PUC punts on rule opposed by consumers

One-way Ratemaking would lead to One-Way Rate Hikes

The Texas Public Utility Commission has pressed the pause button on new rules that would have made it much easier for electric utilities to hike rates.

A favorite of utility lobbyists, the proposed rules would have opened the door to quick hikes associated with the poles and wires that connect the transmission system to individual homes and businesses. Consumer groups have been united in their opposition.

Some Commission watchers had predicted the rules would get the go-ahead this month. But then in an unexpected change of course, the Commissioners on Dec. 16th instead indicated they would wait for direction from the Texas Legislature, which convenes in January.



Commissioner Anderson

In explaining the decision, Public Utility Commissioner Kenneth Anderson said he had talked with several legislators who indicated they “wanted to take a crack” at considering the rule. “We should set this aside until June, to give the Legislature time to look at it,” he said.

Numerous interested parties — including the office of the Texas Attorney General — have argued at the PUC that the agency lacks the statutory authority to enact the rules. And while Commission Anderson stated he had not heard much opposition, multiple consumer groups nonetheless have warned that the rules would lead to rate hikes — even during periods when electric utilities don’t need extra money because overall profits are on the rise, or when the utilities’ overall expenditures are going down.

The rules are technically known as the “Distribution Cost Recovery Factor” (or “DCRF”) rules, although the electric utility industry euphemistically refers to them as “streamlined” ratemaking. Consumers call it “one-way” ratemaking because under the rules, rate adjustments likely will flow only in one direction: up.

Consumers also note that the alleged benefits of the regulatory gimmick have never been demonstrated. For instance the office of the Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has sided with Texas consumers in the case, notes in a regulatory filing that advocates of the rule have failed to produce any analysis showing it creates litigation savings.

-- R.A. Dyer

Will the the state's $640 million electricity market overhaul bankrupt businesses?

Will some electric providers go belly-up after ERCOT switches over to a complicated new system in December? It’s a possibility says Austin-based energy expert Chris Brewster.

Speaking this week during the Gulf Coast Power Association’s fall conference, Brewster, a principal at the Lloyd Gosselink law firm, noted that some retail electric providers may have a difficult time managing around the risks of the new market design known as “nodal.” The new system, which will dramatically change how the state’s wholesale electricity spot market operates, goes live on December 1.

Chris Brewster

If some REPs don’t default outright, they may attempt to push unexpected costs down onto their customers, said Brewster. He predicted the reaction to the new nodal system may be similar to what occurred in 2008, when several mismanaged REPs attempted to pass unexpected transmission costs onto customers even though they had fixed-rate contracts. Brewster noted that several components of the new nodal system, including the so called “day-ahead market,” do not have analogous counterparts under the state’s current zonal system.

Brewster represents consumer interests at ERCOT, also known as the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. The organization plays a key role in the Texas electricity market, as it has responsibility both for managing congestion on transmission lines and for overseeing some wholesale power transactions.

With the new nodal system, ERCOT will change how it performs both functions. Under the existing system, ERCOT oversees the electricity market it in four broad zones of the state. With the new nodal system, ERCOT will manage it at thousands of separate geographical points, or nodes.

Although supported by large generation companies, independent reports have shown that nodal systems in other states have not lowered electricity prices or eliminated the manipulation of electricity markets. Moreover, the nodal transition in Texas is years behind schedule and so far over budget that it will cost more than twice as much as a similar system in California. It's now budgetted to cost around $640 million, after initial cost estimates of less than $100 million.

You can read more details of Brewster’s comments in an article by Elizabeth Souder, of the Dallas Morning News.

-- R.A. Dyer

Over-budget Nodal System In the News

In December Texas is expected to shift over from its already complicated system for managing the wholesale electricity market to one that’s even more complicated. If the new system works the way it’s supposed to work, computers will spit out distinct prices for wholesale energy sold at thousands of separate locations all across the state. These prices eventually will trickle down into home electric bills.

When this new “nodal” system for managing the electric grid goes live, it will be one of the most expensive and complex of its kind ever created in America.

Copelin

What’s unclear, however, is whether consumers will ever benefit.

