1
n
n
1
Control Number: 15709
Item Number : 43
Addendum StartPage : 0
^.
.
^
Aft.
^
1°ubliktility Commission of TAs
7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78757-1098
512/458-0100 . (Fax) 458-8340
r-J1 0 1
Pat Wood, III
CWrmal
Robert W. Gee
Commissioner
Brenda Jenkins
Judy Walsh
Executive Director
Commissioner
October 17, 1995
Mr. R. D. "Bud" Gwartney
Cherokee County Electric Cooperative Association
P.O. Box 257
Rusk, TX 75785
RE:
Jones et al. Complaint
Dear Mr. Gwartney:
Thank you for your letter of September 29, 1995. I am responding on behalf of the
commissioners because this matter is currently pending before the Commission's Consumer
Affairs Division for informal resolution. Although this matter is not a contested case subject
to formal ex parte prohibitions while it remains before the Consumer Affairs Division, I am
sure you will understand the desire to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in the event
our informal process fails to resolve this matter and the complaint proceeds as a contested
matter before the Commission.
In your letter, you note that Cherokee County recently expended significant sums litigating
issues related to its switchover fees and that you thought that the matter was behind you.
Although I share your concern over the cost of litigation and the need for finality, ratepayers
are entitled to a forum for resolving disputes over the application of tariffs and Commission
rules. As you are probably - ware, affected persons, such as--Mr. Jones, have a statutory right
to bring their complaints to the appropriate regulatory authority, in this case the Commission.
While I understand that you may find the complaint process frustrating at times, the
Commission has an obligation to review Mr. Jones' complaint.
As previously stated, I share your concern over the cost of litigating issues before the
Commission. In fact, the high cost of litigating matters before the Commission is one reason
the Commission established an informal process for resolving complaints. Considering that
the cost of litigation can be high and the results uncertain, I encourage you to utilize the
Commission's informal complaint process to resolve this matter. Hopefully, with your active
participation in this informal process, the high cost of litigation may be avoided.
® Pmftd «,recy;fed P.W
POLICY DEVELOPMENT ( 512) 458-0306
ADMINISTRATION
( 512) 458-0188
CENTRAL RECORDS
( 512) 458-0181
M EQwI ODPa4w+itY EmPbY'x
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC INFORMATION
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
HUMAN RESOURCES
TTY
( 512) 458-0141
( 512) 458-0388
(512) 458-0258
(512) 458-0190
(512) 458-0221
REGULATORY AFFAIRS ( 512) 458-0297
COMMISSION SECRETARY ( 512) 458-0241
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (512) 458-0200
Letter to Mr. Gwartney
October 17, 1995
Page 2 of 2
You also express concern that the Commission Staff is assisting Upshur-Rural Electric
Cooperative in an attempt to circumvent the tariffs of both utilities as well as the
Commission's decision in your recent complaint case, Docket No. 11351. I have reviewed the
matter and can assure you that the Staff is not involved in an attempt to circumvent any
approved tariffs or the Commission's decision in Docket No. 11351. This matter was initiated
by Mr. Jones and five other members regarding the estimated charge to switch their electric
service to Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative, and : am satisfied that the Consumer Affairs
Division is processing this complaint in an appropriate manner. Currently, Mr. Irish of the
Consumer Affairs Division is awaiting an opinion from the Legal Division on the extent to
which a utility may recover, through the switchover fee, the undepreciated cost of facilities
and the cost to remove those facilities when the facilities could be used by the new utility to
provide service to the customer. This issue was not specifically addressed by the Commission
in your previous complaint case. In Docket No. 11351, it was not feasible for the new utility
to use the existing facilities and there was no evidence that Cherokee was able to sell any of
the facilities. However, in this case, Mr. Jones asserts that Upshur-Rural would be willing to
pu! chase the existing facilities. After Mr. Irish receives and reviews the opinion of the Legal
Di,ision on this issue, he will contact your member services coordinator, Mr. Poston, and the
co: ;iplainant, Mr. Jones, to discuss the informal resolution of this matter.
I 'hope I have addressed all of your concerns. If I can be of any further assistance, please do
rot hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
j6A
ren Jenkins
Executive Director
RT/le
cc:
Mr. Tim Jones
Mr. John Dugan
cbwok«.aa
^A"*i
Date:
September 20, 1995
To: Paul G. Irish, Program Administrator
Public Utility Commission of Texas
7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78757-1098
From:
Tim Jones
13594 C.R. 370
Winona, Texas 75792
Dear Mr. Irish
Az you previoualy stated in your letter dated May 4, 1995, that the
Commission
cannot force Cherokee County Electric Cooperative to
sell their facilities to Upshur County Electric.
Upshur has
offered to purchase the facilities from Cherokee and the request
was sent to Cherokee from myself and the affected neighbors in a
letter dated August 5, 1995.
In this letter it was asked of
Cherokee to sell the existing service to Upshur who had offered to
purchase it.
on September 13, 1995, Cherokee responded to that
letter in stating that they do not sell facilities. A copy of this
letter is attached.
I am rAquesting
that The Public Utilities
this matter for us.
commission to resolve
Thank you f r your assistance in this matter
^rn
Tim J es
cc:
Upshur County Electric
^
CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION
OFFICERS:
GLENN R. WEAVER, President
BILLY G. SMITH, Vice President
GRADY C. SINGLETARY, Sec.-Treas.
R.D. GWARTNEY, Manager
P.O. BOX 257
RUSK, TEXAS 75785
SeptembeA 13, 1995
Tim Jone,6
13594 CR 370
Glinona, Texa.s 75792
1Jeax Mn. Jonez:
In net,povi,ae to youA .2etteA o4 August 5, 1995, and youn nequat 6on
Cheh.ofzee County EtectA,i.c CoopeAcctc:ve to zet2 it-6 ex.i.sti.ng 4ac.i,titiez
to Upshujc Runat Etect^uuc, I must in4otr.m you that we do not sett ^ac,c.t.i,tiez.
In the Coopeta,t,iva' Tan,i.66z, Section III, Sheet 20 - undeJc OwneAzhip
06 D,iztA,i.bu.t.i.on Fac,i.Q,c.tt:e.5, it 6tates "The Coopehative AaU ke.tv^
ati
the owneAz p o6 a.22 matetr,i,a,e and 6ac.ititi.e•s instctQ2ed by the Coopercati.ve 6on the d.izttibution og e.2ectL.i.c eneAgy whetheA on not the zame
have been paid 6m. by the Membelr.. A.22 .Pc:nez and 6ac.iYitiez cov► ,6tAuc.ted
or in.StaQted by the Coopetcati.ve ate the pnopeAty o6 the Coopetc.ati.ve".
I6 you have juntheh. quezti.ors, pteaze 6ee.t 6n.ee to contact me at 1-800992.4280.
Slouu xtc.uty,
.,^& AzzDo yte Poaton
Membeh. SeAvices Coondinaton
DP/.?.z
DIRECTORS:
B. R. DARBY, JR.
BOBBY LOTT
B.W. BURNS
CECIL M. SKAGGS
i^
^►^
CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION
OFFICERS:
GLENN R. WEAVER, President
BILLY G. SMITH, Vice President
GRADY C. SINGLETARY, Sec.-Treas.
R.D. GWARTNEY, Manager
DIRECTORS:
B. R. DARBY, JR.
BOBBY LOTT
B.W. BURNS
CECIL M. SKAGGS
P.O. BOX 257
RUSK, TEXAS 75785
May 18, 1995
Tim A. Jona
13594 CR 370
Winona, Tex" 75792
Dean Mh.. Jon.ez:
Peh. yocvc Ze.t.teA dated May 15, 1995, enc,eoded .i.5 the in4otcmati.on you
nequuted.
Ma,te}c.zat nemoved/not new5ed (1986 do.Ptcucz)
Covzttcuction tabon-matejc,i.a.2 tcemoved/not newsed
(in 1986 do.F,e.aA,6) mateA.i.a.2 2eit (in 1986 dottau )
Co";ftuc t.i.on. .2abo)c.-matex.iat .ee^t (in 1986 do.2P.aAz)
E.6ti..mated ofc.f.gtinat co-6t
Depnec.i.ati.on expevuse
Satvageabte mateA,i.at (1994 do.P.,2atus )
Sub-totat
Retvc.emevi,t .2abotr.
