ML20011E852
| ML20011E852 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1989 |
| From: | Oconnell R TEXAS, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| CON-#190-9869 A, NUDOCS 9002220599 | |
| Download: ML20011E852 (21) | |
Text
. - . . , -. _ _ _ , -
L ff scic '
- Pit 00 Public Utility Commissoon.& iexas soo swi cmk s.oima so.w 400'r -
L FAA. .
u.~ wma L' ' /".'
kn. k,.f,.! i.,{.i: Anm. bu ; sis 7 $12 4ss.ouc
. . . Oyd$
campt.1 l
....,, c-
' . ;g,y'
. "*~""
..% Tm -1,9y t
c i am: -..:. .
~
January ll, 1989 f1
}
T0: All parties of record
, l RE: Docket No. 8283.. Application of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative. Inc. for Authority to Change Rates Laotes ano Gentlemen:
Inclosee please fino a copy of my Examiner's Report anc Proposec Orcer in i this cocket. The Commission will consicer this case at an open meeting :
schedulee to begin at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 7,1989, at its offices at ;
7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard. Austin, Texas. You are welcome to attend the meeting but are not required to do 50. A copy of the signed Final Order will ,
be sent to you shortly thereafter. !
1 Exceptions, if any, to the Examiner's Report must be filed in writing no later than 4: 00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 1989. Replies to exceptions must :
be filed in writing no later than 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 1,1989. !
Concerning both exceptions and replies to exceptions, an original and ten '
copies must be filed.
Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Cap Rock) reouests the Commission's approval of proposed changes to Cap Rock general service rates. Cap Rock asserts that the sole justification for the proposed changes is the need to set '
rates that are more competitive with the rates of Texas Utilities Electric Company (TVEC). Ninety percent of Cap Rock's customers live in dually -
certificated areas that are served by TUEC.
The sole intervenor in the case, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and the Commission's general counsel both oppose the application. The examiner ,
recommencs that the Commission deny the application because the proposed rates ,
are not necessary to maintain a competitive position. Further, the proposed rates are not just and reasonable.
t
, Sincerely. -
- /
./
l G O Richard S. O'Connell Hearings Examiner l
r
\ .
9002220599 890111 5 .
ADDCK 050 DR %
,w,.
, ,m.- m, i, .
l t
- c. !
DOCKET NO. 8283 i
APPLICATION OF CAP ROCK ELECTRIC C00PERAT1YE, INC. FOR AUTHORITY i PUBLIC UTILITY COMMIS$10N !
l :
TO CHANGE RATC$ i 0F TEXA5 EXAMlWER'S REPORT ;
i
- 1. Procedural History !
On July 29, 1988, Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Cap Rock or int- '
applicant) filed an application recuesting Commission approval of two proposec amended , tariff sheets. , The new tariff sheets would change general service !
' rates. ,
Cap Rock successfully completed notice in this case. The examiner acmitteo -l into evidence at the October 20, 1988, prehearing conference and at the f
November 14, 1988, hearing on the merits, affidavits that establish that direct notice to Cap Rock members, and published notice had been completed. The examiner acmitted into evidence at the October 20, 1988, prehearing conference .
evidence that established that the commissioner's court of each affected county had received notice.
The effective date of the proposed rate change is 35 days after the applicant files its application with the Commission, in this case September 2, t 1988.
Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann, art.
1446c, Section 43(a) (Vernon Supp. 1988). The examiner in his Order No. I suspended implementation of the proposed schedules for 150 days, until January 31, 1989. Section 43(d) of the PURA.
The applicant is, of course, required to complete notice prior to the effective date. Section 43(a) of the PURA, Cap Rock's Exhibit No. I at the '
hearing on the merits shows, however, that published notice was not completed in four counties (Howard, Borden, Glassock, and Hartin) in the applicant's i
service area before the September 2, 1988, effective date.
Notice was not completed until October 7, 1988.
The examiner therefore issued his Order No. 7 l
l
, . . . , - -___m ._ ,__w.. - _ . , , . , . , . , _ , - - . . -
7 6.
DOCKET NO. E283 k
EXAMINER'S REPORT PAGE 2 mhich redesignates October 7, 1968. as the effective cate. The Order also suspended the implementation of the proposed schedules for )$0 days beyond the effective date, until March 6, 1989.
