Print 🖹

Senate Business & Commerce met on March 28 to discuss the following bills: SB 1093 (Schwertner), SB 1296 (Schwertner), SB 1076 (King), SB 1699 (Johnson), SB 1751 (Kolkhorst), SB 1929 (Johnson), SB 1212 (Johnson), SB 330 (Hall), SB 2112 (Johnson), SJR 82 (Johnson), and SB 624 (Kolkhorst). Part one of the hearing can be found here & part two 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.

 

Vote Outs

SB 483 (Johnson) Relating to the regulation of massage therapy (9-0) voted out to the floor

CSSB 1017 (Birdwell) Relating to the authority of a political subdivision to regulate an energy source or engine (9-0) voted out to the floor

  • Birdwell – Have a CS; worked with TCEQ to ensure there are no effects to TERP or the State implement plan; alleviated concerns about unintended consequences
  • Will not affect political sub from regulating motor vehicle idling or similar effort
  • Removed “or” and added a section bill does not prevent rebates for cleaner engines as long as it does not prohibit sale or use or certain engines
  • Does not affect Edwards Aquifer’s ability to regulate underground storage tanks in recharge zones; thanks Cyrus Reed and TXOGA on their work on the CS
  • Chair Schwertner – Sierra Club is now neutral on the bill?
    • Correct

CSSB 1213 (Zaffirini) (9-0) local and uncontested

  • Nichols – Have a CS; legislative draft of the original substitute

CSSB 821 (Nichols) (9-0) to local and uncontested

CSSB 1238 (Nichols) (9-0) to local and uncontested

  • Nichols – Have a CS; have additional language including “reliable” broadband and “existing” federal commitments will disqualify from funding
  • BDO may consider if an applicant previously forfeited federal funds

CSSB 1112 (Schwertner) (9-0) to local and uncontested

SB 1120 (Schwertner) (9-0) to local and uncontested

CSSB 1122 (Schwertner) (9-0) to local and uncontested

CSSB 1002 (Schwertner) (10-0) to local and uncontested

  • Chair Schwertner – Have a CS; clarifies definition of public electric vehicle charging station for purposes of PUC oversight to capture evolving charger types
  • Clarifies make ready infrastructure does not include the electric utilities or transmission distribution utility’s infrastructure up to and including the meter
  • CS separates guardrails for ERCOT and for those outside ERCOT
  • CS includes a right of first refusal process at the PUC for public market investors
  • CS allows private hosts to choose watt-charging infrastructure they want on their own property
  • Puts in guardrails to ensure costs of utility-owned chargers cannot be passed on to customers
  • Prohibits utilities within ERCOT’s market from rate basing or subsidizing buildout of EV charging stations

CSSB 2013 (Schwertner) (10-0) to local and uncontested

 

Today’s Business

SB 1093 (Schwertner) Relating to facilities included in the electricity supply chain.

  • Schwertner – Adds water facilities and roads to electricity supply chain map; TxDOT executive director to the mapping committee
  • Provides utilities with limited access to the electric supply chain map
  • Requires electric utilities to provide PUC with geographic boundary information

 

Julia Harvey, Texas Electric Cooperative – Neutral

  • Support section that provides utilities with limited access to the electric supply chain map
  • Utilities to submit digital files of their service areas; are defined and approved by the PUC; are not the official maps; would like a disclaimer in the bill
  • Schwertner – Will have a CS addressing these concerns

 

SB 1093 left pending

 

SB 1296 (Schwertner) Relating to facilities included in the electricity supply chain.

  • Schwertner – Authorizes PUC and ERCOT to require distributed resources

 

Michael Jewel, Collaborative Utility Solutions – For

  • ERCOT needs ability to get better information of DERs in the system
  • Will reach capacity at South Texas and Comanche Peak
  • CUS has launched a DER database where all this information will be compiled
  • Schwertner – You are aggregating the information?
    • Yes; are allowing utilities/munis/cooperatives to access information
  • Schwertner – Has been concern with the cost of aggregating this information; will have a CS next week with a consensus on this
  • MenĂ©ndez – Were here previously about a battery facility in the Valley?
    • 200 MW duration approaching 3 hours
  • MenĂ©ndez – Are going to help the resiliency of the grid and make this registry?
    • Correct

 

