* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. YOU'RE READY TO BEGIN. [1. Antitrust Admonition] [00:00:03] OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, THE ANTITRUST ADMONITION IS ON THE SCREEN TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT ANTITRUST LIABILITY. PARTICIPANTS IN ERCOT ACTIVITY SHOULD REFRAIN FROM PROPOSING ANY ACTION OR MEASURE THAT WOULD EXCEED OR CUTS AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. AND THERE IS MORE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE. SO, [2. Discussion of Stakeholder Process and Communications] GOOD MORNING. THIS IS OUR SEPTEMBER ATTACK MEETING. WE HAD A 9:00 AM EARLY START, AND WE ARE GOING TO DEDICATE THE FIRST TWO HOURS TO OUR STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND COMMUNICATIONS DISCUSSION. WHEN WE'RE FINISHED WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE A SHORT BREAK AND MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA AND, AND WE'LL MOVE ON EVEN IF IT'S BEFORE 11:00 AM BUT WE ALLOCATE IT UP TO 11:00 AM. UM, I DO HAVE TO LEAVE AROUND TWO, BUT IF WE ARE STILL GOING, COLIN WILL TAKE OVER AND WE SET THE LUNCH ORDER OUT. SO WE'LL TAKE A LUNCH BREAK AS WELL FOR ALT REPS AND PROXIES FOR ALT REPS IN THE COOPERATIVE SEGMENT. UH, MIKE WISE FROM GOLDEN SPREAD HAS DESIGNATED ALT REP JODY AND WILSON IN THE INDEPENDENT POWER MARKETER SEGMENT. REMI HAS DESIGNATED SHANE THOMAS, BOTH FROM SHELL IN THE IOU SEGMENT. KEITH NICKS, UM, FROM TNMP HAS ALT REP STACEY WHITE WHITEHURST, AND DAVID MERCADO FROM CENTER POINT HAS ALT REP ABBY JOHN IN THE MUNICIPAL SEGMENT. ALICIA LOVING AT AUSTIN ENERGY HAS ALT REP FAY. UM, HOW, HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME? SORRY. OKAY. AND THEN FOR PROXIES, UH, ERIC GOFF AND RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER WILL GIVE HIS PROXY TO, UH, NAVA AT OPEC FOR NPR 1188 AND OBDR 46 ONLY. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO WE ARE ALSO TRUDY FROM ERCOT COMMUNICATIONS MAY HAVE REACHED OUT TO SOME ABOUT DOING MEMBERSHIP VIDEOS. SHE IS SET UP IN ROOM 1 6 7. FOR THOSE OF YOU DOING THOSE, IT'LL TAKE ABOUT 20 MINUTES AND SHE WILL TEXT YOU INDIVIDUALLY. SO YOU'LL GET, YOU KNOW, PULLED OUT OF THE MEETING FOR A FEW MINUTES. UM, AND MAYBE YOU'LL BE HAPPY ABOUT THAT OR NOT. AND THEN MOVING ON, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST MATTER OF BUSINESS WE WANTED TO ADDRESS IS WE ARE RESPONDING FROM THE LAST DISCUSSION AT TAC AND THE RTO INSIDER ARTICLE ABOUT LACK OF COOKIES AND LAUGHTER. AND SO WE DO HAVE COOKIES IN THE ROOM BEHIND NED WHO'S MAKING A FACE, UM, . AND, AND WE HAVE TWO VERSIONS OF COOKIES. UH, ONE ARE SPECIFIC T COOKIES WITH THREE DIFFERENT DESIGNS, INCLUDING A PABLO DESIGN. AND THEN ONE IS A COOKIE THAT WE HAVE GENEROUSLY RECEIVED FROM SBP. AND THEN FOR THE LAUGHTER PART, I WAS GONNA TURN IT OVER TO STEVE REEDY YA T TALK LIKE A PIRATE DAY. TIS A THING. YE CAN GOOGLE IT. . CAITLIN, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE 10 LETTERS IN THE PIRATE ALPHABET ARE? I DON'T KNOW. STEVE. RII AND THE SEVEN CS . OKAY. ANY MORE, UH, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS ON LEVEL OF FUN? COOKIES, THEMES OF THE MONTH? RICHARD, UH, DR. SEUSS. DR. SEUSS. HOPEFULLY WE WILL NOT HAVE A, A COLD COLD WE DAY. OKAY, COOL. ALRIGHT. UM, SO WE CAN GET STARTED WITH OUR SORT OF MINI WORKSHOP, UM, ON STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND COMMUNICATIONS. AS A REMINDER TO EVERYONE, THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT THE COMMISSION AT THE JULY 25TH OPEN MEETING IN RELATION TO NPR 1224. AND THEN MORE GENERALLY, AGAIN AT THE AUGUST 29TH OPEN MEETING. WE ALSO TOUCHED ON IT IN OUR ATTACK REPORT TO THE AUGUST BOARD AND IN RELATION AND THOSE REPORTS TO NORE 2 45. AND SO I, I THINK IT IS RELEVANT. I KNOW A LOT OF STAKEHOLDERS ARE GONNA WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS UP THROUGH THE BOARD AND COMMISSION. UM, I THINK THAT'S REALLY RELEVANT, BUT I, I THINK THE FOCUS THAT I'VE KEPT IN MIND IS THE THINGS WE CAN CHANGE AT TAC, YOU KNOW, OPPORTUNITIES TO CHANGE, THINGS WE MIGHT WANNA CHANGE OR, OR THINGS THAT WOULD IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS. UM, SO SOME OF THE FIRST PROPOSALS ARE SORT OF LIMITED TO THE THINGS THAT WE CAN CHANGE AND THAT THE TAC PROCESS AS FAR AS SUBCOMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS UNDER US. UM, SO, SO YEAH, MY FOCUS HAS BEEN ON TRANSPARENT COMMUNICATION TO THE BOARD AND PUC IN A MANNER THAT THEY CAN DIGEST THE ISSUES AND, AND POSSIBLE OUTCOMES WHEN [00:05:01] WE'RE CONSIDERING SOMETHING IN, IN RELATION TO THE DIFFERENT SEGMENTS HERE AND, AND NOT JUST ERCOT AND ON MAKING SURE WE GET ALL THE INFORMATION ON CONTENTIOUS ISSUES OUT EARLIER. SO I KNOW THERE'S SOME GENERAL COMMENTS, BUT I WAS GOING TO START WITH THE SLIDE DECK. ER CUT HAS PREPARED THE FIRST FIVE SLIDES, I THINK WE'LL TAKE FIRST AND THOSE LAY OUT THE PROCESS. IT IS TODAY. ALL RIGHT, GOOD MORNING, THIS IS ANN BORIN. UM, WE WANTED TO GIVE A HIGH LEVEL REVIEW OF OUR CURRENT STAKEHOLDER STRUCTURE AND PROCESS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE BEFORE WE START TALKING ABOUT HOW WE'RE GONNA IMPROVE THAT PROCESS. UM, SO HERE WE HAVE THE ERCOT STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE STRUCTURE, AND WE HAVE OUR WORKING GROUPS AND TASK FORCES. THESE ARE NON-VOTING BODIES, AND THEY'RE REPORTING UP TO OUR FOUR SUBCOMMITTEES WHO ARE VOTING BODIES, UM, P-R-S-R-M-S, ROSS AND WMSS. UM, THESE SUBCOMMITTEES REPORTED UP TO TAC, WHO ALSO HAS A FEW OF ITS OWN TASK FORCES AND SUBGROUPS. UM, CREDIT FINANCE, WHO IS A VOTING BODY LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD, AND RTC PLUS B WHO ARE NOT VOTING BODIES. AND THEN TAC REPORTS UP TO THE BOARD AND THE BOARD TO THE PUC. UM, THERE'S ALSO A FEW, I GUESS SEVERAL OTHER, OTHER GROUPS OUTSIDE OF THE ERCOT STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. UM, THEY ARE NOT FORMALLY PART OF OUR PROCESS, BUT THEY DO PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS. UM, AND NAMELY RPG, WHO DOES HAVE QUITE A BIT OF CROSSOVER WITH ROS. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE SLIDE? ALL RIGHT. SO TECH COMPOSITION. THIS IS LAID OUT IN THE BYLAWS, AND THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE'RE CONSIDERING THOSE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS. UM, SOME PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS MIGHT TAKE BYLAW CHANGES, SOME SECTION 21 CHANGES, AND SOME MIGHT BE AS EASY AS A TAC PROCEDURE CHANGE. UM, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT WANNA KEEP IN MIND, BUT TAX STRUCTURE OR COMPOSITION IS LAID OUT IN THE BYLAWS. THERE ARE 30 TOTAL OF YOU TAC MEMBERS AND, UM, YOU'RE BROKEN OUT INTO THE SEVEN SEGMENTS. THERE'S FOUR MEMBERS IN EACH SEGMENT, EXCEPT FOR THE CONSUMERS WHICH HAVE SIX. UM, AND THE CONSUMERS ARE BROKEN UP INTO THE INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, UM, SEGMENTS. ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT SLIDE TALKS ABOUT ATTACK AND SUBCOMMITTEE VOTING STRUCTURES. THERE'S A LOT OF WORDS ON THIS PAGE, SO I'LL JUST POINT OUT THE MORE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES. SO, TAC VOTES BY REPRESENTATIVE AND REQUIRES TWO THIRDS VOTES TO PASS THE SUBCOMMITTEE VOTES BY SEGMENT AND REQUIRES A MAJORITY TO PASS. UM, PRS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER SUBCOMMITTEES, AND THAT ANY ERCOT MEMBER CAN VOTE WITHIN ITS SEGMENT AT PRS. ALL RIGHT, NEXT SLIDE IS THE REVISION REQUEST PROCESS. UM, THIS ONE FOCUSES ON NRR THE GUIDE REVISION REQUESTS HAVE A SIMILAR PROCESS. THEY JUST GO THROUGH A DIFFERENT SUBCOMMITTEE. UM, SO ONCE AN NPR IS POSTED, IT GOES THROUGH A 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD, AND THEN AFTER THAT 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD, PRS TAKES UP, UM, THAT NPRR TO CONSIDER THE LANGUAGE. IF PRS DOES APPROVE THAT LANGUAGE, IT GOES TO THE NEXT PRS MEETING TO LOOK AT THE IMPACT ANALYSIS. AND PRS CAN ALSO CONSIDER ANY COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED, UM, BETWEEN THOSE MEETINGS. UM, PRS WILL THEN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO T SO TACK WILL REVIEW THE PRS RECOMMENDATION THAT'S IN THE PRS REPORT, ALONG WITH ALL OF THE OPINIONS THAT YOU GUYS LOOK AT EVERY MONTH, THE IMM OPINION, THE ERCOT OPINION, THE CFSG OPINION, AND THEN ALSO THE ERCOT MARKET IMPACT STATEMENT. SO, TAC TAKES ALL OF THOSE PIECES OF INFORMATION, UM, INTO ACCOUNT WHEN YOU'RE MAKING YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. SO I'LL STOP HERE AND SAY THAT IF THERE ARE OPPOSING VOTES ON A REVISION REQUEST COMING OUT OF T, THE R AND M WILL ALSO LOOK AT THAT REVISION REQUEST. SO FOR THOSE REVISION REQUESTS, THE BOARD WILL SEE A TAC RECOMMENDATION AND ALSO AN R AND M RECOMMENDATION. NOT SAYING THAT THOSE WILL BE DIFFERENT, BUT THEY WILL HAVE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THE BOARD WILL MAKE ITS RECOMMENDATION BASED OFF OF JUST THE TAC RECOMMENDATION OR THE TAC AND R AND M RECOMMENDATION AND MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO PUC AND THE PUC HAS FINAL APPROVAL. UM, I'LL POINT OUT THAT DURING THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, NOT JUST DURING THE 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD, THAT COMMENTS CAN BE FILED AT ANY TIME. AND THEN AGAIN, GUIDE REVISIONS HAVE THE SAME PROCESS. THEY JUST GO TO DIFFERENT, UM, SUBCOMMITTEES DEPENDING ON WHICH SUBCOMMITTEE RESIDES OVER THAT [00:10:01] GUIDE. ANY QUESTIONS THERE? YEAH. BILL. BILL BARNES. AND CAN YOU REMIND ME WHAT HAPPENS IF TAC HAS A DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATION THAN R AND M? I DUNNO IF THAT'S HAPPENED YET. THEY'LL BOTH GO TO THE BOARD, SO YEAH. BUT AT THE BOARD THEN WHO GETS TO SPEAK? WHO PRESENTS WHAT, RIGHT. SO CA WELL, KAITLYN WILL PRESENT THE TAC RECOMMENDATION AND THEN THE R AND M CHAIR PRESENTS THEIR RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. THANKS. MM-HMM. , ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON PROCESS OR STRUCTURE? OKAY. I'LL HAND IT OVER TO YOU, CAITLIN, FOR THE NEXT. OKAY. UM, SO NOW WE ARE ON SLIDE SIX. UM, AND HERE ARE SOME JUST KIND OF POTENTIAL DRAFTS OR PROPOSALS. NOBODY, YOU KNOW, GET OVERLY EXCITED ABOUT THEM OR FREAK OUT. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO HERE WAS JUST THINK ABOUT THOSE TWO GOALS OF KIND OF HAVING THE MORE CONTENTIOUS CONVERSATIONS EARLIER SO THAT THE INFORMATION COMES OUT EARLIER IN THE PROCESS. UM, AND THEN TRANSPARENT COMMUNICATIONS AS WELL. SO THE, THE FIRST ONE IS, UH, MODIFYING SUB SUBCOMMITTEE VOTING THRESHOLD. WE DO HAVE A 50% THRESHOLD AT THE SUBCOMMITTEES AND THEN A TWO THIRDS THRESHOLD ATTACK. SO A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, NEW INFORMATION ATTACK AND A LOT OF TIMES ATTACK WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THINGS THE FIRST TIME WE ATTACK HERE ABOUT THEM. AND SO I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT WHETHER HAVING THAT HIGHER THRESHOLD EARLIER WOULD, WOULD DO SOME GOOD TOWARDS COMMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS ON, ON ARGUMENTS. COREY DID SORT OF, YOU KNOW, A, A LOOK BACK AND IT WAS VERY FEW REVISION REQUESTS THAT THAT DIDN'T MEET THE, THAT MET THE 50% BUT DIDN'T MEET THE, THE TWO THIRDS IN RECENT HISTORY. THOSE ARE ON THE SCREEN. COREY, DID YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING THERE? UH, NO, JUST YOU CHARACTERIZED IT CORRECTLY. I JUST WENT BACK TWO YEARS. SO THIS WAS GOING BACK THROUGH, UH, SUMMER OF 2023 AND THERE WERE ONLY FOUR INSTANCES THAT MET THAT CRITERIA. OKAY. AND WE ALSO DO, I THINK THIS WAS COVERED AND, BUT WE DO A SEGMENT VOTING AT THE, THE SUBCOMMITTEES AS WELL. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE LOOKED INTO THAT, IF, IF THAT KIND OF CHANGES THINGS, BUT, BUT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT VOTING THRESHOLDS, UM, AT THOSE SUBCOMMITTEES IN ATTACK. THE NEXT PROPOSAL WAS MINIMUM TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR REVISION REQUEST TAC, MAYBE ANN, IT WOULD HELP TO GO TO SLIDE FIVE AND KIND OF POINT OUT WHERE IN THE PROCESS. SO I THINK WE'D BE THINKING ABOUT A 14 DAY COMMENT PERIOD BETWEEN PRS AND TAC. YEAH, SO THAT ONE, THE MINIMUM TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR REVISION REQUESTS ATTACK, UM, IT WOULD KIND OF BE SIMILAR TO THE PUC REQUIRING 30 DAYS BETWEEN ERCOT FILING THE BOARD APPROVED REVISION REQUEST BEFORE THE PUC TAKES IT UP. SO WE COULD REQUIRE AN X NUMBER OF DAYS BEFORE T TAKES UP A REVISION REQUEST AFTER PRS. UM, IT WOULD GIVE PEOPLE MORE TIME TO REVIEW THE PS RECOMMENDATION AND FILE COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, MAKE THEIR STATEMENTS. UM, IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE 1430 OR WHATEVER, BUT IT MIGHT, RIGHT NOW I THINK WE HAVE ABOUT TWO WEEKS BETWEEN PS AND TAX. SOMETIMES ONE WEEK. YEAH, LIKE THIS T WAS ONE WEEK AFTER PRS, SO IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO GIVE PEOPLE MORE TIME BETWEEN PRS AND TAC. I THINK THAT COULD HELP ON THE COMMUNICATION SIDE, I KNOW COLIN AND I DO PRETECH BRIEFINGS WITH COMMISSION STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS AND, AND LIKE FOR THIS ONE, WHEN WE HAD THOSE MEETINGS, PRS HADN'T HAPPENED YET. SO WE HAD KIND OF A LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AT TAC AND, AND WHAT THOSE VOTES WERE. UM, IT IS KIND OF HELPFUL FOR US THINKING ABOUT HOW TAC DISCUSSIONS ARE GONNA GO TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE, THE PRS BALLOT, UM, AND, AND DISCUSSION THAT HAPPENED AT PRS. AND I'LL COMMENT ON THE NEXT YEAR CALENDAR WITH HOW THE BOARD FALLS. I THINK THERE ARE OFTEN TWO TO THREE CYCLES OF T BETWEEN BOARD MEETINGS ANYWAY, SO IT MIGHT JUST NATURALLY HAPPEN LIKE THAT AS WELL. OKAY. UM, ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING. AND THEN THE LAST BULLET HERE IS THE FILING FORMAL COMMENTS. AND I'LL LET ANNE WEIGH IN ON THAT TOO. OKAY. THIS REALLY ISN'T A PROCESS CHANGE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ENCOURAGE ALREADY, BUT [00:15:01] MAYBE CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE THAT EVERYONE FILE FORMAL COMMENTS SO THAT EVERYONE HAS THEIR POSITIONS OUT THERE EARLY SO OTHERS KNOW WHAT'S GONNA BE TAKEN UP AND DISCUSSED. AND, YOU KNOW, OPPOSING VOTES ARE OUT THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO BE ASKING PEOPLE TO SUBMIT THOSE TO US WHEN IT'S TIME TO REPORT THOSE TO THE BOARD. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ANY OF THESE IDEAS OR THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS? OR IS THERE ANY MORE INFORMATION PEOPLE WOULD WANNA SEE? IT WAS A TECH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF RECOMMENDATION FROM ONE OF OUR TECH MEMBERS TO LAY OUT THE PROCESS AS IT IS NOW. BUT IF WE WANTED SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR MORE, UH, LET US KNOW. NED. SO FROM WHAT I'M SEEING HERE, THERE'S REALLY TWO, TWO OBJECTIVES OR TWO, TWO THINGS THAT ARE TEED UP. ONE IS ENCOURAGING AND TRYING TO CREATE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR FORMAL COMMENTS TO BE FILED, WRITTEN COMMENTS, BE IT, YOU KNOW, RED LINES OR JUST, UM, JUST NARRATIVE COMMENTARY. UM, AND SO I, I DID WANT ASK IF THERE'S A PREFERENCE ONE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. UM, YOU KNOW, WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE A NARRATIVE COMMENTARY FROM EVERY TECH MEMBER? EVERY, UH, THERE MAY BE A, A FINE BALANCE TO STRIKE ON HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH INPUT YOU WANT ON, ON DIFFERENT, UH, DIFFERENT REVISION REQUESTS. UM, AND THEN THE, THE SECOND THING THAT'S TEED UP IS, IS THE VOTING THRESHOLDS. AND SO IS THE THOUGHT THERE TO RAISE IT FOR ALL, UH, ALL STAKEHOLDER BODIES OR JUST AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE LEVELS SO THAT IT IT, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A FILTER BEFORE IT COMES TO TAC. I, I'M OPEN. I THINK THE INITIAL THOUGHT WAS JUST AT THE SUBCOMMITTEES OR MAYBE EVEN JUST AT PRSI THINK WOULD, WOULD DO SOME GOOD. UM, BUT I, WE, WE COULD CERTAINLY RAISE TAC THRESHOLDS EVEN HIGHER THAN IT IS, OR THINKING THINK ABOUT DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE WANNA DO THE SEGMENT VOTING ATTACK OR, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THAT WOULD BE ON THE TABLE IF WE THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE ON THE FILING COMMENTS. YOU KNOW, I DID WANT TO GET SOME DISCUSSION THERE 'CAUSE I THINK I WON'T CALL PARTICULAR PEOPLE OUT, BUT I, I THINK THERE'S SOME ENTITIES, MAYBE THE FINANCIAL ONES WHERE YOU WOULDN'T WANNA PUT A TON OF THINGS IN WRITING. SO I WOULDN'T WANNA, YOU KNOW, PRECLUDE PEOPLE FROM HAVING A VOICE IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IF THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, AN INSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. I DON'T THINK IT'S NOT JUST YOU. UM, BUT THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE, RIGHT? I THINK, YOU KNOW, E IAN AT MORGAN STANLEY, THEY'RE NOT GONNA WANT MORGAN STANLEY WRITTEN COMMENTS ON EVERY REVISION REQUEST. AND I, I DON'T THINK WE'D WANNA PRECLUDE HIM FROM HAVING A VOICE IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. SO THAT, THAT WAS A THOUGHT I HAD THERE. UM, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO THE, THE QUESTION, I THINK IF THERE ARE BIG ARGUMENTS, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO AT LEAST COMMISSION STAFF. YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WE'VE HAD SOME TOPICS COME UP HERE WHERE SOMEBODY SAYS ON THE MICROPHONE LIKE, OH, DOES THIS CONFLICT WITH WHATEVER RULE MAKING? OR, YOU KNOW, IS IT AGAINST THE LAW OR SOMETHING? AND I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SEE THOSE SOMEWHERE SO WE COULD KNOW, YOU KNOW, IS THIS A REAL CONCERN? IS THIS SOMETHING THE PUC NEEDS TO BE LOOKING AT? OKAY, SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S EVEN A THIRD TRACK THEN. 