Ignoring these benefits, El Paso Electric (EPE) has tried once already to handicap solar development. Now they’re at it again — and, if successful, could begin a trend of anti-solar proposals statewide.

All El Paso residential customers, solar and non-solar alike, are charged only for electricity they actually use. Through solar net metering, customers earn credit for self-generated power, lowering their monthly bills.

EPE’s proposal would discriminate against solar customers by charging them an exorbitant “demand change” based not on how much electricity they actually use, but instead based on when each individual customer uses EPE’s electric grid most. You see, EPE knows solar customers rely on the grid when the sun isn’t shining and solar panels can’t offset demand. In addition, EPE would force solar customers to pay more for additional electricity they buy from the grid during sunny El Paso summers.

In short, EPE wants to game the system to erase the financial savings for solar panel users.

According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), average residential solar customers’ bills under the EPE proposal may increase 100 percent. By contrast, non-solar residential rates would increase 9 percent.

This proposal especially burns customers who invested in solar with the understanding that it would pay for itself through lower electricity bills. SEIA said more than half of current solar customers would lose 40 percent of their expected savings. Others would pay more for electricity than if they had never installed solar at all!

Even worse, the complexity of EPE’s proposal makes it impossible to predict monthly electricity costs. EPE wouldn’t notify solar customers of their highest demand until after slapping them with high fees.

EPE’s proposal is the latest in a nationwide campaign, led by lobbyists for investor-owned electric companies and the Koch brothers-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), to damage a growing solar industry they view as a threat. Since 2013, utilities convinced lawmakers in at least five states to phase out net metering. In 2017 alone, 42 utilities in 25 states took action to change solar-related policies.

The truth is, where solar grows, all ratepayers save. Consider California’s largest utility, which saved ratepayers more than $300 million by putting on hold construction of an expensive voltage line and 13 transmission projects, due in part to the growth of rooftop solar.

I’m all for utilities, including EPE, recovering costs for upgrades necessary to serve their customers. But according to the Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPUC), which represents residential consumers and small businesses in utility proceedings, EPE did not even consider any potential value of solar when it calculated costs of solar customers in their last rate case, producing a rate design biased in favor of the utility. OPUC opposes EPE’s currently proposed solar demand charges.

EPE’s anti-solar proposal is particularly pernicious because, unlike in most of Texas, EPE has a monopoly in its service territory — meaning it has no competition to keep prices low, innovation high and customer choice abundant. The only protection its consumers have from burdensome rate increases is the state’s Public Utility Commission (PUC).

EPE’s proposal clearly contradicts the intent of Senate Bill 1910, a law I passed in 2011 to authorize net metering in El Paso. Like my colleague Rep. Joe Pickett, who introduced legislation during this special session that would prohibit EPE’s solar proposal, I also think we may need to examine the utility’s dogged attempts to stop the spread of residential solar, as well as its monopoly status.

EPE is currently engaged in a PUC regulatory proceeding with several parties, including both the El Paso city and county governments, which have each formally opposed the solar provisions. A hearing is scheduled to begin later this month.

This case has the potential to set precedent and create a domino effect in electricity markets across the state. I urge anyone interested in promoting solar to make your voice heard. Texans who want the choice to go solar depend on it.

The judge has clearly told the city it cannot build a sports facility, which the city clearly had been planning. Enough is enough. Duranguito can be restored and become an asset to both residents and visitors. How? It can be done through the development of the neighborhood itself as a cultural and performing arts facility. In conjunction with the neighborhood’s historically important buildings, and the Mexican American Cultural Institute at the Abraham Chavez Theater, this could be a walkable, living historical community that would be an international heritage tourism attraction. The city must not allow any further destruction of this neighborhood, especially in light of the preliminary findings of the historical survey. If the city wants to build a sports facility, it should let the public know clearly that’s its intention, and it should start that process over in an open and transparent way.

Additional Information 

People who voted in the most recent mayoral election are eligible to sign Paso del Sur’s most recent petition in support of creating a historic district in Barrio Duranguito. The petition can be signed at the District Office located at 100 N Ochoa St. Suite A, El Paso, TX 79901.

***

José Rodríguez represents Texas Senate District 29, which includes the counties of El Paso, Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, and Presidio. He represents both urban and rural constituencies, and more than 350 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. Senator Rodríguez currently serves as the Chairman of the Texas Senate Democratic Caucus, and is a member of the Senate Committees on Natural Resources and Economic Development; Transportation; Veteran Affairs and Border Security; and Agriculture, Water, and Rural Affairs (Vice Chair).  

