04/25/2024 09:30 AM
Advertisement
Current Time 0:00
Duration 1:12:33
Loaded: 0.00%
Stream Type LIVE
Remaining Time 1:12:33
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
    00:00:02
    This meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas
  • 00:00:05
    will come to order. To consider matters that have been
  • 00:00:07
    duly posted with the Secretary of State for today
  • 00:00:10
    April 25, 2024. Good morning Shelah. Good morning
  • 00:00:14
    Connie. Morning Barksdale. Shelah, will you walk us
  • 00:00:17
    through the Consent Agenda please? Yes. Good morning Commissioners.
  • 00:00:21
    First, the Chairman filed a memo in Project No.
  • 00:00:24
    52761. Stating that he is recused from Item No.
  • Item 0.1 - Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel requests update to Consent Agenda
    00:00:28
    2 on the agenda. There is one item on the Consent
  • 00:00:32
    Agenda, Item No. 9. That with your permission
  • 00:00:36
    OP M recommends that you actually take that Item
  • 00:00:40
    up rather than consent it. Late yesterday, we became
  • 00:00:43
    aware of some edits that we would recommend. And if
  • 00:00:45
    your permission we'll take that item up, and I'll walk
  • 00:00:48
    you through those edits for that item. And those are
  • 00:00:50
    I think, just kind of perfecting amendments, non-substantive amendments. Correct
  • Item 0.1 - Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda for Section I
    00:00:53
    Okay. So with that change by individual ballot, the following
  • 00:00:58
    Items were placed on the Consent Agenda. Items 1, 3-
  • Item 0.1 - Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda for Section I
    00:01:02
    8 and 10-12. Perfect. I'd entertain a motion
  • 00:01:07
    to approve the consent agenda described by Shelah.
  • 00:01:11
    Second. And before, one other thing with your permission Commissioners.
  • 00:01:16
    I'm sorry, go ahead with the vote. I jumped too early.
  • 00:01:19
    I have a motion and second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed.
  • 00:01:24
    Motion prevails. Great. So um, these items reflect the dockets on the
  • 00:01:28
    agenda and for those who regularly watch our open meetings.
  • 00:01:31
    They may have noticed that for a while now, the Commission
  • 00:01:34
    has not been placing rules or projects on its Consent
  • 00:01:37
    Agenda as we used to. Um and that will continue because
  • 00:01:40
    public comment is allowed for those items that are
  • 00:01:43
    listed in Part 2 of the agenda. That includes rules,
  • 00:01:46
    projects and standing items. And the Commission wants
  • 00:01:49
    to consider public comment before it takes action on
  • 00:01:52
    those items. However, if no one from the public has
  • 00:01:55
    signed up to speak for any of the items in Section
  • 00:01:57
    II of the agenda and they are eligible for consent.
  • 00:02:00
    Approving multiple items by a single vote instead of
  • 00:02:03
    calling them up individually is a long standing practice
  • 00:02:06
    of the Commission to efficiently run the meetings.
  • 00:02:09
    So going forward for those items that have been voted
  • 00:02:12
    on by individual ballot and for which no one has signed
  • 00:02:15
    up to speak. I'll identify those during the meeting.
  • 00:02:18
    And the Commission can then take a vote of those items,
  • 00:02:21
    if you wish. Yeah, so we've been working on this for
  • 00:02:24
    a while just to kind of run the meetings more efficiently.
  • 00:02:27
    To comply with the statute to allow people to talk
  • 00:02:30
    on projects. You know, I think we still need to be
  • 00:02:32
    prepared to talk if anyone comes and signs up. But
  • 00:02:34
    if no one signs up, I'm comfortable consenting those
  • 00:02:37
    items as well, as long as you are. And prepared to listen.
  • Item 0.1 - Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda for Section II
    00:02:41
    Of course, always. Yes. Okay. All right. Well then for
  • 00:02:46
    this for today's agenda by individual ballot, the
  • 00:02:49
    following items in Section II of the agenda were placed
  • 00:02:51
    on the Consent Agenda. Items 14, 18, 23 through 26. Thank
  • Item 0.1 - Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda for Section II
    00:02:59
    you, Shelah. I would entertain a motion to approve
  • 00:03:02
    the items just discussed by Shelah. So moved.
  • 00:03:07
    I second. I have a motion and second. All those in favor,
  • 00:03:09
    say aye. Aye. Opposed. The motion prevails. Thank you. All
  • 00:03:13
    right. So we'll, we'll start with the clean up on Item
  • 00:03:16
    No. 9. Shelah, will you lay out Item No. 9
  • 00:03:18
    please? Yes sir.
  • Item 9 - Petition for emergency order appointing temporary manager to Blue Cereus, LLC
    00:03:22
    Item No. 9 is Docket No. 56171. This is a
  • 00:03:26
    petition for an emergency order appointing a temporary
  • 00:03:29
    manager to Blue Cereus, LLC. Before you is a draft
  • 00:03:33
    order to affirm the emergency order. As I mentioned
  • 00:03:36
    late yesterday, we identified two minor edits. The
  • 00:03:39
    OPDM would recommend for the final order and with
  • 00:03:42
    your permission, I'll just walk through those right
  • 00:03:44
    now. The first one is for Finding of Fact No. 3.
  • 00:03:50
    The public water system identification number and that
  • 00:03:54
    finding that ends in the last two digits 64. Has a
  • 00:03:57
    typo and it should be 63.
  • 00:04:01
    And the second change that we recommend is to Conclusion
  • 00:04:05
    of Law No. 8 Conclusion of Law 8 has the
  • 00:04:09
    following language as a portion of the Conclusion
  • 00:04:13
    of Law. Wholesale water suppliers have expressed their
  • 00:04:17
    intent to discontinue Blue Cereus' sole source of raw
  • 00:04:21
    water. And in checking the evidentiary record, we did
  • 00:04:25
    not see support for the raw water portion. We would
  • 00:04:28
    just delete the word raw and leave it as the wholesale
  • 00:04:32
    water suppliers that express their intent to disconnect
  • 00:04:35
    Blue Cereus' sole source of water. I think, I think
  • 00:04:40
    those are good catches. Um you know, we want these
  • 00:04:42
    orders to be, you know, correct. And so I'm in favor
  • 00:04:45
    of modifying the order if you are. I'm good with it.
  • Item 9 - Motion to modify the order consistent with Commission's discussion
    00:04:48
    Yes. I am as well. Okay. Then I would entertain a motion
  • 00:04:51
    to modify the order consistent with our discussion.
  • 00:04:53
    So moved. Second. I have a motion and second. All those in
  • 00:04:57
    favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed. The motion prevails. Okay. So the
  • 00:05:02
    only other contested case we have is Item No. 2.
  • 00:05:08
    And I will pass the gavel over to Commissioner Cobos
  • 00:05:11
    as I am recused from Item No. 2. So Shelah,
  • Item 2 - Application of CSWR-Texas Utility Operating Company, LLC for authority to change rates
    00:05:13
    you lay that out please? Yes. Item 2 is Docket No.
  • 00:05:16
    54565. This is the application of CSWR-Texas Utility
  • 00:05:22
    Operating Company, LLC for authority to change rates.
  • 00:05:25
    At the March 7th meeting, the Commission adopted in
  • 00:05:28
    part and rejected in part the proposal for decision
  • 00:05:30
    from SOAH. And requested that Commission Staff conduct
  • 00:05:33
    a number run consistent with the Commission's decisions
  • 00:05:36
    at the meeting. Commission Staff filed a revised number
  • 00:05:39
    run on April 12th and CSWR filed a response on April
  • 00:05:42
    16th. And Commissioner Cobos filed a memo in this docket.
  • Item 2 - Commissioner Cobos lays out her memo
    00:05:46
    Thank you, Shelah. So my memo sets forth the clarification
  • 00:05:50
    regarding the rate making rate base. Essentially that
  • 00:05:53
    for each system that's acquired through the fair market
  • 00:05:56
    value process. That the number one include the rate
  • 00:05:58
    making rate base, um approved by the Commission. In
  • 00:06:02
    the underlying STM proceeding. And um would recommend
  • 00:06:06
    that Commission cadam direct Commission staff to rerun
  • 00:06:09
    the, the number run. To include the appropriate um,
  • 00:06:12
    rate base rate making rate base.
  • 00:06:17
    Sounds good to me. I'm good with it. Thank you. Okay.
  • Item 2 - Motion to adopt clarifications set forth in Commissioner Cobos' memo
    00:06:21
    Well, I would move to adopt the clarification set forth
  • 00:06:25
    in my memo. Direct cam to direct Commission Staff to
  • 00:06:29
    update the number run pursuant to the clarification
  • 00:06:31
    set forth in the memo. And direct OPDM to draft a final
  • 00:06:35
    order consistent with the Commission's decision in
  • 00:06:37
    the docket.
  • 00:06:40
    Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye.
  • 00:06:44
    All right. And that concludes the contested case portion
  • 00:06:47
    of the agenda. And I will hand the gavel back over to
  • Item 13 - Shelah Cisneros confirms there are no Public Comments
    00:06:49
    Chairman Gleeson. Thank you, Commissioner Cobos. Shelah,
  • 00:06:53
    on Item 13. Did anyone sign up to speak on any of
  • 00:06:56
    the items that weren't consented? No, sir. No one signed
  • 00:06:59
    up for Item 13 or for any of the items on the
  • 00:07:02
    remaining portion of the agenda. Perfect. All right,
  • 00:07:05
    so Item 14 was consented. I don't have anything on
  • 00:07:07
    15 and six on 15 or 16. What I'd like to do
  • 00:07:13
    on the electric portion is go ahead and bring up Item
  • 00:07:15
    22 first, if that's all right with everybody. The, uh
  • 00:07:19
    the Texas Energy Fund Completion Bonus. I think we
  • 00:07:22
    we may need some work done to give staff time to draft
    EditCreate clip
  • Item 22 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 53298
    00:07:26
    language on this. So um, I would call up Item No.
  • 00:07:30
    22, Project No. 55812 - Texas Energy Fund Completion
  • 00:07:34
    Bonus Grant Program.
  • 00:07:37
    Good morning Staff. Good morning Chairman Gleeson. Good
  • 00:07:39
    morning Commissioners. David Gordon for Commission
  • 00:07:41
    Staff. So staff filed a memo yesterday and I also filed
  • 00:07:46
    a memo. My memo was concerning the two issues that
  • 00:07:50
    we discussed at the last open meeting. That I think
  • 00:07:52
    we all agreed we needed some more discussion on. So
  • 00:07:55
    that explains where I came out. So David, why don't
  • 00:07:58
    you kind of weigh everything out and then we can discuss
  • 00:08:01
    the memo and then discuss the broader rule. Yes. Thank
  • Item 22 - Commission Staff's David Gordon on additions to Chairman Gleeson's memo
    00:08:04
    you, Chairman. As you said, the last meeting we had
  • 00:08:07
    two lingering issues to discuss the availability reliability
  • 00:08:11
    factor and whether to include the expansion of new
  • 00:08:14
    generation resources at existing sites. You've addressed
  • 00:08:17
    both of those in your memo. Staff also filed a memo
  • 00:08:21
    last night for some technical cleanup changes. That
  • 00:08:23
    uh was distributed to your offices and we would recommend
  • 00:08:26
    the inclusion of those in an adoption order. We have
  • 00:08:31
    read your memo and we believe that we can implement
  • 00:08:35
    language that effectuates uh those two pieces. We are
  • 00:08:39
    also here and available to talk to any of you about
  • 00:08:43
    other components of the rule or how we might incorporate
  • 00:08:46
    these aspects. I will note that um our conception of
  • 00:08:52
    your direction in the memo. Would be to make an allowance
  • 00:08:57
    for completion bonus grant for the addition and new
  • 00:09:01
    construction of generation resources at existing facilities.
