Call for Emergency Disconnection Rules

State Rep. Sylvester Turner has called upon Texas regulators to adopt emergency rules that would protect electric customers against disconnections during the dog days of summer.

In a petition filed before the Texas Public Utility Commission, the Houston lawmaker has proposed a ban on electricity disconnections in any area in which the heat index is forecast to hit 105 degrees Fahrenheit or higher.

The move comes just as Texas cities begin to wilt under sweltering high temperatures. In Houston, for example, the high was 101 degrees on Wednesday – but with 40 percent relative humidity. According to a National Weather Service table, that would place the heat index in the Bayou City at between 109 and 114 degrees.

The petition calls upon the PUC to set up rules that would require electric companies to keep the power flowing during the hottest months, but also to set up payment plans for customers who fall behind on their bills. The proposed rules are modeled on legislation that Turner and others unsuccessfully attempted to pass during the 81st Legislative Session, which ended June 1.

“Summer is here and record temperatures are being set across the State -- we can not afford to take this dire situation lightly,” said Rep. Turner. “That is why I filed the petition so quickly and that is why I strongly urge the Commissioners at the PUC to set an emergency meeting and take up the issue immediately.”

AARP Texas and several other consumer groups have joined the petition. “While AARP continues to urge the Texas Legislature to fix the problem permanently, we ask the PUC to do the responsible thing and protect the lives and health of many citizens who are at increased risk this summer,” said AARP state director Bob Jackson.

The PUC likely will consider Turner’s petition during its July 2nd meeting.

-- R.A. Dyer

CREZ, Community and Rights of Way

The preservation of community values, recreational areas, and the environment are just three of the factors that the Texas Public Utility Commission must consider as it adopts routing plans for the hundreds of miles of new transmission lines going up in West Texas and the Panhandle.

The lines themselves will be massive: they're the 345 KV variety with poles that stand over 115 feet tall and right of way that can extend 150-180 feet. The lines could end up cutting through ranch land, residential subdivisions and city property. They're contemplated for numerous areas around West Texas, Central Texas and North Texas -- including areas around Killeen, Kempner, Holliday, Sweetwater, Roscoe and Snyder.

It's all part of the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone process that calls for $5-6 billion in new transmission investment to encourage wind energy development. When complete, the CREZ lines will substantially increase transmission connections to parts of the state where the wind blows the heaviest.

But the process is complicated and it's important to know your rights. First the Commission must decide on specific routes, including the designation of priority projects. Transmission service providers like Oncor must also conduct routing studies and conduct public meetings in affected areas. Local residents concerned about the new lines can inquire about the public meetings and can also intervene at the Public Utility Commission.

According to PUC rules, "the line shall be routed to the extent reasonable to moderate the impact on the affected community and landowners unless grid reliability and security dictate otherwise." The PUC must consider historical and aesthetic values, environmental integrity and whether the routes parallel existing compatible rights-of-way.

Some information can be found at the PUC website, under Docket No. 36801. A word of warning: this stuff can be complicated.


-- Lambeth Townsend

Oncor's White Elephant

“Bagging a white elephant” -- that’s how the Dallas Morning News characterized moves by Oncor to purchase nearly 900,000 automated meters now considered to be obsolete because they fail to meet state guidelines.

In his June 5th front page article, reporter Steve McGonigle chronicled how Oncor wants its customers to pay $93 million for the meters – even though most of the company’s customers never received them. He also notes that experts advising the Texas Public Utility Commission have found that much of the company's expenditures in this regard were imprudent.

“These costs should be borne by Oncor, not by ratepayers,” PUC staff attorney Patrick Peters III asserted in a document obtained by the Morning News.

Oncor’s request for more money for obsolete meters comes on top of the $2.21 monthly surcharge the company recently began collecting for hundreds of thousands of separate advanced meters. These new meters became necessary when it became clear that the first generation meters did not meet state guidelines.

The newspaper also quoted local resident Joel Morgan, a disabled auto parts salesman from Rockwall, who said in a letter to the Public Utility Commission that he and his wife have no interest in paying for automated meters – obsolete or not.

“Please keep us in mind when these BIG BOYS with the DEEP POCKETS come to you asking for permission to stick it to us again and again and again,” he wrote

KHOU-TV: Houstonians Paying Too Much for Power?

More than $1 billion -- that's how much Houstonians pay in excess electricity costs each year under deregulation, according to a recent segment on KHOU-TV in Houston. Reporter Dave Fehling noted that residents in San Antonio and Austin -- two cities that remain outside deregulation -- pay far less for electricity.

How much less? According to the analysis in Fehling's report, electricity that sells for $102 in San Antonio and Austin goes for about $159 in Houston. Do the math and that equals $1.2 billion in extra costs for Houstonians every year, according to the report.

"These people make a profit off the citizens of Houston by doing nothing," Houston homeowner Patsy Young told the reporter, referencing the high cost of electricity in her city because of flaws in the deregulated system.

