-: 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
for December 16th, 2021.
For the record, my name is Peter Lake.
And with me today are Will McAdams, Lori Cobos
and Jimmy Glotfelty.
Mr. Janae, would you please walk us
through the consent items on today's agenda?
-: Good morning, Commissioners.
By individual ballot, the following items were placed
on the Commission's Consent Agenda,
one, eight, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 20.
-: Thank you, sir.
Is there a motion to approve
the items just described by Mr. Janae?
-: So moved.
-: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye.
-: None-opposed, the motion passes.
As you all know,
we are expecting lots of public comment today.
And so in order to balance that
with a need to comply with a rule submittal
for the Texas register, and because of a PUC staff event,
we're gonna take up as much of our agenda
as we can get through the key rules and priorities
between now and in 10:30.
At 10:30, we're gonna open for public comment until 11:00.
We'll get through as much of that as we can.
At 11:30, we're gonna break for the staff event
and reconvene at 12:30 for any remaining public comment
or the remainder of the agenda.
First up, and we will take up item 28
on market redesign as the last item on our agenda today.
We will not be taking items two and five.
And in order to knock out as much of the critical rules
as we can before 10:30,
we're gonna start with items three, 22 and 25.
Mr. Janae, item three please.
-: Item three is project 52845.
Middle Mile Broadband.
Staff has filed a memo and a proposal for publication.
-: Mr. Smelser, you're welcome.
-: Good morning, Commissioners Davidson Meltzer,
Commission staff.
This is one of our legislative implementation measures
that will implement HB3853.
Big picture, just moving fast.
If utilities have extra fiber capacity,
they can share some of that with,
or they can lease it out rather
to internet service providers to provide broadband
to underserved areas of the state.
The implementation that we're doing largely track statute,
we added a few extra disclosure elements,
cybersecurity concerns,
making sure that rate payers are not burdening
any of these shoulder need the costs.
So it's a pretty straightforward, this is proposal stage.
Happy to answer any questions.
-: Thank you, Mr. Smelser.
Any questions, comments,
or a motion to approve the proposal for publication?
-: Thank you, sir.
Good shape right now. I would move to approve.
-: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye.
-: None-opposed, the motion passes.
Item 22, please sir.
-: Item 22 is project 51830;
the review of certain retail
electric customer protection rules.
Commission staff has filed a memo
and a proposal for adoption.
-: Commissioners, the proposal for adoption is based largely
on comments that we received filed by the public,
along with direction that we received from you
at the last open meeting in response to questions by us.
A few of the highlights on how we implemented that are;
I guess the big picture decisions are fixed means fixed.
And so we have in the definition of fixed rate product,
that the price of a fixed rate product
cannot vary along with the changes in service costs
as per our discussion last time.
We also last time had an extended discussion
about different risk profiles of products
that are in the market.
And the way we implemented that was by going forward
with extending the ban on wholesale index products,
all index products for the small and residential
small commercial and residential classes.
And we made it clear in the preamble
that sort of a liberal interpretation
of the other types of products can sort of fill in the gap
for seasonal products, time of use, offsets,
and solar incentives, all of these sorts of products.
So we think that was our attempt to reflect
what we understood the discussion to be last time.
One aspect where the draft varies a little bit
from the discussion is,
we ended up removing the AOR requirements
from their residential and small commercial section.
Because by the end of the discussion,
we had gotten through like, in the proposal,
those were supposed to be linked
to these ancillary service products and the index products.
And since we ended up taking those out of the draft,
there wasn't anything left that they are would attach to.
So I think those were the sort of high level decisions.
And we can pivot from this point based on your direction.
I'm happy to answer any more specific questions,
but as long drafts, I'm not gonna detail all of it.
-: Thank you, Mr. Smelser.
And as you acknowledged,
this Commission had a long discussion
at our last open meeting about this very matter.
And a thorough discussion.
As we all know, this is a key customer protection item
from the last legislative session to ensure that our,
especially our residential customers are more protected
than they were this time last year.
And I think staff's done a very good job
in a very short amount of time
with a fairly, very big undertaking.
This is one of those items that in normal times
would have been substantial on its own.
But in these extraordinary times,
is just one of the many reforms going into place.
Questions, comments, thoughts?
-: Would you lead Commissioner, but I have thoughts.
-: Okay, Mr. McAdams.
Okay, all right, well, great.
So as you've noted, Chairman Lake,
Winter Storm Uri demonstrated the need for the Commission
to proactively protect consumers.
And this role reflects our continued and strong commitment
to protect our state's consumers.
As I've said at the last open meeting,
the storm exposed many risks for consumers,
essentially busted the seams of our retail market,
and further direction of House Bill 16
that was passed by the legislature,
signed into law by the Governor.
We must ban wholesale price index plans.
And the bill, the legislation also provides us
with the ability to add additional customer protections
for our consumers.
And that is why we are here today;
to ensure that we can proactively protect residential
small commercial consumers,
and really all consumers in the future.
And so, with respect to the three items,
I am currently open to comment.
I know I've stayed in my position.
And Commissioner McAdams,
you may have some additional thoughts on that?
-: Yeah.
I mean, I'm gonna wax poetic here because I think this rule
offers a great window
into the broader market design conversation
that we are having later today.
But for the public's benefit,
and certainly I know the market appreciates
a bit of history;
for more than 20 years,
this state has enjoyed the benefits
of the energy only deregulated market design.
For over a decade, energy prices within ERCOT
had been among the lowest in the country,
and by some estimates in the world.
I think it is fair to say that our energy costs
have played a major role in making Texas
one of the most dynamic places to either start
or grow a business in the country.
This Commission over that time has pursued
a light touch approach to regulation
in the spirit that market forces would produce
the lowest cost, most efficient,
and best outcomes for consumers.
Then came February and everything changed.
Through your leadership, Mr. Chairman,
we have undertaken a crash course program
to address the directors from the legislature
through statute and statutory reforms and the Governor.
We have also attempted to address operational challenges
facing ERCOT as the resource mix of our system
shifts to a more variable source of power.
Throughout this process,
an overarching thought has nagged at me.
And that is, any policy change we consider,
the cure should not be worse than the disease.
And by that, I mean, we should not consider policies
that eliminate some of the most important virtues
of the deregulated market.
Because if we do that, what is the point
of having a deregulated market?
So all that said, your blueprint, our blueprint,
that we will consider later today,
I believe threads the needle.
I believe it provides us a measured and incremental approach
where this Commission can stand at the tiller,
guiding the ship through the rocks of what the future holds
for the deregulated market, the changing resource mix,
the variability that that holds,
to help manage the costs incrementally to consumers,
so that ultimately they don't experience price shock.
So, how that segues into implementation of House Bill 16
in the rulemaking.
One of the most important aspects of our market
is that consumers have optionality to a degree.
Now, I think what we are considering
as part of this rulemaking,
attempts to maintain that optionality,
but also manage the risk
for both the market and the consumer.
We have heard through filings
and also anecdotally through market participant feedback
that the ancillary service condition,
the ability to pass through ancillary services
is something that will weigh on their ability
to develop products.
Namely fixed one year and two year products.
In years past, in 2019, when this market experienced
a price shock of sorts,
we hit $9,000 a megawatt hour for only one hour,
which caused wholesale prices to increase.
It gave comfort to legislators and policymakers
that two year and one year products were available
to help smooth out that risk to consumers,
so that they didn't experience those high prices
all in one bill.
if the threat of the menu of ancillary services
that we will consider later today,
cast a cloud over the ability for the retail market to offer
one and two year products,
then I think we should take every effort
and make every effort to clarify to the market
how we will help manage this moving forward,
and act as a natural breaking system.
So, I think a change should be considered to the PFA
as it relates to the portion of the rulemaking
on 25.475.
And if you go to subsection B five, okay?
So if you have your red line, that's on page two.
As it relates to fixed rate product.
And the change that says the price may not vary
from the disclosed amount to reflect changes
in ancillary service charges.
I would propose and welcome feedback by adding one word.
In between changes in,
I would add existing to ancillary service charges.
Meaning that what we have in the system today,
those charges and those fluctuations in charges
shall not be passed through to consumers.
Upholding the fixed means fixed principle.
However, as we look at FFRS,
which has not been implemented yet,
ECRS, which is being considered as a part of the blueprint,
voltage support, which is part of the blueprint,
winter ancillary service,
which is the backup fuel storage ancillary service,
which is part of the blueprint,
that we would consider these on a case by case basis
to give guidance to the market,
that we would set the size, the scope,
and how those charges may be passed through to the market.
So hopefully, that gives comfort to the retailers
so that they can continue to market one and two year plans
with the knowledge that there will be a process
at the Commission,
and that they have the due process
associated with our consideration.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd welcome any feedback.
