(gavel hammers)
-: This meeting of the Public Utility Commission
of Texas will come to order to consider matters
that have been duly posted with the Secretary of State
of Texas from May 21, 2021.
For the record, my name is Peter Lake,
and with me today is Will McAdams.
To start off, we've got a few items for consent.
Mister Jennae, could you walk us through those please?
-: Good morning Commissioners.
By individual ballot, the following items replaced
on your Consent Agenda, 21, 24, 33, 36 and 39.
-: Is there a motion to approve the items
just described by Mister Jennae?
-: So moved.
-: Second, all those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Motion passes.
At this time I'd like to open it up for public comment.
All comments related to a specific agenda item
will be heard when that item is taken up.
This is for general comments to be made to the Commission.
Speakers will be limited to four minutes each.
Can the operator come on and provide instructions
to the public on how they can speak once they're recognized?
Operator: Yes, ladies and gentlemen,
if you wish to make a comment please press one
then zero on your touch-tone phone.
You may remove yourself from the queue at any time
by repeating the one-zero command.
Once again, if you have a comment,
please press one-zero at this time.
One moment please while I gather the name
for the first comment.
(papers shuffling)
Our first comment will come from the line of Brandon Young.
Please go ahead.
Brandon Young: Thank you Chairman Lake
and Commissioner McAdams for hearing me today.
Again, my name is Brandon Young
and I am the CEO of Payless Power.
Texas retail electrical providers, or REPs,
need your help to survive, and continue to provide
a vibrant, competitive marketplace for Texas consumers.
The Commission must immediately act and rescind
the moratorium on disconnection for non-payment
that's been in effect since February 12th of this year.
Or we at least ask that you provide guidance
as to when we can expect a return to normal rules
for the market.
The Commission has never before allowed a moratorium
on disconnection to last this long.
The public emergency ended weeks ago, and yet,
the right to Payless Power and all of the REPs
continue to prejudiced which is in violation
of the rule that allows a suspension in the first place.
We ask that the Commission act now.
We're now being required to purchase power
to serve customers who do not pay their electric bills.
The competitive industries cannot last long
if this situation continues.
Like any business, we must have the ability
to enforce balances owed.
We ask that you please rule today on this matter.
-: Thank you, Mister Young.
Operator: There's no additional comments at this time.
-: With no further comments, public comment is closed.
Moving onto the rest of our agenda.
I don't have anything for one through 10, do you?
-: Same here.
I am open on one through 10.
-: All right, we'll start with item 11.
Mister Jennae.
-: Commissioners, before you is a proposed order
that would allow TUSF support
to remain in the McDade exchange.
I have a memo with proposed corrections.
-: Thank you, sir.
The biggest item for me on this is visibility.
On the economics between the entities and the competitors.
So, I think these orders are okay going forward.
The more visibility the Commission can get,
I think, the better.
-: Yeah, I agree.
I'd agree with that.
Especially the more complex, those models become,
and the applications.
I agree, the more information we can get, the better,
so I'm in alignment with you.
Do you have a motion?
-: Yeah, motion to approve.
-: The motion approved with corrective memo.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
Aye.
-: Aye.
-: Motion passes.
Next item please.
-: We have a proposed order again to allow TUSF support
to remain in the Page exchange.
I have a memo with proposed corrections.
-: Same general thoughts here.
-: Same.
-: Motion to approve to adopt the proposed order.
-: So moved.
-: With corrections.
-: With corrections, excuse me.
I'll second that motion with corrections.
All in favor.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please, Mister Jennae.
-: Again a proposed order that would allow TUSF support
to remain in the telephone exchange.
I have a memo with proposed corrections.
-: Same thoughts, visibility on economics in the competitors.
-: Move to approve with corrective memo.
-: Second.
All in favor, aye.
-: Aye.
-: Motion passes.
Thank you.
Next item please.
-: Item 14, we have a proposed order that would allow
TUSF support to remain in the Wallace exchange,
and I have a correction memo.
-: This is a bigger exchange but still has the visibility.
-: Same thing.
-: Is there a motion to adopt the proposed order
as modified by Mister Jennae's memo?
-: So moved.
-: Second, all in favor, aye.
-: Aye.
-: Motion passes.
Do we have anything on the next item?
-: Not for me on 15.
-: 15, all right.
Move onto 16, Mister Jennae?
-: 16 is docket file 284, a complaint of Jamie Sloss
against AEP Texas.
You have before you a proposal for a decision
in which ALJ recommends that you deny the complaint.
Exceptions and replies were filed.
ALJ's recommended no changes to the proposal.
I have a memo with proposed corrections,
and you have granted (indistinct) in this case.
-: Any thoughts or comments?
Or do you wanna start with the oral argument?