Julia Harvey, Texas Electric Cooperative – Neutral

  • Agree with premise of the bill; concerned about mandate to provide any information ERCOT deems necessary
  • Would like the specificity on what information ERCOT needs and what happens if they cannot/will not provide it

 

Mark Bell, Association of Electric Companies of Texas – Neutral

  • Fully agree with premise of the bill
  • Recommend ERCOT receive aggregate information needed for planning, not detailed customer information
  • Would be administratively burdensome and not related to the goals of the bill

 

SB 1296 left pending

 

SB 1076 (King) Relating to the deadline for approving a certificate of public convenience and necessity for certain transmission projects

  • King – CCN applications typically have a 1-year approval timeline; bill changes to a 6-month timeline for the PUC to approve the need/route of a transmission project

 

Jason Ryan, CenterPoint Energy – For

  • Will bring customers benefits quicker; burden to process applications quicker falls on the utility so it strikes an appropriate balance

 

Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – For

  • Would make sense to have the ability to extend timeline by 90 days if there is overwhelming concern

 

Jaron Taylor, Oncor – For

  • Support bill as number one request is to speed up interconnectivity to the grid
  • Every step that occurs in the process remains intact

 

John Hubbard, Texas Association of Manufacturers – For

  • Speaks in support of the bill

 

SB 1076 left pending

 

SB 1699 (Johnson) Relating to the participation of aggregated distributed energy resources in the ERCOT market

  • Johnson – Have a CS; brought at behest of PUC and works with other DER bills; ensures DERs that are aggregated with other DERs are still under the purview of PUC’s rules/requirements
  • Clarifies homeowners with solar panels do not need to sign up as a DER, but can sign up to be an aggregated DER
  • CS clarifies aggregate DERs are referenced under section 39.3515
  • Campbell – Who pays for the initial generator?
    • Are privately financed individually backed, no state funds

 

Jason Ryan, CenterPoint Energy – For

  • Excited to see generation on the distribution participating; is the type of solution the grid needs
  • Helpful that is clarifies

 

Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – For

  • Is about 1.9k MW of unregulated distributed generation; primarily solar
  • Want these resources to participate in the market; would be protected under consumer laws

 

SB 1699 left pending

 

SB 1751 (Kolkhorst) Relating to the regulation and tax treatment of facilities in the ERCOT power region that demand a large load of interruptible power.

  • Kolkhorst – Have a CS; builds off of testimony related to virtual currencies and grid management; heard 37 GW load of virtual mining loads were planned to come to Texas
  • Requires utility scale large flexible loads to register for ERCOT
  • Reduces incentives for a that already has a large presence in Texas; is not punitive
  • Bans from tax abatements and restricts participation as demand response programs
  • Have seen reports of virtual currencies leading to increased utility bills; NY has passed a moratorium of new crypto mining
  • Want to ensure they do not take advantage of our market and crowd out other resources better suited as ancillary services
  • CS narrows to large interruptible load with computing power and it is the operator who has to register
  • Schwertner – 36 GW of bitcoin mining coming to the state?
    • 37 GW load of virtual mining loads were planned to come to Texas; should not pay them to come off the grid
  • Zaffirini – Why is 10 MW the threshold?
    • Worked with industry and utility-scale on generation
  • Zaffirini – Excluded from the demand response program?
    • In this bill, yes; is a part of it as they get paid to go off the grid
    • Want to point out the CS says they can participate in ancillary at 10%

 

Julia Harvey, Texas Electric Cooperatives – Neutral

  • Do not have a position on the tax abatement part of the bill
  • Have these types of loads in co-op service areas; support the registration requirements
  • Support the 10 MW as it does apply to large scale
  • Recommend bill requires facilities be off during an emergency

 

Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen – For

  • Do not know what crypto demand response for enrollment $170m a year; notes a number of companies 10% of the
  • Agree with the recommendation of a requirement for them to be off during an emergency

 

Jackie Sawicky, Concerned Citizens of Navarro County – For

  • Corsicana Riot Blockchain; made more money off of demand response than their actual business operations

 

Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – For

  • Concern is about the huge demand these miners have on our grid; agree with the recommendation they are shed during emergencies

 

Hector R, Texas Chemical Council – Neutral

  • Were concerned initially that this captured industrial customers; believe this was addressed in the CS
  • Kolkhorst and Menendez – Seeing the substitute, would you be for this bill?
    • Yes

 