-: That's an interesting change to me.
This all comes down to the question of,
are individual residential households better
at managing the financial risk of the ERCOT market,
or are the retail electric providers
who these households pay their money to
better at managing that risk?
For me, the answer is the retail providers
who collect those monthly checks.
Our job is not to provide comfort to those companies.
Our job is to provide a level playing field
so that multiple companies can compete
to deliver the best service and the best price to consumers.
It's not our job to manage the risk for them,
and it's not our job to provide a cushion
to enhance their profits,
so they can go sell themselves to the next big Jen Taylor
who comes along.
I do appreciate your point
that unexpected costs can be harmful to any business.
And so I can see how this fits in
with the changes going forward,
and the new products that we're bringing to bear
and bringing to market.
However, I don't want to allow a backend default setting.
So then a year or two years,
whenever these products come into play,
I don't want the default setting to just be allowed
to allow these retail providers to sneak the next product
in the back door so it passed through to customers
without any measure or checks and balances.
So what can we do?
I don't think that's your intention either.
So what do we do to ensure that when we do get
firm fuel product, when we do get voltage support,
when we do get ECRS,
how can we ensure that those new costs
as new ancillary services are not passed on to consumers?
And I am happy to ensure that retail providers
have visibility on costs that their businesses will incur.
And I think that's our only obligation;
is to give them visibility.
And I know this last summer,
there were some unexpected costs
that was unavoidable and unfortunate.
And I don't think anybody on this Commission
intends for that to happen again.
But what insurance can we put into place
to make sure that the next suite of ancillary services
are not snuck in the back door and end up unfiltered
and unchecked going to the household?
-: Happy to answer that, but.
-: Yeah, so, Chairman, like, I think you sort of highlighted
the balance that we're trying to strike here today
with these roles.
And that is, continue in our commitment to protect
residential and small commercial consumers,
and maintain a healthy, competitive retail market.
And so, I agree with you that at some point
there is a slippery slope
in which fixed rate products can be...
You know, if we're not very clear as to how we move forward,
there is a slippery slope in which fixed rate products
could be modified to the point
that they become variable rate products.
-: That's right.
-: And so, that is what we're trying to prevent here today.
With respect to the pass of ancillary services
and just ancillary services in general, as many know,
during the winter storm, the ancillary service charges
were significantly high.
And as a result of all of those costs,
the legislature, the Governor signed into law,
securitization legislation that allowed us to stabilize
the market, the integrity of the market,
and maintain stability in the market.
As later, ERCOT has modified their market rules
to cap their ancillary service costs at the price cap,
which has now been lowered by
just under 50% by the Commission.
So those two actions together
create some protections for consumers going forward
that we saw exposed during the storm.
To your point about this summer,
and going forward,
I think we have to be very clear going forward
on our actions.
It is incumbent on us as we look
at all of the suite of products and services
that we will be asking ERCOT to implement,
that we not only act with vigilance on reliability,
but as stewards of consumer costs.
And so, as those products are scoped, like,
or caught contingency reserve service,
ancillary services, voltage support,
the winter from fuel winter resiliency product,
that we, the Commission,
determine the size of those products.
How many megawatts ERCOT will be required to procure?
What is the cost allocation methodology?
And make all of those determinations so that we can provide
as much visibility, as much transparency
to the retail electric provider,
so they can properly hedge going forward.
And so that residential and small commercial consumers,
and really all consumers will have an expectation
that the adjustment, the markets will adjust
to our actions here.
So I see your point Commissioner McAdams on that.
And so, that is, I believe what we have to do going forward;
is ensure transparency and visibility
for the reps and the consumers.
-: So happy to respond.
Oh, okay, all right.
The overarching concern
and the way this is gonna roll out
in practical effect, I believe.
And it's only, this isn't me being a financial wizard,
this is just logic.
Which is with the suite of ancillary services,
again, everything that we were proposing,
I believe it is in our interest to have implemented
to some degree in the next two years.
Sooner if practicable.
-: Absolutely.
-: So reps are going to market now with the view that,
all right, if I wanna have a two year plan,
I've got to hedge the exposure to take into account
the spectrum of ancillary services
that this Commission is considering.
Sam who is sitting in the front row over there,
and could get called up here,
but he has proposed 25 gigawatts
of winter backup fuel ancillary service.
That's 25,000 megawatts on a seasonal basis.
We're looking at 3.9 gigawatts of ECRS.
So my point is the scale is gigantic risk
for any middleman trying to byproducts
and then pass them through to customers.
So the intended effect is,
they're not gonna market to your plans anymore.
So we're gonna be left with one month,
two month and three month plans.
Which means my father,
who is not the most technically savvy person in the world
is gonna have to renew his contract every one month,
two month and three months.
And that's going to cause some issues.
So I believe just words matter, words on paper matter.
And that's why I'm arguing that if we could bolster.
-: I agree with that addition to that word,
I just wanna make sure.
-: I was arguing against myself then.
(audience laughs)
-: I felt like letting you go on a little longer,
but we've got a tight agenda today.
I just wanna make sure that we don't get
to the implementation point,
and there's a back door wide open
for these reps to sneak those $5,000.
The chance for a day, I had procurement at $5,000
a megawatt hour of ECRS or from fuel.
And they will.
They aren't gonna raise their hand and say,
hey, y'all forgot it.
Y'all forgot about the restriction on us
to not limit our risk.
Like they'll sneak it in there.
So, let's adopt the change that you propose there.
And I would ask ERCOT
to ask this Commission to direct ERCOT,
to provide us with an update on sizing,
or proposed sizing at least six months in advance
of any rollout of a new ancillary service suite.
-: I would agree with that, sir.
-: And require.
Does that work for you?
-: Absolutely.
-: Require ERCO
so that we, the Commission can affirm
what the appropriate size of these ancillary services are,
and have a fixed requirement that we address that.
And if need be, open up this rule again to ensure that
any new ancillary services are included.
Does that work?
-: Yes.
-: Commissioners.
-: Yes, Mr. Smelter.
-: Sorry.
Is we're talking about implementing that change.
Staff just wants to clarify.
So I have a proposed edit here,
but then also, so if we talk about how ancillary services
could vary within the context of a contract,
there's existing ancillary services change
every minute of every day, just like the price of energy.
And so clearly those have never been something
that you could pass through to customers,
and will continue to not be under your proposal.
And then the two new aspects our reps were talking about
where if ERCOT decides to procure a greater amount
of an existing ancillary service,
like what happened last summer,
I would read the modification
is not allowing them to do that because that's an existing,
not allowed to pass that through
because that's an existing ancillary service.
But if there is a new ancillary service that is created,
the default is that they cannot pass that through.
Is that the intention?
-: No.
SO the trigger is that this Commission, I believe,
wants to ratify every new ancillary service
that goes to market.
Meaning, we are okay with it, functionally.
The volumes once ratified can be adjusted
on an operational basis,
depending on the operational needs of the system.
We still wanna be involved in that process,
but we don't necessarily wanna get up here and say,
okay, 3,900 is appropriate.
All right?
But in terms of any new products,
and that's the problem;
these are new products that have not gone to market.
They haven't gone through the full stakeholder process
and/or Board recommendation at ERCOT.
So, I wanna have a say in that.
I think the rest of the Commission does as well.
So the condition is, until we adopt it,
once adopted, then yes, they may not be passed through.
But it's to give certainty to the consumers in the market,
that we will have a proceeding of some type.
And proceeding is a loaded word.
A meeting at least to talk about and set the conditions
of the ancillary service and ratify it.
and then it can be passed through.
So that they know that we will have a process here.
Does that make sense, Mr. Smelser?
-: It does make sense.
I was trying to decide if we needed additional language
to allow you guys to discretion,
to determine on a case by case basis,
whether or not these ancillary service costs
would be passed through for new costs,
because I think the language as it stands with the edit
would be, I don't have it right in front of me,
but something like, the prices may vary
in response to regulatory changes.
And then the next sentence would be,
but not for existing ancillary services.
And so I think that that would allow them to vary the price,
or you basically change contracts
based on new ancillary services.
And so I was wondering if we wanted to put in language,
something that staff could think about
that said the Commission will determine whether or not.
You know what I mean, that you guys will determine
at the time of a new ancillary service.
-: I do.
I know you're trying to over-lawyer it, but okay.
(audience laughs)
-: I just wanna make sure that you still have the discretion
that you think you want later, if that's what you want that.
-: I think perhaps we want to specify the date
the existing refers to.
So if we put in language, something like,
existing ancillary services
as of the contract enrollment date.
Because as the rule persists over the next few years,
different ancillary services will be "existing."
