Geoffrey Gay receives Glink Private Practice Local Government Attorney Award

CHICAGO -- In a ceremony held September 13 at the Chicago Hilton in Chicago, Illinois, the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA) awarded the Marvin J. Glink Private Practice Local Government Attorney Award at the 76th Annual Conference to Geoffrey Gay of Austin, Texas.


Award recipient Geoffrey Gay

This award was established to honor the memory of a longtime IMLA member, Marvin J. Glink. It recognizes a private practitioner who, as part of a private practice, represents a local government and who exhibits those qualities that made Marvin Glink one of the truly remarkable lawyers working on behalf of public clients. In addition to the traditional qualities of excellence in the practice of law, the award seeks to recognize a practitioner who has provided outstanding service to the public, and who possesses an exemplary reputation in the legal community, the highest of ethical standards, and who is devoted to mentoring young lawyers and educating lawyers in local government law.

Geoffrey is the Principal and Chair of the Energy and Utility Practice Group for Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle and Townsend. He is an active local government practitioner and serves as the General Counsel for the Texas Coalition for Affordable Power, the Atmos Cities Steering Committee and the Oncor Cities Steering Committee. His nominator stated, “Geoff is an unbelievably effective negotiator and creative strategist. His efforts have saved Texas cities millions of dollars annually. In addition, Geoff and his firm go the extra mile to provide the assistance necessary to help city officials become more persuasive advocates for the interests of cities and the public.”

Founded in 1935, the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization consisting of approximately 3000 local governments and attorneys throughout the United States and Canada. IMLA provides a wide range of services and programs to its membership, including comprehensive educational programs, legal research, professional publications and legal advocacy on behalf of its members in the United States Supreme Court, as well as federal and state appellate courts.

Independent Market Monitor Issues 2010 State Of The Market Report

In August, the Independent Market Monitor (“IMM”) – a position intended to be a wholesale market watchdog and created by law in 2005 – issued its annual State of the Market Report for 2010. This year’s report was unusual in that it addressed the final year of operations under the old, zonal market design. Thus, the report highlighted inefficiencies and other issues with that market design that will not recur in future years, since in late 2010 the market transitioned to a nodal system.

The 2010 State of the Market Report contains comparative
 data on wholesale market prices for each of ERCOT's four
zones, and ERCOT as a whole. As this table illustrates, prices
increased in all zones from 2009 to 2010. Note the extraordinary
prices of 2008 -- they resulted from very high natural gas prices
and congestion on the grid, resulting in especially high prices
in the North, South, and Houston zones.

However, the report is notable for its conclusion that wholesale energy prices increased on average in 2010, going from $34.03 per MWh in 2009 to $39.40 per MWh on a load-weighted average basis. The report attributes a 16% increase in natural gas prices for much of this increase.

Despite this general price increase, the IMM again argues that wholesale prices in ERCOT are too low, and have been sufficient to support new investment in power plants in only one the last four years. That year was 2008, a year in which, as the report admits, ERCOT suffered from high prices resulting from inefficient congestion management between the North, South, and Houston zones. The experience of that summer, in which prices neared $4,000 per MWh at times and caused the default of a number of Retail Electric Providers (“REPs”) should in no way be viewed as any kind of “success” for the market.

Additionally, the report again concludes that the ERCOT wholesale market performed competitively in 2010, with no evidence that generators were withholding power or engaging in similar manipulative behavior.

-- Chris Brewster

Fed Report: ERCOT Could Use More Authority to Protect Against Blackouts

A joint federal report is the latest to examine
the February rolling outages in Texas.

Although previously rare in Texas, rolling blackouts have now occurred twice since the state deregulated its electricity markets. The most recent outage occurred on Feb. 2, when 1.3 million customers suddenly lost power. Not surprisingly, questions have been raised.

For instance, why did so many of the state’s power plants fail? During the most difficult point of the crisis, approximately one-third of the total generating fleet within ERCOT was unavailable. And did the blackouts expose problems in the wholesale energy market, where prices spiked dramatically?