Equipment hemovat
Di,5conn.ect change
3 me.teAz @ 74.42
Sw,itchoveh. 6ee
2300.06
2006.87
4306.93
(1129.64)
0.00
3177.29
821.07
3998.36
223.26
4221.62
We muzt dec,2.i,ne any o66eu to punchaze any o6 the Co o peta.t,i.v e' z
equipment.
16 you have any que,6ti,on.b on nequtir.e butLthen in^otcmati.on, pteaae beet
6nee to cat2 oun o66ice at 1-800-992-4280.
youtv, tku,ey,
'V&^ wzz_
Do y.2e Poston.
Membelc. Seh.vice.s Coondinaton
DP/.?J,
, ^h..
^`^`'' ",,,u•.
.
.
^
_
,..
.
Dear bk. Gwartney:
I rncievod a letter fran the R&lic Utility Camussim of Texas , that TAus dated My 4, 1995,
this letter was in respmse to a letter that I had sent to than. A oopy of this respmse
letter is attached.
I had reqested a switclyver fee chmge in the pest from yor office, this fee xas given to
m, but it vas not broken dmxi. Would you please send me abrealdavn of charges to
disoamect
fxm your service, as well as the charge to purchase yur eqmprr=nt located on my ^,y,
This letter is a]% to serve as notice that I an rejestirg to charige electric service fnan
Qimdtee Couity Electric to LTpstr Electric, ti-11112r., J12DW.
If you hwe any quest-um or need further ap1amti^, please ccritact ire at 903-877-3150
Tim Janes
13594 C.R. 370
Wirma, Texas 75792
cc: Paul G. Irish, Progran Adnrristrator
..l
,^^
PAic Utility Corrmmissio Xf
Texas
7
7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78757-1098
512/458-0100 .(Fax) 458-8340
Robert W. Gee
Chairman
Sarah Goodfriend
Commissioner
Pat Wood, III
Commissioner
May 4, 1995
Mr. Tim Jones
13594 CR 370
Winona, Texas 75792
Dear Mr. Jones:
Reference your protest over switchover charges quoted by Cherokee County
Electric Cooperative and their response thereto, dated April 24.
While I cannot verify the exact figures provided to you by Cherokee, because I do
not have the fact sheet as to labor and mater costs, I can state that Cherokee was
ordered by this Commission to calculate costs in an exact method which includes
reduction for salvage value and depreciation. You most certainly have the right to
request Cherokee to provide you (or any other member) a breakdown of labor and
material charges to determine exactly how the final figures quoted to you were
calculated.
I will also state this fact which appears to be in contention regarding an alleged offer
from Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative. This Commission cannot force Cherokee
to sell their facilities to Upshur. However, our General Counsel office has stated
that if (in your situation) Upshur has offered to purchase the facilities serving you
and your neighbors, and Cherokee has refused to sell, then Cherokee cannot
charge you for removal of those faciiities. At the same time, they are not obligated
to remove those facilities since they would be located in a utility easement and not
private property. If individual land owners wanted the service removed for their own
benefit, Cherokee could charge at that time.
® Pnnted on recycled paper
An Eaual Anmhmifv Fmnl
tLtG I KIG
ADMINISTRATION
CENTRAL RECORDS
GENERAL COUNSEL
(512) 458-0109
( 512) 458-0188
( 512) 458-0181
( 512) 458-0282
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC INFORMATION
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
HUMAN RESOURCES
TTY
(512) 458-0141
( 512) 458-0388
( 512) 458-0256
(512) 458-0190
(512) 458-0221
HEARINGS
TELEPHONE
FINANCIAL REVIEW
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
(512) 458-0266
(512) 458-0158
(512) 458-0328
(512) 458-0200
_
.
^
Mr. Tim Jones
May 4, 1995
Page Two
I trust I have provided you with the information you require to make a decision as to
switching your service to Upshur. If I can be of further assistance, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
Paul G. Irish
Program Administrator
cc:
Cherokee County Electric Cooperative
"Pr P4141 (at TrIph
Public Utility Commission of Texas
7/800 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Auetin, Texas 7 875 7
April 12, 1995
Mr Irish;
i
have been a utility customer of Cherokee County Electric for
approximately
ten
years.
During this time I have been very
dissatisfied with the service I have received.
The electricity
current
varies enough that light bulbs in the residence and shop
have to be replaced three times Pooner than they should. I have
contacted Cherokee County and requested a flow meter be installed
on
the residence to ascertain if the required voltage is being
supplied
to the house.
Cherokee County did not fulfill that
request
and this variance in voltage I believe has led to the
early destruction of a deep water well, a freezer, refrigerator
r31Zd .a.P^
at an t.ion ee.z above, light bulbs. To add insult to this poor
service, the rates are considerably higher than rates that are
charged by surrounding electric companies,.
I
have
contacted
Cherokee
Electric
to request a switch in
electric
service
on
two
occasions.
The
first request was
approximately
five years ago and was told by the engineer that
the
coot for ohanainQ the service would be at^cut five thousand
dollars.
This would cover the cost of the life of the equipment
that ren:ir;c•d fluG labor to remove the poles. This cost was not
affordable by rne, so service continued with
C h`rokee Electric.
The :second *_irnY, was June of 1994 when it came
to my attention
that 1. was not the only one dissatisfied with the service and
rates of Cherokee County Electric, that r,eightors were also
in
favor of transferring service to another Electric Company.
UP.tiur County Rural Electric also services the area and they were
appro.ached about electric service to these residences.
Upshur
QQLltity
Rural
Electric
advised
that
wo^:ld
they
service
the
residences if requested.
Cherokee County Electric was again
contacted
by
myself
and
five
neighbors
about
discontinuing
service ( copy of letter attached).
Cherokee
Countv Electric
responded with the switch over cost for each indliv±dual residence
( a copy of theue letters is also attached).
UpRhut
County
Rural
Electric
Coop
contacted Cherokee
County
Electric and advised them that Upshur County would pay the cost
of
transfer since then, they would be utilizing the existing
lines and would Rave Cherokee County the man hour expenditure for
pole
and
line
removal
and
would
benefit
Upshur
County
in
construction cost.
Cherokee County Electric declined the offer
and continued
with the demand for these patron: to each pay to
disconnect service with them, this meant I would still have to
pay
four thoQaanc:s' two hundred and twenty one dollar& and sixty
I feel
two
cents.
this cost is excessive and a waste of money
since
after removal of Cherokee Electric lines, Upshur County
would have to pay for construction of new service lxae.F;,
has come to riY
it
at.te-n+ ioti that Cherokee
County Electric Coop
has had similar complaints- at lake Pa lEst?riE.
I
would like youUr
assistance in
this
matter and await. your
response.
^^^^• ♦
;;.1^ ^`'`^J,
/I "
13G94 ^^.R.
W .7nuna
Te ;.aa 7 G7r, ,
(''03) 877-31SO
•
•
15^^61 ^
Date: April 17, 1996
To:
Paula Meuller
Secretary of Commission
Public Utility Commission of Texas
7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78757-1098
-^r`:..:,^ri;
• •
,
From: Tim Jones
13594 C.R. 370
Winona, Texas 75792
(903) 877-3150
MS. Meuller:
I am requesting that I be allowed to switch my electric service from Cherokee County Electric to
Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative without fee.
I have been through the informal request and have made application to the PUC on April 12,
1995. Since that time, I have had correspondence with the PUC, Cherokee Electric and UpshurRural Electric. I have followed the steps that were given to me by the PUC in the letter dated
October 27, 1995. Cherokee was notified that I wanted the service changed to Upshur-Rural, I
requested and received the breakdown of charges for the discontinuing of service from Cherokee
County Electric in a letter dated May 18, 1995 and I notified Upshur-Rural of my intentions to
switch service. On December 11, 1996, I asked Upshur-Rural to make a formal request to
purchase the electrical facilities serving my family. On December 19, 1996, Upshur-Rural made
the request to Cherokee County Electric to purchase the potentially idled facility. Cherokee
County Electric informed Upshur-Rural Electric that they do not sell facilities. This is also the
same information that I received in my first request for Cherokee Electric to sell the facilities to
Upshur-Rural Electric in a letter dated September 13, 1995, from Cherokee to myself.
