Good morning. This meeting of the Public utility commission
of texas will come to order to consider matters have
been duly posted with the secretary of State of texas
for august 25th 2022 for the record. My name is Peter
Lake and with me today are, Will Mcadams, Lori Cobos
Jimmy Glotfelty, and for the first time at the dais
Kathleen Jackson, even though she's already been with
us for a few weeks, this is my first chance to formally
introduce our newest commissioner, commissioner Jackson. Uh she's
a chemical engineer by training. So take me at my word
when she's a very sharp lady and of course she was
most recently at a director at the texas Water Development
Board uh among the many initiatives she led at the water
Development board, she was an outstanding leader on
water conservation. Which is why I'm asking her to
take the lead on all things energy conservation and
energy efficiency. For the public utility commission
Uh water and electricity are certainly different resources
but the principles of conservation and efficiency are
very similar. Don't waste critical resources and get
the most out of every bit of your existing resources
whether it's water or power. Um, commissioner Jackson, your experience
expertise and commitment to our critical resources
and make you the ideal person to lead these efforts
Welcome aboard. We're thrilled to have you
thank you chairman Lake and to our fellow commissioners
Um it's it's just a very much an honor to be able
to have this opportunity to be here. Very much appreciate
governor Abbott appointed me to this position. I really
look forward to the work ahead. I think you've done
a great job so far? It's been uh it's been very much
of a challenge. We all know that people need a reliable
water supply and they also need a reliable power supply
And so I'm I'm very much hoping that what I can kind
of bring to this work effort is uh kind of like that
scientific analytical mind. And also I think, you know
one of the greatest things that we have going for us
in texas is that we care for one another. And you know
as I traveled around Texas particularly to small communities
and my time at the Water Development Board, I heard
from people across the state and I think in so many
ways we care, we care about the same things, we have
the same objectives and we just want to make sure that
our Children and our Children's Children, you know
have the power they need, they have the water they
need and that they can enjoy the quality of life that
that we have today. So I'm very honored to have this
opportunity. I look forward to the work ahead. It is
a collaborative effort. I look forward to uh to reaching
out and uh learning and hearing people's thoughts and
ideas as we move forward and making a more more resilient
Texas So thank you so much
In terms of order of agenda, we will be taking up item
14 before right before item nine today, which brings
us to the consent agenda. Mr Journeay Could you please walk
us through the items on today's consent? Good morning
Commissioners by individual about the following items
were placed on your consent agenda. 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21
22 24 25 26, 27 31, 40 43 and 44.
Thank you, sir. That's a that's a good that's a very
good looks well done across the board. Uh Is there
a motion to approve
all in favor say? Aye. None opposed motion passes.
Thank you Mr. Journeay.
That brings us to our first uh
listed item on the agenda for today, which is public
comment. Uh Oral comments related to a specific agenda
item will be heard when that item is taken up. This
segment is for general comments only. When we do get
to oral comments on specific agenda items, stakeholders
should not approach the table unless oral argument
has been granted or they have been invited by a commissioner
as always, speakers in public comment will be limited
to three minutes each. Uh Mr Journeay, do we have anyone from
the public signed up to speak today? Yes, sir, we have
a pretty good list today. First on the list is Cyrus Reed.
and so I just want to know this fancy new clock we
have here. So when I screw up everybody in the room
will know it been waiting a long time for public acknowledgement
That does that apply to us as well. Does that apply
to us as well?
Thank you. Good morning, Cyrus Reed. I'm here on behalf
of the Lone Star type of the Sierra club. I'd first
like to welcome you commissioner, I know that the Sierra
Club worked very closely with you at Water Development board
on uh water conservation issues and I'm thrilled that
you've been tasked with looking at energy efficiency
and I guess that would include demand response issues
Um I'm here with a lot of people behind me um who
are very concerned about rising bills in the state
of texas and the fact that we don't think the commission
up to now has really centered solutions that will help
residential consumers with these rising bills. Uh Most
people obviously can't come here on a thursday at 9
30 most working people, so we have a number of organizations
here to talk about some of these issues um in december
of 2021 in case, you know, I'm sort of looking at you
because you're the you're the newbie um In December
of 2021. This commission took action and adopted a
blueprint that blueprint included one item that's of
importance to us, which is to look at the energy efficiency
and demand response programs of the eight private utilities
Uh no one's taken action yet. So we, the Sierra club
did file a petition for rulemaking earlier this month
We appreciate the fact that the commission as they
should under the administrative procedures act, has
now opened a new docket Uh, So any stakeholder that's
listening can file if they like our petition, say you
like it, if you don't say you don't like it and say
why you don't like it. But our petition, what it would
do is double the peak demand goals that are required
of utilities and also increase the energy efficiency
the overall savings goals, both for summer and winter
It would also limit the performance bonuses that utilities
currently can earn if you look even at some of the
things on your agenda today without mentioning them
specifically. Um the performance bonuses in general
for utilities have crept up and up year after year
to now. They're about a third of the budget. That's
something we need to deal with. That's not fair to
the ratepayers who are paying for those programs. If
you look at other public utilities like the two leading
one Cps Energy and Austin Energy, they're already meeting
the goals that we've suggested that this petition.
So we think private utility should should have similar
goals. You guys have a lot of room to operate. I do
realize um, that there will be a discussion in October
on this topic, but I want to urge you to look at
both 25.181, which are the goals and 25.182, which
is how we pay for the goals. Both of those need to
be opened up when we need to address both of them.
Um, I had some really important points to make at the
end. Oh in general, we're concerned about um any solutions
to the grid that's gonna put the burden on residential
ratepayers without offering us solutions on how to
lower those potential costs through energy efficiency
demand response, distributed generation. So just think
about those things as we go into the future and with
that all and my two seconds, one second gone landed
it on a dime cyrus
for the benefit of speakers coming up. I'll just note
that the light will turn yellow when you have one minute
left uh, in your time. Next up is Craig Nazor.
Hello Commission. My name is Craig Nazor and I have
a doctorate in music and didn't make me a lot of money
but I've had a great life and I have a modest retirement
now living in Austin to get the doctorate I lived
for six years in Austin in a house with no air conditioning
That was interesting, but I'm here. Uh, so when I was
retired, I finally got enough money to buy a house and
lo and behold lawyered Landsman in midland Odessa died
A guy by the name of Charles Musset, who was, I
was an heir to, I never met the guy, so suddenly I
get this oil money. So what did I do? I spend it
on energy efficiency from my house, I got triple pane
windows and there are rebates on all this. I got a
metal roof, I got extra insulation blown in. I gotta
sear 27 air conditioning and heating system because
I lived in a house with no air conditioning for six
years in Austin, I knew what it's like and yes, climate
change is real. I know it's real and so I'm trying
to plan for it. So then what happened is solar comes
around we have a really good energy company. I got
solar on top of my house in january. My energy bill
when they looked at my house he said my goodness you
have the most solar, you have the most efficient house
we've seen. And I said well I want as many solar cells
as you can get within the deal that Austin had. So
I got 10 solar cells. My bill in June, my electric
bill was $10.
My bill in July was $10.
We need to let everybody in on this. We can't not everyone
is gonna be lucky enough to have a lawyer, Landesman
midland Odessa who lands a bunch of money on top of
you. I was lucky, I was just just like this is like
manna from heaven. But I know climate change is real
and I know people are suffering my house by the way
before the solar cells during winter storm Uri it never
got below 55°. Other people in the neighborhood they
had pipes freeze in the house. All my I had a fireplace
all my firewood I gave it to all my neighbors.
We need to do better and we need to help the people
of texas. We need to help people become more energy
efficient and I know it doesn't fall in the plan of
an energy company that's just trying to sell more energy
but but that's got to change. You know people you can't
be just unlimited greedy. You know you have to care
like you said you have to care about the other people
other people in texas, our friends, our neighbors.
Thank you very much. Thank you sir.
Next up is norma Cortes.
Good morning.
I am a retired Texas state employee thank you. Living
on a on a fixed income. So the bills are are a
priority for me. So when my utility bill doubles it's
difficult for me to manage everything else and I have
to set aside things that I need because I have to be
able to pay my utility bill. With this, I ask that
the P. U. C. Do something about the fact that is out
of control. The PUC has the power to help citizens
advocate for us but you aren't doing that. We need
for you to do a better job with that and support the
changes that need to happen. We all know that fossil
fuels cause energy bills to be higher that's
a given. And with climate change present in all of
our lives those those fossil fuels are getting more
and more expensive. And who's profiting profiting by
by those higher costs the big companies, the energy
companies, the CEOs of those companies. I'm not
I do everything that my utility company asked me to
do. I raise my thermostat so that I run my A. C
At 82 degrees all day long. All day long. My family
came over to visit me the other day and said it's really
hot in here. Said well you know I do what I have
to do and I limit my water. You said I limit everything
so that I don't have high utility bills but my bill
still doubled and it isn't because I'm over using,
it's because the cost is so high. We need for you to
do something about it and we need for you to do something
about it Now.
Thank you, ma'am.
Next up is Jordan's Barton.
Mhm. Good morning Commissioners. Um I come from a little
bit of a younger generation, evidently walking in with
my long hair and earrings. But uh I was a resident
of Austin about a year and a half ago right now. I'm
an undergraduate at Harvard, I come back because my
brother is a worker for the texas campaign for the
environment. He invited me to speak today because he
knows that a year and a half ago when I was a
resident of Austin back in west campus, lived at 27
04 Rio grande street. I was a very personal witness
to Uri, as many Texans and many Austinites were uh
that meant like many austinites. We spent uh, me and
my partner four days without running water without
heat, with our pipes running over. And what many would
compare to despotic and foreign regimes, bread lines
spending miles and miles outside of our houses, outside
of target to acquire basic materials, leaving people
like myself, uh, coming back nearly in frost been our
long hair now soaked with ice. So the situation was
far different. Um, and now returning and seeing how
the situation has uh, evolved in my home state. I say
that I'm radically disappointed because I'm disappointed
because there's a fundamental lack of public accountability
That lack of public accountability manifest itself
most triumphantly when you have masses have to come
in here with polls with monopoly money streamed across
them to represent and make a symbolic exchange, that
there are people that are spending money unless amounts
of money on rate hikes, someone doubling sometimes
seeing tripling of their bills. We know that there's
tens of thousands of Texans that aren't here today
as well, that uh, like are in counties like Brownsville
some of the poorest counties in texas that can't be
here because they can't find childcare, they can't
find the proper resources, they would need to take
a thursday morning off. And yet we come trying to represent
those people who feel voiceless, who feel yet still
powerless returning to this scenario returning to my
home state. I guess the one thing I know statistics
I know poring over information about how corporate
greed has affected the state has affected ERCOT has
affected people like me who are in the bread lines
who are watching the frigid cold take us over. Is that
the main thing I guess I'd like to impose is that public
accountability runs out at one point. there is a limit
from which people, I think reasonable people citizens
in this city and in other in other places in texas
are willing to work through these public forums to
work through this discourse when they don't have basic
utilities, human rights, the means to those human rights
obtained in their homes, the right to comfort the right
to clean water, clean air. So I just begged that the
council realized and then these commissioners realize
something that's rather important to me coming especially
from so far away and returning to my home state wanting
the best for and wanting the best for its ordinary
and working class people that that public accountability
does expire and that this commission in seeking public
legitimacy and seeking to uphold that legitimacy needs
to respond to that public demand urgently. It's not
something that can be put on a further docket It can't
be discussed in a Phase three plan. It has to be acted
upon now because if it's not acted upon, people like
me will continue to return to texas and see the spiraling
lack of public accountability and public legitimacy
that's placed upon the burden of these commissioners
when they aren't able to respond to the basic needs
of of citizens and Austinites. Thanks, thank you.
Next up is Adrienne Shelly.
Hello? Yes, thank you Adrienne Shelly, I'm the Texas
Director of Public Citizen, appreciate the opportunity
to speak today. Thank you for having us. Uh just want
to make three points and I'll try to be brief because
I think you've probably heard some of this before.
