-: Welcome to
this
meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Before we begin official business,
we have a special occasion.
We're going to have our newest attorney
come up to the dais to be sworn in as an attorney
for the state of Texas.
So at this point, I'd like to invite
Judge Eliana De la Fuente to the dais.
-: You can sit right here.
-: Okay.
-: Do you want the chairs behind you?
-: We can do it right here?
-: Do you want us to move the chair?
-: Let me say first off that we are very excited to have you
on the honor join us on the Commission staff,
even though she went to law school at OU,
(audience laughing)
She had the good sense to return to Texas
when she graduated.
So all is forgiven on that front
and we're excited to have her.
So the Eliana would you raise your right hand please?
And repeat after me.
I Eliana De la Fuente.
-: I, Eliana De la Fuente.
-: Do solemnly swear.
-: That I will support the constitution
of the United States and of this state.
-: That I will support the constitution
of the United States and of this state.
-: That I will honestly demean myself in the practice of law.
-: That I will discharge my duties to my clients,
to the best of my.
-: Now, I'm not quite sure how long it will take,
but you should definitely feel free
to go refill your coffee.
So having convened a duly notice open meeting,
the Commission will now at 9:38 AM on October 28th,
hold a closed session pursuant to Chapter 551,
the Texas government code section 5010.071,
5510.074 and 5510.076.
We'll be back.
Right, closed session is hereby concluded
at 10:48 AM on October 28th, 2021.
And the Commission will resume its public meeting.
No action will be taken by the Commission regarding matters,
discussed in closed session, Consent Agenda items.
Mr. Journeay,
could you please walk us through today's Consent Agenda?
-: Good morning, Commissioners by individual vow
at the following items were placed on your Consent Agenda,
four, five, six, seven, eight, 10
13, 15, 16, and 17.
-: Is there a motion to approve the items
as described by Mr. Journeay?
-: Motion moved. -: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
-: Aye, motion passes.
This time we would like to open for public comment.
Oral comments related to a specific agenda item
will be heard when that item is taken up.
This is for general comments only.
Speakers will be limited to three minutes each.
Mr. Journeay,
do we have anyone from the public signed up to speak
in the public comment section of our meeting today?
-: No, sir, not today.
-: And in that case, public comment is now closed.
That brings us to the first item on our agenda.
Could you lay out Docket 46148 please sir.
-: Docket 46148 is the petition
of Las Colinas to amend
the Crystal Clear's Special Utility District's CCN
by a string line, expedited release.
What you have in front of you today is somewhat unusual.
It's a motion to withdraw their petition.
After this has the Commission has issued an order
and has gone through several layers at the courthouse
Commission joined in a joint,
an agreed motion to remand this matter back
from the Travis County District court,
so that this motion could be presented to you.
-: Certainly I agree with the motion to withdraw
is there any other thoughts or comments?
-: No sir.
-: No. -: No.
-: In that case,
is there a motion to grant Las Colinas motion
to withdrawal resend a previous order
approving expedited release and dismiss this docket.
-: So moved.
-: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
-: Motion passes, next item please.
-: Item two is docket at 49892.
It's the application
of Concho Rural Water Corporation to change rates.
A proposed order was filed on October 6th
and a correction memo was filed on October 13th.
Commissioner McAdams has filed a memo in this matter.
-: Over to you, lay out your memo, Commissioner.
-: Cody Folk for the record,
I'm representing Concho Rural Water corporation.
And if the Commission will allow,
I just have a couple of comments
on Commissioner McAdam's memo
in hopes of addressing those things.
-: Would you like to lay out your thoughts?
-: Let me lay out my thoughts.
-: Let's start with that.
-: Okay.
My memo was detailed.
It specifically cited certain fees
when reading through the case,
there are a lot of fees captured here,
they are already in interim rates.
Under normal processes,
and maybe Cody can speak to this in a moment,
but these should have been built
into this as part of a regular rate case and was not.
The burden of proof, I wanna highlight
and specifically drill down
on this for the Commission.
The burden of proof is always on the applicant
in these cases.
And some of these fees, as I noted in my memo
are in violation of Commission rule now.
So Cody, those are the four pillars of my objection here,
and maybe you can address it,
but these are hundreds and hundreds of dollars
that are in fees, not rates.
-: Sure. -: Go ahead.
-: I'd be happy to address those if,
and I appreciate the memorandum,
and this is a subtle case
as Commission staff will highlight.
And so typically when these things are settled,
we try to address everything as best we can,
as economically as we can to avoid
unnecessary rate case expenses, et cetera.
And so, there are times where some of these
are not fully addressed and we have to come back.
And so, first and foremost,
I think the process we'd like to lay out here,
is to come back with some additional evidence and support,
and then also potentially adjusting the language
of the tariff, to accommodate the intent behind these fees,
but maybe not as laid out as they are right now.
But first and foremost, Commissioner
I'll highlight that the five different fees,
there's a Fireline standby fee, a service call fee,
a meter tampering fee, a disconnection fee,
and an inspection fee.
The reason why these fees are not specifically
included in base rates, is because
if you examine these fees individually,
they represent extraordinary costs
that are associated with individual customers
and not the system as a whole.
And so, the utility is intending to have these costs
be tracked to those individual customers,
as opposed to being subsidized by the rest of the system.
For example, the service call fee
was drafted in a way that if a customer
has a issue on their side of the meter,
those costs associated with that service call
would be addressed and paid for
by that individual customer
and not included in base rates with every other customer.
The service call fee, additionally is one thing
that you highlighted as something
that's not allowed by the rules.
The Commission's rules state,
that we cannot bill for service call fees,
unless otherwise provided by the Chapter.
Based on my reading and the Commission
may disagree with that,
is that if the Commission approves a tariff
that says you can charge for something,
and it's consistent with a utility rate making
that it's allowed is that we just can't do it on our own.
But overall,
our suggestion here and request to the Commission
is for us to go back with Commission staff,
and office of public utility council,
and potentially supplement our settlement
to specifically address these concerns
that you raised in your memo,
and either change the tariff language
or remove them in their entirety.
So that's what we propose today,
but happy to address any other questions or.
-: So again, just a fact that I would point out.
Okay, so say I'm moving
into your certificated service territory,
captive market. -: Sure.
-: No competition. -: Sure.
-: You're gonna tag me with around $500 in initiation fee.
-: So the inspection fee, is required by TCEQ.
And so that is $100 fee
that is charged individually.
And it would be normally we could have just included
in the tap fee, and that's mandated by TCEQ.
Now the tariff language we have right now
allows for customers to go out
and get it from somebody else.
And so that's not necessarily something
they have to pay for.
The Fireline fee is something that is,
it's something that I think definitely needs to be discussed
and added on.
That is something that really is only added to the tariff
to address one customer,
and that's a school district
and it's really put there just so we don't have to have
some sort of extraordinary issue come up.
And then the tampering fee is something,
as you pointed out in your memo
is something that is authorized by the Commission's rules.
It's really more of trying to tie that
as to whether or not that is a,
something that's cost-based versus a deterrent
in this case it's both it's based on cost.
And then it's also got a deterrent component,
but I think we just need to highlight that
in some sort of testimony as to kind of how that's broken up
and support it through evidence.
And so that addresses a lot of those fees.
I think that the real question is the service call fee
and how the Commission interprets that.
And that may be something that we work on
with PUC staff and OPAC on either changing the language
or just eliminating it entirely.
-: Yes, so, and thank you Cody, for additional explanation.
I have significant concerns with the fact that the company
proposed tariff fees that are either
in our belief prohibited
by the Commission's rules are not supported by evidence.
I think, going forward,
I think the messages that the water utilities
should be on notice
that the Commission will be scrubbing down
proposed tariff fees to make sure that the fees
are number one allowable by the rules,
and if they are, supported by evidence
and number three, and importantly,
that wasn't really touch upon that,
the fees are not incorporating costs
that are being recovered
through a fee,
but also in the utilities base rates
for which the utility is earning a rate of return.
And what I mean by that,
I agree with Commissioner McAdam's memo.
I found all of those fees to be problematic
for one reason or another.
My position right now is to just go ahead
and strip those fees out of the tariff,
but I'm open to hearing if you would be comfortable
with letting them supplement the record with evidence,
additional evidence to support the fees
that are allowable by the law.
But if they're not allowable by the law,
then they need to be taken out.
But the one issue that I wanna also say,
in addition to ensuring those fees are allowed
by the Commission's rules
and are supported by evidence, if so, is double recovery.
In addition to the litany of proposed fees
or highlighting Commissioners memo that are inappropriate,
and should be struck from the tariff
if they're not allowed.
I had a concerns with just looking at the tap fees.
That's not something that we usually dig too much into,
but in what I wanna say,
this is just an example of double recovery.
So as I looked at the company's tap fee,
and I understand that the 1200 or 1250,
and I think your application said 1200,
the agreement says 1250 for the tap fee,
that there is an itemized list of just costs
that are comprised the tap fee.
Well, there's one cost in there that says labor costs.
