GridMonitor

04/24/2025 09:30 AM

Video Player is loading.

Current Time 1:01:14

Duration 1:03:31

Loaded: 96.63%

Stream Type LIVE

Remaining Time 2:17

ZOOM HELP

Drag zoomed area using your mouse.

100%

Selection

Transcript

Scroll automatically

Item 0 - Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order
00:00:05
This meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas will come to order to consider matters that have been duly posted with the Secretary of State for 04/24/2025.

Good morning, everyone.

So Commissioners just, by way of, run of show, I'm recused from Item No. two, so I recommend that we run through the agenda in order except for Item No. two, and then we'll go back to Item No. two at the end of the con contested case docket if that works for everybody.

Sounds good.

Okay.
00:00:34
So then really quickly, just two things.

Last Friday was line worker appreciation day.

So as as always, I know I I wanna thank our communication staff for for sending out a really nice tweet, but always wanna express our appreciation for all the line workers in the state who, you know, ensure reliability.

They go out and make make sure things are safe.

They go out in really tough conditions to help restore service when, you know, weather is bad and things like that.
00:00:59
So always wanna express our appreciation to the line workers in the state.

And then, you know, my staff, you know, I have a a couple people who love to be the central focus, and have all the spotlight on them.

And so, you know, I I was gonna let this slide, but, but Krista said, no, you have to make a big deal about the fact that my birthday is tomorrow.

And I said and I said, you know, against my better judgment because I don't like to do this because we're we focus on, you know, important regulatory matters here.

But, tomorrow is Krista's birthday and so we wanna wish her a happy birthday.
00:01:38
And I'm not gonna make everybody sing.

You're welcome.

That's how that's how much I care about you because, you know, I really want to.

But, happy birthday.

We're so glad you were born.
00:01:48
And I got like and like I told you in in the card, I think being my chief of staff is one of the probably the three reasons that you you were put on this earth.

So we we appreciate it.

Alright.

So be sure to wish her a happy birthday.

We please don't quit.
00:02:10
Alright.

Shelah, will you take us through the consent agenda, please?

Yes, sir.

Good morning, Commissioners.
Item 0.1 - Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda
00:02:16
By individual ballot, the following items were placed on your consent agenda.
00:02:21
Items nine, eleven, 13 through sixteen, nineteen, 21, 23, 26, 29, and 30.

Also, by individual ballot, the Commissioners voted to place item 39 from rules and projects on the consent agenda.

No one signed up to speak on this item, and item eight will not be taken up.

Thank you, Shelah.
Item 0.1 - Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda
00:02:45
I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as laid out by Shelah.
00:02:48
So moved.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.
00:02:52
Opposed?
Item 1 - Public comment for matters that are under the Commission’s jurisdiction, but not specifically posted on this agenda
00:02:53
Motion prevails.

Alright.

That'll take us to item one, public comment.

Shelah, has anyone signed up to for public comment this morning?
Item 3 - Docket No. 53459; SOAH Docket No. 473-23-10573.WS – Application of Undine Texas LLC to Amend Its CCN and to Decertify a Portion of Porter SUD’s CCN in Harris and Montgomery Counties
00:03:00
No one signed up for public comment or any other item on the agenda.

Okay.

Thank you.

So that'll bring us to Item No. three.

Shelah, will you lay out Item No. three, please?
00:03:10
This is Docket No. 53459.

The application of Undyne Texas to amend its CCN and to decertify a portion of Porter Special Utility Districts CCN.

Before you is a second revised proposed order, and the Chairman filed a memo on this docket.

Thank you, Shelah.

As set forth in my memo, you know, Commission rule addressing, addressing the contents of a water CCN application require a capital improvement plan and require the the maps to be clearly keyed.
00:03:41
You know, that that wasn't provided here.

So, you know, I I I think I I laid out pretty clearly in my memo that, we should remand this to to docket management so that Undyne can satisfy those requirements.

And I'd also ask the parties to confirm whether any TCEQ approval letters are required under the statute.

I'm happy to hear your thoughts.

I'm in total agreement with your amendment.
Item 3 - Motion to remain to Docket Management
00:04:06
I'm in agreement as well to remain to docket management.

K.

Then I'd entertain a motion to remain this proceeding to docket management consistent with my memo.

So moved.

Second.
00:04:14
Motion is second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion prevails.
Item 4 - Docket No. 54633 – Complaint of Lois Dawson Against City of Bartlett
00:04:20
That'll take us to Item No. four.

Shelah, will you lay out item four, please?

Item four is Docket No. 54633, the complaint of Lois Dawson against the city of Bartlett.

Before you was a proposal for decision.

No exceptions or corrections were filed, and the Chairman filed a memo.
00:04:38
So again, as I said in my memo, even though no party requested a hearing, I think there's still, you know, remaining fact disputes, so I'd reject the PFD and refer this proceeding to SOA and instruct Commission advising to draft a preliminary order for our consideration at a future open meeting.

I'm in agreement.

I'm in agreement that the as with your memo that this should be referred to SOA for the disputes and facts.

Alright.
Item 4 - Motion to reject PFD
00:05:04
Then I will entertain a motion to reject the PFD and refer this proceeding to SOA consistent with my memo.
00:05:10
So moved.

Second.

I have a motion to second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.
00:05:14
Opposed?

Motion prevails.

Alright.

Shelah, it'll take us to item five.

Will you lay out item five, please?
Item 5 - Docket No. 54617; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-13127 – Application of Texas Water Utilities, L.P. & Southern Horizons Development, Inc. for STM of Facilities and...
00:05:21
This is Docket No. 54617, the application of Texas Water Utilities and Southern Horizons Development for the sale transfer or merger of facilities and certificate rights.

The Commission previously granted rehearing and remanded this docket for the parties to file a map certificate and tariff.

The parties filed the documents, however, the items have not yet been admitted into the evidentiary record.

Let's see.

So that we have two items before you now.
00:05:50
That is the motion to admit evidence and then the motion on on rehearing and the Chairman filed a memo.

And one more thing, Commissioner Hjaltman's recused from this item.

K.

Thank you.

So Commissioner Jackson, you know, my memo just kinda lays out some some perfecting changes, but as Shelah said, we have to kinda run through a procedural, you know, process first.
00:06:10
So before we get to the merits on rehearing, we have we have to address those.

So, on 04/16/2025, Texas Water Utilities filed a MAP certificate tariff and asked for those to be admitted into the evidentiary record.

DLJ set a deadline of 04/23/2025 for parties to respond and no party, filed a response.
Item 5 - Motion to admit map certificate and tariff filed by Texas Water Utilities
00:06:30
So then I would move to admit the map certificate and tariff filed by Texas Water Utilities on 04/16/2025 into the record.

I second.
00:06:40
Motion is second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion prevails.
00:06:45
So we already granted rehearing in March on this.

Like I said, I filed the memo just making some perfecting changes, on the order for re granting rehearing, and happy to take any questions or if you have any thoughts.

I agree with the changes that you made in your memo.

K.

Then I move that we approve the order on rehearing consistent with my memo and our discussion.
Item 5 - Shelah Cisneros' addendum to the second motion
00:07:07
Commissioners, before you actually bid on this one, may I, may I jump in with one Sure.

Small procedural item?

I'm advised that, I believe that certain tariff pages were filed by the company, but it may not be all the applicable pages for this particular proceeding.

So if you would include in your motion, authorize OPDM to add an ordering paragraph to require Texas Water to file a clean copy of, the comprehensive water tariff that's applicable to this proceeding within thirty days of the order, we'll add that in.

That's a lot of work, Shelah.
00:07:44
You can just say consistent with our discussion and Shelah's recommendation.

Alright.
Item 5 - Motion to approve order on rehearing
00:07:49
Then I would entertain a motion I would move to approve the order on rehearing consistent with my memo.

