TITLE 16.ECONOMIC REGULATION

Part 1. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS

Chapter 3. OIL AND GAS DIVISION

16 TAC §3.78

The Railroad Commission of Texas proposes to amend §3.78, relating to Fees, Performance Bonds and Alternate Forms of Financial Security Required To Be Filed.

The Commission proposes the amendments to §3.78 under the provisions of Texas Natural Resources Code, §85.167 and §91.142, which specify fees to be collected by the Commission for reissuance of certificates of compliance for oil leases and gas wells which have been canceled and organization report fees; Texas Natural Resources Code, §91.103, §91.104, and §91.109, which relate to bonds, letters of credit, cash deposits and alternate forms of financial security; and Texas Natural Resources Code, §91.114, which relates to acceptance of organization reports or applications for permits and approval of certificates of compliance.

The proposed fee change amendments to §3.78(b) and §3.78(c) implement statutory changes made to the Texas Natural Resources Code by House Bill (HB) 1195 and HB 942, 78th Legislature (2003).

Proposed amendments to §3.78(b) increase the fee for reissuance of a certificate of compliance for an oil lease or gas well that previously has been canceled from $100 to $300 for each severance or seal order issued for the lease or well. Proposed amendments to §3.78(b) also provide that if a check for this fee is not honored upon presentment, the reissued certificate of compliance may be suspended or revoked.

Proposed amendments to §3.78(c) increase fees for filing an organization report by an operator of one or more natural gas pipelines from $100 to $225. The amendments to §3.78(c) also establish a separate organization report fee category for operators of one or more liquids pipelines and increase the organization report fee for such operators from $500 to $625. The amendments to §3.78(c) also clarify that the total organization report fee that must be submitted is a fee equal to the sum of the separate fees applicable to each category of service activity, facility, pipeline, or number of wells operated and increase the maximum amount of organization report fees that must be submitted by an operator of wells from $1,000 to $1,125.

The proposed fee change amendments are necessary to conform §3.78 to increased fees prescribed or authorized by HB 1195 and HB 942, 78th Legislature (2003) and to clarify existing provisions relating to organization report fees. The increased fees implemented by the proposed amendments will financially strengthen the Oil Field Clean Up Fund (OFCUF) and assist in plugging of abandoned wells and cleanup of pollution.

The proposed amendments also amend §3.78(a) by deleting current paragraph (7) defining "individual well bond" and by adding new paragraphs (10) through (12) to provide definitions of "officers and owners," "letter of credit," and "bond," as these terms are used in §3.78. The definition of "individual well bond" is no longer necessary in view of the proposed amendment deleting current §3.78(m) pertaining to individual well bonds.

The proposed amendments to §3.78 also provide new or amended provisions relating to the circumstances in which a person required to file an organization report with the Commission may file financial security in the form of a nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000.

Proposed amendments to §3.78(d) provide that the required determination concerning the availability of individual and blanket performance bonds at reasonable prices may be made by a designee of the Commission. Proposed amendments to §3.78(e) delete paragraph (1) defining "officers and owners" because this definition is included in the proposed amendments to §3.78(a). The proposed amendments to §3.78(a) add to the definition of "officers and owners" any person determined by a final judgment or final administrative order to have exercised control over an organization.

The proposed amendments to §3.78(f) make changes in the criteria by which an eligible operator wishing to file financial security in the form of a nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 can overcome the presumption that bonds are obtainable by that operator at reasonable prices.

The proposed amendments to §3.78(f) also provide that an operator may request an administrative determination, rather than a hearing, to determine that individual and blanket performance bonds are not available to that operator at reasonable prices.

The amendments to §3.78(f) provide that in order to support an administrative determination that bonds are not obtainable by a requesting operator at reasonable prices, the operator must submit declination letters establishing that three companies from a list maintained by the Commission that have issued a bond filed with the Commission in the past 12 months will not issue a bond to the requesting operator or will issue a bond to the operator only for an annual fee in excess of 6% of the face amount of the bond. Under the proposed amendments, if an operator requesting this administrative determination has a bond as its current financial assurance, one of the three declination letters must be from that operator's current surety. The proposed amendments change the current requirement that an operator establish that no fewer than three companies will not issue a bond to the operator for an annual fee less than 12% of the face amount of the bond.

The proposed amendments to §3.78(f) also provide that if an operator's application for the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 is administratively denied, the operator may request a hearing to determine the operator's eligibility for this fee. Under the amendments, the Commission would be required to consider cash or other collateral requirements, along with the premium and any other surety requirements, in determining if bonds are available to the requesting operator at a reasonable price.

The provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 310, 77th Legislature (2001), and Texas Natural Resources Code, §91.104, as amended, and current §3.78 have had the beneficial effect of increasing the percentage of operators who file a bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit as financial security. As of May 23, 2003, 85.2% of the total number of active operators of all types had filed an individual or blanket performance bond, a letter of credit, or a cash deposit as financial security. This compares to only 8.6% that had filed one of these forms of financial security as of January 18, 2001. The increase in the percentage of bonded operators has decreased the risk to the OFCUF and furthered the objectives of the Legislature, the Commission, and the industry to ensure that inactive wells are plugged and pollution is cleaned up in order to protect surface and subsurface usable quality water.

Under SB 310 and Texas Natural Resources Code, §91.104, as amended effective September 1, 2001, operators with an acceptable record of compliance were given the option of filing financial security in the form of an nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 if the Commission determined that individual bonds and blanket performance bonds were not obtainable at reasonable prices. Experience gained by the Commission in processing applications to file financial security in the form of the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 has shown that while bonds are generally available at reasonable prices to operators, bonds are not readily available or obtainable by all operators. From January 2001 to June 25, 2003, the percentage of operators with a bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit has increased from 8.6% of all operators to 85.2% of all operators. The total number of operators with organizational bonds has increased from 411 to 1368 over the same period. Further, from January 2003 through June 2003, 244 organization reports were filed (including name changes) by entities that did not have active organization reports in the prior month. The majority of these new filers (88%) filed a bond, letter of credit or cash deposit as their financial assurance. More than 30% of the new filers (78 out of 244) obtained and filed a bond as financial assurance. However, some smaller operators, even those with an acceptable record of compliance, have been unable to obtain bonds at any price, and others have been unable to obtain bonds for a reasonable premium without posting cash or other collateral equal to the face amount of the bond.

The presumption of §3.78(f) that bonds are generally obtainable at reasonable prices by operators remains valid. However, Commission experience with applicants for the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 over the past 18 months has shown that due to varying circumstances of operators, and varying conditions in different parts of the state, bonds may not be readily obtainable by all operators at all times. The current requirement of §3.78(f) that operators seeking approval to file the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 must establish that no fewer than three sureties will not issue a bond to the operator for an annual fee less than 12% of the face amount of the bond is no longer deemed reasonable. The current provision does not adequately address the situation where sureties are unwilling to bond an operator at any price. In addition, where sureties are willing to bond an operator, the bond premium is almost always substantially below 12% of the face amount of the bond. Experience gained by the Commission in administering §3.78 since September 1, 2001, shows that the 6% standard proposed by the amendments to §3.78(f) is more reasonable and realistic in the current bond market.

In current §3.78 there is no provision which expressly authorizes consideration of cash or other collateral requirements imposed by surety companies as a condition to the issuance of a bond to a requesting operator. The cost to the operator of posting collateral may be a relevant factor in determining the reasonableness of the total bond price to the operator attempting to obtain the bond. The proposed amendments to §3.78(f) are necessary to address this issue and do so by requiring Commission consideration of collateral requirements if an operator requests a hearing following administrative denial of an application for approval to file the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 as financial security.

Under strict application of the current provisions of §3.78, only a few applications for approval to file financial security in the form of a nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 have been approved. Pursuant to SB 310 and Texas Natural Resources Code, §91.104 as amended effective September 1, 2004, all operators, except those that are engaged only in activities exempt from financial assurance, will be required to file as financial security a bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit. Alternate forms of financial security will no longer be permitted. In view of the experience gained by the Commission since September 1, 2001, pertaining to bond availability, the proposed amendments to §3.78(f) are necessary to provide more flexible and less burdensome standards and procedures for eligible operators to obtain approval to file the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 as financial security. This will enable these operators to continue to operate in the interim period prior to September 1, 2004, and to prepare for meeting the more stringent financial security requirements which will take effect on that date.

The filing of a bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit will continue to be the preferred form of financial security in the interim period prior to September 1, 2004. Operators will be permitted to file the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 only if they possess the required acceptable record of compliance with Commission rules and orders and establish that bonds are not available to the requesting operator at reasonable prices. Under the proposed amendments to §3.78(f), an operator having a bond on file who seeks approval to file the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 will be required to submit a declination letter from the operator's current surety to affirm that bonds are not available to the requesting operator at a reasonable price.

The Commission anticipates that most operators will continue to file bonds, letters of credit, or cash deposits as financial security. This eliminates the requirement that an operator seek plugging extensions and pay the associated fee for inactive wells and enables operators to accept transfers of wells from other operators, which are benefits not available to operators filing alternate forms of financial security. Any risk to the OFCUF as a result of the proposed amendments to §3.78(f) will be ameliorated by the short time which remains before bonds, letters of credit, or cash deposits become the only permitted form of financial security and by the fact that the option to file the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 will continue to be available only to those operators who possess an acceptable record of compliance with the Commission's rules and orders.

The Commission acknowledges that §3.78(f)(1) and §3.78(f)(2)(A)-(B) were declared invalid by ruling of the 261st District Court of Travis County, Texas, announced June 11, 2003, in Cause No. GN202946, Ross H. Hardwick Oil Company, et. al. v. Railroad Commission of Texas , based on the Court's determination that the Commission failed to comply with Texas Government Code, §2006.002. The proposed amendments amend §3.78(f)(2)(A). Current §3.78(f)(2)(B) and §3.78(f)(1) remain unchanged. The analysis required by Texas Government Code, §2006.002 for proposed §3.78(f), including the portion determined to be invalid by the Court's ruling, is provided by this notice.

The proposed amendments also amend §3.78(j) pertaining to the amount of bonds, letters of credit, or cash deposits which must be filed by persons filing one of these forms of financial security. These amendments are necessary in order to implement the provisions of HB 942, 78th Legislature (2003), effective September 1, 2003. The proposed amendments to §3.78(j) eliminate the requirement for a person whose only activity is as a first purchaser, survey company, salt water hauler, gas nominator, gas purchaser, or well plugger to file financial security. The proposed amendments to §3.78(j) also clarify that a person who engages in more than one Commission regulated activity or operation is not required to file a separate bond or alternate form of financial security for each activity or operation. Under the proposed amendments, a person with multiple activities or operations is required to file a bond or alternate form of financial security in the greatest amount applicable to any of its activities or operations, except that a separate bond must be filed for commercial facilities activities subject to the financial security requirements of §3.78(o).

The proposed amendments to §3.78 also delete current subsection (m) pertaining to individual well bonds. The Commission has determined that small operators have had difficulty in obtaining individual well bonds. In addition, the Commission has determined that the individual well bond requirement of current §3.78(m) has made it impractical for many small operators to file an alternate form of financial security, including the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000. In some cases, the total amount of individual well bonds required under current §3.78(m) in order to obtain plugging extensions for wells that have been inactive for 36 months or more has exceeded the amount of individual or blanket performance bonds, letters of credit, or cash deposits required under §3.78(j)(1)-(2). Inability to file an individual or blanket performance bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit as financial security, coupled with the inability to file an alternate form of financial security because of individual well bond requirements, has prevented some small operators, even those with an acceptable record of compliance, from renewing their organization reports.

The Commission has determined that the individual well bond requirement of current §3.78(m) can be eliminated without posing a significant risk to the OFCUF, particularly since effective September 1, 2004, all operators will be required to file an individual or blanket performance bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit as financial security covering all operations.

The proposed amendments also amend current §3.78(n) by re- lettering it as subsection (m) and adding new paragraph (4) providing that an operator who has accepted a transfer of operatorship of any well or lease on or after September 1, 2001, with Commission approval based on filing of an individual or blanket performance bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit, is deemed to have elected to file one of these forms of financial security and shall file one of these forms of financial security for each successive year during which the operator remains the designated operator of any such well or lease.

The amendments in proposed §3.78(m) are necessary to give effect to Texas Natural Resources Code, §91.107. In conformity with this section of the Code, current §3.78(n), proposed to be re-lettered as subsection (m), currently provides that the Commission shall not approve a transfer of operatorship submitted for any well or lease unless the operator acquiring the well has on file with the Commission an individual or blanket performance bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit. For these provisions to have their intended effect, the amendment in proposed §3.78(m) is necessary to ensure that an operator who has accepted a transfer of operatorship of a well or lease with Commission approval, based on the operator's filing of an individual or blanket performance bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit, is bound to continue filing one of these same forms of financial security for so long as the operator remains the designated operator of the well or lease.

