GridMonitor

03/13/2025 09:30 AM

Video Player is loading.

Current Time 53:08

Duration 56:41

Loaded: 93.83%

Stream Type LIVE

Remaining Time 3:33

Selection

Transcript

Scroll automatically

Item 0 - (item:0:Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order)
00:00:09
This meeting of the Public Utility Commission of
00:00:11
Texas will come to order. To consider matters
00:00:13
that have been duly posted with the Secretary
00:00:15
of State for 03/13/2025. Good morning, everybody. Commissioners,
00:00:22
we have closed session today. The AG is
00:00:24
here. So, to be respectful of their time,
00:00:28
I'd ask that we, adjourn to closed session
00:00:31
recess to closed session first. I don't believe
00:00:33
it'll take very long and then come out
00:00:35
and go through our agenda, if that's okay
Item 44 - Adjournment for closed session to consider one or more of the following items:a. Discussions with its attorneys regarding contemplated litigation, settlement offers,
00:00:36
with everybody. Okay. All right. So having convened
00:00:41
a duly noticed open meeting, the Commission will
00:00:43
now at 09:30AM on 03/13/2025 hold a closed
00:00:48
session pursuant to Chapter 551 of
00:00:50
Texas government code. It will consult with its
00:00:53
attorney pursuant to Section 551.071
00:00:55
of the code deliberate personnel
00:00:57
matters pursuant to Section 551.074
00:01:00
of the code and deliberate
00:01:02
security matters pursuant to Section 551.076
00:01:05
of the code we'll
Item 44 - Chairman Gleeson concludes Closed Session, Public Meeting resumed
00:01:07
be right back. The closed session is hereby
00:01:15
concluded at 09:48AM on March 13, and the
00:01:20
Commission will resume its public meeting. No action
00:01:22
will be taken by the Commission regarding matters
00:01:24
discussed in closed session. All right good morning
00:01:29
Shelah, Davida, Connie, Barksdale. I like the
00:01:32
bowtie Barksdale very nice. Good morning Chairman.
00:01:37
All right. Shelah, will you take us through the
Item 0.1 - Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda
00:01:39
consent agenda, please? Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. Let's
00:01:43
see. Commissioner Hjaltman filed a memo in Project
00:01:46
No. 52761 stating that she's recused from items
00:01:51
four, seven, eight, 15, 16, and 17. By
00:01:56
individual ballot, the following items are placed on
00:01:59
your consent agenda. Items two, three, seven, eight,
00:02:04
10, 11, 13 through fifteen, eighteen and 22
00:02:09
through 25. Additionally, items 29 and
00:02:13
38 from the rules and projects section
00:02:16
were placed on your consent agenda and no
00:02:18
one signed up to speak on those items.
00:02:20
You. One other thing, Item No. 20 will
Item 0.1 - Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda
00:02:22
not be taken out. Thank you, Shelah. I'll
00:02:25
entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda,
00:02:27
laid out by Shelah. So moved. Second. I have
00:02:30
a motion and second. All those in favor
Item 1 - Public comment for matters that are under the Commission’s jurisdiction...
00:02:32
say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails. Alright. That'll
00:02:36
take us to Item No. 1 Shelah, public
00:02:38
comment. Has anyone signed up for public comment
00:02:40
today? Yes. We have one person that signed
00:02:43
up for public comment, Joe Jimenez. Mister Jimenez,
Item 1 - Joe Jimenez - Former President Windermere Oaks WSC
00:02:47
come on up. Good morning. Good morning. I'm
00:02:59
Joe Jimenez, former volunteer president of the Windmere
00:03:03
Oaks Water Supply Corporation board of directors, March
00:03:06
2019 through April 2023. I testified in
00:03:10
the five zero seven eight eight rate case
00:03:12
available on the PUC interchange. On February 22,
00:03:15
representatives from temporary manager answer held a town
00:03:19
hall meeting to discuss future monthly rates for
00:03:21
Windermere. The proposed they proposed a rate of
00:03:25
$382 per month, which is 132% higher than
00:03:31
the appealed rate in five zero seven eight
00:03:33
eight. Answer representatives mentioned that PUC staff does
00:03:37
not support the $382 rate and seeks further
00:03:41
study to lower it. Also, PUC staff wants
00:03:44
Windermere to use about $200,000 from a recent
00:03:47
1,250,000.00 land sale to reduce projected monthly rates
00:03:52
using 4,000 to $5,000 each month to offset
00:03:56
expenses. This would reduce the $382 rate by
00:04:01
only about $18 per month. However, I urge
00:04:04
the Commissioners to review staff rec staff's recommendation
00:04:08
in view of the following. In my opinion,
00:04:10
staff is making another incorrect decision similar to
00:04:13
their 2023 rates and refunds recommendations. Windermere urgently
00:04:18
needs two the $200,000 for retrofitting an old
00:04:22
125,000 gallon storage tank into a clarifier. Retrofit
00:04:27
plans and finances were in place in 2022
00:04:30
before PUC staff's rates financially strained the company
00:04:34
last year. And so let's examine staff's track
00:04:37
record. Windermere implemented staff rates in March 2024
00:04:41
per Commission order. Windermere's P&L report
00:04:44
just released showed that it lost 200,000 in
00:04:47
2024. To keep water flowing, Windermere Windermere's board
00:04:52
used a hundred thousand in reserves for the
00:04:54
loan covenants for the $650,000 loan interest interest
00:04:59
loan secured in 2020 for the retrofit. Windermere
00:05:03
used another hundred thousand intended for the clarifier
00:05:05
retrofit to keep the plant running. But also
00:05:08
due to PUC staff rates, Windermere defaulted on
00:05:11
its loan and had to use 560,000 from
00:05:15
the land sale to repay the the co
00:05:19
bank. Windermere's daily operator claimed another hundred thousand
00:05:22
plus from the land sale money because they
00:05:25
weren't paid out of the 2024 operational bay
00:05:28
base rates or the reserves. Other land sale
00:05:31
money paid for legal fees. All of this
00:05:33
was avoidable. The Commission could have adopted the
00:05:36
proposal for decision by judges Wiseman and Ciano
00:05:39
considering Windermere's current financial integrity as had been
00:05:42
done in previous rate appeals. Instead, the Commission
00:05:45
followed staff and Commissioner Cobos' recommendations reading TWC
00:05:49
13043 Section J in harmony
00:05:52
with section e, leading to when the mirrors
00:05:54
financial turmoil. I I I have just a
00:05:58
little bit. Yeah. Go ahead and finish. I
00:05:59
strongly urge Commissioners to instruct staff to let
00:06:03
Answer use the remaining land sale proceeds for
00:06:06
the clarifier retrofit. Failure to do so can
00:06:09
jeopardize water quality in Windermere as this drought
00:06:12
at Lake Travis continues. Windermere's pumping barge is
00:06:16
already near the bottom of its waterhole, delivering
00:06:18
heavy sediment to the clarifier. It's an old
00:06:21
clarifier, inadequate to the the needs of the
00:06:26
of the water company. This will only worsen,
00:06:30
especially if the lake drops another 20 feet
00:06:32
like what it easily could. Staff's inattention to
00:06:36
this critical infrastructure, defunding it in order to
00:06:40
artificially lower monthly base rates, could add to
00:06:43
their unenvious record of malfeasance in Windermere. Just
00:06:48
as I and our board's former treasurer warned
00:06:51
in early 2023 about staff's disastrous
00:06:54
rates, I am I am warning today of
00:06:57
staff's current preference. Thank you for your time.
00:07:00
Thank you for being here this morning. Shelah,
00:07:04
is anyone else signed up for public comment?
00:07:06
No, sir. All right. Thank you. Items two
00:07:09
and three were on the consent agenda, so
00:07:11
that'll bring us to Item No. 4. Will
Item 4 - Docket No. 54617; Application of Texas Water Utilities, L.P...
00:07:13
you lay out item four, please? Yes. Item
00:07:15
4 is Docket No. 54617, The application of
00:07:19
Texas Water Utilities and Southern Horizons Development for
00:07:24
the sale transfer or merger of facilities and
00:07:26
certificate rights in Liberty and Montgomery Counties. Before
00:07:30
you is a motion for rehearing filed by
00:07:32
Texas Water Utilities. The Commission voted to place
00:07:35
this item on the agenda to consider the
00:07:37
merits of the motion for rehearing. Chairman Gleeson
00:07:40
filed a memo, and Commissioner Hjaltman is recused
Item 4 - Chairman Gleeson lays out his memo
00:07:42
from this item. Thank you, Shelah. So Commissioner
