
For clarification, the railroad
along our western boundary

00:21:06.730 --> 00:21:09.060
is raised up out of the flood plain,

00:21:09.060 --> 00:21:12.400
a seven mile permanent access
road through the Poloma Ranch

00:21:12.400 --> 00:21:15.429
will completely changed
the character of this ranch

00:21:15.429 --> 00:21:17.010
and would deprive us of our privacy

00:21:17.010 --> 00:21:19.490
and would make us very
nervous to have our children

00:21:19.490 --> 00:21:22.790
out there playing around.

00:21:22.790 --> 00:21:27.200
AEP has represented that
it also plans to seek access

00:21:27.200 --> 00:21:30.530
from at least three other
landowners for over 20 miles

00:21:30.530 --> 00:21:32.860
a perpendicular permanent access routes

00:21:32.860 --> 00:21:36.340
simply to get to well, H revised.

00:21:36.340 --> 00:21:41.150
Think about that, 20 miles of
access roads get to H revised.

00:21:41.150 --> 00:21:44.510
And H revised is only 44 miles long.

00:21:44.510 --> 00:21:46.620
I believe that there were
more sensible options

00:21:46.620 --> 00:21:50.330
to the Commission, namely
route A, which we fully support.

00:21:50.330 --> 00:21:53.540
The record show that route
A has the highest amount

00:21:53.540 --> 00:21:55.710
of paralleling of existing power lines

00:21:55.710 --> 00:21:58.540
and parallels more roads than H revised.

00:21:58.540 --> 00:22:01.997
It said full examination of
route A gives zero reasons

00:22:01.997 --> 00:22:05.330
to say that you wouldn't
have the access roads

00:22:05.330 --> 00:22:08.450
to get to route A that are needed.

00:22:08.450 --> 00:22:11.460
From a cost standpoint,
we believe that the true cost

00:22:11.460 --> 00:22:15.180
for H revised is too low
because access to the roads

00:22:15.180 --> 00:22:17.950
that haven't been included
anywhere in the cost estimate.

00:22:17.950 --> 00:22:22.070
How could they be AEP
didn't even know of this problem

00:22:22.070 --> 00:22:23.210
until close to trial.

00:22:23.210 --> 00:22:26.033
By my math and using AEP's figures,

00:22:27.066 --> 00:22:29.860
this makes the cost of
two routes very close.

00:22:29.860 --> 00:22:32.540
Aside from cost and parallel
and there is a common sense

00:22:32.540 --> 00:22:34.550
reasoning to choose route A.

00:22:34.550 --> 00:22:36.510
When there's a heavy
rain, there were places

00:22:36.510 --> 00:22:38.770
on the Paloma Ranch leading to H revised

00:22:38.770 --> 00:22:41.210
simply cannot be driven no
matter what type of vehicle

00:22:41.210 --> 00:22:43.240
and machinery you use.

00:22:43.240 --> 00:22:46.350
I would assume that the most
and that most power outages

00:22:46.350 --> 00:22:50.070
occur during these weather
events forcing H revised

00:22:50.070 --> 00:22:54.200
because it was an initial
choice by AEP's team.

00:22:54.200 --> 00:22:56.600
When these assets issues understood

00:22:56.600 --> 00:22:59.890
is not in their interest
of Texas ratepayers.

00:22:59.890 --> 00:23:03.240
The new information
should make AEP pause

00:23:03.240 --> 00:23:05.730
but instead they are doubling down.

00:23:05.730 --> 00:23:09.310
AEP has said many times
that it will build on route A

00:23:09.310 --> 00:23:10.650
if that's what you ordered

00:23:10.650 --> 00:23:12.490
and we ask that you order route A.

00:23:12.490 --> 00:23:17.490
However, if you all decide
to order route H revised,

00:23:18.180 --> 00:23:20.720
I respectfully ask the
Commission put in language

00:23:20.720 --> 00:23:23.680
in its final order,
prohibiting AEP from seeking

00:23:23.680 --> 00:23:26.440
or condemning any off route access roads

00:23:26.440 --> 00:23:30.280
across the Paloma Ranch,
and that it not be allowed

00:23:30.280 --> 00:23:32.250
to use our roads near the headquarters.

00:23:32.250 --> 00:23:33.890
Thank you very much.

00:23:33.890 --> 00:23:35.342
<v ->Thank you, Ryan.</v>

00:23:35.342 --> 00:23:38.193
I appreciate your input and
consideration on this item.

00:23:39.600 --> 00:23:40.550
Paul, next speaker.

00:23:41.910 --> 00:23:44.020
<v Paul>Thank you, that
would be Carrie McGrath.</v>

00:23:44.020 --> 00:23:44.973
Please go ahead.

00:23:46.780 --> 00:23:48.121
<v Carrie>Thank you.</v>

00:23:48.121 --> 00:23:48.954
Good morning, Commissioners.

00:23:48.954 --> 00:23:50.830
I'm Carrie McGrath and
I'm counsel for AEP, Texas

00:23:50.830 --> 00:23:52.210
in this case.

00:23:52.210 --> 00:23:54.750
Let me begin by saying
that AEP Texas understands

00:23:54.750 --> 00:23:57.010
that it's the Commission's
authority and prerogative

00:23:57.010 --> 00:23:59.900
to weigh the factors in
the statute and your rules

00:23:59.900 --> 00:24:03.120
and to select the route
based on those factors.

00:24:03.120 --> 00:24:05.960
We believe the evidence
shows that all the proposed routes

00:24:05.960 --> 00:24:08.940
and segments in this case are viable

00:24:08.940 --> 00:24:11.170
and we will construct a
line on whichever route

00:24:11.170 --> 00:24:13.050
the Commission chooses.

00:24:13.050 --> 00:24:15.820
However, the CCN
application does require us

00:24:15.820 --> 00:24:19.610
to recommend a route
that we believe best meets

00:24:19.610 --> 00:24:22.940
the requirements of the statute
and the Commission's rules.

00:24:22.940 --> 00:24:26.690
And we recommended H
revised as did Commission staff

00:24:26.690 --> 00:24:28.583
and the Administrative Law Judges.

00:24:29.980 --> 00:24:32.640
The respect to the access
road issue that's become

00:24:32.640 --> 00:24:34.780
the key issue in this case.

00:24:34.780 --> 00:24:39.710
Access roads are not generally
addressed in a CCN case

00:24:39.710 --> 00:24:41.140
and they're not generally addressed

00:24:41.140 --> 00:24:43.220
until after a route is selected.

00:24:43.220 --> 00:24:46.010
And there are several
important reasons for that.

00:24:46.010 --> 00:24:50.260
One of those reasons is
that right of way acquisition

00:24:50.260 --> 00:24:53.040
includes access roads if necessary.

00:24:53.040 --> 00:24:54.880
So access roads are
part of that right of way

00:24:54.880 --> 00:24:57.470
acquisition process
that's within the jurisdiction

00:24:57.470 --> 00:24:58.913
of state courts.

00:25:00.179 --> 00:25:02.790
A second important reason
is that we need access

00:25:02.790 --> 00:25:05.810
to the land before we can even evaluate

00:25:05.810 --> 00:25:08.500
whether we can proceed
down the right of way only

00:25:08.500 --> 00:25:10.800
or whether we need off route access.

00:25:10.800 --> 00:25:13.700
During this stage CCN
stage, we do not have access

00:25:13.700 --> 00:25:16.390
to the land and rely on aerial photos

00:25:16.390 --> 00:25:18.500
and other information.

00:25:18.500 --> 00:25:21.820
It's not possible to address
construction-related issues

00:25:21.820 --> 00:25:25.450
like access to the right of
way on all the proposed routes

00:25:25.450 --> 00:25:28.850
in this case based only on aerial photos

00:25:28.850 --> 00:25:31.023
and publicly accessible locations.

00:25:32.270 --> 00:25:34.790
This issue came up
in this case only as part

00:25:34.790 --> 00:25:38.690
of settlement discussions
with Poloma late in the case.

00:25:38.690 --> 00:25:41.050
And we are not aware
of access road issues

00:25:41.050 --> 00:25:42.930
having been raised
in any of the hundreds

00:25:42.930 --> 00:25:46.253
of previous CCN cases that
this Commission has decided.

00:25:49.111 --> 00:25:50.860
We do not agree with
Paloma's characterization

00:25:50.860 --> 00:25:54.460
of the cost in link of the
access roads in this case

00:25:54.460 --> 00:25:56.860
nor did the Administrative Law Judges

00:25:56.860 --> 00:25:59.280
that that issue is covered
in our replies to exceptions

00:25:59.280 --> 00:26:00.763
and I won't be labored here.

00:26:01.750 --> 00:26:04.715
Finally, it is not reasonable to request

00:26:04.715 --> 00:26:06.360
that the Commission bar utilities

00:26:06.360 --> 00:26:09.310
from having access
roads to reach an easement

00:26:09.310 --> 00:26:12.670
as Poloma and Briscoe
have question in this case.

00:26:12.670 --> 00:26:14.880
And I said, that is an
issue within the jurisdiction

00:26:14.880 --> 00:26:17.930
of state courts if we can't work it out

00:26:17.930 --> 00:26:19.830
to the satisfaction of the land owners

00:26:20.680 --> 00:26:24.660
and such a proposal could
prevent the line construction

00:26:24.660 --> 00:26:28.800
completely if the right
of way is impassable,

00:26:28.800 --> 00:26:31.350
but a much more likely
result is it could significantly

00:26:31.350 --> 00:26:34.880
drive up the cost of the
line where we were required

00:26:34.880 --> 00:26:38.360
to build bridges or other
things along the right of way

00:26:38.360 --> 00:26:41.560
when an off route access
road would be a significantly

00:26:41.560 --> 00:26:43.133
less costly alternative.