The proposed amendments also re-letter current §3.78(p) to subsection (o) and eliminate the current provision that the owner or operator of a commercial facility may reduce the amount of financial security required under §3.78(p) by $25,000 if the owner or operator holds only one commercial facility permit. This amendment is necessary because the provision being eliminated assumes that the operator of the commercial facility is required to file a bond in the amount of $25,000 under other provisions of §3.78, when in fact the amount of financial security required under other provisions may be a lesser amount. The proposed amendments in proposed §3.78(o) clarify that the owner or operator of one or more commercial facilities may reduce the amount of financial security required under §3.78(p) for one such facility by the amount, if any, it filed as financial assurance under §3.78(j)(3). These amendments in proposed §3.78(o) are necessary to ensure that operators of commercial facilities have adequate financial security on file to cover commercial facilities operations.

The proposed amendments to §3.78 also add a new subsection (p) relating to the effect of outstanding violations. This proposed new subsection provides that the Commission shall not accept an organization report or an application for a permit or approve a certificate of compliance for an oil lease or gas well submitted by an organization if the organization has outstanding violations, or an officer or director of the organization was, within seven years preceding the filing of the report, application, or certificate, an officer or director of an organization and during that period, the organization committed a violation that remains an outstanding violation.

Proposed §3.78(p) also creates an exception to the above provisions by providing that the Commission shall accept a report or application or approve a certificate of an organization if the conditions that constituted the violation have been corrected or are being corrected in accordance with a schedule agreed to by the organization and the Commission; all administrative, civil, and criminal penalties and all plugging and cleanup costs incurred by the state relating to those conditions have been paid or are being paid in accordance with a schedule agreed to by the organization and the Commission; and the report, application, or certificate is in compliance with all other requirements of law and Commission rules. Proposed §3.78(p) also provides that all fees tendered in connection with a report or application that is rejected under §3.78(p) are nonrefundable.

The proposed amendments adding new subsection (p) to §3.78 are necessary to conform §3.78 to Texas Natural Resources Code, §91.114, as amended by SB 1484, effective September 1, 2003.

Leslie Savage, Administrative Planner, Planning and Administration, Oil and Gas Division has determined that for the first year of the first five years the proposed amendments will be in effect, there will be no net fiscal implications for state government as a result of enforcing or administering the amendments. The fee increases implemented by the proposed amendments will be deposited into the OFCUF. Ms. Savage estimates that the proposed amendments implementing statutory changes will increase the revenue to the OFCUF by approximately $1.8 million in fiscal year 2004 and $1.67 million in fiscal year 2005. The increased revenue to the OFCUF will be used to cover the cost of plugging additional abandoned wells and for the cleanup of pollution.

The Commission also anticipates that the statutory increase in the fee to reissue a certificate of compliance that has been canceled as a result of violations will encourage operators to come into compliance in a more timely manner, thus reducing the amount of Commission field staff time and resources to achieve compliance. Currently, an operator can allow a lease to acquire multiple severance orders, but is required only to pay $100 to have the certificate of compliance reinstated once all rule violation issues have been resolved. If a lease has been severed by multiple sections of the Oil and Gas Division, then each of those sections must verify compliance and resolve cancellation issues. At times, this verification and resolution also requires a lease inspection. It is, therefore, appropriate that the fees required for reissuance of the certificate of compliance reflect the existence of multiple violations. Raising the reinstatement fee and charging for multiple severances on the same lease or well, as required by HB 1195, will encourage more timely compliance with the violation notices that precede severance imposition.

During the first year of implementation of the proposed amendments (fiscal year 2004), the Commission will expend money from the increased revenues for relatively minor document revision, process analysis and computer programming to implement new fees and changes to financial security requirements. The Commission anticipates that the statutory increase in the fee for reissuance of a certificate of compliance that has been canceled as a result of violations will encourage operators to come into compliance in a more timely manner, thus reducing the amount of Commission field staff time and resources to achieve compliance. The Commission believes these reductions in staff time and resources will offset the relatively small incremental expense of the proposed amendments in the first year of implementation. Any incremental increase in expenditures by the Commission for the first year of implementation will be funded through the OFCUF. As incremental expenditures decrease in subsequent years, increased revenues generated by the fee increases implemented by the proposed amendments will be available for well plugging and cleanup activity.

There will be no fiscal effect on local governments.

Texas Government Code, §2006.002 requires a state agency considering adoption of a rule that would have an adverse economic effect on small businesses or micro-businesses to reduce the effect if doing so is legal and feasible considering the purpose of the statutes under which the rule is to be adopted. Before adopting a rule that would have an adverse economic effect on small businesses, a state agency must prepare a statement of the effect of the rule on small businesses, which must include an anlysis of the cost of compliance with the rule for small businesses and a comparison of the cost with the cost of compliance for the largest businesses affected by the rule, using cost for each employee, cost for each hour of labor, or cost for each $100 of sales.

Ms. Savage has estimated that the cost of compliance with the proposed amendments to §3.78(b) and (c) for individuals, small businesses, or micro-businesses will be an increase in the fees for filing organization reports and fees for reissuance of certificates of compliance which have been canceled. The fee increases contained in the proposed amendments are statutory and reflect recent amendments to statutes enacted by the 78th Legislature (2003). The statutory provisions make no distinction in fees required to be paid based on an operator's status as an individual, small business, or micro-business. Because these fees are statutory, the Commission does not have authority to change the amount of the fees or to create exceptions to the imposition of the fees.

The proposed fee increase for reissuance of a certificate of compliance that previously has been canceled is in the amount of $200, assuming one severance or seal order. The proposed increase in the organization report fee for natural gas pipelines and liquids pipelines and the proposed increase in the aggregate organization report fee that must be paid by well operators who also have other activities is, in each case, $125.

Because operators are not required to make filings with the Commission reporting number of employees, labor costs, amount of sales, or gross receipts, the Commission cannot determine whether a particular operator may be a small business or a micro- business. However, the Commission has determined that it is likely that some operators would meet the definitions of these terms in Texas Government Code, §2006.001. Assuming that an individual, small business, or micro-business operator incurs, during a given year, an additional $200 in fees for reissuance of a certificate of compliance, the annual cost of the proposed increase to such an entity would be $200 per employee if the entity has one employee, $10 per employee if the entity has 20 employees, and $2.02 per employee if the entity has 99 employees. Operators may avoid this fee by compliance with Commission rules.

Assuming that an individual, small business, or micro-business operator incurs, during a given year, an additional $125 in organization report fees, the annual cost of the proposed increase to such an entity would be $125 per employee if the entity has one employee, $6.25 per employee if the entity has 20 employees, and $1.26 per employee if the entity has 99 employees.

Comparable annual cost per employee of the proposed increase for the largest businesses affected by the proposed amendments required to pay one increased fee for reissuance of a certificate of compliance would be $0.40 for an employer of 500 persons and $0.20 for an employer of 1,000 persons. Assuming a requirement to pay one increased organization report fee during a given year, the annual cost per employee of the proposed increase would be $0.25 for an employer of 500 persons and $0.12 for an employer of 1,000 persons.

The number of wells operated, production, and gross receipts of small business and micro-business operators vary greatly from operator to operator. Most small business and micro-business operators have wells that are marginal producers. The Commission cannot specifically identify the universe of small business and micro-business operators from records maintained by the Commission, for the purpose of relating cost of compliance with the proposed amendments to the factors listed in Texas Government Code, §2006.002(c)(2).

However, most, if not all, applications filed with the Commission since September 1, 2001, for approval to file the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 as financial security have been filed by operators believed by the Commission to be in the small business or micro-business categories. Based on experience derived from processing these applications and production reports filed with the Commission for 2002, the Commission believes that the average micro-business operator who has filed such an application produces about 4,000 barrels of oil annually. Using the 2002 average domestic first purchase price of $21.84 per barrel of oil, 4,000 barrels of annual production generates gross sales of $87,360.

Assuming that the average micro-business operator incurs, during a given year, an additional $200 in fees for reissuance of a certificate of compliance as a result of the proposed fee change amendments, the cost of compliance to the operator would be about $0.23 per $100 of gross sales. It is not likely that micro-business operators will be affected by the proposed $125 increases in the organization report fee for operators of natural gas pipelines and liquids pipelines and the maximum organization report fee required of well operators with multiple Commission regulated activities.

Assuming further that the average small business operator has annual production and gross sales five times greater than the average micro-business producer, the cost of compliance to the average small business operator resulting from the need to pay, during a given year, an additional $200 in fees for reissuance of a certificate of compliance would be slightly more than $0.04 per $100 of gross sales. If the same small business operator were required to pay, during a given year, an additional $125 in organization report fees, the cost of compliance would be slightly less than $0.03 per $100 of gross sales. If a small business operator is an operator of one or more liquids pipelines as well as operator of other service activities or facilities, the proposed establishment of a separate organization report fee category for operators of liquids pipelines could result in an increase in total organization report fees of up to $625 annually. Based on the same assumed annual sales for the average small business operator, the cost of compliance would be $0.14 per $100 of gross sales.

The Commission does not have access to information regarding the gross sales of the largest operators affected by the proposed fee change amendments, most of whom have operations beyond the state. For comparative purposes, however, the cost of compliance with the proposed fee change amendments to these large operators would be a fraction of one cent per $100 of gross sales.

Ms. Savage has determined that the cost of compliance with the proposed amendments to §3.78(f) for individual, small business, or micro-business operators will be in the nature of employee or administrative expense associated with submitting a request to the Commission for a determination that bonds are not obtainable at a reasonable price, obtaining declination letters, establishing that the operator is otherwise eligible to file a nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 as financial security, and participating in any Commission hearing that may be necessary in the event the operator's request is administratively denied.

Texas Natural Resources Code, §91.104 provides the various forms of financial security which may be filed by operators subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. Under §91.104, an operator may file financial security in the form of a nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 if the Commission determines that individual and blanket bonds are not obtainable at reasonable prices and the operator can demonstrate to the Commission an acceptable record of compliance. The statute requires that the Commission make these determinations, and the Commission has no authority to exempt individual, small business, and micro-business operators from the standards of §91.104.

The Commission has determined that the proposed amendments to §3.78(f) provide standards and procedures for requesting Commission approval to file financial security in the form of the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 which impose only a minimal regulatory burden on operators. Operators will be required to determine from sureties or their agents whether bonds are obtainable at a reasonable price and obtain the required declination letters for submission to the Commission, but an operator's request to file the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 will be processed administratively, in most cases without the need for a hearing. The requesting operator may choose to submit evidence of its acceptable record of compliance, but the operator's record of compliance can also be determined from Commission records. A hearing will be required only in the case where the operator's request is administratively denied, and in the event a hearing is needed, the operator may request that the hearing be conducted by telephone.

The Commission has estimated that no more than eight hours will be spent by employees and administrative or managerial staff of operators in meeting the standards and procedures provided by the amendments to §3.78(f), even if a telephone hearing following administrative denial of the operator's request is necessary. Assuming that individual, small business, and micro- business operators incur average hourly personnel cost of $25 per hour, the estimated cost of compliance with the proposed amendments to §3.78(f) should not exceed about $200 annually. The $1,000 nonrefundable annual fee is not deemed to be a cost of compliance with the proposed amendments to §3.78(f) because the fee is provided for by Texas Natural Resources Code, §91.104 and §3.78(d), and the fee provisions of §3.78(d) are not proposed to be amended.

Assuming that an individual, small business, or micro-business operator incurs expense in the amount of $200 to comply with the proposed amendments to §3.78(f), the annual per employee cost of compliance would be $200 for an operator with one employee, $10 for an operator with 20 employees, and $2.02 for an operator with 99 employees. Assuming further, based on the previous analysis, that the average micro-business operator has annual gross sales of $87,360, the estimated cost of compliance for the micro-business operator per $100 of gross sales would be $0.23. Assuming that the average small business operator has annual gross sales five times greater than the average micro-business operator, the estimated cost of compliance for the small business operator per $100 of gross sales would be $0.04.

The largest of the businesses regulated by the Commission tend to file financial security in the form of individual or blanket performance bonds, letters of credit, or cash deposits, and may not be affected by the proposed amendments to §3.78(f) relating to the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000. Should a large business operator choose to request approval to file the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000, the annual cost of compliance per employee would be $0.40 for an operator with 500 employees and $0.20 for an operator with 1,000 employees. Although the Commission does not have information as to the company-wide gross sales of the largest operators regulated by the Commission, the annual cost of compliance with the proposed amendments to §3.78(f) to such largest operators would be a fraction of one cent per $100 of gross sales.

The cost of compliance with the proposed amendments to §3.78(f) will be temporary since effective September 1, 2004, all operators, except those exempt from financial security requirements, will be required to file financial security in the form of an individual or blanket performance bond, letter of credit or cash deposit, and filing of a nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 will no longer be permitted by statute.

The Commission has also determined that the cost of compliance with the proposed amendments to §3.78(f) will be offset by savings to operators realized through obtaining approval to file the nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 as compared to other more costly forms of financial security permitted by statute.

Ms. Savage has determined that there will be no cost of compliance with the proposed amendments in §3.78(j)(4) exempting certain classes of operators from financial security requirements. For these classes of operators the current cost of compliance with current financial security requirements will be eliminated by the proposed amendments.

