Print 🖨

The Senate Business and Commerce Committee met to consider several bills. This report covers discussion on the following bills: SB 621 (Parker), SB 78 (Zaffirini), SB 853 (Hancock), SB 105 (Johnson), and SB 271 (Johnson). All bills were left pending.

The notice can be found here and a video of the archive of the hearing can be found here.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but 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.

 

SB 621 (Parker) – relating to the position of chief information security officer in the Department of Information Resources

  • Bill laid out and CS offered
  • Need consistency across all data, help manage risk, keeps leadership informed
  • Codifies current role in statute
  • Substituted specifies Executive Director hires officer, CIO oversees cybersecurity report, removes requirement for a duplicate report

Dennis London, London Security Solutions – For 

  • Allows person to be responsible for adherence to codes
  • Believes there are a few items that need to be addressed for clarity:
  • Strike biannual report to make an annual report for vulnerability reports, or make it twice a year
  • Cybersecurity report should be provided annually
  • Qualifications and criteria for appointees to committee is of interest

 

SB 621 left pending

 

SB 58 (Zaffirini) – relating to prohibitions in connection with the online sale of goods

  • Bill would prohibit a person from using bots to obtain goods and services online
  • Reselling event tickets is prohibited by bots per federal law in answer to Kolkhorst question, this bill address goods and services

 

Monica McGill, CSEdResearch.org – For

  • Bots can purchase second sales faster and then resell with high mark up
  • Bots can cause losses in revenue, Texas is taking step to address an issue that will worsen
  • Kolkhorst – can this bill really address?
    • Think it’s a try, one of first bills to help and could be a model
  • Campbell – are we affecting free market when we do this, if we start regulating who can buy what…are we introducing something that impacts free market
    • Either way it will impact free market, by supporting the bill then protecting legitimate business
    • Not supporting it then anyone in world can take advantage and not paying taxes
    • Campbell – maybe we could write bill to address taxes, then again if bill does need to interfere then maybe we need to

 

SB 58 left pending

 

 

SB 853 (Hancock) relating to electricity service provided by certain municipally owned utilities

  • Rate set by Austin City Council, rate payers not able to appeal to PUC
  • Bill allows Austin rate payers to request petition for appeal
  • Nichols – gets nervous if have legislation going in to regulate other municipalities
    • Could be broader subject matter to address oversight of municipal utilities
    • Some are well managed, some consistently have legislation brough up about them
  • Nichols – knows small municipalities if complaining about rates would reach out to councils and him and he is not being contacted so not an issue for all
    • This just provides another level of oversight by PUC
  • Menendez – how does PUC compare rates in Austin? Competitive market?
    • Question for PUC, agrees private contracts are private contracts
    • Accountability can confirm the good job some are doing, don’t think people would hesitate to have confirmation
  • Menendez – who covers the cost?
    • Doesn’t think it would create a fiscal note but PUC can address easier

 

Thomas Gleeson, Executive Director of PUC – On

  • There are differences between cost of private utility and municipality
  • Would open rulemaking to work out issues, bilateral contracts they would not have access and have to work to gain access absent any change in law
  • Menendez – recalls trying to attract Toyota plant, and one thing they did was offer a good rate while knowing the rest of payers would subsidize the rate, concern on exposing that rate
  • Menendez – finds this concerning and will be listening
  • Johnson – review would be if 10 customers were not happy, how hard is that to acquire
    • Probably not difficult compared to some things that require 10k signatures
    • Spoke to staff about putting guardrails on how often this can be done
  • Johnson – any opinion on less slippery slope we could go down
    • No, just focus on resources they have
  • Menendez – you are asking for guardrails, how many municipalities could this bill impact?
    • Don’t have that number but will get it for potential if brackets were removed
    • Bill bracketed to Austin right now
  • Menendez – as you prepare for if this passes, find out how many municipalities this could be applied to if the bill is changed, wants to know the cost to PUC if that occurs
  • Zaffirini – would this be unique
    • Don’t have original or appellate jurisdiction for inside city
    • This would be unique, yes
  • Johnson – do you have authority to request, compel delivery of private information
    • Does not believe they do at this time

 

Mark Dombroski, CFO Austin Energy – Against

  • Austin energy maintains diverse portfolio
  • They just completed a base rate increase process, first time in 10 years
  • Have public and transparent process overseen by all customers
  • This will increase harm to customers and could impact bond rating
  • Johnson – how often do you conduct rate review?
    • Every 5 years but can do it every year
    • Have not done it every year
    • Process is similar before PUC including intervenors, took almost a year
    • No one was excluded from participation
  • Johnson – what would be impact of bill passing? ‘
    • Can cost customers millions of dollars in adjudicated and could be in almost continuous rate case
  • Johnson – asked about general fund transfer? Why does that go to city and not to rate?
    • Under state statute a portion can go to general fund and based on formula
    • Transfer recognizes risk with utility, like an investor owned utility
    • Discusses items they don’t pay because they work with city (ie taxes)
    • Have some of most affordable rates in state of Texas
  • Zaffirini – how does it impact local rate review
    • Could be in perpetual rate making with PUC
    • Could have multiple layers of bureaucracy
    • Could see $2-3million in costs for each legal proceeding and would be passed on to rate payers
    • Paperwork would increase, PUC ratemaking is laborious and long
  • Menendez – hand out provided talks about rate metric, do all residents get best rate
    • Rate is either inside the city, outside or customer assistance, correct they get best rate
    • No credit requirement for rate
  • Menendez – in investor owned markets, individual has to go shop for a rate
  • Menendez and witness discuss rates of various kinds and concluded they currently offer the best rates in market

