Meeting Summary – 10/24/25 Open Meeting

0 – Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order

• The meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas was called to order for October 24, 2024.
• Commissioner Cobos is absent due to her mother’s passing on October 19.
• Motion made to excuse Commissioner Cobos from the meeting was approved unanimously.
• Plan to follow the agenda order with a few exceptions for efficiency.
• Public Comment will be taken first, followed by oral arguments for CenterPoint CCN case and then Windermere.
• Anticipation of lengthy discussions for Windermere and other contested cases.
• No Closed Session for the meeting.

0.2 – Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda

• Commissioners’ recusal memos filed in Project No. 52761.
• Chairman Gleeson recused from Items 16 and 18.
• Commissioner Hjaltman recused from Items 6, 15 through 18, 21, 23, 24, and 27.
• Items placed on the consent agenda: 2-12, 16, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31-32, 34-36 and 58 were also added to the consent agenda by Commissioners’ vote.
• Chairman Gleeson entertained a motion to approve the consent items was passed without opposition.
• No public comments were made on the consent agenda items.

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

• Shelah confirmed there were 3 individuals signed up for Public Comment with 3 minute time limit.
• Individuals called up for comment: Alan Hicks, Scott Miller, and Deborah Fato.
• Speakers instructed to state their name for the court record.

1.1 – Alan Hicks – Member of Windermere Oaks WSC

• Alan Hicks introduced himself as a member of the Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation.
• His remarks were brief and focused on showing support.

1.2 – Scott Miller – Member of Windermere Oaks WSC

• Scott Miller is a board member of Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation, member since 2016.
• Discussed concerns about financial challenges due to PUC’s mandated rates.
• No chance for a rate increase for twelve months, leading towards potential insolvency in two months.
• PUC’s ordered rates result in a minimum loss of $10,000 per month.
• Expenses increased due to aging infrastructure, reaching an additional $20,000 to $45,000 monthly.
• Board prioritized maintaining water service over compliance docket due to resource constraints.
• Lack of funding provided to meet compliance requirements imposed by PUC.
• Communicated financial incapacity to PUC since May without receiving a response.

1.3 – Deborah Fato – Ratepayer Rep for Bear Creek SUD

• Deborah Fato is a ratepayer representative for Bear Creek Special Utility District (SUD) and is expressing dissatisfaction with previous resolutions regarding service fees and rates.
• She highlights a failure to enforce an order to lower service rates from $35 to $30.81, leading to continued overcharging and legal fees being imposed on ratepayers.
• Attempts to communicate grievances with authorities were unsuccessful, prompting advice to address the issue with the legislature.
• Since initiating rate concerns in 2017, Bear Creek SUD’s rates have increased multiple times, currently at $40.25 for the minimum monthly bill.
• She raises concerns about financial mismanagement and lack of accountability within Bear Creek SUD, including salary increases for the general manager and compensation for board meetings.
• Deborah intends to pursue legislative action to change state laws regarding automatic payment of attorney fees by ratepayers.
• She criticizes the PUC and ERCOT for inadequate governance of small rural water companies and emphasizes her commitment to advocating for ratepayer protection.

13 – Chairman Gleeson calls for recess of open meeting to convene Hearing for Docket No. 57065

• The hearing was convened to determine whether a temporary manager should be appointed for Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation.
• Commission Staff presented a petition for the appointment of a temporary manager.
• Merritt Lander represented Commission Staff, while Jeff Walker represented Windermere Oaks.
• Each party was agreed to a 1-hour limit for presenting their case.
• Some exhibits were admitted by both parties; prehearing conference notes were discussed.
• Miss Lander’s exclusion as a witness and the exclusion of Windermere’s exhibit two were addressed as evidence rulings.
• The potential replacement of witness Tammy Hargett by Hal Landon was discussed but initially opposed by Commission Staff.
• Windermere confronted financial issues, attributing difficulties to previous legal expenses and current operating costs.
• There were discussions around TCEQ violations and system capacity concerns that required improvement.
• Miss Lander called for a temporary manager due to Windermere’s repeated failures and alleged abandonment of responsibilities.
• Mr. Walker stated he is not opposed to appointing a temporary manager but desires protection for the corporation’s assets.
• Financial difficulties were highlighted, with discrepancies noted between reported revenue figures and Windermere’s financial statements.
• Windermere’s ability to comply with commission orders and provide documentation was questioned.
• The Commission asked multiple questions relating to financial management, asset management, and clarification of operational practices.

13.1 – Docket No. 57065 – Petition for an Order Appointing a Temporary Manager to Windermere Oaks Water Supply Corporation

• The Commission held a hearing and subsequently reconvened the regular open meeting to discuss the petition.
• Evidence and testimony were reviewed regarding the appointment of a temporary manager.
• Mr. Walker does not object to appointing a temporary manager.
• Considerations are necessary to ensure the order for appointing a temporary manager is accurate.
• Recommendation made to have OPDM provide briefing with bullet points before the November 14 open meeting.
• Plan to move forward based on the briefing in the November 14 open meeting.
• Confirmation of agreement from participants and no additional issues raised.

14 – Docket No. 55299 – Application of Syntrio Solutions, LLC for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity in Baylor, Clay, Childress, Cottle, Foard, Hall, Hardeman, Haskell, Knox, Motley, Stonewall, Throckman, Wichita, and Wilbarger Counties

• The applicant appealed Order No. 16.
• Chairman Gleeson filed a memo related to this docket.
• The Chairman mostly agrees with the ALJ but suggests reversing the decision to void the transaction.
• Other members agree with the Chairman’s memo and support not voiding the transaction.