Three prehearing conferences were held. The Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPC) was granted intervenor status at the first prehearing conference.
At the second ; rehearing conference the parties discussed and offered evidence concerning whether the soplicant should prepare a full rate filing
- ackage. P.U.C. FROC. R. 21.69(a). Each party asserted that 900o cause existeo to waive the rate filing package requirement. P.U.C. PROC. R.
2).69(d). Based upon the testimony taken and Comission precedent, the examiner in his Order No. 3 waived the rate filing package requirement.
ADD 1ication of General Telechene ComDany of the Southwett, Docket No. 6387 (March 5, 1987).
A third prehearing conference was held on October 20, 1988, for the purpose of taking evidence on Cap Rock's motion seeking interim rate approval. All three parties introduceo evidence. After the prehearing conference the parties submitted closing statements; OPC and general counsel both opp 9 sed granting the rate changes on an interim or permanent basis.
The applicant's motion for interim rates was denied in Examiner's Order No.
- 5. The implied urgent need to immediately put into effect the proposed rates was..tpl.lflerted by the evidence introduced at the prehearing, conference. The erenesed rate chances are revenue neutral: Cao Rock did not have a financial need for interim rate approval. The proposed rate changes would cause some members' electric bills to go up; this application does not create a situation where "everybody wins" as soon as the Commission approves the proposed rate i
L ,
t I i
!, DOCKET N0. 2283 EXAMINER'$ REPORT PAGE 3 changes. Further, an expedited procedural schedule was set in this case in >
response to Cap Rock's recuest.
No evidence was introduced to show that the expedited schedule will not acequately protect the interests of Cap Rock ano its members.
During the prehearing conference to consider the motion for interim ratt '
approval the parties raised all issues pertinent to the merits of the Loplication.
The parties were therefore required to file a notice by a certain cesoline if they wanted to retain their right to a hearing on the merits. 'f -
to party fileo a notice then the examiner's evaluation of the merits of the application would be based on the pleadings and evidence alrency in the record. No party filee notice.
The hearing on the merits was, however, convenec on Novemoer 14, 1988, but only for purposes of taking evicence concerning whether C,ap Rock had completed notice. -
The Sterling County Commitsioner's Court filed a protest statement on ;
October 25, 1988, that stated its opposition to the proposed rate changes. .
- 11. Description of Utility and Proposed Rate Changes P
Cap Rock purchases all of its electric power from Texas Utilities Electric Company (TVEC) and distributes the power to Cap Rock's members located in a 13 ;
county area in west Texas.
More than half of Cap Rock's service area is dually certificated to TVEC. Applicant's Exhibit No. I at 3. (All exhibit cites refer to the evidence taken at the October 20, 1988, prehearing
, conference.) Ninety per cent of Cap Rock's' customers who are served under the general service rates live in the dually certificated areas. Applicant's Exhibit No. 2 at 3.
Cao Rock's rates were last reviewed by the Comission in QRcket No. 6778.
On Septemoer 2, 1986, the Comission signed a Final Oroer that adopted a settlement prepared by Cap Rock and the Comission staff. Cap Rock's
c l
- m. .
DOCKET NO. E283 EXAMINER'S REPORT PAGE 4 application requested a 5.2 percent increase in revenues. The settlement, however, reduced Cap Rock's total revenue requirement by 5150,730 or .5 percent, compared to test year revenues. The test year ended June 30, 1985, Cap Rock's tariff has four rate schedules: general service, irrigation, commercial service, and industrial service. The application proposes changes only to the general service schedule. The proposed changes are as follows:
Current Wptl.ts Ell.t 31.1.1 Customer Charge 58.50 58.50 Energy Charge Summer 50.070237 50.071000 Vinter (November. April) up to 600 kwh 50.055500' 50.071000 above 600 kwh 50.055500 50.044000 The principal change concerns the winter rate: the existing rate is 30.0555 for each kilowatt hour (kwh) used, but the application proooses a higher rate for the first 600 kwh used in a month and a lower rate for kwn used in excess of 600 kwh.