00:26:44.274 --> 00:26:45.126
<v ->You have one minute.</v>

00:26:45.126 --> 00:26:46.800
<v Carrie>Thank you
for your time today.</v>

00:26:46.800 --> 00:26:48.235
<v ->Thank you, sir.</v>

00:26:48.235 --> 00:26:49.603
<v Carrie>Thank you, I'm done.</v>

00:26:52.115 --> 00:26:52.953
<v ->Next speaker, please.</v>

00:26:54.772 --> 00:26:55.920
<v Paul>That would be Brad Bailiff.</v>

00:26:55.920 --> 00:26:56.883
Please go ahead.

00:27:00.443 --> 00:27:01.276
<v Brad>Good morning Commissioners</v>

00:27:01.276 --> 00:27:02.650
and welcome to the Commission.

00:27:02.650 --> 00:27:05.790
Thank you for granting the
oral arguments in this case.

00:27:05.790 --> 00:27:09.350
McGrath raises an
uncommon and important issue.

00:27:09.350 --> 00:27:11.300
My name is Brad Bailiff.

00:27:11.300 --> 00:27:15.320
I represent Briscoe Ranch
and El Pescado minerals

00:27:15.320 --> 00:27:16.470
in this case.

00:27:16.470 --> 00:27:19.440
I practiced before the
Commission for over 20 years,

00:27:19.440 --> 00:27:23.160
I've represented landowners
in over 70 transmission line

00:27:23.160 --> 00:27:26.750
cases and monitored
dozens of other applications

00:27:26.750 --> 00:27:28.960
in the past 15 years.

00:27:28.960 --> 00:27:31.890
I've never seen a situation
where utility may need

00:27:31.890 --> 00:27:34.790
miles of off-road house access roads

00:27:34.790 --> 00:27:36.850
to construct a transmission line.

00:27:36.850 --> 00:27:39.610
Of course, I've never seen the
Commission approval utilities

00:27:39.610 --> 00:27:43.790
request for such unusual
access across private property.

00:27:43.790 --> 00:27:46.820
Briscoe Ranch and
Mr. Briscoe, I believe will be on

00:27:46.820 --> 00:27:50.010
and speak but they agreed
to accept the transmission line

00:27:50.010 --> 00:27:53.340
next to the railroad track
on its western boundary

00:27:53.340 --> 00:27:56.050
'cause it did not want
other proposed routes

00:27:56.050 --> 00:27:58.283
to cross the ranch and bisect it.

00:27:59.190 --> 00:28:01.580
This Commission historically
has been concerned

00:28:01.580 --> 00:28:03.290
about landowner's rights.

00:28:03.290 --> 00:28:06.821
You should prohibit the
utility from constructing

00:28:06.821 --> 00:28:11.280
miles of off-road access
routes across private property.

00:28:11.280 --> 00:28:12.990
You do have options.

00:28:12.990 --> 00:28:16.500
First, the Commission always
has the ability to approve,

00:28:16.500 --> 00:28:20.083
modify, or reject a
proposal for decision.

00:28:21.820 --> 00:28:24.300
Second, you can also
send the case back to SOA

00:28:24.300 --> 00:28:27.570
for a better record on an
AEP's offer route access roads,

00:28:27.570 --> 00:28:29.640
and reconsideration of the route.

00:28:29.640 --> 00:28:32.000
Time has passed and
your direction to the utility

00:28:32.000 --> 00:28:34.010
may cause it to better determine

00:28:34.010 --> 00:28:35.890
if it can build the transmission line

00:28:35.890 --> 00:28:37.640
using the easement for the project.

00:28:38.961 --> 00:28:40.280
I'm sure Briscoe Ranch
would also be willing

00:28:40.280 --> 00:28:43.580
to grant that access at
this stage of the process

00:28:43.580 --> 00:28:46.040
so it can better make that decision.

00:28:46.040 --> 00:28:48.320
Briscoe Ranch asked
the Commission to modify

00:28:48.320 --> 00:28:51.550
its standard language that prohibits AEP

00:28:51.550 --> 00:28:53.970
from deviating from the approved route

00:28:53.970 --> 00:28:57.637
to include protections for
landowners from the burdensome

00:28:57.637 --> 00:28:59.990
and an unusual offer out access roads.

00:28:59.990 --> 00:29:04.070
We propose, and this is an
exceptions language that says,

00:29:04.070 --> 00:29:07.010
the Commission does
not permit AEP, Texas

00:29:07.010 --> 00:29:09.100
to deviate from the approved route,

00:29:09.100 --> 00:29:12.000
including construction
of one or more off route

00:29:12.974 --> 00:29:17.610
access roads, not in or next
to the projects right of way.

00:29:17.610 --> 00:29:19.300
Why should you do this?

00:29:19.300 --> 00:29:21.120
You can take action.

00:29:21.120 --> 00:29:23.160
If you determine the Commission policy

00:29:23.160 --> 00:29:26.750
or prior administrative decision
on which the administrative

00:29:26.750 --> 00:29:31.000
law judges relied as
incorrect or should be changed.

00:29:31.000 --> 00:29:33.840
First, miles of off route access roads

00:29:33.840 --> 00:29:36.240
are an offense to the normal process

00:29:36.240 --> 00:29:38.590
to construct transmission lines.

00:29:38.590 --> 00:29:41.510
You should determine
the miles of access roads

00:29:41.510 --> 00:29:43.913
violate public policy.

00:29:44.820 --> 00:29:49.020
Second, PSP statement that
miles of off road access roads

00:29:49.020 --> 00:29:50.820
to reach the transmission line easement

00:29:50.820 --> 00:29:54.780
is not an unknown
occurrence is woefully incorrect.

00:29:54.780 --> 00:29:59.030
Even Mr. McGrath admitted
that he has not seen this issue

00:29:59.030 --> 00:30:00.680
in the hundreds of cases.

00:30:00.680 --> 00:30:02.230
<v ->You have one minute remaining</v>

00:30:04.500 --> 00:30:07.640
<v Brad>Third, PFD also
improperly relies on a conclusion.</v>

00:30:07.640 --> 00:30:09.900
There are no engineering constraints,

00:30:09.900 --> 00:30:11.970
still utility can't construct a route

00:30:11.970 --> 00:30:15.160
without requiring over
20 miles of access roads

00:30:15.160 --> 00:30:18.333
in addition to the one,
engineering constraints exist.

00:30:19.987 --> 00:30:22.480
PFD also improperly dismisses
environmental integrity,

00:30:22.480 --> 00:30:24.560
cost and engineering constraints

00:30:24.560 --> 00:30:25.960
related to the access roads.

00:30:27.714 --> 00:30:28.950
It seems the reason you get this issue

00:30:28.950 --> 00:30:31.470
of first impression
at your first meeting

00:30:31.470 --> 00:30:34.350
is because either no
other utility has admitted

00:30:34.350 --> 00:30:37.250
it would need miles of
off-road access roads

00:30:37.250 --> 00:30:39.360
during the PUC review
and approval process

00:30:40.210 --> 00:30:43.180
or no other utility has
been brazen enough

00:30:43.180 --> 00:30:44.840
to use the condemnation authority

00:30:44.840 --> 00:30:47.720
this Commission
gives us to require miles

00:30:47.720 --> 00:30:50.880
of off route access roads
across private property

00:30:50.880 --> 00:30:52.340
to reach appeasement.

00:30:52.340 --> 00:30:54.120
You should establish the public policy

00:30:54.120 --> 00:30:58.263
does not support unwarranted
intrusion on private property.

00:30:59.690 --> 00:31:00.523
<v ->Thank you.</v>

00:31:01.720 --> 00:31:03.108
<v Brad>Thank you.</v>

00:31:03.108 --> 00:31:04.690
<v ->I appreciate your
comments and your thoughts.</v>

00:31:04.690 --> 00:31:05.740
Next speaker, please.

00:31:08.270 --> 00:31:10.280
<v Paul>And that is Rashmeen Asher.</v>

00:31:10.280 --> 00:31:11.113
Please go ahead.

00:31:15.200 --> 00:31:18.470
<v Rashmeen>Good morning,
chairman and Commissioner.</v>

00:31:18.470 --> 00:31:20.780
Rashmeen Asher for Commission staff.

00:31:20.780 --> 00:31:23.010
And I would like you to
thank you for your time

00:31:23.010 --> 00:31:24.420
this morning.

00:31:24.420 --> 00:31:26.940
As you are aware of the
record in this proceeding

00:31:27.992 --> 00:31:30.690
centers on two primary
routes, route H revised

00:31:30.690 --> 00:31:34.431
supported by staff and
the proposal for decision

00:31:34.431 --> 00:31:35.264
and route A.

00:31:36.380 --> 00:31:40.110
As AEP council explained,
the primary issue in this case

00:31:40.110 --> 00:31:41.653
is access roads.

00:31:42.580 --> 00:31:45.670
And first, I would like to
begin to address the parties

00:31:45.670 --> 00:31:48.240
through arguments on that issue.