00:07:46
Jackson, as Shelah said, filed a memo in
00:07:48
this kind of addressing a few issues. As
00:07:51
the memo lays out, I recommend we grant
00:07:53
rehearing for limited purpose and remand this proceeding
00:07:56
to Docket management to deal with the CCN
00:07:58
map and the certificate and also deal with
00:08:01
the tariff issues. I also laid out in
00:08:05
the memo a timeline. I think we need
00:08:07
to do this expeditiously as expeditiously as we
00:08:10
can. So happy to answer questions about the
00:08:12
memo or get your thoughts. I'm in agreement
00:08:15
with your memo, particularly the laying out the
00:08:17
timeline to do it in expeditious manner and
00:08:20
the detail associated with what we are requesting
00:08:23
in terms of the map certificates and the
Item 4 - Motion to grant rehearing or remand proceeding to Docket Management
00:08:25
tariff. Perfect. Then I move that the Commission
00:08:28
grant rehearing or remand this proceeding to Docket
00:08:30
management consistent with my memo. I second. All
00:08:34
those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion
00:08:37
prevails. That will take us to Item No.
00:08:42
five. Shelah, will you lay out item five,
Item 5 - Docket No. 55808 – Petition of MM Terrell 1098, LLC to Amend Rose Hill Special Utility...
00:08:44
please? Item 5 is Docket No. 55808, the
00:08:49
petition of M. M. Terrell, 1098
00:08:52
to amend Rose Hill Special Utility Districts
00:08:57
CCN in Kaufman County by streamlined expedited release.
00:09:01
Before you is a motion for rehearing filed
00:09:03
by Rose Hill. The Commission voted to place
00:09:06
this item on the agenda for the sole
00:09:08
purpose of extending time to act on the
00:09:10
motion. Thank you, Shelah. I'm happy to extend
00:09:13
time as we typically do on these. I'm
Item 5 - Motion to extend time to act on motion for rehearing to max amount
00:09:15
as well. I'm as well. Okay. I'd entertain
00:09:18
a motion to extend time to act on
00:09:19
the motion for rehearing to the maximum amount
00:09:22
authorized by law. So moved. Second. I have
00:09:24
a motion and a second. All those in
00:09:26
favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails. Shelah, will
Item 6 - Docket No. 56171 – Petition for an Emergency Order Appointing a Temporary Manager...
00:09:30
you lay out item 6, please? This is
00:09:32
Docket No. 56171, petition
00:09:36
for an emergency order appointing a temporary manager
00:09:39
to blue serious without a hearing. Commission staff
00:09:43
all this petition and before you is the
00:09:45
emergency order followed by the executive director. The
00:09:49
decision before you is to affirm, modify, or
00:09:51
set aside the emergency order. So looking at
00:09:53
this, I believe we should affirm the emergency
00:09:56
order. Happy to hear your thoughts. I'm in
Item 6 - Motion to affirm emergency order filed by Exec. Director
00:09:58
agreement as well. I'm in agreement. I'd entertain
00:10:01
a motion to affirm the emergency order filed
00:10:03
by the executive director. So moved. Second. I
00:10:06
have a motion and a second. All those
00:10:07
in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails.
00:10:11
Item seven and eight were on the consent
00:10:13
agenda. That'll take us to item nine. Shelah,
Item 9 - Docket No. 56974 – Application of SJWTX, Inc. dba the Texas Water Company to Amend Its System Improvement Charges
00:10:15
will you lay out item 9, please? This
00:10:17
is Docket No. 56974, the application of SJWTX,
00:10:24
doing business as Texas Water Company, to amend
00:10:27
its system improvement charge. Before you is a
Item 9 - Chairman & Commissioner's thoughts on the application
00:10:30
revised proposal for decision. So the Commission recently
00:10:34
denied an application for a system improvement charge.
00:10:37
I don't think we need to do that
00:10:39
here. In this particular case, I'd recommend that
00:10:43
we remand this proceeding to document management and
00:10:45
allow Texas Water to, you know, have the
00:10:47
opportunity to provide additional information. There are a
00:10:50
couple issues. One, the the Commission rule requires
00:10:53
that the application provide, an explanation of how
00:10:56
each project will improve service, and Texas Water
00:11:00
provided only kind of general statements as to
00:11:02
how this overall will affect their service, not
00:11:07
each project. And second, on remand, if we
00:11:10
go that way, I believe Texas Water should
00:11:13
look at the project descriptions in the application.
00:11:16
In some cases, there's just one line in
00:11:17
general description. I don't think it really meets
00:11:20
the spirit of the rule. So that's kind
00:11:23
of the tact I would take on this,
00:11:24
but happy to hear your thoughts. I'm in
00:11:26
agreement as well. I think when we have
00:11:28
these applications come before us, it's important that
00:11:31
we have the detail that we need associated
00:11:35
with each of the projects. It's in my
00:11:38
opinion, it's well spelled out in the rule
00:11:40
in terms of the type of information that
00:11:42
we need. And I think again, think it's
00:11:44
incumbent on the utility that's asking for the
00:11:47
system improvement charge to provide the kind of
00:11:52
detail and due diligence so that it is
00:11:54
easily understood and is well organized. And so
00:11:57
I would remand it back as well. And
00:11:59
I think that's an important point. The legislature
00:12:02
wanted these to be fast, to be streamlined,
00:12:05
but in order for that to work, we
00:12:06
need to get the information that's required by
00:12:07
the rule and the statute. I'm in agreement
00:12:10
with, as you both stated, for the demand
00:12:13
for the clarification and further description of each
Item 9 - Motion to reject proposal for decision
00:12:16
item. Okay. So I would move that we
00:12:20
reject the proposal for decision to remain the
00:12:22
application and document management for further processing consistent
00:12:25
with our discussion. So moved. Second. Motion is
00:12:28
second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
00:12:30
Opposed? Motion prevails. All right. That items ten
00:12:35
and eleven were on the consent agenda, that
00:12:37
will take us to item 12. Will you
Item 12 - Docket No. 57386 – Application of CSWR-Texas Utility Operating Company, LLC for Authority to Change Rates
00:12:38
lay out item 12, Shelah? This is Docket
00:12:41
No. 5700386, the application of CSWR, Texas Utility
00:12:47
Operating Company, for authority to change rates. Before
00:12:50
you is a draft preliminary order, and Chairman
Item 12 - Chairman Gleeson lays out his memo
00:12:53
Gleeson filed a memo. Thank you, Shelah. So
00:12:55
in my memo, based on the application, my
00:12:59
feeling was that this application should be processed
00:13:02
as a Class B application, that we should
00:13:04
accept it accept the Class A and not
00:13:06
make them refile because everything we need in
00:13:09
a Class B filing is there in a
00:13:11
Class A. I will say that after my
00:13:14
memo, CSWR filed a response stating that they
00:13:21
believe that the law speaks to taps and
00:13:25
connections, and given that, they should be treated
00:13:28
as a Class A. I think we kind
00:13:31
of have two paths here. I think we
00:13:32
can go the direction my memo asked us
00:13:35
to go, or we could add this as
00:13:37
an issue when it goes to SOAH in
00:13:40
order have them deal with it. I will
00:13:43
say, in looking I asked staff to look
00:13:46
at the application. We I got some additional
00:13:48
briefing on this this morning after reading their
00:13:50
letter. I feel like their application was submitted
00:13:53
in a way that it doesn't talk about
00:13:55
these inactive TAPs connections. I believe the rule
00:14:01
is pretty clear that when you provide water
00:14:03
and sewer service, the way we'll determine which
00:14:06
classification you are is based on active connections.
00:14:09
And so if you all want, I can
00:14:12
get comfortable with having this as an issue
00:14:15
at SOAH, but I think based on the
00:14:18
record and their application, I think this probably
00:14:21
should be processed as Class B application. I'm
00:14:26
in agreement in reading their application and how
00:14:28
they worded it themselves. It was in such
00:14:30
a way that they provided the number of
00:14:33
connections. We went based off of that. If
00:14:35
it was going to be different, they should
00:14:37
have provided a different number. So I agree
00:14:39
with the Class B. I think it's pretty
