Print 🖨

The Public Utility Commission of Texas met on June 14 to consider the agenda found here. The PUCT did not discuss all agenda items, the report lists only agenda items discussed at this meeting.

 

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. This report is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing; it is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

The agenda items 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 were considered together and unanimously passed at the beginning of the meeting. Agenda items 6, 12, and 18 were briefly discussed afterwards.

2. Docket No. 48404; SOAH Docket No. 473-18-4024 – Application of Texas-New Mexico Power Company to Adjust Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery Factor. (Preliminary Order) John Kramer

3. Docket No. 48420; SOAH Docket No. 473-18-4036 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC to Adjust Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery Factor. (Preliminary Order) Carsi Mitzner

4. Docket No. 48421; SOAH Docket No. 473-18-4037 – Application of Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC to Adjust Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery Factor. (Preliminary Order) Lisa Carter

5. Docket No. 48422; SOAH Docket No. 473-18-4038 – Application of AEP Texas, Inc. to Adjust Energy Efficiency Cost Recovery Factors and Related Relief. (Preliminary Order) Hannah Turner

7. Docket No. 47857 – Application of Southwestern Public Service Company for Authority to Implement an Interim Power Factor Surcharge. (Final Order) Irene Montelongo

8.Docket No. 48279 – Agreed Notice of Violation and Settlement Agreement Relating to Calpine Power Management LLC’s Noncompliance with PURA § 39.151(j), 16 TAC §§ 25.503(f)(2) and 25.507(f) and ERCOT Nodal Protocols § 8.1.3.3.1, Related to Suspension of Qualification of Non-Weather-Sensitive Emergency Response Service Resources and or their Qualified Scheduling Entities. (Final Order) Irene Montelongo

14. Docket No. 46747; SOAH Docket No. 473-18-3424.WS – Application of Cypress Garden Mobile Home Subdivision for Authority to Change Rates. (Preliminary Order) John Kramer

15. Docket No. 47897; SOAH Docket No. 473-18-3008.WS – Application of Forest Glen Utility Company for Authority to Change Rates (Preliminary Order) Hannah Turner

16. Docket No. 48218; SOAH Docket No. 473-18-3547.WS – Petition of the City of Hutto Appealing the Decision by Manville Water Supply Corporation to Increase Wholesale Water Rates. (Preliminary Order) Carsi Mitzner

17. Docket No. 46247; SOAH Docket No. 473-17-0067.WS – Application of Double Diamond Property Construction Company dba Rock Creek for a Water Rate/Tariff Change. (Final Order) Carlos Carrasco

19. Docket No. 48025 – Application of Monarch Utilities 1, LP for Temporary Rates for Services Provided for a Nonfunctioning Utility. (Final Order) Irene Montelongo

20. Docket No. 48128 – Cross Timbers Water Supply Corporation’s (Formerly Bartonville Water Supply Corporation) Request for a CCN Name Change. (Final Order) Irene Montelongo

 

The following agenda items were briefly discussed after the passage of the consent agenda items.

6. Docket No. 48297 – Commission Staff’s Petition for a Declaratory Order Interpreting 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.181. (Declaratory Order) Mark Hovenkamp

  • D’Andrea, PUCT – Rule lists out costs included & this includes the bonus; I feel like according to our rules it should be included, I don’t see how we can depart from the way the rule was written

 

Ricthie Sturgeon, Oncor, Joint Utilities

  • The bonus is not included in the program & cost legislature clearly distinguished between cost and bonus; I think you are bound by the legislature’s intent
  • Board action in the past was done according to legislative intent
  • Has come up in cases before; cities have argued that bonus is part of program cost, staff has previously argued the opposite
  • No utilities use bonuses to develop programs
  • Walker, PUCT – All those cases were ultimately settled, we always have a paragraph in settlements that we are not bound by the agreement
    • Sturgeon – True, but the PUCT would not award an unreasonable settlement
  • Walker- Under your interpretation, I don’t know way I would ever take another settlement
    • Sturgeon – In this case, you have to start with the statute, would not start with the rule

 

George Wood, Entergy

  • There was a case that was not settled & at issue was calculation of bonus, questions was put to PUCT and PUCT did agree with the Joint Utilities interpretation to exclude performance bonus
  • D’Andrea – But we didn’t address it, right? It was just lurking in the docket of that case
    • Wood – PUCT specifically said that Centerpoint correctly calculated the bonus
    • Policy would be to incentivize good energy efficiency, would be an odd result to count performance bonus in calculation of the next performance bonus
  • D’Andrea – I don’t want you to misunderstand the rule, not endorsing the policy; way I read the rule is what is driving the decision
    • Wood – I understand briefs have different ways of interpreting the rule, but want to avoid an “about face” when the PUCT has always only done it one way

 

OPUC Staff

  • Statute does separate program costs and incentive, does not address how incentive is calculated
  • Motion to adopt order consistent with our discussion, motion passed

 

12. Discussion and possible action on electric reliability; electric market development; ERCOT oversight; transmission planning, construction, and cost recovery in areas outside of ERCOT; and electric reliability standards and organizations arising under federal law.

  • Walker – Had a discussion with stakeholders on preparing ERCOT for the Summer, had a rep default on June 12; things went smoothly, but could go smoothly in the future
  • Walker – Wants to particularly thank Oncor, who helped customers ahead of switch
  • Walker – Understanding is that ERCOT will have a work session next week to deep dive and see if there are other things we can do better & help make this process go smoother
  • D’Andrea – Agrees

 

18. Docket No. 46642; SOAH Docket No. 473-17-2120.WS – Complaint of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. Against Liberty Utilities (Silverleaf Water), LLC, F/K/A Algonquin Water Resources of Texas, LLC. (Final Order) David Hrncir

  • Motion to adopt an order consistent with Walker’s memorandum, motion passed

 

*The Public Utility Commission also welcomed a new Commissioner, Shelly Botkin