WEBVTT

00:00:02.569 --> 00:00:05.198
(item:0:Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order) This meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas

00:00:05.209 --> 00:00:07.158
will come to order. To consider matters that have been

00:00:07.169 --> 00:00:10.429
duly posted with the Secretary of State for today 

00:00:10.439 --> 00:00:14.398
April 25, 2024. Good morning Shelah. Good morning

00:00:14.409 --> 00:00:17.839
Connie. Morning Barksdale. Shelah, will you walk us

00:00:17.850 --> 00:00:20.940
through the Consent Agenda please? Yes. Good morning Commissioners.

00:00:21.298 --> 00:00:24.309
First, the Chairman filed a memo in Project No. 

00:00:24.318 --> 00:00:28.818
52761. Stating that he is recused from Item No. 

00:00:28.829 --> 00:00:32.969
2 on the agenda. (item:0.1:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel requests update to Consent Agenda) There is one item on the Consent

00:00:32.978 --> 00:00:36.240
Agenda, Item No. 9. That with your permission

00:00:36.490 --> 00:00:40.250
OP M recommends that you actually take that Item

00:00:40.259 --> 00:00:43.168
up rather than consent it. Late yesterday, we became

00:00:43.179 --> 00:00:45.478
aware of some edits that we would recommend. And if

00:00:45.590 --> 00:00:48.130
your permission we'll take that item up, and I'll walk

00:00:48.139 --> 00:00:50.279
you through those edits for that item. And those are

00:00:50.289 --> 00:00:53.899
I think, just kind of perfecting amendments, non-substantive amendments. Correct

00:00:53.918 --> 00:00:58.329
Okay. (item:0.1:Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda for Section I) So with that change by individual ballot, the following

00:00:58.340 --> 00:01:02.630
Items were placed on the Consent Agenda. Items 1, 3-

00:01:02.639 --> 00:01:07.188
8 and 10-12. Perfect. (item:0.1:Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda for Section I) I'd entertain a motion

00:01:07.197 --> 00:01:09.938
to approve the consent agenda described by Shelah.

00:01:11.808 --> 00:01:15.528
Second. And before, one other thing with your permission Commissioners. 

00:01:16.088 --> 00:01:18.519
I'm sorry, go ahead with the vote. I jumped too early.

00:01:19.239 --> 00:01:22.058
I have a motion and second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed. 

00:01:24.189 --> 00:01:28.028
Motion prevails. Great. So um, these items reflect the dockets on the

00:01:28.040 --> 00:01:31.769
agenda and for those who regularly watch our open meetings.

00:01:31.808 --> 00:01:34.150
They may have noticed that for a while now, the Commission

00:01:34.159 --> 00:01:37.370
has not been placing rules or projects on its Consent

00:01:37.379 --> 00:01:40.930
Agenda as we used to. Um and that will continue because

00:01:40.939 --> 00:01:43.760
public comment is allowed for those items that are

00:01:43.769 --> 00:01:46.629
listed in Part 2 of the agenda. That includes rules, 

00:01:46.638 --> 00:01:49.650
projects and standing items. And the Commission wants

00:01:49.659 --> 00:01:52.088
to consider public comment before it takes action on

00:01:52.099 --> 00:01:55.239
those items. However, if no one from the public has

00:01:55.250 --> 00:01:57.588
signed up to speak for any of the items in Section

00:01:57.599 --> 00:02:00.448
II of the agenda and they are eligible for consent.

00:02:00.683 --> 00:02:03.885
Approving multiple items by a single vote instead of

00:02:03.894 --> 00:02:06.944
calling them up individually is a long standing practice

00:02:06.954 --> 00:02:09.625
of the Commission to efficiently run the meetings.

00:02:09.814 --> 00:02:12.463
So going forward for those items that have been voted

00:02:12.474 --> 00:02:15.375
on by individual ballot and for which no one has signed

00:02:15.383 --> 00:02:18.433
up to speak. I'll identify those during the meeting.

00:02:18.633 --> 00:02:21.213
And the Commission can then take a vote of those items,

00:02:21.224 --> 00:02:24.288
if you wish. Yeah, so we've been working on this for

00:02:24.300 --> 00:02:26.909
a while just to kind of run the meetings more efficiently.

00:02:27.399 --> 00:02:30.058
To comply with the statute to allow people to talk

00:02:30.069 --> 00:02:32.179
on projects. You know, I think we still need to be

00:02:32.189 --> 00:02:34.699
prepared to talk if anyone comes and signs up. But

00:02:34.710 --> 00:02:37.110
if no one signs up, I'm comfortable consenting those

00:02:37.118 --> 00:02:40.538
items as well, as long as you are. And prepared to listen.

00:02:41.360 --> 00:02:46.439
Of course, always. Yes. Okay. All right. (item:0.1:Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda for Section II) Well then for

00:02:46.449 --> 00:02:49.080
this for today's agenda by individual ballot, the

00:02:49.088 --> 00:02:51.979
following items in Section II of the agenda were placed

00:02:51.990 --> 00:02:59.469
on the Consent Agenda. Items 14, 18, 23 through 26. Thank

00:02:59.479 --> 00:03:02.849
you, Shelah. (item:0.1:Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda for Section II) I would entertain a motion to approve

00:03:02.860 --> 00:03:05.949
the items just discussed by Shelah. So moved. 

00:03:07.500 --> 00:03:09.819
I second. I have a motion and second. All those in favor, 

00:03:09.830 --> 00:03:13.979
say aye. Aye. Opposed. The motion prevails. Thank you. All

00:03:13.990 --> 00:03:16.338
right. So we'll, we'll start with the clean up on Item

00:03:16.349 --> 00:03:18.649
No. 9. Shelah, will you lay out Item No. 9

00:03:18.659 --> 00:03:19.960
please? Yes sir.

00:03:22.008 --> 00:03:26.038
(item:9:Petition for emergency order appointing temporary manager to Blue Cereus, LLC) Item No. 9 is Docket No. 56171. This is a

00:03:26.050 --> 00:03:29.139
petition for an emergency order appointing a temporary

00:03:29.149 --> 00:03:33.439
manager to Blue Cereus, LLC. Before you is a draft

00:03:33.449 --> 00:03:36.960
order to affirm the emergency order. As I mentioned

00:03:36.969 --> 00:03:39.599
late yesterday, we identified two minor edits. The

00:03:39.610 --> 00:03:42.558
OPDM would recommend for the final order and with

00:03:42.569 --> 00:03:44.058
your permission, I'll just walk through those right

00:03:44.069 --> 00:03:48.639
now. The first one is for Finding of Fact No. 3.

00:03:50.069 --> 00:03:54.080
The public water system identification number and that

00:03:54.088 --> 00:03:57.550
finding that ends in the last two digits 64. Has a

00:03:57.558 --> 00:03:59.389
typo and it should be 63.

00:04:01.288 --> 00:04:05.308
And the second change that we recommend is to Conclusion

00:04:05.319 --> 00:04:09.669
of Law No. 8 Conclusion of Law 8 has the

00:04:09.679 --> 00:04:13.270
following language as a portion of the Conclusion

00:04:13.278 --> 00:04:17.189
of Law. Wholesale water suppliers have expressed their

00:04:17.199 --> 00:04:21.399
intent to discontinue Blue Cereus' sole source of raw

00:04:21.410 --> 00:04:25.028
water. And in checking the evidentiary record, we did

00:04:25.040 --> 00:04:28.439
not see support for the raw water portion. We would

00:04:28.449 --> 00:04:32.449
just delete the word raw and leave it as the wholesale

00:04:32.459 --> 00:04:35.720
water suppliers that express their intent to disconnect

00:04:35.730 --> 00:04:40.119
Blue Cereus' sole source of water. I think, I think

00:04:40.129 --> 00:04:42.129
those are good catches. Um you know, we want these

00:04:42.139 --> 00:04:45.100
orders to be, you know, correct. And so I'm in favor

00:04:45.108 --> 00:04:48.519
of modifying the order if you are. I'm good with it.

00:04:48.540 --> 00:04:51.600
Yes. I am as well. Okay. (item:9:Motion to modify the order consistent with Commission's discussion) Then I would entertain a motion

00:04:51.608 --> 00:04:53.858
to modify the order consistent with our discussion.

00:04:53.869 --> 00:04:57.319
So moved. Second. I have a motion and second. All those in

00:04:57.329 --> 00:05:02.689
favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed. The motion prevails. Okay. So the

00:05:02.699 --> 00:05:07.769
only other contested case we have is Item No. 2.

00:05:08.069 --> 00:05:11.129
And I will pass the gavel over to Commissioner Cobos

00:05:11.209 --> 00:05:13.209
as I am recused from Item No. 2. So Shelah,

00:05:13.220 --> 00:05:16.199
you lay that out please? Yes. (item:2:Application of CSWR-Texas Utility Operating Company, LLC for authority to change rates) Item 2 is Docket No.

00:05:16.209 --> 00:05:22.238
54565. This is the application of CSWR-Texas Utility

00:05:22.250 --> 00:05:25.439
Operating Company, LLC for authority to change rates.

00:05:25.449 --> 00:05:28.309
At the March 7th meeting, the Commission adopted in

00:05:28.319 --> 00:05:30.759
part and rejected in part the proposal for decision

00:05:30.769 --> 00:05:33.949
from SOAH. And requested that Commission Staff conduct

00:05:33.959 --> 00:05:36.319
a number run consistent with the Commission's decisions

00:05:36.329 --> 00:05:39.108
at the meeting. Commission Staff filed a revised number

00:05:39.119 --> 00:05:42.720
run on April 12th and CSWR filed a response on April

00:05:42.730 --> 00:05:45.910
16th. And Commissioner Cobos filed a memo in this docket.

00:05:46.639 --> 00:05:50.129
Thank you, Shelah. (item:2:Commissioner Cobos lays out her memo) So my memo sets forth the clarification

00:05:50.548 --> 00:05:53.459
regarding the rate making rate base. Essentially that

00:05:53.470 --> 00:05:56.319
for each system that's acquired through the fair market

00:05:56.329 --> 00:05:58.588
value process. That the number one include the rate

00:05:58.600 --> 00:06:02.199
making rate base, um approved by the Commission. In

00:06:02.209 --> 00:06:06.269
the underlying STM proceeding. And um would recommend

00:06:06.278 --> 00:06:09.449
that Commission cadam direct Commission staff to rerun

00:06:09.459 --> 00:06:12.459
the, the number run. To include the appropriate um,

00:06:12.470 --> 00:06:14.449
rate base rate making rate base.

00:06:17.850 --> 00:06:21.838
Sounds good to me. I'm good with it. Thank you. Okay.

00:06:21.850 --> 00:06:25.059
(item:2:Motion to adopt clarifications set forth in Commissioner Cobos' memo) Well, I would move to adopt the clarification set forth

00:06:25.069 --> 00:06:29.470
in my memo. Direct cam to direct Commission Staff to

00:06:29.480 --> 00:06:31.730
update the number run pursuant to the clarification

00:06:31.738 --> 00:06:35.600
set forth in the memo. And direct OPDM to draft a final

00:06:35.608 --> 00:06:37.319
order consistent with the Commission's decision in

00:06:37.329 --> 00:06:37.670
the docket.

00:06:40.369 --> 00:06:41.838
Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. 

00:06:44.759 --> 00:06:47.178
All right. And that concludes the contested case portion

00:06:47.189 --> 00:06:49.108
of the agenda. And I will hand the gavel back over to

00:06:49.119 --> 00:06:53.689
Chairman Gleeson. Thank you, Commissioner Cobos. (item:13:Shelah Cisneros confirms there are no Public Comments) Shelah, 

00:06:53.699 --> 00:06:56.730
on Item 13. Did anyone sign up to speak on any of

00:06:56.738 --> 00:06:59.569
the items that weren't consented? No, sir. No one signed

00:06:59.579 --> 00:07:02.329
up for Item 13 or for any of the items on the

00:07:02.338 --> 00:07:05.250
remaining portion of the agenda. Perfect. All right,

00:07:05.259 --> 00:07:07.850
so Item 14 was consented. I don't have anything on

00:07:07.858 --> 00:07:13.298
15 and six on 15 or 16. What I'd like to do

00:07:13.309 --> 00:07:15.980
on the electric portion is go ahead and bring up Item

00:07:15.988 --> 00:07:19.379
22 first, if that's all right with everybody. The, uh

00:07:19.389 --> 00:07:22.778
the Texas Energy Fund Completion Bonus. I think we

00:07:22.790 --> 00:07:26.290
we may need some work done to give staff time to draft

00:07:26.298 --> 00:07:30.069
language on this. (item:22:Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 53298) So um, I would call up Item No. 

00:07:30.079 --> 00:07:34.079
22, Project No. 55812 - Texas Energy Fund Completion

00:07:34.088 --> 00:07:35.528
Bonus Grant Program.

00:07:37.059 --> 00:07:39.540
Good morning Staff. Good morning Chairman Gleeson. Good

00:07:39.548 --> 00:07:41.500
morning Commissioners. David Gordon for Commission

00:07:41.509 --> 00:07:46.548
Staff. So staff filed a memo yesterday and I also filed

00:07:46.559 --> 00:07:50.220
a memo. My memo was concerning the two issues that

00:07:50.230 --> 00:07:52.750
we discussed at the last open meeting. That I think

00:07:52.759 --> 00:07:55.689
we all agreed we needed some more discussion on. So

00:07:55.709 --> 00:07:58.769
that explains where I came out. So David, why don't

00:07:58.778 --> 00:08:01.079
you kind of weigh everything out and then we can discuss

00:08:01.088 --> 00:08:04.238
the memo and then discuss the broader rule. Yes. Thank

00:08:04.250 --> 00:08:07.379
you, Chairman. (item:22:Commission Staff's David Gordon on additions to Chairman Gleeson's memo) As you said, the last meeting we had

00:08:07.389 --> 00:08:11.230
two lingering issues to discuss the availability reliability

00:08:11.238 --> 00:08:14.319
factor and whether to include the expansion of new

00:08:14.329 --> 00:08:17.548
generation resources at existing sites. You've addressed

00:08:17.559 --> 00:08:20.988
both of those in your memo. Staff also filed a memo

00:08:21.000 --> 00:08:23.829
last night for some technical cleanup changes. That

00:08:23.850 --> 00:08:26.569
uh was distributed to your offices and we would recommend

00:08:26.579 --> 00:08:31.838
the inclusion of those in an adoption order. We have

00:08:31.850 --> 00:08:35.239
read your memo and we believe that we can implement

00:08:35.250 --> 00:08:39.700
language that effectuates uh those two pieces. We are

00:08:39.710 --> 00:08:42.820
also here and available to talk to any of you about

00:08:43.058 --> 00:08:46.038
other components of the rule or how we might incorporate

00:08:46.048 --> 00:08:52.219
these aspects. I will note that um our conception of

00:08:52.590 --> 00:08:57.619
your direction in the memo. Would be to make an allowance

00:08:57.629 --> 00:09:01.099
for completion bonus grant for the addition and new

00:09:01.109 --> 00:09:05.428
construction of generation resources at existing facilities.

