-: This meeting of Public Utility Commission of Texas
will come to order to consider matters
that have been duly posted with the secretary of state
of Texas for may six, 2021.
For the record, my name is Peter Lake.
With me today is Commissioner Will Adams.
Welcome, new Commissioner.
-: I'm so glad to talk to you now.
-: Likewise. (laughing)
Likewise, it's been a big couple of weeks.
-: It has.
-: A lot of work's been done, a lot more work to be done.
I think we have...
Well, any opening comments or welcome the board?
-: Thank you, chairman.
I think it's fair to say that I am still in shock
that I am sitting at this table.
Years ago when I was a staffer out there in the audience,
I never imagined that I would be up here,
sitting in this seat, nor with the caliber of partner
and colleague like yourself.
So this is a bit of a dream.
I hope it's a good dream and not the other.
And I will do everything I can
to help you make myself a good partner.
And I'm a member of the PUC Community.
So thank you for working with me.
-: Glad to have you.
And I think it's big for both of us.
When I say we're honored to be entrusted with this mission.
-: Seconded.
-: Mr. Janae, we have a few Consent Agenda items.
-: Good morning, Commissioners, by individual ballot,
the following items were placed on your Consent Agenda,
11, 14, 28 and 29.
-: Is there a motion to approve the items
just laid up by Mr. Janae?
-: So moved.
-: I'll second.
Seeing no objection motion's adopted.
At this point, we'll take public comment.
Paul, can you please arrange for a member of the public
who would like to address the Commission?
Paul: For public comment, please press one that then zero
on your telephone keypad.
Repeating the one zero command will remove you
from the public comment queue.
Once again, for comments at this time,
press one then zero.
One moment for our first person in queue.
-: Before we get to our first person,
I trust it's okay with you if we limit comment
on all items to a four minutes.
-: Absolutely.
-: Thank you.
-: Thanks sir.
-: Go ahead, Paul.
Paul: Thank you.
Still obtaining.
Okay, there we go.
The first commenter will be Soledad Valenciano.
One moment for your line to be open.
Soledad, please go ahead.
-: Excuse me, Soledad, are you intending to make our argument
on the item 18 on the CCN case?
Soledad: Yes, I am.
-: We will do that at a later point in time.
This is just for a public comment in general.
Soledad: Yes, should I just remain on hold
or call back in?
-: You can stay on the phone, but Paul, you should take her
back out of the meeting at this time.
Paul: Very good.
When re prompted for comment, then you can press
one zero again.
We'll move to our next public comment.
Soledad: Thank you.
Paul: Which comes from the line of William Connolly.
Please go ahead.
William: Thank you very much.
And thank you Commissioners for hearing oral arguments
on this docket.
-: Is this another item that we're in?
William: My name's William Connolly.
-: Mr. Connolly, you're here to make oral argument
on the AAEP CCN case, right?
William: Yes, I apologize.
It's docket 50545 PCN from Brackettville to--
-: We are gonna do that a little bit later in the meeting.
So this is more just a general public comment session.
We'll call you back in when we get to that item.
-: We appreciate your both of your promise.
We'll do these oral arguments
at the appropriate point on the agenda.
But I do appreciate your promptness and preparedness.
William: Okay, appreciate you correct me
on that procedural piece there.
Thank you very much.
Paul: Thank you.
Then if Mr. Connolly stays connected to the call,
you can reach queue later at using one then zero.
There have been no other public comments
in the comment queue.
Please continue.
-: Thank you, Paul.
No other member of public would like to address
the Commission.
Public comment is now closed.
Starting our agenda, I don't have anything
for the first seven items, do you?
-: No, I do not.
-: In that case, we'll move to item number eight
project number 51871.
Commissioner Janae, could you please lay out this item.
-: Commissioners, before you have a proposal for publication
of a rule amendment dealing with the scarcity pricing issue?
Our rule 25.505 staff has a memo with the recommendation.
-: Thank you, sir.
I know we've been briefed on this.
Do you have any thoughts on this item?
-: Yeah, I do.
I'd like to say that scarcity pricing mechanism.
The rule in this proceeding is very important.
I consider it one of the more important ones that we have
in the near term.
We need to be able to provide certainty to the markets
when we can and approach these signals in a systematic way.
The rule as proposed by staff, I believe provides
that certainty for the market in the near term
and protections fundamentally for consumers,
especially going into the summer of '21.
I believe it helps smooth out over the long-term,
some of the distortions that were experienced
during the winter event.
In effect, just for the public in my view,
I believe we are setting a lower cAEP for this year
and cleaning up the disruptive force
of the fuel recovery factor,
the so-called 50 times FIP that had
such devastating consequences in February.
Now having said that, I don't wanna do anything
as a part of this project and rule
that would slow this down because I believe for the purposes
of signaling the markets for July, September and August.
I'm sorry, July, August, and September,
it's important to be timely on this.
Not to say that other questions regarding the scarcity
pricing mechanisms are not warranted.
They certainly are, but it's just a question to me
of process.
And I think it's fair to say that the views
of the legislature had been heard loud and clear.
And I would just say that hearing the discussion
in the Senate, we are in alignment that,
or I am in alignment that we should take
a systematic approach to this.
So that's all I'd say on it.
-: Well put, I think this addresses a very specific problem
that was acutely felt in the February event.
I think it's safe to say this is not the end
of the conversation by any means, but it provides a clear,
and this is a one step in the process.
We do need to go through the entire process,
but it provides a clear resolution to a very acute issue,
but certainly not the end of the broader conversation.
I'm certainly happy to hear a motion to approve the proposal
for publication in the Texas register
for review of...