Kristine Cranley, Texas Blockchain Council – Neutral

  • Bitcoin mining is uniquely capable to address needs of the grid; are enabling the building out of wind/solar
  • Notes during the winter storm?
  • Nichols – How much did these bitcoin miners make during the winter storm?
    • Lee Bratcher, President Texas Blockchain Council – Most bitcoin do not have a hedged power contract, take the market price at any given time
  • Nichols – Are selling as the price goes up though
    • Correct
  • Schwertner – Breakeven is $100?
    • IS between $100-$120 a MWh; highest is $400 MWh

 

Lee Bratcher, President Texas Blockchain Council – Neutral

  • 2k W-2 employed by bitcoin miners across the state and 20k 1099s; been working with ERCOT to ensure miners are connecting responsibly
  • 2k MW now, anticipate 3k MW by end of this year; not close to the numbers presented earlier
  • Bitcoin miners have the most flexible load; are limiting participating are cutting off one of our most valuable resources
  • Kolkhorst – Would be okay with the 10% cap at demand response?
    • Want more information flow between miners and ERCOT
    • Feel 10% will increase cost as they procure more than that and fewer will offer in
  • Kolkhorst – What state has the largest presence in?
    • Texas is the largest; are others like Georgia and NC that have half the bitcoin mining
  • Kolkhorst – Texas is an outlier as we incent; need to let the market do what it does
  • Kolkhorst – Is an interesting industry, but need to protect grid and ensure business model does not incent us to be an outlier
  • Kolkhorst – Understand 2k W-2 jobs, but 20k 1099 jobs?
    • From an economic impact study; construction, maintenance, etc.
    • Are soaking up stranded low-cost energy
  • Kolkhorst – Could argue on your last point; looking to have a balanced approach to this

 

Pierre Rochard, Riot Platforms – Against

  • Is a 60% limit on demand response programs; bill would override ERCOT’s rules on large flexible roads
  • Tax abatements have been effective at revitalizing certain communities
  • Bill would make us not be able to compete with entities like Russia or China in this industry
  • Should not add unnecessary regulations and undue burdens to this important part of the market
  • Kolkhorst – China banned bitcoin mining?
    • Still 20% of bitcoin mining in China due to government corruption

 

Matt Prusak, US Bitcoin Corp – Against

  • Current proposal would negatively affect our industry and the broad energy market
  • Agree with having communication with ERCOT; should have this on all loads, not just bitcoin mining
  • Concerned about the limitation on ancillary participation and its effect on the potential to procure at the lowest cost
  • Could lead to increased cost and reduced grid stability

 

Jason Cox, EQ Energy Advisors – Against

  • Are against the bill, but have a few caveats
  • Need to look into all demand response programs particularly ERS
  • ERCOT needs to be an all-above market regulator
  • Very few demand response entities can respond as quick as bitcoin mining or green hydrogen
  • Zaffirini – What would we find if we looked into all demand response programs?
    • Would fund a significant amount of loads interrupt before they are required to on economic grounds

 

Woody Rickerson, EROCT

  • Schwertner – Have trouble producing ancillary if bitcoin was not participating?
    • No
  • Nichols – Some crypto miners are within retail contracts and we have no control there
    • Have a voluntary program they can register to shut down in emergency situations
    • Only 1 participant currently
  • Schwertner – Participants are not getting paid for that?
    • Correct
  • Nichols – Then they are really contracted with the retail side?
    • Not sure about that

 

SB 1929 (Johnson) Relating to the authority of an independent organization certified for the ERCOT power region to require information from and registration by certain facilities.

  • Johnson – Have a CS; is narrower than the previous bill
  • Clarifies ERCOT can have them disclose certain information; including real time electrical load
  • ERCOT can adopt a ramping threshold or other measures; gives ERCOT a great deal of discretion
  • Is a security concern if are bad actors out there who create vulnerabilities in the grid
  • Worked with stakeholders; intention to address grid managers of large flexible loads
  • Large industrial
  • CS clarifies this is aimed at computing crypto facilities

 

Hector R, Texas Chemical Council – Neutral

  • Concerns were addressed in the CS; appreciate your work
  • Schwertner – 65 MW for registration
  • ERCOT to adopt its own threshold

 

SB 1929 left pending

 

SB 1212 (Johnson) Relating to the interconnection and integration of distributed energy resources.

