[00:00:03]
BEFORE WE GET STARTED WITH THE TAC MEETING TODAY, I JUST WANNA VERY QUICKLY GO OVER, UH, MEETING MANAGEMENT TIPS FOR THOSE OF YOU, UH, HERE ON THE WEBEX TODAY, WE ARE USING THE QUEUE, UH, I MEAN THE CHAT TO QUEUE FOR MOTION OR DISCUSSION.
UH, PLEASE WAIT FOR THE CHAIR TO RECOGNIZE YOU BEFORE YOU BEGIN SPEAKING.
AND ALSO, UH, WHEN WE GET TO A VOTE, UH, PLEASE MAKE SURE AS WE APPROACH YOUR SEGMENT FOR THE TAX SEATED REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR ALTERNATES THAT YOU HAVE UNMUTED YOURSELF AND THEN MUTE YOURSELF AGAIN AFTER YOU VOTE.
THAT WILL HELP US BE A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENT WITH THE BALLOTING PROCESS.
IF THE WEBEX ENDS FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE GIVE US JUST A FEW MINUTES.
WE SHOULD RESTART THE WEBEX WITH THE SAME MEETING DETAILS THAT YOU USE TO LOG IN.
AND IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE WEBEX, THEN WE WILL, UH, SEND SOMETHING TO THE LISTSERV.
AND SO WITH THAT, KAITLYN, WE ARE READY TO GET STARTED, AND WE DO HAVE A QUORUM THIS MORNING.
SUSIE, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, I CAN HEAR YOU.
AND SUSIE JUST, UM, OUTLINED THE RULES.
SO IF YOU PUT C OR Q AND GET YOURSELF IN THE QUEUE, UM, I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU AND THEN YOU CAN SPEAK DURING THIS MEETING.
THIS IS ONE OF OUR SPECIAL TAX MEETINGS.
WE'VE BEEN MEETING ALMOST EVERY WEEK.
UM, WE HAD A WORKSHOP IN MAY, AND THEN OUR REGULAR MAY MEETING, UH, SPECIAL MEETING LAST WEEK, AND THEN A SPECIAL MEETING.
WE ARE FOCUSING ONLY ON NUMBER 2 45, AND WE ARE PLANNING TO TAKE A VOTE TODAY AND, AND HOPEFULLY GET THIS ITEM TO THE BOARD FOR JUNE BOARD
[1. Antitrust Admonition]
ON THE SCREEN.IF THE ANTITRUST TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS WITH ANTITRUST LIABILITY, PARTICIPANTS IN
THERE IS MORE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE PROXIES AND ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATIVE TODAY FOR ALT REPS.
IN THE IPM SEGMENT, SME HAS, UH, ALTRA SHANE THOMAS FOR PROXIES IN THE CONSUMER INDUSTRIAL SEGMENT.
GARRETT KENT HAS HIS PROXY TO ERIC SCHUBERT, UM, AND THE CONSUMER, THE, THE RESIDENTIAL PART OF THE CONSUMER SEGMENT.
ERIC GOFF HAS HIS PROXY TO NAVA FOR NORE 2 45 IN THE IRE SEGMENT.
UH, BILL BARNES, JENNIFER SCHMIDT AND JAY HARPO ALL HAVE GIVEN THEIR PROXY TO CHRIS HENDRICKS, SO HE WILL HAVE TOTAL SEGMENT CONTROL.
[2. NOGRR245, Inverter-Based Resource (IBR) Ride-Through Requirements (Vote)]
THE, THE FOCUS OF THIS MEETING IS ON NORE 2 45.I SEE THAT WE ARE RUNNING THE QUEUE THE SAME WAY WE DID LAST MEETING.
I, I DON'T THINK WE WILL NEED IT AS MUCH, BUT I I THINK IT'LL HELP US RUN THIS EFFICIENTLY STILL.
UM, AND THE GOAL HERE IS JUST TO KIND OF CUT DOWN ON SOME OF THE, THE BACK AND FORTH WHERE WE DISAGREE ON FACTS OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, SO WE HAVE A TECH REP QUEUE THAT WE WILL GO TO FIRST, AND THEN WE HAVE, UH, OTHERS QUEUE.
BUT BESIDES THAT, IT WILL WORK THE WAY SUSIE LAID OUT.
SO JUST, YOU KNOW, PUT A COMMENT IN THE CHAT TO BE PUT IN THE QUEUE AND THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU AND YOU WILL PARTICIPATE IN OUR SURE TO BE LIVELY DISCUSSION.
SO I THINK WITH THAT, WE CAN GET STARTED ON THE SUBSTANCE.
WE DID HAVE A FEW SETS OF COMMENTS COME IN, UM, AND, AND I KNOW THAT TOOK A LOT OF HARD WORK ON, ON ERCOT AND I, I'M ALSO HOPEFULLY GONNA HAVE A NPR SOON TO KIND OF HELP WITH THE EFFICIENCY ON, ON THE RED LINES.
BUT WE HAD COMMENTS FROM ERCOT THAT WE RECEIVED ON JUNE 5TH, COMMENTS AND A SLIDE FROM JOINT COMMENTERS LATE LAST NIGHT.
WE DID ALSO HAVE COMMENTS, COMMENTS FROM LUMINA.
MY MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE PROBABLY DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THOSE NOW.
IT'S KIND OF A, A NARROW ADDITION THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO, WHATEVER SUBSTANTIVE VERSION OF COMMENTS WE TAKE A VOTE ON.
SO I WILL LET NED, YOU KNOW, TRY TO MAKE THAT AS DESKTOP EDITS WHEN WE GET THERE.
SO MY THOUGHT WAS TO LET ERCOT PRESENT THEIR COMMENTS FIRST AND THEN HAVE JOINT COMMENTERS PRESENT THEIR COMMENTS AND KIND OF SEE WHERE WE ARE IN DISCUSSION.
UM, BECAUSE THESE WERE FILED LATE, I THINK MAYBE WE COULD TAKE A SUBSTANTIAL BREAK FOR PEOPLE TO CONSIDER AND DELIBERATE, BUT WE WILL KIND OF SEE HOW DISCUSSION IS GOING.
SO WITH THAT, LET, LET US START WITH THE ERCOT COMMENTS FROM, UH, JUNE 5TH.
[00:05:29]
OKAY.DO WE HAVE DAN OR SOMEBODY TO SPEAK TO THESE? HI, CAITLYN, THIS IS STEVEN SLEE WITH ERCOT.
UM, IF, IF IT'S OKAY, I CAN SPEAK TO THESE COMMENTS OKAY.
THIS IS STEVEN SLI WITH ERCOT.
UM, THESE COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED, UH, ON JUNE 5TH, AS MENTIONED.
AND THEY LARGELY REFLECT, UH, THE, THE BODY OF WORK, UH, THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON AT THE RECENT TAC MEETINGS SINCE THE, UH, REMAND FROM THE BOARD.
UH, ERCOT SUBMITTED THESE COMMENTS, UH, WITH THE ADDITIONAL, UH, COMPROMISE.
UH, I WOULD SAY THAT WERE COMPROMISES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THESE WORKSHOPS.
UM, THIS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WE FILLED.
HEY THERESA, THIS IS CINDY CALLING FROM HC.
SO JUST CALLING YOU BACK TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE.
HEY, THERESA, YOU'RE NOT ON MUTE.
SO, JUST CONTINUING ON, UM, ERCOT DOES FEEL THAT THESE COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, UH, REFLECT, UH, ALL OF THE WORK FROM THE RECENT TAC MEETINGS THAT THEY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS AND DIRECTION FROM THE ERCOT BOARD AND PUCT.
UM, ERCOT DOES, UH, HAS KIND OF ONCE AGAIN, UH, IDENTIFIED THE SAME ISSUES THAT WE PRESENTED, UH, TO TAC BACK ON MAY 10TH, UH, IN THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION.
AND, UH, WE, IF YOU'LL SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT, UM, TO, TO THE SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES.
SO IN THIS VERSION, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS AT THE LAST TAC MEETING, UH, THERE WAS, UH, SOME AGREEMENT TO PUSHING THE SGIA DATE FOR THE NEW IEE 2,800 REQUIREMENTS FROM JUNE 1ST, 2023 TO NOW AUGUST 1ST, 2024.
UM, THIS WAS HINGE ON, UH, THE COMPROMISE INCLUDING THAT, UH, REGARDLESS OF THE SGIA DATE, THAT THE MAXIMIZATION EFFORTS, UH, WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER IEEE 2,800 DASH 2022 SECTIONS FIVE, SEVEN, AND NINE.
AND IT ALSO, UH, ASSUMED THAT ANY PERFORMANCE, UH, FAILURES TO THE MAXIMIZED CAPABILITIES, EVEN IF THEY EXCEED THE MINIMUM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, WOULD HAVE TO BE MITIGATED, UH, BACK TO THOSE, UH, MAXIMIZED CAPABILITY LEVEL.
SO THAT THAT DATE PUSHING IS TIED TO THAT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE CHANGES THAT ARE PRIMARILY IN SECTION TWO 14 AS WELL AS, UH, ONE PARAGRAPH IN, IN 2.9 0.1.
SO THAT IS, UM, I THINK A KEY COMPROMISE AREA THAT HAS, UH, OCCURRED DURING, UH, THE BODY OF THE WORKSHOPS AND, AND MEETINGS THAT HAVE, UH, OCCURRED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS ON THE EXEMPTION PROCESS, UH, THERE'S EXTENSIVE MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXEMPTION PROCESS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT ERCOT RAISED.
UM, THERE IS, UH, YOU KNOW, MORE, THERE'S A OBJECTIVE REPEATABLE TYPE CRITERIA THAT'S IDENTIFIED.
UM, THAT CRITERIA IS, UH, ALSO INCLUDING, UH, RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT, UH, WHEN TRYING TO ESTABLISH WHETHER AN EXEMPTION WOULD BE ALLOWED.
UM, AND THERE'S CLEAR CRITERIA ON THAT.
AND WE'VE ALSO, UH, IDENTIFIED THE TYPES OF PHYSICAL HARDWARE UPGRADES THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE IN LOWER COST, UH, FOR A RESOURCE ENTITY, UH, TO CONSIDER TO BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.
UH, THIS IS BASED ONCE AGAIN ON, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR OBSERVATIONS OF ENTITIES AND THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT THEY'VE DONE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE AFTER PERFORMANCE FAILURES.
WE DID REMOVE THE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE, UH, SECTION, UH, AND THAT RIGHT NOW ERCOT PROPOSAL OF A COST THRESHOLD OF 40%.
UM, WAS US JUST KIND OF TAKING A LOOK AT, OKAY, HERE'S
[00:10:01]
THE POTENTIAL IMPACT, UH, OF A MAJOR EVENT WHERE THE BOARD ASKED US TO REALLY LOOK AT THAT AND HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, WOULD A REASONABLE COST THRESHOLD BE, UH, TO WHERE PHYSICAL HARDWARE, UH, IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE RESOURCE ENTITY, UH, TAC MAY CONSIDER, UH, ONE THING WE WANTED TO POINT OUT, UH, ADJUSTING THAT.UH, BUT, YOU KNOW, TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE BOARD DIRECTION, UH, ERCOT THINKS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE SHOULD BE SOME TYPE OF JUSTIFICATION OF WHERE THAT THRESHOLD SHOULD BE, UH, BASED ON RESOURCE ENTITY INPUT.
AND ALSO LOOKING AT, ONCE AGAIN, THE AVOIDANCE OF THE COST OF A MAJOR EVENT UP TO SYSTEM BLACKOUT.
UM, ERCOT HAS ALSO GIVEN OURSELVES, UH, SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW EXEMPTIONS, UH, IDENTIFYING THAT POTENTIALLY HUNDREDS OF THESE MAY COME IN ALL AT A VERY SHORT TIMEFRAME.
AND, UH, WE ALSO MADE SURE THAT, UH, THERE WAS LANGUAGE THAT CLEARLY DISALLOWED EXEMPTIONS FOR UNKNOWN OR UNVERIFIED CAPABILITIES SUCH AS PHASE ANGLE JUMP AND RADIO CHANGE FREQUENCY DURING VAULTS.
UM, WE ALSO FINALLY MADE SURE THAT THE PERFORMANCE FAILURES LANGUAGE, UH, DIDN'T RESULT IN FURTHER LOWERING OF THE REQUIREMENTS MITIGATION ACTIVITIES BEING REQUIRED TO BE IMPLEMENTED.
AND, UH, AS MENTIONED, TYING THAT TO THE MAXIMIZED RIDE THROUGH CAPABILITIES, UM, IS PART OF THE COMPROMISE IN THE FIRST BULLET, WE CAN GO A LITTLE BIT LOWER.
WE DID, UH, MAKE SURE THAT THE VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT DEGRADED, UH, BETWEEN THE CURRENT AND THE NEW.
SO WE MAINTAINED A BELOW 0.25 PER UNIT TO HAVE THE SAME CURVE AS, UH, TODAY'S LEGACY VOLTAGE WRITE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS AND THEN MULTIPLE OTHER ENHANCEMENTS TO IMPROVE CONSISTENCY AND ADD CLARIFICATION.
SO WITH THAT SAID, UH, ERCOT DOES, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION, UH, WITH ABOUT TWO OR THREE SLIDES AS WELL THAT WE CAN PULL UP, UH, WHEN APPROPRIATE.
UM, THAT PRESENTATION IS REALLY JUST, UH, THE MAIN TAKEAWAY WITH THAT IS THERE'S MULTIPLE DATES AND WE HAD A REQUEST TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHAT ARE THOSE DATES AND WHAT ARE THE TIMELINES LOOK LIKE, UM, THAT, THAT MAY HELP FACILITATE SOME UNDERSTANDING AS WELL WITH SOME OF THE CHANGES.
AND IF WE LOOK AT THIS SLIDE YEAH, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, I'M FINE WITH GOING AHEAD WITH THE SLIDE.
SO IF WE LOOK AT THIS SLIDE, THIS IS REALLY MEANT TO SHOW THAT THE SGIA DATE, UH, IN ER CO'S LANGUAGE MOVES FROM JAN JUNE 1ST, 2023 TO NOW AUGUST 1ST, 2024.
THE, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTING, UH, I BELIEVE WAS MOVED FROM FEBRUARY 1ST TO NOW APRIL 1ST, 2025.
SO THAT'S THE DATE WHERE IF THEY, IF THE RESOURCE ENTITIES, UM, ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE END OF DECEMBER 31ST, 2025, UM, THEN THEY HAVE TO, UH, GIVE THIS REPORT AND APPLY FOR AN EXTENSION.
UM, THE EXTENSION CRITERIA IS CLEARLY OUTLINED, UM, AS LONG AS THE DOCUMENTATION IS THERE, PRETTY MUCH YOU'RE GONNA GET AN EXTENSION, UH, WITH SOME REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION OF WHY YOU NEED IT.
AND THEN THAT'S THAT DUE DATE.
IF YOU GET THE EXTENSION, THEN YOU HAVE TO THE END OF 2026.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT NEXT MILESTONE DATE, THE LATEST DATE ALLOWED FOR LEGACY UNIT EXTENSION.
SO EVERYTHING IN BLUE THERE IS KIND OF THE PATH FOR LEGACY UNITS.
YOU'LL ALSO SEE THEIR JUNE 1ST 20, 28 DATE.
AND THAT'S THE DATE WHERE, UH, ANY GIM UH, MODIFICATION, UH, HAS TO BE DONE BY THAT, UM, BY THAT DATE.
I, I ACTUALLY HAVE AN ERROR HERE THAT I'M, I'M SEEING IN THAT THAT THAT 12 31 26 IS ACTUALLY 12 31 27, UM, UP THERE.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS DONE, BUT THAT NEEDS TO SHIFT OVER RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THAT 1 1 28.
SO THERE, THERE IS SOME PROVISION AND PHASE IN FOR THE, UM, IMPROVEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO MAXIMIZE, UH, EQUIPMENT CAPABILITY, UH, AND ENSURE EVERYBODY, UH, CAN DO THEIR BEST TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE ON THE NEW UNITS.
UH, THAT IS WHEN THAT SGIA DATE IS.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SWIM LANES BELOW THE BLUE BARS, THERE IS, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR CLARITY, JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN SGIA DATE OF 8 1 24,
[00:15:01]
WE'RE NOT GONNA SEE UNITS ACTUALLY COME IN TO SERVICE FOR 12, 18 MONTHS AFTER THAT AT BEST FOR THEM TO COME ONLINE AND SYNCHRONIZE.SO THERE IS A WINDOW OF TIME WHERE WE WON'T SEE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SYSTEM BY DELAYING THAT DATE.
HOWEVER, WHEN THEY DO COME ON AND SYNCHRONIZE, UM, THEY, THEY SHOULD ALREADY BE MAXIMIZED, BUT IF FOR SOME REASON THEY CAN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND THEY NEED, UH, ANOTHER EXTENSION, UH, THEY HAVE UP TO 24 MONTHS OR AT THE MAXIMUM DECEMBER 31ST, 2028, TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE FOR, UM, ALL OF THE IEE 2,800 AND PREFERRED VOLTAGE REQUIREMENTS.
