Good morning. 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 february 25th 2022 for the record. My name
is Peter Lake and with me today. Or will Mcadams, laura
Cobos and jimmy gloss flt Mr johnny. Could you please
walk us through the consent agenda for today? Good
morning. Commissioners by individual belt following
items were placed on your consent agenda 23456 12 13
14 15 16 22 31 32 33. And let me note that
35 was on there. But I've taken it down because I wish
we have a problem we have to deal with and deal with
it. We shall. Is there a motion to approve the items
just described by Mr 2nd? All in favour say, Aye, Aye
none opposed motion passes. We will now move to the
public comment portion of our agenda. I'd like to remind
parties and stakeholders that they should not approach
the table unless the argument has been granted or they
have been invited by a commissioner this time. We'll
open for public comment, comments related to a specific
agenda item will be heard when that item is taken up
I know we have a lot of folks here to talk about
a specific agenda item. This is not that time. This
is general public comments. Speakers will be limited
to three minutes each. Do we have anyone signed up
for the, from the public to speak. No, sir. No one
signed up this morning. Thank you. Public comment is
now closed. We're gonna move the agenda around a little
bit today so we can start with our rulemaking projects
and then move to the remainder of our agenda, Which
starts us out at item 17. Project 51841. Mr jr Journeay
(item:17) items 17. Project 51841. It's a Rulemaking of Uh Project
Commission staff filed on February 21. The Memorandum
and a proposed order to adopt a new rule related to
Emergency Operation Plans And filed a correction memo
to that on February 24.
Thank you. Uh we all know this is a big part of
the Senate Bill three that was passed last session
one of the many key elements of the expansive Senate
Bill three that brought so many reforms regarding Emergency
Operation plans. Um I'm happy to hear thoughts, comments
I mean, this is a big deal to get this done. This
is a key part of the reforms, thoughts, comments, questions
for staff. Yeah, thank you. Mr Chairman. Um just to
complement staff on on the uh comprehensive nature
Um even on we're establishing the bones of policy here
that we can grow from in the future to adapt to any
threats. Um I think this rule is timely given the situation
the country may face with foreign actors who may have
an interest in our system and the reliability of our
system. I think the comprehensive nature of the rule
has filed envisions that, and uh safeguards are being
put in place that will help us deal with any threat
moving forward. So, thank you staff.
I also want to thank staff for their hard work and
putting together this comprehensive list of rule, rather
um having worked on this rule back in the day, in a
in a prior life, um and it's much more robust now and
I want to thank the legislature and the governor for
signing Senate Bill three into law to provide increased
transparency and ensure that the commission has more
visibility into emergency operations plans. So, uh
they can verify that the electric industry is ready
to respond to an emergency event and provide critical
information to Texans across the state during those
events.
I'm supportive.
Ah, well, put, thank you all of you. I know we um
kudos and staff and other stakeholders put a lot of
work into this also and I know there For some of our
smaller entities, there's some concern about the rapidly
approaching April 15 deadline
Barksdale's is, can staff accommodate some sort of
assistance or training or workshop. Good morning Commissioners
Barksdale english on behalf of commission staff, Yes
we can definitely set something up so that we can hold
an informal workshop with entities that are interested
about how we interpret the rule and what we mean by
the word, so that hopefully you all are about to adopt
And hopefully help them onto their, their compliance
path to get filings by April 15. Okay. Does that, does
that make sense?
We all have staff that works out for any entities.
They're interested in some guidance and support. Absolutely
absolutely makes sense. Alright. If, how quickly do
you think you can file notice of a workshop like that
It could be as early as this afternoon. Well, well
I know y'all are on top of it. So we'll look forward
to some sort of filing within, say the next week. Perfect
Thank you. That being said, is there a motion to adopt
a proposal for adoption as amended by staff? Middle
2nd all they would say I I none opposed motion passes
Thank you very much. Thank you. The next item please
(item:20) Um, item 20 is project 52313 US review administrative
penalty authority Commission staff filed on february
20th. The memorandum and proposal for publication to
amend commission Rules 22 to 46 25.8. This is another
key. We might be related to reforms in the aftermath
of last year's event. Happy your thoughts, comments
questions ST simple and I appreciate that. Thank you
Mark Stone,
supportive. Excellent.
We've already enacted some of these or utilize this
new authority and I think there's been plenty of conversation
about that and that will go through the appropriate
process. I also do want to take the time to thank all
of the ERCOT participants who were proactive in their
winterization efforts. Who, who got ahead of the curve
both generators and T dus to make sure that our fleet
was ready for this winter, appreciate all the effort
and not having to use this rule. But as always we will
vigorously utilize vigorously utilize this when we
need to.
Is there a motion to adopt a proposal for adoption
2nd, all in favor say, Aye, aye, not opposed motion
passes. Next item please sir. (item:25) Item 25 is project 53191
it's three. Organization of Rule 25.505. Commission
staff filed a memorandum and proposal for publication
to repeal commission Rule 25.505 and adopt new 25 505506
and 509. Thank you sir.
Another this is something we discussed a lot last summer
and fall thoughts, comments, questions I I think this
is a great first step to help the commission in organizing
as we said at the adoption of of the blueprint. Um
it was simply the end of the beginning. Well this starts
the next chapter and helps provide the structure for
us to open hold an open and transparent process for
our stakeholders to have meaningful input on how the
system that the structure of the system is formed moving
forward. So I appreciate staff's work on this. You
know, we did the lowered age cap last fall adjusted
the RDc to get back to even the way we turned it
This is the first step in there? The first chapter
of the next phase of getting going above and beyond
to ensure we have sufficient revenues in our ERCOT
for dispatch a whole generation. I would say that um
I'm appreciative that the report from ERCOT on an annual
basis includes costs, the effectiveness of the uh of
the modifications. Um so we understand what this costs
the ERCOT and and we can see the reciprocal changes
if we need to make more, but we see how the O
R. D. C. Is actually working. That was an important
addition. Yeah. Glad that's in there. We know what
we're getting for our money. It's not just a money
dump. It comes with accountability, their money. Yeah
Alright. Motion to adopt the proposals.
Sorry, just on this one, staff would like to request
of shareholders or stakeholders rather, you know, this
is a reorganization docket and a lot of topics that
you're interested in are relevant to this, but this
we're trying to get this one done quickly. So if we
could save substantive policy ideas that are novel
for other dockets, that would be a huge personal favor
to me in the families of the people who are working
on it. So, um Thank you. So mr chairman, that's that's
a great point. So again, this is uh this is step one
as envisioned by staff and the commission itself and
thus step two will be those, those venues for substantive
suggestions. So keep your powder dry. Is that the message
Yes, legally they can file whatever they like. But
it would be a personal favor to me if they were not
understood. Yeah, let's Meltzer. His family and his
staff get some sleep.
Thank you. No sir. Alright. Is there a motion to adopt
the proposal for publications all in favor? Say, aye
not opposed motion passes.
Next item please. Next items. (item:1) Item one docket 504004
The petition of sterling D's and O'Donnell and others
for an extra indicted release of property Before the
commission is a motion for rehearing filed on February
eight for the Commission's order that it filed on January
14 releasing this property. I think we thoughts, comments
It's pretty narrow focus. Yeah, I think we're granting
rehearing only for the purposes of correcting um finding
in fact 44 and 45 to make the order consistent with
the water code and commission rules. Well, those findings
certainly were not consistent with what the commission
ruled last time and we're sorry for for not catching
all that. So yeah, no, I applaud the cleanup and as
much uniformity and consistency this commission can
have as we work together. I think that makes both our
life and staffs easier. So my support. I think it makes
my fantastic memo of the last meeting even better,
totally supportive One of the great scribes of our
time
just to clarify to on that. Those two findings are
where we're trying to fix the phrase that strike to
land and property and use the right phrase. That's
correct
Findings about 44 45 just tract of land. Is there a
motion to grant rehearing only for the purpose of modifying
modifying findings of fact 44 45 to be consistent with
the commission's use of the term tract of land all
in favor say aye, aye, opposed motion passes. That
brings us to number seven. I don't have anything on that
When will move to item number eight dock at 50065.
Lay that out for us. (item:8) Mr item mates docket 50065 is
the complaint of doug and linda crossing and bow and
Trish LeBeau and Bruce and and all hard against personalities
electric co op Uh proposal for decision was filed October
28, 2020. The commission heard oral argument at the
december 17th 2020 meeting before the commission actually
took up this proposal. The parties asked the commission
to delay action to give them time to have settlement
discussions. Uh Recently we've been asked to bring
it in front of you. I have a memorandum with proposed
changes to the PFD and the commission has granted our
argument on this item.
