WEBVTT

00:00:07.169 --> 00:00:10.159
(item:0:Chairwoman Jackson calls meeting to order) Good morning. This meeting of the Public Utility Commission

00:00:10.169 --> 00:00:12.769
of Texas will come to order. To consider matters that

00:00:12.778 --> 00:00:15.560
have been duly posted with the Secretary of State for

00:00:15.569 --> 00:00:19.449
January 18th, 2024. For the record, my name is Kathleen

00:00:19.458 --> 00:00:22.019
Jackson and I'm joined by Lori Cobos and Jimmy Glotfelty.

00:00:23.109 --> 00:00:25.859
(item:0:Chairwoman Jackson lays out instructions for Public Comments & Planning Purposes) Public comments for general matters will be taken up

00:00:25.870 --> 00:00:29.708
when we get to Section 2, Item No. 28. Public comments

00:00:29.719 --> 00:00:32.478
related to a specific agenda item will be heard when

00:00:32.490 --> 00:00:35.579
the item is taken up. Speakers will be limited to 3 

00:00:35.590 --> 00:00:38.579
minutes each. Commenters should not approach the table

00:00:38.590 --> 00:00:42.009
unless oral argument has been granted or they have

00:00:42.020 --> 00:00:45.770
been invited by a Commissioner. For planning purposes

00:00:45.779 --> 00:00:48.959
we'll be going into Closed Session at 11:30. If we have

00:00:48.969 --> 00:00:51.929
not finished the Agenda by then, we will recess at

00:00:51.939 --> 00:00:54.990
around 11:30. And come back after Closed Session to finish

00:00:55.000 --> 00:00:57.689
the remainder of the agenda and work through lunch.

00:00:58.429 --> 00:01:00.868
Shelah, will you please walk us through the Consent

00:01:00.880 --> 00:01:04.668
Items on today's Agenda? (item:0.1:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel lays out Consent Agenda) Good morning Commissioners. 

00:01:04.680 --> 00:01:07.308
By individual ballot, the following items were placed

00:01:07.319 --> 00:01:18.680
on your Consent Agenda items. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20, 22, 

00:01:18.689 --> 00:01:22.638
23 and 25. (item:0.1:Chairwoman Jackson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda) I will entertain a motion to approve the

00:01:22.650 --> 00:01:26.939
items just described by Shelah. So moved. Second. I have a motion

00:01:26.948 --> 00:01:31.849
and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes. (item:49:Chairwoman Jackson opens discussion for electric reliability impacting recent TX Winter weather) We're

00:01:31.859 --> 00:01:35.370
going to take up Item 49 under Section 2 out of order 

00:01:35.379 --> 00:01:38.409
today. We'll discuss the electric reliability during

00:01:38.418 --> 00:01:43.338
the Winter weather that impacted Texas this week. Then

00:01:43.349 --> 00:01:46.278
we'll proceed going down the regular Agenda. Shelah, 

00:01:46.290 --> 00:01:48.540
do we have anyone from the public signed up to speak

00:01:48.549 --> 00:01:53.308
on Item No. 49? On Item 49, no ma'am we do not. 

00:01:54.379 --> 00:01:57.388
Before ERCOT comes up. I would like to thank TDEM, the

00:01:57.400 --> 00:02:01.980
Railroad Commission, TXDOT, ERCOT, SPP, MISO and our other

00:02:01.989 --> 00:02:06.338
partners. And a big thanks to our PUC Emergency Management

00:02:06.349 --> 00:02:09.750
team led by Shawn Hazard. That staffed the SOC, 24 hours

00:02:09.758 --> 00:02:12.538
a day starting Sunday. And thanks to everyone that

00:02:12.550 --> 00:02:15.038
worked over the weekend, holiday and around the clock.

00:02:15.050 --> 00:02:18.319
To protect Tex, Texans and ensure grid reliability.

00:02:18.819 --> 00:02:21.278
My first job out of college was working in a power

00:02:21.288 --> 00:02:23.979
plant. And I commend the boots on the ground personnel

00:02:23.990 --> 00:02:26.778
and linemen for keeping the lights on. It was truly

00:02:26.788 --> 00:02:29.889
a collaborative effort. The Texas grid is more reliable

00:02:29.899 --> 00:02:32.599
than it's ever been. Because of the landmark reforms

00:02:32.610 --> 00:02:36.210
put in place. And we've now seen these reforms work

00:02:36.219 --> 00:02:38.740
time and time again through several weather events

00:02:38.830 --> 00:02:42.558
and record setting demand. The event just ended yesterday

00:02:42.808 --> 00:02:45.610
and we're still gathering all of the information. We

00:02:45.618 --> 00:02:48.379
know it will take several weeks to conduct a full analysis. 

00:02:48.389 --> 00:02:51.199
Let's plan on a deep dive at a future open meeting

00:02:51.250 --> 00:02:56.000
but bring ERCOT now, ERCOT up now for a few highlights. Would

00:02:56.008 --> 00:02:57.979
any of my fellow Commissioners have any comments they'd

00:02:57.990 --> 00:03:01.729
like to make? (item:49:Commissoner Glotfelty's appreciation for lineman and their efforts during recent Winter weather) I, I appreciate what you said about our

00:03:01.740 --> 00:03:06.099
front line folks. I say this often about linemen. Which

00:03:06.110 --> 00:03:08.909
is everyone needs to come home every single day to

00:03:08.919 --> 00:03:12.129
their family. It's a dangerous job, especially when

00:03:12.139 --> 00:03:17.330
you have harsh weather like this. And knowing that they

00:03:17.338 --> 00:03:20.868
what they do for us. We need to keep them close to

00:03:20.879 --> 00:03:24.050
us in our heart, you know, on days like this. Thanks. 

00:03:25.788 --> 00:03:28.889
I, I echo everything you, you said as well Chair Jackson. 

00:03:28.899 --> 00:03:31.969
(item:49:Commissioner Cobos' appreciation for all who helped during recent TX Winter weather) I want to thank everybody that worked hard during

00:03:32.159 --> 00:03:34.969
this event. To ensure the lights stayed on for Texas. I think

00:03:34.979 --> 00:03:37.149
ultimately, you know, there were some local outages

00:03:37.159 --> 00:03:40.000
throughout the State. But the ERCOT grid held up very

00:03:40.008 --> 00:03:42.838
strong. And that is a testament to all the hard work

00:03:42.849 --> 00:03:45.270
that the Commission has done over the last 2 years

00:03:45.278 --> 00:03:48.689
on weatherization. The phased in weatherization

00:03:48.699 --> 00:03:53.399
measures that we put in place. Created a solid framework

00:03:53.409 --> 00:03:58.038
with the Phase 2 weatherization standards being fully

00:03:58.050 --> 00:04:01.610
um uh in, in place for this Winter. And I think it

00:04:01.618 --> 00:04:04.860
showed great benefits. It provides a framework for

00:04:04.868 --> 00:04:08.278
ERCOT to go out and inspect. And ensure that the generation

00:04:08.588 --> 00:04:11.149
companies and the transmission and distribution companies

00:04:11.159 --> 00:04:14.819
are meeting our standards. And, and um you know, I think

00:04:14.849 --> 00:04:18.129
this, this recent Winter weather showed that the weatherization

00:04:18.139 --> 00:04:21.579
efforts are working. Um also the firm fuel supply service

00:04:21.588 --> 00:04:24.149
product that we created, which is a first in class

00:04:24.160 --> 00:04:28.220
product in the country. Has shown benefits for the last

00:04:28.230 --> 00:04:32.569
two Winters. When gas pipelines curtail gas

00:04:32.579 --> 00:04:35.100
flowing into our power plants. Power plants are able

00:04:35.108 --> 00:04:39.170
to switch to alternate uh fuel on site. And that, you

00:04:39.178 --> 00:04:41.819
know, that product has shown tremendous benefits. And

00:04:41.829 --> 00:04:45.350
so um, you know we, we continue to see benefits of

00:04:45.358 --> 00:04:47.629
all the Winter resiliency measures that the Commission

00:04:47.639 --> 00:04:51.619
and ERCOT has implemented since Winter Storm Uri. Very

00:04:51.629 --> 00:04:54.889
good. Thank you. Woody, would you like to come up

00:04:54.939 --> 00:04:54.970
and

00:04:59.579 --> 00:05:01.119
please state your name for the record.

00:05:08.379 --> 00:05:09.629
(item:49:ERCOT's Woody Rickerson gives summary on electric reliability of recent TX Winter weather) Woody Rickerson with ERCOT. 

00:05:12.420 --> 00:05:15.689
All right, thank you. Good morning. And uh, like you

00:05:15.699 --> 00:05:19.119
said there's, we don't have all the uh information

00:05:19.129 --> 00:05:21.480
yet. And uh, it'll take us a little while to get a

00:05:21.488 --> 00:05:23.358
lot of the details in. But what I can give you this

00:05:23.369 --> 00:05:26.889
morning is a summary of what occurred over the last

00:05:26.899 --> 00:05:31.139
few days. So on January 10th, ERCOT issued a weather

00:05:31.149 --> 00:05:36.369
watch for the 15th and the 17th. On January 12th,

00:05:36.379 --> 00:05:40.139
we extended that to include Sunday, 14th to the 17th. 

00:05:40.519 --> 00:05:44.250
We issued a advisory for cold weather from the control

00:05:44.259 --> 00:05:48.949
room on the uh, January 11th. On the 13th, we extended

00:05:48.959 --> 00:05:53.088
that to also include Sunday. So from a weather perspective, 

00:05:53.100 --> 00:05:56.540
the front moved into the Panhandle area on January

00:05:56.548 --> 00:06:01.850
13th. At 1pm on the 13th, uh Amarillo was 14

00:06:01.858 --> 00:06:04.088
degrees and Lubbock was 58.

00:06:05.980 --> 00:06:10.178
Later that day by 9pm, Dallas had dipped down

00:06:10.189 --> 00:06:15.949
to 28 and Austin was still at like 52. So by

00:06:15.959 --> 00:06:19.399
January 14th on Sunday, San Antonio and Austin both

00:06:19.410 --> 00:06:23.759
did below freezing. On the 15th, Corpus was below freezing

00:06:23.769 --> 00:06:25.639
and it kind of stayed there for a little while. And

00:06:25.649 --> 00:06:29.338
then a second wave of cold weather moved in. And uh

00:06:29.608 --> 00:06:33.410
by Wednesday, the cold weather had moved in all the

00:06:33.420 --> 00:06:37.178
way to Brownsville. Brownsville was 33 degrees. That

00:06:37.189 --> 00:06:41.040
was the only city on the map, that wasn't below freezing

00:06:41.048 --> 00:06:46.988
in Texas. And then by noon today, we expect uh everywhere

00:06:47.000 --> 00:06:47.670
to be above freezing. 

00:06:49.759 --> 00:06:51.428
So um on Sunday,

00:06:53.069 --> 00:06:56.319
on the 14th, in that evening. As that storm was moving

00:06:56.329 --> 00:07:00.358
in, we set a new unofficial January peak of 65,000. 

00:07:00.420 --> 00:07:02.699
So that was the first peak that was set, the first new

00:07:02.709 --> 00:07:06.629
record that was set. Then on Monday, uh the morning

00:07:06.639 --> 00:07:10.528
peak was almost 76,000. Which was a new all time Winter 

00:07:10.540 --> 00:07:14.928
record. We then broke that record on Monday night and

00:07:14.939 --> 00:07:19.838
then we broke it again on uh, Tuesday morning. And so

00:07:19.850 --> 00:07:24.100
the, the new all time record was 78,138 that compares

00:07:24.108 --> 00:07:28.488
to about a 75,000 Winter Elliott. On Wednesday, there was

00:07:28.500 --> 00:07:32.278
also a really high peak of 77,000. So this was a pretty

00:07:32.290 --> 00:07:35.819
significant storm. (item:49:Woody Rickerson on Winter Storm comparisons over last 15 years) Um, we went back and did a little

00:07:35.829 --> 00:07:38.108
comparison to storms that have occurred over the last

00:07:38.119 --> 00:07:42.509
15 years. Looked at 6 different Winter storms over

00:07:42.519 --> 00:07:46.670
the last 15 years. We looked at the 2011 Storm, 2018

00:07:46.678 --> 00:07:49.980
Storm, uh Winter Storm Uri, Winter Storm Elliott, the

00:07:49.988 --> 00:07:54.088
Polar Vortex in 2014. And then Heather, which is the

00:07:54.100 --> 00:08:00.509
most recent 2024 Storm. So of those 6 storms, only

00:08:00.678 --> 00:08:05.970
Elliott and Uri had a lower load weighted ERCOT temperature

00:08:05.980 --> 00:08:08.838
average. So we have a load weighted average. We look

00:08:08.850 --> 00:08:12.309
at to measure temperature across all of ERCOT. Only

00:08:12.428 --> 00:08:15.230
Elliott and Uri were colder. So Heather was actually

00:08:15.238 --> 00:08:19.000
colder than the Polar Vortex or the 2011 Storm, which

00:08:19.009 --> 00:08:23.509
was a significant storm or the 2018 Storm. And of those

00:08:23.519 --> 00:08:29.319
6 storms, only Uri lasted longer than Heather. So it

00:08:29.329 --> 00:08:33.440
lasted, uh it was a longer duration storm than the 2011

00:08:33.450 --> 00:08:36.599
Storm, the 2018 Storm, the Polar Vortex or Elliot.

00:08:36.918 --> 00:08:38.820
So very significant storm.

00:08:41.979 --> 00:08:45.749
Um probably the, the highlight of the, the whole thing

00:08:45.758 --> 00:08:49.158
was probably the performance of the thermal fleet.

00:08:49.629 --> 00:08:53.330
It was very, very good performance. So like was mentioned

00:08:53.340 --> 00:08:55.548
earlier, this was the first Winter we had the full

00:08:55.558 --> 00:08:59.440
weatherization rule in effect. Since the uh Winter

00:08:59.450 --> 00:09:04.320
Storm Uri, we have uh inspected, had Winter just Winter

00:09:04.330 --> 00:09:08.099
inspections of over 1300 units of previous 3 Winters. 

00:09:09.099 --> 00:09:12.820
So I think this was a good demonstration of the benefits

00:09:12.830 --> 00:09:16.658
of weatherization. And uh just thanks to all the resource

00:09:16.668 --> 00:09:18.658
owners, and all the preparation, and all the money that

00:09:18.668 --> 00:09:21.000
was spent to get those units. And that entire thermal

00:09:21.009 --> 00:09:23.349
fleet to the point where it is today.

00:09:25.210 --> 00:09:28.879
(item:49:Woody Rickerson provides Winter Storm facts) A couple of facts from this storm is that uh net

00:09:28.889 --> 00:09:32.918
load. Which is load served by thermal load, that is not

00:09:32.928 --> 00:09:38.000
served by wind or solar. So net load exceeded 68,000 three 

00:09:38.009 --> 00:09:43.369
different times over the last, the last week. First

00:09:43.379 --> 00:09:46.269
time was Monday morning, then Tuesday morning and then

00:09:46.279 --> 00:09:52.629
Tuesday evening. During those three peaks, thermal

00:09:52.639 --> 00:09:59.379
plants were supplying about 87% of the energy. So that's

00:09:59.389 --> 00:10:01.649
uh kind of a testament to how valuable those thermal

00:10:01.658 --> 00:10:06.479
plants are. As far as outages on thermal units uh over

00:10:06.489 --> 00:10:11.149
the course of the, the storm from Sunday through yesterday. 

00:10:11.460 --> 00:10:14.408
And this is all preliminary data right now. We'll have

00:10:14.418 --> 00:10:17.519
to have a full RFI. But it looks like there was

00:10:17.529 --> 00:10:20.500
about 3000 megawatts of incremental forced outages. 

00:10:20.509 --> 00:10:22.879
A lot of those units would come back, but there were

00:10:22.889 --> 00:10:25.308
about 3000 megawatts of incremental force outages.

00:10:25.548 --> 00:10:28.779
The total forced outage um amount of thermal units

00:10:28.788 --> 00:10:31.989
at the, at the end of the storm peaked at about 7000. 

00:10:32.259 --> 00:10:34.969
Which is about half what we saw during Elliott. 

00:10:36.599 --> 00:10:40.940
So that's a, a good indication of the progress the

00:10:40.969 --> 00:10:46.678
the grid is made in, in hardening. From a gas pipeline, 

00:10:46.690 --> 00:10:50.469
gas supply issue standpoint. We had the expected

00:10:50.479 --> 00:10:53.908
restrictions in North Texas at a net loss of somewhere

00:10:53.918 --> 00:10:58.009
around 1500 megawatts. We also had some unexpected

00:10:58.019 --> 00:11:00.700
issues in the San Antonio area that were, that were

00:11:00.710 --> 00:11:04.149
resolved before peaks, peaks occurred. So there were

00:11:04.158 --> 00:11:07.109
some issues but they uh they were resolved. I think

00:11:07.119 --> 00:11:09.590
a lot of the work going on at the State Operations

00:11:09.599 --> 00:11:11.798
Center helped uh iron those things out.

00:11:13.609 --> 00:11:18.940
(item:49:Woody Rickerson on wind performance) So, uh wind performance. Over the course of the storm

00:11:18.950 --> 00:11:22.788
wind fluctuated, wind output fluctuated from a low

00:11:22.798 --> 00:11:27.519
of 1900 megawatts all the way up to a high of 24,400 

00:11:27.529 --> 00:11:32.279
megawatts. So we had a lot of fluctuation in wind performance. 

00:11:33.759 --> 00:11:39.178
The low wind was most concerning on uh the peak

00:11:39.190 --> 00:11:43.340
Monday morning and the peak that occurred Tuesday afternoon. 

00:11:43.349 --> 00:11:45.940
On Monday morning, we had about 5000 megawatts of wind. 

00:11:45.950 --> 00:11:49.840
And on Tuesday morning, the grid had about 2200 megawatts

00:11:49.849 --> 00:11:53.058
of wind. So those were, those were the most concerning

00:11:53.070 --> 00:11:56.908
times for low wind. Uh wind forced outages peaked at

00:11:56.918 --> 00:12:01.418
around 7000 megawatts on Monday. So 7000 megawatts

00:12:01.428 --> 00:12:06.219
of forced outage on wind. Of that, only about 2300 were

00:12:06.229 --> 00:12:06.840
due to ice.

00:12:08.649 --> 00:12:12.849
So roughly a third of the force outages were due to

00:12:12.859 --> 00:12:15.320
icing. The rest were due to other issues. That we'll

00:12:15.330 --> 00:12:17.969
have to have an RFI to pull those numbers out and

00:12:18.190 --> 00:12:19.428
see what's going on.

00:12:22.320 --> 00:12:27.639
(item:49:Woody Rickerson on solar performance) So for uh solar performance. You know, really for the

00:12:27.649 --> 00:12:32.000
first time uh solar was at a level that kind of changed

00:12:32.009 --> 00:12:34.989
the dynamic of an operating day during a Winter Storm. 

00:12:35.779 --> 00:12:38.590
And it did that by providing a significant amount of

00:12:38.599 --> 00:12:41.668
power during the middle of the day. So the benefits

00:12:41.678 --> 00:12:45.570
of that uh they include time. To when you have a little

00:12:45.580 --> 00:12:48.308
bit of surplus on the grid that you can charge batteries. 

00:12:48.928 --> 00:12:52.759
That additional midday bandwidth also allows some

00:12:52.769 --> 00:12:55.950
issues of thermal plants to be corrected between peaks. 

00:12:57.000 --> 00:12:59.979
So that was uh that was significant though. This is

00:12:59.989 --> 00:13:03.719
the first time we've seen, you know, operational days

00:13:03.729 --> 00:13:07.158
significantly affected by the amount of solar during

00:13:07.168 --> 00:13:10.548
a Winter Storm. On Tuesday in fact, we set an all time

00:13:10.558 --> 00:13:16.239
record of 14,837 megawatts of solar generation. So

00:13:16.250 --> 00:13:21.129
for over 14,000 that was 23% of the land being served

00:13:21.139 --> 00:13:24.719
by solar on that day. That was on Tuesday. Uh there

00:13:24.729 --> 00:13:27.538
was significant difference from one day to the next

00:13:27.548 --> 00:13:32.288
though in solar output. So we saw like I said, over

00:13:32.298 --> 00:13:36.099
14,000 megawatts and then we saw several days that

00:13:36.109 --> 00:13:40.178
were more like 7000 megawatts. So cloud cover did have

00:13:40.190 --> 00:13:43.590
create quite a bit of variability. Four strategies

00:13:43.599 --> 00:13:46.609
were not for, for solar units were were not significant. 

00:13:46.619 --> 00:13:48.129
We saw around 300 megawatts. 

00:13:51.460 --> 00:13:56.058
(item:49:Woody Rickerson on battery performance) Battery performance, uh batteries over peak. Some of.

00:13:56.070 --> 00:13:58.690
those peaks I was talking about. Batteries over peak

00:13:58.700 --> 00:14:03.500
provided uh about 1.5% of the total energy needed at

00:14:03.509 --> 00:14:08.330
that peak. The peak output was around 1200 megawatts.

00:14:09.548 --> 00:14:13.859
Now, some batteries were in services but uh for batteries

00:14:13.869 --> 00:14:16.320
that were providing energy during those peaks, it was

00:14:16.330 --> 00:14:20.609
about 1.5% of the of the total needed. The average

00:14:20.619 --> 00:14:23.820
state of charge throughout the event was and this would

00:14:23.830 --> 00:14:27.129
be from the 14th to the 17th. The average state of

00:14:27.139 --> 00:14:32.308
charge is about 65% for the fleet. The maximum state

00:14:32.320 --> 00:14:37.389
of charge that we saw was 76%. So the state of charge

00:14:37.399 --> 00:14:40.450
for the entire fleet got up to about 76% which represented

00:14:40.460 --> 00:14:45.349
about 5500 Megawatt hours of energy. The minimum state

00:14:45.359 --> 00:14:49.129
of charge went down to 41%. So if you look at the

00:14:49.139 --> 00:14:53.529
fleet as a whole, it varied between 76 and about 40%

00:14:53.538 --> 00:14:57.509
state of charge. Of the the minimum state of charge

00:14:57.519 --> 00:15:03.960
occurred on Tuesday after the evening peak. So batteries

00:15:04.408 --> 00:15:06.548
put energy on the grid and then their minimum state

00:15:06.558 --> 00:15:10.418
of charge was was there on Tuesday. The peak discharge

00:15:10.428 --> 00:15:14.779
that we saw from batteries was uh 1280 megawatts that

00:15:14.788 --> 00:15:19.349
was on Tuesday morning. And the peak charge that we

00:15:19.359 --> 00:15:22.190
saw the intake for battery when batteries were charging

00:15:22.200 --> 00:15:26.000
we saw 1148 megawatts charge on uh Monday afternoon

00:15:26.009 --> 00:15:31.500
between peaks. So in general, batteries were discharging

00:15:31.918 --> 00:15:34.869
on peak and charging during the off peak times. This

00:15:34.879 --> 00:15:35.830
is what you expect.

00:15:38.779 --> 00:15:44.168
(item:49:Woody Rickerson on pricing) From a price perspective. On Monday, uh system lambda 

00:15:44.178 --> 00:15:48.158
peaked at about 400. On Tuesday, it was 560 and on Tuesday

00:15:48.168 --> 00:15:54.779
it was 1100 roughly. The system, lambda peaks corresponded

00:15:55.090 --> 00:15:56.580
with the highest net load,

00:15:58.219 --> 00:16:02.070
which is what you would want. The day ahead prices

00:16:02.080 --> 00:16:05.940
were uh for Monday were 1100 versus a real time price

00:16:05.950 --> 00:16:10.788
of 400. Tuesday, it was about 1900 day ahead versus

00:16:10.798 --> 00:16:16.210
560 and uh that was Tuesday morning. And Tuesday evening, 

00:16:16.219 --> 00:16:21.250
the day ahead was about 300 and Tuesday evening peak

00:16:21.259 --> 00:16:24.210
was 1100. So you see some variability there. Sometimes

00:16:24.219 --> 00:16:26.279
the day ahead was higher, sometimes real time was higher. 

00:16:30.158 --> 00:16:33.960
(item:49:Woody Rickerson on load forecasting) Load forecasting. So I wanna, I wanna start with

00:16:33.969 --> 00:16:36.580
a little bit of history. Following Winter Storm

00:16:36.590 --> 00:16:41.570
Elliott, FERC issued their Elliott Follow-up Report. 

00:16:41.580 --> 00:16:45.469
And I'm gonna read a couple sentences from that report. 

00:16:45.940 --> 00:16:50.428
A significant majority of the short term forecasts 

00:16:51.139 --> 00:16:55.129
for all eight balancing authorities underestimated

00:16:55.139 --> 00:16:58.548
the actual peak demand. There were only eight instances

00:16:58.558 --> 00:17:02.840
of the 64 short, short term forecast that overestimated

00:17:02.849 --> 00:17:05.660
the actual peak demand. And later in the report, it

00:17:05.670 --> 00:17:09.539
says in four of the last five extreme cold weather

00:17:09.549 --> 00:17:14.019
events. Forecasts of peak electricity demand were lower

00:17:14.358 --> 00:17:18.719
than the actual peak electricity demand. So in fact

00:17:18.729 --> 00:17:21.759
uh under forecasting of load during Elliot was actually

00:17:21.769 --> 00:17:24.989
an issue we had at ERCOT. Uh that was actually discussed

00:17:25.000 --> 00:17:28.000
in an open meeting early last year. So we're coming

00:17:28.009 --> 00:17:32.979
from a place where peak Winter forecasts were we were

00:17:32.989 --> 00:17:36.459
under forecasting peak load. So load forecasting during

00:17:36.469 --> 00:17:41.779
Heather. So during Heather, ERCOT generally over forecasted

00:17:41.789 --> 00:17:44.759
peaks both during the morning and in the evening. However

00:17:44.769 --> 00:17:48.219
there were exceptions. Of Sunday's AM peak was actually

00:17:48.229 --> 00:17:52.739
under forecast. There's several reasons that contribute

00:17:53.029 --> 00:17:55.459
to this uh forecasting inaccuracy. I'm gonna cover

00:17:55.469 --> 00:17:58.489
three. I think they are the most important. (item:49:Woody Rickerson on forecasting inaccuracies)  The

00:17:58.500 --> 00:18:03.799
first and probably the biggest factor is the uh industrial

00:18:03.880 --> 00:18:09.299
demand response and the LFL price response. So accurately

00:18:09.309 --> 00:18:12.549
forecasting industrial and LFL price responses is very

00:18:12.559 --> 00:18:15.769
difficult. We're working on ways to better quantify

00:18:15.779 --> 00:18:19.910
that, that demand response prices and bringing that

00:18:19.920 --> 00:18:22.439
bringing in actual meter data and information from

00:18:22.449 --> 00:18:26.250
TSPs. Help to further tune that industrial and LFL

00:18:26.259 --> 00:18:29.098
portions of the load model. In fact, Oncor actually

00:18:29.108 --> 00:18:31.969
sent us some really good uh industrial response data

00:18:31.979 --> 00:18:33.858
that we've already started incorporating into the model. 

00:18:33.868 --> 00:18:36.880
They got us that the day after some of these loads

00:18:36.890 --> 00:18:39.549
came in. So that that kind of information from TSPs 

00:18:39.559 --> 00:18:46.269
helps us tune our models. Um actually industrial load

00:18:46.279 --> 00:18:48.539
information that will be hopefully be obtained as a

00:18:48.549 --> 00:18:52.959
result of the LFL process. That will also help us have

00:18:52.969 --> 00:18:56.229
a background for making more accurate forecasts. So

00:18:56.239 --> 00:18:59.229
those are all things that we're working on to, to improve

00:18:59.239 --> 00:19:02.618
how we account for the uh forecasting of industrial

00:19:02.630 --> 00:19:07.729
and LFL price response. (item:49:Woody Rickerson on combinations and improvements) The second item is the,

00:19:08.809 --> 00:19:14.588
the, the we call it the combined effect of conservation

00:19:14.598 --> 00:19:19.108
calls, holiday schedules because Monday was a holiday

00:19:19.779 --> 00:19:23.500
school closings and school delays and things like the

00:19:23.509 --> 00:19:26.618
delayed uh start for, for some government offices and

00:19:26.630 --> 00:19:28.838
things like that. So when you put all that stuff together

00:19:28.848 --> 00:19:32.759
that also has a big effect on on accuracy of load forecasting.

00:19:32.769 --> 00:19:35.140
Especially when a lot of those things happen after

00:19:35.150 --> 00:19:39.759
the initial day ahead forecast is made. So um how do

00:19:39.769 --> 00:19:45.108
we, how do we improve that? I think comparing the forecast

00:19:45.368 --> 00:19:49.640
with the actual load. And then a third comparison where

00:19:49.650 --> 00:19:53.140
you take the actual weather and put it back in the

00:19:53.150 --> 00:19:56.739
model. So we the forecast is made with a model and

00:19:56.750 --> 00:19:59.699
forecasted weather. So now we'll take the, the model

00:19:59.709 --> 00:20:03.420
itself with actual weather and see how that compares. 

00:20:03.430 --> 00:20:06.358
So you take your forecasted load, your actual load

00:20:06.368 --> 00:20:08.910
and then a back casts of load. Put all those three

00:20:08.920 --> 00:20:12.088
together and we'll begin to be able to see the effects

00:20:12.098 --> 00:20:16.259
that conservation have. Um holiday schedule, school

00:20:16.269 --> 00:20:21.828
closings, starts things like that. I think it's already

00:20:21.838 --> 00:20:24.930
obvious though that the conservation call had a big

00:20:25.150 --> 00:20:28.858
effect. There's some, some good evidence already

00:20:28.868 --> 00:20:32.000
to show that uh that people really did conserve quite

00:20:32.009 --> 00:20:35.640
a bit. So that's the second item. (item:49:Woody Rickerson on actual weather vs. weather forecasts) The third item of

00:20:35.650 --> 00:20:39.630
course is just weather. So actual weather versus weather

00:20:39.640 --> 00:20:44.410
forecast. It's uh, every load model is highly dependent

00:20:44.420 --> 00:20:47.150
on accurately predicting the weather and the timing

00:20:47.160 --> 00:20:50.009
of weather. Winter hits a certain area and things like

00:20:50.019 --> 00:20:52.880
that. So that's the third area. Those things will continue

00:20:52.890 --> 00:20:56.838
to, to, to improve. Uh, but we'll always be, we'll

00:20:56.848 --> 00:20:59.568
always have that weather variance in, in our forecast.

00:21:00.279 --> 00:21:04.719
And so that's uh that's my uh review of, of, of Uri. 

00:21:04.729 --> 00:21:08.189
If you have any questions? I'm sorry of Heather. I

00:21:08.199 --> 00:21:08.900
said, Uri.

00:21:11.328 --> 00:21:15.838
Yeah, thanks Woody. (item:49:Commissioner Glotfelty on ERCOT's report) I think that's a great report.

00:21:17.309 --> 00:21:21.348
I am pleased with the thermal fleet. We've had a lot

00:21:21.358 --> 00:21:25.459
of forced outages over the Summer and that drives prices

00:21:25.469 --> 00:21:29.380
very high and a lot of challenges on the system. It's

00:21:29.390 --> 00:21:32.098
great to see that they were ready for this and that

00:21:32.108 --> 00:21:35.699
they uh they were the work horse, the backbone of the

00:21:35.709 --> 00:21:38.358
system, you know, for the entire event. And I think

00:21:38.368 --> 00:21:39.299
that, that's great.

00:21:40.920 --> 00:21:42.779
The load forecasting.

00:21:45.250 --> 00:21:48.650
You know, I know that this is not, there isn't a science

00:21:48.660 --> 00:21:52.338
to it yet. I just encourage you all to keep at it. 

00:21:52.348 --> 00:21:57.199
It's um we've got, we've got to do better, I think.

00:21:57.848 --> 00:22:01.209
But with changing events, there are so many variables

00:22:01.219 --> 00:22:05.180
that change on each event. I think that y'all are doing

00:22:05.189 --> 00:22:07.500
a good job on that. But I think we can always get

00:22:07.509 --> 00:22:12.410
better and strive to do better. I appreciate the update. 

00:22:12.479 --> 00:22:15.299
Oh, I did have one other question. So, what did you

00:22:15.309 --> 00:22:18.868
say was, did we have any freeze offs in the gas system

00:22:19.068 --> 00:22:23.420
or were the two events where we had with the gas supply? 

00:22:23.430 --> 00:22:28.959
Or were they pipeline issues feeding gas plants? I'm

00:22:28.969 --> 00:22:32.410
not aware of any like well, freeze off. Nothing like

00:22:32.420 --> 00:22:36.640
that was discussed at turn. It never came up. Okay. Okay. 

00:22:36.729 --> 00:22:40.000
Hopefully their weatherization was uh was part of that

00:22:40.009 --> 00:22:45.588
effort as well. So, thank you. How many firm field

00:22:45.750 --> 00:22:50.420
uh resources did you all deploy? I think the total

00:22:50.430 --> 00:22:54.130
amount of firm fuel that was used was somewhere around

00:22:54.140 --> 00:22:56.358
12 to 1300 megawatts.

00:23:03.799 --> 00:23:03.969
Okay. 

00:23:06.539 --> 00:23:08.519
(item:49:Chairwoman Jackson on temperature and length of prior Winter Storms) And again, just to recap. I think you mentioned this

00:23:08.529 --> 00:23:12.229
as part of your presentation. But in comparison of

00:23:12.328 --> 00:23:16.029
this most recent storm to the storms that we've had

00:23:16.039 --> 00:23:19.279
in the last 15 years. I think I heard that you said. 

00:23:19.608 --> 00:23:23.318
You know, the temperatures were colder except for two

00:23:24.318 --> 00:23:29.289
and the duration was as long as any other storm except

00:23:29.299 --> 00:23:30.068
for Uri.

00:23:31.588 --> 00:23:36.318
Yeah, it's actually longer. So Heather was about a

00:23:36.328 --> 00:23:42.019
four day storm. Uh Elliott was more like 2.5 and uh

00:23:42.029 --> 00:23:44.400
the 2011 storm was like a 3 day storm. So it was

00:23:44.410 --> 00:23:47.479
actually the longest storm we've had except for UI

00:23:48.108 --> 00:23:52.650
which was more like a 9 day storm. (item:49:Chairwoman Jackson on ERCOT's Winter weather review) So um a very

00:23:52.660 --> 00:23:56.338
good test of the reforms that were put in place. And

00:23:56.348 --> 00:23:58.880
I know we went through the event and talked with some

00:23:58.890 --> 00:24:02.469
of the, the generators, particularly up in the Panhandle. 

00:24:03.338 --> 00:24:05.509
They were kind of holding their own on their generation

00:24:05.779 --> 00:24:08.900
fleet. Everything was performing well. But they really 

00:24:08.910 --> 00:24:12.858
hadn't had the wind, the high wind. Until very late

00:24:13.118 --> 00:24:16.949
in the event combined with the cold temperatures. So

00:24:16.959 --> 00:24:19.068
you probably recall, we spent a lot of time talking

00:24:19.078 --> 00:24:23.420
about windchill. And of course, that was incorporated

00:24:23.430 --> 00:24:26.630
into the standard. And so, you know, kind of looking

00:24:26.640 --> 00:24:30.689
back and doing the backcast, um you know, the time

00:24:30.699 --> 00:24:33.578
and effort that went into and working with. You know

00:24:33.588 --> 00:24:36.219
all of the transmission companies and the generators

00:24:36.509 --> 00:24:39.170
um and implementing those standards. And then, you know

00:24:39.180 --> 00:24:41.108
putting the standards in place and then a actually

00:24:41.118 --> 00:24:43.299
implementing the field. You know, looks like it really

00:24:43.309 --> 00:24:48.068
did pay off. And I think, um you know, part of what

00:24:48.078 --> 00:24:51.328
we need to be thinking about moving forward. You know

00:24:51.338 --> 00:24:55.779
is, yes, we performed well, but it is, it, it's continued

00:24:55.789 --> 00:24:59.299
diligence in terms of making sure that, um you know

00:24:59.309 --> 00:25:01.279
it performed this time, it performed very well and

00:25:01.289 --> 00:25:03.759
then it will continue to perform in the future. So

00:25:03.979 --> 00:25:06.059
you know, thanks for everything. I know y'all are very

00:25:06.170 --> 00:25:09.598
uh engaged. As well as, you know, everyone across the

00:25:09.608 --> 00:25:12.519
circuit. (item:49:Chairwoman Jackson on communication during Winter weather) In terms of, you know, gathering information

00:25:12.910 --> 00:25:15.858
um the communication. I heard the feedback I heard was

00:25:15.868 --> 00:25:20.739
very good between um between the gas suppliers and

00:25:20.920 --> 00:25:23.759
uh the pipelines and the generators and the transmission

00:25:23.769 --> 00:25:26.019
companies and all the folks that were in the SOC. So

00:25:26.269 --> 00:25:29.250
I personally think that that made a huge difference. 

00:25:29.680 --> 00:25:32.289
Because any kind of issues were identified very

00:25:32.299 --> 00:25:35.989
early and then we were able to go in and, and correct

00:25:36.000 --> 00:25:39.578
them. And um you know, have a very successful outcome

00:25:39.630 --> 00:25:41.209
to be forward. So, thank you.

00:25:44.199 --> 00:25:44.689
Thanks Woody. 

00:25:47.509 --> 00:25:50.009
Now, we resume going down the agenda beginning with

00:25:50.019 --> 00:25:54.969
Section 1, Item 1. Item 1 was consented. Next up

00:25:54.979 --> 00:25:57.289
is Item No. 2. Shelah, will you please lay out

00:25:57.299 --> 00:26:02.430
this item? Yes, ma'am. (item:2:Petition of Tellus-Mann, LLC to amend High Point Water Supply's CCN in Kaufman & Rockwall Counties) Item 2 is Docket No. 54206. 

00:26:02.489 --> 00:26:06.269
This is the petition of Tellus-Mann LLC to amend High

00:26:06.279 --> 00:26:10.199
Point Water Supply Corporation CCN in Kaufman and Rockwell

00:26:10.209 --> 00:26:14.029
Counties by streamlined expedited release. A proposed

00:26:14.039 --> 00:26:16.539
order was filed for consideration by the Commission. 

00:26:17.059 --> 00:26:20.140
The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to withdraw

00:26:20.150 --> 00:26:23.358
its petition. And it is the motion to withdraw that

00:26:23.368 --> 00:26:27.259
is before the Commission now. (item:2:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Commission rules regarding withdrawal) Petitioner has filed a 

00:26:27.269 --> 00:26:30.009
filed a motion to withdraw its application. Because

00:26:30.019 --> 00:26:33.059
the proposed order has already been issued. The Commission

00:26:33.068 --> 00:26:36.660
rules require a finding of a good, good cause to grant

00:26:36.670 --> 00:26:39.719
the motion to withdraw and dismiss the petition. Because

00:26:39.729 --> 00:26:42.650
the petitioner no longer request release of its tract

00:26:42.660 --> 00:26:45.269
of land. It is in the public interest to find good

00:26:45.279 --> 00:26:49.539
cause and dismiss the petition. (item:2:Motion to withdraw and dismiss proceeding without prejudice) I move the Commission

00:26:49.549 --> 00:26:52.279
find good cause to grant the petitioner's motion to

00:26:52.289 --> 00:26:55.750
withdraw and dismiss this proceeding without prejudice. 

00:26:57.009 --> 00:26:59.598
Second. I have a second, a motion and second. All in favor, say

00:26:59.989 --> 00:27:04.670
aye. Aye. Motion passes. Item No. 3 was consented. Next

00:27:04.680 --> 00:27:07.088
up is Item No. 4. Shelah, will you please lay

00:27:07.098 --> 00:27:12.549
out this item? (item:4: Joint Application of approval of merger transaction under TX Water Code Section 13.302) Item No. 4 is Docket 54316. This

00:27:12.559 --> 00:27:16.709
is the joint application of SW Merger Acquisition Corporation, 

00:27:16.719 --> 00:27:21.500
Corix Infrastructure Incorporated, Texas Water Utilities

00:27:21.509 --> 00:27:28.045
LP, Corix Utilities, Texas Incorporated, SWWC Utilities Incorporated

00:27:28.055 --> 00:27:32.084
and Midway Water Utilities Incorporated. For the approval

00:27:32.094 --> 00:27:36.664
or merger, excuse me. For the approval of merger transaction

00:27:36.785 --> 00:27:42.125
under Texas Water Code Section 13.302. Before you is

00:27:42.134 --> 00:27:45.005
the proposed order that addresses an unanimous agreement

00:27:45.015 --> 00:27:48.614
between the parties. The joint applicants filed corrections. 

00:27:48.805 --> 00:27:51.914
The ALJ adopted the corrections and Commissioner Jackson

00:27:51.924 --> 00:27:55.410
filed a memo in this docket. (item:4:Chairwoman Jackson lays out her memo) I did file a memo. The

00:27:55.420 --> 00:27:57.900
proposed order in this docket addresses an agreement

00:27:57.910 --> 00:28:00.729
between the parties regarding the proposed merger.

00:28:00.739 --> 00:28:03.608
My memo makes changes to the order in paragraphs to

00:28:03.618 --> 00:28:06.309
clarify certain reporting requirements and to ensure

00:28:06.318 --> 00:28:09.519
compliance with the regulatory uh commitments. Any

00:28:09.529 --> 00:28:12.578
additional comments? No, Madam Chair. I agree with the

00:28:12.588 --> 00:28:16.469
changes you recommend in your memo. All right. (item:4:Motion to approve proposed order, consistent with Chairwoman Jackson's memo) I move to

00:28:16.479 --> 00:28:18.650
approve the proposed order, consistent with my memo. 

00:28:19.229 --> 00:28:22.559
Second. A motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. 

00:28:22.568 --> 00:28:26.568
Motion passes. Items 5-10 were consented. 

00:28:26.949 --> 00:28:29.670
Next up is Item No. 11. Shelah, will you please lay

00:28:29.680 --> 00:28:30.469
out this item.

00:28:32.150 --> 00:28:36.549
Yes ma'am. (item:11:Noe Puga’s appeal cost of obtaining service from East Rio
Hondo WSC) Item No. 11 is Docket No. 55234. This is Noe Puga's

00:28:36.920 --> 00:28:41.318
appeal of the cost of obtaining service from East Rio

00:28:41.328 --> 00:28:45.430
Hondo Water Supply Corporation. Before you is a proposal

00:28:45.439 --> 00:28:49.150
for decision. Mr Puga filed a response to the proposal

00:28:49.160 --> 00:28:52.209
for decision. And made a request that was interpreted

00:28:52.219 --> 00:28:54.568
as a request to attend this meeting and address the

00:28:54.578 --> 00:28:57.509
Commission. As a result, we balloted the request for

00:28:57.519 --> 00:29:00.239
oral argument and the Commission granted oral argument

00:29:00.250 --> 00:29:04.338
in this proceeding. We uh, we have 2 people that have

00:29:04.348 --> 00:29:07.789
signed up for oral argument. Mr. Puga has not signed

00:29:07.799 --> 00:29:09.719
up. I may just take a moment to check and see if

00:29:09.729 --> 00:29:12.509
Mr. Puga has joined the opening.

00:29:14.930 --> 00:29:17.608
No. In that case, we do have two other parties that

00:29:17.618 --> 00:29:20.670
did sign up for oral argument. If you would like

00:29:20.680 --> 00:29:22.699
to set a time limit for that? If you'd like for me

00:29:22.709 --> 00:29:24.568
to call people up? Yes. Could you please call them

00:29:24.578 --> 00:29:27.390
up one by one and allow 3 minutes each? Yes, ma'am.

00:29:27.439 --> 00:29:31.660
The first person is Richard Fryer on behalf of East Rio

00:29:31.670 --> 00:29:32.949
Hondo WSC. 

00:29:36.799 --> 00:29:38.598
And Chairman, you may have mentioned and I may have

00:29:38.608 --> 00:29:40.858
missed it. Did you set a time limit for this oral argument? 

00:29:40.900 --> 00:29:42.049
Three minutes. Okay.