And so I wanna just ensure,
as we're looking at all the fees
that they're not being double recovered,
costs are not being double recovered.
'Cause for instance, like labor costs,
if the company is using their employees
to go and install the tap
-: There are paid for rates.
-: There are gonna be recovering costs,
labor costs through the tap fee.
But then on the other hand,
they're gonna be recovering employee salaries
as operating maintenance expenses through their base rates.
So that's another piece
of the fees in general, we need to be looking at
because the base rates are recovered by the water utilities
across the entire customer classes of the utility, right?
The individual fees are,
as Mr. Folk has pointed out
are recovered only from those individual customers
that are taking specific service
from the water utility.
So it's even more pronounced for the customer, right?
And so I just wanna make sure that we're looking
at double recovery as well,
but that's where I stand on the fees.
And I'm open to hearing if you would be comfortable
with having them supplement the record
with the ones that are allowed by the rule,
but don't have evidence.
I'm comfortable with just stripping them out all together,
but I'm open to.
-: Yeah, no, I considered the remanding back
to follow up for more information.
Again, these hadn't been supported
in original base rate filing.
They hadn't been supported now,
how many more bites at the apple,
are we're gonna give these litigants
to try to juice these fees?
And that's why I filed the memo
and I still stand behind it now,
but welcome any other thoughts from them?
-: Just one quick point on the evidentiary support,
this case was, the application was filed
and under the class B rate filing package testimony
is not required to be filed simultaneously
with the schedules.
Only if we go to a full contested case,
do we have to file testimony.
This case settled before we got to the point
of filing fully our full testimony
in support of the application.
And so, the testimony that was filed
was solely in support of the settlement
and it was consistent with how prior
dockets have been settled,
and that includes testimony from Commission staff.
So, I understand your concerns about that.
And so we'd be happy to address it as necessary.
And then to Commissioner Cobos's
issues with double recovery.
I think that that's something we can address
in supplemental testimony is ensuring
and pointing into the record in the application
where those costs are laid out.
But as I mentioned at the start of this,
these fees are solely cost causation based fees
to where they're tracking direct costs
associated with individual customers,
as opposed to spreading those out.
But obviously we wanna make sure that those things
are not being double recovered.
That is not the intent.
-: But the point is,
is that someone's moving into your service territory.
They have no other options.
And regardless whether they're cost causation applied
school district or not,
they're still gonna get sticker shock
when they see that first bill is like, oh,
there's seven different fees that are adding up
well, close to $500.
They need water.
-: Sure.
-: And, so this is how you get baked in fees
that essentially anyway.
-: (indistinct) about fees?
-: That's right.
-: So I think, message is out and clear.
Cody: Sure.
-: Commission's gonna be looking at the fees
and the Commission staff and OPAC out there.
This is something we're gonna be looking at with,
one, are they allowed under the rules?
Two, are they justified with evidence?
And three are there providing any avenues
for double recovery?
-: Sure. -: Well said.
-: Yeah, very well put,
given the, I agree with everything else said,
given the mismatch of timing of testimony
that he just laid out is,
do you wanna remand it and give a chance to look at?
-: If it's the will of this body to remand that no,
I would advocate for striking the fees
and no remand moving forward.
-: I'm buying with that as well.
-: Okay, we've also got the issue of notice though.
-: Notice.
-: The good cause exception.
-: That's right, good cause
that is correct.
And I would also bring up the refund to consumers
regarding interim rates.
The parties agreement states that any amounts
over recovered between the interim rates
and final effective rates must be refunded.
Conclusion of law. 17, I believe, should be modified
to correctly address the refunds due.
And an ordering paragraph should be considered
and added bit, requires the following
to be addressed in the compliance docket
already established in the case.
One, identify the sums collected
in excess of rates approved by the Commission,
identify the amount to be refunded
to customers, via billing credits,
and three, identify a reasonable number
of monthly installments for the credits to consumers.
-: That all sounds good to me.
Not a dollar a month for.
72 Months.
-: Yes, sir.
(laughing)
-: Does that change in that order in paragraph
make sense to you?
-: Yes.
-: All right, so we've got,
how do we fill out the good cause exception?
I'm fine with it, pretty good.
-: I'm fine with it, I support it.
-: I have some comments on that.
-: Okay. -: We do have a notebook.
(laughing)
We have a notebook.
-: Okay.
So, I'm gonna vote in favor of granting
the good cause waiver that Concho has requested.
However, I really do wanna express disappointment
with the water utilities failure to notify OPAC
as required by the Commission's rules.
The Commission's rules require all water utilities
to provide notice of their rate change applications,
to OPAC water utilities,
especially class A, B, and C are more sophisticated,
and are represented by experienced counsel and must comply
with the Commissions notice requirements.
And just for background purposes,
OPAC, primarily intervenes in class, A, B,
and some C water utility rate cases
because these water utilities serve the most customers.
OPAC doesn't intervene in class D water utility cases
due to the agency's limited resources.
And I will say that unlike electric rate cases
where electric utilities represent millions of customers
and have a larger customer base to spread their rates across
water utility rate increases have a more pronounced impact
on consumers because these water utilities serve thousands.
And in some case, hundreds or less
of consumers and have a much smaller
customer base to spread their rates.
I will say that importantly,
while Commission staff does represent the public interest,
which weighs all interests in a rate case,
OPAC is the only entity statutorily charged
to represent the residential consumers.
And that is an important responsibility
that the legislature has entrusted with OPAC
and class A, B, and C water utilities
have to provide OPAC notice
of their rate change applications
as required by the rule.
I'm gonna vote in favor
of granting this good cause exception.
There is no excuse for the class, A, B,
and C water utilities,
not to be providing OPAC notice
of these water utility rate cases.
So it's just putting the utilities on notice.
This is something that should not be overlooked.
OPAC plays a very important role in water utility
rate case litigation for these bigger water utilities.
And I just really wanna send that message.
-: Well put, and at the end of the day,
we're doing all this for our consumers.
-: Absolutely.
-: All right.
We've got a framework of what we wanna pull here.
Let me see if I can capture it all in one sitting.
Is there a motion to approve the proposed order
with the following modifications:
To grant contracts request for good cause exception
to the substantive rule require notice to OPAC this time.
Reject the Fireline standby fee,
service call fee, a connect or disconnect service
upon customer request,
meter tampering fee, inspection fee,
and modify the tariff accordingly.
Add an ordering paragraph requiring parties
to file the following items in the compliance document
to identify songs collected from the interim rates
in excess of Commission approved rates.
Identify the amount to be refunded
and identify reasonable amount of time
for those billing credits to be refunded.
All of it.
-: Very well done, sir.
-: Is there a second or is there a motion?
-: Motion moved. -: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye. -: Aye.
-: Motion passes.
Cody: Thank you for your time, Commissioner.
-: I appreciate it.
-: All right, next item please.
Mr. Journeay.
-: Item three's docket 50347
is the application of Texas Country Water, Inc.
For authority to change rates,
a proposed order was filed on October 6th
and a correction memorandum filed on October 15th.
-: All right.
We seem to have a pretty straightforward settlement here,
but yet again, OPAC is the issue.
And thankfully we have a former OPAC with us.
I'll defer to Lori, if it's all right with you.
-: Thank you chairman.
And what I will add is,
as I stated earlier, I hold,
while our rule requires notice to OPAC by all classes
of water utilities, I do hold a class,
A, B, and C water utilities to higher standard.
And ultimately we may need to modify our notice rules
to remove class D since OPAC doesn't intervene in class D.
From time to time, we'll help,
utilities that call that are representing themselves
as class C water utilities, just with some general guidance.
But the role does require notice by all water utilities.
But I do hold class A, B and C to a higher standard,
because as I stated earlier, they're more sophisticated
and are typically represented by experienced counsel.
Here, we have a case where we have
a small water utility with 103 connections.
Yes, they didn't provide notice to OPAC.
I think ultimately the facts
of the settlement agreement I think
are not as pronounced as the prior case.
The only question I did have was again with the tap fee.
There is an increase in the settlement agreement
where the tap fee is increased from $450 to $3,500.
And that is over $3,000 of a tap fee
that is not justified by the evidence.
So I would just like to ask if there is representation
from Texas country here that can maybe give us,
shed a little bit of light as to why
they're such a significant increase in the tap fee.
I know that the company hasn't been in for a water rate case
in about 20 years,
so maybe that's driving the significant increase
or perhaps Commission staff could shed
a little bit of light on that costs,
because that's $3,500.
If you're getting a tap fee put
into your tap fee infrastructure,
put in at your home or business service territory.
-: Robert Parish for Commission staff.
I don't have an answer for you today,
but I can go back and work with the utility
to get an answer.
And if the Commissioner is fluent
if there isn't good justification,
we can lower that tap fee number,
but I will need to work with the utility
since it is an increase.
-: Yes, I think that would be prudent.
-: Okay.
-: If you would be okay with.
-: That's fine with me.
-: Fine with me. -: And with me.
