09/12/2024 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 20:10
Duration 2:00:15
Loaded: 16.86%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 1:40:05
1x
  • Chapters
  • descriptions off, selected
  • captions off, selected
  • default, selected
x
ZOOM HELP
Drag zoomed area using your mouse.
100%
Search
  • Item 0 - Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order
    00:00:06
    This meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas will come to order. To consider
  • 00:00:10
    matters that have been duly posted with the Secretary of State for September
  • 00:00:14
    12, 2024. Good morning, everybody.
  • 00:00:18
    Before we get going, obviously, you can see we only
  • Item 0 - Motion to excuse Commissioner Hjaltman from today's meeting
    00:00:21
    have four up here today. Commissioner Hjaltman could not be here. So I would
  • 00:00:25
    entertain a motion to. To excuse Commissioner Hjaltman from
  • 00:00:28
    today's meeting. So moved. Second. I have a motion and second. All those in favor say aye.
  • 00:00:32
    Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails. And secondly,
  • 00:00:36
    just real quick, obviously, Texas was spared Hurricane
  • 00:00:40
    Francine. But our thoughts are with the folks in Louisiana who are dealing
  • 00:00:44
    with the aftermath. I've been in contact with our friend and colleague,
  • 00:00:48
    Deanna Rodriguez, who runs Entergy New Orleans. Wishing her, you know,
  • 00:00:52
    all the best and letting her know that we're thinking about her and all the
  • 00:00:55
    citizens of Louisiana. So keep them in your thoughts and prayers.
  • 00:00:58
    And the linemen. And the linemen. Everyone. Everyone's there. I know Entergy
  • 00:01:02
    Texas has sent a number of resources to Louisiana.
  • 00:01:07
    So yeah, we wish them all safe travel and that they get home safely
  • 00:01:10
    after they do their restoration work.
  • 00:01:13
    Okay. Shelah, will you take us through the consent agenda
  • 00:01:16
    please? Yes. Good morning Commissioners.
  • 00:01:20
    One recusal memo was filed in Project No. 52761.
  • 00:01:24
    Chairman Gleeson is recused from items 2, 5, 16,
  • Item 0.1 - Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda
    00:01:28
    18, 19, 20, and 23. By individual ballot,
  • 00:01:32
    The following items were placed on your consent agenda:
  • 00:01:35
    Items 2, 5 through 13, 18
  • 00:01:38
    through 21, and 23 through 26.
  • 00:01:42
    Also item from the rules and projects portion of
  • 00:01:45
    the agenda, Item number 31 was placed on the consent
  • Item 1 - Shelah Cisneros confirms there are no Public Comments
    00:01:49
    agenda, and no one is signed up to speak on that item. And I'm not
  • 00:01:51
    aware of anyone that is signed up to speak on any of the rules and
  • Item 0.1 - Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda
    00:01:54
    projects. Perfect. Thank you. I would entertain a motion to approve
  • 00:01:57
    the consent agenda as laid out by Shelah. So moved. I second.
  • 00:02:01
    I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?
  • 00:02:05
    Motion prevails. Okay. Shelah, that'll take us
  • 00:02:08
    then to Item No. 3. Will you lay out Item No. 3,
  • Item 3 - Application of Rolling V Ranch Water Control and Improvement District No. 3 for a CCN and for dual certification with the City of Rhome, 54147
    00:02:12
    please? Yes. Item 3 is Docket No. 54147.
  • 00:02:16
    This is the application of Rolling V Ranch Water Control
  • 00:02:19
    and Improvement District No. 3 for a CCN and
  • 00:02:23
    for dual certification with the City of Rhome. Before you
  • 00:02:26
    is a corrected proposed order. Commission Staff filed exceptions.
  • 00:02:30
    The ALJ filed a memo declining to make changes to the order,
  • 00:02:33
    and Commission Counsel filed a memo recommending changes. And the Chairman
  • 00:02:37
    filed a memo in this docket. Thank you,
  • 00:02:40
    Shelah. So, you know, I believe we should approve the proposed order consistent
  • 00:02:44
    with the modifications in my memo relating to a good cause exception for
  • 00:02:48
    demonstrating certain financial resources and adding the
  • 00:02:52
    ordering paragraph that was contained in the. In the memo.
  • 00:02:55
    So, thoughts or discussion? How many? Agreement with your
  • Item 3 - Motion to approve proposed order, 54147
    00:02:59
    recommendation? I am as well. I am as well. Okay. Then I
  • 00:03:03
    would entertain a motion to approve the proposed order consistent with
  • 00:03:06
    my memo and Commission Counsel's memo. So moved.
  • 00:03:09
    Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
  • 00:03:13
    Opposed? Motion prevails. Okay. Item 4
  • 00:03:17
    is not going to be taken up. So Shelah, I believe
  • 00:03:20
    that takes us to Item No. 14. Will you lay out Item No. 14,
  • Item 14 - Complaints of multiple tenant against Palm Shadows Resort and other entities, 48205
    00:03:24
    please? Yes. Item 14 is Docket No. 48205,
  • 00:03:29
    the complaint of multiple tenants against Palm Shadows Resort
  • 00:03:33
    and other entities. The docket has been pending for a
  • 00:03:36
    while. We place this on the agenda to get guidance from the Commission on how
  • 00:03:40
    to proceed, and the Chairman filed a memo.
  • 00:03:44
    So, again, on this. You know, I follow the memo.
  • 00:03:47
    Given the timeline of this complaint, I'd recommend that we remand this to docket management
  • 00:03:51
    so that they can better assess the complainant's position, whether or
  • 00:03:55
    not they want to proceed with this docket.
  • 00:03:58
    I think that's prudent. Yeah, I think that's a good approach to addressing
  • 00:04:02
    this issue that's been on our desk for a while.
  • Item 14 - Motion to direct OPDM to draft order and remand proceeding to docket management, 48205
    00:04:05
    Agreed. Okay. I'd entertain a motion to direct OPDM to draft
  • 00:04:09
    an order to remain this proceeding to docket management.
  • 00:04:12
    So moved. Second. Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
  • 00:04:16
    Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails.
  • 00:04:19
    Shelah, will you lay out Item No. 15 please?
  • Item 15 - Complaint of O. Onumah, Ph.D. and N. Onumah Ph.D. against CenterPoint, 52218
    00:04:22
    Item 15 is Docket No. 52218,
  • 00:04:26
    the complaint of the Onumah's against CenterPoint. Before
  • 00:04:30
    you as a SOAH proposal for decision. The Onumah's filed exceptions
  • 00:04:34
    and CenterPoint filed a correction. The SOAH ALJ filed a
  • 00:04:37
    letter recommending one correction to the PFD, and the
  • 00:04:41
    Chairman filed a memo in this docket. So this one,
  • Item 15 - Motion to adopt PFD consistent with the changes within Chairman's memo, 52218
    00:04:44
    again, have a memo. I think we should adopt the PFD consistent
  • 00:04:47
    with the, with the changes in the memo. Happy to hear your thoughts.
  • 00:04:52
    I agree. So moved. Okay.
  • 00:04:55
    Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
  • 00:04:58
    Aye. Opposed? Motion prevails.
  • 00:05:02
    Okay, so we'll skip 16. I'm recused from that. We'll come back to that.
  • 00:05:05
    So Shelah, I believe that takes us to Item No. 17. Will you lay out
  • Item 17 - Application of Southwestern Public Service Company to amend its CCN to construct generation facilities in Lamb County, Texas and Lea County, New Mexico, 55255
    00:05:09
    Item 17, please? Item 17 is Docket No. 55255.
  • 00:05:12
    The application of Southwestern Public
  • 00:05:16
    Service Company to amend its CCN for to construct
  • 00:05:19
    generation facilities in Lamb County, Texas, and Lea County,
  • 00:05:23
    New Mexico. The Commission considered the SOAH proposal
  • 00:05:26
    for decision in the docket at the July 25 meeting. The Commission voted
  • 00:05:30
    to address the PFD in part I'm sorry to adopt the PFD in part
  • 00:05:34
    and including certain conditions that were litigated and
  • 00:05:37
    addressed by the parties. One of the conditions was conceptual and needed some
  • 00:05:41
    additional details for the order. So the Commission delegated authority
  • 00:05:45
    to OPDM to request additional information
  • 00:05:48
    about hiring a third party consultant to conduct a prudence review
  • 00:05:52
    of the cost of the solar facilities if the actual costs
  • 00:05:55
    exceed the estimated cost by more than 10%. Two separate responses
  • 00:06:00
    were filed. One by Commission Staff and interveners and one by SPS.
  • 00:06:04
    And the Chairman filed a memo in the docket. So my staff,
  • 00:06:07
    we looked at the responses and came up with this draft language
  • 00:06:10
    that was provided with the memo. Happy to hear your thoughts on the language.
  • 00:06:14
    I'm in agreement that SPS ought to have some role in this and support
  • 00:06:18
    the entirety of your memo. Yeah.
  • 00:06:21
    So, you know, we adopted the PFD with this condition in
  • 00:06:25
    there. And so I,
  • 00:06:29
    you know, thank you for taking the time. I know that the part submitted different
  • Item 17 - Commissioner Cobos' question on payments to ratepayers, 55255
    00:06:32
    positions and kind of coming up with a middle ground on this. My only
  • 00:06:36
    question that I have, and it's not related to your memo, is just like,
  • 00:06:39
    what happens to, you know, the cost of the third party consultant.
  • 00:06:43
    SPS will pay for it, but is it passed on to ratepayers?
  • 00:06:47
    Yes, I believe it would be. Yeah. I mean, is there any way
  • 00:06:50
    to not let that happen? Because that defeats the whole prop, the whole point
  • 00:06:54
    of a prudence review.
  • 00:06:57
    Right. If you're making sure the assets are prudent,
  • 00:07:02
    that's in the best interest of the rate payer. I don't know. I mean,
  • 00:07:05
    that's, the remaining question I have is just, you know, should the ratepayers be paying
  • 00:07:08
    for the third party consultant?
  • 00:07:12
    I mean, I think that I understand. I think
  • 00:07:15
    I understand your concern. (item:17:Commissioners thoughts on prudence review, 55255)This is a regulatory proceeding
  • 00:07:19
    that we're putting them through. We're paying for it. The consumers
  • 00:07:22
    are getting the benefit of the, the line. What we're doing is putting an extra
  • 00:07:25
    check and balance in there that if they go 10% over, there's going to be
  • 00:07:28
    a consultant. So that will make
  • 00:07:32
    it a little bit more expensive, but I think it will give us more data
  • 00:07:35
    to understand what's needed, you know, in the rate case,
  • 00:07:39
    you know, when we come back to determine if those costs are prudent or not.
  • 00:07:42
    Right. And I agree with that. And again, I think that's why it's important that
  • 00:07:46
    they have some say in this as well. So I
  • 00:07:49
    think it's prudent as well. I think we need to have that third party review.
  • 00:07:53
    I think it benefits in this case, both the consumer
  • 00:07:56
    and helps us in due diligence and making
  • 00:08:00
    sure that, again, if the trigger occurs. And one of the things
  • 00:08:04
    I did notice is that in your memo, you did clarify
  • 00:08:08
    that the AFUDC would be included in the
  • 00:08:11
    actual cost. I think that's important. I would agree with
  • 00:08:15
    your memo. Yeah. Like I said, I'm in general agreement.
  • 00:08:18
    It was just that one remaining sort of issue I wanted to talk through.
  • 00:08:20
    But it sounds like, you know, at the end of the day,
  • 00:08:23
    the additional layer of prudence is in the benefit of the consumer.
  • 00:08:27
    They'll probably have to pay a little bit more. And that was the only
  • 00:08:31
    thing that I was just wanting to kind of talk through. But I might agree
  • 00:08:33
    with the approach. We approved a third party consultant, and thank you for coming
  • Item 17 - Shelah Cisneros addresses Commissioner Cobos' ratepayer question, 55255
    00:08:36
    up with this language. Absolutely. All right, then. Commissioners, if I may? Just
  • 00:08:40
    to jump in and address Commissioner Cobos' question a
  • 00:08:44
    little bit. There is
  • 00:08:48
    language in the draft order that was attached
  • 00:08:51
    to your memo. It's ordering paragraph or proposed ordering
  • 00:08:54
    paragraph. I believe it's two.
  • 00:09:02
    Yes. It says SPS will
  • 00:09:06
    be required to bear the cost of the consultant.
  • 00:09:11
    That seems fairly clear. But did that address your
  • 00:09:15
    question, Commissioner Cobos? Yes. Okay. And you could I mean, if there
  • 00:09:18
    are any questions, you could always call the party up to confirm, but I believe
  • 00:09:21
    it includes that language. And I don't, Mister Schifler actually would
  • 00:09:24
    know is more in the weeds on this than I am. At the parties,
  • 00:09:28
    individually or jointly proposed that language, but that would be part of the order.
  • 00:09:32
    Yeah, no, I think it's clear. And, yeah, it'll get passed through. I think
  • 00:09:36
    that's clear. So. Okay.
  • Item 17 - Motion to approve, 55255
    00:09:39
    Okay. Move in consistent
  • 00:09:42
    with your memo. Okay. Have a motion.
  • 00:09:44
    Second. Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
  • 00:09:48
    Opposed? Motion prevails.
  • 00:09:52
    Okay. So that will Shelah, I think that'll take us to all the way
  • 00:09:55
    to Item No. 22. We lay out Item 22,
  • 00:09:58
    please. Sure. Give me just a moment.
  • Item 22 - Application of CenterPoint for authority to change rates, 56211
    00:10:06
    All right. Item 22 is Docket No. 56211.
  • 00:10:11
    The application of CenterPoint for authority to change rates.
  • 00:10:15
    Before you is CenterPoint's appeal of SOAH Order No. 14.
  • 00:10:19
    The Commission voted to add this item for the sole purpose of extending
  • 00:10:22
    time to act on the appeal. So my thought here is,
  • 00:10:26
    you know, as we've talked, we're going to go have.
  • 00:10:29
    Excuse me. We're going to go have a hearing in October
  • 00:10:33
    in Houston and hear from Houstonians about this.
  • 00:10:38
    While they're not a party, I think it's important that before we make any
  • 00:10:41
    decision, we go through that process and have our hearing in Houston.
  • 00:10:44
    So I'd recommend that we delay this until the October 24 open
  • 00:10:48
    meeting and just act to extend time. I agree.
  • Item 22 - Motion to adopt order to extend time on proceeding, 56211
    00:10:53
    I do as well. I'm supportive of that. Okay. Then I
  • 00:10:56
    would entertain a motion to adopt the order to extend time on this proceeding.
  • 00:11:01
    So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye.
  • 00:11:05
    Opposed? Motion prevails.
  • 00:11:11
    So that will take us back to Item No. 16.
  • 00:11:14
    And, Commissioner Cobos, I will hand it over to you. Thank you, Chair Gleeson.
  • Item 16 - Complaint of Engie Energy Marketing and Viridity Energy Solutions against ERCOT, 53377
    00:11:18
    Shelah, will you please lay out this item? Yes. Item 16
  • 00:11:22
    is docket number 53377. This is
  • 00:11:25
    the complaint of Engie Energy Marketing and
  • 00:11:29
    Viridity Energy Solutions against the Electric Reliability Council
  • 00:11:33
    of Texas. Before you is SOAH proposal for decision.
  • 00:11:37
    The parties filed exceptions and replies. The SOAH ALJ filed
  • 00:11:41
    a response and recommended one change to the PFD.
  • 00:11:45
    Oral argument was requested, and the Commission voted to grant oral
  • 00:11:48
    argument, and Commissioner Cobos filed a memo.
  • 00:11:52
    Yes, Shelah. So I granted oral argument on this
  • 00:11:55
    case. I believe there's some complex decisions that I would like to hear from
  • 00:11:58
    the parties from and defer the decision to the next
  • 00:12:02
    open meeting or subsequent open meeting, and let us benefit from
  • 00:12:06
    oral argument this morning. And I
  • 00:12:09
    believe I granted seven minutes to each party, and there's three
  • 00:12:12
    or four parties. We have,
  • 00:12:16
    let's see,
  • 00:12:20
    four separate parties that signed up to speak.
  • 00:12:23
    Okay. Yes. So I think as in,
  • 00:12:26
    as we've done recently, let's bring all the parties up to come to the
  • 00:12:30
    table at once, and we'll start with the person who has the burden of proof.
  • 00:12:34
    Go to other parties and then follow and then wrap up with
  • 00:12:37
    Commission Staff at the end. That sounds great. Thank you.
  • 00:12:41
    And do you want us to ask questions after each person
  • 00:12:46
    testifies or at the very end?
  • 00:12:51
    Let's wait till the very end so we could get through it and then.
  • 00:12:53
    Yeah, but. Okay. That sounds good.
  • 00:12:56
    Sure. All right. If the parties would come up to the table.
  • 00:13:07
    And before you speak, the Court Reporter does have everyone's names and
  • 00:13:11
    the sign in sheet. But please be sure to state your name and the party you
  • 00:13:14
    represent for the record. All right.
  • 00:13:18
    So the first person I believe, so the party that has
  • 00:13:22
    the burden of proof would be on this case. We have Stephen
  • 00:13:25
    Mack that's with Engie and Viridity to sign up
  • 00:13:28
    to speak today, correct? Yes. All right, we'll start with you.
  • 00:13:33
    Commissioners are you ready to begin? Yes. All right.
  • Item 16 - Stephen Mack on behalf of Engie Energy Marketing & Viridity Energy Resources, 53377
    00:13:37
    Good morning Commissioners. I am Stephen Mack here on behalf of Engie Energy
  • 00:13:42
    Marketing and Viridity Energy Resources.