Our discussion, and Commission counsel's recommendation for order in paragraph.

I second.
00:08:00
The motion is second.

Those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion prevails.
00:08:07
Alright.
Item 6 - Docket No. 55392 – Application of Paul H. Krebs d/b/a K Lake Water System and Padok Utility and East Houston Utilities, Inc. for STM of Facilities and Certificate Rights in Harris County
00:08:07
That will take us to item six.

Shelah, will you lay out item six, please?

Yes.

This is Docket No. 55392.
00:08:14
The application of Paul Krebs Paul h Krebs doing business as Kaye Lake Water System and Paddock Utility and East Houston Utility for the sale transfer or merger of facilities and certificate rights.

Before you is a proposed order.

No corrections or exceptions were filed, and the Chairman filed a memo.

Thank you, Shelah.

As I said in my memo, I agree with the outcome.
00:08:38
With the proposed order, I did have some changes just to kinda soften the language, addressing the feasibility of obtaining service from an adjacent retail utility.

Happy to hear your thoughts.

Yeah.

I agree with the changes in your memo and, am, in favor of this.

I agree with the memo as well.
00:08:57
K.
Item 6 - Motion to approve proposed order
00:08:57
Then I would entertain a motion to approve the proposed order with the changes outlined in my memo.

So moved.

Second.

I have a motion to second.
00:09:04
All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion prevails.

Shelah, will you lay out item seven, please?
Item 7 - Docket No. 55455 – Application of City of Fort Worth to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity and to Decertify a Portion of Benbrook Water Authority’s CCN in Tarrant County
00:09:11
Item seven is Docket No. five five four five five, the application of the city of Fort Worth to amend its CCN and to decertify a portion of Benbrook Water Authority's CCN in Tarrant County.

Before you as a proposed order, no corrections or exceptions were filed, and the Chairman filed a memo.

So as the memo says, I agree with the outcome, but, you know, going through my memo, you can see there are a number of recommended changes.

I would say most notably, changing kind of what we use, what we rely on to to approve this, and and feel it's more appropriate, to to use Texas water code section 13 dot two four eight, to approve this transfer for the reason stipulated in the memo.

Happy to hear your thoughts.
00:09:56
Yeah.

I'm in agreement.

This was a very thorough memo, mister Chairman.

I'm in agreement.

You know, Commissioner, as you know, 11 memos still not still not a record.
00:10:07
However, you know, I handwrite every one of these prior to it being typed up.

So I, you know, I do have a little stone tablet.

That's correct.

Right?

So just for for accuracy.
00:10:17
Yes.

So okay then.
Item 7 - Motion to approve proposed order
00:10:20
I will entertain a motion to approve the proposed order with the changes outlined in my memo.

So moved.

Second.
00:10:25
Have a motion and second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion prevails.
00:10:30
Alright.

Item eight will not be taken up, so that will take us to Item No. 10.

Shelah, will you lay out item 10, please?

Yes.
Item 10 - Docket No. 56330; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-23993.WS – Complaint of HMI – Wills Point, LLC Against the City of Wills Point
00:10:39
This is Docket No. 56330.
00:10:42
The complaint of HMI Wills Point LLC against the city of Wills Point.

Before you is a SOA proposal for decision.

HMI Wills Point filed exceptions.

The SOA ALJ filed a letter stating that she does not recommend any changes to the PFD, and the Chairman filed a memo in this document.

So, reading through my memo, you can see I I I agree I would just modify the grounds for dismissal of this, for mootness because HMI no longer owns the property.
00:11:12
I feel like that is appropriate.

I agree with the the modification.
Item 10 - Motion to approve proposed order
00:11:17
Then I will entertain a motion to approve the proposed order with the changes outlined in my memo.

So moved.

I second.
00:11:23
I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion prevails.
00:11:29
Alright.

Shelah, that'll take us to item 12.

Will you lay out item 12, please?
Item 12 - Docket No. 56573 – Complaint of Maurice Walker Against Avanath Blunn Creek, LLC
00:11:33
Item 12 is Docket No. 56573, the complaint of Maurice Walker against Abernath Blunt Creek LLC.

Before you as a proposed interim order?
Item 12 - Chairman Gleeson & Commissioner's thoughts
00:11:46
So this one, was tough for me.

You know, I don't think that Abernath should benefit from just not participating and responding to to orders from from our ALJs.

And, you know, in in previous circumstances similar to this, we've we've found ways through default orders to deal with this.

The problem with that in this case is there's there's no number as to what would need to be refunded.

So, you know, I I don't I don't feel like it's appropriate that we issue a default order and then there's really no financial remedy if one is needed in this case.
00:12:24
And so, you know, as I thought through it, my thought was we could remain this back to docket management and then ask staff to develop a position, which they don't have right now, on the merits of the complaint, including working with the complainant to figure out how much refund may be necessary because, the again, I I don't think a proper outcome of this is you get the benefit of of an outcome where you don't have to pay back any money just because you chose not to participate.

That can't be the right outcome for us.

I'm in agreement.

I think it's completely unacceptable that the regulated entity is not responding whatsoever.

So hopefully, we can go back to document management and help them find a way to hold them accountable.
00:13:06
Yeah.

I think you've outlined a very good path forward.

I'm gonna be in agreement.

Yeah.

And and, you know, it may not be it may not be perfect.
00:13:13
We have some some bills prior to, you know, the the complaint and the assertion that there was overbilling.

So I think I think staff and the complainant can come up with a methodology, and then we can ascertain whether or not default order is the proper way to proceed once we have that information.

Okay.
Item 12 - Motion to remand to Docket Management
00:13:28
Then I'd entertain a motion to remand this proceeding to docket management for further processing with instructions to Commission Staff consistent with our discussion.

So moved.
00:13:36
Second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?
00:13:40
Motion prevails.

Alright.

That'll take us to item 17.

Shelah, would you add item 17, please?
Item 17 - Docket No. 57409 – Complaint of Kimberly Coffee Against Undine Texas, LLC
00:13:47
Item 17 is Docket No. 57409.
00:13:51
The complaint of Kimberly Coffey against Undyne, Texas or Undine, Texas.

Before you is a draft preliminary order, and Commissioner Jackson filed a memo.

Thank you, Shelah.

Commissioner Jackson, would you care to lay out your memo?
Item 17 - Commissioner Jackson lays out her memo
00:14:04
I did file a memo, mister Chairman, and I stated in my memo that I recommend, three additional clarifying questions to further define issues addressing possible meter inaccuracies, to the preliminary order.
00:14:18
And I have a motion.

Commissioner, any questions?

An agreement with your memo was filed.

So am I.

Okay.
00:14:26
Thank you.
Item 17 - Motion to direct OPDM to draft an order consistent with memo
00:14:27
I would move to direct OPDM to draft an order consistent with my memo.

Second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.
00:14:38
Opposed?

Motion prevails.

Alright.

That will take us to item 18.

Shelah, will you lay out item 18, please?
Item 18 - Docket No. 57445 – Petition of Heritage Cardiff SPE, LLC Appealing the Decision of Northwest Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 36 to Change Rates
00:14:47
Item 18 is Docket No. 57445, the petition of Heritage Cardiff SPE, appealing the decision of Northwest Harris County Municipal Utility District number thirty six to change rates.

Before you is an appeal of order number four filed by Northwest Harris County, and the Chairman filed a memo in this docket.

So the memo as the memo says, you know, I'd recommend upholding BLJ's decision to deny the motion to dismiss and refer to to SOA.

There's still outstanding issues of fact and law that need to be resolved before I think you can really determine jurisdiction.

I feel like there's outstanding issues of fact and law as well.
00:15:26
I'm in agreement.

I believe that ALJ got this right, and that the motion is dismissed should be denied, and I look forward to addressing the legal issues.