00:29:48.170 --> 00:29:51.279
If you'll say your name for the record. (item:11:Oral argument from Richard Fryer with East Rio Hondo WSC) Richard

00:29:51.289 --> 00:29:55.509
Fryer for East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corporation. Madam

00:29:55.519 --> 00:29:58.809
Chairwoman, Commissioners. On behalf of East Rio Hondo

00:29:58.818 --> 00:30:04.858
Water Supply Corporation. I, we support the ALJ's proposal

00:30:04.868 --> 00:30:09.578
for decision to dismiss Mr. Puga's cost of service appeal

00:30:09.588 --> 00:30:13.618
with prejudice. Mr. Puga filed his cost to his petition

00:30:13.630 --> 00:30:21.250
more than 365 days from the initial estimate for services, 

00:30:21.259 --> 00:30:26.618
for the services to a subdivision. And so the pertinent

00:30:26.630 --> 00:30:32.039
statute requires a 90 day time frame to file a cost

00:30:32.049 --> 00:30:34.789
of service appeal and he's well outside of that. And

00:30:34.799 --> 00:30:37.939
because of that East Rio Hondo respectfully requests

00:30:37.949 --> 00:30:42.759
that the Commissioners dismiss Mr. Puga's appeal with prejudice. 

00:30:43.009 --> 00:30:43.489
Thank you.

00:30:49.848 --> 00:30:53.150
All right. The second party that signed up for oral

00:30:53.160 --> 00:30:55.430
argument is Commission Staff John Harrison.

00:31:14.439 --> 00:31:16.670
(item:11:Commission Staff's John Harrison with support for PFD dismissal) Good morning Chairman, Commissioners. I'm John Harrison

00:31:16.680 --> 00:31:19.289
on behalf of Commission Staff. And with me today is

00:31:19.299 --> 00:31:22.939
uh Sheri Hats. Uh we, um did not request oral argument. 

00:31:22.949 --> 00:31:25.559
However, uh we wanted to go ahead and sign up just

00:31:25.568 --> 00:31:28.459
to get our statement on the record. That we also support

00:31:28.469 --> 00:31:31.858
the proposal for decision for dismissal. As pointed

00:31:31.868 --> 00:31:35.318
out the Water Code and the Commission's own rules. Require

00:31:35.328 --> 00:31:37.338
that an appeal of cost of obtaining service be brought

00:31:37.348 --> 00:31:40.410
within 90 days of the date that the quote is received. 

00:31:40.420 --> 00:31:43.650
That was not the case in this situation. Therefore

00:31:43.660 --> 00:31:48.680
we continue to support dismissal. Thank you. All right. 

00:31:48.709 --> 00:31:51.828
That concludes oral argument for this proceeding. And

00:31:51.838 --> 00:31:54.400
before you now is the proposal for decision. Do we

00:31:54.410 --> 00:31:59.650
have any thoughts? (item:11:Motion to adopt PFD) I support the PFD and move that we

00:31:59.689 --> 00:32:02.338
I support the PFD if they want more discussion. Otherwise

00:32:02.500 --> 00:32:04.608
I move to adopt the

00:32:06.239 --> 00:32:10.699
PFD. Second. A motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. 

00:32:10.709 --> 00:32:15.269
Motion passes. Item 12 was consented. Next up

00:32:15.279 --> 00:32:17.539
is Item No. 13. Shelah, will you please lay out

00:32:17.549 --> 00:32:23.108
this item? Yes, ma'am. (item:13:Application of SWEPCO's authority to reconcile fuel costs) Item 13 is Docket No. 53931. 

00:32:23.449 --> 00:32:26.539
This is the application of SWEPCO for authority to

00:32:26.549 --> 00:32:29.328
reconcile fuel costs. The Commission considered this

00:32:29.338 --> 00:32:32.739
Docket at its November 30th Open Meeting. And issued

00:32:32.750 --> 00:32:36.000
a final order in this proceeding on December 7th. SWEPCO 

00:32:36.259 --> 00:32:39.108
filed a timely motion for rehearing. The Commission

00:32:39.118 --> 00:32:41.949
voted to add this item to the agenda for this meeting. 

00:32:42.118 --> 00:32:44.900
For the sole purpose of extending time to act on the

00:32:44.910 --> 00:32:48.479
motion for rehearing. (item:13:Motion to extend maximum time allowed by law for SWEPCO's rehearing) I would like to move that the

00:32:48.489 --> 00:32:51.088
Commission extend time to act on SWEPCO's motion

00:32:51.098 --> 00:32:53.828
for rehearing to the maximum extent allowed by law.

00:32:54.630 --> 00:32:59.000
Second. A motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion

00:32:59.009 --> 00:33:02.279
passes. Next up is Item No. 14. Shelah, will you

00:33:02.289 --> 00:33:05.858
please lay out this item? (item:14:Application of Oncor to amend CCN for a 345 KV transmission line in Denton & Wise Counties) Item No. 14 is Docket

00:33:05.868 --> 00:33:10.868
No. 55067. This is the application of Oncor to amend

00:33:10.880 --> 00:33:16.410
its electric, to amend it CCN for a 345 KV transmission

00:33:16.420 --> 00:33:20.529
line in Denton and Wise Counties. Before you is a proposal

00:33:20.539 --> 00:33:24.890
for decision from SOAH. Oncor, the City of Justin, Robert

00:33:24.900 --> 00:33:27.489
and Martha Vineyard and James and Holly Lewis filed

00:33:27.500 --> 00:33:31.098
exceptions and corrections. The SOAH ALJ's filed a

00:33:31.108 --> 00:33:34.098
letter recommending the adoption of some of the corrections

00:33:34.108 --> 00:33:37.328
and made minor revisions to the proposal for the decision. 

00:33:37.789 --> 00:33:40.500
A Commission Council memo was filed, recommending changes

00:33:40.509 --> 00:33:45.348
to the order and the PFD is before you now. Any

00:33:45.358 --> 00:33:48.140
thoughts on this one? (item:14:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on the application) I would like to highlight

00:33:48.150 --> 00:33:51.759
that ERCOT has deemed the transmission line critical for

00:33:51.769 --> 00:33:54.890
reliability. And necessary to alleviate existing and

00:33:54.900 --> 00:33:57.578
potential transmission distribution constraints on

00:33:57.588 --> 00:34:02.029
the system. The, the this project is part of Oncor's

00:34:02.039 --> 00:34:06.949
Roanoke Area appraise project. And um you know, we're

00:34:06.959 --> 00:34:10.478
past the statutory deadline on the 180 day deadline

00:34:10.489 --> 00:34:13.760
that was on December 5th. I think from my perspective

00:34:13.769 --> 00:34:16.869
I would adopt the PFD in part and reject the PFD in

00:34:16.878 --> 00:34:22.639
part. Approving RT 179C with Denton County Land

00:34:22.648 --> 00:34:27.559
and Cattle, LPs. Modified links M1 and M5. 

00:34:27.590 --> 00:34:30.469
Instead of the PFDs recommendation to include lines

00:34:30.500 --> 00:34:37.708
alternate one and two segments. The proposed route

00:34:37.719 --> 00:34:41.519
includes uh Commission Staff's recommended RT 179

00:34:41.530 --> 00:34:47.099
C. It's un the uh it's unopposed by Denton um or the

00:34:47.110 --> 00:34:50.750
links proposed by Denton County land and cattle. M1

00:34:50.760 --> 00:34:56.030
modified, M1 and M5 are unopposed. Um

00:34:56.039 --> 00:35:01.349
excluding line alternative one, modification reduces

00:35:01.360 --> 00:35:04.809
the number of habitable structures by about 38 habitable

00:35:04.820 --> 00:35:08.750
structures within 500 ft of the route center line.

00:35:08.878 --> 00:35:14.628
Um from 136 to 98 excluding Licia alternative to modification

00:35:14.639 --> 00:35:17.079
eliminates the issue related to obtaining landowner

00:35:17.090 --> 00:35:21.269
consent for track 801 and conditioning the Commission's

00:35:21.280 --> 00:35:24.329
approval of a route based on obtaining uh landowner

00:35:24.340 --> 00:35:32.059
consent. And so I, I would um suggest that we adopt

00:35:32.070 --> 00:35:36.199
that route um with those modified M1 and M5

00:35:36.208 --> 00:35:40.119
unopposed links. At the this, this route does increase

00:35:40.128 --> 00:35:45.659
the cost by about $731,000. But um it avoids complications.

00:35:47.119 --> 00:35:51.090
So you mentioned the um La Sandia Altern one modification

00:35:51.099 --> 00:35:54.659
in the number of habitable structures. That it would

00:35:54.668 --> 00:35:57.840
add on the route being 38. Mhm. Yes. Well, it would

00:35:57.849 --> 00:36:01.469
reduce, reduce the amount of habitable structures by

00:36:01.478 --> 00:36:05.909
about 38 habitable structures from 136 to 98 impact

00:36:05.918 --> 00:36:07.539
by taking the new one. Yes, ma'am

00:36:10.659 --> 00:36:15.429
(item:14:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on the application) Madam Chairman, I too support RT 179C with the

00:36:15.438 --> 00:36:21.530
Denton's M1 and M5 modifications. In addition

00:36:21.539 --> 00:36:23.309
to the fact that we are already over the statutory

00:36:23.320 --> 00:36:27.800
timeline to rule on this docket. I think this for a

00:36:27.918 --> 00:36:33.219
few reasons. I support those, that route. One, it allows

00:36:33.228 --> 00:36:36.958
us to seek a final order without seeking consent from

00:36:36.969 --> 00:36:40.639
additional landowners. I think the route that parks

00:36:40.648 --> 00:36:42.849
and wildlife suggested is too expensive and has too

00:36:42.860 --> 00:36:48.668
many habitable structures. And I think 179 has modified

00:36:48.978 --> 00:36:52.849
meets PURA and the Commission rules for routing a line

00:36:53.458 --> 00:36:59.050
best of all of the options. And would support that with

00:36:59.059 --> 00:37:01.329
changes including the Commission Council memo.

00:37:02.869 --> 00:37:06.250
(item:14:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts on the application) So I support that as well. Adopting the PDF in

00:37:06.260 --> 00:37:10.250
part and denying the PDF in part. Proving RT 

00:37:10.260 --> 00:37:14.510
179C as modified only by Denton County Land and Cattle

00:37:14.530 --> 00:37:18.110
modified links in 1 and then 5. (item:14:Motion to adopt PFD with added changes in Commission Council memo) But otherwise

00:37:18.119 --> 00:37:21.458
adopting the PFD and incorporating the changes uh as

00:37:21.469 --> 00:37:24.039
you mentioned, set forth in Commission Council memo

00:37:24.269 --> 00:37:27.000
and consistent with our discussions. Second. 

00:37:28.949 --> 00:37:34.208
A motion and a second. I move. Jimmy moves, Jimmy moves. 

00:37:34.219 --> 00:37:38.188
Lori seconds. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes. 

00:37:39.809 --> 00:37:42.329
Next up with Item No. 15. Shelah, will you please

00:37:42.340 --> 00:37:47.639
lay out this item? (item:15:Application of TNMP to amend CCN in Collin, Grayson, and Denton Counties) Item 15 is Docket No. 55114.

00:37:47.668 --> 00:37:50.849
This is the application of Texas New Mexico Power Company

00:37:50.860 --> 00:37:56.119
to amend it CCN for the Pilot Point 138-kV transmission

00:37:56.128 --> 00:37:59.869
line project in Collin, Grayson and Denton Counties.

00:38:00.010 --> 00:38:03.409
Before you is a proposal for decision from SOAH. 

00:38:03.418 --> 00:38:07.110
TNMP, Oncor and the Route 11 Interveners filed exceptions

00:38:07.119 --> 00:38:10.820
or corrections to the proposal for decision. The SOAH ALJs

00:38:10.829 --> 00:38:13.769
filed a letter in which they recommended the adoption

00:38:13.780 --> 00:38:16.489
of some of the corrections and made minor revisions

00:38:16.500 --> 00:38:19.668
to the proposal for the decision. A Commission Council

00:38:19.679 --> 00:38:23.389
memo was filed, recommending changes to the order. (item:15:Shelah Cisneros confirms 9 individuals have signed up for oral arguments) And

00:38:23.398 --> 00:38:26.750
the Commission granted oral argument in this proceeding. 

00:38:27.590 --> 00:38:31.820
We have 9 individuals who have signed up for oral

00:38:31.829 --> 00:38:35.349
argument. Could you please call them up one by one

00:38:35.360 --> 00:38:38.760
and allow three minutes each. Three minutes, yes ma'am. 

00:38:38.849 --> 00:38:42.250
The person who signed up to speak is Nick Bazzani. 

00:38:46.099 --> 00:38:47.110
Mr. Bazzani, come on up.

00:38:51.469 --> 00:38:57.199
If you'll state your name for the record. (item:15:Nick Bazzani, citizen, provides oral argument) Nick Bazzani representing

00:38:57.208 --> 00:39:02.260
the family. I brought uh printouts from my testimony

00:39:02.269 --> 00:39:04.478
that was followed back in July. If you guys want

00:39:04.489 --> 00:39:08.110
to take a look at it. Really I think the main,

00:39:08.119 --> 00:39:12.079
my main concern here is uh the placement of RT 5E

00:39:12.090 --> 00:39:14.708
I'm an intervenor specifically for Route 5E.

00:39:15.030 --> 00:39:19.679
It wraps around my house on two sides. And um

00:39:19.688 --> 00:39:22.820
what's not on, you know the, the, the maps that uh

00:39:22.829 --> 00:39:26.519
TNMP produced. Is that they've all already got a local

00:39:26.530 --> 00:39:29.699
power line going through the uh, uh through half of

00:39:29.708 --> 00:39:32.769
my property you already. So uh RT 5, you would

00:39:32.780 --> 00:39:35.148
essentially uh result in my house being wrapped on

00:39:35.159 --> 00:39:40.239
3 sides by TNMP power lines. And uh I'm exactly

00:39:40.250 --> 00:39:43.679
happy with that. So, um I got 5 kids. I got

00:39:43.688 --> 00:39:45.378
a bunch of kids that come over. I don't want them to

00:39:45.389 --> 00:39:47.349
grow up with humming power lines on top of their heads. 

00:39:47.360 --> 00:39:48.389
So, yeah so.  

00:39:50.340 --> 00:39:54.929
Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. You could, certainly. 

00:40:00.239 --> 00:40:01.849
Commissioners, would you like for me to pass this around

00:40:01.860 --> 00:40:04.119
to you or have someone pass these around to you? Yes. 

00:40:08.719 --> 00:40:10.489
All right. The next person who has signed up to speak

00:40:10.500 --> 00:40:11.659
is David Brown.

00:40:20.500 --> 00:40:24.610
Good morning, uh Chairman. If you'll wait to speak in

00:40:24.619 --> 00:40:26.510
the microphone and announce your name please. Sure. 

00:40:26.860 --> 00:40:30.010
(item:15:Oral Argument of David Brown with Law Firm of Ewell, Brown, Blanke & Knight) I'm David Brown uh with the Law Firm of Ewell, Brown, 

00:40:30.019 --> 00:40:33.570
Blanke & Knight. And uh I'm here for the Route 11 intervenes. 

00:40:33.789 --> 00:40:36.929
Three minutes is gonna be very challenging. Uh,

00:40:36.938 --> 00:40:40.289
we filed exceptions. I'm gonna do my best. I would

00:40:40.300 --> 00:40:43.489
request uh, uh the Commissioner's indulgence. 

00:40:43.500 --> 00:40:47.199
If uh, cause we're gonna, we're not getting into trees

00:40:47.208 --> 00:40:49.320
and flowers. We're, we're getting into the meat of

00:40:49.329 --> 00:40:53.809
the application. Uh so, uh RT 11 interveners are

00:40:53.820 --> 00:40:57.030
on Route 11. We oppose Route 11 and we're in favor

00:40:57.039 --> 00:41:00.469
of RT 4. If the Commission adopts the PFD in this

00:41:00.478 --> 00:41:02.929
case, it's gonna be setting a number of precedents. 

00:41:03.219 --> 00:41:05.159
First, it's gonna be saying that it will approve an

00:41:05.168 --> 00:41:08.489
application for the amendment of a CCN. Where the applicants

00:41:08.500 --> 00:41:12.289
filed cost estimates. Were so unreliable that the

00:41:12.300 --> 00:41:14.929
ALJ is recommended that you reject them.

00:41:16.539 --> 00:41:20.250
Secondly, the Commission will in effect enable an applicant

00:41:20.260 --> 00:41:23.159
to misrepresent the relative cost of routes which it

00:41:23.168 --> 00:41:26.579
did in this application. Hide that data from interveners

00:41:26.809 --> 00:41:30.139
and do so without consequences. And I know this sounds

00:41:30.148 --> 00:41:32.418
like a discovery dispute. The discovery of disputes

00:41:32.429 --> 00:41:34.320
were overruled. We're not getting into that at all. 

00:41:34.329 --> 00:41:36.280
We're right now just talking about the merits as it

00:41:36.289 --> 00:41:39.949
resulted after the hearing. Uh inevitably the Commission's

00:41:39.958 --> 00:41:43.090
decision, if it goes with the recommended uh with Route

00:41:43.099 --> 00:41:46.719
11. It's gonna foist additional costs significant additional

00:41:46.728 --> 00:41:50.728
cost on ratepayers. And second, the second point beyond

00:41:50.739 --> 00:41:54.969
that strict cost point. Is that the uh, uh you're gonna

00:41:54.978 --> 00:41:58.050
be setting a precedent for the highest uh cost of prudent

00:41:58.059 --> 00:42:01.949
avoidance on a contested CCN route that anybody has

00:42:01.958 --> 00:42:04.590
seen. Now there are, there are sometimes settled routes

00:42:04.599 --> 00:42:07.148
where that happens where the numbers are higher. But

00:42:07.159 --> 00:42:09.168
in a contested case, you've never approved one that

00:42:09.179 --> 00:42:11.750
I know of that is that is high as this. And the

00:42:11.760 --> 00:42:16.019
experts even for RT 4 people say the same thing. 

00:42:16.510 --> 00:42:20.168
So we know your, your balancing factors here. That's

00:42:20.179 --> 00:42:23.659
what your job is. It's not just cost, the cost is important. 

00:42:24.148 --> 00:42:28.418
But here, every expert who testified in this case. Testified 

00:42:28.429 --> 00:42:32.610
that uh there were three or four things that were different

00:42:32.619 --> 00:42:35.449
that differentiated the routes. The first was the relative

00:42:35.458 --> 00:42:38.309
cost of the routes. The second was the number of habitable

00:42:38.320 --> 00:42:40.909
structures and prudent avoidance. And the third was

00:42:40.918 --> 00:42:43.898
just the length of the routes. Even those hired by

00:42:43.909 --> 00:42:47.539
uh Rt 4 opponents agree that those are

00:42:47.550 --> 00:42:49.809
the, those are the factors that you need to look at. 

00:42:51.188 --> 00:42:56.458
First costs. So the recommendation is that the

00:42:56.469 --> 00:42:59.250
Commission, the PFD recommends the Commission not rely

00:42:59.260 --> 00:43:03.378
on those costs and we agree. 

00:43:05.269 --> 00:43:07.179
Running out of time here. So I'm gonna do my best.

00:43:07.550 --> 00:43:10.659
So half the cost of this line even under the PFD is

00:43:10.668 --> 00:43:13.610
gonna be the cost of right away acquisition. Even under

00:43:13.619 --> 00:43:18.360
the PFD. The PFD estimates are based upon fair market

00:43:18.369 --> 00:43:22.780
value estimates not and that is willing buyer, willing

00:43:22.789 --> 00:43:26.719
seller. They're not based upon what anybody expects

00:43:26.728 --> 00:43:31.148
including TNMP. TNMP expects between 50-75% of its

00:43:31.159 --> 00:43:33.289
acquisitions to be. Mr. Brown, that's the end of your

00:43:33.300 --> 00:43:33.918
three minutes.

00:43:35.869 --> 00:43:38.688
I, I beg for a little more time if you.

00:43:41.378 --> 00:43:43.688
Maybe just a few more minutes. Okay thank you, Your Honor. Would

00:43:43.699 --> 00:43:47.110
you like to set a time limit? Yes, another two minutes. Two

00:43:47.119 --> 00:43:50.168
minutes. All right. I think it's only fair if the other

00:43:50.179 --> 00:43:53.610
party has an opportunity to come back up as well. That's

00:43:53.619 --> 00:43:56.929
fine. But obviously it's your time we're eating up. So,

00:43:58.070 --> 00:44:02.269
so rather than recommend denial of the application. I'm

00:44:02.280 --> 00:44:05.099
going, I'm going to jump to this because I plan to

00:44:05.110 --> 00:44:07.719
come back to this. But you have in front of you uh

00:44:07.728 --> 00:44:10.030
envelopes and there's extra copies over here which

00:44:10.039 --> 00:44:14.148
are confidential data supposedly that TNMP provided. 

00:44:14.570 --> 00:44:17.648
The first page of this is not really confidential

00:44:17.659 --> 00:44:20.398
it's Attachment 4. And it shows you that the original

00:44:20.409 --> 00:44:25.519
estimate for uh RT 4 was $99 million and change. 

00:44:25.708 --> 00:44:30.320
The original estimate for RT 11 was $67 or $68 billion

00:44:30.619 --> 00:44:36.360
and change. By the time this the PFD was uh uh

00:44:36.889 --> 00:44:42.050
issued, the, the uh ALJs recognized that uh Route

00:44:42.059 --> 00:44:46.789
4was not a $99 million OK. Uh Route but was in

00:44:46.800 --> 00:44:52.590
fact $33 billion less. That's the magnitude of the difference

00:44:52.599 --> 00:44:56.168
of the data that was hidden was one third of the cost

00:44:56.179 --> 00:45:00.309
of that route was not just not given to the interveners

00:45:00.320 --> 00:45:05.269
until after intervener direct was uh uh filed. And

00:45:05.780 --> 00:45:08.349
was we were never given the opportunity to take discovery

00:45:08.360 --> 00:45:10.389
on it. We had to do everything on cross examination

00:45:11.128 --> 00:45:15.619
Um, so in the end, the cost of these routes is such

00:45:15.628 --> 00:45:19.800
that if you approve Route 11, you're gonna be approving

00:45:19.809 --> 00:45:23.619
even under the PFD a route, that's $6.6 million higher

00:45:23.929 --> 00:45:27.780
than uh, uh, Route 11, right. If you, if you don't

00:45:27.789 --> 00:45:31.369
approve Route 4, you're gonna be uh adding $6.6 million

00:45:31.378 --> 00:45:35.978
in cost. And if you follow TNMP's estimates of condemnation

00:45:35.989 --> 00:45:38.639
pro the, the process that they expect to happen and

00:45:38.648 --> 00:45:41.398
it's a straight out of their documents, they expect

00:45:41.409 --> 00:45:44.500
50 to 75% of the their acquisitions to be subject to

00:45:44.510 --> 00:45:47.309
condemnation under those numbers run through their

00:45:47.320 --> 00:45:52.159
cost. Uh model. You're looking at $16 to $23 million

00:45:52.679 --> 00:45:58.800
uh 11 to 23% higher if you go with 11 versus uh

00:45:58.809 --> 00:46:04.719
4. So I, in this package I've included and this is

00:46:04.728 --> 00:46:08.099
confidential. But what you'll see here is, uh this

00:46:08.110 --> 00:46:10.539
is the map of the zones of the routes that that were

00:46:10.550 --> 00:46:11.458
intended to be covered.

00:46:13.250 --> 00:46:16.519
If you look at these numbers, you'll see XXX. Mr. Brown, 

00:46:16.570 --> 00:46:21.039
that's the end of your 2 minutes. All right. Thank you, Your honor. I would ask

00:46:21.050 --> 00:46:24.340
you to take a look at the data that's in the package. 

00:46:24.519 --> 00:46:28.110
You'll see that, that the uh the Route 4 is far

00:46:28.119 --> 00:46:32.418
preferable under all cost length and habitable structure

00:46:32.530 --> 00:46:34.699
uh criteria. Thank you.

00:46:37.378 --> 00:46:37.510
(silence)

00:46:39.239 --> 00:46:41.159
We will circle back around to Mr. Bazzani to give him

00:46:41.168 --> 00:46:45.438
an additional time. But it, uh, let's go do that

00:46:45.449 --> 00:46:47.570
now before we forget. Mr. Bazzani will check in with

00:46:47.579 --> 00:46:49.590
him. Would you like an additional two minutes to address

00:46:49.599 --> 00:46:53.228
the Commission? No. All right. The next person who's

00:46:53.239 --> 00:46:55.409
up to speak and I hope I pronounce this correctly. 

00:46:55.418 --> 00:46:56.918
Shula Netzer.

00:47:02.438 --> 00:47:07.478
If you'll, if you'll just state your name for the record. 

00:47:07.510 --> 00:47:09.599
I believe you'll have 5 minutes to speak.

00:47:12.679 --> 00:47:13.099
Okay. 

00:47:15.550 --> 00:47:19.469
(item:15:Oral argument of Shula Netzer with Shula Netzer Real Estate & Netzer Environmental Consulting) Good morning. My name is Shula Netzer. I'm a real estate

00:47:19.478 --> 00:47:22.708
broker and the owner of Shula Netzer Real Estate Company 

00:47:22.719 --> 00:47:26.449
and Netzer Environmental Consulting. And I'm the Manager

00:47:26.458 --> 00:47:31.019
of the Four Seasons Range Management, LLC. After being

00:47:31.030 --> 00:47:35.059
a Special ED teacher until 1978. I got into real estate, 

00:47:35.070 --> 00:47:39.148
it was 45 years ago. Majority of my business is land

00:47:39.159 --> 00:47:43.519
deals. I love the land, agriculture and ranching. Managing

00:47:43.530 --> 00:47:46.929
land during these years in many city I've been accustomed

00:47:46.938 --> 00:47:50.938
to dealing with many utilities easements. We all know that

00:47:50.949 --> 00:47:54.579
utilities are necessary for development. In my office

00:47:54.590 --> 00:47:58.128
we are very sensitive to mail and watching out for

00:47:58.139 --> 00:48:02.860
notices. We did not get an initial notice on a Texas

00:48:02.869 --> 00:48:06.340
New Mexico Power different alignment. And that's why

00:48:06.349 --> 00:48:09.889
we had no knowledge until a later time that it was

00:48:09.898 --> 00:48:13.409
decided that Route 11 was the chosen route. That's

00:48:13.418 --> 00:48:18.070
us. So we have taken pride in this property because

00:48:18.079 --> 00:48:20.938
of its location being on the tollway. Which is the

00:48:20.949 --> 00:48:24.119
most important artery in Dallas and for the future

00:48:24.128 --> 00:48:27.628
of North Texas. We put on am ad and we have a

00:48:27.639 --> 00:48:31.909
development agreement in place. We named it Four Seasons

00:48:32.208 --> 00:48:35.599
reflecting the quality of the development and the neighboring

00:48:35.728 --> 00:48:39.860
developments to come. Beside the environmental issues

00:48:39.869 --> 00:48:43.280
that we are all sensitive to and especially my husband

00:48:43.289 --> 00:48:47.079
was a environmental professor, environmental science

00:48:47.090 --> 00:48:50.429
professor. This route also will affect the neighboring

00:48:50.438 --> 00:48:54.349
property that is part of I still purchase to those

00:48:54.360 --> 00:48:55.340
schools and

00:48:56.918 --> 00:49:01.208
Route 11 bars our development and causes extensive

00:49:01.219 --> 00:49:04.389
damages to the whole plan and not just for the easement 

00:49:04.409 --> 00:49:10.019
alignment. I'm upset to hear, I was upset to hear the

00:49:10.030 --> 00:49:14.719
process by which the route was chosen. I even got a

00:49:14.728 --> 00:49:18.119
phone call from neighboring property owners. That, that

00:49:18.309 --> 00:49:21.510
on different routes that their attorneys were questioning

00:49:21.599 --> 00:49:24.978
the process and expressing sympathy and disbelief.

00:49:25.010 --> 00:49:28.820
This has never happened to me before. Please let

00:49:28.829 --> 00:49:32.329
me share with you a couple of things. 

00:49:36.030 --> 00:49:36.530
This is the map,

00:49:38.550 --> 00:49:39.438
this is the, the

00:49:41.228 --> 00:49:43.079
I'm just gonna pause for a moment and we'll give you

00:49:43.090 --> 00:49:45.978
guys additional time. It's important that you speak

00:49:45.989 --> 00:49:47.889
into the microphone because we have a court reporter

00:49:47.898 --> 00:49:50.668
who's transcribing it and also people are watching

00:49:50.679 --> 00:49:53.030
online so they can hear you. So I'm gonna move that

00:49:53.039 --> 00:49:56.340
I'm gonna move this as close as I can to you. Okay. 

00:49:56.349 --> 00:50:01.679
Thank you. Okay. So the idea is to get electricity to

00:50:01.688 --> 00:50:08.369
pilot point here. Okay. This is one location to bring

00:50:08.378 --> 00:50:13.628
it from and this is another. It looks rural but it's

00:50:13.639 --> 00:50:18.639
not. The red is Four Seasons. This line is the tollway. 

00:50:19.719 --> 00:50:22.909
The tollway goes all the way from downtown Dallas all

00:50:22.918 --> 00:50:26.610
the way way north to Bryson County. It's not a proposed

00:50:26.619 --> 00:50:31.119
road like the Mexico that power line showed it. We are

00:50:31.128 --> 00:50:34.239
on the tollway. This is called the Platinum Corridor

00:50:34.250 --> 00:50:41.458
of Dallas. This is Pearson Road which is Highway 289. So

00:50:41.469 --> 00:50:45.010
this is called the Gold Corridor of Dallas of North

00:50:45.019 --> 00:50:49.360
Texas. So this is this whole area is the Golden Corridor

00:50:49.369 --> 00:50:52.579
of North Texas. The most valuable and expensive real

00:50:52.590 --> 00:50:57.909
estate. Route 11 is the route that brings it from here

00:50:58.090 --> 00:51:02.429
all the way to here. Crossing as you see crossing Four

00:51:02.438 --> 00:51:06.409
Seasons and crossing all the most expensive lands of

00:51:06.418 --> 00:51:10.519
North Texas. This is Highway 377.

00:51:13.289 --> 00:51:16.659
Highway three and this is the uh this is proposed 4. 

00:51:17.260 --> 00:51:21.958
Highway 377 is called horse country. It has sandy (inaudible)

00:51:22.030 --> 00:51:25.260
soil made and that's why it's mainly horse country. It's

00:51:25.269 --> 00:51:30.878
very rural and everything. And then so you could see

00:51:31.059 --> 00:51:35.239
Route 11, how long it is and how expensive it is. And

00:51:35.250 --> 00:51:40.539
and Route 4 is in rural horse country area. So, and

00:51:40.550 --> 00:51:43.829
we are bisecting here. And I'd like to show you the

00:51:43.898 --> 00:51:44.750
essential hold on. 

00:51:47.128 --> 00:51:52.449
This, this is Four Seasons. This, this been for a long

00:51:52.458 --> 00:51:55.280
time. This is the development agreement that we have. 

00:51:55.289 --> 00:51:59.369
The property has modern it and it's almost ready to

00:51:59.378 --> 00:52:05.340
develop. The red line. This is the, the, the power line

00:52:05.349 --> 00:52:09.389
that they are projecting. Now, I'd like to show you

00:52:09.398 --> 00:52:16.989
what's going on, keep it there. This one just to show

00:52:17.000 --> 00:52:21.369
you it's not rural. This is the tollway. Remember we

00:52:21.378 --> 00:52:24.119
were telling me that the tollway that is right next

00:52:24.128 --> 00:52:28.909
Platinum Ranch is here. This is right now under construction. 

00:52:29.280 --> 00:52:32.648
The most amazing golf course, everything is already

00:52:32.659 --> 00:52:36.438
development up vertical and. 

00:52:38.289 --> 00:52:41.128
Please wrap up your comments. We need to wrap up. I beg your pardon. Your time is up. Your time is up.

00:52:42.668 --> 00:52:45.699
Can I just put a, a minute? Just a summary? 

00:52:47.739 --> 00:52:51.610
I'm sorry we, we've got. We donated 65 acres for the tollway and

00:52:51.619 --> 00:52:55.679
we did a lot of things to improve this property. And

00:52:55.688 --> 00:52:59.849
um and it's just a disappointing way I gave all these

00:52:59.898 --> 00:53:02.699
years a lot of easements. Some of them I liked or didn't

00:53:02.708 --> 00:53:05.619
like, but the whole process was fair and right here

00:53:06.398 --> 00:53:08.458
we're not right. Thank you. Thank you very much for

00:53:08.469 --> 00:53:10.429
allowing me to speak in front of you.

00:53:12.250 --> 00:53:13.019
Thank you for helping. 

00:53:14.889 --> 00:53:17.398
The next person who's up to speak is Thomas Brocado. 

00:53:34.780 --> 00:53:34.800
Hey

00:53:38.289 --> 00:53:38.309
(inaudible)

00:53:41.878 --> 00:53:41.898
Yeah.

00:53:46.688 --> 00:53:46.708
Yeah,

00:53:59.550 --> 00:54:01.599
(item:15:Oral argument from Thomas Brocado) Good morning Madam Chair, Commissioners. Thomas Bocado

00:54:01.909 --> 00:54:05.219
I represent the Venable Family in this matter. PURA 

00:54:05.228 --> 00:54:07.648
as you know, directs the Commission to consider numerous

00:54:07.659 --> 00:54:10.918
factors when deciding transmission line cases. Here

00:54:10.929 --> 00:54:14.168
at TNMP and the ALJs have done a good job balancing

00:54:14.179 --> 00:54:17.708
these factors. The PFD is well reasoned, it's thorough

00:54:17.719 --> 00:54:20.369
and it balances the criteria set out in PURA Section

00:54:20.378 --> 00:54:24.610
37.056. This statement is supported by the fact that

00:54:24.619 --> 00:54:27.789
all parties except for one support or do not oppose

00:54:27.800 --> 00:54:32.320
Route 11. Only one party filed substantive exceptions

00:54:32.329 --> 00:54:36.949
in opposition. Stated differently 1 out of 21 interveners

00:54:36.958 --> 00:54:41.599
are directly impacted by Route 11. Oncor breaths electric

00:54:41.610 --> 00:54:47.128
and Atmos Gas also favor Route 11. Specifically, the

00:54:47.139 --> 00:54:50.449
PFD points out that Route 11 compares favorably with

00:54:50.458 --> 00:54:53.570
respect to the overall route link paralleling right

00:54:53.579 --> 00:54:56.369
of way and property boundaries impact on community

00:54:56.378 --> 00:54:59.969
values and the number of habitable structures. Now

00:54:59.978 --> 00:55:03.090
my clients would be impacted by eight alternate routes

00:55:03.099 --> 00:55:06.389
that include Segment 5E. And this includes Route

00:55:06.398 --> 00:55:09.800
4 that is being proposed by the Route 11 interveners. 

00:55:10.250 --> 00:55:13.369
This route scored poorly on most of the metrics addressed 

00:55:13.378 --> 00:55:17.148
in PURA. Now I brought with me a demonstrative exhibit

00:55:17.159 --> 00:55:19.809
that visually depicts how RT 4 would impact my

00:55:19.820 --> 00:55:23.918
clients. First I, I would note that my clients live

00:55:23.929 --> 00:55:27.510
on this property. It is not remote empty land. As you'll

00:55:27.519 --> 00:55:30.289
see this route would stair step its way diagonally

00:55:30.300 --> 00:55:33.289
across my client's property. In the most severe way

00:55:33.610 --> 00:55:36.369
it inappropriately segments my client's property, which

00:55:36.378 --> 00:55:40.329
is contrary to long-standing PUC precedent and practice. 

00:55:40.840 --> 00:55:43.728
It would result in nine angle structures on my client's

00:55:43.739 --> 00:55:49.079
land that's 990 degree turns. Importantly, the ALJ

00:55:49.090 --> 00:55:52.260
found that routing of link 5E along tax parcel

00:55:52.269 --> 00:55:56.260
lines is inconsistent with PUC precedent and results

00:55:56.269 --> 00:55:59.119
in a disproportionate impact on the venerable property. 

00:56:00.010 --> 00:56:02.760
Lastly, I'd like to address the objections raised by

00:56:02.769 --> 00:56:06.530
the Route 11 Interveners. Most problematic from a legal

00:56:06.539 --> 00:56:09.750
and policy standpoint is that they focus entirely on

00:56:09.760 --> 00:56:14.989
one subset of one criteria. They've expressed concern

00:56:15.000 --> 00:56:18.429
that TNMPs right of way acquisition estimates are incorrect

00:56:18.438 --> 00:56:22.590
for some routes making Route 11 more cost effective. 

00:56:23.550 --> 00:56:26.750
Notably, they've remained silent with respect to all

00:56:26.760 --> 00:56:30.958
of the criteria. First, the Commission does not adjudicate

00:56:30.969 --> 00:56:33.789
right of way or condemnation values. Indeed, the preliminary

00:56:33.800 --> 00:56:36.929
order in this case, as well as long standing precedent

00:56:36.938 --> 00:56:39.449
makes it clear at page 10 that this is an issue not

00:56:39.458 --> 00:56:42.530
to be addressed in this proceeding. Moreover, like

00:56:42.539 --> 00:56:45.269
all cost components of this project, they are in fact

00:56:45.280 --> 00:56:49.228
estimates. Secondly, no evidence was presented to counter

00:56:49.239 --> 00:56:52.099
the reasonableness of TNMP's estimates. And perhaps

00:56:52.110 --> 00:56:55.360
most importantly, it's the fact that even if one accepts

00:56:55.369 --> 00:56:58.418
the Route 11 intervenors argument, the Route 4 right

00:56:58.429 --> 00:57:01.679
of way acquisition estimates will ultimately prove

00:57:01.688 --> 00:57:05.199
to be higher. The overall estimated cost of Route 4 

00:57:05.208 --> 00:57:08.458
compared to Route 11 is within a reasonable range.

00:57:08.780 --> 00:57:12.329
An adjustment to TNMP'S cost estimates would be negligible

00:57:12.340 --> 00:57:15.769
and just to give you a frame of reference. Route 11

00:57:15.780 --> 00:57:19.909
is estimated to be on the order of $68 million route

00:57:19.958 --> 00:57:23.989
Um, routes that use Segment 5E are on the range

00:57:24.000 --> 00:57:27.969
of $94 to $98 million. So they're not even close. One

00:57:27.978 --> 00:57:31.019
additional point is that the ALJs recommend using

00:57:31.168 --> 00:57:33.938
a modification proposed by Oncor that would result

00:57:33.949 --> 00:57:36.800
in approximately $6 million in savings if Route 11

00:57:36.809 --> 00:57:40.000
is adopted. These savings have not been reflected in

00:57:40.010 --> 00:57:44.849
the cost estimates. In closing Route 11 best satisfies

00:57:44.860 --> 00:57:48.530
the criteria set on PURA and has nearly unanimous support

00:57:48.699 --> 00:57:51.438
It utilizes one of the highest percentages of compatible

00:57:51.449 --> 00:57:55.679
ride of way for its total length. Almost 92%. In contrast

00:57:55.688 --> 00:57:59.800
Route 4 ranks last out of 109 alternate routes in

00:57:59.809 --> 00:58:02.228
terms of paralleling other compatible right of ways. 

00:58:02.750 --> 00:58:05.949
Route 11 has 18 fewer habitable structures than Route

00:58:05.958 --> 00:58:08.869
4 and respectfully. I, I'm not sure where Mr. Brown's

00:58:08.878 --> 00:58:11.889
comments. What they were based on with respect to

00:58:11.898 --> 00:58:15.579
that point. At least 16 interveners in this case are

00:58:15.590 --> 00:58:20.159
directly uh impacted by link um by Route 4 or Link

00:58:20.168 --> 00:58:23.688
5E. For all these reasons, we would urge the Commission

00:58:23.699 --> 00:58:26.280
to adopt the PFD. Thank you for your time.

00:58:29.590 --> 00:58:32.260
All right. The next person that is signed up to speak

00:58:32.269 --> 00:58:33.389
is Alfred Herrera. 

00:58:45.780 --> 00:58:50.179
(item:15:Oral argument from Alfred Herrera) Good morning and Happy New Year Madam Chair, Commissioner

00:58:50.539 --> 00:58:52.688
Glotfelty, Commissioner Cobos. Our comments will be

00:58:52.699 --> 00:58:56.668
brief. The easy part of your decision today is

00:58:56.679 --> 00:58:59.599
that you are focused on two routes in this proceeding 

00:58:59.610 --> 00:59:02.860
Route 4 or Route 11. We would urge you to adopt

00:59:02.869 --> 00:59:05.250
one of those two routes. The difficult part of your

00:59:05.260 --> 00:59:08.550
decision today is how much credence do you give to

00:59:08.559 --> 00:59:11.280
the criticisms that the Route 11 intervenors came up. 

00:59:11.289 --> 00:59:15.119
With regarding the cost estimates that TNMP provided. 

00:59:15.500 --> 00:59:18.610
If you focus on that one element. Then that argues

00:59:18.619 --> 00:59:23.050
in favor of Route 4. If you take the approach

00:59:23.059 --> 00:59:25.309
of the PFD did and the TNMP does and the Venable

00:59:25.478 --> 00:59:28.878
Group does that you look at all the criteria. Then

00:59:28.889 --> 00:59:32.059
that would argue in favor of Route 11. We would

00:59:32.070 --> 00:59:34.438
urge you to adopt one of those two routes. But the

00:59:34.449 --> 00:59:36.679
evidence does show though is that none of the other

00:59:36.688 --> 00:59:40.688
routes or anywhere close to the best meets criteria

00:59:40.699 --> 00:59:43.398
that the Commission has. We would urge you to adopt

00:59:43.409 --> 00:59:47.398
either Route 4 or Route 11. And we'd be happy to

00:59:47.409 --> 00:59:48.780
answer any questions you may have.

00:59:53.239 --> 00:59:55.688
The next person who is up to speak is Cort Thomas.

01:00:06.659 --> 01:00:09.059
(item:15:Oral argument from Cort Thomas with Law Firm of Brown Fox) Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Cort Thomas. I'm

01:00:09.070 --> 01:00:11.070
with the Law Firm of Brown Fox. And I represent the

01:00:11.079 --> 01:00:14.820
High Point Consortium. We support the PFD and its

01:00:14.829 --> 01:00:17.938
recommendation of Route 11. We filed quite a bit of

01:00:17.949 --> 01:00:20.800
briefing comparing Route 11 to the 5E corridor

01:00:20.809 --> 01:00:22.679
and specifically Route 4. I would say we're not

01:00:22.688 --> 01:00:24.699
opposed to Route 4 because it doesn't impact us. 

01:00:24.708 --> 01:00:27.739
However, we did spend a lot of time briefing that comparison. 

01:00:28.019 --> 01:00:31.039
The one thing that's come up that I would just urge

01:00:31.969 --> 01:00:35.239
Commissioners not to do is to reject the application. 

01:00:35.250 --> 01:00:37.750
All these parties and a lot of parties that have intervened. 

01:00:37.918 --> 01:00:40.760
We spend a lot of time and money. So I uh the

01:00:40.769 --> 01:00:42.699
High Point Consortium would urge you all to go ahead

01:00:42.708 --> 01:00:45.570
and make a decision so that everyone can move on. Thank

01:00:45.579 --> 01:00:45.860
you.

01:00:48.139 --> 01:00:50.610
All right. The next person who signed up is Zack Brady. 

01:01:00.849 --> 01:01:02.958
Mr. Brady, before you start. I just want to remind if

01:01:02.969 --> 01:01:04.679
you're going to do demonstrative. Please make sure

01:01:04.688 --> 01:01:07.010
to pop into the microphone and if you can face the

01:01:07.019 --> 01:01:08.639
court reporter so she can see you speak. 

