WEBVTT 00:00:04.110 --> 00:00:06.469 (item:0:Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order) This meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas 00:00:06.480 --> 00:00:08.519 will come to order. To consider matters that have been 00:00:08.528 --> 00:00:11.448 duly posted with the Secretary of State for today 00:00:11.509 --> 00:00:17.458 May 2, 2024. Good morning everybody. Shelah, Mark, Barksdale, 00:00:17.469 --> 00:00:20.408 Connie. Bigger group than normal at the table to start. 00:00:20.420 --> 00:00:23.359 So um Shelah, will you walk us through the Consent 00:00:23.370 --> 00:00:27.000 Agenda? Good morning Commissioners. Both the Chairman 00:00:27.010 --> 00:00:29.739 and Commissioner Cobos filed memos in Project No. 00:00:29.750 --> 00:00:35.450 52761. The Chairman is recused from Items 8, 10, 18 and 00:00:35.459 --> 00:00:39.298 19. Commissioner Cobos is recused from Items 12 and 00:00:39.310 --> 00:00:42.810 16. (item:0.1:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel lays out Consent Agenda) By individual ballot, the following Items were placed 00:00:42.819 --> 00:00:50.368 on your Consent Agenda: 1, 2, 4 through 7, 9, 13 and 15 through 00:00:50.380 --> 00:00:53.569 18. Additionally, there are no consented items for 00:00:53.579 --> 00:00:56.770 the rules and projects section of the agenda. Thank 00:00:56.779 --> 00:00:58.848 you Shelah. (item:0.1:Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda) I would entertain a motion to approve the 00:00:58.859 --> 00:01:03.060 Consent Items just discussed by Shelah. So moved. I second. I have a 00:01:03.209 --> 00:01:06.388 motion and second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? The 00:01:06.400 --> 00:01:10.088 motion prevails. Okay. Just real quick. I'm going to 00:01:10.099 --> 00:01:12.500 take things out of order. (item:46:Chairman Gleeson opens up item for update from Executive Director) I'm going to call up Item 00:01:12.510 --> 00:01:17.278 No. 46 to start. Which is where we normally do our 00:01:17.290 --> 00:01:20.359 update from the Executive Director. As we said at the 00:01:20.370 --> 00:01:23.430 outset today is May 2nd, which means yesterday was 00:01:23.439 --> 00:01:26.418 May 1st. And Connie and Barksdale as I understand it, 00:01:26.638 --> 00:01:29.620 the notice of intent to apply period opened yesterday 00:01:29.629 --> 00:01:33.150 for the TF loan. So Connie, maybe if you want to give 00:01:33.159 --> 00:01:35.698 us some details on that. (item:46:Executive Director Connie Corona gives update on TF Loan and Panhandle Fires) Yeah that, that's correct 00:01:35.709 --> 00:01:41.370 it opened yesterday. We have already had four letters 00:01:41.379 --> 00:01:48.079 filed in Project No. 56455 indicating intent to 00:01:48.088 --> 00:01:52.168 apply for a loan. Um quick reminder that this letter 00:01:52.180 --> 00:01:55.819 to the Commission is not to be filed confidentially 00:01:55.829 --> 00:02:00.668 it is public information. And so when, when the remainder 00:02:00.680 --> 00:02:03.409 of the filings come in, they should be non confidential. 00:02:03.939 --> 00:02:06.418 And as a reminder, when does that notice of intent 00:02:06.430 --> 00:02:10.860 period? May 31st. May 31st. Okay, thank you for that. 00:02:10.949 --> 00:02:13.508 And that's a requirement, right? That's correct. That's 00:02:13.520 --> 00:02:16.069 a, that's a threshold issue in order to be eligible 00:02:16.080 --> 00:02:18.139 for a loan. You have to submit a notice of intent to 00:02:18.149 --> 00:02:24.550 apply. And uh another May 1st milestone passed yesterday. 00:02:24.758 --> 00:02:29.169 the Wildfire Committee issued its report on the Panhandle 00:02:29.179 --> 00:02:34.088 Fires. Um we received it yesterday and certainly appreciate 00:02:34.270 --> 00:02:37.588 the hard work to get it out so quickly. And, and appreciate 00:02:37.599 --> 00:02:40.909 the guidance of the commission, of the committee. And 00:02:40.919 --> 00:02:44.139 we're already working with our sister agencies to address 00:02:44.149 --> 00:02:46.868 the recommendations in the report. Perfect. And I'd 00:02:46.879 --> 00:02:49.159 say as appropriate, you know, just continue to give 00:02:49.169 --> 00:02:52.610 us updates at open meetings as you and Barksdale see fit. Yes, sir. 00:02:52.899 --> 00:02:56.000 All right. Mr. Chairman I, I brought up last time that 00:02:56.389 --> 00:03:00.990 TDEM has some grip money. And I again Connie if, 00:03:01.000 --> 00:03:05.199 if we think that that there could ever be a use on satisfying 00:03:05.210 --> 00:03:08.000 some of these wildfire recommendations with that money. 00:03:08.149 --> 00:03:11.389 It might be a pot that we could utilize for that. Yeah, 00:03:11.399 --> 00:03:13.409 and I talked to Connie I think since next week we 00:03:13.419 --> 00:03:15.679 don't have an open meeting. We're going to try to connect with 00:03:16.069 --> 00:03:19.909 TDEM to see what's available to us. All right. All right, thank you 00:03:19.919 --> 00:03:23.368 for that Connie. All right. So I think similar to 00:03:23.379 --> 00:03:25.588 what we've been doing. We'll run through the agenda 00:03:25.599 --> 00:03:27.399 through all the items that I can share and then we'll 00:03:27.409 --> 00:03:30.699 go back. And I'll hand the um, gavel over to Commissioner 00:03:30.929 --> 00:03:34.240 Cobos for the four items that I am recused from. All 00:03:34.250 --> 00:03:37.569 right. So Items No. 1 and 2 were consented. 00:03:37.580 --> 00:03:40.088 So that brings us to Item No. 3. Shelah, would 00:03:40.099 --> 00:03:42.588 you lay out Item No. 3 please? Yes, sir. (item:3:Petition of Cendei Sherwood to amend Town of Ponder’s CCN in Denton County) Item 00:03:42.599 --> 00:03:46.349 3 is Docket No. 55342. This is the petition 00:03:46.360 --> 00:03:50.020 of Cendei Sherwood to amend the town of Ponder's CCN in 00:03:50.028 --> 00:03:53.409 Denton County first by streamline expedited release. 00:03:53.740 --> 00:03:56.558 A proposed order was filed in this docket. Subsequently 00:03:56.569 --> 00:03:59.088 the petitioner filed a motion to withdraw the petition. 00:03:59.368 --> 00:04:01.788 The Town of Ponder is not opposed to this request. They 00:04:01.800 --> 00:04:04.969 filed a response request ending that the petitioner's 00:04:04.979 --> 00:04:07.618 motion be granted. And the Chairman filed a memo in 00:04:07.629 --> 00:04:11.139 this docket. So as Shelah said, filed a memo in this. 00:04:11.288 --> 00:04:14.118 That recommending that the Commission find good cause 00:04:14.129 --> 00:04:17.139 exception. I'm happy to hear any discussion on my memo 00:04:17.149 --> 00:04:20.019 or the issue. I'm supportive of your memo and agree. 00:04:21.069 --> 00:04:25.088 I'm supportive as well. Same. All right, then. (item:3:Motion to approve proposed order consistent with Chairman Gleeson's memo) I would entertain 00:04:25.100 --> 00:04:27.949 a motion to approve the proposed order consistent with 00:04:27.959 --> 00:04:28.569 my memo. 00:04:30.389 --> 00:04:32.678 So moved. Second. I have a motion and second. All those in favor, say aye. 00:04:33.220 --> 00:04:36.369 Aye. Opposed? The motion prevails. Chairman, may I just go 00:04:36.379 --> 00:04:37.329 back and clarify? 00:04:39.649 --> 00:04:42.209 Yes. The proposed order is before you but to clarify based 00:04:42.220 --> 00:04:44.309 on the discussion. Actually what you'll be doing is 00:04:44.319 --> 00:04:49.199 granting good cause to withdraw the petition. Is that 00:04:49.209 --> 00:04:52.500 correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Shelah for that clarification. 00:04:53.920 --> 00:05:03.250 All right. Items 4, 5, 6, 7 were consented. So I think that 00:05:03.259 --> 00:05:08.250 brings us to Item No. 11. Shelah, will you lay out 00:05:08.259 --> 00:05:11.720 Item No. 11 please? Yes sir. (item:11:Application of TNMP to amend its CCN for Pilot Point 138-kV Transmission Line Project in Collin, Grayson and Denton Counties) Item 11 is Docket 00:05:11.730 --> 00:05:15.488 No. 55104. This is the application of Texas-New 00:05:15.500 --> 00:05:20.028 Mexico Power Company to amend its CCN for the Pilot Point 138- 00:05:20.040 --> 00:05:23.809 kV Transmission Line Project in Collin, Grayson and Denton 00:05:23.819 --> 00:05:26.678 Counties. At the March 7th meeting, the Commission 00:05:26.689 --> 00:05:29.829 granted rehearing. For the limited purpose of determining 00:05:29.838 --> 00:05:32.350 whether all the landowners directly affected by certain 00:05:32.358 --> 00:05:35.629 modifications consent to the modifications. The Commission 00:05:35.639 --> 00:05:39.108 required TNMP to file a response by April 22nd. They 00:05:39.119 --> 00:05:42.480 remanded the docket for further processing and TNMP 00:05:42.488 --> 00:05:45.189 timely filed its response. So the merits of the motion 00:05:45.199 --> 00:05:48.588 for rehearing are before you now. So on the two issues, 00:05:48.600 --> 00:05:51.829 I think first since Starling Ranch did not consent. 00:05:51.838 --> 00:05:54.579 I'd recommend the Commission prove the original unmodified 00:05:54.588 --> 00:05:59.750 link one a and point of interconnection a. Happy to 00:05:59.759 --> 00:06:03.028 hear any discussion on that issue. I agree. I agree. I agree 00:06:03.069 --> 00:06:05.709 as well. Okay. And secondly, I don't think we're going 00:06:05.720 --> 00:06:08.420 to get anything by extending another 90 days to try 00:06:08.428 --> 00:06:10.189 to get the consent. I think we need to move forward 00:06:10.199 --> 00:06:13.819 with this. So I'd recommend that we deny that request 00:06:13.829 --> 00:06:14.238 as well. 00:06:15.949 --> 00:06:18.569 Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. All right, then. (item:11:Motion to direct Docket Management to prepare an order on rehearing) I would entertain a motion to direct 00:06:18.579 --> 00:06:20.798 Docket Management to prepare an order on rehearing 00:06:20.809 --> 00:06:22.160 consistent with our discussion. 