By Tom Kleckner

The Public Utility Commission of Texas last week scheduled hearing dates on NextEra Energy’s proposed acquisition of Oncor.

The commission set a prehearing conference for Friday at the commission’s offices in Austin. The parties will discuss the docket’s (No. 46238) procedural schedule, pending motions and any other matters “that may assist” in the proceedings.

The order also set Feb. 21-24 as potential hearing dates before the commission. That would keep the merger on course to receive PUC approval by the end of the second quarter.

The commissioners could have assigned the case to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), but they chose to keep it within their jurisdiction instead. However, a SOAH administrative law judge will be responsible for conducting discovery in the case.

“I would have preferred SOAH, because I don’t think it’s that complex,” Commissioner Ken Anderson said. “Maybe we just start holding our holidays in Oncor’s headquarters in Dallas.”

NextEra announced in late July it had reached an agreement to acquire an 80% interest in Oncor; on Oct. 31 it announced it would acquire the remaining 20%.

Other Matters

The commission punted most of the other meaty issues on its agenda to its next open meeting on Dec. 1.

The PUC debated jurisdictional issues related to distributed generation interconnection agreements, before agreeing to resume the rulemaking’s discussion in December (No. 45078).

Citing a “gut instinct,” Chair Donna Nelson said she was reluctant to rule against staff’s opinion that interconnection agreements do not give the PUC jurisdiction over customer complaints.

“When I read the comments,” Anderson said, “a lot of the [market] participants who staff believe we would not have jurisdiction over have said they don’t mind the jurisdiction.”

“That’s what I struggle with,” Nelson responded. “I met with some companies, including solar companies, who said ‘we think the interconnection agreement, where we’ve agreed to be subject to your jurisdiction, gives you jurisdiction,’ but staff doesn’t agree with that.”

Nelson said she was concerned solar customers would come to the commission seeking redress from potential “bad actors” but that it would be unable to take up the matter.

“To that end, if we did adopt this with staff’s language, we’ve got a bunch of stuff out there that says we don’t have jurisdiction, and we’re asking the Legislature to potentially give us jurisdiction,” Commissioner Brandy Marty Marquez said. “Waiting until the next meeting to make a final decision is a prudent idea, but it kind of sounds like this might be something we need to pull down until we get through the legislative session.” The Texas Legislature’s next session begins Jan. 10.

The commission also decided to take more time to review a report on alternative ratemaking mechanisms that’s due to the Legislature in January (No. 46046), giving the commissioners an opportunity to agree on any recommendations.

“I got a call from a legislator who asked what recommendations were going to be made,” Anderson said. “I said, ‘I’m not sure I have any. We did the report you asked for.’”

“I’d like to see if there’s a recommendation we can make regarding appropriate reforms,” Nelson said.

The PUC also took no action on Lone Star Transmission’s proposal to cut its transmission costs by $6 million, providing the company files its settlement agreement by the end of the year. The settlement will negate the need for a rate case (No. 45636).

The commission approved a rehearing over the City of Garland’s request to amend a certificate of convenience and necessity for a 345-kV line in East Texas, allowing it to “tackle the merits” after the holidays, Anderson said.