00:14:41
clear that in our rules that the number
00:14:44
of active water connections determines how the utility
00:14:48
is classified. And so I would be supportive
00:14:51
of allowing them to move forward and process
Item 12 - Motion to modify preliminary order
00:14:56
their application as a Class B. Okay. So
00:14:59
I'd entertain a motion to modify the preliminary
00:15:01
order consistent with my memo. So moved. Second?
00:15:05
I have a motion and a second. All
00:15:06
those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion
00:15:09
prevails. Items 13 through 15 were on the
00:15:14
consent agenda. They'll take us to item 16.
00:15:17
Shelah, will you lay out item 16, please?
Item 16 - Docket No. 56211; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-13232 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC for Authority to Change Rates
00:15:19
Yes. This is Docket No. 56211,
00:15:22
the application of CenterPoint Energy Houston
00:15:25
Electric for authority to change rates. Before you
00:15:29
is a revised proposed order that addresses an
00:15:31
unopposed agreement. Chairman Gleeson filed a memo in
00:15:34
this Docket, and Commissioner Hjaltman is recused from
00:15:36
this item. So, Commissioner Jackson, as Shelah said,
00:15:40
filed a memo on this mostly related to
00:15:43
$5,200,000 in one time refund and how that
00:15:47
should be treated, And my feeling that it
00:15:50
should be treated as a refund that we
00:15:53
deal with through a compliance Docket just so
00:15:55
that money can more efficiently get back to
00:15:58
where it needs to go and be refunded
00:15:59
to customers, but happy to hear your thoughts.
00:16:02
I think that's a good catch on your
00:16:03
part. Just a different method of being able
00:16:07
to recover the $5,200,000 in a way that
00:16:12
gets to the ratepayers more quickly. I'm in
00:16:15
agreement with what's been proposed and would recommend
00:16:20
consistent with your memo that we move forward
Item 16 - Motion to approve revised proposed order
00:16:22
with this. Okay. So I move that we
00:16:24
approve the revised proposed order consistent with the
00:16:27
changes outlined in my memo. I second. All
00:16:29
those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion
00:16:32
prevails. Alright. That will take us then to
00:16:38
Item No. 17. Shelah, would you lay out
Item 17 - Docket No. 56440 – Application of New Braunfels Utilities to Change Transmission Cost of Service and Wholesale Transmission Rates
00:16:40
item 17, please? This is Docket No. 56440,
00:16:44
the application of New Braunfels utilities to change
00:16:47
transmission cost of service and wholesale transmission rates.
00:16:51
Before you is a motion for rehearing filed
00:16:54
by New Braunfels. The Commission voted to place
00:16:56
this item on the agenda to consider the
00:16:58
merits of the motion, and Commissioner Hjaltman is
00:17:01
recused from this item. Commissioner Jackson, looking at
00:17:05
everything that was in this Docket and the
00:17:07
arguments, I think I'm comfortable denying the motion
Item 17 - Motion to deny motion for rehearing
00:17:10
for rehearing. Uncomfortable as well. Okay. So I
00:17:15
move that we deny the motion for rehearing.
00:17:17
I second. Motion is second. All those in
00:17:19
favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails. Item
00:17:23
18 was on the consent agenda, so that
00:17:26
will bring us to item 19. Shelah, will
Item 19 - Docket No. 56954; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-25125 – Application of Texas-New Mexico Power Company for Approval of a System Resiliency Plan
00:17:28
you lay out item 19, please? Item 19
00:17:30
is Docket No. 56954, the application of Texas
00:17:34
New Mexico Power Company for approval of a
00:17:37
system resiliency plan. Before you is a second
00:17:41
corrected proposed order that addresses an unopposed agreement
00:17:44
in this Docket and is before you now.
00:17:47
Thank you, Shelah. So we've had a lot
00:17:49
of discussion about this item. Had time to
00:17:53
kind of take back and think about what's
00:17:55
been said. Happy to hear if you all
00:17:57
have any additional thoughts or how you think
Item 19 - Commissioner Hjaltman's thoughts on application
00:17:59
we should proceed. Well, I guess I can
00:18:03
speak to the I obviously filed a memo.
00:18:06
First, let me say that I believe the
00:18:08
resiliency plans, they're intended to enhance utilities' resiliency
00:18:12
and obviously you know, go beyond the normal
00:18:14
business operations for the utility. I filed my
00:18:17
memo February 19 in regards to the resiliency
00:18:20
plan. My thinking is that the two underground
00:18:23
programs still do not seem justified, and they're
00:18:27
they're not something that should be in this,
00:18:29
plan going forward. I don't think that TNMP
00:18:32
has showed that they have the
00:18:33
experience. I don't think there's metrics chat tied
00:18:35
to them to be able to judge whether
00:18:37
or not, there's any anything gained. So in
00:18:42
accordance with the memo filed, I would still
00:18:44
say that I feel those two should be
00:18:46
pulled out. And then I know TNMP
00:18:49
provided a letter and filed that too,
00:18:52
that was helpful. I do not think that
00:18:54
they provided me accurate or enough accounting of
00:18:58
what the $88,000,000 would be used for. I
00:19:01
know that our statute allows for vegetation management
00:19:04
to be included in these resiliency plans, but
00:19:06
and I want to see a proactive process,
00:19:09
but the resiliency plan is not intended replace
00:19:11
mechanisms that are already put forth that a
00:19:14
utility can use in their basic operations. So
00:19:17
I would say, you know, I would I
00:19:20
would follow my memo in regards to bringing
00:19:23
that amount down to 46,000,000. I do think
00:19:26
TNMP's letter provided enough additional information to allow
00:19:29
for the enhanced tree assessment mitigation. I I
00:19:33
think you, myself, were very aware of how
00:19:36
trees can impact resiliency, especially with the storms
00:19:40
we have here in Texas. So I would
00:19:42
be favorable of allowing that to be included
00:19:45
still. So I think doing the math, that
00:19:48
would have the overall impact to consumers coming
00:19:52
to 891 instead of the 851
00:19:54
as filed in my memo. So
00:19:56
that's kinda where I am at this point.
00:20:00
And 891 is a number you're
00:20:02
you're comfortable with given the benefits of Given
00:20:04
the billing benefits and weighing the mitigation that
00:20:08
would occur from the information provided, I think
Item 19 - Commissioner Jackson's thoughts on application
00:20:11
so. Yes. Commissioner Jackson? And I think further
00:20:14
to that, the two programs that you are
00:20:17
suggesting that be removed also didn't have any
00:20:21
BC ratios provided associated with those. And the
00:20:25
enhanced tree risk assessment program was part of
00:20:28
the overall BC ratio for the suggested proactive
00:20:35
vegetation management over the twenty year cycle. So
00:20:38
what you're proposing is that we not that
00:20:41
we do a portion of that and the
00:20:43
portion that's outlined in your memo. I think
00:20:47
this is a good path forward. I think
00:20:51
it gives us a way to address the
00:20:55
increased cost to the residential consumer. I think
00:20:59
that's important, but at the same time, to
00:21:02
kind of address and get started on vegetation
00:21:04
management because quite frankly, they've been reactive. There
00:21:08
are many other utilities across the state that
00:21:10
have had programs in place that are cyclic
00:21:15
for quite some time and that are, in
00:21:17
effect, moving to something that's more technology based
00:21:20
in terms of term determining what areas provide
00:21:25
the most risk associated with vegetation management, and
00:21:29
they address those in a way using lidar
00:21:31
and some of the other technology that's out
00:21:33
there. I did want to recognize, and I
00:21:36
think this was good, that they included in
00:21:40
their projects a remote sensing of 3.2, which
00:21:44
would still be in there. Hopefully that gets
00:21:45
them started on that path, as well as
00:21:49
that would provide some, I think, some good
00:21:51
data and information that they need in terms
00:21:53
of addressing wildfires. So I did want to
00:21:56
call that out, because I think that is
00:21:58
a key element. And then also the fact
00:22:00
that their situational awareness, they told us last
00:22:03
time that that had been a very high