Given that Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative has offered to purchase the facility and that
Cherokee County has refused to sell and that I am in a dually certified area of Cherokee County
Electric and Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative, I am asking that I be allowed to switch my
electric service to Upshur-Rural Electric with only paying the Administrative costs that would be
associated with the switch over.
I have enclosed copies of the above referenced letters.
Please have this matter placed on the Commissions docket.
Thank you for your attention to this matter;
^Vm ^
i
•^
UPSHUR-f2URAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORP[]RATION
1200 WEST TYLER STREET
P.
O. BOX 70
GILMER, TEXAS 75644
TELEPHONE 903/843-2536
TOLL FREE 1-800-259-2536
K.. R THCA .T
t
December 19, 1995
Mr. R. D. Gwartney, General Manager
Cherokee County Electric
Cooperative Association
P. O. Box 257
Rusk, TX
75785
Dear Mr. Gwartney:
Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative makes a formal request to
purchase the facilities serving Mr. Tim Jones and his neighbors
north and south along C.R.371.
There have been numerous letters and conversations regarding this
group of Cherokee members over the past few years regarding their
wanting to switch their electrical service from Cherokee to
Upshur.
The latest correspondence is a letter from Mr. Tim Jones
to Upshur, dated December 11, 1995.
The letter asks that the
Cherokee facilities
serving
him
be
purchased
by
Upshur
to
eliminate the need for Upshur to build new lines parallel to
Cherokees old line and eliminate duplicate facilities side by
side on his property. Therefore, this letter is being written to
investigate the possible sale, to accommodate Mr. Jones' request,
if Cherokee is willing to negotiate and identify the potentially
idled facilities.
ours/,very truly,
^' `//•
John C. Dugan
General Manager
^r
JCD/ec
CC:
Mr. Paul G. Irish, PUCT
Mr. Tim Jones
"A Locally Owned-Locally Controlled-Tax Paying Business"
^^
December 11, 1995
To: Mr. John C. Dugan
Upshur Rural Electric Cooperative
P.O. Box 70
Gilmer, Texas 75644
From: Tim Jones
13594 C.R. 370
Winona, Texas 75792
Dear Mr. Dugan;
This letter is being written to request that Upshur Rural
Electric Cooperative make a formal request to Cherokee County
Electric Cooperative to purchase the electrical facilities serving
myself and my neighbors.
Enclosed is a letter dated October 27,
1995 from Mr. Paul G. Irish outlining the steps we must go through
to switch our service from Cherokee to Upshur.
I am asking that the existing facilities serving us now be
used by Upshur to eliminate the need for Upshur to build new lines
parallel to Cherokees old line.
This would also eliminate the
duplicate facilities side by side on my property.
If you require any further information do not hesitate to call
me at 903-877-3150.
Thank you
Tim Jones
cc:
Cherokee County Electric Cooperative
Mr. Paul G. Irish,
Public Utility Comm of Texas
V., .,
^-.
Plic Utilit YCommissioof
*
Texas
7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78757-1098
512/458-0100 . (Fax) 458-8340
Pat Wood
, III
Chairman
Robert W. Gee
Commissioner
Judy Walsh
Commissioner
October 27, 1995
Mr. Tim Jones
13594 C. R. 370
Winona, Texas 75792
Dear Mr. Jones:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with my position in the matter you
presented this office through your letter of April 12. I regret it has taken so long to
provide you with the requested information. As you well know, the subject of your
letter has been responded to by Cherokee and Upshur-Rural cooperatives and then
reviewed by various members of this Commission's staff. While it has taken much
longer than the usual complaint resolution time allotment, I believe the following
information will provide the exact information you requested.
To begin with, let me point out the items that are not disputed:
(1)
You and the other customers in your complaint are located in a dually
certificated area and have the right under the Public Utility Regulatory
Act and the Public Utility Commission Substantive Rules to switch
your service from Cherokee County to Upshur-Rural.
(2)
Upon request, Cherokee is required to provide each customer
requesting switchover a complete breakdown of all the labor and
material charges for removal of facilities as well as the PUC approved
administrative charge noted in their tariff.
(3)
Upshur-Rural has indicated they have the ability to serve you and the
other customers.
® Printed on recycled paper
POLICY DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION
CENTRAL RECORDS
( 512) 458-0306
(512) 458-0188
(512) 458-0181
An Equal Opportunity Employer
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (512) 458-0141
PUBLIC INFORMATION (512) 458-0388
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
(512) 458-0256
HUMAN RESOURCES
(512) 458-0190
TTY
(512) 458-0221
REGULATORY AFFAIRS (512) 458-0297
COMMISSION SECRETARY (512) 458-0241
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (512) 458-0200
^
W
1
Mr. Tim Jones
October 27, 1995
Page Two
(4)
The Commission's General Counsel office ruled in an April 10, 1995
memorandum, which Cherokee has a copy of, that if the disconnecting
utility (Cherokee) receives an offer from the connecting utility (Upshur)
for the idled facilities and the connecting utility is willing to sign an
agreement indemnifying the disconnecting utility from future liability
from the idled facilities, the disconnecting utility cannot charge for
removal of the idled facilities. In additional, the offer constitutes
salvage and therefore must be used to offset the net book value of the
idled facilities.
Based on all the information contained in your complaint record, it appears to me
there is only one issue that has not been resolved.
Your letter of September 20 indicates that Upshur has offered to purchase
the subject facilities and that you and the affected neighbors forwarded that
offer to Cherokee on August 5. There is no record of that offer in the
Commission's complaint file. However, it is Cherokee's position that no
formal offer has been received directly from Upshur. Upshur is required to
tend a formal offer to Cherokee directly and not through potential customers.
Not having the authority to speak for Upshur (as would a manager or board
of directors member), you do not have the authority to negotiate any type of
transfer or sale of facilities.
So, after almost six months of working on this matter, resolution can be
accomplished as follows:
(1)
You and all other members who desire to switchover to Upshur Rural
submit formal application to Cherokee (which I know you have already
however, the paperwork may not be maintained any longer by
Cherokee).
(2)
Cherokee should provide each of those requesting switchover with a
breakdown of labor and material charges required for removal of
facilities, as well as the PUC tariffed administrative charge.
•
^
Mr. Tim Jones
October 27, 1995
Page Three
(3)
If Upshur is still willing to offer to purchase the subject facilities, a
formal offer should be presented directly to Cherokee.
(4)
Cherokee should reply directly to Upshur as to their acceptance or
refusal of the offer. Given either an acceptance or refusal of the offer
it would appear that subject customers would not be required to pay
for removal of facilities but this is not absolute given certain
circumstances not known at this time.
(5)
Customers would be required to pay the administrative switchover fee
and the final bill to Cherokee. Upon full payment, Cherokee should
provide each customer with a release which would be given to Upshur.
(6)
Customers would also be required to apply to Upshur for new service
and pay the required fees as would any new member. Upshur would
then connect the new customer and the switchover would be complete.
Mr. Jones, I again apologize for the length of time it has taken to provide you this
response and for the length of it. However, it appears to me that you now have all
of the information you and your neighbors need to fulfill your desire to be served by
Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Paul G. Irish
Program Administrative
cc:
Cherokee County Electric Cooperative
Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative
•
0
DOCKET NO. 15709
COMPLAINT OF TIM JONES
§
AGAINST CHEROKEE COUNTY
§
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION §
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
ORDER NO. 1
REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION
On April 22, 1996, Tim Jones filed a complaint against Cherokee County Cooperative
Association (Cherokee).
T he Complainant requests that he be allowed to switch his` el%tric service
1,
from Cherokee to Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative (Upshur-Rural) without incoging' :a fee.
Cherokee shall file a response to the complaint on or before June 24, 1996.
