Section IV - Rate Schedules
Standby Electric Service (SES)
Sheet No. 021
Page 4 of 5
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
HLP 7549
Customers taking Standby Electric Service on a stand-alone basis need
not submit hourly profiles except for usage to be billed as
Maintenance Service.
For customers taking Standby Electric Service in conjunction with
other service, where Kwh usage for SES cannot be determined from
metered information, the Kwh usage will be based on the schedule of
Standby Kva which will be assumed to be taken at the average power
factor of the total load at that time.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
During periods of forced shutdown or failure of Customer's power
production equipment, the Company will provide Standby Electric
Service for a maximum of two (2) consecutive months. Should the
shutdown period exceed two (2) months the Customer must provide in
writing to the Company's satisfaction a detailed description of the
events causing the forced shutdown, at which time Company will
determine what further contractual arrangements may be necessary.
Under no circumstances is the Company obligated to provide Standby
Electric Service in excess of the contracted amount.
Company may, at its option, require Customer to install at Customer's
expense a device to limit the amount of power to be supplied by
Company; such device shall be approved, sealed and controlled by
Company.
Standby Electric Service is available only if adequate facilities can
be built or rebuilt at Customer's expense, to provide such and if
service to Customer will not, in Company's sole judgement, impair
the requirements of its existing
Company's ability to serve
customers.
PAYMENT
A bill for electric service is
Bills are due when rendered.
delinquent if payment is not received by the Past Due Date shown on
the Electric Service Bill. The Past Due Date will not be less than
sixteen (16) days from the date the bill is mailed to the Customer.
If the total amount due is not received on or before the Past Due
Date, a one time late payment charge will be assessed.
For customers taking SES in addition to other service, the late
payment charge will be in accordance with the Payment section of the
other service tariff.
Revision Number: 1 St
Effective:
Section IV - Rate Schedules
Standby Electric Service (SES)
Sheet No. D21
Page 5 of 5
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
HLP 7549
For customers taking service only under the SES rate, the charge will
be equal to a percentage of the total amount due exclusive of sales
tax for each day, up to a maximum of fourteen (14) days, after the
Past Due Date that payment is received. The percentage will be the
daily non-compounded equivalent to the prime interest rate effective
at Texas Commerce Bank, National Association, Houston, Texas on the
meter read date, plus two percentage points, or if the meter read
If
date falls on a holiday or weekend, the preceding business day.
the total amount due is not received on or before the fourteenth
(14th) day after the Past Due Date, the late payment charge to be
assessed will become 5% of the total bill exclusive of sales tax.
In no case will the late payment charge exceed 5% of the total bill
exclusive of sales tax.
METERING
obtain
remote metering equipment to
The Company may install
information with which to determine the amount of the monthly bill.
Customer may, at any time, install metering instruments to check the
service supplied under this schedule.
The Company may at its option measure service on the low voltage side
of transmission service Customer's transformers, in which event the
Kva and Kwh recorded by the Company's metering instruments will be
adjusted to compensate for transformer losses on the basis of the
data furnished by the manufacturer of the Customer's transformers.
When the manufacturer is unable to supply the necessary data the
adjustment will be based on tests conducted by the Company on the
Customer's transformers.
CONTRACT PERIOD
Not less than one year.
NOTICE
Electric Service furnished under this rate schedule is subject to the
Company's Terms and Conditions for the Sale of Electric Service,
Sheet No. El.
Revision Number: 1 st
Effective:
Section IV-Rate Schedules
Nonfirm Energy Purchase From Qualifying Facilities
NEP Rider B
Sheet No. 023.5
Page 1 of 1
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
HL&P
NONFIRM ENERGY PURCHASE FROM QUALIFYING FACILITIES
NEP-RIDER B
AVAILABILITY
To all Qualifying Facilities with desigg capacity in excess of 100 Kw
wishing to sell Nonfirm Energy in accordance with provisions and
procedures contained in the NEP tariff.
APPLICATION
The rate under this rider shall apply to the purchase by the Company of
Nonfirm Energy from the Customer's Qualifying Facility (QF) during periods
of system emergency specified by HL&P. This rate shall be substituted for
the regular nonfirm energy rate starting with the first hour of such an
event through the hour which the event is canceled.
PAYMENT DETERMINATION
Payment for Nonfirm Energy delivered under this rider shall be the Kwh
delivered during the effective period of the rider times the sum of (1)
AND (2).
(1)
Fuel Payment
12,800 MMBTU's/KWH; times HL&P's highest
cost of gas for the time period that the
rider is in effect.
(2)
O&M Expense
As per NEP tariff.
ADJUSTMENT TO FUTURE NEP PAYMENTS
This section is intended to avoid payment to qualifying facilities under
both the NEP-Rider B and Schedule NEP for an increase in energy prices
during the period which NEP-rider B is in effect.
For periods in which NEP-Rider B is in effect for at least 72 hours the
Energy Rate used in the calculation of the Fuel Payment under the NEP
Schedule shall be adjusted.
This adjustment shall consist of excluding
the effects of, for purposes of the Gas Price and Gas Heat Rate
calculations, gas purchased and gas generation during the period in which
NEP-Rider 6 is in effect.
Revision Number:
Original
Effective:
t4
Section IV-Rate Schedules
Supplemental Agreement for Interruptible
Standby Service - SBI
Sheet No. 032
Page 1 of 7
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
HL&P 7158
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR INTERRUPTIBLE STANDBY SERVICE - SBI
That certain "Application and Agreement for Electric Service", Rate
, entered into by and between ____
Schedule
Houston
and
called "Customer",
herein
Lighting & Power Company, herein called "Company", which is to begin not
^
than
later
(hereinafter called the "Agreement"), is hereby supplemented and amended
as follows:
provide
agrees to
take and Company
Customer agrees to
1.
Interruptible Standby Service which may be substituted for
Customer owned and operated power production equipment or other
use.
for emergency
not held primarily
source of power
Interruptible Standby Service may be used only during periods of
scheduled outages for maintenance or to back-up such facilities
during forced outages.
2.
The Company may request the Customer to provide records showing
to the satisfaction of the Company that the Interruptible
Standby power was required due to maintenance or forced outages
of the Customer's power production facilities.
3.
Interruptible Standby Service provided herein is available only
when taken in conjunction with service received at one point of
delivery under LOS-A, LOS-B, stand-alone SES-Transmission, or
SES-Transmission Rate Schedules at the location of the Customer
owned and operated power production equipment. This Supplement
may not be taken in conjunction with any other standard
supplements except Supplements SM and E.
4.
Interruptible Standby Service is available only if existing
facilities, including, but without limitation, transmission and
distribution facilities are adequate or if adequate facilities
can be built or rebuilt at Customer's expense, to provide such
service and if service to Customer will not, in Company's sole
judgment, impair Company's ability to serve the requirements of
its other customers at any time.
5.
Customer may request Interruptible Standby Service at any time
However, the
herein.
subject to the conditions specified
Customer must request and receive prior approval from Company
each time Interruptible Standby Service is required and must
Revision Number: 4 th
Effective:
Section IV-Rate Schedules
Supplemental Agreement for Interruptible
Standby Service - SBI
Sheet No. 032
Page 2 of 7
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
HL&P 7158
also notify the Company when Interruptible Standby Service is to
be discontinued. When Customer experiences a forced outage of
power production facilities, Customer may request approval from
Company for continued use of SBI power after the forced outage
has occurred and use of SBI power has begun. This provision for
after-the-fact request and approval shall apply only if Customer
has assumed the cost for installation of Company specified
electronic data transmission equipment from Customer's location
to the Company's Energy Control/Data Center (EC/DC). On such
occasions, Customer will be assumed to have been using SBI power
at the requested level beginning in the billing interval
immediately preceding the interval in which the request is
received at the EC/DC. In the event that Company is unable to
grant approval for continued use of SBI power, Customer will
cease such use of SBI power within fifteen (15) minutes after
notification from the Company that approval for continued use of
that Interruptible Standby Service is denied.