Two of the state's largest daily newspapers explore that question and others in articles over the Labor Day weekend about the proposed nodal system. The articles outline the troubling implementation delays, the cost overruns and the lax oversight.

Patel

Industry supporters say the new system will bring new efficiencies to the wholesale electricity market. But Geoffrey Gay, a Lloyd Gosselink attorney who represents cities in utility issues, told the Austin American-Statesman it also could open the door to a new sort of market manipulation. "The guys who can deal with the complexity are not you and me . … It's companies with computer models,” Gay told Statesman reporter Laylan Copelin.

Another troubling issue is the price tag. When first proposed, the nodal system was supposed cost less than $100 million. But as Purva Patel of the Houston Chronicle notes, it’s now expected to exceed $500 million. Texas consumers will end up footing that bill.

Eventful Week for the Power Grid: nuke shutdown, price spikes, new usage record

The South Texas Project: "human error" apparently caused the partial shutdown of the nuclear reactor on Friday.

It’s been an eventful few days for the Texas power grid. Since last week, prices have spiked in the wholesale electricity market, one of the units of a major nuclear plant tripped off due to “human error,” and Texans broke another record for energy usage. Given the comparatively high electric prices already paid by Texans and concerns over continuing problems with the deregulated market, the developments merit examination.

Here they are, in no particular order:

*On Monday, wholesale electricity that more typically sells for less than $30 per megawatt-hour spiked to more than $2,000. That’s an increase of more than 7,000 percent. Prices also spiked several times to the $1,000 level. A price spike for $2,200 is especially startling, given that the regulatory cap is set at $2,250. That is, the wholesale prices legally could not have gone much higher. In most other jurisdictions the caps are set no higher than $1,000 per megawatt hour.

*According to the organization that manages the power grid, the Electric Reliabiilty Council of Texas, a new record for statewide power use was set on Monday. It was the fourth new usage record in as many weeks. ERCOT reported that the new record was broken at about 4 p.m., when demand spiked to 65,715 megawatts. The usage spike came just as the spot market price was spiking to $2,200 — probably not a coincidence.

*Unit 1 of the South Texas Project apparently tripped off on Friday. The event, first reported in a trade journal SNL Power Daily, was apparently caused by human error. “The NRC said in its Aug. 23 event report that the unit experienced an automatic reactor trip that was caused by an inadvertent turbine signal initiated during testing,” reported SNL's Jay Hodgkins, citing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The publication reported that power was restored by Monday. It’s unclear whether the outage contributed to the price spikes, although that seems likely.

*In response to the loss of a major unit on Friday, ERCOT activated the first stage of its emergency response procedure to prevent blackouts. That means that some industrial consumers that previously agreed to have interruptible service lost their power. It was the third time this year that ERCOT has gone to that stage of its emergency response procedures. The major unit that went down was probably the nuke (as referenced in the SNL Energy article) although ERCOT won’t say for sure. That's because such a disclosure would violate ERCOT's rules for competitive information.

The developments are unsettling, especially given that wholesale prices tend to trickle down to residential consumers. A dysfunctional wholesale market can lead to higher home lighting bills. Already Texans pay more than consumers in Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. Prices also remain higher than the national average. Prior to deregulation, Texans paid below the national average.

-- R.A. Dyer

Of debt and ring-fencing: EFH in Default

Souder

This just in: The Dallas Morning News reports that the debt rating for Oncor’s parent company, Energy Future Holdings, has been downgraded by all three debt rating agencies. Reporter Elizabeth Souder notes in a blog post that EFH has offered to exchange old notes maturing in 2017 for new notes maturing in 2020 — but that the company is paying debt holders less than 80 cents on the dollar.

“In response to these exchange offers, two agencies, Moody's and Standard and Poor's, downgraded the Company to default because EFH didn't pay the entire loans back,” explained Souder. “Both agencies said the default ratings are temporary. Another agency, Fitch Ratings, cut its rating to CCC from B-.”

You can find a link to her blog post here.