00:22:05
number. And I guess through going back and
00:22:08
talking with people who were going to, you
00:22:10
know, provide that contracted service, they were able
00:22:13
to, you know, keep that that same scope
00:22:16
in there, but the cost went from 25,100,000.0
00:22:19
to 8,500,000.0. So I thought those were two
00:22:22
really good projects that really kind of set
00:22:25
us on the path that we need moving
00:22:27
forward to utilize technology. So I'm very much
00:22:31
in agreement with what you're proposing in terms
00:22:35
of the overall projects and the spin. There
00:22:38
is one thing that I I would like
00:22:41
to kind of bring up from our previous
00:22:42
discussion and kind of get y'all's thoughts on
00:22:46
it. I think it would be helpful for
00:22:47
us to know as we kind of evaluate
00:22:50
the performance of these plans across the state
00:22:52
to have similar metrics. And we've had, you
00:22:55
know, two previous plans that included a ratio
00:22:58
of customer minutes interrupted as well as the
00:23:01
ratio of avoided system restoration cost in their
00:23:04
evaluation metrics. And so I would like to
00:23:08
consider having TMMP incorporate these metrics into their
00:23:14
plan moving forward. I think that's a proper
00:23:17
way to do this. I think we want
00:23:19
those in all of these. I'm in agreement.
00:23:22
I think that would be helpful, especially the
00:23:24
others have included them. So moving forward, they
00:23:26
should all have those as well. Commissioner Hjaltman,
00:23:30
I'm in support of your memo as well
00:23:33
as kind of the change. I want to
00:23:36
thank both of you for diving into this
00:23:39
and really looking at it. A lot of
00:23:42
work. We've had a lot of discussion about
00:23:43
this plan. Commissioner Hjaltman, I want to thank
00:23:46
you. You, you know, with your memo and
00:23:47
and your leadership on this, I think, really
00:23:50
beneficial to our discussion and and the I
00:23:52
think coming to the right outcome. So I
00:23:55
I have motion language, but I'm also happy
00:23:58
to to lean on you if you would
Item 19 - Shelah Cisneros' clarifying question to Commissioner Jackson
00:24:01
like to make the motion on this. Chairman?
00:24:03
Yes, ma'am. Commissioner, may we jump in and
00:24:05
ask a clarifying Thank you. Always. Thank you.
00:24:11
Commissioner Jackson, at the end, you talked about
00:24:15
the similar metrics and I heard you say
00:24:17
incorporate those moving forward. Are you can you
00:24:22
help me with the timing on this? Is
00:24:23
your expectation then for incorporating it in this
00:24:27
proceeding or incorporating it in any future proceedings?
00:24:30
Incorporating in this proceeding. In this proceeding. Alright.
00:24:33
Thank you. Let me just pause for a
00:24:35
moment. Do we have the specifics we need
Item 19 - Motion to modify proposed order
00:24:38
for that? Alright. Thank you, Shelah. I move
00:24:44
that we modify the proposed order consistent with
00:24:46
my memo filed February 9 as well as
00:24:48
modified by the discussion today. I second. We
00:24:52
have a motion and a second. All those
00:24:53
in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails.
00:24:59
Alright. Item 20 was on the consent agenda.
00:25:01
That'll bring us to Item No. 21. Shelah,
00:25:03
will you lay out item 21, please? Sure.
00:25:05
And just to clarify for item 20, it
00:25:07
was not consented. It was but it's not
00:25:08
taken It was not taken up. Yep. You're
00:25:11
correct that it was on the sequence agenda
00:25:12
consent agenda, but I just don't want there
Item 21 - Docket No. 57160 – Complaint of Frank Chou Against CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC
00:25:14
to be any confusion on that. Alright. Let's
00:25:18
see. Item 21 is Docket No. 57160. The
00:25:23
complaint of Frank Chou against CenterPoint Energy Houston
00:25:27
Electric. Before you is a proposal for decision.
00:25:31
A Commission Counsel memo was filed recommending changes
00:25:34
to the order if it is approved, and
00:25:36
the Commission voted to grant oral argument in
00:25:38
this Docket. We have three parties that have
00:25:40
signed up for oral argument. And one question
00:25:43
I have is about the time limits for
00:25:44
this one. Yeah. Thank you, Shelah. So, typically,
00:25:47
we allow three minutes with only three parties,
00:25:50
and one of them being pro se. I'd
00:25:52
recommend we we give five minutes to each
00:25:54
of the parties if you're amenable to that.
00:25:56
I'm in agreement. Okay. So, Shelah, we'll do
00:25:59
five minutes. Alright. Will all three of the
00:26:01
parties approach? Mister Chou, am I pronouncing your
00:26:03
name correctly? Yes. Okay. Great. And before we
00:26:07
start, let me ask you a question. Mister
00:26:09
Chou, under our rules, the applicant has the
00:26:12
choice of whether to open or close or
00:26:15
have a little bit of time for each.
00:26:17
Would you like to go first or would
00:26:18
you like to go last? I'd like to
00:26:21
go to go last. You wanna go last?
00:26:22
Alright. Alright. Then let's start with CenterPoint and,
Item 21 - Patrick Peters - Associate General Counsel - CenterPoint Energy
00:26:28
Patrick Peters, for CenterPoint. Yes. Thank you. Good
00:26:31
morning, Chairman and Commissioners. I'm Patrick Peters, associate
00:26:34
general counsel and vice president for CenterPoint Energy.
00:26:37
At CenterPoint, we take seriously our responsibility to
00:26:41
provide our customers with safe and reliable service,
00:26:44
and we appreciate each and every one of
00:26:46
those customers. When issues arise, we work hard
00:26:49
to resolve those informally, and in the vast
00:26:51
majority of cases, we're able to do so.
00:26:54
In this case, unfortunately, the company and the
00:26:56
customer have been unable to reach agreement about
00:26:58
the application of an important and long standing
00:27:01
Commission safety rule. Commission rules in the company's
00:27:04
tariff require a DG facility interconnected to the
00:27:08
utility's grid to comply with certain operational and
00:27:11
safety requirements. One such requirement is that the
00:27:14
facility have a manual disconnect device with a
00:27:17
with a visible break. And you could think
00:27:19
about this like a handle on a box
00:27:21
that you can pull down, see that it's
00:27:23
that the breaker is open, and then lock
00:27:25
it in place open. This device allows utility
00:27:29
personnel to confirm that the DG is disconnected
00:27:31
from the grid so it can't unintentionally back
00:27:34
feed energy onto a de energized line when
00:27:37
utility crews are doing maintenance on that line.
00:27:39
And the fundamental purpose of this, of course,
00:27:41
is a safety purpose, and it's been in
00:27:43
place in the Commission's rules for at least
00:27:45
twenty five years. We've interconnected many, many g
00:27:49
DG facilities on our system that use such
00:27:52
a device, and the PFD in this case
00:27:55
recommends dismissing the complaint for the simple reason
00:27:58
that the facility that mister Chou proposes to
00:28:00
interconnect to our system doesn't have this device
00:28:03
as required by the Commission's rules and our
00:28:06
tariff. There appears to be a discussion in
00:28:08
some of his documents that this rule doesn't
00:28:11
make sense or should be changed. The company
00:28:14
supports the existing rule. We believe that it
00:28:16
really is the frontline of defense for utility
00:28:18
workers that are working on systems where a
00:28:20
DG facility is present. But if there is
00:28:23
a desire to change the requirement, we would
00:28:25
respectfully request that that be done through a
00:28:27
rulemaking rather than through this complaint proceeding so
00:28:30
that all interested stakeholders, including other customers and
00:28:33
other utilities, would have an opportunity to participate.
00:28:38
So we would just ask the Commission to
00:28:39
adopt the PFD and dismiss this complaint from
Item 21 - Glen Imes - Attorney - Commission Staff
00:28:41
its Docket. Alright. Next is Commission staff. Thank
00:28:48
you. Glenn Ives with Commission Staff. We, I
00:28:51
agree with and we reiterate, mister Peter's comments
00:28:56
on this matter. We agree that summary disposition
00:28:58
is appropriate in this particular matter, particularly for
00:29:00
the reasons laid out by mister Peters. Summary
00:29:03
disposition is appropriate when there is no there
00:29:06
are no material facts genuinely in dispute, and
00:29:08
we believe that that is the case here.
00:29:11
