TITLE economic-regulation

Part 1. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS

Chapter 3. OIL AND GAS DIVISION

16 TAC §3.52, §3.53

The Railroad Commission of Texas adopts the amendments to §3.52, regarding oil well allowable production and to §3.53, regarding annual well tests and well status reports without changes to the versions as published in the October 22, 1999, issue of the Texas Register (24 TexReg 9134). The adopted amendments to §§3.52 and 3.53 reduce the regulatory burden on oil and gas wells and reduce operating costs for industry by reducing well testing and reporting requirements.

The proposal published October 22, 1999, also contained proposed amendments to §3.26, regarding separating devices, tanks, and surface commingling of oil and to §3.28, regarding requirements to ascertain and report potential and deliverability of gas wells. The Commission intends to take action with respect to the proposed amendments to §§3.26 and 3.28 at a later date.

The Commission simultaneously readopts §§3.52 and 3.53, with the adopted amendments (in the REVIEW section of this issue of the Texas Register ), in accordance with Texas Government Code, §2001.039. The agency's reasons for adopting these rules continue to exist. The notice of proposed review was filed with the Texas Register concurrently with the proposed amendments and published in the October 22, 1999, issue of the Texas Register (24 TexReg 9320).

Texas Oil & Gas Association filed comments supporting the amendments.

Issued in Austin, Texas on December 21, 1999.

The Commission adopts these rules pursuant to Texas Natural Resources Code, §§81.051, 81.052, 85.042, 85.046, 85.053, 85.054, 85.201, 85.202, 86.011, 86.012, 86.041, and 86.042, which authorize the Railroad Commission of Texas to adopt rules for the following purposes: to govern and regulate persons and their operations under the jurisdiction of the Railroad Commission; to distribute, prorate and apportion allowable production; to adjust correlative rights and opportunities; to determine the daily allowable production for each well; to effectuate the provisions and purposes of the Natural Resources Code; and to conserve and prevent waste of oil and gas.

Texas Natural Resources Code, §§81.051, 81.052, 85.042, 85.046, 85.053, 85.054, 85.201, 85.202, 86.011, 86.012, 86.041, and 86.042, are affected by the amendments.

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on December 21, 1999.

TRD-9908942

Mary Ross McDonald

Deputy General Counsel

Railroad Commission of Texas

Effective date: January 10, 2000

Proposal publication date: October 22, 1999

For further information, please call: (512) 475-1295


Chapter 3. OIL AND GAS DIVISION

The Railroad Commission of Texas adopts the repeal of existing §3.56 and adopts new §3.56 with the same title. New §3.56 is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the October 1, 1999, issue of the Texas Register (24 TexReg 8402). The repeal and new rule are adopted to remove an unnecessary burden on the operation of gas plants.

In adopting the new rule, the Commission recognizes that it is not necessary to allocate back to individual hydrocarbon producing properties unidentified recovered and retained oil scrubbed at the inlet of a gas plant because that oil has already been accounted for in accordance with §3.27 of this title (relating to gas to be measured and surface commingling of gas).

The Commission has made two changes to the proposed rule based on comments received. The first change adds language to §3.56(b)(1) to specify that an accepted Form R-3 shall be the authority for the movement of accumulated hydrocarbons to beneficial disposition. The second change rearranges the language of §3.56(b)(2)(A)-(E) to distinguish the differences in allocation between single operator and multiple operator systems, and inserts minor clarifying language.

The Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA) filed comments generally supporting the repeal and adoption but also suggested changes. TXOGA suggested adding language to §3.56(b)(1) which would make an accepted Form R-3 the authority for the movement and disposition of accumulated hydrocarbons. The Commission agrees to this change. TXOGA also suggests reordering the paragraphs in §3.56(b)(2)(A)-(E) to clarify the differences in allocation for single operator and multiple operator systems. The Commission generally agrees with TXOGA's suggested re-arrangement, but declines to place the allocation requirements for single operator and multiple operator disposal systems in the same paragraph. In the new arrangement of §3.56(b)(2)(A)-(E), the first sentence of proposed §3.56(b)(2)(A), less the opening phrase "Except as provided in subparagraph (E) of this paragraph," becomes adopted §3.56(b)(2)(A). Proposed §3.56(b)(2)(B) remains unchanged. The second sentence of proposed §3.56(b)(2)(A), less the opening word "Such," becomes adopted §3.56(b)(2)(C). Proposed §3.56(b)(2)(E) is deleted and replaced with the language "Unidentifiable liquid hydrocarbons recovered by a multiple operator produced water disposal system, in excess of a tolerance ratio of one barrel of liquid hydrocarbons for each 2,000 barrels of produced water received, shall be allocated to each producing property in the proportion that the volume of water received from the producing property bears to the total volume of water received by the system during a reporting period" as the first sentence of adopted §3.56(b)(2)(D). Proposed §3.56(b)(2)(C) becomes the second sentence of adopted §3.56(b)(2)(D). Proposed §3.56(b)(2)(D), less the words "skimmed and" after the word "hydrocarbons," becomes adopted §3.56(b)(2)(E).

Additionally, in the first sentence of §3.56(b)(2)(A), after the word "operator", the Commission has added the words "or multiple operator" to clarify that both single and multiple operator systems must report the volume of unidentifiable hydrocarbons recovered on Form P-18. In the first sentence of §3.56(b)(2)(C), after the word "hydrocarbons," the Commission has added the phrase "recovered by a single operator produced water disposal system" to clarify the type of disposal system to which the paragraph applies. In the first sentence of §3.56(b)(2)(E), after the word "volume," the Commission has added the words "of liquid hydrocarbons" to clarify the nature of the volume that must be reported as production.

The following groups or associations filed comments supporting the repeal and adoption: the General Land Office, Phillips Petroleum Company, GPM Gas Corporation, and the Permian Basin Petroleum Association.

16 TAC §3.56

Issued in Austin, Texas on December 21, 1999.

The Commission adopts the repeal of existing §3.56 pursuant to Texas Natural Resources Code, §§81.051 and 81.052, which provide the Commission with jurisdiction over all persons owning or engaged in drilling or operating oil or gas wells in Texas and with the authority to adopt all necessary rules for governing and regulating persons and their operations under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Further, §85.202(a)(1) authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules to prevent the waste of oil and gas in its storage, piping and distribution and, under §88.011, to adopt rules to provide for the method of measuring oil and gas produced from any well in this state. The Commission is also authorized under §91.101(4) to promulgate rules relating to the reclamation of oil, condensate and gas.

The Texas Natural Resources Code, §§81.051, 81.052, 85.202(a)(1), 88.011, and 91.101(4) are affected by the repeal.

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on December 21, 1999.

TRD-9908927

Mary Ross McDonald

Deputy General Counsel

Railroad Commission of Texas

Effective date: January 10, 2000

Proposal publication date: October 1, 1999

For further information, please call: (512) 936-7308


Issued in Austin, Texas on December 21, 1999.

The Commission adopts new §3.56 pursuant to Texas Natural Resources Code, §§81.051 and 81.052, which provide the Commission with jurisdiction over all persons owning or engaged in drilling or operating oil or gas wells in Texas and with the authority to adopt all necessary rules for governing and regulating persons and their operations under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Further, §85.202(a)(1) authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules to prevent the waste of oil and gas in its storage, piping and distribution and, under §88.011, to adopt rules to provide for the method of measuring oil and gas produced from any well in this state. The Commission is also authorized under §91.101(4) to promulgate rules relating to the reclamation of oil, condensate and gas.

The Texas Natural Resources Code, §§81.051, 81.052, 85.202(a)(1), 88.011, and 91.101(4) are affected by the new section.

§3.56. Scrubber Oil and Skim Hydrocarbons.

(a)

Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this section, shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

(1)

Identifiable liquid hydrocarbons--Volume of scrubber oil/skim hydrocarbons that is received at a gas plant/produced water disposal facility where the origin of such liquid hydrocarbons can be clearly identified.

(2)

Producing property--A location from which hydrocarbons are being produced that has been assigned a lease identification number by the Commission and which is used in reporting production.

(3)

Scrubber oil--Liquid hydrocarbons which accumulate in lines that are transporting casinghead gas and which are captured at the inlet to a gas processing plant.

(4)

Skim hydrocarbons--Oil and condensate which accumulate during produced water disposal operations.

(5)

Tolerance--The amount of skim hydrocarbons that may be recovered before the produced water disposal system operator must allocate to the producing property.

(6)

Unidentifiable liquid hydrocarbons--Scrubber oil/skim hydrocarbons received at a gas plant/produced water disposal facility where the origin of such liquid hydrocarbons cannot be identified.

(b)

Disposition of scrubber oil, skim hydrocarbons, and identifiable liquid hydrocarbon volumes.

(1)

Scrubber oil. Any scrubber oil that has not been returned to a producing property by the end of a monthly report period shall be reported by the operator of the gas plant on the monthly plant report, Form R-3 (Monthly Report for Gas Processing Plants). The unidentifiable liquid hydrocarbons recovered and reported on Form R-3 may be disposed of at the point of accumulation. The accepted Form R-3 shall be the authority for the movement of the hydrocarbons to beneficial disposition.

(2)

Skim hydrocarbons.

(A)

All unidentifiable liquid hydrocarbons recovered by a single operator or multiple operator produced water disposal system shall be reported on the Form P-18 (Skim Oil/Condensate Report) for each reporting period.

(B)

The unidentifiable liquid hydrocarbons recovered and reported on Form P-18 may be disposed of at the point of accumulation. The accepted Form P-18 shall be the authority for the movement of the hydrocarbons to beneficial disposition.

(C)

Unidentifiable liquid hydrocarbons recovered by a single operator produced water disposal system shall be allocated to each producing property in the proportion that the volume of water received from the producing property bears to the total volume of water received by the system during a reporting period.

(D)

Unidentifiable liquid hydrocarbons recovered by a multiple operator produced water disposal system in excess of a tolerance ratio of one barrel of liquid hydrocarbons for each 2,000 barrels of produced water received shall be allocated to each producing property in the proportion that the volume of water received from the producing property bears to the total volume of water received by the system during a reporting period. The produced water disposal system operator shall notify the operator of each producing property of any allocations to that property by furnishing a copy of the allocations as shown on Form P-18 (Skim Oil/Condensate Report).

(E)

The operator of each producing property shall report the volume of liquid hydrocarbons allocated to the producing property as production from the property on either Form P-1 (Producer's Monthly Report of Oil Wells) or Form P-2 (Producer's Monthly Report of Gas Wells). The volume allocated back shall be shown as skim oil or skim condensate on the appropriate form.

(3)

Identifiable liquid hydrocarbon volumes.

(A)

Identifiable liquid hydrocarbon volumes returned to the producing property during the reporting period in which the volume is received at the gas plant/produced water disposal facility shall not be reported to the Commission by the gas plant/facility operator. The gas plant/produced water disposal facility operator shall notify the appropriate Commission district office by telephone prior to the return of such volumes. The movement of these volumes back to the producing property shall comply with §3.72 of this title (relating to manifest to accompany each transport of liquid hydrocarbons by vehicle), commonly referred to as Statewide Rule 85.

(B)

Identifiable volumes not returned to the producing property shall be reported to the Commission and to the operator of the producing property on Form R-3 or Form P-18 as prescribed in paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection. Volumes shall be specifically credited to the appropriate producing property. The operator of the producing property shall report the disposition of such identifiable volumes as either skim hydrocarbons or scrubber oil on the appropriate production report.

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on December 21, 1999.

TRD-9908928

Mary Ross McDonald

Deputy General Counsel

Railroad Commission of Texas

Effective date: January 10, 2000

Proposal publication date: October 1, 1999

For further information, please call: (512) 936-7308


Part 2.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS

Chapter 25. SUBSTANTIVE RULES APPLICABLE TO ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS

Subchapter H. ELECTRICAL PLANNING

1. RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES AND USE OF NATURAL GAS

16 TAC §25.173

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) adopts new §25.173 relating to Goal for Renewable Energy with changes to the proposed text as published in the October 22, 1999 issue of the Texas Register (24 TexReg 9142). This section is adopted under Project Number 20944. Section 25.173 will implement the legislative goal for renewable energy development in the state of Texas as set forth in Senate Bill 7 (SB 7), Act of May 21, 1999, 76th Legislature, Regular Session, chapter 405, 1999 Texas Session Law Service 2543, 2561 (Vernon) (to be codified as an amendment to the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), Texas Utilities Code Annotated §39.904).

In adopting this rule, the commission's objective is to establish a renewable energy credits trading program (trading program) and define the renewable energy purchase requirements for competitive retailers in Texas. This rule will (1) implement the statutory mandate in PURA §39.904 to promote the development of renewable energy technologies; (2) encourage the construction and operation of new renewable energy projects at those sites in Texas that have the greatest potential for capture and development of environmentally beneficial renewable resources; (3) reduce air pollution in Texas that is associated with the generation of electricity using fossil fuels; (4) respond to customer preferences that place a high value on environmental quality and reflect a willingness to pay a higher price for "clean" energy acquired from renewable resources; (5) increase the amount of renewable energy available to supply electricity to consumers in Texas; and (6) ensure that all customers have access to energy from renewable energy resources pursuant to PURA §39.101(b)(3).

Texas possesses a vast amount of untapped renewable resources, perhaps more than any other state. The Legislature recognized that economic and environmental benefits would accrue to Texas citizens from the development of those resources by enacting §39.904, which mandates that an additional 2,000 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity from renewable technologies be installed in Texas by January 1, 2009.

The Legislature's commitment to development of the state's abundant renewable resources is derived from the preferences expressed by Texas consumers in favor of renewable power. The integrated resource planning process required that utilities assess customer values and preferences and consider these preferences in their resource plans. In an effort to assess customer values and preferences, utilities across the state polled their customers. Statistically significant samples representing about two-thirds of retail electric customers in Texas indicated a willingness to purchase electricity that was generated by renewable energy resources to improve air quality in their communities and across the state. The customers' preferences, revealed in the polling process, are reflected in PURA §39.904: cleaner sources of energy should be deployed to develop the state's renewable resources and improve the quality of the air in Texas.

Texas has long been a leader in the direct use of energy produced by burning fossil fuels. Although Texas has historically been one of the largest energy consumers in the nation, it has continued to be near the bottom in the production and use of renewable energy. The continued growth of the Texas economy and population will continue to make it one of the leaders in energy consumption. Relying on energy produced by burning fossil fuels has contributed to the degradation of air quality in much of Texas, and reliance on fossil-fueled energy sources in the future will continue this trend. Texas electric customers have placed a high value on environmental quality and have shown a willingness to pay a premium for clean energy sources that benefit their communities and the state of Texas. The renewable energy mandate, coupled with the program for trading renewable energy credits (RECs), will ensure prudent use of clean, abundant, and unused Texas renewable resources in the energy production process in a least-cost manner. Additionally, it allows renewable industry participants from Texas or any other location to compete in a market for renewable energy.

The staff held a public workshop to begin the evaluation of issues related to the renewable energy mandate. During this workshop, a technical taskforce with four working groups was formed to address key issues. Six subsequent task force meetings were held during which stakeholders participated in painstaking negotiations to develop a well-balanced rule to implement the requirements of PURA §39.904. The rule reflects the work products of the task force and working groups, incorporating numerous compromises reached by parties in the technical workshops conducted in this proceeding. Where consensus could not be reached, staff considered all views presented in the workshops and in written comments in drafting the proposed rule, which was approved for publication on October 6, 1999.

On November 5, 8, and 10, the following parties filed comments on the proposal: Automated Power Exchange (APX), Guadalupe Blanco River Authority (GBRA), City Public Service of San Antonio (CPS), Entergy Gulf States (EGS), Public Utilities Board of Brownsville (PUB), Texas Industrial Energy Consumers (TIEC), TXU Electric (TXU), Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association (TREIA), Shell Energy Services Company, L.L.C. (Shell), Duke Solar Energy and The Boeing Company (Duke Solar and Boeing), the City of Denton, the City of Garland, and the Greenville Electric Utility System (the Cities), Reliant Energy HL&P (Reliant), Texas-New Mexico Power Company (TNMP), Enron, Sabine River Authority of Texas (SRAT), Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS), South Texas Electric Cooperative (STEC), Central Power and Light Company, Southwestern Electric Power Company, and West Texas Utilities Company, which are the Texas operating companies of Central and Southwest Corporation (collectively, CSW), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Austin Energy, East Texas Cooperatives (ETC), Office of Public Utility Counsel and Cities served by CP&L and TXU (OPC and Cities), Texas Electric Cooperatives (TEC), Brazos Electric Power Cooperative and Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative (Brazos and Rayburn), Texas Renewable Power Coalition (Renewable Coalition or The Coalition), Small Hydro of Texas (Small Hydro), and the Texas Public Power Association (TPPA).

On November 22, 1999, commission staff held a public hearing pursuant to §2001.029 of the Administrative Procedure Act. Representatives Leo Berman, Jim McReynolds, Bob Glaze, Tom Ramsay and Senator Bill Ratliff attended the hearing and provided comments regarding the treatment of existing resources in the proposed rule. ETC, SPS, and the Cities also provided oral comments on the proposed section. Any comments provided at the public hearing that were not previously submitted in written comments during this proceeding are summarized herein.

In general, Austin Energy, CSW, Enron, Small Hydro, EGS, Reliant, Duke Solar and Boeing, TREIA, EDF, and the Renewable Coalition complimented the commission and staff for using a consensus-based process involving all interested parties to define the principal elements of the trading program. EDF noted that this proceeding was unlike any other, requiring parties new to this concept to think in new ways about regulatory programs. EDF also commented that the rule as published is exceptional and that Texas is clearly in the position of producing a rule that can serve as a model for other states. Shell Energy commended the commission staff for their work on an extraordinarily difficult rulemaking, stating that the proposed rule undoubtedly will further renewable energy capacity development in Texas. The Renewable Coalition commended the commission and staff for publishing a rule that promises to efficiently achieve the principal goal for renewable energy established by the Legislature. Reliant generally supported the proposed rule as published, while STEC stated that it exceeds the commission's statutory authority, is anti-competitive, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

Comments on specific questions in the preamble to the proposed rule

In the preamble, the commission sought comment on the penalty provisions set forth in §25.173(n). Parties were asked whether meaningful penalties are necessary to ensure compliance with the trading program requirements and to provide examples of penalty provisions contained in other trading programs such as the Acid Rain Program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Parties were also asked to comment on appropriate monetary fees for penalties assessed to competitive retailers participating in the trading program.

Most of the parties agreed that meaningful penalties were necessary; however, TNMP commented that penalties should not be assessed for competitive retailers who fail to meet their allocation of RECs. TNMP contended that there is no need for a standard dollar per megawatt-hour (MWh) penalty or a penalty based on a percentage of market value. TNMP suggested that a competitive retailer should have until March 31 of each year to make up any deficit of RECs through transactions on the open market.

The Cities commented that the administrative penalty provisions of PURA §15.023 are not applicable to municipally owned utilities or electric cooperatives, because §15.023 is applicable to a "person" regulated under PURA. Municipally owned utilities and electric cooperatives are not within the definition of "person" in PURA §11.003. TXU contended that all trading program participants must be treated equally and should therefore be subject to penalties. TXU proposed adopting a provision stating that an electric cooperative or municipality that opts in to customer choice and participation in the REC trading program thereby voluntarily submits itself to the administrative penalty provisions of PURA §15.023 and the proposed rule with respect to its obligations under PURA §39.904.

Duke Energy, TIEC, TREIA, EDF, CSW, Reliant, TXU, and OPC & Cities generally agreed that the penalty structure proposed in the rule was appropriate. Austin Energy and the Coalition commented that the penalties were not strong enough. Austin Energy recommended that in addition to a monetary penalty, the retail electric provider should also be required to purchase the additional deficit credits. The Coalition likewise commented that the penalty amount should be higher to ensure that the cost of non-compliance is higher than the cost of compliance. Shell, Reliant, TXU, and CSW disagreed with this position.

Shell, TXU, STEC, Entergy, Enron, OPC, and TEC recommended various penalty structure solutions. Shell commented that the proposed fixed penalty scheme violates PURA §15.023(c), which requires the commission to take into account six factors in determining an appropriate penalty amount and that the commission should delete subsection (n)(2) and follow the statutory scheme, using a case-by-case evaluation. If the commission establishes a penalty mechanism, however, Shell suggested that the commission modify the penalty scheme to allow competitive retailers to earn back the penalty through future superior performance, and that the commission preserve the option to assess an appropriate penalty, based on the circumstances. The Coalition disagreed with Shell on this point. Shell also suggested that the commission consider waiving penalties altogether if the year's statewide capacity goal is met. Shell contended that the $50 per MWh penalty exceeds the tolerance margin for non-affiliate retail electric providers (REPs), and that the commission should set penalties only after it knows the prevailing REC market value during the compliance period.

Shell recommended that the commission incorporate a market value, using a two-prong penalty measure. Shell relied on a penalty proposed in an Arizona rulemaking. Shell recommended that the penalty be the lesser of $30 per MWh or the Texas average annual firm peak MWh price during the compliance period. The $30 per MWh penalty would constitute a ceiling, with the penalty otherwise determined according to the prevailing market price. With respect to penalties assessed according to the average market value of credits, Shell contended that the commission can not determine market value unless parties disclose all trade prices to the program administrator. The Renewable Coalition pointed out that the penalty proposed in Arizona is not $30 per MWh, but rather $0.30 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) or $300 per MWh. The Coalition concluded that the Texas penalty is therefore significantly less costly than the Arizona penalty.

TXU commented that $50 per MWh is an inappropriate penalty figure. TXU argued that the monetary penalty should be set not at the total cost of a MWh of renewable energy, but at some multiple of the differential in price between market and renewable energy. TXU further commented that assuming that the market value of credits will reflect the cost differential between renewable power and market power, a reasonable penalty is some multiple of the market value of credits. TXU also suggested graduated penalty provisions. TXU maintained that it is reasonable to base the penalty on the average market value of credits even though price is not required to be reported in connection with the transfer of RECs, because it is anticipated that the necessary pricing information will be readily obtainable. TEC disagreed with TXU's proposal that penalties be assessed on a dollar per MW basis for failure to have sufficient renewable capacity under contract by January 1, 2003. Such penalties would be duplicative of penalties for failure to satisfy the energy-based renewable requirement for 2003. TEC contended such double penalties would be unreasonably punitive. TEC noted that competitive retailers will likely satisfy their renewable obligations through the purchase of RECs instead of contracting for renewable capacity directly, and should not be penalized for failure to contract for the capacity. TEC noted that electric cooperatives that are parties to an all-requirements contract would be precluded from contracting for renewable capacity and that penalties for failure to contract for capacity would discourage such electric cooperatives from offering customer choice until some time after the capacity penalties no longer apply, and capacity penalties would fail to recognize that retail load obligations will change during 2003. TEC observed that this would have the discriminatory effect of subjecting incumbent suppliers to capacity-based penalties, but not new retail suppliers. STEC and Enron agreed that a competitive retailer should not be penalized when it has made a good faith effort to comply with its REC allocation. STEC also urged the commission to modify the penalty provision to incorporate the language suggested by TEC that would expressly exempt competitive retailers from penalties resulting from shortfalls in the renewable energy supplied by the seller of renewables.

Enron and EGS commented that the proposed $50 per MWh penalty is excessive. Both parties stated that the market value of traded renewable energy credits is unknown at this point and contended that penalties that exceed or equal the market value of credits may deter a REP from deciding to enter the market. Enron questioned where the penalties collected will go, and recommended that they be used to offset the program administration costs. Shell agreed with Enron on this point. Enron recommended building upon what other states, such as Massachusetts and New Jersey, have done. Similar to those states, upon the first offense, Enron suggested a public warning be issued and that the commission specify a deadline by which the REP must rectify the deficiency of credits. If the REP does not comply with the commission's order, and depending upon the reason for noncompliance, the commission could suspend the license of the REP or notify the REP's customers of the noncompliance. Enron suggested that the commission may prohibit the REP from accepting or soliciting additional customers if a pattern of noncompliance persists. As a last resort, or in the case of egregious noncompliance, Enron proposed that the commission revoke such REP's license. Shell, Reliant, and CSW agreed in their reply comments with Enron on this type of penalty structure; however, EDF and the Coalition disagreed. Enron further commented that it would be unfavorable to REPs to require them to disclose the average market value of their annual credits in connection with assessing a penalty when the disclosure of the price for credits is not otherwise required.

OPC and Cities commented that if it is significantly more costly to acquire credits on the open market, $50 may not be an appropriate fee because REPs will prefer to pay the fee rather than acquire renewable energy. OPC and Cities further maintained that price disclosure should be required because the assessment of the average market value of credits is likely to be highly inaccurate if price disclosure is not required. OPC and Cities further commented that transaction reports for RECs should include both price and quantity. OPC and Cities contended that the purpose of the REC auction is to balance supply and demand, and to provide a market-based incentive for entry into the renewable resources market. However, if the price of a REC is not disclosed, a potential producer of renewables will have no way of knowing whether a potential for profit exists. OPC and Cities supported the levying of the lesser of two sanctions, such that the $50 per MWh penalty may act as a ceiling thereby preventing the penalty from becoming extremely onerous. TEC submitted that the proposed rule's penalty provisions should recognize the reason for a retail energy seller's failure to meet renewable energy goals and recognize that the retail energy seller can not control the action of the renewable energy supplier. TEC also noted that one element of a competitive market is price disclosure and that prices paid for RECs should be disclosed and made available to market participants on an after-the-fact basis. Several parties referred to penalty provisions contained in the Arizona renewable energy scheme and the Acid Rain program administered by the EPA.

The commission notes that the penalty provisions contained in this section were drafted and discussed in several task-force meetings as one element of a comprehensive program design package. The proposed penalty for non-compliance is the lesser of either $50 per MWh or twice the average market value of credits. As many parties agreed, meaningful penalties are a necessary component of a successful trading program; the penalties included in the rule provide a fair and substantial incentive for all competitive retailers to comply with their ongoing REC purchase requirement. Moreover, additional risk-management provisions included in the rule such as six months of early banking, a 5.0% deficit allowance for the program's first two years, and three-year banking allowance for all RECs, provide competitive retailers with the flexibility needed to comply with the requirements set forth in this section. These provisions eliminate the need for any type of graduated penalties suggested by some parties.

The commission disagrees with Shell's suggestion that penalties be completely waived if the state's capacity targets are met in any given year. Shell's proposal would eliminate the incentive for all competitive retailers to comply with the rule and would encourage free ridership and uncertainty in the REC market. The commission also rejects Cities' comment that the penalty provisions in §25.173 do not apply to municipally-owned utilities or distribution cooperatives. PURA §39.002 specifically states that §39.904 applies to municipally-owned utilities or electric cooperatives that offer customer choice. Moreover, §39.002 states that where there is a conflict between the specific provisions of Chapter 39 and other provisions of PURA, the provisions of Chapter 39 control. Section 39.904(c) requires that the commission adopt rules necessary to administer and enforce the statute. Under this statutory authority, the commission may enforce the provisions of the proposed rule. Additionally, the commission finds authority to enforce the proposed rule under §39.157(e), which gives the commission jurisdiction to establish a code of conduct that must be observed by municipally-owned utilities or electric cooperatives and their affiliates to protect against anti-competitive practices. Enforcing the provisions of the proposed rule against some competitive retailers and not others would result in competitive advantages for municipally owned utilities or electric cooperatives that offer customer choice. The commission finds that municipally-owned utilities or distribution cooperatives that offer customer choice in the restructured competitive electric power market must be held accountable to the same enforcement standards applied to all other competitive retailers. The commission therefore declines to make any recommended changes to subsection (o) relating to penalties.

Second, the commission asked parties to list the appropriate combination of requirements that would ensure that the electric industry collectively achieves the state's capacity goals in the most economically efficient manner. The commission specifically inquired whether 400 megawatts (MW) of new renewable generating capacity could be installed in Texas by January 1, 2003 if: the credits trading program (1) begins in 2003, (2) allows 5.0% deficit banking for the first two compliance periods, and (3) does not require a new capacity conversion factor to be used until 2006. The commission also sought comment on the appropriate trading program start and end dates.