-: So, in my understanding of the way this all works out,
on the other side is, once this rule goes into effect,
once we've adopted it, it has the force of law.
So everything predating this
is an existing ancillary service,
unless we have adopted something in the future.
And that's why I'm trying to create something
that gives us flexibility to re-look at these things
on a case by case basis moving forward.
So I don't know if we need the date in there.
-: Well, I that might kill two birds with one stone,
in that even if you do a two year contract,
fixed contract now,
in 24 months, in month 23,
a new ancillary service comes out,
that's for that month under her framework would not be...
That would not be considered an existing ancillary service.
And so for that one month,
those charges could be passed through.
But as soon as that 24 month rolls out,
correct me if I'm wrong, Connie,
as soon as you get to month 24, and it's a new contract,
now that is part of the existing ancillary service.
-: Yeah, I understand.
And also the other approach
is to leave this Commission flexibility
to where we can try to move,
depending on how large these ancillary services are,
to adopt a plan that we can promulgated to retailers
that allows them to start passing through some costs.
Otherwise you kill the entire retail market.
And that is not my intention.
-: I think that that was my point.
That if you wanna preserve the ability
to make decisions on a case by case basis,
I think you need one more sentence in there.
And I don't wanna just draft it off the cuff.
But I think that the way that I interpret yours would be,
you can't change based on existing,
but if there's a new ancillary service reps,
can change the contract based on that,
because that would be a regulatory change.
And so if we want to allow the Commission discretion
to determine when it implements a regulatory change,
whether or not that can be passed through,
I think staff can caucus a solution for you to do that.
-: We have to strike a balance though,
because it's the whole idea of going forward
that we're taking regulatory action
and all the new reliability service and products
that we'll have in the future.
And we've got to strike a balance between
providing all that transparency and visibility
to the retail market so they can plan going forward
and hedge going forward.
That that is their business model;
is to plan for the future and hedge.
And we wanna give them transparency,
not only through the reliability
and ancillary service products
that we'll be putting to market for the future,
but also through ERCOT approval
of ancillary service charges,
minimum ancillary service charges every year in December.
We wanna give as much transparency as we possibly can,
but we have to thread the needle
in that we don't want these fixed rate products
to be continuously changed in the future,
to the point where we have volatility,
and it turns into long-range variable products.
So, does your language that you have proposed
strike that balance in your mind,
or that Connie has proposed?
-: Well, also remember the ancillary services
are a small, small portion of the total energy reps provide.
-: But I would assert that in other markets that...
And the direction that we're going,
they could exponentially increase
in terms of the overall price of power
that consumers experience.
And as we try to manage through that variable
versus dispatchable and comport with SB3
and section 18, that it's a big deal.
So I get what you're saying.
I wanna make sure
the Commissioners are flying the plane here.
And I still assert that one word change
contingent on the adoption of this rule
allows us maximum flexibility.
-: Chairman, might I suggest that you table this momentarily
with a thought of bringing it back after lunch,
to give some thought here to crafting some language
to better fine-tune this process.
-: That works for me.
-: And it may be that the one where it's enough,
it's just like thinking about it in a nonpublic forum
for a second would be helpful to make sure, I'm thinking.
-: Well, I got an over-lawyer idea too
that I don't wanna put out in public without
first talking to someone that knows what this is.
-: But I think we understand where you're going.
So we can bring back either a staff ratification
of what you just said, if you'd like,
or if we think that there might be a tweak
that gets you where you wanna go better,
we can try and think that through.
-: And importantly, agree with the word and in principle.
I'm just trying to make sure we close the back door
as the second part of it.
All right, we'll table item 22 until after our lunch break.
Next up will be item 25.
Mr. Smelser.
-: Commissioners, it's instrumental in helping us
get through customer protection real quickly
was a lot of weekend work done by Mariah Benson,
who will also be presenting the power outage alert to you.
-: Item 25, is project 52287,
power outage alert criteria.
Commission staff's filed a memo
with a proposal for publication.
-: Good morning, Commissioners.
I'm Mariah Vinson.
This is McKinsey Muniez with Commission staff.
So this rule implement section one of SB three.
And it was specifically directed
to the department of public safety,
with conjunction of the public utility Commission
and other Commissions to work together
to come up with a power outage alert system.
Our specific directive was to come up with the criteria.
Yes.
Our specific direction was to come up with the criteria
for issuing the alert and the content of the alert.
And then DPS will have the potential
to issue an Amber style alert
when we recommend issuance of it.
Through this, the SB three required
that the power alert system
be able to be issued system-wide or regionally.
We have allowed that to happen through either ERCOT
or the other regions,
or throughout the entire state, if necessary.
Through ERCOT, there is the potential
that the alert be issued
up to 48 hours in advance or real-time.
And ultimately this rule creates a notification trigger
for ERCOT or the transmission service providers
who are TO's outside of ERCOT
who receive instructions from the reliability coordinator,
who then need to alert us
when they receive those instructions.
After we receive those instructions,
then we have the power to recommend issuance of the alert.
If you guys have any questions, we're happy to answer them.
-: Another major, major improvement to grid operations
and public safety as a result of recent legislation.
Questions, comments, or a motion to approve
the proposal for publication?
-: So moved.
-: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye.
-: None-opposed, motion passes.
Thank you ladies.
And appreciate all of the hard work on it.
That's been a lot of weekends around here.
That will move us back to the top of our agenda.
We'll get as much done as we can in the next 22 minutes.
All right.
Item seven, I believe.
All right, Mr. Jenae.
-: Item seven, stock at 51023.
It's the application that the city of San Antonio
for a CC and amendment or a transmission line
in Berwick County.
A proposal for decision was filed on.
Previously the Commission had considered,
we sent this back.
I believe we were concerted at the October
and November open meetings.
Send it back for additional information.
That information has been provided.
So I believe the PFDs in front of you for final action.
-: Thank you, sir.
As of y'all are well aware decisions like this
are serious and substantial, and are not taken lightly here.
That's why we had so much public comment over
and much public input over multiple months.
At the end of the day,
I think,
the bottom line is the shortest and cheapest
using the most existing right away is z two.
And in an imperfect world
where none of these choices are easy.
I would say Z two the least bad option.
Open to thoughts, comments, questions.
-: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt,
but I've failed to mention
that Commissioner McAdams has a memo on this matter,
and that I also have a memo with proposed changes
to the PFD.
-: Commissioner McAdams.
-: No, I appreciate it, sir.
The way I feel about this item
is I believe as you assert Mr. Chairman,
that the route Z two is the most appropriate route.
I believe that in terms of the cost benefit
incurred the number of dwellings impacted
the overall aspects brought to bear in the case
that Z two is just appropriate.
I also believe that the SOA ALJs were incorrect
in their analysis of community values
with respect to the impact to residences.
And I wanted to highlight that.
In my view, bisecting property,
and particularly bisecting undeveloped property
has nothing to do with an impact to residences analysis.
And was therefore improperly considered by the ALJs
in terms of stated community values.
The overriding consideration here
of the impact of residences is not in the proceeding,
is the number of habitable structures affected.
I.e. prudent avoidance test.
Any analysis of impact to residences
should focus on that factor.
And I believe we're governed by that.
That not cutting through neighborhoods
and not bisecting undeveloped property
are still valid considerations
in terms of aesthetics and environmental integrity.
However, they should not be a part
of the impact of residences analysis.
If the Commission, as we, at least two of us have supported,
select route Z2, we should clarify
that although route Z2 has more habitable structures
within 300 feet of its center line
than some other routes,
I believe it is still unbalanced the route
that best addresses all the factors in PURA
and the Commission rules.
And I know you have thoughts on recreational and park areas.
So the last time you expressed that,
I support your views on that.
So I think the ALJs on the whole were on point,
it's just we need to smooth out
some of the edges to this case.
So as not to have unintended consequences on precedent.
-: Well put, and I not only support
everything you just said there,
but like to emphasize one word, which was undeveloped land.
-: Yes, sir.
-: And folks trying to pretend like sending a power line
through undeveloped future investment property
is the same as going through a middle of the neighborhood
is not something I think this Commission agrees with.
That's a mis-characterization in a dramatic fashion.
And as you said,
my previously stated thoughts on recreational areas
are that if they're gonna be recreational for the public,
they better be public.
It's not a private... <v ->Open to the public.
-: Open to the public.
It's not a private retreat.
That doesn't count.
Private hunting club has gotta be public.
It's public, it's gotta be open to the public.
Thoughts, comments?
-: Yeah, I appreciate the work that has gone into this.
I am in agreement that Z two is the best route.
Transmission lines are never, ever easy to site,
we know that.
They impact somebody all the time, fairly or unfairly.
But they're the fabric of how we provide electricity
across our neighborhoods.
And this area is growing very dramatically.