Thank you sir. Works with our usual processes in the
oral argument 1st. I know we have Representative Weiner
on the phone. So let's start with representatives of
the phone is supposed to be set up, they're supposed
to be on there and it's supposed to be ready to go
Representative, can you hear us?
I can hear y'all. Can you hear me? Yes ma'am. The floor
is yours. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Thank you Chairman
Lake and the rest of the commissioners uh for allowing
me to address this issue with y'all. Um I in late 2019
this issue was brought to my attention and I previously
submitted a letter to the puc and addressed your predecessors
around this issue. Um Today I would like to again express
my concerns regarding personal it's electric co ops
plans to move an electric transmission line and its
impact on a nearby community in driftwood. My understanding
is that this line is not being relocated for maintenance
or upgrading purposes, but rather the move is entirely
voluntary. Um And at the request and with the financing
of the landowner. Now nearby communities, specifically
homeowners in the Rimrock neighborhood who will be
less than 300 ft from the electric lines have not had
any say in this process. I find that troubling because
it sidesteps the normal routing process and undermines
the entire integrity of the process while the location
is occurring on private property nearby impacted homeowners
have not been given the usual opportunity, they would
have to avoid concerns by not granting these homeowners
due process. I fear that this will set a dangerous
precedent for all routing cases. We do not want to
create a loophole where electric providers can apply
with one route and then use a technical opportunity
to correct it to another route and impact more homeowners
We know that the routing process works because it provides
all impacted individuals with a voice and a chance
to express concerns. It creates a table for parties
to come together and figure out what solutions makes
most sense for everyone. So I urge you all to not allow
this process to be sidestepped uh and create a dangerous
moral hazard for other providers to um sidestepped
the routing process in the future. That is why I am
respectfully requesting that you require personality
electric coop to amend its CCN to ensure that the relocation
of the electric transmission line is executed such
that affected parties are granted the due process.
They deserve thank you so much for your time today
and for the opportunity to address you all. Thank you
representative appreciate you taking the time to join
us.
We'll move forward to the remainder of our oral arguments
as it works for you all. We'll start with driftwood
uh then moved to the complainants and then here from
Dallas, should I end this sounds like she hung out
thank you
which would be a million.
As usual do, we'll do three minutes per party. Uh and
of course commissioners, you can ask questions at any
point throughout the proceedings.
So first up, let's call up driftwood if they so choose
to address the commission.
Apparently they do not.
All right. Mr johnny, who else do we have? First on
the list? We have dug crossing
and behind him is Trish LeBeau. I'm gonna call to you
at the time so we can see if we can. Mm hmm
Mhm.
Good morning Commissioners. My name is Doug crossing
I live with my wife linda at 2 to 3 Blackstone cove
in the room, not subdivision out in driftwood near
dripping springs. First of all, I want to thank you
for your service to the state of texas. I know it takes
a ton of time and appreciate your, your efforts. It's
a critical service. We're here to oppose the rerouting
of pronounced electric co ops, um high voltage transmission
line on the property right behind our houses. I would
also note that we see that transmission line and the
polls today from our back porch, but it's about 900
ft away. This proposal ground and would move it about
200 ft from our house and up the hill. So in the
perspective is much different. Um I'm a commercial
real estate lender, I'm a longtime texas real estate
broker. Um I come at this with a lot of years of
experience in real estate and really a pro growth bias
to be honest with you. So, um but I'm I just feel
like the personnel's Electric co op, which were members
of, okay, um, hasn't gone through the process of amending
their CCN. Um, and we we filed this complaint years
ago because they sent us a letter saying they're about
to start construction uh, and we, we didn't know what
else to do, I'm not an attorney, but the matter seems
pretty simple to me. Um you guys control routing of
transmission lines in the state of texas. Um, the rerouting
of this is clearly not improvement or beneficial to
the electrical grid. Uh, in fact, it's lengthening
the line, it's adding more poles, it's putting three
turns in a line that today is just a straight, perfectly
straight line across the driftwood property. Um, It
also moves it obviously within 300 ft of multiple homes
Uh, and I think they shared that little aerial picture
Okay, thank you. Um, and it's solely to accommodate
the desires of the, of the discovery folks of luxury
golf course folks who are good people. Um, but I think
they were mistakenly misled early in the process that
this could be moved on their costs without going through
a CCN process. Um, and um, I'll leave the legal arguments
to others um before this was filed a couple of weeks
ago, we were under the impression that Discovery was
working closely with the analysis to investigate and
resolve their desire to bury that transmission line
on their property. That was part of our settlement
discussions that started early last year and then kind
of petered out. Okay, as early as this morning, David
Rhodes text me, David Rhodes is the head of Discovery
Land. He texts me to say we had our kickoff meeting
with our underground burial engineer this week and
he testified last week at the pronounce electric co
op board that with their approval, he hired an expert
engineer to evaluate the scope and cost of the underground
option. So we're just kind of baffled that we're even
here and taking y'all's time up with something that
seems like they're still working on. Um So again, I
thank you. Um I would ask that you direct pronounce
electric to not move this transmission line without
first completing a full CCN process where all affected
parties have a voice and thereafter you guys can decide
whether it's really necessary.
It's mr Crofton. If you could, I would like to ask
you a question and this is a layman, the layman. Um
So I know you've read the law and not a lawyer, appreciate
the disclaimer. Um I know you've read the substantive
rule because I mean, I've been in your shoes um in
front of a district judge on a pipeline, I mean, issue
Uh I know it's stressful trying to interpret what your
rights are. So if if you were to draw a line on
policy and talk about, okay, what requires a CCN process
versus what doesn't and I appreciate the fact that
you're in real estate because you're pro growth and
you're trying to thread that needle on what, what gets
things moves along and what protects the basic property
rights of the folks impacted by any development? Where
would you draw the line in terms of the triggering
of a full blown CCN process? Is it any deviation? Is
it, where's that line for you? Well, you know, it's
it's the law and again, I'm not a lawyer, but I've
read this passage many times. Um, it talks about a
routine activities exception to routing or rerouting
of lines. And you know, if, if that were the case,
if it were a routine activity, pronounce electric wouldn't
listed on their transmission project list that they
report to their board every month as a major project
Right? Um, and, and you wouldn't reroute something
that section that talks about routine activities is
the same section of the law that talks about prudent
avoidance of residential homes. It's in the exact same
section. So it's, it's nonsensical. It defies logic
to think that Moving a transmission line within 300
ft of multiple homes is in fact routine. Um, so I don't
know if that answers your question, commissioner, but
but it seems like we've crossed over, we're not a routine
activity and it is a rerouting and to be honest with
you, if they had gone through a CCN process or amended
CCN process and you guys decided, Yeah, this is important
to the state of texas and it needs to be rerouted.
I'm done okay, but I think they have to follow the
process.
Got it. And I appreciate the feedback. Thanks sir.
Thank you.
Thank you. The next step is Trish LeBeau and behind
her would be bold. Leveaux.
Good morning. Good morning. My name is Trish LeBeau
I want to thank the Public utility commission for hearing
us consumers for protecting us for fostering competition
and for promoting high quality infrastructure as this
is your mission statement. Also in a publication of
june 1st 2011 regarding transmission line cases, you
state that, among other considerations, you pay attention
to factors such as community values, historical and
aesthetic values and environmental integrity. Discovery's
website describes the driftwood, golf and ranch house
as texas, dreaming that gives members access to magnificent
natural landscapes and with spectacular views of the
hill country. What about us? We were there first because
that's exactly what we were looking for. Why not? Underground
lines. Great advances have been made in the burying
of transmission lines. According to a 2012 industry
study by Edison Electric Institute bearing transmission
lines significantly decreases all of the documented
negative impacts of overhead lines. Among many of the
advantages of underground lines are health safety,
property value, the environment, tourism, power outages
reliability, maintenance costs, and transmission, low
costs. I believe that the increase in capital construction
costs for underground lines would be outweighed by
all the social, environmental and economic benefits
My dad, who was a lawyer always said that my rights
ended where they impacted others negatively. The relocation
of transmission lines should not only require a certificate
of convenience and necessity. It should also be beneficial
and avoid having a negative effect on established communities
As a PC member and shareholder. I urged P. E. C. And
Discovery to choose the win win alternative. This will
be in compliance with puc policies. It will also show
that PC and Discovery are not only good neighbors but
trendsetters in an industry where underground transmission
lines will be the norm in the very near future. Thank
you very much for your consideration. Thank you ma'am
bo LeBeau please
and following him, linda Crawford.