  • 00:13:46
    With me today is Arthur Dandrea, Ann Coffin
  • 00:13:49
    and Alessandra Papa. I'd like to start off by thanking you guys for taking the
  • 00:13:53
    opportunity to meet with us and hear our arguments in this case.
  • 00:13:58
    This case presents complex issues on matters of first impression that
  • 00:14:02
    arose from the unprecedented five day EEA event during Winter Storm Uri.
  • 00:14:07
    The purpose of my statements will be to provide clarity around
  • 00:14:10
    those issues and to distill those issues down to the heart of the matter,
  • 00:14:13
    which is that Engie and Viridity were required to deploy responsive
  • 00:14:17
    reserve service or RRS for five straight days,
  • 00:14:21
    which they performed admirably. Because the load resources
  • 00:14:25
    were deployed, they no longer had capacity, as that term is
  • 00:14:29
    defined by the protocols, and without capacity,
  • 00:14:33
    the protocols prevent those load resources from
  • 00:14:36
    being scheduled in the next day ahead market.
  • 00:14:40
    The remedial relief sought in this case is that engie and
  • 00:14:43
    viridity received the credit for the service they provided ERCOT
  • 00:14:47
    continuously during Winter Storm Uri. The service had
  • 00:14:51
    a monetary value of $47.5 million.
  • 00:14:54
    The economic and societal benefits to the market cannot be overstated.
  • 00:14:59
    The RRS provided was used by ERCOT to help address the
  • 00:15:03
    near collapse of the grid in the early hours of February 15
  • 00:15:07
    and to provide needed energy throughout the remainder of the EEA event.
  • 00:15:12
    Not only is crediting energy and viridity for the service provided
  • 00:15:16
    at just an equitable result, but it also sends the
  • 00:15:19
    proper signal to the market that if you provide the energy services instructed
  • 00:15:24
    in an EEA event and comply with the plain language of the
  • 00:15:27
    protocols, you will receive the compensation due.
  • 00:15:32
    As you know, RRS is an ancillary service.
  • 00:15:36
    In this case, it's provided by non controllable load resources that
  • 00:15:39
    have agreed to curtail their load in an energy emergency.
  • 00:15:43
    To maintain the frequency of electricity on the grid, and to provide
  • 00:15:47
    energy in an EEA event, RRS relies
  • 00:15:50
    on participation by willing customers. If customers
  • 00:15:54
    do not have confidence that their performance will be credited,
  • 00:15:57
    even in unprecedented situations, as occurred during Winter Storm
  • 00:16:00
    Uri, then they will not agree to sign up for the program or
  • 00:16:04
    subject themselves to penalties if the service is not provided as required requested.
  • 00:16:09
    The load resources in this case remained continuously deployed
  • 00:16:14
    as instructed until ERCOT recalled them on February 19.
  • 00:16:17
    At the end of the EEA event, ERCOT credited Engie
  • 00:16:21
    for the 27 MW deployment only for the February 15
  • 00:16:24
    operating day. ERCOT did not credit Engie-Viridity for
  • 00:16:28
    the deployment on February 16 through the 19th operating
  • 00:16:32
    days. Instead, ERCOT charged
  • 00:16:35
    Engie $47.5 million for the very
  • 00:16:39
    service they were providing. Engie is here before the Commission today
  • 00:16:42
    seeking to get those funds back. This was
  • 00:16:46
    the first ever extended deployment of RRS beyond the operating
  • 00:16:49
    day in ERCOT history. In an extended deployment during
  • 00:16:53
    an EEA event, load resources are required to
  • 00:16:57
    remain deployed continuously, providing RRS until
  • 00:17:01
    recalled by ERCOT. This requirement for
  • 00:17:04
    RRS to remain deployed past the end of the operating day
  • 00:17:08
    first became possible with the protocol changes in 2010,
  • 00:17:11
    when ERCOT transitioned to the nodal market.
  • 00:17:15
    But the 2010 protocol changes did not change the capacity requirement
  • 00:17:19
    in the protocols for scheduling in the day ahead.
  • 00:17:23
    As a result, deployed non controllable load resources do
  • 00:17:26
    not have capacity and thus cannot schedule in the dam permissibly. Under the
  • 00:17:30
    protocols, if they cannot be scheduled, they are not
  • 00:17:34
    automatically credited by ERCOT for providing RRS an
  • 00:17:38
    extended deployment. ERCOT has since drafted a
  • 00:17:42
    nodal protocol revision to create an exception from the capacity requirement
  • 00:17:46
    for deployed low resources going forward, but a good cause
  • 00:17:50
    exception from the Commission is needed here today to address
  • 00:17:54
    the situation as it occurred in Winter Storm Uri.
  • 00:17:59
    Despite being prohibited from participating in the day ahead market, Engie and
  • 00:18:02
    Viridity provided the RRS continuously over the
  • 00:18:05
    five days as instructed by ERCOT. Emails and phone
  • 00:18:09
    messages from ERCOT to viridity indicate that ERCOT knew the
  • 00:18:13
    RRS was being provided and ERCOT conveyed its expectation
  • 00:18:17
    to viridity that the RRS continued to be provided until
  • 00:18:21
    recalled. Ng and viridity dutifully provided the
  • 00:18:24
    service and so should be credited for the service.
  • 00:18:27
    Punishing Ng and viridity for following the plain language of the protocols would
  • 00:18:31
    be an absurd result from a public policy perspective,
  • 00:18:35
    market participants should be assured that they will be credited
  • 00:18:39
    for providing emergency services during crucial EEA events
  • 00:18:43
    if they adhere to the plain language of the protocols and ERCOT
  • 00:18:47
    instructions. The evidence shows that already customers
  • 00:18:51
    are unwilling to engage in long term contracts to provide rrs
  • 00:18:55
    so that in the event any natural disaster were to
  • 00:18:59
    threaten the system, the customer could maintain the
  • 00:19:03
    ability to opt out within a day's notice.
  • 00:19:07
    Not approving a good cause exception would signal to
  • 00:19:10
    the market participants that all you really need to do is participate in
  • 00:19:14
    the market and it doesn't matter whether you show up and perform as
  • 00:19:17
    instructed. Accordingly, Engie and viridity requested the
  • 00:19:21
    commission grant a good cause exception so that Engie is not
  • 00:19:24
    punished by having to pay ERCOT $47.5 million
  • 00:19:28
    for the very service that Ng and viridity provided, as instructed.
  • 00:19:32
    Thank you, commissioners. I'll reserve the balance of my time for replying.
  • 00:19:38
    All right. I don't think you have 1 minute remaining.
  • 00:19:42
    All right. The next decided to speak is SP's excel.
  • 00:19:48
    I think that's another case. Oh, did someone
  • 00:19:51
    sign up on that? Did someone. Did someone sign up on the sign in sheet
  • 00:19:54
    incorrectly?
  • 00:20:00
    All right, I wondered about this. Then the next step would be,
  • 00:20:04
    I believe. Let's go with ERCOT. Next. Next.
  • Item 16 - Elliot Clark on behalf of ERCOT, 53377
    00:20:10
    Good morning Commissioners. Elliot Clark here on behalf of ERCOT. I'm joined by Assistant
  • 00:20:14
    General Counsel Doug Fawn from ERCOT and my colleague Ellen Eisenhower.
  • 00:20:20
    Put simply, the complainants in this case failed to meet
  • 00:20:24
    their burden of proof. They did not show that ERCOT violated
  • 00:20:28
    a single protocol that was found by the
  • 00:20:31
    ALJS and finding of fact 123. They've made no
  • 00:20:35
    exception to that finding. Based on the undisputed facts,
  • 00:20:38
    ERCOT did exactly what it was supposed to do under the
  • 00:20:42
    protocols. The ALJ's found that in finding a fact 103.
  • 00:20:46
    Again, they've made no exception to that finding effect.
  • 00:20:49
    Put simply, the ALJ's got it right. You have a 113
  • 00:20:53
    page proposal for decision before you. This was
  • 00:20:57
    two years of literary. The parties had eleven depositions.
  • 00:21:01
    Some people were deposed twice. We had to serve third party
  • 00:21:05
    subpoenas and depose third parties. We had a myriad
  • 00:21:08
    of discovery fights and we had to do that to
  • 00:21:11
    uncover emails and documents to find out what was really going on
  • 00:21:15
    during the storm. The parties filed direct and rebuttal
  • 00:21:18
    testimony and then had to file supplemental testimony because the
  • 00:21:22
    complainants withdrew voluntarily. Claim for $93,000,000.13
  • 00:21:27
    days before our first trial setting, we had a two
  • 00:21:30
    day in person hearing before both ALJs.
  • 00:21:34
    Every single witness was cross examined. They got to see the witnesses,
  • 00:21:38
    they got to read hundreds of pages of testimony. And following
  • 00:21:41
    the hearing, the party submitted over 350 pages of post
  • 00:21:45
    hearing briefing. And after all of that,
  • 00:21:48
    the ALJs have rejected every single argument that
  • 00:21:52
    the complainants have put forth. They've seen it for what it is.
  • 00:21:56
    It is a post hoc litigation rationalization for what
  • 00:22:00
    they did in real time. So what really happened?
  • 00:22:04
    Hopefully, you have in front of you a handout that we've provided.
  • 00:22:09
    Let me pause for just a moment.
  • 00:22:13
    ERCOT has a demonstrative that they would like to pass out to the Commissioners.
  • 00:22:16
    Pause for a moment, because that has not been distributed yet.
  • 00:22:20
    Until you brought this up. I believe someone has this.
  • 00:22:23
    Yes. And I believe there are extras for the parties as well. Yes.
  • 00:22:27
    I've given Mister Mack a copy. All right. Do the other parties get to see
  • 00:22:30
    this and respond to it as well? Yes. Okay. Do all the parties have a
  • 00:22:33
    copy of it? I don't have a copy. We'll get you one.
  • 00:22:52
    All right. Everyone has the demonstrative. All right, we'll resume.
  • 00:22:57
    So I won't sit here and read each of these quotes, but these are all
  • 00:23:01
    from the proposal for decision. And what they show is after hearing
  • 00:23:04
    all of this evidence, weighing the credibility of all the witness, the ALJs
  • 00:23:08
    held that viridity benefited by not participating
  • 00:23:12
    in the day ahead market and avoided paying over $65
  • 00:23:16
    million in ancillary service imbalance charges. The ALJ's
  • 00:23:20
    held that Veridi made a business decision and that there's
  • 00:23:24
    no reason for this commission to accept a fiction
  • 00:23:28
    that they had confirmed trades when the undisputed facts
  • 00:23:31
    show they did nothing. The ALJs also held that, based on a preponderance
  • 00:23:36
    of the evidence, emails testimony,
  • 00:23:39
    that there was no actual confusion
  • 00:23:42
    on the part of the complainants at the time of the storm. And how do
  • 00:23:45
    we know that Engie was actually calling viridity's
  • 00:23:49
    level four QSE EDF, saying hit the confirm
  • 00:23:52
    button on our trade? Viridity was sending emails
  • 00:23:56
    to EDF in large bold fonthe stop calling us about
  • 00:24:00
    trades and do not confirm those trades. They knew
  • 00:24:04
    that if they did that the credit risks were
  • 00:24:07
    exponential and they sent emails to that effect. The ALJ
  • 00:24:11
    has heard all of this evidence. There are even transcripts of calls
  • 00:24:16
    from Engie to ERCOT saying viridity is
  • 00:24:19
    no longer providing the RRS and we know we have a problem.
  • 00:24:24
    The evidence also showed that the Diahad market was functioning
  • 00:24:27
    properly. Most every other QSE participated in the
  • 00:24:31
    market. Under their theory, all of those QSEs were
  • 00:24:34
    violating the protocols. If Engie wants to
  • 00:24:38
    recover the $47 million, it's out. It has a contract
  • 00:24:41
    with viridity and a contract with its load resources that were supposed
  • 00:24:44
    to provide the RRS. That is its avenue for relief.
  • 00:24:48
    And the ALJ so found. And each of the quotes
  • 00:24:52
    on the handout contain the page number of the proposal for
  • 00:24:55
    decision. But the arguments that are
  • 00:24:59
    being put forth by the complainants raise serious reliability
  • 00:25:02
    concerns. Now, it is true that on February 15,
  • 00:25:06
    the complainants did provide some of the RRS that
  • 00:25:09
    they were supposed to. They actually only provided 64%
  • 00:25:13
    of what they were supposed to provide. That's undisputed. I don't think
  • 00:25:17
    that's admirable performance. A 64 is an F in almost any
  • 00:25:21
    grade book you look up. On February 16 through the 19th,
  • 00:25:25
    they provided no reliability benefit to the grid because what
  • 00:25:29
    they did was at midnight on the 15th, going into the
  • 00:25:32
    16th, they reported to ERCOT, we have 0
  • 00:25:35
    ancillary service resource responsibility and
  • 00:25:39
    all of our load resources are out. L so
  • 00:25:43
    the position that the complainants want this commission to
  • 00:25:46
    adopt would actually harm grid reliability and it would harm
  • 00:25:50
    the market. They argue that telemetry is
  • 00:25:54
    just not important in an emergency. I think that's
  • 00:25:57
    exactly backwards. ERCOT needs accurate telemetry
  • 00:26:00
    the most during an emergency to reliably operate the
  • 00:26:04
    grid. Again, it is undisputed that their telemetry
  • 00:26:08
    reported 0 responsibility and all their
  • 00:26:11
    load resources were out. This commission found in another
  • 00:26:15
    proceeding involving STEC that when it mistakenly,
  • 00:26:20
    mistakenly put in 0 ancillary service
  • 00:26:24
    resource responsibility for 4 hours, it failed to provide
  • 00:26:27
    RRS. Under that commission holding
  • 00:26:32
    they have, they cannot be said to have provided RRS. It is
  • 00:26:36
    undisputed that they chose to telemeter 0
  • 00:26:40
    ancillary service resource responsibility.
  • 00:26:44
    Applying STEC requires dismissal of their claims.
  • 00:26:48
    As to the resource status code, this is perhaps even more dangerous.
  • 00:26:52
    There are two options for a load resource. It's either on
  • 00:26:55
    RL, I am available or out. L I am not
  • 00:26:59
    available. ERCOT knows a load resources
  • 00:27:02
    providing RRS. If it tells ERCOT I am on RL,
  • 00:27:05
    I am available, out tells ERCOT
  • 00:27:09
    I'm not available, I'm not doing anything. They say
  • 00:27:13
    that's the correct thing to do. If they're deployed to provide
  • 00:27:16
    RRS, they should immediately switch to out and say,
  • 00:27:20
    we're not available. That's dangerous, because ERCOT
  • 00:27:23
    now doesn't have any idea if that resource is providing
  • 00:27:27
    RRS. Under their theory, broken never intended
  • 00:27:30
    to provide RRS that day anyway. All of those would
  • 00:27:33
    be the same. They would all be out. ERCOT can't reliably operate
  • 00:27:38
    a grid if it doesn't know the status, the accurate status of
  • 00:27:42
    its load resources. The ALJS considered
  • 00:27:45
    this argument. They soundly rejected it. And in their proposal
  • 00:27:49
    for decision, they found that argument compelling. And it is,
  • 00:27:52
    because to adopt their position is dangerous.
  • 00:27:56
    The undisputed material.
  • 00:28:01
    I apologize, I'm out of time.
  • 00:28:05
    All right. The last party decided to speak is Commission Staff.
  • 00:28:09
    Good morning Commissioners. Good morning Commissioners.
  • Item 16 - Floyd Walker with Commission Staff, 53377
    00:28:12
    Floyd Walker for commission staff. Commission Staff agrees with positions taken
  • 00:28:16
    by ERCOT, but would like to further address a few key points.
  • 00:28:20
    This case is more straightforward than it might initially appear.
  • 00:28:23
    First, complainants did not provide RRS during the disputed payment period,
  • 00:28:26
    which is February 16 and February 19, ending at 09:00.
  • 00:28:30
    We know this because they submitted schedules indicating that it would not provide RRS,
  • 00:28:34
    and submitted real time telemetry indicating that it did not provide RRS.
  • 00:28:38
    The PFD correctly held that RRS cannot be provided by deployment.
  • 00:28:42
    This is reflecting the conclusion of law number twelve, which was not disputed.
  • 00:28:46
    Accordingly, complaints premise that viridity provided RRS is incorrect.
  • 00:28:51
    Second, complaint's entire capacity discussion is
  • 00:28:54
    a misdirection because capacity for interruption is not an ancillary service.
  • 00:28:58
    It cannot be scheduled, it cannot be traded, it cannot be offered
  • 00:29:02
    into the day ahead market. Therefore, the claim that viridity was
  • 00:29:05
    prohibited from indicating that its low resources had capacity for interruption
  • 00:29:09
    disregards the fact that there's no way for a queasy to make this kind
  • 00:29:13
    of indication the relevant ancillary services RRS.
  • 00:29:16
    And there's no dispute that a deployed load resource can
  • 00:29:20
    provide RRS without having capacity for interruption.
  • 00:29:23
    However, unlike capacity for interruption, a queasy can schedule
  • 00:29:27
    a low resource as being available for providing RRS.
  • 00:29:30
    So just be clear that the issues that they could be available
  • 00:29:33
    for RRS without having capacity for interruption, and so those issues are uncorrelated.
  • 00:29:38
    So, therefore, this entire capacity argument is based on the false
  • 00:29:42
    premise that capacity for interruption is an ancillary service, which it is not.
