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 from March 31st 2022 for the record. My name
is Peter Lake with me today. Are will mcadams, Lori
Cobos and jimmy Gladfelter. Mr Journeay. Could you please
walk us through the consent items on today's agenda
Good morning. Commissioners By individual ballots.
Following items were placed on your consent agenda
249, 10 through 15 17, 19 22 and 28. Is there a
motion to approve the items just described by Mr? Your
name? Is there a second all in favor say aye, not opposed
the motion passes. We will not be taking up item 18
today, which brings us to our formal agenda. Item.
Number one is public comment. (item:1) I'd like to remind parties
then stakeholders they will should not approach the
table unless oral argument has been granted or they
have been invited by a commissioner. Ah What also oral
comments related to a specific agenda item will be
heard when that specific item is taken up. This segment
is for public general comments. Only speakers will
be limited to three minutes each as usual. Mr Do we
have anyone from the public signed up the street? No
Sir, No one has signed up this morning. Thank you sir
Public comment is now closed.
The next item I believe is number three, I don't think
we have anything on that, which will take us to item
number five. Mr Jeanette
(item:5) Item five is docket 49337. It's the application
of Woodland Hills Water for Authority to change its
rates proposed order was filed on January 21 of this
year. No corrections or exceptions have been filed
A lot of moving pieces in this one. Would love to hear
thoughts, comments, questions man, I add some. Thank
you. Mr Chairman. Okay. First of all, before I get
into explaining where I fall down on this case, I'd
like to highlight a couple of facts um, that have been
brought forward. Woodland Hills is an important case
from a number of perspectives for me, uh, completing
the first year on the commission. It um, it adequately
describes the breadth and diversity of the business
plans and models in effect in the water space today
Um, and certainly brought forward some facts that make
this somewhat unique. First of all, this is a class
B utility. It clearly has over 2600 consumer connections
and this is a case that's been ongoing for approximately
three years given the opportunity to bring forward
a lot of data points that are valuable to us in its
discovery process. The business plan utilized by the
utility complex contemplates an affiliate relationship
with between Woodland Hills and Aqua Tech, which appears
to be owned and managed by the same people. Um Additionally
Aqua Tech does not appear to serve any other customers
and by its management services because of the utilities
asserted affiliate structure. Woodland Hills has a
contract with the Aqua Tech for labor materials and
office expenses and yet Documents produced through
discovery in this case indicate a almost universal
15% adder. Is it being applied to every invoice forwarded
by Aqua Tech to Woodland Hills. With the exception
of the labor costs, which again, joint ownership and
management and significantly among these invoices,
we find um, pass through cost to consumers for water
from the SAn Jacinto River authority. But again with
the near Universal 15% adder. So When you drill down
under the Texas Water Code section 13.185 payments
made by utility to an affiliate must be reasonable
and necessary. In this case, I'm not entirely sure
that Aqua Tech qualifies as an affiliate Or if it's
the, the utility itself, but regardless. Aqua Tex 15%
Markup on invoices from vendors and third parties is
not a reasonable or necessary affiliate expense. As
a result, I do not believe that the rates in the settlement
or in the application are just and reasonable which
is required under the law. Operations and maintenance
costs should be recovered. Dollar for dollar. Not with
a 15% premium invested. Capital expenses should earn
a fair rate of return, not a fair rate of return plus
15%. Additionally, Woodland Hills failed to give notice
too. Oh puck is required by 16-24.27. And recently
we've granted good cause exceptions for class D utilities
as we continually noted and attempted to reinforce
that president. But this is clearly a class B utility
that hasn't even asked for a good cause exception.