My name is bo lib. Oh, I want to thank you for
letting me speak today,
my wife and I search for over a year to find a
place that had an unobstructed view to build our retirement
home. We found it and built our forever retirement
home. I would like to show you the view that we have
from our home and the view that will be forced to see
if Discovery and P EC moved the transmission lines
I'm not going to address the legal aspects of this
situation, but the ethical but the ethical Discovery
land development has proclaimed in numerous magazine
articles about their ethics and how they work with
communities adding equity to the region. I also would
like to read a quote from one of their own brochures
Discovery land company, the world's leading developer
of luxury, private residential communities. Quote
for nearly 25 years. Discovery dedication dedicated
to low intensity, environmentally conscious developments
have enhanced and improved surrounding communities
through land preservation and increased equity.
I don't think so. Increased equity as soon as they
move the lines towards my property and my property
as well as my neighbors. The value will certainly go
down. I recently talked with David Rhodes, president
of Discovery Land Development and he actually agrees
that bearing the lines would be the preferred choice
Of course he brought up the cost of going underground
which I understand. But another quote I'd like to read
to you from the executive golf. You have one minute
sir.
Discovery scary land development Has passed the $2
billion dollar mark in annual real estate sales and
membership.
I think they can probably afford to bury these lines
Please take all what I have said into consideration
when making your decision, not just for us, but for
all Texans faced with a similar David and Goliath situation
Yes, we cherish our land rights as Texans, but let's
be considerate of our neighbors if possible. I'd like
to show you some pictures.
Sure you feel free to hold them up for the commission
It'd be hard to see, but okay, one pitch. Oh, there's
two years,
one picture would be what we currently see. The views
and then the next picture would be we're the Caroline's
would be
this is the current view, the current view and with
the power lines
and that's approximately where they would go. Um early
on in our talks P. E. C. And Discovery brought out
a drone and they actually flew over where each pole
would be and at the height the lines would be and so
that's pretty close to what we would be seeing. So
it's a it's a dramatic impact on us.
Thank you for being here and sharing that. Thank you
for your time sir.
Okay linda crossword please. And after her brian Tolga
Good morning. My name is linda Cross and I'm here as
a member of the person Alice Electric Co op and as
a homeowner I also want to thank you for the service
your service on the commission as it's been a very
difficult and challenging year. I also appreciate the
staff at all the utility companies that work hard to
keep our homes warm our lights on and provide clean
drinking water. I do not take these things for granted
I'm here today to ask the board to not allow the rerouting
of a high voltage transmission line as requested by
P. E. C. And Discovery Land company or at a minimum
required them to follow the CCN process as required
by law. If this goes forward, I'm very disturbed that
we'll have a high voltage transmission line relocated
within 200 ft of our home and we'll have no say in
the matter moving the line does not improve reliability
or increase access. It's not necessary and will only
benefit the developer with increased profits. This
relocation will result in the decimation of many mature
oak trees severely impact our views and result in a
significant reduction in the value of our homes on
a broader level. By approving the rerouting. I'm extremely
concerned that all landowners in texas will no longer
be able to have their voices heard when someone decides
to relocate an existing transmission line immediately
adjacent to their neighbor's property line. As you
may know, the same concern was raised by previous puc
Board members. I also believe we have not been treated
fairly in this process. Me and my husband and my neighbors
as member of the coop believe we are being excluded
from any attempt at a resolution after discovery indicated
they were willing to bury the line. A memorandum of
understanding was drafted by rimrock neighbors and
sent to P. E. C. And Discovery. This was not accepted
by either party. We then asked for a meeting in early
october of last year and were told by PVC that Discovery
had not finalized their decision about an underground
option and there was nothing to discuss with rimrock
neighbors at this time. In late october. We had not
heard anything and asked again for a meeting to discuss
solution. We were told that the meeting was not beneficial
until discovery requests or authorizes P E D P E C
to proceed. We have also been told that we could not
speak with our PE seaboard representative on this issue
On February two of this year. Were very disappointed
to learn that PC elected to follow motion with puc
for a ruling on this matter without reaching out to
us. I asked the commissioners to please not allow this
relocation to go forward or at a minimum require CCN
process. I very much appreciate your time and service
to our community. Thank you. Thank you for being here
Mhm.
Ryan Toga.
All right, thank you. Thank you. Commissioners for
the opportunity to present to you folks today. My name
is brian Tolga and I I and my wife, we live in
on 281 shallow water cove there in driftwood uh in
rimrock. We chose rimrock because or one of the reasons
why is because the electricity was buried and it preserves
the the topography of the landscape and the attractiveness
of living there. Uh my my view here is the kind of
the heart of the matter here or the Net net is that
I think Peter and Alice started out on the wrong foot
by just providing notification without any due process
Um Consequently we've had to go through what I would
say at best as an ad hoc process. You know, we could
go talk here we go Pedernales Electric uh board meeting's
invent. We'd come here and and lodge you know our complaint
Um and so it's just been very undisciplined and I'm
not too sure that's really what the attack really envisions
in this kind of a process. Um and so uh in July
15, 2019 that's when we got the notification from p
e. c. Um and it said relocation and related construction
of the transmission line is scheduled to begin in september
and will be completed in december. And then it said
if you have any questions, call the Electrical engineering
Manager and then it says if you have any complaints
called P. U. C. S texas consumer hotline. The best
part of that is they did provide the toll free number
Okay? But I'm just thinking that's kind of that's not
an engagement of trying to engage in a process. So
we have no ability to really weigh in except to come
here and uh and and voice our complaints. Um when we
did provide the testimony back in december before Snowmageddon
Um we did have that period of time with Discovery E
C. Thank you and uh that was a positive interactions
Um We talked about the drones and so forth. We went
on the property with David Rhodes, the Discovery Project
President. He was gracious. We went went through some
options. Um but then over the summer they both parties
P. E. C. And Discovery went radio silent on us and
I'm used to going through negotiations and discussions
and dispute resolution. And so that seems pretty odd
to me. And so a few of us actually drafted up a
memorandum of understanding to document what we've
done today and do it in a way that was kind of
a non lawyer. So it wasn't so threatening that somebody
wouldn't sign it. But we we didn't get any action off
of that. And so the next thing we know is that, you
know, Pedernales Electric Files this motion the original
motion seeking to get a decision without without acting
like we've actually completed the discussion and negotiation
process, which we haven't. And so I'm like that's either
disingenuous uh or or there there was already a move
afoot as far as what their what their in game was.
So um as uh Doug Crossman mentioned, you know, last
week at the Pedernales Electric board meeting, we heard
for the first time, you know that there was a move
afoot this week to go ahead and get that engineering
analysis done. And so I'm saying to our folks this
is kind of weird that, you know, Pedernales Electric
Files this motion again and then there's still this
activity that's going on that was in support of our
discussions. And so I just want to say I've read the
tag, I don't believe this is really what what's really
considered and with more people moving into rural areas
Uh this kind of issue is gonna come up more and more
This is not going to be a one off. So, so thank
you for your time, I appreciate you being here.
Good morning Commissioners Chair Commissioners Two
weeks ago almost, I was here on the docket number 51912
which is number 10.
And depending on how you decide on that case, I may
be calling my client up and say you're going to be
condemned. We're gonna talk to Ap and see if we can
make some tweaks.
That's a hard decision in that case. And we all recognized
they had me the attorneys who were here a couple of
weeks ago here today. This is not our decision because
the line has already been drawn Commissioner And that
line is 300 ft within a habitable structure. That's
the line we use in 1 38 kilovolt cases, 30 45 kilovolt
cases. We use 500 feet with inevitable structure. Those
are the lines and hearing my client's arguments today
and saying, wait, are we in a CCM process, are we before
you asking you to pick a route that has been laid out
among the parties and the interveners and the utility
company and staff that had the ability through due
process like Representative Weiner said to go through
and that is a critical process, Commissioners and I
am thankful we live in this country and I am thankful
we have that process. The line here Is that if the
developer was not trying to move the line within 300
ft of these folks home it would be a different deal
But that's what they want to do. And they provided
that notice. If nobody had complained then P. E. C
Probably would be being paid for by Discovery to relocate
the line their attorneys are paying. So Discovery pays
for everything.
But that's not what happened. What happened is these
folks complained and 25-101 says this commission can
determine whether CCN is required.