SO THOSE ARE REALLY THE KEY DATES, UH, THAT WE WANTED TO MENTION.
AND, UM, HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY.
IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
THIS IS JUST REALLY A, A, A SUMMARY, UH, IN THAT, UH, WE, WE FEEL LIKE THE COMMENTS, UH, ADDRESS THE CONCERNS AND THE DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD AND PECT, UH, WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN FOCUSING ON, THIS, WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS.
UM, WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE COMPROMISES THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED ARE INCLUDED IN THE LANGUAGE AND, UM, WE FEEL LIKE IT ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS NOTED IN THE APPENDIX BELOW, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THE, THE MAY 20, MAY 10TH, 2024 TAC MEETING PRESENTATION, ALL THE, YOU KNOW, ISSUES ONE, TWO A TO B, ALL THOSE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THIS PRESENTATION JUST AS A REFERENCE BELOW AND ADDRESSES OTHER CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY ISSUES.
SO WE, WE ASKED TAC TO APPROVE OUR ER CAP COMMENTS, UH, WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE RELIABILITY RISK THAT NO 2 45 WAS INTENDED TO ADDRESS AND IS RESPONSIVE TO THE, TO THE BOARD AND PUCT CONCERNS.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL PAUSE FOR QUESTIONS AND, UM, AND BE ABLE TO POINT TO ANY OTHER SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ANYBODY MAY BE INTERESTED IN.
WE HAVE A COUPLE ROOMS IN THE QUEUE RIGHT AWAY.
YEAH, CAITLYN, I, I'M JUST READY TO KINDA GET THINGS MOVING.
I, I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS AND I PARTICULARLY APPRECIATE THE, THE, THE DIAGRAM AND TIMELINE, UM, AS STEVEN ASKED, UM, LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE.
UH, AND I'M PREPARED TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, ERCOT COMMENTS, UH, THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO US TODAY ON THIS, UH, REVISION REQUEST.
SO THAT IS A MOTION TO APPROVE ERCOT SIX FIVE COMMENT, AND I SEE A SECOND FROM MIKE WISE.
UM, LET, CAN LET ME FINISH UP DISCUSSION ON THIS.
LET'S TAKE NED AND THEN WE CAN GO TO THE MOTION.
UM, SO I, I WASN'T, UH, I WASN'T ANTICIPATING TO BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT ON THE MOTION.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE LAYOUT OF THE JOINT COMMENTER'S COMMENTS.
UM, BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION, UM, I TRIED TO, YOU KNOW, DO A SIDE BY SIDE LAST NIGHT.
AND I, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT THE JOINT COMMONER'S, UH, BASELINE LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT, UH, LITTLE BIT CLEANER, AND I THINK THERE WOULD BE SOME, OR I THINK IT MIGHT BE A BETTER BASELINE TO WORK FROM, ALTHOUGH I THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE SHOULD CLEAN UP AND, AND POSSIBLY TRY TO HARMONIZE BETWEEN THE TWO.
UM, SO I'LL, I'LL LAY THAT OUT.
BUT THE, THE QUESTION I HAD WAS MUCH MORE STREAMLINED AND SIMPLE.
AND, UM, AND STEVEN, I I WANTED TO ASK IF, IF ERCOT BELIEVES THAT, IF TECH ENDORSES, UH, YOU KNOW, ANY VERSION OF NORE 2 45 TODAY, UM, WILL, IS THE BOARD PRIMED TO TAKE IT UP THIS MONTH AND THEREFORE, UH, SEND IT OVER TO THE COMMISSION, UH, PROMPTLY SO THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ADOPT IT AND, AND HAVE IT IN EFFECT FOR AUGUST ONE? I, I'D, YEAH, I'D HAVE TO ASK SOMEBODY ELSE.
I MEAN, IT'S, UH, IT'S SLATED TO BE ON THE R AND M AND BOARD AGENDA, ASSUMING THAT THERE'S ACTION BY T TODAY FOR THEIR UPCOMING MEETING.
[00:20:01]
THANK YOU, CHAD.I APPRECIATE THAT AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL, UH, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING THE, THE FEEDBACK ON THAT DATE, I, I THINK THERE, THAT AUGUST ONE IS, UM, IS WORKABLE AS LONG AS, AS LONG AS THAT'S THE, THE PATH FORWARD, REALIZE THAT THE, THE JOINT COMMENT VERSION WAS SEPTEMBER ONE.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 31 DAYS, BUT, UM, AT LEAST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT.
YEAH, JUST REAL QUICKLY, WELL, FIRST THING ARE, ARE WE GONNA GO THROUGH ALL THE OTHER, UH, COMMENTS BEFORE WE TRY TO START MAKING A VOTE? 'CAUSE I'M GONNA HAVE SOME THINGS I WANNA COMMENT ON AND MAYBE OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT LATER.
SO I'M JUST LOOKING AT HOW YOU, YOU WANTED TO DO THE PROCESS ON THAT.
MY PLAN WAS, UM, AND, AND IF THIS IS OKAY WITH EVERYBODY THAT, THAT, YES, BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE, UH, AS NED SAID, RELEVANT TO THE VOTE, MY PLAN WAS TO LET JOINT COMMENTERS GO THROUGH THEIR COMMENTS, MAYBE REQUEST THAT WE KEEP THAT TO HALF AN HOUR.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AS, AS TECH MEMBERS, UM, MAY, MAY KNOW THAT THERE'S MOTIONS AVAILABLE IF YOU WANT TO CUT DISCUSSION OFF, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME YOU CAN, YOU CAN CALL THE QUESTION OR MAKE A MOTION TO LIMIT DEBATE, BUT MY THOUGHT WAS THAT THE JOINT COMMENTER SLIDES AND COMMENTS WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE TO CERTAINLY TO HOW PEOPLE WOULD VOTE ON IT, SO THAT WE WOULD GIVE THEM TIME STILL TO GO THROUGH THAT BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE, UNLESS ANYBODY OBJECTS TO THAT.
THEN, THEN I'LL JUST HOLD MY COMMENTS TILL WE GO THROUGH THE REST OF IT.
AND I SEE A COMMENT FROM CHRIS HENDRICKS.
YEAH, I GET, MY QUESTION IS FOR ERCOT AROUND THE, THE 40% THRESHOLD, KIND OF, IF YOU COULD GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INSIGHT OF HOW YOU GOT TO THE 40% NUMBER.
YEAH, THIS IS STEVEN
I, I THINK WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE KIND OF LOOKED AT THE, UM, THE NUMBERS THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THE R AND M COMMITTEE.
I BELIEVE, UM, THEY, THE JOINT COMMENTERS CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK FOR A WIND TURBINE, IT WAS ABOUT $200,000 PER, UH, FOR TO REPLACE IN KIND AND FOR A SOLAR INVERTER, I THINK IT WAS AROUND 75,000.
AND SO, UH, ORIGINALLY WE HAD 50 JUST IN THERE.
AND, AND SO WE, WE LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF EMAILS THAT WE HAD GOTTEN BACK FROM SOME OEMS ON KIND OF VERY, VERY HIGH LEVEL, AND THEY CAVEATED THIS RIGHT, UM, ON SOME LIKE BOARDS AND, AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF, UH, REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE KIND OF TOOK, UH, THE PRICE OF THAT.
WE, WE DID LIKE A VERY LOOSE, UH, CALCULATION ABOUT, OKAY, HERE'S MATERIALS AND YOU FIGURE O AND M AND OVERHEAD.
UM, AND IT SEEMED LIKE THAT WOULD FALL UNDER, UH, LIKE AN $80,000, UH, TYPE, YOU KNOW, VIEW PER, PER TURBINE.
UH, SO THAT WAS JUST THE, THE BASIS OF, OF US KIND OF DOING A VERY BACK OF THE ENVELOPE, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT WHAT COULD BE A REASONABLE, YOU KNOW, THRESHOLD TO GET SOME OF THESE, UH, POTENTIALLY READILY AVAILABLE, UH, IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLOW SOME OF THESE UNITS TO RIDE THROUGH.
THANKS, STEVEN FOR THAT EXPLANATION.
MARK, MARK, YOU WITH US, MS. MARK ON, OKAY, COLLEEN, BACK IN.
[00:25:01]
SAY YOUR COMMENT WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON MARK? YEAH.UM, ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH A, A COST CAP AS A FIXED PERCENTAGE IS THAT IT A MISSES MANY OF THE OTHER FACTORS ASSOCIATED, UM, WITH A, A DETERMINATION OF IF IT'S REASONABLE.
UM, I MENTIONED SOME OF THOSE IN THE CHAT, I'M HAPPY TO GET TO THAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE, BUT YOU KNOW, TO KEEP IT BRIEF, WE, WE DON'T THINK A SIMPLE COST CAP, UM, AS A PERCENTAGE, IT WILL LEAD TO THE CORRECT OUTCOMES.
LET'S GO BACK TO, MARK IS BACK.
I DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MUTE BUTTON AND THE HANG UP BUTTON.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE TIMELINE THAT STEVEN PRESENTED.
UM, IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THAT.
SO STEVEN, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT, THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN THE, THE LAST MEETINGS QUITE A BIT IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE AND WHETHER WE SHOULD MAKE THAT DISTINCTION AND THE COMMITMENT TO CARRY OUT ALL SOFTWARE UPGRADES TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE FACILITIES.
AND COULD YOU WALK THROUGH FOR ME IN THIS TIMELINE WHERE THE TIMELINE IS SPECIFIC TO SOFTWARE VERSUS HARDWARE? ARE THERE DISTINCTIONS OR IS THE TIMELINE THE SAME FOR SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE UPGRADES? THANKS.
UH, I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, WE'RE SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE BLUE BARS FIRST OR THE LEGACY UNITS, UM, BECAUSE THE, THE NEW UNITS SHOULD HAVE ALL OF THAT IN THE DESIGN, RIGHT? SO IT, IT SHOULD ALL BE DONE, UH, UNIFORMLY.
SO FOR THE LEGACY UNITS, THERE IS NO DISTINCTION, UH, BETWEEN SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE.
UM, WE FEEL LIKE THE, THE RESOURCE ENTITIES MAY CHOOSE TO COORDINATE THAT SO THAT THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO DO IT SEQUENTIALLY.
UH, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ARE TO MAKE, UH, SEVERAL SOFTWARE CHANGES, BUT THREE MONTHS LATER YOU'RE GOING TO INSTALL THE CARD, AND THE CARD THEN REQUIRES YOU TO IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL, UH, SOFTWARE PARAMETERIZATION CHANGES, THEY MAY CHOOSE TO OPTIMIZE THAT AND DO IT TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME.
AND FOR EXAMPLE, IF THAT WAS A REASON FOR THEM TO NEED TO GO BEYOND DECEMBER 31ST, 2025, THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED, UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND COORDINATE THE SOFTWARE.
UH, SO REALLY THIS GIVES FLEXIBILITY FOR THE RESOURCE ENTITIES TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE MOST EFFICIENT MANNER THAT THEY, THEY SEE.
YEAH, JUST A COUPLE THINGS REAL QUICKLY, AND I JUST
AND I HAVE TO SAY MY NUMBERS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT, UH, WAS JUST SPOKEN TO A MINUTE AGO.
BUT EVEN USING THOSE NUMBERS, IF YOU LOOK AT A PLANT THAT YOU SAID 80 K PER TURBINE, IF I'VE GOT 50 TURBINES OUT THERE, YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO INVEST CAPEX AT, AT $4 BILLION TO MAKE THOSE UPGRADES.
AND THE ONLY POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE THERE IS WE CAN'T JUST LOOK AT THIS AS AN INDIVIDUAL PIECE OF PER TURBINE.
UH, THE HIGHER NUMBER YOU GET OVERALL, THE MORE EFFECT IT'S GONNA HAVE AND POTENTIALLY THE MORE, UH, FACILITIES THAT ARE GONNA SAY, I CAN'T DO IT.
SO WE JUST NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.
UH, SO LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF 80 K ISN'T REALLY THE REAL NUMBER.
THE REAL NUMBER IS $4 MILLION, DEPENDING, AND THAT'S, OF COURSE, I'M JUST USING 50 TURBINES AS AN EXAMPLE.
SO I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO AGREE, YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT AS WE'RE LOOKING ABOUT THAT.
AND I DO HAVE MORE COMMENTS ON THAT, THAT 40% LATER.
UM, THE SECOND THING IS, IS, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, UH, UH, STEVEN, FOR PUTTING THIS TIMELINE TOGETHER.
UH, THIS HELPS OUT TREMENDOUSLY.
UH, BUT THERE WAS ONE QUESTION ON THERE.
UH, YOU OKAY, NEVERMIND I TAKE THAT QUESTION BACK.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE WRONG DATE, SO THAT'S OKAY.
EVERYTHING'S GOOD THERE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP.
SINCE STEVEN TALKED ABOUT THE 80 K, YOU GOTTA LOOK AT
[00:30:01]
AGGREGATE OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PLANT AND, AND HOW MUCH CAPEX A A PLANT IS WILLING TO SPEND TO KEEP IT GOING.AND THAT'S AN OVERALL NUMBER, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL NUMBER FOR PER TURBINE.
OKAY, STEVEN, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND RESPOND TO THAT.
UH, YEAH, SO I, I THINK ONCE AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE OUR OBJECTIVE, WHICH WAS TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE, SPECIFICALLY THE PCT FEEDBACK AND THAT THEY WANTED A MORE OBJECTIVE, A REPEATABLE CRITERIA, OBVIOUSLY FROM THE SYSTEM STANDPOINT, UM, AND ELECTRONS FROM, UH, ONE UNIT WITH MORE FAVORABLE, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL POSSIBILITIES VERSUS ANOTHER ONE, IT IT'S AGNOSTIC, RIGHT? SO THE ELECTRONS AND, AND THE NEED FOR SUPPORT FOR THE SYSTEM IS INDEPENDENT OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
UH, SO IF, IF THE 40% ISN'T THE RIGHT THRESHOLD AND MAYBE OUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE ARE TOO GREAT, THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, I WANT TO JUST REITERATE, I THINK ERCOT WAS OPEN TO HAVING SOME DIFFERENT TYPE OF NUMBER THERE.
UM, THAT'S OBJECTIVE AND REPEATABLE THAT MEETS THOSE SAME CRITERIA.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, WITH WHATEVER JUSTIFICATION THE RESOURCE ENTITIES HAVE RELATIVE TO THE OTHER BOARD DIRECTION, WHICH IS LOOK AT THE COST TO THE SYSTEM AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KIND OF TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION SOMEHOW.
SO THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO MOVE THAT NUMBER IS WHAT I WANTED TO SAY WITH THE APPROPRIATE JUSTIFICATION OF WHY IT NEEDS TO BE AT A DIFFERENT PERCENTAGE AND WHY THAT MAKES SENSE IN TERMS OF THE SYSTEM RISK.
UM, SO AGAIN, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND LET JOINT COMMENTERS PRESENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, AS JUST AS RELEVANT TO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, AND THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO APPROVE
UM, AND YOU KNOW, TECH MEMBERS JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU HAVE A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION OR MOTION TO LIMIT DEBATE AT YOUR DISPOSAL, BUT I THINK THIS IS RELEVANT INFORMATION THAT WE SHOULD GET THROUGH.
IS THIS ERIC? I THINK IT'S NED FIRST.
HE'S GOT A PROCEDURAL QUESTION.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO SEE, YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE, THE PRESENTATION FROM JOINT COMMENTERS.
SHOULD WE BE ASKING QUESTIONS DURING THIS PRESENTATION OR, UM, SHOULD WE HOLD THOSE GIVEN THE MOTION ON THE TABLE AND COME BACK TO IT DEPENDING ON THAT OAK? I THINK IT'S A GRAY, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU ASKING KIND OF A RULES QUESTION? COREY AND I DISCUSSED THIS A LITTLE BIT.
I THINK ANYTHING KIND OF RELEVANT TO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, WHICH I, I WOULD GUESS INCLUDES, YOU KNOW, INFORMATION THAT TAC MEMBERS MAY GLEAN THROUGH QUESTIONS TO JOINT COMMENTERS WOULD BE OKAY.
I, I WOULD SAY LET'S GO AHEAD AND, AND ASK THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT IF IT SEEMS LIKE THE DEBATE IS BECOMING KIND OF CIRCULAR, WE WE CAN ADDRESS THAT.
UNLESS ERIC, IS THAT FINE? UN UNLESS THERE'S A WAY ERIC WANTS TO TAKE QUESTIONS AS HE GOES THROUGH THIS MATERIAL, UH, I'M HAPPY TO GET ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS.
THE OFFICIAL VERSION OF THIS CAME OUT AT 11 O'CLOCK, UH, OR SO LAST NIGHT.
UM, WE'VE BEEN WORKING EVERY DAY SINCE THE LAST TAC MEETING, INCLUDING THE WEEKEND TO GET IT TO YOU AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
UM, BUT REGARDLESS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY BEEN, YOU KNOW, A FEW HOURS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS, SO I WOULD WELCOME QUESTIONS JUST GIVEN THAT, THAT TIMEFRAME.