  • 00:29:46
    And lastly, it's important to recognize that the ERCOT nodal protocols
  • 00:29:49
    do not provide compensation for deployment. As shown in the record,
  • 00:29:53
    Viridity received zero compensation for deployment on February 15,
  • 00:29:57
    2021, even though Viridity load resources were at least
  • 00:30:00
    partially deployed for almost that entire day. Therefore, even if
  • 00:30:03
    Viridity's load resources are deemed to be deployed after they stopped
  • 00:30:07
    providing RRS, that would not create any entitlement to compensation.
  • 00:30:11
    Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
  • 00:30:15
    All right. I believe that Engie
  • 00:30:18
    and Viridity reserved 1 minute, so we will do
  • 00:30:23
    that now.
  • 00:30:26
    Give me just a moment.
  • 00:30:40
    All right. Thank you, Commissioners.
  • Item 16 - Stephen Mack's reply to ERCOT and Commission Staff's opening statements, 53377
    00:30:42
    And we'd be happy to address any questions on email communications
  • 00:30:46
    or intent or telemetry or resource status codes,
  • 00:30:51
    if you like. But I want to focus on what you didn't hear. What you
  • 00:30:54
    didn't hear is that a load resource can be offered or
  • 00:30:58
    traded in the day ahead market if they don't have capacity.
  • 00:31:02
    That's because everybody agrees that capacity is required. The arguments
  • 00:31:06
    by ERCOT and staff rely on a definition of capacity that
  • 00:31:10
    does not exist in the protocols.
  • 00:31:13
    Each of ERCOT's witnesses have acknowledged that the
  • 00:31:19
    protocols define capacity for non controllable load resources
  • 00:31:22
    as load that can be curtailed because the deployed load resources
  • 00:31:26
    were already deployed and reduced to zero. Their capacity
  • 00:31:31
    was zero. So under the protocols, they cannot be offered into the
  • 00:31:34
    day ahead market. And that is why Ng and viridity did not
  • 00:31:38
    offer that, and they request compensation.
  • 00:31:45
    That concludes the party's oral argument. We'll look at
  • Item 16 - Commissioner Glotfelty's questions to EROCT and Commission Staff, 53377
    00:31:49
    Commissioners if you. Questions? No. Commissioner Glotfelty, did you
  • 00:31:53
    have any questions? Yeah, my question is, I think to
  • 00:31:57
    ERCOT, and that is if
  • 00:32:02
    Viridity and Engie's customers had
  • 00:32:06
    ramped back up on the 16th. In other words, they were
  • 00:32:09
    not consuming zero. They ramped
  • 00:32:13
    back up and they were not in rrsitive, would they have been penalized
  • 00:32:18
    for ramping back up
  • 00:32:22
    when there wasn't a dispatch instruction to allow them to do so?
  • 00:32:27
    I don't know that they would be penalized. I think that they wouldn't have been
  • 00:32:31
    able to. As the evidence showed, they were frozen. They couldn't even come back on
  • 00:32:34
    the. I'm not aware of a penalty.
  • 00:32:38
    I apologize. Yeah. My question is,
  • 00:32:41
    I feel like, in this case, ERCOT is saying,
  • 00:32:45
    you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, which is, we're going
  • 00:32:49
    to get you if you didn't deploy, and we're going to get you if you
  • 00:32:52
    were deployed or ramped back up, because in
  • 00:32:56
    this ancillary service emergency, they didn't have a dispatch instruction
  • 00:33:00
    from you all to allow them to ramp back up. So I
  • 00:33:05
    don't understand how you can. I don't. And I
  • 00:33:08
    know we use the words, well, reliability of the entire system.
  • 00:33:12
    You know, we had bigger problems on that day than this.
  • 00:33:16
    RRS. The protocols,
  • 00:33:20
    to me, are not the. They act like the law, but they're not the law.
  • 00:33:23
    They're not perfect and neither is everybody's interpretation
  • 00:33:27
    of them, and that's what we're here for. So, again,
  • 00:33:30
    I just try to answer that. How can they.
  • 00:33:35
    Would they have been fined for violating their.
  • 00:33:38
    Your protocols if they had deployed the next day,
  • 00:33:42
    if they didn't deploy the next day and they ramped back their load
  • 00:33:46
    up to 25 mw or whatever it was?
  • 00:33:50
    Not that I'm aware of. I don't know that ERCOT has the ability to find
  • 00:33:52
    them, but I would say that the basis for this is a particular protocol
  • 00:33:56
    that says your obligation to provide the RRS can
  • 00:34:00
    only go until as long as you've committed to provide it, except in an
  • 00:34:04
    emergency. And so were you in an emergency? We were in an emergency,
  • 00:34:08
    and so they should not have turned back on.
  • 00:34:11
    But if they wanted to tell ERCOT we're still providing the service,
  • 00:34:15
    they should have, like everybody else did,
  • 00:34:18
    Bernie all had to do was hit the confirm button. That way it's scheduled and
  • 00:34:21
    ERCOT knows about it, otherwise they just come
  • 00:34:25
    in and after the fact and say, oh, no, no, we actually work providing rs.
  • 00:34:28
    So the fact is they were providing RRS, is that
  • 00:34:32
    right? No, they were not. Not on the 16th through the 19th. So were they.
  • 00:34:36
    So their load resources of the 25
  • 00:34:39
    mw was consuming power on the 16th
  • 00:34:43
    through the 19th? No, they were not. But deployment alone is
  • 00:34:47
    not providing rs. Just not consuming power is not the same as providing rs.
  • 00:34:51
    Explain the difference. Well, providing rrs means, means that you've entered into
  • 00:34:55
    a trade or you've offered into the dam,
  • 00:34:58
    you've scheduled it, you have done all of
  • 00:35:01
    that, you've telemetered the amount of RRS you're providing, you've telemetered that
  • 00:35:05
    you are providing it. And they did none of those things. But they did
  • 00:35:08
    that on the 15th. They did on the 15th, correct. And then if they're.
  • 00:35:13
    I guess the way that I understand the protocols is they're not allowed to
  • 00:35:17
    modify their ancillary service position unless they're instructed
  • 00:35:20
    by ERCOT in an emergency situation. And if
  • 00:35:24
    they're in that situation, as you said, it's an emergency.
  • 00:35:27
    How can they change their position
  • 00:35:30
    if in fact they haven't received an order from you?
  • 00:35:35
    They chose not to continue to provide it. We couldn't force
  • 00:35:38
    them to continue to provide it.
  • 00:35:42
    But they did provide it on the 16th through
  • 00:35:45
    the 19th. They did nothing. They telemetered 0
  • 00:35:49
    responsibility and output. Okay, so you're saying they,
  • 00:35:54
    they tell their telemetry, telemetry says zero
  • 00:35:58
    into the day ahead market or the real time market, but the
  • 00:36:02
    fact is their resources were not consuming any megawatts.
  • 00:36:06
    They were not consuming power, just as there were a lot of resources not
  • 00:36:09
    consuming power that were also not providing RRS. It just means they
  • 00:36:13
    weren't consuming power. But as a matter of law, the ALJ's found and it is
  • 00:36:17
    established they didn't contest it. Deployment alone is not the
  • 00:36:20
    provision of RRS. You have to provide accurate
  • 00:36:24
    telemetry, you have to do what the protocols require and they
  • 00:36:27
    simply didn't. And as you see in the handout, after two
  • 00:36:31
    years of litigation having to uncover what was really going on,
  • 00:36:34
    the ALJs saw through that and said this was clearly a business
  • 00:36:38
    decision, decision by viridity, because financially they
  • 00:36:41
    didn't have contracts in place to cover the risks that they
  • 00:36:45
    would have had if they decided to continue to provide RRS and
  • 00:36:49
    they didn't. So that was a decision they made. I appreciate
  • 00:36:53
    that. Do you want to respond to that? Sure. Yeah, it sounds
  • 00:36:56
    like he's referring to the emails
  • 00:37:00
    regarding credit risks. So there were a series of emails
  • 00:37:03
    where versus veridity was concerned and these were emails with a separate party,
  • 00:37:07
    not the ones at issue. In this case, this was a separate party, but there
  • 00:37:11
    were emails in the days leading up to the deployment
  • 00:37:15
    where that party's load was decreasing.
  • 00:37:19
    And so viridity was very concerned that they would not have the capacity
  • 00:37:23
    to be able to curtail if there were deployment.
  • 00:37:26
    And there's several hours span
  • 00:37:29
    of emails, ten or twelve emails, where they're trying to get
  • 00:37:33
    this other party to reduce their schedule so that they have.
  • 00:37:37
    They're telling ERCOT that they have this certain amount of capacity,
  • 00:37:41
    that it's available. And there was disputes
  • 00:37:45
    between them. I don't want to mischaracterize
  • 00:37:49
    them, but one of the statement was, during that time period, that the credit
  • 00:37:52
    risks at this time were heightened to risks heightened
  • 00:37:57
    to levels never seen. But read in context, that was
  • 00:38:00
    said in terms of trying to get the proper amount of
  • 00:38:04
    capacity to be scheduled into the day ahead. And the real issue
  • 00:38:08
    here is the ability to schedule into the day ahead
  • 00:38:12
    if you don't have capacity.
  • 00:38:15
    Council for ERCOT discussed telemetry, and telemetry
  • 00:38:19
    is important. We're not saying it's not important, but the real issue is
  • 00:38:23
    the ability to schedule. And if you don't have that ability to schedule into the
  • 00:38:27
    day ahead, that negatively impacts all other
  • 00:38:30
    processes, including telemetry, from there on. And why didn't you have
  • 00:38:33
    the ability to schedule in the day ahead? Because the zero
  • 00:38:37
    deployed load resources were at zero,
  • 00:38:41
    and so they did not have capacity.
  • 00:38:44
    If I may clarify that staff disagrees
  • 00:38:48
    with the statement that there's a capacity to request requirement to schedule. So,
  • 00:38:51
    just to be clear, explain that to me, Floyd. You schedule providing RRS,
  • 00:38:55
    not capacity. So if you can provide RRS, which there's no dispute,
  • 00:38:59
    you don't have to have capacity to provide RRS, you can schedule that.
  • 00:39:03
    And that's sort of the disconnect we have. In other words,
  • 00:39:06
    I can schedule that, I can reduce 10 MW
  • 00:39:09
    whether I have it or not, and then go contract for it if it's.
  • 00:39:14
    Well, actually, to clarify, you're not scheduling that you can reduce 10 MW, you're scheduling
  • 00:39:17
    that you're going to give ERCOT control of 10 load,
  • 00:39:21
    which you may or may not be deployed. So that's the key. So
  • 00:39:24
    Floyd, why don't you give me your thoughts on that?
  • 00:39:29
    If as in, like, I guess this is what I believe,
  • 00:39:32
    every ancillary service gets provided through ERCOT,
  • 00:39:36
    and ERCOT is the only one who has the ability to change that,
  • 00:39:39
    other than the offeror. But when there's no modification
  • 00:39:44
    of a dispatch instruction, how is a
  • 00:39:47
    market participant supposed to know in an emergency situation, if they've
  • 00:39:52
    reduced to zero, that with
  • 00:39:56
    no ERCOT dispatch instruction, that they can ramp back up, that they should
  • 00:40:01
    stay at zero.
  • 00:40:04
    Well, to clarify that dispatch instructions were sent to stay at zero
  • 00:40:08
    approximately every hour through on the 15th.
  • 00:40:12
    And then once Veridi switched to outl, it's mean,
  • 00:40:15
    not available. It stopped receiving dispatch instructions, so.
  • 00:40:18
    And when they switched to not available, that meant that they just stayed at
  • 00:40:21
    zero? No, it meant that they weren't providing RRS,
  • 00:40:25
    they weren't what? It meant that they weren't providing RRS or we're indicating
  • 00:40:28
    to ERCOT they weren't providing RRS. That's a separate indication of
  • 00:40:31
    what? Their kilometer load. So the operator sitting
  • 00:40:35
    at the. At the ERCOT desk
  • 00:40:40
    sees a signal from viridity,
  • 00:40:45
    the queasy, that says that they don't have
  • 00:40:49
    any resources available for RRS. That's what
  • 00:40:52
    they see. Yeah. And whether NG
  • 00:40:57
    was still operating at zero,
  • 00:41:01
    you're saying, is irrelevant because ERCOT didn't even know that they were
  • 00:41:04
    available. Sorry,
  • 00:41:07
    confuse. I'm going to Engie. I think we're still talking with Viridity to be,
  • 00:41:11
    well, the resource behind, if they're
  • 00:41:15
    operating it, if they don't have any resources operating
  • 00:41:19
    or that they could reduce, then the queasy says, we don't have
  • 00:41:22
    any resources that we can reduce. And that's
  • 00:41:26
    to clarify, that's not something that's indicated. You indicate that this resource
  • 00:41:30
    will be providing rs, you don't indicate your ability to reduce.
  • 00:41:35
    So you look, for example. Well, I guess that gets to the fact
  • 00:41:39
    that deploy once, let's say, before deployment,
  • 00:41:42
    you have a five megawatt resource. It gets deployed, it's still providing 5
  • 00:41:47
    rrs. And that's the indication the 5
  • 00:41:50
    that continues, and that's via ancillary service resource responsibility. And that
  • 00:41:54
    continues during deployment. Before deployment and during deployment only that's
  • 00:41:57
    adjusted is the ancillary service schedule and presumably the net to limiter load if
  • 00:42:01
    it responds to the dispatch instruction. So that's the part
  • 00:42:05
    where, by changing the ancillary service resource responsibility zero and
  • 00:42:09
    out l, that shifted it from being responding to a dispatch instruction
  • 00:42:13
    to not providing rs at all.
  • 00:42:16
    And I guess that's where the question becomes in my mind, which is.
  • 00:42:20
    I mean, clearly, I think that's one point, which is if
  • 00:42:23
    they're indicating they're not providing rrs at all,
  • 00:42:27
    versus are they continuing the deployment of what
  • 00:42:30
    they had the day before in an EEA situation?
  • 00:42:34
    And that's what I think is that ERCOT gets
  • 00:42:38
    it both ways in this. And I think that's scary. It may be something that
  • 00:42:41
    we have to look at in the future in terms of a protocol change.
  • 00:42:45
    But I guess I very seriously believe that
  • 00:42:49
    if a resource violates a protocol in an ancillary service
  • 00:42:54
    obligation, ERCOT is going to come after them for
  • 00:42:57
    violating their obligation.
  • 00:43:01
    Especially in an EEA of some things would be handled by dice.
  • 00:43:05
    I mean, to be clear, certain violations would be handled by
  • 00:43:08
    dice. So I guess that would ask.
  • 00:43:12
    Let me just end with this one question. And that is. So is there
  • 00:43:16
    a protocol guide, as you
  • 00:43:19
    call it, that would say that if
  • 00:43:23
    they didn't.
  • 00:43:28
    So if they violated the protocol of their ancillary service,
  • 00:43:31
    I guess that's the way to say it. Is there a penalty structure
  • 00:43:35
    for them to violate the ancillary. Is there
  • 00:43:38
    a penalty structure for that that should be
  • 00:43:42
    considered as opposed to the actual market condition that they're
  • 00:43:46
    being paid? That they have to pay for? I'd have to refer that to
  • 00:43:49
    dice to understand the penalty structure. I know they'd be subject to administrative penalties,
  • 00:43:53
    but the structure of that I can't speak
  • 00:43:56
    to. And I guess that's what I question. I'll read
  • 00:44:00
    more these next few weeks. But did they
  • 00:44:03
    violate a protocol where they would get penalty structure
  • 00:44:08
    derived? And is that the appropriate outcome or is it,
  • 00:44:13
    you know, what's presented before us. So I will.
  • 00:44:17
    I appreciate the witnesses. I appreciate you all giving me this time
  • 00:44:21
    to ask questions. Absolutely. Commissioner Jackson,
  • 00:44:24
    any questions at this time? I don't have any at this time. I don't have
  • 00:44:27
    any questions at this time. Thank you all for providing. Thank you.
  • 00:44:36
    And with that, I'll turn the gavel back over to Chairman Gleeson.
  • 00:44:40
    Thank you, Commissioner Cobos. So that ends
  • 00:44:44
    the contested case portion of the agenda. So that'll take us to
  • Item 32 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 53911
    00:44:48
    rules and projects. I believe
  • 00:44:51
    the first one we have up is No. 32.
  • 00:44:55
    That's Project No. 53911, aggregate
  • 00:44:59
    distributed energy resources. ERCOT pilot project. And I think
  • 00:45:02
    Commissioner Glottfelty has some thoughts. Thank you,
  • Item 32 - Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on ADER, 53911
    00:45:06
    Commissioners. Last week we talked about this as
  • 00:45:10
    well. Very briefly, I just wanted to say we asked the
  • 00:45:14
    task force chairman to file a memo
  • 00:45:18
    identifying potential parties to expand
  • 00:45:22
    this task force. I would
  • 00:45:25
    seek y'all support in approving that this
  • 00:45:29
    task force be expanded. We couldn't accommodate every
  • 00:45:33
    single person to be on there, but every single meeting,
  • 00:45:36
    like all of our workshops
  • 00:45:40
    and opportunities for participation here, are open to everybody.
  • 00:45:43
    So they. If you all were not on them,
  • 00:45:47
    I. Or if you are not named in this memo,
  • 00:45:50
    I urge you to continue to be a part of it,
  • 00:45:53
    if that's part of your business. I did want to say
  • 00:45:57
    one thing. And so, first of all, with y'all's
  • 00:46:01
    approval, can we support that
  • 00:46:05
    this task force has expanded and
  • 00:46:09
    that they will continue to work with ERCOT to help
  • 00:46:12
    solve challenges associated with aggregated distributed
  • 00:46:16
    energy resources for the benefit of the market? Yes, I'm good with that. I appreciate
  • 00:46:20
    the time you took to talk me through all of that. So I'm good with
  • 00:46:23
    that. Yes, I am as well. I'm as well. Great.