  • 00:09:06
    So that would be the standard. These are generation
  • 00:09:10
    resources that would go through the ERCOT uh planning
  • 00:09:13
    process and up here on a CDR. And then once we
  • 00:09:17
    did that, we would treat them just like new facilities.
  • 00:09:21
    Both the PRF and ARF factors would apply to
  • 00:09:25
    them. As for the availability reliability factor,
  • 00:09:29
    we believe we can incorporate that as well. By including
  • 00:09:33
    a mechanism whereby if a generation resource receives
  • 00:09:37
    an ARF score of 0.9 to 1.0. That would in effect
  • 00:09:44
    equal an ARF score of 1 for that generation resource.
  • 00:09:49
    So they would not be penalized within that range. Any
  • 00:09:52
    ARF score with that was less than 0.9. Would then follow
  • 00:09:57
    the curve that we set in our recommended adoption order.
  • 00:10:03
    Yeah. So I, I think that properly lays out my thoughts.
  • 00:10:06
    I will say I, I did give consideration to whether or
  • 00:10:08
    not the 10 hour allowance. If whether or not we should
  • 00:10:12
    move the curve out. And I think through the discussions
  • 00:10:15
    I had with all the market participants and with staff.
  • 00:10:17
    I'm comfortable with, with having the, the curve at
  • 00:10:21
    0.9 reflect what staff's recommendation was. And, and
  • 00:10:25
    all the way down the curve. So,
  • 00:10:28
    do you all have any thoughts on, on the lay out or
  • Item 22 - Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on memo
    00:10:30
    my memo? No. I think um I'm in agreement with the,
  • 00:10:34
    the two items you laid out. I think um ultimately on
  • 00:10:37
    the expansion piece. That was one that we're kind of
  • 00:10:41
    trying to slice and dice last open meeting. And um
  • 00:10:44
    I think it takes into account the practical realities
  • 00:10:46
    of generation development. It's how a lot of, you know
  • 00:10:48
    by Commissioner Glotfelty in my own experience in the
  • 00:10:50
    past. Ultimately, I think it sounds like, you know
  • 00:10:54
    you're just going after new construction. And how you
  • 00:10:57
    extrapolate what's new out of an expanded facility
  • 00:11:00
    is through the registration of those facilities. As
  • 00:11:02
    a separate RE with ERCOT, is that correct? That's correct.
  • 00:11:06
    Okay. So I'm comfortable with your approach on expansions.
  • 00:11:10
    The ARF/PRF I think that's a fair reasonable approach
  • 00:11:14
    to this calculation. As we want to incent planned maintenance
  • 00:11:18
    outages and um still ensure that we're getting high
  • 00:11:22
    performance.
  • 00:11:25
    Chairman,
  • 00:11:27
    could I just ask Commissioner Cobos a question? I think
  • 00:11:30
    I heard you say that it would require registration
  • 00:11:34
    of a new RE, a resource entity. Is that, did I hear
  • 00:11:37
    you say that or did I mishear you? Yeah. Well, that's
  • 00:11:39
    what I understood based on the briefings of staff is
  • 00:11:41
    how you would extrapolate. You know, like if you're
  • 00:11:43
    upgrading. You're building a new CT, if you're building
  • 00:11:47
    a new steam turbine and you're upgrading a steam turbine.
  • 00:11:50
    What are you getting a completion bonus for? And how
  • 00:11:52
    do you extrapolate what facilities from upgrades, refurbished
  • 00:11:56
    vs. new? And that's what I thought I understood.
  • 00:12:00
    I think, excuse me. I think the way staff is conceptualizing
  • 00:12:04
    this. Is, is to require registration of the asset as
  • 00:12:08
    a generation resource and not require the entity to
  • 00:12:12
    register a new resource entity.Okay. So the resource entity
  • 00:12:16
    is a registration type for the company and the generation
  • 00:12:20
    resources of registration type for the actual physical
  • 00:12:22
    asset. Okay. So the same RE, same resource entity could have
  • 00:12:28
    multiple, multiply registered assets. Okay. Under that individual
  • 00:12:34
    resource entity. Okay. Yeah. And that, and that was the intent.
  • 00:12:37
    Sorry, I misheard you. They changed the language to
  • 00:12:40
    be a generation resource and that's, that's how we
  • 00:12:42
    went. Okay, and that's fine. The point, my point is. Is
  • 00:12:46
    that it's going to be handled to the registration process.
  • 00:12:49
    And that's how you extrapolate, you know which facilities
  • 00:12:52
    are getting the completion bonus. That's right. Thank
  • Item 22 - Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on memo
    00:12:54
    you for the clarification. No, thank you. I would say I'm
  • 00:12:58
    appreciative of your memo. It addresses the very two
  • 00:13:01
    issues that I brought up last meeting and the meeting
  • 00:13:04
    before. So I, I think that you have done a good job
  • 00:13:07
    laying them out and I'm totally supportive. I do have
  • 00:13:10
    one question and that is. It came to my attention that
  • 00:13:16
    the definition of assessed hours defines peak net load
  • 00:13:21
    as gross load minus wind solar and storage. Have we
  • 00:13:25
    have we made that decision that storage is taken out
  • 00:13:28
    of the net peak load or is just wind and solar? That's
  • 00:13:33
    kind of the way that I've been thinking about it because
  • 00:13:35
    they are non dispatchable resources in total. So I
  • 00:13:38
    was just, I thought I'd ask that question. Yes. Thank
  • 00:13:40
    you, Commissioner Glotfelty. This definition of assessed
  • 00:13:44
    hours is meant to address peak load that needs to be
  • 00:13:48
    served by dispatchable thermal generation. Because those
  • 00:13:51
    are the types of units that are eligible for the program.
  • 00:13:54
    Got it. It's a good clarification. Thank you.
  • Item 22 - Commissioner Jackson's thoughts on memo
    00:13:58
    I'm very much in agreement with um your memo and your
  • 00:14:00
    approach. And I think um where we landed is something
  • 00:14:04
    that is going to uh to very much benefit the grid.
  • 00:14:08
    Uh what we're looking for is new dispatchable generation.
  • 00:14:12
    And I think this um provision and allowing expansions
  • 00:14:15
    and existing facilities very much meets that um that
  • 00:14:20
    expectation. Again, 100 megawatts is the threshold.
  • 00:14:25
    I think another really good add and if you will kind
  • 00:14:29
    of modification during this kind of round of review.
  • 00:14:32
    Is that focus on the individual asset. I mean not
  • 00:14:36
    only in, you know, how we define what the expansion
  • 00:14:41
    facility is and focusing in on that individual asset.
  • 00:14:46
    But also how we are actually applying the reliability
  • 00:14:50
    factor and the performance factor. Again, focused on
  • 00:14:55
    that individual asset. And then all of the individual
  • 00:14:58
    assets are added together to actually create the bonus.
  • 00:15:02
    I think that was a good clarification there. Very much
  • 00:15:06
    in agreement of the 10 hour, if you will grace period.
  • 00:15:09
    We heard a lot from uh from operators. Who had some
  • 00:15:13
    concerns about the need to be able to take the planned
  • 00:15:17
    maintenance. Very much want to continue to have
  • 00:15:20
    this as, you know, a very high standard. That folks need
  • 00:15:24
    to meet and keep that in mind when they are designing
  • 00:15:28
    their new facilities. Particularly from a reliability
  • 00:15:31
    standpoint. But I think this very much um you know
  • 00:15:35
    helps to address that by allowing the 10 hours. And
  • 00:15:39
    then again as you mentioned, kind of jumping back
  • 00:15:41
    on that curve. So I think both of these are, are very
  • 00:15:44
    good adds. And I just would like to commend staff on
  • 00:15:47
    the great work that they've done on kind of getting
  • 00:15:50
    this hopefully over the finish line. And, you know, not only for
  • 00:15:54
    the bonus piece but also for the loan piece. So I think
  • 00:15:57
    we've got a great product moving forward. And you know
  • 00:16:00
    something that's going to really help us get what we're
  • 00:16:03
    after. Which is more dispatchable generation quickly
  • 00:16:06
    for Texas. Yeah, no. I, I agree. Staff did an amazing
  • 00:16:11
    job on this. I want to thank all the market participants
  • 00:16:13
    who took our, our words to heart. To come meet with
  • 00:16:17
    us over the last two weeks. I'm sure your office was
  • 00:16:19
    like mine. We had a lot of calls. A lot of, a
  • 00:16:21
    lot of meetings about a lot of input on this policy.
  • 00:16:24
    And I think we've struck the right balance of, you
  • 00:16:26
    know, matching the policy to the operational realities
  • 00:16:29
    but also meeting the intent of the Legislature. So
  • 00:16:32
    I think this has come out in a, in a really positive
  • 00:16:34
    way. So David, you've heard the discussion. I know
  • 00:16:38
    we didn't have draft language here. So, you know, my
  • 00:16:42
    hope would be we could get this over the finish line
  • 00:16:45
    today. So I think at this point, if you all need time
  • 00:16:47
    to draft language to circulate and file, so we have
  • 00:16:50
    something to look at. I'd ask you to go through that
  • Item 22 - Commission Staff's David Smeltzer confirms staff to bring back clarification language for approval
    00:16:53
    I think that's right. Yeah. I think staffs are ready
  • 00:16:55
    to go do that. And I think this is the, this is
  • 00:16:56
    the twitties of clarifications. But I think on the, the
  • 00:16:59
    language that staff was considering in response to
  • 00:17:02
    your memo. They have it returning to the normal curve at
  • 00:17:04
    0.89. And I think I heard you say 0.9 from the last. But
  • 00:17:08
    I assume that's not a nuance that you're stressed out
  • 00:17:11
    about. That's correct. Yeah, 0.89. So, yeah. The first 10 hours
  • 00:17:14
    yes, that's correct. Thank you. I think if that is
  • 00:17:19
    the direction of the Commission. Then we would just
  • 00:17:21
    need a vote to adopt the staff recommendation as amended
  • 00:17:25
    by the memo that we filed last night. And also as amended
  • 00:17:29
    by the changes instructed in your memorandum of yesterday.