And this is exactly the kind of water case that residential
customer interests needed to be at the forefront of
as such. I would recommend denying the application
We'll put a 15% markup on the pass or it doesn't make
it a passer. That's correct. It's cost plus 15%. That's
well put
well I agree with Commissioner Mcadams on all points
and I would start with that I would deny the application
Um Because what we've experienced here in this case
is a flagrant disregard for rate making principles
under the water code and the notice requirements under
our water code and the commission rules I do not believe
that the affiliate payments with the 15% markup adder
are necessary and reasonable and thus the proposed
rates are just and reasonable. And um as a class B
utility they should have provided notice to pack and
I want to I want to just set the record straight here
I mean since I've been here I've been seeing a pattern
A pattern where um utilities do not provide notice
to open until months or years into the rape case proceedings
And then at the tail end of the case when commission
staff finally notices are asked if they have complied
with notice requirements. The utility then um provides
notice to them or provides notice and asked for a good
cause exception in this case they didn't even do that
Um And Opec has provided notice at the tail end of
the case and then oh puck has to based on my experience
would probably have to scramble review the application
get expert feedback and then determine whether they're
going to sign onto a baked settlement agreement and
or what's the alternative to get in us. And so this
is not a position that needs to find itself in, especially
with class A. B. And I would venture even say see because
they would most likely they would have intervened in
this case but they never got noticed. And so um going
forward I from my perspective will absolutely expect
that water utilities provide them notice for the rural
requirements.
And and if they don't then they're gonna I'll deny
the application. Oh pack for my, that would be my vote
because opec needs to have a seat at the table. They
shouldn't be put in a position to be scrambling around
at the last minute then trying to get expert feedback
and and having to sign onto a baked settlement agreement
And this is a pattern that I've seen again and where
it's time to break the pattern. And so based on that
reason as well, I would deny the application
well stated, couldn't agree more and I wouldn't
trust your sentiment expands to beyond just water cases
All cases need to include a puck in the process as
intended include them early enough for a buck to do
their job and fully agree with you. That
not doing so would be immediate grounds for not even
not even considering anything else. If you don't notice
hope and you're required to and you don't do it appropriate
time frame, don't even bother falling through the rest
of it. Thank you, Chairman. I'm in support of all the
comments that have been said and and believe it should
be denied as a result of what you all have said. I'm
in total agreement. Yeah. What what I what I would
add as well as um based on our denial the of the
application that the utility would not recover rate
case expenses and um that the utility would go back
to charging there originally approved rates in their
original tariff
and that they would have to resubmit an application
if they choose to.
I agree completely. Like all that is incorporated into
all of the applications, you need to certainly a denying
the application. We can add language in order to make
clear that the, the rates they had coming into this
case or continue to be there uh existing legal rates
and they're they're the only tariff they have. Yes
thank you
that work for you. All right. Is there a motion to
deny the application and and in that denial include
language as discussed at the diocese. All in favor
say, aye, aye, I'm not opposed the motion passes next
time please. Mr. Journeay, Item 6. (item:6) Docket 50067 Commission Staff's
application uh for an order appointing a temporary
manager to the Tawakoni wastewater treatment plant commission
staff has filed a recommendation that the commission
terminate the appointment of Mr Troy Henry, That's
the Temple temporary manager of that plant. The Commission
approved the sale of this plant to the Sabine River
Authority by Order dated March 19, 2020. So it has
a new owner. Thank you sir, thoughts, comments. Yeah
I have no issue with this. It's a cleanup. Great. Yeah
it's pretty straightforward, but I'd also like to come
in as being River Authority and David montagne and
his team for stepping up and taking on small system
like this. I appreciate that. Is there a motion to
grant staff, motion to terminate the temporary manager
all in favor say, aye.
None opposed motion passes. Next item please. (item:7) Item
seven is docket 50247. This petition of Lake Livingston
Water Supply Corporation for approval of cessation
of water service to the SaM Houston Lake Estates in
Liberty County. A proposed order was filed on December
one. No exceptions or corrections have been filed,
I have a memo with proposed changes to the order.
Thank you sir, thoughts, comments,
unique challenge in this case.
The
leaving leaving customers stranded is a key issue.
Um and obviously that's got to be balanced with floodplain
management and the resources and initiatives that have
been put in place to mitigate flood risk to the broader
community and communities downstream.
So so Mr. Chairman, your your points are well taken
I think our options are somewhat limited here. I do
think additional information is always helpful in terms
of if these customers are still actively served by
the utility, it appears that there's other governmental
actors involved in this situation. One the county to
the texas Commission on Environmental Quality. So we're
we're kind of playing clean up on this to assist the
utility in in clarifying their role. But I know that
others have views on it. I think we proceed cautiously
here because again we are establishing this this road
um to which we can actively endorse a plan to deny
service to customers and so um we need to be narrow
in our focus um but I welcome any other thoughts.
