As Regulators Talk Renewables, Groups File Petition with PUC

Photo by Mose Buchele.

Environmental groups filed a petition with the Public Utility Commission of Texas to ramp up solar and geothermal power production in the state.

While state officials and representatives from the energy industry met at a conference to talk about the future of Texas renewables, environmental groups filed a petition charging the state’s Public Utility Commission with dragging its feet on solar and geothermal energy.

At the heart of the petition is a question that’s come up before: whether the PUC is mandated by the state legislature to reach renewable energy “targets.” Environmental groups say it is, and by not complying the PUC is depriving Texas of cleaner power. Sierra Club lawyer Casey Roberts says in 2007 lawmakers amended the Renewable Portfolio Standard, so that private and public electric utilities would comply with the renewable goals.

“That’s a clear indication that the legislature believes that that’s something to comply with,” said Casey in a conference call with reporters.

The PUC has not seen it that way. At the conference today, former PUC Commissioner and current Texas Railroad Commissioner Barry Smitherman fielded a question about the rule. He said the last time it came up before the PUC “we didn’t feel like it was a mandate we felt like it was guidance.”

That’s a position shared by current PUC chair Donna Nelson.

Last legislative session, lawmakers never got around to clarifying whether, in fact, the goals are “mandates” or “guidance.”

Terry Hadley, spokeperson for the PUC says, now that a petition has been filed the PUC has sixty days to respond.

“The commission either shall deny the petition in writing stating its reasons for the denial or shall initiate rulemaking proceedings,” Hadley told StateImpact Texas. 

That means that unless the PUC has a major change of heart since the last time it came up, the whole question could be put to lawmakers again next year. And at today’s convention, that’s something that PUC Commissioner Rolando Pablos said he looks forward to next legislative session.

Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/eatslikeacat Dave Cortez

    Regarding the legislative intent of the 500 megawatt non-wind RPS. Please email me at davec (at) bluegreenalliance.org if you’d like more clarification. Thanks!

    Recent legislative activity confirms that the Legislature interprets
    the provisions in SB 20 and HB 1090 concerning the nonwind RPS to be
    mandatory. During the 2011 session, the
    House of Representatives was considering a bill concerning distributed
    renewable energy (SB 981). On May 25th,
    Representative Wayne Christian, the author of HB 1090 from the 2007 Session,
    was considering offering an amendment to SB 981 to further clarify the intent
    of the Legislature in passing both SB 20 and HB 1090 to spur non-wind renewable
    development. His exchange with the sponsor of SB 981, Representative Rafael Anchia,
    clearly indicated the legislators’ belief that there was no need to make
    further changes to the statutes and that the PUC already had clear direction
    from the Legislature to act.

    The exact language from their exchange
    from the House of Representative daily journal follows[1]:

    SB 981 -
    STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE INTENT

    REPRESENTATIVE
    CHRISTIAN: Mr. Anchia, I offer this amendment because it’s my understanding
    that there’s some uncertainty at the PUC as to the legislature’s intent
    regarding the state’s goal for solar and other non-wind renewable energy. Is
    that an issue that needs to be addressed in this legislation?

    REPRESENTATIVE
    ANCHIA: Representative Christian, I believe this body voted on that issue in
    2005 with SB 20 and further clarified the issue for the PUC in 2007. So,
    I believe the legislature’s intent has been clear—that we want the PUC to
    develop a 500 megawatt nonrenewable (sic) energy rule.

    CHRISTIAN:
    So there is no reason to consider attempting to amend this bill to clarify that
    issue with the PUC?

    ANCHIA: That
    is correct. I do not believe that amendment is necessary. The PUC issued a
    proposed rule on this issue at the beginning of the legislative session, and I
    fully expect them to complete that rulemaking by developing a program from non-wind
    renewable as soon as practicable. So I believe the legislature’s intent that
    the PUC complete this rulemaking is already clear.

    [1]
    H.J. of Tex., 82nd Leg., R.S. 5429 (2011).

About StateImpact

StateImpact seeks to inform and engage local communities with broadcast and online news focused on how state government decisions affect your lives.
Learn More »

Education