  • Johnson – Will have a CS next week; new draft resulted from a large stakeholder process
  • Need a regulatory framework of this energy source
  • Defines DERs and aggregated DERs; requires them to register
  • Clarifies liability rights of customers to participate
  • Retail electric providers will be the conduit to the grid
  • Works well with Schwertner’s SB 1295
  • Schwertner – Not a legislative council draft yet?
    • Correct

 

Mark Bell, Association of Electric Companies of Texas – For

  • DERs are an important part of the future of our grid
  • Bill creates the necessary framework for the distribution system
  • Has technical operational standards and protects consumers from fraudulent practices
  • Zaffirini – How would this affect the wholesale market and prices?
    • Depends on the size of generation on the grid; provides additional electrons
  • Zaffrini – Would help reduce burden especially in emergency situation?
    • Correct

 

Tom Smith, Texas Electric Transportation Resource Alliance – For

  • EVs can be a reliable distributed resource; could plug in and provide a significant cost reduction
  • A study could save $1.8b in overall grid costs
  • Schwertner – Wouldn’t these cars be dead if you used all their energy
    • Would be limited and provided if you agreed to do so
  • Schwertner – Any progressive state is doing this?
    • There are other states doing this
  • MenĂ©ndez – Have a bill, SB 238, that mirrors federal legislation to help school districts apply for subsidies that would allow them to plug in school busses to the grid; thoughts?
    • Have read that bill with great interest
  • Zaffirini – How would average EV owner be motivated to participate?
    • Would sign up and would be provided an agreement
    • Are signals certain chargers have; will have national standards in 2024
    • State is not going to pay for it, the car owner would
  • Zaffirini – What about those who has their own charger vs a charging station?
    • Public charging stations that signal would; waiting in settlement in market technology for private

 

Joel Yu, Enchanted Rock – Neutral

  • CS makes significant improvements of the bill language
  • Have reservations on some of the bill language
  • Would like to see language to be less restrictive on retail electric providers as the aggregators
  • Interconnection guidelines would be more helpful if they included utility interconnection processes
  • Ongoing barriers to DER participation
  • TDU concerns about liability for DER outages; bill is still a little broad on this
  • Johnson – Some of your concerns may be addressed in the completed CS

 

Robert King, Good Company Associates – Neutral

  • Did not have time to read CS; testimony could apply to SB 1699 and to SB 1295
  • Understand the purpose of bill, but some language is unclear/confusing

 

Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – Neutral

  • CS is better than the filed bill, but still have some concerns about what is including different definitions of settlement only, aggregated, etc.
  • Is an important bill, want to get the right balance
  • Zaffirini – Have concerns about limited payments to owners?
    • In utility code state has not said you need to pay customers a certain amount, but it needs to be fair and negotiated in a good way

 

Alton Hall, City of Houston – Neutral

  • Supports the goal of this bill to add energy resources to the grid
  • Have a few concerns with the bill, have not seen the CS yet
  • Concerned how TDUs will be recovering their interconnection costs with ratepayers
  • Should at rate case
  • Concerned about section about presumption of costs
  • Johnson – Will talk further with you; presumption is designed to ensure if they incur interconnectivity costs due to DERs and if it goes away, they will be able to

 

Pierson Stoecklein, Microgrid Resources Coalition – Neutral

  • Recommend capacity limits lifted or eliminated
  • Recommend adding language to add tariffs to compensate DERs on the same circuit
  • Recommend PUC establish performance metrics
  • Middleton – Agree we need to better account for DERs, but need to address dispatchability; do not know if we can rely on EVs; modeling may be distorting what is actually there
    • To address your concerns, may want to dig into details of eligibility
    • More information that we have on what is there, better the grid will be

 

SB 1212 left pending

 

SB 330 (Hall) Relating to the resilience of the electric grid and certain municipalities.

  • Hall – Have a CS; identical bill to one voted out of the Senate last session 30-0
  • Winter Storm Uri exposed the weaknesses in Texas’ grid
  • Bill establishes Texas Grid Security Commission under leadership of TDEM
  • Will establish resiliency standards for municipalities in a number of areas
  • CS clarifies micro grids will not have a special entitlement, compliance, and information security
  • Schwertner – Requires commission to place standards for munis and other critical infrastructure?
    • Yes; will be scalable for businesses/residential
  • MenĂ©ndez – Look into the fact we were few minutes away from a blackout during Uri?
    • Yes; are going to make sure we do not lose the capacity

 