  • 00:17:33
    Okay. So Shelah, is it our normal process to, to move forward
  • 00:17:38
    with a vote at this point? And then have staff do the
  • 00:17:42
    the change or do we typically wait to review the change
  • Item 22 - Shelah Cisneros recommends voting after language is reviewed
    00:17:46
    before we adopt the rule? I would recommend that the
  • 00:17:49
    vote after you have a chance to review the language
  • 00:17:52
    Okay.
  • 00:17:57
    So, and I guess why don't we, we'll work through the
  • 00:18:00
    agenda, and then we can, we can call this back up. And
  • 00:18:02
    if you don't think you've had enough time. We can always
  • 00:18:05
    bring this back to the to the May 2nd open meeting.
  • 00:18:07
    I know our hope was to get this done before the notice
  • 00:18:10
    of intent to apply period began. But I think the, the
  • 00:18:13
    folks have heard our discussion know directionally
  • 00:18:15
    where we're headed. So that should be okay. Yeah, let
  • 00:18:17
    us take it, take it back to the shop and see how
  • 00:18:19
    the meeting progresses. But don't, don't adjourn without
  • 00:18:22
    letting us know please. Got it. All right. Thanks
  • 00:18:24
    y'all. Appreciate it. Thank you.
  • Item 17 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55999
    00:18:28
    Okay, so we will go back to Item No. 17. That's Project
  • 00:18:33
    No. 55999-Reports of the Electric Reliability
  • 00:18:37
    Council of Texas. There were some a couple of filings
  • 00:18:40
    made in this, in this project. So I'd ask ERCOT if you
  • 00:18:45
    all want to come up and staff.
  • 00:18:54
    If.
  • 00:19:00
    (silence)
  • 00:19:02
    I can sit up.
  • 00:19:06
    So I think we had three filings: the South Texas mitigation
  • 00:19:11
    weatherization program update and then the RMR/MRA proposal.
  • 00:19:18
    So however, y'all want to start. Chad if, if you
  • 00:19:20
    like to start or Harika? Maybe the easiest one is the
  • 00:19:24
    weatherization update and see if there's any questions.
  • 00:19:27
    We made that filing from talking to Commissioner Jackson.
  • 00:19:30
    Just to kind of give a an update, a holistic overview
  • 00:19:32
    of the weatherization program that's been very successful.
  • 00:19:35
    Under uh Kristi Hobbs's team with those inspectors
  • 00:19:38
    out there on, on the ground. And so obviously welcome
  • 00:19:41
    any feedback or questions or comments on that.
  • 00:19:47
    I, I appreciate the information. I mean, we, we heard
  • 00:19:49
    Kristi's presentation at the ERCOT Board meeting.
  • 00:19:51
    It's, it's a robust. The program is working well and
  • Item 17 - Commissioner Jackson's thoughts on inspectors and weatherization
    00:19:55
    appreciate all the statistics. I think what you're
  • 00:19:58
    referring to is. You know, I've had the opportunity
  • 00:20:01
    to go out and as many of us have and tour some
  • 00:20:04
    of our power plants. And um, you know, we always ask
  • 00:20:07
    about weatherization. And obviously it is about installing
  • 00:20:12
    facilities, but it's also about the inspections. And
  • 00:20:15
    what has kind of been communicated to me is the depth
  • 00:20:18
    of understanding of the inspectors. And almost like
  • 00:20:22
    a night and day approach than maybe what they had seen
  • 00:20:27
    in the past. Inspectors who come out and first of all
  • 00:20:31
    are knowledgeable. Many of them kind of having been
  • 00:20:33
    boots on the ground themselves, operators. And um
  • 00:20:37
    knowing exactly what to pinpoint and to go look at.
  • 00:20:41
    And then the other comment that has come back. Has been
  • 00:20:45
    that some of the suggestions that they made in looking
  • 00:20:48
    at the facilities were very valuable and something
  • 00:20:51
    that they went on to implement. So I think this is
  • 00:20:54
    you know, kind of what we expect. And we, we'd like
  • 00:20:57
    to see in terms of, you know, a best practice in terms
  • 00:21:01
    of a, you know, a compliance type program. Is that not
  • 00:21:06
    only are you looking at it from the number of inspections
  • 00:21:09
    that you do. But also the value that you get with each
  • 00:21:12
    one of the inspections. And so we've gotten some very
  • 00:21:15
    positive feedback. It's something that people feel
  • 00:21:17
    is valued that they are working, you know, in conjunction
  • 00:21:22
    with the inspector. And that they're very much getting
  • 00:21:25
    the kind of information that's helping them. To be,
  • 00:21:28
    you know, even better as they move forward into their
  • 00:21:31
    weatherization. Some of the facilities had, you know
  • 00:21:35
    taken the initiative to identify, you know, key areas.
  • 00:21:39
    That they wanted to make sure that they could monitor
  • 00:21:42
    on an ongoing real-time basis. And it actually put
  • 00:21:45
    in controls to monitor those specific parameters. Other
  • 00:21:50
    parameters within the site or those that were on like
  • 00:21:53
    a, like a checklist or a walk around list. So you can
  • 00:21:57
    definitely see that the work that we've done on weatherization.
  • 00:22:02
    And the work that we've done on the inspections is
  • 00:22:06
    paying off um because in my mind, because of the engagement.
  • 00:22:10
    And so I just, you know, like to thank you for the
  • 00:22:12
    work that you've done. And continue to, to see you
  • 00:22:15
    know more and more of these, you know, good reports.
  • 00:22:18
    That kind of come back as we're out there in the field.
  • 00:22:25
    I'm good. All right. Sorry. So I think towards the end
  • 00:22:28
    of your filing. You, you talked about a new software
  • 00:22:30
    platform that, that you're gonna have to interact with
  • 00:22:32
    the market participants. So maybe you could just talk
  • 00:22:34
    through that uh because that was news to me. Yeah.
  • Item 17 - ERCOT's Woody Rickerson on new software platform
    00:22:36
    So we have uh, uh Woody Rickerson with ERCOT.
  • 00:22:41
    So we have used a more of a manual process up until
  • 00:22:44
    now. So we now we have a more automated platform uh
  • 00:22:47
    service now. It's similar to some of the other service
  • 00:22:50
    tickets that we use internally. We completed several
  • 00:22:53
    training sessions, but I think there were some ongoing
  • 00:22:55
    training sessions. This Summer will be the first fully
  • 00:22:59
    implementable time period. Where we use this, this uh. So
  • 00:23:04
    this will be the, the, the, the system that we use to
  • 00:23:07
    uh send out notices. They can send us attachments back.
  • 00:23:10
    It will be the communication platform going forward.
  • 00:23:12
    Be a lot better than, than what we were using before
  • 00:23:15
    a lot less manual work.
  • 00:23:18
    Perfect. So, yeah. I, I would just reiterate that
  • 00:23:22
    you know obviously the, the inspection framework that
  • 00:23:24
    that we're using is, is paying off. You know, paying
  • 00:23:28
    great dividends for, for the system. So thanks for
  • 00:23:30
    all the hard work. We we really appreciate it. Thank
  • Item 17 - ERCOT's Chad Seely on updated reports
    00:23:32
    you. Okay. The other two reports are related and the
  • 00:23:38
    difference is the timing of it. So the, the first report
  • 00:23:42
    dealing with the South Texas export import issue. Is
  • 00:23:46
    a continuation of our discussion with the Commission.
  • 00:23:48
    On whether the Commission would like us to proceed
  • 00:23:51
    forward to address some of the reliability risks that
  • 00:23:54
    we see for this upcoming Summer. And as the Commission
  • 00:23:58
    talked about at the, at the last open meeting from
  • 00:24:00
    our previous filing. There were a couple of mitigation
  • 00:24:03
    options that were recommended in our previous filing.
  • 00:24:07
    One is a request for proposal for either demand response
  • 00:24:11
    and or additional sources. That could be available in
  • 00:24:16
    the Summer time period to help alleviate some of the
  • 00:24:20
    risk if we get to that transmission constraint being
  • 00:24:23
    potentially overloaded. And so we've laid out a framework
  • 00:24:26
    talking to Commission Staff. Welcome any Commission
  • 00:24:29
    guidance. On uh whether the Commission wants us to, to
  • 00:24:32
    move forward with that. To start to dig deeper into
  • 00:24:36
    the request for proposal. This is a little bit different
  • 00:24:39
    than obviously what we did in October of last year.
  • 00:24:43
    And from those lessons learned where we are really
  • 00:24:45
    seeking guidance from the Commission. We learned a
  • 00:24:49
    lot going through that request for proposal. On how
  • 00:24:51
    to kind of frame up and, and measure other types of
  • 00:24:54
    sources besides just demand response. And we've characterized
  • 00:24:57
    some of that in the filing as well. So we do know
  • 00:25:00
    that there are resources that would be scheduled to
  • 00:25:03
    come on in the latter part of the, of the year. That
  • 00:25:06
    could potentially accelerate for example. Don't know
  • 00:25:08
    if they can or not. But that's something I think the
  • 00:25:11
    Commission should consider. We threw out an option
  • 00:25:14
    of ERS resources that aren't participating in those specific
  • 00:25:19
    focused hours. Maybe participating in other hours through
  • 00:25:23
    the Summer program as something that could be eligible.
  • 00:25:26
    Another option we threw out was settlement only generators.
  • 00:25:30
    As we know those exist, they obviously get right now
  • 00:25:33
    the load zone price. They have a qualified scheduling
  • 00:25:35
    entity. We would have a metric on whether they're really
  • 00:25:39
    responding during that time period or not. To exclude
  • 00:25:41
    them from the RFP. But if they're not, we're able to
  • 00:25:44
    have them offer into this. That would be another type
  • 00:25:46
    of solution. So again, looking for Commission guidance
  • 00:25:50
    as we uh obviously move forward. To try to develop a
  • 00:25:53
    request for proposal and, and the budget issue. We would
  • 00:25:56
    work with Commission Staff on that and bring back a
  • 00:25:59
    recommendation for the Commission on that as well.
  • 00:26:02
    Other things in the filing were focused on another
  • 00:26:06
    alternative dealing with the shadow price cap. We
  • 00:26:09
    kind of highlighted, you know what the cons and benefits
  • 00:26:11
    are of that. We could move forward with a protocol
  • 00:26:14
    change on an accelerated basis. If the Commission wanted
  • 00:26:17
    us to do that as well. Dynamically, dynamically rated
  • 00:26:21
    lines is another opportunity we're talking to the local
  • 00:26:25
    utilities there about. Some new software that could
  • 00:26:28
    provide value and whether they're able to procure that
  • 00:26:30
    and put that in place in time for the Summer. And then
  • 00:26:33
    the last thing we highlight in that filing. Was we want
  • 00:26:36
    to be very clear about the operator actions that would
  • 00:26:39
    be taken to relieve the overload. So the operation
  • 00:26:43
    procedure kind of lays out what those steps would be
  • 00:26:46
    if we get to the potential of overloading that constraint.