-: I think we start with the oral argument.
-: Sounds good.
Operator could you bring up the, do we have the?
Male: William, we have people that need
to talk on this item 16.
Could you tell them how to get in please?
Operator: (indistinct) as a co-host.
Who are we looking for?
Male: They're gonna be in the public sector.
They need to hit the one-zero to come in.
Jamie Sloss is one we expect,
and someone from AEP I would guess.
Operator: If you need to speak,
please press one then zero at this time.
(phone pinging)
-: Four minutes, sir?
-: Please.
Operator: One moment please, we're gathering the names.
The first name on the list, please go ahead.
Melissa Gage: Good morning,
Chairman Lake and Commissioner McAdams.
This is Melissa Gage, in-house counsel
for American Electric Power.
I think we're actually expecting that Mister Sloss
would speak first.
-: That's fine, if Mister Sloss is available.
-: William, do we have a Mister Sloss that's come in?
Operator: We're still gathering names
from the (indistinct).
-: Thank you.
Jamie Sloss, please go ahead.
Jamie Sloss: Hello.
-: Good morning, Mister Sloss.
Jamie Sloss: Good morning.
So, I'm here on behalf of myself on docket number 50284.
I did request oral argument, and I also this morning
filed a motion for mistrial, as well as a motion
for a rehearing and objection to the changes
on item number 88 on the proposal for a decision
that was just filed yesterday.
I don't know if there'll be a ruling on that today,
or how that works.
-: Sir, today right now is your time to do oral argument.
Jamie Sloss: Okay, so the fist thing
you do is oral argument, okay.
So, well then, I guess to start my four minutes,
and I don't think I'll take all four minutes.
-: No problem, we'll start that now.
Jamie Sloss: Okay, so, in my docket file 284,
I submitted my original complaint, my direct testimony,
my amended direct testimony, my rebuttal testimony,
as well as closing arguments regarding the case
in which I outlined the details of what occurred
on September 16, however, none of that was taken
into context for the proposal for decision.
The only thing that they took into consideration
was the affidavit of the service technician
who did not present himself for cross-examination
during the hearing on the merit, neither did the second
service technician, and Mister Scrationer,
when I would question him about the events
that occurred that day, did not have an answer
because he was not at the site and when I asked him
if he spoke to the service technicians,
he stated that he did not speak to the service technicians.
He spoke to a third, unidentified party
that spoke to the service technicians.
So, I really don't understand how that evidence
outweighs myself who was at the residence
on the day of the incident, who witnessed everything
occurring, and who also has been questioning
the outlines of the events that Maurice Perell
has been saying throughout the proceedings.
So, I was completely ignored
by the Administrative Law Judge.
Nobody thought to question the service technicians.
I presented myself.
I was there for questioning.
Nobody asked me questions about the events
that occurred that day.
The only thing that AEP questioned me on was about seeking
monetary damages, which I thought was absurd,
but that's the only thing that they questioned me on.
So, I have no idea how their evidence outweighs my evidence,
and I have told my story repeatedly on this docket
and I have been ignored.
I've been ignored by the PUC, I've been ignored by the ALJ,
and I've been ignored first by AEP.
If nobody's held accountable, if the (indistinct)
not held accountable, there's evidence of what happened.
This electric wire broke in 2016.
-: You have one minute, sir.
Jamie Sloss: I complained about it in 2017,
and in 2018, as you can see by information evidence
submitted, that feeder was one of the worst in the,
one of the worst performing feeders.
A feeder that broke a neutral wire in 2016
that I complained about in 2017, was one of the worst
performing feeders in 2018.
When there's nobody held accountable, that's what happens.
So, when I questioned AEP, add to hearing on their merit,
when did they perform work on that particular feeder line,
they did not have an answer.
They did not know when they performed it before,
and they didn't know when they performed
the maintenance, or vegetation maintenance,
on that afterwards.
So, how are we as customers supposed to feel safe
when there's nobody held accountable
and they don't even have a record of what's being done
to their lines?
And on top of that, I'm gonna close with this,
their vegetation management plan, if you've looked at it,
makes absolutely no sense.
There is no way you do a four-year cycle
like they've got in their vegetation management plan,
covering, like Mister (indistinct) testified,
about 37,000 miles.
There's no way they can do it 'cause they only cover
about 1,000 miles per year.
So, there's no way their vegetation management plan
makes any sense.
To have a four-year cycle covering 1,000 miles,
when they're responsible for 37,000 miles.
So, if they're not held accountable,
this is gonna continue to happen.
-: Thank you, Mister Sloss.
Jamie Sloss: I rest my case.
-: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please.
Operator: Would you like Daniel or Melissa?
-: Melissa's fine.
Operator: On the line.
Melissa, your line of phone open?