-: Okay, thank you so much.
-: Thank you.
-: We need to vote to remand or we table it.
Can we table this for a future meeting?
-: Why don't we just table it and see what we get?
-: Okay.
-: All right then.
consider Docket 50347 tabled
until a future meeting of this Commission.
Next item, please, sir.
-: Let's see, that gets us to.
-: Item nine. -: Item 12 I believe.
-: Well, let me make sure if we have
any discussion points on that if not,
I don't have anything on.
-: No sir.
-: On which item?
I'm sorry. -: Item nine.
-: No.
-: No, thank you.
-: Item 10 was consented
11 regarding state and federal legislation.
I don't have anything on this.
-: No, thank you.
-: And that will take us to item 12.
-: Item 12 is docket 51023,
its application, of City of San Antonio
to amend to CCN for transmission line.
A proposal for decision was filed on July 26,
exceptions to the proposal
and replies to the exceptions were filed.
The ALJs filed a memo with corrections
to the narrative of the proposal.
in one finding of fact.
The Commission granted oral argument.
And I would just note that some parties
filed written argument
of saying they could not make the meeting.
-: I appreciate that.
And want to acknowledge that we're all aware of.
I'm sure of those written comments that have been submitted.
From landowners, we are gonna hear from,
we are gonna hear her oral testimony
for those who are called up to speak,
please state your name for the record
and speak clearly in the microphone and who you're with.
If you're with a particular entity.
As usual speakers will,
each speaker will have three minutes to speak.
If that works, standard still works for y'all,
at this point, we'll begin the testimony.
-: And Mr. Chairman,
if I could ask people who have a name
that might be unknown to us or difficult to know
for the court reporter,
who has to spell these names out for the record,
if they might spell their name for us,
for the court reporter.
-: Indeed.
Who do we have a first?
-: Steven can we like suggest
maybe that you call the first three speakers
or four speakers?
And so they know that they're ready to go next.
Steve: I'll be happy to sir.
-: So as a means to speed.
-: So the first three will be Brad Bailiff,
Carly Barton and Molly Keck.
Steve: And I guess sir,
you're gonna test my skills once again,
on keeping time.
-: Keep you on your toes Mr. Journeay.
(laughing)
-: Three minutes, sir. -: Yes sir.
-: All right, we'll start with Mr. Bailiff.
-: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I represent Lisa Chandler,
Clinton Chandler and Chip and Pamela Putnam.
They oppose any route that includes segment 40.
No party has talked about segment 40.
None of the focus routes in the hearing included segment 40
and the PFD does not recommend a route
that includes segment 40.
They support the PFD.
There was a lot of evidence in this, a lot of testimony,
several days of a hearing and parties had opportunity
to flesh that out and do a lot of cross examination.
The Chandlers and the Putnam's did retain an expert witness
who recommended one of the focus routes.
Route AA2 is very similar to the route recommended
in the PFD, except it goes
a little further south at one point.
And I'm just raising that as they talked about it.
They recommended it, but they will support the PFD,
even though it does affect the Southern portion
of Ms. Chandlers property.
-: Thank you, sir. -: Thank you.
-: And I'd go ahead and call Brenda Ohrmundt.
Sorry that I butchered your name.
Next step is Carly Barton.
-: Good morning Commissioners.
My name is Carly Barton.
I'm here on behalf
of the Clearwater Ranch Property Owners Association
and the individual neighbors that were interveners.
In this case, I will be brief.
I will let my clients speak to you about the merits
of their position I have here today,
Molly Keck, Brenda Ohrmundt, and Mike Stevens,
who's the president of the POA.
-: Go ahead?
Man: Say your name and spell it.
-: My name is Molly Keck, M-O-L-L-Y K-E-C-K.
Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity
to speak to you today about our concerns
regarding this project.
We appreciate the recommendation that was made by the ALJ
to run transmission lines along to Toutant Beauregard,
which is route Z2, and sincerely hope
that you will see this
as the most reasonable pathway for the lines.
As I mentioned, my name is Molly Keck
and I represent a unique
and beautifully untouched community.
That interveners are asking you
to place transmission lines through.
My husband and I moved and built in Clearwater Ranch
eight years ago, with the intent
to provide our children with a space to grow,
be safe and learn to appreciate nature.
They attended McAndrew Elementary along with many children
inside of Clearwater Ranch today.
And while there is some question about Z2
bordering McAndrew, it does not impact those children
at the school, as much as it would impact
the children inside of Clearwater Ranch.
Our community is made up of less than 30 lots
of at least 11 acres, and they will never
and cannot be subdivided into smaller lots,
but routes going through Clearwater ranch are one and piece
specifically would bisect properties
and require a century old trees, Cedar
and shred brush to be removed,
to make room for those transmission lines.
And whilst Cedar and shrub brush
may not be aesthetically appealing.
It is important to our neighborhood
because it is the nesting and breeding habitat
to endangered bird species
that's known to live in Clearwater Ranch.
In addition, nearly 100% of our property owners
utilize the wildlife management tax exemption.
So maintaining these habitats is incredibly important to us.
Route Z2 is the most reasonable route
with the least destruction to property and land.
It follows an existing distribution line and roadway.
And so there already exists a natural path for these lines.
It would not bisect properties or fragment land
like it will do within Clearwater Ranch.
I'm sure that cost is also a concern for the Commission--
-: You have one minute. -: As it is for the public.
The Northern routes are significantly cheaper
than the Southern routes and those running through
Clearwater Ranch are at the top of the cost list.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak to today.
-: Thank you for being here.
-: Hi morning, Brenda Ohrmundt, O-H-R-M-U-N-D-T.
My husband's name.
(laughing)
I'm Brenda, I live in Clearwater
with my husband Kurt and our two girls seven and nine.
They also attend McAndrew Elementary.
I grew up in the area in the hill country,
but my husband grew up in Greendale, Wisconsin,
which if you're not familiar
is one of the three plan communities
that were constructed during the new deal.
They were designed to provide housing
in a quick, easy distance from gardens
and employment and a town center.
And they're unique because they're called Greenbelt.
They have green area all the way around them,
and they kind of create their own park.
They are their own park,
and that's how I see Clearwater and the specialness of it.
We are close to town, but we live in the country.
We have large acre lots that Molly talked about.
The Leon Creek flows through our subdivision
and we have a lot of wild area.
There is exploding growth all the way around us,
completely encircling us.
And Clearwater has become a refuge,
not only for those of us that choose to live there,
but also for the wildlife, which we have in plenty.
That's why I came here today to tell you about
this special place that we have
and to ask you to preserve it.
I mentioned Greendale earlier in the planning
that was essential to creating that unique community.
What you do here is important,
and we know that planning for infrastructure
is very important and we appreciate
your careful consideration.
We've seen just a tiny slice of how much
goes into this process, and we appreciate the deliberation.
We ask you to please carefully consider the criteria
and choose a route that best meets.
We're asking you to place these transmission lines
along existing infrastructure, roads,
and existing distribution lines
that are already present to the north of us
along to Toutant Beauregard.
We were asking you to choose a route that does not cut
directly through our neighborhood and our natural area.
Any segment that cuts completely through our neighborhood
is in my opinion, unnecessary
and does not show careful planning and does not show respect
for already existing communities,
especially considering that all of the other routes
that are proposed appear to respect the boundaries
of already existing communities,
except those that run directly through Clearwater.
Please remember our wildlife that they need us,
and we need them, as Molly mentioned for our tax exemptions.
And we ask you to choose either of the routes
that are Z routes or AA routes,
which are most economical for everyone,
not just Clearwater, thank you very much for our time.
Commissioner: Thank you.
-: This is Michael Stevens, M-I-C-H-A-E-L
and then Stevens, S-T-E-V-E-N-S.
-: [Commissioner Lake] Before you get started,
who do we have next up?
-: Call up Helen Gilbert, Lynn Sherman,
and oh my goodness.
(indistinct) S. L who lives at 9542 Majestic Oak drive.
I'm sorry, I cannot read your writing.
-: Great, thank you for giving us the time to meet with you.
We really appreciate this.
Where I lived in San Antonio.
I grew up in an area where everyone,
I would be the only one out there mowing my own lawn.
And it was really weird neighborhood,
now where I live, everyone mows their own property,
even the much larger people care about it.
We actually paid extra money to bury
all of our transmission lines underground,
just to preserve the natural beauty
and many of us have water stations,
feeding stations for the wildlife, so that's a priority.
And even many of the neighborhood kids
will come over to my yard.
We have a zip line, they come over to our garden.
So it's a very open community.
The proposed lines that go through our neighborhood,
not only bisect the neighborhood, they cross
and bisects several of the properties
within the neighborhood.
And that would significantly impact those properties.
What's interesting is.
-: Can you clarify for me which neighborhood you're in?
-: Clearwater Ranch.
-: Okay, thank you.
-: So we're still the three of us,
yeah. -: Thank you.
-: Sorry about that.