  • 00:26:50
    So those are kind of the four areas wrapped into that
  • 00:26:53
    South Texas filing. And then the second filing is really
  • 00:26:56
    kind of an extension of the same issue with the CPS
  • 00:26:59
    Energy Resources retiring in April of next year. It
  • 00:27:04
    does hit our RMR trigger to begin that process of the
  • 00:27:10
    RMR must run alternative. And something I would highlight
  • 00:27:13
    for the Commission. Is whether it's an RFP for the demand
  • 00:27:18
    response or these other sources. It would be very similar
  • 00:27:21
    for the must run alternative process too. So the must
  • 00:27:24
    run alternative process would be looking at demand
  • 00:27:27
    response solutions and these other options that we
  • 00:27:30
    laid out in our South Texas filing. So whatever direction
  • 00:27:33
    that the Commission gives us for the RFP for 2024. You
  • 00:27:39
    also have to think about the must run alternative
  • 00:27:41
    solutions under the RMR/MRA framework as well. And whether
  • 00:27:47
    you're including or excluding those type of opportunities
  • 00:27:50
    to look for the most cost effective solution to solve
  • 00:27:54
    the reliability problem. So Chad, maybe if you could
  • 00:27:57
    talk through. I know in your filing on the RMR, you
  • 00:28:00
    talked about a good cause exception to your to the
  • 00:28:03
    protocols. Can you kind of talk through the timeline
  • 00:28:05
    and, and why that's appropriate in your view? Yes.
  • 00:28:09
    Because CPS afforded us more time to deal with this
  • 00:28:13
    issue. They gave the notice of suspension of operations
  • 00:28:16
    in, in early March. They're not anticipating those
  • 00:28:18
    units to retire until the end of March 2025. And the
  • 00:28:24
    way in which the timeline was laid out in the Commission's
  • 00:28:27
    rules along with the protocols. It was kind of anticipated
  • 00:28:30
    that resources would come in at the end of that trigger
  • 00:28:34
    point of 150 days before they would be suspended or
  • 00:28:38
    decommissioned. But again, CPS giving us more time
  • 00:28:42
    allows us to be more strategic in how we move forward
  • 00:28:46
    with the must run alternative solution. Gather that
  • 00:28:49
    information to really do a cost benefit assessment.
  • 00:28:52
    Of is it better to keep the CPS units around or are
  • 00:28:57
    there other alternatives that could be available in
  • 00:28:59
    that April 2025 time frame for the board to evaluate.
  • 00:29:04
    At the end of the day the, the protocol requirements
  • 00:29:07
    are that the Board would evaluate all the solutions.
  • 00:29:11
    And determine from a cost benefit assessment what's
  • 00:29:14
    the most appropriate outcome. And there is a situation
  • 00:29:17
    where and this gets in kind of the loss of load probability
  • 00:29:20
    too. That you wouldn't procure anything or you would
  • 00:29:23
    procure less than what was necessary from the CPS units.
  • 00:29:28
    That's all codified in the protocols as far as that
  • 00:29:31
    cost benefit analysis. So I think conceptually, I'm
  • 00:29:35
    good. You know, we should take advantage of the extra
  • 00:29:37
    time we have that CPS has given us. I have talked to
  • 00:29:40
    Legal Staff just about, you know, since this was filed
  • 00:29:43
    you know, earlier this week. Maybe taking a little
  • 00:29:45
    time to just look at some of the legal requirements
  • 00:29:48
    of a good cause exception. As it pertains to our rules
  • 00:29:51
    and to the protocol. So I think in your filing, you
  • 00:29:54
    said you were fine. If, if we brought this back up at
  • 00:29:56
    the next open meeting. So I'd, I'd suggest that we
  • 00:29:59
    take the week. Let Legal Staff look at, at those requirements
  • 00:30:03
    and then bring this back up at the, at the next meeting.
  • 00:30:07
    But I mean generally, are you all okay with that direction.
  • 00:30:10
    And, and allowing them the extra time to take advantage
  • 00:30:12
    of the, the lead time that CPS gave us? Yeah, I think
  • 00:30:16
    it makes sense. You have sort of moving pieces in this
  • 00:30:20
    whole sort of situation in South Texas. And I think
  • 00:30:23
    because CPS gave us, you know, about a year's worth
  • 00:30:26
    of time to, to plan. I think it makes sense to um
  • 00:30:30
    look at it from a more macro level. And make sure we're
  • 00:30:33
    kind of positioning ourselves from a strategic standpoint.
  • 00:30:36
    To ensure we have reliability down there so. And
  • 00:30:41
    the other thing I highlighted in our filing. Was if
  • 00:30:43
    the Commission wants us to move forward with an RFP
  • 00:30:45
    for 2024. Try not to cause confusion in the solutions
  • 00:30:50
    that would be available for 2024 versus the 2025 timeframe.
  • 00:30:53
    And so being strategic on that initiative as
  • 00:30:57
    well. I think that's a good point. I don't think you'd
  • 00:30:59
    want to run them concurrently, you'd want to run them
  • 00:31:01
    consecutively so. I first of all, I want to say
  • 00:31:05
    I'm appreciative that y'all filed this memo. And uh
  • 00:31:08
    I think there was stakeholder Commission consternation,
  • 00:31:12
    Commissioner consternation. When you all went out with
  • 00:31:15
    the RFP last year on your own. So I think laying it
  • 00:31:19
    out like this was really a good precedent on, on the
  • 00:31:25
    way to do things. And, and I'm really appreciative
  • 00:31:27
    that you all did that. I, I do have a question about
  • 00:31:30
    one of the issues specifically. This probably goes
  • 00:31:32
    to Woody. And that is,
  • 00:31:37
    I didn't quite understand from the memo. If you're
  • 00:31:40
    seeking, are you seeking resources that are just in
  • 00:31:43
    the area of the constraint?
  • 00:31:47
    The reason why I ask this is because if the constraints
  • 00:31:51
    there. I think I've heard you say in the past that
  • 00:31:53
    any generator North of the constraint helps. It helps
  • 00:31:57
    reduce the flow of power coming up that constraint.
  • 00:32:02
    How do you distinguish between what's local and what's
  • 00:32:05
    in the entire Northern part of the state or is?
  • 00:32:10
    Well, I think we know where the constraint is and so
  • 00:32:12
    we can calculate shift factors to anybody that bids
  • 00:32:15
    in. So a
  • 00:32:18
    resource in far West Texas might have a less of a shift
  • 00:32:22
    factor than one in Austin or Central Texas. But you
  • 00:32:26
    still look at all of those, not just. We would certainly
  • 00:32:29
    look at all of them. That's what I wanted to make sure
  • 00:32:31
    of. Was that all of those, any demand response or any
  • 00:32:34
    new resource North of the constraint. That could solve
  • 00:32:37
    that constraint or provide some relief for that constraint.
  • 00:32:41
    All will be treated the same. Right. So you'd effectively
  • 00:32:44
    be looking at the like a net effectiveness of each
  • 00:32:48
    individual resources megawatts. Right, right. So a
  • 00:32:53
    10 Megawatt resource with 100% shift factor would be
  • 00:32:56
    better than 100 Megawatt resource with a 1% shift factor.
  • 00:33:00
    Right, right. And I think we wanted to highlight that
  • 00:33:04
    you know, because of this constraint. The closer the
  • 00:33:06
    megawatts are to it, the more valuable they are. And
  • 00:33:09
    so that goes into, you know, what is the cost? So 100
  • 00:33:13
    megawatts up in Dallas at a higher cost versus 100
  • 00:33:17
    megawatts or 10 megawatts closer to the constraint. That's
  • 00:33:21
    gonna all be part of the evaluation process. That's
  • 00:33:23
    good, that's good. And I had one other question
  • 00:33:26
    on the RMR issue. And that is, did you all look at
  • 00:33:31
    that through the transmission system in a voltage issue
  • 00:33:36
    or resource adequacy issue? Both. Both. But it was a
  • 00:33:40
    thermal line overload that made it be a RMR. It wasn't
  • 00:33:46
    voltage and it wasn't resource adequacy. It was thermal
  • 00:33:49
    line overload. Okay, and is that a different category or
  • 00:33:53
    is that a? That's kind of your traditional
  • 00:33:57
    like the greens bayou was a, was a thermal overload
  • 00:33:59
    as well. So those are, that's kind of what that's been.
  • 00:34:03
    Well, we have had to do RMRs that mostly been for
  • 00:34:06
    thermal overloads. And, and was there any degradation
  • 00:34:11
    of the voltage in the San Antonio area when they're
  • 00:34:14
    shut down? Not, no. Not, not I mean there would be
  • 00:34:19
    some, but if that wasn't a factor,
  • 00:34:23
    Okay. That's all I have, I'm supportive. I, I, I have some. Oh, go ahead.
  • 00:34:27
    Well, I just was saying. I appreciate the fact that you're
  • 00:34:29
    looking at this from both the short term and the long
  • 00:34:31
    term. And also the broad kind of look from a technical
  • 00:34:35
    standpoint in terms of looking at all of the opportunities.
  • 00:34:39
    And uh particularly within demand response, um all
  • 00:34:43
    solutions help and so would encourage that, as you
  • 00:34:46
    mentioned earlier. So um just to kind of add some more
  • 00:34:52
    to more specifically the um South Texas mitigation
  • 00:34:56
    measures that y'all propose in your filing. Um I know
  • 00:34:59
    we had this discussion last open meeting. I I'm, I'm
  • 00:35:01
    definitely fine with a um demand response RFP. I think
  • 00:35:06
    the fact that um the other capacity resource um portion
  • 00:35:13
    of the an RFP that y'all propose potentially. My
  • 00:35:18
    understanding is Commissioner Glotfelty was laying
  • 00:35:20
    out and, and getting clarification on. Is, you know
  • 00:35:23
    this is not like the other RFP. Where you just basically
  • 00:35:26
    surveyed the entire market and see what kind of plants
  • 00:35:28
    you can get in RFP. And this is more strategic based
  • 00:35:31
    on shift factors and the value that those mega megawatts
  • 00:35:34
    will provide to the constraint. So that, that, that
  • 00:35:38
    makes me feel a little bit better. In terms of because
  • 00:35:40
    I think the last time was, you know, we some of the
  • 00:35:42
    concerns that were raised. Were the impact of the competitive
  • 00:35:45
    wholesale market, right? Of bringing these capacity
  • 00:35:47
    large plants into um an RFP in a contract. This is
  • 00:35:53
    appears to be more strategic um in terms of, of really
  • 00:35:57
    pinpointing the constraint. And the three options y'all
  • 00:36:00
    laid out. I would like to just kind of visit with
  • 00:36:03
    y'all offline before the next open meeting. Just to
  • 00:36:05
    make sure I understand. Um you know what how it, it
  • 00:36:10
    would all work. With respect to the ERS and settlement
  • 00:36:13
    only but also with the generation ESR storage resources.
  • 00:36:16
    I mean, I've been sort of advocating for um getting
  • 00:36:20
    resources on the seam from San Antonio to Dallas to
  • 00:36:24
    help. Which obviously kind of lines up with the shift
  • 00:36:26
    factor proposal y'all approach that y'all have provided.