'CAUSE THERE'S THERE, THE TWO THINGS UP HERE ARE, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU BUILD THE RECORD FOR THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS? AND TWO, HOW DO WE MAKE THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS A A BETTER FILTER FOR IDEAS? UM, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD BE MAYBE BE A THIRD PATH, WHICH IS WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING CONTROVERSIAL THAT REQUIRES POLICY MAKERS TO WEIGH IN, HOW DO WE, CAN THE STAKEHOLDERS CERTIFY AN ISSUE TO THE COMMISSION, UH, FOR, FOR LACK OF A BETTER ANALOGY? I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. WE HAVE A Q UM, MARK DREYFUS, UH, THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, I'M GONNA HAVE SOME LARGER POLICY COMMENTS LATER IN THE DISCUSSION WHENEVER YOU THINK IT'S THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR THUS THOSE COMMENTS. I JUST WANNA SPEAK TO ONE OF THESE ISSUES RIGHT NOW. AND THAT'S THE, THE VOTING THRESHOLDS FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEES. I, I'M GONNA NEED SOME CONVINCING, UH, IF WE'RE GONNA MOVE DOWN THAT PATH. I THINK BACK TO WHEN WE, WE FIRST SET [00:20:01] UP THESE COMMITTEES AND I THINK THE REASON WE ESTABLISHED THE 50% VOTING THRESHOLD IN THE SUBCOMMITTEES AND THE TWO THIRDS THRESHOLD HERE IS ONE, TO, TO LET CREATIVITY FLOW AND TO ALLOW IDEAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND MOVED FORWARD AND, AND TINKERED WITH AND IMPROVED UNTIL WE GOT HERE TO THE PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT THE DECISION MAKERS AMONG ALL THESE PARTICIPANTS IN THE MARKET. AND SO IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO ME TO KEEP THE 50% THRESHOLD EARLIER ON, BUT, BUT HAVE A STRONGER FRESH THRESHOLD HERE BEFORE WE'RE SENDING SOMETHING TO THE BOARD. AND THE SECOND REASON I THINK WE SET IT UP THAT WAY IS TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE, THE SMALLER PARTICIPANTS WITH, WITH LESSER RESOURCES WHO HAVE A MORE DIFFICULT TIME, UH, GETTING THEIR PROPOSALS OUT AND HEARD. AND SO, UH, IF WE'RE GONNA MOVE DOWN THAT PATH, I'M GONNA NEED A LOT MORE CONVINCING THAT THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE, UH, SOLUTION. THANK YOU. OKAY. RICHARD ROSS, MARK, IT'S, I SYMPATHIZE WITH YOUR CONCERN ABOUT SMALL PARTICIPANTS, BUT, UM, YOU'RE NOT SPECIAL. UH, IT'S NOT EASY FOR BIGGER PARTICIPANTS EITHER. UM, AND, AND I GUESS MY GENERAL COMMENT, I, I LIKE, I'M, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROPOSALS Y'ALL PUT OUT HERE. UM, IT, IT WORRIES ME A LITTLE BIT RAISING THE VOTING VOTING THRESHOLD AT THE COMMITTEES BECAUSE IT'S GONNA END UP STOPPING ISSUES POTENTIALLY THAT ARE GOOD ISSUES THAT NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. UM, AND COME TO TAC FROM, FROM REACHING TAC ABSENT SOMEONE GOING TO THE EFFORT OF, OF SUBMITTING AN APPEAL, WHICH COMES WITH IT A WHOLE NOTHER SET OF ISSUES. UM, FORMAL COMMENTS IS GREAT. UH, I MEAN, I KNOW THOSE ARE ALWAYS ENCOURAGED. I, THERE'S NO ISSUE THERE. I WORRY ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL TIMELINE, JUST A NEEDLESSLY DELAYING EVERYTHING WHEN I THINK THE REASON WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS MAY BE A VERY NARROW SET OF ISSUES. AND SO, UM, BUT WE WILL SURVIVE. WE'VE SURVIVED FOR 20 PLUS 24 YEARS SINCE WE'VE REALLY STARTED THIS BIG PARTY, UH, IN THIS FASHION. UM, IF WE MAKE THESE CHANGES, UH, BUT I, I, I THINK I WOULD WANT THOSE THAT ARE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT US CHANGING THE PROCESS TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AND UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR EVERYTHING. AND IN PARTICULAR, LOOK AND SEE IF, YOU KNOW IF IT'S GONNA HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT ON THESE FOUR ISSUES. WAS THAT THE ISSUE OR ARE WE SOLVING THEIR REAL PROBLEM? 'CAUSE I WOULD REALLY HATE TO DO THIS AND HAVE THE IMPACTS WE'RE SEEING HERE IF COME TO TRULY FIND OUT WHETHER THEY'LL PUT IT DOWN IN WRITING IN COMMENTS OR SAY IT PUBLICLY OR WHATEVER THEY'RE THINKING IN THE BACK OF THEIR MIND. WELL, THAT REALLY WASN'T THE ISSUE I WAS THINKING ABOUT. SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE GO TO THE, IF WE ELEVATE, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT TO THE R AND M AND THE BOARD OR THE COMMISSION AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT. IF YOU'RE GONNA TELL US THAT WON'T SOLVE MY PROBLEM. UH, THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY, ONLY CAUTION BEFORE WE JUMP OFF AND DO IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M SORRY. RICHARD ROSS, A EP DO YOU MEAN I ALWAYS DO THAT AT THE END INSTEAD OF THE BEGINNING? RICHARD, FOR CLARIFICATION, YOUR LAST STATEMENT WAS THAT ELEVATE THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION TO R AND M AND THE BOARD OR ELEVATE THE CONTROVERSIAL NO, JUST THIS, THIS ISSUE THAT, HEY, WE'VE LOOKED AT IT AND I KNOW YOU'RE GONNA DO IT ANYWAY. IN THEIR UPDATE THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT IT, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT CHANGING THIS IS THESE ARE THE ONES THAT GOT ELEVATED OR WOULD WOULD BE THE, THE, THE FIRST ONES TO BE CAUGHT IN THE NET, IF YOU WILL. I DON'T MEAN THAT AS NEGATIVELY AS IT SOUNDS, BUT YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. HOPEFULLY THAT MADE SENSE. YEP. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE, I I DON'T THINK WE'RE UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO ELEVATE THESE OR, OR NOT, LIKE I SAID, THEY WERE SORT OF INITIAL BRAINSTORM FOR POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS. I'M, I'M OPEN TO OTHER ONES. I'M OPEN TO TOTALLY WIPING THESE OFF THE TABLE, SO NO, NO. AND, AND I DON'T MEAN, AND YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE DECIDE BEFORE WE PUT IT IN CONCRETE, MAKE SURE, MAKE SURE WE MAKE SURE THAT OTHERS AGREE. HEY, YEAH, I WOULD, THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL BETTER IF YOU DID THAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DIANA COLEMAN, DIANA COLEMAN, CPS ENERGY, JUST A QUESTION AND A COMMENT. WOULD IT BE HELPFUL WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMMENTS, NOT ONLY WHEN THERE IS EITHER [00:25:01] AN OPPOSING VIEW OR A CONCERN ON A CHANGE, WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO MEMORIALIZE CONVERSATIONS THAT MAYBE TOOK PLACE BETWEEN PRS AND TAC? AND SO ONE OF THE EXAMPLES THAT I AM THINKING OF IS NPRR 1226, WHICH IS THE DEMAND RESPONSE MONITOR. WE CPS ENERGY, AND, UM, ANDY, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH ERCOT OFFLINE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH FLOYD OFFLINE, AND SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE WORK THROUGH THAT PROCESS. OUR COMMENTS HELPFUL IN THAT REGARD IF WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION OR IS IT, SHOULD WE JUST RESERVE THE COMMENTS FOR THINGS THAT WE ARE EITHER IN SUPPORT OF OR WE ARE OPPOSING? WHAT WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL? I THINK THOSE COMMENTS WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE PARTIES WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT. AND I THINK WE, THIS MIGHT NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT I THINK WE SEE SOMETIMES, RIGHT? IF THERE'S KIND OF A COMPROMISE PROPOSAL, SOMEBODY WILL FILE SOMETHING THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THROUGH DISCUSSIONS WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN ERCOT, WE GOT TO THIS COMPROMISE FOR THESE REASONS. OKAY. AND I, I THINK THAT IS HELPFUL. OKAY. I THINK THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN CAPTURE THAT JUST BECAUSE BY THE TIME WE GET TO PRS AND BY THE TIME WE GET TO TAC SOMETIMES WE HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE UNBEKNOWNST TO OTHERS AND TO JUST MAKING SURE THAT THOSE COMMENTS COULD BE HELPFUL BOTH TO T AND TO THE COMMISSION, JUST KNOWING THAT THERE'S SOME CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING BEHIND THE CURTAIN. AND THEN I JUST, ONE COMMENT AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT'S BEEN SAID BEFORE IS BEFORE WE CHANGE THE VOTING THRESHOLD TO SEE IF MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER SOLUTION OF HOW WE CAN BETTER COMMUNICATE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANKS DIANA. UH, CHRIS HENDRICKS. THANKS. KALY. YEAH. ON THE MINIMUM TIME REQUIREMENTS, UM, I'M FAIRLY OKAY WITH THE KIND OF THE 14 DAY GAP BETWEEN PRS AND TAC. AND THEN ALSO I WANNA JUST KIND OF MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE OR TRY TO CONTINUE TO, UH, KEEP, HAVE THE COMMENTS COME IN SEVEN DAYS BEFORE TAC. THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE THE LAST MINUTE RUSH OF TRYING TO DO SOMETHING DAY OF OR THE NIGHT BEFORE. OKAY. THANKS DAVID. THANK YOU. BILL BARNES? YEAH, I WANNA WEIGH ON A FEW THINGS. ONE IS, UM, IT'S ALWAYS GOOD PRACTICE TO FILE FORMAL COMMENTS, RIGHT? AND I THINK THAT IS KIND OF THE GAUGE ON HOW SERIOUS YOU CONSIDER THE ISSUE IF YOU SHOW UP IN THIS DEBATE AND THIS DISCUSSION. UM, BUT YOU DON'T TAKE