[00:00:06]
THIS IS SUSIE CLIFTON WITH ERCOT.
IF EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM COULD GO AHEAD AND TAKE THEIR SEATS, WE'RE ABOUT TO GET STARTED.
JUST WAITING FOR THOSE LAST COUPLE OF PEOPLE TO TAKE THEIR SEATS, PLEASE, SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
A COUPLE OF MEETING REMINDERS BEFORE WE GET STARTED THIS MORNING.
IF YOU'RE SEATED HERE IN THE MEETING ROOM WITH T, UM, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ENTER YOURSELF INTO THE CHAT TO MAKE A MOTION OR FOR DISCUSSION.
AND, UM, OR YOU CAN JUST HOLD YOUR CARD UP AND BRITTANY'S OVER HERE IN THE RIGHT HAND CORNER, AND SHE WILL, UH, ENTER YOU INTO THE CHAT.
OBVIOUSLY, THOSE OF YOU ON THE WEBEX, THAT'S HOW YOU'LL BE PROCEEDING.
PLEASE WAIT FOR THE CHAIR TO RECOGNIZE YOU.
AND THEN ALSO, IF YOU'RE HERE TODAY IN PERSON, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU SIGN IN AT THE BACK, I'M SORRY, SIGN IN SHEET OUTSIDE THE MEETING ROOM.
AND THEN IF THE WEBEX ENDS FOR ANY REASON, GIVE US JUST A FEW MINUTES AND WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET RESTARTED WITH THE SAME WEBEX DETAILS, OR WE'LL SEND SOMETHING TO THE LISTSERV IF WE HAVE TO DO NEW DETAILS.
AND WITH THAT, KAITLYN, WE'RE READY TO GET STARTED, AND WE DO HAVE A QUORUM THIS MORNING.
[1. Antitrust Admonition Suzy Clifton 9:30 a.m.]
UM, THE ANTITRUST IS ON THE SCREEN TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT ANTITRUST LIABILITY.PARTICIPANTS IN
THERE IS MORE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE.
SO IT'S THE, THE TAX DAY, TAX DAY, WHICH IS WHAT NED SAID, AS WELL AS I DID.
UM, BUT IT'S, YOU KNOW, TWO GREAT THINGS IN ONE.
WE DID THE LUNCH ORDER AGAIN, BUT WE ARE HOPING TO BE WRAPPED UP BEFORE ONE, UM, SO WE CAN MAYBE HAVE A, A WORKING LUNCH.
UM, I HAVE A HARD STOP AT 1230, BUT IF WE'RE STILL GOING, COLIN WILL TAKE OVER.
UM, WE DO HAVE SOME CHANGES IN OUR SEATED REPS AND I, I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE, UH, LOST SETH COCHRAN AS A MEMBER.
HE HAD A JOB CHANGE, SO HE WILL NOT BE ON TAC ANYMORE, BUT HE, HE DID A LOT OF HARD WORK FOR TAC OVER THE YEARS.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S LISTENING, BUT I BELIEVE HE CHAIRED WMS AND HE WAS ON THE BOARD AND THEN BACK ON TAC.
HE'S LEAVING BIG SHOES TO FILL, BUT WE ARE WE WELCOMING BACK TO TAC UH, KEVIN HANSON FOR NATIONAL GRID, UM, IN THE IPM SEGMENT.
SO THAT IS OUR NEWLY SEATED MEMBER THERE FOR PROXIES AND ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATIVES TODAY FOR ALT REPS IN THE IOU SEGMENT.
UM, DAVID MERCADO HAS GIVEN HIS ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATIVE TO CURTIS CAMPO IN THE MUNICIPAL SEGMENT, RUSSELL FRANKLIN, TO, UH, ABBY JOHN WITH GARLAND POWER AND LIGHT FOR PROXIES.
IF WE ARE STILL GOING AT 1230 IN THE INDEPENDENT GENERATOR SEGMENT, MY PROXY WILL GO TO BOB HILTON, AND ALSO AT 1230 IN THE CONSUMER SEGMENT, MARK DREYFUSS PROXY WILL GO TO NICK FEHRENBACH.
[2. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)]
ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 27TH MEETING MINUTES.I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY EDITS OR COMMENTS, CORRECT? SUSIE SAYS THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, EDITS TO THE MINUTES.
I DON'T SEE ANY, SO COREY, LET'S PUT THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
[3. Meeting Updates]
NEXT IS THE, UH, MEETING UPDATES.THERE WAS, UH, APRIL 11TH, PUC OPEN MEETING LAST THURSDAY, AND THAT WAS THE OPEN MEETING WHERE THEY WERE TO APPROVE THE 19 REVISION REQUESTS FROM THE FEBRUARY BOARD MEETING.
AND THEY DID APPROVE ALL OF THOSE, INCLUDING 1186, WHICH HAD BEEN REMANDED BACK TO THE FEBRUARY BOARD AND THEN BACK AT THE COMMISSION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON, ON THOSE MEETING UPDATES? ALL RIGHT.
[4. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact]
WE ARE NOW ON TO REVIEW OF REVISION REQUEST SUMMARIES OR ERCOT MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND THE IMM OPINIONS.SO WE HAVE SEVEN REVISION REQUESTS ON THE AGENDA THIS MONTH.
AND ALL ARE NO IMPACT OR IMPACTS ARE CAPTURED IN RELATED NRR.
UM, CFSG DID REVIEW THE NPR AND DETERMINE NO CREDIT IMPLEMENTATIONS.
AND THEN WE HAVE TWO FOR REASON FOR REVISIONS.
WE HAVE TWO IN THE REGULATORY.
UM, TWO FOR STRATEGIC PLAN, OBJECTIVE ONE AND TWO FOR STRATEGIC
[00:05:01]
PLAN, OBJECTIVE TWO, AND THEN ONE, UM, THAT IS ADDRESSING GENERAL SYSTEM AND OR PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.AND THEN ERCOT DOES SUPPORT ALL REVISION REQUESTS THAT ARE ON THE TAC AGENDA, OF COURSE, EXCEPT FOR PG 1 0 5 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS.
AND THE IMM HAS NO OPINION ON ANY OF THE REVISION REQUESTS AT TECH.
DOES THE IMM WANNA ADD ANYTHING HERE OR JUST STICK WITH THE NO OPINIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THERE? OKAY.
AND THEN, YEP, I DID HAVE THOSE ALT REPS BACKWARDS.
SO IT'S CURTIS CAMPO FOR GARLAND POWER AND LIGHT.
AND, UM, ABBY JOHN FOR CENTER POINT.
I HAD SWITCHED THE AFFILIATIONS.
[5. ERCOT Reports]
SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO ERCOT REPORTS.AND WE ARE, WE MOVED THIS UP IN THE AGENDA, UM, BECAUSE THESE REPORTS, I BELIEVE MOST OF THEM NEED TO GO TO DISCUSSION AT THE APRIL R AND M AND BOARD MEETINGS, WHICH ARE NEXT WEEK.
UM, I BELIEVE THE ONLY VOTING ITEM FROM THIS TACK THAT'S GOING TO APRIL BOARD IS THAT RPG PROJECT WE'RE ABOUT TO HEAR ABOUT.
BUT THAT IS THE REASON FOR KIND OF MOVING REPORTS UP IN THE AGENDA FROM FROM THE END TO THE BEGINNING.
UM, SO FIRST WE HAVE THE UPDATE ON THE 2023 MAXIMUM DAILY RESOURCE PLANNED OUTAGE CAPACITY, PERFORMANCE, AND METHODOLOGY.
AND I BELIEVE THIS IS A TIMELINE UPDATE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? YES, YOU THE QUEUE YET? ALL RIGHT.
[00:10:01]
UP, AND THEN I SEE ERIC GOFF IN THE QUEUE.UH, SIMILAR FEEDBACK TO THE DISCUSSION AT WMS. UM, I KNOW YOU'RE KIND OF LOOKING FOR TWO THINGS, PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND THEN RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW THE METHODOLOGY COULD BE, UM, MODIFIED THE PERFORMANCE REVIEW.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S, AGAIN, GONNA BE KIND OF DIFFICULT TO ASSESS BECAUSE THE THING YOU'RE NOT SEEING IS WHAT PEOPLE DIDN'T TRY TO SCHEDULE, RIGHT? IF, IF, UM, THERE WOULD BE ACTUALLY USEFUL DATA THAT SHOWS HOW IT ACTUALLY PERFORMED BASED ON WHEN THE DEMANDS FOR PLANT OUTAGES ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
BUT YOU'RE NEVER GONNA GET A FULL PICTURE OF THAT.
'CAUSE A LOT OF US JUST STOP TRYING TO SCHEDULE.
SO I THINK THE MORE, THE MUCH MORE VALUABLE EXERCISE HERE IS TO DISCUSS RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE METHODOLOGY VERSUS JUST A, A REVIEW OF HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE.
'CAUSE I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GONNA GIVE YOU A GOOD, UH, PICTURE OF HOW IT ACTUALLY PERFORMED.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY POSSIBLE 'CAUSE OF THAT, THAT KEY ASPECT OF PEOPLE JUST NOT SCHEDULING OR SEEING THAT THE WINDOW'S NOT THERE OR, OR JUST, YOU KNOW, NOT BEING ABLE TO SUBMIT THE REQUESTS TO, FOR YOU TO ACTUALLY ASSESS THE PERFORMANCE.
BUT I'M MORE CURIOUS, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO BRING BACK AT THE MAY T MEETING? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S GONNA BE SOME TIME WHERE WE WILL, STAKEHOLDERS WILL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS.
AND JUST WE'RE CURIOUS HOW THAT'S GONNA LOOK IF YOU'RE GONNA PLAN A WORKSHOP OR THAT'S GONNA BE DONE AT WMS OR W-W-M-W-G.
CAN YOU GIVE US A SENSE ON WHAT THE PROCESS LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY PLANNING TO BRING BACK TO THE NEXT TAC MEETING? THANKS.
YOU HAVE MUCH BETTER VISIBILITY.
UM, WHEN OUR OTHER PERIOD, THE PERIOD YOU WANT TO SUBMIT OUTAGE MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE BECAUSE WE REACH A MAXIMUM, UH, LIMIT.
HOWEVER, WE AL ALWAYS POST THE INFORMATION ACROSS THE ENTIRE FIVE YEARS.
SO THE, THE, THE OWNER AND THE QSE SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO IDENTIFY THE TIME.
MAY NOT, THE TIME YOU PREFER MAY BE NOT, MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE, BUT THERE ARE OTHER AVAILABILITY AND, UH, IS POSTED, UPDATED REGULARLY TO HELP THE, I WOULD SAY ADJUSTED OR RISK DIGITALLY OUTAGE AS NEEDED.
I THINK WE'RE HAVING SOME, ARE WE HAVING AUDIO ISSUES? I'M GETTING FEEDBACK THAT WE CAN'T HEAR FOLKS ON THE PHONE OR WEBEX.
[00:15:01]
UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE, THE COMMENTS FROM BILL.UM, AND I THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE A LOOK WITH FRESH EYES AT THIS METHODOLOGY.
UM, WHEN GENERATORS HAVE SAID THAT THEY DON'T SCHEDULE OUTAGES BECAUSE OF THE LIMIT, UH, I, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HEAR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT FROM GENERATORS, UM, AT THE MAY, UM, MEETINGS OF WMS AND TAC AS WE'RE CONSIDERING NEW CHANGES TO THIS METHODOLOGY.
UM, I'D ALSO, UM, LIKE IT TO HAPPEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE, UH, A A N AND O THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS.
UM, WE'VE HAD SOME TIME TO LIVE WITH THIS METHODOLOGY FOR A COUPLE YEARS NOW, AND, UH, I THINK WE SHOULD DO OUR BEST TO TAKE A, A THOROUGH REVIEW OF WHAT'S WORKING AND WHAT'S NOT AND, UM, WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE THE TIME TO DO THAT IF WE NEED MORE TIME.
SO, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING LINED UP IN MAY FOR, YOU KNOW, METHODOLOGICAL CHANGES, I THINK THAT'S OKAY.
UM, WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME IS THAT, UM, WE KIND OF DO A LESSONS LEARNED HERE AND, AND TRY TO BALANCE THE COMPETING NEEDS FOR ER CATT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S HAPPENING AND THE GENERATORS SHOULD TAKE THEIR MAINTENANCE OUTAGES.
SO I, I, I THINK WITH A, JUST IN SUMMARY, UM, I'D LIKE TO HEAR MORE FROM GENERATORS ABOUT THE CONSTRAINTS THAT THEY RUN INTO, YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY IF YOU CAN, UM, AND, UM, CLEAR CHANGES TO, TO MAKE THIS AN EASIER PROCESS FOR THEM.
AND, UM, I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE COMMENTS FROM BILL AND, UH, AND ERIC APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR, UH, CONTRIBUTION TO THAT AS WELL.
UM, IN THE VEIN OF, OF REPEATING THINGS THAT WE SAID AT WMS, UM, I, I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE ARE REVIEWING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE, THE, OF THE M-D-R-P-O-C, UM, THAT, THAT HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE EXPECT IN THE FUTURE.
AND IF WE LOOK AT THE, THE, THE M-D-R-P-O-C CURVE GOING INTO THE FUTURE, IT DOES HAVE A DOWNWARD SLOPE.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I'LL REPEAT WHAT I SAID AT WMS, IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO, UH, PUT SOME SENSITIVITIES AND AN ANALYSIS AROUND HOW THAT REDUCTION IN THE FUTURE, UH, MAY IMPACT THE ABILITY FOR GENERATORS TO TAKE THEIR NE NEEDED MAINTENANCE OUTAGES OR PLANNED OUTAGES.
UM, AND IT MAY ALSO BE GOOD TO PUT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RELIABILITY STANDARDS THAT THE COMMISSION'S LOOKING AT.
I KNOW ERCOT DID SOME REALLY GOOD WORK IN RESPONDING TO, UH, SOME OF THE EPA PROPOSALS AND WHAT THAT IMPACT COULD HAVE BEEN, UH, TO THE ABIL TO THE M-D-R-P-O-C THRESHOLDS AND WHAT THAT WOULD'VE, UH, IMPLICATED FOR, UH, PLANNED OUTAGE NEEDS.
AND SO WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE THAT, UH, THAT FRAMEWORK TO BE DUSTED OFF AND, AND KIND OF ADDED TO, TO THIS ON A FORWARD LOOKING BASIS.
KEVIN HANSEN? YEAH, UM, I GUESS MIKE, ONE QUESTION IS, LAST WEEK AT THE REGIONAL PLANNING GROUP, THE UPDATED MINIMUM LOAD FOR 2030 WAS CAME OUT, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS NORTH OF, UH, THE PEAK LOAD WE SAW LAST SUMMER, I THINK BETWEEN 8, 8 8 AND EIGHT NINE GIGAWATTS.
I'M JUST CUR CURIOUS OF THAT NEW ANTICIPATED LOAD IS BEING BAKED INTO THE FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS OF THE, UH, THIS VALUE HERE OR NOT, AND WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO TAKE OUTAGES IN THE FUTURE IF THAT'S THE NEW NUMBER WE'RE TRULY EXPECTING SOMEBODY FROM.
IS THAT A FRED QUESTION? YEAH, I, I CAN COMMENT ON THAT ONE TOO.
SO, UM, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE THE LOAD VALUE THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, THAT'S THE SAME ONE THAT WE'RE USING.
I KNOW THAT IN THE METHODOLOGY, UM, IT DOES USE AN UPDATED LOAD FORECAST IN THAT FIVE YEAR PROJECTION.
AND I'M, I'M ASSUMING IF THAT WOULD BE, UM, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT AS WELL.
BUT, UM, I TO KNOW FOR SURE, BUT I, I, I GUESS THE COMMENT IS YES, IT'S BEING UPDATED, UM, BASED OFF THE UPDATED LOAD FORECAST.
HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE, I'M ASSUMING LOOK AT THE REGIONAL PLANNING GROUP FORECAST.
I BELIEVE THE MINIMUM LOAD IS, I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS 88 OR
[00:20:01]
89 GIGAWATTS.AND THE MAXIMUM LOAD THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS A 162 GIGAWATTS BY 2030.
FRED, DID YOU WANNA WEIGH IN AS WELL? UH, YEAH.
SO, UH, JUST WE, QUICK ONE, I THINK THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE REASON, UH, WE ALSO ARE LOOKING FOR THE FEEDBACK ON THE METHODOLOGY ITSELF.
UH, KNOWING THERE ARE A LOT OF MOVING, UH, TARGETS RIGHT NOW, UH, THAT COULD AFFECT THE OUTAGE CALCULATION AND THE DETERMINATION AS WELL.
SO I WOULD, UH, APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT.
UH, WE WILL, UH, I SAY EDIT AS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION LIST AND, AND STILL ENCOURAGE, UH, USE, KIND OF JUST MAKE SURE WE DON'T MISS, UH, SOMETHING.
SO PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS THROUGH THE OUTREACH ANALYSIS AT
AND THAT'S SOMETHING MAYBE WE, WE SHOULD, UH, PROBABLY MAKE A BETTER COMMUNICATION LATER.
SO ONE OF THE REASON, IF YOU PEOPLE LOOK AT OUR POST-IT M-D-R-P-O-C, YOU WILL NOTED THE M-D-R-P-O-C NUMBERS START TO DECREASE OVER THE YEAR.
UH, AND THE, THE MAIN REASON IS WE CURRENTLY LOW FORECAST IMPACT OR ALL THE, ALL THE WAY TO, UH, YEAR FIVE.
BUT, UH, THE CHALLENGE IS THE, UH, WE ALSO TRY TO COUNTER THE PLAN OUT PLAN GENERATION RESOURCES, WHICH, UH, THE, IS THE UNCERTAINTY AND THE COMMITMENT IS REALLY LIMITED ALL AT THIS.
OUR, THE CONNECTION QUEUE IS TYPICALLY ONLY UP TO ONE TO TWO YEARS OR UP TO THREE YEARS.
AND THERE'S A VERY LIMITED NEW GENERATION RESOURCE COMMITTED BEYOND THE TIMEFRAME.
THAT'S HOW YOU SEE THE CURVE START TO REDUCED.
UH, BUT THE WE, UH, CONTINUOUS UPDATED IS ONE.
SO ONCE A NEW RESOURCE COMMITTED, IT WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE UPDATED M-D-R-P-O-C CURVE.
UH, BUT CERTAINLY WE CAN PUT MORE DETAILS IN THE FUTURE METHODOLOGY DISCUSSION.
YEAH, FRED OR LUKE, WILL THE, UM, PERFORMANCE REVIEW THAT YOU'RE EMBARKING ON NOW INCLUDE ANY ASSESSMENT OF A CHANGE IN TREND OF FORCED OUTAGES? I, I JUST, NOT NECESSARILY SURE WHAT, HOW THAT'S CHANGED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, BUT IF THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN THAT, IT COULD BE A SYMPTOM OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CONCERN THAT BILL RAISED EARLIER ON, YOU KNOW, NOT ASKING 'CAUSE WE KNOW WE'RE NOT GONNA GET IT.
AND, UH, THAT ACTUALLY IS, IS ONE OF THE, OUR TARGET TO BETTER REVIEW THE PERFORMANCE TO SEE THE, ANY PROS AND THE CONS.
UH, FOR M-D-R-P-O-C, I THINK THE PURPOSE TRY TO HAVE A TRANSPARENT TRANSPARENCY AND HELP COORDINATION ON THIS ONE.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS HERE? GO AHEAD, IAN.
SORRY, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OKAY.
ONE THOUGHT ON HOW TO LOOK AT IF GENERATORS ARE GETTING ENOUGH WITHOUT ASKING THEM.
UM, THERE'S A LOT OF SECRET SAUCE IN HOW GENERATORS SCHEDULE THEIR OUTAGES.
AND ONE THOUGHT I HAVE IN HOW WE COULD LOOK AT THAT IS AN AGGREGATE, LOOKING AT THE OUTAGES TAKEN OVER TIME.
UM, THERE IS A RHYTHM TO OUTAGES OF MAJORS AND MINORS.
AND SO IF WE SEE THAT OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS, ON AVERAGE, BEFORE M-D-R-P-O-C, WE NEEDED X HOURS, AND NOW GENERATORS ONLY TAKING 0.8 X HOURS, WE CAN START TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS THAT CRUNCH ON THEM.
UM, SO THAT MAY BE A WAY FOR US TO, UH, GET ACTUAL INFORMATION WITHOUT ASKING, UM, FOR THE, THESE GENERATION OWNERS TO FULLY REVEAL THE SECRETS TO US.
ANY, ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, SO YOU ERCOT WANTS FEEDBACK, UM, BY TWO WEEKS FROM NOW, AND THEN THEY WILL COME BACK AT THE NEXT MAY TECH MEETING.
AND THEN, ALRIGHT, I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON.
UM, THE NEXT ERCOT REPORT IS THE EIR SAN ANTONIO SOUTH RELIABILITY TWO RPG PROJECT.
DOESN'T HAVE HERE, DO WE GET HERE OR JUST THE, OKAY, SURE.
[00:25:01]
THANK YOU.UH, SO I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE SAN ANTONIO SOUTH WORLD LIBERTY TWO PROJECT.
SO OVERVIEW ON THIS PROJECT, THIS PROJECT, UH, ORIGINALLY BRA ELECTED, SOME CO-OP SUBMITTED A PROJECT TO, UH, BOTH, UH, SAN MIGUEL TO MARION 3 45 KV PROJECT, UH, THAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR RPG REVIEW.
THIS WAS A TIER ONE PROJECT, ESTIMATED TO BE 250, APPROXIMATELY $258 MILLION.
UH, WHEN ERCOT LOOKED AT THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, THE NEED ANALYSIS, UM, WE DID NOT SEE A NEED FOR THIS PROJECT, BUT WE DID IDENTIFY A NEED FOR A DIFFERENT PROJECT THAT LED INTO THIS SAN ANTONIO SOUTH TWO RELIABILITY PROJECT.
SO AS PER THE PROTOCOL, THIS PROJECT IDENTIFIED HERE IS, UH, FALSE IN THE TIER ONE CATEGORY, UH, WITH AN ESTIMATED, UH, COST OF, UH, GREATER THAN A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.
AND THIS WOULD REQUIRE THE BOARD ENDORSEMENT, UM, AS, AS THE PROCESS, AS PART OF THE PROCESS.
UH, WE ARE PRESENTING FOR THIS PROJECT FOR TAC FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS AND ANY COMMENTS, UH, FROM THE, FROM TAC WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE, UH, AND PRESENTED IN THE BOARD NEXT WEEK.
SO HERE'S THE, UH, PROJECT NEED.
UM, SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE, UH, ERCOT AND THE NERC, UH, TPL CRITERIA THAT WE DID IDENTIFY, UH, THERMAL OVERLOADS, UH, THAT'S LISTED IN THE TABLE HERE, UM, WE, WE IDENTIFIED APPROXIMATELY 13 MILES OF 1 38 KV OVERLOADS AND 46 MILES OF, UH, 3 45 KV OVERLOADS.
THAT'S THE PRIMARY DRIVER FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO AS PART OF THE ANALYSIS, WE STARTED WITH 15 OPTIONS AND, UH, SHORT SHORTLISTED THOSE TO FOUR OPTIONS.
UH, THE DETAILS OF THE FOUR OPTIONS ARE LISTED BELOW IN THE TABLE.
UH, THE PERFORMANCES IN THE CRITERIA, HOW IT MET THE RELIABILITY CRITERIA, SOME OF THE LONG-TERM ROAD SERVING CAPABILITY, UM, PROVIDING ADDITIONAL TRANSFER PATHS AND, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR CCN.
AND THE COSTS ARE LAID OUT IN THE TABLE.
BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, YOU COULD SEE OPTION 14 WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE PREFERRED OPTION, UH, WHICH BASICALLY REQUIRES THE LEAST, UH, RIGHT AWAY.
AND, UH, OVERALL IT, UH, IT FALL, IT HAS THE LEAST COST COMPARED TO THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES.
ALSO, AS PART OF THE ANALYSIS, UH, FOR THE IDENTIFIED OPTION, OPTION 14, UH, WE PERFORMED A SUB SYNCHRONOUS, UH, RESONANCE ASSESSMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE PROTOCOL SECTION LISTED HERE.
SO WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY ADVERSE SSR IMPACTS, UH, FOR EITHER THE EXISTING OR PLANNED GENERATION FOR THIS PROPOSED PROJECT.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE PLANNING GUIDE SECTION 3.1 0.3 ALSO REQUIRES US TO PERFORM A CONGESTION ANALYSIS AND ALSO LOOK AT THE GENERATOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS, LOOKING AT FUTURE GENERATION AND ALSO THE LOAD SCALING THAT'S TYPICALLY USED IN THE PLANNING CASES.
UH, BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, WE CONCLUDED THAT OPTION 14 DID NOT CAUSE ANY NEW CONGESTION IN THE STUDY AREA, AND ALSO IT DOES NOT, UM, CAUSE ANY POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH FUTURE GENERATIONS OR THE LOAD SCALING THAT'S USED IN THE CASE.
SO, ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON THE RECOMMENDED OPTION 14.
UM, BASICALLY THIS INVOLVES, UH, TWO PART TWO PARTS.
ONE IS CONSTRUCT A NEW, UH, EAST SIDE 3 45, 1 38 KV SUBSTATION.
AND THE OTHER PARTS ARE REBUILDING THE, UH, TY TORU AND TY TO TANGO 3 45 KV EXISTING LINES.
SO THE CAPITAL COST OF THE PROJECT IS $435 MILLION, UM, OR CUT, WILL MAKE THIS REC MAKE RECOMMEND THIS PROJECT TO THE BOARD AND DESIGNATE THIS, UH, PROJECT AS CRITICAL FOR THE RELIABILITY OF THE ERCOT SYSTEM.
SO THIS IS MORE DETAILS, THERE ARE MORE DETAILS ON THE RECOMMENDED OPTION 14, AS I SAID, THIS IS VOLS REBUILD, UH, PONTY DISPROVES 3 45 KV SINGLE CIRCUIT INTO A DOUBLE CIRCUIT LINE, UH, WITH THE RATING OF, UH, 1,746 MBA PER CIRCUIT.
AND THIS WILL REQUIRE A NEW RIGHT OF WAY.
UH, ALSO IT'LL ALSO REBUILD THE EXISTING PONTY TO TANGO SINGLE CIRCUIT INTO A DOUBLE CIRCUIT, UH, WITH THE SAME CAPABILITIES.
UM, AND THIS WILL ALSO NEED AN EXPANDED RIGHT AWAY.
UH, BOTH THOSE UPGRADES ARE EXPECTED TO BE, UH, DONE IN A MANNER TO, IN WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION, UH, WILL REDUCE THE, UH, NEED FOR EXTENDED OUTAGES.
SO THIS, THE OTHER PART OF THE OPTION 14 IS BASICALLY BUILDING A NEW 3 45 1 38 KVE SITE SUBSTATION NEAR BACK ROAD.
AND THIS NEW STATION WILL HAVE 2 3 45 1 38 KV AUTOS WITH 600 MEA
[00:30:01]
EACH.AND, UH, AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, WE'LL LOOP THE EXISTING, UH, SKYLINE TO SPRUCE 3 45 KV LINE INTO THIS NEW SUBSTATION, ALONG WITH THE FOUR ADDITIONAL 1 38 KV LINES IN THAT AREA.
THAT'LL BE LOOPED INTO THIS NEW SUBSTATION.
I BELIEVE THIS, THE LAST SLIDE JUST SHOWS THE VISUAL OF, UH, WHERE THE PROJECT IS.
YOU COULD SEE THE TANGO TO PONTY TO JAKE SPRUCE LINE HIGHLIGHTED THERE.
AND ALSO THE BIG SUBSTATION IS IDENTIFIED, OR THE BIG ROAD SUBSTATION WHERE THE NEW EAST SIDE, UM, STATION WILL BE BUILT IS ALSO IDENTIFIED HERE.
I BELIEVE THAT'S MY LAST LIGHT.
SO I'LL, UH, OPEN IT FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
I ALREADY SEE SOME SLIDE OR WE, WE HAVE A QUEUE BUILT UP.
BU THE ONLY CONCERN, I MEAN, NO CONCERN ABOUT THE NEED.
I MEAN, IT'S OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOTTA DO SOMETHING IN THE AREA.
THE CONCERN WITH THE PROJECT SELECTION, UH, THAT WE REALLY TALKED ABOUT INTERNALLY FOR A DP WAS OVER THE, THE OUTAGES THAT ARE GONNA BE REQUIRED FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION AND HOW DIFFICULT IT'S GONNA BE TO GET THOSE OUTAGES NECESSARY TO GET THE CONSTRUCTION.
AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS, UH, CONSIDERED AS HEAVILY AS MAYBE IT SHOULD HAVE, IT SHOULD OR COULD HAVE BEEN.
I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT A NORMAL PERHAPS METRIC, BUT THE CONSTRUCTABILITY, UH, WITH THAT IN MIND, UH, IS, IS, IS A CONCERN FOR US.
YEAH, THANK, THANKS FOR THE COMMENT.
I, I THINK WE, WE TALKED TO THE INVOLVED TSPS AND THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, WAY TO, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCT THIS LINE WITH MINIMUM OUTAGES.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY CAN DO IT WITHOUT ANY OUTAGES, BUT THAT WAS CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS RECOMMENDATION.
SO, OTHER THING I WOULD POINT ALSO, LIKE THERE ARE OTHER PROJECTS AND MAG MIGUEL TO HOWARD ROAD, THAT'S GOING TO HELP, DEPENDING ON THE TIMELINE, ONE THAT IS CON ONE THAT IS COMPLETED.
UH, YEAH, I, I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTIES IN THAT AREA.
AND THIS IS, UH, THERE, THERE IS ALSO AGING INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES WITH THIS LINE, SO THIS NEEDS TO BE REBUILT.
UM, FROM THE, THE WAY THE, THE OPTIONS WERE PRESENTED, I CAN SEE WHY, WHY OPTION 14 WAS, WAS THE, IT LOOKED LIKE THE BEST OPTION, UH, ON THE TABLE.
BUT, UM, I WAS CURIOUS AND ADMITTEDLY HADN'T FOLLOWED FROM THE, UH, FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FROM, FROM BRAZOS.
UH, BUT THAT PROPOSAL WAS A 258.5 MILLION, UH, PROPOSAL VERSUS THE EVEN OPTION 14 IS, YOU KNOW, ABOUT $200 MILLION HIGHER THAN THAT.
I WAS CURIOUS IF, UH, IF YOU COULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, THE, THE DISTINCTION WAS BETWEEN THOSE TWO PROJECTS AND, AND YOU KNOW, WHY THE BRAZOS ONE WOULDN'T ADDRESS THIS, UH, THIS NEED? YEAH, THE, THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO THAT.
SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE PROCESS SUBMITTAL AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT THE NEED, WE DID NOT QUITE SEE THE NEED FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT OR OUR RELIABLE ISSUES AROUND THAT.
UH, WE DID IDENTIFY A NEED, UH, FOR THIS, FOR THE UPGRADE OF THIS LINE HERE.
AND, UH, THE COST IS COMPARISON IS LIKE, THERE ARE TWO PARTS OF THE PROJECTS IN OPTION 14.