A new report by the combined staff of two federal organizations attempts to answer some of those questions, while also making recommendations for reform. Released in August, the report finds no evidence of market manipulation during the blackouts and concluded that gas curtailments played little if any role. But the federal staffers also found that the ERCOT organization could use additional tools to protect against blackouts.

The organizations behind the two-inch-thick document are the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation — FERC and NERC for short. Their report joins other expert examinations of the February blackouts, including those from the Texas independent market monitor, from a federal grid reliability organization, and from a private consultant from Oregon.

Among the key findings of the latest report:

•  By communicating with generators and requesting them to come online earlier, ERCOT could have more promptly exposed mechanical issues experienced by generators. This could have prevented some of the failures.
• The typical design of generating facilities in the southwestern United States may have contributed to large number of units shutting down. Unlike generation facilities in the colder climates, southern generating units were built so that many of their auxiliary systems are exposed to the ambient air. Frozen sensing lines, frozen equipment, frozen water lines, frozen valves, blade icing, low temperature limits, and transmission loss caused the loss of 22,805 MW of generation.
• Although natural gas is an important fuel source for the state’s fleet of electric generators, natural gas curtailments did not appear to play a major role in the outages.
• FERC and NERC found no evidence of market manipulation during the event. This conclusion was similar to earlier findings by the state’s independent market monitor.

FERC and NERC also issued recommendations:

• ERCOT should consider rule revisions to allow it to reject scheduled outages by generating units.
• ERCOT should increase its extreme-weather requirements for generation reserves. ERCOT also should have the ability to direct generating units to initiate operational warming prior to forecasted cold weather.
• ERCOT should have the ability to verify a generators’ preparedness for cold weather, including the units’ operating limits and potential fuel needs.
• Generators should take steps to ensure they are prepared for severe cold weather events, including designing temperature parameters for existing units, using heat tracing equipment to inspect the units, and maintaining the unit’s thermal insulation. States in the Southwest should examine whether they need rules to compel generators to submit winterization plans.
• State legislatures should adopt minimum uniform standards for the winterization of natural gas production and processing facilities. Regulatory authorities also should determine whether critical natural gas facilities should be exempted from rolling blackouts.

The NERC and FERC staff compiled their data by conducting site visits with various entities involved in the outages. Staffers also toured facilities and conducted interviews with operations personnel and company executives. You can read their report here.

-- Daniel Gonzales and R.A. Dyer

Mothballed Plants to Ease Blackout Worries

ERCOT is taking steps to help gaurd against blackouts during the ongoing heat wave.Responding to record high electricity demand and the scorching heat, the state’s grid operator this week arranged for four mothballed generating units to temporarily come back online to guard against blackouts.

Operated by NRG Energy and Garland Power & Light, the old gas-fired units will be available through October. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the organization that manages the grid, said the gas plant operators will be paid to defray their fixed costs and fuel expenses.

“We don’t know if, or how much, these units will be needed, but if needed, the cost will be minor when divided by the 23 million consumers in the region and when compared to the much higher costs and problems from statewide rolling blackouts which these units will help avoid,” said ERCOT CEO Trip Doggett.

PUC Chairman Nelson has called for ERCOT to consider all options to protect grid reliability.Besides improving reliability, the move also could ease pressure in the state’s wholesale spot market for energy, where prices have spiked during the heat wave to $3,000 per megawatt/hour. That equates to about $30 per kilowatt/hour — or more than 600 times the lowest electric rates in the state’s retail market.

Spot market prices do not directly impact home utility bills but can indirectly impact them over time. Doggett said the NRG and Garland units will not displace operational units already bidding into the spot market. Nonetheless, it’s likely the added capacity will ease pricing pressure, especially as other units go down for unplanned maintenance.

In a letter last week, PUC Chairman Donna Nelson called upon ERCOT to take action to reduce the possibility of blackouts. “Look at all available options,” she wrote.

Ray Schwertner, Garland Power & Electric’s Utility Director, said his organization stood ready to help. “As a member of ERCOT, we want to be responsive to their needs, as well as the needs of the citizens of Texas,” he said.

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.