Michael Mabee, Secure the Grid Coalition – For

  • US government has failed to have requirements concerning physical, cyber, geothermal threats to the grid; bill
  • Zaffirini – See any potential conflict with this bill
    • No
  • Schwertner – Cannot figure out how many people would be on this commission
    • Hall – Is 28 and would have an executive committee
  • Schwertner – Seems like they have a very large undertaking for 28 people
    • Believe composition covers main critical infrastructure necessary
  • Schwertner – Should we not just focus on the electric grid first other than these other areas?
    • Believe the bill’s approach is the best
  • Nichols – Once commission is established, requires ERCOT to put these things in place and charges on customers’ bills?
    • Chad Seeley, ERCOT – Is the one who ultimately approves these standards and implements them
  • Nichols – Idea what the cost is?
    • Hall – Is ultimately going to be paid by the customers; with rate adjustments made it would be the least costly
    • Cost will be far lower than the lives of those taken by Uri
  • Nichols – Also cost us $80b; concern is at every step there are requirements; is no step for the legislature to approve this
    • Hall – Have the report due in October on the cost; if the legislature does not approve of this amount, can decide to not do this
  • Nichols – If we set it up where the legislature has to take action, would be a right step
  • Schwertner – Weatherization requirements RRC to do what the grid security commission says
    • Yes
  • Zaffirini – Any conflicts with exclusive jurisdiction with PUC and the Commission
    • Chad Seely, ERCOT – Takes a piece of the PUC’s jurisdiction and puts it with the Commission
  • Zaffirini – Is that a good or bad thing?
    • Chad Seely, ERCOT – Do not have an answer for that

 

Mark Bell, Association of Electric Companies of Texas – Against

  • Requiring an electric system to be invulnerable will cause cost without the need for necessity
  • Recommend changing role of commission to be advisory and focus on hardening of the grid
  • Hall – How long have you known about threats to the grid; what done to address them?
    • Not opposed to the hardening of the grid, have a different opinion of how we handle it

 

Neil Dikeman, Self – For

  • Testified in support of the bill

 

 

Tom Glass, Protect the Texas Grid – For

  • Is the fifth session speaking on a bill like this; Texas needs to lead and get this done
  • Threats grow every day
  • King – Agree the risk of EMP is real; if we hardened all of this, what will it do for fuel problems/transportation/etc. of the grid?
    • Bill goes beyond the grid to critical infrastructure and need to get going on as many fronts as possible
    • Hall – Just having the grid survive will not be enough; need a whole system solution

 

Pierson Stoecklein, Microgrid Resources Coalition – Neutral

  • Appreciate the inclusion of microgrids in the bill and provision that prevents cities from limiting microgrid development
  • May create additional unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy concerning microgrids

 

Joel Yu, Enchanted Rock – Neutral

  • Thankful for this bill’s inclusion of microgrids
  • Recommend grid resiliency/reliability should not be addressed in silos
  • Effective form of this could be addressed through an expanded TERC

 

John Hubbard, Texas Association of Manufacturers – Against

  • Concerned the costs of this bill will not outweigh the risks
  • Middleton – Risk mitigation is what the bill is about; could be expected savings on the risk-mitigation and insurance side
    • Represent the consumer, will get that information to you
  • Middleton – Uri cost is $80b; potential savings with risk mitigation

 

SB 2112 (Johnson) Relating to resources used to ensure the continuous provision of power.

SJR 82 (Johnson) Proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the Texas power resiliency fund to finance the operation of backup power sources.

  • Johnson – Have a CS for SJR 82; ensures constitutional fund meets requirements
  • Bill creates a disaggregated system of small-scale resources on site behind the meter disconnected to the grid that are able to provide power to the necessary facilities
  • Back up problems during URI
  • Provides up to $500 per MW for a new backup generation facility
  • TDEM oversees a program where we consult with micro to devise pre-set packages approved by to choose from
  • Vendors would bid into this
  • Would be a couple day backup of gas fire generation, diesel propane, natural gas, battery
  • We would design and assist with procurement of power
  • TDEM would convene a council of experts and have statewide outreach on eligibility
  • Dedicated fund under SJR 82 and a mobile fund with TDEM
  • Would create regional support systems
  • Can sectionalize the grid if we ensure critical systems we cannot cut have backup power; goal is to have people’s power cut off for no more than 4 hours
    • That portion of the bill is underdeveloped
  • Contemplates putting in $500m and drawing down federal funds; could have done this for broadband
  • Nichols – Bill had a $2b fiscal note?
    • Is not in the fiscal note; is in my personal notes; bill does not currently have any cost

