News Stories
Sponsored by Earth Etch. Regulatory insight and compliance solutions for today’s energy markets.
Texas ALJ Denies CenterPoint-TDU’s Petition to Withdraw Rate Case
In SOAH Order No. 14 – Denying Withdrawal a Texas Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denies CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC’s petition to withdraw its current base rate case under 16 TAC § 22.181(g), which allows a party to withdraw its petition if the party has not presented its direct case.
Under 16 TAC § 25.247(b)(2), a TDU must file a new rate case within 48 months of an order in its most recent prior rate case. With respect to CEHE, CEHE was required to file a rate case by March 9, 2024, which CEHE did, resulting in the current rate case proceeding.
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC filed a Notice of Withdrawal of its application in its current rate base case. For the reasons discussed below, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues an order denying the utilities request to withdraw. CEHE said that the rate case should be withdrawn so that CEHE may focus on its s Greater Houston Resiliency Initiative launched on August 5, 2024.
The ALJ found that 16 TAC § 22.181(g) does not operate in cases where the application was filed under compulsion, and thus this rule does not provide CEHE the right to withdraw the rate case.
“While [CEHE] has complied with the letter of the rule and Commission orders to file a rate case, allowing it to withdraw would defeat the purpose of filing, namely, ‘to modify or review base rates charged by the electric utility,’ as required by PURA section 36.157(b),” the ALJ said.
The ALJ said that CEHE has not demonstrated good cause for an exception, with the ALJ also noting that the PUC has twice denied extending the date for the filing of the current rate case.
Several cities had opposed the withdrawal, arguing that CEHE was compelled to file a rate case under a provision in its most recent prior rate case as well as the PUC’s rate filing schedule rules, and that CEHE may not withdraw a rate case made in response to such obligations. The ALJ did not specifically address Cities’ request that, if the case is abated, the PUC should implement lower interim distribution rates until a final rate case order is adopted.