  • 00:46:26
    Great. And I just wanted to say one thing. I think there was a little
  • 00:46:29
    bit of confusion about how long this would go.
  • 00:46:33
    The multiple years, the multiple phases.
  • 00:46:37
    The way that I have viewed this is that we
  • 00:46:41
    were going to have three phases of this project.
  • 00:46:45
    We were going to get to 80.
  • 00:46:48
    While we were getting to 80 mw, ERCOT was upgrading
  • 00:46:52
    their EMS system. And once the EMS
  • 00:46:56
    system was upgraded and able to allow
  • 00:47:00
    this type of resource to be operated in the market through
  • 00:47:03
    that system, it would all go into
  • 00:47:07
    a market function. I think where we
  • 00:47:10
    stand now is we don't have 80.
  • 00:47:15
    Goal is still to test the systems and to figure out what would get us
  • 00:47:18
    to 80. Think we
  • 00:47:22
    are. I think everybody in this task force
  • 00:47:26
    knows that we can't do this without ERCOT, and ERCOT
  • 00:47:29
    has to have a role in this. So this is important that
  • 00:47:33
    we work, our staff, work with the ERCOT staff and work with this task
  • 00:47:37
    force. And I know that they're going to have meetings monthly.
  • 00:47:41
    I know the task force chairman has already reached out to ERCOT for
  • 00:47:44
    meetings. I do apologize if there was kind
  • 00:47:49
    of a downturn in meeting cadence,
  • 00:47:54
    but I expected to pick back up and I think if parties have
  • 00:47:57
    concerns, they should come to us. But I think that this is
  • 00:48:01
    the path forward and I appreciate your support. Yeah, absolutely. So,
  • 00:48:06
    definitely a role for ERCOT through the stakeholder process. Definitely some
  • 00:48:10
    role as it relates to rules, you know, coming before us for any
  • 00:48:13
    rule changes that would be necessary. And ultimately, this will just roll over
  • 00:48:16
    as a market. It's my hope that this will ultimately roll over as
  • 00:48:20
    a market mechanism in ERCOT and will be totally owned by the
  • 00:48:23
    ERCOT market. Okay. I appreciate that clarification. I know
  • 00:48:27
    I have a briefing scheduled with Ramia to talk about
  • 00:48:31
    this in the next couple of weeks, so I'm comfortable with what Commissioner Glotfelty's
  • 00:48:35
    said. I am as well. I think it's important to keep
  • 00:48:38
    pushing this initiative forward and would be happy to
  • 00:48:42
    visit with Ramya as well. I know she's working on a lot of very good
  • 00:48:46
    work for the market and support Commissioner Glotfelty in this initiative
  • 00:48:50
    support as well. We need every medical. Thank you.
  • Item 33 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 53385
    00:48:54
    Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. So that'll take us
  • 00:48:58
    to Item 33. That is Project No. 53385.
  • 00:49:02
    Project to submit emergency operation plans and related documents
  • 00:49:06
    under TAC 16, TAC section 25.53.
  • 00:49:11
    Staff and consultant staff filed a memo. So if you
  • 00:49:15
    all want to come up and lay out your memo.
  • Item 33 - Commission Staff's Sherryhan Ghanem on Weather Emergency Preparedness Report, 53385
    00:49:18
    Good morning. Chairman and Commissioners Sherryhan Ghanem, Commission
  • 00:49:21
    staff so we're presenting the commission staff recommended
  • 00:49:25
    weather emergency preparedness report. The report is
  • 00:49:28
    due to the lieutenant governor, the speaker of the Texas House of representatives
  • 00:49:32
    and members of the legislature no later than September
  • 00:49:36
    30, 2024. Senate Bill three,
  • 00:49:39
    section 24, enacted by the 87th Texas Legislature,
  • 00:49:43
    requires the commission to analyze emergency operations plans
  • 00:49:48
    developed by electric utilities, power generation
  • 00:49:52
    companies, municipally owned utilities, electric cooperatives
  • 00:49:56
    and retail electric providers, and prepare a weather emergency
  • 00:50:00
    preparedness report on power weatherization preparedness
  • 00:50:05
    to analyze and review the eops.
  • 00:50:08
    The commission sought a qualified contract to Guide
  • 00:50:12
    House to perform a baseline assessment of the eops
  • 00:50:16
    and develop recommendations for improvements of
  • 00:50:19
    the plans that can be incorporated in
  • 00:50:23
    the future rulemaking initiative.
  • 00:50:26
    Guide House also incorporated information prepared
  • 00:50:30
    by ERCOT regarding seasonal weather preparedness and upcoming
  • 00:50:34
    weather forecasts. The Weather Emergency
  • 00:50:38
    Preparedness report presents Guide House's findings
  • 00:50:41
    and they are available today to give a brief summary
  • 00:50:46
    and explanation. And ERCOT is
  • 00:50:49
    also here to answer any questions related to their portion
  • 00:50:53
    of the report. So commission staff recommends the
  • 00:50:57
    commission adopt the report and approve it for distribution to
  • 00:51:00
    the lieutenant governor and state legislature,
  • 00:51:04
    and grant staff authority to revise the report for
  • 00:51:07
    some typos and formatting issues. But none of the recommendations have changed
  • 00:51:12
    and I'll hand it over to guide House right now to give an overview.
  • 00:51:16
    Good morning. Thank you Commissioners. Thank you, PUC Staff for having us here
  • Item 33 - Guidehouse's Brent Reed on Emergency Preparedness Report, 53385
    00:51:20
    as well. My name is Brent Reed. I'm with Guidehouse and
  • 00:51:23
    my coworker Matt Moore and I will be representing the guide House team that did
  • 00:51:26
    the report. The analysis starting back in April of
  • 00:51:30
    the eops high
  • 00:51:33
    level, what we wanted to do, we were brought in to analyze the TAC.
  • 00:51:37
    Were they adhering to 25.53 when they submitted the weather preparedness portions
  • 00:51:41
    of the eops? We also went through. We wanted to create a risk framework.
  • 00:51:45
    We wanted to try and identify some of the higher risk, medium risk, lower risk
  • 00:51:48
    entities within the state of Texas. And then from there, we put
  • 00:51:53
    those categorizations, identified who they were. We created a maturity
  • 00:51:57
    model, for lack of a better term. The maturity model is not
  • 00:52:01
    specific for 25.53. It is above and
  • 00:52:04
    beyond actions. It goes above and beyond what the TAC requires. So when we talk
  • 00:52:07
    about maturity model, we're going beyond just the required reporting. If they provided
  • 00:52:11
    additional, we looked at that additional. How well prepared are they with the eops?
  • 00:52:15
    Again, it was a documentation review, so we're looking at what they provided.
  • 00:52:19
    There are multiple efforts. I will acknowledge a 25.55
  • 00:52:22
    with weather preparedness. There's also resiliency system hardening
  • 00:52:26
    efforts going on. Excuse me. So we only focused
  • 00:52:30
    on 25.53 what was provided within that TAC submittal.
  • 00:52:33
    So I just want to be very clear on that piece as well.
  • 00:52:37
    What we found with the TAC adherence. There were 693
  • 00:52:42
    eops that were reviewed for adherence to 25.53.
  • 00:52:46
    Of those 693, we were able to kind of take
  • 00:52:49
    a sample and go into that maturity model. Rather than reviewing all 693,
  • 00:52:54
    it was more beneficial to try and take a statistically significant
  • 00:52:58
    sample. Sorry, it's a little early. Haven't had caffeine
  • 00:53:01
    yet. So we took a large sample.
  • 00:53:05
    We took a look at every single high risk entity that we identified
  • 00:53:09
    through that framework, and then we did the rest of the sample with medium
  • 00:53:12
    impact. We chose not to go with the lows or include the reps because
  • 00:53:17
    they're a much lower risk when it comes to an event
  • 00:53:20
    than the actual owners, operators of the facilities.
  • 00:53:24
    So with that, the TAC adherents,
  • 00:53:27
    693 out of 990 submitted their eops
  • 00:53:31
    in 2024. There were eops that were submitted
  • 00:53:35
    in 2022 and 2023. For these entities that did not
  • 00:53:38
    necessarily file in 2024. We did go back and look
  • 00:53:42
    at the 2023 and the 2022, the most recent version that we had,
  • 00:53:45
    we went back and looked at. So even if they didn't file of those 990
  • 00:53:48
    in 2024, we went back until we could create a solid baseline.
  • 00:53:52
    Moving forward for review of these eops,
  • 00:53:57
    what we identified is that there was a very high
  • 00:54:00
    percentage of compliance with the TAC. There were very few
  • 00:54:04
    pieces that entities were not providing, and some of that is
  • 00:54:07
    just maybe not understanding the ruling, not understanding the language,
  • 00:54:10
    very, very minimal things. There was not a significant impact into the
  • 00:54:14
    nonadherence for those that filed. For those that did not file, we went through and
  • 00:54:18
    we did an analysis, and of those, there were all but five that were
  • 00:54:21
    low risk. So the non filers themselves did not
  • 00:54:25
    have a material impact to our findings of preparedness for the state of
  • 00:54:28
    Texas. So I just want to make sure we point out that those non filers
  • 00:54:31
    were reviewed. We were looked at. We did analyze who did and didn't file together.
  • 00:54:34
    Get a good idea. So that was our general
  • 00:54:38
    finding, the maturity ratings. So we
  • 00:54:42
    went through. There are twelve indicators. And in the report, it lays out those indicators.
  • 00:54:46
    Again, they're built on best practices. They're built on the above and beyonds.
  • 00:54:49
    They're not just the basic required 25.53 information.
  • 00:54:54
    So we went through, we looked at those overall, we analyzed the
  • 00:54:57
    ERCOT power region and the non ERCOT. We have those as separate findings
  • 00:55:01
    within the report. Overall,
  • 00:55:03
    generally, everyone was right around the medium maturity level. When we looked
  • 00:55:07
    at it. They had not just the bare minimum, they had some additional steps in
  • 00:55:10
    there. Things like when you look at a communication plan, multiple tools
  • 00:55:14
    that they use to communicate. They're going above and beyond. Just, hey,
  • 00:55:17
    we have a communication plan. They're providing these tools, they're explaining how to use.
  • 00:55:20
    They're giving a little bit more depth and detail. So, generally, what we found is
  • 00:55:23
    everyone was sitting right about the medium. There were some highs, there were some lows.
  • 00:55:27
    And again, that influenced the recommendations that we have in the report to move forward
  • 00:55:32
    in the non ERCOT power regions. Same story.
  • 00:55:36
    Everyone kind of settled around that medium. There were, again, some highs,
  • 00:55:39
    some lows. But generally, everyone was providing reports with detail,
  • 00:55:43
    letting us, as an organization, see what's in there,
  • 00:55:46
    what they're doing. And again, going above and beyond. Just, here's what we're doing.
  • 00:55:50
    We're meeting the bare minimums of the requirements.
  • 00:55:56
    The next portion of the report is the weather analysis. Again, this was prepared by
  • 00:55:59
    ERCOT, so I can speak highly on that. If there are
  • 00:56:02
    any other questions, we will have to defer to ERCOT staff. But essentially, there were
  • 00:56:06
    two pieces of the weather analysis. There was a performance analysis,
  • 00:56:09
    which uses the data of 25.55. I know I said we wouldn't cross
  • 00:56:13
    into 25.55, but they do use the reporting
  • 00:56:16
    requirements of 25.55 to do their analysis for operational.
  • 00:56:20
    They did an operational analysis for the winter of 2024,
  • 00:56:24
    2025, this upcoming winter, as well as next summer,
  • 00:56:27
    summer of 2025. What they found is that for
  • 00:56:31
    the winter of 2024 2025, they compared performance in
  • 00:56:35
    the past against average minimum experienced ambient temperatures
  • 00:56:39
    for each of the regions in Texas. So they broke it down into ten regions
  • 00:56:42
    within the ERCOT power region. And then they did an analysis on all those.
  • 00:56:45
    They did the same thing for the summer forecast or the summer analysis, but they
  • 00:56:49
    used the maximum ambient temperature,
  • 00:56:52
    so that's the only variance. What they found overwhelmingly
  • 00:56:55
    is that we are prepared, within ERCOT to respond
  • 00:56:59
    to the weather situations we are looking at within the winter and the summer upcoming
  • 00:57:03
    over the next year. There was also an actual weather forecast
  • 00:57:07
    in there. Utilizing the NOAA data, they looked at the winter and the
  • 00:57:11
    summer. And then ERCOT used their own internal staff to do another preliminary
  • 00:57:15
    forecast. At this point in time, looking at the upcoming winter,
  • 00:57:20
    we are looking at significant percentage chance of above
  • 00:57:23
    normal temperatures. And then we're also looking at a significant chance
  • 00:57:27
    of low precipitation moving into the winter. For the summer,
  • 00:57:30
    we're looking at a significant chance of higher than normal temperatures and
  • 00:57:34
    a significant chance of low precipitation in the summer,
  • 00:57:38
    possibly furthering drought conditions. So that's, again the preliminary forecast
  • 00:57:42
    from ERCOT. They will finalize that ERCOT forecast
  • 00:57:46
    in the near future.
  • 00:57:49
    So, going through all this, what we found is
  • 00:57:53
    doing the analysis as a whole, Texas is significantly
  • 00:57:57
    prepared for weather events. We had over 70%
  • 00:58:00
    respond with eops of the entities that it's applicable to.
  • 00:58:05
    All of those eops had foundational procedures, processes and plans to
  • 00:58:09
    identify, prepare, respond to the weather practices.
  • 00:58:13
    And again, there are situations where it could be improved. But based on
  • 00:58:16
    what we found with those filings, 425.53 guide
  • 00:58:20
    House is confident in saying that Texas as a whole is
  • 00:58:23
    prepared for extreme weather events at this point in time.
  • 00:58:27
    Now, that being said, we did have some recommendations in the report. As you go
  • 00:58:30
    in, in the last section, section seven of the report, there are
  • 00:58:33
    19 recommendations over four categories. So I don't want to necessarily
  • 00:58:37
    read through all of them. I do want to hit some of them that we
  • 00:58:39
    identified as key. And they're really kind of revolving around
  • 00:58:43
    outreach, working with industry to understand the
  • 00:58:46
    ruling. 25.53 what it means, looking at
  • 00:58:50
    25.55, looking at some of these other efforts,
  • 00:58:52
    resiliency hardening, trying to tie those together. Let's build
  • 00:58:56
    a better process for supporting the eops, not just here's
  • 00:59:00
    what we have to do, here's the EOP. So, outreach is one of the key
  • 00:59:04
    focal points. Building processes, process improvement as well.
  • 00:59:07
    Kind of tailing onto the outreach, building opportunities for work
  • 00:59:11
    instructions, understanding these entities and what they want,
  • 00:59:14
    what they need, versus what staff wants and needs here at the commission.
  • 00:59:18
    And then there's overall process improvements and tact modifications.
  • 00:59:21
    So those are kind of the four main categories of the recommendations.
  • 00:59:25
    Right off the bat, we talked about outreach building workshops,
  • 00:59:29
    including workshops where you have entity input, you have entity best practices. It's a
  • 00:59:32
    chance to share. You have commissioned staff, they can come in. Here's what we were
  • 00:59:35
    asking for. This is what we'd like to see in the eops, this is how
  • 00:59:38
    we build a better EOP response for 25.53.
  • 00:59:43
    Along with that, some building work instructions. You know,
  • 00:59:47
    when you do a submittal, have a guided submittal process. So it's not just here's
  • 00:59:50
    what you have to provide an executive summary, an annex for hurricanes.
  • 00:59:54
    What are we looking for in more detail? What does that actually mean with the
  • 00:59:57
    executive summary? By templating it, you're going to create uniformity across the board.
  • 01:00:00
    You're going to help have an opportunity to guide these entities with
  • 01:00:03
    what should be submitted in terms of what the commission wants to see.
  • 01:00:08
    One thing we noticed within 25.53, there is
  • 01:00:12
    a statement about a process to identify the various weather
  • 01:00:16
    patterns and flooding and tornadoes are mentioned in that. But there's
  • 01:00:19
    not an annex requirement for flooding and tornadoes. Those have unique
  • 01:00:23
    responses. When you're in a flood situation, you're going to have road shut
  • 01:00:26
    down. A lineman needs to get out and they need to do some work on
  • 01:00:29
    the line. They've got to have extra considerations on how are they going to get
  • 01:00:33
    there. Are roads shut down, are there issues with equipment getting it
  • 01:00:36
    there? Tornadoes you have some lead time, but it's not like a hurricane where you
  • 01:00:39
    can watch it and monitor as it comes through. So with the tornado, you've got
  • 01:00:43
    to be much more flexible, you've got to be much
  • 01:00:46
    quicker to respond. You've got to have things ready to go. So they have unique
  • 01:00:49
    challenges. So we added recommendations that you add an annex for flooding
  • 01:00:53
    and tornadoes so that if these are areas that they're going
  • 01:00:57
    to have flooding and tornadoes, these companies are building plans out.
  • 01:01:00
    They're getting more robust. So their response and their preparation can be much more quicker,
  • 01:01:04
    much agile, much more agile. We did mention
  • 01:01:08
    some overall improvements, some things like submitting the
  • 01:01:12
    EOPs and tracking. There's an opportunity with AI's to build
  • 01:01:16
    some better tracking and understanding what's going on with these entities.