The the purpose of summary disposition is is
00:29:13
about judicial economy to preserve state resources to
00:29:16
not allow a matter to go to a
00:29:18
formal hearing, just as a matter of formality,
00:29:21
but when there's no true issues in dispute
00:29:23
that truly need to be litigated. At least
00:29:26
based on my understanding, Mr. Chou does
00:29:29
not dispute the fact that his his system
00:29:31
does not have a visual break, and that
00:29:34
is what the what the rule requires. And,
00:29:36
again, as mister Peters reiterated, he simply takes
00:29:40
issue with the rule. He believes it's outdated,
00:29:42
does not comply with the National Electric Code,
00:29:45
which of course is not the standard. Texas
00:29:46
law is the standard here. And that being
00:29:50
said, the rule currently in place does require
00:29:53
that visual break. And again, I would also
00:29:56
reiterate the same comments regarding this not being
00:29:58
the proper proceeding for changing that rule or
00:30:00
challenging that rule. There are proper procedures under
00:30:02
the APA for challenging the validity of a
00:30:05
rule and for an agency to change the
00:30:07
rule. And unfortunately, this is not it. So
00:30:09
we do agree that summary disposition is appropriate.
00:30:13
Thank you. Okay. I'm gonna pause for just
00:30:15
a moment. And Mr. Chou, we have a
00:30:17
court reporter here, and she transcribes everyone's conversations.
00:30:21
So if you could speak into the microphone
00:30:22
so she can hear you that would be
00:30:23
great. This is the microphone. Yes. You might
00:30:26
want move it a little bit closer. Great.
Item 21 - Frank Chou - Texas Farmer
00:30:29
Thank you. Thank you. My name is Frank
00:30:33
Chou. I'm a person at the farm and
00:30:40
I got this permission from my system in
00:30:46
2014 At the last year, I tried to
00:30:58
add the storage in my system. And because
00:31:03
of the storage, have to change the inverter.
00:31:07
But the solar panel is identical, no change,
00:31:11
because that is fourteen years ago eleven years
00:31:15
ago. And then they say, if you want
00:31:20
to do such at the store, you have
00:31:23
to reapply, okay. So I reapply, but then
00:31:28
there's for some unknown reason, they say the
00:31:33
device you put there is not acceptable by
00:31:37
the center point. So we have been going
00:31:43
through this since September and here now. And
00:31:49
the final reply, I'd like to read from
00:31:53
the CenterPoint Energy. It says, complaints exception state
00:32:00
that his proposed disconnect device should be approved
00:32:06
because it has a visible onoff switch. It
00:32:11
does not dispute that the actual break is
00:32:16
enclosed in a molded plastic case and not
00:32:21
visible as such Only this tribute is the
00:32:29
generation disconnect mechanism that have a visual brake
00:32:35
are permitted by the Commission rule, okay. That's
00:32:39
what their final argument. So I write a
00:32:47
rebuttal to their final argument. And until now,
00:32:52
I don't receive any reply from response from
00:32:56
them. But I like to do such argument.
00:33:00
I say the extra break is enclosed in
00:33:04
a molded plastic case and now the visual
00:33:09
accessible. That's what they claim. I say it's
00:33:14
observed. Because the utility person required to do
00:33:19
in this case is to either turn on
00:33:22
the switch or turn off the switch. So
00:33:26
either we'll disconnect the power from the meter
00:33:31
from the service. So they also have all
00:33:37
the connection in the panel. This is called
00:33:41
the the panel I have is called the
00:33:44
service disconnect. So what the utility person needed
00:33:49
to do is to turn on or turn
00:33:52
off to disconnect or connect. Or they can
00:33:57
check the connection on the each terminal. Like
00:34:02
I say, the meter has three, two hard
00:34:05
line, one neutral line go to the panel.
00:34:10
Then the output is go to the inverter.
00:34:15
So all those connect is in the panel.
00:34:19
So the servicemen can actually see exactly what
00:34:23
you needed to do. So why they say
00:34:29
the breaker is enclosing a module plastic? This
00:34:34
has nothing to do with the function of
00:34:37
this device. Because this device defined by NEC
00:34:43
2023 code is a service disconnect.
00:34:48
That is the most updated electric code, but
00:34:54
they deny that. So basically, that's my argument.
00:35:02
The device they propose is called the safety
00:35:06
switch. The problem with the safety switch is
00:35:10
they don't have the overload protection. Actually, put
00:35:15
the people work on it. Very dangerous actually,
00:35:28
the device they have proposed. And also because
00:35:32
I have a hybrid inverter, either one disconnect
00:35:38
automatically if the service is if the grade
00:35:44
is failed. They don't need to do anything
00:35:48
because the inverter itself has this self safety
00:35:53
protection. But this insist say, unless I change
00:36:00
my device into a less safe device, then
00:36:04
they will permit me to sell my actual
00:36:09
electricity to the grid. So I really don't
00:36:13
understand what the mean call the actual break
00:36:18
is encoded in a molded plastic case. What
00:36:21
does it mean? I don't understand at all.
00:36:23
What that to do is the utility for
00:36:26
the so you tell them don't need to
00:36:27
do anything on that on the electric panel.
00:36:31
If the panel is failed, then replace the
00:36:34
panel. Right? So so what what does it
00:36:38
mean? And I so far, I don't understand.
00:36:41
So I think they need to give me
00:36:42
a formal response before decision. The case is
00:36:47
approved or dismissed. Thank you for being here
00:36:51
this morning. Commissioners, do you have any questions
00:36:53
for any of the parties? I have one
00:36:57
question. So, you know, I read some of
00:37:01
the things that you had sent in and
00:37:04
you'd filed, and it sounded like that you
00:37:07
were concerned that because of all of the
00:37:11
technological change that had happened over time, that
00:37:14
maybe the system that is in place right
00:37:16
now wasn't necessarily as safe or risk avert
00:37:21
as it needed to be. Yes. And and
00:37:25
so is there is there a way that
00:37:27
we can we can, I guess, more better
00:37:34
understand that? I mean, it it's almost like
00:37:36
you're concerned that the system that's in place
00:37:39
right now that's called that is required has
00:37:44
some safety issues. That's right. Yes. Because the
00:37:51
a safety switch, basically is going to have
00:37:55
overload protection. Basically, it cannot be even used
00:37:59
in my inverter because my inverter requires an
00:38:05
overload protection. So the device proposed by CenterPoint
00:38:11
Energy, they don't have the overload protection. They
00:38:14
just have safety switch. It's very old product.
00:38:19
So before even the utility people to push
00:38:24
to pull the handle, they have to protect
00:38:27
them first. They have to wear either cloth
00:38:29
or whatever because it may be electrocuted in
00:38:35
case if you don't have overload protection. But
00:38:40
the device I'm using is actually identical to
00:38:44
all the main service panel in all of
00:38:48
household. The only difference, the device I'm using
00:38:52
only have one breaker. But the main service
00:38:56
panel have one breaker plus all maybe fifteen,
00:39:00
sixteen breaker. So distribute the electricity from the
00:39:06
meter to all the loads in the household.
00:39:10
So one device I proposed is from Siemens.
00:39:16
It is a well known manufacturer. They produced
00:39:19
this product about two years ago. It's kind
00:39:23
of new thing. But if you go to
00:39:26
the Internet, you can see a lot of
00:39:28
people using it right now. I said, service
00:39:30
disconnect. I'm not the first one using it.
00:39:34
I just look what available in the market.
00:39:40
And I bought from like a either Home
00:39:43
Depot or Amazon. So it's it's very popular.
00:39:47
They they you can see very several a
00:39:51
lot of actually, I already found a three,
00:39:53
four video talk about this. So it's a
00:39:57
good device. And some, like, a professional, they
00:40:02
they are very favor this one. They say
00:40:04
it's cheaper, it's safe, it provides much better
00:40:10
protection to the utility person, especially to me
00:40:15
because I'm doing my own electric electric work.
00:40:21
Okay. So I don't see any reason they
00:40:26
deny my access to the grade. Okay? Right
00:40:32
now, I cannot sell to the grade because