14.1 –  Motion to grant in part & deny in part appeal of Order No. 16, 55299

• Motion was consistent with the memo presented and no opposition noted.

15 – Docket No. 54614; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-04312 – Statement of Intent and Application of El Paso Electric Company for Approval of Texas Electric Vehicle-Ready Pilot Programs and Tariffs

• SOAH PFD presented. Exceptions and replies to the PFD were filed.
• SOAH ALJ declined to make changes to the PFD.
• Commission Counsel memo filed recommending changes to the final order.
• Chairman Gleeson also filed a memo.
• Recommendation to adopt PFD with changes for clarification and implementation.

15.1 – Motion to modify PFD with changes from Chairman Gleeson & Commission Counsel’s memos and direct docket management to prepare an order, 54614

• Chairman Gleeson entertained a motion to modify the PFD with changes from his memo and Commission Counsel’s memo.
• The motion included directing docket management to prepare an order based on the memos.
• The motion was voted on and prevailed unanimously.

17 – Docket No. 55255; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-02691 – Application of Southwestern Public Service Company to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to Construct Generation Facilities in Lamb County, Texas and Lea County, New Mexico; for Good-Cause Exceptions; and for Relief

• The Commission order for this docket was filed on September 12.
• Motions for rehearing are present before the Commission.
• The Commission voted to include the motions for rehearing in the agenda to extend time.
• Recommendation was made to extend time on this docket.
• Support was expressed for extending the time.

17.1 – Motion to extend time to act on motions for rehearing to maximum time allowed by law, 55255

• A motion was made to extend time to act on motions for rehearing to the maximum time allowed by law.
• The motion passed with all in favor and no opposition.

18 – Docket No. 55338; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-07154 – Proceeding to Resolve Issues in Docket No. 53719 Related to Transportation and Electrification and Charging Infrastructure

• SOAH proposal for decision was reviewed.
• Exceptions and replies to the PFD were filed.
• SOAH ALJ declined to make changes to the PFD.
• A memo was filed recommending changes to the final order.
• Commissioner encouraged to include particular points in motions if in agreement.
• Commissioner Glotfelty filed a memo in this docket.

18.1 – Commissioner Glotfelty Lays Out His Memo, 55338

• Commissioner Glotfelty’s memo proposed the adoption of the PFD with modifications to align with Senate Bill 1002.
• Senate Bill 1002 facilitates public electric vehicle charging stations.
• Memo addresses the participation of non-ERCOT utilities in the EV charging role.
• Recommendation to order Entergy to amend their tariff to include specified restrictions.

18.2 – Motion to adopt PFD with modifications, 55338

• Motion to adopt the PFD with modifications per the memos was proposed. Motion approved with no opposition.
• Transition of speaking roles occurred among commissioners.
• Concluded the portion of contested cases, except for the Windermere case.
• Moved to the Rules and Projects portion of the meeting.

19 – Docket No. 55361; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-07156– Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC to Adjust Its System-Wide Reliability Standards

• A proposed order for the application was presented.
• No corrections or exceptions to the proposed order were filed.
• Chairman Gleeson filed a memo regarding the docket.
• Chairman expressed concerns that CenterPoint’s proposed changes are not appropriate.
• Recommendation to deny CenterPoint’s application was made by the Chairman.

19.1 – Commissioner’s thoughts on the Chairman’s memo, 55361

• The Commissioner suggested that with improved data systems, filings should be more granular.
• Recommend examining metrics like Satie and Safi in totality rather than on a utility-by-utility basis, potentially starting next year.
• Support was expressed for the Chairman’s memo and the notion that rulemaking should be considered for utility redefinitions.
• The discussion emphasized that this is a policy decision best suited for rulemaking to gather input from all utilities.
• Viewing reliability across the state holistically is considered an excellent idea.

19.2 – Motion to deny CenterPoint’s application, 55361

• A motion was made to deny CenterPoint’s application as outlined in a memo.
• The motion received a second and was approved.
• The motion to deny CenterPoint’s application prevailed unanimously.

20 – Docket No. 55768; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-06199 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed 138-kV Transmission Line in Harris and Montgomery Counties

• A SOAH PFD was presented. Exceptions and replies to the PFD were filed.
• SOAH ALJ declined to make changes to the PFD.
• Commission Counsel submitted a memo recommending changes to the final order.
• Oral argument was requested and granted by the Commission.
• Four parties intended to speak during the session.
• There was clarification that each party, not each individual, is allocated three minutes in total for speaking.

20.1 – Sam Elliott – Montgomery County resident – opposition to CenterPoint’s application, 55768

• CenterPoint’s application lacks a defined load center for their revisions.
• Numerous errors and gaps exist in CenterPoint’s application, even after amendments and erratas.
• The Governor has asked CenterPoint to maintain existing infrastructure, which they have not done according to provided evidence.
• Outages are caused by poor infrastructure maintenance, not load issues.
• CenterPoint owns property in the area that could be used instead of buying new property.
• Sworn testimonies have misconstrued the necessary space, as 5 acres is inadequate for the project’s needs.
• CenterPoint’s plans may lead to eminent domain issues and increased community expenses.
• Call to hold CenterPoint to a higher standard with a fully backed and error-free application.