'Cherokee shall also
Q
specifically state in its response whether factual issues are in dispute.' The General;Couns#l,, and UpshurRural may file a statement of position on June 28, 1996.
c^
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the 4717-tAday of June 1996.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
A 6z i. ," -
/.
DEANN T. WALKER
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
9-"
^
•
`^
PUC DOCKET NO. 15709
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-96-2365
COMPLAINT OF TIM JONES
AGAINST CHEROKEE COUNTY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION
§
§
§
§
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
ORDER REVISING SCHEDULE FOR FILING
LIST OF ISSUES
The deadline for submitting a list of issues to be addressed in this docket is modified to
January 10, 1997. In view of this deadline modification, the Commission will consider and
possibly adopt a preliminary order in this docket on February 5, 1997.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the 1 C14-1" day of December 1996.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
STEPHEN J. DAVIS
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
"i
0 Hearings
State Oce of Administrati ve
Shelia Bailey Taylor
Chief Administrative Law Judge
January 2, 1997
Ms. Paula Mueller
Secretary of the Commission
Public Utility Commission of Texas
1701 N. Congress Ave.
Austin, TX 78701
RE:
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2364/PUC Docket No. 16462 APPLICATION OF RICHARD
CHOVANTEZAGAINST CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2365/PUC Docket No. 15709-COMPLAINT OF TIM JONES
AGAINST CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2366/PUC Docket No. 12763--CHEROKEE COUNTY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.'S COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR SWITCHOVER
FEES
Dear Ms. Mueller:
Enclosed for filing is the original and one copy of Order No. 1 in the above-referenced
proceedings. Please file stamp and return the copies to SOAH.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
`^
.^;. /. ^. .
Roge W. Stewart
Administrative Law Judge
William P. Clements Building
Post Office Box 13025 ♦ 300 West 15th Street, Suite 502 ♦ Austin Texas 78711-3025
(51'2) 475-4993
Docket (512 1 475-3445
Fax (512) 475-4994
•
•
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-96-2364
PUC DOCKET NO. 16462
COMPLAINT OF RICHARD CHOVANETZ
AGAINST CHEROKEE COUNTY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
§
§
§
BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-96-2365
PUC DOCKET NO. 15709
COMPLAINT OF TIM JONES
AGAINST CHEROKEE COUNTY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
§
§
§
BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-96-2366
PUC DOCKET NO. 12763
CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC.'S COMPLIANCE
REPORT FOR SWITCHOVER FEES
§
§
§
BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ORDER NO. 1
NOTICE OF JOINT PREHEARING CONFERENCE
On April 18, 1994, Cherokee County Electric Cooperative Association (Cherokee) filed its
Compliance Report for Switchover Fees in accordance with the final order of the Public Utility
Commission of Texas (Commission) in Petition of the General Counsel into the Reasonableness of
the Service, Practices, and Rates of Cherokee County Electric Cooperative Association regarding
Switchover Fees, Docket No. 11351, 19 P.U.C. BULL. 1811 (Feb. 15, 1994). The resulting docket,
No. 12763, has lain dormant following a series of discovery disputes and the request by the General
Counsel of the Commission (General Counsel) that this compliance docket be consolidated with a
future docket which could more comprehensively address all issues related to Cherokee's switchover
fees. On April 22, 1996, Mr. Tim Jones of Winona, Texas filed a complaint against Cherokee
regarding its fee for switching his service from Cherokee to Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.;
this complaint became Commission Docket No. 15709. On September 23, 1996, Mr. Richard
SOAH DOCKET NOS. 473-96-2364, -2365, -2366
PUC DOCKET NOS. 16462, 15709, 12763
ORDER NO. 1
PACE 2
Chovanetz of Bullard, Texas filed a complaint against Cherokee regarding its fee for switching his
service from Cherokee to Texas Utilities Electric Company; this complaint became Commission
Docket No. 16462.
On December 16, 1996, the Commission transferred these dockets to the State Office of
Administrative Hearings (SOAH) pursuant to Tex. Gov. Code Ann. § 2003.047(e)' for the
assignment of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to conduct a hearing and issue a proposal for
decision (PFD), if such is necessary in the event one or more issues are contested by the parties.
Joint Prehearing Conference
Pursuant to P.U.C. PROC. R. 22.121, a joint prehearing conference will be conducted in these
proceedings beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 29, 1997, at the Commission's offices,
William B. Travis Bldg., 1701 N. Congress Ave., Austin, Texas. The following matters will be
discussed during the prehearing conference:
1.
Consolidation of the above-referenced proceedings;
2.
Any pending motions filed with the Commission and served on all parties by 3:00 p.m.
Monday, January 27, 1997.
3.
Adequacy of notice given and the need, if any, for additional notice;
4.
Establishment of an appropriate timetable for discovery, prefiling of direct testimony,
and other matters leading to the hearing on the merits;
5.
Scheduling of the hearing on the merits; and
6.
Any other matters which may aid in simplification of the proceedings and disposition
of issues, including the stipulation of uncontested matters.
1 Text of section as added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 765, § 1.35.
0
SOAH DOCKET NOS. 473-96-2364,-2365,-2366
PUC DOCKET NOS. 16462, 15709, 12763
•
ORDER NO. 1
PAGE 3
These cases have been assigned docket numbers by SOAH, in addition to the PUC docket
numbers. All pleadings filed in these cases SHALL state both docket numbers as referenced above.
Filing and Service Procedures
All pleadings required to be filed shall be filed with the Commission's filing clerk, not with
the SOAH filing clerk. The Commissionfiling clerk will promptly serve the filedpleadings on the
SOAHAL7. Pleadings requiring immediate action by the SOAH ALJ should, in addition to being filed
and served on all parties, be hand-delivered to Ms. Texey Caldwell at 300 West 15th Street,
Suite 504, Austin, Texas 78701.
The filing procedures specified in P.U.C. PROC. R. 22.71 apply to these proceedings, except
that to accommodate the Commission's Office of Policy Development, the parties SHALL add one
copy to the numbers listed in P.U.C. PROC. R. 22.71(b). Pleadings and other filings shall be deemed
filed when the proper number of legible copies are presented to the Commission filing clerk for filing.
Faxing documents to the Commission does not constitute filing. P.U.C. PROC. R. 22.71(c).
A copy of any document filed with the Commission must also be served on all parties as
provided by P.U.C. PROC. R. 22.74(a). Documents hand-delivered to the SOAH ALJ MUST be
served on all parties, filed with the Commission filing clerk, and file-stamped prior to delivery.
Service of pleadings, briefs, and other documents in this docket SHALL be accomplished by
hand-delivery, FAX, overnight courier, or electronic means, as opposed to service by mail.
All mail sent to the parties by the ALJ will be sent by first class mail, unless the party requests
express mailing and provides an express mail account number. Parties seeking to arrange express
mailing should contact Ms. Lisa Serrano at (512) 936-0724.
•
SOAH DOCKET NOS. 473-96-2364, -2365, -2366
PUC DOCKET NOS. 16462, 15709, 12763
ORDER NO. 1
0
PAGE 4
All parties SHALL provide their current telephone and facsimile number, if available, to all
other parties and the Commission by filing and serving all parties with such numbers. Each party is
responsible for providing the Commission and all parties with current address, telephone, and
facsimile information if such information changes.
The telephone and facsimile numbers will be
placed on the service list for the convenience of the parties. Parties are responsible for updating their
own service lists to reflect changed information and the addition of other parties, if any.
Because of budgetary constraints, only one address per party will be included on the official
service list maintained by SOAH. The parties may agree to serve more than one representative per
party. Corrections to the service list should be directed to Ms. Serrano.
Motions for Continuance or Cancellation of a Proceeding,
Motions for continuance shall be governed by the requirements of P.U.C. PROC. R. 22.79.
If a continuance or extension of a deadline is sought, the motion shall propose a new date or
dates and shall indicate whether the parties contacted agree on the new date or dates. Because the
ALJ and/or hearing room may not be available on a given day, a proposed range of dates would be
preferable.
The ALJ will not contact parties to ascertain their positions or to negotiate dates. In the
absence of a ruling by the ALJ, a contested motion for continuance or cancellation is NOT
GRANTED and the existing schedule remains in place.