Ms. Savage has also determined that there will be no cost of compliance with the proposed amendment eliminating the individual well bond requirement of current §3.78(m). Some individual, small business, and micro-business operators will realize significant cost savings as a result of elimination of the requirement to file individual well bonds or individual letters of credit in order to obtain plugging extensions for wells that have been inactive for 36 months or more. For some of these operators, these cost savings will exceed the cost of compliance with the proposed fee increases.

Ms. Savage has also determined that there will be no cost of compliance with any of the clarifying amendments. These amendments reflect current Commission practices and policies and do not impose different or additional obligations on operators.

The nature of the proposed amendments to §3.78 are such that they will not have a materially adverse net economic effect on individual, small business, or micro-business operators.

James M. Doherty, Hearings Examiner, Oil and Gas Section, Office of General Counsel, has determined that for each year of the first five years that the amended section will be in effect, the public benefit will be the implementation of fee changes required or authorized by the Legislature, which will assist the Commission in plugging of abandoned wells and cleanup of pollution in the areas of greatest need. The public will also benefit from the greater flexibility and lesser regulatory burden resulting from proposed changes in standards and procedures for persons seeking approval to file a nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000 as financial security for their operations. These changes will enable operators with an acceptable record of compliance who are unable to obtain a bond at a reasonable price to continue production of oil and gas to the public's benefit. The public will also benefit from elimination of the regulatory and financial burden of posting financial security by certain classes of operators whose operations pose no significant risk to usable quality surface or subsurface water. The public will also benefit from the clarifying amendments by making the amended section more understandable and more reflective of current Commission policies and practices.

Comments may be submitted to Rules Coordinator, Office of General Counsel, Railroad Commission of Texas, P. O. Box 12967, Austin, Texas 78711-2967; online at www.rrc.state.tx.us/rules/commentform.html; or by electronic mail to rulescoordinator@rrc.state.tx.us. The Commission will accept comments for 30 days after publication in the Texas Register . For further information, call James M. Doherty at (512) 463-7152. The status of Commission rulemakings in progress is available at www.rrc.state.tx.us/rules/proposed.html.

The Commission proposes the amendments to §3.78 pursuant to Texas Natural Resources Code, §§81.051, 81.052, 85.042, 85.201, 85.202, 86.041, 86.042, 91.101,141.011, and 141.012 which provide the Commission with jurisdiction over all persons owning or engaged in drilling or operating oil, gas or geothermal wells, persons owning or operating pipelines, and persons engaged in other service activities related to production, storage, transportation or distribution of oil and gas or oil and gas wastes, and the authority to adopt all necessary rules for governing and regulating persons and their operations under the jurisdiction of the Commission; and pursuant to Texas Government Code, §2001.006, which authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules that implement legislation that has become law but has not taken effect.

Texas Natural Resources Code §§81.051, 81.052, 85.042, 85.167, 85.201, 85.202, 86.041, 86.042, 91.101, 91.103, 91.104, 91.1042, 91.109, 91.114, 91.142, 141.011, and 141.012 are affected by the proposed amendments.

Issued in Austin, Texas on July 17, 2003.

§3.78.Fees, Performance Bonds and Alternate Forms of Financial Security Required To Be Filed.

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

(1) - (6) (No change.)

[(7) Individual well bond A bond or letter of credit issued:]

[(A) on a Commission-approved form;]

[(B) by a third party surety, insurance company, or financial institution approved by the Commission; and]

[(C) to secure the timely and proper plugging of a specified well and remediation of the wellsite, in accordance with Commission rules.]

(7) [ (8) ] Bay well--Any well under the jurisdiction of the Commission for which the surface location is either:

(A) located in or on a lake, river, stream, canal, estuary, bayou, or other inland navigable waters of the state; or,

(B) located on state lands seaward of the mean high tide line of the Gulf of Mexico in water of a depth at mean high tide of not more than 100 feet that is sheltered from the direct action of the open seas of the Gulf of Mexico.

(8) [ (9) ] Land well--Any well subject to Commission jurisdiction for which the surface location is not in or on inland or coastal waters.

(9) [ (10) ] Offshore well--Any well subject to Commission jurisdiction for which the surface location is on state lands in or on the Gulf of Mexico, that is not a bay well.

(10) Officers and owners--Any persons owning or controlling an organization including officers, directors, general partners, sole proprietors, owners of more than 25% ownership interest, any trustee of an organization, and any person determined by a final judgment or final administrative order to have exercised control over the organization.

(11) Letter of credit--An irrevocable letter of credit issued:

(A) on a Commission-approved form;

(B) by and drawn on a third party bank authorized under state or federal law to do business in Texas; and

(C) renewed and continued in effect until the conditions of the letter of credit have been met or its release is approved by the Commission or its authorized delegate.

(12) Bond--A surety instrument issued:

(A) on a Commission-approved form;

(B) by and drawn on a third party corporate surety authorized under state law to issue surety bonds in Texas; and

(C) renewed and continued in effect until the conditions of the bond have been met or its release is approved by the Commission or its authorized delegate.

(b) Filing fees. The following filing fees are required to be paid to the Railroad Commission.

(1) (No change.)

(2) An application for a permit to drill, deepen, plug back, or reenter a well will be considered materially amended if the amendment is made for a purpose other than:

(A) to add omitted required information;

(B) to correct typographical errors; or

(C) to correct clerical errors.

(3) - (9) (No change.)

(10) If a certificate of compliance for an oil lease or gas well has been canceled, the operator shall submit to the Commission a nonrefundable fee of $300 for each severance or seal order issued for the well or lease [ $100 ] before the Commission may reissue the certificate pursuant to §3.58 of this title (relating to Oil, Gas, or Geothermal Resource Producer's Reports) (Statewide Rule 58).

(11) - (13) (No change.)

(14) A check or money order for any of the aforementioned fees shall be made payable to the Railroad Commission of Texas. If the check accompanying an application is not honored upon presentment, the permit issued on the basis of that application, the allowable assigned, the exception to a statewide rule granted on the basis of the application, the extension of time to plug a well, the certificate of compliance reissued, or the Natural Gas Policy Act category determination made on the basis of the application may be suspended or revoked.

(15) (No change.)

(c) Organization Report Fee. An organization report required by Texas Natural Resources Code, §91.142, shall be accompanied by a fee as follows:

(1) (No change.)

(2) for an operator of one or more natural gas pipelines, $225 [ $100 ];

(3) (No change.)

(4) for an operator of one or more liquids pipelines, $625;

(5) [ (4) ] for an operator of all other service activities or facilities, [ including liquids pipelines, ] $500;

[(5) for an operator of wells who also operates one or more service activities, facilities, or pipelines as classified by the Commission, the sum of the fees that would be separately charged for each category of service activity, facility, pipeline, or number or wells operated, provided that such fee shall not exceed $1,000; or ]

(6) for an operator with multiple activities, a total fee equal to the sum of the separate fees applicable to each category of service activity, facility, pipeline, or number of wells operated shall be submitted, provided that the total fee for an operator of wells shall not exceed $1,125; and

(7) [ (6) ] for an entity not currently performing operations under the jurisdiction of the Commission, $300.

(d) Financial security and alternate forms of financial security. Any person, including any firm, partnership, joint stock association, corporation, or other organization, required by Texas Natural Resources Code, §91.142, to file an organization report with the Commission must also file financial security in one of the following forms:

(1) an individual performance bond;

(2) a blanket performance bond;

(3) a nonrefundable annual fee of $1,000, if:

(A) the Commission or its designee determines that individual and blanket performance bonds as specified by this section are not obtainable at reasonable prices as provided for under subsection (f) of this section;

(B) - (C) (No change.)

(4) - (5) (No change.)

(e) Eligibility for nonrefundable $1,000 fee.

[(1) For the purposes of this subsection, "officers and owners" include directors, general partners, owners of more than 25% ownership interest, or any trustee of an organization.]

(1) [ (2) ] A person filing an organization report for the first time in order to perform any Commission-regulated operations is a new organization and is not eligible to file the nonrefundable fee of $1,000.

(2) [ (3) ] A person who filed an initial organization report less than 48 months prior to the current filing is not eligible to file the nonrefundable fee of $1,000.

(3) [ (4) ] A change in name, without any other organizational change, of a person registered with the Commission does not indicate a new organization. If the Commission determines that only a name change has occurred, then a person operating under a new name may file the nonrefundable fee of $1,000 if the person meets all other eligibility requirements.

(4) [ (5) ] An individual registered with the Commission as a sole proprietor or who is a general partner of a partnership that is registered with the Commission and who reorganizes his or her oil and gas operations under a new legal entity or establishes a new and separate entity will be considered to have satisfied the 48-month eligibility requirement for filing the nonrefundable fee of $1,000.

(5) [ (6) ] A surviving or new corporation or other entity resulting from a merger under the Texas Business Corporation Act, Part Five, may file the nonrefundable fee of $1,000 if:

(A) the existing record of compliance for each entity that is a party to the merger qualifies;

(B) the records of compliance for the officers and owners of the surviving or new entities qualify; and

(C) the number of surviving or new entities eligible does not exceed the number of parties registered with the Commission at the time of the merger.

(6) [ (7) ] In any Commission enforcement proceeding, if a person is determined not to be the responsible party for a violation and is dismissed from the proceeding for that reason, that violation shall not be considered in determining whether that person has an acceptable record of compliance.

(f) Availability of bonds.

(1) In determining the applicability of the $1,000 nonrefundable fee as provided for under this section, the Commission presumes that individual and blanket performance bonds are obtainable at reasonable prices.

(2) An operator may request an administrative determination [ a hearing to determine ] that individual and blanket performance bonds are not available to that operator [ obtainable ] at reasonable prices. In order to support an administrative [ a ] determination that bonds are not obtainable by a requesting operator at reasonable prices, the operator must submit declination letters to the Commission's P-5/Financial Assurance Department establishing [ show ]:

(A) that [ no fewer than ] three companies from a list maintained by the Commission that [ which ] have issued a bond filed with the Commission in the past 12 months will not issue a bond to the requesting operator or will only issue a bond to the operator for an annual fee in excess of 6% [ less than 12% ] of the face amount of the bond; and

(B) that the operator is otherwise eligible under this section to file a $1,000 nonrefundable annual fee.

(3) If an operator requesting a determination that bonds are not available to it has a bond as its current financial assurance, one of the three declination letters must be from that operator's current surety.

(4) If an operator's application for the $1,000 nonrefundable fee is administratively denied, the operator may request a hearing to determine eligibility for the $1,000 nonrefundable fee. The Commission shall consider cash or other collateral requirements, along with the premium and any other surety company requirements, in determining if bonds are available to the requesting operator at a reasonable price.

(g) - (i) (No change.)

(j) Amount of bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit.

(1) (No change.)

(2) A person operating wells may file a blanket bond, letter of credit or cash deposit to cover all wells for which a bond, letter of credit or cash deposit is required in an amount equal to the sum of:

(A) A base amount determined by the total number of wells operated, as follows:

(i) a person who operates 10 or fewer wells [ or performs other operations ] shall have a base amount of $25,000;

(ii) - (iii) (No change.)

(B) - (C) (No change.)

(3) A person [ operating wells and ] performing other operations who is not an operator of wells and who is not a person whose only activity is as a first purchaser, survey company, salt water hauler, gas nominator, gas purchaser or well plugger choosing [ , who chooses ] to cover all operations by a blanket performance bond, letter of credit or cash deposit shall file a bond, letter of credit or cash deposit in the amount of $25,000 [ an amount determined by the total number of wells, but not less than $25,000. Only one blanket performance bond, letter of credit or cash deposit is required for a person performing multiple operations, unless the person is operating a commercial facility subject to the financial security requirements of subsection (p) of this section ].

(4) No bond, letter of credit, cash deposit or alternate form of financial security is required of a person who is not an operator of wells if the person's only activity is as a first purchaser, survey company, salt water hauler, gas nominator, gas purchaser and/or well plugger.

(5) A person who engages in more than one activity or operation, including well operation, for which a bond or alternate form of financial security is required is not required to file a separate bond or alternate form of financial security for each activity or operation in which the person is engaged. The person is required to file a bond or alternate form of financial security only in the amount required for the activity or operation in which the person engages for which a bond or alternate form of financial security in the greatest amount is required. The bond or alternate form of financial security filed covers all of the activities and operations for which a bond or alternate form of financial security is required. The provisions of this paragraph do not exempt a person from the financial security required under subsection (o) of this section.

(6) [ (4) ] Financial security amounts are the minimum amounts required by this section to be filed. A person may file a greater amount if desired.

(k) - (l) (No change.)

[(m) Individual well bonds.]

[(1) An operator who has filed an alternate form of financial security with the Commission and who applies for a plugging extension for a well that has been inactive for more than 36 months is required under §3.14 of this title (relating to Plugging) to file an individual well bond or individual well letter of credit in the face amount of the estimated plugging cost of the well for which a plugging extension is requested. The Commission shall presume that the estimated plugging cost for wells for which a plugging extension is sought is as follows:]

[(A) for land wells, the product of the total depth of the well multiplied by $3 per foot;]

[(B) for bay wells, $60,000; and,]

[(C) for offshore wells, $250,000.]