Uh first of all, people are suffering right bills have
increased. Um, and you know, they don't really see
a solution in sight here. Um we've seen in the dependent
analysis of that collectively, we've spent $3 billion
more on energy this year. Um and it hasn't bought us
a more reliable grid. Um It's it's really unfortunate
and you know, there's a lot of people who can't be
here today. And so um I just want you to to consider
those voices as well. Um Second point, we have a solution
right, Commissioner Jackson, thank you for for being
here and for your service to Texas Um you've got history
and conservation as you said and our solution lies
in energy conservation and energy efficiency demand
response. We have the solutions at hand. So we encourage
you to, you know, take a serious look at all the proposals
that are out there, including the Sierra Club petition
Um you know, every uh a little bit of energy that we
save is energy that we don't have to produce. Right
And three is listen to the people, right? The public
utility commission has done an excellent job of this
in the past 20 years ago when we did the market redesign
there was a listening tour uh you know, around the
state, people were paid to attend and you know, what
do we get out of it? We got one of the most
sophisticated uh energy markets in the country and
you know, look at the results, right? We had more wind
you know, in just a couple of years after that and
it turned us into a global leader uh in wind energy
So those opportunities are still there, right? Um so
you know, again, we appreciate the opportunity. There's
only a small handful of us here today, you know, our
organizations have heard from from thousands more people
who share our concerns and you all know that there
are millions more beyond that who are impacted. Um
so thank you again, you all have the ability to make
change and if you do, you know, you won't have to hear
us say the same things over and over again. So thanks
a lot.
Next step is Susana Almanza.
Good morning. Good morning chair
and commissioners, thank you for giving me the opportunity
to speak today. I'm Susana Almanza with and also president
of the Montopolis neighborhood association. And I just
want to say that during Storm Uri uh my family got
really traumatized. My elderly sister ha who lives miles
away from me unfortunately hadn't powered her phone
She had one cell left. She called me, she told me she
was gonna put on the stove and the oven to to keep
her house warm. I told her to be careful, make sure
she had a pot of boiling water there. I tried to call
her later, her phone was dead. I couldn't get to her
I was so worried the roads were icy so I couldn't even
travel. My elderly brother and his wife and she's very
frail and ill and dove springs, I called them also
and there was the same problem uh reaching out to them
later on their cell phone was dead. Uh and worried
about how are they gonna be surviving all of this time
luckily a neighbor who had a fireplace took them in
Uh My sister did endure three days without any electricity
The power came during those three days came on for
30 minutes. So she was able to power her phone. Uh
I mean a few bars and then called me to let me
know things were alright that she was making, it was
very cold. She was surviving but I feel really traumatized
because I couldn't reach my my siblings. I couldn't
reach them were so far the ice, the roads were icy
Uh and when I think about how we need to fix that
grid to make sure we have doubled the demand peak so
that when the next winter storm comes or even during
the heat our people will be able to survive because
during the inflation now we're having to pay more for
utilities. Uh it's very hard uh to live in um in all
the different cities because it's so costly just paying
for rent and transportation and then utilities. And
so I think it's very important that we make sure that
we have the programs in place to make sure that the
poor and the working poor don't freeze to death uh
and don't die from heat exhaustion and other things
And so I think it's very important. So I bring the
message here on a very personal level from all the
poor and the working poor people uh that can't be here
today who have two or three jobs that are struggling
to exist uh to survive. But to make sure that that
grid is fixed. That we got the programs and pace that
we use efficiency and you've heard from other people
who have generated more information but I just wanted
to give my testimony on that part and appreciate you
giving me the opportunity. Thank you.
Next step is Emma Past
morning Chairman Lake and Commissioners. My name is
Emma Past 'm a resident of round rock texas. Um
a customer of reliant energy and I'm within encore
service territory. Um, I'm here today to urge you all
to update the energy efficiency standards for the state
um, in order to fix the grid and to help people like
you and I lower our energy bills that we pay every
month. Growing back, growing up in a single parent
household, my family was always really big on saving
money. Um, My parents taught me from a really early
age the importance of saving energy. They had us pay
them five cents every time we didn't turn a light off
in the house. Um, and they taught us about the importance
of things like insulation. I remember being seven or
eight years old in elementary school and watching my
dad carry these huge sheets of pink insulation into
the house from the car to install them in our attic
and our walls, they were bigger than I was at the time
and they looked like cotton candy. So I asked him you
know what they were and he told me about it. He told
me that you know when we use our air conditioning,
um, it creates cold air in the house and if we put
this insulation in our walls, it'll help keep that
cold air in. So instead of having to pay the power
company to pump the house full of a. C. 123 times in
a row that A. C. Will stay inside and therefore will
use less electricity and will have a lower energy bill
to pay at seven or eight years old. That made a lot
of sense to me and it still makes sense to me today
We need programs across the state to enable more consumers
to do things like that to their homes to update their
windows, their doors to add insulation to their addicts
and walls. Because right now we're seeing skyrocketing
electric bills across the entire state. I have solar
power on my house out in round rock that I rent. And
before the grid crisis my energy bill was maybe $80
a month tops. Now I'm paying $130, a whopping 50 to
$60 more every single month for something as simple
as electricity. Now I'm fortunate enough to be able
to pay that amount. But not everybody in the state
of texas is. We have cities in texas that have some
of the highest poverty rates in the nation. And we're
hearing reports from people all across the state that
they can't pay their bills that they need help or that
paying their bills is forcing them to stop buying fresh
produce at the grocery store. Nobody should be in that
position furthermore without energy efficiency, our
state will continue to rely upon power plants that
pollute Texas is full of old aging, polluting power
plants, power plants that don't have updated pollution
control technology and the more energy we use, the
less energy efficiency we have, the more those power
plants produce power for us and the more those power
plants pollute. The Parish power plant out in Fort Bend
near Houston. It takes 179 people's lives every
single year. If we were to reduce the amount of energy
that we use across the state, we would have to run
that power plant less often and therefore save the
lives of Texans. Please update the energy efficiency
goals to save Texans money on our bills. Thank you
Next step is Alex Ortiz.
Good morning Commissioners. My name is Alex Ortiz.
I'm the water resources specialist at the Lone Star
chapter of this here club. So this is a little out
of my element, but welcome Commissioner Jackson and
thank you for all your work with the Water Development
Board. I'm just here and really echo the points that
my colleagues from other organizations have made with
skyrocketing bills and climate change on the horizon
We know we can only expect the strain and pressure
on the Texas electricity grid to get worse. Um, you
know, there have been reports from the state climatologist
office that show that drastic weather pattern changes
from drought to extreme heat to extreme winter storms
to hurricanes. We're gonna see more impacts and we're
going to see them fairly soon. So taking action on
being able to, you know, sustain the electric grid
here in texas is really important. And I know that
you know, like me, so many people worry about their
families in times of crisis, and during winter storm
Uri for example, I was, you know, just so worried about
my two grandmothers, both of them live alone and one
of one of them, my paternal grandmother did fall and
slip and just bruised her hip, thankfully nothing was
broken but because she had no electricity in her house
and she was walking out to her car in Del Rio texas
her ground is frozen over, she slips and falls on the
way to the car and thankfully, you know, we have a
lot of family in the area. Someone was able to get
there and help her up and help her inside and help
her stay warm. But there are so many people across
the state that don't have, you know, people that don't
have the community that they need to be able to muddle
through in times of crisis like that. And so I just
you know, really hope that you'll take a serious look
at the petition filed by the Sierra club and and I
hope that there's you know, genuine solutions that
can come out of it. Thank you so much for your time
Thank you.
Next up is Daniella Silva.
Mhm
Good morning Commissioners. My name is Daniela Silva
I'm a resident of Austin texas and I'll be using my
time to read the story of Alvarado gallegos who lives
in Brownsville texas and could not make it to Austin
today to tell his own story and advocate for real solutions
to fix the grid and lower our skyrocketing bills. My
power company raised the bill by 50% 1 that I've always
struggled to pay because my only source of income is
the social security check this month. My power bill
is more than half of my check. How am I supposed to
pay my rent and buy food and pay other bills? How can
power companies expect that? People who make minimum
wage have kids pay rent gas and now their bills are
over $400 because no one that I know has received a
bill for less than $400. The decisions that you've
all made so far to supposedly make our grid more reliable
are so expensive that they are nearly bankrupting residents
across Texas after monday and Wednesday. We see that
the so called solutions you have carried out so far
are not even making the grid more stable. People like
Alvarado and people that you've heard today are not
the ones creating the huge demand. We don't have huge
houses, we don't have multiple cars were not taking
dozens of flights per year and yet we're the ones keeping
our houses at 70, 82°, making sure that we turn off
all of our lights, making sure that we're not leaving
our faucets running so that we can save a few dollars
here and there. And yet we are the ones who are paying
the price physically and out of our pocket. And it
is in just and we are calling on on y'all today to
please fix the grid. Focus on the solution that is
making everything more energy efficient and have that
be your number one priority going forward. We shouldn't
have to be out here today. We pay y'all with our tax
dollars to give us this service and we should be able
to rely on you to do this for us without us having
to come out, taking off of work, taking out of our
day to come here. So please please follow what Sierra
Club is guiding you and what the rest of the people
here today are asking you to do and work for the people
Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.
Next up is Elizabeth Rojer.
Good morning Commissioners. I'm Elizabeth Roche Um, I
like you. Uh, I'm in the Science field University of
florida. Moved here for Grad school to study climate
change on the ocean. Um, and it is real. And this is
not the beginning of things with storm Uri droughts
record heat this summer. This is just the beginning
and you owe it to the people to fix the grid because
this is unjust, and we have to do something about this
and I'm gonna keep it short and simple. So this is
a little out of my element. But yes, climate change
is real and you have to do something. Thank you. Thank
you ma'am.
Next up is Fran Tatu
Good,
Good morning and thank you for hearing our testimonies
Um, um, I'm a resident of the hill country where my
home is um, 40 minutes from here took me to to arrive
I'm a folklorist by trade. And so I am in solidarity
with all those who testify today and yet we as folklorists
tell stories. So I'm gonna let you know that I'm still
highly traumatized by the events of the big freeze
Someone who does outreach in the streets, I'm here
today to advocate for the most marginalized the un
housed. We were able to house 135 people in a makeshift
shelter who otherwise would have succumbed to the freeze
We know of at least young man who was one young man
who was living under a bridge who lost his legs and
a few others succumbed to the freeze as many others
throughout Texas did there were deaths, There were
deaths because of this. I'm asking all of you today
to ask yourselves while you were sitting in those seats
who do you serve ask yourself this and began standing
up to people like Kelsey Warren uh, and subsidizing
alternate means of energy. My home lost, we lost, we
lost electricity pretty quickly. And after four days
I was sleeping in a sleeping bag and I was, I couldn't
get out of out of my home. A friend had to come
and pick me up in a four wheel drive and get me
into town so I could start working under a coalition
headed by chris Harris at the time, who's now with
Austin Justice, Coalition of nonprofits, mutual aid
people who were just, You know, out of the goodness
of their hearts. I had drivers driving through the
night picking up people until 1, 234567 a.m. people
who otherwise would have died in their, in their, in
their tents. So please consider the marginalized the
elderly, all of those who don't have a voice and can't
be here today. Thank you so much for your time.
Next up is Shane johnson
the put a timer on my phone. So I know how long
I'm taking.
All right, thank you. Can y'all hear me? Thanks for
your time. Um, Shane johnson, I'm a resident of Austin
texas and that mostly gonna be reiterating and emphasizing
what people have already been saying. Uh, but we need
to put the public back in the public utility commission
Um, we came in december of last year and spoke and
we essentially said all of the same things, some of
them verbatim. We warned, y'all literally that the
stopgap measures in Phase One would be ridiculously
expensive. Both phases would be expensive, could cost
billions of dollars billion with a B. And now we're
seeing seven months of Phase one has cost a billion
dollars and it's being passed on to the people around
the state. Um and that's one of several reasons why
we have to approve this energy efficiency petition
or and expand energy efficiency measures around the
state. The grid cannot be fixed without energy efficiency
it can't be reliable, more reliable without expanded
energy efficiency measures. And deep down we know the
grid is not more reliable. We had that scare in july
it affects all of us, you know, some of us more than
others, but we know that it is that things are not
better off than they were in 2021. Uh, and what I'll
what I'll emphasize too is that uh, in july was 13th
or whatever, uh, there's enough thermal generation
tripped offline to power the city of Houston twice
Um, ERCOT doesn't fully plan for climate change and
with, you know, essentially record demand and extremely
energy efficient homes and, and uh especially multifamily
we're seeing, you know, this excessive demand that's
then actually blowing through our power plants and
if a few more power plants tripped offline, we would
have absolutely been in a crisis rolling blackouts
at the best. So we have to do more and we have
to and it has to include energy efficiency um and I'll
also use um I left my other paper over there but um
I'll um describe the testimony of of one person who
we spoke to uh in the Brownsville area of texas and
for those who don't, who don't know, it's one of the
poorest, that area is one of the poorest counties in
the entire country and she described that her bill
was over $1000 for july A $1,000 just for electric
bill. Some other folks in Brownsville, one woman had
to get a second job to pay her electric bill. Uh and
this woman who um who's august, excuse me july bill
was $1000 for august bill was over $600. This is ridiculous
And we have to be prioritizing the solutions that are
actually helping people and going to lower people's
bills so, and that looks wide like widespread energy
efficiency. Uh starting with these, these goals from
the top down with these private utilities. Thank you
for your time. Thank you for being here.