Mr. David Pruitt, the general manager of Cap Rock, testified that the ' sole purpose" of the application was to ' parallel the design of [TUEC's) rate (s).*
Applicant's Exhibit 2 at 7. Cap Rock asserts that the proposed changes are necessary so that Cap Rock can compete with TUEC.
l Cap Rock intenced that the proposed rates should be revenue neutral. Cap Rock submitted schedules showing that the proposed rates, if applied to the twelve month period ending April 30, 1988, would cause a small reduction in revenues of 59,338. As explained below, there will, however, be changes in billing at different monthly kwh usage levels. Generally, customers who use smaller amounts of energy would pay more and customers who use larger amounts I of energy would pay less. Applicant's Exhibit No. 9 at 3.
F , j l.. !
~
DOCKET N0, 8283 :
.. EXAMINER'S REPORT l PAGE 5 l
!!!. Examiner's Recomendations
]
g A. Introduction i i
As previously noted. 4 full rate filing package was not submitted in this i case. The proposed rates were not evaluated on the basis of the cost of service to the various customers, or cther factors typically considered in a ?
-major rate case. Cap Rock asserted that the sole justification for the oroceseo rates was the need to maintain rates that are comoetitive with !
TJEt's. The examiner, however, concludes that the proposed rates are not necessary to maintain a competitive position. Further, the proposed rates are not just and reasonable.
Both the general counsel and the Office of Public Utility Counsel in their post hearing briefs argued that the application should be denied becauseg Rock did not assert nor establish a cost of service basis for the proposed I rates. The applicant's July 29, 1988, pleading, however, clearly stated "that the justification is based solely on competitive considerations.* Prior to the hearing, general counsel and OPC never asserted that competitive considerations was an insufficient basis to change rates. At the secohJ prehearing conference general counsel and OPC agreed that a rate filing package, which would contain cost of service information, was not needed. They did not suggest that 'some other form of cost of service information should be prepared by Cap Rock. The examiner therefore concludes that it would constitute an unfair surprise to '
weigh against the application the fact that the proposed rates are not justified on a cost of service basis.
B. Comeetitive Considerations t Examiner's Attachments A through D compare the general service winter and
! summer rates of TUEC and Cap Rock. (The Attachments are schedules found in I
Aoplicant's Exhibit No. 9.)
l
n - . . ,
[-
.s DOCKET N0. 8263 EXAMINER'S REPORT FAGE 6 A comparison of the existing summer rates shows that Cap Rock's rates are B to 30 percent higher than TULC's. depending upon the monthly kwh consumec. The highest monthly kwh usage per month category, 5,000 kwh, has the smallest disparity between rates, 8.45 percent. Cap Rock customers who use progressively less kwh per month pay progressively more, compared to TVl0 custemtrs.
_ The proposec summer rate for Cap Rock would cause the disparity between Cep Rock's rate ano the lower IVEC rate to actually increase.
Turning to the winter rates (Novemoer through April), a comparison of Cap Rock's ano TUEC's existing rates shows that for ettstomers who use 1,000 kwh per month or less, Cap Rock's rates are comparable or even less expensive. But Cap Rock customers who con ume 2,000 to E,000 kwh per month pay 18 to 31 percent more.
The proposed winter rates would cause Cap Rock customers who use less than 1,000 kwh per month to pay higher total monthly bills that would be 11 to 29 percent higher than TUEC's. The Cap Rock custcmers who use from 2,000 to 5.000 kwn per month would benefit from the rate change. They would pay only 11 to 12 percent more than TUEC customers.
Obviously, Cap Rock's general service rates are higher than TUEC's, both according to the existing and the proposed rates. .The proposed rates are more "comoetitiveonly ,if the focus,is on winter rates and the, highest monthly kwh categories.
The proposed rates otherwise actually increase the disparity
, between Cap Rock's rates and the lower TUEC rates.
- Cap Rock, of course, does focus on the winter rates for the highest monthly kwh categories, Cao Rock asserts that the average monthly consumption for customers unoer the general service rate is 2,000.kwh; if the monthly bill of these customers is not adjusted downward to be more competitive with TUEC, then the customers will switch over to TUEC. Applicant's Closing Statement at 1.
I
~
i DOCKET N0. 8283 .