20.2 – Rebecca Elliott – Montgomery County Resident – Opposition to Centerpoint’s Application, 55768

• Rebecca Elliott agrees with her husband’s opposition to CenterPoint’s application.
• Concerns were raised about the lack of reliable data and numerous errors in the application.
• Rebecca fears that the project may lead to imminent domain issues that haven’t been documented but are real.
• The project could potentially displace their autistic son, causing disruption to his routine.
• Rebecca offered to share copies of pictures she brought to support her stance.

20.3 – Mason McBee – Montgomery County resident – opposition to CenterPoint’s application, 55768

• Mason McBee, a resident of Segment P, speaks against CenterPoint’s application.
• Segment P is in a floodplain and wetland area, with almost 90% of it affected.
• Historical flooding during Hurricane Harvey and ongoing erosion are major concerns.
• The region is a natural habitat with abundant wildlife, including eagles.
• Concerns about budget not addressing erosion and water shedding issues properly.
• Criticism of the reasoning for route selection which harms the original community more than new developments.
• Mention of application process errors, skipped steps, and ignored alternatives.
• CenterPoint has not shown a demonstrated need or notified homeowners effectively in two years.
• Application has caused undue stress and burden on the community.
• McBee calls for denial of the application and urges due diligence to find a better solution.

20.4 – James Day – Montgomery County resident – opposition to CenterPoint’s application, 55768

• Main concern is the public safety risk posed by CenterPoint’s plan to install large towers and overhead wires along Hardin Store Road.
• Hardin Store Road is a narrow, two-lane asphalt road with no shoulders and experiences heavy traffic.
• Day worries that the installation will distract drivers, leading to potential head-on collisions.
• He wanted his concerns officially recorded but cut his comments short.

20.5 – Dylan King – Commission Staff – support for Route 2a, 55768

• Dylan King represented Commission Staff and supports Route 2A as outlined in PFD.
• The presentation was brief, acknowledging the Commissioners.

20.6 – Patrick Leahy – Baker Botts on behalf of CenterPoint – How transmission line would serve community, 55768

• Patrick Leahy presented on behalf of CenterPoint regarding the application for an amendment to construct a new 138 kilovolt transmission line in Montgomery and Harris County.
• The new line will serve a new distribution substation named Mill Creek to accommodate the area’s rapid growth.
• CenterPoint determined that current substations are maxed out and additional electric service is needed.
• The new transmission line is considered the best option for meeting the demand.
• Alternatives to the transmission line were found to be technically deficient and not cost-effective.
• The ALJ found CenterPoint met the burden of proof that the new transmission line is necessary.
• Refiling the application would unnecessarily delay the project, costing time and money without changing the likely outcome.
• CenterPoint addressed concerns in the PFD and provided adequate documentation and responses during the discovery process.
• A total of 395 discovery requests were made on CenterPoint’s applications, indicating thorough information sharing.
• Discussion included whether all errors were corrected in the application and if CenterPoint handled the application process independently.

20.7 – Commissioner Hjaltman to CenterPoint – How application was prepared, 55768

• The application was prepared by CenterPoint in collaboration with an external consultant.
• Errors were found during the review of route adequacy which were corrected without adding new routes.
• The consultant initially forgot to cross the street for a few segments leading to a substation, prompting a series of related corrections.
• An errata with red line changes was filed, and a new procedural schedule allowed parties to review changes.
• A second errata corrected omitted cost details, maintaining consistency across routes without affecting route comparisons.
• CenterPoint addressed the errors by stopping the process, making corrections, and restarting the discovery and review process.
• Discussion about considering alternate routes, specifically involving Hardin Store Road and railroad crossings.

20.8 – Commissioner Glotfelty to CenterPoint – Transmission lines and railroad tracks, 55768

• Commissioner Glotfelty questioned the logic of following rights of way for transmission lines.
• There are existing transmission lines in proximity to railroad tracks, raising concerns about interference.
• The concern about interference with railroads was raised by the applicant, not the railroad itself.
• The issue led to the elimination of certain routes early in the process.
• There are 23 available routes for transmission lines in the increasingly urban area.
• Commissioners discussed the importance of thoroughly reviewing the record due to the contentious nature of the decision.
• There is mention of a statutory deadline that has passed, but priority is given to making the right decision over meeting deadlines.
• Commissioners agreed to revisit the decision in the next open meeting after additional consideration.

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

• The Commission granted a request for oral argument.
• 8 separate parties signed up to participate in the oral argument with 5 minute time limits.
• CenterPoint Energy, represented by Patrick Peters, requested to open and close the argument, in line with the Commission’s Rule.

23.01 – Patrick Peters – Associate General Counsel & VP at CenterPoint – Legal authority governing the Commission’s decision & establishing good cause to extend their rate filing deadline, 56211

• Patrick Peters spoke about legal authority and good cause circumstances for extending CenterPoint’s rate filing deadline.
• CenterPoint’s withdrawal of the rate case complied with the Commission’s procedures.
• The authority exists for the Commission to extend the rate case filing deadline for good cause.
• CenterPoint requested an extension to focus on transforming their grid into the most resilient coastal grid in the country.
• The extension opportunity is aimed for incorporating feedback and completing resiliency improvements.
• Concerns raised by parties about over-earning claims were addressed, disputing a $100 million over-earning allegation.
• CenterPoint highlighted the importance of investments in resiliency and storm preparation projects.
• CenterPoint aims to submit an updated rate filing by the second quarter of 2025.
• CenterPoint’s appeal is supported by Commission Staff, OPUC, and others.