00:06:24.170 --> 00:06:26.730 So moved. Second. I have a motion and second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. 00:06:27.009 --> 00:06:31.048 Opposed? The motion prevails. All right. That takes 00:06:31.059 --> 00:06:34.139 us to Item No. 12. Shelah, will you lay out Item 00:06:34.149 --> 00:06:38.319 No. 12 please? (item:12:Remand of Docket No. 40443, SWEPCO's appeal of SOAH Order No. 3) Item 12 is Docket No. 55155. 00:06:38.329 --> 00:06:42.389 This is the remand of Docket No. 40443. Before you 00:06:42.399 --> 00:06:45.858 is SWEPCO's appeal of SOAH Order No. 3 ruling on 00:06:45.869 --> 00:06:46.988 motions to strike. 00:06:48.519 --> 00:06:51.470 So I think this one is pretty clear cut. I deny the, 00:06:51.480 --> 00:06:54.149 deny the appeal of Order No. 3. Appeals of 00:06:54.160 --> 00:06:57.290 interim rates on an evidentiary basis are not permitted 00:06:57.298 --> 00:06:59.750 under our procedural rules. And I think this one's 00:06:59.759 --> 00:07:05.189 pretty clear cut. I agree. Agree as well. All right. 00:07:05.199 --> 00:07:07.559 (item:12:Motion to deny appeal consistent with the Commission's discussion) I'd entertain a motion to deny the appeal consistent 00:07:07.569 --> 00:07:09.559 with our discussion. So moved. 00:07:12.689 --> 00:07:14.798 Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. I have a motion and second. All 00:07:14.809 --> 00:07:19.858 those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails. All 00:07:19.869 --> 00:07:22.528 right. Item 13 was consented. So Shelah that brings 00:07:22.540 --> 00:07:24.970 us to Item No. 14. Will you lay that out please? 00:07:25.149 --> 00:07:29.699 Yes, sir. (item:14:Application of Oncor to amend its CCN for the exchange Switch-Keller Magnolia Substation in Tarrant County) Item 14 is Docket No. 55574. This is 00:07:29.709 --> 00:07:33.769 the application of Oncor to amend its CCN for the exchange 00:07:33.778 --> 00:07:38.059 Switch-Keller Magnolia Substation 138-kV transmission 00:07:38.069 --> 00:07:41.420 line in Tarrant County. Before you is a SOAH proposal 00:07:41.428 --> 00:07:44.439 for decision. Commission Staff and Oncor each filed 00:07:44.449 --> 00:07:47.829 exceptions to the proposal for decision. The SOAH ALJ 00:07:47.838 --> 00:07:50.220 filed a letter recommending that the Commission adopt 00:07:50.230 --> 00:07:53.879 certain clarifying, clarifying findings of fact. And 00:07:53.889 --> 00:07:57.449 the Chairman filed a memo in this docket. So as Shelah 00:07:57.509 --> 00:08:00.170 said, file the memo. Happy to hear any discussion on 00:08:00.178 --> 00:08:03.410 it. I was, you know, I liked staff's recommendation. 00:08:03.420 --> 00:08:05.709 I know Oncor was good with that but again, happy to 00:08:05.720 --> 00:08:07.980 hear any discussion on any part of my memo or this 00:08:07.988 --> 00:08:11.858 issue. I support Route 339 as well and all of the 00:08:11.869 --> 00:08:16.269 points made in your memo. I support Route 339 as well. 00:08:16.278 --> 00:08:18.199 There are a number of points that were made. That I 00:08:18.209 --> 00:08:21.269 think show that this is the most favorable route. I'm 00:08:21.290 --> 00:08:24.079 in agreement as well. Okay. (item:14:Motion to adopt proposal for decision) I'd entertain a motion to 00:08:24.088 --> 00:08:26.528 adopt the proposal for decision consistent with my 00:08:26.540 --> 00:08:30.028 memo and our discussion. So moved. Second. I have a motion and second. 00:08:30.040 --> 00:08:33.658 All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails. 00:08:36.298 --> 00:08:40.428 All right. I think the next item up will be Item No. 00:08:40.438 --> 00:08:44.538 20. Shelah, will you lay out Item No. 20 please? 00:08:45.070 --> 00:08:49.639 Yes. (item:20:Application of Loan Star Transmission, LLC to amend its CCN) Item 20 is Docket No. 55991. The application 00:08:49.649 --> 00:08:54.389 of Loan Star Transmission, LLC to amend its CCN and notice 00:08:54.399 --> 00:09:00.250 of PURA, Section 14.101 transaction. The Texas Industrial 00:09:00.259 --> 00:09:03.308 Energy Consumers filed an appeal of Order No. 8. 00:09:04.798 --> 00:09:08.038 And let's see. Yes, the Chairman filed a memo on this 00:09:08.048 --> 00:09:12.168 docket. Again, have a memo. Happy to hear any, any discussion 00:09:12.178 --> 00:09:14.750 or thoughts you have on that. Mr. Chairman, I think 00:09:14.759 --> 00:09:18.509 this is a pretty unique issue. I agree with all of 00:09:18.519 --> 00:09:23.418 the points in your memo. First of all, that 37057 does 00:09:23.428 --> 00:09:28.788 not apply. Most importantly that 37056E is not something 00:09:28.798 --> 00:09:31.455 we need to make decision on at this time. This is very 00:09:31.465 --> 00:09:34.474 unique. We don't have many transmission lines that 00:09:34.484 --> 00:09:40.215 were built as radial gen ties. But so more than likely 00:09:40.224 --> 00:09:43.224 the law doesn't make exceptions for things like this. 00:09:43.234 --> 00:09:47.375 But we need to make that available as an opportunity 00:09:47.384 --> 00:09:50.625 in the space of the law that we're allowed to. In order 00:09:50.634 --> 00:09:53.065 for these lines to help benefit the power system and 00:09:53.075 --> 00:09:55.969 the people of Texas. I'm supportive of your memo. Yeah. 00:09:55.979 --> 00:09:58.158 And Shelah, so like I said in the memo. I think we 00:09:58.168 --> 00:10:02.119 do need to tee up these issues for 37056E. Do 00:10:02.129 --> 00:10:04.678 you have a thought on how to maybe best tee those issues 00:10:04.690 --> 00:10:07.629 up? Yes, sir. We are working on an order that would 00:10:07.639 --> 00:10:10.359 request briefing from the parties. Anticipate that we'll 00:10:10.369 --> 00:10:13.979 file this fairly soon and that will achieve your goal. 00:10:15.279 --> 00:10:17.989 Is everyone good with that? Yes, I am. I think that's a good 00:10:18.000 --> 00:10:21.048 move on with respect to getting briefing on that issue 00:10:21.058 --> 00:10:25.840 specifically. But with respect to uh the broader issues 00:10:25.849 --> 00:10:28.519 I think. Ultimately I mean, this is a unique situation 00:10:28.529 --> 00:10:30.710 as Commissioner, Commissioner Glotfelty highlighted. 00:10:30.719 --> 00:10:33.379 And um we're setting a framework going forward that 00:10:33.389 --> 00:10:36.259 may or may not be used too many times. But um I'm 00:10:36.269 --> 00:10:40.408 good with the uh approach you've taken here. Sounds 00:10:40.418 --> 00:10:43.649 good to me as well. Okay. (item:20:Motion to deny appeal consistent with Chairman Gleeson's memo) And then I'd entertain a motion 00:10:43.658 --> 00:10:46.389 to deny the appeal consistent with my memo and our 00:10:46.399 --> 00:10:49.719 discussion. So moved. Second. I have a motion and second. All those in 00:10:49.729 --> 00:10:54.798 favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion prevails. Next item 00:10:54.808 --> 00:10:58.460 is Item No. 21. Shelah, will you lay out Item 21 please? 00:10:58.859 --> 00:11:03.340 Yes. (item:21:Application of Oncor to amend its Distribution Cost Recovery Factor and update Mobile Generation Riders) Item 21 is Docket No. 56306. This is 00:11:03.408 --> 00:11:06.479 Oncor's application to amend its distribution cost 00:11:06.489 --> 00:11:10.019 recovery factor and update its mobile generation riders. 00:11:10.629 --> 00:11:13.879 Before you are two separate appeals for two separate 00:11:13.889 --> 00:11:16.599 orders. The Steering Committee of Cities served by 00:11:16.609 --> 00:11:19.820 Oncor and the Alliance of Oncor Cities filed a joint 00:11:19.830 --> 00:11:23.609 appeal of Order No. 5. And Oncor filed an appeal 00:11:23.619 --> 00:11:29.009 of Order No. 6. So where I landed on these is 00:11:29.019 --> 00:11:33.090 I would deny both appeals. I think, you know, our rules 00:11:33.099 --> 00:11:35.219 and our precedent is pretty straightforward on what 00:11:35.229 --> 00:11:37.950 a year means. And I think it's also pretty clear that 00:11:37.960 --> 00:11:40.379 interim rates don't apply here. So I would deny the 00:11:40.389 --> 00:11:44.200 appeals of Order No. 5 and No. 6. Agreed. 00:11:44.529 --> 00:11:47.969 I agree as well. Agreed. Shelah so on this, do you think 00:11:47.979 --> 00:11:52.899 do we need two motions or just one? We will, the. Sir, 00:11:52.908 --> 00:11:55.450 I think that two separate motions would be appropriate. 00:11:55.460 --> 00:11:58.889 Because we, we anticipate filing two separate orders. 00:11:58.928 --> 00:12:01.950 Okay. (item:21:Motion to deny appeal of Order No. 5) Then I would entertain a motion to deny the appeal 00:12:01.960 --> 00:12:04.149 of Order No. 5 consistent with our discussion. 00:12:05.899 --> 00:12:07.899 So moved. So moved. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say 00:12:07.918 --> 00:12:11.779 aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion prevails. (item:21:Motion No. 2 to deny appeal of Order No. 6) And I'd entertain 00:12:11.788 --> 00:12:14.000 a second motion to deny the appeal of Order No. 00:12:14.009 --> 00:12:15.599 6 consistent with our discussion. 00:12:18.469 --> 00:12:21.210 So moved. I second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. 