01:01:10.469 --> 01:01:13.438
(item:15:Oral argument from Zack Brady on behalf of E Real Estate Group) Good morning Madam Chair, Commissioners. Zack Brady for

01:01:13.449 --> 01:01:18.349
the E Real Estate Group. I wanna join generally the

01:01:18.360 --> 01:01:23.648
comments of my colleague, Mr. Herrera. As to the choice

01:01:23.659 --> 01:01:28.010
in front of you. This docket is unusual in lots of

01:01:28.019 --> 01:01:31.349
ways um been doing this a while. And one thing that's

01:01:31.360 --> 01:01:35.250
interesting about this docket. Is that there are seven,

01:01:36.059 --> 01:01:40.398
seven potential endpoints to the transmission project, 

01:01:40.409 --> 01:01:45.760
okay? And five of them are on one side, generally the

01:01:45.769 --> 01:01:49.168
West side or the East side. Pardon me. And we've got

01:01:49.179 --> 01:01:53.760
two on the South. I'm here because my clients E Real

01:01:53.769 --> 01:01:58.219
Estate are affected by every route that comes into

01:01:58.228 --> 01:02:03.469
PPOIB or C, okay. And so what I want to focus my

01:02:03.478 --> 01:02:09.050
comments on this morning is that as between these Eastern

01:02:09.059 --> 01:02:13.340
interconnection points. There is no credible evidence

01:02:13.389 --> 01:02:18.050
that any of those points say point A. It has routes

01:02:18.059 --> 01:02:23.329
that would be part of a best available option, okay?

01:02:23.519 --> 01:02:27.199
Now, then we've heard a lot about cost and we all know

01:02:27.208 --> 01:02:29.539
and you guys have probably heard me argue before. That

01:02:29.550 --> 01:02:32.378
they're just estimates and there's all kinds of stuff

01:02:32.389 --> 01:02:35.159
that happens. But there are estimates and there are

01:02:35.168 --> 01:02:39.159
estimates, right? And one thing that's really important

01:02:39.168 --> 01:02:43.559
is under my questioning, um Oncor's witness um

01:02:45.438 --> 01:02:50.179
agreed and did talk about a potential modification

01:02:50.389 --> 01:02:54.320
a simple modification. To the location of the interconnection

01:02:54.329 --> 01:02:58.559
point at PPOIA. That affected no additional landowners

01:02:58.570 --> 01:03:03.300
and would result in a $6 million savings as compared

01:03:03.309 --> 01:03:08.030
to what was filed. That's probably the safest cost

01:03:08.039 --> 01:03:13.269
figure that you all have in front of you. That's only

01:03:13.280 --> 01:03:18.039
one of the reasons that as between these Eastern options

01:03:18.378 --> 01:03:23.228
A has got to be the PPOI that you select.

01:03:26.369 --> 01:03:31.188
Now, then I also want to join the prior comments on

01:03:32.300 --> 01:03:34.289
a rejection idea.

01:03:35.958 --> 01:03:38.989
Everybody in this space is working really hard and

01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:42.398
really fast right now. And there are gonna be factual

01:03:42.409 --> 01:03:46.000
things that pop up in these litigations. But please

01:03:46.010 --> 01:03:50.070
don't reject this PFD and send everybody back to square

01:03:50.079 --> 01:03:53.090
one. Setting aside the fact that this is a critical

01:03:53.099 --> 01:03:56.070
need line and we have to have it. It's important to

01:03:56.079 --> 01:03:59.458
remember from a policy standpoint, I would submit. That

01:03:59.469 --> 01:04:02.610
these critical need dockets because of the time frame

01:04:02.619 --> 01:04:06.280
imposed upon us by the Legislature. And the policy

01:04:06.289 --> 01:04:09.539
that SOAH has been following regarding the amount of

01:04:09.550 --> 01:04:13.418
time that they need to draft the PFD. Are incredibly

01:04:13.429 --> 01:04:17.889
compressed for the intervening landowners. And that

01:04:17.898 --> 01:04:22.139
time schedule quite frankly, makes them even more expensive 

01:04:22.148 --> 01:04:26.139
than normal for landowners to participate in. So all

01:04:26.148 --> 01:04:28.820
the parties who have been active in this case. Have

01:04:28.829 --> 01:04:31.619
invested significant resources and we'd ask you to

01:04:31.628 --> 01:04:35.300
adopt either 11 or 4. Be happy to answer any questions

01:04:35.309 --> 01:04:39.429
you may have. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioners. 

01:04:40.969 --> 01:04:42.619
The next person is Brad Bailiff.

01:04:51.438 --> 01:04:54.099
(item:15:Oral argument from Brad Bailiff) Good morning Chairman and Commissioners. My name is

01:04:54.110 --> 01:04:58.239
Brad Bailiff. Since before the Cres cases, I've represented

01:04:58.250 --> 01:05:01.878
landowners in over 80 transmission line routing cases

01:05:01.889 --> 01:05:04.820
like this one. And I monitor others in which I don't

01:05:04.829 --> 01:05:10.418
have clients here. My client 10,000 Salina Road co-sponsor

01:05:10.750 --> 01:05:14.309
the testimony of Brian Andrews. Routes 4 and 11

01:05:14.320 --> 01:05:17.458
the focus of the briefs that, that are uh before you. 

01:05:17.599 --> 01:05:22.148
They don't affect my clients but because they sponsored

01:05:22.159 --> 01:05:26.320
a witness who testified about the costs. My clients

01:05:26.329 --> 01:05:30.659
involved in this mess. And I'm concerned as a practitioner

01:05:30.668 --> 01:05:35.789
about the way TNMP prepared the cost estimates. Upon

01:05:35.800 --> 01:05:41.019
which parties, Staff, the ALJs and the Commission rely. 

01:05:42.329 --> 01:05:45.570
TNMP estimated its cost of right away acquisition

01:05:45.579 --> 01:05:51.539
for one zone, the blue zone and three other zones and

01:05:51.550 --> 01:05:55.978
the blue zone they use different bases for that. Day

01:05:56.059 --> 01:05:58.789
and a half of hearing a whole lot of cross examination. 

01:05:59.199 --> 01:06:01.458
Turns out that in the blue zone,

01:06:02.989 --> 01:06:09.378
a landowner met with the CEO of TNMP. Expressed concern

01:06:09.389 --> 01:06:12.938
about the lines coming through that landowner's property. 

01:06:13.590 --> 01:06:19.219
And the CEO of TNMP evidence in the record talked to

01:06:19.228 --> 01:06:24.139
the TNMP staffer who is creating the cost estimates. 

01:06:24.610 --> 01:06:27.570
Like his words were it came through loud and clear. 

01:06:28.030 --> 01:06:33.719
The blue zone has unreasonably high estimates applied

01:06:33.728 --> 01:06:39.570
to it. And our um witness Brian Andrews in his direct

01:06:39.579 --> 01:06:43.329
testimony. Said the right of way costs stand out as

01:06:43.340 --> 01:06:47.539
a potential error for the eight routes that use interconnection

01:06:47.550 --> 01:06:54.590
point H. TNMP provided him only the redact of blacked

01:06:54.599 --> 01:06:57.418
out costs went through a lot of discovery fights to

01:06:57.429 --> 01:07:00.938
get the real cost estimates. So he was unable to verify

01:07:00.949 --> 01:07:04.938
why those ride away costs for those eight routes are

01:07:04.949 --> 01:07:08.228
so much higher than the rest of the filed routes. That's

01:07:08.239 --> 01:07:12.168
a big part of the dispute here. PFD says notably at

01:07:12.179 --> 01:07:15.099
the hearing. Mr. Andrews testified, he believed the

01:07:15.110 --> 01:07:17.949
right of way acquisition cost estimates should have

01:07:17.958 --> 01:07:21.688
been consisted uh calculated consistently among the

01:07:21.699 --> 01:07:26.059
zones. TNMP didn't do that. The PFD makes an attempt to

01:07:26.070 --> 01:07:30.949
do that. Mr. Andrews also said doesn't paint an accurate

01:07:30.958 --> 01:07:34.458
picture for one set of routes those in the blue zone

01:07:34.469 --> 01:07:37.179
at the West. That are the shortest routes to have the

01:07:37.188 --> 01:07:42.019
lowest possible. I'm sorry, the the the Eastern routes

01:07:42.250 --> 01:07:45.110
and then to have the lowest possible real estate costs

01:07:45.119 --> 01:07:47.889
and another set of routes to have nearly the highest

01:07:48.179 --> 01:07:52.199
acquisition cost the blue zone routes. As a result of

01:07:52.208 --> 01:07:56.699
TNMP's manipulation of its right away cost data. TNMP 

01:07:56.708 --> 01:08:00.550
did not present you an accurate picture of the estimated

01:08:00.559 --> 01:08:03.469
cost upon which you now have to make a decision. And

01:08:03.478 --> 01:08:08.699
this is important, not just in this case. But if utilities

01:08:08.708 --> 01:08:12.079
can manipulate the cost. If they can look at the cost

01:08:12.219 --> 01:08:17.588
and make them appear that one route is better than

01:08:17.600 --> 01:08:20.569
another. And less parties really get in and look under

01:08:20.579 --> 01:08:24.438
the skirts of this data. You won't know that you've

01:08:24.448 --> 01:08:27.479
been fooled and that you've been tricked. So it's important

01:08:27.488 --> 01:08:31.618
to be able to rely upon that. And every transmission

01:08:31.627 --> 01:08:34.278
line routing company in here ought to get the message. 

01:08:34.288 --> 01:08:38.198
That they need to be reliable and be consistently applied. 

01:08:38.337 --> 01:08:41.398
Or have transparency as to why they're not. 

01:08:43.479 --> 01:08:47.757
Route 4, I think when applied adjusted to consistently

01:08:47.769 --> 01:08:50.809
apply, those route estimates is the route the best

01:08:50.818 --> 01:08:54.988
meets the criteria. There's no credible evidence that

01:08:54.998 --> 01:08:58.207
sports a route other than 4 or 11. Depending on

01:08:58.219 --> 01:09:01.029
how you look at it. I said I've been doing this for

01:09:01.039 --> 01:09:04.399
a long time. These six month cases are a real problem. 

01:09:04.680 --> 01:09:08.100
They filed their application in early June. 45 days

01:09:08.109 --> 01:09:15.649
later was the uh intervention deadline and the um deadline

01:09:15.659 --> 01:09:21.798
for testimony was just a few days later. Um, four days

01:09:21.810 --> 01:09:25.000
after the intervention deadline. For a person who got

01:09:25.009 --> 01:09:28.539
into a case and then told you only get four days to

01:09:28.548 --> 01:09:32.859
file your testimony and be able to make your case before

01:09:32.869 --> 01:09:36.298
the Commission. 10 days later, Staff had to file its

01:09:36.310 --> 01:09:40.430
direct testimony. So Staff tends to like to look at

01:09:40.439 --> 01:09:44.369
what Interveners say. They had 10 days to look at a

01:09:44.378 --> 01:09:47.918
lot of testimony. Another four days later, Intervener

01:09:47.930 --> 01:09:52.000
across abuttal was due. The hearing began 75 days after

01:09:52.009 --> 01:09:55.358
they filed their application and we have brave some

01:09:55.368 --> 01:09:58.139
more time. So that's a problem that we need to look

01:09:58.148 --> 01:10:01.429
at. Thank you. Thank you. Next person that signed up to 

01:10:01.438 --> 01:10:02.908
speak is Stephanie Sparks.

01:10:14.199 --> 01:10:17.689
(item:15:TNMP's Stephanie Sparks provides oral argument) Good morning, Stephanie Sparks for Texas New Mexico

01:10:17.699 --> 01:10:21.628
Power Company. I wanna first say that this project

01:10:21.640 --> 01:10:25.878
is very needed. And TNMP has been ready and willing

01:10:25.890 --> 01:10:28.729
and able to build any of the lines, any of the routes

01:10:28.739 --> 01:10:34.298
that you all select. We understand and um are happy

01:10:34.310 --> 01:10:37.909
that you have the discretion to weigh the factors. 

01:10:37.918 --> 01:10:41.250
Balance the factors and pick the best route out of

01:10:41.259 --> 01:10:44.029
all of these. We also understand that as is the case

01:10:44.039 --> 01:10:49.449
in many CCN proceedings. There are going to be some

01:10:49.489 --> 01:10:52.689
landowners, some interveners that have complaints with

01:10:52.699 --> 01:10:55.680
the process. With the facts, they disagree with them. 

01:10:55.699 --> 01:11:00.048
That is not unusual. It is why the whole process is

01:11:00.060 --> 01:11:02.720
the way it is. To have discovery to have new facts come

01:11:02.729 --> 01:11:07.520
to light. What is different? Here is some sensationalized

01:11:07.529 --> 01:11:11.659
accusations from the Route 11 interveners that TNMP

01:11:11.668 --> 01:11:14.909
has done something wrong. When really it is a disagreement

01:11:14.918 --> 01:11:19.970
about how to estimate costs. And as you all know, well

01:11:19.979 --> 01:11:25.958
more than me in every CCN. There is a difference in

01:11:25.970 --> 01:11:30.865
how utilities um go about estimating their costs, especially

01:11:30.875 --> 01:11:34.505
with regard to right of way land acquisition. Because

01:11:34.515 --> 01:11:37.706
there is no one right or wrong way to do it. They

01:11:37.715 --> 01:11:42.865
are estimates. They are future unknown quantities. And

01:11:42.875 --> 01:11:46.326
so the utility is required to use the best evidence

01:11:46.335 --> 01:11:49.615
that it has at the time and make those determinations. 

01:11:49.805 --> 01:11:52.461
And that's hard to. I was just listening this morning

01:11:52.471 --> 01:11:57.171
to you all's discussion last year on the AEP Sherryland

01:11:57.181 --> 01:12:00.150
King Fisher case. And talking about how the costs were

01:12:00.162 --> 01:12:04.650
very hard to determine in that case. They were wildly

01:12:04.662 --> 01:12:08.301
higher than had previously been estimated. And all

01:12:08.311 --> 01:12:11.561
that to say it is not unusual to have some disagreement

01:12:11.570 --> 01:12:12.601
with regard to that.

01:12:14.899 --> 01:12:17.979
I understand Mr. Brown and Mr. Bailiff's points. 

01:12:18.270 --> 01:12:21.449
But the ALJs have heard those same complaints, the

01:12:21.458 --> 01:12:24.250
same arguments several times in this case. There were

01:12:24.259 --> 01:12:28.390
several motions to compel, motions for sanctions, appeals

01:12:28.399 --> 01:12:31.239
of their motions. And every time the ALJ has found

01:12:31.250 --> 01:12:34.770
that TNMP did nothing wrong, they sided with TNMP. You

01:12:34.779 --> 01:12:39.168
all denied an appeal of one of the ALJs orders you

01:12:39.180 --> 01:12:44.079
denied hearing it. So in my estimation, those are discovery

01:12:44.088 --> 01:12:46.560
disputes. Those are disputes that have already been

01:12:46.890 --> 01:12:50.930
determined and are part of the record and there is

01:12:50.939 --> 01:12:56.489
nothing further to sensationalize about it. The 

01:12:56.500 --> 01:12:59.289
one thing I did want to mention was the ALJ did

01:12:59.298 --> 01:13:06.279
not find any bad faith or any um other kind of manipulation

01:13:06.289 --> 01:13:11.729
of the evidence. The ALJ simply found TNMP's evidence

01:13:11.739 --> 01:13:17.048
of costs which was based on a budget study and a marketing

01:13:17.060 --> 01:13:23.189
study from a uh outside appraisal company. The range

01:13:23.199 --> 01:13:28.088
go running from land value like base land value amounts

01:13:28.159 --> 01:13:36.470
through um litigated rates. If you except uh the outside

01:13:36.560 --> 01:13:41.548
uh outside companies estimates that was the basis.

01:13:41.560 --> 01:13:45.750
Those studies are the basis for everyone in this case's

01:13:46.759 --> 01:13:49.829
competing cost estimates. And that's what is in the

01:13:49.838 --> 01:13:52.588
record as evidence that you all can rely on. And there

01:13:52.600 --> 01:13:53.270
was nothing

01:13:56.458 --> 01:14:00.569
faulty about that evidence. The ALJ determined that

01:14:00.579 --> 01:14:05.069
litigation under the prominent order shouldn't be considered. 

01:14:05.079 --> 01:14:09.168
And that's why she rejected TNMP's initial assessment

01:14:09.199 --> 01:14:12.810
of uh right away estimates for one of these zones. 

01:14:12.819 --> 01:14:15.759
Not all of them, just one of them. So uh happy to

01:14:15.770 --> 01:14:19.479
answer any questions you may have. But otherwise we

01:14:19.489 --> 01:14:22.020
would support adopting the PFD.

01:14:24.439 --> 01:14:24.979
Thank you.

01:14:27.729 --> 01:14:29.770
There's no one else that signed up to speak. I'll do

01:14:29.779 --> 01:14:32.539
just a quick check and scan in the room. To make sure

01:14:32.548 --> 01:14:35.289
there's no one else in the room that wants to speak

01:14:35.298 --> 01:14:39.609
for oral argument that just did not sign up. No. Yeah, the

01:14:39.759 --> 01:14:40.838
only questions whether 

01:14:44.489 --> 01:14:49.548
Commissioners can. Sir, sir no. That concludes oral argument. Um and before you

01:14:49.569 --> 01:14:50.970
is the PFD. Okay. Thank you. 

01:14:52.890 --> 01:14:56.850
Any thoughts? (item:15:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on PFD and oral arguments) Yeah, Madam Chair. I support Route 11 but not for the reasons

01:14:56.859 --> 01:15:02.689
recommended. I believe that Route 11 is the right route. 

01:15:03.000 --> 01:15:08.029
Primarily for a few reasons. First of all, it's got

01:15:08.039 --> 01:15:10.890
the lowest number of number of habitable structures. 

01:15:10.939 --> 01:15:14.520
Parallels rights of way more than any other route or

01:15:14.529 --> 01:15:21.039
close to that. It goes over fewer pipeline crossings. 

01:15:21.048 --> 01:15:24.560
There are just lots of reasons within the context of

01:15:24.569 --> 01:15:28.109
routing that we look at in our rules. I do believe

01:15:28.119 --> 01:15:32.289
that this is the right one. I think that as a

01:15:32.298 --> 01:15:36.009
former transmission developer. Route 4 has nine

01:15:36.020 --> 01:15:39.859
turning structures. Route 11 has 3 turning structures. 

01:15:39.869 --> 01:15:43.418
Turning structures are very expensive. They're made

01:15:43.430 --> 01:15:46.779
to withstand a very different type of load on them

01:15:46.878 --> 01:15:49.838
as opposed to a straight transmission line. So a straight

01:15:49.850 --> 01:15:56.298
transmission line is easier to build. It may it has

01:15:56.310 --> 01:15:59.458
other drawbacks. But I think the mono steel monopole

01:15:59.470 --> 01:16:03.359
structures seem to be the right way in this growing

01:16:03.369 --> 01:16:07.378
neighborhood. I do think in the future, all routes must

01:16:07.390 --> 01:16:12.149
be evaluated using the same methodology. And uh

01:16:12.159 --> 01:16:15.109
I hope that uh everybody hears that. I also hope that

01:16:15.119 --> 01:16:18.069
everybody in the future as we do all these transmission

01:16:18.079 --> 01:16:20.588
lines. They file their transmission construction

01:16:20.600 --> 01:16:24.168
reports as they're required to under our rules. 

01:16:24.399 --> 01:16:27.729
But uh I support uh Route 11.

01:16:30.829 --> 01:16:33.390
(item:15:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on PFD and oral arguments) I'm in agreement on supporting Route 11 and adopting

01:16:33.399 --> 01:16:34.048
the PFD.

01:16:35.588 --> 01:16:38.168
(item:15:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts PFD and oral arguments) I'm also in agreement on uh supporting Route 11 and

01:16:38.180 --> 01:16:45.060
adopting the, the PFD. (item:15:Motion to adopt PFD) I move to adopt PFD. Second. One clarification, 

01:16:45.069 --> 01:16:48.789
before I believe there is a Commission Counsel memo 

01:16:48.798 --> 01:16:52.069
on this. And I want to check in and whether the Commission

01:16:52.149 --> 01:16:55.520
agrees with this. (item:15:Commissioner Glotfelty updates motion with changes of Commission Counsel memo) I support the Commission Counsel memo. So I support the PFD with the Commission 

01:16:55.529 --> 01:16:59.668
Counsel memo changes as well. Second. Motion and a second. 

01:17:00.119 --> 01:17:03.020
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes. 

01:17:05.109 --> 01:17:07.470
Next up is Item No. 16. Shelah, will you please

01:17:07.479 --> 01:17:11.628
lay out this item? Yes, ma'am. (item:1:Joint application of companies to amend CCN in Brooks, Duval, Jim Hogg, & Starr Counties) Docket No. 55151

01:17:11.640 --> 01:17:16.009
is the joint application of AEP Texas, Electric Transmission

01:17:16.020 --> 01:17:19.899
Texas and South Texas Electric Cooperative. To amend their

01:17:19.909 --> 01:17:25.289
CCN for a 345-kV transmission line in Brooks, Duval, 

01:17:25.298 --> 01:17:28.909
Jim Hogg and Star Counties. Before you is a proposal

01:17:28.918 --> 01:17:32.329
for decision from SOAH. Commission Staff filed proposed

01:17:32.338 --> 01:17:35.199
corrections to the proposal for decision. The SOAH

01:17:35.208 --> 01:17:37.890
ALJs adopted all of Commission Staff's corrections

01:17:37.899 --> 01:17:40.439
or they recommend adoption of all Commission Staff's

01:17:40.449 --> 01:17:43.859
corrections. A Commission Counsel memo was filed, recommending

01:17:43.869 --> 01:17:46.989
changes to the order. And so before you is the proposal

01:17:47.000 --> 01:17:47.569
for decision. 

01:17:49.449 --> 01:17:51.918
(item:16:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on the application & PFD)  I would. Yeah, I would just like to highlight that

01:17:51.989 --> 01:17:55.029
ERCOT deemed this um project critical for reliability. 

01:17:55.039 --> 01:18:00.298
It's part of the new uh Greenfield Rio, Rio Grande

01:18:00.310 --> 01:18:03.479
Valley transmission project. That um the Commission,

01:18:03.548 --> 01:18:08.439
ERCOT um led the way in uh developing more transmission

01:18:08.449 --> 01:18:11.259
into the Rio Grande Valley, a very important initiative

01:18:11.270 --> 01:18:15.609
for the Commission. And um, you know, with respect

01:18:15.619 --> 01:18:20.859
to the PFD. I mean I, I, I'm inclined to adopt the

01:18:20.869 --> 01:18:23.640
PFD but I'm open to hear your thoughts. And, and the

01:18:23.649 --> 01:18:26.918
reason that I'm inclined to adopt the PFD. Even though

01:18:26.930 --> 01:18:29.569
it may cost a little bit more than some other alternative

01:18:29.579 --> 01:18:32.079
routes that y'all may be considering. It does impact

01:18:32.088 --> 01:18:35.939
less habitable structures. All parties either support

01:18:35.949 --> 01:18:39.548
or do not oppose the route in the PFD. It's supported

01:18:39.560 --> 01:18:44.659
by the evidence. And so I'm inclined to go with

01:18:44.668 --> 01:18:47.539
the PFD, but I'm hoping to hear if you have any other

01:18:47.548 --> 01:18:49.168
recommendations. But

01:18:51.060 --> 01:18:51.649
open for it.

01:18:53.729 --> 01:18:57.310
(item:16:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts on the application & PFD) Part of my thought would be that Route H AL 2

01:18:57.319 --> 01:19:01.588
is, is cost always a concern. It's $15 million less expensive

01:19:01.979 --> 01:19:05.890
than route H mod. And um in this case, I mean that

01:19:05.899 --> 01:19:09.750
evaluation shows uh avoiding non hable structures.

01:19:10.119 --> 01:19:14.250
Um I don't think necessarily would justify the additional

01:19:14.259 --> 01:19:19.878
cost for that route. Um uh H A two also better addresses

01:19:19.890 --> 01:19:22.418
concerns of interveners related to the public safety

01:19:22.430 --> 01:19:26.970
habitat fragmentation and the mating cost of a PURA 

01:19:26.979 --> 01:19:30.180
road and railway right rights away for a greater percentage

01:19:30.189 --> 01:19:33.739
of its length. But I'm open to um discussion on this. 

01:19:35.529 --> 01:19:40.539
I'm sorry. So Madam Chairman, you support H Alt 2. 

01:19:40.668 --> 01:19:43.810
Commissioner Cobos, which do you support? I'm fine

01:19:43.819 --> 01:19:46.970
with the PFD, but I'm open to hearing um alternative

01:19:46.979 --> 01:19:50.208
recommendations as Chair Jackson has laid out.

01:19:51.739 --> 01:19:54.918
Yeah. (item:16:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on the application & PFD) I, I'm kind of uh between H MOD and H alt

01:19:54.930 --> 01:19:57.798
2. I, I think there are pros and cons to both of

01:19:57.810 --> 01:20:03.439
them. You know, I think H mod has the below average

01:20:03.449 --> 01:20:08.509
cost length. It parallels the most infrastructure

01:20:08.958 --> 01:20:09.588
Um

01:20:12.619 --> 01:20:17.909
You know, I'm not both of them are I think valuable

01:20:18.159 --> 01:20:25.378
and do doable route. So, you know, we can discuss more

01:20:25.390 --> 01:20:28.878
but I don't have anything that I'm totally sold on. 

01:20:31.759 --> 01:20:34.329
(item:16:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts costs & habitable structures) Madam Chair, you did lay out that it is about, um

01:20:34.338 --> 01:20:37.739
I think $15 million less to go with route h alt 2.

01:20:38.378 --> 01:20:42.180
You know, I know we always try to, you know, protect

01:20:42.189 --> 01:20:44.560
landowner rights and property rights and, you know

01:20:44.569 --> 01:20:48.729
8, 8 habitable structures are impacted with this other

01:20:48.739 --> 01:20:52.329
route. So it's kind of a balance for me there uh

01:20:52.338 --> 01:20:56.609
with respect to cost and habitable structures. And

01:20:56.619 --> 01:20:59.229
again, I think that um the line just needs to move

01:20:59.239 --> 01:21:01.759
forward because it is important for the Rio Grande

01:21:01.770 --> 01:21:05.479
Valley. But, but like you said, cost is, is significant

01:21:05.489 --> 01:21:08.449
I mean, it's 15 million. We do care about ratepayer

01:21:08.458 --> 01:21:13.449
costs too. So, um I'm inclined to go with your modification

01:21:13.458 --> 01:21:16.409
if, if that's where you wanna head. Again, I don't

01:21:16.418 --> 01:21:17.909
have any strong feelings either way. I just want the

01:21:17.918 --> 01:21:19.890
line to get built. I'm supportive of that as well.

01:21:19.899 --> 01:21:24.949
H alt 2. (item:16:Motion to support Route H Alt 2 with changes per Commission Counsel memo) And I would move that we support route,

01:21:24.958 --> 01:21:29.789
h alt two consistent with what the Chairman said. And

01:21:29.798 --> 01:21:32.789
with the modifications per the Commission Counsel memo. 

01:21:34.409 --> 01:21:37.649
I second. A motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion 

01:21:37.659 --> 01:21:38.229
passes. 

01:21:40.958 --> 01:21:43.689
(item:16:Shelah Cisneros revisits motion language) My apologies. I want to, I just want to revisit that

01:21:43.699 --> 01:21:46.878
that motion. Just to confirm that the motion is to adopt

01:21:46.890 --> 01:21:49.560
the PFD in part and reject in part consistent with your

01:21:49.569 --> 01:21:51.838
discussion. Is that correct? And with the Commission

01:21:51.850 --> 01:21:55.220
Counsel memo. All right. We, we, we do that just one

01:21:55.229 --> 01:21:58.100
more time just to make sure on this one. (item:16:Updated motion to adopt PDF in part & reject in part with continued changes per memo) Okay. I move that

01:21:58.109 --> 01:22:00.350
the Commission adopt the PFD in part and reject in

01:22:00.359 --> 01:22:03.899
part. To approve Route H Alt 2, but otherwise adopt the

01:22:03.909 --> 01:22:06.489
PFD. And to incorporate the changes set forth in the

01:22:06.500 --> 01:22:09.350
Commission Counsel memo and consistent with our discussion. 

01:22:09.359 --> 01:22:11.279
Great. Thank you. Thank you for your indulgence in

01:22:11.289 --> 01:22:13.060
this. I'm just trying to make sure we get everything

01:22:13.939 --> 01:22:18.289
buttoned up. Second. Second. And support. A motion and a second. All in

01:22:18.298 --> 01:22:19.890
favor, say aye. Aye. Motion

01:22:22.048 --> 01:22:25.859
passes. Item 17 was consented. Next up is Item No. 18. Shelah, 

01:22:25.869 --> 01:22:28.739
will you please lay out this item? (item:18:Application of AEP TX to amend CCN in Brooks, Duval, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, & Kleberg Counties) Item 18 is

01:22:28.750 --> 01:22:33.259
Docket No. 55397. This is the application of AEP

01:22:33.270 --> 01:22:38.930
Texas to amend it CCN for a 345-kV transmission line

01:22:39.159 --> 01:22:43.259
in Brooks, Duval, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells and Kleberg Counties. 

01:22:43.509 --> 01:22:46.579
Before you is a proposed order that addresses the unanimous

01:22:46.588 --> 01:22:49.838
agreement between the parties. No corrections or exceptions

01:22:49.850 --> 01:22:52.140
were filed and a Commission Counsel memo was filed,

01:22:52.149 --> 01:22:53.720
recommending changes to the order.

01:22:56.509 --> 01:22:59.458
(item:18:Commissioners Cobos & Glotfelty thoughts on proposed order)  I was good with the proposed order that adopts a unanimous

01:22:59.470 --> 01:23:03.989
settlement in this case just for approval Route J alt.

01:23:07.399 --> 01:23:10.899
I support J alt as well. Okay. (item:18:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts on proposed order) I, I did have some

01:23:10.909 --> 01:23:14.369
concerns about the cost of the grid route um again

01:23:14.378 --> 01:23:16.579
because we need to be sensitive the cost to customers. 

01:23:16.588 --> 01:23:21.088
But um recognize that this is an important um project

01:23:21.100 --> 01:23:24.310
moving forward, as you mentioned, it's the Rio Grande

01:23:24.319 --> 01:23:28.668
Valley project. So I'm fine with moving forward as

01:23:28.680 --> 01:23:31.470
what both of you all recommend. 

01:23:33.159 --> 01:23:36.390
I'm going to entertain a motion. Okay. (item:18:Motion to approve proposed order with Commission Counsel's changes) I would move

01:23:36.399 --> 01:23:38.949
to approve the proposed order, adopting the unanimous

01:23:38.958 --> 01:23:43.069
settlement agreement that approves Route J Alt including

01:23:43.338 --> 01:23:46.350
the commission council's proposed changes. Second. 

01:23:47.289 --> 01:23:51.359
I have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. 

01:23:51.489 --> 01:23:53.128
Aye. Motion passes. 

01:23:55.579 --> 01:23:59.909
Items 19 and 20 were consented. Next up is Item No. 

01:23:59.918 --> 01:24:03.729
21. Shelah, will you please lay out this item? (item:21:Petition by citizens of Livingston
for Fair and Equitable Rates to review City of Livingston’s rate ordinance) Item

01:24:03.739 --> 01:24:07.619
No. 21 is Docket No. 55661. This is the petition

01:24:07.628 --> 01:24:11.270
of Citizens of Livingston for Fair and Equitable Rates. 

01:24:11.470 --> 01:24:15.500
To review the City of Livingston's rate ordinance number

01:24:15.509 --> 01:24:19.979
A-842. Before you is an appeal of SOAH order number

01:24:19.989 --> 01:24:22.759
3. The Commission voted to add this appeal to the

01:24:22.770 --> 01:24:24.039
agenda for this meeting.

01:24:27.439 --> 01:24:30.619
(item:18:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on the petition) I think that we need to get clarification from the

01:24:30.628 --> 01:24:37.250
ALJ. I think the ALJs ruling and statements at the

01:24:37.259 --> 01:24:38.899
pre hearing conference and rolling in order number

01:24:38.909 --> 01:24:42.259
three are a bit ambiguous and would like to get clarification

01:24:42.270 --> 01:24:45.869
from the ALJ. Specifically would like to get clarification

01:24:45.878 --> 01:24:51.569
from the A LJ on which requirements in 16 TAC 22.244

01:24:51.878 --> 01:24:55.470
B applied to this petition that was filed under PURA

01:24:55.479 --> 01:25:02.939
33.052. Whether the requirements in 16 TAC 22.244B

01:25:02.949 --> 01:25:07.100
mean that residents must be qualified voters and ratepayers

01:25:07.399 --> 01:25:09.759
and whether the ALJ assumes that the rule requirements

01:25:09.770 --> 01:25:13.259
are jurisdictional. In other words, does failure to

01:25:13.270 --> 01:25:15.430
comply with the rule requirements and validate the

01:25:15.439 --> 01:25:17.989
petition's signature such that the Commission loses

01:25:18.000 --> 01:25:24.079
jurisdiction over this appeal. Because of this clarification

01:25:24.689 --> 01:25:27.890
that I believe we need from the ALJ. (item:18:Motion to extend time for ruling) I would move

01:25:27.899 --> 01:25:31.399
to extend time for ruling on the City of Livingston's

01:25:31.548 --> 01:25:36.220
appeal until we get clarification from the ALJ, either

01:25:36.229 --> 01:25:39.439
through an order or the forthcoming PFD so that we

01:25:39.449 --> 01:25:41.859
can move forward with addressing the interim appeal. 

01:25:44.470 --> 01:25:48.619
I'm in agreement. I'm in agreement as well. I have

01:25:48.628 --> 01:25:50.409
a motion in a second.

01:25:51.939 --> 01:25:58.619
I second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes. Items 22

01:25:58.628 --> 01:26:02.838
and 23 were consented. Next up is Item No. 24. Shelah, 

01:26:02.850 --> 01:26:06.560
will you please lay out this item? (item:24:Application of CenterPoint Energy for extension of rate filing under 16 TAC 25.247) Item No. 24 is

01:26:06.569 --> 01:26:11.850
Docket No. 55744. This is the application of CenterPoint

01:26:12.390 --> 01:26:16.000
Energy Houston Electric for an extension of rate filing

01:26:16.009 --> 01:26:21.548
requirement under Commission Rule 25.247. Before you

01:26:21.560 --> 01:26:22.798
is a proposed order.

01:26:24.548 --> 01:26:28.850
Thoughts? (item:24:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on proposed order) Madam Chair, I propose that we reject the

01:26:28.859 --> 01:26:31.720
proposed order and deny the application to extend the

01:26:31.729 --> 01:26:35.449
rate case filing deadline. While I'm sympathetic to this

01:26:35.659 --> 01:26:38.369
I don't believe that the Commission should establish

01:26:38.378 --> 01:26:40.430
precedent that its orders may be contravened through

01:26:40.439 --> 01:26:40.930
good causes. 

01:26:43.319 --> 01:26:45.279
(item:24:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on proposed order) Right. I guess, I agree with that. I mean, I can

01:26:45.289 --> 01:26:49.128
go either way on this. But um I, I think it's probably

01:26:49.140 --> 01:26:52.668
um, good precedent that we start setting forth to require

01:26:52.680 --> 01:26:54.298
the utilities to come in when they need to. I know

01:26:54.310 --> 01:26:57.369
we've granted several extensions in the past. Uh, I

01:26:57.378 --> 01:27:00.439
think in, with respect to the, uh, commission's final

01:27:00.449 --> 01:27:02.750
order in the CenterPoint rate case. There was a specific

01:27:02.759 --> 01:27:07.369
provision in there inserted um, to require the company

01:27:07.378 --> 01:27:12.029
to come in. So I, I I'd support Commissioner Glotfelty

01:27:12.039 --> 01:27:13.279
position on this.

01:27:14.810 --> 01:27:17.229
(item:24:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts on proposed order) You know, I feel like we understand the merits but

01:27:17.239 --> 01:27:20.520
um we don't have the authority to change a prior Commission

01:27:20.529 --> 01:27:24.329
order and our hands are tied. So I would agree as well. 

01:27:26.958 --> 01:27:30.088
Do you have a motion? (item:24:Motion to reject proposed order & deny application) I move that we

01:27:33.680 --> 01:27:35.859
reject the proposed order and deny the application

01:27:35.869 --> 01:27:40.640
to extend the rate case filing deadline. Second. I

01:27:40.649 --> 01:27:43.970
have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. 

01:27:44.039 --> 01:27:45.039
Motion passes. 

01:27:47.009 --> 01:27:49.199
Item No. 25 was consented. 

01:27:51.149 --> 01:27:55.168
Next, we'll take up Items 26 and 27 together. Shelah, 

01:27:55.180 --> 01:27:58.890
will you please lay out these items? Yes, ma'am. (item:26:Petition by ERCOT expedited declaratory order, PURA Ch 39, Ss N) Item

01:27:58.899 --> 01:28:04.140
No. 26 is Docket No. 56119. This is the petition

01:28:04.149 --> 01:28:08.128
of ERCOT for expedited declaratory order regarding

01:28:08.529 --> 01:28:15.418
PURA Chapter 39, Subsection N. (item:27:Petition by ERCOT expedited declaratory order, PURA Ch 39, Ss M) Item 27 is very similar

01:28:15.430 --> 01:28:20.069
it's Docket No. 56122. It's a petition of ERCOT

01:28:20.079 --> 01:28:25.489
for expedited declaratory order regarding PURA Chapter

01:28:25.500 --> 01:28:31.109
39, Subchapter M. For these two are a little bit different. 

01:28:31.119 --> 01:28:35.378
We do not have uh, an order that's before the Commission. 

01:28:35.560 --> 01:28:38.369
(item:26:Shelah Cisneros lays out details behind agenda item) (item:27:Shelah Cisneros lays out details behind agenda item) There's no specific action for the Commission on these

01:28:38.378 --> 01:28:42.350
two. However, they were placed on the agenda, uh, because

01:28:42.359 --> 01:28:45.509
of the request for the expedited schedule. We were

01:28:45.520 --> 01:28:50.074
going to, uh, ask for Commission feedback on the, what

01:28:50.083 --> 01:28:53.134
your thoughts are on the expedited schedule. And

01:28:53.145 --> 01:28:56.015
specifically whether or not if there's a request for

01:28:56.024 --> 01:28:59.515
a hearing, whether this would remain here at the Commission

01:28:59.524 --> 01:29:01.673
for Commission health hearing or a paper hearing or

01:29:01.685 --> 01:29:05.009
if it would be sent to SOAH. Yesterday, the ALJ

01:29:05.020 --> 01:29:08.770
did issue an order that approved the procedural schedule.

01:29:08.850 --> 01:29:10.890
So I, I think it's still helpful to get feedback

01:29:10.899 --> 01:29:13.048
from you to confirm that you're in agreement with this

01:29:13.060 --> 01:29:16.489
schedule. And get your thoughts on whether or not this

01:29:16.500 --> 01:29:18.850
if this is a contested case that requires a hearing. 

01:29:18.899 --> 01:29:20.699
Whether this would remain with the Commission.

01:29:23.250 --> 01:29:26.119
(item:26:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on the petition) (item:27:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on the petition) I believe this case should stay at the Commission not

01:29:26.128 --> 01:29:30.789
be referred to SOAH. And um the expedited procedural

01:29:30.798 --> 01:29:34.970
schedule approved by the ALJ is necessary given Lubbock's

01:29:34.979 --> 01:29:37.739
transition to retail competition in ERCOT on March

01:29:37.750 --> 01:29:43.430
4th of this year. The issues presented as presented

01:29:43.439 --> 01:29:46.649
by ERCOT are very narrow. So it's not necessarily, it's

01:29:46.659 --> 01:29:49.208
not necessary for the Commission to issue a briefing

01:29:49.220 --> 01:29:52.029
order. You go straight to get briefing from the

01:29:52.039 --> 01:29:55.659
parties. The narrow legal issues presented by ERCOT

01:29:55.668 --> 01:29:58.029
are legal issues and therefore, a paper hearing should

01:29:58.039 --> 01:30:00.708
be sufficient if one is necessary.

01:30:02.418 --> 01:30:05.220
(item:26:Chairman Jackson & Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on petition) (item:27:Chairman Jackson & Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on petition) I also agree with the procedural schedule and approved

01:30:05.229 --> 01:30:08.250
by the ALJ and recommend that this proceeding remain

01:30:08.259 --> 01:30:11.689
at the Commission rather than refer to SOAH. I'm in agreement

01:30:11.699 --> 01:30:15.869
on all of those issues. You are agreement and no vote is needed. 

01:30:15.878 --> 01:30:17.729
Great. That's what we're looking for. We just want

01:30:17.739 --> 01:30:20.180
your feedback on that and we'll move forward with both

01:30:20.189 --> 01:30:25.060
of these dockets. Thank you. We will now transition

01:30:25.069 --> 01:30:28.310
to Section 2 of our agenda: Rules, Projects and Miscellaneous

01:30:28.319 --> 01:30:31.489
Items. Let's give folks a minute to clear the room. 

01:30:40.979 --> 01:30:41.009
(inaudible)

01:30:50.399 --> 01:30:50.430
(silence)

01:31:00.909 --> 01:31:00.958
(inaudible)

01:31:05.220 --> 01:31:08.350
(item:28:Chairwoman Jackson lays out instructions for General Comments) Next up is Item No. 28, General Comments for Topics

01:31:08.359 --> 01:31:11.619
not specifically posted on this Agenda. Speakers will

01:31:11.628 --> 01:31:14.640
be limited to 3 minutes each. Shelah, do we have anyone

01:31:14.649 --> 01:31:17.128
from the public signed up to speak. No, ma'am, no one

01:31:17.140 --> 01:31:19.819
signed up for this item. Okay. (item:28:Chairwoman Jackson closes General Comments) This completes Item No.

01:31:19.829 --> 01:31:25.588
28. (item:29:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 53924) Next up is Item No 29, Project No. 53924.

01:31:25.659 --> 01:31:28.779
This is the Commission's project for the water and

01:31:28.789 --> 01:31:32.439
sewer utility rates after acquisition. Shelah, do

01:31:32.449 --> 01:31:34.869
we have anyone from the public sign to speak on Item

01:31:34.878 --> 01:31:40.569
No. 29? No, ma'am. (item:29:Chairwoman Jackson confirms reschedule of public hearing) Public hearing was scheduled

01:31:40.579 --> 01:31:45.100
for Tuesday, January 16th but canceled due to inclement

01:31:45.109 --> 01:31:48.430
weather. The hearing is now scheduled for Tuesday,

01:31:48.439 --> 01:31:51.600
January 23rd at 9 am here in the Commissioner's Hearing

01:31:51.609 --> 01:31:54.878
Room. And remote viewing will be available on adminmonitor.

01:31:54.890 --> 01:31:57.579
I just wanted to make that announcement.

01:32:05.770 --> 01:32:10.779
(item:30:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 54453) Next up is Item No. 30, Project No. 54453. This

01:32:10.789 --> 01:32:14.069
is the Commission's projects for year end 2022 water

01:32:14.079 --> 01:32:17.199
and sewer utility annual reports. Shelah, do we have

01:32:17.208 --> 01:32:19.750
anyone from the public signed up to speak on Item No. 

01:32:19.759 --> 01:32:23.759
30. No, ma'am. At our November 30th open meeting. we

01:32:23.770 --> 01:32:26.439
addressed this project and left open the discussion

01:32:26.449 --> 01:32:29.829
of Undine's next rate case. Undine has committed to

01:32:29.838 --> 01:32:34.220
make a comprehensive rate filing in April of 2024.

01:32:34.418 --> 01:32:38.359
I'm fine with that. Any thoughts? (item:30:Commissioner's thoughts on Project 54453) I am good with

01:32:38.369 --> 01:32:40.250
that as well. I believe that's appropriate.

01:32:43.449 --> 01:32:45.140
Okay. Well, um

01:32:46.659 --> 01:32:46.798
thank you.