-30-

“Quite frankly, I still do not see how solar customers are functionally any different than other customers trying to lower their energy bills by, for example, using energy efficient appliances or weatherizing their homes — or for that matter, going completely off grid and using a portable generator,” wrote Sen. José Rodríguez. “If EPE gets its way, only solar customers would be charged more for wanting to rely on EPE’s grid less.”

Note: Text of the full letter is below.

The Texas Public Utility Commission plans to begin hearings on the proposal, and an overall rate increase request from the utility, on Aug. 21. A similar request was made by the utility in 2015, and the rate case ultimately was settled without inclusion of the solar penalties, which in this latest proposal could increase rates for some solar customers by 100 percent. EPE argues that solar customers, because they use less electricity, do not pay for maintenance of the grid, the system that delivers energy from a power plant to a customer. However, in developing this argument, EPE discounted facts that show how solar customers actually help the system. 

“It’s shameful that EPE still refuses to consider the numerous positive contributions residential solar brings, including less demand on their grid during peak usage. Solar also helps keep electricity costs low for all ratepayers by eliminating the need to construct new power plants,” the letter states. “Additionally, excess energy produced by a solar customer can be immediately sold by EPE to the customer’s neighbors — at a substantial up-charge — without any extra infrastructure costs to the utility.

“According to an OPUC filing in the 2015 rate case, EPE did not consider any offset for the value of solar energy when it calculated costs of solar customers, producing an outcome biased in favor of the utility. Consumers should not be coerced into dependence upon utility-generated power simply because the utility wants to maintain its profits.”

Text of the full letter:

August 3, 2017

The Honorable Dee Margo

The Honorable Peter Svarzbein

The Honorable Alexsandra Annello

The Honorable Cassandra Brown

The Honorable Sam Morgan

The Honorable Dr. Michiel Noe

The Honorable Claudia Ordaz Perez

The Honorable Henry Rivera

The Honorable Cissy Lizarraga

City of El Paso

300 N. Campbell

El Paso, Texas 79901

VIA U.S.P.S. & ELECTRONIC MAIL

RE: Application of El Paso Electric Co. to change rates, Public Utility Commission of Texas Docket No. 46831

Dear Mayor and Council Members:

I write in opposition to El Paso Electric Company’s (EPE) proposal to create a new rate category that unfairly targets small businesses and residential customers who install solar. I previously wrote to the El Paso City Council to protest the solar proposal included in EPE’s 2015 rate case filing, which was ultimately settled without inclusion of the solar provisions. Because the utility’s current proposal is functionally identical to the 2015 proposal, and has expanded to apply to small commercial customers, I again respectfully request that the City of El Paso formally oppose EPE’s attempt to dramatically disincentivize the growth of solar generation in El Paso.

Once again, EPE proposes segregating residential solar customers into a new rate class and increasing their bills, this time by almost 100 percent, according to testimony filed in the rate case by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). By contrast, other non-solar residential customers’ bills would raise roughly nine percent, meaning solar customers’ rate increase is ten times more than their non-solar neighbors. 

But this alone does not tell the full story. Because of the variation in how EPE’s proposal would impact individual customers, SEIA stated more than half of solar customers would see a loss of 40 percent of the savings they expected from installing solar systems — savings they relied on to pay for their investment in the solar systems. Other customers would actually pay more for electricity than if they had never installed solar systems at all.

Right now, all residential ratepayers’ bills are calculated using a predictable billing method. All customers, solar and non-solar alike, are charged based on the energy they actually use. Solar customers differ only in that, through net metering, they earn credit for any solar power they self-generate, thus lowering their electric bills.

EPE’s new demand charge would instead be based on when each individual customer uses EPE’s electric grid most that month. For nearly all solar customers, this will, of course, be at times when the sun is not shining and their solar panels are unable to offset energy demand. In other words, rather than charging solar customers based on the electricity they actually use, EPE wants to add a new demand charge that also bills them on the maximum amount of electricity they use at the same time during the month, regardless of when that happens. On top of this, EPE also proposes solar customers be switched to a “time of use” rate that charges more for electricity used in the hot El Paso summers.

The complexity of EPE’s proposals for solar customers would make it impossible for them to reliably predict their monthly electricity costs under EPE’s plan. The utility would not notify a customer of their highest demand until after the billing cycle finishes and they’ve already been slapped with a high fee. EPE has not described how it will meaningfully educate consumers whose rates will change, and the utility has no plans to provide customers information necessary to alert them of potential high charges before they are incurred.

As a matter of basic fairness, it is simply not appropriate to apply steep demand charges — which are usually reserved for sophisticated commercial ratepayers like big box stores, factories, or refineries — to otherwise ordinary neighborhood homes or small businesses. While sophisticated commercial ratepayers have staff who can manage the company’s electricity use to deal with demand charges, residential consumers cook dinner when it is time to eat, cool their homes when it is hot outside, and refrigerate their food all the time to avoid spoilage. 