[(2) An operator may rebut the presumed estimated plugging costs for a specific well for which a plugging extension is sought at hearing by clear and convincing evidence establishing a higher or lower prospective plugging cost for the well. The operator, Commission staff, or any owner of the surface or mineral estate on which the well is located may initiate a hearing on the prospective plugging cost for a well for the purpose of setting the amount of an individual well bond by filing a request for hearing.]

[(3) If an individual well bond is required, it shall be continuously maintained until the well is plugged or returned to active operation, as defined under §3.14, unless the operator files financial security as provided by this section.]

(m) [ (n) ] Well or lease transfer.

(1) The Commission shall not approve a transfer of operatorship submitted for any well or lease unless the operator acquiring the well or lease has on file with the Commission one of the following approved forms of financial security in an amount sufficient to cover both its current operations and the wells being transferred:

(A) an individual performance bond, letter of credit or cash deposit; or

(B) a blanket performance bond, letter of credit or cash deposit.

(2) Any existing financial security or individual well bond covering the well or lease proposed for transfer shall remain in effect and the prior operator of the well remains responsible for compliance with all laws and Commission rules covering the transferred well until the Commission approves the transfer.

(3) A transfer of a well or lease from one entity to another entity under common ownership is a transfer for the purposes of this section.

(4) An operator who has accepted a transfer of operatorship of any well or lease on or after September 1, 2001, with Commission approval based on filing of an individual or blanket performance bond, letter of credit, or cash deposit is deemed to have elected to file one of these forms of financial security and shall file one of these forms of financial security for each successive year during which it remains the designated operator of any such well or lease.

(n) [ (o) ] Reimbursement liability. Filing any form of financial security does not extinguish a person's liability for reimbursement for the expenditure of state oilfield clean-up funds pursuant to the Texas Natural Resources Code, §89.083 and §91.113.

(o) [ (p) ] Financial security for commercial facilities. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to the holder of any permit for a commercial facility.

(1) Application.

(A) New permits. Any application for a new or amended commercial facility permit filed after the original effective date of this subsection shall include:

(i) a written estimate of the maximum dollar amount necessary to close the facility prepared in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (4) of this subsection that shows all assumptions and calculations used to develop the estimate;

(ii) a copy of the form of the bond or letter of credit that will be filed with the Commission; and

(iii) information concerning the issuer of the bond or letter of credit as required under paragraph (5) of this subsection including the issuer's name and address and evidence of authority to issue bonds or letters of credit in Texas.

(B) Existing permits. Within 180 days of the original effective date of this subsection, the holder of any commercial facility permit issued on or before the original effective date of this subsection shall file with the Commission the information specified in subparagraph (A)(i)-(iii) of this paragraph.

(2) Notice and hearing.

(A) New permits. For commercial facility permits issued after the original effective date of this subsection, the provisions of §3.8 or §3.57 of this title (relating to Water Protection; and Reclaiming Tank Bottoms, Other Hydrocarbon Wastes, and Other Waste Materials), as applicable, regarding notice and opportunity for hearing, shall apply to review and approval of financial security proposed to be filed to meet the requirements of this subsection.

(B) Existing permits. Notice of filing of information required under paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection shall not be required. In the event approval of the financial security proposed to be filed for a commercial facility operating under a permit in effect as of the original effective date of this subsection is denied administratively, the applicant shall have the right to a hearing upon written request. After hearing, the examiner shall recommend a final action by the Commission.

(3) Filing of instrument.

(A) New permits. A commercial facility permitted after the original effective date of this subsection may not receive oil field fluids or oil and gas waste until a bond or letter of credit in an amount approved by the Commission or its delegate under this subsection and meeting the requirements of this subsection as to form and issuer has been filed with the Commission.

(B) Existing permits. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, after one year from the original effective date of this section, a commercial facility permitted on or before the original effective date of this subsection may not continue to receive oil field fluids or oil and gas waste unless a bond or letter of credit in an amount approved by the Commission or its delegate under this subsection and meeting the requirements of this subsection as to form and issuer has been filed with and approved by the Commission or its delegate.

(C) Extensions for existing permits. On written request and for good cause shown, the Commission or its delegate may authorize a commercial facility permitted before the original effective date of this subsection to continue to receive oil field fluids or oil and gas waste after one year after the original effective date of this section even though financial security required under this subsection has not been filed. In the event the Commission or its delegate has not taken final action to approve or disapprove the amount of financial security proposed to be filed by the owner or operator under this subsection one year after the original effective date of the section, the period for filing financial security under this subsection is automatically extended to a date 45 days after such final Commission action.

(4) Amount.

(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) or (C) of this paragraph, the amount of financial security required to be filed under this subsection shall be an amount based on a written estimate approved by the Commission or its delegate as being equal to or greater than the maximum amount necessary to close the commercial facility, exclusive of plugging costs for any well or wells at the facility, at any time during the permit term in accordance with all applicable state laws, Commission rules and orders, and the permit, but shall in no event be less than $10,000.

[ (B) The owner or operator of a commercial facility may reduce the amount of financial security required under this subsection by $25,000 if the owner or operator holds only one commercial facility permit. ]

(B) [ (C) ] The owner or operator of one or more [ than one ] commercial facilities [ facility ] may reduce the amount of financial security required under this subsection for one such facility by the amount, if any, it filed as financial assurance under subsection (j)(3) of this section [ $25,000 ]. The full amount of financial security required under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be required for the remaining commercial facilities.

(C) [ (D) ] Except for the facilities specifically exempted under subparagraph (D) of this paragraph [ (E) ], a qualified professional engineer licensed by the State of Texas shall prepare or supervise the preparation of a written estimate of the maximum amount necessary to close the commercial facility as provided in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. The owner or operator of a commercial facility shall submit the written estimate under seal of a qualified licensed professional engineer to the Commission as required under paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(D) [ (E) ] A facility permitted under §3.57 of this title (relating to Reclaiming Tank Bottoms, Other Hydrocarbon Wastes, and Other Waste Materials) that does not utilize on-site waste storage or disposal that requires a permit under §3.8 of this title (relating to Water Protection) is exempt from subparagraph (C) [ (D) ] of this paragraph.

(E) [ (F) ] Notwithstanding the fact that the maximum amount necessary to close the commercial facility as determined under this paragraph is exclusive of plugging costs, the proceeds of financial security filed under this subsection may be used by the Commission to pay the costs of plugging any well or wells at the facility if the financial security for plugging costs filed with the Commission is insufficient to pay for the plugging of such well or wells.

(5) (No change.)

(p) Effect of outstanding violations.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Commission shall not accept an organization report or an application for a permit or approve a certificate of compliance for an oil lease or gas well submitted by an organization if:

(A) the organization has outstanding violations; or

(B) an officer or director of the organization was, within seven years preceding the filing of the report, application, or certificate, an officer or director of an organization and during that period, the organization committed a violation that remains an outstanding violation.

(2) The Commission shall accept a report or application or approve a certificate filed by an organization covered by paragraph (1) of this subsection if:

(A) the conditions that constituted the violation have been corrected or are being corrected in accordance with a schedule agreed to by the organization and the Commission;

(B) all administrative, civil, and criminal penalties, and all plugging and cleanup costs incurred by the state relating to those conditions have been paid or are being paid in accordance with a schedule agreed to by the organization and the Commission; and

(C) the report, application or certificate is in compliance with all other requirements of law and Commission rules.

(3) All fees tendered in connection with a report or application that is rejected under this subsection are nonrefundable.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 18, 2003.

TRD-200304357

Mary Ross McDonald

Deputy General Counsel

Railroad Commission of Texas

Earliest possible date of adoption: August 31, 2003

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


Chapter 5. RAIL DIVISION

Subchapter C. RAIL SAFETY PROGRAM

16 TAC §5.301

The Railroad Commission of Texas proposes new §5.301, relating to Rail Safety Program Fee, in Chapter 5, new subchapter C, relating to the rail safety program. The purpose of the proposed new section is to provide a reasonable fee to be assessed annually against railroads operating within the state, as required by Section 11, House Bill (HB) 3442, 78th Legislature, Regular Session (2003), which adds new Section 2 to Article 6448a, Revised Statutes.

The statute provides that the Commission may consider gross ton miles for railroad operations in the state to provide for the equitable allocation among railroads of the cost of administering the Commission's rail safety program. The larger railroads generate more gross ton miles per year than the smaller railroads. Because a fee based on gross ton miles will ensure that a smaller railroad will pay a smaller fee than a larger railroad, in proportion to the each railroad's annual gross ton miles, the Commission finds that assessing the fee based on gross ton miles will assure that the fees are equitably allocated among the railroads.

Proposed new §5.301(a) provides that each railroad operating within the state must pay an annual fee.

Proposed new §5.301(b) provides that each railroad operating within the state must report to the Commission, no later than July 1st of each calendar year, the railroad's gross ton miles for the preceding calendar year. The report must be in writing, signed by a duly authorized officer of the railroad, and must be verified.

Proposed new §5.301(c) defines the term "gross ton miles" to mean either the combined weight of all rail cars and their contents, exclusive of locomotives, multiplied by the number of miles traveled in the state within a calendar year; or, if a railroad has reported its calendar year gross ton miles on a Form R-1 filed with the United States Surface Transportation Board (USSTB), that portion of the reported gross ton miles that are for operations within the state; or, if a railroad is not required to file a Form R-1 with the USSTB, and if determining that railroad's actual calendar year gross ton miles is unduly burdensome, the railroad's good-faith estimate of gross ton miles as defined in proposed new §5.301(c)(1).

Proposed new §5.301(d) provides that the Commission must determine the annual fee for each railroad operating in the state as follows: (1) each railroad's gross ton miles will be divided by the total gross ton miles of all railroads operating in the state; and (2) the result will be multiplied by the amount estimated by the Commission to be necessary to recover the costs of administering the Commission's rail safety program for the next state fiscal year.

Proposed new §5.301(e) provides that the Commission must, no later than September 1 of each calendar year, notify each railroad operating in the state of the amount of that railroad's fee that is due and payable.

Proposed new §5.301(f) provides that each railroad operating in the state must, no later than November 1 of each calendar year, pay its assessed fee to the Commission. The payment must be made payable to the State of Texas and will be considered by the Commission to be timely made if it is received by the Commission on or before November 1 of the same calendar year in which notice has been given pursuant to proposed §5.301(e), or is sent to the Commission by first-class United States mail in an envelope properly addressed, stamped, and postmarked on or before November 1 of the same calendar year in which notice has been given pursuant to proposed §5.301(e), and received by the Commission not more than 10 days later. A legible postmark affixed by the United States Postal Service will be prima facie evidence of the date of mailing.

Proposed §5.301(g) provides that if a railroad does not timely report its gross ton miles, the Commission may make a good-faith estimate of the railroad's gross ton miles and assess the railroad's fee based on that estimate. Failure by a railroad to timely report its gross ton miles will constitute a waiver by the railroad to object to both the Commission's estimate and the fee based on the estimate.

Proposed §5.301(h) provides that fees collected under this section must be deposited to the credit of the general revenue fund to be used for the rail safety program.

Proposed new §5.301(i) provides that its provisions will control during the period beginning on the effective date of this section and ending on May 10, 2004. The definition of "gross ton miles" in proposed new subsection (c) applies to subsection (i).

Proposed §5.301(i)(1) requires each railroad operating within the state that is required to report its gross ton miles to the USSTB to report to the Commission, no later than October 15, 2003, the railroad's gross ton miles for calendar year 2002. The report must be signed in writing, signed by a duly authorized officer of the railroad, and must be verified. The Commission will then determine the annual fee of each such railroad operating in the state as follows: each such railroad's gross ton miles for calendar year 2002 will be divided by the total gross ton miles reported by all railroads under proposed §5.301(i)(1) for calendar year 2002, and the result will be multiplied by 95% of the amount estimated by the Commission to be necessary to recover the costs of administering the Commission's rail safety program for the state fiscal year that begins on September 1, 2003. The Commission must, no later than November 1, 2003, notify each such railroad of the amount of the railroad's annual fee that is due and payable. Each such railroad must, no later than December 31, 2003, pay the fee to the Commission as provided in proposed new §5.301(f), except that the Commission will consider the payment to be timely made if it is received by the Commission on or before December 31, 2003, or is sent to the Commission by first-class United States mail in an envelope properly addressed, stamped, and postmarked on or before December 31, 2003, and received by the Commission not more than 10 days later. A legible postmark affixed by the United States Postal Service will be prima facie evidence of the date of mailing.

Proposed §5.301(i)(2) requires each railroad operating within the state that is not required to report its gross ton miles to the USSTB to report to the Commission, no later than February 1, 2004, the railroad's gross ton miles for calendar year 2002. The report must be in writing, signed by a duly authorized officer of the railroad, and must be verified. The Commission will then determine the annual fee of each such railroad operating in the state as follows: each such railroad's gross ton miles for calendar year 2002 will be divided by the total gross ton miles reported by all railroads under proposed §5.301(i)(2) for the calendar year 2002, and the result will be multiplied by 5% of the amount estimated by the Commission to be necessary to recover the costs of administering the Commission's rail safety program for the state fiscal year that begins on September 1, 2003. The Commission must, no later than March 1, 2004, notify each such railroad of the amount of the railroad's annual fee that is due and payable. Each such railroad must, no later than April 30, 2004, pay the fee to the Commission as provided in proposed §5.301(f), except that the Commission will consider the payment to be timely made if it is received by the Commission on or before April 30, 2004, or is sent to the Commission by first-class United States mail in an envelope properly addressed, stamped, and postmarked on or before April 30, 2004, and received by the Commission not more than 10 days later. A legible postmark affixed by the United States Postal Service will be prima facie evidence of the date of mailing.