01:32:56.560 --> 01:32:58.338
I don't know if there's any action we need to take

01:32:58.350 --> 01:33:01.149
on this item. A recognition that we're. (item:30:Shelah Cisneros confirms no further action needed on Project No. 54453) There's no further

01:33:01.159 --> 01:33:03.399
action needed. There was a, there was a Commission

01:33:03.409 --> 01:33:06.378
Staff memo from a previous of a meeting, but there's

01:33:06.390 --> 01:33:08.609
no action needed if the Commission chooses not to.

01:33:09.310 --> 01:33:17.060
Thank you. Okay. I don't have anything for um Items 31

01:33:17.069 --> 01:33:22.439
through 36. (item:37:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 54445) Next up is Item number 37, Project No.

01:33:22.449 --> 01:33:26.548
54445. This is the Commission's project for calendar

01:33:26.560 --> 01:33:30.378
year 2023 review of rules adopted by the independent

01:33:30.390 --> 01:33:34.168
organization. Let's take up uh retail market guide

01:33:34.180 --> 01:33:40.069
revision request 178. And then um we actually may

01:33:40.079 --> 01:33:44.819
take a break uh after that. But the next uh the

01:33:44.829 --> 01:33:48.759
other item in this agenda is NPR1186. So uh Shelah, 

01:33:48.770 --> 01:33:51.149
do we have anyone for the public sign to speak on Item

01:33:51.159 --> 01:33:56.390
No. 37. No, ma'am. PUC Staff filed a memo in

01:33:56.399 --> 01:34:00.619
a proposed order. (item:37:Motion to approve proposed order) I would entertain a motion to

01:34:00.628 --> 01:34:03.208
approve the proposed order. Some moved

01:34:05.489 --> 01:34:08.270
We have a motion and a second. This is not 1186. This

01:34:08.279 --> 01:34:13.750
is the other, this is 178. Yes. Second. A motion and a second. 

01:34:14.140 --> 01:34:17.838
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes.

01:34:19.560 --> 01:34:24.329
Um at this time, you know, we said we were scheduled

01:34:24.338 --> 01:34:27.869
to go into closed session at 11:30. The time is uh currently

01:34:27.878 --> 01:34:33.569
11:17. (item:56:Chairwoman Jackson pauses Open Meeting, to hold Closed Session) Let's go ahead and take up um, Item No. 56

01:34:33.579 --> 01:34:38.430
Closed Session. Having convened in duly noticed open

01:34:38.439 --> 01:34:42.579
meeting. The Commission is now at 11:18 on January 18, 

01:34:42.588 --> 01:34:46.329
2024 hold a Closed Session.  

01:34:47.958 --> 01:34:50.470
We'll hold a closed session to discuss matters pursuant

01:34:50.479 --> 01:34:53.509
to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code Sections

01:34:53.520 --> 01:35:00.430
551.071, 551.074 and 551.076. We'll be back in a few

01:35:00.439 --> 01:35:01.338
minutes. Thank you.

01:35:05.810 --> 01:35:10.548
(item:56:Chairwoman Jackson concludes Closed Session, Open Meeting resumed) The closed session is hereby concluded at 11:59 on January

01:35:10.560 --> 01:35:15.039
18, 2024. No formal action will be taken as a result

01:35:15.048 --> 01:35:17.930
of Closed Session. The Commission will now resume its

01:35:17.939 --> 01:35:22.168
Public Meeting by resuming with Item No. 37. (item:37:Chairwoman Jackson lays out NPRR1186) We

01:35:22.180 --> 01:35:26.829
will now discuss NPRR1186. Commissioner Glotfelty filed

01:35:26.838 --> 01:35:29.640
a memo on November 29 and Commissioner Cobos filed

01:35:29.649 --> 01:35:33.479
a memo yesterday. ERCOT filed its presentation on January

01:35:33.489 --> 01:35:34.009
4th.

01:35:35.963 --> 01:35:38.884
He had until January 11th to submit written comments

01:35:38.895 --> 01:35:42.284
in response to ERCOT's materials. We now have additional

01:35:42.293 --> 01:35:45.034
information from ERCOT and other interested parties. 

01:35:45.173 --> 01:35:47.475
Now that we have this additional information, let's

01:35:47.484 --> 01:35:50.484
pick up our conversation from where we left off. I'd

01:35:50.494 --> 01:35:54.114
like to bring up ERCOT first and then we'll have Commissioner

01:35:54.463 --> 01:35:57.963
Cobos lay out her memo. Dan, will you please come up

01:35:57.975 --> 01:35:59.333
and provide an overview. 

01:36:27.029 --> 01:36:29.958
(item:37:ERCOT's Dan Woodfin gives overview of NPRR1186) Dan Woodfin with ERCOT. Would you like me to go

01:36:29.970 --> 01:36:32.659
through this or how do, how do we want? Yeah, I think

01:36:32.668 --> 01:36:34.079
you know, give us a brief overview of.

01:36:40.729 --> 01:36:41.789
So um

01:36:44.798 --> 01:36:48.878
we have an increasing number of batteries that are

01:36:48.890 --> 01:36:54.208
providing ancillary services. We have um right now

01:36:54.220 --> 01:36:59.048
we have um few 1000 megawatts of batteries in the market

01:36:59.060 --> 01:37:04.649
But if you look at the intersection uh, uh Q it could

01:37:04.659 --> 01:37:08.149
be up to by 2026 when RTC goes in, it could

01:37:08.159 --> 01:37:12.869
be up to 20 gig over 20 gigawatts potentially of batteries

01:37:13.338 --> 01:37:16.189
And so I think the, the, the the point there is

01:37:16.199 --> 01:37:20.088
that it's several years out into the future before

01:37:20.100 --> 01:37:21.949
you know that we're gonna be operating under whatever

01:37:21.958 --> 01:37:27.489
regime comes out of this uh out of 1186. And if um

01:37:28.189 --> 01:37:31.329
so we need to get it right. And as batteries provide

01:37:31.338 --> 01:37:33.829
more and more of those ancillary services, the real

01:37:33.838 --> 01:37:36.878
reliability products that we need to preserve the reliability

01:37:36.890 --> 01:37:40.449
of the system. It's going to be even more important

01:37:40.458 --> 01:37:44.930
to get that right. And so, um, it's a, we, we absolutely

01:37:44.939 --> 01:37:47.810
want to have all those batteries added to the system

01:37:47.819 --> 01:37:51.770
We need them for, for capacity. But we need to make

01:37:51.779 --> 01:37:54.128
sure that they've got enough energy to provide the

01:37:54.140 --> 01:37:57.449
the those reliability services when we call on them

01:37:57.909 --> 01:38:01.819
And so that's really the, the, the, the impetus

01:38:01.829 --> 01:38:08.020
for NPRR1186. We've uh this has had a lot of

01:38:08.029 --> 01:38:11.899
discussion. We've modified quite a bit of things as

01:38:11.909 --> 01:38:14.899
through the stakeholder process to, to improve, based

01:38:14.909 --> 01:38:17.819
on feedback from, from the different market participants

01:38:18.048 --> 01:38:21.739
particularly the batteries. We think we've uh gotten

01:38:21.750 --> 01:38:27.009
to a good spot. (item:37:Dan Woodfin failure to perform & provide and state of charge) The kind of the remaining issues

01:38:27.020 --> 01:38:31.819
are related to uh failure to perform and failure to

01:38:31.829 --> 01:38:40.560
provide. And so, um the um the failure to perform is

01:38:40.569 --> 01:38:45.298
um really a making sure that they are preserving enough

01:38:45.310 --> 01:38:49.899
state of charge for uh to, to be able to provide the

01:38:49.909 --> 01:38:53.350
ancillary services that they're selling at any point

01:38:53.359 --> 01:38:56.939
in time that they might be called upon. And so that's

01:38:56.949 --> 01:38:59.878
really been the, the key thing through this discussion

01:38:59.890 --> 01:39:03.918
is making sure that uh that they're actually providing

01:39:03.930 --> 01:39:05.699
that service. 

01:39:08.520 --> 01:39:12.668
And have the capability to provide it and aren't 

01:39:12.680 --> 01:39:15.279
And that's one of the key things that we pointed out

01:39:15.289 --> 01:39:18.489
in the, in the document that we filed. That they

01:39:18.500 --> 01:39:20.338
need to make sure that, that they're maintaining the

01:39:20.350 --> 01:39:23.489
state of charge and have the ability to form. Because

01:39:23.500 --> 01:39:25.668
we don't know, you know, we might, there might be a

01:39:25.680 --> 01:39:28.298
unit trip in the middle of the night. If they don't

01:39:28.310 --> 01:39:30.458
have sufficient state of charge to provide. Say

01:39:30.470 --> 01:39:32.759
the responsive reserve, then they're not gonna be able

01:39:32.770 --> 01:39:36.159
to provide that. And, and they're not gonna be able

01:39:36.168 --> 01:39:41.759
to perform. We can't wait until after we have an event

01:39:42.270 --> 01:39:45.259
to figure out if they're able to perform, it's too late

01:39:45.270 --> 01:39:48.039
at that point. You've already had the reliability problem. 

01:39:48.399 --> 01:39:51.199
And so that's really the, the, the key thing that we're

01:39:51.208 --> 01:39:56.239
trying to, to prevent. By monitoring, not only the failure

01:39:56.250 --> 01:39:59.319
to perform, but also the failure to, to, to reserve

01:39:59.329 --> 01:40:01.729
the state of charge. 

01:40:05.418 --> 01:40:08.378
And I guess with that, I'll open it up for questions.

01:40:09.399 --> 01:40:13.588
So just to confirm this is interim into the, until

01:40:13.600 --> 01:40:18.140
the implementation of RTC plus B. Is that correct? That's correct. 

01:40:19.489 --> 01:40:24.119
And to kind of kick off our discussion, could you summarize

01:40:24.399 --> 01:40:27.930
what you see is the risk to the grid operations without

01:40:27.939 --> 01:40:28.859
this NPRR?

01:40:30.659 --> 01:40:36.770
(item:37:Dan Woodfin on risk to grid operations without NPRR1186) So one of, I guess the NPRR has a lot of

01:40:36.779 --> 01:40:40.350
things in it. One of them is to make sure that we're

01:40:40.649 --> 01:40:46.180
recognizing state of charge in both SCED. So the dispatch

01:40:46.189 --> 01:40:48.680
of the system and also our reliability unit commitment

01:40:48.689 --> 01:40:51.640
process, making sure that. We're recognizing that,

01:40:51.649 --> 01:40:56.194
that if, if, if, if a lot of the batteries are depleted

01:40:56.204 --> 01:40:58.534
and we need to bring additional generation online to

01:40:58.543 --> 01:41:00.793
be able to serve the load because they're depleted

01:41:00.845 --> 01:41:03.324
We need to recognize that right now, our systems don't

01:41:03.333 --> 01:41:07.734
recognize that a Megawatt of from a battery resource

01:41:07.744 --> 01:41:11.984
is being any different than a Megawatt from a combustion

01:41:11.994 --> 01:41:15.930
turbine. And so there's no, there's no recognition

01:41:15.939 --> 01:41:18.039
at all of the state of charge. So that's probably the

01:41:18.048 --> 01:41:22.579
the biggest thing we need to do is is get that recognition

01:41:22.588 --> 01:41:25.779
into our systems. Both into the dispatch and, and the

01:41:25.789 --> 01:41:27.810
unit commitment. So there's been a lot of discussion

01:41:27.819 --> 01:41:30.279
about the compliance side of things and so forth. But

01:41:30.289 --> 01:41:32.878
we need to that, that's one of the primary things is

01:41:32.890 --> 01:41:35.479
getting that recognition in there. So that we don't

01:41:35.489 --> 01:41:38.869
find ourselves caught short of having enough capacity

01:41:38.878 --> 01:41:41.949
at all for any, for any purpose. Because because we're

01:41:41.958 --> 01:41:47.168
not recognizing that state of charge. (item:37:Dan Woodfin on risk of not having state of charge) The, the second

01:41:47.180 --> 01:41:51.779
thing is making sure that if they're selling ancillary

01:41:51.789 --> 01:41:54.390
services into the market, so those reliability, it's

01:41:54.399 --> 01:41:56.729
kind of like an insurance product. Okay. They're selling

01:41:56.739 --> 01:41:59.289
us insurance that they've got the capacity that if

01:41:59.298 --> 01:42:03.439
a unit trips. And therefore we're counting on our ancillary

01:42:03.798 --> 01:42:06.930
service called responsive reserve to be able to stop

01:42:06.939 --> 01:42:12.458
the frequency uh decay after a unit trips, then they

01:42:12.470 --> 01:42:14.479
have to have enough state of charge. If they're providing

01:42:14.489 --> 01:42:18.250
a responsive reserve to help us restore the energy

01:42:18.259 --> 01:42:22.659
that's lost and, and bring frequency back up. So if

01:42:22.668 --> 01:42:25.520
if a battery is providing a responsive reserve and

01:42:25.529 --> 01:42:29.220
they've only got a minute's worth of state of charge

01:42:29.619 --> 01:42:32.958
then they respond with all let's say it's 100 Megawatt

01:42:32.970 --> 01:42:36.979
battery. They respond with 100 megawatts of capacity

01:42:37.259 --> 01:42:41.759
but it only lasts a minute and then it's depleted then

01:42:42.479 --> 01:42:46.048
and we don't have anything else if I'm making up a

01:42:46.060 --> 01:42:48.489
scenario here, obviously. But if we don't have anything

01:42:48.500 --> 01:42:52.009
else to replace it, then we could wind up being uh

01:42:52.119 --> 01:42:55.680
uh uh short of capacity and have to shed load. And

01:42:55.689 --> 01:42:59.409
so ultimately, that's the, that's the risk. We buy

01:42:59.418 --> 01:43:01.850
all these different ancillary services to protect against

01:43:01.859 --> 01:43:04.909
various risks. Like the one I just mentioned, we're

01:43:05.100 --> 01:43:08.390
we're needing the folks that are providing those ancillary

01:43:08.579 --> 01:43:11.850
services to provide them, to provide them for the length

01:43:11.859 --> 01:43:15.060
of time that that ancillary service product is intended

01:43:15.069 --> 01:43:19.088
to, to, to be used and they have to have enough energy

01:43:19.100 --> 01:43:23.449
to, to be able to serve that. And otherwise we won't

01:43:23.458 --> 01:43:26.500
have enough generation, enough resources to serve the

01:43:26.509 --> 01:43:29.359
load and we have to reduce the load. So it, it's, it

01:43:29.369 --> 01:43:32.560
really is a, a big deal from a reliability perspective

01:43:32.569 --> 01:43:35.600
to make sure that those ancillary services can, can

01:43:35.609 --> 01:43:38.829
provide the products that we're in for the duration

01:43:38.838 --> 01:43:43.119
that we need them to. Okay. Thank you. Commission

01:43:43.560 --> 01:43:45.899
Cobos, you filed a memo. Would you like to lay that out?

01:43:46.909 --> 01:43:51.109
Yes, Chair Jackson. (item:37:Commissioner Cobos thoughts on submission of comments) So um my memo is, is intended to

01:43:51.119 --> 01:43:54.850
just sort of uh provide a, a brief uh procedural overview

01:43:54.859 --> 01:43:59.100
of, of how we got here as you recognized. Um ERCOT

01:43:59.109 --> 01:44:02.208
uh requested more time to provide additional uh detailed

01:44:02.220 --> 01:44:04.458
information explanation on a series of topics that

01:44:04.470 --> 01:44:09.418
are listed in my memo. They did that on January

01:44:09.430 --> 01:44:13.128
4th and stakeholders filed public comments, some stakeholders

01:44:13.140 --> 01:44:16.918
filed public comments in response to ERCOT's presentation

01:44:16.930 --> 01:44:20.020
on January 11th. I want to take a brief pause here

01:44:20.029 --> 01:44:23.369
and just express some disappointment and, and some

01:44:23.378 --> 01:44:26.850
frustration. You know I, I really appreciate all

01:44:26.859 --> 01:44:29.789
the stakeholders that filed public comments on this

01:44:29.798 --> 01:44:34.640
NPRR in response to ERCOT's presentation through

01:44:34.649 --> 01:44:36.699
this process, it, you know, towards the end of this

01:44:36.708 --> 01:44:39.770
process, it became clear to me that it, you know, some

01:44:39.779 --> 01:44:42.729
battery companies had positions and maybe didn't file

01:44:42.739 --> 01:44:48.289
responsive comments on ERCOT's presentation. And

01:44:48.298 --> 01:44:51.208
definitely a lot of non battery companies had opinions

01:44:51.220 --> 01:44:54.680
and positions and none of them follow comments. It's

01:44:54.689 --> 01:44:58.039
very hard for us as Commissioners and everybody involved

01:44:58.109 --> 01:45:02.029
ERCOT to be able to make well informed decisions when

01:45:02.310 --> 01:45:05.869
we don't have written public comments submitted into

01:45:05.878 --> 01:45:08.899
the record into the official record. That that helps

01:45:08.909 --> 01:45:13.060
for not only our decision making process but also for

01:45:13.069 --> 01:45:18.798
public transparency. So that, that was something

01:45:18.810 --> 01:45:21.548
that I recognized happened and, and, and especially

01:45:21.560 --> 01:45:23.970
towards the tail end of this this process. I recognize

01:45:23.979 --> 01:45:26.140
that a lot, maybe stakeholders provided comments at TAC 

01:45:26.149 --> 01:45:29.128
and the ERCOT process. But the decision is now before

01:45:29.140 --> 01:45:32.720
us and we, you know, stakeholders had an opportunity

01:45:32.729 --> 01:45:36.270
to follow comments. Some did a lot didn't but certainly

01:45:36.279 --> 01:45:39.128
had very strong positions. And, and that's disappointing

01:45:39.140 --> 01:45:41.560
that we didn't get those written comments in the record. 

01:45:41.569 --> 01:45:44.489
Because if stakeholders feel strongly about something

01:45:44.770 --> 01:45:47.149
as strongly as it seemed that they did some of them.

01:45:47.159 --> 01:45:49.989
Then they should file comments so we could have the

01:45:50.000 --> 01:45:54.909
benefit of reviewing those comments and other stakeholders

01:45:54.918 --> 01:45:58.350
have the opportunity to respond to those comments.

01:45:58.359 --> 01:45:58.708
(item:37:Commissioner Cobos lays out her memo) So

01:46:00.279 --> 01:46:04.180
um the rest of my memo just sort of sets the stage

01:46:04.189 --> 01:46:06.220
from a very factual standpoint. These are facts that

01:46:06.229 --> 01:46:08.418
I've been highlighting at ERCOT Board meetings for

01:46:08.430 --> 01:46:11.680
some time now. And I, I don't think ERCOT disagrees

01:46:11.689 --> 01:46:13.838
with these facts or just facts of what we're facing

01:46:13.850 --> 01:46:16.850
in the future. You know, higher peak electricity demand

01:46:16.859 --> 01:46:20.149
and pervasive extreme weather conditions. Our peak

01:46:20.159 --> 01:46:23.430
demand is increasing um as ERCOT highlighted many times

01:46:23.439 --> 01:46:25.180
from last Summer to this Summer. It's increased by

01:46:25.189 --> 01:46:28.668
6.7%. We've broken. Uh we've hit an all time Summer

01:46:28.680 --> 01:46:33.909
peak record of um over 85,000 megawatts this week alone

01:46:33.918 --> 01:46:38.119
we hit another Winter peak, over 78,000 megawatts uh

01:46:38.128 --> 01:46:41.378
batteries perform well. I think no one disputes that

01:46:41.680 --> 01:46:44.739
at ERCOT they provided. I think at the peak as Woody

01:46:44.750 --> 01:46:50.909
highlighted 1200 megawatts um at, at peak during this

01:46:50.918 --> 01:46:53.409
past event. The fact of the matter is more people in

01:46:53.418 --> 01:46:57.069
business are moving to Texas, as you say, um Chair

01:46:57.159 --> 01:46:59.588
Jackson. They're not bringing, you know, electricity

01:46:59.600 --> 01:47:02.859
with them. So, um the state has been experiencing,

01:47:02.869 --> 01:47:05.250
you know, more extreme weather. I mean, that's, that's

01:47:05.259 --> 01:47:08.909
clear to us. And that's what we're trying to plan

01:47:08.918 --> 01:47:11.918
for, for the future. And I think in the coming years

01:47:11.930 --> 01:47:15.378
our our load will continue to increase. Our, our state

01:47:15.390 --> 01:47:17.668
shows no sign of slowing down on economic population

01:47:17.680 --> 01:47:20.659
growth and that is a great success for our state. 

01:47:20.668 --> 01:47:24.418
And we got a plan for it. There are thermal generation

01:47:24.430 --> 01:47:27.208
units that are being built and that's great to hear

01:47:27.298 --> 01:47:29.878
And, uh, but the fact of the matter is it won't be

01:47:29.890 --> 01:47:32.310
built for 3 to 4 years. So what do we do in

01:47:32.319 --> 01:47:35.609
the meantime, to continue to maintain reliability with

01:47:35.619 --> 01:47:38.265
higher peak electricity demand and extreme weather

01:47:38.274 --> 01:47:42.685
conditions. (item:37:Commissioner Cobos on ramp down periods) The second challenge we're facing is the

01:47:42.744 --> 01:47:44.904
operational challenge associated with the ramp down

01:47:44.914 --> 01:47:48.454
periods in the early evenings in the Summer and Winter. 

01:47:48.784 --> 01:47:52.423
When solar comes off the system, solar is highlighted

01:47:52.435 --> 01:47:58.654
by ERCOT. And we know from our past Summers, solar

01:47:58.664 --> 01:48:01.444
provides tremendous benefits, reliability benefits

01:48:01.454 --> 01:48:04.944
in the Summer and sometimes in the Winter is highlighted

01:48:04.954 --> 01:48:09.600
by Woody and we have a massive amount of solar coming

01:48:09.649 --> 01:48:12.628
onto our system. I mean, right now we have over 19,000

01:48:12.640 --> 01:48:16.329
megawatts of installed solar generation capacity. In

01:48:16.579 --> 01:48:19.668
ERCOT, we are experiencing a solar duct curve these

01:48:19.680 --> 01:48:22.939
ramp down periods. As we have more solar being added

01:48:22.949 --> 01:48:26.759
to the system. ERCOT statistics from ERCOT's um

01:48:26.770 --> 01:48:29.829
interconnection queue. We have over 24,000 megawatts

01:48:29.838 --> 01:48:33.548
of solar on the horizon which could lead to us having

01:48:33.560 --> 01:48:37.088
over 44,000 megawatts on the ERCOT system in the next

01:48:37.100 --> 01:48:39.229
two years. So how are we going to manage this solar

01:48:39.239 --> 01:48:42.470
ramp down period? Um that occurs in the evening um

01:48:42.479 --> 01:48:46.079
when it's still hot in the Summer and uh Texans are

01:48:46.088 --> 01:48:49.020
continuing to need A/C and electricity. Because it's

01:48:49.029 --> 01:48:51.829
still hot even though the sun's down business continue

01:48:51.838 --> 01:48:56.208
to operate. Um And also sometimes in the morning as

01:48:56.220 --> 01:48:59.810
as you know, the the ramp up also in the Winter is

01:48:59.819 --> 01:49:03.609
is something we got to be mindful of. And so managing

01:49:03.619 --> 01:49:07.798
these increasingly sharper declines, ramp down periods

01:49:07.810 --> 01:49:09.609
as we have more solar in the system is going to be

01:49:09.619 --> 01:49:15.168
extremely critical. And so, you know, ERCOT so far

01:49:15.180 --> 01:49:18.430
has been able to maintain reliability. Um you know

01:49:18.859 --> 01:49:23.119
in the September 6th EA event. You know, we had 2000

01:49:23.128 --> 01:49:26.119
megawatts of solar, uh I'm sorry, storage being put

01:49:26.128 --> 01:49:29.509
on the system that helped us uh avoid load shed. And

01:49:29.520 --> 01:49:33.409
so, you know, from, from this perspective, you know

01:49:33.418 --> 01:49:36.770
we're dealing with an operational challenge that we're

01:49:36.779 --> 01:49:38.338
dealing. I mean, we're already dealing with it. It's

01:49:38.350 --> 01:49:40.529
just gonna be more pronounced in the future. (item:37:Commissioner Cobos on filling the gaps) And so

01:49:40.539 --> 01:49:43.000
how do we fill those gaps? We have to fill them with

01:49:43.009 --> 01:49:47.600
fast flexible uh dispatchable generation. Um And that

01:49:47.609 --> 01:49:50.560
includes both thermal generation and battery storage

01:49:50.819 --> 01:49:55.140
And again, while we have more um thermal generation

01:49:55.149 --> 01:49:57.000
announcements being announced, and that's fantastic

01:49:57.009 --> 01:49:59.250
It takes 3 to 4 years to get those in place. In

01:49:59.489 --> 01:50:02.810
the meantime, we got take advantage of every Megawatt

01:50:03.048 --> 01:50:05.430
that we can get on the system to help with this operational

01:50:05.439 --> 01:50:10.180
challenge. And so, um as I look at ERCOT presentation

01:50:10.189 --> 01:50:13.739
I just provided some high level questions um to help

01:50:13.750 --> 01:50:17.489
us kind of move through um our deliberation and discussion

01:50:17.500 --> 01:50:20.350
and ultimate action on this NPRR. Because there's

01:50:20.359 --> 01:50:22.239
just been a lot of facts, right? This is a complicated

01:50:22.250 --> 01:50:26.529
issue for many. Um and, and so I, from my perspective

01:50:26.539 --> 01:50:30.168
I just want to take a big picture approach to um this

01:50:30.180 --> 01:50:34.119
issue and ultimate action. And so I've listed a series

01:50:34.128 --> 01:50:37.418
of questions that are um high level questions to help

01:50:37.430 --> 01:50:41.409
us arrive at a um at a decision. (item:37:Commissioner Cobos on making a decision on NPRR1186) And, and as I

01:50:41.418 --> 01:50:45.239
noted in my memo, at the end, we have to come to

01:50:45.250 --> 01:50:47.329
a decision today. I mean, we've been dealing with NPRR1186 

01:50:47.338 --> 01:50:52.220
since August. That's five months. I mean, we

01:50:52.229 --> 01:50:55.689
have so much important matters, this is important too

01:50:56.069 --> 01:50:59.918
Um so many important matters on our desk right now

01:51:00.100 --> 01:51:04.579
that we have to close this door and move on today because

01:51:04.588 --> 01:51:08.588
this has taken up a lot of time, our time, ERCOT's time, 

01:51:08.600 --> 01:51:12.520
stakeholders time and we gotta move on. So, um

01:51:14.329 --> 01:51:17.548
I laid out these questions and I, I mean, I don't

01:51:17.560 --> 01:51:19.088
know if you want to go one by one and we talk

01:51:19.100 --> 01:51:22.029
about them or what the best approach would be. Chair 

01:51:22.039 --> 01:51:24.270
Jackson, I'll defer to you. Well, I'd like to hear

01:51:24.279 --> 01:51:27.128
from Commissioner Glotfelty because I know you've been very engaged

01:51:27.140 --> 01:51:30.689
in this issue. And so maybe you can provide a few comments

01:51:30.699 --> 01:51:33.520
and your thoughts. Thank you. (item:37:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on deciding on NPRR1186) I'm, uh, I'm appreciative

01:51:33.529 --> 01:51:36.140
as Commissioner Cobo says, of all of the time and

01:51:36.149 --> 01:51:39.539
effort that's been put into this. If we don't rule

01:51:39.548 --> 01:51:44.289
on this issue today, to me, that's not a failure. ERCOT

01:51:44.298 --> 01:51:47.509
has told me that the discussion between the storage

01:51:47.520 --> 01:51:52.659
devices and ERCOT and their systems has been hugely valuable

01:51:52.668 --> 01:51:57.489
for the development of RTC plus B. So that is the

01:51:57.500 --> 01:52:00.289
be one of the benefits that we're getting, of having

01:52:00.298 --> 01:52:04.239
this deep dive discussion, having transparency and

01:52:04.250 --> 01:52:07.600
really hashing this issue out. And I think that's

01:52:07.609 --> 01:52:09.850
great. So I don't necessarily think today is the end

01:52:09.859 --> 01:52:15.918
day in, in my opinion. (item:37:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on ERCOT's presentation) Um I, I, I'm you know uh

01:52:15.930 --> 01:52:18.399
this, this um

01:52:20.699 --> 01:52:23.829
presentation that ERCOT put together shows me one thing

01:52:23.930 --> 01:52:30.039
really and that is that um every resource fails. If

01:52:30.048 --> 01:52:35.329
you look in Appendix A, um, it shows that ESRs that

01:52:35.338 --> 01:52:40.810
are ancillary services on page 24 and or non-ESRs as

01:52:40.989 --> 01:52:44.149
ancillary service providers on page 24 and a few pages

01:52:44.159 --> 01:52:48.270
prior they fail, they all fail.

01:52:50.500 --> 01:52:56.770
So singling out ancillary services providers of battery

01:52:56.779 --> 01:53:01.759
storage is discriminatory. Gas plants fail,

01:53:03.270 --> 01:53:06.100
nuclear plants fail, coal plants fail for reasons 

01:53:06.109 --> 01:53:08.949
we don't know. And that's why we over procure ancillary

01:53:09.180 --> 01:53:12.489
services. Now, that's expensive. We don't want to have

01:53:12.500 --> 01:53:15.298
to do that. We want to be the best at modeling that

01:53:15.310 --> 01:53:17.850
and best understanding it some of that's done through

01:53:17.859 --> 01:53:21.100
the methodology, some of it's not. But I just can't

01:53:21.109 --> 01:53:26.119
sit here and pass a, you know, something that puts

01:53:26.128 --> 01:53:31.479
a compliance penalty on a type of service when I can

01:53:31.489 --> 01:53:34.409
sit here. And the data that's been given to me by ERCOT

01:53:34.418 --> 01:53:35.439
shows that

01:53:37.069 --> 01:53:42.100
dispatchable resources fail also in the same types

01:53:42.109 --> 01:53:45.949
of services. The, the other two things that I want

01:53:45.958 --> 01:53:49.619
to say. One of them is that if we want to talk

01:53:49.628 --> 01:53:51.750
about the compliance component coming out, that's a

01:53:51.759 --> 01:53:54.259
totally different issue, but I'm, I'm eager to have

01:53:54.270 --> 01:54:02.289
that discussion. The other part is um that the uh hang

01:54:02.298 --> 01:54:06.208
on one second, let me get to my page here. (item:37:Commissioner Glotfelty's on other options to address reliability concerns) It

01:54:06.539 --> 01:54:08.390
on page uh

01:54:11.399 --> 01:54:15.298
I think on page 16, it says ERCOT's recommendation

01:54:15.859 --> 01:54:19.208
ERCOT recommends the unanimously board endorsed version

01:54:19.220 --> 01:54:22.899
of NPRR1186 as the best way to mitigate the reliability

01:54:22.909 --> 01:54:26.319
risk associated with limited duration resources. I

01:54:26.329 --> 01:54:31.640
don't have the benefit of any other way. So they say

01:54:31.649 --> 01:54:35.259
this is the best way. What are the non ways, what are

01:54:35.270 --> 01:54:39.640
the other possibilities that we can address the reliability

01:54:39.649 --> 01:54:43.500
problems associated with, with this issue? To me, there's

01:54:43.509 --> 01:54:46.390
only been one way, one way that's been pros and that's

01:54:46.399 --> 01:54:51.100
their way and it's their way or no way. And there may

01:54:51.109 --> 01:54:53.989
be something in between there that we, we should be

01:54:54.000 --> 01:54:56.958
discussing here. (item:37:Commissioner Glotfelty's on contracting with more than one resource) The final thing is, um

01:54:58.588 --> 01:55:06.449
you know, maybe this is as simple as requiring queasy

01:55:06.470 --> 01:55:09.699
that have ancillary service obligations to have to

01:55:09.708 --> 01:55:12.399
be able to contract with more than one resource. So

01:55:12.409 --> 01:55:16.168
that obligation can be rolled to another. If you

01:55:16.180 --> 01:55:19.600
have single que a queasy with a single resource in

01:55:19.609 --> 01:55:23.529
it and that fails, they, they fail their straight of

01:55:23.539 --> 01:55:25.779
charge and they have a failure to provide the failure

01:55:25.789 --> 01:55:28.220
to provide. In my opinion, is the market mechanism

01:55:28.229 --> 01:55:32.479
to stop them from. That's the financial risk mitigation

01:55:32.489 --> 01:55:37.259
tool. But if, if you know, we, we want to consider

01:55:37.930 --> 01:55:42.759
saying that batteries, I know this won't solve everything

01:55:42.770 --> 01:55:44.259
But if batteries,

01:55:45.949 --> 01:55:49.619
you know, if, if this gives ERCOT more comfort that

01:55:49.628 --> 01:55:53.970
a qualified scheduling entity, if a battery state of

01:55:53.979 --> 01:55:57.020
charge doesn't allow it to fulfill its obligation in

01:55:57.119 --> 01:55:59.579
ancillary service, it gets to roll over to another

01:55:59.668 --> 01:56:04.220
battery within their ques. That's I think another market

01:56:04.229 --> 01:56:08.189
function that may be able to happen, that happens in

01:56:08.199 --> 01:56:11.520
other ancillary services. It happens in ancillary services

01:56:11.529 --> 01:56:15.350
where you have a queasy, it has multiple storage facilities

01:56:15.359 --> 01:56:18.140
in it. I'm just talking about those that perhaps have

01:56:18.149 --> 01:56:23.909
one storage facility in a ques. So, um, I, I throw

01:56:23.918 --> 01:56:27.520
that out. I'm eager to have the discussion and look

01:56:27.529 --> 01:56:30.668
forward to what you all have to say. Could you speak

01:56:30.680 --> 01:56:34.359
a little bit to the part of 1186? Because you, you

01:56:34.369 --> 01:56:37.079
talked about part of the value has been that, you know

01:56:37.088 --> 01:56:40.838
as we've moved forward. ERCOT and you know, the battery

01:56:40.850 --> 01:56:45.000
providers have been working together. Could you speak

01:56:45.009 --> 01:56:49.020
to the value that you think that the operational requirements

01:56:49.029 --> 01:56:53.479
of 1186 provide. In terms of, you know, not just from

01:56:53.489 --> 01:56:57.100
an operational standpoint of ERCOT being able to, you know

01:56:58.119 --> 01:57:01.500
understand and, and manage the reliability of the grid.

01:57:01.659 --> 01:57:06.369
But also the value that it brings in terms of, of um

01:57:06.378 --> 01:57:11.100
as we kind of move forward, forward with real time co-optimization 

01:57:11.109 --> 01:57:14.048
and with that. I don't, don't quite understand what

01:57:14.060 --> 01:57:16.890
what question you're asking. (item:37:Commissioner Glotfelty on operational battery learning curve) I think operationally

01:57:17.159 --> 01:57:20.338
um everybody is on a learning curve on how to deal

01:57:20.350 --> 01:57:23.989
with batteries. The more batteries that get added

01:57:24.000 --> 01:57:27.489
to our system, the I think the better off we are if 

01:57:27.500 --> 01:57:31.949
we have a problem. Um and we are learning together

01:57:31.958 --> 01:57:35.449
how these batteries be into the real time energy market

01:57:35.500 --> 01:57:37.548
and the ancillary service market. And that's going

01:57:37.560 --> 01:57:42.939
to be a uh a multi year uh educational experience for

01:57:42.949 --> 01:57:47.020
all of us. Operationally, um

01:57:48.708 --> 01:57:52.298
you know they, they are rightfully you know, ERCOT

01:57:52.310 --> 01:57:55.989
says that uh, you know, these batteries are very different

01:57:56.000 --> 01:57:59.890
from others. Um they, they use one word here on page

01:57:59.899 --> 01:58:03.338
two, that other resources are not inherently duration

01:58:03.350 --> 01:58:07.180
limited operationally that doesn't matter operationally

01:58:07.189 --> 01:58:11.649
They are, they could be limited. And that's the, I

01:58:11.659 --> 01:58:14.220
don't know, I guess I was speaking more to limit, to

01:58:14.229 --> 01:58:16.789
kind of knowing, kind of like, you know what the resource

01:58:16.798 --> 01:58:19.798
is at any given time. I mean, they have a lot of

01:58:19.810 --> 01:58:23.270
data from ERCOT. They provide a lot of data to ERCOT

01:58:23.539 --> 01:58:27.958
on I mean, on their website they show charging and

01:58:27.970 --> 01:58:31.048
non charging. There, there are telemetry

01:58:33.310 --> 01:58:36.128
connections between all of these resources and ERCOT.

01:58:36.239 --> 01:58:41.810
So I don't, I don't totally believe that. I mean, I

01:58:41.819 --> 01:58:43.239
think operationally they,

01:58:45.000 --> 01:58:47.310
they have. I don't know, I, I think they have what

01:58:47.319 --> 01:58:50.500
they need. I just, I think they want it to look like

01:58:50.509 --> 01:58:53.458
their coal plant, they want their box to be looked

01:58:53.470 --> 01:58:57.569
like their box. And I don't feel like that is a market.

01:58:57.579 --> 01:59:01.048
I believe that the market is what needs to change in

01:59:01.060 --> 01:59:05.159
order to adopt and adapt to the new types of resources

01:59:05.168 --> 01:59:08.009
that are coming into the market. Chair Jackson, if I may. And,

01:59:08.020 --> 01:59:12.250
and I'd like to clarify something. So the NPRR is

01:59:12.259 --> 01:59:14.500
I think filed in June, right? And, and since then it's

01:59:14.509 --> 01:59:17.199
been, you know, a fascinating train with some back

01:59:17.208 --> 01:59:20.479
and forth from you know the Board sending it back to

01:59:20.489 --> 01:59:23.060
to TAC to modify, to address the stranded megawatts

01:59:23.069 --> 01:59:24.949
issue. I know you guys have put in. ERCOT put in

01:59:24.958 --> 01:59:29.458
a lot of time and effort into this. Um No doubt. Um

01:59:30.359 --> 01:59:34.079
(item:37:Commissioner Cobos clarifying thoughts on NPRR1186) And so, you know what, what I meant by it's time to

01:59:34.088 --> 01:59:37.939
put it to bed. I mean, 1186 and take action on it. 

01:59:37.949 --> 01:59:40.789
the, the information flow that's been happening since

01:59:40.798 --> 01:59:46.628
this issue um was raised um to, to, to us and the

01:59:46.640 --> 01:59:49.750
board and everybody involved. Um There's just been

01:59:49.759 --> 01:59:52.418
a lot of, of learning that we had to do in a

01:59:52.430 --> 01:59:54.489
very short amount of time about batteries and ancillary

01:59:54.680 --> 01:59:57.810
services. But, but what whatever action we take on

01:59:57.819 --> 02:00:02.229
1186 that is not the end of information gathering because

02:00:02.239 --> 02:00:06.560
we have to continue to have ERCOT engage with the battery

02:00:06.569 --> 02:00:11.029
storage companies. To continue to learn about the

02:00:11.039 --> 02:00:15.140
battery storage um opportunities and limitations engaging

02:00:15.149 --> 02:00:17.350
with those experts because all that information is

02:00:17.359 --> 02:00:20.680
going to be very important for the plus B of RTC.

02:00:21.259 --> 02:00:24.399
And so the data flow needs to continue, the communication

02:00:24.409 --> 02:00:28.770
needs to continue um on these very important issues

02:00:29.119 --> 02:00:32.168
And I think, you know, Commissioner Glotfelty mentioned

02:00:32.180 --> 02:00:34.859
Well, ERCOT has said this is the only solution. Well

02:00:34.869 --> 02:00:37.470
it's the only solution they propose as an interim,

02:00:37.479 --> 02:00:41.069
but the solution is RTC plus B, right? That's the

02:00:41.079 --> 02:00:44.159
ultimate solution in 2026 when ERCOT is required to

02:00:44.168 --> 02:00:47.409
have implemented that effort. (item:37:Commissioner Cobos questions for ERCOT on NPRR1186) So right now, the question

02:00:47.418 --> 02:00:52.560
is um you know, do, do we need um state of charge

02:00:52.569 --> 02:00:57.810
the state of charge requirements in 1186. Coupled with

02:00:57.819 --> 02:01:01.770
the enforcement process that's in the gray box language

02:01:01.779 --> 02:01:06.189
in 1186 at this time? Has ERCOT made their case that

02:01:06.199 --> 02:01:09.250
there is a reliability risk associated with not having

02:01:09.259 --> 02:01:13.489
these data charge requirements in NPRR1186. And, and

02:01:13.500 --> 02:01:15.609
I think that we need to come to a decision point on

02:01:15.619 --> 02:01:18.390
1186 today because we got to provide regulatory certainty

02:01:18.399 --> 02:01:22.088
for everybody involved, right? For, for um the battery

02:01:22.100 --> 02:01:25.609
companies out there for the non battery companies out

02:01:25.619 --> 02:01:27.759
there. So they can, you know, figure out what's

02:01:27.770 --> 02:01:32.739
gonna happen and start planning. Um but um you know

02:01:32.750 --> 02:01:34.689
that that's what I mean by coming to a decision on

02:01:34.699 --> 02:01:38.529
on 1186. (item:37:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on telemetry) But the information flow needs to continue

02:01:38.939 --> 02:01:41.689
um to your point, Commissioner Glotfelty. ERCOT is getting

02:01:41.699 --> 02:01:47.750
telemetry. I think that the telemetry um should continue

02:01:47.759 --> 02:01:51.350
on minimum and max state of charge requirements. Um

02:01:51.359 --> 02:01:53.708
That's information that ERCOT needs to have visibility

02:01:53.720 --> 02:01:57.548
over. Um And, and I think, um you know, Pablo might

02:01:57.560 --> 02:01:59.418
have stated at the ERCOT Board meeting that, you know

02:01:59.548 --> 02:02:02.020
ERCOT is already getting technical data to plug in

02:02:02.259 --> 02:02:06.390
to their um SCED and RUC engines to help prepare um

02:02:06.399 --> 02:02:09.958
whether or not 1186 passes with the enforcement arm

02:02:09.970 --> 02:02:12.009
of the state of charge requirement. So the data flow

02:02:12.020 --> 02:02:16.079
needs to continue. The question is, do we want to basically

02:02:16.088 --> 02:02:18.819
mandate the state of charge requirements and add an

02:02:18.829 --> 02:02:22.819
enforcement process with noncom with a new additional

02:02:22.838 --> 02:02:28.439
well, with a non compliance penalty regime. If or

02:02:28.449 --> 02:02:32.869
if, if a battery storage um resource isn't complying

02:02:32.878 --> 02:02:35.659
with those mandated state of charge requirements that

02:02:35.668 --> 02:02:41.378
are in 1186. You know, uh with respect to whether

02:02:41.390 --> 02:02:44.298
or not, I mean, I wanna kind of start answering my

02:02:44.310 --> 02:02:48.270
own questions. But I do think it's important to um

02:02:48.918 --> 02:02:52.759
you know, kind of take the higher level. So for me

02:02:52.770 --> 02:02:56.000
I'm looking at this kind of as a high level issue like

02:02:56.539 --> 02:02:59.298
that. I don't want, I, I can get into the weeds, but

02:02:59.310 --> 02:03:01.229
I'm kind of looking at it from a high level, right? 

02:03:01.539 --> 02:03:05.899
You know, we're going to have RTC implemented in

02:03:05.909 --> 02:03:08.640
2026. We spent five months rolling around with this

02:03:08.649 --> 02:03:11.680
issue. Is there a reliability risk that needs to be

02:03:11.689 --> 02:03:14.750
solved in the next two years looking at ERCOT's presentation

02:03:15.208 --> 02:03:20.088
Um you know, ERCOT identified four dates um that they

02:03:20.100 --> 02:03:24.229
used as samples uh examples. Um those are identified

02:03:24.239 --> 02:03:29.140
on slide 19. They ERCOT highlights  I think that

02:03:29.149 --> 02:03:32.819
two of those sample dates, August 17th and September

02:03:32.829 --> 02:03:37.029
6th um were examples where some ESRs ran out of

02:03:37.039 --> 02:03:40.548
energy during a S deployments during tight conditions

02:03:40.949 --> 02:03:45.140
But, and I know, we had this discussion, Dan, but

02:03:46.409 --> 02:03:49.668
it's hard to get a real good picture of what exactly

02:03:49.680 --> 02:03:51.810
the complete picture of what was happening that day.