 

Nim Kidd, TDEM – Neutral

  • Appreciate the clear guidelines of the bill; this bill falls in line with how TDEM functions
  • Johnson – You have said important to have more of what you depend on?
    • Agree; are various locations that need emergency power that cannot get it
    • Proposal would speed up timelines
  • Johnson – TDEM is the appropriate agency to manage this?
    • Yes if the legislature deems us to
  • Zaffirini – What kind of framework would you need?
    • A lot of eligibility, resources needed to be available, etc. is already there
  • Zaffirini – Do not see any conflict with working with the PUC and ERCOT?
    • Do not know if they see it that way; would meet with them
  • Zaffrini – What kind of money do you think we can pull down?
    • Cannot give you a dollar amount; only know of the FEMA Hazards Mitigation Program
    • Johnson – Among others IIJA dedicated $42.7b nationwide for grid resiliency
  • Zaffirini – What do you think the dollar amount to this bill is?
    • Do not think there is one
  • Middleton – How do you see this working after a hurricane?
    • Would keep facility running through on-site generation; would need to know where they are and what fuel they are using

 

Annette Clayton, Schneider Electric North America – For

  • SENA is the leading builder of microgrids
  • Supportive of this bill as it relates to microgrids and resiliency
  • Johnson – Believe bill provides a competitive process in the bidding/design of the backup power?
    • Agree

 

 

Pierson Stoecklein, Microgrid Resources Coalition – For

  • Speaks in support of the bill

 

Joel Yu, Enchanted Rock – Neutral

  • Support the bill, but have a couple recommendations
  • Recommend adding language expanded to diesel, natural gas, and propane; storage investments
  • Recommend lifting the 2.5 MW cap
  • Recommend removing prohibited use of power packages for energy/ancillary services

 

SB 2112 left pending

SJR 82 left pending

 

SB 624 (Kolkhorst) Relating to the permitting of renewable energy generation facilities by the Public Utility Commission of Texas; authorizing fees.

  • Kolkhorst – Bill has no CS because we did not receive any feedback; the 25 mile requirement is just something that was put in there for drafting purposes
  • Have been working on this issue for years most recently with Chapter 313s and the amount of turbines that have come to the state
  • Provides notice/guidelines for solar installation in Texas
  • Is no one close to Texas with the most wind, and are second in solar
  • Ohio Governor recently signed into law SB 52 countries to veto specific projects or specific renewable developments whatsoever
  • SB 624 does not do that; country commissioners want some power to regulate this
  • Is not the bill that is going to pass, just plugged numbers into the bill to start a conversation
  • Overviews local ordinances that limit renewable projects
  • Currently PUC has little oversight of wind and solar installation
  • With federal net zero and zero carbon, will be an explosion of renewables
  • Private property right to take these projects up to the fence line; we should question this
  • Some land will be physically impacted; have heard concerns about leaching into the soil
  • Have gotten a recommendation for baseline soil and water test like what we did with underground storage tanks
  • Bill is not meant to stop renewables, about ensuring Texas is not harmed and landowners know what is going on
  • Is about the balance of private property rights; bill is currently a little too strident
  • ERCOT region has over 379 projects in the queue which would be 500k and 860k acres

 

Thomas Gleeson, PUC – Resource

  • Schwertner – Power generators do not currently have to get a permit to generate; ever a notification if any other power generation projects are being built; do for CCN
  • Schwertner – Asks about if there are offset requirements currently?
    • Do not believe so
  • Schwertner – Power plants are not the same as these renewables; have a larger footprint
    • Permitting process is similar to CCN process
  • Schwertner – Offsets are what other states do?
    • Yes
  • Middleton – What remedy under the law to clean up the mess? Have plugging requirements in oil and gas
    • Nothing currently
  • Schwertner – Believe many have contractual language on this; passed a bill on this
    • Do not have the ability to enforce that
  • Middleton – What does the concrete pad look like or when companies go bankrupt?
    • Very large and is no remedy currently
  • Zaffirini – Can PUC impose weatherization requirements under this bill
    • SB 3 provides that
  • Zaffirini – Have the expertise to handle this?
    • Fiscal note $3m and 24 FTEs
  • Kolkhorst – Is no cost to the state, but is paid for by a fee