Melissa Gage: Yes.
Good morning Chairman Lake and Commissioner McAdams.
Again, my name is Melissa Gage.
I'm in-house counsel for American Electric Power
here today on behalf of AEP Texas.
We'll just speak briefly because we trust
that you've read the lengthy records that Mister Sloss
referenced in this case.
We went through the standard process
where we filed testimony.
We had a full day hearing on the merits.
We have briefed this case at length,
and the ALJ weighed all of the evidence of this case
in a very lengthy PFD and ultimately did conclude
that AEP Texas did not violate per any of the Commission
rules or our tariff, as Mister Sloss has alleged.
AEP Texas, in the course of this event,
did go out to the premises five times over the course
of 12 days, ultimately determining that any issue
that could have existed was on Mister Sloss's
side of the meter.
And although Mister Sloss has continued to allege
that the failure was on AEP Texas equipment,
there's no evidence in the record that indicates that.
And so, we would just ask that you deny the complaint
consistent with the PFD proposed by the ALJ.
-: Thank you, Melissa.
Next speaker.
Operator: Daniel Marr, go ahead.
Daniel Marr: Good morning Chairman Lake
and Commissioner McAdams.
Daniel Marr on behalf of Commission staff.
I'm going to keep my comments brief.
Staff continues to advocate for the position
outlined in the proposal for decision.
The evidence failed to show that AEP violated any statutes,
Commission rule, or tariff obligation.
And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
-: Thank you, Daniel.
Any other participants for oral arguments?
Operator: There's a line of Jamie Sloss.
Please go ahead.
Jamie Sloss: Hello, Commissioner McAdams.
Do I get to rebut, or will you be asking questions?
Like, I forgot to ask that.
-: All arguments is just limited to four minutes per speaker
to present to the Commission.
Jamie Sloss: Correct, but I think
you also have the ability to ask questions.
I just don't know if you're gonna be exercising that right.
-: Commissioner McAdams, any questions?
-: Mister Sloss, one question.
Has your service been restored?
Or are you still experiencing the problem
that you reported to AEP?
Jamie Sloss: No, from September 16th forward,
I have not experienced any issues.
And that is, again, I went through by, you know,
I mean, I said everything I need to say under record.
I don't want to go again
but because I know they're going to object.
So, from September 16th forwards, no,
I have not had any issues at the residence.
-: And one final question.
What do you want from this Commission?
Jamie Sloss: I want AEP to be held accountable
because, in all honesty, the reason I've gone this far
is because I do not feel safe knowing
everything that I know now,
especially their vegetation management plan.
If you can answer me how it makes sense
for them to have a four year plan which they wanted
to make a three year plan to cover 37,000 miles
by maintenancing just 1,000 miles.
If that makes sense to you,
then I would like that to be explained to me
because you're the governing body
that regulates this electric utility.
So, if this makes sense to you and you can explain it to me,
then I wanna feel safe, and I want my children to be safe,
because when I got electrocuted,
the electricians I spoke to, and I know it's true,
I could have died that day 'cause I was in the shower
when I got electrocuted.
They've admitted already that the (indistinct) was broken.
They, under, in the evidence, on September the 16th,
if you read the hearing on the merits,
Mister Grayson himself testified, the last thing
the technicians do is they get in their truck,
they write up the report and they submit it.
The last thing that technician did on September the 16th
was made a report that stated the cause was AEP equipment.
Now, that was the last thing he did on September the 16th,
2016, the day he was out there.
Now, when he's getting questioned about it,
or when AEP's getting questioned about it,
they come up with a rogue story
that makes absolutely no sense except as a cover up.
But, if you can explain to me how that vegetation management
plan makes sense, at this meeting,
if you can do that right now,
that's what I really wanna know.
Is how is that gonna keep my son safe in the future
so this doesn't happen again?
Covering 1,000 miles per year out of 37,000 miles.
Please explain to me how that makes sense
in a four year cycle.
-: I appreciate that, and I appreciate you telling us
what you want from us.
I think we're gonna be working on that.
There's other dockets that relate to reliability matters
in all service territories, and so all I can tell you now
is that I think this Commission's gonna be working on that.
Working on reliability for your areas and the rest of Texas.
So, stay tuned and we're working on it.
Jamie Sloss: Well, unfortunately, and I'm not trying
to be rude, but that, one, doesn't answer my question.
And two, you are asking me for evidence
of this electric utility violating the tariff,
the evidence is right in front of you.
The gentleman, the technician, submitted the trouble ticket.
I didn't write that trouble ticket,
the technician that was there wrote the trouble ticket.
And two, the same feeder that I complained
about in 2016, excuse me, 2017, went on to become
one of the worst feeders in 2018.