6.
Customer understands that to receive service under this rate
when Company requests a reduction or total interruption of load,
Customer must comply within the specified time period. If, at
any time, Customer fails in whole or in part to implement and
maintain the requested load reduction or interruption, Customer
shall pay to Company as agreed damages 20 percent of the current
month's bill for SBI service for each such occurrence.
An
occurrence shall be defined as non-compliance, in whole or in
part, for each 24 hour period subsequent to the Company's
request for interruption. In any event, the Customer shall
make a good faith effort to comply with the interruption
request, during
such 24
hour
period even
though
the
non-compliance payment will not be waived if the interruption is
eventually
implemented
during
such
period
but
after
non-compliance. If Customer
xfpS# experiences two (2) occurrences of non-compliance within a
12 month period, in addition to the damages above, the Company
may, at its option, elect to cancel, effective immediately, this
Supplemental Agreement for Interruptible Standby Service.
In
the first 12 months of SBI service to Customer, Company will not
enforce the provisions of this non-compliance section if the
actual reductions are equal to or greater than 95% of the
requested reduction on each occasion.
7.
Customer desires to receive up to
Kva of Interruptible Standby electric service, such Kva being
not less than 5,000 Kva and not to exceed the design capacity of
Revision Number: 4 th
Effective:
I T
Section IV-Rate Schedules
Supplemental Agreement for Interruptible
Standby Service - SBI
Sheet No. 032
Page 3 of 7
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
HL&P 7158
the Customer's power production facilities. Customer shall not
have the right to increase its Interruptible Standby load except
to
to the extent that Company has consented in writing
Customer's written request to increase such load within a
specified time under terms of the Agreement as supplemented
herein.
8.
Service is available under this supplemental agreement only if,
in the Company's sole judgment, the utilization of such service
is of such character that service can be denied, interrupted or
discontinued at any time by Company without loss to Customer or
damage to property or persons and without adversely affecting
the public health, safety, and welfare.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Company shall have no liability and Customer shall assume full
responsibility for any loss, damage, or claim (including but not
limited to product loss and loss of profits) by reason of any
denial, interruption, discontinuance or restoration of service.
Customer's source of power may be operated in parallel with
Company's system, provided that Customer's source of power is
Company's
with
accordance
in
operated
constructed and
requirements. Customer assumes full responsibility for the
construction and operation of its source of power and will
completely indemnify Company against and hold Company harmless
from all claims for damages arising out of such construction or
operation, whether or not Company is negligent in whole or in
part.
Company will provide, at the Customer's expense, additional
metering equipment on the service and/or the other source as
determined by Company to be necessary, to provide service under
this supplement.
at Customer's
Customer shall provide, operate and maintain
expense devices that the Company, in its sole discretion,
considers necessary to protect Company's equipment and service.
Company shall be permitted to inspect such devices at all times.
customer to install at
Company may, at its option, require
power to
Customer's expense ya ' device to limit the amount
and
supplied by Company; such device to be app
controlled by Company.
Revision Number: 4
th
Effective:
^
1x
Section IV-Rate Schedules
Supplemental Agreement for Interruptible
Standby Service - SBI
Sheet No. 032
Page 4 of 7
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
HL&P 7158
14.
Company may require a switching arrangement, to be provided and
maintained at Customer's expense, such that intentional
interruptions will be under Company's sole control.
If, in
Company's judgment,
Customer has
adequate personnel
and
facilities, Company may elect to give notice of interruption by
telephone, allowing Customer's personnel to carry out
an
interruption procedure subject to approval by Company.
15.
A.
The monthly payment for Customer's electrical service
requirements will be the sum of A and B below.
When
transmission service under SES (stand-alone or with other
qualifying firm
service) is
taken in
conjunction
with
Supplemental Agreement SB1, usage under such SES service will be
determined and billed before any usage which may be taken under
SBI.
Charges computed in accordance with all provisions of the Rate
Schedule specified in the Agreement as modified by any Riders or
Supplements thereto. Such charges and provisions are applicable
to the total metered Kwh and Kva, including that portion of
Customer's load for which SBI Service is provided, whether
metered separately or in combination with other load through the
same meter, except as follows:
(1)
During periods when Company provides Interruptible Standby
power, in
accordance with
the provisions
of
this
Supplemental Agreement, the Kva to be used for billing
determinations shall be based on Customer's metered Kva
minus the Interruptible Standby Kva used.
(2)
The Kwh to be used for billing determinations shall be the
metered Kwh minus the sum of all Interruptible Standby Kva
used times the number of hours associated with each
request, or a minimum of 5,000 Kwh per hour..
B.
Charges for SBI Service, will be computed as follows:
(1)
Facilities Charge
$flo5465 per month, plus.
Revision Number: 4 th
IT
I I
Effective:
Section IV-Rate Schedules
Supplemental Agreement for Interruptible
Standby Service - SBI
Sheet No. D32
Page 5 of 7
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
HL&P 7158
(2)
Energy Charge
The monthly energy charge shall be the sum of the calculations
Each month HL&P will
made under (a), (b) and (c) below.
calculate this charge based on estimated fuel price components
which will be reconciled in the second succeeding month based on
actual fuel price components.
(a)
Fuel Charge
The monthly Fuel Charge will be the
sum of the products of the period
Energy Rate times the period Kwh
times the period Enhancement Factor
for each period in the month.
(b)
O&M Expenses
5.001204 per Kwh for
variable operations and maintenance
expenses.
(c)
Base Charge
5^^^^^^^^^used. per Kwh, for all Kwh
( T
DEFINITION OF TERMS
(1)
Energy Rate is as calculated below:
ENERGY RATE (DAY) = GAS PRICE X GAS HEAT RATE
ENERGY RATE (NIGHT) = COAL PRICE X COAL HEAT RATE
GAS PRICE = WACOG as defined by the Final Order in Docket
No. 7044
COAL PRICE = The avoided cost of coal as defined by the Final
Order in Docket No. 7044.
HEAT RATES = HL&P's previous calendar year average heat rate for
as
all units of the types referred to (gas or coal),
Reports
Efficiency
calculated from HL&P's monthly Fuel
filed with the PUC.
Revision Number: 4 th
Effective:
a •
Section IV-Rate Schedules
Supplemental Agreement for Interruptible
Standby Service - SBI
Sheet No. 032
Page 6 of 7
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
HL&P 7158
(2)
Enhancement Factors are:
OCT-NOV
PERIOD
(3)
JUNE-SEPT
DEC-MAR
Hours
Factor
Hours
Factor
1
1A-7A
.85
11P-5A
.85
2
7A-1P
1.02
5A-11A 1.07
5A-8A
1.00
3
1P-7P
1.13
11A-5P 1.00
8A-8P
1.065
4
7P-1A
.98
5P-11P 1.06
8P-11P 1.00
Hours
Factor
11P-5A
.85
Day Hours and Night Hours are as below:
June - September
16.
APRIL-MAY
October - May
DAY HOURS
0700 - 0100
0500 - 2300
NIGHT HOURS
0100 - 0700
2300 - 0500
The terms of this Supplemental Agreement are subject to change
from time to time with approval of the regulatory authorities
having
jurisdiction
thereof,
and
such
changes
shall
automatically become applicable to Customer's service based upon
the effective date of the change.