EXAMINER'S REPORT PAGE 7 -
r The record does not support Cap Rock's fear that it will lose its customer ;
.hase. Cap Rock has not lost one existing customer to TUEC since January 1986. l There is no information in the record concerning customer switch. overs pHor 10 i January 1986. The greatest growth in the potential customer base is in the i dually certificated areas. In those areas approximately 30 percent of the new connects have gone to Cap Rock. Applicant's Exhibit No. 2 at 2. !
Cap Rock's tariff includes a $196.37 switch over fee. A Cap Rock customer
'.ho uses 2.000 L=n per montn in the winter months is currently paying $18 per !
montn more han if he were servec by TUEC. He could switch over to service with TUFC and ecover his switch over fee in about 10 raonths. Under the 9
proposed rates, the customer would be paying only $12 mort per month; i.t would take 16 months to recover the switch.over fe, if he chose to switch to service with TUEC. General Counsel's Exhibit No. 1 at 6.
The examiner finds that Cap Rock's assertion that the proposed rates are necessary to maintain its competitive position is unjustified. The proposed Cap Rock rates would cause the disparity with TUEC rates to increase for some ,
customers and to decrease for others. The average customer, one who uses 2000 kwh per month, would still pay $12 more per month. If the average customer i elected to switch to service with TUEC, the fees incurred because of the switch over could be recovered in a period a few months longer than under the existing rates. Finally, Cap Rock has not produced sufficient evidence that -
its customer base is actually deteriorating.
C. QB.grimination Between Members of General Service Class The proposed rates raise the question of unreasonably discriminatory rates. PURA Section 45. The record, however, shows that the question of who the burcen of proof lies with on the issue was neither adequately pleaded nor
- discussed in the record. The examiner concludes that it is not necessary to i
l
,-,,.,--e., .,. , , , _ . ~ , .
~
- DOCKET NO. 8283 1
' EXAMINER'S REPORT !
PAGE 8 i t
reach the issue because. 6s etscussed below, the proposed rates are not just ;
ane and reasonable.
t i
D. preeesed ca tes and the Just and Reasonable standard '
The examiner reviewed the record to determine whether the effect of the ;
proposed rates on customers at various kwh per month categories would be jJst and reasonaDlo. PVRA Sections 38, 40.
Concerning the winter rates, the reader may wish to immeciately review Ixaminer's Attachment [. (Applicant's Exhibit No. 9 at Schedule E 2.0.) The ,
seneaule illustrates the effect of the proposed rates on the various monthly kwh usage per month categories. It show!, for example, that if the proposed rates were put into effect customers who use 2,000 kwh per month would receive '
a 5.8) percent decrease to their monthly bill, and customers who use 1,000 kwh per month would receive a 4.70 percent increase to their monthly bill. ,
C>.,; J ock provided the following information concerning the distribution of the r.frocer of meters in the various monthly kwh usage per month categories:
Monthly Number kwh of Usace Meters 25 75 216 76 150 117 151 300 223 302 500 231
$01 700 544 701 900 621 901 1500 1,181 1501 2500 1,983 6
-~ - . , , - , . - - -
~
DOCKET NO. 8283 i EXAMINER'5 REPCRT PAGE 9 -
2501 4000 1,957 i 4001 above 723 :
Applicant's Exhibit No. 2 at 1. This was the 'best informttion" that the .
applicant could provide. The information, of course, makes it difficult to '
evaluate the effects of the proposed rates on a particular kwh category and the l number of customers that are in the category. The evaluation would have been !
much simpler if Cao Rock had prepared the above information according to the kwn categories listec in Examiner's Attachment E, which is a copy of a cocument prepared by Cap Rock. Further, the above information does not necessarily pertain to the winter months. The chart presumably lists the annual average number of meters within each c a t egory. Mr. Pruitt asserted that the distribution of meters at various usage levels "does not change significantly
- from season to seaso'n." Applicant's Exhibit No. 2 at 1.