 

Shelly Botkin, Texas Public Power Assoc – Against

  • Feels process has worked for a long time, have transparent government and work on behalf of community

 

Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – Against

  • Don’t pick on one utility
  • They participated in rate case with Austin Energy and the process was fair
  • Having to go to PUC anytime customers has issue would be concerning
  • If want some sort of process to look at best practice for municipal utilities, then would consider that
  • Kolkhorst and Reed discuss how much money should go back into city coffers, Reed notes 12% was the amount after long discussion
  • Reed notes there is a role that is occurring on discussion of how much goes back to general fund
  • Could be best practices PUC provides
  • Schwertner – 12% could be equated to profit margin, could city council want to increase that limit, no max …asked Botkin if they would be opposed to caps
    • Botkin – does not know of any limits, would be open to discussion, will provide information from lowest to highest
  • Zaffirini – how would bill impact transparent and accountability of rate process they encountered last time if at all
    • They may have to do it all over again at PUC, to potentially have to do every time there is a complaint at PUC is not reasonable to expect for everyday person
  • Menendez – listed all the different structures of utilities, asked Botkin the differences in all municipalities owned utilities because they don’t all act the same
    • Botkin – yes, they are different and will get that detail to the committee
    • Menendez – seems like deregulation conversations from the past are being revisited
  • Schwertner – who sets transfer amount?
    • Negotiation between board and policy makers says Menendez in his San Antonio example
    • Example CPS Energy charges lower rate for Veterans for a specific reason, makes a lot of sense for locally owned input
  • Hancock – looking for more pro-active approach, 63% of power outages throughout entire state in last storm was Austin Energy, want to maintain independence with MOU and look for proactive way to address issues
  • Hancock – points out Reed is on a committee that would be impacted and people testifying do have an interest
  • Hancock – need to make sure people stay within some guardrails set up

 

SB 853 left pending

 

SB 105 (Johnson) – Relating to the cremation of human remains by alkaline hydrolysis.

  • Water cremation, green cremation, etc. alternative ways to dispose of remains
  • Law is not clear if this illegal or legal
  • Bill would clarify this is legal and is already occurring
  • Does not make sense to suppress a market of how people want to make personal decision to address their remains
  • Birdwell – some folks go out of state and remains brought back? Water based cremation is remains put back in wastewater distribution, only think returning back is skeleton remains
    • Distinct from flame cremation, slight purer form
    • They are comparable
    • Studies show it is ok and in some cases beneficials to water systems
  • Birdwell – right of conscious of individual, bill is to clarify legalities so Texans don’t have to do this outside of state or be subject to criminality
  • Campbell – not sure how effluent is welcome addition to water system, but can get behind bill

 

Eric Neuhaus, Green Cremation Texas – For

  • Have flown hundreds of families out of state choosing this process, if bill is passed they can offer this in state and for half the price
  • Effluent back into water system, can provide studies to committee members
  • Embalming also goes into water system

 

Sara Rossig, self – For

  • Need sustainable option
  • Currently using tons of materials for caskets and formaldehyde
  • Does help with water
  • Protects workers in death care (ie no risk of pacemakers exploding, dangerous chemicals, etc.)

 

Joshua Houston, Texas Impact – For

  • Several denominations that may not agree theologically but do agree they should not impose beliefs on another
  • Some believe it is duty to care for God’s creation and this practice would do that
  • Bill is permissive and not a mandate

 

Jennifer Almond, Texas Catholics Conference of Bishops – Against

  • Believes this process is disrespectful
  • Liquid remains discharged into sewer system and this legislative body ruled against this process for fetal remains
  • There are not been adoption of boiling body until flesh disintegrates, believes
  • Flushing most of body down sewer will increase desensitization, also cemeteries not set up for this
  • This method would be contradictions for human life and remains expressed by committee
  • Johnson – surprised organization would take a position, how long have you opposed flame cremation
    • Cremation is not an appropriate practice but begrudging allowed practice
    • Opposed until 1963, theologically discussion today not dogma vs doctrine debate but about legislature disposing human remains
    • Clarifies speaking on behalf of active Bishops of Texas
  • Johnson and Almond discuss differences on opinions and thoughts of cremation
  • Almond – we get to express our opinion, not expressing any undue political pressure rather than telling viewpoint
  • Johnson – concerned of them expressing doctrinal view to impose on legislative rule making
    • Not testifying on doctrinal, catechism
    • Johnson – wants to keep an appropriate wall between church and state
  • Birdwell – share concern about respect of life, provides story from 9/11 flight crash where individuals could not be recognized and remains discarded in trash
  • Birdwell -proper disposition would have been burial at sea, see Catholic church saying don’t want to disrespectful of human life and in this case of legislation balancing right of conscious
  • Birdwell – first obligation is right of conscious of family, and right of conscious decision for individual

 

SB 105 left pending

 

SB 271 (Johnson) – relating to state agency and local government security incident procedures.

  • Author lays out bill and offers substitute
    • Deliberate is key word in substitute, not intent to create and undue burden
  • CS laid out
  • No public testimony

 

SB 271 left pending