Jerry Martin, Director, Rail Division, has determined that for each year of the first five years the proposed new section will be in effect, there will be no fiscal implications for state or local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the new section. Currently there are 41 railroads operating within the state. Due to this limited number of railroads that will be required to report gross ton miles and pay the fee, the Commission does not expect to incur any additional expense in determining and assessing the fees because current Commission resources, e.g., offices, staff, and fees received under the proposed rule, will be adequate for the Commission to meet its undertaking pursuant to proposed new §5.301.The fees collected, estimated to be approximately $1,574,552 for the fiscal year beginning September 1, 2003, will total the estimated cost of administering the Commission's rail safety program. There are no fiscal implications for local governments.

Mr. Martin has also determined that for each year of the first five years the new section is proposed to be in effect, the public benefit will be continued rail safety oversight throughout the state at the expense of the railroads operating in the state.

There are some anticipated costs to small businesses and micro-businesses required to comply with the new section. As a result of the proposed rule, each railroad operating in the State of Texas will be required to report its annual gross ton miles to the Commission and to pay a fee based on gross ton miles. The Commission estimates that the three largest railroads operating in Texas, which are neither small businesses nor micro- businesses, will pay approximately 95% of the total fees. These railroads currently report their national gross ton miles annually to the federal government; they also break out their annual gross ton miles for Texas. The smaller railroads do not currently report gross ton miles to any regulatory agency and may incur an administrative cost in calculating and reporting that figure to the Commission. However, the smaller railroads will pay a significantly smaller fee; the Commission estimates that the 38 smaller railroads will together pay only approximately 5% of the total fee. Further, if determining annual gross ton miles is too burdensome for a smaller railroad, it may make a good faith estimate of its gross ton miles or may allow the Commission to make an estimate.

The Commission considered establishing a flat fee for the smaller railroads, but due to the diversity in size of the smaller railroads, the Commission determined that a flat fee would be unduly burdensome on the smallest railroads. The Commission considered a complete exemption from proposed new §5.301, but determined that an exemption would not comply with Section 11, HB 3442, 78th Legislature, Regular Session (2003), which calls for an equitable allocation among the railroads of the cost of the rail safety program.

Pursuant to Texas Government Code, §2006.002(c), the Commission cannot determine the cost for each small business or micro-business operating a railroad in the state because a railroad's costs associated with compliance will vary depending on the railroad's gross ton miles. The Commission assumes that there are railroads that meet the definitions of "micro-business" and "small business" set forth in Texas Government Code, §2006.001(1) and (2), respectively; however, the Commission does not have data showing the expense for each employee, the expense for each hour of labor, or the total sales revenue for each railroad in the state. Therefore, the Commission is not able to determine the exact cost of compliance based on the cost for each employee, the cost for each hour of labor, or the cost for each $100 of sales pursuant to Texas Government Code, §2006.002(c). However, the proposed rule provides that the amount of the fee to be paid annually by a railroad will be proportional to the amount of gross ton miles reported by that railroad versus the total amount reported by all railroads. Proposed §5.301(i) will also grant smaller railroads additional time to file their first annual report of their gross ton miles and to pay their first annual fee. Further, Section 11 of HB 3442, 78th Legislature, Regular Session (2003), requires that the fees be reasonable, that the total amount of the fees collected shall not exceed the amount estimated by the Commission to be necessary to recover the costs of administering the rail safety program, and that the Commission provide for the equitable allocation of the cost among the railroads. These statutory requirements ensure that small business and micro-business railroads will pay significantly smaller fees than the largest businesses required to pay the fee. Therefore, the statute reduces the adverse effect the proposed new rule could have on individuals, small businesses, or micro-businesses. The proposed rule also allows the smaller railroads to estimate their annual gross ton mileage, thus reducing to some extent the cost of compliance that is not the fee itself. Because the fees are statutory, the Commission does not have authority to further reduce the adverse effect of the proposed rule on small or micro- businesses. Thus, pursuant to Texas Government Code, §2006.002, the Commission finds that, considering the purpose of Section 2 of Article 6448a, Revised Statutes, as enacted by Section 11 of HB 3442, 78th Legislature, Regular Session (2003), any adverse effect the proposed new rule could have on individuals, small businesses, or micro-businesses has been reduced by the proposed rule to the extent authorized by the statute.

Comments on the proposal may be submitted to Rules Coordinator, Office of General Counsel, Railroad Commission of Texas, P.O. Box 12967, Austin, Texas 78711-2967; online at www.rrc.state.tx.us/rules/commentform.html; or by electronic mail to rulescoordinator@rrc.state.tx.us. The Commission will accept comments for 21 days after publication in the Texas Register ; comments should refer to Rail Docket No. 3762.RUL. The Commission encourages all persons to submit comments no later than the deadline. The Commission cannot guarantee that comments submitted after the deadline will be considered. For further information, call Mr. Martin at (512) 463-7001. The status of Commission rulemakings in progress is available at www.rrc.state.tx.us/rules/proposed.html

The Commission particularly encourages comments on the proposed methodology for calculating the annual fee for the smaller railroads. The comment period is limited to 21 days because the Commission has a fiscal responsibility to have a rule in place before the fiscal year that begins September 1, 2003.

To provide actual notice of the proposed rule to all members of the affected industry, the Commission plans to deliver a copy of the proposed rule to every railroad operating in the state, on or about July 17, 2003. The proposed rule will also be posted on the Commission's web site on approximately July 17, 2003, well in advance of publication in the Texas Register . In addition, the Commission mailed a letter on July 9, 2003, to every railroad operating in the state informing the railroads that the Commission may consider the proposed rule that establishes a fee based on gross ton miles. Persons may submit comments to the Commission prior to the date the proposal is published in the Texas Register .

The Commission proposes new §5.301 under Section 2, Article 6448a, Revised Statutes, as enacted by Section 11, HB 3442, 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 2003, which requires the Commission by rule to adopt reasonable fees to be assessed annually against railroads operating within the state and further requires that the total amount of fees estimated to be collected may not exceed the amount estimated by the Commission to be necessary to recover the costs of administering the Commission's rail safety program. The legislation provides that the Commission may consider gross ton miles for railroad operations within the State of Texas to provide for the equitable allocation among railroads of the cost of administering the rail safety program and that collected fees be deposited to the credit of the general revenue fund to be used for the rail safety program. Finally, the Commission proposes this new rule under the authority of Texas Government Code, §2001.006, which authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules to implement legislation that has become law but has not taken effect.

Statutory authority: Section 2, Article 6448a, Revised Statutes, as added by HB 3442, 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 2003; Texas Government Code, §2001.006.

Cross reference to statute: Section 2, Article 6448a, Revised Statutes, as added by HB 3442, 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 2003.

Issued in Austin, Texas on July 17, 2003.

§5.301.Rail Safety Program Fee.

(a) Each railroad operating within the state shall pay an annual fee as provided by this section.

(b) Each railroad operating within the state shall report to the Commission, no later than July 1 of each calendar year, the railroad's gross ton miles for the preceding calendar year. The report shall be in writing, signed by a duly authorized officer of the railroad, and shall be verified.

(c) As used in this section, "gross ton miles" means:

(1) the combined weight of all rail cars and their contents, exclusive of locomotives, multiplied by the number of miles traveled in the state within a calendar year; or

(2) if a railroad has reported its calendar year gross ton miles on a Form R-1 filed with the United States Surface Transportation Board (USSTB), that portion of the reported gross ton miles that are for operations within the state; or

(3) if a railroad is not required to file a Form R-1 with the USSTB, and if determining the railroad's actual calendar year gross ton miles is unduly burdensome, the railroad's good-faith estimate of gross ton miles as defined in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(d) The Commission shall determine the annual fee for each railroad operating in the state as follows:

(1) each railroad's gross ton miles will be divided by the total gross ton miles of all railroads operating in the state; and

(2) the result will be multiplied by the amount estimated by the Commission to be necessary to recover the costs of administering the Commission's rail safety program for the next state fiscal year.

(e) The Commission shall, no later than September 1 of each calendar year, notify each railroad operating in the state of the amount of that railroad's fee that is due and payable.

(f) Each railroad operating in the state shall, no later than November 1 of each calendar year, pay its assessed fee to the Commission. The payment shall be made payable to the State of Texas and shall be considered by the Commission to be timely made if it is received by the Commission on or before November 1 of the same calendar year in which notice has been given pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, or is sent to the Commission by first-class United States mail in an envelope properly addressed, stamped, and postmarked on or before November 1 of the same calendar year in which notice has been given, pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, and received by the Commission not more than 10 days later. A legible postmark affixed by the United States Postal Service shall be prima facie evidence of the date of mailing.

(g) If a railroad does not timely report its gross ton miles, the Commission may make a good-faith estimate of the railroad's gross ton miles and assess the railroad's fee based on that estimate. Failure by a railroad to timely report its gross ton miles constitutes a waiver by the railroad to object to both the Commission's estimate and the fee based on the estimate.

(h) Fees collected under this section shall be deposited to the credit of the general revenue fund to be used for the rail safety program.

(i) This subsection controls during the period beginning on the effective date of this section and ending on May 10, 2004. The definition of "gross ton miles" in subsection (c) of this section applies to this section.

(1) This paragraph applies to each railroad operating within this state that is required to report its gross ton miles to the USSTB.

(A) Each railroad shall report to the Commission, no later than October 15, 2003, the railroad's gross ton miles for the calendar year 2002. The report shall be in writing, signed by a duly authorized officer of the railroad, and shall be verified.

(B) The Commission shall determine the annual fee of each railroad operating in the state as follows:

(i) each railroad's gross ton miles for calendar year 2002 will be divided by the total gross ton miles reported by all railroads under this paragraph for calendar year 2002; and

(ii) the result will be multiplied by 95% of the amount estimated by the Commission to be necessary to recover the costs of administering the Commission's rail safety program for the state fiscal year that begins on September 1, 2003.

(C) The Commission shall, no later than November 1, 2003, notify each railroad of the amount of the railroad's annual fee that is due and payable.

(D) Each railroad shall, no later than December 31, 2003, pay the fee to the Commission as provided in subsection (f) of this section, except that the Commission shall consider the payment to be timely made if it is received by the Commission on or before December 31, 2003, or is sent to the Commission by first-class United States mail in an envelope properly addressed, stamped, and postmarked on or before December 31, 2003, and received by the Commission not more than 10 days later. A legible postmark affixed by the United States Postal Service shall be prima facie evidence of the date of mailing.

(2) This paragraph applies to each railroad operating within this state that is not required to report its gross ton miles to the USSTB.

(A) Each railroad shall report to the Commission, no later than February 1, 2004, the railroad's gross ton miles for calendar year 2002. The report shall be in writing, signed by a duly authorized officer of the operator, and shall be verified.

(B) The Commission shall determine the annual fee of each such railroad operating in the state as follows:

(i) each railroad's gross ton miles for calendar year 2002 will be divided by the total gross ton miles reported by all railroads under this paragraph for the calendar year 2002; and

(ii) the result will be multiplied by 5% of the amount estimated by the Commission to be necessary to recover the costs of administering the Commission's rail safety program for the state fiscal year that begins on September 1, 2003.

(C) The Commission shall, no later than March 1, 2004, notify each railroad of the amount of the railroad's annual fee that is due and payable.

(D) Each railroad shall, no later than April 30, 2004, pay the fee to the Commission as provided in subsection (f) of this section, except that the Commission shall consider the payment to be timely made if it is received by the Commission on or before April 30, 2004, or is sent to the Commission by first-class United States mail in an envelope properly addressed, stamped, and postmarked on or before April 30, 2004, and received by the Commission not more than 10 days later. A legible postmark affixed by the United States Postal Service shall be prima facie evidence of the date of mailing.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 17, 2003.

TRD-200304332

Mary Ross McDonald

Deputy General Counsel

Railroad Commission of Texas

Earliest possible date of adoption: August 31, 2003

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


Part 2. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS

Chapter 25. SUBSTANTIVE RULES APPLICABLE TO ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS

Subchapter Q. SYSTEM BENEFIT FUND

16 TAC §§25.451, 25.454, 25.457

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (commission) proposes amendments to §25.451, relating to Administration of the System Benefit Account; §25.454 relating to Rate Reduction Program; and §25.457, relating to Implementation of the System Benefit Fee by the Municipally Owned Utilities and Electric Cooperatives. The commission has administered the System Benefit Fund (SBF) and has contracted for administration of the Low-Income Discount Program for over a year. As a result of the experience gained during this time, the commission has determined that several improvements to the rules could benefit retail customers, the accountability of SBF, and the Low-Income Discount Program. Project Number 27711 is assigned to this proceeding.