IT'S, IT'S 10 0 4, SO LET'S, UM, LET'S JUST, YOU KNOW, GO THROUGH IT AND TAKE QUESTIONS AS, AS THEY COME UP.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL SEE HOW DISCUSSION GOES.
YOU KNOW, ANY MEMBER HAS THOSE MOTIONS AT THEIR DISPOSAL, SO IF THEY DON'T LIKE HOW THE DISCUSSION IS GOING, UM, YOU, YOU HAVE AUTONOMY TO MAKE A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTIONNAIRE LIMIT DEBATE AS YOU DO ALWAYS.
SO AT A HIGH LEVEL, WHAT THESE COMMENTS DO IS ATTEMPT TO IMPLEMENT THE DECOUPLING
[00:35:01]
DISCUSSION THAT HAPPENED AT THE LAST MEETING.UM, AND IT DOES THAT BY, UM, REQUIRING MAXIMIZATION, UM, TO, UH, ALL, UH, EXISTING FACILITIES WITH SOFTWARE SETTINGS, FIRMWARE, ET CETERA, UM, AND UPDATED ACCURATE MODELING, UH, FOR, FOR EVERYTHING AS WELL.
UM, THAT TIMELINE IS ALL LAID OUT IN THE, UH, NEW SECTION TWO POINT 11, UM, WHICH, UH, IS WHERE THE COMMERCIAL REASONABILITY SECTION USED TO BE, UH, THAT IS NO LONGER THERE.
UM, IT, UM, ALSO HAS A DATE, UH, FOR THE NEW RESOURCES OF SEPTEMBER 1ST.
UM, WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT AUGUST 1ST VERSUS SEPTEMBER 1ST.
UM, I, I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE AN ISSUE.
UM, AND, UH, THE MAXIMIZATION WOULD, UH, REQUIRE YOU TO, UM, DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO, TO MAXIMIZE, AND IF YOU EXCEED THAT, UM, THAT'S ENCOURAGED TO, TO DO AS WELL AS YOU CAN, UM, THROUGH SOME OF THE PROCEDURES WE SET UP IN TWO POINT 14, WHICH IS THE PROCEDURES AFTER OR A RIDE THROUGH EVENT.
UM, WE THINK THAT, UH, THIS MAXIMIZATION PROCEDURE, UH, MEETS ER KAT'S GOALS, BUT IF THERE IS SPECIFIC DETAILS ABOUT HOW IT, YOU KNOW, MIGHT BE CHANGED, WE'D BE HAPPY TO TALK THOSE THROUGH.
I THINK WE HAVE THE SAME INTENTION AND DESIRES OR, YOU KNOW, VERY SIMILAR INTENTIONS AND DESIRES, UM, IN REGARDS TO, UM, WHY, UM, DECOUPLE THE HARDWARE VERSUS SOMETHING ELSE.
UM, IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE, UM, YOU KNOW, LANGUAGE THAT WENT FORWARD WITH THE, THE DISPUTED HARDWARE ISSUES, UM, THAT WOULD PROBABLY RESULT IN AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION, UM, OVER THOSE DISPUTED, YOU KNOW, HARDWARE PROCEDURES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
UM, WHEREAS DECOUPLING, UM, GIVES TIME TO, UH, CONTINUE TO WORK ON THOSE ISSUES AND, AND HOPEFULLY FIND A, A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE RESOLUTION, YOU KNOW, WITH LESS OF AN URGENCY TO GET EVERYTHING DONE, BECAUSE WE WANT TO ALSO MAXIMIZE AND PUT IN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW RESOURCES.
UM, WE'RE HAPPY TO COMMIT TO THAT PROCESS IN, IN WAYS THAT TAC WOULD FIND AGREEABLE, UM, TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU FEEL LIKE WE'RE, UH, WE HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME ON, ON GETTING THAT RESOLVED.
UM, AND WE'RE, WE'RE OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS ON, ON HOW TO ACHIEVE THAT.
UM, THAT, THAT SAID, I, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE HAS ABOUT, UH, THIS PROCESS.
UM, BUT BEFORE WE DO, I ALSO HAVE A SLIDE, UH, UH, WHERE WE, UM, UM, KIND OF WENT OVER A COMPARISON OF WHERE WE THINK WE'VE ACHIEVED OR ADDRESSED ER KAT'S QUESTIONS.
UM, SO WE ALSO SENT OUT A SLIDE DECK LAST NIGHT.
IF YOU COULD PULL THAT UP, OR JUST A SLIDE, EXCUSE ME, GIMME A SECOND.
WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, UM, I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT AS PART OF REMOVING THE, UH, HARDWARE CHANGES, UH, PROPOSALS, WE ALSO, UM, REMOVED ALL OF THE STUFF RELATED TO EXEMPTIONS, APPEALS AFTER EXEMPTIONS, UM, THE COMMERCIAL REASONABILITY, UM, AND, AND, AND EVERYTHING ELSE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
AND SO THIS IS A SHORTER DOCUMENT, UM, THAT, UH, SHOULD BE, UH, SIMPLER.
I THINK MANY OF THE COSTS AND THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT WERE RELATED TO UNCERTAINTY THAT ERCOT HAS AROUND THE EXEMPTION PROCESS AND HOW MANY APPEALS OR EXEMPTIONS IT WOULD BE GETTING.
UM, AND SO JUST ON A, A COST AND AND SIMPLICITY PERSPECTIVE, UH, WE, WE THINK THIS IS
[00:40:01]
A, A, A BETTER APPROACH, SO WE CAN TRY TO GET TO A, A SIMPLER AND LESS, YOU KNOW, LITIGIOUS OUTCOME.SO WE'RE WAITING ON THE SLIDE TO COME UP? I THINK SO, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GET ANY QUESTIONS.
YEAH, JUST SENT IT TO ME SO I'M GIVE TIME TO GET IT OVER ONTO THIS MACHINE.
YOU WANT TO TAKE A QUESTION FROM CHRIS HENDRICK WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT? I'D BE HAPPY TO ERIC, SO GO AHEAD CHRIS.
YEAH, WHILE THEY'RE PULLING UP THE SLIDE, I GUESS SINCE IT, THERE IS A LOT OF CHANGES SINCE WE JUST, YOU KNOW, GOT IT.
AT THE LAST THING, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW APPRECIATE HOW HARD EVERYBODY'S BEEN WORKING ON IT WALK THROUGH, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, SO REALLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND SEE IF I GOT IT RIGHT AND EDUCATE ME IF NOT, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BASICALLY PUTTING ALL THE LEGACY UNITS AT A CERTAIN AGE ON HOLD AND COVERING THOSE AT A DIFFERENT TIME AND MAKING THE, THE MAXIMIZATION THROUGH SOFTWARE UPDATES EFFECTIVE WITH THIS NOER, IS THAT CORRECT? Y YES, THIS WOULD REQUIRE MAXIMIZATION OF ALL OF THOSE LEGACY UNITS, UM, BUT DEFER, UM, THE HARDWARE CHANGES TO THOSE LEGACY UNITS AND THEY WOULD ALSO PUT IN A DATE, UM, THAT WOULD REQUIRE ALL NEW UNITS TO MEET THE NEW REQUIREMENTS.
OH, AND ERIC, SO THE DATE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE NEW UNITS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT, IS THAT YOUR PROPOSED DATE OF SEPTEMBER 1ST OF 24? UH, YES, THAT'S WHERE WE PUT IN HERE, BUT, BUT LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE ERCOT PUT IN AUGUST 1ST, AND, UM, WE COULD LIVE WITH AUGUST 1ST AS WELL IF, OR IF TAK WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE COMMENTS WITH THAT EDIT.
UM, ERIC, UH, I, I READ THROUGH THE, THE MAXIMIZATION LANGUAGE THAT Y'ALL PROVIDED, AND I THINK THAT THAT ACCURATELY CAPTURES A LOT OF THE CONCEPTS THAT WE DISCUSSED IN OUR MEETING LAST WEEK.
SO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT JOINT COMMENTERS DID ON THAT.
AND, AND FRANKLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE, UH, ERCOT, UH, COMMENTS ARE, ARE TO MOVE FORWARD, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS MAPPED INTO, INTO THOSE AS AMONG OTHER THINGS.
BUT, UM, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, I THINK GIVEN THE, THE SCOPE OF DIFFERENCES, I I, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO, UM, YOU KNOW, USE THE JOINT COMMENTERS APPROACH, UH, COMMENTS FROM LAST NIGHT AS THE BASELINE TO WORK FROM RECOGNIZING THERE MAY BE OTHER, UH, OTHER CHANGES NEEDED.
UM, ONE, UH, UH, IN ADDITION TO, YOU KNOW, SWAPPING OUT SEPTEMBER FOR AUGUST, UM, IN YOUR MAXIMIZATION LANGUAGE, UM, THERE IS A, A, I THINK THE SECOND PARAGRAPH SAYS THE TERMS MAXIMIZATION OR THE TERM MAXIMIZATION IS USED THROUGHOUT THE SECTION AND THEN ALL THE REFERENCES.
UM, I, I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO ALSO ADD, UM, THE TERM MAXIMUM AND, AND THEIR VARIANCE TO THAT SINCE I THINK THE, THE TERM MAXIMIZATION GETS USED A LOT, BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO, UH, ITERATIONS OF THE WORD MAXIMUM.
SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT IT'S UNIVERSAL.
BUT THAT'S, THERE'S NO, YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY KIND OF MOTION TO AMEND OR ANYTHING AT THIS TIME.
NED? I, I WILL HOLD THAT AND I HAVE OTHER, OTHER, OKAY.
YEAH, I HAVE OTHER THINGS THAT I WOULD, UH, BRING UP, BUT I, I WANTED TO AT LEAST MAKE THAT ONE, UM, UH, SINCE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MAXIMIZATION, IF, IF THERE ARE,
[00:45:01]
IF IT'S OPEN TO MORE, MORE DISCUSSION ON THE JOINT COMMENTERS, I CAN, I CAN GO THROUGH AND HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT, UH, WANTED TO KEEP IT IN LINE.ARE WE ON THE, WE'RE STILL LOOKING FOR THE CORRECT SLIDE.
OKAY, LET'S GO TO CHASE SMITH.
HEY, CAITLYN, THIS IS CHASE SMITH.
CAN YOU CONFIRM? YOU CAN HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UM, THIS IS CHASE FROM THE SOUTHERN POWER.
UH, I'VE GOT A COUPLE COMMENTS AND, AND A QUESTION.
UM, MY OVERARCHING COMMENT IS JUST TO REEMPHASIZE, UM, KIND OF HOW ERIC INTRODUCED THE JOINT COMMENTERS COMMENTS.
WE, OUR INTENTION WAS TO, UM, MORE FURTHER DEFINE THE MAXIMIZATION CONCEPT, ESTABLISH, UM, IEE RIDE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW IBR AND TO ADDRESS VARIOUS, UM, OF ERCOT CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED, BUT ALSO TO PROVIDE US MORE TIME, UH, TO WORK ON POLICY DEVELOPMENT FOR, UH, SOME OF THE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS AROUND EXEMPTION, EXACT EXEMPTION CRITERIA AND PHYSICAL MODIFICATIONS.
UH, SO THAT'S JUST A OVERARCHING COMMENT AND THIS, THIS, UM, SLIDE TRIES TO KIND OF SUMMARIZE THAT AS WELL, THAT ERIC CAN TALK THROUGH, UH, A COUPLE COMMENTS AND A QUESTION ON THE ERCOT LANGUAGE.
UM, I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ONE OF, WE HAVE STRUGGLED WITH TRYING TO DEFINE THE EXACT RIGHT NUMBER FOR, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PERCENTAGE, UM, ON, ON THE, THE COST FOR MAKING PHYSICAL CHANGES.
UM, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO TO, TO REALLY DEFINE THAT SUPER PRECISELY.
UM, I I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK WITHOUT OFFERING AN EXACT ALTERNATIVE, I DO THINK 40% IS TOO HIGH.
UM, AND I GUESS MY REASONING BEHIND THAT IS I THINK THERE'S, I HEARD A FEW COST PER INVERTER TURBINE, UH, NUMBERS THROWN AROUND.
I, I THINK THERE'S LIKELY SOME UNCERTAINTY ON EXACTLY WHAT THE RANGE OF THAT IS.
UM, AND JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, I'VE HEARD A HIGHER, A MUCH HIGHER NUMBER OF A COST OF A NEW WIND TURBINE, UM, THAN WHAT I HEARD EARLIER IN THIS CONVERSATION.
SO, UM, I, I JUST THINK FOR THAT REASON, UM, THERE SHOULD BE, THERE, THERE ARE SOME UNCERTAINTY AND VARIANCE POTENTIALLY, I GUESS, ON WHAT THE COST OF A NEW INVERTER TURBINE REPLACEMENT IS.
AND, AND FOR THAT REASON, I WOULD SUPPORT A, A LOWER PERCENTAGE THAN 40 WITHOUT GIVING AN ALTERNATIVE.
AND I THINK THE JOINT COMMENTERS HAVE, HAVE STRUGGLED WITH DEFINING THAT SUPER PRECISELY, AND THAT'S WHY WE PROPOSED WHAT WE PROPOSED TO ALLOW MORE TIME TO WORK ON THAT QUESTION.
THAT'S ONE, UM, ANOTHER COMMENT ON THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA.
UH, I THINK THE CURRENT NUMBER, UM, FOR ERCOT REVIEW IS THE 500 MEGAWATTS.
I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT SOME OVER THE PAST FEW TAC MEETINGS, AND THAT'S TIED TO THE NORCO PORTABLE EVENT NUMBER.
UM, I, I THINK THAT IS SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY AND I WOULD PROPOSE THAT SIMILAR TO THE, MY PRIOR COMMENT, I THINK THE JOINT COMMERCE HAVE STRUGGLED WITH TRYING TO DEFINE THIS SUPER PRECISELY AND WANT MORE TIME, BUT I THINK AT A MINIMUM I'VE HEARD THE CONCEPT OF MOST SEVERE SINGLE CONTINGENCY AS AN ALTERNATIVE, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BETTER BALANCE, UM, AS FAR AS EXACTLY WHAT ERCOT IS REVIEWING WHEN IN, IN THE EXEMPTIONS.
MY, MY QUESTION IS RELATES TO THE COST CAP CONCEPT 40%.
THAT I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL IF MAYBE STEVEN COULD WALK THROUGH AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ERCOT ISS THINKING THAT WOULD WORK.
UM, AND JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF, IF ERIC WANTS TO PRESENT ON THIS FIRST, THEN WE CAN GO TO THAT QUESTION, BUT THANK YOU.
SO I SEE STEVEN HAD A COMMENT IN THE QUEUE, SO MAYBE LET'S LET STEVEN TALK THROUGH YOUR QUESTION ON THE, THE EXAMPLE ON THE 40%, UM, AND THEN GIVE HIS COMMENT, UM, IS WANTING TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER ERIC SLIDES.
UM, AND THEN POSSIBLY NED AND, AND THEN ERIC AND HIS SLIDE.
YEAH, SO KATELYN, YOUR, YOUR COMMENT AND IF YOUR COMMENT WAS DIFFERENT, UH, ALSO THE ANSWER TO CHASE'S QUESTION.
SO I'LL TRY TO ANSWER CHASE'S QUESTION FIRST.
UH, AND, AND THEN I THINK WE JUST HAVE GENERAL COMMENTS FROM ERCOT THAT WE'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE SURE WE, WE STATE, UH, YOU
[00:50:01]
KNOW, UPFRONT.SO CHASE TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT HOW WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE, I THINK THAT'S WHY WE LISTED ALL OF THE, UM, COST INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO ERCOT, UM, AS PART OF THE REPORT.
SO THAT ESSENTIALLY THAT'S GOING TO SHOW THAT THE RESOURCE ENTITY HAS LOOKED AT ITS EQUIPMENT, ITS DISCUSSED THIS WITH ITS OEM, AND IT SAYS, HERE'S ALL MY OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
I HAVE OPTION A, B, C, D, E, F, WHATEVER YOU HAVE.
AND HERE'S THE COST OF EACH OF THOSE OPTIONS, AND HERE'S THE COST TO JUST REPLACE EVERYTHING SO THAT THAT'S YOUR BASELINE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, RIGHT? WHICH THAT'S WHY WE SAY PERCENTAGE IS BECAUSE THEN IT MAY VARY WITH THE COST OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL TURBINE.
AND ESSENTIALLY THAT'S GONNA CREATE A BRIGHT LINE CUT CRITERIA THAT IF THE PROJECT COSTS MORE THAN THAT BRIGHT LINE CRITERIA, THEN YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO TO DO IT.
IF IT COSTS LESS, UM, IT SHOWS VALUE IN GETTING CLOSER OR TO THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, THEN THAT'S A MUCH SIMPLER EVALUATION.
AND, AND THAT'S OUR APPROACH, UH, ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
SO BEFORE I GO INTO MY OTHER COMMENTS, I JUST WANNA PAUSE THERE AND SEE IF THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, CHASE.
I'M NOT GETTING, UH, IT MAY BE ME, BUT I'M NOT HEARING YOU.
YEAH, NO, IT'S, I THINK IT'S, IT'S CHASE.
SO IT'S, IT'S PRETTY FAINT AND GARBLED.