  • 01:01:20
    There are companies that are parent companies that have multiple
  • 01:01:24
    affiliates that are registered as those sub affiliates. They're allowed to submit
  • 01:01:28
    a single plan for all of those affiliates, which is fine,
  • 01:01:31
    there's no issue with that. But when it comes to staff trying to
  • 01:01:34
    track EOPs, it gets a little more difficult when you're looking at a
  • 01:01:38
    company name, not necessarily individual sites along
  • 01:01:41
    that same line. Providing a list of assets with your submission will
  • 01:01:44
    help. As we know here in Texas, generation gets sold relatively
  • 01:01:49
    frequently. So when you have these sales, sometimes that's not
  • 01:01:52
    necessarily captured fully in the EOP. You have to read through the lines and really
  • 01:01:56
    try and identify who the new owners are when those assets change hands.
  • 01:01:59
    Providing these assets within that EOP, within the
  • 01:02:03
    executive summary creates a much more robust way to track
  • 01:02:06
    who's providing the EOPs, what their responses are, and that way staff can
  • 01:02:10
    much more easily and flexibly look at what's going on with
  • 01:02:14
    that. I've kind of hit on the high points of the report. I will step
  • 01:02:18
    back and open it up to questions from the commission.
  • 01:02:21
    I'll clarify just one thing first, just because you did go through it a little
  • Item 33 - Guidehouse's Matt Moore on Emergency Preparedness Report, 53385
    01:02:24
    bit fast. While our ultimate recommend, our ultimate conclusion was
  • 01:02:28
    the Texas entities are largely prepared for weather
  • 01:02:32
    emergencies in the state. That review
  • 01:02:35
    is based, in fact, on what's provided in the EOP.
  • 01:02:39
    Reviewing just the EOPs is a limited window into overall
  • 01:02:42
    preparedness. So I do want to just be kind of strengthen that, that we're
  • 01:02:46
    not looking at things like resource adequacy, spare equipment,
  • 01:02:50
    critical inventory tracking. We're not looking at some of the weatherization
  • 01:02:53
    resilience efforts that are ongoing. Those clearly exist
  • 01:02:57
    and are happening but are outside of the scope of this
  • 01:03:00
    review. Thank you. Would you just say your name for the
  • 01:03:04
    record? Matt Moore with Guidehouse. So first,
  • 01:03:08
    thank you. To guide house and staff for all this work.
  • 01:03:12
    I think Connie and Barksdale, a couple things would be helpful to me.
  • 01:03:15
    One kind of a plan for addressing these
  • 01:03:18
    recommendations. I'm sure once we submit this to the legislature and the governor,
  • 01:03:22
    they're going to want to know how we plan to tackle those issues. So I
  • 01:03:25
    think that would be helpful for us to know. And then secondly, I appreciate
  • 01:03:29
    the 70% response rate is good on, you know,
  • 01:03:32
    a survey on this. It's probably not what I would call great compliance.
  • 01:03:36
    And so I think it would also be helpful to have a plan to
  • 01:03:40
    reach out to those entities that did not respond. I'm sure most of them
  • 01:03:44
    are, a good majority of them are very small,
  • 01:03:47
    but just to reach out to them and let them know that they have a
  • 01:03:50
    compliance obligation to the statute. Yeah,
  • 01:03:54
    we'll certainly get a rules and projects section on the recommendation
  • 01:03:57
    and compliance and enforcement on those who did not respond.
  • 01:04:01
    Thank you, commissioners.
  • Item 33 - Commissioner Glotfelty's question on report, 53385
    01:04:04
    I have one question, and that is,
  • 01:04:08
    it seems to me when I looked through some of these plans, a lot of
  • 01:04:11
    them are confidential. Some of them are very, very high level, which says,
  • 01:04:15
    we have complied with this.
  • 01:04:18
    You know, we have a human resource plan for an emergency
  • 01:04:22
    situation, which doesn't really tell me anything
  • 01:04:26
    except for that they have it. More importantly
  • 01:04:30
    for me, the statute applies to retail
  • 01:04:34
    electric providers exactly the same way as it does a T and D company.
  • 01:04:39
    And that makes no sense to me. Obviously, the TDU
  • 01:04:42
    is most important. The rep has very few facilities that
  • 01:04:46
    require that kind of the same kind of EOP for
  • 01:04:52
    the security of the market. Is that something that you think
  • 01:04:55
    that we might consider in the future is to tailor
  • 01:04:58
    these towards the specific types of entities? And then also
  • 01:05:02
    one other thing. Are the vast majority of these
  • 01:05:07
    requirements and our rules similar to those at
  • 01:05:11
    the NERC level, or do they bifurcate?
  • 01:05:16
    I'll defer to matt on the NERC question
  • 01:05:19
    right off the bat. Yeah. So on the NERC
  • 01:05:23
    question, and I'm going a little bit off the cuff here,
  • 01:05:26
    I think largely there's alignment with respect to, let's say,
  • 01:05:31
    having an EOP and having the core components in it.
  • 01:05:34
    I think there's pretty good alignment in it. Now to go,
  • 01:05:37
    I'd have to look further to really confirm that, and I'm happy to do that.
  • 01:05:42
    To your first point about the differentiation between, let's say,
  • 01:05:45
    a rep and an IOU? Absolutely. They shouldn't be
  • 01:05:49
    treated differently. Given the nature of the resources and
  • 01:05:53
    what you can and can't do, I will say they should or they shouldn't.
  • 01:05:57
    They should be treated differently. They should be treated differently. Now,
  • 01:06:01
    we tried to get at that in our review by doing a risk
  • 01:06:05
    prioritization, and we looked at the higher risk and the medium
  • 01:06:09
    risk entities a little more carefully and with more rigor.
  • 01:06:12
    So we've kind of cut that into our own process.
  • 01:06:15
    And I guess one other point on that that came up
  • 01:06:19
    earlier, which is to clarify, we did review all of the eops,
  • 01:06:23
    693 that were submitted. We reviewed every single one.
  • 01:06:26
    Credit to a lot of staff that are not here today that helped with that.
  • 01:06:30
    Of the medium and high risk ones. Those are
  • 01:06:33
    where we sampled and went deeper against the really best practices and
  • 01:06:37
    maturity framework that does indeed fall outside of the scope of 2553.
  • 01:06:40
    Or could it fall outside of the scope of 2553?
  • 01:06:44
    And I'll add on to the NERC piece, the NERC standards. When it comes to
  • 01:06:47
    the weatherization, the NERC standards are not nearly as prescriptive
  • 01:06:51
    in terms of must have a hurricane annex, must have these various
  • 01:06:54
    details. They basically say, you must have an EOP that applies to your system.
  • 01:06:58
    When they get audited, they go through, okay, what are the situations for the
  • 01:07:01
    EOP? What we've got with ATT and CK is much more aggressive in terms of,
  • 01:07:05
    you must provide this, you must provide that.
  • 01:07:08
    We have an opportunity to further enhance that even more. The NERC
  • 01:07:12
    standards are now just, are just now catching up with the cold weather as well
  • 01:07:15
    with the repeat or the release of the EOP, eleven EOP, twelve versions coming out.
  • 01:07:19
    So they are a little slow on the uptake. So it's going to take some
  • 01:07:22
    time to build there. But even then, they are not nearly as prescriptive as Texas
  • 01:07:25
    has been with the TAC change 25.53, 25.55.
  • Item 33 - Deputy Executive Director Barksdale English with clarification for Commissioner Glotfelty, 53385
    01:07:30
    Commissioner, if I could just add one last piece of clarification?
  • 01:07:33
    There are some different requirements by entity type for what needs to go into
  • 01:07:38
    an EOP. So reps don't have all of exactly the same requirements
  • 01:07:41
    as a TDU, for example. They still do have a requirement to file the
  • 01:07:45
    plan. And I would just say that we look at that. I think
  • 01:07:48
    as our resource mix has changed,
  • 01:07:52
    you know, the emergencies associated with a combined cycle plant may
  • 01:07:56
    be very different from those of a solar farm.
  • 01:07:59
    Just so when we get to this point, this obviously isn't
  • 01:08:03
    critical that we solve right now with our workload, but something that we might
  • 01:08:07
    think about in the future. Thank you.
  • 01:08:12
    Thank you for your work on this report. I think this report is critically important.
  • Item 33 - Commissioners comments on report, 53385
    01:08:15
    As you know, the emergency operations plans
  • 01:08:19
    came into focus after Winter Storm Uri, and doing a robust scrub down
  • 01:08:22
    per Senate Bill 3 is very important as we plan for a future with continued
  • 01:08:26
    extreme weather conditions. I was glad to see that Hurricane
  • 01:08:30
    barrel was included in your assessment. We have an independent
  • 01:08:34
    sort of investigation and information gathering projects,
  • 01:08:37
    but I think it was great to that you all touched on
  • 01:08:41
    that. That's obviously a very relevant weather event
  • 01:08:44
    that we've had recently. So thank you for your work.
  • 01:08:48
    Appreciate your work. I thought your recommendations,
  • 01:08:52
    based on the work that you did in your evaluation process, you know,
  • 01:08:55
    we're dead on, particularly the recommendation
  • 01:08:59
    for the template. And I did have, like one
  • 01:09:03
    question, and that would be because you kind of described this
  • 01:09:06
    process where you go in and you're, you're trying to evaluate almost
  • 01:09:11
    continuous improvement over time. And so
  • 01:09:14
    sometimes part of that process can be an
  • 01:09:18
    entity that is aspiring to that, aspiring to be better than what they
  • 01:09:22
    have to do in terms of just minimal performance, having the opportunity to have
  • 01:09:26
    somebody kind of come in and do
  • 01:09:30
    an audit for them. So did you see any kind
  • 01:09:33
    of opportunity out there if we wanted to potentially take that
  • 01:09:37
    voluntary approach? If there was an entity that is looking to,
  • 01:09:41
    you know, have someone come in and kind of review what they've put
  • 01:09:44
    together in their eop and offer suggestions,
  • 01:09:48
    maybe on a broader level from someone who has more experience
  • 01:09:52
    in dealing with those type of eops. Do you see, did you see maybe
  • 01:09:56
    any opportunity for that in terms of helping to drive that continuous
  • 01:10:00
    improvement? So I think I come from the regulatory world
  • 01:10:03
    before I became a conservative consultant. I feel that there is always not just
  • 01:10:07
    an opportunity, but a responsibility for the regulatory side to
  • 01:10:11
    provide that as a service. I think there's always, no matter how good a document
  • 01:10:14
    is, there should always be an opportunity to say, can you take a look and
  • 01:10:17
    tell us what's working? What would you like to see? Again, this goes to some
  • 01:10:20
    of the outreach. We could utilize the workshops to build best practices, to have
  • 01:10:24
    companies come in and say, does this work? Or here's what works for us.
  • 01:10:27
    I definitely think there's opportunities to improve these programs. We have to be
  • 01:10:30
    continuous. We have to go through continuous improvement or else we're not going to get
  • 01:10:34
    any better. We're going to have the same problems over and over and over again,
  • 01:10:36
    and we don't want to do that, especially in this industry. So I
  • 01:10:41
    definitely think that is something that could be considered,
  • 01:10:43
    but I think that's something that we would have to discuss with staff
  • 01:10:47
    and find the best avenue to put that in. But yes,
  • 01:10:50
    absolutely, I think that's a great idea. And I'll add, if I
  • 01:10:54
    could, where we saw such a wide variety of responses
  • 01:10:58
    within the EOP, some were already come at or exceeding even
  • 01:11:01
    best practices, if that's a thing. And some were, of course, lower maturity.
  • 01:11:05
    So just that sort of peer sharing opportunity would be a
  • 01:11:09
    potential opportunity. That's wonderful. Just something
  • 01:11:12
    to consider. And this is just my thoughts. As we
  • 01:11:16
    look to move to standardize or templatize some of these things,
  • 01:11:20
    there can be a push to the middle. Right. So we don't want to
  • 01:11:23
    see entities saying, okay, this is the way it's done,
  • 01:11:27
    I'm going to do that and nothing else. When this program
  • 01:11:30
    might be, it might be needed to be more mature. If you're a more larger,
  • 01:11:34
    complex entity that's just sort of up the chain. So just be mindful of that,
  • 01:11:37
    even in a peer sharing opportunity.
  • 01:11:44
    Okay. Well, Matt and Brent, thank you again for all the work. Please send
  • 01:11:48
    our thanks to your team. Thank you, staff. Again,
  • 01:11:50
    Shelah, is it appropriate I think to have
  • 01:11:54
    a motion to approve this for distribution? Does that make sense in
  • 01:11:58
    this case? Yes, chairman, if that's
  • Item 33 - Motion to approve report, 53385
    01:12:02
    your choice. Yes. Okay. Then I would entertain a motion to
  • 01:12:05
    approve this report for distribution and authorize staff
  • 01:12:09
    to make non substantive and conforming changes.
  • 01:12:13
    So moved. I second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor
  • 01:12:16
    say aye. Opposed. Motion prevails. Thanks, y'all.
  • 01:12:19
    Thank you. So in
  • 01:12:23
    about 15 minutes, we're probably gonna have to take a break for the court reporter,
  • 01:12:26
    so maybe it makes sense. Why don't we skip over Item 34,
  • 01:12:30
    the Permian, do the other two items we have left and then take a break.
  • 01:12:33
    Commissioner Cobos, if that works. Yes, definitely. Commissioners, that work?
  • Item 36 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55421
    01:12:37
    Okay, perfect. So then why don't we move down to Item No. 36.
  • 01:12:40
    That's Project No. 55421, Texas Advanced Nuclear
  • 01:12:44
    Reactor Working Group. We have an update from Commissioner Glotfelty.
  • Item 36 - Commissioner Glotfelty's update on TX Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group, 55421
    01:12:48
    We are going to have one last meeting of our working group. We have completed
  • 01:12:52
    a draft of this report. It is in its final stages where we
  • 01:12:57
    have sent it to somebody to format for us. We are
  • 01:13:00
    continuing to work with the governor's office to
  • 01:13:04
    make sure that it satisfies his demands in the letter to us.
  • 01:13:08
    I hope to have a draft to you all ASAP in its format that will
  • 01:13:11
    go pretty excited to get this done. Obviously, VA and
  • 01:13:15
    other people on the team that have been working on this and living this for
  • 01:13:20
    ten or eleven months. I appreciate your work and your
  • 01:13:23
    efforts and all the stakeholders as well. Thanks. That's great
  • 01:13:27
    news, commissioner. Yes. And I think when you said we were wrapping this
  • 01:13:31
    up, I think that might be the happiest I've seen VA since I've known her.
  • 01:13:34
    So congratulations to all involved. I think she
  • 01:13:37
    wants another project. I don't know if she wants it, but I'm
  • 01:13:40
    sure she's going to get one. So look forward
  • 01:13:44
    to the draft. And again, congratulations. A lot of work done in a short
  • 01:13:48
    amount of time. And as I think I've told you, and I've priced it here
  • 01:13:51
    often, this is one of the few issues when we talk to stakeholders and
  • 01:13:55
    folks at the Capitol that everyone is extremely excited about. So really
  • 01:13:58
    looking forward to it. Thanks. Okay,
  • Item 43 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 56793
    01:14:02
    so then that'll bring us to items. I'm going to call up Items 43 and
  • 01:14:05
    44 together. Those are Project No. 56793,
  • 01:14:09
    issues related to the disaster resulting from Hurricane Beryl.
  • Item 44 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 56822
    01:14:12
    And project number 56822, investigation of emergency
  • 01:14:17
    preparedness and response by utilities in Houston and surrounding communities.
  • 01:14:20
    I think we have an update from staff. Connie, thank you.
  • Item 44 - Executive Director Connie Corona with status update on investigation, 56822
    01:14:25
    I filed a memo in 56822 giving
  • 01:14:31
    you a promised update on the status of our investigation.
  • 01:14:35
    I'm happy to share that. We received over 16,000 responses
  • 01:14:39
    to our public questionnaire and that will remain open until after our Houston
  • 01:14:44
    workshop in October. We've also passed
  • 01:14:47
    an important milestone and received response responses to our RFIs or
  • 01:14:51
    requests for information. We've gotten almost
  • 01:14:54
    120 responsive filings from electric,
  • 01:14:58
    water and telecom service providers as well as some cities
  • 01:15:02
    trade associations, REPs and power generation companies.
  • 01:15:06
    We have a large team led by JB
  • 01:15:10
    laser working to review all the responsive information and
  • 01:15:14
    beginning to prepare our investigation report that will come to
  • 01:15:18
    you at the November 21 open meeting that's in preparation
  • 01:15:23
    for sending it to the governor by his deadline of December
  • 01:15:26
    1. Let's see.
  • Item 43 - Executive Director Connie Corona on PUC's Houston public workshop, 56793
    01:15:32
    As we discussed at the last open meeting, we'll have
  • 01:15:35
    another opportunity to hear from the public on Saturday,
  • 01:15:38
    October 5 at our workshop in Houston. It will
  • 01:15:41
    be began at 09:00 a.m. at the Harris County Department of Education's
  • 01:15:45
    Ronald Reagan building. Members of the public are invited to
  • 01:15:49
    attend and provide comments to us and we'll also be
  • 01:15:53
    hearing from experts who discuss best practices and storm
  • 01:15:56
    preparedness and response. Again, to inform our
  • 01:16:00
    report, I did
  • 01:16:04
    want to note that we have
  • 01:16:08
    a few responses that remain outstanding
  • 01:16:11
    and we've sent reminder letters to those who have
  • 01:16:16
    mandatory responses outstanding. And I would
  • 01:16:19
    also encourage those who receive the so
  • 01:16:23
    called voluntary rfis to provide their input.