23.02 – Thomas Brocato – GCCC – Proceeding with rate case, 56211

• Argument made against delaying the rate case any further due to clients being overcharged.
• It’s stated that a significant rate increase is appropriate based on provided testimonies.
• Background given on legislative requirements for TDUs to file rate cases regularly.
• CenterPoint was required to file the current case and had attempted to delay.
• The Commission twice rejected CenterPoint’s request for delay.
• CenterPoint has made multiple piecemeal rate increases since their last base rate case.
• CenterPoint attempted to withdraw from the rate case without appropriate justification.
• Concerns raised about setting a precedent if CenterPoint is allowed to withdraw.
• Request for the Commission to reinstate settlement negotiations and resolve the matter promptly.
• CenterPoint’s proposal to refile next June criticized, especially due to potential overlap with hurricane season.
• Mentioned that CenterPoint failed in their hurricane responses and this is separate from the rate case.
• Proposal for interim rates if withdrawal is permitted to prevent ongoing overcharges.
• Clarified that rate decrease refers to a reduction in existing rates.

23.03 – Chairman Gleeson to Thomas Brocato – Rates, 56211

• Testimony supports a rate decrease from existing rates and the proposed $60 million increase.
• Discussion about the potential withdrawal request and its implications on city rates and jurisdiction.
• Clarification that the cities have original jurisdiction over rates and services.
• Acknowledgment that the Commission has the final authority and any adjustments can be appealed.

23.04 – Brad Bailiff – IBEW Local Union 66 – Granting Appeal on Order No. 14, 56211

• Brad Bailiff represents IBEW Local Union 66 with over 4850 members in the electric industry.
• IBEW members are key in CenterPoint’s storm response efforts.
• ALJ Siano noted that the Commission may grant exceptions to rules if good cause is shown, which was initially found insufficient.
• Improved resiliency is a high priority for legislators, customers, and the Commission.
• There are unresolved efforts for improved grid resiliency; proceedings are incomplete.
• Six vice presidents of CenterPoint have yet to file rebuttal testimonies.
• Discussion on reestablishing settlement talks was mentioned, supporting the appeal of Order No. 14.
• Granting the appeal will allow CenterPoint to maintain its focus on grid resiliency and public trust.
• IBEW Local 66 supports CenterPoint’s appeal, urging the Commission to grant it.
• The Commission is encouraged to require CenterPoint to file a comprehensive rate case application by June 30.

23.05 – Agenda Item Name: Michael McMillin – TIEC – Potential Precedential Effect of Withdrawal of Rate Case, 56211

• TIEC does not take a position on the request to withdraw the rate case.
• Concern regarding the precedential effect of allowing a utility to withdraw a required rate case.
• Emphasis on ensuring utilities cannot simply withdraw and give an impression of compliance.
• If withdrawal is allowed, it should be clear this is an exceptional case due to good cause and extraordinary circumstances.
• Suggestion that the Commission should specify conditions and timing for refiling the case.

23.06 – Sergio Herrera – TCUC – Deny CenterPoint’s appeal of SOAH Order No. 14, 56211

• Sergio Herrera, representing TCUC, supports denying CenterPoint’s appeal of SOAH Order No. 14.
• Judge Siano’s Order No. 14 is believed to correctly harmonize ERCOT’s rules, preventing the withdrawal of applications filed under compulsion.
• Allowing CenterPoint to withdraw could set a precedent for utilities to avoid filing rate cases, thereby denying ratepayers their entitlements.
• CenterPoint’s reasoning for withdrawal, citing hurricane restoration as a cause, is questioned as it was raised late in the process.
• Hurricane Beryl made landfall four months ago, implying CenterPoint should be able to continue both restoration efforts and the rate case.
• TCUC urges the Commission to deny CenterPoint’s appeal and proceed with the ongoing rate case.

23.07 – Alton Hall – Houston Coalition of Cities- Deny CenterPoint’s appeal of ALJ’s order, 56211

• Alton Hall represents the Houston Coalition of Cities, opposing CenterPoint’s appeal to allow their withdrawal from a rate case.
• The coalition supports maintaining the status quo, allowing ongoing settlement discussions concerning the CenterPoint rate case.
• Hall argues that granting the withdrawal harms ratepayers, as evidence indicates a justified rate decrease.
• If withdrawal is allowed and CenterPoint returns later, ratepayers lose opportunities for rate reduction during the interim.
• CenterPoint seeks the right to an extension or withdrawal contrary to prior agreements requiring all parties’ consent.
• No benefit exists for ratepayers if CenterPoint’s motion is granted; it would result in continued overcharging.
• The Commission had a hearing focusing on Houston’s perspective on CenterPoint’s performance during Beryl.
• There is a concern over the rate case not including post-2023 performance (including Beryl), which might lead to dissatisfaction among Houstonians.