They're still standing.
Item 18 - Motion to approve proposed order
00:15:35
I'll entertain a motion to approve the proposed order with the changes outlined in my memo.

So moved.
00:15:40
Second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?
00:15:44
Motion prevails.

Shelah, that'll take us to item 22.

We lay out item 22, please.

Yes.
Item 22 - Docket No. 56164 – Application of City of Caldwell, Texas to Transfer Megawatts of Load to ERCOT
00:15:51
This is Docket No. 56164.
00:15:54
The application of the city of Caldwell, Texas to transfer megawatts of load to ERCOT.

Before you is the revised proposed order.

The Chairman filed a memo in this docket and Commissioner Hjaltman is recused from this item.

So Commissioner Jackson, I I believe we should should approve the the revised proposed order.

My memo just lays out some changes and additions to finding a fact and and ordering paragraphs.
00:16:17
Happy to hear your thoughts.

Yeah.

I'm in agreement as well.

Happy to be able to welcome them to ERCOT.

Agree.
Item 22 - Motion to approve proposed order
00:16:24
So I move to approve the proposed order with the changes outlined in my memo.

I second.

Have a motion to second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.
00:16:31
Opposed?

Motion prevails.

That will take us to Item No. 24.

She'll relay out item 24, please.

Yes.
Item 24 - Docket No. 57057; SOAH Docket No. 473-25-01921 – Application of AEP Texas Inc. for Approval of a System Resiliency Plan
00:16:40
This is Docket No. 57057, the application of AEP Texas for approval of a system resiliency plan.

Before you is a corrected proposed order that addresses an unopposed agreement in this docket.

And Commissioner Hjaltman filed a memo.

Thank you, Shelah.

Commissioner Hjaltman, you care to lay out your memo?
00:16:58
Sure.
Item 24 - Commissioner Hjaltman lays out her memo
00:16:59
I just, have three changes to add.

I just look at adding.

First is a new finding of fact in regards to expenses already occurred, just that they would, file an annual a report for that.

The second is in regards to, having the regional basis since they are so spread throughout Texas, reporting on regions so that we can track how those are occurring throughout various areas of Texas.
00:17:23
And then the, final finding of fact is in regards to wildfire mitigation, mainly just that they would provide fire data for, any regardless of how it would occur and just so we know that there's fires in their area or not.

Perfect.

So with that, if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

I'm supportive of those changes.

I'm supportive as well.
00:17:43
Great.

Okay.
Item 24 - Motion for OPDM to draft an order consistent with memo
00:17:43
Well, I would, move to have OPDM draft an order consistent with my memo.

Second.

All those in favor?
00:17:52
Aye.

So moved.

Alright.

Shelah, that'll take us to item 25.

We lay out item 25, please.
00:18:00
Yes.
Item 25 - Docket No. 57115; SOAH Docket No. 473-25-02531 – Joint Application of the City of San Antonio, Acting by & through the City Public Service Board (CPS Energy), and South Texas Electric Co-op, Inc...
00:18:01
Item 25 is Docket No. 57115.

The joint application of CPS Energy and South Texas Electric Cooperative to amend their certificates of convenience and necessity for the proposed Howard Road to San Miguel 345 kv transmission line.

Before you is a proposal for decision.

No exceptions or corrections were filed.
00:18:24
However, after the PFD was filed, a request to intervene was filed late.

The Commission voted to not take up the plate filed request, and the Chairman filed a memo on this docket.

Thank you, Shelah.

So the the memo I filed was corrections, regardless of which route we selected.

I'd intended to put out which route I thought was preferable, but it honestly took me till sometime yesterday to kind of think through which one I preferred.
00:18:54
It came down to N-AB & Y for me and and Y with the modification from the landowner.

And I think, you know, the cost I understand why, the ALJ went with n a b, based on cost, which which while while y is more expensive, I'd I'd say that it's it's not drastically more expensive.

But the number of of habitable structures on y, I think, is is far fewer and I think really I I think gets me in the in the column of of supporting why modified with the with the request by the landowner.

But I'm happy to hear your thoughts.

I'm in agreement as well.
Item 25 - Commissioner's thoughts
00:19:34
The route y, impacts, 41 structures as opposed to the route we were talking about earlier in a B of 71.

It's, 3.5%, more costly, about $9,000,000 And I think we, also should include, the segment, 62 mod two, which is it's one one landowner totally within this segment.

So, and it's been determined to be reasonable and, a viable route.

So I would agree be in agreement with, with choosing, route y.

I think it's it's important that we're we're looking out for, you know, all of the inhabitants along the right of way routes.
00:20:18
And I think this kind of is is a responsibility of the Commission and certainly in this case, for the, additional cost.

I think it's warranted.

I'm in agreement.

I was at the same point as you were, mister Chairman, between NAB and Y, but looking at the inhabitable structures, I think that is a significant difference.

So, would be in favor of, what you stated.
00:20:41
Perfect.

And and, you know, I think it's important, you know, the this landowner in particular finding a way to not bisect their property and and where possible go along kind of existing, you know, property lines, I think, makes a lot of sense.

So, okay.
Item 25 - Motion to modify PFD & select modified Route Y to substitute Segment 62-Mod 2 for Segment 62
00:20:55
So with that, I would entertain a motion to modify the PFD and select modified route y being modified to substitute segment 62 dash mod two for segment 62.

So moved.
00:21:08
Second.

Motion is second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?
00:21:12
Motion prevails.

So that will take us to Item No. 27.

Shelah, we lay out item 27, please.

Yes.
Item 27 - Docket No. 57271; SOAH Docket No. 473-25-05323 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC for Determination of System Restoration Costs
00:21:23
This is Docket No. 57271, the application of CenterPoint Energy for determination of system restoration costs before you is a proposed order that addresses an unopposed agreement in this docket.
00:21:37
Both the Chairman and Commissioner Hjaltman each filed a memo.

Thank you, Shelah.

So my memo is really just a corrections memo.

So Commissioner Hjaltman, happy to hear your thoughts.

Yes.
Item 27 - Commissioner Hjaltman lays out her memo
00:21:47
As laid out in my memo, I'm always supportive of reaching settlement agreements.

I think that is great.

However, I think that we will see more and more probably of these type of system restoration cases coming before us, And I think that it would, help the parties that file these and us as Commissioners if we open a rulemaking to lay out and have guidance of what costs we think are recoverable or not.

So I would, recommend Commission Staff to initiate a rulemaking.

Look to Commission Staff for any thoughts.
00:22:20
I know, you know, one thing we always wanna be cognizant of in is we'll have a lot of work as is recognizing Commissioner Hjaltman Commissioner Hjaltman's memo coming out of the session.

But, you know, as far as priorities go and so, you know, obviously, we still have a couple five or so weeks, maybe six left in legislative session.

So, happy to hear y'all's thoughts, on this request.

Thanks, Chairman.

And, Commissioner, thanks for the memo.
Item 27 - Deputy Executive Director Barksdale English - Guidance on rulemaking
00:22:48
The list of rule makings that are still pending, before the agency is is significant.

There's probably 30 odd, rule makings that have been identified either from previous legislative sessions or from conversations with you all, or from our comprehensive reviews of individual chapters that we have to do every four years.

And And so I think if the Commissioners, you know, are asking us to open a rule making on these costs, we would ask for a little bit of guidance about what kind of priority you wanna see, us give this and and kind of where in that queue understanding that, of course, as as you mentioned, Chairman, you know, with the session coming to an end in in a few short weeks, that order might have to juggle a little bit.

Yeah.

So I think kinda where I would land on this, and and I'm fine, you know, putting this in in the queue and say it maybe makes sense to kinda get briefing after the session, see what finally passes.
00:23:45
And then, in that briefing, hear from staff, you you know, everything, all the work that's gonna need to be done.

And maybe after that, sometime this summer, we can set that priority list and include this in in that kind of value hierarchy decision.