A feeder that electrocuted me in 2016
that to your standards did not violate any tariff,
Mister Grayson from AEP admitted that the 120-volts
was unsafe, but they did not violate any tariff.
Their technician wrote in his trouble ticket
the cause was AEP equipment on September the 16th,
12 days after the call initially on September the 4th,
they did not violate any tariff.
For 12 days there was electric shocks in my restroom.
And you want me to feel safe?
-: Mister Sloss, Mister Sloss, this isn't a venue
for oral arguments between the Commission and you.
I'd ask that you've been asked a question,
you've answered it.
I'd ask that you let us deliberate this now,
listen to this, listen to what we're gonna say.
That's all I have for you.
Thank you for answering the question.
-: Thank you, Mister Sloss.
Thoughts?
-: Look, Mister Sloss identified a lot of the points
in the evidence.
There is a lot of facts in the evidence.
There's a extremely detailed timeline.
I hear what he's saying about it, but what's reported
to AEP, look, the timeline is replete
with them coming out there,
and that's why I wanted to make sure is it fixed?
And it sounds like it's fixed.
So, from what our job is, to ensure reliability.
Now again, system-wide reliability, we have bigger dockets
which we're gonna take up later and continue working on,
we're gonna try to improve that for Mister Sloss's area.
But on this one, in my view,
it looks like they did their job.
So, that was just, sort of, my reading of the facts.
-: I think that's right,
and it's been a very thorough process.
-: Looks like it.
-: From start to finish.
I also agree those issues can be addressed
on other items today.
I know you've got something on that.
-: I've filed a memo.
-: So, I'd be happy to entertain a motion to adopt
the proposal for a decision as modified by Mister Jennae.
-: So moved.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: Item 17 is docket 50545, the application to AEP Texas
to amend its CCN for an electric transmission line.
The proposal for a decision in this case
would grant the amendment and recommends
using the route the H revised.
Replies and exceptions were filed.
ALJ corrected an error in three findings of the fact.
-: Thank you.
I know we've taken this up before and considered it.
At the end of the day, I think the ALJ got it right
with (indistinct), thoughts?
-: Me too.
The only other thing I'd say, I know that the oral
arguments, some of the, you know, affected land owners
brought up the road issue, but really, in terms of process
even their attorneys conceded
that that really doesn't come up
at this stage of the process.
You know, I don't even know how they evaluate
that at this stage.
They've gotta get out there and do the engineering analysis.
So, I agree with you.
I think they got it right. (indistinct)
-: Yeah, fair point on the station process.
Very good point.
Motion to adopt the proposal for decision.
-: So moved.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: Item 18 is docket 51348,
application to El Paso Electric for a DCRF.
We have before you a proposed order that would approve
a DCRF for El Paso based upon a unanimous agreement.
ALJ filed corrections to finding of fact.
I filed a memo with the recommended changes
to the corrected order.
-: It seems like a reasonable settlement.
-: I like those.
-: (laughs) Motion to adopt the proposed order
as corrected by the ALJ,
and as modified by Mister Jennae's memo.
-: So moved.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: Item 19 is docket 51416, it's the application
of Entergy for a DCRF.
You have before you a proposed order that would approve
a DCRF for Entergy.
It's based upon an unopposed agreement.
The ALJ filed corrections of two findings,
and I filed a memo with recommended changes.
-: I think we got to a good spot on this one, you?
-: Me too.
-: Is there a motion to adopt the proposed order
as corrected by the ALJ,
and modified by Mister Jennae's memo?
-: So moved.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: Item 20 is docket 51612, Commission staff's petition
to set the wholesale transmission service charges
in ERCOT for 2021.
I have before you a proposed order that would approve
two matrices for the wholesale transmission charges.
One is for the time prior to Lubbock entering ERCOT,
the other's for the time period after Lubbock enters.
I filed a memo with proposed changes to the proposed order.
-: Two key areas of this, thoughts?
-: Yeah, I agree with the memo.
-: All right.
Motion to adopt the proposed order as modified
by Mister Jennae's memo.
-: So moved.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item on the agenda please.
-: 21 was consented, 22 is docket 51966.
It's an NOV related to Entergy safety performance.
There's a proposed order that would assist
administrative penalty based upon an agreement
between Entergy and Commission staff.
Commissioner McAdams has filed a memo.
-: Thank you.
I saw the memo, I agree with it, and I think this is...
More information.
-: Yeah, so ultimately, as we were, kind of, arguing
this back and forth in our office.
Look, the core function of the Commission
is to enhance and improve reliability.
And, you know, especially in this one, to me,
it was more clear cut because you saw this discernible
trend on system reliability start to decline
over a period of time and ultimately,
if we're just talking about fining people,
there is a situation where the policy,
the policies here might come into conflict
because again, we don't...