  • 01:16:27
    We have received only four responses
  • 01:16:31
    from retail electric providers and we received three
  • 01:16:34
    from PGC. So that's not quite at the level that
  • 01:16:38
    I would like to see to provide a broad overview for our report.
  • 01:16:42
    Absolutely. Yes. Thank you for sending out a reminder.
  • 01:16:46
    I'm sure folks are listening to this discussion as well and hopefully we'll get
  • 01:16:49
    those outstanding responses in as quickly as possible.
  • 01:16:54
    One other note. Since the workshop work
  • 01:16:57
    session in Houston is an open meeting for anyone who cannot make it
  • 01:17:00
    to Houston, that will also be broadcast through Texas admin, correct?
  • 01:17:04
    That's correct. Okay, commissioners, any questions for Connie?
  • 01:17:08
    Not at this time. Okay, thank you, Connie. Thank you,
  • 01:17:11
    Barksdale, for all that. Okay, so why at this
  • 01:17:15
    point we have the Permian left. (item:43:Chairman Gleeson recesses open meeting)So why don't we take a
  • 01:17:18
    20 minutes recess and come back at 11:10.
  • 01:17:23
    We will stand in recess till 11:10.
  • Item 43 - Chairman Gleeson reconvenes open meeting
    01:17:29
    Welcome back. We will reconvene the open meeting at 11:12
  • Item 34 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55718
    01:17:33
    a.m. Okay. So we are now on
  • 01:17:37
    Item No. 34. That is Project No. 55718,
  • 01:17:42
    reliability plan for the Permian Basin under Pura section 39.167.
  • 01:17:47
    Staff, ERCOT and Commissioner Cobos all
  • 01:17:50
    made filings. So I think Commissioner Cobos,
  • 01:17:54
    if it's okay with you, we'll go in that order, let Staff lay out their
  • 01:17:57
    filing, then ERCOT, and then we'll finish up with your
  • 01:18:01
    filing. Sounds great. Thank you. Perfect. Welcome. Thank you.
  • Item 34 - Commission Staff's Julia Wagner with update on Permian Basin Reliability Study ,55718
    01:18:05
    Good morning Chairman and Commissioners. I'm Julia Wagner
  • 01:18:09
    for Commission Staff. And this is my colleague John Poole.
  • 01:18:13
    As you know, ERCOT filed the Permian Basin reliability plan on
  • 01:18:17
    study on July 25 as ordered by the commission in accordance with
  • 01:18:20
    pura section 39.167.
  • 01:18:23
    The study was an intensive effort undertaken by ERCOT that meets the three objectives
  • 01:18:26
    of the statute which are extending transmission to areas where mineral
  • 01:18:30
    resources have been found, increasing available capacity
  • 01:18:34
    to meet forecasted load and providing infrastructure to reduce
  • 01:18:37
    interconnection time. The study is composed of
  • 01:18:41
    many projects which were studied for two case 2030 and 2038.
  • 01:18:46
    Also, due to the size and breadth of the plan, ERCOT has mainly grouped the
  • 01:18:49
    projects into two categories, local projects
  • 01:18:52
    and import paths. The local projects are independent
  • 01:18:56
    of case study year and the import paths consist of three mutually exclusive
  • 01:19:00
    voltage options 345, 500 and 765.
  • 01:19:04
    Staff requested feedback from interested parties on three separate occasions and received wide
  • 01:19:09
    ranging and sometimes opposing comments. ERCOT also informed
  • 01:19:12
    the commission that they will be publishing in December a statewide extra
  • 01:19:16
    high voltage or ehv study as part of their upcoming regional
  • 01:19:20
    transmission plan. It should be noted that as part
  • 01:19:23
    of that study, ERCOT also has chosen to narrow
  • 01:19:27
    their ehv focus on 765 kv alone.
  • 01:19:32
    For the Permian Basin reliability plan study, staff first recommends the
  • 01:19:35
    commission approve the common local upgrade projects on the 26 September.
  • 01:19:40
    These are the projects that are immediately actionable by transmission service providers and are
  • 01:19:44
    independent of whichever import path is selected.
  • 01:19:48
    Next, staff recommends the commission adopt the import path for
  • 01:19:51
    the 2038 case year. Among other reasons,
  • 01:19:54
    staff finds compelling a compelling rationale in the fact that 90% of the load
  • 01:19:58
    forecast for the 2038 case year is also present in
  • 01:20:02
    the 2030 case year. Finally, staff recommends
  • 01:20:05
    the commission continue to allow time to analyze the voltage options for the
  • 01:20:09
    import paths. 765 kv transmission
  • 01:20:12
    may provide significant value to all customers, but staff believes more
  • 01:20:16
    information should be gathered before making a final decision.
  • 01:20:20
    Staff presents two ways to accomplish this a primary
  • 01:20:24
    and an alternate. Staff's primary recommendation is
  • 01:20:27
    to postpone the approval of the import path voltage until after the ehv
  • 01:20:31
    study has been published in December, but approve it at a date no
  • 01:20:34
    later than March 15, 2025. This would
  • 01:20:38
    allow ERCOT to host an ehv workshop and complete its study
  • 01:20:42
    in December, allowing for further discussion and comparison of the
  • 01:20:45
    costs, benefits and risks between 345 and
  • 01:20:49
    765. It also allows ERCOT to update
  • 01:20:52
    the Permian Basin reliability plan 765 import paths based
  • 01:20:56
    on ehv study if necessary.
  • 01:20:59
    The alternate recommendation is for the commission to approve both
  • 01:21:03
    the 345 and the 765 kv 2038 import
  • 01:21:07
    plan paths. By this approach, the commission
  • 01:21:10
    can approve a full plan including imports on September
  • 01:21:15
    26 and it authorizes transmission service providers to develop
  • 01:21:18
    CCN applications for both groups of projects sometime
  • 01:21:22
    in mid 2025. But before any tsps file ccns for
  • 01:21:26
    their import paths, the commission will choose to move forward with one set of voltages.
  • 01:21:30
    And tsps whose import paths are not selected may come to the
  • 01:21:34
    commission to recover the CCN application costs.
  • 01:21:37
    Thank you and I'm happy to take any questions.
  • 01:21:40
    Julia. John, thank you for all the work. I know the briefing I had on
  • 01:21:43
    this was very helpful. Thank you for that. Commissioners,
  • 01:21:47
    any questions of staff? Not at this time.
  • 01:21:51
    Okay. Thanks, y'all.
  • 01:21:56
    So, ERCOT, if you want to discuss your filing.
  • 01:21:59
    Good morning Kristi.
  • Item 34 - ERCOT's Kristi Hobbs with update on Permian Basin Reliability Study, 55718
    01:22:06
    Right? Kristi Hobbs with ERCOT. So I'm
  • 01:22:10
    going to fast forward because we've already talked about kind of our initial filing.
  • 01:22:14
    We did file an amendment addendum yesterday afternoon
  • 01:22:18
    and just wanted to share kind of the reason for that.
  • 01:22:21
    So, as staff alluded to, we are also in the process in
  • 01:22:24
    parallel, we've been doing our annual transmission plan for the entire
  • 01:22:28
    state, which we have discussed about the amount of load growth
  • 01:22:32
    and the ways that we're looking at solving that for the system.
  • 01:22:35
    Based on the analysis that continues there, we saw that
  • 01:22:39
    there may be a better path, that southern
  • 01:22:43
    Morris 345 import path at a different
  • 01:22:46
    endpoint, to be consistent with what we're seeing in our RTP
  • 01:22:49
    analysis. So we filed that addendum.
  • 01:22:53
    Additionally, it helps to support staff's
  • 01:22:56
    optionality type approach, because that endpoint for
  • 01:23:01
    that import path for the 345 kv line is
  • 01:23:05
    also a similar endpoint to one of the 765 endpoint paths.
  • 01:23:09
    So we provided that for you all for your consideration as
  • 01:23:13
    you think about the entire plan for the permian. Okay, thank you.
  • 01:23:17
    Kristi. Commissioners, questions for ERCOT?
  • 01:23:21
    So again, Krisit, to you and your team. Thank you. This was
  • 01:23:25
    a lot of work and analysis you all put into this process, this point,
  • 01:23:28
    so thank you.
  • 01:23:33
    All right. Commissioner Cobos, you want to lay out your memo? Yes,
  • 01:23:36
    thank you, Chairman Gleeson. And I do want to start by thanking
  • 01:23:41
    ERCOT Kristi and her team Prabhu for all
  • 01:23:44
    your hard work and putting together this reliability plan in such a short
  • 01:23:48
    amount of time and all of the extensive analysis
  • 01:23:52
    and broader thinking that went into
  • 01:23:55
    this reliability plan. So thank you very much for all your hard work
  • 01:23:59
    and all the collaboration. I also want to thank our staff,
  • 01:24:03
    both the infrastructure division, Therese Harris,
  • 01:24:07
    John Poole, and market analysis, Harika Basaran
  • 01:24:10
    and Julia Wagner, for all of their hard work on this major
  • 01:24:14
    initiative. While we're not going to make a final decision here today,
  • 01:24:18
    I don't want to leave this meeting without thanking them for all of their
  • 01:24:21
    hard work and thought and analysis got into this very
  • 01:24:25
    extensive, you know,
  • 01:24:29
    analysis of ERCOT's reliability plan, but really
  • 01:24:33
    a very monumental infrastructure build out in
  • 01:24:36
    our state that may be the biggest one we've seen
  • 01:24:40
    in one collaboration for a certain region of
  • 01:24:43
    the state. So I wanted to open up with really emphasizing my
  • 01:24:47
    gratitude for all the hard work that's gone into that. And I also want to
  • 01:24:50
    thank my fellow commissioners for letting me
  • 01:24:54
    lead on this project. Commissioner Glotfelty, I know we've gone back and
  • 01:24:57
    forth on transmission, who's leading over the last couple of years,
  • 01:25:00
    but thank you. I know you've been busy with SMRs
  • 01:25:05
    and doing phenomenal work and letting me lead on
  • 01:25:08
    this issue has been a real honor
  • 01:25:12
    for me as a West Texan. And really,
  • 01:25:16
    you know, my involvement with transmission over the years since
  • 01:25:19
    I worked at ERCOT coming through to the commission with the Rio Grande Valley and
  • 01:25:22
    now the Permian. So thank you so much to all of you all for this
  • 01:25:26
    and all the prior commissioners that may have been around for
  • 01:25:30
    some of my transmission work. So anyway, and Commissioner Cobos,
  • 01:25:33
    we owe you a thanks as well, you and your staff.
  • 01:25:36
    Thank you for the memo, which I think will really help guide our conversation.
  • 01:25:40
    And thank you for all the work you've done. This is, again, another thing we
  • 01:25:44
    had a very short timeline on and I know the amount of hours and effort
  • 01:25:47
    you've put in, you and your staff. And so thank you. Yes, yes. Thank you
  • 01:25:50
    to Jesse Lance and John Oliver. Brought them over from OPUC and
  • 01:25:54
    have definitely turned them into energy experts,
  • 01:25:58
    electricity nerds. So. And thank you so much for all your work. I couldn't have
  • 01:26:01
    gotten here without all of your hard work as well.
  • Item 34 - Commissioner Cobos lays out her memo, 55718
    01:26:05
    Anyway, so to lay out my memo,
  • 01:26:08
    just getting to the heart of it is,
  • 01:26:12
    you know, I like staff recommend approving
  • 01:26:17
    a single complete plan through 2038.
  • 01:26:21
    And that includes approving the common local projects that
  • 01:26:25
    would need to be built irrespective of the voltage level that the commission ultimately
  • 01:26:30
    selects for the import paths.
  • 01:26:33
    The second recommendation with respect to
  • 01:26:36
    the import paths is really grounded
  • 01:26:40
    on one ensuring that we
  • 01:26:44
    make a robust decision on these critically
  • 01:26:47
    important lines that are going to absolutely be necessary to serve
  • 01:26:51
    the Permian. Right. We're going to need those import pass to serve the Permian.
  • 01:26:53
    We can't do that without them. And so what
  • 01:26:58
    I try to do here was strike a balance in allowing
  • 01:27:02
    for ERCOT to complete their ehv statewide analysis
  • 01:27:07
    through the 2024 RTP, provide us with a study and
  • 01:27:12
    give us an opportunity to take that study and their information and
  • 01:27:16
    have time to do our robust analysis at the commission this
  • 01:27:21
    this next year, but also to
  • 01:27:24
    ensure that we have the imports built in time to serve 2030
  • 01:27:28
    load. And that ultimately
  • 01:27:32
    would result in my recommendation
  • 01:27:37
    in when we approve the permian common local projects
  • 01:27:41
    to go ahead and authorize the tsps to start preparing their ccns,
  • 01:27:47
    prioritizing the three import paths
  • 01:27:51
    coming into the permian that have commonality,
  • 01:27:54
    commonality and some some potential endpoints.
  • 01:27:59
    But right away and just commonality in a pathway,
  • 01:28:04
    those three import paths need to go first and that'll
  • 01:28:08
    get the TSP's going so they're not waiting for
  • 01:28:12
    our decision on the voltage of the import paths and can
  • 01:28:15
    get going on doing some of the
  • 01:28:18
    work that has to be done for CCM preparation irrespective
  • 01:28:22
    of any voltage level. So getting
  • 01:28:27
    an order out from the commission that basically moves
  • 01:28:31
    the entire bus or gets the plane off the
  • 01:28:34
    Runway while in parallel we have
  • 01:28:38
    ERCOT completing their EHV study and analysis
  • 01:28:42
    and then merging those two processes at a
  • 01:28:45
    point in time. The date certain time that I put in my memo that
  • 01:28:50
    I want to discuss with you all. I didn't put a specific date in there
  • 01:28:52
    because I think that we need to be able to strike a balance here of
  • 01:28:56
    ensuring we have enough time to do our robust analysis
  • 01:28:59
    on EHV, but also bring finality
  • 01:29:03
    to the import path so that the TSPs
  • 01:29:07
    can finish their CCNs and basically start building
  • 01:29:10
    these import paths in a timely manner.
  • 01:29:14
    And so again,
  • 01:29:18
    like as I lay it out in my memo,
  • 01:29:24
    my recommendations would be approving the common local projects and authorizing the
  • 01:29:27
    TSPs to move forward. Preparing CCNs for
  • 01:29:32
    all five imports, but prioritizing the three that have commonality
  • 01:29:36
    pathways with optionality
  • 01:29:40
    for 345 and 765 and
  • 01:29:44
    at a date certain that we can have a discussion
  • 01:29:48
    about. And if you all agree with me, come back to the next open
  • 01:29:51
    meeting and specifically
  • 01:29:55
    state one that would strike that balance of letting ERCOT
  • 01:29:58
    finish their EHV study and
  • 01:30:02
    getting finality of the imports. And at that point, at that date certain if
  • 01:30:06
    we've already approved EHV that the TSPs can finish their CCNs
  • 01:30:10
    and go 765, three import pass
  • 01:30:15
    and the other two remaining import pass are basically the
  • 01:30:20
    preparation for those CCNs would end and the authorization to
  • 01:30:24
    prepare those CCNs would expire.
  • 01:30:27
    But if we haven't made a decision on 345 kV by that time,
  • 01:30:31
    then the TSPs would go ahead and move forward with all
  • 01:30:35
    five import pass at 345 kV and the
  • 01:30:39
    authorization to prepare CCNs for 765 transmission
  • 01:30:42
    would expire so that we
  • 01:30:46
    don't have the import pass kind of hanging in limbo again
  • 01:30:51
    because we can't serve the Permian without the import pass. So that is
  • 01:30:54
    the balance I struck there. Of course, my memo
  • 01:30:58
    includes sort of the process of implementing the plan.
  • 01:31:02
    A proposed process for implementing the plan after we have
  • 01:31:05
    a final order approving a reliability plan
  • 01:31:09
    for the Permian Basin region. In that. That process,
  • 01:31:13
    while it doesn't include every single detail. I just wanted to kind
  • 01:31:16
    of get the. Some of the bigger topics out there on how
  • 01:31:20
    we would process a plan. And I. And I base this processing
  • 01:31:23
    on the, you know, prior frameworks for implementing
  • 01:31:28
    large scale transmission projects in the state. And essentially
  • 01:31:32
    the second project after we approve a Permian Basin reliability
  • 01:31:35
    plan would be focused on determining
  • 01:31:39
    project ownership of basically
  • 01:31:43
    the TSP. Project ownership within the plan.
  • 01:31:47
    And having a process for that is going to be very important. We could efficiently
  • 01:31:51
    move through that process and get the owners of
  • 01:31:54
    those projects going on preparing
  • 01:31:58
    and filing ccns. And so,
  • 01:32:02
    you know, there may be disputes. I've laid out, you know, kind of an
  • 01:32:06
    informal and then a little bit more formal severed docket process that
  • 01:32:10
    I think will be important. And we can ultimately resolve those issues informally.
  • 01:32:15
    But if we can't, then obviously separate rockets
  • 01:32:18
    so we can get. Keep the bus moving.
  • 01:32:21
    The third proceeding being an oversight.
  • 01:32:26
    Oversight. Basically having a permian basin reliability
  • 01:32:30
    plan monitor similar to other monitors we've had in the past just
  • 01:32:33
    to make sure that we have, because it's such a large scale transmission plan build
  • 01:32:37
    out. Just to have the resources to track what's happening with
  • 01:32:41
    this build out, making sure that we understand, you know, how it's all
  • 01:32:45
    going from a construction project cost standpoint.