Notwithstanding the difficulties of evaluating the information, some clarifying observations can be made. First, referring to Examiner's Attachment l E, the point where the monthly kwh consumed indicates test a customer's monthly bill would remain the same if the proposed rates are put into effect, lies !
somewhere between 1,000 kwh and 2,000 kwh. Because no better information was '
I '
submitted, the examiner concludes on this basis that the mid po3nt of these numbers,1,500 kwh, separates the customers whose monthly bills would increase from those whose monthly bills would decrease if the proposed rates were put into effect. Referring to the above chart, this means that 3,133 meters, or 40 percent of the meters charged on the general service rate would suffer an increase in their monthly bill if the proposed rates were put into effect, j ' This 40 percent refers, of course, to the meters that consume 1,500 kwh per month or less.
Cao Rock understands the proposed rates appear unfair, but a s ser,t_s_ t hey
! wo.uld be fair in Ru ct. ice. The applicant asserts that 80 percent of the j residences served under the general service rate do not have gas hook ups, or '
i .
i u
^
DOCKET NO. 8283 !
EXAMINER'S REPORT '
PAGE 10 i in other worcs are *all. electric homes;' these homes average 3.500 kwh per month in the winter months. Applicant's Exhibit No. I at 6. The meters who would suffer an increase in their monthly bill would therefore be other, non. residential, users of electricity. According to Mr. Pruitt, " virtually all I of the low usage meters are for service to water wells, fence chargers, and earns. Many times the large usage total electric home residential customers
[who would receive the tenefits of the proposed rates) are also the same customers with very small usage at other meters such as water wells for their homes or orchares," Applicant's Exhibit No. 2 at 2.
Mr. Pruitt's statement does not offer any information about the remaining 20 percent of resieentes that are not all electric. There is nothing in the record to indicate how many residences this represents and the effect of the proposed rates on them. Further, as the reader may have noticed, the above
-information refers to ' meters" served under the general service rates. There
~
is little evidence to support Mr. Pruitt's assertion that the customers who would benefit from the proposed rates are the sa'me customers whose meters for '
their water wells would suffer the rate increases. Mr. Carl N. Stover, a consultant for Cap Rock, acmitted that, based on customer names. Cap Rock could nave revieweo its records to determine the number of low usage meters that are associated with high usage meters, but did not do so. October 20, 1988, prehearing conference transcript tape 3 at 1495.
Commission staff member Ms. Christina Vanderhoof admitted in her testimony that Cap Rock's customers could be harined if Cap Rock did not remain competitive.
it is true that if Cap Rock does not remain competitive it will lose customers. The remaining customers would then pay higher rates to cover
' the fixec costs incurred by Cao Rock. But, as previously discussed, there is little evidence that Cap Rock's customer base is eroding. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that 30 percent of the new customers in the dually certificated areas cotain service from Cap Rock.
L :
!2 , !
) . ;
L I i
DOCKET N0. 8283 ;
i
, [KAMINER'S REPORT PAGE 11 The examiner concludes that the proposed rates are not just and reasonable. The proposed rates are revenue neutral. But this ' neutrality" is obtained by charging small power consumers more so that large power consumers can enjoy a rate decrease. There is no convincing evidence that the rates are in practice equitable or that the rates are necessary to maintain Cap Rock's .
competitive position. The examiner therefore recommends that the Commission f ceny Cap Rock's application.
IV. Fincings of Fact and Conclusions of Law The examiner recommends that the Commission adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
A. Findines of Fact
- 1. Cap Rock is an electric cooperative utility operating under certificate of convenience and necessity No. 30026.
- 2. Cap Rock filtd an application to change rates on July 29, 1988. The i application seeks approval of two amended tariff . sheets pertaining to the general service rates.
- 3. Cap Rock gave direct notice of this proceeding to its members and published notice for four consecutive weeks. Notice was given to the l
commissioner's court of each affected county. Notice was completed on October 7, 1988.
l 4. The examiner suspended the operation of the proposed rates 150 days l beyond the October 7, 1988, effective date, until March 6, 1989.
- 5. Although the Commission requires an applicant seeking to change its L
rates to submit a rate filing package, good cause existed in this instance to waive the requirement. The financial costs of preparing the rate filing package would have far exceeded its usefulness.
L j 1
I DOCKET NO. 1283 )
EXAMINER'S REPORT PAGE 12
- 6. The request for interim approval of the proposed rates was denied. I The request was opposed by the other parties. There was no urgent financial l
need.for interim approval because the proposed rates are revenue neutral.
