Order Adopting an Amendment to §25.74 and repeal of §25.75 as ...

PROJECT NO. 34038 ORDER PAGE 2 OF 12§25.74 and repeal of §25.75. AEP, CenterPoint, EPE, LCRA, Oncor, and Xcel opposed theadoption of the amendment of §25.74. However, CenterPoint agreed that if §25.74 is amended,the repeal of §25.75 is appropriate. EGSI stated that, while the amendment may be premature,§25.74 should be clarified to specifically exclude a jurisdictional separation pursuant to PublicUtility Regulatory Act (PURA) §39.452(e).EPE, Oncor, and Xcel commented that because the Texas legislature was considering changes toPURA concerning notice and approval of certain transactions, the commission should delayconsideration of the amendment and repeal until the legislature completed its work.CenterPoint objected that the amendment of §25.74, specifically the requirement of reportingcertain transactions “not later than six months prior to the earliest date the transaction couldoccur,” should comport with the form of the bill enacted by the legislature. That bill read“within 180 days” in the House versions of the Senate bills 482 and 483, and not “six months” asit did in the proposed amendment. TIEC disagreed with CenterPoint, stating that the commissionhas the authority to adopt the amendment without any further legislative changes.Several commenters disputed the commission’s statutory authority to adopt the amendment.AEP asserted that the commission’s statutory authority to require the reporting of sale, transfer,and merger transactions six months prior to closing is uncertain. AEP cited to PURA §14.101,which provides that such transactions must be reported within “a reasonable time,” but does not,in its view, authorize the commission to delay the closing of such transactions. EPE agreed withAEP’s argument. Oncor also objected to the amendment on statutory grounds, stating that