00:09:06.259 --> 00:09:10.369
So that would be the standard. These are generation

00:09:10.379 --> 00:09:13.320
resources that would go through the ERCOT uh planning

00:09:13.330 --> 00:09:17.928
process and up here on a CDR. And then once we

00:09:17.940 --> 00:09:21.168
did that, we would treat them just like new facilities.

00:09:21.178 --> 00:09:25.428
Both the PRF and ARF factors would apply to

00:09:25.440 --> 00:09:29.418
them. As for the availability reliability factor,

00:09:29.649 --> 00:09:33.700
we believe we can incorporate that as well. By including

00:09:33.710 --> 00:09:37.979
a mechanism whereby if a generation resource receives

00:09:37.989 --> 00:09:44.798
an ARF score of 0.9 to 1.0. That would in effect

00:09:44.808 --> 00:09:49.168
equal an ARF score of 1 for that generation resource.

00:09:49.178 --> 00:09:52.149
So they would not be penalized within that range. Any

00:09:52.158 --> 00:09:57.779
ARF score with that was less than 0.9. Would then follow

00:09:57.788 --> 00:10:02.928
the curve that we set in our recommended adoption order.

00:10:03.899 --> 00:10:06.629
Yeah. So I, I think that properly lays out my thoughts.

00:10:06.639 --> 00:10:08.960
I will say I, I did give consideration to whether or

00:10:08.969 --> 00:10:12.639
not the 10 hour allowance. If whether or not we should

00:10:12.830 --> 00:10:15.619
move the curve out. And I think through the discussions

00:10:15.629 --> 00:10:17.820
I had with all the market participants and with staff.

00:10:17.979 --> 00:10:21.019
I'm comfortable with, with having the, the curve at

00:10:21.029 --> 00:10:25.129
0.9 reflect what staff's recommendation was. And, and

00:10:25.139 --> 00:10:26.399
all the way down the curve. So,

00:10:28.408 --> 00:10:30.759
do you all have any thoughts on, on the lay out or

00:10:30.769 --> 00:10:34.250
my memo? No. (item:22:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on memo) I think um I'm in agreement with the,

00:10:34.259 --> 00:10:37.869
the two items you laid out. I think um ultimately on

00:10:37.879 --> 00:10:41.019
the expansion piece. That was one that we're kind of

00:10:41.029 --> 00:10:44.168
trying to slice and dice last open meeting. And um

00:10:44.178 --> 00:10:46.460
I think it takes into account the practical realities

00:10:46.469 --> 00:10:48.158
of generation development. It's how a lot of, you know

00:10:48.168 --> 00:10:50.219
by Commissioner Glotfelty in my own experience in the

00:10:50.229 --> 00:10:54.168
past. Ultimately, I think it sounds like, you know

00:10:54.178 --> 00:10:57.288
you're just going after new construction. And how you

00:10:57.298 --> 00:11:00.379
extrapolate what's new out of an expanded facility

00:11:00.389 --> 00:11:02.759
is through the registration of those facilities. As

00:11:02.769 --> 00:11:06.349
a separate RE with ERCOT, is that correct? That's correct.

00:11:06.418 --> 00:11:10.389
Okay. So I'm comfortable with your approach on expansions.

00:11:10.399 --> 00:11:14.369
The ARF/PRF I think that's a fair reasonable approach

00:11:14.379 --> 00:11:18.509
to this calculation. As we want to incent planned maintenance

00:11:18.519 --> 00:11:22.109
outages and um still ensure that we're getting high

00:11:22.119 --> 00:11:22.700
performance.

00:11:25.229 --> 00:11:25.418
Chairman,

00:11:27.009 --> 00:11:30.529
could I just ask Commissioner Cobos a question? I think

00:11:30.538 --> 00:11:34.369
I heard you say that it would require registration

00:11:34.379 --> 00:11:37.399
of a new RE, a resource entity. Is that, did I hear

00:11:37.408 --> 00:11:39.000
you say that or did I mishear you? Yeah. Well, that's

00:11:39.009 --> 00:11:41.599
what I understood based on the briefings of staff is

00:11:41.609 --> 00:11:43.830
how you would extrapolate. You know, like if you're

00:11:43.840 --> 00:11:47.500
upgrading. You're building a new CT, if you're building

00:11:47.509 --> 00:11:50.190
a new steam turbine and you're upgrading a steam turbine.

00:11:50.700 --> 00:11:52.719
What are you getting a completion bonus for? And how

00:11:52.729 --> 00:11:56.558
do you extrapolate what facilities from upgrades, refurbished

00:11:56.570 --> 00:11:59.489
vs. new? And that's what I thought I understood.

00:12:00.899 --> 00:12:04.609
I think, excuse me. I think the way staff is conceptualizing

00:12:04.619 --> 00:12:08.178
this. Is, is to require registration of the asset as

00:12:08.190 --> 00:12:12.200
a generation resource and not require the entity to

00:12:12.210 --> 00:12:16.298
register a new resource entity.Okay. So the resource entity

00:12:16.308 --> 00:12:20.019
is a registration type for the company and the generation

00:12:20.029 --> 00:12:22.798
resources of registration type for the actual physical

00:12:22.808 --> 00:12:28.619
asset. Okay. So the same RE, same resource entity could have

00:12:28.629 --> 00:12:34.158
multiple, multiply registered assets. Okay. Under that individual

00:12:34.168 --> 00:12:37.099
resource entity. Okay. Yeah. And that, and that was the intent.

00:12:37.109 --> 00:12:40.178
Sorry, I misheard you. They changed the language to

00:12:40.190 --> 00:12:42.918
be a generation resource and that's, that's how we

00:12:42.928 --> 00:12:46.879
went. Okay, and that's fine. The point, my point is. Is

00:12:46.889 --> 00:12:49.219
that it's going to be handled to the registration process.

00:12:49.899 --> 00:12:52.479
And that's how you extrapolate, you know which facilities

00:12:52.489 --> 00:12:54.859
are getting the completion bonus. That's right. Thank

00:12:54.869 --> 00:12:58.609
you for the clarification. No, thank you. (item:22:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on memo) I would say I'm

00:12:58.619 --> 00:13:01.830
appreciative of your memo. It addresses the very two

00:13:01.840 --> 00:13:04.038
issues that I brought up last meeting and the meeting

00:13:04.048 --> 00:13:07.668
before. So I, I think that you have done a good job

00:13:07.678 --> 00:13:10.489
laying them out and I'm totally supportive. I do have

00:13:10.500 --> 00:13:15.619
one question and that is. It came to my attention that

00:13:16.330 --> 00:13:21.609
the definition of assessed hours defines peak net load

00:13:21.619 --> 00:13:25.859
as gross load minus wind solar and storage. Have we

00:13:25.869 --> 00:13:28.940
have we made that decision that storage is taken out

00:13:28.950 --> 00:13:33.719
of the net peak load or is just wind and solar? That's

00:13:33.729 --> 00:13:35.269
kind of the way that I've been thinking about it because

00:13:35.279 --> 00:13:38.418
they are non dispatchable resources in total. So I

00:13:38.428 --> 00:13:40.928
was just, I thought I'd ask that question. Yes. Thank

00:13:40.940 --> 00:13:44.168
you, Commissioner Glotfelty. This definition of assessed

00:13:44.178 --> 00:13:48.239
hours is meant to address peak load that needs to be

00:13:48.250 --> 00:13:51.168
served by dispatchable thermal generation. Because those

00:13:51.178 --> 00:13:54.178
are the types of units that are eligible for the program.

00:13:54.190 --> 00:13:56.399
Got it. It's a good clarification. Thank you.

00:13:58.298 --> 00:14:00.969
(item:22:Commissioner Jackson's thoughts on memo) I'm very much in agreement with um your memo and your 

00:14:00.979 --> 00:14:04.960
approach. And I think um where we landed is something

00:14:04.969 --> 00:14:08.678
that is going to uh to very much benefit the grid.

00:14:08.788 --> 00:14:12.129
Uh what we're looking for is new dispatchable generation.

00:14:12.369 --> 00:14:15.798
And I think this um provision and allowing expansions

00:14:15.808 --> 00:14:20.239
and existing facilities very much meets that um that

00:14:20.250 --> 00:14:25.190
expectation. Again, 100 megawatts is the threshold.

00:14:25.269 --> 00:14:28.989
I think another really good add and if you will kind

00:14:29.000 --> 00:14:32.500
of modification during this kind of round of review.

00:14:32.658 --> 00:14:36.269
Is that focus on the individual asset. I mean not

00:14:36.279 --> 00:14:40.808
only in, you know, how we define what the expansion

00:14:41.229 --> 00:14:46.469
facility is and focusing in on that individual asset.

00:14:46.479 --> 00:14:50.928
But also how we are actually applying the reliability

00:14:50.940 --> 00:14:55.308
factor and the performance factor. Again, focused on

00:14:55.320 --> 00:14:58.210
that individual asset. And then all of the individual

00:14:58.219 --> 00:15:02.678
assets are added together to actually create the bonus.

00:15:02.690 --> 00:15:06.149
I think that was a good clarification there. Very much

00:15:06.158 --> 00:15:09.940
in agreement of the 10 hour, if you will grace period.

00:15:09.950 --> 00:15:13.619
We heard a lot from uh from operators. Who had some

00:15:13.629 --> 00:15:17.460
concerns about the need to be able to take the planned

00:15:17.469 --> 00:15:20.538
maintenance. Very much want to continue to have

00:15:20.548 --> 00:15:24.889
this as, you know, a very high standard. That folks need

00:15:24.899 --> 00:15:28.109
to meet and keep that in mind when they are designing

00:15:28.119 --> 00:15:31.548
their new facilities. Particularly from a reliability

00:15:31.558 --> 00:15:35.080
standpoint. But I think this very much um you know

00:15:35.090 --> 00:15:39.298
helps to address that by allowing the 10 hours. And

00:15:39.308 --> 00:15:41.200
then again as you mentioned, kind of jumping back

00:15:41.210 --> 00:15:44.200
on that curve. So I think both of these are, are very

00:15:44.210 --> 00:15:47.129
good adds. And I just would like to commend staff on

00:15:47.139 --> 00:15:50.500
the great work that they've done on kind of getting

00:15:50.509 --> 00:15:54.875
this hopefully over the finish line. And, you know, not only for

00:15:54.884 --> 00:15:57.315
the bonus piece but also for the loan piece. So I think

00:15:57.325 --> 00:16:00.585
we've got a great product moving forward. And you know

00:16:00.594 --> 00:16:03.494
something that's going to really help us get what we're

00:16:03.504 --> 00:16:06.884
after. Which is more dispatchable generation quickly

00:16:06.933 --> 00:16:11.359
for Texas. Yeah, no. I, I agree. Staff did an amazing

00:16:11.369 --> 00:16:13.908
job on this. I want to thank all the market participants

00:16:13.918 --> 00:16:17.149
who took our, our words to heart. To come meet with

00:16:17.158 --> 00:16:19.509
us over the last two weeks. I'm sure your office was

00:16:19.519 --> 00:16:21.729
like mine. We had a lot of calls. A lot of, a

00:16:21.739 --> 00:16:24.759
lot of meetings about a lot of input on this policy.

00:16:24.769 --> 00:16:26.729
And I think we've struck the right balance of, you

00:16:26.739 --> 00:16:29.320
know, matching the policy to the operational realities

00:16:29.330 --> 00:16:32.129
but also meeting the intent of the Legislature. So

00:16:32.139 --> 00:16:34.330
I think this has come out in a, in a really positive

00:16:34.340 --> 00:16:38.759
way. So David, you've heard the discussion. I know

00:16:38.769 --> 00:16:42.389
we didn't have draft language here. So, you know, my

00:16:42.399 --> 00:16:45.389
hope would be we could get this over the finish line

00:16:45.399 --> 00:16:47.798
today. So I think at this point, if you all need time

00:16:47.908 --> 00:16:50.869
to draft language to circulate and file, so we have

00:16:50.879 --> 00:16:53.038
something to look at. I'd ask you to go through that

00:16:53.849 --> 00:16:55.210
I think that's right. Yeah. (item:22:Commission Staff's David Smeltzer confirms staff to bring back clarification language for approval) I think staffs are ready

00:16:55.219 --> 00:16:56.969
to go do that. And I think this is the, this is

00:16:56.979 --> 00:16:59.379
the twitties of clarifications. But I think on the, the

00:16:59.389 --> 00:17:02.090
language that staff was considering in response to

00:17:02.099 --> 00:17:04.799
your memo. They have it returning to the normal curve at

00:17:04.868 --> 00:17:08.180
0.89. And I think I heard you say 0.9 from the last. But

00:17:08.189 --> 00:17:11.449
I assume that's not a nuance that you're stressed out

00:17:11.459 --> 00:17:14.750
about. That's correct. Yeah, 0.89. So, yeah. The first 10 hours

00:17:14.759 --> 00:17:19.380
yes, that's correct. Thank you. I think if that is

00:17:19.390 --> 00:17:21.318
the direction of the Commission. Then we would just

00:17:21.328 --> 00:17:25.709
need a vote to adopt the staff recommendation as amended

00:17:25.719 --> 00:17:29.519
by the memo that we filed last night. And also as amended

00:17:29.529 --> 00:17:33.318
by the changes instructed in your memorandum of yesterday.