ONE IS, AS I SAID, THE BECK ROAD PROJECT, THAT IS A SEPARATE PROJECT SUBMITTED.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONGOING RPG ANALYSIS, BUT WE TRY TO, YOU KNOW, LINK OR, OR MAKE, MOVE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THIS PROJECT.
SO THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER PROJECT, SEPARATE PROJECT GOING ON.
SO THAT'S WHY THE COST IS, LIKE, IT HAS TWO PARTS.
BILL BARNES, DOES THIS RESOLVE OR HELP RESOLVE THE IOL? YEAH, SO THIS, THIS PROJECT WAS INITIATED BEFORE THE IRO WAS DEFINED.
SO THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM A GTC EXIT STRATEGY STUDY THAT'S ONGOING CURRENTLY.
SO THAT WILL PROBABLY PROVIDE THE ANSWER FOR YOUR QUESTION ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS NEEDED TO EXIT THE GTC.
BUT I WOULD SAY LIKE, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS PROJECTS TEND TO HELP THE GTC, ALL THE PROPOSED PROJECTS IN THIS AREA, SAN ANTONIO PROJECT ONE, UH, TWO.
AND ALSO THERE ARE PROJECTS IN THE, UH, RTP IDENTIFIED LAST YEAR.
THERE'S ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN NEEDED.
BUT ONE THING THAT'S CHANGING IS, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SAY WITH CERTAINTY IS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE SYSTEM IS EVOLVING THERE IN TERMS OF LOAD AND GENERATION ADDITIONS.
SO WE NEED TO SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE.
SO I THINK ALL THOSE PROJECTS BENEFIT THE, YOU KNOW, EXIT OF THE GTC.
AND I ALSO WAS WONDERING HOW THIS PROJECT INTERACTED WITH THE CPS PROJECT.
DOES THIS ACCELERATE SOME OF THE WORK OR BASICALLY REQUIRE THAT SOME OF THE SCOPE OF THAT PROJECT CAN BE REDUCED TO LOWER COST OR WHAT,
[00:35:01]
HOW DO THOSE TWO PROJECTS WORK TOGETHER? WHEN YOU SAY CPS, WHAT, WHICH PROJECT ARE YOU REFERRING? THE, UH, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF IT.AS A SOUTH, SOUTH TEXAS RELIABILITY STUDY OR RELIABILITY.
YEAH, THE, THE PREVIOUS PROJECT, THE SAN HOWARD ROAD.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE NEW LINE? OKAY.
SO I THINK THOSE, I MEAN, WE SEE THE NEED FOR BOTH THE PROJECTS AT THIS POINT.
SO, UM, DEPENDING ON THE TIMELINE, WHEN THOSE PROJECTS ARE COMPLETED, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IT'LL, IT'LL IMPROVE THE SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, RELIABILITY.
BUT I THINK FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE, WE SEE THE NEED FOR BOTH THE PROJECTS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE RELIABILITY.
KEVIN HANSEN? YEAH, JUST FOR CLARITY, THE TH THE THREE, UH, CPS PROJECTS THAT JUST ANNOUNCED THE RETIREMENT, WERE THEY EXCLUDED FROM THE STUDY? THEY WERE THE PRODUCTS THEY WERE LIKE INCLUDED IN STU, I MEAN, LIKE EXCLUDED? YEAH, YOU WERE THE, WERE TURNED OFF.
AND THE EXPECTATION AGAIN IS BILL ASK THE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THE NEW SOUTH GTC, WE, WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS NEW LINE WILL BE ON THAT.
YEAH, WE, WE DON'T KNOW THAT, BUT, UH, I THINK, UH, THAT, AS I SAID THAT THAT'S AN ONGOING STUDY PER REQUIREMENT, BUT THE PROTOCOLS WE WILL, WE WILL COMPLETE THAT STUDY.
BUT ONE THING IS CHALLENGING IS AS YOU, YOU KNOW, AS YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, THE, THE LOAD GROWTH AND THE GENERATION, UH, YOU KNOW, OR CHANGES IN THAT AREA, THAT THAT HAS A BIGGER IMPACT.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS HERE ANYMORE? I THINK WE ARE LOOKING TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM.
SO WE'D BE LOOKING FOR, UH, A MOTION TO ENDORSE SAN ANTONIO SOUTH RELIABILITY TO OUR PG PROJECT, OPTION 14 AS PRESENTED BY ERCOT.
CAN WE ADD THAT TO THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY.
OKAY, OUR NEXT REPORT IS THE PRO PROPOSED REVISIONS TO BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
UH, THIS IS NOT A VOTING ITEM, BUT I, I THINK WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION HERE.
UM, AND I BELIEVE HR AND G DID WANT TECH FEEDBACK ON THIS.
SO, SO THIS AGAIN, IS A, A REASON WHY WE MOVED THE ERCOT REPORTS UP IN THIS AGENDA.
SO THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE FEBRUARY HR AND G, AND I BELIEVE WE'LL BE AGAIN NEXT WEEK.
AND, UM, WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT TECH IS REALLY UNDERSTANDING THE KIND OF PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THESE CHANGES AND, UM, THAT WE GET ANY FEEDBACK ON THE RECORD AS WELL.
THIS IS KIM RAINWATER WITH ERCOT LEGAL.
THE PURPOSE OF OUR PRESENTATION TODAY IS TO UPDATE THE COMMITTEE AND, UM, ALSO TO INVITE YOUR FEEDBACK ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE BOARD'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
WE WERE GOING TO, UH, PROPOSE THIS FOR APRIL, BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN MOVED TO JUNE BOARD TO GIVE MORE TIME TO PROCESS ANY FEEDBACK THAT YOU ALL HAVE.
SO ONE OF THE MAIN, MAIN PURPOSES, UH, OF, OF THE UPDATES THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY, AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO RECEIVE FEEDBACK AND INTEGRATE REVISIONS, IS TO INTEGRATE THEIR CURRENT PRACTICES OF THE BOARD REGARDING REVISION REQUESTS.
SO HOW THE BOARD PROCESSES REVISION REQUESTS ONCE THEY'RE RECEIVED.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT HOW TAC HANDLES REVISION REQUESTS OR AFTER THE BOARD, BUT WHAT ARE THE STEPS THE BOARD TAKES WHEN THEY HEAR REVISION REQUESTS? AND SO ALSO TO MAKE SOME SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON THAT PROCESS.
SO, SO FAR WE'VE CONSIDERED THE LESSONS.
WE'VE LEARNED, UM, COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS AND MATERIALS SUCH AS WHAT THE BOARD COMMITTEE CHAIRS HAVE SAID IN THEIR MEMOS ABOUT THEIR VISION REQUEST PROCESS.
PRIOR TO BOARD MEETINGS, WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK, UH, THROUGH MARKET RULES, STAKEHOLDER SERVICES, AND, UM, JUST KEEPING IN MIND THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK THAT AFTER THE BOARD, THE REVISION REQUEST DO PROCEED ON TO THE PUC AND KEEPING THAT IN MIND.
SO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES, BEYOND REFLECTING THE CURRENT PRACTICES, THERE ARE SOME STEPS WHERE WE HAD TO MAKE JUDGMENT CALLS ABOUT WHAT TO PROPOSE, UM, FOR HOW TO BETTER THE PROCESS.
AND WHEN WE WERE MAKING PROPOSALS FOR NEW STEPS, THESE ARE SOME OF THE PRINCIPLES.
AND THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, REFLECTING ON THE BYLAWS, LOOKING TO THE CHARTER
[00:40:01]
PROVISIONS, HOW THE BOARD DELEGATES AUTHORITY TO THE COMMITTEES, LOOKING AT SECTION 21, UH, MAINTAINING AWARENESS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO BE HEARD, BUT ALSO JUST THE PUBLIC, UM, THAT'S A REGULATORY REQUIREMENT, A LEGAL REQUIREMENT, BUT ALSO JUST THIS PROCESS WHERE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WANNA WEIGH IN IN ADVANCE INEFFICIENCY, UH, THAT'S A BIG ONE.SO WE, WE HAD SOME STEPS DURING THE REVISION REQUEST PROCESS IN 2023, WHERE WE HEARD A LOT OF REVISION REQUEST, UM, DISCUSSION AT THE COMMITTEE, AND THEN THE NEXT DAY AT THE BOARD HEARD IDENTICAL OR MORE DATA.
AND SO HOW CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND BE EFFICIENT AND AWARE OF, UH, PEOPLE'S TIME AND AWARENESS? OKAY, THIS IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE REVISIONS, UH, PROPOSED IN THE RED LINES THAT YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE IN YOUR MEETING MATERIALS, AS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THE BOARD USUALLY CONSIDERS ON A CONSENT AGENDA, UH, REVISION REQUESTS THAT TAC RECOMMENDS UNANIMOUSLY, WHICH INCLUDES ABSTENTIONS.
THOSE ARE CONSIDERED UNANIMOUS.
SO THAT'S HISTORICALLY MOST REVISION REQUESTS, AND THOSE HAVEN'T BEEN MAKING A STOP AT, UM, ANY OF THE BOARD COMMITTEES.
SO YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED DURING BOARD MEETINGS, BOARD COMMITTEE CHAIRS WILL GIVE A REPORT, AN ORAL REPORT, UH, TO THE FULL BOARD.
AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS THAT EQUAL TIME, UH, BE ALLOWED.
FOLLOWING THAT REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, AND WE DID DURING THE MAR AHEAD OF THE MARCH 27TH ATTACK MEETING, WE HAD, UM, PROPOSED SOME RED LINES.
AND SINCE THEN WE FUR FURTHER REVISED THEM BASED ON SOME FEEDBACK FROM THAT POSTING, JUST TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE BOARD STILL VOTES ON A REVISION REQUEST AFTER THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND WHAT WE'VE ALSO PROPOSED IS THAT WHERE PRESENTATIONS TO THE FULL BOARD FOLLOW A PRESENTATION TO THE COMMITTEE, UM, THE BOARD WOULD HAVE DISCRETION TO DISCOUNT NEW OR CHANGED INFORMATION.
AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE JUST MADE UP.
THAT'S AN EXISTING PRINCIPLE IN, UM, I THINK IT'S CURRENT SECTION NINE OF THE BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT REGARDS TAC APPEALS OR TAC RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITIONS OR ERCOT RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITIONS.
THERE'S THIS CONCEPT, UH, THIS LANGUAGE THAT THE BOARD CAN DISCOUNT.
THEY'LL HEAR IT, BUT THEY MAY NOT GIVE THE SAME WEIGHT WHEN THEY'RE DECIDING IF THERE'S NEW OR CHANGED INFORMATION IN THE BOARD.
UM, THE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD THAT WASN'T PRESENTED TOT AND OR THE BOARD COMMITTEE, AND NOTED AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SLIDE, WE, WE HAVE PROPOSED A NEW APPENDIX B THAT'S A RESOURCE TOOL TO HELP PLAN CONSISTENT AGENDAS.
SO THE BOARD COULD LOOK AT THOSE IN, UM, STRUCTURING REVISION REQUESTS ON THEIR AGENDA.
UH, STAKEHOLDERS COULD LOOK AT THOSE AND KNOW WHERE AND WHEN THEY COULD SPEAK AND JUST DEVELOP SOME SHARED EXPECTATIONS.
ONE OF THE MAIN CLARIFICATIONS, WHAT, WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS THAT, UM, IT'S INTEGRATING A PROCESS.
IN 2023, A VARIETY OF TAC REPRESENTED REPRESENTATIVES PRESENTING DURING BOARD CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD AFTER TAC RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE A REVISION REQUEST.
SO THERE WAS A TAC RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, THEN THERE WERE COMMENTS SUBMITTED, AND THERE WAS KIND OF THIS UNCLEAR AREA WHERE DID THAT RECOMMENDATION FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF ATTACK RECOMMENDATION, OPPOSITION? WERE THOSE COMMENTS OPPOSING TAX RECOMMENDATION? AND DID TAC HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS FORMAL PROCESS THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS? FORT RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITIONS, WHERE THEY APPOINT A TAC ADVOCATE, AND HISTORICALLY THE TAC ADVOCATE WOULD REPRESENT, UH, TAX POSITION.
IN THIS SITUATION, TAC HAS VOTED TO RECOMMEND THE REVISION REQUEST, AND THEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE SUBMITTING COMMENTS THAT PERHAPS REPRESENTS THE POSITION OF, UM, A SEGMENT OFT, BUT TAC MAY NOT WANNA APPOINT AN ADVOCATE TO, TO SPEAK TO A SINGLE POSITION FOR THE ENTIRE BODY AFTER THE VOTE.
AND SO THE TAC CHAIR, VICE CHAIR,
[00:45:01]
HOWEVER YOU GUYS GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, YOU'VE INVITED DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO SPEAK ABOUT THOSE.AND YOU'LL SEE A RED LINE, UM, THAT BASICALLY SAYS TAC RECOMMENDATION, OPPOSITIONS DON'T APPLY TO REVISION REQUESTS.
AND, AND THIS IS, UH, WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IS, UM, TAC ADVOCATE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE APPOINTED.
AND SO AT THIS POINT, WE DO HAVE SOME OTHER PROPOSED CLARIFICATIONS.
THERE MAY BE MORE FORTHCOMING.
I DON'T ANTICIPATE THE ANY FURTHER REVISIONS FORTHCOMING WOULD DIRECTLY RELATE TO TAC LIKE THESE DO.
UM, THESE ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW DON'T DIRECTLY RE RELATE TO TAC, BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF SOME OF THE OTHER RED LINES, UM, THE, THE BOARD DOES RESERVE THE RIGHT OR ALWAYS HAS THE RIGHT TO DIRECTLY HEAR MATTERS DELEGATED TO COMMITTEES.
IT'S JUST BECAUSE THE BOARD HAS A PROCESS DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE BOARD MAY NOT USE ALLOWABLE PROCESSES TO CONSIDER A MATTER DIRECTLY IF NECESSARY.
UM, THERE'S A SECTION THAT REFERS TO HOW THE BOARD CONSIDERS ITS ERCOT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.
AND THERE'S A CLARIFICATION NOW THAT GOALS AREN'T JUST DEVELOPED ANNUALLY WITHIN ERCOT.
AND THERE'S, UH, SOME TIMING PROVISIONS ABOUT WHEN STAFF PRES PRESENTS BUDGET PROPOSALS TO THE BOARD.
UM, AND IT'S FURTHER ALIGNING THE, THE TIME PERIOD TO 45 DAYS BEFORE, UM, DEADLINE AT THE PUC.
SO, WITH THAT, AS I SAID, WE ARE PROPOSING TO SUGGEST THIS TO THE HRG COMMITTEE AND THE BOARD FOR THE JUNE BOARD MEETING.
SO YOU ALL ARE WELCOME TO GIVE, UM, ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS NOW, OR YOU CAN FOLLOW UP WITH US AND THIS WILL GIVE US TIME TO FURTHER INTEGRATE YOUR FEEDBACK.
SO THIS, THIS WILL BE AT THE JUNE BOARD MEETING, NOT AT THE APRIL BOARD MEETING NEXT.
WE HAD PROPOSED, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS ORIGINALLY FOR MARCH 27TH TAC AND DUE THE DUE TO THE DELAY, UM, THAT THAT MEETING IS NEXT WEEK FOR THE BOARD.
AND IT'S JUST NOT ENOUGH TIME, I DON'T THINK TO ADEQUATELY PROCESS ANY FEEDBACK YOU ALL MIGHT HAVE.
CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND ON SLIDE SIX, WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THE TECH OPPOSITION DOESN'T APPLY TO REVISION REQUESTS ANYMORE? YEAH.
MAYBE IF WE PULL UP THE RED LINES FOR THIS ONE, I THINK.
SO YOU CAN SEE WE'RE, WE'RE ADDING, UM, NEW SECTION EIGHT.
UM, THE, THE PROCEDURES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF REVISION REQUESTS, RENUMBERING, AND THEN ADDING THE, UH, APPENDIX.
THIS IS THE PIECE IN 0.2 THAT I WAS REFERRING TO THAT I, THE BOARD DELEGATES, UH, A MATTER TO A COMMITTEE DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT CANNOT TAKE THAT UP DIRECTLY IF NECESSARY.
PUBLIC COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, IT'S A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.
AND HISTORICALLY DONE THAT ON MEETINGS OF THE, THE AGENDAS FOR MEETINGS OF THE BOARD AND COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD, MEANING, UH, A COMMITTEE ON WHICH A BOARD MEMBER SITS THAT THERE'S THIS NOTICE ABOUT HOW THE PUBLIC CAN COMMENT.
AND THIS IS REFLECTING THAT, UM, PROVISION.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, UH, ERCOT SCHOOLS ARE MULTI-YEAR.
SO IT'S A CLARIFICATION IN 2.1, THE TIMING PROVISION, UH, FOR WHICH STAFF PRESENTS BUDGET MATERIALS FOR CONSIDERATION PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION DEADLINE.
SO THESE ARE ALL THOSE STEPS THAT, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT A MOMENT AGO.
IT'S ABOUT BOARD CONSIDERATION OF REVISION REQUESTS.
THE BOARD ALLOWS COMMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT GENERAL PROVISION AT THE TOP.
AND THE BOARD ACCEPTS COMMENTS SUCH AS DURING 2023, AFTER REVISION REQUEST WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, UM, THROUGH THE WHATEVER TAX PROCESS IS.
AND THEN THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THOSE.
THE BOARD MAY DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO ONE OR MORE OF ITS COMMITTEES.
8.5 IS THE BIT ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE COMMITTEE CHAIR MAY PRESENT A SUMMARY OF THE DELIBERATIONS AT THE COMMITTEE, USUALLY THE PRIOR DAY.
[00:50:01]
AND, UM, MAY THE BOARD CHAIR, VICE CHAIR MAY CHOOSE TO ALLOW EQUAL TIME TO PARTIES, COMMENTERS, TAX REPRESENTATIVES, STAFF, UH, THE DISCOUNTED ARGUMENT PROVISION, WHICH WE'LL SEE BELOW, AND A REFERENCE TO THE APPENDIX B.SO THIS, TO DIRECTLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, CAITLYN, OR TO SPEAK TO IT RATHER, UM, TAC APPEALS, THOSE STILL EXIST.
UH, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO APPEAL AN ACTION OF TAC OR TAX SUBCOMMITTEE THAT BASICALLY STOPPED A REVISION REQUEST, UM, THAT YOU KNOW, IT, IT DIDN'T GET TO THE BOARD, RIGHT, TAX STOPPED IT OR COMMITTEE ACTION STOPPED IT.
SO THEY WANT TO APPEAL THAT STILL EXISTS.
AND ATTACK ADVOCATE WOULD BE APPOINTED BY TECH ATTACK RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITIONS.
THERE ARE, UH, THERE ARE PROVISIONS WITHIN MARKET RULES IN WHICH TAC IS REQUIRED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, YOU KNOW, NOT REGARDING A REVISION REQUEST.
AND PERHAPS A STAKEHOLDER WANTS TO POSE THAT THEY COULD USE THIS TAC RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITION PROVISION, EX IT STILL EXISTS, REQUIRES A POINTING OF ATTACK AT ADVOCATE AND ALL THE TIMING PROVISIONS IN SECTION NINE OR, AND OR SECTION 21 OF THE PROTOCOLS, ERCOT RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITIONS.
SIMILARLY, THERE ARE, UH, PROVISIONS OR ELEMENTS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE METHODOLOGIES, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE ERCOT MAKES A RECOMMENDATION, UM, AND AN ENTITY OR A PERSON WANTS TO OPPOSE THAT THEY CAN FOLLOW THIS PROVISION IN SECTION 9.1.
THE GRAY, THE GRAY AREA WE WERE SPEAKING ABOUT IS, SO TAC MAKES A RECOMMENDATION ON A REVISION REQUEST.
MM-HMM,
UM, SO, SO FAR THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED IN WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS, UM, AND INTEGRATING WHAT THEIR SUGGESTIONS WERE WAS, UM, THAT TECH DIDN'T WANT TO NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO APPOINT A REPRESENTATIVE TO SPEAK FOR TAX POSITION, WHEN PERHAPS A REVISION REQUEST THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE MORE IMPACTS A SEGMENT.
THEY WANNA, THEY WANT A, UH, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THAT SEGMENT TO BE, TO SPEAK.
UM, SO THAT'S WHAT THAT REVISION IS.
AND WE'RE, AND HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR FEEDBACK ON WAYS TO ADJUST IT OR, OKAY.
SO BEFORE THIS PROPOSED CHANGES, YOU REALLY, IN ORDER TO MAKE AN APPEAL, THIS, THIS IS BE TRUE BEFORE THIS AND BEFORE AFTERWARDS, THE, THE APPEAL PROCESS ONLY APPLIES TO A DOWN VOTE, BUT IF TECH UPVOTES SOMETHING THROUGH, SO IF WE VOTE TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING THROUGH PREVIOUSLY, A STAKEHOLDER COULD FILE AN OPPOSITION TO THAT REVISION REQUEST THAT WAS UPVOTED THROUGH.
BUT NOW IS THERE A WAY FOR A STAKEHOLDER TO FILE AN OPPOSITION TO A RECOMMENDED UPVOTE FROM TAC THE FILING? AND, YOU KNOW, ANN MAY WANNA WEIGH IN ON THIS, THE FILING OF COMMENTS PREVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A DEBATE ON IF SOMEONE FILED COMMENTS AFTER THE TAC RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE, DO WE TREAT THOSE AS A RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITION OR JUST COMMENTS AND HEAR, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY SAY, THEY CAN BE OPPOSING, UM, YOU KNOW, AND THE, AND THEY CAN COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND OPPOSE IT AND BEFORE THE BOARD AND THE PUC, UH, SAY WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO SAY.
UM, SO, SO THIS DOES HAVE HEAVILY, UH, WEIGH ON TAX PREFERENCE, BUT I DO THINK, UH, WE MIGHT WANT ANNE TO WEIGH IN HAVING WORKED WITH STAKEHOLDERS ON, ON THIS PIECE A LOT.
SO I THINK THE CLEAREST WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT IS THAT REVISION REQUESTS ARE GOVERNED BY SEC SECTION 21, WHICH JUST TELLS YOU TO FILE COMMENTS IF SOMETHING HAS ADVANCED TO THE BOARD.
UM, SO LIKE KIM WAS SAYING, IF SOMETHING'S REJECTED OR TABLED AND NOT ADVANCING, THEN THAT'S THE ONLY TIME YOU WOULD APPEAL IT.
OTHERWISE YOU'RE JUST FILING COMMENTS.
OKAY, WHY DON'T YOU CONTINUE THROUGH THE RED LINES AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE QUEUE.
UH, THAT'S OUR LAST RED LINE TO THE TEXT AT THIS TIME.
[00:55:01]
HMM.SEEMS LIKE, UH, WE LOST OUR TITLE THERE, BUT THERE'S, THERE'S A RED LINE, UH, TITLE THAT PERHAPS DIDN'T COME THROUGH, BUT THIS IS, IT'S NON-BINDING.
AND THIS IS TRYING TO CAPTURE, YOU KNOW, OPTIONS FOR HOW STAKEHOLDERS CAN WEIGH IN AND HELP WITH CONSISTENT AGENDAS AND REFLECT WHAT'S UP ABOVE.
UM, SO A, A REVISION REQUEST THAT TAC VOTED TO REJECT, DEFER, REMAND, OR REFER WHAT YOU WERE JUST SPEAKING TO.
UM, THE, THE TAX CONSENSUS ISN'T RE RELEVANT.
UH, YOU FILE ATTACK APPEAL, THAT'S THE TAX ACTION, THE POST TAX ACTION.
AND YOU MAY SEE THE TAC REPORT BY THE CHAIR OR THE CHAIR'S DELEGATE ON THAT ACTION.
THE APPLICANT'S POSITION STATEMENT, PRESENTATION OF TAC ACTION BY THE TAC ADVOCATE, KOTS COMMENTS, POSITION STATEMENT OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND THE CLOSING STATEMENTS.
THIS, THIS IS TAKEN FROM PRIOR AGENDAS.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY APPEALS LAST YEAR.
UH, BUT THIS IS, THESE, THE STRUCTURE IS PUTTING INTO A, AN ILLUSTRATION HISTORICALLY HOW APPEALS HAVE BEEN PROCESSED.
SOME RESOURCE INFORMATION, HIS, UH, AUTHORITIES THAT INDIVIDUALS CAN CONSULT.
AND AGAIN, UH, THE COMMITTEE CHAIR MAY REPORT THE DELIBERATIONS, THE RECOMMENDATION, THE CHAIR CAN INVITE THE BOARD CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, INVITE MORE DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A REVISION REQUEST, NON UNANIMOUS, UM, BUT A NON UNANIMOUS TACK VOTE.
SO MAYBE THERE WAS NO POST TAX ACTION.
BUT AS AN EXAMPLE, THE RELIABILITY AND MARKETS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN DRAFTING, UM, REVISIONS TO REFLECT THEIR PRACTICES WHEN TAX DECISION IS NON UNANIMOUS.
BUT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REVISION REQUEST.
THEY WANNA HEAR THE CHAIR, THE COMMITTEE WANTS TO HEAR MORE ABOUT IT.
SO WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IS TAX BEEN GIVING A REPORT.
UM, ERCOT GIVES COMMENTS, IF ANY, AND THEN STAKEHOLDERS WEIGH IN, EVEN THOUGH NO COMMENTS WERE FILED.
IT'S JUST, UM, THE COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE NON UNANIMOUS VOTE ATTACK RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A REVISION REQUEST, A UNANIMOUS ONE AS WE DISCUSSED ABOVE.
AND YOU'RE ALL AWARE HISTORICALLY THAT GOES ON THE BOARD'S CONSENT AGENDA DOESN'T USUALLY MAKE A STOP AT A COMMITTEE, A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A REVISION BY T WITH ANY, UM, LEVEL OF SUPPORT, UH, IN THE TAC VOTE.
BUT A MARKET PARTICIPANT SUBMITS COMMENTS PERHAPS AGREEING, OPPOSING, CLARIFYING, ASKING THE BOARD TO TAKE A CONSIDERATION, UM, WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING AS THERE'S ATTACK REPORT.
AND EITHER THE TAC CHAIR JUST GIVES THE SUMMARY OR THE TAC CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR DELEGATES, UH, TAC REPRESENTATIVE TO SPEAK TO THOSE.
AND THEN THIS IS, THIS IS THE BOX THAT WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON WITH, UH, ANN AND CAITLIN'S QUESTIONS.
SO THERE MAY BE A REVISION REQUEST THAT THE BOARD, UM, THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, THE BOARD COMMITTEE CHAIR WANTS TO HEAR MORE ABOUT.
THEY WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON, MAYBE NO COMMENTS WERE FILED, SIMILAR PROCESS.
AND THEN, AND THEN WE'RE ADDING, YOU KNOW, JUST REFLECTING THAT EXISTING PROCESS THAT HAPPENS.
THAT HAPPENED I THINK ONCE LAST YEAR, MAYBE IN PRR 1186.
UM, THERE, THERE WAS A PUBLIC COMMENTER WHO SIGNED UP BEFORE THE MEETING AND, UM, THEY WERE INTEGRATED, UH, INTO AN APPROPRIATE POINT, POINT.
MAYBE THE COMMITTEE CHAIR OR THE BOARD CHAIR WANTS TO TAKE IT UP DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION, OR SOMETIMES THEY WAIT UNTIL THAT REVISION REQUEST COMES UP ON THE AGENDA.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL OF THE RED LINES AT THIS TIME.
UH, NED I THINK BOB WAS ACTUALLY JUST AHEAD OF ME, SO GO AHEAD.
SO KIM, THIS HAS BEEN, UH, HELPFUL.
I, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS COMING IN.
I THINK I'VE GOTTEN SOME CLARITY, BUT ALSO GOTTEN A LITTLE BIT MORE CONFUSED IN THE PROCESS.
SO, UH, ONE STEP FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK.
UM, BUT THAT'S, SO I WAS HOPING YOU COULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT AND, AND, AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
YOU KNOW, STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS UNDER SECTION
[01:00:01]
21 ARE JUST COMMENTS, EVEN IF AFTER ATTACK ACTION, THAT'S THE, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S A, A KEY, UH, A KEY, A PRIORI ASSUMPTION GOING INTO, INTO THESE CHANGES.BUT THEN, UM, WHO THEN IS LEFT? WHO CAN INITIATE A TAC UH, ACTION OR ATTACK? UM, OPPOSITION TAC RECOMMENDATION.
NOT REGARDING A REVISION REQUEST OR REGARDING, IF IT'S, IT'S IF IT REGARDS A REVISION REQUEST.
ANYONE WITH ANYONE CAN FILE COMMENTS PURSUANT TO THE SECTION 21 IF IT DOESN'T REGARD OUR VISION REQUEST.
THE BOARD'S POLICY IS, UH, HERE THE SAME POLICY THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO OPPOSE ATTACK RECOMMENDATION ON A MATTER, YOU REFER TO THIS SECTION, THIS EXISTING SECTION WAS SECTION EIGHT, NOW IT'S SECTION NINE.
IF YOU WANT TO OPPOSE OR CLARIFY AN ASPECT OF A REVISION REQUEST, YOU FILE COMMENTS.
AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE TO, TO CON, YOU KNOW, CONSIDER SECTION 21 YOUR SECTION ABOUT REVISION REQUESTS AND IF THERE'S ANY CLARIFICATION, DO YOU WANNA PROPOSE TO THAT? BUT THIS, THIS IS MORE ABOUT ONCE IT GETS TO THE, TO THE BOARD, ONCE THE COMMENTS ON THE RECOMME ON THE REVISION REQUEST RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL GETS TO THE BOARD, WHAT'S THE BOARD GONNA DO ON THOSE TWO DAYS? UM, AND LEADING UP TO THOSE TWO DAYS.
SO THAT TELLS ME THEN THAT THE TAC RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITION PATH WOULD ONLY APPLY TO NON REVISION REQUESTS FOR, FOR ALL PARTIES.
SO I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT, UH, WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
UM, 'CAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE A FEW THINGS IN THE PROTOCOLS THAT TECH HAS TO APPROVE.
UM, I THINK RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY, LIKE IF THERE WAS A CHANGE TO THE CONE VALUE, FOR INSTANCE, RIGHT? THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY SORT OF, UH, CHANGE THAT WOULD THEN BE SUBJECT TO THE TAC RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITION PROCESS.
AND ANN, DO YOU WANNA EXPOUND ON THAT? BECAUSE
SO THOSE, IF TAC MAKES A DECISION ON THOSE, THOSE WOULD, IF YOU'RE OPPOSING THAT, THEN YOU WOULD FILE A ATTACK RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITION.
BUT IF IT'S A REVISION REQUEST, THEN YOU'LL JUST BE FILING COMMENTS.
AND IT'S SAYING THE SAME THING, IT'S JUST CALLED DIFFERENT THINGS, RIGHT?
IT'S STILL A WORD DOCUMENT THAT'S GOING YOUR COMMENTS.
AND, AND, AND I THINK THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF WHAT ADDING SECTION EIGHT AND THE, IT'S GOT A COUPLE NESTED PROVISIONS, RIGHT? I THINK SECTION NINE REFERENCES SECTION 8.2, WHICH THEN REFERENCES SECTION 1.3.