17.
The terms of this supplement shall be in effect for an initial
period of
year(s) beginning no later than
and thereafter until terminated.
Such termination may be effected by either Customer or Company
providing one year written notice.
18.
Except as expressly supplemented and amended by paragraphs 1
through 17 above, the Agreement is not otherwise affected
hereby.
19.
This supplement shall not be binding upon either party unless
and until it has been duly executed in writing by both parties.
Revision Number: 4 th
Effective:
Sheet No. D32
Page 7 of 7
Section IV-Rate Schedules
Supplemental Agreement for Interruptible
Standby Service - SBI
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
HL&P 7158
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
By
Customer
By
Vice-President
(Name printed or typed)
Title
Attest
Date
Attest
Secretary
Secretary
Date
Effective:
Revision Number: 4 th
DOCKET NO. 9850
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING
AND POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY
§
§
TO CHANGE RATES
§
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
ORDER NO. 30
ORDER ESTABLISHING OUTLINE FOR REVENUE
REQUIREMENT BRIEF, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR
REVENUE REQUIREMENT PHASE, AND RULING ON ADMISSIBILITY
OF HL&P EXHIBIT 56A
1.
Outline for Revenue Requirement Brief
Attached is the outline for the Initial and Reply Briefs for the Revenue
Requirement Phase of the Hearing on the Stipulation.
As stated at the
hearing, the outline submitted by the parties has been changed.
As can be
seen, the outline contains a listing of uncontested and contested issues
raised in this docket.
To the extent that an issue is uncontested, then the briefing party
should so state and provide the actual dollar totals for that item.
Also,
cites to the record should be provided.
If there are any comments or errors in the outline, the parties SHALL
file those comments or suggestions on or before 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 19,
1991.
II.
Revenue Requirement Brief Filing Deadlines
Initial Briefs for the Revenue Requirement Phase shall be filed on or
before 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 3, 1991. Reply Briefs for this phase shall
be filed on or before 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, 17, 1991.
r
DOCKET NO. 9850
III.
ORDER NO. 30
PAGE 2
Ruling on HL&P Exhibit 56A
After consideration of the arguments presented by Houston Lighting &
Power Company and Office of Public Utility Counsel, the objections are
overruled and HL&P Exhibit 56A is ADMITTED.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the
day of June 1991.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
^al^
KAT RINE K. MUD G E
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
SHELIA BAILEY KNEIP
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
•
OUTLINE FOR REVENUE REQUIREMENT BRIEFS
DOCKET NO. 9850
1.
Introduction
II.
Set tlement
III.
IV.
A.
Procedural History
B.
Legal Standards
C.
Steps 2 and 3 of Rate Moderation Plan
D.
Rate Freeze
E.
Revenue Level
F.
Financial Integrity
Conservation and Load Management
A.
Compliance with Commission Rules
B.
Contested Issues
Revenue Requirements
A.
Introduction
B.
Invested Capital
1.
Electric Plant in Service
a.
b.
c.
2.
Original Plant in Service
Accumulated Depreciation
Net Plant in Service
Malakoff/Trinity Mine
a.
b.
Malakoff PHFU
Trinity Mine
3.
Nuclear Capital Additions
4.
Fossil Plant Upgrades
5.
Working Capital Allowance
a.
b.
Materials and Supplies
Fuel Inventory
1.
Coal/Lignite Inventory
Outline - Rev. Req.
Docket No. 9850
Page 2
2.
Prepayments
Cash Working Capital
C.
d.
1.
2.
3.
4.
6.
STP Unit 1 Deferrals
1.
2.
b.
8.
Short-term Deferrals
Qualified Deferrals
STP Unit 2 Short-term Deferrals
Amortization
a.
ETSI Litigation
b.
c.
Prudence Review Expenses (Docket No. 6668)
Other
Accumulated Deferred Federal Income Taxes
a.
b.
c.
C.
Incorrect Data Entries
Check Float - Expense Lead
FIT Expense Lead
Revenue Lag
STP Deferrals
a.
7.
Nuclear Fuel Inventory
Calculation of Adjustments
Alternative Minimum Tax
Reduction in Rate Base Items
9.
Customer Deposits
10.
Injuries and Damages
11.
Customer Advances for Construction
12.
Retirement Plan and Other
13.
Miscellaneous
Rate of Return
1.
Affiliate Issues
2.
Cost of Equity
3.
Weighted Cost of Capital
Outline - Rev. Req.
Docket No. 9850
Page 3
D.
Organization and Staffing
1.
2.
E.
Fossil Plants
a.
Staffing Requirements
b.
Cross-Training Requirements
c.
d.
Intra-Plant Transportation
Preventative Maintenance
Nuclear Plant
Operating Expenses
1.
Fuel and Purchased Power Expenses
a.
b.
c.
UFI Expenses
Other Adjustments
Non-reconcilable Fuel Expense
d.
Fixed Fuel Factor
2.
Wages and Salaries
3.
Employee Benefits
4.
Fossil Plant O&M Expenses
a.
b.
c.
Limestone
W. A. Parish
Other
5.
Nuclear O&M Expenses
6.
Malakoff Lignite Costs
7.
O&M Inventory Adjustment
8.
HII Expenses
a.
Direct Charges
b.
Indirect Allocations
(1).
(2).
c.
Corporate Benefits
Investor Relations
Residual Allocations
9.
Nuclear Plant Decommissioning Expense
10.
Demand Side Management Programs and Expenses
Outline - Rev. Req.
Docket No. 9850
Page 4
a.
b.
DSM Expenses
DSM Programs
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
c.
d.
Good Cents Program
Heat Pump Program
Night Light Program
Electric Dryer Program
Electric Freezer Program
Commercial Cooking Program
Commercial HVAC Program
Industrial Programs
Economic Development Program
Other Programs
Research and Administrative Expenses
Miscellaneous Issues
11.
Advertising, Charitable Contributions, and Donations
12.
Social Dues
13.
Legislative Advocacy Expenses
14.
EEI Dues
15.
Other EEI Activities
16.
Franchise Fees
17.
Accounts Receivable Factoring Expense
18.
Uncollected Accounts
19.
Lease and Rental Charges
20.
Postage Expense
21.
Property Insurance Reserve
22.
Regulatory Expenses (Docket No. 8425)
23.
Rate Case Expenses (Docket No. 9850)
a.
b.
HL&P
City of Houston
24.
Research and Development
25.
Sales Tax Use Increase
. .
.
Outline - Rev. Req.
Docket No. 9850
Page 5
26.
Project SHARE Expenses
27.
Interest on Customer Deposits
28.
Non-recurring Expenses
29.
Other O&M Expenses
F.
Depreciation Expenses
G.
Taxes Other Than Income Taxes
1.
2.
H.
J.
IV.
V.
Revenue-Related Taxes
a.
State Franchise Taxes
b.
c.
d.
Payroll-related Taxes
Gross Receipts Taxes
PUC Assessment
Non-Revenue Related Taxes
Federal Income Tax
1.
Consolidated Tax Savings
2.
Below-the-Line Items
3.
Interest Synchronization
4.
STP Tax Depreciation
5.
Investment Tax Credit
Settle ment Adjustment
Revenues
A.
Revenue Adjustments
B.
Unbilled Revenues
Conclusion
.
.
.
0
13t10"
DOCKET NO. 9850
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING
AND POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY
TO CHANGE RATES
§
§
§
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
ORDER NO. 31
ORDER ESTABLISHING OUTLINE FOR RATE DESIGN BRIEFS,
SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR RATE DESIGN PHASE,
AND CALCULATING JURISDICTIONAL DEADLINE
The hearing on the merits in the above styled and numbered docket was
adjourned on June 25, 1991.