SO, CAITLIN, SHOULD I GO WITH MY OTHER COMMENT NOW? ARE YOUR OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT JOINT COMMENTERS COMMENTS OR SLIDES OR, OR WHAT, WHAT ARE THEY REGARDING JOINT COMMENTERS, COMMENTS, SLIDES, AND SOME OF THE MAXIMIZATION, THIS COMMENTS THAT WE'RE HEARING? OKAY, WHY DON'T WE LET ERIC GO THROUGH HIS SLIDE FIRST AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL GO TO BACK TO YOU IN THE QUEUE.
UM, SO THIS, UH, SLIDE, UM, I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS OUR ATTENTION HERE, BUT TO SHOW THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS ER, KAT'S OUTSTANDING ISSUES WITH THE, UM, DECOUPLING APPROACH HERE, UM, AND ANSWER THEIR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
SO, YOU KNOW, FOR NUMBER ONE, UM, THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY, UM, BASED ON HAVING EDITED PRIOR ERCOT COMMENTS, THE SOFTWARE CHANGES ONLY WENT TO THE LEGACY REQUIREMENTS, BUT NOW THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MAXIMIZE TO THE CAPABILITY OF THE EQUIPMENT WITH SOFTWARE CHANGES.
UM, THE EXEMPTION PROCESS, YOU KNOW, HAD MULTIPLE ISSUES, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, WERE UNRESOLVED AND, UH, NOT, NOT RESOLVED BY THIS TIME.
AND SO WE'RE DEFERRING WORKING, UH, PASSING THOSE SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON THOSE TOGETHER.
AND LIKE I SAID, WE'RE HAPPY TO COMMIT TO THAT IN WHATEVER WAY TAC WOULD LIKE US TO.
UM, THERE WAS CONCERN THAT PERFORMANCE FAILURE MITIGATION, UM, WAS NOT REQUIRED, YOU KNOW, BASED ON ONE READING OF THE LANGUAGE.
AND SO WE STRENGTHEN THAT LANGUAGE TO REQUIRE IT, UM, SPECIFICALLY.
UM, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, SO AS YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS HERE WHERE, WHERE WE'D ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS, UH, MANY OF ER KAT'S CONCERNS.
UH, THERE'S STILL SOME AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT, UM, BUT WE THINK THIS IS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESPOND TO ERCOT, UH, CONCERNS THAT I HIGHLIGHTED TO TACK.
LET'S GO TO STEVEN'S COMMENTS AND THEN WE'LL GO TO BOB AND NED.
SO STEVEN, LET'S, LET'S GO TO YOUR COMMENTS.
THANK YOU, CAITLYN, THIS IS STEVEN SICE WITH ERCOT.
SO, UH, JUST AT A HIGH LEVEL, UM, OBVIOUSLY THESE COMMENTS CAME OUT VERY LATE YESTERDAY.
[00:55:01]
WE DID, UH, BEST WE COULD IN THE, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF HOURS BEFORE THIS MEETING, UH, TO, TO GET UP EARLY AND TRY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE.UM, YOU KNOW, IN GENERAL, AT A HIGH LEVEL, ERCOT DOESN'T SUPPORT, UH, THE JOINT COMMENTERS LANGUAGE.
UH, WE FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE BOARD AND PECT DIRECTION.
UH, WE FEEL LIKE IT DOESN'T SUFFICIENTLY, UH, ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY RISK.
UH, SIMILAR TO THE, THE CURRENT TAC APPROVED LANGUAGE.
UM, WE, WE HAVE SOME MAJOR CONCERNS.
UH, ESSENTIALLY WHILE IT'S PRESENTED THIS WAY, UH, EFFECTUALLY REMOVING THE EXEMPTION PROCESS, UH, IT, IT FORCES, UH, THE EXEMPTION, RIGHT? SO IT, IT FORCES WHATEVER THE LIMITATION IS AFTER, UH, THE SOFTWARE HAS BEEN MAXIMIZED UP TO THIS NEW LANGUAGE THAT IS VERY BROAD AND GIVES THE RESOURCE ENTITY A A WHOLE LOT OF DISCRETION TO POTENTIALLY EVEN AVOID MAKING SOFTWARE, UH, MAXIMIZATION CHANGES, IT, IT FORCES THAT.
SO THERE IS NO RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT.
AGAIN, IT, IT COMPLETELY KEEPS THAT OUT OF THE PICTURE.
THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RELIABILITY COORDINATOR TO LOOK AT THE IMPACT ON THE SYSTEM AND GIVE THAT FEEDBACK TO THE RESOURCE ENTITY AND SAY, WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS, THAT THAT'S WHAT THAT EFFECTUALLY DOES.
AND, AND WE CAN'T SUPPORT THAT.
UM, THE MAXIMIZATION LANGUAGE.
I, I THINK WE WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE VERY SIMPLE STATEMENT THAT JUST HIGHLIGHTS WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE PROTOCOLS AND GUIDES THAT YOU, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOUR EQUIPMENT.
AND IF THE ENTITIES, UH, IN GOOD FAITH, YOU KNOW, ARE, UH, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OEM RECOMMENDATIONS, OTHER ENGINEERING ANALYSIS WHEN, WHEN MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR PROTECTION AND CONTROLS TO MAXIMIZE RIDE THROUGH CAPABILITY, I THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE VERY SIMPLE STATEMENT.
UM, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE IN GOOD FAITH AND IT NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT ALLOWING A BAD ACTOR TO LEVERAGE THAT LANGUAGE TO AVOID MAKING IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WE HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE WAY IT'S WORDED TODAY.
UM, AND, AND THEN FINALLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE TIMELINES AND PUSHING OUT MORE TIMELINES, I THINK WE'RE TAKING AWAY AGAIN FROM THE URGENCY OF THE MATTER, UM, OR CUTS BEEN ASKING ENTITIES TO MAKE THESE TYPES OF SOFTWARE CHANGES BACK SINCE JANUARY OF 2023 AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T OCCURRED.
UH, NERC WAS MAKING THOSE, YOU KNOW, EVEN BEFORE THAT IN 2018.
SO, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH PUSHING OUT A LOT OF THESE STATES AND JUST DOTTED THROUGH A LOT OF THESE, A LOT OF THESE AREAS IS, UH, SIMPLY A LOT OF LITTLE WORDING CHANGES HERE AND THERE THAT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LACK OF CLARITY AND LOOPHOLES AND, UM, OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENTITIES TO LEVERAGE THAT LANGUAGE TO NOT DO WHAT THE NORE WAS INTENDED TO DO.
UM, SO THAT'S OUR, OUR QUICK SYNOPSIS FROM THIS MORNING AS FAR AS OUR CO'S OPINION.
AND SO WE WOULD NOT, UH, SUPPORT THIS VERSION OR SUPPORT MAKING ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THIS VERSION AS THE BASELINE.
OKAY, A COUPLE OF THINGS BASED ON WHAT I'M SEEING ON THE SLIDES, UH, THIS IS REALLY DIRECTED TOWARD, UH, STEVEN.
THE FIRST ONE WAS WHENEVER YOU WERE ANSWERING EARLIER FROM, UH, CHASE'S QUESTION, I DIDN'T HEAR WHERE YOU GUYS STOOD ON THE POTENTIAL FOR MOVING THE 500 MEGAWATTS IN YOUR ANALYSIS TO THE LARGEST SINGLE CONTINGENCY.
UH, I DIDN'T HEAR WHERE YOU GUYS WERE AT ON THAT, SO IF, IF YOU COULD LET ME KNOW WHERE YOU'RE AT ON THAT, I'D BE APPRECIATED.
AND THEN I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
YEAH, I THINK WE, WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND, AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
UM, UH, I, I DON'T HAVE A, A QUICK RESPONSE FOR YOU THAT'S ESSENTIALLY MORE RISK YES.
UH, THAT WOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE'RE GOING TO PLAN TO HAVE EVENTS THAT WE HAVE TO THEN ANALYZE AND REPORT TO NERC AND, AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
UH, SO THOSE IMPACTS HAVE TO BE EVALUATED, UH, AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
UH, WITHOUT DOING ANY KIND OF ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS AND ANALYSIS, WE WOULD OPPOSE IT.
UM, WE WOULD NEED TIME TO GO BACK AND TAKE THAT IN-HOUSE AND DISCUSS IT TO, UM, REALLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE, THE ADOPTION OF
[01:00:01]
ADDITIONAL RISK.MY SECOND QUESTION, IT, IT, IT KIND OF DEALS WITH THE CONCERN I HAVE ON THE FAILURE.
UH, IT, LET, LET ME THROW IN A COUPLE EXAMPLES AND LET'S SAY THAT I'VE GOT A UNIT THAT EXCEEDS THE PREFERRED, UH, TO SOME DEGREE OR MEETS, MEETS OR EXCEEDS, LET'S JUST GO OFF OF THAT.
AND, BUT THE MAXIMUM CAPABILITY IS ABOVE THAT.
AND WE'VE, WE'VE INDICATED THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS GO TO THE MAXIMUM CAPABILITY.
NOW SOMETHING HAPPENS AND THAT UNIT DOESN'T RIDE THROUGH AT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, EXPECTED LEVEL THAT WE PUT IN FOR OR MAXIMUM.
AND THE WAY THE, THE PROTOCOLS ARE WRITTEN FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS THAT WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND MITIGATE THAT BACK UP TO THAT LEVEL.
AND MY CONCERN IS THAT THAT'S AN OPEN, OPEN CHECKBOOK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.
AND IT MEANS YOU GOTTA DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING YOU CAN DO TO GET BACK UP TO THAT LEVEL.
AND THAT BEING AT THAT LEVEL COULD HAVE BEEN AN ENGINEERING ERROR, COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT OF THINGS THAT, THAT, THAT WEREN'T DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO SOMETHING THAT THE, UH, OWNER DID.
SO REALLY WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS DO YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES OR WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT TYING THAT FAILURE BACK TO YOUR EXEMPTION PROCESS? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T WANT US, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY OUT THERE USING THIS TO CONTINUALLY LOWER THEIR, THEIR, THEIR THRESHOLD OF WHAT THEIR RIDE THROUGH CAPABILITY IS, FULLY GET THAT, THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANNA SEE EITHER.
BUT I ALSO AM CONCERNED ABOUT A BLANK CHECK FOR THOSE THAT ARE EVEN ABOVE THE, THE PREFERRED, UH, OB YOU KNOW, OBLIGATION RIGHT NOW.
OR EVEN IF YOU'RE A LITTLE BIT BELOW AND UH, AND YOU, YOU DON'T RIDE THROUGH RIGHT THERE AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHERE YOU CAN GO AND, YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO SOME OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT, $4 MILLION TO GET A VERY SMALL INCREMENTAL CHANGE DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
WHAT IF YOU'RE CLOSE TO WHERE YOU NEED TO BE OR IF YOU'RE WAY OVER WHERE YOU NEED TO BE FROM THE PREFERRED STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, FROM THE PREFERRED OPTION.
SO THAT WAS MY QUESTION IS DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO TIE THAT BACK TO YOUR EXEMPTION PROCESS? SO I THINK STRUCTURALLY THE LANGUAGE DOESN'T ALLOW FOR AN EXEMPTION PROCESS TODAY BEYOND THE SIX MONTH, EIGHT MONTH WINDOW THAT'S THERE TODAY IN THE LANGUAGE.
SO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, UH, IT WOULD BE A NEW EXEMPTION TYPE PROCESS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE OPEN TO CONTEMPLATE, UM, WHEN YOU HAVE EXCEEDED YOUR MAXIMUM WHEN YOU HAVE, YOU EXCEEDED YOUR MINIMUM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS BUT DIDN'T QUITE MAKE IT TO THE MAXIMUM CAPABILITY AND IT'S COSTLY FOR YOU TO GET BACK TO WHERE YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD BE.
UM, UH, I, I THINK THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES THERE IN THAT, UH, ESSENTIALLY WE MADE A LOT OF DECISIONS, RIGHT? WE PLANNED THE SYSTEM A CERTAIN WAY AND BECAUSE OF THE ERROR IN THIS EXAMPLE, UM, NOW THERE COULD BE A LOT OF OTHER COST IMPACTS TO OTHER CUSTOMERS AND OTHER ENTITIES.
AND, AND SO IT GETS REAL COMPLICATED VERY QUICKLY IF WE'RE TRYING TO, UH, PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THIS TYPE OF RARE CIRCUMSTANCE, UM, AND, AND HAVE BROAD LANGUAGE TO HANDLE IT.
AND I WOULD JUST SAY TODAY, IT DOESN'T CONTEMPLATE THAT TODAY THE LANGUAGE ADDRESSES WHAT TAC, UM, HAD ASKED ERCOT TO DO, WHICH IS TO, UH, MAKE THIS COMPROMISE OF PUSHING THE EIGHT UP OUT TO THE 8 1 24 DATE.
AND THAT'S COMPROMISE AS IT STANDS TODAY.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO LAY THAT OUT, THAT, THAT, THAT IS ONE OF MY CONCERNS THAT THAT'S A BLANK CHECK.
UH, AND THAT COULD, I'M NOT SURE HOW IMPLEMENTABLE THAT IS, AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT ON THAT.
I THINK THAT'S GONNA CREATE US PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD.
UH, AND THE REASON I WAS ASKING IS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE THAT LATER IF WE NEED TO.
UH, BUT THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK WE NEED SOME KIND OF OF CAP ON THAT.
AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE COST TO OTHERS AND HOW YOU PLAN THE SYSTEM.
UH, I, I FULLY AGREE WITH THAT, BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT HOW YOU'RE PLANNING IT IS CORRECT.
I MEAN, 'CAUSE WHAT'LL HAPPEN IS IF SOMEONE CAN'T GET THERE AND IT'S GONNA COST THEM $4 MILLION TO DO IT, THEN THEY'RE AT AND THEY DON'T DO IT, THEN THEY'RE AT COMPLIANCE RISK.
'CAUSE THEY'RE SAYING, I'VE EITHER GOTTA SHUT DOWN
[01:05:01]
OR I'M GONNA BE IN COMPLIANCE RISK AND, AND THAT'LL BE A DECISION THEY HAVE TO MAKE.AND I'M NOT SURE THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO BE IN THE LONG RUN, UH, FOR PRO, YOU KNOW, FOR PLANTS THAT ARE EVEN OVER, UH, THE PREFERRED REQUIREMENTS.
SO I THINK THERE'S SOME WORK WE PROBABLY AS MOVING FORWARD, UH, I'M NOT SAYING STOP THIS OR SLOW THIS DOWN RIGHT NOW, I'M SAYING THIS IS A BIG ISSUE I THINK MOVING FORWARD.
YEAH, BOB, JUST TO RESPOND BACK AND, AND, AND JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR, ONE SOLUTION TO THAT IS TO KEEP THE DATE AT JUNE 1ST, 2023 AND, AND THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE AND NOT HAVE THIS COMPROMISE.
UH, IT WOULD, IT WOULD, UM, IT WOULD ALLEVIATE THAT ISSUE.
UH, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT, I'M GUESSING THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WOULD FAVOR, BUT THAT IS AN OPTION TO NOT HAVING THAT POTENTIAL RARE OCCURRENCE.
WOODY, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT TO THIS CONVERSATION THAT STEVEN AND BOB WERE HAVING? UH, YES.
WHY, WHY DON'T, DON'T YOU GO AHEAD WITH YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT, THAT CONVERSATION.
I THINK STEVEN KIND OF SAID WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY TOO IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE USING THESE MODELS TO DO SYSTEM-WIDE ASSESSMENTS.
AND SO DECISIONS WE MAKE ON SYSTEM-WIDE BASIS ARE BASED ON THESE MODELS AND THE CAPABILITIES FOR THESE MODELS.
AND SO ALLOWING A UNIT THAT DOESN'T MEET THEIR MODEL EXPECTATIONS TO HAVE EXEMPTIONS AND MOVE DOWN AFFECTS THE, UH, DECISIONS ON ALL THE UNITS.
AND SO I WOULDN'T SUPPORT THAT AT ALL.
AND I'D GO BACK TO SOMETHING THAT, UH, ERIC SAID MAYBE AN HOUR AGO ABOUT THE CORRECT OUTCOMES THAT THEY, THE JCS FEEL LIKE THE VERSION THEY SUBMITTED LAST NIGHT WITH ALL THOSE CHANGES PRODUCES THE CORRECT OUTCOMES.
WELL, I THINK TAC NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THOSE OUTCOMES ARE, WHAT THE CORRECT OUTCOMES ARE, AND, AND TECH NEEDS TO WEIGH THE, THE RELIABILITY OUTCOMES VERSUS THE ECONOMIC OUTCOMES FOR THOSE INDIVIDUAL UNITS.
I WANTED TO SAY THAT EARLIER TOO, BUT UH, BACK TO THE MODELING THING, THOSE MODELS ARE IMPORTANT.
THAT'S HOW WE DO RELIABILITY ASSESSMENTS.
HAVING ACCURATE MODELS AND MEETING WHAT THOSE MODELS DO IS VERY IMPORTANT.
UM, AND TO TIME CHECK, WE ARE AT ABOUT HALF AN HOUR PAST, UM, WHEN JOY COMMENT ARE STARTED, BUT WE HAD A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH, AND ACTUALLY, I, I WANTED TO THANK EVERYBODY.