If a fine doesn't equal, you know, how much the enhancements
to the system are going to take to fix it,
we have to incentivize them or drive folks to the table
to where they want to fix it.
So, ultimately, we need more detailed plans
of remediation from utilities, especially when we start
seeing system-wide reliability issues.
So, until we start seeing that,
I think we just have to start sending people
back to the drawing board until we get a good answer.
-: Agreed.
I think you have an important point about the,
as reliability went down over the last few years,
penalties stayed flat, or even decreased,
which is not the--
-: It doesn't seem to be the answer.
-: (laughs) Not the direction I think we generally
want to be going.
Certainly not, it does not provide any meaningful incentive.
Thinking about, to expand on your point on more information
and visibility, the cause of violations, the frequency,
the types of violation, plans to resolve them,
with a lot more specificity than we're getting here,
are important, and timelines I think are important.
-: Timelines, and on the specificity of the timelines,
actual deliverable points that we can come back
and check on, you know, in the future.
Because this is gonna be coming up and I'll say it,
it's gonna be coming up in rate cases
when we're talking about recovery for enhancements
to the grid, we're gonna wanna see how that's actually
improving the quality of life, or the reliability
on the system for Texans.
So, these things are not mutually exclusive.
The policies work in tandem.
And we need to see those deliverables on paper.
-: Agreed.
I do wanna highlight the fact that as technology
and (indistinct) has improved over the last few years,
or last decade, I can appreciate the point
that visibility of outages may not necessarily
an increase, it may be a increase in visibility
of the outages, and certainly happy
to take that into consideration.
But we can't do that without more information.
-: Agreed.
-: So, more to be considered of that evolution and technology
but it still gets back to the same place
of needing more information, more visibility.
-: Well, at the end of the day, for us as a regulator,
with our partners in the utilities,
we just wanna see concrete plans.
'Cause we're always told that we're constantly
striving to improve and enhance our system.
Well, this is where the robber meets the road,
when these safety issues start flaring up,
you start to question, okay, what are we doing here?
And ultimately, what are these rates,
not looking at you specifically, Daryl,
but what are we doing here?
(all laughing)
So, yeah, I look forward to a more detailed plan.
-: That will drive us to solving the problem
and improving the outcomes for our customers.
-: You bet ya.
-: Is there a motion to remand the docket
to docket management in order for the parties
to provide the requested information
to the settlement agreement?
-: I couldn't have said it better.
So moved.
-: Second.
All in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: Item 23 is docket 52034, it's an NOV,
an agreed NOV between AEP Texas and Commission staff.
Again, for safety matters.
You have before you a proposed order
that would assist the administrative penalty
against AEP Texas based upon an agreement.
Commissioner McAdams has filed a memo on this case.
-: Thank you.
Read your memo, again I agree with it.
I think there's the same issues here.
-: I think there's an important nuance,
and I do wanna give kudos to the AEP team.
They did an excellent job of detailing the causes
of, and the timelines for remediation.
In this case, on the distribution feeder violations,
however, that level of detail was missing
from the discussion at the system-wide violations.
So, taken as a whole, I mean, the previous cases point,
we need to do our job on a system-wide basis,
trying to incent these utilities to go back
and to get as much done in a timely manner
as they can in an affordable way.
And so, as with the Entergy of previous docket,
I would ask AEP and staff to come back
with a settlement agreement with sufficient specifics
on how and when AEP can make headway
on a system-wide basis to remediate.
-: I agree, they got part of it right,
but we still need to see the cause of violation frequency.
-: Yep.
-: Solutions.
-: On that scale.
-: System-wide, even more importantly.
So, is there a motion to remand the docket
to docket management in order to provide the parties,
for the parties to provide the requested information
to the settlement agreement?
-: Steven, do you wanna say something?
-: Well, I was just gonna ask you, sir,
whether or not based upon the previous discussion
you just had with Mister Sloss, whether you wanna add
anything about vegetation management
in this remand document?
-: As a specific question?
-: Yes sir.
-: I think it's very appropriate.
So, I would ask the question for staff and AEP
what plans they have on enhancing vegetation,
would we call that remediation?
Vegetation control?
-: Vegetation management, I think they'll know
what you're talking about.
-: Great, we'd love to do that.
-: Is there a motion?
-: As modified- -: As modified.
-: So moved.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: 24 was consented, and then we've got the items
25 through 28, I'm not aware we have anything.
-: I don't have any on those, do you?
-: Yes, sir.
So, just for discussion purposes.
-: Sure.
-: This is our opportunity to talk.
And we are well within striking distance
of the end of session and a number of key things
coming up there.
So, on 27, sir, if we could take that up.
Project number 41210.