00:17:33.430 --> 00:17:38.759
Okay. So Shelah, is it our normal process to, to move forward

00:17:38.769 --> 00:17:42.199
with a vote at this point? And then have staff do the

00:17:42.209 --> 00:17:45.880
the change or do we typically wait to review the change

00:17:46.309 --> 00:17:49.890
before we adopt the rule? (item:22:Shelah Cisneros recommends voting after language is reviewed) I would recommend that the

00:17:49.900 --> 00:17:51.969
vote after you have a chance to review the language

00:17:52.559 --> 00:17:53.009
Okay.

00:17:57.140 --> 00:18:00.279
So, and I guess why don't we, we'll work through the

00:18:00.289 --> 00:18:02.910
agenda, and then we can, we can call this back up. And

00:18:02.920 --> 00:18:05.019
if you don't think you've had enough time. We can always

00:18:05.029 --> 00:18:07.328
bring this back to the to the May 2nd open meeting.

00:18:07.338 --> 00:18:10.098
I know our hope was to get this done before the notice

00:18:10.108 --> 00:18:13.279
of intent to apply period began. But I think the, the

00:18:13.289 --> 00:18:15.549
folks have heard our discussion know directionally

00:18:15.559 --> 00:18:17.900
where we're headed. So that should be okay. Yeah, let

00:18:17.910 --> 00:18:19.689
us take it, take it back to the shop and see how

00:18:19.699 --> 00:18:22.279
the meeting progresses. But don't, don't adjourn without

00:18:22.289 --> 00:18:24.959
letting us know please. Got it. All right. Thanks

00:18:24.969 --> 00:18:26.068
y'all. Appreciate it. Thank you.

00:18:28.529 --> 00:18:33.618
(item:17:Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55999) Okay, so we will go back to Item No. 17. That's Project

00:18:33.630 --> 00:18:37.029
No. 55999-Reports of the Electric Reliability

00:18:37.039 --> 00:18:40.269
Council of Texas. There were some a couple of filings

00:18:40.279 --> 00:18:45.650
made in this, in this project. So I'd ask ERCOT if you

00:18:45.660 --> 00:18:48.108
all want to come up and staff. 

00:18:54.199 --> 00:18:54.459
If.

00:19:00.439 --> 00:19:00.618
(silence)

00:19:02.189 --> 00:19:02.949
I can sit up.

00:19:06.199 --> 00:19:11.259
So I think we had three filings: the South Texas mitigation

00:19:11.559 --> 00:19:18.818
weatherization program update and then the RMR/MRA proposal.

00:19:18.828 --> 00:19:20.910
So however, y'all want to start. Chad if, if you

00:19:20.920 --> 00:19:24.500
like to start or Harika? Maybe the easiest one is the

00:19:24.509 --> 00:19:27.318
weatherization update and see if there's any questions.

00:19:27.328 --> 00:19:30.209
We made that filing from talking to Commissioner Jackson.

00:19:30.219 --> 00:19:32.848
Just to kind of give a an update, a holistic overview

00:19:32.858 --> 00:19:35.630
of the weatherization program that's been very successful.

00:19:35.709 --> 00:19:38.739
Under uh Kristi Hobbs's team with those inspectors

00:19:38.750 --> 00:19:41.559
out there on, on the ground. And so obviously welcome

00:19:41.568 --> 00:19:43.739
any feedback or questions or comments on that.

00:19:47.608 --> 00:19:49.719
I, I appreciate the information. I mean, we, we heard

00:19:49.729 --> 00:19:51.689
Kristi's presentation at the ERCOT Board meeting.

00:19:51.699 --> 00:19:55.390
It's, it's a robust. The program is working well and

00:19:55.400 --> 00:19:58.930
appreciate all the statistics. (item:17:Commissioner Jackson's thoughts on inspectors and weatherization) I think what you're

00:19:58.939 --> 00:20:01.588
referring to is. You know, I've had the opportunity

00:20:01.598 --> 00:20:04.170
to go out and as many of us have and tour some

00:20:04.180 --> 00:20:07.559
of our power plants. And um, you know, we always ask

00:20:07.568 --> 00:20:12.420
about weatherization. And obviously it is about installing

00:20:12.430 --> 00:20:15.828
facilities, but it's also about the inspections. And

00:20:15.838 --> 00:20:18.769
what has kind of been communicated to me is the depth

00:20:18.779 --> 00:20:22.328
of understanding of the inspectors. And almost like

00:20:22.338 --> 00:20:27.140
a night and day approach than maybe what they had seen

00:20:27.150 --> 00:20:31.529
in the past. Inspectors who come out and first of all

00:20:31.539 --> 00:20:33.689
are knowledgeable. Many of them kind of having been

00:20:33.699 --> 00:20:37.029
boots on the ground themselves, operators. And um

00:20:37.039 --> 00:20:41.549
knowing exactly what to pinpoint and to go look at.

00:20:41.989 --> 00:20:45.338
And then the other comment that has come back. Has been

00:20:45.459 --> 00:20:48.588
that some of the suggestions that they made in looking

00:20:48.598 --> 00:20:51.108
at the facilities were very valuable and something

00:20:51.118 --> 00:20:54.049
that they went on to implement. So I think this is

00:20:54.059 --> 00:20:57.430
you know, kind of what we expect. And we, we'd like

00:20:57.439 --> 00:21:01.858
to see in terms of, you know, a best practice in terms

00:21:01.868 --> 00:21:06.243
of a, you know, a compliance type program. Is that not

00:21:06.255 --> 00:21:09.144
only are you looking at it from the number of inspections

00:21:09.154 --> 00:21:12.723
that you do. But also the value that you get with each

00:21:12.733 --> 00:21:15.164
one of the inspections. And so we've gotten some very

00:21:15.174 --> 00:21:17.953
positive feedback. It's something that people feel

00:21:17.963 --> 00:21:22.045
is valued that they are working, you know, in conjunction

00:21:22.055 --> 00:21:25.285
with the inspector. And that they're very much getting

00:21:25.453 --> 00:21:28.834
the kind of information that's helping them. To be,

00:21:28.844 --> 00:21:31.924
you know, even better as they move forward into their

00:21:31.934 --> 00:21:35.259
weatherization. Some of the facilities had, you know

00:21:35.269 --> 00:21:39.858
taken the initiative to identify, you know, key areas.

00:21:39.868 --> 00:21:42.608
That they wanted to make sure that they could monitor

00:21:42.618 --> 00:21:45.439
on an ongoing real-time basis. And it actually put

00:21:45.449 --> 00:21:50.420
in controls to monitor those specific parameters. Other

00:21:50.430 --> 00:21:53.868
parameters within the site or those that were on like

00:21:53.890 --> 00:21:57.250
a, like a checklist or a walk around list. So you can

00:21:57.259 --> 00:22:02.328
definitely see that the work that we've done on weatherization.

00:22:02.618 --> 00:22:06.160
And the work that we've done on the inspections is

00:22:06.170 --> 00:22:10.299
paying off um because in my mind, because of the engagement.

00:22:10.309 --> 00:22:12.799
And so I just, you know, like to thank you for the

00:22:12.809 --> 00:22:15.799
work that you've done. And continue to, to see you

00:22:15.809 --> 00:22:18.279
know more and more of these, you know, good reports.

00:22:18.289 --> 00:22:20.358
That kind of come back as we're out there in the field.

00:22:25.328 --> 00:22:28.430
I'm good. All right. Sorry. So I think towards the end

00:22:28.439 --> 00:22:30.358
of your filing. You, you talked about a new software

00:22:30.368 --> 00:22:32.670
platform that, that you're gonna have to interact with

00:22:32.680 --> 00:22:34.289
the market participants. So maybe you could just talk

00:22:34.299 --> 00:22:36.979
through that uh because that was news to me. Yeah.

00:22:36.989 --> 00:22:39.719
(item:17:ERCOT's Woody Rickerson on new software platform) So we have uh, uh Woody Rickerson with ERCOT.

00:22:41.400 --> 00:22:44.759
So we have used a more of a manual process up until

00:22:44.769 --> 00:22:47.818
now. So we now we have a more automated platform uh

00:22:47.828 --> 00:22:50.140
service now. It's similar to some of the other service

00:22:50.150 --> 00:22:53.160
tickets that we use internally. We completed several

00:22:53.170 --> 00:22:55.180
training sessions, but I think there were some ongoing

00:22:55.189 --> 00:22:59.680
training sessions. This Summer will be the first fully

00:22:59.689 --> 00:23:04.019
implementable time period. Where we use this, this uh. So

00:23:04.029 --> 00:23:07.180
this will be the, the, the, the system that we use to

00:23:07.250 --> 00:23:10.219
uh send out notices. They can send us attachments back.

00:23:10.229 --> 00:23:12.420
It will be the communication platform going forward.

00:23:12.430 --> 00:23:14.890
Be a lot better than, than what we were using before

00:23:15.618 --> 00:23:16.838
a lot less manual work.

00:23:18.969 --> 00:23:22.098
Perfect. So, yeah. I, I would just reiterate that 

00:23:22.108 --> 00:23:24.568
you know obviously the, the inspection framework that

00:23:24.578 --> 00:23:28.309
that we're using is, is paying off. You know, paying

00:23:28.318 --> 00:23:30.279
great dividends for, for the system. So thanks for

00:23:30.289 --> 00:23:32.838
all the hard work. We we really appreciate it. Thank

00:23:32.848 --> 00:23:38.709
you. Okay. (item:17:ERCOT's Chad Seely on updated reports) The other two reports are related and the

00:23:38.719 --> 00:23:42.809
difference is the timing of it. So the, the first report

00:23:42.818 --> 00:23:46.108
dealing with the South Texas export import issue. Is

00:23:46.118 --> 00:23:48.608
a continuation of our discussion with the Commission.

00:23:48.618 --> 00:23:51.500
On whether the Commission would like us to proceed

00:23:51.509 --> 00:23:54.509
forward to address some of the reliability risks that

00:23:54.519 --> 00:23:58.250
we see for this upcoming Summer. And as the Commission

00:23:58.259 --> 00:24:00.459
talked about at the, at the last open meeting from

00:24:00.469 --> 00:24:03.858
our previous filing. There were a couple of mitigation

00:24:03.868 --> 00:24:07.219
options that were recommended in our previous filing.

00:24:07.229 --> 00:24:11.598
One is a request for proposal for either demand response

00:24:11.608 --> 00:24:16.019
and or additional sources. That could be available in

00:24:16.029 --> 00:24:20.029
the Summer time period to help alleviate some of the

00:24:20.039 --> 00:24:23.140
risk if we get to that transmission constraint being

00:24:23.150 --> 00:24:26.309
potentially overloaded. And so we've laid out a framework

00:24:26.318 --> 00:24:29.539
talking to Commission Staff. Welcome any Commission

00:24:29.549 --> 00:24:32.709
guidance. On uh whether the Commission wants us to, to

00:24:32.719 --> 00:24:36.219
move forward with that. To start to dig deeper into

00:24:36.229 --> 00:24:39.430
the request for proposal. This is a little bit different

00:24:39.439 --> 00:24:43.269
than obviously what we did in October of last year.

00:24:43.410 --> 00:24:45.799
And from those lessons learned where we are really

00:24:45.809 --> 00:24:49.039
seeking guidance from the Commission. We learned a

00:24:49.049 --> 00:24:51.689
lot going through that request for proposal. On how

00:24:51.699 --> 00:24:54.380
to kind of frame up and, and measure other types of

00:24:54.390 --> 00:24:57.598
sources besides just demand response. And we've characterized

00:24:57.608 --> 00:25:00.848
some of that in the filing as well. So we do know

00:25:00.858 --> 00:25:03.739
that there are resources that would be scheduled to

00:25:03.750 --> 00:25:06.219
come on in the latter part of the, of the year. That

00:25:06.229 --> 00:25:08.959
could potentially accelerate for example. Don't know

00:25:08.969 --> 00:25:11.170
if they can or not. But that's something I think the

00:25:11.180 --> 00:25:14.348
Commission should consider. We threw out an option

00:25:14.358 --> 00:25:19.848
of ERS resources that aren't participating in those specific

00:25:19.858 --> 00:25:23.739
focused hours. Maybe participating in other hours through

00:25:23.750 --> 00:25:26.449
the Summer program as something that could be eligible.

00:25:26.670 --> 00:25:30.328
Another option we threw out was settlement only generators.

00:25:30.578 --> 00:25:33.759
As we know those exist, they obviously get right now

00:25:33.769 --> 00:25:35.959
the load zone price. They have a qualified scheduling

00:25:35.969 --> 00:25:38.989
entity. We would have a metric on whether they're really

00:25:39.000 --> 00:25:41.390
responding during that time period or not. To exclude

00:25:41.400 --> 00:25:44.539
them from the RFP. But if they're not, we're able to

00:25:44.549 --> 00:25:46.779
have them offer into this. That would be another type

00:25:46.789 --> 00:25:50.180
of solution. So again, looking for Commission guidance

00:25:50.189 --> 00:25:53.009
as we uh obviously move forward. To try to develop a

00:25:53.019 --> 00:25:56.519
request for proposal and, and the budget issue. We would

00:25:56.529 --> 00:25:59.608
work with Commission Staff on that and bring back a

00:25:59.618 --> 00:26:02.689
recommendation for the Commission on that as well.

