03/13/2025 09:30 AM
Video Player is loading.
Advertisement
Current Time 49:40
Duration 56:41
Loaded: 87.71%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 7:01
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • 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
    EditCreate clip
  • 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

ControlItemFiling DatePartyDescriptionAction
54617158March 12, 2025CHAIRMAN GLEESONCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
56211516March 12, 2025CHAIRMAN GLEESONCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
573861765March 12, 2025CHAIRMAN GLEESONCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM

Help Desk