00:12:21.639 --> 00:12:27.090 Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails. Before we move on just, just past 00:12:27.099 --> 00:12:29.250 this. I did want to just have a quick conversation 00:12:29.259 --> 00:12:30.969 with Shelah. (item:21:Chairman Gleeson's thoughts on appeals) You know, we've been getting. I mean 00:12:30.979 --> 00:12:33.298 Shelah at this point, I feel like we're getting a number 00:12:33.308 --> 00:12:38.418 of, of appeals. You know, obviously being on this side 00:12:38.428 --> 00:12:41.379 I, I haven't been as privy to it. But it feels like 00:12:41.479 --> 00:12:44.710 perhaps more appeals than we maybe have, have ever 00:12:44.719 --> 00:12:47.830 gotten since maybe you've been here. We have had a 00:12:47.840 --> 00:12:49.918 number of appeals, motions varying. We have, we have 00:12:49.928 --> 00:12:53.308 quite a bit. And so, you know, we're never going 00:12:53.320 --> 00:12:56.048 to dissuade folks from appealing anything if, if they 00:12:56.058 --> 00:12:59.288 feel they need to. I would say, you know, just ask 00:12:59.298 --> 00:13:01.798 parties to be really thoughtful about your appeals. 00:13:01.808 --> 00:13:05.019 I know we have a lot of work to do and, you 00:13:05.029 --> 00:13:06.500 know, we definitely get a lot of pressure. We have 00:13:06.509 --> 00:13:08.440 a lot of really short timelines, many of which were 00:13:08.450 --> 00:13:11.759 changed this last Legislative Session. And, and one 00:13:11.769 --> 00:13:13.710 thing is I was thinking about this in, in briefing 00:13:13.719 --> 00:13:17.029 with my staff. I know we have a rule about the timing 00:13:17.038 --> 00:13:19.129 of how long we have to consider these appeals. Can 00:13:19.139 --> 00:13:21.869 you walk us through that just really quickly? Certainly. 00:13:22.099 --> 00:13:25.678 (item:21:Shelah Cisneros on Commission Procedural Rule) So under the Commission procedural rules, there are 00:13:25.690 --> 00:13:27.830 certain deadlines to ballot. The Commissioners once 00:13:27.840 --> 00:13:31.729 an appeal is received. This rule has not been updated 00:13:31.739 --> 00:13:34.389 since 2001. So we have not revisited this rule in some 00:13:34.399 --> 00:13:39.590 time. What I would suggest is that um we are researching 00:13:39.599 --> 00:13:43.950 this and looking into whether um it may be worthwhile 00:13:43.960 --> 00:13:46.558 to look at extending that deadline a bit. We're looking 00:13:46.570 --> 00:13:49.580 into what the right time frame would be. So with your 00:13:49.590 --> 00:13:52.038 permission, we will look into that. Report back to you 00:13:52.149 --> 00:13:54.359 and see if we recommend any changes to the rule. That 00:13:54.369 --> 00:13:57.808 would um just give us a bit more time to uh ballot 00:13:57.969 --> 00:14:00.190 the Commissioners. Make recommendations and have you 00:14:00.200 --> 00:14:02.379 consider it whether or not to add it to an agenda. 00:14:02.820 --> 00:14:04.710 Yeah. So I mean at least for me. I think a lot 00:14:04.719 --> 00:14:07.570 of these end up on the open meeting agenda. Just because 00:14:07.580 --> 00:14:09.969 we don't have enough time to really look at them and 00:14:09.979 --> 00:14:13.200 assess the validity of them. And so I think taking 00:14:13.349 --> 00:14:15.769 Shelah's approach and looking at the 10 days is still 00:14:15.779 --> 00:14:18.469 appropriate. Or maybe we need more given the volume 00:14:18.558 --> 00:14:20.590 that we're dealing with. Is probably the right way to 00:14:20.599 --> 00:14:23.538 at least take a first stab at addressing what we have 00:14:23.548 --> 00:14:25.250 going on with the number of appeals. 00:14:27.250 --> 00:14:29.250 Yeah, whatever is most efficient for the Commission 00:14:29.259 --> 00:14:30.719 and the staff. I think that would be the right way 00:14:30.729 --> 00:14:33.029 to go. Okay. And I talked to David Smeltzer as well, 00:14:33.038 --> 00:14:35.450 so he's aware it. He's giving me a thumbs up over in the 00:14:35.460 --> 00:14:38.320 corner over there, appreciate it. So. Hey, put a tie 00:14:38.330 --> 00:14:38.710 on. 00:14:41.830 --> 00:14:46.558 It's Thursday, tie Thursday. Okay. So I think that concludes 00:14:46.570 --> 00:14:49.139 my portion of the contested cases. So I will turn it 00:14:49.149 --> 00:14:52.168 over to Commissioner Cobos. Thank you, Chair Gleeson. 00:14:52.700 --> 00:14:56.668 That takes us to Agenda Item No. 8. Shelah, 00:14:56.678 --> 00:15:00.798 can you please lay out that item? Yes, ma'am. (item:8:Complaint of Doug & Linda Crosson, Bo & Trish Lebo, and Bruce & Ann Ahlhorn against Pedernales Electric Cooperative) Item 00:15:00.808 --> 00:15:04.250 No. 8 is Docket No. 50065. This is the 00:15:04.259 --> 00:15:07.330 complaint of Doug and Linda Crosson, Bo and Trish Lebo 00:15:07.509 --> 00:15:11.440 and Bruce and Anne Ahlhorn against Pedernales Electric Cooperative. 00:15:12.158 --> 00:15:14.830 Before you is a proposal for decision. The parties 00:15:14.840 --> 00:15:17.808 filed exceptions. Commissioner Cobos filed a memo in 00:15:17.820 --> 00:15:21.710 his docket. Yeah. (item:8:Commissioner Cobos lays out her memo) So um, I filed this memo in the 00:15:21.719 --> 00:15:25.849 docket just to lay out um all the information that 00:15:25.859 --> 00:15:29.320 this case has been going on for over four years, about 00:15:29.330 --> 00:15:33.989 4 1/2 years. And so I wanted to provide you with as much 00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:36.889 concise information as possible on facts and procedural 00:15:36.899 --> 00:15:40.558 history. To lead into our evaluation and consideration 00:15:40.570 --> 00:15:44.418 the Commission ALJ's PFD. Ultimately, based on my review 00:15:44.428 --> 00:15:48.548 of the record. I would adopt the PFD in part and 00:15:48.558 --> 00:15:51.830 reject the PFD in part. I would adopt the PFD with 00:15:51.840 --> 00:15:58.288 respect to denying her analysis motion to dismiss. And 00:15:58.298 --> 00:16:01.399 I would reject the PFD with respect to granting for 00:16:01.548 --> 00:16:03.340 analysis's motion for summary decision. 00:16:05.029 --> 00:16:08.690 As laid out in my memo, I you know that the rule 00:16:08.700 --> 00:16:12.340 that's been in place 16 TAC 25.101. Provides the exemption 00:16:12.349 --> 00:16:17.158 CCN exemption process for, you know the, the transmission 00:16:17.168 --> 00:16:21.340 lines that are part of a negotiation between the landowner 00:16:21.349 --> 00:16:27.019 and the utility. And um I believe that the, the, the 00:16:27.029 --> 00:16:29.820 precedent that the Commission ALJ relied upon is not 00:16:29.830 --> 00:16:34.450 sufficient with respect to the granting of the summary 00:16:34.460 --> 00:16:37.369 decision. There are distinguishable facts from that 00:16:37.379 --> 00:16:39.849 case to what we're dealing with is in the docket. Primarily 00:16:39.859 --> 00:16:43.469 especially the fact that we have landowners that will 00:16:43.479 --> 00:16:46.250 be within 300 ft of the center line of the relocated 00:16:46.259 --> 00:16:49.500 transmission line. So I believe in this situation, 00:16:49.509 --> 00:16:52.690 it would be prudent for us to go ahead and refer the 00:16:52.700 --> 00:16:55.440 case to SOAH. So that we, you know, there can be a 00:16:55.450 --> 00:16:58.308 determination of whether a CCN amendment is required 00:16:58.320 --> 00:16:59.099 in this case. 00:17:01.830 --> 00:17:04.750 I think that the, the exemption process is important 00:17:04.759 --> 00:17:07.900 in many respects. But also our broad authority over 00:17:07.910 --> 00:17:11.299 CCNS and protecting landowner rights is paramount as 00:17:11.309 --> 00:17:16.269 well. And so that's my rationale in denying the summary 00:17:16.799 --> 00:17:20.890 decision. And um if you agree with me, then we would 00:17:20.900 --> 00:17:24.930 issue out an interim order that encapsulates our action 00:17:24.939 --> 00:17:27.670 here today. The rejection and the adoption and part 00:17:27.680 --> 00:17:33.500 of the PFD. And then would um also uh incorporate Commission 00:17:33.509 --> 00:17:36.049 Counsel's memo. Except for the conclusions of law that 00:17:36.059 --> 00:17:39.910 I've highlighted in my memo that um would not be part 00:17:39.920 --> 00:17:42.170 of the order. Because that would be consistent with 00:17:42.180 --> 00:17:46.539 granting for analysis summary for um a motion for summary 00:17:46.549 --> 00:17:50.068 decision. Also in order to expedite the processing 00:17:50.078 --> 00:17:53.809 of this docket. I would um go ahead and approve a preliminary 00:17:53.818 --> 00:17:55.979 order with the six issues that are highlighted in my 00:17:55.989 --> 00:17:59.500 memo. As, as I noted earlier this case has been, you 00:17:59.509 --> 00:18:02.390 know, pending for over 4 1/2 years. And we need to move 00:18:02.400 --> 00:18:04.549 forward with trying to get this docket processed. 00:18:06.160 --> 00:18:11.769 So I, I would be happy to hear any thoughts or. (item:8:Commisioner Glotfelty's thoughts on Commissioner Cobos' memo) I 00:18:11.799 --> 00:18:14.848 uh I, I uh I think you laid out your the, the 00:18:14.858 --> 00:18:22.750 history of this item and the contested case uh and 00:18:22.759 --> 00:18:26.390 and it's a unique case. But you've laid it out very 00:18:26.400 --> 00:18:30.009 well. I agree with the decisions and the suggestions 00:18:30.019 --> 00:18:33.779 that you make as the ways to go forward. We definitely 00:18:34.759 --> 00:18:42.559 we have to balance landowners, homeowners. Even when 00:18:42.568 --> 00:18:46.469 somebody, you know, wants to move a line on their own 00:18:46.479 --> 00:18:49.729 property. If it's going to influence or impact other 00:18:49.739 --> 00:18:52.868 people's property. So therefore, I agree with the solutions 00:18:52.880 --> 00:18:54.680 and, and I support the 00:18:56.400 --> 00:18:59.630 memo. (item:8:Commisioner Jackson's thoughts on Commissioner Cobos' memo) I agree as well. You know, the Commission, you know 00:18:59.640 --> 00:19:02.439 should require additional facts or call a public hearing 00:19:02.729 --> 00:19:07.338 to determine whether CCN is required. I agree with 00:19:07.348 --> 00:19:10.660 your rationale as well as your process moving forward. 