Next up is Corey Troiani
Good morning Corey Troiani. Uh huh. I'm with Texas
campaign for the environment and thank you all for
your time today. I'm gonna read the story of paige
fan from Houston texas Um quote, we spent three days
with no power, the thermostat said it was 20° in our
home, but it felt colder, we could see our breath inside
the home, which was something I never expected before
Overall it was miserable. But I'm lucky it wasn't worse
for us. A friend of mine had two toddlers and risked
a lot to drive in the ice to Pearl Island to stay
with friends who had, who had power and other friends
pipes burst on the second floor of his house and flooded
the home where two generations of family, including
elderly, were living. Our neighbors beside us ran out
of food. So we gave them what we had. A lot of
people were sitting in cars to keep warm, risking their
lives. We could see that all of downtown had power
as we were driving around to keep warm. The suffering
of millions of people was the result of an energy grid
that is designed to maximize profits when energy is
scarce. We don't have an energy grid that works for
ordinary people. It doesn't work during crisis. And
we know that increased weather variability and climate
change is making this grid less stable and even worse
We have been advocating for simple solutions that are
inexpensive, like energy efficiency programs and that's
why we're here today to support the petition for Rulemaking
We need to work on these programs that are inexpensive
for Texans because as you've heard today and continue
to hear people are dealing with rising energy costs
You on this dais right here can make the changes there
are rising costs across our economy. The economy is
not working for normal ordinary people for working
families and you all have the ability to affect the
regular folks out there who are paying sky high energy
costs. So I urge you to take action. Thank you. Thank
you.
Next up is Kathryn Hahn.
Good morning. My name is Katherine Hahn and I'm a resident
of Houston texas. Although this meeting today is being
held in Austin every time are unreliable. Power grid
crashes. We are all dragged down with it from major
city to rural town. This includes you and everyone
you know commissioners. The entire state of texas is
connected and affected by this disastrous problem and
the expensive and faux solutions proposed and implemented
by the puc thus far will not prevent the following
from happening again from a resident in Denton texas
during the winter storm 2021 for three days. We had
power on for one hour, then out for 4 to 5 hours
We had to gauge our cooking, bathing and everyday task
around that schedule. We had to sleep on pallets in
the living room near the fireplace as the heat would
shut off when power was off. We managed for these days
and realized many others had it much worse. But this
is unacceptable in a state that is praised for its
oil and gas industry. We should not have issues with
our power. People who are on the boards and serve that
people are not getting the job done. It has been over
a year and there are still so many shortfalls in addressing
and stabilizing the grid. Please let's do something
to move things forward and stabilize this grid, not
just in the interest of making rich people richer,
but for security, for those of us trying to sustain
From a resident in dripping springs Texas. I like everyone
had major problems during the February 2021 ice storm
and loss of electricity. Three years ago we spent thousands
and installed solar panels to modernize to renewables
and to save money. We saw a huge drop in our electric
bills after the ice storms and rolling blackouts. That
week, I was told that it was not fair for us solar
people to receive lower bills and regular customers
and that a charge would be added to my bill each month
to help out. You do what's right And you were penalized
for it. We are old and went through many problems feeding
a charcoal stove in our pump house to keep the pipes
from freezing. And we did this hourly. Only el paso
had the foresight to build into the future with new
facilities and equipment and hook up to a reliable
grid from the west. The rest of Texas is supposed to
believe the lies that you're doing everything you can
to help us in our energy costs, but not so we need
a grid that really works for us, Not for the energy
companies who profit from deregulation in an unstable
grid. Abbott is financed by oil and gas and most Texas
politicians are also, I could say shame, but it would
make no difference because they feel no shame at screwing
their constituents. This is our story and I have not
sanitized it because you should hear the outrage from
Texans from a resident in austin texas. My daughter
was born with a genetic condition called cystic fibrosis
One of the ways we treat her condition is with daily
treatments, but for this she needs a percussion machine
as well as the nebulizer. Both of these require electricity
I see my time is close out. So I will say Commissioners
These decisions will follow you for the rest of your
lives. Please don't lay down a corruption. Thank you
Thank you man.
Next up is Trevor Carroll.
Good morning Commissioners. I want to say, I definitely
appreciate the point made at the beginning about Texans
taking care of each other. That's exactly what we're
asking for. Um, today, that's why we're all here. Um
yeah, my name is Trevor Carol. I'm here today from
Harris County. I have had the privilege to take time
out of my weekday morning to travel here to address
you. That is, you know, not the case for for most people
the ability to participate in meetings like this that
affect everyone's lives is not accessible to most working
class people, but you can be sure that the people from
all over the state have plenty to say about how their
energy bills have doubled or even tripled. I've spoken
to people from all over our state who shared stories
about how they are struggling to get by with high bills
and are frustrated at our officials who put corporate
interests over everyday Texans. It's not a secret to
most Texans that major corporations have made huge
profits while Texans fall behind on bills and suffer
in climate extremes. I'm a resident of Freeport, Texas
asked me to specifically mention the fact that massive
facilities like Freeport LNG refused to shut down during
your e while the people in nearby neighborhoods spent
eight days without power freezing in their homes when
the governor finally ordered them to shut down, It
was only for a short amount of time while residents
sacrificed so much. Um, Texans really need relief,
especially the poor people on fixed incomes, those
behind on their bills. The puc has the power to act
and help struggling Texans were asking, why haven't
you? Um, Texas obviously ranks near the bottom of all
states on energy efficiency, which is unacceptable
One simple solution would be to adopt the rulemaking
petition that others have mentioned. I'm gonna quickly
read some stories from other Texans who could not be
here today. The last major freeze caused many frozen
pipes in my home and buildings, which cost me hundreds
of dollars of which I did not have as I am retired
and on a fixed income, we did not have power to heat
these areas for several days and the communications
were terrible as um to uh to expect some relief but
our primary disappointment is the reaction from government
Since this power outage um you know, there's been almost
no changes. Um no changes have been made to address
these problems and we can expect even more problems
Since 2020. We have been without power for over three
days um at a time for four different times. Twice in
the winter, once in the spring and once in the summer
the 2021 freeze left us without power for 4.5 days
We ended up having um a pet die because we were not
able to keep the correct temperature and environment
for them. Um We installed a smart heating and A C system
and regularly have it changed um based on power prices
and energy levels for the state. Um We used to get
rebates um when they would auto set the temperatures
higher in the house but that does not seem to happen
anymore. The puc must focus on sustainability rather
than corporate profits. Thank you. Thank you for being
here.
Next next up is David Cortez
Thank you,
Howdy. Good morning. Good to see you again. Nice to
meet you commissioner. Uh David Cortez out of South
Austin by way of el paso texas born and raised. I'm
the excuse me, I think I'm the last speaker today.
So let's all listen very closely. Um I do want to say
I need your help. Uh today is my four year old daughter
out of Sally's first day of pre K and I'm here. I
missed it. I missed getting her out the door. I'm happy
to be here. I'm happy to get people to come and talk
We've been working very hard with our staff, our partner
organizations to get people's comments. It is very
consuming work. Our members, I'm very grateful to them
for their contributions to give us the ability to do
that. But I need your help. We need the resources of
the public utility commission in the state of texas
to be deployed to bring more people's input into this
process to address our energy crisis around the state
Um I think we know, but I'm gonna say it again. The
climate crisis is very real. It is unfolding before
our eyes. This work is no longer about some far off
future or Children's Children's future. It is about
the very real, very present danger that radically and
disproportionately harms the hundreds of thousands
of Texans who are struggling with high bills. A new
report from a new survey from ACEEE just said
that about 80% or more of us registered voters support
some of the federal policies about energy conservation
with the highest support among liberal democrats, but
with at least 50% of conservative republicans also
supporting tax incentives and rebates to homeowners
landlords and businesses to make existing buildings
more energy efficient. It's not just inflation, it's
or the high price of gas, it's our utility bills as
you've heard loud and clear today. You have the power
to help the single mothers, the folks on fixed incomes
That was my mom that spoke earlier, I was just blown
away. She did so well speaking to y'all, she's on fixed
income, You know, residential rates are averaging between
24-27 cents now that's double where it was a year ago
People are getting these bills in the mail now they're
gonna fall into debt and I am worried they're not gonna
be able to pay them and they're gonna get their power
shut off in the coming months. You have the power to
help the people most affected by your decisions are
states lack of action are unable to participate in
this process. It is essential that they get more opportunity
to participate. The E. I. P. Process in october is
not a sufficient nor equitable space for that participation
to happen. Companies like Centerpoint whose Ceo reportedly
made 37.8 million last year and encore who reported
profits of 60 million above their forecast and their
partners with the Association of electric Companies
of Texas dominate those spaces. We need more regular
Texans at the table. Please help us with it. Thank
you.
Thank you for being here and good luck to your daughter
on a big day. We have no more speakers signed up sir
Thank you. Mr Journeay. At this point, public comment is
now closed as always, this commission, I know everybody
up here appreciates and welcomes public comment, appreciate
you all being here. The next item on the agenda please
Mr Journeay.
(item:5:52380) The next item on the agenda will be item number five
docket 52380, petition of S. W. W. C. Utilities
uh and the City of Austin for approval of the services
contract Under 13248 of the water code proposal for
decision was filed on July eight and the L. J. Declined
to make any changes in response to exceptions.
Thank you sir. Thoughts, comments
I would be in favor of adopting the PFD that dismisses
S W. W. C. Utilities and City of Austin's petition
with prejudice under 16 Tac 22 181 subsection D
eight for failure to state a claim for which relief
can be granted under T W. C. 13.248 and
16.24 53. But make modifications in our order approving
the PFD to modify ordering paragraph two to remove
the alternate basis for dismissal. That reference,
um lack of jurisdiction and um mood question or absolute
absolute petition and delete all conclusions of law
that address these alternate bases for dismissal, which
do not apply to this case.
I agree with that. MR Chairman. I agree, sounded dangerously
close to emotional. I think you got a second.
Alright, I moved to adopt the PFD with the modifications
stated and I would say all right, we've got a motion
and a second. All in favor say aye, not opposed motion
passes. Next item. Please
(item:6:52435) Next item is item six, docket 52435 petition of legacy
equestrian center to amend merrily said CCN in collin
County by expedited release before the commission is
an appeal of order number six. This is certainly an
interesting one thoughts, comments.
I sure. Uh I would be in favor of denying Merrilees
appeal um from the old days determination or number
six and clarify that the commission's order granting
the streamlined expedite the release of the track of
land is a final order under the administrative procedures
act um scr petition and the compensation proceeding
that follows the commission's approval of an scr petition
or two separate proceedings that are combined into
one um control number for administrative efficiency
Um Therefore, the ALJ correctly determined that the
commission's final order filed on March 1st 2020 to
release the track from mary lee's um certified service
area and therefore there is no need to clarify no need
for clarification on whether the release can proceed
because the release has already occurred. Um We're
in the middle of the compensation proceeding at this
time. Um That's a separate action from the commission's
final order releasing the track of land. Uh the so
the ALJ correctly determined that the legacy equestrian
is responsible for paying the appraisal fee and compensation
of any to merely sud So I believe that forms the
basis of my position of denying Merrilees appeal and
affirming the LJ's determination or number six once
the orders issued its final compensations there, they're
trying to conflate two separate proceedings under one
docket And so I think it's necessary that affirm for
everybody that it's a two step process and we've moved
beyond the scr you can't back out of it. I don't like
the outcome. So I would support positions.