You can determine whether a certificate of convenience
and necessity is required That somehow that part of
all these rules is left out. And if you look at the
proposed findings of fact number 13 in the what is
missing is a fact is that if you do not grant these
complainants complaint and you allow pE C. And discovery
to go forward and relocate this line within 300 ft
it's a fact And that should be number 13 I guess that
would be 13 d. Yes. This commission approved a relocation
of the line within 300 ft. We deal with these situations
and the routing cases all the time where a big landowner
will go to the utility company and said I've heard
these conversations just like Commissioner D. Andrea
and former Chairman Deann walker. They recognize these
concerns that what's gonna happen is the back door
after you approve around give the authority to condemn
The developer says, I tell you what, let's just relocated
on my property within 300 ft of 500 homes. That'll
save me a lot of money and development opportunities
That's wrong. And that's against the rules as written
Thank you. Commissioner
Evan johnson. Mhm
Good morning Commissioners Evan johnson on behalf of
part analysis Electric cooperatives. Thank you for
your time today. Just to give you a little background
we received this relocation request in 2018. Almost
four years ago 2019. The complaint was filed in 2019
and 20. We have sort of acted as a middleman and an
arbitrator trying to get the landowners to come to
some kind of agreement on this dispute. Frankly, we
really see this as a private dispute between private
landowners. This transmission line is located entirely
within the bounds of the developers property.
In 2020. After a couple of rounds of argument after
requests for a rulemaking, after several rounds of
briefing, we got a PFD and the PFD said that the relocation
request complies with the relocation exception rule
The PFD also said that there is no exception in the
rule for the proximity of neighboring habitable structures
We agree with the PFD, we agree with both those positions
in the PFD um, In 2021, despite our agreement with
the PFD, we um offered to suspend this proceeding for
longer to allow the landowners to continue to try to
settled their dispute. Um, that did not happen in 2022
in January. We were informed by the developer that
they would be moving forward with fever and overhead
option or possibly an underground option. We don't
know which one they want to move forward with but they
said they would probably be moving forward with one
of them. We informed them that in order to meet there
project timelines as we understood them at the time
we needed to move this proceeding forward so that we
could determine what our construction timelines were
on the relocation. So that is where we are today. That's
why this is in front of you today. Again, we agree
with the PFD um, and we would support you approving
it today. Any questions, questions, is there a reliability
impact for moving this line? Uh, not that I'm aware
of commissioner. Like I said, this is entirely a relocation
that's being done at the request of a private landowner
paid for the private landowner located entirely within
the browns of his property. That's what we read the
relocation exception rules mean, we are just trying
to accommodate one of our members as a landowner and
we think it will complies with the rules. So all we're
doing is serving as a middleman here. If you think
it complies with the rule, we will move forward with
it, but we'll just do whatever you tell us to do and
would, would moving this line require you to take it
out of service for some period of time. Thus potentially
causing a reliability issue. I don't know if it will
create a reliability issue, but yes, we would have
to take the line out of service for some period of
time. I don't think it creates a reliability issue
It's more of a timing issue. Have you looked at the
cost impact or the reliability impacts of taking that
line out of service? I have not, I don't know what
that is now, but I do know that that would be paid
for entirely by the private. Not, not just the facilities
but the impact potentially to the system. They would
be willing to pay for that. I said, I don't know what
the, what the cost impact is to the system, but is
my understanding that the private landowner, the developer
would be paying for all costs associated with this
project. Okay. Um, one other question and that is um
so it's your belief that as the transmission provider
This exception allows you to not talk to your members
when, when moving this line, that one person. One member
can impact another member with you all just being the
bystander on the side, just trying to make it happen
in accordance with this exception. Well, I mean, let
me clarify that because over the last four years we've
had many conversations with all the landowners, including
the complainants and the developer. We've tried to
get them to get together to agree on this and this
has been going on for four years. Uh, this this characterization
that somehow we're doing this behind a veil or where
you're trying to do an end run around your routing
authority. I mean, it's frankly just not accurate.
We have engaged the landowners, we suspended the ruling
on the PFD for a full year so they can continue talking
We noticed the landowners, they filed the complaint
They have had due process during this whole process
Have you had, have you had public meetings Ernie the
thing that you might be required under a CCN process
but on your own accord to get an understanding of the
impact of the neighborhoods. I know that we have had
meetings with the landowners themselves and then the
landowners have spoken at our board meetings. I know
we've talked thoroughly about the impacts to them and
to driftwood drift was aware of the impacts. We are
just trying to accommodate all the landowners. We want
everyone to be happy, but at the end of the day we're
just complying with the rules. Okay,
So, okay, so we have um, three sets of complainants
here today and I'm looking at this map and it looks
like there's 13 plots around the property. Is that
correct? That's my understanding. Okay, so um have
have you has parnell's attempted to visit with the
other landowners aside from the complainants that are
here today with, I don't know if we have visited with
the landowners, but again, we did send notice to everyone
so everyone was informed of this and a lot of the landowners
did file a complaint. So they have, you know, used
the procedures available to them to contest the relocation
So, um, there was some discussion here today about
burying the line um based on your assessment of um
of that option. Do you have any information about that
The only information I have is that it would cost a
lot more and that driftwood is considering it? Um I
think the cost of it for driftwood gave them pause
as to whether they wanted to go down that route based
on what I've heard just this week. I think driftwood
continues to consider that, but I don't know where
they are on it. I mean they would have to pay for
the whole price of it because it's entirely within
their property. So if they elect to go that route,
then, you know, we could
we can cross that bridge when we come to it. But at
this point, all we understand is that, you know, they
want to move the project forward whether it's an overhead
or an underground option.
I don't have to do other questions. How much? Thank
you. Thank you, Kourtney jinx.
Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners Courtney jinx
on behalf of Commission staff Staff agrees with the
PFD. However, we are happy to defer to your decision
and take a look at reopening the rulemaking if he so
desired. Thank you.
You believe we would have to reopen the rulemaking
on this and and basically unwind precedent two satisfied
the complainants. No, sir, I only offered that as an
option. No, thanks. I appreciate that. That's a hell
of an option. Throw that around like candy.
Any other questions for staff? Thank you.
That concludes our oral arguments mr Jenner. Yes, sir
All right, Thank you. And thank you. Thanks everybody
who presented today for being here, taking the time
out of your normal schedules and busy lives. Yeah,
it's one thing that if there's anything, everybody
can agree on this, if this does not fit within this
does not fit neatly within our existing CCN rule. Um
it's a very, very gray area ah
and uh I mean, it's it's a tough one. It's not, no
matter what we what the a lot of the rules to look
like. It's not, it's not crystal clear and it's not
straightforward. Um
I'm encouraged by the prospect of continuing engineering
studies on it sounds like there's potential for ongoing
settlement discussions. I would love to hear your thoughts
So this this is obviously a difficult case. There's
a lot of, you know, commission roles and pure at play
here and commission President. And so if you're looking
at um, you know, the case just, You know, with respect
to our existing commission role, specifically subsection
c. five d. That states that routing activities um do
not require CCN amendment and specifically lays out
a situation where um the requesting party agrees to
pay for the right away and pay for the relocation expenses
that strict reading of the role um would provide for
um no CC in a minute we are in a rapidly growing
state as as the complainants have noted with a tremendous
amount of population economic growth and growth throughout
the entire state um in rural areas and areas that haven't
experienced that kind of growth in the past. And because
of that, we're gonna be seeing these issues come up
more and more in the future. And so um I think with
respect to um striking a balance between that economic
development, land developer, development interests
and obviously landowner property rights, that that's
where we ultimately need to come out. Um But as as
I look back at, you know, we have commissioned President
in the encore case that is consistent with the PFD
Um If we ask for more facts, that would be saying that
there if you look at the facts in the case, there are
no genuine issues of material fact. There is the facts
are not disputed. The landowner please don't approach
and let's ask the requesting party has agreed to pay
for the relocation expenses and to provide the right
away. So if we ask for more facts, I mean the facts
are in dispute. So from my reading of motion for summary
decision, there are no issues in material, genuine
issues of material fact. Um I understand the concerns
and and we've got to find a way to strike those that
balance again between landowners, property rights and
and these developers and the growth we're experiencing
on the one hand. And so from a policy perspective,
We will be opening up our commission rule 25101 to
implement Senate Bill 1281 in the future. And we could
look to see if there's some safeguards in criteria
that we can put in the role. Um but our existing under
our existing role um there is a pathway um for for
this um developer to be able to pay for the land and
relocation and the right away. So I am trying to sort
of, you know, we have broad statutory statutory authority
in Chapter 37. However, we have a role with a provision
that was put in there by this commission to set policy
going forward for these types of activities. Writing
activities. Sure. I mean, if anything, the default
setting is as you describe, but there's also an exception
for us to take it up and see if there's if we
need to determine if a six seasons. Yeah,
yeah. So we'll be granting an exception to an exemption
and that that's kind of, you know, from a policy standpoint
that
it's true, it's true and I'll stop there. Mr Chairman
I would uh I would lean to um require a CCN proceeding
on this. Um Well, I guess out of the gates we've heard
a lot of oral argument. So I as usual I'd like to
deliberate, deliberate digest this, table this for
today and and digest everything we've heard um but
so continue right as a as a former transmission developer
um you know, uh having conversations with the community
around the line that you're about to build is absolutely
imperative in the process and every time a line has
moved or built it impacts somebody versus somebody
else. These decisions are never easy. I think the thing
that is important is the due process in in a proceeding
to allow everybody to have a comment. Um If this was
the initial development of a line, um everybody would
be involved in a CCN proceeding. Um We're going to
face this issue more and more as these rural areas
become more and more crowded. Um But for in my reading
and my belief it's that um one person just cannot impose
their will and hurt the will of others without some
type of due process and proceeding in that regard.