The KHOU-TV report also noted that proposed opt-out aggregation programs offered the promise of savings, but that they have been opposed by the electric industry. Under opt-out aggregation, cities could purchase electricity in bulk on behalf of their citizens.

You can see the KHOU-TV report here.
-- R.A. Dyer

Complaint Against Your Retail Electric Provider or Wires Company? Two Pitfalls to Avoid

Many problems can arise between a consumer and his Retail Electric Provider, or between the consumer and the local wires company. In recent years, consumers have filed complaints at the Public Utility Commission alleging a variety of REP or utility misconduct, including overbilling, bad meter reads, changing the price during what is supposed to be a fixed-price contract, and withholding billing information from the consumer. Depending on the circumstances of each dispute, a complaint at the PUC can be an effective way to address these sorts of problems. However, many PUC complaints fall prey to two errors at the very beginning, both of which can derail the case and prolong it while the consumer remedies them.

Possible Pitfall #1: Not presenting your complaint to the city in which you reside. If your complaint is at least in part against your local wires company (as in the case of incorrect meter reads), you may be required to file a complaint with your city before pursuing PUC action.

Possible Pitfall #2: Not presenting your complaint to PUC staff for informal resolution. Complaints are often required to go through the PUC's informal process before the customer may file a formal complaint. If the customer files a formal complaint without using the informal process first, the PUC's Staff may object.

Closely following the required procedures is key to the PUC's complaint process. Avoiding these two initial pitfalls can help smooth the way for your complaint and present your case in the best possible light.

-- Chris Brewster

Surcharges, Surcharges and more Surcharges

There’s been plenty of extra costs and surcharges loaded onto consumer electric bills as the result of various legislative actions. Here’s a partial list of bills adopted during the last several sessions – and the potential impact on Texas electric ratepayers.


* Senate Bill 20, adopted during special session in 2005, mandated the creation of Competitive Renewable Energy Zones to mark the site of future transmission lines to serve wind generators. The cost of new construction from this legislation could amount to at least $5 billion to $8 billion, according to recent estimates. That amounts to between $227 and $363 per customer served by ERCOT.

* House Bill 2129, also adopted in 2005, opened the door to "advanced meter surcharges." Monthly surcharges ordered this year under that bill will increase bills by $2.21 per residential customer served by Oncor, and by $3.05-$3.24 for customers of CenterPoint. Those charges will last for 11 years. That’s a total cost to residential ratepayers of $961.5 million for CenterPoint, and $1 billion for Oncor.

* Senate Bill 769, adopted earlier during the current legislative session, will increase bills for typical CenterPoint customers to between $2.50 to $3 per month for the next 11 to 14 years. In the case of Entergy customers (in the Galveston area), it would increase bills by an estimated $5.25 per month for the next 15 years. That’s a total of $677.8 million for CenterPoint and $577 million for Entergy. Gov. Perry signed the bill April 16. It was touted as a Hurricane Ike recovery bill, although it leaves the door open to more surcharges for future weather events throughout Texas.

* Senate Bill No. 541, which remains pending in the current session, mandates the installation of 1,500 megawatts of non-wind renewable generation. The Texas Association of Manufacturers estimates that this legislation could increase consumer bills by between $2 and $3 per month.

*Senate Bill 545, which remains pending in the current session, provides for the creation of a distributive and wholesale solar generation incentive program. Toward that end, it also authorizes the establishment of a new nonbypassable fee -- although the amount of that fee has not yet been determined.

* The ongoing creation of the nodal market at ERCOT will likely lead to higher prices every month for consumers in many areas of Texas. The implementation alone costs about $640 million -- or about $30 per every Texan served by ERCOT.

-- R.A. Dyer

Dallas Morning News: Adopt CSSB 1772

The “last, best hope” for those who care about electricity prices. That’s how The Dallas Morning News described Senate Bill 1772 in an editorial May 22. The newspaper urged House lawmakers to quickly take up the bill and vote it out before time runs out on the 81st Texas Legislature.

“A chance remains to discourage market manipulation by passing CSSB 1772,” the newspaper opined. “The proposal comes just months after a Public Utility Commission decision to let the company formerly known as TXU off relatively easy for manipulating the wholesale power market. The legislation would take a tougher approach and would allow the PUC to order that refunds be given to affected parties.”

In late 2008 Luminant – formerly TXU – paid a $15 million penalty for alleged abuses in the wholesale market. The PUC had originally recommended penalties of more than $200 million, and the PUC’s own investigation found evidence that the company had profited by nearly $20 million.

Regulators also found that the company’s improper actions had cost market players at least $57 million, although the PUC said it was powerless to order refunds. CSSB 1772 would specify the PUC can order refunds in such cases, and thereby add another disincentive against improper market manipulation. The bill was recently voted out of the House State Affairs committee and awaits action by the full House.

The session ends June 1.

-- R.A. Dyer