Alright, okay, you have motion for that commissioner
Yes. Um I would move to deny Merrilees appeal and affirmed
the determination in order number six, pursuant to
our discussion. Second, motion in a second all in favor
say, aye, not opposed motion passes. Next item please
(item:8:52758) The next item is item eight, It's docket 52758. It's
the petition of Mcallen's public utility appealing
hotel water rates charged by Hidalgo County Water Improvement
District. Number three in front of the commission is
an appeal of order number four. The last one was interesting
This is even more interesting. Um We've got a couple
of complicating factors here, most notably some question
about jurisdiction.
Mr Chairman. I believe the legislative letter that
we have received calls in the most basic scope of what
we do here. Um I believe the timing of the this passage
of the statues referenced again. The water code. Uh
the relevant water code areas of jurisdiction moved
over in the same section in the same session that are
being cited as part of the legislative letter. Um I
think we need to take time to seek guidance. I I believe
an attorney general opinion is warranted here. I mean
this this could affect this could have a real effect
on on other cases. Um We just need clarity. So I would
I would take uh I would move to extend um this case
and then take that time to seek an attorney general
opinion on agreed. I'd rather get it right on the front
and then have problems on the back end. I'd be comfortable
with an indefinite extension. So there's no we don't
have to revisit this on various timelines and that
I wasn't thinking about that path. But I totally agree
with that. I think getting an attorney general's opinion
is probably the right path. Um But uh no I don't applaud
you but I think that was a really good thought. So
I affirm your prudent. Very prudent. Very prudent.
And I affirm your brilliance. All right. Do you have
a motion? I would so move consistent with our discussion
with a modified delegated authority of the E. D. To
actually sign the request to the G. Two for this opinion
I would so move to extend indefinitely and delegate
authority to the executive director to seek an attorney
general opinion on clarification clarification on jurisdiction
agency. We got a motion with the 2nd 2nd. I am not
opposed motion passes. Next item please sir. (item:9:53109) The next
item is item nine is docket 53109 is the application
of undying development for a system improvement charge
A draft preliminary order was filed on july 13th. Oh
that's right. We're just gonna take up 14. Thank you
sir. I forgot
we need a green light for you. I don't think I deserve
a green light. Red light
(item:14:52954) Item fourteen's project 52954. It's a year in 2021 water
and sewer Annual reports. Commission staff filed a
memorandum regarding the Undines, rates and rate cases
at Charles request. Yeah we we took this up in a previous
meeting asked for more information and clarification
We we've received that very timely manner. Thank you
Darryl and team for quick turnaround on that uh
thoughts, comments. I mean I know there's a desire
for more information sooner rather than later but we've
also got to balance out with expeditious water service
and ensuring that we keep companies moving forward
on providing that service at the consistency and quality
that our citizens are. Uh I want to thank Daryl and
and Anna on their work in reviewing the ending group's
financial status to help us. Um In our our assessment
of undying uh S. I. C case and so based on my
review of their memo, I think that Darryl um and Anna
provided a good basis for waiting to order the well
ordering the comprehensive rate case to be filed by
the whole corporate structure lending group. Uh by
May one, And I say that because I think it will be
a cleaner rate case. Um in terms of matching up the
historical test here with Undines fiscal year. And
so I based on my review of the memo, I think Daryl
and um provided a sufficient basis for for us the commission
to require undoing group to file a comprehensive rate
case by May 1st 2025 to allow us time to get information
or the companies to get more information. So we could
have a more comprehensive review at that time. And
there's a lot of dockets in between now and then. That
would was completely like you said make for a much
cleaner rate case. That makes sense to me. Mr. Chairman
I would just add, I mean this uh this balance is two
areas for me. One of them is the uh confusing management
and corporate structure of this holding company and
the utilities that fall underneath it and how you how
you get to the underlying cost to these consumers.
Um I think I appreciate the staff time um and the company's
time to provide the necessary information. Um I agree
with commissioner Cobos that I think that the memo
lays out the reason to delay. I want to add that another
one. Another reason is that they are continually continuing
to invest in these systems and the capital is needed
in these systems. Were balancing um our processes,
our procedures and the rates for our consumers with
the need for additional water infrastructure and we
need this additional water infrastructure. But um so
I think that uh you know folks in this space, you know
in this area, we will keep an eye on you. We can
always bring in for a rate case between now and then
if we need to but uh you know keep keep doing what
you're doing and I would I would request that perhaps
um we have a review and a report every year between
now and and rate case here to uh to get an update
on this and uh and to see Um if staff continues to
believe that that we should wait till 2025 uh an update
from staff. Yes. In what next next year? Yeah. In the
next year or 18 months, uh 18 months, 18 months. Yeah
that that makes sense. I think I'm sure Darrell and
team can accommodate it. Uh and I agree with everything
you said and will emphasize that the consumer cost
considerations always have the true up in the back
end of the rate case. So if there is over earning,
if there are uh if there does need to be a correction
there's a very clear mechanism and obviously as everyone
can tell a very clear willingness from this commission
to utilize that to ensure we strike the appropriate
balance between continued investment in water and wastewater
while also protecting our customers.
Thank you sir. Um No, I I agree with everything that's
been said mr Chairman, I believe I concur with Mr Glotfelty
that strikes a balance between our uh need uh in the
public interest to determine reasonableness at the
end of uh of a determined period, but also allow the
utilities to avail themselves of these expedited measures
to fund needed infrastructure for the betterment of
the consumers they serve. So I I know the industry
is frustrated with us um but we're charting a course
here that we can follow in future cases for future
companies for future systems and uh it's gonna get
better. So uh let us make this better and this is this
is a middle ground.
I don't think we need any action on this item. Uh Clarification
needed from staff. I think what we were thinking perhaps
is to the extent we want to memorialize the decisions
about the future rate case. We might do it at the conclusion
of the uh item nine docket Uh we're gonna have to touch
on probably in that docket the requirements in our
rule to file rate case after a system improvement charge
anyway and we can just kind of tie that all up into
one neat package I think. Fair enough. So no formal
action on this item. Um I appreciate you keeping a
watchful eye over this going forward, which brings
us to number nine again. (item:9:53109) You lay that out for us. docket
53109 Application of undying Development for system
improvement charge. A draft preliminary order was filed
on july 13th. Um and that draft preliminary orders
in front of you think giving up previous conversation
comfortable approving the preliminary order. Do we
want to stick with 18-month checkup from staff and
then we can reassess at that point? I guess I'm so
I think Daryl's recommendations were either to require
them by a date, certain to file a comprehensive rate
case and then being Undines group or to just do an annual
checkup and then determine from there when they should
come in. I think there are two distinct paths. So that's
what I'm trying to assess which one we're directing
here. Yeah, the question was an annual checkup for
18 months, you know, I sure.
Up
morning Commissioners Darryl teaching on behalf of
Staff Commissioner like Mr Lake. Same to you, Chairman
like Commissioner Jackson. Welcome to PUC. Um Yes,
you're correct. Commissioner Cobos we uh we framed
our recommendation as primarily a comprehensive rate
case for indian group. The parent company uh by january
one as the commission has discussed. Um I think we
on staff would be, We would be cool with a January
May 2025 deadline. That would be fine with regard to
sort of the distinction between the two basic recommendations
Um We sort of presented them as a sort of separate
and distinct. I think they could sort of be done at
the same time. In parallel the commission requires
undying group to file a comprehensive rate case by
say May of 2025. And as well we on staff will continue
to as part of our as part of our normal process of
reviewing the annual reports of the water companies
using the same basic process as we have for Years,
if not decades for the electric companies. That's what
we would do. We would do an annual review of undying
going forward. Alright, so we can do both. We can set
an annual review uh and then also plan on asking for
that May 2025. Comprehensive case. Yes, sir. And I
think it's sort of a matter of default. I mean staff
reviews annual reports anyway and obviously we will
we will pay particular attention to the Undine group
Works for me. Yes, thank you for the
sounds good. So in terms of formal action on this,
all we need is a motion to approve the preliminary
order that was filed on July 13. Yes. And just to remind
you that that preliminary order has addresses for briefing
issues that we had sent out previously. Ah So it's
in there. We don't have to read this back into the
record. No sir. The draft order has uh addresses all
four of those.
Thank you. Daryl. We have motion
motion in the second Christopher, Glotfelty all in
favor say aye opposed motion passes next item please
(item:13:53891) The next item will be item 13 which is the docket 53891
The petition for appointing temporary manager Avila
utilities uh we need to recess and go into our here
open meeting for our hearing. At this point this meeting
of the public utility commission will recess to hold
the separate hearing at 10:42. Am give it a minute
for a setup.
Everybody good to go.
Alright this meeting. The public utility commission
will come to order for the merits hearing and docket
53891 which has been duly posted with the Secretary
of State of texas for august 25th 2022. We'll turn
it over to our commissioner ALJ for administration of
the hearing. Good morning Commissioners. I called the
order docket number 53891. Commission staff and Harrison
Williams. Joint petition for an order appointing a
temporary manager of billy utilities rita States water
system and vista utilities on an indefinite basis.
This is Isaac Ta assisting the commissioners And the
purpose of this hearing is to determine whether a temporary
manager should be appointed. We had a pre hearing conference
yesterday and I admitted 12 exhibits. I also restore
one witness for commission staff and they're available
to answer any questions you have at this time. Let's
take the appearances of the party starting with commission
staff. Good morning Van on behalf of commission staff
Good morning Helen Gilbert on behalf of the temporary
manager Harrison Williams. And have either of you heard
anything from a representative for any of the utilities
at this point is not we have not commission staff any
opening statements. None. MS Goldberg, nothing here
Commissioners any questions.
Any closing arguments? None. Yes sir. Then we are adjourned
Thank you. Thank you. All this marriage hearing doctor
53891 is hereby adjourned at 10 44. Am appreciate you
all. The normal meeting of the public detail Commission
is now called back into session at 10 45 AM resuming
(item:13:53891) with item 13 docket 53891
works for me. You bet. Mr Chairman I commissioners
I believe that this is a high profile, highly publicized
uh system of utilities that Mr Williams was kind enough
to take on. Um I believe the facts in the case. Speak
for themselves, norman Barnett abandoned operations
of the facilities for v utilities, Rita states, water
system and vista utilities and a temporary manager
should be clearly appointed. Uh the petition sufficiently
addressed the basis for the abandonment of the Texas
water code. Um Further I believe appointment of Harrison
Williams, temporary manager of uh the utilities is
continues to be appropriate. Mr Williams was appointed
as a temporary manager of the utility by emergency
order back on March 16th of this year. Um Rita states
water system experienced a complete failure as a part
of uh april of 2022. Uh Mr Williams invested resources
to restore water service uh to those customers of the
system and submitted an application to permit a new
well for the system uh to T. C. Q. Which is currently
pending. I concur with staff. They believe that Mr
Williams continued management is imperative to ensure
three systems. The three systems in that area continue
to provide water service that meets the requirements
of T. C. Q. And our own commission rules um and that
it comply with the provisions of the Texas water code
and is safe for public use and consumption. So, considering
the circumstances around the utility, I would move
to appoint Mr Williams's temporary manager for v utilities
for an indefinite term um with a compensation of $15
per connection per month consistent with our rules
and his request. Additionally, I would approve the
proposed waiver of financial assurance. He's gone to
great effort to make these systems work in the interim
Um and I would let the motion stand as stated. I agree
with everything he said and above and beyond. He's
put some of his own finances on the table too. Get
water restored. We appreciate it very much so, we got
a motion Second motion second all in favor say aye
I don't oppose the motion passes. Thank you very much
Thank you and appreciate mr Williams.
We've already taken up item 14 I don't have anything
on 15 which brings us through some consented items
to 17. (item:17:52397) 17 project 52937. The commission review the
definition of access lines uh under the local government
code commission staff filed a memorandum recommending
the commission make no changes to the definition of
access line.
I appreciate the effort on this and agree with what
they say
no action needed here. I appreciate the staff work
I don't have anything on 18 which should bring us to
item 19. (item:19:52154) Item 19 is docket 52154 complaint of MKRR
investments LLC against constellation new energy
A proposal for decision was filed on March 22nd. The
commission requested briefing regarding the facts of
PURA the commission's debt obligation order on complaints
regarding charges build during the week of february
2021 winter storm.
