0.1 - Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda
Items 2, 5 to 13, 18 to 21, and 23 to 26
Item number 31 from the rules and projects portion of the agenda was also placed on the consent agenda.
1 - Shelah Cisneros confirms there are no Public Comments
No one signed up to speak on any of the rules and projects.
3 - Docket No. 54147 – Application of Rolling V Ranch Water Control and Improvement District No. 3 of Wise County for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity and for Dual Certification with the City of Rhome in Wise County.
Commission Staff filed exceptions to the proposed order.
ALJ filed a memo declining to make changes to the order.
Commission Counsel filed a memo recommending changes to the order.
The Chairman filed a memo in relation to this docket.
The Chairman recommended approval of the proposed order with modifications from their memo, including a good cause exception for demonstrating certain financial resources and adding an ordering paragraph.
Motion to approve the proposed order consistent with the memos from the Commissioner and Commission Counsel passed unanimously.
14 - Docket No. 48205; SOAH Docket No. 473-18-3823 – Complaints of Multiple Tenants Against Palm Shadows Resort, LLC, Palm Shadows MH & RV Park, and Affordable Housing Communities, LLC Regarding Electric and Water Service Billings
Motion to direct OPDM to draft an order to remand the proceeding to docket management passed unanimously.
15 - Docket No. 52218; SOAH Docket No. 473-21-3273 – Complaint of O. Onumah, Ph.D. and N. Onumah Ph.D. Against CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC.
SOAH proposal for decision is before the council.
The Onumah's filed exceptions.
CenterPoint filed a correction.
SOAH ALJ filed a letter recommending one correction to the PFD.
Motion to adopt PFD as per Chairman's memo passed unanimously.
16 - Docket No. 53377; SOAH Docket No. 473-23-04518 – Complaint of Engie Energy Marketing NA, Inc. and Viridity Energy Solutions, Inc. Against the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc
Engie and Viridity provided RRS continuously for five days, as instructed by ERCOT.
Because the load resources were deployed they lost their capacity, preventing them from being scheduled in the next day-ahead market.
Engie and Viridity sought remedial relief to receive $47.5 million for the service they provided during Winter Storm Uri.
ERCOT credited Engie for deployment on February 15 but charged them $47.5 million for the service from February 16 to 19.
Stephen Mack argued that not receiving credit sends a negative signal to the market, discouraging future participation.
The case highlighted the complexity of protocols and the need for a good cause exception to be granted by the Commission.
Stephen Mack emphasized the importance of fair compensation for provided services in emergency situations to ensure customer confidence and participation.
Elliot Clark stated that the complainants failed to meet their burden of proof, showing no violations of ERCOT protocols.
ALJs found that ERCOT adhered to protocols correctly.
The proposal for decision spans 113 pages, detailing two years of litigation, includes depositions, subpoenas, discovery fights, and extensive testimony.
ALJs rejected every argument presented by the complainants.
A handout with key quotes from the proposal for decision was distributed to commissioners.
Evidence showed that Viridity benefited by not participating in the day-ahead market, avoiding $65 million in ancillary service imbalance charges.
Viridity made a conscious business decision and emails show clear intent to avoid confirming trades.
ALJs found no actual confusion by the complainants during the storm.
The day-ahead market was functioning properly, with most QSEs participating as required.
ALJs found alternatives for Engie to recover losses via contracts with Viridity and load resources.
Complaints raised by the complainants pose serious reliability concerns, such as arguing against the importance of accurate telemetry during emergencies.
Telemetry showed zero responsibility from complainants, leading ALJs to conclude that the claimants did not provide required ancillary services.
Resource status codes were misreported, leading to dangerous grid reliability issues.
Commission Staff agrees with ERCOT's positions but wishes to address key points.
Complainants did not provide RRS during the disputed period (February 16-19 ending at 09:00).
Evidence includes schedules and real-time telemetry indicating non-provision of RRS.
The PFD's conclusion that RRS cannot be provided by deployment was not disputed.
Complainants' assertion that Viridity provided RRS is incorrect.
Discussion on capacity for interruption is irrelevant as it is not an ancillary service and cannot be scheduled, traded, or offered in the day-ahead market.
The claim that Viridity was prohibited from indicating its low resources had capacity for interruption is disregarded as there’s no way for QSE to make this kind of indication.
A load resource can provide RRS without having capacity for interruption.
Capacity argument based on the false premise that capacity for interruption is an ancillary service.
There is no entitlement to compensation for deployment as per ERCOT nodal protocols.
Viridity received no compensation for deployment on February 15, 2021, despite partial deployment of load resources.
Commissioner Glotfelty questioned whether Viridity and Engie's customers would have been penalized for ramping back up without dispatch instruction.
ERCOT indicated that the customers were unable to ramp back up as they were frozen and unaware of a penalty for such actions.
Discussion on changing ancillary service positions during an emergency.