Prior to the adjournment of the hearing the
following deadlines and briefing procedures were established:
I.
Outline and Filing Deadlines for Rate Design Briefs
Attached is the outline for the initial and reply briefs for the rate
design phase of the hearing on the stipulation.
This outline should be used
as a Table of Contents, and need not be adopted as the order of presentation
of arguments in briefs. The parties are directed simply to include this Table
of Contents with page citations to the referenced issue in their briefs.
The rate design briefs are due at 12 : 00 noon on Jul y 11, 1991.
Repl y
briefs are due at 3:00 p.m. on July 19, 1991. The stipulating parties are to
jointly file one brief and one reply brief.
II.
Jurisdictional Deadline
The Commission's jurisdictional deadline in this docket is October 29,
1991, calculated as follows:
Date Application Filed:
November 9, 1990
HL&P Requested Effective Date:
December 17, 1990
Suspension Period (150 Days
from Requested Effective Date):
May 16, 1991
Total Days of Hearing: 48
NO. 9850
PAGE NO. 2
ORDER NO. 31
fotal Two-For-One Days: 66
Extension of the Initial
Suspension Period Including
Two-For-One Days:
July 21, 1991
Add 100-Day Extension
Agreed to by HL&P:
October 29, 1991
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the
day of June 1991.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
SHELIA BAILEY KNEIP
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
KATKA INE . MUDGE
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
nh
4
DOCKET NO. 9850
ORDER NO. 31
OUTLINE: INITIAL BRIEF
(COST ALLOCATIONfRATE DESIGN PHASE^
I.
Introduction
II.
Cost Allocation
A.
Guiding Principles
B.
Cost Study
C.
Docket No. 8425 Allocators
D.
Probability of Negative Margin Method
E.
Weighted Average Excess Demand Method
F.
Minimum Distribution Plant
G.
Administrative General Expense and General Plant
H.
Revenue Spread (including ERS, SES, Interruptible
Rates-Revenue Contribution)
I.
III.
Rate Design
A.
Guiding Principles
B.
Rates - Historical Trend
C.
Residential Service
D.
E.
F.
Miscellaneous General Service
G.
H.
IV.
Miscellaneous
Government Highway Lighting - GHL
Economic Redevelopment Service - ERS
Franchise Fees
Miscellaneous
Conclusion
PAGE NO. 3
DOCKET NO. 9850
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING
AND POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY
TO CHANGE RATES
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
;^,..
OF TEXAS
ORDER NO. 25
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO CONSOLIDATE
AND REQUESTING CLARIFICATION OF REPRESENTATION
BY COALITION OF CITIES
1.
Pending Petitions for Review and Motions to Consolidate
Houston Lighting and Power Company ("HL&P") filed Petitions for Review
and
Motions
municipalities:
to
Consolidate
the
rate
ordinances
of
the
following
Bunker Hill Village, Clute, Deer Park, Freeport, Jones Creek,
Prairie View, Simonton, and Thompsons. There being no written objections, the
motions to consolidate are GRANTED.
The undersigned Administrative Law Judges ("ALJs") have reviewed the
tariff sheets reflecting the municipalities served by HL&P and find that all
appeals of original jurisdiction municipalities have been filed.
The ALJs
further find that all appeals have been consolidated with the above-referenced
docket. Therefore, HL&P no longer has to file its biweekly status reports on
the municipal rate ordinances.
II.
Clarification of Representation by Coalition of Cities
On January 28, 1991, the Coalition of Cities ("Coalition") filed a Fifth
to Leave to Amend Exhibit "A" reflecting those municipalities
represented by the Coalition.
This list contained thirty-one (31)
Motion
DOCKET NO. 9850
ORDER NO. 25
PAGE 2
municipalities. The Coalition is ORDERED to file on or before 3:00 p.m. on
April 23, 1991, a list of all municipalities it is representing and for which
it signed the Settlement Agreement.
day of April 1991.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
2K.MUDG• E4 ADMI STRATIVE LAW JUDGE
0
^--'-
E IA I Y E I P
ADMIN TRATIVE LAW JUDGE
.
..
,
.
^
-DOCKET NO. 9850
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING
AND POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY 1TO CHANGE RATES
§
U.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
ORDER NO. 23
ORDER PROVIDING ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION OF PROCEDURES
FOR HEARING ON NONUNANIMOUS STIPULATION AND RULING ON
OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTERS
I.
Joint Motion for Additional Rulings
Procedural Background.
On March 11, 1991, Houston Lighting & Power
Company ("HL&P"), on behalf of the signatory parties, filed a Joint Motion for
Additional Rulings Regarding Order No. 21.
The Office of Public Utility
Counsel ("OPC") filed a
response in opposition to the Joint Motion.
Occidental Chemical Corporation, Texas Industrial Electric Consumers, and the
Signatory Parties (collectively) filed replies in support of the Joint Motion
and urged rejection of OPC's positions.
OPC responded to the signatory
parties replies.
The undersigned Administrative Law Judges ("ALJs") have
considered all of the pleadings.
Joint Motion and ALJs' Rulings.
clarifications of Order No. 211:
The signatory parties sought three
1.
All evidence presented at the hearing
on the nonunanimous
stipulation ("NUS") would be admitted solely for purposes of
evaluating the merits of the settlement;
2.
In the event the NUS is terminated or rejected, all parties would
have the right to file additional testimony regarding the merits
of HL&P's original filing that they would have been allowed to
file under the abated schedule; and
10rder No. 21 established procedures for considering the norxxianimous stipulation ("NUS"), severed
the fuel reconciliation issues from the pending rate case, and provided a notice of hearing. With respect
to the procedures established in order No. 21, all parties were provided an opportunity to submit written
comments prior to the hearing and oral comments at the time of the hearing. The order establishes discovery
procedures, filing deadlines for testimony, scope of cross-examination at the hearing on the NUS, and other
retevant procedural matters.
',
ORDER NO. 23
DOCKET NO. 9850
3.
For
PAGE 2
In the event that the NUS is rejected, a hearing would be held on
the merits of HL&P's original filing, and all parties will have
the same rights to introduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses
at that hearing as they would have had if there had been a hearing
on the settlement.
the
reasons
stated
below,
the
Examiners issue the following
clarifications:
All evidence presented at the hearing on the NUS will
1.
be admitted for purposes of evaluating the justness and
reasonableness of the rates contained in the NUS and the
reasonableness of the services, rules, and regulations proposed by
the signatory parties. However, given the nature of the hearing
on the NUS, there may be exceptions to this ruling if a hearing is
held subsequently on the merits of HL&P's original application.
For example, in the event that a party submitted evidence on the
merits of HL&P's original application or of an affirmative direct
case during the hearing on the NUS, then conceivably there could
be an overlap in the type of evidence for the second hearing on
the merits. Accordingly, the ALJs recognize that there may be a
need to make specific exceptions to this ruling. Exceptions will
be addressed on an individual basis at the subsequent hearing on
the merits, if such hearing is required.
The signatory parties have the burden of proof under § 40 of
the Public Utility Regulatory Act ("PURA"), Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.
Ann. art. 1446c (Vernon Supp. 1991) to prove the justness and
reasonableness of the proposed rates contained in the NUS. Their
burden is met through establishing all facts required under
Article VI of PURA.
If the rates, rules, and regulations proposed in the
2.