I agree. I think we need to ask some more questions
I mean it's a it's a very unique case with a lot
of different perspectives on it. Right? I think the
utility has taken a lot of actions to ensure that these
residential consumers continue to take water or have
water available to them. Um I'm wondering, you know
I'd like to have more information about the county
and their role. I know that a big part of the utility
not be able to serve those four remaining customers
is the access to the road. And so I'm just wondering
you know, as you look at the county and their authority
and um their interests in trying to set forth the buyout
program and and create that flood plain buffer zone
You know, how does that contrast with property rights
as a resident that you know, they don't want to move
and they're essentially being you know, cut off from
water because the road is accessible central services
So I just want to make sure that um we have a
robust record in which to make a decision on because
if we do decide to move forward with this continuation
of of water and the certification of that area, then
we want to make sure we do that with the best available
information because it is, you know, we're cutting
off a critical essential service here for four residents
I don't want to move off their property. Yeah, good
points all. Um It should be clear if we can accommodate
those those four connections. I think it makes perfect
sense to move forward with the discontinuation service
and de certify that portion of the CCN as long as we
can get enough information to be comfortable that these
connections will continue to receive essential services
That makes sense. Yeah, it does go ahead. I'm sorry
I was just gonna say, I mean I I struggle with this
at the front end telling a utility that they can't
service or that they are discontinuing service from
residents that they have historically served? Its very
unique circumstance here. Obviously I think requesting
more information is really important. We don't even
at least from our record here, know what the county
is doing, How what are the other emergency services
or other things, How are they going to provide those
types of services to for landowners in this area? And
um I think um you know, we have an obligation to uphold
our rules would say that if they have a certificated
service territory and they're serving customers, they
should continue to do so. But we need more information
to say I'm open to allowing that the decertification
if we can get more information in that regard that
that you know, makes that case get comfortable with
whatever the Next version of service for these four
connections are. See mr johnny, he's got his pin out
Do we have a certain questions? We'd like to ask staff
to
two send back to the utility.
I certainly want to know what a lot of things that
jimmy mentioned like what is the buyout program still
in effect or not? Provision of water? Are they still
actively providing water service to the customers?
Are there are there four m? um
So again, total count of active connections. I think
we should ask the applicant, you know what they believe
the state of the county roads are, what the state of
emergency services are for the the the provision to
those customers? Um We are therefore residents still
remaining. So how many active connections remain? Um
I mean, there's there's some owners that, that we need
to understand from the homeowners as well because this
is a area that is prone to flood, There's a reason
why the county is trying to buy out these homes because
there's a hazard. So um this isn't all driven towards
this water utility. There's some of this onus is on
these homeowners that everybody else in the neighborhood
has left except for four. So have a better understanding
of what's been offered and why they have rejected it
Go ahead to. Can we characterize that as the most recent
update and an update on the most recent meetings between
the utility and the residents, They've been, they've
had ongoing meetings understand. Okay. I think the
other thing is if this gets Dysart decertified, um
and these homeowners take over this obligation, they
have an obligation to make sure that it is in accordance
with the rules um and water quality issues, how do
they plan on doing that? What's the uh how is that
something that they could ensure? Right. Are they providing
potable water in some other form to them while they
continue to have the CCN? Um The other question I have
is, you know, what's the status of the buyout program
I know that the buyout program based on um the information
I reviewed is um funded by federal funds are provided
to the state in response to Hurricane Harvey. And so
what is the status of the buyout program right now
um, have any key deadlines expired? Or is a county
working towards complying with certain deadlines that
um, these residents need to be aware of or are they
aware of them? Um, I'd like to understand sort of the
dynamics there. Right. Um, with respect to the funding
and the buyout program as well. Okay. Stephen, did
we mention road, did we address the road conditions
on the part of the utility and whether they can actually
access their facilities? Yes, sir. And, and more, I
think along those lines is, is we've really like an
understanding of, mm hmm, what services they can get
in to provide and what services they can't. We, we
understand that perhaps the bigger trucks can't get
there, but HDTVs might, but that probably suggests
that for certain maintenance types of operations, they
may not be able to undertake those. Also. We, I think
lack insight into the status of the existing facilities
We don't, I think I know whether or not the existing
facilities are capable of still delivering water, add
that to the list of questions. And, and, and if it's
not, it's kind of like it's like Livingston doing something
else to transport water into these people or I mean
we're, we are flying blind here.