I, I THINK EVERYBODY'S DECORUM IN THE DISCUSSION TODAY HAS BEEN REALLY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE.
UM, AND SO WE'LL LET THIS KEEP GOING, BUT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE TIME-WISE, AND I SEE A LOT OF KIND OF VARIED DISCUSSIONS STARTING TO HAPPEN IN THE QUEUE.
NED, YOU ARE NEXT IN THE QUEUE.
IS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THIS SLIDE FOR ERIC? NO.
LYNN, I WAS GOING TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH SOME, SO I ACTUALLY STAYED, STAYED UP UNTIL 2:00 AM TRYING TO DO A SIDE BY SIDE OF THE TWO SETS OF COMMENTS AND HAD A FEW THINGS I WANTED TO ASK ERIC ABOUT THE JOINT COMMENTERS WHERE THERE WERE CHANGES THAT, UM, SOME, SOME MIGHT WE'RE NOT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, SO AT LEAST WANTED TO GET SOME CLARITY ON THOSE WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEM.
YEAH, IT'S GONNA BE A LIST, SO IF IT'S MORE EFFICIENT, I'M HAPPY TO WAIT UNTIL THAT'S A GOOD TIME.
I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT TIME FOR THAT.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE NEXT IN THE QUEUE AND, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ON, WE'RE ON POINT COMMENTERS COMMENTS AND, AND SLIDES.
UM, AND, AND JUST TO, YOU KNOW, AS I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO THIS DISCUSSION, THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS THAT, UH, ERCOT HAS RAISED THAT I THINK DO, DO WARRANT SOME CONSIDERATION, UM, WHETHER THAT IS, UH, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT GET MAPPED INTO THE, THE JOINT COMMENTERS AND ANY, ANYTHING THAT ARE THE ATTACK MAY WANT TO CONSIDER BASED ON THAT, UH, AS A BASELINE IS, UH, PROBABLY WORTH DISCUSSING.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I DO THINK IN GENERAL, ERCOT IS THE ONLY ENTITY THAT HAS THE, YOU KNOW, THE OVERVIEW OF THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LARGER RELIABILITY IMPACT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, WOODY, STEVEN, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE Y'ALL, Y'ALL HAVE A, UM, Y'ALL HAVE SOME UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE THERE AND, AND THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE, UM, INTO THE CONSIDERATION FOR, UH, TEMPORARY E EXTENSIONS AND EXEMPTIONS, ET CETERA.
[01:10:01]
THAT IS, THAT'S A, THAT'S A FAIR POINT.UM, ALSO, STEVEN, YOU RAISED A CONCERN ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVING, UH, SOME, SOME, I THINK IN THE LAST MEETING YOU REFERRED TO IT AS LIKE EVERGREEN, UH, EXTENSIONS BASED ON KNOWN VERSUS UNKNOWN LIMITATIONS.
I ALSO THINK THAT'S A FAIR, UM, A FAIR CONCERN TO RAISE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN, IN WHATEVER VERSION COMES OUT OF, UH, OUT OF THIS.
SO I WANTED TO AT LEAST START OFF WITH, WITH, WITH MAKE RECOGNIZING THOSE.
BUT, UM, ANYWAY, IF WE CAN, IF WE'RE ON THE, THE JOINT COMMENTERS, UH, I DO JUST WANNA RUN DOWN A LIST.
UH, I'LL GENERAL COMMENT WAS, IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS THAT, UM, A LOT OF LANGUAGE THAT WAS VERY, VERY SIMILAR BETWEEN THE TWO, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS IMPLEMENTED IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
UM, SO THAT WAS, THAT DID CREATE A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE FOR COMPARISON.
UM, AND, BUT I WILL SAY MOST OF THE CHANGES LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE, UH, CONS GENERALLY CONSISTENT, UM, YOU KNOW, OUTSTANDING, LIKE THE WHOLE DECOUPLING APPROACH RESULTED IN A LOT BEING DELETED FROM THE JOINT COMMENTERS VERSION VERSUS THE, UH, THE ERCOT COMMENTS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, DECOUPLING IS THE, THE CONCEPT THAT WE DISCUSSED AT AST LAST TIME.
AND SO THAT'S A, THAT'S A, THAT IS A KEY CONSIDERATION, UM, OR FOR US TO CONSIDER BETWEEN THE TWO.
UM, SO ERIC, I DID WANNA DIVE IN ON A COUPLE THINGS.
UH, IF YOU'LL, IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME.
UH, THE FIRST IS ON, UH, SECTION 2.6, 0.2, PARAGRAPH FOUR, UM, DOWN ON, LET'S SEE, PAGE EIGHT.
SO IT'S, UH, YEAH, RIGHT THERE.
UM, THE LANGUAGE THE CHANGE THAT Y'ALL MADE THERE FROM RESPONSIBILITY TO DUTY TO PROTECT EQUIPMENT VERSUS WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THERE.
IT SEEMS VERY SUBSTANTIVELY SIMILAR, AND I, I WAS STRUGGLING LAST NIGHT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE, WHAT THE INTENDED EFFECT OF THAT CHANGE IS.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD, UM, ELABORATE.
UH, WE USE THE WORD DUTY BECAUSE THAT'S, UH, THE SAME VERB THAT THE COMMISSION'S RULES THAT ALSO COVER THIS USES.
SO IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY MISINTERPRETATION BETWEEN RESPONSIBILITY AND THE COMMISSION'S RULES ON DUTY, WE DECIDED TO USE THE SAME VERB.
SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE INTENDED EFFECT IS JUST TO MATCH THE LANGUAGE IN THE COMMISSION RULES? YES, SIR.
UH, NEXT UP IS ON, UM, PAGE 10 IN PARAGRAPH FIVE OF 2.6.
UM, I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THE ADDITION OF, UM, THE LANGUAGE DYNAMIC REACTIVE POWER SUPPORT IN THAT LIST.
UM, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT OUR FOLKS HAD, HAD FLAGGED IN, IN REVIEW EARLIER THIS WEEK AS, UH, AS SOMETHING THAT WAS, UM, PROBABLY APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE IN THERE.
AND SO, UM, IF REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER VERSION, UH, TECH PUTS OUT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE, UH, INCLUSION FOR THIS SECTION.
SO IF IT'S DESKTOP EDITS ON THE ERCOT COMMENTS OR IF IT'S, UH, PART OF THESE, I JUST WANTED TO, TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS A GOOD ADDITION.
UM, NEXT DOWN IN PARAGRAPH SIX ON THE SAME PAGE.
UH, SO, UH, FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS MUST COMPLY WITH THE FREQUENCY RIDE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS IN EFFECT IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO JUNE 1ST, 2024.
UM, SO I THINK, UH, THAT GIVEN THE, UH, THE, THE INTEREST IN MAXIMIZATION, WE MIGHT WANT TO ADD TO MUST COMPLY, UH, A PHRASE AT THE MINIMUM OR AT AT A MINIMUM.
UM, AND THEN, UH, THE JUNE 1ST, 2024 REFERENCE POINT, UM, HELP, HELP REMIND ME WHAT THE, UH, WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT REFERENCE IS.
SO, UM, THE LEGACY SECTION THAT WAS ADDED, UM, BY NOGA 2 45, UH, SUBSTITUTES FOR THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS THAT, UM, IT MATCHES WHAT SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, BUT MAKES, MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ERCOT WOULD LIKE
[01:15:01]
THEM TO BE PERFORMANCE BASED.THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OLDER, UM, COMPROMISES AROUND THE SAME TOPIC OVER THE YEARS THAT NOGA 2 45 DELETES, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE IF WE'RE CHANGING THE HARDWARE STANDARDS, BUT IF WE'RE LEAVING THE HARDWARE STANDARDS THE SAME TEMPORARILY UNTIL WE WORK OUT THE HARDWARE CHANGES, THIS IS JUST REFERENCING THE FACT THAT THOSE EXIST PRESENTLY.
AND, UM, AND THAT'S WHAT UNITS WERE BUILT TO, UH, AT THE TIME THEY WERE BUILT.
UM, SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE CAPABLE OF COMPLYING WITH AT, AT THE MINIMUM.
SO IS, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO ALIGN THAT DATE WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE, OF THE NOER? I, I, I THINK THAT'S OKAY.
UM, YEAH, WE, WE PUT IN JUNE ONE BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT THE, UM, WHAT'S IN THE, IN THE OPERATING GUIDANCE NOW.
BUT SO LONG AS THE OUTCOME WAS THE SAME, I I, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE THEN, UH, I THINK THAT'D BE OKAY.
UH, IT'S NOT IN A MUST HAVE, I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, WHAT THE RELEVANCE OF THAT DATE WAS VERSUS THE OTHER DATES WE'VE BEEN, UH, GOING BACK AND FORTH ON.
UM, SO ON NEXT ONE IS ON PAGE 14.
AND THIS, THIS ACTUALLY SPEAKS MORE TO, UH, UM, LET'S SEE, THE, IN PARAGRAPH SEVEN AS Y'ALL HAVE IT THERE, LOOKS LIKE, SO THE TITLE OR SECTION 2.22 12 ACTIONS, IF A TRANSMISSION CONNECTED, INVERTER BASED RESOURCE, YADA YADA, DOES NOT RIDE THROUGH.
UM, IN GENERAL, I NOTICED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE, IN THE TITLING THERE VERSUS, UH, ACTIONS FALLING IN APPARENT FAILURE TO RIDE THROUGH.
UM, THIS WAS JUST THE FIRST PLACE WHERE IT CAME UP.
SO I WAS CURIOUS IF, IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN WHY THE JOINT COMMENTERS TOOK A DIFFERENT, UM, APPROACH TO TITLING THAT.
UH, SO INITIALLY IN THE COMMENTS THAT TAC ENDORSED, UM, FROM THE, THE JOINT COMMENTERS, PREVIOUSLY WE HAD THE ACTIONS AFTER REPAIR RIOT THROUGH FAILURE.
AND IN DISCUSSION WITH ERCOT, THEY FELT THAT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION, UM, SEEMED TO BE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GIVE A BAD ACTOR AN OUT.
AND SO WE, WE TRIED TO CLEAR UP THE LANGUAGE TO SAY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TIMES WHEN THERE WAS A LACK OF RIDE THROUGH.
AND, UM, WE, WE TRIED TO, TO STRENGTHEN THAT TO BE CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE ACTIONS, UM, YOU KNOW, SUCH AS IMPLEMENTING A MITIGATION PLAN, UM, AND IF THERE'S A FAILURE TO RIDE THROUGH, YOU HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THE MITIGATION PLAN.
UM, AND, UM, WE, WE GET INTO THAT THROUGHOUT THIS SECTION, BUT WE THOUGHT THE TITLE STRENGTH OF THE LANGUAGE, SO IT WAS INTENDED TO STRENGTHEN, UH, THE, THE, UM, THE APPROACH THAT WAS OUR INTENTION.
UM, SO I WILL, UH, ALL RIGHT, UH, NEXT UP IS ON PAGE 25 IN, UH, PARAGRAPH TWO OF SECTION 2.9 0.1.
SO IT SAYS, UNLESS THE MODIFICATION WAS FULLY IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1ST, 2028, UM, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, UH, THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF ADDING THAT LANGUAGE IS IN THERE? UM, I THINK THIS IS NOT A CHANGE.
UM, THIS IS REFERENCING THE EXTENSIONS, UM, OR, UM, THAT, THAT YOU COULD REQUEST.
UM, SO, SO IN PARAGRAPHS, I THINK NINE AND 10 HERE TALKS ABOUT THE EXTENSIONS, AND THIS IS REFERRING TO THOSE EXTENSIONS.
SO THIS IS JUST, IT'S, UM, ADDING CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT.
SO IS IS IT CORRECT TO SAY THAT IS SAYING IF YOU HAVE MADE, UM, IF YOU HAVE MADE THE MODIFICATIONS SUCH THAT, UM,
[01:20:05]
SUCH THAT YOU NO LONGER NEED THE EXTENSION? YEAH, THE, THE EXTENSION EXPIRES UNDER ITS OWN TERMS. OKAY.UM, UH, I WILL ASK ON, ON PARAGRAPH THREE, UH, JUST DOWN BELOW THAT WAS WHERE LUMINANT HAD COMMENTS WHERE WE WOULD, UH, WE WOULD LIKE TO, UH, TECH TO CONSIDER, UH, REPLACING THE TERM RESPECTIVELY WITH AS APPROPRIATE, UM, JUST TO AVOID ANY, ANY POTENTIAL, UH, MISREADING, UM, CURIOUS IF, UM, IF Y'ALL WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THAT AND OR IF
BUT, UM, UH, ON PARAGRAPH FOUR, THERE'S THE REFERENCE TO THE PLANNING GUIDE FOR WHICH A JM WAS INITIATED ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 21, 24 THAT FULLY IMPLEMENT SUCH MODIFICATIONS.
UH, CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN WHAT THAT AND THE SUBSEQUENT ADDITION TO THAT PARAGRAPH IS DOING IN, IN PRACTICE? UH, YES.
THIS IS, UM, A DESCRIPTION OF WHEN THE, THIS SECTION WITH THE PLANNING GUIDE TALKS ABOUT, UH, WHEN A GM IS NECESSARY AND ALSO I BELIEVE TALKS ABOUT THE, THE UPDATED MODELING REQUIREMENTS AND, BUT WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF EDITING IT IN THERE? JUST GIMME A SECOND TO MAKE SURE I'M ANSWERING YOU CORRECTLY.
SO I THINK THE, UH, THIS IS, UH, THE REQUIREMENT FOR, UM, MODELING.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS ALREADY IN OTHER PLACES AND IN THE DOCUMENT, BUT WE'RE ALSO ADDING IT HERE.
UM, AND IF THAT'S INCORRECT, I, I CAN COME BACK TO THIS, BUT I, I BELIEVE THAT IS ELSEWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT AND, AND I'M JUST DOUBLE CHECKING RIGHT NOW.
SO THE INTENT THERE IS TO HAVE CONSISTENT, YEAH.
UH, AND THEN ON THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, PARAGRAPH FIVE, UH, WHEN I WAS COMPARING THIS TO THE, THE RED LINES AND OR THE ORIGINAL VERSION WITH KOTS RED LINES, IT LOOKED VERY, IT LOOKED FAIRLY SIMILAR, UH, TO, I THINK, UH, IT LOOKED FAIRLY SIMILAR TO PARAGRAPH SIX IN KOTS COMMENTS, BUT ADDED, UM, IN PARTICULAR A, SOME GOOD CAUSE LANGUAGE AND REQUIREMENT TO MAXIMIZE DURING ANY APPEAL.
UM, IS THAT BY READING THAT DIFFERENCE AS BEING THE PRIMARY CHANGES THAT Y'ALL WERE LOOKING TO MAKE VERSUS THE PARAGRAPH SIX AND ERCOT COMMENTS? YES.
UH, WE, WE THINK THAT YOU, UH, WE, WE, THE MAXIMIZATION IS REQUIRED EVEN FOR EXTENSIONS, BUT ALSO, UM, IF THERE IS AN APPEAL ABOUT AN EXTENSION REQUEST OF THOSE DENIED, WE JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT, WHAT STANDARDS WOULD APPLY DURING THE APPEAL.
THERE'S NO, NO WALKING BACK THE MAXIMIZATION EFFORTS TAKEN EVEN IN AN APPEAL.
AND, AND THE GOOD CAUSE LANGUAGE IS ADDED BECAUSE WE REQUIRED, UM, IT PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE SECTION AROUND, UM, HOW EXEMPTIONS EXTENSIONS ARE APPROVED, AND BECAUSE ALL THAT WAS LEFT AFTER TO REMOVE THE HARDWARE CHANGES WAS JUST THESE TWO EXTENSIONS.
WE JUST WANTED TO SIMPLIFY IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
SO ADDED THIS, THIS GOOD CAUSE LANGUAGE.
SO ERCOT WOULD BE DETERMINING GOOD CAUSE IN THAT, IN THAT CASE, OR WOULD THAT BE SUBJECT YES, AS PART OF THE APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION? IT, IT WOULD BE ER KAT'S DETERMINATION.
[01:25:01]
UM, LONG TO THE NEXT ONE, UH, DOWN ON PAGE 27, UM, WHERE IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE ADDITION OF, OF LOAD COLAC LOCATED WITH AN IVR.IT SEEMS LIKE THE WORDING IS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT ERCOT HAD IN, UH, WELL, FROM WHAT WAS IN THE EXISTING VERSION.
UM, BUT IT, I'M, I'M JUST CURIOUS, WERE THERE ANY INTENDED SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THERE? YEAH, SO THIS, THIS LANGUAGE CHANGED ONE WORD, UM, WHERE THE, IT DISCUSSED THAT.
SO PREVIOUSLY, I, I THINK WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOTTEN TO THE SAME PAGE, UH, WITH STEVEN ON THE CO-LOCATED LOAD ISSUES, BUT THERE WAS ONE QUESTION THAT CAME UP WHERE IT SAYS IF IT ALTERS THE RIDE THROUGH CAPABILITIES, YOU MIGHT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE UPGRADE.