SO YOU KINDA HAVE TO TUNNEL THROUGH THOSE TO, TO, TO FOLLOW, UH, THE PROCESS THERE.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT ESSENTIALLY MAKES ANY, UM, IT PUTS ALL, UH, WHAT'S THE WAY I'M TRYING TO, I'M SORRY.
UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT CREATES A SINGLE LEVEL FOR COMMENT TO THE BOARD ON A REVISION REQUEST, WHEREAS I'D ALWAYS THOUGHT OF THE TAC RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITION IS REALLY A, IT IS ESSENTIALLY A, AN APPEAL OF A POSITIVE TACK ACTION, WHICH IS A HIGHER BAR.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN A COUPLE TIMES IN, IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO.
AND SO TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT PROCESS MIGHT CHANGE.
UH, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT, NED.
I THINK PART OF THAT IS THE REASON WE INCLUDED THE POWERPOINT WITH THAT BOX ABOUT KEEPING IN MIND THE REGULATORY FRAME FRAMEWORK.
BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, IF A, IF A REVISION REQUEST IS STOPPED, IT MAKES SENSE TO ALL OF US APPEAL.
MM-HMM,
BUT NOW IF IT'S A RECOMMENDATION, OPPOSITION OF A REVISION REQUEST, WELL AFTER THE BOARD, IT'S GONNA GO TO THE PUC.
IT'S LIKE, IS IT AN APPEAL? UM, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT FINAL YET.
SO I THINK THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE PUT THESE PRINCIPLES BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING USED TO THIS, UM, FRAMEWORK.
AND AT THIS POINT IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE FOR IT TO BE COMMENTS.
SO THE, THAT'S THE OTHER PIECE IS WITH THE, THE CHANGES IN P THAT REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE DENIAL, REMAND WITH RECOMMENDED CHANGES, ANY REVISION REQUEST THAT IS ENDORSED BY THE BOARD, THE THOUGHT IS THAT'S NOT BECAUSE THE BOARD IS NO LONGER THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE APPROVING BODY.
[01:05:01]
REQUIRES SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL THAT IT, IT'S NOT RIPE FOR, UM, A POSITION AT THAT POINT.I'M TALKING ON A VERY LARGE FRAMEWORK.
THAT'S WHY IT'S JUST A BLUE BOX AND, AND NOT A SET OF COMMENTS THAT, UH, IT MAKES SENSE FOR AN APPEAL TO REMAIN OF A REC OF A REVISION REQUEST THAT TAC RECOMMENDED THAT TAC ACTUALLY STOPPED.
AND FROM A VERY HIGH LEVEL, IT MAKES SENSE FOR IT TO BE COMMENTS, UM, WHEN A REVISION REQUEST IS PROCEEDING AND SOMEONE WANTS TO WEIGH IN BETWEEN TAC AND THE BOARD.
I CAN APPRECIATE THAT DISTINCTION.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH HERE.
AND, AND THIS MAY, I'M ACTUALLY GLAD TO HEAR THAT THIS IS PROBABLY GONNA BE IT AT, AT THE JUNE BOARD, BECAUSE I THINK IT MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL FOR US ALL TO MARINATE ON THIS AND THEN DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT MORE NEXT MONTH.
BUT, UM, SHOULD THERE BE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF COMMENT AND DIFFERENT LEVELS OF FORMALITY? 'CAUSE I CAN UNDERSTAND TECH NOT WANTING TO REC, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO, YOU KNOW, A POINT OF ATTACK ADVOCATE ON EVERY SET OF COMMENTS THAT A INDIVIDUAL STAKEHOLDER MIGHT FILE AFTER T HAS TAKEN ACTION.
BUT THERE ARE PROBABLY OTHER TIMES THAT HAVING THAT MORE FORMAL PROCESS TO REALLY, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT TAX, UH, YOU KNOW, THE WILL OF THE BODY IS REPRESENTED, UM, IF THERE IS AN OPPOSITIONAL SET OF COMMENTS THAT THAT COME UP.
UM, AND THAT MAY BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FOR, FOR SECTION 21 AS WELL.
THIS IS HOW THE BOARD PROCESSES COMMENTS ONCE THEY ARE RECEIVED AT THE BOARD, UM, IN TERMS OF HOW TACT DETERMINES TO GET THEM TO THE BOARD.
THAT'S MORE A SECTION 21 THING.
AND WE HADN'T PLANNED TO BRING THIS BACK TO TECH NEXT MONTH.
WE WANTED TO GIVE AMPLE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ON THE AGENDA TWICE AND WE WERE HERE, UM, LAST TIME, WE DID GET SOME FEEDBACK.
AND SO PLEASE DO SEND YOUR, UH, SUGGESTED RED REDLINES, UM, QUESTIONS AND WE'RE HAPPY TO MEET OR GET TOGETHER AND WORK, WORK THROUGH THEM.
UM, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW AT THIS TIME THAT WE PLAN TO BRING IT BACK TO TECH AGAIN.
'CAUSE THESE ARE THE BOARD POLICIES AND, AND PROCEDURES AND WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, AND IT, A LOT OF IT, MOST OF IT'S JUST REFLECTING WHAT'S ALREADY HAPPENING.
WE NEED TO KEEP THE DOCUMENT UP TO DATE.
UNDERSTAND THERE'S NOT AN ACTION FOR TECH TO TAKE, BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT, UH, IT MIGHT TAKE, UH, A LITTLE TIME FOR FOLKS TO CRYSTALLIZE THEIR FEEDBACK, THEN IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO HAVE YEAH.
JUST ANOTHER, UH, ANOTHER WRAP UP DISCUSSION.
BUT, UH, I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR, UH, YOUR INSIGHTS AND, UH, AND EXPLANATIONS.
CAN I QUICKLY CHIME IN BEFORE WE GO ONTO THE NEXT PERSON? GO, GO AHEAD.
I WAS JUST GONNA ADD A, ADD I GUESS TWO THINGS.
ONE IS THAT THE JUNE BOARD MEETING IS SCHEDULED LATER ENOUGH IN JUNE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO COME BACK TO TCA IN MAY AFTER YOU'VE HAD TIME TO RUMINATE.
UM, ANOTHER THING I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT IS ONE WAY TO LOOK AT THE CHANGE WE'RE MAKING HERE FOR REVISION REQUESTS THAT TAC RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF, IS IT IN REGARD TO HOW IT'S PRESENTED BY TAC TO THE RM COMMITTEE OR OTHER COMMITTEE OR AND BOARD, UM, IS IT ACTUALLY ADDS FLEXIBILITY.
SO INSTEAD OF HAVING TO APPOINT ATTACK ADVOCATE, THE, THE, THE TAC COULD CHOOSE TO DO THAT.
SO THEY COULD STILL APPOINT ATTACK ADVOCATE IF THEY THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE, BUT THEY MAY NOT.
AND YOU KNOW, THEY MAY JUST HAVE THE TAC CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR SPEAK TO IT OR APPOINT SOMEONE ELSE.
BUT THIS STILL ALLOWS 'EM TO APPOINT ATTACK ADVOCATE IF THEY THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONTEMPLATE FOR THE TAC PROCEDURES RATHER THAN THIS DOCUMENT.
BUT, UM, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF ADD THAT COLOR.
AND WE CAN CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, BRING THIS ASK TO BRING THIS BACK IN MAY AS TAC.
UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THIS AS, AS TAC SO THE THINKING ON THE NOT APPEAL AND, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S CHANGING, BUT IT WAS BASICALLY IF IT WAS A REJECTION OR AN ACTION THAT STOPPED IT HERE, THEN YOU COULD APPEAL IT.
'CAUSE THAT'S VIEWED MORE LIKE A FINAL ACTION.
BUT IF IT WAS AN A RECOMMENDATION, IT STILL HAD FUTURE STEPS TO GO, WHETHER IT BE THE BOARD OR THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION.
BUT WHAT IS CHANGING IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE A STAKEHOLDER TECH OPPOSITION TO A TAC YES.
RECOMMENDATION ON A REVISION REQUEST.
AND NOW YOU CAN FILE COMMENTS, BUT I'M ASSUMING THERE HAS TO BE SOME PRACTICAL DIFFERENCE TO THAT.
IT'S NOT JUST A SEMANTICS CHANGE.
[01:10:01]
THE, THIS SECTION, UH, NINE HAS MORE TO IT, YOU KNOW, TIMING PROVISIONS AND SUCH FOR RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITIONS.AND SO IF COMMENTS ARE FILED AND THE TAX CHAIR, VICE CHAIR HT, DOES IT DESIGNATE SOMEONE, IT'S NOT AN ADVOCATE TO SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE WHOLE OF ATTACK, BUT SPEAKING, UM, TO MAYBE AN ISSUE IN THE COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, THE NORMAL MEETING REQUIREMENTS FOR BOARD MEETING WOULD, WOULD REPLY IN TERMS OF POSTING, BEING ON THE AGENDA AND ALL OF THAT.
BUT, UH, THE, THIS ENTIRE SECTION OF POINT, THE ATTACK ADVOCATE AND, AND THE TIMING, SPECIFIC TIMING PROVISIONS SUCH, UM, WOULD NOT APPLY WHEN TO THOSE COMMENTS REGARDING A REVISION REQUEST.
AND I DO WANNA BE REALLY CLEAR, THE FIRST TIME THESE RED LINES WERE POSTED TO THE MEETING PAGE FOR I BELIEVE THE HUMAN RESOURCES AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, THE FEBRUARY MEETING, THEY WERE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
THEY'VE BEEN REFINED SINCE THEN.
WE HAD TO GET MORE CLARIFICATION ON WHAT WAS BEING ASKED.
AND SO THERE WAS LIKE A BIGGER STRIKE THROUGH HERE AND IT READ LIKE, TECH APPEALS DON'T EXIST ANYMORE.
AND WHEN WE GOT, WHEN WE GOT TOGETHER AND CLARIFIED WHAT WAS BEING ASKED, IT WAS TECH, UM, THIS TAC RECOMMENDATION, OPPOSITION PROVISION, NOT APPLYING TO REVISION REQUESTS, MUCH MORE SIMPLE.
SO IF YOU HAD GOTTEN SOME FEEDBACK ABOUT THAT AND WHAT HAPPENS TO TAC APPEALS, IT'S PROBABLY WHERE IT WAS STEMMING FROM.
BUT WE'VE SELF-CORRECTED, UM, THE, THE RED LINE SINCE THEN.
YEAH, I'M GOING BACK TO WHAT WE DID WHENEVER WE FIRST SET ALL THIS UP.
WHENEVER THE R AND M COMMITTEE MEETING AND COMMITTEE GROUP AND EVERYTHING WAS SET UP AND WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TAC WAS GONNA COMMUNICATE WITH THEM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND WAS THE WAY WE ENVISIONED IT MOVING FORWARD, BOTH BETWEEN THE TAC AND THE RM COMMITTEE AT THAT TIME WAS THAT REALLY ANYTIME THAT TAC GOES IN AND MAKES A REC UH, MAKES, UH, A RECOMMENDATION OF ANY KIND TO THE R AND M THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY THAT IF THERE'S AN INDIVIDUAL THAT ON TCC OR OFF TAC THAT WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING, MAYBE THEY VOTED NO ON A YES.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO APPEAL THERE.
THEY JUST WANT US, I WANT YOU TO KNOW WHY I DID.
THAT ABILITY, I THINK, IS THERE.
SO YOU'RE JUST FORMALIZING THAT IS THE WAY I SEE THAT, IS THAT RIGHT NOW, THE, THE PIECE THAT I'VE GOT THE QUESTION ABOUT AND, AND TELL ME IF I'M RIGHT AND I'M, I'M TRYING TO GO TO HOW THIS IS PRACTICALLY GONNA WORK, IS, LET'S SAY THAT A PARTY, 'CAUSE I LIKE THE TERM PARTY BETTER THAN STAKEHOLDERS.
'CAUSE I'M NOT SURE YOUR FULL DEFINITION OF STAKEHOLDERS, UH, A PARTY COMES IN AND FILES COMMENTS, UH, ON ATTACK ACTION.
AND IT IS BASICALLY CHALLENGING THAT ACTION, EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T CALL IT AN APPEAL.
IT'S, I THINK TAC HAS A COUPLE OF CHOICES.
NUMBER ONE, WHOEVER'S MAKING THE COMMENTS IS GONNA GET A, GET THE ABILITY TO PRESENT THEIR COMMENTS.
THAT WOULD BE MY, MY MY THOUGHTS.
AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE TAC CHAIR WHO'S PRESENTED WHAT TAC DID, AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S STILL UP TO THE TAC BODY OR AN INDIVIDUAL ON THE TAC TO SAY, I WANNA BE HEARD BASED ON THOSE COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED.
AND THEY COULD COME IN AND T COULD USE THOSE NOT AS THE ADVOCATE, BUT AS SOMEONE THAT WANTED TO COME IN ENCOUNTER IF NEED BE.
I, I THINK PARTY IS A, IS A, UH, GOOD GENERAL TERM TERM.
UM, BEFORE SPEAKING TO YOUR QUESTION, JUST BECAUSE AS, AS YOU SEE LIKE IN, IN SECTION NINE, THERE'S CERTAIN PEOPLE WITH WHAT YOU COULD CALL STANDING.
IT'S LIKE ANY ERCOT MEMBER MARKET, PARTICIPANT, P-U-C-T-E, STAFF RELIABILITY MONITOR, IMM, UH, NERC MAY APPEAL.
SO YEAH, IT'S, IT COULD BE A PARTY.
BUT WE THAT WILL, AS YOU ARE SAYING, YES, I AGREE.
WHAT WE'RE ENS SHINING IS THERE IS A PUBLIC COMMENTS MM-HMM.
THAT'S ONE OPTION THAT INDIVIDUALS CAN USE AT THE BOARD OR COMMITTEE.
THEY CAN SIGN UP AND AN AND AN ASSESSMENT WILL BE MADE.
I MEAN, GENERALLY PEOPLE WILL BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S THIS OTHER VEHICLE FOR SUBMITTING COMMENTS, WHICH IS SECTION 21 THAT MARKET PARTICIPANTS MAY FOLLOW MORE CLOSELY RATHER THAN, UH, RIGHT.
NOW, JUST TO CLARIFY AGAIN, THAT THAT DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT IF TAC AT ANY GIVEN TIME, 'CAUSE WE ACTUALLY REALLY WANTED THIS TO HAPPEN, AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY,
[01:15:01]
IT HASN'T REALLY HAPPENED MUCH, IS ANY MEMBER OF TAC THEN COULD GO WITH THE TAC BODY AND, AND MAKE COMMENTS ON A SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT'S NOT CHANGING.YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MORE THAN ONE PERSON FROM TAC SPEAKING.
THAT WAS THE WAY WE ENVISIONED THIS, THAT, THAT THE LEADERSHIP WOULD GO TO THE R AND M.
IF THERE WAS SOMEONE ON TAC THAT SAY, IF KNOW THEY DIDN'T FILE COMMENTS BETWEEN TAC AND THE BOARD, BUT THEY WANTED THE BOARD TO KNOW WHY THEY VOTED NO, OR FOR WHATEVER REASON, UH, THEY COULD GO AND SPEAK TO THE R AND M.
WE, WE ENVISIONED IT TO GO THAT WAY.
AND I'M JUST MAKING SURE THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THAT I, I SHARE YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THE IMPETUS BEHIND THE PROCESS.
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, WITH 1186 AS AN EXAMPLE.
UM, THERE WAS COMMENTER WHO SPOKE AND THERE WAS ALSO A REPRESENTATIVE WHO SPOKE, UM, TO YEAH, YEAH.
JUST MAKING SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE IS THERE.
AND BOB, I HAD USED STAKEHOLDERS BECAUSE I BELIEVE ERCOT HAS SEPARATE, YOU KNOW, THERE'RE SEPARATE RULES THAT GIVE THEM OPPORTUNITIES TO, TO COMMENT AND PLACE THINGS ON THE BOARD AGENDA AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO I, I WAS TRYING TO INDICATE NON ERCOT PARTIES WHEN I USE STAKEHOLDERS, BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THE CHANGES WE'RE MAKING HERE DON'T, DON'T APPLY TO ERCOT BECAUSE OF SEPARATE PROCEDURES CAN ON THAT ALLOW THEM TO, TO ADD THINGS TO THE BOARD AGENDA.
COMMENT THAT BE IS THERE SHOULDN'T BE A DIFFERENCE.
WHAT DO YOU WANNA SAY THAT ON MIKE? I DON'T THINK WE CAUGHT THAT.
MY COMMENT TO THAT IS, AND THE REASON I SAID PARTY IS THAT SHOULD NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
I BELIEVE THAT'S JUST SEPARATE LANGUAGE, SO I WANTED TO DRAW PEOPLE'S ATTENTION TO THAT.
HI, JOHN RUS HUBBARD ON BEHALF OF TIEC.
UM, I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 1.3.
UM, MY READING OF IT IS, KIND OF GOES TO SOME OF THE POINTS THAT BOB WAS RAISING.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE BOARD HAS DISCRETION ON WHETHER TO ALLOW COMMENTS IN PERSON OR IN WRITING, WHICH WOULD THEN COUNTER WHAT YOU HAD SAID EARLIER THAT, UM, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TAC WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON AN, ON AN ITEM.
WELL, SO 1.3 IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S THAT SUBSECTION IS TITLED PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SO THIS IS ABOUT PUBLIC, SUSAN, A MARKET PARTICIPANTS SUBMITTING COMMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 21.
UM, THIS IS ABOUT, UH, REALLY REGARDS THE LEGISLATIVE CHARGE FOR ERCOT TO ENABLE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND WHAT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN DONE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AGENDAS, AND IT'S LIKE THE, A PERSON CAN SIGN UP, THOSE USUALLY ARE NOT IN WRITING.
WHEN, WHEN A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, LIKE A PERSON OFF THE STREET WOULD WANT TO SPEAK, THOSE HISTORICALLY AREN'T IN IN WRITING, BUT THEY COULD.
AND SO IF, IF THEY WERE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, IT'S, YOU'RE LOOKING TO THE BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, OKAY, I AM LOOKING AT THE AGENDA.
HOW DO I SUBMIT COMMENTS? WELL, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC COULD READ THAT PROVISION 1.3 AND SHOW UP, YOU KNOW, REFER TO THE AGENDA, SEE THE 10 MINUTE RULE SIGN UP, OR THEY COULD SEND COMMENTS.
UM, THAT'S WHAT SECTION 1.3 IS ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SO THE PUBLIC COM, SO THAT IT DOES NOT RELATE TO COMMENTS FROM MEMBER, PEOPLE WHO ARE ON T ONLY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PRE PRESUMABLY A A, UM, SOMEONE WHO'S ONT OR A, OR A MARKET PARTICIPANT WOULD REFER TO SECTION 21.
BUT THIS, THIS PRECISION PROVISION EXISTS AS WELL.
IT'S LIKE THERE BOTH EXIST, BOTH CAN BE UTILIZED.
UH, IF, IF THERE IS A RULE IN SECTION PROTOCOL SECTION 21 THAT APPLIES, THEN IT APPLIES.
UM, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A WAY TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS.
AND CAN YOU CLARIFY, I KNOW THE, UH, PURE 39 1 5 5 1 B, WHICH I THINK IS THE, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING.
UM, HOW IS, HOW DOES THE BOARD HAVE DISCRETION OF WHEN TO ALLOW IT, WHEN THAT SECTION SEEMS TO REQUIRE IT ON ANY ITEM THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION? WELL, THE, THE BOARD DOES ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND THEY, THEY HAVE, IT'S ON, IT'S ON ALL OF THE AGENDAS.
THE DISCRETION PIECE COMES IN JUST IN TERMS OF WE ARE ON THE AGENDA.
WHEN WE ARE ON THE SPECIFIC AGENDA.
WE'RE NOT, THEY'RE GONNA TAKE IT UP AT THAT MEETING.
BUT THEY HAVE DISCRETION TO TAKE IT UP.
THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, END OF THE MEETING, MIDDLE OF THE MEETING.
[01:20:01]
NOT SAYING THAT THEY HAVE DISCRETION TO PUT IT OFF TILL THE NEXT MEETING.'CAUSE IT SEEMS TO GIVE THEM DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT PUBLIC COMMENT HAS TO BE MADE IN WRITING OR IN PERSON.
AND WE THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH 3 9 1 5 1 1 B.
AND TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, WHEN DURING THAT LONG STRETCH DURING COVID, UM, WE WERE NOT ALLOWING COMMENTS IN PERSON FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.
AND AFTER THE STORM, WE WERE GETTING A LOT OF WRITTEN COMMENTS.
AND I THINK IT WAS THE BOARD'S FEELING THAT OPENING UP THOSE MEETINGS TO PUBLIC COMMENT WAS GOING TO BE TOO RISKY.
AND SO WE GIVE THE BOARD DISCRETION.
AND I THINK IN GENERAL, I CAN'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD CHAIR, BUT I CAN'T ENVISION THE BOARD CHAIR SUDDENLY FORECLOSING THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT.
TO COME IN TO MEETINGS HELD IN PERSON AND COMMENT.
UM, I THINK THIS IS MORE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY DO HAVE THE DISCRETION WITHIN PURIA AND MAYBE UNDER EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, THEY MAY, YOU KNOW, EXERCISE THAT DISCRETION AND ONLY ALLOW A WRITTEN COMMENT.
I THINK MAYBE ADDING SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE ABOUT EXTREME SITUATIONS OF WHEN THEY WOULD LIMIT PUBLIC COMMENT WOULD PROBABLY BE, UM, BENEFICIAL OR IN PERSON COMMENT WOULD PROBABLY BE BENEFICIAL.
UM, SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS WITH THE BOARD AND SEE IF THEY, IF THEY THINK THAT'S WORTH WORTHWHILE.
SO JOHN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, OR JOHN'S YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, UM, JUST CLARIFYING AROUND THE DISCRETION TERM THERE.
AND 'CAUSE I, I DON'T THINK IT'S ENTIRELY CLEAR WHAT THEY HAVE DISCRE DISCRETION FOR.
'CAUSE THEY HAVE JUST, YEAH, I MEAN, THEY ARE THE, OBVIOUSLY THE INTENT IS I THINK OBVIOUSLY NOT TO CUT PEOPLE OFF AND TO FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW.
AND THEN THERE'S THE PRACTICAL, THE, THE BOARD CHAIR VICE CHAIRS RUNNING THE MEETING AND THEY'RE GOING, THEY DO USE DISCRETION AND THEY, THEY HAVE TO.
SO I, WE CAN CLARIFY AROUND THAT.
ARE WE GOOD THERE, BILL BARNES? YEAH.
UM, THE FIRST GENRES HUBBARD JUST POINTED OUT, I THINK THE LANGUAGE HERE, UM, DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED THAT PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE ALLOWED EXCEPT UNDER SOME, A GLOBAL PANDEMIC OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
LIKE, I'M PRETTY SURE THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE IS THAT PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL ALWAYS BE ALLOWED BY ANY PARTY THAT WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING AT THE BOARD, WHETHER YOU'RE A STAKEHOLDER OR NOT, WHETHER YOU KNOW YOU'RE ON THE APPEAL OR NOT.
LIKE THAT'S A KEY ASPECT OF SENATE BILL TWO.
UH, SO I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH, UM, WHAT TIC POINTED OUT.
AND THEN DOWN TO SECTION EIGHT, 8.5 SPECIFICALLY.
SO I'M LOOKING AT, IT'S NOT THE SECOND SENTENCE.
THIS ALSO IS REPEATED ABOVE IN PUBLIC COMMENT AT 1.3, BUT IT'S THE SECOND SENTENCE FOLLOWING A COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE BOARD AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR EQUAL TIME DURING THE BOARD MEETING MAY BE ALLOCATED TO PARTIES FOR, TO FURTHER CLARIFY POSITIONS.
THERE'S ALSO, IN THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC COMMENT AT 1.3, BOARD CHAIR DISCRETION AS TO WHERE THE ITEM APPEARS ON THE AGENDA AND HOW MUCH TIME IS ALLOCATED.
WE HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH AN APPEAL AT THE ERCOT BOARD, THIS WAS MANY YEARS AGO, BUT THE ALLOCATION OF TIME WAS NOT EQUITABLE.
UM, I'M GONNA ASK, I THINK ERCOT GOT UNLIMITED TIME AND WE AS THE APPELLANT GOT TWO MINUTES.
SO WE THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE CLEAR THAT ALL PARTIES GET EQUAL TIME.
IT SAYS EQUAL TIME AT AT THE DISCRETION.
I, THAT SHOULD NOT BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR AS AS TO WHO, HOW MUCH TIME A CERTAIN PARTY GETS.
I THINK THE PREMISE THERE, IF, IF THE PREMISE WHICH CAN BE MODIFIED IS THAT IF MORE TIME IS ALLOWED, IT WILL BE EQUAL.
LET'S SAY THE COMMITTEE CHAIR GIVES THIS REPORT TO THE BOARD AND LET'S SAY, LET'S SAY THE COMMITTEE MET FOR EIGHT HOURS YESTERDAY, WENT THROUGH ALL THE PARTIES, AND THEN THE NEXT DAY THE COMMITTEE CHAIR GOES TO THE BOARD, GIVES A SUMMARY OF THE DELIBERATIONS AND A SYNOPSIS OF THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION.
[01:25:01]
AND THEN AT THAT POINT, NOBODY ASKS TO CLARIFY, THEY'RE GOOD WITH THE COMMITTEE CHAIR'S SUMMARY.UM, THAT'S ONE THING, BUT IF SOMEONE ASKS, CAN I CLARIFY OR SPEAK MORE, THEN THAT'S WHERE THE EQUAL TIME PROVISION COMES IN.
IF THE BOARD CHAIR DOES ENTERTAIN OR HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMENTER, THE TAC REPRESENTATIVE ERCOT STAFF, THEN THAT SAME TIME AMOUNT OF TIME WOULD BE ALLOWED.
BUT I THINK THE SPIRIT BEHIND THIS IS NOT OBLIGATING THE FULL BOARD TO REHEAR EIGHT HOURS OF WHAT TOTALLY, FAIRLY LIKE OF A FULLY DISCUSSED, UM, YOU KNOW, POSITIONS THE PRIOR DAY.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO REHEAR VERBATIM OR, OR DIFFERENT.
AND IF SOMEONE DOES BRING UP DIFFERENT POINTS, THAT'S ONE THING.
YOU, YOU CAN'T UNHEAR IT AND YOU DO WANNA HEAR IT, BUT YOU, YOU MAY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND I AGREE WITH THAT INTENT, AND I, I THINK THAT SECTION COULD PROBABLY CLARIFY IT A BIT TOO TO MAKE, UH, THAT POINT WHOEVER ARTICULATED BILL, I THINK THAT MAY BE, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS IF SOMEONE HAS AN OPPOSITION, SAY TO A TAC RECOMMENDATION, AND THAT'S GONNA GO TO A COMMITTEE, THE R AND M COMMITTEE, AT THAT COMMITTEE WHERE KIND OF THE APPEAL, IF YOU WANNA CALL IT, THAT PLAYS OUT, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE PARTIES HAVE EQUAL TIME THERE SO THE, WE'RE NOT GONNA GIVE ERCOT STAFF 15 MINUTES AND YOU KNOW, THE, THE TAC OPPOSER FIVE MINUTES.
AND THAT'S NOT DISCRETIONARY, THAT'S MY POINT.
I THINK YOU COULD STRETCH THAT IF YOU WANTED TO.
THIS PROVISION I AG I AGREE WITH THAT POINT, AND I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY CLARIFY THAT IN HERE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROVISION HERE IN EIGHT FIVE IS TALKING ABOUT AFTER THAT COMMITTEE PROCESS TAKES PLACE THE NEXT DAY WHEN THE BOARD MEETING COMES UP, SO, YEP.
AND I HAVE A, THAT'S MY NEXT POTENTIAL CONCERN.
SO THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THAT, I THINK.
I THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE THERE.
SO THEN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE SAYS, THE BOARD MADE DISCOUNT ARGUMENTS AND INFORMATION THAT ARE PROVIDED OUT OF TIME.
AND, OR THAT WERE NOT PROVIDED TO A BOARD COMMITTEE.
SO THAT PRESUMES THAT YOU HAVE TO PRESENT YOUR FULL POSITION TO A BOARD COMMITTEE IN ADVANCE OF THE BOARD MEETING.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT NEW INFORMATION MAY COME TO LIGHT THAT EVENING OR THE MORNING BEFORE THE BOARD MEETING, WHERE YOU MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS YOU WANNA MAKE, OR THE BOARD MAY TABLE YOUR ITEM FOR A MONTH OR UNTIL THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
AND I, I DON'T, I JUST DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE LIMITED OR THE BOARD SHOULD DISCOUNT ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS THAT MIGHT BE MADE AFTER THE, THE COMMITTEE MEETS.
AND WHEN THE BOARD HEARS THE APPEAL, THIS PROVISION, AS I WAS SAYING, IS, IS TAKEN FROM THE ALREADY EMBODIED, UM, PROCESS IN, IN THE PROCESS IN THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AS THEY EXIST NOW.
ME LOOK FOR THE PROVISION, HANG ON A SECOND.
THE CONCEPT OF, OF PRESENTING THE APPEAL TO THE COMMITTEE AND THEN TO THE BOARD.
I AGREE WITH THE PART WHERE YOU'RE SUGGESTING THE BOARD SHOULD DISCOUNT NEW ARGUMENTS.
THIS, SO IF N 9.2, THE LAST SECTION WHICH WE'RE NOT PROPOSING FOR REVISION AND ALREADY EXISTS, THE BOARD MAY DISCOUNT ARGUMENTS AND INFORMATION THAT ARE PROVIDED OUT OF TIME AND OR THAT WERE NOT PROVIDED TO TAC.
SO IF SOMEBODY IS APPEALING TAX STOPPING OF A REVISION REQUEST, THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, WILL HEAR THE COMMENTS.
BUT THEY MAY, THEY ALREADY MADE DISCOUNT ARGUMENTS AND INFORMATION THAT WEREN'T PROVIDED TO TAC WHEN TAC MADE ITS DECISION.
I MEAN, ALL TAC COULD GO ON WAS WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE TIME.
UH, SO WE ARE TAKING THAT CONCEPT AND APPLYING IT TO COMMENTS AS WELL.
UM, IT IS RELEVANT WHEN AN ARGUMENT OR INFORMATION IS NOT PRESENTED TO A COMMITTEE SUCH AS TAC OR BOARD COMMITTEE, AND THEN IT'S, AND THEN IT'S RAISED AFTER.
SO THAT'S, UH, WHY WE ALSO APPLIED THE CONCEPT TO COMMENTS.
AND I THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT THAT OTHER SECTION AND PERHAPS THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE AS WELL.
UM, I JUST THINK FOR, TO HAVE A FAIR PROCESS, YOU WANT TO ALWAYS HEAR THE MOST RELEVANT AND LATEST INFORMATION REGARDING ANYTHING THAT'S BEING DEBATED.
YES, IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT I MEAN, AN APPELLANT SHOULD, I'M JUST ASSUMING THAT THE APPELLANT WILL BE APPEALING SOMETHING THAT, THAT ERCOT IS PROPOSING.
IN THIS EXAMPLE, YOU SHOULD ALWAYS BE ABLE TO CHALLENGE OR REBUT A POINT THAT YOUR OPPONENT IS MAKING ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE.