00:31:48.240 --> 00:31:51.438
The record in this proceeding
reflects that the amount

00:31:51.438 --> 00:31:54.930
of assets roads for each of
the proposed routes is unknown.

00:31:54.930 --> 00:31:58.490
As AEP explained, they
typically do not have access

00:31:58.490 --> 00:32:02.745
to particular properties
until after route

00:32:02.745 --> 00:32:04.050
is selected by the Commission.

00:32:04.050 --> 00:32:06.880
And so access road and
other sites specific issues

00:32:06.880 --> 00:32:09.880
are typically determined after route

00:32:09.880 --> 00:32:12.100
is selected by the Commission.

00:32:12.100 --> 00:32:16.120
However, the amount of access
roads that AEP would request

00:32:16.120 --> 00:32:18.720
on Paloma Aye's property is known

00:32:18.720 --> 00:32:22.130
due to settlement
negotiations conducted by AEP

00:32:22.130 --> 00:32:24.573
and Poloma Aye and
released in discovery.

00:32:25.900 --> 00:32:29.240
In contrast, many other
landowners who may be affected

00:32:29.240 --> 00:32:31.470
by route A or other proposed routes

00:32:31.470 --> 00:32:33.490
may not have been able to engage

00:32:33.490 --> 00:32:36.160
in such discussions with AEP.

00:32:36.160 --> 00:32:39.260
Therefore it is not possible to
make an accurate comparison

00:32:39.260 --> 00:32:42.300
of the access road AEP would request

00:32:42.300 --> 00:32:46.993
if routes H revise was chosen
versus if route A was chosen.

00:32:48.360 --> 00:32:50.500
While AEP has stated on the record

00:32:50.500 --> 00:32:54.070
that it has not identified
any properties along route A

00:32:54.070 --> 00:32:58.040
that need access roads, this
statement simply underscores

00:32:58.040 --> 00:33:00.530
that the amount of access roads needed

00:33:00.530 --> 00:33:03.200
for the proposed routes is unknown.

00:33:03.200 --> 00:33:05.750
Furthermore, the
proposal for the decision

00:33:05.750 --> 00:33:09.190
correctly indicates that
access roads are likely needed

00:33:09.190 --> 00:33:11.293
for any of the chosen proposed routes.

00:33:12.700 --> 00:33:15.910
Lastly, staff address cost estimate

00:33:15.910 --> 00:33:19.510
for the proposed routes
in relation to access roads.

00:33:19.510 --> 00:33:22.220
Many of the parties
contend that if access roads

00:33:22.220 --> 00:33:26.540
were considers the cost
difference in constructing route A

00:33:26.540 --> 00:33:29.510
is either similar in cost or less costly

00:33:29.510 --> 00:33:32.250
than that route H revised.

00:33:32.250 --> 00:33:35.190
It is impossible to notice
because as explained above,

00:33:35.190 --> 00:33:38.750
the amount of access roads
needed to construct route A

00:33:38.750 --> 00:33:41.760
is unknown and at the Clinton briefing,

00:33:41.760 --> 00:33:45.260
the uniform cost methodology
apply has been accepted

00:33:45.260 --> 00:33:49.320
in many other transmissions
and adopted in the past.

00:33:49.320 --> 00:33:51.640
Staff also notes that
the preliminary order

00:33:51.640 --> 00:33:55.260
in this proceeding is not
the appropriate compensation

00:33:55.260 --> 00:33:58.840
for right of way or
combination of property

00:33:58.840 --> 00:34:00.583
is an issue not to be addressed.

00:34:02.470 --> 00:34:04.790
Regarding costs, staff
would like to underscore

00:34:04.790 --> 00:34:08.610
that it's support of route
H revised as best meetings

00:34:08.610 --> 00:34:12.090
of routing criteria is not
the solely on (indistinct).

00:34:12.090 --> 00:34:13.440
<v ->You have one minute left.</v>

00:34:16.228 --> 00:34:17.950
<v Rashmeen>Importantly,
unlike the unknown amount</v>

00:34:17.950 --> 00:34:19.680
of access roads for each route,

00:34:19.680 --> 00:34:23.410
it is known that route
H revised impacts 50%

00:34:23.410 --> 00:34:27.470
less habitable to structures
in comparison to route A.

00:34:27.470 --> 00:34:30.190
Overall staff believes
that route H revised

00:34:30.190 --> 00:34:32.470
best meets surviving criteria.

00:34:32.470 --> 00:34:34.310
Thank you again and staff is available

00:34:34.310 --> 00:34:35.563
to answer any questions.

00:34:36.851 --> 00:34:39.958
<v ->Thank you very much.</v>

00:34:39.958 --> 00:34:40.791
<v Paul>Thank you.</v>

00:34:40.791 --> 00:34:44.623
Then we have Soledad
Valencio, please go ahead.

00:34:46.340 --> 00:34:47.731
<v Soledad>Thank you.</v>

00:34:47.731 --> 00:34:49.750
Good morning, Chairman Lake
and Commissioner McAdams.

00:34:49.750 --> 00:34:52.375
My name is Soledad Valenciano

00:34:52.375 --> 00:34:55.740
and I'm here on behalf
of intervener, Poloma Aye.

00:34:55.740 --> 00:34:58.640
As you know, we oppose route H revised

00:34:58.640 --> 00:35:01.530
and we support route A.

00:35:01.530 --> 00:35:04.200
There's also an additional
route that will be discussed

00:35:04.200 --> 00:35:06.910
today by Mr. Connolly,
who I believe is on hold.

00:35:06.910 --> 00:35:08.500
Route A revised.

00:35:08.500 --> 00:35:11.360
We would not oppose route A revised

00:35:11.360 --> 00:35:14.370
and believe it could
be a consensus route.

00:35:14.370 --> 00:35:18.270
However, AEP and PUC staff
has not shown very much interest

00:35:18.270 --> 00:35:19.973
in a consensus route.

00:35:20.940 --> 00:35:24.200
You have heard today from
Ryan Cedars, who's an intervener

00:35:24.200 --> 00:35:27.000
and one of the principles of Poloma Aye.

00:35:27.000 --> 00:35:30.250
He and his neighbor Chip
Risco are severely impacted

00:35:30.250 --> 00:35:33.430
by route H revised, a route that runs

00:35:33.430 --> 00:35:35.323
along the Union Pacific Railroad.

00:35:37.583 --> 00:35:39.030
Commissioners, this is a unique case

00:35:39.030 --> 00:35:42.920
that has the opportunity
to clarify for CCN applicants

00:35:44.570 --> 00:35:45.880
that while the Texas
Public Utility Commission

00:35:45.880 --> 00:35:49.940
understands that applicants
do not have perfect information

00:35:49.940 --> 00:35:54.500
about a study area when they
submit their CCN applications,

00:35:54.500 --> 00:35:58.410
this initial lacking at
the start will not justify

00:35:58.410 --> 00:36:02.690
a rigidity later when not just new

00:36:02.690 --> 00:36:05.233
but material information is learned.

00:36:06.490 --> 00:36:10.370
After all, it is an enormous
burden on the public

00:36:10.370 --> 00:36:13.330
to participate in these proceedings,

00:36:13.330 --> 00:36:17.770
to bear the sheer weight of
the project on their properties

00:36:17.770 --> 00:36:21.500
in perpetuity and to
ultimately pay for the project

00:36:21.500 --> 00:36:23.460
as Texas ratepayers.

00:36:23.460 --> 00:36:25.860
The Commission's
routing decision in this case

00:36:25.860 --> 00:36:28.900
will inform whether utility is
expected to note something

00:36:28.900 --> 00:36:33.700
as basic as whether or not he
can access the proposed route

00:36:33.700 --> 00:36:38.550
with or without significant
off route access roads.

00:36:38.550 --> 00:36:42.470
To be clear, this is
not a case about minor

00:36:42.470 --> 00:36:47.030
or common access
issues, this is very different.

00:36:47.030 --> 00:36:50.210
Here AEP identified a railroad route

00:36:50.210 --> 00:36:52.780
running north to south in a steady area

00:36:52.780 --> 00:36:55.410
and determined that a
route paralleling this railroad

00:36:55.410 --> 00:36:57.270
is the best meets routes.

00:36:57.270 --> 00:36:58.823
That's route H revived.

00:36:59.800 --> 00:37:04.670
Commissioners, perhaps
the fixation on the railroad

00:37:04.670 --> 00:37:05.503
took root.

00:37:06.820 --> 00:37:09.110
I called a railroad, a shiny object,

00:37:09.110 --> 00:37:12.080
something AEP immediately
considered a compatible

00:37:12.080 --> 00:37:13.630
right of way.

00:37:13.630 --> 00:37:17.500
The operative word being compatible.

00:37:17.500 --> 00:37:22.370
We believe this case offers
an opportunity to clarify

00:37:22.370 --> 00:37:26.897
what the word compatible
means in PUC rule 25101 C3B.

00:37:29.160 --> 00:37:31.250
The principles of statutory construction

00:37:31.250 --> 00:37:35.820
tell us that the word
compatible means something.

00:37:35.820 --> 00:37:39.010
We believe its meaning
includes that's a right of way

00:37:39.010 --> 00:37:43.663
being parallel must also
be reasonably accessible.

00:37:44.540 --> 00:37:47.470
So port had the Union Pacific Railroad

00:37:47.470 --> 00:37:50.720
bent reasonably accessible to parallel,

00:37:50.720 --> 00:37:54.690
then AEP's excitement
would likely have been justified.