I grew up in San Antonio, and watching this area grow,
we never thought it would grow this fast.
I think Z two is the right route
because it does parallel a lot of existing right of way.
I'm worried about on the undeveloped property component.
There are numerous threatened and endangered species
in the area.
And I feel that if we cited in some area
that it might affect them,
we might get bogged down and litigation that might solve,
which might create an even bigger problem
that would solve a reliability problem.
And I don't think that's good for the area.
So I think we need to do which expeditious
and ride parallel existing rights of way
and get the city on with doing this for their consumers.
-: All right, I agree with everything
that all of y'all had just said.
I think this transmission line is needed
for liability in the San Antonio area.
We must balance consumer costs and reliability.
And I think route Z two strikes that appropriate balance.
I agree that the SOLJ's earned
and their analysis of the community values
and recreational parks,
and agree with your additional emphasis
on the recreational parks having to be public
and community values and with respect
to undeveloped land versus land,
where actually people live on the land.
So I would move to adopt the PFD with the changes
that Commissioner McAdams has laid out in his memo.
-: I'm sorry to interrupt again.
I've made a mistake awhile ago because some of these items
have the wrong number on them.
(indistinct)
-: Don't worry, that's why I didn't allude to it.
Don't worry.
-: But I do have a memo in this one.
-: I got a memo on another one.
-: Pretty sure I read all your memos.
-: Me too.
-: All right, I think we have a...
-: This is what happens when you're first talking
to these people.
You get volunteered for these things.
But I'll appreciate Steven keeping me on point.
(indistinct)
-: We have a motion from Commissioner Cobos
to adopt the proposal for decision approving route Z two,
as modified by Commission council, I believe.
Council's December 15th memo with the modifications.
I'm trying to get it right.
To reflect both the concept that's for spaces
to be considered recreational areas for routing purposes,
they need to be open to the public.
And that the impact to residents should focus
on habitable structures rather than bisecting property.
Did I get it right, Commissioner Cobos?
-: Yes, you did, thank you.
-: Is there a second?
-: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye.
-: None opposed.
-: Sorry, nay.
-: Unanimous.
-: Unanimous, none-opposed, the motion passes.
Thank you all for all the work on this.
Thank you, Mr. Cobos
for putting that together for us.
Next up is item number nine, I believe.
Before you lay that out, I will also extend our thanks
to the city.
This Commission has asked above and beyond amount.
We have expanded, I think, due to early leadership
from Commissioner McAdams,
asked for increased amount of information
and validation of a routing load drove justification,
which is new for this Commission,
a new measure of depth of analysis.
So thank you for that,
and thank you for the city for providing that
and going through the various steps.
Appreciate that.
-: Thanks, Sir.
-: All right, next item, please.
-: Item nine is docket 52081.
Is the application that El Paso electric
to adjust its ECRF.
A proposal for decision was issued in November.
Exceptions replies were filed.
ALJ filed a memo recommending no changes.
Commissioner McAdams has a memo in this item.
Peter: Are you sure?
-: I did.
-: Yes, sir.
That's the one that is numbered correctly.
-: Make sure McAdams.
-: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I'll just recap what was in the memo.
But originally in this application,
El Paso asked for good cause exception
to combine its cotton gin and cogeneration rate classes
throughout the proceeding.
And in the proposal for decision,
it appears that the issue was largely dropped.
Now,
however, the proposed tariff rider schedule
still shows a combination of the cotton gin
and co-generation raid classes.
So consistent with the request for,
I would propose that consistent with these two documents,
we grant the request for good cause exception
on the two rate classes.
-: Agreed,
and good catch.
-: No, I appreciate the staff's help on that.
-: Any other thoughts, comments on this item,
or perhaps a motion to adopt the proposal for decision
as by Commissioner McAdams memo?
-: I move.
-: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye.
-: None-opposed, the motion passes.
I believe that brings us to item 16,
docket number 52485.
-: Item 16 is docket 52485.
It's application SPS to amend at CCN
to convert the Harrington generation station
from coal to natural gas.
A draft preliminary order was filed on December 10th.
Commissioner Cobos has a memo on his own.
-: I know she does.
-: I didn't get her out of winter, I apologize.
-: Okay.
Yes.
All right.
Thanks staff for developing a drop liberatory order
that covers an extensive list of issues
that must be addressed in this case.
This is a case of first impression.
SPS, a company up in the Amarillo area
is looking to convert three coal steam turbine units
from coal to gas,
and also build a new gas pipeline
that extends about 20 to 22 miles
to supply gas to this converted plant.
There are substantial costs involved in this project
up to 75 million,
which about more than two thirds of majority of the costs
are costs for the new natural gas pipeline.
And the issues that I've inserted into the preliminary order
that I've recommended to be inserted
into the preliminary order are just additional issues
that I think must be addressed,
to ensure that the company evaluated all alternatives
to supplying gas.
And that is, you know, because of the cost of this project,
whether they evaluated building new generation facilities
that the coal plants were built in about 1976.
So that's 45 years of facilities
that they're converting to gas.
So ensuring they've at least reviewed
and the construction of new generation facilities,
instead of converting the plant,
given the costs that are associated with this project.
And then also that they have evaluated
entering into fuel supply,
and from fuel supply arrangements
or from fuel transportation contracts,
instead of building a new gas pipeline
that does have substantial costs associated with.
So in general, again, just ensuring that the company
has looked at all alternatives
that is part of their due diligence
as they propose this project forward.
So the three items,
additional issues that I've inserted there
are driven with that goal in mind.
The other item that's not captured in my preliminary order
that I want to just set forth
where we will be setting precedent
on our ruling on this case going forward,
is that the company did all of the land owners
that are located within 500 feet of the center line
of the gas pipeline.
Other utilities that may come in
with this similar concept,
depending on how our ruling goes,
should know that we expect landowners
that are within close proximity within 500 feet
of a new gas pipeline to be noticed.
And that those notices be reflected
in the evidentiary record.
-: Well put.
I not only agree with everything in your memo,
and agreed to include those,
but wanna highlight the fact that the questions
you're asking are synced up,
I suspect very deliberately with the market design
and the concept we'll consider late this afternoon
of a new firm fuel product.
So which makes what you're saying here even more important.
-: Absolutely.
So SPS also experienced issues during the storm.
They are located in SPP.
And so they also are trying to,
I believe through this project,
trying to address some of the issues
that they've experienced during the storm.
And that is important.
But as a matter of due diligence
in our role of ensuring that all costs and benefits
are analyzed for Texas rate payers,
this preliminary order sets out
a very thorough list of issues with additional issues
that must be addressed
in the evidentiary record of the case.
-: Absolutely.
-: I would just say that in these areas around Texas
that are not in competition, extra scrutiny is important.
And that I agree with the memo,
and I agree that we need to...
You know, that the hearing, I think there will be
a lot of good discussion, a lot of discovery and so forth
to actually get to the answers that are necessary
to see if this is in the public interest,
but I support the memo.
-: As do I, sir.
-: Excellent.
Is there a motion to approve the preliminary order
as amended by Commissioner Cobos memo?
-: So moved.
-: Is there a second?
-: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye.
-: None-opposed, the motion passes.
Six minutes.
Item 17.
-: Item 17 is docket 52487.
Is the application of energy to amend their CCN
for the advanced power station in Orange County.
We have a revised draft preliminary order
that was filed yesterday.
-: Thank you, sir.
Any questions, Comments, concerns?
-: Greater scrutiny is good, I assume.
-: Greater scrutiny is good.
Yeah.
In these are areas that are not competitive,
I think greater scrutiny is good.
I think there was this discussion about,
is,
preparing a plant for different fuel types,
when we don't know how far out they are in advance
prudent expenditure today,
it may be something in the future.
I don't know.
But obviously I think if there are huge costs
of modifying facilities for natural gas and hydrogen,
the case ought to at least have some discussion
and some analytical support behind that,
to make sure that there is something in there
for our consumers early in the process, if that.
What I don't want is customer pay for a capability
that doesn't get here for 25 years.
That would not seem fair.
-: You don't wanna build a world for Blu-ray Disc.
And if I can build on that.
As part of that, I wanna make sure that
in the case of additional new fuel like hydrogen,
make sure that the amount of energy
that goes into making the hydrogen is offset
by the amount of energy we get out of the hydrogen.
There's a lot of science going into that right now.
And hopefully that's the case.
But there's other side of the same coin.
We don't wanna build for Blu-ray before we know...
-: Yeah.
There was one other thing that I had brought up internally,
and that is my fear about,
and it is addressed in the questions to ALJ
through this proceeding.
But this is built, I think if I recall correctly,
it's built on an existing site.
But very close to the coast,
very vulnerable to hurricanes and other weather events.