[01:30:01]
POSSIBLE THAT ERCOT OR WHOEVER THE OTHER PARTY IS, BRINGS UP NEW INFORMATION THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO REBUT.SO YOU SHOULDN'T BE LIMITED IN YOUR ABILITY TO DO THAT.
SO DEFINITELY, I JUST THINK THIS IS A POINT WE SHOULD TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT.
IF WE, IF WE CHANGE THE ONE, IT IMPLICATES THE OTHER, THE 9.2 PROVISION AS WELL.
BUT JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR, THIS DOESN'T LIMIT WHAT ANYONE CAN SAY.
UM, THIS IS BASICALLY REFLECTING THE REALITY THAT AN ARGUMENT THAT IS PROPOSED AFTER THE FACT IS DIFFERENT MAY NOT BE LOOKED AT IN THE SAME LIGHT AS AN ARGUMENT THAT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE.
BUT YEAH, I'M NOTING HERE BOTH OF THOSE PROVISIONS.
UM,
IS THIS BETTER AT ALL? IT'S BETTER.
UM, I, I APPRECIATE ER'S PROCESSES ARE NOW GOING TO FORMALLY ACCOUNT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH ERCOT MEMBERS MARKET PARTICIPANTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO MAY BE TANGENT, TANGENTIALLY, UH, INTERESTED IN AN ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MOST MEMBERS AND ALL MARKET PARTICIPANTS ARE, ARE ACTUALLY BOUND BY THE RULES THAT THE BOARD APPROVED, INCLUDING REVISIONS, REVISION REQUESTS.
UM, I, I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
IT, IT APPEARS THAT THE PROPOSED REVISIONS MAY LIMIT THE ABILITY OF MARKET PARTICIPANTS TO BE HEARD IN PERSON AT THE BOARD MEETING ON ISSUES THAT WILL DIRECTLY IMPACT THEM.
AND THIS GOES TO BOB'S COMMENT THAT A PARTY WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE HEARD.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE AS I READ THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE TO THE BOARD, LIKE, LIKE, UH, BILL JUST MENTIONED TOO, NOW HAS DISCRETION TO LIMIT COMMENTS TO WRITING UNDER 1.3.
AND, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY MAY NOT EVEN BE TAKEN UP BY THE BOARD.
SO I, I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO RECOGNIZE THE VESTED INTEREST OF THE VERY PARTIES IMPACTED BY THE BOARD'S DECISION.
UH, JOHN HUBBARD, ARE YOU IN THE QUEUE AGAIN? YES, THANKS.
UM, UH, I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT SECTION 8.2.
UM, IT STATES THAT THE BOARD SHALL ALLOW WRITTEN COMMENTS ON REVISION REQUESTS THAT TAC IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
UH, THAT SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT THE BOARD MIGHT NOT ACCEPT WRITTEN COMMENTS ON, UM, THINGS THAT TAC HAS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
BUT THE BOARD IS STILL TAKING UP THIS SECTION JUST REGARDS PROCEDURES FOR PARTICIPATION IN BOARD CONSIDERATION OF REVISION REQUESTS.
IF, IF SOMEONE WERE TO, IF TAC WERE NOT TO VOTE TO APPROVE SOMETHING AND SOMEONE WERE TO APPEAL IT TO THE BOARD, A REVISION REQUEST WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE BOARD.
BUT UNDER THIS, THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTING WRITTEN COMMENTS.
AM I, I'M JUST MAKING SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY.
SO YOU, YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT A REVISION REQUEST.
THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THIS CHART COMES IN HANDY.
UM, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, IT'S NON-BINDING, YOU'D HAVE TO ACTUALLY LOOK TO THE RULES THAT APPLY TO YOUR SPECIFIC SITUATION.
BUT, UM, DEFER, DEFER REFLECTS, ILLUSTRATES THAT TABLING IS EMBODIED BY TAC APPEALS.
SO IF TAC TABLED YOUR VISION REQUEST, YOU COULD DO TAC APPEAL.
MY POINT IS THAT IF ANOTHER PARTY, LET'S SAY PARTY A APPEALED OR REVISION REQUEST, IT IS NOW BEING CONSIDERED AT THE BOARD.
OTHER PARTIES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FILE WRITTEN COMMENTS ON IT.
THEY WOULD UNDER SECTION 8.3, THEY WOULD, IT'S, UM, HISTORICALLY IT'S CALLED ON THE AGENDA, IT'S CALLED POSITION STATEMENT OF INTERESTED PARTIES.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF, IF SECTION 21 WERE REVISED BY TECH AND THEY WANTED TO INTEGRATE SOMETHING ABOUT THAT PROCESS, BUT WHEN SOMEONE DOES, UH, WANT TO COMMENT ON A REVISION REQUEST BEING APPEALED HISTORICALLY IT APPEARS AND IS ADDRESSED ON THE AGENDA AS A, THAT I, I, I GUESS I UNDERSTAND HOW IT, IT WORKS IN SECTION 21.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS ABOUT SECTION 8.2 SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT WRITTEN COMMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED FOR THINGS THAT ARE TAC HAS APPROVED.
[01:35:02]
WE CAN ADD AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION.I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR IS TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT COULD ALSO, YOU, YOU WANT A PROVISION ABOUT MARKET PARTICIPANTS COMMENTS ABOUT REVISION REQUESTS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD 9.1 OR COMMENTS OR SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS, BLAH.
SO I THINK THE LAST PART OF 9.1 COVERS ALL THE OTHER SCENARIOS, BUT IT, BUT 9.1 REFERENCES 8.2, SO 8.2 WOULD STILL BE CONTROLLING.
AND SO I, I JUST THINK 8.2 NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED AND I THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, BROADER THAN, THAN JUST THIS SECTION, I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT ERCOT ISS TRYING TO DO AND APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT ERCOT HAS DONE TO TRY AND CODIFY, UM, KIND OF THE, THE PRACTICES THAT ARE IN PLACE.
BUT I THINK TIAC SHARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT JULIANA MENTIONED THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE LIMITING STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT, UH, EVEN UNINTENTIONALLY THROUGH, UH, THROUGH THIS BEING CODIFIED.
SO I THINK TAKING TIME, NEXTT MEETING TO FURTHER CONSIDER THIS, UM, AND JUST TO CONTINUE COLLECTING FEEDBACK, I THINK COULD BE HELPFUL TO ENSURE THAT THAT ERCOT IS NOT UNINTENTIONALLY LIMITING THE STAKEHOLDER'S ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE AND PROVIDE EXPERTISE.
WE, I SEE ONE MORE IN THE QUEUE AND THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS FOR GETTING FEEDBACK.
SO THIS IS NOT A VOTING ITEM FOR US.
UM, BUT I, I THINK GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION, IF PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT RED LINES TO ER A I THINK WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE THAT AND WE, WE CAN, IF WE WANT TO ENDORSE A VERSION OF LANGUAGE THAT WE LIKE AT THE NEXT MAY MEETING.
SO, UM, IF, IF ANYBODY FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT HOW WE SUBMIT COMMENTS ON THIS, UM, OR HOW THAT DISCUSSION GOES NEXT MONTH, I'D LIKE TO HEAR THAT.
SO WHY DON'T WE PLAN ON SENDING THOSE RED LINES TO JOHN AND KIM.
AND THEN CAN YOU GUYS COME BACK IN MAY FOR US TO CONTINUE THIS DISCRETION AND IF A INTERESTED PARTY CHANGES THEIR MIND AND WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE POST RED LINES FOR, FOR ATTACK ENDORSEMENT VERSION, JUST LET ME KNOW AHEAD, YOU KNOW, GET WITH LEADERSHIP AND OR CUT AHEAD OF THE MAY MEETING, PLEASE.
WE COULD ALSO INTEGRATE ANY, UH, RED REDLINE RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, PRIOR TO MAY.
ALRIGHT, I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON.
UM, TO THANK YOU KIM, TO THE ERCOT CONTINGENT ERCOT ECRS, UH, DEPLOYMENT RELEASE TRIGGERS FOR SUMMER 2024.
THIS IS ALSO NOT A VOTING ITEM, BUT THIS IS TO FULFILL THE REQUEST FROM TAC AND THE BOARD TO REVIEW THE 2024 METHODOLOGY BY APRIL 30TH OF THIS YEAR.
SO I'M HERE TO PROVIDE YOU AN UPDATE.
UH, WE'VE BEEN TALKING AT A FEW OTHER, UH, STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS ALONG THE WAY, SO YOU PROBABLY HAVE SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS TOPIC.
SO, AS A, A REMINDER, UH, AT THE, WHEN WE WERE WORKING THROUGH THE LAST 2024 AS METHODOLOGY DISCUSSIONS, THE TAC HAD ASKED US TO REVIEW THE METHODOLOGY FOR ECRS, AGAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SOME OF THE ANALYSIS THAT THE IMM HAD CONDUCTED.
SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE IMM ON THIS ITEM, AND TODAY THIS SLIDE DECK THAT WE HAVE PUT FORTH HERE WILL, UH, CONTAIN MATERIAL THAT RESPOND BOTH TO THE REQUEST THAT THE TAC MADE OFF OF US, AND ALSO SHARE SOME THOUGHTS FROM ERCOT ON HOW THIS AS METHODOLOGY, UH, ON HOW WE SEE THIS AS METHODOLOGY POTENTIALLY EVOLVING IN THE FUTURE TO MORE EFFICIENTLY ACCOUNT FOR THE OPERATIONAL RISKS AND RELIABILITY NEEDS.
NOW, IN THAT REGARDS, THIS SLIDE LISTS AT LEAST, UH, A FEW OF THE UPCOMING INITIATIVES THAT WE HAVE ON ANCILLARY SERVICE.
THE VERY FIRST, UH, SWIM LANE A ROW TALKS ABOUT THE ECRS WORK THAT WE ARE DOING RIGHT NOW.
UH, THE NEXT SWIM LANE TALKS ABOUT REVIEWING THE METHODOLOGY FOR 2025, AND THE LAST ONE RECOGNIZES THE WORK WE ARE DOING, UH, UH, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE AS STUDY FOR THE LEGISLATURE.
NOW, THAT PARTICULAR TASK IS DUE, UH, TO AT LEAST THE ERHART BOARD FOR THE CURRENT TIMELINES IN SEPTEMBER AND THE 2025 AS METHODOLOGIES
[01:40:01]
DUE IN OCTOBER.SO, WE'LL, WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THESE AS I LAY OUT OUR THOUGHTS.
BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU, UH, WHERE WE LANDED WHEN WE WENT BACK AND REVISITED THE 2024 AS METHODOLOGY.
SO TO US, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOOLS WE HAVE TODAY, THE GROWING NATURE OF OPERATING RISKS FOR WHICH ECRS IS REQUIRED.
AND WHEN I SAY THIS, I'M REFERRING TO NET LOAD VARIABILITY TIED TO GROWTH IN OUR RENEWABLE FLEET.
RIGHT NOW, ERCOT IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF MAKING ANY FURTHER CHANGES TO THE ECRS METHODOLOGY FOR 2024.
I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE MADE SEVERAL CHANGES COMING INTO THE START OF THE YEAR AS A PART OF THE METHODOLOGY THAT YOU ALL REVIEWED LAST, UH, LAST NOVEMBER, DECEMBER.
AND AS A PART OF THOSE CHANGES, UH, THE QUANTITIES OF ECRS ALREADY HAVE SEEN A REDUCTION.
UM, ON AN AVERAGE, IF, UH, LAST YEAR'S METHODOLOGY WERE TO CONTINUE, WE WOULD HAVE BOUGHT ABOUT 442 MEGAWATTS MORE IN EACH HOUR, BUT WE ARE NOT.
SO WE WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT NOW THERE IS SOME BACKGROUND AND RELIABILITY CONSIDERATION THAT GO INTO LANDING WHERE WE'VE LANDED.
SO I, I HAVE LAID THOSE OUT HERE.
UM, I'LL DESCRIBE THE SCENARIO AND THERE'S A GRAPHIC, UH, IN THE APPENDIX THAT ALSO HELPS WALK THROUGH.
BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE AS OUR INSTALL CAPACITIES FOR WIND AND SOLAR ARE INCREASING, WE ARE CERTAINLY SEEING AN INCREASE IN THE NET LOAD UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY.
NOW, PRIOR TO THE OPERATING HOUR, ERCOT RELIES ON R UH, AS A TOOL TO ENSURE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY IS COMMITTED, UH, TO COVER ANY RELIABILITY, UH, CONCERNS THAT WE MAY HAVE.
NOW, WORTH NOTING, R USES A HOURLY FORECAST, WHICH TYPICALLY IS AN AVERAGE FORECAST FOR THE HOUR AND DOES NOT COVER THE WEARABILITY WITHIN THE HOUR.
UH, WHEN, WHEN IT COMES TO THE OPERATING HOUR, WE RELY ON SCED TO GIVE TARGETS EVERY FIVE MINUTES OUT TO, TO THE FLEET.
SO DISPATCH IS SENT OUT EVERY FIVE MINUTES.
NOW, WITHIN SCHEDULE, WE TYPICALLY RELY ON REGULATION TO MANAGE OUR FREQUENCY CONTROL.
HOWEVER, THERE'S SOME RELIABILITY CONSIDERATION WITH THIS TOOL SET IS TIED TO, WELL, A, UH, AS OUR WIND AND SOLAR FLEET IS GOING THERE, THERE IS AN INCREASE IN OUR INTER HOUR NET LOAD VARIABILITY, MORE SO WITH THE SOLAR GROWTH, AND THERE CAN BE TIMES WHEN THE RAMPING CAPACITY THAT IS ONLINE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE FORECASTED 10 MINUTE NECK LOAD RAMP.
NOW THESE TYPICAL, THESE SITUATIONS TYPICALLY ARISE WHEN WEATHER FRONTS ARE MOVING THROUGH THE REGION AND THEY MOVE THROUGH SOONER OR LATER WHEN, WHEN WE WERE FORECASTING THEM TOO.
AND WHEN WE FIND OURSELVES IN THOSE SORT OF, UH, NET LOAD UNDER FORECAST SITUATIONS, THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THOSE UNDER FORECAST LAST SEVERAL INTERVALS, SEVERAL SCATTER INTERVALS.
AND THEN WHEN THE CONTROL ROOM IS LOOKING TO OPERATE THE GRID RELIABLY, IT STARTS LOOKING AT, WELL, MY NEXT UNIT THAT I HAVE AVAILABLE IS AN OFFLINE NONS SPEND PROVIDING UNIT THAT CAN HELP GET ME CAPACITY.
UM, AND SO I I, ANY ACTION I TAKE FROM BRINGING UNITS ON IT'S 30 MINUTES OR AWAY BECAUSE TYPICALLY THAT IS THE COLD START TIME OF A NONS SPEND PROVIDING RESOURCES TILL THE UNIT COMES ON.
WE RELY ON ECRS, UH, TO OPERATE THE GRID RELIABLY.
SO PER THE PROTOCOLS, LIKE I MENTIONED TODAY, AT LEAST OFFLINE NONS SPEND UNITS CAN TAKE UP TO 30 MINUTES TO BE ONLINE.
ERCOT HAS LOOKED AT THE COLD START TIME OF UNITS THAT PROVIDED OFFLINE NONS SPEND LAST SUMMER, AND WE NOTICED THAT, UH, UH, WE CONFIRMED THAT UNITS THAT WERE CARRYING OFFLINE DID, UH, EVEN DURING PEAK HOURS AT TIMES, DID HAVE UP TO 30 MINUTES, UH, OF COLD START TIME.
SO AT LEAST THESE CONSIDERATIONS AND THESE, UH, ANALYSIS OR THESE OBSERVATIONS OF HOW THE FLEET WAS PROVIDING NON SPEN HAVE LANDED US TO THE CONCLUSION WHERE WE ARE TODAY AS FAR AS 2024.
AS METHODOLOGY IS CONCERNED, WE ARE CON COMMITTED TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THE PROVISION OF NON SPEN FURTHER AND WHO'S PROVIDING THAT, UH, EVEN AS A PART OF THE 2025 AS METHODOLOGY.
SO I, I DID WANT TO NOTE THAT, UH, UH, WE, AS WE DO EVERY YEAR, WE'LL CONTINUE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE ANALYSIS.
WE, UH, SAME THING ON THIS ONE AS WELL, UH, BUT AT LEAST FOR 2024, WE WANT TO, WE ARE NOT, UH, WHERE WE, WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
I HAVE SOME MORE POINTS TO MAKE, BUT I'LL HOLD THEM WITH REGARDS TO THE METHODOLOGY ITSELF.
THE NEXT SLIDE, I'M GONNA SWITCH TOPICS AND TALK ABOUT DEPLOYMENT METHODOLOGY.
NOW THE CONTEXT HERE IS, UH, AT LEAST THE ANALYSIS THAT THE IMM DID WAS POINTING TOWARDS MARKET OUTCOMES AND, UH, AND TO US THE MARKET OUTCOMES COULD HAVE ALSO BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE WAY ECRS WAS DEPLOYED OR RELEASED TO SC THE CAPACITY FOR ECRS.
AND IN, WE DID WORK WITH THE IMM IN THINKING THROUGH DEPLOYMENT APPROACHES.
[01:45:01]
WE AGREE WITH THEM THAT IN DOWN THAT, UH, WE CAN RELEASE SOME PORTION OF SCARED DISPATCHABLE ECRS BEHIND A STANDING DEPLOYMENT THAT IS CODIFIED IN THE PROTOCOLS AND HAS AN ENERGY OFF A FLOOR.THIS CONCEPT IN OUR MINDS, UH, WILL TAKE SYSTEM HAVE, WILL HAVE SYSTEM CHANGES AND MAY NOT BE FEASIBLE TO IMPLEMENT BY SUMMER.
SO OUR TAKE, AT LEAST WHEN WE WERE LOOKING THROUGH THE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE, WAS, UH, TO SEE HOW WE COULD INFLUENCE THIS CURRENT SUMMER AND THE STANDING DEPLOYMENT APPROACH WE FELT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED BY SUMMER.
UH, WE ARE STILL WORKING ON THIS CONCEPT AND OUR TARGETING TO FILE AN NPRR, UH, BY THE JUNE PRS MEETING.
NOW, ABSENT THE STANDING DEPLOYMENT CONTEXT, WE DID THINK THAT ONE THING THAT WE COULD VISIT FOR SUMMER 2024 WAS CONSIDER A TRIGGER THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO RELEASE MANUALLY GET DISPATCHABILITY CRS EARLIER THAN WHEN IT WAS LAST SUMMER.
WERE SIMILAR CONDITIONS TO AKA.
AND IN THAT REGARDS, WE HAVE FILED NPRR 1224, UM, TO, TO BRING IN A NEW TRIGGER THAT IS BASED OFF OF POWER BALANCE PENALTY CURVE VIOLATION, UH, TO MANUALLY RELEASE, GET DISPATCHABLE CAPACITY TO, UH, THAT IS, UH, BEING OFFERED AS ECRS.
I DO WANT TO NOTE PRS HAS STABLED 1224, WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS ANY DECISION ON IT IS LIKELY NOW UNLIKELY TILL MIDDLE OF SUMMER.
SO WHAT WILL WE DO THIS SUMMER ARE PLANS SO FAR IS ABSENT ANY, UH, GUIDANCE ON A BALANCED DEPLOYMENT TRIGGER THIS SUMMER.
OUR COURT WILL CONTINUE TO RELEASE ECRS IN A MANNER SIMILAR TO HOW WE DID LAST YEAR.
SO, UH, HOPEFULLY THAT SHEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE LIGHT ON HOW, UH, HOW WE INTEND TO OPERATE.
CAN I HOLD THE QUESTION? ALRIGHT, SO I'LL MOVE ON ONE MORE SLIDE AND THEN I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS.
SO NOW, SUMMARY, AND REALLY WHERE ARE WE HEADING FROM HERE? UH, TO ME, TO US THE 1224 NPRR AND EVEN THE POTENTIAL STANDING DEPLOYMENT NPRR THAT COME ARE A STEP THAT SHOULD PROVIDE SOME INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENT.
THERE IS SOME BROADER WORK TO BE DONE NOW IN FOUR CONTEXT.
I HAVE NOTED ALREADY WITH INCREASES IN OUR INSTALLED WHEN IN SOLAR, WE ARE SEEING GROWTH IN NET LOAD UNCERTAINTY AND VARIABILITY.
FURTHER SEEING HOW THE QUEUE, UH, OR HOW OUR GRID IS EXPECTED TO EVOLVE IN THE NEAR FUTURE, WE EXPECT THIS VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY TO CONTINUE TO GROW AND EVOLVE AND AS IT DOES TO US, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE QUANTITIES OF AS THAT WE NEED ON A TYPICAL DAY VERSUS A A NON-TYPICAL OR A A DAY, WHETHER, WHETHER, WHETHER MAY NOT BE AS EASY TO PREDICT, COULD BE, COULD BE GREATER.
SO IN OUR MINDS, A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE, AS METHODOLOGY MAY SOON BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THIS PROCEDURE TAKES PROBABILISTIC RISK OF, UH, THE IM, UH, OF THE THINGS THAT IMPACT RELIABILITY BOTH ON A TYPICAL DAY AND A NON-TYPICAL DAY INTO ACCOUNT.
SO IN THIS REGARDS, UH, I'VE MENTIONED THIS EARLIER AND I'LL MENTION IT AGAIN.
WE ARE WORKING ON THE, UH, AS STUDY, UH, FOR THE LEGISLATURE.
THAT IS A GOOD AVENUE IN OUR PERSPECTIVE TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION, BUT GIVEN ITS TIMELINE, WE ARE NOT CERTAIN WE'LL BE ABLE TO FINISH EVERYTHING THAT IS, UH, THAT MAY BE NEEDED, UH, TO EVOLVE THIS METHODOLOGY.
SO I DO WANT TO NOTE, UH, IT'S A GOOD STEP.
IT IS A STEP THAT WE DO THINK IS A GOOD STEP TO EVEN CONSIDER THE IMS FEEDBACK REGARDING THE ECRS METHODOLOGY.
UM, UNTIL, UH, UNTIL THOSE WORKS HAPPEN, THE NPR AT 1224 AND THE SIGNING DEPLOYMENT APPROACHES SHOULD PROVIDE SOME INCREMENTAL RELIEF.
ACA CONTINUES TO WORKING WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS ON 1224.
I'LL STOP, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, JENNIFER.
YEAH, I DON'T SERVE ON PRS, BUT I WAS AT THE CONVERSATION.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT, UH, THE HOPE WAS THAT THE CHANGES PROPOSED WOULD BE IN FOR LIKE JULY AND THAT TABLING WAS NOT GOING TO KEEP NPRR 1224 FROM AFFECTING 2024.
UM, THE STAKEHOLDERS WERE VERY CLEAR TO ASK IF THAT TABLING WOULD STILL ALLOW THINGS TO PROCEED ON TIME.
AND SO I'M PRETTY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHANGE IN TONE ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING FOR 2024.
SO IF YOU RECOLLECT, UH, WE REQUESTED URGENCY SO THAT 1224 COULD GO TO THE APRIL BOARD WITH APRIL BOARD AND THE CURRENT PROCEDURALS FOR THE PUC APPROVAL, MID-JUNE WOULD'VE BEEN A POTENTIAL, UH, TIMEFRAME WHEN THE POC MAY HAVE APPROVED OR, UH, OR TAKEN ACTION ON 1224.
NOW THAT 1224 IS TABLED, I, I THINK THE NEXT TARGET WILL BE JUNE BOARD.
[01:50:01]
BUT BEFORE IT WAS TABLED THAT QUESTION WAS ASKED AND IT HAD SAID LIKE THE, OKAY.OKAY, KEVIN? YEAH, JUST QUICK QUESTION, I GUESS COMMENT WAS YOUR SECOND BULLET THERE.
HOLISTIC REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE AS METHODOLOGY.
AGAIN, THE COMMENT MADE EARLIER IS IT LOOKS LIKE ERCOT LOAD FORECAST FOR 2030 IS ALMOST DOUBLE WHAT WE SAW IN 2022.
UM, ARE WE GONNA BE LOOKING AT THE IMPACT OF THE AS NEEDS FOR THE SYSTEM WITH THIS NEW MUCH HIGHER LOAD FORECAST BY 2030? WILL THAT BE PRESENTED SOMEPLACE SOMETIME, DEFINITELY WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND UH, HOW, UH, AS METHODOLOGY SHOULD EVOLVE, BOTH TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PRESENT NEAR, NEAR FUTURE AND FURTHER FUTURE, THOSE ARE EVOLVING CONVERSATIONS THEY DO NEED TO HAPPEN IN OUR PERSPECTIVE AND, UH, UH, TO US, TO US REALLY THE PROCEDURE ITSELF POTENTIALLY DOES NEED TO EVOLVE.
UH, AND, UH, THOUGH THAT THE QUESTION YOU ASKED IS A FAIR QUESTION IN OUR MINDS, I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT TIMELINE BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO WALK, UH, AND THINK THROUGH, UH, WALK OUT OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW AND THINK THROUGH, UM, THINK THROUGH HOW THE SYSTEM NEEDS AND, UH, WILL EVOLVE.
BUT THAT'S A FAIR TOPIC AND SOMETHING IN OUR MINDS.
ALSO, JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP, I GUESS HOPEFULLY WITH AN NEXT UPDATE, LTSA SOME NUMBERS WOULD BE PRESENTIVE WHAT WE EXPECT TO SEE THE AS NEEDS WOULD BE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN TELL YOU, UH, WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO IT.
UH, 'CAUSE AGAIN, TODAY WE DON'T LOOK THAT FAR OUT WHEN THINKING ABOUT ANCILLARY SERVICES OR THERE IS A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY.
SO EVEN WE WOULD NEED TO THINK THROUGH WHAT IS THE METHOD OF THINKING ABOUT 2030 AND WHAT THE AS NEEDS WILL BE.
UH, AND I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT'S PART OF, UH, HOW FAR, UH, ALONG WE'LL BE ABLE TO WRAP UP OUR, UH, UH, WORK THAT WE NEED TO DO AS A PART OF THE AS STUDY FOR THE LEGISLATURE.
UH, IF WE CAN TAKE THIS TO A HIGH LEVEL, UH, I, I NEED A CLARIFICATION HERE.
I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR MORE RAMPING AS WE GET HIGHER LOADS AND, AND GREATER PENETRATION INTERNET INTERMITTENT RENEWABLES.
THE QUESTION IS ONE OF THE, AT LEAST THE TRADE PRESS IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM LAST SUMMER, WAS THAT ERCOT, IMM SAID ERCOT WAS WITHHOLDING RESOURCES DURING THE SUMMER DRIVING UP PRICES.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE NON-PEAK TIMES WHEN YOU'RE AT RISK, RIGHT? UNITS MAY NOT BE COMMITTED AND THEY MAY NOT BE READY.
YOU WANT SOMETHING AVAILABLE TO RAMP, RIGHT? BUT DURING THE PEAK SUMMER AFTERNOONS, EVERYTHING THAT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE, I MEAN, EVERYTHING THAT COULD BE AVAILABLE IS AVAILABLE.
I MEAN, EVERYONE LIVES FOR THAT IN THIS MARKET DESIGN.
BESIDES THE REDUCTION IN PROCUREMENT, WHAT STEPS ARE YOU TAKING THIS SUMMER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT CONCERN ABOUT WITHHOLDING IS ADDRESSED? SO IT IS, UH, IN REGARDS TO THAT CONCERN THAT WE RECOMMENDED OR THAT WE PROPOSED, NPRR 12 24, 12 24 WOULD HAVE GIVEN US A CLEAR TRIGGER AND A MECHANISM TO LOOK AT SO THAT WE COULD RELEASE ECRS THE WAY THAT TRIGGER WAS DESIGNED.
UH, AT LEAST BASED OFF OF OUR LOOK, UH, IN THE PAST OF HOW SUMMER PLAYED OUT LAST YEAR, WE EXPECTED IT TO GIVE US INDICATION TO RELEASE ECRS EARLIER IN THE AFTERNOON ON THOSE DAYS WHEN SCARCITY OCCURRED.
UM, SO WE ARE WAITING ON, UH, 1224 TO WALK THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GET US THERE.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO USE OUR CURRENT EXISTING PRACTICES THAT WERE USED LAST SUMMER.
BUT, BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE, I UNDERSTAND THE RELEASING THAT, THAT THAT'S A, A IDEA WORTH CONSIDERING.
I'M STILL A LITTLE, LITTLE UNCLEAR HERE.
YOU DON'T NEED TO SET IT ASIDE IF IT'S ALREADY COMMITTED.
SO IS THERE, I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE RELEASING AND I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE OVERALL, BUT IS THERE SOME MORE TARGETED CONSIDERATION OF THE FACT THAT PEAK AFTERNOONS IN AUGUST, UH, YOU MAY NOT NEED SO MUCH E-R-S-E-C-R-S 'CAUSE EVERYTHING IS THERE ALREADY? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
SO, SO ETLE, SO I'LL TELL YOU BACK TO, WE'VE LOOKED AT SPECIFICALLY TO THE QUESTION LAST SUMMER.
FOR SOME OF THE DAYS WHEN WE, WE WERE REALLY, UH, EXPERIENCING HIGH NET LOADS, WE
[01:55:01]
DID GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE PROVISION OF NON SPEN AT A FIVE MINUTE GRANULARITY DURING THE PEAK HOURS.AND WHAT WE SAW, EVEN AT THAT TIME, UNITS THAT WERE OFFLINE CARRYING NON SPEN, SOME OF THEM WERE 30 MINUTES AWAY.
SO THAT TELLS US THAT IF I AM IN A SITUATION WHERE I HAVE A CONCERN WHERE MY, I HAVE A VERY BIG MISS IN FORECAST, MY, MY UNIT THAT I MAY NEED FOR CAPACITY MAY STILL BE 30 MINUTES AWAY.
SO WHEN I, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THAT, AT LEAST WE COULDN'T GET COMFORTABLE CHANGING OUR APPROACH FOR COMPUTING ECRS FOR AUGUST OR FOR SUMMER SEPARATE, UH, AND SEPARATING IT OUT, UH, FROM THE REST OF THE, UH, FROM THE REST OF THE MONTHS.
SO, SO THAT'S, UH, BUT DEFINITELY WE DID TRY TO POKE AND SEE IF THERE WAS ANY CASE, UH, THAT WOULD MAKE US COMFORTABLE MOVING AWAY.
NOW WE ARE COMMITTED TO KEEP LOOKING AT THE QUESTION BECAUSE I REALIZE, UH, UH, THE MARKET'S EVOLVING, THE GRID'S EVOLVING.
SO POTENTIALLY, UH, IF WE LEARN ANYTHING EITHER FROM THE OTHER EFFORTS THAT WE ARE DOING, WE MAY BE MORE COMFORTABLE COMING BACK WITH SOME DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION.
YEAH, SO I GUESS IN RESPONSE TO ERIC'S QUESTION, I MEAN, SO WE PROCURE AN AMOUNT OF VCRS AND OTHER ANCILLARY SERVICES THAT WE NEED BASED ON DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE YEAR, INCLUDING DURING PEAK TIMES.
AND WE NEED THOSE TO COVER THE RISKS THAT, THAT WE FORESEE FOR THOSE TIMES.
