AUSTIN, Texas — The Public Utility Commission of Texas approved a plan for a hybrid above/below-ground transmission line in the City of Frisco (Docket No. 44060). The project was notable for the financial commitment the city offered to bury the majority of the line. (See Texas PUC OKs Undergrounding Tx Line; City Agrees to Foot Cost.)
While the all-underground route would have cost more than $34 million — nearly $29 million more than the all-overhead route the PUC preliminarily approved — the city has agreed to pay approximately $13 million of the extra cost to have the lines buried in conjunction with an upcoming road-widening and waterline-installation project.
The cost savings of coordinating the projects was factored into the city’s calculations, along with other implications, such as where the project will be sited. The city contended that Brazos Electric Cooperative, the utility overseeing the project, would have had to pay for the right of way, but said it would donate it if the line was sited underground. This, along with some design modifications, brought the cost difference to approximately $4.3 million.
Briefs for ‘Precedential’ Decision
Commissioners called for parties involved in a substation-siting dispute to provide briefs on whether the PUC has jurisdiction in the case (Docket No. 45175). The Colony, a city near Dallas, is arguing that it has jurisdiction under the state’s Public Utility Regulatory Act to determine where the station can go. The local electric co-ops — Brazos and Denton County Electric — believe the PUC has authority under a different section of the same law.
Chairman Donna L. Nelson said the call for briefs in what she called a potentially “precedential” case was very wide to “get to the real heart of the conflict.”
Commissioner Kenneth W. Anderson Jr. said the commissioners gain much more insight from back-and-forth replies to other briefs, where the parties tend to “savage” each other.
‘More Meat’ Needed for New Interconnection Rule
The commission also adopted a rule to comply with several statutes that affect the paperwork necessary to tie into ERCOT’s grid (Project No. 45124). However, Anderson requested that, following the final approval, PUC staff open a new rulemaking process “to clarify the gaps that the statute doesn’t cover.” He said commission rules should delineate, among other things from the statute, what ERCOT should study to meet its need and reliability criteria, the impact on ERCOT’s market and the process to receive approval for a DC tie into the system.
All of these could have unforeseen consequences. For example, commenters pointed out that ERCOT’s handling of DC ties could — if too broadly defined — affect ERCOT’s independence from FERC jurisdiction.
“We need to put a little more meat on the bones of this rule because it’s not like the normal transmission asset,” he said.
‘Deceptive’ Offers on Customer-Choice Website
Saying that she continues to be “bothered” by “deceptive” offers on the website customers use to choose a power generator, Nelson announced a stakeholder meeting in her office June 21 to address the issue (Project No. 45730).
“Sometimes, I think things move a little faster when a commissioner gets involved,” she said. “The Power to Choose website kind of needs some work right now. The whole concept of choice doesn’t work if customers aren’t educated about what they’re buying.”
Anderson said he’s still “convinced” of the necessity of the website and that the only questions are exactly what might change. He said he uses it to shop and has always paid less than the last regulated rate.
The commissioners cautioned retail energy providers against putting out offers that are significantly below cost or whose rate requires meeting unreasonably specific consumption targets. However, they also disapproved of requiring retail electric providers to create standardized offers, saying those would be anti-competitive.
Though the site isn’t perfect, Commissioner Brandy Marty Marquez urged consumers who are overwhelmed by the shopping process to request a tutorial from PUC staff, who find it “one of the most exciting things” to do, she said.
‘Shock’ over SPP Z2 Billing Plans
Marquez said it was “shocking” that SPP plans to request repayment over 10 months of transmission upgrades that were approved over a period of more than eight years. (See related story, Z2 Project Faces Further Hurdles, Possible Delay.)
The commissioners said they were concerned for ratepayers shouldering the burden of the repayments over such a short period.
Additional Actions
The commission also:
- Approved applications by American Electric Power’s Texas affiliates, Texas New Mexico Power, Oncor, CenterPoint Energy and Sharyland Utilities to adjust their energy-efficiency cost-recovery factors.
- Returned to an administrative law judge the application by Luminant and Oncor to transfer ownership and administration of the decommissioning trust for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. The application was based on a plan that is being changed and resubmitted by the bankruptcy court overseeing the decommissioning process, so it needed to be revised.
- Approved publishing a proposed rule on how distributed generation facilities can connect to the grid (Project No. 45078). The proposal would allow interconnection agreements to include the end-use customer, the owner of the DG facility, an owner of rights to energy produced from the DG facility or the owner of the premises at which the DG facility is located.
– Rory Sweeney