And as I said, there is a provision in there
for them to look at that.
But I just wanna make sure that,
what these weather events are getting stronger.
And if we have facilities down the coast,
we gotta make sure that they're gonna withstand
not only winds and rains, but floods,
and that looks at elevated substations
and other facilities like that.
So I'm glad that's in there.
-: Great comments Commissioner Glotfelty.
I agree with your sentiments.
I think energy use located in Southeast Texas
has proactively looked at a generation facility project
that is really a case of first impression in Texas.
Hydrogen facilities are I think,
a response to ESG pressures.
Environmental, social, governments pressures out there
that investors are really focused on ensuring
that their investment monies are going to clean energy.
And so I think in response
to these ESG governance requirements and federal action,
the company is looking to proactively address those issues.
But I think you mentioned a good point in that,
let's make sure that the circumstances
that the company has filed the application under
will hold up for the duration of this expensive plant.
And that ultimately the benefits
to the Southeast Texas rate payers overcome the costs.
And so I commend staff for putting together
a draft preliminary order that has an extensive list
of issues that must be addressed
in the evidentiary record in the case.
-: Well put.
-: I would like to say one other thing, and that is,
the one thing that does trouble me about this is the fact
that there was an RFP process,
and there was only one resource
that responded to the resource to the RFP,
and that was this one.
That doesn't show me any competitive nature
of the wholesale market in my show.
I think that will be addressed in the hearings itself,
but I wanted to bring that up.
-: Well put.
We like competition.
All right.
Is there a motion to approve the preliminary order?
-: So moved.
-: Second.
-: All in favor, say aye.
-: Aye.
-: Motion passes.
That seems like a good stopping point at 9:29.
At this point, we... Sorry, 10:29.
At this point, we will begin the public comment portion
of our programming today.
Mr. Janae, I believe we have a list
of folks signed up to speak.
-: Yes, sir, we're getting it right now.
It looks like we have 23 people signed up, sir.
-: How many?
-: 23.
-: All right, sir.
We will open up for public comment now.
As a reminder,
to our guests, this is for general comments only,
not for a specific agenda item.
Speakers will be limited to two minutes each.
We will ask speakers to say their names
and who they're with into the microphone.
And please take note of the timer.
Mr. Janae, could you please call up
the first person on our list?
-: Sir, I'm gonna call up the first three people
and ask them to come up,
and then we'll try and keep people up here going.
So first, Mr. Craig Naser, Ms. Stephanie Thomas,
and Mr. Kenneth Flipping, would you come up.
And we'll start with Mr. Naser with comments.
Please state your name for the court reporter
when you sit down, please.
-: Hello.
My name is Dr. Craig Naser.
I am the conservation chair of the Lonestar Chapter
of the Sierra Club.
The grid you see in front of you is covered with icicles.
Each icicle contains the names of 10 people
out of over 3,500 that have signed a petition
to ask you to weatherize the Texas grid
in a way that protects and benefits the people of Texas,
rather than just protecting the profits
of energy corporations.
I've had some time to think about this.
I had four and a half days
to sit in the dark without energy, without drinkable water,
in a cold house during a once in a century pandemic,
and with no internet
wondering what my future might look like.
11 feet were amputated at local hospitals.
Over 700 people died.
Due to frozen pipes, people had to move out of their homes
for weeks or months.
Here's what I thought about.
Climate change is real and is happening now.
This is science, so it is true
whether you choose to believe it or not.
This will cause not just average temperature to increase,
but extremes to increase in both directions.
In other words, storms like Uri will happen again
and get worse.
It's obvious, we must weatherize the grid,
as well as increase our energy efficiency.
To achieve this, will we have power politics
or free enterprise?
Energy companies must provide a reliable service,
yet allow competition in the market.
If you require the people to directly bear the costs
of insuring reliability,
then the cost of reliability will not be competitive.
If you require energy companies to ensure their reliability
as the rest of the US does,
reliability costs becomes competitive.
That's free enterprise.
You also need to provide programs
to help people become more energy efficient,
not just homeowners, but builders and landlords as well.
This of course will not be popular with energy producers
as a decreases energy consumption,
but it benefits everyone in the long run
as it mitigates for climate change.
So we're back to climate change.
We must continue to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels,
which caused a severity of Uri in the first place.
Contrary to what we have heard,
renewable energy to not crash the grid.
Not require weatherization
coupled with poor energy efficiency, crashed the grid.
Please fix the problem.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, sir.
Who do we have next, Mr. Janae?
-: Our next is Ms. Stephanie Thomas,
and I would just a comment to all speakers.
We have a clock up here with your time on it.
Would you please try and wrap up when your time expires.
And I'd call up, I'm sorry, Miss Vanessa McDougall,
to come up.
-: Good morning Commission.
My name is Dr. Stephanie Thomas.
I work with a nonprofit called Public Citizen,
but I'm here today also on behalf of myself.
Because like our previous speaker,
I spent several days without power,
cold, huddling in my home.
Only to find two days later as I walked into my apartment,
a waterfall in my bedroom as a pipe burst.
Which ended up, I needed to relocate
because of the winter storm.
It caused a lot of stress in my life, and I'm angry today.
I feel like as a Texan, I have paid enough,
I have paid enough.
Others have paid with their lives.
So this is a really important thing that you have to do.
You have to fix the grid.
You have to make homes more energy efficient
because that would have saved lives during the winter storm.
We need public input in our processes.
You need to hear the voice of Texans.
And we need to find solutions that don't just work
to pad the bottom lines of corporations,
but save the lives of your neighbors,
of your fellow Texans.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, ma'am.
-: I would call up now a Daniel Silva,
and next to speak is Mr. Kenneth Flipping.
-: Hello, my name is Kenneth Flipping,
and I am glad to speak to you all today as a Texas resident
that also lost power and also had a waterfall in my home.
And just wanna say a few things.
A lot of what happened is trying to fix the grid
on the side of the supply.
But really just like anything else,
the demand and supply are equally important.
And the demand side is basically
where the public of the public utility Commission is.
That's where we live.
That's where people died, that's where people suffered.
And what we see is that in fixing the grid
and what the legislature put out,
they said, we do need to weatherize,
we do need to work on that side.
But what they did not do was order y'all
to work on the demand side.
In other words, energy efficiency of our homes.
Texas was the first to have an energy efficiency standard.
Now we're 26th of 26 states
that have an energy efficiency standard.
If we had taken the recommendations
that were adopted by other groups, nonprofits.
One of the groups that I represent
is the US Green Building Council.
We've been recommending for years
to raise the energy efficiency standards
that the utilities have to have for homes.
If we'd done that 10, 12 years ago,
we had basically weatherized 2 million homes a year,
we could have reduced all of that demand by about half
that took our grid down.
And yet again, did we see the legislature
tell y'all to do that?
No.
And the biggest reason why is because we know the utilities,
even though we had the legislation,
we had everybody testifying in support,
the ones who's testified against it were the utilities.
And they basically know that that excess energy,
that wasted energy is excess profit
and excess money in their pockets.
That not only hurts us as consumers,
but it ended up costing our lives.
And so I'd ask you to focus on the public.
Thank you.
-: Next I will call up Adrian Shelby,
and next to speak is Vanessa McDougall.
-: She left.
Okay, the next to speak is Daniellas Silva.
-: Good morning.
My name is Daniela Silva, and I'm here on behalf of myself
and in support of the Sierra Club.
I volunteer with an organization called
Community Resilience Stressed.
And when the first storm first hit,
we organized to get unhoused people into hotels,
get them food and water,
and get them mental health services.
When there was no governmental support,
we eventually had to extend our organizing
to the city at large; getting food and water to people,
transportation, rescuing them from places
where they had no power and no water,
getting diapers, baby formula, dog food,
to everyone who needed it.
And about a weekend, when we finally had the bandwidth
to start doing wellness calls,
we reached out to some homes where there are elderly people,
and to realize that they had perished.
And these deaths were completely preventable,
if the recommendations to weatherize the grid
had been taken into account.
And also if we have more of a focus
on making more energy efficient homes and buildings.
The most vulnerable will continue to be hit the hardest
with more climate related disasters
that will happen more and more in the future.
In the next storm, the wealthy will be ready with generators
while the rest of us will literally be left out in the cold.
So I'm asking you to hold off
on making any final decisions today
until more public input can be heard,
and that the recommendations by the Sierra Club
be taken into consideration.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
-: Next up, I'll call up Marlene Plua.
I'm sorry that I butchered you your name, I'm sure.
And next to speak is Adrian Shelby.
-: Thank you.
Hello?
We're good?
Yes.
Thank you, Adrian Shelley here with public citizen.
Appreciate the opportunity to speak today.