-: Absolutely.
-: Okay.
I'm sorry, correction on that.
I had my numbers out of whack.
Connie?
-: 28 I believe.
-: So, it is gonna be 28.
All right, so, nothing on 27.
On the next one, 28.
-: Why don't we just do 28 and 29 together, sir?
We'll get it all.
-: I believe that's right.
Okay, so the numbers did change, and that's right.
Okay, 28 and 29.
-: Or you can take both of those out and do them together.
-: Okay great.
From a communications perspective.
I was wondering, in the near future,
and I'll ask specifically, if you think it might be a good
idea for our comms folk at both ERCOT and PUC
to brief us at the June 11 opening meeting
on what their strategies and plans are for the summer.
Seems consistent with what, I know everybody's
been hashing out their protocols and procedures,
might be a good time to get that.
-: Absolutely.
And if it's okay with you, I would also leave
a possibility to have that briefing at a open work session
if we choose to do that before June 11.
-: Second part of that.
So, on that topic, I know that it looks like
we're getting a lot of homework.
It looks like the legislature is heading down
some really new ground.
It's not well plowed in terms of the direction
for the Commission, so I think it's fair to say
we are gonna have a lot of homework coming our way.
And I would ask what you think about scheduling
an open meeting each week in the month of June?
With the idea so that we could get ahead
of rule making, our scheduling, or just even to open up,
sort of, not very formal workshops for our purposes.
That would enable us to communicate on key issues
as we try to work through the organizational parameters
of order of work for the summer and fall.
What do you think about that?
-: I think that's a tremendous idea.
-: Okay.
-: And I think it would be important to also say
that we don't have to decide the calendaring right now,
but we don't know exactly what homework,
as you said, we're gonna get.
-: Right.
-: So, I think it would be important to have a standing time
and our agenda or discussion points for that may flex
up and down, but it being consistent in timing
to make sure that we know that we'll have a chance
to discuss all of the tasks and legislation
and the many other issues we're facing since the storm.
-: So, I talked about it with staff,
just because I didn't wanna bowl them up on this whole idea.
So, on the vain, try this on for size,
I would ask that normal business of the Commission,
again, all these things that we have on our docket,
that OPDM has previously promulgated within their schedule.
Which again, includes the June 11th meeting
and so on and so forth, should continue on that schedule,
but these interim open meetings for, sort of,
the workshop model, should be reserved for our standard
posting language which is that front 10 items.
-: Yep, top 10.
-: And the legislative component of that, conforming rules.
-: These two items that we're talking under right now,
would be probably come under that.
-: Exactly, yep.
So, do you agree?
-: Yeah, agreed.
I think it would also be important for both staff
and the general public, to know that I think
the workshop, these weekly workshops, would be a place
not to take formal action.
-: That's right.
-: Agreed up on front, and posted so everybody involved
knows that it is very much a place for discussion.
-: Brain storming sessions on our part,
with the public and stakeholders.
-: But all parties agreed up front that no action
will be taken during these, that'll be reserved
for the normal course of business.
Does that work for you?
-: Yes, sir.
On the formal action point.
So, for the purposes of a possible June 3rd meeting,
there are certain things that may be coming up
for formal action maybe a good idea.
Just for the purposes of that, because of the timeline
of the summer.
-: Okay.
So, you're saying--
-: For June 3rd, I would ask for dispensation
from our doctrine rule.
-: An exception just for June 3rd for that workshop
to leave the potential for formal action,
but with going back to a workshops
of no formal action after that?
-: Yes sir.
-: Due to consideration
for the fast approaching summer season.
-: Yes sir.
-: Fair enough.
-: Okay.
-: Two of your meetings in June are full-blown
open meetings anyway, so the June 11th and June 24th.
The point I was gonna ask is early on I heard
a disconnect between y'all talking about the report
from ERCOT and you had mentioned June 3rd
and you had mentioned June 11th.
Do we wanna be clear?
-: Yeah.
-: I think we started off considering June 11th
and then, but it's ended up agreeing that it would be better
to have an open meeting option before June 11th.
-: Yes sir.
So, for the purpose of the comms briefing,
is that where you perceive the disconnect?
-: Well, and to let everyone else out there know
when they're supposed to be here.
-: Yeah, so okay.
So, there will be a component of ERCOT that I believe
they wanna get in as soon as possible to brief us.
And I believe June 3rd for that purpose is reserved,
would be an appropriate time.
It's just my understanding.
-: That's fine, I'm just making sure
we're all on the same page.
-: For the purposes of the communication briefing,
June 11th since that's, kind of, when everybody
had been teed up.
Or do you think that needs to advance, Connie, to June 3rd?
-: We can get a brief preview of summer comms on June 3rd
and then have a full blown presentation on the 11th.