-: So moved.
-: I'll second that.
And having no objection, the motion is adopted.
I don't have anything for nine items nine and 10.
-: Nor do I.
-: Case 11 was consented.
Item 12, docket number 50521.
Mr. Janae, could you lay that out for us.
-: Commissioners, before you as a proposal for decision
that would dismiss the application
for a pass through charge with prejudice.
-: Thank you, sir.
I think generally got it right on this one
and the PFD nails it on the double recovery issue.
-: Especially since they have a separate proceeding
that's trying to clear a lot of these issues up.
So absolutely, I'm in alignment.
-: Is there a motion to adopt the proposal for decision?
-: So moved.
-: Second.
No objection, the motion's adopted.
Item 13, docket number 51166.
Mr. Janae.
-: Commissioners, before you is an appeal of order number 10,
and order 10, the Administrative Law Judge found good cause
to grant a one day extension of the deadline
for the filing of appraisals in this case.
-: Deadlines are deadlines and they're there for a reason.
I don't know that there's been any good cause
for missing that deadline.
I realize that it has consequences, but so do rules.
-: So I've been fascinated to hear your thoughts
on this case.
I have gone back and forth on this one so many times
'cause I think the interest of owners in any event
should be taken very seriously, either property owners,
corporations, or companies.
But I will say I'm in alignment with you
and I would just say with an eye toward establishing
a precedent on these things.
If we have rules for a reason,
we have deadlines for a reason
and everybody's gotta know that,
especially, since we're starting out fresh,
we have to reaffirm that when we have the opportunity.
So now I agree, they missed the deadline
and there are consequences.
-: Agreed.
The motion to grant the Colorado river...
Is there a motion to grant the Colorado river projects
appeal to reverse the Administrative Law Judge's decision
finding good cause to grant Hort Hornsby Ben Utilities
motion for a one day extension of the deadline
to file an appraisal report.
-: So moved.
-: Second, seeing no objection, the motion is adopted.
14 was consented, I don't have anything for item 15.
-: No sir, not on my end.
-: Item 16, docket number 50383.
Mr. Janae.
-: Commissioners, before you is a petition
for declaratory order.
The city is of Hearne is seeking a declaration
that it may provide electric service
to the GATX railcar operation and the city of Hearne.
-: Thank you Mr. Janae.
It's not straightforward, but also don't really,
I don't feel that this is a proper case
for this kind of clerk declatory order.
Beltsville.
-: Same, I'm bopping my head with you.
Bottom line is man, there's so much unknowns
about the situation.
One of the things, and I have stared at the maps
and they have changed for over 40 years
since the 1970s to now.
Read staff's comments and then stared at the maps again.
And at the end of the day, I don't know
that GATX is actually officially requested service.
I mean, they sort of floated it out there an inquiry.
But when rejiggering the service territories,
that's a big deal and we've gotta weigh that heavily.
And so a declaratory judgment in my view would,
with the facts that we have on hand,
I'd be uncomfortable with that,
I am uncomfortable with that.
And in my view, petitioner's need to refile a request
so that this goes to SOA that has appropriate
discovery mechanisms, bring these facts forward
and come forward with a recommendation.
So I would advise them to do that or it should be dismissed
within 30 days.
-: I agree with your point that this is an issue
that requires much more evidence and facts
and discovery of the issues at hand
than we've got right now.
And I think there's just, we're not in the business
and we don't have the resources
for providing legal opinions.
-: Exactly.
-: Without the necessary facts.
At this point, I'd be prepared to entertain a motion
to deny the petition.
-: So moved.
-: And just for clarity to make sure that the base
of the denial is that it's not a proper case
because I haven't clearly demonstrated on these facts
that there's a dispute to be resolved here.
-: It's not right for decision.
Thank you, Mr. Janae.
-: That's right?
-: Not ripe for decision and there's not a pressing
legal matter at hand that this would resolve.
Janae: Thank you, sir.
-: Motion's been offered and seconded.
Having no objection, is adopted.
Item 17, docket number 50410.
Mr. Janae.
-: Commissioners, before you have a proposed order
that would amend the application,
the CCN of both wet non-core for an electric
transmission line.
I filed a correction memo with suggested changes
to the proposed order.
Unfortunately, my memo is not comprehensive
and I today have another recommendation,
which would be to delete conclusion of law number six
in the proposed order.
It makes a reference to a solar rule on the burden proof.
I think that conclusion of law is incorrect
because that rule only provides factors.
The ALJ has to consider it doesn't specify
which party has the burden of proof.
-: Noted, thank you, sir.
Bearing consideration of the adjustment
or the comments related to the conclusion of law
on that item.
That being considered, I think the proposed order
is something we should adopt.
-: I agree.
I'm looking at right now and I would still move
to approve the proposed order with staff corrective memo.
-: Is there a motion to approve the proposed orders?
-: So moved?
-: No objections, the motion's adopted.
-: Correct with the changes as well--
-: With the changes as noted.
Yes, sir, so adopted.
Item 18, docket number 50545.
Mr. Janae.
-: Commissioner, before you have a proposal for decision
that would recommend amending AEP Texas CCN
for an electric transmission line
and proposals using route H revised.
The Commission has granted oral argument in this case.
I had requested people to notify me of who is interested.
I have five people that responded is possible
that people will come online that did not respond to me,
but we have at least that many.
So if you're ready at this time,
Paul could you instruct the people how to come in
and make comment on this item?
Peter: Good for you for opening over for comment.
Will: Good for me.
Peter: All right, go ahead and proceed, Paul.
Paul: Once again, ladies and gentlemen,
for public comment is one then zero
on your telephone keypad.