I think that's, very reasonable.

Yeah.

Very reasonable.
00:24:03
Any questions or comments on the corrections in my memo?

None.

Those are, good clarifications for me.

Agree.

K.
Item 27 - Motion to approve proposed order
00:24:11
I'll entertain a motion to approve the proposed order with the changes outlined in my memo.

So moved.

Second.

Have a motion to second.

All those in favor, say aye.
00:24:22
Aye.

Opposed?

Motion prevails.

Okay.

That will take us to Item No. 28.
00:24:29
Shelah, will you lay out item 28, please?

Yes.
Item 28 - Docket No. 57441 – Petition for Consolidated Permian Basin Reliability Plan CCN Filing Authorization
00:24:31
Item 28 is Docket No. 57441.

The petition for consolidated Permian Basin reliability plan, CCN filing authorization before you as a proposed order.

No corrections or exceptions were filed, and the Chairman filed a memo.
00:24:47
So as the memo states, I'd adopt this this proposed order, but I would do wanna further clarify the Commission's not deciding this proceeding.

Any requirement of an amendment for a for a TSP's, CCN, and those will be decided in the future.

I'm in agreement with your clarification.

I am as well.

Alright.
Item 28 - Motion to approve proposed order
00:25:08
I'll entertain a motion to approve the proposed order with the changes outlined in my memo.

So moved.

I second.

I have a motion to second.

All those in favor, say aye.
00:25:16
Aye.

Opposed?

Motion prevails.

Alright.

So that concludes that part.
00:25:23
So now, we will go back to Item No. two, and I will hand the responsibility of chair over to Commissioner Jackson.

Thank you, mister Chairman.

Next up is Item No. two.

Shelah, will you please lay out this item?

Yes, ma'am.
Item 2 - Docket No. 53373; SOAH Docket No. 473-23-10572.WS – Complaint of Andrew and and Sarah Fossum Against Undine Development, LLC
00:25:38
Item two is Docket No. 53373, the complaint of Andrew and Sarah Fossum against Undeemed Development.

Before you is the SOAH proposal for decision.

The parties filed exceptions, and the Fossum has filed a motion to admit evidence and for official notice.

The ALJ filed a letter making clarifications, but no changes to the PFD, And Chairman Gleeson is recused from this item.

Thank you.
Item 2 - Commissioner Jackson's thoughts
00:26:05
In this proposal for decision, the ALJ recommends denying the complaint of mister and missus Folsom.

I don't agree that the complaint should be denied.

I would adopt in part and reject in part because I believe Undine violated the Commission's rules and I believe Undine was financially responsible for repairing or replacing the Folsom's grinder pump.

Undeemed sewer tariff did not comply with the rule that ownership and maintenance responsibility for grinder pumps have to be specified in the tariff.

The rule says, ownership of and maintenance responsibilities for the receiving tank and a purchases shall be specified in the utilities approved tariff.
00:26:48
That includes grinder pumps.

Undine's tariff did not specify who was responsible.

This rule requirement is not new.

It has existed for many years, including when TCEQ approved this tariff back in 02/2012.

So Undine should have been aware and complying with the rule.
00:27:06
Because Undine did not specify in the tariff who was responsible, I believe that under Commission rules, Undine was financially responsible for repairing and replacing the Folsom's grinder pump.

The Commission has a rule on this.

Maintenance and repairs for receiving tanks and apprentices, including grinder pumps on the customer's property can be the customer's responsibility, but only if the customer retains ownership under the utilities tariff.

So under our rules, the tariff has to say that the customer is responsible.

Otherwise, the default is that the utility is responsible.
00:27:42
The tariff here did not specify that customers were responsible, so I believe Undine was responsible.

With that, do you have any thoughts?

No.

I'm in agreement, that Undeen's tariff did not comply with the rule, and the purpose of our rules is to protect the consumer.

So, I would agree with what you stated.
00:27:59
Thank you.
Item 2 - Motion to adopt in part & reject in part the proposal for decision
00:28:00
I have a motion.

I move to adopt in part and reject in part the proposal for decision consistent with our discussion.

Second.

All in favor say aye.
00:28:10
Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Mister Chairman, I'll turn it back over to you.

Thank you, Commissioner.
00:28:16
So that concludes the contested case portion of our open meeting.

So we can move now to rules and projects.
Item 33 - Project No. 55999 – Reports of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
00:28:26
So Item No. 33 is project number 55999, reports of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, and I believe we have some folks from ERCOT who, wanna come up and give us some updates.

Alright.

Good morning, Commissioners.
Item 33 - Kristi Hobbs - ERCOT - Introduction
00:29:13
Kristi Hobbs for ERCOT, and I'm joined we're circling staff here.

And joined with Nathan Bigby and David Cassell.

And we wanted to provide you all with an update on the progress of the efforts for, the RMR contracts, the RMR outage work, as we move through with the Brauninger unit in the San Antonio area.

I think they were passing out some information that we just filed in the docket earlier this morning.

I'm gonna turn it over to David Kezell, who's our director of weatherization.
00:29:44
When we started this effort with CPS, we wanted to make sure as we're investing the consumers' dollars that we are monitoring that outage work.

We understand what's going on.

And, David has been making regular visits down to the area, working with the CPS team to understand the work and the progress, and he wants to give you an update on the progress of that effort.

So I'll turn it over to David.

Good morning, Commissioners.
Item 33 - David Kezell - ERCOT - Update on RMR contracts and outage work
00:30:15
David Kezell from ERCOT.

Generally, the outage is going very well.

A lot of progress is being made, and many inspections are being done.

A lot of repairs are being done.

Unfortunately, there was one finding that will significantly extend the duration of the outage, and that is, there's cracking in a super heater header that cannot be repaired on-site.
00:30:42
So it will have to be removed and, replaced.

And the replacement is is a device a new super heater has to be fabricated specifically for this use, and it'll take some time to do that.

The the anticipated cost of the superheater header, is is not high.

We've presented in in what was put into the docket this morning that the current total cost of the outage is on the order of $25,000,000.

When the outage started, about, 20 to $21,000,000 were anticipated for the inspection outage itself and some necessary capital projects that were gonna go on.
00:31:25
And we had a anticipated budget of 3.3 to $9,700,000 for discovery work.

Of course, you don't know how much of that you're gonna find until you actually get in there and look around.

But, certainly, where we are now and where we anticipate getting to or is within that budget.

So the budget is is in reasonable shape.

The anticipated change that people should be aware of is that the outage, will not be able to be concluded in time for service for BRAUNIC 3 this summer, and it could be pushed out as far as next spring.
00:32:06
We anticipate that, there there is some activity that can go on to expedite the delivery of this header to the site and ideally get this unit, operational again late fall, early winter for this coming winter.
Item 33 - Kristi Hobbs - ERCOT - Updating of models
00:32:24
So the obvious question once we heard about this potential delay is whether or not we should continue moving forward with the investment.

Do we still see the value that the unit would provide in relieving the constraint, the reason for entering the RMR.

And since we had taken some time since our last analysis, we wanted to make sure we had current information.

So we went in, we updated our models with, load growth, with generation changes since the last study run, and we ran our models, in our economic evaluation on the transmission system.
00:33:00
And what we found is that even with the delay, even if it's delayed into February of next year, there is still, more benefit than cost to moving forward with maintaining the Braunig unit.

And the reason for that is what we see is, the potential benefit really comes next summer, in the July and August time frame of having that unit available.

So even if we don't get it back, until early, you know, late winter, early spring, we still see that benefit of moving forward with the work.

David, is there are we far enough along in this that there there's really no other issues you would think would come up that could delay it further?

We believe so.
Item 33 - David Kezell - ERCOT - Delays
00:33:50
There there is some additional testing that's going on, that could, increase costs in measured amounts, but we don't anticipate it'll take us over budget nor do we believe that it'll push the schedule beyond what's what's been described.