NOW, AT SOME POINT ON THESE DAYS WHERE WE'RE PRETTY MUCH OUT OF CAPACITY, SO THE LOAD IS SUCH THAT IT'S GETTING CLOSE TO EXCEEDING THE CAPACITY, THAT'S REALLY THE TIME WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RE WE NEED THE ECRS AND OTHER THINGS TO COVER THE RISKS MOST OF THE TIME.
BUT AT SOME POINT ON THOSE DAYS, IT BECOMES PER, UH, REASONABLE TO START TO RELEASE SOME OF THAT CAPACITY.
I MEAN, ULTIMATELY WE RELEASE ALL THE ANCILLARY SERVICES IF BEFORE WE START SHEDDING LOAD.
AND SO, BUT ON THOSE DAYS WHERE WE'RE IN NEAR SCARCITY CONDITIONS, WHEN SHOULD WE START TO RELEASE THEM? WE HAVE A TRIGGER THAT WE'RE USING LAST YEAR.
WE'D BE USING A SIMILAR TRIGGER THIS YEAR, NPR 1224.
AND THIS OTHER, UH, STANDING DEPLOYMENT ACTUALLY PROVIDE THAT.
WE COULD RELEASE IT A LITTLE EARLIER ON THOSE DAYS OR UNDER THE STANDING DEPLOYMENT.
IT WOULD BE RELEASED UNDER A, A PRICE FLOOR ALL THE TIME.
BUT THE IDEA IS TO, TO KEEP IT IN RESERVE FOR IT TO COVER THE RISKS THAT'S INTENDED FOR MOST OF THE TIME.
AND IT'S REALLY ONLY ON THOSE DAYS THAT WE'VE SAID WE WOULD BE NEED TO RELEASE IT ANYWAY.
SHOULD WE RELEASE IT A FEW, YOU KNOW, MINUTES OR HOURS EARLIER OR NOT? UH, CURTIS CAMPO CURTIS, IF YOU'RE TALKING, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
YEAH, YOU CAN TAKE ME OUTTA THE QUEUE.
I THINK I SAW MARK DRIVE'S CARD UP FIRST.
UM, I'VE SPOKEN A LOT ABOUT THIS ISSUE OVER THE LAST, I DON'T KNOW, SEVEN OR EIGHT MONTHS IN MANY DIFFERENT FORMS, AND I DON'T WANNA, UH, REPEAT MYSELF TODAY.
UM, I DO WANNA NOTE THAT THE, THE BRIEF CONVERSATION THAT NIT AND DAN AND AND ERIC JUST HAD IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND I'VE MISSED THIS CONVERSATION DURING THIS TIME.
I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE IMM RAISE A VERY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION WHETHER WE INDUCED CONGESTION BY HOLDING EXCESS RESERVES OUT OF THE ENERGY MARKET.
AND I, I, I ASKED, AND I THINK OTHERS ASKED WAY BACK WHEN THIS ISSUE FIRST STARTED, LET'S ALL DRILL DOWN.
THIS IS SO IMPORTANT, 12 AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS IN POTENTIALLY UNNECESSARY EXPENSE IN THE WHOLESALE MARKET.
LET'S DRILL DOWN AND FIND OUT IF THAT REALLY HAPPENED OR WHAT WAS THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
AND, AND I DON'T THINK WE DID THAT DRILL DOWN AND, AND THIS CONVERSATION HAS SUFFERED FROM THAT.
AND I HOPE, I, I REALLY APPRECIATE ERCOT COMMITMENT AND, AND TICUS COMMITMENT THAT SHE MADE TODAY, AND IN PRIOR CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD OFFLINE, THAT THERE'S GONNA BE A MORE FUNDAMENTAL, UH, REVIEW OF THIS PRODUCT IN THE SUMMER AND THE LARGER REVIEW.
'CAUSE I THINK WE REALLY DO NEED TO FIND OUT, UM, WHETHER THE CO THE EXPENSES THAT WE INCURRED LAST SUMMER AND POTENTIALLY IN THE FUTURE WERE NECESSARY.
UM, BUT NOW, AT LEAST TODAY, WE ARE, WE'RE WHERE WE ARE AND WE HAVE NPRR 1224 THAT IS TABLED, AND WE'LL COME BACK, UH, TO PRS NEXT MONTH.
I ANTICIPATE THAT I WILL SUPPORT THAT NPRR AND THAT NPRR WILL PASS,
[02:00:01]
AND IT WILL BE IN PLACE FOR THE SECOND HALF OF THE SUMMER AFTER, UH, IT WOULD LIKELY BE ON THE PUC AGENDA, I THINK ON JULY 24TH.SO, UH, IF APPROVED, WE COULD IMPLEMENT IT RIGHT AFTER THAT.
UM, BUT I THINK THERE'S A MISSING PIECE.
AND I, I DISCUSSED THIS AT THE PRS AND I DISCUSSED THIS WITH NITKA EARLIER.
UM, THE IMM BROUGHT THIS TO US.
UH, CARRIE BROUGHT IT TO US, UH, UH, LAST AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER, NOTING POTENTIALLY EIGHT TO $10 BILLION IN EXCESS EXPENDITURES IN, UH, ANCILLARY SERVICES THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INDUCED BY THE WAY THAT THIS, UH, THIS SERVICE WAS, UH, OPERATED.
UH, DAVID CAME TO US AND TO THE BOARD AND LATER RAISED THAT NUMBER TO $12 BILLION, 12 AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS.
AND, AND NOW WE HAVE THIS NPRR, WHICH WE ALL KNOW DOESN'T GO BACK AND GET TO THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE.
IT, IT TREATS THE ISSUE AND MAYBE OFFSETS SOME OF THE COSTS.
IT DOESN'T, DOESN'T RESOLVE OR FIX THE ISSUE.
AND AS WE CONSIDER THIS N-P-R-R-I, I THINK IT'S REALLY CRITICAL THAT WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW BIG OF A FIX IS IT.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ANALYSIS YET THAT SAYS THIS WILL REVERSE A DOLLAR OR A BILLION DOLLARS OR $20 BILLION OF, WELL, $20 BILLION WOULD BE EXCESSIVE.
UM, I'LL GO BACK A DOLLAR OR A BILLION DOLLARS OR $2 BILLION OR MORE UP TO 12 AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS.
AND, AND SO I THINK WE REALLY NEED THAT INFORMATION.
AND, AND I FEEL LIKE, AND, AND I KNOW THE IMM IS BRAND NEW IN, IN HIS POSITION AND STILL GETTING HIS FEET WET, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE IMM OWES IT TO US FOR BRINGING THIS ISSUE TO US RAISING THE PROFILE OF THIS ISSUE.
AND, AND IT'S THE, I'S PRIMARY FUNCTION TO ASSURE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE ENERGY MARKET.
AND SO I JUST LIKE TO REQUEST, UM, THAT WE SEE A SIMPLE BACKCAST TO LAST SUMMER THAT SAYS, HAD THE NPRR 1224 BEEN IN PLACE, THEN THIS IS WHAT WE, WE EXPECT GIVEN THE MODELING THAT WE'RE CAPABLE OF DOING, UH, WHAT THE COST WOULD'VE BEEN LAST SUMMER AS COMPARED TO THE COST THAT WE KNOW THAT ACTUALLY INCURRED.
AND I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT AT THE, THE MAIN MEETING OF THE PRS AND TAC AND THEN, THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD ON THIS.
AND, AND JUST ONE LAST THING, WHY I THINK THIS IS SO FUNDAMENTAL.
UM, THIS IS NOT A GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING FIX OF THIS PROBLEM, BUT WHEN WE PASSED THE NPRR, IT COULD BE VERY EASY FOR PEOPLE TO GO, OH, WE FIXED IT.
NOW WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ECRS ANYMORE.
SO I WANNA KNOW, BACK TO MY QUESTION, DID WE RESOLVE A DOLLAR? DID WE RESOLVE A BILLION DOLLARS? DID WE RESOLVE $2 BILLION? AND I HEAR THAT THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE THIS STUDY.
I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE, THOSE, THOSE RESULTS.
BUT I HEAR THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE THIS STUDY AND, AND YEAH, THERE'S SOME SAVINGS, BUT IT'S NOT 12 AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, ONLY DOWN IN THE, THE SINGLE PERCENTS 10%, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO WE NEED TO KNOW THAT SO THAT WE DON'T GET IN A SITUATION WHERE, WHERE WE BELIEVE WE FIXED A PROBLEM WE HAVEN'T REALLY FIXED.
UH, JEFF BILLOW, DID YOU WANNA RESPOND? SURE, THANKS.
SO, YOU KNOW, I I, THE THING IS WE'VE DISCUSSED, UM, AT, AT LENGTH IN OTHER FORUMS AT, I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT 12 POINT HALF BILLION DOLLARS IS, IS NOT A REAL NUMBER.
UM, IT'S, I THINK THE CALCULATION WAS PROBABLY CORRECT, BUT IT, IT, IT'S NOT A REAL NUMBER OR INDICATION OF WHAT ACTUAL COSTS ARE.
WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S EVEN THE RIGHT MAGNITUDE OF COST.
I, I, I THINK, UM, FUNDAMENTALLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND, AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE RELIABILITY NEEDS ON THE SYSTEM? WHAT, WHAT ARE THE RELIABILITY NEEDS ON THE SYSTEM AND WHAT, WHAT ARE THE COSTS OF THOSE NEEDS? AND I, I THINK THE LONG-TERM COST IS, IS REALLY THE COST OF THAT CAPACITY.
THAT, THAT, THAT'S, I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE FUNDAMENTALS, IT, IT'S REALLY THE COST OF WHATEVER CAPACITY IT IS THAT WE ARE RESERVING.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT THE PRICE, WHICH AGAIN, I, I THINK IF YOU GO BACK AND TRY TO ANALYZE WHAT WOULD THE PRICE HAVE BEEN LAST SUMMER, HAD WE PUT THESE CHANGES IN PLACE, THAT, THAT, THAT'S AN UNKNOWABLE NUMBER BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW, DON'T KNOW HOW, UH, BIDDING AND OFFER BEHAVIOR WOULD'VE
[02:05:01]
CHANGED.UH, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CAPACITY MAY HAVE DECIDED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANNA BE THERE BECAUSE OF, OF THAT CHANGE.
SO I, I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS MORE ON THE FUNDAMENTALS OF WHAT, WHAT DO WE NEED AND WHAT ARE THE COSTS FROM A CAPACITY STANDPOINT? AND, AND AGAIN, AND THAT, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO THROUGH THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THESE OTHER ANALYSIS THAT WE'RE DOING.
AND DON'T WANT TO IGNORE THOSE.
I, I THINK WE, WE DO SEE THAT NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT EXERCISE, BUT THAT, THAT'S A, LIKE A LONGER CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET TO BEFORE THIS SUMMER.
ERIC GOFF, I, UH, A FEW THINGS.
UM, FIRST JUST DIRECTLY AND RESPONSIVE TO WHAT JEFF JUST SAID, UM, I APPRECIATE, UM, THE DIFFICULTY OF BACKCAST.
UM, BUT, UM, THINK IT WOULD BE VALUABLE, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE STATEMENTS THAT THE IMM HAS MADE IN THE PAST THAT WERE BACKCAST JUST AS A COMPARATIVE TOOL.
UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEXITIES OF, OF, OF DOING THAT AND HAVING TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS.
UM, AND IT'D BE GREAT THAT THE IMM COULD DO IT AS, UH, WAS JUST MENTIONED.
UM, AND THEN, UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, I DISAGREE THAT IT'S MERELY THE COST OF CAPACITY THAT IS THE COST TO CONSUMERS.
UM, WE KNOW THIS IS COMPLICATED FOR THE REASONS THAT THE $12 BILLION IS COMPLICATED AS A NUMBER ARE NOT, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOMETIMES THOSE COSTS ARE HEDGED AND OTHER TIMES NOT FOR ENERGY AND ANCILLARY SERVICES.
UM, AND THEN, UM, ONE LAST POINT THAT, UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO MENTION FOR, UH, GETTING FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS IS WE ARE CONSIDERING FILING ADDITIONAL, UM, RED LINE LANGUAGE CHANGES TO THIS NPRR AND WOULD LIKE FEEDBACK BEFORE WE DO THAT.
UM, AND THOSE RED LINE CHANGES WOULD BE TO PROPOSE THAT THE TRIGGER NOT BE BASED ON THE POWER BALANCE PENALTY CURVE, BUT RATHER THE ORDC RESERVES AND, UM, PERHAPS A MEGAWATT LEVEL, UM, ONE FOR THIS SUMMER AND ANOTHER ONE FOR THE FOLLOWING SUMMER.
THAT WOULD BE A HIGHER LEVEL, WHICH WOULD LEAD TO AN EARLIER DEPLOYMENT.
SO LET'S, UH, JUST GIVEN THE TIMING OF THIS, I, I THOUGHT IT'D BE HELPFUL TO LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THAT IN ADVANCE.
UM, SO PEOPLE CAN REACT TO IT AND, AND HEAR IT.
UM, BUT THOSE COMMENTS HAVE NOT YET BEEN SUBMITTED EVEN AND WOULD, WOULD LOVE FEEDBACK IF ANYONE HAS IT.
I, NED I'M GONNA TRY NOT TO REPEAT THINGS THAT HAVE SAID IN OTHER FORUMS, BUT, UM, AT LEAST NOT TOO MUCH.
UM, BUT SINCE WE'RE, WE'RE DOING A LITTLE BIT OF THAT, I CAN'T HELP, BUT, UH, BUT CHIME IN A LITTLE BIT.
UM, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY I WANTED TO START OFF WITH SOMETHING NEW, WHICH IS, UH, KEVIN MENTIONED, UH, YOU KNOW, THE OUTLOOK AND WHAT WE SEE IN LOAD GROWTH AND HOW THAT MIGHT CHANGE THE NEEDS FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES.
THAT ACTUALLY I THINK IS A REALLY, THE, THE IDEA OF LOOKING FURTHER OUT THAN JUST WHAT'S IN THE NEXT YEAR IS PROBABLY A GOOD THING FOR US TO ALL CONSIDER THAT WOULD HELP ALL MARKET PARTICIPANTS HAVE A LOT MORE VISIBILITY INTO WHAT'S CHANGING.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU GET MORE CLARITY AS YOU GO INTO THE NEXT YEAR, RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, THE PLAN PROBABLY ISN'T SET UNTIL THE YEAR BEFORE.
SAME AS SAME AS IT IS NOW, BUT HAVING SOME VISIBILITY WILL, WILL HELP A LOT OF, A LOT OF FOLKS IN THE MARKET.
UM, AND SO SOMETHING WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD STRIVE FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, CERTAINTY IN, IN WHAT THE RELIABILITY OR MORE CERTAINTY, AS MUCH CERTAINTY AS WE CAN GIVE AROUND WHAT THE RELIABILITY NEEDS ARE.
WE'LL HELP FOLKS UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE MARKET IMPLICATIONS ARE.
UM, AND THEN WE WON'T BE IN THIS SITUATION, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT MARKET PARTICIPANTS HAD DIFFERENT LEVELS OF, UH, EXPECTATIONS FOR HOW ECRS WAS GOING TO, UH, BE IMPLEMENTED.
AND THIS DISCUSSION, I THINK IS ACTUALLY CONFLATING BOTH, YOU KNOW, THE, THOSE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF, UH, ANTICIPATION AND THE FACT THAT WE HAD A RECORD HOT SUMMER.
UM, I THINK MOST OF THE, MOST OF THAT ANALYSIS CAME IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR AND AUGUST OF LAST YEAR WAS EXTREMELY HOT, EXTREMELY TIGHT.
THERE WAS ACTUAL SCARCITY, THERE WERE ACTUAL RISKS THAT ARCOT WAS TRYING TO MANAGE ON THE SYSTEM.
AND SIMPLY RELEASING ALL OF THE RESERVES ISN'T NECESSARILY THE RIGHT, UH, THE RIGHT APPROACH TO THAT.
BUT UNDERSTAND THERE'S A CERTAIN POINT WHERE YOU, YOU HAVE TO MAKE THAT TRADE OFF AND THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT THE REALTIME CO OPTIMIZATION FRAMEWORK WILL DO.
AND THERE'S ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES THAT WILL MAKE THAT TRADE OFF.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD ALL KEEP IN MIND THIS
[02:10:01]
IS, UH, YOU KNOW, REALLY IT'S A, A SHORT TERM WINDOW, A SHORT TERM ISSUE THAT, YOU KNOW, IN 2026, IT, IT ALL CHANGES.SO, UM, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO SAY, WELL, CERTAIN, FIRST OF ALL, I OBJECT IN PRINCIPLE TO TRYING TO, UH, YOU KNOW, REACH A CERTAIN OUTCOME.
UH, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON A SPECIFIC PRICING OUTCOME.
I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THE WRONG APPROACH.
WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE RELIABILITY NEEDS ARE.
BUT THEN TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT WHAT THAT PRICING OUTCOME IS BE, SHOULD BE, WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO CREATE A, UH, ALIGN WITH WHAT THAT, UM, THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES LOOK LIKE.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THE 1224 PROPOSAL, I THINK ACTUALLY UNDERSHOOTS THAT A LITTLE BIT, UM, COMING AND MADE IT AT PRS WAS FROM WHAT I SAW, AND, AND NIT I THINK HE PRESENTED SOME INFORMATION THAT SHOWED THAT THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE CLOSER TO THE X EQUALS 40, UH, FRAMEWORK USING THE POWER BALANCE PIN TO CURVE AS A, AS A HANDY REFERENCE POINT.
SO WE'LL JUST, UH, LEAVE THAT AT THAT AND WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT IT WHEN IT COMES BACK TO US.
UM, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT LINE OF CONVERSATION.
DAN, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU'LL BE, UM, IMPLEMENTING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER FOR, UM, DEPLOYING ECRS.
I WAS WONDERING IF, UM, ERCOT WOULD BE WILLING TO, UM, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE US SOME INSIGHTS ON WHAT THAT PLAN IS, UM, AND UNDERSTAND IT MAY NOT BE CONCRETE TODAY AND IT NEEDS TO BE PUT OUT LATER, BUT JUST WOULD LOVE ANY INSIGHT YOU CAN GIVE US.
SIMILAR IS PROBABLY A BAD CHOICE OF WORDS.
I MEAN, WE'RE GONNA BASICALLY DO THE SAME THING.
WE, WE MAY TRY TO MAKE IT MORE, UH, UM, IMPLEMENT ACTUAL TOOLS IN THE CONTROL ROOM THAT WILL, WILL ACTUALLY TELL US WHEN THE NUMBERS GET TO THE LEVELS THAT WE WERE USING LAST YEAR.
SO IT'LL BE REALLY CONSISTENT OVER TIME, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE'LL BE DOING THE, YEAH, I'M USING HEDGE WORDS AGAIN.
WE WILL BE DOING WHAT THE SAME THING WE DID LAST SUMMER.
AND WILL WE SEE THAT IN THE, UM, THE DESKTOP DOCUMENTS? YES.
IN THEORY, THE GUESSES, YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THE TRIGGERS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE TODAY.
SO BASICALLY IT'S THE NET LOAD, RAMP TRIGGER FOR ECRS THAT THEY'LL BE MONITORING TO SEE IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT THERMAL CAPACITY TO COVER THE FORECASTED 10 MINUTE RAMP.
SO THAT PIECE SHOULD ALREADY BE IN THE PROCEDURE AND I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE EDITING IT FURTHER, BUT WE DO HAVE A MONTH BETWEEN NOW AND SUMMER STARTING, SO WE WILL DEFINITELY REVIEW WITH THE CONTROL ROOM.
RIGHT NOW, THE CHANCES OF THAT EDITING IS LOWER END, SO WHATEVER IS IN THE DISC PROCEDURE SHOULD STAY OKAY.
BUT PLEASE FOLLOW THE POWER, UH, BULLETINS WHEN THEY COME OUT.
I JUST, I ALSO DON'T WANNA REITERATE TOO MANY THINGS, BUT THE PUSHBACK THAT THE $12.5 BILLION ISN'T REAL IS DEPENDENT ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE RETAIL MARKET IS PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM THE VOLATILITY CREATED BY POOR ECRS DEPLOYMENT POTENTIALLY.
AND THE ARGUMENT THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COST OF RELIABILITY, WHEN THE RELIABILITY IMPACT OF ECRS WAS NOT FOUND TO BE SUBSTANTIAL IN 2023 IS REALLY CONCERNING TO ME, BOTH THE CONSUMERS AND THE RETAILERS HAVE ASKED FOR, UH, NPRR 1224 TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
AND SO I DO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE WITH US SAYING, WELL, THE NUMBER'S NOT 12 BILLION BECAUSE THERE'S HEDGES, WE'RE THE ONES PROCURING THOSE HEDGES.
AND NOT SOLVING ECRS DOES AFFECT THE ABILITY FOR RETAILERS TO PROPERLY PROCURE IN THE FORWARD MARKET.
AND SO I, I DO WANT US TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCY OF THE URGENCY AROUND 1224 AND NOT KEEP DISCOUNTING THE IMPACT FOR THIS SUMMER, FOR NEXT SUMMER AND NOT, UH, PROCEEDING WITH 1224 EFFICIENTLY.
UM, I JUST WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE A BACK CAST ON 2023.
I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE MORE INFORMATION ON THE RELIABILITY IMPACT AND THE COST IMPACT, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW TACT OR PCRS OR PRS IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE A DECISION WHEN WE HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN THE DETAILS NECESSARY TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.
SO THE CHALLENGE IS THAT WE NEED 1224.
I WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION BEFORE 1224 MOVE FORWARD, BUT WE'RE IN THE 11TH HOUR
[02:15:01]
AND WE NEED CHANGES FOR THIS SUMMER.AND I DON'T WANNA GET TO THE END OF SUMMER AND HAVE US SAY, WELL, THE IMPACT WAS 12 BILLION IN REAL TIME, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL NUMBER IS FOR IMPACT TO MARKET AGAIN.
SO I JUST PLEASE
YEAH, AND, AND THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DIRECTED AT, AT MY COMMENT, AND TO BE CLEAR, UH, I I WAS NOT SAYING THAT HEDGING WAS THE REASON THAT THE 12 AND A HALF BILLION DOLLARS ISN'T, WASN'T REAL.
I, I, I THINK IT IS MORE THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE OFFER BEHAVIOR WOULD'VE CHANGED, UH, PARTICULARLY WITH, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE PRICING WAS, I THINK, DRIVEN BY THE WAY THAT BATTERIES WERE OFFERING IN.
AND, UM, THEY'RE TRYING TO MANAGE THEIR STATE OF CHARGE WITH, UH, THE, THE HOW THEY'RE OFFERING THEIR POWER.
AND I THINK THAT THAT LIKELY WOULD HAVE CHANGED HAD YOU HAD THIS, YOU KNOW, 1224 OR SOMETHING SIMILAR LAST SUMMER.
AND SO YOU, YOU, WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD'VE CHANGED, BUT IT WOULD HAVE CHANGED AND MAY HAVE RESULTED IN PRICES NOT BEING THAT DIFFERENT.
WE, WE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T, WE DON'T KNOW.
I, I THINK ALSO, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO FUNDAMENTALS, THE, THE GENERATION, THE CAPACITY THAT WAS THERE LAST SUMMER, UH, SOME OF IT WAS THERE LIKELY BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GETTING ECRS REVENUES OR BECAUSE IT HAD SOME EXPECTATION OF PRICING BASED ON ECRS BEING THERE THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THERE, THAT THAT CAPACITY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THERE LAST SUMMER, HAD ECRS NOT BEEN THERE.
SO AGAIN, I THINK THAT IS AN UNKNOWABLE NUMBER.
UH, BUT TO YOUR POINT, I AGREE, AND ACTUALLY I THINK ERCOT IS SUPPORTIVE OF 1224 MOVING FORWARD.
I, I THINK WE, WE DO SEE THIS AS A GOOD STEP FORWARD.
I THINK WE SEE OTHER STEPS BEING NECESSARY, BUT WE, WE SEE THIS AS A GOOD INITIAL STEP FORWARD.
CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? VERY FAINTLY.
UH, IS THAT BETTER? IT'S A LITTLE BETTER, YEAH.
I WILL, I WILL DO MY BEST TO TALK LOUDLY.
APPRECIATE THE, THE CONVERSATION.
I THINK, UM, ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HEAR CONSISTENTLY FROM MY MEMBERS IS THAT WE SEEM TO BE MAKING A CHANGE, NOT BASED ON WHAT'S NEEDED FOR OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY, BUT IN ORDER TO AFFECT A SPECIFIC PRICING OUTCOME.
AND I GUESS I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S THE APPROACH THAT WE SHOULD COME AT THIS FROM.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS ALL VERY HOLISTIC.
UM, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF DIFFERENT MARKET DESIGN CHANGES THAT ARE OCCURRING AT ONCE.
AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT IN, IN THE END, THESE ARE ALL BASICALLY PIECES TO A PUZZLE THAT ARE, THAT ARE GOING TO FIT TOGETHER TO CREATE A MARKET PICTURE AND A RELIABILITY PICTURE.
AND SO I, I GET REALLY CONCERNED WHEN WE ARE REACTIVE AND WE LOOK AT SOMETHING AND SAY, OH MY GOSH, AND WE, WE BASE IT ON NUMBERS, AND I'M, I'M NOT GONNA GET INTO WHO'S GOT RIGHT NUMBERS OR WHO'S GOT WRONG NUMBERS, BUT I THINK TO SAY THAT EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME IS REALLY NOT REALISTIC.
UM, I THINK JEFF HAS SOME VERY GOOD POINTS IN WHAT HE SAID IN TERMS OF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANGES TO BEHAVIOR THERE WOULD BE.
I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO ASSUME THERE WOULD BE CHANGES TO BEHAVIOR BECAUSE WHEN YOU CHANGE HOW SOMETHING, UH, WORKS WITHIN THE MARKET, THAT IS JUST A NATURAL RESULT.
UM, AND SO I, I GUESS IT'S JUST, IT SEEMS LIKE WE WANT MORE RELIABILITY AND WE WANT RESERVES OVER HERE FOR THIS PURPOSE OR THAT PURPOSE, BUT THERE'S NOT REALLY A RECOGNITION YET THAT SOME OF THIS, I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE A HUGE INCREASE IN CAPACITY AT THIS POINT.
UM, AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS THAT ECRS HAS SENT A SIGNAL TO THE MARKET THAT INVESTMENT IN DISPATCHABLE GENERATION IS NEEDED IN ERCOT.
YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT INVESTMENT DECISIONS ARE NOT BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
THEY'RE BASED ON WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS
[02:20:01]
ARE FOR THE FUTURE.THESE ARE 20, 30, 40 YEAR RESOURCES THAT COMPANIES ARE GOING TO BE MAKING INVESTMENT IN.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE REALLY CAUTIOUS THAT WE DON'T CHILL THAT INVESTMENT, UM, OR SEND A MESSAGE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT RELIABILITY, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT CAN'T COST ANYTHING, UM, BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO NOT REALISTIC.
IT NEEDS TO BE A, A BALANCE THAT STRUCK.
UM, AND SO I JUST, I THINK THAT HAVING A DELIBERATIVE PROCESS IS IMPORTANT.
I THINK THAT MAKING SURE WHAT WE DO IS THE RIGHT THING FOR THE MARKET, NOT JUST THIS SUMMER AND NEXT SUMMER, BUT IN THE LONG TERM IS REALLY CRITICAL.
AND SO I, I WANT US TO BE REALLY COGNIZANT OF THAT AND NOT TRY AND GET SOMETHING DONE QUICKLY SO WE CAN SAY WE DID IT, BUT MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE DO IS THE RIGHT THING.
UH, I THINK WE'RE BACK TO NED.
UH, THE, THE ONLY COMMENT I WANTED TO ADD WAS THAT THERE ARE LOAD SERVING ENTITIES THAT HAVE HEDGED THEIR, UH, THEIR EXPECTATIONS FOR ECRS GOING INTO THE SUMMER.
SO MAKING CHANGES ON AN URGENT BASIS DOES HAVE IMPACTS ON LOAD SERVING ENTITIES AS WELL.
UM, SO IT'S NOT WANTED TO JUST MAKE THAT POINT THAT IT'S NOT SIMPLY A, A, YOU KNOW, A ONE DIRECTIONAL IMPACT ON LOAD SERVING ENTITIES TO, TO CHANGE IT, UM, ON A URGENT BASIS GOING INTO THE SUMMER.
KEVIN HANSEN? YEAH, I JUST HAD TO MAKE A QUICK COMMENT THROUGH REGARDS TO WHAT JEFF SAID EARLIER.
I DON'T BELIEVE, ESPECIALLY IF WE LOOK AT THE 60 DAY REPORT, THAT STORAGE WAS THE, UH, THE BIDDING BEHAVIOR STORAGE ON ANY ECRS CAUSED OR THE PRICES, UH, WOULD BE HIGHER ON ECRS.
UM, MARK DREYFUSS, UH, JUST A QUICK COMMENT ON ECRS BEING A SOURCE OF INVESTMENT DOLLARS FOR NEW GENERATION.
I, I THINK AT OUR DECEMBER 3RD MEETING, UH, DAVID PATTON SPOKE TO, THAT IS SPECIFIC ISSUE VERY ELOQUENTLY, UH, BETTER THAN I CAN DO, UM, SPEAKING TO, UH, UNCERTAIN REVENUE STREAMS AND, AND, AND WHERE INVESTMENT INCIDENTS REALLY COME FROM.
AND I, I SUGGEST EVERYONE WHO HAS AN INTEREST IN THAT ISSUE.
UH, GO BACK AND, AND CHECK THE TRANSCRIPT FROM DECEMBER 3RD.
ALL RIGHT, TIKA, THE QUEUE IS CLEAR.
MAYBE I'LL, I'LL WRAP IT UP IN HERE.
REALLY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COMMENTS.
UM, AND THE DISCUSSION THAT HAS BEEN HAD ONCE MORE, I ECHO BECAUSE THERE WAS A POINT MADE REGARDING, UH, EVOLUTION OF THE AS METHODOLOGY THROUGH THE SLIDE DECK.
WHAT WE WERE DEFINITELY TRYING TO POINT OUT IS, IN OUR MINDS, WE DO SEE AS THE WORLD'S EVOLVING A NEED TO REV REVISE THE AS METHODOLOGY, THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE, WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RISKS, OF COURSE, WHAT ARE THE RELIABILITY NEEDS? HOW DO WE WEIGH THEM OUT ON THE DIFFERENT DAYS WHEN OPERATING CONDITIONS CAN BE VERY DIFFERENT? AND OF COURSE, EVEN WE POTENTIALLY LOOK IN THE FUTURE WHEN THINKING ABOUT TODAY.
ONE OTHER THING POTENTIALLY THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS WHAT WOULD BE THE OPERATING PRACTICES, UH, THAT GO INTO OPERATING RELIABLY ON THOSE DAYS? AND THOSE PIECES, UH, ARE QUITE IN, UH, QUITE, UM, COMPLEX IN NATURE THAT HAVE TO BE FULLY THOUGHT THROUGH TO US.
THEY ARE NOT PART OF, UH, DEFINITELY NOT PART OF THESE ANNUAL REVIEWS THAT WE DO, WHICH ARE, WHICH ARE MEANT TO BE INCREMENTAL IN NATURE.