And so so I believe uh and I think that while part
analysis, there are kind of a just a bystander here
um they actually are the c C. N holder. So they are
not the bystander, they are the actual entity that
is being ordered to do something. So they have a role
in this, they have a role to play to work with these
landowners and make sure that the developer and the
landowner find some common ground. So I would put it
back on them to say you find the solution that makes
both sides happy because they are the CCN holder, they
are the CCN holder, but but again, well, there's a
couple of things to unpack there and I fully appreciate
it and I'm going to consider this. I don't know which
way
Points well taken the concerns about 50 years or decades
of precedent in in this enshrined rule and how we have
accounted for uh one individual's rights versus the
public interest. Um And and and as you say, this is
going to happen over and over and over again and there's
a reason the statute has not been clarified in so long
right? And there's a lot of versions of routine. Absolutely
that don't involve capital. Well, and and I just put
a scenario in the context here, okay, we're dealing
with two ranchers and uh one rancher sees development
coming out their way and they want to pay and they've
got deep pockets and they're gonna pay to rattle line
from the middle of their property over to the edge
and you're dealing with just another rancher. Okay
one guy, 11 person, 300 ft, he's got a ranch house
over on the other side, but that line is clearly on
the other side of the fence line, it's on the other
man's property. Um, but that triggers under that, uh
the entire CCM process. So it's a question of how much
do we, and that's why I was asking, what's the line
How much do we throw an impediment up to expeditious
growth in an area? I mean, and I knew this would resonate
with you from what you've seen at the Water Development
Board. You know, how fast do you get things up? So
I would say that it's likely that a CCN process that
has impacts to landowners would go fairly quickly to
streamline. That's right. So, but when the more folks
you impact the more important that that discussion
So it's to Commissioner Mcadams point in Commissioner
LT II, I understand where you're coming from. None
of this is easy, right? This is a tough situation.
And and I think from a policy standpoint again, I think
because our state is growing so much, you know, determining
where that threshold is, is very important. Otherwise
we're going to end up in a situation where we're constantly
asking for CCN amendments when, you know, any landowners
impacted and that's not a situation that is that is
um, it's a it's a burdensome process for the landowners
Um, it's a burdensome, you know, that, that they have
to hire counsel potentially to get involved and it's
just not a simple process and I just don't know that
we if we're going to set a threshold and criteria that
ultimately will require CCN amendment, then then I
think that is more um right for the rulemaking that
will be opening up um to examine those issues. So we
have some set criteria. Otherwise we just end up in
a situation where constantly requiring utilities, electric
utilities to modify their CC. Ns um when there are
private landowner disputes. Well, it also becomes ad
hoc right? I mean, it's a case by case and no or
it's just never ending amendments for routine
transmission. So I may be wrong, but um I don't know
that having one landowner requesting to pay for a line
moved happens all that often. It might happen more
than I know, but it might be happening. This may be
the beginning of a process as rural texas becomes more
populated. Um But again, to me um there there's a bigger
issue involved here and uh well, if we have the right
to provide uh you know an opportunity for CCN um I
think that that's where we err on that on that side
because that's what the legislature has given us to
adjudicate these processes. Sure. Would only add to
the point that the rule has written. It seems to be
primarily focused on routine operations, maintenance
of existing transmission doesn't involve any other
landowners. That seems to be the bulk of the activity
and we don't want to pardon normal business operations
with the endless CCN amendments with like a de facto
rule, but we also have to going forward as as articulated
be considerate of the prudence of one is when this
happens and it impacts homes and the rule has written
is not. And again, I would say that, uh, while maybe
this is not contemplated as well, but while the landowner
has agreed to pay for the change of facility, the the
new facilities and the movement of those facilities
and all the costs associated with that, I would question
if they have agreed to pay for perhaps any ERCOT impacts
when that line is out of service, um, which could be
very expensive. And again, kind of treading new ground
here. It could perhaps be a bigger issue. I'm just
wondering how you quantify reliability impacts. I mean
I don't know. I think it's a question. It's a fair
point. It probably depends on the day and the L. M
P. S.
Um,
the like I said, I think we, we need to, we heard
a lot today. We need to take time to digest that on
our, our own. So I don't, I don't want to make a
decision today. I will say again. We heard several
folks mentioned what sounds like promising, I guess
restarting of settlement talks, engineering studies
underground option. So I would certainly encourage
all parties to continue that. Oh, quickly. The there's
as everybody can tell their varied opinions up here
this is not a clear cut issue. This doesn't fit neatly
into the existing rules we've got
and there may be clarity down the road in an existing
in a future rulemaking. But depending on how this goes
uh Discovery driftwood may need to go through the CCM
process, which is expensive and there are no guarantees
on that outcome.
And
if you go through the CCM process, there's no guarantee
that those lines don't end up closer than 100 ft, 50
ft.
And then as one as 1 presenter,
He said plainly, which I appreciate is once once that
process is done it's 50 ft, it's done. So we clearly
have a lot of thinking to do. And would in the meantime
I encourage all parties involved, including Cardinals
two vigorously engage in those settlement discussions
Any other thoughts? Mr chair? Yes, sir. Um
it seems to me it would be useful for you to fully
understand what negotiations are going on, what have
gone on, what engineering studies are moving forward
Perhaps personality would be willing to file something
to explain where all these processes are in more detail
Uh is there an engineering study going forward for
under grounding? Is this discovery property? What what
what are they doing? I mean, y'all y'all hear all this
today. And but you don't know, you don't really know
someone's got to tell you. And and it seems like you
should ask these people to tell you some of these facts
Perhaps it makes your decision easier to me. So what
are you suggesting? Remanding it back or what
delegate authority to me to issue an order to request
that personality make a filing to fully explain the
scope of the negotiations where they stand, what the
board approved. As far as engineering studies, what
engineering studies are being done on this line or
underground studies being done. What is discovery doing
on this? Ah
I don't we'd have to I'm not quite sure what to ask
We'd have to sit and think about it. But you don't
know. I don't know how to tell you. You've heard different
people tell you today certain things are going on or
certain things are happening. It's very summery. Uh
You need a fuller picture. I think fair enough. While
we're thinking about all the testimony we heard today
and are stakeholders are thinking about how to get
the settlement discussion going on. Could you in your
office think about what that order would look like
So we can consider it our next meeting? I certainly
will. And I would if if attorney for Personal House
would stay till after the meeting to talk with me.
Maybe they could help me draft a better order. Does
that work for you think that makes sense? It would
be helpful to get that additional information.
Let's do that. And I trust you can be available.
Sure you're you're welcome to address the proposed
contemplation of an order,
johnson parnell's Electric Co op, just very briefly
I think we understand what you're asking us to do and
we're more than happy to file something in between
now and the next open meeting that lays out what we
understand the process has been because there have
been a lot of negotiations, phone calls, meetings,
board meetings, many conversations between me and their
counsel and we're happy to lay that out and um discuss
with driftwood what conversations they've had because
we're not partying all of these communications. Well
I appreciate your willingness to engage in that. I
think more importantly than what has happened is where
we stand now. And I would ask that you engage with
the complainants and driftwood two, you hear from them
what their proposed next steps would be or what actions
are, have already been, what, what has been put in
motion and they may not line up exactly, but let's
get it all. Is it fair to say? Mr Chairman, look, and
I think we're all dancing around the issue of if driftwood
is gonna be somewhat in the ballpark of okay with underground
in a portion of this line, This is important factual
information for the commission to know, um because
we need to decide what river we're crossing here, is
it a big one or is it a little one? And um
and whether we're gonna unwind significant decades
of precedent if that's before us right now, we're not
and that would be helpful so they need to tell you
something understood that work for you. Yes, thank
you. Thank you.
You can still keep thinking about it. That works. That
works best right there to keep me out of it. Yeah.