Yeah.

Commissioners, questions on this?

I don't think so.

This was helpful.
00:34:12
Thank you.
Item 33 - Commissioner's thoughts on ERCOT's updates
00:34:14
I appreciate the, the detail and, if you will, the transparency because that's been the question, I think, from the beginning is, you know, what is this gonna cost and what are the benefits associated with, you know, taking this older unit and, you know, putting it in a position that it can be useful to the grid.

And so I I appreciate you, you know, giving us an update going through the, the detail that you have here and, you know, also, I think providing, the diagram.

I think that's very helpful.

And, I think, again, you know, having good data and information helps you to make, you know, the best decision possible.
00:34:54
And I think it's important, you know, as as we have these type of situations that we continue to evaluate it as we as we move forward.

And so just appreciate the detail and the transparency.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Yeah.

So I think the only thing I would add is, you know, why I appreciate that the the value the real value comes in the summer.
00:35:16
I know when we spoke, you mentioned that the best case, we would have this up probably hopefully in February.

And so I I definitely think it's, you know, if we can if we can get this going in the fall or, you know, something like that would be be helpful, I think.

And it also points to the benefit of getting those mobile gen units as well, because we always anticipated we could see something like this, and then opening this unit up and actually seeing, you know, how much you know, the the cost is one thing, and I think we always have to have an eye towards cost.

But the the timeline is extremely important in getting these in service, so I think also points to, the decision on the mobile gen units and and how important that was as well.

So thank you, David.
00:35:57
Thanks Kristi.

You bet.

So I think Nathan can provide us an update.

Speaking of the mobile generation, he can give you a a status update on where we are on those efforts.

Good morning, Nathan.
00:36:07
Good morning.
Item 33 - Nathan Bigbee - ERCOT - Update on Life Cycle agreement
00:36:08
Nathan Bigby with ERCOT.

Yes.

I'd be pleased to provide y'all a brief update on the status of the life cycle arrangement.

I am pleased to report that this morning, that that as of late yesterday, ERCOT and life cycle have reached agreement on the the terms of of this arrangement.
00:36:24
And so I think this is a significant, development that should help to to move this forward.

Obviously, we've still got to have the cooperation of of CPS Energy and and CenterPoint to make this all work.

And my understanding is that they're very close to reaching agreement on the terms of of those arrangements.

Obviously, having a fundamental structure in place for the ERCOT and life cycle arrangement, I think, will help facilitate those agreements as well, to understand how we're how we're intending to do things with these with these generators, should be helpful to moving those those items along as well.

But this has taken us some time, more time than we anticipated to get, this framework in place, but this is a very unique arrangement.
00:37:05
This is not like anything else we've had before.

We are leveraging the RMR framework for, for the dispatch, the settlement, and and largely the performance, metrics for these generators.

But, there are a lot of things that have had to be changed or modified because of the unique situation here.

We're moving 15 aeroderivative combustion turbines from Houston to the San Antonio area, placing them at CPS Energy substations, and then, you know, operating a cost based kind of framework here.

So this is somewhat of a novel approach, of course, with under a very exigent circumstance where we're trying to solve this this IOL issue for the next couple of summers.
00:37:43
So, it's been important for us to get this right.

It's important for us to make sure that we are not, exposing life cycle to unnecessary risk.

And we're talking about those these specific turbines.

They are temperature sensitive, and so they're the the standard metrics you might apply to say, you know, x megawatts guaranteed a % of the time, all the time, doesn't necessarily align with, with the machines that we're talking about here.

So we've had to work with them over the last few weeks to really, kind of hone in on the appropriate metrics for performance.
00:38:14
And, I believe we have developed those appropriate metrics that ensure we're gonna get what we're paying for and that also ensure that life cycle has, a a commitment, and and also the risk, insurance that it needs, to avoid, you know, an in undue risk under this arrangement.

So, we're pleased that we've kind of reached, a court on those terms.

Again, this is largely going to follow sort of the RMR settlement framework.

So the the market should not, see anything that's that's strange about this.

This will involve an uplift, to our market, under an RMR type arrangement, but it is, and it's also gonna be cost based.
00:38:54
A lot of those costs are gonna be front loaded, so those costs should be, you know, showing up, perhaps later this month, but more likely, you know, in May.

And, that's necessary to get these units moved to the San Antonio area to get these units, set up and interconnected at these substations and also to cover a lot of the significant cost that CPS Energy is going to have in setting up these generators.

So we believe that's a very positive development.

I I did wanna say that I think we're pretty close to to getting to execution, you know, in these agreements.

And once we have that done, all parties will be marching forward and making this arrangement happen.
00:39:31
We we are looking at a pace of about, five units for every thirty days.

That is that is the the pace that we've contemplated with life cycle, and we've built in a framework, under this agreement that's going to capture, that pace and ensure that that life cycle follows that pace as soon as they get the green lights from CPS and ERCOT, to get these units, you know, synchronized to the grid.

So, we're expecting that we should be able to have a good number of these units online for the summer for the the summer peak season.

So we we're continuing to work, diligently with all the parties involved to make sure that, that we can, achieve that maximum reliability benefit of these units.

That's great news.
00:40:12
Thank you, Nathan.

Commissioner's questions on this?

Not right now.

I'm good.

So I say thank you again.
00:40:20
I know all the work that's been done by everyone involved, you know, ERCOT, CPS life cycle, CenterPoint, everyone.

Glad that we're getting towards the end of this, and and this will be executed because I think it's really important.

We appreciate the the Commission's continued support on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.
00:40:39
Anything else under this item, Kristi?

No?

Alright.

Thanks for being here y'all.
Item 35 - Project No. 55718 – Reliability Plan for the Permian Basin under PURA §39.167
00:40:45
So that will take us to Item No. 35.
00:40:48
That is project number 55718, reliability plan for the Permian Basin under PURA section 39 dot one six seven.

And we have I think staff's gonna come up.

Good morning.

Good morning.
Item 35 - Julia Wagner - Commission Staff - Outlines memo
00:41:13
Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
00:41:16
Julia Wagner and John Poole for Commission Staff.

So staff prepared and filed last week a memo recommending that the Commission approve the seven sixty five kilovolt, import pass as part of the Permian Basin reliability plan.

Also, last week, we conducted briefings with you and also this week, where we laid out the arguments and the rationale behind our recommendation.

To briefly outline our memo, we start by sharing all the stakeholder activities that Commission Staff and ERCOT have engaged in through the process of getting the Permian plan approved.

The feedback from those engagements were instrumental, and the feedback was instrumental in our decision making process, and we appreciate the time spent by all who participated.
00:41:59
Next, since the cost and project completion timelines are so crucial to this decision, the memo has a dedicated section summarizing the additional efforts staff undertook to investigate and validate TSP's cost estimates and ensure both the long lead time equipment vendors and TSPs are coordinated to meet or beat the stated reliability need dates for each project.

Finally, staff documented what we believe are the most compelling technical benefits each voltage plan offers based on the data resources and feedback we collected.

We conclude the memo by asserting that because the project completion timelines are comparable, we the additional incremental cost of the $7.65 plan can be justified by its forward looking technical benefits.

For your convenience, we've attached a proposed order to the memo, which may be amended to whichever voltage you choose.

And on a personal note, staff would also like to thank Christy Hobbs and Prabhu Ghanam for making themselves available to our questions on short notice.
00:43:00
Thank you, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for that layout.

I echo your sentiments.

Thank you to everyone who has been participating in this and providing their knowledge and understanding to to to get us to this point where we can make a decision before May.

I wanna thank the legislature, for all of their input.
00:43:21
I particularly wanna thank Chairman Schwertner and his staff and Lieutenant Governor Patrick and and his staff, for ensuring that we're keeping an eye on costs and making the best decision for for the for the residents in Texas, that we can.
Item 35 - Chairman Gleeson & Commissioner's thoughts
00:43:37
So we've answered I think at this point, staff has answered every question that could possibly be asked about this.