Appreciate all of you for taking the time
to listen to us today.
And also appreciate all of our friends who have come today
to deliver comments.
And the thousands of people who have shown support
by signing the petition,
and the tens to hundreds of thousands,
even millions of people beyond that who have been impacted
by what's gone on in the last year,
and who will be impacted by you. All's decision-making.
I wanna honor their sacrifice to be here today,
and the sacrifices of people who could not be here today,
and just ask you to be equal to that, right?
This is an unusual circumstance
that we have all of these folks here,
delivering these comments, telling you how decision-making
at this entity affected their lives and their families
and and their wellbeing,
and continue to impact them into the future.
And I just wanna ask you to really do take the time today
to listen and to be equal to that.
So what does that actually mean?
Right?
You're gonna hear some good recommendations today.
There have been some real substantive recommendations
that have been submitted by the Sierra Club and others.
But just very quickly investment in energy efficiency
in demand side strategies, that's investment in people.
Right?
I wanna leave you with an image here, right?
Somebody who was in their home, it was cold,
the lights weren't on,
they don't know when they're gonna get power back,
they're with their families.
They're resorting to desperate measures;
things like burning furniture in their homes, right?
We've heard these stories from people.
We all have, right?
An investment in that home,
and the energy efficiency of that home,
sealing the envelope, right-sizing the heat pump,
installation for the attic.
Imagine just that one person in that one home,
the difference in their lives in those couple of days
with that investment, right?
So let's shift the focus to those people.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
-: Next I'd call up, Arthur Dale.
And next to speak is, I'm sorry. Marlene.
(speaking in foreign language)
-: Next I will call up Elion Sweden.
And next to speak is Mr. Arthur Dale.
-: Hi, I'm Arthur Dale.
I am here on...
I'm here on behalf of myself.
I guess I'm a UT student who lives
in the Highland Hills area.
And my family and I were affected pretty heavily
by the power outages,
and then subsequently the water outages.
We roughed it for two days at our house
with no power and then no water
before traveling south of the river
to my grandparents' house.
And then they promptly also lost power and access to water.
We stayed with our cousins who lived nearby them,
and then they also lost their power and their water.
And so it was just our whole extended family kind of
staying together like huddled for warmth.
They eventually got their power back for part of the,
I want to say it was roughly one and a half weeks
that we were without power.
And that allowed us to basically just boil water
and do a few things, but then their power,
once again, cut out.
And it was just, it was very stressful.
And with climate change being a reality,
there are going to be winter storms like this again,
and there needs to be infrastructure in place
in order to mitigate what is in truth,
like a climate disaster,
because it's going to be a reality
that Texas is going to face harsher winters moving forward.
So we need to be prepared for that.
-: Next I would call up Jonathan Levo.
And next to the speak is Elion Sweden.
-: My name is Elion Sweden Lopez.
I am simply a concerned citizen
who's here to support the Sierra Club.
I was like many others impacted by the winter storm.
I was affected in ways that are obvious.
I lost power, I lost water.
These are not unique experiences, not by a long shot.
But I was also affected like many others
in ways that are less obvious,
and insidious sort of butterfly effects.
As everyone can see,
I am disabled and have issues with mobility.
I'm an ambulatory wheelchair user.
I can walk but not well.
I have poor balance upon standing.
I grow lightheaded and faint during the winter storm
with no power, no water,
quickly running out of food that could be prepared
under these conditions and unable to drive
on iced over roads.
I had no option but to travel on foot four miles
to the nearest grocery store.
I cannot tell you how many times
I slipped on ice on the way there, how long it took me,
how quickly my heart rate rose to over 200 beats per minute
from simply walking slowly,
and how it refused to come back down.
There are consequences to every action.
And prioritizing the profits of corporations
over the wellbeing of the public has consequences.
There are no ways to predict
what these consequences will be.
And these consequences will affect each and every one of us.
There's no escaping them,
there's no buying your way out of them.
And the effects of refusing to make decisions like divesting
from unclean energy, refusing to invest in types of energy
that are more sustainable,
these consequences are going to be big,
like losing power, and small, like falling on the ground,
slipping on ice,
because you had to walk to the grocery store.
All this to say because of the dire, dire consequences
that we are gonna face.
The impossibility of predicting them and preparing for them
in the ways that we need to, change must be made.
We must fix the grid and we must try to prepare
as best we can.
-: Next, I would call up Susan Littman,
and next to speak as Jonathan Lowell.
-: Jonathan Lowell.
I'm here as just representing myself as a citizen
and supportive Sierra Club.
And I wanted to echo most of the sentiments
that have been brought for us so far
around demand side interventions into the grid
and the efficiency,
and asking for there to be more public input
into this process.
I think one of the Commissioners at the beginning of this
said we had a lot of public input today,
and I look around and I see that.
There's a bit of a strange comment to make.
I think having a couple of dozen people from the state
kind of give a couple of minutes.
I mean, I know there's other avenues as well,
but I feel like if this feels like a lot,
then that speaks to a process problem,
and that we need to have like a much more expanded ways
in which the public can input into this process.
And that's, I'll yield the rest of my time.
-: Thank you.
-: Next I would call up Norma Cortez,
and next to speak is Susan Littman.
-: Hi, my name is Susan Littman.
I'm an Austin resident.
I'm a volunteer with Sierra Club
and a with the Extinction Rebellion,
which is an international
climate change activist organization.
During the storm, my husband and I got off lightly.
I think we're on the same grid
with our power substation or something.
So our power stayed on.
All we had to do is go out and get some water
from the rain barrels and boil it for a while.
But my thoughts were with the people around the state
who were living in apartments, or who were unhoused,
people whose water broke in apartments above them
and flooded their apartments.
The cascading effects were just incredible.
So I did try to go out and help
and deliver a cube of water to an apartment building,
trying to imagine people,
like mothers with children with limited water,
changing their baby's diapers, things like that
just weren't awesome to me.
So I want to ask you,
in addition to the things you've heard today
to seek really big and broad public input,
to give out plenty of notice
and hold public hearings around the state,
and have it be in Spanish and English.
One of the organizations that I'm aware of
is the (indistinct)
of Floresville.
They had a little piece of land and some,
a lot of trailer homes on there.
The pipes broke, things like that.
And yet, as quickly as they got themselves just functional,
they went out and helped other people around the state,
repairing pipes and doing things like that.
They helped a trailer park in Austin
that my church also tried to help.
People in trailer homes had very shallow pipes,
so they had a lot of breakage.
There were so many ways that people died
from kind of like knock on effects.
You can chalk it up to Luminar storm.
I urge you to have public hearings so people can do better.
Thank you.
-: The next time I call up Susana Carranza,
and next to speak is Norma Cortez.
-: Good morning.
I'm Norma Cortez, I am a resident in Austin, Texas.
I personally did not experience loss of electricity,
but my family did.
I have a granddaughter who was impacted by this storm,
scared to death.
Didn't know what was happening.
My son and his partner took care of her,
but they were 60 hours without power,
and then followed by another 30 hours without water.
We need for you to do something for the citizens of Texas.
Don't make a decision today, make time for public input.
That's so important.
But please give notice so that people can participate
in these hearings.
It's essential.
And we're looking forward for you to find good solutions,
energy efficient solutions, investments in energy,
Statewide investments in energy efficient solutions
that will help the citizens,
and not necessarily those companies
that profit by all of this.
The profits to these companies have been outrageous.
There are many of us that can't afford to get generators.
We just can't.
I'm a retired citizen on a limited income.
So I'm unable to do that.
We're asking you to delay your decision today,
include more public input and make better decisions
on energy efficient investments.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, ma'am.
-: I would call up next or Rick Galvan,
and next to speak is Susanna Carranza.
-: Hi, I'm Dr. Susanna Carranza.
I'm a chemical engineer.
I live in Austin, Texas.
And I'm here today testifying as an individual.
I'm here to urge you to focus the changes on helping Texans
rather than continuing to benefit energy companies
that fail us so badly in February.
I am one of the lucky few that only face inconvenience
rather than hardship.
But most people around me weren't so lucky.
My closest friend was without power for a whole week,
and without water for two days.
I have many friends with kids
that had to leave their own homes
and go bunk with other friends
in the middle of the pandemic,
because they had small kids
and they feared for their kids' safety
under the frigid conditions and had to make the choice
between pandemic and freezing to death.
Grid failures affected entire apartment complexes,
and many stayed without power well after the storm was over.
Hundreds of people died.
And it's shameful that Texas had a warning in 2011
with a much smaller scale problem.
And the recommendations of winterization
was largely ignored.
While there has been some progress
in terms of preparing for the next storm,
as it stands, the costs will be pushed largely
into the public.
And that's awful.