And you know, the current proposed lines,
the recommended lines, Z1 Z2,
and then the others, A1, AA2
would go along existing road
that already has electric lines along it.
So it seems like that would make much more sense,
these lines that would not go through our neighborhood
would be millions dollars less in cost and be shorter.
So it's hard for me to understand why anyone
would wanna go through our neighborhood, bisect it,
spending more money to, just really destroy natural habitat.
And so again, I recommend that you really look
at the ALJs recommendation of Z2,
if not Z1 or AA1 or AA2, and just appreciate your time.
Thank you.
-: Thank you sir, I appreciate you making the trip.
-: So next would be Helen Gilbert.
-: Yes Ms. Gilbert.
-: Good morning Chairman, Commissioners.
I'm Helen Gilbert.
For the record, I represent the San Antonio Rose Palace
and Straight Promotions who are opposed to route Z2,
and we support the Commission staff's recommendation
of route P.
First off, we'd like to address yesterday's exception letter
filed by the ALJs referred to as the memo this morning,
we wanna clear up something I think has been misconstrued.
We did argue that the PFT improperly created
a new ad hoc standard.
It did that very simply the nature of the impact
on neighborhoods, isn't a routing criteria
based in statute or rule.
To be clear we agree that community values
is a broad area.
And one that we acknowledge will require balancing,
but it is not so broad that it can be evaluated in a vacuum.
What we objected to, was that that at some point,
the impacts to residences,
which was the top ranking criteria in the questionnaire
circulated by the applicants was morphed
into this new nature of the impact
on neighborhoods standard.
And it wasn't just neighborhoods,
but really this notion that wide open spaces
undisturbed land this morning, you've heard
the reference to untouched area.
The PFD refers to sanctuaries
that should somehow take precedence
over the smaller tracks on Toutant Beauregard,
many of whom will have Z2
in their front yards and driveways.
Contrasted with the neighborhoods like canyons, for example,
which will have no impacts at all.
This was what was unprecedented.
And without prior notice and opportunity for comment,
it was inconsistent with due process
and therefore provides you the basis to overturn the PFD.
The criteria is about landowners,
not the so-called undisturbed land standard,
which really doesn't look at the community at large at all.
So, no, we did not elevate the number
of habitable structures above all other criteria,
but we merely pointed out this error.
We do find it ironic that at the same time, the ALJs
have applied this new nature of the impact
and neighborhood standard not found in rule.
They categorically dismissed issues
like notice to elementary school, parents
and to the neighbors around substation seven
as not being required by rule,
to us, that appeared to be a double standard.
As longstanding members of this community,
the San Antonio Rose Palace and Straight Promotions
are particularly concerned that the historic significance
of Toutant Beauregard wasn't truly taken into account
in this PFD, as the third stage
are the only two historic corridors in the state
Toutant Beauregard really is the epitome
of local community values and should not be discounted.
I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
-: Thank you.
-: Next up is Lynn Sherman.
-: Yes, thank you.
-: I'd call up now Mark Siegel please.
-: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. -: Yes sir.
-: My name is Lynn Sherman and I represent Brad Jour
and BBJ properties and we too oppose route Z2,
which was recommended by the PFD.
And we also endorse and recommend route P
which is recommended by Commission staff.
I wanna touch on some very important,
critical infrastructure issues right up front.
The first is substation seven,
which is associated with route Z2.
Substation Seven is within the flood plain of Leon Creek,
which is one of the most flood-prone areas
in the United States
according to the US Army Corps of engineers.
It's subdivision plat shows the flood plain extending
into the area where the substation will be located.
And the Corps of engineers report prepared
after Leon Creek exceeded flood stage in 2013,
raises the flood plain over seven feet higher
and further into the substation area.
Nevertheless, CPS continues to rely
on outdated information published before the 2013 flood.
CPS's own siding manual requires a location
sufficiently above existing flood levels
so future development will not cause
the floodplain to encroach upon the substation.
This is not the case from substation seven.
In contrast, flooding issues do not exist
for substation six, which is associated with route P.
In fact, sub station six is the most remote
from any watercourse of any of the substations proposed.
A second critical infrastructure issue
is communications tower number 501,
it too is located immediately adjacent to route Z2.
This tower contains microwave antenna leads to the regions
emergency communication system,
used by police and fire departments--
-: You have one minute.
-: As well as the Leon Creek flood warning system.
Microwave technology depends on line of sight transmissions
that can be impacted by tall obstructions.
And according to uncontroverted testimony
by the communication towers manager,
the emergency networks antenna is at a height and an asmith
that will likely experience interference from route Z2
in the angle structure where two of its sections meet.
Selecting route P recommended by Commission staff
would avoid this issue altogether.
The third issue I wanna point out is that route Z2
impacts almost twice as many habitable structures
than route P.
And this comparison does not include the homes
that are currently under construction
and about which CPS has knowledge
in the new scenic crest subdivision
that which are in the path of route Z2,
which CPS has stated or something for this Commission
to look at and evaluate as part of the testimony
and information submitted.
We strongly suggest that you take these under consideration
and choose route P over route Z2.
Thank you. -: Thank you.
-: So next I would call up the Soledad Valenciano.
And next to speak would be, I believe Scott Ludke, is that?
Scott: It's Ludke.
-: Pardon. -: Ludke.
-: Ludke, sorry sir. -: That's all right.
-: Good morning. -: State your name
for the record and please spell it for the reporter.
-: Sure, my name is Scott Ludke, it's L-U-E-D-K-E.
And I own the property located
at 9542 Majestic Oak Circle,
which is immediately adjacent
to proposed substation site seven.
The substation that's recommended in the PD.
As a point of reference,
I share approximately 480 feet of property line
running along the back or east side
of substation site seven.
I have an improved structure on my property that sits
approximately 30 feet from that common property line.
Despite this proximity to substation site seven
and unlike other landowners adjacent
to other proposed substation sites,
I never received any notification from CPS
regarding this proposal,
even though I've been a CPS customer
at that property since 2018.
When I learned at the hearing
to consider substation site seven,
I tried to intervene, but was denied that opportunity.
Substation site seven was included for consideration
only after CPS held its one and only open house meeting
to present information and to consider community input
on other substation sites.
So unlike the consideration,
given to other viable substation sites,
the general public was not afforded an opportunity
to weigh in and express concerns
regarding substation site seven.
In addition,
unlike the treatment regarding other substation sites,
CPS did not notify all adjoining land owners
of this proposed substation site.
I can confirm that I never received any notification
in writing, by email or phone call from CPS or anyone
representing CPS, regarding this substation site.
This again, despite being a CPS customer
at this property for over three years.
I first learned about substation site seven
in late March of this year.
Shortly after learning of this new site,
I submitted a letter to the Public Utility Commission
via the PUC interchange, expressing my sincere concerns
and I filed a motion to intervene.
That motion was denied without meaningful explanation
and without any opportunity to make a statement
on the record, other than to correct
their pronunciation of my last name
and to correct a misstatement of fact
made by another party who objected to my motion.
-: You have one minute. -: Thank you.
Not only will the location of substation site seven
severely negatively impact the value
and quiet enjoyment on my property.
The process that CPS used to advance
this lead proposal was flawed
and this proposed substation site
poses significant environmental risks,
not president other viable substation sites.
Thank you for your time
and thoughtful consideration of my comments.
-: Thank you.
-: So next time I would call up Michael Bitter or Butter
and then next to speak will be Mark Siegel.
-: Good afternoon.
My name is Mark Siegel, S-I-E-G-E-L.
I'm a homeowner in Knuckle Springs
and I propose route Z2
Toutant Beauregard is a historical
and scenic two-lane winding country road
with cattle, horses, goats, and deer.
As you look to your left and right,
it is crossed several times by Creek waters
and it's highly prone to heavy flooding.
Bear County listed on their flood control website
as a safety concern.
There are several flood gates that come down
that stop traffic during a heavy rain,
making it inaccessible to emergency and utility vehicles.
We are terrified of what could happen when stuck
behind a closed flood gate in a storm
with HVT lines hanging over our heads.
School buses filled with children use this road.
There were articles in the San Antonio Express News,
not too long ago about children being trapped
in this school, because there was no access to the school
because of the flood waters.
This is a recipe for disaster
by putting these HVT lines along this road.
Route Z2 also runs a dangerously close
to McAndrews Elementary School
and a proposal joining middle school.
Dr. Pankratz, a practicing pediatric
and Dr. Knowledges provided testimony
of the danger of HVT lines to children's health
noting studies suggest HVT lines may negatively impact
neural behavioral function
and increase a child's risk of developing leukemia.
Excuse me, Dr. Kumar and Dr. Diveti
concurred in their filings.
CPS tried to negate the concerns of these doctors
stating they were not experts.
I ask you since when are pediatricians not experts
on childhood diseases, but CPS engineers are?
CPS's only defense to running HVT lines
so close to our schools, was we've done it before,
as if past wrong somehow make this right.
As stated by the Northside Independent School District
in the hearing, just because you can
doesn't mean you should.
