The Senate committee on Business & Commerce met on April 6 to take up a number of bills. This report focuses on SB 861 (Paxton), SB 1492 (Bettencourt), SB 1757 (Hancock),and SB 1782 (Creighton).
This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing 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 2016 (Johnson) Relating to the applicability of certain provisions mandating the provision by certain health benefit plans of health benefits requiring cost defrayal by this state.
- ACA and state law require certain benefits to be covered; if mandated state benefit exceeds federal benefits then state is on hook for paying costs
- Recommended by TDI that if there is a determination that state benefits exceed federal benefits, then state benefits roll back to federal benefits
No public testimony
SB 2016 left pending.
SB 861 (Paxton) Relating to remote meetings under the open meetings law.
- Amends chapter 551 of Government code, section 551.127 specifically pertains to video conferencing
- Currently there is greater flexibility for telephone and video call meetings that will expire
- Bill ensures that flexibility of meetings continues, and meeting notices are available online
- CS ensures audio only access for those with lower broadband width; must identify themselves fully and be fully audible
Karen Hunt, Mayor of Coppell, TML – For
- Ability to reach out to citizens more through increased meeting access is silver lining of pandemic
- Online meetings have been universally well-received
- After resuming in-person option, majority of people still call or zoom in
David Kelly, North Texas Municipal Water District – For
- Service more than 50 communities; online meetings allow for productivity and community participation
- Video conferencing has not affecting transparency of organization
- Provides rural entities across the state with option to participate even with weaker internet connection
Brandi Youngkin, City of Plano – For
- Meetings are currently hybrid; staff and third parties attend virtually, public gets to decide whether or not to attend in person
- Increased flexibility for participation
SB 861 left pending.
SB 1782 (Creighton) Relating to the response and resilience of certain utilities to major weather-related events or natural disasters.
- Filed in response to recent winter storm
- Encourages electric utilities to invest in infrastructure to deal with weather events and natural disasters
- Will allow electric utilities to receive financial support through bonds
- Exempts new generation at 10 megawatts or less
- CS further clarifies that bill applies to only non-ERCOT entities and removes section 5 v
Leo Mendiola, ACT – For
- Here as a resource
Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – For
- Want to ensure consumer protection is in the bill; suggest language assuring that it is in public interest
- Suggest thinking about potential for demand response programs and other security programs that could be of a direct public benefit
Kenneth Flippin, US Green Building Council – For
- Great bill, securitization is valuable way to save money
- Propose same amendments as Cyrus Reed
JP Urban, AECT – For
- Winter storm impacted every corner of TX
- Securitization of system restoration costs would help customers and reliability
- Dual fuel capability a real benefit
Â
SB 1782 left pending.
SB 1492 (Bettencourt) Relating to an expedited response by a governmental body to a request for public information.
- Open and transparent government highly valued
- Backlog of opinion requests, can cause unnecessary delays
- Offers alternative procedure, officials can decide whether or not to release info; PIA training required to use alternative process
- CS ensures all gov’t employees involved undergo the training, not just the public information officer
Joe Ellis, Freedom of Information Foundation – against
- Believe this bill will have negative effects; do not believe officials should have too much control over what information is released
- Do not think it would expedite public information requests at all; would hinder it
- Think the attorney general office is fair and balanced, should continue to function as is
Stacy Allen, Texas Association of Broadcasters – against
- Allows government officials to “grade their own papers” and should not be allowed
- Process has been in place for over 30 years and serves the public well
- Nothing about this bill expedites the process; further delays it by allowing entity 10 business days to decide whether or not to share information
- Bill invites abuse
Arif Panju, Institute for Justice – Against
- Right now, affirmative burden is on government, under TPIA information is public and must be released
- Under bill officials can decide not to share information; places burden on citizen who then must appeal, less public information will be shared
- Burden should remain on government, can get JPs involved to help
SB 1492 left pending.
SB 1757 (Hancock) Relating to securitizing costs of electric services or electric markets.
- In current market, a short-paid invoice with ERCOT remains when bills cannot be paid (with a cap on dollar amount)
- Bill would provide lower cost
- Allows securitization organizations to hand out bonds that would help to pay bills
Katie Coleman, Texas Association of Manufacturers – For
- Think this is the best bill to come from winter storm
- Securitization is right when certain that customers will have to pay
- Market participants are still functioning despite paying no bills; want to ensure they pay what is owed
- Bill ensures costs do not get reallocated to customers
- Schwertner – Bonds issued, who would be responsible?
- Believe it would be allocated on same basis as underlying default
- Schwertner – so all market participants would be responsible?
- Yes
- Schwertner – would Texas be backstopping them in any way?
- Hancock- that is not currently in the bill
Michele Richmond, Texas Competitive Power Advocates – For
- Think creating a securitization that allows entities to pay overtime
- Want to ensure it limits ability of market participants to manipulate market to avoid paying
- Ensure median effect to address financial issues as soon as possible
Catherine Webking, Texas Energy Association for Marketers – For
- Support concepts of securitization and spreading out costs
- Would like to work on certain concepts; current ERCOT protocols assign uplift based on operating day and that should be looked at
Steven Malkiewicz, CRO, Payless Power – For
- Support concept of securitization
- Recommend securitization goes farther to securitize default uplift and catch it before happening by providing remedies to significant cost reps are currently incurring
Brandon Young, CEO, Payless Power – For
- Represent 32,000 customers
- Price setting broke the rules of market; system no longer behaved as intended
- Not seeking bailout, asking for a way to refill hole created otherwise retailers face bankruptcy
Shane Cawood, Hartman Income REIT – For
- Good bill in concept, wish to be part of process to be able to fully support
- Projecting total charges to be $5-9 million for the week of the freeze; greater to one normal year of electrical expenses
- Suggest bill includes the REPs and that customers will see benefits
SB 1757 left pending.