The public needs more time to review and comment on the plan
which has been posted only a few days ago.
And I urge the Commission to make more ways assessable,
including remote testifying for folks
that live far away in Texas.
Texas is a huge state.
Texas deserves solutions that will center on their benefit.
And we should really be investing on conservation,
renewable energy, rooftop solar, and battery backup,
so residents can reduce the impact on the grid
and also have more reliance.
Thank you for your time.
Please let's make sure
that we don't make any decisions today.
We need more time to hear.
Thank you.
-: Thank you.
-: Next one, I would call up J. Rod C.
and next to speak is Rick Galvan.
-: Thank you so much, Commissioners.
My name's Rick Galvan.
My pronouns are he/him/his.
I'm a student at UT Austin.
I'm from San Antonio, Texas, but I live here in Austin,
currently on Riverside, or off Riverside.
When the winter storm happened last year,
I was in San Antonio with my family,
staying in San Antonio because of the pandemic.
I have a chronic asthmatic, I can not be out.
You know, I could not just be running around Austin
trying to take care of myself,
when the respiratory disease that was killing people like me
all over the place.
So I stayed home in San Antonio, and we were frozen in,
Snowden, had no power for several days,
and their storm happened.
When we did have power, we had to boil our water
because our water pipes in San Antonio
were no longer giving clean water.
And then we had to try to cook food as quick as we could,
within five minutes, eight minute intervals,
probably ta maximum.
Now, we're gonna get higher rates of energy or electricity
for our power in San Antonio,
because San Antonio, the CPS power company
tried to get power for us so that we could be okay.
And now EECOT is gonna charge us more for it.
I understand that how it works,
that I understand is that the market is meant to do,
meant to at cost on us, but I don't think it's fair.
I don't think it's fair that people in San Antonio
and all across, they have to deal with things like that.
I don't think it's fair that power companies
at other parts of Texas completely collapsed
because of these high prices.
I heard some comments about that these things
would be sort of addressed.
I know that in special sessions
and during the regular session,
when my group with Texas rising
and other groups that were there and my friends were there,
organizing, advocating in those halls
that we heard some solutions,
but we did not see anything go far enough.
I don't think it's a good thing
that we're gonna be pushing through this so quickly
without much public hearing.
So I hope that y'all open these things up more,
open these hearings up more, put notice out,
so that more folks like myself, young people like myself
in Austin and across the state can come here,
or at least testify remotely
and talk about what their experiences were.
And so we can really get some big solutions here
because it's just not fair
that we're gonna pay higher rates for our power
after suffering through all the horrible things.
And then little will be done to make sure
that this will not happen again.
Thank you so much for your time.
Please do the right thing.
-: Thank you.
-: And the next time I call up Melanie C,
and extra speak if J. Rod C.
-: So I came here because like a lot of people
we saw suffering.
And when I see suffering, I see like powerful people
not act out on that suffering.
That pisses me off.
So I got to do something about it.
So that's why I'm here.
I think a big thing is like,
the public, you know, insurance needs to be held
at the forefront of everything.
And that's something that I did not see at all.
I saw nothing about the lives that were lost.
I hear a lot about money, I hear a lot of blah-blah-blah,
but I don't hear a lot about the lives.
Over 700 and plus people died in Texas.
That's just what's recorded.
And the state will only acknowledge 150 of them,
is bullshot.
I just keep hearing money and money.
I keep hearing all this talk,
but I don't hear about the actual human cost
of what went down,
and what's going to go down at a future climate disasters.
Right?
Because this isn't just some accident.
It's not some natural disaster.
This is profit over people.
That's what we're seeing.
We're seeing these companies, they're hold at the forefront.
Not the communities that lost.
During that winter freeze,
there were communities in Austin that were black.
They were black out for extensive
for over a week in some places,
while these big corporations downtown
were glowed up like Christmas lights, with nobody in them.
The city of Austin did very little to actually help people
get people that were houseless
and that were in need in communities
get the services they needed.
The people of Austin had to come together.
Mutual aid groups, people like that you see out here,
not anybody up top.
No one at top did a dam thing.
They just set aside away to...
They set a June 1st as a day to recognize
the people of Austin that stood up to help people
that were in need.
I had friends that were out giving transportation.
They were putting their own lives at the risk
in the middle of pandemic, icy roads,
to get people where they needed to go.
Basically the bottom line is this profit of where people.
And this system, I don't care about these numbers,
these numbers money, it's not even backed by anything.
And we all know it.
We all know it.
Money's bullshot and what really matters
is the people's lives, the people.
And that's not the forefront of any of y'all's decision,
it's very clear,
and that's why I mean, it's disgusting.
And you know, so I don't really,
I don't really what ended off with,
public interest needs to be held to forefront.
And y'all aren't doing that.
Y'all seem to not care at all.
So human life over profit.
-: Thank you, sir.
-: Next up I'll call Chelsea Tobin,
and next to speak is Melanie C.
-: Power to the people.
I love y'all.
-: When I see this room, I actually feel really sad,
'cause again, all I heard back then it was only money talk.
I didn't hear a thing about people.
The people that lost their lives, their loved ones are here,
they're talking for them.
And y'all, I see you on your phone,
I see y'all not really paying attention
or active listening to these people
who are pleading for help.
They're pleading for your help.
They want you to care.
They want you to care about them.
They want you to care about the people around them.
They want you to care about their lives.
They don't care about money.
They want you to care about the people who are here.
Their loved ones.
They don't have lives, and y'all didn't care.
Again, some hundred people die
and only 200 of them got accounted for.
What about the homeless people too?
What about the...
Like, the people who were the most affected by this?
What about them?
I didn't get anything from y'all.
Nothing.
Not a single ounce of care for the people.
I only hear about care about money.
And what is that?
Just think about yourself.
Think about what you're doing to these people.
Think about the lives you guys
are putting that risk over money.
Y'all are losing people's lives.
How many more lives does it have to lose
before you all actually care?
How many more lives have to die for y'all to care?
We want y'all to care about people's lives.
Y'all are just playing with them over money.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, ma'am.
Next, I would call up Tanya Benevidez,
and next to speak is Chelsea Tobin.
-: Hello, good morning, everyone.
Oh, at this point, it's almost afternoon.
Good afternoon.
My name is Chelsea Tobin, and I'm a staff director
at Texas Campaign for the Environment.
I'm also a resident of Austin, Texas.
And I'm here today because my community and I
suffered during winter storm Uri last year.
I want to ensure that what happened last February
to Texans never happens again.
I just read your mission statement
that's hanging out in the hallway, out by the elevators.
And the phrase that stuck out to me
is that the Commission's philosophy is to be accountable
to the people of Texas.
During winter storm Uri,
what at first was a fun, whoa,
it's actually snowing in Texas, wild,
quickly became a steady sink into horror,
as I realized the magnitude of what was really happening.
People were without heat, water,
freezing some of them to death in their homes,
surrounded by their families in the dark.
Because of the need to conserve my phone battery
in the case of an even bigger emergency,
I was hardly able to check in with friends and family
and make sure that they were okay
and to tell them that I was okay.
Even if I could see if they needed help, what could I do?
The roads recovered in ice.
And even if I could get to them,
could I really do anything to help?
We were all in a crisis.
So I was forced to sit and wait,
dreading finding out what was on the other side
of the multiple days of freezing temperatures.
Here we were living through yet another crisis
during a pandemic
where we recently reached the grizzly figure
of 800,000 American lives lost,
a number in loss I feel we are unable to truly comprehend.
I don't know about you,
but the grief of that feels really heavy to me.
So in addition to that, I was stuck,
freezing in my own home,
hoping that we would survive all this on the other side.
If you were accountable to the people,
as you say you are in your mission statement, hear us today.
We are here despite having work, lives, families, hear us.
Many of the Texans who share our demands couldn't be here,
but we have names of folks who are with us
in holding you accountable to your mission statement
back here on the power lines.
Fix the Texas grid with people-focused solutions.
You have public in your name.
Live up to it.
Include us in the decision-making and the solutions.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, ma'am.
-: Next, I would call up Jacqueline (indistinct )Ilana,
and next to speak is Tanya Benevidez.
(speaking in foreign language)
-: Thank you, ma'am.
-: Next I will call up Janice Todd,
and next to speak is Jacqueline Cynthiana.
The next up Janice Tom.
-: Hi, my name is Jacqueline Cynthiana,
and I'm a fourth year college student at UT Austin.
I'm here today because my experience with the winter storm
was traumatic to say the least.
I come from a low income family
and events like this have the potential of killing us.
At the start of the winter storm,
I was in my apartment alone
with limited resources in Riverside,
and my family was in the Rio Grande Valley.
I wasn't expecting to have the lights to be off
for four days in Riverside.