00:40:35
of my inverter has a function, no sale.
00:40:40
So I turned that off because they complain,
00:40:44
if I sell to the grid, it will
00:40:47
have danger to the utility person. That's a
00:40:50
complete force because the inverter only was sell
00:40:56
back when they know the grid is in
00:40:58
function. If the grid is fail, it's automatically
00:41:03
cut off. Okay. That is all the device
00:41:08
sell in The United States. If you want
00:41:11
to go to grid, you have to cut
00:41:13
off yourself in the grade. It's failed. But
00:41:17
they send me two letters to warn me.
00:41:20
They because that time, I'm testing my device.
00:41:24
Oh, you cannot sell back. You sell back.
00:41:26
I'm going to shut down your service. I
00:41:30
said, that's I I don't understand what they're
00:41:33
talking about. I have this this solar panel
00:41:37
is is not so new. It's already more
00:41:41
than ten, twenty year history. Why they don't
00:41:45
understand when this grade is done, the universal
00:41:51
will cut itself out. That's a very common
00:41:55
knowledge. And I guess, you know, the I
00:41:59
think we talked about earlier that the proper
00:42:01
forum is most likely to address something like
00:42:04
this is in the rulemaking, but my concern
00:42:06
is if we brought something here that because,
00:42:11
technology has changed and use has changed that
00:42:14
maybe that rule needs to be revisited or
00:42:18
looked at. Yes. Because the time the rule
00:42:25
they make is 20 I think 2020 or
00:42:30
what. Okay. The the base, the rule they
00:42:33
made there. But the one I'm using the
00:42:37
device was mentioned on the 2023 and National
00:42:42
Electric Code. They mentioned about the emergency disconnect.
00:42:49
So why I'm using the number one, they
00:42:51
call it service disconnect. That's the one they
00:42:55
most favorite. The device they use actually in
00:42:59
category third, okay, they say you can use
00:43:03
that, but that's not their preferred. Okay. Thank
00:43:08
you. Thank you very much. I think Commissioner
00:43:14
Jackson brings up a valid point of it
00:43:16
sounds like maybe this is something that is
00:43:19
time to address and see if the rule
00:43:21
is a little outdated and we need to
00:43:22
look at the technology that's advanced. And, again,
00:43:26
also noted that this is not the place
00:43:28
to kinda make that decision in this case,
00:43:30
but something to look at in the future.
00:43:34
Yeah, I hadn't thought about the rule. I
00:43:38
think consistent with our practice, I appreciate all
00:43:41
the parties being here. I think it's probably
00:43:45
advisable we take what they said. I'd like
00:43:47
to kind of think through the idea of
00:43:50
looking at the rule and if any changes
00:43:52
need to be made to that. So I'd
00:43:53
ask that we defer a decision on this
00:43:56
till we can kind of so I can
00:43:58
at least get briefing on that and kind
00:44:00
of think through this comprehensively, and we bring
00:44:04
this one back to the to the next
00:44:06
to the next open meeting, because I wanna
00:44:09
make sure that we're doing our diligence on
00:44:11
this complaint and then also thinking through if
00:44:13
that's not the appropriate way, does something need
00:44:16
to be done to to deal with this
00:44:17
issue. Agree. Thank you all for being here.
00:44:31
Alright. I think that will bring us then
00:44:33
to Item No. 30. I think that concludes.
Item 30 - Project No. 56896 – Texas Energy Fund In-ERCOT Loan Program Reports and Filings
00:44:39
Yes, that section. So, we should be now
00:44:41
at item 30. So that is Project No.
00:44:44
56896, Texas Energy Fund in ERCOT loan program
00:44:49
reports and filings. Good morning. Good morning. Yes.
Item 30 - Laurie Hobbs - Commission Staff - Recommendation of 2 applications
00:44:58
Mister Chairman, thank you. And Commissioners, Laurie Hobbs
00:45:00
for staff. Staff recommends two applications totaling 895
00:45:06
megawatts to be advanced to due diligence and
00:45:09
authority delegated to the executive director to enter
00:45:11
into a loan agreement if these projects successfully
00:45:15
complete the due diligence process. These applications would
00:45:18
bring the portfolio of loan applications undergoing due
00:45:21
diligence to 9,774 megawatts and, $5,370,000,000. The selection
00:45:30
of these projects used a similar process to
00:45:32
the ones staff took with the first through
00:45:34
third rounds of applications that we have recommended
00:45:38
to due diligence, previously. In addition, these applications
00:45:42
are attempting to align with the attributes of
00:45:45
withdrawn application two two three, which they are
00:45:47
replacing. So I'd be happy to answer any
00:45:50
questions you have on this matter. Commissioners, questions?
00:45:55
I'm in agreement with the two that you
00:45:59
have proposed. So when when looking at replacing
00:46:03
projects and and kind of the load zones,
00:46:07
I know we initially had, what, 72 applications
00:46:10
there about. Yes. That's correct. Are we finding
00:46:14
it more and more difficult to find projects
00:46:18
in load zones to replace projects that are
00:46:20
falling out. I know Houston in the South
00:46:23
there's a lot that needs to be done
00:46:25
in Houston, but would you say that there's
00:46:27
just a shortage of viable projects now that
00:46:30
we're really because of the tight timelines, we're
00:46:32
really looking to make sure that any project
00:46:35
that we approve has true line of sight
00:46:37
to getting these projects online at the right
00:46:39
time. Is that a constraint on finding projects
00:46:42
in the same load zone going forward to
00:46:45
replace projects that fall out? Yes, yes, that's
00:46:48
correct. We certainly would strive to replace with
00:46:51
the same load zone, but as you noted,
00:46:53
we've we've needed to prioritize applicants that have
00:46:56
shown us their readiness, on the three key
00:46:59
items of, long lead time equipment, like you
00:47:02
mentioned, equity commitment, and their engineering procurement and
00:47:06
construction contract. So, you know, based on lessons
00:47:09
learned, we're we're really trying to still balance
00:47:12
as many of the original policy priorities that
00:47:14
the Commission has had, but we must present
00:47:18
you with applicants that can begin timely construction
00:47:20
of their projects for the success of the
00:47:22
program. Yeah. And I think that's important, you
00:47:28
know, because of those timelines. Think that constraint
00:47:31
is a real one. We need to make
00:47:33
sure as best as we can that any
00:47:36
project we approve going forward can meet these
00:47:39
deadlines and be online. So I want to
00:47:42
thank you, Barksdale staff, everyone involved for continuing
00:47:47
to do good work for the state to
00:47:50
find projects to make to ensure that this
00:47:52
entire program is successful for the state because
00:47:55
it's extremely important. So thank you for that.
00:47:58
Yes. Thank you. One quick question. Do you
00:48:01
all have a calculation on what percentage groups
00:48:06
like the bigger generating groups are reaching right
Item 30 - Barksdale English - Deputy Exec. Director - Percentage of groups in portfolio
00:48:10
now in our portfolio? Commissioner Hjaltman, I believe
00:48:16
that number is approximately 35% of the portfolio
00:48:20
would be represented by the four largest generation
00:48:25
companies in ERCOT. Perfect. Thank you. That's an
00:48:29
approximate number. And if you need something more
00:48:31
accurate, we'll be happy to Sure. That's good.
00:48:33
Okay. And Barksdale, just for clarity, four would
00:48:35
be? Those four would be Luminant, NRG, Calpine
00:48:41
and Constellation. Thank you. So 35% of the
00:48:46
folks who are very active in the market
00:48:48
right now, but an opportunity to bring others
00:48:50
in that promotes competition, so to your point.
00:48:55
Okay. Any other questions? Shelah, remind me, do
00:48:59
we need a motion to approve this? Yes,
Item 30 - Motion to approve 2 projects selected by Staff
00:49:01
sir. All right. Then I would entertain a
00:49:02
motion to approve the two projects selected by
00:49:06
staff to move forward to due diligence and
00:49:08
delegate all appropriate authority to the executive director.
00:49:12
So moved. I second. I have a motion
00:49:14
and a second. All those in favor say
00:49:15
aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails. All right. That'll
Item 31 - Project No. 57774 – Electric Utility Correspondence on Insurance Premiums