With respect to an appropriate program start date CSW, Duke Solar and Boeing, EGS, EDF, SRAT, Shell, TIEC, TREIA, and the Coalition stated that the trading program should begin on January 1, 2002. APX, PUB, and OPC stated that the program should begin before January 1, 2003. EDF, Shell, SRAT, and TIEC stated that a January 1, 2002 program start date corresponds with the beginning of competition in Texas. EDF opined that this timeline would ensure that 400 MWs of fully performing new renewable resources are in place by January 1, 2003 consistent with §39.904(a) and (c)(2). CSW and TREIA stated that a January 1, 2002 start date would allow renewable generation developers to gradually install renewable facilities during 2002 and could potentially lower the costs to customers if federal legislation extends the renewable energy production tax credit (PTC) through mid-2003.

CSW and the Coalition noted that an extension of the PTC would be limited and require developers to immediately install facilities to insure qualification for the credit. Using a capacity conversion factor of 35%, CSW quantified the potential cost savings to Texans. Assuming that the first 400 MW capacity requirement were installed in time to qualify for the $0.019 tax credit, 1,226,400,000 kWhs could be purchased for $0.019 less than those built without the benefit of the credit, yielding a cost reduction of $23,301,600 in the first year of the program. This annual cost reduction would be reflected in each of the first ten years of service for a project that qualified for the PTC. TXU disputed the savings presented in the CSW example, stating that the start date should not be based on hopes or expectations of congressional action.

Reliant, SPS, TNMP, and TXU stated that the start date for the trading program should be January 1, 2003. Reliant stated that the proposed rule requires contracts representative of new installed renewable capacity to be in place and producing a full year's worth of energy, a requirement not expressed in SB 7. Reliant opined that efforts to enforce penalties against a retail competitor possessing its full allocation of renewable capacity under contract by January 1, 2003 would be legally unsustainable. TXU remained concerned that by using a January 1, 2002 start date, it may not be physically possible to construct the facilities necessary to meet its renewable purchase requirement. TXU submitted a timeline to justify its assertion. Reliant was concerned that transmission constraints in ERCOT might limit the ability of the renewables industry to install 400 MW of capacity in time to meet the target in the draft rule. Reliant stated that a program commencement date of January 1, 2003 would allow transmission providers additional time to upgrade the necessary transmission facilities.

CSW, the Coalition, Shell and TREIA sharply disagreed with TXU's claim that the renewable industry could not install sufficient capacity in time to build 400 MW of new capacity by January 1, 2003. CSW asserted that it is likely that renewable resources will be gradually installed throughout 2002, and the total output supplied by generators will exceed the total energy required for REPs to meet their renewable purchase requirements. CSW also pointed out that TXU's estimated schedule for completion of a renewable project is grossly overstated and maintained that a REP wishing to sign a contract today could receive energy from a 100 MW wind farm within 18 months or less. CSW justified its position based upon its experience adding 75 MW to the Southwest Mesa Wind Energy Project in Upton and Crockett Counties, Texas. This project demonstrated that a substantial wind project could be completed in much less than the 28-42 months suggested by TXU. For example, the turbine order was placed in November 1998 and delivery began in March 1999 at a time that over 800 MW of wind energy was installed in the US. Moreover this 75 MW wind farm was completed and operational within nine months after the commission's approval of the project. CSW also stated that TXU's schedule for completing new renewable facilities ignores the following facts: (1) site identification work is in many cases already done or in process; wind energy sites in Texas have already been leased, optioned or purchased by developers in excess of 400MW, (2) private developers of these wind sites are currently conducting meteorological studies, and (3) environmental studies can be completed in less than three months concurrently with geotechnical and engineering site layout work.

Shell Energy also disagreed with TXU's assertion that the 400 MW target can not be met, mentioning that American National Wind Power (ANWP) is currently developing a 250 MW site in Culberson County. TREIA disputed TXU's assertion, noting that Texas industry is installing more than 145 MW of new renewable resources during 1999 alone. The Coalition stated that TXU's lengthy project schedule may be due to the fact that TXU's Big Spring wind project experienced a series of delays associated with regulatory intervention and litigation, external litigation involving patents associated with the initial technology chosen for the project, and a change in project ownership. The Coalition submitted a project development schedule that it believed was more typical, indicating that the wind power industry, contingent upon REPs appropriately contracting for new renewable energy, could easily achieve the installation of 400 MW of new generating capacity by the beginning of 2002.

Although TXU stated that it would be challenged to meet its projected 160-MW requirement, the Coalition replied that the construction of a 160-MW project is quite feasible. The Coalition illustrated this point with Enron Wind Corporation's two Storm Lake, Iowa projects, built simultaneously, at the same location, and equaling more than 192 MW. The Coalition also pointed out that TXU does not have to obtain all 160 MW of its projected initial REC requirements from one project; it has the option of contracting for output from multiple projects, possibly developed by separate entities. The Coalition justified the industry's ability to build new capacity, stating that during the twelve-month period from July 1998 through June 1999, approximately 1,000 MW of wind power capacity, worth approximately $1 billion, was installed in the United States. TXU also submitted that the time required for wind turbine delivery alone may be closer to 12 months after the manufacturer's receipt of the order. The Coalition was perplexed as to the source of such information and NEG Micon, a member of the Coalition and one of the world's leading turbine suppliers, reported that it can deliver turbines within 14 to 16 weeks after receiving a "Notice to Proceed". Representatives of Vestas, another world leader in turbine manufacturing and Coalition member, stated that deliveries typically occur six to eight months from the date of an order. Enron Wind currently can deliver its domestically manufactured turbines within six months of an order, and internationally manufactured 1.5 MW turbines within two to three months of an order. With respect to the project development schedule, TXU argued that it was aggressively assuming nine months for engineering, procurement, and construction. The Coalition countered TXU's assumption by pointing out that the construction of FPL Energy's 75 MW wind farm was accomplished at a remote and challenging location in only five months.

As an alternative to a January 1, 2003 program start date Reliant, TEC, and TXU proposed using the actual installed faceplate capacity, as verified by the commission or program administrator, to determine compliance with PURA §39.904(a), rather than the energy production required by the proposed rule. The Coalition disagreed, commenting that it is neither appropriate nor necessary to alter a fundamental element of the trading program for the first two compliance periods. Despite the fact that the capacity conversion factor (CCF) is administratively set at 35% for the first two compliance periods, program efficiencies remain an important objective, and it would be disruptive to switch from a capacity-based to an energy-based credits trading program.

With respect to the appropriate trading program end date, CSW, the Cities, EGS, Reliant, SPS, TIEC, and TNMP stated that the end date for the trading program should be in 2009 because there is no legislative requirement that the trading program extend beyond that date. The Coalition disagreed with this assertion, stating that the directive of PURA §39.904(c) requires the commission to adopt rules necessary to administer and enforce the renewable energy mandate; this language sufficiently supports the commission's initiation of program requirements prior to 2003, any early banking provisions, and continuation of program requirements beyond 2009. The Cities and SPS stated that §39.904 milestones are evaluated on the basis of whether renewable capacity has been installed. The Cities also stated that extending the end date beyond 2009 is inconsistent with preamble language that there will be no economic costs incurred by persons who are required to comply with the new rule beyond those costs caused by the underlying statute that it implements. Extending the compliance period an additional ten years, Cities continued, will significantly increase costs for parties that must purchase renewable energy credits.

EGS and TXU acknowledged the concern that some stakeholders have expressed that in order for RECs to be available for trading through 2008, renewable energy generators must have certainty that a market will exist for their renewable capacity after January 1, 2009. This concern is that investors will be unwilling to fund a renewable project in years 2007 and 2008, and perhaps earlier, unless they can be sure that there will be buyers for this capacity after January 1, 2009. Both EGS and Reliant argued that the commission may not unilaterally decide to continue the program beyond 2009 without a specific mandate in SB 7. CSW, the Cities, EGS and Reliant opined that conformance with the end date of the statutory goals need not hinder the credits trading program if it needs to operate beyond 2009. CSW stated that the Legislature would be in a position to extend the program if necessary.

Austin Energy, Duke Solar and Boeing, EDF, OPC and the Cities, TREIA, and the Renewable Coalition stated that the end date for the trading program should be December 31, 2019. Austin Energy, OPC and the Cities, and TREIA, and the Coalition maintained that the program must have an extended end date to provide a sufficient level of certainty for financing renewable investments. EDF stated that ending the program in 2019 should provide enough time for suppliers to recover the costs of previous investment in renewables as well as those costs associated with the last 600 MW capacity installment required in 2008. If the program is not extended, continued EDF, renewable energy providers may be forced to try and recover these capital costs in only a year or two of sales with extremely high prices containing an additional risk premium.

CSW, Enron, EDF, OPC and Cities, and Shell suggested that under appropriate circumstances, the program could be ended earlier than 2019 using a market-based approach. These parties concurred that the program could essentially end automatically as the cost of renewable energy decreases over time and the price of a renewable energy credit becomes zero dollars. These parties proposed that the commission should determine the program's termination date at a later time based on empirical evidence justifying that a trading program would no longer be necessary to sustain the mandate. Shell added that an uncertain end date might accelerate the installation of new renewable capacity. TREIA countered that an end date of 2019 was better than a market-based approach. TREIA asserted that self-sunsetting actually would increase compliance costs by introducing risk for projects built prior to 2009. If the value of RECs go to zero, TREIA continued, the only advantage that REPs would gain from "self-sunsetting" would be the elimination of administration costs, which are expected to be low.

In response to questions regarding deficit banking, PUB, OPC and Cities, Reliant, TIEC, and TXU, supported the flexibility offered by the prospect of 5.0% deficit banking. OPC and Cities noted that the concept of deficit banking is one part of the compromise created by the task force members to garner support for the strong penalty provisions of this section. Reliant presented a numerical example of deficit banking that showed it could work as a risk management tool while still allowing compliance with the 2003 mandate.

EDF, OPUC and Cities, SPS, TREIA and TIEC were concerned that the 5.0% deficit banking allowance could reduce the commission's ability to ensure that capacity goals are met. SPS supported the position that any shortage banked under the deficit banking provision should be made up in the following year. EDF further stated that deficit banking is not needed as a risk management tool.

With respect to an appropriate CCF, PUB agreed that the commission should use actual capacity factors to calculate the CCF in the future as actual performance of technologies becomes known. Reliant suggested that the CCF be adjusted biannually. TIEC stated that the CCF should be adjusted in 2004, not 2006. TREIA argued that the 35% fixed CCF reduces the commission's ability to ensure capacity goals are met. The Coalition stated that achieving the initial capacity target set by the Legislature depends in large part on whether the initial 35% CCF is accurate and that the end of the program's first year will illustrate whether or not that is the case. The commission should therefore reevaluate the CCF and assess the success of the program during the program's first settlement period in the first quarter of 2003.

SPS stated that wind turbines likely will perform below the proposed 35% capacity factor in its service territory. SPS's most recent project is anticipated to have a 32% capacity factor. SPS argued that it will have to add 10% more turbines to achieve its energy purchase requirements set forth in the proposed rule.

The commission agrees with TIEC, CSW, Duke Solar and Boeing, the Renewable Coalition, Shell, EDF, TREIA, and SRAT, that the REC trading program should begin on January 1, 2002, for several reasons. First, Congress has extended the 1.9 cents per kWh PTC for wind energy. To qualify for this credit, facilities must be producing energy no later than December 31, 2001. This credit will significantly reduce the cost of wind energy and will lower program compliance costs for competitive retailers and their customers. A January 1, 2002, program start date should provide an incentive to complete projects before 2002, so as to qualify for the PTC. Second, the commission is not persuaded by TXU's position claiming that developers can not build sufficient resources before January 1, 2002. As CSW, the Coalition, and Shell Energy discussed, prudent buyers and sellers of renewable energy are already making preparations for developing sufficient renewable capacity to meet the first 400 MW target. If wind power is consistently the renewable technology of choice during the next ten years, Reliant's concern about transmission constraints may become a reality. However, this does not appear to be a hindrance to wind energy project development in the immediate future. The commission commits to continue working with the ERCOT ISO and transmission service providers to ensure that transmission constraints are alleviated across the state. This should help mitigate any potential increases in trading program costs associated with transmission congestion. The commission therefore declines to make any of the recommended changes to the program start-date, noting that the provisions as proposed are consistent with PURA §39.904(c), directing the commission to establish a renewable energy credits trading program.

Additionally, the commission declines to amend the program end-date as set forth in subsection (m) of this section and agrees with Austin Energy, EDF, OPC and Cities, Duke Solar and Boeing, TREIA, and the Renewable Coalition that a December 31, 2019, program end date will provide certainty for suppliers financing renewable investments, ensure that all 2,000 MW are installed, and would likely reduce the overall cost of compliance to competitive retailers and their customers. First, the commission notes that the majority of stakeholders were in agreement during the task force meetings that a trading program extending beyond 2009 would decrease compliance costs for competitive retailers and ensure the installation of the final 600 MW of capacity required in PURA §39.904(a). For example, increased certainty for suppliers would likely reduce their financing costs, resulting in reduced overall compliance costs for competitive retailers and their customers. If competitive retailers are not required to hold credits beyond 2009 it is possible that the costs of the last 1,050 MW of required capacity may significantly increase, as suppliers seek to recover the above market costs associated with this capacity over a five or two year period. If the cost of renewable energy or the credits were to increase significantly, competitive retailers might choose to pay the penalty instead of purchasing the energy associated with this high cost capacity, resulting in noncompliance with the statutory requirements set forth in PURA §39.904.

The commission clarifies that a ten-year continuation of the trading program to 2019 does not require competitive retailers to purchase additional capacity beyond the 2,000 MW required in the statute; it merely requires them to hold credits for this period. If the price of credits falls to zero dollars before 2019, the commission, in assessing the program, would end the program if it determines that the trading program is no longer necessary. Second, the commission notes that PURA §39.904(c) requires the commission to adopt rules necessary to administer and enforce the renewable energy mandate. This language gives the commission sufficient latitude for the initiation of program requirements prior to 2003, any early banking provisions, and continuation of program requirements beyond 2009. Moreover, the 5.0% deficit banking provision allowed under subsection (m)(2) will not reduce the commission's ability to ensure that capacity goals are met. All competitive retailers incurring such a deficit must make up the amount of RECs associated with the deficit in the next compliance period. All of these elements of the program set out in the rule contribute to meeting the objective of PURA §39.904, the installation of the specified amounts of renewable resources in a cost-effective manner. The commission therefore determines that the language contained in subsection (m) of this section should not be changed.

Third, the commission sought comment on the metering and verification of renewable energy output as required by this section, asking which parties should be responsible for the metering and verification of renewable energy output data.

Almost all parties agreed that the renewable energy generator should be responsible for metering and verification of energy output data. Only PUB suggested that the program administrator or another independent third party be responsible for metering and verification of energy output data. Reliant, CSW and EDF proposed that renewable energy metering and verification be subject to the same standards as that of any other generator interconnecting to the grid. CSW noted that ERCOT has established generation metering and verification standards in the ERCOT operating guides and suggested that renewable generation should meet and comply with the same standards for interconnection as all other generators in a qualified power region, including metering and verification requirements. TREIA suggested that the program administrator establish such standards.

Boeing and Duke Solar suggested that British thermal unit (BTU) calculations rather than metering could be used to determine the energy saved by generation offset technologies, such as solar water heating. They also suggested allowing the energy produced from renewable sources in hybrid plants to be eligible for credits. OPC and Cities agreed with these changes, TXU objected.

With respect to renewable generators and the reporting of metering and verification data, parties suggested that data be reported to either the ISO or the program administrator. TXU, TNMP, and APX favored reporting directly to the program administrator, while Reliant, TEC, Brazos and Rayburn, and the Renewable Coalition favored reporting to the ISO. OPC and Cities stated that metering and verification information should be shared between the generators, market participants and program administrator.

Many parties proposed that the program administrator would be responsible for the aggregation of the production data and verification of the accuracy of the metered production data. TXU, TREIA, the Coalition, and Shell indicated that this would include making spot checks and audits. Brazos and Rayburn and TEC maintained that the ISO should be responsible for verifying production data as well as generation-offset, off-grid, and on-site distributed renewable resources. According to EDF, the burden of proof remains with the producer, regardless of who does the verification. Enron argued against the existence of a program administrator, proposing that each generator issue its own RECs.

The commission agrees with EDF that the burden of proof remains with the generator. The BTU calculations suggested by Duke Solar and Boeing would be an acceptable method to determine the energy saved by generation offset technologies. However, the commission agrees with other parties that accuracy of metered production data should be verified by the program administrator and amends subsection (g)(9) to reflect this conclusion.

Fourth, the commission sought comment on the banking provisions currently proposed in this section, specifically asking whether the three-year banking provision contained in the proposed section would help ensure that 2,000 MW of new capacity is installed in Texas by 2009. Parties were also asked whether renewable power generators should be allowed to receive credits for energy produced before the first compliance period (early banking) and how the addition of this provision to the proposed section would impact the achievement of the statutory goal.

With respect to a three-year banking limit for RECs, PUB, CSW, Duke Solar and Boeing, Enron, EDF, OPC, SRAT, Shell, SPS, STEC, the Coalition, TIEC, TNMP, and TREIA supported the banking provision. Brazos, Shell, TEC, and TIEC stated that banking will encourage early installation of renewable facilities. EDF stated that the combination of limiting the life of credits to three years and specifying a program end date of 2019 is a good solution and provides operational insurance without jeopardizing the fulfillment of the legislative goal. PUB, the Coalition, Duke Solar, EDF, OPUC, and TREIA stated that the three-year banking limitation will ensure that participants in the credit trading program will build new renewable facilities and not just accumulate credits. These parties argued that unlimited banking might allow competitive retailers to accumulate enough RECs to meet their assigned requirements without having to build the full 2000 MW of capacity by 2009. Brazos Electric, Shell Energy, SPS, TEC, and TNMP noted that the three-year banking provisions will help smooth normal year-to-year variance in output, provide a more stable trading program and facilitate renewable resource planning.

Austin Energy and TXU opposed limits on banking credits. Austin Energy stated that the proposed three-year life of banked RECs arbitrarily restricts banking, a policy that should be encouraged aggressively. TXU commented that a REC represents actual energy production from a renewable resource, and the benefit gained from the production of that energy was actually realized and does not expire; the benefit of renewable energy production is permanent and the REC earned by that energy production should also be permanent.

Duke Solar and Boeing, the Coalition, and TREIA proposed that the commission should articulate the right to alter restrictions on banking at any time in the future it may be deemed necessary to meet the capacity targets. The Coalition recommended that the commission explicitly reserve in the rule the authority to take such action. The Coalition stated that the actions to be taken by the commission in this regard could include limiting the number of credits banked in prior compliance periods that can be used to achieve compliance in the current period, and reducing the effective life of credits to less than three years. CSW, Shell Energy, and TXU disagreed with this position. CSW opined that canceling a banked REC in order to correct a shortfall would in itself lead to shortfalls in renewable resource additions. CSW recommended that the commission adjust the CCF if needed, as recommended in the proposed rule, to reallocate renewable resource purchase requirements to competitive retailers. Shell stated that having the commission retain the discretion to modify banking requirements at any time during the program's existence would introduce significant uncertainty into the trading program.

EDF stated that it would be better to be more conservative in the beginning of the program in determining banking rights and privileges, than to later be in a position requiring the commission to amend those rights if they are found to be harming the legislative goal. SPS stated that too many restrictions imposed on RECs could diminish their value to zero. This limited value greatly reduces the incentive to own excess RECs.

Although early banking is not allowed in the published rule, Austin Energy, CSW, Duke Solar and Boeing, Enron, EGS, the Coalition, SRAT, Shell Energy, STEC, TEC, TREIA, and TXU supported early banking. Duke Solar and Boeing, the Coalition, and TREIA proposed that six months of early banking be allowed for new renewable facilities. The Coalition, STEC, and TXU argued that early banking could provide early liquidity to the REC market. SRAT suggested that early banking should begin as early as 2000 and should be allowed for existing resources. EDF did not oppose early banking per se, but found it hard to imagine scenarios that could provide incentives for early construction of new resources and ensure that the interim capacity targets are met. EDF noted that parties favoring unlimited banking, early or otherwise, have failed to provide the mathematical examples the commission requested. Therefore, EDF commented that the three-year limitation on banking should be maintained and no early banking should be allowed. EDF also stated that allowing the banking of credits produced prior to January 1, 2002 could severely affect the goal if qualifying existing post-1995 resources were allowed to be banked. From a policy view, EDF continued, early banking is a tool to encourage early development of resources, and so applying early banking to already existing facilities would be meaningless as an incentive device. EDF noted that a complicating factor associated with early banking is cost recovery. CSW disagreed with EDF and TIEC that early banking would provide some existing eligible resources with an unfair opportunity to double recover their costs, pointing out that the proposed rule clearly excludes any existing renewables from eligibility in the trading program if they are currently receiving cost recovery through base rates or a power cost recovery factor (PCRF).

Austin Energy, CSW, and Shell Energy stated that early banking is an important component of ensuring that the program achieve the initial target of 400 MW of new renewable resources in 2002, creating an incentive to build renewables in advance of the compliance date. Although TREIA stated its concern that early banking serves to lessen the likelihood that capacity targets will be met, it supported the overall package embodied in the proposed rule, and agreed that a modest level of early banking could be tolerated without jeopardizing compliance with capacity goals. Reliant stated that the intent of forward banking is a risk management tool. If the first compliance period is 2003 with a requirement of 400 MW, Reliant continued, early banking should not be necessary.

TIEC opined that early banking does not seem a viable option, because the commission would need to have the registration and certification procedures in place, and the resources would have to meet all eligibility requirements of subsection (e). TIEC also stated that it is likely that the only renewable facilities which could take advantage of early banking would be new resources that would happen to be planned, built, and operated during the short window of September 1, 1999 through December 31, 2001.

The commission notes that the three-year banking provision contained in the proposed section was as part of a comprehensive program design package agreed to by a majority of stakeholders during several of the task force meetings. The majority of parties agreed that this banking provision would provide competitive retailers with additional flexibility in a trading program based on energy produced by intermittent generating capacity. Other parties agreed, that while not ideal, the three-year limitation would help to ensure that competitive retailers contract for new capacity in lieu of holding accumulated credits for the duration of the program. Parties opposed to this provision were afforded the opportunity, both during the workshops and the formal comment period, to raise and provide justification for changes to the three-year banking limitation for credits. The commission finds that parties have not convincingly shown that the three-year banking provision should be either shortened or lengthened in the context of a comprehensive program design package.

With respect to an early banking provision, the commission notes that, during the task force meetings, most parties agreed that an early banking provision would add liquidity to the market by increasing the number of credits that are available at the start of their program. The commission agrees that an early banking provision will enhance the market's liquidity and provide a more functional market at the beginning of the program while maintaining the economic incentives to build new renewable facilities. This will help provide competitive retailers with additional flexibility and important risk management tools needed to comply with the requirements of the trading program, especially in its early stages. The commission clarifies that an early banking provision does not require competitive retailers to buy RECs at an earlier point in time, but rather allows generators to receive RECs for sale in the trading program prior to the program's first compliance period. The commission therefore amends §25.173(m) to reflect this conclusion.

The commission agrees with CSW, EDF, Shell Energy, and TXU that modifying banking requirements at any time during the program's existence would introduce uncertainty and an additional element of risk for competitive retailers forced to comply with the trading program requirements. The commission therefore declines to amend this section to include a provision retaining the right to alter restrictions on banking at any time in the future as it deems necessary to achieve the required capacity targets. The commission points out that adjustments in the capacity conversion factor as set forth in subsection (j) and commission review of the program as set forth in subsection (q), should adequately correct any capacity deficiencies. The commission therefore declines to amend subsection (g)(5) of this section and finds that the language is consistent with PURA §39.904(c) relating to the establishment of a renewable energy credits trading program.

Fifth, the commission inquired whether it would be necessary to build new renewable resources to offset any reduction in capacity resulting from the retirement of any renewable resources in Texas.

Austin Energy, PUB, CSW, EDF, Duke Solar and Boeing, Shell Energy, TEC, TIEC, TNMP, TREIA, Brazos and Rayburn, TXU, and the Renewable Coalition, stated that the goal for new renewable energy in Texas is 2,000 MW by 2009. However, these parties also pointed out that PURA §39.904 also requires a cumulative renewable capacity of 2,880 MW in Texas by 2009. This assumes that 880 MW of renewable capacity currently exists, will continue to operate, and should be replaced by new resources if any are retired. OPC and Cities and Reliant stated that the Legislature intended to have 2,000 MW of new renewables by 2009. The focus should therefore be on installing 2,000 MW of new capacity and not providing a mandate for the maintenance of existing resources. Therefore, the parties concluded, there is no need to build new renewable facilities if any are retired during the life of the program.

PURA §39.904(a) requires an additional 2,000 MW of renewables to be installed in Texas by January 1, 2009. However, this subsection also states cumulative capacity targets for renewables, culminating with 2,880 MW installed in Texas by January 1, 2009. This illustrates the Legislature's assumption that 880 MW of renewables existed in Texas at the time SB 7 was drafted and will continue to be in existence on January 1, 2009. Therefore, if any of the renewable capacity is retired, new renewables to replace that capacity will have to be built. Moreover, if customer demand for renewables exceeds 2,880 MW, market forces could lead competitive retailers to purchase renewable capacity in excess of what is mandated in §39.904(a). Therefore, the commission concludes that the 2,880 MW requirement indicates the minimum amount of renewable capacity that should be installed in Texas by 2009, not the maximum. Changes to the language in subsection (a) are therefore unnecessary. The commission amends subsection (h) of this section to clarify this conclusion.

Sixth, the commission sought comment on the obligation of municipally-owned utilities, distribution cooperatives, and retail electric providers to purchase new renewable resources in the credits trading program if they have existing renewable resources sufficient to cover their renewable energy purchase requirement. Parties were specifically asked whether entities with existing resources should have their obligation to purchase RECs proportionately reduced to reflect the percent of existing renewables they have under contract. The commission also inquired whether it would be necessary to allow existing resources to produce credits for sale in the trading program if those resources are allowed to offset a party's purchase obligation. The commission also asked parties to explain how all of the following conditions could be met: (1) a party's purchase obligation is offset by existing resources, (2) renewable credits associated with those existing resources are excluded from producing credits for sale in the trading program, and (3) the capacity requirements set forth in PURA §39.904 are achieved in a timely, economical, and efficient manner.

Austin Energy, CPS, CSW, EGS, EDF, LCRA, OPC and Cities, Reliant, TEC, TIEC, TPPA, and the Renewable Coalition generally agreed to a compromise approach that would exclude existing renewables from participating in the trading program, but would allow entities participating in retail competition to use existing resources which they own or purchase to satisfy all or part of their renewable obligation. The principles of this compromise are as follows: (1) existing renewable resources as defined in §25.173(c)(5), other than qualifying existing resources as defined in proposed §25.173(c)(10), that are currently owned by or under contract to an entity would count toward its allocated requirement for as long as they remain under contract (including renewal) or are owned by the entity, (2) existing renewables, other than qualifying existing resources as defined in proposed §25.173(c)(10), may not participate in the REC trading program, and (3) regardless of when an entity chooses to opt into competition, there should be a one-time, up front nomination of the existing renewable resources (based on a ten-year average MWh output) that will be used to offset its allocated requirement. LCRA stated that its proposal would allow those who already own or purchase renewable capacity to count such capacity or purchases toward the allocated renewable requirement. Such a proposal can not produce windfalls, precisely because the contracts for such renewables are already in place and can not arbitrarily be broken. Such resources can not flood the market because they are already dedicated to existing customers. The price of credits will not affect the price of energy already under contract, nor produce benefits to the owners of existing resources, windfall or otherwise.

CPS, OPC, Brazos and Rayburn proposed methodologies that could be used to offset renewable purchase obligations for entities with existing resources. The Coalition recommended that the commission take great care in implementing the offset for existing resources, as different approaches could have dramatically different implications for the achievement of the program's objectives. For example, OPC's proposal would actually result in less than 2000 MW of new renewables being built, as requirements to buy new renewable RECs are reduced for the owners of existing resources, but are not reallocated to other competitive retailers. Additionally, Brazos Electric's proposed approach would give disproportionate value to existing renewables. The initial allocation of REC requirements would be based on the market shares of all participating retailers. Existing renewables would offset REC requirements, for those that own existing renewables. The total REC requirement would then be allocated across the smaller, remaining base of REPs. The ratio of RECs required to total sales on a per-REP basis would be higher in this allocation than in the initial allocation. With no readjustment of the allocation for the exempted owners of existing resources proposed, the result is that existing resources would have a disproportionate value, relative to new resources, in achieving compliance with program requirements. The Coalition agreed with CPS's proposal, stating that it includes two allocation stages, correctly providing that REC responsibilities are relieved for owners of existing resources on the same basis as they are assigned for REPs which own no existing resources. The Coalition stated that the commission must limit this benefit to output that is under contract exclusively for resale to retail customers. Without such a limitation, this output could be sold and resold on a wholesale basis. TXU objected to an "offset" concept that would use a historical average of energy output from the existing resources in determining the amount of "offset", maintaining that actual energy production each year should be used. TXU and CSW also suggested that, to the extent that trading program compliance is based upon energy, the "offset" provided by existing resources be based upon actual energy produced, and not capacity.