Responses to Motions and Other Pleadino
Unless otherwise specified, responses to any motion or other pleading shall be filed within five
working days from receipt of the pleading to which the response is made. Such responsive pleadings
i
0
SOAH DOCKET NOS. 473-96-2364,-2365,-2366
PUC DOCKET NOS. 16462, 15709, 12763
ORDER NO. 1
•
PAGE 4
All parties SHALL provide their current telephone and facsimile number, if available, to all
other parties and the Commission by filing and serving all parties with such numbers. Each party is
responsible for providing the Commission and all parties with current address, telephone, and
facsimile information if such information changes. The telephone and facsimile numbers will be
placed on the service list for the convenience of the parties. Parties are responsible for updating their
own service lists to reflect changed information and the addition of other parties, if any.
Because of budgetary constraints, only one address per party will be included on the official
service list maintained by SOAH. The parties may agree to serve more than one representative per
party. Corrections to the service list should be directed to Ms. Serrano.
Motions for Continuance or Cancellation of a Proceeding
Motions for continuance shall be governed by the requirements of P.U.C. PROC. R. 22.79.
If a continuance or extension of a deadline is sought, the motion shall propose a new date or
dates and shall indicate whether the parties contacted agree on the new date or dates. Because the
ALJ and/or hearing room may not be available on a given day, a proposed range of dates would be
preferable.
The ALJ will not contact parties to ascertain their positions or to negotiate dates. In the
absence of a ruling by the ALJ, a contested motion for continuance or cancellation is NOT
GRANTED and the existing schedule remains in place.
Responses to Motions and Other Pleadings
Unless otherwise specified, responses to any motion or other pleading shall be filed within five
working days from receipt of the pleading to which the response is made. Such responsive pleadings
.^
•
^
SOAH DOCKET NOS. 473-96-2364,-2365,-2366
PUC DOCKET NOS. 16462, 15709, 12763
ORDER NO. 1
SHALL state the date of receipt of the pleading to which a response is made.
PAGE 5
P.U.C.
PROC. R. 22.78(a). Failure to file a timely response will be considered acquiescence to the relief
requested. Rulings will be based on the written pleadings unless the ALJ determines that a prehearing
conference is necessary.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the 2nd day of January 1997.
STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ROG
W. STEWART
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
4
.
J
0
0
PUC DOCKET NO. 12763
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-96-2366
CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC.'S COMPLIANCE
REPORT FOR SWITCHOVER FEES
§
§
§
PUBLIC UTILITY CO1VIMISiION
.-.,y
OF TEXAS-,y.
r$^,
PUC DOCKET NO. 15709
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-96-2365
COMPLAINT OF TIM JONES AGAINST
CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
§
§
§
a^
PUBLIC UTILITY COMIVIISSI4*
OF TEXAS
PUC DOCKET NO. 16462
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-96-2364
COMPLAINT OF RICHARD CHOVANTEZ §
§
AGAINST CHEROKEE COUNTY
§
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
ORDER REQUIRING FILING OF LIST OF ISSUES
On December 16, 1996, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Commission) referred these
three dockets to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH). In each of the referral orders, the
Commission required Cherokee County Electric Company (Cherokee) to file a list of issues to be
addressed in each docket by January 2, 1997. This deadline was subsequently extended to January 10,
1997.
As of the date of this Order, Cherokee has not complied with the requirement to file a list of
issues in any of the dockets. On January 21, 1997, Cherokee filed a pleading directed to the SOAH
administrative law judge (ALJ) which acknowledges the orders of referral and the subsequent orders
extending the deadline for filing lists of issues. Consequently, Cherokee has actual notice of the filing
requirement.
Cherokee shall file a list of issues in each of these proceedings no later than 3:00 p.m., January
30, 1997. Such a filing shall not be a vehicle by which to directly respond to the lists of issues timely
11.
.
DOCKET NOS. 12763, 10 16462
PAGE 2
0
filed by the other parties in these dockets. Because Cherokee has failed to comply with the directives in
the orders of referral, the date upon which the Commission will consider and possibly adopt a
preliminary order in each of these proceedings is changed to February 19, 1997.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the 1-3 rd- day of January, 1997.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
Sk6&g.ncA-"STEPHEN J. DAVIS
DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
State Of-Me of Administrati-0- Hearings
E F
Shelia Bailey Taylor
Chief Administrative Law Judge
January 28,1997
Ms. Paula Mueller
Secretary of the Commission
Public Utility Commission of Texas
1701 N. Congress Ave.
Austin, TX 78701
RE:
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2364/PUC Docket No. 16462 APPLICATION OF RICHARD
CHOVANTEZ A GAINST CHEROKEE CO UNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2365/PUC Docket No. 1S709-COMPLAINT OF TIM JONES
AGAINST CHEROKEE CO UNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2366/PUC Docket No. 12763--CHEROgEE COUNTY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC'S COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR SWTTCHOVER
FEES
Dear Ms. Mueller:
Enclosed for filing is the original and one copy of Order No. 2 in the above-referenced
proceedings. Please file stamp and return the copies to SOAH.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
W.
^
Roger W. Stewart
Administrative Law Judge
William P. Clements Building
Post Office Box 13025 ♦ 300 West 15th Street, Suite 502 ♦ Austin Texas 78711-3025
(512) 475-4993
Docket (512) 475-3445
Fax (512) 475-4994
•
•
PUC DOCKET NO. 15709
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-96-2365
COMPLAINT OF TIM JONES AGAINST §
CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC
§
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
§
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING ON THRESHOLD ISSUES
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Tex. Gov't. Code Ann. §2001.058(^^'3
(Vernon Pamphlet 1997), which requires the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Commission) to
provide the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) with a "written statement of
applicable rules or policies," the Commission, through the Office of Policy Development (OPD),
issues this Order requesting briefing on threshold issues for purposes of issuing a preliminary
order pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §2003.047(e) (Vernon Pamphlet 1997).
By letter dated April 12, 1995, Mr. Tim Jones complained to the Commission about
service from Cherokee and switchover fees to change service to another company. On April 22,
1996, Mr. Tim Jones filed a complaint against Cherokee related to the fee charged for switching
service from Cherokee to Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cherokee responded to the
complaint on June 24, 1996.
On November 27, 1996, Mr. Jones requested that this matter be
docketed and that a prehearing conference be scheduled.
On December 16, 1996, Docket No. 16462 was referred to the State Office of
Administrative Hearings (SOAH) for assignment of an administrative law judge (ALJ).
The
referral order required Mr. Jones and allowed General Counsel and any other interested parties, to
file a list of issues to be addressed in this proceeding by January 2, 1997. The Office of Policy
Development (OPD) issued an order revising this date to January 10, 1997. On January 10, 1997,
Mr. Jones and General Counsel filed a list of issues. Cherokee was directed to file a list of issues
by an order dated January 23, 1997.
This order mistakenly rebuked Cherokee for failure to
t -7
Docket No. 15709
0
BRIEFING ORDER
is
Page 2
provide a list of issues as required by the order of referral. The order of referral in this docket did
not require Cherokee to file a list of issues. Cherokee filed a response on January 30, 1997.
Any party or movant to intervene may file a brief which addresses the following threshold
legal and policy issues in this docket.
If Cherokee is notified that a retail customer wants to switch service to another utility and
the connecting utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase Cherokee's facilities, is
Cherokee required by any tariff, Commission rule or policy, or statutory provision to sell
its facilities where (a) the offer is for facilities that solely serve the customer wanting to
switch service, or (b) the offer is for facilities in addition to those that solely serve the
customer, the sale of which would prevent or limit Cherokee's ability to serve other
customers in its service area?
2.
If Cherokee is notified that a retail customer wants to switch service to another utility and
the connecting utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase Cherokee's facilities, is
Cherokee precluded by any tariff, Commission rule or policy, or statutory provision from
including the cost of its facilities and charges to remove those facilities in calculating a
switch over fee if (a) the offer is for facilities that solely serve the customer wanting to
switch service, or (b) the offer is for facilities in addition to those that solely serve the
customer wanting to switch service, and the sale of which would prevent or limit
Cherokee's ability to serve other customers in its service area?
