Texas PUC Chair Remains Concerned About Customer Confusion If PUC Adopts Rule Allowing Third Parties To Sign Distributed Generation Interconnection Agreements, As PUC Lacks Jurisdiction, Ability To Give Customer Redress Against Third Parties

The Public Utility Commission of Texas will consider further at its next open meeting a proposal for adoption which would permit non-end users to be parties to distributed generation interconnection agreements (IAs), as Chairman Donna Nelson reiterated concerns about customer expectations regarding redress which may arise if the PUC sanctions IAs signed by third parties, but lacks jurisdiction to address any disputes between the third-party DG providers and the customer.

"I continue to be concerned about us having an interconnection agreement developed by the Commission where there will be a third party who signs the agreement along with the utility, and we don't have any authority over that third party," Nelson said

In short, the proposed rule would allow the end-use customer to be a party to the IA or otherwise elect to have an entity who owns the distributed generation (DG) facility but is not the end-use customer (DG owner), a person who by contract is assigned ownership rights to energy produced by the DG facility, or the owner of the premises at which the DG facility is located, to be a party to the IA rather than the end-use customer.

"My concern is, I think retail electric customers are accustomed to having redress at this Commission," Nelson said, and it does not appear there is an avenue for the Commission to assert jurisdiction to provide such redress. As previously reported, in response to such concerns, third-party solar providers have said they would voluntarily submit to PUC jurisdiction with respect to the interconnection agreements, Nelson has reiterated PUC Staff's concern that such acquiesce would not be legally binding

While the rule being considered only relates to interconnection, and under one Staff proposal would require the customer to acknowledge that the PUC lacks jurisdiction over complaints against DG providers, Nelson said, "I think to the average person who's not a lawyer," that distinction will be a distinction without a difference, and, "the customers are going to look to us if something happens that they don't agree with." When such customers come to the Commission with complaints, the Commission's only option will be to say, "I'm sorry, we don't have jurisdiction over this issue," Nelson noted

Nelson noted there are issues with DG provider marketing currently, citing a radio ad which stated [to effect], "install solar panels on your roof and never pay for your electricity again."

Commissioners considered whether to drop the proposed rule entirely, or to move forward, but without opining on Commission jurisdiction in the rule, and highlighting the issue in the scope of competition report that legislators may wish to address. Commissioners will again consider the proposal at the next open meeting.

Project 45078