TIME TO PREPARE FORMAL COMMENTS. I THINK THAT THAT SHOWS THE REST OF US THE LEVEL OF LIKE SERIOUSNESS AND INTEREST YOU HAVE IN THE ACTUAL ISSUE. SO IT'S ALWAYS GOOD PRACTICE IF YOU HAVE, UH, STRONG CONCERNS IS TO PUT IT ON RECORD, FILE COMMENTS. SO I'LL AGREE WITH THAT AND DO THAT AS MUCH AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN. UM, I ALSO WANNA WEIGH IN AND ECHO SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM MARK VIS AND RICHARD ON THE VOTING STRUCTURE. I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CURRENT VOTING STRUCTURE, UM, AND THE THRESHOLDS AT PRS AND THE LOWER COMMITTEE LEVELS BECAUSE ONE OF THE BIG VALUES OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IS TO DEVELOP POLICY THAT INCLUDES THE PERSPECTIVE OF ALL DIFFERENT MARKET PARTICIPANTS. AND THAT'S TYPICALLY WHERE WE SEE THAT HAPPEN. IT'S OFTENTIMES YOU FILE INITIAL CONCEPT THAT IT'S NOT FULLY BAKED AND IT MAY NEED OTHER PERSPECTIVE. AND SO THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE IF YOU GET A VOTE OF 55% THAT YOU NEED TO DO MORE WORK, YOU NEED TO REACH OUT TO OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS, AND REFINE THE PROPOSAL SO THAT YOU CAN GET TO, TO TWO THIRDS. THAT'S, UH, I THINK A VERY IMPORTANT STEP IN OUR PROCESS, AND I THINK THAT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL MANY, MANY TIMES IN THE PAST IN IMPROVING, UH, POLICY THAT EVENTUALLY MAKES IT THROUGH TAC INTO THE BOARD. THANKS, IAN HALEY. THANK YOU. IAN HALEY, MORGAN STANLEY. UM, SO TWO, TWO LINES OF THOUGHT I HAVE. ONE IS, UH, I PERSONALLY HAVE FELT A, A DEGREE OF PRESSURE AS A STAKEHOLDER TO MOVE, UH, REVISION REQUESTS THROUGH THE PROCESS QUICKLY WITH THE AGING REVISION REQUEST LIST THAT IS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD EVERY MEETING, UM, IN GOING AND ASKING STAKEHOLDERS TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME, I SEE THAT AS A CONFLICT. THE BOARD MAY NOT THEY, SO THAT IS SOMETHING I WOULD LOVE TO, YOU KNOW, GET THEIR INSIGHT IN ON. UH, THE OTHER ONE IS, UM, IN FILING FORMAL COMMENTS, UM, I WONDERED IF THERE WASN'T [00:30:02] A WAY TO HAVE AN INFORMAL AGREEMENT AMONG STAKEHOLDERS THAT IF COMMENTS WERE NOT FILED BETWEEN TAC AND THE BOARD ON ATTACK DECISION, THAT THE STAKEHOLDERS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT POSITION WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD AS IT IS. AND THEY WERE, I'M NOT SAYING ENTIRELY, BUT GIVING UP, YOU KNOW, AN INFORMAL RIGHT TO PUSH ON THIS ISSUE. UM, THERE ARE MANY TIMES I VOTED NO ATTACK, BUT, UH, IN MY CURRENT POSITION AND PREVIOUS POSITIONS, BUT UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS THE WAY IT WAS GONNA GO THROUGH AND JUST, IT WASN'T A GOOD, THE VOTE WASN'T FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE COMPANY I WAS REPRESENTING, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT, UM, THAT WAS WHAT WAS MOVING FORWARD. THERE ARE ALSO OTHER TIMES WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, I VOTED NO ATTACK AND, YOU KNOW, THE COMPANY I WAS REPRESENTING WAS VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THE ISSUE AND, UM, COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, AS BILL SAID, FORMAL COMMENTS, UH, CAN SHOW YOUR LEVEL OF SERIOUSNESS AND WOULD'VE UNDERSTOOD IF, UM, INDIVIDUAL COMPANY COMMENTS OR COALITION OF COMPANIES, UH, SHOULD BE, SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO FILE THOSE COMMENTS. SO JUST THE THOUGHT OF TRYING TO ELEVATE THE COMMENTS TO THE CORRECT LEVEL OF WHAT I THINK THE COMMENTS NEED TO BE TAKEN TO, UM, AT THE BOARD LEVEL, UM, AND HOPEFULLY KIND OF CREATING A LITTLE BIT OF A PROCESS. BUT THAT WAS A, UH, AN EARLY MORNING THOUGHT, SO HAPPY TO BE VERY WRONG. OKAY. THANKS IAN. BOB WHITMEYER? YEAH, A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, UM, WE SEEM TO HAVE LOST THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PEOPLE THAT REPRESENT STAKEHOLDERS IN ELECTED POSITIONS DO NOT REPRESENT THEIR COMPANIES. THEY DO AT PRS, BUT THEY DON'T, BEYOND PRS, THEY REPRESENT THE SEGMENT. AND WE SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT IN A LOT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS. SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFICULT FOR AN INDIVIDUAL COMPANY WHILE REPRESENTING THE SEGMENT TO, UM, SAY CERTAIN, CERTAIN THINGS AND DEVOTE CERTAIN WAYS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT, UH, KIND OF THE FIRST ONE WHERE THIS BECAME AN ISSUE WAS NPR 1186 NPR 1186 PASSED TAC WITH A 97.5% IN FAVOR VOTE. UM, WE ALSO USED TO HAVE A APPEAL PROCESS OF TAC DECISIONS AND THAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN LOST. WE CAN DISCUSS THAT FURTHER LATER, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO PRESENT AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU. AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE, OR SOMEBODY SPEAK TO THE APPEAL PROCESS OF TAC DECISIONS? I SEE CHAD BACK THERE TOO. YEAH, I MEAN, WE STILL HAVE THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR, UM, TAC DECISIONS THAT DON'T ADVANCE A REVISION REQUEST. SO IF TAC IS REJECTING TABLING, REFERRING A REVISION REQUEST, YOU CAN STILL APPEAL THAT DECISION TO THE BOARD. UM, FOR A DECISION THATT ADVANCES TO THE BOARD, YOU JUST FILE COMMENTS AGAINST TAX POSITION. SO THE APPEALS PROCESS IS STILL THERE. IT HASN'T CHANGED. DO PEOPLE KNOW IT'S STILL THERE, I GUESS IS KIND OF THE MAIN QUESTION. I MEAN, IT'S STILL, IT'S STILL, I DID NOT MEAN THAT AS A JOKE. YEAH, IT'S STILL IN 21 IN THE BYLAWS, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN TAKEN OUT. YEAH. AND SO A UP VOTE, A YES VOTE FROM TAC CAN'T BE APPEALED, BUT THAT'S SORT OF SEMANTICS. YOU WRITE COMMENTS AND I, I BELIEVE THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN, THAT'S ALL I CASE TO THE CASE. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CHANGED RECENTLY. I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME CLARIFICATIONS OF THAT, BUT IT'S STILL THE CASE. MAY MAYBE WE SHOULD MAKE THAT CHANGE THAT YOU CAN APPEAL A FAVORABLE RATING FROM PAT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION TO LOOK INTO. OKAY. UM, WHERE ARE WE? WE'RE AT BOB HILTON. OKAY. LET ME TAKE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TACK HERE. I'M HOPING I'M NOT REPEATING ANYTHING. I HAD SOME STUFF GOING ON. UM, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE FUNDAMENTALS. I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT, AT WHAT I SEE UP HERE CHANGING THE VOTING THRESHOLD, UH, MORE TIME AT TACK. I MEAN WE HAD 2 45 HERE, HOW MANY MONTHS, YOU KNOW, SO I'M LOOKING AT THAT AND I DON'T SEE THIS AS FIXING ANYTHING IN MY MIND. I THINK THEY'RE BANDAIDS. I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK MORE FUNDAMENTAL AT WHAT WE'VE GOT. AND I THINK TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHERE WE CAME FROM. AND IN MY MIND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THAT ANYMORE. SO WE DO HAVE TO WORK AROUND THAT AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT. BUT THE PROCESS IN [00:35:01] ITSELF, AND I STILL THINK THAT THE COMMITTEE GROUPS UP TO TAC DRIVE ALL THE CONCEPTS TO A COMPROMISE AND GETTING TO A, A CONSENSUS IN SOME DEGREE WITH THE, YOU KNOW, 60%, 67% VOTE. BUT THAT'S WHERE IT ENDS FROM TRYING TO DRIVE TO COMPROMISE. AND THEN YOU HAVE A FULLY INDEPENDENT BOARD. AND I'M NOT CRITICIZING THE BOARD, THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS, IS THAT'S WHERE THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IN MY MIND ENDS RIGHT THERE. AND THAT'S THE SAME WHEN YOU GET TO THE PUC UNLESS YOU START TO APPEAL THINGS. THERE'S NOTHING THAT TRIES TO DRIVE A STAKEHOLDER CONSENSUS IN EITHER OF THOSE TWO BODIES RIGHT OFF THE BAT LIKE WE USED TO HAVE, IF YOU SEE WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. UM, SO, AND, AND SO LET'S LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE GOT AND IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT, AT THE PARTICULAR ONES, I WOULD, AND THIS ISN'T A CRITICISM TO ERCOT OR THE IMM EITHER IS WHO ARE THE APPEALING BODIES IN ALL OF THESE? IT'S NOT STAKEHOLDER AGAINST STAKEHOLDER, WE CAME TO CONSENSUS. IT'S EITHER ERCOT OR THE IMM, UH, AND IN ONE THAT IS WHERE THOSE APPEALS ARE COMING FROM. AND SO WE'RE, THEY'RE OUTTA THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO DRIVE TO CONSENSUS IN MY MIND. UH, SO I THINK WE NEED TO FUNDAMENTALLY THINK HOW WE COULD TRY TO FIX THAT. AND ACTUALLY, FROM MY, MY PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS NO SURPRISE TO ME AT ALL THAT WE'RE GETTING WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY WHERE WE'RE AT, WE'RE ACTUALLY WHERE ALL THE REST OF THE RTOS ARE TODAY. I MEAN, WHAT HAPPENS, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, IS IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS AT SOUTHWEST POWER POOL OR IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS AT MISO AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS? THOSE THAT WANT TO APPEAL, APPEAL TO FERC AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY'RE DESIGNED AND, AND SET UP WITH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE SINCE WE'VE MADE THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE, IS SAME THING. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IT GOES THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. WHAT GETS FILED GETS FILED, AND THEN INSTEAD OF GOING TO FERT TO APPEAL, YOU GO TO THE PUC. SO I PRETTY MUCH SOLVED THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO SOME DEGREE, UH, WHEN WE MOVE FORWARD. 'CAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PROCESS WE HAVE DRIVES TO CONSENSUS THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS. SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, AND EVEN TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST IS HOW DO WE FIX THAT? AND I THINK IT'S MORE FUNDAMENTAL AND I THINK IT'S FUNDAMENTAL OF, OF LOOKING AT EVEN WHAT, UH, AND RICHARD, YOU COULD JUMP IN HERE IS LIKE WE DO AT THE SOUTHWEST POWER POOL TO WHERE THERE IS COMMUNICATION WITH THE MEMBERS COMMITTEE AND OTHER THINGS THAT THEY GET THE BOARD AND THOSE GET TO SEE THAT FULL DEBATE BETWEEN THE STAKEHOLDERS AND, YOU KNOW, ERCOT OR THE IMM, THE FULL DEBATE AND THEN THEY CAN VOTE ON SOMETHING, BUT THEY'VE GOT THAT EDUCATION. I MEAN, WE CAN BUILD A RECORD ALL YOU WANT. I MEAN, LOOK AT 2 45, THAT WAS A LONG RECORD, BUT, AND THIS IS, AGAIN, I'M NOT CRITICIZING NEITHER THE BOARD OR THE COMMISSION IS GONNA DIG DOWN INTO EVERY PIECE OF THAT. THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO DO IT. SO, UH, I KNOW THE STAFF WILL DO A LOT OF THAT AND LOOK AT THAT AND DO SOME ADVISING, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK A LITTLE DEEPER THAN JUST SOME OF THE ISSUES WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. ALRIGHT, THANKS. THANKS. THANKS, BOB. UH, UH, ERIC BLAKEY. THANK YOU. ERIC BLAKEY, PERAL, I JUST APPRECIATE BOB'S COMMENTS. I THINK I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT HE SAID. I WANT TO, UH, JUST ON THE FORMAL COMMENTS, TOTALLY SUPPORT THAT, THAT, UH, BE ENCOURAGED. THE TIME REQUIREMENTS. I'VE OFTEN, WHEN WE SET OUR CALENDARS FOR THE YEAR, I, I OFTEN WISH WE WOULD START WITH THE BOARD MEETINGS AND WORK BACKWARDS. I FEEL LIKE WE JUST KIND OF THROW MEETINGS ON THE CALENDAR AND I WISH WE WOULD DELIBERATELY SET OUR MEETINGS SO THAT WE'RE TAKING FULL ADVANTAGE OF OUR TIME. UM, AND ON THE VOTING THRESHOLD PROPOSAL, I, I DON'T SEE THAT THAT IS ADDRESSING THE ISSUE. I'M NOT REALLY SURE IF WE, IF WE COULD DISCUSS SOME OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUES WE'VE HAD. MAYBE, UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT, THAT THESE PARTICULAR ONES ARE, ARE GOOD EXAMPLES TO SAY, WELL, IF WE'D HAVE HAD A TWO THIRDS VOTE AT THE, AT THE PRS OR ROSS LEVEL, WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE ISSUES LATER ON. I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S, I DON'T THINK THESE ARE REALLY ADDRESSING THE, THE PROBLEM. UM, AND I'D LIKE TO TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT WE COULD DO TO, TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES, UM, OF, OF ANY COMMUNICATION. BECAUSE I SEE A LOT OF, A LOT OF INFORMATION BEING DEVELOPED AND I SEE ALL THE REPORTS AND I THINK THEY'RE VERY WELL DONE. UM, I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT WHAT PROBLEM IS. SO THANK YOU. THANKS ERIC. UM, I, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE SUPPORT FOR THE VOTING THRESHOLD. WHAT, WHAT I WAS THINKING [00:40:01] WAS, YOU KNOW, AS BEENS AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, THE, THE BOARD MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS AREN'T GONNA HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE RECORD. SO A LOT OF TIMES THE QUOTE UNQUOTE RECORD THEY GET IS THE TAC REPORT. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, SUGGESTIONS LIKE DIANA'S WOULD HELP BECAUSE I THINK SOMETIMES IF YOU ARE COMING FROM THE, THE PRS VOTE, WHICH IS A 50% THRESHOLD AND, AND PEOPLE VOTING FOR THEIR COMPANY, AND IT COULD BE DIFFERENT MEMBERS, DIFFERENT MONTHS, AND THEN WE SEE SOMETHING CONTROVERSIAL ATTACK AND WE VOTE ON IT THE FIRST TIME, THERE'S THERE SOMETIMES IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S THINGS MISSING FROM THE, THE TAC RECORD, RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT SOME OF US HAVE BEEN GETTING TO, LIKE SOME, SOME OF THOSE KIND OF OUTSIDE CONVERSATIONS OR DID TAC HAVE TIME TO REQUEST ANALYSIS OR, OR REALLY DIG INTO IT BEFORE JUST VOTING IT OUT AND, AND HAVING TWO THIRDS AND SAYING, OKAY, THAT PASSES. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS SORT OF TRYING TO GET AT, BUT I THINK A LOT OF THE COMMENTS WE HAVE RECEIVED TODAY COULD SOLVE THAT WITHOUT CHANGING THE VOTING THRESHOLD. OKAY. JENNIFER, JENNIFER SCHMIDT RHYTHM, I HAVE REALLY APPRECIATED THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. I THINK THAT I'M CONCERNED THAT THE EXAMPLES PROVIDED ARE REALLY MORE OF AN ISSUE OF ANALYSIS PARALYSIS POST TAC AND LIKE THERE IS SO MUCH IN THE RECORD AS BEEN HAS BEEN STATED. I THINK IF WE COULD HAVE A MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING DOCUMENT IN ADVANCE OF TAC OF WHERE THE POINTS OF CONTENTION ARE, SO THAT AT TAC WE'RE BOTH VOTING SOMETHING OUT, BUT WE'RE ALSO VOTING OUT A RECORD OF WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING INSTEAD OF JUST, YES, THESE DISCUSSIONS HAVE HAPPENED. UM, AND THEN KIND OF IN ADDITION TO THIS PROCESS, I THINK THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR CONFUSION WHEN MEMBERS OF THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS ARE PRESENTING POST THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. I THINK THAT CAN CREATE A LOT OF CONFUSION AS WELL, WHICH WAS EXEMPLIFIED IN NOT THESE FOUR, BUT ONE OF THE OTHER CONTENTIOUS ISSUES. I, I THINK THAT IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE A STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, THEN INDIVIDUAL MARKET PARTICIPANTS WHO HAVE OPINIONS CAN FILE COMMENTS LIKE ANY OTHER ENTITY, BUT OTHERWISE SHOULD BE PART OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE PRESENTING TO THE PUC OR THE BOARD SEPARATELY, I THINK THAT REALLY UNDERMINES THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS ITSELF. UM, AND SO I, I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO HAVE A, A RECORD THAT DEMONSTRATES THE DIVERSE VIEWS. WE'VE, WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT CONSENSUS. I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY VOTING OUT SOMETHING THAT REPRESENTS A COMPROMISE VIEW. AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IS ONCE IT GETS TO THE BOARD OR THE PUC, THEY'RE SAYING THIS COMPROMISE SPLIT THE BABY IN A WAY WE DON'T APPRECIATE. RIGHT? WELL, GETTING TO MORE CONSENSUS JUST SPLITS THE BABY FURTHER. SO WHY NOT KIND OF FLIP IT ON ITS HEAD AND SAY, THE DIVERSITY OF THE MARKET PARTICIPANT VIEWS IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE WILL GIVE A BEST COMPROMISE VIEW, BUT HERE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT. WE DID THAT IN 1186. WE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO THIS COMPROMISE. HERE ARE THE SIX BULLET POINTS THAT WE THINK REPRESENTS THE POINTS OF CONTENTION OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. AND WE LOOK TO THE BOARD IN THE PUC TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RIGHT NUANCE ON THOSE SIX BULLET POINTS IS. I WOULD ENCOURAGE TECH TO ACTUALLY PUSH FORWARD SOMETHING THAT HAS MORE NUANCE IN IT SO THAT THE PUC AND THE BOARD HAVE MORE CONTEXT WITHOUT HAVING TO READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE RECORD FOR WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON. AND I THINK THAT MIGHT SOLVE IT MORE THAN TRYING TO GET TO MORE CONSENSUS IS ACTUALLY TO GET TO MORE DIVERSITY IN WHAT'S PUBLISHED OUT OF TAC. THANKS. CAN I ASK YOU A FOLLOW UP, JENNIFER, THAT YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO? BECAUSE I SEE AT LEAST ONE AGREEMENT WITH YOU. WHO WOULD YOU IMAGINE WOULD MAKE THAT ? I THINK THAT WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME AS A STAKEHOLDER GROUP MAKING, UM, VICE CHAIRS AND CHAIRS HAVE THE ACUMEN TO REPRESENT THE BODY. I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS ALREADY A LOT OF EFFORT THAT GOES INTO BEING A VICE CHAIR AND CHAIR. SO I THINK EITHER IT COULD BE LIKE A ROTATING POSITION WHERE BASED ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE OUTCOME, WE PICK ACTUALLY ONE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT'S NOT IN CONTENTION AND THEY KIND OF FOLLOW THE RECORD. AND IT WOULD BE A WAY TO TRAIN UP KIND OF YOUR NEXT GENERATION [00:45:01] OR ADD IT TO THE LIST OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR RESPONSIBILITIES. BUT I THINK THE IMPORTANT PART IS THAT WHEN THE ISSUE GETS VOTED OUT OF TAC, THAT VIEW FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND THEN THE TAC NOTES IS PART OF WHAT GETS VOTED OUT OF TAC. LIKE EVERYONE IN TAC HAS BEEN EXPECTED TO BASICALLY SAY LIKE, THIS IS A REPRESENTATION OF THE CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO THIS. AND IF ANYONE AT TAC DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THAT'S A REPRESENTATIVE RECORD, THEN WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION TOO. OKAY. I WILL SAY WE, WE DID TRY THIS, BUT A, YOU KNOW, ONCE, SO A LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE, BUT WE, WE ATTEMPTED SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS ON NOER 2 45, AND WE COULD NOT GET THE DISAGREEING PARTIES TO AGREE ON WHAT THE POINTS OF CONTENTION WERE. AND SO I THINK IN SOME CASES THAT WOULD BE A REALLY LONG AND DIFFICULT EFFORT. I THINK 2 45 IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF IF WE CAN'T COME UP WITH A COHESIVE DOCUMENT AND IT MAKES IT OUT, THEN MAYBE THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. AND SO THAT'S WHERE IT, THERE'S A WAY TO GET A COHESIVE DOCUMENT THAT ISN'T CONSENSUS, IN MY OPINION. OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. UM, LET'S GO TO ROY. TRUE. YEAH, THIS IS ROY. TRUE WITH ASS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, PRETTY FAINT, BUT WE CAN HEAR YOU. SORRY, I'LL TRY TO SPEAK UP. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE A, A SINGLE POINT AND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE LENGTHENING THE TIME PERIOD, UH, BETWEEN MEETINGS TO ALLOW MORE DOCUMENTATION TO, UH, BE PROVIDED, UH, I'M WONDERING WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S NOT ALSO GOING TO LEAD TO ADDITIONAL URGENT, UH, REVISION REQUESTS. I I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE, THE PUSHBACK ON LENGTHENING THE TIME BETWEEN THE MEETINGS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M EATING A COOKIE NOW. MARK, UH, THANK YOU CHAIR AND, AND THANK YOU FOR ORGANIZING THIS IN PERSON CONVERSATION. I THINK IT'S, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AS WE THINK ABOUT WHAT ARE SOME REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUES FOR THE SUCCESS OF OUR PROCESS. UM, IF YOU GUYS WOULD ALL INDULGE ME FOR A MINUTE, I WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND THINK ABOUT WHY WE'RE HERE AND WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. AND THE CONVERSATION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT ORIGINATED WHEN WE RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCOMFORT WITH STAKEHOLDER OUTCOMES IN PROCESS. AND SO I LOOK AT THE ISSUES THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY, AND BOB REFERRED TO THEM AS BAND-AIDS. I DON'T WANNA USE THAT TERM, BUT, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM. BECAUSE IF WE TRY AND TINKER WITH A BUNCH OF THINGS AND FIX A BUNCH OF ITEMS, BUT WE DON'T ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM, THEN WE STILL HAVE THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM. SO I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS LONG AND HARD AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH MANY OF YOU AND I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION AND THE FEEDBACK. AND I'M GONNA DESCRIBE MY CONCERNS, MY, MY OVERARCHING POLICY CONCERNS AS, AS TWO RELATED THINGS. AND THE FIRST IS GROWING PAINS WITH OUR COMING TO TERMS WITH HOW WE WORK IN THE SENATE BILL TWO ENVIRONMENT. AND THE SECOND IS THE INFORMALITY OF THE COMMISSION REVIEW PROCESS AND APPEAL PROCESS. NOW THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TO APPROVE EVERY ITEM THAT COMES OUT OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. SO WHEN, WHEN I LOOK AT SENATE BILL TWO, UM, THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE THAT, THAT WE'RE ALL RECKONING WITH. AND THAT IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE CHANGED THE STRUCTURE AND, AND KIND OF APPROACH OF THE BOARD. AND IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE WAY THAT WE WOULD'VE CHOSEN IT, BUT IT IS THE WAY THAT OUR, THAT OUR LEGISLATURE AND OUR STATE LEADERS CHOSE. AND WE HAVE TO WORK WITHIN THAT SYSTEM. AND ONE OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE STRUCTURE THAT THEY PUT IN PLACE IS THAT TODAY'S BOARD IS LARGELY NON-SUBSTANTIVE. AND, AND IT'S JUST A CONSEQUENCE OF THE LEGISLATION AND THE APPOINTMENTS. NOW, IN THE OLDEN DAYS BEFORE 2021, THE BOARD WAS FUNDAMENTALLY SUBSTANTIVE. WE HAD INDUSTRY MEMBERS THAT REPRESENTED ALL OF US, AND THEN THOSE INDUSTRY MEMBERS CHOSE THE FIVE INDEPENDENTS. AND WHEN THEY CHOSE THE FIVE INDEPENDENTS, [00:50:01] THEY LOOKED FOR INDUSTRY EXPERTISE. SO WE HAD AN EXPERT BOARD. AND SO THESE ISSUES WOULD COME UP TO THE BOARD CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES AND THE BOARD WOULD HAVE SOMETIMES DEEP DIALOGUE AMONG ABOUT THOSE ISSUES, DEBATE THE EXTENSIVE RECORD ABOUT THOSE ISSUES AND GRAPPLE WITH THEM UNTIL THEY CAME TO SOME DECISION. AND FOR THE MOST PART, WHEN THE BOARD CAME TO A DECISION, AFTER GRAPPLING WITH THE ISSUES, WE, THE STAKEHOLDERS UNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS. THEY WENT THROUGH THE REASONING THEY WENT THROUGH, AND WE UNDERSTOOD AND RESPECTED THE DECISION. AND 98% OF THE TIME, THAT WAS THE END OF THE PROCESS. WHEN IT WASN'T THE END OF THE PROCESS, WE HAD A FORMAL PROCESS FOR APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION, A PROCESS THAT WAS KNOWN GAVE US ALL RIGHTS AND INVOLVED EX PARTE PROTECTIONS, WHICH IN THIS CASE PROTECTED THE COMMISSIONERS FROM A BUNCH OF PEOPLE COMING INTO THEM AND TRYING AND LOBBYING THEM ABOUT, UH, ABOUT A STAKEHOLDER ISSUE. TODAY'S, TODAY'S DIFFERENT, UH, THE NON SUBSTANTIVE BOARD MAKES DECISIONS AND WE, THE STAKEHOLDERS KNOW THAT'S NOT THE END OF THE PROCESS. AND SO ANY DECISION THAT COMES FROM THE BOARD THAT WE'RE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH, WELL, I'M GONNA GO AND TRY AND CHANGE THAT DECISION AFTER THE BOARD DECISION. AND THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO REVIEW ALL STAKEHOLDER DECISIONS AND ALL DECISIONS OF THE BOARD. BUT WE NO LONGER HAVE A FORMAL, UH, CONTESTED CASE TYPE OF PROCESS FOR THOSE APPEALS. WE HAVE A MEMO PROCESS. THE MEMO PROCESS IS VERY INFORMAL. AND SO ANY STAKEHOLDER WHO'S UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE DECISION OF THE BOARD CAN FILE COMMENTS, CAN SET UP MEETINGS, CAN LOBBY THE COMMISSIONERS, LOBBY LEGISLATORS TO, TO SEND LETTERS TO THE COMMISSIONERS, ET CETERA. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT LED TO THE DISCOMFORT FROM THE COMMISSION THAT CREATED THIS CONVERSATION. SO WERE I TO THINK ABOUT ADDRESSING THE UNDERLYING PROBLEMS, I THINK THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IS THE APPEAL PROCESS THROUGH THE BOARD AND TO THE COMMISSION. AND IF WE FOCUS ON THE COMMISSION REVIEW PROCESS, MAKING THAT MORE FORMAL, THEN WE'LL HAVE DUE PROCESS THAT WE CAN ALL UNDERSTAND AND PARTICIPATE. 'CAUSE I DON'T GO AND MEET WITH COMMISSIONERS ON ISSUES, AND THAT'S NOT PART OF PART OF WHAT I DO. UH, I KNOW A LOT OF, UH, A LOT OF YOU ALL OR YOUR COMPANIES DO THAT. UM, SO I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE IMBALANCE THERE. BUT IF WE HAD A MORE FORMAL APPEAL PROCESS WITH THE STEPS OF THAT APPEAL AND PROTECTIONS OF THE COMMISSION SO THAT THEY'RE NOT GETTING, UH, LOBBIED, OVERLY LOBBIED TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE UPSET WITH THE PROCESS, THEN UH, WE'D REALLY SOLVE WHAT LED TO THE ISSUE THAT BROUGHT US HERE TODAY. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION. THANK YOU. THANKS, MARK. I WAS, I WAS WONDERING IF, TO BOB WHITMEYER EARLIER QUESTION, HE MEANT THE KIND OF APPEAL PROCESS AFTER COMMISSION APPROVAL, BUT I KNEW YOU WERE GONNA GO THERE, SO I DIDN'T BRING IT UP. BUT THERE'S, YEAH, THERE'S I THINK A UNDERSTOOD APPEAL PROCESS AFTER ATTACK DECISION. UM, BUT THEN ONCE IT GOES TO TO BOARD AND PUC APPROVAL, I THINK WE'RE NOT ALWAYS CLEAR THERE. UM, LET'S GO TO CHRIS HENDRICKS, UH, CHRIS HENDRICKS WITH THE MAIN CONTROL TWO AND WANTED TO FOLLOW ON WITH, UH, AGREED WITH BOB HILTON AND WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, CLARITY ABOUT WHAT SPP DOES AND WHY. I THINK IT WORKS REALLY GOOD THERE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN IMPLEMENT IT HERE, BUT THERE, FOR THE MEMBERS COMMITTEE, THE BOARD MEMBERS ACTUALLY ATTEND THE MEMBERS COMMITTEE AND ARE, THEY DON'T VOTE AT THE MEMBERS COMMITTEE, BUT THEY ASK QUESTIONS AND THEY HEAR THE, ALL THE, ALL THE DISCUSSION HAPPENING. AND SO IT'D BE THE EQUIVALENT OF HAVING THE, YOU KNOW, THE ERCOT BOARD MEMBERS SET IN ON THE TAC AT THE TAC MEETING SO THAT THEY CAN HEAR AND NOT HAVE TO READ THROUGH THE RECORD, BUT THEY GET A ASK QUESTIONS IN REAL TIME AND LIVE. AND SO, UM, DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HARD TO GIVE A JOB TO THE BOARD, BUT THAT'S ONE SUGGESTION THAT I THINK WORKS REALLY GOOD IN SOME OF THE OTHER MARKETS. SO THANKS. SURE. SO, UH, I JUST WOULD, THIS IS RICHARD ROSS WITH EP I'M SORRY, RICHARD ROSS, A EP. UM, JUST [00:55:01] TO CLARIFY THAT EVER SO SLIGHTLY. I MEAN, THE MEMBERS COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT WOULDN'T BE LIKE TAC BEING AT THE BOARD. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF US THERE ARE NOW ANYWAY, UM, 30 OF US SITTING AT THE TABLE WITH THE BOARD. WHAT THEY DO HAVE IS A, A, A MEMBER'S COMMITTEE THAT IS ONE OR TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH SECTOR THAT IS THERE AND WILL COMMENT ON THE DISCUSSION AND DEBATE, UM, IF SOMETHING COMES UP. AND SO THE BOARD DOES GET TO HEAR THAT THE MEMBERS ARE THERE GIVING AN ADVISOR, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THERE IS AN ADVISORY VOTE BEFORE THE BOARD VOTES. UM, QUITE HONESTLY, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THIS, WHEN THE BOARD DISCUSSIONS, THE FORMATION OF WHAT WE HAVE TODAY WAS, WAS, WAS HAD, I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE DO IT, I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP MAKE SURE IT'S, IT'S CLEAR WHAT'S HAPPENED, NOT, AND, AND THAT GET CONFUSED. AND I THINK THAT'S WELL BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, MAYBE BEYOND THE SCOPE. BUT I DO THINK IT'S HELPFUL. I KNOW ME PERSONALLY, I'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH INTO WHAT THE OTHER ISOS DO, AND THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE AS A BODY COULD DO AS WELL. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT IDEAS OUT THERE. UM, I'VE, I'VE TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE ABOUT IT TOO, AND SOMEBODY REMINDED ME DURING JENNIFER'S COMMENTS AND IN ISO NEW ENGLAND, THEY KIND OF HAVE A INDEPENDENT COUNCIL THAT DOES SORT OF THE DAY-TO-DAY AND REPRESENTS THE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS. SO SOMEBODY LIKE THAT COULD PUT TOGETHER DOCUMENTS FOR US AND, AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE OPERATING SEPARATELY. THAT MIGHT NOT BE WITHIN THE SCOPE EITHER, BUT I THINK IT'S GOOD TO KIND OF LOOK AT WHAT OTHER ISOS ARE DOING. GO AHEAD, MICHELLE. THANKS. UM, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF BUILD ON WHAT BOTH JENNIFER AND MARK SAID, BECAUSE I THINK THEY BOTH KIND OF PULLED SOME OF THIS TOGETHER. UM, PART OF THE ISSUE APPEARS TO BE THAT THERE ARE STAKEHOLDERS THAT ENGAGE DURING THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AT ERCOT, AND THEN THERE ARE OTHERS THAT DON'T. AND SO I THINK PART OF THE ISSUE HAS COME WHERE, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS GET FILED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS AND WE CREATE AN EXTENSIVE RECORD, BUT THEN PARTIES THAT MAYBE DON'T AGREE OR DIDN'T WEIGH IN, UM, DURING THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO OUTSIDE THE RECORD TO SOME EXTENT. UM, EITHER WHEN IT GETS TO, UH, MORE WHEN IT GETS TO THE COMMISSION THAN WHEN IT IT'S AT THE BOARD. UM, AND, AND YOU SEE THINGS FILED, WHETHER IT'S COMMENTS THAT DIDN'T COME DURING THE, THE PROCESS, UM, IT MAY BE PROPOSALS THAT DIDN'T COME DURING THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. IT MAY EVEN BE ENTITIES THAT DIDN'T ENGAGE AT ALL DURING THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS THAT NOW REGISTER A POSITION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, OR RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I MEAN, THAT SEEMS TO BE KIND OF CIRCUMVENTING, UH, THE ENTIRE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND IS DOING A DISSERVICE TO THE PROCESS ITSELF, BUT ALSO TO THE COMMISSION THAT HAS TO MAKE A DECISION. UM, AND IT, IT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO ESSENTIALLY HOLD THEIR, YOU KNOW, HOLD THEIR POSITION OR KEEP THEIR POWDER DRY. UM, AND NOT, I I, I HATE TO USE THE TERM, UM, NOT ENGAGED IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IN GOOD FAITH, BUT THAT KIND OF IS HOW IT APPEARS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF BEING ABLE TO ENGAGE IN THESE, IN THESE DISCUSSIONS AND TO NEGOTIATE WITH OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS IN GOOD, GOOD FAITH. UM, AND FOR ALL OF THAT TO BE EXPLORED AS PART OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND PART OF THE RECORD, UM, AND NOT HAVE SOME OF IT DONE DURING THE PROCESS AND THEN SOME OF IT HELD AND DONE OUTSIDE OF THAT PROCESS. AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD COMMISSIONERS EXPRESS FRUSTRATION OVER IS THAT, UM, IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T DISCUSS IT AND, AND THEY DON'T GET THE FULL BENEFIT OF ALL OF THE DIFFERENT POSITIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING, UM, THAT SHOULD BE FULLY VETTED DURING THIS PROCESS. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THAT YOU REQUIRE SOMETHING WHERE IF YOU DON'T ENGAGE DURING THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AT ERCOT, THEN YOU SOMEWHAT FORFEIT YOUR RIGHT TO ENGAGE, UM, WHEN IT LEAVES ERCOT OR IF YOU CREATE A SPECIFIC PROCESS WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HEARING ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS, UM, [01:00:01] AND AND ALLOWING ALL OF THE STAKEHOLDERS TO, TO PROVIDE THEIR PERSPECTIVE ON THAT AFTER IT'S GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS. BUT I THINK THAT'S PART OF, OF THE ASYMMETRY. UM, AND IT, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT. I THINK BEFORE WE USED TO HAVE A PROCESS WHERE EVERYBODY HAD TO WORK TOGETHER TO BUILD SOME CONSENSUS. AND SO OUR OUTCOMES WERE TYPICALLY, UM, A LOT BETTER IN TERMS OF, OF NOT HAVING, UM, THIS DISSENSION AFTER IT LEAVES ERCOT AND, AND PEOPLE FEELING LIKE THEY ALL HAD BEEN AT LEAST FAIRLY HEARD. UM, AND I THINK THAT'S SOME OF WHAT WE SAW WITH NOT JUST THE, UM, THE NRR AND THAT ARE UP HERE, BUT SOME OF THE OTHER ONES THAT WE'RE ALSO CONTENTIOUS, UM, THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. UM, AND I, I THINK THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT, THAT WE WOULD HAVE AND JUST MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS THE BENEFIT OF, OF SEEING ALL OF THE VARIOUS POSITIONS AND DEBATING THOSE AND NOT HAVING SOME OF THEM OCCUR AFTER THE FACT. OKAY. THANKS MICHELLE. UH, QUESTIONS FROM BARKSDALE? GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. THIS IS BARKSDALE ENGLISH WITH COMMISSION STAFF. I'M FIRST SUPER HAPPY TO BE BACK AT TAC. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE SEEN MANY OF YOU AND, UM, LOTS OF OLD FRIENDS HERE. AND, UM, IT WARMS MY HEART TO BE BACK IN THE TAC MEETING, SO THANKS FOR MAKING SPACE FOR ME. UM, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK RICHARD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DR. SEUSS AT THE BEGINNING. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE ZACKS, UM, WHO WON'T MOVE AN INCH TO THE EAST OR AN INCH TO THE WEST. AND SO THEY END UP STUCK RIGHT IN FRONT OF EACH OTHER AND THE WHOLE WORLD BUILDS UP AROUND THEM. SO, UM, SOMETIMES I WONDER IF, UM, WHAT'S HAPPENED, UM, HERE IN, IN THE INTERVENING YEARS SINCE YURI IS, IS WE'VE BECOME A LITTLE BIT LIKE THE ZACHS, UM, BECAUSE WHETHER IT'S, LIKE MARK SAID THE APPEAL PROCESS FROM FROM THE ERCOT STAKEHOLDER PROCESS HAS NOT BEEN FORMALIZED YET, OR IT'S BECAUSE, UM, THE POLITICIZATION, I TRIED TO SAY THAT TO CHAD THE OTHER DAY AND I STILL CAN'T DO IT, OF OUR INDUSTRY HAS GOTTEN SO HEIGHTENED, UM, OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS THAT, THAT, THAT FEELS LIKE THERE'S MORE AT STAKE. AND, UM, LIKE BOB, I, I MISS THE OLD DAYS OF, OF THE CONSENSUS BUILDING WORK, THE CREATIVITY THAT WAS, UM, FOUND IN THE WORKING GROUPS AND IN THE SUBCOMMITTEES SO THAT BY THE TIME MOST OF THE ISSUES GOT HERE AT THIS BODY, THEY WERE REALLY WELL VETTED AND FOLKS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT REVISIONS TO OUR RULES HERE WERE GENERALLY GOOD FOR THE MARKET. AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT IF IT WAS GOOD FOR THE MARKET, IT SHOULD, SHOULD BE GOOD FOR ME AS AN ENTITY BECAUSE WE'RE ALL DRIVEN BY ECONOMICS AND RELIABILITY HERE. AND IF IT'S NOT GOOD FOR MY INDIVIDUAL COMPANY, THEN I'VE GOT A DECISION TO MAKE AS AN INDIVIDUAL MARKET PARTICIPANT. DO I SUPPORT A CHANGE FOR THE MARKET AND THEN GO BACK TO MY COMPANY AND ADVOCATE FOR BUSINESS PROCESS CHANGES? OR DO I PUT MY FOOT DOWN AND SAY, THIS IS BAD FOR THE MARKET AND I CAN GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF IT BEING BAD FOR THE MARKET BECAUSE IT'S BAD FOR ME. AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A LINE THAT FEELS LIKE IT'S GOTTEN A LITTLE BLURRED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO CAST SHADE 'CAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN PART OF THE PROCESS AND I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT, I'M NOT HERE. SO THIS ISN'T ME CALLING ANY ANYONE OUT. UM, BUT IT MAKES ME WONDER ABOUT MARK'S COMMENTS ABOUT FORMALIZING THE APPEAL PROCESS. I CERTAINLY WILL BE HELPFUL WHEN WE DO THAT. AND WE WILL DO THAT. UM, IT'S, IT'S ON OUR RULE CALENDAR AND, AND WE'RE GONNA GET TO IT, I PROMISE. BUT IT ALSO MAKES ME WONDER ABOUT HOW THE CONVERSATIONS ARE GOING HERE AND THE OBJECTIVES THAT OUR STAKEHOLDERS HAVE IN, IN DEVELOPING REVISIONS