Mhm. All right. Uh This is certainly another interesting
one. Thoughts, comments. Yeah. Mr chairman. I I really
appreciated the briefing we received from staff on
this matter and from various parties in their filings
It has helped clarify a number of positions for me
Uh First any effect that sub chapter N and the
commission's debt obligation order will have on given
the given complaint will depend on the facts of each
complaint. Sub chapter in being our securitization
efforts. Uh In in each case the relief for qualifying
cost is limited to Ancillary services and reliability
deployment added charges that were passed through to
consumers. Now, if the facts show that a complaint
paid or otherwise a complainant paid or otherwise owes
these qualifying costs, then they will likely be entitled
to a credit or refund. Um Second, PURA 39 660. And
the provision requiring adjustments to customer invoices
in the commission's debt obligation order do not affect
the scope of the administrative remedies available
under PURA chapter 17 securitization or the commission's
customer protection rules. So I believe that sub chapter
N was intended to operate independently from the remedies
afforded to customers under those rules and customers
who receive a bill adjustment under PURA 39 660
will still retain the right to pursue all applicable
relief to which they are entitled including from unauthorized
charges. So I believe they still have remedy uh third
the ability of a customer to waive some of the commission's
customer protection rules under 16 TAC 25 471 subsection
A and three does not limit the ability of the customers
to obtain relief under PURA chapter 39. Sub chapter
N and the commission's debt obligation order. So load
serving entities who receive sub chapter in bond proceeds
are required to provide credits or refunds to any customer
who paid or otherwise owes qualifying costs under sub
chapter N so they're still entitled to these.
So where does that leave us on MKRR. At
this time? I think that the commission should proceed
to resolve MKRRs Complaint. But the final
order should make clear that adjudicating these complaints
on a final order uh complaints on the merits does not
preclude a customer from bringing a claim under sub
chapter. And when those claims are right in the future
at this time, the commission can only adjudicate violations
of the customer protection rules and customer protection
provisions of PURA The commission should construe this
and other existing Winter Storm complaints to solely
bring solely bring claims under the customer protection
rules. And so therefore I would move that we adopt
the PFD in part and reject in part by granting partial
summary decision only on claims arising under the waivable
customer protection rules. The commission should perceive
to resolve MKRRs Complaint. But the final
order should make clear that adjudicating these complaints
on the merits does not preclude someone from bringing
a claim under sub chapter N when those claims are
right. The commission should then remand the remainder
of the complaint to docket management. I wanted to
make sure that again that if if they have a contract
of a certain threshold and that they have waves rights
certainly non waivable rights are still retained. They
can still and that they can still seek remedies under
sub chapter in when those become apparent, you know
I'm just trying to make sure that people have the ability
to pursue their rights as more facts become available
again. Sub chapter the bonds are flowing out to the
L. S. E. S as we speak. So I want to make
sure that as we close these cases out, we're not closing
the door on their rights moving forward. I agree. And
I think one of the most important parts of the I think
I heard you say, is the distinction between customer
rights and protections and both as a as a as a consumer
and relationship with their their LSC, but also through
sub chapter in parallel and separate tracks for both
the rights and the uh the exercise and complaints within
those. Okay, make sure I got that right. Very, very
much agree. Um and then we also need to be careful
in that um we have to remember, we're going to see
a lot more of these in the very near future. So I'd
like to establish a bit of a protocol here amongst
us on the non waivable claims. Do we, did you want
to move forward those or or uh or recognize that we
can't customer can't waive them. So we're not gonna
give them up. We're not gonna give up thoughts, comments
fisher Mcadams. Yes, you did impact a lot. And and
this is very important. Um you know, that we set a
framework going forward for these types of customer
complaints back in my my prior role at the Office of
Public Utility council. Um We got a lot of consumers
calling us after the winter storm that were small commercial
maybe a little bit bigger than small commercial consumers
that had been assessed um that had been passed through
Ancillary service costs that are qualifying costs ultimately
for reimbursement or credits through sub chapter in
securitization process that we put in place here in
the commission and issued out a debt obligation order
And so um we encourage them at the time to preserve
their their rights and document um their concerns by
following a complaint that the commission. So this
could be very well one that we um a consumer that we
got a call for that, that we ultimately um steered
over to the puc to file a complaint. And so I do
think that you're going to see a lot of complaints
come up as a result of the storm. And uh and so
we need to have a framework where we address the PURA
chapter 17 customer Protection rules, rights of the
customer um but also recognize the distinct customer
rights via the sub chapter in um securitization process
And here in this case as we are looking at chapter
17 customer protection rules, I think um we are deciding
the motion staffs, motion for summary decision based
on the merits and I think by dismissing that portion
um we're addressing the waivable provisions but remanding
back the non waivable provisions even even if MK are
ultimately doesn't show up because they haven't been
in the proceeding for quite a while. I think that's
an important process that we preserve for the consumers
going forward because they they're non waivable customer
protections and we can't just close the door on those
and in our order and as part of the process going forward
and with respect to sub chapter in um in securitization
we've we've approved a process for the reps to credit
and um Refund those customers in in our framework that
we developed and approved in docket number 527 10.
And ultimately if that process isn't followed then
there are enforcement actions that we can take. So
so just to clarify in layman speak, um yeah I know
me too, a lot of these people are representing themselves
pro se. Um it's gonna require you as a complainant
to remain engaged. So when this goes back to staff
they're gonna ask you to follow up and you either follow
up or you don't and it could result in the same outcome
which means, you know, the complaint does not move
forward. Um So I I know that the L. S. E. S
Would like us to just close the door right now and
take the cloud off of them, but that's not our job
here, we've we've got to maintain the protections under
PURA that they're entitled to. So it requires all parties
to stay engaged for one last step.
One other point we had talked about and throw out to
you. We had talked about the fact that these are pro
say that there were the two conclusions of law about
them, not specifically pleading specific provisions
of our rule um that related to the non waivable provisions
that that we're not agreeing with those provisions
and the commission's jurisdiction to hear these complaints
aren't based upon how a party pleads their case when
they make a complaint like this. We're not that hypertechnical
of course. So that would include the leading conclusion
conclusion of law number five and 10 to reject those
two conclusions of law. Exactly yes, deleting them
and then also adding a new ordering paragraph that
addresses the relevance of sub chapter in the commission's
that obligation order in that the commission is not
adjudicating any of em que are our rights under sub
chapter chapter 39 sub chapter in a PURA or the commission
and that's what you got that good in the transcript
Okay, so I would make the motion uh consistent with
our discussion second got a motion in a second. All
in favor say aye, aye, opposed motion passes.
Next item on the police on the agenda. (item:23:52357)
believe next item is 23 docket 53257 compliance filing
of energy Texas regarding right back riders tariff
in accordance with the commission's order and docket
51381. uh just first announced Commissioner Cobos has
recused herself from this item. A proposed order was
filed on May six, the LJ filed a correction memo on
May 17 and I have a memo with proposed changes to the
order to thank you sir. It seems fairly straightforward
other than a potential need for a good cause, exceptional
thoughts, comments. Mr Chairman, I agree with the good
cause exception for the requirement of 16 TAC 25
248 subsection C. And one with respect to the relate
back. Um to me this is a question of timing uh and
ultimately we need to clarify uh that timing in our
rules however, because of staff constraints and everything
that we're doing here, I would argue we need to do
that at a later date and take these on a case by
case basis uh in the interim. But I think that's the
reason we need to approve the good cause agreed fair
enough. Um
the uh, works for me and timings and constraints aren't
ideal, but as long as we, one day we're gonna get to
the point where we can, you know, smooth out some rules
get it in one single GCR okay, we put that in a
frame and uh, so I would move to approve the proposed
order and additionally move to grant good cause for
the requirement um of 16 to 25.248 subsection C one
with respect to the relate back motion in a second
All in favor say, aye unopposed.
Next item please sir.
(item:33:53403) I believe the next item I show service item 33 um project
53403. Review a chapter 25 101 Uh Commission
staff filed a memo and a proposal for publication to
amend the CCN rule uh Commissioner Cobos and Commissioner
Glotfelty each have filed a memorandum in this project
Alright, um
mr smelter, would you be so kind as to set the stage
for us?
Sure, Commissioners, before you have a proposal for
publication this rule hand oils a number of items but
the the key provisions of this is the implementation
of 1281, which is the consumer benefit test um for
routing of transmission lines. Um The present circumstances
for years we've been using a production cost savings
test. ERCOT has ceased evaluating economic transmission
projects under this test since the passage of SB 12
81 looking for further guidance under how they should
evaluate economic transmission projects. Um the sort
of stated intent of all the commissioners is, we need
to get this going as quickly as possible. So staff
has provided a route to do so by um you know, if
this proposal is adopted, it will direct ERCOT to immediately
reinstate the old generator revenue reduction test
while it's developing a production cost savings test
um and I know that the memos address a few dynamics
of the formula that will be under the new test. Another
component of this rule is it includes provisions that
would allow our ERCOT to consider resiliency as a plus
factor in the approval of transmission lines Um and
I know that the memos also address whether or not that
is proper for inclusion in this rulemaking or something
that we should defer to future discussions. And I also
note that one aspect that is relevant to both of these
components is 1281 required the implementation of a
grid reliability study which would be a by biennial
study that ERCOT would do every two years to to identify
and suggest reliability based projects. Commission
staff's proposal suggests expanding that to also identify
areas with resiliency issues on the grid and this would
be the foundation for uh the plus factor for resiliency
lines, should the commission choose to go in that direction
So, I'm happy to answer any questions about these components
or other components of this rule or to assist in the
discussion in any way you guys require. Thank you Mr
Smeltzer. Before we, before I asked Commissioner Glotfelty
to lay out their memos if woody wouldn't mind coming
up and uh if he's willing give us a practice a brief
summary over the last 10 years of what the different
versions of the transmission test look like in practice
at ERCOT uh well we used to do, what changed and how
we, how we do it now. So we, in 2010, 2011 time
frame, we had a production cost test and we would
justify projects using the production cost test, meaning
that if a transmission line resulted in a less expensive
set of generators running to supply the same Load then
that might justify a project. So that was a production
cost. We also had a consumer benefit test, also called
a generator revenue requirement test. And so that test
looks at for the same Load if you add a transmission
line, what do consumers pay generators? So if transmission
line results and consumers paying the same set of generators
less money, if that's enough of a savings that could
justify, That was those were our two standards 10 years
ago along with reliability,
get back to my favorite layman's terms. The first one
was if we, if we can build this, the cost of transmission
line brings lower cost generation online. That's a
that's an approval. And then also the second one was
if That transmission line can get power to the same
load by relieving essentially relieving congestion
That's also cause for approval, that's right, Okay
so I don't remember the exact year, but we, we quit
using the uh generator revenue or, or consumer benefit
test and only had the production cost test and we continue
to use the production cost test up until when 1281
was passed, that 2015 is in that timeframe is.
So we've continued to use the production cost test
I think out of there have been two Economically approved
transmission projects in the last 18 or 20 projects
something like that. So there haven't been a lot, but
there have been a few and most projects are approved
with the reliability test. So reliability test just
means that, um, For the given load and the given set
of generators, there's no re dispatch you can do to
keep something from overloading. You've got to build
something or improve something in -1 and -1. That's
right. So those are the three tests that we do Or have
done in the past. We currently only have two Senate
Bill three says add a congestion savings test back
in. So that's where we are today. That's where this
rule. Thank you sir. I love the layman's terms. All
right. I've got two memos to lay out. Uh, who filed
first.
I think I think Commissioner Cobos is first. All right
Commissioner, I don't know first, but mine was upended
first. But okay, great. Thank you and thank you for
being here. I do want to thank staff for developing
this proposal for publication. Very important piece
of legislation. I guess just to kind of set the table
I generally agree with most of what's in the rule.
Um, my memo was just intended to set the table for
our evaluation consideration of the of the publication
and um focus on what I believe are S B 12 81
important policy goals and key provisions that are
focused on, as we've described here today on the new
economic criteria that ERCOT will now be required to
take into consideration is the review proposed transmission
projects that focused on congestion uh cost savings
for consumers, which is very important given all of
the congestion costs that are currently being experienced
today. Um second piece obviously is a new reliability
criteria that adds new requirements for con taken consideration
on historical Load forecasting, variety about new interconnections
being um, loads being interconnected. And then the
third piece, which is also very important is the great
assessment of, or culture assessment of greater liability
extreme weather conditions, those in my mind are the
three core um areas of focus of 12 81 that are extremely
important for for us to move forward on um based on
prior open meeting discussions, I have been a very
strong proponent along with Commissioner Glotfelty
looking at resiliency. I think that is a very important
matter that we must look at. Um we just heard a ton
of public comments here, talking about variety of measures
that, you know, addressing extreme weather um, in the
future and, and I do think that that is a very important
area, but I also think it's a very broad, complex area
that just doesn't look at hardening the system. It's
a variety of measures um, from making sure the system
is operational from a human resource standpoint and
all kinds of, you know, extreme weather conditions
It's it's important. Um, and I do want to keep it on
the table. My only thought process via my memo was
was that I would like to just have a broader discussion
on whether we should include the proposed language
that staff has included on resiliency in the role.
