Council briefed on Atmos Energy Mid‑Tex settlement; staff says average residential bill would rise about $7.83
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Staff summarized a negotiated settlement in the Atmos Energy Mid‑Tex Division rate-review mechanism that would increase average residential bills by about $7.83 per month (9.27%). Council was briefed; no formal action was taken at the meeting.
Hewitt — City staff briefed the Hewitt City Council on Aug. 18 about a negotiated settlement in Atmos Energy Corporation’s Mid‑Tex Division rate-review mechanism that would increase average residential gas bills by roughly $7.83 per month, or about 9.27%.
A staff member said that Atmos initially requested systemwide additional revenues of roughly $245.2 million based on a 2024 test year; the company’s request was reduced during negotiations and the portion applicable to the Mid‑Tex cities steering committee was stated in the briefing. Staff said the settlement would spread the approved increase across the 181 Mid‑Tex cities that participate in the steering committee and asked that the council consider adopting a supporting resolution before Oct. 1 if the city wishes to cede jurisdiction to the committee’s negotiated terms.
Why it matters: a negotiated settlement in the Rate Review Mechanism (RRM) process can reduce litigation costs at the Public Utility Commission of Texas but still alters monthly bills for residential and commercial customers. Staff presented estimated per-customer impacts — about $7.83 monthly for average residential usage and about $25.73 for the average commercial customer — and offered to return with additional detail prior to any council vote.
Discussion and context: the briefing explained that Hewitt participates in two rate-making organizations (the Atmos cities steering committee and an “Encore” group). Unlike some cities that cede jurisdiction, Hewitt historically has not permanently ceded jurisdiction in Atmos RRM matters, so settlements negotiated by the steering committee typically come back to the council for action unless the city has ceded authority. The packet included modeling details and comparative city data.
Decision/direction: no formal action was taken at the meeting. Staff indicated they could provide further information to the council ahead of the Oct. 1 deadline and asked whether council had questions; a councilmember asked whether action was required before Sept. 15.
Ending: Staff will provide additional information if council requests it; no binding approval was sought or given at the Aug. 18 meeting.