AND WE CHANGE THAT TO BE, IF YOU REDUCE THE RIDE THROUGH CAPABILITIES, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO BE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE UPGRADE, SO THAT WAY IF IT'S, UH, ALTERATION TO INCREASE THEM, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO, UM, MAKE THE FULL UPGRADE.
UM, SO WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A CLARIFYING CHANGE, BUT WE'D BE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT.
I GLOSSED OVER THAT, SO APPRECIATE IT.
AND THE END OF THAT SECTION, LET'S SEE.
THERE'S, SO THE DIFFERENCE IN REFERENCE WHERE IT SAYS, IN WHICH CASE THE RESOURCE ENTITY OR IT, IT CHANGES TO, INSTEAD OF SAYING THE RESOURCE ENTITY, IT SPECIFIES THE IBR TYPE ONE WG R TYPE TWO WG R YES.
AND REFERENCE NOW TO 2.9 0.1 VERSUS 2.9 0.2.
THAT'S JUST CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CHANGES THAT ARE THROUGHOUT.
NEXT IS ON THE TABLE, STARTING ON PAGE 32 AND 33, UM, IN 2.9 0.1 0.1.
SO THE TABLES THERE LOOK SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS IN THE, UH, IN THE
AND I'LL SAY IN GENERAL, OUR, OUR PERSPECTIVES OF THE TABLES SHOULD, SHOULD MATCH WHAT IS IN IEE 2,800 REQUIREMENTS.
UM, BUT I WAS, I WAS HOPING THAT YOU COULD EXPLAIN WHAT THE, UH, UM, SO THE, THE CHANGES HERE, UM, THE TABLES THAT ARE HERE ARE THE TABLES THAT ERCOT ORIGINALLY FILED.
UM, AND THEN, UM, AFTER ROSS, UM, APPROVED THOSE TABLES, ERCOT, UH, MENTIONED THAT THE IBO WORKING GROUP AND AT ATTACK THAT ON THE LOW END, UM, COMPARING WHAT AN I 2,800 TO WHAT'S IN THE EXISTING OPERATING GUIDES, THAT THE EXISTING OPERATING GUIDES HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE LOW END.
UM, SO ER KAT'S PROPOSALS WOULD EXCEED IEEE 2,800.
WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO, UH, THAT, BUT THINK THAT THIS AND A COUPLE OF OTHER OF ERCOT PROPOSED CHANGES IN THIS SECTION DO DESERVE, UM, THOROUGH DISCUSSION AT ROSS AND THE IBR WORKING GROUP AND NOT TO BE KINDA ADDED AT TAC.
UM, I THINK THERE'S EVEN ADDITIONAL CHANGES SINCE THE LAST TIME ERCOT FILED COMMENTS THAT RYAN MENTIONED IN CHAT THAT I WOULD WELCOME HIS, UH, DISCUSSION ON IF HE WANTS TO SPEAK UP ON THOSE ADDITIONAL CHANGES HERE.
UH, RYAN, DO YOU HAVE YEAH, JUST ON THE TECHNICAL LEVEL, I MEAN, I PUT IT IN THE CHAT THERE.
UM, ON THE TABLE, IT'S JUST A MINOR CHANGE, BUT I WAS HAVING SOME DISCUSSION WITH TECHNICAL EXPERTS THE LAST COUPLE DAYS, JUST GENERALLY, AND THE, I NOTICED THE TABLE A AND B DON'T INCLUDE THE DETAILS AROUND PHASE QUANTITIES AND YOU KNOW, WHAT QUANTITIES, WHAT RMS QUANTITIES ARE WE LOOKING AT, AND THE TABLES A AND B ABOVE JUST SAYS ROOT MEANS SQUARE VOLTAGE.
SO THIS IS MORE COMMENT TO
[01:30:01]
IT WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE TO MAYBE CLARIFY THAT, OR MAYBE THERE'S A PRECEDENT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN CLARIFIED THAT MAYBE THE MQT ALREADY INCLUDES THESE KINDS OF THINGS, BUT THAT COULD HELP SPECIFY, I KNOW THOSE TYPES OF DETAILS ARE INCLUDED IN 2,800.WE COULD JUST MAP THAT OVER HERE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT.
IT JUST CAME TO MY ATTENTION HERE VERY RECENTLY.
NOW DO YOU STILL HAVE A FEW MORE QUESTIONS? I, I DO, AND I APOLOGIZE.
THIS IS, THIS IS JUST TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THE, THE TWO SETS OF LANGUAGE THAT WE GOT.
WE, WE APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR HARD WORK.
YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY UP LATE OR UP EARLY, SO WE'LL, WE'LL LET YOU CONTINUE.
SO I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTED WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE, UH, THE ROOM MEET SQUARE LANGUAGE AT THE BOTTOM, BUT BRIAN, I THINK YOU, YOU JUST INTERRUPT THAT.
SO, AND, AND SO SPECIFICALLY ON THAT AND, AND ALL THESE OTHER TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THIS SECTION, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THOSE.
WE JUST DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE MADE AT THE LAST MINUTE AND, AND WOULD BENEFIT FROM ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND MAYBE A NEW NOER OR, UM, AS PART OF THE, UM, DECOUPLING PROCESSES THAT WE GO THROUGH.
UM, SO NEXT IS DOWN ON PARAGRAPH FOUR.
UM, YOU KNOW, IN ARCOS COMMENTS, THEY HAVE STRUCK THE, UH, THE PHRASE OR IF REQUIRED BASED ON PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF THE IVR.
SO THAT LANGUAGE WAS APPROVED BY ROSS AND TAC, AND, UM, IT'S, UM, I THINK ERCOT HAS STATED THAT THEY THINK THAT THIS, UM, ONLY BENEFITS A, A FEW OEMS. UM, WE THINK THAT THIS IS APPROPRIATE, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ENDORSED BY TAC AND, UM, THERE'S NOT A GOOD REASON TO DELETE IT OR ERCOT, UM, DELETED IT FROM THE LAST TAC REPORT, AND, AND WE DON'T THINK THERE'S A GOOD REASON TO DELETE IT.
UH, PARAGRAPH SEVEN IS THE NEXT ONE.
UM, ERCOT INCLUDED SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE, BUT ANY IVR THAT MONITORS AND ACTIVELY PROTECTS AGAINST MULTIPLE EXCURSION OUTSIDE THE CONTINUOUS OPERATIONS RANGE IN THE TABLES SHALL ENSURE PARAMETERS RIGHT.
THROUGH ET CETERA, UH, OR SET TO THE MAXIMUM LEVEL.
AND THE EQUIPMENT ALLOWS TO MEET, AND IF POSSIBLE, EXCEED THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS IN PARAGRAPH ONE ABOVE, UM, JOINT COMMENTERS DO NOT INCLUDE SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN THERE.
UM, IS THE, UH, CURIOUS IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO WHY THAT Y'ALL DID NOT INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE OR IF, UH, IF MAXIMIZATION LANGUAGE THAT REFERENCES TWO POINT 11 WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN HERE TO ACHIEVE A SIMILAR OUTCOME? YEAH.
UH, IN GENERAL, UM, MAXIMIZATION, UM, WE, WE THINK WE WOULD COVER THIS, BUT JUST GIMME ONE, ONE SECOND.
UM, I'M JUST DOUBLE CHECKING THAT WE'RE NOT, I'M NOT MISSING ANYTHING, BUT I, I THINK THAT OUR, OUR MAXIMIZATION LANGUAGE WOULD ALSO COVER THIS, BUT WE'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFIES THAT WE HAVE TO MAXIMIZE, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS SPECIFIC ITEM AS WELL.
UM, ON PARAGRAPH NINE, UH, I JUST NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE VERY DIFFERENT LANGUAGE ABOUT THE INTERCON, THE IE REQUESTING, UH, EXTENSION OR MODIFICATIONS VERSUS WHAT IS, UM, WHAT'S IN THE, THE EXISTING VERSION.
SO I WAS HOPING YOU COULD SPEAK TO WHAT THE INTENDED EFFECT THERE IS.
TH THIS IS, WE BELIEVE THIS IS JUST, UM, RELATED TO DECOUPLING.
SO E EVERYTHING THAT'S STRUCK AND CHANGED HERE IS RELATED TO THE EXEMPTION PROCESS OR, OR THE NEW HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS IN EXISTING FACILITIES.
UM, ALL RIGHT, NEXT UP IS ON PARAGRAPH 11, I SEE THERE'S THE DEMONSTRATION OF GOOD CAUSE, UH, REQUIREMENT THAT SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH THE QUESTION FROM ABOVE.
SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S COVERED.
UH, PARAGRAPH 11 IS KIND OF DESCRIBING THE PROCESS THAT THE PROCESS IN NINE AND 10 FOR EXTENSIONS.
UM, AND SO WE ADDED A SENTENCE OR TWO HERE THAT ENABLED US TO DELETE TWO SECTIONS THAT WERE ADDED PREVIOUSLY TO GREATLY SIMPLIFY THE APPEALS AND EXTENSIONS PROCESS THAT, YOU
[01:35:01]
KNOW, ER HAD EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT, WE'RE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE HERE, BUT WE THINK THIS IS A SIMPLIFICATION THAT IS BENEFICIAL.ON THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IF THE I RESOURCE ENTITY OF AN IVR SUBJECT TO THE SECTION IDENTIFIES A POSSIBILITY THAT THE IBR DID NOT RIDE THROUGH, UM, WHY, WHY WOULD THERE, WHY WOULD IT BE THE IDENTIFICATION OF A POSSIBILITY THAT THE IBR DID NOT RIDE THROUGH AND NOT JUST AN, AN OBJECTIVE, THE IBR DID NOT RIDE THROUGH? SO WE WERE TRYING TO HAVE BROAD LANGUAGE HERE, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, KICK IN.
UM, ULTIMATELY WE THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, UM, WE, WE, WE THINK THIS AS EXPANSIVE TO, TO DO THIS AND TO NOTIFY ERCOT, YOU KNOW, AS QUICKLY AS, AS WE THINK SO AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE IF THERE'S JUST A POSSIBILITY HERE.
UM, SO WE THINK THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT ON THE IBR IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, FULL COMPLIANCE AND, AND HOPEFULLY IT'S OFFERED IN THAT SPIRIT.
IT TIES ALSO INTO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN TWO 14, WHICH IS ACTIONS AF AFTER A FAILURE THAT THAT HELPS TO UNDERSTAND THAT WAS MEANT TO BE STRICTER, NOT, NOT MORE LENIENT.
UH, NEXT IS ON PAGE 37, PARAGRAPH FIVE.
I JUST WANNA HIGHLIGHT AGAIN, THE DYNAMIC REACTIVE POWER, UH, REFERENCE.
UH, WE THINK THAT'S A GOOD ADD.
UM, THEN THE PARAGRAPH SIX AND SEVEN, I HAD AN EIGHT, ACTUALLY I'LL, THE DREW 10, I HAD A LOT OF TROUBLE COMPARING THESE TO WHAT WERE WAS IN THE EXISTING, UH, LANGUAGE AND WHAT ERCOT HAD.
IS THIS ALL RELATED TO THE DECOUPLING YES.
APPROACH? SO IF YOU JUST PAUSE AT ANY ONE POINT, I THINK YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, PICK A PLACE TO PAUSE, CORY, ANY, ANY PLACE TO PAUSE.
AND IT'S ALMOST CERTAINLY GONNA BE RELATED TO HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS ON EXISTING FACILITIES.
SO WHEN WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE, AT THE VISUAL DIFFERENCE HERE, THAT'S, THAT'S THE PRIMARY EFFECT IS, IS YEAH, CARVING OUTPUTS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF CHANGES HERE ARE RELATED TO CARVING OUT, YOU KNOW, SO THAT WE ARE CONTINUING DISCUSSION ABOUT HARDWARE CHANGES, EXISTING FACILITIES, YOU KNOW, IN A SUBSEQUENT PROCESS.
UM, I'LL HAVE TO TAKE THAT AT FACE VALUE.
I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS ONE BY ONE
THEN, UH, WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE, THE POTENTIAL CHANGE TO PARAGRAPH TWO OF SECTION TWO POINT 11, SO I DON'T NEED TO HIT THAT AGAIN.
THANK YOU, UM, FOR, TO EVERYONE FOR WALKING THROUGH THOSE, THOSE WERE THE THINGS THAT STOOD OUT FROM, FROM MY DOING A SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON.
I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A LOT OF VISUAL DIFFERENCE, SO IT WAS REALLY HELPFUL FOR ME TO AT LEAST, AT LEAST HEAR WHAT THE INTENDED EFFECT WAS IN SOME OF THOSE.
UH, I, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS.
UM, AND, UH, I, I UNDERSTAND THIS'S A LOT, UH, OF CHANGES TO GO THROUGH, BUT I, I HOPE IT'S CLEAR THAT, UM, OUR INTENTIONS ARE TO, YOU KNOW, DO IN GOOD FAITH, UM, WHAT TACK DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING.
STEVEN, YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE DI DYNAMIC REACTIVE RESPONSE THAT CAME UP, I THINK TWICE IN THAT DIALOGUE.
DO YOU WANNA WEIGH IN ON THAT? YEAH, THIS IS STEVEN SLI WITH ERCOT.
I, IT, IT'S GONNA CAPITALIZE INTO, I, I THINK A MORE GENERAL SET OF COMMENTS.
THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF MULTIPLE PLACES WHERE I THINK WHAT TAC MEMBERSHIP IS HEARING IS THAT, UM, YOU'RE HEARING A PRESENTER AND THEN YOU'RE HEARING A QUESTION OR TRY TO REINFORCE LANGUAGE.
AND ERCOT HASN'T GOTTEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT THE TECHNICAL IMPACT OF THAT IS.
AND, YOU KNOW, THAT LANGUAGE, THAT SMALL
[01:40:01]
INSERTION COULD THEN CREATE A BIT OF CONFLICT WITH THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH.AND SO IT NEEDS SOME ADDITIONAL VETTING AND IT'S VERY, WE CAN EITHER CHOOSE TO DO, UM, AN ERCOT REVIEW, UH, LINE ITEM BY LINE ITEM, WHICH IS GONNA TAKE A, A, A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME TODAY.
UM, BUT BY AND LARGE, THERE'S JUST MULTIPLE INSTANCES LIKE THAT WHERE THE LANGUAGE AND HOW IT WAS JUST PRESENTED IS NOT THE WAY ERCOT INTERPRETS THIS LANGUAGE AND WE WOULDN'T SUPPORT IT.
THAT, THAT INSERTION IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT.
ALRIGHT, LET, LET'S HOLD FOR A MINUTE THEN.
LET'S, LET'S TAKE CHRIS HENDRICKS AND BOB HILTON AND THEN GO BACK TO YOU AND OR WOODY.
SO, SO LET'S GO AHEAD, UH, CHRIS HENDRICKS PLEASE.
AND SO ONE COMMENT AND THEN I'LL GET TO ANOTHER POINT, BUT THE ONE COMMENT IS, I THINK IF WE'D HAVE BIFURCATED THIS LAST SUMMER, WE PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN COMPLETELY DONE WITH IT BY NOW AND HAVE THE SOFTWARE ISSUES SOLVED FIRST AND THEN BE ABLE TO SPEND PLENTY OF TIME ON THE LEGACY UNITS.
SO, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE JOINT COMMERCE ARE GOING, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A LOT OF TECH NUMBERS WERE ASKING FOR LAST, LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS WAS TO SEPARATE THOSE TWO ISSUES AND NED GETS A GOLD STAR FOR GOING THROUGH IT.
BUT THAT'S KIND OF MY POINT EXACTLY, IS THERE'S A LOT OF CHANGES, A LOT OF WORDS IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME THAT I DON'T FEEL LIKE TAC MEMBERS HAVE GOTTEN A GOOD ENOUGH TIME TO, TO REVIEW AND GO OVER.
AND SO FOR, FOR THOSE REASONS, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL THE NEXT TAC MEETING.
UM, SO, SO MOTION TO TABLE, I BELIEVE KIND OF TRUMPS THE SUBSTANTIVE MOTION ON, ON THE, ON THE TABLE.
UM, SO WE'D BE LOOKING FOR A SECOND TO CHRIS'S MOTION.
I WILL POINT OUT THAT THE NEXT TECH MEETING WOULD PUT THIS AFTER THE JUNE BOARD, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE BOARD IS, IS RESPECTING, IS EXPECTING SOME KIND OF RESPONSE FROM TECH, UM, SINCE THEY REMANDED IT AT THEIR LAST MEETING.
SO ARE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON CHRIS'S MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL THE JUNE MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE JUNE, I THINK 26TH.
SO, SO WE'RE KIND OF STOPPING THE MEETING HERE TO SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND ON THIS MOTION.
UM, CHRIS, DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS FOR NOW? IT DOES.
SOMEONE ELSE TRYING TO SPEAK? YEAH, THIS IS WOODY.
I'M, I'M NO EXPERT ON ROBERT'S RULES, UH, BUT THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
AND NOW THERE'S ANOTHER MOTION AND WE DON'T, WE IGNORE THE FIRST MO.