Um,
because I from after going kind of evaluating this
issue over and over again. Um, and and I've been a
strong proponent of moving forward as soon as possible
on this issue. I do want to be cognizant of the fact
that any language you put in the rule and I know this
proposal for publication will get more comments back
on it. Um, we don't want to center ourselves down a
path where we're opening a pandora's box on, you know
projects and consumer costs. We gotta remain cognizant
on a balance between resiliency and consumer costs
And in order to get gain that balance, I I would like
to take a more deliberative approach and in defining
resiliency number one, number two, establishing appropriate
criteria, whether it's a third test or one baked in
Ultimately, like staff has proposed that's a sub factor
on economic and reliability, but also being much more
deliberate on that criteria. So that ERCOT can properly
evaluate that, that factor through their regional transmission
plan and process that's an annual process that ERCOT
conducts on reviewing proposed projects in the future
And so ultimately I just wanted to have a broader discussion
on on whether or not we move forward with the interim
path on resiliency that allows ERCOT to start looking
at these projects or we put a pause and address the
entire issue in a separate project. I also proposed
the change to a specific change to ERCOT evaluation
of congestion stadiums and that is um an evaluation
of based on my discussions with with you woody um you
have stated that ERCOT through its modeling processes
of proposed economic projects that ERCOT looks out
six years in the future because that is as far as they
can look with certainty and so and I know commissioner
Glotfelty you have some thoughts on this and we definitely
can talk through what what's the appropriate horizon
to look out into. But I thought well if you're gonna
look out um six years out for congestion cost savings
will perhaps we should look at maybe adjusting the
transmission revenue requirement and I recognize that
that will to six years out, I recognize that that will
result in additional economic transmission projects
being built but we just heard from you woody today
that only two have been built and I think the last
decade out of economic criteria and we have a lot of
congestion costs on the system right now and and I
don't think that, you know when we balance out economic
benefits for consumers and and and build out of economic
transmission projects, I think we might be able to
just kind of unlock that process a little bit more
It has seemed very conservative in the past and I know
that's a policy called for us and Woody um I think
you've stated that whatever you give us on the transmission
revenue requirement, you can just plug into the model
that that's a policy call for the commission to make
So I I propose that as a potential um issue to look
at. I also wanted to emphasize that um while I agree
with staff proposed language that the ultimate consumer
congestion cost savings test that that are caught approves
the final one would come back to us for final approval
because of the impact that that test will have on ERCOT
ratepayers and um be a protocol for our final review
and approval and then last um I proposed a directive
to market um to require that the independent review
of proposed projects be completed within the 150 day
timeline that's in the protocols um as currently written
the protocols state that ERCOT will attempt to get
it done within 100 and 50 days based on my discussion
with Woody and uh it appears that ERCOT treats it as
a requirement and and strives to meet that deadline
but I think by mandating it in the protocols we provide
a more defined requirement there. So ERCOT can um get
that independent review process as what he has stated
that is being done right now. That is not being done
with the problem at all. Um Just so that um we can
provide more of a step towards more efficiency in the
transmission planning processes. ERCOT is going to
start reviewing more projects by way of economic criteria
and continue to look at reliability and and critical
reliability projects.
On the last point staff wanted to make sure they're
reading the memo correctly. You weren't intending that
to be that we include the 150 day language in this
rule if that's the way the commission decides to go
that was a protocol direction. Yes. Outside of the
just as a Interim first step to start creating some
efficiency to allow orcas um to review proposed projects
under 1281 within that 150 thank you for the clarification
Uh we've got a lot of policy points in there that we
can dive into after commissioner glotfelty lays this
out but on the procedural point about 250 days I certainly
support increased accountability and efficiency in
all areas of what we're doing but if if if we are
going to ratchet it up on the market side. I think
we need to make sure to complement that with a requirement
on the T. D. P. S. Tsp side. So that ERCOT so
that any information required or other correspondence
that the ERCOT staff needs to complete the 150 mandate
uh must be provided by the counter party. Uh So I don't
know what that looks like but between now and when
we take this rule up again uh I think we should consider
that so we we make sure there's accountability for
everybody and a shot clock for all parties. Absolutely
and that is what I contemplated my memo is that by
ERCOT going to amending their protocol within that
framework that they have the opportunity to develop
a framework where they can work more efficiently with
the T. S. P. S to get all the information they need
so they can meet that 150 day deadline and so um perhaps
woody you can provide us with maybe some kind of a
proposed plan or how that would work um with respect
to um ensuring that um or ERCOT gets all the information
they need to meet. That That's something we can keep
in consideration and evaluate over the next 30 days
in comments on the yeah because I mean it's just another
topic that could be addressed. There's more than one
and look for options on that. I'm sure that
oh if we did want to include something like that in
the final rule upon adoption we would probably need
to include a question or something to notice it. That
was I was saying since they were doing coming through
high school was trying to be crystal clear that if
there is any chance we wanted to be an adoption, we
need something in the proposal. I think we'll hear
independently from the TSB is not separate from the
rulemaking. Perfect. Feel confident. I don't want to
put any language in the role that ties our hands because
I know that ultimately we're going to be taking a deeper
dive into the transmission planning process to look
at additional efficiencies we can gain in the future
So I don't want to tie our hands in the actual role
I
just want to get that procedural non rule related.
I just want to get that out there. Thank you for laying
out uh Commissioner Glotfelty Please lay out your member
Thank you. Um first of all, I do want to um thank
the staff you know, and uh the the expeditious nature
of us getting this done. Obviously Representative Darby
and others over in the legislature have said we're
we're behind their expected expected uh implementation
date. But with everything that we've done since the
legislative session, I think this is a pretty darn
good track record and I appreciate the staff and and
members of the market for being being part of this
Um so a couple of things I I have two different views
on on these issues. First of all, um on 12 81 we
obviously in my opinion believe that we have to get
this passed. We have to get this into publication.
We have to get comments because we have to be done
with this fairly quick. The legislature wants it. Uh
we've been ordered to make it happen, we've got to
make it happen in the best way we can. The question
is for me, um, is the test, um, or the components of
the test, correct? Commissioner Cobos um, suggested
that we average costs and benefits over a six year
period in my memo, I lay out 10 years. The reason for
the difference is Transmission lines last 40 or 50
years in our system and you don't see transmission
lines get taken down after their useful life. They
continue to provide more and more benefits the longer
they're in service many times they get rebuilt but
there's value in the rights of way, there's value in
the structures, there's value in that line for reliability
We have a very simple test in ERCOT and uh we, we've
had the economic test. Um, people have complained that
the economic test, transmission doesn't get built in
the economic test. It has to become the reliability
test before lines get built here. Let me just say,
we have built a lot of transmission in this state to
the benefit of market and the staff and to the benefit
of the T. D. S. P. S and the consumers, we have
built a lot of transmission. The problems that are
in the queue and the problems that are building transmission
all across the United States are not the problems that
we have here. We've been blessed with a structure that
allows us to build the question is, is it correct?
And is it something that we need for what our market's
gonna look like going forward? So to me, um, taking
a looking at a average cost over a 10 year period is
um, is the right approach because it's 25% of the depreciated
life of the asset. So you're still leaving lots of
benefits on the table that you're not accounting for
It doesn't sync up with the six year planning process
of ERCOT but in my opinion, there are two different
issues. The planning process does not have to equal
the time horizon that we look on, the economic benefits
process because in fact the benefits are gonna be going
on for decades beyond their planning process. So the
question is, does it match, does it match up to me
that's not a um, a really important issue. The question
is, can we identify issues that provide economic values
to consumers if they are built? Another part of looking
at a 10-year test? Um, is it will bring in more transmission
lines. This does not mean more transmission lines will
get built necessarily. This means that more lines where
there is potentially congestions or benefits will be
identified. This is the beginning of the process, not
the end of the process and the more areas we identify
the more opportunity there is for generators to go
and build in certain areas and eliminate the need for
building transmission lines. So there is a component
here that we are giving the market a better understanding
of where they should be building by looking at, by
by giving ERCOT a um creating a longer test and identifying
more potential lines that uh where there could be benefits
Um it's my hope that next year as we continue the transmission
discussion, I think this is the tip of the iceberg
We've talked about getting deep into transmission planning
um being better stewards of rights of way with higher
voltage lines or different technologies, how we would
eliminate generic transmission constraints and and
other things um those are for next year, those are
for things that we've got to take a deep dive into
one of those areas is resiliency. Um but I believe
we need to have a placeholder here um between now and
the time we do that, we're gonna have another winner
We're not gonna have another opportunity for another
major storm and God forbid we have what happened uh
with winter storm Uri. Um but if we can get in a
process and identification of some lines that promote
resiliency and the definition that we have that we're
thinking about that ERCOT is thinking about which is
um ensuring that consumers um recover or are eliminated
from. Load shed situations altogether in a quicker
time frame. Um I think it's important that we give
them that flexibility now. If we ask them to identify
lines that are critical for resiliency, it does not
mean that they will all get built, it means that we
are identifying things that could have value to our
consumers and that doesn't mean that every single one
of them will come to us. We're gonna have to have a
process to identify a large contingency of what resiliency
looks like because we'll have reliability lines, economic
lines, resiliency lines, I think those are the three
buckets in the future, but to just not have any of
this resiliency discussion now and not have a ERCOT
looking into it uh in my view is a shortsighted and
is something that would be somewhat of a misstep with
the winner facing us with with generation profiles
continuing to change. Um so anyway, again, my view
is this is the tip of the iceberg. Um I think the
most important thing today is to get this um this rule
for publication passed today, get it in the public
domain um and uh continue to understand and make the
case for why we need this um and and and get it
completed. So I'm happy to answer questions um, if
you all have any or or have a broader discussion, Thank
you for laying that out and like you said, the important
part today is getting, making sure we get it laid out
in the public domain and we make sure stakeholders
are aware and can respond to the issues that we as
a commission seem deem deem critical. Uh and I certainly
I appreciate the merits of both on the six year and
considering 10 years average and and uh time averaging
across time rather than a single point of view. And
And as part of that, I want to know how well years
seven through 10 can be informed in terms of value
on the cost of benefit, with if the planning model
doesn't go out there. And that's that's a question
for the respondents as we go through the next 30 days
just for a clarification, what is the math on the current
version of the test, one year, 1 year. So we build
2022 we build six years, we have a case for 2023 24
all the way up to 2028. So if the new project, this
is just this is just a model of the system. So if
the new project was, was to go and be in service in
2027 We'd have the 2027 case and the 2028 case that
we could calculate the production cost benefit, let's
say it was, you know 20 million one year and 22, the
other, we'd say the average of that is 21. And then
we would look at the first year revenue requirement
the first year cost to load of the transmission line
and compare maybe it's 18 million And so it's less
than the average of the two benefits and so it would
be justified. That's the way it works. You count the
average of however many years are left in your six-year
playing. So if it was 2023 it would be five years of
benefits averaged. Well the line were to go in place
in 2027. We only have two cases that we could actually
look at two models to look at because it wouldn't be
in the 24 or 25 or 26 cases. Okay. I got you
that cell phone. You do, you do mean not median. That's
part of the problem with the tenure is you're projecting
out what those benefits might be. And the biggest,
the biggest problems with an economic study or um,
used to It took five years to build a power plant in
five years to build transmission line that kind of
matched up. But with IRR generation being built
or batteries being built in two years or Cryptocurrency
miners three months or so. All those things handicap
your, your economic studies, another big handicap is
the gas price 50% of your power is coming from gas
power generation. The price of gas dramatically changes
what's economic and what's not. And so our ability
to forecast what gas prices are, Two years, five years
10 years out. I mean that's try to judge benefits 10
years out and not have any kind of idea what the gas
prices or have some, some idea. But that's, that's
a big handicap when you're looking at. But on the other
side of the equation, you know exactly what the power
line is gonna cost. So you've got a lot of certainty
on one side of the equation. On the other side of the
equation, you've got, Are we gonna have 20,000 more