So on that score, have any meetings between Lake Livingston
Wsc and the remaining customers resulted in a continuity
of service plan. So again, if we could get a somewhat
comprehensive answer on that and with respect to one
final piece to the buyout program set of questions
Um if deadlines have not been met or have been met
like what is the um impact of is their condemnation
being contemplated? So um there could be, you know
the county may be looking at taking action themselves
under some of their authority with respect to the floodplain
I'm just wondering because you know, we had discussed
that in the past, there was other areas of the state
where um municipalities took action to meet certain
program requirements and condemnation was put in place
So I'm just wondering if that, you know what, what's
going on with the county really. I mean that's that's
really, that's why this is so interesting because it's
in the county, not in the city and the counties have
limited jurisdiction anyway. I won't get into that
but they are limited. So in addition to asking questions
of the utility, would you like us to to send correspondence
to the county and see if they could be forthcoming
on that kind of issue? I think it would be helpful
to get feedback from them. I mean they're a major player
here. They're they're the entity that is making the
road inaccessible that's trying to put forth this buyout
program and they would be the one who would give a
more appropriate answer on how they intend or would
provide emergency services or others to homeowners
in the county. Yes sir, willing to if they're going
to because we'd like to be consistent with that. Yeah
Well, we'll certainly make an effort. Sure. Do you
have everything you need in terms of list of questions
Yes sir. So we we will prepare I'll prepare correspondence
this into the utility uh and to the county to ask.
Let's see if we can get information in these arenas
Alright, procedurally. Do you need uh emotion informal
direction? I feel capable of just doing this sir. I
think I can write a letter. All right, well, we'll
take a flyer on you.
Anything else on this side? The heart of paragraph
Okay,
paragraph. When we come back next. Honestly, I think
with the county, I think we may search on the phone
and see if we can talk to somebody and find out what
kind of answers they can answer before we ask them
to look forward to hearing about your adventures with
the phone book.
Good luck with that Sheila. Yes.
Mhm.
There's a Boyd walker for commission staff. As far
as the buyout program is concerned, I have the information
on the contractor that's managing that and I can give
that information to mr johnny sort of cut that step
of contacting the county and
be helpful to coordinate. Excellent. Thank you.
Alright. That concludes business on item number seven
which brings us to item number eight. (item:8) Item eight is
docket 51407 application of dos Equis for water
CCN Down in walker Montgomery and san Bernardino Counties
Commission previously issued an order Dated March 15
in which they denied the application before you use
a motion for rehearing on that order.
We've we've seen this project before this application
before. I know a lot has been accomplished since that
time. I would love to hear your thoughts or comments
I personally am glad more information has been forthcoming
Uh It looks like the the developer of the uh utility
potential utility in question has has taken the feedback
from our hearing to heart. And it looks like this.
Could it could proceed. I'm hopeful I won't prejudge
but um yeah it looks like we're on the right track
Yeah. Um I would grant rehearing and remand the case
back for further processing so that um the utility
has the opportunity to mend their application and submit
all the additional information into the evidentiary
record including the TC Q. Letter, the final approval
letter. If they have it. And if they don't then um
you know provide it when they do have it And I think
the additional information that I believe would be
needed would be to clarify the number of connections
that can be served by the by water plant one and I
would limit the Our our review at this time to water
plant one. Um If if we are able to grant a CCN
for water plant one, Um the utility could then come
in in the future for water plant to water plant three
So we would review Um as opposed to one big application
there build out of the water plants in a phased manner
They could just amend and so we would review it as
those amendments come in. Exactly.
And when you said TC acute a letter, do you mean the
approval of the plan? Right? The post construction
letter, that's what we need for sure. And we we understand
that they have asked for that.
And so um we've got a little crossing here but there's
we can deal with, we can deal with that on the back
I mean one of the main reasons to to send back is
all the information that came with the motion uh for
rehearing. We need to get into the evidentiary record
and then uh the additional points uh Commissioner Cobos
talked about, we need a clear number of the number
of connections and we need a clear map to show us the
arena in which those connections can be served so that
we can Perhaps get this phase one A CCN going and get
them on the road.