HOW DOES THAT WORK EXACTLY? IS THAT THE WAY THAT, WAIT, WE DID NOT, YEAH, WE, WE DID NOT IGNORE THE FIRST MOTION.
CORY CAN CORRECT ME, BUT I BELIEVE A MOTION TO TABLE KIND OF TRUMPS A SUBSTANTIVE MOTION.
SO WE STILL DO HAVE RICHARD'S MOTION ON THE TABLE.
RICHARD HAS BEEN IN INCREDIBLY PATIENT.
WE, WE HISTORICALLY, WE DO ALWAYS TAKE A MOTION AND THEN WE TAKE DISCUSSION.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A, A GRAY AREA BECAUSE IT'S, YOU'RE TAKING DISCUSSION THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE MOTION, I BELIEVE TECH MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, NO, NOBODY OBJECTED TO TO THIS PREPOSITION OR PREPOSITION BEFORE.
BUT, UM, WE ARE, THIS INFORMATION, THE JOINT COMMENTERS INFORMATION IS RELEVANT TO THOSE MAKING A VOTE ON THAT FIRST MOTION.
UM, WE, I'VE REMINDED FOLKS TWICE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO CALL THE QUESTION OR LIMIT DEBATE.
SO WE ARE ARE HOPING TO KIND OF WRAP THIS UP, GO BACK TO THE OTHER MOTION.
UM, AND I BELIEVE BOB HILTON NEXT IN QUEUE IS PROBABLY GONNA RETURN US TO THAT FIRST MOTION.
UM, BUT, BUT I WILL LET HIM GET TO THAT.
IS THAT GOOD FOR NOW, WOODY AND, AND COREY? YEP.
RII WOULD SECOND THE MOTION TO TO TABLE.
[01:45:03]
I WOULD GO TO COREY.WHO, WHO WAS IT THAT WAS SECONDING CHRIS'S MOTION? SHANE DID THAT MOTION EXPIRE AT SOME POINT? I MEAN, CHRIS CAN JUST MAKE IT AGAIN IF NOBODY, NOBODY SECONDED IT IN TIME.
IF HE MAKES IT AGAIN, SOMEBODY CAN SECOND IT OR I SUPPOSE SHANE COULD MAKE THAT MOTION.
WHAT MA'AM AND I DID, I HAVE A, MY QUESTION IN THE QUEUE WAS TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS, WHAT'S, WHAT'S PROCEDURALLY ON THE PROCESS, WHAT, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THIS WAS TABLED? AND ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT GOING TO, DO WE JUST NEED TO GET AN UPDATE TO THE BOARD ON THE TABLING AND UPDATE ON THE PROCESS? OR IF THERE'S, DO WE NEED TO HAVE A FINAL VERSION COMING UP TO THEM OR A PROPOSAL? OKAY, LET, LET'S HOLD THAT FIRST.
I SEE ANDY GALLO IN THE QUEUE.
MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I BELIEVE COREY, IS THAT WE JUST LAID OUT IN, IN ROBERT'S RULES IS, AND WE HAVE OBSERVED IT IN THE PAST AS OUR COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES, IS THAT YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE WHEN THERE'S ANOTHER MOTION ON THE TABLE.
YOU COULD ALSO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND YOU.
YOU, THERE'S SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION WHEN THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
CORY, ARE, ARE WE STILL OKAY ON THAT? YEP.
YEAH, WE, WE, WE HAVE A LONG AND STORIED HISTORY OF FOLKS USING THE MOTION TO TABLE IN JUST THIS FASHION.
WHETHER IT'S A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR A MOTION TO REJECT OR A MOTION TO DO ANYTHING, A MOTION TO TABLE TRUMPS ALL OF THAT FOR THE GROUP TO SAY WE'RE NOT READY TO MAKE A DECISION AT ALL.
SO YES, MOTION TO TABLE IS THE SPECIAL MOTION THAT LETS YOU CUT AHEAD OF ALL THE OTHER ONES WHEN YOU OTHERWISE WOULD NEED TO BE MAKING MOTIONS TO AMEND AND THE LIKE.
SO I'M GOING TO TAKE THE QUEUE IN ORDER NOW TO CUT DOWN ON, YOU KNOW, D DISCUSSION.
SO THE QUEUE IN ORDER FOR THE
I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT QUEUE RIGHT NOW.
MY, WELL I NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.
ARE WE DISCUSSING JUST THE MOTION TO TABLE NOW? 'CAUSE MY COMMENTS WERE NOT ON THAT.
THERE IS NOT AN ACTIVE MOTION TO TABLE.
THAT'S WHAT I WANNA MAKE SURE.
ALRIGHT MA'AM GONNA KIND OF TAKE, I AM GONNA KIND OF TAKE US BACK TO THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TAPE ON THE TABLE.
SO COREY, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE, UH, TO THE, THE VERSION OR THE ERCO VERSION THAT HAS BEEN, UH, THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE ON AND GO DOWN TO, UH, I FORGOT THE SECTION NUMBER STEVE.
YOU COULD HELP ME HERE ON THE EXEMPTION PROCESS.
THE EXEMPTION PROCESS IS IN TWO POINT 12.
AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR IS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ONCE I SEE IT STOPPED HERE, IS THAT THE SECTION C UNDERNEATH THERE, WHICH DEALS WITH THE 40% FACTOR.
AND THAT RIGHT THERE, THAT'S ON THE SCREEN THAT WE GRAY BOX THAT SECTION WITH AN IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF 6 1 20 25.
AND, AND THE REASON I'M DOING THAT, THAT SEEMS TO BE A, A, A BIG STICKING POINT AND WE'RE, WE ALL SEEM TO HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THAT.
AND I THINK THAT GIVING IT 6, 6 1 DATE IS REASONABLE BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S GOTTA GO THROUGH AND DO ALL THEIR SOFTWARE CHANGES TO EVERYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE REALLY GET TO THIS.
I DON'T THINK THAT'LL BE IN PARALLEL.
SO THAT'LL GIVE US TIME AS A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO REEVALUATE THIS FULL WELL KNOWING WE'VE GOT A GUILLOTINE OUT THERE OF A 40%, UH, JUNE 1ST, 2025.
WE HAVE TO WORK HARD, WE HAVE TO GET IT DONE AND TRY TO CHANGE THAT OR THIS WILL BE WHAT'S IN PLACE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO TO GRAY BOX THAT PIECE AND ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FOR THAT.
UM, BOB, SO THAT WOULD BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO RICHARD ORIGINAL MOTION? YES.
I, I HAD, UH, I WILL, I WILL SAY THAT MARCH WOULD BE BETTER.
UM, BUT I'VE GOTTEN SOME TEXTS FROM WOODY THAT HE COULD AGREE WITH THAT, SO, OKAY.
[01:50:01]
JUNE 1ST IS FINE.UM, COULD YOU GO AS FAR AS, COULD YOU, COULD YOU LIVE WITH MARCH 1ST? 'CAUSE IT LINES UP NICELY WITH SOME OF THE OTHER DATES, BUT IF YOU'RE WHOLE, IF YOU'RE FAST ON SIX ONE BOB, I WILL ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT.
UH, YOU KNOW, THREE MONTHS ISN'T GONNA MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE WE GET THROUGH THIS SINCE WE'VE HAD SO MUCH TROUBLE.
UH, IF WE GET LOCKED UP FOR A WHILE, I DID WANT US TO, UH, TO END UP IN A BAD PLACE.
BUT WITH THAT SAID, I WANT YOUR SUPPORT, NOT YOUR SIDELINE
AND SEE THAT GIVES US HOW MUCH TIME IT GIVES US NINE MONTHS.
GIVE US, I'LL GO WITH THAT, BUT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK HARD TO GET THAT DONE.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK HARD.
I I I HAVE A FEELING WE GOT A CHAIR THAT WILL, UH, SCHEDULE MEETINGS AS WE SEE FIT.
SO, UM, WE'LL MAKE THE AMENDMENT TO GRAY BOX THAT WITH AN IMPLEMENTATION OF, UH, 3 1 25.
LET, LET, CAN I ASK COREY A QUESTION REAL QUICKLY BEFORE I DO THIS? 'CAUSE ACTUALLY TO DO THIS WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER NPRR, I MEAN A ANOTHER NOER IF WE CHANGE THIS IN ANY WAY SINCE IT'S GRAY BOXED.
SO WHAT KIND OF TIMELINE WOULD THAT BE TO GET THAT APPROVED AND THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE ON THAT JUNE OR OR MARCH DATE? UH, COREY, CAN YOU HELP ME OUT HERE? YEAH, I MEAN, AS WITH ALL THINGS BOB, HOW LONG IS A PIECE OF STRING? IT IT WILL DEPEND ON THE STAKEHOLDERS.
SO PULLING IT FROM JUNE BACK TO MARCH WOULD ABSOLUTELY GIVE YOU A SHORTER AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET THAT NEW NORE THROUGH THE PROCESS.
IF ROSS NEEDS TO TABLE IT FOR A MONTH OR TWO TO GET THE LANGUAGE FINE TUNED.
SO YES, THE, THE SUNNY DAY PROCESS FOR A NORE STILL HAS TO MAKE TWO STOPS AT ROSS STOP IT, TAG THEN TO THE BOARD AND THEN THE PUC.
WE DON'T HAVE THE PUC MEETINGS FOR THAT FAR OUT IN THE 2025 TO KNOW EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'D HIT ANY KIND OF WEIRD PROCEDURAL TIMELINE WHERE, OOPS, YOU CAN'T MAKE IT IN TIME TO GET A FEBRUARY PUC TO APPROVE IT.
SO MARCH 1ST IS ADD PREFERRED JUNE 1ST.
SO IT'S, IT IS REALLY UP TO Y'ALL, BUT CERTAINLY THE FURTHER OUT YOU GO, THE MORE LINK, THE MORE TIME YOU'RE GIVING THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, BUT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, SOONER IS ALWAYS BETTER.
SO IT, IT, IT'S, IT'S MORE ARTS AND SCIENCE, SO IT'S UP TO YOU.
AND I JUST WAS LOOKING AT WHAT CHAD PUT IN THE, THE THING THAT WE COULD REQUEST THE BOARD TO PRIORITIZE THE ISSUE TO GET BACK NO LATER THAN DECEMBER BOARD MEETING IS, IS THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT ALSO.
SO I I THINK ALL IN ALL, UH, MARCH IS OKAY.
I'M HESITANT, BUT I, I UNDERSTAND BOB, I'LL SUPPORT ANY URGENT STATUS YOU NEED OR WHATEVER TO KEEP THINGS MOVING.
I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT HERE.
UH, MIKE WISE, I'M CONFIDENT YOU'RE GONNA ACCEPT THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
UH, BUT I DO NEED CONFIRMATION FROM WOODY, UH, OR ERCOT THAT IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THEM.
UH, YEAH, I'LL, I WOULD, UH, I WOULD, UH, APPROVE THAT AS WELL.
I'M JUST ON A SIDE, UH, CONCERNED OF ANY OTHER CONSEQUENCES THAT, UH, ARE NOT KNOWN, UH, WITH THIS POTENTIAL CHANGE AS ALREADY MENTIONED BY ERCOT.
SO, UH, YEAH, I'M A LITTLE LEERY, BUT, UH, YEAH, I WILL APPROVE THAT.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE AMENDED THE MOTION AS ON THE SCREEN.
UM, SO IT'S THE MOTION TO APPROVE OR CUT SIX, FIVE COMMENTS, UM, AS AMENDED BY THE GRAY BOX.
COREY, I SEE YOU HAVE THIS UP, BUT I CAN CONTINUE TO TAKE THIS QUEUE IF IT'S RELEVANT TO THIS MOTION, CORRECT? YEAH.
I WAS JUST, I WAS JUST PUTTING WORDS ON SCREEN SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO TAKE IT OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD.
AND I WAS SAYING THAT, THAT THAT MOTION OF, OF FRIENDLY AMENDMENT IS OF COURSE NOW TACK CAN DO WHATEVER DESKTOP EDITS OR WHATEVER ELSE THEY WANT TO DO.
THAT WAS JUST MY SUGGESTION ON THE MOTION THAT WAS ON THE TABLE.
UM, SO I GUESS I HAVE A NEW QUESTION, WHICH IS THE GRAY BOXING OF THIS LANGUAGE.
IS THAT GETTING RID OF THE HARDWARE, UH, MODIFICATION REQUIREMENT OR IS
[01:55:01]
THAT GETTING RID OF THE EXCEPTION PROCESS YOU WANT? CAN YOU WANT ME TO ANSWER THAT? YEAH, GO AHEAD BOB.YEAH, NO, IT DOESN'T GET RID OF THE REQUIREMENT.
IT DELAYS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT REQUIREMENT AND IT DOES NOT GET RID OF THE EXCEPTION PROCESS.
JUST THE HARDWARE PIECE IS ON HOLD AND NOT IMPLEMENTED UNTIL MARCH OF 2025.
AND THE REASON I'M SUGGESTING THAT IS, RATHER THAN THAT BE HARD CODED INTO THIS, GIVE US SOME TIME TO REALLY LOOK AT THIS REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE BEFORE IT'S ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED.
AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M AFTER HERE, SO THAT IT GIVES US A LITTLE MORE TIME I ON THAT PIECE.
DOES THAT HELP? UH, YEAH, I THINK SO.
SO, UM, BUT WITH THE, THIS WOULD PUT A BACKSTOP IN AT MARCH 31ST THAT IF AGREEMENT'S NOT MET, THERE WOULD BE A, IT WOULD KICK IN THIS 40% REQUIREMENT.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS DOES, IS, IS THE WAY THIS IS DONE WITH THE GRAY BOX, IT SAYS NO NO SOONER THAN MARCH 20, UH, MARCH 1ST IS THAT GIVES US AT LEAST TILL MARCH 1ST TO TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE HERE.
AND IF WE DON'T, UH, IT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED AFTER MARCH 1ST.
AND I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE US TIME TO DO IT, BUT I WANNA UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THAT ERCOT WANTS US TO HAVE A, A, A BACKSTOP OUT THERE TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS LONG ENOUGH, WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE FOR THE HARDWARE SITE.
AND SO THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO DO HERE.
UM, SO NAVA, I BELIEVE WE JUST GOT THAT CONFIRMATION FROM WOODY THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.
UM, BUT LET'S GO BACK TO THAT IF THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.
UM, RICHARD, ARE WE, ARE WE GOOD ON YOUR COMMENTS? YOU ARE NEXT IN THE QUEUE, BUT WE MAY BE GOOD ON YOUR COMMENTS FOR NOW.
CHRIS HENDRICKS, ARE WE SIMILARLY GOOD ON YOUR NO, KIND OF SIMILAR TO OPEC.
I'D LIKE TO GET, I'D LIKE TO GET THE JOINT COMMENTERS THOUGHT ABOUT THE GRAY BOX LANGUAGE AND THEN I'LL HAVE A COMMENT.
SO LET'S, LET'S GET ERCOT COMMENT FIRST TO THE EXTENT WHAT HE DIDN'T FINISH THAT.
SO LET'S GO TO WOODY AND THEN TWO JOINT COMMENTERS REGARDING THE CURRENT MOTION ON THE TABLE.
AND THEN LET'S TRY TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT MOTION.
AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO JUST BE WOODY, I SEE THREE PEOPLE FROM ERCOT IN THE QUEUE.
SO LET'S GET ERCOT THOUGHTS ON THIS MOTION AND THEN JOINT COMMENTERS THOUGHTS ON THIS MOTION.
SO I SUPPORT THE MOTION TO REMOVE THAT PARAGRAPH.
UM, CHAD AND, UH, STEVEN GO AHEAD.
YEAH, THIS IS STEVEN
I WOULD JUST SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR, UH, ASSESSMENT OF THIS IS WE, WE CAN SUPPORT THIS.
UM, I I WOULD JUST ALSO SAY IF, IF THERE'S DESK SIDE EDITS, UM, WE, WE DID CONSIDER LUMINANCE'S COMMENTS AND WE WERE, UH, COMFORTABLE WITH MAKING THAT MINOR CHANGE THAT LUMINATE ALSO PROPOSED.
ACTUALLY LEMME JUMP IN, CAITLIN, JUST REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY.
THE, THE LUMINANT PROPOSAL WAS JUST TO CHANGE THIS WORD RESPECTIVELY AND TO AS APPROPRIATE.
SO IN THE LUMINANT COMMENTS, THEY SAID IF YOU'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH ANY VERSION OF THE LANGUAGE, COULD YOU PLEASE CHANGE THE WORD RESPECTIVELY TO AS APPROPRIATE? SO STEVEN'S SAYING ERCOT ISS OKAY WITH THAT DESKTOP EDIT, IF OUR MOVER AND SECONDER ARE ALSO OKAY, I'LL ADD THAT TO IT.
MIKE, ARE YOU GOOD? YES, THANKS.
SO ARE WE TOO GETTING JOINT COMMENTERS OPINION ON THIS MOTION? IS THAT WHERE WE ARE? ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD ERIC.
SO, UM, RESPECTFULLY, I WOULD ENCOURAGE,
[02:00:01]
UM, PEOPLE TO VOTE NO ON THIS MOTION.UM, THE MAIN ONE IS IT APPEARS THAT THE INTENTION BEHIND IT IS IN GOOD SPIRIT, WHICH IS TO BUY AN ADDITIONAL SIX OR NINE MONTHS TO WORK ON THESE HARDWARE CHANGES.