  • 00:36:29
    I would just, you know I, I wanna look at this from
  • 00:36:32
    a macro level too from the impact to the market
  • 00:36:36
    as well. But I just wanna get a better understanding
  • 00:36:38
    of the three categories y'all laid out. I think
  • 00:36:43
    that ultimately, I think. We're, we're gonna have to
  • 00:36:45
    come up with a budget and we don't really have precedent
  • 00:36:48
    for that. I know staff, our staff could work with
  • 00:36:52
    your staff, ERCOT staff. To develop ways of develop,
  • 00:36:56
    you know, coming up with a budget. But I think that
  • 00:36:58
    portion of the RFP, we're gonna need a little bit more
  • 00:37:02
    time than the next open meeting. Because that is gonna
  • 00:37:06
    be a little bit more nuanced, right? That's where the
  • 00:37:07
    rubber meets the road, the cost. So because we've had
  • 00:37:10
    no experience in developing a budget for an RFP. Y'all,
  • 00:37:13
    y'all had experience last time. I think there's
  • 00:37:16
    gonna need to be some engagement with our staff. To
  • 00:37:18
    figure out an approach on how. What are the ways of
  • 00:37:21
    you know, options on developing the budget. But that's
  • 00:37:24
    also driven by the type of resources. That you guys
  • 00:37:26
    are gonna go out and um look to acquire through the
  • 00:37:31
    uh RFP on a contractual basis. So I think that part
  • 00:37:35
    of the RFP process needs a little bit more time.
  • 00:37:38
    But uh you know ultimately I think, I think this the
  • 00:37:41
    plan to come back next meeting and let y'all know. If
  • 00:37:44
    we're good with demand response, demand response and
  • 00:37:46
    other capacity resources that may be feasible. It's
  • 00:37:50
    just the budgetary part that I'm just wondering if
  • 00:37:53
    we can get there next open meeting. So on the budget
  • 00:37:57
    yes, we are working with Commission Staff on that. And
  • 00:37:59
    Harika can, can add additional comments if she wants.
  • 00:38:02
    I, I think today it would be good to get some guidance
  • 00:38:05
    on the framework because we're heading into May. And
  • 00:38:11
    I think the goal here is to try to get something by
  • 00:38:15
    July 1st. That where you start to see that risk increase
  • 00:38:19
    on the South Texas export. And going out for an RFP
  • 00:38:22
    this is the similar constraint that we have even under
  • 00:38:25
    the existing protocols is the timing issue. To try to
  • 00:38:28
    get this out there and people to look at it and respond
  • 00:38:32
    with solutions. We would want to target to get this
  • 00:38:35
    RFP out in, in mid May. So that people have enough time
  • 00:38:41
    to evaluate it and submit their offers. And for ERCOT
  • 00:38:44
    to do its evaluation on the shift factor, the costs
  • 00:38:47
    the most optimum value to solving the solution. So
  • 00:38:51
    the Commission can provide guidance on not just the
  • 00:38:54
    demand response piece but adding starting to develop
  • 00:38:56
    more of the framework for these other sources. That's
  • 00:39:00
    what ERCOT would request today. Because we need our
  • 00:39:02
    teams to start to build out what that criteria looks
  • 00:39:05
    like. And we can continue to have the, obviously the
  • 00:39:08
    the conversation with you, Commissioner Cobos on our
  • 00:39:11
    thoughts around this. But it is those would be kind
  • 00:39:14
    of located targeted because of what you said they have
  • 00:39:16
    the highest impact around there. And, and again I
  • 00:39:20
    would emphasize this, this is kind of the same extension
  • 00:39:22
    of what the must, must run alternative solution is to.
  • 00:39:26
    Is it just going to be demand focused? Or are we going
  • 00:39:29
    to be looking for opportunities for resources to accelerate?
  • 00:39:34
    Or utilization of settlement only generators or ERS participation
  • 00:39:39
    to solve this kind of localized issue? Yeah, I understand.
  • 00:39:43
    And, and so I think issue out an RFP in mid May
  • 00:39:46
    it would still allow us time to visit with you all
  • 00:39:49
    after this open meeting. Because we just got this filing
  • 00:39:52
    on Monday and we're at the ERCOT Board meetings. And I just
  • 00:39:54
    need to understand it more. And um so from my perspective
  • 00:39:59
    I mean, I'm good with DR. I just need to understand
  • 00:40:01
    this other piece to it a little bit more um from you
  • 00:40:05
    all. And then be able to provide direction at the
  • 00:40:10
    May 2nd open meeting. So Chad I think, I think if
  • 00:40:13
    I'm hearing everyone right. I think everyone's comfortable
  • 00:40:16
    with the dynamic rating improvements with the shadow
  • 00:40:20
    pricing on the ROL and on DR. But maybe just a little
  • 00:40:25
    more discussion on, you know, looking at the RFP to
  • 00:40:30
    consider things that you considered last time as well
  • 00:40:32
    to, to look for more capacity. So maybe if we could
  • 00:40:34
    just have a little more discussion this week on that
  • 00:40:36
    one piece of the recommendation that'd be helpful.
  • 00:40:39
    And so you can get started on the other portions if
  • 00:40:42
    I'm hearing everybody correctly. And then we can
  • 00:40:45
    you know, bring back up the, the capacity piece at
  • 00:40:47
    the next open meeting. Yes. Okay. Can I bring up one
  • 00:40:51
    other thing? So uh as you all know. A year ago, we
  • 00:40:55
    um the Commission. We led an effort to try to get federal
  • 00:40:58
    grip dollars which are grid resiliency dollars. There
  • 00:41:03
    were two buckets of that. We were not successful in
  • 00:41:05
    that project. But another bucket of those funds comes
  • 00:41:08
    to Texas on a formula basis. Those funds currently
  • 00:41:12
    reside at TDEM per the governor. There is a notice
  • 00:41:17
    of funding opportunity out there for enhancing resiliency
  • 00:41:20
    and reliability. That I'm wondering maybe if we can
  • 00:41:24
    get ERCOT and our staff to work with TDEM. Maybe we
  • 00:41:28
    can help
  • 00:41:31
    either pay for this or help with dynamic line reading
  • 00:41:34
    technologies or other technologies to help solve this
  • 00:41:37
    constraint this year and next year. These are formula
  • 00:41:39
    grants that will come over the next few years. But
  • 00:41:42
    I just think it's something that maybe it's a real
  • 00:41:45
    world issue. We know things don't move very quickly
  • 00:41:49
    at the federal level. But if, if they're within the
  • 00:41:51
    state purview, we may be able to do something on that.
  • 00:41:55
    So Connie, I think that's, that's to you. If we could
  • 00:41:58
    talk about that and if there's a way that you all could
  • 00:42:00
    help and we could think about that, that'd be great.
  • 00:42:02
    And the answer may be no. And if the answer is no
  • 00:42:05
    that's fine. I just want to make sure we look at it.
  • 00:42:07
    We'll certainly look into it. And I have one clarification
  • 00:42:10
    question. So with respect to the shadow price cap,
  • 00:42:15
    when we say we're good here today with it. What does
  • 00:42:17
    that mean? Are you going to go like file an urgent
  • 00:42:19
    NPRR? That would be the expectation to submit a protocol
  • 00:42:22
    change to the stakeholder process on an urgent basis.
  • 00:42:25
    As we highlighted in the filing, we could get it to
  • 00:42:28
    the June Board through. I'm not presupposing the outcome
  • 00:42:32
    of what the stakeholders think of that. But that would
  • 00:42:34
    be the goal and an opportunity for y'all to consider
  • 00:42:37
    it. Either in time for it to be effective August 1st
  • 00:42:41
    or again, if we're trying to do solutions that would
  • 00:42:44
    be available in July. Then you would have to, you know
  • 00:42:47
    use one of your exception processes to consider it
  • 00:42:49
    after the June Board. I think the system changes aren't
  • 00:42:52
    that they'll take as long as the procedural changes.
  • 00:42:57
    Yeah. And with respect to the dynamic line ratings
  • 00:43:00
    you know we have this. I brought that up at the ERCOT
  • 00:43:02
    Board meeting. And, you know, dynamic line rating has
  • 00:43:05
    been exist, in existence in the ERCOT market for a while
  • 00:43:08
    right? It's just the evolution of dynamic line ratings
  • 00:43:12
    that has recently taken place like this, you know,
  • 00:43:14
    ability to track wind speed. You know, software changes
  • 00:43:17
    things like that. That we need to try to look at um
  • 00:43:20
    to optimize as these new technologies come into the
  • 00:43:23
    market. Because we have a lot of growth in Texas. We
  • 00:43:26
    gotta be making sure we're reading the transmission
  • 00:43:28
    capacity on these lines appropriately. And if there's
  • 00:43:31
    a way for ERCOT to work with the TSPs as a
  • 00:43:34
    proposed projects. To encourage these types of technologies
  • 00:43:39
    and um advancements. I think would, would only be to
  • 00:43:42
    our benefit um as you guys have identified some good
  • 00:43:46
    um some good outcomes here. With the dynamic line writing
  • 00:43:50
    in South Texas with some of these facilities. So that's
  • 00:43:52
    where I was coming from at the ERCOT Board meeting. Just
  • 00:43:54
    wanted to kind of add more to that. Yeah, I think worked
  • 00:43:58
    with Connie um that dynamic wind rating. We haven't
  • 00:44:03
    used wind ratings on dynamic ratings, but it might be
  • 00:44:06
    a good TDEM
  • 00:44:08
    pilot project or something like that potentially to
  • 00:44:10
    to look into.
  • 00:44:13
    Thank you.
  • 00:44:15
    Okay. Do you all, you feel like you have what you need
  • 00:44:18
    at this point? Yes. Okay, perfect. Thanks y'all.
  • 00:44:24
    Yeah. You're gonna be up here for a couple of them
  • Item 19 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55845
    00:44:26
    I think Harika. Yeah. So Item No. 18 was consented. So
  • 00:44:31
    Item 19 is Project No. 55845-Review of Ancillary
  • 00:44:35
    Services in the ERCOT market. Harika, I don't know if Chris is
  • 00:44:39
    here. Chris is not here. That's okay. He's overseas enjoying his
  • Item 19 - Commission Staff's Harika Basaran on ancillary service study update
    00:44:45
    vacation. Oh, nice. Harika Basaran with Commission Staff. Yeah, in this Ancillary service study.
  • 00:44:48
    When you approve the scope and the timelines. We also
  • 00:44:52
    promise to come periodically here and to give you an
  • 00:44:54
    update on the progress. So there's gonna be a very
  • 00:44:57
    short verbal update. At March 15, ERCOT provided us a draft
  • 00:45:02
    and educational document that provides understanding
  • 00:45:05
    of the technical and reliability consideration. How
  • 00:45:08
    they view AS the current process and the governance
  • 00:45:12
    framework. And March 18th, we met in-person Staff,
  • 00:45:16
    ERCOT, IMM at ERCOT. And IMM went over their probabilistic
  • 00:45:20
    model. They explained it. ERCOT had questions. It was
  • 00:45:23
    a very good meeting and ERCOT reviewed their educational
  • 00:45:26
    document. And what I am hearing is they are continuing
  • 00:45:29
    to ask questions to each other about how they model
  • 00:45:33
    the AS study. And they continue to evaluate IMM's model.