00:26:02.838 --> 00:26:06.358
Other things in the filing were focused on another

00:26:06.368 --> 00:26:09.108
alternative dealing with the shadow price cap. We

00:26:09.118 --> 00:26:11.493
kind of highlighted, you know what the cons and benefits

00:26:11.505 --> 00:26:14.505
are of that. We could move forward with a protocol

00:26:14.515 --> 00:26:17.334
change on an accelerated basis. If the Commission wanted

00:26:17.344 --> 00:26:21.765
us to do that as well. Dynamically, dynamically rated

00:26:21.775 --> 00:26:25.314
lines is another opportunity we're talking to the local

00:26:25.324 --> 00:26:28.025
utilities there about. Some new software that could

00:26:28.035 --> 00:26:30.973
provide value and whether they're able to procure that

00:26:30.983 --> 00:26:33.608
and put that in place in time for the Summer. And then

00:26:33.618 --> 00:26:36.549
the last thing we highlight in that filing. Was we want

00:26:36.559 --> 00:26:39.410
to be very clear about the operator actions that would

00:26:39.420 --> 00:26:43.608
be taken to relieve the overload. So the operation

00:26:43.618 --> 00:26:46.779
procedure kind of lays out what those steps would be

00:26:46.789 --> 00:26:50.390
if we get to the potential of overloading that constraint.

00:26:50.618 --> 00:26:53.309
So those are kind of the four areas wrapped into that

00:26:53.318 --> 00:26:56.640
South Texas filing. And then the second filing is really

00:26:56.650 --> 00:26:59.598
kind of an extension of the same issue with the CPS

00:26:59.608 --> 00:27:04.838
Energy Resources retiring in April of next year. It

00:27:04.848 --> 00:27:10.328
does hit our RMR trigger to begin that process of the

00:27:10.338 --> 00:27:13.750
RMR must run alternative. And something I would highlight

00:27:13.759 --> 00:27:18.068
for the Commission. Is whether it's an RFP for the demand

00:27:18.078 --> 00:27:21.209
response or these other sources. It would be very similar

00:27:21.219 --> 00:27:24.489
for the must run alternative process too. So the must

00:27:24.500 --> 00:27:27.598
run alternative process would be looking at demand

00:27:27.608 --> 00:27:30.000
response solutions and these other options that we

00:27:30.009 --> 00:27:33.779
laid out in our South Texas filing. So whatever direction

00:27:33.789 --> 00:27:39.130
that the Commission gives us for the RFP for 2024. You

00:27:39.140 --> 00:27:41.949
also have to think about the must run alternative

00:27:41.959 --> 00:27:47.039
solutions under the RMR/MRA framework as well. And whether

00:27:47.049 --> 00:27:50.318
you're including or excluding those type of opportunities

00:27:50.489 --> 00:27:54.068
to look for the most cost effective solution to solve

00:27:54.078 --> 00:27:57.439
the reliability problem. So Chad, maybe if you could

00:27:57.449 --> 00:28:00.969
talk through. I know in your filing on the RMR, you

00:28:00.979 --> 00:28:03.479
talked about a good cause exception to your to the

00:28:03.489 --> 00:28:05.568
protocols. Can you kind of talk through the timeline

00:28:05.578 --> 00:28:09.578
and, and why that's appropriate in your view? Yes.

00:28:09.660 --> 00:28:13.250
Because CPS afforded us more time to deal with this

00:28:13.259 --> 00:28:16.039
issue. They gave the notice of suspension of operations

00:28:16.049 --> 00:28:18.930
in, in early March. They're not anticipating those

00:28:18.939 --> 00:28:24.009
units to retire until the end of March 2025. And the

00:28:24.019 --> 00:28:27.250
way in which the timeline was laid out in the Commission's

00:28:27.259 --> 00:28:30.739
rules along with the protocols. It was kind of anticipated

00:28:30.750 --> 00:28:34.219
that resources would come in at the end of that trigger

00:28:34.229 --> 00:28:38.670
point of 150 days before they would be suspended or

00:28:38.680 --> 00:28:42.750
decommissioned. But again, CPS giving us more time

00:28:42.759 --> 00:28:46.670
allows us to be more strategic in how we move forward

00:28:46.680 --> 00:28:49.390
with the must run alternative solution. Gather that

00:28:49.400 --> 00:28:52.209
information to really do a cost benefit assessment.

00:28:52.219 --> 00:28:57.019
Of is it better to keep the CPS units around or are

00:28:57.029 --> 00:28:59.969
there other alternatives that could be available in

00:28:59.979 --> 00:29:04.170
that April 2025 time frame for the board to evaluate.

00:29:04.449 --> 00:29:07.539
At the end of the day the, the protocol requirements

00:29:07.549 --> 00:29:11.390
are that the Board would evaluate all the solutions.

00:29:11.400 --> 00:29:14.229
And determine from a cost benefit assessment what's

00:29:14.239 --> 00:29:17.358
the most appropriate outcome. And there is a situation

00:29:17.368 --> 00:29:20.828
where and this gets in kind of the loss of load probability

00:29:20.838 --> 00:29:23.949
too. That you wouldn't procure anything or you would

00:29:23.959 --> 00:29:28.358
procure less than what was necessary from the CPS units.

00:29:28.368 --> 00:29:31.229
That's all codified in the protocols as far as that

00:29:31.239 --> 00:29:35.108
cost benefit analysis. So I think conceptually, I'm

00:29:35.118 --> 00:29:37.469
good. You know, we should take advantage of the extra

00:29:37.479 --> 00:29:40.539
time we have that CPS has given us. I have talked to

00:29:40.549 --> 00:29:43.640
Legal Staff just about, you know, since this was filed

00:29:43.650 --> 00:29:45.890
you know, earlier this week. Maybe taking a little

00:29:45.900 --> 00:29:48.789
time to just look at some of the legal requirements

00:29:48.799 --> 00:29:51.479
of a good cause exception. As it pertains to our rules

00:29:51.489 --> 00:29:54.479
and to the protocol. So I think in your filing, you

00:29:54.489 --> 00:29:56.779
said you were fine. If, if we brought this back up at

00:29:56.789 --> 00:29:59.769
the next open meeting. So I'd, I'd suggest that we

00:29:59.858 --> 00:30:03.390
take the week. Let Legal Staff look at, at those requirements

00:30:03.400 --> 00:30:05.559
and then bring this back up at the, at the next meeting.

00:30:07.559 --> 00:30:10.549
But I mean generally, are you all okay with that direction.

00:30:10.559 --> 00:30:12.769
And, and allowing them the extra time to take advantage

00:30:12.779 --> 00:30:16.259
of the, the lead time that CPS gave us? Yeah, I think

00:30:16.269 --> 00:30:20.309
it makes sense. You have sort of moving pieces in this

00:30:20.318 --> 00:30:22.949
whole sort of situation in South Texas. And I think

00:30:23.279 --> 00:30:26.269
because CPS gave us, you know, about a year's worth

00:30:26.279 --> 00:30:30.098
of time to, to plan. I think it makes sense to um

00:30:30.108 --> 00:30:33.459
look at it from a more macro level. And make sure we're

00:30:33.469 --> 00:30:36.900
kind of positioning ourselves from a strategic standpoint.

00:30:36.910 --> 00:30:41.439
To ensure we have reliability down there so. And

00:30:41.449 --> 00:30:43.689
the other thing I highlighted in our filing. Was if

00:30:43.699 --> 00:30:45.650
the Commission wants us to move forward with an RFP

00:30:45.660 --> 00:30:50.539
for 2024. Try not to cause confusion in the solutions

00:30:50.549 --> 00:30:53.979
that would be available for 2024 versus the 2025 timeframe.

00:30:53.989 --> 00:30:57.449
And so being strategic on that initiative as

00:30:57.459 --> 00:30:59.189
well. I think that's a good point. I don't think you'd

00:30:59.199 --> 00:31:01.140
want to run them concurrently, you'd want to run them

00:31:01.150 --> 00:31:05.509
consecutively so. I first of all, I want to say

00:31:05.519 --> 00:31:08.219
I'm appreciative that y'all filed this memo. And uh

00:31:08.229 --> 00:31:12.828
I think there was stakeholder Commission consternation,

00:31:12.838 --> 00:31:15.598
Commissioner consternation. When you all went out with

00:31:15.608 --> 00:31:19.479
the RFP last year on your own. So I think laying it

00:31:19.489 --> 00:31:25.449
out like this was really a good precedent on, on the

00:31:25.459 --> 00:31:27.400
way to do things. And, and I'm really appreciative

00:31:27.410 --> 00:31:30.459
that you all did that. I, I do have a question about

00:31:30.469 --> 00:31:32.400
one of the issues specifically. This probably goes

00:31:32.410 --> 00:31:35.219
to Woody. And that is,

00:31:37.180 --> 00:31:40.390
I didn't quite understand from the memo. If you're

00:31:40.400 --> 00:31:43.358
seeking, are you seeking resources that are just in

00:31:43.368 --> 00:31:44.828
the area of the constraint?

00:31:47.400 --> 00:31:51.199
The reason why I ask this is because if the constraints

00:31:51.209 --> 00:31:53.250
there. I think I've heard you say in the past that

00:31:53.259 --> 00:31:57.838
any generator North of the constraint helps. It helps

00:31:57.858 --> 00:32:01.250
reduce the flow of power coming up that constraint.

00:32:02.059 --> 00:32:04.989
How do you distinguish between what's local and what's

00:32:05.279 --> 00:32:07.598
in the entire Northern part of the state or is?

00:32:10.189 --> 00:32:12.759
Well, I think we know where the constraint is and so

00:32:12.769 --> 00:32:15.000
we can calculate shift factors to anybody that bids

00:32:15.009 --> 00:32:16.750
in. So a

00:32:18.578 --> 00:32:21.989
resource in far West Texas might have a less of a shift

00:32:22.000 --> 00:32:26.348
factor than one in Austin or Central Texas. But you

00:32:26.358 --> 00:32:29.199
still look at all of those, not just. We would certainly

00:32:29.209 --> 00:32:31.640
look at all of them. That's what I wanted to make sure

00:32:31.650 --> 00:32:34.930
of. Was that all of those, any demand response or any

00:32:34.939 --> 00:32:37.608
new resource North of the constraint. That could solve

00:32:37.618 --> 00:32:41.299
that constraint or provide some relief for that constraint.

00:32:41.309 --> 00:32:44.250
All will be treated the same. Right. So you'd effectively

00:32:44.259 --> 00:32:48.949
be looking at the like a net effectiveness of each

00:32:48.959 --> 00:32:53.618
individual resources megawatts. Right, right. So a

00:32:53.630 --> 00:32:56.608
10 Megawatt resource with 100% shift factor would be

00:32:56.618 --> 00:33:00.380
better than 100 Megawatt resource with a 1% shift factor.

00:33:00.500 --> 00:33:04.368
Right, right. And I think we wanted to highlight that

00:33:04.449 --> 00:33:06.759
you know, because of this constraint. The closer the

00:33:06.769 --> 00:33:09.750
megawatts are to it, the more valuable they are. And

00:33:09.759 --> 00:33:13.449
so that goes into, you know, what is the cost? So 100

00:33:13.459 --> 00:33:17.160
megawatts up in Dallas at a higher cost versus 100

00:33:17.170 --> 00:33:21.539
megawatts or 10 megawatts closer to the constraint. That's

00:33:21.549 --> 00:33:23.890
gonna all be part of the evaluation process. That's

00:33:23.900 --> 00:33:26.848
good, that's good. And I had one other question

00:33:26.858 --> 00:33:31.750
on the RMR issue. And that is, did you all look at

00:33:31.759 --> 00:33:36.430
that through the transmission system in a voltage issue

00:33:36.439 --> 00:33:40.549
or resource adequacy issue? Both. Both. But it was a

00:33:40.559 --> 00:33:46.809
thermal line overload that made it be a RMR. It wasn't

00:33:46.818 --> 00:33:49.719
voltage and it wasn't resource adequacy. It was thermal

00:33:49.729 --> 00:33:53.459
line overload. Okay, and is that a different category or

00:33:53.469 --> 00:33:55.650
is that a? That's kind of your traditional

00:33:57.250 --> 00:33:59.848
like the greens bayou was a, was a thermal overload

00:33:59.858 --> 00:34:02.390
as well. So those are, that's kind of what that's been.

00:34:03.759 --> 00:34:06.640
Well, we have had to do RMRs that mostly been for

00:34:06.650 --> 00:34:11.500
thermal overloads. And, and was there any degradation

00:34:11.510 --> 00:34:14.610
of the voltage in the San Antonio area when they're

00:34:14.619 --> 00:34:19.329
shut down? Not, no. Not, not I mean there would be

00:34:19.340 --> 00:34:21.699
some, but if that wasn't a factor,

00:34:23.418 --> 00:34:27.099
Okay. That's all I have, I'm supportive. I, I, I have some. Oh, go ahead.

00:34:27.110 --> 00:34:29.208
Well, I just was saying. I appreciate the fact that you're

00:34:29.219 --> 00:34:31.719
looking at this from both the short term and the long

00:34:31.728 --> 00:34:35.449
term. And also the broad kind of look from a technical

00:34:35.458 --> 00:34:39.550
standpoint in terms of looking at all of the opportunities.

