Print 🖨

Below is the HillCo client report from the September 25 Railroad Commission rule hearing.

The Commission held a public hearing regarding proposed amendments to §7.5530, and new §§1.86 and 1.87. The following comments were received.
 
Paul Harpole, Mayor, City of Amarillo

  • The proposed amendments are only aimed at cities; rate proceedings from utilities are far more expensive
  • The rules need to be redrafted so there is more of a balance between cities and utilities
  • The rule will make it financially unfeasible to play in an industry where utilities have a monopoly

 
Eileen Altmiller, City Council Member, City of Buda

  • Troubled by the rules for discovery; they would have a chilling effect on what cities do to protect their citizens
  • The rules have no mention of deposition regulations; it is unclear how they would be handled

 
John McClung, City Council Member, City of Corsicana

  • Cities cannot know how much to budget for rate cases without seeing rate applications first; cities need time to analyze the types of expenses that would be necessary for each rate case

 
Curtis Warner, Mayor, City of Electra

  • Cities need to know the details of rate requests before the case begins so they can budget for them
  • The rule is impractical and the commission has allowed for reimbursement as a case progresses in the past and it has worked fine

 
Karen Gibson, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Lubbock

  • The city spent about $500,000 on the last rate appeal and saved citizens around $3 million; that is a good return on investment
  • The system has worked in the past and doesn’t need to be broken by these rules
  • HB 1148 and HB 1149 (83R) did not pass last legislative session and should not be resurrected by the commission

 
Ed Smith, Mayor, City of Marshall

  • The amendments are supposed to decrease rate case expenses but what they really do is decrease a city’s ability to fight a rate increase
  • The rule will allow CenterPoint to raise rates as they please without accountability

 
Jack Pratt, Mayor, City of Kerrville

  • There are no restraints in the rules for how a utility goes about raising rates
  • Sen. Jane Nelson has written that these rules supersede local jurisdiction over ratemaking

 
Jay Doegey, Chair, Atmos Cities Steering Committee

  • The changes to the rules create punitive and unnecessary obstacles for cities
  • The rules interfere with how cities pay attorneys and technical experts
  • The current system works well and amendments to the rules are solutions in search of a problem

 
 
Dale Fisseler, City Manager, City of Waco

  • The rules would lead to higher rates for all Texas citizens over time
  • The one-sided proposal will reduce participation in rate cases and reward cities for not participating

 
Joe Smolinski, City of Mansfield

  • These rules make it appear that rate case spending is spiraling out of control and that is not the case; most rate cases are resolved at the municipal level not at the commission
  • Monopoly utilities are initiating these cases, not cities
  • The rules would constrain a city’s ability to protect its citizens

 
Bridgett Garrett, City of Fort Worth

  • Many of the statements in the preamble to the rules are misleading

 
Courtney Goodman Morris, City of Denison

  • The agency should not be creating more rules for cities that chip away at citizen protections
  • The rules do not prevent higher rates; they hamper a city’s ability to appeal them
  • Troubled by the limitations on discovery within the amendments

 
Theresa James, Assistant City Attorney, City of Abilene

  • The proposal would burden cities with a considerable number of onerous restraints but would not impose restrictions on utilities
  • The rules tilt the balance away from cities and toward utilities

 
Nick Fehrenbach, City of Dallas

  • The “presumed alliance of cities” is a problem in the rules
  • Have never seen a complaint from a utility regarding discovery requests; those are not driving the costs of cases, the cost drivers are the attorneys utilities are hiring

 
Andrea Gardner, City of Copperas Cove

  • The proposed rules will erode local control and ease the pathways for rate increases

 
Marcus Norris, City of Amarillo

  • The rules are hostile to the ideas of cities’ original jurisdiction and hostile towards cities’ efforts to protect their citizens

 
Josh Selleck, Assistant City Manager, City of Cedar Park

  • Vehemently opposed to every aspect of the rule proposal

 
Scott Houston, Texas Municipal League

  • Supports the comments of all the cities who have testified

 
State Rep. Jim Keffer

  • Legislation to this effect was filed last session and never made it out of committee
  • The commission should consider that there is still some vetting to do on this issue and the legislature should be given the chance to do that

 
John Hays, Self

  • Concerned about the way the proposed rules would operate
  • The presumed alliance of cities and limitations coming from that provision would be counterproductive
  • There is no provision for the adjudication of differences that the cities in the alliance may have
  • Discovery limits should be done per-party
  • RFIs are not defined in commission rules or in the rules of civil procedure
  • Limitations on discovery should be done by individual courts not the commission

 
CenterPoint Representative

  • Discovery is often one of the most contentious and costly aspects of a rate proceeding
  • Utilities commonly receive questions during discovery that are answered in the proposed rate packets as well as repetitive questions
  • The new rules are discretionary not mandatory
  • The proposal does nothing to limit a city’s actions in rate proceedings