TXU opposed any offset provision. CSW agreed, but stated it was willing to accept a compromise comparable to CPS's proposal. TXU stated that it is unfair and discriminatory to allow those entities to offset their obligation using old, low-cost, low-capacity factor facilities, the capital cost of which may have already been recovered through rates, and will also increase the costs that all REPs, including new REPs, will bear as they enter the competitive market in 2002. TXU further stated that such an exemption would allow municipally owned utilities (MOUs) and electric cooperatives to avoid their responsibility to support the legislative goal at the expense of all other retail competitors. Only MOUs and cooperatives with existing resources would be able to take advantage of this exemption because REPs will not be allowed to continue ownership of generation facilities, renewable or otherwise, following the advent of retail competition. Brazos and Rayburn and the Cities preferred that existing resources be included in the trading program, but that a reasonable compromise would be for municipally owned utilities and distribution cooperatives to offset part or all of their REC requirements with existing renewable resources currently under contract. PUB and State Representatives Merritt and Zbranek supported some form of offset of REC requirements for municipally owned utilities and distribution cooperatives purchasing power from existing renewable resources. CSW alternatively suggested using a "cost test" to qualify existing renewable resources for participation in the trading program. The "cost test" would allow existing renewable resources to prove that their costs were above those of other resources for sale in the wholesale market. Any existing renewables meeting these cost criteria would be allowed to participate in the trading program.

STEC commented that the offset, in principle, was a good basis for a negotiated compromise. EDF strongly preferred this type of solution because it maintains the trading program solely for new resources, allowing that market to operate correctly by setting prices that minimize the ultimate cost to Texas citizens. Brazos and Rayburn and ETC stated that for those cooperatives that do offer customer choice, their load ratio share of their generation and transmission (G&T) cooperative's existing renewables should count toward such opt-in cooperative's REC allocation.

Many parties with existing renewable resources explained why these resources should be allowed to participate in the trading program. APX, Brazos and Rayburn, PUB, ETC, GBRA, SRAT, TEC, TNMP, and State Representatives Wohlgemuth and Zbranek commented that the commission should incorporate existing renewables into the credits trading program, as the continued operation of existing renewables is important in increasing the total MW of renewables operating in Texas. APX, Brazos and Rayburn, and TEC stated that the cost of trading RECs from existing resources would be no higher, and perhaps lower, than the cost of the trading program in which only new resources earned trading credits. APX opined that the commission can define the percentage of new RECs and existing RECs each competitive retailer must purchase to comply with the rule and provide the regulatory push desired to encourage the development of new renewable resources.

GBRA explained that many of the large incumbent providers oppose the inclusion of existing resources in the rule because they have a minimum amount of renewable capacity in their existing mix. By increasing the number of potential suppliers in the market to include existing resources along with entities that construct new projects, the market price for credits should in fact decrease, resulting in an overall benefit to the market. ETC and State Representatives Telford and Wohlgemuth also stated that out-of-state renewables should be included in the trading program in order to be fair to the rural ratepayers and constituents in East Texas. EDF responded by stating that the list of the 880 MW of renewables used by the Senate Interim Committee on Electric Utility Restructuring did not include the 128 MW of out-of-state Southwest Power Administration (SWPA) hydropower allocated to cooperatives in East Texas.

CPS, Coalition, Duke Solar, EDF, OPUC, Shell Energy, and TXU stated their opposition to including existing renewables in the credits trading program. They maintained that awarding RECs to existing renewable resources would seriously undermine the market for new renewable-resource credits and would jeopardize the state's ability to achieve the required amounts of new renewable-resource generating capacity in a cost-effective manner. OPC and the Coalition commented that the inclusion of existing renewables in the program will be more costly in the short-run and decrease the margin for competition in the early, formative stages of the market for electricity. Additionally, the Coalition, Reliant, Shell Energy, and TXU stated that if existing renewables received RECs that their owners would receive an undeserved windfall. TXU provided a mathematical example of such a windfall, concluding that the windfall would be substantial. For example, assuming that the cost of credits averages $10 per MWh over the first ten years of the program, and assuming a 20% capacity factor for existing renewable resources, the value of the credits provided to existing facilities would be over $153 million. TXU stated that owners of existing renewable facilities should not receive a windfall of this magnitude.

The Coalition stated that if owners of existing renewable-generation were awarded only one-half the amount of credits awarded to owners of new facilities, this windfall would be merely reduced, not eliminated, again without producing any additional renewable-resource capacity. Likewise, awarding new renewable resources two credits per megawatt-hour would reduce, but not eliminate, the number of existing resources wielding a competitive advantage over new renewables. Shell Energy stated that it has not seen any data or studies to show that an additional credit per MWh constitutes a sufficient investment incentive to overcome the deterrent effect that existing resources' incumbency advantage would create, or that competitive retailers would purchase energy from these new projects, at a higher cost, simply because they would receive more RECs.

TXU stated that requiring new projects to compete with existing resources in the market for renewable energy credits would create a serious market power issue, particularly during the early years of the program, when the amount of existing renewable capacity will significantly exceed that of new capacity. Even by 2005 and 2006, the existing amount of renewable energy capacity (880 MW) will exceed the goal for new capacity (850 MW). By restricting the credit-trading program to new resources, market power concerns will be greatly minimized. Third, the presence in the credits market of significant amounts of lower-cost, existing renewable sources could inhibit the timely contracting for credits from new sources that will be necessary to support the development of those sources. This could occur if the owners of those lower-cost, existing sources withhold their credits from the market, in anticipation of higher credit prices to be set by new renewable generation, and buyers of credits delay their purchases in hopes of securing lower-cost credits from existing sources. TXU stated that this would stifle the goal of having new generation in place according to SB 7.

CPS stated that simple economics dictate that, in a competitive generation market, the sustainability of an existing renewable resource is jeopardized only to the extent that the incremental production costs of the resource are in excess of the market price of electricity. While some parties have presented data indicating that the total cost (i.e., embedded and incremental costs) may be greater than the market price for some renewable resources, no data has been presented that would indicate that any of the existing base of renewable resources has incremental production costs that exceed the expected market price of electricity. Given these circumstances, the inclusion of existing renewable resources in the REC trading program serves only to: (1) provide a market-based subsidy toward the recovery of embedded costs that are rightfully addressed in the context of stranded costs (i.e., in the case where the total cost of the renewable resource is greater than the market price); or (2) provide windfall profits to the owners of existing renewable resources (i.e., in the case where the total cost of the renewable resource is less than the market price). CPS does not believe that the REC trading program was created to provide stranded cost subsidies or windfall profits; rather, it was created with a sole purpose in mind-to achieve an additional 2,000 MW of renewable resources in the State by 2009.

With respect to the competitiveness of existing hydroelectric facilities, Brazos and Rayburn, GBRA, LCRA, and SRAT noted that the cost of production from their existing hydroelectric resources exceeds projected market values. LCRA stated that the resources are expensive to maintain and the ability to release water to generate electricity is limited by water rights. The resultant output, according to LCRA, GBRA, and SRAT, when apportioned over the cost to operate and maintain the facilities, produces a cost of $36-$38 MWh for LCRA to over $70 per MWH for GBRA and SRAT. LCRA stated that these costs make the hydroelectric resources unable to compete against new combined cycle costs or existing generation for which stranded costs have been recovered. EGS and LCRA argued it would have little incentive to maintain their hydro resources under those circumstances. Brazos Electric provided information on several of its existing hydro contracts, stating that low annual capacity factors and age of these facilities result in average costs that are above market. Therefore, the energy associated with these facilities should be used to generate RECs.

Reliant and TXU expressed skepticism about the claims of the river authorities and stated that more detailed information would be needed to persuade them that hydroelectric resources are in need of assistance. In any event, Reliant and TXU stated that municipal and cooperative electric utilities that opt in to customer choice could recover their stranded costs pursuant to the relevant provisions of PURA Chapters 40 and 41, respectively. Shell Energy stated that the commission should ignore threats that some parties will close their facilities if it does not extend further preferences and subsidies to these already subsidized facilities. Most existing resource owners can sell this energy through existing long-term contracts. Shell questioned the notion that LCRA, whose main purpose is to build and maintain dams and which is adding even more generation capacity to meet all its long-term requirements contracts, will shut down its lucrative generating facilities.

Austin Energy, Brazos and Rayburn, CPS, DGG, Entergy, LCRA, TEC, TIEC, and TPPA took the position that the Legislative mandate in PURA §39.904 includes existing resources. As such, the rule must provide a mechanism that allows for the continued operation of these resources because the 880 MW of renewable resources in existence when the Legislature enacted SB 7 is included in the mandates for 2003, 2005, and 2007. The proposed rule acknowledges this mandate by stating that one of its purposes is "to ensure that the cumulative installed renewable capacity in Texas will be at least 2,880 MW by January 1, 2009."

ETC stated that under the proposed rule none of the hydro power currently under long term contract to Tex-La, NTEC, or SRG&T would count in the renewable energy program, and any member distribution cooperative opting in to retail competition would have to purchase additional renewable energy credits ("RECs") to satisfy the renewable allocation assigned by the program administrator. Not only is this result inequitable, it could run afoul of the provisions of the all-requirements contract between each G&T and its member distribution cooperatives, which already provide for the distribution cooperative's full requirements. ETC continued by stating that in practical terms, the cost of having to acquire a completely new renewable energy allocation is estimated to be, over the 11 year period beginning in 2002 and ending in 2012, on average more than $1.5 million per year for the East Texas Cooperatives' distribution cooperatives if they opt in to retail competition.

The Cities stated that the proposed rule does not acknowledge that municipally-owned utilities were making investments in hydroelectric facilities without having to be pushed into doing it by the commission or the Legislature. Therefore, it is only fair that these units, and others like them, be included in the credits trading program.

TXU stressed that existing renewable resource facilities were built for purposes other than to meet the requirements of PURA §39.904. Dams were built mainly for flood control, water storage, or recreation, with low-cost electricity being a side benefit. TXU emphasized that the ability to obtain power from hydroelectric projects was generally limited to only certain types of entities due to federal preference provisions. Thus, ownership of existing renewable resource facilities constitutes roughly three-fourths of the 880 MW of existing renewable capacity and is skewed towards certain types of entities (mainly river authorities, cooperatives, and municipalities). It would therefore be unfair to provide a monetary benefit to these entities when other utilities in the past simply did not have the opportunity to avail themselves of such renewable resource facilities. Shell Energy rejected the fairness argument submitted by entities with existing renewables, questioning whether it is fair that cooperatives and municipal utilities obtained subsidies and preferences for their renewable resources, while IOUs could not. Shell opined that the cooperatives and municipal utilities built these facilities for reasons of their own choosing to suit their own needs. Shell suggested that the commission should only care whether its rule complies with the legislation.

The commission concludes that existing resources should not be allowed to participate in the credits trading program. The purpose of the trading program is to ensure that 2,000 MW of new renewables are installed in Texas in an economically efficient and least cost manner. This purpose is consistent with PURA §39.904(a), which requires 2,000 MW of new renewables to be installed in Texas by 2009 and §39.904(b), which requires the commission to establish a renewable energy credits trading program. Allowing existing resources to participate in the trading program would either increase costs to all competitive retailers required to comply with the requirements of this rule or reduce the value of RECs so that they do not provide adequate incentive for new producers to add new renewables. For example, a trading program that allowed both new and existing resources to participate would require that each competitive retailer buy a proportionate amount of energy from its "share" of a 1,280 MW obligation for the 2003 compliance milestone. Alternatively, a trading program that allowed only new competitive resources to participate would require each competitive retailer to buy a proportionate amount of energy from its "share" of a 400 MW obligation. During the program's first compliance period, including existing renewables in the trading program would increase a competitive retailer's REC allocation by approximately 300%. If the market value of the RECs is based on the cost differential between new renewables and other new resources, a competitive retailer's costs would increase by 300%. This could serve as a barrier to entry for many REPs attempting to do business in a newly restructured electric power market. Alternatively, the availability of RECs from existing resources might create an oversupply of RECs and depress their value. In this case, the value of the RECs would be inadequate to provide producers sufficient incentive to build new renewable capacity.

Additionally, the commission agrees with the statements of some parties questioning the arbitrary nature of the term "qualifying existing resources" defined in the proposed rule and concludes that it would be more equitable not to allow these resources to participate in the trading program.

However, the commission recognizes that cumulative capacity targets also are stated in PURA §39.904(a). The commission applauds all entities in Texas that have realized the benefits of renewables and have taken the initiative to invest in renewables without the requirement of a mandate such as that contained in SB 7. The commission concludes that an "REC offset allowance" would realize the benefits of existing renewables and ensure that the 880 MW of these resources envisioned in §39.904(a) continue to be utilized until January 1, 2009. This offset allowance would allow all entities with existing renewables to use these resources to proportionately offset their renewable energy purchase requirement for new renewables. This offset allowance shall ensure that the cumulative capacity targets required in §39.904(a) are achieved in a manner that does not unnecessarily raise costs of the overall program to Texas customers.

The commission reflects these conclusions by (1) allowing only facilities installed and placed in service on or after September 1, 1999, the effective date of §39.904, to be considered new and eligible to participate in the credits trading program, with the exception of small producers as defined in subsection (c) of this section, and (2) allowing all competitive retailers to receive an offset for existing facilities owned or under contract by the competitive retailer, its affiliates, or its predecessor nominating the resource since September 1, 1999. Allowing an entity that owns existing facilities or takes power under contract from existing facilities to share the related renewable offsets with its affiliates will assure an equitable allocation of the benefits of having obtained those existing resources. For the purposes of this rule only, the commission determines that all of the individual G&T members of ETEC and STEC and the distribution cooperative members of the individual G&Ts, for example, are affiliates of each other. As a consequence of this determination, these members could use their collective existing facilities or renewable power contracts--whether individually or collectively owned--to ratably share the offset created by those resources. The offset approach has broad support among the parties, will ensure that all entities with existing resources receive the same benefit for those investments, and supports the goal of installing 2,000 MW of new capacity in a cost-effective manner. Providing offsets will also make it easier for cooperatives and municipal utilities that have rights to such existing resources to opt in to competition. The commission agrees with the offset methodology proposed by CPS during the formal comment period. This methodology includes two allocation stages, correctly providing that REC allocations are reduced for owners of existing facilities on the same basis as allocations are made for competitive retailers owning no existing renewable resources. The commission therefore amends subsections (c), (h), and (i) to reflect these changes.

Seventh, the commission sought comment on alternative ways to restructure the credits trading program and specifically requested comments on the proposal outlined in Chairman Wood's October 8, 1999 memo filed under this project number. Parties were specifically asked whether existing renewables should be incorporated into the credits trading program and, if so, what impact this would have on (1) the cost or value of RECs over time, (2) the level of financial incentive offered to new renewable resources, and (3) the overall cost of the trading program. Additionally, parties were asked to explain any necessary changes in the REC allocation methodology set forth in subsection (h) of this section and the capacity factor calculation methodology set forth in subsection (i) of this section to accommodate existing and new renewables.

Entergy, GBRA, and TNMP were supportive of Chairman Wood's proposal. Entergy stated that the distinction between existing and new renewable capacity for the purposes of awarding credits should not unreasonably complicate the credits trading program or affect its costs. GBRA stated that the inclusion of all existing renewable resources in the renewable energy credit (REC) trading program, except those for which the costs are (1) recovered from retail customers who do not have customer choice or (2) recovered as eligible stranded costs, is essential to further the legislative goal of 2,880 MW of cumulative renewable capacity by January 1, 2009. In addition, GBRA opined that Chairman Wood's proposed additional one credit/MWH for projects less than ten years old will create incentives for new projects in the market. ETC viewed the Chairman's proposal as a good faith, positive effort to resolve the pending disputes but proposed that it be amended to provide that a distribution cooperative can opt in whenever it chooses to.

Senator Ratliff, State Representative Telford, Austin Energy, PUB, CPS, CSW, LCRA, Shell Energy, SPS, TPPA, TREIA, the Texas Renewable Power Coalition, and TXU disagreed with Commissioner Wood's proposal. Shell Energy stated that the proposal fails to address the potential renewables market power advantage that those possessing existing resources would obtain if they participated in the program. Awarding an additional credit per MWh for the first ten calendar years, Shell opined, only partially mitigates this concern. Shell Energy questioned the statement in Chairman Wood's memo that the commission should ensure stability in pricing for the REC program, commenting that enforced stable REC pricing could actually prevent reaching the program's goals. SPS stated that preferential treatment in the issuance of more than one credit for each MWH of production also adds to the allocation problem. For example, if more than one credit is issued for some MWHs of generation, then the allocation must be increased so that these additional credits are absorbed and needed by the REPs, or there would be no need to build generation because the excess credits can satisfy the regulatory requirement in energy but not the legislative capacity requirement.

The Coalition argued that awarding new renewables the additional credit for only the first ten years would effectively require them to compete directly with lower-cost existing renewables beginning in their eleventh years and for the remainder of their service lives. As a result, developers of new renewable projects would seek to recover more of their costs during the initial ten-year period, resulting in higher costs to consumers during the first ten years of operation. The Coalition also averred that awarding post-1995 renewable-resource facilities two credits for each unit of output during the first ten years of their operation would create two classes of new renewables for the years after 2005, those ten or fewer years old which receive two credits per megawatt-hour, and those more than ten years old which receive only one. Over time, the relative proportions of these two classes would change; adding complexity to the calculation of the energy production goals needed to achieve the statutory capacity goals. TXU stated that is was unclear how providing a differential number of credits to certain resources will result in the levels of capacity set out in PURA §39.904(a) actually being installed in this state. To the extent double credits are provided, those double credits simply halve the amount of energy production that must be achieved by new facilities.

Austin Energy stated that although the collaborative process did not lead to resolution of every outstanding issue, it is inappropriate to look for an entirely new approach as a substitute at this time. Instead, Austin Energy asserted that the commission should act decisively to resolve the few remaining issues in the renewables rule. Such action will strengthen the collaborative process that has been used extensively and quite successfully to date during the remainder of SB 7 implementation rulemakings. Without explicitly opposing the Chairman's proposal, Reliant and STEC thought the proposal had problems that could cause complications for enacting the renewables mandate. In considering alternative ways to restructure the credits trading program, Reliant Energy urged caution, stating that it is often difficult to predict how changes to one aspect of the program might affect overall results and could have the unintended effect of compromising achievement of overarching program goals. Austin Energy concurred with this opinion, stating that the Chairman's alternative proposal has simply not undergone the rigors of the collaborative process. Austin Energy stated that if the details required for his suggested implementation were fully developed, it would become clear that the alternative is significantly more difficult to implement and operate than is staff's proposal.

Austin Energy, PUB, CPS, DGG, ETC, LCRA, STEC, State Representative Telford, TEC, TPPA, and State Representative Wohlgemuth stated that the commission should not or can not make opting for customer choice by January 1, 2002, a prerequisite for participating in the credit trading program. PUB, the Cities, and STEC stated that such an incentive is discriminatory because it creates a cut off date to participate in the credit-trading program. Austin Energy, TEC, and TPPA stated that the Chairman's apparent attempt to entice cooperatives to opt-in sooner rather than later conflicts with the position taken by the legislature in SB 7. There, the legislature expressly provided individual cooperatives the ability to determine whether and when they will offer customer choice. Rather than legislate provisions penalizing cooperatives for not offering customer choice by a certain date, SB 7 establishes a policy of maximum flexibility for cooperatives. TPPA also explained that its members' systems are actively making preparations for industry restructuring, and will consider participating in new retail markets authorized by SB 7. However, most are taking a cautious approach, and the local decision to "opt-in" will not be made until local authorities judge that new markets offer clear benefits to their consumers and communities. Brazos and Rayburn, ETC, STEC, and TEC stated that not all, and perhaps few, municipal utilities and G&T cooperatives will opt-in by the first day of retail competition (January 1, 2002). LCRA presumed that it would be subject to the same standard as the G&T cooperatives, and, as a result, none of its 44 wholesale customers could count LCRA's existing renewables if but one of the 44 declines to opt in. CPS opined that the renewable energy goal and the REC trading program have nothing to do with retail competition, as the same type of program could have been implemented in the context of a mandatory purchase requirement on integrated, regulated utilities. Rather, the goal and the program are about creating a public good through a market-based program in an effort to promote least-cost solutions. CPS and TPPA stated that the rationale for the proposed linkage to retail competition is unclear and unwarranted, especially as applied to new resources.

If existing resources were somehow included in the REC trading program, TXU Electric would support the concept that before any of a G&T cooperative's renewable resources could participate, all of that G&T cooperative's distribution cooperatives would have to opt in to retail choice. The decision on whether to opt in to retail choice and participate in the REC trading program would have to be known some time well in advance of the REC program start date, so that all of the other REPs would know the overall impact of the inclusion of existing resources in the REC trading program. Otherwise, REPs will not have sufficient time in which to know what their likely REC requirement would be, and to make plans to meet that requirement.

Austin Energy, CPS, STEC, and TPPA were concerned that the proposal is intended to indefinitely exclude any new renewable resource from the REC trading program for entities that have not opted-in to retail competition by January 1, 2002. As a general matter, CPS submitted that any new renewable resource located in the State of Texas will certainly contribute toward the 2,000 MW goal of PURA §39.904(a), regardless of the opt-in or out status of a particular entity. Therefore, all new resources should be included in the wholesale REC trading program that was created by the Legislature to achieve that goal.

Shell Energy did not support Chairman Wood's proposal, but expressed the view that if the commission decides to move in that direction, it should not accept the cooperatives' and municipal utilities' complaints about tying this provision to their entering competition on January 1, 2002. These entities never cite any statutory provision that would preclude the commission from doing so. At best, some of those parties simply cite a supposed legislative intent they derive from the Act's overall framework. None, however, cite any provision prohibiting the commission from confining the program to those parties that enter competition by a certain date. Requiring those entities to enter competition at the outset to utilize their existing resources does not constitute any manipulation or usurpation of their statutory rights.

As noted in response to comments received on preamble question six, the commission concludes that existing resources will not be allowed to produce RECs for sale in the trading program and that the offset methodology suggested by CPS is a more cost-effective approach to equitably implement PURA §39.904. The applicability of this offset provision for distribution cooperatives and municipally-owned utilities does not require all of a G&T's distribution cooperatives to offer retail choice by 2002, a concept proposed by Chairman Wood and opposed by many parties.

Comments on proposed subsections

Several parties provided additional comments on various subsections of the proposed rule. Comments not previously summarized and addressed as part of responses to questions posed in the preamble are discussed below.

Comments on §25.173(a)

OPC and Cities opposed the language in this subsection ensuring that the cumulative installed capacity in Texas will be at least 2,880 MW by January 1, 2009. OPC and Cities argued that the legislative goal is met when 2,000 MW of new renewable energy is installed in Texas. These parties proposed that this language either be deleted, or at a minimum, the words "at least" be removed.

As noted in response to preamble question number five, the commission does not find it reasonable to change this language. Subsection (a) expresses the statutory goal that a cumulative renewable capacity of at least 2,880 MW be installed in Texas by January 1, 2009.

Comments on §25.173(b)

EPE suggested that an additional sentence should be added to the applicability subsection of the rule, which states that this section shall not apply to an electric utility not subject to PURA §39.102(c).

The commission concludes that EPE is not subject to the provisions set forth in these sections until the expiration of the utility's rate freeze period and amends subsection (b) to reflect this conclusion.

Comments on§25.173(c)

GBRA and Cities commented that the definition of "small producer" under subsection (c)(18) of the proposed rule should be increased from two megawatts to five megawatts to ensure the viability of small hydroelectric units and to be consistent with the federal law definition. The Coalition opposed GBRA's proposal, stating that the two MW threshold resulted from a unique situation, and is designed to assist one 1.8-MW hydroelectric facility that is privately owned.

The commission declines to amend the definition of small producer and clarifies that this definition applies to all renewable energy facilities, not just hydropower. The offset methodology added in subsection (h) of this section will benefit existing hydropower facilities larger than two MW.

TXU proposed changing the definition of "renewable energy technology" to include those technologies that use a de minimus burning of fossil fuels. CSW agreed with TXU on this recommendation.

The commission declines to amend the definition of renewable energy technology in this section, as it is consistent with the definition set forth in PURA §39.904(d).

Shell suggested modifying the definition of "renewable energy credit" (REC) and "new resources" because the definitions as written are impermissible under the Commerce Clause.

The commission concludes that there is a risk that parties may challenge this rule on the grounds that it is impermissible under the Commerce Clause. The commission amends the definition of renewable energy credit in this section to reduce the likelihood of such a challenge. The commission concludes that all RECs, whether generated in Texas or elsewhere, must be physically metered in Texas and verifiable by the program administrator. In order to verify the output from a renewable source, the generator must demonstrate that the renewable energy actually reaches Texas. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that all RECs participating in the trading program represent actual megawatt-hours of renewable energy for consumption by Texas retail customers. Renewable facilities that deliver electricity into a transmission system where it is commingled with electricity from non-renewable resources could not be verified as delivered to Texas customers. In addition, the commission emphasizes that 2,000 MW of new renewable capacity shall be installed in Texas by January 1, 2009. Therefore, any capacity shortfalls that arise during the course of the program shall be made up in the REC allocation requirements for competitive retailers. The commission amends subsection (h) of this section to reflect this conclusion.

Comments on §25.173(d)

Shell Energy stated that the rule should require municipal utilities or cooperatives to bear a proportionate share of RECs upon opting in to competition during a compliance period.

The commission agrees with Shell and points out that this requirement is set out in subsection (d)(1) of this section. Therefore, no amendment is necessary.

Shell recommended that renewable generators alone pay program costs. The Coalition disagreed, stating that generators will interface with the program through the certification process, and it is perhaps appropriate that the costs associated with that process be paid by the generators. There may be other certification processes, the cost of which can be borne by the party seeking certification. In addition, costs associated with a specific transaction, such as REC transactions, can be assigned to the transacting parties. However, RECs are the core of the program, and the Coalition stated that it is most appropriate to allocate general program costs, as well as costs associated with allocating REC requirements and monitoring compliance, among REPs on the basis of market share.

The commission declines to apportion program cost responsibility among market participants in this section. The commission notes that this issue was never addressed in any of the technical "task force" meetings and should therefore be resolved under a separate proceeding related to the program administration function.

Comments on §25.173(e)

CPS noted, that while the rule as proposed does not necessarily prohibit the output from facilities meeting the requirements of PURA §39.904(f) from receiving renewable energy credits (RECs), §25.173(e) should be amended to specifically include such facilities.

The commission agrees with CPS and amends subsection (e) to clarify that facilities meeting the requirements of PURA §39.904(f) are eligible for participation in the trading program.

Duke Solar and Boeing Company strongly recommended modification of subsection (e) to ensure that the full range of industry-standard solar thermal technologies will be eligible to compete in the Texas renewable energy market. For a new renewable energy technology that operates principally on a non-combustible renewable resource, such as solar thermal or geothermal energy, and uses fossil fuel as a back-up or secondary fuel, credits may be earned only on the renewable portion of energy production.

The commission agrees with Duke Solar and Boeing Company's suggested language and amends subsection (e) to reflect that RECs produced by these types of facilities would be earned only on the renewable portion of energy production. The commission additionally amends subsection (e) to clarify that the capacity contribution toward meeting the capacity goals must be adjusted to reflect the percentage of energy that is produced by the secondary or back-up fuel.

Shell Energy noted that, while subsection (e)(2) prevents a resource's above-market costs from being included in the rates of any utility, municipally-owned utility, or distribution cooperative, the rule does not specify how to determine whether a resource's above-market costs were included in a utility's rates; nor does it define "above-market costs." Shell recommended amending the rule to provide that above-market costs include that portion of costs associated with a renewable energy resource that the owner can not reasonably recover from customers in a competitive retail or wholesale market. CSW proposed that "above-market costs" should be determined by comparing the costs of renewables with the costs of traditional fossil fuel resources.