All right. We'll table this item for further no
discussion and deliberation at a future meeting.
Next item on the agenda please. (item:9) item nine is docket
51415 is the application of Southwestern looking power
company for authority to change the rates. A note at
the beginning, Commissioner Cobos has recused herself
from this matter Before you are emotions for rehearing
that were filed on February eight on the Commission's
Order filed January 14. Thank you sir. Pretty straightforward
A time extension thoughts, questions or a motion to
extend time to act on the motion for rehearing for
the maximum period allowed under the A. P. A. Is there
a second all in favor say aye, I don't oppose the motion
passes. The next item please sir. The next item is
(item:10) item 10 Docket 51912 application a P tech system in
the CCN for a transmission line and beaver furious
san Patricio counties Uh proposal for decision was
filed on December 22 exceptions were and replies were
filed. So a L J filed a letter with two corrections
to the PFD. I have a memorandum with proposed changes
to the PFD and I remind you the commission heard oral
argument at the last meeting.
Yes, sir. We've we've heard extensive world argument
extensive um evidence submitted the record. Ah
These are never easy as we all know the
taking everything in. I'm still still, I haven't been
convinced of anything, anything beats out right in
um one of the cheapest second shortest minimal impact
on habitable structures um parallels existing right
away. But happy to hear, I'm happy to hear thoughts
comments.
Uh So I think we've got a diversity of thought here
I think it will be useful for everybody to to lay some
cards on the table and how they're looking at this
Um I thought https initial recommendation was compelling
Um I think the fact of the effect and the positive
beneficial effect on the wind farm is compelling, compelling
Thus the positive effect for burke hollow. Um as one
of the the interveners who testified um as such, I
was looking at route L
we we heard from the Turnbull's, we heard from mr Carr
we know that those two tracks are sensitive areas for
these landowners. Every property is sensitive for the
individual landowner, but in terms of those that benefit
from the interconnection. Um along this route, uh the
avoidance of those who do not benefit and the slightest
to me is is important and thus the cars and the Turnbull's
testimony was was compelling. So, from a cost perspective
from a length of line perspective, from a number of
turns perspective um and a conforming route that tried
to parallel as closely as possible to the initial recommendation
by the utility in question. I looked heavily at route
Elk L is the shortest, it's the cheapest. It follows
the ap line. Uh It affects the wind farm just as much
as as any of the other three routes um in our menu
that that we've debated and um and it would benefit
that wind farm maintains that benefit test. So um I
would just lay that on the table and I know Commissioner
Gladfelter has had some good arguments. Well I would
appreciate um I appreciate this case. I I know we have
to get on with it. Um I don't know if it's this
meeting or the next meeting as you know, I throw it
out there, but um I've looked at all these routes um
and uh I hate to say this but I'm not happy with
L. M. N. T. Z. Or I. S. R. I'm happy with
G. Which is not one that's really in all of our wheelhouse
for discussion. Um My view is that crossing smaller
tracts of land is, here's a challenge. Um longer tracks
um including the Barkalow track um would allow for
a much longer span that is straight, which cuts down
on cost. Um There is a wind farm on the Barkalow property
I still haven't been able to totally understand if
the uranium mining is on this part of the burke, hollow
property or not, but um they obviously have industrial
uses for these properties. And um I think if there's
no impact on the wind farm operations um then uh My
view would be I want to go across uh and find a
route through on segments 39, and 43 which crossed
their property to uh um to the detriment of them unfortunately
but to the betterment of those who have smaller ranches
and smaller farms to the south and have chosen not
to make their property an industrial type property
So G.
Gladfelter.
Um Well I'll just pick my initial L. I'm just kidding
Um Okay, so I had looked at yeah. Or see right. I
mean yeah, actually that's my last name, so. Okay.
So I mean I think if we're going to look at other
routes, I I looked at other routes like L. And M. Um
I believe based on my understanding as well that L
And M. Um avoid bisecting more land that were landowners
actually live and maybe we'll impact the wind farm
unfortunately, but um in terms of cost and length and
um impact on landowners, I do lean on towards L. As
well. I think that makes sense and we're going to deviate
from the PFD. Um I would try to avoid as much landowner
property as possible
and and look to reap some more cost savings, impossible
paul savings versus the recommended end would be Two
million out of 50 million is about 4% cost savings
G is not even in the table. So it's 54,
more expensive,
so 8%
6% more expensive. You know, we we we do say that um
these are estimates for construction costs, so we don't
know the percentages.
Oh, yep, This is not a $20 million dollar difference
as we saw in the first time. Sure, these lines are
pretty close in terms of routing and miles and cost
for 4-6% difference on any of these options as well
within the margin of error of the estimating exactly
And just so, so you're clear as well. So if I'm fine
with the PFD and in, but if we are to deviate, I
would go with L. Okay. Um
the and I certainly want to give great deference to
our transmission expert when it comes to transmission
issues.
So, given the variety of opinions I'd like the chance
to investigate. Yeah. G further
what looked at L was that was in the mix from the
beginning appreciate that. Well, I mean, it's,
and take a closer look at L
and I would say to interrupt you real quick, I'm sorry
Um that I think more information on G is warranted
because I don't know what the impact is on the wind
farms across the burke hall outside and that would
be informative to me to understand what that is. Um
So if if if you're if you're asking to uh to delay
this perhaps for one more meeting, I would I would
be amenable to that to ensure that we get that information
agreed. Any other information from any of us. Do we
want to get a p appear to give them some direction
We have
and this is a critical line and a priority for our
cut. So we need to be thorough and deliberate but we
also need to move expeditiously. Good morning Commissioners
Kerry McGrath for ap texas.
Good morning, Good morning Commissioner ERCOT filthy
request for information. Well, yeah, I'd like to request
information about the the routing impacts and and others
um from uh that you all might have um dealing with
the Burkholder property with the wind farms. Um, obviously
tower, I don't know the tower height and structure
that would if it would be modified to go across that
piece of property with other facilities there um or
how that might impact that that property, but I know
that it's not um one that has been uh deeply discussed
um as a potential agreed upon route and therefore I
just request that you all have more information uh
in that regard, we would be glad to look and provide
you what we can, we are wary of going outside of the
record that was made in this case for process reasons
but certainly to the extent there is information in
the record, we'd be happy to provide that to you if
the parties are willing to agree to additional information
we could we could do that too.
The work that works. Thank you. And any other requests
for information regarding.
Well, it's my understanding all the information for
ales in the record and obviously yes, all these rats
are in the record and the question of the impact on
the wind turbines. I don't know what we've got to look
and see.
I know I made some comments about the impact the routing
of L on landowners and wind turbine was that fairly
accurate? I think that's my understanding in terms
of L doesn't bisect as many as much land and I don't
know offhand. I do know that were careful to route
around wind turbines. This is randy roper with a P
Probably can answer some of these questions better
than I can
raindrop dot ap When we route, we do uh get information
from the wind farms in regards to their towers as far
as to the wind blade, as far as the length of the
blade as well. Looking at turbulence issues, looking
at whether there is a lost blade issues that impact
us, We actually develop a circle that we have is 350
ft from the center line that we've agreed to them that
that keeps them safe and keeps us safe. All the routes
that were rounded, take that in consideration. So that
that that issue has already been addressed.
So you're saying the issue that's been addressed is
that it can't segments 39, and 43 can be routed across
the wind farm in a safe manner. That's correct. It's
already been addressed.