In response to the downgrades, Oncor issued a press release “reiterating its separateness” from EFH’s shaky debt situation. EFH is the majority owner of Oncor, which is the regulated transmission and distribution company that serves the Dallas-Fort Worth area. It appears the press release was intended to dispel fears that EFH’s deteriorating financial situation could threaten Oncor and its ratepayers.

Under the terms of Energy Future Holdings’ 2007 buyout of TXU, there were legally binding “ring-fencing” agreements put in place that are intended to separate and protect Oncor’s ratepayers from the risk created by EFH’s massive debt. As a consequence, EFH’s debt cannot be transferred to Oncor, nor can Oncor have any obligation to support that debt, according to the press release. It also notes that Oncor and its assets are legally separate from EFH, and that EFH’s debt holders cannot initiate any bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, liquidation or any like proceeding against Oncor.

The situation merits close attention. Citing the massive amount of debt involved, consumer groups previously have questioned whether EFH’s buyout of the state’s largest electric company was in the public interest. Questions also have been raised about whether “holes” in the ring fence have led to higher-than-necessary rates for Oncor’s ratepayers.

You can check out a copy of the Oncor press release here.

PUC sets new energy efficiency rules

State programs intended to increase energy efficiency — but which also stand to increase consumer bills — will operate under new rules as a result of recent action by the Texas Public Utility Commission.

The PUC last year began the process of revamping its rules for its ongoing Energy Efficiency Implementation Program. Under this program, utilities are required to spend money to encourage energy efficiency at the consumer level. For instance, the program provides funding to encourage the marketing of energy-saving appliances. The rules also establish utility goals for reducing overall energy demand and utilities that meet or exceed their goals become eligible for performance bonuses. But the Energy Efficiency Implementation Program can end up increasing electricity bills because both the cost of administering the program and the cost of the bonuses are recoverable by the utility in rates passed on to the consumer.

Rule changes initially proposed by Commission staff and supported by utilities and environmental groups raised the energy efficiency goals dramatically, with a corresponding increase in the program cost cap and available bonuses. The Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor, a coalition of municipalities represented by the Lloyd Gosselink law firm, urged the Commission to consider the cost effectiveness of those proposed changes — and the PUC commissioners echoed those concerns.

The rules ultimately adopted by the PUC commissioners on July 30 attempt to strike a balance between the interest of promoting energy efficiency and the interests of ratepayers. For instance, the Commission agreed that the proposed goals will be raised in the future, although they will be raised at a much lower rate than originally proposed. The performance bonus also will remain at current levels, although the administrative cost cap has been raised to account for the raised goals.

Additionally, the Commission imposed a cost cap for both residential and non-residential customers. For the 2011 and 2012 program years the cost cap will be $1.30 per month for residential customers, or .0001 cents per kilowatt/hour — whichever is higher. The cap increases again in 2013. The Commission also instituted cost protections relating to the method by which the cost cap and the bonuses are calculated. For example, under the new rules the cost of the bonuses are to be included in the cost cap for utilities.

The rules will go into effect December 1.

-- Eileen McPhee

Energy Efficiency at the PUC

Energy efficiency was the topic of the day at the Public Utility Commission during a workshop held in Austin on June 30. The agency is considering changes to the state’s energy efficiency program, which requires transmission and distribution utilities to provide customers with incentives to be more energy efficient.

Here’s a bit of background on the issue: the state’s transmission and distribution utilities do not administer energy efficiency programs for free, but rather are permitted to recover the costs from ratepayers. Additionally, utilities that exceed their demand reduction goals are eligible to receive a bonus. The bonuses awarded to utilities can range anywhere from $5 million to $10 million.

Oncor, a transmission and distribution utility, offered a presentation on the estimated cost of meeting the proposed demand reduction goals. Frontier Associates and Good Company, both consulting firms, gave presentations on the benefits of meeting demand reduction goals and the cost effectiveness of Texas’ energy efficiency program. Representatives from the State Energy Conservation Office and the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs reported on federal money being spent within the state on energy efficiency measures, such as weatherization. Finally, the Retail Electric Provider Coalition offered a presentation on the potential cost impact of the proposed amendments to consumers.

Written comments have been previously filed in this project and can be found here. The Commission is expected to make a decision on the rules in July or early August.

 -- Eileen McPhee