megawatts of solar generation built and where will
it be built and gas prices and how widely adopted will
batteries be? There's a lot of, a lot of variables
on the savings side. And I would say that, uh, woody
is exactly right. And that what he's talking about
is solely the cost benefit. Um, and that is only one
part of the benefits that transmission provides to
consumers. So at this point in time, that's the only
piece, we're looking at other places around the country
Spp my. So they look at a multi value approach, They
look at what are the, there's a whole host of issues
that they look at that we in our process as of today
don't look at. So that's why I was trying to Push out
10 years in spite of the fact that it's averaged, but
to try to create a proxy in the meantime for some of
those other benefits that we don't even have a value
test for sure. And I think that's an important thing
we've heard in the past about how cumbersome and burdensome
other transmission planning and you highlighted how
the speed of our transmission existing transmission
planning process has been a blessing to our ecosystem
and our consumers. And so another thing I think it's
important to hear from all our stakeholders is going
forward. How do we strike to maintain that balance
More comprehensive, look ahead. A longer look ahead
where six years, 10 years somewhere in between without
capturing the burdens of the bureaucracy of the so
that not being handicapped by paralysis by analysis
So that's, that's the question to the stakeholders
all worthy of consideration. So, so let me say with
with my 10 year test, um listen, I'm, I'm agnostic
as to whether that goes in the rule, I would like either
10 or six to go in there. Um, I think the stakeholders
need to have a discussion about that. Um, if ERCOT
feels strongly that it's six um um, you know, happy
to go with Commissioner Cobos proposal, but I think
what you're gonna see
is that over time, you're gonna see huge, much greater
value if you're looking at a, at a broader test over
a longer time period because again, these transmission
lines do not get taken out of service. They do not
go away. Our system continually hits the the edge um
of uh, of its capacity And um, we are, we are really
whether it's a six year test or a 10 year test, we're
just taking a snapshot. Yeah, absolutely. And no matter
who you are, what you're trying to predict, forecasts
and projections are difficult. There's always uncertainty
Uh, I mean the smartest people in the world with the
most in the world can't tell you what the stock market's
gonna do tomorrow. So it's just, it's very difficult
no matter where you are. But we've got to pick some
metrics and some formula, uh, to move it forward. And
before one other thought is is I know you, you mentioned
we don't, we always need more transmission, uh, in
a growing states like this. But as part of this, I
also want to make sure we keep in mind the possibility
of utilizing as much of existing right away as possible
Trying uh, I mean transmission and reliability and
resilience are hugely important, but it takes land
it takes easements, it takes in the domain. So I think
it's, I think it's safe to say all of us would encourage
anything that ensures maximizing existing right of
ways as we. And to be thoughtful, we'll be thoughtful
about that movie. I echo that two points that I just
you know, like to say on that is that's why I have
tried to promote being good stewards of our rights
away, higher capacity lines. I think what Commissioner
Cobos did in leading our effort to string a, the second
circuit in the Rio grande valley, that was an example
of that. And those are the things that we have to be
doing. Those are the things that we should be calling
on ERCOT can't do it every time. But we at least need
to have the data and the understanding of the effects
So the more information we get into this process, the
better decisions we can. That's right. And and then
the other thing is, as I said, the more of these lines
that are proposed, we get a better understanding of
where generation might be cited as well, whether it
be at a lower voltage or a higher voltage that is part
of an LMP market is sending price signals and that's
the benefit. A constrained system doesn't send the
all of the right price signals. It does in fact send
some right price signals. And just understanding that
is is a good metric in our, in our market we should
act upon. That may I am absolutely provides some clarifications
and questions. I guess what the consumer congestion
cost savings, test, what do you, this was gonna be
part of my question to you in terms of your modeling
you look out six years with certainty. Um, what I'm
talking about is the transmission revenue requirement
as you've stated is more certain because you know,
the cost of the transmission asset. And so I'm I'm
happy to hear from the, from the stakeholders on on
what they think on, you know, looking out, you know
10 years on the congestion, cost savings and, and on
my question, six years based on how far you look out
on the transmission revenue requirement, I will say
that, you know, in reading through all the stakeholder
comments that they've already addressed this issue
I think a lot of them have filed comments saying that
they believe that after six years it becomes uncertain
um at least the stakeholders that are representing
consumer interests have stated that once you look out
past six years that it becomes uncertain and and then
it's the balance between, you know, or or the issue
of cost right and responsibility to model that far
out um with respect to your, your comments, commissioner
Glotfelty another market, the multi value process and
all that, those are I think items that we can look
at in phase two of, of um potential transmission planning
processes in in ERCOT Um, I know that other markets
do look out further um, and are still struggling to
get transmission built and there's a lot going on in
those other markets, but I did want to clarify at least
with my proposal on this test, it's the transmission
revenue requirement, uh not the congestion cost savings
test and so, um with respect to um resiliency,
A few things. 1 1 I
the reason that I'm sort of wanting to have this broader
discussion and until you address your point and I think
you agreed, we don't have a definition of resiliency
in our role right now. Um ERCOT is already looking
at resiliency in their planning process through the
Rio grande Valley transmission infrastructure process
that we went through. Um ERCOT noted that the Rio grande
transmission infrastructure that we ordered and approved
as deemed critical for reliability um included resiliency
benefits. So it's not like it doesn't exist in your
in your lens of looking at proposed transmission projects
at this time. It's just there's not a definitive um
you know, I guess spelled out in commission rule protocol
set of criteria that um we have out there right now
but but I do want to clarify that, ERCOT looks at resiliency
right now. Um the other thing that I wanted to note
is that, you know, I I, you know, mr, Glotfelty you
know, it, I don't think it's shortsighted because we're
not gonna get any transmission projects built by next
winter, um you know, it takes 56 years to build transmission
So I think the in my opinion, if we wanted to strike
a balance in terms of, you know, not getting ahead
of ourselves and putting criteria out there right now
that we could get comment on it. Ultimately we can
make the decision later and for the proposal for adoption
on whether we include that interim path, uh you know
ERCOT spread reliability assessment um is taken in
consideration reliability and extreme weather conditions
and so that could maybe provide a path is I think what
he um we have had discussions on how ERCOT would conduct
that study and perhaps shedding a little bit of light
on that would be helpful. Yeah. So if we did a biennial
resiliency test, we, I would like to see it done the
year. We don't do the long term system assessment,
which is also a biennial. So every other year you do
one or the other and we already do studies, we have
a stability analysis study every year that's identified
uh right aways that if you were to lose this right
away you would have stability. So we're already doing
like you said some of that kind of stuff, but this
would be a way to step back, look at the entire system
look at the ability of the system to stay, to continue
to serve Load even if we had some large outages that
lasted for a long time. I think that's kind of my unofficial
definition of what resiliency is, is the ability to
continue to serve Load even with outages that last
a long time because right now in a planning study we're
not doing anything but in minus one we don't do in
minus one minus one. We don't take a piece of the system
out and do in minus one. It's all base case. That's
that's a big direction we need to move and well I certainly
certainly appreciate that we've received comments on
a lot of these issues. But I think the most important
part of the day is is putting a finer point on future
comments on the issues we want to hear, evaluated and
and give stakeholders a more clear direction on what
we want to hear about, like you did in both of your
memos, and while we do have some resiliency uh take
into an account now, I very much think that we need
a more comprehensive look at what that means. And uh
and and so I certainly appreciate Commissioner Glotfelty
highlighted the need for that to be a comprehensive
look of in the future. And while we're we do have a
new line in south texas, uh remind all of our stakeholders
that if it was not for your leadership on pushing that
forward, uh when we if you remember sitting at our
old diets, I guess we heard as a commission about why
it wasn't a good idea, why it wasn't possible and if
you hadn't forged ahead on that, I guarantee you that
line would not be underway today. So um we don't want
you to have to do that every time Mr co host. Uh
so we can certainly get a more comprehensive approach
and a more formalized approach to resiliency, but that's
that's certainly down the road, like it's as contemplated
and that's something else. It would be good to hear
from stakeholders about what's the best way to do that
analysis, Who's the best a party to do that analysis
So look forward to hearing their thoughts on that.
Mr Chairman on that, I'd like to remind everybody.
Um and I was the one who opened the door on this
and when you open doors in this place, things walk
in and resilience. The resiliency definition was a
part of that. And uh again, I wanna remind everybody
how this process looks like today. Um when you have
waiting systems in our transmission planning process
um industry participants, stakeholders, uh interest
groups, use those waiting systems to petition this
agency. There were building a gate here upon which
uh projects will come through for um ERCOT to consider
and they're the gatekeeper, but ultimately we're standing
behind the gatekeeper, and they're always looking over
at us like this, okay. You know, when they move forward
on a multibillion dollar project. And so the a nebulous
definition at this point, sorry,
could have the effect of creating a pathway to this
commission for everybody to come in and say, hey, look
this, this was in the study on resiliency, even though
it's not fully baked, but it it's an awaiting system
and we're gonna be getting legislators sending in rafts
of letters saying, no, we have to do this under law
you shall do this, and we're gonna be built, and we're
building roads here of power and you don't want to
build a bridge to nowhere and I understand the concept
of if you build it, they will come and they sure will
But you have to have enough visibility based on real
data um that you're averaging in your models to determine
the likelihood that Load will be present that needs
and will benefit from the generation that we know is
somewhere in the area that will come in. Um, chris
was a fascinating um, Has a fascinating history. It
went live in 2014 and it exceeded its capacity in five
years just about um and and so nobody knew that it
would blow past that mark that fast. I know you guys
weren't forecasting that in your models so it it helps
to have enough near term visibility to reinforce those
data points that you're using in your models um to
help us make sound decisions but ultimately we want
enough certainty and and good methodologies built into
the evaluation process on the front end so that we
aren't inundated in the pressure to just automatically
approve something because it will certainly be there
Get more in terms of resiliency until we get the more
comprehensive formulaic version of it. It's incumbent
on this commission to make those tough decisions because
we're certainly not going to just have a rubber stamp
and that is my concern honestly with having that interim
language in the rule is that we would be opening the
door to the concerns that Commissioner Mcadams just
highlighted I, Commissioner Glotfelty and I are absolutely
on the same page with respect as I laid out in my
own memo, um that we should have a comprehensive review
of resiliency in a separate project after the implementation
of 12 81. I think many of the stakeholders themselves
even the utilities that would be benefiting from building
infrastructure for resiliency stated that they would
rather have the conversation in a separate project
Um, my um I think that that's the Commissioner Mcadams
highlighted those those are that gray area of the interim
language we have in there is what I believe it causes
me a little bit of concern that we sort of set set
ourselves down a path where um we opened the door and
we ultimately adopt that language um to the to the
concerns that Commissioner Mcadams highlighted. Absolutely
resiliency needs to look be looked at, as I've stated
I think there's a lot of moving pieces with resiliency
Um it's not only hard in the system, but we have weatherization
on the on the transmission um uh system that that we're
implementing weatherization preparation, standards
Emergency operations plans. Uh there is language in
hb 25 41 that discusses, you know, transformers for
T D U. S. There's a lot of um policy areas that
we're looking at in different um different projects
that tie into this resiliency effort that I think ultimately
we need to sort of rain in and focus on. Um, but
my concern and and that's what I wanted to have this
broader conversation was about was to lay out um sort
of what we were thinking in terms of continuing to
include the interim language in there. And that's a
good now, that's a good point for stakeholders to address
with more clarity, um, how to try and find that right
balance between uh broad enough definition to consider
resiliency without a rubber stamp where everything
gets done and well, I'm sure there will be no shortage
of opinions on that. And this is a discussion
and let me just say, I may be a little different. I
want to open the door. I want to open the door to
the discussion of every element of transmission that
needs to be considered utilizing controllable technologies
use utilizing all of these things. It can be that it
can be facts, devices that can be other things that
we use to control the, that we could use to control
the existing system. These are technologies that have
been out there for many, many years and we just don't
implement them here very well. Many, many of them have
applications here. Many of them don't. But um, that's
why I want to open the door so that these ideas and
these thoughts come about as there's more than one
way to solve a transmission constrained. It's not just
a transmission line and having the understanding of
where these constraints are and why they're there and
such, um, will help us. I think resiliency is, I mean