An operator will gather your name
and return you to the queue.
So one then zero for public comment.
-: As a reminder, public comment,
oral arguments will be limited to four minutes per speaker.
Thank you.
Paul: We have several queuing up.
There'll be one woman per first public comment.
And our first person in the public comments queue.
Mike Thomsu, your line is open.
Mike: Thank you, chairman Lake and Commissioner McAdams.
Good morning.
My name is Mike Thompsu.
I'm here from Vincent and Elkins
on behalf of Eagle Pass Ranch partnership
as an intervener in the proceeding.
I'll be very brief, Eagle Pass Ranch partnership
supports the ALJs proposal for decision.
When you take into account the statutory certification
factors and the routing criteria and Commission rule
25101, including efforts to maximize existing paralleling
existing right of way and prudent avoidance
of habitable structures.
We believe the evidence in the record supports the selection
of route H revised and support the ALJs proposal
for decision.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you Mike.
Paul: Thank you.
Then next we'll go to line of Ryan Cedars or Ceders.
Please go ahead.
Ryan: Good morning Commissioner Lake and...
Chairman Lake and Commissioner McAdams.
My name is Ryan Cedars of Poloma Aye
and I am intervener in the CCN case.
We are opposed to route H and we support route A.
While I understand that most of the routing cases
involve land that are simply not wanting to be towers.
And believe me, we're not interested either.
The breaking point for us was (indistinct)
in addition to 40 powers on our property,
AEP needs seven miles of access roads through our property
to actually reach H revised.
Commissioners in 2013, my younger brother, Roy Cedars
and I fulfilled a lifelong dream to purchase a large
South Texas ranch under the name Paloma Aye.
The use of the term ayes was a nod to Yeti Coolers
the company, my brother, Roy and I founded in 2006.
This ranch is where Roy and I spend numerous days every year
with our children, family, friends, joining the outdoors.
We absolutely love the outdoors and our families do also.
With eight children between us between the ages of two
and 16 and their friends and so.
And given this love for the outdoors,
it is not unusual to see many children riding their bikes
along the ranch, exploring the area around the headquarters,
hunting arrowheads and just being kids
and having fun out there.
Roy and I put a lot of thought
into making the headquarters areas special
for our families and guests.
We built two new homes on a hillside
on the far western portion of the Poloma Ranch
far away from highway 57, which is the highway
we use to access the ranch.
Building this far west gave us a lot of privacy
and we have incredible size that you can see the west.
So of course we were not happy when we learned
that AEP wants to build a five mile transmission line
near our western boundary.
These 40 towers would hurt our sunset views.
Despite this, we tried very hard to accept H revised.
This is until AEP informed us that they could not reach
H revised without a seven mile permanent easement,
access easement from highway 57 to our ranch
to get to that route.
According to AEP, they need seven mile access road
because AEP can't get to the route H revised
by traveling parallel to the Union Pacific Railroad
due to all the floodplain in that area.
When it is wet out there, it is impassable,
it's a low area, so that's often wet.
And that area is known as Elm Creek.
For clarification, the railroad along our western boundary
is raised up out of the flood plain,
a seven mile permanent access road through the Poloma Ranch
will completely changed the character of this ranch
and would deprive us of our privacy
and would make us very nervous to have our children
out there playing around.
AEP has represented that it also plans to seek access
from at least three other landowners for over 20 miles
a perpendicular permanent access routes
simply to get to well, H revised.
Think about that, 20 miles of access roads get to H revised.
And H revised is only 44 miles long.
I believe that there were more sensible options
to the Commission, namely route A, which we fully support.
The record show that route A has the highest amount
of paralleling of existing power lines
and parallels more roads than H revised.
It said full examination of route A gives zero reasons
to say that you wouldn't have the access roads
to get to route A that are needed.
From a cost standpoint, we believe that the true cost
for H revised is too low because access to the roads
that haven't been included anywhere in the cost estimate.
How could they be AEP didn't even know of this problem
until close to trial.
By my math and using AEP's figures,
this makes the cost of two routes very close.
Aside from cost and parallel and there is a common sense
reasoning to choose route A.
When there's a heavy rain, there were places
on the Paloma Ranch leading to H revised
simply cannot be driven no matter what type of vehicle
and machinery you use.
I would assume that the most and that most power outages
occur during these weather events forcing H revised
because it was an initial choice by AEP's team.
When these assets issues understood
is not in their interest of Texas ratepayers.
The new information should make AEP pause
but instead they are doubling down.
AEP has said many times that it will build on route A
if that's what you ordered
and we ask that you order route A.
However, if you all decide to order route H revised,
I respectfully ask the Commission put in language
in its final order, prohibiting AEP from seeking
or condemning any off route access roads
across the Paloma Ranch, and that it not be allowed
to use our roads near the headquarters.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you, Ryan.
I appreciate your input and consideration on this item.
Paul, next speaker.
Paul: Thank you, that would be Carrie McGrath.
Please go ahead.
Carrie: Thank you.
Good morning, Commissioners.
I'm Carrie McGrath and I'm counsel for AEP, Texas
in this case.
Let me begin by saying that AEP Texas understands
that it's the Commission's authority and prerogative
to weigh the factors in the statute and your rules
and to select the route based on those factors.
We believe the evidence shows that all the proposed routes
and segments in this case are viable
and we will construct a line on whichever route
the Commission chooses.
However, the CCN application does require us
to recommend a route that we believe best meets
the requirements of the statute and the Commission's rules.
And we recommended H revised as did Commission staff
and the Administrative Law Judges.
The respect to the access road issue that's become
the key issue in this case.