The primary goal of these amendments is to ensure that the low-income discount rules and practices are consistent and enforceable, guide the proper administration of the SBF and Rate Reduction Program, and allow for the creation of a customer based eligibility matching process for the Rate Reduction Program. The proposed amendments to §25.451 are largely clarifying changes and changes to conform the rule to current law. Proposed amendments to §25.457 are largely clarifying changes. The commission proposes the amendments to §25.454 in response to concerns that the current rule does not adequately reflect actual practices, that customers who may not be eligible for the program are receiving rate reductions, and that current processes are leading to both retail electric provider (REP) and customer confusion.

The commission recommends three main changes to §25.454, in addition to minor clarifications, to better conform the rule language to the practical application of the rate reduction program. First, the commission proposes that direction for the Low-Income Discount Program within §25.454 should be general and should allow for a Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide. The commission proposes that a working guide is the most practical place to specify the detailed processes of the Low-Income Discount Program because it will allow the rule to provide broad direction for the program but still permit process changes and refinements by the Low-Income Discount Administrator (LIDA) and Retail Electric Providers (REPs) to meet statutory obligations and the needs of the customers. The guide will also ensure that the commission's directives for a customer based eligibility matching process can be designed in coordination with practical application of systems and business processes. The commission intends to seek input from all stakeholders in the development and adoption of the guide through the use of workshops, meetings, and solicitation of comments. If, and to the extent that the adoption of the guide requires APA notice and comment, the commission will follow those procedures.

The main process change that the commission proposes to be addressed in the Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide is the removal of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) data from the monthly matching process. The commission proposes the change because the current matching process does not provide sufficient accountability of the end-use customer for the Low-Income Discount Program due to the fact that ERCOT maintains premise-specific rather than customer-specific information. The result of the premise-based eligibility matching process is a potential that rate reductions are being applied to premises at which eligible customers no longer reside, and to premises at which the electric customer is not the person who receives Texas Department of Human Services (TDHS) benefits. The process has also resulted in customer confusion when customers receive a discount for which they did not sign up or fail to receive a discount for which they did sign up. These problems result in customer complaints and time-consuming efforts by the REPs, ERCOT, the LIDA, and the commission. The commission proposes that ERCOT's premise-specific data for the monthly matching process be replaced by customer and premise data submitted by the REPs who serve residential customers. With this information, the LIDA would be able to utilize customer information in the eligibility matching process to ensure that eligibility could not be granted to ineligible customers and would be able to identify more easily the reasons that applicants may not be successfully enrolled in the program. Additionally, by increasing the information in the LIDA database, the synchronization of the electric and telephone discount programs could be better accomplished when the telephone discount enrollment is integrated into the Low-Income Telephone and Electric Utility Program (LITE-UP).

Second, the commission proposes that language regarding the discount rate and discount amounts be amended to describe the calculation and application of rate reductions. The current language of §25.454(d) has proven to be confusing to REPs during the first year of implementation. This led to varying applications of the discount, which were both difficult to audit and confusing to the customers. To standardize discounts, the commission has determined that it is necessary for REPs to use the discount credits posted on the commission's website to calculate the rate reductions and for the REPs to identify the rate reduction as a line item on their eligible customers' electric bills.

Third, the commission proposes that the eligibility period for self-certified customers should be seven months and that the eligibility period for automatic enrollment customers should be the length of their TDHS program eligibility plus a grace period. The commission proposes the change because the current eligibility period of 13 months for both self-certified and automatically enrolled customers is not consistent with the eligibility periods of programs administered by TDHS, which currently serve as the basis for automatic enrollment. Such an inconsistency may result in ineligible customers receiving a discount. The commission proposes that both the self-certification and automatic enrollment eligibility periods conform to TDHS program eligibility plus a grace period. The commission finds that reducing the eligibility periods of both self-certification and automatic enrollment customers, while allowing renewal for customers who continue to be eligible, will ensure that all customers who are enrolled in the program are in fact eligible.

Lauren Clark, Analyst, Electric Division has determined that for each year of the first five-year period the proposed sections are in effect there will be no fiscal implications for local government as a result of enforcing or administering the section; there is no foreseeable direct or indirect implication for costs or revenues for local governments. Ms. Clark has determined that the state government will save money as a result of ineligible customers being removed from the enrollment lists. The specific savings amount cannot be determined until testing of the new process is complete. However, even if less than 2.0% of customers have moved and not informed LIDA or have submitted an address to TDHS at which they do not reside, there would be approximately 10,000 enrolled premises with ineligible electric customers. Assuming these customers received about $116 a year in discounts (approximate savings with a 10% discount at today's rates), SBF could save $1.16 million for a 12 month period by not serving these ineligible customers.

Ms. Clark has determined that for each year of the first five years the proposed sections are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing these sections will be certainty that only eligible low-income electric customers will receive discounts and the economic savings associated with preventing ineligible customers from receiving the discounts. Ms. Clark has also determined that while the short term effect of the change in matching processes will produce a clean-up effect and therefore a potential decline in enrollment, the long term ability to use customer data with the integration of the telephone and electric discounts will allow for an increased likelihood that eligible customers can be efficiently enrolled to receive both discounts. Additionally, the workaround and problem-solving efforts currently undertaken by REPs, LIDA, and the commission should decrease in the long term as the matching process is improved, which will produce a direct benefit to the eligible customers and applicants.

As part of this proceeding, the commission requested that REPs that serve low-income residential customers provide estimated costs of complying with the proposed rule. Based on the self-reported cost estimates, there would be economic costs to persons who are required to comply with the proposed section. The implementation costs would be the result of the development and testing of residential customer file extracts and automated file uploads from REPs to the LIDA; in addition, two REPs estimated ongoing operational costs. The costs are likely to vary from business to business and are difficult to ascertain. REPs that are large businesses typically serve more low-income customers than the REPs that are small businesses and micro-businesses. Based on the estimates provided by REPs, the implementation cost will be, per low-income customer, between $0.50 and $3.25. Because the costs per low-income customer will be comparable for all REPs, and because larger REPs serve more low-income customers than small business REPs and micro-business REPs, the economic cost for a REP that qualifies as a small business or a micro-business will be proportionately lower than the economic costs to the larger businesses. Although REPs would incur operational costs, once they have implemented the systems required to comply with the proposed rule, it is anticipated operational costs will be low. Further, it is believed that the benefits accruing from implementation of the proposed section will partially or completely outweigh these costs. These benefits will accrue from the savings to SBF, the more efficient enrollment of customers into both telephone and electric discount programs, and the decreased workaround time.

Ms. Clark has also determined that for each year of the first five years the proposed sections are in effect there should be no effect on a local economy, and therefore no local employment impact statement is required under Administrative Procedure Act §2001.022.

The commission staff will conduct a public hearing on this rulemaking, if requested pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Texas Government Code §2001.029, at the commission's offices located in the William B. Travis Building, 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701 on Tuesday, September 16, 2003. The request for a public hearing must be received no later than September 2, 2003.

Comments on the proposed amendments (16 copies) may be submitted to the Filing Clerk, Public Utility Commission of Texas, 1701 North Congress Avenue, PO Box 13326, Austin, Texas 78711-3326. The deadline for submission of comments is September 2, 2003. Reply comments are due by September 9, 2003. Comments should be organized in a manner consistent with the organization of the proposed rules. The commission invites specific comments regarding the costs associated with, and benefits that will be gained by, implementation of the proposed sections. The commission will consider the costs and benefits in deciding whether to adopt the sections. All comments should refer to Project Number 27711.

In addition to the proposed amendments, the commission requests comments on the following question:

Should the Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide be approved by the Executive Director or the Commissioners?

These amendments are proposed under the Public Utility Regulatory Act, Texas Utilities Code Annotated §14.002 (Vernon 1998, Supplement 2003) (PURA), which provides the commission with the authority to make and enforce rules reasonably required in the exercise of its powers and jurisdiction; and specifically, PURA §39.903 which requires the commission to review and approve system benefit fund accounts, projected revenue accounts, proposed nonbypassable fees, to adopt rules providing for enrollment of customers eligible to receive reduced rates under PURA §39.903(h), to adopt rules for a retail electric provider to determine a reduced rate, and to adopt rules providing for reimbursement.

Cross Reference to Statutes: Public Utility Regulatory Act §§39.106, 39.352, 39.262, 39.901, 39.903, 40.053, 40.057, 41.053, and 41.057

§25.451.Administration of the System Benefit Fund [ Account ].

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to implement the system benefit fund [ account ], including its administration, establishment of a revenue requirement, fee collection , reporting procedures, and review and approval of the fund [ accounts ] pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §39.901 and §39.903.

(b) Application. Except as provided in PURA §39.102(c), this subchapter applies to electric utilities, retail electric providers (REPs) , REPs [ retail electric providers ] pursuant to PURA §39.352(g), and transmission and distribution utilities (TDUs) . This section applies to municipally owned electric utilities and electric cooperatives no sooner than six months preceding the date on which a municipally owned electric utility or an electric cooperative implements customer choice in its certificated service area.

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

[(1) Electric cooperative (Coop)--As defined in §25.5 of this title (relating to Definitions).]

[(2) Electric utility--As defined in PURA §31.002(6).]

(1) [ (3) ] Fiscal year--The State of Texas fiscal year, beginning [ starting on ] September 1 of one [ a ] calendar year, and ending on August 31 of the subsequent calendar [ next ] year.

[(4) Low-income customer--For the purposes of rate reduction program, as defined in §25.454(c) of this title (relating to the Rate Reduction Program). For the purposes of targeted weatherization programs, as defined in §25.453(f) of this title (relating to Targeted Energy Efficiency Programs).]

[(5) Retail customer--As defined in PURA §31.002(16).]

[(6) Retail electric provider (REP)--As defined by PURA §31.002(17).]

(2) [ (7) ] System Benefit Fund [ benefit account ]-- A fund [ An account ] with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller) to be administered by the commission , into which all fee collections are deposited and from which all disbursements of the fund are withdrawn .

(3) [ (8) ] System benefit fee--A nonbypassable fee set by the commission to finance the System Benefit Fund [ system benefit account ]. The fee shall be charged to electric retail customers based on the amount of kilowatt hours (kWh) of electric energy used, as measured at the meter and adjusted for voltage level losses.

[(9) Transmission and distribution utility (TDU)--As defined in PURA §31.002(19).]

(d) System benefit fee.

(1) The commission shall set the amount of the system benefit fee for the next fiscal year at or before the last open meeting scheduled for July of each year.

(2) The amount of the fee shall [ will ] be based on the total revenue requirement as determined in subsection (e) of this section and the projected retail sales of electricity in megawatt hours (MWh) in the state as determined in subsection (f) of this section.

(3) The commission may, at any time during the fiscal year, review the revenue and the statutory program disbursements requirement, [ projected retail sales of electricity, or the system benefit account payments and balance, and ] revise the system benefit fee amount, and issue an order for the remainder of the year to accomplish the purposes of PURA §39.901 and §39.903. [ The commission may issue an order revising the fee amount. ] The TDUs shall implement the new fee in billings to the REPs within 30 calendar days of the date such order is issued. Whenever the fee is changed, or at least once annually, the TDUs will file with the commission an updated tariff sheet, reflecting the new fee.

(4) The fee may not exceed [ $0.50 per MWh, except beginning in January 1, 2002, and until December 31, 2006, it may be set in an amount not to exceed ] $0.65 per MWh [ if necessary to fund at least a 10% reduction in rates for qualifying low-income customers ].

(e) Revenue requirement. The revenue requirement shall be an amount of revenue necessary to fund the purposes outlined in PURA §39.903 consistent with legislative appropriations, all operating costs of the Rate Reduction Program, a reserve balance to be determined by the commission, and any other purpose required by statute [ used by the commission to set the system benefit fee for each fiscal year shall be established as provided by this subsection ].

[(1) The total revenue requirement used to set the amount of the system benefit fee will be the total of the revenue requirements determined under paragraphs (2)-(5) of this subsection, including the shortfall, if any, in funding for the Texas Education Agency (TEA) from the previous year.]

[(2) TEA shall provide by June 1 of each year its estimate of the amount required to fund school funding losses as determined under PURA §39.901(b) and (c) for the next fiscal year. If TEA does not provide its estimate by this date, the commission may use the amount determined by TEA under PURA §39.901(b) and (c) for the current fiscal year in setting the amount of the fee for the following fiscal year.]

[(3) The revenue requirement needed to effect the rate reduction for low-income customers and the targeted energy efficiency programs shall be determined as follows:]

[(A) The revenue requirement for reduced rates as provided by PURA §39.903(h)-(l) shall be based on the average annual consumption of electric energy by low-income customers and the number of such customers enrolled in a rate reduction program as of June 1 of each year, or the number of eligible participants as listed in the Texas Department of Human Services' client database, plus a projection for new enrollees, to account for growth in enrollment, based on the latest available census data and as determined by the commission. The average annual expenditure by a low-income customer for electric energy shall be derived from the latest available data. The commission may use information provided by the REPs for the purposes of estimating rate discount revenue requirement.]

[(B) The revenue requirement for targeted energy efficiency programs, including a low-income energy efficiency plan, to be administered by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA) shall be provided to the commission by June 1 of each year. If TDHCA does not provide an estimate by that date, the commission may use the estimate from the previous fiscal year, the actual amount spent on the programs in the prior fiscal year, or any other amount the commission determines to be reasonable.]

