Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Undergrounding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oncor officials outline costs and limits of burying distribution lines in Coppell
Summary
Oncor told the Coppell City Council that cities can request overhead electric facilities be placed underground and recover costs via a tariff on local customers, but a single‑intersection example showed a roughly $750,000 price tag with only about $189,000 recoverable under the tariff, leaving the city to fund the remainder.
On Nov. 12, 2024, Oncor representatives briefed the Coppell City Council on the utility process, costs and tradeoffs of moving overhead distribution facilities underground.
Kita Hobbs, representing Oncor, gave council members a company overview and emphasized Oncor’s role as the transmission‑and‑distribution utility regulated by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT. Daniel Talamantes, a regulatory manager, summarized the underground facilities cost‑recovery tariff (UFCRF) and the required steps a city must take to use the rider.
Talamantes said the tariff stems from a 2006 settlement that allows original‑jurisdiction cities to request overhead facilities be placed underground and to recover the cost via a surcharge billed to electric customers inside city limits. Using Coppell’s 2023 customer count of 18,914, Talamantes said the tariff allocation example is $10 per customer (about $189,140), and that recovery periods generally range from 12 months to four years. “The tariff provides for full cost recovery, through a surcharge to all electric customers within the city limits,” he said.
Oncor and staff supplied a sample scope limited to the Sandy Lake and McArthur intersection, estimating construction to relocate Oncor facilities at about $750,000 to $800,000 for that single intersection. Talamantes and Hobbs warned the council that the tariff amount would cover only a portion of such a project and that the city would need to fund the difference up front and borrow against future tariff collections or pay from reserves.
Council members pressed Oncor on several technical and policy points: whether the utility’s ongoing revenues would persist after the recovery period, how underground systems change fault‑finding and repair times, and whether the presence of third‑party utilities or rail corridors would block undergrounding. Oncor clarified that the tariff recovery period ends after the agreed term and that the standard Oncor delivery charge would remain on bills; Talamantes also stressed that underground facilities typically reduce outage frequency but can increase time and complexity for locating and repairing faults.
Staff and council noted practical obstacles the city would need to address before filing for a project: securing easements and right‑of‑way, relocating third‑party facilities (telecom, cable, natural gas) at separate cost, paying for replacement service taps borne by the city, and planning public notice and regulatory filings including an underground statement of intent and an underground ordinance.
Council members and staff agreed that the presentation provided an initial framework for evaluating whether to pursue a tariff‑funded project for limited locations, but they did not take action; Oncor said it would provide additional details if the council directed staff to advance a specific scope.
The council’s next procedural step, if pursued, would be for staff to identify project limits, estimate total city upfront costs and determine how much the tariff would cover in order to return to council with a financing recommendation.