3.
If Cherokee is notified that a retail customer wants to switch service to another utility and
that customer alleges substandard service as a basis for switching service, does the
Commission have authority to limit any obligation the customer may have to pay
switchover fees?
t
i
Docket No. 15709
0
BRIEFING ORDER
•
Page 3
Briefs, not to exceed ten pages, on these threshold legal and policy issues are due by 3:00
p.m., February 10, 1997.
Unless specifically requested, parties shall not file responses to briefs
filed pursuant to this Order.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the "3 v-d day of Februay, 1997.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
STEPHEN J. DAVIS
DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
Pat Wood, III
Put* Utility Commission of *as
Chairman
1701 N. Congress Avenue
P. O. Box 13326
Austin, Texas 78711-3326
512 / 936-7000 . (Fax) 936-7003
Robert W. Gee
Commissioner
Judy Walsh
Commissioner
Chairman Pat Wood, III
Commissioner Robert W. Gee
Commissioner Judy Walsh
All Parties of Record
TO:
-^--
^^-^..
^_
Steve Neinast^4-le
Assistant Dit/ec or, Office of Policy Development
THRU:
C-')
C^)
FROM:
Stephen D. Journea
Chief Attorney, Office f olicy Development
DATE:
February 18, 1997
RE:
Draft Preliminary Order in SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2365, P.U.C. Docket No.
15709, Complaint of Tim Jones Against Cherokee County Electric Cooperative
Association. February 19, 1997, Open Meeting Agenda Item No. 5
Please find attached for filing the following documents in the above-reference docket:
1.
Draft Preliminary Order proposed by the Office of Policy Development;
2.
Comments of Chairman Wood; and
3.
Comments of Commissioner Walsh.
Commissioner Gee did not propose changes to the Draft Preliminary Order.
cc:
Adib, Parviz
Bellon, Paul
Davis, Steve
Duncan, John
Featherston, David
Kathy Hamilton
Jenkins, Brenda
Kjellstrand, Leslie
Laakso, John
McKeever, Robin
Mueller, Paula
Oswalt, Vicki
Pope, Ed
Prior, Dianne
Sapperstein, Scott
Silverstein, Alison
Slocum, Bret
Vogel, Carole
Director, Consumer Affairs
•
®
PnMed on recycled paper
POLICY DEVELOPMENT (512) 936-7200
ADMINISTRATION
(512) 936-7045
CENTRAL RECORDS
(512) 936-7180
An Equal Opportunity Empbyer
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ( 512) 936-7040
PUBLIC INFORMATION ( 512) 936-7140
CONSUMER AFFAIRS
(512) 936-7120
HUMAN RESOURCES ( 512) 936-7060
TTY
(512) 936-7136
REGULATORY AFFAIRS (512) 936-7300
COMMISSION SECRETARY (512) 936-7150
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (512) 936-7090
Z5-
•
•
•
PUC DOCKET NO. 15709
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-96-2365
COMPLAINT OF TIM JONES AGAINST §
CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC
§
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
§
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
DRAFT PRELIMINARY ORDER
By letter dated April 12, 1995, Mr. Tim Jones filed a letter with the Commission regarding
service from Cherokee County Electric Cooperative Association (Cherokee) and the assessment
of switchover fees to change service from Cherokee to another utility.
On April 22, 1996, Mr.
Jones filed a complaint against Cherokee related to the fee charged for switching service from
Cherokee to Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cherokee responded to the complaint on
June 24, 1996. On November 27, 1996, Mr. Jones requested that this matter be docketed and
that a prehearing conference be scheduled.
is
The Commission referred Docket No. 15709 to the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) for assignment of an administrative law judge (ALJ) on December 16, 1996.
The referral order required Mr. Jones, and allowed General Counsel and any other interested
parties, to file a list of issues to be addressed in this proceeding by January 2, 1997. The Office of
Policy Development (OPD) issued an order revising this date to January 10, 1997.
Both W.
Jones and General Counsel filed a list of issues on January 10, 1997. OPD subsequently directed
Cherokee to file a list of issues by an order dated January 23, 1997. Cherokee filed a response on
January 30, 1997.
By order dated February 3, 1997, OPD requested the parties to file briefs on threshold
issues by February 10, 1997. Cherokee filed a brief and General Counsel filed a request for the
ALJ to grant a three-day extension to file on February 10, 1997.
General Counsel filed a brief on February 13, 1997.
Mr. Jones did not file a brief.
Docket No. 15709
•
•
PRELIMINARY ORDER
Page 2
I. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §2003.047(e) (Vernon Pamphlet 1997), the
Commission must provide to the ALJ a list of issues or areas to be addressed in any proceeding
referred to the SOAH. The Commission identifies the following issues that must be addressed in
this docket:
1.
Is Cherokee's policy of refusing to sell its facilities reasonable when another utility offers
to purchase those facilities to serve the same customer after a switchover has been
requested?
2.
Has Cherokee received a bona fide offer to purchase the facilities that would be idled if
Mr. Jones switches service to another utility?
3.
Is the sale of facilities to Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. practical given the
geographic location of Mr. Jones' residence and Cherokee's and Upshur's facilities?
is
4.
What costs would Mr. Jones incur if Upshur purchased the Cherokee facilities and
provided service to Mr. Jones? Would these costs prohibit Mr. Jones from switching
service to Upshur?
5.
Did Cherokee calculate the switchover fee for Mr. Jones in a manner consistent with the
Commission's orders in Docket No. 11351 and Docket No. 6928, the Commission's
Substantive Rules, and Cherokee's Tariff?
6.
Are the estimated switchover and cost of removal charges proposed by Cherokee in this
docket reasonable?
7.
Does the Commission have authority, in multi-certificated areas, to require electric utilities
to unbundle their distribution rates and file open access distribution tariffs to avoid the
duplication of facilities in instances where a switchover has been requested and the utility
is unwilling to sell the affected facilities?
LJ
Docket No. 15709
^
PRELIMINARY ORDER
•
Page 3
^ 8. If so, is it in the public interest for the Commission, in multi-certificated areas, to require
electric utilities to unbundle their distribution rates and file open access distribution tariffs
to avoid the duplication of facilities in instances where a switchover has been requested
and the utility is unwilling to sell the affected facilities?
H. THRESHOLD LEGAL/POLICY DETERMINATIONS
Parties filed briefs on or before February 13, 1997 addressing the following legal and
policy questions. The following statements of position were reached in consideration of
arguments of the parties. Accordingly, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Tex. Gov't
Code Ann. §2001.058(c) (Vernon Pamphlet 1997), the Commission states its position on the
following threshold issues:
1.
•
If Cherokee is notified that a retail customer wants to switch service to another
utility and the connecting utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase Cherokee's
facilities, is Cherokee required by any tariff, Commission rule or policy, or statutory
provision to sell its facilities where (a) the offer is for facilities that solely serve the
customer wanting to switch service, or (b) the offer is for facilities in addition to
those that solely serve the customer, the sale of which would prevent or limit
Cherokee's ability to serve other customers in its service area?
There is currently no tariff provision, Commission rule or policy, or statutory provision
that would require Cherokee to sell its facilities in a switchover situation where the connecting
utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase Cherokee's facilities. In Nueces, Docket No. 6928, the
Commission concluded that it lacked authority to require a utility to sell distribution facilities.l
•
1 Inquiry into the Legality of the Service, Practices and Rates of Nueces Electric Cooperative,
Inc. Relating to Service,
Docket No. 6928, Conclusion of Law No. 6, 14 P.U.C. BULL. 102, 149 (July 30, 1987).
Docket No. 15709
2.
0
PRELIMINARY ORDER
0
Page 4
If Cherokee is notified that a retail customer wants to switch service to another
utility and the connecting utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase Cherokee's
facilities, is Cherokee precluded by any tariff, Commission rule or policy, or
statutory provision from including the cost of its facilities and charges to remove
those facilities in calculating a switchover fee if (a) the offer is for facilities that
solely serve the customer wanting to switch service, or (b) the offer is for facilities in
addition to those that solely serve the customer wanting to switch service, and the
sale of which would prevent or limit Cherokee's ability to serve other customers in
its service area?