[(4) The commission shall include in the calculation of revenue requirement any additional amounts authorized by the legislature, including appropriations to the Public Utility Commission for customer education programs and any other authorized purpose, and for the Office of Public Utility Counsel.]

[(5) The commission shall include in the calculation of the revenue requirement the operating costs for the low-income discount administrator.]

(f) Electric sales estimate. The TDUs, and when applicable, the municipally [ municipallly ] owned utilities (MOUs) and Coops, upon request by the commission, shall supply an aggregate number of the amount of retail electric sales in their service areas for the preceding calendar year, by April 1 of each year. Upon receipt of such information, the commission will file the aggregated retail electric sales in the relevant areas, after adjusting for projected growth. The commission shall determine the most reasonable estimate when it sets the system benefit fee.

(g) Remittance of fees after January 1, 2002.

(1) Beginning in January 2002, each TDU, MOU, or Coop[ , ] collecting the system benefit fee from the REPs [ REP ], MOUs , or Coops[ , ] in its service area, shall remit the fees to the Comptroller on the 20th day of each month.

(2) Remittance of funds to the Comptroller shall comply with the Comptroller's rules governing any such deposits and the method in which they are sent to the Comptroller . [ Any amounts over $250,000 shall be transferred electronically. ]

(3) Deposits due to the System Benefit Fund [ system benefit account ] pursuant to PURA §39.352(g) shall be transferred to the Comptroller at the time of the filing of the annual report pursuant to §25.107 of this title (relating to Certification of Retail Electric Providers (REPs)) in a form prescribed by the Comptroller .

(4) The collecting utility shall account for all system benefit fees received from the REPs, [ and ] MOUs , or Coops[ , ] in its service area separately from any other account in its records.

(h) Billing requirements.

(1) A TDU, an MOU, or a Coop shall send billing statements to the REPs indicating the amount of system benefit fee owed for the specified period. The billing and payments between the TDU and the REPs shall be governed by §25.214 of this title (relating to Terms and Conditions of Retail Distribution Service Provided by Investor Owned Transmission and Distribution Utilities), and between MOUs and Coops and the REPs by §25.215 of this title (relating to Terms and Conditions of Retail Distribution Service Provided by MOUs and Coops).

(2) The REP shall remit to the TDU, an MOU, or a Coop an amount equal to the kWh of electric energy consumed by its customers in the utility's service area times the fee approved by the commission for that period.

(3) For those retail customers who switch to on-site generation pursuant to PURA §39.262(k), the system benefit fee shall be based on the amount of actual power delivered to them by a TDU. The TDU will calculate and bill any such fee, and will forward the payment, once received, to the Comptroller on the next fee payment due date. The TDUs will separately identify these sales when submitting the aggregate number of electric retail sales.

(i) Reporting and auditing requirements.

(1) Each REP [ retail electric provider ] offering rate reductions [ reduction discounts ] to eligible customers shall keep records of such rate reductions [ discounts ] to enable an audit by the commission or its agent for at least three years from the date the rate reduction [ discount ] is first given to the customer. Reports filed under subsection (j) of this section will also be used for auditing purposes. Records kept in accordance with §25.454(f)(3)(B) of this title (relating to Rate Reduction Program) shall be subject to audit upon commission request.

(2) Each TDU, MOU, or Coop collecting and forwarding the system benefit fee to the Comptroller shall file with the commission at the time the money is sent a report, on a commission-prescribed form, stating for each service territory the amount of the system benefit fee billed, the amount forwarded to the Comptroller, and the number of MWh of electric energy sold. The report shall contain monthly amounts and year-to-date totals.

(j) Reimbursement for [ the ] rate reductions [ reduction discount ]. Each REP, or MOU or Coop, when applicable, shall submit to the commission a monthly activity report on a form prescribed by the commission , including but not limited to, [ listing ] information in paragraphs (1)-(5) of this subsection. The commission shall, within five business days of receipt of the monthly report, prepare and deliver to the comptroller an authorization for reimbursement to the REP, MOU, or Coop in a form prescribed by the commission and the Comptroller . [ The prescribed form shall include, but not be limited to, instructions for direct deposit of the reimbursement into the bank account of the REP, MOU, or Coop. ] The Comptroller shall transfer the funds by the close of the next business day, following receipt of an authorization from the commission. The monthly activity report submitted by the REPs, MOUs, or Coops shall be due on the 20th day following the reporting month and contain the following:

(1) The number of low-income customers enrolled in the rate reduction program;

(2) The amount of reimbursement requested [ and received from the fund for the month ];

(3) The aggregate electric energy consumption in kWh for all low-income customers enrolled in the program for the previous month;

(4) The total amount of rate reductions [ discounts ] provided to the low-income customers in the previous month; and

(5) The amount of the system benefit fee billed by and remitted to the TDU.

(k) Transfer of funds to other state agencies. Payment transfers to other state agencies pursuant to this rule shall be governed by statute, the Appropriations Act, or the Comptroller [ interagency agreements ].

[(l) Establishment of fee and collection of funds prior to January 1, 2002. Prior to the beginning of customer choice on January 1, 2002, the commission shall determine the level of the system benefit fee based upon the expenses authorized for payment out of the system benefit account or as needed for purposes of PURA.]

[(1) An estimate of projected retail sales of electricity for the period shall be filed by the commission staff prior to the issuance of a commission order.]

[(2) The commission shall issue an order setting the amount of the system benefit fee, assessing that amount against each electric utility in proportion to its retail electric sales out of the total retail sales in the state, and directing the utilities on the method and timing of payment.]

§25.454.Rate Reduction Program.

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to define the low-income electric rate reduction program, establish the [ discount ] rate reduction calculation, and specify enrollment options and processes.

(b) Application. This section applies to retail electric providers (REPs) and [ Except as provided in the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §39.102(c) and retail electric providers (REPs) certified under PURA §39.352(d), this section applies to REPs, to ] providers of last resort (POLR) as defined in PURA §39.106 , that provide electric service in an area that has been opened to retail competition , and to municipally owned electric utilities and electric cooperatives on a date determined by the commission, but no sooner than six months preceding the date on which a municipally owned utility or an electric cooperative implements customer choice in its certificated area.

(c) Definitions. The following words and terms when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(1) Discount credit [ amount ]--The amount of discount an eligible low-income customer is entitled to receive from any REP in the customer's area, expressed as cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh).

(2) Discount percentage--The percentage of discount established by the commission [ annually, or as needed, ] and applied to the lower of the price to beat or POLR rate in a particular service territory.

[(3) Discount rate--A rate charged by a REP or POLR that includes the commission-established discount.]

[(4) Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)--a non-profit Texas corporation that represents an area of Texas served by electric utilities, municipally owned utilities, and electric cooperatives, and which is not synchronously inter-connected with electric utilities outside the state of Texas. ]

[(5) Electric service identifier (ESI ID)--The basic identifier assigned to each point of delivery used in the registration system and settlement system managed by ERCOT or another independent organization.]

[(6) Low-income customer--An electric customer, whose household income is not more than 125% of the federal poverty guidelines, or who receives food stamps from the Texas Department of Human Services (TDHS) or medical assistance from a state agency administering a part of the medical assistance program.]

(3) [ (7) ] Low-Income Discount Administrator (LIDA)--A third-party vendor [ administrator ] contracted by the commission to administer the rate reduction program.

(4) Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide--A working guide detailing the exact roles and requirements of the Low-Income Discount Administrator (LIDA), REPs, and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). Instructions in the guide shall be deemed directives of the commission. All versions of the guide will be approved by the Executive Director.

(5) Rate reduction--The total discount to be deducted from a customer's electric bill. This reduction is derived from the discount credit and total consumption in accordance with subsection (d)(3) of this section.

[(8) Provider of last resort (POLR) rate--The rate for the standard retail service package offered by the provider of last resort in the area under §25.43 of this title (relating to the Provider of Last Resort).]

[(9) Price to beat (PTB)--A price for electricity, as determined pursuant to PURA §39.202, charged by an affiliated REP to customers in its service area.]

[(10) Rate reduction program--A program to provide reduced electric rates for eligible low-income customers, in accordance with PURA §39.903(h).]

[(11) Registration agent--Entity designated by the commission to administer registration and settlement, premise data, and other processes concerning a customer's choice of retail electric provider in the competitive electric market in Texas.]

(d) Rate reduction program. All eligible low-income customers as defined in §25.5 of this title (relating to Definitions) shall be entitled to receive a rate reduction [ discount rate ], as determined by the commission pursuant to this section, on their electric bills from their retail electric providers. [ The discount will be identified on each eligible customer's bill and applied only to the electric service portion of the bill. ]

[(1) Eligibility criteria. A low-income customer, as defined in subsection (c) of this section, is entitled to receive a discount rate.]

(1) [ (2) ] Discount percentage. The commission shall periodically establish a discount percentage [ each year at the time the commission sets the system benefit fee ]. The discount percentage shall not be less than 10% and may, if there are funds sufficient to support a higher level, be set as high as 20%. [ : ]

[(A) Shall not be less than 10% and may, if there are funds sufficient to support a higher level, be set as high as 20%.]

[(B) May be recalculated during the year as necessary.]

(2) [ (3) ] Discount credit [ amount ]. The commission shall set the discount credit for an eligible low-income customer in accordance with this subsection [ A REP shall provide to each eligible low-income customer a rate discounted by an amount as established by this subsection for the area in which the customer is located ].

(A) The discount credit shall be separately calculated for each transmission and distribution utility service area [ commission shall calculate and establish the low-income discount amount for distinct geographical areas, which shall correspond to the certified electric utility service areas, or smaller areas designated by the commission as POLR service areas ].

(B) The discount credit [ amount ] shall be calculated by applying the discount percentage to [ taking ] the lower of the POLR rate and the standard residential price to beat rate. More details concerning the calculation of the discount credit will be set out in the Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide. [ PTB to establish the baseline rate. If there are multiple price to beat rates available to a residential customer, the commission will calculate the baseline rate by using the standard residential rate, seasonally adjusted; multiply it by the cost of the first 1000 kWh of usage; and then divide it by 1000 to obtain a cents per kWh cost. The discount amount shall be calculated by multiplying the cents per kWh cost of the baseline rate by the discount percentage. ]

(C) If the [ commission changes the ] discount credit changes for any area because of a change to [ amount, by either changing ] the discount percentage or a change to the [ establishing a new ] baseline rate for any area, [ then ] REPs shall [ must ] implement the resulting change in the discount credit [ amount ] in their billings to customers within 30 calendar days of the date the commission issues an order changing the discount credit [ its order ].

[(D) REPs are entitled to reimbursement under §25.451(j) of this title (relating to Administration of the System Benefit Account) for amounts equal to the documented discount amounts they have provided to eligible low-income customers.]

(3) [ (4) ] Rate reduction. Each eligible low-income customer shall be entitled to receive a rate reduction from any REP in the customer's service area [ a discount rate equal to the discount amount times the number of kWh of electricity, which the customer has consumed during a billing cycle. The discount rate shall be the rate the customer would otherwise be charged by that REP minus the discount amount ].

(A) REPs will maintain a current record of the commission-posted discount credits per area, per season. REPs will use the posted discount credits to calculate the rate reduction for each eligible low-income customer's bill.

(B) The rate reduction will be calculated by multiplying the customer's total consumption (kWh) by the discount credit (cents/kWh).

(C) REPs will clearly identify the customer's discount credit and resulting rate reduction as a line item on the electric portion of the customer's bill. The discount credit will be detailed on the left side of the billing section, opposite the rate reduction, with the language: "LITE-UP Discount -___ kWh Total @ ___ cents/kWh."

(D) REPs are entitled to reimbursement under §25.451(j) of this title (relating to Administration of the System Benefit Fund) for amounts equal to the documented rate reductions they have provided to eligible low-income customers.

(e) Terms of customer enrollment. Eligible customers will be enrolled in the [ low-income discount ] rate reduction program through automatic enrollment or a self-certification process implemented by LIDA.

(1) Automatic enrollment. Automatic enrollment is an electronic process to identify customers eligible for the rate reduction by matching client data from TDHS with electric customer data [ of identifying customers eligible for the low-income discount rate by matching data from agencies that operate programs serving eligible clients with electric utility data maintained by the ERCOT's registration agent ]. The transfer of data for the purposes of establishing and maintaining the automatic enrollment process shall be detailed in the Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide. [ occur between TDHS, ERCOT, and the LIDA. To accomplish the purposes of this subsection, the commission shall: ]

[(A) Contract with a person to perform the LIDA function. This person shall perform all necessary tasks to establish and maintain the automatic enrollment system, or any other related task, as specified in the contract.]

[(B) Enter into a memorandum of understanding with TDHS to establish the respective duties of the two agencies.]

[(C) Develop a protocol to define the automatic enrollment process and the respective duties of the participating entities sharing data.]