This proposal clearly undermines the major reason why customers invest in solar at all — the confidence that it will pay for itself through lower monthly electric bills. What new customer would install solar panels today if they cannot predict what, if any, their energy savings will be? Under EPE’s proposal, solar customers may actually pay more money per month for energy they did not use!

Quite frankly, I still do not see how solar customers are functionally any different than other customers trying to lower their energy bills by, for example, using energy efficient appliances or weatherizing their homes — or for that matter, going completely off grid and using a portable generator. If EPE gets its way, only solar customers would be charged more for wanting to rely on EPE’s grid less.

This new rate class proposal contradicts the intent of Senate Bill 1910, a bill that I and then State Rep. Dee Margo passed in 2011 to introduce solar net metering to EPE’s service territory. At the time, EPE requested the legislation because it also included provisions to shore up EPE’s status as a vertically-integrated monopoly, protecting them from joining the other 75 percent of Texas in a competitive deregulated electricity market. EPE agreed to solar net metering to get those protections. Yet now the utility would contravene the will of the legislature and game the system by handicapping a customer’s ability to save money by installing solar systems. 

Like my colleague Rep. Joe Pickett, who introduced legislation in the special session that would prohibit EPE’s solar proposal, in light of EPE’s recent rate case, I too think we may need to examine at the state level the utility’s dogged attempts to quash the spread of solar — as well as perhaps reexamine EPE’s monopoly status.

I am particularly disturbed to see that EPE continues to push misleading narratives to support this discriminatory rate proposal. For one, the utility argues that solar customers “unfairly shifted” costs to other ratepayers. This is false. Rates for all users are set through the rate-making process alone. Residential customers are not paying more on their electric bills because a neighbor has solar. 

Instead, through demand charges, EPE would systematically overcharge solar customers when compared to their neighbors. This is not just my opinion, but was the conclusion of the state’s Office of Public Utility Counsel (OPUC), which represents residential consumers, as a class, in utility proceedings. In the 2015 rate case, OPUC testified that EPE’s proposed demand charges are unjustified because there is no relationship between those charges for solar customers and their use of the grid at peak times. In the current rate case, OPUC continues to oppose demand charges for solar customers.

The truth is EPE has been coming after residential solar because they see its enormous growth as a threat to their profits — which, by the way, jumped more than 18 percent to $96.8 million since their last rate case. When the utility filed its 2015 rate case, it reported approximately 522 solar customers in its service territory. That number jumped to nearly 3,000 as of July, according to the El Paso Times. Nevertheless, solar customers still comprise only about one half of one percent of EPE’s total customers. 

EPE’s disdain for this small minority of customers was on full display when, according to the Houston Chronicle, an EPE vice president told an audience at a solar conference in Austin, “We are competing with our own customers.”

It’s shameful that EPE still refuses to consider the numerous positive contributions residential solar brings, including less demand on their grid during peak usage. Solar also helps keep electricity costs low for all ratepayers by eliminating the need to construct new power plants. Additionally, excess energy produced by a solar customer can be immediately sold by EPE to the customer’s neighbors — at a substantial up-charge — without any extra infrastructure costs to the utility. According to an OPUC filing in the 2015 rate case, EPE did not consider any offset for the value of solar energy when it calculated costs of solar customers, producing an outcome biased in favor of the utility. Consumers should not be coerced into dependence upon utility-generated power simply because the utility wants to maintain its profits.

Strangely, EPE does seem to appreciate the benefits of solar when it comes to its own utility-scale solar generation plants. The utility will recover the costs of these plants through rates charged to all customers. Meanwhile, individual homeowners or small businesses installing solar do not cost their neighbors anything.

EPE’s current effort to disincentivize solar is not happening in a vacuum. EPE is the latest in an organized, nationwide series of efforts to remove customer choice that have already demonstrably damaged the solar industry and ratepayers. The New York Times recently reported on the success of organized efforts at the state and federal level by traditional investor-owned electric companies like EPE, led by their lobby group the Edison Energy Institute and the Koch brothers-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), to slow growth of solar. According to the Times, since 2013, when Edison first sounded the alarm that solar “raises the potential for irreparable damages to revenues and growth” for traditional utilities, utilities convinced lawmakers in Hawaii, Arizona, Maine, Indiana, and Nevada to phase out net metering. In 2017 alone, 42 utilities in 25 states took action to change solar-related policies, according to a recent report from the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center. 