It appears that the water plant #2 is not this far
along that they need to do a little bit more. And so
a subsequent application to amend the CCN to add that
one in might not be too far down the road and and
and we're developing a good
pathway for them to follow here. And then the water
plant three would be further down the road agreed
importantly, I would like to acknowledge that the developer
had done a lot of the work we were looking for. We
just didn't, we couldn't see it and that's just crossed
wires procedurally. So I do want to acknowledge that
the developer in many ways had done a lot of the things
we were looking for. It just wasn't in the record and
like you said, I think we've got a a good framework
and a good a good path forward of what's needed And
so we can get moving hopefully on plant one quickly
and got a good path forward on plant to implant three
or at least a good framework and guide posts on what's
needed. Mm hmm. All of that.
Alright, is there a motion to grant rehearing and remand
the case? Is docket management for further processing
consistent with this discussion at the diess and relevant
information requested second. All in favor say, aye
opposed motion passes.
Next item please. Mr journey
I believe sir. The next time we go to 20
A lot of consents, nothing on 16 with it does bring
us to item 20 docket 52828. (item:20) That is the application
of golden spread electric cooperative to change its
wholesale transmission service rates. A draft preliminary
order was filed on March 18 and chairman like you have
filed a member in this battle. Thank you sir. This
is fairly straightforward, but I did want to bring
up the brief point that to make sure we ask about right
large expenditures, expenditures outside the normal
course of business in golden spreads effort to become
its own transmission operator. I don't know in no way
should that be interpreted as a negative perception
or pre judgment of that? I think it's just, it's something
that we want to make sure we have information that
oh, I love information and and and better and more
of it. Um, so I'd support you Mr chairman and uh, those
responses will be um, will be enlightening, I'm sure
Yeah, we've we've seen the other side of the transmission
operator issue recently. Certainly the key point
questions comments. I like your questions. The additions
to the preliminary order and I would move to approve
it. We've got a motion two all in favor say, aye, aye
none opposed motion passes. Item 21 Please sir. (item:21) item
21 is docked at 53058 is agreed N. O V regarding nrg
texas power incorporated violations of pure commission
rules and ERCOT Protocols were alleged. A proposed
order was filed on February seven. No exceptions or
corrections were filed. I have a memo with proposed
changes to the order. Thank you sir. Box comments on
the side. Look, I think this is a an important case
um and no broad reflection on nrg I think this is the
first um where we will look at where uh resource adequacy
related um ERCOT events happened. Um This is clearly
involving units that were bidding into Ancillary services
So as we move forward on our Phase one and Phase two
considerations. Phase one implementation, Phase two
considerations, this sets out a an example of how bad
things can happen and um as as the case demonstrated
you know, and cases have demonstrated that operator
error can occur, software anomalies can occur. Um The
the commission is, is sensitive to that but but everything
is being looked at and a more rigorous enforcement
policy is being pursued and and thus we, we are driving
towards a greater state of resiliency and reliability
on the grid so thank you. Mr Chairman for the opportunity
to talk about no agreed. Um Are you, are you comfortable
with imposed order?