23.08 – Chairman to Alton Hall – Evaluating CenterPoint’s Performance during Hurricane Beryl, 56211

• Discussion on CenterPoint’s restoration resiliency issues, consistent with the Mayor of Houston’s concerns.
• Support expressed for CenterPoint’s efforts to address customer impact meaningfully.
• Asserted that ongoing settlement discussions for the 2023 rate case are not inconsistent with resiliency efforts.
• Emphasis on the importance of CenterPoint improving restoration efforts and the benefits this could provide to ratepayers.
• Concerns raised about high rates and outages, questioning the effectiveness of CenterPoint’s investments.
• Suggestion to implement rate decreases if warranted based on the test year results, potentially as an interim measure.
• Proposal to finalize the current rate case while continuing efforts to enhance reliability and resiliency.

23.09 – Cathy Webking – REP Coalition – Potential denial could lead to additional intervener discovery, 56211

• The REP Coalition, represented by Cathy Webking, does not take a specific stance on the granting or denial of the dismissal.
• Concerns were raised that if the dismissal is denied, there should be opportunities for additional intervener discovery and testimony.
• Issues were highlighted regarding assets potentially being added to the rate base without providing continuous and adequate service. These assets should be reviewed for prudency before approval.
• Acknowledgment of an ongoing Commission investigation into the matter, with skilled professionals involved.
• Mention of a significant amount of rate base from the last rate case being considered.

23.10 – Kelsey Daugherty – Commission Staff – Allowing CenterPoint to withdraw, 56211

• Kelsey Daugherty represented Commission Staff supports allowing CenterPoint to withdraw.
• Acknowledgment of time constraints with a focus on efficiency in personal timekeeping devices.

23.11 – Patrick Peters – CenterPoint – Closing remarks, 56211

• Discussed over earning concerns, specifically positions taken by parties regarding vegetation management, storm hardening, and $45 million in challenged expenses.
• Clarified that pushing costs into the future does not equate to overearning.
• Addressed process concerns, including TIEC’s worry about unilateral withdrawal.
• Requested good cause for extending the rate filing deadline to accommodate ongoing efforts.
• Explained focus of key VPs on phase two of the resiliency initiative rather than rebuttals.
• Aimed to incorporate learnings from Hurricane Beryl and customer feedback into future filings.
• Plan to present new findings and updates in the second quarter of next year.

23.12 – Chairman asks for decision to be made at next Open Meeting, 56211

• Initially hoped to make a decision at the meeting, not prepared to make a decision yet.
• A decision is needed at the next open meeting, no later.
• There are valid points on both sides requiring further consideration.
• The Chairman would like a couple of weeks to work through the issues.
• Commitment to make a decision at the next open meeting.
• Support expressed for making a decision at the next open meeting.

25 – Docket No. 56413 – Application of AEP Texas Inc. to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the Alamito Creek-to-Fort Davis 138-kV Transmission Line in Presidio and Jeff Davis Counties

• Discussion on the application of AEP Texas to amend its CCN for a transmission line in Presidio and Jeff Davis Counties.
• A revised proposed order is presented for consideration.
• Chairman Gleeson filed a memo recommending two changes to two findings of fact.
• Recommendation made to approve the revised proposed order.
• General support expressed by meeting participants for the revised proposed order.

25.1 Motion to approve revised proposed order, 56413

• Motion to approve the revised proposed order was discussed.
• Motion was consistent with the mentioned memo.
• A motion was proposed and prevailed without opposition.

27 – Docket No. 56545; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-18029 – Application of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC for Approval of a System Resiliency Plan

• Application of Oncor for approval of a system resiliency plan.
• A revised proposed order is presented.
• A memo recommending changes to the final order was filed.
• Commissioner Glotfelty filed a memo related to this docket.

27.1 – Commissioner Glotfelty lays out his memo, 56545

• Commissioner Glotfelty presented a memo for the first resiliency plan, requesting additional time for review.
• He proposed postponing the final decision to allow further questioning and input from absent Commissioner Cobos.
• Consensus was reached to delay the decision until the next meeting, allowing for questions to be addressed today.
• Oncor representatives, including Tab Urbantke, Brian Lloyd, and Ellen Buck, were present to provide an overview of the system resiliency plan.
• A brief presentation with visuals was prepared by Oncor to facilitate understanding and answer Commissioners’ questions.

27.2 – Brian Lloyd – VP of Regulatory Policy, Oncor – Wildfire System Resiliency Plan, 56545

• Brian Lloyd presented Oncor’s Wildfire System Resiliency Plan on behalf of their senior leadership team.
• Oncor reached a constructive settlement with regulatory authorities, expediting the implementation of their plan.
• The plan focuses on integrating wildfire resilience with Oncor’s annual wildfire prevention measures.
• House Bill 2555 provides a framework for forward-looking distribution planning, which is a first for Texas.
• Oncor has a diverse set of risks including ice storms, windstorms, wildfires, and cybersecurity threats.
• The plan utilizes a data-driven approach to map distribution systems against extreme weather events and customer outages since 1998.
• Seven resiliency measures are proposed, with a focus on wildfire mitigation and system hardening.
• The plan outlines an $8 billion opportunity set for resilience investments, with a $3 billion target for the next three years.
• Wildfire risk is the top priority, with $900 million in planned investments in wildfire-prone areas.
• Oncor also aims to tackle underperforming areas, with a goal of improving rural and low-customer regions.
• Utilizing 1898 & Co. as a consultant, Oncor identified cost-effective investments for system resilience.
• Plan details include prioritizing vegetation management and improving cyber and physical security measures.
• A significant focus is on not just preventing outages but also minimizing Oncor’s role as a wildfire ignition source.
• The plan includes investments in private broadband networks to enhance cybersecurity resilience.
• Key settlement adjustments include removing $30 million in mobile transformers and deferring $300 million in spending to a fourth year.
• Emphasized transparency and alignment with stakeholders, with metrics in place to monitor plan effectiveness.
• Acknowledged that while wildfire incidents are a smaller percentage of issues compared to wind events, their potential impact justifies prioritization in the plan.