The commission declines to accept Shell's proposed definition for the words "above-market costs." The commission concludes that the term "above-market costs" when referring to costs associated with new renewable energy facilities, is self-explanatory; they are the difference between the cost of these facilities and the cost of any other type of new generating facility. The commission declines to incorporate Shell's suggested definition into this section, as it is unnecessary.

The Coalition endorsed the requirement set forth in subsection (e)(2), and added that all resources owned or under contract with municipal utilities and distribution cooperatives should also be subject to this provision. The coalition explained that municipally owned utilities and distribution cooperatives not offering customer choice will not be subject to the same competitive discipline as REPs. Nor will they be subject to the type of rate review traditionally applied by the commission to fully regulated electric utilities. As a result, they may be able to allocate some of the above-market costs of their renewable-resource-based power to their captive retail customers, while reducing the prices of their renewable energy credits and thereby undercutting competing suppliers in the credits market. This would depress prices in the credits market and, in turn, dilute the incentive for competing developers to construct the new renewable generating facilities envisioned by the Legislature.

The commission agrees with the Coalition and points out that this requirement is already set out in subsection (e)(2) of this section. Therefore, no amendment is necessary.

The Coalition also recommended establishing a date certain to serve as a cutoff date for capacity additions at existing renewable-resource generating facilities allowed under subsection (e)(3). Capacity additions made prior to this date would not be eligible for the credits trading program.

The commission agrees with the Coalition that incremental capacity additions made prior to September 1, 1999 should not be allowed to participate in the trading program. The purpose of the trading program is to allocate the above-market costs associated with new renewable capacity in a least cost manner. The commission amends (c)(7) to reflect this conclusion.

TXU pointed out a slight inconsistency between two provisions concerning repowered facilities. Subsection (e) provides that only a qualifying existing resource, a new resource, or a small power producer is eligible to earn credits. TXU noted that a repowered facility does not fall within one of these categories. This is inconsistent with subsection (e)(3) allowing the energy produced by the incremental capacity from the repowering of existing renewable facilities to earn RECs. If the intent is to allow the energy associated with the incremental capacity obtained by repowering facilities to earn RECs, then §25.173(e) should be modified. CSW agreed with this change but added that the provision should be further revised to clarify that expansions of existing resources are also eligible to produce RECs in the trading program.

The commission agrees with TXU and CSW and amends subsection (c)(7) to include incremental capacity and its associated energy in the definition of a new resource. New resources are eligible to produce RECs in the trading program; additional changes to subsection (e) are therefore not necessary.

Comments on §25.173(f)

OPC and Cities opposed the exclusion of renewable energy capacity additions associated with an emissions reductions project under Health and Safety Code §382.01593, stating that PURA does not require an exclusion of such capacity additions. In fact, the prohibition preventing renewable energy capacity from qualifying for both programs is likely to reduce or even eliminate the possibility that renewable resources would be built to meet the requirements of the Health and Safety Code. Instead, the commission should use every opportunity to encourage utilities to reduce emissions and improve air quality through the installation of new renewable energy technology. EDF contended that the clean air provisions of SB 7 including this renewable energy program were contemplated separate from the renewable energy option in Senate Bill 766 (SB 766), Act of May 30, 1999, 76th Legislature, Regular session, chapter 406, 1999 Texas Session Law Service 2626, 2628 (Vernon) (to be codified as an amendment to Health and Safety Code §382.05193) relating to emissions reductions projects. Double-counting a "grandfathered" facility's requirements under Health and Safety Code §382.05193 and PURA §39.904 does just the opposite, it would diminish the clean air benefits contained in SB 7 and SB 766. CSW disagreed with EDF's position. The Coalition agreed with EDF, reporting that it has submitted comments in a rulemaking proceeding of the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) regarding modifications to its rules implementing SB 766. In those comments, the Coalition supported a corresponding prohibition on units of output from renewable-resource facilities being simultaneously eligible for both (1) the credits trading program established to implement the renewables mandate of SB 7 and (2) the TNRCC's emission reduction credit program established under SB 766.

The commission agrees with EDF and the Coalition that the provisions contained in SB 7 and SB 766 are two separate programs relating to the policy of cleaner air for Texas citizens. Allowing a company to satisfy two requirements by complying with a single project would reduce the overall deployment of these resources and associated goal of cleaner air. The commission also points out that the language contained in subsection (f)(1) is consistent with language contained in the rulemaking currently underway at the TNRCC. No amendment to this subsection is therefore necessary.

OPC and Cities, TXU, and CSW opposed the prohibition against counting capacity generated by an existing fossil plant re-powered to use renewable fuel, stating that a former fossil fuel plant that is converted to burn renewable fuel is essentially new generating capacity from renewable energy technologies and should count toward the goal in PURA §39.904. These parties contended that such conversions may be among the most cost-effective way to achieve the goal because the avoided capital expenses could be substantial. Furthermore, such a site already has access to the transmission and distribution network and may even possess all the required permitting. EDF argued that the point of the legislation is to provide for new capital investment. Opportunities such as fossil repowering and its close cousin, co-firing, allow arbitrage opportunists to make minimal capital investments to earn credits that do nothing to increase economic development in Texas by providing jobs, producing new equipment for use in Texas, or providing the deployment levels that cause renewable energy costs to go down. The Coalition agreed with EDF, stating that allowing bio-fuels to replace fossil fuel in existing generators to be eligible for RECs would displace and preclude the development of new renewable capacity and violate SB 7's mandate for the development of 2000 megawatts of new renewable capacity

The commission agrees with EDF and the Coalition that one purpose of the trading program is to provide an incentive for new capital investment in cleaner energy technologies. The commission points out that all existing renewable facilities are not eligible to participate in the trading program. One reason for this is that existing facilities have enjoyed cost recovery. This is true for existing fossil fuel facilities; they too have enjoyed cost recovery over the years. The commission also notes that during the task force meetings, not one party was able to adequately explain the process by which an existing fossil fuel facility is repowered to become a renewable facility or the capital costs associated with this repowering concept. Without this type of cost data, it would be difficult to concur with OPC and Cities that allowing repowered fossil fuel facilities participation in the program would be a more cost effective way to fulfill the 2,000 MW requirement. The commission declines to amend subsection (f)(2) allowing these types of facilities to participate in the trading program.

Comments on §25.173(g)

Shell Energy proposed that this subsection should specify the program administrator's funding source, independence, selection process, and whether the parties under its jurisdiction may appeal decisions to the commission. Shell also recommended a requirement that the program administrator undergo an independent audit every two years, both of its own expenses and of all REC accounts. CSW agreed with Shell Energy's proposals with respect to program independence, audits and appeals changes but does not agree with the selection process changes. This type of selection process takes too much time. The majority of the parties have already expressed that the ISO is well suited to take on this responsibility. The Coalition commended Shell for offering a number of useful recommendations with respect to the Program Administrator's status and responsibilities. These included audits of generators and the Program Administrator, appeal procedures for program administrator actions, and the necessity to keep the Program Administrator independent of program participants. The Coalition and CSW agreed with Shell that REC account status information be kept confidential. This is consistent with the Coalition's recommendation that REC transactions, including prices, should not be recorded. Shell recommended that the Program Administrator provide regular information on total statewide retail sales, in order that REPs be able to predict their market share, and thus their REC requirements. The Coalition, CSW, Reliant, and TXU agreed that such information will be very useful to program participants, particularly retail providers. The Coalition added that performance information of renewable energy systems and technologies, both those installed and participating in the program and those anticipated projects would be valuable information for competitive retailers. The Coalition recommended that the program administrator assess penalties to competitive retailers for non-compliance. TXU disagreed with this concept, stating that the authority to assess penalties lies with the commission. CSW recommended that competitive retailers not in compliance with the trading program should not be reported to the commission as required pursuant to this subsection.

The commission commends Shell for providing useful suggestions that will help ensure effective operation of the trading program, which will benefit all market participants. The commission amends subsection (g) to incorporate Shell's suggested language pertaining to appeals, audits, confidentiality, and program administrator functions. However, as noted previously, cost responsibility and the program administrator selection process will be addressed under a separate proceeding. The commission agrees with TXU that the commission, not the program administrator, should assess the penalties. This is consistent with the language set forth in subsection (o) of this section. The commission declines to accept CSW's proposed change that would eliminate the reporting of non-compliant competitive retailers to the commission. The commission concludes that this type of information is necessary and will assist the commission in enforcing this section.

Comments on §25.173(h)

Enron suggested language clarifying that providers of last resort would be subject to the requirements of this section. CSW disagreed with Enron's proposed revision, stating that it is unnecessary because the term "retail electric provider" is already defined to include the provider of last resort.

The commission agrees with CSW that this change is unnecessary; PURA §31.002(17) defines a retail electric provider as a person that sells electric energy to retail customers in Texas. A provider of last resort is therefore by definition a REP; no amendment to this subsection is necessary.

Comments on §25.173(i)

Shell proposed that the rule should require the program administrator to use generation data that the generation facility reports to NERC's Generation Availability Data System ("GADS") program in evaluating the "actual generator performance data." Almost all generators report their performance to NERC, which compiles the Generation Availability Report ("GAR"), used by utilities, regulators and others for a variety of purposes. In general, the Coalition supported the methodology for calculating the capacity conversion factor set forth in the Rule. The Coalition supported the use of actual performance data as the basis of the CCF, although it is important for the commission also to reserve for itself, as it appears to have done implicitly in subsection (i)(2)(D), the authority to make adjustments as necessary to achieve the statutory goals. As the profile of new renewable-resource generating projects participating in the credits program changes over time, performance of new projects may vary from the historical performance of operating projects. Thus, it may not be possible to precisely project the performance characteristics of the next block of capacity using only the historical data of operating projects. Some judgment may be called for to make this projection more accurately, so as to enhance the likelihood of achieving the targeted amount of capacity.

The Coalition also recommended the use of whole-year periods of actual performance data as the basis for recalculating the CCF. This is particularly important when the generating facilities are wind-powered. While inter-annual variation in the wind and solar resources is modest, seasonal or intra-annual variations can be significant. Thus it is critical to include four consecutive seasons (one full year) in sampling periods. For this reason, it may not be practical to recalculate the CCF in the fourth quarter of 2003, as set forth in subsection (i)(2). The Coalition preferred a readjustment in the first quarter of 2003, even though it would be based on only one year of performance. Twelve months' performance data is acceptable as a minimum basis for this calculation, as indicated in subsection (i)(2)(A). And doing so at that point would give REPs an additional three-quarters in which to adjust their contractual arrangements, as needed, before the compliance period begins.

TXU strongly disagreed with the Coalition's suggestion that the CCF be readjusted after the program's first compliance period. TXU maintained that only one year of data will not provide a reasonable approximation of likely average capacity factors. Forced outages, unusual weather, and transmission constraints may all impact energy production in 2002. At least two years, if not three years, is much more likely to produce a reasonable figure. TXU commented that the initial CCF of 35% is too high, but provides a necessary degree of certainty and should apply for three years, not two. TXU agreed in principle with the Coalition that the CCF should be recalculated during the first quarter of a compliance period, not the fourth. CSW opposed TXU's proposed changes, maintaining that the language proposed in this subsection should remain as written. CSW explained that there will be at least four years of data that could be applied towards the CCF calculation if the 1999 wind projects, totaling approximately 150 MW, are included in the data set. Waiting three years could result in missing the legislative targets on either the high or low side.

The commission notes that an accurate CCF is fundamental to successful implementation of PURA §39.904. An accurate CCF helps to ensure that the capacity targets are achieved in a timely and efficient manner. An administratively set CCF of 35% for the first two compliance periods, followed by biennial readjustments based on actual facility performance data, will ensure that the capacity targets are met in an efficient manner. The commission notes that this issue was painstakingly discussed and negotiated in the "task-force" meetings as part of a comprehensive program design package. The commission therefore declines to accept the changes to this subsection as requested by TXU, Shell, or the Renewable Coalition.

Comments on §25.173(j)

Shell Energy recommended that this subsection should more clearly state that competitive retailers and others may trade RECs. Uncertainty may hamper trading activities and defeat the proposed rule's and the statute's goals. Shell also recommended that the trading program should ensure anonymity in the trading process. For example, the EPA has delegated the SO 2 allowance auction responsibility to the Chicago Board of Trade, which conducts annual auctions of both allowances that EPA has held in reserve and those that private parties have offered for sale. Such a system could allow competitive retailers to trade RECs without fear that entities will gain a market power advantage in trading. Shell also maintained that the rule also should expressly permit several commercially recognized types of transactions. First, it should expressly allow parties to enter into long-term contracts to sell their surplus RECs. Second, it should allow a futures market, where entities agree to sell RECs in given forward periods. The EPA's Acid Rain Rules permit trades in future allowances. Finally, the commission should expand the trading program to allow entities other than competitive retailers, such as brokers, to trade RECs. This latter provision addresses the fear some parties have expressed that an entity might corner the market on RECs. The more entities that can trade RECs, the less likely that any one entity can "corner the market."

The Coalition agreed with Shell that the rule should explicitly make allowance in the REC trading program for a multiplicity of types of transactions and market participants. The Coalition disagreed with Shell's proposal that the commission should establish a trading/auction system. The Coalition recommended commission intervention only in the event that effective market mechanisms fail to develop of their own accord. TXU did not agree that any of Shell's proposals were necessary.

The commission declines to incorporate Shell's suggestion, noting that such types of transactions are not prohibited under this section. The transactions listed by Shell would be permissible in this trading program.

Shell proposed that the rule should provide for "rounding", stating that a generator producing 0.5 MWh or greater as its last unit generated should be awarded one REC. Doing so will recognize and reward production at the margins, and will especially benefit small producers. TXU agreed with Shell, clarifying that this was the intent of the parties during the workshops, and including an explicit rounding provision in the rule would be appropriate.

The commission agrees with this change, noting that this was the intent of the parties during the task-force meetings. The commission amends subsection (k)(1) to reflect this conclusion.

Comments on §25.173(m)

Shell proposed that the word "periodic" be eliminated from this subsection because one might interpret the word as limiting the times the commission may inspect a facility. Shell also recommended additional language that would clarify that, in the event that decertification occurs, RECs awarded prior to decertification remain valid. The Coalition, CSW and TXU agreed with this change.

The commission agrees with Shell and amends subsection (m) to reflect this conclusion.

Comments on proposed forms

The Coalition and CPS proposed minor modifications to the form to accommodate multiple unit wind facilities and landfill gas facilities. These changes were incorporated into the certification form.

General Comments

The commission received comments regarding the effect of the rule on interstate commerce. ETC argued that the limitation to renewables installed in Texas is a violation of the Commerce Clause, in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. ETC contended that the proposed rule's exclusion of out-of-state renewables from the credit trading program or from the required allocation imposed on each REP, MOU, and electric cooperative violates the Commerce Clause, because it treats in-state economic interests more favorably than their out-of-state counterparts. ETC argued that the proposed rule creates a clear, unmistakable preference for in-state renewable resources solely on the basis of their physical location, without regard for the fact that renewable generation sold in Texas by Texas companies for use by Texas consumers furthers the goal of cleaner air in Texas regardless of its origin. ETC maintained that, if the ultimate purpose of the renewables mandate is to provide for cleaner air in Texas, as opposed to creating a market, then the proposed rule should recognize all renewable resources that result in energy sold in Texas, regardless of their origin.

STEC agreed with ETC that the exclusion of out-of-state renewables in the trading program is unconstitutional because it places an impermissible burden on interstate commerce; however, OPC and Cities disagreed with ETC, stating that the proposed rule accurately reflects the intent of PURA §39.904.

Shell commented that the REC definition, which requires a retailer to purchase renewable energy generated in Texas, violates Constitutional prohibitions against a state discriminating against out-of-state commerce. Shell argued that the Commerce Clause prohibits states from engaging in economic protectionism against other states, and that state statutes discriminating against out-of-state commerce are constitutional only if justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism. Shell asserted that the proposed rule discriminates against out-of-state commerce by requiring competitive retailers to purchase a portion of their energy supplies from Texas sources. Shell interpreted the statute as not requiring competitive retailers to purchase their renewable energy requirement from Texas sources. Shell recommended that the commission allow a retailer to meet its renewable energy requirement by purchasing either Texas or out-of-state renewable energy, while applying the same performance standards to out-of-state suppliers under subsection (e). Shell further noted that line losses and transmission constraints will lead most potential suppliers to locate in Texas anyway, therefore a modified rule will lead to more renewable energy capacity in Texas without violating the Constitution.

The Renewable Coalition disagreed with ETC and Shell, contending that state statutes distinguishing between in-state and out-of-state interests are constitutional if justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism. In the case of the renewable energy mandate, the legitimate local purpose of §39.904 is the Legislature's desire to capture and develop, rather than neglect and lose, the environmental benefits gained from using Texas' vast, untapped store of renewable resources. This legitimate public purpose can not be furthered without "installing in Texas" the renewable facilities at those sites in Texas where the resources are located; it was not the Legislature's intent to be protectionist.

The Coalition also stated that any person in the country is free to participate in the development of these renewable capacity additions. The Coalition commented that allowing renewable resources from outside of Texas to qualify would totally disconnect the implementation of the statute and rule from the legitimate objectives of the program as conceived by the Legislature. EDF generally concurred with the statements made by the Coalition.

The proposed rule as published is permissible under the commerce clause. The object of the proposed rule was the entirely legitimate goal of improving the air quality for Texas citizens, and the rule was crafted to achieve this goal through efficient and economical development of local renewable resources for the local generation of clean energy. The commission has modified the rule, however, by removing the exclusion of out-of-state renewable resources. The purpose of this modification is to reduce the risk that implementation of this statutory program would be delayed by a commerce-clause challenge to the rule. Beyond the clean-air benefits, the rule provides incentives for the development of an abundant natural resource. The commission finds that the means for achieving these goals are reasonable and do not unfairly discriminate against other states through economic favoritism.

The federal Clean Air Act is implemented through state plans that focus on emissions in local areas. Texas has several areas that are not in compliance with the Clean Air Act standards, including Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Corpus Christi, and Beaumont-Port Arthur, and areas that are nearing non-attainment, such as Austin and San Antonio. To help meet the Clean Air Act standards, specific provisions of Senate Bill 7 require the clean-up of plants with high emissions, and the use of clean-burning fossil fuels, such as natural gas, and the use of renewable resources. Cleaning the air in Texas, however, has significant associated costs, and the state agency responsible for preparing implementation plans is in the process of developing a laundry list of air clean-up measures that will affect a number of industries.

New renewable resources, although potentially more expensive than other electric resources, are an effective means for cleaning the air. Through PURA §39.904, the legislature clearly sought to support the development of renewable resources in Texas to efficiently and economically reduce emissions from electricity generation. The demand for electricity in Texas has been and is projected to continue to increase, and the legislature mandated the use of energy derived from renewable resources in Texas so that a portion of the additional future energy generated and consumed by Texans would result in cleaner air for all Texans.

The commission acknowledges the local economic benefits that incidentally result from the rule and concludes that it is permissible for the state, under its sovereign powers, to use markets and market forces to achieve environmental benefits for its citizens. The rule is not a measure for economic protectionism, but, rather, a legitimate program that is consistent with state and federal goals under the Clean Air Act, and is consistent with the mechanism (state action) that is at the heart of the Clean Air Act.

While the commission believes that the rule, as originally proposed, was consistent with the Commerce Clause, it is modifying the rule to reduce the risk of a constitutional challenge. Renewable facilities would qualify for RECs if the output of the renewable facility reaches Texas, so that it can be physically metered and verified in Texas. It is anticipated and intended that the rule will encourage the development of renewable resources within Texas. Renewable resources are distinctly different from coal or natural gas. The wind and solar energy not captured and used today vanishes and can not be recovered. In addition, they are distinctly different in their ability to be transported. Coal and gas can be transported to a suitable location for conversion to electricity, but most renewable resources must be exploited where they are found. Texas has a vast untapped array of renewable resources available for the clean generation of energy. Using these resources will improve the air quality, yet their environmental benefits are wasted unless they are exploited. Clean generation of electricity outside of Texas also may provide environmental benefits if it is located close to Texas and serves Texas consumers, but it is difficult to draw a line between a location that would and would not benefit Texas air. The rule therefore, allows credits to be accorded to all new facilities located out of the state as long as the energy produced by those facilities meets the eligibility requirements of the rule and is physically metered and verified in Texas.

Any local economic benefits that may result from the state's development of new renewable capacity are incidental to the legitimate goal of providing cleaner air for Texans and developing Texas renewable resources. To foster the development of renewable generation plants in Texas, it is necessary to create incentives. PURA §39.904(c)(2)(B) specifically requires the commission to encourage development, construction, and operation of new renewable energy projects in this state to bring the environmental benefits of clean air to Texas. The rule accomplishes this objective without impeding the flow of interstate commerce.

EDF pointed out that the provisions in this section are interrelated, noting that each commission decision on individual provisions can tend to either promote development of renewable capacity slightly earlier, or to retard development of resources to meet the interim legislative goals. EDF added that decisions were already made in the legislative process to accommodate risk and cost issues raised by utilities. These accommodations have had the effect of delaying and back-loading the acquisition of new renewables relative to a simple and consistent proposal that would have developed 200 MWs of new renewable energy each year for ten years. EDF provided a table illustrating that the graduated increase of new renewables as required in PURA §39.904(a) provided 50% less reduction when compared with a simple program that would have required 200 MW of new renewable energy each year for ten years.

All comments, including any not specifically referenced herein, were fully considered by the commission. In adopting this section, the commission makes other minor modifications for the purpose of clarifying its intent.

This new section is adopted under the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated §14.002 (Vernon 1998) (PURA), which provides the Public Utility Commission with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction, and specifically, Senate Bill 7, Act of May 21, 1999, 76th Legislature, Regular Session, chapter 405, 1999 Texas Session Law Service, 2543, 2558 (Vernon) (to be codified as an amendment to the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated §39.101(b)(3) and §39.904) which entitles all customers access to providers of renewable energy, requires an additional 2,000 MW of renewable generating capacity to be installed in Texas by 2009, directs the commission to establish a renewable energy credits trading program and to adopt rules necessary to enforce and administer the program outlined in this section.

Cross Reference to Statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act §§11.002(a), 14.001, 14.002, 39.101(b)(3), and 39.904.

§25.173.Goal for Renewable Energy.

(a)

Purpose. The purpose of this section is to ensure that an additional 2,000 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity from renewable energy technologies is installed in Texas by 2009 pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §39.904, to establish a renewable energy credits trading program that would ensure that the new renewable energy capacity is built in the most efficient and economical manner, to encourage the development, construction, and operation of new renewable energy resources at those sites in this state that have the greatest economic potential for capture and development of this state's environmentally beneficial resources, to protect and enhance the quality of the environment in Texas through increased use of renewable resources, to respond to customers' expressed preferences for renewable resources by ensuring that all customers have access to providers of energy generated by renewable energy resources pursuant to PURA §39.101(b)(3), and to ensure that the cumulative installed renewable capacity in Texas will be at least 2,880 MW by January 1, 2009.

(b)

Application. This section applies to power generation companies as defined in §25.5 of this title (relating to definitions), and competitive retailers as defined in subsection (c) of this section. This section shall not apply to an electric utility subject to PURA §39.102(c) until the expiration of the utility's rate freeze period.

(c)

Definitions.

(1)

Competitive retailer--A municipally-owned utility, generation and transmission cooperative (G&T), or distribution cooperative that offers customer choice in the restructured competitive electric power market in Texas or a retail electric provider (REP) as defined in §25.5 of this title.

(2)

Compliance period--A calendar year beginning January 1 and ending December 31 of each year in which renewable energy credits are required of a competitive retailer.

(3)

Designated representative--A responsible natural person authorized by the owners or operators of a renewable resource to register that resource with the program administrator. The designated representative must have the authority to represent and legally bind the owners and operators of the renewable resource in all matters pertaining to the renewable energy credits trading program.

(4)

Early banking--Awarding renewable energy credits (RECs) to generators for sale in the trading program prior to the program's first compliance period.

(5)

Existing facilities--Renewable energy generators placed in service before September 1, 1999.

(6)

Generation offset technology--Any renewable technology that reduces the demand for electricity at a site where a customer consumes electricity. An example of this technology is solar water heating.

(7)

New facilities--Renewable energy generators placed in service on or after September 1, 1999. A new facility includes the incremental capacity and associated energy from an existing renewable facility achieved through repowering activities undertaken on or after September 1, 1999.

(8)

Off-grid generation--The generation of renewable energy in an application that is not interconnected to a utility transmission or distribution system.

(9)

Program administrator--The entity approved by the commission that is responsible for carrying out the administrative responsibilities related to the renewable energy credits trading program as set forth in subsection (g) of this section.

(10)

REC offset (offset)--An REC offset represents one MWh of renewable energy from an existing facility that may be used in place of an REC to meet a renewable energy requirement imposed under this section. REC offsets may not be traded, shall be calculated as set forth in subsection (i) of this section, and shall be applied as set forth in subsection (h) of this section.

(11)

Renewable energy credit (REC or credit)--An REC represents one megawatt hour (MWh) of renewable energy that is physically metered and verified in Texas and meets the requirements set forth in subsection (e) of this section.

(12)

Renewable energy credit account (REC account)--An account maintained by the renewable energy credits trading program administrator for the purpose of tracking the production, sale, transfer, purchase, and retirement of RECs by a program participant.

(13)

Renewable energy credits trading program (trading program)--The process of awarding, trading, tracking, and submitting RECs as a means of meeting the renewable energy requirements set out in subsection (d) of this section.

(14)

Renewable energy resource (renewable resource)--A resource that produces energy derived from renewable energy technologies.

(15)

Renewable energy technology--Any technology that exclusively relies on an energy source that is naturally regenerated over a short time and derived directly from the sun, indirectly from the sun, or from moving water or other natural movements and mechanisms of the environment. Renewable energy technologies include those that rely on energy derived directly from the sun, on wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, or tidal energy, or on biomass or biomass-based waste products, including landfill gas. A renewable energy technology does not rely on energy resources derived from fossil fuels, or waste products from inorganic sources.

(16)

Repowering--Modernizing or upgrading an existing facility in order to increase its capacity or efficiency.

(17)

Settlement period--The first calendar quarter following a compliance period in which the settlement process for that compliance year takes place.

(18)

Small producer--A renewable resource that is less than two megawatts (MW) in size.

(d)

Renewable energy credits trading program (trading program). Renewable energy credits may be generated, transferred, and retired by renewable energy power generators, competitive retailers, and other market participants as set forth in this section.

(1)

The program administrator shall apportion a renewable resource requirement among all competitive retailers as a percentage of the retail sales of each competitive retailer as set forth in subsection (h) of this section. Each competitive retailer shall be responsible for retiring sufficient RECs as set forth in subsections (h) and (k) of this section to comply with this section. The requirement to purchase RECs pursuant to this section becomes effective on the date each competitive retailer begins serving retail electric customers in Texas.

(2)

A power generating company may participate in the program and may generate RECs and buy or sell RECs as set forth in subsection (j) of this section.

(3)

RECs shall be credited on an energy basis as set forth in subsection (j) of this section.

(4)

Municipally-owned utilities and distribution cooperatives that do not offer customer choice are not obligated to purchase RECs. However, regardless of whether the municipally-owned utility or distribution cooperative offers customer choice, a municipally-owned utility or distribution cooperative possessing renewable resources that meet the requirements of subsection (e) of this section may sell RECs generated by such a resource to competitive retailers as set forth in subsection (j) of this section.

(5)

Except where specifically stated, the provisions of this section shall apply uniformly to all participants in the trading program.

(e)

Facilities eligible for producing RECs in the renewable energy credits trading program. For a renewable facility to be eligible to produce RECs in the trading program it must be either a new facility or a small producer as defined in subsection (c) of this section and must also meet the requirements of this subsection:

(1)

A renewable energy resource must not be ineligible under subsection (f) of this section and must register pursuant to subsection (n) of this section;

(2)

The facility's above-market costs must not be included in the rates of any utility, municipally-owned utility, or distribution cooperative through base rates, a power cost recovery factor (PCRF), stranded cost recovery mechanism, or any other fixed or variable rate element charged to end users;

(3)

For a renewable energy technology that requires fossil fuel, the facility's use of fossil fuel must not exceed 2.0% of the total annual fuel input on a British thermal unit (BTU) or equivalent basis;

(4)

The output of the facility must be readily capable of being physically metered and verified in Texas by the program administrator. Energy from a renewable facility that is delivered into a transmission system where it is commingled with electricity from non-renewable resources can not be verified as delivered to Texas customers. A facility is not ineligible by virtue of the fact that the facility is a generation-offset, off-grid, or on-site distributed renewable facility if it otherwise meets the requirements of this section; and

(5)

For a municipally owned utility operating a gas distribution system, any production or acquisition of landfill gas that is directly supplied to the gas distribution system is eligible to produce RECs based upon the conversion of the thermal energy in BTUs to electric energy in kWh using for the conversion factor the systemwide average heat rate of the gas-fired units of the combined utility's electric system as measured in BTUs per kWh.

