Texas ROSEGoals, Accomplishments, and List of Activities
Texas ROSE
Working for affordable electricity and a healthy environment Texas ROSE strives:
To promote a diverse, balanced electric utility resource mix which will provide long-term, affordable, sustainable energy supplies for residential and low-income consumers.
To assure that energy conservation benefits are available to all classes of customers, especially low-income customers and renters.
To promote energy conservation and renewable energy as viable resource options through an integrated resource planning process in a competitive market.
To supplant all planned construction of dirty fossil fuel plants with energy-efficiency and a cleaner mix of alternative energy sources by the year 2005.
To provide reliable information to commissioners and public utility boards on the benefits, advantages, and costs associated with energy conservation programs, renewable energy applications and resource planning standards.
To educate and empower the general public on utility issues affecting customer costs and the environment.
Working for affordable electricity and a healthy environment Texas ROSE has many accomplishments:
Our participation in utility hearings has redirected $18 million in annual utility promotional expenditures to conservation programs and increased utility spending on low-income weatherization programs by $5 million per year. These are programs will eliminate the need to build a large power plant and will save consumers $500 million on their electric bills. Our work has also stopped three unnecessary power plants, saving another $588 million in construction costs and helped to establish new pilot renewable energy projects in Texas.
Texas ROSE is participating in a PUC Commission hearing of the integrated resource plan of Houston Lighting and Power Company. Texas ROSE is challenging the filing on the basis that the plan: (1) adds 165 MW of capacity to the system which will increase air emissions over current levels (2) adds no new goals for energy efficiency (3) disregards commission policy on bidding out energy efficiency programs to outside contractors instead of operating the in-house and (3) maintains a substandard low income weatherization program at a minuscule level of funding. The $750,000 HL&P has committed to its weatherization program represents 0.02 percent (about two one hundredths of one percent) of total revenues. Other utilities spend 0.12 percent, HL&P should be spending $4.8 million on a low income weatherization program. (PUC Docket No. 19270)
Texas ROSE provided expert testimony on low income programs
in transition to competition plans filed by Central Power and
Light, West Texas Utilities, Southwestern Electric Service Company,
Entergy Texas, and Texas New Mexico Power Company. In every case
the utility company initiated a low income energy conservation
program.
Texas ROSE served on the advisory committee of the public participation
processes of eight utilities (Central Power and Light, West Texas
Utilities, Southwestern Electric Service Company, Entergy Texas,
El Paso Electric Company, Houston Lighting and Power Company,
Texas Utilities Electric Company and Southwestern Public Service).
The results of each showed overwhelmingly consumer support for
energy efficiency and renewable energy resources.
Under a grant from the Stern Family Fund, Texas ROSE is working
to gain court approval of intervenor funding where utility companies
are required to reimburse costs to consumer and environmental
groups for their participation in some PUC cases. Other intervenors
including the Texas Legal Services Center and Environmental Defense
Fund have joined the effort.
Texas ROSE and the Texas Legal Services Center successfully led
a grass roots campaign to convince the PUC to adopt rules requiring
utilities to offer energy conservation programs to low income
customers. (PUC Project No. 14400, Nov. 1995 to Jul. 1996)
Participates in national forums to discuss competition and its
potential impact on energy efficiency and renewable energy development.
These forums have been sponsored by various government and private
entities such as the U.S. Department of Energy, National Association
for Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Photovoltaics for Utilities,
Pace University Energy Project, Solar Energy Industries Association,
American Wind Energy Association and National Consumers League.
Represented in the State of Texas Energy Policy Partnership which
constructed a long-term vision statement for energy use in the
state of Texas Member of the environmental advisory group to the
Lower Colorado River Authority's resource planning effort, the
Utilities for Photovoltaic Group, and the PUC collaborative to
propose a renewable energy alternative to the current line extension
rule
Coordinates with the Texas Legal Services Center and Texas Association
of Community Action Agencies Organization to enforce the new integrated
resource planning rule provisions regarding low income weatherization
assistance programs.
Based on the technical comments of Texas ROSE, the PUC adopted
rules requiring utilities to open their planning processes to
the public, to stimulate markets for conservation service and
renewable energy suppliers, and to assess future environmental
risk through the use of scenario analysis. (PUC Project No. 14400,
Nov. 1995 to Jul. 1996)
Texas ROSE challenged the legal expenses of utility companies
and has asked the PUC to adopt a rule that would limit the extent
to which utility companies can pass through legal costs to customers
in rates. (PUC Project No. 16410-R, September 9, 1996)
By invitation, Texas ROSE participated in a negotiation in the
Texas Legislature to draft a bill on retail competition. The negotiation
was unsuccessful. (November 1995 to January 1996)
Based on Texas ROSE testimony: The PUC ordered Texas Utilities
Electric Company to evaluate resources it is considering to add
to the system using criteria that treat energy conservation programs
as viable alternatives to power plants, and replace load-building
programs with programs that save energy. The PUC also ordered
a $12 million annual cost disallowance for the imprudent "energy
efficiency" programs that promoted higher levels of energy
use. (PUC Docket No. 13575/13749 - Application of Texas Utilities
Electric Company for Approval of Its 1995 Integrated Resource
Plan September 1994 to July 1997) The PUC found that Houston Lighting
and Power could meet energy needs through conservation and denied
its application to construct three new generating plants, saving
HL&P consumers from increased toxic emissions as well as $600
million in unnecessary power plant construction costs. (PUC Docket
No. 12138, Application of Houston Lighting & power Company
for Approval of Notice of Intent, Dec. 1993 to May 1994) Central
Power and Light Company agreed to increase spending on energy
efficiency and revamp its customer programs to save, rather than
sell, energy. Included a proposed budget of $1.3 million per year
for programs designed for low income customers. (PUC Docket No.