Access roads are not generally addressed in a CCN case
and they're not generally addressed
until after a route is selected.
And there are several important reasons for that.
One of those reasons is that right of way acquisition
includes access roads if necessary.
So access roads are part of that right of way
acquisition process that's within the jurisdiction
of state courts.
A second important reason is that we need access
to the land before we can even evaluate
whether we can proceed down the right of way only
or whether we need off route access.
During this stage CCN stage, we do not have access
to the land and rely on aerial photos
and other information.
It's not possible to address construction-related issues
like access to the right of way on all the proposed routes
in this case based only on aerial photos
and publicly accessible locations.
This issue came up in this case only as part
of settlement discussions with Poloma late in the case.
And we are not aware of access road issues
having been raised in any of the hundreds
of previous CCN cases that this Commission has decided.
We do not agree with Paloma's characterization
of the cost in link of the access roads in this case
nor did the Administrative Law Judges
that that issue is covered in our replies to exceptions
and I won't be labored here.
Finally, it is not reasonable to request
that the Commission bar utilities
from having access roads to reach an easement
as Poloma and Briscoe have question in this case.
And I said, that is an issue within the jurisdiction
of state courts if we can't work it out
to the satisfaction of the land owners
and such a proposal could prevent the line construction
completely if the right of way is impassable,
but a much more likely result is it could significantly
drive up the cost of the line where we were required
to build bridges or other things along the right of way
when an off route access road would be a significantly
less costly alternative.
-: You have one minute.
Carrie: Thank you for your time today.
-: Thank you, sir.
Carrie: Thank you, I'm done.
-: Next speaker, please.
Paul: That would be Brad Bailiff.
Please go ahead.
Brad: Good morning Commissioners
and welcome to the Commission.
Thank you for granting the oral arguments in this case.
McGrath raises an uncommon and important issue.
My name is Brad Bailiff.
I represent Briscoe Ranch and El Pescado minerals
in this case.
I practiced before the Commission for over 20 years,
I've represented landowners in over 70 transmission line
cases and monitored dozens of other applications
in the past 15 years.
I've never seen a situation where utility may need
miles of off-road house access roads
to construct a transmission line.
Of course, I've never seen the Commission approval utilities
request for such unusual access across private property.
Briscoe Ranch and Mr. Briscoe, I believe will be on
and speak but they agreed to accept the transmission line
next to the railroad track on its western boundary
'cause it did not want other proposed routes
to cross the ranch and bisect it.
This Commission historically has been concerned
about landowner's rights.
You should prohibit the utility from constructing
miles of off-road access routes across private property.
You do have options.
First, the Commission always has the ability to approve,
modify, or reject a proposal for decision.
Second, you can also send the case back to SOA
for a better record on an AEP's offer route access roads,
and reconsideration of the route.
Time has passed and your direction to the utility
may cause it to better determine
if it can build the transmission line
using the easement for the project.
I'm sure Briscoe Ranch would also be willing
to grant that access at this stage of the process
so it can better make that decision.
Briscoe Ranch asked the Commission to modify
its standard language that prohibits AEP
from deviating from the approved route
to include protections for landowners from the burdensome
and an unusual offer out access roads.
We propose, and this is an exceptions language that says,
the Commission does not permit AEP, Texas
to deviate from the approved route,
including construction of one or more off route
access roads, not in or next to the projects right of way.
Why should you do this?
You can take action.
If you determine the Commission policy
or prior administrative decision on which the administrative
law judges relied as incorrect or should be changed.
First, miles of off route access roads
are an offense to the normal process
to construct transmission lines.
You should determine the miles of access roads
violate public policy.
Second, PSP statement that miles of off road access roads
to reach the transmission line easement
is not an unknown occurrence is woefully incorrect.
Even Mr. McGrath admitted that he has not seen this issue
in the hundreds of cases.
-: You have one minute remaining
Brad: Third, PFD also improperly relies on a conclusion.
There are no engineering constraints,
still utility can't construct a route
without requiring over 20 miles of access roads
in addition to the one, engineering constraints exist.
PFD also improperly dismisses environmental integrity,
cost and engineering constraints
related to the access roads.
It seems the reason you get this issue
of first impression at your first meeting
is because either no other utility has admitted
it would need miles of off-road access roads
during the PUC review and approval process
or no other utility has been brazen enough
to use the condemnation authority
this Commission gives us to require miles
of off route access roads across private property
to reach appeasement.
You should establish the public policy
does not support unwarranted intrusion on private property.
-: Thank you.
Brad: Thank you.
-: I appreciate your comments and your thoughts.
Next speaker, please.
Paul: And that is Rashmeen Asher.
Please go ahead.
Rashmeen: Good morning, chairman and Commissioner.
Rashmeen Asher for Commission staff.
And I would like you to thank you for your time
this morning.
As you are aware of the record in this proceeding
centers on two primary routes, route H revised
supported by staff and the proposal for decision
and route A.
As AEP council explained, the primary issue in this case
is access roads.
And first, I would like to begin to address the parties
through arguments on that issue.
The record in this proceeding reflects that the amount
of assets roads for each of the proposed routes is unknown.
As AEP explained, they typically do not have access
to particular properties until after route
is selected by the Commission.
And so access road and other sites specific issues
are typically determined after route
is selected by the Commission.
However, the amount of access roads that AEP would request
on Paloma Aye's property is known
due to settlement negotiations conducted by AEP
and Poloma Aye and released in discovery.
In contrast, many other landowners who may be affected
by route A or other proposed routes
may not have been able to engage
in such discussions with AEP.
Therefore it is not possible to make an accurate comparison
of the access road AEP would request
if routes H revise was chosen versus if route A was chosen.