-: You have one minute, sir.
-: The PUC needs to send a strong message
that we put our children's physical
and mental health and safety first in Texas.
And we don't run HVT lines
along our children's schools and playgrounds.
CPS presented charts, and the cost of each route.
When pressed to provide more detail
on how these costs were derived, they strongly objected
and claim the hearings were not the place to question costs.
How can you claim that the primary favorable criteria
for route Z2 is low cost while arguing
that cost is not to be questioned?
What we did find out is that route Z2 is low cost
as a result of the land donated
and discounted by Mr. Derise under duress
in exchange for CPS moving the original route,
so not bisect his development,
and as he stated caused him financial ruin.
Costs have been manipulated and do not reflect
route costs of these routes.
Route Z2 is clearly the poorest and most dangerous route.
I urge the Commission to reject route Z2
and follow the recommendation issued
by its own PUC staff engineers to utilize route P.
the PU staff's recommendation of route P
actually follow the determining criteria
that was communicated to the public.
Thank you. -: Thank you.
-: So next I would call up and I apologize, sir.
Steve Cichowskia,
and then next to speak will be Soledad.
And I'm not gonna butcher your last name again, man.
-: Thank you, Mr. Journeay,
my name is Soledad Valenciano, V-A-L-E-N-C-I-A-N-O.
Good morning, Commissioners, Soledad Valenciano.
I'm here on behalf of Bear Ranch and Wahalote ranch.
We are here for,
I'm here very briefly for two points, really
one to support the proposal for decision completely,
which recommends route Z2.
Judges Shenoy and Vanderbilt
really looked at all of the evidence
and there was substantial evidence
that hearing for several days
and considered all of that evidence and applied
the PUC routing factors appropriately.
A lot of what we've heard this morning so far
was addressed in the exceptions.
And so to the extent there's any followup questions
to exceptions would respond to that,
but I'm also here to respond to any questions.
And I know CPS is here as well,
and they may have some responsive comments.
But I wanna yield my time so that you can meet
our client representative, Michael Bitter, B-I-T-T-E-R.
I would be remiss if I didn't introduce
the family that's here today.
We have Spike Johansen in the back,
Barbara Tarasina, Steven Bitter,
and then Vince Tarasina, who are also here today,
but in the interest of time,
we're gonna have Michael Bitter
talk to the Commission about why the PFD
correctly recommended V2, and we strongly support that.
Thank you. -: Thank you, ma'am.
Mr Bitter.
-: Good morning Commissioners.
My name is Michael Bitter.
My family owns Bear Ranch and intervener in this proceeding.
We support the ALJs proposal for decision and route Z2
our ranch is about 3,200 acres
with some of the highest points in Bear County.
For multiple spots, you can easily see downtown San Antonio,
which is over 20 miles away.
Bear Ranch is a working ranch.
It's been in our family for five generations.
About 100 years.
The original ranch was over 10,000 acres.
Our family still owns every bit of that.
So we have no plans to develop Bear Ranch.
We wanna conserve it and are pursuing participation
in the city of San Antonio's, Aquifer Protection Program,
which would place it in a conservation easement
to prevent development and help protect Edwards Aquifer.
We were even notified that Bear Ranch
is the top Bear county property
that they'd like to add to that program,
which is not surprising when you see the amount of water
that drains into the ground
and the natural recharge features on the ranch.
We oppose segments, 43, 44 and 45.
We strongly oppose any route that includes them.
That means routes P, R1 and W.
Look, our activities on Bear Ranch
are not the reason new electric lines are needed.
We already bear the burden of over two and a half miles
of existing transmission line
along our Western boundary, crosses very rough terrain,
making it challenging to construct
and expensive to maintain that line.
The new line would also cross tough terrain,
but the difference is, is it would be perpendicular
to the existing line, meaning it would bisect the ranch.
That means any of the three routes that are on the ranch
would bisect it, running right through the heart,
whether it's 43, 44 or 45,
-: You have one minute sir. -: They would all
be devastating.
It would make Bear Ranch, a target
for future infrastructure projects
and make development of the ranch more likely.
Route Z2 is the best route.
It's both the shortest, least expensive,
more than five million less
than any route across Bear Ranch.
Z2 utilize property that's been donated by a developer.
It does not bisect any properties except by consent.
Unlike routes P, R1, and W
which run through existing neighborhoods
and bisect individual lots.
And of course, then we'd go on to bisect Bear Ranch,
Z2 runs mainly along to Toutant Beauregard,
which is relatively flat, easy to access,
and already has significant development,
including existing distribution lines.
For all of these reasons, we ask you to spare Bear Ranch.
We respectfully ask you to adopt the proposal
for decision and order that route Z2
the shortest and least costly
of the proposed routes be utilized.
-: Thank you.
-: Mr. Anson, once the client's out here
We'll call you up your three clients, at one time.
Next to just speak will be.
-: Steve.
-: Steve Cichowskia, C-I-C-H-O-W-S-K-I-A.
I live in Aqua Springs, I'm here representing myself.
And I am not here to advocate for any line or to
request that you support the recommended line.
In fact, it's my understanding
that this project never went through any process,
either through this Commission or through ERCOT
and which a constraint was found that it was
an expedited proceeding.
And with that in mind, I would like to offer that
from the taking of no public input
on the recommended substation site,
to given notice to the adjoining landowners
of every substation site, except site seven
to an over $4 million error and land acquisition costs.
This process has been flawed.
And because this is not an expedited process,
I'm here to ask the Commission to do the extraordinary step,
deny this, send CPS back home, to do this correctly.
I agree with the other statements
that have been made against Z2,
but I would have focused in my limited time
on the cost factor,
because despite what the ALJ stated in their opinion,
that cost wouldn't be considered.
It was the primary consideration.
You cannot find costs, not mentioned
in any of the reasons they gave,
How did the cost get so off yet?
Where's my $4 million error?
Under testimony Mr. Lacy CPS's representative
stated he had no idea how the cost or term
he had to go out and find that, we took a break.
He returned it on his hearsay.
Mr. Lacy said, well,
the costs were determined for Pecan Springs Ranch.
That route that goes through Pecan Springs
to be the same as what Mr. Bitter just testified
a ranch that would never be developed,
would always be roll in $6,000 per acre for per Bear Ranch,
$6,000 per acre for a community under development,
whom lots have been sold,
with million dollar homes on it.
-: You have one minute sir.
-: The fact that there was no evidence
that the ALJs find no evidence of that level
of development is breathtaking.
Mr. Driest gave direct testimony
that the lots had been selling for $100,000 an acre period.
And you can go online and find some for three and 400,000.
The testimony was that homes had been built.
In fact, one of the residents
of that area, Mr. Ismael Reyes
was supposed to be here today,
'cause his home is bisected by the proposed line.
When you average and what the proper acquisition costs
would have been.
You can come up with a four and a half million dollar error.
Now this turns everything on its error.
How did CPS correct that?
They threatened Mr. Rodriguez with financial ruin
or else he made up the cost.
You look in the record at the agreement he signed.
There's a reason they say, "We'll do this
if you don't require us to condemn your property
and you pick up the cost to make our estimate correct."
-: Thank you. -: Thank you.
-: So I would call up Tom Anson, Debbie Castillo,
Jerome Cohen and Brian Swartzendruber.
-: Good morning Commissioners.
I'm Tom Anson, I'm the counsel
to the Safe Hunters Lane Area Association.
The acronym is SHLAA.
It's easier to just do that.
It almost sounds like a three dog might song,
but in any event.
SHLAA is made up of over 30 individual members
in the immediate hunters lane area,
as well as two subdivisions that have joined forces
with them, the Canyons and Altera,
because they all share similar concerns about that area.
So rather than hear from me,
I would like you to hear from three
of our individual members so that you can hear
their concerns straight from them.
We have Ms. Debbie Castillo, Mr. Jerome Cohen,
and then Mr. Byron Swartzendruber.
So I'll turn it over to them.
Thank you. -: Thank you Mr. Anson.
-: And I am here to answer questions.
Of course later, if you have any.
-: Good morning Commissioners,
my name is Debbie Castillo, C-A-S-T-I-L-L-O.
I am part of the leadership group
of Save Hunter Slain Area Association, also called SHLAA.
We and other concerned neighbors formed SHLAA
and raised money to hire an attorney
and an expert witness to help us oppose
having large electric transmission lines
winding through the Hunter's lane area,
because those would vastly change our neighborhood
and literally go through front
and side yards of our members,
as well as adversely affect our neighbors
at the Canyons and Altera.
I live on Hunters Lane with my husband and daughter
whom I homeschool.
We have lived there for many, many years
and run a horse boarding business on our property,
that supplements our income to allow me
to homeschool our child.
The areas immediately along Hunters Lane
or an older neighborhood where folks
have sheep, donkeys, chickens, horses, bees,
and other animals, and some like myself
run businesses on their properties.
It is generally a middle-class neighborhood
with a mix of retirees and working people.
Some of whom have lost jobs during COVID.