 

Laura Zebehazy, Texas Parks and Wildlife – Resource

  • Kolkhorst – Current environmental assessments by the TPWD?
    • Have authority to give recommendations concerning cell towers, reservoirs, transportation, wind/solar
  • Kolkhorst – How much research on effects on birds/bats?
    • Universities have done a few studies on that
    • Are looking to get more data on long-term impacts of wind/solar
  • Kolkhorst and Zebehazy discuss citing concerns

 

Samuel Davis, Texas Land and Liberty Organization – Against

  • Bill adds unnecessary regulation and burden to this process and reduce investment in Texas
  • Notification provisions are clear government overreach; this is practically a statewide HOA
  • Private property rights are paramount

 

Randy Nuns, Self – For

  • Landowner in Val Verde; are not anti-renewable, but should be areas off limits to turbines
  • Recommend adding criteria to qualify for approval; consider possible harm to eco-tourism

 

Bill Hicks, Self – For

  • Owner of the third largest native prairie in the state
  • Notes there are multiple renewable projects in their county; need help in this bill
  • Want uniform regulation under the PUC and the state government
  • Kolkhorst – There is very little protection in Texas as a lot of this land is privately owned
  • Schwertner – Offshore windfarms that are federally owned?
    • Kolkhorst – Believe there are some

 

Ruth Russel, TREAD Coalition – For

  • Support bill; renewables have been able to proliferate without concern for the environment or property owners

 

Kristi Cure, Renewable Development – Against

  • SB 624 would prohibit private property owners from making economic decisions
  • No existing permitting program anywhere that has this type of overreach
  • Schwertner – Reclamation requirements in these contracts?
    • Last legislative session it passed

 

John Davis, Self and Conservative Texans for Energy Innovation- Against

  • Bill is a huge step backwards and will cut off an economic lifeline to landowners
  • Believe this bill is being used as a cover to target renewables
  • If you really care about impacts to animals why does this only apply to renewables that have minimal environmental impacts
  • Zaffirini – How would this impact existing facilities?
    • Would be devastating especially for rural Texans

 

Susan Sloan, Ørsted Americus – Against

  • Have invested $3.1b in renewables in Texas including wind/solar/green hydrogen
  • Have invested in multiple conservation projects
  • Renewables do not use water/pollute air and do not carry threat of eminent domain
  • Hope to work with you to meet your goals on the bill

 

Adrian Shelley, Public Citizen – Against

  • Are good things in here if they are applied across the industry, but we know fossil fuels have more than twice the environmental impact of renewables
  • Zaffirini – What things would be good if they applied across the industry?
    • Notice to effected parties, setbacks, environmental impacts, decommissioning obligations
  • Kolkhorst – Look forward to working with you; is discussion to be had about citing; counties themselves have done regulations about height and placement

Emily Wheeler, Cypress Creek Renewables – Against

  • Proposal would represent a significant and abrupt change in permitting of renewables
  • Gives state private property authority and retroactive nature would create significant reliability concerns
  • Bill has duplicative requirements already adhered to including protection of waterways, local land use, water quality, decommissioning requirements, among others
  • Unintended economic impacts to rural Texans

 

Stephanie Buway, EDP Renewables – Against

  • Have contributed $100m to landowners and local tax bases and $1.5b in statewide spending
  • Have millions in bonds ready for future projects
  • Bill could increases the cost of renewable energy
  • Bills passed last session had rules about decommissioning, but we already had those in our contracts
  • Schwertner – Bonding requirements in reclamation?
    • Standard language for us; have language from bills passed
  • Johnson – Bonding requirements in state law?
    • Contracting language follows what is in law
  • Kolkhorst – Line of credit? Seems a little loose
    • Have various options

 

Bill Parsons, American Clean Power – Against

  • Bill clearly targets renewables and concerned about the retroactive requirements; would be unprecedented, need to be able to rely on the rules that have been written
  • 25-mile provision need retooling and setbacks for wind make sense, not solar

 