00:37:54.690 --> 00:37:57.850
But here before it
files a CCN application,

00:37:57.850 --> 00:38:01.220
AEP failed to consider much less study

00:38:01.220 --> 00:38:04.050
how it would actually get H revised,

00:38:04.050 --> 00:38:06.550
which runs along the
road in the study area.

00:38:06.550 --> 00:38:09.770
Given the fact that number
one, the railroad is in relevant

00:38:09.770 --> 00:38:12.750
places, located on a race track

00:38:12.750 --> 00:38:15.790
given the significant
adjacent flood plains

00:38:15.790 --> 00:38:18.000
associated with Elm Creek,

00:38:18.000 --> 00:38:21.000
and two, in ways that
are very relevant here,

00:38:21.000 --> 00:38:24.360
miles away from any public roads.

00:38:24.360 --> 00:38:25.710
<v ->You have one minute left.</v>

00:38:27.250 --> 00:38:30.143
<v Soledad>Commissioners,
unlike what Ms. Asher says,</v>

00:38:31.130 --> 00:38:33.200
the record is very clear about the need

00:38:33.200 --> 00:38:34.760
for these access roads.

00:38:34.760 --> 00:38:38.473
Paloma Aye's exhibits 50
and 51 makes that clear.

00:38:39.310 --> 00:38:44.310
It's undisputed that ATD 20
miles of off route access roads,

00:38:46.572 --> 00:38:48.170
seven of those 20 plus miles will be

00:38:48.170 --> 00:38:52.481
on Paloma Aye's property,
a property already targeted

00:38:52.481 --> 00:38:55.830
for five miles of transmission
line easement and 40 towers.

00:38:55.830 --> 00:38:59.380
Seven miles of access roads
to get to a five miles segment

00:38:59.380 --> 00:39:00.940
is not reasonable.

00:39:00.940 --> 00:39:03.810
The true price tag for the
20 plus miles access roads

00:39:03.810 --> 00:39:06.900
needed from Poloma
Aye, Briscoe and others

00:39:06.900 --> 00:39:10.010
to actually get to H revise
has been a moving target

00:39:10.010 --> 00:39:11.540
in these proceedings.

00:39:11.540 --> 00:39:14.830
But if all credit is given
to AEP's most favorable

00:39:14.830 --> 00:39:17.360
interpretation of
this confidential data,

00:39:17.360 --> 00:39:20.150
the numbers simply don't make any sense.

00:39:20.150 --> 00:39:23.250
The extent of these access
roads were not known

00:39:23.250 --> 00:39:26.023
at the time of the
initial filing, that's clear.

00:39:27.190 --> 00:39:29.400
And the other adjustments
made to the estimated cost

00:39:29.400 --> 00:39:33.010
whispering amendment
unrelated in these access issues.

00:39:33.010 --> 00:39:35.600
Mr. McGrath confirmed that.

00:39:35.600 --> 00:39:39.110
And if we use this confidential
seven figure number

00:39:39.110 --> 00:39:41.430
as a baseline for how
much these access roads

00:39:41.430 --> 00:39:45.030
are going to cost and cost
is not a legitimate basis,

00:39:45.030 --> 00:39:48.270
just like H revised or
to refit redirect route A.

00:39:48.270 --> 00:39:50.090
It's quite the opposite.

00:39:50.090 --> 00:39:53.920
So costs and paralleling are
the key routing issues here.

00:39:53.920 --> 00:39:55.700
And in terms of habitable structures,

00:39:55.700 --> 00:39:57.460
I have to comment on that.

00:39:57.460 --> 00:39:59.410
The difference is eight.

00:39:59.410 --> 00:40:02.460
Most of these are already
impacted by AEP's existing

00:40:02.460 --> 00:40:05.320
transmission lines or
they are on properties

00:40:05.320 --> 00:40:07.310
that will not be impacted.

00:40:07.310 --> 00:40:09.830
And let me add that there's
no evidence that route A

00:40:09.830 --> 00:40:14.211
has a hint, not even a
hint of off route access

00:40:14.211 --> 00:40:15.980
used much less significant ones.

00:40:15.980 --> 00:40:19.910
This is because route
A significantly parallel

00:40:19.910 --> 00:40:23.560
and or cross is two
important rights of way,

00:40:23.560 --> 00:40:27.460
AEP's existing transmission
line and public roads.

00:40:27.460 --> 00:40:29.443
It is an excellent choice.

00:40:30.840 --> 00:40:31.940
<v ->Thank you very much.</v>

00:40:35.430 --> 00:40:37.000
<v Paul>Thank you,
then next we do move</v>

00:40:37.000 --> 00:40:39.323
to William Connolly, please go ahead.

00:40:43.660 --> 00:40:44.620
<v William>Thank you Commissioners</v>

00:40:44.620 --> 00:40:47.910
for hearing oral
arguments on this docket.

00:40:47.910 --> 00:40:50.010
My name is William
Connolly and I'm the owner

00:40:50.010 --> 00:40:53.530
of Davis County Ranch
LLC, which is an intervener

00:40:53.530 --> 00:40:54.930
in this case.

00:40:54.930 --> 00:40:57.730
Of the three primary routes
discussed in this case,

00:40:57.730 --> 00:41:02.730
we are supportive of both
routes H rev and A rev.

00:41:03.160 --> 00:41:05.773
We are strongly opposed to route A.

00:41:06.840 --> 00:41:09.820
I think the reasoning
supporting route H rev

00:41:09.820 --> 00:41:13.540
was very articulately and
logically laid out by the ALJs

00:41:13.540 --> 00:41:17.840
and their proposal for decision
and we're supportive of it.

00:41:17.840 --> 00:41:20.050
I think the main message
I'd like to get across today

00:41:20.050 --> 00:41:22.710
is that while there are
uncertainties surrounding

00:41:22.710 --> 00:41:25.850
any one of these routes
selected, moving the route

00:41:25.850 --> 00:41:29.200
from the preferred and
recommended route H rev

00:41:29.200 --> 00:41:32.260
to route A would simply
represent the shifting

00:41:32.260 --> 00:41:35.510
of the burden, that line
from one set of landowners

00:41:35.510 --> 00:41:36.840
to another.

00:41:36.840 --> 00:41:40.750
Route H rev converses across
the boundary of Paloma Ranch

00:41:40.750 --> 00:41:44.180
and Briscoe Ranch,
both oppose route H rev

00:41:44.180 --> 00:41:46.163
without access road protections.

00:41:47.100 --> 00:41:50.230
But shifting the
transmission line to route A

00:41:50.230 --> 00:41:52.340
would cause a transmission
line to run straight

00:41:52.340 --> 00:41:54.880
through the center of
our family members ranch,

00:41:54.880 --> 00:41:58.300
Kerr Ranch LTD for several miles.

00:41:58.300 --> 00:42:00.800
So rather than running along
the edge of Paloma or Briscoe,

00:42:00.800 --> 00:42:02.830
the power line would be
running through several miles

00:42:02.830 --> 00:42:05.610
through the center of Kerr Ranch LTD.

00:42:05.610 --> 00:42:08.210
With regard to costs of the easement,

00:42:08.210 --> 00:42:10.080
whether it be right away or the easement

00:42:10.080 --> 00:42:14.160
for the line itself, both
Davis County Ranch LLC

00:42:14.160 --> 00:42:18.140
and Kerr Ranch LTD
contained all five pipelines

00:42:18.140 --> 00:42:21.080
required to be crossed
by this power line.

00:42:21.080 --> 00:42:23.600
These pipelines have
created a pipeline corridor

00:42:24.470 --> 00:42:27.010
that exponentially
increases the easement costs

00:42:27.010 --> 00:42:29.980
for any easement that
may obstruct this corridor,

00:42:29.980 --> 00:42:32.093
such as transmission line towers.

00:42:33.560 --> 00:42:37.010
Davis County Ranch LLC
does not have any intention

00:42:37.010 --> 00:42:39.010
of charging pipeline corridor prices

00:42:39.010 --> 00:42:43.280
for the transmission
line easement if it crosses

00:42:43.280 --> 00:42:47.963
on the Davis County Ranch
via route A rev or H rev.

00:42:49.158 --> 00:42:51.610
While Kerr Ranch
LTD will intend to do so

00:42:51.610 --> 00:42:53.460
due to their opposition to route A

00:42:53.460 --> 00:42:55.173
and their right to do that.

00:42:56.500 --> 00:42:59.070
In addition, Davis County Ranch LLC

00:42:59.070 --> 00:43:01.660
welcomes the transmission
line on its property

00:43:01.660 --> 00:43:03.700
in order to have connectivity to it.

00:43:03.700 --> 00:43:07.410
Both routes H rev and A rev traverse

00:43:07.410 --> 00:43:09.653
along Davis County Ranch LLC.

00:43:10.510 --> 00:43:14.762
All that being said, I have
remarked that this case

00:43:14.762 --> 00:43:16.620
has been a little
unusual in the willingness

00:43:16.620 --> 00:43:20.920
of opposing interveners to
work hard to work together

00:43:20.920 --> 00:43:22.650
on a settlement.

00:43:22.650 --> 00:43:27.340
Route A rev, I believe
represents that settlement.

00:43:27.340 --> 00:43:30.980
No party in the hearings,
opposed route A rev,

00:43:30.980 --> 00:43:35.980
including Davis County Ranch
LLC, Poloma, Briscoe, or AEP.