00:34:39.889 --> 00:34:43.489
And uh particularly within demand response, um all

00:34:43.500 --> 00:34:46.949
solutions help and so would encourage that, as you

00:34:46.958 --> 00:34:52.728
mentioned earlier. So um just to kind of add some more

00:34:52.739 --> 00:34:56.427
to more specifically the um South Texas mitigation

00:34:56.438 --> 00:34:59.528
measures that y'all propose in your filing. Um I know

00:34:59.539 --> 00:35:01.838
we had this discussion last open meeting. I I'm, I'm

00:35:01.849 --> 00:35:06.367
definitely fine with a um demand response RFP. I think

00:35:06.378 --> 00:35:13.219
the fact that um the other capacity resource um portion

00:35:13.228 --> 00:35:18.429
of the an RFP that y'all propose potentially. My

00:35:18.438 --> 00:35:20.809
understanding is Commissioner Glotfelty was laying

00:35:20.820 --> 00:35:23.550
out and, and getting clarification on. Is, you know

00:35:23.559 --> 00:35:26.070
this is not like the other RFP. Where you just basically

00:35:26.079 --> 00:35:28.409
surveyed the entire market and see what kind of plants

00:35:28.418 --> 00:35:31.309
you can get in RFP. And this is more strategic based

00:35:31.320 --> 00:35:34.469
on shift factors and the value that those mega megawatts

00:35:34.478 --> 00:35:38.019
will provide to the constraint. So that, that, that

00:35:38.030 --> 00:35:40.398
makes me feel a little bit better. In terms of because

00:35:40.409 --> 00:35:42.800
I think the last time was, you know, we some of the

00:35:42.809 --> 00:35:45.239
concerns that were raised. Were the impact of the competitive

00:35:45.250 --> 00:35:47.860
wholesale market, right? Of bringing these capacity

00:35:47.869 --> 00:35:53.280
large plants into um an RFP in a contract. This is

00:35:53.289 --> 00:35:57.309
appears to be more strategic um in terms of, of really

00:35:57.320 --> 00:36:00.800
pinpointing the constraint. And the three options y'all

00:36:00.809 --> 00:36:03.309
laid out. I would like to just kind of visit with

00:36:03.320 --> 00:36:05.340
y'all offline before the next open meeting. Just to

00:36:05.349 --> 00:36:10.500
make sure I understand. Um you know what how it, it

00:36:10.510 --> 00:36:13.628
would all work. With respect to the ERS and settlement

00:36:13.639 --> 00:36:16.969
only but also with the generation ESR storage resources.

00:36:16.978 --> 00:36:20.739
I mean, I've been sort of advocating for um getting

00:36:20.750 --> 00:36:24.260
resources on the seam from San Antonio to Dallas to

00:36:24.269 --> 00:36:26.418
help. Which obviously kind of lines up with the shift

00:36:26.438 --> 00:36:29.378
factor proposal y'all approach that y'all have provided.

00:36:29.579 --> 00:36:32.780
I would just, you know I, I wanna look at this from

00:36:32.789 --> 00:36:36.019
a macro level too from the impact to the market 

00:36:36.030 --> 00:36:38.760
as well. But I just wanna get a better understanding

00:36:38.769 --> 00:36:43.309
of the three categories y'all laid out. I think

00:36:43.320 --> 00:36:45.668
that ultimately, I think. We're, we're gonna have to

00:36:45.679 --> 00:36:48.389
come up with a budget and we don't really have precedent

00:36:48.398 --> 00:36:52.389
for that. I know staff, our staff could work with

00:36:52.398 --> 00:36:56.070
your staff, ERCOT staff. To develop ways of develop,

00:36:56.079 --> 00:36:58.708
you know, coming up with a budget. But I think that

00:36:58.719 --> 00:37:02.840
portion of the RFP, we're gonna need a little bit more

00:37:02.849 --> 00:37:06.010
time than the next open meeting. Because that is gonna

00:37:06.019 --> 00:37:07.780
be a little bit more nuanced, right? That's where the

00:37:07.789 --> 00:37:10.659
rubber meets the road, the cost. So because we've had

00:37:10.668 --> 00:37:13.090
no experience in developing a budget for an RFP. Y'all,

00:37:13.099 --> 00:37:16.148
y'all had experience last time. I think there's

00:37:16.159 --> 00:37:18.398
gonna need to be some engagement with our staff. To

00:37:18.409 --> 00:37:21.599
figure out an approach on how. What are the ways of

00:37:21.610 --> 00:37:24.050
you know, options on developing the budget. But that's

00:37:24.059 --> 00:37:26.079
also driven by the type of resources. That you guys

00:37:26.090 --> 00:37:30.929
are gonna go out and um look to acquire through the

00:37:31.179 --> 00:37:35.239
uh RFP on a contractual basis. So I think that part

00:37:35.250 --> 00:37:38.829
of the RFP process needs a little bit more time. 

00:37:38.860 --> 00:37:41.708
But uh you know ultimately I think, I think this the

00:37:41.719 --> 00:37:44.360
plan to come back next meeting and let y'all know. If

00:37:44.369 --> 00:37:46.519
we're good with demand response, demand response and

00:37:46.530 --> 00:37:50.688
other capacity resources that may be feasible. It's

00:37:50.699 --> 00:37:53.139
just the budgetary part that I'm just wondering if

00:37:53.148 --> 00:37:57.039
we can get there next open meeting. So on the budget

00:37:57.050 --> 00:37:59.000
yes, we are working with Commission Staff on that. And

00:37:59.090 --> 00:38:02.239
Harika can, can add additional comments if she wants. 

00:38:02.250 --> 00:38:05.739
I, I think today it would be good to get some guidance

00:38:05.750 --> 00:38:11.949
on the framework because we're heading into May. And

00:38:11.958 --> 00:38:15.039
I think the goal here is to try to get something by

00:38:15.050 --> 00:38:19.469
July 1st. That where you start to see that risk increase

00:38:19.478 --> 00:38:22.958
on the South Texas export. And going out for an RFP

00:38:22.969 --> 00:38:25.438
this is the similar constraint that we have even under

00:38:25.449 --> 00:38:28.510
the existing protocols is the timing issue. To try to

00:38:28.519 --> 00:38:32.148
get this out there and people to look at it and respond

00:38:32.159 --> 00:38:35.570
with solutions. We would want to target to get this

00:38:35.579 --> 00:38:41.219
RFP out in, in mid May. So that people have enough time

00:38:41.228 --> 00:38:44.458
to evaluate it and submit their offers. And for ERCOT

00:38:44.469 --> 00:38:47.699
to do its evaluation on the shift factor, the costs

00:38:47.708 --> 00:38:51.079
the most optimum value to solving the solution. So

00:38:51.090 --> 00:38:54.019
the Commission can provide guidance on not just the

00:38:54.030 --> 00:38:56.760
demand response piece but adding starting to develop

00:38:56.769 --> 00:39:00.320
more of the framework for these other sources. That's

00:39:00.329 --> 00:39:02.780
what ERCOT would request today. Because we need our

00:39:02.789 --> 00:39:05.599
teams to start to build out what that criteria looks

00:39:05.610 --> 00:39:08.478
like. And we can continue to have the, obviously the

00:39:08.489 --> 00:39:11.628
the conversation with you, Commissioner Cobos on our

00:39:11.639 --> 00:39:14.360
thoughts around this. But it is those would be kind

00:39:14.369 --> 00:39:16.985
of located targeted because of what you said they have

00:39:16.994 --> 00:39:20.273
the highest impact around there. And, and again I

00:39:20.284 --> 00:39:22.784
would emphasize this, this is kind of the same extension

00:39:22.793 --> 00:39:26.175
of what the must, must run alternative solution is to.

00:39:26.364 --> 00:39:29.003
Is it just going to be demand focused? Or are we going

00:39:29.014 --> 00:39:33.813
to be looking for opportunities for resources to accelerate?

00:39:34.023 --> 00:39:38.853
Or utilization of settlement only generators or ERS participation 

00:39:39.083 --> 00:39:43.250
to solve this kind of localized issue? Yeah, I understand. 

00:39:43.260 --> 00:39:46.500
And, and so I think issue out an RFP in mid May

00:39:46.510 --> 00:39:49.110
it would still allow us time to visit with you all

00:39:49.168 --> 00:39:52.070
after this open meeting. Because we just got this filing

00:39:52.079 --> 00:39:54.128
on Monday and we're at the ERCOT Board meetings. And I just

00:39:54.139 --> 00:39:58.780
need to understand it more. And um so from my perspective

00:39:59.289 --> 00:40:01.750
I mean, I'm good with DR. I just need to understand

00:40:01.760 --> 00:40:05.699
this other piece to it a little bit more um from you

00:40:05.708 --> 00:40:10.309
all. And then be able to provide direction at the

00:40:10.320 --> 00:40:13.938
May 2nd open meeting. So Chad I think, I think if

00:40:13.949 --> 00:40:16.539
I'm hearing everyone right. I think everyone's comfortable

00:40:16.789 --> 00:40:20.889
with the dynamic rating improvements with the shadow

00:40:20.898 --> 00:40:25.289
pricing on the ROL and on DR. But maybe just a little

00:40:25.300 --> 00:40:30.139
more discussion on, you know, looking at the RFP to

00:40:30.148 --> 00:40:32.250
consider things that you considered last time as well 

00:40:32.260 --> 00:40:34.250
to, to look for more capacity. So maybe if we could

00:40:34.260 --> 00:40:36.478
just have a little more discussion this week on that

00:40:36.489 --> 00:40:39.398
one piece of the recommendation that'd be helpful.

00:40:39.409 --> 00:40:42.099
And so you can get started on the other portions if

00:40:42.110 --> 00:40:45.099
I'm hearing everybody correctly. And then we can

00:40:45.110 --> 00:40:47.969
you know, bring back up the, the capacity piece at

00:40:47.978 --> 00:40:51.489
the next open meeting. Yes. Okay. Can I bring up one

00:40:51.500 --> 00:40:55.219
other thing? So uh as you all know. A year ago, we

00:40:55.570 --> 00:40:58.820
um the Commission. We led an effort to try to get federal

00:40:58.829 --> 00:41:03.000
grip dollars which are grid resiliency dollars. There

00:41:03.010 --> 00:41:05.168
were two buckets of that. We were not successful in

00:41:05.179 --> 00:41:08.648
that project. But another bucket of those funds comes

00:41:08.659 --> 00:41:12.860
to Texas on a formula basis. Those funds currently

00:41:12.869 --> 00:41:17.059
reside at TDEM per the governor. There is a notice

00:41:17.070 --> 00:41:20.679
of funding opportunity out there for enhancing resiliency

00:41:20.688 --> 00:41:24.619
and reliability. That I'm wondering maybe if we can

00:41:24.628 --> 00:41:28.809
get ERCOT and our staff to work with TDEM. Maybe we

00:41:28.820 --> 00:41:29.458
can help

00:41:31.199 --> 00:41:34.458
either pay for this or help with dynamic line reading

00:41:34.469 --> 00:41:37.128
technologies or other technologies to help solve this

00:41:37.139 --> 00:41:39.969
constraint this year and next year. These are formula

00:41:39.978 --> 00:41:42.688
grants that will come over the next few years. But

00:41:42.699 --> 00:41:45.398
I just think it's something that maybe it's a real

00:41:45.429 --> 00:41:49.489
world issue. We know things don't move very quickly

00:41:49.500 --> 00:41:51.949
at the federal level. But if, if they're within the

00:41:51.958 --> 00:41:55.668
state purview, we may be able to do something on that.

00:41:55.679 --> 00:41:58.780
So Connie, I think that's, that's to you. If we could

00:41:58.789 --> 00:42:00.878
talk about that and if there's a way that you all could

00:42:00.889 --> 00:42:02.820
help and we could think about that, that'd be great.

00:42:02.829 --> 00:42:05.280
And the answer may be no. And if the answer is no

00:42:05.289 --> 00:42:07.039
that's fine. I just want to make sure we look at it.

00:42:07.409 --> 00:42:10.550
We'll certainly look into it. And I have one clarification

00:42:10.559 --> 00:42:13.128
question. So with respect to the shadow price cap,

00:42:15.320 --> 00:42:17.050
when we say we're good here today with it. What does

00:42:17.059 --> 00:42:19.289
that mean? Are you going to go like file an urgent

00:42:19.378 --> 00:42:22.958
NPRR? That would be the expectation to submit a protocol

00:42:22.969 --> 00:42:25.409
change to the stakeholder process on an urgent basis.

00:42:25.639 --> 00:42:28.148
As we highlighted in the filing, we could get it to

00:42:28.159 --> 00:42:32.478
the June Board through. I'm not presupposing the outcome

00:42:32.489 --> 00:42:34.208
of what the stakeholders think of that. But that would

00:42:34.219 --> 00:42:37.579
be the goal and an opportunity for y'all to consider

00:42:37.590 --> 00:42:41.239
it. Either in time for it to be effective August 1st

00:42:41.250 --> 00:42:44.550
or again, if we're trying to do solutions that would

00:42:44.559 --> 00:42:46.820
be available in July. Then you would have to, you know

00:42:47.010 --> 00:42:49.429
use one of your exception processes to consider it

00:42:49.438 --> 00:42:52.789
after the June Board. I think the system changes aren't

00:42:52.800 --> 00:42:56.389
that they'll take as long as the procedural changes.

00:42:57.769 --> 00:43:00.349
Yeah. And with respect to the dynamic line ratings

00:43:00.360 --> 00:43:02.739
you know we have this. I brought that up at the ERCOT

00:43:02.750 --> 00:43:05.599
Board meeting. And, you know, dynamic line rating has

00:43:05.610 --> 00:43:08.320
been exist, in existence in the ERCOT market for a while

00:43:08.329 --> 00:43:12.059
right? It's just the evolution of dynamic line ratings

00:43:12.070 --> 00:43:14.889
that has recently taken place like this, you know,

00:43:14.898 --> 00:43:17.789
ability to track wind speed. You know, software changes

00:43:17.800 --> 00:43:20.679
things like that. That we need to try to look at um

00:43:20.688 --> 00:43:23.519
to optimize as these new technologies come into the

00:43:23.530 --> 00:43:26.438
market. Because we have a lot of growth in Texas. We

00:43:26.449 --> 00:43:28.438
gotta be making sure we're reading the transmission

00:43:28.449 --> 00:43:31.639
capacity on these lines appropriately. And if there's

00:43:31.648 --> 00:43:34.918
a way for ERCOT to work with the TSPs as a

00:43:34.929 --> 00:43:39.110
proposed projects. To encourage these types of technologies

00:43:39.119 --> 00:43:42.869
and um advancements. I think would, would only be to

00:43:42.878 --> 00:43:45.679
our benefit um as you guys have identified some good

00:43:46.030 --> 00:43:50.159
um some good outcomes here. With the dynamic line writing

00:43:50.168 --> 00:43:52.760
in South Texas with some of these facilities. So that's

00:43:52.769 --> 00:43:54.590
where I was coming from at the ERCOT Board meeting. Just

00:43:54.599 --> 00:43:58.570
wanted to kind of add more to that. Yeah, I think worked

00:43:58.579 --> 00:44:03.688
with Connie um that dynamic wind rating. We haven't

00:44:03.699 --> 00:44:06.030
used wind ratings on dynamic ratings, but it might be

00:44:06.039 --> 00:44:07.000
a good TDEM

00:44:08.610 --> 00:44:10.929
pilot project or something like that potentially to

00:44:10.938 --> 00:44:11.688
to look into.