27.3 – Commissioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd – Wildfires vs. Wind, 56545

• Outages are often caused by wind events, and these events present significant third-party damage liability risks.
• Utilities nationwide, including Texas, face credit rating downgrades due to such risks.
• There is a growing liability exposure to multi-million or billion-dollar damages resulting from wildfires.
• Texas utilities have faced challenges in securing wildfire insurance, with premiums significantly increasing from $15 million to $60 million.
• Wildfire risks require systematic mitigation to financially protect both utilities and customers.
• ERCOT is working with independent consultants to assess and address wildfire risks.
• Discussion on how funds for wildfire mitigation compare to those used for other system resiliency improvements.
• Wildfire mitigations are sometimes harder to justify through traditional cost-benefit analysis, especially in low-population areas.
• Consideration of cybersecurity and physical security investments, including the rationale for a proposed $300 million proprietary fiber network for enhanced cyber threat protection.

27.4 – Commissioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd – Cybersecurity & Proprietary Fiber Network, 56545

• Emphasis on the importance of visibility and resilience in the deployment of smart devices.
• Mention of current private broadband communication assets and consideration of owning spectrum dedicated to their facilities.
• Reference to outages experienced by public networks and the need for reliable cybersecurity and resiliency.
• Intention to take ownership and accountability of risks by establishing a dedicated network to meet their standards.
• Discussion about a proposed plan spanning three years, with a significant financial consideration for a potential fourth year.
• Clarification sought on whether the fourth year is part of the current approval process or starts a new plan.

27.5 – Commissioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd – Plan timeframe & funding, 56545

• No additional money added to the plan; mobile transformers removed.
• Plans to file another amendment or plan late year two or early year three for approval.
• Year four spending authorized under the current plan can start after the third year.
• Efforts to ensure future amendments are efficient for contractors and vendors.
• Discussion about coordination on vegetation management funding in dense areas of East Texas.
• Meeting logistics noted about timing and potential recess for the court reporter and lunch break.

27.6 – Commissioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd – Vegetation management spending, 56545

• Vegetation management is considered a system-wide program.
• Plans to expand vegetation management across system-wide East Texas are in place.
• The program is viewed as part of daily operation and maintenance.
• System resiliency plan is meant to address challenges beyond regular operation and maintenance.
• Focus is on solving dense challenges not covered by general operations.
• Emphasis was placed on addressing the most significant challenges effectively.

27.7 – Ellen Buck – VP of Business & Operations, Oncor – Vegetation Management, 56545

• Oncor’s vegetation management program is tailored based on data, focusing on areas with high vegetation density.
• East Texas, with the greatest vegetation density, is a significant focus due to its impact on facilities.
• Consideration for rural areas with high vegetation should be equal to urban areas with more customers per circuit.
• Oncor is committed to spending all budgeted funds from the last rate case on both transmission and distribution systems.
• The expansion aims to address outages caused by wind and severe storms.
• Discussion on whether a common metric like customer interruption minutes should be used across all utilities to measure performance and improve resiliency.

27.8 – Commissioner Glotfelty to Brian Lloyd – Individual metrics for each utility, 56545

• There was a discussion about establishing common metrics across utility plans, recognizing that some metrics may not apply universally due to different risk factors like wildfires or hurricanes.
• The idea of benchmarking performance against oneself year over year, rather than against peers, was proposed to encourage continuous improvement.
• There was a focus on enhancing infrastructure resiliency, with emphasis on distribution systems and the integration of distributed resources and storage facilities.
• Acknowledgment that while distributed resources are increasingly participating in the market, system outages limit their effectiveness.
• Emphasis was placed on improving infrastructure to handle extreme temperatures and increasing the capacity of older equipment like conductors.
• Despite a primary focus on customer minute interruptions, there was an understanding of the limitations in locating resources due to market structures.
• Data-driven approach was praised, focusing on risk mitigation before events occur, targeting both unexpected weather events and performance during ‘blue sky’ days.
• Discussion on Oncor’s efforts to address both high-impact weather events and regular performance issues on clear days.

27.9 – Commissioner Jackson to Brian Lloyd – Weather events vs. blue sky days, 56545

• Resiliency efforts enhance both storm and blue sky day operations.
• Economic modeling considers improvements for both extreme events and normal conditions.
• 1.2 billion of the plan focuses on the overhead system to counter wind events.
• Investment includes strengthening infrastructure like stronger poles and up-sized conductors.
• 480 million is allocated for a flexible, self-healing grid to reduce outage times.
• Importance of segmenting issues to minimize customer impact in case of outages.
• Mentioned a secondary assessment of upgrades to allow for adjustments based on performance and conditions.
• Anticipates potential shifts in focus areas over a three-year period to better manage risks.