Clarification provided on the protocols, stating that obligations can only change in emergencies with proper scheduling and telemetry.
Viridity was found to not have provided the required services due to business decisions and risks associated with contracts.
Stephen Mack responds, referencing emails that indicated concerns over credit risks and capacity issues in scheduling.
Stephen Mack states that the issue of the ability to schedule into the day ahead market was key, stressing the importance of telemetry and proper scheduling.
Staff argued that there is no requirement to have capacity to schedule RRS.
Discussion on how RRS provision and scheduling operate without the need for actual capacity.
Clarification that dispatch instructions were provided up until Viridity indicated unavailability.
Viridity's status change to OUTL meant they were not providing RRS and ceased to receive dispatch instructions.
Commissioner Glotfelty raised concerns about ERCOT's accountability in emergency situations regarding protocol adherence.
Discussion on the potential penalty structures for violating ancillary service obligations.
The possibility of protocol changes to address these issues in the future was mentioned.
17 - Docket No. 55255; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-02691 – Application of Southwestern Public Service Company to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity to Construct Generation Facilities in Lamb County, Texas and Lea County, New Mexico; for Good-Cause Exceptions; and for Related Relief
Commission considered SOAH proposal for decision at the July 25 meeting.
Commission voted to adopt the PFD in part with certain litigated conditions.
Authority delegated to OPDM to request additional information about hiring a third-party consultant for a prudence review of solar facility costs.
Review to occur if actual costs exceed estimated costs by more than 10%.
Two responses filed by Commission Staff and interveners, and SPS.
Texas entities are largely prepared for weather emergencies.
Review only included EOPs and did not cover resource adequacy, spare equipment, critical inventory tracking, or ongoing weatherization resilience efforts.
Develop a plan to address the report's recommendations for submission to the legislature and governor.
A plan is needed to contact entities that did not respond to the survey to ensure compliance with the statute.
Approve common local upgrade projects on September 26. These projects are actionable immediately and independent of import path selection.
Adopt the import path for the 2038 case year. 90% of the load forecast for 2038 is present in 2030.
Allow time to analyze voltage options for import paths. More information is needed on the 765 kV option.
Primary Recommendation:
Postpone import path voltage approval until after the December EHV study is published and approve it no later than March 15, 2025. ERCOT to host a workshop and compare costs, benefits, and risks between 345 kV and 765 kV.
Alternate Recommendation:
Approve 345 kV and 765 kV import plans for 2038 now, allowing transmission service providers to develop CCN applications. Final voltage decision to be made before submission of CCN applications, with recovery of application costs for paths not chosen.
Recommendation to approve a single complete plan through 2038, including common local projects.
Ensure robust decisions on crucial import paths necessary to serve the Permian Basin.
Balance between ERCOT completing their EHV statewide analysis and moving forward with preparations for CCNs.
Authorize TSPs to start preparing CCNs, prioritize three import paths with commonality.
Proposal to get a commission order to start work while ERCOT continues their study.
Discussion required on a specific date for final analysis completion and import path finalization.
Recommendation for approving the common local projects and authorizing TSPs for all five imports, prioritizing three with optionality for 345 and 765 kV.
Implementation process based on prior frameworks with project ownership determination being crucial.
Proposal for a Permian Basin reliability plan monitor to oversee the large scale transmission plan build out.
Shana Joyce from TXOGA expressed agreement with Commissioner Cobos' memo.
TXOGA supports approving a single complete plan to serve the Permian through 2038, including local projects.
Appreciation for the optionality for the three of the 5 345 kv lines was expressed.
The importance of a specific decision date was highlighted, referencing concerns that legislative sessions might delay the project if a decision isn't made by the suggested timeframe of April to June.
PBPA's goal is to have a fully actionable plan approved by the fall.
Discussion on preferred timeline for the plan, favoring a date around March 15 and caution against delaying to June.
Request for input from transmission service providers on practical timelines for preparing CCNs, recognizing a six to eight month preparation period.
ERCOT has filed an initial backbone for the 765 plan and there will be a workshop on September 18 discussing various aspects of the high voltage lines.
Filed a memo providing an update on the status of the investigation.
Received over 16,000 responses to the public questionnaire, which will remain open until after the Houston workshop in October.
Received almost 120 responsive filings from electric, water, and telecom service providers, cities, trade associations, REPs, and power generation companies.
A large team led by JB Laser is reviewing the responsive information and preparing the investigation report.
The report will be presented at the November 21 open meeting and sent to the governor by December 1.
48 - Discussion and possible action regarding agency review by Sunset Advisory Commission, operating budget, strategic plan, appropriations request, project assignments, correspondence, staff reports, agency administrative issues, agency organization, fiscal matters and personnel policy.
Final decisions on meeting cancellations will be communicated to stakeholders, and they should keep an eye on the calendar.