(6)

For industry-standard thermal technologies, the RECs can be earned only on the renewable portion of energy production. Furthermore, the contribution toward statewide renewable capacity megawatt goals from such facilities would be equal to the fraction of the facility's annual MWh energy output from renewable fuel multiplied by the facility's nameplate MW capacity.

(f)

Facilities not eligible for producing RECs in the renewable energy credits trading program. A renewable facility is not eligible to produce RECs in the trading program if it is:

(1)

A renewable energy capacity addition associated with an emissions reductions project described in Health and Safety Code §382.05193, that is used to satisfy the permit requirements in Health and Safety Code §382.0519;

(2)

An existing facility that is not a small producer as defined in subsection (c) of this section; or

(3)

An existing fossil plant that is repowered to use a renewable fuel.

(g)

Responsibilities of program administrator. No later than June 1, 2000, the commission shall approve an independent entity to serve as the trading program administrator. At a minimum, the program administrator shall perform the following functions:

(1)

Create accounts that track RECs for each participant in the trading program;

(2)

Award RECs to registered renewable energy facilities on a quarterly basis based on verified meter reads;

(3)

Assign offsets to competitive retailers on an annual basis based on a nomination submitted by the competitive retailer pursuant to subsection (n) of this section;

(4)

Annually retire RECs that each competitive retailer submits to meet its renewable energy requirement;

(5)

Retire RECs at the end of each REC's three-year life;

(6)

Maintain public information on its website that provides trading program information to interested buyers and sellers of RECs;

(7)

Create an exchange procedure where persons may purchase and sell RECs. The exchange shall ensure the anonymity of persons purchasing or selling RECs. The program administrator may delegate this function to an independent third party. The commission shall approve any such delegation;

(8)

Make public each month the total energy sales of competitive retailers in Texas for the previous month;

(9)

Perform audits of generators participating in the trading program to verify accuracy of metered production data;

(10)

Allocate the renewable energy responsibility to each competitive retailer in accordance with subsection (h) of this section; and

(11)

Submit an annual report to the commission. Beginning with the program's first compliance period, the program administrator shall submit a report to the commission on or before April 15 of each calendar year. The report shall contain information pertaining to renewable energy power generators and competitive retailers. At a minimum, the report shall contain:

(A)

the amount of existing and new renewable energy capacity in MW installed in the state by technology type, the owner/operator of each facility, the date each facility began to produce energy, the amount of energy generated in megawatt-hours (MWh) each quarter for all capacity participating in the trading program or that was retired from service; and

(B)

a listing of all competitive retailers participating in the trading program, each competitive retailer's renewable energy credit requirement, the number of offsets used by each competitive retailer, the number of credits retired by each competitive retailer, a listing of all competitive retailers that were in compliance with the REC requirement, a listing of all competitive retailers that failed to retire sufficient REC requirement, and the deficiency of each competitive retailer that failed to retire sufficient RECs to meet its REC requirement.

(h)

Allocation of REC purchase requirement to competitive retailers. The program administrator shall allocate REC requirements among competitive retailers. Any renewable capacity that is retired before January 1, 2009 or any capacity shortfalls that arise due to purchases of RECs from out-of-state facilities shall be replaced and incorporated into the allocation methodology set forth in this subsection. Any changes to the allocation methodology to reflect replacement capacity shall occur two compliance periods after which the facility was retired or capacity shortfall occurred. The program administrator shall use the following methodology to determine the total annual REC requirement for a given year and the final REC requirement for individual competitive retailers:

(1)

The total statewide REC requirement for each compliance period shall be calculated in terms of MWh and shall be equal to the renewable capacity target multiplied by 8,760 hours per year, multiplied by the appropriate capacity conversion factor set forth in subsection (i) of this section. The renewable energy capacity targets for the compliance period beginning January 1, of the year indicated shall be:

(A)

400 MW of new resources in 2002;

(B)

400 MW of new resources in 2003;

(C)

850 MW of new resources in 2004;

(D)

850 MW of new resources 2005;

(E)

1,400 MW of new resources in 2006;

(F)

1,400 MW of new resources in 2007;

(G)

2,000 MW of new resources in 2008; and

(H)

2,000 MW of new resources in 2009 through 2019.

(2)

The final REC requirement for an individual competitive retailer for a compliance period shall be calculated as follows:

(A)

Each competitive retailer's preliminary REC requirement is determined by dividing its total retail energy sales in Texas by the total retail sales in Texas of all competitive retailers, and multiplying that percentage by the total statewide REC requirement for that compliance period.

(B)

The adjusted REC requirement for each competitive retailer that is entitled to an offset is determined by reducing its preliminary REC requirement by the offsets to which it qualifies, as determined under subsection (i) of this section, with the maximum reduction equal to the competitive retailer's preliminary REC requirement. The total reductions for all competitive retailers is equal to the total usable offsets for that compliance period.

(C)

Each competitive retailer's final REC requirement for a compliance period shall be increased to recapture the total usable offsets calculated under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. The additional REC requirement shall be calculated by dividing the competitive retailer's adjusted REC requirement by the total adjusted REC requirement of all competitive retailers. This fraction shall be multiplied by the total usable offsets for that compliance period and this amount shall be added to the competitive retailer's adjusted REC requirement to produce the competitive retailer's final REC requirement for the compliance period.

(i)

Nomination and calculation of REC offsets.

(1)

A REP, municipally-owned utility, G&T cooperative, distribution cooperative, or an affiliate of a REP, municipally-owned utility, or distribution cooperative, may apply offsets to meet all or a portion of its renewable energy purchase requirement, as calculated in subsection (h) of this section, only if those offsets are nominated in a filing with the commission by June 1, 2001. A G&T may nominate the combined offsets for itself and its member distribution cooperatives upon the presentation of a resolution by its Board authorizing it to do so.

(2)

The commission shall verify any designations of REC offsets and notify the program administrator of its determination by December 31, 2001.

(3)

REC offsets shall be equal to the average annual MWh output of an existing resource for the years 1991-2000 or the entire life of the existing resource, whichever is less.

(4)

REC offsets qualify for use in a compliance period under subsection (h) of this section only to the extent that:

(A)

The resource producing the REC offset has continuously since September 1, 1999 been owned by or its output has been committed under contract to a utility, municipally-owned utility, or cooperative nominating the resource under paragraph (1) of this subsection or, if the resource has been committed under a contract that expired after September 1, 1999 and before January 1, 2002, it is owned by or its output has been committed under contract to a utility, municipally-owned utility, or cooperative on January 1, 2002; and

(B)

The facility producing the REC offsets is operated and producing energy during the compliance period in a manner consistent with historic practice.

(5)

If the production from a facility producing the REC offset energy ceases for any reason, the competitive retailer may no longer claim the REC offset against its REC requirement.

(j)

Calculation of capacity conversion factor. The capacity conversion factor used by the program administrator to allocate credits to competitive retailers shall be calculated as follows:

(1)

The capacity conversion factor (CCF) shall be administratively set at 35% for 2002 and 2003, the first two compliance periods of the program.

(2)

During the fourth quarter of the second compliance year (2003), the CCF shall be readjusted to reflect actual generator performance data associated with all renewable resources in the trading program. The program administrator shall adjust the CCF every two years thereafter and shall:

(A)

be based on all renewable energy resources in the trading program for which at least 12 months of performance data is available;

(B)

represent a weighted average of generator performance;

(C)

use all valid performance data that is available for each renewable resource; and

(D)

ensure that the renewable capacity goals are attained.

(k)

Production and transfer of RECs. The program administrator shall administer a trading program for renewable energy credits in accordance with the requirements of this subsection.

(1)

A REC will be awarded to the owner of a renewable resource when a MWh is metered at that renewable resource. A generator producing 0.5 MWh or greater as its last unit generated should be awarded one REC on a quarterly basis. The program administrator shall record the amount of metered MWh and credit the REC account of the renewable resource that generated the energy on a quarterly basis.

(2)

The transfer of RECs between parties shall be effective only when the transfer is recorded by the program administrator.

(3)

The program administrator shall require that RECs be adequately identified prior to recording a transfer and shall issue an acknowledgement of the transaction to parties upon provision of adequate information. At a minimum, the following information shall be provided:

(A)

identification of the parties;

(B)

REC serial number, REC issue date, and the renewable resource that produced the REC;

(C)

the number of RECs to be transferred; and

(D)

the transaction date.

(4)

A competitive retailer shall surrender RECs to the program administrator for retirement from the market in order to meet its REC allocation for a compliance period. The program administrator will document all REC retirements annually.

(5)

On or after each April 1, the program administrator will retire RECs that have not been retired by competitive retailers and have reached the end of their three-year life.

(6)

The program administrator may establish a procedure to ensure that the award, transfer, and retirement of credits are accurately recorded.

(l)

Settlement process. Beginning in January 2003, the first quarter following the compliance period shall be the settlement period during which the following actions shall occur:

(1)

By January 31, the program administrator will notify each competitive retailer of its total REC requirement for the previous compliance period as determined pursuant to subsection (h) of this section.

(2)

By March 31, each competitive retailer must submit credits to the program administrator from its account equivalent to its REC requirement for the previous compliance period. If the competitive retailer has insufficient credits in its account to satisfy its obligation, and this shortfall exceeds the applicable deficit allowance as set forth in subsection (m)(2) of this section, the competitive retailer is subject to the penalty provisions in subsection (o) of this section.

(m)

Trading program compliance cycle.

(1)

The first compliance period shall begin on January 1, 2002 and there will be 18 consecutive compliance periods. Early banking of RECs is permissible and may commence no earlier than July 1, 2001. The program's first settlement period shall take place during the first quarter of 2003.

(2)

A competitive retailer may incur a deficit allowance equal to 5.0% of its REC requirement in 2002 and 2003 (the first two compliance periods of the program). This 5.0% deficit allowance shall not apply to entities that initiate customer choice after 2003. During the first settlement period, each competitive retailer will be subject to a penalty for any REC shortfall that is greater than 5.0% of its REC requirement under subsection (h) of this section. During the second settlement period, each competitive retailer will be subject to the penalty process for any REC shortfall greater than 5.0% of the second year REC allocation. All competitive retailers incurring a 5.0% deficit pursuant to this subsection must make up the amount of RECs associated with the deficit in the next compliance period.

(3)

The issue date of RECs created by a renewable energy resource shall coincide with the beginning of the compliance year in which the credits are generated. All RECs shall have a life of three compliance periods, after which the program administrator will retire them from the trading program.

(4)

Each REC that is not used in the year of its creation may be banked and is valid for the next two compliance years.

(5)

A competitive retailer may meet its renewable energy requirements for a compliance period with RECs issued in or prior to that compliance period which have not been retired.

(n)

Registration and certification of renewable energy facilities. The commission shall register and certify all renewable facilities that will produce either REC offsets or RECs for sale in the trading program. To be awarded RECs or REC offsets, a power generator must complete the registration process described in this subsection. The program administrator shall not award offsets or credits for energy produced by a power generator before it has been certified by the commission.

(1)

The designated representative of the generating facility shall file an application with the commission on a form approved by the commission for each renewable energy generation facility. At a minimum, the application shall include the location, owner, technology, and rated capacity of the facility and shall demonstrate that the facility meets the resource eligibility criteria in subsection (e) of this section.

(2)

No later than 30 days after the designated representative files the certification form with the commission, the commission shall inform both the program administrator and the designated representative whether the renewable facility has met the certification requirements. At that time, the commission shall either certify the renewable facility as eligible to receive either RECs or offsets, or describe any insufficiencies to be remedied. If the application is contested, the time for acting is extended by 30 days.

(3)

Upon receiving notice of certification of new facilities, the program administrator shall create an REC account for the designated representative of the renewable resource.

(4)

The commission may make on-site visits to any certified unit of a renewable energy resource and may decertify any unit if it is not in compliance with the provisions of this subsection.

(5)

A decertified renewable generator may not be awarded RECs. However, any RECs awarded by the program administrator and transferred to a competitive retailer prior to the decertification remain valid.

(o)

Penalties and enforcement. If by April 1 of the year following a compliance year it is determined that a competitive retailer with an allocated REC purchase requirement has insufficient credits to satisfy its allocation, the competitive retailer shall be subject to the administrative penalty provisions of PURA §15.023 as specified in this subsection.

(1)

Except as provided in paragraph (4) of this subsection, a penalty will be assessed for that portion of the deficient credits.

(2)

The penalty shall be the lesser of $50 per MWh or, upon presentation of suitable evidence of market value by the competitive retailer, 200% of the average market value of credits for that compliance period.

(3)

There will be no obligation on the competitive retailer to purchase RECs for deficits, whether or not the deficit was within or was not within the competitive retailer's reasonable control, except as set forth in subsection (m)(2) of this section.

(4)

In the event that the commission determines that events beyond the reasonable control of a competitive retailer prevented it from meeting its REC requirement there will be no penalty assessed.

(5)

A party is responsible for conducting sufficient advance planning to acquire its allotment of RECs. Failure of the spot or short-term market to supply a party with the allocated number of RECs shall not constitute an event outside the competitive retailer's reasonable control. Events or circumstances that are outside of a party's reasonable control may include weather-related damage, mechanical failure, lack of transmission capacity or availability, strikes, lockouts, actions of a governmental authority that adversely effect the generation, transmission, or distribution of renewable energy from an eligible resource under contract to a purchaser.

(p)

Renewable resources eligible for sale in the Texas wholesale and retail markets. Any energy produced by a renewable resource may be bought and sold in the Texas wholesale market or to retail customers in Texas and marketed as renewable energy if it is generated from a resource that meets the definition in subsection (c)(14) of this section.

(q)

Periodic review. The commission shall periodically assess the effectiveness of the energy-based credits trading program in this section to maximize the energy output from the new capacity additions and ensure that the goal for renewable energy is achieved in the most economically-efficient manner. If the energy-based trading program is not effective, performance standards will be designed to ensure that the cumulative installed renewable capacity in Texas meets the requirements of PURA §39.904.

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on December 21, 1999.

TRD-9908924

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Effective date: January 10, 2000

Proposal publication date: October 22, 1999

For further information, please call: (512) 936-7308


Chapter 26. SUBSTANTIVE RULES APPLICABLE TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS

Subchapter R. PROVISIONS RELATING TO MUNICIPAL REGULATION AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT

16 TAC §26.465

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) adopts new §26.465 relating to Methodology for Counting Access Lines and Reporting Requirements for Certificated Telecommunications Providers with changes to the proposed text as published in the October 8, 1999 Texas Register (24 TexReg 8678). This section is adopted under Project Number 20935.

New §26.465 implements the provisions of House Bill 1777 (HB 1777), Act of May 25, 1999, 76th Legislature, Regular Session, chapter 840, 1999 Texas Session Law Service 3499 (Vernon) (to be codified as an amendment to Local Government Code §283.001, et seq. ). HB 1777 requires the commission to establish a uniform method for compensating municipalities for the use of a public right-of-way by certificated telecommunications providers (CTPs). Not later than March 1, 2000, the commission must establish, for each municipality, rates per access line, by category, for the use of the rights-of-way in that municipality. The sum of the amounts derived by applying the commission's access line rates by category to the total number of access lines by category in the municipality, shall be equal to the municipality's base amount. This rule establishes the procedures for counting access lines, by category, and requirements for reporting access line counts.

Prior to publication of the proposed rule, the commission staff held a workshop on September 1, 1999 at the commission offices. Input received from the commenters was used to develop the proposed rule. A public hearing on the proposed rule was held at the commission offices on November 5, 1999. Representatives from municipalities and industry, and other affected persons, participated in the hearing and provided written comments. To the extent the oral comments differed from the submitted written comments, such comments are summarized herein.

Upon publication of the proposed rule, the commission requested specific comments regarding whether the access line counting methodology in this rule is consistent with the access line counting methodology used in the commission's USF dockets (Docket Numbers 18515, Compliance Proceeding for Implementation of the Texas High Cost Universal Service Plan, and 18516, Compliance Proceeding for Implementation of the Small and Rural ILEC Service Plan ) and/or the Rate Reclassification Project (Docket Number 18509, Application of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to Revise General Exchange Tariff, to Change Rate Group Classification of Fifty-Two (52) Exchanges ) and, if not, whether it should be. In addition, the commission requested comments regarding the inclusion of lines that a CTP, either an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) or a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) provides to itself, in the access line count. Further, the commission solicited comments on whether connections (transmission facilities) to wireless providers which are used solely for the purpose of providing wireless telecommunication services should have to be counted as access lines and, if not, whether an exemption creates implications for Internet service providers and other providers of voice or data transmission whose access lines are counted. Finally, the commission asked for specific comments regarding the costs associated with, and benefits that will be gained by, implementation of the proposed section. Where parties responded to the above questions, those comments have been summarized, as well.

Hearing and Commenters

The following parties filed comments on the rule language: AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. (AT&T); TXU Communications Telephone Company (TXU); NorthPoint Communications (NorthPoint); Rhythms Links, Inc. (Rhythms); City of Garland and City of San Angelo (Garland/San Angelo); Texas Coalition of Cities on Franchised Utility Issues (TCCFUI), a coalition of over 100 Texas cities; Texas Municipal League (TML); GTE Southwest Incorporated (GTESW); Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT); Austin, El Paso, Everman, Irving, Laredo, Missouri City, Plano, and Rosenberg (Cities); Addison, Bedford, Colleyville, Euless, Farmers Branch, Grapevine, Hurst, Keller, Killeen, North Richland Hills, Pasadena, Texas City, Tyler, West University Place, and Wharton (Coalition) (hereinafter, Cities and Coalition will be referred to jointly as "Cities"); TEXALTEL; CLEC Coalition; City of Dallas (Dallas); and MCI WORLDCOM (MCIW).

Consistency of line counting methodology

Several commenters responded to the commission's question on whether the access line counting methodology proposed in this rule is consistent with the access line counting methodology used in the commission's Universal Service Fund (USF) dockets (Docket Numbers 18515 and 18516) and/or Rate Reclassification Project (Docket Number 18509), and, if not, whether it should be. TEXALTEL responded that HB 1777 very specifically instructs the commission as to how access lines are to be counted for municipal franchise purposes; TEXALTEL concluded that HB 1777 provides more explicit instructions than in the USF context. TEXALTEL agreed that, to the extent the commission has latitude within the language of HB 1777 to choose to conform or not conform to USF definitions, all other things being equal, consistency is desirable. Cities, joined by Dallas and TML, echoed this sentiment, stating that, to the extent these dockets deal with the same issues, there should be consistency; however, while there are overlaps between HB 1777 and the commission's other dockets (18515/18516 and 18509), there is only an imperfect correlation. TXU contended that it is not necessary for the methodologies to coincide because USF monies will be received for access lines both inside and outside a city's boundaries, while fees for right-of-way (ROW) compensation are limited to within a city's boundaries. Further, TXU pointed out that USF is received only for flat rate single-line residential lines and the first five flat rate single-line business lines at a customer's location.

Cities (endorsed by Dallas and TML), SWBT and CLEC Coalition responded that the line counting methodology under HB 1777 does not need to be consistent with either the USF dockets (Docket Numbers 18515 and 18516) or commission Docket Number 18509. SWBT pointed out that the statutory purposes and applicable definitions of "access line" vary in each of these contexts, underscoring their position that the methodologies should not be consistent. CLEC Coalition reiterated this point, arguing that the methodologies were specific to the purposes of each docket and a separate counting methodology must be established to implement HB 1777.

The commission agrees that, where feasible, consistency is a desired outcome. However, as noted by commenters, the commission's USF dockets and the rate reclassification project have significantly different purposes which dictate the different definitions of access lines. For instance, the USF Docket does not track access lines by municipal boundaries, and does not differentiate between categories of access lines. Accordingly, the commission will not seek to revise the proposed counting methodology under HB 1777 for purposes of matching other commission methodologies at this time. However, the commission reserves the right to revisit the issue of consistency between counting methodologies when, pursuant to HB 1777, the commission reviews the definition of "access line" in the future.

Inclusion of company lines in access line count

Several commenters responded to the commission's question regarding the inclusion in the access line count of lines that a certificated telecommunications provider (CTP), either an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) or a competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) provides to itself. TEXALTEL responded that the desire is that the assessment of fees and pass-through be simple to administer, auditable, easy to explain to customers, and not subject to challenge or contest. TEXALTEL submitted that to assess fees on non-revenue producing lines would complicate the process, arguing that, in order to recover the fees paid on such non-revenue producing lines, CTPs would have to pass through a slightly higher fee on the revenue producing lines than the fees charged by the cities. TEXALTEL argued that the commission should simply exclude such lines. TXU echoed the concern that lines used by a CTP do not produce revenue and should, therefore, be excluded from the access line count. GTESW stated that company official lines should continue to be exempt because these lines are not a source of revenue and, therefore, have been exempted in the past. SWBT agreed with this position, asserting that the services it provides for its own use have never been included in any form of municipal fee assessment; SWBT further argued that HB 1777 gives no indication that the Legislature contemplated such a complete departure from historical practices. GTESW also pointed out that in the counting of lines for gas and electric utilities, company official lines are excluded.

Moreover, GTESW reasoned that these lines do not terminate at an end-use customer's premises (as that phrase is generally defined). AT&T contended that the phrase "end-use customer" historically has been defined as the ultimate, retail customer; that same historical definition is the only one that makes sense in every place the phrase is used in HB 1777. AT&T proposed that the commission should require a CTP to include in its access line count only those access lines provided to itself for its own end-use. AT&T argued that all other access lines should be excluded; AT&T maintained that excluding some facilities from consideration as access lines is consistent with the intent of HB 1777.

SWBT also argued in favor of excluding from the HB 1777 access line count lines that a CTP provides to itself. SWBT contended that such lines are outside the statutory definition of "access line," which is defined in the Local Government Code §283.002 in terms of transmission paths and termination points extending to or provided to an "end-use customer." CLEC Coalition also argued that a CTP is not an end-use customer as that term is used in the Local Government Code §283.002, maintaining that the term "end-use customer" denotes a third-party purchaser of goods or services. SWBT argued that it is not its own customer; instead, the ultimate retail consumer of SWBT's sold services is the end-use customer within the meaning of HB 1777 and pursuant to Texas case law. SWBT also contended that inclusion in the access line count of lines a CTP provides to itself would require a retroactive, manual adjustment to each customer's account at the end of the year to effectuate CTPs' right of pass-through. SWBT cited PURA §51.009, Municipal Fees, and §54.206, Recovery of Municipal Fee, as support for CTPs' right to pass through any municipal fees that are assessed on the lines they provide to themselves. SWBT asserted that inclusion of such lines would result in a time-consuming and costly manual adjustment on an annual basis. SWBT stressed that HB 1777 requires that the commission consider administrative convenience in writing its rules. SWBT also maintained that a very large number of the lines that a CTP provides to itself do not burden the public ROW because, in many cities, the buildings that house the largest number of SWBT employees (and therefore the largest number of company official lines) also house the central offices that serve those lines; Thus, the company lines do not intrude into the ROW.

On the other hand, Garland/San Angelo argued that there is no reason under the Local Government Code, Chapter 283, to exclude from an access line count those lines that an ILEC or CLEC provides to itself. Garland/San Angelo argued that if the line goes through a ROW, it should be counted and that nothing in the Local Government Code, Chapter 283, provides that, in order to be counted, a fee must be received by the CTP for the access line. TCCFUI added that, for the sake of consistency, all lines should be included. Dallas endorsed these comments.

The commission agrees that HB 1777 defines access line in terms of the end-use customer; the commission has followed this approach in determining whether other types of lines ought to be included in the access line count. The commission agrees with SWBT and the CLEC Coalition that a CTP cannot be an end-use customer of itself. Therefore, consistent with the definition of access lines in the Local Government Code §283.002, and with the concept that end-use refers to retail end-use customers, the commission believes that it is appropriate to exclude company official lines from the access line count. The commission clarifies that this exclusion for company official lines does not apply to lines that a CTP provides to its employees, such as employee concession lines or other similar types of lines provided to employees, that may not be revenue-producing and are used for matters other than official business. Given that the employees would be the end-use customers, the commission believes that an adjustment to the accounts of other customers to effectuate CTPs' right of pass-through, as suggested by SWBT and TEXALTEL, is unwarranted. Accordingly, the commission declines at this time to require the inclusion of company official lines but does require the inclusion of employee concession lines in the access line counts. For additional discussion please refer to the commission discussion for subsection (e)(4).

Inclusion of transmission facilities to wireless providers

Multiple parties commented on the issue of whether connections (transmission facilities) to wireless providers which are used solely for the purpose of providing wireless telecommunications services must be counted as access lines and, whether an exemption for such lines would create implications for Internet service providers (ISPs) and other providers of voice or data transmission whose access lines are counted. TEXALTEL, SWBT and CLEC Coalition responded that a wireless provider is not an end user and, thus, the services fall outside the definition of "access line." GTESW argued that transmission facilities to wireless providers are just another example of interoffice trunking. SWBT made the same argument using inter-facility transport as an example that should not be counted as access lines, as such transport does not terminate at an end-use customer. GTESW argued that an access line should include each transmission path to an end-use customer, so that, in the case of a wireless or Internet provider, this should only include landlines provided to the wireless provider or Internet provider as an end-use customer. CLEC Coalition also indicated that connections to wireless providers used solely for the purpose of providing wireless telecommunications services should not be counted as access lines. GTESW emphasized that the language of HB 1777 specifically excludes wireless airwaves as being outside the ROW.

At the public hearing, SWBT explained that no sales taxes are applied to the facilities purchased by a wireless provider that is tying its cell sites together, or tying its cell site to the ILEC switch. Thus, the wireless provider is not the retail customer, but instead is part of the wholesale transaction providing the wireless service to wireless customers. Cities asserted, however, that the exemption of wireless providers from HB 1777, makes them, in that instance, a retail customer. Cities went on to add that the cell site itself is purchasing the services, making it the customer premises. El Paso argued that the entire retail/wholesale concept should not be applied to the question of how to define the end use customer for purposes of compensation for use of ROWs because they are two different things. Dallas pointed out that lines interconnecting different companies and wireless providers have historically been assessed franchise fees. SWBT and GTESW did not necessarily agree that this was the practice statewide.

TML, on the other hand, contended that HB 1777 does not exempt wireless providers when they place or maintain lines in the ROW. TML asserted that, to exclude lines used to connect "CTP, wireless provider or IXC equipment" or backhaul lines that are so located, not only creates a competitive advantage for such providers, but prevents cities from meeting their legal obligations and the intent of HB 1777. TML further asserted that a wireless provider is an "end-use customer," and such a provider's cell site is the "customer premise."

TML and Cities, joined by Dallas, asserted that to exclude cell site customers and CTP equipment would expand the meaning of "interoffice transport" under the Local Government Code, §283.002(1)(B), in a way not contemplated by the statute. Cities pointed out that, for the purpose of HB 1777, there is no distinction between a wireless provider's use of access lines in the public ROW and that of any other customer of a CTP. In contrast, AT&T asserted that lines provided to wireless providers qualify as interoffice transport. AT&T cited the Local Government Code, §283.002(1)(B), which specifically excludes "interoffice transport or other transmission media that do not terminate at an end-use customer's premises" from being considered an access line. Both AT&T and CLEC Coalition cited the Local Government Code, §283.056(f), as evidence that HB 1777 expressly contemplates transmission media that do not terminate at an end-use customer's premises, and moreover, provides that those lines are not to be used in the calculation of the compensation. Therefore, claimed AT&T, transmission facilities provided to wireless providers, who in turn use them to provide services to their end users, may not be counted as access lines. AT&T concluded that just as an ILEC or CLEC may have interoffice lines in the public ROW to connect their facilities that are excluded from counting, so would the lines used in connecting to a wireless provider's facility be similarly excluded.