00:44:13.559 --> 00:44:14.139
Thank you.

00:44:15.958 --> 00:44:18.409
Okay. Do you all, you feel like you have what you need

00:44:18.418 --> 00:44:21.469
at this point? Yes. Okay, perfect. Thanks y'all.

00:44:24.090 --> 00:44:26.188
Yeah. You're gonna be up here for a couple of them

00:44:26.228 --> 00:44:31.239
I think Harika. Yeah. So Item No. 18 was consented. (item:19:Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55845) So

00:44:31.250 --> 00:44:35.500
Item 19 is Project No. 55845-Review of Ancillary

00:44:35.519 --> 00:44:39.000
Services in the ERCOT market. Harika, I don't know if Chris is

00:44:39.010 --> 00:44:43.250
here. Chris is not here. That's okay. He's overseas enjoying his

00:44:45.449 --> 00:44:48.800
vacation. Oh, nice. (item:19:Commission Staff's Harika Basaran on ancillary service study update) Harika Basaran with Commission Staff. Yeah, in this Ancillary service study.

00:44:48.809 --> 00:44:52.030
When you approve the scope and the timelines. We also

00:44:52.039 --> 00:44:54.550
promise to come periodically here and to give you an

00:44:54.559 --> 00:44:57.239
update on the progress. So there's gonna be a very

00:44:57.250 --> 00:45:02.929
short verbal update. At March 15, ERCOT provided us a draft

00:45:02.938 --> 00:45:05.849
and educational document that provides understanding

00:45:05.860 --> 00:45:08.510
of the technical and reliability consideration. How

00:45:08.590 --> 00:45:12.188
they view AS the current process and the governance

00:45:12.199 --> 00:45:16.349
framework. And March 18th, we met in-person Staff,

00:45:16.360 --> 00:45:20.139
ERCOT, IMM at ERCOT. And IMM went over their probabilistic

00:45:20.148 --> 00:45:23.389
model. They explained it. ERCOT had questions. It was

00:45:23.398 --> 00:45:26.639
a very good meeting and ERCOT reviewed their educational

00:45:26.648 --> 00:45:29.889
document. And what I am hearing is they are continuing

00:45:29.898 --> 00:45:33.340
to ask questions to each other about how they model

00:45:33.469 --> 00:45:39.128
the AS study. And they continue to evaluate IMM's model.

00:45:39.219 --> 00:45:42.728
And we also shared some basic major milestone

00:45:42.739 --> 00:45:46.829
timelines with IMM and ERCOT. And the next big milestone

00:45:46.840 --> 00:45:49.760
is going to be mid May. We are expecting a draft from

00:45:49.769 --> 00:45:54.375
IMM and ERCOT. And then between May and June until we the

00:45:54.385 --> 00:45:58.793
first stakeholder draft. We will meet and reconcile

00:45:58.804 --> 00:46:01.675
and look at each others. So all I'm going to say is

00:46:01.684 --> 00:46:05.114
we are on track and I will provide another update May

00:46:05.125 --> 00:46:08.175
23rd open meeting. But if you have any other questions

00:46:08.184 --> 00:46:10.925
any feedback, just let us know. Perfect. Thank you Harika.

00:46:11.273 --> 00:46:14.628
Any questions? Thank you. Thank you.

00:46:16.869 --> 00:46:21.099
Okay. (item:20:Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55984) Project uh No. 20 is Project No. 55984-

00:46:21.110 --> 00:46:25.099
Review of DC Tie issues in transmission planning. 

00:46:25.110 --> 00:46:29.809
So staff filed a recommendation here. I know in

00:46:29.820 --> 00:46:32.168
the past when I was sitting on the other side of the

00:46:32.389 --> 00:46:36.898
dais. Commissioners Cobos and Glotfelty have had thoughts

00:46:36.909 --> 00:46:40.070
on this. So I think it maybe good if staff will

00:46:40.079 --> 00:46:43.668
come up on this issue. And then Commissioner Cobos

00:46:44.188 --> 00:46:46.280
if you want to start and then Commissioner Glotfelty

00:46:46.289 --> 00:46:48.599
hear y'all's thoughts on it, and then proceed from there.

00:46:50.289 --> 00:46:51.750
Thank you. 

00:46:53.750 --> 00:46:54.119
We can have

00:46:56.599 --> 00:46:59.429
staff lay out? Yeah. Go ahead and lay out your memo. Good morning Commissioners. Ramya Ramaswamy for Commission 

00:46:59.438 --> 00:47:03.590
Staff. Thank you for the setup that kind of make

00:47:03.599 --> 00:47:07.409
my life easy. Staff would like to thank all the

00:47:07.418 --> 00:47:11.458
uh stakeholders for giving us very detailed reply comments,

00:47:11.469 --> 00:47:14.329
for all the questions that we had. I would like

00:47:14.340 --> 00:47:19.300
to acknowledge that uh there was uh um we, we had 

00:47:19.309 --> 00:47:23.559
TCPA listed as in the wrong bucket. TCPA filed your

00:47:23.570 --> 00:47:27.659
comments in support of taking up the policy for piker

00:47:27.699 --> 00:47:31.559
105 at the Commission and not at the stakeholder process.

00:47:33.079 --> 00:47:36.898
(item:20:Commission Staff's Ramya Ramaswamy lays out memo) So staff memo, um so Commission Staff recommends that

00:47:36.909 --> 00:47:41.978
we take up the DC Tie transmission planning uh for

00:47:41.989 --> 00:47:45.628
minimum deliverability at the Commission as a policy

00:47:45.639 --> 00:47:49.219
issue. And uh staff recommendation is that the best

00:47:49.228 --> 00:47:53.014
way to go about doing that. Is to have a rule making

00:47:53.023 --> 00:47:56.494
at the Commission to establish a framework and provide

00:47:56.503 --> 00:48:01.675
guidelines. On how we can evaluate all the future proposed

00:48:01.684 --> 00:48:06.414
DC Ties in a consistent manner. I'm here to, I'm available

00:48:06.425 --> 00:48:10.820
to take any questions if you have any. Thank you. Okay

00:48:10.829 --> 00:48:15.128
so, um okay. So the way I understood staff's memo was

00:48:15.579 --> 00:48:17.958
um in a few areas was

00:48:19.639 --> 00:48:22.260
look at each DC Tie project on an individual basis

00:48:22.269 --> 00:48:25.179
on its own merits. And that I think we do through

00:48:25.188 --> 00:48:29.570
the CCM process regardless, right? And then, um you

00:48:29.579 --> 00:48:32.938
know, the piker is not the, the correct way to affect

00:48:32.949 --> 00:48:34.699
the policy change. And we're going to have a policy

00:48:34.708 --> 00:48:37.500
change. And if we, you know, want to evaluate this

00:48:37.510 --> 00:48:41.610
issue deeper then have a rulemaking proceeding. 

00:48:41.619 --> 00:48:44.280
The one thing I would like to add on the first point.

00:48:44.289 --> 00:48:47.929
Is when a DC Tie is proposed and they come in

00:48:47.938 --> 00:48:52.300
for a CCN. Yes it is a, it is a process that

00:48:52.309 --> 00:48:56.409
is established. But when Southern Cross came in and

00:48:56.458 --> 00:48:59.849
when the directives were put in place. That was a statute

00:48:59.860 --> 00:49:03.969
change that was put in place only for Southern Cross

00:49:03.978 --> 00:49:08.128
as a project. So that, you know, by having a rule making

00:49:08.139 --> 00:49:11.708
we can basically make, come up with a framework. Such that

00:49:11.719 --> 00:49:16.179
we establish a consistent process to, to evaluate all

00:49:16.188 --> 00:49:19.320
future DC ties. Such that it can be looked at in a

00:49:19.329 --> 00:49:22.820
consistent in a, in a manner that is consistent across

00:49:22.829 --> 00:49:25.398
the way. So we set up the framework uh because the

00:49:25.409 --> 00:49:28.378
directives were put in place only for that project.

00:49:28.389 --> 00:49:31.489
Which we don't have just, just a small clarification.

00:49:31.500 --> 00:49:32.860
But um. Okay. 

00:49:34.429 --> 00:49:36.898
I mean, I know you guys are trying to find some kind

00:49:36.909 --> 00:49:40.510
of a middle ground here. And, and I mean in some ways

00:49:40.519 --> 00:49:43.099
that so I guess the clarification you provided. Like

00:49:43.110 --> 00:49:47.478
if we had a new DC Tie company project developer that

00:49:47.489 --> 00:49:51.070
wanted to build an DC Tie in Texas into ERCOT.

00:49:53.010 --> 00:49:56.320
Within partnership with the existing transmission utility.

00:49:56.800 --> 00:50:00.019
They would not have to follow a CCN? I thought they would.

00:50:00.030 --> 00:50:05.280
Oh, CCN process. Yes. But the framework um the directives

00:50:05.289 --> 00:50:09.829
that we did for Southern Cross. That basically established

00:50:09.840 --> 00:50:13.789
how ERCOT looked into um what had to go in the background.

00:50:13.800 --> 00:50:17.378
Like do the studies that were required for uh for the

00:50:17.389 --> 00:50:20.188
Southern Cross proposal. That is not an established

00:50:20.199 --> 00:50:23.168
process today. So when you know, so we, you know, the

00:50:23.179 --> 00:50:27.550
rule making will establish the framework and guidelines.

00:50:27.559 --> 00:50:31.260
So that in the future when we have DC Ties proposed

00:50:31.409 --> 00:50:34.728
we will look at them in a consistent manner. We meaning

00:50:34.739 --> 00:50:38.119
the Commission, stakeholders, ERCOT. Will have a process, a

00:50:38.128 --> 00:50:42.329
guideline to set, to look into how it should be done.

00:50:42.398 --> 00:50:45.550
That is not established process today. Okay. So that is what

00:50:45.559 --> 00:50:49.449
the rule making would help us drive that process. Okay. 

00:50:49.458 --> 00:50:51.760
Thank you for all that clarification. (item:20:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on memo) So I guess there's

00:50:51.769 --> 00:50:53.570
kind of two ways to look at this and I'm open to

00:50:53.579 --> 00:50:55.809
hearing obviously what you think Commissioner Glotfelty. And

00:50:55.820 --> 00:51:00.030
what the best approach would be. I mean, a rule

00:51:00.039 --> 00:51:03.418
making process would help to, to, you know look at

00:51:03.429 --> 00:51:06.949
all of the issues involved in DC ties being built into

00:51:06.958 --> 00:51:10.539
ERCOT. I know that that could take some time because

00:51:10.550 --> 00:51:14.208
we have a long list of projects. And um and there's

00:51:14.219 --> 00:51:17.128
a lot of different policy issues to look at it. I,

00:51:17.139 --> 00:51:20.668
I think my experience in the past um when Southern

00:51:20.679 --> 00:51:23.128
Cross came in with their, with their application. There

00:51:23.139 --> 00:51:27.239
was just a lot of um considerations that came up and

00:51:27.250 --> 00:51:31.909
it went on for a long time. I'm wondering if so

00:51:31.918 --> 00:51:35.579
there's the approach we recommended. CCN like or rather

00:51:35.590 --> 00:51:37.969
a rulemaking to look at all DC ties for the future.

00:51:38.010 --> 00:51:40.530
Which I've just laid out kind of some thoughts to think

00:51:40.539 --> 00:51:44.398
about. And then there's an approach where if you have

00:51:44.409 --> 00:51:47.628
a new DC Tie project owner. That wants to come in

00:51:47.639 --> 00:51:51.079
and submit for a CCN. Then the Commission could look

00:51:51.090 --> 00:51:55.289
at that CCN application on its own merits and decide

00:51:55.300 --> 00:51:57.219
just like they did for Southern Cross. How they want

00:51:57.228 --> 00:52:00.708
to treat that tie and give directives to ERCOT. And

00:52:00.719 --> 00:52:03.809
if there's a deviation with respect to deliverability.

00:52:03.820 --> 00:52:07.929
Then at that point in that case, um the Commission

00:52:07.938 --> 00:52:12.320
can direct ERCOT to implement whatever protocols need

00:52:12.329 --> 00:52:17.909
to be implemented to accommodate that DC Tie. So maybe

00:52:17.918 --> 00:52:22.199
there's just needs to be um in some ways if you wanna

00:52:22.208 --> 00:52:24.360
look at it and if you wanna look at each DC tie

00:52:24.369 --> 00:52:29.139
project on its own merits. Then you might wanna create

00:52:29.148 --> 00:52:33.099
flexibility in the ERCOT process to look at them. However

00:52:33.110 --> 00:52:35.898
the Commission wants to look at them. And that way we're

00:52:35.909 --> 00:52:40.300
not, you know, tied at the back end by a protocol and

00:52:40.309 --> 00:52:44.619
we maintain flexibility to look at the DC ties as they're

00:52:44.628 --> 00:52:48.159
filed on a CCN by CCN basis. So that's one way of

00:52:48.168 --> 00:52:51.949
approaching it. Where you're kind of it's, it's stepping

00:52:51.958 --> 00:52:54.769
away from your sort of process overview of all these

00:52:54.780 --> 00:52:59.409
DC ties. To more of a discrete review of each project

00:52:59.780 --> 00:53:02.398
and providing that flexibility at the back end with

00:53:02.409 --> 00:53:06.168
ERCOT through the protocol process. So that, um

00:53:07.849 --> 00:53:10.539
you know, we're not tied up in a rule making process

00:53:10.550 --> 00:53:13.369
forever, but we have some flexibility. That's just

00:53:13.378 --> 00:53:14.860
something I thought of. I don't know if that makes

00:53:14.869 --> 00:53:16.510
sense. If that

00:53:18.539 --> 00:53:21.309
would be something you'd consider, I mean. Yeah, let

00:53:21.320 --> 00:53:24.260
me tell you kind of where I sit on all this. (item:20:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on memo) So

00:53:24.269 --> 00:53:30.219
first of all, um this is not an easy issue. It's DC

00:53:30.228 --> 00:53:34.320
lines are a unique animal. They're not generators and

00:53:34.329 --> 00:53:37.059
they're not transmission lines, but they have attributes

00:53:37.070 --> 00:53:40.739
of both. And attributes of both provide reliability

00:53:40.750 --> 00:53:42.739
benefits at certain times.

