S&P Global Ratings considers the regulatory framework for electric utilities under the Public Utilities Commission of Texas (PUCT) to be mostly predictable and stable. This includes investor-owned transmission and distribution (T&D) utilities operating within Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and investor-owned vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) operating outside of ERCOT. As a result, we view the PUCT regulatory jurisdiction as very credit supportive. We evaluate jurisdictions by the qualitative and quantitative factors that affect the regulatory advantage for the utilities we rate. We view the regulatory assessment as the single most important factor in assessing a regulated utility's competitive position (see "Key Credit Factors For The Regulated Utilities Industry," Nov. 19, 2013).
Key Takeaways
- The regulatory frameworks for investor-owned electric utilities in Texas exhibit characteristics that are consistent with our regulatory advantage assessment of very credit supportive (strong/adequate).
- For electric utilities under the PUCT's jurisdiction, regulation mostly allows for the recovery of capital and operating costs in a consistent and timely manner, but regulatory lag is still a risk factor.
- T&D utilities and VIUs benefit from the regulator's mostly solid track record of stability and political independence.
| Key Factors Of The PUCT's Electricity Regulatory Framework |
|---|
| Regulatory stability |
| For T&D utilities operating within ERCOT, retail competition has been in place since 2002. Cost-of-service-based recovery mechanisms have been in place for several years and permit T&D utilities to implement interim rate changes up to twice per year, in some cases. Since 2017, T&D utilities have been required to file base rate proceedings every four years. |
| VIUs operating outside ERCOT implement new rates through traditional rate proceedings but are permitted to update rates on an interim basis between rate cases via various mechanisms. |
| Although rare, there have been instances when PUCT rate decisions have been litigated at the District Court level. The most recent was in 2017. |
| Tariff setting |
| The tariff structure is stable and mostly constructive from an investor standpoint. |
| Authorized equity returns are similar to or above industry averages, and utilities are generally able to earn authorized returns. |
| Remuneration for all investor-owned utilities allows for recovery of investments and operating expenses in addition to financial remuneration. This includes fuel and purchase power costs for VIUs. T&D utilities operate without commodity exposure. |
| The PUCT monitors utility earnings on an annual basis. When there is potential overearning by a utility, the commission may conduct a more comprehensive review. |
| Financial stability |
| Utilities can recover most costs, and Texas legislation allows for extraordinary cost recovery in most cases. However, the PUCT has generally not permitted a cash return on construction work in progress. |
| Regulatory independence |
| PUCT commissioners are appointed by the Governor of Texas and confirmed by the Texas Senate. While minority party representation is not required, Senate confirmation requires a two-thirds vote. |
Key Stakeholders
Electric Reliability Council of Texas
ERCOT is an independent system operator (ISO) and the regional transmission operator (RTO) that coordinates the flow of electricity from over 710 generation units to more than 26 million electric customers in Texas. ERCOT accounts for about 90% of the state's electric load. The remainder is coordinated by three RTOs that extend into Texas: the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) in the west, the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) in the north, and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) in the east. ERCOT is subject to oversight by the PUCT and the Texas legislature.
Texas Electric Choice
The Texas electricity market's current form has been in place since about 2000, when legislation implemented so-called retail choice, which allowed customers within ERCOT the ability to select their generation supplier. Following this restructuring, VIUs in ERCOT were required to unbundle their operations, creating retail electric providers (REPs), unregulated power generators, and T&D utilities. Utilities that were unbundled include AEP Texas Inc., Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC (CEHE), and Texas-New Mexico Power Co. (TNMP). Outside of ERCOT, however, the traditional vertically integrated structure remains. VIUs outside of ERCOT include Entergy Texas Inc., Southwestern Public Service Co. (SWPSC), and Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPCO).
Regulated Entities
REPs procure wholesale electricity and deliver it to the end consumer. They pay a service to the T&D utilities for transmitting electricity over their wires.
Distribution-only utilities (such as cooperatives) procure and deliver electricity to the end consumer but pay a service fee to transmission utilities only as they own the distribution network in their respective territories.
T&D utilities transport electricity between the generator and the end consumer.