00:43:37.200 --> 00:43:42.200
I'll note AEP did not take
a position on route A rev.

00:43:43.250 --> 00:43:46.460
I don't believe PUC
staff took a position

00:43:46.460 --> 00:43:51.460
on route A rev, but they
do support route H rev.

00:43:52.370 --> 00:43:56.700
So we might infer that they
do not support route A rev

00:43:56.700 --> 00:43:58.100
at this time.

00:43:58.100 --> 00:44:01.167
I think the PUC staff did a
great job in their analysis--

00:44:02.059 --> 00:44:03.007
<v ->You have one minute left.</v>

00:44:03.007 --> 00:44:05.000
<v William>And it was
appropriate that they came</v>

00:44:05.000 --> 00:44:08.290
to the conclusion that
route H rev best satisfies

00:44:08.290 --> 00:44:12.280
the guidelines they're
tasked with meeting.

00:44:12.280 --> 00:44:14.450
However, PUC staff's primary role

00:44:14.450 --> 00:44:16.360
is their technical ability

00:44:16.360 --> 00:44:19.520
and incorporating the value
of landowner consensus

00:44:19.520 --> 00:44:21.800
is largely beyond the scope

00:44:21.800 --> 00:44:25.210
of PUC staff's
analytical responsibilities,

00:44:25.210 --> 00:44:27.600
valuing landowner consensus in a project

00:44:27.600 --> 00:44:30.530
is more of a political
analysis that likely falls

00:44:30.530 --> 00:44:33.750
more into the arena of the
Commissioners themselves.

00:44:33.750 --> 00:44:37.160
While we continue to support
route H rev wholeheartedly

00:44:37.160 --> 00:44:39.240
and believe the technical analysis

00:44:39.240 --> 00:44:41.400
strongly supports route H rev,

00:44:41.400 --> 00:44:44.250
we also recognize that
there's a benefit and a value

00:44:44.250 --> 00:44:47.090
to consensus amongst interested parties

00:44:47.090 --> 00:44:49.590
in a transmission project like this.

00:44:49.590 --> 00:44:52.420
If there's a way to that
County Ranch LLC, Poloma

00:44:52.420 --> 00:44:56.320
and Briscoe in addition to all
other landowner interveners

00:44:56.320 --> 00:45:00.313
and the AEP all agree,
we see a lot of value in that.

00:45:01.285 --> 00:45:02.880
And if we can prevent
harm to the ranch in Poloma

00:45:02.880 --> 00:45:05.840
and Briscoe while
not harming our family,

00:45:05.840 --> 00:45:07.290
we're very supportive of that.

00:45:07.290 --> 00:45:10.578
And would ask that the
Commissioners consider the value

00:45:10.578 --> 00:45:14.040
of this consensus and
potentially supporting route A rev.

00:45:14.040 --> 00:45:14.873
<v ->Thank you, Mr. Connolly.</v>

00:45:14.873 --> 00:45:16.331
<v William>One last.</v>

00:45:16.331 --> 00:45:17.164
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

00:45:17.164 --> 00:45:19.763
<v William>If I may make
one last note here.</v>

00:45:21.960 --> 00:45:24.400
Sorry, my microphone went out.

00:45:24.400 --> 00:45:26.670
One last note is we'd
also like to request

00:45:26.670 --> 00:45:31.670
that if H rev is adopted that
a small modification be made

00:45:31.740 --> 00:45:34.330
to allow for H rev to run along,

00:45:34.330 --> 00:45:37.260
actually on the Davis County
Ranch side of the highway

00:45:37.260 --> 00:45:39.550
as opposed to the
opposite side of the highway,

00:45:39.550 --> 00:45:41.040
which is currently slated for.

00:45:41.040 --> 00:45:44.080
Very minor modification
that's unopposed,

00:45:44.080 --> 00:45:45.493
but wanted to bring that up.

00:45:46.964 --> 00:45:50.003
<v ->Thank you very much,
appreciate your comments.</v>

00:45:50.003 --> 00:45:50.841
Next speaker, please.

00:45:50.841 --> 00:45:51.674
<v Paul>Thank you.</v>

00:45:51.674 --> 00:45:54.783
The last currently in the
comment queue, Brad Bailiff.

00:45:56.690 --> 00:45:58.533
<v ->We've already
had Mr. Bailiff in.</v>

00:46:00.140 --> 00:46:03.320
<v Brad>Yes, but Mr. Briscoe
is trying to get in</v>

00:46:03.320 --> 00:46:05.790
and I've talked to him three times.

00:46:05.790 --> 00:46:07.620
Is he not in the queue?

00:46:07.620 --> 00:46:09.390
<v Paul>He is not
currently in the queue.</v>

00:46:09.390 --> 00:46:11.850
If Mr. Briscoe is on a separate phone,

00:46:11.850 --> 00:46:15.003
please press one then
zero to identify yourself.

00:46:20.280 --> 00:46:25.070
And we did get a couple
of people identifying.

00:46:25.070 --> 00:46:30.070
So while we release Brad Bailiff,

00:46:30.890 --> 00:46:33.070
we'll check if Mr. Briscoe is on.

00:46:33.070 --> 00:46:34.860
One moment, please.

00:46:34.860 --> 00:46:35.967
<v ->Thank you, Paul.</v>

00:46:49.890 --> 00:46:52.907
All right, we actually
have Brandon Young.

00:46:58.740 --> 00:46:59.583
Please go ahead.

00:47:01.690 --> 00:47:03.780
<v Brandon>Thank you Chairman
Lake and Commissioner McAdams</v>

00:47:03.780 --> 00:47:05.860
for accepting the positions
and being prepared

00:47:05.860 --> 00:47:07.980
to tackle the enormous
problems in front of you

00:47:07.980 --> 00:47:10.870
as it relates to the
electric market in Texas.

00:47:10.870 --> 00:47:12.640
My name is Brandon
Young and I am the CEO

00:47:12.640 --> 00:47:15.590
of Payless Power, a
retail electric provider.

00:47:15.590 --> 00:47:18.670
I and many other rep
operators are deeply concerned

00:47:18.670 --> 00:47:20.580
with a matter that
was not taken up today,

00:47:20.580 --> 00:47:24.330
which is that AEP have not
been able to disconnect customers

00:47:24.330 --> 00:47:26.415
who own very large--

00:47:26.415 --> 00:47:27.248
<v ->I think we're only
taking oral arguments</v>

00:47:27.248 --> 00:47:28.973
on this item, Brandon.

00:47:30.120 --> 00:47:31.491
<v Brandon>I'm sorry.</v>

00:47:31.491 --> 00:47:34.370
<v ->We're only taking the
oral arguments on item 18</v>

00:47:34.370 --> 00:47:36.090
at this time.

00:47:36.090 --> 00:47:38.349
There are... &lt;v
Brandon&gt;Oh, I'm sorry.</v>

00:47:38.349 --> 00:47:39.210
<v ->Other opportunities
for public comment.</v>

00:47:39.210 --> 00:47:41.410
And we'd welcome your
thoughts at that time.

00:47:42.560 --> 00:47:44.610
<v Paul>That is the
end of this session.</v>

00:47:48.350 --> 00:47:52.680
When next they call on that, Mr. Young,

00:47:52.680 --> 00:47:57.100
we do have a Chip
Briscoe, please go ahead.

00:47:57.100 --> 00:47:58.200
<v Chip>Okay, thank you.</v>

00:47:58.200 --> 00:47:59.830
Good morning, my name is Chip Briscoe.

00:47:59.830 --> 00:48:03.150
Thank you for your service
to the great state of Texas.

00:48:03.150 --> 00:48:06.020
And I appreciate your
listening to my comments.

00:48:06.020 --> 00:48:07.410
Our family's owned our ranch

00:48:07.410 --> 00:48:10.220
in the middle of this
study area since 1997.

00:48:10.220 --> 00:48:15.120
And before that, we've
leased it for about 30 years.

00:48:15.120 --> 00:48:19.720
We have three properties
that this project may affect.

00:48:19.720 --> 00:48:22.290
I am focusing my
comments and my concerns

00:48:22.290 --> 00:48:24.150
about the access road.

00:48:24.150 --> 00:48:27.110
I joined with our neighbors,
Cedar brothers to ask you

00:48:27.110 --> 00:48:30.620
to tell AEP Texas to
build a transmission line

00:48:30.620 --> 00:48:34.510
use in the projects easement
and not build an access road

00:48:34.510 --> 00:48:36.150
across our ranch.

00:48:36.150 --> 00:48:39.250
Briscoe Ranch was
and is willing to accept

00:48:39.250 --> 00:48:41.660
the transmission line
on our western boundary

00:48:41.660 --> 00:48:43.660
next to the railroad track.

00:48:43.660 --> 00:48:47.130
But AEP Texas claims it may
not feel the transmission line

00:48:47.130 --> 00:48:49.510
using its easement next to the tracks,

00:48:49.510 --> 00:48:52.920
and may need an access
road across our ranch

00:48:52.920 --> 00:48:57.150
for eight miles or more to
reach the highway to the east.

00:48:57.150 --> 00:48:59.160
Although we were
willing to accept the line

00:48:59.160 --> 00:49:03.440
on a western boundary, I
emphasized, we do not want route

00:49:03.440 --> 00:49:06.100
that bisect and cross our properties.

00:49:06.100 --> 00:49:08.610
That's what the access road will do.