12820 - Central Power and Light Company Rate Case July 1994 to
Oct. 1995) Southwestern Public Service Company agreed to revamp
its customer programs to save, rather than sell, energy and conduct
a formal solicitation for generating resources, including wind
energy resources. Included a proposed budget of $300,000 per year
for programs designed for low income customers. (PUC Docket No.
13827 Application of Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS)
for Approval of a Notice of Intent for a 203 MW Phillips Cogeneration
Project and a 103 MW Combustion Turbine Project Jan. 1995 to Jul.
1995) San Antonio City Public Service Board adopted standards
for integrated resource planning and created a citizen's advisory
group on resource planning issues. (City Public Service San Antonio
Hearings on Integrated Resource Planning Jun. 1994 to Oct. 1994)
Texas ROSE took the lead to provide documents and technical information
to the PUC in a two-year integrated resource planning rulemaking
project. Working with other interested groups (Consumers Union,
Southwest Office; Environmental Defense Fund, Texas Office; Public
Citizen, Inc.; Texas Citizen Action; and Texas Legal Services
Center) Texas ROSE developed the text of a suggested rule which
was submitted to the PUC during the rulemaking process.
Texas ROSE, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Texas Legal
Services Center (TLSC) were separate parties to the rate case
filed by TU Electric in 1993. The PUC issued an order that was
favorable to Texas ROSE disallowing over $12 million per year
in revenue and requiring the utility to amend its programs. The
decision in the case lead to a $1.8 million per year low income
DSM program pilot project. (PUC Docket No. 11735, Jan. 1993 to
Jan. 1994)
Texas ROSE filed a formal complaint against TU Electric for failure
to comply with the Docket No. 11735 rate case order. Because TU
Electric is delaying any action to start new conservation programs
indefinitely we asked the commission to enforce the order and
fine the company. The PUC ruled in favor of TU Electric. (PUC
Docket No. 13587 - Joint Complaint of Texas ROSE and EDF Oct.
1994 to Jul. 1995)
Texas ROSE took the responsibility for preparing a petition for
rulemaking that was supported by EDF, Public Citizen, and Texas
Citizen Action. The Petition asked the PUC to adopt a policy statement
on conservation and renewable energy, least-cost planning and
competitive risk. (PUC Project No. 13243, July 26, 1994)
Sponsored THE LEGAL SERVICES ROLE IN UTILITY AFFORDABILITY "A
ONE DAY WORKSHOP" with the Texas Legal Services Center and
the Texas Rural Legal Aid providing Continuing Legal Education
Credits for attorneys. As a result three legal aid offices became
involved in cases at the PUC and were successful in securing more
energy conservation programs for low income customers. (March
1994)
The following reports and publications are available from Texas
ROSE:
Power Pak, January 1995, the first concise "road
map" for citizen participation in the Texas regulatory process
explains, clearly and concisely, the utility regulatory maze,
the issues and how citizens can interact with officials and work
to make changes that will benefit them. Over 3,000 copies of the
Power Pak have been distributed to individuals and citizen groups
in Texas, state and city government officials, and the national
network of environmental and energy conservation advocates.
ELECTRIC UTILITY "RESTRUCTURING" - CAN THE SMALL CONSUMER
AFFORD IT? March 5, 1995. The report explains "competition"
in plain English and looks at the possible effects of electric
utility "competition" on consumer costs, the environment,
energy efficiency, low income DSM programs, long-term planning,
fuel diversity and renewable resource development and customer
service. Over 1,000 copies of the report have been distributed
to citizen groups, state and city government officials and the
national network of environmental and energy conservation advocates.
PUBLIC INTEREST PARTIES SUGGESTED TEXT FOR GOVERNING ELECTRIC
UTILITY INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANNING IN TEXAS, January 10, 1994.
TEXAS ROSE PETITION TO ADOPT A POLICY STATEMENT ON CONSERVATION
AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, LEAST-COST PLANNING, AND COMPETITIVE RISK,
July 26, 1994.
RATEMAKING TREATMENT FOR DSM PROGRAMS IN TEXAS: A COST EVALUATION,
August 12, 1994.
RECOMMENDED DSM MEASURES FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY,
August 31, 1994. RESIDENTIAL AND LOW-INCOME ELECTRIC CUSTOMER
PROTECTION, Carol Biedrzycki, Executive
Director, Texas Ratepayers Organization to Save Energy, February
2, 1998.
|
|
Texas Ratepayers' Organization to Save Energy Carol Biedrzycki, Executive Director 815 Brazos Street, Suite 1100 Austin, Texas 78701-2509 Send email to sharrush@mail.utexas.edu |
Back to Texas ROSE home page
last updated September 12, 1998
http://www.main.org/texasrose/accomp.html