-: Okay.
-: Works for me.
Cool.
-: All right, we'll make it, good idea.
-: Man, it's great to talk.
(all laughing)
-: Makes things go so much smoother.
Anything else on item 28-29?
-: No sir, I'm good.
-: All right.
Next item please, Mister Jennae.
-: Item 30 is docket 48860, it's the application
of the city of Canton to amend their water CCN.
You have before you a corrected proposed order
that would amend the CCN
to increase its certificated service area.
I filed a memo with recommended changes
to the corrected proposed order.
-: The revisions make a lot of sense
and the staff did a good job with that.
Thoughts?
-: This was a good application, in my view.
I mean, detailed service territories, delineated.
I'm sort of new to the water world in terms of that degree
of specificity, so yeah, I liked it,
including the staff analysis.
So, would you accept a motion?
-: Yes sir.
-: Move to adopt the revised preliminary order
with changes in corrective memo.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: Item 31 is docket 50819, it's the application
of Sheryl Richardson and others to approve the purchase
of a water system by Sheryl and Roger Richardson
to transfer certificate 11704 to them,
and to amend that CCN to increase the size
of their certificated service area.
I filed a memo with proposed corrections
to the proposed order.
-: Thank you, Mister Jennae, thoughts?
-: Yeah, this seems like a consistent transition
for that systems.
Sheryl had already been running the thing anyway,
as I understand it in a staff brief and filing.
So, I'm okay.
-: I think importantly Mister and Mrs Richardson
have shown they've got the financial, managerial
and technical abilities to, and expertise,
to continue to provide adequate service,
which is always a big-- -: Hallelujah, yeah.
-: Big item to ensure water CCN.
-: Agreed.
-: Is there a motion to adopt the proposed order as modified?
-: So moved.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: Item 32 is docket 50878.
It is the complaint around the Collins
against Monarch Utilities.
You have before you a proposal for decision.
ALJ recommends the complaint be denied.
No parties filed exceptions.
I filed a memo with proposed corrections.
-: Thoughts?
-: No, like to be a thing to dismiss.
-: Agreed.
There's some nuances but I think considering all that,
they've acted properly.
Is there a motion to adopt the PFD as modified?
-: So moved.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: 33 was consented, 34 is docket 51352.
This is a petition of Carnegie Development, an LLC,
to remove its property
using a streamline expedite or release.
You have before you a proposed order that would grant
the release of their property from the certificated
service area of James Dyke.
I filed a memo with the recommended changes
to the proposed order.
-: This is not quite as straightforward
as many of these expedited releases.
But at the end of the day, I think the burden
is on the petitioner and they've done their job.
Thoughts?
-: No, and just for our purposes as we try to paint a picture
for potential plaintiffs or petitioners
about how we handle these things.
I think it's very important to have that bright line
on commitment, you know, the previous precedent
saw these committed to providing service.
What does that mean?
You know, to me, just the act of moving paperwork
does not cross that threshold for me.
So, again, we wanna be in the business of getting service
provided to people when they ask for it, you know,
upon the agreement of the utilities.
And just when they get, I don't want people
getting into a situation where they're locked up
in a captive market and not able to access service.
So, when that happens, and they wanna change out of it,
you know, I'm gonna strongly consider that.
When no tangible commitments have been made
on the part of the utility.
-: Agreed.
Reliable service is-- <v ->In a timely manner.
-: Timely manner, to people that need
and deserve it is the threshold in my mind.
-: Same.
-: Is there a motion to adopt the proposed order as modified?
-: So moved.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: Item 35 is docket 51481, is the application
to CSWR Texas Utilities Operating Company
for temporary rates.
Before you is an amended proposed order
that would find the rates charged by CSWR Texas
to the customers of the Casselco
water system are reasonable.
Just to remind you, the Commission previously appointed
CSWR as the temporary manager to run this system.
Commissioner McAdams has filed a memo,
and I filed a memo with recommended changes
that is consistent with the Commissioner's memo.
-: Saw the memo, Will.
I agree with it.
-: Okay good.
-: It's nuanced that there's no rate shock.
And in a lot of these systems, the temporary managers
are facing an uphill battle to begin with, and so.
-: Yeah, and I know you've got experience
because you've seen the kind of books
on a lot of these systems.
And so, I just wanna make sure, look,
if we're going through this process, we need to bake in
what the true needs are, you know?
And if they've got, if we've got $41,000
of known maintenance and repair needs out there,
then we need to bake that into the rate
so that they can fix this stuff.
Again, reliability, service, all these core components
that we keep preaching.
-: Absolutely.
And two things.
When you have good managers acting in good faith,
you need to support them.
