Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Utility Resiliency topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

CenterPoint pitches multibillion-dollar Greater Houston resiliency plan, councils press for county-level details and rate impacts

Houston Resilience Committee · September 12, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

CenterPoint Energy told the Houston Resilience Committee it will pursue a multi‑phase resiliency program that includes trimming 2,000 miles of lines, installing 1,000+ resilient poles and a new cloud outage tracker; council members pressed for Harris County breakouts, clear timelines and rate implications for customers.

Brad Tuttgen, vice president of regulatory policy at CenterPoint Energy, told the Houston Resilience Committee on Sept. 12 that the utility has launched a multi‑phase Greater Houston Resiliency Initiative and will pursue substantial near‑term and long‑term infrastructure work to reduce outage risk.

Tuttgen said the initiative rests on three pillars — strengthening resiliency, improving communications and deepening partnerships — and includes near‑term commitments the company expected to complete within specified phases. “We didn’t take the feedback that we got from Hurricane Barrel lightly. We took action immediately,” he said, describing several measures CenterPoint is rolling out.

Why it matters: the work affects critical circuits that serve hospitals and other essential services and may result in rate or recovery questions for Houston ratepayers. Council members repeatedly pressed CenterPoint for county‑level and Harris County–specific details, potential customer bill impacts and maps showing where pole replacements and trimming occurred.

Key commitments and technical steps CenterPoint described three immediate actions: trimming 2,000 miles of power lines; installing more than 1,000 fiberglass or otherwise higher‑grade poles in strategic locations; and deploying automated “trip saver” devices to reduce the need for manual fuse replacement during restorations. “Our commitment was to trim 2,000 miles of power lines,” Tuttgen said.

The company also described replacing existing poles where inspections showed they failed to meet safety standards, using a mix of fiberglass, concrete and ductile iron depending on design stresses and site conditions, and prioritizing upgrades on critical circuits that serve hospitals and other high‑priority infrastructure.

Communications and outage‑tracking changes Tuttgen said the outage tracker used during a recent derecho failed because automated bots and data scraping overwhelmed capacity; CenterPoint has moved to a cloud‑based outage tracker intended to scale during major events and said it was available during Storm Francine. He described customer open houses to demonstrate the platform.

Costs, rate recovery and oversight Council members asked how much of the resiliency work is already reflected in rates and who bears costs. Tuttgen described two components on customer bills (a distribution/CenterPoint component versus retail energy) and said base rates have remained relatively flat over roughly a decade. He provided sample vegetation management spending figures — about $29,000,000 in 2022 and roughly $39,000,000 last year — and said amounts above what is recoverable in base rates were covered by shareholders.

On the regulatory pathway, Tuttgen said an enabling piece of legislation established a resiliency program that permits CenterPoint to submit a multi‑year resiliency filing to the Public Utility Commission; the PUC will define rules and review the plan. He said the earlier resiliency filing (now being revised) had estimated a roughly $2‑per‑month impact under the prior proposal, but the new filing was still being finalized.

Questions council members pressed on - Scope: Councilmember Mario Castillo asked whether “Greater Houston” is limited to Harris County; Tuttgen said the company’s service territory spans 12 counties and that about 2.2 million customers are concentrated in Harris County, and he offered to provide county‑level breakdowns. - Pole replacements: Members asked where the roughly 1,000+ fiberglass poles were placed and requested a map; Tuttgen said he lacked county‑level installation specifics at the meeting but would try to provide them. - Vegetation and responsibility: Council members pressed how residents report hazardous trees and whether telecom companies should be compelled to clear lines that remain after CenterPoint trims its facilities. Tuttgen provided a CenterPoint contact number (713‑207‑2222), explained that CenterPoint trims only its own lines and said the company is reaching out to telecoms to coordinate removals. - Undergrounding: Several members urged more undergrounding during major public works; Tuttgen said undergrounding can be strategic (highway crossings, wildfire zones) but warned it is not a universal fix — underground lines can be harder to repair after flooding.

Operational details and technology CenterPoint said it is incorporating AI analytics, lidar and aerial imagery to target the highest‑risk vegetation and to prioritize trimming more efficiently. The company also said it has leased smaller mobile generators from third parties for restoration use and coordinates sharing with neighboring utilities during major events.

Next steps and follow up Council members asked for more detailed, Houston/Harris‑specific data, maps of pole replacements and clarity on what portion of planned resiliency investments will be recoverable through rates or DCRF filings. CenterPoint said it will provide additional specifics and will file a revised resiliency plan with the Public Utility Commission for city review. The Resilience Committee scheduled its next meeting for Oct. 3 at 10 a.m.

Quotes “We didn’t take the feedback that we got from Hurricane Barrel lightly. We took action immediately,” Tuttgen said, describing the company’s response. On costs, he said, “The one that we had was approximately $2 a month,” referring to the prior resiliency filing estimate.

Attribution note: Quotes and attributions in this article are to speakers listed in the meeting transcript and were mapped to the committee’s speaker list.