Jago Times "English Edition" Best Online Newspaper
Related Articles
I bet you a kilowatt-hour that The Watchdog can show you what happened in the 2023 Texas Legislature that may increase your monthly light bill. I’ll do it in plain talk. No electro-gibberish here.
Will your light bill go up because of actions by lawmakers on behalf of business and industry?
You bet your sweet bippy!
Another Laugh-In expression summarizes what happened to consumers: Sock it to me.
I’m not the only one trying to simplify a complex world. The (public) Utility Commission (remember I took away the ‘P’ in 2017 because I don’t think they care about the public) is ordered by lawmakers in House Bill 1500 to eliminate the gobbledygook.
The (p)UC must provide information about the electric grid, capacity and demand “in plain language that is readily understandable by a person with limited knowledge of the electric industry.”
Well, I’ll drink to that! (Yeah, another Laugh-In expression.)
Millions to billionaires
How do you feel about giving taxpayer money to companies that don’t necessarily need it or want it?
In the Nov. 7 election, you’ll get a chance to answer that. The ballot question for a state constitutional amendment will ask you to vote yes or no “for the creation of the Texas Energy Fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities.”
The new fund of $5 billion (which could grow to $10 billion) will be run by the (p)UC and provide low-interest loans (3%) over 20 years and also – this is worrisome – grants, too, that do not need to be repaid. The cost for this is taxpayer-funded but it won’t be tacked on to your monthly bill.
The money is supposed to go to electric generating facilities that serve as backup power sources. The advisory committee for the fund is made up of lawmakers.
Sandra Haverlah, president of the Texas Consumer Association, told me: “I just want to say that I find it really outrageous that they can accomplish that, yet teachers didn’t get a dime out of this.”
She said early on there was talk by some lawmakers of using some of the record surplus funds to help give electricity bill relief to all of us. They could have paid off some of the bonds whose costs are added to our bills.
“Instead,” she said, “they gave low-interest loans to multibillion-dollar companies that didn’t need the money.”
(p)UC almost shut down
It was little noticed that the future of the entire (p)UC was on the chopping block. If lawmakers hadn’t approved House Bill 1500 in the final days of the session, the (p)UC would have ceased to exist.
State agencies go under “sunset” review every few years. If lawmakers close down an agency, they sunset it. This was the (p)UC’s time to shine.
A 2022 sunset report on the (p)UC, urged the (p)UC to update its 20-year-old rules to catch up to the modern world. It also said the (p)UC staff should read all monthly transmission project reports it receives. That wasn’t happening, the report stated.
As a follow-up, House Bill 1500 keeps the (p)UC in business. The bill goes well past the minimum required and creates new policy in its vast 78 pages.
A sample: it gives greater oversight of the grid to lawmakers and requires more transparency through a requirement for more detailed reports by the (p)UC and ERCOT, which runs the grid.
The bill requires all (p)UC commissioners to undergo a lengthy training and education program after their appointment and before they vote. (They didn’t already?)
More reporting on the causes of blackouts is required.
(p)UC regulation authority
The Watchdog unknowingly stepped into a food fight of sorts between the (p)UC and the Texas Consumer Association.
The consumers’ group tipped me off that Senate Bill 1015 will make it easier for transmission and distribution companies like Oncor, which own and operate the power lines, to gain an advantage raising rates.
Instead of coming once a year for a rate adjustment before the (p)UC, Oncor and some other electric utilities can come in twice a year.
This is no small thing. Oncor charges can reach up to 50% of a customer’s bill, TCA says. The bill gives the (p)UC 60 days to handle rate requests, which isn’t a lot of time, especially when it takes time to galvanize the public to protest.
Oncor announced last month that it plans to spend $19 billion over the next four years installing and upgrading its equipment, following (p)UC approval of the increase. (That’s about $4.33 more a month on your bill.)
Oncor spokesperson Kerri Dunn told me the (p)UC will continue to have full regulatory oversight for all Oncor rates. There’s no change in the rule that utilities like Oncor must come in every four years for a full comprehensive rate case.
(p)UC spokesperson Ellie Breed told me, “It would be premature for us to comment on legislation until it becomes law.” (These bills await Gov. Greg Abbott’s signature.)
So who is right? Oncor or the consumers association?
Energy expert Doug Lewin of Austin says they’re both right.
More frequent rate requests “will make it easier for utilities to cover costs and, in turn, make more profits.”
“It’s good for their bottom line. Wall Street will like this bill,” he said. Since they don’t have to wait a full year for a request, “profits will go up.”
The (p)UC still has its regulatory powers and can still disallow rate increases, he said. “But in practice that’s hardly ever done.”
Consumers get what?
Lewin says consumers did not get rewarded during the session, unlike the oil and gas lobby which did well, as usual.
There was little talk of weatherization of power plants, buildings and homes, the true cause of the mayhem in the February 2021 freezeout.
Consumer advocate Haverlah said there was no action on energy efficiency or consumer rebates either.
No, the session was not consumer-oriented.
As Flip Wilson said on Laugh-In, “The devil made me do it.”