  • 00:45:39
    And we also shared some basic major milestone
  • 00:45:42
    timelines with IMM and ERCOT. And the next big milestone
  • 00:45:46
    is going to be mid May. We are expecting a draft from
  • 00:45:49
    IMM and ERCOT. And then between May and June until we the
  • 00:45:54
    first stakeholder draft. We will meet and reconcile
  • 00:45:58
    and look at each others. So all I'm going to say is
  • 00:46:01
    we are on track and I will provide another update May
  • 00:46:05
    23rd open meeting. But if you have any other questions
  • 00:46:08
    any feedback, just let us know. Perfect. Thank you Harika.
  • 00:46:11
    Any questions? Thank you. Thank you.
  • Item 20 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55984
    00:46:16
    Okay. Project uh No. 20 is Project No. 55984-
  • 00:46:21
    Review of DC Tie issues in transmission planning.
  • 00:46:25
    So staff filed a recommendation here. I know in
  • 00:46:29
    the past when I was sitting on the other side of the
  • 00:46:32
    dais. Commissioners Cobos and Glotfelty have had thoughts
  • 00:46:36
    on this. So I think it maybe good if staff will
  • 00:46:40
    come up on this issue. And then Commissioner Cobos
  • 00:46:44
    if you want to start and then Commissioner Glotfelty
  • 00:46:46
    hear y'all's thoughts on it, and then proceed from there.
  • 00:46:50
    Thank you.
  • 00:46:53
    We can have
  • 00:46:56
    staff lay out? Yeah. Go ahead and lay out your memo. Good morning Commissioners. Ramya Ramaswamy for Commission
  • 00:46:59
    Staff. Thank you for the setup that kind of make
  • 00:47:03
    my life easy. Staff would like to thank all the
  • 00:47:07
    uh stakeholders for giving us very detailed reply comments,
  • 00:47:11
    for all the questions that we had. I would like
  • 00:47:14
    to acknowledge that uh there was uh um we, we had
  • 00:47:19
    TCPA listed as in the wrong bucket. TCPA filed your
  • 00:47:23
    comments in support of taking up the policy for piker
  • 00:47:27
    105 at the Commission and not at the stakeholder process.
  • Item 20 - Commission Staff's Ramya Ramaswamy lays out memo
    00:47:33
    So staff memo, um so Commission Staff recommends that
  • 00:47:36
    we take up the DC Tie transmission planning uh for
  • 00:47:41
    minimum deliverability at the Commission as a policy
  • 00:47:45
    issue. And uh staff recommendation is that the best
  • 00:47:49
    way to go about doing that. Is to have a rule making
  • 00:47:53
    at the Commission to establish a framework and provide
  • 00:47:56
    guidelines. On how we can evaluate all the future proposed
  • 00:48:01
    DC Ties in a consistent manner. I'm here to, I'm available
  • 00:48:06
    to take any questions if you have any. Thank you. Okay
  • 00:48:10
    so, um okay. So the way I understood staff's memo was
  • 00:48:15
    um in a few areas was
  • 00:48:19
    look at each DC Tie project on an individual basis
  • 00:48:22
    on its own merits. And that I think we do through
  • 00:48:25
    the CCM process regardless, right? And then, um you
  • 00:48:29
    know, the piker is not the, the correct way to affect
  • 00:48:32
    the policy change. And we're going to have a policy
  • 00:48:34
    change. And if we, you know, want to evaluate this
  • 00:48:37
    issue deeper then have a rulemaking proceeding.
  • 00:48:41
    The one thing I would like to add on the first point.
  • 00:48:44
    Is when a DC Tie is proposed and they come in
  • 00:48:47
    for a CCN. Yes it is a, it is a process that
  • 00:48:52
    is established. But when Southern Cross came in and
  • 00:48:56
    when the directives were put in place. That was a statute
  • 00:48:59
    change that was put in place only for Southern Cross
  • 00:49:03
    as a project. So that, you know, by having a rule making
  • 00:49:08
    we can basically make, come up with a framework. Such that
  • 00:49:11
    we establish a consistent process to, to evaluate all
  • 00:49:16
    future DC ties. Such that it can be looked at in a
  • 00:49:19
    consistent in a, in a manner that is consistent across
  • 00:49:22
    the way. So we set up the framework uh because the
  • 00:49:25
    directives were put in place only for that project.
  • 00:49:28
    Which we don't have just, just a small clarification.
  • 00:49:31
    But um. Okay.
  • 00:49:34
    I mean, I know you guys are trying to find some kind
  • 00:49:36
    of a middle ground here. And, and I mean in some ways
  • 00:49:40
    that so I guess the clarification you provided. Like
  • 00:49:43
    if we had a new DC Tie company project developer that
  • 00:49:47
    wanted to build an DC Tie in Texas into ERCOT.
  • 00:49:53
    Within partnership with the existing transmission utility.
  • 00:49:56
    They would not have to follow a CCN? I thought they would.
  • 00:50:00
    Oh, CCN process. Yes. But the framework um the directives
  • 00:50:05
    that we did for Southern Cross. That basically established
  • 00:50:09
    how ERCOT looked into um what had to go in the background.
  • 00:50:13
    Like do the studies that were required for uh for the
  • 00:50:17
    Southern Cross proposal. That is not an established
  • 00:50:20
    process today. So when you know, so we, you know, the
  • 00:50:23
    rule making will establish the framework and guidelines.
  • 00:50:27
    So that in the future when we have DC Ties proposed
  • 00:50:31
    we will look at them in a consistent manner. We meaning
  • 00:50:34
    the Commission, stakeholders, ERCOT. Will have a process, a
  • 00:50:38
    guideline to set, to look into how it should be done.
  • 00:50:42
    That is not established process today. Okay. So that is what
  • 00:50:45
    the rule making would help us drive that process. Okay.
  • Item 20 - Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on memo
    00:50:49
    Thank you for all that clarification. So I guess there's
  • 00:50:51
    kind of two ways to look at this and I'm open to
  • 00:50:53
    hearing obviously what you think Commissioner Glotfelty. And
  • 00:50:55
    what the best approach would be. I mean, a rule
  • 00:51:00
    making process would help to, to, you know look at
  • 00:51:03
    all of the issues involved in DC ties being built into
  • 00:51:06
    ERCOT. I know that that could take some time because
  • 00:51:10
    we have a long list of projects. And um and there's
  • 00:51:14
    a lot of different policy issues to look at it. I,
  • 00:51:17
    I think my experience in the past um when Southern
  • 00:51:20
    Cross came in with their, with their application. There
  • 00:51:23
    was just a lot of um considerations that came up and
  • 00:51:27
    it went on for a long time. I'm wondering if so
  • 00:51:31
    there's the approach we recommended. CCN like or rather
  • 00:51:35
    a rulemaking to look at all DC ties for the future.
  • 00:51:38
    Which I've just laid out kind of some thoughts to think
  • 00:51:40
    about. And then there's an approach where if you have
  • 00:51:44
    a new DC Tie project owner. That wants to come in
  • 00:51:47
    and submit for a CCN. Then the Commission could look
  • 00:51:51
    at that CCN application on its own merits and decide
  • 00:51:55
    just like they did for Southern Cross. How they want
  • 00:51:57
    to treat that tie and give directives to ERCOT. And
  • 00:52:00
    if there's a deviation with respect to deliverability.
  • 00:52:03
    Then at that point in that case, um the Commission
  • 00:52:07
    can direct ERCOT to implement whatever protocols need
  • 00:52:12
    to be implemented to accommodate that DC Tie. So maybe
  • 00:52:17
    there's just needs to be um in some ways if you wanna
  • 00:52:22
    look at it and if you wanna look at each DC tie
  • 00:52:24
    project on its own merits. Then you might wanna create
  • 00:52:29
    flexibility in the ERCOT process to look at them. However
  • 00:52:33
    the Commission wants to look at them. And that way we're
  • 00:52:35
    not, you know, tied at the back end by a protocol and
  • 00:52:40
    we maintain flexibility to look at the DC ties as they're
  • 00:52:44
    filed on a CCN by CCN basis. So that's one way of
  • 00:52:48
    approaching it. Where you're kind of it's, it's stepping
  • 00:52:51
    away from your sort of process overview of all these
  • 00:52:54
    DC ties. To more of a discrete review of each project
  • 00:52:59
    and providing that flexibility at the back end with
  • 00:53:02
    ERCOT through the protocol process. So that, um
  • 00:53:07
    you know, we're not tied up in a rule making process
  • 00:53:10
    forever, but we have some flexibility. That's just
  • 00:53:13
    something I thought of. I don't know if that makes
  • 00:53:14
    sense. If that
  • 00:53:18
    would be something you'd consider, I mean. Yeah, let
  • Item 20 - Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on memo
    00:53:21
    me tell you kind of where I sit on all this. So
  • 00:53:24
    first of all, um this is not an easy issue. It's DC
  • 00:53:30
    lines are a unique animal. They're not generators and
  • 00:53:34
    they're not transmission lines, but they have attributes
  • 00:53:37
    of both. And attributes of both provide reliability
  • 00:53:40
    benefits at certain times.
  • 00:53:44
    And what we, I think we want to encourage is the most
  • 00:53:49
    economic. I'm sorry, the most reliability benefits
  • 00:53:54
    slash economic benefits taking into consideration both
  • 00:53:57
    as we, we look. Reliability is really important.
  • 00:54:02
    Economics are really important. So we have to look
  • 00:54:05
    at that holistically. I think the fact that we got
  • 00:54:10
    into this discussion and had staff go out and ask stakeholders
  • 00:54:14
    for a list of comments. Means that zero isn't really
  • 00:54:20
    where we want to be, but we don't know what the number
  • 00:54:23
    is. I advocated for 100, zero is the existing standard.
  • 00:54:27
    Commissioner Cobos added said, well maybe 50 but we don't
  • 00:54:31
    really know what that number is. And I think that
  • 00:54:37
    that's correct. I think, I think that that shows that
  • 00:54:40
    we have to answer this question in some fashion. Is
  • 00:54:43
    it a piker modification or is it a rulemaking?
  • 00:54:49
    I know staff doesn't want to do this in a bigger, we've
  • 00:54:52
    done things in pikers before many, many times that
  • 00:54:54
    have solved these issues. In terms of setting policy
  • 00:55:00
    I would say if I step back and look at DC ties
  • 00:55:02
    holistically. I think we need a rule. I think we need
  • 00:55:06
    a rule to, to determine how and when DC ties both internally
  • 00:55:13
    within ERCOT and those that are attached externally
  • 00:55:17
    are processed through this agency and through ERCOT.
  • 00:55:21
    Can I say something here, Commissioner? Yeah, of course
  • 00:55:23
    you may. We can have DC lines within ERCOT. The DC tie
  • 00:55:28
    would be from external to within ERCOT. I understand your words and
  • 00:55:32
    and it got me to a point where a DC tie is.