While AEP has stated on the record
that it has not identified any properties along route A
that need access roads, this statement simply underscores
that the amount of access roads needed
for the proposed routes is unknown.
Furthermore, the proposal for the decision
correctly indicates that access roads are likely needed
for any of the chosen proposed routes.
Lastly, staff address cost estimate
for the proposed routes in relation to access roads.
Many of the parties contend that if access roads
were considers the cost difference in constructing route A
is either similar in cost or less costly
than that route H revised.
It is impossible to notice because as explained above,
the amount of access roads needed to construct route A
is unknown and at the Clinton briefing,
the uniform cost methodology apply has been accepted
in many other transmissions and adopted in the past.
Staff also notes that the preliminary order
in this proceeding is not the appropriate compensation
for right of way or combination of property
is an issue not to be addressed.
Regarding costs, staff would like to underscore
that it's support of route H revised as best meetings
of routing criteria is not the solely on (indistinct).
-: You have one minute left.
Rashmeen: Importantly, unlike the unknown amount
of access roads for each route,
it is known that route H revised impacts 50%
less habitable to structures in comparison to route A.
Overall staff believes that route H revised
best meets surviving criteria.
Thank you again and staff is available
to answer any questions.
-: Thank you very much.
Paul: Thank you.
Then we have Soledad Valencio, please go ahead.
Soledad: Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Lake and Commissioner McAdams.
My name is Soledad Valenciano
and I'm here on behalf of intervener, Poloma Aye.
As you know, we oppose route H revised
and we support route A.
There's also an additional route that will be discussed
today by Mr. Connolly, who I believe is on hold.
Route A revised.
We would not oppose route A revised
and believe it could be a consensus route.
However, AEP and PUC staff has not shown very much interest
in a consensus route.
You have heard today from Ryan Cedars, who's an intervener
and one of the principles of Poloma Aye.
He and his neighbor Chip Risco are severely impacted
by route H revised, a route that runs
along the Union Pacific Railroad.
Commissioners, this is a unique case
that has the opportunity to clarify for CCN applicants
that while the Texas Public Utility Commission
understands that applicants do not have perfect information
about a study area when they submit their CCN applications,
this initial lacking at the start will not justify
a rigidity later when not just new
but material information is learned.
After all, it is an enormous burden on the public
to participate in these proceedings,
to bear the sheer weight of the project on their properties
in perpetuity and to ultimately pay for the project
as Texas ratepayers.
The Commission's routing decision in this case
will inform whether utility is expected to note something
as basic as whether or not he can access the proposed route
with or without significant off route access roads.
To be clear, this is not a case about minor
or common access issues, this is very different.
Here AEP identified a railroad route
running north to south in a steady area
and determined that a route paralleling this railroad
is the best meets routes.
That's route H revived.
Commissioners, perhaps the fixation on the railroad
took root.
I called a railroad, a shiny object,
something AEP immediately considered a compatible
right of way.
The operative word being compatible.
We believe this case offers an opportunity to clarify
what the word compatible means in PUC rule 25101 C3B.
The principles of statutory construction
tell us that the word compatible means something.
We believe its meaning includes that's a right of way
being parallel must also be reasonably accessible.
So port had the Union Pacific Railroad
bent reasonably accessible to parallel,
then AEP's excitement would likely have been justified.
But here before it files a CCN application,
AEP failed to consider much less study
how it would actually get H revised,
which runs along the road in the study area.
Given the fact that number one, the railroad is in relevant
places, located on a race track
given the significant adjacent flood plains
associated with Elm Creek,
and two, in ways that are very relevant here,
miles away from any public roads.
-: You have one minute left.
Soledad: Commissioners, unlike what Ms. Asher says,
the record is very clear about the need
for these access roads.
Paloma Aye's exhibits 50 and 51 makes that clear.
It's undisputed that ATD 20 miles of off route access roads,
seven of those 20 plus miles will be
on Paloma Aye's property, a property already targeted
for five miles of transmission line easement and 40 towers.
Seven miles of access roads to get to a five miles segment
is not reasonable.
The true price tag for the 20 plus miles access roads
needed from Poloma Aye, Briscoe and others
to actually get to H revise has been a moving target
in these proceedings.
But if all credit is given to AEP's most favorable
interpretation of this confidential data,
the numbers simply don't make any sense.
The extent of these access roads were not known
at the time of the initial filing, that's clear.
And the other adjustments made to the estimated cost
whispering amendment unrelated in these access issues.
Mr. McGrath confirmed that.
And if we use this confidential seven figure number
as a baseline for how much these access roads
are going to cost and cost is not a legitimate basis,
just like H revised or to refit redirect route A.
It's quite the opposite.
So costs and paralleling are the key routing issues here.
And in terms of habitable structures,
I have to comment on that.
The difference is eight.
Most of these are already impacted by AEP's existing
transmission lines or they are on properties
that will not be impacted.
And let me add that there's no evidence that route A
has a hint, not even a hint of off route access
used much less significant ones.
This is because route A significantly parallel
and or cross is two important rights of way,
AEP's existing transmission line and public roads.
It is an excellent choice.
-: Thank you very much.
Paul: Thank you, then next we do move
to William Connolly, please go ahead.
William: Thank you Commissioners
for hearing oral arguments on this docket.
My name is William Connolly and I'm the owner
of Davis County Ranch LLC, which is an intervener
in this case.
Of the three primary routes discussed in this case,
we are supportive of both routes H rev and A rev.
We are strongly opposed to route A.
I think the reasoning supporting route H rev
was very articulately and logically laid out by the ALJs
and their proposal for decision and we're supportive of it.