  • 01:32:49
    We don't have a deadline at the end of when it'll have to be built.
  • 01:32:52
    But it's important to just kind of monitor.
  • 01:32:54
    And I presented a couple options on how to get there. So there's
  • 01:32:59
    a lot of information in my memo. I try to synthesize that whole process in
  • 01:33:02
    this chart. And we
  • 01:33:06
    could talk through any part of it that you all would like. Obviously that my
  • 01:33:09
    recommendation on how to move forward on approving a plan will be a central
  • 01:33:14
    discussion. But again, I just try to get as much in here
  • 01:33:18
    as I could to get this.
  • 01:33:21
    Get us going on a path to be able to make a final decision
  • 01:33:25
    this next open meeting and have a robust
  • 01:33:29
    conversation. And I think you had mentioned you may want to talk to
  • 01:33:32
    some parties. So maybe before we get into discussion
  • 01:33:36
    up here just amongst us, maybe if you want to call those parties up
  • 01:33:40
    and we can have them have a discussion with us. Yes, that'd be great.
  • 01:33:43
    So Kristi Hobbs with ERCOT,
  • 01:33:47
    Shayna Joyce with TXOGA, Megan with PvPa.
  • 01:34:05
    You know, before we deliberate, you know, I just thought it would be helpful to
  • 01:34:08
    kind of get a perspective on where some of these key stakeholders
  • 01:34:13
    are on the suite of recommendations
  • 01:34:16
    we have right now. And we could, y'all can stay up here and we can
  • 01:34:19
    have delivery and you can ask questions as well. So,
  • 01:34:23
    Kristi, you know, you have a suite of recommendations from staff in
  • 01:34:27
    my memo. Just interested in getting your thoughts on, any thoughts you may
  • 01:34:31
    have. Feedback concerns. Absolutely. (item:34:ERCOT's Kristi Hobbs on Commissioner Cobos' memo, 55718)So taking a look at
  • 01:34:35
    what staff has recommended, and we can support either one
  • 01:34:39
    of those options as well as what you've laid out in your
  • 01:34:42
    memo as well. And the reason for that is, as we look at
  • 01:34:46
    the entire state, the growth in the system,
  • 01:34:49
    you know, we can support using the 2038 forecast.
  • 01:34:54
    We also like the
  • 01:34:57
    way that you've proposed moving forward because the concerns that we've
  • 01:35:00
    heard continually from the consumers in the permian region is the
  • 01:35:04
    need to have certainty on their plan, as well as from the tasps desire
  • 01:35:08
    to start working on the CCNs that take a lot of time
  • 01:35:12
    to go through the contracting periods before they
  • 01:35:16
    can actually file those at the commission. So that allows that work to start.
  • 01:35:19
    Now, I also appreciate that your
  • 01:35:23
    optionality plan alternative allows us
  • 01:35:27
    to continue to work on our due diligence for the plan for
  • 01:35:30
    the entire state. Our initial analysis is
  • 01:35:33
    showing that that's going to be a very effective way to move forward.
  • 01:35:37
    But we recognize we need to do due diligence to have
  • 01:35:41
    all consumers as well as stakeholders understand the processes
  • 01:35:45
    for you all to be able to weigh in on that. And that will give
  • 01:35:49
    us, you know, it doesn't close the door on moving forward with that
  • 01:35:52
    statewide higher voltage plan. So one
  • 01:35:57
    thing I would like you to think about kind of on the back end
  • 01:36:00
    is on the decision about whether or not we go to that higher
  • 01:36:03
    voltage when we come out with our plan at the end of the year.
  • 01:36:07
    Historically, when we come out with our regional plan,
  • 01:36:11
    then TSP start taking those projects and start submitting them
  • 01:36:14
    through the RPG process and they begin their work on building those
  • 01:36:18
    lines. We will have two plans
  • 01:36:22
    at the end of this year. One that is, you know, a 345 build out,
  • 01:36:26
    one that's got a 765 backbone with, you know, a supporting
  • 01:36:29
    345. We'll have two plans. And so
  • 01:36:33
    before TSPs can start moving forward, they'll need certainty on
  • 01:36:36
    which option we're moving forward. And so I want to make sure we have due
  • 01:36:40
    diligence to weigh the cost and the benefits, but at the same time,
  • 01:36:44
    this entire state is awaiting transmission build out for the
  • 01:36:48
    load growth that we're seeing across the region. And so we'll want to have a
  • 01:36:51
    time certain on when that decision is made so that transmission
  • 01:36:55
    build out for the rest of the state can move forward as well.
  • 01:36:59
    Yeah. And that certainty is important, right? Not only for
  • 01:37:03
    the import pass into the permian, but for the state as you look
  • 01:37:06
    to plan the transmission side
  • 01:37:09
    of the reliability equation more holistically on a statewide basis.
  • 01:37:13
    Thank you, Kristi. Shana? (item:34:TXOGA's Shana Joyce on Commissioner Cobos' memo, 55718)Hi, Shana Joyce
  • 01:37:17
    for TXOGA. So we agree with your memo,
  • 01:37:20
    Commissioner Cobos. And we would like to approve a single complete plan
  • 01:37:24
    to serve the Permian through 2038. And we
  • 01:37:27
    would like to include those local projects and appreciate the optionality for
  • 01:37:31
    those three of the 5345 kv lines.
  • 01:37:35
    You know, as Kristi says, we still have more to discover on
  • 01:37:39
    ehvs. And so we, we believe that there should be a robust stakeholder process
  • 01:37:43
    to help you make that policy decision. We also
  • 01:37:47
    believe that time is of the essence and that any delay of
  • 01:37:50
    this project will affect the Texas economy as.
  • 01:37:54
    As prolific as the permian basin is for oil and gas
  • 01:37:57
    operations. And the optionality allows for that
  • 01:38:01
    process to begin, just as Kristi said. And so we can keep moving
  • 01:38:05
    and keep going. We also believe
  • 01:38:08
    that the quarterly reports section
  • 01:38:12
    that you have is a good recommendation. Also appreciate the TSP
  • 01:38:16
    process. You know, if we can decide any of those points beforehand and
  • 01:38:21
    having those sorted out as quickly as possible is wonderful. We'd also
  • 01:38:24
    really like to say that we really appreciate all the work that you've done,
  • 01:38:27
    the stakeholders in this process. ERCOT,
  • 01:38:30
    it's been a big, long journey to get here, and really not that
  • 01:38:34
    long, but it feels like it. So we appreciate
  • 01:38:37
    everything. And on the date, certain. That's important to us, too.
  • 01:38:41
    We're interested in y'all's conversation about that here today, and so
  • 01:38:45
    that we can kind of take that and digest it to. To find the best
  • 01:38:48
    option forward. But we understand that certainty is important and
  • 01:38:52
    delay is not an option for us.
  • 01:38:55
    Thank you, Shana. Just real quick, Shana, do you know when you
  • 01:38:59
    all came in and talked to me, that date was very important?
  • 01:39:02
    As you sit there now, do you have a date where you think we cannot
  • 01:39:06
    go past making this decision? Is there one you have?
  • 01:39:10
    I think our concern is legislative session starts
  • 01:39:14
    soon. And from my very short experience in the legislature,
  • 01:39:18
    I think they're going to have an opinion. And so I worry about,
  • 01:39:22
    and as you said in your layout of your memo about our lines
  • 01:39:25
    getting left behind in that full transmission build out conversation.
  • 01:39:29
    And so I think I've heard different dates
  • 01:39:34
    suggested. We're open to options on that. We want to hear your conversation.
  • 01:39:38
    I'm thinking somewhere, you know, may to June something or
  • 01:39:42
    April to June is something to think about just to allow
  • 01:39:45
    time for some weighing in over in that beautiful pink building
  • 01:39:49
    and so that this doesn't get delayed and caught up in all of that.
  • 01:39:52
    Okay.
  • Item 34 - PBPA's Meghan Griffiths on Commissioner Cobos' memo, 55718
    01:39:55
    Meghan Griffiths, on behalf of PPPA and I
  • 01:39:58
    want to echo some of what Shana said. Thank you, Commissioner Cobos,
  • 01:40:02
    for your leadership on this and for those of you who came out to the
  • 01:40:04
    Permian to really focus on the issues out there
  • 01:40:08
    and understand the fact that this transmission is really needed
  • 01:40:12
    to bring benefits to the rest of the state, to the Permian. So thank
  • 01:40:15
    you for your monumental efforts in a short time to push forward
  • 01:40:19
    the criteria in HB 5066. We recognize that our
  • 01:40:24
    goal throughout this whole process has been to get a full actionable
  • 01:40:28
    plan approved this fall. And we do understand
  • 01:40:32
    that this larger 765 discussion is important. And so
  • 01:40:35
    we do appreciate, Commissioner Cobos, your effort to thread that needle
  • 01:40:38
    in your memorandum. We don't believe that staff's
  • 01:40:42
    primary recommendation gets us there because it would only approve those local
  • 01:40:46
    projects and kind of leave to another day the import path lines.
  • 01:40:50
    And so we do like your memo and how you
  • 01:40:53
    have thread that needle. I do think, we think that it is
  • 01:40:57
    critically important to get that date certain so
  • 01:41:01
    that we can pivot on the import path lines in
  • 01:41:04
    the event that those import pathlines get bogged
  • 01:41:08
    down in a greater discussion at the legislature this fall.
  • 01:41:11
    And so we have talked about this time.
  • 01:41:15
    We have a little bit different opinion than TXOGA on the date certain.
  • 01:41:18
    We would like it sooner rather than later. We originally appreciated
  • 01:41:23
    staff March 15 in their
  • 01:41:26
    memorandum that they mentioned. We think that would be great to have
  • 01:41:30
    the greater plan issued in December and
  • 01:41:34
    then by March, mid March fill
  • 01:41:38
    that in for these two items that you have in that memo so that we
  • 01:41:41
    can pivot to 345. If we're just not going to get there with
  • 01:41:44
    765, could that slip, you know, a month?
  • 01:41:48
    Sure. But we don't want it to slip further into June because
  • 01:41:53
    having practiced at the commission for a long time, these things tend to
  • 01:41:57
    slip further and further and further. And there is
  • 01:42:00
    an urgency to solve the transmission infrastructure problem
  • 01:42:03
    in the Permian that we don't want to get caught up in
  • 01:42:06
    a larger plan so again, we appreciate your thoughtfulness on
  • 01:42:11
    how to really work this through with the ongoing process. And we
  • 01:42:14
    also really do appreciate the fact that the plan will not be
  • 01:42:18
    going back to ERCOT for further discussion, that this really is a fully actionable
  • 01:42:21
    plan that we could move forward on. Thank you.
  • 01:42:25
    And a key piece of this discussion is obviously our transmission service
  • 01:42:29
    providers out there and between
  • 01:42:34
    now and the 26th, it would be helpful to understand if
  • 01:42:38
    you agree with the date certain, what would be time
  • 01:42:42
    period that would allow you,
  • 01:42:45
    that would work for you all as you look to prepare your ccns
  • 01:42:49
    and need to complete them, ordering equipment, that kind of
  • 01:42:52
    thing. Like what? Practically speaking,
  • 01:42:56
    time periods would work for you all. I know I visited
  • 01:42:59
    with Oncor
  • 01:43:03
    to some extent, and that is, it takes about six to
  • 01:43:07
    eight months to prepare a CCN. So the sweet
  • 01:43:11
    spot seems to be April 1 to June 1. I recognize your concerns,
  • 01:43:14
    but like, let's just kind of think about it. I'd like to get more feedback
  • 01:43:17
    from you all as well. I know, Shana, you'll have some more, but the utilities
  • 01:43:20
    as well. It's obviously important that we strike the right balance to
  • 01:43:25
    not only provide certainty on the import pass, but practically speaking, from the folks on
  • 01:43:29
    the ground that are going to be building these lines.
  • 01:43:34
    If I could add one more thing to kind of help with the discussion
  • 01:43:38
    about certainty. Just wanted to kind of lay out some of
  • 01:43:41
    the knowns that we have right now. So last week, ERCOT did
  • 01:43:45
    file an initial backbone for the 765
  • 01:43:49
    plan. That's just really a phase one of
  • 01:43:53
    the plan that's needed for the state. We will be having a workshop
  • 01:43:57
    on September 18 at our Austin office where we've got a suite
  • 01:44:01
    of vendors that will be coming, that are active
  • 01:44:04
    in the higher voltage space to give us information
  • 01:44:08
    about supply chains, timelines, about costs,
  • 01:44:12
    about construction timelines, operational characteristics
  • 01:44:16
    of these lines. So if you're not able to be at
  • 01:44:20
    the meeting that day, it will be available via Webex
  • 01:44:23
    as well as our broadcast system. You can find that
  • 01:44:27
    on our website. I'm trying to confirm whether or not it will be
  • 01:44:31
    recorded in case folks aren't available as well.
  • 01:44:35
    So we want to start, you know, help continue those discussions.
  • 01:44:38
    We will also have a series of our regular RPG
  • 01:44:41
    meetings where that statewide plan at higher voltage
  • 01:44:45
    is talked about as needed. We may have additional
  • 01:44:48
    workshops just dedicated to that, similar to what we did with Permian,
  • 01:44:53
    but I think to help move that project along as much
  • 01:44:57
    stakeholder input and feedback we can get in the next couple of
  • 01:45:00
    months before we finalize our plan. I think that will help as
  • 01:45:04
    you move the process over to the commission to inform what those,
  • 01:45:08
    you know, how long those discussions are to keep that
  • 01:45:11
    moving forward. Thank you, Kristi.
  • 01:45:14
    And from my own perspective, I very much look forward to learning
  • 01:45:18
    about more about 765 kV. I know you're going to have your workshop,
  • 01:45:23
    and the reason I say that also is because as a member of the SPP
  • 01:45:26
    RSC, we are looking at 765 pathway
  • 01:45:30
    in the panhandle. And I know MISO is looking at some
  • 01:45:34
    as well. And so this is a broader national discussion.
  • 01:45:37
    And I'm really just interested in learning like, you know,
  • 01:45:40
    through y'all's process. And obviously, we'll have to process the study over here.
  • 01:45:44
    And so, so I see
  • 01:45:48
    those workshops and meetings as good opportunities to learn from
  • 01:45:52
    my perspective.
  • 01:45:56
    Commissioners, comments, questions? Yeah, I have a couple
  • 01:46:00
    comments. So first, thank you all for.
  • 01:46:03
    Do we want general comments or do we want. Yeah. Thank you
  • 01:46:07
    all for your input. It's really, really important
  • 01:46:10
    here. Commissioner Cobos, thank you again. I think you've done a
  • 01:46:14
    fabulous job on this. You have done the Rio Grande
  • 01:46:18
    Valley and you've done this and very proud of you. And I
  • 01:46:21
    think that's really for the state that gets
  • 01:46:25
    a gold star from me. So thank you for your efforts. Yes.
  • Item 34 - Commissioners thoughts on Commissioner Cobos' memo, 55718
    01:46:30
    What I've realized in this whole discussion
  • 01:46:34
    about higher voltages is I'm way more comfortable with higher
  • 01:46:38
    voltages today than most people are.
  • 01:46:41
    Since my development experience has been with HVDC,
  • 01:46:46
    which would even allow more power to flow through the system.
  • 01:46:51
    I had nine years of working with this and better understanding
  • 01:46:54
    how it affects the system and how ehv systems
  • 01:46:58
    interact with existing lower voltage systems. And I
  • 01:47:02
    realize that not everybody here has that.
  • 01:47:05
    So if I had a magic wand,
  • 01:47:08
    I would order the 765 done today. I would
  • 01:47:13
    say, let's not do the 345
  • 01:47:17
    and 765. Let's just do the 765
  • 01:47:20
    and get it over with. But I recognize that we're not
  • 01:47:24
    all there. So I think the path
  • 01:47:27
    forward that you've laid out in your memo is right. I think
  • 01:47:32
    the only one question that I have is the default
  • 01:47:36
    back to 345. I would almost
  • 01:47:39
    like that reversed, but that's not something we need to solve today. We can talk
  • 01:47:42
    about that between now and the next meeting.
  • 01:47:46
    And that would be, that would kind of reverse the
  • 01:47:50
    thought, which is we're going to 765 unless
  • 01:47:54
    it proves that it wouldn't work. Instead of,
  • 01:47:57
    if we can't get comfortable 765, we'll just do 345.
  • 01:48:00
    So something to think about over
  • 01:48:05
    the next few weeks. I'm a huge believer and
  • 01:48:09
    have been for higher voltages and
  • 01:48:12
    HVDC lines, as you all know.
  • 01:48:16
    Just the fact that the amount of transmission
  • 01:48:20
    losses that's reduced is a great benefit.
  • 01:48:25
    But when you get to fringes of the system, a higher voltage
  • 01:48:29
    line provides exponential value and
  • 01:48:32
    stability on these peninsulas,
  • 01:48:38
    like down in the Rio Grande Valley or way out in the panhandle.
  • 01:48:41
    And that will be a benefit long term,
  • 01:48:45
    I think, to that region of the state. And I think we'll see a lot
  • 01:48:47
    of economic development as a result of this. And that's
  • 01:48:51
    why I'm high on the 765 plan, which is,
  • 01:48:54
    I think it's going to pay for itself over time,
  • 01:48:57
    because the amount of economic development that's going to come as a result of
  • 01:49:00
    that, we're going to pay for a lot of it over a larger number of
  • 01:49:04
    people. And rates aren't really going to go up much. I think that's
  • 01:49:08
    a huge value. The other thing I want
  • 01:49:11
    to say is,
  • 01:49:14
    as ERCOT and the stakeholders get comfortable
  • 01:49:17
    with it, 765 is used
  • 01:49:21
    in the US, it's used in Canada. It's used in Brazil, Venezuela,
  • 01:49:24
    Russia, South Africa, South Korea and India.