Substation six on scenic loop
would have bite the back sides of our property
and several other SHLAA members.
Our family and our horse boarding business
will be harmed by that substation site
and transmission lines connecting to it
like routes P or R1.
Substation seven, which connects to the ALJs
recommended route Z2
is also behind properties of just some SHLAA members,
but it is a much larger site high on a bluff
with lots of vegetation
in a short border on Toutant Beauregard.
It has very little visibility from neighboring properties,
substation six, which is next to us--
-: You have one minute. -: Is not on a high bluff,
does not have buffering vegetation.
Also a route Z2 line would still be seen by my family
and other SHLAA members who have views
of Toutant Beauregard.
SHLAA recognizes the areas need
for improved electric service.
We also recognize there is no perfect routing solution,
but all of our members, including those
who are impacted in some way by route Z2 agree
that route Z2 is the most reasonable one
under the circumstances.
We urge you to adopt the ALJs careful consideration
and recommendation of route Z2.
Thank you for your time this morning.
-: Thank you ma'am
-: Mr. Cohen, I think.
-: Hello, my name is Jerome Cohen,
J-E-R-O-M-E, last name C-O-H-E-N.
Thank you for listening to me.
My name is Jerome Cohen,
I'm a long time residence on Hunter Lane.
My wife and I live there and I work there.
We planted olive trees in our front yard
and we're raising our teenage children there.
We've now raised our grown children there.
We play with our grandchildren and I'm a member
of the Save Hunter Slain Area Association.
Hunters Lane is a small windy road with mostly older homes.
Hunters Lane also floods in the large dip
right in front of our house.
Ours is a special location.
I have seen salamanders and other endangered species
in my yard, along the Creek next to our house.
Unlike Z2, which goes down the major thoroughfare
of Toutant Beauregard routes like P and R1
using segment 15 would run directly
in between my gate and my house,
dissecting my land in half.
I would have to travel under the transmission lines
to get to my house from the road.
This is very concerning for me.
I believe that I'm the only homeowner in this case
with a route traveling directly through my front yard.
As I oppose going along the edge of one,
I have three sides of transmission lines
along the proposed route.
Segment 15 would be devastating to me
as well as my neighborhoods and the value
we have placed in our neighborhood over the years.
It has been with great sacrifice in the midst of COVID
that our members formed SHLAA to protect our neighborhoods.
I personally saw my business dry up
during the period of COVID,
because our community came together for each other,
we were able to have a voice into this decision.
I beg you to approve route Z2
so that we will not be a large transmission line
through the front of my yard.
Thank you.
Commissioner: Thank you for being here.
Byron.
-: All right.
My name is Byron Swartzendruber.
That's my take up my three minutes,
but B-Y-R-O-N S-W-A-R-T-Z-E-N-D-R-U-B-E-R.
And I, my wife and my four young children
live on Hunters Lane.
We have 30 chickens in a large garden
that I maintain year round.
And our elementary age children attend the school
on Toutant Beauregard, McAndrew.
I'm part of the leadership group
on Safe Hunters Lane Area Association.
We have worked very hard for this non-profit organization
whose sole purpose is not having
these electronic transmission lines
running through the middle of our neighborhood.
And we joined with our neighbors
at the Canyons and Altera to preserve our neighborhoods.
Hunters Lane is a windy narrow street,
not a main thoroughfare and route P would cause
large electric monopoles and transmission lines
to criss-cross and wind through our neighborhood
and through people's properties.
My home is on segment 22 of route P,
it would go within 141 feet of the side of my house,
where my young children, play including flying kites.
And then it would go across the road from me,
it would go 89 feet from my neighbor's house.
The PUC staff witness who recommended route P
did not visit any of the study area
and thus did not see our neighborhood
and what route P would do to our lives.
A, route Z2 transmission line would be still seen
by my family and SHLAA members
who have views of Toutant Beauregard,
and it would connect to substation seven
on the backside of some of the SHLAA members.
But substation seven would be up on a high bluff
with thick trees and brush
that those around the substation will not see it,
unlike those around substation six.
And route Z2 two would run along to Toutant Beauregard
and the edges of the properties and subdivisions
rather than through the middle
of existing Hunters Lane neighborhood
and in the middle of Mr. Cohen's front yard.
-: You have one minute sir.
-: Thank you.
So I just respectfully ask you to please adopt
the ALJs recommendation and select route Z2.
-: Thank you.
Steve: So I would call up at this time,
Steven Herrera and Patrick Cleveland
and Ty Miyahara.
Mr. Herrera, go ahead.
-: Good morning Commissioners.
My name is Steven Gomez Erera and I reside on 25,
130 Toutant Beauregard.
And just to make a clarification,
we're not affiliated with Bear Ranch or Clearwater Ranch,
and we're totally different entity.
I was the former secretary of the HOA there,
and there's a few things,
I'm just gonna go ahead and read this out to you here.
So I am a pro se intervener and I'm a native Texan
who was born and raised in the great state of San Antonio.
I am an opposition to substation locations,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7
and any segment associated with them.
Substation location seven is nine houses away from my house.
And just to give you a better perspective,
I just heard that there is a new proposed segment
that's gonna in at the entrance
of our neighborhood, and segments 54,
is gonna be literally across the street from my house.
So when people say how beautiful,
the beautiful scenery is, and they're gonna see this,
we're gonna live right by there.
And just to give you a better idea,
you can kind of hear most testimony
is about the concern about a transmission line.
Well imagine having a substation
right across the street from your house,
that's a totally different game changer right there.
Not only do we have the proposed segment
right at the entrance, we have the sub station
literally across the street from a neighborhood
that was established in 1972,
to give you a better perspective.
And then as we exit,
there will be another proposed segment.
And so, there's a few arguments that I'd like to state here.
I would think that the city of San Antonio
should have had a second open meeting.
The importance of that
is there would have been more interveners
and more protestors,
but I do have a document that was submitted into the record
that states that there are actually 71 total individuals
who either protested or intervened.
And so, the importance of this
is because during the testimony, Mr. Anson,
who's representing Sahala,
I don't know how you pronounce that,
but he did state that I was the only individual
that actually intervened
and that is an inaccurate statement.
There's actually three interveners,
right on Toutant Beauregard that can't be here
and multiple protestors on to Toutant Beauregard.
all in Scenic Hills and Serene Hills estates.
-: You have one minute sir.
-: And so the other points that I'd like to state is that
why would the substation be built
across the street from our neighborhood?
And why would the substation be built
in a substation, knowing full well,
there are gonna be ramifications and possible floods
that are going to affect that.
That's a guarantee, it's gonna happen.
We know our region, it's gonna happen.
So, and the worst one is,
why is this proposed transmission line
gonna be next to an elementary school?
From what I heard, it's gonna be 200 feet
from that actual school.
So once again, why is this being done?
I had a representative, I think Mr. Lacy, for CPS
who stated that this has been done before,
almost like, you should be lauded
for building a massive 46 six acre substation
next door to an elementary school,
but why would you repeat the same mistake all over again?
I mean, if we're gonna invest
in the future of the state of Texas,
why start there?
There's other areas that can be done
in particular,
I would agree with Rustin T water from the PUC
stated in at substation six with either route P
or route R1 would be more adequate
than the other locations.
-: Thank you, Mr. Erera, I appreciate it.
Mr. Cleveland.
-: Yes, sir.
Good morning Commissioners.
My name is Patrick Cleveland
and Cleveland is spelled C-L-E-V-E-L-A-N-D like the city.
I am an owner and member of High country ranch.
Just to give you a little history of High Country Ranch
in 1977, a person named Vernon Willoughby,
created,
he had a conservation idea to create 15 residential lots
and a 300 plus acre nature preserve.
And that nature preserve was for the purpose
of recreational activities for the members
and owners of High Country Ranch.
He could have developed that land
just like every other developer, but he didn't,
instead he preserved it
and he ensured that it stay preserved
because he put that requirement in the deed
and that requirement still runs with the property.
So for over 40 years now,
we've been able to preserve this area.
And now CPS Energy and the Southern interveners
are asking you to ruin it.
And the underlying message here is that punish us.
We've been preserving the land for 40 plus years
and reward them because they've created
and built massive developments down there.
It just doesn't seem right to me.
And I hope it doesn't seem right to you.
In reality, the best routes are P and R1
because they affect less,
far less habitable structures than route Z.
And I can understand if you didn't want
to disturb Bear Ranch, because High Country Ranch
is almost the same as Bear Ranch.
And if you don't wanna do that, there's an option.
And apparently Mr. Bailiff did not read my reply brief,
where I discuss route Y as a great option.
Route Y goes to the Northern part of the property?
It runs, while 82% of it
follows road and property right away.
That's the best out of all the focus routes.
-: You have one minute.
-: It's got several minor environmental factors
that go in it's favor too,
and it's less expensive than routes P and R1.
But most importantly, think how many interveners
would be happy or satisfied,
at least if that got chosen all of the southern routes,
a High Country Ranch, Tom Dries,
he'd be ecstatic because it'd be around his property.