00:53:44.280 --> 00:53:49.800
And what we, I think we want to encourage is the most

00:53:49.809 --> 00:53:52.728
economic. I'm sorry, the most reliability benefits

00:53:54.398 --> 00:53:57.559
slash economic benefits taking into consideration both

00:53:57.570 --> 00:54:02.780
as we, we look. Reliability is really important.

00:54:02.789 --> 00:54:05.079
Economics are really important. So we have to look

00:54:05.090 --> 00:54:10.458
at that holistically. I think the fact that we got

00:54:10.469 --> 00:54:14.458
into this discussion and had staff go out and ask stakeholders

00:54:14.469 --> 00:54:20.909
for a list of comments. Means that zero isn't really

00:54:20.918 --> 00:54:23.329
where we want to be, but we don't know what the number

00:54:23.340 --> 00:54:27.809
is. I advocated for 100, zero is the existing standard.

00:54:27.820 --> 00:54:31.530
Commissioner Cobos added said, well maybe 50 but we don't

00:54:31.539 --> 00:54:35.510
really know what that number is. And I think that

00:54:37.639 --> 00:54:40.668
that's correct. I think, I think that that shows that

00:54:40.679 --> 00:54:43.349
we have to answer this question in some fashion. Is

00:54:43.360 --> 00:54:47.878
it a piker modification or is it a rulemaking? 

00:54:49.389 --> 00:54:52.458
I know staff doesn't want to do this in a bigger, we've

00:54:52.469 --> 00:54:54.909
done things in pikers before many, many times that

00:54:54.918 --> 00:54:59.289
have solved these issues. In terms of setting policy

00:55:00.110 --> 00:55:02.849
I would say if I step back and look at DC ties

00:55:02.860 --> 00:55:06.349
holistically. I think we need a rule. I think we need

00:55:06.360 --> 00:55:13.050
a rule to, to determine how and when DC ties both internally

00:55:13.059 --> 00:55:16.789
within ERCOT and those that are attached externally

00:55:17.119 --> 00:55:20.010
are processed through this agency and through ERCOT.

00:55:21.208 --> 00:55:23.469
Can I say something here, Commissioner? Yeah, of course

00:55:23.478 --> 00:55:28.958
you may. We can have DC lines within ERCOT. The DC tie

00:55:28.969 --> 00:55:32.519
would be from external to within ERCOT. I understand your words and

00:55:32.530 --> 00:55:38.030
and it got me to a point where a DC tie is.

00:55:38.579 --> 00:55:41.809
There's not, there's still a question in my mind. If

00:55:41.820 --> 00:55:45.898
you're building a DC tie to the, to the outside edge

00:55:45.909 --> 00:55:50.260
of ERCOT. Do you even need to have a CCN? You may

00:55:50.269 --> 00:55:53.188
not need a CCN. Because if all you're doing is interconnecting

00:55:53.199 --> 00:55:58.010
to an existing utility substation. I think there's

00:55:58.019 --> 00:56:02.668
a question there. They're not building in ERCOT. They're

00:56:02.679 --> 00:56:06.659
not building in violation of a right of first refusal.

00:56:06.668 --> 00:56:09.208
They're not doing any of that. And a lot of these issues

00:56:09.219 --> 00:56:15.050
were solved with Legislation as it relates to Southern

00:56:15.059 --> 00:56:18.260
Cross. I agree, but that is not the issue that is in

00:56:18.269 --> 00:56:21.550
discussion right now. Agree. Which is a line that like the

00:56:21.559 --> 00:56:25.039
way that you propose. But to add on to something to

00:56:25.050 --> 00:56:26.969
give a little more clarification to something that

00:56:26.978 --> 00:56:32.250
you said. Once the line, once the DC Tie is built and

00:56:32.260 --> 00:56:35.648
it's in effect. To go back to what you said, there are

00:56:35.659 --> 00:56:39.300
other ways that within the planning process or within

00:56:39.309 --> 00:56:43.750
our rule making. We can go back and ask ERCOT to look into

00:56:43.760 --> 00:56:46.909
the transmission planning. To see if a support needs

00:56:46.918 --> 00:56:49.708
to be built in. And that was actually something that

00:56:49.719 --> 00:56:52.744
many of the commenters did make a point. Three years after the

00:56:52.753 --> 00:56:54.945
line is built. Five years after the line is built. That

00:56:54.954 --> 00:56:58.614
is something as a policy between the stakeholders and

00:56:58.625 --> 00:57:02.324
the Commission we can come up with a plan. But today

00:57:02.704 --> 00:57:05.144
like you mentioned, Commissioner. It is very difficult

00:57:05.155 --> 00:57:08.333
to say, should it be zero? Should it be 45? Should

00:57:08.344 --> 00:57:11.155
it be 100? There is no way for us to like land

00:57:11.164 --> 00:57:15.793
on a number. And I agree with that. But also like you

00:57:15.804 --> 00:57:20.478
said, um zero is not the right answer. I think we've

00:57:20.489 --> 00:57:22.148
heard from stakeholders and they don't think that's

00:57:22.159 --> 00:57:26.628
the right answer either. So the issue today is, do

00:57:26.639 --> 00:57:28.309
we do it through a piker or do we do it through

00:57:28.320 --> 00:57:31.228
a rule? I wish we could do it through a piker 

00:57:31.418 --> 00:57:33.769
piker because we've done it in the past through piker.

00:57:34.958 --> 00:57:37.500
I think we should do it through a rule and I know

00:57:37.510 --> 00:57:41.760
rulemaking takes time. So I would Connie, I would suggest

00:57:41.769 --> 00:57:43.780
that we figure out what's the timing of this? Is it

00:57:43.789 --> 00:57:46.369
something sooner or is it something that we can push

00:57:46.378 --> 00:57:52.010
off until later on in the year? But I think this Commission

00:57:52.019 --> 00:57:56.438
ought to be very holistic about this being an HVDC

00:57:56.449 --> 00:57:59.889
rule. I mean, all of the issues that we deal with.

00:57:59.898 --> 00:58:05.780
Not just the, when they get put into a transmission

00:58:05.789 --> 00:58:11.300
plan, but how we build DC lines to and from and within

00:58:11.309 --> 00:58:11.840
this state.

00:58:13.570 --> 00:58:14.188
Um

00:58:16.000 --> 00:58:17.168
I think that

00:58:21.409 --> 00:58:25.789
I want to, you all have heard this and forgive me for

00:58:25.800 --> 00:58:29.458
saying this again. But as a former developer of DC lines,

00:58:31.639 --> 00:58:36.010
DC lines do not have a rate base. Okay. So they don't

00:58:36.019 --> 00:58:40.148
get the, they don't get the benefit of T cost recovery.

00:58:40.909 --> 00:58:44.429
Though they're all using private dollars. And when

00:58:44.438 --> 00:58:48.590
you use private dollars, there's a limited supply. Death

00:58:48.599 --> 00:58:52.889
by 1000 cuts. Which means, you know, oh this process

00:58:52.898 --> 00:58:55.030
is a little bit different from this process and this

00:58:55.039 --> 00:58:57.019
process. And then you go through this one and then they

00:58:57.030 --> 00:58:59.300
send you back to ERCOT. And then oh no, we got to

00:58:59.309 --> 00:59:02.300
come back to the staff and solve this. Those are 1000

00:59:02.309 --> 00:59:08.639
cuts and those make projects uneconomic. And I hope

00:59:08.648 --> 00:59:12.398
that we can get to a process where we are, we lead

00:59:13.000 --> 00:59:16.239
in the clarity of how this happens. And people up front

00:59:16.250 --> 00:59:21.840
can decide whether they are economic or not. These lines 

00:59:21.849 --> 00:59:23.849
if you take Southern Cross.

00:59:25.478 --> 00:59:30.989
They won't cost ratepayers anything to build unless

00:59:31.000 --> 00:59:36.090
there is power bought, brought back in. And, and a marketer

00:59:36.099 --> 00:59:42.329
or a entity buys that power and sells it to within

00:59:42.418 --> 00:59:45.728
ERCOT. And then only the portion of that transmission

00:59:45.739 --> 00:59:46.188
line

00:59:47.918 --> 00:59:52.809
that and when I say portion on a perk wh basis there

00:59:52.820 --> 00:59:55.500
will be an adder on that. That's what, that's what

00:59:55.510 --> 00:59:59.889
ratepayers will pay for. So it's a small as opposed

00:59:59.898 --> 01:00:06.478
to, you know, maybe say a new generator. That I think

01:00:06.489 --> 01:00:09.978
it actually is similar and different. But if a generator

01:00:09.989 --> 01:00:14.969
is built in ERCOT, then you consumer is not paying

01:00:14.978 --> 01:00:16.280
anything unless it's producing.

01:00:18.110 --> 01:00:21.239
Listen all what I, what I think I'm trying to say here.

01:00:21.250 --> 01:00:26.648
Is um I want us to take seriously looking at HVDC

01:00:26.659 --> 01:00:27.769
lines in this state.

01:00:29.469 --> 01:00:34.030
Globally, these things make sense. In the United States

01:00:34.039 --> 01:00:36.750
it's balkanized. But the first one was the California-

01:00:36.760 --> 01:00:39.570
Oregon intertie that was done in the 60s. These

01:00:39.579 --> 01:00:42.369
things make good economic sense and they're valuable

01:00:42.378 --> 01:00:44.889
for reliability. And, and I hope we can, we can get

01:00:44.898 --> 01:00:50.280
there all. All this being said my, my hope is that

01:00:50.289 --> 01:00:55.570
we can get to 100% deliverability. I think that today

01:00:56.139 --> 01:00:58.840
the piker is not the place that it's going to happen.

01:00:59.550 --> 01:01:03.418
And that we ought to do a rulemaking in accordance

01:01:03.429 --> 01:01:08.030
with some time frame to solve all of the issues with

01:01:08.039 --> 01:01:12.378
DC lines. And I'm, I wish that we could get it done

01:01:12.389 --> 01:01:16.579
today. But I think that setting the policy for all

01:01:16.590 --> 01:01:21.769
DC lines is the right policy. Okay. So let me before

01:01:21.780 --> 01:01:23.878
I go to Kathleen just recap real quick. I think so

01:01:23.889 --> 01:01:26.559
you're both saying piker is not the right way to get

01:01:26.570 --> 01:01:29.599
this done. I think Lori, you were saying you're not

01:01:29.610 --> 01:01:32.280
even sure we need a rule. I think Jimmy is saying

01:01:32.289 --> 01:01:35.239
he thinks the policy implications are, are big enough

01:01:35.250 --> 01:01:37.989
and, and, and we need to lead on this. So I think

01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:40.958
he's comfortable with a rule. So I guess given that

01:01:40.969 --> 01:01:44.019
backdrop, would you be okay with opening a rule consistent

01:01:44.030 --> 01:01:46.878
with what staff recommended? Yes. And the only reason

01:01:46.889 --> 01:01:49.260
I threw out the other option was just to kind of figure

01:01:49.269 --> 01:01:50.340
out a way to

01:01:52.369 --> 01:01:54.510
look at it a different way from procedural process.

01:01:54.519 --> 01:01:56.349
And maybe that was more efficient and met the same

01:01:56.360 --> 01:01:59.909
expectations of providing some kind of regulatory review.

01:01:59.918 --> 01:02:02.628
But I think what um Commissioner Glotfelty is saying is

01:02:02.639 --> 01:02:06.869
uh makes a lot more sense in terms of um establishing

01:02:06.878 --> 01:02:10.269
Commission policy on HVDC lines as a whole, right?

01:02:10.280 --> 01:02:12.869
Because really the first case of impression that we've

01:02:12.878 --> 01:02:16.099
had lately is Southern Spirit. And we had this entire

01:02:16.110 --> 01:02:20.010
procedural process and orders and directives. And, and

01:02:20.019 --> 01:02:22.889
um we're kind of at a place where, you know, there

01:02:22.898 --> 01:02:25.510
is some level you know, level of interest in exploring

01:02:25.519 --> 01:02:28.228
these ties. And because we've always zeroed them out

01:02:28.239 --> 01:02:31.510
and there's an interest in achieving maximum deliverability.

01:02:31.958 --> 01:02:34.148
And there's a lot of other factors to consider, right? 

01:02:34.159 --> 01:02:39.148
You know, um as we have evolved as a market since 2017.

01:02:39.159 --> 01:02:41.378
I think it just it, it does make sense to look

01:02:41.389 --> 01:02:44.010
at it at a broader policy level. And open a rule

01:02:44.019 --> 01:02:46.750
making and address it all at once. As opposed to a piecemeal

01:02:46.760 --> 01:02:49.829
basis by CCN. I just threw that out there to see if

01:02:49.840 --> 01:02:52.530
that would maybe be more efficient way of tackling

01:02:52.539 --> 01:02:55.590
the issue, certainly a way to do it. But I think if

01:02:55.599 --> 01:03:00.148
you want broader policy on these types of lines. Then

01:03:00.159 --> 01:03:01.789
a rule making is obviously the right place to do it.

01:03:03.239 --> 01:03:08.989
Okay, Kathleen. (item:20:Commissioner Jackson's thoughts on memo) Well, I always kind of land on the process.