I think the main message I'd like to get across today
is that while there are uncertainties surrounding
any one of these routes selected, moving the route
from the preferred and recommended route H rev
to route A would simply represent the shifting
of the burden, that line from one set of landowners
to another.
Route H rev converses across the boundary of Paloma Ranch
and Briscoe Ranch, both oppose route H rev
without access road protections.
But shifting the transmission line to route A
would cause a transmission line to run straight
through the center of our family members ranch,
Kerr Ranch LTD for several miles.
So rather than running along the edge of Paloma or Briscoe,
the power line would be running through several miles
through the center of Kerr Ranch LTD.
With regard to costs of the easement,
whether it be right away or the easement
for the line itself, both Davis County Ranch LLC
and Kerr Ranch LTD contained all five pipelines
required to be crossed by this power line.
These pipelines have created a pipeline corridor
that exponentially increases the easement costs
for any easement that may obstruct this corridor,
such as transmission line towers.
Davis County Ranch LLC does not have any intention
of charging pipeline corridor prices
for the transmission line easement if it crosses
on the Davis County Ranch via route A rev or H rev.
While Kerr Ranch LTD will intend to do so
due to their opposition to route A
and their right to do that.
In addition, Davis County Ranch LLC
welcomes the transmission line on its property
in order to have connectivity to it.
Both routes H rev and A rev traverse
along Davis County Ranch LLC.
All that being said, I have remarked that this case
has been a little unusual in the willingness
of opposing interveners to work hard to work together
on a settlement.
Route A rev, I believe represents that settlement.
No party in the hearings, opposed route A rev,
including Davis County Ranch LLC, Poloma, Briscoe, or AEP.
I'll note AEP did not take a position on route A rev.
I don't believe PUC staff took a position
on route A rev, but they do support route H rev.
So we might infer that they do not support route A rev
at this time.
I think the PUC staff did a great job in their analysis--
-: You have one minute left.
William: And it was appropriate that they came
to the conclusion that route H rev best satisfies
the guidelines they're tasked with meeting.
However, PUC staff's primary role
is their technical ability
and incorporating the value of landowner consensus
is largely beyond the scope
of PUC staff's analytical responsibilities,
valuing landowner consensus in a project
is more of a political analysis that likely falls
more into the arena of the Commissioners themselves.
While we continue to support route H rev wholeheartedly
and believe the technical analysis
strongly supports route H rev,
we also recognize that there's a benefit and a value
to consensus amongst interested parties
in a transmission project like this.
If there's a way to that County Ranch LLC, Poloma
and Briscoe in addition to all other landowner interveners
and the AEP all agree, we see a lot of value in that.
And if we can prevent harm to the ranch in Poloma
and Briscoe while not harming our family,
we're very supportive of that.
And would ask that the Commissioners consider the value
of this consensus and potentially supporting route A rev.
-: Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
William: One last.
-: Yes, sir.
William: If I may make one last note here.
Sorry, my microphone went out.
One last note is we'd also like to request
that if H rev is adopted that a small modification be made
to allow for H rev to run along,
actually on the Davis County Ranch side of the highway
as opposed to the opposite side of the highway,
which is currently slated for.
Very minor modification that's unopposed,
but wanted to bring that up.
-: Thank you very much, appreciate your comments.
Next speaker, please.
Paul: Thank you.
The last currently in the comment queue, Brad Bailiff.
-: We've already had Mr. Bailiff in.
Brad: Yes, but Mr. Briscoe is trying to get in
and I've talked to him three times.
Is he not in the queue?
Paul: He is not currently in the queue.
If Mr. Briscoe is on a separate phone,
please press one then zero to identify yourself.
And we did get a couple of people identifying.
So while we release Brad Bailiff,
we'll check if Mr. Briscoe is on.
One moment, please.
-: Thank you, Paul.
All right, we actually have Brandon Young.
Please go ahead.
Brandon: Thank you Chairman Lake and Commissioner McAdams
for accepting the positions and being prepared
to tackle the enormous problems in front of you
as it relates to the electric market in Texas.
My name is Brandon Young and I am the CEO
of Payless Power, a retail electric provider.
I and many other rep operators are deeply concerned
with a matter that was not taken up today,
which is that AEP have not been able to disconnect customers
who own very large--
-: I think we're only taking oral arguments
on this item, Brandon.
Brandon: I'm sorry.
-: We're only taking the oral arguments on item 18
at this time.
There are... <v Brandon>Oh, I'm sorry.
-: Other opportunities for public comment.
And we'd welcome your thoughts at that time.
Paul: That is the end of this session.
When next they call on that, Mr. Young,
we do have a Chip Briscoe, please go ahead.
Chip: Okay, thank you.
Good morning, my name is Chip Briscoe.
Thank you for your service to the great state of Texas.
And I appreciate your listening to my comments.
Our family's owned our ranch
in the middle of this study area since 1997.
And before that, we've leased it for about 30 years.
We have three properties that this project may affect.
I am focusing my comments and my concerns
about the access road.
I joined with our neighbors, Cedar brothers to ask you
to tell AEP Texas to build a transmission line
use in the projects easement and not build an access road
across our ranch.
Briscoe Ranch was and is willing to accept
the transmission line on our western boundary
next to the railroad track.
But AEP Texas claims it may not feel the transmission line
using its easement next to the tracks,
and may need an access road across our ranch
for eight miles or more to reach the highway to the east.
Although we were willing to accept the line
on a western boundary, I emphasized, we do not want route
that bisect and cross our properties.
That's what the access road will do.