He wouldn't have to donate anything.
And so the bottom line is if you pick
route P and R1 down south,
everybody in the north wins.
If you pick route Z2, up north, everybody in the south wins,
but if you choose route Y most of the interveners win.
And so, if you think it's important to save
two of the most scenic ranches in Bear county
or three with Guahalote Ranch,
I'd ask you to choose route Y
because it makes sense with respect
to all the interveners and the environment.
Appreciate your time.
-: Thank you.
One remaining?
-: Yes. -: Yes, sir, there we go.
-: Good morning Commissioners, my name is Ty Miyahara.
First name is T-Y.
Last name is M-I-Y-A-H-A-R-A.
Myself and my wife,
we've lived at 251202 Toutant Beauregard road
since February, 2021.
So I'm kind of a newcomer here.
We recently bought our house because it was on a hill.
It had a beautiful front porch
and view of the hills in front of our house.
And one of the reasons we liked the house
is that the prior owner actually paid extra
to have the power line to the house buried,
so we wouldn't have a pole on our side
of the street blocking our view.
Our request is to put the electrical towers
out of view from where we currently face
Toutant Beauregard.
And we definitely would want the towers
to be further from our house,
since we are within 300 feet of a proposed location.
I wanna be a good neighbor to our neighbors and our friends
in Fair Oaks Ranch and Fasiera developments.
But it seems unfair that our property values
are negatively affected and sacrificed for their benefit.
And I would hope that there would be a reasonable way
for our needs as well as their needs to be met.
My hope naturally was to settle in the hill country
and retire in this area.
Since we consider it to be the prettiest spot
in the state of Texas,
we moved here from Carrollton near Dallas,
and I paid what I considered to be a lot of money
for my new home and property to enjoy this view.
And my biggest concern will be the loss in home value
once the towers are constructed.
If not for my neighbors,
I would not have known about these proceedings
because unfortunately I'm not on your mailing list.
And I don't subscribe to the San Antonio newspaper.
Thankfully, I was able to schedule today
off from work to attend this opportunity.
And I thank you for the opportunity
to be able to speak to you before today,
I worked 38 years in the restaurant business,
putting in long hours and saving my money
to someday enjoy it.
And to be able to have a view
that I've been hoping for, for many years.
And when we purchased our house,
we had no idea that there would be a large,
130 foot metal structure placed in our view.
So it disturbs us because we would be one of the homes,
like I said, within 300 feet of an electrical tower.
And I read that part of the reasoning given
was that the visual landscape alone Toutant Beauregard road
has already been disturbed,
including by multiple contemporary yard art pieces
on the Heidemann Ranch,
along the east side of two Toutant Beauregard road.
That was the reasoning that was given.
-: You have one minute sir.
-: To me this is an overgeneralization
and does not apply to myself or my immediate neighbors.
And I can assure you that my visual landscape
is all natural landscape, except for the poles
presently in place that are below our view point.
I agree with the words in your proposal
for decision that state the views and visitors
are valued by the community.
And so my request is not surprising.
Nobody in their right mind would want
130 foot steel structure built in front of their home.
And I can't imagine any of you would want that
for your personal home.
And so I request that those that have the ability
to make these decisions to please be sensitive
to the negative impact it can have
on the enjoyment of our home
and the subsequent financial value to our home.
Please consider other options.
Thank you. -: Thank you.
Steve: At this time, I'd call up Tammy Zamarippa
and Ismael Reyes.
And I guess also Kirk Rasmunsen.
-: Okay.
Good afternoon, My name is Tammy Zamarripa,
Z-A-M-A-R-R-I-P-A.
I'm here today.
I am a resident of a Sundance Ranch
right off of Toutant Beauregard road.
I am here to speak against route Z2.
The open house meeting that took place on October 3rd, 2019.
First of all, we never received any information on that.
We'd been in our home at that point over a year,
but the questionnaire that was circulated at that meeting
came back with a number one concern by 58% that participated
that impact to residents was their number one concern
with this substation and new transmission lines.
I know we've heard it already,
but that being said, route Z2
has one of the highest impacts of residents currently at 33,
and also with the scenic crest subdivision
that is being built and developed
right across from Sundance Ranch.
That already has two structures,
home structures near completion.
I believe that this substation
cannot be considered unforeseen future growth.
These homes will be significantly impacted
and therefore need to also be taken into consideration
as a number for impact of residents,
which is going to greatly increase for our route.
Also, I did wanna speak about the lines running
near or behind McAndrew Elementary
and the future middle school,
as stated before the lines will come in
about within 200 feet of the playground
that is already there, and it will be equally as close
with the future recreational fields
that will be developed there.
And as stated before-- -: You have one minute.
-: I feel personally that if I can't be guaranteed
100% safety for my child or myself, when I go there,
then we shouldn't do it at all.
Thank you, thank you for listening to my concerns.
I hope that you reverse the decision
that CPS and the ALJs have recommended
and either support the PUC staff of engineer's suggestion
or look for alternative routes.
Thank you.
-: Thank you for being here.
-: Mr. Reyes.
-: Okay.
Thank you very much for having me here today.
My name is Ismael Reyes.
You spell that I-S-M-A-E-L and Reyes is R-E-Y-E-S.
I live at a Pecan Springs ranch
and to get to my retirement home five acres
and a beautiful home, beautiful trees around my house.
I can not believe that Z2, will come right
behind my house.
I might get three poles, maybe two.
I hope just one, but you know,
I just wanna state that
if you're gonna save millions of dollars,
because you're going to get land free land,
no condemnation, no nothing from a developer.
So that way you can pass through my backyard
with two, maybe three poles, I have five acres.
I worked real hard to get to this point,
to get my retirement home.
Three years later, you guys decide to put three poles,
transmission lines, right behind my yard.
I mean, I have a two, 300 year old Oak trees back there.
I'm sure you guys are going to take those down,
which there's no regulation on taking down trees.
And when you do a PUC transmission line.
Now, I cannot believe that that land
that was given to
CPS and PUC
passes right behind McAndrews Elementary,
where my wife teaches, my grandchildren go there
and tons of other people go there.
I cannot believe that transmission line
is going right through there.
They say that the harm is nothing
to harm children at second grade,
first grade, third grade, fourth grade,
fifth grade, and so on.
It gives less energy than the microwave.
But the thing is, is that our children
don't stand in front of a microwave 247, seven days a week.
So that's my main concern.
Is that how does PUC and CPS have
I don't wanna say...
Well, I don't know if you know that,
that you pass right by an elementary school district.
-: You have one minute, sir.
-: And so that's my main concern,
but my main concern is that I'm trying
to save my retirement home,
I have worked real hard to get to this point.
I paid a lot of money for that property as a get devalued.
And probably my trees are gonna get torn down
because literally those poles will go
probably around 50 to 60 feet away from my back door,
from my patio door.
And they say that
there's no homes impacted through that route.
I beg your pardon, my house is impacted a lot.
And so I spent all my life savings,
all the properties I have sold to get to this point,
and I'm 71 years old, I cannot build another house
or maintain something else
where I can be at a retirement place, okay.
Thank you very much for letting me speak today.
Thank you.
-: Thank you for being here.
Steve: Sir that leaves us with
CPS and Commission style.
-: Well, like there's we heard from
one of the testimony that there's no perfect answer to this.
And I think everything we heard speaks
to the difficulty of making these choices.
Do CPS, do you have any prepared remarks
or are you here to answer questions?
-: I'm happy to answer any questions.
Kirk Rasmussen from Jacks Walker representing CPS Energy,
the applicant in this proceeding,
I do have some responses to some of what we heard.
If you'd like to hear that the record,
we've addressed a lot of this in reply exceptions
and reply briefing.
So I'm happy to address anything you would like
addressed as well as answer any questions
that the Commission may have.
-: Yeah, I do have a couple of questions.
First of all, I just wanna say thank you
to all of the homeowners that came out.
It's a forum that you all need to have and should have.
And we're appreciative of you all
having the courage to come up and speak your views
to this Commission, thank you.
And then I do have a question about one issue,
and that is why was substation seven added
as a late possibility and that it was not considered
or disclosed during open houses?
-: Well, so as this process happens,
you lay out substation sites.
You look for available property
where you could put a potentially five acre substation.
You look for rotting alternatives,
you're trying to find where the need for the project is.
And I would note for the record,
what we did not hear today was anyone
challenging the need for this project.
This is a critical project for the reliability of this area.
And so you're looking to find a site in that area.
You hold an open house and you get feedback
from the community.
Well, one of the feedback we got
was a landowner approached us and said,
"I have a piece of property that I would be willing
to sell you for your substation in this location."
We had two landowners approach us and said,
"I'd be interested in selling you
my property, would it work?"
And we went out and we evaluated that.
Interestingly, the substation site six,
that some of the opponents of substation site seven
are arguing against, was also added later.
So part of the public feedback
is to get feedback from the community.
The opportunity to then respond is through this process.