27.10 – Commissioner Jackson to Ellen Buck & Brian Lloyd – Addressing Risk, 56545

• Acknowledgment of changing conditions and risks and the commitment to continuously refresh data models to address these changes.
• Discussion of flexibility in prioritizing and executing upgrades in certain areas based on field assessments.
• Plan includes a good cause exception process to allow for adjustment if significant unexpected changes occur.
• Expectation to not only perform inspections but also evaluate accumulated benefits over time.
• Goal to create a more resilient system and preemptively avoid incidents.
• Gratitude expressed for efforts and collaboration with various stakeholders.
• Plan for future discussions and questions at the forthcoming meeting on November 14.

29 – Docket No. 56609 – Settlement Agreement and Report to the Commission Regarding CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC’s Violations of 16 TAC § 25.52, Related to Reliability and Continuity of Service for Reporting Year 2022

• Settlement agreement and report concerning CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric’s violations for the year 2022.
• No corrections or exceptions to the proposed order were filed.
• Only one commissioner mentioned having a comment on the proposed order.

29.1 – Commissioner Hjaltman’s thoughts on settlement agreement, 56609

• No intention to remand the settlement agreement.
• Acknowledgement that the settlement has been agreed to.
• Desire for more stringent standards for future violations and amounts.
• Recognition of a significant increase in violations compared to previous years.
• Emphasis on holding utilities accountable in the future.

29.2 – Motion to approve proposed order, 56609

• Motion proposed to approve the order.
• Motion seconded and approved without opposition.

30 – Docket No. 56637 – Settlement Agreement and Report to the Commission Regarding US Retailers, LLC’s Violations
Settlement and report regarding US Retailers, LLC’s violations.

• Approximately $110,000 in unclaimed customer refunds.
• Discussion on using unclaimed funds for charity or to offset bills.
• Consideration of transferring unclaimed funds to the comptroller’s unclaimed property office.
• Motion to approve the proposed order was made, seconded, and approved.

33 – Docket No. 56673 – Settlement Agreement and Report to the Commission Regarding Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation’s Violations

• Settlement agreement regarding Rainbow Energy’s violations of ethical standards.
• No corrections or exceptions filed to the proposed order.
• Chairman Gleeson filed a memo to address a minor issue in the order.
• Motion to approve the proposed order consistent with the memo was made, seconded, and approved.

Items 37-40 were Not Discussed

41 – Project No. 56897 – Electric Utility Outage Trackers and Hazardous Condition Reporting

• Agenda items 41 and 42 are being called up together.
• Topic concerns Project No. 56897 focused on electric utility outage trackers.
• Includes discussion on hazardous condition reporting.

41.1 – David Smeltzer – Commission Staff – Online Outage Map, 56897

• The importance of every utility having an online outage map was discussed.
• Additional functionality requirements include outage reporting and sign-up for updates.
• The rulemaking process requires notification when updates occur.
• Commission Staff recommends proceeding with the rulemaking for the online outage map.
• There is agreement on the necessity of the online outage map.
• Customers should be able to enter their address for personalized outage information.
• The importance of testing the outage tracker, both initially and continuously, was highlighted to ensure reliability and functionality.

41.2 – David Smeltzer – Commission Staff – Testing of an Outage Tracker, 56897

• Staff has been looking into the testing of an outage tracker.
• The importance of notifying utilities responsible for outage maps.
• Upcoming discussions on testing requirements and rules.
• Acknowledgment of a strategic grouping of related issues for consideration.

41.3 – Chairman & Commissioner Thoughts on Tracking Progress, 56897

• Importance of tracking progress and revisiting standards if necessary.
• Emphasis on emergency response communication systems, both passive and active.
• Passive systems allow public to access information like outage trackers independently.
• Active notifications are voluntary and rely on accurate data for effective communication.
• Highlight on designing systems to accommodate all users, including non-tech savvy individuals.
• Need for consistency across all TDUs in messaging and systems.
• Suggestion to track progress of user sign-ups and system effectiveness over time.
• Interest in gathering data from TDUs on subscription levels before and after emergencies.
• Proposal to review and provide feedback on TDU websites for improvements.
• Commissioners agreed on the importance of improvements and proposed further discussions in future meetings.

42 – Project No. 56898 – Provision of Emergency Contact Information to Transmission and
Distribution Utilities by Retail Electric Providers

• Emphasized appreciation for stakeholder cooperation in addressing communication issues post-Hurricane Beryl.
• Acknowledged the agreement among stakeholders on the necessity of fixing communication shortfalls.
• Mentioned logistical issues with initial rule proposals, implying the need for decision-making bodies to fully understand and agree with the changes.
• Described the filed memo as longer than usual to ensure thorough understanding before decision making.
• Suggested handling related issues in the memo together to facilitate forward-looking discussions.

42.1 – David Smeltzer – Commission Staff – Customers Signing Up for Status Updates & Providing Emergency Contacts, 56898

• Discussion on the decision to make customer notification programs mandatory or keep them voluntary.
• Current voluntary programs have low subscription rates, e.g., CenterPoint at 42%.
• Proposal for retail electric providers to transfer customer information to TDUs for emergency contact purposes faces logistical challenges.
• Concerns include costs, federal privacy laws, and data integrity issues due to differing customer contact information.
• Staff is seeking feedback on whether to pursue the automatic transfer of information or focus on outreach methods for voluntary sign-ups.
• Outreach could include billing inserts, linked websites, and information at enrollment.
• Suggestion to modify critical and chronic care forms for easier subscription to updates.
• Importance of having reliable information available through an outage tracker.
• Discussion of using Texas set protocol for data transfer, acknowledging its limitations in providing complete data sets like language preference.
• Commission Staff does not require immediate decisions but seeks guidance on the approach.