02:03:52.229 --> 02:03:55.270
We know, like on September 6th, you know, maybe there 

02:03:55.279 --> 02:03:57.859
were, there was batteries that had a lower state of

02:03:57.869 --> 02:04:01.350
charge because they had been deployed earlier because

02:04:01.359 --> 02:04:03.899
it was, you know, we were emergency conditions and

02:04:04.239 --> 02:04:08.159
there was, you know, an all time net output of 2181

02:04:08.168 --> 02:04:11.470
megawatts of ESRs on the system that kept us out

02:04:11.479 --> 02:04:15.489
a load shed. So if the charge was low that day on

02:04:15.500 --> 02:04:20.119
nine on September 6, you know, what, what, what, what

02:04:20.128 --> 02:04:23.229
led to that low state of charge because it's, it's

02:04:23.239 --> 02:04:26.470
kind of an incomplete picture from my standpoint um

02:04:27.418 --> 02:04:32.270
ERCOT status um shows that uh 5 to 7 ESRs

02:04:32.409 --> 02:04:34.668
um were short of their AS obligation

02:04:36.739 --> 02:04:40.750
out of all the ancillary services in responsive reserve

02:04:40.759 --> 02:04:47.930
service. But, but um that's only an RRS on two limited

02:04:47.939 --> 02:04:51.119
examples. There weren't any other examples. I think

02:04:51.128 --> 02:04:54.220
we've spent a lot of time wondering about. Well, ECRS

02:04:54.229 --> 02:04:57.890
right? ECRS is a two hour duration product. That, that

02:04:57.899 --> 02:05:00.250
is a very important product because, you know, the

02:05:00.259 --> 02:05:03.039
batteries have been helping smooth out that wrap down

02:05:03.048 --> 02:05:07.588
through ECRS um as well as the fast flexible thermal

02:05:07.600 --> 02:05:08.810
generation unit. So,

02:05:10.500 --> 02:05:14.470
I mean, it, it's 5 to 7 ESRs that fill their

02:05:14.479 --> 02:05:20.539
responses fail to, I guess to perform. Um And is that

02:05:20.548 --> 02:05:22.819
enough? Five out of seven out of how many, I mean,

02:05:22.829 --> 02:05:26.779
I, I read like maybe 113 megawatts um

02:05:28.859 --> 02:05:34.500
was occurred on that resulted in, on August 17th, that's

02:05:34.509 --> 02:05:37.609
only like 11% of the total responsive reserve deployed

02:05:37.850 --> 02:05:41.529
And in 74 megawatts on September 6th, that's only 6%

02:05:41.539 --> 02:05:45.069
of the total responsive reserve deployed out of thousands

02:05:45.079 --> 02:05:47.779
of megawatts of ESRs that were uh providing ancillary

02:05:47.789 --> 02:05:53.520
service on those days. So, um these limited examples

02:05:53.579 --> 02:05:56.338
from my standpoint, I mean, I could sit here and, and

02:05:56.739 --> 02:06:02.298
identify other um slides, I guess. I mean, 11 thing

02:06:02.310 --> 02:06:04.208
that stands out to me and I know that you guys try

02:06:04.220 --> 02:06:06.609
to explain this um when we had our, our discussion

02:06:06.619 --> 02:06:12.119
the other day. But um in, in, in the appendix of that

02:06:12.128 --> 02:06:17.109
compares ESR versus non ESR the energy source resources

02:06:17.449 --> 02:06:21.359
were held to a three Megawatt 3% threshold while the

02:06:21.369 --> 02:06:24.509
non energy storage resources were held to an eight

02:06:24.520 --> 02:06:29.579
Megawatt 8% threshold. Well, I mean, I mean, obviously

02:06:29.588 --> 02:06:31.640
you're gonna get more if you have a lower threshold

02:06:31.649 --> 02:06:34.750
that don't comply as opposed to a higher threshold

02:06:34.759 --> 02:06:38.520
So what happens if you apply 3% to uh uh you know

02:06:38.529 --> 02:06:43.458
the, the 8% to the ESR uh graphs versus, you know,

02:06:43.470 --> 02:06:46.869
um the 3% or what happens if you apply 3% to the

02:06:46.878 --> 02:06:48.939
non ESRs. I mean, it just seemed kind of like it

02:06:48.949 --> 02:06:51.890
wasn't an apples to apples comparison. And I know you

02:06:51.899 --> 02:06:54.659
mentioned grid p and, and you can discuss that. But

02:06:54.668 --> 02:06:56.500
I'll tell you every time I hear I've ever heard grad

02:06:56.509 --> 02:06:59.859
in my life like involving the ERCOT, my eyes roll

02:06:59.869 --> 02:07:03.600
back. So okay, so I'll try to say that. (item:37:Dan Woodfin provides clarifying details for Commissioner Cobos) The reason for

02:07:03.609 --> 02:07:07.149
the 8% and the 3% because that's the criteria that's

02:07:07.159 --> 02:07:10.168
used in the protocols. There was a grid P has been

02:07:10.180 --> 02:07:12.798
there for OK, I said it, sorry, I said I was gonna

02:07:12.939 --> 02:07:17.350
say, I uh that's been a for, you know, since I don't

02:07:17.359 --> 02:07:19.890
know, 15 years or something like that for generation

02:07:19.899 --> 02:07:23.289
resources. And what was happening is that the, the

02:07:23.298 --> 02:07:26.270
energy storage resources because they can charge and

02:07:26.279 --> 02:07:28.909
they look like a CLR. 

02:07:31.699 --> 02:07:34.289
And then on the other side, when they're discharging

02:07:34.298 --> 02:07:36.810
they look like a generator and they were having trouble

02:07:36.819 --> 02:07:43.250
passing that grid P metric. And so NPR963 I think

02:07:43.259 --> 02:07:46.739
that's right back in 2020 was teed up by market participants

02:07:46.750 --> 02:07:49.329
I think it was by battery owner to say we need to

02:07:49.338 --> 02:07:51.979
have different criteria for batteries because we're

02:07:51.989 --> 02:07:55.479
not able to pass this because of how the, the mechanics

02:07:55.489 --> 02:07:58.979
of how the, the calculation is done for, they couldn't

02:07:58.989 --> 02:08:01.520
they couldn't pass it because of this. They could,

02:08:01.720 --> 02:08:04.109
they could be providing on the charging side or on

02:08:04.119 --> 02:08:09.020
the generation side. And so they, that NPR963 was

02:08:09.029 --> 02:08:12.850
passed the criteria because of how it went through

02:08:12.859 --> 02:08:16.720
the stakeholder process is that for the equivalent

02:08:16.729 --> 02:08:20.369
of grid P for ESRs is 3% or three megawatts

02:08:20.579 --> 02:08:23.628
And so we're just using the protocol uh defined metrics

02:08:23.640 --> 02:08:27.628
for, for them. What is great P stand for just for all

02:08:27.640 --> 02:08:28.329
of our benefits,

02:08:30.250 --> 02:08:33.949
Mister Nathan Bigby, on behalf of ERCOT generation

02:08:33.958 --> 02:08:38.569
resource energy deployment performance. OK. So it basically

02:08:38.579 --> 02:08:42.720
says as far as they are they following their dispatch

02:08:42.729 --> 02:08:46.970
signals for all the energy and ancillary service or

02:08:46.979 --> 02:08:50.168
not, it's the metric for calculating that over, over

02:08:50.180 --> 02:08:51.079
an extended period.

02:08:53.289 --> 02:08:57.899
OK? I mean that, that it's helpful to try to understand

02:08:57.909 --> 02:09:00.689
the different thresholds um there because that, that's

02:09:00.699 --> 02:09:03.949
something that stood out to me um in evaluating the

02:09:03.958 --> 02:09:05.750
presentation. Um

02:09:07.878 --> 02:09:10.039
I'll pause here in case y'all have questions, I'm just

02:09:10.048 --> 02:09:12.239
kind of scrolling through here, some of some of the

02:09:12.250 --> 02:09:16.199
data that I need to bring up a bit. So kind of

02:09:16.208 --> 02:09:19.239
further to what we were talking about before. Can you

02:09:19.250 --> 02:09:23.949
kind of take us through the framework that is in 1186

02:09:23.958 --> 02:09:27.048
from an operational standpoint. That you feel like is

02:09:27.060 --> 02:09:30.640
going to put you in a better position from a reliability

02:09:30.649 --> 02:09:34.588
standpoint than what we have right now. Assuming that

02:09:35.009 --> 02:09:39.579
you know, we just focus in on the operational requirements

02:09:39.588 --> 02:09:42.619
and that structure. And we kind of, you know, park the

02:09:42.628 --> 02:09:45.378
enforcement aspect of it, you know, over here to the

02:09:45.390 --> 02:09:47.079
side for a minute. So

02:09:48.989 --> 02:09:52.259
see if I can actually use the presentation to explain

02:09:52.270 --> 02:09:53.689
this. (item:37:Dan Woodfin gives operational framework for NPRR1186) The um

02:10:00.009 --> 02:10:05.850
if you look at slide 6, the ERCOT protocols don't currently

02:10:05.859 --> 02:10:08.989
specify what is the requirement for SOC. So there is

02:10:09.000 --> 02:10:12.259
no real requirement at all. That's been something that

02:10:12.270 --> 02:10:15.279
was discussed. There was an original proposal, the

02:10:15.289 --> 02:10:17.609
Board remanded that back. We've modified it where it

02:10:17.619 --> 02:10:20.259
has a one hour duration. I know Commissioner Cobos

02:10:20.338 --> 02:10:23.759
one of your questions was about two and four hour duration.

02:10:23.770 --> 02:10:27.239
That's actually was taken out by the remand of the

02:10:27.250 --> 02:10:29.930
board. So all these products kind of, it's, it's time

02:10:29.939 --> 02:10:32.739
weighted. And so they have to have the full amount

02:10:32.750 --> 02:10:34.829
they're selling at the beginning of the hour and it

02:10:34.838 --> 02:10:38.029
goes down based on time to where they only, they can

02:10:38.039 --> 02:10:40.229
they don't have to have any state of charge left. But

02:10:40.239 --> 02:10:43.350
the end of the hour, as far as looking at a particular

02:10:43.359 --> 02:10:48.588
hour, um, the, um, and so there is no, there's nothing

02:10:48.600 --> 02:10:51.418
in there. This defines that. What is the right and

02:10:51.430 --> 02:10:53.509
what is, what is the speed limit? What is the, what

02:10:53.520 --> 02:10:57.949
is the right, um, um, amount of state of charge to

02:10:57.958 --> 02:11:01.199
say that you're per are performing or not. And so it

02:11:01.208 --> 02:11:04.329
does define that so that everybody understands that's

02:11:04.338 --> 02:11:06.529
that's what you're supposed to be doing. If you're

02:11:06.539 --> 02:11:09.250
selling an ancillary service product that the consumers

02:11:09.259 --> 02:11:12.168
of Texas are paying for, that's the, that defines it

02:11:12.180 --> 02:11:14.569
and so that I think that's needed. I think a lot of

02:11:14.579 --> 02:11:17.319
the, the stakeholders agree that that's needed, a lot

02:11:17.329 --> 02:11:19.659
of the battery providers even agree that that's needed

02:11:19.810 --> 02:11:23.279
(item:37:Dan Woodfin on systems concerns with state of charge) The, the second thing is that it right now, our systems

02:11:23.289 --> 02:11:30.958
RUC and um the, the um, dispatch, the security constrain

02:11:31.020 --> 02:11:34.529
get dispatch, do not include any consideration of state

02:11:34.539 --> 02:11:37.208
of charge. I'll give you a real concrete example of

02:11:37.220 --> 02:11:41.109
this on our website where you see the supply and demand

02:11:41.119 --> 02:11:43.439
curve and that we were all looking at so carefully

02:11:43.449 --> 02:11:48.619
last week. Um um All the battery capacity is included

02:11:48.628 --> 02:11:53.069
in that supply curve as being there for an unlimited

02:11:53.079 --> 02:11:57.609
duration. And so if you had a period where the uh there's

02:11:57.619 --> 02:12:00.140
there's no consideration whatsoever of the fact that

02:12:00.149 --> 02:12:02.890
really the batteries may only be able to provide that

02:12:02.899 --> 02:12:05.939
for an hour, an amount for an hour. And so if we

02:12:05.949 --> 02:12:08.680
ever got into a tight situation, it would not, not

02:12:08.689 --> 02:12:12.109
that graphic, for example, would not reflect the limited

02:12:12.119 --> 02:12:16.989
duration in the same way, our reliability unit commitment

02:12:17.000 --> 02:12:20.489
tool that looks at do we need to start more generation

02:12:20.500 --> 02:12:25.259
to serve the load or not? Doesn't look at if you're

02:12:25.270 --> 02:12:29.689
short for four hours, it assumes the batteries are

02:12:29.699 --> 02:12:31.659
going to be there to provide it for four hours. So

02:12:31.668 --> 02:12:34.520
we need to get that kind of consideration into our

02:12:34.529 --> 02:12:38.649
systems. That's a real operational need. That is, is

02:12:38.659 --> 02:12:45.060
is coming through uh 1186. And how do you uh in contrast

02:12:45.069 --> 02:12:48.668
to that, how do you deal in your system with a gas

02:12:48.680 --> 02:12:50.989
fired plant that has an ancillary service obligation

02:12:51.000 --> 02:12:51.640
that trips? 

02:12:54.949 --> 02:12:59.220
They need to change their cop to where they show that

02:12:59.229 --> 02:13:03.250
it's zero. And then we buy ancillary services to replace

02:13:03.259 --> 02:13:07.588
that, that capacity that's lost. So if a battery uh

02:13:08.458 --> 02:13:10.979
went out of a state of charge, what would happen? But

02:13:10.989 --> 02:13:15.250
(item:37:Dan Woodfin on maintaining state of charge) I think the, the distinction there is a unit trip is

02:13:15.259 --> 02:13:18.619
not preventable. It's by definition of forced outage. 

02:13:19.319 --> 02:13:22.899
Maintaining sufficient state of charge to provide in

02:13:22.909 --> 02:13:24.989
order to provide the ancillary service is completely

02:13:25.000 --> 02:13:28.000
preventable. It's manageable. You can tell the, if

02:13:28.009 --> 02:13:30.729
we have this in the system and people are telling us

02:13:30.739 --> 02:13:33.659
how much they want the state of charge to be at the

02:13:33.668 --> 02:13:36.659
beginning of the next hour. And all the, the criteria

02:13:36.668 --> 02:13:39.539
that's in here, the system will actually manage their

02:13:39.548 --> 02:13:43.250
state of charge so that they maintain enough, they

02:13:43.259 --> 02:13:47.100
could do it themselves too. But right now, in some

02:13:47.109 --> 02:13:50.220
cases, they're not doing it. So there is a distinction

02:13:50.229 --> 02:13:54.470
whether it's controllable or not. (item:37:Commissioner Glotfelty's operation perspective) So I my view, I think

02:13:54.479 --> 02:13:56.579
about this, from the operational perspective. I think

02:13:56.588 --> 02:14:00.548
all of these resources on our system are producing

02:14:00.560 --> 02:14:03.539
energy. And when one trips, the next guy picks up the

02:14:03.569 --> 02:14:07.414
banner and I know settlements and all of that deals

02:14:07.423 --> 02:14:11.725
with you. If you got paid to procure or paid to provide

02:14:11.734 --> 02:14:14.404
something and don't provide it what happens if you

02:14:14.414 --> 02:14:17.475
don't show up, what are the penalties associated with

02:14:17.484 --> 02:14:19.984
that? And what's the cost for you not to be there?

02:14:19.994 --> 02:14:23.125
And I'm a believer in the market mechanism that will

02:14:23.134 --> 02:14:26.463
allow that to function. And I think that that's just

02:14:26.475 --> 02:14:30.314
where I fall down. I know it's not exactly what you

02:14:30.324 --> 02:14:35.369
all want, but I just feel that that's the appropriate

02:14:35.390 --> 02:14:40.399
market function as far as we can push it. So I guess

02:14:40.409 --> 02:14:44.838
one of the things if you don't mind me, uh um having

02:14:44.850 --> 02:14:47.239
another thought on this. I mean, one of the things

02:14:47.250 --> 02:14:48.930
that, that we um

02:14:50.829 --> 02:14:53.810
I am absolutely a supporter markets obviously in, in

02:14:53.819 --> 02:14:57.569
using market mechanisms to, to, to, to do things.

02:14:57.579 --> 02:15:00.149
And provide the right incentives and provide the right

02:15:00.159 --> 02:15:03.529
disincentives. You know, we, we've talked a lot

02:15:03.539 --> 02:15:07.588
about these services. So, so I a little bit of a rabbit 

02:15:07.600 --> 02:15:11.338
trail. (item:37:Dan Woodfin on remaining reserves) On, on September 6th, we had a lot of batteries

02:15:11.350 --> 02:15:14.338
discharging. Okay. And that's great. They help serve

02:15:14.350 --> 02:15:17.500
the load. The question is, do we have the reserves

02:15:17.509 --> 02:15:21.180
that we need remaining or not? Because we think sitting

02:15:21.189 --> 02:15:24.149
in the control room? Ok. We're starting to run out

02:15:24.159 --> 02:15:28.234
Do we have reserve has to be left or not? We fought

02:15:28.244 --> 02:15:31.555
these ancillary services. We expect them to be there

02:15:31.664 --> 02:15:34.293
if they've already discharged because prices are high

02:15:34.305 --> 02:15:37.634
and they're chasing those dollars, then we don't have

02:15:37.645 --> 02:15:39.923
the, then we're not going to have the reserves that

02:15:39.935 --> 02:15:43.384
we think is still there. It's, it's like the analogy

02:15:43.395 --> 02:15:45.543
I used last time when you, you're counting on your

02:15:46.458 --> 02:15:51.989
uh, spare tire, if you have a flat and if you find

02:15:52.000 --> 02:15:55.539
out after you've had the flat that the spare tire doesn't

02:15:55.548 --> 02:15:58.949
have any air in it, that's too late. Right. And so

02:15:58.958 --> 02:16:01.338
it's the same thing here. We're, we're assuming that's

02:16:01.350 --> 02:16:06.060
gonna be there. Um, and so we, we're, that, that discharging

02:16:06.069 --> 02:16:09.520
is, is really helpful. But, but for those that are

02:16:09.729 --> 02:16:12.560
the subset that are providing the ancillary services

02:16:12.569 --> 02:16:15.859
we need them to retain that state of charge so that

02:16:15.869 --> 02:16:18.628
we can use it. So, so what, what would have happened

02:16:18.640 --> 02:16:24.979
on September 6th, if batteries didn't discharge in

02:16:24.989 --> 02:16:28.500
the South. Would you all have gone into an EEA load

02:16:28.509 --> 02:16:33.049
shed situation? I mean, I think it's a great example

02:16:33.058 --> 02:16:36.819
of what could happen. They, they, as I, as I understand

02:16:36.829 --> 02:16:39.429
it, a lot of the batteries far surpassed their state

02:16:39.440 --> 02:16:43.530
of charge and, and went below, they just charged below

02:16:43.638 --> 02:16:45.338
their ancillary service obligation.

02:16:47.099 --> 02:16:49.899
But it was in response to an EEA event where

02:16:51.569 --> 02:16:54.259
load shed was, all of the tools were being used and

02:16:54.269 --> 02:16:59.250
used way early in the day. So tell me how you all

02:16:59.259 --> 02:17:02.519
operationally think about that. And is it appropriate

02:17:02.530 --> 02:17:06.579
to put a market participant in a position that you

02:17:06.588 --> 02:17:08.979
either uh

02:17:12.558 --> 02:17:15.819
fail your state of charge obligation or you save the

02:17:15.829 --> 02:17:18.459
system? (item:37:Dan Woodfin on reserving capacity) Well, so

02:17:20.540 --> 02:17:23.979
if they, if they've got capacity and state of charge

02:17:23.989 --> 02:17:27.929
that's not reserved for ancillary services, then they

02:17:27.940 --> 02:17:30.599
should offer that into the energy market and they'll

02:17:30.610 --> 02:17:38.540
be used. So say they, they, they, they, they discharge

02:17:38.620 --> 02:17:49.319
well and more than what their ancillary services. And

02:17:49.329 --> 02:17:52.079
it's really a matter of how much certainty to our operators

02:17:52.088 --> 02:17:55.849
have that. They know when released. I mean, ultimately

02:17:55.860 --> 02:17:58.879
we're, if we need that energy, we're gonna release

02:17:58.888 --> 02:18:03.509
it. But if we, then when we go to release it, we

02:18:03.519 --> 02:18:06.349
find out there's no air in the tank, there's no energy

02:18:06.360 --> 02:18:13.558
left. Then that's, that's not good for our having operating

02:18:13.569 --> 02:18:16.280
reliably. According to our operating plan, we're assuming

02:18:16.290 --> 02:18:18.379
we've got the capacity and we know when we need to

02:18:18.388 --> 02:18:21.269
release it and we know how far away from having to

02:18:21.280 --> 02:18:23.819
shed load, we are. But if they're not reserving the

02:18:23.829 --> 02:18:26.888
capacity because it's chased the prices with not only

02:18:26.899 --> 02:18:29.860
the, the rest of their energy and capacity, but also

02:18:29.870 --> 02:18:33.918
the part that they had sold, it's been paid for by

02:18:33.929 --> 02:18:36.860
consumers to us. They didn't, they're not reserving

02:18:36.870 --> 02:18:39.168
that, that, that's a, that's where the problem is.

02:18:39.409 --> 02:18:43.229
And really, that's the metrics around which we're trying

02:18:43.239 --> 02:18:47.489
to, to, uh that's what 1186 is meant to uh to enforce

02:18:47.500 --> 02:18:51.299
is making sure that they're reserving that part that

02:18:51.308 --> 02:18:55.549
they've sold and defining what that is and setting

02:18:55.558 --> 02:18:58.950
up the systems. So that in fact, that's, that's part

02:18:58.959 --> 02:19:02.299
of what's on page six here is that they reserve the

02:19:02.308 --> 02:19:06.269
energy we could if once we put these, these parameters

02:19:06.280 --> 02:19:09.440
into SCED and actually recognizing the state of charge

02:19:09.489 --> 02:19:13.388
you can use SCED to help them sell the part that, that

02:19:13.399 --> 02:19:17.388
that's not reserved but, but also preserve the part

02:19:17.399 --> 02:19:19.759
that is, is reserved that they've sold.

02:19:22.049 --> 02:19:25.110
This is tough, right? (item:37:Commissioner Cobos on non compliance penalties) Because like the, the way we've

02:19:25.120 --> 02:19:28.138
always looked at ancillary services is whether the

02:19:28.149 --> 02:19:31.159
whether they fail to perform, fail to meet their ancillary

02:19:31.168 --> 02:19:35.819
service obligation. And there is a non compliance penalty

02:19:35.829 --> 02:19:40.709
framework that exists, it's $25,000 as fall back.

02:19:40.718 --> 02:19:45.649
And, and so, you know, when, when you present five

02:19:45.659 --> 02:19:49.058
or seven ESRs that only represents that, that would

02:19:49.069 --> 02:19:53.659
fail to perform in RRS and that's only 113

02:19:53.668 --> 02:20:00.200
and, and um 74 megawatts which is 11 and 6% of the

02:20:00.209 --> 02:20:02.729
total ERS deployed. It's just that, that's tough. I

02:20:02.739 --> 02:20:04.599
mean, you're not even seeing they're failing to perform

02:20:04.610 --> 02:20:09.079
but then you do the overlay of, of the uh SOC requirements

02:20:09.088 --> 02:20:14.319
and you have more obviously 34. I think it is what

02:20:14.329 --> 02:20:19.429
we saw on one of the slides and, um but, but that's

02:20:19.440 --> 02:20:21.629
you know, as you highlight on, on the slide, I think

02:20:21.638 --> 02:20:25.388
28 you know, for instance, on the days that was non

02:20:25.418 --> 02:20:31.388
compliance on 8/17 and 9/6. For instance, on August 17th

02:20:31.399 --> 02:20:36.558
it says 98.9% of the intervals had at least one unit

02:20:36.569 --> 02:20:40.718
below the SOC. But, but out of how many ESRs 

02:20:40.729 --> 02:20:43.058
and what it like to me, it's sort of like, OK, well

02:20:43.069 --> 02:20:45.668
whether and this is I know what you guys wanna move

02:20:45.679 --> 02:20:47.799
from, not just failure to perform but failure to have

02:20:47.808 --> 02:20:49.370
sufficient state of charge.

02:20:51.569 --> 02:20:56.599
But I'm not sure based on my extensive analysis of

02:20:56.610 --> 02:20:59.929
this presentation that I'm seeing a case for that,

02:20:59.940 --> 02:21:03.110
there's been such a prevalent uh failure to perform

02:21:03.769 --> 02:21:06.989
um because there hasn't been enough state of charge

02:21:07.190 --> 02:21:12.218
that warrants an entire, you know, new non compliance

02:21:12.229 --> 02:21:15.829
penalty regime at this stage. And, and I feel like

02:21:15.838 --> 02:21:19.329
like we're, we're wanting to really understand what

02:21:19.338 --> 02:21:22.239
the reliability risk. And as I've looked at this presentation

02:21:22.250 --> 02:21:23.829
backwards and forwards,

02:21:25.620 --> 02:21:28.159
I'm not, I'm seeing the reverse. I'm seeing that we're

02:21:28.168 --> 02:21:32.940
we, we're gonna end up potentially um ending up in

02:21:32.950 --> 02:21:36.989
a situation where, you know, we're not going to get

02:21:37.000 --> 02:21:39.338
the megawatts, we need to maintain reliability in the

02:21:39.349 --> 02:21:43.138
next two years, three years, four years, more new power

02:21:43.149 --> 02:21:48.200
plants to be built and RTC to be implemented to address

02:21:48.209 --> 02:21:53.000
this issue. So, I mean, I I've spent a lot of time

02:21:53.009 --> 02:21:55.319
looking at this and I know y'all provide a lot of different

02:21:55.329 --> 02:21:58.668
statistics, but I'm not sure that the statistics and

02:21:58.679 --> 02:22:02.269
the examples y'all provided are um sufficient basis

02:22:02.280 --> 02:22:06.638
to take this action at this time. But I do think that

02:22:06.649 --> 02:22:08.700
y'all need to continue to get information from the

02:22:08.709 --> 02:22:12.099
battery companies um through telemetry and they should

02:22:12.110 --> 02:22:14.519
be providing that to, to y'all. And if they're not

02:22:14.530 --> 02:22:19.709
then we need to know about it. And ancillary services

02:22:19.718 --> 02:22:22.879
are very serious, we take those obligations very seriously

02:22:22.888 --> 02:22:26.638
We have an entire non compliance framework that exists

02:22:26.649 --> 02:22:29.950
today to go after those battery companies that like

02:22:29.959 --> 02:22:31.239
any other resource

02:22:33.338 --> 02:22:35.849
takes the risk of bidding into an ancillary service

02:22:36.218 --> 02:22:41.799
and faces consequences if they are unable to perform

02:22:42.269 --> 02:22:48.769
And so, I mean, I'd like to understand, you know, are

02:22:48.780 --> 02:22:54.120
there pieces of 1186 that are worth moving forward

02:22:54.468 --> 02:22:58.399
with and some that are not at this time? And does our

02:22:58.409 --> 02:23:02.218
exist, does our PUC Enforcement Division feel like

02:23:02.229 --> 02:23:06.918
they can um go after that, you know, resources at this

02:23:06.929 --> 02:23:09.959
time that fail to perform and meet their ancillary

02:23:09.968 --> 02:23:13.030
service obligations? That's what it comes down to is

02:23:13.040 --> 02:23:15.399
performance. I feel like the state of charge requirements

02:23:15.409 --> 02:23:17.069
are saying, well, we're looking and we're seeing that

02:23:17.079 --> 02:23:20.149
you can't do it whether or not we deploy you, but there's

02:23:20.159 --> 02:23:23.588
the system is, is fluid, it's evolving and, and, and

02:23:23.599 --> 02:23:27.509
until, you know, I just feel like penalty should be

02:23:27.519 --> 02:23:31.360
for failure to perform. Not, not by looking like you

02:23:31.370 --> 02:23:37.638
may not perform. And, and so I mean is Barksdale here? 

02:23:37.659 --> 02:23:37.968
Barksdale. 

02:23:42.000 --> 02:23:42.030
Hi. Okay,

02:23:46.459 --> 02:23:48.450
(item:37:Commissioner Staff's Barksdale English) Good afternoon Commissioners. Barksdale English for

02:23:48.459 --> 02:23:52.489
Commission Staff. Barksdale, do you feel like today our

02:23:52.500 --> 02:23:57.209
existing enforcement process for ancillary services

02:23:57.218 --> 02:24:00.679
gives you the tools to go after non performance? 

02:24:04.519 --> 02:24:07.450
Excuse me, for interrupting if I did. (item:37:Commissioner Staff's Barksdale English on enforcement action & NPRR1186) I think

02:24:07.459 --> 02:24:11.440
under today's substantive rules. The Commission has

02:24:11.450 --> 02:24:16.110
the authority to seek enforcement action against an

02:24:16.120 --> 02:24:20.549
energy storage resource entity that fails to provide

02:24:20.558 --> 02:24:23.069
an ancillary service award.

02:24:25.399 --> 02:24:28.918
Okay. I think if, if I may. If that's all right. I think

02:24:29.218 --> 02:24:34.388
NPRR1186 makes it clearer. I should say more clear

02:24:34.899 --> 02:24:43.069
what kinds of standards um the, the grid operator and

02:24:43.079 --> 02:24:47.388
this Commission would want those entities to achieve. 

02:24:48.250 --> 02:24:51.959
However, I think if you don't feel like you have the

02:24:51.968 --> 02:24:55.799
information where there is not enough historical evidence

02:24:55.808 --> 02:25:01.329
to support that determination. Today, I think moving

02:25:01.338 --> 02:25:06.440
the pieces of 1186 forward, absent that compliance

02:25:06.450 --> 02:25:10.979
piece that we've talked about. I think that is a better

02:25:10.989 --> 02:25:15.549
course of action than rejecting this outright. Thank

02:25:15.558 --> 02:25:18.429
you Barksdale. (item:37:Commissioner Cobos on IMM Staff feedback) I would add that I had some conversations

02:25:18.440 --> 02:25:22.769
with the IMM Staff. And um you know there's, there's

02:25:22.780 --> 02:25:25.549
statements in here about potential gaming and that

02:25:25.558 --> 02:25:28.450
and that's obviously something the IMM watches over

02:25:28.459 --> 02:25:32.739
and so we pay them to do and, and so um what

02:25:32.750 --> 02:25:35.099
the feedback I got from them was that the information

02:25:35.110 --> 02:25:37.750
gathering component as you've highlighted Barksdale

02:25:37.759 --> 02:25:42.069
in 1186 would actually give them more access to data

02:25:42.459 --> 02:25:45.269
that um they don't currently really, they, they have

02:25:45.280 --> 02:25:48.679
a limited access to data right now um in the systems

02:25:48.690 --> 02:25:53.750
to help them monitor ESRs that the information um

02:25:54.200 --> 02:25:56.968
from 1186 I would be required from 1186 would help

02:25:56.979 --> 02:26:00.629
them um access data on the downstream systems to be

02:26:00.638 --> 02:26:05.338
able to do their job like monitoring for um you know

02:26:05.349 --> 02:26:09.860
uh market manipulation, gaming and protocol, non compliance

02:26:09.870 --> 02:26:15.079
So the information portion of this NPRR um I believe

02:26:15.088 --> 02:26:20.218
is, is definitely um more salvaging for the very reason

02:26:20.468 --> 02:26:26.540
that um I think it would enable our Enforcement Division

02:26:26.549 --> 02:26:31.759
and um our IMM. To um be able to continue to access

02:26:31.769 --> 02:26:34.558
data so that there is failure to, if there is failure

02:26:34.569 --> 02:26:37.239
to perform a prevalent issue of failure to perform

02:26:38.019 --> 02:26:41.558
um that we can seek enforcement action for failure

02:26:41.610 --> 02:26:43.780
to provide ancillary service obligations.

02:26:45.659 --> 02:26:49.138
Can I ask you to follow up questions? One of them is

02:26:49.149 --> 02:26:54.899
um in the ERCOT uh, uh presentation on page 17. I don't

02:26:54.909 --> 02:26:59.049
know if you have it there. But it's, it says the Director

02:26:59.058 --> 02:27:02.069
of PUC Division of Compliance and Enforcement that

02:27:02.079 --> 02:27:06.319
would be you, I suspect. Noted on November 30,

02:27:08.009 --> 02:27:12.190
PUC rule, PUC rule with a subsection and another subsection

02:27:12.409 --> 02:27:16.838
already. And then it uses the word implicitly require

02:27:17.019 --> 02:27:19.690
queasy representing an ESR to maintain sufficient state

02:27:19.700 --> 02:27:23.429
of charge to meet future a as responsibilities. How

02:27:23.440 --> 02:27:27.479
do you view that? Is that something that is a potential

02:27:27.489 --> 02:27:32.629
compliance penalty for queasy or is that a uh resource

02:27:32.638 --> 02:27:39.200
issue or is that one that we are not um the word

02:27:39.209 --> 02:27:43.540
implicitly, I guess is the question that I have it

02:27:43.549 --> 02:27:46.729
paints a great picture right there. Sure. (item:37:Barksdale English on substantive rules) I think the

02:27:46.739 --> 02:27:51.329
substantive rules that are cited here are not specific

02:27:51.338 --> 02:27:57.218
with regard to an energy storage resource must maintain

02:27:57.229 --> 02:28:01.718
a specific amount of state of charge prior to its obligated

02:28:01.729 --> 02:28:05.588
hour to provide an ancillary service. I think the word

02:28:05.599 --> 02:28:10.709
implicit. I think they're, they're trying to say that

02:28:11.069 --> 02:28:14.079
something that I said at the last open meeting. Was

02:28:14.088 --> 02:28:17.229
that I think you can read our rules to be able to

02:28:17.239 --> 02:28:20.138
as part of an enforcement investigation, to be able

02:28:20.149 --> 02:28:23.829
to seek a penalty or other kinds of enforcement actions

02:28:23.838 --> 02:28:29.030
against an entity. If through discovery, it is demonstrated

02:28:29.040 --> 02:28:33.519
that that entity that the did not maintain enough charge

02:28:33.530 --> 02:28:37.019
in its battery to be able to provide an ancillary service

02:28:37.030 --> 02:28:40.558
for which it had been awarded. I think that is a thing

02:28:40.569 --> 02:28:45.190
that we can do today. It's a more difficult process

02:28:45.200 --> 02:28:48.149
It requires a lot of discovery, a lot of argument and

02:28:48.209 --> 02:28:51.388
given the, the heat that this conversation has had

02:28:51.399 --> 02:28:53.588
over the last few months, probably more contentious

02:28:53.599 --> 02:28:58.769
litigation. That's fine. But I think implicitly the

02:28:58.780 --> 02:29:03.379
rules do provide us enough scope to be able to try

02:29:03.388 --> 02:29:07.638
to pursue that if we think that's necessary. That's

02:29:07.649 --> 02:29:11.610
good clarification. Thank you. Secondly, do you all

02:29:11.620 --> 02:29:15.440
view violations of ERCOT business practices manual

02:29:15.849 --> 02:29:24.088
as a violation of a market NPRR or market protocol? 

02:29:24.099 --> 02:29:29.540
No. So explicitly, the business practice manuals are

02:29:29.549 --> 02:29:30.819
designed to be

02:29:32.729 --> 02:29:35.808
anecdotal rules of the road. Let's help, you know,

02:29:35.838 --> 02:29:39.418
put examples out there about how we help you. But they

02:29:39.429 --> 02:29:42.588
are not explicit rules of the road like protocols are. 

02:29:42.718 --> 02:29:46.709
(item:37:Barksdale English on business practice manuals) They're guidance documents that ERCOT Staff issues to

02:29:46.718 --> 02:29:50.468
help entities understand how to interpret the protocols

02:29:50.519 --> 02:29:53.759
and the other binding documents. Business practice

02:29:53.769 --> 02:29:56.599
manuals do not go through the stakeholder process for

02:29:56.610 --> 02:29:59.269
approval. They don't go to the ERCOT Board for approval. 

02:29:59.280 --> 02:30:02.209
They don't come to you for approval. So our opinion

02:30:02.218 --> 02:30:03.829
is that they don't have the force of law. Thank you. 

02:30:07.338 --> 02:30:10.030
Dan, you mentioned that a lot of batteries are currently

02:30:10.040 --> 02:30:13.110
complying with the guidance in the business practice

02:30:13.190 --> 02:30:16.769
manual. I, I just wonder and you know, the risk if it

02:30:16.780 --> 02:30:21.888
those currently non enforceable guidelines are in the

02:30:21.899 --> 02:30:25.399
business practice manual. That perhaps you'll have some

02:30:25.409 --> 02:30:31.780
more batteries not complying with the state of charge

02:30:31.790 --> 02:30:34.709
guidance in the business practice manual. I, I thought

02:30:34.718 --> 02:30:36.909
about that some and, and I'm happy to hear your thoughts

02:30:36.918 --> 02:30:41.299
and response. What you know, I mean is it possible

02:30:41.308 --> 02:30:45.829
that these batteries are meeting the guidelines in

02:30:46.338 --> 02:30:49.299
the business practice manual because they wanna be

02:30:49.308 --> 02:30:54.468
able to perform and not um fail to meet their ancillary

02:30:54.479 --> 02:30:59.200
service obligations? And thus be subject to a penalty

02:30:59.209 --> 02:31:03.179
of $25,000 in clawbacks at this time. Maybe that's

02:31:03.190 --> 02:31:05.819
why they're following the guidelines at this time.

02:31:06.429 --> 02:31:09.860
(item:37:Dan Woodfin on ancillary service obligations & business practice manuals) I think that's entirely possible. You mentioned earlier

02:31:09.870 --> 02:31:13.370
that, you know, we we only have a few examples of people

02:31:13.379 --> 02:31:17.549
that have a failure to perform in 34 something where

02:31:17.558 --> 02:31:21.638
they're not reserving. The part of that is because

02:31:21.649 --> 02:31:25.918
there are some people that are kind of not following

02:31:25.929 --> 02:31:28.918
the business practice manuals that are doing whatever

02:31:28.929 --> 02:31:31.638
kind of the, the they're not reserving the vasti or

02:31:31.649 --> 02:31:34.709
or the energy. And then there's a lot of folks that

02:31:34.718 --> 02:31:37.909
are following the business practice manual already.

02:31:38.110 --> 02:31:42.588
What worries me is that yes, we only see a few now

02:31:42.599 --> 02:31:47.879
But if we weren't, did not pass 1186. And then what's

02:31:47.888 --> 02:31:51.360
those folks that are following business practice manual

02:31:51.370 --> 02:31:55.379
Now, there's nothing else that's ok. We're, we're all

02:31:55.388 --> 02:31:57.620
saying that's not a, that's not a rule of the road

02:31:57.629 --> 02:32:00.349
You don't have to do that anymore. And there's nothing

02:32:00.360 --> 02:32:04.388
else that says you have to uh maintain state of charge

02:32:04.519 --> 02:32:07.709
And so all of them, I mean, there, you could, you,

02:32:08.399 --> 02:32:13.989
no doubt if you sell uh uh ancillary services and then

02:32:14.000 --> 02:32:17.440
also don't reserve the energy associated with that

02:32:17.450 --> 02:32:20.569
but sell it when prices are high, you can make more

02:32:20.579 --> 02:32:23.739
money doing that. And so those subset of people are

02:32:23.780 --> 02:32:26.468
that, that are following the, the kind of the, the

02:32:26.479 --> 02:32:28.870
business practice manual. Now, they're probably making

02:32:28.879 --> 02:32:31.950
more money than the ones that are following it. Well

02:32:31.959 --> 02:32:34.838
if, if we don't have something to fall back on and

02:32:34.849 --> 02:32:37.299
say this is the, this is the rule for how much data

02:32:37.308 --> 02:32:40.009
charge you need to preserve and there's a, there's

02:32:40.019 --> 02:32:43.950
a stick. If you don't, then we may see a whole lot

02:32:43.959 --> 02:32:47.700
more in a similar situation that aren't preserving

02:32:47.709 --> 02:32:50.940
the state of charge. And so that's really a lot of

02:32:50.950 --> 02:32:54.218
the concern is that there are folks that are doing

02:32:54.229 --> 02:32:57.659
things one way, but in their fiduciary responsibility

02:32:57.668 --> 02:32:59.909
their stockholders, they're going to say, oh, I can

02:32:59.918 --> 02:33:02.860
make more money and there's no requirement now. So

02:33:03.019 --> 02:33:05.989
let's not preserve it. A couple of things, there is

02:33:06.000 --> 02:33:08.739
something right? There's the non compliance penalty

02:33:08.750 --> 02:33:11.950
framework we have in place the 25,000 and a claw back

02:33:12.329 --> 02:33:15.349
that, that is a stick. That's is there right now, if

02:33:15.360 --> 02:33:18.429
you're not holding sufficient state of charge to be

02:33:18.440 --> 02:33:21.179
able to meet your ancillary service obligation and

02:33:21.190 --> 02:33:24.138
like any other market participants in this market today

02:33:24.388 --> 02:33:27.879
um, that are also seeking to maximize their revenue

02:33:27.888 --> 02:33:30.668
in our market. They must do it within the confines

02:33:30.679 --> 02:33:34.679
of existing law or regulations or your protocols. So

02:33:34.870 --> 02:33:36.709
I mean, to say that

02:33:38.519 --> 02:33:41.799
they're acting differently than any other market resource

02:33:41.808 --> 02:33:45.200
that wants to maximize revenue for their stockholders

02:33:45.209 --> 02:33:48.149
Seems a little bit more narrow than, I mean, every

02:33:48.159 --> 02:33:50.308
that's what our market participants are in the market

02:33:50.319 --> 02:33:53.849
for to make money and, and, um, and that, and invest

02:33:53.860 --> 02:33:55.959
in our market and that's great, but they all have to

02:33:55.968 --> 02:33:58.379
do it within the confines of the law and

02:34:00.229 --> 02:34:04.729
how is an ESR different than everybody else. And

02:34:05.370 --> 02:34:09.759
is my point on that. Commissioner Cobos, can I ask a clarifying

02:34:09.769 --> 02:34:14.918
question there? When you talk about the a failures resulting

02:34:14.929 --> 02:34:18.159
in these penalties, I guess you're referring to running

02:34:18.168 --> 02:34:21.009
out of energy. If the battery runs out of energy, then

02:34:21.019 --> 02:34:23.269
it's failed to perform. And so you're saying it would

02:34:23.280 --> 02:34:26.290
be subject to a penalty under the current construct

02:34:26.299 --> 02:34:28.370
Is that what you're talking about? Or what I'm saying

02:34:28.379 --> 02:34:31.040
is if you call on them to meet their ancillary service

02:34:31.049 --> 02:34:34.000
obligation and if they don't, they don't comply, they

02:34:34.009 --> 02:34:36.120
don't, they fail to meet their ancillary surface obligation

02:34:36.129 --> 02:34:39.388
then they fail to perform. So if they, if they run

02:34:39.399 --> 02:34:41.489
out of state of charge and therefore fail to meet the

02:34:41.500 --> 02:34:45.239
obligation, then they'd be subject to penalty, whatever

02:34:45.250 --> 02:34:47.649
happens. I mean, that could be, you know, for whatever

02:34:47.659 --> 02:34:48.549
reason they may fail

02:34:50.468 --> 02:34:52.829
or that obligation can be transferred within the queasy

02:34:52.979 --> 02:34:56.888
to another resource, right? It can be, but to your

02:34:56.899 --> 02:35:00.750
point earlier, you know, there are limited circumstances

02:35:00.759 --> 02:35:04.579
where, you know, you can't do that among sub QSEs at this

02:35:04.588 --> 02:35:05.649
time. And so,

02:35:07.299 --> 02:35:11.530
you know, more broadly though I think you could, if

02:35:11.540 --> 02:35:13.838
I may follow up on that. I think it may be helpful

02:35:13.849 --> 02:35:16.808
just to clarify. (item:37:ERCOT's Nathan Bigbee on failure to provide & to perform) That even today, there is a distinction

02:35:16.819 --> 02:35:19.360
between failing to provide and failing to perform.