Cities, as endorsed by Dallas and TML, cited the Local Government Code, §283.002(1), to show that a wireless provider is an "end-use customer" because the provider's cell site is the "customer premises." TCCFUI, supported by Dallas, echoed that the wireless carrier is the end-use customer of a service being provided over facilities located in a municipal ROW. El Paso explained that the wireless carrier is purchasing land-line telecommunications service. TEXALTEL differentiated such lines used by the telecommunications provider itself from lines used as a part of the process of providing telecommunications services. Cities, joined by Dallas and TML, maintained that, because HB 1777's purpose is to establish a competitively neutral, non-discriminatory compensation method, to exclude one significant type of customer without a valid legal distinction is prima facie discriminatory and unlawful, and also not competitively neutral. Cities also addressed the issue of implications for ISPs and other providers of voice or data transmission whose access lines are counted, stating that an exclusion for wireless providers' lines would discriminate against ISPs and other providers, in that they would now have to subsidize wireless providers. CLEC Coalition, on the other hand, stated that the implications of any exemption for ISPs remains to be seen, but that there are important distinctions between an ISP and a wireless provider; an ISP provides information services, not telecommunications services, to its end-use customers.

Cities, joined by Dallas and TML, believed that the proposed rule instills confusion by purporting to exclude (or include) lines purchased by cell site customers and customers of interexchange carriers (IXCs) when, in fact, for purposes of HB 1777, these customers cannot be deemed to provide "retail services" as they are not CTPs covered by this chapter. Therefore, Cities, supported by Dallas and TML, asserted that there is no statutory or policy basis to treat cell site customers or IXC customers differently than any other retail customer. Garland/San Angelo asserted that all access lines must be counted if there is no exemption for them granted by statute and, therefore, connections to wireless providers should not be exempt from the access line count. Garland/San Angelo maintained that the statute does not authorize excluding wireless providers as customers.

TCCFUI, joined by Dallas, strongly opposed exempting those access lines used or purchased by a wireless carrier to complete calls, stating that such an exemption violates one of the stated purposes of HB 1777--to ensure there is no competitive advantage or disadvantage among providers. TCCFUI, joined by Dallas, strongly opposed the presumption that access lines to wireless providers are somehow different than lines to other customer classes, including resellers and rebundlers. TCCFUI and Dallas maintained that the connection between the cell tower and the wireline carrier's switch goes through a ROW and that any exemption denies the municipality its right to collect compensation. Further, argued TCCFUI and Dallas, it makes no difference if the end user wireless provider is a subsidiary of the original provider--CTPs should not be exempted from paying access fees simply because they resell access lines to their own subsidiaries, wireless or not. TCCFUI also raised concerns that once one exemption is created, others will seek such an exemption, too.

The commission recognizes the potential for confusion in counting only certain types of lines and excluding others. The commission notes that the confusion may be fueled by the fact that the term "interoffice transport" is not defined within the statute. Nonetheless, the commission believes that wireless lines must be excluded for the following reasons: first, the Local Government Code §283.002(6) states that, "the term (public right-of-way) does not include the airwaves above a right-of-way with regard to wireless telecommunications." By excluding the airways from the definition of the ROW, the Legislature specifically excluded the "last mile" of the wireless network from the application of HB 1777. Next, each element of the definition of "access line" refers to transmission media within the right-of-way extended to the end-use customer's premises . Since the framework of HB 1777 is built around the "last mile," (the final segment of the network which terminates at the end-use customer's premises), it would be inappropriate to call a wireless provider an end-use customer simply to capture those lines. Therefore, by definition, the wireless network falls outside the definition of access lines. Furthermore, the proposed subsection (f) of the commission's rules has held that other landline-based CTPs are not end users. To be consistent under this approach, the commission also excludes the lines terminating at a wireless provider. The commission also clarifies that it does not consider lines to wireless providers to be interoffice transport. The commission notes that the FCC is currently addressing issues related to the treatment of wireless providers vis-à-vis landline-based providers. The commission reserves the right to revisit the issue of whether wireless providers are end-use customers, should the FCC make a determination on this issue.

Costs and benefits of rule

Several commenters expressed opinions analyzing the costs and benefits of the proposed rule. GTESW highlighted consistency in the way CTPs count access lines and ease of administration for CTPs, the commission, and municipalities as benefits of the proposed rule. GTESW acknowledged that the proposed rule would increase costs for the commission and municipalities to assure no duplicate charging of access line fees occurs. AT&T expanded on the cost analysis, stating that precise cost quantification of system development, modification and deployment remains difficult, but is expected to be substantial as entirely new software and accounting systems will have to be developed. SWBT generally shared the position that there will be significant costs associated with implementation of the rule. CLEC Coalition stated that costs to CTPs will be very high. Creating a system that will not only count access lines (as they are ultimately defined), but which will also segregate access lines by category and municipality is very burdensome and costly. CLEC Coalition members intend to recoup costs from customers, so it is imperative that the counting methodology be tied to the CLEC's billing system--but it may be months before such systems are capable of reflecting these fees on customers' bills.

The commission recognizes that the changes required under HB 1777 will necessitate modifications to a CTP's billing system. However, consistent with HB 1777, the counting of access lines under this rule focuses on the end-use customer, and the counting methodology is designed to track as much as possible the CTPs' billing systems, thereby minimizing administrative costs to the extent possible.

Inclusion of Lifeline and Tel-assistance lines

Several commenters responded to questions regarding an exemption for Lifeline and Tel-assistance lines, raised during the commission workshop. GTESW did not oppose assessing fees on these lines but wanted to ensure that the rule is non-discriminatory and competitively neutral; either include lines in all municipalities, or exclude lines in all municipalities; GTESW also felt that such a standardized approach is essential for administrative simplicity, a key objective of HB 1777. Like GTESW, SWBT stated it has no objection to exempting Lifeline and Tel-assistance lines, but asked that for purposes of administrative simplicity and nondiscrimination, such lines be treated consistently statewide--either all included or all exempt. SWBT pointed out that HB 1777 provides no explicit exemption for Lifeline and Tel-assistance lines, but in SWBT's experience, most municipalities have chosen to exempt them from municipal fees.

Dallas opposed adding another exclusion for Lifeline services, because excluding a new class of customers from the definition of access lines will automatically increase the rates of other customers. Further, Dallas argued that such an exclusion seems to establish a fourth access line category, not approved under HB 1777. Dallas also maintained that, once an exclusion is created, others, such as schools or charities, may seek similar exclusions.

The commission believes that HB 1777 does not allow the commission to specifically exclude a class of access lines. As commission rules have already established the maximum three access line categories, there is no basis for establishing Lifeline and Tel-assistance lines as a separate access line category. Furthermore, some municipalities have historically chosen to exclude Lifeline and Tel-assistance lines from franchise fee compensation, while others have chosen to include compensation from these lines. Because HB 1777 creates a statewide system of municipal compensation, the commission must either include Lifeline and Tel-assistance lines from the access line count in all municipalities or exclude Lifeline and Tel-assistance lines in all municipalities. However, the commission does not want to pre-judge a municipality's choice regarding compensation from Lifeline and Tel-assistance customers in this rule. Therefore, the commission concludes that at this time, it is appropriate to include Lifelines and Tel-assistance lines as part of the access line count, but will defer to the adoption of the rates and compensation rule, §26.467 of this title (relating to Rates, Allocation, Compensation, Adjustments and Reporting), on whether or not municipalities have the option to forgo compensation from these lines. Depending upon the determination made in §26.467, CTPs may be required to separately identify Lifeline and Tel-assistance lines on an as-needed basis. To sum up, Lifeline and Tel-assistance access lines have been added to the list of lines to be counted under subsection (e) of this section.

Section 26.465(c)(1)-transmission media

Proposed §26.465(c)(1), defines transmission media as, "The physical wires within a public-right-of-way that may consist of, but are not limited to, copper, coaxial, or optical fibers or other media, extended to the end-use customer's premises within the municipality, that allow the delivery of local exchange telephone services within a municipality, and that are provided by means of owned facilities, unbundled network elements or leased facilities or resale."

Several comments were received on proposed §26.465(c)(1). Dallas asserted that the proposed definition limits the media to "physical wires" and to those providing switched services only, and pointed out that facilities typically found in the ROW include a number of other facilities. To eliminate any possible inadvertent limitation caused by the definition, Dallas proposed a definition that includes all facilities located in a public ROW such as coaxial cable, fiber optics, poles, manholes, conduits, and "other plant equipment and appurtenances used to deliver telecommunications services to the end-use customer's premises." Dallas argued that, without such a change, the exception may be broader than the rule. Further, Dallas pointed out that such a definition would permit more technological flexibility than the use of the word "wires."

Garland/San Angelo observed that the descriptive language in the Local Government Code, §283.002(1)(A)(i) that applies to transmission "path" has been erroneously applied to transmission "media" in the proposed rule. Garland/San Angelo explained that there are different types of media and the transmission path is provided through the media. Garland/San Angelo argued that because "wires" may be too limiting, it should be replaced with "facilities." TCCFUI agreed with this recommended change. SWBT concurred with the replacement of the term "wires" with "facilities," among other wording changes.

Cities, as endorsed by Dallas and TML, found the definition of "transmission media" confusing and unnecessary. In particular, Cities pointed out that the definitional test of "physical wires within the public ROWs" would result in the exclusion of lines within any building served through a PBX (or other equipment).

The commission agrees with the commenters that the definition of transmission media may be confusing. Also, given that the categories of access lines are no longer distinguished by bit rate or speed (bandwidth), the commission believes that the definition of transmission path may be unnecessary. Therefore, the commission deletes the definition of transmission media from this section of the rule.

Section 26.465(c)(2)-transmission path

Proposed §26.465(c)(2), defines transmission path as, "A physical or virtual path within the transmission media used to provide a certain level of service. A transmission path may consist of, but is not limited to, one or more wires, either as a pair of copper wires, coaxial, optical fiber, or a combination of any of these.

(A) Each individual service, including a service offered as part of a bundled group of services, shall constitute a single transmission path. Features of services, such as call waiting and caller-ID, shall not constitute a separate transmission path.

(B) Where a service or technology is channelized, each channel shall constitute a single transmission path."

Several commenters addressed the commission's definition of "transmission path." TEXALTEL reiterated its view that each service should be counted as an access line, regardless of the number of paths within that service. TEXALTEL noted, however, that if the commission goes forward with the "channel" concept as shown in the proposed rule, the definition of transmission path should be amended (by adding the italicized section) to read: "Where a service or technology is channelized, each channel over which service is provided shall constitute a single transmission path." CLEC Coalition argued against counting each channel of a channelized service because doing so may result in the ROW fee exceeding the cost of the service. CACC made this same point at the public hearing, citing examples of customers paying for both a T1 line and for each channel of the T1 line, as well. CLEC Coalition contended that this result was not intended by HB 1777 and has no basis under the legislation. In addition, CLEC Coalition pointed out that channelizing does not physically modify the transmission media that occupies the ROW or place a greater burden on the ROW. GTESW agreed, stating that there is no additional incursion in the ROW for providing a multi-channel product.

Garland/San Angelo discussed the overlap between definitions in §26.465(c)(1) and (c)(2), recommending that (c)(2) be revised to remove references to media such as wires or fiber. SWBT agreed that "wires" should be replaced with "physical facilities" and also recommended that "a certain level of service" be specifically identified as "switched local exchange telephone" service. Similarly, CLEC Coalition recommended that the service level be specifically identified, but suggested the description be "retail," on the basis that level of service is no longer necessary given that access line categories are no longer distinguished by bit rate or speed. SWBT also recommended the addition of the word "cable" after "coaxial." Cities, endorsed by Dallas and TML, reiterated their concern that the wording of §26.465(c)(2), when read with the proposed (c)(1), would result in the exclusion of lines inside buildings such as multiple dwelling units, because the commission's proposed definition did not make specific references to other physical structures in such locations which might serve as a transmission media for the transmission path.

Under §26.465(c)(2)(A), CLEC Coalition recommended that if a bundled group of services is offered to an end-use customer and each "individual" service of that bundle is provided over the same transmission media, it should be counted as a single transmission path or a single access line. CLEC Coalition asserted that, as technology develops, the "bundle" of services that can be transmitted over the same transmission media is likely to increase due to technological advances at either end of the cable. CLEC Coalition contended that it is not necessary to cut a street and lay additional cable each time an additional service is provided to an end-use customer. CLEC Coalition maintained that HB 1777 says ROW compensation must be consistent with and have a nexus to the provider's incursion into the public ROW, arguing that where there is not some physical nexus or connection or burden on the ROW, there is no basis to see incremental increases in the cost. Imposing unrelated or inflated ROW costs on the deployment of advanced technology will be a disincentive to use and enjoy the benefits of advanced technology and is contrary to the federal Telecom Act and Texas law. Further, the CLEC Coalition argued that counting "individual" services and attempting to determine whether a product is a "service" or merely a "feature" of a service, is like counting wires--inconsistencies will abound and verification will be enormously burdensome and costly. CLEC Coalition concluded that unless and until the commission modifies the definition of "access line" in two years, the nature or type of service provided over an access line is not relevant to a determination of ROW compensation.

AT&T gave lengthy comments on the difficulties associated with the commission's proposed definition of "transmission path." AT&T argued that the proposed definition of "transmission path" is inconsistent with HB 1777 and departs from the underpinnings of both federal and state law. AT&T stated that the commission's proposal would impose multiple access line fees without regard to the physical facilities or ROW burden. AT&T argued that, under HB 1777, in order for a transmission path to be an access line, it must: 1) be physically in the ROW; 2) be extended to the end-use customer premises; 3) allow the delivery of local exchange services within a municipality; and 4) be provided by means of owned facilities, unbundled network elements (UNEs) or leased facilities, or resale. AT&T contended that the proposed definition fails to recognize these requirements and: 1) would allow a virtual path to be a transmission path; 2) does not require each transmission path to be extended to an end-use customer's premises; 3) fails to reflect that a transmission path must allow delivery of local exchange services--but says that a path may be "used to provide a certain level of service;" and 4) fails to reflect the means by which the path may be provided.

AT&T claimed that the proposed definition would require the counting of a single transmission path for each individual service offered, while a feature of a service would not constitute a separate path. AT&T raised concerns that there is no definition regarding what is a service and what is a feature of a service, asking whether Caller ID, per line blocking, and per call blocking are features or services.

Specifically referring to §26.465(c)(2)(B), AT&T found the commission's choice to count each channel as a single transmission path fundamentally flawed. AT&T observed that the rule is not restricted as to who does the channelizing. If, for example, the end-use customer channelizes the line, the CTP may have no information as to the number of channels that have been created and are being used. GTESW echoed this concern, stating that GTESW would not know the number of channels used by a customer or how the facility is being multiplexed. GTESW emphasized that this would be particularly difficult on facilities provided to other CTPs. AT&T added that the commission's proposal would allow higher fees on a technology that imposes less burden on the ROW and will result in a disincentive to the development and purchase of new technology. AT&T declared that the counting methodology should reward, not penalize, carriers which do more with less. AT&T also pointed out that any level of service provided over fiber optic cable is a function of the equipment placed at both ends that, again, does not impact the ROW. AT&T argued that all services should be subject to the same access line fee. One fiber facility, regardless of the equipment placed on it, should be counted as one access line, asserted AT&T.

GTESW focused on the specific billing problems associated with counting each channel, pointing out that it bills the end-use customer based upon the transmission path of the facility, not the individual channel. GTESW also stated that it cannot determine the number of channels actually being used by a customer and so cannot bill per channel without making costly changes to GTESW's ordering and billing processes and systems. Because two pairs of copper cables can be engineered to provide 24 channelized voice grade circuits, GTESW contended that it should only be subject to ROW fees for one access line and not the potential 24 channels available to the end user. GTESW emphasized that this problem becomes more complex when one considers the immense circuit-carrying capabilities of fiber optic systems.

On the other hand, at the public hearing SWBT responded that if a fee is not assessed based upon the service that is provided over that switched network that the customer orders, but is instead assessed only upon the facility that is in the ROW, SWBT would be placed at a competitive disadvantage because of the fact that SWBT serves some of its customers with the old technology of copper wires. In other words, SWBT might need 23 facilities, 23 separate copper pair wires, to provide a specific service; if the fee is assessed upon a facility basis, SWBT is assessed 23 fees, while a competitor using a T1 line to provide the same service would be assessed only one fee. SWBT urged the commission to take into consideration issues of competitive neutrality. Dallas echoed the need for fees to be assessed the same way, regardless of whether the service is provided over twisted-pair copper wires or a channelized fiber optic line. TEXALTEL's position was that the access lines be counted based on services, but the provider should define what the service is; a large ISDN sold as one service should be defined as one access line, or 150 local exchange lines sold separately should be counted as 150 access lines.

On the other hand, TML and Cities explained that cities do not share industry's traditional position that the issue is a burden on the ROW, a cost argument. Instead, TML and Cities asserted that ROW compensation is based upon the value of the use of the ROW and, therefore, the greater the profit from the commercial enterprise that is using the ROW, the greater the value of the use of the ROW. TML also pointed out that HB 1777 was a compromise between cities and industry whereby the parties did not have to decide that ultimate issue and instead ensured that cities would get the customary reasonable compensation they had received in the past, generally based in some way upon gross receipts. Cities and City of El Paso argued that the federal standard of "fair and reasonable" supports the position that compensation is based on the value of the ROW, not the burden on it. Cities stated that this issue has not been totally resolved either way. City of El Paso asserted that the issue of physical occupation of the ROW is only a threshold question in a two-tier process; once the presence of facilities in the ROW has been established, the calculation of municipal compensation occurs based upon the number of access lines, as defined in the statute.

At the public hearing, SWBT asserted that, on switched lines, the CLEC or the ILEC will always know how many services have been provided to a customer over that line, whether the services were packet switched or simply analog service. TEXALTEL agreed that the providers know how many paths the customer will be allowed to use simultaneously to complete local calls. But both TEXALTEL and AT&T pointed out that the provider would not necessarily know how many numbers the customer actually has in use on their side of the facilities, although the provider would probably know the amount of toll numbers that are in use by the customer due to the need to program the switch to complete the calls to those numbers.

SWBT cautioned that while one may know the number of paths for switched services, the same is not true for point-to-point connections that do not tie to the public switched network. SWBT argued that expanding the channelization concept of payment to the private line or point-to-point connection is untenable from the ILEC or CLEC's point of view because they do not know what the customer is using the private line for. CLEC Coalition expressed concern over apparent inconsistent treatment where lines channelized by the CTP would be counted, while lines channelized by the end-use customer would not be counted. Dallas, on the other hand, observed at the public hearing that the customer's actions cannot be controlled, but the CTP's billing records can be recognized and treated accordingly.

The commission has amended the definition of transmission path to exclude references to "wires" and, therefore, does not find it necessary to adopt the clarification suggested by Garland/San Angelo and SWBT. The commission agrees with TEXALTEL's definition for channelization and has included language similar to that proposed by TEXALTEL in revised subsection (c)(2)(E). The commission believes that the concerns raised by Cities, Dallas, and TML regarding the exclusion of lines within building facilities is unfounded because the definition of access line in the Local Government Code §283.002(1)(A)(i) includes all access lines "extended to the end-use customer's premises." Therefore, to the extent an access line extends to an end-use customer residing in a multiple dwelling unit, that access line will be counted.

The commission rejects CLEC Coalition's and AT&T's comments with regard to channelizing and equating transmission paths with services for the following reasons. As set forth in the Local Government Code §283.001(c)(1), administrative simplicity is a guiding principle of HB 1777; throughout this process, industry has repeatedly highlighted the need for ease of administration. Next, the commission believes that, as a practical matter, performing an actual count of the physical infrastructure buried in the rights-of-way of every city in the state of Texas would be impossible. Furthermore, during this rulemaking project, most of the telecommunications providers requested that the commission utilize existing billing systems to develop an access line count. Taking these factors into consideration, the commission has proposed a method to count facilities in the right-of-way through the services provided over the facilities, instead of burdening the providers with performing an actual count of the physical infrastructure in the rights-of-way. Under the commission's proposed rules, services and channelization serve as a proxy for the actual facilities in the right of way. Using this method, as requested by several industry participants, companies need only their billing records to develop an access line count. Finally, should the commission follow AT&T's and CLEC Coalition's proposal for counting access lines, it creates the potential for discriminatory treatment of end-use customers and is inconsistent with the statute. The definition of access line in the Local Government Code §283.002(1)(A)(i) equates each "access line" with " each switched path" (emphasis added). It is the commission's interpretation that, even if several switched services can be bundled together and offered over a single strand of fiber optic cable, at the central office end they have to be demultiplexed into individual switched paths, either externally or as an integral function of the switch. Since this results in multiple switched paths , each switched service in a bundled group of services should be counted as a single transmission path. The commission believes that the proposed definition will result in a consistent count of access lines, will be easily auditable, and will be administratively simple. The commission has added language to revised subsection (c)(2)(A), (B), and (C) and to subsection (d) to provide clarity and to help identify the types of services that should be counted. Please also refer to commission's response for subsection (d)(1)(C) for further discussion on counting access lines. It should be noted that the commission's counting has tied switched transmission path to circuit-switched networks, as this is how local exchange services are currently provided. In the future, if it is determined that services provided over other switched networks, such as packet switched networks, are local exchange services, the commission reserves the right to address this issue appropriately at that time.

The commission, however, agrees with AT&T's concern that the term "services" is not defined and that it could be misunderstood and confused with the term "features," thereby resulting in an inaccurate access line count. The commission will address this by providing detailed instructions in the forms used for access line data collection. The commission also notes that features do not increase the number of circuit switches and therefore, should not be counted as individual switched paths. The commission has added language to revised subsection (c)(2)(D) to clarify the types of features (or vertical services) that do not count as separate transmission paths.

The commission understands GTESW's concern regarding billing problems associated with channelization. The commission believes that CTPs have the capability to determine how many channels are provided to a customer as these are tracked by billing systems. However, if a line or circuit is channelized at the customer's end, then the CTP would have no knowledge about channelization and the commission rules for channelization would not apply. The commission also clarifies that it is not the potential number of channels that have to be counted but only the actual number of channels provided by the CTP. For instance, if a customer orders a channelized T1 line consisting only of 12 channels, then the municipal fee would be applicable only for the 12 channels ordered, not for the potential 24. The commission agrees with GTESW that two copper wires may be engineered to provide 24 channels, but notes that in other circumstances 24 copper wires may be used to provide 24 channels. The only way to ensure consistency in municipal fees between these two scenarios is to use the concept of channelization. Channelization results in multiple switched paths; the commission concludes that each switched path is an access line by definition, and therefore each channel shall be counted as an access line. The commission has added language to revised subsection (c)(2)(E) clarifying that channelization would only apply to the actual number of channels provided and only when channelized by the CTP.

Section 26.465(c)(3)-wireless provider

Proposed §26.465(c)(3) defines a wireless provider as, "A provider of wireless telecommunication services."

AT&T proposed a revision to the definition of "wireless provider." Specifically, AT&T recommended that the definition be modified to follow the language of PURA §51.002(10)(A)(iv). AT&T also reiterated that should the commission agree with AT&T that lines to a wireless provider should be excluded from the access line count, no revision to the definition would be necessary.

The commission agrees with AT&T and modifies the definition of wireless provider to reflect the language of PURA §51.002(10)(A)(iv). The commission has already responded to AT&T's concerns regarding the inclusion of lines provided to a wireless carrier in the discussion regarding end-use customer.

Section 26.465(d)(1)-Switched transmission paths

The proposed §26.465(d)(1) delineates the methodology for counting access lines for switched transmission paths. SWBT recommended revising the title to "switched services", rather than "switched transmission paths", to parallel the title of §26.465(d)(2).

The commission agrees that SWBT's suggestion provides a better catchline to subsection (d)(1) and therefore adds SWBT's suggested catchline to the original catchline.

Section 26.465(d)(1)(A)

The proposed §26.465(d)(1)(A) requires that a CTP shall determine the total number of switched transmission paths and should take into account the number of services provided and the number of channels used where a service or technology is channelized.

AT&T reiterated its comments regarding the definition of transmission path in §26.465(c)(2). AT&T supported the elimination of the proposed counting methodology which requires CTPs to take into consideration the number of services provided and the number of channels used where a service or technology is channelized. CLEC Coalition proposed deleting all references to the number of services or channels provided, reiterating its comments on channelization set forth in its response to §26.465(c)(2) above.

The commission has addressed in detail AT&T's and the CLEC Coalition's concerns regarding counting services and channelization (refer to commission's response to §26.465(c)(2)). As noted above, the commission believes that services are the best proxy for counting facilities in the rights-of-way. Therefore the commission retains subsection (d)(1) with minor clarifying modifications.

Section 26.465(d)(1)(B)

Proposed §26.465(d)(1)(B) stated that the bandwidth of each transmission path determines the access line category, as established in §26.461 of this title (relating to Access Line Categories).

TXU, GTESW, Rhythms, NorthPoint and Garland/San Angelo recommended that the commission remove all references to bandwidth in §26.465(d)(1)(B). Garland/San Angelo provided language revising this definition to refer to the categories established in §26.461 of this title. AT&T, CLEC Coalition and SWBT requested rejection of §26.465(d)(1)(B) as moot, in light of the commission's adoption of the access line categories. MCIW likewise observed that the commission's access line categories had been changed in the adopted version and recommended deleting references to bandwidth.

The commission agrees that the revised access line categories no longer distinguish between bandwidth, rendering §26.465(d)(1)(B) moot. Accordingly, the commission deletes any references to bandwidth in this section.

Section 26.465(d)(1)(C)

Proposed §26.465(d)(1)(C) requires that a switched service be counted consistently in the same manner regardless of the type of transmission media used to provide that service.

AT&T reiterated its comments regarding the definition of transmission path in §26.465(c)(2) as support for eliminating this proposed requirement. AT&T pointed out that different counts that take into account differences in transmission media are appropriate since such an approach would reflect the fact that different transmission media place different burdens on the ROW. SWBT proposed some minor wording changes, including referring to all switched services , deleting the term "consistently," and changing "that" to "the".

The commission understands AT&T's response to this subsection and several other subsections is based on the argument that advanced transmission media like fiber optic cable place considerably less burden on the right-of-way than the older copper network. The CLEC Coalition has espoused a similar view. But taking transmission media into account when counting access lines raises unresolvable issues such as how to measure the burden placed by different transmission media, what unit of measurement to use, how to compare the relative burden placed by a thicker fiber optic cable versus a thinner twisted copper pair, or how to establish the relative burden placed by different lengths of cable. Furthermore, the same transmission media could place different burdens on the right-of-way depending upon the geography and terrain of the right-of-way. A counting methodology that required a site-by-site analysis would not meet the statute's overriding goal of establishing a uniform methodology for compensation, as access lines (as related to transmission path in the case of switched services) are the basic unit upon which any fee is assessed. Moreover, given CTPs' statements that the industry itself does not have an accurate count of the transmission media currently buried in rights-of-way, such an approach would appear to be a futile exercise.

The bill does not require such an approach to counting of access lines. The bill defines the unit of measurement as "each switched transmission path" or "each termination point or points of a nonswitched telephone or other circuit." Because this definition does not distinguish between different types of media, different sizes of cable, different lengths of cable or different terrain, examining these issues is of limited utility. The purpose of the Local Government Code, Chapter 283, is to establish a uniform method for compensating municipalities for the use of a public right-of-way that is administratively simple for the municipalities and the CTPs, competitively neutral, and nondiscriminatory. Basing the fee-per-line upon length, type, location, or size of the access line would directly contravene these principles. Moreover, such an approach could discourage competition, increase barriers to entry and create competitive advantages or disadvantages for CTPs.

Accordingly, the commission concludes that the methodology proposed by commenters is not consistent with the requirements of the Local Government Code, Chapter 283. The commission, however, agrees with the minor wording changes recommended by SWBT and has modified subsection (d)(1)(C) accordingly.

Section 26.465(d)(1)(E)

Proposed §26.465(d)(1)(E) stated that, "Where xDSL service is provided along with basic local exchange service or ISDN service, the CTP shall not count the basic local exchange service or the ISDN service as a separate transmission path and the bandwidth of the xDSL service shall determine the access line category for that service, as established in §26.461 of this title."

