Texas Register, Volume 25, Number 11, Pages 2223-2484, March 17, 2000 Page: 2,241
2223-2484 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
to the Texas statute, rather than broad citations to other state
restructuring efforts.
In addition, the commission requests that interested parties
specifically address the issues set out below pertaining to
25.111, Registration of Aggregators:
1. The proposed rule is drafted from the perspective that
aggregators negotiate with retail electric providers (REPs) on
behalf of a group of electricity customers. However, similar
services could be provided to customers by a consultant without
direct negotiation with a REP on behalf of the customers. The
commission invites comments on whether the rule draws an
appropriate distinction between consultation and aggregation
services.
2. The workshop transcripts reveal that views vary widely on
whether, and under what conditions, aggregators should accept
monies from electricity customers. The proposed rule attempts
to establish customer protection strategies without substantially
constraining possibilities for compensation to aggregators for
aggregation services. First, the rule prohibits private aggrega-
tors from accepting payments or prepayments for electric ser-
vice, but the rule is silent on this topic with respect to public
aggregators. Second, the rule imposes financial requirements
only on the aggregators who are persons, and who accept pay-
ments for aggregation services. The rule does not impose fi-
nancial requirements on public entities. The rule does not dic-
tate whether or not the aggregator is, functionally speaking, a
buyer's agent, a seller's agent, or both. Instead, for customer
information, the rule requires disclosure to the customers of the
basis on which the aggregator will be compensated for services,
such as fees from the REP, pre-paid fees from the customer,
payments from the customer upon delivery of service, a com-
bination of the above, or other methods. This requirement is
applicable only to aggregators who are persons. The commis-
sion requests comment on whether the rule strikes the proper
balance in allowing market forces to operate while protecting
customers.
3. In certain instances, statutory conditions that appear appli-
cable to all aggregators are stated in PURA 39.353, relating
to Registration of Aggregators, but are not restated in PURA
39.354 and 39.3545, which concern the registration of public
aggregators. Because a person can seek registration as both
a private and a public aggregator, a person could be subject to
different operating constraints for public customers than private
customers. The commission requests comment on the extent
to which the following matters apply to all aggregators:
(a) First, PURA 39.353 states, "A retail electric provider is
not an aggregator." The commission interprets this sentence
to mean that certificated REPs cannot also be registered as
aggregators that register pursuant to that PURA provision. How
should the absence of the sentence in 39.354 and 39.3545
be construed? If REPs were allowed to register as public
aggregators, what would be the practical result?
(b) Second, PURA 939.353 states, "Aggregators may not take
title to electricity." The commission interprets this sentence to
mean that aggregators registering pursuant to this provision
may not accept payment for electricity services from customers.
How should the absence of this sentence in PURA 39.354 and
39.3545 be construed? If the prohibition does not apply to all
aggregators, then persons who are registered as both a private
and a public aggregator could be in the position of taking title to
electricity for some customers, and accepting their payments,while not doing so for others. What are the implications of such
a result?
4. From a customer perspective, what are the differences
between aggregators and REPs? How will a customer be able
to distinguish a REP from an aggregator? The commission
invites comment on ways, if any, this rule should further
differentiate the role of the aggregator in the market place from
that of the REP.
Ms. Jan Bargen, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Policy
Development, has determined that for each year of the first five-
year period the proposed sections are in effect there will be no
fiscal implications for state or local government as a result of
enforcing or administering the sections.
Ms. Bargen has determined that for each year of the first five
years the proposed sections are in effect the public benefit
anticipated as a result of enforcing the sections will be protection
of the public interest and a uniform process of registering power
generation companies and aggregators in Texas. There will be
no effect on small businesses or micro-businesses as a result
of enforcing these sections. There is no anticipated economic
cost to persons who are required to comply with the sections
as proposed.
Ms. Bargen has also determined that for each year of the first
five years the proposed sections are in effect there should be no
effect on a local economy, and therefore no local employment
impact statement is required under Administrative Procedure
Act 2001.022.
The commission staff will conduct a public hearing on this rule-
making under Government Code 2001.029 at the commis-
sion's offices, located in the William B. Travis Building, 1701
North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701, on Tuesday, April
18, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.
Comments on the proposed amendment and new rules (16
copies) may be submitted to the Filing Clerk, Public Utility
Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, PO
Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326, within 21 days after
publication. Reply comments may be submitted within 28
days after publication. Parties are also requested to e-mail an
electronic copy of comments to jan.bargen@puc.state.tx.us, if
possible.
The commission invites specific comments regarding the costs
associated with, and benefits that will be gained by, implemen-
tation of the proposed sections. The commission will consider
the costs and benefits in deciding whether to adopt the sec-
tions. All comments should refer to Project Number 21082.
The amendment and new rules are proposed under the Public
Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated 14.002
(Vernon 1998 and Supp. 1999) (PURA), which provides the
commission with the authority to make and enforce rules rea-
sonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction;
and specifically, PURA 939.154, which requires the commission
to make a calculation of installed generation capacity that de-
pends in part on the capacity of generating facilities used to gen-
erate electricity for consumption by the person controlling the
facility; 39.157, which grants the commission authority to ad-
dress market power and requires it to review reports of installed
generation capacity; 39.351, which grants the commission au-
thority to require registration of power generation companies;
39.353, which grants the commission authority to establish
terms and conditions necessary for the regulation of the relia-PROPOSED RULES March 17, 2000 25 TexReg 2241
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 25, Number 11, Pages 2223-2484, March 17, 2000, periodical, March 17, 2000; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth113921/m1/19/: accessed April 30, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.