02:35:19.370 --> 02:35:21.668
You may be aware of that. Failing to perform is really

02:35:21.679 --> 02:35:23.700
kind of this term we've come up with to distinguish

02:35:23.709 --> 02:35:27.269
a real time, failure to deploy, to match the deployment

02:35:27.280 --> 02:35:30.049
instruction as opposed to a failure to provide on the

02:35:30.058 --> 02:35:32.959
protocols which today for like a conventional gas unit

02:35:33.468 --> 02:35:37.259
um A unit that, that doesn't have the capacity in a

02:35:37.468 --> 02:35:41.620
given hour is going to be subject to a failure to provide

02:35:41.629 --> 02:35:44.899
regardless of deployment. So already today, there is

02:35:44.909 --> 02:35:48.269
this notion of you've got to have the capability to

02:35:48.280 --> 02:35:50.940
meet the A S obligation regardless of whether you're

02:35:50.950 --> 02:35:54.168
deployed. So that's an idea that's already embedded

02:35:54.179 --> 02:35:56.849
in the protocols. But the current protocols don't really

02:35:56.860 --> 02:35:58.968
think about things like state of charge because we

02:35:58.979 --> 02:36:02.229
haven't had batteries for very long. And so when we

02:36:02.450 --> 02:36:06.349
so today, HSL for a conventional unit, that telemetry

02:36:06.360 --> 02:36:08.700
is enough to give us the information we need to know

02:36:08.709 --> 02:36:12.138
Is this unit going to be capable of performing if we

02:36:12.149 --> 02:36:15.168
call upon them to provide that obligation for a battery

02:36:15.179 --> 02:36:17.489
Obviously, it's, it's very different because they have

02:36:17.500 --> 02:36:20.418
this stored energy. There's a possibility that they

02:36:20.549 --> 02:36:22.879
would not be able to comply with that instruction.

02:36:22.888 --> 02:36:25.459
If they, if they don't have enough energy, they may

02:36:25.468 --> 02:36:29.168
be giving us an HSL that says I could deploy at that

02:36:29.179 --> 02:36:32.959
level. The question is for how long that is the critical

02:36:32.968 --> 02:36:35.329
question. And that's the reason why the batteries are

02:36:35.338 --> 02:36:37.799
different from other resources is because they have

02:36:37.808 --> 02:36:41.179
this inherent duration limit. And because of that,

02:36:41.190 --> 02:36:44.259
we've got, we've got to now consider this in our tools

02:36:44.269 --> 02:36:46.929
but we also have to understand that there's a risk

02:36:46.940 --> 02:36:50.099
that needs to be on the entity offering the service

02:36:50.110 --> 02:36:53.558
consistent with the rules today that says that you've

02:36:53.569 --> 02:36:56.429
got a duty to provide that service and to figure out

02:36:56.440 --> 02:36:59.069
how to make sure that that service is going to be available

02:36:59.149 --> 02:37:02.159
when we call upon it. Because if we call upon it and

02:37:02.168 --> 02:37:04.679
there's nothing there, that's a huge reliability risk

02:37:04.690 --> 02:37:06.629
for this system. So I just want to clarify that the

02:37:06.638 --> 02:37:09.579
capability is already an important part of the framework

02:37:09.588 --> 02:37:12.549
in our protocols today. And this is extending that

02:37:12.558 --> 02:37:15.790
concept, the capability concept to the notion of state

02:37:15.799 --> 02:37:16.870
of charge for batteries.

02:37:18.409 --> 02:37:23.138
So, so do you have you brought any compliance actions

02:37:23.149 --> 02:37:26.610
against any gas fired generators that have had a pipeline

02:37:26.620 --> 02:37:30.879
failure with an ancillary service obligation? Well

02:37:30.888 --> 02:37:33.879
I certainly can't speak for the ERCOT reliability monitor.

02:37:34.409 --> 02:37:36.269
The division of compliance and enforcement may have

02:37:36.280 --> 02:37:39.838
thoughts on what's been examined under that. You don't

02:37:40.190 --> 02:37:43.588
have to tell me existing cases if there are any. I

02:37:43.638 --> 02:37:47.929
was generally, generally, I'm trying to draw this connection

02:37:47.940 --> 02:37:52.200
between a fuel system and a gas fired generator and

02:37:52.209 --> 02:37:54.138
an ancillary service obligation. And a

02:37:55.888 --> 02:38:00.968
(item:37:Barksdale English on ancillary service obligation) We do have an active case against one entity that failed

02:38:00.979 --> 02:38:06.629
to nominate gas when it had an ancillary service obligation

02:38:06.638 --> 02:38:11.149
And therefore we are pursuing action against them for

02:38:11.159 --> 02:38:13.620
failure to provide.

02:38:15.440 --> 02:38:18.690
That doesn't 100% address your question. You talked

02:38:18.700 --> 02:38:21.790
about a pipeline failure, but, but we are pursuing

02:38:21.799 --> 02:38:26.239
that kind of action. Yes. A a and, um,

02:38:28.718 --> 02:38:31.549
I don't know, my next question gets in the weeds of

02:38:31.558 --> 02:38:34.500
something where I don't wanna go. Because it's in your

02:38:34.509 --> 02:38:36.750
your system. I apologize. Um 

02:38:38.979 --> 02:38:41.989
Yeah, I mean. Nathan, I hear you. I mean, obviously

02:38:42.000 --> 02:38:44.479
we want to rely on ERCOT to, um,

02:38:45.989 --> 02:38:48.530
to maintain reliability and, and we want to give you

02:38:48.540 --> 02:38:53.200
the tools to prevent, um, you know, any additional

02:38:53.338 --> 02:38:56.239
reliability risk. (item:37:Commissioner Cobos on ERCOT's information flow) It's just really difficult when we

02:38:56.250 --> 02:38:59.950
got a very in your presentation in ERCOT's presentation

02:38:59.959 --> 02:39:03.649
there's just a very limited amount of data, no matter

02:39:03.659 --> 02:39:08.030
how you slice and dice it megawatts percentages to

02:39:08.040 --> 02:39:10.440
show that this

02:39:12.110 --> 02:39:14.769
non compliant, this additional non compliant state

02:39:14.780 --> 02:39:18.429
of charge, uh this additional non compliance penalty

02:39:19.250 --> 02:39:23.888
regime that's focused on state of charge, sufficiency

02:39:23.899 --> 02:39:27.479
is needed right now because while I hear that this

02:39:27.489 --> 02:39:30.110
is happening, but I also hear most of the batteries

02:39:30.120 --> 02:39:35.000
are complying with the guidance in the BPM. So, I mean

02:39:35.370 --> 02:39:37.409
again, I think they're complying because they don't

02:39:37.418 --> 02:39:39.479
want to get faced with penalties for not performing

02:39:39.558 --> 02:39:41.569
I mean, it's in their best interest to maintain state

02:39:41.579 --> 02:39:44.549
of charge, to provide energy and ancillary services

02:39:44.558 --> 02:39:47.429
If not, especially with ancillaries, we've got enforcement

02:39:47.659 --> 02:39:50.179
tools out there to go after them.

02:39:51.780 --> 02:39:56.519
But I,I feel like um information still needs to keep

02:39:56.530 --> 02:40:01.959
flowing to ERCOT in terms of telemetry, um in terms

02:40:01.968 --> 02:40:07.019
of stakeholder engagement, uh battery company engagement

02:40:07.030 --> 02:40:12.860
with ERCOT um to get technical feedback um to understand

02:40:12.870 --> 02:40:18.019
the batteries um going forward. And so, I mean, my

02:40:18.030 --> 02:40:20.860
preference at this point, um I don't want to reject

02:40:20.870 --> 02:40:23.179
the NPRR. Because I do think there's pieces of it

02:40:23.190 --> 02:40:25.769
that are like the informational component of it. That's

02:40:25.780 --> 02:40:31.638
important. My preference would be to um

02:40:33.429 --> 02:40:35.929
to remand it with suggested modifications to remove

02:40:35.940 --> 02:40:38.509
section eight. And that includes the state of charge

02:40:38.519 --> 02:40:40.399
requirements in the gray box language that creates

02:40:40.409 --> 02:40:44.569
an enforcement process. Um because I do think that

02:40:44.579 --> 02:40:48.549
there that the informational component of, of that

02:40:48.558 --> 02:40:53.040
um of the NPRR is worth salvaging because we're gonna

02:40:53.049 --> 02:40:57.519
need that information for the plus B of the RTC. And

02:40:57.530 --> 02:41:02.269
um I believe that um you know, that the business practice

02:41:02.280 --> 02:41:04.940
manual can continue to exist, but it's not enforceable

02:41:05.629 --> 02:41:09.530
And because we're turning 1186 into an informational

02:41:09.540 --> 02:41:15.679
tool that um you know, the guidance would be um that

02:41:15.690 --> 02:41:19.168
um you know, the BPM again continues to, to exist as

02:41:19.179 --> 02:41:23.218
a guideline but not, not enforceable. And that um I

02:41:23.459 --> 02:41:26.399
should consider withdrawing or tabling indefinitely

02:41:26.409 --> 02:41:29.040
Um NPR 1209, which is not before us and I would

02:41:29.049 --> 02:41:33.149
bring up Item No. um 49 is our agenda to address

02:41:33.159 --> 02:41:36.079
those issues um that I just raised with respect to

02:41:36.088 --> 02:41:40.218
the BPM and 1209. But, but how we roll on this today

02:41:40.229 --> 02:41:42.638
at least from my perspective, we have three choices

02:41:42.649 --> 02:41:46.129
You approve it as is you, reject it or you remand it

02:41:46.138 --> 02:41:49.138
with suggested modifications. And so just to be clear

02:41:49.149 --> 02:41:53.110
again. My preference is to remand 1186 with suggested

02:41:53.120 --> 02:41:55.649
modifications to remove section eight from the NPRR. 

02:41:55.659 --> 02:41:57.620
Those are the state of charge requirements in a

02:41:57.629 --> 02:41:59.750
box language that would create an enforcement process

02:41:59.759 --> 02:42:02.379
for failure to comply with the state of charge requirements. 

02:42:02.790 --> 02:42:08.229
Specifically, Section 8.1.4 including subsections

02:42:08.239 --> 02:42:10.909
A and B and the gray box language that would replace

02:42:10.918 --> 02:42:12.259
section four if

02:42:14.229 --> 02:42:17.069
1186 were implemented. And the guidance I provided with

02:42:17.079 --> 02:42:20.700
respect to the VPM not being enforceable at this time.

02:42:22.968 --> 02:42:27.679
But it could serve as additional guidance um and

02:42:27.690 --> 02:42:33.489
um guidance on 1209, either being withdrawal or table

02:42:33.500 --> 02:42:37.759
That is, that is my position. (item:37:Commissioner Glotfelty on informational updates) I I'm supportive of that

02:42:37.769 --> 02:42:40.709
I, I do want to give ERCOT the opportunity to uh

02:42:41.360 --> 02:42:46.950
um provide informational updates between now and, and

02:42:46.959 --> 02:42:52.149
RTC. And that is if the numbers, you know, if

02:42:52.159 --> 02:42:55.799
we see a trend of problem happening. Absolutely, we

02:42:55.808 --> 02:42:58.209
should come back. We should address this again. This

02:42:58.218 --> 02:43:00.229
shouldn't be one or two matters. This should be the

02:43:00.239 --> 02:43:03.319
system of batteries that creates a problem. I don't

02:43:03.329 --> 02:43:04.759
think we're going to see that. I think we're both going

02:43:04.769 --> 02:43:09.040
to learn a lot from it. I'm happy to, as I said

02:43:09.049 --> 02:43:12.110
in my initial memo subsection three, we could consider

02:43:12.120 --> 02:43:15.190
deleting all penalty provisions in the current NPRR1186 

02:43:15.200 --> 02:43:18.750
proposal. As well as follow up NPRRs and adopt

02:43:18.759 --> 02:43:21.079
only the data collection and monitoring provisions. 

02:43:21.338 --> 02:43:24.739
These data should inform studies models on batteries

02:43:24.750 --> 02:43:27.450
operation capabilities. So ERCOT can maximize the value

02:43:27.459 --> 02:43:30.750
of these resources to reliable grid operations not

02:43:30.759 --> 02:43:33.950
force them to behave like slow or less flexible grid

02:43:33.959 --> 02:43:37.138
assets. If that falls into the category of what you

02:43:37.149 --> 02:43:39.200
just suggested I for it. I could not agree with you

02:43:39.209 --> 02:43:42.120
with you more, Commissioner Glotfelty. (item:37:Commissioner Cobos on informational updates) If ERCOT said this is the whole

02:43:42.129 --> 02:43:46.179
point of salvaging the informational tool that's in

02:43:46.190 --> 02:43:49.599
1186 is so that as ERCOT gets more information

02:43:51.280 --> 02:43:53.319
and, and you know, the battery companies need to work

02:43:53.329 --> 02:43:55.319
with ERCOT, they need to provide them the telemetry

02:43:55.329 --> 02:43:57.088
they need to provide in the technical data so that

02:43:57.190 --> 02:44:01.989
ERCOT um can use that data. Um you know, as as if

02:44:02.000 --> 02:44:05.479
there is a trend that we need to know about it. Um

02:44:05.489 --> 02:44:07.549
And really, I think enforcement needs to know about

02:44:07.558 --> 02:44:09.388
it. That's the process, right? I mean, through the

02:44:09.399 --> 02:44:12.019
ERM and enforcement, if there are violations that

02:44:12.030 --> 02:44:16.190
are occurring for failure to perform um in the future

02:44:16.200 --> 02:44:19.000
until we get our RTC plus B. But I, I think at

02:44:19.009 --> 02:44:21.349
this point after spending five months looking at this

02:44:21.360 --> 02:44:23.739
issue backwards and forwards. I think it's time to

02:44:24.069 --> 02:44:26.569
to move forward. And for ERCOT to move forward with the

02:44:26.579 --> 02:44:29.388
RTC plus B. Because it does, it will help address this

02:44:29.399 --> 02:44:34.308
issue. Um and, and move forward with the informational

02:44:34.599 --> 02:44:40.959
um component of 1186. (item:37:Chairwoman Jackson on updates to NPRR1186) I support removing section eight

02:44:41.030 --> 02:44:44.690
the operational requirements in 1186 need to remain. 

02:44:45.030 --> 02:44:48.489
We gaining additional information data and based

02:44:48.500 --> 02:44:52.129
on what Barksdale uh just said, uh we can still proceed

02:44:52.138 --> 02:44:53.759
with enforcement when necessary.

02:44:55.849 --> 02:44:59.860
Commissioners, perhaps the ship is sailing. I just

02:44:59.870 --> 02:45:02.959
want to throw one alternative out for your consideration

02:45:02.968 --> 02:45:06.679
(item:37:Barksdale English on dialogue between operator & entity) If the objective is to continue to collect the data

02:45:06.690 --> 02:45:09.418
to continue the communication and dialogue between

02:45:09.429 --> 02:45:14.399
the operations room at ERCOT and the resource entities.

02:45:15.099 --> 02:45:18.799
Would removal only of the gray box language which would

02:45:18.808 --> 02:45:24.218
require ERCOT to report non compliance to the ERM but still

02:45:24.229 --> 02:45:30.500
maintain the standards that they believe are necessary

02:45:31.190 --> 02:45:36.088
Would that be acceptable to you? And that way the dialogue

02:45:36.099 --> 02:45:40.489
can exist between the operator and the entity because

02:45:40.500 --> 02:45:43.468
the language would say that ERCOT will report it to

02:45:43.479 --> 02:45:46.729
the queasy just not to the ERM and then it wouldn't

02:45:46.739 --> 02:45:50.000
come to me. So Barksdale, just so I understand your request is

02:45:50.009 --> 02:45:53.129
that the gray box language would remain so that there

02:45:53.138 --> 02:45:56.679
isn't a communication flow on failure to perform and in issues that

02:45:56.690 --> 02:46:00.218
they can report to you. Is that correct? Just exactly

02:46:00.229 --> 02:46:03.838
the opposite. Sorry if I was unclear. To leave everything

02:46:03.849 --> 02:46:07.700
in section eight except for the gray box language which

02:46:07.709 --> 02:46:10.629
requires all that information to be reported to the

02:46:10.638 --> 02:46:16.088
ERM. So leave, leave sections, you know paragraphs

02:46:16.099 --> 02:46:22.280
four A and B but delete the gray boxed language.

02:46:25.190 --> 02:46:31.409
Okay. So because I think that would eliminate the penalty

02:46:31.418 --> 02:46:34.409
concerns that I think I've heard you express today. 

02:46:34.418 --> 02:46:39.610
But still maintain that communication flow, still establish

02:46:40.088 --> 02:46:44.250
expectations of what state of charge should be without

02:46:44.690 --> 02:46:48.829
the stick coming. The expectation is that you, you

02:46:48.838 --> 02:46:52.649
provided an obligation when you're contracted to pay

02:46:52.659 --> 02:46:55.849
for it. That's my view. The expectation is failure

02:46:55.860 --> 02:46:59.418
to perform, period. Like everybody like any other resource

02:46:59.429 --> 02:47:00.299
it's failure to perform.

02:47:02.759 --> 02:47:05.338
Okay. Thank you for considering that. Thank you for suggesting.

02:47:08.459 --> 02:47:11.218
Do we have to make a motion? We do. 

02:47:15.940 --> 02:47:19.950
I'd be happy to make it if you like. (item:37:Motion to remand NPRR1186 with suggested modifications) I would

02:47:19.959 --> 02:47:23.629
move to remand NPRR1186 with suggested modifications

02:47:23.638 --> 02:47:27.040
to remove section eight from the NPRR. That includes

02:47:27.049 --> 02:47:29.209
a state of charge requirements in the gray box language.

02:47:29.218 --> 02:47:33.370
That would create the enforcement process for failure

02:47:33.379 --> 02:47:35.468
to comply with state of charge requirements, specifically

02:47:35.479 --> 02:47:39.540
section 8.1.4 including subsections A and B and the

02:47:39.549 --> 02:47:42.549
gray box language that would replace section four.

02:47:46.668 --> 02:47:47.388
Do I have a second?

02:47:49.530 --> 02:47:52.709
I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. 

02:47:53.058 --> 02:47:56.870
Motion passes. (item:49:Commissioner Cobos on business practice manual guidance) And as part of Item No. 49

02:47:58.909 --> 02:48:01.250
you know, from my perspective. I would like to provide

02:48:01.259 --> 02:48:05.489
guidance that um the business practice manual, the

02:48:05.500 --> 02:48:07.888
with respect to the business practice manual, the um

02:48:07.899 --> 02:48:11.530
state of charge requirements on their service guidelines

02:48:11.540 --> 02:48:14.929
and are not enforceable and uh given our action today

02:48:14.940 --> 02:48:20.418
that um ERCOT may consider withdrawing or tabling definitely

02:48:20.429 --> 02:48:23.870
in NPR1209. It's not before us, but because it is contingent

02:48:23.879 --> 02:48:27.709
on 1186 and it being an enforceable, the state of charge

02:48:27.718 --> 02:48:31.218
requirements being enforceable. That should inform

02:48:31.229 --> 02:48:32.870
our actions on that NPRR. 

02:48:35.500 --> 02:48:38.299
I, I if I may. (item:49:Dan Woodfin on business practice manual guidance) I think the business practice document

02:48:38.308 --> 02:48:42.649
has to change consistent with 1186. Anyway, so it wouldn't

02:48:42.659 --> 02:48:46.399
be the same business practice document. It exists. You

02:48:46.409 --> 02:48:49.019
can continue to have it as guidance but not, it's not

02:48:49.030 --> 02:48:50.808
enforceable. And

02:48:55.209 --> 02:48:57.129
Shelah, I was just going to say procedurally do we need an

02:48:57.138 --> 02:49:02.500
order? (item:37:Shelah Cisneros on the course of action) Yes, yes Commission. Before, if I may just take

02:49:02.509 --> 02:49:05.370
a moment just to make sure the Commission Staff the

02:49:05.379 --> 02:49:07.838
next step. I believe that we do need an order. Yes

02:49:07.849 --> 02:49:11.530
to effectuate your vote. And because of the timing

02:49:11.540 --> 02:49:13.899
issue and, and I have heard the discussion about the

02:49:13.909 --> 02:49:16.450
importance getting this resolved today because there's

02:49:16.459 --> 02:49:18.968
not an order before you. I think the best course of

02:49:18.979 --> 02:49:22.959
action would be to direct Commission Staff to go ahead

02:49:22.968 --> 02:49:25.058
and draft an order consistent with your discussion

02:49:25.069 --> 02:49:28.099
today. I'm guessing that Commission Staff has enough

02:49:28.110 --> 02:49:32.558
information to draft that um clarity. All right. And

02:49:32.569 --> 02:49:35.229
then the best thing would be to, we could take a break

02:49:35.239 --> 02:49:38.450
and let them draft that and run it by the offices. Or

02:49:38.459 --> 02:49:41.599
just take a break and let them draft that. File it

02:49:41.610 --> 02:49:45.940
in the Project 54445. Bring that back to you during

02:49:45.950 --> 02:49:50.129
this meeting so that you can look at it and confirm

02:49:50.138 --> 02:49:54.000
that that is consistent with your action. Or if you

02:49:54.009 --> 02:49:58.168
want to make any small changes or large changes, anything

02:49:58.780 --> 02:50:01.370
then we can make those changes. And we're very clear

02:50:01.379 --> 02:50:04.058
about the order to be signed. Hopefully signed and

02:50:04.069 --> 02:50:06.418
filed today. That may be the more efficient way to

02:50:06.429 --> 02:50:09.349
do it. That way we can all talk as opposed to one

02:50:09.360 --> 02:50:12.239
office at a time, sort of going back. Yes. Yeah, if

02:50:12.250 --> 02:50:14.638
y'all are calling me, we did this during the PUC

02:50:14.649 --> 02:50:16.649
process previously. And it's a good way just to make

02:50:16.659 --> 02:50:19.799
sure everyone's on the same page in terms of the order

02:50:19.808 --> 02:50:23.069
language. So timing wise for in recess, how, how long

02:50:23.079 --> 02:50:26.040
would you suggest?

02:50:27.599 --> 02:50:29.799
I'm gonna look at Staff and say we, I mean, we have

02:50:29.808 --> 02:50:32.338
two options. We could recess for y'all to do that if

02:50:32.349 --> 02:50:35.308
we need time to visit with the offices. Or we could

02:50:35.319 --> 02:50:37.429
maybe continue with the meeting and let y'all do that

02:50:37.440 --> 02:50:40.950
and then take a recess. Continue with the meeting,

02:50:40.959 --> 02:50:43.290
I think would be appropriate. We shouldn't need more

02:50:43.299 --> 02:50:46.179
than 15 or 20 minutes to get this drafted for you.

02:50:46.190 --> 02:50:48.819
Ok, great. Let's continue with the meeting and then

02:50:48.829 --> 02:50:50.459
we can assess at that point if we need to take a

02:50:50.468 --> 02:50:53.379
quick break. Um and actually, you know, that might

02:50:53.388 --> 02:50:55.819
be depending on how it goes. We're due for a break

02:50:55.829 --> 02:50:58.879
for the court reporter around 2pm. So what we could

02:50:58.888 --> 02:51:00.899
do is just take a break to, to make sure we have

02:51:00.909 --> 02:51:04.058
everything ready. That it's been filed in the project.

02:51:04.069 --> 02:51:06.129
It's ready to go before you. The court reporter gets

02:51:06.138 --> 02:51:07.979
a break and we'll just tie this all up.

02:51:11.479 --> 02:51:16.569
Okay. Is that okay? Yes, absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Barksdale. Yeah

02:51:22.620 --> 02:51:22.649
Yeah.

02:51:24.440 --> 02:51:30.200
Okay. (item:38:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 54584) So next up is Item No. 38, Project No. 54584. 

02:51:30.209 --> 02:51:32.808
This is for the Commission's project for the reliability

02:51:32.819 --> 02:51:35.668
standard for the ERCOT market. Shelah, do we have anyone

02:51:35.679 --> 02:51:38.399
from the public signed up to speak on Item No. 38?

02:51:38.409 --> 02:51:41.915
No, ma'am. No one signed up to speak for Item 38. Okay. ERCOT

02:51:41.924 --> 02:51:44.704
filed a letter and a presentation incorporating additional

02:51:44.713 --> 02:51:48.114
scenarios and sensitivities into the reliability standard

02:51:48.125 --> 02:51:51.543
study. And updates the data presentation for the results

02:51:51.554 --> 02:51:55.674
table that PUC Staff requested in its October 26th

02:51:55.683 --> 02:51:59.593
memo. ERCOT is here. So if you could please come up

02:51:59.604 --> 02:52:02.384
and provide an overview of your presentation. 

02:52:09.599 --> 02:52:10.870
(item:38:ERCOT's Woody Rickerson on follow-up scenarios from presentation) Woody Rickerson with ERCOT.

02:52:13.888 --> 02:52:19.200
So this is the uh follow-up scenarios that they were

02:52:19.209 --> 02:52:25.860
asked for. Slide four talks about um 15 years versus

02:52:25.870 --> 02:52:27.009
42 other years 

02:52:28.620 --> 02:52:32.159
Shows that um if you use 15 years, you need more capacity

02:52:32.750 --> 02:52:36.409
than you do if you use 42 year. I think if you

02:52:36.418 --> 02:52:41.129
use three years, you'd you'd need even more. So um

02:52:41.819 --> 02:52:47.769
that's the, that's pretty expected results. Of

02:52:47.780 --> 02:52:52.780
of, of, of that analysis. Slide number five talks about

02:52:52.790 --> 02:52:56.360
the impacts of weatherization effectiveness. So

02:52:56.370 --> 02:52:58.808
we have a whole new data set now to look at here. 

02:52:59.129 --> 02:53:07.338
This looked at um I believe 70% and 90% our baseline

02:53:07.349 --> 02:53:13.909
had been 85%. So um recent, we'll have to get the RFIs

02:53:13.918 --> 02:53:16.629
in and look at all that. But it's potential

02:53:16.638 --> 02:53:19.468
that uh you know, the 85 or the 90 may make more

02:53:19.479 --> 02:53:22.909
sense now. But uh we'll have the scenarios there. Now

02:53:25.399 --> 02:53:30.569
slide six talks about uh Summer versus really the

02:53:30.579 --> 02:53:35.239
way you read. Slide. (item:38:Woody Rickerson on Winter problem vs. Summer problem) Slide number six is the takeaway

02:53:35.259 --> 02:53:39.468
is that uh this is a Winter problem, not a Summer problem. 

02:53:40.418 --> 02:53:42.558
There's a lot of a lot of data there, a lot of

02:53:42.569 --> 02:53:45.209
different scenarios, but they all point to the fact

02:53:45.218 --> 02:53:49.968
that loss of load events are gonna occur from a probabilistic

02:53:49.979 --> 02:53:53.088
standpoint in the Winter, not the Summer. So when you're

02:53:53.099 --> 02:53:55.000
thinking about frequency, when you're thinking about

02:53:55.009 --> 02:53:58.259
magnitude, when you're thinking about duration, you

02:53:58.269 --> 02:54:01.280
should think in the context of a Winter event, not

02:54:01.290 --> 02:54:06.319
a Summer event. So duration of a, of a Summer event

02:54:06.588 --> 02:54:09.349
might be completely different than. I mean, if you were

02:54:09.360 --> 02:54:12.849
setting a duration limit, thinking only in Summer that

02:54:12.860 --> 02:54:17.370
would be different than a jury type event where you

02:54:17.379 --> 02:54:21.168
have a long duration of a Winter. So the way what this

02:54:21.179 --> 02:54:23.569
analysis shows is you should think when you're setting

02:54:23.579 --> 02:54:26.899
the parameters for the reliability standards to think

02:54:26.909 --> 02:54:29.709
in context of a Winter event on a Summer event.

02:54:34.610 --> 02:54:37.599
Uh slide seven is a repeat of that. So those are the

02:54:37.610 --> 02:54:40.790
uh the additional scenarios that you ask for. That's

02:54:40.799 --> 02:54:43.040
a high level overview.

02:54:44.709 --> 02:54:45.200
Okay.

02:54:46.750 --> 02:54:49.838
(item:38:Commisioner Cobos' thoughts on presentation) Woody, I think this presentation is great. I, I appreciate

02:54:50.610 --> 02:54:54.099
the sensitivity analysis that y'all provided. I

02:54:54.110 --> 02:54:56.780
think the last 15 years have been probably more extreme

02:54:56.790 --> 02:55:02.519
than from a weather standpoint than the last 42. Given

02:55:02.530 --> 02:55:06.679
all the based resource technology that is on

02:55:06.690 --> 02:55:08.808
our system coming to our system. I think it's kind

02:55:08.819 --> 02:55:14.429
of helpful to see um you know, the different analysis

02:55:14.440 --> 02:55:18.000
with that lens. The effect of this, of weatherization

02:55:18.009 --> 02:55:19.879
obviously, as you highlighted, um I already seen a

02:55:19.888 --> 02:55:24.540
lot of benefits from that this past week. Um the the

02:55:24.549 --> 02:55:29.718
Winter I think is definitely the main priority um for

02:55:29.729 --> 02:55:33.929
us. And um certainly appreciate you highlighting, highlighting

02:55:33.940 --> 02:55:42.759
that. I think the um duration and magnitude are

02:55:42.769 --> 02:55:47.879
are the key factors. I think that, that I from my perspective

02:55:47.888 --> 02:55:50.239
I take very seriously eue is a kind of a good

02:55:50.250 --> 02:55:53.379
metric to kind of look at that on the side but duration

02:55:53.388 --> 02:55:56.349
and and uh magnitude are obviously very important,

02:55:56.360 --> 02:56:00.360
especially in the Winter. How long um you're out of

02:56:00.370 --> 02:56:02.718
power obviously is very important to Texans and the

02:56:02.729 --> 02:56:06.360
magnitude of how many megawatts we lose is is critically

02:56:06.370 --> 02:56:09.329
important. You know, given, given just our, our

02:56:09.338 --> 02:56:12.450
recent discussion and, and um on batteries and all

02:56:12.459 --> 02:56:16.679
the batteries coming into the system. I, I was going

02:56:16.690 --> 02:56:22.000
to request a couple of additional um scenario analysis

02:56:22.009 --> 02:56:25.058
and uh with respect to just kind of like what you did

02:56:25.069 --> 02:56:28.838
for the inverter based technology. And that is, you

02:56:28.849 --> 02:56:32.918
know, if a certain standard produces like if you need

02:56:32.929 --> 02:56:36.759
x amount of megawatts um to meet a certain reliability

02:56:36.769 --> 02:56:39.579
standard, the the ones y'all have been looking at how

02:56:39.588 --> 02:56:42.979
many total Megawatt hours of energy source resources

02:56:42.989 --> 02:56:45.718
would be needed to achieve that same Megawatt number

02:56:46.058 --> 02:56:51.629
And so um I don't know if it's helpful to break

02:56:51.638 --> 02:56:54.558
it down by one or two hour batteries, but I think that

02:56:54.569 --> 02:56:57.750
the general request would be helpful just to kind of

02:56:57.759 --> 02:57:01.440
see sort of like what you did for the IBR, right? 

02:57:01.549 --> 02:57:05.030
We can do that. (item:38:Woody Rickerson on reliability standard) So um when you're thinking about a

02:57:05.040 --> 02:57:07.290
reliability standard and you set the parameters, there

02:57:07.299 --> 02:57:09.360
will be a certain amount of generation that has to

02:57:09.370 --> 02:57:14.040
be added to meet that standard. So I would suggest

02:57:14.049 --> 02:57:19.780
that we pro provide that as uh combustion turbines

02:57:20.759 --> 02:57:23.440
So to meet the standard that you set or right, there's

02:57:23.450 --> 02:57:25.899
several standards you want to look at. This one takes

02:57:25.909 --> 02:57:29.989
4000 CT, 4000 megawatts of CT, this 15000 and this

02:57:30.000 --> 02:57:35.569
16000 and then we can provide a conversion of ok,

02:57:35.579 --> 02:57:40.959
5000 megawatts of CTS or equivalent to and talk about

02:57:40.968 --> 02:57:44.759
batteries or, or IVR resource, other IVR resources

02:57:44.769 --> 02:57:47.399
And so we can give you a conversion table a chart that

02:57:47.409 --> 02:57:50.579
shows how to convert that. And then, because I think

02:57:50.588 --> 02:57:55.540
the, uh I think this uses the CDR mix from 2023.

02:57:56.030 --> 02:57:57.709
That's probably not what we're going to have in the

02:57:57.718 --> 02:58:01.088
future, it's gonna continue to change. And so it may

02:58:01.099 --> 02:58:04.459
not be the best thing to use. So having just setting

02:58:04.468 --> 02:58:08.338
a standard of using ACT and then converting that to

02:58:08.349 --> 02:58:12.739
other things gives you a wide variety of things you

02:58:12.799 --> 02:58:15.558
can look at and set your own expectations that way

02:58:15.929 --> 02:58:19.579
That makes sense. Yes. And in that same vein with respect

02:58:19.588 --> 02:58:22.638
to the CDR, right? So we're seeing a mix of resources

02:58:22.649 --> 02:58:25.299
coming in dispatchable resources. We're seeing some

02:58:25.649 --> 02:58:27.599
thermal thermal generation announcements and we're

02:58:27.610 --> 02:58:30.349
seeing some energy storage resources, a flux of that

02:58:30.360 --> 02:58:34.110
coming in. So is it possible to do kind of a a

02:58:34.120 --> 02:58:38.780
scenario that mixes uh those two resources like if

02:58:38.790 --> 02:58:42.759
you're expecting X amount of megawatts of CT, so like

02:58:42.769 --> 02:58:46.280
3000 megawatts of combustion turbines to be built,

02:58:46.500 --> 02:58:52.218
how many Megawatt hours would you need? Um And ESRs

02:58:52.229 --> 02:58:55.489
to complete like the 5000 you need to meet the reliable

02:58:56.799 --> 02:58:59.610
Ok. Thank you. I think that would be very helpful as

02:58:59.620 --> 02:59:02.269
an additional point. I would just suggest that the

02:59:03.849 --> 02:59:08.638
that providing that mix is the endpoint and then getting

02:59:08.649 --> 02:59:11.780
to a standard we use CTS to get to the standard. And

02:59:11.790 --> 02:59:15.879
then once you get to a level, then we can make a

02:59:15.888 --> 02:59:18.629
mix of whatever you think the mix needs to be

02:59:21.819 --> 02:59:25.168
because it will be a mix of something cps and wind

02:59:25.179 --> 02:59:28.479
and solar and batteries will be a mix. (item:38:Commissioner Glotfelty gives appreciation to ERCOT and Commission Staff) Woody, I

02:59:28.489 --> 02:59:32.269
want to uh, uh I had forwarded this to some of the

02:59:32.280 --> 02:59:35.190
Staff at the Commission. It was an article about uh

02:59:35.200 --> 02:59:39.418
Jim Robb, the CEO of, of NERC. Some comments that

02:59:39.429 --> 02:59:43.019
he made actually back in November at the meeting. 

02:59:43.259 --> 02:59:46.110
But he, he effectively said that uh

02:59:47.729 --> 02:59:51.968
reserve metrics are necessary but insufficient and

02:59:51.979 --> 02:59:56.558
that we're moving to new standards and that Texas is

02:59:56.569 --> 02:59:59.040
probably the furthest along in defining the reliability

02:59:59.049 --> 03:00:02.079
standard for energy. So I wanted to say thank you.

03:00:02.088 --> 03:00:04.338
I know you all have put a lot of effort into it

03:00:04.349 --> 03:00:08.000
as has the Staff of the Commission. You all are really

03:00:08.009 --> 03:00:11.360
really doing a good job on this. And I think, you know

03:00:11.950 --> 03:00:16.030
this is, this is groundbreaking. I really do. I think

03:00:16.040 --> 03:00:19.250
y'all are, are way ahead of a lot of people. So thank

03:00:19.259 --> 03:00:21.968
you. Thank you. Yeah, great work.

03:00:23.479 --> 03:00:25.489
And I would encourage you to run the scenarios.

03:00:27.069 --> 03:00:28.718
Thank you, Commissioner Glotfelty.

03:00:31.489 --> 03:00:34.950
All right. (item:38:Chairwoman Jackson on PUCM parameters & Commission Staff memo) I did have um I guess one question with

03:00:34.959 --> 03:00:38.459
respect to Item 4 from the Commission Staff's memo

03:00:38.468 --> 03:00:41.968
regarding um the analysis of the level of the loss

03:00:41.979 --> 03:00:46.229
of load expectation that can be achieved within the

03:00:46.239 --> 03:00:48.700
net cost cap. Um

03:00:50.259 --> 03:00:53.099
ERCOT is recommending that the analysis be performed

03:00:53.110 --> 03:00:57.409
after the um further PUCM design determinations are

03:00:57.418 --> 03:01:01.918
made. And I just wanna make sure in this process

03:01:01.929 --> 03:01:05.649
um that we're thinking about, you know what those PUCM

03:01:05.659 --> 03:01:09.190
parameters are kind of defining them early, so that

03:01:09.200 --> 03:01:12.138
we're not delaying that. And then we get to the end

03:01:12.149 --> 03:01:16.610
game and we, we, we haven't made any progress in um

03:01:16.659 --> 03:01:20.110
in kind of defining those parameters. So recognize

03:01:20.120 --> 03:01:22.019
that that's something that we maybe we're gonna delay

03:01:22.030 --> 03:01:25.468
But I think we need to definitely be working on um

03:01:25.668 --> 03:01:28.940
you know what those parameters are so that we can be

03:01:28.950 --> 03:01:31.979
doing that in parallel in parallel.

03:01:36.679 --> 03:01:39.479
So I guess what I'm hearing is we're good with the

03:01:39.540 --> 03:01:45.269
ERCOT recommending a potential um final modeling pending

03:01:45.280 --> 03:01:49.468
the runs that Commissioner Cobos then laid out um that

03:01:49.479 --> 03:01:52.540
would further limit the range of loss of load expectation

03:01:52.549 --> 03:01:56.659
for frequency scenarios, simulate the smaller LOE increments

03:01:56.668 --> 03:01:58.790
within the range and then update the scenario pro uh

03:01:58.870 --> 03:02:04.049
pro uh, uh portfolios. Based on the December capacity

03:02:04.058 --> 03:02:08.679
demand reserves report. So um with that, I mean, does

03:02:09.009 --> 03:02:11.338
Staff feel like they have everything they need and

03:02:11.349 --> 03:02:15.290
does ERCOT feel like they have and we got the thumbs up from

03:02:15.299 --> 03:02:18.718
her. Very good. Ok, so I appreciate y'all working together

03:02:18.729 --> 03:02:19.579
on this and

03:02:21.250 --> 03:02:22.138
all right, thank you.

03:02:26.079 --> 03:02:30.870
(item:39:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 55250) Next up is Item No. 39, Project No. 55250. This

03:02:30.879 --> 03:02:33.379
is the Commission's project for the transmission and

03:02:33.388 --> 03:02:36.540
distribution system reliability, resiliency plans. 

03:02:37.440 --> 03:02:39.599
Shelah, do we have anyone from the public signed up

03:02:39.610 --> 03:02:42.558
to speak on Item No. 39? (item:39:Shelah Cisneros confirms who has signed up for Public Comments) Yes, ma'am. We do. We

03:02:42.569 --> 03:02:45.739
have one person that signed up to speak. That person

03:02:45.750 --> 03:02:47.069
is Don Brown.

03:02:51.629 --> 03:02:51.829
Yes. 

03:02:54.129 --> 03:02:57.370
Mr. Brown has some handouts that Thomas has that he's

03:02:57.379 --> 03:02:58.629
going to pass out to you.

03:03:01.019 --> 03:03:05.450
Yes. Okay. Good afternoon. We'd like to allow you about

03:03:05.459 --> 03:03:10.860
3 minutes. Okay, yes. I see, I see the clock. I'll

03:03:10.870 --> 03:03:13.019
wait. Uh,

03:03:14.629 --> 03:03:20.530
(item:39:Don Brown, citizen, gives Public Comment) Chair Jackson and Commissioners. I'm here again to represent

03:03:20.540 --> 03:03:28.159
myself. I spoke in the October open meeting and there

03:03:28.168 --> 03:03:31.280
are many, many people that are concerned in Texas across

03:03:31.290 --> 03:03:36.019
Texas. That we do the right job on this resiliency piece

03:03:36.030 --> 03:03:39.690
of Legislation that we have. And it's a huge opportunity

03:03:39.700 --> 03:03:42.299
I think for us. So I want to make a few points

03:03:42.308 --> 03:03:48.250
here. In my submission that I, that I provided in the

03:03:48.259 --> 03:03:52.349
rulemaking. I support what we're doing in the rule

03:03:52.360 --> 03:03:55.549
making to get to gather industry information and have

03:03:55.558 --> 03:03:57.808
them come forward and present

03:03:59.829 --> 03:04:03.918
plans, resiliency plans. Based on their best knowledge. 

03:04:05.409 --> 03:04:08.058
But I also think we're missing a big opportunity if

03:04:08.069 --> 03:04:12.959
we don't take advantage of the standards that exist

03:04:12.968 --> 03:04:16.450
today in certain areas. For example, physical standards. 

03:04:16.620 --> 03:04:21.000
So sip 14-3 is one of those standards been developed

03:04:21.009 --> 03:04:24.918
It's over a decade old. We can easily use that as a

03:04:24.929 --> 03:04:28.918
baseline and we can include things that are working

03:04:28.929 --> 03:04:32.759
in ERCOT. Which are the system uh modeling that CT

03:04:32.780 --> 03:04:35.759
does all the time to make sure that we know where the

03:04:35.769 --> 03:04:40.308
critical resources are. So, so Sip 14-3 for everybody's

03:04:40.319 --> 03:04:44.250
information is a, it identifies your physical security

03:04:44.308 --> 03:04:48.649
critical points. And what we have in ERCOT is a modeling

03:04:48.659 --> 03:04:50.929
system where we can do that. So that's one thing that

03:04:50.940 --> 03:04:54.610
I'd recommend that we do is use that as a baseline

03:04:54.620 --> 03:04:58.250
for physical security. And with an addition of the

03:04:58.259 --> 03:05:00.849
modeling that ERCOT does to tell us where the critical

03:05:00.860 --> 03:05:03.429
points are. So that would be point number one. And

03:05:03.440 --> 03:05:07.229
I recommended that in the in the submission point number

03:05:07.239 --> 03:05:13.000
two is that we, that we actually take a look and measure

03:05:13.209 --> 03:05:18.280
and watch what's happening with incidents, physical

03:05:18.290 --> 03:05:22.870
attacks on our grid. So if you look at the recommendation

03:05:22.879 --> 03:05:25.129
there, there's a physical attacks on our grid piece

03:05:25.138 --> 03:05:28.418
in that and we can track that and that's produced every

03:05:28.429 --> 03:05:31.668
quarter by the Department of Energy and we know exactly

03:05:31.679 --> 03:05:34.259
where those are happening and that some of that information

03:05:34.269 --> 03:05:38.959
is secure, um securely provided. The third thing is

03:05:38.968 --> 03:05:43.500
that we look at the inventory of Chinese provided equipment

03:05:43.509 --> 03:05:47.239
that is insisting in the Texas grid today. And that

03:05:47.250 --> 03:05:52.120
that equipment is identified by location, the type

03:05:52.129 --> 03:05:54.899
of equipment, the source of the equipment and that

03:05:54.909 --> 03:05:58.190
we understand what the mitigation factors are around

03:05:58.200 --> 03:06:00.049
hacking. There was a

03:06:01.769 --> 03:06:05.299
work done by the Department of Energy and Sandia Labs

03:06:05.308 --> 03:06:08.610
that shows some of these large transformers are hackable. 