We've had a lot of experience in the past
with the oil and gas pipelines and transmission lines
on our ranches and I've never seen or utility
or oil and gas company or pipeline company
require miles separate access roads
in order to reach their easement.
In my experience, they've always used the easement
where the lines are located.
We've had a lot of problems with easements
or any type of road just running through the middle
of our ranch, obviously it would be a burden
on our ranch, affect our use and enjoyment of the property
and also would devalue our property.
The workers on the (indistinct) line may drive too fast
at road crossing our ranch.
They will affect the hunting on the ranch
that also ended up running over deer, cattle, et cetera,
not own up to their actions.
And then we'll be out at animals
without being compensated for them.
And all the time someone leaves a gate opened,
which can allow strangers to enter our property
or cattle to get out on the highway,
which is a major liability for us.
As you can see, there are many negatives and positives
with AEP's access road.
I think the access road is unnecessary
and you should require them to use the transmission line
easement instead of building access road
across our ranch for over eight miles.
I do not understand why AEP thinks it will not be able
to use its easement next to the railroad tracks
that has been there for decades.
There's a two track road there that goes
right next to the railroad tracks from Spofford
near our Northern properly through Briscoe Ranch
then to Eagle Pass.
I've driven that road myself several times over the years.
Currently, and for the last 10 months or so,
the railroad has been doing extensive repairs
to the bridges and other improvements on the railroad track.
And they have been accessing the track
and the through there right of wway at Spofford.
Large machinery of all types, 18 wheelers hauling
all types of different materials and supplies
have all been accessing the railroad
through Spofford and using that easement
to get to whatever projects they're working on.
And they've had no problems using that route.
If AEP thinks they needed another easement
in addition or another access road,
in addition to the easement, they will have on the line,
they should talk to the railroad company
and just use that because it would be right next
to where they're talking about the building the power line.
It may be unusual to ask you to prevent
the off route access road.
AEP will not say it does not require.
It appears to be necessary though, to prevent construction
of an access road across our ranch for AEP
to reach the miles of transmission line easement
on our western boundary.
-: You have one minute, sir.
Chip: Please tell AEP enough to build project
using an access road across our ranch.
Thank you very much for your time.
-: Thank you Mr. Briscoe.
Next speaker, please.
Paul: There is no one else in the comment queue.
-: Thank you, Paul and thank you for all of our participants
in the oral arguments today.
There's some very relevant points brought up.
I think I'd be willing to take some time to consider those
and table this until our next open meeting.
-: I think that's the only right, like some chance to digest,
talk with staff and just readdress at the next meeting.
-: Fair enough.
We'll table this item until the next open meeting.
And thank you again for participants.
We'll move on to item 19, docket number 50669.
Mr. Janae.
-: Commissioners, before you in item 19
is a proposal for decision that would amend the CCN
of SWEPCO for electric transmission line,
the PFD proposed is using route two.
The Commission heard oral argument on this matter
at the April 7th open meeting.
I've filed a memo in this matter.
Similarly to what I discussed earlier,
this memo has a problem with that same conclusion of law.
The memo proposes adding it to the order,
but we should not add it to the order.
So I was basically, I wish we had caught this
and taken that out of the memo before we would had filed it
for you.
-: But that's the sub substance of the corrective memo.
-: Yes, sir.
-: Okay, not okay.
-: Is that one narrow conclusion of law?
-: Just that one, yes, sir.
-: Yeah, okay.
Your time's up (indistinct).
-: Yes, sir, I'll leave now.
-: Before we even dive into the discussion on this,
I wanna recognize that while we are both new here,
well, I wanna make sure to note that I've reviewed
the oral arguments that were presented
in the last open meeting, and I'm sure you have as well.
-: I did.
-: I think the ALJ got this one right.
Thought?
-: I do too.
Without getting into the details of the oral arguments,
but I went back and reviewed, watched, listened,
watched it originally.
Yeah, I think they got it right.
-: Agreed, the motion to adopt the PFD with the changes
that Mr. Janae mentioned earlier related to the...
Janae: The memo and the change of the memo.
-: The corrective memo.
-: Yes, sir.
-: So moved.
-: I'll second.
Hearing no objection, motion is adopted.
Moving on to item 20 docket number 51023.
Mr. Janae.
-: Commissioners, the matter before you is an appeal
of SOA order number 10 in which the SOA judge
declined to issue an order
certifying issues to the Commission.
-: Thank you.
The occasions to certify issues like that
I think is for exceptional circumstances.
And this is not, I didn't feel like one of those.
Thoughts?
-: My thoughts as well.
The case is in hearing art SOA now.
They can make these arguments to the ALJ.
Certified processes there for the judge to use.
And then the action that we could take here,
my feeling would circumvent that.
And so now I think we're in alignment.
-: Yeah.
Started the judge, motion to deny the appeal.
-: So moved.
-: No objection, motion's adopted.
Item 20 docket number 51547.
Mr. Janae.
-: Item 21 sir.
Peter: Sorry, 21.
-: This before the Commission is an application
of Texas, New Mexico power and the avid grad folks.
I'm not gonna name them all out as for the merger
to take over 10 MP PNM resources.
The parties reached an agreement in this case,
filed that with the Commission,
the agreement contains a number of regulatory commitments.
I have traded a memorandum with the parties
the last couple of days, seeking clarification
on several of the regulatory commitments.
The parties agreed to suggest the changes I made
on five of the commitments in the first memo
one 1O, 1P, 5B, 7A and 7B4.
They disagreed with the change we had in 1K,
they want to keep the timeline in that commitment
tied to the closing of the transaction.
We had suggested moving it to the signing of the order.