NUS are found not to be just, reasonable, and in the public
interest, then all parties, both signatory and non-signatory, have
the right to file additional testimony regarding the merits of
HL&P's original filing that would have been allowed to file had
there been no NUS.
If the NUS is rejected, a hearing on the merits on
3.
HL&P's original application will be held and all parties, both
signatory and non-signatory, will have the same rights to
introduce evidence and cross-examine witnesses as if no settlement
had been reached.
Discussion and ALJs' Rulings on OPC's Opposition to the Joint Motion.
For the following reasons, the ALJs reject OPC's contentions in opposition to
the joint motion.
..
►^
DOCKET NO. 9850
ORDER NO. 23
PAGE 3
First, OPC's contention that the Joint Motion seeks to alter the burden
of proof is not supported by the ALJs rulings in Order No. 21.
As
specifically stated at the hearing at which these NUS procedures were
established, HL&P and all signatory parties have the burden of proof to
establish the reasonableness of the proposed rates, service, rules, and
regulations contained in the NUS.
The ALJs have not articulated, nor does
PURA provide for, a presumption that NUS is reasonable that must be overcome
by the nonsignatory parties.
The burden of proof lies squarely with the
signatory parties to establish the reasonableness of the proposed rates in the
NUS. To meet that burden of proof, the signatory parties must establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rates are just and reasonable
as defined in Article VI of PURA.
Second, the ALJs find that the clarifications sought in the Joint Motion
do not provide parties with a double opportunity to elect and to submit
evidence, thereby providing them with an opportunity "to repeat the same
battle." There are two separate and distinct hearings that could occur in
this docket.
The first hearing will be limited to consideration of the
whether the proposed rates in the NUS are just and reasonable and the
services, rules, and regulations are reasonable.
The method that the
nonsignatory parties oppose the
NUS is within their discretion, e.g.,
presentation of a direct case attacking the
NUS, presentation of an
affirmative case establishing the level of just and reasonable rates, or a
combination of the two. In the event that the Commission finds that the NUS
rates are not just and reasonable, then a second hearing will be held to
consider the merits of HL&P's original rate application.
The subject matter
of the two hearings is entirely different, and therefore, the ALJs cannot find
that the parties will be afforded a second opportunity to fight the same
battle.
Third, OPC's contention that the Joint Motion seeks immunity from res
judicata is likewise incorrect.
The concept of res judicata is to prevent
duplicitous litigation on an issue or issues between the same parties that
DOCKET NO. 9850
ORDER NO. 23
PAGE 4
resulted in a final decision by the decision-making body. In this docket, in
the event that the proposed rates, services, and regulations in the NUS are
Rather, the
rejected, then the Commission will not render a final order.
order would remand the proceeding to the Hearings Division for the second
Additionally, the issues
hearing on the merits of HL&P's application.
litigated in the second hearing will differ from the first because the scope
The
of the second hearing will be redefined by HL&P's original application.
ALJs recognize that there may be some overlap in the evidence presented at
both hearings; however, the final decisions rendered by the Commission after
the second hearing will relate to completely different proposed revenue
Therefore, the ALJs find that these
requirements and rate designs.
clarifications to Order No. 21 will not provide the parties with immunity from
the doctrine of res judicata.
II.
Motion to Withdraw by Sharpstown Center Association
On March 13, 1991, Sharpstown Center Association ("Sharpstown") filed a
written request to withdraw from the above-referenced docket. There being no
objection, the motion is GRANTED.
Sharpstown from the Service List.
III.
Accordingly, all parties should remove
Appeals of Various Rate Ordinances and Motions to Consolidate
On March 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, and 25, 1991, HL&P filed Petitions of
Review of Rate Ordinances of various municipalities and Motions to Consolidate
the petitions with the above-referenced docket.
HL&P appealed the rate ordinances of: Bellaire, Danbury, Lake Jackson,
Missouri City, Rosenberg, Sugar Land, Seabrook, Fulshear, El Lago, Village of
Oyster Creek, Brookshire, Pearland, Taylor Lake Village, West University
Place, Galveston, Mont Belvieu, Richmond, Village of Surfside Beach, Village
of Morton, Beach City, Village of Pleak, Quintana, Hedwig Village, Hunters
Creek Village, Jersey Village, Spring Valley, Alvin, Brookside Village,
Friendswood, Manvel, Oak Ridge North, Pasadena, Santa Fe, Stafford, Webster,
and Baytown.
•
. ,
DOCKET NO. 9850
ORDER NO. 23
PAGE 5
There being no written objections, the motions to consolidate these
appeals with this docket are GRANTED.
IV.
Assignment of ALJ
Judge Shelia Bailey Kneip has been assigned to handle the rate design
phase of these proceedings. Please make all necessary changes to reflect this
assignment.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the z9A day of March 1991.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
KA
INE K.
D E
ADMINI
E LAW JUDGE
MUM BAILEY KNEIPSPz-*'^
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
, . '^
e
^
,
^
+
.XJU
DOCKET NO. 9850
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING
AND POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY
TO CHANGE RATES
f
^
^
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
^
ORDER NO. 20
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
AND GRANTING WITHDRAWAL
I.
Joint Motion for Continuance
On February 21, 1991, Houston Lighting and Power Company ("HL&P") filed
a Joint Motion for Extension of Procedural Schedules. Joining in that motion
were Texas State Agencies, Texas Industrial Energy Consumers, Industrial
Intervenors, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Big Three Industries, Inc., The
Woodlands Corporation, The Department of Energy, Texas New-Mexico Power
Company, and General Counsel.
The motion requested that all remaining
procedural and discovery dates in the proceeding, except the commencement of
the hearing be extended seven days, and that the hearing on the merits, except
for public comments, be delayed by seven days. HL&P agreed that four days of
the extension would count as additional hearing days.
Order No. 19 allowed the opportunity for any non-moving party to file a
response to the joint motion by 1:00 p.m. on Friday, February 22, 1991. To
ensure that all parties were aware of the response deadline, all parties were
contacted by the Hearings Division.
According to its timely filed response,
Dow Chemical Company supports the Joint Motion.
No other party filed a
response.
In
consideration
of the pleadings, and since no party filed an
objection, the Joint Motion is GRANTED.
The hearing on the merits will begin
on Monday, February 25, 1991, at 10:00 a.m. Public comment will be taken at
that time. Then the parties will be allowed an opportunity to discuss further
proceedings in this docket.
HL&P is still required to file its Examiners'
Report Schedules by Friday, March 1, 1991. Even if a settlement is submitted,
these schedules reflecting HL&P's original requests for Steps 2 and 3 will be
PAGE 2
ORDER NO. 20
DOCKET NO. 9850
needed. Furthermore, HL&P shall be prepared on Monday, February 25, 1991, to
provide the parties with a proposed format for RD-III as previously ordered.
The Examiners do not believe that either of these two filing requirements will
interfere with the settlement negotiations.
II.
Motion to Withdraw
On February 15, 1991, HL&P filed the Motion of J. M. Lebeaux to Withdraw
Intervention.
The motion is GRANTED.
1-4
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the
day of February 1991.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
J5
D
ADMI
RATIYE LA JUDGE
KATQERINE K.
&HOMARTO
HEARINGS EXAMINER
I
A,
VOCKET N0. 9850
P il 4: 0{:
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGF^N^r^3 -^ P'^
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORLTYt-^§=
TO CHANGE RATES
OF TEXAS
ORDER NO. 21
ORDER ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR
NONUNANIMOUS STIPULATION, SEVERING FUEL RECONCILIATION,
AND NOTICE OF HEARING
On March 4, 1991, the hearing on the merits in the above-referenced
docket was reconvened.