I think that was the goal of what we've been doing over the last number of months.

All the participation has been extremely helpful for me.

I will say for me, I'm good with staff's recommendation.
00:43:56
I think seven sixty five in the Permian given all of all the information we've received is the right answer, and I am prepared to adopt the proposed order for the seven sixty five import pass.

Happy to hear your thoughts.

I wanna echo your thanks, mister Chairman from, to our staff, to ERCOT, to all the, stakeholders in this process.

This was, a long year plus project.

I know we had lots of discussion workshops.
00:44:24
I know I personally asked for a lot of data.

You went and got it, and that was helpful so that we can make our decision.

Without getting into a discussion on forecasting or load growth or whatnot, I think that we can definitely say the Permian Basin has outgrown, its infrastructure.

We know that they need to have this build.

It's just whether it's $3.45 or $7.65, and no matter what, this build will have a cost.
00:44:46
It's it's going to be expensive either way we go.

The cost we need to talk about is between the two.

And, yes, $7.65 does have an initial cost that's higher, but it provides more transfer capability.

It will have longer term, benefits for that investment.

And if demand continues to rise, which I think it will, it will be an investment for the future.
00:45:06
So, I appreciate staff highlighting the the positives of seven sixty five.

I think it has long term benefits for cost effectiveness.

It will help congestion.

It's better for landowners in the end, so we'll have less lands being taken.

So in general, I think that I'm encouraged that this build out will have a monitor.
00:45:26
We will have checks on it.

TSPs, you've been very collaborative and transparent.

We expect that to continue, and we expect you to know that we have eyes on this the whole time.

In general, I am supportive as well of staff's recommendation, and, happy to continue to discuss.

And I would say thank you for bringing up the ID the monitor, which we'll have before us at a future open meeting via a rule.
00:45:47
I think that is extremely important to ensure that we're keeping the public, the legislature, the Governor fully informed about, you know, the the progress on this both on the timeline and on the on the cost.

And I I shouldn't let this moment go by without thanking Commissioner Jackson for picking up the mantle on transmission when Commissioner Cobos left.

I know you've probably had just meetings nonstop about this, to to get all the information needed, and I wanna thank you for your tireless efforts on this.

And I don't wanna let this moment go by without thanking Commissioner Cobos for all the work she did on the Permian reliability plan prior to her leaving.

And also to Commissioner Glotfelty who we know never, was never short of opinions on transmission and, I think was also instrumental his his understanding and his knowledge about all this in helping us frame out the discussion and ultimately come to a to a decision today.
00:46:42
And so I wanna thank them as well for for their work on this.

Well, I think this has been, a long road, but it's been a very impactful one.

And I think it's one that we can be very proud of because we took the time and the effort and the attention, to detail.

And I I think that's so important because you always want to have the absolute best information that you can in your decision making.

And kind of moving forward as you mentioned, I mean, this in my mind is just the start.
00:47:16
It's very much going to be incumbent on, the Commission in working, collaboratively, I think, with the TDUs and also, with with the the the users, particularly oil and gas in the Permian, that we stay abreast of the change as it occurs.

And so this, I think, is, was a big part of our ability to, feel very comfortable about, you know, the size of this investment and the fact that, you know, making it at this particular time is the right decision because of the input that we received from, quite frankly, the people who need the power.

They've been waiting a long time, but they really stepped to the plate.

They, worked with the TDUs and helped us to kind of get the information that we needed at the onset.

And my expectation would be that they continue as we move forward.
00:48:06
You mentioned, the monitor is gonna be very important that we, we are, and also we have, you know, coming in and the staff mentioned this in their memo, portal so that we can be very transparent in the cost.

What we know from project management is that very first step in being able to be on time and on budget is to monitor those costs and to monitor that schedule and to monitor that timing.

There, we've talked about, you know, the incremental cost associated with, you know, one, one import pass choice versus the other.

We've talked about, the benefits and, of course, you know, the lower impedance being the big driver in terms of the, the technical capabilities of the seven sixty five.

Building it out for the future and also building it with today's dollars, I think, is important.
00:48:59
One of the things that I've heard from folks, really since the very beginning was the importance of schedule.

And so I did want to mention one other, benefit I think that $7.65 brings, from a scheduling standpoint.

And it's something that we're seeing, across Texas even today is this challenge of being able to take outages.

And so when we're building an import path and if you will kind of overlaying it over an existing system, there's a need to take outages of those areas where you have, if you will, those crossovers.

And so having a seven sixty five will have potentially, fewer outages that we have to deal with and less risk in terms of how those outages might impact the schedule moving forward.
00:49:44
So I think we've got, you know, some good, processes that are in place to help us, track cost and schedule.

I would say that absolutely our expectation and our, goal moving forward is that as always we'd be on time and on budget.

And, I think it's, this is just really exciting for Texas.

And if you look back in our history and you think of those kind of monumental decisions that we've made that will impact, you know, our children and our children's children, You know, whether it was water, whether it was power, whether it was, you know, the things that we did, you know, in the world of education.

I mean, I think that this will very much, you know, fit within those kind of, benchmarks and milestones that we'll look back and say, you know, we made the right decision.
00:50:34
So, I just appreciate staff.

I appreciate everybody that worked on this.

And again, exciting times.

The task is just starting, and we have a lot of work to make sure we get this thing across the finish line.

Thank you, Commissioners.
00:50:50
Again, Julia, John, I know you all have been the faces up here, and and thank you for your work.

But to all the staff that has worked on this.

I know this is to a lot of people have touched this project, in order to get us to a place to make a decision today.

So, again, immense thanks for for all the work and effort to get us here.
Item 35 - Motion to approve proposed order
00:51:07
So, Commissioners, I will entertain a motion to approve the proposed order authorizing the 765-kV import pass and allowing prior authorization to file CCNs for three forty five kV import pass to expire.
00:51:21
So moved.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.
00:51:25
Opposed?

Motion prevails.
Item 36 - Project No. 56000 – Firm Fuel Supply Service
00:51:29
That will take us to item 36.

That's project number 56000, firm fuel supply service.

We have Chris and Tyler, and, they're gonna lay out a memo that that was filed.
00:51:48
Good morning.
Item 36 - Tyler Nicholson - Commission Staff - Memo concerning timelines
00:51:49
This is Tyler Nicholson with Commission Staff.

So last week, staff filed another memo kind of laying out some of the different timelines for firm fuel supply service and giving basically two primary options.

The first of which being try to get it for the upcoming winter period.

And in that, we gave the schedule that's pretty narrow but could still be done to go through the stakeholder process for December.
00:52:16
The other option is to put it on hold for a future upcoming, procurement period, let's say, 2026, '20 '20 '7 winter.

And try to hammer out some of the, open questions that have been kind of coming up as we've been discovering a little bit more into this product.

And doing from there, we could be doing something like a rulemaking in order to codify the process as well as try to make this just a better product overall.

And on that, we gave a decision point list with just a lot of the open questions like how do we hedge risk, to try to get some of this stuff done as among other things.

Happy to answer any questions on the memo.
00:53:00
Thank you, Tyler.

Thank thanks for the memo.
Item 36 - Chairman Gleeson & Commissioner's thoughts
00:53:04
So I was the one that was really pushing for this.

I think there's a lot of value in this expansion.

I wanna thank everybody who's talked to me, since I made my comments, you know, last year about the need to expand this.
00:53:17
I think, you know, based on on everything I've heard, my preference is to go with option two.

While I think this expansion is important, I think there's a lot of value there.

I think it's much more important to get this right than to get it right now.

And so, I think we should aim for twenty six twenty seven's procurement period.