01:03:09.000 --> 01:03:11.929
And because I think it's important to have uh as you

01:03:11.938 --> 01:03:15.239
described a skeleton and a process in place. We move

01:03:15.250 --> 01:03:18.750
forward and we execute to that process. The in,

01:03:18.760 --> 01:03:22.079
in the broader context. I mean, this is just this is

01:03:22.090 --> 01:03:26.539
one part of the solution. And so when we do a rulemaking

01:03:26.599 --> 01:03:29.398
we're thinking not only of how do we move forward with

01:03:29.409 --> 01:03:32.519
this particular piece. But we're also thinking about

01:03:32.539 --> 01:03:36.438
how does it fit in to all the other things that we're

01:03:36.449 --> 01:03:40.878
doing to provide the, the power that we need for Texas

01:03:40.889 --> 01:03:43.719
you know, for generations to come. So I think in my

01:03:43.728 --> 01:03:47.699
mind, the rule making makes sense. Not just because

01:03:47.708 --> 01:03:52.739
of the focus on the DC Tie issue per se, but the

01:03:52.750 --> 01:03:57.208
way that it fits in with our overall process as a whole.

01:03:57.228 --> 01:03:59.610
And so I would, I'd be in favor of that as well.

01:04:00.239 --> 01:04:03.840
(item:20:Chairman Gleeson's thoughts on memo) Okay. So, yeah, I'd agree as well. That, you know, proceed

01:04:03.849 --> 01:04:07.079
with a rule to set up kind of a framework and guidelines

01:04:07.090 --> 01:04:10.869
for uh for the Commission to evaluate DC ties uh consistently

01:04:10.878 --> 01:04:12.750
and on a going forward basis. So,

01:04:14.429 --> 01:04:18.219
is there anything that we need to do in terms of giving

01:04:18.228 --> 01:04:19.849
existing DC ties?

01:04:21.639 --> 01:04:25.679
I mean, we've got Southern Spirit in front of us. We've

01:04:25.688 --> 01:04:29.000
got, there are other DC ties. Right now they are 

01:04:30.539 --> 01:04:36.239
I guess they have zero deliverability guarantees. And, 

01:04:36.250 --> 01:04:39.340
and I guess the rulemaking is what if we do that quickly. 

01:04:39.349 --> 01:04:42.579
We'll, we'll decide that if, if,

01:04:44.809 --> 01:04:47.378
if we want to raise that to some number and how we

01:04:47.389 --> 01:04:49.969
come to that number. I think that's right. We'll address

01:04:49.978 --> 01:04:53.668
deliverability in the rule. Okay. Thanks y'all. Thank you. 

01:04:55.530 --> 01:05:00.260
(item:21:Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 56000) Okay, next on the agenda is Item No. 21, Project No. 

01:05:00.269 --> 01:05:05.570
56000-Firm fuel supply service. Harika, welcome back. 

01:05:09.119 --> 01:05:14.228
(item:21:Harika Basaran on firm fuel supply) Harika Basaran for Staff. Yeah, firm fuel supply. Uh every

01:05:14.239 --> 01:05:19.648
year he set the budget and the offer caps. And uh one

01:05:19.659 --> 01:05:23.099
issue brought up to our attention by ERCOT in the protocols.

01:05:23.110 --> 01:05:29.030
It allows that, allows them to procure

01:05:29.039 --> 01:05:32.458
for the two years. However in the past, in the past

01:05:32.469 --> 01:05:35.309
two seasons we only offer them a budget and offer

01:05:35.320 --> 01:05:40.110
caps for the one year at a time. And then we discuss

01:05:40.119 --> 01:05:43.878
this with IMM and ERCOT and we agree that the Commission

01:05:43.889 --> 01:05:47.760
should continue to tell ERCOT to procure one year at a time.

01:05:47.989 --> 01:05:51.530
And one of the main reasons is that offer caps are

01:05:51.539 --> 01:05:55.039
based on the fuel oil price index and there are not

01:05:55.050 --> 01:05:58.418
very good forward prices for us to set the offer cap.

01:05:58.478 --> 01:06:01.148
And it will be very speculative to set an offer cap

01:06:01.159 --> 01:06:04.860
and budget for the two year in advance. So this memo

01:06:04.909 --> 01:06:09.349
just asking you give guidance to ERCOT procure one year

01:06:09.360 --> 01:06:12.619
at a time until we have another solution. So they can

01:06:12.628 --> 01:06:16.159
develop an NPRR and codify that in the protocols

01:06:16.168 --> 01:06:20.789
as well. Yeah. So with that as the context, I'm comfortable

01:06:20.800 --> 01:06:22.530
with Staff's recommendation to continue what we've been

01:06:22.539 --> 01:06:25.250
doing. I think the other point you made was that 90%

01:06:25.260 --> 01:06:26.550
of the market is fuel oil.

01:06:28.949 --> 01:06:32.519
I'm good with that recommendation as well. Okay. Thank you.

01:06:32.708 --> 01:06:36.969
I think after we do the whole ancillary well, as we

01:06:36.978 --> 01:06:39.070
continue to do these. We're going to have an ancillary

01:06:39.168 --> 01:06:40.579
service study. We're going to have other things to

01:06:40.619 --> 01:06:43.938
come back that we may be able to match up the timelines

01:06:43.949 --> 01:06:46.610
with different things on these different products in

01:06:46.619 --> 01:06:49.429
the future a little bit better. But I think what you

01:06:49.438 --> 01:06:51.800
proposed here is the right thing. Thank you. Thank

01:06:51.809 --> 01:06:51.918
you.

01:06:54.059 --> 01:06:59.800
Harika. So 22 we're gonna come back to. I didn't have anything

01:06:59.809 --> 01:07:06.110
on. So 23, 24, 25 and 26 were consented. 27 through 34

01:07:06.119 --> 01:07:09.938
I didn't have anything unless you all did. Okay. Wait

01:07:10.789 --> 01:07:17.750
do you say 24, 25 and 26 were? Yes, were consented. I

01:07:17.760 --> 01:07:20.239
didn't get 24, 25 but I think that's great.

01:07:22.168 --> 01:07:25.168
Yeah. I got that right. Correct Shelah? Okay, perfect. So I didn't

01:07:25.179 --> 01:07:28.840
have anything on 27 through 34. (item:35:Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55156) So that would bring

01:07:28.849 --> 01:07:34.389
us to 35. That's Project No. 55156, implementation

01:07:34.398 --> 01:07:37.610
activities relating to the 88 Legislature.

01:07:43.860 --> 01:07:46.829
Good morning, Jess. Good morning Chairman, Commissioners. 

01:07:46.840 --> 01:07:47.648
How are y'all?

01:07:49.539 --> 01:07:53.139
Okay. (item:35:Commission Staff's Jess Heck with update on agency's rulemaking progress) Jess Heck for Commission Staff here to give a brief

01:07:53.148 --> 01:07:56.188
update on the agency's priority rule making progress. 

01:07:56.889 --> 01:08:01.619
As you'll recall in September of last year, the

01:08:01.628 --> 01:08:04.239
Commission approved a set of priority rule makings

01:08:04.250 --> 01:08:08.398
broken down by industry category. So as of this open

01:08:08.409 --> 01:08:12.780
meeting, there are 12 projects completed nine ongoing

01:08:12.949 --> 01:08:16.409
and two with initial action taken from that list. This

01:08:16.418 --> 01:08:19.399
has been no small feat and I want to thank the Rules

01:08:19.409 --> 01:08:22.779
and Projects team for their hard work. But we also

01:08:22.789 --> 01:08:27.229
acknowledge that there's lots of work ahead. The

01:08:27.239 --> 01:08:30.479
staff memo filed includes further details about ongoing

01:08:30.489 --> 01:08:35.409
projects including SB2627, the Energy Fund. As well

01:08:35.418 --> 01:08:39.729
as 56, HB5066 the regional transmission reliability

01:08:39.739 --> 01:08:44.078
plants. I also want to highlight that the PUC website

01:08:44.087 --> 01:08:46.757
on the government relations page has an implementation

01:08:46.769 --> 01:08:49.929
chart. Which includes a lot of similar information um

01:08:49.938 --> 01:08:54.979
that's included in this Project 55156 in a PDF downloadable

01:08:54.988 --> 01:08:59.118
format. The purpose of this public document is to increase

01:08:59.127 --> 01:09:01.707
transparency and the agency's rule making efforts.

01:09:02.349 --> 01:09:04.309
Thank you for allowing me this time and happy answering

01:09:04.318 --> 01:09:04.877
questions.

01:09:06.498 --> 01:09:09.667
Thank you, Jess. You know, if y'all will remember coming

01:09:09.679 --> 01:09:13.318
out of the 87th Legislature. We, we spoke often about

01:09:13.328 --> 01:09:16.078
how, you know, typically after after a normal Legislative

01:09:16.087 --> 01:09:19.038
Session. We get about eight projects coming from bills

01:09:19.047 --> 01:09:21.078
that we end up opening. And I think in that interim

01:09:21.118 --> 01:09:25.519
we opened about 24, 25. We thought that was going

01:09:25.528 --> 01:09:27.559
to be the high water mark and then coming out of 88th

01:09:27.568 --> 01:09:31.849
we actually opened more than 24 or 25. So uh a great

01:09:31.858 --> 01:09:35.038
amount of work again, as always. Thank you to the Legislature

01:09:35.047 --> 01:09:37.908
for giving us additional resources to meet that demand.

01:09:38.188 --> 01:09:40.988
The the increase in demand for, for the work load.

01:09:40.998 --> 01:09:44.099
And so, um I don't have any questions unless you all

01:09:44.108 --> 01:09:44.408
do.

01:09:47.337 --> 01:09:50.578
Thank you. Thank y'all. But hang on. Can I uh I do want to 

01:09:50.587 --> 01:09:55.318
say to Jess. Thank you for all your help on our Nuclear

01:09:55.328 --> 01:09:58.639
Working Group, uh different docket number. But uh she's

01:09:58.648 --> 01:10:02.389
been taking notes and um, uh meeting summaries and has

01:10:02.398 --> 01:10:04.969
been doing a fantastic job for this whole group. So

01:10:04.979 --> 01:10:07.948
next meeting, we'll have a big update on nuclear. And

01:10:07.957 --> 01:10:09.729
thank you for your leadership on that. We appreciate

01:10:09.738 --> 01:10:11.207
it. Great. Thank you.

01:10:14.048 --> 01:10:16.668
So I don't have anything on the rest of the agenda

01:10:16.680 --> 01:10:20.189
from what I'm being told. Connie, do you think if

01:10:20.199 --> 01:10:24.180
we recess and come back at say noon. That that's enough

01:10:24.189 --> 01:10:27.029
time to get language written and circulated? Yeah. 

01:10:27.039 --> 01:10:29.449
I think that'll work. Okay, perfect. So that's all right

01:10:29.458 --> 01:10:32.640
y'all will stand in recess until then. Okay. (item:35:Chairman Gleeson recesses open meeting) So why don't

01:10:32.649 --> 01:10:35.949
we go ahead and stand in recess until time certain

01:10:36.149 --> 01:10:37.199
uh noon today. 

01:10:42.088 --> 01:10:44.699
Good afternoon, everyone. (item:35:Chairman Gleeson reconvenes open meeting) We'll reconvene the open

01:10:44.708 --> 01:10:50.509
meeting at 12:18. So staff filed a red line edit

01:10:50.520 --> 01:10:55.350
to the rule um for Item No. 

01:10:58.989 --> 01:11:04.338
22. (item:22:Chairman Gleeson brings back Project 55812 to consider updated language of rule) So, um I would bring back up uh Item

01:11:04.350 --> 01:11:07.810
22, Project No. 55812, Texas Energy Fund Completion

01:11:07.819 --> 01:11:10.449
Bonus Grant Program. David, do you want to lay out

01:11:10.458 --> 01:11:12.479
what y'all did real quick? Thank you, Chairman. (item:22:David Gordon on changes to rule text) David Gordon again

01:11:12.489 --> 01:11:17.189
for Commission Staff. We made changes to the rule text.

01:11:17.199 --> 01:11:21.279
To effectuate both the allowance for new generation

01:11:21.289 --> 01:11:25.119
resources at existing sites and a grace period of 10

01:11:25.128 --> 01:11:29.029
hours on the ARF calculation factor. We brought language

01:11:29.039 --> 01:11:31.810
to each of your offices. And based on that language

01:11:31.819 --> 01:11:35.890
we have filed a new recommendation that's available

01:11:35.899 --> 01:11:37.409
for your vote.

01:11:39.500 --> 01:11:42.229
So in reading it over with my staff, I'm comfortable

01:11:42.239 --> 01:11:45.479
that it uh meets what we discussed and what was proposed

01:11:45.489 --> 01:11:48.199
in my memo. So unless you all have any comments.? I'm comfortable

01:11:48.430 --> 01:11:50.079
as well, I read it through. It looks good.

01:11:51.890 --> 01:11:55.128
I am as well. Did you guys add new to? Okay. In two

01:11:55.140 --> 01:11:58.390
instances we will refer to the last new generation

01:11:58.399 --> 01:12:02.520
resource for the purpose of evaluating the new added

01:12:02.529 --> 01:12:07.128
facilities. Okay. Thank you. I'm good to go. Okay. (item:22:Motion to adopt proposed order as modified by Commission's and Chairman's memo) Then I would

01:12:07.140 --> 01:12:10.298
entertain a motion to adopt the proposed order as modified

01:12:10.310 --> 01:12:11.918
by our discussion in my memo.

01:12:13.470 --> 01:12:15.779
So moved. I second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor,

01:12:15.789 --> 01:12:20.509
say aye. Aye. Opposed. The motion prevails. Thank you very much

01:12:20.520 --> 01:12:21.208
for all that work. 

01:12:23.479 --> 01:12:27.140
Good job. All right. (item:40:Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting) So there being no further business

01:12:27.149 --> 01:12:29.739
before us. This meeting of the Public Utility Commission 

01:12:29.750 --> 01:12:31.140
of Texas is hereby adjourned.