  • 01:49:27
    So this is not. And it's been used since the sixties.
  • 01:49:31
    So this isn't a new technology,
  • 01:49:35
    it's just new to us at ERCOT. So learning
  • 01:49:39
    that and getting comfortable with that is a. And I
  • 01:49:43
    think that, you know, as we go to our
  • 01:49:47
    next meeting and discuss this, I think it's speed
  • 01:49:51
    is of the most important.
  • 01:49:54
    The economic value associated with the permian basin has been.
  • 01:49:57
    Has not been expressed enough, or it
  • 01:50:01
    has been expressed enough over two sessions. Get these lines built.
  • 01:50:06
    It's funding huge amount of social programs
  • 01:50:10
    within this program. It is a benefit
  • 01:50:14
    to the Texas, to the citizens of Texas and to the world.
  • 01:50:18
    And I think we owe it to them
  • 01:50:22
    to get this done quickly. So with
  • 01:50:26
    that, I guess the one other thing that I want to say is,
  • 01:50:30
    if allowed in an operational sense,
  • 01:50:34
    thinking about voltages, a doubling of the
  • 01:50:38
    voltage of lines does not equate to a double of the power
  • 01:50:42
    throughput. It's four times the throughput.
  • 01:50:45
    So there are. I mean,
  • 01:50:48
    this could be something that we do for the very last time, building out
  • 01:50:52
    there, building this backbone. And the fact that at
  • 01:50:56
    765 would use over 400
  • 01:50:59
    miles less right of way impacts fewer landowners.
  • 01:51:03
    And they're just there reasons after reasons after reasons why
  • 01:51:06
    I believe this 765 is the right path.
  • 01:51:10
    In the end, I think we. I'll just
  • 01:51:14
    talk to you about the default position, but I'm supportive of
  • 01:51:17
    the memo and I think that the path forward is a good
  • 01:51:21
    one. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Glotfelty. He very much for
  • 01:51:24
    your statements, especially your gold star.
  • 01:51:28
    I couldn't get a better gold star from the transmission expert on our,
  • 01:51:33
    on our commission right now. I know you spent a lot
  • 01:51:36
    of time looking at ERCOT and a lot of transmission projects all over the country
  • 01:51:39
    and that means a lot to me and I
  • 01:51:44
    would love to hear your thoughts on a date certain as we kind of move
  • 01:51:46
    through the 26th.
  • 01:51:49
    Well, I'll echo your comments and I'll give you two gold stars.
  • 01:51:55
    I'm very much in favor of the
  • 01:51:59
    approach that you've laid out in your memo, the optionality.
  • 01:52:02
    And I also feel as has
  • 01:52:06
    been kind of stated here, the importance of the timeline
  • 01:52:10
    and also, I mean in support of the date certain.
  • 01:52:14
    I think this is a unique opportunity not only because we're
  • 01:52:18
    faced with the challenge of electrifying the permian and
  • 01:52:23
    how important it is to Texas, but we also have this opportunity
  • 01:52:26
    to look at the impact not only in the permian but
  • 01:52:30
    statewide. And so in my mind, kind of moving forward,
  • 01:52:34
    I feel like that, you know, we've talked about a lot of the 765
  • 01:52:39
    benefits, but I think it's going to be important to quantify those
  • 01:52:43
    so that we have the data and information that we need to
  • 01:52:46
    be able to actually make that decision.
  • 01:52:49
    And I know that you mentioned that, you know,
  • 01:52:53
    we talk a lot about the cost. We talk about the load
  • 01:52:57
    that is coming and we have projections.
  • 01:53:00
    And so I think it's going to be very important to be able to project
  • 01:53:04
    what that impact is going to be to the consumer moving
  • 01:53:07
    forward. And I know that we've seen, you know, examples particularly on
  • 01:53:11
    the distribution side of that. We've had, you know, oftentimes tremendous
  • 01:53:14
    amounts of investment. But over time the rates haven't gone up because of the
  • 01:53:18
    growth. And so I would very much like to see that quantified
  • 01:53:23
    and also the reliability benefits that, you know, might potentially go
  • 01:53:27
    along with it. I kind of see that there are two things
  • 01:53:30
    that we have to look at here. One is the benefit,
  • 01:53:34
    but secondly, can we achieve the outcome?
  • 01:53:37
    And so I'd like to hear from stakeholders, not only the
  • 01:53:40
    science and the data and, you know, the evaluation
  • 01:53:44
    that literally, you know, somebody hopefully is going to put on paper,
  • 01:53:48
    but also, you know, can we actually achieve it
  • 01:53:52
    at this point in time? Can we actually build it out recognizing that
  • 01:53:55
    we are, we are constrained in time? We need to, in my mind,
  • 01:53:59
    not lose, not, you know, one day in terms of providing the
  • 01:54:03
    power that the Permian needs. So I'm very supportive
  • 01:54:07
    of your memo. I look forward to having future discussions in
  • 01:54:12
    terms of, again, you know, quantifying what those benefits are.
  • 01:54:16
    You know, is it something that we can actually achieve if we decide to
  • 01:54:19
    go the 765? And then also,
  • 01:54:23
    you know, really appreciate the process that you laid out here
  • 01:54:26
    that we need to start thinking about as we move forward. I think you use
  • 01:54:29
    the word cadence in terms of the CCNs as well
  • 01:54:32
    as, you know, the ownership. So a very thoughtful process
  • 01:54:36
    and very supportive of it and continue to
  • 01:54:39
    look forward to seeing this become a reality.
  • 01:54:44
    So I'm supportive as well. I guess
  • 01:54:48
    I'm probably the one that's a little more reserved,
  • 01:54:52
    mostly because I
  • 01:54:56
    think everyone I've talked to has been in favor of this.
  • 01:55:00
    And what I want to control for, at least for myself over the next two
  • 01:55:03
    weeks is if anyone has an issue with this, please come talk
  • 01:55:07
    to us. Because a lot of work has gone into this,
  • 01:55:10
    a lot of engagement to try to get a consensus. And it
  • 01:55:14
    would be much appreciated if there are any objections or any
  • 01:55:19
    policy issues where any stakeholder believes we may need to look to pivot,
  • 01:55:23
    bring those to us over the next two weeks, not after the 26th
  • 01:55:27
    when potentially something has been approved. So I just want to make sure that
  • 01:55:31
    we're giving everyone ample opportunity to have seen your memo,
  • 01:55:35
    have gone back to their companies and talked
  • 01:55:39
    about this, and then can bring us any potential
  • 01:55:42
    issues that they see so that we can address them. But overall,
  • 01:55:46
    yes, appreciate all of this. I appreciate when I asked you
  • 01:55:50
    to write a memo, so I thought we could put some guardrails around this discussion
  • 01:55:53
    that you and your staff did that. And I appreciate the level of detail
  • 01:55:56
    that you all gave to allow us to now, I think spend the next
  • 01:55:59
    two weeks really going out and talking to stakeholders and making
  • 01:56:03
    sure what we adopt at the next open meeting as many people as possible
  • 01:56:06
    can get behind. Mister chairman, could I just echo
  • 01:56:11
    what you said, which is to reach out to us, but not just to you,
  • 01:56:14
    to reach out to all of us. I think it's important that we all hear
  • 01:56:17
    the same thing from stakeholders and if they have that,
  • 01:56:20
    to reach out to every office. That's correct. And they should know that.
  • 01:56:23
    Yeah. Don't just come talk to one office. Absolutely,
  • 01:56:26
    Connie. Yes. And I would like to add, please also,
  • 01:56:30
    you know, come talk to staff. Reach out to the
  • 01:56:35
    staff team Julia or to Barksdale or to me.
  • 01:56:39
    And when I believe when the
  • 01:56:42
    chairman says over the next two weeks, he's speaking
  • 01:56:46
    somewhat figuratively, and does not mean wait
  • 01:56:50
    until the 25th to bring it up. That's correct.
  • 01:56:53
    Yes. And like I said,
  • 01:56:57
    my memo doesn't have every detail. I know the stakeholders filed,
  • 01:57:01
    you know, comments that had more detail on certain things,
  • 01:57:04
    you know, consolidation of ccns, bunch of different issues.
  • 01:57:09
    So, you know, hearing on those details
  • 01:57:13
    obviously will be important as we look to write an order
  • 01:57:17
    that, you know, at least from my perspective. I would like to get out
  • 01:57:21
    as soon as possible after we vote on a, on a
  • 01:57:24
    final order on the 26th, just so we can kick off the rest
  • 01:57:27
    of the proceedings and get going. But same here.
  • 01:57:31
    Look, I did the best I could in threading this needle.
  • 01:57:34
    And again, if anybody has concerns, I'd love to hear about
  • 01:57:38
    it. I try to do a helicopter
  • 01:57:41
    patrol over. The folks that I know are very engaged,
  • 01:57:45
    but I didn't talk to everyone right before this open meeting. But I would
  • 01:57:48
    like to hear your thoughts as well. I would like for
  • 01:57:51
    you all to think about if you are supportive of this
  • 01:57:55
    middle ground position of moving forward, what the date
  • 01:57:58
    certain looks like with folks, figure out what the right sweet
  • 01:58:01
    spot is. Again, in my opinion, it's somewhere between April and June.
  • 01:58:05
    I hear your concerns about June. I'm not married to a
  • 01:58:08
    certain date. I just want to, if we do go down
  • 01:58:11
    that route, I want to pick the date certain that makes
  • 01:58:15
    the most sense for everyone.
  • 01:58:19
    Okay, commissioners, anything else? Meghan, Shana, and Kristi.
  • 01:58:23
    Thank you. Thank you to everyone who's helped us get to this point. Definitely a
  • 01:58:26
    lot of work has gone into this and much appreciated.
  • Item 48 - Chairman Gleeson opens up item for update from Executive Director or Commission Counsel
    01:58:31
    So I think the last thing we have is Item No. 48.
  • 01:58:34
    I believe Shelah might have a scheduling update for
  • 01:58:37
    us.
  • Item 48 - Commission Counsel's Shelah Cisneros with PUC scheduling update
    01:58:40
    Commissioners, as we've talked about numerous
  • 01:58:44
    times now, we scheduled a number of meetings
  • 01:58:48
    for this calendar year to make sure you have maximum flexibility. We currently
  • 01:58:52
    have three meetings scheduled for October. We also have three
  • 01:58:56
    meetings scheduled for December. We did that in an abundance
  • 01:59:00
    of caution and just to give us maximum flexibility,
  • 01:59:03
    right now we are looking at, we currently have meetings
  • 01:59:07
    scheduled for October 3, 17 and 24.
  • 01:59:11
    We are looking at canceling the 17th,
  • 01:59:14
    and we may
  • 01:59:17
    need to have additional discussions about that. But I would
  • 01:59:20
    just say to the stakeholders, keep an eye on the calendar. We are looking at
  • 01:59:25
    having two meetings in October. Similarly for December, we would
  • 01:59:29
    look at canceling the December 5 meeting. That's our
  • 01:59:32
    board meeting week. There's a lot going on. It's right after Thanksgiving. We would keep
  • 01:59:35
    December 12 and 19th as the plan.
  • 01:59:39
    Yeah. And I think as long as we can get all the work we need
  • 01:59:41
    to get done accomplished. I'm generally fine with canceling
  • 01:59:44
    those meetings. I'd like to discuss one of the meetings
  • 01:59:49
    dates, and we'll work with Shelah to do so. Right, right. That's what I'd say.
  • 01:59:52
    Just keep your eyes posted that those are the discussions we're having, and we'll finalize
  • 01:59:56
    that and keep an eye on the calendar. Okay, sounds good.
  • 01:59:59
    All right, y'all, I know it wasn't the longest meeting, but we covered
  • 02:00:03
    a lot. And again, Commissioner Cobos, thank you for everything you did
  • 02:00:07
    on the Permian, and we'll continue to do all right.
  • Item 48 - Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting
    02:00:10
    With there being no further business before us, this meeting of the Public Utility Commission
  • 02:00:13
    of Texas is hereby adjourned.
Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order
Starts at 00:00:06
Motion to excuse Commissioner Hjaltman from today's meeting
Starts at 00:00:21
Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda
Starts at 00:01:28
1 - Shelah Cisneros confirms there are no Public Comments
Starts at 00:01:49
Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda
Starts at 00:01:54
3 - Application of Rolling V Ranch Water Control and Improvement District No. 3 for a CCN and for dual certification with the City of Rhome, 54147
Starts at 00:02:12
3 - Motion to approve proposed order, 54147
Starts at 00:02:59
14 - Complaints of multiple tenant against Palm Shadows Resort and other entities, 48205
Starts at 00:03:24
14 - Motion to direct OPDM to draft order and remand proceeding to docket management, 48205
Starts at 00:04:05
15 - Complaint of O. Onumah, Ph.D. and N. Onumah Ph.D. against CenterPoint, 52218
Starts at 00:04:22
15 - Motion to adopt PFD consistent with the changes within Chairman's memo, 52218
Starts at 00:04:44
17 - Application of Southwestern Public Service Company to amend its CCN to construct generation facilities in Lamb County, Texas and Lea County, New Mexic
Starts at 00:05:09
17 - Commissioner Cobos' question on payments to ratepayers, 55255
Starts at 00:06:32
17 - Commissioners thoughts on prudence review, 55255
Starts at 00:07:15
17 - Shelah Cisneros addresses Commissioner Cobos' ratepayer question, 55255
Starts at 00:08:36
17 - Motion to approve, 55255
Starts at 00:09:39
22 - Application of CenterPoint for authority to change rates, 56211
Starts at 00:10:06
22 - Motion to adopt order to extend time on proceeding, 56211
Starts at 00:10:53
16 - Complaint of Engie Energy Marketing and Viridity Energy Solutions against ERCOT, 53377
Starts at 00:11:18
16 - Stephen Mack on behalf of Engie Energy Marketing & Viridity Energy Resources, 53377
Starts at 00:13:37
16 - Elliot Clark on behalf of ERCOT, 53377
Starts at 00:20:10
16 - Floyd Walker with Commission Staff, 53377
Starts at 00:28:12
16 - Stephen Mack's reply to ERCOT and Commission Staff's opening statements, 53377
Starts at 00:30:42
16 - Commissioner Glotfelty's questions to EROCT and Commission Staff, 53377
Starts at 00:31:49
32 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 53911
Starts at 00:44:48
32 - Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on ADER, 53911
Starts at 00:45:06
33 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 53385
Starts at 00:48:54
33 - Commission Staff's Sherryhan Ghanem on Weather Emergency Preparedness Report, 53385
Starts at 00:49:18
33 - Guidehouse's Brent Reed on Emergency Preparedness Report, 53385
Starts at 00:51:20
33 - Guidehouse's Matt Moore on Emergency Preparedness Report, 53385
Starts at 01:02:24
33 - Commissioner Glotfelty's question on report, 53385
Starts at 01:04:04
33 - Deputy Executive Director Barksdale English with clarification for Commissioner Glotfelty, 53385
Starts at 01:07:30
33 - Commissioners comments on report, 53385
Starts at 01:08:15
33 - Motion to approve report, 53385
Starts at 01:12:02
36 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55421
Starts at 01:12:37
36 - Commissioner Glotfelty's update on TX Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group, 55421
Starts at 01:12:48
43 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 56793
Starts at 01:14:02
44 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 56822
Starts at 01:14:12
44 - Executive Director Connie Corona with status update on investigation, 56822
Starts at 01:14:25
43 - Executive Director Connie Corona on PUC's Houston public workshop, 56793
Starts at 01:15:32
43 - Chairman Gleeson recesses open meeting
Starts at 01:17:15
43 - Chairman Gleeson reconvenes open meeting
Starts at 01:17:29
34 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55718
Starts at 01:17:33
34 - Commission Staff's Julia Wagner with update on Permian Basin Reliability Study ,55718
Starts at 01:18:05
34 - ERCOT's Kristi Hobbs with update on Permian Basin Reliability Study, 55718
Starts at 01:22:06
34 - Commissioner Cobos lays out her memo, 55718
Starts at 01:26:05
34 - ERCOT's Kristi Hobbs on Commissioner Cobos' memo, 55718
Starts at 01:34:31
34 - TXOGA's Shana Joyce on Commissioner Cobos' memo, 55718
Starts at 01:37:13
34 - PBPA's Meghan Griffiths on Commissioner Cobos' memo, 55718
Starts at 01:39:55
34 - Commissioners thoughts on Commissioner Cobos' memo, 55718
Starts at 01:46:30
48 - Chairman Gleeson opens up item for update from Executive Director or Commission Counsel
Starts at 01:58:31
48 - Commission Counsel's Shelah Cisneros with PUC scheduling update
Starts at 01:58:40
48 - Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting
Starts at 02:00:10

Commissioner Memos

ControlItemFiling DatePartyDescriptionAction
53377481September 11, 2024PUC OPDMMEMORANDUM OF COMMISSIONER LORI COBOS
48205166September 11, 2024PUC OPDMCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
5221890September 11, 2024CHAIRMAN GLEESONCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
5414772September 11, 2024CHAIRMAN GLEESONCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
55255330September 11, 2024CHAIRMAN GLEESONCHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
5571843September 11, 2024PUC OPDMCOMMISSIONER LORI COBOS MEMORANDUM