- 7. A third prehearing conference was h61d on October 20, 1988. Each !
party introouced evidence concerning the merits of both the interim request foi-approval of rates and the final approval of the application. After the ,
prehearing conference the parties waived their right to a hearing on the merits.
B.
The hearing on the merits was convened on Novemoer 14, 1988, but only for purposes of taking evidence concerning whether Cap Rock had completed notice. The examiner's evaluation of the merits of the application is based upon the evidence received at the third prehearing conference and at the hearing on the merits.
- 9. The sole intervenor in this case, the Office of Public Utility Counsel, and the Commission's general counsel both oppose the application. The Sterling County Commissioner's Court filed a protest statement that opposed the proposeo rate changes. *
- 10. Cap Rock purchases all of its electric power from TVEC and distributes it in a 23 county area in west Texas. More than 90 percent of Cap flock's customers under the general service rate live in dually. certificated areas served by TUEC.
L
. 11. The proposed rate changes pertain only to the general service rate.
Cap Rock proposes a higher summer rate per kwh. The existing rate is 50.070237 per kwh. The proposed rate is 50.071000 per kwh.
- 12. The existing winter rate (November April) is 50.055500 per kwh. The application proposes a higher rate (30.071000) for the first 600 kwh used in a month, and a lower rate ($0.044000)'for kwh used in excess of 600 kwh.
u . - . . . _ . . . _ _ . _ . _.
-_ < < ..n- . , . . . . - . . ,
~
\
DOCKET N0. 8283
- EXAMINER'S REPORT 1 PAGE 13 j
- 13. Cap Rock asserted that the sole purpose behind the proposed rates was ,
the implementation of rates that are more competitive with TUEC's. l 14 Concerning winter rates for custorrars who c6nsume less than 1,500 kwh per month, and the summer rates, the pr>sosed rates would increase the disparity between Cap Rock's rates and the lowu (UEC rates.
- 15. Concerning winter rates, Cap Rock customers who use from 1500 kwh to !
E000 kuh per month would benefit from the approval of the proposeo rates. The ciscarity oetween Cap Rock's rates and the lower TUEC rates would cecrease, t
16.
Cap Rock has not lost one existing customer to TUEC since January 1986. In the dually certificated areas, 30 percent of the new connects have gone to Cap Rock. '
17.
Compared to TUEC's rates, Cap Rock's proposed rates are rot necessary to maintain a competitive position. The proposed rates would increase the monthly bills of some Cap Rock customeri and decrease the bills of others. Cap Rock's rates would still be higher tran TUEC's if the proposed rates were adopted.
Cap Rock's customer base is nct actually deteriorating.
- 18. Concerning the proposed winter rates, 40 percent of the meters served under the general service rate would suffer an increase in their monthly bill. .
This 40 percent consists of the meters that consume 1,500 kwh per month or less. ,
19.
The record does not include sufficient information to make conclusions
' concerning the nature of Cap Rock's customers that consume less than 1,500 kwn per month in the winter months. Such customers may only include non residential uses, for example, water wells, fence chargers, and barns. But the record is not clear on this cuestion. Cap Rock could have submitted evidence on this question.
0
p DOCKET NO. E283
' EXAMINER'S REPORT PAGE 14
- 20. The croposeo rates are not just and reasonable. Small power consumers are charged more so that large power consumers can enjoy a rate decrease.
There is 'no convincing evidence that the rates are in practice equitable or
- that the rates are necessary to maintain Cap Rock's competitive position.
~
B. . Conclusions of law I. Cap Rock is a public utility is defined in Section 3(c)(1) of the PURA.
l Z. The Commission has jurisdiction over the matters raisec herein pursuant to Sectiens 15(a), 17(e), and 37 of the PURA.
- 3. For 9000 cause. Cap Rock was not required to file a rate filing package. P.U.C. PROC. R. 21.69(d).
l 4 The operation of the propcsed rates was suspended in accorcance with ,
Sections 43(a) and 43(d) of the PURA.
5.
Proper notice was given to all affected persons in compliance with Section 43(a) of the PURA.
- 6. Cao Rock has not met its burden of proof to show that the proposeo rates are just and reasonable. Section 40 of PURA. I
, Respectfully submitted, e ,
= I $0 b l y RICHARD 5. O'CONNELL HEARINGS EXAMINER - >
APPROVED on this the day of b A u o w IS89.