But, again, I know we're gonna have a lot of competing interest coming out of this session.
00:53:40
And so, we need to weigh everything on balance and and what are what the requirements of this agency are.

But my hope is we can get this get the work done so that we can can do this expansion the right way for the twenty six twenty seven winter procurement.

Happy to hear your thoughts.

I'm in agreement as well.

I think it's really important as we, you know, put in, if you will, almost a new process and a new protocol that we have, good information and data and a rationale in terms of how we would, if you will, kind of do that split.
00:54:15
Because we know that, you know, firm fuel that's closest and on-site, is a little bit different product and has a different value and addresses a different risk than, if you will, even though the circle is somewhat constrained a little bit broader circle.

And so, you know, having something I think that is a more definitive in terms of how we make that allocation, I think is something that's gonna be important, to make sure that, as you mentioned, the the product moving forward is, as valuable as it can be and as cost effective as as it can be to the consumer.

So just on timeline from where we are at the Commission versus where ERCOT is, where are we going to hit any problems with what they're working on?

Or is it no.

Not really.
00:55:04
So if we were trying to get to the current, procurement period, it's a very, very narrow window from WMS to TAC in order to get it done, but it's still there.

Otherwise, not there's not really gonna be any problem with the timeline.

Okay.

I think Rebecca.

Rebecca.
Item 36 - Rebecca Zerwas - ERCOT - Support for Option 2
00:55:22
Rebecca Zerwas for ERCOT.

ERCOT's supportive option two as well.

We'd rather have a more deliberate conversation.

I know before it was discussed, we could gray box the language.

We really support staff's point list and think that, a rule making would be helpful, understanding the timeline with staff resources and legislation.
00:55:41
We'd still prefer to have a more lengthy conversation and not try to rush towards the June board to have something in place this year.

I know we've been working with staff in the IMM.

It got referred from PRS to WMS, so it really just needs extra time.

K.

Helpful.
00:55:58
Thank you.

K.

So I think do you have everything you need?

Yeah.

K.
00:56:04
Thanks, y'all.

Appreciate it.

Thanks.

Thank you, Rebecca.
Item 37 - Project No. 56896 – Texas Energy Fund In-ERCOT Loan Program Reports and Filings
00:56:11
Next on the agenda is item 37.
00:56:14
That's Project No. 56896, Texas Energy Fund Energetic Loan Program report reports and filing.

Good morning, Tracy.

Good morning Chairman,

Commissioners.
Item 37 - Traci Tolle - Commission Staff - Recommendation of 4 applications
00:56:26
Traci Tolle for Staff.
00:56:29
So today's staff is recommending four applications be moved into due diligence, and authority delegated to Connie to enter into a loan agreement upon satisfaction of the due diligence requirements.

These four applications total a little over 1,900 megawatts, and it would bring the portfolio to 9,002 a little over 9,200.

The selection process was very similar to the first four rounds.

In addition, we did, I know your customer review on these applicants, and we also prioritized equity, a a firm equity commitment.

Happy to answer any questions that you all have.
00:57:14
Commissioners, questions?

Not so much a question.

I just think it's important to note that, for for anyone out there, the the importance and the process of due diligence and what's going forth and y'all might wanna speak to what you're finding out now is what we're supposed to be doing before money is exchanged.

We are trying to be, very diligent with the state dollars, and we wanna find this out before we're signing those papers.

So I don't know if you wanna talk about that from y'all's perspective to get some info.
00:57:43
Certainly.

And we first came to you to recommend projects quite a few months ago.

Due diligence takes four to eight months.

So we're coming up on eight months now from when I think we first started due diligence in some applications.

And, the variety of things that the TEF administrator is looking at is is vast, and we're catching things.
00:58:11
We're having applicants withdraw because some of our requirements to protect these taxpayer dollars are really stringent.

We're also, denying some applications because we're finding things that we just can't get to a loan agreement in time to satisfy the statutory requirements.

So, I'm happy to go into more detail if you'd like.
Item 37 - Commissioners & Chairman Gleeson's thoughts
00:58:33
I think that's really really helpful because, I think you've laid out what the, the process was from the very beginning intended to address, as well as, you know, the point being that, you know, this is, these are taxpayer dollars and this is our program and we set the rules.

And, you know, at the end of the day, you know, you have to have the ability to repay and you have to have the ability to execute.
00:58:57
So, it's not just that we, we want to make sure, which we do, that we receive our, our fund, we get our money back, right?

That we've loaned the money in good faith and we expect a repayment and, that you have the ability to do that.

But we also want you to be sure that you can execute the task because that's why we provided the incentive, the loan incentive to begin with.

So, I think, you know, the process that you've outlined here, we've got, you know, four more that, you know, hopefully we'll be able to, you know, look at what we're requiring.

They'll feel comfortable about being able to not only repay the loan, but also to deliver, the benefits that we're looking for that the loan is intended to incentivize.
00:59:42
So, thank you for your work on this.

And, you know, 9,218 megawatts.

So, you know, that'll be great for the grid, and we're hopeful that all of them will will get across the finish line.

And I would just say, you know, inherent in getting public funds is being entrusted with with a trust from the public that they'll be spent correctly.

And, I think our due diligence process is helping to ensure that.
01:00:10
You brought up equity commitment, so I just wanna make sure I understand.

So this this look at at a firm equity commitment is something that is in every review of every project, and it is is it true that it has always worked that the equity commitment has to come before the loan, not the loan than the equity commitment?

Absolutely.

You'd have to have that equity to be able to enter into a loan agreement.

K.
01:00:36
Thank you for that clarification.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Alright.
Item 37 - Motion to approve proposed order
01:00:42
Then I would entertain a motion to approve the proposed order.

So moved.
01:00:48
Second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?
01:00:51
Motion prevails.

Thank you.

Thank you.
Item 38 - Project No. 57937 – Texas Energy Fund Completion Bonus Grant Program Reports and Filings
01:00:55
That'll take us to Item No. 38.

Item number 38 is Project No. 57937, Texas Energy Fund completion bonus grant program reports and filings.
01:01:08
Hi.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Check oh, it's on.

Hear me?

Okay.
Item 38 - Glynis Vitanza - Commission Staff - Recommendation on issuing notice of eligibility for completion of program, with delegation to Executive Director
01:01:14
Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.

Glynis Vitanza for staff.

Staff recommends issuing one notice of eligibility for the completion bonus grant program and recommends authority to be delegated to the executive director to enter into a grant agreement with the applicant upon their interconnection of its generation generation generating resource to ERCOT.

This applicant proposes to add a 88 megawatts of potential new generation, and they are eligible to receive up to a maximum of $22,500,000 paid in annual increments over a ten year performance period if they meet certain performance measures.

Their application was deemed administratively complete and completed a know your customer review.
01:02:01
And this is the first project in the completion bonus grant program application pool to be recommended to be issued this notice of eligibility, and we are happy to answer any questions you have today.

Thank you for that layout on this project.

Just for my own knowledge, how many app I know the application portal opened, I think, January 1.

How many current applications do we have?

We have, six under review right now.
01:02:26
Okay.

And, many others in progress.

Thank you.

Yes.

Commissioners, questions?
01:02:31
Just good to see, of course, LCI are coming forward and taking advantage of this.

As you mentioned, I mean, they are going to have to demonstrate performance to be able to to recoup the incentive and it'll happen over time.

So, it's it's ten years of kind of, oversight and prompting and incentivizing, to act actually for them to be able to to get the the full grant.

But I think it's it's it's good that we're moving forward.

This is the first one.
01:03:00
And I appreciate your work on this.

I agree, that it's helpful to know how it will be time lined out, just for us and for obviously others to know.

So, thank you for your work.

Alright.
Item 38 - Motion to approve proposed order
01:03:13
I'll entertain a motion to approve the proposed order.
01:03:16
So moved.

Second.

I have a motion to second.

All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.
01:03:19
Opposed?