Make no mistake — El Paso is now the Texas test case. If EPE succeeds in undermining solar here, then we will surely see similar proposals spread across Texas.

I ask that the City of El Paso, being the largest municipality with original jurisdiction over EPE’s rates, formally oppose the creation of a partial requirements class and demand that all residential and small business customers are charged fairly.

I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

José Rodríguez

cc:

The Honorable Joe C. Pickett 

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

The Honorable Joe Moody

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

The Honorable Mary González

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

The Honorable César Blanco

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

The Honorable Lina Ortega 

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

The Honorable Poncho Nevárez

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, TX 78768

Public Utility Commission of Texas

Attn: Filing Clerk

1701 N. Congress Avenue

Austin, Texas, 78711

Mary Kipp

CEO 

El Paso Electric Company

100 N. Stanton

El Paso, Texas 79901

Cassandra Quinn

Assistant Public Counsel

Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel

1701 N. Congress Avenue, Ste 9-180

P. O. Box 12397

Austin, Texas 78711-2397

Solar Energy Industries Association
Michael J. Jewell

Jewell & Associates, PLLC

506 West 7th St., Ste. 1

Austin, TX 78701

***

José Rodríguez represents Texas Senate District 29, which includes the counties of El Paso, Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, and Presidio. He represents both urban and rural constituencies, and more than 350 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. Senator Rodríguez currently serves as the Chairman of the Texas Senate Democratic Caucus. He is Vice Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, & Rural Affairs, and a member of the Senate Committees on Natural Resources & Economic Development, Transportation, and Veteran Affairs & Border Security.

-30-

Maybe, if it’s the Dallas Cowboys playing the Scarborough Spartans and being allowed to suspend the rules whenever they please to boot.

No offense to the Spartans, the Houston team that held the second longest high school losing streak in Texas history until 2015, when they finally won a game after 59 losses.

But last week’s beat-down of Senate Democrats by the Republican majority is another example of the new legislative order since Patrick was elected lieutenant governor and drove a procedural change that stripped power from the minority.

Pre-Patrick, the Senate required a two-thirds vote to bring up legislation for debate. That meant those in the minority on an issue had some leverage, and those in the majority had reason to find compromise.

Under Patrick that was changed to a three-fifths vote, allowing the 20 Republicans in the 31-member chamber over which the lieutenant governor presides to bring up bills without any Democratic backing. 

Where it was once noteworthy when Republicans rolled over Democrats, now it’s expected when the stakes are high. 

Last week was another milestone when the majority waived the “tag” rule, which as written allows senators to delay consideration of a bill for 48 hours. Sen. José Rodriguez, D-El Paso, sought such a pause before the Senate could take up a noncontroversial, must-pass sunset bill to keep open several agencies, including the Texas Medical Board.

Rodriguez’s action broadly was an effort to slow down Patrick’s speeding legislative train. The lieutenant governor wants to pass legislation on all 20 items on the special-session agenda by this week — including a contentious measure to restrict the public restrooms that transgender people can use. 

Republicans said delaying the sunset bill, which the Senate had to pass before Gov. Greg Abbott would formally place the other items before them, would waste time and taxpayers’ money.

As Rodriguez got rolled, Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, said she didn’t recall seeing the tag rule suspended in her 30 years in the Senate. Patrick said it had happened before her service. He later dismissed the idea that there would be any lingering acrimony.

“Oh no. We had some good fun out there,” said Patrick, citing light moments in exchanges with Rodriguez and Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, during the tag-rule discussion. “I understand and respect the rules, being a former senator. You have to give every senator the right to express themselves and to talk and to present their point of view on a bill, and that’s what we’ve always done, and I think that’s why we really function so well as a Senate.”

Patrick, who often highlights bipartisan votes on key issues, said the disagreements aren’t personal. 

“It’s like when you see two football coaches who are lifelong friends,” he said. “The object is … for their team to win, but at the end of the game, they all go out and have barbecue and a beer and that’s the way we try to operate the Senate. I think it has served all the members well, and it sure has made my job easy, because I have 31 respectful people who are gentlemen and ladies all the time.”

It’s not so easy for Democrats.

Democratic Sens. Sylvia Garcia of Houston and José Rodríguez of El Paso called it a sad day for the Senate. 

“What it means is that any rule can be suspended,” Rodriguez said. He wondered whether the tradition of filibusters, in which senators can try to kill a bill by talking until the clock runs out in a session, also is doomed. 

“The lesson here, I think, is that … the leadership is willing to suspend all rules, regardless, at any given time, so that the controlling majority of this Legislature can get things done even if it means shortchanging senators on more time to consider bills that are important, significant, and even if it means cutting out the public’s right to participate,” Rodriguez said. 

Garcia said, “We’re acting more like Washington every single day. I see more and more of our traditions and rules go down the drain.” 

There are still some actions that require a four-fifths vote, such as giving final approval to a bill the first day it comes to the Senate floor. But Democrats are mainly out of luck until the day they can pull off a Spartans-like victory at the ballot box, end their losing streak in statewide elections and gain enough numbers to control a legislative chamber.

Democratic strategist Harold Cook said Senate rules “have always been pretty squishy” but that historically the bottom line was “the legislative form of the golden rule. If I do this to another senator, how much am I going to enjoy it when someone does it to me?” 

There was an impetus to compromise, Cook said, but added, “Those days are just gone in the Senate.”

“Senators used to be fond of saying that the Texas Senate is the finest deliberative body in the world,” Cook said. “Lately, it’s not even the finest deliberative body in the Capitol building.”

[email protected]

Twitter: @pfikac

Austin Bureau Chief, San Antonio Express-News

Patrick took control of the media narrative early Thursday morning, when he made a show of delivering pizza and soda to lawmakers. “Pizza at midnight? Dan Patrick’s buying,” gushed one headline. But the stunt didn’t impress leading Democrats, who say his tactics are undermining the democratic process.

“They’re not affording sufficient time to senators or the public to know what it is they’re up to,” Senator José Rodríguez, chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus, told the Observer. “And it’s important for people to be prepared to address particular bills when the hearing comes, so it’s not acceptable. The bottom line is this is subverting the deliberative process.”

On Friday morning, the Senate held committee hearings for a number of controversial measures, including the “bathroom bill,” anti-abortion measuresand school vouchers. The hearings on the highly contentious bills — announced Wednesday afternoon — were scheduled almost simultaneously, meaning activists, lawmakers and media had to pick which was more important. 

“It’s going to make it harder, not only for the public but for us senators … I can’t be in all three hearings at the same time,” said Rodríguez, of El Paso. “I think they were very consciously and deliberately set consecutive … to have the effect of denying people adequate participation.”

Patrick did not respond to a request for comment, but he gave reporters the following explanation Wednesday: “It’s a hurry because we have 30 days and 20 bills. And you know I like to work fast. … Our goal is to have all 20 passed sometime mid-to-the-end of next week.” 

Rodríguez twice tried to slow the chamber down using a parliamentary move known as “tagging” — essentially a request for 48 hours notice before a public hearing on a certain bill. Democrats were hoping the normally uncontroversial tactic could stall the Legislature’s action on red-meat issues like the “bathroom bill.” 

Abbott, who sets the agenda for the special session, required the Senate to pass the “sunset” measures — legislation to reauthorize essential state agencies like the Texas Medical Board — before he added the 19 other, more controversial items to the call. So on Tuesday, Rodríguez first attempted the maneuver on the “sunset” bills. 

But GOP senators, who have a supermajority, voted to retroactively suspend the “tag rule”, thwarting his effort — something 30-year-veteran Senator Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, said she’d never seen happen before.

“To vote to do the people’s business without the people’s input is wrong and un-Texan,” Senator Sylvia Garcia, chair of the Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, told reporters Tuesday.

Early Thursday morning, Rodríguez tried the same tagging maneuver on 11 other bills, including the “bathroom bill” and school vouchers. Garcia noted from the floor that some of the bills were filed so recently that the language wasn’t even available yet. 

“The public has no notice; our staff can’t get a copy of the bill,” she said. “Isn’t it required by the rules, before we take any action on the bill that we actually have a bill that exists?” 

But Republicans voted again to suspend the tag rule, and the bills rushed on to committee, which Rodríguez called “a dangerous trend to subvert the rights of the minority and the rights of the public in order to accomplish their partisan goals.”

Meanwhile, House Speaker Joe Straus has signaled he won’t be mimicking Patrick’s urgency.

“This isn’t a race,” he told reportersThursday. “The House is going to give full consideration to the priorities here.”

The unusual schedule was designed to set the Senate on a path toward approving all 20 of Gov. Greg Abbott’s special session agenda items by next Wednesday — Thursday at the latest — putting additional pressure on the House, where Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, and other Republican leaders have been reluctant to embrace all of Abbott’s priorities.

Republicans also announced that Senate committee hearings will be held on all legislation by the end of Sunday — starting at 8 a.m. Friday on additional abortion regulations before the Health and Human Services Committee, followed by a 9 a.m. hearing before the State Affairs Committee on Senate Bill 3 to limit which bathrooms and locker rooms can be used by transgender people.

SB 3 was filed late Wednesday evening by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham.

Sen. José Rodríguez, head of the Senate Democratic Caucus, said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Senate Republicans were emphasizing speed over good governance.

“This signals that the leadership is willing to suspend all rules, regardless, so (they) can get things done, even if it means shortchanging senators on more time to consider bills that are significant, and even if it means cutting out the public’s right to participate,” Rodriguez said.

Sen. Paul Bettencourt, head of the Senate Republican Caucus, said the post-midnight vote and rapid round of committee hearings will help his colleagues deal with significant issues in a tight time frame.

“There are lots of moving parts in the legislative process. At this point, anything can happen, and getting our work done early is the best way to be prepared for anything that can happen,” Bettencourt told the American-Statesman.

“We want to come in, go to work and vote,” he said of Republicans, adding that many of the special session bills had been considered during the regular session that ended in May.

“It’s not like these are foreign subjects that we’ve never seen before,” Bettencourt said.

But Democrats said the majority party appeared eager to stifle public input, with many Republican committee leaders announcing that they would limit registration for public hearings on bills to one hour before a hearing and three hours after it begins.

Patrick, Rodriguez said, “wants to get all of these bills out of the Senate and over to the House so the House … has enough time to act and no excuses (not to act).”

The post-midnight vote was held to meet conditions set by Abbott, who wants the Senate to approve two “sunset” bills, which will rescue five state agencies from shutting down, before he opens the special session to his 19 other priorities, including transgender bathroom policies, changes to the property tax system and limits on the regulatory authority of cities.

The Senate voted 31-0 to give initial approval to the sunset bills Wednesday, but Democrats refused to waive a rule requiring legislation to receive two votes on separate days.

Shortly after voting on the sunset bills early Thursday, Abbott expanded the special session agenda, allowing legislation to be referred to committees — allowing Friday’s hearings to be scheduled with the required notice of at least 24 hours.

Democrats had moved to delay Friday’s hearings on about a dozen bills by “tagging” them — a procedure that halts committee action for 48 hours.

Sen. Kelly Hancock, R-North Richland Hills, moved to void the tags, raising objections from several Democrats.

“Is this to prevent us from having sufficient time to study these bills?” asked Sen. Jose Rodriguez, D-El Paso. “Some of them were filed just a few minutes ago. I haven’t seen them, the public hasn’t seen them.”

Senators, however, voted along party lines to cancel the tags — the same result as Tuesday, when Senate Republicans voted to suspend the tagging rule for the first time in more than 30 years.

Meantime, the House began action on its version of sunset legislation Wednesday when the State Affairs Committee approved a bill to keep the Texas Medical Board and four other state agencies operating until 2019.

Rep. Larry Gonzales, a Round Rock Republican who wrote House Bill 1, said it was a simpler version than the Senate bill and that it was written in consultation with Abbott’s office to ensure that it meets the governor’s proclamation setting the special session.

Without action, the agencies regulating doctors, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, professional counselors and social workers would begin shutting down in September.

American-Statesman staff writer Johnathan Silver contributed to this report.

Others are sporting ones that say “Sunset and Sine Die.”

The first are on the lapels of those who support the passage of all 20 of the measures on Gov. Greg Abbott’s list that he has called the special session to achieve.

The second identifies what those members believe is all that needs to be done — resolve the unfinished business of renewing the work of a few state agencies left over from the regular session.

Sine Die essentially means a quick end to the special session allowing the legislators to go home.

If I could get my hands on any of those second ones, I would happily wear it wherever I go.

That’s because there are significant concerns about the governor’s list and what he wants achieved in the special session now underway in the state house.

Most of those items pose the risk of the whole affair evolving way beyond just the simple descriptions of the 19 other things on his agenda.

In fact, in just the opening days of the session, a couple hundred bills and resolutions had been filed. And there are more coming.

Of special concern are the initiatives that would rip the control of cities from the hands of their citizenry and hand it over to the state.

News reports across the state cite quotes from members in the Senate and the House that confirm their beliefs that the state, in its infinite wisdom, should supplant the decision-making authority of local governments.

It doesn’t seem to matter to them that mayors, city council and school board members all across Texas have pleaded with them not to deny those basic precepts of self-government to the people they represent.

Since those initiatives are rather stealth masquerading under appealing titles such as “tax reform” it takes a while to realize the threat to home rule authorities that have served us well throughout history.

But, there’s no missing the damage to the state’s economy and the toll it would take on the entertainment and sports industry if any sort of “bathroom bill” becomes law.

The captains of industry, tourism directors, and chambers of commerce executives among many others have tried to get the authors of this very bad idea to understand its nothing more than an unneeded solution looking for a nonexistent problem.

The consequences of such a law are potentially catastrophic.

Readers have sometimes asked me if I had anything supportive to say about Democrats. Now seems the time for me to affirmatively answer that question.

Democrat Chris Turner, who represents parts of Grand Prairie and Arlington and chairs the House Democratic Caucus, was quoted in a news conference characterizing many of the current agenda items as “dangerous,” “divisive” or “nonissues.”

He’s right on all counts.

Turner’s counterpart in the upper chamber, El Paso Democrat Jose Rodriguez, standing next to him, wisely suggested, “Let’s spend our time on measures that actually matter to people, that move people’s lives forward.”

Then came the voice of Rep. Donna Howard, an Austin Democrat, offering the idea of a constitutional amendment letting the people of Texas decide how much of the state’s budget should be dedicated to public education.

Houston Democratic Rep. Shawn Thierry wants to address high rates of maternal mortality and suggested such an effort was where “we can all find common ground.”

The problem for such ideas worthy of consideration is that their Republican colleagues control the Legislature.

I usually think that is a good thing.

But for the next few days at least, hand me one of those buttons that say it’s time to turn out the Capitol lights and go home.

Richard Greene is a former Arlington mayor and served as an appointee of President George W. Bush as regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Austin – State Sen. José Rodríguez early Thursday “tagged” 11 bills. The tag is a right any member of the Senate has to request application of Senate Rule 11.19, which states that a Senator “shall receive at least 48 hours advance written notice of the time and place set for a public hearing on a specific bill.”

Instead of following tradition and our Senate rules, which provide order and transparency of our proceedings, the Senate voted 20-11 to retroactively suspend the rules after a tag had been placed. Nobody in the Senate can remember this ever happening before Tuesday, when Sen. Rodríguez’s tag on the Sunset bill was retroactively overruled.

Senator Rodriguez’s statement is as follows:

This evening, several of my Senate colleagues and I tagged 11 bills referred to committee shortly after midnight. We did this in order to give the public adequate notice of the hearings. 

As it did yesterday when I tagged a bill, the Senate did something nobody here can remember it ever doing, which is vote to suspend the tag rule AFTER Senators already had placed the tags. 

In so doing, the Senate disregarded its own processes and precedent in order to push through purely partisan bills without allowing time for democratic debate, denying a fair application of its rules to each of the Senators who had tagged bills.

In the case of more than one bill referred to committee, including SB 2 (vouchers) and SB 3 (“bathrooms”), at the time of referral, shortly after midnight, the text was still not accessible to the public via the state’s website.

By pushing these bills through without adequate notice to the public, the Senate is also disregarding the democratic process. We know a lot of Texans want to participate because so many people showed up to testify or register a position when similar bills came up during the Regular Session.  With respect only to the Senate committee hearings:

• Bathroom bill (85R SB 6): 1,718 people
• Property tax rollback rate (85R SB 2): 524 people
• Vouchers (85R SB 3): 290 people
• Union dues (85R SB 13): 167 people

These hearings are the public’s only opportunity to speak out for or against a bill on the legislative record.  They are also Senators’ only opportunity to question witnesses as part of the public record. Even though some of these issues have been discussed before, these are new bills that members of the public (and the members) have not had enough time to review. Many of the bills have changed significantly compared to the bills that were filed last session (including the SB 3, bathroom bill, and SB 1, the property tax rollback bill).

Many of these bills were filed very recently, giving the public and members very little time to review them.

• SB 1 (property tax rollback rate): a 99-page bill filed Tuesday
• SB 2 (vouchers): not filed until right before this midnightsession, but text not available online at the time of referral to committee
• SB 3and SB 91 (bathroom bills): filed around 5:30 pmon Wednesday, but text not available online at the time of referral
• SB 4 (tax dollars for abortion providers): filed on Monday
• SB 10 (abortion complications reporting): filed on Tuesday

Five other bills (SBs 73, 77, 80, 85, and 87) were filed either Tuesday or late Wednesday. This means that, for some of these bills, including the bathroom bills, we are basically giving the public one day in the middle of a work week to find out about the bill and hearing, review the bill, make arrangements to travel to Austin, and prepare to testify.

This body has always protected the rights of the minority, and respected the rights of the public to comment in public hearings. This is why we have the rules we do. Disregarding them with a raw exercise of power in order to push through bills with significant opposition has not been the Texas Senate way until now. I will resist this in every way that I can.

***

José Rodríguez represents Texas Senate District 29, which includes the counties of El Paso, Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, and Presidio. He represents both urban and rural constituencies, and more than 350 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. Senator Rodríguez currently serves as the Chairman of the Texas Senate Democratic Caucus. He is Vice Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, & Rural Affairs, and a member of the Senate Committees on Natural Resources & Economic Development, Transportation, and Veteran Affairs & Border Security.