I when I was in the transmission development space
um, when when I would hear folks say, well, we'll take
care of that next year. You know, it was like, God
there goes another year, there goes another year, and
we have done a lot this year. And, and I don't say
that lightly, and I don't say that we're not building
transmission here because we are. But, um, some of
these things are ones, you know, that we I believe
that we ought to have in there. We ought to go forth
again, it's a proposed rule uh, rule for publication
We're gonna get comments on it. We can always take
it out later, but I urge you all to keep it in
there and and we'll make a final decision on the final
rule
if I could be helpful. I think that the there's a lot
that's going on in the discussion, but it seems like
there are three choices that you can make today with
regard to this part. Right? So, the first one is we
leave all the resiliency stuff in, right, exactly as
it's drafted. And to some of the concerns that have
been expressed. This was drafted deliberately not to
include a definition of resiliency because all the
stakeholders agreed that was too big of a question
It was
right. So, it was directed to sort of point at what
regardless of all the ways to achieve resilience? He
was pointed at sort of the aim, which is to help people
get power back on after storms and things. And resilience
is a really broad definition. So it was it tried to
incorporate the You've got to prove that this is the
best solution. So if you can do it, if you can do
it with batteries or whatever else, hardening, do that
instead. So so option a. Is do that and we can we
can take it out later if you want. And my commitment
to you is we I will not let this slow down 1281
implementation. Um if that happens, we'll cut corners
on summarizing comments or we will tell you we need
to take it out the messages received 1281 implementation
is top priority. So if you choose to keep it in, we'll
make it work. The second choice choice B is. If you
want to start gathering the information on what the
resiliency problems are, we could take out the resiliency
mechanism but leave in the new language and the grid
resiliency report that tells ERCOT to start identifying
grid resiliency problems. That's option B And again
this proposal. So we could go with it or not. And then
option C is which I don't get the sense of where everyone
is right now, let's get rid of all of it. So the
direction staff needs to get this rule published for
this. Is are we interested in option A where we leave
everything in or we interested option B, option A and
B. And we don't have to decide today, so we can, yeah
I just need to know what to write into what to publish
So I think
we'll leave it as is and then with the contemplation
of option in the future, option A and B in the future
that makes sense. So I think that
option it is and um stakeholders, I know there's not
a definition of resilience in here and we were not
going to be adopting a full definition of resiliency
So uh it'd be nice if they held their fire on some
of those points, but whether or not we need one is
is a valid is obviously valid comment that can be making
Yeah. And I would say um obviously if, if we want to
go with a six year level eyes cost, I'm happy to do
that. You know? Again, this is just a we can have the
stakeholders give us a comment and I'm happy to go
with commissioner proposal on that. So, if I can be
on that point, I just want to be clear that there are
two sides to the equation right? There's the how we
measure cost and how we measure benefit and as I understand
it under the under the proposal, it was one year versus
level Ized and by level Ized for folks that are reading
it, we didn't specify timeframe. So that just means
multiple year. We, we leave it to market to decide
right that was the proposal. What I understand commissioner
Glotfelty memo to be, you wanted 10 years on each side
What I understood commissioner kobus is to be, we want
six years for the cost leave, just level Ized or cut
to decide on the benefit. So that, that's what I think
is on. But you're also, what you're also hearing is
it depends on the contemplated time of construction
and then whatever six minus that year is. That's how
many years you level is or how many cases there are
between now and six years from now and I may have,
I may have briefed that aspect of it slightly wrong
and I apologize,
let me maybe. So the best way to do it this is
what we've been looking at
Is if, if you pay for a transmission line over 30 years
look at 30 years of cost and then look at 30 years
of benefit, add them all up. Is it, is it worth doing
or not? I mean that would be the best way. Unfortunately
we can't predict the savings over 30 years. The best
we can do right now, depending on when the project
comes in is we can run models that give us one or
two years. So what we do is we average those, we say
on average, we get this much savings and then what
you guys are talking about is what we've done in the
past. We've looked at the first year revenue requirement
and compared it against that average, but we could
look at an average Revenue requirement over six years
or an average requirement over 10 years. And so the
more you average in the lower the revenue requirement
is, and the more projects you're gonna, we're gonna
pass the pass through the door. So that's, that's how
we're doing this today is we're pretty limited on the
production cost side because we just don't have the
data, you have to extrapolate that out into the future
in order to get a good idea of what you get an
idea. So those first two years that we do our, we've
got data behind those, but after that we don't Yeah
And that's something that I hope to hear from commenters
on about, what are the pros and cons side by side and
we'll work with with ERCOT team to get some more clarification
on A versus B versus C. Yeah. And I just would say
um, that that is only looking at one type of benefit
of transmission and that would be the cost benefit
That doesn't have to do with the, a lot of other areas
in which these other regions of the country in the
world are looking at where it might have an emissions
impact. It might have a cycling impact on, on natural
gas generators that might have values in other parts
of this industry that are not being accounted for?
We're just looking at one piece point A to point B
and I think woody is right, you know, as you depreciate
these, I think what a lot of people have found or many
studies have said is that as these values go down,
the revenue costs go down um at the further you go
out as these facilities get appreciated, the benefits
go up. So um again, I I throw that out there, you
know, that's something you know, for the industry,
keep showing us the their views and their studies and
more case scenario analysis and more case studies would
be helpful from all commenters. Alright, we've got
a PFP anything else from us? Mr Spencer, I don't know
where we landed. And so so so so for for each of
these two things, do we want 16, 10 or just the word
level eyes? So for the cost for the revenue requirement
I don't know that we need to change what we're going
to. Okay, we're gonna we're gonna leave it as published
and given direction and providing a tighter range of
conversation for our commenters. We don't need to change
anything. I don't think we need to change anything
So I guess my question is um what are we doing with
that? 10, 6 year, is it a question for comment or is
it? So let's take 10 off the table. So let's just talk
Is it one year or six year. Okay, I withdraw that piece
of my memo. So is it six year on both sides of
the equation or not? So so we, regardless of what we
put in this, we will have full flexibility on adoption
So it's just what we want them. So the chairman is
right. We could leave everything as is and still have
all of the options available to us. Should you so choose
likewise. I think we can we can put this out there
with this discussion has provided fertile ground for
comments from all our stakeholders and I'm sure we'll
we'll hear from them and we can process in the meantime
we'll work with continued work with ERCOT staff to
get up sharpen our pencils and put a finer point on
case studies studies, scenario analysis and we can
move forward the process. My only outstanding question
is what do we do with my directive on the independent
review
process? Yeah, the timeline, it's outside of the rule
but is that something we work with on our own in a
separate path or like I think the best path forward
would be to separately. We can work with ERCOT and
I'm sure the T DSPs will have thoughts on how to provide
equal accountability, not just for ERCOT staff but
also for the companies that owe them information. Uh
so that one sentence. I can't delay the other. Uh and
let's get some answers on that and some some possibilities
to consider and then we can take that back up when
we get to the actual public adoption work. So I think
no, no, no, I have another question about the rule
but in a totally different parts, so keep going, oh
no, I was just gonna say staff has sufficient directions
so far I was going to request because it wasn't always
the case in the first set of comments that since there
are two sides of the equation, if commenters would
be clear about whether or not they're talking about
the revenue requirement or the cost side of it when
they're advocating on different points that would be
helpful to staff. Um and then I was also gonna remind
that there was one other point that was brought out
in the memos and some discussions about whether or
not we wanted to request modeling data, I didn't know
if that was anything that you guys wanted to discuss
today or not. Uh Yes, I would, I would include that
in the request from both stakeholders and in working
with ERCOT uh, no specific requests or scenarios, but
for the commenters, please, to the extent possible
I'd appreciate seeing some side by side comparisons
of, here's a real real case of what a transmission
line would look like. Here's how that proposed transmission
line would fare in option one, option two, option three
option four, which door do you want you want? Do you
want to use That would be very helpful to see and we'll
work with our ERCOT on their version of that. And if
folks want to include stuff like that in an appendix
to their comments or what I mean, Well that might work
But whatever we'll take it how we can get it. Yeah
Math is always good.
So says the business school graduate. Wait, I have
one more question on this. So, um, on page eight subsection
C um there was there's an a line added about an electric
utility operating solely outside of ERCOT Yes. I just
didn't know what was that part of the legislative
one of our one of the commenters noted that there was
a provision in hb 15 10 which is one of the securitization
bills um that it was an easy fix. So that's just verbatim
language from the, from the statute check the box.
Move on. Okay, thank you. Thank you sir. All right
We've got a proposal for publication. Their motion
to approve. So I'll let jimmy do it. And I move that
we publish in accordance with this uh conversation
system with the discussion of the diet
nine seconds. Your wish is our command. We got a motion
and enthusiastic second all in favor say, aye, aye
not opposed motion passes, we don't have anything for
the next 10 items and very briefly before we go to
our executive session? (item:45:Update From Executive Director) We believe item 45 which is
an update from our executive Director. Thank you. Mr
Chairman Commissioners. Hopefully this announcement
will not be nebulous. It will be quite specific. Um
as is always my goal in these updates. Um So, you know
I think this announcement is actually quite serendipitous
given a lot of the discussion today in the public comments
So as you are aware in our legislative appropriations
request, we asked for funding for an office of Public
engagement. The vision of that office is to help everyday
citizens and the organizations that represent them
to better interact with this agency and have more productive
um participation in our in our different proceedings
And so even though we have asked for that funding in
the L A R for the next biennium, I think it's vitally
important that we get started now and stand that division
up uh as quickly as possible. So I've asked our funding
staff to reallocate resources beginning september 1st
and we are going to stand that division up september
1st so that we can better participate and have better
participation from the public. Um and so in order to
do that now I had to be comfortable moving someone
into that job and I'm happy to say that Mike Hawk,
our current Director of Government Relations has accepted
that post and will begin september 1st. So thank you
hoke
and like I said, I think, you know, um we've heard
this coming out of your e and it's it's been kind of
a constant criticism and and request from the legislature
and others to to address helping the public participate
here. And so I think it's it's vitally important, you
know, for us to fulfill our mission and our promise
to Texas agreed. And as we heard earlier uh reminded
that all of these efforts are for the benefit of our
consumers at home, our families and our households
and I know hope will do an excellent job of putting
even more resources and focus on delivering results
to the people that matter most. So thank you for taking
the initiative on this. I know we'll all advocate for
this uh resources for this uh as part of our next budget
cycle. And especially Miss Jackson will be a leading
leading force on this effort uh appreciate it across
the board. Thank you. I did want to say one thing prior
to uh adjourning for executive session and that is
that I'm disappointed that that my two colleagues up
here didn't wear a tie on our fifth Commissioners first
day in spite of the fact that we have been pushing
them to not wear ties through the summer. Um This was
such a great day that I think that I just wanted to
express my the only reason I didn't wear the tie was
because our fourth Commissioner gave me so much grief
last year,
thankfully our next meeting will be in september and
we'll be back to standard rules and regulations. And
as I told commissioner Glotfelty this morning when
I saw him wearing a tie, you know, as this was Connie's
recommendation to do summer casual. I found it in my
best interest to follow the advice of Connie Corona
and all things for for success in my life. So I'll
continue to do that. Actually texted him about what
the uniform of the day was like yesterday and he delayed
like 30 minutes. I knew he was asking. That's exactly
right. I'm not really disappointed. But uh we'll try
harder next time.
Alright that that concludes the agenda for open portion
uh of the meeting today. Having convened in a duly
notice. Open meeting. Commission will now at 12 01
PM on august 25th 2020 to hold a closed session pursuant
to chapter 501 of the texas government code, section
551.7151 point 074 and 551.76. We'll be back in a bit
Thank you. All right, closed session is hereby concluded
at 12:10 p.m. On august 25th 2020 and the commission
will now resume its public meeting. Having discussed
personal matters in closed session. I will now entertain
a motion for the following action to name Mark Hoban
campus Assistant Commission Council of O. P. D. M.
With an annual salary of $150,000 effective september
1st 2022 named Sheila Cisneros is deputy commission
counselor of O. P. D. M. With an annual salary of $160,000
Effective september 1st 2022. Is there a motion? 2nd
2nd, got a motion second, all in favor? Say, aye, aye
not opposed the motion passes and having no further
business before come, before this commission is meeting
The public utility commissioner. Texas is hereby adjourned
Thank you all.