00:49:08.610 --> 00:49:10.320
We've had a lot of
experience in the past

00:49:10.320 --> 00:49:12.840
with the oil and gas pipelines
and transmission lines

00:49:12.840 --> 00:49:15.730
on our ranches and
I've never seen or utility

00:49:15.730 --> 00:49:19.100
or oil and gas company
or pipeline company

00:49:19.100 --> 00:49:22.580
require miles separate access roads

00:49:22.580 --> 00:49:25.250
in order to reach their easement.

00:49:25.250 --> 00:49:28.300
In my experience, they've
always used the easement

00:49:28.300 --> 00:49:30.450
where the lines are located.

00:49:30.450 --> 00:49:32.830
We've had a lot of
problems with easements

00:49:34.283 --> 00:49:36.040
or any type of road just
running through the middle

00:49:36.040 --> 00:49:41.040
of our ranch, obviously
it would be a burden

00:49:41.830 --> 00:49:45.050
on our ranch, affect our use
and enjoyment of the property

00:49:45.050 --> 00:49:48.010
and also would devalue our property.

00:49:48.010 --> 00:49:53.010
The workers on the (indistinct)
line may drive too fast

00:49:54.670 --> 00:49:56.620
at road crossing our ranch.

00:49:56.620 --> 00:49:59.480
They will affect the
hunting on the ranch

00:50:01.927 --> 00:50:05.200
that also ended up running
over deer, cattle, et cetera,

00:50:05.200 --> 00:50:07.293
not own up to their actions.

00:50:08.482 --> 00:50:10.050
And then we'll be out at animals

00:50:10.050 --> 00:50:12.550
without being compensated for them.

00:50:12.550 --> 00:50:15.440
And all the time someone
leaves a gate opened,

00:50:15.440 --> 00:50:17.990
which can allow strangers
to enter our property

00:50:17.990 --> 00:50:20.620
or cattle to get out on the highway,

00:50:20.620 --> 00:50:25.190
which is a major liability for us.

00:50:25.190 --> 00:50:27.890
As you can see, there are
many negatives and positives

00:50:27.890 --> 00:50:29.810
with AEP's access road.

00:50:29.810 --> 00:50:32.500
I think the access road is unnecessary

00:50:32.500 --> 00:50:35.310
and you should require them
to use the transmission line

00:50:35.310 --> 00:50:38.210
easement instead of building access road

00:50:38.210 --> 00:50:41.800
across our ranch for over eight miles.

00:50:41.800 --> 00:50:45.730
I do not understand why
AEP thinks it will not be able

00:50:45.730 --> 00:50:48.820
to use its easement
next to the railroad tracks

00:50:48.820 --> 00:50:50.300
that has been there for decades.

00:50:50.300 --> 00:50:52.370
There's a two track road there that goes

00:50:52.370 --> 00:50:55.040
right next to the railroad
tracks from Spofford

00:50:55.040 --> 00:50:58.660
near our Northern properly
through Briscoe Ranch

00:50:58.660 --> 00:50:59.680
then to Eagle Pass.

00:50:59.680 --> 00:51:03.723
I've driven that road myself
several times over the years.

00:51:04.761 --> 00:51:05.897
Currently, and for the
last 10 months or so,

00:51:05.897 --> 00:51:08.450
the railroad has been
doing extensive repairs

00:51:08.450 --> 00:51:12.140
to the bridges and other
improvements on the railroad track.

00:51:12.140 --> 00:51:15.530
And they have been accessing the track

00:51:15.530 --> 00:51:17.930
and the through there
right of wway at Spofford.

00:51:19.110 --> 00:51:22.590
Large machinery of all
types, 18 wheelers hauling

00:51:23.471 --> 00:51:25.610
all types of different
materials and supplies

00:51:25.610 --> 00:51:27.310
have all been accessing the railroad

00:51:27.310 --> 00:51:31.120
through Spofford and using that easement

00:51:31.120 --> 00:51:34.628
to get to whatever
projects they're working on.

00:51:34.628 --> 00:51:37.000
And they've had no
problems using that route.

00:51:37.000 --> 00:51:40.240
If AEP thinks they
needed another easement

00:51:40.240 --> 00:51:42.300
in addition or another access road,

00:51:42.300 --> 00:51:45.470
in addition to the easement,
they will have on the line,

00:51:45.470 --> 00:51:48.050
they should talk to the railroad company

00:51:48.050 --> 00:51:50.160
and just use that because
it would be right next

00:51:50.160 --> 00:51:55.160
to where they're talking about
the building the power line.

00:51:56.120 --> 00:51:58.180
It may be unusual to ask you to prevent

00:51:58.180 --> 00:52:00.080
the off route access road.

00:52:00.080 --> 00:52:03.710
AEP will not say it does not require.

00:52:03.710 --> 00:52:07.810
It appears to be necessary
though, to prevent construction

00:52:07.810 --> 00:52:11.210
of an access road
across our ranch for AEP

00:52:11.210 --> 00:52:14.040
to reach the miles of
transmission line easement

00:52:14.040 --> 00:52:16.062
on our western boundary.

00:52:16.062 --> 00:52:16.903
<v ->You have one minute, sir.</v>

00:52:17.760 --> 00:52:19.810
<v Chip>Please tell AEP
enough to build project</v>

00:52:19.810 --> 00:52:22.620
using an access road across our ranch.

00:52:22.620 --> 00:52:24.650
Thank you very much for your time.

00:52:24.650 --> 00:52:26.170
<v ->Thank you Mr. Briscoe.</v>

00:52:26.170 --> 00:52:27.220
Next speaker, please.

00:52:28.140 --> 00:52:31.470
<v Paul>There is no one
else in the comment queue.</v>

00:52:31.470 --> 00:52:34.570
<v ->Thank you, Paul and thank
you for all of our participants</v>

00:52:34.570 --> 00:52:35.970
in the oral arguments today.

00:52:37.470 --> 00:52:41.193
There's some very
relevant points brought up.

00:52:42.747 --> 00:52:47.410
I think I'd be willing to take
some time to consider those

00:52:48.344 --> 00:52:51.199
and table this until
our next open meeting.

00:52:51.199 --> 00:52:56.040
<v ->I think that's the only right,
like some chance to digest,</v>

00:52:56.040 --> 00:52:59.963
talk with staff and just
readdress at the next meeting.

00:53:00.810 --> 00:53:01.670
<v ->Fair enough.</v>

00:53:01.670 --> 00:53:04.850
We'll table this item until
the next open meeting.

00:53:04.850 --> 00:53:06.700
And thank you again for participants.

00:53:08.580 --> 00:53:13.580
We'll move on to item
19, docket number 50669.

00:53:13.700 --> 00:53:14.533
Mr. Janae.

00:53:16.530 --> 00:53:19.250
<v ->Commissioners,
before you in item 19</v>

00:53:19.250 --> 00:53:24.219
is a proposal for decision
that would amend the CCN

00:53:24.219 --> 00:53:26.427
of SWEPCO for
electric transmission line,

00:53:26.427 --> 00:53:29.430
the PFD proposed is using route two.

00:53:29.430 --> 00:53:32.060
The Commission heard
oral argument on this matter

00:53:32.060 --> 00:53:34.633
at the April 7th open meeting.

00:53:35.974 --> 00:53:39.823
I've filed a memo in this matter.

00:53:40.780 --> 00:53:42.550
Similarly to what I discussed earlier,

00:53:42.550 --> 00:53:46.203
this memo has a problem with
that same conclusion of law.

00:53:47.900 --> 00:53:50.653
The memo proposes
adding it to the order,

00:53:51.660 --> 00:53:54.060
but we should not add it to the order.

00:53:54.060 --> 00:53:57.900
So I was basically, I
wish we had caught this

00:53:58.913 --> 00:54:01.150
and taken that out of the memo
before we would had filed it

00:54:01.150 --> 00:54:01.983
for you.

00:54:01.983 --> 00:54:05.810
<v ->But that's the sub substance
of the corrective memo.</v>

00:54:05.810 --> 00:54:07.222
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

00:54:07.222 --> 00:54:08.072
<v ->Okay, not okay.</v>

00:54:08.921 --> 00:54:10.680
<v ->Is that one narrow
conclusion of law?</v>

00:54:10.680 --> 00:54:11.945
<v ->Just that one, yes, sir.</v>

00:54:11.945 --> 00:54:12.778
<v ->Yeah, okay.</v>

00:54:12.778 --> 00:54:13.830
Your time's up (indistinct).

00:54:13.830 --> 00:54:15.180
<v ->Yes, sir, I'll leave now.</v>

00:54:20.410 --> 00:54:24.099
<v ->Before we even dive
into the discussion on this,</v>

00:54:24.099 --> 00:54:26.630
I wanna recognize that
while we are both new here,

00:54:26.630 --> 00:54:30.660
well, I wanna make sure
to note that I've reviewed

00:54:30.660 --> 00:54:32.270
the oral arguments that were presented

00:54:32.270 --> 00:54:36.418
in the last open meeting,
and I'm sure you have as well.

00:54:36.418 --> 00:54:37.251
<v ->I did.</v>

00:54:38.257 --> 00:54:39.890
<v ->I think the ALJ
got this one right.</v>

00:54:39.890 --> 00:54:41.020
Thought?