TXU, GTESW, CLEC Coalition, SWBT, Rhythms and NorthPoint recommended that the commission remove all references to bandwidth. MCIW likewise observed that the commission's access line categories have been changed in the adopted version and recommended deleting references to bandwidth. Rhythms and NorthPoint specifically requested that the commission modify its unique treatment of xDSL service in a line-sharing situation. Rhythms and NorthPoint suggested that when a single carrier offers different services over the same loop, only one service should be counted for taxation purposes, but when two or more carriers share the same loop, one service (e.g., xDSL) should not be singled out for assessment of franchise fees while other services are exempt. Rhythms and NorthPoint stated that doing so would unlawfully discriminate, does not further the public policy objective of protecting "plain old telephone service" (POTS) from taxation, and creates an economic disincentive for the deployment of xDSL to residences. Rhythms and NorthPoint maintained that all carriers sharing the loop should contribute a proportionate share of the franchise fees. NorthPoint added that in a two-carrier line shared environment, the DSL carrier is unfairly singled out. This shift of the financial burden does not result in additional benefit to the municipalities or end users, but places a serious burden on new entrant DSL providers. NorthPoint raised concerns that such a shift will threaten the development of line sharing, and recommended that those carriers offering the more basic local exchange service should bear the burden of reporting.

AT&T reiterated its comments regarding the definition of transmission path in §26.465(c)(2) as support for eliminating the requirement to take into consideration the number of services provided and the number of channels used where a service or technology is channelized.

SWBT, at the public hearing, maintained that DSL is a vertical service, not an access line and not subject to the fee. SWBT pointed out that using local exchange services is a good measure when talking about switched services, but the process becomes much more difficult when measuring private lines; a provider can only report what it knows, what the customer ordered, not how the customer uses that access line.

The commission accepts the recommendation from various commenters to remove the reference to bandwidth in §26.465(d)(1)(E).

The commission revises its original position and modifies the rule language to exclude all xDSL lines from the access line count for the following reasons. The definition of access line in the Local Government Code, §283.002(1)(A)(i), refers to a switched transmission path that allows the delivery of local exchange telephone services. It is not clear at this point if an xDSL service is a switched service or an unswitched service. An xDSL service may not be a switched service because the POTS line over which it is provisioned terminates at a circuit-switch, thereby resulting in a switched transmission path, but the xDSL service does not terminate the same way. Whether provisioned stand-alone or along with a POTS service, the DSL line in the central office connects to the ISP network and bypasses the circuit-switch. Since the commission's revised set of rules has focused on services that result in switched paths , DSL services cannot be counted as switched services. Further, PURA excludes "non-voice data transmission services" from the definition of local exchange telephone service (PURA §51.002 (5)(H)). Arguably, xDSL services could be considered as non-voice data transmission services, and therefore merit exclusion from the access line count under the Local Government Code §283.002(1)(A)(i). The only other option to capture an xDSL service would be to count a stand-alone DSL line as a point-to-point access line under the second part of the definition of access lines (Local Government Code §283.002(1)(A)(ii)). However, xDSL service provisioned over a POTS line would still be exempt, as POTS lines are inherently different from point-to-point lines. At this point, there is not enough evidence from the field to determine whether the xDSL technology is used for the purpose of providing point-to-point access. However, when xDSL technology is used for this purpose, those lines shall be counted consistent with subsections (d), (e), (f), of this section. Therefore, the commission refrains from making a premature determination on whether to include DSL lines in the access line count. The commission reserves the right to revisit this issue in the future. Proposed subsection (d)(1)(E) has been deleted to exclude xDSL services from the access line count.

Rhythms and NorthPoint also raised an interesting issue regarding line sharing specifically with regard to xDSL services. Since xDSL services have been exempted from the access line count pursuant to the revised definition of transmission path, the issues raised by Rhythms and NorthPoint are moot. At present, the commission's rules do not address the general issue of counting access lines in a line-sharing situation. This should not be an issue as this concept is evolving and the commission finds that there are not enough line-shared lines to warrant taking up this issue at this time. Moreover, the FCC is also in the process of dealing with this issue. The commission will revisit the issue of line-sharing at an appropriate time. The commission deletes §26.465(d)(1)(E) in its entirety.

Section 26.465(d)(2)(A)

Proposed §26.465(d)(2)(A) stated that each circuit used to provide nonswitched telecommunications services or private lines shall be considered to have two termination points, one on each end.

SWBT recommended that the commission amend subsection (d)(2)(A) to add a reference to "end-use customer", and to add language replacing "end" with "customer location identified by the customer and served by the circuit."

The commission agrees that SWBT's proposal would add clarity and makes revisions to subsection (d)(2)(A) accordingly.

Section 26.465(d)(2)(B)

Proposed §26.465(d)(2)(B) requires that a CTP shall count nonswitched telecommunications services or private lines by totaling the number of terminating points within a municipality and dividing the sum by two. Further, if the division results in a fraction, the number shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number.

TML and Cities, joined by Dallas, and AT&T opposed the counting of non-switched or private lines by totaling the number of terminating points within a municipality and then dividing by two. TML contended that because the definition of "access line" in the Local Government Code §283.002(l)(ii) explicitly provides that "each termination point or points" represents an "access line," it can not be construed to mean "one-half." TML asserted that, in other words, the plain meaning of the statute should be given effect rather than directing that the number of termination points be divided by two. Cities, as endorsed by Dallas, argued that the commission has no authority to divide the number of termination points by two, as the statute refers to "each" termination point or points.

AT&T concurred with this interpretation, pointing out that the rounding aspect of the proposal does not comply with the Local Government Code, §283.002(a)(B), which says that the access line count for nonswitched services represents a unit of measurement for each termination point or points of the phone or other circuit within a municipality. AT&T added that the commission's approach could have the unintended consequence of penalizing a customer who has termination points in different municipalities. SWBT proposed deleting subsection (d)(2)(B) altogether, asserting that the proposed requirement to divide the number of termination points in half directly contradicts the statutory definition of "access line." SWBT pointed out that the Local Government Code, §283.002(1)(A)(ii), defines each "access line" in part as "each termination point of...a nonswitched...circuit," and thus, the transmission path of a switched line must be counted as one access line, but each termination point of a nonswitched circuit must be counted as one access line.

TML added that if literal application of the statutory language does, in fact, prove unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, or otherwise unsatisfactory, then the legislature, not the commission, should amend the definition of access line in HB 1777.

The commission agrees with the various commenters that the wording of "access line" in the Local Government Code §283.002(l)(ii) explicitly provides that "each termination point or points" represents an "access line." This means that, for the purposes of counting, each point could be an access line. Accordingly, the commission has revised §26.465(d)(2)(B) to remove references to dividing the number of termination points.

Section 26.465(d)(2)(C)

Proposed §26.465(d)(2)(C) stated that the bandwidth between the two terminating points of the circuit shall determine the access line category for that service, as established in §26.461 of this title.

TXU, GTESW, SWBT, Rhythms, NorthPoint and Garland/San Angelo recommended that the commission remove all references to bandwidth. Garland/San Angelo provided language revising this definition to refer to the categories established in §26.461 of this title. AT&T requested rejection of this proposed rule as moot, given the commission's adoption of the access line categories.

The commission concurs and removes all references to bandwidth, as the revised set of categories make references to bandwidth moot.

Section 26.465(d)(2)(D)

Proposed §26.465(d)(2)(D) required CTPs to count nonswitched telecommunications services consistently regardless of the type of transmission media used to provide that service.

AT&T requested that the commission reject this proposed section, reiterating its position that different counts that take into account differences in transmission media is appropriate since this reflects the fact that different transmission media place different burdens on the ROW. SWBT recommended that some minor clarifying language be added to this section to ensure consistency with other rules.

The commission declines to delete this section, for reasons outlined in the commission response to subsection (c)(2) and proposed subsection (d)(1)(C). In response to SWBT's comments, the commission makes minor changes to clarify this subsection for purposes of consistency.

Section 26.465(d)(2)(E)

Proposed §26.465(d)(2)(E) required a CTP to attribute the terminating point of a private line to the municipality where that point is located.

SWBT recommended substantial revisions to this section to ensure consistency with the Local Government Code, Chapter 283. Currently, SWBT's billing systems for the assessment of municipal fees on point-to-point services are set up to be consistent with the assessment of state and local sales taxes. Sales taxes are due in the municipality where the premises designated by the customer as its "service address" are located. SWBT argued that providers cannot readily revamp their billing systems to permit billing sales taxes on one basis and municipal fees on another. SWBT asserted that if this different approach is required, providers cannot meet the HB 1777 deadlines. Also, SWBT maintained that counting and attributing each termination point to the municipality where that particular point is located will result in tremendous implementation costs without offsetting benefits. Similarly, CLEC Coalition suggested that when the transmission path crosses more than one municipality, both points of the private line should be considered to be located in the municipality where the line originates. CLEC Coalition explained that this approach will make it easier to administer and verify the counting--more so than using fractions, rounding, and payments to two cities.

The commission recognizes SWBT's and CLEC Coalition's comments on counting point to point lines. The commission believes that subsection (d)(2)(B), as worded, would be the most equitable method of compensating a municipality for the use of its right-of-way. The municipality where a point-to-point line terminates is the one that should receive the benefit due from the CTP's use of its rights-of-way. Nonetheless, the commission recognizes the inherent difficulty in immediately revamping a CTP's billing systems to accommodate the proposed method. While the commission has retained its initial counting approach in subsection (d)(2)(B), the use of this method is optional if a CTP is unable to attribute the point to a municipality where that point is physically located. The commission has added additional language to allow some flexibility in counting point-to-point lines. The commission encourages providers to track point-to-point access lines so that a point can be attributed to the municipality where it is physically located. As suggested by the CLEC Coalition, the commission has deleted language on fractional line count adjustments in order to keep the rule administratively simple. Subsection (d)(2)(E) has been revised to allow CTPs to attribute point to point lines to the municipality identified by their billing systems if they are not able to identify the physical location of the point to point line.

Section 26.465(d)(3)

Proposed §26.465(d)(3) required the CTPs to count one access line for every ten stations served by a central office based PBX. Should the division result in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, CTPs were required to round up the access line count to the nearest whole number.

GTESW urged the commission to assess the right-of-way fee for central office based PBX-type services at 10% of the Category 2 (business) rate and require that the fee be remitted to the municipality in that same manner, instead of using a mathematical formula to determine the number of lines. Similarly, SWBT proposed that CTPs be given the option of counting each station as one-tenth of an access line, arguing that the numerical result should be the same as under the commission's proposal, but the alternative method would be more compatible with SWBT's, and perhaps other CTPs', billing systems. GTESW raised concerns that use of the formula could result in unequal and discriminatory fees on some customers.

At the public hearing, GTESW explained that they do know the number of stations in the customer's premises and that their approach is to set up the rate for each of those stations at one-tenth of the business rate. GTESW further commented that the billing system can produce access counts and, therefore station counts, but cannot fractionalize each account. SWBT echoed this concern, indicating that such an approach would require looking at each customer on a customer-by-customer basis, determining how many stations that customer has, and assessing the fee accordingly. An added difficulty is how to address rounding of the fractions. Assessing the fee at one-tenth would avoid the rounding difficulties and the customer-by-customer analysis. SWBT also mentioned that they would count only the number of stations that the customer has ordered, not the ports or the trunks. Cities had no difficulty with this approach, although Dallas requested that when lines subject to a one-tenth fee are reported, they should be differentiated from regular access lines, to assist cities in reconciling the fees.

Time Warner Telecom raised an issue at the public hearing questioning the assumption that every customer has ten stations behind that one line in a PBX-based central office service, and suggested this as an added reason not to channelize facilities that are delivered via one single demarcation point to a customer's premises.

The commission agrees that, as proposed by GTESW and SWBT, ROW fees for PBX-services could be assessed at 10% of the fee for Category 2 non-residential lines. The commission will add appropriate language in the rates and compensation rule, §26.467, to address this issue. The commission also removes the reference to the fractional adjustment in subsection (d)(3) for administrative simplicity. While CTPs may charge one-tenth of the Category 2 rate for PBX lines, CTPs must still count and report to the commission one access line for every ten stations served. If the number of central office-based PBX access lines in a municipality is proportionally large compared to the number of Category 2 lines in that municipality, an access line count that does not divide the PBX lines count by ten would result in a diluted rate for Category 2. Depending upon the number of central office-based PBX exchanges in that municipality, the diluted rates may impact compensation from Category 2 lines. Therefore, the commission declines to make any further revisions to subsection (d)(3).

Section 26.465(e)(1)

Proposed §26.465(e)(1) required CTPs to count all access lines provided as a retail service to customers.

AT&T maintained that if the commission adopts AT&T's recommendation to adopt a definition for "end-use customer" (instead of "customer"), then (e)(1) will need to be revised to read "(1) all lines provided to end-use customers." CLEC Coalition recommended this same language.

The commission agrees with commenters and adds the words "end-use" before customer in this subsection for purposes of clarification. The commission has also added a definition of customer in subsection (c)(1).

Section 26.465(e)(2)

Proposed §26.465(e)(2) required CTPs to count all lines provided as a retail service to other CTPs and resellers for their own end-use.

GTESW asserted that the access lines it provides to other CTPs and resellers should be excluded from the access line counts that GTESW reports to the commission. If the underlying CTP and the other CTP or reseller both report these lines, then the commission and municipalities will have to reconcile each count to ensure that there is no duplication of fees on a single access line. GTESW argued that it would be an unreasonable administrative burden to require the underlying provider (the line wholesaler) to perform any manner of access line reconciliation. Also, GTESW raised concerns that the availability of information on small CTPs may create problems with the commission and municipalities in reconciling access lines. AT&T proposed that if the commission adopts a definition of "end-use customer," this subsection should be deleted as unnecessary.

The commission disagrees with GTESW's interpretation of subsection (e)(2). The commission's rules require all CTPs to report their retail end user lines, and exclude lines resold to other CTPs. Therefore, to the extent that a CTP provides retail access lines to another CTP, the underlying carrier (wholesaler) is the one responsible for reporting those lines. As noted above, the commission has added a definition of customer in subsection (c)(1) but believes that retaining the language in (e)(2), with minor modifications for consistency, provides the necessary clarity.

Section 26.465(e)(3)

In §26.465(e)(3), the commission proposed that CTPs count all lines provided as a retail service to wireless telecommunication providers and interexchange carriers (IXCs) for their own end-use.

GTESW concurred with subsection (e)(3) as proposed that all "land-lines" provided to wireless providers and IXCs as a retail service for their own end-use on their premises should be counted as access lines. AT&T proposed that, if the commission adopts a definition of "end-use customer," this subsection should be deleted as unnecessary.

The commission has added a definition for "customer," but believes that retaining (e)(3), with minor modifications, for consistency, provides the necessary clarity and therefore declines to delete it.

Section 26.465(e)(4)

In §26.465(e)(4) the commission proposed that CTPs count all lines a CTP provides to itself for its own use, including a CTP's official and employee concession lines.

SWBT maintained that company official lines should not be included in the access line count. While employee concession lines are lines extending to an end-use customer's premises (they just may be "franked," or free of charge), and historically have been counted, company official lines are not extended to an end-use customer and historically have not been counted. SWBT also proposed inserting the word "access" in front of the word "line" throughout subsection (e). AT&T proposed that, if the commission adopts a definition of "end-use customer," this subsection should be deleted as unnecessary. CLEC Coalition echoed this position. GTESW reiterated its comments in response to the staff's question about "company official" lines, explaining that company official lines are not a source of revenue for the company and have historically been exempted from the calculation of ROW use payments to cities, just as gas and electric utilities do not pay cities for the utilities' own usage.

The commission has revised its position on company official lines, determining that a CTP cannot be an end-use customer of itself. However, the commission retains the language relating to employee concession lines, as these lines are access lines extended to an end-use customer. Subsection (e)(4) has been revised accordingly. The commission has previously addressed this issue in this adoption preamble in its response to certain questions set out in the proposal preamble. The commission also agrees with SWBT's recommendation that the term "access" be added before the term "line" and has made appropriate changes to the rule.

Section 26.465(e)(5)

In §26.465(e)(5) the commission proposed that CTPs count all lines provided as a retail service to a CTP's wireless and IXC affiliates for their own end-use, and all lines provided as a retail service to any other affiliate for their own end-use.

AT&T proposed that, if the commission adopts a definition of "end-use customer," this subsection should be deleted as unnecessary.

The commission believes that retaining subsection (e)(5), with minor modifications for consistency, provides the necessary clarity, and therefore, declines to delete it.

Section 26.465(e)(6)

In §26.465(e)(6), the commission proposed that CTPs count dark fiber to the extent it is provided as a service or is resold.

SWBT suggested that the commission revise this subsection to assess the Category 3 private line termination point fees for services provided by dark fiber. Because dark fiber can be "lit" by a non-CTP that is outside the commission's jurisdiction and not required to report access lines, assessing the Category 3 fee will diminish incursions upon competitive neutrality. GTESW contended that dark fiber should not be counted as an access line since there are no end users associated with it and, thus, it does not fit into the definition of an access line. AT&T requested rejection of this subsection, maintaining that dark fiber does not fit within the definition of "access line." AT&T argued that, while dark fiber is an unbundled network element (UNE) and a component of creating access lines, its mere existence or lease does not mean that there are customers receiving services from it.

CLEC Coalition also raised concerns about leasing capacity from a non-CTP dark fiber provider, in a situation where the dark fiber provider may already be paying municipal compensation. CLEC Coalition requested that the rules make clear that there will not always be payment made on 100% of the reported access lines, if one reads the bill to require every line to be counted.

The commission finds merit in some of the proposals offered by commenters. The commission agrees with AT&T, in part, that dark fiber, by itself, is not an access line and should not be counted so long as it resides with the provider. Also, as pointed out by the CLEC Coalition, dark fiber provided by non-CTPs should not be counted, as HB 1777 does not apply to non-CTPs. The commission agrees with the CLEC Coalition that under certain circumstances there will not be 100% compensation from all access lines used by CTPs. On the other hand, when dark fiber is sold or resold to a customer by a CTP, who then "lights" the fiber, it becomes an access line. The challenge is that the underlying CTP may not know the access line category of the resold dark fiber. As suggested by SWBT, dark fiber should default to a Category 3 line, as this would be the most reasonable interpretation of its use. The commission has deleted subsection (e)(6), as this issue is resolved in revised (d)(2)(F).

Section 26.465(e)(7)

In §26.465(e)(7) the commission proposed that CTPs count all other lines meeting the definition of access line as set forth in §26.461 of this title.

CLEC Coalition recommended that this section be deleted.

The commission believes that the language is a catchall phrase to include all lines not currently addressed in commission rules and hence retains it.

Section 26.465(f)(1)

Proposed §26.465(f) delineates the types of lines not to be counted. Proposed subsection (f)(1) required CTPs to exclude from the access line count all lines that do not terminate at a customer's premises.

SWBT, CLEC Coalition and AT&T proposed adding the words "end-use" before the word "customer" for clarity and consistency with statutory definitions.

The commission agrees with this clarifying wording and has revised the section accordingly.

Section 26.465(f)(2)

Proposed subsection (f)(2) required CTPs to exclude from the access line count, lines used by a CTP, wireless provider, or IXC for interoffice transport, or transmission facilities used to connect such providers' telecommunications equipment for the purpose of providing telecommunications services.

SWBT proposed adding the words "to end-use customers" for clarity and consistency with statutory definitions. Cities, endorsed by Dallas and TCCFUI, raised concerns that the proposed rule could be read to exclude broad categories of access lines. In particular, Cities cited the facility connecting the PBX that is excluded because it is a facility used to connect such provider's equipment. AT&T recommended consolidating (f)(2)-(4) into one section, with minor revisions.

The commission agrees with the clarifying wording proposed by SWBT and has revised the section accordingly. The commission agrees with Cities, Dallas, and TCCFUI that broad interpretations could be made with the proposed language that may result in exclusion of broad categories of access lines. The commission's intention was to exclude back-haul facilities, as these would constitute interoffice transport. Therefore, the commission has revised subsection (f)(2) by replacing the term "transmission facilities" with the term "back-haul" facilities to provide clarity.

Section 26.465(f)(3)

Proposed subsection (f)(3) required CTPs to exclude from the access line count, lines used by a CTP's wireless and IXC affiliates for interoffice transport, or transmission facilities used to connect such affiliates' telecommunications equipment for the purpose of providing telecommunications services.

SWBT proposed adding the words "to end-use customers" for clarity and consistency with statutory definitions.

The commission agrees with the clarifying wording suggested by SWBT and has revised the subsection accordingly. The commission has also revised subsection (f)(3) by replacing the term "transmission facilities" with the term "back-haul" facilities to be consistent with the use of the term in subsection (f)(2).

Section 26.465(f)(4)

AT&T recommended consolidating (f)(2)-(4) into one section, with minor revisions.

The commission believes that consolidating (f)(2)-(4) may not provide clarity and has retained them with revisions, as outlined above.

Section 26.465(f)(5)

Proposed subsection (f)(5) required CTPs to exclude from the access line count, any other lines that do not meet the definition of access line as set forth in §26.461 of this title.

CLEC Coalition recommended deleting this subsection.

The language in (f)(5) is a catchall phrase to exclude all lines that are not explicitly identified in the commission's rules. Therefore, the commission retains (f)(5) without change.

Section 26.465(g)

Proposed §26.465(g) outlined the initial and the subsequent reporting requirements for CTPs.

CLEC Coalition raised a number of questions about the reporting of access lines that are resold, leased, or otherwise provided to another CTP. First, CLEC Coalition asked whether a CTP reselling lines or leasing capacity must assume that the transmission media is physically located within a public ROW. Second, CLEC Coalition questioned whether capacity or facilities leased from a non-CTP must be reported but with an indication that no fee will be remitted in connection with such access lines. In particular, CLEC Coalition requested that the reporting forms be able to track that lines leased from non-CTPs are not subject to the access line fee under HB 1777 in order to avoid giving cities the misimpression that payment will be made on every single access line that is reported.

At the public hearing, CLEC Coalition explained that every access line that is counted and reported is not necessarily going to be subject to the access line fee under HB 1777. For example, CLEC Coalition described a situation where a company leases capacity from a non-certificated dark fiber provider that is already paying municipal compensation pursuant to some sort of agreement. Similarly, CLEC Coalition mentioned the situation in which a CTP leases capacity from a cable company that, pursuant to the terms of its cable franchise, is already paying municipal compensation for rights-of-way use. AT&T concurred with these comments, adding that, in particular, leased capacity from a cable company should not be subject to fees under HB 1777 because the municipality has already been fully compensated for the use of the rights-of-way through the cable provider.

A. Clarification of facilities vs. capacity

The commission clarifies that leasing capacity is akin to leasing facilities and therefore, access lines associated with a lease of either facilities or capacity should be reported. The commission has added clarifying language to subsection (g)(2)(A)(iv) stating that a CTP shall not differentiate between capacity and facilities leased or resold in reporting its access line count. This ensures that all lines are accurately reported. However, questions arise when capacity or facilities are leased from non-CTPs, as HB 1777 does not govern such providers. These issues are addressed under parts B and C of the commission's response.

B. Leasing dark (unlit) fiber

Although both are non-CTPs, the commission distinguishes between non-CTPs that provide dark (unlit) fiber/infrastructure only, and other non-CTPs, such as cable providers. In an effort to avoid a double counting of dark (unlit) fiber/infrastructure, (which could result in a double pass-through of municipal fees for the same access line if the municipality assesses franchise fees on non-CTPs), the commission determines that dark (unlit) fiber/infrastructure is not subject to counting under HB 1777 when that dark (unlit) fiber/infrastructure is resold to a CTP. This analysis is based on the fact that a CTP is not, itself, the end user of the dark (unlit) fiber/infrastructure. Consistent with the commission's treatment of other access lines leased, sold or otherwise conveyed to CTPs, the trigger for the HB 1777 counting and compensation thereof is when an access line is provided to the ultimate end-use customer. The commission also clarifies that when a CTP leases dark (unlit) fiber/infrastructure from a non-CTP, extends it to the end-use customer, "lights" the fiber, and provides switched, non-switched or PBX-type services (resulting in access lines consistent with the definition of the Local Government Code, §283.002(1)), then those access lines shall be counted under HB 1777. The commission revises subsection (d)(2)(E) as follows: "Where dark (unlit) fiber is provided to an end-use customer who then lights it, the line shall be counted as a private line, by default, unless it is evident that it is used for providing switched services."

C. Leasing facilities or capacity from non-CTPs such as cable providers

The commission's analysis is different as to leasing facilities or capacity from non-CTPs such as cable providers. Providing local exchange services over a cable network is an issue of shared use of the same infrastructure for two different types of services. HB 1777 establishes a uniform method for compensating municipalities for the use of the public right-of-way by CTPs using the end-use customer as a "proxy" for counting access lines. Moreover, HB 1777 does not exclude any class of access lines provided by CTPs, whether or not that class of access lines has been provided over cable lines. In fact, the definition of access lines in Local Government Code §283.002(1), uses broad terms such as "transmission path" and "transmission media," without limitation. Further, the compensation mechanism for a cable network (percentage of gross receipts) is not consistent with the fee-per-line methodology outlined in HB 1777. Accordingly, the commission determines that cable lines used by a CTP that have switched transmission paths, meet the definition of access lines under the Local Government Code §283.002(1). The same rationale applies to cable lines that are used by CTPs for providing non-switched telephone or other circuit or central office-based PBX-type services.

The commission concludes that any transmission medium that meets the definition of access lines is subject to counting and compensation under HB 1777 regardless of whether such medium compensated a municipality for the use of the right-of-way for purposes outside HB 1777. Short of a legislative directive on this issue, the commission believes that this interpretation is consistent with HB 1777. However, to the extent that the FCC determines that certain transmission media do not meet the definition of access lines under the Local Government Code §283.002(1) and do not deliver local exchange services, the commission reserves the right to amend its analysis of this issue.

In response to overall concerns about this issue outlined in the sections above, the commission revises subsection (g)(2)(A)(iv), as follows: "A CTP shall not make a distinction between facilities and capacity leased or resold in reporting its access line count."

Section 26.465(g)(2)(A)(i)

Proposed §26.465(g)(2)(A)(i) sets forth the deadlines for the initial reporting of access line count from CTPs. CTPs are required to report access line counts as of December 1, 1999 with certain exceptions no later than January 3, 2000 in a commission-approved form.

SWBT requested an additional two weeks for the initial reporting due date of January 3, 2000 because of billing cycles and the holidays; SWBT maintained that it cannot obtain data for the billing period ending November 30, 1999 until December 15, 1999, at the earliest. MCIW raised concerns about meeting the proposed deadline, in part because of internal definitions for access lines that differ from commission's adopted definitions, and in part because of Y2K issues. AT&T and GTESW echoed SWBT's request for extension; GTESW proposed a January 21 deadline.

Cities, supported by Dallas and TCCFUI, raised concerns that the requirement in the proposed §26.465(g)(2)(A)(i) to report line counts by December 1, 1999 does not comport with the statute's intent. Cities argued that, because the base amount is derived from the 1998 revenue levels, to calculate a rate based on 1999 access line numbers effectively eliminates the revenue growth that a city would have received during 1999. There is no indication the Legislature intended cities to suffer such a loss, Cities asserted.

The commission agrees with the commenters, and has extended the initial reporting date to January 24, 2000. The commission agrees with the comments offered by Cities, Dallas, and TCCFUI. It is appropriate to associate the line counting period with the base amount reporting period, which was calendar year 1998. Therefore, the commission revises subsection (g)(2)(A)(i) to require CTPs to provide a 1998 access line count to the extent possible. The commission will develop an alternative method to derive 1998 line counts from 1999 line count information where a CTP is unable to report a 1998 count. This methodology will be discussed in the rates and compensation rule, §26.467.

Section 26.465(g)(2)(A)(iii)

Proposed §26.465(g)(2)(A)(iii) requires that in the event a municipality has provided notice to the CTP by November 15, 1999 of its election to use the statewide average rate method, the CTP shall report the access line count as of December 31, 1998.

Several cities complained about being required to notify their CTPs by November 15, 1999 if they wish to choose the statewide average. Dallas said this notification is not found in the statute, is unnecessary, and further complicates a city's decision making process. Further, Dallas pointed out that cities will not know their access line estimates on that date and may not know the CTPs that are operating in their city. An additional concern of Dallas' was that cities would not have sufficient information to make their decision to use the statewide average by November 15, 1999. Garland/San Angelo noted that this requirement is unworkable because this rule will not be final until two weeks after the November l5th deadline. Alternatively, Garland/San Angelo suggested that the CTPs obtain the base amount forms for the municipalities in which they operate to determine for themselves which cities have selected the statewide average. SWBT proposed deleting this subsection altogether.