00:19:10.880 --> 00:19:13.479 And again, to the point that this has been ongoing 00:19:13.489 --> 00:19:17.650 for a number of years. Taking the initiative, I think 00:19:17.660 --> 00:19:20.259 to lay out the issues that need to be addressed in 00:19:20.269 --> 00:19:22.848 the preliminary order. I think was um was proactive 00:19:22.858 --> 00:19:25.449 and appreciate you doing that. And so I'm in agreement 00:19:25.459 --> 00:19:28.049 with your memo and would suggest that we move forward 00:19:28.059 --> 00:19:30.479 and do as you suggest. All right, thank you Commissioners. 00:19:31.160 --> 00:19:34.400 (item:8:Motion to issue interim order adopting PFD in part and rejecting PFD in part) With that in mind um I would move to issue an interim 00:19:34.410 --> 00:19:38.009 order, adopting the PFD in part and rejecting the PFD 00:19:38.019 --> 00:19:43.118 in part consistent with my memorandum. Approve the changes 00:19:43.130 --> 00:19:44.979 that include the changes from the Commission Counsel 00:19:44.989 --> 00:19:45.259 memo. 00:19:47.229 --> 00:19:51.299 Which will ultimately refer the case to SOAH and issue 00:19:51.309 --> 00:19:53.680 a preliminary order with the issues laid out in my 00:19:53.689 --> 00:19:55.848 memorandum. I second. 00:19:58.170 --> 00:20:00.348 All right. All in favor, say aye. Aye. 00:20:05.709 --> 00:20:11.059 Aye. All right. That takes us to Agenda Item No. 10. 00:20:12.039 --> 00:20:14.420 Shelah, can you please lay that out? Yes, ma'am. (item:10:Applicaton for Oncor to amend its CCN for Ramhorn Hill-Dunham 345-kV Transmission Line in Denton and Wise Counties) Item 00:20:14.430 --> 00:20:19.400 10 is Docket No. 55067. This is Oncor's application 00:20:19.410 --> 00:20:24.279 to amend it CCN for the Ramhorn Hill-Dunham 345- 00:20:24.289 --> 00:20:27.959 kV transmission line in Denton and Wise Counties. The 00:20:27.969 --> 00:20:30.769 Commission issued an order on February 1st while Stanza 00:20:30.989 --> 00:20:34.739 filed a timely motion for rehearing. At the March 21st 00:20:34.750 --> 00:20:37.618 meeting, the Commission voted to extend time to act 00:20:37.630 --> 00:20:39.578 on the motions for rehearing and then voted to place 00:20:39.588 --> 00:20:42.890 the motion on this agenda to consider the merits. All 00:20:42.900 --> 00:20:46.729 right. Thank you, Shelah. (item:10:Motion to grant rehearing) I would grant rehearing for 00:20:46.739 --> 00:20:49.509 the limited purpose of modifying the Commission approved 00:20:49.549 --> 00:20:52.818 route to avoid the Leno Canyon Falls Apartment Complex. 00:20:53.509 --> 00:20:56.588 By approving the substitution of Link C4 and 00:20:56.598 --> 00:21:01.279 C6 for Link C7, E2 and E1. And denying 00:21:01.289 --> 00:21:05.739 the request for approval of La Ean alternate, alternative 00:21:05.750 --> 00:21:07.459 one modification. 00:21:12.170 --> 00:21:15.959 Do y'all have any thoughts? I agree with that modification. 00:21:16.949 --> 00:21:23.049 I agree as well. And also um, um does not impact the 00:21:23.059 --> 00:21:26.509 daycare facility as well. All right. So I have a motion 00:21:26.519 --> 00:21:27.170 do I have a second? 00:21:30.489 --> 00:21:30.949 Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. 00:21:33.150 --> 00:21:36.818 All right, pass. Okay. So next item will be. Don't we have a second 00:21:36.828 --> 00:21:37.598 component on that? 00:21:39.838 --> 00:21:44.380 Uh or A6 and G1? Uh 00:21:48.118 --> 00:21:52.259 no, I guess we did that. Okay. All right. Actually will 00:21:52.269 --> 00:21:55.900 you, will you tell me? Did we, did we modify both of 00:21:55.910 --> 00:22:00.380 the provisions that we needed to. Well, let's see. There 00:22:00.390 --> 00:22:04.670 were two proposed modifications by Estancia. I believe 00:22:04.680 --> 00:22:09.078 that Commissioner Cobos's motion addressed the, the first 00:22:09.088 --> 00:22:11.979 one, modification one. Yeah. So we haven't discussed the 00:22:11.989 --> 00:22:15.078 second one. So I would say that the Commission should 00:22:15.088 --> 00:22:19.979 modify approved route to adopt Estancia's new proposed alt 00:22:19.989 --> 00:22:22.680 two modification to Links E6 and G1 as well. 00:22:23.920 --> 00:22:27.959 Yeah. Well, okay. So with respect to the. Not at this 00:22:27.969 --> 00:22:30.739 time, we're not taking any comments right now. So 00:22:30.750 --> 00:22:33.809 right now, what's going on. Is that we're going to revert 00:22:33.818 --> 00:22:37.900 back to the Commission approved route, which will exclude 00:22:37.910 --> 00:22:44.699 alternative Estancia Alt 1. Alt 2 is, is not um I 00:22:44.709 --> 00:22:49.328 thought in the route that was still continuing to be 00:22:49.338 --> 00:22:52.739 part of the discussion. So by reverting back to the 00:22:52.750 --> 00:22:55.939 Commissioner approved route. You're basically continuing 00:22:55.949 --> 00:22:57.858 to deny Alt 1 and Alt 2. 00:23:01.068 --> 00:23:06.088 The question on Alternative 2, I think was the 00:23:06.098 --> 00:23:12.250 fact that La Stancia wanted to modify the route of that portion 00:23:12.259 --> 00:23:15.449 of the property G1 and E6, which was solely on 00:23:15.459 --> 00:23:16.309 their property. 00:23:17.900 --> 00:23:22.529 And we wanted to move that away from the existing 00:23:24.959 --> 00:23:29.660 route and allow them the opportunity. Since the cost 00:23:29.670 --> 00:23:31.818 is very similar. There's no housing, there's no other 00:23:31.828 --> 00:23:35.588 impact for them to move that to Links E6 and G1. 00:23:35.598 --> 00:23:40.549 Right. I was gonna deny that part. 00:23:44.299 --> 00:23:49.719 I guess we're at lauder then. I mean to me if, if 00:23:49.729 --> 00:23:53.660 this customer wants to ensure that their property has 00:23:53.670 --> 00:23:58.259 the most value for the county, for the city. It's solely 00:23:58.269 --> 00:24:01.750 on their property doesn't affect any other entity within 00:24:01.759 --> 00:24:05.729 that, within that area or within the routing criteria 00:24:05.739 --> 00:24:06.660 I think we should grant it. 00:24:09.180 --> 00:24:13.479 Yeah. I mean, I guess I was basing um my review of 00:24:13.489 --> 00:24:15.838 the motion for a hearing based on what was raised in 00:24:15.848 --> 00:24:18.699 the motion for rehearing. And that was basically, uh 00:24:18.709 --> 00:24:23.630 mostly all, you know, solely uh La Sania Alt 1 00:24:23.729 --> 00:24:28.078 that modification. Alt 2 wasn't um something that 00:24:28.088 --> 00:24:33.618 the parties were still um raising um specifically. 00:24:33.930 --> 00:24:36.189 But it was Alt 1 that was primarily part of the 00:24:36.199 --> 00:24:37.078 motion for a hearing. 00:24:38.949 --> 00:24:42.420 So moving forward if we were to approve Alt 2. I 00:24:42.430 --> 00:24:45.719 guess it moves that. There's, I guess a one particular 00:24:45.729 --> 00:24:49.809 property that has not, I guess agreed to the proposed 00:24:49.818 --> 00:24:53.289 route. And this moves it farther away from that as I 00:24:53.400 --> 00:24:57.818 understand it. No. This is so as I understand it, 00:24:57.828 --> 00:25:01.858 La Estancia owns the property that both the original 00:25:01.868 --> 00:25:06.150 route is on as well as the proposed modification alt 00:25:06.160 --> 00:25:10.380 2. They own all of the property on both routes. And 00:25:10.390 --> 00:25:13.838 they are requesting that we move the line from the 00:25:13.848 --> 00:25:16.709 proposed route to a different route. Still on their 00:25:16.719 --> 00:25:20.358 property. Still impacting no, no other landowners because 00:25:20.368 --> 00:25:23.368 it's all within their property. In order for them to 00:25:23.380 --> 00:25:26.318 utilize their property in the way that they see fit. 00:25:26.328 --> 00:25:31.868 And to me that is an appropriate bearing in cost and 00:25:31.880 --> 00:25:34.630 all of the other routing criteria we have to look at. 00:25:34.809 --> 00:25:37.789 To me that's an appropriate modification that we should 00:25:37.799 --> 00:25:40.809 should approve. And just to provide more clarity, we 00:25:40.818 --> 00:25:44.410 had already denied Alt 2. They have asked for reconsideration 00:25:44.420 --> 00:25:47.979 of Alt 2. And so based on your reconsideration, you 00:25:47.989 --> 00:25:49.880 would grant Alt 2? Yes. Okay. 00:25:51.568 --> 00:25:54.430 I mean I'm, I'm since it's both on their property. 00:25:54.689 --> 00:25:56.838 It would seem reasonable to me that we could grant 00:25:56.848 --> 00:25:59.529 Alt 2 as long as it's from a procedural standpoint. You 00:25:59.539 --> 00:26:02.469 feel like as our attorney on the Commission that, that 00:26:02.479 --> 00:26:03.509 would be acceptable? 00:26:05.989 --> 00:26:10.009 I mean my, my position was reverting back to the Commission 00:26:10.019 --> 00:26:13.868 approved route, denying Alt 1. If y'all feel that Alt 00:26:13.880 --> 00:26:16.630 2, the Alt 2 modification is something that y'all 00:26:16.640 --> 00:26:19.818 are comfortable with. Then I mean, I'm fine with that 00:26:19.828 --> 00:26:23.608 too. (item:10:Motion No. 2 to accept Alt 2 modifications) I would move that, that we accept the Alt 2 00:26:23.618 --> 00:26:28.838 modifications to links E6 and G1. Okay. I have a motion. 00:26:28.939 --> 00:26:29.848 Second? I second. 