'm V F \
PHILLIPA.f0LDER DIRECTOR OP HEARINGS
- - ~- ~
j
~ 9c.a.esul e B.1,0 ;
.m 9
.~
, TVEC RE53DENTIA1. EViiMER Fittt******** kWh/ Month tS .0413C0/6Wh Minimumas 6.00. :ncIvees .CO kWh
's:
Customer Charge s 6.00 CAP ROCK EX287!NG CEN EERVICE EUltMER $
First******** kWh/ Month t S .070237/kWh Minimum =s 8. 50. Inclueet .00 hWh j Customer Charge t 8.30 .
CCMPARISDN OF RATE ECHEDULEE '
LWh TUEC CAP ROCK lNCREAEE '
VSACE s s s *
- /.
S0 9.27 12.02 2.75 29.67 l 100 12.33 15.54 3. 01 .
24.02 200 19. 06 22.39 3, 23 18, 22 400 32.12 36.66 4. 54 14.13 600 45, 18 50.75 5. 57 12.33 1
000 28.24 64.83 6.29 11.32 1000 71.30 78.92 7.62 '
10.69 2000 136.60 149.33 12.73 9.32 3000 201.90 219,75 17,85 8. 84 5000 332.50 360.*8 28.08 8.45 Fuel /PCA .0235000 .0001790 . s/kWh Ey.tMI'tIP.'S ATTACH"ENT A '
g '
1
!checule 3 3.0 .j i TVEC REE! CENT 2AL WINTER I First .600 &Wh/ Month t t !
Over .041100/kWh !
600 hWh/Menth ts 014000/hWh l Minimum =s 6.00, 2ncluses 00 kWh Custcmer Charge s 6.00 i
CAP ROCK EX3 STING CEN EERVICE WINTER !
i First******** 6Wh/Menth 8 s
.055 00/kWh i Minimum =s 8. 50, incluses Customer Charge .00 6Wh !
s 8.50 i
CCMPARIECN CF RATE ECHELULEE kWh TUEC :
CAP ROCK INCREAEE USAGE s s s %
to 9.27 11.23 1.96 21. 14 100 12.33 13.93 1.40 11,17 a 200 19.06 19.36 0.30 1.57 400 22,12 30.20- -1.92 -5.98 600 45.18 41.05 -4.13 -9.14 800- 52. 80 51. 90 -0.90 -1.70 1000 60.42 62.75 2.33 3.86 2000 98.52 116.98 18.46 18.74 3000 136.62 171.22 34. 60 25.33 5000 212.82 279.69 66.87 31.42 Fuel /PCA 0238000 .0012635 , s /'k Wh EXEI"ED'S ATT?.;H"E"! ;
i
e -
, ' Scheilule C.) .D '
' +
[, j i
3 TUEC RE3 2 DENTI AL EUl'.P.ER !
Firste*******
kWh/ Month 4 s N .041200/kWh Minimumes 6.00, 2ncludes- .00 kWh !
Customer Charge t 6.00 '
CAP,ROCR-PRCPOSED GEN EERV!CE EUhMER 4
First******+*'kWh/ Month ts .071000/kWh Minimum =s 5.50 'Incluses .00 kWh i Customer Charge s 3.20 '
1 COMPAR150N CF RATE ECHEDULEE kWh TUEC CAA MOCK l USAGE 5 INCREASE s s *; - i to 9.27 12[06 2.79 30.10 ;
100 12.53 15. SM 3. 09 24.66 200 19.06 22.74
. 3. 60 19.31 400 32.12 36.97 4. 9 15.10 i 600- 45.18 $1. 21 6.03 13.32 800 58.24 65.44 7.20 12.36 1000 73.30 79.68 8.'38 11.73 2000 136.60 150.86 14.26 , ,
10.44 3000 201.90 222,04 20.14 9.99 5000 332.30 364.40 31. 90 9.59 i Fuel /PCA 0238000 .0001790 , s/kWh Q
b ixAN':In,'S tTTACH"Etii C
, _ m. u - - - ' ._ - - -
g .m' Schecule - C.I.0 - ]
19 y (Ar L. TVEC RES2 DENT 2AL-WINTER 4
( First 600 kWh/ Month ts
[i, Over '600-kWh/ Month:e s
.041500/kWh e
.014300/kWh ~
[
Minimum =s 6.00. Includes 00 6Wh
([ Customer Charge- s 8.00 4, CAP ~
ROCK PRCPOSED GEN SERVICE WINTER i First- 600 kWh/ Month a 5- I Over- '.071000/kWh j 600 kWh/ Month-4 s .044000/kWh- i Minimum =s E 50, Includes Customer. Charge 00 kWh I s 8.