TCCFUI contended that the November 15, 1999 deadline puts cities at a substantial disadvantage because it is prior to the December 1 deadline for the CTP to notify cities of its decision to terminate its existing contracts. A CTP would be able to assess if they were better off terminating or continuing the existing franchise based on the cities' election. TCCFUI favored a December 1, 1999 deadline instead to eliminate this problem. AT&T requested clarification regarding the requirement that the adequate notice to CTPs be consistent with subsection (k) as it is not clear what requirements this cross reference refers to.

SWBT commented that they do not have and cannot provide an access line count as of December 31, 1998. SWBT explained that it did not count "access lines" in 1998 for all cities to which it paid municipal fees; some cities assessed fees on a flat-sum basis and some on a gross receipts basis. But even in cities on a fee per line system, the counting method was not completely consistent with the commission's counting methodology. Similarly, GTESW pointed out that CTPs, including GTESW, may not be able to recreate December 31,1998 access line counts, as defined under HB 1777 and commission rules. Both GTESW and SWBT recommended that the commission approximate the 1998 line count from the 1999 count that will be provided, by subtracting a reasonable estimate of growth.

At the public hearing, SWBT revised its position, stating that, based on the revised categories of access lines, SWBT might be able to produce a 1998 line count for Categories 1 and 2, residential and non-residential switched access lines. Cities emphasized the need to be able to match up 1998 revenues to 1998 line counts.

The commission agrees with Garland/San Angelo that it is unworkable to require municipalities to report their base amount decision by November 15, 1999 because the rule will not be final until after December 16, 1999. Further, the commission has amended the rule in subsection (g)(2)(A)(i) to add that, whenever possible, a CTP shall provide a 1998 line count for all municipalities. Since the commission's revised rules require the CTPs to provide a 1998 access line count for all municipalities, it is not necessary for municipalities that choose the statewide average option to notify CTPs of their option. Accordingly, the commission deletes the reference to the municipality's notice to select statewide average in subsection (g)(2)(A)(iii). The commission understands the difficulty for certain CTPs in providing a 1998 access line count. Where a CTP is unable to report a 1998 count, the commission will develop an alternative method to derive 1998 line counts from 1999 line count information. This methodology will be discussed in the rates and compensation rule, §26.467. The commission has added language to subsection (g)(2)(A)(iii) that would allow CTPs to file a good cause exemption for reporting a 1999 access line count.

Section 26.465(g)(2)(B)(i)-Subsequent Reporting

Proposed §26.465(g)(2)(B) outlined subsequent reporting procedures for CTPs. In particular, proposed §26.465(g)(2)(B)(i) requires quarterly reporting of access lines with the first report due 30 days following the end of the second quarter of 2000. GTESW commented that the first report will contain only one month of data (June). This assumption is based on the fact that quarterly reporting requirements will begin when CTPs begin billing the access line fees, which is expected to be in the second quarter, or approximately June 1; the first quarterly report will be for the second quarter of 2000, filed in August 2000, and may contain only June access line information, while the subsequent report will include three months of data. SWBT suggested that the reporting requirement should commence with the quarterly payments to municipalities, which is 45 days after the end of the quarter, and should include data beginning with the month in which the CTP implements rates.

The commission disagrees with GTESW and disagrees, in part, with SWBT. The commission believes the first access line report should contain three months of access line counts for the second calendar quarter of 2000. For administrative simplicity, subsequent access line reports should be based on calendar quarters for all CTPs rather than the date of implementation by CTPs, which could vary. However, consistent with SWBT's suggestion, the commission will amend the rule in subsection (g)(2)(B)(i) for the reports to be provided 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter and this date shall be consistent with the municipal payment date. Therefore, the first report shall be due no later than August 15, 2000. The first payments from CTPs pursuant to HB 1777 shall also coincide with this date. The first payments should reflect compensation for access line count reported for the second quarter. The commission has also added language to subsection (g)(2)(B)(ii) to clarify when the access line reports are due to the commission and when the payments associated with those access lines are due to the municipality.

Section 26.465(g)(2)(B)(ii)

Proposed §26.465(g)(2)(B)(ii) states that a provider may not include in its monthly count of access lines any access lines that are resold, leased, or otherwise provided to another CTP if the provider receives adequate proof that the provider leasing or purchasing the access lines will include the access lines in its own monthly count. Adequate proof shall consist of a notarized statement of notice prepared consistent with subsection (k) of this section.

Garland/San Angelo and GTESW objected to this subsection of the rule. Garland/San Angelo suggested that a description of the circumstances under which the commission would ask a CTP to identify either access lines that are resold or unbundled or the identity of the reseller or unbundled facilities should be added to this subsection. Garland/San Angelo also pointed out that the only subsequent reporting requirements in the Local Government Code are the reports from the CTPs to the commission. They are concerned that there is no requirement for the CTP to give information to the municipality. They point out that the only report required to be filed with municipalities is the quarterly report, and then, only if requested by the municipality. Municipalities, according to Garland/San Angelo, should be able to review all access line information, including resold and unbundled services, to verify that all access lines in the municipality have been accounted for. Therefore, Garland/San Angelo proposed language to state the commission would request such information if it receives a request from a municipality. In contrast, GTESW opposed requiring the underlying provider to report access lines that are resold to a CLEC because it would be a burdensome and costly effort since this information is not readily available.

The commission agrees with Garland/San Angelo, in part. The commission believes that access line count information should be reported to the commission each quarter. The commission, however, does not believe that quarterly reporting from the CTPs should include all lines that are resold, unless a reseller and the underlying carrier have reached an agreement that the underlying CTP will provide such information on its behalf. Local Government Code §283.056(C) gives specific authority to a municipality to conduct a review of the provider's access line count. Should the commission receive a request from a municipality for a review of a CTP's access line count, the commission will then request a CTP to provide information on resold lines. However, requiring the CTPs to provide such information as a matter of routine would confuse the quarterly reporting process and be administratively burdensome. Also, the commission believes that GTESW's concern is unfounded since CTPs only have to report such information to the extent it is available. The commission has made no changes to subsection (g)(2)(B)(iii).

Section 26.465(g)(2)(B)(vi)

Proposed §26.465(g)(2)(B)(vi) required each CTP to provide each affected municipality with a copy of the report required by this subsection.

AT&T and SWBT requested that this subsection be clarified to state that the CTP will provide to the municipality a report of its own access lines, but not the access lines of other municipalities.

The commission agrees with the commenters, and has revised the rule clarifying that a CTP need only provide to a municipality those access line counts that are attributable to that municipality.

Section 26.465(h)-Exemption

Proposed §26.465(h) delineates the exemptions permitted under the rule.

NorthPoint opposed this subsection, which would exempt any CTP that continues under an existing franchise agreement or ordinance from the subsequent reporting requirements. Because all CTPs are subject to the initial reporting provisions under subsection (g)(2)(A), there would seem to be a benefit to requiring all CTPs to continue updating their reports on a quarterly basis. Further, NorthPoint suggested that encompassing all CTPs in the subsequent reporting requirements would eliminate possible confusion as to an otherwise exempt CTP's obligation to report access lines provided by resale or unbundled facilities.

The commission believes that requesting CTPs that have unterminated agreements to report quarterly access line count is unnecessary; consistent with the Local Government Code §283.054(a), a provider is not governed by HB 1777 until that provider actually terminates its agreement. Further, such counts would actually confuse the quarterly reporting process. All CTPs were required to report their initial access line count so that the commission could establish statewide average rates and fee-per-access line rates for all municipalities. On the other hand, the purpose of the subsequent reporting is to ensure that municipalities receive adequate compensation from CTPs who have terminated their franchise agreements. Therefore the commission declines to include subsequent reporting for those CTPs that have unterminated franchise agreement with municipalities.

Section 26.465(j)-Proprietary or confidential information.

Proposed §26.465(j) set forth the terms and conditions for the treatment of proprietary or confidential information filed pursuant to this section.

NorthPoint opposed provisions in subsection (j)(1) which state that information filed by CTPs is presumed public and that a CTP has the burden of establishing that the information is proprietary or confidential. NorthPoint argued that this is not consistent with the commission's treatment of similar material in other proceedings. The access line reports required of CTPs are highly confidential and inherently fall under the confidential and competitive information exceptions to the Government Code, Chapter 552. NorthPoint proposed that subsection (j) should be amended to provide that the access line reports filed under this rule are deemed confidential. NorthPoint also mentioned that, under the procedures set forth in the Open Records Act, at most, only aggregate numbers of access lines for the State should ever be disclosed to the public following an adverse commission or court order. Garland/San Angelo mentioned that the Open Records Act is now entitled the Public Information Act and suggested correcting this reference within subsections (j)(2) and (j)(3).

GTESW, SWBT, and MCIW also objected to the proposed language; AT&T voiced shared concerns at the public hearing. GTESW requested that the rule indicate that the information is deemed proprietary because it can be used by competitors. Further, GTESW noted that the commission must provide the CTP with notice of requests for access line data in a timely manner in order for the CTP to have the maximum opportunity to seek injunctive release. SWBT requested that the subsection be amended to clarify that the information provided to the commission is exempt from disclosure. Local Government Code §283.005 makes clear that the commission and municipalities are required to maintain the confidentiality of all such information the CTPs claim to be confidential as is necessary to implement the provisions of HB 1777 in accordance with PURA §52.207. Section 52.207 requires the commission to maintain the confidentiality of information that is claimed to be confidential for competitive purposes. Section 52.207 also exempts the confidential information from disclosure under the Government Code, Chapter 552. SWBT pointed out that it is this claim of confidentiality that establishes the statutory exemption from disclosure. MCIW urged the commission to remove any language that suggests the line counts are subject to public disclosure, as this information is highly confidential and proprietary.

At the public hearing, Cities questioned whether city councils would be able to discuss line count information in a public forum. SWBT argued that even aggregated information should be kept confidential and private, even in a public meeting. TML explained the nature and limitations of the Open Meetings Act, indicating that free speech cannot be abridged. Dallas also discussed the need to make recommendations, at least as to allocation, in an open meeting. In smaller cities, with only one provider, the problem is magnified.

The commission agrees with Garland/San Angelo and will correct references to the Government Code, Chapter 552. Further, the commission agrees with the various commenters and revises this subsection by adding new paragraphs (2) and (4) as follows:

(2) The commission shall maintain the confidentiality of the information provided by certificated telecommunications providers in accordance with the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §52.207.

(4) Information provided to municipalities under the Local Government Code, Chapter 283, shall be governed by existing confidentiality procedures which have been established by the commission in compliance with PURA §52.207.

Section 26.465(k)-Attestation.

Proposed §26.465(k) sets forth the rules of attestation for filings made pursuant to this section. Proposed subsection (k) requires the access line reports to be filed pursuant to the commission's procedural rules, and to be attested to by an officer or authorized representative of the CTP. Proposed subsection (g)(2)(A)(iii) by reference also requires the municipalities to give notice to CTPs regarding their election to use the statewide average for determining their base amount to comply with this subsection. Garland/San Angelo suggests that municipalities should not be required to comply with subsection (k) because the requirements are onerous, not necessary, and inappropriate for notice from a municipality to a CTP.

The commission has deleted proposed §26.465(g)(2)(A)(iii) which required municipalities to notify each CTP by November 15 regarding whether the municipality elected to use the statewide average rate. No change to this section to address the form of such notification is needed.

Section 26.465(l)-Reporting of access lines by means of resold services or unbundled facilities to another CTP.

Proposed §26.465(l) addresses the reporting of access lines by means of resold services or unbundled facilities to another CTP. The last sentence of subsection (l) states that "Nothing in this subsection shall prevent a CTP reporting another CTP's access line count from charging an appropriate, tariffed administrative fee for such service."

NorthPoint sought clarification of, and recommended specific language for, the last sentence of subsection (l), to indicate that a CTP may only charge an administrative fee when it is required to report access lines provided by resale or unbundled facilities and the provider leasing or purchasing the access lines has not given the CTP adequate proof that it will be submitting its own monthly count. GTESW commented that the administrative burden of requiring an underlying provider to account for a competitor's access lines is incomprehensible. GTESW asserted that such a requirement would be onerous and goes beyond normal business requirements because GTESW does business in approximately 500 jurisdictions. Further, since GTESW could not report lines that are multiplexed by the reseller, they would not be fairly assessed a ROW fee. GTESW stated that the access line count, if required to be reported by the CTP, can be nothing greater than what is reflected in the CTP's billing records. SWBT requested that the subsection be amended to require CTPs that elect to have the underlying CTP report or pay their access line count or fees to provide the underlying CTP all required information, in properly verified and authenticated form, together with a certified check made out to the municipality for all sums due for ROW compensation, within 30 days after the end of the quarter. SWBT suggested that this approach will allow the underlying CTP to meet the 45-day deadline for getting the report to the commission and making payment to the municipalities. SWBT stated that if the CTP has to do anything other than pass on the information and payments from the CLECs, this rule will have to be substantially amended. Alternatively, if the rule requires the ILECs to count, assess, report and pay on access lines that CLECs actually provide to end users, a result SWBT opposes and believes is contrary to the Local Government Code, Chapter 283, it must also require the CLECs to provide the necessary information for the ILECs to perform the task. SWBT recommended that the CLECs must provide in certified and electronic format the following information: 1) end user addresses; 2) services provided; 3) class (e.g. residential or non-residential) and commission category of service; and 4) tax authority information for the municipalities to be paid (TAR). Further, SWBT asserted that this information must be provided on the embedded base of UNEs and resold services.

At the public hearing, several parties responded to the question of how the municipal fee should be paid in a line-sharing situation, assuming that only one fee is paid despite multiple services being provided over the same line. TEXALTEL suggested that the ground rule should be that whoever has the facilities in the ROW pays the fee. TEXALTEL argued that this analysis applies even where the underlying facilities belong to a cable company, maintaining that, where payment is being made under a cable franchise, no additional payment is owed for a telephone franchise. TEXALTEL also mentioned that where CTPs providing services over a line have elected to pay their own fees, then that reseller should pay the municipality based on the services the reseller provides. Thus, the reseller's election shifts the responsibility for payment of the fees from the owner of the facility to the reseller. But absent such an election by a reseller, TEXALTEL indicated that a facility owner might be responsible for paying multiple fees for all the services provided over the lines.

AT&T reiterated its earlier arguments concerning the burden on the ROW as the basis for their analysis that where municipalities have been compensated for the use of the ROW through the underlying facilities, whether cable facilities or telecommunications facilities, there is no additional burden to trigger the assessment of access line fees under HB 1777. AT&T asserted this same analysis should apply whether the mixed use involves a single CTP providing local exchange services or a combination of services, or whether the services are provided by different affiliates.

Cities responded that municipalities are to be paid on every line that is reported. Cities highlighted the fact that, as to cable providers, federal law requires a separate agreement or certification for a cable provider to provide telecommunications services. Once certificated, such a provider's lines would be subject to HB 1777 and they would have to pay municipal compensation. City of El Paso opined that to allow only a single fee to be assessed on a multiple-use line would not just create a loophole, but would dissolve the compensation scheme set up by HB 1777. Cities also raised concerns that allowing certain access lines to be assessed fees while excluding others does not create a competitively neutral compensation scheme.

The commission disagrees with NorthPoint that the commission should restrict CTPs' ability to charge reasonable administrative fees based only on certain circumstances. The commission's rules do not make it mandatory for CTPs to charge an administrative fee for reporting CLEC access lines and possibly remitting municipal fee payments; the determination of counting lines and paying fees between CTPs is an issue of inter-carrier compensation that must be developed in a case-specific context between CTPs. The commission agrees with GTESW that when UNE providers offer multiplexed services, it is impossible for the underlying provider to know the number of the lines being provided and more importantly, the category of these access lines. Therefore, this information must be provided by the CLEC that has the actual knowledge of the retail end-use customers. Again, whether the CLECs compensate the municipality directly or through the underlying carrier is not up to the commission to decide. As noted earlier, it is an inter-carrier compensation issue and is best left up the individual CTPs to make a business decision on this issue. SWBT has outlined specific details on what it takes for an ILEC to report access lines on behalf of a CLEC. While the commission agrees with the format proposed by SWBT, it does not believe that such specific details need to be reflected in rule language. These requirements can vary from one CTP to another and imposing one set of formats may reduce the flexibility which some CTPs may desire. Therefore, the commission has not made any changes to §26.465(l).

Section 26.465(m)-Commission review of the definition of access line.

Consistent with the Local Government Code, Chapter 283, the rule requires that the commission determine whether changes in technology, facilities, or competitive or market conditions justify a modification of the adoption of the definition of access line. Garland/San Angelo suggested language to clarify the commission's authority to modify the statutory definition of "access line."

The commission has added language to subsection (m) citing statutory authority to review the definition of access line.

Other comments regarding definitions

Dallas commented that the terms "affiliates" and "interoffice transport" are undefined. Dallas proposed that "interoffice transport" be defined as "any line which is owned by a CTP to connect to its own facilities."

The commission rejects Dallas's definition of interoffice transport as it is more narrow than that contemplated under the statute. The commission believes it is unnecessary to adopt a definition of interoffice transport, given the fact that the commission's rules provide detailed and specific guidance on what types of lines must be counted and what types are excluded. The commission notes that the term "affiliates" has been commonly understood by its plain meaning and no other commenters have raised this as an issue. Therefore, the commission declines to add a definition for the term "affiliates".

In adopting this section, the commission makes other minor modifications for the purposes of clarifying its intent. All comments, including those not specifically referenced herein, were fully considered by the commission.

This new rule is adopted under the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated §14.002 (Vernon 1998) (PURA), which provides the Public Utility Commission with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction. This rule is also authorized by House Bill 1777, Act of May 25, 1999, 76th Legislature, Regular Session, chapter 840, 1999 Texas Session Law Service 3499 (Vernon) (to be codified as an amendment to the Local Government Code §283.055) which provides that not later than March 1, 2000, the commission shall establish rates per access line by category for the use of a public right-of-way by certificated telecommunications providers in each municipality and the statewide average of those rates. The rates shall be applied to the total number of access lines by category in the municipality.

Cross Reference to Statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act §14.002 and Local Government Code §283.055.

§26.465.Methodology for Counting Access Lines and Reporting Requirements for Certificated Telecommunications Providers.

(a)

Purpose. This section establishes a uniform method for counting access lines within a municipality by category as provided by §26.461 of this title (relating to Access Line Categories), sets forth relevant reporting requirements, and sets forth certain reseller obligations under the Local Government Code, Chapter 283.

(b)

Application. This section applies to all certificated telecommunications providers (CTPs) in the State of Texas.

(c)

Definitions. The following words and terms when used in this section, shall have the following meaning, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(1)

Customer--The retail end-use customer.

(2)

Transmission path--A path within the transmission media that allows the delivery of switched local exchange service.

(A)

Each individual circuit-switched service shall constitute a single transmission path.

(B)

Where services are offered as part of a bundled group of services, each switched service in that bundled group of services shall constitute a single transmission path.

(C)

Only those services that require the use of a circuit-switch shall constitute a switched service.

(D)

Services that constitute vertical features of a switched service, such as call waiting, caller-ID, etc., that do not require a separate switched path, do not constitute a transmission path.

(E)

Where a service or technology is channelized by the CTP and results in a separate switched path for each channel, each such channel shall constitute a single transmission path.

(3)

Wireless provider--A provider of commercial mobile service as defined by §332(d), Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. §151 et seq. ), Federal Communications Commission rules, and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66).

(d)

Methodology for counting access lines. A CTP's access line count shall be the sum of all lines counted pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this subsection, and shall be consistent with subsections (e), (f) and (g) of this section.

(1)

Switched transmission paths and services.

(A)

The CTP shall determine the total number of switched transmission paths, and shall take into account the number of switched services provided and the number of channels used where a service or technology is channelized.

(B)

All switched services shall be counted in the same manner regardless of the type of transmission media used to provide the service.

(C)

If the transmission path crosses more than one municipality, the line shall be counted in, and attributed to, the municipality where the end-use customer is located.

(2)

Nonswitched telecommunications services or private lines.

(A)

Each circuit used to provide nonswitched telecommunications services or private lines to an end-use customer, shall be considered to have two termination points, one on each customer location identified by the customer and served by the circuit.

(B)

The CTP shall count nonswitched telecommunications services or private lines by totaling the number of terminating points within a municipality.

(C)

A nonswitched telecommunications service shall be counted in the same manner regardless of the type of transmission media used to provide that service.

(D)

A terminating point shall be counted in, and attributed to, the municipality where that point is located. In the event a CTP is not able to identify the physical location of the terminating point, that point shall be attributed to the municipality identified by the CTP's billing systems.

(E)

Where dark (unlit) fiber is provided to an end-use customer who then lights it, the line shall be counted as a private line, by default, unless it is evident that it is used for providing switched services.

(3)

Central office based PBX-type services. The CTP shall count one access line for every ten stations served.

(e)

Lines to be counted. A CTP shall count the following access lines:

(1)

all access lines provided to a retail end-use customer;

(2)

all access lines provided as a retail service to other CTPs and resellers for their own end-use;

(3)

all access lines provided as a retail service to wireless telecommunication providers and interexchange carriers (IXCs) for their own end-use;

(4)

all access lines a CTP provides as employee concession lines and other similar types of lines;

(5)

all access lines provided as a retail service to a CTP's wireless and IXC affiliates for their own end-use, and all access lines provided as a retail service to any other affiliate for their own end-use;

(6)

dark fiber, to the extent it is provided as a service or is resold by a CTP and shall exclude lines sold and resold by non-CTPs;

(7)

any other lines meeting the definition of access line as set forth in §26.461 of this title; and

(8)

Lifeline and Tel-assistance lines.

(f)

Lines not to be counted. A CTP shall not count the following lines:

(1)

all lines that do not terminate at an end-use customer's premises;

(2)

lines used by providers who are not end-use customers such as CTP, wireless provider, or IXC for interoffice transport, or back-haul facilities used to connect such providers' telecommunications equipment;

(3)

lines used by a CTP's wireless and IXC affiliates who are not end-use customers, for interoffice transport, or back-haul facilities used to connect such affiliates' telecommunications equipment;

(4)

lines used by any other affiliate of a CTP for interoffice transport; and

(5)

any other lines that do not meet the definition of access line as set forth in §26.461 of this title.

(g)

Reporting procedures and requirements.

(1)

Who shall file. The record keeping, reporting and filing requirements listed in this section shall apply to all CTPs in the State of Texas.

(2)

Reporting requirements. Unless otherwise specified, periodic reporting shall be consistent with this subsection and subsection (d) of this section.

(A)

Initial reporting.

(i)

No later than January 24, 2000, a CTP shall file its access line count using the commission-approved Form for Counting Access Line or Program for Counting Access Lines with the commission. The CTP shall report the access line count as of December 31, 1998, except as provided in clause (iii) of this subparagraph.

(ii)

A CTP shall not include in its initial report any access lines that are resold, leased, or otherwise provided to a CTP, unless it has agreed to a request from another CTP to include resold or leased lines as part of its access line report.

(iii)

A CTP that cannot file access line count as of December 31, 1998 shall file request for good cause exemption and shall file the most recent access line count available for December, 1999.

(iv)

A CTP shall not make a distinction between facilities and capacity leased or resold in reporting its access line count.

(B)

Subsequent reporting.

(i)

Each CTP shall file with the commission a quarterly report beginning the second quarter of the year 2000, showing the number of access lines, including access lines by category, that the CTP has within each municipality at the end of each month of the quarter. The report shall be filed no later than 45 days after the end of the quarter using the commission-approved Form for Quarterly Reporting of Access Lines and shall coincide with the payment to a municipality.

(ii)

The first report shall be due to the commission no later than August 15, 2000 and shall include access line for the second calendar quarter of 2000 and shall coincide with the first payment to a municipality pursuant to the Local Government Code, Chapter 283.

(iii)

Except as provided in clause (iv) of this subparagraph, on request of the commission, and to the extent available, the report filed under clause (i) of this subparagraph shall identify, as part of the CTP's monthly access line count, the access lines that are provided by means of resold services or unbundled facilities to another CTP who is not an end-use customer, and the identity of the CTPs obtaining the resold services or unbundled facilities to provide services to customers.

(iv)

A CTP may not include in its monthly count of access lines any access lines that are resold, leased, or otherwise provided to another CTP if the CTP receives adequate proof that the CTP leasing or purchasing the access lines will include the access lines in its own monthly count. Adequate proof shall consist of a notarized statement prepared consistent with subsection (k) of this section.

(v)

The CTP shall respond to any request for additional information from the commission within 30 days from receipt of the request.

(vi)

Reports required under this subsection may be used by the commission only to verify the number of access lines that serve customer premises within a municipality.

(vii)

On request from a municipality, and subject to the confidentiality protections of subsection (j) of this section, each CTP shall provide each affected municipality with a copy of the municipality's access line count.

(h)

Exemption. Any CTP that does not terminate a franchise agreement or obligation under an existing ordinance shall be exempted from subsequent reporting pursuant to subsection (g)(2)(B) of this section unless and until the franchise agreement is terminated or expires on its own terms. Any CTP that fails to provide notice to the commission and the affected municipality by December 1, 1999 that it elects to terminate its franchise agreement or obligation under an existing ordinance, shall be deemed to continue under the terms of the existing ordinance. Upon expiration or termination of the existing franchise agreement or ordinance by its own terms, a CTP is subject to the terms of this section.

(i)

Maintenance and location of records. A CTP shall maintain all records, books, accounts, or memoranda relating to access lines deployed in a municipality in a manner which allows for easy identification and review by the commission and, as appropriate, by the relevant municipality. The books and records for each access line count shall be maintained for a period of no less than three years.

(j)

Proprietary or confidential information.

(1)

The CTP shall file with the commission the information required by this section regardless of whether this information is confidential. For information that the CTP alleges is confidential and/or proprietary under law, the CTP shall file a complete list of the information that the CTP alleges is confidential. For each document or portion thereof claimed to be confidential, the CTP shall cite the specific provision(s) of the Texas Government Code, Chapter 552, that the CTP relies to assert that the information is exempt from public disclosure. The commission shall treat as confidential the specific information identified by the CTP as confidential until such time as a determination is made by the commission, the Attorney General, or a court of competent jurisdiction that the information is not entitled to confidential treatment.

(2)

The commission shall maintain the confidentiality of the information provided by CTPs, in accordance with the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §52.207.

(3)

If the CTP does not claim confidential treatment for a document or portions thereof, then the information will be treated as public information. A claim of confidentiality by a CTP does not bind the commission to find that any information is proprietary and/or confidential under law, or alter the burden of proof on that issue.

(4)

Information provided to municipalities under the Local Government Code, Chapter 283, shall be governed by existing confidentiality procedures which have been established by the commission in compliance with PURA §52.207.

(5)

The commission shall notify a CTP that claims its filing as confidential of any request for such information.

(k)

Report attestation. All filings with the commission pursuant to this section shall be in accordance with §22.71 of this title (relating to Filing of Pleadings, Documents and Other Materials) and §22.72 of this title (relating to Formal Requisites of Pleadings and Documents to Be Filed With the Commission). The filings shall be attested to by an officer or authorized representative of the CTP under whose direction the report is prepared or other official in responsible charge of the entity in accordance with §26.71(d) of this title (relating to General Procedures, Requirements and Penalties). The filings shall include a certified statement from an authorized officer or duly authorized representative of the CTP stating that the information contained in the report is true and correct to the best of the officer's or representative's knowledge and belief after inquiry.

(l)

Reporting of access lines that have been provided by means of resold services or unbundled facilities to another CTP. This subsection applies only to a CTP reporting access lines under subsection (g) of this section, that are provided by means of resold services or unbundled facilities to another CTP who is not an end-use customer. Nothing in this subsection shall prevent a CTP reporting another CTP's access line count from charging an appropriate, tariffed administrative fee for such service.

(m)

Commission review of the definition of access line.

(1)

Pursuant to the Local Government Code §283.003, not later than September 1, 2002, the commission shall determine whether changes in technology, facilities, or competitive or market conditions justify a modification of the adoption of the definition of "access line" provided by §26.461 of this title. The commission may not begin a review authorized by this subsection before March 1, 2002.

(2)

As part of the proceeding described by paragraph (1) of this subsection, and as necessary after that proceeding, the commission by rule may modify the definition of "access line" as necessary to ensure competitive neutrality and nondiscriminatory application and to maintain consistent levels of compensation, as annually increased by growth in access lines within the municipalities.

(3)

After September 1, 2002, the commission, on its own motion, shall make the determination required by this subsection at least once every three years.

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on December 20, 1999.

TRD-9908894

Rhonda Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Effective date: January 9, 2000

Proposal publication date: October 8, 1999

For further information, please call: (512) 936-7308