We've had over, 15 months now
of the community expressing to the Commission,
their thoughts about substation site seven,
substation site one, substation site six.
And so there's this perception that these open houses
are the opportunity to provide feedback, they are,
we took that feedback, we looked for other sites,
other opportunities.
And so substation sites six, substation sites seven
substation site one was relocated based on that feedback.
And then the community is apprised
of those new locations and their opportunity
is through this process.
And we've heard it, the judges heard it,
they heard a lot of feedback about the pros
of sub-station site seven, the pros of substation site six.
And they considered that.
So I would just remind the Commissioners,
this whole process, and it's been vigorous.
The community's been really involved.
This is the process for them to express
to the Commission their views on substation site seven
substation site six, and the judges heard that,
and they took that into consideration
and coming up with their recommendation.
Man: May I ask a question?
-: No, this is a time for questions
from the Commission to testimony.
Thank you though.
Are there any other points that were raised
that you'd like to address briefly?
-: I think the, record's clear
about the relationship between CPS Energy and Mr. Dries.
Mr. Dries filed a letter a couple of days ago,
expressing how he interacted with CPS.
And I wanna make clear to the committee,
Mr. Dries approached us as a land owner
that owned a large piece of property
and expressed a willingness to work with CPS
on routing, work with us on donation abroad away,
working with us on right-away costs.
And CPS worked with Mr. Dries as he approached us,
there is no evidence of coercion or arm twisting
or forcing Mr. Dries to interact at all with CPS,
he chose to approach us.
He chose to approach CPS Energy with several deals,
several opportunities.
And we hope that it will be a precedent for the Commission
to encourage landowners, to work with utilities,
to come up with solutions that can accommodate
both infrastructure as well as development.
And so I wouldn't want the record to reflect that,
that relationship,
that there was any arm twisting or coercion.
And I think Mr. Dries's letter earlier this week
reflects how he did approach CPS
and how that relationship was.
-: All right, thank you.
Like I said, there's no perfect solution.
It's a difficult, difficult choice, out of the gates.
I'd be open to having a discussion at the dais,
but certainly I'd certainly be willing
to consider tabling this until our next open meeting,
so we can consider everything we've heard today,
but we don't have to,
but I just wanna throw that out there.
-: Out of respect for the testimony from the interveners,
I'd like to go back, stare at the map,
compute what I've heard and come back,
discuss this with everybody and see where we all land.
-: Yeah, that makes sense to me.
-: Yes, absolutely.
-: I agree.
-: All right, in the meantime,
is there any additional information y'all want from CPS?
I know we've had Commissioner McAdams
led the charge on making sure that we've got
all the existing data or underlying data, right.
To justify the load projections.
And, I know nobody contested that,
but in for the sake of consistency,
I would certainly like to see the existing data,
not a requirement to go do additional analysis or studies,
but would like to, for CPS to file the existing data
and plan forming the basis of this low growth.
-: And chairman, I don't wanna be presumptuous,
but we did try in our reply to exceptions
to address Commissioner McAdam's previous comments.
And so we laid out in our reply to exceptions
where that record evidence is,
but I'm happy to supplement that
if you'd like additional information,
I think the PFD walked through it as well,
but we're happy to provide whatever else
you'd like about the record evidence.
-: Yeah, I did see that they had filed in the reply,
a load growth, the bones of that load growth assessment
that justified the need and delineated the need there.
So, yeah, I'm gonna go back and look at that
given some of these assertions.
-: Sure, would you mind putting some meat on those bones
and filling in the gaps with
which the analysis you've already got?
-: Yeah, we'd be happy to.
-: I appreciate that.
-: I would like to get a little bit more information
and I'm sure it's in the record somewhere perhaps
on the route, I guess, is it, Y?
Just to get a little bit more information about why
that route wasn't ultimately chosen?
It sounds like based on some of the feedback
we got here today,
that it could address a lot of concerns
by all the different land owners.
And what I want from that is,
maybe from a technical standpoint,
why was it a route that would meet the reliability, perhaps,
cost, how much more costs would it be impacted,
habitable structures, those key sets of information.
-: So let me address one point.
So route Y is a route included in the application.
It does meet the reliability needs,
and it's certainly a route that CPS Energy supports
as a viable route for the project.
So it's one in our application,
it's one that we support and would be happy
for the Commission to approve.
As these cases tend to play out,
the utility will present,
in this case, we got to about 33 different routes
for consideration.
And then as parties advocate for and against routes,
the case kind of proceeds with the parties,
choosing which routes they want to argue for
against the utility.
We end up being fairly agnostic to the,
as long as the routes meet the need for the project,
we support it.
And then the data can be used by the Commission.
So that it's approximately five million more
than the route that the judges recommended.
It has approximately eight more habitable structures
within 300 feet than the route the judges recommended.
But there are certainly, and CPS exhibit 17,
and I'll be happy.
We can include this in our discussion of need.
We can lay out some of the comparisons,
but I think the only reason Commissioner Cobos,
that it didn't receive a lot of discussion
from the judges is it didn't receive
a lot of discussion from the parties.
And so, as these cases develop,
the judges respond to the evidence the parties present
about routes they're in favor of for, or against,
and it just parties weren't arguing for or against it
and so it didn't receive a lot of discussion.
But all of the data for that route is in the record.
And it's certainly available for the Commission to consider.
And we'd be happy to compare the attributes of that route
and if you would like.
-: That would be great. -: Can you tell me
where it is generally speaking?
Is it to the north or is it to the south?
-: It proceeds to the north?
-: Okay.
-: Right.
Appreciate if you could fill in the gaps there.
And finally, I would also ask
for a map showing all of the CCN boundaries
and transmission distribution facilities
by different CCN holders in this area.
And if we wanna get it on,
get this item on the November 18th agenda,
please have it by the eighth.
-: Can you help me with what that your last question was
about CCN holders?
So this is wholly within CPS Energy's
certificated service territory,
and all of the transmission lines within this area
are CPS Energy, transmission lines?
-: Any nearby boundaries.
Kirk: Okay.
-: And any nearby boundaries
and associated ownership of lines.
-: Okay.
And that there is an exhibit.
So we'll point you to that in the record.
-: And just to be clear,
I think it, wasn't already a map
that has Y on there as well,
and your cross-comparison table,
while all that information is the record would just help us.
So we don't have to go dig around.
-: Sure.
And so the demonstrative maps that we've filed in the docket
will point out the segments that demonstrate
where route Y is.
So you can trace that along.
Or if you'd like, we can create a separate exhibit
that just shows the location of route Y,
if you want to compare.
-: That would be great.
-: I would prefer to on an existing map
that has all of the segments
so that we can look at all of them in a single exhibit.
-: That's right.
-: So there was a map in evidence at CPS Energy exhibit 16.
And it, for lack of a better term,
it's called the rainbow map,
just because it has so many colors that showed the routes
that parties were advocating for or against.
-: Is that the one with like 30 different options
and stuff like that?
-: It's got give, or take seven or eight different routes
that parties were advocating for.
And it shows the different color combinations,
route Y is not on there,
because again, it hadn't been advocated for.
If you'd like, we can just add route Y to that map,
and then you can see it compared to the ones
that parties were advocating for in their discussions.
-: That should work.
(indistinct)
-: Okay, that'd be helpful, thank you.
-: And we'll just,
we'll file that in the docket with the other filings.
-: I appreciate it.
-: Community values.
-: Fire away.
-: Okay staff,
do you have any comment on the community values
definition that is being embraced here?
Man: In the PFD, your honor?
-: Yes, sir.
-: Ruston Tailwater for Commission staff.
We thought the PFD was thoughtful in its analysis.
The term community values is interpreted
differently by different judges.
I don't think that we have a objective definition
that we could point to, this is what community values are.
Generally staff interprets that criteria
and has the opinions and attitudes
of the members of the community
who are involved in the case,
which is a fairly broad definition.
-: All right.
Well, I wanted to hear those thoughts.
I think we do need as a Commission
before making a final determination,
talk through community values,
and I'll hold my fire on, on this topic
until final determination, but yeah.
Do want to speak to it?
-: Sure.
-: And chairman Commissioners just briefly,
I just wanted to make a very brief statement,
as you've said, and as you've heard,
there's no easy decisions in this case.
However, staff does continue to support route P
as the route that we believe best meets the criteria
and PURA and the Commission rules.
However, we are respectful of the very thoughtful
and thorough analysis that they ALJ performed
in their proposal for decision.
We're happy to answer any questions about that position.
-: Thank you, Ruston. -: Sure.
-: I'll throw in one additional thought
regarding consideration of recreational areas.
If we want to, my opinion would be that
those recreational areas, anything to find out
as such should be open to public access,
you and I get it dearly so nobody else can come on.
I don't think that's a recreational area
for purposes of this, these kinds of proceedings.
Just wanna mention that.
Unless there are any other thoughts or comments,
we will table this item until a further open meeting.
And given the time we will recess
for a 45 minute lunch break and reconvene here at 1:15 PM.