UH, SO WE DO CONSIDER THE AS STUDY HAVE AS AN EXAMPLE, AS A GOOD PATHWAY FORWARD INTO STARTING TO THINK THROUGH THESE COMPLEX ISSUES AND PUTTING TOGETHER A FRAMEWORK FOR A PROCEDURE THAT TAKES US FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE, UM, AND, AND CAN SERVE US JUST THE WAY THAT THIS CURRENT ONE HAS SERVED US FOR SEVERAL YEARS SO FAR.
SO, SO, UH, IN THAT REGARDS, WE ARE COMMITTED TO CONTINUE TO WORKING ON THE AS PROCEDURES AND HOW THEY CAN EVOLVE FURTHER, UH, AT THE RIGHT VENUES.
UM, 1224, UNDERSTANDING DEPLOYMENT ARE JUST INCREMENTAL STEPS.
HAP IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY FEEDBACK, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO ME AND WE CAN KEEP TALKING.
APPRECIATE THIS WILL BE AT, UH, 1224, WILL BE AT MAY PRS.
AND SEND FEEDBACK TO IKA IF YOU HAVE, OR YOU CAN FILE COMMENTS.
I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, UH, THERE'S A PROCESS FOR IT, SO.
UM, SO LUNCH IS HERE AND I'M GONNA SUGGEST WE JUST GO GET IT AND COME BACK.
AND SO MAYBE TAKE 10 MINUTES TO, TO HAVE A QUICK BREAK FOR ERCOT STAFF
[02:25:01]
AND, AND GO GET LUNCH AND COME BACK AND THEN, UH, RESUME OUR AGENDA.ARE WE READY TO GET STARTED AGAIN? OKAY.
[Additional Item]
DIANA, ACTUALLY I'M GONNA HAVE YOU HOLD FOR A MINUTE AND WE'RE GONNA TAKE SOMETHING UP OUT OF ORDER.UM, AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP A, A OTHER BUSINESS ITEM AND, AND A DIFFERENT ITEM ACTUALLY.
UM, SO ERCOT HAS OFFERED TO TALK TO US ABOUT THEIR PLAN FOR NOER 2 45 AT THE BOARD MEETING.
YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT A VOTING ITEM WE, WE VOTED LAST MONTH.
UM, BUT I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE, HEAR THE INFORMATION AS TAC MEMBERS AND GET ANY FEEDBACK AS COLIN AND I PREPARE FOR THAT TAC PRESENTATION.
UM, I, I THINK EVERYONE WILL SEE THAT THERE WAS A IA FILED, AND I BELIEVE WE WILL BE GETTING COMMENTS FROM ERCOT TODAY.
AND THEN THE, THE BOARD MEETING IS, UH, R AND M IS NEXT MONDAY, AND THE BOARD MEETING IS ON TUESDAY.
DAN, ARE YOU ABLE TO GIVE US AN UPDATE THERE? YEAH, SO, UM, I GUESS WE STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE RELIABILITY IMPLICATION OF THE VERSION OF NORE 2 45 THAT WAS, UH, ENDORSED BY DAC.
AND SO OUR INTENT IS TO FILE COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE BOARD MEETING, UH, THAT WILL SAY THAT, UM, AND THAT WE WILL RECOMMEND THAT WE WILL ASK CERTAIN QUESTIONS, UM, AND RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD REMAND NO 2 45 BACK TO TAC TO ADDRESS.
SO TO REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OF HOW DOES THIS ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY CONCERNS? AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, TAC MAY CHOOSE TO MODIFY THE LANGUAGE AND SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD, OR AT LEAST ANSWER HOW THE, WHAT'S WHAT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, IF YOU WANT TO SEND THAT BACK, ADDRESSES THOSE, UM, RELIABILITY ISSUES.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE, UH, RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD.
AND, AND WE'LL FILE COMMENTS, UM, AHEAD OF THE BOARD SAYING THAT.
I SEE A COMMENT FROM ERIC GOFF.
UH, HEY THERE, ERIC GOFF, UM, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MAX, UM, ON THIS ITEM, UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS MATTER BE RESOLVED AND FOR THE BOARD TO ENDORSE THE TAC RECOMMENDED COMMENTS.
SO, UH, JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT, UH, WE MIGHT BE IN OPPOSITION TO FURTHER REMAND.
UM, REMANDING, IT DELAYS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS FOR NEW RESOURCES.
UM, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS REQUIRES POLICY OVERSIGHT, UM, EFFECTUATED, THE BETTER.
UM, THIS IS AFFECTING REAL WORLD INVESTMENT DECISIONS EVERY DAY, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS MATTER RESOLVED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
SO JUST WANTED TO LET PEOPLE KNOW, ARE WE ACTUALLY TO THAT STATEMENT? THANKS, ERIC, BOB HILTON.
YEAH, ACTUALLY I, I AGREE WITH ERIC.
WE'D LIKE TO SEE THIS GET RESOLVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT I THINK THAT IF HEARING WHAT DAN'S TALKING ABOUT DOING THE BOARD REMANDS, THAT UH, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS A PATHWAY AND THAT PATHWAY WOULD BE THAT EVERYTHING'S BEEN DONE.
AND FOR ACTUALLY FOR US TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT DAN'S TALKING ABOUT IS FOR US TO REALLY GET THERE AS A COMPLETE TACK IS THAT WE GET, EVERYTHING NOW HAS BEEN DONE BETWEEN ERCOT AND THE JOINT COMMENTERS, AND THEN WE GET OUT HERE AND WE, WE HEAR A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH SIDES.
UH, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY WELCOME AND VERY EDUCATIONAL FOR EVERYONE THAT IF WE HAVE A ATTACK WORKSHOP, WHEN THAT, IF, IF THAT COMES BACK OR WHEN IT COMES BACK TO GO BACK AND DO THAT SO THAT WE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU HAD, CHANGE WHAT WE NEED TO CHANGE, IF ANYTHING, AND THEN MOVE ON FROM THERE.
AND I, I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WERE THINKING TOO.
UM, THE BIG PART OF WHY WE WANTED TO RAISE THIS CONVERSATION TO IS FOR COLIN AND I TO, TO GET FEEDBACK, UM, FROM THIS GROUP BECAUSE AS LEADERSHIP, WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN
[02:30:01]
SPENDING A LOT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT HOW TO ARTICULATE ALL THE DIFFERENT POSITIONS.UM, AND I THINK THAT'S ONE THING WE'VE NOTICED AS WELL IS THAT WE FEEL IF IT DOES GET REMANDED, WE REALLY NEED TO GET THE INPUT OF, OF EVERY TAC MEMBER.
AND I THINK WE WERE ENVISIONING PROBABLY TWO WORKING SESSIONS TO REALLY WORK THROUGH THE ISSUES AND, AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS.
YEAH, DAN, WE'VE BEEN MORE NEUTRAL ON THIS, BUT SYMPATHETIC TO THE RELIABILITY CONCERNS.
ARE YOU GONNA, I ASSUME YOU'LL HAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL OR SOMETHING.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DETAILS OF WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE.
UM, I DON'T HOW YOU PLAN TO PRESENT THOSE TO THE BOARD.
YEAH, I WAS, I WAS TRYING TO, UM, FIGURE OUT AS, AS, UM, KIM WAS GOING THROUGH THE, I THINK, I THINK WE'RE FI FILING COMMENTS IS I THINK HOW IT WILL WORK.
AND SO, UM, WE, WE WILL LAY OUT SOME OF THE HIGH, UM, HIGH LEVEL ISSUES AS WELL AS SOME OF THE MORE DETAILS.
UH, WE'LL PRO WE'LL FILE A, UM, A SET OF COMMENTS THAT'S OUR VERSION ON TOP OF THE TAC APPROVED VERSION AS WELL.
SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE KIND OF ALL THE DETAILS.
UM, WHILE I'M TALKING, I'LL, I'LL SAY I, I, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT THAT WHAT BOB PROPOSED IS, IS A GOOD PLAN FORWARD BECAUSE I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, TACK TOLD US TO WORK WITH THE JOINT COMMENTERS AND TRY TO COME UP WITH A RESOLUTION.
WE DID THAT OVER THE COURSE OF, YOU KNOW, MANY WEEKS.
AND, BUT I THINK DOING THAT ALL UNDER KIND OF MORE OF A ATTACK UMBRELLA WHERE OTHER PARTIES ARE INVOLVED IN THAT, AS THIS COMES BACK, IF THIS COMES BACK TOT IF THE, THE BOARD CHOOSES THAT APPROACH, I THINK IS, IS, IS VERY, UM, A GOOD IDEA.
NED, SO ON, ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC, BUT IN GENERAL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WORKING TOWARDS MORE CONSENSUS IS ALWAYS, IS ALWAYS BENEFICIAL.
AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK TECH SHOULD BE TRYING TO, UH, TO ENCOURAGE.
BUT, UM, I'M ALSO JUST, I'M CURIOUS FROM A, UH, FROM THE JOINT COMMENTER STANDPOINT, IF, UM, IF THERE IS A REMAND, YOU KNOW, DOES THIS END UP JUST BECOMING AN APPEAL BACK TO THE BOARD OR, OR DO, IS THERE A PATH TO, UH, TO FURTHER CONSENSUS OR POSSIBLY A, UH, YOU KNOW, STRUMMING THE UKULELE LEASING IN KUMBAYA? UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE NICE, BUT I ALSO, YOU KNOW, THINK WE'VE, WE'VE, WE MADE A, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD AND THE PRESUMPTION WAS I THINK FOR A LOT OF US THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE FOLKS ON BOTH SIDES AND THEN THE BOARD WOULD END UP TAKING SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME ACTION AND THEN THERE MAY BE ACTION, UH, FURTHER TAKEN AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL.
SO, UM, I I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD, UM, IN A, IN A WAY THAT WILL CONTINUE TO, TO SHARPEN THE PENCIL IF, IF POSSIBLE.
YES, PART OF THE, PART OF THE, UH, BENEFIT OF, OF THIS REMAND WILL BE TO FURTHER FLESH OUT KIND OF ALL OF THE, THE PROS AND CONS OF THE DIFFERENT APPROACHES ON EACH OF THE MANY ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UH, SO THAT, THAT WILL ALL KIND OF BE IN THE RECORD OUT IN THE PUBLIC, UH, SO THAT, UH, BOTH THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION WILL HAVE ALL THAT IN FRONT OF THEM, BE ABLE TO SEE ALL THE DIFFERENT, UH, MOVING PARTS AS AS THIS GOES FORWARD.
ERIC GOFF? YEAH, I THINK WE HAVE AN EXTENSIVE AND WELL DEVELOPED RECORD WHERE, UM, ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE, I THINK ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED.
UM, WHILE THERE'S ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, ROOM TO TWEAK A PROPOSAL, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT CAN HAPPEN IN FOLLOW UP, NO GOODS IF NECESSARY.
UM, WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS ADVOCATE RESOLVED.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S, IT HAS REAL WORLD INVESTMENT DECISIONS RIGHT NOW THAT, UM, ARE WORTH SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.
AND IF THE, IF THE ONLY PURPOSE IS TO, YOU KNOW, FURTHER LAY OUT THE PROS AND CONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN, YOU KNOW, SO THOROUGHLY DOCUMENTED, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, A REAL ACTIVE DECISION THAT T MADE AT ITS LAST MEETING.
UM, WE WOULD ALSO REALLY LIKE TO SEE THESE RULES BE IN PLACE FOR NEW RESOURCES.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SAID IS THAT WE DON'T WANT A RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF RULES.
AND IF THIS GETS REMANDED AND THEN GOES TO, UM, THE JUNE BOARD OR THE AUGUST BOARD OR THE AUGUST COMMISSION, UM, THE EFFECTIVE DATE FOR NEW RESOURCES COULD POTENTIALLY BE PUSHED BACK EVEN FURTHER AND WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE WHAT'S PASSED.
[02:35:01]
UM, SO I THINK I'VE SAID MY PIECE, BUT, UH, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.YEAH, THIS STEVENS FROM ERCOT.
I, I THINK I JUST WANTED TO ADD ON TO, YOU KNOW, THE, MY 2 CENTS IS THAT I THINK THERE IS VALUE IN HAVING WHATEVER WORKSHOPS OR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, UH, THE ORIGINAL PLAN, UH, WHEN ERCOT WORKED WITH THE JOINT COMMENTERS, UH, OVER THOSE, THOSE COUPLE OF MONTHS WAS THAT ERCOT WAS GOING TO CAPTURE IN ITS COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE COULD DETERMINE WAS CONSENSUS AND THEN THE JOINT COMMENTERS WOULD, UM, MODIFY THE ERCOT VERSION SO THAT YOU COULD CLEARLY SEE THE DELTA BETWEEN THE TWO.
AND I THINK ULTIMATELY, UH, BECAUSE OF TIMING, I THINK IS WHAT THE JOINT COMMENTERS MENTIONED, THEY DIDN'T DO THAT.
THEY, THEY, THEY WENT FROM, UM, A ONE EIGHT VERSION INSTEAD OF ON TOP OF ERCOT, LATEST PLUS TACK ONLY HAD A FEW DAYS AT BEST TO REALLY LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE, NOT JUST WHAT THE JOINT COMMENTER SAID IN THEIR COMMENTS THAT IT DID, BUT THE REAL LANGUAGE AND WHAT IT DOES.
UM, AND SO, UH, ADDITIONAL TIME MAY ALLOW TAC TO MAKE A BETTER ASSESSMENT THAN WHAT WAS DONE LAST WEEK.
I THINK ALL OF US THAT WERE THERE LAST MONTH, ALL OF US THAT WERE THERE, UH, NOTED THAT THE LAST REVISION THAT GOT A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL VOTES DID NOTHING TO ADDRESS OUR COTS CONCERNS.
THAT WAS CLEARLY ON THE RECORD.
UM, AND SO THERE, I THINK CONCEPTUALLY THERE IS A LOT OF AGREEMENT IN WHAT IT SHOULD DO.
I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT, UH, DOESN'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS BALANCE AS, UH, THE IMPOSED, YOU KNOW, STATEMENTS SAY, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T PROPERLY BRING INTO AS ERCOT COMMENTS DO THE RELIABILITY PIECE OF IT SO THAT WHEN YOU MAKE AN ASSESSMENT FOR AN EXEMPTION, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE RELIABILITY PIECE IN THAT DETERMINATION AND YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WORDS THAT WERE ENDED UP BEING APPROVED AND COMPARE IT TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT.
AND SO THE ADDITIONAL TIME MAY REALLY HELP EVERYBODY TO SEE MORE CLEARLY BEYOND JUST THE INTRO COMMENTS, WHAT THE LANGUAGE EFFECTUATES, AND WE'RE HOPING ULTIMATELY THAT GETS US THE RIGHT, UH, SET OF REQUIREMENTS TO MOVE FORWARD TO.
AND, AND FINALLY, I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT THAT ERCOT WANTS URGENCY ON THIS TOO, BUT NOT TO THE DETRIMENT OF RELIABILITY.
AND, AND ULTIMATELY IF WE NEED MORE TIME TO ENSURE WE DON'T NEGATIVELY GO IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, THAT'S, THAT'S WARRANTED IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
AND, AND THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT OUR CONCERN IS WITH THE APPROVED LANGUAGE AS IT STANDS TODAY.
NOW, REAL QUICKLY, LET'S THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
WE'VE ALREADY PASSED IT, SO IT'S GONNA GO TO THE BOARD, T'S GONNA DO THEIR THING, JOINT COMMENTERS ARE GONNA DO THEIR THING, AND THEN THE BOARD'S GONNA TELL US WHAT TO DO.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT, WHAT I'M PUTTING TOGETHER IS A PROCESS FOR IF IT COMES BACK NOW, I HAVE A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS THAT I'M GONNA HAVE TO ADDRESS AND ONE OF THEM IS, I DIDN'T SAY THAT TAC WAS, HAD MADE A BAD DECISION OR WOULD CHANGE THEIR DECISION WHATSOEVER, SAID WE WOULD GET BACK TOGETHER AND DISCUSS IT ALL IN A WORKSHOP TO HEAR POSSIBLY MORE CLEARLY.
AND WE MAY OR MAY NOT, BUT I, I'M, I'M GETTING REALLY, REALLY UPTIGHT ABOUT TAC BEING ACCUSED AND NOT CARING ABOUT RELIABILITY.
SUSAN MCCLELLAN, I WAS JUST WONDERING, SINCE THE R AND M MEETING IS NEXT MONDAY, WHEN CAN WE EXPECT TO SEE THE ERCOT COMMENTS LATER TODAY? OKAY, GREAT.
UM, YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO STATE TWO THINGS JUST TO CLARIFY, UM, SOME EARLIER COMMENTS.
UM, ONE IS THE JOINT COMMENT OR COMMENTS WERE ON TOP OF ERCOT COMMENTS AND, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE WORDS THAT ARE IN THOSE COMMENTS WERE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.
UM, AND THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES
[02:40:01]
WITH ER KAT'S APPROACH, IT WAS WITH INTENTION.UM, SO RE FILE, UM, RED LINE, I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THAT.
UM, WE REALLY THINK THAT ULTIMATELY THIS IS A MATTER THAT SHOULD BE, UM, ADVANCED EXPERT AS I SAID EARLIER.
UM, AND SO I WON'T REPEAT MYSELF.
OKAY, BILL BARNES, I THINK MY COMMENT SIMILAR TO WHAT ERIC WAS HEADED, IT'S REALLY MORE OF A QUESTION, I THINK FOR ERCOT IS I, I JUST, I'M STILL A LITTLE UNCLEAR AS TO WHY YOU WOULD REQUEST A REMAND AT THE BOARD VERSUS JUST APPROVAL OF YOUR VERSION.
I JUST, I'M, I'M WORRIED THAT THIS IS GOING TO SLOW THE, THE PROCESS DOWN AND DRAG THIS OUT EVEN LONGER.
UM, UNLESS THERE'S SOME LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT ERCOT STAFF HAS WITH TALKING WITH JOINT COMMENTERS, SIMILAR TO WHAT ERIC JUST SAID, IF THERE'S SOME LIKE BASELINE LANGUAGE ISSUE THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT, THAT THAT'S GREAT.
BUT I MEAN, MY VIEW OF THIS FROM SEEING BOTH SIDES AND LISTENING CLOSELY TO BOTH SIDES IS WE'RE TO A POINT WHERE IT'S, I DON'T THINK A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GONNA GIVE, SO I JUST, I'M CONFUSED ON WHY YOU WOULD REQUEST A REMAN VERSUS THIS IS THIS IS WHAT WE WANT VERSUS THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT AND LET THE BOARD MAKE THE DECISION.
BUT IF THERE'S A HIGHER LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT, THAT SOME SMALL TWEAKS CAN BE MADE AND THERE'S AGREEMENT, THEN I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE.
BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS TO ER KAT'S OPINION ON THAT.
YEAH, SO I, I THINK THE, THE REASON WE WERE ASKING FOR A REMAND RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, ASKING TO PROVE OUR VERSION IS THAT WE DO HAVE RESPECT FOR THE, THIS BODY, THIS BODY OF TACK AND, UM, WOULD LIKE TO USE THAT EXPERTISE TO CONSIDER KIND OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE JOINT COMMENTERS VERSION THAT WAS NOT, UH, MAYBE NOT EVEN APPARENT AS OF THE LAST TAC MEETING.
SO WE'VE HAD MORE TIME TO LOOK AT IT, CONSIDER KIND OF SOME OF THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF IT.
AND, UM, IF, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DO THAT, WE'RE NOT SURE THE TAC HAD TIME TO DO IT.
AND SO, UH, GIVEN THE SHORT TURNAROUND TIME BETWEEN WHEN THOSE COMMENTS WERE FILED AND, AND WHEN THE VOTE WAS, AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE ASKING FOR A REMAND RATHER THAN, UM, JUST ASKING TO, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD TO REJECT AND PICK OUR COMMENTS.
INSTEAD, UH, WE THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THIS, THIS BODY AND THE EXPERTISE AROUND THE TABLE.
BILL, CHRIS HENDRICKS, I THINK THIS IS FOR DAN, BUT, UH, I GUESS ARE, ARE YOU PRE, ARE YOU GONNA PRESENT FOR THE BOARD TO REMAND THE WHOLE, UM, GER OR JUST, JUST SECTIONS OF IT? I'M SORRY, CHRIS, I MISSED A LITTLE OF THAT.
SO THE QUESTION WAS, ARE YOU GONNA REMA ASK FOR THE WHOLE NGER TO BE REMANDED OR JUST A, A KIND OF INDEPENDENT SECTIONS? I I THINK THE IDEA IS THE, THE WHOLE THING, BUT WE MAY HAVE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT, THAT WE REFERENCE.
I GUESS MY CONCERN WAS IF IT IS JUST INDIVIDUAL, INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS, I MEAN, BOTH PARTIES HAVE NEGOTIATED KIND OF AS A, YOU KNOW, A, A SETTLEMENT KIND OF ARRANGEMENT THERE, AS WELL AS THE TAC MEMBERS THEMSELVES HAVE KIND OF ADDED AND SUBTRACTED PIECES THAT THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH.
SO I'D HATE TO JUST GET, HAVE TO LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS AND NOT BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE NO G IN ITS ENTIRETY.
OH, NO, I, I THINK WE WOULD RATHER YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE NO G IN ITS ENTIRETY BECAUSE THOSE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ARE KIND OF, THAT THERE'S A PART OF IT HERE AND A PART OF IT THERE, AND A PART OF IT IN ANOTHER PLACE.
AND WHEN YOU PUT IT ALL TOGETHER, THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THE CONCERN AS OPPOSED TO NECESSARILY, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE WORD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
NOT SEEING ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE, UH, ON BEHALF OF LEADERSHIP.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE THIS DISCUSSION AND, AND THE FEEDBACK HERE SO WE CAN BEST REPRESENT THINGS NEXT WEEK AT THE BOARD.
[6. PRS Report (Vote)]
MOVE ON TO THE PRS REPORT.DIANA COLEMAN WITH CPS WITH THE APRIL PRS REPORT.
SO FOR TODAY'S CONSIDERATION FOR TAC, WE HAVE ONE
[02:45:01]
REVISION REQUEST AND THE GOALS FOR 2024 FOR PRS 12.THIS IS CLARIFYING THE OBLIGATION FOR A DISTRIBUTION SERVICE PROVIDER TO PROVIDE ERCOT WITH AN EASY ID WHEN, UM, WHEN THAT DSP IS, UH, CONSUMING LOAD, THAT'S OTHER THAN A WHOLESALE STORAGE LOAD.
IN MARCH, WE APPLIED DESKTOP EDITS TO THE FEBRUARY 22ND ENCORE COMMENTS.
THIS WAS REMOVING THE CONDITIONAL DSP TARIFF AND STANDARD INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT LANGUAGE REGARDING DSPS, PROVIDING EASY I EASY IDS TO ERCOT AND TO THE RESOURCES WITH THIS VOTE, THERE WERE TWO ABSTENTIONS, ONE FROM THE COOPERATIVE AND ONE FROM THE GENERATOR SEGMENT.
AND THEN EARLIER THIS MONTH FOR 1212, WE VOTED TO ENDORSE THE LANGUAGE AND FORWARD OVER TO TAC THE MARCH 20TH PRS, UH, REPORT, AS WELL AS THE NOVEMBER, 2023 IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT INDICATED NO COST OR PROJECT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.
SO THERE'S NO PRIORITY OR RANK NEEDED FOR 1212.
THE VOTE IN APRIL ALSO HAD THREE ABSTENTIONS THIS TIME.
ONE FROM THE COOPERATIVE, ONE FROM THE INDEPENDENT GENERATOR, AND ONE FROM THE IPM SEGMENTS.
AND SINCE OUR MEETING ON APRIL 5TH, I BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN TWO SETS OF COMMENTS.
ONE FROM ERCOT AND ONE FROM STACK.
UM, AND SO WITH THAT, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO, UH, LEADERSHIP AND SEE HOW THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO WE'VE GOT TWO SETS OF COMMENTS FROM STICK AND ERCOT STICK.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO RUN THROUGH YOUR COMMENTS? IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT? JOHN? YES.
JOHN JOHN PACKARD ON BEHALF OF SOUTH TEXAS ELECTRIC CO-OP, UM, WE BELIEVE IT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE, UH, NECESSARY AND CONSISTENT WITH, UH, PUR TO CONDITION ASSIGNMENT OF AN EASY ID TO, UH, TO FOLLOWING THE, THE TARIFF AND INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS THAT A LOAD HAS MADE.
UM, I DON'T THINK, UH, YOU KNOW, I I'D LIKE TO COMMENT TO THE ERCOT COMMENTS THAT CAME IN LATE FRIDAY.
UM, THERE WAS NO SUGGESTION THAT AN EASY ID WOULD BE, UH, REVOKED.
UM, I THINK THOUGH, YOU KNOW, ONCE, UH, YOU KNOW, ONCE THAT EASY ID IS UH, ASSIGNED, IT DOES BECOME, YOU KNOW, A LOT MORE DIFFICULT, UH, TO, TO, UH, YOU KNOW, EN ENFORCE, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT.
I MEAN, ULTIMATELY THOUGH, UM, YOU KNOW, DISCONNECTION IS, YOU KNOW, THE ULTIMATE OPTION FOR THAT.
SO I THINK, UM, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT LANGUAGE BE REINSERTED, WE THINK IT'S, UH, IMPORTANT AND, UH, SERVES A, UH, AN IMPORTANT PURPOSE THAT PROTECTS OUR OUR MEMBERS.
UH, ANYBODY FROM ERCOT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE POSTED? YEAH, THIS IS DOUG FOND WITH ERCOT.
CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YEAH, GO AHEAD DOUG.
CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, SO YEAH, ERCOT FILED COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO STACK.
WE WOULD, WE BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, VERSION THAT WAS ENDORSED BY PRS IS GOOD AND IS WHAT SHOULD BE, UH, FORWARDED OR VOTED ON BY STACK.
UM, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF THE LANGUAGE THAT STACK IS, IS SUGGESTING BECAUSE AS WE READ IT, IT WOULD ENABLE A DSP TO, TO TAKE AN EXISTING RESOURCE THAT IS OUT THERE RUNNING AND BEEN THERE FOR YEARS.
AND IF THEY GET IN A, A DISAGREEMENT WITH THEIR DSP OVER THE TARIFF AND WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE, THE DSP COULD USE THIS LANGUAGE TO SAY, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO GIVE AN AN CID TO ERCOT.
AND WE'VE SEEN SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT HAPPEN.
THIS ISN'T HYPOTHETICAL, WE WERE STUCK IN THE MIDDLE OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE DSP AND A.
THIS RESOURCE HAD NOT YET FINISHED INTER CONNECTION, BUT THEY WERE CONSUMING LOAD.
AND IT PUT ERCOT IN POSITION OF BE BASICALLY BEING A COURT
[02:50:01]
AND HAVING TO ARBITRATE OR, OR LISTEN TO LEGAL ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES ON WHETHER THE TARIFF WAS COMPLIED WITH OR THE, OR, OR THESE VARIOUS, UH, LEGAL OBLIGATIONS.AND THAT'S JUST THE WRONG FORUM.
UM, WE, MEANWHILE WE CAN'T ASSIGN ANY LOAD 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AN EASY ID ANYMORE.
AND SO THE RESOURCE IS CONSUMING LOAD.
WE'RE JUST SENDING IT TO UFE THAT'S BEING PAID FOR BY EVERYBODY ELSE, AND THAT'S WRONG.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE AN ABILITY TO ASSIGN THIS RESOURCES LOAD TO THE RESOURCE.
AND SO IF THERE'S A DISPUTE OVER THE TARIFF, THE PARTIES, THE RESOURCE AND THE D-D-D-D-S-P NEED TO GO TO COURT OR THEY NEED TO GO TO THE COMMISSION, THEY NEED TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
BUT ERCOT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS LEVERAGE TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF A CON WHAT'S BASICALLY AN, A CONTRACT DISPUTE BETWEEN THE, THE SERVICE, THE CUSTOMER AND THEIR PROVIDER AND MEAN, BECAUSE THE REST OF THE MARKET BEARS ENDS UP PAYING FOR ALL THAT ENERGY AND, UM, THAT GETS IN THE WAY OF ER ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER PURE TO ACCURATELY ACCOUNT FOR THE USE OF THE, THE, THE CUSTOMER.
SO WE STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THIS, THIS LANGUAGE.
WE CAN'T, UM, WE WOULD DEFINITELY NOT, UH, SUPPORT IT.
SO WE WOULD ASK THAT THESE COMMENTS NOT BE ADOPTED.
YEAH, DOUG, UM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESOURCES HERE ON THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PRIMARILY, BUT THE KEY IS THEY'RE RESOURCES, RIGHT? THOSE ARE WHOLESALE TRANSACTION, NOT A RETAIL TRANSACTION.
AM I THINKING ABOUT THAT? RIGHT? WELL, I MEAN, WHATEVER WE NEED, WE NEED AN EASY ID FOR A RESOURCE THAT'S CONSUMING LOAD TO ASSIGN ENERGY TO IT.
AND IF YOU TAKE AWAY THE EASY ID, WHATEVER LOAD IS BEING CONSUMED BY THAT RESOURCE, WE HAVE NOWHERE TO, TO ASSIGN, WE CAN'T ASSIGN IT TO THEM.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THIS A RESOURCE AND IS IT SELLING AT WHOLESALE? IT MIGHT BE, BUT IT'S, IT'S ALSO CONSUMING LOAD.
SEEING THE QUEUE THAT ERIC'S MADE A MOTION IN FAVOR OF THE PRS RECOMMENDATION, MIKE WISE WITH THE, BEFORE YOU GET THE QUESTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ONE FOR THE MOTION? OH, SORRY.
WHAT WAS THE MOTION? WHAT WAS THE MOTION? ERIC, YOU WANNA GO THROUGH YOUR MOTION? YEAH, JUST MOTION IN FAVOR OF THE PRS RECOMMENDATION.
MIKE, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YEAH, THE QUESTION FOR ERCOT, UH, I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
THE LOADS INSIDE OF OUR MEMBERS ARE INSIDE OF NO E DELIVERY POINTS.
SO ALL OF THE LOAD THAT, THAT WE SETTLE HITS THE NOI DELIVERY POINT.
EVERYTHING THAT, ALL THE LOAD, INCLUDING ANY GENERATOR THAT DOESN'T HAVE AN EASY ID, UH, THAT LOAD WOULD BE SETTLED INSIDE OF OURS AND SETTLED TO OUR, UH, SYSTEM.
SO I'M, I'M INTERESTED IN WHY YOU THINK THAT THAT LOAD OF THAT GENERATOR IS BEING UPLIFTED INSIDE OF A NOI DELIVERY POINT.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? YEAH, I THINK CALVIN IS IN, OPHEIM IS IN THE ROOM AND CAN ADDRESS THAT.
BUT WE DID HAVE A SCENARIO COME UP WHERE THIS WAS AN ISSUE.
IF CALVIN'S AVAILABLE, I THINK HE CAN SHED MORE LIGHT ON IT.
CALVIN'S COMING UP TO THE MIC.
SO IT'S GONNA BE LIKE A TWOFOLD ANSWER BECAUSE YOU ARE CORRECT.
IF THE GENERATION SITE IS LOCATED IN ILLINOIS SERVICE TERRITORY, WE STILL HAVE THE SITE AND THERE'S STILL AN EASY ID ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SITE.