00:54:41.020 --> 00:54:41.853
<v ->I do too.</v>

00:54:43.370 --> 00:54:46.470
Without getting into the
details of the oral arguments,

00:54:46.470 --> 00:54:50.190
but I went back and
reviewed, watched, listened,

00:54:50.190 --> 00:54:51.523
watched it originally.

00:54:53.490 --> 00:54:55.090
Yeah, I think they got it right.

00:54:56.690 --> 00:55:00.080
<v ->Agreed, the motion to adopt
the PFD with the changes</v>

00:55:00.080 --> 00:55:03.910
that Mr. Janae mentioned
earlier related to the...

00:55:03.910 --> 00:55:06.514
<v Janae>The memo and
the change of the memo.</v>

00:55:06.514 --> 00:55:07.347
<v ->The corrective memo.</v>

00:55:07.347 --> 00:55:08.210
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

00:55:08.210 --> 00:55:09.380
<v ->So moved.</v>

00:55:09.380 --> 00:55:10.283
<v ->I'll second.</v>

00:55:11.284 --> 00:55:13.284
Hearing no objection, motion is adopted.

00:55:14.510 --> 00:55:17.173
Moving on to item 20
docket number 51023.

00:55:18.909 --> 00:55:19.742
Mr. Janae.

00:55:20.670 --> 00:55:25.490
<v ->Commissioners, the
matter before you is an appeal</v>

00:55:25.490 --> 00:55:28.160
of SOA order number
10 in which the SOA judge

00:55:28.160 --> 00:55:30.340
declined to issue an order

00:55:30.340 --> 00:55:33.320
certifying issues to the Commission.

00:55:33.320 --> 00:55:34.153
<v ->Thank you.</v>

00:55:36.340 --> 00:55:39.030
The occasions to
certify issues like that

00:55:39.030 --> 00:55:43.223
I think is for exceptional
circumstances.

00:55:44.658 --> 00:55:47.250
And this is not, I didn't
feel like one of those.

00:55:47.250 --> 00:55:48.100
Thoughts?

00:55:48.100 --> 00:55:49.420
<v ->My thoughts as well.</v>

00:55:49.420 --> 00:55:51.563
The case is in hearing art SOA now.

00:55:52.610 --> 00:55:54.797
They can make these
arguments to the ALJ.

00:55:55.920 --> 00:55:58.720
Certified processes
there for the judge to use.

00:55:58.720 --> 00:56:01.543
And then the action
that we could take here,

00:56:02.430 --> 00:56:04.630
my feeling would circumvent that.

00:56:04.630 --> 00:56:07.810
And so now I think we're in alignment.

00:56:07.810 --> 00:56:08.643
<v ->Yeah.</v>

00:56:09.630 --> 00:56:12.640
Started the judge,
motion to deny the appeal.

00:56:12.640 --> 00:56:14.010
<v ->So moved.</v>

00:56:14.010 --> 00:56:15.663
<v ->No objection, motion's adopted.</v>

00:56:17.110 --> 00:56:19.780
Item 20 docket number 51547.

00:56:19.780 --> 00:56:22.443
Mr. Janae.

00:56:22.443 --> 00:56:23.970
<v ->Item 21 sir.</v>

00:56:23.970 --> 00:56:24.970
<v Peter>Sorry, 21.</v>

00:56:25.840 --> 00:56:28.810
<v ->This before the
Commission is an application</v>

00:56:30.331 --> 00:56:34.853
of Texas, New Mexico
power and the avid grad folks.

00:56:35.810 --> 00:56:38.460
I'm not gonna name them
all out as for the merger

00:56:39.900 --> 00:56:43.890
to take over 10 MP PNM resources.

00:56:43.890 --> 00:56:47.433
The parties reached an
agreement in this case,

00:56:48.308 --> 00:56:49.573
filed that with the Commission,

00:56:50.720 --> 00:56:54.093
the agreement contains a
number of regulatory commitments.

00:56:54.940 --> 00:56:57.840
I have traded a
memorandum with the parties

00:56:57.840 --> 00:57:00.190
the last couple of days,
seeking clarification

00:57:00.190 --> 00:57:02.943
on several of the
regulatory commitments.

00:57:04.170 --> 00:57:08.670
The parties agreed to
suggest the changes I made

00:57:08.670 --> 00:57:13.470
on five of the commitments
in the first memo

00:57:13.470 --> 00:57:18.450
one 1O, 1P, 5B, 7A and 7B4.

00:57:18.450 --> 00:57:22.810
They disagreed with
the change we had in 1K,

00:57:22.810 --> 00:57:25.830
they want to keep the
timeline in that commitment

00:57:27.166 --> 00:57:28.820
tied to the closing of the transaction.

00:57:28.820 --> 00:57:32.750
We had suggested moving
it to the signing of the order.

00:57:32.750 --> 00:57:37.330
And then we had another
round seeking clarification

00:57:37.330 --> 00:57:42.330
on a commitment 7B7,
which relates to the authority

00:57:42.650 --> 00:57:44.543
of the disinterested directors.

00:57:45.630 --> 00:57:50.630
The parties jointly made a
file in which they explained

00:57:53.108 --> 00:57:56.650
in that filing what their intent was

00:57:57.660 --> 00:58:00.690
in this provision
related to the obligations

00:58:00.690 --> 00:58:02.463
of the disinterested directors.

00:58:04.620 --> 00:58:09.620
I think I would just recommend
to the Commissioners

00:58:11.360 --> 00:58:14.580
that we make a reference
to this memo in our order

00:58:14.580 --> 00:58:17.180
so that we provide clarity in our order

00:58:17.180 --> 00:58:18.850
as to what that commitment means

00:58:19.930 --> 00:58:22.273
as provided to us by the parties.

00:58:24.490 --> 00:58:26.160
<v ->Yeah, that was
my thinking as well.</v>

00:58:26.160 --> 00:58:28.280
The more we memorialize
on these commitments,

00:58:28.280 --> 00:58:30.423
the stronger our hand is moving forward.

00:58:32.395 --> 00:58:33.228
<v ->Agreed.</v>

00:58:34.902 --> 00:58:36.560
I think it's important to
note that the robustness

00:58:36.560 --> 00:58:39.450
of the process that we've
been through to get to this point

00:58:40.510 --> 00:58:45.510
by all parties and certainly
agree with your notion

00:58:45.880 --> 00:58:47.380
or your concept of the more...

00:58:48.240 --> 00:58:49.460
<v ->Memorializing.</v>

00:58:49.460 --> 00:58:52.743
<v ->More concrete
moralization we can have,</v>

00:58:53.730 --> 00:58:55.393
the better for all involved.

00:58:57.004 --> 00:58:59.340
Is there a motion to approve
the application as modified?

00:58:59.340 --> 00:59:00.630
<v ->So moved.</v>

00:59:00.630 --> 00:59:03.223
<v ->Second, no objection,
motion's adopted.</v>

00:59:04.070 --> 00:59:07.160
<v ->We will draft an
order for your signature</v>

00:59:07.160 --> 00:59:09.430
as quickly as we can
so we can get this out.

00:59:09.430 --> 00:59:11.970
I just know we have a statutory deadline

00:59:13.030 --> 00:59:14.420
coming up in two weeks.

00:59:14.420 --> 00:59:18.970
I think we will meet it easily
now that we've acted here.

00:59:18.970 --> 00:59:19.803
<v ->Thank you.</v>

00:59:20.650 --> 00:59:23.613
Item 22, docket number 51802.

00:59:25.120 --> 00:59:26.407
Mr. Janae.

00:59:31.280 --> 00:59:34.720
<v ->Commissioners, before
you as a draft preliminary order</v>

00:59:34.720 --> 00:59:38.850
in a rate case filed by SPS.

00:59:38.850 --> 00:59:43.650
I would just note that
yesterday we filed an order

00:59:43.650 --> 00:59:46.520
seeking briefing on one
of the issues in this case

00:59:46.520 --> 00:59:50.053
and that is there a
resiliency service tariff?

00:59:51.580 --> 00:59:54.710
The draft preliminary order
we have filed in this case

00:59:54.710 --> 00:59:57.430
has no issues addressing that.

00:59:57.430 --> 01:00:01.960
Our thought was after briefing,
if need be we would issue

01:00:01.960 --> 01:00:06.360
a supplemental
preliminary on that issue.

01:00:06.360 --> 01:00:08.170
<v ->Noted, I think that's
an important distinction</v>

01:00:08.170 --> 01:00:10.623
between the briefing order
and the preliminary order.

01:00:12.270 --> 01:00:13.870
I'm okay with the preliminary order,

01:00:13.870 --> 01:00:16.310
but the briefing order is an issue

01:00:16.310 --> 01:00:18.160
that is a bigger conversation, I think.

01:00:18.160 --> 01:00:19.620
<v ->That's right.</v>

01:00:19.620 --> 01:00:24.620
<v ->And it needs to be
addressed in a broader context</v>

01:00:25.060 --> 01:00:26.660
than just this particular item.

01:00:26.660 --> 01:00:29.460
<v ->Well, that's right,
it'll cover instances.</v>

01:00:29.460 --> 01:00:31.560
Well, ultimately it raises questions

01:00:31.560 --> 01:00:35.280
that need to be addressed
in sort of a policymaking

01:00:35.280 --> 01:00:39.250
project, policy
clarifying project on the--

01:00:39.250 --> 01:00:41.380
<v ->Possibility, I mean,
that's one of the things</v>

01:00:41.380 --> 01:00:44.630
we've asked them to brief
us on so y'all are fully formed

01:00:44.630 --> 01:00:46.340
to make that decision.