- 0 ' '
l COMPARISON OF R ATE ECHEDULES
' kWh TUEC- C AP ROCK :' INCREAEE USAGE- s s
+
s "
b "O 9.27 12.00 2.73 s 29.45 100 12.*3 15 48
. 2.95 23.54 200 19.06- 22,46 3,40 17.84 1 400 32.12 36.40 4.28 13.33 600 45.18
- 0.35 *
.17 11.44 500 22. 80
- B. 90 6.10 11.55 2000 60.42 67.45 7.03
. 11.64
- 000 98.*2 110,18 1k. 66 11. 84 3000 136.62 152.92 16.30 11.93.
- 000 212.E2 238.39 25.*7 12.01 Fuel /PCA .0238000 .0012635 , s/kWh I g e
, , . , .-e
,_ .__. _- - -- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
b'
- Schedule <t.2.0 .
w h..
1 u-
-CAP ROCK EXISTING CEN SERVICE WINT6R
[ First***s**** kWh/ Month-t s' fig .
.055500/kWh-Minimum =s 8.50. Includes Y
Customer Charge: .00 kWh- !
, s- 8.50'
'\, 1 l
CAF ROCK. PROP 0EED CEN-SERVICE WINTER
'First 600 kWh/ Month B s- 'l Over .071000/kWh-
'600'kWh/ Month 8 s .044000/kWh 1 Minimum =5 8. 30r-~ Inc l ud e s - 'I 4, Customer Charge .00 kWh i s 8. 50 j 1
't : .
COMPARISON CF RATE SCHEDULEC hWh EXISTING CAP ROCK INCREASE 1
USAGE-- t' s
.'\- s %
,, .I I d! 50 11.23 12.00- J 0.-77 s
- 6. 86 t 100 13.93 15,48 1 SS ' 11',13 200 19.36 22.46 3.10 16.01 400- 30.20 36,40' i
6.20 20.53 000 41.05 50.35 9.30 , 22.66 800 51.90 58,90 7.00 13.49 1000- 62.75 67.45 4.70 7.49 'l
, 2000 lie. 98. 110. is -6.so -5.81
-3000 171.22 152.92 -18,30
.i
-10.69 5000 27'9. 69 ~ 238.39 -41.30 -14.77 !
Fuel /PCA .0012635 00126;'S , s/kWh 4
l EXAM "E"'S ATTACH"E"T E
~, - , - -. -_ -, , _--r- --
,_....-.y _ . ___. _ _ _ ,
1 l
.' . t DOCKET NO. 6283
^
APPLICATION OF CAP: ROCK ELECTRIC i PUBLIC UTILITY COMMIS$10N .
COOPERATIVE, INC. FOR AUTHORITY l TO CHANGE RATES g 0F TEXAS PROPOSED i ORDER In public meeting at its offices in Austin, Texas, the Public Utility Commission of Texas finds that the application in this case was processed by a hearings examiner in accordance with Commission rules and applicable statutes.
An Examiner's Report containi, findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law was submittee, which report is hereDy ADOPTED and made a part hereof. The
- ommission further issues the following Order
- 1. The application of Cap Rock Electric Cooperative, Inc. seeking approval of two revised tariff sheets conc'erning general service rates, is DENIED.
- 2. All motions, applications, and requests for entry of specific Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and any other requests for relief, general or specific, if not expressly granted herein are DENIED for want of merit.
SIGNED AT AUSTIN, TEXAS on the day of 1989.
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION 0F TEXAS SIGNED:
MARTA GREYTOK SIGNED:
JO CAMPBELL SIGNED:
WILLIAM B. CASSIN ATTEST PHILLIP A. HOLDER SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _