Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Advocacy Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee reviews Office of Public Utility Counsel budget, agency seeks pay boosts and expert witness funding
Summary
The Senate Committee on Finance reviewed the Office of Public Utility Counsel's budget request, including proposals for pay adjustments and a recurring fund for outside expert witnesses to support utility litigation.
The Senate Committee on Finance received the Legislative Budget Board's recommendations and testimony from the Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPUC) on the agency's 2026-27 budget and staffing needs, including three exceptional items that would increase the agency's ability to represent residential and small commercial utility customers.
The LBB recommended funding OPUC at about $6,900,000 for the biennium, a 0.9% increase over 2024-25 and a reduction in the agency's FTE cap by 6.5 to 25 FTEs, reflecting historical underemployment against the cap. The LBB presenter said recommendations include modest funding to biannualize statewide salary adjustments and that the agency submitted three exceptional items totaling roughly $1.7 million that were not included in the LBB recommendation packet.
Ben Barkley, chief executive and public counsel for the agency, told the committee OPUC represents residential and small commercial consumers as a class in utility proceedings and credited the office's litigation work with producing large consumer savings. "In 2024 alone, our litigation efforts before the Public Utility Commission resulted in $2,200,000,000 in savings for Texas consumers," Barkley said, adding that the agency seeks funding to retain attorneys and to contract experts necessary in complex utility litigation.
OPUC requested three exceptional items: an upgrade in the public counsel's exempt salary, a 10% salary increase across funded positions to improve retention, and $600,000 per fiscal year to contract legal and expert witnesses for complex proceedings. Barkley testified an in‑house expert cadre would be prohibitively expensive compared with contracting outside testimony and that expert contracts must be fully encumbered upfront.
Senators on the committee praised OPUC's role as a consumer advocate and asked for supplemental materials showing case types and complaint volumes to help the committee assess workload. Committee members expressed support for the agency's mission but did not take formal action at the hearing.
The LBB and agency materials will be used as the committee formulates Article 8 budget recommendations.