42.2 – Chairman’s Thoughts on Customer Communication, 56898

• Discussion on the importance of not automatically enrolling customers without their consent, stemming from post-burial hearings in the Senate.
• Concerns were raised about ensuring communication reaches more than 40% of customers.
• There is a desire to hear perspectives from various stakeholders and legislative leadership.
• Historical preference by the legislature is for an opt-in approach rather than opt-out procedures.
• Need to verify if legislative preferences have changed regarding customer communication procedures.

43 – Project No. 57152 – Identifying Transmission Service Providers for Implementing the Permian Basin Reliability Plan

• Update from Staff on Project 57152 concerning identification of transmission service providers.
• Focus is on implementing the Permian Basin reliability plan.

43.1 – John Harrison – Commission Staff – Memo on determining, identifying & approving applicable TSPs for projects associated with the Permian Basin Reliability Plan, 57152

• John Harrison and John Poole represent Commission Staff.
• A memorandum was filed as directed by the October 7 order to identify and approve applicable TSPs for the Permian Basin reliability plan projects.
• The memorandum was developed after internal discussions and stakeholder input.
• ERCOT’s initial report filed on October 18 was used as a starting point.
• Two main goals: streamline and expedite the process, and establish a system for assembling, owning, and operating projects to withstand judicial review.
• Bifurcated, contested case system proposed for determining disputed and undisputed projects.
• Deadlines set by previous order lead to project disputes being clarified by November 8 and finalized by December 4.
• Additional clarification sought from TSPs regarding the necessity of a CCN for projects.
• For undisputed projects, commission staff will open a contested case post-December 4 for final order filings.
• Disputed projects will be handled through individual contested cases.
• Recommendation for TSPs to work with ERCOT and commission staff on sequencing and cadence for CCN filings.
• Confirmation that Commissioner Cobos’ office was briefed and is supportive of the plan.

43.2 – Commissioner’s Thoughts on Memo, 57152

• Discussion on setting timelines and developing a cadence for memos.
• Proposal for staff and ERCOT to file memos concerning cadence and sequencing before December 19 meeting.
• ERCOT’s Rebecca Zerwas agrees to file a memo by December 19.
• Emphasis on TSPs needing to present substantial evidence to support claims for owning, building, or operating projects.
• Highlighted importance of having supportive evidence to expedite project processes.

Items 44-53 were Not Discussed

54 – Project No. 56040 – CY 2024 Open Meeting Agenda Items Without an Associated Control Number

• Project number 56040 related to the calendar year 2024 was discussed.
• Focus was on open meeting agenda items without an associated control number.
• Approval of the fiscal year 2025 internal audit plan was highlighted.
• Nicky was called upon to proceed with the discussion.

54.1 – Nicky Carter – Commission Internal Auditor – Consideration of approval of FY ’25 Internal Audit Plan, 56040

• Nicky Carter, Internal Auditor, presented the FY 25 internal audit plan for approval (Project 56040).
• Acknowledgment was given to executive administration, management, and staff for contributions to the development of the audit plan.
• Confirmed that the internal audit program is conducted with objectivity, independence, and necessary resources.
• Audit plan is based on a systematic risk assessment as required by the Texas Internal Auditing Act and professional standards.
• For FY 25, the audit plan includes an audit of the division of utility outreach and a carry-forward audit of the consumer complaint process.
• Approval of the plan also includes approval of the internal audit budget and resource allocation.
• Additional audit activities include follow-up work on prior recommendations, a consultation of the Texas Energy Fund, investigative reviews, and other administrative activities.
• Positive feedback and appreciation were expressed towards Nicky Carter’s contributions and professionalism in enhancing the internal audit capabilities.

54.2 – Motion to Approve 2025 Internal Audit Plan, 56040

• Motion to approve the 2025 internal audit plan was introduced.
• The motion was approved with no opposition to the motion.

Items 55-57 were Not Discussed

59 – Discussion and possible action regarding agency review by Sunset Advisory Commission, operating budget, strategic plan, appropriations request, project assignments, correspondence, staff reports, agency administrative issues, agency organization, fiscal matters and personnel policy

• Mention of Sunset Advisory Commission review, discussion on operating budget and strategic plan.
• Appropriations request addressed, project assignments and correspondence highlighted.
• Staff reports reviewed for updates, agency administrative issues were discussed.
• Addressed agency organization and fiscal matters.

59.1 – Barksdale English – PUC Deputy Executive Director – Workshop on Texas Backup Power Package Program

• Announcement of a stakeholder workshop by the Texas Energy Fund on November 13 at 1:30 p.m.
• Discussion to focus on the Texas Backup Power Package Program.
• Workshop to be hosted online via Zoom by contractor Deloitte.
• An agenda will be posted under Project No. 57236 at the commission.
• Topics to include feasibility of specifications for supported technologies and ownership model considerations.
• Invitation extended to all interested stakeholders to participate.
• Opportunities for written comments will be outlined.
• Further details to be provided on the Texas Energy Fund website (www.txenergyfund.texas.gov).
• Acknowledgment of the importance of this workshop to the advisory committee and Senator Johnson.

59.4 – Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting

• Chairman Gleeson declared the meeting adjourned.
• No further business was discussed.

 Items 60-62 were Not Discussed