During the span of three days,
I stayed at my neighbors next door
and shared supplies with her.
I wasn't able to reach out to my family the first day,
and I was worried that my dad wouldn't be able
to go to dialysis,
or that my mom would need her oxygen tank.
I had power for three hours on the second day,
and in that time I reached out to my friends and my family
to let them know I'm safe.
Every night, I cried myself to sleep from the cold
and the anxiety I had.
Wednesday was the last day I stayed with my neighbor
because I had to help her call an ambulance for her.
My friend living in Riverside picked me up
and took me to her place
which had electricity the entire time.
I felt privileged knowing I was okay,
and all I wanted to do was help everybody else.
I still cried myself to sleep for a month after the storm.
And every time I retold the story during the summer,
I got Bell's palsy, not knowing what could have caused it.
The emotions I had come cited with the physical pain.
And it made it much more difficult to heal.
Even preparing to speak to you today,
I can still feel the same level of intensity of feelings
and emotions during the winter storm.
I've had to seek mental health services
to pick myself back up from what had happened.
I asked that you address the equity concerns
of where the power went out,
that you listened to community organizations
and community leaders that have been working for months
to empower people,
and then you expand public comments
so that more college students like me can give their piece.
Thank you for your time.
-: Thank you.
-: I would call up next Emma Pat,
and next to speak is Janice Tom.
-: Hi, it's James Talent.
So I'm here with Extinction Rebellion.
It's a really great activist organization.
All we want is for people to tell the truth
about climate change
and stop being involved with fossil fuels.
I really think that energy efficiency in homes
is an easy way that y'all directly have access to help with.
And it would be awesome
just to see a little more emphasis on that.
We have a lot of incoming crisises with heat waves.
The movement of the polar vortex
is because of climate change.
That's why we had this winter storm.
And it's great to know
that we're gonna probably experience more of that.
So just be good to see like a little more resilience.
I don't think most people are aware of how all that works.
So just more research in that.
I'm also here because personally,
me and 45 other people I know
were all like directly affected by that winter storm.
And the further away they were from the city,
the more of the damage they had.
I had a friend who was like out in the boonies,
and she had her bathtub filled with water from snow
that she melted and she sent a picture of it,
and it looked like a pond.
And she was like,
this is the worst bath bomb I've ever had.
And that's 'cause it was all snow.
And basically I saw a lot of people on my neighborhood,
on next door, they were using a social media
just to get to connect to each other,
to help each other out.
A lot of people were driving each other around
in dangerous conditions, also during a pandemic.
So I just feel like you're not gonna be able
to hear these stories if you're closed off
in the decision-making or if you expedite decision-making.
And there's gonna be a lot of great input.
Like I learned about a bunch
just from hearing all these stories today
just from people like different insights.
Like my girlfriend has diabetes,
and she's told me like, during the winter storm for her,
she literally like was worried about dying,
'cause how are you supposed to get insulin
if like everything's closed off, there's no power?
Like, fortunately she's figured out how to save it,
but like, it's just these considerations
you can't really hear.
And another thing is accessibility.
Like, we did video calls with transcripts yesterday
for our hard of hearing members.
And like, that's not even something I consider,
'cause I'm not hard of hearing.
But like, you know, and then there's Spanish speakers,
there's like a lot of accessibility things we could work on.
So thank you for your time.
-: Thank you.
-: I would call up next Shane Johnson,
and next to speak is Emma Pat.
-: Could I pass these along to y'all somehow, please.
-: Sure, we'll have Steph put those in the record.
Officially in the record.
-: And good afternoon, Chairman Lake and Commissioners.
Thank you for having us today.
My name is Emma Pat,
and I am a campaign representative with the Sierra Club,
where I work to represent the interests
of thousands of Texans across the state.
We're here today to deliver over 3,500 petition signatures
that we collected as an organization,
which also include hundreds of personal messages and stories
from people across the entire state,
urging you to listen to the people of Texas
and build an energy grid that works first and foremost
for our communities.
Between everything that's been said today,
I think our message today is clear;
first that the fossil fuel industry left us to die
during the freeze.
Gas companies made $11 billion that week,
while Texans froze in their houses, in their homes.
Secondly, once again, the reports have shown
that frozen gas wells, pipelines and power plants
were the primary causes of the electricity shortages.
Last time this happened in 2011,
they told us they had it under control,
not to worry, that it was fixed.
In February, so many Texans learned the hard way
that that was false.
We need two things.
First, is we need y'all to come up with solutions
for our energy grid that don't force us to put more money
as consumers into the pockets of the same gas
and coal companies that failed us in February.
We shouldn't bail them out for the mistakes that they made.
We should create an energy system that works for everybody.
And in this case, that means stepping away
from the companies that we can't trust
to meet our bottom line, which is electricity.
Secondly, we need solutions that we can feel,
that we can recognize in our homes.
We need solutions where even if the power grid fails,
we have insulation in our homes to keep them warm.
We have better windows
to make sure that heat stays trapped inside.
And we have renewable energy on our roofs
to help add that power to the grid and keep things running.
We need solutions that start with people,
and we need more public input in order to make that happen.
Thank you very much.
-: Thank you, ma'am.
-: I would call up next, Amber England,
and next to speak is Shane Johnson.
-: Can y'all hear me?
All right.
Thank you for having us.
Shane Johnson, he/him pronouns.
I'm an organizer with Sierra Club.
So like many here before me,
I wanna talk about public participation
and energy efficiency.
Energy efficiency will save lives
in the next winter storm that will happen,
and it'll help lower people's bills.
In addition, some policy experts say that
a moderate energy efficiency increase to 1%
could have reduced blackouts by up to 50%.
And so that has to be
one of our foremost leading solutions.
And a few folks before me mentioned that energy efficiency
or the demand side is really about people and the public.
And frankly, the public engagement for this mercury design
has been shameful and non-existent.
Invite only workshops without the public,
and then four days of public input is inexcusable.
If you don't implement energy efficiency
specifically guided or informed by people across the state,
then you have not fixed the grid.
Period.
In addition to this, I wanna talk about
the cost of the proposals before you.
We have to highlight how bills are already going to go up
from securitization if the legislature pass.
And we have to understand that,
these increases, many people will not be able to afford.
And on top of this, independent analysis has estimated
some of the costs of some of these proposals in front of you
ranging from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars,
to over $1 billion, $1 billion.
Those are massive increases
that we can't afford to pass on to people.
So, what we have to do
is that you cannot make a decision today.
You cannot make a decision on this blueprint
until after hearing from the people of Texas.
And that means things like conducting
multiple public hearings across the state,
and all future workshops should include
a significant portion for the public input.
You need to start being accountable to the people of Texas.
Thank you.
-: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Dre.
-: I thought I'd called up Mr. Shane Johnson,
but if I hadn't, I'm probably about now.
And next to speak then is Amber England.
-: Good morning.
My name is Amber England, and I'm an organizer
with Texas Campaign for the Environment.
This is my first time giving public oral comment,
and I'm shaking in my boots,
but not as much as when it got down to 30 degrees
in my apartment.
I'm testifying today because the grid failure
earlier this year was a preventable failure
that killed hundreds of people.
I was in San Marcus in my apartment when the storm hit.
My power and water went off for four days.
But even so I feel so lucky.
During the legislative session,
I organized constituents affected by the grid failure
to speak with representatives and senators
to demand our legislature
to prioritize weatherizing our grid.
The stories I heard from constituents were heartbreaking.
People lost loved ones, pets,
and suffered from extreme damages to their homes.
It was unacceptable, preventable,
and we cannot be left in the dark again.
I'm asking the public utility Commission today
to ensure that the gas companies that profited billions
during the storm,
aren't allowed to write the rules for the next storm.
And I'm asking that you ensure that we are providing energy
efficient investments that benefit you and the planet.
Renewable energy technologies like solar
helps generate power when plants fail.
Wind energy is low cost and doesn't pollute.
And the public utility Commission must prioritize
renewable resources and the grid fix,
because it provides reliable energy
and gives justice to the people.
Thank you.
-: Thank you ma'am.
-: Mr. Shane Johnson here.
Man: He already spoke.
-: He already left.
We were at the end of the list, sir.
Shane: I already spoke.
-: Oh, you already spoke, I'm sorry.
-: All right.
-: We're at the end of the list, sir.
-: That is the entire list of people who have signed up
to speak during the public comment session,
part of this session.
Appreciate all the speakers and all the visitors today.
Appreciate your input into the public discourse.
At this point, public comment is now closed.
And unless there's any other business
you all wanna take up before our recess,
I think this is a good time to go ahead and recess.
All right.
This meeting of Public Utility Commission of Texas
is now recessed until 12:30 p.m.