And then we had another round seeking clarification
on a commitment 7B7, which relates to the authority
of the disinterested directors.
The parties jointly made a file in which they explained
in that filing what their intent was
in this provision related to the obligations
of the disinterested directors.
I think I would just recommend to the Commissioners
that we make a reference to this memo in our order
so that we provide clarity in our order
as to what that commitment means
as provided to us by the parties.
-: Yeah, that was my thinking as well.
The more we memorialize on these commitments,
the stronger our hand is moving forward.
-: Agreed.
I think it's important to note that the robustness
of the process that we've been through to get to this point
by all parties and certainly agree with your notion
or your concept of the more...
-: Memorializing.
-: More concrete moralization we can have,
the better for all involved.
Is there a motion to approve the application as modified?
-: So moved.
-: Second, no objection, motion's adopted.
-: We will draft an order for your signature
as quickly as we can so we can get this out.
I just know we have a statutory deadline
coming up in two weeks.
I think we will meet it easily now that we've acted here.
-: Thank you.
Item 22, docket number 51802.
Mr. Janae.
-: Commissioners, before you as a draft preliminary order
in a rate case filed by SPS.
I would just note that yesterday we filed an order
seeking briefing on one of the issues in this case
and that is there a resiliency service tariff?
The draft preliminary order we have filed in this case
has no issues addressing that.
Our thought was after briefing, if need be we would issue
a supplemental preliminary on that issue.
-: Noted, I think that's an important distinction
between the briefing order and the preliminary order.
I'm okay with the preliminary order,
but the briefing order is an issue
that is a bigger conversation, I think.
-: That's right.
-: And it needs to be addressed in a broader context
than just this particular item.
-: Well, that's right, it'll cover instances.
Well, ultimately it raises questions
that need to be addressed in sort of a policymaking
project, policy clarifying project on the--
-: Possibility, I mean, that's one of the things
we've asked them to brief us on so y'all are fully formed
to make that decision.
-: I think we're moving into that mode
on the part of the Commission.
So yeah, I agree with that position.
-: I'm sure there are other stakeholders.
-: That should come in.
-: That need to be involved in that conversation.
-: That's right.
-: We need a motion to approve the draft
preliminary order, sir.
-: Looking forward to see the feedback
from the briefing order.
Motion to approve the draft preliminary order.
-: So moved.
-: Second.
No objection, the motion is adopted.
I don't have anything on items 23, through 27.
-: Same for me.
-: That'll get us to 28 and 29 were consented.
I don't have anything for 30 or 32.
-: Same.
-: Oh, I'm sorry, yeah, that's correct.
-: Yep.
-: Just skip over 31.
-: Anything on 31
-: 31, okay.
So in the interest of clarity for stakeholders,
market participants, everybody listening to this broadcast,
I'd like to ask Connie to walk us through an overview
of our rulemaking calendar that we're looking at right now.
-: Glad to do that Commissioners.
Thank you, good morning.
So typically staff has filed a rulemaking calendar
monthly just prior to the last open meeting of the month.
We plan to continue doing that
and can add additional provisions to the calendar
if you so choose for each open meeting.
We're happy to do so.
But just to give you a quick preview of what's coming up
on our rulemaking calendar, today you all have approved
publication of the scarcity pricing rule.
And at the next open meeting, we will bring you a proposal
for publication of the alternative rate making
for water utilities rule.
The staff has been working on for over a year now
in response to some legislation last session.
In June, we plan to bring you a proposal
regarding electronic filing requirements.
So during the pandemic, we have adopted electronic filing
on a temporary basis in response to the pandemic.
We found that to be an efficient use
of the Commission's resources and would recommend to you
amending our rules to adjust to that paradigm permanently.
Finally, we have quite a few rulemakings underway
for which we don't have a firm day yet
to bring you a proposal but I want you to know
that staff is working diligently on these, scoping them out,
having conversations with their fellow team members
and with interested parties in our regulated community.
And some of those include a proforma tariff
for water utilities revising any rules
that the Commission has related to weatherization
of power generation plants, reviewing the Commission's rules
related to emergency operations plans
for electric market participants,
reviewing the Commission's rules related to critical load.
And that would be both customers who rely on electricity
for health needs and also for entities in the supply chain
for supplying electricity.
Communications surrounding the electric market
is another task on our list that we're working on.
And finally, we are reviewing wholesale index products
like those that led to some very problematic bills
for certain customers during the winter event.
So, that's the top of our to-do list.
There are several more points on there
that we would absolutely plan to be working on
in the future, but those are at the top of our priority.
-: And then there's the legislature, whatever comes of that.
So I just wanted to take this moment
'cause I know others are listening,
highlight all the good work that staff is doing
and the heavy lifting that they're doing right now.
'Cause just to make sure that all parties know
that we're all working together
and we're hitting the ground running.
So, I thought it might be a good opportunity
since we're both here together, we can talk.
-: Absolutely, it's an opportunity to write a new chapter.
-: Yes, sir.
-: The BC and all of our stakeholders
and appreciate all the staff's work
and partners at ERCOT and our partners at the legislature.
Thank you, Connie, for laying that out.
There's a robust list and we have a lot of heavy lifting
in front of us, but going on,
I'm sure the staff will hardly embrace that challenge
and we're eager to write that new chapter.
-: You bet. Connie: Absolutely,
thank you.
-: Thank you.
Anything else on 31?
-: No, sir, I'm good.
-: I don't have anything on 32, 33 or 34.
-: Same here.
-: I don't have anything for closed session.
Mr. Janae.
-: Yes, sir.
-: Closed session.
Having no further business,
this meeting of the public utility Commission
of Texas is hereby adjourned.