BUT IT, IT WON'T DO THAT UNFORTUNATELY.
AND, AND THAT'S DUE TO, UM, THE COMMISSION'S PROCEDURAL RULES.
IF THE JOINT COMMENTERS BELIEVE THAT, UM, THE PROPOSALS HERE ARE NOT LAWFUL OR, UH, BAD POLICY, WE HAVE 35 DAYS TO APPEAL AN RCAT ACTION, WHICH MEANS WE WOULD BE FORCED TO APPEAL THIS OR LOSE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IT.
UM, SO IT WOULD, IT WOULD RESULT IN THIS ISSUE NOT GETTING SIX TO NINE MONTHS OF TIME IN THE ERCOT STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, BUT RATHER IN A CONTESTED CASE AT THE COMMISSION.
SO IF THAT'S OKAY WITH, YOU KNOW, VOTERS, YOU KNOW, SO BE IT.
BUT I WANT TO JUST BE CLEAR THAT, UM, IT'S NOT BUYING SIX TO NINE MONTHS OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.
UM, SECONDLY, THIS INCLUDES OTHER CHANGES, UM, PARTICULARLY TO THOSE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, UM, THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE THINK ARE INAPPROPRIATE AND HAVEN'T BEEN REVIEWED.
UM, THEY DON'T INCLUDE THE CHANGES TO DY DYNAMIC REACTIVE CHANGES, WHICH IS A REFERENCE TO IEE 2,800.
UM, AND I'M, I'D BE HAPPY FOR RYAN TO WEIGH IN ON THAT, UM, A ABOUT DYNAMIC REACTIVE AND, AND WHY, YOU KNOW, LANGUAGE LIKE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO, UM, INCLUDE IN LANGUAGE GOING FORWARD.
YEAH, SO ERIC, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS.
I GET WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MAY MAKE YOU DO, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I'M TRYING TO DO IS GET SOMETHING THROUGH TODAY THAT ISN'T GOING WELL ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
IF, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE CONVERSATION, IF, IF THIS SECTION IS DELETED OUT OF THE TAC APPROVED VERSION, ERCOT WILL NOT SUPPORT IT.
AND I WOULD ASSUME WHAT THAT MEANS IS THEY'RE GONNA CHALLENGE THAT AT THE BOARD.
AND WHERE WE WOULD END UP WAS, I'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD IDEA WHERE WE WOULD END UP IS THE BOARD WOULD LIKELY GO WITH ERCOT ON THE APPEAL, AND THEN WE HAVE ALL OF THAT IN INCLUDING A HARD CODED AUTOMATICALLY, UH, IMPLEMENTED, UH, SECTION C, AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO TO THE COMMISSION THEN IN THAT CASE ANYWAY.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS TRYING TO STOP SOME OF THAT FROM HAPPENING.
SO, UH, I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHAT MY RATIONALE BEHIND THAT IS.
I, I APPRECIATE YOUR RATIONALE AND UNDERSTAND IT.
UM, I DO THINK THAT A CLEANER WAY TO, UM, BY THE TIME THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IS THE LANGUAGE WE PROPOSED THAT, UM, IMPLEMENTS THE THINGS WE DO AGREE ABOUT.
SO THAT WAY THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A NEED TO APPEAL.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT ERCOT, UM, YOU KNOW, WOULD POTENTIALLY LIKE CHANGES TO SOME OF THE MAXIMIZATION LANGUAGE THAT WE'D BE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT.
UM, BUT UM, THAT WOULD PUT IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR NEW RESOURCES.
UM, IT, IT WOULD PUT IN MAXIMIZATION AND WOULD HAVE A, A, A PATH TO DISCUSSING ALL OF THE HARDWARE CHANGES HERE WITHOUT THE POTENTIAL NEED FOR AN APPEAL.
YOU'RE RIGHT, THE BOARD COULD CHOOSE NOT TO FOLLOW, YOU KNOW, DIRECTION ON THAT, BUT THE ONLY PO NARROW POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT, UH, THE JOINT COMPETENCE APPROACH MIGHT NOT RESULT IN AN APPEAL AND GIVES A PATH TO AVOID AN APPEAL, WHEREAS THIS ONE GUARANTEES AN APPEAL.
AND, UH, I WANTED TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION TO, TO ERCOT AND TO THE, THE, THE MOVERS TO, UM, FOR INCORPORATING LUMINANCE COMMENTS, UH, IN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, DESKTOP EDITS BEFORE I'D BE ABLE TO, TO VOTE, UH, ON THE ERCOT COMMENTS, BUT I DON'T WANNA HOLD UP THIS VOTE IF THAT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S UM, IF, IF IT'S JUST MORE EFFICIENT FOR US TO GET THIS ONE OVER WITH AND THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT STEP.
SO I WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.
UM, I, I THINK THE, THE GENERAL
[02:05:01]
TREND OF OUR DISCUSSION ATTACK OVER THE LAST FEW MEETINGS HAS BEEN TO DECOUPLE AND, UM, AND WE ALSO DISCUSSED MOVING THE, THE, THE MAXIMIZATION DATE BACK TO ALLOW FOR THE TIME NEEDED TO, UH, TO BOTH MAKE THE PHYSICAL UPDATES AND THE, UM, AND THE MODELING UPDATES.UM, AND, UH, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, WE, WE DID LIKE THE ADDITION OF THE DYNAMIC REACTIVE POWER, UH, REQUIREMENT OR, UH, LANGUAGE THAT THE DRUNK COMMONERS HAD AND WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THE, UM, THE MAXIMIZATION INCORPORATING, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE, UH, ENGINEERING JUDGMENT AND UH, OEM CAPABILITIES TO SUPPORT, UM, AND SUPPORT THAT EFFORT.
JUST TO, TO BE CLEAR, BECAUSE WHILE I THINK WE CAN ALL, WE MAY ALL BE, BE ABLE TO AGREE IN CONCEPT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT, IT DOES HELP TO HAVE IT IN CLEAR BLACK AND WHITE, SO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL IS PROBABLY BETTER, UM, IF THERE'S A, A BETTER BALANCE TO STRIKE.
SO I WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE, UM, JUST TO EXPLAIN, EXPLAIN MY VOTE ON THIS.
SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THOSE DESKTOP EDITS OR, OR NOT? OKAY.
I'M THINKING IT MIGHT BE MOST EFFICIENT FOR US TO HAVE THIS VOTE AND THEN, AND THEN DETERMINE WHAT'S BEST TO DO NEXT, WHETHER TO TRY TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE JOINT COMMENTERS VERSION OR TO MAKE FURTHER EDITS TO THIS ONE.
UM, I DON'T WANNA HOLD UP THIS VOTE ANYMORE.
I WILL LEAVE THAT, THAT IS UP TO YOU IF, IF YOU WANT TO GET THIS VERSION RIGHT, I'M NOT GONNA STOP YOU FROM MAKING DESKTOP EDITS, SO, SO IT'S, IT'S YOUR CALL THEN I WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE A, YOU'D LIKE TO HOLD THOSE THAT'S FINE.
A SHORT BREAK BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH ANYTHING MORE.
WELL, I, WE HAVE HAD THIS MOTION ON THE TABLE FOR A WHILE, SO I DON'T WANT TO TAKE A BREAK BEFORE I, I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT TOO, BUT I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE A BREAK BEFORE WE TAKE THIS VOTE.
SO I THINK THAT WAS BOB, BOB WAS SAYING, SO NED, IF, IF THAT'S A MAKE OR BREAK FOR YOU, YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF YOU NEED TO MAKE YEAH, NED TO VOTE ON THIS.
IF, IF YOU'RE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE WITH THE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IF YOU'VE GOT SOME RELATIVELY SURGICAL MINOR ADDITIONAL CHANGES YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO VOTE FOR IT, I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH THEM.
IF YOU'RE AT THE POINT OF, EH, KINDA LIKE, BOB, YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND GO FOR THIS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND PICK UP THESE THINGS LATER, I'D RATHER JUST VOTE, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE AND I'M SORRY I JUMPED IN OUTTA THE QUEUE, BUT HOPEFULLY I WON'T GET BEAT UP.
YOU'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT AND IT'S CANON'S FAULT.
I HAD A QUESTION, BUT I CAN, I CAN WAIT UNTIL WE'RE RESOLVED ON, ON THIS.
THE THINGS, THE THINGS I LISTED OUT ARE THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, UM, REFLECTED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR THIS.
NOW THE BIG, THE BIG ONE THAT'S, THAT'S MISSING IS THE DECOUPLING, UH, APPROACH.
UM, NOW I, I GUESS THE, IS THE INTENT OF GRAY BOXING THIS LANGUAGE IS TO TRY TO GET TO THAT.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A, A LESS COMPLETE APPROACH.
UM, BUT UH, THE, THE OTHER CHANGES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LIKE MOVING BACK TO DECEMBER 31ST, 2025 DATE TO, UH, JUNE 1ST, 2026, AND, UM, INCORPORATING THE DYNAMIC REACTIVE, UM, THE DYNAMIC REACTIVE POWER REFERENCES THAT I FLAGGED IN THE JOINT COMMENTERS, UH, IN REVIEWING THOSE.
UM, WELL, I GUESS THEN WHERE, WHERE I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DIFFICULT, BUT I, I THINK, I THINK WITH THE CHANGE WE'VE MADE, THAT'S THE DECOUPLING ITEM.
THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING I DIDN'T WANNA HOLD IT UP ANYMORE, RICHARD.
LET ME MAKE, OR LET ME ASK MY QUESTION.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE TO CHAD, BUT I WILL TAKE AN ANSWER FROM ANYONE.
UM, VERY COMMON JUROR HAVE LET US KNOW THIS WOULD RESULT IN AN APPEAL, BUT ONE PARTY APPEALING AT THE COMMISSION
[02:10:01]
THAT WOULD NOT PROHIBIT A BODY LIKE TECH OR ROSS FROM CONTINUING TO DO THIS GRAY BOX WORK FOR THE NEXT NINE MONTHS.AM I CORRECT ON THAT? WELL, IT'S REALLY, NO, THAT'S CORRECT.
YOU CAN CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT FUTURE POLICY CHANGES.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY I THINK THE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PAST HAVE A HISTORY OF BEING RELUCTANT MOVING FORWARD, ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE PROSPECTIVE IF THERE WAS APPEAL OVER THE COMMISSION.
AND I'M SURE THERE'S SEVERAL TAC REPRESENTATIVES THAT COULD SPEAK TO THAT HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THAT SITUATION.
BUT, YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FUTURE POLICY OUTCOMES DON'T BEAR ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT A, A PENDING COMPLAINT IS IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION COMMISSION.
SO LIKE TECH WOULD NOT BE LEGALLY PROHIBITED JUST IF YOU WERE SOMEBODY WITH AN INTEREST IN THAT PROCEEDING, YOU MAY NOT WANT TO CORRECT.
AND I'M SURE THOSE TYPE OF INDIVIDUALS WILL BE FILING COMMENTS SAYING THAT STAKEHOLDERS SHOULDN'T BE VOTING ON FUTURE CHANGES WHEN THERE'S A PENDING APPEAL OF A CURRENT REVISION REQUEST IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION.
THAT'S TYPICALLY HOW THIS PRACTICE IS PLAYED OUT IN FRONT OF THE STAKEHOLDER BODY.
I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT IT DIDN'T LEGALLY OR EFFECTIVELY STOP THE WORK FROM HAPPENING.
IT JUST MAY AFFECT SOMEBODY'S POINT OF VIEW ON IT BECAUSE OF THEIR POSITION.
UM, OKAY, LET'S, LET'S FINALLY GET TO THE VOTE, UNLESS THEY'RE, I I THINK BOTH QUEUES ARE EMPTY.
ACTUALLY TO CON TO FURTHER COMPLICATE THINGS, CAITLYN, I JUST GOT PINGED THAT EVEN WITHIN THESE ERCOT COMMENTS, THERE WAS A PLACEHOLDER DOWN HERE IN PARAGRAPH EIGHT THAT JUST HAD THE WORD DATE, WHICH IS NOT CLEAR FOR ENFORCEABLE.
SO CAN WE GET ONE MORE DESKTOP EDIT TO DROP AUGUST 1ST, 2024, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER DATES AND THE LOOK IN THE SECTION? YES.
SO THE MOTION IS, AND I'LL LET YOU REPEAT THIS CORY, JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M RIGHT, THE MOTION IS ERCOT JUNE 5TH COMMENT.
THE ONE, THE FIRST ONE IS THE ONE WE'RE LOOKING AT, WHICH IS TO GRAY BOX THIS PARAGRAPH C WITH THE 40% LANGUAGE UNTIL MARCH 1ST, 2025.
THE SECOND IS THE, UM, DESKTOP EDIT RELATED TO LUMINANCE SIX, FIVE COMMENTS I BELIEVE, OR SIX, SIX COMMENTS ON, UM, CHANGING THE WORD.
I THINK IT'S FROM, FROM RELEVANT TO APPROPRIATE.
AND THEN THE THIRD IS FROM CHANGING THE PLACEHOLDER DATE TO THE ACTUAL DATE, WHICH IS NOW AUGUST 1ST, 2024.
AND THAT, THAT COVERS THE MOTION WE HAVE.
AND DO WE NEED TO CONFIRM WITH, YOU KNOW, JUST FOR FORMALITY, DO WE NEED TO CONFIRM WITH RICHARD AND MIKE THAT PUTTING IN THE DATE INSTEAD OF THE WORD DATE IS ACCEPTABLE? YES, MA'AM.
I WILL LET COREY, YOU YOU TAKE IT OVER.
SO ON THE MOTION, AS KAILYN LAID OUT FOR THE ERCOT COMMENTS WITH THE AS REVISED BY WHICH COVERS THOSE DESKTOP EDITS, WE WILL BEGIN UP WITH THE CONSUMERS WITH NAVA.
I SAW YOU COME OFF MUTE NAVA, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR YOUR VOTE.
AND THEN NAVO FOR ERIC? YES, THANK YOU.
AND THEN ERIC FOR GARRETT? YES.
I DON'T BELIEVE NICK JOINED US TODAY.
LEMME QUICK CHECK OF THE QUEUE.
I BELIEVE HE'S WITH US ONTO OUR CO-OPS.
THANK YOU ON TO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS.
BRIAN, I'VE GOT YOUR YES IN CHECK ON THE BALL.
[02:15:01]
CAITLIN? YES, THANK YOU.ON OUR IPMS. JEREMY? YES, THANK YOU.
AND THEN SHANE FOR RASHMI? SAME.
AND THEN CHRIS FOR BILL ABSTAIN FOR THE OTHER THREE.
ON TO OUR MUNIS, RUSSELL SAIN.
DAVID, OR I'M SORRY, DAVID'S DAVID TO ALICIA, RIGHT? CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, SUSIE, BUT I THINK THAT WAS THE RIGHT, SO ALICIA FOR DAVID? YES, COREY.
NOW, ALICIA
THANK YOU ABSTAIN FOR BOTH OF Y'ALL.
OKAY, CAITLIN, I, I DO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT IF YOU DON'T MIND.
UM, WELL, EVEN IF YOU DO MIND AND RECOGNIZE NATE, UM, UH, HE IS, HE, HE WILL BE THE MOST RECENT RECIPIENT OF A FIRST RICHARD ROSS GOLD STAR AS A TAC MEMBER MACHINE, UH, FOR HIS WORK READING AND PREPARING, UH, FOR THIS MEETING.
I THINK HE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND.
I THINK YOU SAID NATE, BUT I THINK YOU MEANT NED, BUT I COULDN'T
I I HAD NED RIGHT HERE, NATE, ON HIS AWARD.
NO, I I DID WRITE IT CORRECTLY ON HIS REWARD AND, AND, AND, AND WELL HIS, HIS HIS ON HIS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY.
I WILL HAVE THESE FOR YOU AT OUR NEXT FACE-TO-FACE MEETING.
PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU REMIND ME IT SHOULD, I'VE NEVER RECEIVED A HIGHER HONOR IN MY, IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER.
WELL, AND, AND I KNOW IT'S PERFORMANCE, MIDYEAR PERFORMANCE REVIEW TIME.
UM, DON'T FORGET TO PUT, PUT THAT ON YOUR PERFORMANCE REVIEW.
SO DO WE HAVE, LET'S, UM, WE, WE DID GET A VOTE THROUGH.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? BECAUSE OTHERWISE I THINK WE, WE COULD ADJOURN THIS MEETING.
ALRIGHT, WELL I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY.
UM, WE, THE, WE WILL BE PRESENTING THIS AT THE, THE JUNE BOARD MEETING, WHICH IS IN LESS THAN TWO WEEKS.
AND THEN WE WILL BE BACK HERE FOR OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED.
UH, WE WILL NOT BE BACK ANYWHERE.
WE'LL BE BACK IN FRONT OF OUR COMPUTERS.
THE NEXT JUNE TECH MEETING IS WEBEX ONLY.
I APPRECIATE, UM, APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S HARD WORK ON THIS ONE.