The Commission has determined that a disconnecting utility may not include the cost of its
facilities idled by a switchover, or the costs or removal of idled facilities, in its calculation of a
switchover fee when the connecting utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase the idled facilities.2
If the connecting utility is willing to sign an agreement indemnifying the disconnecting utility from
future liability from the idled facilities, the disconnecting facility cannot charge for the removal of
the idled facilities.3 This is true even though the purchase price offered is less than the net book
value.4 In addition, the purchase price offered would constitute the salvage value which must be
•
used to offset the book value of the idled facilities in calculating a switchover fee5.
Cherokee's switchover tariff is practically identical to the switchover tariff in Nueces.
Therefore, if Cherokee is notified that a retail customer wants to switch service to another utility
and the connecting utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase Cherokee's idled facilities,
Cherokee's calculation of a switchover fee must conform to the holding in Nueces.
Cherokee
could not include the removal cost of the idled facilities in the calculation of the switchover fee,
and Cherokee must reduce the book value of those facilities by the salvage value, which is
2 Nueces, 14 P.U.C BULL. at 120-21; Id Findings of Fact Nos. 37 & 38 at 143-44.
3 Nueces, 14 P.U.C. BULL. at 120-21.
41d.
5 Id.
•
Docket No. 15709
•
determined by the offer price.6
PRELIMINARY ORDER
^
Page 5
Cherokee would also not be precluded from charging for the
removal of any idled facilities not included in the offer of purchase.7 In addition, Cherokee would
not be required to sell its idled facilities.g
3.
If Cherokee is notified that a retail customer wants to switch service to another
utility and that customer alleges substandard service as a basis for switching service,
does the Commission have authority to limit any obligation the customer may have
to pay switchover fees?
There is currently no tariff provision, Commission rule, or statutory provision that would
authorize the Commission to limit any obligation a customer may have to pay a switchover fee
where a retail customer alleges substandard service as a basis for switching service.
M.
This Order is preliminary in nature and is entered without prejudice to any party
expressing views contrary to this Order before the SOAH ALJ at the hearing. The SOAH ALJ,
upon his or her own motion or upon the motion of any party, may deviate from this Order when
circumstances dictate it is reasonable to do so. Any ruling by the SOAH ALJ that deviates from a
preliminary order may be appealed to the Commission. The Commission will not address whether
this Order should be modified except upon its own motion or the appeal of a SOAH ALJ's order.
Furthermore, this Order is not subject to motions for rehearing or reconsideration.
61d
S
7 Id.
8 1d., Conclusion of Law No. 6 at 149.
Docket No. 15709
•
PRELIMINARY ORDER
!
Page 6
0
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the
day of February, 1997.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS
PAT WOOD, III, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT W. GEE, COMMISSIONER
JUDY WALSH, COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
is
40
PAULA MUELLER
SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION
PuO Utility Commission o
exas
Memorandum
TO:
Commissioner Robert W. Gee
Commissioner Judy Walsh
All Parties of Record
FROM:
Chairman Pat Wood, III
^
- RE:
Docket No. 15709, Complaint of Tim Jones Against Cherokee County Electric
Cooperative Association, Item No. 5, February 19, 1997 Open Meeting.
DATE:
February 18, 1997
I propose the following revisions to the list of issues in the draft preliminary order.
1. Renumber current Issue No. 2 as Issue No. 1.
2. Add new Issue No. 2 to read:
2.
If so, has Cherokee refused this offer to purchase its facilities?
^ 3. Renumber current Issue No. 1 as Issue No. 3 and modify as follows:
3.
If so, is Cherokee's policy of refusing to sell its facilities reasonable when another
utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase those facilities to serve the same
customer after a switchover has been requested?
4. Renumber succeeding issues.
is
^.
.
Pum Utility Commission o
exas
Memorandum
of
TO:
Chairman Pat Wood, III
Commissioner Robert W. Gee
All Parties of Record
FROM:
Commissioner Judy Wal h
RE:
Docket No. 15709, Complaint of Tim Jones Against Cherokee County Electric
Cooperative Association, Item No. 5, February 19, 1997 Open Meeting.
DATE:
February 18, 1997
I propose that Issue Nos. 7 and 8, relating to open access distribution tariffs in multicertificated areas be deleted from the proposed preliminary order.
I would suggest that this issue be taken up in Docket No. 12805 relating to switchover
fees.
•
11
,
State Woe of Administratie Hearings
CE
r
Shelia Bailey Taylor
Chief Administrative Law Judge
^,.
March 24, 1997
Ms. Paula Mueller
Secretary of the Commission
Public Utility Commission of Texas
1701 N. Congress Ave.
Austin, TX 78701
RE:
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2364/PUC Docket No. 16462-APPLICATION OF RICHARD
CHOVANTE2AGAIIVST CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2365/PUC Docket No. 15709-COMPLAINT OF TIM JONES
AGAINST CHEROKEE COUNTYELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2366/PUC Docket No. 12763-CHEROKEE COUNTY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC'S COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR SWITCHOVER
FEES
Dear Ms. Mueller:
Enclosed for filing is the original and one copy of Order No. 3 in the above-referenced
proceedings. Please file stamp and return the copies to SOAH.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Ro;r W. Stewart
Administrative Law Judge
/nh
William P. Clements Building
Post Office Box 13025 ♦ 300 West 15th Street, Suite 502 ♦ Austin Texas 78711-3025
(512) 475-4993
Docket (512) 475-3445
Fax (512) 475-4994
410
PUC DOCKET NO. 15709
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-96-2365
COMPLAINT OF TIM JONES AGAINST §
CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC
§
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
§
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION
OF TEXAS
PRELIMINARY ORDER
By letter dated April 12, 1995, Mr. Tim Jones filed a letter with the Commission regarding
service from Cherokee County Electric Cooperative Association (Cherokee) and the assessment
of switchover fees to change service from Cherokee to another utility.
On April 22, 1996, Mr.
Jones filed a complaint against Cherokee related to the fee charged for switching service from
Cherokee to Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. Cherokee responded to the complaint on
June 24, 1996. On November 27, 1996, Mr. Jones requested that this matter be docketed and
that a prehearing conference be scheduled.
The Commission referred Docket No. 15709 to the State Office of Administrative
Hearings (SOAH) for assignment of an administrative law judge (ALJ) on December 16, 1996.
The referral order required Mr. Jones, and allowed General Counsel and any other interested
parties, to file a list of issues to be addressed in this proceeding by January 2, 1997. The Office of
Policy Development (OPD) issued an order revising this date to January 10, 1997.
Both Mr.
Jones and General Counsel filed a list of issues on January 10, 1997. OPD subsequently directed
Cherokee to file a list of issues by an order dated January 23, 1997. Cherokee filed a response on
January 30, 1997.
By order dated February 3, 1997, OPD requested the parties to file briefs on threshold
issues by February 10, 1997. Cherokee filed a brief and General Counsel filed a request for the
ALJ to grant a three-day extension to file on February 10, 1997. Mr. Jones did not file a brief.
General Counsel filed a brief on February 13, 1997.
2^
PRELIMINARY ORDER
Docket No. 15709
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2365
®
Page 2
1. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
Pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §2003.047(e) (Vernon Pamphlet 1997), the
Commission must provide to the ALJ a list of issues or areas to be addressed in any proceeding
referred to the SOAH. The Commission identifies the following issues that must be addressed in
this docket:
1.
Has Cherokee received a bona fide offer to purchase the facilities that would be idled if
Mr. Jones switches service to another utility?
2.
If so, has Cherokee refused this offer to purchase its facilities?
3.
If so, is Cherokee's policy of refusing to sell its facilities reasonable when another utility
makes a bona fide offer to purchase those facilities to serve the same customer after a
switchover has been requested?
4.
Is the sale of facilities to Upshur-Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. practical given the
geographic location of Mr. Jones' residence and Cherokee's and Upshur's facilities?
5.
What costs would Mr. Jones incur if Upshur purchased the Cherokee facilities and
provided service to Mr. Jones?