Chart 1
Jurisdiction Under The PUCT
In addition to electric utilities, the PUCT regulates telecommunication, water, and sewer utilities in the state. Within ERCOT, this includes investor-owned T&D utilities. Outside of ERCOT, the PUCT regulates the investor-owned VIUs, and electricity transportation is coordinated under the regional-specific RTOs. The PUCT also oversees ERCOT, the registration of power generators, and the REPs.
Notably, cities in Texas maintain original jurisdiction over distribution rates within the confines of the city, where the PUCT holds appellate jurisdiction, but the PUCT presides outside city limits. In practice, however, various cities have generally ceded rate regulation authority to the PUCT.
Assessing Regulatory Advantage
The regulatory framework's influence is of critical importance when assessing regulated utilities' credit risk because it defines the environment in which a utility operates and has a significant bearing on its financial performance. Our assessment of regulatory advantage incorporates relative credit supportiveness on our view of how regulatory stability, efficiency of tariff-setting procedures, financial stability, and regulatory independence protect a utility's credit quality and its ability to recover its costs and earn a timely return. Our view of these four pillars is the foundation of a utility's regulatory support.
Regulatory Stability
When assessing regulatory stability, we review the transparency of the key components of rate setting, the predictability of the framework, and the consistency of the framework over time. The regulatory framework for utilities under the PUCT has been consistent for several years. The PUCT has generally applied consistent ratemaking across T&D utilities and VIUs. Ratemaking has followed the traditional process, with rates set through a combination of periodic base-rate filings and interim cost-recovery filings. Between these reviews, the PUCT monitors utility earnings on an annual basis and conducts investigatory reviews under situations of potential overearning. In 2018, for example, an annual earnings review determined that transmission company Wind Energy Transmission Texas LLC had earned a 12.43% ROE, and the PUCT ultimately required the company to reduce its wholesale transmission rates by $16 million to better align with its authorized level. Cases such as these drove legislation to require all utilities to file a comprehensive rate review every four years.
Chart 2
Tariff Setting
When assessing the design of a regulatory framework, we analyze whether all operating and capital costs are fully recoverable in a timely manner, the balance of interests and concerns of all stakeholders affected, and whether incentives are achieved and contained. We view traditional rate proceedings as adequate as they pertain to a utility's ability to recover its operating and capital costs in full, including a reasonable return. However, periodic proceedings can exacerbate regulatory lag, given the delay between when the costs are spent and when rates are finally adjusted. We therefore view regulatory mechanisms that provide interim rate adjustments prior to a traditional rate review as positive for credit quality, given their ability to minimize this lag.
With respect to cost recovery, we view regulation under the PUCT as strong, primarily reflecting the various interim rate adjustment mechanisms that minimize regulatory lag. Further, we believe utility revenues are set at a level sufficient to recover ordinary operating and capital costs in full, albeit on a historical basis.
Within ERCOT, transmission cost-of-service (TCOS) mechanisms permit transmission service providers to adjust rates twice annually to recover costs associated with new transmission investment. VIUs operating outside ERCOT are also permitted to recover costs associated with new transmission investments, albeit once annually, through a transmission cost recovery factor (TCRF) mechanism. On the distribution side, distribution service providers across Texas are permitted to recover costs related to new distribution investment via a Distribution Cost Recovery Factor (DCRF) once per year. Further, distribution service providers across Texas are permitted to recover fees paid to third-party transmission service providers via a TCRF.
Financial Stability
When assessing the financial stability of a regulatory framework, we look at the timeliness of cost recovery and cash-flow volatility, how much flexibility there is in the framework to allow the recovery of unexpected costs, the attractiveness of the framework to long-term capital, and capital support during periods of heavy investments. We view the ability to recover costs associated with new transmission investment between base rate cases favorably. With respect to generation cost recovery, legislation enacted in 2019 permits the PUCT to adopt a mechanism that allows VIUs to implement a rider for new investments in regulated generation. However, the rider does not allow utilities to include construction work in progress in rate base for a cash return; usage of the rider commences only as of the date the plant begins commercial operation. With respect to fuel and purchased power costs, VIUs recover these through ordinary mechanisms, with fuel reconciliations occurring at least every three years but no more than every 12 months.