Jeff Clark, Advanced Power Alliance – Against

  • Have submitted written testimony; we are not number one in renewables given our size of population
  • Decommissioning statutes have been passed on wind and solar; this bill is the wrong path
  • Will not be building 85 GW of solar; know that ERCOT has a maximum
  • this industry is focused on the environment
  • Middleton – Disagree that wind and solar have been discriminated against because of 313s
  • Middleton – Houston Chronicle estimates $30b has been awarded to renewables, that much could set aside for bonding
    • Bonding requirement is to assess the cost of commissioning; if the committee would like to discuss energy incentives need to collaborate on all types of energy
    • Historically we have subsidized all energy
    • Renewables are about providing abundant affordable energy
  • Kolkhorst – Cannot speak to what the federal government has done; agree that landowners have made money with this
  • Kolkhorst – Challenge you on the tax side of it with 312s and 313s; know a number of people have sued the state as 313s expired
    • 27% went to renewable energy that are investing in property poor communities
    • We cannot just pack up and leave
    • School districts need to look at this proposal; will not be able to pay if this bill passes
  • Kolkhorst – Want your depreciation schedule; this is not a 313 bill
    • Notes federal depreciation schedule is different than what they have

 

Cyrus Reed, Sierra Club – Against

  • This should not be environmentalists against conservationists
  • Is a broad-brush stroke that would require one type of industry to do things others do not
  • Should have notice requirements and public input across the board
  • Voluntary guidance for good citing requirements

 

John Shepard, Texas Foundation for Conservation – For

  • Some areas should be avoided because of the potential impacts to wildlife/environment
  • Kolkhorst – Should go more the Ohio route so each county has veto power on renewable projects?
    • No

 

Luke Metzger, Environment Texas – Against

  • Should not be discriminating against renewables in this bill; oil and gas still has three times the footprint of solar farms in Texas
  • Need to set aside areas that are ecologically sensitive and support notice requirements across the energy industry

 

Allen Goss, Self – Against

  • Against the bill as it has duplicative nature to what is already being done in the renewable industry

 

Jay Leeson, Self – Against

  • Are an amazing amount of wind turbines in the state; provide 2/3 of tax revenue school districts receive
  • Rural education is in crisis and something retroactive like this bill would ruin rural communities
  • Need to be carveouts in the bill

 

Acrushna Ryan, Self – For

  • Warton Country will lose 20k acres to solar production this year; 3k acres that was in rice production will be lost to solar
  • Agriculture as a whole is negatively impacted by solar
  • Committee members need to go research what the school districts who were apart of this did on the I&S tax; increased rates on everyone in the community
  • Wind turbines has no one to answer to
  • Kolkhorst – Footprint size of renewables is much more than oil and gas; oil and gas won’t take out a whole cotton field

 

Jessica Karlsruher, TREAD Coalition – For

  • Landowners have concerns about citing and environmental impacts of renewables; bill would protect precious lands
  • Key components providing environmental impact, assessment fee of decommissioning, among others
  • Pro industry and pro process, everyone’s rights should be protected
  • NextEra filed for application in Palo Pinto and still in negotiations adjacent to park
  • Kolkhorst – there was a survey released earlier this week
    • Yes and will get a copy to committee members
  • King – details megawatts per acre with peak technology
    • Have those numbers and data to provide to committee
    • George – looks at ERCOT detail and members discuss the calculations

 

Zola George, Landowner – For

  • Contracted by NextEra asked to signed a 99 year lease and he declined
  • May lose 50-70% of property value if this goes through
  • Kolkhorst – wind turbines peaks height?
    • Would be visible for many mountains, over 656 feet tall
    • Within 4-mile radius of park boundary, will be all you see when you enter into state park
    • Believes value of property going down by millions

 

Ed Dominguez, Texas Coalition for Environmentally Safe Solar – For

  • Not against renewable energy but there must be oversight
  • There are unintended consequences to the industry

 

Ron Patt, Self – For

  • Approached by NextEra two years ago to purchase his farm and he declined
  • His neighbor projects will require the ranch to be stripped clean
  • If you strip 2400 acres clean it will have impact on wildlife
  • Not opposed to solar and wind but need regulations on solar and wind

 

Charlie Cody, Self – For

  • Wish the bill had more teeth
  • Solar people came in and will be surrounded by solar on all 4 sides of her 20 acres in Milam County
  • They do regenerative farming and her land value is now zero

 

Jerry Cooper, Commissioner of Pct 1 – For

  • Would like to have more authority over the county
  • Appreciates them looking at this issue

 

Kolkhorst – There is a lot to consider, footprint of solar farm is very different

Kolkhorst – Will work on this bill and pass something to give Texas a path forward, appreciate process and hopes to garner a consensus on the committee

 

SB 624 left pending