00:26:31.769 --> 00:26:34.118 All in favor, say aye. Aye. Okay. Commissioners, my apologies. We were, we were having 00:26:34.130 --> 00:26:37.000 a sidebar conversation. Can you give us just a moment? 00:26:47.199 --> 00:26:49.009 I mean, we already took a vote. 00:26:51.009 --> 00:26:52.750 And now we've gone back and taken another vote. 00:26:55.189 --> 00:26:57.088 Shelah, can you address the fact that we already took 00:26:57.098 --> 00:26:59.759 a vote and now we've gone back and taken another vote. 00:27:01.029 --> 00:27:04.539 Let's see, give me just a moment. And I have, I 00:27:04.549 --> 00:27:07.979 have Mark Hovenkamp and John Kelly up here with me 00:27:08.088 --> 00:27:10.818 because they have worked directly on this case. When 00:27:10.828 --> 00:27:12.779 you say that you've taken a vote, you meet at this 00:27:12.789 --> 00:27:15.088 meeting or a previous meeting. Well, just before we took this 00:27:15.098 --> 00:27:17.078 vote. I made a motion and. Yes. 00:27:20.239 --> 00:27:23.130 Correct. You took a vote and then there was some further 00:27:23.140 --> 00:27:25.400 discussion. And can you? 00:27:27.489 --> 00:27:29.618 And then we took another vote. You took another vote. Which is different from the 00:27:29.630 --> 00:27:32.779 vote we took before. Yes, all right. Then if you may, we 00:27:32.789 --> 00:27:35.479 were just confirming to make to check on one procedural, 00:27:35.489 --> 00:27:38.118 one procedural thing to before we go forward. But that 00:27:38.130 --> 00:27:41.229 the second vote stands, then we can go forward. Okay. 00:27:41.680 --> 00:27:45.170 Okay. Because this is kind of an awkward procedural posture. 00:27:45.180 --> 00:27:48.180 I'm fine with the second vote. But I mean, we'd already 00:27:48.189 --> 00:27:50.160 taken a vote and then we went back and took another 00:27:50.170 --> 00:27:52.868 vote. Right. So the second, the second. If it's clear 00:27:52.880 --> 00:27:55.549 that I think because you take a second vote, it's clear 00:27:55.559 --> 00:27:58.259 that that supersedes the first vote. All right. Is that the 00:27:58.529 --> 00:28:03.568 question? (item:10:Motion No. 3 updating previous motions language) Then I think we're going to have. If, if vote 00:28:03.578 --> 00:28:07.608 two supersedes vote one. Then maybe we should do vote 00:28:07.618 --> 00:28:12.529 three to supersede vote two and vote one. That includes 00:28:13.289 --> 00:28:16.838 the both components of the route modification. Which 00:28:16.890 --> 00:28:21.809 as Commissioner Cobos suggested that we should substitute 00:28:21.818 --> 00:28:25.719 links C4 and C6 for links C7, E2 00:28:25.729 --> 00:28:29.689 and E1. Instead of approving lost on the alt one 00:28:29.699 --> 00:28:34.519 modification. And then as well adopt the alt 2 modification 00:28:34.529 --> 00:28:38.338 to links E6and G1. Those would be the two 00:28:38.348 --> 00:28:42.338 combined components of the, of what I would suggest 00:28:42.348 --> 00:28:44.568 we approve. I think we have to have a more holistic 00:28:44.578 --> 00:28:49.900 vote because it's fragmented. Yes. So, all right. So I would 00:28:49.910 --> 00:28:54.380 move to grant. I just moved that. Okay but oh, you 00:28:54.390 --> 00:28:57.809 did? Okay. I thought you were just summarizing. Okay. Second? 00:28:59.088 --> 00:29:06.719 All in favor, say aye. Aye. Okay. All right. Okay. Moving 00:29:06.729 --> 00:29:12.979 on to the next one. That would be Item No. 19. 00:29:12.989 --> 00:29:14.390 Shelah, can you please lay that out? 00:29:18.009 --> 00:29:21.358 Yes, ma'am. And Chairman, this is why we have additional 00:29:21.368 --> 00:29:24.828 people at the table for these things. These are some 00:29:24.838 --> 00:29:27.078 particular, we have some tough cases on this agenda. 00:29:27.088 --> 00:29:31.588 All right. (item:19:Joint Petition of Texas Energy Association for Marketers and Alliance for Retail Markets) Item 19 is Docket No. 55959. This is 00:29:31.598 --> 00:29:34.420 the joint petition of Texas Energy Association for 00:29:34.430 --> 00:29:37.880 Marketers and Alliance for Retail Markets for designation 00:29:37.890 --> 00:29:42.949 under Commission Rule 25.475B(5). Before you is 00:29:42.959 --> 00:29:46.439 the joint appeal filed by team and arm of Order No. 00:29:46.449 --> 00:29:49.630 4. Commission Cobos filed a memo in the docket. 00:29:49.930 --> 00:29:52.979 All right. Thank you, Shelah. (item:19:Commissioner Cobos lays out her memo) As laid out in my memo 00:29:53.239 --> 00:29:55.578 based on my review of interim order number four and 00:29:55.588 --> 00:29:57.500 the party's filings. I recommend that the Commission 00:29:57.509 --> 00:30:00.250 grant, the rep coalition's appeal of Interim Order 00:30:00.259 --> 00:30:03.279 No. 4. Which requires the additional notices 00:30:03.289 --> 00:30:07.299 that uh that exceed the um ERCOT market notice and Texas 00:30:07.309 --> 00:30:10.568 Register. Notices that had already been provided of 00:30:10.578 --> 00:30:13.890 the proceeding. For the issues laid out in my memo primarily 00:30:13.900 --> 00:30:19.049 that this is not a TDU base rate case and it's distinguishable 00:30:19.059 --> 00:30:21.108 on a variety of points that I've raised in my memo. 00:30:21.880 --> 00:30:27.049 And the Commission ALJs additional notice requirements 00:30:27.059 --> 00:30:30.559 and Interim Order No. 4 are not necessary. I think 00:30:30.568 --> 00:30:34.799 they will result in confusion, customer confusion. That 00:30:34.809 --> 00:30:37.420 they're going to have a price change to their existing 00:30:37.430 --> 00:30:40.559 fixed rate contract. When in this case, we're basically 00:30:40.568 --> 00:30:45.380 addressing whether the REPs can pass through. If it's 00:30:45.390 --> 00:30:50.449 an, if the ERS is a ancillary service charge that has 00:30:50.459 --> 00:30:53.739 incurred, has been incurred beyond a REPs control. So 00:30:53.750 --> 00:30:57.588 we're not approving a price change. If we ultimately 00:30:57.598 --> 00:31:00.689 did find that the REPs can pass through these charges 00:31:00.699 --> 00:31:06.259 to existing fixed rate customers. Then the REP will 00:31:06.269 --> 00:31:09.469 then decide whether they want to pass through the charges 00:31:09.739 --> 00:31:13.529 to their customers. It's not mandatory, it's up to 00:31:13.539 --> 00:31:15.930 it's in the discretion of the REP. Whether or not they 00:31:15.939 --> 00:31:18.049 want to pass through these charges. And I think sending 00:31:18.059 --> 00:31:21.150 out notice um in the mediums that the Commission ALJ 00:31:21.160 --> 00:31:25.598 is providing in the Order No. 4. Will um create confusion 00:31:25.769 --> 00:31:29.608 and alarm. And I think that ultimately the notice that 00:31:29.618 --> 00:31:32.689 has been provided in this case is sufficient. And uh 00:31:32.699 --> 00:31:34.729 we need to grant the appeal and move on with the rest 00:31:34.739 --> 00:31:35.608 of the case. 00:31:37.689 --> 00:31:41.380 Do y'all have any feedback? I'm consistent. I believe 00:31:41.390 --> 00:31:44.838 what you wrote out is right. I think confusing the 00:31:44.848 --> 00:31:48.229 consumer is, is not in the best interest of, of anybody 00:31:48.239 --> 00:31:50.779 in this case. And believe that you've laid it out correctly 00:31:50.789 --> 00:31:53.670 in the memo. I do believe the case is ongoing as you 00:31:53.680 --> 00:31:57.068 pointed out. And there has been notice given again as 00:31:57.078 --> 00:32:00.880 you mentioned through the market notice and also through 00:32:00.890 --> 00:32:05.529 the Texas Register. All right. (item:19:Motion to grant appeal of Interim Order No. 4) With that, I would move 00:32:05.539 --> 00:32:08.719 to grant team in arms appeal of Interim Order No. 4 00:32:08.729 --> 00:32:11.029 for the reasons laid out in my memo. 00:32:13.338 --> 00:32:14.959 I second. All in favor, 00:32:17.660 --> 00:32:18.318 say aye. Aye. All right. 00:32:20.170 --> 00:32:23.289 And I believe at this time I'm handing the gavel back 00:32:26.009 --> 00:32:30.029 to Chairman Gleeson. Thank you Commissioner Cobos. So I believe that takes us 00:32:30.039 --> 00:32:33.650 to Item No. 22. Shelah, do we have any public comment 00:32:33.660 --> 00:32:35.598 for the rules and projects portion of the meeting? 00:32:36.328 --> 00:32:38.939 (item:22:Shelah Cisneros confirms there are no Public Comments) No sir. We, no one signed up to comment on any of the rules 00:32:38.949 --> 00:32:41.650 and projects in Section II of the agenda. Great, thank 00:32:41.660 --> 00:32:44.890 you. So I don't have anything on 23 or 24. (item:25:Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55999) So that 00:32:44.900 --> 00:32:50.068 brings us to uh to number 25, Project No. 55999-Reports 00:32:50.078 --> 00:32:53.779 of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Go ahead 00:32:53.789 --> 00:32:56.309 and have ERCOT come up and uh provide an update. 00:33:01.279 --> 00:33:02.078 Good morning, Chad. 00:33:04.549 --> 00:33:08.229 Good morning, Chairman. (item:25:ERCOT's Chad Seely on ERCOT's desired request for proposal for additional capacity sources) Chad Seely with ERCOT. Here 00:33:08.239 --> 00:33:11.358 to provide an additional update on our discussion from 00:33:11.368 --> 00:33:15.299 last week. On ERCOT's desire to move forward with a 00:33:15.709 --> 00:33:19.789 request for proposal for additional capacity sources 00:33:19.799 --> 00:33:24.000 to address the South Texas export GTC issue for 2024 00:33:24.009 --> 00:33:27.299 Summer. After having the discussion with the Commission 00:33:27.309 --> 00:33:30.279 last week and talking internally with our additional 00:33:30.289 --> 00:33:32.989 subject matter experts. We think the appropriate path 00:33:33.000 --> 00:33:36.930 forward is to focus primarily on the demand response 00:33:36.939 --> 00:33:41.420 resources. So this RFP that would come out or anticipating 00:33:41.430 --> 00:33:44.180 next week would focus on the demand side solutions. 