Any other, any other additional information? That would
be great. We will we will provide you what we can including
a summary of what Mr roper. Just be helpful. Thank
you very much. Would you like to approach to please
Please come on up
his family and uh the others in the blind interveners
go ahead and say all that again in the microphone for
me. If you will. David Brown, you'll brown blanket
night for team Michael O'Connor, who's my client as
well as the Aligned interveners. Ah there's only one
The debate is is a good one. This is a difficult case
The one thing I'd like to clarify is this is not about
Turnbull and Car against burke Holland, that it's really
important. Now, there's the wind farm is all in the
the northern part of this study area. So, what you're
not considering, I think is the impact upon the O'Connor
properties and the Edward properties because as we've
drawn on our map in our joint reply to exceptions,
you will see that route. T affects three times as much
it by 63 times as much property in the last five or
six miles of this. This route as does end, it bisects
O'Connor in two places. It bisects Edwards and yes
Uh it does minimize the intrusion on Turnbull and Car
but that's you can avoid all that, you know? Yes. Yes
sir. And and Well, two points well taken and looked
at the facts on that. Try not to build by somebody's
complex of houses, split properties down the middle
as you know, I hear you. Um And then if I've split
somebody, I'd really like some cost savings there and
I don't get it. There is not with respect. There is
not one criterion. The commission is charged with reviewing
That makes tea superior to end not one. And that's
clear in the PFD. And and again, if you're just gonna
weigh those two routes and clearly you're not. But
if you were just gonna weigh those two routes and you're
gonna say which one fits the criteria of the that the
commission is required to review, then it's very clear
that t is superior or that it is superior to t on
all of those criteria. And that's before you take into
account the by section of land, which is sort of a
fuzzy criterion which is more community values based
or more environmental based. It's not as much as one
of the list of things that you're supposed to check
off as you look at this, there's no question. I mean
the PFD makes it very clear it didn't select in accidentally
It selected it over Tea on the basis of the criteria
that the judges and you are required to evaluate. And
that's I understand that these these are not clear
cut cases. There's plenty of room for argument on on
different routing and things like that. But this is
not Burke hollow versus Turnbull car. This is a CCN
case where you're weighing the criterion on a route
end to end. Would you agree at the end of the day
I'm just basically, it's a jump ball between neighbors
I mean on this. No, I wouldn't. And the reason I say
that is because again, the if you're going to just
look at by section and you can't, but if you're just
gonna look at by section, your choice between N and
T. Is if you choose in, you bisect 1.91 mi of property
in that last, you know, five or 6 miles. If you choose
T, you bisect six miles of property through Edward's
Turnbull or Edwards O'Connor and and Burke Holland
And if you want to call Burke hollow industrial property
even though nothing in the south of that transmission
line that's already there, The tie the gente is industrialized
Okay. I don't think it's a fair characterization, but
if you want to do it fine. Uh, you're you're gonna
burden these other two landowners excessively by doing
that
understood. And I apologize that we didn't ask for
oral argument. We appreciate your giving us the time
yep, thank you. Thank you.
Come on up Cathy.
Yeah
thank you Mr Chairman. I will be very brief. I understand
the sensitivities. Um We did file a letter to address
this issue from Mr O'Connor's property, although there's
not record evidence regarding any specific impacts
on his property to the extent there is concern about
a diagonal across that property. Um There are ways
to follow t up to that point or make the you know
you can you have this map but there's a diagonal here
that that does cut across Mr O'Connor's property but
you could follow t which does 3rd in which does this
and and it affects it exactly the same way for these
routes are in the record em affects the O'Connor property
in the exact same way that end does. So you can address
that issue without um burdening the complete dissection
which is dividing into the car property and the Turnbull
property. The um use of the term by section sorry.
Um The use of the term by section for the burke hollow
property is Is not quite the same. I mean it's a 29,000
acre property that goes to the north of this. So it
follows a rode through that property. Um The commission's
historic use of dissection would not quite fit that
definition. Um But you can't accommodate you can impact
O'Connor and Edwards exactly the same way as they are
by and and still not bisect the car Turnbull property
and the cost savings are in the in the record. That's
all there. Um, we appreciate your intense look at this
and look at creative options and A P. S. Put the routes
on the table there, there the segments are all noticed
They can be, as they've said, they can construct any
of them, but there is extensive record evidence of
this specific impact to the car and Turnbull properties
in the record. There is not that evidence on the other
record on the other problems. I'd like to point out
that the shortest follows the recommended drought,
cheapest uh and affected affects one of the utilities
that would benefit on this is not a creative solution
in any other world other than this one that would be
taken for granted. Uh And I look at staff and I'm like
so you're okay with this and I'm like, blink if you're
not okay, you know, so the settlement processes, uh
we have our unique and I appreciate the experience
that I'm getting here, but that's that's a point well
taken. I probably misspoke by calling it creative.
You're right. So Kathy, which route do you support
again? Uh We support a PS route t because it follows
the transmission line as it comes out of the substation
but as we've said in exceptions and stuff, we would
we think the next best alternatives. Probably from
a cost perspective, certainly RL nm and we could support
either one of those drastically over in and completely
bisects both the car and Turnbull properties and you
don't have anything on G G G we could support to on
the northern portion G is the same as L and M. Okay
thank you. Let's hope. Um, it's just, you know, various
ways to put these segments together in that north part
but it's this by section of Caryn Turnbull that, that
we have extensive record evidence on the problems associated
with them.
Thank you. Thank you. All the what I have a lot to
think about
chairman like tom Forest here for college.
Yeah, I think so, because I don't want to do is get
into a second version of all argument and just whoever
happens to be here is lucky enough to, well, that's
a good point. That's a good point. But we have had
others. I'm the one who, who has put this, um, this
uh, throwing a curveball for burke hollow. So having
them at least say something based on extensive transmission
experiences
come on up and
thank you. Commissioner, Chairman Life, the rest of
the commissioners. I appreciate it. I felt the need
to speak because my client's name has been invoked
a couple of times. The wind farm lease covers all of
the acreage of the Thompson brand, which by the way
has its historical roots to folks that fought in the
battle of SAN Jacinto um, historical fact find some
pretty modest people, they don't like to talk about
that. That's how a lot of this land was originally
settled. Um I would like to take a closer look at round
G because quite frankly I haven't thought much about
it until you mentioned it. But one important historical
fact is that when we came to you for out I. S
R. This past summer My client offered up 6.85 miles
of right away on the ranch 6.85. That mileage leads
to cost. The cost is what ultimately doomed route I
S. R. Was the cost. Uh What I would ask and what
we'll try and address in in post meeting briefing is
if you're going to come in the direction of the Thompson
ranch, we would ask that you consider Lynx 46 47 a
47 b. That runs along the eastern The boundary of of
the Ranch 46 is there on the eastern side, it's on
my client's property because across that fence line
are established wind turbines that are generating power
47 a. and 47 b. Ultimately lead into Grissom and last
friday. When the car in Turnbull innovators filed their
letter, They suggested 46 47 a. and 47 b. Alternatively
we would ask that you consider 1925 and 28 Which run
along the southern boundary of the ranch and ultimately
hits 30 I filed a stipulation right before the hearing
uh indicating that uh particularly as it relates to
25, 28 and 30 which run on parts of team Michael O'Connor's
property and also on the Turnbull property that my
client would take the line, the right away on its side
of the fence line. I don't want this to be a situation
where the doctrine of no good deed goes unpunished
is applied. My client has tried to do everything they
could To protect their neighbors to the south, all
of them. We opposed route in. I sat here on February
the 10th and told you that we didn't like in we like
Z or Z mod because the one thing that has been not
highlighted in this process is that Z and Z mod doesn't
touch any part of car ranch LTD it's all on the Turnbull
property, there are no houses on Turnbull and when
the Turnbull land and cattle company bought that property
they bought it adjacent to an established a ep, high
voltage transmission line. And the one thing we know
about established high voltage transmission lines,
there's a really good chance another one's coming maybe
right next to it because that's one of your writing
routing criteria. So my clients caught in the middle
of this unfortunately. And again, we just asked for
consideration. We can avoid, let's do everything we
can to avoid all crossings the reason and I would agree
with what Mr Mr Brown said it's not about the Thompson
ranch against the car ranch against the Turnbull Ranch
There's a whole bunch of people to the south that are
really kind of being ignored If bifurcation and dissection
is important. I would ask that you take those folks
into consideration. My client certainly has. Thank
you. Thank you.
All right.
We've got a lot to consider. We have every but he has
the questions place that information requests that
or desired to continue considering this.
Yes. Alright. In that case we will table this item
until our next open meeting
again during this is a designated critical line by
ERCOT And so we want to move forward quickly. Is good
and healthy that we are being this comprehensive and
deliberate about throughout this process. So I don't
I don't want to diminish the value of that
and a lot of work goes into it from our stakeholders
and and the staff so I appreciate y'all digging into
it. And well, let's come prepared to make a decision
our next meeting.
All right, next item please. Mr generic.
(item:11) The next item is item 11 docket 51957. It's an n. o
v. against SPS. A revised proposed order was filed
on November 22. No exceptions or corrections were found
Thank you sir,
thoughts, comments, questions
I was fine with the proposed order um that approves
the agreement between staff and SPS
Okay. Likewise,
is there a motion to approve the proposed order happily
So moved second, all in favor. Say, aye next time please
sir?
I guess that brings us 1819. I don't think we have
anything on that on 21 now we have some comments from
commissioner Cobos and it's just a commissioner. (item:21)
Okay. All right. Thank you chairman. Um I just wanted
to note that ERCOT filed the information that we requested
um regarding the comparison with other I. S. O. R.
T. O. S on whether they had firm fuel product and standards
and and more information on those other markets and
also the survey results which I thought were very helpful
I know that we don't have representatives from ERCOT
here today. Um but I do, I would like for um dan
Woodfin to attend the next open meeting to walk us
through the survey results. I I didn't want to pull
him away from the grid operations this week. So I um
would like to just understand that a little bit more
and have him here to address any questions we have
as I know ERCOT is looking to have a draft um RFP
completed by may be the end of March sometime mid april
and so I think just getting some questions that address
there and that filing would be helpful. Um one thing
I did want to note on the I. S. O. R. T
O. Filing that ERCOT made was that essentially what
they um we're able to find out. Is that no other I
S. O. R. T. O. Has a ERCOT wide firm fuel product
at this time and that. ERCOT will be the first I. S
O. R. T. O. To have a ERCOT wide firm fuel product
in the country. And I think that's just very um important
to know that once again ERCOT is leading the charge
in the United States to um launch a very important
product to address issues that are being experienced
throughout the country and that um, you know, I wanted
to thank um, the legislature and the governor for signing
into law Senate bill three to require the firm fuel
product as it will provide a tremendous amount of enhanced
grid resiliency for texas in the years to come. So
I really just wanted to highlight that from the I.
S. O. R. T. O. Comparison information that Cannon filed
with terracotta. I just think it's an important fact
and I was actually surprised to see that there isn't
a ERCOT wide firm fuel product in any other ERCOT,
especially in the Northeast and we'll have the first
one out. Um, this next winner. Um, I know I was so
new. England's looking to have one and it's being challenged
but their goal is to have one out in By the following
winner winner 23 24. So I just really wanted to highlight
that because um, I think it's important um, an important
fact to know. Yes. Well, well put that's a very important
fact to know. Thank you for highlighting that and any
other thoughts, comments. No, I I think it was Mr Chairman
it was gratifying to see so much on site right now
We we now have a ballpark of what we're dealing with
Um and it's exciting that we're gonna be able to move
forward on this for next winter. It's exciting for
the public to know that it's out there. So feel better
That's tremendously important point is that our we
we have a good sense of what's out there now. We also
saw our generators observe us adopt those reforms in
december and before it was even set up being proactive
in building out their firm fuel capabilities and the
redundancies. So I appreciate those efforts, but also
shows that the marketplace is responding to the actions
That this commission is taking as as a result of Senate
Bill three. Uh and we've seen the benefits of that
this winter in the multiple cold weather events we've
had. So incredibly important point. Thank you for following
that. And appreciate our general partners being proactive
Mhm.
Any other Watch comments on item 21,
22 is consented. I don't have anything on 23 through
28. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. That's correct. All right.
Uh you got to work. (item:29) I felt a memo on item 29
regarding NPRR1092. I think it's it's it should
be pretty straightforward the,
I've previously had hope for a aggressive timeline
for adoption, but given the expensive stakeholder discussion
that we have have had in the variety of perspectives
presented, it's more important to be thorough and deliberate
about that NPR r than hasty, so per per the memo, let's
run through the process with this. I know there's a
workshop being set up in ERCOT ah and I would ask stakeholders
to as part of that process to make sure that we have
everything on the record, submit written comments at
ERCOT on this particular particular NPR are so that
everything's all the positions and perspectives are
clearly laid out for for everyone to consider and that
we it is a comprehensive and deliberative process.
Okay, I'll leave it there.
Mr Chairman, I I fully support your memo. I appreciate
the, the spirit behind the memo taking a detailed look
given the broad scope of stakeholder feedback. Um,
I would not necessarily on 1092 is one issue, I believe
the subject of 1092 raises other considerations that
ercot may want to keep in mind in the near future.
Um and and for tax and tax deliberation, not necessarily
under 1092, but um as we move in into the spring, under
the new paradigm of of an adjusted O. R. D. C. As
part of our phase one ERCOT reforms yesterday we saw
an extraordinary, extraordinary amount of volatility
in our ERCOT, especially in real time. We saw that
prices spiked for a sustained period even while ample
reserves appeared to be available now as I understand
it, this may have been attributed to O. R. D. C. And
reliability deployment price ADDers ADDers. Um because
under our current policy, the formulas for which these
ADDers are based do not reflect the reserves ERCOT
has contracted for through rock. And so what I would
ask the stakeholder community to look at is to begin
discussing in review and ensure through your deliberations
that our policies, because we've adopted a lot of policies
as a part of our framework to ensure reliability that
all of this is harmonized to where that works in concert
to where we don't experience any unintended consequences
that adversely affect affect price formation in our
ERCOT and then to the cost effects to our consumers
without, you know, giving us that reliability benefit
We want to make sure that we're paying for adequately
for what we get but we don't want to overpay. Um so
I think the stakeholder processes is teed up to discuss
all this. Having listened to the last attack uh session
it sounds like they were already thinking about this
So just as one commissioner, I would urge them to continue
those discussions, I look forward to watching the workshop
that they set up in March. Thank you Commissioner Mcadams
some great points and thank you chairman for your memo
Um I I agree with you um in principle with your memo
I mean we all got an extensive amount of stakeholder
feedback after the january 27th open meeting, um, I've
reviewed the stakeholder comments that have been filed
as far at ERCOT and watch heard the tax discussion
and um, you know, it's, it's very important that um
we don't move hastily as you said and and really make
sure that we don't have any unintended consequences
as we must ensure that the review of the price floor
um, if we're going to change it, then it needs to be
reviewed under the construct of our are changes to
the ERCOT design, like the lowering of the price cap
the RTC changes and you know, firm fuel product. I
know this a couple of weeks ago, ERCOT rocked the dual
fuel capable plants so that they could switch to fuel
oil and ERCOT has made a filing on the backstop reliability
service that they would use rock um, process to um
use that service. So what I don't want, like Commissioner
Mcadams says to have unintended consequences by moving
too hastily. Um, I will say that um, you know, a part
of me thinks that these issues should be addressed
later after we get our ERCOT reforms wrinkled out and
and we kind of let the ERCOT operate and can adequately
you know, as well as Commissioner Mcadams noted, um
marry up our policies and and really take a hard look
at this issue later um, and I understand um, you know
the ERCOT I mm um, wants to address ERCOT manipulation
issues and, and the I mm has full authority to go and
investigate those issues,
But you know, if we are going to move forward as an
NPR are as we currently are in the stakeholder process
I would state at this time that um, and I'm and I'm
going to be reading the additional stakeholder comments
that get filed, but $75 is the price floor is too low
and I'm not convinced that the rock opt out should
be eliminated, but I stand to be convinced by additional
stakeholder comments, but that, that's where I'm at
right now. I'm sure there will be plenty. And yes,
we have met
Dutch. I'm looking forward to the comments. We've made
a lot of moves very quickly as directed by the legislature
in SP three and the governor through his well articulated
leadership. As always we need to be wary of the unintended
consequences of taking swift action. We were directed
to take swift action. We've we've done it. Uh, but
we must we must always be vigilant to mind the unintended
consequences, as we must always balance of this ERCOT
ability to generate sufficient revenue for dispatch
hable generation and reliability with consumer costs
Uh, we can never let the scales go too far one way
or the other. And you know, we're all committed to
that and work work hard on it. I so appreciate, appreciate
y'all being so thoughtful about
about, about not only this NPR are, but how it syncs
up. That's that, that thoughtfulness from each of these
offices adds a lot of value to this process.
I think that covers 29. I don't have anything for 30
It takes us to 34. Don't have anything on that. 35
mr (item:35) 35 project 43518 I filed a memo with a proposed
order asking that you delegate authority to me to handle
certain matters administratively the proposed order
that we've provided you as a mistake in the second
paragraph. It it states that if there's novel issues
or otherwise, um commission directs us that we will
bring a draft preliminary order, supplemental preliminary
order to the commission, we would bring a proposed
order as we typically do on, on those kinds of matters
that we just need to change that language in this order
makes sense to me. And we'll streamline this broadly
Will streamline the process. We've made some decisions
relate decisions recently. So this will certainly streamline
at any questions, comments or a motion to approve the
proposed order. I would move to approve sir 20 seconds
All in favor say aye, aye, none opposed motion passes
We don't have anything for 36 or 40 which brings us
to the end of our open session. So having convened
in a duly notice, open meeting the Commission will
now at 11 19 am on february 25th 2020 to hold a
closed session, pursuant to chapter 551 of the texas
Government code, Section 551.715512074 And 55 1.0076
Thanks everybody for being here. We will be back in
a bit.
Yeah.
Session is hereby concluded at 12:31 PM. on February
25, 2022.
The commission will resume its public meeting. No action
will be taken by the commission regarding matters discussed
in closed session, so having no further business this
meeting, the Public Utility Commission of texas is
hereby adjourned. Thank you.