You know that support the proposed order? I do too
as well. Um Including commission Counsel's memo changes
um I think nrg set for the list of specific corrective
actions that they've taken since um the violations
and so I would be prepared to adopt the proposed order
with commissioned council's proposed changes. Alright
you have a motion
so I heard a motion there's motion we got a motion
and a second all in favor say aye, none opposed motion
passes brings us to 23 24 I don't think we have any
business on those items Which will bring us to item
number 25 wholesale electric ERCOT design. (item:25) Mhm
uh 25 Project 5 to 373. It's a review of hotel electric
ERCOT design. Commissioner Glass flt has filed a memo
in this project. The floor is yours. Again, it this
is probably a very well written, it's, it's in my wheelhouse
to write these memos. It's um the 20 some odd years
ago. Um as we unbundled the electric ERCOT and moved
towards competitive generation in the state um we had
a challenge interconnecting large power plants to the
to the transmission bolted to the transmission system
in the state. We created ERCOT I'm sorry the puc created
at that time a process to interconnect um these facilities
they created standard generation interconnect agreement
process, timeline, cost allocation. We have moved beyond
that as we all know, as we are moving towards more
interconnections of different devices at the distribution
level. This is just a natural progression of how this
system is moving um and I think um as we are looking
to get more um types of facilities providing megawatts
on our, on our system um to make sure that all types
of megawatts are available. Uh So we don't have major
outages. Um getting these folks in a room, uh developing
our project so that we can address some of the same
issues um at the distribution level that we have done
at the at the transmission level. That's the reason
for my memo. Um I believe that now is a good time
to do it. We're ahead of the curve before this becomes
a big rush. I think if we don't do this, we're gonna
solve these issues on a utility by utility basis, on
a filing by filing basis and I think we're going to
save the staff and the industry and ourselves time
money effort by setting the rules of the road early
and letting them all hash it out and then file what
we think is best for that process going forward, appreciate
the points and certainly a ford looking memo and proposed
course of action. I know Commissioner Mcadams has been
taking the lead on distributed resources. I was gonna
I was gonna dovetail in on this. Mr Chairman, as you
your instinct indicated. Um I believe that the scope
of the project, I agree with having a project. Um I
believe the project as uh laid out by Commissioner
Claude felt he should also include distributed generation
and distributed energy resources as we look at uh,
distribution level interconnections. Um I believe it
could allow for feedback from our utilities um, noise
as well as uh, well I know is I would be grateful
for noise but for the time being, I'll start with our
competitive um I o U T Dus in terms of providing what
is needed um in terms of best available technology
or distribution level enhancements going all the way
down to feeders. What is needed to more effectively
integrate these resources in a way that allows grid
operators and system operators to actually control
the resources with the ultimate goal of being able
to provide assurances to ERCOT that. Um we could actually
build this into our resource adequacy metrics um which
would help the commission as we um formalize reviews
of these costs in rape cases, a consumer benefit tests
to where look, we're gaining resiliency. We're gaining
resource adequacy benefits from these interconnections
and thus we can consider different levels of of cost
and cost allocation. So I certainly see benefits from
this project. I think we'll have a lot of insightful
comments as a part of it. It will serve as a repository
for questions that that I know I would like to ask
of the utilities later next month um with a projected
timeline of receiving those responses. So that theoretically
we could take actions or the legislature could consider
policy refinements.
Good. You've been consistent and I think consistently
correct on the fact that command and control and distributed
resources is critical. Uh and I appreciate your reminder
that as always reliability is paramount. This is all
going towards our North star of reliability.
Thank you. Commissioner Gladfelter and your leadership
on this memo. I I agree with the goal that you've set
forth. I think it's important to have consistency and
uniformity in interconnection processes for distributed
generation.
I don't think that the best practice would be to set
policy ad hoc in contested cases and and because of
the the the juncture that we're in with the distribute
generation and solar and all the, you know, factors
we have at play. I think this is an appropriate time
to start examining these issues proactively to um make
sure we're not putting ourselves in a position where
we're not reaping the opportunities and benefits of
these resources and by having a uniform interconnection
process um and working with the utilities and these
resources, I think we would stand to benefit greatly
Um, Commissioner Mcadams, I like your expansion into
distributed energy resources. Um, as I I believe that
um is, you know, we were having our phase one ERCOT
reform discussions um, that was where I was coming
from From to some degree with respect to including
in that Phase one um set of items and actions that
will be taking is the looking at aggregations and distributor
resources um for virtual power plants. Um, I think
it behooves us and it is a tremendous opportunity to
examine the demand side of the equation and that's
gonna take some work because even though a lot of work
has been done at ERCOT there's still work to be done
as Commissioner Glass flt noted and Commissioner Mcadams
has been examining for the last several months. I think
tremendous benefits could be garnered by co optimizing
the distribution grid and the transmission grid. And
that's gonna take um, collaboration with the utilities
um, not only from an operational standpoint, but from
a rape making standpoint. And um, I I look forward
to to, you know, working with you all, um, at looking
at these very important issues and um, thank you for
your leadership on both of them. Thank you. I'm happy
to include everything Commissioner Mcadams wants in
there. Um, I think if if we look at this on a
broad scope, we can probably kill two or three birds
with one stone and have this distribution process in
totality move forward and save staff and and the industry
time effort and and US resources agreed. All right
And of course, consistent guidance, sooner rather than
later is always helpful to the investors and the corporations
need to are the ones who are gonna make all this happen
Mr. Claude Fielder, can you work with staff to amend
your memo to be consistent with the discussion you've
had and move forward with the project was in the framework
that we've discussed up here.