00:49:19
bring us to Item No. 31. Item 31
00:49:23
is Project No. 57774, electric utility correspondence on
00:49:30
insurance premiums. So a number of letters were
00:49:33
initially filed in the Docket that's opened every
00:49:38
fiscal year for issues that don't have an
Item 31 - Chairman Gleeson's thoughts on insurance premiums
00:49:40
associated specific Docket No. . I've read through those
00:49:44
letters. I think this is a real issue
00:49:48
that these companies are dealing with. Insurance premiums,
00:49:53
given kind of what's happened in the state
00:49:55
during the interim between last session and now,
00:49:58
I think, have really skyrocketed what these companies
00:50:01
have to pay. Think this is a real
00:50:02
issue. I know in those filings, the companies
00:50:05
were really looking for guidance about how to
00:50:08
move forward. I'll be honest, I wish we
00:50:11
could give more guidance. I don't know that
00:50:13
I feel that's our appropriate role. They're free
00:50:19
to file a request to have deferred accounting
00:50:23
treatment on this. I will say, just in
00:50:26
the briefing I got, it's a pretty high
00:50:28
bar. I think it's appropriate if they want
00:50:30
to do that. I think that's a business
00:50:32
decision for them. I'm happy to hear your
00:50:35
thoughts, but I think it's it's important to
00:50:37
recognize that that this is a problem that
00:50:39
that we need to think about and and
00:50:41
how these companies are are really dealing with
00:50:43
these increasing costs. Happy to hear your thoughts.
00:50:47
I'm in agreement. I'm not sure what exactly
00:50:50
there is for us to do. I think,
00:50:52
you know, filing a petition or whatnot might
00:50:54
be, but for us to move on it
00:50:57
right now is I'm not sure how that
00:50:58
would be taken. Yeah. Again, I I think,
00:51:02
you know, just in reading it and the
00:51:03
discussions I had, I I think they were,
00:51:05
you know, they're kinda happy to deal with
00:51:07
it, whatever in any way we deem appropriate,
00:51:10
and, know, I kind of, through my discussions,
00:51:14
wanted to give some more guidance on this.
00:51:18
Just in thinking about it and getting that
00:51:20
briefing, think it's probably not the appropriate route.
00:51:23
They know the different avenues they have to
00:51:26
possibly address this. But I wanted to make
00:51:29
sure it got on the agenda so we
00:51:30
could at least speak to these insurance costs
00:51:33
and what the true reality that these companies
00:51:35
are dealing with. And I know that we
00:51:38
have kind of some boilerplate ways of addressing
00:51:42
you know, situations like this, but I would
00:51:45
think we would be open, you know, to
00:51:47
considering, you know, maybe a different way of
00:51:50
addressing it, and maybe a combination of a
00:51:52
hybrid type combination potentially. So, anyway, I would
00:51:56
encourage them because they're closest to it and
00:51:59
because, you know, we don't necessarily know if
00:52:01
this is something that is, you know, a
00:52:03
short term or a longer term issue for
00:52:07
them to kinda come back to us with
00:52:08
what they think might be the best relief.
00:52:11
And you Because we want them to continue,
00:52:12
excuse me, to be successful, but we also
00:52:15
have to be conscious of the ratepayer. Yeah,
00:52:20
and they laid out some options. Again, I
00:52:23
think that could be viable. Again, probably just
00:52:27
not appropriate for us to give prescriptive guidance,
00:52:31
also an issue that is front of mind
00:52:33
for some members of the legislature understanding that
00:52:37
this is an issue. You know, appreciate them
00:52:40
bringing this to our attention and understanding that
00:52:44
it is a real issue they have to
00:52:45
deal with and kind of leave it to
00:52:47
them to, you know, which avenue they think
Item 34 - Project No. 41210 - Information Related to the Southwest Power Pool Regional State Committee
00:52:49
is the most appropriate. Okay. So I think
00:52:55
that will bring us to Item No. 34.
00:52:58
That is Project No. 41210, information related to
00:53:03
the Southwest Power Pool region Regional State Committee.
00:53:07
And I think Commissioner Jackson has an update.
Item 34 - Commissioner Jackson's update
00:53:08
Thank you, mister Chairman. I did attend the
00:53:11
inaugural SPP energy synergy summit in Dallas last
00:53:16
week. This was my first official assignment as
00:53:18
the Texas delegate to SPP. I served on
00:53:21
a panel with chair Kim David with the
00:53:24
Oklahoma Commission and chair Kayla Hahn with the
00:53:27
Missouri Commission. The panel was moderated by one
00:53:30
of SPP's board members, Stuart Solomon. We had
00:53:33
a good discussion about affordability, consumer impacts, and
00:53:38
the impacts of large loads while ensuring reliability.
00:53:41
I also attended the resource and energy adequacy
00:53:45
leadership team, the real team, which was the
00:53:48
brainchild of one of our former Commissioners. It
00:53:52
was it was a great experience for me
00:53:54
to hear from and meet the stakeholders and
00:53:56
industry leaders in the SPP region and to
00:53:59
hear firsthand that the load growth we're experiencing
00:54:02
in Texas is also happening across the nation
00:54:05
and in SPP's footprint. Many of the challenges
00:54:09
that we're facing here in Texas, other states
00:54:11
are facing too, as well as new opportunities
00:54:14
with regard to resource adequacy, load and generation
00:54:17
interconnection, and grid modernization. So the next regional
00:54:21
state committee meeting will be in early May,
00:54:24
and I'm looking forward to attending. Thank you,
00:54:28
Kathleen, and thank you again for stepping up
00:54:30
and being willing to take over kind of
00:54:32
lead on issues in SPP. Commissioner Gelman, any
00:54:35
questions? No. Alright. So item 38 was on
Item 41 - Discussion and possible action regarding agency review by Sunset Advisory Commission,operating budget, strategic plan, appropriations request, project assignments, correspondence...
00:54:40
the consent agenda, so that'll bring us to
00:54:42
Item No. 41. That is an update from
Item 41 - Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros' update
00:54:45
our Commission counsel. Shelah? Yes. I have two
00:54:49
updates, that'll be of interest to stakeholders. First
00:54:55
one is that we currently have an open
00:54:57
meeting scheduled for Thursday, June. And after discussion
00:55:02
with the Commissioners and our executive director, the
00:55:07
decision was made to move that meeting to
00:55:09
Friday, June 20. So just one day later,
00:55:13
we will make sure that the website is
00:55:15
updated. That'll be the next step. The other
00:55:19
just a quick housekeeping item I have and
00:55:23
we recently became aware that OPDM has been
00:55:26
in the practice for quite a while at
00:55:28
providing service lists when parties call to request
00:55:31
a service list. And I think this made
00:55:33
sense a couple of decades ago when we
00:55:35
were a smaller Commission and had before we
00:55:37
had water, but a variety of things have
00:55:39
come up and we are no longer going
00:55:41
to be able to provide courtesy copies of
00:55:43
the service list. However, all the information that
00:55:46
we have in our service list is all
00:55:47
publicly available in AIS or available to the
00:55:50
parties. So this is absolutely information that the
00:55:53
parties can use to create and maintain their
00:55:55
own service list. And we'll be implementing that
00:55:57
very, very soon this next week really. So
00:55:59
just an update for any parties that routinely
00:56:02
request that. We'll have a response ready to
00:56:04
go, but just wanted to give you that
00:56:06
update. Thank you for that, Shelah. Questions for
00:56:09
Shelah? I just want say good catch on
00:56:12
the June 19 open meeting and moving that
00:56:14
in recognition of Juneteenth Emancipation Day. I think
00:56:17
it's appropriate. And, you know, hopefully next time
00:56:20
we can catch that on the front end.
00:56:22
That's kind of on me to have caught
00:56:24
that. So I'm glad that staff was able
00:56:27
to catch that and we can move that
00:56:28
meeting. Thanks to everyone up here for being
Item 44 - Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting
00:56:30
amenable to that. Okay, so that brings us
00:56:33
to the end of our agenda. With there
00:56:35
being no further business before us, this meeting
00:56:37
of the Public Utility Commission of Texas is
00:56:39
hereby adjourned.

Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order

Starts at 00:00:09

44 - Adjournment for closed session to consider one or more of the following items...

Starts at 00:00:36

44 - Chairman Gleeson concludes Closed Session, Public Meeting resumed

Starts at 00:01:07

Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda

Starts at 00:01:39

Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda

Starts at 00:02:22

1 - Public comment for matters that are under the Commission’s jurisdiction but not specifically posted on this agenda

Starts at 00:02:32

1 - Joe Gimenez - Former President Windermere Oaks WSC

Starts at 00:02:47

4 - Docket No. 54617; Application of Texas Water Utilities, L.P...

Starts at 00:07:13

4 - Chairman Gleeson lays out his memo

Starts at 00:07:42

4 - Motion to grant rehearing or remand proceeding to Docket Management

Starts at 00:08:25

5 - Docket No. 55808 – Petition of MM Terrell 1098, LLC to Amend Rose Hill Special Utility...

Starts at 00:08:44

5 - Motion to extend time to act on motion for rehearing to max amount

Starts at 00:09:15

6 - Docket No. 56171 – Petition for an Emergency Order Appointing a Temporary Manager...

Starts at 00:09:30

6 - Motion to affirm emergency order filed by Exec. Director

Starts at 00:09:58

9 - Docket No. 56974 – Application of SJWTX, Inc. dba the Texas Water Company to Amend Its System Improvement Charges

Starts at 00:10:15

9 - Chairman & Commissioner's thoughts on the application

Starts at 00:10:30

9 - Motion to reject proposal for decision

Starts at 00:12:16

12 - Docket No. 57386 – Application of CSWR-Texas Utility Operating Company, LLC for Authority to Change Rates

Starts at 00:12:38

12 - Chairman Gleeson lays out his memo

Starts at 00:12:53

12 - Motion to modify preliminary order

Starts at 00:14:56

16 - Docket No. 56211; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-13232 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC for Authority to Change Rates

Starts at 00:15:19

16 - Motion to approve revised proposed order

Starts at 00:16:22

17 - Docket No. 56440 – Application of New Braunfels Utilities to Change Transmission Cost of Service and Wholesale Transmission Rates

Starts at 00:16:40

17 - Motion to deny motion for rehearing

Starts at 00:17:10

19 - Docket No. 56954; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-25125 – Application of Texas-New Mexico Power Company for Approval of a System Resiliency Plan

Starts at 00:17:28

19 - Commissioner Hjaltman's thoughts on application

Starts at 00:17:59

19 - Commissioner Jackson's thoughts on application

Starts at 00:20:11

19 - Shelah Cisneros' clarifying question to Commissioner Jackson

Starts at 00:24:01

19 - Motion to modify proposed order

Starts at 00:24:38

21 - Docket No. 57160 – Complaint of Frank Chou Against CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC

Starts at 00:25:14

21 - Patrick Peters - Associate General Counsel - CenterPoint Energy

Starts at 00:26:28

21 - Glen Imes - Attorney - Commission Staff

Starts at 00:28:41

21 - Frank Chou - Texas Farmer

Starts at 00:30:29

30 - Project No. 56896 – Texas Energy Fund In-ERCOT Loan Program Reports and Filings

Starts at 00:44:39

30 - Laurie Hobbs - Commission Staff - Recommendation of 2 applications

Starts at 00:44:58

30 - Barksdale English - Deputy Exec. Director - Percentage of groups in portfolio

Starts at 00:48:10

30 - Motion to approve 2 projects selected by Staff

Starts at 00:49:01

31 - Project No. 57774 – Electric Utility Correspondence on Insurance Premiums

Starts at 00:49:19

31 - Chairman Gleeson's thoughts on insurance premiums

Starts at 00:49:40

34 - Project No. 41210 - Information Related to the Southwest Power Pool Regional State Committee

Starts at 00:52:49

34 - Commissioner Jackson's update

Starts at 00:53:08

41 - Discussion and possible action regarding agency review by Sunset Advisory Commission,operating budget, strategic plan, appropriations request, project

Starts at 00:54:40

41 - Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros' update

Starts at 00:54:45

44 - Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting

Starts at 00:56:30

Commissioner Memos

Control	Item	Filing Date	Party	Description
54617	158	March 12, 2025	CHAIRMAN GLEESON	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
56211	516	March 12, 2025	CHAIRMAN GLEESON	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
57386	1765	March 12, 2025	CHAIRMAN GLEESON	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM