WEBVTT

00:00:09.490 --> 00:00:10.813
<v ->Good morning.</v>

00:00:10.813 --> 00:00:12.150
This meeting of the Public
Utility Commission of Texas

00:00:12.150 --> 00:00:13.600
will come to order to consider matters

00:00:13.600 --> 00:00:14.433
that have been duly toasted

00:00:14.433 --> 00:00:15.680
with the Secretary of State of Texas

00:00:15.680 --> 00:00:18.508
for October 21st, 2021.

00:00:18.508 --> 00:00:20.010
For the record, my name is Peter Lake.

00:00:20.010 --> 00:00:21.360
With me today are Will McAdams,

00:00:21.360 --> 00:00:23.273
Lori Cobos and Jimmy Glotfelty.

00:00:26.180 --> 00:00:28.270
First up on the agenda,

00:00:28.270 --> 00:00:30.523
we have docket number 51840.

00:00:31.676 --> 00:00:32.740
Mr. Smeltzer and Mr. English,

00:00:32.740 --> 00:00:37.283
would you please lay out
our proposal for adoption?

00:00:58.000 --> 00:00:59.120
<v ->Good morning,
Utility Commissioners,</v>

00:00:59.120 --> 00:01:01.111
My name's Barksdale English,

00:01:01.111 --> 00:01:01.944
on behalf of Commission staff,

00:01:01.944 --> 00:01:04.805
the microphone is not on.
<v ->I don't hear that.</v>

00:01:04.805 --> 00:01:07.138
<v Peter>The mic is not on.</v>

00:01:08.979 --> 00:01:12.312
(indistinct chattering)

00:01:20.665 --> 00:01:24.420
<v Will>Can anyone hear any of this?</v>

00:01:24.420 --> 00:01:26.590
<v ->Can you hear me?</v>
<v ->Yes.</v>

00:01:26.590 --> 00:01:29.043
<v ->Is this now on?</v>
<v ->We can hear it.</v>

00:01:29.043 --> 00:01:29.876
<v ->Yes.</v>
<v ->I can hear that.</v>

00:01:29.876 --> 00:01:31.058
<v ->Can you hear me?</v>

00:01:31.058 --> 00:01:31.891
All right.

00:01:33.470 --> 00:01:35.780
So, one more time, my
name is Barksdale English,

00:01:35.780 --> 00:01:37.070
on behalf of Commission staff,

00:01:37.070 --> 00:01:39.170
good morning, Chairman
and Commissioners.

00:01:39.170 --> 00:01:41.320
Before you today is the
staff's recommendation

00:01:41.320 --> 00:01:44.253
for the proposal for
adoption for a new rule,

00:01:44.253 --> 00:01:46.403
16 TAC, Chapter 25.55,

00:01:48.110 --> 00:01:51.990
it lays out our recommendation for

00:01:51.990 --> 00:01:54.120
weatherization preparation plans

00:01:54.120 --> 00:01:56.263
for the upcoming winter season.

00:01:57.500 --> 00:02:00.240
And we are happy to take any questions,

00:02:00.240 --> 00:02:02.990
comments and concerns
that you might have at this time.

00:02:04.050 --> 00:02:05.650
<v ->I appreciate that.</v>

00:02:05.650 --> 00:02:08.318
First and foremost, I'll say thank you.

00:02:08.318 --> 00:02:09.400
Thank you to both of you gentlemen,

00:02:09.400 --> 00:02:12.280
and to all of the staff
who worked on this

00:02:13.370 --> 00:02:16.600
substantial and landmark rulemaking

00:02:16.600 --> 00:02:21.133
that was done on an
incredibly fast timeline.

00:02:22.000 --> 00:02:23.980
Thank you for all
your hard work on that.

00:02:23.980 --> 00:02:25.604
The bottom line,

00:02:25.604 --> 00:02:27.840
and the reason all that
hard work was put in

00:02:27.840 --> 00:02:29.440
on such a rapid

00:02:30.570 --> 00:02:32.845
timeline was because
we've got to make sure

00:02:32.845 --> 00:02:33.678
this is in place for this winter.

00:02:33.678 --> 00:02:36.040
And this rulemaking will be a big step

00:02:37.179 --> 00:02:40.250
to ensuring that the
physical resiliency of our grid

00:02:40.250 --> 00:02:43.603
is vastly improved this
winter over last winter.

00:02:45.507 --> 00:02:47.557
I would also wanna
thank our stakeholders

00:02:49.532 --> 00:02:53.153
and especially our generator
and transmission community,

00:02:53.153 --> 00:02:54.403
because they have largely

00:02:55.635 --> 00:02:56.785
been ahead of the curve

00:02:57.708 --> 00:03:02.020
in buttressing and
reinforcing their infrastructure

00:03:02.020 --> 00:03:03.270
ahead of this rulemaking.

00:03:04.339 --> 00:03:06.293
So, I appreciate their, not
only contributions to this,

00:03:06.293 --> 00:03:07.863
but also the efforts
they've made proactively.

00:03:10.415 --> 00:03:13.479
And the final thing
I'll say is that this is,

00:03:13.479 --> 00:03:14.379
so you've probably noticed,

00:03:14.379 --> 00:03:16.489
this is phase one of our rulemaking.

00:03:16.489 --> 00:03:17.322
This is an operational standard

00:03:17.322 --> 00:03:18.793
to be ready for this winter.

00:03:20.098 --> 00:03:20.931
A more robust

00:03:22.921 --> 00:03:24.770
and year round preparation standard

00:03:24.770 --> 00:03:29.303
is being developed by
ERCOT to be implemented later.

00:03:30.178 --> 00:03:31.740
I think that was a good suggestion

00:03:31.740 --> 00:03:32.873
of Commissioner Cobos,

00:03:34.440 --> 00:03:36.403
to stagger that rulemaking.

00:03:38.000 --> 00:03:38.950
So thank you again,

00:03:39.870 --> 00:03:41.413
open it up for questions or comments.

00:03:44.575 --> 00:03:45.590
<v ->I just wanna echo
the Chairman's ...</v>

00:03:45.590 --> 00:03:47.090
Can you hear me?

00:03:47.090 --> 00:03:48.770
The Chairman's comments.

00:03:48.770 --> 00:03:50.470
Thank you very much to you Barksdale

00:03:50.470 --> 00:03:52.921
and David and the rest of the staff

00:03:52.921 --> 00:03:56.130
that worked on this very
critically important rule.

00:03:56.130 --> 00:03:57.720
It was quite a task

00:03:57.720 --> 00:04:01.133
to get the rule done
in time for the winter.

00:04:02.301 --> 00:04:03.967
And as the Chairman
said, I think it is

00:04:06.317 --> 00:04:08.667
a landmark rule on
weatherization because

00:04:09.807 --> 00:04:11.280
never before have we had

00:04:12.378 --> 00:04:13.700
such robust weatherization standards

00:04:13.700 --> 00:04:16.480
in place with enforcement authority.

00:04:16.480 --> 00:04:20.320
So, I think that is a huge step forward

00:04:20.320 --> 00:04:22.160
for the industry in
terms of weatherization

00:04:22.160 --> 00:04:23.180
to ensure we have

00:04:25.440 --> 00:04:26.520
a more resilient

00:04:27.660 --> 00:04:30.380
generation fleet and
a transmission system

00:04:30.380 --> 00:04:35.380
for the upcoming
winter and for the public.

00:04:35.633 --> 00:04:37.671
And so thank you very much.

00:04:37.671 --> 00:04:39.901
And thank you to the
industries for working with us

00:04:39.901 --> 00:04:41.623
on such a short turnaround time.

00:04:44.964 --> 00:04:48.530
<v ->All I can say is,
great job to staff.</v>

00:04:48.530 --> 00:04:50.773
You turned this around in record time.

00:04:52.110 --> 00:04:53.793
I would say that,

00:04:55.840 --> 00:04:57.810
I hope the generators,

00:04:57.810 --> 00:04:59.620
and I have been assured
that the generators

00:04:59.620 --> 00:05:01.642
are ahead of the game on this

00:05:01.642 --> 00:05:04.969
and have proceeded
down a implementation plan

00:05:04.969 --> 00:05:05.933
in advance of the rule.

00:05:07.590 --> 00:05:10.463
Consumers are on the
other end of the hook on this.

00:05:11.688 --> 00:05:12.521
So let's get out there,

00:05:12.521 --> 00:05:16.233
let's start imposing this
standard, get 'em ready.

00:05:17.211 --> 00:05:19.403
Winter is around the corner, but thanks.

00:05:23.170 --> 00:05:25.510
<v ->I would echo the Chairman</v>

00:05:25.510 --> 00:05:27.290
and my fellow Commissioners' comments

00:05:27.290 --> 00:05:30.083
on thanking the staff
and the participants too,

00:05:31.610 --> 00:05:33.723
for their efforts to do this quickly.

00:05:36.389 --> 00:05:39.443
If I go back and look
at the winter storm,

00:05:40.340 --> 00:05:43.760
to me, there's not one
issue that was the problem,

00:05:43.760 --> 00:05:46.630
but there's one major solution

00:05:46.630 --> 00:05:48.030
to our piece of this puzzle

00:05:48.030 --> 00:05:51.580
and that is winterization and
weatherization of these plants

00:05:51.580 --> 00:05:54.477
to make sure that when
we want them there,

00:05:54.477 --> 00:05:55.854
that they are there.

00:05:55.854 --> 00:05:58.627
So, I believe this is
absolutely the first step.

00:05:58.627 --> 00:05:59.810
I believe this absolutely
makes our system

00:05:59.810 --> 00:06:01.393
more reliable in wintertime,

00:06:02.246 --> 00:06:04.140
and I believe we're
absolutely on the right track

00:06:04.140 --> 00:06:06.147
to making this

00:06:06.147 --> 00:06:09.280
the standard for winterization
and weatherization.

00:06:09.280 --> 00:06:12.120
Again, weatherization,
so winter and summer,

00:06:12.120 --> 00:06:15.470
but we've historically
been a summer peak.

00:06:15.470 --> 00:06:18.778
Everything was ready for
summer, but not for winter.

00:06:18.778 --> 00:06:20.693
So, I applaud you
all for the efforts

00:06:21.772 --> 00:06:22.910
to think outside the box

00:06:22.910 --> 00:06:25.037
and to get this done quickly, thank you.

00:06:27.860 --> 00:06:29.930
<v ->With that, is there a motion</v>

00:06:29.930 --> 00:06:32.660
to approve the proposal for adoption?

00:06:32.660 --> 00:06:34.290
<v ->So moved.</v>
<v ->Seconded.</v>

00:06:34.290 --> 00:06:35.490
<v ->All in favor, say, "Aye."</v>

00:06:35.490 --> 00:06:37.030
<v All>Aye.</v>

00:06:37.030 --> 00:06:38.930
<v ->Motion passed,
thank you, gentlemen.</v>

00:06:42.041 --> 00:06:44.454
Next item is docket 52373,

00:06:44.454 --> 00:06:46.704
a review of wholesale
electric market design.

00:06:48.194 --> 00:06:50.730
As you all know, following
the memo last night,

00:06:50.730 --> 00:06:52.380
I apologize for the
late hour of the filing,

00:06:52.380 --> 00:06:55.536
that was a result of some IT challenges,

00:06:55.536 --> 00:06:57.766
which we can all see
will continue to plague us

00:06:57.766 --> 00:06:58.693
in various forms today.

00:07:00.925 --> 00:07:04.210
Before I get to the memo,
I do wanna touch on

00:07:04.210 --> 00:07:06.011
an item that's gonna come up

00:07:06.011 --> 00:07:07.380
at tomorrow's ERCOT board meeting

00:07:09.445 --> 00:07:11.750
regarding increasing the

00:07:13.048 --> 00:07:15.173
certain types of load that
can participate in non-spin.

00:07:16.432 --> 00:07:17.515
This has been

00:07:18.505 --> 00:07:21.005
a robust stakeholder
process to get to this point.

00:07:21.905 --> 00:07:23.243
The most important element is that

00:07:23.243 --> 00:07:24.810
it will bring more capacity
and more reserves

00:07:24.810 --> 00:07:27.780
into our margin of safety
this winter and next summer,

00:07:27.780 --> 00:07:30.993
which goes a long way
to ensuring reliability.

00:07:32.505 --> 00:07:34.470
And a lot of folks worked
hard to make sure that

00:07:35.633 --> 00:07:37.485
the way this is implemented is

00:07:37.485 --> 00:07:38.935
on a resource agnostic basis.

00:07:39.901 --> 00:07:41.620
And that's exactly the kind of principle

00:07:41.620 --> 00:07:44.697
we want to implement in this

00:07:44.697 --> 00:07:45.823
and I think going forward.

00:07:47.220 --> 00:07:51.202
So, I'll tip my hat to
all the stakeholders

00:07:51.202 --> 00:07:52.693
that have gotten us to this point.

00:07:54.090 --> 00:07:57.223
Regarding our market redesign memo.

00:07:59.822 --> 00:08:00.870
First and foremost, I wanna say,

00:08:00.870 --> 00:08:03.793
as we've discussed
extensively, this is a starting point.

00:08:04.740 --> 00:08:05.950
This is by no means exhaustive.

00:08:05.950 --> 00:08:08.160
This is just a starting point or a draft

00:08:08.160 --> 00:08:09.970
of a draft of a draft.

00:08:09.970 --> 00:08:11.650
I very much anticipate

00:08:12.916 --> 00:08:16.007
this being a dynamic and fluid document

00:08:16.007 --> 00:08:18.557
with y'all's input and
continued stakeholder input.

00:08:19.570 --> 00:08:21.231
The only thing I'm certain of

00:08:21.231 --> 00:08:22.740
is that I got a lot of this wrong

00:08:22.740 --> 00:08:25.153
and I'm sure the details will change.

00:08:28.829 --> 00:08:31.890
I anticipate staff, today
we can aggregate,

00:08:31.890 --> 00:08:33.090
we've identified the concepts

00:08:33.090 --> 00:08:36.630
that we want to focus on moving forward,

00:08:36.630 --> 00:08:38.270
to narrow the scope of this effort.

00:08:38.270 --> 00:08:42.630
And also importantly,
identify the concepts that we

00:08:42.630 --> 00:08:45.733
don't wanna focus on going forward.

00:08:47.860 --> 00:08:50.060
Importantly, I think we need,

00:08:50.060 --> 00:08:51.600
the four of us need to
identify key questions

00:08:51.600 --> 00:08:54.970
in this narrowed
scope, so staff can issue

00:08:58.070 --> 00:09:01.290
a formal straw-man draft early next week

00:09:01.290 --> 00:09:03.063
for stakeholders to respond to.

00:09:04.696 --> 00:09:06.660
I would ask the stakeholders to respond

00:09:07.520 --> 00:09:10.180
by November 1st on
this much narrower scope

00:09:11.752 --> 00:09:12.754
of items.

00:09:12.754 --> 00:09:14.032
We'll have more details about that

00:09:14.032 --> 00:09:16.633
when we do issue the formal
document early next week.

00:09:18.520 --> 00:09:20.763
As you all know,
there's no silver bullet.

00:09:21.695 --> 00:09:23.595
We've gotta use a combination of tools

00:09:24.598 --> 00:09:26.720
and please do not take my
memo as an endorsement

00:09:26.720 --> 00:09:28.603
of any single plan.

00:09:30.177 --> 00:09:31.010
I did my best to

00:09:32.181 --> 00:09:35.440
select the key elements
of what I think will work

00:09:36.410 --> 00:09:38.363
best to stabilize this ERCOT market.

00:09:40.560 --> 00:09:44.270
As for the meat of the memo itself,

00:09:44.270 --> 00:09:47.350
I'll lay out a couple of
thoughts at a higher level,

00:09:47.350 --> 00:09:50.080
and then look forward to having a

00:09:52.400 --> 00:09:54.783
detailed discussion with
you all about all of this.

00:09:55.810 --> 00:09:57.400
First of all, I'll start with

00:09:57.400 --> 00:09:59.750
concepts I think we
need to take off the table,

00:10:01.320 --> 00:10:05.113
that are not viable for
consideration going forward.

00:10:06.090 --> 00:10:09.090
The biggest of these is,

00:10:09.090 --> 00:10:11.910
what I think of as a
capacity market disguised

00:10:11.910 --> 00:10:13.403
as a new ancillary service.

00:10:14.870 --> 00:10:16.120
Even if

00:10:19.123 --> 00:10:20.670
a capacity market disguises
a new ancillary service

00:10:20.670 --> 00:10:22.440
and might solve

00:10:22.440 --> 00:10:24.700
our short term reliability problems,

00:10:24.700 --> 00:10:28.390
in the long run, if we continue to have

00:10:28.390 --> 00:10:31.674
increased intermittent
resources in our grid,

00:10:31.674 --> 00:10:34.141
it's just a bandaid on a bullet wound.

00:10:34.141 --> 00:10:36.041
It will not solve the problem longterm

00:10:39.254 --> 00:10:40.360
and the problem will only get bigger

00:10:40.360 --> 00:10:43.363
the longer we ignore
addressing it head on.

00:10:44.900 --> 00:10:47.010
These kinds of products,

00:10:47.010 --> 00:10:49.289
may be successful in retaining

00:10:49.289 --> 00:10:51.105
existing generating assets,

00:10:51.105 --> 00:10:53.000
but they've not been successful

00:10:53.000 --> 00:10:55.730
in incentivizing new generating
resources anywhere else

00:10:55.730 --> 00:10:58.910
and I doubt that they
would be successful here.

00:10:58.910 --> 00:11:01.450
As for what I think would
work, as you saw in my memo,

00:11:01.450 --> 00:11:04.240
ORDC, I think everybody would agree

00:11:06.220 --> 00:11:07.840
this is an improvement we can make.

00:11:07.840 --> 00:11:10.220
Certainly, it would drive revenues

00:11:10.220 --> 00:11:12.910
to reliable dispatchable resources

00:11:12.910 --> 00:11:14.809
during times of scarcity,

00:11:14.809 --> 00:11:18.480
that should help
retain our existing fleet,

00:11:18.480 --> 00:11:19.800
which is incredibly important.

00:11:19.800 --> 00:11:23.380
And it's also a market-based mechanism

00:11:24.330 --> 00:11:26.840
to bring more generation on sooner

00:11:26.840 --> 00:11:28.840
rather than out of
market action, like RUCs

00:11:28.840 --> 00:11:31.933
that we've had to rely
on these last months.

00:11:34.150 --> 00:11:37.043
And I think we should
make those changes too,

00:11:37.043 --> 00:11:38.593
to ORDC, as you saw in my memo.

00:11:40.103 --> 00:11:42.253
However, we've made
changes to ORDC before,

00:11:44.501 --> 00:11:46.200
and they clearly did not solve

00:11:46.200 --> 00:11:47.650
either the extreme weather problem

00:11:47.650 --> 00:11:50.563
or the blue sky scarcity problem.

00:11:53.529 --> 00:11:54.560
So, we've seen this maybe before,

00:11:54.560 --> 00:11:55.910
what's different this time?

00:11:57.387 --> 00:11:59.325
Well, I think it's a good
improvement to make,

00:11:59.325 --> 00:12:00.397
I don't think we can stop there.

00:12:00.397 --> 00:12:02.623
Thus, the LSE obligation.

00:12:03.670 --> 00:12:05.550
Philosophically, it's the only thing

00:12:05.550 --> 00:12:07.830
we've seen that, to my mind,

00:12:07.830 --> 00:12:10.769
integrates reliability
into the normal everyday

00:12:10.769 --> 00:12:12.863
functioning of the
market, absent of a crisis.

00:12:14.030 --> 00:12:16.313
It drives revenues to
reliable dispatchable assets

00:12:16.313 --> 00:12:17.353
that we need,

00:12:18.550 --> 00:12:21.850
without paying a lot of money for assets

00:12:21.850 --> 00:12:24.383
to sit on the sideline
and not generate power.

00:12:26.370 --> 00:12:28.860
And importantly, it leverages the

00:12:30.416 --> 00:12:32.993
competitive market
forces of our retail market.

00:12:34.300 --> 00:12:36.200
Functionally, there are two key parts

00:12:38.939 --> 00:12:40.390
of what I hope an LSE
obligation can become.

00:12:40.390 --> 00:12:43.080
First, an accreditation of resources

00:12:44.357 --> 00:12:46.005
by generator type.

00:12:46.005 --> 00:12:47.250
We have to be honest about

00:12:48.520 --> 00:12:49.903
how reliable different resources are.

00:12:51.058 --> 00:12:51.970
It is entirely unacceptable

00:12:51.970 --> 00:12:53.653
that on these blue sky days,

00:12:55.314 --> 00:12:57.680
that we expect 10,000 megawatts of wind

00:12:59.020 --> 00:13:00.870
and get 1,500 and

00:13:02.218 --> 00:13:04.980
in the absence of
any other problem,

00:13:04.980 --> 00:13:07.630
ERCOT controller, it is
scrambling to find resources.

00:13:11.944 --> 00:13:13.044
We've got to stop that

00:13:14.135 --> 00:13:15.087
way of doing business.

00:13:15.087 --> 00:13:17.006
We can not continue to run this state

00:13:17.006 --> 00:13:18.043
and this economy that way,

00:13:19.661 --> 00:13:20.733
our homes and businesses
need reliable power.

00:13:21.594 --> 00:13:23.548
We've gotta be honest about how reliable

00:13:23.548 --> 00:13:24.381
each resource type is.

00:13:25.887 --> 00:13:27.230
The accreditation is the first key part.

00:13:27.230 --> 00:13:28.063
And the second key part functionally,

00:13:28.981 --> 00:13:29.814
I see in this framework,

00:13:29.814 --> 00:13:31.680
is providing forward price signaling to

00:13:33.166 --> 00:13:34.240
the investor universe.

00:13:34.240 --> 00:13:36.412
You saw my memo, I'd suggest

00:13:36.412 --> 00:13:40.163
some percent of anticipated
load up to three years out.

00:13:41.310 --> 00:13:45.803
I targeted on that because right now,

00:13:46.830 --> 00:13:49.893
as of this morning, the price of power,

00:13:50.955 --> 00:13:54.745
a megawatt in Texas,
in the summer of 2025,

00:13:54.745 --> 00:13:56.203
it's 50% less than it is right now.

00:13:57.899 --> 00:14:00.750
And that's what the
financial markets are saying.

00:14:00.750 --> 00:14:02.410
I don't think any of us believes

00:14:02.410 --> 00:14:04.330
that a megawatt of power in Texas

00:14:04.330 --> 00:14:05.857
will be less valuable

00:14:05.857 --> 00:14:08.453
three years from now
than it is right now.

00:14:09.881 --> 00:14:11.832
It shouldn't be with
the growth we've got

00:14:11.832 --> 00:14:15.830
and the lack of dispatchable
resources we've got.

00:14:15.830 --> 00:14:17.430
So we need a mechanism like this

00:14:17.430 --> 00:14:20.400
to provide real financial

00:14:20.400 --> 00:14:23.670
price formation and price
signaling into the future,

00:14:23.670 --> 00:14:26.550
so investors can see
what a megawatt's worth.

00:14:28.619 --> 00:14:29.473
I picked three years,

00:14:29.473 --> 00:14:31.690
because investors need to see

00:14:31.690 --> 00:14:33.670
what they're gonna get from a megawatt

00:14:35.067 --> 00:14:38.473
when a new resource would come online.

00:14:40.101 --> 00:14:41.023
It takes at best,

00:14:42.090 --> 00:14:43.290
three years to get a new

00:14:44.916 --> 00:14:46.080
substantial dispatchable resource,

00:14:46.080 --> 00:14:48.310
permanent build connected.

00:14:48.310 --> 00:14:50.520
So, that's the framework

00:14:51.578 --> 00:14:52.800
and the logic behind three years.

00:14:52.800 --> 00:14:53.660
If I'm gonna finance

00:14:53.660 --> 00:14:57.560
a new dispatchable resource in Texas,

00:14:57.560 --> 00:14:59.762
what kind of megawatt am I gonna get?

00:14:59.762 --> 00:15:00.595
And I need something
I can take to the bank

00:15:00.595 --> 00:15:03.048
and show them that this
is real price formation,

00:15:03.048 --> 00:15:04.323
these are real
transactions in the future.

00:15:05.854 --> 00:15:08.263
There are obviously some
challenges with an LSE obligation.

00:15:09.446 --> 00:15:10.788
First and foremost,

00:15:10.788 --> 00:15:13.152
we've got to make sure
it does not open the door

00:15:13.152 --> 00:15:14.765
to market manipulation.

00:15:14.765 --> 00:15:16.113
The competitive retail market,

00:15:19.711 --> 00:15:21.887
it is not only a feature
of the ERCOT market,

00:15:21.887 --> 00:15:23.757
it is one of the crown
jewels of the ERCOT market.

00:15:23.757 --> 00:15:25.007
It is absolutely critical

00:15:25.982 --> 00:15:28.040
to the functioning of the
market and for our consumers.

00:15:28.040 --> 00:15:30.430
We absolutely have to protect that.

00:15:30.430 --> 00:15:32.876
And secondly, we have to make sure

00:15:32.876 --> 00:15:33.930
that we can incorporate,

00:15:33.930 --> 00:15:36.110
not just incorporate it, integrate

00:15:36.110 --> 00:15:38.900
fully demand response
into any LSE obligation

00:15:41.133 --> 00:15:41.966
that we put forward.

00:15:42.954 --> 00:15:45.179
If we can't, and there are
a variety of other questions

00:15:45.179 --> 00:15:46.096
that you still don't know,

00:15:46.096 --> 00:15:48.103
but if we can't get this
LSE obligation right,

00:15:49.773 --> 00:15:50.880
I'd rather not do it than do it wrong

00:15:52.164 --> 00:15:54.785
because doing it wrong would
maybe cause more damage.

00:15:54.785 --> 00:15:56.235
And if we can't get it right,

00:15:57.470 --> 00:15:59.670
the only other option
we have at that point,

00:16:00.950 --> 00:16:04.090
to truly establish reliability
in our grid would be to

00:16:06.073 --> 00:16:08.770
set some sort of fleet-wide
affirming standard,

00:16:08.770 --> 00:16:10.707
reliability standard,

00:16:10.707 --> 00:16:13.113
require all fleet-wide reliability.

00:16:14.260 --> 00:16:16.180
So, I'll stop there.

00:16:16.180 --> 00:16:17.460
Obviously, I know,

00:16:18.569 --> 00:16:20.533
I expect you all have
lots of thoughts and ideas.

00:16:21.610 --> 00:16:24.900
Jimmy, you've got a lot
of notes there, problems?

00:16:24.900 --> 00:16:27.290
<v ->Oh no, no, that was weeks ago.</v>

00:16:27.290 --> 00:16:29.640
<v ->Oh good, I'm glad
you've got more sense then.</v>

00:16:31.040 --> 00:16:33.200
I'll stop there and love to hear y'all's

00:16:33.200 --> 00:16:34.972
thoughts and comments.

00:16:34.972 --> 00:16:37.070
<v ->This is not on your
proposal, I thought.</v>

00:16:38.280 --> 00:16:42.353
<v ->Yeah, so Mr. Chairman,
compliments on the matrix.</v>

00:16:44.270 --> 00:16:45.103
So,

00:16:47.850 --> 00:16:48.790
the details

00:16:50.920 --> 00:16:51.923
and the detail column.

00:16:53.870 --> 00:16:56.340
I gotta tell you, just from the outset,

00:16:56.340 --> 00:16:58.420
I am not prepared on this day

00:16:58.420 --> 00:17:00.420
to endorse any details.

00:17:00.420 --> 00:17:01.700
<v Peter>Sure, it's
a starting point.</v>

00:17:01.700 --> 00:17:03.207
<v ->I would strike that though.</v>

00:17:04.300 --> 00:17:06.458
<v Peter>Well, we've
gotta get to it.</v>

00:17:06.458 --> 00:17:08.213
<v ->I know, okay,
let's discuss this.</v>

00:17:09.290 --> 00:17:11.543
From the standpoint
of a staff straw-man,

00:17:12.562 --> 00:17:15.575
because I don't want
staff unleashed, sorry staff,

00:17:15.575 --> 00:17:20.433
but on any particular
mechanics that are preordained.

00:17:21.269 --> 00:17:23.640
And I say that because
these are defined

00:17:24.700 --> 00:17:28.250
mechanical components
to the market design

00:17:28.250 --> 00:17:31.833
that began your
questions, man, I'm with ya.

00:17:32.895 --> 00:17:35.420
It's a well thought out, targeted.

00:17:35.420 --> 00:17:38.903
They trap, they drive
toward these points,

00:17:40.345 --> 00:17:42.420
but for the traders
watching this meeting,

00:17:42.420 --> 00:17:44.096
the detail column,

00:17:44.096 --> 00:17:45.930
I wanna make sure and affirm that again,

00:17:45.930 --> 00:17:48.190
I am not endorsing those details

00:17:49.110 --> 00:17:50.999
and just for the group
and you may not be either,

00:17:50.999 --> 00:17:53.763
it's a concept map that
you're articulating here.

00:17:57.888 --> 00:18:01.856
The ORDC, absolutely 100% agree.

00:18:01.856 --> 00:18:06.163
I believe that the MCL
should be adjusted out.

00:18:08.600 --> 00:18:11.560
Everything that we've heard
over the proceeding workshops

00:18:11.560 --> 00:18:13.183
leads us to that conclusion,

00:18:14.470 --> 00:18:19.240
that its status, set at 2000
megawatts of reserves

00:18:21.931 --> 00:18:24.245
is counter to the public interest

00:18:24.245 --> 00:18:25.858
in that it hides behind

00:18:25.858 --> 00:18:28.853
already sending the
public a conservation notice,

00:18:28.853 --> 00:18:29.690
which, what's the point of sending

00:18:29.690 --> 00:18:32.455
price responsive signals or sending

00:18:32.455 --> 00:18:35.190
price signals that you hope

00:18:35.190 --> 00:18:37.311
consumers will respond to,

00:18:37.311 --> 00:18:39.780
if you're already asking
them to conserve?

00:18:39.780 --> 00:18:43.490
<v ->Yes, not a lot of options.</v>
<v ->It's counterintuitive.</v>

00:18:43.490 --> 00:18:45.050
I believe we should offer up

00:18:45.940 --> 00:18:49.930
a range for study moving forward

00:18:49.930 --> 00:18:52.580
in the near term as a part
of your straw-man concept.

00:18:53.814 --> 00:18:56.174
And your questions asked for Brattle

00:18:56.174 --> 00:18:57.840
to provide us again those cost impacts

00:18:57.840 --> 00:19:00.023
as per your questions.

00:19:02.110 --> 00:19:03.580
<v Peter>Sure, can we pick
the scenarios together?</v>

00:19:03.580 --> 00:19:04.630
Can we do that today?

00:19:05.694 --> 00:19:06.560
<v ->I'm ready for that.</v>

00:19:06.560 --> 00:19:08.650
<v ->Because stakeholders
have told us</v>

00:19:09.567 --> 00:19:10.554
lots of different versions.

00:19:10.554 --> 00:19:12.510
I wanna get at least a
series of numbers on paper.

00:19:12.510 --> 00:19:14.920
<v ->Absolutely ready.</v>
<v ->All right.</v>

00:19:14.920 --> 00:19:17.040
<v Will>Moving on, just so
I can open up the field</v>

00:19:17.040 --> 00:19:19.094
and end my comments.

00:19:19.094 --> 00:19:20.283
LSE obligations,

00:19:20.283 --> 00:19:22.422
since we're focused on these two topics

00:19:22.422 --> 00:19:23.383
and I agree with them.

00:19:24.433 --> 00:19:25.266
I'm definitely not ready to endorse

00:19:25.266 --> 00:19:26.583
an LSC obligation today.

00:19:27.625 --> 00:19:28.750
I have significant questions

00:19:28.750 --> 00:19:32.883
about what this would do to our market.

00:19:33.891 --> 00:19:36.100
They must be answered before

00:19:36.100 --> 00:19:37.640
any type of endorsement

00:19:39.206 --> 00:19:41.406
is considered by the
Commission, in my view.

00:19:43.051 --> 00:19:46.220
Market power, who
administers the program?

00:19:46.220 --> 00:19:50.810
Does the PUC become the
IRS and audit all these people?

00:19:50.810 --> 00:19:53.403
This is a wholly different
system from RECs.

00:19:54.658 --> 00:19:55.720
Nobody cares about
RECs, I'll say it publicly.

00:19:55.720 --> 00:19:57.643
I mean, they care, they buy them,

00:19:58.551 --> 00:20:02.233
but this is a requirement
and it's not just a requirement,

00:20:03.125 --> 00:20:04.233
it's a hard to get to requirement.

00:20:05.079 --> 00:20:06.219
You have to be dispatchable

00:20:06.219 --> 00:20:07.680
and what qualifies as dispatchable?

00:20:07.680 --> 00:20:10.383
And all roads lead into that
with the accreditation system.

00:20:12.578 --> 00:20:16.360
So, I would love to
have more study on this.

00:20:16.360 --> 00:20:18.913
My view of affirming
requirement, as you say,

00:20:19.940 --> 00:20:23.711
and put it together,
affirming requirement,

00:20:23.711 --> 00:20:26.686
either an LSE obligation
or a resource obligation,

00:20:26.686 --> 00:20:28.353
'cause that's what
you implied in your ...

00:20:29.222 --> 00:20:31.800
If we don't get here,
then we may end up there.

00:20:31.800 --> 00:20:33.200
<v ->No other option.</v>
<v ->Right.</v>

00:20:35.610 --> 00:20:39.890
<v Will>With the amount of
intermittent only resources</v>

00:20:39.890 --> 00:20:42.323
that are coming into the market,

00:20:43.191 --> 00:20:46.366
that will penetrate our
market in the very near future,

00:20:46.366 --> 00:20:49.220
in the next two years and
especially the next five years.

00:20:49.220 --> 00:20:52.010
And especially with
federal policy enhancing

00:20:52.010 --> 00:20:53.633
that market momentum,

00:20:55.490 --> 00:20:58.440
we have to have the
breathing room to study

00:20:58.440 --> 00:21:00.460
affirming requirement on
one side of the other, now.

00:21:00.460 --> 00:21:02.270
We have to be down the road

00:21:02.270 --> 00:21:05.455
in order to meet those
challenges some way.

00:21:05.455 --> 00:21:07.665
And it may not look exactly as proposed,

00:21:07.665 --> 00:21:08.632
it probably will not.

00:21:08.632 --> 00:21:11.723
And I would suggest it
will not, as proposed by E3.

00:21:12.870 --> 00:21:15.730
However, we've gotta
put the legwork in now

00:21:15.730 --> 00:21:17.000
to be on target

00:21:18.323 --> 00:21:20.612
for whatever that market
looks like in five years

00:21:20.612 --> 00:21:23.062
and it's gonna change
dramatically, we know this.

00:21:24.570 --> 00:21:26.258
And then whatever batteries do,

00:21:26.258 --> 00:21:27.970
in terms of technology and economics and

00:21:28.840 --> 00:21:29.790
the new innovations.

00:21:29.790 --> 00:21:33.163
So with that, I believe
we need to study this,

00:21:34.008 --> 00:21:37.170
but be ready to kill
this thing in its crib

00:21:37.170 --> 00:21:38.243
at any moment.

00:21:40.440 --> 00:21:43.445
No endorsement, no endorsement,

00:21:43.445 --> 00:21:46.175
indeed ask the right
questions, study them,

00:21:46.175 --> 00:21:48.020
have Brattle do the analysis,

00:21:48.020 --> 00:21:50.137
make recommendations,

00:21:50.137 --> 00:21:51.890
bring in a comprehensive
stakeholder process.

00:21:51.890 --> 00:21:53.863
I view the LSC obligation,

00:21:57.433 --> 00:21:58.723
it's almost like a drug
entering the market.

00:21:59.645 --> 00:22:00.631
It needs to be peer reviewed

00:22:00.631 --> 00:22:02.850
and everybody needs
to log every bomb in their

00:22:02.850 --> 00:22:05.470
arsenal at it and they need to defend it

00:22:05.470 --> 00:22:07.370
and find out a way where
we can get to a place

00:22:07.370 --> 00:22:09.080
that's in the public interest.

00:22:09.080 --> 00:22:11.087
So that's my view, sir, thank you.

00:22:13.286 --> 00:22:14.119
<v ->I very much appreciate that.</v>

00:22:15.115 --> 00:22:18.056
I think between now and
our blueprint in December

00:22:18.056 --> 00:22:19.689
is where we need to
get comfortable with a

00:22:19.689 --> 00:22:21.559
thumbs up thumbs down on LSE.

00:22:21.559 --> 00:22:22.847
We don't have to have all the ...

00:22:22.847 --> 00:22:23.993
We don't have to have
everything answered.

00:22:25.158 --> 00:22:27.383
We have done an
exhaustive stakeholder input.

00:22:27.383 --> 00:22:29.350
We'll continue to do so, and in no way

00:22:29.350 --> 00:22:30.340
do I think the

00:22:32.289 --> 00:22:34.978
belly of that memo was the E3 proposal?

00:22:34.978 --> 00:22:35.883
<v ->Okay.</v>
<v ->Big differences.</v>

00:22:38.500 --> 00:22:39.432
So again, the starting point,

00:22:39.432 --> 00:22:41.282
but I think between now and December,

00:22:42.739 --> 00:22:45.460
I think the goal would be to
focus that stakeholder process

00:22:45.460 --> 00:22:48.640
on figuring out if we can
get to the comfort level

00:22:48.640 --> 00:22:52.773
on LSE obligation, thumbs
up, thumbs down by December.

00:22:53.660 --> 00:22:56.136
And we've still got a lot
of work to do after that.

00:22:56.136 --> 00:22:57.680
<v ->Yeah.</v>
<v ->For sure.</v>

00:22:57.680 --> 00:23:00.430
And then if not, if it's a
thumbs down in December,

00:23:00.430 --> 00:23:03.883
absolutely 100%
prepared to kill the idea,

00:23:04.752 --> 00:23:07.600
if we can't get to answers
that are satisfactory

00:23:07.600 --> 00:23:08.770
and then move towards

00:23:09.880 --> 00:23:12.243
the other reliability standard,

00:23:12.243 --> 00:23:14.455
which will also take
time, that's not something,

00:23:14.455 --> 00:23:15.288
but

00:23:17.396 --> 00:23:18.333
we've gotta do something.

00:23:19.182 --> 00:23:21.200
We've gotta pick something
and choose a course

00:23:21.200 --> 00:23:24.403
to go down a path to go down,

00:23:25.960 --> 00:23:26.793
relatively soon.

00:23:26.793 --> 00:23:28.933
We don't have the
luxury of years of studies.

00:23:30.060 --> 00:23:30.893
<v ->Okay.</v>
<v ->Go.</v>

00:23:32.071 --> 00:23:32.904
<v ->And if I could.</v>
<v ->It's fine.</v>

00:23:32.904 --> 00:23:36.014
<v ->Okay, so a lot of comments</v>

00:23:36.014 --> 00:23:37.834
and I'm gonna try to parse this down

00:23:37.834 --> 00:23:40.153
and really, I have a lot of
very targeted comments.

00:23:41.553 --> 00:23:43.023
So first and foremost,

00:23:44.010 --> 00:23:46.360
I've said this many
times or I'll say it again.

00:23:48.120 --> 00:23:49.770
I think our focus should be

00:23:50.769 --> 00:23:53.640
on addressing
operational reliability issues

00:23:53.640 --> 00:23:57.764
that we have and will continue
to experience in the winter,

00:23:57.764 --> 00:23:59.314
and that is cold weather events

00:24:00.462 --> 00:24:01.970
and periods of time when we have

00:24:01.970 --> 00:24:05.188
higher than expected demand and/or

00:24:05.188 --> 00:24:09.683
lower than expected
generation output of all types.

00:24:10.727 --> 00:24:12.523
And I think that we're living that,

00:24:13.980 --> 00:24:16.833
we've been living
that or it's all types.

00:24:16.833 --> 00:24:18.920
And so those are the
two operational scenarios

00:24:18.920 --> 00:24:21.640
that I believe that we have
faced, we'll continue to face,

00:24:21.640 --> 00:24:23.440
and that has brought us here

00:24:23.440 --> 00:24:26.480
to this very desk today, to try to

00:24:27.970 --> 00:24:30.543
look at the market again with that lens.

00:24:31.569 --> 00:24:32.420
And underneath it all,

00:24:32.420 --> 00:24:35.570
to provide that
foundation of reliability that

00:24:37.810 --> 00:24:41.490
we believe the market, the leadership,

00:24:41.490 --> 00:24:45.090
the consumers, Texans,
expect and deserve

00:24:45.090 --> 00:24:46.323
and that's why we're here.

00:24:47.485 --> 00:24:48.585
So how do we get here,

00:24:50.340 --> 00:24:52.740
in this market construct
that we currently have?

00:24:54.182 --> 00:24:57.800
I will say, with respect
to all the proposals

00:24:57.800 --> 00:24:58.800
that we've received,

00:24:59.995 --> 00:25:03.130
all of them involved a
capacity market element,

00:25:03.130 --> 00:25:04.080
all of them.

00:25:04.080 --> 00:25:06.030
In one hand, it's a central procurement

00:25:07.781 --> 00:25:08.881
of resources by ERCOT.

00:25:09.804 --> 00:25:13.184
On the other hand, it's a
capacity obligation on LSEs,

00:25:13.184 --> 00:25:15.661
they have to go to the
bilateral market to fulfill.

00:25:15.661 --> 00:25:16.494
So there are both ...

00:25:16.494 --> 00:25:18.880
<v Peter>But the only difference
with the LSE obligation</v>

00:25:18.880 --> 00:25:21.320
is that's the only one
where you're required

00:25:22.520 --> 00:25:24.663
to procure generation that
you actually plan on using,

00:25:25.852 --> 00:25:26.685
not sitting on the sideline,

00:25:26.685 --> 00:25:27.518
that is a key difference.

00:25:27.518 --> 00:25:29.370
<v ->Then hoping you have enough,</v>

00:25:29.370 --> 00:25:30.370
so I'll get to that.

00:25:31.688 --> 00:25:36.363
Just to level set,
that is my perspective.

00:25:37.631 --> 00:25:39.600
All of them have a capacity market

00:25:39.600 --> 00:25:40.573
element to them.

00:25:41.524 --> 00:25:43.210
Matter of fact, the
LSE obligation is called,

00:25:43.210 --> 00:25:44.150
the bilateral capacity market.

00:25:44.150 --> 00:25:49.000
Okay, so as we look
at, what do we do next?

00:25:49.000 --> 00:25:51.143
How do we, and I completely agree.

00:25:52.289 --> 00:25:53.137
We've gotta do something.

00:25:53.137 --> 00:25:53.970
We have to attack the issues

00:25:53.970 --> 00:25:55.690
that we have on our table right now.

00:25:56.702 --> 00:25:57.535
But what I wanna do is,

00:25:57.535 --> 00:26:00.100
I wanna do it in a
targeted, strategic manner

00:26:01.572 --> 00:26:02.405
that solves the problems

00:26:02.405 --> 00:26:04.190
that we are actually
going to be facing now

00:26:05.037 --> 00:26:06.383
and in the future and have faced.

00:26:06.383 --> 00:26:09.205
Okay, so ORDC, 100% agree.

00:26:09.205 --> 00:26:11.500
We've lowered the price cap,

00:26:11.500 --> 00:26:14.988
we need to make
adjustments to make sure that

00:26:14.988 --> 00:26:18.353
the ORDC is sending the
price signals to the market,

00:26:18.353 --> 00:26:21.260
to incent investment
in existing generation.

00:26:21.260 --> 00:26:23.060
And what I mean by
that is additional units,

00:26:23.060 --> 00:26:25.390
the generation plants,
upgrades that squeeze out,

00:26:25.390 --> 00:26:27.750
shoot out more megawatts
per month from a plant

00:26:29.724 --> 00:26:31.409
and potentially some new generation.

00:26:31.409 --> 00:26:34.033
So ORDC reforms are necessary,

00:26:35.199 --> 00:26:36.910
but we must do so in a balanced manner

00:26:36.910 --> 00:26:40.090
that will drive investment

00:26:40.950 --> 00:26:42.453
in dispatchable generation.

00:26:43.998 --> 00:26:46.259
And from a reliability perspective,

00:26:46.259 --> 00:26:47.979
ensure that operating reserves

00:26:47.979 --> 00:26:49.229
are coming online earlier

00:26:50.082 --> 00:26:51.832
than when we are already in the A1,

00:26:53.450 --> 00:26:54.969
because the A1 is 2,300 megawatts

00:26:54.969 --> 00:26:57.083
and the ORDC kicks
in at 2,000 megawatts.

00:26:58.208 --> 00:27:00.390
So the MCL has to increase

00:27:00.390 --> 00:27:03.540
from a public policy
standpoint, the ORDC

00:27:03.540 --> 00:27:05.133
needs to kick in a lot sooner,

00:27:06.568 --> 00:27:07.920
and I think we're all in agreement.

00:27:07.920 --> 00:27:09.930
It's just a matter of

00:27:09.930 --> 00:27:13.640
what number, and I saw
your recommendation and

00:27:15.190 --> 00:27:17.018
that is a threshold.

00:27:17.018 --> 00:27:18.918
I think that is on the ERCOT matrix of

00:27:19.960 --> 00:27:22.200
when emergency purchase procedures start

00:27:23.962 --> 00:27:25.780
below 3000 megawatts.

00:27:25.780 --> 00:27:30.260
And so, I see where you
came up with that number

00:27:31.205 --> 00:27:32.163
and I think we should look at it.

00:27:34.355 --> 00:27:37.666
And so the other aspect of the ORDC

00:27:37.666 --> 00:27:40.333
with respect to policy considerations,

00:27:40.333 --> 00:27:41.593
the VOLL/price cap.

00:27:43.158 --> 00:27:46.650
We must set price cap/VOLL

00:27:48.426 --> 00:27:52.290
at a point where generation
that fails to perform

00:27:54.015 --> 00:27:56.030
will still have performance penalty.

00:27:56.030 --> 00:27:58.230
We must ensure that generators are

00:27:59.890 --> 00:28:02.540
held accountable for not showing up.

00:28:02.540 --> 00:28:05.075
<v ->Yeah, all types.</v>
<v ->When they're supposed to.</v>

00:28:05.075 --> 00:28:05.908
All types.

00:28:05.908 --> 00:28:08.970
And also that

00:28:09.837 --> 00:28:11.260
we are setting the
price cap and the VOLL

00:28:12.195 --> 00:28:13.778
at a point where we are still

00:28:13.778 --> 00:28:15.835
maintaining an incent demand response,

00:28:15.835 --> 00:28:17.440
that has been also very important

00:28:17.440 --> 00:28:19.440
for maintaining reliability on the grid.

00:28:21.100 --> 00:28:23.713
And as we move to the MCL agreement,

00:28:24.649 --> 00:28:26.270
we need to go up,

00:28:26.270 --> 00:28:29.340
I think we should at least
study 3,000 and 2,800

00:28:32.335 --> 00:28:33.270
and maybe a little bit higher

00:28:33.270 --> 00:28:35.263
if you wanna start it before.

00:28:36.130 --> 00:28:38.670
But those are some numbers in there

00:28:38.670 --> 00:28:39.510
that we need to look at

00:28:39.510 --> 00:28:42.170
if we're trying to set the
MCL at a place where

00:28:44.051 --> 00:28:46.151
we're not already in
emergency procedures.

00:28:47.750 --> 00:28:50.363
With respect to standard deviations,

00:28:52.157 --> 00:28:54.653
and shifting and extending the curve,

00:28:56.440 --> 00:29:00.142
there's a lot there, there's a lot there

00:29:00.142 --> 00:29:03.093
and I think we need
to see some analysis,

00:29:04.610 --> 00:29:07.060
because as you shift an extended curve,

00:29:07.060 --> 00:29:10.200
there is going to be more ORDC adders

00:29:10.200 --> 00:29:11.540
over a longer period of time,

00:29:11.540 --> 00:29:15.230
which could provide
price signals for investment

00:29:15.230 --> 00:29:18.035
in new and existing generation.

00:29:18.035 --> 00:29:18.885
But it could also

00:29:21.285 --> 00:29:24.036
provide ORDC adders
to renewable generation.

00:29:24.036 --> 00:29:26.240
And we as a committee,
and a megawatt is a megawatt.

00:29:26.240 --> 00:29:29.872
Megawatt is a megawatt when
we need a megawatt on the system

00:29:29.872 --> 00:29:30.760
to maintain our liability.

00:29:30.760 --> 00:29:32.770
But if the goal, the public policy goal

00:29:32.770 --> 00:29:35.531
of the condition is to
incent more investment

00:29:35.531 --> 00:29:36.620
in dispatchable generation,

00:29:36.620 --> 00:29:39.063
then we need to strike a
balance in there somewhere.

00:29:40.069 --> 00:29:41.493
So, I would suggest,

00:29:42.528 --> 00:29:43.890
as Commissioner McAdams has recommended,

00:29:43.890 --> 00:29:47.140
that we give Brattle some
very specific parameters

00:29:47.140 --> 00:29:48.740
to at least give us some context

00:29:50.950 --> 00:29:53.410
as to what those parameters would do

00:29:53.410 --> 00:29:57.320
with respect to consumer cost,
adding revenue to the market.

00:29:57.320 --> 00:29:59.503
So we have some
third party analysis of it.

00:30:00.677 --> 00:30:02.100
And so Brattle and
Estrate are perfectly veered

00:30:02.100 --> 00:30:04.011
to give us that context.

00:30:04.011 --> 00:30:06.440
I think if they can get it to
us before November 4th,

00:30:06.440 --> 00:30:08.030
the work session November 4th,

00:30:08.030 --> 00:30:09.450
I think that would be very ideal

00:30:09.450 --> 00:30:11.113
so we can start making decisions.

00:30:12.700 --> 00:30:15.950
I think 4,500, 3,000 and
the standard deviation,

00:30:15.950 --> 00:30:17.800
I'm fine with having them study that.

00:30:19.086 --> 00:30:20.650
I think that's a great starting point

00:30:20.650 --> 00:30:21.483
and thank you for recommending those.

00:30:21.483 --> 00:30:23.080
The other one that I would suggest

00:30:23.080 --> 00:30:24.200
that is interesting to me,

00:30:24.200 --> 00:30:27.700
and I know the MCL might scare people,

00:30:27.700 --> 00:30:29.552
but I have heard,

00:30:29.552 --> 00:30:31.660
a little bit from the
generation community

00:30:31.660 --> 00:30:33.560
and the consumer side that they are

00:30:34.860 --> 00:30:37.456
comfortable with the IMM's proposal.

00:30:37.456 --> 00:30:38.683
And so that's,

00:30:39.952 --> 00:30:42.150
in and of itself that you
can get some generation

00:30:42.150 --> 00:30:44.190
and some consumers to agree

00:30:44.190 --> 00:30:46.618
that that might produce
the result they want

00:30:46.618 --> 00:30:48.180
and be comfortable with it.

00:30:48.180 --> 00:30:50.120
And since the ERCOT IMM

00:30:51.139 --> 00:30:54.560
is in a neutral position to
provide us this kind of input,

00:30:54.560 --> 00:30:57.940
I think it's just another
piece of context.

00:30:57.940 --> 00:30:58.773
Look at that

00:31:00.360 --> 00:31:04.040
suggestion as well, your suggestion,

00:31:04.040 --> 00:31:06.220
and any other parameters that

00:31:06.220 --> 00:31:08.220
we can think of in the meantime,

00:31:08.220 --> 00:31:09.670
to have Brattle (indistinct).

00:31:10.890 --> 00:31:12.240
The other thing I will add,

00:31:13.250 --> 00:31:15.750
as we prepare to go to the winter

00:31:15.750 --> 00:31:18.693
and we wanna have all
the tools in our toolbox

00:31:18.693 --> 00:31:20.943
that we can have
to maintain reliability.

00:31:21.920 --> 00:31:23.090
My suggestion would be,

00:31:23.090 --> 00:31:26.220
since we do have the
rulemaking open right now

00:31:26.220 --> 00:31:27.880
for the price cap and our goal is

00:31:27.880 --> 00:31:30.310
to have that price cap
adjusted by January 1st,

00:31:30.310 --> 00:31:33.140
because that's when the
old cap at 2,500 goes away,

00:31:33.140 --> 00:31:35.140
and the new price cap kicks in.

00:31:35.140 --> 00:31:38.860
My suggestion would be
that we have ORDC reforms,

00:31:38.860 --> 00:31:39.900
however, have them in place

00:31:39.900 --> 00:31:41.047
by the beginning of the year in January

00:31:41.047 --> 00:31:42.847
and I think that's totally possible.

00:31:44.150 --> 00:31:47.120
All we need to do is
have an OBER approved,

00:31:47.120 --> 00:31:48.817
once we give them a directive.

00:31:48.817 --> 00:31:52.260
And that way, when we
enter the winter season,

00:31:52.260 --> 00:31:55.170
we have an ORDC in place that will

00:31:55.170 --> 00:31:58.180
signal more operating
reserves to come online

00:31:58.180 --> 00:32:00.960
before scarcity, to maintain reliability

00:32:00.960 --> 00:32:02.950
during the upcoming winter season,

00:32:02.950 --> 00:32:05.250
as an additional tool
to our arsenal of tools.

00:32:08.000 --> 00:32:08.833
So,

00:32:10.540 --> 00:32:12.093
the LSE obligation,

00:32:13.416 --> 00:32:16.053
I think I have a lot
of questions myself.

00:32:16.900 --> 00:32:20.410
I'm not prepared to
endorse it at this time.

00:32:20.410 --> 00:32:22.640
I questioned whether
in a short amount of time

00:32:22.640 --> 00:32:25.150
that we have from now until December,

00:32:25.150 --> 00:32:26.880
if we're gonna get all
the information we need

00:32:26.880 --> 00:32:30.343
to be sure that this path is
gonna give us what we want.

00:32:32.300 --> 00:32:33.870
We don't know until we know.

00:32:33.870 --> 00:32:36.297
I think we can ask a lot of questions,

00:32:36.297 --> 00:32:38.250
get comfortable,

00:32:38.250 --> 00:32:41.010
but until we're actually in
there building that framework,

00:32:41.010 --> 00:32:42.380
that's gonna take a little while.

00:32:42.380 --> 00:32:45.623
At least, I don't even wanna guess,

00:32:47.005 --> 00:32:48.470
it's gonna take a while
to build that framework.

00:32:48.470 --> 00:32:50.630
We're really not going to know

00:32:50.630 --> 00:32:53.240
whether that LSE
obligation is gonna produce

00:32:53.240 --> 00:32:57.060
the reliability benefits that we want

00:32:57.060 --> 00:32:59.610
until many years out.

00:32:59.610 --> 00:33:00.880
And the last thing I wanna do

00:33:00.880 --> 00:33:02.250
is spend a whole lot of time

00:33:02.250 --> 00:33:04.830
working on a very complex
market design change

00:33:06.550 --> 00:33:08.710
that will not give us the reliability

00:33:08.710 --> 00:33:10.950
and drive the investment that we needed

00:33:10.950 --> 00:33:12.910
and we are still
continuing to experience

00:33:12.910 --> 00:33:14.790
the operational and reliability issues

00:33:14.790 --> 00:33:16.340
that we are experiencing today.

00:33:17.760 --> 00:33:20.400
And so the accreditation process-

00:33:20.400 --> 00:33:23.740
<v Peter>I would say, the fear
of something not working</v>

00:33:23.740 --> 00:33:27.407
is not a reason to avoid
trying to make it work.

00:33:27.407 --> 00:33:29.530
<v ->But in the meantime,</v>

00:33:29.530 --> 00:33:32.528
we could have significant
impacts on our market,

00:33:32.528 --> 00:33:34.820
our retail market.

00:33:34.820 --> 00:33:37.620
We must ensure that market power

00:33:37.620 --> 00:33:39.363
is monitored by the ERCOT IMM.

00:33:40.300 --> 00:33:42.840
Market power is monitored
in a bilateral market

00:33:42.840 --> 00:33:46.003
that the IMM does
not have visibility into,

00:33:46.970 --> 00:33:49.720
and that the retail market is protected.

00:33:49.720 --> 00:33:51.890
And the retail market is

00:33:51.890 --> 00:33:54.650
when you squash on an LSE obligation,

00:33:54.650 --> 00:33:56.270
there's a lot of
complexities that's there;

00:33:56.270 --> 00:33:58.610
there's customer migration,

00:33:58.610 --> 00:34:01.580
customer switching, polar events,

00:34:01.580 --> 00:34:07.000
a lot of migration that
the LSEs will have to

00:34:07.000 --> 00:34:10.270
take into consideration as
they prepare on their obligation.

00:34:10.270 --> 00:34:13.340
And I wanna say one
thing that's very important.

00:34:13.340 --> 00:34:16.550
We've spent, we all have
in one form or fashion,

00:34:16.550 --> 00:34:18.970
spent a lot of time working on

00:34:18.970 --> 00:34:22.010
landmark securitization

00:34:23.000 --> 00:34:26.350
and to stabilize the ERCOT market.

00:34:26.350 --> 00:34:28.640
And part of that stabilization

00:34:28.640 --> 00:34:31.060
was to protect the integrity of our

00:34:31.060 --> 00:34:32.623
crown jewel retail market.

00:34:34.300 --> 00:34:36.120
And I wanna make sure that

00:34:36.120 --> 00:34:38.050
all this hard work we're putting in,

00:34:38.050 --> 00:34:39.090
that at the back end,

00:34:39.090 --> 00:34:40.690
we're not gonna come in and just

00:34:41.660 --> 00:34:44.390
all that hard work is gonna
be for nothing and destroyed

00:34:44.390 --> 00:34:47.263
because we're looking for reliability.

00:34:49.362 --> 00:34:51.020
(sighs) If it comes
off, it'll be a Texas talk

00:34:51.020 --> 00:34:52.577
in all the wrong places.

00:34:52.577 --> 00:34:54.640
(people laughing)

00:34:54.640 --> 00:34:56.420
<v ->I like that, and I'll say</v>

00:34:57.429 --> 00:34:58.900
that if I feel like this
is gonna squeeze

00:34:58.900 --> 00:35:00.450
the independents and non-affiliates out,

00:35:00.450 --> 00:35:02.423
I will vote no on that thing today.

00:35:03.410 --> 00:35:06.570
That is a red line for me,
so it has to be addressed.

00:35:06.570 --> 00:35:08.480
I'll take it off the table today

00:35:08.480 --> 00:35:10.330
and make 'em go back
to the drawing board.

00:35:10.330 --> 00:35:12.376
Can't have it, in my view.

00:35:12.376 --> 00:35:13.767
<v ->And so, what I'd say ...</v>

00:35:13.767 --> 00:35:16.067
<v Peter>That's exactly
what I've put in my memo.</v>

00:35:16.067 --> 00:35:18.223
<v ->And I wanna say
Chairman, and thank you.</v>

00:35:18.223 --> 00:35:20.495
I think conceptually what you're seeing,

00:35:20.495 --> 00:35:22.500
the overall picture

00:35:22.500 --> 00:35:24.278
where you're trying to head with this,

00:35:24.278 --> 00:35:26.200
I think that that's

00:35:27.080 --> 00:35:29.100
something we all can
agree in one form or fashion.

00:35:29.100 --> 00:35:31.670
The accreditation, we can
handle that accreditation

00:35:31.670 --> 00:35:32.540
in other policy

00:35:33.800 --> 00:35:37.163
decisions that we made with
respect to allocation of costs.

00:35:38.120 --> 00:35:39.720
There's other avenues to

00:35:39.720 --> 00:35:43.070
make sure that we develop
an all resources economy.

00:35:43.070 --> 00:35:46.200
I don't wanna use a very
complex market design change

00:35:46.200 --> 00:35:48.832
to make sure we're
all resourced together.

00:35:48.832 --> 00:35:49.839
<v Peter>Well, let's
get the other ones</v>

00:35:49.839 --> 00:35:51.290
that are on the table.
<v ->Absolutely.</v>

00:35:51.290 --> 00:35:53.216
<v ->If we can do it quicker, sooner</v>

00:35:53.216 --> 00:35:54.522
and cleaner, absolutely.

00:35:54.522 --> 00:35:55.590
<v ->Absolutely,
but I will say that,</v>

00:35:55.590 --> 00:35:57.603
and I agree with Commissioner McAdams,

00:35:58.960 --> 00:36:01.360
I don't want this to turn
into, and I know that it won't

00:36:01.360 --> 00:36:04.753
because we have a deadline
by the end of the year where ...

00:36:07.460 --> 00:36:08.960
I think it's gonna
take a little bit of time

00:36:08.960 --> 00:36:10.191
to answer all our questions

00:36:10.191 --> 00:36:11.920
and we're not gonna really know

00:36:11.920 --> 00:36:14.080
everything by the end
of the year on this option,

00:36:14.080 --> 00:36:17.063
is my belief, but I
wanna make sure that

00:36:17.063 --> 00:36:17.967
if we're not getting
satisfactory answers

00:36:17.967 --> 00:36:20.490
that we move this off the table,

00:36:20.490 --> 00:36:22.600
because I think the longer
we have it on the table

00:36:22.600 --> 00:36:25.670
and try to squeeze
out something out of it

00:36:25.670 --> 00:36:27.450
and not get comfortable,
get comfortable,

00:36:27.450 --> 00:36:29.120
the more uncertainty we
send out to the market,

00:36:29.120 --> 00:36:31.000
to the investment community.

00:36:31.000 --> 00:36:35.380
And so we've moved this
option once before off the table

00:36:35.380 --> 00:36:39.700
in 2013, 2013, without
a blink of an eye, okay.

00:36:39.700 --> 00:36:42.870
So, we've gotta make sure
that what has changed so much

00:36:42.870 --> 00:36:45.160
in this market, and there's
been a lot of change,

00:36:45.160 --> 00:36:46.600
there's been a significant integration

00:36:46.600 --> 00:36:49.530
of renewable generation,
we've had a devastating storm,

00:36:49.530 --> 00:36:51.370
but let's keep our eye on the ball

00:36:51.370 --> 00:36:53.670
and make sure that
we're delivering reliability

00:36:53.670 --> 00:36:56.893
in all the right places
and all the need.

00:36:58.564 --> 00:36:59.481
<v ->Chairman,</v>

00:37:00.727 --> 00:37:01.980
can I ask you a procedural question

00:37:01.980 --> 00:37:03.097
and that is ...
<v ->Ask me anything you want.</v>

00:37:03.097 --> 00:37:03.930
<v ->Are we gonna go through</v>

00:37:03.930 --> 00:37:06.020
all of the components of your plan

00:37:06.020 --> 00:37:07.920
or are we just gonna do the first two?

00:37:09.220 --> 00:37:10.890
<v ->We can go through however many</v>

00:37:12.109 --> 00:37:15.660
we want or more.

00:37:15.660 --> 00:37:17.710
Apparently there's some
new ideas on how to

00:37:17.710 --> 00:37:19.830
ensure accountability of resource.

00:37:19.830 --> 00:37:21.150
I'd love to hear those.

00:37:21.150 --> 00:37:22.013
My goal,

00:37:24.178 --> 00:37:27.243
by the end of this is to
have narrowed the scope.

00:37:27.243 --> 00:37:28.800
And to be clear,

00:37:28.800 --> 00:37:31.220
I'm not asking for
endorsements or for votes today.

00:37:31.220 --> 00:37:33.100
I'm asking for us to

00:37:33.100 --> 00:37:35.150
dramatically narrow the scope.

00:37:35.150 --> 00:37:38.400
We've heard what the stakeholders want.

00:37:38.400 --> 00:37:40.563
We need to start making
decisions about what this

00:37:40.563 --> 00:37:42.643
Commission wants.
<v ->Right, I agree.</v>

00:37:43.680 --> 00:37:45.410
<v ->So I wanna, by
the end of the day,</v>

00:37:45.410 --> 00:37:47.230
I wanna narrow the scope

00:37:47.230 --> 00:37:48.780
dramatically enough that we have

00:37:48.780 --> 00:37:51.470
a concentrated top list
of topics to talk about,

00:37:51.470 --> 00:37:53.730
so we can start making those decisions.

00:37:53.730 --> 00:37:55.060
We can get the questions

00:37:55.060 --> 00:37:58.670
and we need to specifically
give staff questions

00:37:58.670 --> 00:38:00.903
we want answered from the stakeholders.

00:38:01.928 --> 00:38:04.730
So, I know the staff is prepared to,

00:38:04.730 --> 00:38:08.313
by concept or by theme, for each idea,

00:38:09.819 --> 00:38:10.652
a list of questions for each one,

00:38:10.652 --> 00:38:12.120
we'll publish that next-

00:38:13.138 --> 00:38:14.100
<v ->But my question
was because I didn't ...</v>

00:38:14.100 --> 00:38:18.670
I'll stop at my comments
on ORDC and LSE obligation

00:38:18.670 --> 00:38:20.010
because everybody else has,

00:38:20.010 --> 00:38:24.193
and we can go through
the others, subsequently.

00:38:26.530 --> 00:38:28.320
First of all, I wanna say,

00:38:28.320 --> 00:38:32.460
I appreciate your
leadership in doing this.

00:38:32.460 --> 00:38:34.320
It's never fun to be the first guy

00:38:34.320 --> 00:38:36.123
to get shot at all the time.

00:38:37.168 --> 00:38:39.740
<v ->Absolutely.</v>
<v ->Yes, absolutely.</v>

00:38:39.740 --> 00:38:41.060
<v ->I know what you're doing is,</v>

00:38:41.060 --> 00:38:44.222
you're putting something
out there that can be shot at it,

00:38:44.222 --> 00:38:45.460
as you've said so eloquently, that

00:38:45.460 --> 00:38:47.470
all I know is the first
draft isn't gonna be right,

00:38:47.470 --> 00:38:49.432
but it still takes courage to do it

00:38:49.432 --> 00:38:50.293
and I appreciate that.

00:38:52.606 --> 00:38:55.370
There are a couple
of things that I premise

00:38:55.370 --> 00:38:57.440
my belief in this market on.

00:38:57.440 --> 00:38:58.573
So first of all,

00:39:00.852 --> 00:39:04.063
I believe that we should do no harm.

00:39:04.910 --> 00:39:07.890
I believe that we ought to be
enhancing the retail market.

00:39:07.890 --> 00:39:11.170
And I believe that all
resources are equal.

00:39:11.170 --> 00:39:12.970
A megawatt is a megawatt

00:39:12.970 --> 00:39:16.553
an electron is an electron,
especially in scarcity.

00:39:17.630 --> 00:39:18.463
And

00:39:20.880 --> 00:39:22.820
a megawatt hour or a kilowatt

00:39:22.820 --> 00:39:27.323
not used during
scarcity is equal as well.

00:39:28.820 --> 00:39:29.890
With that being said,

00:39:29.890 --> 00:39:33.320
I think we need a reliability standard.

00:39:33.320 --> 00:39:36.270
I think we have to tell
the market and the people

00:39:36.270 --> 00:39:39.230
that we are serious about
this, and without a specific.

00:39:39.230 --> 00:39:41.510
I don't know if it's one in 10

00:39:41.510 --> 00:39:43.893
or one in five or one in two.

00:39:44.922 --> 00:39:45.910
I don't know if it's ...

00:39:45.910 --> 00:39:47.870
I don't know what the number is,

00:39:47.870 --> 00:39:51.673
but to me, if you're not
aiming for something,

00:39:52.530 --> 00:39:54.203
then you're scattered everywhere.

00:39:55.496 --> 00:39:58.583
So, that would be first
thing: let's aim for something.

00:40:01.250 --> 00:40:03.980
Secondly, I wanna say that,

00:40:03.980 --> 00:40:07.130
with all of these
proposals that came in,

00:40:07.130 --> 00:40:08.893
including the LSE obligation,

00:40:09.890 --> 00:40:11.943
I don't have any idea what they cost.

00:40:13.170 --> 00:40:15.950
They're fantastic words on paper,

00:40:15.950 --> 00:40:19.533
but none of them say how
much they cost versus the other.

00:40:20.470 --> 00:40:22.730
These are ultimately things that we

00:40:22.730 --> 00:40:26.200
are costing the market or
putting money into the market

00:40:26.200 --> 00:40:28.640
and being paid for by consumers.

00:40:28.640 --> 00:40:31.560
So, we talk about

00:40:31.560 --> 00:40:33.880
putting additional revenues
in the generation sector.

00:40:33.880 --> 00:40:35.180
How many?

00:40:35.180 --> 00:40:38.270
How much money
versus another alternative?

00:40:38.270 --> 00:40:39.490
And I don't know the answer to that

00:40:39.490 --> 00:40:41.020
on any of the proposals,

00:40:41.020 --> 00:40:44.313
but think that Brattle needs
to help us quantify those.

00:40:46.000 --> 00:40:49.253
I don't have a problem paying
more if you're getting more,

00:40:51.270 --> 00:40:52.543
but if you're not,

00:40:53.394 --> 00:40:56.893
then I sense that that's
not a good decision to make.

00:40:59.490 --> 00:41:01.360
I think there's some things that

00:41:02.880 --> 00:41:05.670
ERCOT has on their agenda now

00:41:05.670 --> 00:41:09.523
that make what we're
doing over here a little bit ...

00:41:12.410 --> 00:41:13.460
Well, let me say it this way.

00:41:13.460 --> 00:41:15.910
We have to encourage
them to finish their

00:41:15.910 --> 00:41:18.340
co-optimization ASAP.

00:41:18.340 --> 00:41:21.540
We just don't know what's
gonna come out of that.

00:41:21.540 --> 00:41:23.190
And a lot of that affects

00:41:23.190 --> 00:41:25.110
what these load
responsibilities would be,

00:41:25.110 --> 00:41:27.393
or how much generation
we need in the market.

00:41:31.310 --> 00:41:34.010
Finally, as I've said in the past,

00:41:34.010 --> 00:41:37.000
we still have some
megawatts on the system

00:41:37.000 --> 00:41:40.253
that can't get to load because
of transmission constraints.

00:41:41.380 --> 00:41:44.967
And there are out of market mechanisms

00:41:44.967 --> 00:41:46.390
and reliability mechanisms

00:41:46.390 --> 00:41:49.120
that are being used
by ERCOT to limit that,

00:41:49.120 --> 00:41:51.720
that I hope we can help resolve in this.

00:41:51.720 --> 00:41:54.610
Again, I think a
electron is an electron,

00:41:54.610 --> 00:41:56.320
especially during scarcity;

00:41:56.320 --> 00:41:58.133
we need to think of that.

00:42:00.910 --> 00:42:04.020
I would say very specifically,
just a couple of things.

00:42:04.020 --> 00:42:05.077
One of 'em is,

00:42:08.270 --> 00:42:10.140
as we talk about this,

00:42:10.140 --> 00:42:13.450
I think we're doing a
lot of supply-side work

00:42:14.380 --> 00:42:16.770
and not much demand-side work.

00:42:16.770 --> 00:42:20.820
We are looking backwards to a

00:42:20.820 --> 00:42:24.600
vertically integrated, real
vertically integrated market,

00:42:24.600 --> 00:42:27.710
where all we look at is
how we deal with supply.

00:42:27.710 --> 00:42:30.240
The demand-side is really important

00:42:30.240 --> 00:42:31.713
and the demand-side from,

00:42:33.320 --> 00:42:38.250
whether it be price-responsive
demand of residentials,

00:42:38.250 --> 00:42:39.910
but all customer classes,

00:42:39.910 --> 00:42:42.763
if it deals with electric
vehicles and batteries,

00:42:44.130 --> 00:42:46.490
those are all things that I
think are forward-looking

00:42:46.490 --> 00:42:48.440
that we need to consider today,

00:42:48.440 --> 00:42:51.840
not just the backward-looking things,

00:42:51.840 --> 00:42:53.163
only on the supply-side.

00:42:54.780 --> 00:42:57.793
I feel two things are important.

00:42:58.920 --> 00:43:02.793
One of 'em is, I think we
need to pay for voltage.

00:43:04.620 --> 00:43:06.713
We haven't historically done that.

00:43:07.730 --> 00:43:10.747
Voltage is one of those
things where people said,

00:43:10.747 --> 00:43:12.520
"Well look, the market
doesn't even function.

00:43:12.520 --> 00:43:16.000
The transmission system
doesn't function unless you use it,"

00:43:16.000 --> 00:43:19.520
but there's a cost to it
and there's a value to it.

00:43:19.520 --> 00:43:20.550
And if we're in a market,

00:43:20.550 --> 00:43:23.863
we ought to pay for the
value of that component.

00:43:25.971 --> 00:43:28.390
I'll say specifically about

00:43:30.240 --> 00:43:33.090
the ORDC and the LSE obligation.

00:43:33.090 --> 00:43:35.830
I think ORDC is a no regrets action.

00:43:35.830 --> 00:43:38.100
I think we can agree that something

00:43:38.100 --> 00:43:40.890
needs to be modified here
and what those numbers are,

00:43:40.890 --> 00:43:41.940
I don't know.

00:43:41.940 --> 00:43:44.090
To get me comfortable on the number,

00:43:44.090 --> 00:43:46.690
part of that has to
be the study behind it

00:43:46.690 --> 00:43:48.740
and what we get for
it and what it costs.

00:43:50.900 --> 00:43:54.920
We must allow all generation types

00:43:54.920 --> 00:43:57.123
to collect ORDC
revenues during scarcity.

00:43:58.180 --> 00:44:02.200
That includes variable
resources, renewable resources.

00:44:02.200 --> 00:44:06.050
Again, my belief is an
electron's an electron.

00:44:06.050 --> 00:44:10.280
So, if they're producing,

00:44:10.280 --> 00:44:13.163
then they can get ORDC payments as well.

00:44:15.960 --> 00:44:19.230
So, supporting that and figuring out

00:44:19.230 --> 00:44:21.890
what the analysis that we need.

00:44:21.890 --> 00:44:26.130
The numbers are fine: MCL 3,000, 2,800.

00:44:26.130 --> 00:44:27.230
We might wanna do

00:44:28.804 --> 00:44:31.670
something that is extremely
low and extremely high

00:44:33.722 --> 00:44:34.555
to put a band ...

00:44:34.555 --> 00:44:35.860
<v Peter>Like a scenario analysis.</v>

00:44:35.860 --> 00:44:38.330
<v ->That's right, as a comparison.</v>

00:44:38.330 --> 00:44:41.933
Same thing, are we
going to 4,500 or 6,000?

00:44:44.220 --> 00:44:47.360
We might try some things
that don't seem logical

00:44:47.360 --> 00:44:53.010
as benchmarks or
bookmarks on either side

00:44:53.010 --> 00:44:54.940
so that we can understand

00:44:54.940 --> 00:44:57.110
what something really
high or extremely low does

00:44:57.110 --> 00:44:58.220
to the market.

00:44:59.850 --> 00:45:02.150
And then onto the LSE obligation.

00:45:02.150 --> 00:45:04.490
I think that it's a
massive market change.

00:45:04.490 --> 00:45:06.800
I'm not totally convinced it's needed

00:45:06.800 --> 00:45:09.860
as I have mentioned.

00:45:09.860 --> 00:45:11.290
My fear of market power

00:45:12.380 --> 00:45:15.440
is front and center on that.

00:45:15.440 --> 00:45:19.210
I don't want to go to four gentailers

00:45:19.210 --> 00:45:22.090
that have unregulated
monopolies in the state.

00:45:22.090 --> 00:45:24.480
I don't think that's good for consumers.

00:45:24.480 --> 00:45:28.323
It's complex, the duration
for implementation is long,

00:45:30.140 --> 00:45:33.620
and if we can do it sooner, great,

00:45:33.620 --> 00:45:36.973
but we'll have to see the
details and how that works.

00:45:38.700 --> 00:45:40.973
As Commissioner Cobos said,

00:45:42.580 --> 00:45:44.740
if it's detrimental to

00:45:44.740 --> 00:45:46.733
customer and retail competition,

00:45:47.610 --> 00:45:50.593
it's gonna be really hard
for me to get over that hump.

00:45:52.560 --> 00:45:54.570
20 years ago, 25 years ago,

00:45:54.570 --> 00:45:56.820
I spent time trying to help
create the retail market

00:45:56.820 --> 00:45:59.000
and I think it's been great.

00:45:59.000 --> 00:46:01.510
I wanna see a more robust retail market,

00:46:01.510 --> 00:46:03.203
not a smaller retail market.

00:46:06.550 --> 00:46:10.373
And then my last question on this is,

00:46:11.780 --> 00:46:14.300
I don't yet have any assurance

00:46:14.300 --> 00:46:16.600
that this will actually
incent new generation.

00:46:18.460 --> 00:46:21.330
What amount of new
generation we need, I don't know,

00:46:21.330 --> 00:46:24.800
because until we have a robust
demand response in this state

00:46:25.840 --> 00:46:30.827
that affects price, affects
supply needs, we won't know.

00:46:30.827 --> 00:46:33.900
But I believe, as in your
memo, demand response

00:46:33.900 --> 00:46:37.270
has to be used as
a grid reliability tool

00:46:37.270 --> 00:46:39.313
as often as we can use it.

00:46:40.320 --> 00:46:43.653
It does, it is a tool that
should be in the toolbox.

00:46:45.399 --> 00:46:48.030
And I think as we get new technologies,

00:46:48.030 --> 00:46:50.563
we spent billions of
dollars on smart meters.

00:46:51.660 --> 00:46:53.130
We don't know if they're
the right smart meters

00:46:53.130 --> 00:46:54.530
for the demand response, but

00:46:55.993 --> 00:46:57.810
that's what some claimed

00:46:57.810 --> 00:47:00.640
and we need to figure
out and push the envelope

00:47:00.640 --> 00:47:03.190
on technology to be a supply-side,

00:47:03.190 --> 00:47:05.540
a demand-side market.

00:47:05.540 --> 00:47:07.510
And almost every other product,

00:47:07.510 --> 00:47:10.313
we get to not buy
it if we don't want it,

00:47:11.620 --> 00:47:13.570
we get to go to another store.

00:47:13.570 --> 00:47:14.560
We get some of those here,

00:47:14.560 --> 00:47:17.830
but electricity is obviously
that fundamental right

00:47:17.830 --> 00:47:19.910
that we need and I believe that

00:47:19.910 --> 00:47:22.690
the demand-side increases reliability,

00:47:22.690 --> 00:47:24.920
demand-side functions
increase reliability,

00:47:24.920 --> 00:47:27.233
and a decreased cost for the market.

00:47:28.470 --> 00:47:29.303
<v ->Well put.</v>

00:47:30.680 --> 00:47:32.390
If you'll all hear me,

00:47:32.390 --> 00:47:35.000
I've got some quick
thoughts on those comments

00:47:35.000 --> 00:47:36.670
and then I would suggest we

00:47:38.370 --> 00:47:40.680
start with the easy ones and

00:47:41.600 --> 00:47:43.710
give staff a list of

00:47:45.550 --> 00:47:47.670
concepts to consider,

00:47:47.670 --> 00:47:51.620
not endorsement, but
concepts to continue considering

00:47:51.620 --> 00:47:53.970
and then a list of
questions for each of those.

00:47:54.830 --> 00:47:56.053
Quick thoughts.

00:47:57.300 --> 00:48:00.700
ORDC, very much as I stated in my memo,

00:48:00.700 --> 00:48:04.180
very much want to see
some scenario analysis.

00:48:04.180 --> 00:48:06.200
I do want to be wary about

00:48:06.200 --> 00:48:08.263
over-engineering and overthinking this.

00:48:09.220 --> 00:48:11.570
The biggest point of error

00:48:11.570 --> 00:48:14.690
in any ORDC analysis is gonna be

00:48:14.690 --> 00:48:17.020
number of days or hours used.

00:48:17.020 --> 00:48:20.090
So, we can easily get

00:48:20.090 --> 00:48:23.640
caught up in over-engineering
standard deviations

00:48:23.640 --> 00:48:25.410
and some of the nuances.

00:48:25.410 --> 00:48:26.870
The biggest mistake is gonna be,

00:48:26.870 --> 00:48:28.930
how many hours that is used here?

00:48:28.930 --> 00:48:30.640
So those revenue productions are

00:48:31.700 --> 00:48:34.090
gonna be wrong, and so

00:48:34.960 --> 00:48:37.160
at some point we just
need to pick something

00:48:38.680 --> 00:48:41.213
and it doesn't have to be complicated.

00:48:44.500 --> 00:48:47.763
On the Ellis, I'll save it though,

00:48:49.273 --> 00:48:52.820
save that for last.
<v ->Thank you.</v>

00:48:52.820 --> 00:48:53.893
<v ->Demand response.</v>

00:48:55.714 --> 00:48:57.020
I've put it third on
my list for a reason:

00:48:57.020 --> 00:48:58.860
it's incredibly important.

00:48:58.860 --> 00:49:00.623
And I do want to,

00:49:03.700 --> 00:49:07.490
I guess, share the breadth
of what I'm thinking about.

00:49:07.490 --> 00:49:10.690
It's a little understated on
a grid in a Word document.

00:49:10.690 --> 00:49:12.510
But when I say upgrade
hardware and software,

00:49:12.510 --> 00:49:15.630
that's essential hardware
and software that runs,

00:49:15.630 --> 00:49:17.453
that collects the smart meter data.

00:49:18.320 --> 00:49:21.150
Doing that, upgrading that

00:49:21.150 --> 00:49:25.260
to increase the frequency of
the pings from that telemetry

00:49:25.260 --> 00:49:29.040
and being able to handle and
manage that increase in data

00:49:29.040 --> 00:49:31.970
is a massive, massive investment

00:49:31.970 --> 00:49:33.963
and it's a massive effort.

00:49:37.460 --> 00:49:38.620
It is no small feat.

00:49:38.620 --> 00:49:41.270
And I think the reason I focused on that

00:49:41.270 --> 00:49:42.600
was because

00:49:43.580 --> 00:49:46.430
that is the keystone that will unlock

00:49:47.390 --> 00:49:50.410
an extraordinary amount of
capability for demand response.

00:49:50.410 --> 00:49:52.840
And so it's a little understated

00:49:52.840 --> 00:49:55.280
as presented in the memo,

00:49:55.280 --> 00:49:58.780
but I do wanna highlight that that is

00:49:58.780 --> 00:50:01.863
a extraordinary large project.

00:50:03.010 --> 00:50:10.520
And I do want to make
sure that folks know that

00:50:10.520 --> 00:50:13.340
just because we need to
increase demand response,

00:50:13.340 --> 00:50:16.350
doesn't mean that we don't have
robust demand response now.

00:50:16.350 --> 00:50:19.350
We heard in our demand
response workshop that,

00:50:19.350 --> 00:50:22.320
from one of our largest
retailers, NRG, that

00:50:23.470 --> 00:50:25.900
the only constraint they have
to more demand response

00:50:25.900 --> 00:50:28.513
is price signaling and
customer willingness.

00:50:29.510 --> 00:50:31.060
There are areas we can improve,

00:50:32.188 --> 00:50:34.240
but we know it's happening;

00:50:34.240 --> 00:50:36.700
just because we can't
see it at the ERCOT level

00:50:36.700 --> 00:50:38.550
doesn't mean that it's not out there.

00:50:43.370 --> 00:50:45.023
As for the LSE obligation,

00:50:46.720 --> 00:50:50.050
we know, we don't know

00:50:50.920 --> 00:50:53.920
what any of these will
really do in practice to prices;

00:50:53.920 --> 00:50:55.040
even the ORDC.

00:50:55.040 --> 00:50:59.270
It's a huge margin of
error in trying to presume

00:50:59.270 --> 00:51:01.920
that we know how many
hours it'll be used every year.

00:51:03.389 --> 00:51:04.770
We've got a lot more
data about the stock market

00:51:04.770 --> 00:51:07.761
but nobody on the planet
can tell you what it's gonna do.

00:51:07.761 --> 00:51:09.270
Just to think we can

00:51:09.270 --> 00:51:12.263
predict the weather in the
power grid that accurately.

00:51:13.710 --> 00:51:16.560
We know we don't have enough
dispatchable power in Texas.

00:51:18.660 --> 00:51:20.370
The wind stopped blowing yesterday.

00:51:20.370 --> 00:51:23.510
Everything else is working
just fine, or as expected

00:51:23.510 --> 00:51:25.220
and prices went to $400.

00:51:25.220 --> 00:51:27.780
The market is set to go to $500.

00:51:27.780 --> 00:51:29.050
That's 100X pricing

00:51:30.700 --> 00:51:32.808
that customers will pay for

00:51:32.808 --> 00:51:35.476
because we don't have ...
The wind stopped blowing

00:51:35.476 --> 00:51:37.140
and we don't have enough
dispatchable resources.

00:51:37.140 --> 00:51:38.640
And while in the longterm,

00:51:38.640 --> 00:51:40.360
we obviously want to keep

00:51:41.510 --> 00:51:43.950
competitive retail market;

00:51:43.950 --> 00:51:47.130
in the short term, we
need to be prepared

00:51:47.130 --> 00:51:51.010
to face the possibility
that prices may go up

00:51:51.910 --> 00:51:53.990
because we don't have
enough of the supply we need.

00:51:53.990 --> 00:51:56.010
We know that, that's why we're here,

00:51:56.010 --> 00:51:57.380
but the cure for high prices

00:51:57.380 --> 00:51:59.863
in a properly functioning
market is high prices.

00:52:01.600 --> 00:52:02.433
The investment's signaled

00:52:02.433 --> 00:52:04.388
to bring more supply to our market,

00:52:04.388 --> 00:52:06.320
more dispatchable supply,
which is exactly why we're here.

00:52:06.320 --> 00:52:09.060
So while there may be
short term increases in price,

00:52:09.060 --> 00:52:11.500
we of course wanna minimize that,

00:52:11.500 --> 00:52:12.800
over the longterm,

00:52:12.800 --> 00:52:16.800
we need to provide the financial signal

00:52:16.800 --> 00:52:18.390
to get more investment

00:52:18.390 --> 00:52:21.153
and more dispatchable
supply in Texas, we have this.

00:52:23.958 --> 00:52:25.610
LSE, yes LSE obligation is a

00:52:26.920 --> 00:52:30.360
monumental change to the market,

00:52:31.810 --> 00:52:34.630
but we saw both this winter and

00:52:34.630 --> 00:52:35.820
in the extreme weather event

00:52:35.820 --> 00:52:38.930
and on the blue sky problems,

00:52:38.930 --> 00:52:41.600
blue sky day problems
we've had this summer

00:52:41.600 --> 00:52:43.580
and even this week that

00:52:44.890 --> 00:52:49.620
we can't not take drastic action.

00:52:49.620 --> 00:52:52.950
The lack of action in 2013
didn't work out so well.

00:52:52.950 --> 00:52:55.750
We've seen the ORDC movie
before, we know how that ends.

00:52:56.920 --> 00:53:00.170
So, I don't know how we can

00:53:01.050 --> 00:53:03.590
say we're doing our job without at least

00:53:03.590 --> 00:53:07.733
taking a serious, serious
look at something like this.

00:53:08.730 --> 00:53:10.720
And that's all I'm asking for

00:53:10.720 --> 00:53:12.720
over the next couple of months is to

00:53:14.180 --> 00:53:18.660
set a narrow focus on figuring
out what that LSE obligation,

00:53:18.660 --> 00:53:20.690
if we do it, should look like,

00:53:20.690 --> 00:53:23.350
so we can all get
comfortable with the problems

00:53:23.350 --> 00:53:24.430
identified in my memo,

00:53:24.430 --> 00:53:26.803
and you all have all
articulated so well.

00:53:31.758 --> 00:53:34.310
As I said at the beginning,
this is not the ESA proposal,

00:53:34.310 --> 00:53:36.003
this is not the NRG proposal.

00:53:38.591 --> 00:53:39.424
This is my version

00:53:39.424 --> 00:53:41.990
of what an LSE
obligation could look like.

00:53:41.990 --> 00:53:44.123
As you saw in the memo,

00:53:45.931 --> 00:53:49.560
one of the proposals is a
bulletin board type posting,

00:53:49.560 --> 00:53:51.883
centralized posting
for price transparency,

00:53:52.840 --> 00:53:55.660
so IMM and everybody else

00:53:55.660 --> 00:53:58.550
can see into bilateral transactions,

00:53:58.550 --> 00:53:59.720
so they can see what those prices are,

00:53:59.720 --> 00:54:01.340
so they can see who
the counterparties are,

00:54:01.340 --> 00:54:04.520
they can see what kind of
megawatts are moving where.

00:54:04.520 --> 00:54:07.273
That's middle of the
road on that spectrum.

00:54:08.760 --> 00:54:10.720
Under no circumstances can we leave,

00:54:10.720 --> 00:54:12.913
if we do something
like that, can we leave,

00:54:14.950 --> 00:54:16.650
leave the bilateral market for

00:54:16.650 --> 00:54:20.750
these types of credits in
the dark, absolutely not.

00:54:20.750 --> 00:54:22.330
On the most extreme end of the spectrum,

00:54:22.330 --> 00:54:24.680
which may very well be a viable choice,

00:54:24.680 --> 00:54:27.270
is to have all of these
credits be required

00:54:27.270 --> 00:54:30.911
to be traded in a centralized
location, run by ERCOT

00:54:30.911 --> 00:54:32.083
like the CRR options.

00:54:33.060 --> 00:54:34.900
So, there are no bilateral (indistinct).

00:54:34.900 --> 00:54:37.230
Everybody's gotta trade these credits

00:54:37.230 --> 00:54:38.773
on an open central exchange.

00:54:40.340 --> 00:54:42.675
I don't know what
the right answer is, but

00:54:42.675 --> 00:54:44.390
I think we have to start
asking these questions

00:54:44.390 --> 00:54:47.720
and figuring out where on
that spectrum might be suitable,

00:54:47.720 --> 00:54:51.563
and if it's viable, to get there.

00:54:56.640 --> 00:54:58.400
I'm sure we will have
more thoughts on that

00:54:58.400 --> 00:55:00.570
as we move through the morning.

00:55:00.570 --> 00:55:02.480
If y'all are game,

00:55:02.480 --> 00:55:04.960
how about we start with a few easy items

00:55:06.572 --> 00:55:08.700
to add to the list of questions,

00:55:08.700 --> 00:55:11.083
items to consider moving forward with,

00:55:11.940 --> 00:55:13.763
start with an easy one: FFRS.

00:55:15.063 --> 00:55:16.683
Do you wanna keep that moving forward?

00:55:17.585 --> 00:55:19.033
<v ->A question,
Mr. Chairman, procedural.</v>

00:55:20.000 --> 00:55:22.210
Could we adopt and maybe rule

00:55:22.210 --> 00:55:25.313
as we move through
your list, it's a good list,

00:55:26.720 --> 00:55:30.970
to contextualize it, what
could be implemented,

00:55:30.970 --> 00:55:34.750
as Commissioner Cobos
has suggested, six months,

00:55:34.750 --> 00:55:36.810
in the next six months or a year?

00:55:36.810 --> 00:55:39.350
<v Peter>Can we do the list
and then look at what ...</v>

00:55:39.350 --> 00:55:41.040
<v ->If you want to, but
as you discuss it,</v>

00:55:41.040 --> 00:55:42.760
it might help us frame it.

00:55:42.760 --> 00:55:43.593
<v Peter>Sure.</v>

00:55:43.593 --> 00:55:45.883
<v ->But, however you wanna do it.</v>

00:55:45.883 --> 00:55:47.105
<v ->I don't really
wanna do it really.</v>

00:55:47.105 --> 00:55:49.670
How I moved through my list

00:55:49.670 --> 00:55:51.180
to have a conversation with this,

00:55:51.180 --> 00:55:52.683
and I'm just trying to figure out

00:55:52.683 --> 00:55:55.170
what the most efficient
thing would be to do.

00:55:55.170 --> 00:55:56.990
As I discussed with ORDC,

00:55:56.990 --> 00:55:59.030
having something in
place by early January

00:55:59.030 --> 00:56:01.183
so we can get the online midterms going.

00:56:02.170 --> 00:56:05.270
I took a phased approach into it.

00:56:05.270 --> 00:56:07.790
So, I know we're talking
about broad market design,

00:56:07.790 --> 00:56:10.351
but as we're looking at market design,

00:56:10.351 --> 00:56:14.080
some of these features that
we may be interested in changing

00:56:14.080 --> 00:56:17.150
may take years or months

00:56:17.150 --> 00:56:18.900
and so we need to have interim measures

00:56:18.900 --> 00:56:19.850
all the way through

00:56:21.010 --> 00:56:23.340
to ensure that we maintain reliability

00:56:23.340 --> 00:56:25.805
and address the issues that we have

00:56:25.805 --> 00:56:28.105
and will continue to
experience along the way.

00:56:31.071 --> 00:56:31.904
So your next topic,

00:56:31.904 --> 00:56:34.230
I think it's actually the next topic

00:56:34.230 --> 00:56:35.700
I was gonna go to anyway, which is

00:56:35.700 --> 00:56:38.580
demand response NARS reforms.

00:56:38.580 --> 00:56:40.350
<v ->Okay, so I was gonna
start with the easy one,</v>

00:56:40.350 --> 00:56:41.183
fast frequency response.

00:56:41.183 --> 00:56:42.905
<v ->We need to know what the
treatments are, yeah, yeah.</v>

00:56:42.905 --> 00:56:43.930
<v ->Okay.</v>

00:56:43.930 --> 00:56:45.270
That's fine, I mean ...

00:56:45.270 --> 00:56:46.290
<v ->So, is everybody comfortable</v>

00:56:46.290 --> 00:56:47.543
continuing (indistinct)
<v ->Yes.</v>

00:56:47.543 --> 00:56:49.570
A Response on the.
<v ->Absolutely.</v>

00:56:49.570 --> 00:56:51.150
<v ->Stated timeline, all right,</v>

00:56:51.150 --> 00:56:53.580
Let's get that on the list,
everybody's good with that.

00:56:53.580 --> 00:56:56.256
<v Jimmy>As long as all
resources can participate.</v>

00:56:56.256 --> 00:56:57.310
(Will laughs)

00:56:57.310 --> 00:56:59.387
<v ->I think that's the plan.</v>

00:57:00.780 --> 00:57:03.070
How about our ECRS ramping product

00:57:03.070 --> 00:57:04.360
that's currently under
development at ERCOT

00:57:04.360 --> 00:57:07.860
continue on current timeline,
implementation timeline?

00:57:07.860 --> 00:57:09.613
<v ->Yeah, I think we
don't have a choice</v>

00:57:09.613 --> 00:57:11.878
and that would because
ERCOTs EMS upgrade,

00:57:11.878 --> 00:57:13.763
but I do wanna add a
little bit there on that.

00:57:15.218 --> 00:57:17.110
So I think the ERCOT
community reserve service

00:57:17.110 --> 00:57:19.050
is important.

00:57:19.050 --> 00:57:21.890
It is going to provide

00:57:21.890 --> 00:57:25.280
an opportunity for batteries,
quick-starts and loads

00:57:25.280 --> 00:57:27.250
to help with the ramping issues

00:57:27.250 --> 00:57:29.720
we're already experiencing.

00:57:29.720 --> 00:57:30.793
And so,

00:57:33.221 --> 00:57:36.767
ERCOT TCRS won't be
implemented until 2023 or 2024,

00:57:37.640 --> 00:57:39.650
because of the MS upgrade.

00:57:39.650 --> 00:57:42.290
However, I think that
it is incumbent upon us

00:57:42.290 --> 00:57:44.430
as we're starting to
experience these ramping issues

00:57:44.430 --> 00:57:46.430
to start thinking of an interim measure.

00:57:47.929 --> 00:57:48.762
<v ->What would that look like?</v>

00:57:48.762 --> 00:57:52.010
<v ->I would direct ERCOT to
scrub down their existing fleet,</v>

00:57:52.010 --> 00:57:55.370
I mean their existing
ancillary service product fleet,

00:57:55.370 --> 00:57:56.950
just to see what we can do

00:57:59.190 --> 00:58:01.360
with an existing AS product,

00:58:01.360 --> 00:58:03.870
which are a non-spin regulation service

00:58:03.870 --> 00:58:05.500
and see if there is something in there

00:58:05.500 --> 00:58:07.720
that they can create a subset of

00:58:07.720 --> 00:58:10.610
or some kind of requirement
where we can start incenting

00:58:13.100 --> 00:58:15.610
the opportunity to
address this ramping issue

00:58:15.610 --> 00:58:16.840
with a variety of technologies.

00:58:16.840 --> 00:58:18.410
<v ->How about we expand RRS?</v>

00:58:20.057 --> 00:58:22.133
<v ->Where we do not
spend, that's up to ERCOT.</v>

00:58:22.133 --> 00:58:23.555
I think they have ideas.
<v ->True.</v>

00:58:23.555 --> 00:58:24.388
<v ->I don't wanna tie their hands.</v>

00:58:24.388 --> 00:58:25.410
I wanna give them the opportunity

00:58:25.410 --> 00:58:29.340
to scrub down their
existing product list so that

00:58:29.340 --> 00:58:30.280
we can look for opportunities

00:58:30.280 --> 00:58:32.280
and I have a very specific idea in mind.

00:58:33.940 --> 00:58:36.380
So, what I mean by this is

00:58:36.380 --> 00:58:39.510
we're waiting for ECRS out
here and absolutely agree.

00:58:39.510 --> 00:58:41.247
Please have ERCOT continue to work on it

00:58:41.247 --> 00:58:43.023
and get it done sooner if they can.

00:58:44.370 --> 00:58:47.220
And that ancillary service
is gonna help us address

00:58:47.220 --> 00:58:50.330
the ramping issues
and in a combination with

00:58:50.330 --> 00:58:51.480
ECRS and Nomsten,

00:58:51.480 --> 00:58:52.880
I think we're gonna get a lot of value

00:58:52.880 --> 00:58:54.550
to address these and
the operational issues

00:58:54.550 --> 00:58:55.928
that we are already experiencing

00:58:55.928 --> 00:58:56.761
and continuing to experience

00:58:56.761 --> 00:58:58.793
with a higher level of
only the one system.

00:59:00.600 --> 00:59:01.590
But in the interim,

00:59:01.590 --> 00:59:04.330
I think we should have
ERCOT look at the AS products,

00:59:04.330 --> 00:59:06.200
figure out if there's a
subset they can carve out

00:59:06.200 --> 00:59:07.230
or some kind of requirements

00:59:07.230 --> 00:59:09.370
they could work with and incent,

00:59:09.370 --> 00:59:13.970
because the main ramping
issue we're going to experience,

00:59:13.970 --> 00:59:15.730
I think that we're
starting to experience,

00:59:15.730 --> 00:59:18.120
that you have brought up, is solar

00:59:18.120 --> 00:59:20.920
coming down off the
system in the evening,

00:59:20.920 --> 00:59:23.500
and you gotta get ahead of it, right.

00:59:23.500 --> 00:59:26.300
And ECRS is intended
to address that issue,

00:59:26.300 --> 00:59:27.603
however, it's petered out.

00:59:28.830 --> 00:59:31.340
And what I've heard
from the solar community,

00:59:31.340 --> 00:59:32.600
and I think this is where I'm going

00:59:32.600 --> 00:59:34.610
with the policy consideration of,

00:59:34.610 --> 00:59:37.610
okay, well if we're having to procure

00:59:37.610 --> 00:59:40.880
or do some kind of manual
workaround right now

00:59:40.880 --> 00:59:43.520
with our existing AS fleet to
address this ramping issue,

00:59:43.520 --> 00:59:46.340
then maybe you can look at causation,

00:59:46.340 --> 00:59:49.970
balancing out societal
benefits and cost causation.

00:59:49.970 --> 00:59:52.510
But there's a real
opportunity, I believe,

00:59:52.510 --> 00:59:55.070
as you've highlighted in your memo,

00:59:55.070 --> 00:59:58.230
that there's a lot of storage
in the interconnection queue

00:59:58.230 --> 00:59:59.980
and it's about a two hour duration.

01:00:01.040 --> 01:00:02.570
And what I have heard
from the solar community

01:00:02.570 --> 01:00:05.480
is that in fact, this combination

01:00:05.480 --> 01:00:08.950
of solar and storage

01:00:08.950 --> 01:00:12.890
can actually help smooth out this curve

01:00:13.930 --> 01:00:17.010
and our duck curve right now,
if they expand in the future,

01:00:17.010 --> 01:00:20.470
as will probably be in the
short term, maybe two hours.

01:00:20.470 --> 01:00:22.870
And so if we're gonna continue to get,

01:00:22.870 --> 01:00:25.520
if we're gonna continue to
have solar show up in ERCOT,

01:00:25.520 --> 01:00:27.920
which they do provide
a reliability benefit,

01:00:27.920 --> 01:00:30.460
it's that ramping issue we're
gonna have to deal with.

01:00:30.460 --> 01:00:32.563
How about we look for ways to incent,

01:00:35.726 --> 01:00:40.221
to provide an opportunity for
these co-located technologies

01:00:40.221 --> 01:00:42.100
to enter the market so we can reap

01:00:42.100 --> 01:00:45.060
the reliability and
operational benefits.

01:00:45.060 --> 01:00:47.770
And what I mean by this is that,

01:00:47.770 --> 01:00:51.330
if we can find a way to
allow this combination,

01:00:51.330 --> 01:00:54.453
solar and storage, to
enter the market now,

01:00:56.549 --> 01:00:59.924
before the OCRS AS product is in place,

01:00:59.924 --> 01:01:01.160
I think we're gonna get a
lot of operational benefits

01:01:01.160 --> 01:01:03.603
out of that co-location and right now,

01:01:04.900 --> 01:01:07.100
out of about 19,000 megawatts,

01:01:07.100 --> 01:01:08.400
that's in the solar queue,

01:01:09.730 --> 01:01:14.590
over 50% of it has storage with it.

01:01:14.590 --> 01:01:16.430
So it's a package.
<v ->Fantastic.</v>

01:01:16.430 --> 01:01:18.454
<v ->Exactly, so how do we move</v>

01:01:18.454 --> 01:01:22.200
these bundle technologies
into the market,

01:01:22.200 --> 01:01:25.190
because if we want solar to show up,

01:01:25.190 --> 01:01:27.210
we'd wanna preferably for them

01:01:27.210 --> 01:01:29.216
to show up with storage, right,

01:01:29.216 --> 01:01:30.049
so we don't have this big ramping issue.

01:01:30.049 --> 01:01:31.500
So, what can we do in the interim

01:01:32.400 --> 01:01:34.860
while we await ECRS to create

01:01:34.860 --> 01:01:37.760
an opportunity for solar and storage

01:01:39.030 --> 01:01:40.210
to get out of that queue
and enter the market

01:01:40.210 --> 01:01:42.599
and provide us that
reliable (indistinct)

01:01:42.599 --> 01:01:44.184
if we can.
<v ->Sure,</v>

01:01:44.184 --> 01:01:45.017
it's certainly a problem

01:01:45.017 --> 01:01:47.956
and it's the problem that
ECRS has been built to address.

01:01:47.956 --> 01:01:48.800
There's a time lapse.

01:01:48.800 --> 01:01:52.310
I'm very, very wary of asking ERCOT

01:01:52.310 --> 01:01:55.763
to build something new while
they're building something new.

01:01:56.701 --> 01:01:57.534
<v Lori>It's not building
something new,</v>

01:01:57.534 --> 01:02:00.057
it's looking at their existing fleet.

01:02:00.057 --> 01:02:01.730
<v ->I'm very comfortable
with asking them</v>

01:02:01.730 --> 01:02:04.073
to expand an existing AS product.

01:02:05.400 --> 01:02:06.720
And also, do we wanna make sure

01:02:06.720 --> 01:02:08.210
the public understands that,

01:02:08.210 --> 01:02:11.260
even in the absence
of any action like that,

01:02:11.260 --> 01:02:14.220
solar and batteries today

01:02:14.220 --> 01:02:15.883
can participate in the market,

01:02:19.152 --> 01:02:22.550
in the energy market as
they choose, as they see fit.

01:02:22.550 --> 01:02:23.987
I think expanding the ORDC

01:02:25.030 --> 01:02:28.180
provides a big financial incentive

01:02:28.180 --> 01:02:31.380
for those batteries to start
discharging into the grid

01:02:31.380 --> 01:02:32.850
if we get into moments of scarcity.

01:02:32.850 --> 01:02:37.080
So there's a robust
mechanism and presumably,

01:02:37.080 --> 01:02:39.060
very soon there will be
increased revenues available

01:02:39.060 --> 01:02:41.113
for anyone who has batteries.

01:02:41.980 --> 01:02:44.280
So, I would certainly be okay

01:02:45.896 --> 01:02:47.508
thinking about expanding a product,

01:02:47.508 --> 01:02:50.040
but it's hard to ask
ERCOT to build something

01:02:50.040 --> 01:02:51.430
while they're building something else.

01:02:51.430 --> 01:02:53.190
<v Lori>And that's absolutely not</v>

01:02:53.190 --> 01:02:54.277
what I'm asking ERCOT to do.

01:02:54.277 --> 01:02:56.970
I'm asking them to look
at their existing suite

01:02:56.970 --> 01:02:58.130
to see if there's something we can do

01:02:58.130 --> 01:03:00.080
with an existing AS product,

01:03:00.080 --> 01:03:03.610
so that we can send that
price signal and get those-

01:03:03.610 --> 01:03:06.400
<v ->Sure, they will be
considering bring in load</v>

01:03:06.400 --> 01:03:08.090
and do non-spin tomorrow,

01:03:08.090 --> 01:03:10.643
which is a huge increase
in our margin of safety.

01:03:11.700 --> 01:03:14.260
<v ->And as a compromise.</v>

01:03:14.260 --> 01:03:15.093
So,

01:03:16.490 --> 01:03:18.240
this goes hand in glove

01:03:18.240 --> 01:03:20.650
with a consideration that we had

01:03:20.650 --> 01:03:23.830
on firm fuel AS and possibly

01:03:23.830 --> 01:03:25.903
getting expedited in non-spin.

01:03:27.147 --> 01:03:28.297
I remember folding that in,

01:03:28.297 --> 01:03:29.740
and that would necessitate
a system change

01:03:29.740 --> 01:03:34.430
as per Kenan Ogelman,
his response to that.

01:03:34.430 --> 01:03:37.020
So it's all about the timeliness

01:03:37.020 --> 01:03:41.070
of the computing and
fixing their systems.

01:03:41.070 --> 01:03:44.030
So it could be a question of
where they could file comments

01:03:44.030 --> 01:03:46.023
as a part of your ECRS.

01:03:47.330 --> 01:03:50.872
<v Peter>Sure, let's add it to
the question list for ECRS.</v>

01:03:50.872 --> 01:03:51.705
<v ->So that it could be taken up.</v>

01:03:51.705 --> 01:03:53.330
<v ->Absolutely, and I
have had conversations</v>

01:03:53.330 --> 01:03:54.240
with ERCOT about this,

01:03:54.240 --> 01:03:56.040
and I don't think it's gonna
take a system change.

01:03:56.040 --> 01:03:57.550
I think it's gonna just
take some tweaking

01:03:57.550 --> 01:03:58.383
of the market rules

01:03:58.383 --> 01:04:00.020
to be able to provide this avenue

01:04:01.010 --> 01:04:03.620
to open up an existing AS product

01:04:05.267 --> 01:04:08.445
a little bit more so we can
encourage these technologies.

01:04:08.445 --> 01:04:10.444
And I think it's important,
because it's gonna be years

01:04:10.444 --> 01:04:11.340
before we get ECRS,

01:04:11.340 --> 01:04:12.910
and let's start getting
these technologies in

01:04:12.910 --> 01:04:15.020
so that we can address both reliability

01:04:15.020 --> 01:04:17.405
and operational risks that
we're gonna experience

01:04:17.405 --> 01:04:19.820
because of more solar
showing up without batteries.

01:04:19.820 --> 01:04:21.700
Let's get them to come
across the finish line

01:04:21.700 --> 01:04:22.650
with the batteries.

01:04:23.780 --> 01:04:26.490
<v ->We'll add a question
about an interim</v>

01:04:28.470 --> 01:04:33.540
to the ECRS concept, an
interim product adjustment

01:04:33.540 --> 01:04:36.130
within the existing AS suite

01:04:36.130 --> 01:04:37.450
that can be implemented

01:04:38.822 --> 01:04:39.780
to mitigate the

01:04:41.540 --> 01:04:42.373
duck curve.

01:04:45.019 --> 01:04:47.010
<v ->I think we need to ask about</v>

01:04:47.010 --> 01:04:50.260
some pros and cons of
different durations for those,

01:04:50.260 --> 01:04:52.270
if it's batteries and it's ramping,

01:04:52.270 --> 01:04:53.150
is it two hour?

01:04:53.150 --> 01:04:56.797
One, two, four, six
or eight, I don't know.

01:04:58.523 --> 01:05:01.480
<v ->Right, and that's
where I'm hesitant</v>

01:05:01.480 --> 01:05:04.343
because that's what ERCOT's
gonna work through on ECRS.

01:05:06.049 --> 01:05:09.040
And if we asked, and in
some ways asking them

01:05:09.040 --> 01:05:10.970
to solve that problem in non-spin

01:05:12.830 --> 01:05:15.826
and opening the hood up on non-spin

01:05:15.826 --> 01:05:18.833
to rejigger that market.
<v ->Does it need really ECRS?</v>

01:05:18.833 --> 01:05:22.443
<v ->Well I mean, you're just
doing ECRS under a different ...</v>

01:05:24.003 --> 01:05:26.512
You're doing the same
mechanic work under the hood,

01:05:26.512 --> 01:05:28.053
you're just doing it
under a different product.

01:05:29.411 --> 01:05:30.330
<v ->I think what
Commissioner Cobos said,</v>

01:05:30.330 --> 01:05:32.573
the question is, can we wait that long?

01:05:33.473 --> 01:05:37.170
Can we wait for ECRS for three years

01:05:37.170 --> 01:05:38.970
for that type of product to come in?

01:05:39.884 --> 01:05:41.184
I've been one that I think

01:05:42.020 --> 01:05:43.960
that we have to find
an interim solution,

01:05:43.960 --> 01:05:46.700
whether it is the
expansion of an existing

01:05:46.700 --> 01:05:48.510
ancillary service,

01:05:48.510 --> 01:05:52.210
if it's lifting, if it's
lowering the durations

01:05:52.210 --> 01:05:54.920
or allowing batteries into

01:05:54.920 --> 01:05:57.350
different types of ancillary services,

01:05:57.350 --> 01:06:02.110
or in fact almost all
of them, then I'm for it.

01:06:02.110 --> 01:06:03.440
But I think that's a problem

01:06:03.440 --> 01:06:05.380
that we are gonna have to
solve sooner rather than later.

01:06:05.380 --> 01:06:08.663
And waiting till ECRS is completed,

01:06:09.520 --> 01:06:11.740
we're gonna be late to the game.

01:06:11.740 --> 01:06:14.680
<v ->And we'll continue to look for,</v>

01:06:14.680 --> 01:06:16.730
use our existing tools to
deal with ramping issues

01:06:16.730 --> 01:06:18.680
that we're gonna continue to experience,

01:06:18.680 --> 01:06:19.513
because what we're
dealing with right now

01:06:19.513 --> 01:06:20.346
is the ramping issue.

01:06:20.346 --> 01:06:22.340
It's not a huge duck curve yet,

01:06:22.340 --> 01:06:24.740
but in the coming years
with 19,000 megawatts

01:06:24.740 --> 01:06:27.300
in the system, in the queue,

01:06:27.300 --> 01:06:29.530
we're gonna continue
to experience these-

01:06:29.530 --> 01:06:30.430
<v ->I'm aware of it.</v>

01:06:31.411 --> 01:06:34.109
<v ->So, let's get ahead of the game</v>

01:06:34.109 --> 01:06:36.571
and not wait around and
have an interim solution in place

01:06:36.571 --> 01:06:37.404
while we wait for ECRS,

01:06:37.404 --> 01:06:40.020
which I think is gonna provide

01:06:40.020 --> 01:06:43.832
those services to be able to
address the ramping issue.

01:06:43.832 --> 01:06:45.632
And like you said, when we get into,

01:06:47.850 --> 01:06:50.830
how can we look for accreditation

01:06:50.830 --> 01:06:52.660
in our existing energy only market?

01:06:52.660 --> 01:06:55.040
We can have a conversation about

01:06:55.040 --> 01:06:59.270
how ancillary services are allocated,

01:06:59.270 --> 01:07:01.160
what's the societal
benefit to the market

01:07:01.160 --> 01:07:02.390
by having these AS products

01:07:02.390 --> 01:07:06.173
versus who's calling
these calls for AS product.

01:07:07.130 --> 01:07:09.300
I think that's where we can find

01:07:09.300 --> 01:07:14.554
a policy-based forum and avenue

01:07:14.554 --> 01:07:15.807
to address some of these issues

01:07:15.807 --> 01:07:17.213
that you wanna try to
address for accreditation.

01:07:19.840 --> 01:07:20.690
<v ->Say that again.</v>

01:07:22.476 --> 01:07:24.780
<v ->So, I don't wanna go
into a rabbit hole on this,</v>

01:07:24.780 --> 01:07:25.730
'cause I know we've gotta keep moving,

01:07:25.730 --> 01:07:28.460
but you had asked me,
how can we get there?

01:07:28.460 --> 01:07:30.600
How can we require firming

01:07:31.450 --> 01:07:33.410
outside of accreditation in our current

01:07:33.410 --> 01:07:35.420
only energy only market?
<v ->Right.</v>

01:07:35.420 --> 01:07:38.500
<v ->Well, one way is to
look at policy avenues</v>

01:07:38.500 --> 01:07:39.500
that we would have in place

01:07:39.500 --> 01:07:42.170
through ancillary
service cost allocation.

01:07:42.170 --> 01:07:43.870
And I think that has been on the table.

01:07:43.870 --> 01:07:46.450
The Governor asked us to
look at it, we can look at it.

01:07:46.450 --> 01:07:47.960
We'd have to come up
with a policy-based ...

01:07:47.960 --> 01:07:50.040
<v ->So assigning existing
ancillary services</v>

01:07:50.040 --> 01:07:51.323
cost to intermittent.

01:07:52.410 --> 01:07:56.140
<v ->Potentially, we have to
look at societal benefits,</v>

01:07:56.140 --> 01:07:58.451
cost causation, capacity short.

01:07:58.451 --> 01:07:59.630
There's a lot of policy
ways to get there,

01:07:59.630 --> 01:08:00.703
where it is some ...

01:08:01.641 --> 01:08:04.032
<v ->Yeah, that's a whole
new can of worms.</v>

01:08:04.032 --> 01:08:06.060
If we wanna do existing.

01:08:06.060 --> 01:08:06.893
<v ->I'm not saying existing,</v>

01:08:06.893 --> 01:08:08.620
I'm saying as we get
new products in place

01:08:08.620 --> 01:08:11.020
that are geared towards
a very specific problem,

01:08:12.260 --> 01:08:15.660
like this ramping issue,
that's what I'm talking about.

01:08:15.660 --> 01:08:19.210
I think if you wanna look for avenues,

01:08:19.210 --> 01:08:20.400
there's avenues, right?

01:08:20.400 --> 01:08:22.940
During an accreditation
process to the LSE obligation,

01:08:22.940 --> 01:08:25.960
which I believe is gonna turn into

01:08:25.960 --> 01:08:29.343
potentially a litigated process.

01:08:30.730 --> 01:08:33.550
And there's the ancillary service avenue

01:08:33.550 --> 01:08:36.300
where we can look at who's benefiting,

01:08:36.300 --> 01:08:37.350
who's causing the cause,

01:08:37.350 --> 01:08:39.300
we can come up with a policy-based way

01:08:39.300 --> 01:08:41.420
of looking at those issues.

01:08:41.420 --> 01:08:43.476
<v ->That's a good question,</v>

01:08:43.476 --> 01:08:45.143
well we'll have the
question on the list, Jimmy.

01:08:46.050 --> 01:08:47.950
<v ->I'm sorry.</v>
<v ->Did you get a comment?</v>

01:08:49.710 --> 01:08:52.414
<v Jimmy>I don't know, I'm
sure it'll come back to me.</v>

01:08:52.414 --> 01:08:55.060
<v ->Okay, all right,
so for AT ECRS,</v>

01:08:55.060 --> 01:08:56.470
we've added Lori's question

01:08:56.470 --> 01:08:58.990
to the list of questions
to be addressed,

01:08:58.990 --> 01:09:02.483
including from ERCOT,
most importantly from ERCOT.

01:09:03.790 --> 01:09:04.720
<v ->I do have one question</v>

01:09:04.720 --> 01:09:07.473
or one maybe question we can pose,

01:09:11.278 --> 01:09:12.880
and this is specifically for ECRS.

01:09:14.258 --> 01:09:15.091
And as I understand it,

01:09:15.091 --> 01:09:16.960
there's a six hour requirement
for the existing proposal;

01:09:16.960 --> 01:09:19.650
what would be the benefit of

01:09:19.650 --> 01:09:21.530
either reducing that or eliminating that

01:09:21.530 --> 01:09:22.403
or extending it?

01:09:23.820 --> 01:09:27.150
<v ->Operational benefit,
not profit margin benefit.</v>

01:09:27.150 --> 01:09:29.660
<v ->Operational
benefits, absolutely.</v>

01:09:29.660 --> 01:09:30.560
<v ->That's consistent, right,</v>

01:09:30.560 --> 01:09:33.070
because it's supposed
to be that's the footfall,

01:09:33.070 --> 01:09:35.806
it's the range of rampability.

01:09:35.806 --> 01:09:37.830
<v ->Right, yes, I wanna make sure</v>

01:09:37.830 --> 01:09:40.389
we focus on the operational need.

01:09:40.389 --> 01:09:41.222
<v ->Absolutely.</v>

01:09:41.222 --> 01:09:44.720
<v ->Not letting the
market duration design</v>

01:09:44.720 --> 01:09:46.800
tail wag.
<v ->Agreed.</v>

01:09:46.800 --> 01:09:47.910
<v ->The operational dog.</v>

01:09:47.910 --> 01:09:51.370
Just because two hours happens to be the

01:09:51.370 --> 01:09:54.453
current duration of what
people can make money on.

01:09:55.780 --> 01:09:58.240
All right, other questions for ECRS?

01:09:58.240 --> 01:09:59.620
I've got obviously the quantity,

01:09:59.620 --> 01:10:02.900
what quantity should be procured

01:10:02.900 --> 01:10:04.700
and should it be seasonally-based?

01:10:04.700 --> 01:10:07.470
And if so, what metric?

01:10:07.470 --> 01:10:10.120
Lori's question has been added

01:10:11.120 --> 01:10:12.360
and then the question about,

01:10:12.360 --> 01:10:15.250
what is the appropriate operational

01:10:15.250 --> 01:10:18.690
or the appropriate duration
requirement for ECRS

01:10:18.690 --> 01:10:21.793
to address the operational need?

01:10:23.540 --> 01:10:27.179
<v ->Mr. Chairman, on
seasonally-based, you know what,</v>

01:10:27.179 --> 01:10:29.721
I 100% agree with that.
<v ->I had a feeling.</v>

01:10:29.721 --> 01:10:31.800
<v ->But I had thought that it'd
be a great policy proposal.</v>

01:10:31.800 --> 01:10:35.013
It is that applied to all the unit?

01:10:36.630 --> 01:10:38.820
I'm trying to get my arms around

01:10:38.820 --> 01:10:40.830
the menu of ancillary services

01:10:40.830 --> 01:10:42.600
that we're either in process of creating

01:10:42.600 --> 01:10:44.283
or what we have existing today.

01:10:45.641 --> 01:10:47.953
And now feels right at 7,000.

01:10:51.233 --> 01:10:54.810
And so, as a doctrine
on the part of ERCOT

01:10:54.810 --> 01:10:57.550
or a taken

01:10:59.110 --> 01:11:00.780
component of the mechanics,

01:11:00.780 --> 01:11:04.690
price formation and
procuring enough resources

01:11:04.690 --> 01:11:06.410
to match seasonal variability,

01:11:06.410 --> 01:11:09.500
should it be sized to
seasonal variability?

01:11:09.500 --> 01:11:12.500
So, is that question
applied in your matrix

01:11:13.486 --> 01:11:14.319
to all those ancillary services?

01:11:14.319 --> 01:11:16.660
And if it is, that
question forms the policy.

01:11:16.660 --> 01:11:18.010
Or should it be a separate-

01:11:20.183 --> 01:11:23.820
<v ->I did it by product.</v>

01:11:23.820 --> 01:11:25.390
<v ->If that's the way it
is, I'm good with it.</v>

01:11:25.390 --> 01:11:27.789
<v ->Well, it may end
up being all of them.</v>

01:11:27.789 --> 01:11:28.622
<v ->Okay.</v>

01:11:28.622 --> 01:11:29.470
<v ->So, I just didn't even think
about a blanket approach.</v>

01:11:29.470 --> 01:11:33.290
I just tried to pick where
seasonal would be the most.

01:11:33.290 --> 01:11:34.940
<v ->They just keep
on talking about it.</v>

01:11:34.940 --> 01:11:36.920
Well, 500 sounds right.
<v ->Yeah.</v>

01:11:36.920 --> 01:11:37.753
500 sounds right.

01:11:37.753 --> 01:11:41.662
I'd like to tie this to some
sort of weather forecasting.

01:11:41.662 --> 01:11:42.955
<v ->Yeah, I agree.</v>
<v ->Or it's not okay.</v>

01:11:42.955 --> 01:11:45.750
<v ->Okay, ECRS is a topic</v>

01:11:45.750 --> 01:11:48.370
we would like to continue
to get questions on,

01:11:48.370 --> 01:11:49.653
any other questions?

01:11:51.950 --> 01:11:54.090
<v ->No, I think those
are the main ones</v>

01:11:54.090 --> 01:11:54.982
from me and you.

01:11:54.982 --> 01:11:56.592
<v ->Same.</v>
<v ->Thank you.</v>

01:11:56.592 --> 01:11:58.133
<v ->All right, ECRS staff could.</v>

01:11:59.570 --> 01:12:02.743
All right, let's go to some other ones,

01:12:04.315 --> 01:12:06.276
hopefully on the low-hanging fruit.

01:12:06.276 --> 01:12:07.510
<v Jimmy>And again, we're
not designating a timeline</v>

01:12:07.510 --> 01:12:09.260
on that either, right, Mr. Chairman.

01:12:09.260 --> 01:12:12.240
<v ->No, can we circle back to that?</v>

01:12:12.240 --> 01:12:14.170
My goal is to keep us focused

01:12:14.170 --> 01:12:18.140
on getting the list of concepts
we wanna limit the scope to,

01:12:18.140 --> 01:12:20.686
and then the questions we want staff

01:12:20.686 --> 01:12:21.519
to issue to stakeholders.
<v ->Yes, we're coming.</v>

01:12:21.519 --> 01:12:23.260
<v Lori>One thing and I
guess, or a couple.</v>

01:12:23.260 --> 01:12:25.440
So, will ERCOT just respond
to these asked questions

01:12:25.440 --> 01:12:27.167
regarding ...
<v ->Mm-hmm.</v>

01:12:27.167 --> 01:12:29.223
<v ->Okay, maybe one question.</v>

01:12:31.150 --> 01:12:33.320
How soon can, if they find

01:12:35.520 --> 01:12:38.300
a way to modify an existing AS product

01:12:38.300 --> 01:12:41.700
to address the ramping
issues while we wait for ECRS,

01:12:41.700 --> 01:12:44.400
how long will it take to implement?

01:12:44.400 --> 01:12:47.543
<v ->And what delay would
be caused on ECRS?</v>

01:12:49.520 --> 01:12:50.980
Those are the same resources.

01:12:50.980 --> 01:12:52.636
<v ->If there was, I ...</v>

01:12:52.636 --> 01:12:54.456
<v ->We'll have to ask the question.</v>

01:12:54.456 --> 01:12:55.760
<v ->Yeah, I don't know
that there's a delay again,</v>

01:12:55.760 --> 01:12:58.980
because ECRS is in the oven
right now, in the MS upgrade.

01:12:58.980 --> 01:13:00.230
It's in the system chain,

01:13:01.434 --> 01:13:04.206
this is an existing non-AS product

01:13:04.206 --> 01:13:05.582
that they're just gonna do some testing

01:13:05.582 --> 01:13:06.540
of market rules, potentially.

01:13:06.540 --> 01:13:11.035
So this bus is moving and
this won't get in the way,

01:13:11.035 --> 01:13:11.868
they're on two different-

01:13:11.868 --> 01:13:12.701
<v ->I'm not sure we know that,</v>

01:13:12.701 --> 01:13:14.170
I think we need to ask that question.

01:13:14.170 --> 01:13:15.579
<v ->Okay, well.</v>
<v ->Just ask the question.</v>

01:13:15.579 --> 01:13:18.354
<v ->I've had many
conversations with their cockpit</v>

01:13:18.354 --> 01:13:19.200
on financing questions.

01:13:19.200 --> 01:13:20.033
<v ->Good deal.</v>

01:13:21.970 --> 01:13:24.400
Voltage support, how
do we feel about that?

01:13:24.400 --> 01:13:26.100
Jimmy, you had a pretty good idea.

01:13:27.592 --> 01:13:28.920
(Lori laughs)
<v ->Yeah, let's go.</v>

01:13:28.920 --> 01:13:30.120
<v Jimmy>I had one
question about it.</v>

01:13:30.120 --> 01:13:32.760
When you say a voltage
support product in that broad term,

01:13:32.760 --> 01:13:35.410
do you mean an inertia product as well?

01:13:35.410 --> 01:13:36.260
<v ->Yes.</v>
<v ->Okay.</v>

01:13:36.260 --> 01:13:37.739
<v ->Included in the service.</v>

01:13:37.739 --> 01:13:39.930
<v Jimmy>So I think paying for it,</v>

01:13:39.930 --> 01:13:44.540
but also maybe clarifying
what an inertia product is

01:13:44.540 --> 01:13:46.610
and understanding is

01:13:48.140 --> 01:13:49.790
synthetic inertia,

01:13:49.790 --> 01:13:51.860
what are the types of
inertia that are out there

01:13:51.860 --> 01:13:53.357
that might help the system?

01:13:53.357 --> 01:13:56.090
And then how would we
package them in a product?

01:13:56.090 --> 01:13:57.300
<v ->Would, the question was,</v>

01:13:57.300 --> 01:14:01.077
an appropriate standard
metric for grid point capabilities.

01:14:01.077 --> 01:14:01.910
<v ->That's right.</v>
<v ->To cover that?</v>

01:14:01.910 --> 01:14:02.743
<v ->Yeah I think so.</v>

01:14:03.910 --> 01:14:06.940
<v ->Are we done concluding
voltage support on the list?</v>

01:14:06.940 --> 01:14:09.025
<v ->Like your questions yesterday.</v>

01:14:09.025 --> 01:14:10.043
<v ->Any additional questions?</v>

01:14:13.100 --> 01:14:16.373
All right, we've got three down, wow.

01:14:18.150 --> 01:14:18.983
All right.

01:14:22.590 --> 01:14:26.763
Winter ancillary product,
can we save that to ...

01:14:26.763 --> 01:14:30.560
That's complimentary with
where we ended up in December

01:14:32.180 --> 01:14:34.620
as in if we're comfortable with

01:14:36.102 --> 01:14:41.102
something like in the load
obligation that can address that

01:14:43.435 --> 01:14:46.010
and the timeframe, then
we don't need to do it.

01:14:46.010 --> 01:14:48.480
But I certainly, well, I
guess we'll just dive into that.

01:14:48.480 --> 01:14:51.830
I certainly think if
we're not comfortable

01:14:53.252 --> 01:14:54.085
with weatherization in winter,

01:14:54.085 --> 01:14:56.810
winter affirming being
addressed in whatever

01:14:56.810 --> 01:14:59.183
new product is developed,

01:15:03.080 --> 01:15:04.030
we can then

01:15:06.030 --> 01:15:09.940
divert to the ancillary product,

01:15:09.940 --> 01:15:12.040
the winter under the
Black Star framework.

01:15:13.406 --> 01:15:14.239
<v ->The only thing I'll add,</v>

01:15:15.178 --> 01:15:17.340
is that if we ultimately got comfortable

01:15:17.340 --> 01:15:18.540
with the LSE obligation,

01:15:20.490 --> 01:15:22.560
we don't know how long it's
gonna take to implement it.

01:15:22.560 --> 01:15:23.810
It's really unknown.

01:15:23.810 --> 01:15:28.430
And so, my preference would be to have

01:15:28.430 --> 01:15:31.610
a winter resiliency product in place

01:15:31.610 --> 01:15:33.810
to at least address, not this winter,

01:15:33.810 --> 01:15:36.790
but the next winter,
because I don't wanna leave

01:15:38.187 --> 01:15:41.470
our market and the
public without some kind of

01:15:42.320 --> 01:15:45.400
confidence that we'll have
some product to address it.

01:15:45.400 --> 01:15:49.120
I think, we'll have
weatherization in place.

01:15:49.120 --> 01:15:51.100
And if we could have this winter fuel

01:15:51.100 --> 01:15:52.540
resiliency product in place,

01:15:52.540 --> 01:15:54.730
I think that could help
us address any potential

01:15:54.730 --> 01:15:56.877
gas availability issues in the future.

01:15:56.877 --> 01:16:00.330
And if we do end up going
with the LSE obligation,

01:16:00.330 --> 01:16:04.023
we can roll it in, or any
other proposal ultimately,

01:16:05.410 --> 01:16:08.170
or it stands alone and we have

01:16:10.500 --> 01:16:11.340
a product in place.

01:16:11.340 --> 01:16:14.783
I think it's a no
regrets option as well.

01:16:16.034 --> 01:16:19.600
And I would add it to go
ahead and add it to the list, now.

01:16:19.600 --> 01:16:21.033
<v ->Okay, it's a good point.</v>

01:16:21.033 --> 01:16:22.923
Very good point, I'm
gonna add it to the list.

01:16:22.923 --> 01:16:24.156
<v ->Yeah, same.</v>

01:16:24.156 --> 01:16:25.318
<v ->All right, questions related to</v>

01:16:25.318 --> 01:16:27.018
winter ancillary services product.

01:16:29.450 --> 01:16:30.840
The first one I got was the definition

01:16:30.840 --> 01:16:33.390
of what firm in the winter
means, that's a big one.

01:16:35.545 --> 01:16:37.082
<v Lori>I think that's
a good question.</v>

01:16:37.082 --> 01:16:37.960
Is it onsite, offsite?

01:16:37.960 --> 01:16:39.483
<v ->Or a combination thereof.</v>

01:16:40.770 --> 01:16:43.843
<v Lori>Firm contracts
for gas, coal ...</v>

01:16:46.700 --> 01:16:47.533
<v ->Okay,</v>

01:16:48.390 --> 01:16:52.060
like most of them, how
should the costs be applied?

01:16:52.060 --> 01:16:55.216
I'd love to hear the
nuances of that, if we could.

01:16:55.216 --> 01:16:57.583
<v ->Right, I can
add that to the list.</v>

01:16:57.583 --> 01:17:00.703
Question list for winter
ancillary services product.

01:17:01.920 --> 01:17:04.266
<v Lori>So defining it,
I think is important.</v>

01:17:04.266 --> 01:17:06.590
What does it mean,
how will it be procured

01:17:08.663 --> 01:17:10.496
by ERCOT and how much?

01:17:11.446 --> 01:17:15.010
<v ->Procurement methodology
can be in that, okay.</v>

01:17:15.010 --> 01:17:16.760
What quantity have we got on there?

01:17:17.822 --> 01:17:19.660
<v Lori>So do we do it in
a megawatt amount,</v>

01:17:19.660 --> 01:17:23.723
like Black Star, or do we do it
as a dollar amount like ERS?

01:17:25.494 --> 01:17:26.327
<v ->That's a huge question.</v>

01:17:26.327 --> 01:17:27.160
<v Will>That's a good question.</v>

01:17:27.160 --> 01:17:28.020
<v ->That's a huge question</v>

01:17:28.903 --> 01:17:32.650
and how we procure it and how much,

01:17:32.650 --> 01:17:35.660
because if it depends on what kind of

01:17:36.510 --> 01:17:38.170
winter standard we're looking at,

01:17:38.170 --> 01:17:40.550
that could get to be a
really, really big number.

01:17:40.550 --> 01:17:41.970
<v Will>Okay.</v>

01:17:41.970 --> 01:17:44.025
<v ->Depending on what
kind of winter event</v>

01:17:44.025 --> 01:17:44.858
you're preparing for.

01:17:44.858 --> 01:17:45.710
<v Lori>And duration, right?</v>

01:17:45.710 --> 01:17:47.410
How many days are we preparing for

01:17:49.440 --> 01:17:52.333
and how long are these contracts?

01:17:53.380 --> 01:17:55.350
Right now, Black Star is two years.

01:17:55.350 --> 01:17:58.380
So how long are the contracts?

01:17:58.380 --> 01:18:00.103
And I think another question is,

01:18:05.380 --> 01:18:06.830
does ERCOT have the expertise

01:18:07.749 --> 01:18:09.399
to review these RFPs?
<v ->Balance.</v>

01:18:10.590 --> 01:18:12.530
<v ->And/or should
they hire a third party</v>

01:18:12.530 --> 01:18:16.133
independent consultant to
help them review the RFP?

01:18:16.133 --> 01:18:17.880
Not only from a cost perspective,

01:18:17.880 --> 01:18:20.680
but also on a verification perspective

01:18:20.680 --> 01:18:23.680
that these resources that
are going to participate

01:18:24.530 --> 01:18:25.363
and have submitted in our peak

01:18:25.363 --> 01:18:27.907
are in fact going to be able to be firm.

01:18:28.870 --> 01:18:30.263
<v ->Yeah, so what?</v>

01:18:33.655 --> 01:18:35.238
I'm gonna put that.

01:18:36.090 --> 01:18:39.142
What auditing and validations,

01:18:39.142 --> 01:18:41.300
standard and methodology
should be used to

01:18:42.140 --> 01:18:42.980
affirm

01:18:45.490 --> 01:18:46.741
obligation.

01:18:46.741 --> 01:18:48.452
<v Lori>Yeah, something
like this last one.</v>

01:18:48.452 --> 01:18:51.325
<v ->Yeah, okay does it work?</v>
<v ->Works for me.</v>

01:18:51.325 --> 01:18:53.200
<v ->Yeah, and Mr. Chairman,</v>

01:18:53.200 --> 01:18:54.130
I know we've passed over these,

01:18:54.130 --> 01:18:57.125
but it applies to this one, same deal,

01:18:57.125 --> 01:18:59.320
especially on ECRS and voltage support.

01:18:59.320 --> 01:19:01.350
How should cost be applied?

01:19:01.350 --> 01:19:03.710
If that's the Rubicon
to be crossed on this,

01:19:03.710 --> 01:19:06.249
then let's have stakeholders,

01:19:06.249 --> 01:19:07.798
yeah and get that through.

01:19:07.798 --> 01:19:09.131
<v ->Okay, is that,</v>

01:19:10.760 --> 01:19:12.460
where should cost be allocated for

01:19:14.006 --> 01:19:17.183
ECRS voltage support
and winter ancillary product?

01:19:17.183 --> 01:19:18.328
Does that work?
<v ->Yes.</v>

01:19:18.328 --> 01:19:20.255
<v ->And I would add one more
question for the winter product,</v>

01:19:20.255 --> 01:19:22.430
and that is, how quickly
can it be implemented?

01:19:22.430 --> 01:19:24.980
I've been told by a lot
of different stakeholders

01:19:24.980 --> 01:19:27.103
to have something in
place by next winter 2023,

01:19:27.964 --> 01:19:28.880
but I wanna make sure that we get

01:19:28.880 --> 01:19:30.580
a little more information on that.

01:19:31.910 --> 01:19:35.923
<v Peter>Yes, we certainly
wanna make sure it's ...</v>

01:19:37.975 --> 01:19:40.323
<v Lori>Done in a time
efficient manner, not waiting.</v>

01:19:41.296 --> 01:19:44.533
We're not two, three
winters out from getting it.

01:19:45.590 --> 01:19:46.783
<v ->Yes, I agree.</v>

01:19:51.890 --> 01:19:54.833
I guess to your question,
to your point earlier, Will,

01:19:55.687 --> 01:19:58.532
for all of the things that
are a cost-specific question,

01:19:58.532 --> 01:19:59.820
but for all of these,

01:19:59.820 --> 01:20:02.120
we know we've got a
timeline for ECRS and FFS,

01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:06.240
but time to implementation
for voltage support

01:20:06.240 --> 01:20:07.073
in winter, yes.

01:20:11.318 --> 01:20:13.160
Right, everybody good so far?

01:20:13.160 --> 01:20:15.963
<v ->Yes.</v>
<v ->All right, moving up.</v>

01:20:17.371 --> 01:20:19.286
We've got page four and five done.

01:20:19.286 --> 01:20:20.223
Cautiously optimistic.

01:20:23.229 --> 01:20:24.062
ERS, yes?

01:20:24.062 --> 01:20:25.249
<v Lori>That was my favorite one.</v>

01:20:25.249 --> 01:20:26.243
<v ->Okay, here we go.</v>

01:20:26.243 --> 01:20:28.044
(they talk over each other)

01:20:28.044 --> 01:20:29.544
<v ->Okay, so I think</v>

01:20:32.000 --> 01:20:32.833
we need to look at ECRS.

01:20:32.833 --> 01:20:34.727
We need to look at the rules,

01:20:34.727 --> 01:20:36.590
but I think we need to
take some interim steps

01:20:36.590 --> 01:20:38.390
for this winter.
<v ->Okay.</v>

01:20:38.390 --> 01:20:41.923
<v ->And what I mean
by that, is that,</v>

01:20:44.400 --> 01:20:45.950
based on my review of the rule,

01:20:47.197 --> 01:20:51.237
ERCOT has a $50 million annual cost cap,

01:20:52.631 --> 01:20:54.190
and they have four contract periods.

01:20:54.190 --> 01:20:57.040
The contract period for
the winter is coming up,

01:20:57.040 --> 01:20:59.240
and that is for December,
January, February.

01:21:00.379 --> 01:21:02.730
ERCOT has issued an
RFP for that contract period.

01:21:02.730 --> 01:21:04.740
However, they have until November 8th

01:21:05.656 --> 01:21:06.960
to modify their contract period.

01:21:06.960 --> 01:21:09.860
And so we have some time
to give ERCOT some direction

01:21:09.860 --> 01:21:10.693
for this winter.

01:21:12.428 --> 01:21:14.970
And what I mean by direction is that

01:21:16.090 --> 01:21:17.490
I would like to direct ERCOT

01:21:17.490 --> 01:21:20.320
to use more of that annual budget

01:21:21.210 --> 01:21:25.250
for that winter contract period.

01:21:25.250 --> 01:21:27.637
And we can work with them on coming up

01:21:27.637 --> 01:21:28.779
with an appropriate amount,

01:21:28.779 --> 01:21:31.177
because I wanna make
sure that it's balanced

01:21:31.177 --> 01:21:33.630
so that we're gonna increase
that amount that's appropriate

01:21:33.630 --> 01:21:35.913
for the winter contract
period, potentially,

01:21:35.913 --> 01:21:38.013
but I don't wanna set
ourselves very short

01:21:38.980 --> 01:21:40.520
for the summer

01:21:40.520 --> 01:21:42.640
and the rest of the contract
periods throughout the year.

01:21:42.640 --> 01:21:45.360
So we can work with ERCOT
in coming up with an amount,

01:21:45.360 --> 01:21:48.270
to direct them to add more
money from their annual budget

01:21:49.510 --> 01:21:51.083
to that winter contract period.

01:21:52.389 --> 01:21:55.504
And also, based on
my review of the rule,

01:21:55.504 --> 01:21:59.620
the rule says that the
ERS product is intended

01:21:59.620 --> 01:22:02.378
to be used in an EEA event.

01:22:02.378 --> 01:22:05.710
I think the language is
that is, doesn't say, "Must."

01:22:05.710 --> 01:22:07.580
It doesn't say, "Shall."

01:22:07.580 --> 01:22:10.030
From my perspective, I
think we can direct ERCOT

01:22:10.030 --> 01:22:14.767
to go ahead and deploy
ERS before we enter EA1.

01:22:16.660 --> 01:22:18.660
But if from a legal standpoint,

01:22:18.660 --> 01:22:19.870
there are still some concerns,

01:22:19.870 --> 01:22:23.390
I think staff has some
procedural options

01:22:23.390 --> 01:22:25.100
that we can exercise

01:22:25.100 --> 01:22:28.080
to waive that rule
requirement for this winter,

01:22:28.080 --> 01:22:30.060
so we can add more load resources

01:22:30.060 --> 01:22:32.070
to reduce demand on the system

01:22:32.070 --> 01:22:34.690
in this upcoming winter
season to maintain reliability.

01:22:34.690 --> 01:22:36.320
<v Will>Let's get a
question out there on the</v>

01:22:36.320 --> 01:22:38.110
illegal interpretation.

01:22:38.110 --> 01:22:39.570
<v Peter>Yeah,</v>

01:22:39.570 --> 01:22:41.790
a clarifying question,
you're talking about

01:22:43.153 --> 01:22:45.940
a change to the existing contracts or

01:22:46.830 --> 01:22:49.300
directing ERCOT to
adjust the contract terms

01:22:49.300 --> 01:22:52.400
of the contracts that will be applicable

01:22:52.400 --> 01:22:53.327
for the winter season?

01:22:53.327 --> 01:22:56.520
<v ->Adjust the contracts, take
out EA event from the contract.</v>

01:22:56.520 --> 01:22:59.070
<v ->Okay, so we're not
changing existing contracts.</v>

01:22:59.070 --> 01:23:00.660
We would be considering

01:23:00.660 --> 01:23:03.810
what mechanisms, procedural
mechanisms we can use

01:23:03.810 --> 01:23:07.030
to direct ERCOT to change
the upcoming contracts.

01:23:07.030 --> 01:23:08.730
We're not messing
with existing contracts.

01:23:08.730 --> 01:23:10.757
<v ->So my understanding is that</v>

01:23:12.810 --> 01:23:15.363
we can direct 'em to add
more money right now,

01:23:16.208 --> 01:23:18.339
because the RFP, we've
got the number of rate,

01:23:18.339 --> 01:23:19.357
they can change the RFP.

01:23:20.283 --> 01:23:23.400
That ERCOT can adjust
the existing contracts

01:23:23.400 --> 01:23:25.250
and Kenan, please,

01:23:25.250 --> 01:23:28.170
if you wanna get up here
and please give us your input,

01:23:28.170 --> 01:23:31.656
that they could just go in
there and adjust the contract,

01:23:31.656 --> 01:23:32.717
and take out the EA bit.

01:23:38.486 --> 01:23:40.583
<v ->Yeah, so everything
I'm about to say</v>

01:23:41.825 --> 01:23:44.408
cannot go on with ERCOT public.

01:23:45.294 --> 01:23:46.270
Everything I'm about to say is

01:23:46.270 --> 01:23:49.961
applicable to the future contracts.

01:23:49.961 --> 01:23:53.490
So, we have issued the RFP for

01:23:53.490 --> 01:23:56.343
December, January, February, March,

01:23:57.300 --> 01:23:59.770
but we can update the RFP.

01:23:59.770 --> 01:24:03.100
We need to do that before November 8th.

01:24:03.100 --> 01:24:03.933
<v Peter>Okay.</v>

01:24:03.933 --> 01:24:05.570
<v ->We believe,</v>

01:24:05.570 --> 01:24:07.490
I think there's some additional legal

01:24:08.800 --> 01:24:10.203
hurdles to jump through,

01:24:11.508 --> 01:24:14.350
but we believe we have
that authority already to

01:24:15.975 --> 01:24:19.133
adjust the dollar
amounts in that contract.

01:24:22.420 --> 01:24:25.220
I will just caveat that with,

01:24:27.100 --> 01:24:29.810
we very often exhaust all the bids.

01:24:29.810 --> 01:24:33.120
So initially we might not get any more,

01:24:33.120 --> 01:24:34.880
but it does send a signal

01:24:36.250 --> 01:24:38.623
for the program to grow going forward.

01:24:39.469 --> 01:24:41.780
But I just wanna be
cautious on that front,

01:24:41.780 --> 01:24:44.360
that we may not get more megawatts

01:24:45.720 --> 01:24:48.753
just because we increased
the budget initially.

01:24:51.600 --> 01:24:54.360
That does mean that we
are taking dollars away

01:24:54.360 --> 01:24:56.640
from future procurements.

01:24:56.640 --> 01:24:58.690
<v Peter>Yeah, that's a
concern we don't wanna ...</v>

01:24:58.690 --> 01:25:00.190
We need to buttress for winter,

01:25:00.190 --> 01:25:03.528
but we don't wanna leave
ourselves high and dry

01:25:03.528 --> 01:25:04.361
for the spring and summer.

01:25:04.361 --> 01:25:05.620
<v ->Which is why I believe</v>

01:25:05.620 --> 01:25:07.030
you should open up the ERS rule

01:25:07.030 --> 01:25:09.748
as part of our list on the blueprint

01:25:09.748 --> 01:25:11.705
and evaluate that program.

01:25:11.705 --> 01:25:15.840
And while we're in there, we
can adjust for what we do here.

01:25:15.840 --> 01:25:18.780
<v ->What is procedurally,</v>

01:25:18.780 --> 01:25:21.430
what would be required to increase that

01:25:21.430 --> 01:25:23.113
annual amount in the budget?

01:25:24.150 --> 01:25:28.160
<v ->Procedurally, the
total annual budget</v>

01:25:28.160 --> 01:25:30.223
is set by substantive rule,

01:25:31.492 --> 01:25:35.240
so there would need to be a
change in the substantive rule,

01:25:35.240 --> 01:25:38.420
either eliminating the cap

01:25:38.420 --> 01:25:40.800
or putting a new cap in place

01:25:42.186 --> 01:25:44.140
or defining other parameters
that the Commission-

01:25:44.140 --> 01:25:46.330
<v ->Right, but we can
open that rule up</v>

01:25:46.330 --> 01:25:49.027
and get it closed
before, not November 8th,

01:25:49.027 --> 01:25:50.873
but the next procurement period.

01:25:52.100 --> 01:25:53.350
<v ->Or at least by the summer.</v>

01:25:53.350 --> 01:25:54.774
<v ->By the summer, yeah.</v>

01:25:54.774 --> 01:25:55.780
<v ->So, the RP will go up</v>

01:25:55.780 --> 01:26:00.620
late April, early May for
the summer procurement.

01:26:00.620 --> 01:26:01.620
<v ->That sounds right.</v>

01:26:03.580 --> 01:26:06.883
The new four procurements
go four, two, four.

01:26:09.321 --> 01:26:11.210
So, the summer one would be

01:26:11.210 --> 01:26:16.210
in the April timeframe is
when the RFP would go.

01:26:16.660 --> 01:26:20.420
<v ->RFP would go out
in March, March 1.</v>

01:26:20.420 --> 01:26:21.732
<v ->For the summer?</v>

01:26:21.732 --> 01:26:23.646
<v ->The RFP would.</v>

01:26:23.646 --> 01:26:24.777
<v ->Because it closes in May.</v>

01:26:24.777 --> 01:26:26.522
<v ->Well, when do you have,</v>

01:26:26.522 --> 01:26:27.830
up until what deadline can be?

01:26:27.830 --> 01:26:29.653
I guess if it goes out in March,

01:26:29.653 --> 01:26:31.570
do you still have, like
you noted for the winter,

01:26:31.570 --> 01:26:33.887
there's a grace period
where you could still

01:26:33.887 --> 01:26:34.747
make a change to the RFP?

01:26:36.260 --> 01:26:37.210
<v ->Could we do that?</v>

01:26:39.297 --> 01:26:40.497
<v ->Yes, just like the beginning
where they do do now,</v>

01:26:40.497 --> 01:26:43.113
we consider the RFP after March 1, yes.

01:26:44.199 --> 01:26:46.080
<v ->Cool, we'll aim for
March 1st, and we've got it</v>

01:26:46.080 --> 01:26:47.980
if we need a grace period ...

01:26:47.980 --> 01:26:49.723
<v ->Let me just for the record,</v>

01:26:50.940 --> 01:26:55.510
he said that while we would
have to issue the RFP March 1,

01:26:55.510 --> 01:26:58.980
we could update the RFP

01:26:58.980 --> 01:27:02.953
to reflect a higher budget later.

01:27:05.190 --> 01:27:07.913
<v Peter>All right, so
what do we need?</v>

01:27:10.360 --> 01:27:11.853
What's the ask specifically,

01:27:13.127 --> 01:27:14.633
and then let's get comfort
level around the table.

01:27:15.684 --> 01:27:16.913
<v ->I think the ask is,</v>

01:27:16.913 --> 01:27:18.617
have ERCOT modify their RFP,

01:27:18.617 --> 01:27:20.730
to add some extra
dollars to see if we can

01:27:20.730 --> 01:27:22.680
lure in some more of the load resources

01:27:24.209 --> 01:27:27.510
for this upcoming
winter, with the goal being

01:27:29.310 --> 01:27:31.720
reducing demand on the system,

01:27:31.720 --> 01:27:34.020
without any reserves it's
reducing demand on the system

01:27:34.020 --> 01:27:36.870
during the winter season
to help us maintain reliability.

01:27:39.230 --> 01:27:41.080
The second important piece to that is

01:27:42.750 --> 01:27:46.860
having ERCOT work with
their existing contracts.

01:27:46.860 --> 01:27:48.110
I know there's some legal

01:27:49.234 --> 01:27:51.433
review that needs to be done,

01:27:52.307 --> 01:27:53.920
but based on my
interpretation of the rule,

01:27:53.920 --> 01:27:57.210
there's not a strict
requirement to use it in EA1,

01:27:57.210 --> 01:27:59.557
but even if the ultimate
conclusion is that

01:28:01.763 --> 01:28:03.384
ERCOT were not comfortable ...

01:28:03.384 --> 01:28:04.924
<v Peter>So you're talking
about the contracts</v>

01:28:04.924 --> 01:28:07.003
that have already been
executed or in place now?

01:28:09.210 --> 01:28:11.410
<v ->... Probos is asking
us to change the RFP,</v>

01:28:12.270 --> 01:28:13.820
to reflect two things:

01:28:13.820 --> 01:28:17.080
one increased budget, and two,

01:28:17.080 --> 01:28:20.673
earlier deployment prior to ...

01:28:21.800 --> 01:28:23.980
<v ->EEA Commissions.</v>
<v ->EEA, right.</v>

01:28:23.980 --> 01:28:25.690
<v ->Yes.</v>
<v ->And that's the legal hurdle</v>

01:28:25.690 --> 01:28:27.950
that we've gotta pass,
because of that rule.

01:28:27.950 --> 01:28:30.850
<v ->Well there's a
legal hurdle in that</v>

01:28:30.850 --> 01:28:33.423
if you believe the
language restricts you to EA.

01:28:34.341 --> 01:28:35.520
I'm not sure it's a tight restriction,

01:28:35.520 --> 01:28:37.470
but even if you believe it is,

01:28:37.470 --> 01:28:39.210
we have procedural mechanisms

01:28:40.230 --> 01:28:42.970
to waive that
requirement for the winter.

01:28:42.970 --> 01:28:44.490
Connie, can you speak to D?

01:28:44.490 --> 01:28:49.490
<v Connie>Yes, we do have
a number of mechanisms</v>

01:28:50.040 --> 01:28:52.750
that we can bring before the Commission

01:28:52.750 --> 01:28:56.740
regarding whether there was a strict

01:28:56.740 --> 01:28:58.250
prohibition on releasing those

01:28:59.773 --> 01:29:01.643
ERS megawatts before EA.

01:29:02.644 --> 01:29:05.240
<v ->But even if your
review says that</v>

01:29:06.240 --> 01:29:08.140
the ruling, which is a
little bit more restricted

01:29:08.140 --> 01:29:11.120
then I believe there
are procedural avenues

01:29:11.120 --> 01:29:15.380
to allow us to wave that rule
requirement for the winter.

01:29:15.380 --> 01:29:16.520
<v ->That's correct, the Commission</v>

01:29:16.520 --> 01:29:18.773
can waive its own rules with the costs.

01:29:20.330 --> 01:29:23.120
<v ->Okay, so we've got
a request to ERCOT</v>

01:29:23.120 --> 01:29:26.210
for budget, options to increase budget,

01:29:26.210 --> 01:29:28.350
including, please include
in that current budget

01:29:28.350 --> 01:29:31.610
for the winter and what

01:29:33.290 --> 01:29:35.260
the remaining funds under

01:29:36.757 --> 01:29:39.007
the existing budget, so
how high could we go?

01:29:40.641 --> 01:29:42.050
And then the second request is,

01:29:42.050 --> 01:29:46.820
what contract changes
to future contract language

01:29:46.820 --> 01:29:48.280
would be needed to move

01:29:49.282 --> 01:29:53.800
deployment of ERS out
of emergency conditions

01:29:55.725 --> 01:29:58.400
and a recommendation on where on the PRC

01:29:59.497 --> 01:30:00.997
spectrum you would deploy ERS.

01:30:01.860 --> 01:30:04.070
<v ->Yeah, and I think that's a
policy decision for us, right?</v>

01:30:04.070 --> 01:30:05.383
So we know that,

01:30:07.580 --> 01:30:09.832
we're in a watch advisory

01:30:09.832 --> 01:30:11.232
at 25 kW, 2,500, below 3000.

01:30:13.240 --> 01:30:17.033
So it's a policy call there
in where we wanna have,

01:30:18.591 --> 01:30:20.270
at what point we would
wanna have ERS deployment.

01:30:20.270 --> 01:30:23.030
One thing to consider
is, irrespective of that,

01:30:23.030 --> 01:30:25.680
a lot of ERS does early deploy

01:30:25.680 --> 01:30:28.563
and they will take actions
to come off the system early.

01:30:29.600 --> 01:30:33.150
But if we provide ERCOT
with some flexibility,

01:30:33.150 --> 01:30:36.560
we can get the other rest of the loads

01:30:36.560 --> 01:30:40.330
to come out and help us
reduce demand on the system

01:30:40.330 --> 01:30:42.180
before we enter emergency conditions.

01:30:44.460 --> 01:30:45.750
<v Peter>It's a policy choice,</v>

01:30:45.750 --> 01:30:47.701
but we're gonna have to
make it before November 8th.

01:30:47.701 --> 01:30:48.534
<v ->Yes.</v>

01:30:49.374 --> 01:30:50.857
<v ->You know where I am,</v>

01:30:50.857 --> 01:30:52.993
I'm happy to do 3000 for everything-

01:30:55.100 --> 01:30:56.607
<v ->3,000 MCL,</v>

01:30:56.607 --> 01:31:00.490
ERs deploy post 3000
or sub 3000 reserves.

01:31:00.490 --> 01:31:01.880
<v ->Yeah, I mean there's a time gap</v>

01:31:01.880 --> 01:31:03.730
between the ORDC and the ERS,

01:31:03.730 --> 01:31:05.080
but hopefully it'll all line up

01:31:05.080 --> 01:31:08.720
to be in place by
January, philosophically.

01:31:08.720 --> 01:31:11.020
It makes a lot of sense to me that

01:31:11.020 --> 01:31:12.920
wherever your MCL is,

01:31:12.920 --> 01:31:16.090
just at that point,
everything goes, right.

01:31:16.090 --> 01:31:18.670
You need to be, if your MCL

01:31:18.670 --> 01:31:20.263
is where you're hitting your high cap,

01:31:21.750 --> 01:31:22.780
that's the end of the road.

01:31:22.780 --> 01:31:24.980
You need to fire every
bullet you've got at that point,

01:31:24.980 --> 01:31:26.600
including ERS.

01:31:26.600 --> 01:31:29.750
And after that, it's only after that

01:31:29.750 --> 01:31:32.220
is when you start asking people to

01:31:32.220 --> 01:31:34.560
turn off their own doing businesses.

01:31:34.560 --> 01:31:37.153
<v Will>Yeah, I agree with the
high level policy approach.</v>

01:31:38.590 --> 01:31:39.783
<v ->And does that mean in ERS,</v>

01:31:41.970 --> 01:31:46.200
all resources can play in
that, and in all durations?

01:31:46.200 --> 01:31:49.600
<v ->I'd say for right now,
let's do the winter,</v>

01:31:49.600 --> 01:31:52.350
let's stick with whatever
the existing framework is,

01:31:52.350 --> 01:31:55.810
for the rule, just for
the sake of expediency,

01:31:55.810 --> 01:31:58.273
but for the substantive rule change,

01:31:59.160 --> 01:32:01.580
let's get some feedback on that.

01:32:02.543 --> 01:32:03.376
<v ->Yeah.</v>
<v ->Does that work?</v>

01:32:03.376 --> 01:32:04.209
<v ->Yeah, okay that's fine.</v>

01:32:04.209 --> 01:32:06.593
<v ->Yeah, I think that's
a great approach.</v>

01:32:07.773 --> 01:32:09.140
I think as we open up the rulemaking,

01:32:09.140 --> 01:32:10.773
we'll have to look at important issues

01:32:10.773 --> 01:32:14.513
like the cost cap, program
participants, deployment,

01:32:15.570 --> 01:32:18.500
and we can explore all
those long-term issues in that.

01:32:18.500 --> 01:32:19.850
<v ->Yeah, and I will,</v>

01:32:19.850 --> 01:32:23.020
I'll go ahead and channel
our industrial partners

01:32:23.020 --> 01:32:26.410
in saying that the more
we expect to use ERS

01:32:27.770 --> 01:32:31.700
and the sooner we move
it out that PRC spectrum,

01:32:31.700 --> 01:32:34.150
the more expensive these
megawatts are gonna get.

01:32:36.730 --> 01:32:38.030
I'm comfortable with that,

01:32:40.205 --> 01:32:41.038
but if we're paying for it,

01:32:41.038 --> 01:32:44.463
we should expect to be able to use it.

01:32:46.810 --> 01:32:47.643
All right.

01:32:49.312 --> 01:32:51.062
Anything else on ERS?

01:32:53.134 --> 01:32:53.983
Are you sure she didn't
need anything to throw?

01:32:53.983 --> 01:32:55.646
<v ->I'd say that</v>

01:32:55.646 --> 01:32:56.860
you're doing a heck of job as Chairman.

01:32:56.860 --> 01:32:58.465
So where are we at on here?

01:32:58.465 --> 01:33:00.470
All right.
<v ->So I think we've got ...</v>

01:33:00.470 --> 01:33:02.090
<v ->RFP's gonna get modified.</v>

01:33:02.090 --> 01:33:03.980
<v ->Well, let's ask
Kennan what he thinks.</v>

01:33:03.980 --> 01:33:07.171
<v ->Yeah, what do you think?
(people laughing)</v>

01:33:07.171 --> 01:33:10.320
<v ->So RP is gonna get modified.</v>

01:33:10.320 --> 01:33:12.680
And there's two paths
that we're looking down.

01:33:12.680 --> 01:33:15.720
One is completely within our control,

01:33:15.720 --> 01:33:17.433
and that is the budget.

01:33:18.370 --> 01:33:22.383
However, there is still
this outstanding question

01:33:22.383 --> 01:33:26.480
of whether or not it's legal for us to

01:33:27.670 --> 01:33:29.620
deploy earlier.

01:33:29.620 --> 01:33:32.940
So we're gonna, I believe
get further instruction,

01:33:32.940 --> 01:33:34.527
either in the form that it is ...

01:33:34.527 --> 01:33:35.860
<v Peter>PUC staff will provide</v>

01:33:35.860 --> 01:33:36.693
procedural

01:33:38.956 --> 01:33:40.463
options to accommodate that change.

01:33:41.650 --> 01:33:44.390
<v ->Because even if
your legal department</v>

01:33:44.390 --> 01:33:46.430
is uncomfortable with the rule language,

01:33:46.430 --> 01:33:48.887
there are avenues to
waive our own requirement.

01:33:48.887 --> 01:33:50.737
<v Will>And we're meeting next week.</v>

01:33:55.520 --> 01:33:58.630
<v ->Yes, well we'll review it</v>

01:33:59.468 --> 01:34:02.070
and discuss it with
ERCOT's legal counsel

01:34:02.070 --> 01:34:05.090
and bring to you a response next week.

01:34:06.048 --> 01:34:08.880
<v Peter>All right, can you</v>

01:34:08.880 --> 01:34:09.713
bring

01:34:10.910 --> 01:34:12.023
options?

01:34:14.170 --> 01:34:16.190
Next meeting will be the 28th.

01:34:18.400 --> 01:34:20.220
Can you all bring options

01:34:20.220 --> 01:34:22.714
to each individual office before that?

01:34:22.714 --> 01:34:23.547
<v ->Yeah.</v>

01:34:23.547 --> 01:34:24.442
<v Peter>The day or two before that,</v>

01:34:24.442 --> 01:34:26.313
so we can discuss at our next meeting.

01:34:26.313 --> 01:34:27.146
<v ->Absolutely.</v>

01:34:30.890 --> 01:34:32.940
<v ->All right, where
are we on the ERS?</v>

01:34:32.940 --> 01:34:35.623
So Kenan's got those two questions?

01:34:36.650 --> 01:34:39.170
Connie's got the procedural options

01:34:41.062 --> 01:34:42.580
that will be presented

01:34:42.580 --> 01:34:44.010
to each of our offices individually,

01:34:44.010 --> 01:34:44.870
so we can discuss

01:34:48.301 --> 01:34:49.201
next open meeting.

01:34:54.590 --> 01:34:58.130
So, let's call that the immediate action

01:34:58.130 --> 01:35:00.270
for this winter on ERS.
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

01:35:00.270 --> 01:35:01.400
<v ->For the broader</v>

01:35:02.620 --> 01:35:03.453
ERS reform,

01:35:05.727 --> 01:35:06.560
I feel confident at this point,

01:35:06.560 --> 01:35:08.560
we were on the list of
items to be considered.

01:35:09.570 --> 01:35:12.690
What questions for stakeholders

01:35:12.690 --> 01:35:14.210
that will be due November 1st,

01:35:14.210 --> 01:35:17.150
not, if you can answer right, yeah.

01:35:17.150 --> 01:35:20.343
<v ->Thank you.
(people laughing)</v>

01:35:20.343 --> 01:35:21.974
<v ->But feel free to chime in,</v>

01:35:21.974 --> 01:35:22.816
to make your comment.

01:35:22.816 --> 01:35:24.570
<v ->Mr. Chairman, you've got
a good question on there.</v>

01:35:24.570 --> 01:35:26.620
One thing, I wonder
if we could consider,

01:35:28.200 --> 01:35:32.150
should the deployment of MCRS

01:35:32.150 --> 01:35:35.040
in the context of a
question, be the subject

01:35:37.816 --> 01:35:39.016
of a question related to

01:35:40.170 --> 01:35:41.840
MCL, okay.

01:35:41.840 --> 01:35:46.780
Should ERS always
be deployed after MCL?

01:35:46.780 --> 01:35:48.690
I think the response is gonna be yes,

01:35:48.690 --> 01:35:50.710
but where I'm going with that is,

01:35:50.710 --> 01:35:53.920
should we consider having it adjusted,

01:35:53.920 --> 01:35:55.020
the deployment of ERS,

01:35:58.760 --> 01:36:02.030
based as a percentage
of seasonal peak net load

01:36:02.030 --> 01:36:03.763
forecast in the SARA?

01:36:04.720 --> 01:36:06.350
<v Peter>So I'm hearing
two questions.</v>

01:36:06.350 --> 01:36:07.649
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

01:36:07.649 --> 01:36:08.482
<v ->When should it be deployed?</v>

01:36:08.482 --> 01:36:10.990
When should ERS be deployed and

01:36:10.990 --> 01:36:14.770
what quantity of ERAs should be procured

01:36:14.770 --> 01:36:16.030
seasonally or ...

01:36:16.030 --> 01:36:17.400
<v Will>That's fine, keep it broad</v>

01:36:17.400 --> 01:36:18.690
in that way they come in.

01:36:18.690 --> 01:36:20.450
<v ->You want more specific?</v>
<v ->No, sir.</v>

01:36:20.450 --> 01:36:22.970
But overall, what I'm wondering is,

01:36:22.970 --> 01:36:26.116
should that be a moving
target and not a fixed target?

01:36:26.116 --> 01:36:26.949
You know what I'm saying?

01:36:26.949 --> 01:36:27.893
Should it float?

01:36:30.149 --> 01:36:33.020
<v Peter>What methodology
should be used</v>

01:36:33.020 --> 01:36:35.260
to set quantity to be procured?

01:36:35.260 --> 01:36:36.650
<v ->To set quantity and</v>

01:36:38.130 --> 01:36:40.523
period use.

01:36:41.570 --> 01:36:43.000
<v ->And when it's deployed.</v>
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:44.600
<v ->Several questions.</v>
<v ->Yes.</v>

01:36:44.600 --> 01:36:46.860
<v Peter>All right, got that.</v>

01:36:46.860 --> 01:36:48.200
All right,

01:36:48.200 --> 01:36:50.530
do you have a question on this duration?

01:36:50.530 --> 01:36:52.160
<v ->Yeah, I was just ...</v>

01:36:52.160 --> 01:36:56.210
I think that the question was,

01:36:56.210 --> 01:36:57.830
how do we incent longer duration,

01:36:57.830 --> 01:37:01.186
what is the duration optimum here?

01:37:01.186 --> 01:37:03.880
I mean, I think Will
said it right, which is,

01:37:03.880 --> 01:37:06.870
having this spectrum
of the suite of tools,

01:37:06.870 --> 01:37:10.680
having them fluid, as in the day,

01:37:10.680 --> 01:37:13.530
where we're trying to get as many

01:37:13.530 --> 01:37:16.420
tools in there early, so we avoid

01:37:16.420 --> 01:37:18.670
the biggest event at the end.

01:37:18.670 --> 01:37:20.100
This is the most important.

01:37:20.100 --> 01:37:21.340
<v ->Question about resources,</v>

01:37:21.340 --> 01:37:24.230
what load resources qualify for ERS?

01:37:24.230 --> 01:37:26.440
<v ->Yeah, I think
that would be right</v>

01:37:26.440 --> 01:37:29.060
and if there's a duration requirement,

01:37:29.060 --> 01:37:30.013
what's the optimum?

01:37:30.960 --> 01:37:32.340
<v ->The duration of
load, essentially</v>

01:37:32.340 --> 01:37:34.249
in load sharing,
self-imposed load sharing.

01:37:34.249 --> 01:37:36.131
<v ->Correct, would
definitely have to be.</v>

01:37:36.131 --> 01:37:37.381
<v ->Okay, got it.</v>

01:37:39.240 --> 01:37:41.830
<v ->So my biggest
questions, I think,</v>

01:37:41.830 --> 01:37:44.330
and they may be baked
into some of these is first,

01:37:45.700 --> 01:37:48.380
I think there's two
ways of looking at it:

01:37:48.380 --> 01:37:53.070
should we modify the annual cost cap or

01:37:53.070 --> 01:37:55.310
should we procure ERS

01:37:56.520 --> 01:38:01.430
on a seasonal basis,
based on net peak load

01:38:01.430 --> 01:38:03.440
or some other form that's more targeted

01:38:03.440 --> 01:38:04.790
like Mr. McAdams was saying,

01:38:04.790 --> 01:38:06.870
'cause right now
we're at this cap, right.

01:38:06.870 --> 01:38:09.880
Should we just continue
to buy X amount of

01:38:10.990 --> 01:38:14.430
load resources or should we
modify how we procure them

01:38:14.430 --> 01:38:18.150
into a more targeted,

01:38:18.150 --> 01:38:21.933
seasonal approach,
based on net peak load?

01:38:25.213 --> 01:38:26.300
'Cause otherwise,
we're just throwing out

01:38:26.300 --> 01:38:28.770
a megawatt number
without it being tied to-

01:38:28.770 --> 01:38:29.650
<v Will>And you can
ask that now, or ...</v>

01:38:29.650 --> 01:38:31.757
<v Peter>I think that's included.</v>

01:38:31.757 --> 01:38:32.590
<v Will>Well, I'm definitely
gonna include that,</v>

01:38:32.590 --> 01:38:34.910
I have general orders ...

01:38:34.910 --> 01:38:37.103
<v Peter>Yeah, but I
think that's included</v>

01:38:37.103 --> 01:38:37.936
in the question we're asking, isn't it?

01:38:37.936 --> 01:38:39.014
<v ->Right, it is, I just
wanted to clarify it more.</v>

01:38:39.014 --> 01:38:39.847
<v Peter>The question</v>

01:38:39.847 --> 01:38:40.876
should have been wrote down, right?

01:38:40.876 --> 01:38:42.061
<v ->Yeah, I just wanted to clarify</v>

01:38:42.061 --> 01:38:44.104
the way I was thinking about it.

01:38:44.104 --> 01:38:47.230
I think deployment,
program participation

01:38:47.230 --> 01:38:49.110
are key in that.

01:38:49.110 --> 01:38:51.910
And I think Commissioner
McAdams' question about

01:38:51.910 --> 01:38:53.180
when will it be deployed.

01:38:53.180 --> 01:38:55.680
You're deploying it
earlier outside of EA1,

01:38:55.680 --> 01:38:58.690
but you wanna do it in
concert with the ORDC

01:38:59.670 --> 01:39:01.370
so that there's some kind of

01:39:02.480 --> 01:39:03.880
reliability sort of synergy,

01:39:07.470 --> 01:39:12.470
just reliability spectrum, right?

01:39:13.549 --> 01:39:15.543
<v ->So yes, it should all sync up.</v>

01:39:17.990 --> 01:39:19.460
Is that?

01:39:19.460 --> 01:39:21.150
<v ->What I wanted
to clarify is what</v>

01:39:21.150 --> 01:39:24.400
Commissioner McAdams
alluded to, and that is

01:39:25.260 --> 01:39:27.050
a lot of these questions that

01:39:27.050 --> 01:39:31.360
we have identified
for ERS seem to be

01:39:32.680 --> 01:39:36.140
fundamental design questions
for ERS going forward.

01:39:36.140 --> 01:39:38.670
And I wanted to clarify whether you want

01:39:39.980 --> 01:39:44.620
those to appear on the
upcoming round of comments,

01:39:44.620 --> 01:39:49.430
or if you want to defer them
to an ERS board meeting?

01:39:49.430 --> 01:39:51.350
<v Peter>Let's get those
questions out there now.</v>

01:39:51.350 --> 01:39:54.908
<v Will>Okay, and then we
can just roll that again.</v>

01:39:54.908 --> 01:39:57.307
<v ->And it'll still be valid ...</v>
<v ->An ongoing process.</v>

01:39:57.307 --> 01:39:59.157
<v ->Does that work?</v>
<v ->It works for me.</v>

01:40:00.310 --> 01:40:02.830
<v ->Okay.</v>
<v ->All right.</v>

01:40:02.830 --> 01:40:04.510
<v ->Looking at the look
on Connie's face,</v>

01:40:04.510 --> 01:40:05.420
staff's not gonna be required

01:40:05.420 --> 01:40:06.820
to answer all these questions.

01:40:06.820 --> 01:40:08.546
<v ->Absolutely not.</v>
<v ->They don't ride on anything.</v>

01:40:08.546 --> 01:40:10.300
All right, okay.
<v ->We will</v>

01:40:10.300 --> 01:40:12.810
provide more specifics
when we issue the question.

01:40:12.810 --> 01:40:13.643
<v ->Okay.</v>

01:40:13.643 --> 01:40:16.363
<v ->The concepts and
question list next week,</v>

01:40:17.860 --> 01:40:19.530
but in the spirit of

01:40:19.530 --> 01:40:21.260
dramatically narrowing the scope

01:40:21.260 --> 01:40:23.263
on all of this for all of us,

01:40:24.271 --> 01:40:27.080
I think we'll primarily
be asking for

01:40:28.390 --> 01:40:32.720
very abbreviated stakeholder comments,

01:40:32.720 --> 01:40:35.720
preferably in the form of an
executive summary, a one pager.

01:40:37.900 --> 01:40:40.570
And of course we can
follow up on good ideas

01:40:42.530 --> 01:40:43.990
and we'll have

01:40:43.990 --> 01:40:45.990
more conversations like this, and we can

01:40:47.820 --> 01:40:49.770
invite specific stakeholders

01:40:49.770 --> 01:40:52.570
who have compelling ideas
to come to this Commission.

01:40:52.570 --> 01:40:55.473
<v ->Okay.</v>
<v ->All right, ERS.</v>

01:40:56.861 --> 01:40:58.268
Are we good?
<v ->Yes.</v>

01:40:58.268 --> 01:40:59.733
<v ->Good, thank you.</v>

01:41:02.370 --> 01:41:03.510
Connie, hang on.

01:41:03.510 --> 01:41:04.343
Sorry.

01:41:05.790 --> 01:41:09.020
I suspect we're gonna
need you in a minute.

01:41:09.020 --> 01:41:12.820
All right, we are moving up the chart.

01:41:12.820 --> 01:41:14.610
How about we dive in
to everybody's favorite,

01:41:14.610 --> 01:41:15.603
demand response?

01:41:17.990 --> 01:41:19.560
<v ->So, I have a question.</v>

01:41:19.560 --> 01:41:21.190
Earlier, when you were talking
about upgrading the system,

01:41:21.190 --> 01:41:23.680
are you talking about Smart Meter Texas?

01:41:23.680 --> 01:41:25.110
<v ->That's exactly
what I've got here.</v>

01:41:25.110 --> 01:41:26.359
<v ->Okay.</v>

01:41:26.359 --> 01:41:27.660
<v ->So I wanna be
clear that this is ...</v>

01:41:27.660 --> 01:41:28.920
<v ->Where are we on now?</v>

01:41:28.920 --> 01:41:30.520
<v ->Just demand response.</v>
<v ->Okay.</v>

01:41:30.520 --> 01:41:31.370
<v ->Does that work?</v>

01:41:32.776 --> 01:41:35.740
I wanna be clear, this is an upgrade to

01:41:35.740 --> 01:41:38.560
centralized hardware and software.

01:41:38.560 --> 01:41:39.393
As you pointed out,

01:41:39.393 --> 01:41:42.470
we spent a ton of money
putting distributed hardware

01:41:42.470 --> 01:41:45.833
while we're out in the
field to capture this data.

01:41:46.960 --> 01:41:50.530
From my understanding,
the bottleneck is

01:41:50.530 --> 01:41:52.030
at the centralized

01:41:52.880 --> 01:41:55.230
aggregation dissemination point.

01:41:55.230 --> 01:41:58.330
What we've discussed this, and if you'll

01:41:58.330 --> 01:42:01.160
explain the, I guess,

01:42:01.160 --> 01:42:03.410
I've got a good sense
of what we're solving for:

01:42:03.410 --> 01:42:06.303
better telemetry, more
granular load shed,

01:42:09.051 --> 01:42:11.363
and the first part more frequent.

01:42:13.807 --> 01:42:15.950
And it's just more frequent data about

01:42:15.950 --> 01:42:20.860
our distributed grid,
is I think the, like I said,

01:42:20.860 --> 01:42:22.290
the key that unlocks

01:42:22.290 --> 01:42:24.540
all sorts of capabilities
for demand response

01:42:28.610 --> 01:42:31.160
and enables the marketplace

01:42:31.160 --> 01:42:34.530
to capture that demand
response, to encourage it,

01:42:34.530 --> 01:42:35.860
to innovate around it

01:42:35.860 --> 01:42:37.490
rather than us trying to regulate it,

01:42:37.490 --> 01:42:40.250
which I think is a much
more productive exercise.

01:42:40.250 --> 01:42:42.470
So, I know what we're solving for,

01:42:42.470 --> 01:42:44.180
at least what I'm solving for.

01:42:44.180 --> 01:42:45.700
I'll defer to Connie on

01:42:45.700 --> 01:42:48.730
what kind of upgrades are required

01:42:48.730 --> 01:42:51.520
to achieve that improvement in telemetry

01:42:51.520 --> 01:42:52.870
and frequency of telemetry.

01:42:54.390 --> 01:42:56.960
<v ->So, Smart Meter Texas</v>

01:42:56.960 --> 01:43:01.900
is a joint endeavor
by and for TDUs.

01:43:01.900 --> 01:43:07.660
And they have employed
a single vendor to run that

01:43:08.920 --> 01:43:12.310
centralized hub for Smart Meter Texas.

01:43:12.310 --> 01:43:13.143
So,

01:43:16.040 --> 01:43:19.260
the bottlenecks for the data

01:43:19.260 --> 01:43:23.663
could in fact reside there
and some probably do.

01:43:24.920 --> 01:43:26.200
There's also

01:43:27.700 --> 01:43:31.200
located at each individual TDSP,

01:43:31.200 --> 01:43:33.490
their own meter management system

01:43:33.490 --> 01:43:35.630
that could also be the source

01:43:35.630 --> 01:43:39.513
of some of the limitations
we see in the telemetry.

01:43:40.940 --> 01:43:44.580
So I would imagine that
upgrades would be required

01:43:44.580 --> 01:43:45.923
in both spots.

01:43:47.920 --> 01:43:51.360
And we have TDU folks
here that could probably

01:43:51.360 --> 01:43:54.140
speak to a greater detail if you'd like.

01:43:54.140 --> 01:43:55.713
<v ->Okay.</v>
<v ->Sure,</v>

01:43:59.312 --> 01:44:00.145
Perhaps we could use you both,

01:44:00.145 --> 01:44:01.107
you are welcome to come up and do this,

01:44:01.107 --> 01:44:02.579
you don't have to.

01:44:02.579 --> 01:44:03.633
<v ->I'm good.
(Peter laughs)</v>

01:44:03.633 --> 01:44:06.966
(they all talk at once)

01:44:10.517 --> 01:44:12.933
<v ->For the record, my
name is Liz Jones.</v>

01:44:14.144 --> 01:44:15.513
I'm employed by Oncor.

01:44:18.613 --> 01:44:22.140
There are a lot of things
that could be done differently

01:44:22.140 --> 01:44:26.146
with the AMS system and
with the Smart Meter Texas.

01:44:26.146 --> 01:44:29.120
I would encourage you all,

01:44:29.120 --> 01:44:33.200
as you think about what
things you want to envision,

01:44:33.200 --> 01:44:37.030
that you make time and space for

01:44:37.030 --> 01:44:40.733
a cost benefit analysis
on those changes.

01:44:41.830 --> 01:44:45.120
There is a frequent misconception

01:44:45.120 --> 01:44:47.370
from my perspective on

01:44:47.370 --> 01:44:52.370
whether SMT and AMS is
necessary for demand response.

01:44:53.840 --> 01:44:55.710
When this was originally started

01:44:55.710 --> 01:45:00.710
in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 timeframe,

01:45:00.840 --> 01:45:03.990
I think that there was a firm belief

01:45:03.990 --> 01:45:06.900
that Zigbee, which is a
particular kind of protocol,

01:45:06.900 --> 01:45:08.890
would be the necessary gateway

01:45:08.890 --> 01:45:12.330
to enable demand response
in the mass markets.

01:45:12.330 --> 01:45:15.950
And that that would
have to work hand in hand

01:45:15.950 --> 01:45:18.070
with the meter data.

01:45:18.070 --> 01:45:21.760
It is Oncor's perspective,

01:45:21.760 --> 01:45:24.800
and it is evidence that
we presented in the last

01:45:24.800 --> 01:45:27.700
SMT case that

01:45:27.700 --> 01:45:31.150
the meter interaction is not necessary

01:45:31.150 --> 01:45:33.520
for demand response in mass markets.

01:45:33.520 --> 01:45:35.706
And that in fact, Zigbee has not been

01:45:35.706 --> 01:45:38.880
the golden ticket that
we all thought it would be

01:45:38.880 --> 01:45:41.372
10 years ago, but rather

01:45:41.372 --> 01:45:44.900
internet-based applications

01:45:44.900 --> 01:45:47.560
are much more effective and much faster.

01:45:47.560 --> 01:45:49.780
Now, the meter data

01:45:49.780 --> 01:45:53.940
is the trust and verify piece of that

01:45:53.940 --> 01:45:55.903
and so it can be available,

01:45:56.980 --> 01:46:00.480
but I don't think, and I have not seen

01:46:01.370 --> 01:46:05.375
my work on AMS and SMT;

01:46:05.375 --> 01:46:09.410
that has to be the exclusive
mechanism by which this occurs.

01:46:09.410 --> 01:46:13.710
And so, we are supportive
of doing what you want

01:46:15.420 --> 01:46:17.240
and we could make necessary upgrades

01:46:17.240 --> 01:46:19.030
to enable the kind of functionality

01:46:19.030 --> 01:46:21.670
that I think you all are envisioning.

01:46:21.670 --> 01:46:24.090
It is not clear to me that that is

01:46:24.090 --> 01:46:25.743
the most cost effective way

01:46:25.743 --> 01:46:27.213
of getting where you wanna be.

01:46:28.430 --> 01:46:29.530
<v ->Thank you very much.</v>

01:46:32.190 --> 01:46:34.313
As I mentioned at
the top of the meeting,

01:46:34.313 --> 01:46:36.660
we heard this in our demand
response workshop, that

01:46:36.660 --> 01:46:40.100
there's a lot of demand
response happening now.

01:46:40.100 --> 01:46:42.520
Just because ERCOT can't see it,

01:46:42.520 --> 01:46:44.860
doesn't mean it's not there.

01:46:44.860 --> 01:46:47.410
Price responded part of
the internet applications,

01:46:47.410 --> 01:46:52.143
smart thermostats, et cetera, is ...

01:46:54.480 --> 01:46:56.803
We keep hearing this is,

01:46:57.670 --> 01:46:59.820
do we need to do anything.

01:46:59.820 --> 01:47:02.230
I'm afraid to ask, but if
it's already happening

01:47:02.230 --> 01:47:05.653
and the capabilities are there
through other mechanisms,

01:47:07.010 --> 01:47:09.550
the internet applications,
smart thermostats, et cetera,

01:47:09.550 --> 01:47:11.513
or REP developed software,

01:47:13.060 --> 01:47:15.103
are we overthinking this?

01:47:16.870 --> 01:47:19.510
<v ->So, I'm not the best
person to answer that, right?</v>

01:47:19.510 --> 01:47:21.720
Because we do not, in fact,

01:47:21.720 --> 01:47:24.780
administer any demand response programs.

01:47:24.780 --> 01:47:26.730
Through energy
efficiency, we write checks,

01:47:26.730 --> 01:47:28.510
but that's not the same thing.

01:47:28.510 --> 01:47:31.830
I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask

01:47:31.830 --> 01:47:34.700
competitive service
providers and retailers

01:47:34.700 --> 01:47:36.770
and qualified scheduling entities,

01:47:36.770 --> 01:47:39.261
who are also a big piece of this puzzle,

01:47:39.261 --> 01:47:41.870
what they think.

01:47:41.870 --> 01:47:44.583
But, at this point ...

01:47:44.583 --> 01:47:45.416
<v ->We did that.</v>
<v ->Okay.</v>

01:47:45.416 --> 01:47:47.115
<v Peter>In July, or
whatever it was.</v>

01:47:47.115 --> 01:47:48.790
<v ->Right, and you know you've
gotten the right answers.</v>

01:47:48.790 --> 01:47:51.850
I'm gonna tell you that
as an initial gating item,

01:47:51.850 --> 01:47:56.550
I don't think it is the
AMI SMT technology

01:47:56.550 --> 01:47:58.130
that is impeding it.

01:47:58.130 --> 01:48:02.580
I think that there are
product development issues

01:48:02.580 --> 01:48:06.630
around demand response and
mass market demand response

01:48:06.630 --> 01:48:08.830
that haven't been fleshed out,

01:48:08.830 --> 01:48:10.716
and that's a different problem.

01:48:10.716 --> 01:48:11.549
<v Peter>Okay.</v>

01:48:11.549 --> 01:48:12.510
<v ->On this, Mr. Chairman,</v>

01:48:12.510 --> 01:48:16.500
and it sounds like moving forward,

01:48:16.500 --> 01:48:19.020
this is definitely a high value
target, demand response,

01:48:19.020 --> 01:48:22.350
as a component of redesign,
you've asked good questions.

01:48:22.350 --> 01:48:23.790
<v ->I think so, but I keep hearing</v>

01:48:23.790 --> 01:48:24.880
that it's already happening.

01:48:24.880 --> 01:48:27.870
<v ->I know, but why
not just keep it on list?</v>

01:48:27.870 --> 01:48:29.190
Continue moving forward with the data.

01:48:29.190 --> 01:48:30.023
<v ->Sure.</v>

01:48:30.023 --> 01:48:31.470
<v ->You've got your questions.</v>

01:48:31.470 --> 01:48:33.260
<v ->Yeah, I think
we've gotta refine,</v>

01:48:33.260 --> 01:48:35.504
but we can refine our questions saying,

01:48:35.504 --> 01:48:39.040
what technical specifications

01:48:39.940 --> 01:48:42.410
are needed or improvements to

01:48:44.090 --> 01:48:45.710
what technical specifications

01:48:45.710 --> 01:48:48.140
should we be solving for

01:48:48.140 --> 01:48:50.893
to enhance demand response?

01:48:54.950 --> 01:48:57.223
What hardware,

01:48:58.110 --> 01:49:01.250
centralized hardware
and software upgrades,

01:49:01.250 --> 01:49:03.369
because I don't wanna play the game of,

01:49:03.369 --> 01:49:04.202
we need ...
<v ->Correct.</v>

01:49:04.202 --> 01:49:06.780
<v ->30 million new meters in
Texas, we already did that.</v>

01:49:06.780 --> 01:49:08.780
What centralized hardware and software

01:49:09.630 --> 01:49:13.953
changes are needed to
enhance demand response?

01:49:15.760 --> 01:49:18.230
<v ->And depending on
the answer you get</v>

01:49:18.230 --> 01:49:19.523
to those two questions,

01:49:20.490 --> 01:49:23.960
the TDUs are in a better
position to come forward

01:49:23.960 --> 01:49:25.380
and talk to you about

01:49:26.310 --> 01:49:29.272
how we would accomplish the changes

01:49:29.272 --> 01:49:31.107
that others have recommended.

01:49:31.107 --> 01:49:32.350
<v Peter>Fair enough.</v>

01:49:32.350 --> 01:49:33.800
<v ->I think that's great.</v>

01:49:33.800 --> 01:49:36.869
I'm with you, Chairman Lake,

01:49:36.869 --> 01:49:39.990
I know there's a lot
of capability out there

01:49:40.970 --> 01:49:42.400
with respect to demand response,

01:49:42.400 --> 01:49:44.960
especially with all this
technological revolution,

01:49:44.960 --> 01:49:48.780
with smart meters and apps
and everything out there.

01:49:48.780 --> 01:49:51.440
And so, when I start thinking
about demand response

01:49:51.440 --> 01:49:53.170
and how we can better

01:49:54.390 --> 01:49:56.170
capture those opportunities

01:49:56.170 --> 01:49:58.380
and use them for reliability purposes

01:49:58.380 --> 01:50:00.020
and at least have some visibility

01:50:00.020 --> 01:50:02.810
so that ERCOT can take
them into consideration,

01:50:02.810 --> 01:50:04.970
the demand response
penetration into consideration

01:50:04.970 --> 01:50:06.140
for reliability purposes,

01:50:06.140 --> 01:50:07.540
it starts getting great for me

01:50:07.540 --> 01:50:09.530
because I hear these great ideas

01:50:09.530 --> 01:50:11.810
and we heard 'em all
at the work session,

01:50:11.810 --> 01:50:15.860
but what can we as a Commission do to

01:50:15.860 --> 01:50:16.930
help this move along?

01:50:16.930 --> 01:50:21.310
Is it ERCOT technical specifications,

01:50:21.310 --> 01:50:22.563
rule changes?

01:50:24.088 --> 01:50:25.980
<v Peter>I think there's
some merit to</v>

01:50:25.980 --> 01:50:27.300
the notion that the best thing we can do

01:50:27.300 --> 01:50:28.910
is stay out of the way.

01:50:28.910 --> 01:50:30.270
<v ->Perhaps.</v>
<v ->Yeah.</v>

01:50:30.270 --> 01:50:33.087
Well, and on that Mr. Chairman,

01:50:33.087 --> 01:50:35.160
and I think it might fit.

01:50:35.160 --> 01:50:37.070
Didn't make the original list, but

01:50:37.070 --> 01:50:40.620
node pricing for load resources
versus the zonal pricing.

01:50:40.620 --> 01:50:43.333
Again, that plays into
your telemetry argument,

01:50:43.333 --> 01:50:47.190
getting that right command
and control signal, is that ...

01:50:47.190 --> 01:50:50.570
<v ->I think that's more about
matching up the prices,</v>

01:50:50.570 --> 01:50:53.450
demand response, participant
or resources received

01:50:53.450 --> 01:50:55.200
with the rest of the market.

01:50:55.200 --> 01:50:56.033
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

01:50:56.033 --> 01:50:58.210
And sending the right signal for them to

01:50:58.210 --> 01:51:00.870
turn up the thermostat
or whatever, real time.

01:51:00.870 --> 01:51:03.470
<v ->And there's a little bit
of a thorny issue there</v>

01:51:03.470 --> 01:51:05.480
because when

01:51:05.480 --> 01:51:07.860
this Commission made
the initial determination

01:51:07.860 --> 01:51:09.910
of how to transition
to the nodal market,

01:51:11.160 --> 01:51:12.950
one of the pieces was that

01:51:12.950 --> 01:51:15.720
retail pricing would occur zonally,

01:51:16.910 --> 01:51:18.520
and that was intended to be

01:51:18.520 --> 01:51:20.160
a protection for the retail market

01:51:20.160 --> 01:51:21.590
and also for the retail customers.

01:51:21.590 --> 01:51:23.200
<v ->To cushion the
blow of node, right?</v>

01:51:23.200 --> 01:51:26.520
<v ->Yes, and so the last
time we talked about this</v>

01:51:26.520 --> 01:51:28.740
and it has been a recurring theme

01:51:28.740 --> 01:51:31.083
in some of the ERCOT activities,

01:51:32.230 --> 01:51:34.940
there was some
difficulty in understanding

01:51:34.940 --> 01:51:37.320
or accomplishing something where

01:51:37.320 --> 01:51:42.102
a customer is being
charged on a zonal basis,

01:51:42.102 --> 01:51:45.250
but is being paid.
<v ->Right.</v>

01:51:45.250 --> 01:51:47.840
<v ->MDR on an LMP basis.</v>

01:51:47.840 --> 01:51:50.830
And so that's not an unsolvable problem,

01:51:50.830 --> 01:51:52.385
but it is a problem.

01:51:52.385 --> 01:51:53.860
<v ->And it's more of,</v>

01:51:53.860 --> 01:51:55.540
again, as we heard from the workshop,

01:51:55.540 --> 01:51:56.770
that's more of a long-term,

01:51:56.770 --> 01:51:58.260
they gotta do a system.

01:51:58.260 --> 01:52:00.770
<v ->Yeah, is it worth having
a question in there?</v>

01:52:00.770 --> 01:52:01.940
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

01:52:01.940 --> 01:52:02.835
<v ->Pros and cons,</v>

01:52:02.835 --> 01:52:05.335
please address the pros
and cons of switching from

01:52:06.596 --> 01:52:08.930
zone pricing to LNP pricing.
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

01:52:08.930 --> 01:52:11.360
<v ->And I wonder if
this is a proper fit,</v>

01:52:11.360 --> 01:52:14.310
'cause I'm sure we've all heard

01:52:14.310 --> 01:52:17.210
through various stakeholder
conversations about

01:52:17.210 --> 01:52:20.690
how we can utilize customer aggregations

01:52:20.690 --> 01:52:22.560
to turn them into virtual power plants.

01:52:22.560 --> 01:52:25.780
That's, I think, a form
of kind of new thinking

01:52:25.780 --> 01:52:28.810
of how we can take all
this demand response

01:52:28.810 --> 01:52:31.510
and use it in a cumulative basis

01:52:33.030 --> 01:52:34.580
to reduce demand on the system.

01:52:35.970 --> 01:52:38.620
<v ->And ERCOT already has
rules about aggregation.</v>

01:52:38.620 --> 01:52:42.180
It might be constructive
to have an opportunity,

01:52:42.180 --> 01:52:44.580
or create an opportunity for a workshop

01:52:44.580 --> 01:52:49.060
for ERCOT to discuss
with interested parties,

01:52:49.060 --> 01:52:50.830
what the existing rules are.

01:52:50.830 --> 01:52:52.153
And maybe at the conclusion of that,

01:52:52.153 --> 01:52:55.930
there's an opportunity to
discuss potential change.

01:52:55.930 --> 01:52:57.810
<v ->You mean a ERCOT
stakeholder workshop?</v>

01:52:57.810 --> 01:52:58.643
<v ->Yes.</v>
<v ->Yep, okay.</v>

01:52:58.643 --> 01:53:02.043
<v ->And then maybe come back to us</v>

01:53:02.043 --> 01:53:05.628
with some kind of a
roadmap for us to consider

01:53:05.628 --> 01:53:07.278
on how we could help.

01:53:07.278 --> 01:53:09.242
<v ->It gives a menu of
options, if nothing else.</v>

01:53:09.242 --> 01:53:11.760
<v Liz>And I'm sensitive,
as you all are,</v>

01:53:11.760 --> 01:53:13.430
to making work for ERCOT.

01:53:13.430 --> 01:53:14.930
I just think ERCOT,

01:53:14.930 --> 01:53:17.890
the expertise regarding current roles

01:53:17.890 --> 01:53:21.103
resides at ERCOT and it could
be best communicated there.

01:53:22.830 --> 01:53:23.997
<v ->Fair enough.</v>

01:53:25.647 --> 01:53:29.038
We can address that
offline with ERCOT, I think.

01:53:29.038 --> 01:53:30.360
But if everybody's on board with ERCOT,

01:53:30.360 --> 01:53:31.310
asking them to

01:53:33.872 --> 01:53:37.601
have a workshop to
investigate specific ...

01:53:37.601 --> 01:53:39.682
I mean, we do want
the questions on this list

01:53:39.682 --> 01:53:40.515
about technical specifications,

01:53:40.515 --> 01:53:42.930
specific hardware,
software upgrades needed,

01:53:42.930 --> 01:53:44.920
pros and cons of

01:53:45.761 --> 01:53:49.913
general to LNP pricing
for demand response.

01:53:50.930 --> 01:53:55.210
And then we can also
separately ask ERCOT to

01:53:56.614 --> 01:54:00.770
hold a workshop with the stakeholders on

01:54:03.478 --> 01:54:06.310
what works and doesn't work

01:54:06.310 --> 01:54:09.060
with the existing rules of DPPs

01:54:09.060 --> 01:54:13.093
or aggregated resources,

01:54:14.190 --> 01:54:15.301
does that work?

01:54:15.301 --> 01:54:17.218
<v ->Great.</v>
<v ->Sounds great.</v>

01:54:18.143 --> 01:54:19.393
Thank you, Liz.

01:54:23.760 --> 01:54:24.980
All right, so I think we've got

01:54:24.980 --> 01:54:27.798
the zone and LND addressed,

01:54:27.798 --> 01:54:29.250
we've got hardware, software,

01:54:29.250 --> 01:54:30.700
telemetry issues addressed.

01:54:30.700 --> 01:54:32.030
Last one is

01:54:32.030 --> 01:54:35.160
performance standard for
energy efficiency program.

01:54:35.160 --> 01:54:37.010
I'm coming at this
from a pretty high level.

01:54:37.010 --> 01:54:38.490
I know we spent a lot of money on this,

01:54:38.490 --> 01:54:40.673
as Liz said, they write checks.

01:54:43.030 --> 01:54:45.867
And I'm not entirely sure if

01:54:47.080 --> 01:54:47.930
the rate payers are getting

01:54:47.930 --> 01:54:50.133
the highest bang for your buck on this.

01:54:51.400 --> 01:54:53.590
We know that we have a very concentrated

01:54:55.580 --> 01:55:01.670
avenues to ... In
Texas energy use,

01:55:01.670 --> 01:55:05.672
it's, I guess, the top three in summer:

01:55:05.672 --> 01:55:06.505
air conditioning, air conditioning,

01:55:06.505 --> 01:55:07.843
air conditioning, in
winter it's heating.

01:55:09.590 --> 01:55:12.583
So I really just wanna open to,

01:55:13.720 --> 01:55:15.523
and this is why I ask the question,

01:55:15.523 --> 01:55:19.610
what is the highest
performance standard we can set

01:55:19.610 --> 01:55:21.610
to get the highest value

01:55:21.610 --> 01:55:22.913
for our rate payer dollar?

01:55:24.040 --> 01:55:26.540
I know a lot of the
participants in those programs

01:55:27.690 --> 01:55:29.890
almost always hit their
performance bonuses,

01:55:31.492 --> 01:55:36.053
which makes me think
there's room for improvement.

01:55:36.053 --> 01:55:37.300
<v ->They're not small
performance bonuses.</v>

01:55:37.300 --> 01:55:38.550
<v ->No, they're not.</v>
<v ->Oh.</v>

01:55:40.370 --> 01:55:45.077
<v ->So, on that one, I'll
go and open up first.</v>

01:55:45.077 --> 01:55:46.112
<v ->Right, go for it.</v>

01:55:46.112 --> 01:55:46.945
<v ->I'll try to set the table.</v>

01:55:46.945 --> 01:55:48.600
I believe there should be,

01:55:48.600 --> 01:55:51.462
as a part of the bones of a

01:55:51.462 --> 01:55:53.850
greater market reform effort,

01:55:53.850 --> 01:55:57.100
EECRF reform to the degree that

01:55:58.520 --> 01:56:00.290
we also have to recognize
what we're dealing with.

01:56:00.290 --> 01:56:01.730
We are dealing with

01:56:01.730 --> 01:56:05.740
very specific constraints in statute,

01:56:05.740 --> 01:56:07.440
and we're also dealing with

01:56:07.440 --> 01:56:11.500
very specific, and a
very large substantive rule

01:56:12.789 --> 01:56:14.789
that goes a lot of different directions.

01:56:15.890 --> 01:56:17.070
I believe when we're talking about

01:56:17.070 --> 01:56:18.647
enhancements to this market

01:56:18.647 --> 01:56:21.250
and any new revenues, and Mr. Chairman,

01:56:21.250 --> 01:56:24.160
you may go and say,
"Hey, let's look at it all."

01:56:24.160 --> 01:56:27.150
But I'd say in terms of the near-term,

01:56:27.150 --> 01:56:30.870
when we consider new
revenues or augmentation to

01:56:30.870 --> 01:56:33.204
what we're already
paying out to the market,

01:56:33.204 --> 01:56:36.080
dollar we're talking about more dollars,

01:56:36.080 --> 01:56:38.310
then there should be again,

01:56:38.310 --> 01:56:42.120
specific performance standards
outside of the existing rule.

01:56:42.120 --> 01:56:43.210
This should be considered;

01:56:43.210 --> 01:56:45.173
again, who participates in it.

01:56:46.680 --> 01:56:48.770
And there's something, there's already

01:56:48.770 --> 01:56:51.970
a filing out there that may
become a contested case

01:56:51.970 --> 01:56:54.140
so I don't think I can
talk about that here,

01:56:54.140 --> 01:56:57.580
in terms of just the
application of those programs

01:56:57.580 --> 01:56:59.110
on a seasonal basis,

01:56:59.110 --> 01:57:02.220
which lines up with earlier
conversations we had

01:57:02.220 --> 01:57:03.350
from our workshops.

01:57:03.350 --> 01:57:06.700
But my point is, how
the retailers and the

01:57:07.880 --> 01:57:11.310
transmission distribution
service providers interact.

01:57:11.310 --> 01:57:14.970
And again, how retailers,
with their aggregated DR

01:57:14.970 --> 01:57:16.970
could actually perform

01:57:16.970 --> 01:57:18.730
on a dollar for dollar basis

01:57:18.730 --> 01:57:20.253
with any new monies coming in.

01:57:21.330 --> 01:57:23.280
Again, in the command
and control construct,

01:57:23.280 --> 01:57:25.210
managed by the TDSBs,

01:57:25.210 --> 01:57:27.023
that we can actually account for,

01:57:27.896 --> 01:57:29.896
on a more granular basis within the CDR.

01:57:30.890 --> 01:57:32.953
<v Peter>Sure, so
what's the question.</v>

01:57:32.953 --> 01:57:33.790
How are we gonna
capture that in a question?

01:57:33.790 --> 01:57:34.623
<v ->So.</v>

01:57:35.703 --> 01:57:38.404
<v Lori>We need a question.</v>

01:57:38.404 --> 01:57:39.670
<v ->I'm hoping on
avoiding some hate mail</v>

01:57:39.670 --> 01:57:40.970
with the way I couch that.

01:57:42.742 --> 01:57:43.575
<v ->There's no avoiding
the hate mail,</v>

01:57:43.575 --> 01:57:44.727
if we're doing our jobs right.

01:57:44.727 --> 01:57:46.470
<v ->I know, I was
trying to manage it.</v>

01:57:46.470 --> 01:57:48.020
We're getting toward Christmas.

01:57:54.905 --> 01:57:56.050
<v ->So I definitely wanna hear</v>

01:57:56.050 --> 01:57:58.350
from the stakeholders and ERCOT,

01:57:58.350 --> 01:58:01.740
what is the necessary
command and control.

01:58:01.740 --> 01:58:03.890
<v ->And you have
that, I believe, sort of.</v>

01:58:03.890 --> 01:58:05.017
<v ->Well, I think it covers ...</v>

01:58:05.017 --> 01:58:07.267
But what is the necessary
command and control

01:58:08.300 --> 01:58:13.887
to utilize demand, resources,

01:58:13.887 --> 01:58:15.573
demand response resources,

01:58:16.640 --> 01:58:17.750
to ensure reliability,

01:58:17.750 --> 01:58:19.720
to ensure an enhanced reliability?

01:58:19.720 --> 01:58:20.800
<v ->Correct.</v>
<v ->Right.</v>

01:58:20.800 --> 01:58:22.430
Just because you've got

01:58:22.430 --> 01:58:25.010
a Tesla plugged in and ORDC kicks in,

01:58:25.010 --> 01:58:27.310
and you decide to start
making some money on it,

01:58:27.310 --> 01:58:29.000
that doesn't necessarily help

01:58:29.935 --> 01:58:31.960
ERCOT's ability to

01:58:31.960 --> 01:58:33.940
enhance reliability 24 hours in advance,

01:58:33.940 --> 01:58:34.880
48 hours in advance.

01:58:34.880 --> 01:58:38.370
<v ->How could additional resources</v>

01:58:38.370 --> 01:58:40.020
in EECRF

01:58:42.560 --> 01:58:43.560
be applied

01:58:44.870 --> 01:58:47.080
and broadened to include

01:58:48.380 --> 01:58:52.120
greater participation by
the competitive market

01:58:54.640 --> 01:58:56.510
within the managed programs

01:58:58.060 --> 01:59:00.720
of the regulated utilities?

01:59:00.720 --> 01:59:01.563
Is that broad enough for it,

01:59:01.563 --> 01:59:03.413
that would elicit some response?

01:59:04.899 --> 01:59:05.810
<v ->I think that's right.</v>

01:59:05.810 --> 01:59:08.120
One of my questions, and I think,

01:59:08.120 --> 01:59:09.680
as you looked under the hood,

01:59:09.680 --> 01:59:13.290
is whether we should allocate
some of the existing funds

01:59:16.200 --> 01:59:18.420
underneath or the TDs have

01:59:19.680 --> 01:59:20.837
from the spectrum of programs

01:59:20.837 --> 01:59:23.973
under the energy efficiency umbrella.

01:59:24.840 --> 01:59:27.770
Should we allocate funds from

01:59:27.770 --> 01:59:29.090
some programs where
we're not getting that much

01:59:29.090 --> 01:59:30.640
bang for our buck

01:59:30.640 --> 01:59:33.933
to REP demand response type programs,

01:59:35.076 --> 01:59:38.540
delivered from a broad
spectrum of stakeholders

01:59:38.540 --> 01:59:41.460
and I thought that that
might be a more efficient use

01:59:41.460 --> 01:59:43.363
of that energy efficiency money.

01:59:44.330 --> 01:59:47.031
And then also looking
at program participation

01:59:47.031 --> 01:59:48.410
and I think right now
it's more residential,

01:59:48.410 --> 01:59:49.410
it's not commercial,

01:59:50.254 --> 01:59:53.793
and it's largely geared
towards the summer.

01:59:55.320 --> 01:59:59.440
I think there is, in SP3,
there's an ability for

01:59:59.440 --> 02:00:00.770
TDUs to offer

02:00:01.830 --> 02:00:03.980
to have a low membered program

02:00:03.980 --> 02:00:05.480
for the winter, for non-residential,

02:00:05.480 --> 02:00:07.172
which I won't get into

02:00:07.172 --> 02:00:08.050
because that's part
of the contested case,

02:00:08.050 --> 02:00:09.500
that's before the Commission.

02:00:11.142 --> 02:00:12.200
But I guess,

02:00:12.200 --> 02:00:14.290
I think your overall question is great:

02:00:14.290 --> 02:00:17.840
accountability performance standards,

02:00:17.840 --> 02:00:19.340
where should those dollars be going?

02:00:19.340 --> 02:00:20.861
Where do we get

02:00:20.861 --> 02:00:24.093
a bigger bang for our
buck, who can participate?

02:00:26.136 --> 02:00:29.400
And should we be
modifying these programs

02:00:30.710 --> 02:00:34.950
to better target seasons,
especially summer and winter?

02:00:34.950 --> 02:00:35.800
<v Peter>Can we do that</v>

02:00:35.800 --> 02:00:37.830
in the second round of these questions

02:00:37.830 --> 02:00:40.650
after we get responses on
the biggest bang for the buck?

02:00:40.650 --> 02:00:41.570
<v ->Sure.</v>

02:00:41.570 --> 02:00:45.393
Really the way I envisioned
this is to add this rule,

02:00:46.404 --> 02:00:49.830
2521, I believe, to the blueprint.

02:00:49.830 --> 02:00:52.570
And so we can open up the rule

02:00:53.580 --> 02:00:55.740
as part of our ...

02:00:55.740 --> 02:00:57.733
<v ->As we get there, yeah.</v>
<v ->Yeah, as we get there.</v>

02:00:57.733 --> 02:00:58.566
<v ->Okay.</v>

02:01:00.705 --> 02:01:02.405
<v ->And I agree, and
it's a big rule, Mr,</v>

02:01:02.405 --> 02:01:04.400
and you'd spend years inside that.

02:01:04.400 --> 02:01:05.914
<v ->All right, let's start</v>

02:01:05.914 --> 02:01:07.411
with the bang for the buck questions,

02:01:07.411 --> 02:01:09.260
and then after November
1st, let's see what we've got.

02:01:09.260 --> 02:01:11.380
And then we can start
asking the questions

02:01:11.380 --> 02:01:15.489
about how we allocate,
does that work?

02:01:15.489 --> 02:01:16.873
I know our stenographer needs a break.

02:01:17.738 --> 02:01:20.537
<v ->Did we ask what
the amount should be?</v>

02:01:22.539 --> 02:01:24.588
I mean, I think-

02:01:24.588 --> 02:01:26.914
<v ->That would be valuable.</v>
<v ->That's a good ...</v>

02:01:26.914 --> 02:01:27.997
Well, I mean,

02:01:29.442 --> 02:01:30.540
is that something we wanna ask for,

02:01:30.540 --> 02:01:33.300
or we just need to set because ...

02:01:33.300 --> 02:01:35.000
I've got a good idea that

02:01:35.000 --> 02:01:37.284
certain segments would think

02:01:37.284 --> 02:01:38.380
whatever it is, bigger is better.

02:01:38.380 --> 02:01:40.290
Well, I think there's

02:01:41.350 --> 02:01:43.550
some analysis that could go into that.

02:01:43.550 --> 02:01:44.730
<v ->Fair enough.</v>

02:01:44.730 --> 02:01:47.214
<v ->That we ought to
determine what that amount is.</v>

02:01:47.214 --> 02:01:48.047
I think, where it hadn't been

02:01:48.047 --> 02:01:50.270
increased in many, many years

02:01:50.270 --> 02:01:54.250
and that we ought to at
least get some perspective

02:01:54.250 --> 02:01:57.263
on what a viable amount would be.

02:01:58.223 --> 02:02:00.340
<v ->Fair enough, can
we add that to the ...</v>

02:02:00.340 --> 02:02:02.530
<v Connie>And when we say amount,</v>

02:02:02.530 --> 02:02:07.530
are we talking about
energy efficiency goals,

02:02:07.750 --> 02:02:12.750
dollar amount or ducking
megawatt hours or in dollars?

02:02:13.121 --> 02:02:14.876
<v ->What should the method
be, and what quantity?</v>

02:02:14.876 --> 02:02:16.826
<v ->Yeah, I mean, I
was thinking dollars,</v>

02:02:18.330 --> 02:02:21.180
but obviously we want both
sides of the equation to work.

02:02:22.370 --> 02:02:23.203
<v ->We can see</v>

02:02:24.146 --> 02:02:26.490
if we can, yeah, aggregate all of it,

02:02:26.490 --> 02:02:27.810
see where that leads us.

02:02:27.810 --> 02:02:30.660
<v ->And Connie, am I right that</v>

02:02:30.660 --> 02:02:31.930
some of those dollars are used

02:02:31.930 --> 02:02:35.500
for demand response as
well in the TDE programs?

02:02:35.500 --> 02:02:38.310
<v ->I believe there are load
management programs.</v>

02:02:38.310 --> 02:02:40.971
<v ->So, the other
question that I thought</v>

02:02:40.971 --> 02:02:43.562
I had asked this a few months ago was,

02:02:43.562 --> 02:02:45.380
if we're trying to create more robust

02:02:45.380 --> 02:02:48.823
demand response
programs within the market,

02:02:49.690 --> 02:02:51.480
can these dollars be dedicated

02:02:51.480 --> 02:02:52.980
to energy efficiency programs?

02:02:54.010 --> 02:02:55.811
And I'd like to know what people think.

02:02:55.811 --> 02:02:58.011
<v ->I think the market's
already solving that problem.</v>

02:02:58.011 --> 02:02:58.844
<v ->The demand response program,</v>

02:02:58.844 --> 02:02:59.810
then use all these dollars for

02:02:59.810 --> 02:03:02.780
whatever that larger number
would be for energy efficiency.

02:03:02.780 --> 02:03:04.980
<v ->And Chairman, I'm not sure</v>

02:03:04.980 --> 02:03:08.810
if you'd like to just lay out

02:03:08.810 --> 02:03:13.140
for some of our online
viewers and the general public,

02:03:13.140 --> 02:03:15.510
the distinction between demand response

02:03:15.510 --> 02:03:17.063
and energy efficiency,

02:03:21.675 --> 02:03:22.850
is that something
you'd like to speak to,

02:03:22.850 --> 02:03:23.683
Commissioner McAdams?

02:03:23.683 --> 02:03:27.030
<v ->Well, the way I'd
use energy efficiency is</v>

02:03:27.030 --> 02:03:29.823
megawatts that we consider saved,

02:03:31.320 --> 02:03:34.283
that again, we are
taking off the system,

02:03:36.432 --> 02:03:37.480
but again, we're paying for that.

02:03:37.480 --> 02:03:39.810
And there is a public interest finding

02:03:39.810 --> 02:03:41.370
in the rule and the statute

02:03:41.370 --> 02:03:45.913
that it is designed to assist
low income consumers,

02:03:46.790 --> 02:03:49.710
enhance their energy
efficiency in their home

02:03:49.710 --> 02:03:53.250
and let them participate
in these programs.

02:03:53.250 --> 02:03:56.840
Again, the cost of those programs are

02:03:56.840 --> 02:03:58.990
socialized throughout
the broader system.

02:03:58.990 --> 02:04:01.060
And we approve those rates every year

02:04:01.963 --> 02:04:04.080
where that socialized cost is spread.

02:04:04.080 --> 02:04:07.344
What we're talking about
with demand response ...

02:04:07.344 --> 02:04:08.370
<v Jimmy>And one thing
I might add on that is,</v>

02:04:08.370 --> 02:04:10.720
when you make those
energy efficiency upgrades,

02:04:11.956 --> 02:04:13.783
they stay in place.
<v ->That's right.</v>

02:04:14.730 --> 02:04:16.250
<v Jimmy>So, these are
not a daily modification.</v>

02:04:16.250 --> 02:04:18.310
Those are things that happen

02:04:18.310 --> 02:04:20.921
in spades, which forms the problem.

02:04:20.921 --> 02:04:21.840
<v ->For the folks watching at home,</v>

02:04:21.840 --> 02:04:26.540
in practice, that's
paying for someone to

02:04:26.540 --> 02:04:28.250
get a new air conditioner that uses

02:04:28.250 --> 02:04:30.540
fewer megawatts for
the same cooling ability,

02:04:31.486 --> 02:04:33.288
that's a 15 year old.
<v ->That's right.</v>

02:04:33.288 --> 02:04:35.040
<v ->15 year old air conditioner.</v>

02:04:35.040 --> 02:04:37.573
<v Connie>Exactly, so
think measures that will,</v>

02:04:39.660 --> 02:04:42.200
on a very long-term if not permanently

02:04:42.200 --> 02:04:45.400
decrease the amount of
energy use in that location.

02:04:45.400 --> 02:04:46.800
<v ->That's right.</v>

02:04:46.800 --> 02:04:49.673
So again, the nuance
of demand response is

02:04:49.673 --> 02:04:52.110
this is a controllable energy resource.

02:04:52.110 --> 02:04:54.230
Again, energy
efficiency is always there.

02:04:54.230 --> 02:04:57.050
It's steady state, it's
megawatts taken off the system,

02:04:57.050 --> 02:04:59.210
but demand response could again be

02:04:59.210 --> 02:05:02.670
a command and control
asset of the system.

02:05:02.670 --> 02:05:05.110
<v ->In practice, it's a
consumer of power</v>

02:05:06.600 --> 02:05:08.060
deciding they'd rather

02:05:08.970 --> 02:05:10.550
at a certain price point,

02:05:10.550 --> 02:05:12.670
sell their power back into the grid

02:05:12.670 --> 02:05:14.920
either by consuming less,

02:05:14.920 --> 02:05:17.760
or by reverting to their
own backup generation

02:05:17.760 --> 02:05:20.050
to continue whatever operations they ...

02:05:20.050 --> 02:05:22.180
<v ->And just for the
greater public.</v>

02:05:22.180 --> 02:05:24.320
<v ->That happens
constantly, all the time.</v>

02:05:24.320 --> 02:05:26.250
<v ->Yeah, and to put it
in context right now,</v>

02:05:26.250 --> 02:05:28.120
we account for somewhere
in the neighborhood

02:05:28.120 --> 02:05:29.507
and it's on our cost chart

02:05:30.424 --> 02:05:32.870
of a TDS load management megawatt hours,

02:05:32.870 --> 02:05:37.257
300 megawatts at peak, that's there

02:05:37.257 --> 02:05:40.693
and it's accounted
for at EEA2 conditions.

02:05:41.750 --> 02:05:44.210
<v ->So that's the other
issue we need to explore,</v>

02:05:44.210 --> 02:05:47.080
is when those load management
programs are at fault.

02:05:47.080 --> 02:05:50.061
<v ->Well, that's part of that
case now, it's getting ...</v>

02:05:50.061 --> 02:05:52.200
<v ->Okay, we don't wanna
open that right now.</v>

02:05:52.200 --> 02:05:53.423
<v ->Well, in the rule.</v>

02:05:54.539 --> 02:05:56.000
<v ->Yeah, when we
get to that point.</v>

02:05:56.000 --> 02:05:58.402
<v ->If we add it to the
blueprint and open a rule,</v>

02:05:58.402 --> 02:05:59.290
I think that something we can look at.

02:05:59.290 --> 02:06:00.890
<v ->Okay, absolutely.</v>

02:06:00.890 --> 02:06:02.030
Anything else on demand response?

02:06:02.030 --> 02:06:04.291
I know our stenographer needs a break

02:06:04.291 --> 02:06:05.870
and I wouldn't mind one either.

02:06:05.870 --> 02:06:06.703
Have we got a list of questions?

02:06:06.703 --> 02:06:07.560
<v ->Yeah, I think so.</v>

02:06:08.462 --> 02:06:09.295
<v ->Good, all right.</v>

02:06:09.295 --> 02:06:12.013
Let's take a 15 minute
break and reconvene at 11:55.

02:06:13.090 --> 02:06:13.923
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

02:06:15.810 --> 02:06:17.356
<v ->All rise.</v>

02:06:17.356 --> 02:06:20.773
(indistinct chattering)

02:06:27.228 --> 02:06:28.061
For those

02:06:29.620 --> 02:06:30.900
brave enough to

02:06:32.200 --> 02:06:34.993
hang in there as we continue
through this day, thank you.

02:06:36.098 --> 02:06:37.440
I hope you're in health.

02:06:37.440 --> 02:06:40.491
We've got a good
... I think we made

02:06:42.330 --> 02:06:43.580
a lot of progress so far.

02:06:44.484 --> 02:06:45.934
We've got two key items left.

02:06:48.660 --> 02:06:49.930
Ambitiously, I'm gonna say,

02:06:49.930 --> 02:06:52.430
let's try to get this knocked out by

02:06:53.750 --> 02:06:55.333
one o'clock, 1:15ish?

02:07:01.930 --> 02:07:02.830
Let's tackle ORDC.

02:07:03.955 --> 02:07:05.853
I think we've all discussed that,

02:07:07.360 --> 02:07:08.390
the high level points.

02:07:08.390 --> 02:07:10.690
I think everybody's
generally aligned on that.

02:07:11.757 --> 02:07:14.233
I think the big, what questions?

02:07:15.094 --> 02:07:17.493
I mean, I think we know
that the top questions is,

02:07:18.873 --> 02:07:20.623
we wanna see some scenario analysis

02:07:21.940 --> 02:07:23.570
and I'd like to be able to give

02:07:23.570 --> 02:07:28.743
very specific numbers
to our consultant groups.

02:07:30.034 --> 02:07:31.670
You know my numbers

02:07:31.670 --> 02:07:33.463
and if possible, I think it was,

02:07:34.440 --> 02:07:35.807
we'll have another crack at this,

02:07:35.807 --> 02:07:38.357
but it may just be the
most straightforward thing

02:07:38.357 --> 02:07:40.030
to just have each of
us submit one scenario

02:07:40.030 --> 02:07:43.608
we'd like analyzed and
we'll have four scenarios

02:07:43.608 --> 02:07:44.970
that they can bring back to us

02:07:44.970 --> 02:07:46.220
and we can go from there.

02:07:53.293 --> 02:07:54.193
You saw my numbers

02:07:57.554 --> 02:08:00.593
in the memo, I briefly
give you the logic.

02:08:02.431 --> 02:08:03.264
HCAP and VOLL,

02:08:04.750 --> 02:08:06.190
the VOLL concept

02:08:10.648 --> 02:08:12.848
is extraordinarily
academic in assuming that

02:08:13.957 --> 02:08:14.790
the value of a margin electron

02:08:14.790 --> 02:08:16.820
is the same for every
person, every business,

02:08:16.820 --> 02:08:18.033
every moment in time,

02:08:19.349 --> 02:08:20.443
but we've got to pick something.

02:08:21.659 --> 02:08:22.759
I think 4,500 keeps us

02:08:23.760 --> 02:08:26.280
a good way away from the

02:08:26.280 --> 02:08:29.740
extraordinarily punitive $9,000.

02:08:29.740 --> 02:08:32.203
But it's still, as Miss
Cobos pointed out,

02:08:33.441 --> 02:08:34.320
a substantial number

02:08:35.920 --> 02:08:37.220
that will incentivize demand response

02:08:37.220 --> 02:08:38.563
as we move up that curve.

02:08:40.941 --> 02:08:44.570
The 3000 megawatt MCL,
my logic there is right now

02:08:44.570 --> 02:08:46.970
we enter emergency
conditions at, I think 2,000?

02:08:48.472 --> 02:08:50.783
<v ->2,000, 2,300.</v>
<v ->2,300.</v>

02:08:51.960 --> 02:08:53.763
My logic there is, let's ...

02:08:54.820 --> 02:08:57.170
We don't like, we don't
wanna do emergencies.

02:08:57.170 --> 02:08:59.120
We wanna get away from this
crisis-based business model,

02:08:59.120 --> 02:09:02.320
so let's build in one
major, a big unit trip.

02:09:02.320 --> 02:09:05.140
So at 3,000 we can
still have one unit trip,

02:09:05.140 --> 02:09:07.773
one of our biggest units
trip, machinery breaks,

02:09:08.685 --> 02:09:11.560
and we're still, we're still okay.

02:09:11.560 --> 02:09:12.860
We've still got a cushion.

02:09:13.810 --> 02:09:16.010
Call it N minus one,
minus one, if you will.

02:09:17.260 --> 02:09:20.233
And then, no change
to the standard deviation.

02:09:21.381 --> 02:09:22.897
I'll just refer to
what I've said earlier

02:09:22.897 --> 02:09:23.820
about over-engineering.

02:09:23.820 --> 02:09:24.920
We're more likely to be wrong

02:09:24.920 --> 02:09:26.420
on the number of hours used per year

02:09:26.420 --> 02:09:29.610
than we are on the standard deviation.

02:09:29.610 --> 02:09:31.290
And most importantly, I think,

02:09:31.290 --> 02:09:32.845
don't quote me on this,

02:09:32.845 --> 02:09:37.553
but the last analysis I saw
was under this framework

02:09:39.195 --> 02:09:41.441
with Kenan, we were looking at it.

02:09:41.441 --> 02:09:42.473
You don't need to come up, but I think,

02:09:44.230 --> 02:09:45.540
under this curve

02:09:47.020 --> 02:09:48.413
at 6,500,

02:09:49.384 --> 02:09:51.030
where we currently start deploying AS,

02:09:51.030 --> 02:09:53.333
this would result in a $50 adder.

02:09:54.500 --> 02:09:56.450
<v ->It's around the $50.</v>
<v ->Yeah, so that's yeah,</v>

02:09:56.450 --> 02:09:59.210
roughly 50, so it's 6,500 where

02:09:59.210 --> 02:10:00.790
we are currently operating

02:10:00.790 --> 02:10:03.040
on our new framework,
conservative framework.

02:10:04.616 --> 02:10:05.520
That's where we get worried,

02:10:05.520 --> 02:10:08.080
that's where we, as a
marketer, are getting worried

02:10:08.080 --> 02:10:09.483
and we start deploying AS.

02:10:11.924 --> 02:10:14.200
If you've got $50 on top of the

02:10:14.200 --> 02:10:17.253
energy price, the realtime price,

02:10:19.070 --> 02:10:22.080
you're very quickly gonna be moving

02:10:22.080 --> 02:10:25.650
into the $100, $200, $300 range.

02:10:25.650 --> 02:10:28.290
We know we get demand response from

02:10:28.290 --> 02:10:30.040
some of the controllable load, like

02:10:30.890 --> 02:10:32.160
crypto mining and

02:10:35.760 --> 02:10:38.780
data centers at $200 unless

02:10:40.087 --> 02:10:43.023
there's just some
extraordinary degrade problem.

02:10:44.469 --> 02:10:48.662
$200, $300, every unit
should be on and moving,

02:10:48.662 --> 02:10:51.001
and it's a demand
response question from there.

02:10:51.001 --> 02:10:52.040
So, I'll stop there.

02:10:52.040 --> 02:10:53.529
That's the scenario I would submit.

02:10:53.529 --> 02:10:54.362
<v ->All right.</v>

02:10:54.362 --> 02:10:57.570
One last component,
Mr. Chair, for discussion is

02:10:59.082 --> 02:11:01.530
the backcast scenario for Brattle.

02:11:01.530 --> 02:11:04.120
Again, those years or scenarios

02:11:04.120 --> 02:11:08.073
where they'll do the
overlay to determine the cost.

02:11:08.073 --> 02:11:08.906
I would throw it out,

02:11:10.645 --> 02:11:13.003
2019 is a big year for ERCOT,

02:11:13.003 --> 02:11:14.550
because again, we were at 9,000,

02:11:14.550 --> 02:11:17.310
the economy was roaring at that time,

02:11:17.310 --> 02:11:19.520
low growth was still
in its normal trajectory,

02:11:19.520 --> 02:11:22.940
it was before COVID
distortions occurred.

02:11:22.940 --> 02:11:26.370
ORDC did engage with
those weather patterns.

02:11:26.370 --> 02:11:27.570
So I would submit that,

02:11:27.570 --> 02:11:31.430
just in terms of a near
term backcast scenario,

02:11:31.430 --> 02:11:33.910
we view 2019 is a significant year

02:11:33.910 --> 02:11:35.510
just to give Brattle guidance

02:11:36.424 --> 02:11:38.358
on what to measure this against,

02:11:38.358 --> 02:11:39.474
with what do you think of this?

02:11:39.474 --> 02:11:40.840
<v ->Would it be conditions?</v>
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

02:11:40.840 --> 02:11:41.710
<v ->Sure.</v>
<v ->Yeah,</v>

02:11:41.710 --> 02:11:43.240
'cause it's just how you apply

02:11:43.240 --> 02:11:45.260
the numbers that we're gonna talk about.

02:11:45.260 --> 02:11:47.160
<v Peter>Yep, yeah,
good, good point.</v>

02:11:48.991 --> 02:11:50.241
Why don't we ask them ...

02:11:51.327 --> 02:11:54.245
<v ->If they have any other
years, that they would ...</v>

02:11:54.245 --> 02:11:55.078
<v ->This is a base case.</v>
<v ->Yeah.</v>

02:11:55.078 --> 02:11:58.520
<v Peter>Worst, call that
extreme heat summer case,</v>

02:11:58.520 --> 02:12:00.730
and you can almost call this year,

02:12:00.730 --> 02:12:03.103
the summer of best case, right?

02:12:04.220 --> 02:12:06.534
And it's one of the ...
<v ->Went down pretty well, yeah.</v>

02:12:06.534 --> 02:12:08.184
<v ->Things I love about Arvin Wood,</v>

02:12:10.370 --> 02:12:12.730
the financial model or anything else,

02:12:12.730 --> 02:12:16.510
zero scenarios, two years
ago, any predictive model had

02:12:18.978 --> 02:12:21.613
a very mild 2021 summer,
it was $6 natural gas.

02:12:23.260 --> 02:12:25.743
I wish I had $6 gas in my model.

02:12:27.840 --> 02:12:30.973
Yes, we'll ask for a base
case, worst case, best case.

02:12:31.850 --> 02:12:33.680
Do you have numbers, that you'd submit?

02:12:33.680 --> 02:12:35.480
<v ->So at high range,</v>

02:12:35.480 --> 02:12:38.950
I would like high cap considered at six.

02:12:38.950 --> 02:12:41.410
Given the panacea comments we had

02:12:41.410 --> 02:12:43.860
from that again, that
memo that we filed,

02:12:43.860 --> 02:12:46.453
that was TIAC's comment threshold.

02:12:47.326 --> 02:12:48.640
Because again, we're trying
to find that happy medium,

02:12:48.640 --> 02:12:51.180
where we actually see
price responsive behavior

02:12:51.180 --> 02:12:54.760
from our industrial
load, starting to turn off.

02:12:54.760 --> 02:12:56.010
So depending on the price

02:12:56.010 --> 02:12:57.961
for the value of a semiconductor,

02:12:57.961 --> 02:12:59.077
which is way high right now,

02:12:59.077 --> 02:13:00.500
'cause nobody can get semiconductors.

02:13:00.500 --> 02:13:01.830
<v ->Or Bitcoin.</v>
<v ->Calculate that,</v>

02:13:01.830 --> 02:13:02.830
or Bitcoin.

02:13:03.890 --> 02:13:08.793
So, $6,000 high cap,
one of those scenarios.

02:13:10.200 --> 02:13:11.093
And then,

02:13:12.530 --> 02:13:15.760
I agree with you, building
in a margin of error

02:13:16.681 --> 02:13:19.490
to where on MCL?

02:13:19.490 --> 02:13:23.960
3,000, definitely okay
with that being a mark.

02:13:23.960 --> 02:13:28.680
2,750 is what I would
advocate that we have

02:13:28.680 --> 02:13:29.900
baked in there because again,

02:13:29.900 --> 02:13:32.260
it was a historical line

02:13:32.260 --> 02:13:34.847
that they were targeting in the past.

02:13:34.847 --> 02:13:35.793
<v ->For NCL?</v>
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

02:13:41.942 --> 02:13:44.259
And that would also account for D rates,

02:13:44.259 --> 02:13:46.720
that would also be
ahead, that would be within

02:13:46.720 --> 02:13:50.140
already a control room advisory status

02:13:50.140 --> 02:13:51.650
under existing conditions,

02:13:51.650 --> 02:13:54.173
but ahead of control room watch status.

02:13:56.560 --> 02:13:59.963
And then on the high end
for MCL, if we wanna say,

02:14:02.669 --> 02:14:04.070
I don't know, subject
to opinion on this,

02:14:04.070 --> 02:14:06.070
because I think 3,000 needs to be

02:14:06.070 --> 02:14:09.360
that intermediate step: 3,100 or 3,050.

02:14:09.360 --> 02:14:11.360
I realize, I know that Carrie Bivins

02:14:11.360 --> 02:14:14.019
is not enjoying this
conversation right now

02:14:14.019 --> 02:14:14.852
because we're arbitrarily

02:14:14.852 --> 02:14:15.685
pulling numbers out of the air,

02:14:15.685 --> 02:14:16.770
but just to show a spectrum

02:14:16.770 --> 02:14:19.320
so that we can see cost impacts.

02:14:19.320 --> 02:14:20.913
3,100 or 3,050?

02:14:22.448 --> 02:14:23.750
<v Peter>I can't say (mumbles) ...</v>

02:14:23.750 --> 02:14:25.239
If you're gonna have a
higher, then go to higher.

02:14:25.239 --> 02:14:26.072
<v ->Okay 3,100.</v>

02:14:27.220 --> 02:14:28.240
<v Lori>Okay, so y'all are covering</v>

02:14:28.240 --> 02:14:31.146
almost all the spectrums
I can think of, but ...

02:14:31.146 --> 02:14:31.979
(they all laugh)

02:14:31.979 --> 02:14:33.765
But let's see if I can
sneak one in here,

02:14:33.765 --> 02:14:34.598
but I'll let you finish,
as you probably have ...

02:14:34.598 --> 02:14:36.440
<v ->Well yeah, and so just</v>

02:14:36.440 --> 02:14:39.280
wanna make sure
everybody sees a demarcation

02:14:40.200 --> 02:14:42.480
control room advisory exists for 3,000

02:14:43.620 --> 02:14:46.370
megawatts of reserves down to 2,500

02:14:47.234 --> 02:14:49.990
under current operating
protocols within ERCOT.

02:14:49.990 --> 02:14:53.380
Sub 2,500, that's in a
control room watch status.

02:14:53.380 --> 02:14:56.720
So as you think of adjusting that MCL,

02:14:56.720 --> 02:14:59.830
and we're also considering
tying ERS deployment in that,

02:14:59.830 --> 02:15:02.330
that's what you're gonna
start seeing activate

02:15:02.330 --> 02:15:04.250
within ERCOT's systems.

02:15:04.250 --> 02:15:07.003
So, I'll stop there.

02:15:08.120 --> 02:15:12.263
<v ->Okay, so I think you've
covered some spectrums.</v>

02:15:13.150 --> 02:15:17.520
You're trying to avoid
the watch and the advisory

02:15:17.520 --> 02:15:19.420
and you have to be above 3,000.

02:15:19.420 --> 02:15:22.160
So just for a matter of just seeing

02:15:22.160 --> 02:15:23.560
where that puts us, I think.

02:15:25.410 --> 02:15:27.663
I mean, I don't wanna say 3,200.

02:15:28.599 --> 02:15:31.070
I mean, you're trying to
avoid getting below 3,000,

02:15:31.070 --> 02:15:33.103
I'd say 3,200, right?
<v ->Okay.</v>

02:15:34.915 --> 02:15:37.882
<v ->And so 3,200,</v>

02:15:37.882 --> 02:15:39.399
3,000

02:15:39.399 --> 02:15:42.444
and I would say probably
in my opinion, 2,800,

02:15:42.444 --> 02:15:44.455
'cause that's the other MCL

02:15:44.455 --> 02:15:46.855
that we got a lot in
comments rather than 2,750.

02:15:48.842 --> 02:15:52.129
<v ->I'll settle on 2,800.</v>
<v ->On your load?</v>

02:15:52.129 --> 02:15:53.164
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

02:15:53.164 --> 02:15:53.997
<v ->And then I would also,</v>

02:15:53.997 --> 02:15:55.933
because I mentioned this earlier is so,

02:15:57.041 --> 02:15:59.298
Curtis Washington, (indistinct) as well,

02:15:59.298 --> 02:16:02.520
that the IMM one, so
that would be 1,430,

02:16:02.520 --> 02:16:04.640
but understanding that
there's a lot of interaction

02:16:04.640 --> 02:16:07.090
where that's not actually
the main sales trigger.

02:16:08.892 --> 02:16:10.892
Certainly, that's 14 ...

02:16:14.335 --> 02:16:17.083
1,430 as MCL, so you have this spectrum.

02:16:18.148 --> 02:16:19.170
<v ->Available 1,430 is MCL.</v>

02:16:19.170 --> 02:16:21.270
<v ->Right, but the way
the ORDC interacts</v>

02:16:21.270 --> 02:16:23.341
with the VOLL being a lot higher.

02:16:23.341 --> 02:16:24.174
<v ->Certainly.</v>
<v ->It's actually not.</v>

02:16:24.174 --> 02:16:25.856
<v ->That's why Kenan was like.</v>

02:16:25.856 --> 02:16:28.493
If I have to go explain
this to the government,

02:16:29.635 --> 02:16:31.322
they're coming around to the legislature

02:16:31.322 --> 02:16:32.960
on how we work this,
and it's very tough to sell.

02:16:32.960 --> 02:16:34.340
<v ->Which one?</v>
<v ->I'm talking about</v>

02:16:34.340 --> 02:16:36.360
the IMM's proposal right now.

02:16:36.360 --> 02:16:37.590
I mean, I'm sure there's merit.

02:16:37.590 --> 02:16:38.640
I'm just saying that,

02:16:39.930 --> 02:16:41.680
I don't even understand this thing.

02:16:42.847 --> 02:16:43.680
<v ->Okay.
(Lori laughs)</v>

02:16:43.680 --> 02:16:45.542
<v ->But get a transcript.</v>
<v ->Well.</v>

02:16:45.542 --> 02:16:47.553
(they all laugh)

02:16:47.553 --> 02:16:50.131
(Lori's voice is drowned by laughter)

02:16:50.131 --> 02:16:51.149
<v ->Okay, so ...</v>

02:16:51.149 --> 02:16:52.020
<v Peter>I know there's some merit</v>

02:16:52.020 --> 02:16:53.136
to sticking to the
basics for twice a week,

02:16:53.136 --> 02:16:54.974
and it's very easy to
over-engineer this stuff.

02:16:54.974 --> 02:16:56.249
<v ->Yeah.</v>
<v ->All right.</v>

02:16:56.249 --> 02:16:57.815
I was just putting it in there,

02:16:57.815 --> 02:16:59.200
because it's from a third party neutral

02:17:00.772 --> 02:17:01.931
party that I've heard

02:17:01.931 --> 02:17:04.233
both the generation side
and the consumer cost side.

02:17:05.570 --> 02:17:06.620
<v ->Good data point to have.</v>
<v ->Good data point to have.</v>

02:17:06.620 --> 02:17:07.707
<v ->Sure.</v>

02:17:07.707 --> 02:17:08.720
<v ->Not because I'm 100% behind it.</v>

02:17:08.720 --> 02:17:11.410
I need to see spectrums
and figure out where I land.

02:17:11.410 --> 02:17:13.970
So I think as a matter of due diligence,

02:17:13.970 --> 02:17:15.930
because it is a third
party, you're providing them

02:17:15.930 --> 02:17:17.960
a proposal that

02:17:21.127 --> 02:17:23.860
I guess would maybe
provide the incentive,

02:17:23.860 --> 02:17:26.625
in their opinion, for
dispatchable generation

02:17:26.625 --> 02:17:29.212
and (indistinct) solve the generation

02:17:29.212 --> 02:17:31.011
and starting the flow of customers

02:17:31.011 --> 02:17:32.640
that they would be comfortable with it.

02:17:32.640 --> 02:17:34.580
I would like to at
least see what it does.

02:17:34.580 --> 02:17:35.900
<v ->Yes, and along those lines,</v>

02:17:35.900 --> 02:17:38.440
will you add to the
request for this analysis

02:17:38.440 --> 02:17:39.890
to not only show the

02:17:40.830 --> 02:17:45.426
additional revenue
contributed to the marketplace,

02:17:45.426 --> 02:17:46.643
which is, I think what
we're all solving for here,

02:17:48.040 --> 02:17:52.000
under the base case,
best case, worst case,

02:17:52.000 --> 02:17:54.093
can weather condition scenarios,

02:17:55.216 --> 02:17:57.480
but also have the analysis show

02:17:59.049 --> 02:18:02.770
the ORDC at or at 6,500 megawatts,

02:18:02.770 --> 02:18:06.177
what will that be across all spectrums?

02:18:06.177 --> 02:18:07.850
Because what I'm solving for in this

02:18:08.857 --> 02:18:10.623
is a market base rocking,

02:18:11.900 --> 02:18:15.780
getting units on
sooner rather than later

02:18:15.780 --> 02:18:18.450
so these generators

02:18:18.450 --> 02:18:22.690
can operate their businesses
at a reasonable profit

02:18:22.690 --> 02:18:25.933
without the grid having
to get to the brink,

02:18:26.940 --> 02:18:29.290
get away from that
crisis-based business model.

02:18:30.620 --> 02:18:32.528
<v Lori>So in terms of price caps,</v>

02:18:32.528 --> 02:18:34.141
I think you've covered the spectrum.

02:18:34.141 --> 02:18:38.224
I think let's look at
6,000, let's look at 4,500.

02:18:39.730 --> 02:18:42.100
And I think for the sake of

02:18:42.100 --> 02:18:44.632
following through on the IMM's proposal,

02:18:44.632 --> 02:18:46.650
you have to decouple it, so you'd have,

02:18:46.650 --> 02:18:51.034
I believe a 20,000 VOLL?
<v ->20,000 VOLL.</v>

02:18:51.034 --> 02:18:52.234
<v ->And a 5,000 price cap.</v>

02:18:53.558 --> 02:18:55.507
<v ->Okay, that's a good
scenario, that's all right.</v>

02:18:55.507 --> 02:18:58.000
<v Lori>And in terms of
standard deviations,</v>

02:18:58.000 --> 02:18:59.587
I think we don't include one.

02:19:00.846 --> 02:19:01.679
And I don't think any of us

02:19:01.679 --> 02:19:03.343
have looked at any of that.

02:19:03.343 --> 02:19:04.456
<v ->No, it's all right,</v>

02:19:04.456 --> 02:19:05.289
just stick with the current.

02:19:05.289 --> 02:19:06.940
<v Lori>Stick with the current,</v>

02:19:06.940 --> 02:19:11.940
see what we get.
<v ->Can you do one?</v>

02:19:12.130 --> 02:19:14.440
<v ->I think that we
covered a lot of scenarios</v>

02:19:14.440 --> 02:19:16.250
and I wanna see what the data looks like

02:19:16.250 --> 02:19:18.270
when we run the scenario,

02:19:18.270 --> 02:19:20.360
so I don't need to add another one

02:19:21.550 --> 02:19:23.633
and we'll see where this analysis goes.

02:19:24.830 --> 02:19:26.210
<v ->All righty.</v>

02:19:26.210 --> 02:19:28.897
Staff got everything they need?

02:19:30.890 --> 02:19:34.343
<v ->I could repeat back from
the Chairman's memo.</v>

02:19:35.750 --> 02:19:40.213
HCAP and VOLL at 4,500 and MCL at 3,000.

02:19:42.620 --> 02:19:44.123
Commissioner McAdams,

02:19:46.230 --> 02:19:48.970
you had VOLL at 6,000.
<v ->Correct.</v>

02:19:48.970 --> 02:19:50.833
<v ->And HCAP at 4,500.</v>

02:19:53.190 --> 02:19:56.846
<v ->So, still under the
scenario of VOLL and HCAP</v>

02:19:56.846 --> 02:19:58.046
at same level, so 6,000.

02:20:03.743 --> 02:20:04.643
<v Admin>And MCL,</v>

02:20:06.323 --> 02:20:07.320
2,800

02:20:09.663 --> 02:20:11.586
and 3,100.
<v ->That's correct.</v>

02:20:11.586 --> 02:20:12.792
<v ->3,200.</v>
<v ->Oh yeah.</v>

02:20:12.792 --> 02:20:16.542
(they speak over each other)

02:20:17.725 --> 02:20:19.690
<v Admin>Okay, and then</v>

02:20:19.690 --> 02:20:21.810
the IMM scenario.
<v ->Mm-hmm.</v>

02:20:24.412 --> 02:20:25.820
<v ->Yes.</v>

02:20:25.820 --> 02:20:28.700
<v ->Y'all merged.</v>
<v ->Correct.</v>

02:20:28.700 --> 02:20:29.700
<v Admin>Thank you.</v>

02:20:31.355 --> 02:20:33.389
<v Peter>All right, good.</v>
<v ->Yes.</v>

02:20:33.389 --> 02:20:36.380
<v ->Yes, and we need to get
those back before November 4th.</v>

02:20:36.380 --> 02:20:38.080
<v Peter>Yeah, November 1st.</v>

02:20:38.080 --> 02:20:40.330
<v ->Yes, exactly, as
soon as possible.</v>

02:20:40.330 --> 02:20:42.143
<v Peter>But sooner
would be preferable.</v>

02:20:42.143 --> 02:20:43.783
<v ->Exactly.</v>
<v ->All right.</v>

02:20:44.893 --> 02:20:46.403
I think the other questions,

02:20:47.930 --> 02:20:50.347
ORAC is pretty
straightforward this morning?

02:20:52.773 --> 02:20:54.073
<v ->Does the current ...</v>

02:20:55.936 --> 02:20:56.920
I'll throw one out there

02:20:57.857 --> 02:20:59.330
that was litigated in the past.

02:20:59.330 --> 02:21:02.300
Does the current curve form

02:21:04.180 --> 02:21:09.090
satisfy the current
market needs?

02:21:09.090 --> 02:21:12.680
Meaning, that they consolidated
the curves in the past,

02:21:12.680 --> 02:21:14.340
should it be opened back up

02:21:16.000 --> 02:21:17.852
to more than ...

02:21:17.852 --> 02:21:18.917
<v Peter>If you want it
on the question list,</v>

02:21:18.917 --> 02:21:20.441
we can put on the question list.

02:21:20.441 --> 02:21:22.889
<v ->All right, put it
on the question list.</v>

02:21:22.889 --> 02:21:23.722
<v ->So evaluate whether or not</v>

02:21:23.722 --> 02:21:25.200
we'd go from a blended curve

02:21:26.690 --> 02:21:28.947
to seasonal curves.
<v ->That's the question.</v>

02:21:30.990 --> 02:21:31.823
<v ->All right.</v>

02:21:35.570 --> 02:21:37.503
One item left on my list.

02:21:39.449 --> 02:21:41.140
I laid up a lot of thoughts on

02:21:42.800 --> 02:21:44.480
at the beginning of this meeting,

02:21:44.480 --> 02:21:49.280
the only other
thing I'll add is that

02:21:50.690 --> 02:21:53.640
much like I'm trying
to think of the ORDC

02:21:55.321 --> 02:21:57.280
as the way to bring, it is a
market-based mechanism

02:21:57.280 --> 02:22:02.040
to bring units on when
we're in scarcity events

02:22:02.040 --> 02:22:04.363
or there's a threat of a scarcity event.

02:22:10.030 --> 02:22:12.498
I think we can do better than

02:22:12.498 --> 02:22:15.148
requiring generators to
build their entire businesses

02:22:16.126 --> 02:22:18.260
and billion dollar investments on

02:22:18.260 --> 02:22:20.970
trying to guess how many hours a year

02:22:20.970 --> 02:22:22.973
they're gonna be in the scarcity event.

02:22:25.760 --> 02:22:28.540
I spoke about the forward
price formation, et cetera

02:22:29.376 --> 02:22:31.150
before, I won't belabor that point,

02:22:31.150 --> 02:22:33.900
but I'd like in a perfect world,

02:22:33.900 --> 02:22:35.858
I know we're far from a perfect world,

02:22:35.858 --> 02:22:38.860
is power generators
should build their business

02:22:38.860 --> 02:22:43.560
on the forward obligation
and those agreements

02:22:45.172 --> 02:22:47.890
and get the ORDC
bonus for being reliable

02:22:47.890 --> 02:22:49.910
when we really, really need 'em.

02:22:50.766 --> 02:22:53.030
At that point and so I'll stop there

02:22:53.030 --> 02:22:55.203
with the first question
we need to ask is,

02:22:56.140 --> 02:22:59.350
do we wanna include LSE obligation

02:22:59.350 --> 02:23:03.803
on the list of concepts
to ask questions about?

02:23:03.803 --> 02:23:05.703
I think we absolutely have to consider

02:23:07.240 --> 02:23:12.463
this and for the reason
I stated earlier, I think

02:23:13.802 --> 02:23:17.343
fear is not a reason to
not dig into a valid concept.

02:23:18.410 --> 02:23:21.270
And then, if we're
gonna have it on the list,

02:23:21.270 --> 02:23:22.463
what questions we wanna ask,

02:23:23.330 --> 02:23:24.163
I'll open it up.

02:23:26.493 --> 02:23:28.003
<v ->I would just
like to clarify that,</v>

02:23:30.183 --> 02:23:31.016
this is where I'm coming from,

02:23:31.016 --> 02:23:32.923
it's not coming from Peter. (laughs)

02:23:36.229 --> 02:23:37.763
Well, I won't get into that,

02:23:37.763 --> 02:23:40.926
but I think yeah, let's ask questions.

02:23:40.926 --> 02:23:43.930
I mean, if you want it
evaluated, we can ask questions,

02:23:43.930 --> 02:23:46.003
but at the same token ...

02:23:49.910 --> 02:23:51.880
So, it sounds like a lot of

02:23:51.880 --> 02:23:53.520
the rest of the proposals
that were submitted

02:23:53.520 --> 02:23:55.440
or are just not being considered,

02:23:55.440 --> 02:23:56.900
for a variety of reasons.
<v ->Yeah.</v>

02:23:56.900 --> 02:23:58.333
<v ->For a variety of reasons.</v>

02:23:59.789 --> 02:24:00.823
But,

02:24:02.470 --> 02:24:04.752
what I don't want to happen is,

02:24:04.752 --> 02:24:06.410
because we have one left on the table

02:24:08.320 --> 02:24:10.440
that that's the only one
we're gonna (indistinct).

02:24:10.440 --> 02:24:12.540
What I would like to send

02:24:13.858 --> 02:24:15.873
a message to the
stakeholder community is,

02:24:17.140 --> 02:24:20.790
you've probably heard there's
concern with your proposal.

02:24:20.790 --> 02:24:23.053
It's too limited, it's
holding out resources.

02:24:25.560 --> 02:24:28.350
There's different
criticisms you've heard

02:24:28.350 --> 02:24:31.460
from your peers in the
stakeholder community,

02:24:31.460 --> 02:24:32.563
from the Commission.

02:24:34.570 --> 02:24:38.530
We have two avenues, right now, I think,

02:24:38.530 --> 02:24:40.260
and then one of them, it seems

02:24:40.260 --> 02:24:42.650
that would involve,
I'm not saying yes or no,

02:24:42.650 --> 02:24:44.640
I'm just saying one of
them seems to involve

02:24:44.640 --> 02:24:47.329
a central procurement
of resources, right.

02:24:47.329 --> 02:24:48.678
That's kind of the ...

02:24:48.678 --> 02:24:50.258
<v Peter>When you say
central procurement,</v>

02:24:50.258 --> 02:24:53.515
that's the ERCOT Inc.
procuring resources.

02:24:53.515 --> 02:24:55.404
<v ->So those are the proposals
that we've gotten, right.</v>

02:24:55.404 --> 02:24:57.550
They're also a central procurement.

02:24:57.550 --> 02:24:59.430
And some of them involve

02:24:59.430 --> 02:25:00.830
going through the day ahead market,

02:25:00.830 --> 02:25:03.720
which would be significantly
delayed by the EMS,

02:25:03.720 --> 02:25:05.070
which is not helpful.

02:25:05.070 --> 02:25:07.040
And some of them
involve procuring resources

02:25:07.040 --> 02:25:09.023
like we do today for ERS,

02:25:10.580 --> 02:25:13.163
but for generation
sources, so there's that side.

02:25:14.435 --> 02:25:15.580
And then we have the LSE obligation

02:25:15.580 --> 02:25:18.097
imposes an obligation on the LSEs

02:25:18.097 --> 02:25:20.687
to go and meet that
obligation in the lateral market.

02:25:20.687 --> 02:25:21.520
<v Peter>(indistinct) says,</v>

02:25:21.520 --> 02:25:23.477
requiring them to be fully hedged.

02:25:25.345 --> 02:25:26.460
<v ->So,</v>

02:25:26.460 --> 02:25:28.080
is there something out there

02:25:29.680 --> 02:25:31.230
that you haven't thought about,

02:25:32.470 --> 02:25:33.720
hearing this conversation

02:25:33.720 --> 02:25:36.300
that you can coalesce
around and bring us

02:25:36.300 --> 02:25:38.070
that will address the concerns

02:25:40.044 --> 02:25:41.033
that have been raised,

02:25:42.930 --> 02:25:45.450
that helps us achieve
this foundation level

02:25:46.651 --> 02:25:49.880
of reliability without having to

02:25:51.127 --> 02:25:52.677
significantly change our market

02:25:54.080 --> 02:25:54.913
to get there.

02:25:55.937 --> 02:25:57.440
So, if you're hearing
me, please, please,

02:25:57.440 --> 02:26:00.588
please maybe coalesce and think

02:26:00.588 --> 02:26:02.401
if there was anything you

02:26:02.401 --> 02:26:04.470
might've thought about blending together

02:26:04.470 --> 02:26:06.030
and coming up with something,

02:26:06.030 --> 02:26:08.910
because I don't wanna
just go down a path

02:26:08.910 --> 02:26:13.090
with one option because
the other ones didn't work.

02:26:13.090 --> 02:26:14.440
<v Peter>Sure.</v>

02:26:14.440 --> 02:26:16.283
<v ->We need to leave the door open.</v>

02:26:17.570 --> 02:26:18.550
<v ->In that spirit,</v>

02:26:18.550 --> 02:26:21.393
I would propose adding
a question to this list.

02:26:22.630 --> 02:26:25.280
What would a fleet-wide generator

02:26:25.280 --> 02:26:27.643
firming standard look like?

02:26:30.474 --> 02:26:32.060
And that can be as simple as saying,

02:26:32.060 --> 02:26:34.220
all generators in ERCOT must have

02:26:34.220 --> 02:26:37.630
60% of their nameplate
capacity firmed up through

02:26:37.630 --> 02:26:40.530
either onsite, through
standard operations

02:26:40.530 --> 02:26:43.980
or through storage or through

02:26:45.320 --> 02:26:48.420
some sort of offsetting agreement with

02:26:48.420 --> 02:26:49.823
a dispatchable resource.

02:26:51.054 --> 02:26:52.307
I don't know, but in
the spirit of saying,

02:26:52.307 --> 02:26:55.250
"Hey, if this LSE
obligation doesn't work out,

02:26:55.250 --> 02:26:57.050
we're thinking about a backup plan."

02:26:58.033 --> 02:26:58.866
So we can get some feedback on that.

02:26:58.866 --> 02:27:00.120
I'd be interested to see that.

02:27:00.120 --> 02:27:00.953
<v ->And whatever</v>

02:27:03.070 --> 02:27:04.839
new approach is provided,

02:27:04.839 --> 02:27:08.410
ultimately there one is that is open to

02:27:10.180 --> 02:27:13.480
resources that would
be available immediately

02:27:16.943 --> 02:27:20.174
and that existing
double drive investment

02:27:20.174 --> 02:27:22.320
and existing generation
and new generation

02:27:22.320 --> 02:27:23.773
and demand response,

02:27:25.690 --> 02:27:27.700
that will not be
intrusive in the market,

02:27:27.700 --> 02:27:30.003
that at least comes in at the price cap.

02:27:32.610 --> 02:27:35.720
Some kind of concept that addresses

02:27:35.720 --> 02:27:37.090
the issues that have been raised

02:27:37.090 --> 02:27:38.570
throughout all our conversations

02:27:38.570 --> 02:27:39.783
and even today.
<v ->Sure.</v>

02:27:42.070 --> 02:27:44.976
<v ->That's what I would like to see</v>

02:27:44.976 --> 02:27:46.626
is some other proposal out there.

02:27:49.460 --> 02:27:50.363
I fear that,

02:27:52.420 --> 02:27:54.014
well, I shouldn't say fear

02:27:54.014 --> 02:27:56.264
but I wouldn't say I
don't fear, but (laughs)

02:28:01.040 --> 02:28:03.547
at some point our existing generation

02:28:03.547 --> 02:28:04.443
has to make some money.

02:28:04.443 --> 02:28:06.460
There were many years without ...

02:28:06.460 --> 02:28:07.950
<v Peter>To be fair,</v>

02:28:07.950 --> 02:28:09.470
all of our major generators

02:28:09.470 --> 02:28:13.110
post substantial annual profits

02:28:13.110 --> 02:28:15.283
operating income in
their annual reports,

02:28:16.920 --> 02:28:18.560
the public innings we can see.

02:28:18.560 --> 02:28:20.030
<v ->Okay, so ...</v>

02:28:20.030 --> 02:28:22.083
<v Peter>And from
their Texas market.</v>

02:28:22.083 --> 02:28:23.950
<v ->I'm just saying over
the spectrum of the</v>

02:28:23.950 --> 02:28:27.713
20-30 year asset life of
these generation plants,

02:28:29.070 --> 02:28:30.530
there have been some dry years

02:28:30.530 --> 02:28:32.860
based on all the information
historically we've gotten

02:28:32.860 --> 02:28:34.400
in the past now.

02:28:34.400 --> 02:28:35.610
And we've gotta make sure

02:28:35.610 --> 02:28:37.397
that we're sending a signal

02:28:37.397 --> 02:28:38.870
to keep our existing generation fleet

02:28:39.840 --> 02:28:42.300
on the system, because we need 'em

02:28:43.290 --> 02:28:45.060
and the generators
in order to go out there

02:28:45.060 --> 02:28:48.650
and be able to finance
these big, expensive assets

02:28:48.650 --> 02:28:50.220
that'll be around for 20 to 30 years

02:28:50.220 --> 02:28:52.080
are going to need
to have a price signal,

02:28:52.080 --> 02:28:54.750
and they're gonna need
to make some money, right.

02:28:54.750 --> 02:28:57.192
So I don't wanna just

02:28:57.192 --> 02:28:59.370
move off proposals on the table,

02:28:59.370 --> 02:29:01.270
because they might make money.

02:29:01.270 --> 02:29:04.431
They have to make money
to be in this business.

02:29:04.431 --> 02:29:06.800
So anyway, I'm gonna end it with just,

02:29:06.800 --> 02:29:09.080
there is some other concept out there

02:29:10.660 --> 02:29:12.870
that could address our concerns.

02:29:12.870 --> 02:29:13.940
Please come forward,

02:29:13.940 --> 02:29:15.440
we would love to hear about it.

02:29:15.440 --> 02:29:17.930
<v Peter>Okay, got that, the staff?</v>

02:29:17.930 --> 02:29:19.513
<v ->Yes.</v>
<v ->All right.</v>

02:29:21.840 --> 02:29:23.240
<v ->From Monday, Mr. Chairman,</v>

02:29:25.515 --> 02:29:27.010
like your question number
one, how do we ensure ...

02:29:27.010 --> 02:29:29.953
Okay, back to my original
statement and just reaffirm,

02:29:31.193 --> 02:29:34.110
I believe we need to
examine a firming requirement.

02:29:34.110 --> 02:29:39.760
And the proposal as
constructed at hand now

02:29:39.760 --> 02:29:42.200
is a LSE obligation,

02:29:42.200 --> 02:29:44.320
but essentially it's a
firming requirement

02:29:44.320 --> 02:29:46.240
on load serving instincts.

02:29:46.240 --> 02:29:50.780
And in order to address future needs,

02:29:50.780 --> 02:29:53.060
we need to have analysis conducted,

02:29:53.060 --> 02:29:54.860
so this is an opportunity.

02:29:54.860 --> 02:29:57.920
I believe we should move
forward and analyze this.

02:29:57.920 --> 02:30:00.960
So, in that spirit, with your questions,

02:30:00.960 --> 02:30:02.640
how do we ensure the continued viability

02:30:02.640 --> 02:30:04.010
of the competitive market?

02:30:04.010 --> 02:30:05.283
Absolutely essential.

02:30:06.360 --> 02:30:07.193
<v Peter>Well, that's number one.</v>

02:30:07.193 --> 02:30:08.863
<v ->I can't answer
that, and I'm out.</v>

02:30:10.170 --> 02:30:12.020
How do we prevent market manipulation

02:30:12.020 --> 02:30:13.760
by affiliated gentailers

02:30:13.760 --> 02:30:15.580
at the expense of independent retailers?

02:30:15.580 --> 02:30:17.830
Again, speaking to
the competitive health

02:30:17.830 --> 02:30:19.480
of the energy only market design,

02:30:21.103 --> 02:30:22.350
like how do we ensure
demand response resources

02:30:22.350 --> 02:30:25.213
can participate fully
at all points in time?

02:30:26.150 --> 02:30:28.280
Absolutely critical in my view,

02:30:28.280 --> 02:30:29.950
so everybody hears that.

02:30:29.950 --> 02:30:31.630
If there is so much a semblance

02:30:31.630 --> 02:30:34.930
of pulling up a ladder
on a independent retailer

02:30:34.930 --> 02:30:36.960
being able to innovate their way

02:30:36.960 --> 02:30:40.100
into a firming construct,
to where they have

02:30:40.100 --> 02:30:42.460
DR or DG, that's a problem

02:30:42.460 --> 02:30:44.710
and we have to address
that on the front end.

02:30:46.370 --> 02:30:48.040
What is the appropriate
accreditation level

02:30:48.040 --> 02:30:48.873
for each resource?

02:30:48.873 --> 02:30:50.720
Again, speaking to that issue,

02:30:50.720 --> 02:30:52.240
what is the appropriate segment of time

02:30:52.240 --> 02:30:53.480
for each obligation?

02:30:53.480 --> 02:30:56.290
Months, weeks, 24 hour operating day,

02:30:56.290 --> 02:30:58.150
12 hour segments, or hourly?

02:30:58.150 --> 02:31:01.010
Again, speaking to the
liquidity or capital requirements

02:31:01.010 --> 02:31:02.070
for new market entrants,

02:31:02.070 --> 02:31:04.403
and that's a crucial question,

02:31:04.403 --> 02:31:08.060
because again, if
you're a small fish retailer

02:31:08.060 --> 02:31:09.250
and you wanna get in,

02:31:09.250 --> 02:31:10.770
that's gonna be a barrier to entry.

02:31:10.770 --> 02:31:12.690
And again, the health of our market

02:31:12.690 --> 02:31:15.000
has always been the doors wide open,

02:31:15.000 --> 02:31:18.260
so we have a competitively
healthy market.

02:31:18.260 --> 02:31:23.260
Well, again the non-gentailer
segment has shrunk over time

02:31:23.360 --> 02:31:25.643
so we're watching that carefully,

02:31:25.643 --> 02:31:28.640
but it's crucial in our consideration.

02:31:28.640 --> 02:31:30.963
So in that vein,

02:31:34.220 --> 02:31:35.870
another technical question,

02:31:35.870 --> 02:31:39.410
what mechanism will ensure
those receiving revenue streams

02:31:39.410 --> 02:31:43.213
for the reliability services
perform adequately?

02:31:44.940 --> 02:31:49.573
Again, the meaningful
penalties must be in place,

02:31:49.573 --> 02:31:50.823
so how do we address that

02:31:51.660 --> 02:31:52.713
within the proposal?

02:31:54.980 --> 02:31:56.530
And how should we address that?

02:32:00.610 --> 02:32:02.850
And how will the reliability
needs of the system

02:32:02.850 --> 02:32:05.010
be determined and how
will objective standards

02:32:05.010 --> 02:32:07.600
around the value of the reliability

02:32:07.600 --> 02:32:11.430
providing assets be
set on an ongoing basis?

02:32:11.430 --> 02:32:12.950
And that gets to the heart of it.

02:32:12.950 --> 02:32:15.460
What problem are we attempting to solve

02:32:15.460 --> 02:32:16.863
for a 1 in 10 standard?

02:32:19.540 --> 02:32:20.840
I mean, that's always been

02:32:21.892 --> 02:32:23.900
the devil in the detail
on this argument.

02:32:23.900 --> 02:32:25.813
<v ->Can I drop a footnote on that?</v>

02:32:25.813 --> 02:32:26.646
<v ->Go ahead.</v>

02:32:26.646 --> 02:32:28.154
<v ->I think as part
of this evaluation,</v>

02:32:28.154 --> 02:32:29.404
we need to have

02:32:30.714 --> 02:32:32.514
Brattle and Strope and ERCOT develop

02:32:34.310 --> 02:32:38.970
options on reliability
standards or targets

02:32:40.244 --> 02:32:41.077
and bring them to us,

02:32:41.077 --> 02:32:42.610
so that we can at least have an idea

02:32:43.501 --> 02:32:44.923
of what we can put our pin on,

02:32:45.810 --> 02:32:46.914
and it doesn't have to be

02:32:46.914 --> 02:32:47.747
the 1 in 10 reliability standard.

02:32:47.747 --> 02:32:49.408
We could look at a more
granular, seasonal standard.

02:32:49.408 --> 02:32:50.871
<v ->That's a good idea.</v>

02:32:50.871 --> 02:32:53.070
<v ->Ones that are focused on
dispatchable configuration.</v>

02:32:53.070 --> 02:32:54.670
So, I think we need to have them

02:32:56.458 --> 02:32:57.560
put a study together

02:32:57.560 --> 02:33:01.253
that strictly by options
for our evaluation.

02:33:02.240 --> 02:33:03.600
<v ->Can we add a menu</v>

02:33:06.353 --> 02:33:09.589
of reliability standards to the list.

02:33:09.589 --> 02:33:10.640
I'd like to see the top three

02:33:12.900 --> 02:33:15.493
global versions of
reliability standards.

02:33:16.656 --> 02:33:17.489
Does that work?

02:33:17.489 --> 02:33:18.964
<v Will>Yeah, because the Europeans</v>

02:33:18.964 --> 02:33:19.797
are having to face this right now.

02:33:19.797 --> 02:33:22.643
It'd be interesting to see
how these things are tweaked.

02:33:23.750 --> 02:33:24.607
<v ->Yeah, I mean</v>

02:33:24.607 --> 02:33:28.320
the Europeans, the
Chinese are in a massive,

02:33:28.320 --> 02:33:29.663
UK, France,

02:33:31.510 --> 02:33:34.900
a massive energy crisis
because of the same,

02:33:34.900 --> 02:33:36.270
the penetration of intermittence,

02:33:36.270 --> 02:33:38.167
the lack of new dispatchable.

02:33:40.100 --> 02:33:41.647
This is not a unique problem,

02:33:41.647 --> 02:33:43.570
but we hopefully will be,

02:33:43.570 --> 02:33:45.874
we need to be ahead
of the curve on this.

02:33:45.874 --> 02:33:48.930
<v ->So just to make sure that
we have enough information,</v>

02:33:48.930 --> 02:33:50.770
because I think we might find

02:33:50.770 --> 02:33:52.650
that there's a lot of 1 in 10 out there,

02:33:52.650 --> 02:33:54.553
and I wanna kind of get away from that

02:33:54.553 --> 02:33:56.048
and think outside the box.

02:33:56.048 --> 02:33:56.881
So let's look at

02:33:57.730 --> 02:33:59.860
maybe a standard that's based on

02:33:59.860 --> 02:34:02.583
some kind of dispatchable
generation foundation,

02:34:03.720 --> 02:34:05.390
some kind of option there.

02:34:05.390 --> 02:34:06.550
<v Peter>How about this?</v>

02:34:06.550 --> 02:34:10.150
We need three options
for reliability standards

02:34:11.617 --> 02:34:13.670
from local examples or proposals.

02:34:13.670 --> 02:34:16.523
None of the three can be
1 in 10 or one in anything.

02:34:17.429 --> 02:34:19.400
Okay.
<v ->Something there.</v>

02:34:19.400 --> 02:34:20.358
<v ->Maybe?</v>

02:34:20.358 --> 02:34:21.580
<v ->That's gonna narrow the field.</v>

02:34:21.580 --> 02:34:23.657
<v ->Well, the seasonality.</v>
<v ->Well, yeah.</v>

02:34:23.657 --> 02:34:24.490
I mean, we know what that looks like.

02:34:24.490 --> 02:34:25.643
We don't need somebody to tell us

02:34:25.643 --> 02:34:26.693
what that looks like.

02:34:29.120 --> 02:34:29.953
All right.

02:34:32.814 --> 02:34:35.230
<v ->Okay, as we move
forward again, near-term</v>

02:34:36.391 --> 02:34:37.860
and this is such a broad concept.

02:34:37.860 --> 02:34:39.970
It has far reaching consequences

02:34:39.970 --> 02:34:42.783
if it grows out of the crib.

02:34:44.300 --> 02:34:47.470
What assurances from
the public utility Commission

02:34:47.470 --> 02:34:49.810
need to be made to help stabilize

02:34:49.810 --> 02:34:52.300
both retail and wholesale markets

02:34:52.300 --> 02:34:55.983
in the event of a LSE
obligation being imposed?

02:34:58.795 --> 02:35:00.490
<v Peter>What do you
mean by stabilized?</v>

02:35:00.490 --> 02:35:03.690
<v ->Again, if say</v>

02:35:03.690 --> 02:35:05.320
liquidity dries up?

02:35:05.320 --> 02:35:07.020
What do those independents,

02:35:07.020 --> 02:35:09.580
non-affiliated,
non-gentailers need to hear

02:35:11.560 --> 02:35:13.554
that assures them,

02:35:13.554 --> 02:35:14.410
that they have a place in this market

02:35:14.410 --> 02:35:15.660
under this new construct,

02:35:17.230 --> 02:35:20.010
a covenant between the state and that

02:35:21.406 --> 02:35:24.510
non-aligned, non-affiliated
segment of the market.

02:35:27.080 --> 02:35:28.966
<v ->Okay.</v>
<v ->Put it to bed.</v>

02:35:28.966 --> 02:35:30.241
<v ->What?</v>

02:35:30.241 --> 02:35:31.110
<v ->You can go
ahead if you want to.</v>

02:35:31.110 --> 02:35:33.290
<v ->Yeah, I have a couple thoughts</v>

02:35:33.290 --> 02:35:37.410
and one of them is on questions

02:35:37.410 --> 02:35:39.850
for the LSE obligation, that would be.

02:35:39.850 --> 02:35:42.980
So what is a rational
and realistic timeline

02:35:42.980 --> 02:35:46.040
for implementation at the PUC as well as

02:35:46.040 --> 02:35:48.780
every component of that at ERCOT?

02:35:52.810 --> 02:35:53.833
<v ->Yes,</v>

02:35:57.819 --> 02:36:00.004
can we save that for round two,

02:36:00.004 --> 02:36:02.127
until we get more
specifics on what we ...

02:36:02.127 --> 02:36:03.070
'cause it changes dramatically, right.

02:36:03.070 --> 02:36:04.610
<v ->I don't know, does it?</v>

02:36:04.610 --> 02:36:05.443
I guess it does.

02:36:06.900 --> 02:36:08.130
<v ->So, if we're gonna
have a centralized</v>

02:36:08.130 --> 02:36:11.273
clearing exchange
that needs to be built out

02:36:11.273 --> 02:36:14.004
where only these credits
can be traded through that,

02:36:14.004 --> 02:36:15.364
that's very different than saying

02:36:15.364 --> 02:36:16.197
churches are gonna do an audit mechanism

02:36:16.197 --> 02:36:17.253
on a bulletin board.

02:36:18.602 --> 02:36:19.565
<v ->That is very true.</v>

02:36:19.565 --> 02:36:20.519
<v ->Well, that's a good
point, so let's go for this.</v>

02:36:20.519 --> 02:36:22.783
So let me ask you this in dovetail

02:36:22.783 --> 02:36:24.133
to your idea, Commissioner.

02:36:25.497 --> 02:36:30.080
So in SPP, this came
up in prelude to a

02:36:30.080 --> 02:36:33.390
regional state committee meeting.

02:36:33.390 --> 02:36:35.680
SPP, does it, does this,

02:36:35.680 --> 02:36:38.950
they manage the centralized
clearing house in-house,

02:36:38.950 --> 02:36:40.090
it's incredibly complicated.

02:36:40.090 --> 02:36:42.573
Their staff takes no ...

02:36:43.465 --> 02:36:44.440
I mean, it makes no bones about it.

02:36:44.440 --> 02:36:47.520
And then they outsource different advice

02:36:47.520 --> 02:36:49.850
capabilities to a consultant, so

02:36:49.850 --> 02:36:52.400
is that appropriate on
this front end to ask,

02:36:52.400 --> 02:36:55.650
is this the state's job
to administer this thing?

02:36:55.650 --> 02:36:57.710
'Cause that's a big
question for me as a ...

02:36:57.710 --> 02:36:59.346
You tell me the answer.

02:36:59.346 --> 02:37:00.220
<v Peter>I mean, I'd put
that in the same bucket</v>

02:37:00.220 --> 02:37:02.171
like round two.
<v ->Round two.</v>

02:37:02.171 --> 02:37:03.750
<v ->Because if we decide we need</v>

02:37:03.750 --> 02:37:06.620
a centrally clear must offer in,

02:37:06.620 --> 02:37:08.897
you can only trade these credits

02:37:08.897 --> 02:37:10.350
in a place where everybody
gets the same chance to bid

02:37:10.350 --> 02:37:13.680
and everybody can see
the prices that are traded,

02:37:13.680 --> 02:37:15.470
that's a different implementation

02:37:16.585 --> 02:37:17.418
than a bulletin board audit system.

02:37:17.418 --> 02:37:18.810
<v ->Okay.</v>

02:37:18.810 --> 02:37:20.310
<v ->But if we get to that point,</v>

02:37:21.270 --> 02:37:24.080
depending on where we're
in, I'm 100% comfortable

02:37:24.080 --> 02:37:25.480
asking that question, but

02:37:26.320 --> 02:37:29.820
completely outsourcing
the development of that

02:37:33.157 --> 02:37:34.853
to the market industry.

02:37:35.925 --> 02:37:37.590
Yeah, I mean, there's a huge universe

02:37:37.590 --> 02:37:40.775
of companies that do
this and they do it all,

02:37:40.775 --> 02:37:42.993
if this was all they
do all day, every day,

02:37:42.993 --> 02:37:43.826
I'd be more than
happy to outsource that,

02:37:43.826 --> 02:37:45.593
management of that,
and ask that question,

02:37:46.490 --> 02:37:49.483
but yes, let's get
some scope on the ...

02:37:52.290 --> 02:37:54.620
Let's narrow what we're comfortable with

02:37:55.987 --> 02:37:57.640
before we try to get

02:37:57.640 --> 02:37:59.593
in the weeds on implementation,

02:38:00.839 --> 02:38:01.672
does that work, does that makes sense?

02:38:01.672 --> 02:38:02.505
<v ->Yes, it does.</v>

02:38:07.125 --> 02:38:08.900
<v ->I think it's really
important for us</v>

02:38:08.900 --> 02:38:11.300
to ask the question as you posed here,

02:38:11.300 --> 02:38:13.530
what's the appropriate
accreditation level

02:38:13.530 --> 02:38:14.380
for each resource?

02:38:14.380 --> 02:38:15.223
I think it's,

02:38:16.150 --> 02:38:18.770
what are the attributes of
them that we are gonna value?

02:38:18.770 --> 02:38:22.210
Whether it be on-site storage from gas,

02:38:22.210 --> 02:38:23.570
what is it?

02:38:23.570 --> 02:38:26.283
And how's it applied
equally across the board,

02:38:27.420 --> 02:38:28.680
I think is really ...

02:38:28.680 --> 02:38:30.680
<v ->When you say
equally, what are you ...</v>

02:38:31.800 --> 02:38:33.703
<v ->Well, I mean
equally in terms of,</v>

02:38:34.674 --> 02:38:37.190
if you put up a battery at one resource

02:38:37.190 --> 02:38:38.256
and a battery in another,

02:38:38.256 --> 02:38:41.880
if they are alike, they
get a like accreditation.

02:38:41.880 --> 02:38:42.920
<v ->Okay, sure, sure.</v>

02:38:42.920 --> 02:38:45.720
Universal application of
accreditation standards.

02:38:45.720 --> 02:38:46.656
<v ->Yeah, yeah, yeah.</v>
<v ->Okay.</v>

02:38:46.656 --> 02:38:48.514
<v ->I'm fearful</v>

02:38:48.514 --> 02:38:50.673
of who would do that.

02:38:52.040 --> 02:38:58.830
But, I'll save
that for next time.

02:38:58.830 --> 02:39:01.633
And the one thing that I
wanna bring up on the ...

02:39:02.720 --> 02:39:04.350
So, I really don't have anything else

02:39:04.350 --> 02:39:05.890
on the LSE obligation.

02:39:05.890 --> 02:39:07.980
I really think it's, for me,

02:39:07.980 --> 02:39:09.980
the greatest hurdle is what does it,

02:39:09.980 --> 02:39:12.190
does it decimate the retail market?

02:39:12.190 --> 02:39:13.697
How do we deal with that?

02:39:14.830 --> 02:39:17.627
All the other issues that
you all have brought up

02:39:17.627 --> 02:39:18.520
are secondary issues to me

02:39:18.520 --> 02:39:22.080
and I believe that we are on track for

02:39:22.080 --> 02:39:24.580
asking the right questions.
<v ->Okay, correct.</v>

02:39:24.580 --> 02:39:27.750
<v ->The other issue is,</v>

02:39:27.750 --> 02:39:30.923
what proposals are out there
if we decide to scrap this?

02:39:32.860 --> 02:39:35.980
My view on this is

02:39:38.890 --> 02:39:43.628
there are proposals out there that

02:39:43.628 --> 02:39:46.160
ensure that existing megawatts

02:39:46.160 --> 02:39:48.010
that are on the system don't go away.

02:39:49.681 --> 02:39:53.973
We're in a transition period.

02:39:53.973 --> 02:39:57.191
What I don't want is to incent a market

02:39:57.191 --> 02:39:59.320
and people to come to invest capital

02:40:00.174 --> 02:40:03.310
for a 20 year project or a 20 year asset

02:40:03.310 --> 02:40:04.970
that in five years goes away.

02:40:04.970 --> 02:40:07.470
We've been through the
stranded cost issue before.

02:40:09.610 --> 02:40:11.640
And there's no assurance

02:40:11.640 --> 02:40:13.640
that they would ever
get recovery on that,

02:40:13.640 --> 02:40:14.990
like they have in the past.

02:40:15.977 --> 02:40:18.220
But if there's a way
to incent existing units

02:40:18.220 --> 02:40:20.300
that are on the system,

02:40:20.300 --> 02:40:23.423
for a short period of
time, a transition time ...

02:40:25.485 --> 02:40:27.060
I hate to use this,

02:40:27.060 --> 02:40:31.250
but Cash For Clunkers was the name.

02:40:31.250 --> 02:40:32.930
At least in the old ...

02:40:32.930 --> 02:40:35.710
You'd turn in your old car
and you'd get cash for it,

02:40:35.710 --> 02:40:37.010
but keep it running,

02:40:37.010 --> 02:40:39.530
keep the things that are
running on the system

02:40:39.530 --> 02:40:41.530
before we have to build something new.

02:40:41.530 --> 02:40:43.150
Allow demand response to work,

02:40:43.150 --> 02:40:44.900
allow the batteries to work.

02:40:44.900 --> 02:40:47.720
So all I'm saying is,
if we're not looking at

02:40:50.050 --> 02:40:51.510
an LSE obligation,

02:40:51.510 --> 02:40:53.440
that might be something
that I would propose

02:40:53.440 --> 02:40:55.490
that we at least look
as an interim measure

02:40:55.490 --> 02:40:57.030
of megawatts on the system.

02:40:57.030 --> 02:40:58.516
<v ->Cash For Clunkers.</v>
<v ->Yes, sir.</v>

02:40:58.516 --> 02:40:59.923
<v ->Okay.</v>

02:41:01.880 --> 02:41:03.470
I'm highly confident

02:41:03.470 --> 02:41:05.848
I don't wanna do something like that.

02:41:05.848 --> 02:41:07.098
<v ->I understand.</v>

02:41:08.580 --> 02:41:09.550
<v ->And in the interim,</v>

02:41:09.550 --> 02:41:12.910
or if this is not what works, I think

02:41:14.190 --> 02:41:16.523
Lori, the question around what else.

02:41:18.750 --> 02:41:21.330
My question I already said
is fleet wide firm extend,

02:41:21.330 --> 02:41:23.360
I'd rather do that straight away.

02:41:23.360 --> 02:41:24.676
<v Will>At the end of the day,</v>

02:41:24.676 --> 02:41:25.509
don't we have Cash For Clunkers?

02:41:25.509 --> 02:41:27.650
It's called Reliability Must Run?

02:41:27.650 --> 02:41:29.487
You wanna retire your
clunker, and we're like,

02:41:29.487 --> 02:41:32.081
"We're gonna pay you a
rate of return to keep that

02:41:32.081 --> 02:41:32.914
thing running."
<v ->Yeah, in a sense,</v>

02:41:32.914 --> 02:41:34.575
we did run it.

02:41:34.575 --> 02:41:36.992
(they laugh)

02:41:40.105 --> 02:41:41.573
<v ->Okay, fair enough.</v>

02:41:41.573 --> 02:41:43.589
<v ->Anyway, that's my view.</v>

02:41:43.589 --> 02:41:44.970
<v ->All right.</v>

02:41:44.970 --> 02:41:46.550
<v Lori>Okay, so I have</v>

02:41:46.550 --> 02:41:48.420
a variety of things I wanna address.

02:41:48.420 --> 02:41:50.849
And one thing I wanna just go back to

02:41:50.849 --> 02:41:52.249
and just to level set again.

02:41:55.740 --> 02:41:57.300
We centrally procure right now,

02:41:57.300 --> 02:42:00.270
load resources through
the ODRS, let's not be

02:42:00.270 --> 02:42:01.424
too scared.
<v ->Centrally procured ...</v>

02:42:01.424 --> 02:42:02.827
<v ->Centrally procuring ...</v>
<v ->Non-spend and</v>

02:42:02.827 --> 02:42:04.710
<v ->Delivery.</v>
<v ->RRS, yeah.</v>

02:42:04.710 --> 02:42:07.230
<v ->Okay, so we do a lot of
central procurement already,</v>

02:42:07.230 --> 02:42:10.980
so let's not to be too, just overhead,

02:42:10.980 --> 02:42:12.770
fearful (laughs) of ...

02:42:12.770 --> 02:42:14.700
<v Peter>Sure, but I'm
confident if the legislature</v>

02:42:14.700 --> 02:42:18.281
wanted a capacity market,
they would have put that in SP3.

02:42:18.281 --> 02:42:20.450
<v ->Right, but this is a
competitive auction mechanism</v>

02:42:20.450 --> 02:42:23.230
that I'm looking for,
not a capacity market

02:42:23.230 --> 02:42:24.903
that's open to all resources.

02:42:26.810 --> 02:42:28.240
I shouldn't say looking for,

02:42:28.240 --> 02:42:29.530
but that's what the other ...

02:42:29.530 --> 02:42:30.930
They're very much different.

02:42:33.000 --> 02:42:33.833
So, okay.

02:42:33.833 --> 02:42:35.620
So, let me just get away
from those concepts right now,

02:42:35.620 --> 02:42:37.713
so that we can get to these questions.

02:42:38.560 --> 02:42:40.490
Okay, so with respect,

02:42:40.490 --> 02:42:42.120
I'm with Commissioner Glotfelty,

02:42:42.120 --> 02:42:47.090
the two primary issues
that are, out of many,

02:42:47.090 --> 02:42:49.190
that we need to focus
on, at least preliminarily

02:42:49.190 --> 02:42:50.940
is the impact of the retail market.

02:42:52.475 --> 02:42:53.750
And, as a subset to that,

02:42:53.750 --> 02:42:56.260
what is the impact to customer choice

02:42:56.260 --> 02:42:58.703
as we have customers
switching, migration,

02:43:02.037 --> 02:43:04.007
and how would we monitor

02:43:04.007 --> 02:43:07.260
market power in a bilateral market?

02:43:07.260 --> 02:43:09.320
What mechanisms can we put in place

02:43:09.320 --> 02:43:11.700
to ensure that the ERCOT IMM

02:43:13.380 --> 02:43:15.720
can do her job, okay,

02:43:15.720 --> 02:43:18.170
monitor market power in
a bilateral market, okay.

02:43:21.180 --> 02:43:23.903
Then I would look at ...

02:43:26.200 --> 02:43:28.290
I know we need to wait
on the implementation

02:43:28.290 --> 02:43:31.143
and scope a little bit more
of the main elements of it.

02:43:35.130 --> 02:43:36.550
How will the proposal

02:43:37.420 --> 02:43:42.183
address realtime market
operational reliability issues?

02:43:43.410 --> 02:43:45.860
That's the other issue I
really wanna understand.

02:43:47.026 --> 02:43:49.710
<v Peter>How does it
impact it or enhance it?</v>

02:43:49.710 --> 02:43:51.240
<v ->How would it
address, I'm sorry.</v>

02:43:51.240 --> 02:43:54.940
How would it address realtime market

02:43:54.940 --> 02:43:57.540
operational reliability issues?

02:43:57.540 --> 02:43:59.260
I really want that
answer because I think

02:43:59.260 --> 02:44:00.610
that's what we've been dealing with,

02:44:00.610 --> 02:44:02.090
that's what we continue to deal with.

02:44:02.090 --> 02:44:05.290
And I'm wondering how it
all works in the construct,

02:44:05.290 --> 02:44:07.670
fair game?
<v ->Sure.</v>

02:44:07.670 --> 02:44:10.425
I've got a pretty good idea

02:44:10.425 --> 02:44:11.760
what the stakeholder response would be.

02:44:11.760 --> 02:44:12.760
We've got two stakeholders
that say it's great,

02:44:12.760 --> 02:44:15.042
and the rest of 'em
are saying it's horrible

02:44:15.042 --> 02:44:16.180
because it's not their idea.

02:44:16.180 --> 02:44:17.503
My short answer would be,

02:44:20.517 --> 02:44:24.597
ECRS addresses realtime and whatever ...

02:44:25.460 --> 02:44:27.120
AS, expanded AS, expanded RS,

02:44:27.120 --> 02:44:30.940
that addresses realtime
operational concerns.

02:44:30.940 --> 02:44:33.423
And that's why you pair 'em together.

02:44:34.330 --> 02:44:36.430
This provides

02:44:37.450 --> 02:44:41.220
accountability and honest accountability

02:44:41.220 --> 02:44:42.870
of resource reliability standards

02:44:43.750 --> 02:44:47.049
by type and provides forward

02:44:47.049 --> 02:44:51.980
investment price formation signals for

02:44:51.980 --> 02:44:54.570
people to make those
billion dollar decisions

02:44:55.520 --> 02:44:56.720
to build new generation.

02:44:57.911 --> 02:44:59.561
<v ->And Sam would say, he knew all,</v>

02:45:00.600 --> 02:45:02.600
watching from Massachusetts or wherever,

02:45:03.843 --> 02:45:04.820
but he would say we're trying to solve

02:45:04.820 --> 02:45:06.093
for two issues, right?

02:45:07.871 --> 02:45:08.704
And I can't remember the order,

02:45:08.704 --> 02:45:11.043
but one was solving for
duck, that curve again,

02:45:12.191 --> 02:45:15.040
that variability within the new
resource mix that will come.

02:45:15.040 --> 02:45:16.190
And that's the realtime

02:45:17.330 --> 02:45:19.170
performance basis and operational

02:45:21.830 --> 02:45:23.223
incentive system.

02:45:24.361 --> 02:45:27.510
And then we are
attempting with this proposal

02:45:27.510 --> 02:45:29.990
to solve for the other problem,

02:45:29.990 --> 02:45:32.900
which is the long-term on aggregate

02:45:34.617 --> 02:45:38.659
dispatchability capabilities
of the grid in general,

02:45:38.659 --> 02:45:39.492
not on a performance basis,

02:45:39.492 --> 02:45:42.830
not on a specific technical
performance basis,

02:45:42.830 --> 02:45:43.920
but on a dispatch-

02:45:43.920 --> 02:45:45.360
<v Peter>Resources, have
long-term resources.</v>

02:45:45.360 --> 02:45:46.270
<v ->Yeah, great resources.</v>

02:45:46.270 --> 02:45:47.817
<v Peter>And I'll say,</v>

02:45:47.817 --> 02:45:50.308
the second helps the first.

02:45:50.308 --> 02:45:52.413
<v ->Yes, theoretically.</v>
<v ->Yeah.</v>

02:45:53.457 --> 02:45:54.618
<v ->So let me ask you this,</v>

02:45:54.618 --> 02:45:56.853
if in fact it would incent,

02:45:58.148 --> 02:45:59.210
and maybe we turn this into a question

02:45:59.210 --> 02:46:04.118
and I'm gonna try and
figure out how to do this,

02:46:04.118 --> 02:46:05.260
because what I'm wondering is,

02:46:05.260 --> 02:46:06.853
if we have this LSE obligation,

02:46:08.037 --> 02:46:09.620
and we have more dispatchable
generation ultimately,

02:46:09.620 --> 02:46:11.103
or some incremental increase,

02:46:12.100 --> 02:46:13.910
how does that LSE obligation account

02:46:13.910 --> 02:46:16.090
for the increased
amount of forced outages

02:46:16.090 --> 02:46:18.163
that we've seen in the summer?

02:46:19.580 --> 02:46:21.880
We've had a little
bit of that go on too,

02:46:21.880 --> 02:46:24.300
so I'd want to forget
about the fact that

02:46:24.300 --> 02:46:26.940
we need to add it, and that through ORDC

02:46:26.940 --> 02:46:29.180
will add money to
the market to hopefully

02:46:29.180 --> 02:46:30.640
pay for maintenance and

02:46:31.845 --> 02:46:34.010
upgrade some of
these existing facilities

02:46:34.010 --> 02:46:35.630
and take care of that.

02:46:35.630 --> 02:46:37.588
<v Peter>Just looking, so first,</v>

02:46:37.588 --> 02:46:38.421
just because you provide money

02:46:38.421 --> 02:46:39.660
doesn't mean it goes to maintenance.

02:46:40.520 --> 02:46:41.550
It could go to the shareholders,

02:46:41.550 --> 02:46:42.800
it could go to dividends ...

02:46:42.800 --> 02:46:44.747
<v ->Well, that's where
the penalties come in.</v>

02:46:44.747 --> 02:46:45.612
<v ->Right.</v>

02:46:45.612 --> 02:46:46.814
<v ->Well, I mean, I've
already seen that.</v>

02:46:46.814 --> 02:46:48.590
You're just dumping
money on performing assets,

02:46:48.590 --> 02:46:50.550
we don't have any control
over where that money goes.

02:46:50.550 --> 02:46:52.100
<v ->That's right.</v>

02:46:52.100 --> 02:46:53.988
<v ->So, let me just backup.</v>

02:46:53.988 --> 02:46:56.030
I think just asking that question

02:46:56.030 --> 02:46:58.520
will cover all of those sub-issues like

02:46:58.520 --> 02:47:01.377
these specific operational
scenarios and also ...

02:47:01.377 --> 02:47:03.197
<v ->Okay, so what's the question?</v>

02:47:03.197 --> 02:47:07.210
<v ->So, how will the LSE obligation</v>

02:47:08.290 --> 02:47:10.900
address or maybe not address,

02:47:10.900 --> 02:47:12.940
but how will the LSC obligation

02:47:14.410 --> 02:47:17.550
assist ERCOT with realtime market

02:47:17.550 --> 02:47:20.800
operational reliability
issues, including

02:47:24.070 --> 02:47:25.890
winter cold weather,
which I have an answer.

02:47:25.890 --> 02:47:28.240
I mean, we know we
don't have an accreditation.

02:47:30.632 --> 02:47:32.780
Time periods where we have
higher than expected demand,

02:47:32.780 --> 02:47:35.660
lower than expected
generation output of all types.

02:47:35.660 --> 02:47:36.493
And,

02:47:39.060 --> 02:47:40.880
for times when we have,

02:47:40.880 --> 02:47:43.200
which I guess gets baked in there,

02:47:43.200 --> 02:47:46.500
times of higher than
expected for status.

02:47:46.500 --> 02:47:48.839
<v ->Well, is that covered
under my question?</v>

02:47:48.839 --> 02:47:49.672
<v ->Yes.</v>

02:47:49.672 --> 02:47:51.244
<v ->What mechanism
will ensure those</v>

02:47:51.244 --> 02:47:52.400
receiving revenue streams,

02:47:52.400 --> 02:47:55.717
where the reliability services
perform inadequately-

02:47:55.717 --> 02:47:57.364
<v ->Penalties, yeah.</v>
<v ->Penalties.</v>

02:47:57.364 --> 02:47:58.620
<v ->We even have those questions.</v>

02:47:58.620 --> 02:48:00.390
<v ->Yeah, I really
want my question.</v>

02:48:00.390 --> 02:48:01.815
<v ->Sure.</v>
<v ->Okay.</v>

02:48:01.815 --> 02:48:02.860
<v ->Have you got it? Okay.</v>

02:48:02.860 --> 02:48:04.263
<v ->The other one is,</v>

02:48:05.820 --> 02:48:08.963
how will the LSE obligation
incent demand response?

02:48:10.840 --> 02:48:13.400
Will it result in ultimately

02:48:13.400 --> 02:48:15.083
disbanding the ERS program?

02:48:16.330 --> 02:48:18.630
I mean, how does it
impact of the ERS program?

02:48:20.414 --> 02:48:21.885
<v ->I don't know.</v>
<v ->Do we continue having-</v>

02:48:21.885 --> 02:48:23.220
<v ->I don't know that
there's any relation.</v>

02:48:23.220 --> 02:48:26.623
I would not, under my
proposal, I would not ...

02:48:27.938 --> 02:48:30.820
I don't know that the
other two would interact.

02:48:30.820 --> 02:48:32.750
I don't know why you
would ever not wanna have

02:48:32.750 --> 02:48:33.583
any ERS programs.

02:48:33.583 --> 02:48:34.416
<v ->Well, I'm just wondering,</v>

02:48:34.416 --> 02:48:35.249
because if you're moving

02:48:35.249 --> 02:48:36.780
all the resources to get accredited,

02:48:38.488 --> 02:48:41.970
are we still gonna have the
broad suite of AS services?

02:48:41.970 --> 02:48:44.100
Because presumably, this LSE obligation

02:48:44.100 --> 02:48:46.319
would provide us with an intermittent,

02:48:46.319 --> 02:48:48.729
a significant amount
of reliability where

02:48:48.729 --> 02:48:51.152
we wouldn't need as
many ancillary services.

02:48:51.152 --> 02:48:53.107
<v ->So no, at no point
would I propose</v>

02:48:53.107 --> 02:48:57.170
getting rid of ERS or
the existing AS suite

02:48:57.170 --> 02:49:00.090
as currently constructed and anticipated

02:49:00.090 --> 02:49:02.410
with the fast frequency and ECRS.

02:49:02.410 --> 02:49:05.726
<v ->Okay, so then let's stay
with the broader question,</v>

02:49:05.726 --> 02:49:07.704
the demand response.
<v ->Okay.</v>

02:49:07.704 --> 02:49:08.871
<v ->And then ...</v>

02:49:10.726 --> 02:49:11.812
<v ->What was the question?</v>

02:49:11.812 --> 02:49:15.620
<v ->How would demand response</v>

02:49:16.910 --> 02:49:19.504
participate in LSE obligation?

02:49:19.504 --> 02:49:21.987
And I guess that ... &lt;v
-&gt;Does the question,</v>

02:49:21.987 --> 02:49:24.160
how do we ensure
demand response resources

02:49:24.160 --> 02:49:26.390
can participate fully
and at all points in time,

02:49:26.390 --> 02:49:27.440
address that concern?

02:49:29.290 --> 02:49:30.630
<v ->Sure, that's okay.</v>

02:49:33.810 --> 02:49:35.140
Let's see, so

02:49:35.140 --> 02:49:38.040
the other burning
question I have is about

02:49:39.420 --> 02:49:44.940
the industrial consumers
and how would that impact

02:49:47.920 --> 02:49:49.293
their ability to ...

02:49:50.520 --> 02:49:52.970
So, what happens with respect to

02:49:54.376 --> 02:49:55.680
business site?

02:49:55.680 --> 02:49:57.490
What is the economic
development impact on this?

02:49:57.490 --> 02:50:00.544
Because I think that we
have a lot of industrial,

02:50:00.544 --> 02:50:02.459
large commercial consumers coming in

02:50:02.459 --> 02:50:04.400
and they may have to be ...

02:50:04.400 --> 02:50:06.840
They're part of this
entire LSE obligation,

02:50:06.840 --> 02:50:09.610
so I really wanna
understand what impact it has

02:50:10.888 --> 02:50:14.453
on the large commercial
industrial consumers.

02:50:16.660 --> 02:50:19.302
They're gonna have to plan
to have X amount of power.

02:50:19.302 --> 02:50:22.180
<v ->In terms of their
requirement to participate</v>

02:50:22.180 --> 02:50:24.800
or their ability to participate
in demand response

02:50:24.800 --> 02:50:25.633
or both?

02:50:26.670 --> 02:50:28.320
<v ->Their requirement (indistinct).</v>

02:50:30.063 --> 02:50:31.490
<v Peter>Any transmission mode,</v>

02:50:31.490 --> 02:50:32.630
that it would apply to everybody.

02:50:32.630 --> 02:50:36.650
Any option two transmission level LSE

02:50:36.650 --> 02:50:39.881
would be required to have the same ...

02:50:39.881 --> 02:50:40.740
<v ->Firm equivalent.</v>
<v ->Yeah.</v>

02:50:40.740 --> 02:50:42.190
<v ->Okay, so what is the impact</v>

02:50:44.203 --> 02:50:45.443
on those businesses,

02:50:46.980 --> 02:50:48.330
from a society perspective.

02:50:49.303 --> 02:50:50.490
<v ->I guess it's</v>

02:50:52.070 --> 02:50:55.600
business specific
and would probably be

02:50:56.890 --> 02:50:59.810
any negative impact of actually
having to hedge their book

02:51:01.170 --> 02:51:04.600
or their demand, which
most of them promise

02:51:04.600 --> 02:51:07.040
and pinkie swear they do it anyway.

02:51:07.040 --> 02:51:10.746
Any negative impact of
increased administrative cost

02:51:10.746 --> 02:51:15.800
or perceived burden
would be offset by

02:51:17.498 --> 02:51:19.920
the dramatic increase of reliability

02:51:21.000 --> 02:51:23.500
by knowing that we're incentivizing

02:51:23.500 --> 02:51:25.500
and getting real price formation on

02:51:28.140 --> 02:51:29.543
dispatchable generation.

02:51:29.543 --> 02:51:30.913
<v ->Okay, well can we ask them?</v>

02:51:30.913 --> 02:51:32.412
<v ->Sure.</v>
<v ->Okay.</v>

02:51:32.412 --> 02:51:33.499
<v ->I'm sure they'll be available.</v>

02:51:33.499 --> 02:51:34.873
<v ->I just wanna make
sure we're looking at it</v>

02:51:34.873 --> 02:51:37.211
in a 360 perspective of all the impacts.

02:51:37.211 --> 02:51:39.725
Obviously the goal
would be to have it in place

02:51:39.725 --> 02:51:41.680
when you do reliability,

02:51:41.680 --> 02:51:42.970
but I wanna make
sure we're looking at it

02:51:42.970 --> 02:51:44.820
holistically on all
the different impacts,

02:51:44.820 --> 02:51:46.470
not just on the retail market and

02:51:48.700 --> 02:51:51.740
market abuse, those
are very critical, important,

02:51:51.740 --> 02:51:52.860
critically important issues,

02:51:52.860 --> 02:51:55.495
but we gotta look at
them very holistically

02:51:55.495 --> 02:51:57.920
because of the pronounced
impact it would have

02:51:57.920 --> 02:51:59.837
on the existing market.

02:52:00.809 --> 02:52:02.248
<v ->Okay, agreed.</v>
<v ->For my opinion,</v>

02:52:02.248 --> 02:52:03.397
okay.
<v ->All right.</v>

02:52:03.397 --> 02:52:06.701
<v ->I think those are all my
questions or statements that ...</v>

02:52:06.701 --> 02:52:08.220
<v ->Do the staff have all
the clarification they need</v>

02:52:08.220 --> 02:52:11.770
on questions that have been
submitted on this topic so far?

02:52:11.770 --> 02:52:13.513
Okay, all right.

02:52:17.760 --> 02:52:20.270
Let me offer some quick thoughts

02:52:21.620 --> 02:52:24.370
if, for nothing else, to just
provide some clarification

02:52:24.370 --> 02:52:26.483
for you all and our stakeholders.

02:52:31.220 --> 02:52:34.720
Everyone has highlighted

02:52:34.720 --> 02:52:36.330
the concern to retail market

02:52:38.460 --> 02:52:40.470
and demand response.

02:52:40.470 --> 02:52:42.060
That's why those were
the first three questions

02:52:42.060 --> 02:52:43.580
on our list, and

02:52:45.756 --> 02:52:47.810
I'm gonna be absolutely clear that

02:52:47.810 --> 02:52:50.600
if I do not get satisfactory answers

02:52:50.600 --> 02:52:54.220
to those three questions,
this thing's dead on arrival.

02:52:54.220 --> 02:52:55.630
Like I said, at the beginning,

02:52:55.630 --> 02:52:57.930
I'd rather not implement
this than do it wrong

02:52:59.226 --> 02:53:00.490
and cause more harm than good.

02:53:00.490 --> 02:53:02.690
Full-stop, not even to think about it,

02:53:02.690 --> 02:53:05.495
if we don't get
satisfaction for the answers

02:53:05.495 --> 02:53:07.793
to those three questions,
out of the gates.

02:53:09.460 --> 02:53:11.288
The small fish problem,

02:53:11.288 --> 02:53:13.880
we've heard a lot about
independent retailers,

02:53:13.880 --> 02:53:16.790
a lot of concern about
being able to forecast load

02:53:16.790 --> 02:53:19.060
and what they're, I think
at the most simple level,

02:53:19.060 --> 02:53:20.610
just say, like I said,

02:53:20.610 --> 02:53:22.850
nominate a load share
ratio from the CDR,

02:53:22.850 --> 02:53:24.050
which needs improvement.

02:53:25.792 --> 02:53:27.142
<v ->On that, Mr. Chairman, so</v>

02:53:28.190 --> 02:53:29.880
your list was comprehensive

02:53:31.400 --> 02:53:32.233
and

02:53:34.170 --> 02:53:36.440
okay, so load forecasting,

02:53:36.440 --> 02:53:39.223
we have all shared
comments, I've filed memos.

02:53:40.398 --> 02:53:42.045
CDR and SARA needs to be reworked.

02:53:42.045 --> 02:53:43.490
<v Peter>You use the same
accreditation standard</v>

02:53:43.490 --> 02:53:45.240
that you use in this, for those.

02:53:45.240 --> 02:53:46.540
<v ->Okay.</v>
<v ->So they match up.</v>

02:53:46.540 --> 02:53:48.210
<v ->So the question is,</v>

02:53:48.210 --> 02:53:51.340
is that a component of everything
we're talking about doing,

02:53:51.340 --> 02:53:54.080
in terms of a more
specific drill down CDR,

02:53:54.080 --> 02:53:55.540
again, on a seasonal basis

02:53:55.540 --> 02:53:56.700
rather than the twice year standard.

02:53:56.700 --> 02:53:58.500
<v ->Yeah, absolutely.</v>
<v ->Okay,</v>

02:53:58.500 --> 02:54:00.180
so we are gonna open up that.

02:54:00.180 --> 02:54:01.370
<v Peter>Yeah, in parallel.</v>

02:54:01.370 --> 02:54:02.203
I mean, I think

02:54:04.956 --> 02:54:06.780
that's not market in and of itself.

02:54:06.780 --> 02:54:09.140
I'd say that yes, very, very deliberate

02:54:09.140 --> 02:54:11.570
in my thinking that the
accreditation standard,

02:54:11.570 --> 02:54:14.740
whatever it's five credits
or 10 credits for wind

02:54:14.740 --> 02:54:16.400
and 60 credits for solar or whatever,

02:54:16.400 --> 02:54:18.410
whatever you use in this
accreditation standard,

02:54:18.410 --> 02:54:20.677
you use for the new and improved CDR.

02:54:22.810 --> 02:54:24.820
And so

02:54:24.820 --> 02:54:26.942
the simplest version is
saying, load share ratio

02:54:26.942 --> 02:54:30.470
of what we think your load's
gonna be in three years,

02:54:30.470 --> 02:54:31.313
by example.

02:54:32.835 --> 02:54:35.820
Not gonna count on individual businesses

02:54:35.820 --> 02:54:37.063
for whatever they think.

02:54:39.200 --> 02:54:41.000
They usually have load forecast

02:54:41.000 --> 02:54:43.100
and customer forecast
for their investors,

02:54:44.302 --> 02:54:45.910
more than a year out.

02:54:45.910 --> 02:54:48.470
So, somebody's making a
prediction in that business,

02:54:48.470 --> 02:54:50.623
how many customers they
think they're gonna have.

02:54:52.100 --> 02:54:52.940
And

02:54:55.039 --> 02:54:55.872
I wouldn't ask,

02:54:57.472 --> 02:54:58.305
I think I put it in here.

02:54:58.305 --> 02:55:00.010
The escalating obligation, right?

02:55:00.010 --> 02:55:02.080
Three years out, it's incented to

02:55:02.080 --> 02:55:05.160
ask for 100% procurement,
but some small amount,

02:55:05.160 --> 02:55:10.160
some 50%, 30%, 60, something out there.

02:55:10.280 --> 02:55:13.951
So you're not required
to have a perfect visibility

02:55:13.951 --> 02:55:17.630
or perfect answer on
what your load's gonna be

02:55:17.630 --> 02:55:18.463
down the road.

02:55:18.463 --> 02:55:21.100
And as you can see,
from what I laid out,

02:55:21.100 --> 02:55:24.660
that obligation would
narrow in on 100% percent

02:55:24.660 --> 02:55:27.040
as you got closer to the operating day.

02:55:27.040 --> 02:55:30.283
And even within the month,

02:55:31.440 --> 02:55:33.160
that's where the realtime
and the day ahead market

02:55:33.160 --> 02:55:34.520
still perform a valuable function,

02:55:34.520 --> 02:55:35.560
because even a month ahead,

02:55:35.560 --> 02:55:38.733
you're not gonna be 100%
accurate on your load forecast.

02:55:39.730 --> 02:55:44.730
We just need people
procuring the product

02:55:44.860 --> 02:55:47.890
they assured their customers
they were gonna deliver

02:55:47.890 --> 02:55:49.690
when they took the customer's money.

02:55:51.960 --> 02:55:53.153
Barriers to entry.

02:55:54.680 --> 02:55:57.212
Definitely don't want 'em too high,

02:55:57.212 --> 02:55:58.593
but we also don't want 'em too low.

02:55:59.807 --> 02:56:01.610
And I think there is some merit

02:56:05.183 --> 02:56:06.880
to having a kind of,
if you could call it,

02:56:06.880 --> 02:56:08.933
if you will, market-based credit check.

02:56:09.930 --> 02:56:13.900
If you can't get some sort of financing

02:56:13.900 --> 02:56:16.320
or convince investors
that your game plan

02:56:18.630 --> 02:56:20.550
is worthy, then I'm not sure

02:56:20.550 --> 02:56:24.053
we want that credit
risk in our marketplace.

02:56:24.053 --> 02:56:27.370
And if any business model has

02:56:28.672 --> 02:56:31.293
a 50% drop in customers
anticipated three years out,

02:56:34.705 --> 02:56:36.100
that's no business proposal

02:56:36.100 --> 02:56:38.748
that anybody actually
stands behind, right?

02:56:38.748 --> 02:56:40.640
So, we don't want barriers
to entry that are too high,

02:56:40.640 --> 02:56:42.733
but I'm okay having some.

02:56:45.670 --> 02:56:49.440
Penalties, absolutely key part of it,

02:56:49.440 --> 02:56:52.300
lack of procuring, whatever
mechanism of credits

02:56:52.300 --> 02:56:56.360
or whatever mechanism when
deciding lack of procuring those

02:56:56.360 --> 02:56:57.760
would be on the LSE side;

02:56:57.760 --> 02:56:59.270
lack of performance on

02:56:59.270 --> 02:57:01.623
whatever generating
assets sold those credits.

02:57:02.860 --> 02:57:07.210
And if that asset doesn't
perform on the operating day,

02:57:07.210 --> 02:57:09.060
penalty goes to the generating asset.

02:57:10.150 --> 02:57:12.660
Substantial in both cases,

02:57:12.660 --> 02:57:14.223
but a lot to flesh out there.

02:57:15.963 --> 02:57:17.613
The accreditation,

02:57:19.590 --> 02:57:21.490
that's a key part of this whole thing.

02:57:24.090 --> 02:57:25.610
I'd say the most important part about it

02:57:25.610 --> 02:57:29.390
is being honest about
the reliability of our assets.

02:57:29.390 --> 02:57:32.130
We had a 100X increase
in prices for customers

02:57:32.130 --> 02:57:35.287
yesterday and today,
in the day ahead market,

02:57:35.287 --> 02:57:39.720
because on average
diversified wind portfolio

02:57:39.720 --> 02:57:41.810
across a mammoth state like Texas

02:57:41.810 --> 02:57:45.640
is expected to produce between
10 and 12,000 megawatts

02:57:45.640 --> 02:57:49.293
over peak and yesterday we got 1,500.

02:57:50.730 --> 02:57:52.560
We've gotta be honest about

02:57:52.560 --> 02:57:54.800
these assets not being
reliable and we've gotta

02:57:54.800 --> 02:57:56.450
hold the marketplace accountable.

02:57:57.640 --> 02:57:59.687
In terms of implementation,

02:57:59.687 --> 02:58:03.307
we've tabled a request
for the details on that.

02:58:03.307 --> 02:58:04.880
And so we narrow the focus

02:58:06.520 --> 02:58:09.050
what we really are comfortable with,

02:58:09.050 --> 02:58:11.430
or what we're interested
in learning more about.

02:58:11.430 --> 02:58:13.890
I would say that there's
certainly some merit

02:58:13.890 --> 02:58:16.840
in a phased-in process with price caps.

02:58:16.840 --> 02:58:21.550
We know, or waive
penalties in the early stages.

02:58:21.550 --> 02:58:24.350
We know we don't have
enough dispatchable power

02:58:24.350 --> 02:58:27.220
in Texas, if there's
a liquidity problem,

02:58:27.220 --> 02:58:28.170
to your point Will,

02:58:29.590 --> 02:58:31.940
that could really, really be dangerous

02:58:31.940 --> 02:58:34.940
in terms of prices
spiraling out of control.

02:58:34.940 --> 02:58:36.620
So you could certainly
do some price caps

02:58:36.620 --> 02:58:39.290
in the first few years to ensure that

02:58:39.290 --> 02:58:42.380
there's definitely revenue
there for those generators,

02:58:42.380 --> 02:58:45.650
but it's not exposing LSEs to some

02:58:47.580 --> 02:58:49.683
just unmitigated price spikes.

02:58:51.380 --> 02:58:52.770
And finally, I'll say

02:58:54.947 --> 02:58:56.750
the retirements is a concern.

02:58:56.750 --> 02:58:59.280
This, I think I already see

02:58:59.280 --> 02:59:01.150
should help that if we
make those changes,

02:59:01.150 --> 02:59:02.200
that should help keep

02:59:04.170 --> 02:59:06.220
interviews for life
assets in the market.

02:59:07.303 --> 02:59:09.590
And if we do find an acceptable version

02:59:09.590 --> 02:59:11.053
of an LSE obligation,

02:59:12.025 --> 02:59:14.290
that would definitely keep dispatchable,

02:59:14.290 --> 02:59:16.490
that's a huge incentive
for dispatchable resources

02:59:16.490 --> 02:59:17.910
to stay in the market,

02:59:17.910 --> 02:59:19.800
if they're being rewarded for the

02:59:22.691 --> 02:59:25.883
reliability they bring
to the marketplace.

02:59:26.920 --> 02:59:28.373
Timeline TBD.

02:59:30.160 --> 02:59:31.970
So, just wanted to lay that out

02:59:33.320 --> 02:59:34.930
to address some of the
concerns around the table,

02:59:34.930 --> 02:59:37.600
but also, and I'm, by no
way saying that solves them,

02:59:37.600 --> 02:59:40.300
but also to make sure our
stakeholders have a sense of

02:59:43.060 --> 02:59:44.160
the framing I'm thinking about.

02:59:44.160 --> 02:59:46.580
Again, this would only be 100% of

02:59:50.920 --> 02:59:55.920
expected load, not a reserve
margin or a capacity factor.

02:59:56.420 --> 02:59:59.220
That's why we have AS,
that's why we have ERS;

02:59:59.220 --> 03:00:00.620
that's our margin of safety.

03:00:07.202 --> 03:00:08.400
Outside of the concerns,

03:00:08.400 --> 03:00:10.400
the very valid concerns of market power,

03:00:11.239 --> 03:00:12.420
market manipulation and demand response,

03:00:12.420 --> 03:00:16.203
which we've addressed thoroughly,

03:00:17.210 --> 03:00:22.210
I'm curious to know, other
than the accounting mechanism

03:00:22.240 --> 03:00:26.010
and the administrative transaction,

03:00:26.010 --> 03:00:29.397
how this is different
for a fully hedged LSE.

03:00:31.290 --> 03:00:33.080
We're not asking them
to buy any more power

03:00:33.080 --> 03:00:35.843
than they expect to use at 100%.

03:00:38.765 --> 03:00:40.826
<v ->I guess the question is ...</v>
<v ->There's a penalty on this.</v>

03:00:40.826 --> 03:00:42.311
<v Will>Are they
actually fully hedged,</v>

03:00:42.311 --> 03:00:43.360
what's the definition of fully hedged?

03:00:43.360 --> 03:00:45.470
<v ->100% of your
expected load, right.</v>

03:00:45.470 --> 03:00:47.088
<v Will>I know.</v>

03:00:47.088 --> 03:00:48.930
<v ->But are they?</v>

03:00:48.930 --> 03:00:51.153
Is a very good question.
<v ->Yeah.</v>

03:00:53.482 --> 03:00:56.132
The world is about
definitions: net carbon footprint,

03:00:59.053 --> 03:01:00.040
it's all about that.
<v ->What we heard on our ...</v>

03:01:00.040 --> 03:01:02.690
We had a very liberated
intermittent panel

03:01:02.690 --> 03:01:04.854
to talk about intermittent resources

03:01:04.854 --> 03:01:06.533
and every one of them
had gas behind the meter.

03:01:08.618 --> 03:01:10.118
It was offset, but it's still,

03:01:11.010 --> 03:01:12.640
it's still producing.

03:01:12.640 --> 03:01:14.590
So, I'll leave it there.

03:01:14.590 --> 03:01:15.920
Any other questions

03:01:15.920 --> 03:01:19.283
or we wanna put it on a
list or closing comments?

03:01:21.150 --> 03:01:24.065
<v ->Other than, so I think I
got an answer from you</v>

03:01:24.065 --> 03:01:24.898
on load forecasting.

03:01:24.898 --> 03:01:26.889
We're still gonna have to look at that

03:01:26.889 --> 03:01:29.049
as a part 25505 long-term

03:01:29.049 --> 03:01:30.949
because it has to be reopened and thus

03:01:32.020 --> 03:01:33.370
we can address that.

03:01:33.370 --> 03:01:36.320
Okay, transmission
prioritization for dispatchability,

03:01:36.320 --> 03:01:39.927
you want that, is that part
of this, or how do you ...

03:01:39.927 --> 03:01:41.614
<v ->I think that's a
separate action.</v>

03:01:41.614 --> 03:01:43.590
You've taken a great lead on that

03:01:43.590 --> 03:01:45.642
and continue to follow up on it.

03:01:45.642 --> 03:01:47.971
<v ->Okay, I just wanna make
sure it didn't fall off the plate.</v>

03:01:47.971 --> 03:01:50.220
<v ->No, no, no, I mean, I
don't think of it as a ...</v>

03:01:50.220 --> 03:01:52.016
<v ->Market design.</v>
<v ->Piece of the market.</v>

03:01:52.016 --> 03:01:52.849
<v ->I got it, okay.</v>

03:01:52.849 --> 03:01:54.700
<v ->And I'd also,
another element of that</v>

03:01:54.700 --> 03:01:56.416
is transmission planning.

03:01:56.416 --> 03:01:58.173
I don't think it's a piece of
the mechanics in the market,

03:01:59.191 --> 03:02:00.024
but improve as we ...

03:02:00.024 --> 03:02:01.480
We sat up here and heard all the reasons

03:02:01.480 --> 03:02:02.600
why we can't ...
<v ->Right.</v>

03:02:02.600 --> 03:02:05.625
<v ->Build new transmission, import.</v>

03:02:05.625 --> 03:02:08.060
(Lori responds indistinctly)

03:02:08.060 --> 03:02:10.130
<v ->We can't build new
transmission because it's</v>

03:02:10.130 --> 03:02:12.281
unreliable right now,

03:02:12.281 --> 03:02:13.114
but we need to make it more reliable,

03:02:13.114 --> 03:02:14.758
so we've got to build more transmission,

03:02:14.758 --> 03:02:16.221
but we can't build more transmission.

03:02:16.221 --> 03:02:17.054
<v ->Okay.</v>

03:02:17.054 --> 03:02:18.103
<v ->So I think that that process,</v>

03:02:20.171 --> 03:02:24.247
from tip to tail needs to
be redesigned at ERCOT.

03:02:24.247 --> 03:02:25.080
<v ->And then unless,</v>

03:02:25.080 --> 03:02:26.420
and maybe we're thinking the same thing.

03:02:26.420 --> 03:02:29.720
I was just gonna ask on the

03:02:29.720 --> 03:02:31.930
prioritization of work and then phases

03:02:31.930 --> 03:02:34.385
but if you're not ready
to cross that bridge now,

03:02:34.385 --> 03:02:35.218
and we'll talk about that in a minute,

03:02:35.218 --> 03:02:36.703
I'll leave that, okay.

03:02:37.703 --> 03:02:38.536
<v ->I think that</v>

03:02:38.536 --> 03:02:40.550
everything that you've
gone through with your list,

03:02:40.550 --> 03:02:43.053
I think that's the end
of our want to design.

03:02:44.042 --> 03:02:45.300
I had come up with a list for things

03:02:45.300 --> 03:02:48.360
for Brattle to do and I
think we agreed to them

03:02:49.350 --> 03:02:51.807
conducting the reliability standard,

03:02:51.807 --> 03:02:54.436
and giving somebody the analysis.

03:02:54.436 --> 03:02:55.269
<v ->Is there anything not included</v>

03:02:55.269 --> 03:02:58.480
on our list of questions for them?

03:02:58.480 --> 03:03:01.059
I think we've covered
everything we talked:

03:03:01.059 --> 03:03:03.479
the reliability standard,
the scenario analysis.

03:03:03.479 --> 03:03:05.280
I think we got everything.

03:03:05.280 --> 03:03:06.873
<v ->We might wanna get them
to give us their perspective</v>

03:03:06.873 --> 03:03:10.284
on the LSE obligation,
how it would fit in our market,

03:03:10.284 --> 03:03:12.295
questions we could ask,
they've done it before.

03:03:12.295 --> 03:03:13.580
I know they had a lot
of negative comments,

03:03:13.580 --> 03:03:16.793
but to really give us some
additional updated feedback.

03:03:17.840 --> 03:03:21.010
<v ->And included with
that, I'd ask what</v>

03:03:22.380 --> 03:03:24.370
their opinion on what
works and what doesn't work

03:03:24.370 --> 03:03:26.853
in the SPP version,
it's a different market.

03:03:28.677 --> 03:03:29.920
Australia is doing a similar thing.

03:03:29.920 --> 03:03:31.820
What's worked, it's very new.

03:03:31.820 --> 03:03:34.370
What's worked, what hasn't
worked, et cetera, yeah.

03:03:35.784 --> 03:03:37.833
<v ->I mean, I think it might be
helpful for context as well.</v>

03:03:39.130 --> 03:03:40.210
And I know they're conducting

03:03:40.210 --> 03:03:42.563
an ancillary service
study as part of SP3.

03:03:43.886 --> 03:03:45.510
It's my understanding,
where there's (indistinct)

03:03:45.510 --> 03:03:48.591
they're gonna have that
to us by the end of the year.

03:03:48.591 --> 03:03:50.960
I think that's important
as we continue to look at

03:03:51.850 --> 03:03:54.700
how we plan for the future
on the ancillary service side.

03:03:55.811 --> 03:03:57.280
So, I think those are all the items

03:03:57.280 --> 03:03:59.310
I had on the list for Brattle, but

03:04:00.230 --> 03:04:02.280
with respect to your
transmission issues.

03:04:03.902 --> 03:04:04.980
I think I see that a little bit outside

03:04:04.980 --> 03:04:07.160
of the market design discussion,

03:04:07.160 --> 03:04:08.940
but I did wanna circle back up

03:04:08.940 --> 03:04:10.340
on the interconnection queue

03:04:11.840 --> 03:04:13.660
discussion we had at the
workshop, in your memo

03:04:13.660 --> 03:04:17.835
and just to understand
where we're headed, really.

03:04:17.835 --> 03:04:19.355
<v ->Yeah, so I've got
a bit of an update,</v>

03:04:19.355 --> 03:04:21.653
but I'll save it unless
you wanna close this out

03:04:21.653 --> 03:04:22.486
or whatever you're doing.

03:04:22.486 --> 03:04:23.319
<v ->I'm good.</v>

03:04:23.319 --> 03:04:24.380
<v ->Yeah, if you can
give us an update,</v>

03:04:24.380 --> 03:04:25.480
it'd be great and then

03:04:26.436 --> 03:04:27.478
we'll wrap it up.

03:04:27.478 --> 03:04:29.433
<v ->I have been able to
communicate with ERCOT and</v>

03:04:30.530 --> 03:04:32.576
not every stakeholder.

03:04:32.576 --> 03:04:33.409
I mean, people are gonna say,

03:04:33.409 --> 03:04:34.740
"Well, you didn't talk to me,"

03:04:34.740 --> 03:04:36.610
but the wireless companies and

03:04:37.493 --> 03:04:39.733
a representative from the Noe segment.

03:04:41.929 --> 03:04:44.440
We did have substantive conversations

03:04:44.440 --> 03:04:46.730
in terms of the mechanics
on how we could proceed

03:04:46.730 --> 03:04:49.630
in order to satisfy concerns raised

03:04:49.630 --> 03:04:51.450
during the previous workshop.

03:04:51.450 --> 03:04:54.520
And after discussing the idea

03:04:54.520 --> 03:04:56.650
with these stakeholders,
I believe this is something

03:04:56.650 --> 03:05:00.110
that we could and
should move forward with.

03:05:00.110 --> 03:05:03.310
And in my view, the Commission could

03:05:03.310 --> 03:05:06.590
direct ERCOT to prioritize
interconnection projects

03:05:06.590 --> 03:05:09.953
at transmission voltage, key
nuance transmission voltage,

03:05:12.616 --> 03:05:13.910
and it should follow
the following order.

03:05:13.910 --> 03:05:16.366
And the reason

03:05:16.366 --> 03:05:20.290
this will not have a
discriminatory practical effect

03:05:20.290 --> 03:05:21.373
is because,

03:05:25.015 --> 03:05:25.848
according to all stakeholders

03:05:25.848 --> 03:05:27.853
who are managing
their individual systems,

03:05:28.740 --> 03:05:32.110
there is no barrier
right now at present

03:05:32.951 --> 03:05:34.670
to a dispatchable
resource deploying now,

03:05:34.670 --> 03:05:36.930
it's the economics (indistinct) project

03:05:38.576 --> 03:05:40.126
that is the determining factor.

03:05:41.430 --> 03:05:43.550
Prioritization of that would not

03:05:45.070 --> 03:05:49.240
change the expeditious nature of their

03:05:50.465 --> 03:05:52.230
interconnection and energization.

03:05:52.230 --> 03:05:54.537
It is simply, they did say,

03:05:54.537 --> 03:05:56.370
"Look, if you wanna
send the market signal,

03:05:56.370 --> 03:05:58.200
it's a market signal."

03:05:58.200 --> 03:06:00.530
The grandfathering clause is key to that

03:06:00.530 --> 03:06:02.580
on at what stage of the process

03:06:02.580 --> 03:06:07.470
those resources that
have achieved financial

03:06:07.470 --> 03:06:10.430
and technical viability in their studies

03:06:10.430 --> 03:06:11.263
could move forward.

03:06:11.263 --> 03:06:12.920
And again, this is different

03:06:13.796 --> 03:06:14.629
than the non-ERCOT regions

03:06:14.629 --> 03:06:16.320
who have to deal with those RTOs.

03:06:16.320 --> 03:06:18.020
And man, those studies are a bear,

03:06:19.500 --> 03:06:21.793
just what I've experienced
over on the SVP side.

03:06:22.642 --> 03:06:26.880
So my proposal, and
ask me questions on this,

03:06:26.880 --> 03:06:29.810
is to prioritize, any
orders should prioritize

03:06:29.810 --> 03:06:33.740
based on three things, and in order.

03:06:33.740 --> 03:06:36.390
Non-inverter-based resources, okay.

03:06:36.390 --> 03:06:37.473
And that's your ...

03:06:39.470 --> 03:06:41.380
That's not your intermittents,
that's not your batteries.

03:06:41.380 --> 03:06:42.970
Those are based on inverters

03:06:42.970 --> 03:06:47.620
and whatever type and
technological capability

03:06:47.620 --> 03:06:48.840
of the inverter.

03:06:48.840 --> 03:06:52.390
And that changes,
the inverters typically

03:06:52.390 --> 03:06:55.420
change the technical studies that go on

03:06:55.420 --> 03:06:56.253
as a part of

03:06:57.490 --> 03:06:59.030
the TSP evaluations.

03:06:59.030 --> 03:07:00.950
So non-inverter-based resources,

03:07:00.950 --> 03:07:03.890
and then second, dispatchable
inverter-based resources.

03:07:03.890 --> 03:07:06.290
Those were those projects
paired with batteries.

03:07:07.616 --> 03:07:11.450
And then finally, the interment
inverter-based resources,

03:07:11.450 --> 03:07:13.130
so intermittent only.

03:07:13.130 --> 03:07:15.620
Because again, those
wind towers inverter-based,

03:07:15.620 --> 03:07:19.310
solar inverter based, you
would not have a battery

03:07:20.500 --> 03:07:24.353
co-located or joined with that project.

03:07:25.350 --> 03:07:28.310
<v ->Would you assign
a duration to the</v>

03:07:28.310 --> 03:07:29.693
solar plus storage?

03:07:30.530 --> 03:07:33.340
<v ->And I would stand to
my four hour on that.</v>

03:07:33.340 --> 03:07:34.940
<v ->The only thing I would say is,</v>

03:07:35.794 --> 03:07:37.625
based on my conversation
with the storage community,

03:07:37.625 --> 03:07:38.995
there are no four-hour batteries.

03:07:38.995 --> 03:07:40.173
<v ->Correct.</v>

03:07:40.173 --> 03:07:41.010
<v ->So, in order to be able to reap</v>

03:07:41.010 --> 03:07:42.930
the operational benefits of

03:07:44.040 --> 03:07:46.853
having solar and
storage coupled together,

03:07:48.560 --> 03:07:50.070
gain the reliability benefits

03:07:50.070 --> 03:07:52.010
of those combined technologies,

03:07:52.010 --> 03:07:53.750
and also get that operational

03:07:55.050 --> 03:07:58.434
lead that we need at
the backend with ramping,

03:07:58.434 --> 03:08:01.173
I would maybe loosen
that a little bit to two.

03:08:03.452 --> 03:08:04.490
<v ->So, I talked to
(indistinct) as well</v>

03:08:04.490 --> 03:08:07.770
and other project developers who, again,

03:08:07.770 --> 03:08:09.870
yes, there are two
hours or nine, I think,

03:08:09.870 --> 03:08:12.130
two hour capable projects that had

03:08:12.130 --> 03:08:14.710
that battery component.

03:08:14.710 --> 03:08:16.300
But again, this isn't gonna send them

03:08:16.300 --> 03:08:17.240
to the back of the line.

03:08:17.240 --> 03:08:20.680
And let me just describe
the grandfathering condition

03:08:20.680 --> 03:08:22.780
and this may change
the dynamics for them.

03:08:24.110 --> 03:08:27.300
I would leave the mechanics
of implementation up to ERCOT,

03:08:27.300 --> 03:08:29.550
'cause I believe that
they are well prepared

03:08:29.550 --> 03:08:31.163
to impose such a thing,

03:08:32.468 --> 03:08:34.159
but I believe the process we would need

03:08:34.159 --> 03:08:36.313
would need a certain
amount of grandfathering.

03:08:37.295 --> 03:08:39.403
And that should be based on projects,

03:08:40.710 --> 03:08:43.100
ready-to-go projects
that could be energized

03:08:43.100 --> 03:08:44.133
in a timely way.

03:08:47.463 --> 03:08:49.613
And we would make
that fully collateralized

03:08:51.160 --> 03:08:53.340
and then have a notice to proceed.

03:08:53.340 --> 03:08:56.940
So again, in terms of those
steps through the studies,

03:08:56.940 --> 03:08:59.400
that shows that they
are financially viable

03:08:59.400 --> 03:09:01.180
and then also technically viable.

03:09:01.180 --> 03:09:04.300
Again, they're entering that
final stage of ERCOT's study

03:09:04.300 --> 03:09:06.593
which would be ...

03:09:09.287 --> 03:09:10.120
I'm sorry.

03:09:11.023 --> 03:09:12.073
Yeah, ERCOT's screen.

03:09:13.220 --> 03:09:14.350
<v ->Screen them.</v>
<v ->Yeah.</v>

03:09:14.350 --> 03:09:16.720
The final four to five months stage.

03:09:16.720 --> 03:09:20.760
So, you're either in or you're out.

03:09:20.760 --> 03:09:23.350
And again, we're
trying to flesh this out,

03:09:23.350 --> 03:09:24.380
it's not gonna prevent them,

03:09:24.380 --> 03:09:27.836
it's not gonna reset
'em or anything like that.

03:09:27.836 --> 03:09:29.170
And we have to establish
a threshold somewhere,

03:09:29.170 --> 03:09:31.170
because again, this is a market signal.

03:09:31.170 --> 03:09:33.487
We're trying to send some
type of preference for the market

03:09:33.487 --> 03:09:35.910
and ERCOT says that they prefer

03:09:35.910 --> 03:09:38.040
having that headroom of four hours.

03:09:38.040 --> 03:09:40.840
Two hour guys are fine,
and they're gonna match up,

03:09:40.840 --> 03:09:44.320
and especially with what
we're considering on ORDC,

03:09:44.320 --> 03:09:45.600
those guys are gonna come in

03:09:45.600 --> 03:09:47.750
because they're gonna
be hitting that ORDC.

03:09:50.700 --> 03:09:52.800
<v Peter>I think you're
heading in the right direction.</v>

03:09:52.800 --> 03:09:54.670
<v ->And I'm willing to
continue working on this</v>

03:09:54.670 --> 03:09:56.673
and formalize that.

03:09:59.048 --> 03:09:59.881
<v Peter>Yes, I think ...</v>

03:09:59.881 --> 03:10:01.077
<v ->The order is gonna be simple</v>

03:10:01.077 --> 03:10:02.520
in terms of a policy contract.

03:10:02.520 --> 03:10:03.955
<v ->I think you're absolutely
heading the right direction.</v>

03:10:03.955 --> 03:10:06.992
I'd love to see it in writing, I guess.

03:10:06.992 --> 03:10:08.410
<v ->Okay.</v>
<v ->I guess, in a memo form.</v>

03:10:08.410 --> 03:10:10.130
<v ->Fine, I'll formalize a memo.</v>

03:10:10.130 --> 03:10:11.840
<v Peter>To the duration standard,</v>

03:10:11.840 --> 03:10:13.090
as a treatment we covered

03:10:14.653 --> 03:10:16.703
when we talked about concerning DCRS,

03:10:17.564 --> 03:10:18.397
I think the key point is,

03:10:18.397 --> 03:10:21.700
we need to identify
the operational need,

03:10:21.700 --> 03:10:24.920
and then set that as the standard,

03:10:24.920 --> 03:10:28.050
not set the standard
based on existing technology

03:10:28.050 --> 03:10:30.570
that may or may not
address the operational need.

03:10:30.570 --> 03:10:31.915
<v ->Right.</v>

03:10:31.915 --> 03:10:33.060
<v Peter>And a key part of that is</v>

03:10:33.060 --> 03:10:34.420
one of the features of batteries

03:10:34.420 --> 03:10:36.540
is that they're highly modular.

03:10:36.540 --> 03:10:39.270
So, if you've got a bunch
of two-hour batteries

03:10:39.270 --> 03:10:41.833
and we need four hours, stack 'em up.

03:10:43.346 --> 03:10:46.300
If there's a challenge with that,

03:10:46.300 --> 03:10:49.230
you can also aggregate them.

03:10:49.230 --> 03:10:50.813
There's nothing preventing

03:10:50.813 --> 03:10:54.710
battery operators or
storage companies right now

03:10:54.710 --> 03:10:57.510
to aggregating multiple
batteries and then

03:10:57.510 --> 03:11:01.133
offering that or offering that up.

03:11:02.204 --> 03:11:03.290
So, I think we always wanna keep

03:11:03.290 --> 03:11:05.860
the operational need as our North Star.

03:11:06.812 --> 03:11:07.830
<v ->So, let me just
start taking away,</v>

03:11:07.830 --> 03:11:09.420
'cause again, this is a building block

03:11:09.420 --> 03:11:11.210
and then we'll have a memo to consider

03:11:11.210 --> 03:11:14.380
with an actual proposal on it.

03:11:14.380 --> 03:11:17.260
But, it's 18 months on general, all in

03:11:18.096 --> 03:11:19.700
for the study period.

03:11:19.700 --> 03:11:23.933
Okay, from ERCOT to
the TSPs, back to ERCOT.

03:11:24.974 --> 03:11:27.700
First three months,
that's ERCOT's screening,

03:11:27.700 --> 03:11:29.060
and then it goes over to ...

03:11:29.060 --> 03:11:31.300
Or it could be happening concurrent

03:11:31.300 --> 03:11:35.990
with a typically year-long
to a 15 month process

03:11:35.990 --> 03:11:37.686
for the TSPs.

03:11:37.686 --> 03:11:38.600
And if we want to,
we can get Liz up here,

03:11:38.600 --> 03:11:39.560
but I'm sure she'll be proud

03:11:39.560 --> 03:11:41.809
to hear me give this book report.

03:11:41.809 --> 03:11:44.430
(people laughing)

03:11:44.430 --> 03:11:47.100
One of the decisive
points for the study,

03:11:47.100 --> 03:11:49.430
where you get a battery on board,

03:11:49.430 --> 03:11:52.840
is it, in fact, it affects
the stability study.

03:11:52.840 --> 03:11:55.950
And again, that's that new
inverter that gets put on there.

03:11:55.950 --> 03:11:57.360
And so when that happens,

03:11:57.360 --> 03:11:59.640
that's typically a one month

03:11:59.640 --> 03:12:01.320
extension on that process

03:12:01.320 --> 03:12:03.040
because they have to
go back and reanalyze

03:12:03.040 --> 03:12:07.233
that component of the four
studies that they typically run.

03:12:08.616 --> 03:12:11.270
So, I don't think this just

03:12:11.270 --> 03:12:14.350
automatically resets the
whole process for everybody,

03:12:14.350 --> 03:12:17.473
but it does reset
certain components of it.

03:12:19.018 --> 03:12:20.190
And what I'm thinking about,

03:12:20.190 --> 03:12:22.280
and this is what I told the TSPs,

03:12:22.280 --> 03:12:24.240
I'm trying to establish a standard

03:12:24.240 --> 03:12:25.990
that everybody's accustomed to.

03:12:25.990 --> 03:12:28.820
And they typically see surges of

03:12:28.820 --> 03:12:30.830
interconnection requests

03:12:30.830 --> 03:12:33.573
when new transmission
lines are built to new areas.

03:12:34.642 --> 03:12:36.240
We just authorized a
whole lot of transmission

03:12:36.240 --> 03:12:37.720
for south Texas.

03:12:37.720 --> 03:12:40.250
And it's gonna be a
resource-rich area of the state

03:12:40.250 --> 03:12:43.240
for different resources, solar or wind.

03:12:43.240 --> 03:12:44.930
And it's close to load centers.

03:12:44.930 --> 03:12:47.100
I see that as being a lucrative area

03:12:47.100 --> 03:12:49.883
for generators to move
into, and that's a good thing.

03:12:51.030 --> 03:12:52.440
So if we get ahead of this

03:12:52.440 --> 03:12:54.760
and we establish a policy purpose now,

03:12:54.760 --> 03:12:57.420
then we could see some
real benefits from this

03:12:57.420 --> 03:13:00.370
that shouldn't hang
people up in the future.

03:13:00.370 --> 03:13:02.230
I mean, they just talk to their banks

03:13:02.230 --> 03:13:04.914
and start talking about
the latest available

03:13:04.914 --> 03:13:06.500
investible technologies and batteries

03:13:06.500 --> 03:13:08.110
that they could go look at them.

03:13:09.891 --> 03:13:11.800
So, I'll formalize that-
<v ->That'll be great.</v>

03:13:11.800 --> 03:13:13.190
<v ->We'll talk about it.</v>

03:13:13.190 --> 03:13:14.557
<v ->Works for me.</v>
<v ->Thank you for doing that.</v>

03:13:14.557 --> 03:13:15.480
<v ->Yes, ma'am.</v>

03:13:15.480 --> 03:13:16.480
<v Peter>Good deal.</v>

03:13:18.130 --> 03:13:20.540
1:11, I think that

03:13:22.040 --> 03:13:24.053
concludes all our business for today.

03:13:25.352 --> 03:13:27.060
And as such, this meeting

03:13:27.060 --> 03:13:28.860
of the Public Utility
Commission of Texas

03:13:28.860 --> 03:13:32.670
is hereby adjourned.
(gavel whacks)