Alright. We don't need any formal action on that. We've
got good direction. Yes, that's that's clear. We'll
work with Commissioner got fealty on scoping this project
and as as well as the where it fits best in the
timeline for our ERCOT design plans and our rule makings
and then bring that back to the commission as a whole
Thank you. Thank you. Uh next item is 26. I don't think
we have anything on that today. Not yet. Not today
correct. I'm looking forward to it.
Item 27 Please. Mr Journeay. (item:27)
Item 27 is project 52845 Middle mile broadband for
the commission as a a memo and proposal for adoption
from commission staff That would adopt new rules 25
288. Thank you sir smell. So you'd like to give
us a quick layout and we can get to. Oh sure yeah
I'll be brief. This is a exciting role. We don't work
on this stuff very often but it's gonna allow electric
utilities to lease out excess fiber capacity to I.
S. P. S. To provide broadband service to unserved and
underserved areas of the state. I think that since
this current version of the commission has been here
we've focus mostly on like looking backwards and how
we can avoid things. So it's exciting to kind of work
on something. We're providing a new service somewhere
else, you know, not having good internet is rough and
so it's it was satisfying to work on this. And this
is also exciting project. It's the first project that
was run by members of the rap division who are not
me. So Mackin warmer. I did a great job with keith
and shoney's help. So the band width of the division
is growing, so that's good and I'm happy to answer
any questions, thoughts, comments, this is an interesting
one. This is uh we so rarely get to look at telecommunications
at the public utility commission um and that's by design
but the middle mile broadband, the aspects affirmed
in the rule making the 25 3 standard, um we have an
opportunity here really to uh to take a look at um
communications adequacy on a regional basis and that's
going to be significant in years to come. So uh I appreciate
the direction of the rulemaking the parameters and
components um encapsulated in it and I agree with it
Thank you, David for your work. I think this is a very
important role, especially for the rural communities
in the state, as this will allow for more broadband
expansion into those areas. And as we all discovered
during the pandemic, how important it is to have access
to broadband services for a variety of very important
services out there. So, um I think this is a great
step forward for our state, especially the rural communities
throughout the, throughout our state. Mhm. I do have
a question. I didn't see this in the rule, it might
be in there, but uh do we get any reports back on
any of these um any of the uh utilities that actually
do lease this fiber. So we have an understanding of
is this actually happening or have we created something
here that is not gonna, it's sort of a odd regulatory
regime relative to what we're used to, where we sort
of are, you know, the reason why the commission has
to be involved with these most acutely is because we
need to make sure that electric ratepayers are held
harmless, um, for from a cost perspective. And so we
sort of pre approved the plan for that. And then on
the back end we would see it in the context of a
rape case where, um, where we would be making sure
that all the expenditures were like necessary, but
it's not built into where they need to report back
But I'm sure that our good friends at the utilities
would be happy to keep us surprised their successes
in this space. And it's something that we can, we can
follow up with. I wasn't, I wasn't talking about the
monetary side because I do know that's in the right
case. But really, I think what your last comment was
was having utilities tell us, you know, if they're
if they're helping connect a community, that's a good
thing. Um, and that would be great for us to know.
Yeah, we're aware that some of the utilities have been
eagerly awaiting this rule. Some of them have contracts
already sort of lined up where they're looking to get
this moving. I'm sure they would love to come briefly
on the successes. And and also, I mean, I also want
to, I should have known certainly want to thank our
friends at the broadband development office who are
staff worked with their a new I guess a new partner
agency in this effort and I will. I'm sure they'll
have metrics and ways of describing the successes in
this area as well. Yeah, good, good point. You mentioned
the broadband new broadband office. That's one of the
many results of the tremendous initiative the legislature
and the governor have put behind expanding broad band
to these communities. I know it was a key point last
session. I'm sure I know it will continue to be a major
effort. The legislature and the governor to help underserved
unserved areas and get access to internet and good
access and make sure all Texans have the ability to
connect to broadband. I appreciate your work on this
great job staff. I know this is a little out of the
box but good work on a tight timeline.