Representatives of Houston Lighting & Power Company
("HL&P"), City of Houston and the Coalition of Cities, Texas Industrial
Electric Consumers, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Dow Chemical Company, Big
Three Industries, Inc., Texas-New Mexico Power Company, Texas State Agencies,
The Woodlands Corporation, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and General
Counsel. The following procedures will be used to consider the Nonunanimous
Stipulation ("NUS") filed by the signatory parties in this docket.
Any party
that has not signed the NUS is considered a nonsignatory party for the
purposes of this Order.
These procedures were discussed at length at the
hearing on the merits after all parties were provided opportunity to file
proposed procedures for the processing of the NUS.
I.
Hearing on NUS
The Hearing on the NUS ("HOS") will convene at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday,
May 1, 1991. The hearing will be held in two phases: revenue requirement and
rate design.
It is anticipated that the rate case expenses issue (for all
rate case expenses except those related to fuel reconciliation) will be
considered during the revenue requirement phase of the HOS.
II.
Discovery
All
discovery is limited to new evidence and witnesses offered in
support of or in opposition to the NUS. There will be two rounds of discovery
on the direct NUS case, propounded by nonsignatory parties. No discovery will
be allowed on nonsignatory parties until after their evidence in opposition to
PAGE 2
ORDER NO. 21
DOCKET NO. 9850
the NUS is filed, and then only one round of requests for information ("RFI")
One round of RFIs on the rebuttal
may be propounded by signatory parties.
All RFIs and responses shall be hand-delivered to
case will be allowed.
counsel in Austin and placed in overnight mail, Federal Express, or FAXED to
out-of-town counsel. Upon request, RFIs and responses shall also be served on
Responses to RFIs shall be due seven (7) days from the
expert witnesses.
Objections to RFIs shall be filed within three (3)
filing of the RFIs.
working days from the date that the RFI is filed. Motions to compel shall be
filed no later than three (3) working days after the objection is filed.
Replies to the motion to compel shall be due within two (2) working days after
the motion to compel is filed. All parties are to voluntarily arrange times
for depositions, if any, of new witnesses, or witnesses presenting additional
Persons who were to be witnesses in the original
evidence on the NUS.
proceeding who will not be called during the HOS may be deposed and asked to
respond to RFIs if they possess information necessary to the presentation of
an opposing party's position.
If an objection is overruled, the response shall be provided the next
If the
business day following the ruling, or as ordered by the Examiners.
objection is made to a Round 1 RFI, and is overruled, a follow-up RFI will be
allowed. All discovery disputes will be resolved based on pleadings.
III.
Deadlines for Filing Evidence and Objections Thereto
The following deadlines are established for the prefiling of the
parties' evidence, which includes all evidence upon which a party intends to
rely (e.g., testimony, exhibits, schedules, depositions, and requests for
official notice).
offering Party
Testimony Due
March 22, 1991
Signatories-Direct
Nonsignatories-Direct April 23, 1991
Signatories-Rebuttal April 30, 1991
Objections
Replies
April 15, 1991
April 30, 1991
April 22, 1991
Oral Response
Oral Response
May 6, 1991
DOCKET N0.`9850
ORDER NO. 21
PAGE 3
If the deadline for objections or replies to objections occurs after the
testimony in question is offered, objections and replies will be taken orally
at the hearing.
IV.
Statements of Position for Nonsignatory Parties
On or before March 22, 1991, any party that is not a signatory party to
the NUS that will not present testimony in opposition of the NUS SHALL file a
statement of position indicating whether that party opposes, supports, or does
not oppose the NUS.
V.
Order of Presentation of Witnesses
At the time that direct or rebuttal testimony is filed,
sequence of witnesses SHALL be filed.
VI.
a proposed
Cross-examination of Witnesses
All witnesses testifying in support of the NUS are "stipulation
witnesses."
The signatory parties shall not be allowed to cross-examine
stipulation witnesses. Signatory parties are directed to attempt to agree on
the designation of one of their counsel to conduct cross-examination of each
of the nonsignatory parties' witnesses.
If the signatory parties are unable
to reach an agreement as to designation of counsel to cross-examine any
witness, they shall file a notice by Monday, April 29, 1991, specifying which
nonsignatory parties' witness(es) that more than one signatory party's counsel
wishes to cross-examine and the issues on which each counsel would like to
examine the witness.
The Examiners will rule on the issues of crossexamination by more than one signatory party on a case-by-case basis.
VII.
Post-HOS Briefs
The Examiners anticipate requiring briefs and reply briefs to be filed
following each phase of the HOS.
Schedules will be discussed at the end of
each phase, and arguments against this proposal will be entertained at that
DOCKET NO. 9850
ORDER NO. 21
" PAGE 4'
time. The signatory and nonsignatory parties SHALL file separate outlines for
the Revenue Requirement and Rate Design Phases on or before March 22, 1991.
To the extent possible, all parties are encouraged to work together to submit
Once the outlines are filed, the Examiners will
joint proposed outlines.
establish further procedures for comments on the outlines.
VIII.
Filing Deadlines
All deadlines for filing any item related to the HOS at the Commission
All procedural deadlines
shall be at 3:00 p.m. on the dates indicated.
related to the originally filed application and hearing on the merits are
hereby ABATED, pending further order.
IX.
Outstanding Discovery Disputes
On or before 3:00 p.m., on Thursday, March 7, 1991, HL&P shall file a
list of all outstanding discovery disputes between HL&P and the nonsignatory
The list shall be limited only to discovery by HL&P on the
parties.
nonsignatory parties. HL&P shall also request what action needs to be taken
At that time, the Examiners will
with respect to each discovery item.
consider further procedures to resolve the outstanding disputes.
X.
Severance of Fuel Reconciliation Issues
The joint motion to sever the fuel reconciliation issues from this
A separate docket shall be created for the purpose of
docket is GRANTED.
considering the fuel reconciliation issues raised in Docket No. 9850, as well
as any rate case expenses related solely to fuel reconciliation proceedings.
It is understood that the rate case expenses to be considered in connection
with this separate docket are not being considered as a reconcilable fuel
expense, but rather as a separate cost of service expense item.
^►
DOCKET N0. t 9850
ORDER NO. 21
PAGE 5
In conjunction with the severance of the docket, the following filing
deadlines are established:
Filing Deadline
Descrigtion of Testimony to be Filed
March 15, 1991
Each
party that
has
filed
fuel
reconciliation testimony
in Docket
No. 9850 shall designate the portions
of that prepared testimony and exhibits
that will be introduced as its prepared
testimony and exhibits in the new fuel
reconciliation docket
March 29, 1991
Filing of General Counsel testimony and
exhibits on fuel reconciliation issues
April 12, 1991
Filing of HL&P rebuttal testimony and
exhibits on fuel reconciliation issues
The Hearings Division will assign an examiner to handle the fuel
reconciliation docket. A hearing on the merits will be set at a later time.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the it day of March 1991.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
T
ADMI
IN
TWRATi VE'LAW UDGE
S S
HO AS MO
N
HEARINGS EXAMINER
r^
DOCKET NO. 9850
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTING
AND POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY
TO CHANGE RATES
§
§
§
A^^
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMIS^I"_
OF TEXAS
ORDER NO. 17
ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL RATE DESIGN SCHEDULE
Attached is an example of an additional rate design schedule that all
parties will be required to file. The schedule delineates for each class of
customer the adjusted present revenue, base revenue, fuel revenue, and class
total rate revenue increases. The attached schedule was presented to and used
by the Commissioners during their recent deliberations on the Texas-New Mexico
Power Company rate case.