Chart 3
Given the history of storm-related activity in Texas, particularly for service territories along the Gulf Coast, the state's regulatory framework aptly considers the treatment of storm-related costs. Securitization has been utilized in numerous cases to fund utility restoration costs, such as in 2006, when Entergy Texas was authorized to issue over $300 million in bonds following Hurricane Rita. This approach was also used to recover costs associated with stranded generation assets following the electric restructuring in the early 2000s and the unbundling of VIUs.
The Effects Of Winter Storm Uri And The COVID-19 Pandemic
During the latest legislative session, which ended on May 31, 2021, the Texas legislature advanced multiple bills intending to address extraordinary costs incurred during Winter Storm Uri. We continue to surveil the status of these bills, as several continue to sit with the Texas governor. Possible future actions taken could influence our view of the Texas regulatory framework.
- House Bill 1510 (signed into law on June 8, 2021) broadens existing legislation around the recovery of system restoration costs through securitization financing for non-ERCOT VIUs but is silent regarding the recovery of the extraordinary fuel and purchased power costs incurred during the storm. Compared to the securitization route taken for other stakeholders, we view this as less favorable for credit quality primarily due to the lack of clarity around future recovery. VIUs can normally recover fuel and purchased power costs through riders, but given the size of the costs, recovery over a short period would be too onerous on the customer bill. While some utilities have requested deferral treatment of these costs, approval in full, including any associated holding costs, remains to be seen, and therefore, could contribute to regulatory lag.
- Senate Bill 1580 addresses these extraordinary costs for electric cooperatives by allowing securitization financing, which we view as credit supportive not only for these entities but also for transmission utilities operating within ERCOT, given the counterparty credit risk faced.
- House Bill 4492 addresses default balances owed by market participants within ERCOT related to the winter storm.
With respect to the pandemic, in March of 2020, the PUCT issued an executive order creating the COVID-19 Electricity Relief Program to aid certain eligible residential customers from disconnections related to non-payment and provide a means for recovery of these unexpected costs for affected stakeholders. To fund the program, the PUCT authorized a rider surcharge added to T&D utility rates to reimburse these utilities and REPs for unpaid bills. We view this approach by the PUCT as positive for credit quality as it proactively contributed to financial stability of affected stakeholders.
Regulatory Independence And Insulation
When assessing regulatory independence and insulation, we look at the market framework, how the law preserves and separates the regulator's powers, and any risks of political intervention. In many jurisdictions, the role of the regulator is to set and regulate rates and service standards with due regard to all stakeholders, including customers, utility operators, investors, and other constituents. How politics could influence regulation helps us evaluate a regulatory environment around political and economic risks. PUCT commissioners are appointed by the Texas governor and require a two-thirds Senate vote confirmation; although minority party representation is not required, we believe politicization of the ratemaking process has been limited to-date. Cash flows generated through the regulatory framework remain stable and consistent with historical levels. Following Winter Storm Uri, PUCT commissioners resigned after various state politicians began asking for resignations. We are monitoring for any impact to credit quality from the PUCT commissioner turnover, particularly around rate recovery of costs including those related to Winter Storm Uri.
Related Research
- Updates And Insights On Regulatory Jurisdictions Shaping Policies For North American Utilities--March 2021, March 22, 2021
- Why We See Alberta's Electricity And Gas Regulatory Framework As Highly Credit Supportive, March 3, 2021
- North American Regulated Utilities’ Negative Outlook Could See Modest Improvement, Jan. 20, 2021
- Why We See Ontario’s Electricity And Gas Regulatory Framework As Strong, Jan. 13, 2021
This report does not constitute a rating action.
| Primary Credit Analyst: | William Hernandez, Farmers Branch + 1 (214) 765-5877; william.hernandez@spglobal.com |
| Secondary Contact: | Daria Babitsch, New York 917-574-4573; daria.babitsch1@spglobal.com |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: research_request@spglobal.com.