Texas Commission Considers Generic Rulemaking on Use of Utility Name By Affiliates

Commissioners of the Public Utility Commission of Texas are considering opening a generic rulemaking on policies applicable to the use of a transmission and distribution utility brand by a competitive affiliate.

Commissioner Kenneth Anderson raised the potential for a global rulemaking during oral arguments concerning a petition filed by retail providers concerning the shared CenterPoint brand among TDU CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric and broker CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc.

See prior story for discussion of the CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric proceeding

Anderson suggested that a global rulemaking would provide more clear and coherent policy, as opposed to addressing issues on a case-by-case basis (the Commission having recently addressed a similar issue with regard to the shared use of the AEP band as well)

Of note, Anderson said that the term "competitive affiliate" is not precisely defined.

The Commission did not act to formally open such a rulemaking at this time.

As to the specific CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric proceeding, Anderson's questioning included discussion of PURA 39.157(g), and a focus on potential cross-subsidization, in a manner which had not really been brought up in the petition or briefing.

Specifically, PURA 39.157(g) provides that, "The sharing of corporate support services [among the TDU and affiliates] in accordance with this section may not allow or provide a means for the transfer of confidential information from a utility to an affiliate, create the opportunity for preferential treatment or an unfair competitive advantage, lead to customer confusion, or create significant opportunities for cross-subsidization of affiliates," with Anderson noting that PURA charges the PUCT with preventing not just the adverse actions described, but also the "opportunity" for unfair competitive advantage and "significant opportunities" for cross-subsidization.

Procedurally, however, Anderson noted that the REPs filed a petition for a declaratory order, rather than a complaint, and questioned what impact any Commission decision would have, as it appears any Commission decision would amount to the Commission opining on what the Commission believes the law is in this circumstance, based only on the facts presented to it in evidence.

Anderson also asked whether the case is ripe for an informed decision, based on the record in the CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric proceeding, which included a set of stipulated facts, some of which may now be out of date due to changes in the websites of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric and CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc.

Docket 40636