Please review the schedule. In addition to the columns on the schedule,
the parties are asked to consider whether the schedule should be expanded to
cover "other revenue" in addition to the base and fuel revenue information.
Any questions or comments about this schedule may be incorporated in the
written comments due Monday, February 11, 1991, or may be made orally at the
prehearing conference on Thursday, February 14, 1991.
The Examiners appreciate the parties' continued
these schedules.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the
efforts in providing
01 day of February 1991.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
(2UE
ADMI ISTRATIVE LA JUDGE
SUSAN MORION
HEARINGS EXAMINER
f.,
^
V1 b d^ `^O V1 ^ N 0^0.
^^ O d oo V 7 P -
e
p^,
^ u
L
^
e
ZR
ID
o ti
N to
oNOv g M %
7
^`
Q
^^
3 ^
V1
•L
d
^
^O
P
$
"a
p en o a^ ^{ ^n
s
N^ `CO
OV°ioNOatep
^Op
^ N Q O^ ^ Cl
`^+p'
90
Let.
`
^ >
C u'
a v
=^ n-^ d N tn
e O
C
t^1
00 Od0 .^{
^ V^1
N V
^ e•f
N '7 N
e'1
f^ P1 U'^
a
N
4`
LL,
u
^"
^
V
O
C
^
N.
m
$ pp^ °e°^ ,°° $ °O ^ °°
N O o0 v? N N O:
•^
Co Q^
^} ^pp tv^^ W
O
d-^
P N^^O $ 00 Nf a0
a a` p^
c^i h^- a m `n
t- a
00
zu
0
^,
oya
U V ^ ^
z
U3
Y
z
;
^ ^ y
O
N h^ h N b`O 1^ O
y1 t+ N P ON ^p = N
v r tV t^
C
,0 N d 00 OO
u^i <
5 g^
^
V
^ p 7
Yi {=j
< Y
H3o
N
Q
^
N t+^ V^ N M<^ v0^
^ VP1 ^D
^
^
u
^i
y
.i
4
O
C
Z
W
zp^ ^ E
<F^
miCp
It. F V
V
^ C^ ^ oc
in o
f
DOCKET NO. 9850
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LIGHTIw3
AND POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY
TO CHANGE RATES
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
^
OF TEXAS
ORDER NO. 18
ORDER RELATING TO FILING DEADLINES AND HEARING ON THE MERITS
In an effort to ensure that all parties are operating under the same
filing deadlines and other relevant dates, the Examiners have prepared this
summary.
1.
Hearing on Merits
Hearing on the merits will begin at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, February 25,
Public comment and opening arguments will be taken. Pending procedural
matters will also be
discussed, including post-hearing briefs schedule.
1991.
Houston Lighting and Power Company ("HL&P") shall provide a proposed format
for RD-III (related to the class revenue impact schedule).
Presentation of
evidence will begin on Tuesday, February 26, 1991, at 9:00 a.m.
2.
Testimony Filing Deadlines
a.
Phase I -- Revenue Requirement (including fuel reconciliation)
General Counsel Direct
HL&P Rebuttal
General Counsel Fuel
Reconciliation
HL&P Rebuttal to GC Fuel
Reconciliation
b.
February 19, 1991
February'29, 1991 ( 4:00 p.m.)
March 5, 1991
March 15, 1991
Phase II -- Trinity Mine
Intervenor Direct
General Counsel Direct
HL&P Rebuttal
March 5, 1991
March 12, 1991
March 22, 1991
DOCKET NO. 9850
Phase III -- Cost A1location/Rate Design
C.
Intervenor Direct
General Counsel Direct
HL&P Rebuttal
March 5, 1991
March 12, 1991
March 19, 1991
Phase IV -- Rate Case Expenses
d.
HL&P and Cities Direct
Intervenor Direct
General Counsel Direct
HL&P and Cities Rebuttal
3.
PAGE 2
ORDER NO. 18
February 19, 1991
March 12, 1991
March 19, 1991
March 26, 1991
Errata Sheets and Corrections to Testimony and Related Schedules
As discussed at the prehearing conference on February 14, 1991, it will
be each party's responsibility to provide errata sheets and corrections to
If the changes are numerous, then the party should file an errata
testimony.
sheet showing all of the changes as soon as possible before the witness takes
If a change is made in one number which changes other numbers,
the stand.
then the witness should prepare the revised calculations before taking the
witness stand.
HL&P shall take the errata sheets in Tab 26 of Volume IIIB of its Rate
filing Package and incorporate those sheets within the rate filing package
that it will mark as an exhibit on the first day of the hearing. If there are
additional errata sheets included, then HL&P shall provide copies of those
sheets to all parties of record and the Examiners on the first day of the
hearing.
At the conclusion of each phase, HL&P will be required to prepare final
schedules in its rate filing package that incorporates all of the errata
sheets made under Tab 26 and any other revisions or corrections made during
Each party will be required to provide revised
the course of the hearing.
The filing
testimony-related schedules after each phase is concluded.
deadlines for all other parties except HL&P shall be set at a later date.
i
^
DOCKET NO. 9850
4.
ORDER NO. 18
PAGE 3
Examiner Report Schedules
All Examiner Report Schedules must be prepared separately for Step 2 and
Step 3 of HL&P's request.
a.
Revenue Requirement Schedules
HL&P's initial RR-I, RR-II, RR-III, and RR-IV shall be due on or
before March 1, 1991.
All other parties' RR-I - IV shall be due on the first day that
they present their respective direct testimony.
For those parties that will not present a direct case, the RR-I IV will be due at the conclusion of the revenue requirement phase.
HL&P will file its final version of RR-I - IV at the conclusion of
the Revenue Requirement Phase. All parties will be required to
file a final version of these
schedules at a date to be
established later.
b.
Rate Design Schedules
All parties will file RD-I - III at the beginning of the rate
design phase.
All parties that are unable to complete RD-I - III because of the
nature of their recommendations shall file a summary labelled RDSUMM, providing a summary of the recommendation and the impact of
the recommendation.
All parties will be required to file a final version of RD-I - III
at the conclusion of the rate design phase at dates to be
established later.
c.
Bill Comparisons
Residential and Small Commercial Customer bill comparisons shall
be filed at the beginning of the rate design phase. If necessary,
parties will be required to file final versions of the bill
comparisons at the end of the rate design phase at a date to be
established later.
t
.M
DOCKET NO. 9850
5.
PAGE 4
ORDER NO. 18
All Other Deadlines Established in Order No. 3
All other deadlines related to motions to strike and discovery on
testimony as established in Order No. 3 still apply and do not need to be
revised.
6.
Filing of Testimony
The parties are reminded to provide one copy of unbound testimony to the
Hearings Division after the testimony has been filed.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the 1-A day of February 1991.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
ADMIN
RATIVE LAW JUDGE
T. 0
HEARINGS EXAMINER
` ►
^
e„
:DOCKET NO. 9850
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON MHMGW i An I 1 12
& POWER COMPANY FOR AUTHORITY
^.;_.
TO CHANGE RATES
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
ORDER NO. 14
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE FOR REVENUE REQUIREMENT PHASE
On February 1, 1991, the above-referenced motion was filed on behalf of
Houston Lighting & Power Company, Coalition of Cities and the City of Houston,
Texas State Agencies, Texas Industrial Electric Consumers, Industrial
Intervenors,
Dow Chemical Company/Destec Energy, Inc., Occidental Chemical
Corporation, Big Three Industries, Inc., Woodlands Corporation, and Texas NewMexico Power Company.
The requesting parties seek a seven-day extension of
all remaining procedural dates in the revenue requirements phase of this
proceeding due to settlement negotiations.
To assure that no party, the
examiners, or the Commission were adversely impacted by the extension, HL&P
agreed that four days of the extension would count as additional hearing days,
thus extending the deadline for Commission action by eight days.
The
examiners assume that the parties are requesting a week delay in the hearing
as well.
The joint motion is GRANTED IN PART.
All filing deadlines for revenue
requirement direct and rebuttal testimony will be extended seven days,
including Staff's and HL&P's revised filing deadlines for fuel reconciliation.
The extension will not affect any filing deadlines for the other phases,
including the Trinity Mine Issue.
The hearing on the merits will begin on
Monday. February 25, 1991, at 10:00 a.m.
Since HL&P agreed that four days of
DOCKET NO. 9850
PAGE 2
ORDER NO. 14
the extension would serve as hearing days, instead of recognizing the five
days that would have been hearing days had the hearing began on February 19,
1991, the hearing will begin on Monday.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the
S.
day of February 1991.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
tta^a^^
D
KATHS^INE K.
ADMIN
TIVE L
S N MORTO
HEARINGS EXAMINER
JUDGE
1
.'
DOCKET°" N0. 9850
APPLICATION OF HOUSTON LI^T
AND POWER COMPANY FOR AUT ORITY
TO CHANGE RATES
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
;_ .4
OF TEXAS
ORDER NO. 15
ORDER RESCINDING ORDER NO. 14 AND GRANTING
IN PART MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
FOR REVENUE REQUIREMENT PHASE
On February 1, 1991, a Joint Motion for Extension of Procedural Schedule
for Revenue Requirement Phase was filed on behalf of Houston Lighting & Power
Company (HL&P"), Coalition of Cities and the City of Houston, Texas State
Agencies, Texas Industrial Electric Consumers, Industrial Intervenors, Dow
Chemical Company/Destec Energy, Inc., Occidental Chemical Corporation, Big
Three Industries, Inc., Woodlands Corporation, and Texas-New Mexico Power
Company.
On that same date, Order No. 14 was issued granting in part the
joint motion. After the Order was issued, Office of Public Utility Counsel
("OPC") filed an opposition to the Joint Motion.
Later that same date, OPC
filed a motion to Rescind Order No. 14. HL&P then filed a motion to rescind
Order No. 14 and Motion for Extension of Procedural Schedules for Revenue
Requirement Phase.
Given the flurry of pleadings, the Examiners agree that OPC's opposition
must be addressed. Order No. 14 is RESCINDED. All parties are asked in the
future to ascertain the positions of all parties in filing extensions for
filing deadlines.
Additionally, the Examiners encourage all parties to be
forthcoming in their positions on these procedural matters.
The Examiners have considered all of the pleadings and GRANT IN PART the
Joint Motion.
All filing deadlines for revenue requirement direct and
rebuttal testimony will be extended seven days, including Staff's and HL&P's
revised filing deadlines for fuel reconciliation.
The extension will not
affect any filing deadlines for the other phases, including the Trinity Mine
Issue. The hearing on the merits will begin on Monday. February 25. 1991, at
^
r
*
DOCKET NO. 9850
PAGE 2
ORDER NO. 15
10:00 a.m. Since HL&P agreed that four days of the extension would serve as
hearing days, instead of recognizing the five days that would have been
hearing days had the hearing beuan on February 19, 1991, the hearing will
begin on Monday.
OPC's opposition has been thoroughly considered and provides no basis,
legally or factually, to deny the Joint Motion. OPC opposes the Joint Motion
for the following reasons: (1) the non-requesting parties will be prejudiced
by the extension and the public interest will not be protected; (2) if the
delay is granted, the intervenors will likely not file their specific-rate
issue testimony and will discard this specific issue testimony in favor of
more general selective testimony to support the settlement; (3) the delay will
tend to encourage a settlement which is not equitable for residential and
small business ratepayers; and (4) the Commission and the public will have no
basis for accepting the settlement as being in the public interest if the
intervenors' testimony is not filed before the settlement is reached.
OPC
then complains of the process by which settlements are reviewed, requiring the
non-settling parties to point out the shortcomings of the settlement and
shifting the burden of proof from the utility to the non-settling parties.
OPC then suggests that the settlement process presumes that the various
parties have been well represented by their representatives -- an assumption
that could be shown if the intervenors were required to file their testimony
now.
OPC's arguments are not persuasive. First, there is no factual basis to
find that a one-week extension in the filing of testimony and a six-day delay
in the beginning of the hearing will prejudice the non-requesting parties and
not protect the public interest.
OPC alleges prejudice but cannot allege or
prove any specific prejudice that support its position.
The public interest
will be served to the extent that this docket proceeds in an efficient manner
ensuring that all parties have adequate time to prepare testimony within the
confines of the statutory deadline imposed by § 43 of the Public Utility
Regulatory Act ("PURA"), Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1446c (Vernon Supp.
1991).
In fact, at the prehearing conference held on January 31, 1991, all
►
L'';::KET NO. 9850
ORDER NO. 15
PAGE 3
parties were given an opportunity to discuss the establishment of General
Counsel's motions to set different filing dates for certain testimony.
OPC
supported General Counsel's motion to delay the filing of testimony relating
to the Trinity Mine Issue.
Second, there has been no proof that the intervenors will not file their
testimony if the seven-day extension is granted.
The Joint Motion alleges
that the negotiations are at a critical stage, but it does not indicate that
the efforts will result in a settlement. Furthermore, even if a settlement
was reached, general testimony would be insufficient to the extent that it did
not support each and every element of the negotiated revenue requirement.
Third, there is absolutely no evidence to prove OPC's allegation that a
delay would tend to encourage a settlement which is not equitable for
residential and small business ratepayers.
As pointed out by HL&P in its
motion, since a settlement has not been reached, OPC still has the opportunity
to participate in the settlement.
OPC does not claim that it has been
excluded from the negotiations or that its proposals have not been considered.
Fourth, the reasonableness of a settlement is not determined through a
comparison of the original positions of the parties to the negotiated final
positions. Any settlement is reviewed on its own merits to determine if it
complies with the requirements of the Public Utility Regulatory Act ("PURA"),
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1446c (Vernon Supp. 1991) and the Commission's
Substantive Rules. To the extent that any non-settling party believes that a
settling party has needlessly compromised its position, that issue can be
addressed either at the hearing on a settlement or in briefs.
The Examiners will not respond to OPC's criticisms of the settlement
process. If a settlement is reached in this docket, then a procedure will be
established with input from all parties.
If constructive criticisms and
suggestions on methods to improve this process are made, they will be
thoroughly considered at that juncture.
N
DOCKET NO. 9850
ORDER NO. 15
PAGE
Finally, there is no evidence that the filing of written testimony
before a settlement is reached will ensure effective representation of all
parties' interests, or that any representative in this docket is not
During the various prehearing
effectively representing his/her client.
conferences, the Examiners have not noted any indication that these
representatives were not attempting to represent their clients' best
interests. The purpose of written testimony is not to serve as a check and
balance for effective representation; the purpose is to provide factual bas..,
for a party's final position in a docket.
To the extent that the Examiners' issued Order No. 14 too quickly, it
was not out of disregard to any party opposing the Joint Motion. Given the
short time frame involved, it appeared fairer and more expeditious to rule on
the motion. The Examiners do not believe that OPC was harmed in this regard
since all of its contentions now have been duly considered.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the
day of February 1991.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
WNEK INE K. MUDG
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
MOR ON
HEARINGS EXAMINER