  • 00:55:38
    There's not, there's still a question in my mind. If
  • 00:55:41
    you're building a DC tie to the, to the outside edge
  • 00:55:45
    of ERCOT. Do you even need to have a CCN? You may
  • 00:55:50
    not need a CCN. Because if all you're doing is interconnecting
  • 00:55:53
    to an existing utility substation. I think there's
  • 00:55:58
    a question there. They're not building in ERCOT. They're
  • 00:56:02
    not building in violation of a right of first refusal.
  • 00:56:06
    They're not doing any of that. And a lot of these issues
  • 00:56:09
    were solved with Legislation as it relates to Southern
  • 00:56:15
    Cross. I agree, but that is not the issue that is in
  • 00:56:18
    discussion right now. Agree. Which is a line that like the
  • 00:56:21
    way that you propose. But to add on to something to
  • 00:56:25
    give a little more clarification to something that
  • 00:56:26
    you said. Once the line, once the DC Tie is built and
  • 00:56:32
    it's in effect. To go back to what you said, there are
  • 00:56:35
    other ways that within the planning process or within
  • 00:56:39
    our rule making. We can go back and ask ERCOT to look into
  • 00:56:43
    the transmission planning. To see if a support needs
  • 00:56:46
    to be built in. And that was actually something that
  • 00:56:49
    many of the commenters did make a point. Three years after the
  • 00:56:52
    line is built. Five years after the line is built. That
  • 00:56:54
    is something as a policy between the stakeholders and
  • 00:56:58
    the Commission we can come up with a plan. But today
  • 00:57:02
    like you mentioned, Commissioner. It is very difficult
  • 00:57:05
    to say, should it be zero? Should it be 45? Should
  • 00:57:08
    it be 100? There is no way for us to like land
  • 00:57:11
    on a number. And I agree with that. But also like you
  • 00:57:15
    said, um zero is not the right answer. I think we've
  • 00:57:20
    heard from stakeholders and they don't think that's
  • 00:57:22
    the right answer either. So the issue today is, do
  • 00:57:26
    we do it through a piker or do we do it through
  • 00:57:28
    a rule? I wish we could do it through a piker
  • 00:57:31
    piker because we've done it in the past through piker.
  • 00:57:34
    I think we should do it through a rule and I know
  • 00:57:37
    rulemaking takes time. So I would Connie, I would suggest
  • 00:57:41
    that we figure out what's the timing of this? Is it
  • 00:57:43
    something sooner or is it something that we can push
  • 00:57:46
    off until later on in the year? But I think this Commission
  • 00:57:52
    ought to be very holistic about this being an HVDC
  • 00:57:56
    rule. I mean, all of the issues that we deal with.
  • 00:57:59
    Not just the, when they get put into a transmission
  • 00:58:05
    plan, but how we build DC lines to and from and within
  • 00:58:11
    this state.
  • 00:58:13
    Um
  • 00:58:16
    I think that
  • 00:58:21
    I want to, you all have heard this and forgive me for
  • 00:58:25
    saying this again. But as a former developer of DC lines,
  • 00:58:31
    DC lines do not have a rate base. Okay. So they don't
  • 00:58:36
    get the, they don't get the benefit of T cost recovery.
  • 00:58:40
    Though they're all using private dollars. And when
  • 00:58:44
    you use private dollars, there's a limited supply. Death
  • 00:58:48
    by 1000 cuts. Which means, you know, oh this process
  • 00:58:52
    is a little bit different from this process and this
  • 00:58:55
    process. And then you go through this one and then they
  • 00:58:57
    send you back to ERCOT. And then oh no, we got to
  • 00:58:59
    come back to the staff and solve this. Those are 1000
  • 00:59:02
    cuts and those make projects uneconomic. And I hope
  • 00:59:08
    that we can get to a process where we are, we lead
  • 00:59:13
    in the clarity of how this happens. And people up front
  • 00:59:16
    can decide whether they are economic or not. These lines
  • 00:59:21
    if you take Southern Cross.
  • 00:59:25
    They won't cost ratepayers anything to build unless
  • 00:59:31
    there is power bought, brought back in. And, and a marketer
  • 00:59:36
    or a entity buys that power and sells it to within
  • 00:59:42
    ERCOT. And then only the portion of that transmission
  • 00:59:45
    line
  • 00:59:47
    that and when I say portion on a perk wh basis there
  • 00:59:52
    will be an adder on that. That's what, that's what
  • 00:59:55
    ratepayers will pay for. So it's a small as opposed
  • 00:59:59
    to, you know, maybe say a new generator. That I think
  • 01:00:06
    it actually is similar and different. But if a generator
  • 01:00:09
    is built in ERCOT, then you consumer is not paying
  • 01:00:14
    anything unless it's producing.
  • 01:00:18
    Listen all what I, what I think I'm trying to say here.
  • 01:00:21
    Is um I want us to take seriously looking at HVDC
  • 01:00:26
    lines in this state.
  • 01:00:29
    Globally, these things make sense. In the United States
  • 01:00:34
    it's balkanized. But the first one was the California-
  • 01:00:36
    Oregon intertie that was done in the 60s. These
  • 01:00:39
    things make good economic sense and they're valuable
  • 01:00:42
    for reliability. And, and I hope we can, we can get
  • 01:00:44
    there all. All this being said my, my hope is that
  • 01:00:50
    we can get to 100% deliverability. I think that today
  • 01:00:56
    the piker is not the place that it's going to happen.
  • 01:00:59
    And that we ought to do a rulemaking in accordance
  • 01:01:03
    with some time frame to solve all of the issues with
  • 01:01:08
    DC lines. And I'm, I wish that we could get it done
  • 01:01:12
    today. But I think that setting the policy for all
  • 01:01:16
    DC lines is the right policy. Okay. So let me before
  • 01:01:21
    I go to Kathleen just recap real quick. I think so
  • 01:01:23
    you're both saying piker is not the right way to get
  • 01:01:26
    this done. I think Lori, you were saying you're not
  • 01:01:29
    even sure we need a rule. I think Jimmy is saying
  • 01:01:32
    he thinks the policy implications are, are big enough
  • 01:01:35
    and, and, and we need to lead on this. So I think
  • 01:01:38
    he's comfortable with a rule. So I guess given that
  • 01:01:40
    backdrop, would you be okay with opening a rule consistent
  • 01:01:44
    with what staff recommended? Yes. And the only reason
  • 01:01:46
    I threw out the other option was just to kind of figure
  • 01:01:49
    out a way to
  • 01:01:52
    look at it a different way from procedural process.
  • 01:01:54
    And maybe that was more efficient and met the same
  • 01:01:56
    expectations of providing some kind of regulatory review.
  • 01:01:59
    But I think what um Commissioner Glotfelty is saying is
  • 01:02:02
    uh makes a lot more sense in terms of um establishing
  • 01:02:06
    Commission policy on HVDC lines as a whole, right?
  • 01:02:10
    Because really the first case of impression that we've
  • 01:02:12
    had lately is Southern Spirit. And we had this entire
  • 01:02:16
    procedural process and orders and directives. And, and
  • 01:02:20
    um we're kind of at a place where, you know, there
  • 01:02:22
    is some level you know, level of interest in exploring
  • 01:02:25
    these ties. And because we've always zeroed them out
  • 01:02:28
    and there's an interest in achieving maximum deliverability.
  • 01:02:31
    And there's a lot of other factors to consider, right?
  • 01:02:34
    You know, um as we have evolved as a market since 2017.
  • 01:02:39
    I think it just it, it does make sense to look
  • 01:02:41
    at it at a broader policy level. And open a rule
  • 01:02:44
    making and address it all at once. As opposed to a piecemeal
  • 01:02:46
    basis by CCN. I just threw that out there to see if
  • 01:02:49
    that would maybe be more efficient way of tackling
  • 01:02:52
    the issue, certainly a way to do it. But I think if
  • 01:02:55
    you want broader policy on these types of lines. Then
  • 01:03:00
    a rule making is obviously the right place to do it.
  • Item 20 - Commissioner Jackson's thoughts on memo
    01:03:03
    Okay, Kathleen. Well, I always kind of land on the process.
  • 01:03:09
    And because I think it's important to have uh as you
  • 01:03:11
    described a skeleton and a process in place. We move
  • 01:03:15
    forward and we execute to that process. The in,
  • 01:03:18
    in the broader context. I mean, this is just this is
  • 01:03:22
    one part of the solution. And so when we do a rulemaking
  • 01:03:26
    we're thinking not only of how do we move forward with
  • 01:03:29
    this particular piece. But we're also thinking about
  • 01:03:32
    how does it fit in to all the other things that we're
  • 01:03:36
    doing to provide the, the power that we need for Texas
  • 01:03:40
    you know, for generations to come. So I think in my
  • 01:03:43
    mind, the rule making makes sense. Not just because
  • 01:03:47
    of the focus on the DC Tie issue per se, but the
  • 01:03:52
    way that it fits in with our overall process as a whole.
  • 01:03:57
    And so I would, I'd be in favor of that as well.
  • Item 20 - Chairman Gleeson's thoughts on memo
    01:04:00
    Okay. So, yeah, I'd agree as well. That, you know, proceed
  • 01:04:03
    with a rule to set up kind of a framework and guidelines
  • 01:04:07
    for uh for the Commission to evaluate DC ties uh consistently
  • 01:04:10
    and on a going forward basis. So,
  • 01:04:14
    is there anything that we need to do in terms of giving
  • 01:04:18
    existing DC ties?
  • 01:04:21
    I mean, we've got Southern Spirit in front of us. We've
  • 01:04:25
    got, there are other DC ties. Right now they are
  • 01:04:30
    I guess they have zero deliverability guarantees. And,
  • 01:04:36
    and I guess the rulemaking is what if we do that quickly.
  • 01:04:39
    We'll, we'll decide that if, if,
  • 01:04:44
    if we want to raise that to some number and how we
  • 01:04:47
    come to that number. I think that's right. We'll address
  • 01:04:49
    deliverability in the rule. Okay. Thanks y'all. Thank you.
  • Item 21 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 56000
    01:04:55
    Okay, next on the agenda is Item No. 21, Project No.
  • 01:05:00
    56000-Firm fuel supply service. Harika, welcome back.
  • Item 21 - Harika Basaran on firm fuel supply
    01:05:09
    Harika Basaran for Staff. Yeah, firm fuel supply. Uh every
  • 01:05:14
    year he set the budget and the offer caps. And uh one
  • 01:05:19
    issue brought up to our attention by ERCOT in the protocols.
  • 01:05:23
    It allows that, allows them to procure
  • 01:05:29
    for the two years. However in the past, in the past
  • 01:05:32
    two seasons we only offer them a budget and offer
  • 01:05:35
    caps for the one year at a time. And then we discuss
  • 01:05:40
    this with IMM and ERCOT and we agree that the Commission
  • 01:05:43
    should continue to tell ERCOT to procure one year at a time.