-30-

Details and comments by the Senator are as follow:

Education

• S.B. 40 by Rodríguez, Garcia, Menendez, Watson, West, Whitmire & Zaffirini (comprehensive school finance reform): This bill provides a long-term solution for school finance reform by removing inequitable provisions not based on actual costs, increasing funding for vulnerable student populations, and updating the system as a whole to ensure all our children will get a quality education.  

“It is long past time for comprehensive school finance reform, something that not only is necessary but is supported by an overwhelming majority of the public and legislators,” Rodríguez said.

• S.J.R. 6 by Rodríguez, Garcia, Menendez, Watson, West, Whitmire & Zaffirini (requires state to provide 50 percent of school funding):This joint resolution provides for a constitutional amendment that will require the state to pay its equal share of the operating costs of public schools.

“The State is increasingly funding schools on the backs of local property taxpayers, while at the same time, complaining about high local taxes. True tax reform must take into account the main driver of property taxes – schools, which are the State’s constitutional obligation. In fact, the State’s share of the base funding for schools has decreased from 43.5 percent in 2015 to 37.7 percent in 2019. To address this, I have filed legislation that would require the State to fund at least half of our schools’ operating costs. This would dramatically reduce local property taxes and help ensure quality education for all Texas students.

• S.B. 41 by Rodríguez, Garcia, Menendez, Watson, West, Whitmire & Zaffirini (increases bilingual education weight): This bill increases the ELL education funding weight from the current weight of 0.1 to 0.25. This funding weight has not been updated since 1984. Updating it would alleviate achievement gaps, expand dual language programs, reduce recapture payments, and help the almost one million students that need additional services. 

“The investment in our students is an investment in our future,” Rodríguez said, regarding funding weights. “This is long overdue.”

• S.B. 37 by Rodríguez (teacher stipends): This bill creates a $500 stipend for those with at least three years of experience, and $500 for those in TEA-determined shortage areas. These stipends would take effect in 2019, since this was not budgeted for in the current biennium. To attempt to implement the stipends now would constitute an unfunded mandate on schools, forcing either local tax increases or cuts elsewhere.

“Quality teachers are the backbone of our education system and we need to recruit and retain the best, especially in the areas of math, science, bilingual education, special education and career and tech that are currently in short supply,” Rodríguez said. 

Equal rights for LGBTQ Texans

• S.B. 38 by Rodríguez, Garcia, Hinojosa & Whitmire (comprehensive LGBTQ non-discrimination): This bill prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in the areas of housing, public accommodation, employment, and state contracting. 
• “Discrimination of any kind runs counter to the values of opportunity, personal faith, and freedom that all Texans hold dear. However, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community still have experiences of discrimination in Texas, without any recourse at law,” Rodríguez said. “There are examples across the state of LGBT people being denied housing for themselves and their family, losing a job because of their sexual orientation or gender identify, or being denied service at business held open to the public. 

“Discrimination is also bad for business. An inclusive Texas is crucial to recruiting and retaining talent, attracting entrepreneurs and company relocations, and maintaining a strong travel and tourism industry.

“S.B. 38 will ensure that all Texans can live in our great state without fear that they will be denied the same protection afforded their friends and neighbors, simply because of who they are or whom they love.”

Voting

• S.B. 36 by Rodríguez (absentee voting by mail): Current law limits mail in ballots to voters who have a disability, are 65 years old or older, in jail but otherwise eligible, or will be out of town Election Day. Mail in ballots reduce long lines at the polls, ensure greater access to the ballot, and have been proven to be reliable. Currently, 27 states and the District of Columbia offer “no excuse” absentee voting, which does not require an applicant to provide an excuse to request a mail in ballot. California, Oregon, and Washington were the first to pass this law in the 1980s, and studies from early 1990s showed an increase in voter turnout.

“I hope any discussion about reforming mail in ballot fraud will include proposals to expand access for the vast majority of eligible voters,” Rodríguez said. “Texas consistently ranks on the bottom in terms of voter turnout – eighth to last in 2016 – and that is the real problem when it comes to our election reform.”

***

José Rodríguez represents Texas Senate District 29, which includes the counties of El Paso, Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis, and Presidio. He represents both urban and rural constituencies, and more than 350 miles of the Texas-Mexico border. Senator Rodríguez currently serves as the Chairman of the Texas Senate Democratic Caucus. He is Vice Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, & Rural Affairs, and a member of the Senate Committees on Natural Resources & Economic Development, Transportation, and Veteran Affairs & Border Security.

-30-