The Public Utility Commission met July 2 for an open meeting to consider their posted agenda.
Item 1. Docket #44074: Preliminary Order on Rate Changes
- “Application of Entergy Texas, Inc. for Authority to Change Rates”
- Overwhelming amount of Entergy’s requests are tied to use of block 1 power station, concerns other dockets such as approval of Union power plant
- Host of issues surround Union Power Plant, Entergy’s witnesses agreed; economic benefits derived from revenue from energy sold “are unknowable,” no estimated revenue has any basis in fact
- Commissioner Ken Anderson concluded expense incurred from adjudication is too large, parties would be spending a lot of money on issue that is “not unclear” legally
- Can either abate or dismiss, PUC not able to abate on own authority due to statute
- Witness for Entergy, Entergy not willing to abate, Plan A means four power blocks are closed to Entergy group by the end of the year, abatement means cannot obtain regulatory approvals to close the issue
- Entergy has proposed a path of action to receive decision by mid-December
- Anderson asks Entergy rep if Entergy would waive attorney’s fees if they don’t succeed, Entergy is asking for a lot of money spent on half and half issue
- Entergy rep alleges PUC wants operational plant etc. to determine revenue
- Anderson states that this is not the case, but revenue projections are unclear on too many fronts for this to be a comfortable decision
- Entergy comments PUC seems to be confusing value calculation with intended impact calculations
- Commission chair Donna Nelson comments that present case requires rate determination, some part of plant belongs to rate pairs
- PUC staff agrees that this case is premature
- TIEC comments that statute requires commission to render an order in 180 days, current case is about an increase of a few million
- Anderson comments another option is to move forward with order, but leave Union power plant issue unresolved
- Other stakeholders support the dismissal or abatement of case
- Anderson comments that it is struggling with 75% of increase being related to plant not yet approved, asks how to move forward
- Entergy comments again that Plan A moves timeline forward, if cannot close ETI would have to give up power block 1
- PUC moved to have staff determine
Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 are consented to
Items 6-19 not taken up in this meeting
Items 20, 21, and 22
- These items concern the water service provided to several tracts by Mustang SUD
- PUC move to adopt proposed orders
- Item 20. Docket 44580
- Small wording changes, tract covers 52 acres, adopt finding of fact from 21
- Item 21. Docket 44581
- Small wording changed in proposed order, small map changes
- 393.77 tract is not receiving proper water service from Mustang SUD
- Item 22. Docket 44629
- Small wording changes, 494.819 acres, adopting finding of fact from 21
- Nelson noted she is comfortable with adopting orders,
- Anderson thinks staff is misconstruing Court of Appeals decision, Appeals properly determined that each case should be taken individually and wether tracts are receiving water service is non-dispositive
- Nelson asks for more updated maps before order is issued
- PUC moved to adopt orders
23, 24 not taken up
Staff issued a summary and work plan for item 25
26, 27 not taken up
Adjourned and held closed session