I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GETTING AT THOUGH THE INSIDE THE NOISE, WE HAVE BOUNDARY METERS, WE CAPTURE ALL YOUR INFLOWS AND OUTFLOWS, BUT STILL THE GENERATION SITE, EACH AND EVERY GENERATION SITE HAS AN EASY ID ASSIGNED TO IT.
'CAUSE FOR EACH, EACH SITE ON A 15 MINUTE BY 15 MINUTE BASIS AS WE CALCULATE IT, IS IT NET LOAD OR IS IT NET GEN? AND THAT HAS TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE SITE.
DOES THAT HELP OR NOT? SO I STILL DON'T SEE THAT THE UPLOAD OF THAT LOAD GOES TO THE FULL MARKET.
[02:55:01]
THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF THE LOAD OF THAT GENERATOR, IF IT IS A LOAD, WOULD NOT BE A NEGATIVE GEN.WOULD IT? IT DOESN'T SUBTRACT THE ENERGY THAT IS ABSORBED AT THE NOE DELIVERY POINT.
IS RANDY ROBERTS ON THE ON THE LINE OR NOT? YES, THIS IS RANDY.
SO IF YOU'LL NOTICE IN THE LANGUAGE FAR A GENERATION FACILITY THAT IS BEHIND A NOISE METER POINT, WE DO NOT REQUIRE AN EASY ID BECAUSE AS IT WAS STATED, THAT LOAD IS CAPTURED THROUGH THE BOUNDARY METERS.
SO THIS LANGUAGE SAYS IF THE SITE ONLY HAS WSL OR IT'S BEHIND THE KNOT, UH, NO TIE METER, THEN WE NEED THIS ECID.
I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU WANTING IT OR IN YOUR VERNACULAR NEEDING IT, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE STATEMENT THAT IT WAS ALL BEING UPLIFTED.
NOW, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
I THINK THAT I'M PAYING FOR ANY OF THE LOAD AT MY GENERATORS INSIDE MINE DELIVERY POINTS RIGHT NOW.
AND THAT'S WHAT RANDY JUST REAFFIRMED.
SO IF THERE'S A FACILITY BEHIND A NO TIME METER AND IT'S CONSUMING LOAD, YES THAT LOAD IS GOING TO GET CAPTURED IN THE BOUNDARY METERS, THEN NO WILL PAY FOR IT.
THERE'S SOME SITES THAT ARE NOT BEHIND NO TIME METERING.
THAT IS WHERE IF WE DON'T HAVE A E IS THE ID TO ASSIGN THE LOAD TO IT GOES INTO UFE.
WELL THAT WAS THE REAL G SO IT COULD BE A, SORRY.
YEAH, IT, IT COULD BE A STILL BE A NO LOAD, BUT IT'S NOT BEHIND A BOUNDARY METER.
IN THAT CASE, WE DO NEED THE EASY ID OR IT COULD BE A FACILITY IN A COMPETITIVE AREA AGAIN, IN WHERE WE NEED THE EASY ID NO DISAGREEMENT WITH YOU THERE AT ALL.
BUT THAT'S WHAT THE INTENT OF STACK'S COMMENTS REALLY WERE, IS TO CAPTURE THOSE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY INSIDE OF A NO E DELIVERY POINT.
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT, THAT, UH, WHAT IS CURRENTLY, UH, APPROVED BY PRS AND IN THE MOTION GETS TO OR SOLVES THE ISSUE.
NOW WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE CREATING INSIDE OF OUR NO, NO E DELIVERY POINTS, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S BEEN APPRECIATED, RANDY, YOU WOULD BE THE EXPERT, BUT, BUT, UH, AND I FULLY APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR CONCERNS ON THIS, BUT HOW DO WE RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM? YOU SAY YOU REALLY NEED IT, BUT IT'S MORE OF, I THINK YOU WANT IT INSIDE OF THE DELIVERY POINTS, BUT INSIDE OF THE NOE DELIVERY POINTS.
BUT HOW DO WE RECONCILE THIS POTENTIAL REAL ISSUE THAT WE HAVE THAT STACK IDENTIFIED? UH, I THINK IN THEIR COMMENTS, CAN WE SCROLL DOWN? 'CAUSE I THINK WHAT RANDY REFERRED TO SECTION TWO HAS THE NOI CARVE OUT WHEN YOU COME DOWN HERE.
SO WHERE WE, WE JUST NEED TO FIND THE PART WHERE STACK HAD THEIR LITTLE ADD IN OR THAT WE CROSSED IT OUT.
AND JUST A LITTLE BIT UP JUST A WEE BIT MORE RIGHT THERE TOO FOR A RESOURCE SITE THAT CONSUMES THE OTHER THAN WSL AND IS NOT, THIS IS NOT BEHIND A NO TIE METER.
AND THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE WAY I ANSWERED THE QUESTION INITIALLY BASED ON THIS SECTION IS JOHN PACKARD.
YES, I'D LIKE TO, UM, TAKE ISSUE WITH THE, THE COMMENT THAT SOMEHOW ERCOT IS BEING PLACED BETWEEN THE LOAD AND, AND THE, UH, T-D-S-P-I THINK MORE ACCURATELY IT'S CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY TO END AROUND THE T DSPS TARIFF REQUIREMENTS AND THEN, UH, CONTINUE TO TAKE LOAD, UH, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT, WITHOUT MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
RICHARD ROSS? SO SIR, ARE YOU HAPPY NOW OR NOT JUST A YES OR NO? 'CAUSE I'M GONNA ASK A QUESTION IF THE ANSWER'S NO.
SO MIKE, I DIDN'T, I MEAN, I I DIDN'T EXPECT YOU TO HONE IN ON THE, UNLESS IT'S INSIDE THE CIRCLE 'CAUSE THAT'S ADDRESSED SO THAT IF IT'S INSIDE THE CIRCLE, WE
[03:00:01]
DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM ANYMORE.BUT AS Y'ALL TALKED ABOUT THIS, WHAT I ASSUMED YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT WAS A SITUATION WHERE IT'S NOT INSIDE THE CIRCLE, BUT IT IS INSIDE YOUR CERTIFICATED, IF THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD, TERRITORY.
AND, AND SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT IN YOUR LITTLE CIRCLE OR BEHIND ONE OF YOUR EXISTING METERS, YOU WANT TO ASSERT YOUR RIGHT OVER THAT CERTIFIED AREA TO BE THE LOAD ENTITY FOR THAT CONSUMPTION.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO THEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE WOULD EVER BE A DEBATE IF, IF, IF YOU WANT, UH, GIVE THEM AN EASY ID, THEN ERCOT SHOULD JUST IMPOSE THE LOAD ON YOU THAT IT'S EITHER THEIR EASY ID LOAD OR IT BECOMES ANOTHER NOE POINT OF DELIVERY FOR YOU WHETHER YOU WANT IT OR NOT.
'CAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE IT UP, OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE UPLIFTED IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT RIGHT.
AND I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT, Y'ALL, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT.
AM I GETTING IT RIGHT? IT MAY NOT BE A SLY CERTIFICATED AREA AS WELL.
OKAY, THAT'S, I'M SORRY, I BOW OUT.
I WANT TO, THAT WASN'T DISRESPECT AT ALL.
I JUST WAS IT YOU, IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN I WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, I'M GONNA ASSUME THIS CAN'T GO ON THE CONVO BALLOT.
UM, DO WE WANNA ADD PGRR? WHICH ONE IS IT? ONE 14.
ONE 14 IS THE ONE THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH 12.
SO IN THE INTEREST OF TIME AND NOT REPEATING A VOTE, IF THE SAME FOLKS ARE GONNA ABSTAIN OR OPPOSE, IF FOLKS THAT WANNA VOTE THIS PARTICULAR WAY ON 1212, IF YOU'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH VOTING THE SAME WAY ON THE COMPANION PIGGER, WE CAN DO A LITTLE MINI COMBO BALLOT IF THE MOTION ARE IN SECONDER ARE OKAY.
OTHERWISE WE CAN CONDUCT SEPARATE BALLOTS FOR BOTH IF FOLKS NEED TO VOTE DIFFERENTLY.
BUT ERIC AND KEVIN ARE OKAY WITH THAT.
SO THEN AS PRESENTED, IT WOULD BE THE PRS VERSION OF 1212 ABSENT THE LATEST STICK COMMENTS.
AND THEN THE PIGGER WAS THE VERSION THAT CAME OUT OF ROSS IN THE APRIL 4TH ROSS REPORT AND SEEING ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION GRADE ROLL.
AND ACTUALLY, I AM SORRY Y'ALL, GIMME A SECOND NOW THAT WE'VE HIT THE MAGIC 1230 MARK, I THINK MOST OF OUR FOLKS HAVE TURNED INTO PROXIES AND I NEED TO UPDATE THIS BALLOT.
MARK DREYFUS GAVE HIS TO NICK AND KAITLYN IS TO BOB HELTON.
AND WE'VE GOT EBY, WE'VE GOT RUSSELL, AND THEN WE HAVE LAST ONE.
STACY WHITEHURST COMING INFERRED.
KEITH, DOES THAT LOOK ABOUT RIGHT, SUSIE? YES.
THE REST OF 'EM ARE AT ONE 30.
ALRIGHT, YELL AT ME IF I GET TO YOU AND I'VE GOT IT WRONG.
ALL RIGHT, WE'LL BEGIN ON THE MOTION FOR OUR MINI COMBO BALLOT FOR NPR 1212 AND PICKER 14 OR PICKER 11 1 14 RATHER.
THAT'S, THAT'S, SO THIS IS THE COMBO BALLOT OR
THIS IS A COMBO BALLOT BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE STRING, ANYTIME YOU'RE STRINGING TOGETHER MULTIPLE ITEMS INTO A SINGLE VOTE, IT IS A COMBO BALLOT.
SO THIS PARTICULAR COMBO BALLOT IS THESE TWO ITEMS LATER IN THE MEETING.
WE'LL HOPEFULLY HAVE A BUNCH OF OTHER ONES.
SO THIS, SO ANYTIME YOU ARE LOOKING AT A COMBO BALLOT, THE BALLOT DETAILS HERE, I'LL RENAME THIS DESCRIBES WHAT THAT VOTE ENCOMPASSED.
[03:05:04]
MOST OF THE TIME IT'S THE ONLY ONE YOU HAVE IN A MEETING, BUT YOU CAN CERTAINLY HAVE AS MANY AS WE WANT.SO, SO THIS PARTICULAR VOTE IS ONLY ON 1212 AND THE PIGGER.
SO BILL, WE'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE, CORRECT, THESE, THESE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE ONLY ON 12 12, 12, 12.
OKAY, WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH ERIC.
COULD YOU HIT ME IN THE CHAT AGAIN? YES, THANK YOU.
IN THE CHAT WAS OLD ENOUGH THAT I WASN'T QUITE SURE.
AND THEN NICK? YES, THANK YOU ONTO THE CO-OPS, UH, MIKE ABSTAIN.
THANK YOU ON TO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
OH, DID WE LOSE HILTON? OH, THERE HE IS, RIGHT ON QUEUE VOTE ON MPR 1212 AND PICKER ONE 14.
AND IAN DEPARTED AND SAID WE COULD JUST SKIP HIM ON ANY VOTES WE WERE TAKING.
ONTO OUR IOUS, UH, STA STACY FOR KEITH? YES.
THAT MOTION CARRIES FOR ABSTENTIONS.
DIANA, DID YOU HAVE SOME MORE ON PRS? THE 2024 GOALS ARE THE SAME AS LAST YEAR.
JUST ONE THING THAT WE WANTED TO, UM, RAISE FOR AWARENESS IS THE SECOND TO LAST BULLET ON REVIEWING THE OTHER BINDING DOCUMENTS FOR LANGUAGE THAT MAY HAVE SOME COMPLIANCE ELEMENTS OR THINGS THAT MARKET PARTICIPANTS ARE, YOU KNOW, NEEDING TO DO THAT COULD HAVE A DIRECTIVE FOR THEM TO COMPLETE.
I JUST, WE JUST WANTED TO SEND A SHOUT OUT TO BRITTANY AND THE CREW THAT IS BEHIND THE CURTAIN AT ERCOT FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THAT'S BEEN GOING ON.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF EFFORT ON TAKING THAT LANGUAGE FROM OTHER BINDING DOCUMENTS AND PUTTING IT INTO THE PROTOCOLS.
AND SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF LIFT ON THAT.
THE CHANGES ARE, THE GOALS ARE GONNA BE THE SAME FOR THIS YEAR.
UM, BUT THANK YOU TO BRITTANY AND TO ALL THE FOLKS THAT ARE HELPING US WITH THAT, AS WELL AS THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE RAISING FOR AWARENESS, THOSE ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE IN THE PROTOCOLS RATHER THAN THE OTHER BINDING DOCUMENTS.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS WITH PUTTING THE PRS GOALS ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY,
[7. Revision Requests Tabled at TAC (Possible Vote)]
MOVE ON TO REVISION REQUEST TABLED AT T.UH, WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS. AND COREY, LET'S START WITH NO, 2 55.
UH, LAST MONTH WE, UH, BROUGHT THIS IN AND HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS.
RA BROUGHT FORWARD SOME COMMENTS, UH, AND, UH, ALSO FROM TIAC AND, AND ERCOT CONTRIBUTED THERE.
I WAS GONNA PASS IT OVER TO NED IF YOU'D LIKE TO WALK THROUGH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE POSTED FRIDAY, I BELIEVE.
UM, SO IF Y'ALL RECALL LAST MONTH, WE, WE NEARLY VOTED ON, UH, NORE 2 55 WITH LUMINANT COMMENTS.
[03:10:01]
UP, UH, WITHDREW MY MOTION SO THAT, UM, UH, I THINK TIAC AND SOME OF THE TDU HAD, UH, WANTED TO WORK THROUGH SOME SPECIFIC LANGUAGE REGARDING WHICH ENTITIES WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING, UM, THE EQUIPMENT.AND AT THE SAME TIME, UH, LUMINANT WORKED ENGAGED WITH ERCOT TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE AREAS WHERE THERE WAS STILL SOME, UH, SOME DISAGREEMENT, UH, AT THE MARCH ATTACK.
AND I THINK, UH, WE'VE, WE'VE, LUMINA HAS PUT FORWARD SOME, SOME REASONABLE, UH, COMPROMISE, UH, CHANGES HERE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY EITHER EITHER DIRECTLY ADDRESSES OR SUBSTANTIVELY, UH, ADDRESSES OR, OR AT LEAST PRACTICALLY RECONCILE SOME OF THOSE DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS.
SO, UM, I WON'T TAKE Y'ALL INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL, BUT JUST TO WALK THROUGH THEM REAL QUICKLY, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM, LIKE THE FIRST COUPLE BULLETS YOU SEE THERE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FIRST ONE IS AT A MINIMUM.
SO WE WERE, WE REMEMBER OUR COMMENTS HAD BEEN TRYING TO ENSURE THAT THE, UH, PRC OH OH TWO, UH, REQUIREMENTS WERE THE, THE OPERATIVE ONES FOR, UM, FOR, UH, NON IBR RESOURCES.
UM, AND SO THAT THE CHANGE WE HAD MADE WAS LINKED TO WHAT WAS IN THE PRC OH OH TWO.
UH, THE, AT A MINIMUM BASICALLY SAYS IF YOU, IF YOUR EQUIPMENT CAN, UH, YOU KNOW, CAN, UH, RECORDED A HIGHER FREQUENT AT A HIGHER, UM, UH, SAMPLING RATE THAN, OR BETTER SYNCHRONIZATION RATE THAN THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD USE THAT.
UM, SIMILARLY ON THE, THE NEXT ONE THERE, YOU KNOW, WE HAD, UM, RECOMMENDED GOING BACK TO THE 30 CYCLE, UH, RECORD LENGTH, UM, FOR EXISTING, UH, EQUIPMENT OR TYING TO PRCO OH TWO REQUIREMENTS.
UH, WHAT WE'VE PUT HERE BASICALLY HAS A, A TIME CERTAIN, SO AFTER A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME, YOU KNOW, A NEW, UH, A NEW RECORD LENGTH WOULD APPLY.
NOW, I'LL SAY, I'LL SAY THIS, THAT JUNE 1ST DATE WAS CHOSEN, UH, INITIALLY WHEN WE WERE SUBMITTING THIS, UH, LAST MONTH WITH THE THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD BE TAKEN AT THE, TAKEN UP AT THE APRIL BOARD AND THEN, YOU KNOW, APPROVED POTENTIALLY BY THE COMMISSION SOMETIME IN JUNE.
SO JUNE 1ST WOULD BE, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, ALIGNED WITH THAT APPROVAL TIMELINE.
SINCE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT RETROACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS, THAT'S A, A PRINCIPLED I IMPORTANT THING.
UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF TAC APPROVES THIS TODAY, IT WILL, IT WON'T GO TO THE APRIL BOARD.
SO, UM, THAT IS A DISCONNECT, DISCONNECTING THE PRINCIPLE.
AND IF I, IF, IF I HAD MY DRUTHERS, I WOULD CHANGE IT TO, TO ALIGN WITH THAT.
BUT WE HAVE THESE COMMENTS IN HERE TODAY, SO WANTED TO AT LEAST JUST HIGHLIGHT THAT, BUT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I, IF TAC IS WILLING TO, UH, YOU KNOW, VOTE THIS OUT TODAY, I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT AS CLOSE ENOUGH.
UM, SO, UM, THEN GOING DOWN TO THE NEXT BULLET, UH, THERE WERE, UH, SOME OTHER, UH, THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD HAD IN OUR LAST SET OF COMMENTS THAT REFERENCED HAVING USING CALCULATED DATA IN THE, SOME OF THE FAULT RECORDING, UH, REQUIREMENTS.
AND THAT WAS PROBABLY AN LESS THAN ARTFUL WAY TO, TO PUT IT.
UH, FRANKLY, SOME OF THE FAULT RECORDING DATA DOESN'T ACTUALLY RECORD THE, THE POWER AND FREQUENCY INFORMATION THAT WAS REFERENCED IN THERE.
SO WHAT WE PUT INSTEAD WAS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE THAT DATA FROM, UH, DYNAMIC DISTURBANCE RECORDING DATA OR A PHASER MEASUREMENT UNIT THAT DIRECTLY MEASURES THOSE IN, UH, THOSE UH, QUANTITIES AND CAN BE USED TO, UM, TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE A DISTURBANCE EVENT, THEN THAT, THAT'S A, THAT'S A, A GOOD SUBSTITUTE.
AND THEN, UH, THE LAST BIG BULLET ON THERE, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS ONE WHERE WE HAD STRUCK A COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS IN OUR LAST SET OF COMMENTS.
UM, BASICALLY BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED THAT THERE WAS A, A KIND OF A VAGUE TERM THAT WOULD, WOULD ALLOW ERCOT TO REQUIRE INSTALLATION OF NEW EQUIPMENT IN, UH, BOTH THE FAULT RECORDING AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS RECORDING SECTION AS WELL AS THE PHASER MEASUREMENT UNIT LOCATION, UH, REQUIREMENTS, UM, WITHOUT ANY REAL BOUNDS ON IT.
SO, UM, WE CAME UP WITH A COMPROMISE PROPOSAL THAT BASICALLY, UH, REPLACES THAT ABNORMAL TRIP LANGUAGE, WHICH WAS VAGUE WITH SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT UP ON THE SCREEN.
AND THEN ALSO SPECIFIES THAT THE LOCATIONS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED ARE THE ONES THAT ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT WITH THAT SECTION.
SO NOT ADDING NEW REQUIREMENTS, NOT A BLANK CHECK, JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE THOSE, UH, IF, IF THE UNIT DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE THOSE IN, UH, INSTALLED IN THOSE LOCATIONS, THEN THEY HAVE TO ACCELERATE THAT.
[03:15:01]
UM, THERE WAS ONE CLEANUP IN THE IBR RELATED SECTION, UM, WHERE WE HAD, UH, PUT SOMETHING IN THAT DIDN'T QUITE ALIGN WITH PRC O2 EIGHT AS PROPOSED.SO, UH, THAT WAS JUST A CLEANUP.
AND THEN WE INCLUDED THE LANGUAGE THAT, UH, TIC AND THE TDU HAD, UH, HAD WORKED TOGETHER ON.
SO I THINK THAT ADDRESSES THEIR CONCERNS.
I KNOW THIS WAS FILED, UM, LAST WEEK, LESS THAN SEVEN DAYS AHEAD OF THIS MEETING.
WE WERE WORKING AS FAST AS WE COULD.
IT'S A, IT'S A LONG AND DETAILED ONE, SO, UM, IF FOLKS HAVE QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM, I'M HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THIS FORWARD IF TAC WANTS TO JUST CLEAR IT OFF THE DECK.
IF FOLKS NEED MORE TIME THOUGH, I RECOGNIZE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN LESS THAN SEVEN DAYS, SO I'LL PAUSE THERE.
BILL BARNES, I WAS GONNA SECOND NED'S MOTION TO APPROVE, BUT UM, THE VERSION THAT LUMINATE FILED, WHICH IS A COMPROMISE, HAS COMPONENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE, IN THE RECORD FOR A WHILE.
UH, LUMINA HAD FILED PRIOR VERSIONS SUGGESTING SIMILAR THINGS.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF THESE, THIS IS NEW AND I KNOW ERCOT WANTS TO MOVE THIS, SO IF THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT, I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE IT.
SO WE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WELL, STEVEN SALI WANTED TO OFFER, SEE IF YOU HAD ANY FEEDBACK.
I WOULD JUST COMMENT, UH, ERCOT HAS REVIEWED THIS.
WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE COMPROMISE LANGUAGE AS IT IS, UM, BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW.
THEN MAYBE TO BE MORE, MORE CLEAR 'CAUSE I, I DON'T THINK I WAS CLEAR IN MAKING A MOTION.
UM, I'LL, I WILL THEN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, NOER 2 55 WITH THE, UH, LUMINANT APRIL 11TH COMMENTS.
BILL, YOU STILL GOT THE SECOND? OKAY.
ANY CONCERNS WITH PUTTING THIS ON THE CONVO BALLOT? I ALRIGHT, COREY, LET'S PUT ON THE COMMONWEALTH BALLOT.
UH, WE'VE GOT THREE OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE TABLED.
OBDR OH FOUR SIX O-B-D-R-R OH FIVE ONE AND GER 1 0 5.
I THINK WE'LL KEEP ALL THREE OF THOSE TABLED UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY DISCUSSION OR ITEMS FOR THOSE THREE ITEMS. OKAY.
[8. RMS Report]
ON TO THE RMS REPORT OR BOB COREY, DO THEY NEED TO WITHDRAW THOSE MOTIONS TO PUT ON THE, I WOULD LOVE BEFORE WE CARRY ON WITH BUSINESS FOR, FOR ROBERT'S RULES, ERIC GOFF ISN'T IN HERE TO STOP US BECAUSE WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.ALL PROGRESS STOPS UNTIL WE ADDRESS THAT ACTIVE MOTION.
YOU GUYS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT BEING ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
BUT I'D NEED Y'ALL TO PULL YOUR MOTION.
I'M, UH, GONNA BE SHORT AND SWEET.
UH, THIS IS JUST A QUICK UPDATE FROM OUR APRIL 2ND OR THIS MEETING AND THEN SOME OF THE KEY ACTIVITIES GOING ON.
WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT PGRR ONE 14 AND, UM, AS MUCH DISCUSSION HAS TAKEN PLACE THERE TODAY.
UH, YOU ARE ALREADY AWARE OF THIS, BUT, UM, THERE WERE TWO ABSTENTIONS FOR PGRR ONE 14 AND FOR NPRR 1212, UM, WE DID THINK THAT THE EXISTING, UH, COMMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED BY, UH, R OS AND PRS, UM, WERE REALLY GOOD.
UM, SO WE UH, DID HAVE A SEPARATE BALLOT FOR THAT.
WE DID NOT PUT IT ON OR WE DID NOT RELY ON THE CONVO BALLOT.
AND, UM, WE'RE GONNA GIVE AN UPDATE AT RMS OF WHAT HAPPENED TODAY.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE SIGNIFICANT RETAIL ACTIVITIES GOING ON THE LUBBOCK, UH, RETAIL INTEGRATION TASK FORCE.
THEY ARE STILL WORKING ON STATUS AND RESOLUTION OF ISSUES.
THEY'VE GOT SOME OUTSTANDING ITEMS. UH, WE NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK AND DO A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE RETAIL MARKET GUIDE AND, UM, CHECK SOME OF OUR TRANSACTIONS.
UH, PWG, SOME OF THE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN CANCELED.
NOTHING HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT, UH, THAT WARRANTS A MEETING.
UM, THEY, WE ARE NOT DOING ANNUAL VALIDATION THIS YEAR DUE TO THE HEAVY ACTIVITY OF RETAIL AND UH, THAT WAS APPROVED BY TECH, UM, LAST YEAR.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.
RETAIL MARKET TRAINING TASK FORCE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE BEEN REALLY, REALLY BUSY.
HOW HOLDING INSTRUCTOR LED TRAINING AND MAINTAINING THE ONLINE MODULES.
THE UH, BIG THING THAT'S COMING UP IS THE FINAL TEXAS TECH 4.0 TRAINING.
TEXAS, UH, TRAINING IS ALWAYS IN PERSON.
THE INSTRUCTOR LED IS ALWAYS IN PERSON.
[03:20:01]
ONE IS MAY 2ND, AND UM, IT'S ALREADY FULL.SO THOSE THAT ARE ON THE WAIT LIST OR WANNA GET ON THE WAIT LIST, UM, THERE'S PROBABLY A GOOD CHANCE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GET IN.
WE WILL JUST HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT AT THE NEXT RTF MEETING.
AND, UH, WE GO LIVE WITH TEXAS AT 5.0, UH, NOVEMBER 10TH AND THE ESTIMATED DATE OF THE TRAINING FOR THAT FIRST QUARTER OF 2025, PROBABLY IN FEBRUARY.
AND WE'LL HAVE THAT AT ENCORE IN DALLAS.
THE T-D-T-M-S, UH, WHICH IS TEXAS DATA TRANSPORT MARKET TRACK SYSTEMS. THEY'RE WORKING WITH ERCOT CLIENT RELATIONS TO DEVELOP, UM, A STANDARD MESSAGE THAT WILL BE USED FOR CLIENT RELATIONS TO REACH OUT TO THE REPS THAT HAVE CONSIDERABLE TALENTS OF INADVERTENT GAINS.
SO THAT'S IN PROGRESS AND UM, THAT HAS BEEN AN IDEA FOR, FOR A WHILE.
SO WE REALLY HOPE TO BRING THAT TO FRUITION.
THE TEXAS SET AND THE MAP, UH, MARKET COORDINATION TEAM.
THEY HAVE BEEN, UH, JOINTLY MEETING WITH T-D-T-M-S AND THEY'RE DEVELOPING A TRANSITION PLAN FOR TEXAS F 5.0 AND FOR THE ACCOMPANYING MARKET TRACK PROCESSING CHANGES.
SO, UH, THE REASON THAT'S IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE INADVERTENT GAIN PROCESS THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE MARKET TRACK SYSTEM, IT IS GOING TO BE, UH, TRANSACTIONAL BASED AFTER TEXAS AT 5.0.
SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THE MARKET TRACK ISSUES IN PROGRESS WHEN WE DO SHUT DOWN, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT INADVERTENT GAINS TO GET LOST.
AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT CUSTOMER TRANSITION TO RETAIL COMPETITION IS COMPLETE OR CAUGHT, SENT A NOTICE OUT, I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST THURSDAY AFTERNOON.
LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF WORK.
MANY, MANY MEETINGS, UH, LOTS OF HOMEWORK.
UH, THEY CAN, THEY TRANSITIONED ON THEIR MARCH METERING.
UM, THEIR FIRST BILL IS COMING TO THEM THIS MONTH.
THE BILL HAS THE USAGE FROM MARCH METERING DATE TO THE APRIL METERING DATE.
THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE WAS A, UH, I GUESS A MISCONCEPTION THAT CUSTOMERS WOULD BE GETTING A PARTIAL BILL ON THE LUBBOCK RATES AND THEN A PARTIAL BILL ON THEIR, ON THEIR COMPETITION.
THEIR RATES FROM COMPETITION FROM THE, THERE WERE 37,700 EASY IDS THAT WERE ASSIGNED TO DEFAULT REPS.
THOSE CUSTOMERS DID NOT CHOOSE A REP.
UM, ERCOT AND THE, AND THE LUBBOCK FOLKS AND THE CITY OF LUBBOCK ALL DID A GREAT JOB IN HOLDING, UH, SHOPPING FAIRS.
AND MANY, MANY OF THE RETAIL COMPANIES WENT AND, UH, PROVIDED THEIR OPTIONS TO THE CUSTOMERS THAT THERE WERE STILL THAT MANY THAT DID NOT SIGN UP WITH A, UH, REP OF CHOICE CONTINUING THE CONFERENCE CALLS WITH LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT.
THESE ARE JUST, THEY HAPPEN DAILY THIS WEEK.
THEY'RE MOVING TO TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS AT 10:00 AM.
WHAT WE DO ON THOSE CALLS IS WE JUST TALK ABOUT THE TRANSACTION ISSUES, THE GAPS, PROCESSING EXCEPTIONS, UH, ANYTHING THAT WE THINK SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELIVERED ACCORDING TO A TIMELINE THAT WASN'T JUST, UH, TEXAS SET ITEMS, CODES, A MS DATA FILES.
THOSE KIND OF THINGS ARE REALLY CRITICAL TO RETAIL, RETAIL PROCESSING.
AND WE ARE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING IS COMING OUT THE WAY THAT IT WAS DESIGNED AND, UH, UNDERSTOOD.
WE ARE ALSO TALKING ABOUT OPTIONS FOR RESOLUTION OF ISSUES ON THAT CALL.
WHAT CAN BE DONE? CAN WE AUTOMATE QUICKLY? DO WE NEED A MANUAL WORKAROUND? SO THOSE TYPE OPTIONS, THE USUAL ATTENDEES, UM, LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHTS, THEIR EDI SERVICE PROVIDER, ERCOT, THE RETAIL LEADERSHIP, WHICH IS THE LEADERSHIP OF L-R-I-T-F AND, UH, RMS LEADERSHIP, AND THEN THE REP CERTIFIED FOR LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT TERRITORY.
UH, WERE CERTIFIED FOR LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT TERRITORY, SO THIS IS RELEVANT TO THOSE, TO THOSE REPS.
ALL RIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'M NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM.
[9. ROS Report (Vote)]
IS A ROS REPORT.BE MOUSE WHEEL OR ARROW KEYS, WHICHEVER'S EASIER FOR YOU.
WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN UP ONE OF THE VOTING ITEMS, SO I'LL JUST FOCUS ON PICK ONE 12.
UM, WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
WE DID REVISE THE RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE TO DECEMBER ONE SO THAT
[03:25:01]
IT COULD BE IN EVERYTHING THAT WE, THAT ERCOT NEEDS TO RECEIVE WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE FEBRUARY, 2025 QSA.AND THEN WE HAVE A FEW ITEMS, UM, THAT WE TOOK UP, WE TOOK ACTION ON.
I'LL NOTE THAT 1217, WELL, WE HAD A DISCUSSION AT PRS ABOUT REFERRING IT WITHIN ROSS.