03:06:08.620 --> 03:06:12.549
You can go in and you can't turn them off. I have

03:06:12.558 --> 03:06:16.030
some other, I have a couple more minutes or a minute

03:06:16.040 --> 03:06:20.280
more if I may 30 seconds, very quickly. Okay. So in this

03:06:20.290 --> 03:06:24.940
I also provided some tracking metrics that we could

03:06:24.950 --> 03:06:30.360
use. These are things like inventory. So if you look

03:06:30.370 --> 03:06:34.649
at the supply chain of inventory, the large transformers

03:06:34.918 --> 03:06:39.000
around the areas that they're in. What's on order?

03:06:39.009 --> 03:06:42.168
What's the supply, what's the demand? Where are we

03:06:42.179 --> 03:06:44.549
on the deliveries and making sure that we actually

03:06:44.629 --> 03:06:49.790
we have a, a solid inventory and that we understand

03:06:49.799 --> 03:06:52.250
what the supply side, the demand side and the supply

03:06:52.259 --> 03:06:54.888
side, you could track that very easily having that

03:06:54.899 --> 03:07:00.269
reported by ERCOT to you on a on a biannual basis.

03:07:00.659 --> 03:07:06.620
Are you familiar with EEI's uh large Transformer

03:07:07.388 --> 03:07:11.360
program? Not personally. No, I have not read it. Edison

03:07:11.370 --> 03:07:14.049
Electric Institute has a program that does just that

03:07:14.058 --> 03:07:18.629
for large long lead time transformers and they've been

03:07:18.638 --> 03:07:20.690
working with the largest utilities with the largest

03:07:20.700 --> 03:07:23.280
transformers for many, many years. You might find some

03:07:23.290 --> 03:07:26.638
information about that online. Oh okay, good information. Thank

03:07:26.649 --> 03:07:30.668
you. And the last, the last thing we talked about or

03:07:30.729 --> 03:07:34.360
I'd like to suggest. Is that we do look at areas where

03:07:34.370 --> 03:07:37.829
we're going to have growth or planned maintenance and

03:07:37.838 --> 03:07:40.759
look at accelerating, bringing that in maybe by a year

03:07:40.769 --> 03:07:46.718
or two to see to provide that resiliency. So we would

03:07:46.729 --> 03:07:51.468
open up for projects and utilities to accelerate additional

03:07:51.479 --> 03:07:54.989
equipment that needs to come in and give us the extra

03:07:55.000 --> 03:08:00.468
inventory of equipment and bandwidth in handling this

03:08:00.479 --> 03:08:02.790
So we need to look at the whole piece. So those are

03:08:02.799 --> 03:08:08.500
some of the ideas. One request is that while I support

03:08:08.509 --> 03:08:12.829
the, this I recommend one, one edition and that's that you

03:08:12.838 --> 03:08:15.668
put a timeline on the metrics and, and the standards.

03:08:15.679 --> 03:08:18.190
So where there could be standards, ask us to come back

03:08:18.200 --> 03:08:21.899
in in 90 days and make a recommendation to the in a

03:08:21.909 --> 03:08:24.989
public hearing, to the PUC of the, of the things that

03:08:25.000 --> 03:08:29.429
we can actually measure and agree upon. I hope that

03:08:29.440 --> 03:08:31.440
makes sense. Thank you so much for your time. Thank

03:08:31.450 --> 03:08:31.899
you. Thank you.

03:08:38.069 --> 03:08:41.250
So, Commissioner Cobos filed a memo and David Smeltzer

03:08:41.259 --> 03:08:45.129
with the PUC Staff is here. Um David, would you please

03:08:45.138 --> 03:08:47.629
provide a brief overview of the updated draft? And

03:08:47.638 --> 03:08:51.679
then Commissioner Cobos will lay out her memo. Sure.

03:08:51.690 --> 03:08:52.239
Thank you.

03:08:54.418 --> 03:08:54.668
(item:39:Commission Staff's David Smeltzer with overview of updated draft) So

03:08:56.620 --> 03:09:00.409
before you is a proposal for adoption. And I think

03:09:00.418 --> 03:09:02.388
that the, the core features of the rule of state, the

03:09:02.399 --> 03:09:05.509
same since the proposal for publication. This is

03:09:05.549 --> 03:09:08.929
a pretty significant rulemaking more than one of the

03:09:08.940 --> 03:09:10.909
more significant we've done recently. It's going to

03:09:10.918 --> 03:09:13.190
allow transmission and distribution companies to do

03:09:13.329 --> 03:09:16.540
a comprehensive assessment of their systems to identify

03:09:16.549 --> 03:09:19.290
the risks and proposed reality measures to identify

03:09:19.299 --> 03:09:23.349
those issues. And I think that is markedly the, the

03:09:23.360 --> 03:09:25.360
ability for it to be sort of a comprehensive assessment

03:09:25.370 --> 03:09:27.329
I think is a significant step forward from the current

03:09:27.338 --> 03:09:29.668
state of the industry. And we're really hoping that

03:09:29.679 --> 03:09:33.308
the utilities use the tool to do a real top down risk

03:09:33.319 --> 03:09:36.099
assessment when they're developing their, their resiliency

03:09:36.110 --> 03:09:38.879
plans. Some of the key features is, you know, this

03:09:38.888 --> 03:09:41.040
is going to leave the utilities, the flexibility to

03:09:41.049 --> 03:09:44.069
define the problems, the solutions and evaluation measures

03:09:44.239 --> 03:09:47.069
that match the topography and you know, threats faced

03:09:47.079 --> 03:09:50.532
by their systems. So I think that's important also

03:09:50.541 --> 03:09:53.422
provides Commission approval of these plans ahead of

03:09:53.432 --> 03:09:56.012
time. So the utilities can confidently make resiliency

03:09:56.022 --> 03:09:58.471
investments with a greater certainty that they'll be

03:09:58.483 --> 03:10:01.372
able to recover their prudently incurred costs. And

03:10:01.381 --> 03:10:02.922
so, you know, they're allowed to do a lot of these

03:10:02.932 --> 03:10:05.752
things today, but it's they would be risky investments

03:10:05.762 --> 03:10:08.362
today. Because they wouldn't be assured of recovery

03:10:08.372 --> 03:10:12.594
in the rate making. This, this reduces that. And also

03:10:12.605 --> 03:10:14.504
these are, these are these will all be a contested

03:10:14.514 --> 03:10:17.236
process which is going to allow interveners and staff

03:10:17.245 --> 03:10:20.465
and different stakeholders. The ability to protect

03:10:20.475 --> 03:10:23.775
ratepayers from extraneous costs associated with these.

03:10:23.816 --> 03:10:25.875
And I think finally, while not required, required by

03:10:25.885 --> 03:10:28.605
statute, this rule making has pretty robust recording

03:10:28.615 --> 03:10:31.195
reporting requirements afterwards so that as an industry

03:10:31.206 --> 03:10:35.365
we can grow together and build up a sort of more robust

03:10:35.375 --> 03:10:37.434
literature on what works and what doesn't and how we

03:10:37.445 --> 03:10:40.989
can most cost effectively protect our grid. Changes

03:10:41.000 --> 03:10:44.399
from the PFP. Mostly we just added quite a bit more

03:10:44.409 --> 03:10:47.099
clarity and bolstered the above features that I described

03:10:47.110 --> 03:10:49.799
to make sure that um you know, sort of the ins and

03:10:49.808 --> 03:10:52.588
outs of contested cases and stuff don't get it in the

03:10:52.599 --> 03:10:55.129
way of the pragmatic approach that we are trying to

03:10:55.138 --> 03:10:58.058
take with, with these plans. I will say from Staff's

03:10:58.069 --> 03:11:00.259
perspective, there were a lot of cooks in the kitchen

03:11:00.269 --> 03:11:02.610
and I won't go through. Um you know, they're all the

03:11:02.620 --> 03:11:05.629
regular players that you would expect. Your Ramas who

03:11:05.638 --> 03:11:08.229
did most of the work on this and Bill Abbott and those

03:11:08.239 --> 03:11:11.549
types, but some less than less than one year here PUC

03:11:11.759 --> 03:11:14.489
or so. I don't know names I've said before in these

03:11:14.808 --> 03:11:18.159
you know, um for Markets, uh Dr. Chris Brown helped

03:11:18.168 --> 03:11:21.418
quite a bit. In infrastructure, new thinkers, Eduardo

03:11:21.599 --> 03:11:24.370
Acosta and Joseph Cooper and also Mica Noon from Rates.

03:11:24.379 --> 03:11:27.588
These are all relative newbies here at the Commission

03:11:27.599 --> 03:11:30.709
who played with us in the resiliency sandbox. And so

03:11:30.718 --> 03:11:33.709
uh thanks to the contributions made by the newer members

03:11:33.718 --> 03:11:36.718
of our Staff, this is a very complex rule. We really

03:11:36.729 --> 03:11:39.690
appreciate all the work that you and your team do on

03:11:39.700 --> 03:11:42.120
this. So you may have some more questions you might

03:11:42.129 --> 03:11:44.620
want to just stand by for a minute. I'm here if you

03:11:44.718 --> 03:11:48.918
have any questions. Commissioner Cobos. (item:39:Commissioner Cobos gives appreciate to Commission Staff, stakeholders & utilities) Yes, David. Thank you. So much

03:11:48.929 --> 03:11:51.620
for all your hard work on this rule. This is a very

03:11:51.629 --> 03:11:57.030
very long complex rule. I know you and your team in

03:11:57.040 --> 03:12:00.349
markets and rate regulation. Spend a lot of time

03:12:00.360 --> 03:12:03.239
working on this rule um through several iterations

03:12:03.250 --> 03:12:05.079
So I wanna thank you and, and the rest of the

03:12:05.088 --> 03:12:07.209
Staff that's putting a lot of hard work on this important

03:12:07.218 --> 03:12:10.239
and complex rule. I also wanted to thank the uh

03:12:10.250 --> 03:12:14.218
utilities that um provide a lot of feedback to Staff

03:12:14.229 --> 03:12:18.620
and collaborated with Staff um on um on this rule.

03:12:18.629 --> 03:12:22.058
I know that David, you, you met with um a lot of

03:12:22.069 --> 03:12:24.860
our Staff met with, with um stakeholders to try to

03:12:25.229 --> 03:12:28.088
um address some of the concerns they had. And, and

03:12:28.099 --> 03:12:30.409
um I, I do appreciate the stakeholders coming to the

03:12:30.418 --> 03:12:34.168
table and working with, with the Staff. (item:39:Commissioner Cobos lays out her memo) you know

03:12:34.179 --> 03:12:38.579
that House Bill uh 2555 this past Session and the adoption

03:12:38.588 --> 03:12:42.399
of this proposed rule, we put our State, the Commission

03:12:42.409 --> 03:12:46.540
the forefront on resiliency further than a lot of other

03:12:46.549 --> 03:12:49.959
states. In terms of creating a framework for our evaluation

03:12:49.968 --> 03:12:52.870
of electric utility resiliency plans for enhancements

03:12:52.879 --> 03:12:55.200
to the transmission distribution system across the

03:12:55.209 --> 03:12:58.190
state. In addition to that, it's not noted here, you

03:12:58.200 --> 03:13:01.229
know, we had um the Legislation that was passed, that

03:13:01.239 --> 03:13:03.829
created uh not only the Texas Energy Fund but provides

03:13:03.838 --> 03:13:06.899
grants for resiliency. And I think um when you, when

03:13:06.909 --> 03:13:09.838
you look at all the Legislation combined. Um, you know

03:13:09.849 --> 03:13:12.209
the, the Legislature certainly send a strong signal

03:13:12.218 --> 03:13:15.558
that resiliency um, is important. I know that we believe

03:13:15.569 --> 03:13:18.040
resiliency is important. Um, we're facing a lot more

03:13:18.049 --> 03:13:20.690
extreme weather conditions, a lot of external threats

03:13:20.700 --> 03:13:25.879
And so, um, I think this rule and, and, um that provides

03:13:25.888 --> 03:13:28.308
the utilities, the ability to come forward and submit

03:13:28.319 --> 03:13:31.179
these plans is, is a, it's a great step in the right

03:13:31.190 --> 03:13:34.120
direction and I think we'll be leading the way across

03:13:34.129 --> 03:13:37.509
the country. My, my proposed changes are, are just

03:13:37.519 --> 03:13:39.838
you know, procedural in nature for your consideration.

03:13:40.338 --> 03:13:44.019
The first one is uh and uh and that I believe

03:13:44.030 --> 03:13:47.159
will provide clarity and, and transparency to um the

03:13:47.168 --> 03:13:51.149
proposed rule. The first one is um potentially the

03:13:51.159 --> 03:13:56.709
removal of proposed uh 25.62 subsection D three B on

03:13:56.718 --> 03:14:01.179
page 90 um your consideration on removing this section

03:14:01.190 --> 03:14:06.179
in its entirety, uh where I come from on this is that

03:14:06.190 --> 03:14:10.009
um you know, the, the, this section sets forth an ability

03:14:10.019 --> 03:14:13.088
for an electric utility withdraw an application without

03:14:13.099 --> 03:14:16.370
prejudice um or propose an alternative modification

03:14:16.379 --> 03:14:19.569
after the Commission has issued a final order. Our

03:14:19.709 --> 03:14:27.308
procedural rules currently um 16 TAC 22.181G provide

03:14:28.159 --> 03:14:31.179
an opportunity for an applicant to withdraw its application

03:14:31.979 --> 03:14:35.000
But more specifically that the request for the withdrawal

03:14:35.009 --> 03:14:37.918
of that application with or without prejudice after

03:14:37.929 --> 03:14:41.860
a proposed rule or PFD is issued can only be granted

03:14:41.870 --> 03:14:46.019
upon finding a good cause by the Commission. And so

03:14:46.388 --> 03:14:49.549
um you know, from a policy perspective, you know, after

03:14:49.558 --> 03:14:51.349
the Commission issues out a final order, you know,

03:14:51.360 --> 03:14:54.479
the parties have already put in um a lot of work into

03:14:54.489 --> 03:14:57.329
these into proceedings, right? And so has the Commission

03:14:57.338 --> 03:14:59.280
and everybody involved, everybody else involved. So

03:14:59.700 --> 03:15:03.679
it seems to be kind of, from my perspective, you know

03:15:03.690 --> 03:15:07.360
from a resource policy standpoint to create a resource

03:15:07.370 --> 03:15:11.819
drain to kind of keep spinning on a plan after it's

03:15:11.829 --> 03:15:13.750
been approved by the Commission, we've issued out a

03:15:13.759 --> 03:15:16.979
final order. Um And, and so,

03:15:19.379 --> 03:15:22.329
you know, the other sort of concern or issue to think

03:15:22.338 --> 03:15:25.049
about is, you know, when you allow a utility to propose

03:15:25.058 --> 03:15:28.500
alternative modifications for the Commission's consideration

03:15:28.509 --> 03:15:31.509
after the Commission has issued out a final order,

03:15:31.750 --> 03:15:33.950
you could end up with the unintended consequences of

03:15:33.959 --> 03:15:38.819
permitting the utility to raise new, um these new proposals

03:15:38.829 --> 03:15:41.329
that are, that are outside of potentially the record

03:15:41.909 --> 03:15:45.790
Um And otherwise, when you go out, well, when you go

03:15:45.799 --> 03:15:48.370
outside the record, then you could prejudice the rights

03:15:48.379 --> 03:15:51.829
of the other um parties in these proceedings that um

03:15:51.838 --> 03:15:54.588
haven't been privy to that information until the modification

03:15:54.599 --> 03:15:55.190
proposed

03:15:56.989 --> 03:16:00.509
right now. Under our current procedural rules, an applicant

03:16:01.729 --> 03:16:04.549
that disagrees with the Commission's final order um

03:16:04.558 --> 03:16:06.690
has a process to move forward and that is a motion

03:16:06.700 --> 03:16:09.558
for a hearing or filing an appeal of the or of the

03:16:09.569 --> 03:16:14.040
Commission's final order. Um I don't know that the

03:16:14.049 --> 03:16:16.700
applicant's rights are, are, you know, an applicant's

03:16:16.709 --> 03:16:20.058
rights are not prejudiced by, or they're not prejudiced

03:16:20.069 --> 03:16:24.979
by removing this provision from the rule. It just to

03:16:24.989 --> 03:16:28.379
me, you know, as David explained it to me and I thought

03:16:28.388 --> 03:16:32.338
about it, um, it just creates a circular backend process

03:16:32.349 --> 03:16:36.429
that I feel like once we issue out a final order, you

03:16:36.440 --> 03:16:39.088
know, do we want to be in a position where when we

03:16:39.099 --> 03:16:43.440
issue out final orders that uh party can then come

03:16:43.450 --> 03:16:45.290
back, the applicant, then, then, then come back and

03:16:45.299 --> 03:16:48.360
want to make changes to what we already have in the

03:16:48.370 --> 03:16:53.138
order. Um And, and that, that just seems to be a circular

03:16:53.149 --> 03:16:58.088
back end um component of this proposed rule that seems

03:16:58.099 --> 03:17:00.870
inefficient and counterintuitive to our processes here

03:17:01.370 --> 03:17:05.409
Um However, if you disagree, um you know, I, I do include

03:17:05.418 --> 03:17:07.058
more clarity to the rule

03:17:09.079 --> 03:17:11.879
if, if there's disagreement on, on that suggested change

03:17:11.888 --> 03:17:16.370
that I proposed and I'll pause there. So because your

03:17:16.379 --> 03:17:21.129
memo contains two pass, so we would need to, I guess

03:17:21.610 --> 03:17:24.349
come to an agreement in terms of which one of those

03:17:24.649 --> 03:17:31.459
Yes, yes. So it's either remove proposed section 25.62

03:17:31.468 --> 03:17:35.149
D, three B on page 90 in its entirety so that

03:17:36.759 --> 03:17:37.338
uh

03:17:39.138 --> 03:17:42.459
a utility cannot withdraw its application without prejudice

03:17:42.468 --> 03:17:44.979
or propose an alternative modification after the

03:17:44.989 --> 03:17:48.620
Commission has issued out. A final order is, is the

03:17:48.629 --> 03:17:51.540
option I've laid out. But if you want to leave that

03:17:51.549 --> 03:17:54.200
in there, then I would suggest adding more clarity

03:17:54.209 --> 03:17:57.750
to that provision and saying exactly how many days

03:17:57.759 --> 03:18:01.338
you have to follow withdrawal. Um, because it's written

03:18:01.349 --> 03:18:03.388
it's kind of you have to go look up various statutes

03:18:03.399 --> 03:18:06.418
and rules to find out how, how long you have to file

03:18:06.429 --> 03:18:11.280
the. So we usually say consistent with me. And so I

03:18:11.290 --> 03:18:13.790
just want to be clear if we say consistent with the

03:18:13.799 --> 03:18:18.569
memo that we are, we are removing the entire thing

03:18:19.459 --> 03:18:20.870
with that. Commissioner Glotfelty? 

03:18:27.409 --> 03:18:29.468
You know, I don't know. I'm,

03:18:31.190 --> 03:18:34.500
I tried to understand it last night a little bit and

03:18:35.129 --> 03:18:39.370
I'm still haven't quite digested it. (item:39:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on memo) I mean, it would

03:18:39.379 --> 03:18:42.269
seem to me that it's not in the best interest of the

03:18:42.280 --> 03:18:47.319
Commission or the, or the utility to get an approved

03:18:47.329 --> 03:18:49.729
order than be able to pull it out without some just

03:18:49.739 --> 03:18:54.168
cause if there was a reason for,

03:18:57.218 --> 03:19:00.500
you know, some just cause and maybe we can approve

03:19:00.509 --> 03:19:01.690
it. But I don't know. I mean,

03:19:03.638 --> 03:19:05.069
I'm kind of indifferent on it.

03:19:06.638 --> 03:19:08.588
I mean, you have to have a good cause to withdraw an

03:19:08.599 --> 03:19:12.739
application today right? Then why do we need to add

03:19:12.750 --> 03:19:15.918
another good cause? Right. But yeah, I guess what I'm

03:19:15.929 --> 03:19:20.769
saying is like if we issue out a final order, um, then

03:19:20.780 --> 03:19:23.940
do we want for applications to be withdrawn after we

03:19:24.290 --> 03:19:28.239
I mean, we spent all this time, they want this, that's

03:19:28.299 --> 03:19:31.530
the thing, they want these things to be approved or

03:19:31.540 --> 03:19:34.179
they can propose an alternative. And then sort of we

03:19:34.190 --> 03:19:36.718
in this turn at the back, that was what I was trying.

03:19:38.540 --> 03:19:41.599
(item:39:David Smeltzer's thoughts on memo) To, the extent that it's helpful. I think that this

03:19:41.610 --> 03:19:44.979
is not something that the utilities were eager for.

03:19:44.989 --> 03:19:46.929
This was just me thinking about what it meant to have

03:19:46.940 --> 03:19:49.558
a modified order that then became binding. And so I

03:19:49.569 --> 03:19:52.849
think that Commissioner Cobos memo is right that the

03:19:52.860 --> 03:19:55.019
tools that exist now after a final hearing where you

03:19:55.030 --> 03:19:57.479
can always file a motion for reconsider, a rehearing

03:19:57.489 --> 03:20:00.638
would give them ability, would give a utility and ability

03:20:00.888 --> 03:20:05.000
where you are a future Commission modified a resiliency

03:20:05.009 --> 03:20:08.500
plan in a way that the modification was not practical

03:20:08.509 --> 03:20:11.138
or doable or whatever, they would still have the ability

03:20:11.149 --> 03:20:16.399
to come um request a reconsideration of that. So

03:20:16.418 --> 03:20:19.989
uh this is not, um I don't think anyone from the the

03:20:20.000 --> 03:20:23.838
regulated community is gonna lose sleep over this decision

03:20:23.849 --> 03:20:25.558
either way on how it's made. This is not, this was

03:20:25.569 --> 03:20:29.030
not one of the key debate points. And so it just seemed

03:20:29.040 --> 03:20:32.808
like an abnormal process to me. (item:39:Commissioner Cobos' additional thoughts on memo) In terms of like how

03:20:32.819 --> 03:20:36.610
we normally process proceedings with a final order

03:20:36.620 --> 03:20:39.049
and then to have this whole other churn at the back

03:20:39.058 --> 03:20:42.250
end seem kind of counterintuitive and inefficient and

03:20:42.259 --> 03:20:47.190
puts us in a, you know, sort of circular place in the

03:20:47.200 --> 03:20:49.638
back end when these utilities just want to move forward

03:20:49.649 --> 03:20:52.049
if with their final order or if they don't like what

03:20:52.058 --> 03:20:55.959
we put out, then, I mean, usually they want to get

03:20:55.968 --> 03:20:56.569
these built, like,

03:20:59.058 --> 03:21:02.239
just noted. So I was just trying to take out that portion

03:21:02.338 --> 03:21:04.829
out of the rule that you said is just what you were

03:21:04.838 --> 03:21:10.909
thinking. Sure Staff does not pose that, that if you

03:21:10.940 --> 03:21:13.468
if the Commission decides to make it. Okay. So that would

03:21:13.479 --> 03:21:17.500
be the removal of 25.62 D three B on page 90 in

03:21:17.509 --> 03:21:19.620
its entirety, that would take out that back in part

03:21:19.629 --> 03:21:24.610
after a final order. Um the other um, more clarifying question

03:21:24.620 --> 03:21:27.489
that I put, uh or changed rather that I put in there

03:21:27.500 --> 03:21:32.259
was, um, and just basically to specifically list and

03:21:32.269 --> 03:21:34.759
distinguish between the mandatory statutory factors

03:21:34.769 --> 03:21:38.819
that the Commission must consider under PURA 38.078 E

03:21:39.190 --> 03:21:41.829
and the discretionary factors that Staff came up with

03:21:41.950 --> 03:21:44.218
you know, and through stakeholder feedback, et cetera

03:21:44.229 --> 03:21:48.088
that the Commission may consider its evaluation of

03:21:48.099 --> 03:21:50.750
an electric utilities resiliency plan to provide more

03:21:50.759 --> 03:21:54.099
clarity in the rule. And I, the reason I, I know the

03:21:54.110 --> 03:21:57.739
in it you sort of had the, um, just a reference to the

03:21:57.750 --> 03:22:01.440
statute and then the discretionary factors. As you

03:22:01.450 --> 03:22:04.120
know, just sitting here, I in evaluating the plan,

03:22:04.129 --> 03:22:06.349
I would like to have all the factors before me, both

03:22:06.360 --> 03:22:09.489
statutory and discretionary. I think it provides more

03:22:09.500 --> 03:22:12.179
transparency, not just to us but the stakeholders in

03:22:12.190 --> 03:22:14.610
the parties so that they don't have to like, look at

03:22:14.620 --> 03:22:17.110
our role and then go pull out PURA from the shelf and

03:22:17.759 --> 03:22:21.799
tie together the uh, criteria that's both uh, mandatory

03:22:21.808 --> 03:22:23.940
and discretionary. So I just think it, it's a cleaner

03:22:23.950 --> 03:22:29.129
more, more transparent, um, rule when you set out all

03:22:29.138 --> 03:22:33.218
the criteria, just do one place, just split them apart

03:22:35.120 --> 03:22:37.940
Yeah. Yes, ma'am. I think, I think compared to the

03:22:37.950 --> 03:22:41.479
updated draft that Commission Staff filed a few days

03:22:41.489 --> 03:22:46.088
ago, I don't know that the change is a, a substantive

03:22:46.099 --> 03:22:48.218
change. I think it's a presentational change. And so

03:22:48.450 --> 03:22:51.190
I, I went with the statutory reference when we, we

03:22:51.319 --> 03:22:54.409
did the last draft just because there's some redundancies

03:22:54.418 --> 03:22:56.459
between the statutory factors and the permissive factors

03:22:56.468 --> 03:23:01.940
of course. Um And so it just from a, it just, it

03:23:01.950 --> 03:23:03.979
felt like it read cleaner to my eyes that way. But

03:23:03.989 --> 03:23:06.088
as a your, your view as a practitioner and someone

03:23:06.099 --> 03:23:08.459
who has to make use of this list is just a different

03:23:08.468 --> 03:23:13.099
perspective on um what makes this the easiest for people

03:23:13.110 --> 03:23:16.838
to interact with. And so I am neutral on this change

03:23:16.849 --> 03:23:18.929
uh because I don't think it will, it will, it will

03:23:18.940 --> 03:23:22.649
substantively affect how resiliency plans are uh evaluated

03:23:22.659 --> 03:23:26.329
I think it will just be uh to your point whether or

03:23:26.338 --> 03:23:29.049
not you have to float to the statute or not to see

03:23:29.058 --> 03:23:32.759
it. So staff is neutral in this change. And whatever

03:23:33.530 --> 03:23:37.308
you would like us to do, we are prepared to do. (item:39:Commissioner Glotfelty's additional thoughts on Commissioner Cobos' memo) I

03:23:37.338 --> 03:23:39.620
mean, again, we got to follow the statute in my view

03:23:39.629 --> 03:23:44.200
whether it's in the rule or not. And I'm kind of indifferent

03:23:44.239 --> 03:23:45.040
I mean, I think that,

03:23:46.638 --> 03:23:50.058
so I know that um resiliency has been a big initiative

03:23:50.069 --> 03:23:52.959
of yours. Did you have any other comments just regarding

03:23:52.968 --> 03:23:55.569
the overall rule? And listen, this is a moving train

03:23:55.579 --> 03:24:01.088
in my opinion. And this should not be a blank check

03:24:01.259 --> 03:24:05.370
First of all, there are real definable metrics that

03:24:05.379 --> 03:24:08.259
are out there for defining what resiliency is that

03:24:08.489 --> 03:24:11.418
we haven't yet adopted. And I think we've talked with

03:24:11.459 --> 03:24:15.780
staff about why we haven't created this box yet. And

03:24:15.790 --> 03:24:18.918
I think that's something to come. I think, I think

03:24:18.929 --> 03:24:21.649
they've done a really good job of trying to figure

03:24:21.659 --> 03:24:28.000
out what resilience means to us while giving the utilities

03:24:28.009 --> 03:24:32.179
the ability to define specifically within their service

03:24:32.190 --> 03:24:35.459
territory, what resiliency means to them based upon

03:24:35.468 --> 03:24:40.200
the types of incidents that they might encounter. And

03:24:40.209 --> 03:24:42.950
I think that's important. This is just an area that's

03:24:42.959 --> 03:24:45.259
going to continue to grow. The national labs are really

03:24:45.269 --> 03:24:49.479
involved in this. I think that as Commissioner Cobos 

03:24:49.519 --> 03:24:52.759
said, we're again on the leading edge of this and we're

03:24:52.769 --> 03:24:56.918
going to learn a lot. I just hope this doesn't become

03:24:56.929 --> 03:25:00.959
a total blank check for everything being considered

03:25:00.968 --> 03:25:05.870
resiliency when it's really not. And that's as

03:25:09.459 --> 03:25:14.479
a caution to ratepayers to how we, you know, we continue

03:25:14.489 --> 03:25:17.829
to look after ratepayers as well. I'm eager to see

03:25:17.838 --> 03:25:20.218
how these, I don't necessarily believe that utilities

03:25:20.229 --> 03:25:23.799
are going to try to throw everything in there because

03:25:23.808 --> 03:25:25.780
they need to be, they know they need to be cautious

03:25:25.790 --> 03:25:29.329
on this. So let's figure out what resiliency is. We'll

03:25:29.338 --> 03:25:32.399
build on that and we'll learn from it each time. I

03:25:32.409 --> 03:25:36.360
think it's, I'm happy the Legislature passed it. I'm

03:25:36.370 --> 03:25:39.239
eager to get on with it. (item:39:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts on memo) It seems to me like it's

03:25:39.250 --> 03:25:41.799
the perfect complement of everything that we talk about

03:25:41.808 --> 03:25:45.360
reliability plus resiliency. And I think what I'm most

03:25:45.370 --> 03:25:49.569
excited about is the approach, which is, um you know

03:25:49.579 --> 03:25:52.250
in Texas, we kind of believe in a bottom up process

03:25:52.379 --> 03:25:55.610
local communities know best and this is, you know,

03:25:55.620 --> 03:25:57.790
and I think an example of that because we're saying

03:25:57.799 --> 03:26:01.159
ok, each individual utility within the state has their

03:26:01.168 --> 03:26:04.250
own challenges and they know their system best. And

03:26:04.259 --> 03:26:07.780
and so we're, we're really asking them to, to, you

03:26:07.790 --> 03:26:10.849
know, through modeling, through, uh looking at it as

03:26:10.860 --> 03:26:13.739
a system as a whole where you've got transmission and

03:26:13.750 --> 03:26:17.329
distribution together. And, you know, the, again, the

03:26:17.338 --> 03:26:20.569
idea that, you know, we want to make sure that as we

03:26:20.579 --> 03:26:24.929
move forward, we've done this risk-based decision making

03:26:24.940 --> 03:26:29.569
and, and analysis. Uh and we've identified those areas

03:26:29.579 --> 03:26:32.649
that have the greatest risk and also theoretically

03:26:32.659 --> 03:26:35.409
you know, the greatest benefit moving forward to make

03:26:35.418 --> 03:26:38.769
the investment. One of the statistics that I heard

03:26:38.780 --> 03:26:42.739
was, you know, after a storm, um it is four times more

03:26:42.750 --> 03:26:45.849
expensive to replace something than if you proactively

03:26:45.860 --> 03:26:48.679
go in and do it ahead of time. And so I think

03:26:48.690 --> 03:26:50.769
there's going to be real benefit moving forward, not

03:26:50.780 --> 03:26:55.780
just in the reduction in outages, but also our ability

03:26:55.790 --> 03:26:59.739
to recover. And so, you know, looking and doing things

03:26:59.750 --> 03:27:03.739
ahead of time and doing them in such a way that they

03:27:03.750 --> 03:27:07.479
are stronger than before. And then, you know, having

03:27:07.489 --> 03:27:10.838
that ability to recover more quickly. Madam Chair,

03:27:10.849 --> 03:27:16.929
I would add that. I think that the in my view, the

03:27:16.940 --> 03:27:20.718
utility that has, has kind of the North star on this

03:27:20.729 --> 03:27:25.138
is Florida Power and Light. When it comes to major

03:27:25.149 --> 03:27:30.700
weather events, primarily hurricanes, they started

03:27:31.058 --> 03:27:34.479
uh with raising substations and putting in concrete

03:27:34.489 --> 03:27:37.729
poles. Um So this doesn't have to be the biggest and

03:27:37.739 --> 03:27:40.019
the greatest widget out there. It can be something

03:27:40.030 --> 03:27:44.280
that's very, very uh benign, but it, it's a whole lot

03:27:44.290 --> 03:27:47.979
easier to restring a conductor on concrete poles than

03:27:47.989 --> 03:27:52.950
it is to have to go replace, you know, 50 wood H

03:27:52.959 --> 03:27:55.679
frame structures before you restring the conductor

03:27:55.690 --> 03:27:59.138
So, you know, the utilities know this and I think that

03:27:59.159 --> 03:28:01.530
um you know, they're going to do what's best. But uh

03:28:01.649 --> 03:28:05.549
again, I'm, I'm eager to see how we get this into our

03:28:05.558 --> 03:28:08.579
system. And I'm looking at Entergy because they've been

03:28:08.588 --> 03:28:12.509
I think at the forefront of this. And so I would put

03:28:12.519 --> 03:28:15.474
up any of our utilities for Florida Power and

03:28:19.513 --> 03:28:22.884
Light. I think we should still, I would count them as the

03:28:22.894 --> 03:28:25.784
leader and we are close behind or getting close behind

03:28:25.793 --> 03:28:28.665
this. How about that one thing I wanted to add, you

03:28:28.674 --> 03:28:30.974
know, you mentioned modeling and I was really encouraged

03:28:32.058 --> 03:28:34.860
uh impressed to hear this um in terms of modeling is

03:28:34.870 --> 03:28:38.500
that a lot of these, a lot of utilities are um nationally

03:28:38.509 --> 03:28:41.088
and I know some in Texas potentially are looking at

03:28:41.099 --> 03:28:45.690
um engaging with um artificial intelligence, um companies

03:28:45.700 --> 03:28:50.519
that um use AI to identify vulnerable parts of their

03:28:50.530 --> 03:28:56.329
system to um to, to target more, more, better target

03:28:56.509 --> 03:28:59.250
um parts of their system that could be um enhanced

03:28:59.259 --> 03:29:01.479
to resiliency measures. And that, that's something

03:29:01.489 --> 03:29:04.838
that's out there, um heard about it at n this past

03:29:04.849 --> 03:29:07.409
fall. And I, I was really encouraged to hear that and

03:29:07.418 --> 03:29:09.649
I, and I, I think some of our utilities may be looking

03:29:09.659 --> 03:29:13.418
to take advantage of, of that type of, um you know

03:29:13.429 --> 03:29:17.088
AI intelligence out there. Yeah, I think uh at the

03:29:17.110 --> 03:29:22.209
FERC uh membership meeting in December, they had a speaker

03:29:22.218 --> 03:29:25.959
that came from GE had been at IBM and he did a

03:29:25.968 --> 03:29:31.000
fantastic overview of how that AI can help in situations

03:29:31.009 --> 03:29:31.409
exactly

03:29:33.429 --> 03:29:37.909
siding times before us. (item:39:Motion to approve Staff's recommendation consistent with memo & discussion) So with that, um I would entertain

03:29:37.918 --> 03:29:40.620
a motion to approve staff's recommendation consistent

03:29:40.629 --> 03:29:44.280
with Commissioner Cobos memo and our discussion. So

03:29:44.290 --> 03:29:49.280
moved. I have a second? Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion

03:29:49.290 --> 03:29:50.319
passes. Thank you.

03:29:53.388 --> 03:29:58.519
Commissioners. Okay. So it is close to um, taking time to give our

03:29:58.530 --> 03:30:03.849
court reporter a break. Yes, ma'am. And I agree that

03:30:03.860 --> 03:30:06.459
this is a great time for a break. Also, I'm advised

03:30:06.468 --> 03:30:10.780
that Commission Staff file the proposed order for Item

03:30:10.790 --> 03:30:14.558
No. 37, Project No. 54445. So this will be a great

03:30:14.569 --> 03:30:17.459
opportunity now that it's been filed, we can distribute

03:30:17.468 --> 03:30:20.388
it to the three of you during the break. That for the

03:30:20.399 --> 03:30:23.250
court reporter, each of the offices can go back individually

03:30:23.259 --> 03:30:25.849
review it, ask staff questions and then we can come

03:30:25.860 --> 03:30:28.379
back and resume the meeting and discuss this proposed

03:30:28.388 --> 03:30:28.870
order.

03:30:32.759 --> 03:30:34.808
How long do you think 20 minutes? It's

03:30:37.370 --> 03:30:39.579
fine, whatever you prefer? Ok. Well, target for 10

03:30:39.588 --> 03:30:42.888
minutes. Ma'am, if we could take 20 minutes. 20 minutes.

03:30:43.909 --> 03:30:45.588
20 minutes. (item:39:Chairwoman Jackson pauses Open Meeting for break) At 20 minutes and we'll be back

03:30:47.929 --> 03:30:47.950
shortly. 

03:30:51.769 --> 03:30:54.289
(item:39:Chairwoman Jackson resumes Public Meeting from break) The Commission will now resume its public meeting at

03:30:54.299 --> 03:31:02.049
2:19. (item:37:Chairwoman Jackson reopens Project 54445 with new proposed order on NPRR1186) Coming back to Item No. 37 and our um discussion

03:31:02.058 --> 03:31:06.579
on uh 1186. We now have the proposed order in front

03:31:06.588 --> 03:31:08.018
of us. Thoughts?

03:31:10.739 --> 03:31:13.789
I was good with the proposals presented by um Staff

03:31:14.469 --> 03:31:17.329
Second. I was good with it.

03:31:18.969 --> 03:31:22.368
That was your turn to second, too early. I move that

03:31:22.379 --> 03:31:26.849
we pass it. Um Or did I beat you to it so

03:31:26.858 --> 03:31:29.389
well I, I would move to approve the proposed order

03:31:32.650 --> 03:31:35.989
Second. You want the motion? We're going to give her. Okay. Okay.

03:31:38.118 --> 03:31:41.349
(item:37:Motion to approve proposed order with guidance provided) I move that we adopt the proposed order remanding

03:31:41.358 --> 03:31:45.909
NPRR1186 as discussed in the order,

03:31:47.459 --> 03:31:51.830
with the guidance provided as well. I second that.

03:31:53.189 --> 03:31:55.969
We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye.

03:31:55.978 --> 03:31:58.299
Aye. Motion passes.

03:31:59.919 --> 03:32:03.478
We've already taken up Items 38 and 39. That brings

03:32:03.490 --> 03:32:08.508
us to Item No. 40. I don't have anything for

03:32:08.519 --> 03:32:09.380
Item 40.

03:32:10.978 --> 03:32:15.419
(item:41:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 55837) Next up is Item No. 41, Project No. 55837. This

03:32:15.430 --> 03:32:18.398
is the Commission's project for the review of value

03:32:18.409 --> 03:32:21.338
of lost load in the ERCOT market. Shelah, do we have

03:32:21.350 --> 03:32:24.419
anyone from the public sign to speak on Item No.

03:32:24.430 --> 03:32:25.228
41.

03:32:27.618 --> 03:32:30.868
No ma'am. ERCOT filed an overview with results of the first phase

03:32:30.880 --> 03:32:34.430
of the Voll study as completed by Brattle, including

03:32:34.439 --> 03:32:37.169
a literature review and the development of approximate

03:32:37.180 --> 03:32:40.749
Voll values. Also filed the Lawrence Berkeley National

03:32:40.758 --> 03:32:45.534
Ramps interruption cost calculator 2.0 survey instruments

03:32:45.544 --> 03:32:47.993
that will serve as the basis for the customer survey.

03:32:48.273 --> 03:32:51.484
First, let's discuss the literature view and then the

03:32:51.493 --> 03:32:54.945
survey. ERCOT is here. And so could you please come

03:32:54.954 --> 03:32:58.174
up and provide an overview of your filings.

03:33:09.169 --> 03:33:09.200
(silence)

03:33:11.329 --> 03:33:14.660
Ryan King with ERCOT and Matt Arth also with ERCOT.

03:33:17.299 --> 03:33:20.208
(item:41:ERCOT's Ryan King on filing reviews) So, thank you very much. We'd like to file uh or

03:33:20.220 --> 03:33:24.049
speak to a very high level overview of the filings

03:33:24.250 --> 03:33:27.758
that we provided uh toward the end of December last

03:33:27.769 --> 03:33:31.160
year. And also seek some clarification around timing

03:33:31.169 --> 03:33:33.899
for phase two of the value of lost load work plan.

03:33:35.758 --> 03:33:40.530
So the first item is part of the phase one of ERCOT's

03:33:40.538 --> 03:33:43.500
value of load work plan. There were two key deliverables

03:33:43.910 --> 03:33:47.089
that were a part of that work plan. One was a literature

03:33:47.099 --> 03:33:52.389
review and the other was an interim fall estimate to

03:33:52.399 --> 03:33:55.310
be considered by ERCOT and the Commission ahead of a Vol

03:33:55.389 --> 03:33:57.970
survey planned in 2024.

03:34:00.649 --> 03:34:04.708
So uh the literature review um is basically a summary

03:34:04.720 --> 03:34:08.889
of 11 different Vol study surveys. Predominantly in the

03:34:08.899 --> 03:34:13.200
United States, but also in Europe. I think that the

03:34:13.500 --> 03:34:16.310
literature review gave a very good overview of some

03:34:16.318 --> 03:34:19.359
of the different methodologies and ways that one can

03:34:19.369 --> 03:34:23.288
go about uh estimating b uh some of the pros and cons

03:34:23.299 --> 03:34:26.470
associated with each uh some of the characteristics

03:34:26.478 --> 03:34:29.038
that are particularly important when deriving a Voll

03:34:29.049 --> 03:34:34.919
study. And um excuse me, also some of the best practices

03:34:34.950 --> 03:34:38.708
uh based on the experience with those studies. So some

03:34:38.720 --> 03:34:41.889
of the key takeaways that uh Brattle had identified

03:34:41.899 --> 03:34:45.978
in their review. One is that the stated preference

03:34:45.988 --> 03:34:50.258
approach um appears to be a best practice and that's

03:34:50.269 --> 03:34:54.970
really a means of using surveys and scenarios um to

03:34:54.978 --> 03:34:58.369
really understand the willingness to pay of an individual

03:34:58.379 --> 03:35:01.839
customer for electric reliability. Some of the other

03:35:01.849 --> 03:35:05.420
observations is that the value of lost load tends to

03:35:05.430 --> 03:35:08.478
be higher for commercial and industrial customers as

03:35:08.490 --> 03:35:12.079
opposed to residential customers. And that's particularly

03:35:12.089 --> 03:35:17.029
true for the more energy intensive industrial customers

03:35:17.038 --> 03:35:20.139
So things like mining, manufacturing, that type of

03:35:20.149 --> 03:35:23.430
thing. Some of the other observations is that there

03:35:23.438 --> 03:35:27.288
does appear to be a correlation with socio economic

03:35:27.300 --> 03:35:31.490
status and willingness to pay. And uh the other thing

03:35:31.498 --> 03:35:34.938
that's noted is that um there's a, a great deal of

03:35:34.950 --> 03:35:38.159
sensitivity in terms of the methodology used and the

03:35:38.170 --> 03:35:41.649
estimate that's arrived at and that any of the methodologies

03:35:41.659 --> 03:35:45.319
that are used uh tend to introduce some form of bias

03:35:45.329 --> 03:35:48.889
And so it's really important to account for that when

03:35:48.899 --> 03:35:52.228
um looking at um the analysis of the results that you

03:35:52.240 --> 03:35:52.670
have.