And we've got a backend reconciliation mechanism
to ensure that if the front-end rates were,
through excess capital, available, that can be--
-: Accounted for.
-: Adjusted and accounted for in the backend
which will protect the consumers financial interests
over time as well, which I think is important.
Is there a motion to modify the proposed order
to approve the temporary rates and miscellaneous
charges and fees proposed by the temporary manager
as modified in Mister Jennae's memo?
-: So moved.
Did you get everything?
-: Yes sir.
-: Okay.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: Item 36 was consented.
Item 37 is project 50322, it's a proposal for publication
of the rules of alternative rate making mechanisms.
-: A lot of work goes into these and this is a big step.
Water rates are not simple or straightforward
so I appreciate how much work and thought
the staff has put into this.
Protects customers while still allowing
for the regionalization that state needs,
and through policy from the legislature,
has indicated it desires.
Thoughts?
-: I think that's right.
And just from, you know, working with you and your staff,
man, I'm gonna draw a bright line.
Water world is not the same as electric world
on this rate stuff.
And so, I'm gonna remind myself that all the time.
I really look forward to the comments that stakeholders
are gonna file, and try to wrap my mind around
just the, all the degrees of scale
that these folks operate in.
So, no, with that, just for stakeholders,
I'm reminding myself water and electric are not the same.
So, I look forward to the nuanced responses
on a big rule proposal.
I appreciate it.
-: Absolutely.
Is there a motion to adopt the proposal for publication?
-: So moved.
-: Second, all in favor say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
Next item please.
-: I don't believe we have anything on item 38.
-: 39 was consented.
-: Did you have anything on 38?
-: No sir, no.
-: Item 40 is project 51715, the rule making calendar.
-: Anything on that from staff?
-: Just very briefly, Commissioners.
We have typically filed this rule making calendar monthly
for your consideration before an open meeting.
However, in keeping with your earlier conversation
about getting a lot of homework, I think we'll start
updating it twice monthly.
And with your permission, we plan to wait until perhaps
one day before the open meeting, rather than the typical
seven days in order to best reflect any recent changes
to the schedule.
-: That works for me.
-: One idea I'd like to just throw
out there for conversation.
So, I know you've been focused heavily on ERCOT,
and I've actually started digging into MISO and SPP,
how they sort of work.
One of the systems that, you know, from,
at least one of those, that's come up is they actually,
especially with the amount of homework we have to do,
I think we're gonna be dealing with a matrix
of either rule makings or policy projects
that we'll be considering.
And I think for the purposes of, again,
of these workshops that we'll have set up,
should we, and again, this is just for consideration
to digest, but should we consider assigning
a Commissioner, and if we get a third or fourth
or fifth, even more's the better,
to once we kind of have an idea of the matrix,
to each topic so that we can...
One Commission office can help keep those workshops
on track for organizational purposes.
Again, everybody can come to them, and that way,
but it just adds sort of a point of contact
in terms of coordination on those things
so that they don't slow down,
so that they know at least there's one Commissioner
that's always gonna be hounding the stakeholders
to get stuff in.
What do you think?
-: I think that's a good idea.
With that kind of ownership
comes accountability for all of us.
-: Exactly.
And that way when we're up here on the dais
and these discussions come up,
it's sort of the responsibility of that Commissioner
to give a little mini book report on where those workshops
have gone, and that'll drive the conversation still further.
-: And I think that would also enable Commissioners,
how ever we end up with, how many we end up with,
to provide feedback to the other Commissioners
and, for lack of a better term, more homework.
-: Exactly.
-: I will say your matrix, however,
will probably be three-dimensional.
-: Yeah, could be.
It's gonna be great.
-: I'll have to take that into consideration.
But I think that's an excellent idea.
-: Cool, great.
-: Anything else?
-: Not at this time.
-: All right.
-: All right, I don't have anything
for 41 through 44, do you?
-: No sir, I don't.
-: We do have 44, sir.
-: 44.
-: Oh, that's right.
-: 44 will be closed session.
Anything you want to add on that,
or will we just be prepared to go?
-: No, we just need to adjourn in the closed session.
-: All right, we do have items for closed session today.
Having convened and duly noticed open meeting,
Commission will now at 10:30 a.m. on May 21st, 2021
hold a closed session for Chapter 551
of the Texas Government Code.
It will consult with its attorney
pursuant to section 551.071 of the code,
deliberate personnel matters presented to section 551.074
the code will deliberate security matters pursuant
to section 551.076 of the code.
And at this point, we are recessed to closed session.
The session has hereby concluded at 11:06 a.m.
on May 21st, 2021.
The Commission will now resume its public meeting.
No action was taken by the Commission in closed session.
At this point, having no further business,
this meeting of the Public Utility Commission
of Texas is adjourned.
(gavel bangs)