Is there a motion to approve the proposal for adoption
2nd all in favor say aye unopposed. Thank you. Spencer
I don't think we have anything on 29 through 36 Which
brings us to item number 37.
(item:37) Yeah,
item 37 is project 53237. It's a request for proposals
for consultant services related to the electric ERCOT
design blueprints before you staff has filed a memo
and proposed order to delegate authority to the executive
director relating to a contract for consulting services
Thank you, sir. Welcome jay. The laid out pretty straightforward
delegation of authority. Any thoughts, comments, questions
for staff or motion to approve the proposed order.
I would just make one statement that um, you know,
I would ask that thomas work with agency legal counsel
to ensure that um the review of the bits and missions
adhere strictly adhere to the state procurement laws
and RFP requirements as he reviews the bid submissions
in this that have been submitted responses. RFP Commissioner
Cobos we've already been discussion with our agency
counsel about those matters.
It's important to note when we'll remember sp 20 several
sessions ago and um the full faith will adhere to the
state procurement laws. The process rigorously questions
comments, I look forward to working with whoever you
pick.
Alright, is there a motion to approve the proposed
order? So moved 2nd 2nd. All in favor say aye, unopposed
Motion passes
item 38 please, sir, (item:38) 38 is project number 53380. It's
the review of chapter 28 rules that are applicable
to cable and video service providers. Commission staff
has a memo and a proposal for publication. All right
Mr smelters, joining us again and he thoughts, comments
questions. I think we've got enough on our plate before
changing things that are well established in this world
right now. So I agree with it as I did the last
good job sponsor.
Is there a motion to approve the proposal for publications
all in favor, say, aye, aye, unopposed. Motion passes
Item 39 believe we have an update from our executive
director. Thank you. (item:39) Mr Chairman Commissioners. Good
morning. Just a few staffing updates this morning.
So first a little more turnover in our legal division
Rustin is leaving us, I believe today may be his last
day. I want to thank him for for all the work, maybe
it is his last day. Um So um we will, we will
uh more than anything, you know, amazing amount of
work. He's a he's a long tenured lawyer in our legal
division. I personally, more than anything will miss
his facial hair, his mustache is phenomenal. Um and
it's a you know, very daring and so we appreciate that
forward leaning facial hair game that he has um in
our legal division as well, you know, with Rachel leaving
uh Connie and I asked keith Rojas to move over and
become director of legal and he accepted that and we
are grateful for that. He brings over 30 years experience
at this commission, including I think about 10 in the
legal division um as deputy director when Tom Hunter
was the Director of legal, so that subject matter expertise
and legal expertise will be a great asset in the legal
division going forward and with that move we have a
vacancy and the Director of Infrastructure, so we have
promoted Therese Harris who has been in that division
for a long time into keith's job. His whole job is
director of infrastructure. Finally, just of note,
we will be transitioning Rebecca's Arwa's from her
role as director of ERCOT analysis into a more projects-related
special projects role similar to what tom provides
Connie and I on the legal side she'll be providing
to us on the policy side. So those will be effective
April one. Thank you for the update keith Terese, thank
you for stepping up um and Rebecca grateful to have
you and then we'll miss you and the mustache. I'm gonna
miss Rustin because I could tell by his facial expressions
He agreed with me on many things. The mustache really
kills the poker face. It does. You gotta grow a full
beard.
Yeah. Alright. Um Thank you thomas, We don't have anything
on 40 or 41 which brings us to closed session. So having
convened an unduly unnoticed open meeting, the commission
will now it's 10 22 am on March 31st 2020 to hold
a closed session, pursuant to chapter 551 of the texas
government code section 551.71551 point 074 and 551.7
six. We'll be back in a bit
closed session is hereby concluded at 10:50 a.m. On
March 31st 2022. The commission will resume its public
meeting. Uh no formal action will be taken as a result
of the closed session, so having no further business
to come before the commission. This meeting of the
Public Utility Commission of texas is hereby adjourned
All right.