00:33:44.259 --> 00:33:47.598 That's really three buckets. Any, any entity that can 00:33:47.608 --> 00:33:51.160 reduce their consumption that could offer to this RFP. 00:33:52.328 --> 00:33:56.479 Emergency response sources that are part of our ERS program. 00:33:56.719 --> 00:34:00.078 That are not already procured in some of the hours 00:34:00.088 --> 00:34:03.118 for the Summer program. Would be eligible to offer into 00:34:03.130 --> 00:34:05.699 the identified hours that we're seeking additional 00:34:05.709 --> 00:34:09.438 capacity sources for. And the third bucket would be 00:34:09.449 --> 00:34:12.739 settlement only generators that can reduce consumption. 00:34:12.750 --> 00:34:15.599 Meaning that there's load collocated there. And so 00:34:15.809 --> 00:34:18.360 normally that load is consuming off the grid. And if 00:34:18.369 --> 00:34:21.079 they have backup generation that they could offset 00:34:21.090 --> 00:34:24.349 that load. Then that would reduce the consumption on 00:34:24.360 --> 00:34:26.760 the grid during those hours in which we need those 00:34:26.769 --> 00:34:29.780 obligations. Our time period that we're focused on 00:34:29.789 --> 00:34:34.139 is 3 to 9 pm during the Summer months. We would be 00:34:34.148 --> 00:34:38.369 targeting July 1st through the end of September. That's 00:34:38.378 --> 00:34:41.250 where we see the most identified risk for having these 00:34:41.260 --> 00:34:43.659 overloads on the transmission lines in the South Texas 00:34:43.668 --> 00:34:47.510 area. And you know, the amount of megawatts that would 00:34:47.519 --> 00:34:50.128 be seeking would be close to 500 megawatts. That would 00:34:50.139 --> 00:34:54.030 have the most impact on relieving the constraint on 00:34:54.039 --> 00:34:58.699 the system. The other thing in the RFP that identifies 00:34:58.708 --> 00:35:01.978 that we're focused on demand response sources North 00:35:01.989 --> 00:35:04.639 of the constraint because that's what relieves the 00:35:04.648 --> 00:35:08.679 overload when it's binding. So additional details would 00:35:08.688 --> 00:35:11.659 be if the Commission has any additional guidance, we 00:35:11.668 --> 00:35:15.349 appreciate that as, as we move forward. Under our current 00:35:15.360 --> 00:35:18.639 protocol process, we would issue a market notice identifying 00:35:18.648 --> 00:35:21.398 this risk. We would aim to target that either this 00:35:21.409 --> 00:35:24.659 afternoon or tomorrow. To give notice to the market 00:35:24.668 --> 00:35:25.909 participants that we're going to move forward with 00:35:25.918 --> 00:35:29.280 this RFP. We're anticipating going out with the RFP 00:35:29.289 --> 00:35:33.614 um on Wednesday which, which is May 8th. And giving 00:35:33.664 --> 00:35:36.833 entities the ability to provide questions similar to 00:35:36.844 --> 00:35:39.103 what we did in the Fall. We thought that process worked 00:35:39.114 --> 00:35:41.684 out pretty well. Where entities have the opportunity 00:35:41.695 --> 00:35:44.905 to look at the RFP, ask questions. ERCOT would then 00:35:44.914 --> 00:35:48.273 respond to those questions. Host the Webex and make 00:35:48.284 --> 00:35:52.125 any necessary tweaks to the RFP. And targeting offers 00:35:52.135 --> 00:35:56.188 coming in, in the mid June time frame. Similar to what 00:35:56.199 --> 00:35:59.789 we did in the Fall, we would also stage the ability 00:35:59.800 --> 00:36:04.590 for participants to join into this proposal. So again 00:36:04.599 --> 00:36:07.349 targeting July 1st as the beginning of that window. 00:36:07.360 --> 00:36:10.619 But if a entity has a demand response solution that 00:36:10.628 --> 00:36:13.668 could be available by August 1st. When we really see 00:36:13.679 --> 00:36:16.789 the the highest risk starting in August. Then that 00:36:16.800 --> 00:36:18.750 would be considered as part of the offer submission 00:36:18.760 --> 00:36:21.958 as well. But ultimately ending this in September at 00:36:22.099 --> 00:36:25.519 the end of September. So I'll say uh I'm comfortable 00:36:25.530 --> 00:36:27.648 with their approach and their timeline. I want to thank 00:36:27.659 --> 00:36:30.000 you and, and your staff for all the information over 00:36:30.010 --> 00:36:32.708 the last week. Maybe if you could I, I know when 00:36:32.719 --> 00:36:36.199 we talked last. You, you had thought that generation 00:36:36.208 --> 00:36:38.820 was maybe a capacity was a, was a way to deal with 00:36:38.829 --> 00:36:41.389 this and have uh made pivoted on that a little. Can 00:36:41.398 --> 00:36:43.510 you give a little more color to, to how you came to 00:36:43.519 --> 00:36:46.119 that conclusion? Yeah, I think just from looking at 00:36:46.128 --> 00:36:48.570 what's in that interconnection key and what's anticipated 00:36:48.579 --> 00:36:52.320 come on later this year. And the short timeline in which 00:36:52.329 --> 00:36:55.878 we have to get realistic offers that could provide 00:36:55.889 --> 00:36:59.599 value. We think that's not really realistic that those 00:36:59.610 --> 00:37:01.800 generation resources would be able to accelerate the 00:37:01.809 --> 00:37:04.719 timeline and meet all our other requirements to be 00:37:04.728 --> 00:37:06.708 interconnected properly. We have, they have to go through 00:37:06.719 --> 00:37:10.289 a quarterly stability assessment as well. And there's 00:37:10.300 --> 00:37:12.918 just not going to be enough time to achieve that objective. 00:37:13.128 --> 00:37:15.688 Last week, we talked about the must run alternative. 00:37:15.699 --> 00:37:17.728 I think that would be an option for the longer term 00:37:17.739 --> 00:37:22.300 2025 solution. As we look to address those risks that 00:37:22.309 --> 00:37:25.119 are in the 2025 as a result of the CPS Notice of 00:37:25.128 --> 00:37:28.628 suspension operations. But for the constrained time 00:37:28.639 --> 00:37:30.918 period that we're focused on in order to get the best 00:37:30.929 --> 00:37:33.780 results. A demand response solution will be the best 00:37:33.789 --> 00:37:37.090 way to move forward. Yeah, so like I said. I'm, I'm 00:37:37.099 --> 00:37:38.949 comfortable with this. I appreciate all the work that 00:37:38.958 --> 00:37:41.668 they did to, to give my office briefing on this. You 00:37:41.679 --> 00:37:43.280 know Commissioner Cobos, you had some thoughts on 00:37:43.289 --> 00:37:45.929 the generation capacity side last time. Happy to hear 00:37:45.938 --> 00:37:49.329 your thoughts on where ERCOT is at. Yeah, so I'm comfortable 00:37:49.340 --> 00:37:52.550 with the approach that ERCOT is taking on the RFP. With 00:37:52.559 --> 00:37:56.869 respect to focusing on the load side, potential opportunities. 00:37:56.878 --> 00:37:59.929 So I don't have any additional comment. I appreciate 00:37:59.938 --> 00:38:00.849 the briefing that I received. 00:38:02.489 --> 00:38:05.059 Yeah, I appreciate it as well. I think um when we talked 00:38:05.070 --> 00:38:07.909 about this initially uh you kind of focused on, you 00:38:07.918 --> 00:38:10.760 know, all demand response opportunities. So thinking 00:38:11.019 --> 00:38:13.208 you know, not just what we've historically looked at 00:38:13.219 --> 00:38:16.469 in the past. But also, you know, having this RFP for 00:38:16.478 --> 00:38:20.300 that opportunity. So I appreciate that as well. I uh 00:38:20.309 --> 00:38:22.659 again, I want to reiterate what I said last time. I'm 00:38:22.668 --> 00:38:24.898 appreciative that you all came to the Commission this 00:38:24.909 --> 00:38:27.369 time and, and we've had this discussion. I think it 00:38:27.378 --> 00:38:30.559 uh it, it makes it uh it, it lays it out on 00:38:30.570 --> 00:38:33.208 the table all of the issues for, for discussion. I 00:38:33.219 --> 00:38:37.434 think it allows y'all to uh have more, have input 00:38:37.445 --> 00:38:41.333 from stakeholders even more so. I'm comfortable with 00:38:41.344 --> 00:38:44.063 this on the demand side. I think that it's the right 00:38:44.074 --> 00:38:46.625 conclusion. That if you wanted to do something on the 00:38:46.635 --> 00:38:48.715 on the capacity side, we probably couldn't get it in 00:38:48.724 --> 00:38:52.168 place anyway. So um you know if we're, if we're really 00:38:52.179 --> 00:38:54.909 looking at solving this Summer. Then this is the 00:38:54.918 --> 00:38:57.849 way to go and I'm, I'm supportive of that. We've had 00:38:57.860 --> 00:39:00.708 discussions with Woody and CPS and others about uh 00:39:00.719 --> 00:39:03.250 uh other technologies to help increase that capacity 00:39:03.260 --> 00:39:06.119 flow on the line. Look forward to seeing what the outcomes 00:39:06.128 --> 00:39:09.079 there you know are for solutions for next month. 