  • 01:05:47
    And one of the main reasons is that offer caps are
  • 01:05:51
    based on the fuel oil price index and there are not
  • 01:05:55
    very good forward prices for us to set the offer cap.
  • 01:05:58
    And it will be very speculative to set an offer cap
  • 01:06:01
    and budget for the two year in advance. So this memo
  • 01:06:04
    just asking you give guidance to ERCOT procure one year
  • 01:06:09
    at a time until we have another solution. So they can
  • 01:06:12
    develop an NPRR and codify that in the protocols
  • 01:06:16
    as well. Yeah. So with that as the context, I'm comfortable
  • 01:06:20
    with Staff's recommendation to continue what we've been
  • 01:06:22
    doing. I think the other point you made was that 90%
  • 01:06:25
    of the market is fuel oil.
  • 01:06:28
    I'm good with that recommendation as well. Okay. Thank you.
  • 01:06:32
    I think after we do the whole ancillary well, as we
  • 01:06:36
    continue to do these. We're going to have an ancillary
  • 01:06:39
    service study. We're going to have other things to
  • 01:06:40
    come back that we may be able to match up the timelines
  • 01:06:43
    with different things on these different products in
  • 01:06:46
    the future a little bit better. But I think what you
  • 01:06:49
    proposed here is the right thing. Thank you. Thank
  • 01:06:51
    you.
  • 01:06:54
    Harika. So 22 we're gonna come back to. I didn't have anything
  • 01:06:59
    on. So 23, 24, 25 and 26 were consented. 27 through 34
  • 01:07:06
    I didn't have anything unless you all did. Okay. Wait
  • 01:07:10
    do you say 24, 25 and 26 were? Yes, were consented. I
  • 01:07:17
    didn't get 24, 25 but I think that's great.
  • 01:07:22
    Yeah. I got that right. Correct Shelah? Okay, perfect. So I didn't
  • Item 35 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55156
    01:07:25
    have anything on 27 through 34. So that would bring
  • 01:07:28
    us to 35. That's Project No. 55156, implementation
  • 01:07:34
    activities relating to the 88 Legislature.
  • 01:07:43
    Good morning, Jess. Good morning Chairman, Commissioners.
  • 01:07:46
    How are y'all?
  • Item 35 - Commission Staff's Jess Heck with update on agency's rulemaking progress
    01:07:49
    Okay. Jess Heck for Commission Staff here to give a brief
  • 01:07:53
    update on the agency's priority rule making progress.
  • 01:07:56
    As you'll recall in September of last year, the
  • 01:08:01
    Commission approved a set of priority rule makings
  • 01:08:04
    broken down by industry category. So as of this open
  • 01:08:08
    meeting, there are 12 projects completed nine ongoing
  • 01:08:12
    and two with initial action taken from that list. This
  • 01:08:16
    has been no small feat and I want to thank the Rules
  • 01:08:19
    and Projects team for their hard work. But we also
  • 01:08:22
    acknowledge that there's lots of work ahead. The
  • 01:08:27
    staff memo filed includes further details about ongoing
  • 01:08:30
    projects including SB2627, the Energy Fund. As well
  • 01:08:35
    as 56, HB5066 the regional transmission reliability
  • 01:08:39
    plants. I also want to highlight that the PUC website
  • 01:08:44
    on the government relations page has an implementation
  • 01:08:46
    chart. Which includes a lot of similar information um
  • 01:08:49
    that's included in this Project 55156 in a PDF downloadable
  • 01:08:54
    format. The purpose of this public document is to increase
  • 01:08:59
    transparency and the agency's rule making efforts.
  • 01:09:02
    Thank you for allowing me this time and happy answering
  • 01:09:04
    questions.
  • 01:09:06
    Thank you, Jess. You know, if y'all will remember coming
  • 01:09:09
    out of the 87th Legislature. We, we spoke often about
  • 01:09:13
    how, you know, typically after after a normal Legislative
  • 01:09:16
    Session. We get about eight projects coming from bills
  • 01:09:19
    that we end up opening. And I think in that interim
  • 01:09:21
    we opened about 24, 25. We thought that was going
  • 01:09:25
    to be the high water mark and then coming out of 88th
  • 01:09:27
    we actually opened more than 24 or 25. So uh a great
  • 01:09:31
    amount of work again, as always. Thank you to the Legislature
  • 01:09:35
    for giving us additional resources to meet that demand.
  • 01:09:38
    The the increase in demand for, for the work load.
  • 01:09:40
    And so, um I don't have any questions unless you all
  • 01:09:44
    do.
  • 01:09:47
    Thank you. Thank y'all. But hang on. Can I uh I do want to
  • 01:09:50
    say to Jess. Thank you for all your help on our Nuclear
  • 01:09:55
    Working Group, uh different docket number. But uh she's
  • 01:09:58
    been taking notes and um, uh meeting summaries and has
  • 01:10:02
    been doing a fantastic job for this whole group. So
  • 01:10:04
    next meeting, we'll have a big update on nuclear. And
  • 01:10:07
    thank you for your leadership on that. We appreciate
  • 01:10:09
    it. Great. Thank you.
  • 01:10:14
    So I don't have anything on the rest of the agenda
  • 01:10:16
    from what I'm being told. Connie, do you think if
  • 01:10:20
    we recess and come back at say noon. That that's enough
  • 01:10:24
    time to get language written and circulated? Yeah.
  • 01:10:27
    I think that'll work. Okay, perfect. So that's all right
  • Item 35 - Chairman Gleeson recesses open meeting
    01:10:29
    y'all will stand in recess until then. Okay. So why don't
  • 01:10:32
    we go ahead and stand in recess until time certain
  • 01:10:36
    uh noon today.
  • Item 35 - Chairman Gleeson reconvenes open meeting
    01:10:42
    Good afternoon, everyone. We'll reconvene the open
  • 01:10:44
    meeting at 12:18. So staff filed a red line edit
  • 01:10:50
    to the rule um for Item No.
  • Item 22 - Chairman Gleeson brings back Project 55812 to consider updated language of rule
    01:10:58
    22. So, um I would bring back up uh Item
  • 01:11:04
    22, Project No. 55812, Texas Energy Fund Completion
  • 01:11:07
    Bonus Grant Program. David, do you want to lay out
  • Item 22 - David Gordon on changes to rule text
    01:11:10
    what y'all did real quick? Thank you, Chairman. David Gordon again
  • 01:11:12
    for Commission Staff. We made changes to the rule text.
  • 01:11:17
    To effectuate both the allowance for new generation
  • 01:11:21
    resources at existing sites and a grace period of 10
  • 01:11:25
    hours on the ARF calculation factor. We brought language
  • 01:11:29
    to each of your offices. And based on that language
  • 01:11:31
    we have filed a new recommendation that's available
  • 01:11:35
    for your vote.
  • 01:11:39
    So in reading it over with my staff, I'm comfortable
  • 01:11:42
    that it uh meets what we discussed and what was proposed
  • 01:11:45
    in my memo. So unless you all have any comments.? I'm comfortable
  • 01:11:48
    as well, I read it through. It looks good.
  • 01:11:51
    I am as well. Did you guys add new to? Okay. In two
  • 01:11:55
    instances we will refer to the last new generation
  • 01:11:58
    resource for the purpose of evaluating the new added
  • Item 22 - Motion to adopt proposed order as modified by Commission's and Chairman's memo
    01:12:02
    facilities. Okay. Thank you. I'm good to go. Okay. Then I would
  • 01:12:07
    entertain a motion to adopt the proposed order as modified
  • 01:12:10
    by our discussion in my memo.
  • 01:12:13
    So moved. I second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor,
  • 01:12:15
    say aye. Aye. Opposed. The motion prevails. Thank you very much
  • 01:12:20
    for all that work.
  • Item 40 - Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting
    01:12:23
    Good job. All right. So there being no further business
  • 01:12:27
    before us. This meeting of the Public Utility Commission
  • 01:12:29
    of Texas is hereby adjourned.
Chairman Gleeson calls meeting to order
Starts at 00:00:02
Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel requests update to Consent Agenda
Starts at 00:00:28
Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda for Section I
Starts at 00:00:53
Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda for Section I
Starts at 00:01:02
Shelah Cisneros lays out Consent Agenda for Section II
Starts at 00:02:41
Chairman Gleeson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda for Section II
Starts at 00:02:59
9 - Petition for emergency order appointing temporary manager to Blue Cereus, LLC
Starts at 00:03:22
9 - Motion to modify the order consistent with Commission's discussion
Starts at 00:04:48
2 - Application of CSWR-Texas Utility Operating Company, LLC for authority to change rates
Starts at 00:05:13
2 - Commissioner Cobos lays out her memo
Starts at 00:05:46
2 - Motion to adopt clarifications set forth in Commissioner Cobos' memo
Starts at 00:06:21
13 - Shelah Cisneros confirms there are no Public Comments
Starts at 00:06:49
22 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 53298
Starts at 00:07:26
22 - Commission Staff's David Gordon on additions to Chairman Gleeson's memo
Starts at 00:08:04
22 - Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on memo
Starts at 00:10:30
22 - Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on memo
Starts at 00:12:54
22 - Commissioner Jackson's thoughts on memo
Starts at 00:13:58
22 - Commission Staff's David Smeltzer confirms staff to bring back clarification language for approval
Starts at 00:16:53
22 - Shelah Cisneros recommends voting after language is reviewed
Starts at 00:17:46
17 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55999
Starts at 00:18:28
17 - Commissioner Jackson's thoughts on inspectors and weatherization
Starts at 00:19:55
17 - ERCOT's Woody Rickerson on new software platform
Starts at 00:22:36
17 - ERCOT's Chad Seely on updated reports
Starts at 00:23:32
19 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55845
Starts at 00:44:26
19 - Commission Staff's Harika Basaran on ancillary service study update
Starts at 00:44:45
20 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55984
Starts at 00:46:16
20 - Commission Staff's Ramya Ramaswamy lays out memo
Starts at 00:47:33
20 - Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on memo
Starts at 00:50:49
20 - Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on memo
Starts at 00:53:21
20 - Commissioner Jackson's thoughts on memo
Starts at 01:03:03
20 - Chairman Gleeson's thoughts on memo
Starts at 01:04:00
21 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 56000
Starts at 01:04:55
21 - Harika Basaran on firm fuel supply
Starts at 01:05:09
35 - Chairman Gleeson lays out Project No. 55156
Starts at 01:07:25
35 - Commission Staff's Jess Heck with update on agency's rulemaking progress
Starts at 01:07:49
35 - Chairman Gleeson recesses open meeting
Starts at 01:10:29
35 - Chairman Gleeson reconvenes open meeting
Starts at 01:10:42
22 - Chairman Gleeson brings back Project 55812 to consider updated language of rule
Starts at 01:10:58
22 - David Gordon on changes to rule text
Starts at 01:11:10
22 - Motion to adopt proposed order as modified by Commission's and Chairman's memo
Starts at 01:12:02
40 - Chairman Gleeson adjourns meeting
Starts at 01:12:23

Help Desk