SO IT IS, UM, AT TWG, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WILL BE ON A FUTURE MEETING AGENDA.
SO WE ARE SIMPLY JUST TABLING IT AT ROSS TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS AT TWG TO SEE IF ANY, IF ROSS NEEDS TO TAKE ANY ACTION OR IF WE CAN JUST SEND THAT BACK TO PRS.
UM, AND THEN NPR 1221 AND NOGA 2 62.
THOSE CAME TO US TOGETHER, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED A FORMAL, UM, REFERRAL ON 1221.
WE WENT AHEAD AND REFERRED THOSE OVER TO OWG TO GET THEM STARTED ON THEIR REVIEW.
AND THEN THE LAST TWO LISTED HERE, THE, UM, PIGGER ONE 13 AND, UM, NPR 1198, NO 2 58 ARE ALL RELATED.
WE DID HAVE A SEPARATE BALLOT FOR THE NOER AND THE NPRR.
AND THEN WHAT WILL COME BACK TO US NEXT MONTH WILL BE THE IA FOR THE PIGGER AND THE NOER.
UM, AND THEN WE ARE STILL MAKING SOME HEADWAY.
SOME OF THESE WILL ROLL OFF BASED ON WHAT I JUST SHOWED YOU ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDES, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, STILL HAVE SOME BEFORE US, UM, AT VARIOUS STAGES, AND WE ALWAYS INCLUDE WHERE YOU CAN FIND THOSE.
SO IF YOU NEED TO PLUG IN ON A PARTICULAR ONE, I'VE GOT THE WORKING GROUP OR WORKING GROUPS LISTED THERE.
UM, AND THEN WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED, UH, THE ECRS, BUT THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT WMS. IT WAS DISCUSSED AT ROSS.
UM, NEITHER ONE OF US TOOK ACTION ON IT.
AND THEN OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE WEBEX ONLY ON MAY 2ND.
ANY QUESTIONS? SO BASED ON, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION THERE WOULD BE TO PUT P ONE 12 ONTO THE COMMONWEALTH BALLOT, I HAD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF P ONE 12 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE 4 4 24 ROSS REPORT.
[10. WMS Report Eric Blakey 11:45 a.m.]
WMS WITH ERIC.ERIC BLAKEY WITH PURNELL'S CO-OP, UH, CHAIR OF WMS THIS YEAR.
WE, UH, WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, THE DEPLOYMENT TRIGGERS, WHERE'S MY, UH, MY WORDS ARE COVERED.
BUT ANYWAY, WE'VE HAD A DISCUSSION ON THAT THIS MORNING.
UH, 2023 MAXIMUM DAILY RESOURCE PLANNED OUTAGE REPORT.
WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AS WELL.
SO I WON'T REPEAT ANY OF THAT.
I COULDN'T REMEMBER WHAT I HAD BEHIND THAT LABEL.
UM, BUT, UH, WE DID TAKE THESE UP, OR, UH, WMS DID NOT TAKE ACTION, UH, ON 1224, AS WAS STATED EARLIER.
UH, BUT ON FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE, UH, ERCOT DID PROVIDE US A REPORT, UH, IN JANUARY.
IT'S REQUIRED BY THE PROTOCOLS.
AND THERE WERE, UH, THERE WAS A JANUARY COLD WEATHER EVENT AND TWO, UH, FFS SRSS FAILED TO COME ONLINE OR STAY ONLINE.
ONE WAS UNAVAILABLE FOR DEPLOYMENT.
ERCOT IS DRAFTING AN NPR BASED ON THE LESSONS LEARNED, UH, FROM THIS FFSS SEASON.
UH, THEY MENTIONED ADDING A PROCEDURE TO CLARIFY THE FUEL RESTOCKING PROCESS, MODIFYING THE METHOD BY WHICH THE QUEASY NOTIFIES ERCOT WHEN AN ALTERNATIVE REPLACES AN F-F-S-S-R.
CLARIFYING THAT AN F-F-S-S-R THAT RECEIVES AN HDL OVERRIDE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR PAYMENT UNDER SECTION SIX.
HDL OVERRIDE ENERGY PAYMENT AND CLARIFYING WHEN A RESOURCE IS CONSIDERED AVAILABLE.
OH, BOY, WHERE I HIT LOOK, SOMETIMES IT, SOMETIMES IT TREATS THIS AS THE ACTIVE WINDOW, SO YOU JUST GET THE THING OVER HERE AND CLICK ONCE NOW IT ACTIVATES THAT.
UM, I THINK THE FIRST ITEM IS COVERED UP HERE IS THE ECLIPSE.
WE, WE MAY HAVE FORGOTTEN LAST WEEK WE HAD AN ECLIPSE.
IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WAS ONLY A WEEK AGO.
UM, I, I DO THINK, UH, IT WAS HANDLED WELL, AND WE WILL HOPEFULLY GET A REPORT, UH, ON HOW IT WENT.
AT OUR NEXT WMS, UH, MARCH REQUEST REGARDING RUCK OF RESOURCE WITH LONG MINIMUM RUNTIME, ERCOT HAD A PRESENTATION DETERMINED THAT,
[03:30:01]
UH, MANUAL RUCKS ON, UH, MARCH 4TH AND FIFTH WERE IN RESPONSE TO EXTREMELY LOW COMMITTED CAPACITY MARGINS, UH, PROJECTIONS FOR THE PEAK HOURS ON THESE DAYS CAUSED BY FOUR OUTAGES, DELAYS IN OUTAGE UNITS, RETURNING TO SERVICE AND HIGHER FORECASTED NET LOAD.UH, AND THEN, UH, WORKING GROUP LEADERSHIP UPDATE.
THIS IS, UH, THE REAL JOB OF WMS LEADERSHIP, I THINK IS KEEPING, UH, WORKING GROUP, UH, LEADERSHIP FIELD.
UH, WE HAVE, UH, CONFIRMED OU FROM E 360 POWER TO BE VICE CHAIR OF, UH, RCWG.
AND WE RECONFIRMED, UH, OUR VICE CHAIR OF MARKET SETTLEMENT.
WE JUST HAD A JOB CHANGE THERE AND WE RECONFIRMED THAT POSITION, UH, WHOLESALE MARKET WORKING GROUP.
SO WE NOW HAVE A NEW CHAIR, UH, IN THE, UH, EVER DEPENDABLE, KEVIN HANSEN, WHO, UH, IF Y'ALL HAVEN'T BEEN PLANNING AHEAD FOR THE TAC SPIRIT AWARD THIS YEAR, I THINK IT SHOULD GO TO KEVIN.
HE IS, HE HAS EARNED IT, UH, THREE.
HE'S CURRENTLY CHAIR OF THREE WORKING GROUPS.
WE'RE TRYING TO, TO TAKE AWAY ONE OF HIS RESPONSIBILITIES.
UM, BUT HE'S JUST DONE AN AMAZING JOB STEPPING IN.
AND THEN BLAKE HOLT WILL BE VICE CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE.
AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER JOB CHANGE IN CMWG.
AND SO ALEX MILLER HAS MOVED UP AND WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING TO FIND A, A VICE CHAIR FOR THAT POSITION.
AND THIS IS AN UPDATE ON OUR TABLE ITEMS. UH, THE ONE ITEM THAT WE MOVED FORWARD WAS 1198 CONGESTION MITIGATION USING TOPOLOGY RECONFIGURATIONS AT CMWG.
AND WE ENDORSED THAT WITH E-L-C-R-A COMMENTS.
UH, WE DID HAVE A NEW REFERRAL 1219, WHICH, UH, WAS METHODOLOGY REVISIONS AND NEW DEFINITIONS FOR THE, UH, REPORT ON CAPACITY, DEMAND, AND RESERVES.
AND THAT HAS BEEN TABLED TO, TO SOG.
NEXT MEETING IS MAY THE FIRST.
ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, ERIC.
[11. Large Flexible Load Task Force (LFLTF) Report Bill Blevins 12:00 p.m.]
UP WE HAVE THE, UH, LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD TASK FORCE REPORT.UH, DO WE HAVE BILL BLEVINS OR AG SPRINGER AVAILABLE? YEAH, THIS IS AG FROM MURCOTT.
UH, YEAH, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.
UM, BILL ASKED ME TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE.
SO, UH, THE TASK FORCE DID MEET ON, UH, THE FIRST OF THIS MONTH.
UH, AND THE, THE PRIMARY TOPIC COVERED WAS, UH, A SLIDE DECK DETAILING OUR CHANGE IN, UH, DIRECTION ON SOME OF THE MAIN CONCEPTS THAT WERE INTRODUCED IN NPR 1191 AND P ONE 11.
UM, AND SO THE, THE HIGH LEVEL APPROACH WILL BE, UH, ERCOT WILL, UH, INTENSIFY COMMENTS THAT WOULD, UM, ESSENTIALLY, UH, SEPARATE OUT THE INTERCONNECTION PROCESS THAT WAS PROPOSED IN P ONE 11 WITH SOME, UH, MODIFICATIONS BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AND THE FORMAL COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED.
UM, AND THOSE, THOSE CONCEPTS WOULD THEN MOVE FORWARD AS, UH, LIKELY A, UH, A NEW NPR AND, UM, TO MOVE THOSE FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
UM, THE OTHER MAJOR TOPICS THAT WERE PROPOSED IN NPR 1191 AND BIGGER ONE 11, UM, INCLUDING, UH, THE RAMP RATE, UH, UH, RAMP RATE ISSUES, VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH AND CREATION OF, UH, A REGISTERED CURTAILED LOAD CONCEPT WOULD BE, UH, HELD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
UM, AFTER, UH, THE STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, UM, WE ARE PUSHING AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN TO GET THE REVISED LANGUAGE OUT.
THE NEXT TASK FORCE MEETING IS THE FIRST WEEK OF MAY.
UM, WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT SCHEDULING A, A ADDITIONAL MEETING LATER IN THE MONTH OF MAY.
UM, IN CASE WE ARE NOT ABLE TO GET THE LANGUAGE OUT AHEAD OF THAT, UH, THAT FIRST MAY DATE.
UM, I'VE BEEN, BILL HAS ASKED ME TO, TO MENTION, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THERE WILL BE VOTING ITEMS FOR TAC UH, PRIOR TO JUNE OR JULY.
I THINK THOSE WOULD BE THE EARLIEST.
UH, WE ARE HOPING THAT THE, UH, THE INTERCONNECTION PROCESS WOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD FAIRLY QUICKLY.
UM, BUT A LOT OF THESE OTHER TOPICS WILL, WILL LIKELY BE IN FUTURE, FUTURE REVISION REQUESTS AFTER ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.
UH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S MY UPDATE.
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR AG?
[03:35:03]
UH, I'M NOT SEEING ANY.[12. RTC+B Task Force Report]
ALL RIGHT, NEXT STEPS.RTC PLUS B TASK FORCE REPORT, SIR.
THIS IS A FIRST FOR THE RTCB TASK FORCE.
SO YOU HAVE A QUICK PROGRAM UPDATE, A REMINDER OF WHY WE'RE REVIEW THINGS HERE TO HELP PREPARE FOR THE VOTE.
AND THEN TO GO THROUGH THE ISSUES WE'RE TACKLING RIGHT NOW AT THE TASK FORCE.
UM, THIS IS JUST A PROGRAM VIEW OF WHAT DOES IMPLEMENTATION LOOK LIKE.
THE IDEA IS WE'RE GETTING REQUIREMENTS WRAPPED UP SO WE CAN START TO LOOK AT THE, UM, DELIVERY AND POSSIBLY, UM, RELEASING A PROGRAM MILESTONE DATES IN SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR FOR WHAT DOES THE REST OF THE PROGRAM LOOK LIKE.
MARKET TRIALS, TRANSITION, GO LIVE, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
SO AT THIS POINT, 2026 IS STILL THE PLACEHOLDER UNTIL TOLD OTHERWISE.
SO IN TERMS OF THE MEETING PURPOSE, I JUST WANNA FOCUS ON THE LAST BULLET.
UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD LEARNED BACK IN 2019 AND 2020, THERE IS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO DEAL WITH, WE HAVE TO GET RTC IMPLEMENTED, DON'T GET STUCK ON SOMETHING.
AND THE IDEA WAS REVIEW SOMETHING TWO OR THREE TIMES.
ERCOT BRINGS THE CONCEPT FORWARD DOCUMENTS, IT PUTS THE STRONG MAN OUT MEETING.
TWO IS CHEW ON IT, COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVES.
MEETING THREE IS ANYTHING TO STOP IT, OTHERWISE IT GOES TO TAC.
SO WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE ITEMS HERE TODAY TO TAKE TO TAC.
UM, OUR ISSUES LIST IS 20 ISSUES THAT WE'RE RECONCILING AS WE GET, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE PATH TO GO LIVE.
YOU CAN'T FIX EVERYTHING AT ONE TIME.
SO ISSUE NUMBER 20 IS NOW A REVIEW, UH, WHERE ERCOT WOULD HELP PROVIDE A REVIEW OF HOW THE ENERGY AND A S OFFER CAPS WORK IN TODAY'S REALM.
IF YOU GO BACK TO 2020, WE HAD HIGHER OFFER CAPS, DIFFERENT THINGS.
AND SO NOW IT'S WITH THE $5,000 SYSTEM-WIDE OFFER CAP AND THE 2000 MEGAWATT AS HOW DID THOSE START TO CORRELATE AND, UM, COME TOGETHER IN THIS CURRENT POLICY.
UH, THE OTHER THING WE DID IS WE MOVED UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SCREEN ARE THOSE FOUR RED SQUARES.
YOU CAN'T READ IT, BUT IT'S THE IDEA OF MARKET TRIALS AND INTERFACE CHANGES.
WE'RE STARTING TO HAVE SOME WORKSHOPS ON THAT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
AND SO WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE ALSO.
ALRIGHT, SO HERE'S KIND OF THE, THE FOUR THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE WORKSHOP AND THEN WE'LL FOCUS ON, UH, THE TOP ONE HERE ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO ISSUE 17, RUCK CAPACITY SHORT.
THE IDEA IS THIS HAS BEEN THREE ROUNDS OF DISCUSSIONS.
IF WE COMMIT A RESOURCE IN RTC.
WE'VE ALWAYS SAID IT'S JUST LIKE TODAY.
IF SOMEBODY'S PORTFOLIO IS SHORT, THEY HAVE DAY HEAD POSITIONS, TRADES, OTHER STUFF GOING ON.
SO SOME OF THEIR POSITION, WE RUCK SOMEONE WHO ARE THE QU THAT WERE SHORT.
WHAT WE DIDN'T HAVE IN THERE WAS STATED CHARGE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T EXIST IN 2019.
WE ALSO DIDN'T HAVE DIFFERENT ANCILLARY SERVICE SUBTYPES, SO WE HAD TO PUT THOSE IN.
SO THIS IS KIND OF RECONCILIATION OF THAT GAP OVER TIME.
UH, IT'S BEEN A VERY QUIET TASK FORCE.
WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH ALL THE SQUIGGLY MATH TO GET THROUGH IT.
UH, AND THE WHITE PAPER ITSELF I THINK IS 18 PAGES.
SO IT'S NOT SIMPLE STUFF, BUT IT IS A LEFTOVER THAT WE NEEDED TO GET DONE.
SO NO ISSUES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND WE'D LIKE APPROVAL OF THAT TODAY AND I'LL TEE THAT UP ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
UH, ISSUE NUMBER FOUR, UH, STACK HAD BROUGHT FORWARD BACK IN 2019.
THERE ARE SOME REASONS THAT THEIR, UM, ONLINE HYDRO SYNCHRONOUS CONDENSER, UM, UH, HYDROS DOWN ON THE BORDER WERE THINGS THAT THEY THOUGHT SHOULD BE PUT AT THE OFFER CAP.
AS ERCOT REVIEWED IT, IT LOOKS LIKE ALL OF THOSE MITIGATED OFFER CAPS SHOULD BE AT THE OFFER CAP AND WE'LL BRING THAT TO THE NEXT VOTE.
BUT THAT'S A SMOOTH SAILING ONE THAT WE THINK IS WRAPPED UP.
BUT I'M NOT GONNA BRING IT TODAY BECAUSE THAT'S A SURPRISE TO YOU.
SO WE'RE GONNA LET THAT DO, ITS MEETING THREE.
THE ANOTHER ONE, ISSUE NUMBER THREE WAS KIND OF A FUN ONE.
IT WAS FOR ME, I HYPED IT UP AND THEN EVERYONE'S LIKE, MEH.
BUT, UM, IT IS THE IDEA OF ER COTS PERIODIC ANALYSIS FOR COMPARING REAL TIME CO OPTIMIZATION RESULTS.
IT'S KINDA WHAT IFS BASED ON USING RTC TO SOLVE WHAT HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2023.
SO IT'S USED TO BE INPUTS FROM THAT DAY, THE OFFERS FROM THAT DAY.
AND GRANTED WE DIDN'T HAVE REAL TIME AS OFFERS, BUT WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE TO START TO STUB IN THOSE TYPES OF THINGS WITH THE OFFER CAPS AND THE ORDC CURVE AND START TO SEE PRICE FORMATION.
UM, I SAY IT'S MAN BECAUSE EVERYONE WANTS THE DATA NOW AND WE'RE SAYING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT.
WE DON'T HAVE THOSE STUDIES YET, BUT IT'S, WE WANTED TO GET THAT FRAMEWORK IN FRONT OF THE TASK FORCE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE BUILDING THE RIGHT CAPABILITY.
UM, SO WE DON'T BUILD SOMETHING THAT ISN'T WHAT'S BEING LOOKED FOR.
SO THAT'S JUST A, A FIRST MEETING.
WE'LL HAVE MORE MEETINGS ON THAT.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS THIS REVIEW OF AS DEMAND CURVES.
UM, SHAMS HAD BROUGHT A PRESENTATION FORWARD.
AGAIN, THIS IS THIS UM, KIND OF A GRAY AREA.
ERCOT WANTS TO SUPPORT PRICE FORMATION ISSUES.
THE AS DEMAND CURVES AND THE RRDC CURVE ARE ALREADY MEMORIALIZED
[03:40:01]
TO THE EQUATIONS IN CURRENT PROTOCOLS.THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BUILDING TO, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING LIVE WITH.
BUT FOR THE MARKETS CAN STILL TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE RDC CURVE IS THE RIGHT SHAPE AND MAYBE RESET THE POLICY OVER THE PUC OR IT'S THE IDEA OF MAYBE THERE'S A CO-MINGLING OF AS OFFERS UNDER THAT OR AS CURVES UNDER THE ORDC CURVE THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED.
SO IT'S PROBABLY NOT FOR GO LIVE, BUT WE'RE CREATING SOME SPACE FOR THAT, RECOGNIZING IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES.
SO WE'RE LETTING THAT CONVERSATION HAPPEN EVEN IF IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHERE WE'RE GOING.
OKAY, SO WHAT DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT TODAY OR ASK TODAY IS WE'RE SEEKING TAC ENDORSEMENT OF THE R CAPACITY SHORT WHITE PAPER THAT WAS POSTED WITH THE MEETING MATERIALS.
AGAIN, WE'VE HAD THREE ROUNDS OF MEETINGS, NO CHANGES PROPOSED.
UH, WE'VE WALKED THROUGH DRAFT NPR LANGUAGE, SO I'LL, I'LL HIT PAUSE BEFORE WE BROUGHT CONCEPTS TO THE RTC TASK FORCE AND THEN A YEAR LATER WE CAME BACK WITH PROTOCOLS.
WE DON'T WANNA SLOW THINGS DOWN WITH WAITING TO GET THE PRINCIPLE DEFINED AND THEN WALK THROUGH THE PROTOCOL.
SO WE'RE GONNA USE THIS WHITE PAPER AS THE GUARDRAILS OR THE DESIGN ELEMENT TO SAY THIS IS THE PROTOCOL LANGUAGE CHANGES THAT WE NEED BASED ON THIS WHITE PAPER.
SO THAT BECOMES THE FOUNDATION THAT WE'LL BUILD FROM.
SO THE NPR DOESN'T GET PULLED INTO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS OTHER THAN THIS WHITE PAPER.
AND SO THAT'S GETTING TO THE SCOPE THAT WE NEED.
AND SO WE BROUGHT THE DRAFT LANGUAGE FORWARD JUST TO SHOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
BUT UPON TAC APPROVAL, ERCOT WOULD SUBMIT THIS NPRR SAYING THAT IT'S BASED ON THE TAC APPROVED OR TAC ENDORSED WHITE PAPER.
AND THEN THAT WOULD BE THE FRAMEWORK WITH WHICH IT GOES THROUGH THE NORMAL PRST BOARD PC MEETING.
UM, AND THE GOOD NEWS IS THE WHITE PAPER ITSELF ARE THE DESIGN ELEMENTS WE NEED FOR US TO FINISH OUR DESIGN AND BEGIN BUILDING SOFTWARE.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY AND THEN WE'LL BRING THE OTHER ISSUE FORWARD NEXT WEEK.
BUT WITH THAT, THAT WAS WHERE I WANTED TO PAUSE.
I HAVE ANOTHER SLIDE THAT TALKS ABOUT NEXT STEPS, BUT I WOULD E OPEN ANY INTERESTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE WHITE PAPER.
MATT, A QUESTION ON THE, DO YOU EXPECT FOR EACH ISSUE THAT THE, THE WHITE PAPER TO COME BACK WITH THE PROTOCOL LANGUAGE AS WELL OR IS THERE GONNA BE SOME THAT DO SOME THAT DON'T, SOME THAT DO, SOME DON'T.
SOME THINGS MIGHT BE THE ICCP HANDBOOK CHANGES, LIKE WE'LL ADVISE THAT THESE ARE THE CHANGES, BUT IT HAS ITS OWN KIND OF PROCEDURE.
SO NOT ALL THESE WILL RESULT IN AN NPR.
SO AT THE END I'LL ASK IF YOU WANNA PUT THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT.
ALRIGHT, SO, UH, THE NEXT MEETING IS ON MAY 8TH.
THERE WAS A, A MARKET NOTICE THAT WENT OUT THAT CAUGHT SOME PEOPLE OFF GUARD.
SO WE ARE OUR, UM, BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS ARE ESSENTIALLY DONE ON THE EMS IN TERMS OF INTERFACES AND MARKET SYSTEMS. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA HAVE THREE OR FOUR TECHNICAL WORKSHOPS TO TALK REALLY WITH YOUR VENDORS AND IT GROUPS OF WHAT DO THE ICCP NEW POINTS LOOK LIKE? WHAT DO THE UM, YOU KNOW, THIS X, SORRY, THE XML FILES LOOK LIKE FOR AS OFFERS IN REAL TIME AND HOW WE'RE MODIFYING THOSE.
IT'S REALLY VERY TECHNICAL WORKSHOPS, WHICH IS WHY THEY HAVE THE WORD TECHNICAL IN THEM.
WHATEVER WE SHARE AT THE WORKSHOP ALSO BRING TO THE TASK FORCE.
BUT THAT WAS SENT OUT, UM, THERE'S A SURVEY A FEW WEEKS AGO SAID, HEY, LET US KNOW YOUR TECHNICAL CONTACTS ARE OR VENDORS.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOW ON A MAGIC EMAIL LIST THAT'S PUSHING OUT THE TECHNICAL WORKSHOP THAT ALSO GOES TO R-T-C-B-T-F, THAT ALSO GOES TO THE TWG.
SO THAT ALPHABET OF SOUP IS TO SAY IT GOES OUT TO ABOUT 300 EMAILS TO RING THE BELL AND SAY, COME TO THESE TECHNICAL MEETINGS IF YOU WANT TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HEADED DOWN THE RIGHT TECHNICAL, UH, DIRECTION ON THESE ISSUES.
SO BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM THOSE WORKSHOPS, THAT'LL HELP US FINALIZE THE INTERFACE DESIGNS.
UH, WE'LL BE PUBLISHING THOSE TO THE WEBSITE AND THAT'S REALLY PART OF OUR MARKET READINESS.
IT'S KIND OF AN EARLY RISK MITIGATION TO GET THOSE ELEMENTS OUT THERE.
AND THEN THOSE WORKSHOPS GO AWAY FOR A YEAR WHILE WE GET OTHER STUFF READY.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO THE CHAIR TO SEE IF THERE'S A, A MOTION ON THE ADOPT ENDORSING THE WHITE PAPER.
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS BACK.
EXCITED TO SEE THAT FIRST ONE COME THROUGH THE PROCESS.
UH, ANYBODY HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH ENDORSING THE RTC PLUS B TASK FORCE R CAPACITY SHORT WHITE PAPER AS MATT'S PRESENTED AND ADDING THAT TO THE COMMONWEALTH BALLOT? OKAY, THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO.
[13. Other Business]
OTHER BUSINESS.ANN, YOU'VE GOT SOME COMMENTS ON THE 2025 BLOCK CALENDAR? YEAH, WE HAVE THE BLOCK CALENDAR AVAILABLE FOR 2025.
WE ONLY HAVE FIVE BOARD MEETINGS NEXT YEAR.
SO THERE'S STILL SOME INSTANCES WHERE WE HAD THREE TAC MEETINGS IN BETWEEN BOARD MEETINGS.
UM, OUR SUGGESTION I THINK IS THAT THE REVISED ONE IS THAT WE WOULD CANCEL THE JUNE 25TH TAC MEETING, UM, AND THEN THE SEPTEMBER 24TH TAC MEETING, BOTH OF THOSE FALL
[03:45:01]
RIGHT AFTER THE BOARD MEETINGS.AND THEN WE WOULD MOVE THE MAY 21ST TAC MEETING TO THE 28TH.
SO THERE'S NOT AS MUCH TIME BETWEEN TAC AND THE BOARD.
UM, SO WE WOULD BE GOING DOWN TO 10 OR I GUESS SEVEN TECH MEETINGS NEXT YEAR IS SEVEN, THE NEW NUMBER.
SO PREVIOUSLY WE WERE AT SEVEN IS THE NEW NUMBER WE WERE AT NINE 'CAUSE WE USUALLY DON'T HAVE A DECEMBER T, SO WE WOULD'VE SEVEN.
ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? YEAH, I'M NOT CHECKING THAT MATH.
ORIGINALLY IT WAS 11 BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A DECEMBER, BUT NOW WE'RE DOWN TO JUST NINE.
DO I HEAR SEVEN? WE CAN TAKE BIDDING.
AND IF WE'RE OKAY WITH THIS, WE'LL TAKE IT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEES WHERE WE COULD POSSIBLY, UM, REDUCE THEIR NUMBERS OF MEETINGS AS WELL IF THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A GAP BETWEEN BOARD.
JENNIFER, I WORRY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT NOT HAVING A SEPTEMBER TAC MEETING BECAUSE, UM, SUMMER AND SO I DO WONDER IF, UM, THERE'S TOO MUCH OF A GAP BETWEEN AUGUST 28TH AND OCTOBER 22ND FOR MAKING SURE WE CAN REACT, ACT AND WE CAN ALWAYS SCHEDULE SPECIAL TECH MEETINGS IF WE NEED THEM.
ERIC GOFF, UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE SOME TIME TO LOOK AT THIS TO MAKE SURE THERE AREN'T ANY GAPS, UM, BETWEEN, UH, WHEN TECH GETS TO THE BOARD TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ENOUGH TIME, UM, AND UNDERSTAND IS THERE A REASON THAT WE'RE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEETINGS NEXT YEAR? I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SPEAK TO THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY APPROVED IN THEIR SCHEDULE.
UM, YEAH, I THINK THEY APPROVED IT AT THE FEBRUARY BOARD.
AND, AND WHICH, WHICH MEETING ARE, ARE THEY NOT HAVING AGAIN AT THE BOARD? I SEE IT'S, SO THEY'RE HAVING FEBRUARY, APRIL, JUNE, SEPTEMBER AND DECEMBER.
SO ERIC, THERE WERE TWO SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAD TAC MEETINGS THAT WERE SCHEDULED, I MEAN WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ERCOT BOARD MEETING.
AND THAT JUST DIDN'T SEEM LIKE A, A GREAT, UH, USE OF TIME.
UM, SO LIKE ANNE MENTIONED, WE LOOKED AT, LOOKED AT CANCELING AND, AND SHUFFLING THE, THE DATE TO MAKE A LINEUP A LITTLE BETTER AS FAR AS HOW, HOW WE EXPECT THINGS TO FLOW.
BUT WE'RE, WE'RE OPEN TO, TO THOUGHTS THAT OTHERS HAVE.
AND WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE A DECISION THIS MONTH IF WE WANNA BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH TO SEE IF PEOPLE HAVE OTHER SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO REARRANGE THINGS.
YEAH, WHILE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR, I WAS ALSO GONNA ASK ON FEBRUARY THE 24TH, IT'S THAT WEEK OF THE, UH, OF THE CONFERENCE, I WAS GOING TO SEE IF WE MIGHT CONSIDER MOVING THAT 24TH TO THE 19TH.
UM, JUST BECAUSE MONDAY TAG MEETINGS ARE, ARE A LITTLE TOUGH SOMETIMES.
UM, HEARKENING BACK TO SOME OF OUR DISCUSSION FROM THIS MORNING ABOUT THE ANCILLARY SERVICES APPROVAL TIMEFRAME, UM, WITH THE CHANGE FOR THE COMMISSION TO HAVE FINAL APPROVAL ON THAT.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BACK UP THE, UH, THE BOARD APPROVAL OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICES TO OCTOBER THIS YEAR.
SO I'M LOOKING AT NEXT YEAR AND THINKING IF THAT SAME PROCESS PLAYS OUT, IS THE EXPECTATION THAT THE BOARD WILL TAKE THAT UP IN SEPTEMBER AND THEN THAT'LL GO TO THE COMMISSION.
JUST WANNA BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
FOR THOSE IN HERE, WE'RE, WE WILL START ON THAT NEXT WEEK.
SO IF, IF FOLKS HAVE GOT COMMENTS ON THIS, UH, AND DO WE WANNA BRING IT BACK NEXT TIME OR YOU OKAY.
BRING YOUR COMMENTS BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING.
[14. Combo Ballot (Vote)]
ALRIGHT,[03:50:01]
COREY, I THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO THE COMBO BALLOT.CAN WE GET A MOTION? KEVIN HANSEN SECOND.
SO WHAT'S ON SCREEN NOW IS FOR THIS COMBO BALLOT.
THIS IS WHAT YOU GUYS WOULD BE VOTING TO APPROVE.
THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT WEREN'T TAKEN UP EARLIER AND WEREN'T TAKEN UP UNDER ADDIT OR THEIR OWN SEPARATE BALLOTS.
AND WE WILL HOP OVER AND BEGIN UP WITH THE CONSUMERS.
ONTO THE CO-OPS AND FOLKS HAVE DEPARTED.
SO MIKE PASSED HIS TO JOHN PACKARD.
SO JOHN, YOUR VOTE FOR MIKE? YES.
ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
UH, BRIAN TEXTED ME SEPARATELY TO SAY HE HAD TO DROP, DROP FROM TAC JUST THIS MEETING, NOT THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE, SO HE'S NOT RESIGNING.
UM, BOB, YOU'VE GOT KAITLYN'S VOTE.
THANK YOU DAVID FOR RICHARD? YES.
THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S TIME AND, UH, DISCUSSION TODAY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND AURN THE MEETING.