Would these costs prohibit Mr. Jones from switching
service to Upshur?
6.
Did Cherokee calculate the switchover fee for Mr. Jones in a manner consistent with the
Commission's orders in Docket No. 11351 and Docket No. 6928, the Commission's
Substantive Rules, and Cherokee's Tariff?
7.
Is the estimated switchover fee proposed by Cherokee in this docket reasonable?
is
PRELIMINARY ORDER
Docket No. 15709
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2365
Page 3
II. THRESHOLD LEGAL/POLICY DETERMINATIONS
Parties filed briefs on or before February 13, 1997 addressing the following legal and
policy questions. The following statements of position were reached in consideration of
arguments of the parties. Accordingly, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Tex. Gov't
Code Ann. §2001.058(c) (Vernon Pamphlet 1997), the Commission states its position on the
following threshold issues:
If Cherokee is notified that a retail customer wants to switch service to another
utility and the connecting utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase Cherokee's
facilities, is Cherokee required by any tariff, Commission rule or policy, or statutory
provision to sell its facilities where (a) the offer is for facilities that solely serve the
customer wanting to switch service, or (b) the offer is for facilities in addition to
those that solely serve the customer, the sale of which would prevent or limit
Cherokee's ability to serve other customers in its service area?
There is currently no tariff provision, Commission rule or policy, or statutory provision
that would require Cherokee to sell its facilities in a switchover situation where the connecting
utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase Cherokee's facilities. In Nueces, Docket No. 6928, the
Commission concluded that it lacked authority to require a utility to sell distribution facilities.l
1 Inquiry into the Legality of the Service, Practices and Rates of Nueces Electric Cooperative, Inc. Relating to Service,
Docket No. 6928, Conclusion of Law No. 6, 14 P.U.C. BULL. 102, 149 (July 30, 1987).
PRELIMINARY ORDER
Docket No. 15709
5OAII Docket No. 473-96-2365
2.
Page 4
If Cherokee is notified that a retail customer wants to switch service to another
utility and the connecting utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase Cherokee's
facilities, is Cherokee precluded by any tariff, Commission rule or policy, or
statutory provision from including the cost of its facilities and charges to remove
those facilities in calculating a switchover fee if (a) the offer is for facilities that
solely serve the customer wanting to switch service, or (b) the offer is for facilities in
addition to those that solely serve the customer wanting to switch service, and the
sale of which would prevent or limit Cherokee's ability to serve other customers in
its service area?
The Commission has determined that a disconnecting utility may not include the cost of its
facilities idled by a switchover, or the costs or removal of idled facilities, in its calculation of a
switchover fee when the connecting utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase the idled facilities.2
If the connecting utility is willing to sign an agreement indemnifying the disconnecting utility from
future liability from the idled facilities, the disconnecting facility cannot charge for the removal of
the idled facilities.3 This is true even though the purchase price offered is less than the net book
value.4 In addition, the purchase price offered would constitute the salvage value which must be
used to offset the book value of the idled facilities in calculating a switchover fee5.
Cherokee's switchover tariff is practically identical to the switchover tariff in Nueces.
Therefore, if Cherokee is notified that a retail customer wants to switch service to another utility
and the connecting utility makes a bona fide offer to purchase Cherokee's idled facilities,
Cherokee's calculation of a switchover fee must conform to the holding in Nueces.
2 Nueces, 14 P.U.C BULL. at 120-21; Id. Findings of Fact Nos. 37 & 38 at 143-44.
3 Nueces, 14 P.U.C. BULL. at 120-21.
4 Id.
5 Id.
Cherokee
0 PRELIMINARY ORDER
Docket No. 15709
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2365
•
Page 5
could not include the removal cost of the idled facilities in the calculation of the switchover fee,
and Cherokee must reduce the book value of those facilities by the salvage value, which is
determined by the offer price.6
Cherokee would also not be precluded from charging for the
removal of any idled facilities not included in the offer of purchase.7 In addition, Cherokee would
not be required to sell its idled facilities.8
3.
If Cherokee is notified that a retail customer wants to switch service to another
utility and that customer alleges substandard service as a basis for switching service,
does the Commission have authority to limit any obligation the customer may have
to pay switchover fees?
There is currently no tariff provision, Commission rule, or statutory provision that would
authorize the Commission to limit any obligation a customer may have to pay a switchover fee
where a retail customer alleges substandard service as a basis for switching service.
M.
This Order is preliminary in nature and is entered without prejudice to any party
expressing views contrary to this Order before the SOAH ALJ at the hearing. The SOAH ALJ,
upon his or her own motion or upon the motion of any party, may deviate from this Order when
circumstances dictate it is reasonable to do so. Any ruling by the SOAH ALJ that deviates from a
preliminary order may be appealed to the Commission. The Commission will not address whether
this Order should be modified except upon its own motion or the appeal of a SOAH ALJ's order.
Furthermore, this Order is not subject to motions for rehearing or reconsideration.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id., Conclusion of Law No. 6 at 149.
Docket No. 15709
0 PRELIMINARY ORDER
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2365
r
Page 6
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS the ^^day of February, 1997.
COMMISSION OF TEXAS
l 'WA(ll
PAT WOa)D, III, CHAIRMAN
ROB RT W. GEE, COMMISSIONER
WALSH,
ATT
.
PAULA MU LER
SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION
OMMISSIONER
r
T
State 01*e of Administra tit Hearings
CID
I
_J
Shelia Bailey Taylor
Chief Administrative Law Judge
April 24, 1997
Ms. Paula Mueller
Secretary of the Commission
Public Utility Commission of Texas
1701 N. Congress Ave.
Austin, TX 78701
RE:
^,^
--
..,.7
^_ _
.
SOAH Docket No. 473-96-2365/PUC Docket No. 15709--APPLICATION OF TIM
JONES AGAINST CHEROKEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
Dear Ms. Mueller:
Enclosed for filing is the original and one copy of Order No. 4 in the above-referenced
proceeding. Please file stamp and return the copy to SOAH.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Roger W. Stewart
Administrative Law Judge
/nh
William P. Clements Building
Post Office Box 13025 ♦ 300 West 15th Street, Suite 502 ♦ Austin Texas 78711-3025
(512) 475-4993
Docket ( 512) 475-3445
Fax (512) 475-4994
^^
•
^
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-96-2365
PUC DOCKET NO. 15709
COMPLAINT OF TIM JONES
AGAINST CHEROKEE COUNTY
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
§
§
§
BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
^^-Y
ORDER NO. 4
ABATING RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS,
SUSPENDING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE, AND
ORDERING COMPLAINANT TO FILE STATUS REPORT OR TESTIMq1\TY,=,_
In Order No. 3, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted the procedural schedule
proposed by the parties and extended by a two-week continuance. Under that schedule, complainant
Tim Jones was scheduled to file his direct testimony by March 26, 1997. After that date had passed
without a filing by Mr. Jones, Cherokee County Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Cherokee County
Electric) filed its motion to dismiss on April 9, the date that its direct testimony was to be filed. In
that motion, Cherokee County Electric urged that Mr. Jones's complaint be dismissed for failure to
file a prima facie case and failure to prosecute. On April 16, the General Counsel (General Counsel)
of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC or Commission) filed its response to Cherokee
County Electric's motion to dismiss. In that response, General Counsel urged that the complaint not
be dismissed, given that, from General Counsel's perspective, Mr. Jones has demonstrated a desire
to fully prosecute this matter and may not have understood that he was required to comply with the
procedural schedule regardless of the status of settlement negotiations.
The ALJ is concerned that Mr. Jones has not yet expressed sufficient desire to prosecute this
matter by either (a) filing his direct testimony or a request for an extension of time; or (b) responding
to Cherokee County Electric's motion to dismiss. Given that the parties are apparently continuing
efforts to settle this controversy, however, the ALJ is loathe to dismiss the complaint. The ALJ
therefore abates ruling on the motion to dismiss, suspends the procedural schedule, and orders Mr.
Jones to file either his direct testimony or a status report (with request for extension of time, if
needed) by Friday, May 2, 1997. Cherokee County Electric and General Counsel may each also file