(2) Self-certification. Self-certification is an [ a form of ] alternate enrollment process available to [ those ]eligible electric customers who are not automatically enrolled and [ do not receive benefits from TDHS, but ] whose combined household income does not exceed 125% of federal poverty guidelines. The self-certification [ Self-certification ] enrollment process shall be administered by LIDA. LIDA's responsibilities shall include:

(A) Distributing and processing [ Processing the ] self-certification applications, as [ which shall be filed on a form ] developed by the commission ; [ . ]

(B) Maintaining customer records for all applicants; [ Adding qualified applicants to the list of eligible electric service identifiers (ESI IDs). ]

(C) Providing information to customers regarding the process of enrolling in the low-income discount program; [ Processing and maintaining a list of applicants' address changes. ]

(D) Matching customer information submitted through self-certification forms with electric customer data; and [ Forwarding to the REPs the list of ESI IDs, with monthly updates. ]

(E) Verifying the self-certification by requesting copies of tax returns, pay stubs, letters from employers, or other information. [ Maintaining a toll-free number for inquiries. This number shall be displayed on the self-certification application. ]

[(F) Conducting outreach and distributing self-certification applications.]

[(G) LIDA may, at its discretion verify the self-certification applicants' income by requesting copies of tax returns, pay stubs, or letters from employers.]

(3) Period of customer enrollment . The eligibility period of each customer will be determined by the customer's method of enrollment [ : Once enrolled, the eligible customer shall receive the discount rate for 13 months from the date of enrollment ].

(A) The eligibility period for self-certified customers is seven months from the date of enrollment. Self-certified customers will have the opportunity to renew their eligibility for an additional seven months, prior to the expiration of their eligibility period. [ The continued eligibility status of the customer shall be reviewed during the twelfth month after the date of initial enrollment, and every 12 months thereafter. ]

(B) The eligibility period for automatically enrolled customers is the length of their enrollment in TDHS benefits as defined in subsection (c) of this section plus a grace period for renewal. Automatically enrolled customers will have the opportunity to renew their eligibility and to become self-certified for an additional seven months, upon the expiration of their automatic enrollment. [ Customer who continues to receive TDHS benefits as defined in subsection (c) of this section, will have eligibility for the discount rate renewed for a new 13-month period. ]

(f) Responsibilities [ Protocol ]. In addition to the requirements established in this section, program responsibilities may be established in the commission's contract with LIDA, the memorandum of understanding between the commission and TDHS, and the Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide. [ The purpose of the protocol is to define responsibilities of the participating entities. Other technical information may be added to the request for proposal for the LIDA and memoranda of understanding between the parties as necessary to establish the automatic enrollment process, in accordance with this section. ]

(1) TDHS shall:

(A) Assist in the implementation and maintenance of the automatic enrollment process by providing a database of customers receiving TDHS benefits as detailed in the memorandum of understanding between TDHS and the commission. [ No later than April 1, 2001, provide the LIDA with a complete database of its clients, stripped of all information except as listed below, and sorted by ZIP codes. For each client, the database shall include: ]

[(i) Full name; and]

[(ii) Service and mailing addresses, including city, state, and five-digit ZIP code, following the U.S. Postal Service standards;]

(B) Assist in the distribution of promotional and informational material as detailed in the memorandum of understanding [ Provide the LIDA with monthly updates of the names, or ESI ID if available, and addresses of new clients and any address changes for existing clients who move ].

[(C) Provide monthly updates of clients who are no longer receiving benefits from TDHS as of the twelfth month of client enrollment in the low-income discount program.]

[(D) Distribute the self-certification applications in TDHS offices statewide.]

[(2) ERCOT shall:]

[(A) No later than April 1, 2001, allow the LIDA to have access to a database of residential premises that includes for each premise:]

[(i) Service address, including city, state, and five-digit ZIP code, following the U.S. Postal Service standards; and]

[(ii) ESI ID.]

[(B) Provide the LIDA with monthly updates of new residential premises and their ESI IDs.]

[(C) Provide the LIDA with monthly updates of residential premises that have had a change of tenant (i.e., move-out/move-in).]

[(D) Provide the LIDA with monthly updates of those customers and ESI IDs who switched retail electric providers.]

(2) [ (3) ] LIDA shall:

(A) Retrieve customer lists on a monthly basis through data transfer as detailed in the Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide [ the initial database of residential premises and ESI IDs from ERCOT ].

(B) Retrieve the [ initial ]database of clients from TDHS on a monthly basis .

(C) Conduct self-certification, automatic enrollment, and renewal processes [ Establish a list of eligible ESI IDs by initially, and then periodically, comparing the addresses from the ERCOT and TDHS databases and identifying records that reasonably match ].

(D) Send lists of low-income customers eligible to receive the rate reduction to each REP on a monthly basis [ Retrieve on a monthly basis the ERCOT's update of change of tenants and remove those ESI IDs from the list of eligible ESI IDs ].

(E) Establish a list of eligible ESI IDs by comparing the customer lists and TDHS databases and identifying records that reasonably match [ Retrieve on a monthly basis the ERCOT's list of new premises and add those to the database used for matching ].

[(F) Retrieve on a monthly basis the TDHS list of addresses of new clients and clients who have moved and add those that reasonably match the ERCOT list to the list of eligible ESI IDs.]

[(G) Implement a program whereby potential low-income customers can self-certify for enrollment in the rate reduction program, as specified in subsection (e)(2) of this section. The program must enable the customer to submit a change of address.]

(F) [ (H) ] Develop procedures to notify customers of enrollment, expiration, and opportunities for renewal of the rate reduction [ discount ] program.

(G) Provide information to customers regarding enrollment for the rate reduction program and eligibility requirements.

[(I) Annually report to the commission as to the number of customers enrolled through the automatic enrollment process and the number of customers enrolled though self-certification.]

[(J) Make the database of eligible ESI IDs available to the REPs.]

(3) [ (4) ] A REP shall:

(A) Provide information to, and receive information from, LIDA in accordance with the Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide [ Retrieve on a monthly basis the list of eligible ESI IDs from the LIDA ].

(B) Monitor high-usage customers to ensure that premises are in fact residential and maintain records of monitoring efforts for audit purposes. High-usage customers shall be defined in the Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide. [ Compare the list of its customers with the list of eligible ESI IDs, and enroll those ESI IDs that match in the rate discount program. The customer enrollment shall take place within the first billing cycle if notification is received within seven days before the end of the billing cycle or within 30 calendar days after the REP receives notification from the LIDA, whichever comes first. ]

(C) Apply a rate reduction to the electric bills of the eligible ESI IDs identified by LIDA within the first billing cycle, if notification is received within seven days before the end of the billing cycle, or within 30 calendar days after the REP receives notification from the LIDA, whichever occurs first [ Develop procedures to notify customers of enrollment, expiration, and opportunities for renewal of the rate discount program ].

(D) Notify customers twice a year about the availability of the rate reduction [ discount ] program , and provide self-certification forms to customers upon request .

(E) Resolve issues concerning customer eligibility, including the failure to provide discounts to customers who believe they are eligible and the provision of discounts to customers who may not meet the eligibility criteria, in accordance with the Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide.

(F) [ (E) ] Provide to the commission copies of materials regarding the rate reduction [ discount ] program given to customers during the previous 12 months.

(4) ERCOT. Shall provide information to, and receive information from, LIDA in accordance with the Low-Income Discount Procedural Guide.

(g) Confidentiality provision.

(1) All data transfers shall be conducted under the terms and conditions of a TDHS confidentiality agreement so as to protect customer privacy. The acquired data shall only be used for the purposes of implementing automatic enrollment.

(2) Data shall not be provided to the REPs in advance of registering customers. LIDA's protocols and procedures shall be developed in a way that maintains the customer eligibility for the rate reduction [ discount ] as proprietary data not to be used for any other purpose.

§25.457.Implementation of the System Benefit Fee by the Municipally Owned Utilities and Electric Cooperatives.

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to implement the system benefit fee and associated programs as they relate to municipally owned utilities and electric cooperatives.

(b) Applicability. This section applies to a municipally owned utility and electric cooperative, no sooner than six months preceding the date on which a municipally owned utility or an electric cooperative implements customer choice in its certificated service area.

[(c) Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.]

[(1) Electric cooperative--As defined in §25.5 of this title (relating to Definitions).]

[(2) Municipally owned utility--As defined in §25.5 of this title.]

(c) [ (d) ] Implementation of fee collection. Not earlier than six months before the onset, and not later than the day of implementation of customer choice in its service territory, a municipally owned utility or an electric cooperative shall impose on its customers, including its transmission and distribution customers who choose to receive a single bill from the municipally owned utility or electric cooperative, a system benefit fee, as determined by the commission pursuant to §25.451(d) of this title (relating to the Administration of the System Benefit Fund [ Account ]).

(d) [ (e) ] Billing requirements. Each municipally owned utility or electric cooperative shall comply with the billing requirements in §25.451(h) of this title.

(e) [ (f) ] Remittance of funds. The system benefit fee collected by a municipally owned utility or an electric cooperative shall be remitted to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (Comptroller) pursuant to §25.451(g) of this title.

(f) [ (g) ] Fee reduction. The commission shall, on a request by a municipally owned utility or an electric cooperative, reduce the system benefit fee, imposed on the requesting entity's [ its ] retail customers, by an amount equal to the amount provided by the requesting municipally owned utility or an electric cooperative, or their retail customers, for local, low-income programs and local programs that educate customers about the retail electric market in a neutral and non-promotional manner. The qualifying low-income programs must reduce the cost of electricity to the recipients of such programs and be targeted at customers whose total household income does not exceed 125% of federal poverty guidelines. Upon request by the commission [ At the time of its request ], and once a year thereafter, the municipally owned utility or an electric cooperative shall provide to the commission the following:

(1) The total in kWh of electric power sold to its retail customers in the 12 months preceding the request;

(2) The total amount spent on [ the ] qualifying, local, low-income programs, for which the reduction is being sought, in the 12 months preceding the date of request;

(3) The total amount spent on qualifying, local, educational programs, for which the reduction is being sought, in the 12 months preceding the date of request;

(4) The total amount projected to be spent on qualifying, local, low-income programs, for which reduction is being sought, in the 12 months following the date of request; and

(5) The total amount projected to be spent on local, qualifying, educational programs, for which reduction is being sought, in the 12 months following the date of request.

(g) [ (h) ] Rate reduction [ Reduced rate ]. A municipally owned utility or an electric cooperative shall establish a discount credit [ reduced rate ] for its low-income customers, who are eligible for a rate reduction [ discount ] pursuant to §25.454(d) of this title (relating to the Rate Reduction Program) . The rate reduction will be calculated pursuant to §25.454(d)(3)(B) of this title (relating to the Rate Reduction Program). The discount credit [ , which ] will be discounted off the standard retail service package established under the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §40.053 or §41.053, as appropriate. The discount credit and resulting rate reduction will be clearly identified as a line item on the electric portion of the customer's bill.

(h) [ (i) ] Reduction in program funding. If a municipally owned utility or an electric cooperative requests a reduction in fees paid pursuant to subsection (f) [ (g) ] of this section, then the portion of the system benefit fee proceeds allocated for low-income or education programs for that municipally owned utility or electric cooperative shall be reduced by the amount of such reduction.

(i) [ (j) ] Reimbursement. Each municipally owned utility or electric cooperative is entitled to reimbursement under §25.451(j) of this title (relating to Administration of the System Benefit Fund) for amounts equal to the documented rate reductions they have provided to eligible low-income customers. [ To receive reimbursement for the rate discounts provided to eligible low-income retail customers, the municipally owned utility or electric cooperative shall comply with §25.451(j) of this title. The municipally owned utility or electric cooperative may seek reimbursement for the difference between the reduced rate charged to its low-income customers and the standard retail service package established under PURA §40.053 or §41.053, as appropriate. ] The total annual reimbursement for a municipally owned utility or electric cooperative shall not be more than the proportional amount a municipally owned utility or electric cooperative has paid into the System Benefit Fund [ system benefit account ]. The proportional amount shall be established by the commission in the following manner , and amended as necessary :

(1) By calculating a share of the total revenue in the System Benefit Fund [ system benefit account ] that is spent on each of the programs as described in PURA §39.903(e) in the preceding 12 months; and

(2) By calculating the share of total spending on programs pursuant to PURA §39.903(e)(1) paid by each municipally owned utility or electric cooperative into the System Benefit Fund. [ system benefit account; and ]

[(3) Any such calculations can be amended by the commission as necessary throughout the year.]

(j) [ (k) ] Reporting requirements. If a municipally owned utility or an electric cooperative continues to bill customers pursuant to PURA §40.057(c) or §41.057(b), as appropriate, then the municipally owned utility or electric cooperative shall file with the commission two [ types of ] reports. One report will identify the amount of system benefit fee collected and paid by the reporting entity's [ its ] retail customers pursuant to §25.451(i)(1) of this title; the other [ second ] report shall identify the amount of system benefit fee paid by the transmission and distribution only customers pursuant to §25.451(i)(2) of this title. Both [ types of ] reports shall be filed with the commission at the time the system benefit fee is paid pursuant to §25.451(g) of this title.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 16, 2003.

TRD-200304312

Rhonda G. Dempsey

Rules Coordinator

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Earliest possible date of adoption: August 31, 2003

For further information, please call: (512) 936-7223