Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Rate Recovery Sic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would set 60‑day target for PUC decisions on system improvement charges and expand expedited acquisitions; committee left substitute pending
Summary
Senate Bill 740 would require the Public Utility Commission to act on system improvement charge applications within 60 days and broaden eligibility for expedited acquisitions; the committee left a committee substitute pending for further drafting.
Senate Bill 740, explained by Senator Sparks, would implement two committee interim recommendations: set a 60‑day timeline for the Public Utility Commission of Texas to act on system improvement charge (SIC) applications and expand expedited acquisition eligibility to all types of larger water systems serving as temporary managers.
Sponsor materials and multiple witnesses said the 60‑day target aims to make SICs a reliable, timely recovery mechanism for utility capital investment between comprehensive rate cases. Jeff Kirschbaum of the Texas Association of Water Companies and attorneys for investor‑owned utilities urged the 60‑day timeline but asked the bill to clarify the triggering event for the clock. Both Kirschbaum and Cody Falk testified that if the 60 days runs only from a later completeness determination, the practical review period could be much longer than 60 days and would reduce the intended speed benefit.
Eleanor D'Ambrosio of The Texas Water Company described the SIC analogy to the electric distribution cost recovery factor (DCRF) process, where statute requires a 60‑day decision and the PUC follows an expedited schedule. Witnesses urged language that would prevent delays caused by extensive document requirements or open‑ended completeness reviews.
Ian Gretsch, representing the Public Utility Commission as a resource witness, said the PUC intends to ensure applications are "administratively complete" so they can be processed in 60 days and indicated the agency needs time to vet applications. He said the commission would consider working with stakeholders on definitions and process, and agreed to follow up with the committee on comparisons with DCRF procedures.
Committee members and witnesses discussed possible statutory language to limit non‑substantive kickbacks (e.g., typographical or clerical defects) that would restart the clock. Senator Johnson asked for language that focuses rejections on substantive deficiencies. The chair noted a committee substitute exists; the committee left SB 740 pending to allow further drafting and stakeholder work.