01:00:46.340 --> 01:00:47.820
<v ->I think we're
moving into that mode</v>

01:00:47.820 --> 01:00:48.890
on the part of the Commission.

01:00:48.890 --> 01:00:51.263
So yeah, I agree with that position.

01:00:52.200 --> 01:00:53.960
<v ->I'm sure there are
other stakeholders.</v>

01:00:53.960 --> 01:00:55.010
<v ->That should come in.</v>

01:00:55.010 --> 01:00:57.744
<v ->That need to be involved
in that conversation.</v>

01:00:57.744 --> 01:00:58.994
<v ->That's right.</v>

01:01:01.699 --> 01:01:03.100
<v ->We need a motion
to approve the draft</v>

01:01:03.100 --> 01:01:05.040
preliminary order, sir.

01:01:05.040 --> 01:01:07.330
<v ->Looking forward
to see the feedback</v>

01:01:07.330 --> 01:01:09.050
from the briefing order.

01:01:09.050 --> 01:01:11.350
Motion to approve the
draft preliminary order.

01:01:11.350 --> 01:01:12.690
<v ->So moved.</v>

01:01:12.690 --> 01:01:13.523
<v ->Second.</v>

01:01:13.523 --> 01:01:16.063
No objection, the motion is adopted.

01:01:16.920 --> 01:01:20.880
I don't have anything
on items 23, through 27.

01:01:20.880 --> 01:01:21.813
<v ->Same for me.</v>

01:01:22.860 --> 01:01:26.600
<v ->That'll get us to 28
and 29 were consented.</v>

01:01:26.600 --> 01:01:30.370
I don't have anything for 30 or 32.

01:01:30.370 --> 01:01:31.203
<v ->Same.</v>

01:01:32.130 --> 01:01:34.030
<v ->Oh, I'm sorry,
yeah, that's correct.</v>

01:01:35.830 --> 01:01:36.730
<v ->Yep.</v>

01:01:36.730 --> 01:01:37.763
<v ->Just skip over 31.</v>

01:01:39.164 --> 01:01:40.201
<v ->Anything on 31</v>

01:01:40.201 --> 01:01:41.034
<v ->31, okay.</v>

01:01:41.034 --> 01:01:44.210
So in the interest of
clarity for stakeholders,

01:01:44.210 --> 01:01:47.590
market participants, everybody
listening to this broadcast,

01:01:47.590 --> 01:01:51.090
I'd like to ask Connie to
walk us through an overview

01:01:51.090 --> 01:01:54.443
of our rulemaking calendar
that we're looking at right now.

01:01:55.800 --> 01:01:57.050
<v ->Glad to do that Commissioners.</v>

01:01:57.050 --> 01:01:58.383
Thank you, good morning.

01:01:59.720 --> 01:02:04.350
So typically staff has
filed a rulemaking calendar

01:02:04.350 --> 01:02:07.873
monthly just prior to the last
open meeting of the month.

01:02:08.930 --> 01:02:10.810
We plan to continue doing that

01:02:10.810 --> 01:02:15.630
and can add additional
provisions to the calendar

01:02:15.630 --> 01:02:18.310
if you so choose for each open meeting.

01:02:18.310 --> 01:02:19.740
We're happy to do so.

01:02:19.740 --> 01:02:22.540
But just to give you a quick
preview of what's coming up

01:02:23.690 --> 01:02:27.810
on our rulemaking calendar,
today you all have approved

01:02:27.810 --> 01:02:30.840
publication of the
scarcity pricing rule.

01:02:30.840 --> 01:02:35.180
And at the next open meeting,
we will bring you a proposal

01:02:35.180 --> 01:02:39.580
for publication of the
alternative rate making

01:02:39.580 --> 01:02:41.200
for water utilities rule.

01:02:41.200 --> 01:02:46.200
The staff has been working
on for over a year now

01:02:46.420 --> 01:02:48.963
in response to some
legislation last session.

01:02:51.060 --> 01:02:54.030
In June, we plan to bring you a proposal

01:02:54.030 --> 01:02:56.880
regarding electronic
filing requirements.

01:02:56.880 --> 01:03:01.880
So during the pandemic, we
have adopted electronic filing

01:03:03.580 --> 01:03:07.540
on a temporary basis in
response to the pandemic.

01:03:07.540 --> 01:03:09.670
We found that to be an efficient use

01:03:09.670 --> 01:03:14.330
of the Commission's resources
and would recommend to you

01:03:14.330 --> 01:03:19.330
amending our rules to adjust
to that paradigm permanently.

01:03:21.200 --> 01:03:26.200
Finally, we have quite a
few rulemakings underway

01:03:26.770 --> 01:03:31.690
for which we don't have a firm day yet

01:03:31.690 --> 01:03:34.270
to bring you a proposal
but I want you to know

01:03:34.270 --> 01:03:39.270
that staff is working diligently
on these, scoping them out,

01:03:39.900 --> 01:03:44.900
having conversations with
their fellow team members

01:03:45.290 --> 01:03:49.650
and with interested parties
in our regulated community.

01:03:49.650 --> 01:03:54.240
And some of those
include a proforma tariff

01:03:54.240 --> 01:03:57.493
for water utilities revising any rules

01:04:00.200 --> 01:04:03.060
that the Commission has
related to weatherization

01:04:04.752 --> 01:04:09.270
of power generation plants,
reviewing the Commission's rules

01:04:09.270 --> 01:04:11.710
related to emergency operations plans

01:04:12.890 --> 01:04:15.990
for electric market participants,

01:04:15.990 --> 01:04:19.400
reviewing the Commission's
rules related to critical load.

01:04:19.400 --> 01:04:24.400
And that would be both
customers who rely on electricity

01:04:24.850 --> 01:04:29.850
for health needs and also
for entities in the supply chain

01:04:30.390 --> 01:04:32.343
for supplying electricity.

01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:36.580
Communications
surrounding the electric market

01:04:36.580 --> 01:04:40.363
is another task on our
list that we're working on.

01:04:41.634 --> 01:04:45.520
And finally, we are reviewing
wholesale index products

01:04:46.810 --> 01:04:50.530
like those that led to
some very problematic bills

01:04:50.530 --> 01:04:52.830
for certain customers
during the winter event.

01:04:54.650 --> 01:04:58.973
So, that's the top of our to-do list.

01:04:59.890 --> 01:05:02.670
There are several more points on there

01:05:02.670 --> 01:05:06.440
that we would absolutely
plan to be working on

01:05:06.440 --> 01:05:10.560
in the future, but those
are at the top of our priority.

01:05:10.560 --> 01:05:13.670
<v ->And then there's the
legislature, whatever comes of that.</v>

01:05:13.670 --> 01:05:15.460
So I just wanted to take this moment

01:05:15.460 --> 01:05:17.230
'cause I know others are listening,

01:05:17.230 --> 01:05:19.830
highlight all the good
work that staff is doing

01:05:19.830 --> 01:05:22.773
and the heavy lifting that
they're doing right now.

01:05:23.710 --> 01:05:25.810
'Cause just to make
sure that all parties know

01:05:25.810 --> 01:05:27.884
that we're all working together

01:05:27.884 --> 01:05:30.440
and we're hitting the ground running.

01:05:30.440 --> 01:05:32.070
So, I thought it might
be a good opportunity

01:05:32.070 --> 01:05:35.070
since we're both here
together, we can talk.

01:05:35.070 --> 01:05:40.070
<v ->Absolutely, it's an opportunity
to write a new chapter.</v>

01:05:40.300 --> 01:05:41.133
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

01:05:42.432 --> 01:05:44.232
<v ->The BC and all
of our stakeholders</v>

01:05:45.574 --> 01:05:47.300
and appreciate all the staff's work

01:05:49.410 --> 01:05:53.603
and partners at ERCOT and
our partners at the legislature.

01:05:55.410 --> 01:05:57.360
Thank you, Connie, for laying that out.

01:06:01.488 --> 01:06:04.940
There's a robust list and
we have a lot of heavy lifting

01:06:04.940 --> 01:06:08.250
in front of us, but going on,

01:06:08.250 --> 01:06:11.970
I'm sure the staff will hardly
embrace that challenge

01:06:11.970 --> 01:06:13.230
and we're eager to
write that new chapter.

01:06:13.230 --> 01:06:14.410
<v ->You bet.</v>
<v Connie>Absolutely,</v>

01:06:14.410 --> 01:06:15.860
thank you.

01:06:15.860 --> 01:06:16.693
<v ->Thank you.</v>

01:06:16.693 --> 01:06:17.600
Anything else on 31?

01:06:17.600 --> 01:06:18.750
<v ->No, sir, I'm good.</v>

01:06:18.750 --> 01:06:21.640
<v ->I don't have anything
on 32, 33 or 34.</v>

01:06:21.640 --> 01:06:23.210
<v ->Same here.</v>

01:06:23.210 --> 01:06:25.360
<v ->I don't have anything
for closed session.</v>

01:06:26.801 --> 01:06:27.634
Mr. Janae.

01:06:27.634 --> 01:06:28.467
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

01:06:28.467 --> 01:06:29.300
<v ->Closed session.</v>

01:06:30.540 --> 01:06:33.030
Having no further business,

01:06:33.030 --> 01:06:35.430
this meeting of the
public utility Commission

01:06:35.430 --> 01:06:37.717
of Texas is hereby adjourned.