00:39:10.590 --> 00:39:13.530 And one other point on the budget for the RFP. We, we 00:39:13.539 --> 00:39:16.168 will continue to work with Commission Staff and the 00:39:16.179 --> 00:39:20.750 IMM, and uh bring back that information later in May. 00:39:20.760 --> 00:39:23.280 To highlight kind of our thoughts around the budget 00:39:23.289 --> 00:39:26.750 and, and get y'all's input on that as well. Okay. And 00:39:26.760 --> 00:39:29.590 I, I know in this uh project as well there was a 00:39:29.599 --> 00:39:33.510 proposed order filed um looking for a good cause exception 00:39:33.760 --> 00:39:35.789 from us. So maybe if you want to give a little detail 00:39:35.800 --> 00:39:38.389 on that and, and what was revised in the proposed order 00:39:38.398 --> 00:39:42.329 that would be helpful. Correct. (item:25:Chad Seely on filed proposed order) So as we get past this 00:39:42.340 --> 00:39:46.110 2024 period, then we're going to pivot toward focusing 00:39:46.119 --> 00:39:49.978 on the 2025 period. As a result of the reliability must 00:39:49.989 --> 00:39:53.938 run analysis that we did for the CPS bron units. And 00:39:53.949 --> 00:39:57.179 we indicated that notice last week. That we needed those 00:39:57.188 --> 00:40:00.090 units to support reliability down in the San Antonio 00:40:00.099 --> 00:40:04.360 South Texas area. That triggers the RMR/MRA process under 00:40:04.369 --> 00:40:07.579 the protocols which has very specific timelines. Both 00:40:07.590 --> 00:40:12.699 for CPS and for ERCOT to go out with the RMR/MRA process. 00:40:13.050 --> 00:40:16.119 And, and because it's impacting the same subject matter 00:40:16.128 --> 00:40:19.898 experts to focus on this RFP for capacity. And the fact 00:40:19.909 --> 00:40:23.188 that CPS gave us longer than the traditional 150 day 00:40:23.199 --> 00:40:26.978 period notice. We're seeking good cause from the exception, 00:40:27.300 --> 00:40:31.010 the exception process. To kind of reframe the timeline 00:40:31.019 --> 00:40:34.289 that makes sense to get the most valuable information 00:40:34.300 --> 00:40:37.458 from the industry. To look at those must all alternatives 00:40:37.469 --> 00:40:41.019 to compare to the RMR side from the CPS units. And 00:40:41.030 --> 00:40:44.269 so our good cause exception is really around the timelines 00:40:44.280 --> 00:40:46.878 and the protocols that are very technical. So that we 00:40:46.889 --> 00:40:50.000 can have additional time to work on what a new timeline 00:40:50.010 --> 00:40:52.378 would look like. Make that filing with the Commission 00:40:52.530 --> 00:40:55.128 and set expectations with everyone in the market. And 00:40:55.139 --> 00:40:57.269 how we're going to move forward to that timeline. For, 00:40:57.280 --> 00:41:00.668 for CPS our good cause exception doesn't incorporate 00:41:00.679 --> 00:41:03.050 their issue. They're also under a similar timeline 00:41:03.059 --> 00:41:04.898 where they would have to give us actually a budget 00:41:04.909 --> 00:41:08.739 today for their units. But because we're not starting 00:41:08.750 --> 00:41:10.989 that process now. If the, if the Commission grants 00:41:11.000 --> 00:41:13.260 the good cause exception. Then I think it's appropriate 00:41:13.269 --> 00:41:16.579 to, to at least allow some type of discretion for CPS. 00:41:16.590 --> 00:41:19.159 So that we can work with them on an appropriate time 00:41:19.168 --> 00:41:21.860 for when that budget should come in as well. So I'll 00:41:21.869 --> 00:41:24.159 say, you know, when we talked about this last time. 00:41:24.168 --> 00:41:26.820 There was, you know, Shelah had raised some issues she 00:41:26.829 --> 00:41:29.360 had with the proposed order. I think that got tightened 00:41:29.369 --> 00:41:32.728 up to where I'm comfortable with that now. Chad and 00:41:32.739 --> 00:41:36.260 the team also briefed on the CPS issue. I agree. It's 00:41:36.269 --> 00:41:38.969 it's probably not appropriate to have in this proposed 00:41:38.978 --> 00:41:42.590 order. So on that Connie and Barksdale, I'd say 00:41:42.599 --> 00:41:45.119 you know, to make sure everyone gets the benefit of 00:41:45.128 --> 00:41:48.360 this additional time. You know, we can exercise enforcement 00:41:48.369 --> 00:41:52.119 discretion as it pertains to our rules and ERCOT protocols. 00:41:52.128 --> 00:41:55.889 So, you know, I would think that that's appropriate 00:41:55.898 --> 00:41:59.000 in this circumstance. Commission Staff agrees with 00:41:59.010 --> 00:41:59.219 you. 00:42:01.699 --> 00:42:03.378 All right. Do y'all have any thoughts on the good 00:42:03.389 --> 00:42:06.989 cause exception? Totally supportive. Totally supportive. 00:42:07.398 --> 00:42:11.239 Agreed. Okay. (item:25:Motion to approve revised proposed order filed by ERCOT) Then I will entertain a motion to approve 00:42:11.250 --> 00:42:13.409 the revised proposed order filed by ERCOT. 00:42:15.360 --> 00:42:18.849 So moved. Second I have a motion and second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? 00:42:18.860 --> 00:42:20.840 The motion prevails. Thank you 00:42:23.050 --> 00:42:27.510 Chad. I don't have anything on 26 or 27. So that brings us 00:42:27.519 --> 00:42:31.349 to Items 28 and 29. I'm gonna call them up together. 00:42:31.599 --> 00:42:36.360 (item:28:Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 54224) So item 28 is Project No. 54224, cost recovery for 00:42:36.369 --> 00:42:41.349 service to distribute energy resources. (item:29:Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 54233) And Item 29 00:42:41.360 --> 00:42:45.760 is Project No. 54233, technical requirements and 00:42:45.769 --> 00:42:48.989 interconnection process for distributed energy resources. 00:42:49.429 --> 00:42:51.860 And Commissioner Glotfelty, I believe you had some, some 00:42:51.869 --> 00:42:54.188 thoughts you wanted to share. (item:28:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on DERS) Yeah, I'm appreciative 00:42:54.199 --> 00:42:58.168 that, that we put this back on the docket. I don't 00:42:58.179 --> 00:43:02.458 have any proposal for consideration. I've had discussion 00:43:02.469 --> 00:43:06.280 with staff. This is just an issue I filed a memo in 00:43:06.289 --> 00:43:11.719 March of 2022. It has been superseded because of Legislative 00:43:11.929 --> 00:43:15.320 rule makings and such. It is an issue that I think 00:43:15.329 --> 00:43:18.360 now that we have a director of energy efficiency. That 00:43:18.889 --> 00:43:23.079 it, it, it falls in energy efficiency and and the other 00:43:23.539 --> 00:43:29.010 distributed resources fit well together. And that hopefully 00:43:29.019 --> 00:43:32.849 we can get the staff to prioritize this. Perhaps put 00:43:32.860 --> 00:43:35.079 together a timeline for our system when we could solve 00:43:35.090 --> 00:43:38.019 both the interconnection and the cost allocation issues 00:43:38.030 --> 00:43:40.329 and get it put to bed soon. 00:43:42.378 --> 00:43:45.300 Good morning, David. Good morning Ramya. Good morning. 00:43:46.168 --> 00:43:47.478 Commissioner Glotfelty. 00:43:49.418 --> 00:43:52.019 I'm always happy to serve as your 10th favorite David 00:43:52.039 --> 00:43:55.099 here on the Commission. (item:29:Commission Staff's David Smeltzer on technical requirements and interconnection) I'm glad you brought this up 00:43:55.110 --> 00:43:57.469 for discussion. Because I think this is an area where 00:43:57.478 --> 00:43:59.918 Commission Staff probably could use some guidance. 00:44:00.139 --> 00:44:03.159 Three of the, three of the Commissioners at the dais 00:44:03.168 --> 00:44:05.469 were here last time we discussed this. And I, I can't 00:44:05.478 --> 00:44:08.969 recall where Thomas was at that time. But for his benefit 00:44:08.978 --> 00:44:12.719 I think just as a quick review. I think that DER issues 00:44:13.260 --> 00:44:17.079 and split into two dockets. One half of that is focused 00:44:17.090 --> 00:44:19.398 on interconnection and technical requirements. The 00:44:19.409 --> 00:44:22.398 status update on that is that we held lots of workshops. 00:44:23.010 --> 00:44:26.769 And I think the, the program manager Mariah left at 00:44:26.780 --> 00:44:29.829 the time. But I think that the Ramya and some other staff 00:44:29.840 --> 00:44:32.349 are looking at picking that draft back up. To move it 00:44:32.360 --> 00:44:34.760 forward as soon as we can get it on an open meeting 00:44:34.769 --> 00:44:36.820 agenda. Because we recognize the priority of those technical 00:44:36.829 --> 00:44:40.128 requirements. (item:28:David Smeltzer on cost allocation) The most recent time that we talked about 00:44:40.139 --> 00:44:43.398 the cost allocation issues. Commission Staff had at 00:44:43.409 --> 00:44:46.320 that time had not recommended making any changes. And 00:44:46.329 --> 00:44:49.909 the decision of the panel was to defer until after 00:44:49.958 --> 00:44:52.030 the reliability standard rulemaking. But I think at 00:44:52.039 --> 00:44:54.530 that time, we didn't know what the, we didn't know 00:44:54.539 --> 00:44:56.619 that it was going to be such a long time before we 00:44:56.628 --> 00:44:59.429 got to that and the other statutory obligations. And 00:44:59.438 --> 00:45:04.628 so my recommendation would be. That we probably know 00:45:04.639 --> 00:45:08.329 that Ramya and her a new staff and division are sort 00:45:08.340 --> 00:45:10.188 of reconsidering some of those issues and we need to 00:45:10.199 --> 00:45:12.849 have some internal staff discussions. So my recommendation 00:45:12.860 --> 00:45:16.099 would probably be that we go take a look at it. Come 00:45:16.110 --> 00:45:18.260 back and brief anyone who's interested on what the 00:45:18.269 --> 00:45:21.938 different options are. Because if, if Commission Staff's 00:45:21.949 --> 00:45:24.260 recommendation changes that, that that's easy. But 00:45:24.269 --> 00:45:26.769 if it doesn't, then we would need direction from the 00:45:26.780 --> 00:45:28.728 Commissioners on the ways in which you want to depart 00:45:28.739 --> 00:45:32.300 from staff's recommendation. So I think that that's 00:45:32.309 --> 00:45:33.969 a little bit of a timely process. But I don't want 00:45:33.978 --> 00:45:36.668 to assume we're going to change the direction we got 00:45:36.679 --> 00:45:39.409 from the Commission prior, if that makes sense. Yeah. 00:45:39.418 --> 00:45:42.378 No, I think that's right. Come talk to each of the 00:45:42.719 --> 00:45:45.110 offices and kind of see where the priority is. And 00:45:45.119 --> 00:45:46.579 I think that's the best way to bring it back to an 00:45:46.590 --> 00:45:48.898 open meeting. And I think this is an issue that affects 00:45:49.869 --> 00:45:51.750 you know, the rates division in markets and a few others. 