Chairman Smitherman has been filing responses in Docket No. 37049 to the letters he has received from landowners regarding the LCRA CREZ transmission lines. Most of those letters have been summaries of the statutory CCN approval guidelines and the PUC’s rules for location of the proposed lines. He added a handwritten note to one letter, saying that “100 years is a long time to have a ranch in the family – I understand that. We will do our best to balance all interests as we move forward with these important lines.”
In his August 4th response to the City of Junction, Chairman Smitherman changes his form letter to include a comment that his family had a ranch in the Hill Country when he was a boy and they still have very fond memories of that beautiful property. He also adds a paragraph about renewable energy resources and the effect of renewable energy on price increases that likely will result if climate change legislation is approved in Washington. He states that Texas’ best wind resources are located in West Texas and the Panhandle. “In order to get that resource from where the wind blows to where most people in Texas live, which is the I-35 corridor and parts east, we must build high capacity transmission lines through parts of the state which before today may have had little to no transmission infrastructure. This lack of high voltage transmission between I-20 and I-35 also has contributed to congestion on the ERCOT grid , which has produced price spikes in South Texas and the Houston area.”
Chairman Smitherman says that the recipient should know that, at its June 30th Open Meeting, the Commission directed LCRA to consider as many route options as possible. When the case comes before the Commission, he says, it will balance the cost of route options that are longer and probably more expensive against those that follow a more direct and less expensive path.
The letter continues to say that the use of monopole structures has been selectively used in the past, but because of the higher up front capital costs, monopole use is done on a case-by-case basis and may depend on landowner or municipal participation to reduce costs. He states that “burying transmission lines is almost always prohibitively expensive.” The Chairman concludes by stating that , “[b]ecause the cost of transmission is paid for by all ratepayers within the ERCOT grid, the Commission historically has placed a lot of weight on keeping costs low. However, other factors, as required by statute and our rules, are also important and will be considered during our deliberations.”
Chairman Smitherman’s letter is a change from his previous responses that notify the recipient that their comments are being filed in the appropriate docket and include the guidelines for approval of the CCN and route. While he is very constrained on what he can say about a contested case that will come before the Commission, Chairman Smitherman appears to be trying to modify or soften the tone of the discourse in this docket as indicated by his reference to his personal memories of his family’s ranch and his discussion of the need for renewable energy. While the Commission’s directive for LCRA to consider as many routes as possible may help make landowners on the preferred routes feel like other options are being considered, the additional routes will affect more landowners and may result in more intervenors in the dockets.
The Chairman notes the Commission’s historical emphasis on cost considerations and, while giving some hope to those who are ask the Commission to approve the use of monopoles in the Hill Country, also refers to landowner or municipal “participation to reduce costs.” Landowners who are facing the prospect of transmission lines affecting their properties so South Texas and the Houston area are less affected by price spikes likely will not be happy about being asked to help pay for the increased costs of the less-offensive monopoles.