Motion prevails.

Alright.

We do not have a closed session today.

So unless anyone has anything else no?
01:03:27
Alright.
Item 51 - Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting
01:03:27
This meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas is hereby adjourned.

Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order

Starts at 00:00:05

Commission Counsel Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda

Starts at 00:02:16

Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda

Starts at 00:02:45

1 - Public comment for matters that are under the Commission’s jurisdiction, but not specifically posted on this agenda

Starts at 00:02:53

3 - Docket No. 53459; SOAH Docket No. 473-23-10573.WS – Application of Undine Texas LLC to Amend Its CCN and to Decertify a Portion of Porter SUD’s CCN in

Starts at 00:03:00

3 - Motion to remand to Docket Management

Starts at 00:04:06

4 - Docket No. 54633 – Complaint of Lois Dawson Against City of Bartlett

Starts at 00:04:20

4 - Motion to reject PFD

Starts at 00:05:04

5 - Docket No. 54617; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-13127 – Application of Texas Water Utilities, L.P. & Southern Horizons Development, Inc. for STM of Facilitie

Starts at 00:05:21

5 - Motion to admit map certificate and tariff filed by Texas Water Utilities

Starts at 00:06:30

5 - Shelah Cisneros' addendum to the second motion

Starts at 00:07:07

5 - Motion to approve order on rehearing

Starts at 00:07:49

6 - Docket No. 55392 – Application of Paul H. Krebs d/b/a K Lake Water System and Padok Utility and East Houston Utilities, Inc. for STM of Facilities and

Starts at 00:08:07

6 - Motion to approve proposed order

Starts at 00:08:57

7 - Docket No. 55455 – Application of City of Fort Worth to Amend Its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity and to Decertify a Portion of Benbrook Wate

Starts at 00:09:11

7 - Motion to approve proposed order

Starts at 00:10:20

10 - Docket No. 56330; SOAH Docket No. 473-24-23993.WS – Complaint of HMI – Wills Point, LLC Against the City of Wills Point

Starts at 00:10:39

10 - Motion to approve proposed order

Starts at 00:11:17

12 - Docket No. 56573 – Complaint of Maurice Walker Against Avanath Blunn Creek, LLC

Starts at 00:11:33

12 - Chairman Gleeson & Commissioner's thoughts

Starts at 00:11:46

12 - Motion to remand to Docket Management

Starts at 00:13:28

17 - Docket No. 57409 – Complaint of Kimberly Coffee Against Undine Texas, LLC

Starts at 00:13:47

17 - Commissioner Jackson lays out her memo

Starts at 00:14:04

17 - Motion to direct OPDM to draft an order consistent with memo

Starts at 00:14:27

18 - Docket No. 57445 – Petition of Heritage Cardiff SPE, LLC Appealing the Decision of Northwest Harris County Municipal Utility District No. 36 to Change

Starts at 00:14:47

18 - Motion to approve proposed order

Starts at 00:15:35

22 - Docket No. 56164 – Application of City of Caldwell, Texas to Transfer Megawatts of Load to ERCOT

Starts at 00:15:51

22 - Motion to approve proposed order

Starts at 00:16:24

24 - Docket No. 57057; SOAH Docket No. 473-25-01921 – Application of AEP Texas Inc. for Approval of a System Resiliency Plan

Starts at 00:16:40

24 - Commissioner Hjaltman lays out her memo

Starts at 00:16:59

24 - Motion for OPDM to draft an order consistent with memo

Starts at 00:17:43

25 - Docket No. 57115; SOAH Docket No. 473-25-02531 – Joint Application of the City of San Antonio, Acting by & through the City Public Service Board (CPS

Starts at 00:18:01

25 - Commissioner's thoughts

Starts at 00:19:34

25 - Motion to modify PFD & select modified Route Y to substitute Segment 62-Mod 2 for Segment 62

Starts at 00:20:55

27 - Docket No. 57271; SOAH Docket No. 473-25-05323 – Application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC for Determination of System Restoration Costs

Starts at 00:21:23

27 - Commissioner Hjaltman lays out her memo

Starts at 00:21:47

27 - Deputy Executive Director Barksdale English - Guidance on rulemaking

Starts at 00:22:48

27 - Motion to approve proposed order

Starts at 00:24:11

28 - Docket No. 57441 – Petition for Consolidated Permian Basin Reliability Plan CCN Filing Authorization

Starts at 00:24:31

28 - Motion to approve proposed order

Starts at 00:25:08

2 - Docket No. 53373; SOAH Docket No. 473-23-10572.WS – Complaint of Andrew and and Sarah Fossum Against Undine Development, LLC

Starts at 00:25:38

2 - Commissioner Jackson's thoughts

Starts at 00:26:05

2 - Motion to adopt in part & reject in part the proposal for decision

Starts at 00:28:00

33 - Project No. 55999 – Reports of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas

Starts at 00:28:26

33 - Kristi Hobbs - ERCOT - Introduction

Starts at 00:29:13

33 - David Kezell - ERCOT - Update on RMR contracts and outage work

Starts at 00:30:15

33 - Kristi Hobbs - ERCOT - Updating of models

Starts at 00:32:24

33 - David Kezell - ERCOT - Delays

Starts at 00:33:50

33 - Commissioner's thoughts on ERCOT's updates

Starts at 00:34:14

33 - Nathan Bigbee - ERCOT - Update on Life Cycle agreement

Starts at 00:36:08

35 - Project No. 55718 – Reliability Plan for the Permian Basin under PURA §39.167

Starts at 00:40:45

35 - Julia Wagner - Commission Staff - Outlines memo

Starts at 00:41:13

35 - Chairman Gleeson & Commissioner's thoughts

Starts at 00:43:37

35 - Motion to approve proposed order

Starts at 00:51:07

36 - Project No. 56000 – Firm Fuel Supply Service

Starts at 00:51:29

36 - Tyler Nicholson - Commission Staff - Memo concerning timelines

Starts at 00:51:49

36 - Chairman Gleeson & Commissioner's thoughts

Starts at 00:53:04

36 - Rebecca Zerwas - ERCOT - Support for Option 2

Starts at 00:55:22

37 - Project No. 56896 – Texas Energy Fund In-ERCOT Loan Program Reports and Filings

Starts at 00:56:11

37 - Traci Tolle - Commission Staff - Recommendation of 4 applications

Starts at 00:56:26

37 - Commissioners & Chairman Gleeson's thoughts

Starts at 00:58:33

37 - Motion to approve proposed order

Starts at 01:00:42

38 - Project No. 57937 – Texas Energy Fund Completion Bonus Grant Program Reports and Filings

Starts at 01:00:55

38 - Glynis Vitanza - Commission Staff - Recommendation on issuing notice of eligibility for completion of program, with delegation to Executive Director

Starts at 01:01:14

38 - Motion to approve proposed order

Starts at 01:03:13

51 - Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting

Starts at 01:03:27

Commissioner Memos

Control	Item	Filing Date	Party	Description
53459	139	April 23, 2025	PUC OPDM	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
54617	167	April 23, 2025	PUC OPDM	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
54633	41	April 23, 2025	PUC OPDM	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
55392	53	April 23, 2025	PUC OPDM	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
55455	43	April 23, 2025	PUC OPDM	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
56164	68	April 23, 2025	PUC OPDM	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
56330	84	April 23, 2025	PUC OPDM	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
57115	276	April 23, 2025	PUC OPDM	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
57271	137	April 23, 2025	PUC OPDM	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM AND COMMISSIONER COURTNEY HJALTMAN
57441	45	April 23, 2025	PUC OPCM	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
57445	23	April 23, 2025	PUC OPDM	CHAIRMAN THOMAS GLEESON MEMORANDUM
57057	105	April 23, 2025	PUC OPDM	CHAIRMAN COURTNEY HJALTMAN MEMORANDUM