00:45:51.760 --> 00:45:55.550 So I'd want to sort of poll around and see where everyone's 00:45:55.559 --> 00:45:58.039 uh how the different components of this, assemble and 00:45:58.208 --> 00:46:00.668 staff for you today. I'm comfortable with that. Absolutely 00:46:00.679 --> 00:46:02.978 Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, thanks y'all. 00:46:04.090 --> 00:46:07.860 Don't go anywhere yet. So you may be able to leave 00:46:07.869 --> 00:46:09.478 I was talking to Ramya. I'm just kidding, David. You can 00:46:09.750 --> 00:46:13.550 stay. (item:30:Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 56517) So the next item is Item No. 30. That is 00:46:13.559 --> 00:46:17.619 Project No. 56517, review of energy efficiency planning. 00:46:19.418 --> 00:46:22.019 Good morning Commissioners. (item:30:Commission Staff's Ramya Ramaswamy on docket questions) Ramya Ramaswamy for Commission 00:46:22.030 --> 00:46:27.079 staff. So we've laid, staff has laid out a few questions. 00:46:27.090 --> 00:46:30.590 And this is more of a. I'm here today, more of a 00:46:30.599 --> 00:46:33.800 public service announcement. To have people go take 00:46:33.809 --> 00:46:36.320 a look at the docket and look at the questions, and 00:46:36.329 --> 00:46:40.360 please get back to us. We are seeking input on all 00:46:40.369 --> 00:46:43.519 those questions and would love to hear um thoughts 00:46:43.530 --> 00:46:46.320 and ideas that people have on all of them. And I'm 00:46:46.329 --> 00:46:48.369 also going to take this opportunity to say that as 00:46:48.378 --> 00:46:52.539 of yesterday, my division has grown by 50%. Julie Blocker 00:46:52.550 --> 00:46:57.750 from David's division has agreed to join Energy Efficiency Division. I'm very disappointed by this announcement. 00:46:57.760 --> 00:47:00.429 So I'm really happy about that. Thank you 00:47:00.438 --> 00:47:02.094 so much. If, if you have any questions? I'm happy to 00:47:02.333 --> 00:47:04.704 answer. Congratulations on growing your staff Ramya. 00:47:04.844 --> 00:47:08.304 Well, to make a clarification. If I'm not really 00:47:08.313 --> 00:47:11.204 good at math. But if you go from 1 to 2 that's 00:47:11.215 --> 00:47:16.043 100% increase, not a 50% increase. So even you're even 00:47:16.054 --> 00:47:19.688 in better shape than you thought. It sounds like David 00:47:19.699 --> 00:47:21.139 had something to do with that math. 00:47:22.659 --> 00:47:26.500 Well, I'm still part-time market analysis. So I'm not 00:47:26.510 --> 00:47:29.719 sure how much of my time is. Yes, thank you. So David 00:47:29.728 --> 00:47:31.539 it sounds like you may have some work to do to not 00:47:31.550 --> 00:47:33.869 you know, lead employees to other other folks at the 00:47:33.878 --> 00:47:37.409 agency. So, you know. I'm looking at Harika's roster 00:47:37.418 --> 00:47:41.329 now, so we'll see how I fill the spot. All right, thank 00:47:41.340 --> 00:47:41.478 you, Ramya. 00:47:44.458 --> 00:47:46.550 Thanks. I was just gonna say thank you for putting together 00:47:46.559 --> 00:47:50.300 the, the um the questions and uh just encourage people. 00:47:50.309 --> 00:47:52.409 You said it's a public service announcement. Just encourage 00:47:52.418 --> 00:47:55.128 people to become engaged. And to the extent that they 00:47:55.139 --> 00:47:59.039 can provide, you know, data and science and information 00:47:59.050 --> 00:48:02.320 in addition to their verbal comments. I think this 00:48:02.329 --> 00:48:05.144 will be helpful, kind of moving forward. But glad to 00:48:05.155 --> 00:48:08.125 see us kind of taking this first of many steps moving 00:48:08.135 --> 00:48:11.235 forward. To kind of looking at um you know how we're 00:48:11.244 --> 00:48:13.764 doing energy efficiency planning. And you know what's 00:48:13.773 --> 00:48:16.375 the best fit as the grid is changing and Texas is growing, 00:48:16.385 --> 00:48:18.353 so. Thank you so much for that Commissioner. I really 00:48:18.364 --> 00:48:20.103 appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you 00:48:21.809 --> 00:48:26.849 Ramya. Okay. I don't have anything on 31 through 38. (item:39:Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55421) That brings 00:48:26.860 --> 00:48:31.119 us to No. 39. That's Project No. 55421, Texas 00:48:31.128 --> 00:48:33.570 Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group. Commissioner 00:48:34.059 --> 00:48:37.929 Glotfelty? (item:39:Commissioner Glotfelty's update on TX Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group) I'm appreciative of you all giving me the second 00:48:38.728 --> 00:48:41.000 another update here. That's not going to tell you a 00:48:41.010 --> 00:48:43.918 whole lot more than you didn't know before. But we 00:48:43.929 --> 00:48:48.228 continue to meet. We have hundreds of people that are 00:48:48.239 --> 00:48:52.159 are dialing in on our phone calls each week. We have 00:48:52.168 --> 00:48:56.418 four major groups where we have development, manufacturing, 00:48:56.429 --> 00:48:58.659 higher ed, market demand and end users and state and 00:48:58.668 --> 00:49:02.289 federal regulations. We've got 30 or 40 different recommendations 00:49:02.300 --> 00:49:05.398 that, that we're trying to get the data on. In order 00:49:05.409 --> 00:49:07.159 that, that can be presented to the group and to the 00:49:07.168 --> 00:49:10.860 Commissioners. We're excited about it. By the end of 00:49:10.869 --> 00:49:14.869 April, we were narrowing those down. We're a little 00:49:14.878 --> 00:49:17.289 bit behind on getting all of that paper put together. 00:49:17.909 --> 00:49:21.369 That, that, that's because I don't have it filed and 00:49:21.378 --> 00:49:23.019 or that's why I don't have it filed and don't have 00:49:23.030 --> 00:49:26.280 it to you all. You all will get it shortly. The other 00:49:26.289 --> 00:49:29.070 thing I want to say is there are a number of us 00:49:29.079 --> 00:49:32.199 taking a trip to Abilene. To see the Abilene Christian 00:49:32.539 --> 00:49:39.070 Molten Salt Reactor project next Tuesday, the 7th 00:49:39.079 --> 00:49:44.719 of May. I know they would welcome others. If, if other 00:49:44.728 --> 00:49:46.539 Commissioners or staff would like to go. I think it 00:49:46.550 --> 00:49:48.918 would be a great learning experience. We've got some 00:49:48.929 --> 00:49:52.199 members of the Legislature going as well and it's really 00:49:52.208 --> 00:49:54.570 really a great project for, for the State of Texas. 00:49:54.628 --> 00:49:57.519 So that's all I have. I appreciate that. And I think 00:49:57.530 --> 00:50:00.978 as I've told you previously. You know, this small modular 00:50:00.989 --> 00:50:03.728 reactors seem to be one of the few issues. That when 00:50:03.739 --> 00:50:07.349 I talk about it, everyone seems to agree. That they're 00:50:07.360 --> 00:50:11.000 excited about the future prospects of this grids across 00:50:11.010 --> 00:50:13.329 across the country and maybe across the world. So thanks 00:50:13.340 --> 00:50:14.039 for the work on this. 00:50:15.699 --> 00:50:18.500 Absolutely. I just appreciate your leadership. And uh you know, 00:50:18.510 --> 00:50:21.000 I think the interest is growing. Because, you know, 00:50:21.010 --> 00:50:23.820 as we, as we talk about this at the Commission meetings. 00:50:23.829 --> 00:50:26.159 But as, as people hear about it across the state. I 00:50:26.168 --> 00:50:29.228 think you see more of a growing interest and just look 00:50:29.239 --> 00:50:32.110 for great things to come with the, with the final report. 00:50:32.599 --> 00:50:35.188 Well, let me just tell you. What we found is, this state 00:50:35.199 --> 00:50:38.090 is really, really prime to be leaders in this space. 00:50:38.099 --> 00:50:41.449 With the fabrication capabilities of the oil and gas 00:50:41.458 --> 00:50:45.628 industry and what they do. On how they build offshore 00:50:45.639 --> 00:50:47.849 platforms, how they build fracking equipment, all of 00:50:47.860 --> 00:50:51.179 that. Much of that is the same as how you build the 00:50:51.188 --> 00:50:56.010 components of the reactors. It's civil, it's not nuclear. 00:50:56.030 --> 00:50:58.519 And we're just going to be in a really, really good 00:50:58.530 --> 00:51:01.469 place. So I look forward to presenting it to you. That's 00:51:01.500 --> 00:51:01.769 great. 00:51:03.550 --> 00:51:06.889 Okay, so I do not have anything on the rest of the 00:51:06.898 --> 00:51:10.090 agenda and we do not have a closed session. I know 00:51:10.099 --> 00:51:13.849 we posted for our next open meeting on the reliability 00:51:13.860 --> 00:51:16.628 standard for the techno conference to begin at 10:30. 00:51:16.789 --> 00:51:18.728 If it's all right with everyone. We have some orders 00:51:18.739 --> 00:51:21.599 to sign. It would be my intention to start at a 00:51:21.610 --> 00:51:26.208 time certain 11 o'clock, if that works. Okay. All right. 00:51:26.219 --> 00:51:28.610 (item:49:Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting) Then with no further business in front of us, this 00:51:28.619 --> 00:51:30.610 meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas is 00:51:30.619 --> 00:51:31.409 hereby adjourned.