Texas Register, Volume 38, Number 34, Pages 5371-5484, August 23, 2013 Page: 5,453
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Texas Register and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
sion remove the AMS surcharges from customers who choose
to take alternative metering service under this rule.
Houston expressed its opposition to new 25.133. Its opposi-
tion is primarily because of the potential impact on electric re-
liability in the Houston area, which it considers to be a pub-
lic safety issue for the city. Houston stated that offering such
a program may diminish the reliability benefits of the intelligent
grid. It asked that the commission reconsider implementing rules
that allow retail customers to choose an alternative to a fully
functioning advanced meter. Houston explained that the wide-
spread power outages caused by Hurricane Ike in September
2008 made improving reliability and outage preparedness promi-
nent on Houston's long-term agenda. Houston stressed that the
installation of a fully functioning intelligent grid is central to its ini-
tiative. This was an initiative pursued in cooperation with Cen-
terPoint Energy. The TDUs, Cities, and Houston agreed that
a widespread or ubiquitous deployment of advanced metering
systems provides benefits to all customers, including those with-
out an advanced meter, and helped utilities to identify outages
and expedite repairs. The TDUs agreed with Cities that all cus-
tomers should pay AMS surcharges, including those who choose
to decline advanced metering, because all customers will bene-
fit from reduced outage events and restoration times. Houston
requested that the commission consider an exemption from this
new rule for those utilities that have substantially completed de-
ployment pursuant to the utility's deployment plan as approved
by the commission. Within Houston, advanced meter deploy-
ment is considered complete.
The TDUs stated that an AMS also facilitates the offering of
time-of-use pricing products offered by REPs. They added that
those who have advanced meters also benefit from lower com-
modity prices that will be achieved by broad implementation of
time-of-use pricing and the corresponding decline in energy con-
sumption during peak periods.
Houston commented that only a negligible number of customers
persist in declining advanced meter installation less than 0.002%
approximately 40 customers out of more than 2.2 million cus-
tomers of CenterPoint Energy. It stated that if a program offer-
ing an alternative to advanced metering were applied to all cus-
tomers, it could significantly undermine the overall success of
advanced meter deployment in Houston. Houston commented
that it anticipates an overall increase in the number of advanced
meter opt-out customers if all are given an option to select an
alternative to an advanced meter. It believes that any proposed
AMS alternative program must proceed on a case-by-case ba-
sis in areas where advanced meter deployments are considered
complete. Any such program should be designed and executed
based on the specific needs of the utility, its customers, and
other affected parties. Commission rules should provide for this
flexibility and should ensure cost neutrality for the remaining ad-
vanced meter customers.
Commission Response
The commission agrees with TLSC/Texas ROSE that adopting
this new rule is in the public interest. Although the commission
does not share the health and privacy concerns with advanced
meters expressed by some commenters, the commission con-
cludes that it is appropriate to address these concerns by giv-
ing customers the right not to be served by advanced meters.
The commission agrees with the TDUs that the new rule strikes
a fair and reasonable balance between the interests of the cus-
tomers who wish to decline advanced meters and the interests of
the other stakeholders, including customers served by advancedmeters. Therefore, the commission adopts a new rule that will
allow a customer to take non-standard metering service. As the
TDUs, Cities, and Houston state, a widespread deployment of
AMS provides benefits to all customers, including those without
advanced meters. The commission agrees with Houston that
the new rule should ensure cost neutrality for the remaining ad-
vanced meter customers.
The commission declines to eliminate the AMS surcharges for
customers who choose to take non-standard metering service
under this new rule, as recommended by TLSC/Texas ROSE.
First, PURA 39.107(h) provides that the AMS surcharge
is non-bypassable, and therefore the commission does not
have the authority to remove customers' obligation to pay the
AMS surcharges. Furthermore, even customers who decline
advanced metering benefit from the deployment of advanced
meters, as the technology enables the utility to manage its
entire system more efficiently. The commission further agrees
with Cities and TDUs that customers without advanced meters
benefit from AMS through shorter durations of being without
power during outages that affect more than one customer and
emergency events.
The commission acknowledges the comments from Houston re-
garding the adverse effects opt-out customers have on reliability
and outage management. These effects will vary in relation to
the number of customers who choose to have non-standard me-
tering service. If few customers choose non-standard metering
service, the effects will be small. These adverse effects support
the new rule's requirement that customers who choose non-stan-
dard metering pay for all of the costs of that service.
TLSC/Texas ROSE argued that low-income customers should
be exempt from paying fees for declining an advanced meter, or
should receive a low-income discount on the associated fees.
They added that the utility should have the ability to recover
costs of customers declining an advanced meter from sharehold-
ers. TDUs disagreed with TLSC/Texas ROSE because provid-
ing a discount to low-income customers would require other cus-
tomers to pay more. The TDUs stated that this would be contrary
to the commission's goal of requiring customers who decline an
advanced meter to pay the costs associated with that choice.
Commission Response
The commission disagrees with TLSC/Texas ROSE that
low-income customers should be exempt from paying fees, or
receive a discount on the fees, when choosing non-standard
metering service. As the TDUs commented, implementing the
TLSC/Texas ROSE request would result in shifting those costs
onto other non-standard metering customers or customers who
receive service through advanced meters.
TLSC/Texas ROSE commented that the proposed new rule, as
currently written, does not require a customer outreach cam-
paign. They stated that in areas where advanced meters have
not been deployed, all customers should be provided the oppor-
tunity in advance to decline installation of an advanced meter.
This notification would reduce costs because no additional field
trips would be needed. TLSCITexas ROSE added that customer
education should include an explanation of the AMS, how it dif-
fers from the traditional system, what alternatives a customer
would have to an advanced meter, and the corresponding costs.
TLSC/Texas ROSE recommended that social and mass media
be used to provide customer outreach. TLSC/Texas ROSE ex-
plained that REP and TDU websites should be required to in-ADOPTED RULES August 23, 2013 38 TexReg 5453
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 38, Number 34, Pages 5371-5484, August 23, 2013, periodical, August 23, 2013; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth342079/m1/83/: accessed April 26, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.