03:35:54.889 --> 03:35:59.450
The second part of the uh phase one deliverables

03:35:59.459 --> 03:36:03.288
was uh an interim B value that Brattle has put together

03:36:03.700 --> 03:36:08.188
So Brattle uh u utilized a study and model that was

03:36:08.200 --> 03:36:10.889
uh put together by the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab

03:36:11.188 --> 03:36:15.288
In their 2015 report. This report was essentially an

03:36:15.300 --> 03:36:19.498
economic econometric analysis of several studies. A

03:36:19.509 --> 03:36:22.925
sort of a metadata analysis of studies going back,

03:36:22.933 --> 03:36:26.464
I think to 1989. So it's a fairly comprehensive set

03:36:26.474 --> 03:36:29.873
of studies. So what uh Brattle did is they utilized

03:36:29.884 --> 03:36:32.913
the the model that was developed and some of the coefficients

03:36:32.925 --> 03:36:36.163
developed by the lab. Um but then swapped in um some

03:36:36.175 --> 03:36:40.735
burk specific outage data and customer characteristics

03:36:42.370 --> 03:36:45.990
So after kind of running through all of the combinations

03:36:45.998 --> 03:36:49.490
so things like characteristics time of day industries

03:36:49.498 --> 03:36:53.269
and all the combinations related there too. Um They

03:36:53.279 --> 03:36:55.969
uh going through that model, Brattle established fall

03:36:55.978 --> 03:37:00.099
estimates for residential, small commercial and industrial

03:37:00.110 --> 03:37:04.219
and large uh CNI respectively for different durations

03:37:04.228 --> 03:37:06.920
and particularly they looked at 30 minutes, one hour

03:37:06.930 --> 03:37:11.248
and eight hours. So the results show that there's a

03:37:11.259 --> 03:37:15.800
very wide range of all estimates um in terms of the

03:37:15.808 --> 03:37:19.819
dollar per Megawatt hour impacts the highest is seen

03:37:19.829 --> 03:37:23.599
in the small C and I with values of quite an excess

03:37:23.610 --> 03:37:28.279
of $100,000 per Megawatt hour and of all values in

03:37:28.288 --> 03:37:32.430
the $9000 per Megawatt hour range for residential customers

03:37:32.438 --> 03:37:35.259
Again, depending on the duration of the outage.

03:37:36.889 --> 03:37:41.659
Um in terms of making recommendations or, or considerations

03:37:41.670 --> 03:37:46.058
for an interim B estimate for the RCO T region. Brattle

03:37:46.069 --> 03:37:48.599
has essentially identified two high level options.

03:37:48.969 --> 03:37:52.920
The first option is simply to take a weighted average

03:37:52.969 --> 03:37:56.110
across the customer classes that I just identified

03:37:56.288 --> 03:37:59.779
based on their share of retail electric sales that

03:37:59.788 --> 03:38:05.569
results in a ball ranging from $44,000 to $99,000 per

03:38:05.579 --> 03:38:08.420
Megawatt hour depending on the duration of the outage

03:38:08.998 --> 03:38:12.959
The second option looks at potentially capping that

03:38:12.969 --> 03:38:16.240
CNI value that very high CNI value to the median

03:38:16.248 --> 03:38:19.319
value that's identified in the literature and then

03:38:19.329 --> 03:38:22.308
applying that same weighted average. There's some

03:38:22.319 --> 03:38:26.058
variations on, on how one could go about that. Um You

03:38:26.069 --> 03:38:29.170
could look at a, a cap looking at the median value

03:38:29.180 --> 03:38:34.120
in all studies, all U.S. studies or all U.S. studies that

03:38:34.128 --> 03:38:37.490
tested a one hour duration and going about it in that

03:38:37.498 --> 03:38:43.308
way. You get a B estimate of around 25 to $50,000

03:38:43.420 --> 03:38:47.409
So ERCOT and is generally uh supportive in principle

03:38:47.420 --> 03:38:51.009
uh around this as an interim value. One thing I

03:38:51.019 --> 03:38:53.569
should note is that a similar approach was adopted

03:38:53.579 --> 03:38:56.610
by the market monitor in MISO when they were doing

03:38:56.620 --> 03:39:00.069
some fall estimates, they also excluded those high

03:39:00.079 --> 03:39:03.569
I numbers. They also used the Lawrence Berkeley model

03:39:03.579 --> 03:39:07.409
to do their fall estimates. But they also saw that

03:39:07.420 --> 03:39:09.659
that the CNI number was a little higher than some

03:39:09.670 --> 03:39:12.688
of the numbers identified in the literature review.

03:39:12.709 --> 03:39:15.709
So they opted to kind of cap a remove that as part

03:39:15.719 --> 03:39:19.009
of their analysis. One thing that I just wanted

03:39:19.019 --> 03:39:21.628
to note with respect to the Interim Balls and this

03:39:21.640 --> 03:39:24.569
is something that Brattle has noted and I think generally

03:39:24.579 --> 03:39:29.169
agrees with is that um while it's certainly informative

03:39:29.270 --> 03:39:32.390
to, you know, utilize a study and utilize some publicly

03:39:32.400 --> 03:39:35.479
available information to put together the all values

03:39:35.488 --> 03:39:37.579
that that ERCOT has done in the process that they've

03:39:37.589 --> 03:39:43.608
used. The idea is really to actually survey ERCOT customers

03:39:43.618 --> 03:39:46.160
custom sorry customers in the ERCOT region to really

03:39:46.169 --> 03:39:49.919
get that fresh most up to date data um to get a

03:39:49.929 --> 03:39:53.319
value of lost load estimate that is really informed

03:39:53.329 --> 03:39:57.189
by um the the survey participation of customers in

03:39:57.200 --> 03:40:01.040
the ERCOT region. (item:41:Ryan King on Phase 2) And I think that kind of leads to my

03:40:01.049 --> 03:40:04.669
second point which is around the timing of phase two

03:40:04.819 --> 03:40:09.378
of the all work plan. So based on a number of strategic

03:40:09.390 --> 03:40:12.780
discussions that ERCOT Staff have had both internally

03:40:12.790 --> 03:40:17.150
and with the Commission Staff, um what we're proposing

03:40:17.160 --> 03:40:20.799
is to push out the launch of the Voll survey to mid

03:40:20.809 --> 03:40:23.469
March. So that would be pushing it out by a period

03:40:23.479 --> 03:40:28.650
of approximately one month with a plan to file a final

03:40:28.660 --> 03:40:32.910
report sometime within the August time frame. Um And

03:40:32.919 --> 03:40:35.160
of course, throughout that time, we'll continue to

03:40:35.169 --> 03:40:38.628
work closely on our communications coordinations and

03:40:38.640 --> 03:40:41.929
outreach strategy with staff and with stakeholders.

03:40:41.939 --> 03:40:46.049
To ensure a successful initiative for this Voll survey.

03:40:47.959 --> 03:40:50.309
(item:41:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts on overview) So it, it sounds like we need to choose an interim

03:40:50.319 --> 03:40:54.020
Voll starting point to utilize until the customer survey

03:40:54.030 --> 03:40:57.390
process is completed. Recognizing as you pointed

03:40:57.400 --> 03:41:00.020
out that the survey data will be informative in the

03:41:00.030 --> 03:41:03.238
next phase of the Voll study. I'd like to have a

03:41:03.248 --> 03:41:07.189
recommendation filed by uh PUC Staff to consider at

03:41:07.200 --> 03:41:12.299
the next open meeting. As far as the surveys sounds

03:41:12.309 --> 03:41:16.900
like, um we'll be reaching out to the public. You're

03:41:16.910 --> 03:41:21.929
recommending some sometime in March. And so I like

03:41:21.939 --> 03:41:25.128
to get y'all thoughts on that and of course, we want

03:41:25.479 --> 03:41:28.900
ERCOT to continue working with Commission Staff on the timeline

03:41:28.910 --> 03:41:32.910
and on the communications plan. I believe that in our

03:41:32.919 --> 03:41:36.799
order approving the ERCOT budget, there's performance

03:41:36.809 --> 03:41:39.679
measures in there that indicate that I think the voll

03:41:39.689 --> 03:41:41.599
study should be completed at a certain time, I think

03:41:41.608 --> 03:41:44.770
in the second quarter. (item:41:ERCOT's Matt Arth on Voll study) Yes, Commissioner. That's

03:41:44.780 --> 03:41:48.128
correct. In the, in the order approving ERCOT's budget

03:41:48.140 --> 03:41:52.719
It did, uh, it does establish that ERCOT would submit

03:41:52.729 --> 03:41:56.258
the completed Voll study, including the survey results

03:41:56.270 --> 03:41:59.258
by the end of the second quarter. And so, um if we

03:41:59.270 --> 03:42:04.108
were to push the beginning of the survey roll out into

03:42:04.118 --> 03:42:06.829
um at any point in March, but including mid March,

03:42:06.900 --> 03:42:10.390
that would push the, the our ability, we would not

03:42:10.400 --> 03:42:12.229
be able to do it before the end of the second quarter

03:42:12.238 --> 03:42:16.200
I think. Brattle is still putting together

03:42:16.209 --> 03:42:19.910
a revised work plan with the timeline. Um, if, if that

03:42:19.919 --> 03:42:22.650
timeline is pursued, but we're thinking probably more

03:42:22.660 --> 03:42:26.508
like um, uh, late July or August would be the ultimate

03:42:26.520 --> 03:42:28.669
deliverable under, under this alternative time frame.

03:42:29.459 --> 03:42:31.439
If that would be acceptable to the Commission.

03:42:32.988 --> 03:42:35.450
So it's like a month or two delay. It sounds like.

03:42:35.469 --> 03:42:38.729
(item:41:Commissioner Cobos on Voll study) Well uh, you know, I think in this point, we,

03:42:38.738 --> 03:42:42.030
we, we grant discretion, right? Um, to allow, I mean

03:42:42.040 --> 03:42:44.729
we want a good survey process to be conducted, right

03:42:44.738 --> 03:42:47.790
And, um, you know, in the reporting that y'all do on

03:42:47.799 --> 03:42:49.738
the performance measures, I mean, just kind of keep

03:42:49.748 --> 03:42:51.390
a surprise on that and that's something we take in

03:42:51.400 --> 03:42:54.549
consideration the backend but granting discretion on

03:42:54.559 --> 03:42:57.579
that particular item on the whole study. Um, just so

03:42:57.589 --> 03:43:00.309
we can make sure we have a robust, um, survey and study

03:43:00.319 --> 03:43:02.829
process, I think would be my recommendation.

03:43:05.270 --> 03:43:09.410
(item:41:Commissioner Glotfelty on capping CNI customers & MISO study) With uh, option two, what, what is the practical

03:43:09.419 --> 03:43:17.410
effect of, of, uh, capping the CNI customers? And

03:43:17.419 --> 03:43:21.319
obviously we're reducing the cost of all or the amount

03:43:22.599 --> 03:43:26.780
is that skewing the number in a big way? I mean, it's

03:43:27.998 --> 03:43:31.339
so I, I asked that because I see this in the MISO

03:43:31.349 --> 03:43:32.189
study that

03:43:34.020 --> 03:43:37.229
higher prices it's capped in MISO, but higher prices

03:43:37.238 --> 03:43:39.770
could result in inefficient interchange from MISO's

03:43:39.780 --> 03:43:41.829
neighbors which we don't really have that issue. So

03:43:41.839 --> 03:43:44.169
I'm just wondering why that's important on this one

03:43:45.160 --> 03:43:48.079
I think there, there may be a couple of reasons. (item:41:Ryan King on CNI customers & MISO study) I

03:43:48.089 --> 03:43:52.900
think the first thing is that the Voll value for the CNI

03:43:52.910 --> 03:43:56.410
that is a result of the model in the process used

03:43:56.700 --> 03:44:01.248
looks quite a bit higher than some of the voll values

03:44:01.258 --> 03:44:04.238
in the literature. So it kind of gives one pause to

03:44:04.248 --> 03:44:06.549
say, well, maybe there might be something inherent

03:44:06.559 --> 03:44:10.410
in um either the, you know, the metadata that's been

03:44:10.419 --> 03:44:13.498
used so far or one of the coefficients in the model

03:44:13.508 --> 03:44:16.488
Maybe that, that, that, that doesn't seem to agree

03:44:16.498 --> 03:44:20.479
as much when we start to plug in, um, you know, uh

03:44:20.549 --> 03:44:23.549
ERCOT specific values. But I think the other thing

03:44:23.559 --> 03:44:28.459
to note is that the, um the real test of this will

03:44:28.469 --> 03:44:32.488
be a function of the results that we get or rather

03:44:32.498 --> 03:44:35.270
Brattle and plan beyond get when they actually conduct

03:44:35.400 --> 03:44:37.868
the survey itself to see if, well, maybe there, maybe

03:44:37.878 --> 03:44:39.589
there is something to be said for this and we need

03:44:39.599 --> 03:44:42.079
to kind of consider that. So this is very much part

03:44:42.089 --> 03:44:44.299
of the interim consideration and not the long term.

03:44:46.579 --> 03:44:50.270
(item:41:Commission Staff's Connie Corona on Staff recommendation memo) Commissioner Glotfelty, Staff is prepared to address

03:44:50.280 --> 03:44:54.008
that in their recommendation memo that the Chair has

03:44:54.020 --> 03:44:55.569
has requested. Great, thank you.

03:44:58.469 --> 03:45:02.189
Perhaps I should also add that we've had. ERCOT has had discussions

03:45:02.200 --> 03:45:05.758
with SPP about what they're looking at for voll. And

03:45:06.030 --> 03:45:09.219
I think our intent is also to have a conversation with

03:45:09.520 --> 03:45:13.280
MISO and other ISOs about this in the very short term.

03:45:13.790 --> 03:45:15.498
So we'll continue to coordinate on that.

03:45:18.358 --> 03:45:22.910
Thank you. (item:42:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 55845) So next up is Item No. 42, Project No.

03:45:22.919 --> 03:45:26.829
55845. This is the Commission's project for the review

03:45:26.839 --> 03:45:29.679
of ancillary services in the ERCOT market. Shelah,

03:45:29.689 --> 03:45:31.929
do we have anyone from the public sign to speak on

03:45:31.939 --> 03:45:36.890
Item No. 42? Now ma'am. PUC Staff is here to provide

03:45:36.900 --> 03:45:40.979
an update. (item:42:Commission Staff's Harika Basaran on ancillary services review study & timelines) Good afternoon, Harika Basaran with Commission

03:45:40.988 --> 03:45:45.589
Staff. We have been working with IMM and ERCOT. We

03:45:45.599 --> 03:45:48.979
developed a scope for the ancillary services review

03:45:48.988 --> 03:45:52.628
study as requested in Senate Bill 3 from the last Session.

03:45:53.319 --> 03:45:56.719
And we are finalized it. We are still working on the

03:45:56.729 --> 03:46:00.079
timelines and the milestones. But high level, I can

03:46:00.089 --> 03:46:03.498
tell you we are targeting September 1st of this year.

03:46:03.508 --> 03:46:07.378
To finalize the study and I will file the memo and

03:46:07.390 --> 03:46:10.770
the scope as early as tomorrow. So you will have two

03:46:10.780 --> 03:46:14.319
open meetings to consider it February 1st and February

03:46:14.329 --> 03:46:18.540
15 Open Meeting. And in between, we can also get some

03:46:18.549 --> 03:46:21.919
feedback from the stakeholders if they choose to. And

03:46:21.929 --> 03:46:25.520
February 15, we would like the final scope and timeline

03:46:25.530 --> 03:46:29.890
to be approved by you. So the work can start. And then

03:46:29.900 --> 03:46:33.189
at the end, we also when the final report is filed

03:46:33.200 --> 03:46:36.559
in this project, September 1st. Between September and

03:46:36.569 --> 03:46:39.988
January, we are going to have a stakeholder engagement

03:46:39.998 --> 03:46:44.059
workshop. So we can finalize if you have any recommendations

03:46:44.069 --> 03:46:48.128
different than the report. And then uh the final report

03:46:48.140 --> 03:46:50.819
will be part of the agency report submitted to the

03:46:50.829 --> 03:46:54.959
Legislature. So that's the highlight timeline and if

03:46:54.969 --> 03:46:56.189
you have any feedback,

03:46:58.400 --> 03:46:59.069
thank you. Fantastic, thank you.

03:47:01.459 --> 03:47:03.878
(item:42:Commissioner Cobos on ancillary service methodology) Thank you, Harika. It's all good to know where that's

03:47:03.890 --> 03:47:06.719
headed. You know, when we talked about um

03:47:08.339 --> 03:47:10.700
uh the ancillary service methodology that was approved

03:47:10.709 --> 03:47:13.410
by the ERCOT Board and ERCOT's commitment to go back and

03:47:13.419 --> 03:47:18.790
revisit um that methodology um in April, uh I guess

03:47:18.799 --> 03:47:21.290
there's not gonna be any tangible. I mean, will there

03:47:21.299 --> 03:47:24.628
be any tangible study information to help aid that

03:47:24.640 --> 03:47:28.118
at that time? Preliminary or draft? My understanding

03:47:28.128 --> 03:47:31.160
is ERCOT can't speak to it. That's a separate initiative

03:47:31.169 --> 03:47:34.679
by ERCOT to come back in April just for ECRS. That's

03:47:34.689 --> 03:47:40.599
my understanding. Chad is saying yes. Okay. Okay. So this

03:47:40.608 --> 03:47:43.390
this study will help inform for the methodology for

03:47:43.559 --> 03:47:48.429
next year and, and ERCOT's interim discussion in April will

03:47:48.439 --> 03:47:51.868
be informed by, you know, what's happening, you know

03:47:51.878 --> 03:47:56.068
between in the market now, Summer and Summer. OK. Yes

03:47:58.068 --> 03:48:01.380
Thank you. Thanks for the update. And we continue to

03:48:01.389 --> 03:48:04.450
work with us, the IMM and ERCOT and we look forward

03:48:04.459 --> 03:48:08.778
to seeing your memo and continuing the discussion. (item:43:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 55948) Next

03:48:08.788 --> 03:48:12.548
up, we will take up Items 43 and 44 together. Project

03:48:12.558 --> 03:48:16.600
number 55948, the Commission's project for the review

03:48:16.630 --> 03:48:19.600
of voluntary mitigation plan requirements. (item:44:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 55955) And Project

03:48:19.610 --> 03:48:23.568
No. 55955. The Commission's project for the review

03:48:23.580 --> 03:48:26.788
of administrative penalty authority related to voluntary

03:48:26.798 --> 03:48:29.518
mitigation plans. Shelah, do we have anyone from the

03:48:29.528 --> 03:48:33.850
public signed up to speak on Items 43 or 44. No, ma'am.

03:48:35.399 --> 03:48:38.389
So Commission Staff is here. Could you please lay out

03:48:38.399 --> 03:48:41.788
your recommendation? (item:43:Commission Staff's Allison Fink on PFP's) (item:44:Commission Staff's Allison Fink on PFP's) Good afternoon Commissioners.

03:48:41.798 --> 03:48:44.298
Alison Fink with Commission Staff. I also have Van

03:48:44.308 --> 03:48:47.389
Moreland here with me from Commission Staff. These

03:48:47.399 --> 03:48:50.429
are 3 pf, proposals for publication in two different

03:48:50.439 --> 03:48:53.068
projects. The reason they're separated into two different

03:48:53.080 --> 03:48:55.548
projects is because they're substantively different

03:48:55.558 --> 03:48:59.120
but both of these projects are implementing HB1500

03:48:59.130 --> 03:49:04.318
Section 7 from this past Session. And the reason

03:49:04.330 --> 03:49:07.068
that there are two proposals for publication and project

03:49:07.080 --> 03:49:10.439
55955 is because we're amending two different chapters

03:49:10.450 --> 03:49:16.950
of our um of our administrative code. I'm going

03:49:16.959 --> 03:49:18.850
to give you all the banner headlines of all three together

03:49:18.860 --> 03:49:20.880
and that's why we've taken them up together or why

03:49:20.889 --> 03:49:25.409
you have taken them up together. (item:43:Commission Staff's Allison Fink on 3 changes to administrative code) (item:44:Commission Staff's Allison Fink on 3 changes to administrative code) First of all, um adherence

03:49:25.419 --> 03:49:29.110
to a voluntary mitigation plan is no longer constitutes

03:49:29.120 --> 03:49:31.950
an absolute defense to an allegation of market power

03:49:31.959 --> 03:49:35.798
abuse. Instead, it's now just a factor for the Commission

03:49:35.808 --> 03:49:39.068
to consider in a proceeding to determine market power

03:49:39.080 --> 03:49:43.399
abuse. The second thing is that the Commission now

03:49:43.409 --> 03:49:47.409
has expanded authority to penalize a failure to adhere

03:49:47.419 --> 03:49:50.798
to a VMP or voluntary mitigation plan of up to a

03:49:50.808 --> 03:49:54.018
million dollars per violation per day. But that failure

03:49:54.028 --> 03:49:57.939
to adhere to the VMP has to go alongside with another

03:49:57.950 --> 03:50:01.429
violation of a PURA violation of or another

03:50:01.439 --> 03:50:06.719
Commission rule. And the last major change is that

03:50:06.729 --> 03:50:10.499
VMP's now must be reviewed once every two years and

03:50:10.509 --> 03:50:13.409
within 90 days of a wholesale market design change

03:50:14.909 --> 03:50:17.018
to ensure that they're still in the public interest

03:50:17.389 --> 03:50:21.179
We specifically asked commenters to give feedback on

03:50:21.189 --> 03:50:24.459
whether we should define wholesale market design change

03:50:24.659 --> 03:50:28.259
within the rule. And if so, how should it be defined

03:50:29.100 --> 03:50:32.600
And the other minor changes in these proposals for

03:50:32.610 --> 03:50:37.509
publication are just involved codifying how VMP's

03:50:37.518 --> 03:50:40.239
are currently negotiated and structured and remove

03:50:40.249 --> 03:50:44.330
redundant text and staff recommends that you approve

03:50:44.340 --> 03:50:47.989
these proposals for publication. Okay. Do you have any

03:50:47.999 --> 03:50:50.370
thoughts? No. Thank you for your work on this. I know

03:50:50.380 --> 03:50:54.399
that um the the this portion of 1500 was very important

03:50:54.409 --> 03:50:57.620
to the Legislature and um I'm good with you moving

03:50:57.630 --> 03:51:01.389
forward with publishing the publications. Thank you

03:51:01.399 --> 03:51:02.999
all for this. Appreciate it very much.

03:51:04.679 --> 03:51:07.340
I, I would support it. (item:43:Motion to approve the 3 PRP's in Texas Register) (item:44:Motion to approve the 3 PRP's in Texas Register) I would entertain a motion to approve the three proposals

03:51:07.350 --> 03:51:12.080
for publication and Project No. 55948. So moved. And Project

03:51:12.090 --> 03:51:17.298
55955 in the Texas Register. So moved. Second. I have a motion

03:51:17.308 --> 03:51:23.028
and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes. Thank

03:51:23.038 --> 03:51:23.830
you. Thank you Commissioners.

03:51:25.518 --> 03:51:25.580
Okay.

03:51:27.580 --> 03:51:32.028
(item:45:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 55984)  Next up is Item No. 45, Project No. 55984. This

03:51:32.038 --> 03:51:34.580
is the Commission's project for the review of DC Tie

03:51:34.778 --> 03:51:37.999
issues in transmission planning. Shelah, do we have

03:51:38.009 --> 03:51:40.518
anyone from the public signed up to speak on Item No.

03:51:40.528 --> 03:51:45.729
45? No, ma'am. Okay. PUC Staff filed a memo and laid

03:51:45.739 --> 03:51:50.120
out some proposed questions. I'm good with the questions

03:51:50.130 --> 03:51:53.729
they have proposed and um Commission Staff is here

03:51:54.979 --> 03:51:58.798
answer any questions or questions. (item:45:Commission Staff's Ramya Ramaswamy on complied questions & gaining feedback) Good afternoon

03:51:58.808 --> 03:52:01.249
Commissioners. Ramya Ramaswamy for Commission Staff.

03:52:03.610 --> 03:52:05.830
So based on the discussions that we had on November

03:52:05.840 --> 03:52:10.649
30th on Figure 105 and the guidance that ERCOT required.

03:52:10.830 --> 03:52:14.830
So based on the discussion and the questions that

03:52:14.840 --> 03:52:18.679
were submitted to the Staff to Staff by all the offices

03:52:18.689 --> 03:52:22.209
we put together a list of questions. We would love

03:52:22.219 --> 03:52:24.370
feedback on these questions.

03:52:25.950 --> 03:52:29.528
I'm good with the questions. Yeah I have, I'm fine with the questions.

03:52:29.538 --> 03:52:33.590
I, I just I have one thing. That I don't know how

03:52:33.600 --> 03:52:38.058
to add it or how we address this. (item:45:Commissioner Glotfelty on informative communication) One thing that would

03:52:38.068 --> 03:52:41.669
help inform me on this is if we took some of the

03:52:41.679 --> 03:52:43.808
challenging dates that we've seen over the last few

03:52:43.818 --> 03:52:47.409
years or the last year, I say September 6th. It's,

03:52:47.419 --> 03:52:50.620
it's one that happens quite a bit and we try to understand

03:52:50.630 --> 03:52:55.028
what would happen if, if the Southern Cross DC line

03:52:55.038 --> 03:52:58.130
was there and we could only get 600 megawatts or if

03:52:58.139 --> 03:53:01.048
we could get 2000 megawatts across that, what would

03:53:01.058 --> 03:53:04.558
happen to our ERCOT system to me that's something that

03:53:04.568 --> 03:53:08.229
would be informative for us to see. I don't know how

03:53:08.239 --> 03:53:10.100
we go about it. If we do that modeling, if we could

03:53:10.110 --> 03:53:12.880
ask ERCOT to do it. But that's something that I'd like

03:53:12.889 --> 03:53:19.679
to explore either as part of this or as a parallel

03:53:19.689 --> 03:53:23.580
to this to inform our discussion. I mean, to work,

03:53:23.600 --> 03:53:27.068
I can do it. I mean, I, I'm fine with any kind

03:53:27.080 --> 03:53:30.308
of additional modeling that can be done. Woody, can

03:53:30.318 --> 03:53:33.620
you all work with our Staff to find a way to at

03:53:33.630 --> 03:53:36.639
least give some numbers around that?

03:53:40.068 --> 03:53:40.568
Yes.

03:53:43.649 --> 03:53:48.200
Thank you. And to be clear, this is a separate and

03:53:48.209 --> 03:53:52.298
parallel work effort from the stakeholder input in

03:53:52.330 --> 03:53:55.389
the memo. Yes. Yes. Yes, thank you. Hold on, Dan's

03:53:55.399 --> 03:53:56.239
got something to say.

03:53:59.499 --> 03:54:08.729
Was that a comma. (item:45:Woody Rickerson on bid curves) But so the problem with um doing

03:54:08.739 --> 03:54:11.850
any, any kind of economic analysis is you have to model

03:54:11.860 --> 03:54:15.450
the economics on the other end of the tie. Of what? You'd

03:54:15.459 --> 03:54:17.759
have to model the economics on the other end of the

03:54:17.768 --> 03:54:21.889
tie as well. So you have to think of MISO's bid curve

03:54:22.239 --> 03:54:26.370
or SPP's bid curve. Totally agree. But as far as just inserting

03:54:26.380 --> 03:54:29.610
600 megawatts on September 6th at 5 p.m. or something

03:54:29.620 --> 03:54:32.058
like that, we could certainly do that. Yeah, I think

03:54:32.068 --> 03:54:35.308
600 I think, you know, whatever a higher capacity might

03:54:35.318 --> 03:54:38.909
be on that line. So a simple analysis we can certainly

03:54:38.919 --> 03:54:42.929
do. Yeah, that'd be great. Okay. So to Connie's point

03:54:42.939 --> 03:54:47.058
um ERCOT is going to help provide this analysis, but

03:54:47.130 --> 03:54:52.989
with respect to the work effort here, um The questions

03:54:52.999 --> 03:54:55.808
that they're proposed were all good with totally fine

03:54:55.999 --> 03:54:59.200
Yeah, I appreciate the effort. Written comments on

03:54:59.209 --> 03:55:03.179
these questions will be doing by noon on Feb February

03:55:03.209 --> 03:55:06.889
the 8th. Yes. And based upon the number of question

03:55:06.899 --> 03:55:11.090
number of responses that Staff receives, staff is going

03:55:11.100 --> 03:55:14.389
to try and put it together if it is not too many

03:55:14.399 --> 03:55:18.669
by February 15th or by March 7th, open meeting date.

03:55:18.808 --> 03:55:21.538
Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

03:55:23.590 --> 03:55:27.038
(item:46:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 37344) Next, we will take up items 46 and 47 together. Project

03:55:27.048 --> 03:55:32.278
37344. The Commission's project related to the Entergy

03:55:32.528 --> 03:55:37.278
Regional State Committee. (item:47:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 41211) And Project 41211, the Commission's

03:55:37.288 --> 03:55:40.340
project related to the Organization of MISO States.

03:55:40.669 --> 03:55:42.719
Shelah, do we have anyone from public signed up to

03:55:42.729 --> 03:55:45.880
speak on Items 46 or 47? No, ma'am.

03:55:47.469 --> 03:55:52.360
Do you have an update? (item:47:Commissioner Cobos' update on MISO) Yes. And so when we exchanged a baton

03:55:52.639 --> 03:55:57.268
Commissioner Glotfelty and I on MISO. I committed to

03:55:57.798 --> 03:56:04.080
completing our involvement at FERC in the RBDC tariff

03:56:04.090 --> 03:56:08.899
filing that MISO made um, um at FERC. (item:46:Commissioner Cobos' update on ERSE) And so as a

03:56:08.909 --> 03:56:12.639
continuum of our advocacy through the ERSE um and

03:56:12.729 --> 03:56:16.429
FERC that we had made um prior to exchanging market

03:56:16.439 --> 03:56:20.459
responsibilities over MISO. (item:47:Commissioner Cobos on FERC issuing deficiency letter) So basically, um you know

03:56:20.469 --> 03:56:24.018
on November 22nd, uh FERC issued a deficiency letter

03:56:24.028 --> 03:56:27.700
requesting additional information from MISO on their

03:56:27.709 --> 03:56:30.538
RBDC tariff filing reliability demand based curve

03:56:30.548 --> 03:56:35.909
filing. Um MISO's response to FERC's deficiency letter

03:56:35.919 --> 03:56:39.870
was filed on December 21st. At the November 30th. Open

03:56:39.880 --> 03:56:41.950
meeting, the Commission delegated authority to me to

03:56:41.959 --> 03:56:44.788
coordinate with outside counsel to file comments related

03:56:44.798 --> 03:56:48.969
to MISO's response um on the deficiency letter from

03:56:48.979 --> 03:56:53.778
FERC. And so, um responses were due to MISO's response

03:56:53.788 --> 03:56:57.360
on January 11th and so working with outside counsel

03:56:57.370 --> 03:56:59.919
we filed a response that the Arkansas Public Service

03:56:59.929 --> 03:57:03.288
Commission joined. So we filed joint comments at

03:57:03.298 --> 03:57:06.548
FERC stating our continued concern over MISO's opt

03:57:06.558 --> 03:57:14.788
out proposal. And um requesting that um uh it well

03:57:14.798 --> 03:57:16.909
continued concern with MISO's opt out proposal, but

03:57:16.919 --> 03:57:20.870
also MISO's exclusion of advanced fixed resource adequacy

03:57:20.880 --> 03:57:23.889
plan as an alternative to the opt out proposal. So

03:57:23.899 --> 03:57:28.350
essentially, our position has been that um and Arkansas

03:57:28.360 --> 03:57:31.249
by the way, um has been that we don't necessarily oppose

03:57:31.739 --> 03:57:34.459
MISO's establishment of our reliability demand based

03:57:34.469 --> 03:57:38.719
curve. Our concern has been with MISO's um opt out

03:57:38.739 --> 03:57:43.399
proposal that could um essentially um result in a lot

03:57:43.409 --> 03:57:46.100
of costs to our ratepayers and, and we believe there

03:57:46.110 --> 03:57:49.219
should be some more flexibility uh from MISO in the

03:57:49.229 --> 03:57:53.749
opt out process. To consider um something some proposal

03:57:53.759 --> 03:57:57.429
like what Entergy had filed or, you know, and, and to

03:57:57.439 --> 03:58:02.499
provide the LSEs more flexibility um with respect to

03:58:02.509 --> 03:58:06.068
meeting their plan, reserve margin requirements. Um

03:58:06.080 --> 03:58:10.249
So essentially this, this response says that we don't

03:58:10.259 --> 03:58:13.919
oppose the R BD C. Um And you know, we have concerns

03:58:13.929 --> 03:58:20.450
with MISO's opt out and if FERC approves the RBDC

03:58:20.459 --> 03:58:22.639
tariff filing that MISO submitted to them, that they

03:58:22.649 --> 03:58:25.189
condition that approval with MISO going back to the

03:58:25.200 --> 03:58:28.219
stakeholder process and looking at a way to provide

03:58:28.229 --> 03:58:32.590
more flexibility in the opt out process. So we've made

03:58:32.600 --> 03:58:38.288
that filing and I believe now it's um now we're gonna

03:58:38.298 --> 03:58:40.840
wait for FERC to come back and make a decision on the

03:58:40.850 --> 03:58:41.308
tariff.

03:58:45.058 --> 03:58:49.159
All right, thank you. You're welcome. Well, we already

03:58:49.169 --> 03:58:51.370
took up Item No. 49.

03:58:53.419 --> 03:59:01.080
And I don't have anything for Items 50-52.

03:59:02.308 --> 03:59:03.009
You see?

03:59:05.189 --> 03:59:09.639
Oh, sorry. So, um I forgot 48. (item:48:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 41210) Next step is Item No.

03:59:09.649 --> 03:59:13.450
48 which is Project No. 41210. This is the Commission's

03:59:13.459 --> 03:59:15.808
project for information related to the Southwest Power

03:59:15.939 --> 03:59:18.620
Pool, Regional State Committee. Shelah, do we have anyone

03:59:18.630 --> 03:59:21.450
from the public sign up to speak on Item No. 48.

03:59:21.768 --> 03:59:22.038
No ma'am.

03:59:23.639 --> 03:59:25.268
All right. Commissioner Cobos, do you have an update? (item:48:Commissioner Cobos' update on SPP) So, I just want to provide a

03:59:25.278 --> 03:59:29.259
brief update. SPP also endured a cold weather event

03:59:29.268 --> 03:59:35.110
this week and I had sort of a preliminary update from

03:59:35.120 --> 03:59:37.969
SPP Staff on what the cold weather event was going

03:59:37.979 --> 03:59:40.399
to be looking like and engage with the companies that

03:59:40.409 --> 03:59:44.860
operate in SPP um in Texas, um Southwest Public Service

03:59:44.919 --> 03:59:49.729
SWEPCO and um Golden Spread like a cooperative. To um assess

03:59:49.739 --> 03:59:52.169
their preparedness for the cold weather event that

03:59:52.179 --> 03:59:55.239
descended upon us this week. They told me they were

03:59:55.249 --> 03:59:58.100
prepared, they were prepared and, and so we did or

03:59:58.110 --> 04:00:02.028
SPP didn't experience any um, issues. But I did want

04:00:02.038 --> 04:00:05.719
to note something. Um, and that is that um,

04:00:07.399 --> 04:00:11.808
the peak demand uh during the event was 46,500 megawatts

04:00:11.818 --> 04:00:15.788
which is just shy of their all time peak. And SPP and

04:00:15.798 --> 04:00:19.969
SPP was importing a record of approximately 7000 megawatts

04:00:20.278 --> 04:00:23.528
uh from neighbors including ERCOT and MISO during this

04:00:23.538 --> 04:00:26.969
event. Which I believe my understanding may have

04:00:26.979 --> 04:00:31.919
kept them out of emergency conditions. So, um, you

04:00:31.929 --> 04:00:33.808
know, it was a pretty severe cold weather event up

04:00:33.818 --> 04:00:37.479
there. But you know they, they went as far as

04:00:37.489 --> 04:00:39.709
issuing out a resource advisory and conservative

04:00:39.719 --> 04:00:43.038
operations which they exited on Tuesday. Uh temperatures

04:00:43.048 --> 04:00:47.450
throughout the footprint um were very cold including

04:00:47.459 --> 04:00:51.909
negative 15 degrees in North Dakota. The Texas Panhandle

04:00:51.919 --> 04:00:55.048
is, was noted earlier. Um was also in the single

04:00:55.058 --> 04:00:58.889
digits with a wind chill below zero. So SPP got through

04:00:58.899 --> 04:01:01.018
it as ERCOT did, but I'm sure there's lessons to be

04:01:01.028 --> 04:01:03.979
learned there as well. Do you know what their forced

04:01:03.989 --> 04:01:06.100
outage rate was of their thermal fleet? Because it's

04:01:06.489 --> 04:01:10.308
pretty telling. You know I, I feel like it might have

04:01:10.318 --> 04:01:13.409
been a little high based on the preliminary um sort

04:01:13.419 --> 04:01:19.058
of outlook that I got from them. And so uh, but what

04:01:19.068 --> 04:01:21.288
I thought you would find interesting was the importation

04:01:21.298 --> 04:01:25.639
of 7000 megawatts. Well, I mean, I think with an interconnected

04:01:25.649 --> 04:01:28.429
system, I think clearly that's, that's a good thing

04:01:28.439 --> 04:01:31.229
you know, having that ability to lean on your neighbors

04:01:31.239 --> 04:01:34.370
If you're all part of the same regulatory system is

04:01:34.380 --> 04:01:38.009
is perfect. We don't quite have that. But, you know

04:01:38.018 --> 04:01:40.429
if DC lines allow us to have that, we'll be something

04:01:40.439 --> 04:01:44.788
close. We have the North and those ties into SPP, from

04:01:44.919 --> 04:01:47.899
ERCOT into SPP. And then I guess MISO has their

04:01:47.909 --> 04:01:52.939
seams. Our, our DC ties are very small, so it's probably

04:01:52.950 --> 04:01:56.389
the MISO ties. I don't think there's a DC tie going

04:01:56.399 --> 04:02:00.548
from MISO and SPP. There seams like. There for sure. Exactly.

04:02:00.568 --> 04:02:02.538
So I think that's where most of the importation probably

04:02:02.548 --> 04:02:06.600
came from. Yeah. Ok, good. Well, thanks for the update.

04:02:06.778 --> 04:02:09.808
You're welcome. We already took up Item No. 49.

04:02:09.818 --> 04:02:15.389
I don't have anything for Items 50-52. (item:53:Chairwoman Jackson lays out standing item for Agency Administrative Issues) Next up is Item

04:02:15.399 --> 04:02:19.330
No. 53. Our standing item for agency administrative

04:02:19.340 --> 04:02:22.068
issues. Shelah, do we have anyone from the public signed

04:02:22.080 --> 04:02:25.729
up to speak on Item No. 53? No, ma'am. Thomas, you

04:02:25.739 --> 04:02:28.969
filed a memo. Um, do you have an update? (item:53:PUC Executive Director, Thomas Gleeson on appointments for TX Backup Power Package Advisory Committee) Yes, ma'am.

04:02:28.979 --> 04:02:31.259
Thank you Madam Chair and Commissioners. Uh, just

04:02:31.268 --> 04:02:33.659
a couple of things this afternoon. So, first at the

04:02:33.669 --> 04:02:36.580
last open meeting, we talked about the uh, appointments

04:02:36.590 --> 04:02:39.389
to the Texas Backup Power Package Advisory Committee.

04:02:39.700 --> 04:02:42.989
So we have made those selections. We filed a memo in

04:02:42.999 --> 04:02:47.409
Project 55407 laying out who those members are.

04:02:47.548 --> 04:02:50.068
But I'll go ahead and announce it now. So State Senators,

04:02:50.080 --> 04:02:53.568
Nathan Johnson and Mayes Middleton. House Members, Ana

04:02:53.580 --> 04:02:57.929
Hernandez and Jay Dean. Chief Nim Kidd from TDEM. Kevin

04:02:57.950 --> 04:03:02.219
Knippa from HHSC. And then Alison Silverstein from Silverstein

04:03:02.229 --> 04:03:05.399
Consulting. Matthew Boms, the Executive Director of the

04:03:05.409 --> 04:03:09.038
Texas Advanced Energy Business Alliance. And Ivan Velasquez

04:03:09.048 --> 04:03:12.719
from Oncor. We are going to hold a public meeting as

04:03:12.729 --> 04:03:16.209
our first meeting in this room on February 8th at 1

04:03:16.219 --> 04:03:19.459
o'clock. Um amongst other things, what we'll do there

04:03:19.469 --> 04:03:21.840
is have the committee select its presiding officer.

04:03:22.110 --> 04:03:24.860
I'm not sure if we'll have other public meetings

04:03:24.870 --> 04:03:26.909
that will be up to that committee once it's, once it's

04:03:26.919 --> 04:03:29.370
schedule is laid out. But that one will be public and

04:03:29.380 --> 04:03:33.200
and open to uh, for people to come watch. So that's

04:03:33.209 --> 04:03:35.419
the good news. And we have two other, two other things

04:03:35.429 --> 04:03:38.798
that are, that are celebrations but are also sad. (item:53:Thomas Gleeson gives appreciation to Margaux Fox & Mattie Heith) So

04:03:38.808 --> 04:03:43.100
um, Margaux Fox who's sitting behind me is, you know

04:03:43.110 --> 04:03:46.489
one of our amazing managing attorneys, she is, is leaving

04:03:46.499 --> 04:03:49.179
and going back to the Capitol. And I just want to tell

04:03:49.189 --> 04:03:52.080
her thank you for all of her work for stepping up when

04:03:52.090 --> 04:03:54.889
we needed managing attorneys to that. That's maybe

04:03:54.899 --> 04:03:58.538
the hardest job in the entire agency and managing attorney

04:03:58.548 --> 04:04:01.818
and legal. So we wish her the best of luck. We're glad

04:04:01.830 --> 04:04:04.709
that she'll still be doing our issues and be a friendly

04:04:04.719 --> 04:04:06.669
face in the Capital and wish her all the best.

04:04:13.409 --> 04:04:17.959
Right. And the, the second one, hits hits me a little

04:04:17.969 --> 04:04:21.399
different. So Mattie Heith, my amazing Chief of Staff

04:04:21.409 --> 04:04:25.239
is, is leaving the Commission. And um I, I've told

04:04:25.249 --> 04:04:27.360
her this publicly, you know, when, when people came

04:04:27.370 --> 04:04:29.538
to approach me about having a Chief of Staff and I

04:04:29.548 --> 04:04:31.600
don't believe the Executive Director of this Commission

04:04:31.610 --> 04:04:35.788
ever had one. I wasn't completely sold that I needed

04:04:35.798 --> 04:04:37.709
a Chief of Staff. And I, I think what I've, what I've

04:04:37.719 --> 04:04:39.989
come to realize is, is I didn't just need a Chief of

04:04:39.999 --> 04:04:43.808
Staff. I needed her. And um, she's been amazing. I

04:04:43.818 --> 04:04:46.590
could not have asked for, for someone better to be

04:04:46.600 --> 04:04:50.459
a confidant and someone that supports me. And I'm so

04:04:50.469 --> 04:04:54.259
amazingly proud of her and excited for all the wonderful

04:04:54.268 --> 04:04:59.009
things that are going on in her, in her life, both

04:04:59.020 --> 04:05:02.339
professionally and personally. And I'm excited that

04:05:02.348 --> 04:05:04.408
I got to be a part of this, this part of it.

04:05:04.428 --> 04:05:06.509
And I, I can't wait to see all the amazing things you

04:05:06.520 --> 04:05:10.310
do. We're gonna miss you. Um, but so excited for everything

04:05:10.319 --> 04:05:11.888
that you have come and thank you for everything you've

04:05:11.899 --> 04:05:12.210
done.

04:05:18.009 --> 04:05:20.290
Thank you. Well, I don't have,

04:05:22.000 --> 04:05:25.618
um, I don't have anything for Items 54 or 55. We already

04:05:25.629 --> 04:05:29.408
took up Item 56. (item:56:Chairwoman Jackson adjourns meeting) There being no further business to

04:05:29.419 --> 04:05:31.689
come before the Commission. This meeting of the Public

04:05:31.700 --> 04:05:34.658
Utility Commission of Texas is hereby adjourned at

04:05:34.669 --> 04:05:35.700
2:54.