Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Natural Gas Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discussion criticizes gas utility conservation rebates, urges city to consider franchise changes and alternate program delivery
Summary
Commissioners heard a presentation critiquing proposed Texas Gas Service conservation measures and rebate levels and discussed options including franchise conditions, capital preapproval, and having Austin Energy deliver conservation programs instead of the gas utility.
Commissioners discussed a presentation (delivered by Commissioner Silverstein on behalf of Vice Chair Robbins) that examined rising natural gas bills, the role of exports and winter storm Yuri in recent price spikes, and the cost-effectiveness of Texas Gas Service’s proposed conservation rebates.
Silverstein summarized several components driving high bills, including fuel costs, securitization from Winter Storm Yuri and export-related pricing. The presentation’s author (identified in the slides as Paul) had compared Texas Gas Service rebate levels for measures such as tankless water heaters, gas dryers with moisture sensors, furnaces, range stubs and backup generators against national norms and concluded some proposed rebates were excessively high and not cost-effective.
Presenters and commissioners flagged several specific concerns: proposed high rebates for tankless water heaters versus conventional tank units, rebates for gas dryer stubs and range stubs that provide little customer savings, and inclusion of standby generators in a conservation program. The presenter argued backup generators are not conservation measures and that rebates for them are effectively load-building, not energy-saving.
Commissioners and presenters discussed alternatives for city action, including requiring preapproval of capital expenditures as part of a franchise agreement, insisting on fuller contribution-in-aid-of-construction (so new hookups do not shift costs to existing customers), lowering storage/reservation fees where feasible, and asking the city to demand a new customer-assistance program funded in the franchise. Silverstein also suggested Austin should advertise when gas utility conservation programs are not cost-effective and consider having Austin Energy manage conservation program delivery under franchise negotiations because Austin Energy has demonstrated cost-effective delivery of efficiency programs.
No formal action was taken on the recommendations during the meeting; commissioners asked for source materials and underlying data to review the comparisons in greater detail. Commissioner Schwartz asked for the data sources to be circulated so the commission could examine Texas Gas Service filings and comparator utilities’ proposals side-by-side.
Why this matters: the critique raises questions about program design, rate impacts and who should deliver efficiency programs — the gas utility or the city’s electric utility. Commissioners asked staff and the presentation author to provide the underlying data and to consider how franchise negotiations could be used to protect Austin customers from high costs or cross-subsidies.