TO OUR MARKET RULES. AND SO A THING THAT, THAT KIND OF POPPED INTO MY HEAD DURING THIS MORNING'S CONVERSATION, WHICH I'VE REALLY APPRECIATED AND ENJOYED THE OPENNESS OF, OF EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS, UM, IT MADE ME WONDER IF, YOU KNOW, KIND OF IN THE PRE URI WORLD, WE HAD THE BOARD SERVING IN A PARTICULAR ROLE. SHOULD THAT ROLE, AS MARK DESCRIBE IT NOW, BE ASCRIBED TO TAC SHOULD, SHOULD THIS BODY BE THE TECHNICAL EXPERTS THAT WE RELIED ON THE BOARD TO SERVE SO THAT [01:05:01] WHEN DECISIONS COME OUT OF THIS BODY, THE BOARD WHO IS NOW COMPRISED OF, OF FOLKS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN, IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE STATE OF A VITALLY IMPORTANT ROLE TO PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT VIEW FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS, PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS, UM, THEY CAN COUNT ON THIS BODY HAVING SERVED AS THE BOARD USED TO SERVE, SO THAT YOU'RE REPRESENTING YOUR SEGMENT, NOT YOUR INDIVIDUAL COMPANY. YOU'RE REPRESENTING THE BEST FOR THE ERCOT WHOLESALE MARKET, NOT YOUR INDIVIDUAL POSITION. AND I WONDER IF THAT'S A, THAT'S A CONCEPTUAL CHANGE THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT HERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF PROCESSES OR PROCEDURES OR, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HOW YOU GET EVERYBODY TO BUY INTO THAT PRINCIPLE THAT, THAT CONCEPT, BUT SOMETHING THAT, THAT I'D LOVE FOR FOLKS TO THINK ABOUT. UH, AND I GUESS THE LAST THING THAT I'D, I'D LIKE TO RAISE RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT IS THE, THE TIMING OF THE MEETING'S QUESTION. AND IT MADE ME WONDER IF, IF THIS BODY FEELS LIKE IT HAS TO RUSH DECISIONS IN ORDER TO MEET CERTAIN TIMELINES, UM, NOW WHETHER THAT MEANS, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO, UH, ATTACH A 30 DAY WAITING PERIOD TO ANY REVISION REQUEST THAT CLEARS PRS, LIKE, THAT'S ONE WAY TO SOLVE IT. ANOTHER WAY TO SOLVE IT IS, IS TO THINK ABOUT THE JOB THAT THIS BODY IS SUPPOSED TO, TO PROVIDE. THE SERVICES THAT THIS BODY'S PROVIDING IS A, A TECHNICAL EXPERT REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MARKET. AND THE SERIOUSNESS OF, OF THAT JOB REQUIRES THAT IF, IF YOU FEEL LIKE MORE TIME IS NEEDED, THEN YOU TAKE THE TIME, UM, TO FULLY VET IT. AND IF YOU THINK THE RECORD ISN'T THERE, THEN YOU, YOU DEMAND THAT IT BE, UM, SUPPLEMENTED. AND IF YOU THINK THE EVIDENCE ISN'T THERE TO SUPPORT THE CHANGE, THEN YOU REJECT IT OR YOU SEND IT BACK TO A SUBCOMMITTEE AND YOU SAY, DEVELOP THIS MORE SO THAT WE CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT CHANGES WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE. UM, THE, THE TIMING QUESTION IS HARD BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AT THE COMMISSION, WE'RE RUNNING A HUNDRED THOUSAND MILES AN HOUR RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT'S BEEN PLACED ON US. UM, AND BY CONSEQUENCE, THAT SAME AMOUNT OF WORK IS BEING PLACED ON YOU, AND IT'S BEING PLACED ON ERCOT STAFF AND AND IMM STAFF AS WELL. AND EVERYBODY'S SAYING MORE AND MORE AND MORE NOW, NOW, NOW. UM, AND SO IF WE CONTINUE WITH THIS KIND OF ZACH'S LIKE APPROACH WHERE WE'RE GONNA JUST KIND OF MARK OUR PLACE IN THE SAND AND, AND, AND BE UNWILLING TO MOVE, THEN THAT MAKES, THAT CAN MAKE DECISION MAKING A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT. THANK YOU. THANKS MARKDALE. AND I, I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. I WAS VERY EXCITED FOR YOU TO RETURN TO TECH. I TRIED TO GET, GET BRANDON WHITTLE HERE AS WELL, AND HE SAID NO. SO TAKE THAT BACK TO HIM BRAND, BUT I USED YOU AS A SELLING POINT. UM, I, I'LL JUST ANSWER. YES. I, I DO FEEL VERY PRESSURED FOR TIME. I THINK 2 45 WAS THE, AN ANOMALY. BUT A PROBLEM I SEE FROM LEADERSHIP IS A LOT OF TIMES WE ONLY GET ONE BITE AT THE APPLE AT TAC. AND IF THERE IS A WAY I, I THINK I PROPOSED TO ERCOT, MAYBE WE DO THE IA HERE SO WE GET THE TWO BYTES OF THE APPLE HERE AND NOT PRS. I KNOW THERE WAS A REASON THAT WASN'T A GOOD SUGGESTION, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE WE AS TAC, EVEN THOUGH THE RECORD IS DEVELOPED THROUGH ALL THE WORKING GROUPS AS A BODY, ONLY GETTING ONE MEETING TO, TO SEE SOMETHING AS A BODY AND VOTE ON IT AT THAT MEETING, THAT MEETING I, I THINK IS REALLY DIFFICULT SOMETIMES. ALL RIGHT. I WILL RETURN US TO THE QUEUE. BOB HILTON. YEAH. THANK YOU MARKDALE FOR THAT. YEAH. AND IS GLAD, GLAD TO SEE YOU BACK. . UH, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THERE. IF YOU GO BACK AND YOU LOOK AT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ERCOT, THEN THE WAY WE STARTED THIS ALL OUT, THE ERCOT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, REALLY THEIR NUMBER ONE JOB IS A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO ERCOT INC. AND TO ENSURE IT'S RUN IN A PROPER MANNER. THAT IS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS JOB. WHAT WE HAD DONE WHEN WE SET THIS ALL UP IS, THERE'S ANOTHER PIECE TO WHAT GOES ON HERE. IT'S THE MARKETS OF RELIABILITY PIECE. AND SINCE WE WERE SET UP THE WAY WE WERE, WE JUST KEPT THAT ALL GOING TO THE SAME PLACE. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE THAT WAY. AND THAT WOULDN'T EVEN BE A LAW CHANGE. THAT WOULD BE A BYLAW CHANGE TO CHANGE THAT TO WHERE THE [01:10:01] BOARD STICKS WITH THEIR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ERCOT INC. AND THEN T OR WE CAN CHANGE IT UP HOWEVER WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PUSH THROUGH THE OTHER PIECES FOR THE MARKET AND THE RELIABILITY PIECE. I THINK THAT'S COMPLETELY, UH, DOABLE. UH, I'M NOT SURE IF IT COULD HAPPEN , BUT I THINK PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, IT COULD. UH, SO I, I THANK YOU FOR THAT. UH, ON THE, THE, YOU KNOW, HAVING 30 DAYS, I ALWAYS HAVE A LITTLE ISSUE WITH SAYING, OH, SOMETHING'S GOTTA STAY SOMEWHERE FOR A CERTAIN LENGTH OF TIME. 'CAUSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT COME THROUGH HERE THAT THEY'RE NO-BRAINERS. THERE'S NO REASON FOR 'EM TO SIT HERE FOR SO LONG. UH, I THINK THAT RATHER THAN SAYING, BECAUSE IF WE SET UP A 30 DAY PROCESS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WAIT TO GET, HAVE A WAY TO GET AROUND IT, LIKE AN URGENCY OR SOMETHING. AND WE BATTLE ABOUT WHAT'S URGENT AND NOT URGENT ALL THE TIME. SO I THINK WE JUST SHIFT THE ARGUMENT A LITTLE BIT. I THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHERE THE, THE PRESSURE WE'RE GETTING AND WHERE THE PRESSURE'S COMING FROM AND PUSH BACK AGAINST THAT MORE. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY APPROPRIATE, BUT I JUST WANT TO THROW OUT THAT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, HAVING A 30 DAY, BUT I THINK WE'LL HAVE A PROCESS SET UP TO GET AROUND IT, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THAT. AND, AND ON WHAT MARK WAS TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE FORMAL PROCESS, UH, THAT'S PROBABLY A THING THAT WOULD BE WISE TO DO. BUT THERE AGAIN, WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER, THAT'S REALLY JUST FORMALIZING WHAT FERC DOES. AND WE'RE IN THAT POSITION TO WHERE, LIKE, I'LL SAY AGAIN, THINGS AREN'T DRIVEN TO CONSENSUS. THEY'RE DRIVEN TO WHERE THERE'S A NEXT BODY, YOU COULD GO FIGHT IT OUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE HERE. AND SO WE'RE DOING THE SAME THING THE REST OF THE COUNTRY'S DOING. IT'S FIGHTING IT ALL OUT IN, IN A REGULATORY, UH, SETTING. AND, AND I FIND THAT UNFORTUNATE. YEAH. LOUIS BARSDALE. HEY, THANKS. UH, JUST A QUICK RESPONSE AND, UM, I, I APPRECIATE ALL THAT, BOB. AND I JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT, THAT MY, UM, OFF THE CUFF REMARK WAS NOT TO INTEND THAT TAC BE THE FINAL STOP FOR ANY REVISION REQUEST. THAT WHATEVER YOU DO HERE DOES GET ENDORSED BY THE BOARD. JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS BEING CLEAR. YEAH. CAN CAN I JUST ADD ONE QUICK PIECE TO THAT, UH, TO GO FORTH, BECAUSE I THINK THIS, THERE'S BEEN A MISUNDERSTANDING FOR A LOT OF YEARS, AND I THINK IT GOT LOST IN YURI, UH, WHEN THEY PUT SENATE A BILL TWO TOGETHER AND THEY SAID, WHAT YOU ARE, YEAH, YOU HAVE TO APPROVE ALL NRR. YOU ACTUALLY ALWAYS HAVE. AND IT WAS BY ACCLIMATION, THEY WERE DEEMED APPROVED UNLESS STAFF OR SOMEBODY ELSE SAID, WAIT A MINUTE, THIS ISN'T IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MARKET. AND I THINK THAT GOT LOST AND, AND IT CREATED A LOT OF EXTRA WORK THAT I'M NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO BE DONE, BUT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. BUT I THINK THAT'S GOTTEN MISSED IN SOME OF THIS. THANKS, BOB. ERIC SCHUBERT? UH, YES. UH, ERIC SCHUBERT, DALE CHEMICAL. UM, I WANNA RESPOND TO, UH, BARKSDALE, ONE OF BARKSDALE'S COMMENTS THAT, UH, HE BELIEVES THAT, UM, CONSUMER SEGMENTS VOTE FOR THE, THE BROADER GOOD. I THINK THAT IS LARGELY TRUE, BUT THERE ARE STILL FINANCIAL INTERESTS THAT DIVIDE VARIOUS GROUPS HERE. AND SO YOU'RE ALWAYS GONNA HAVE SOME SELF-INTEREST INVOLVED IN THAT, EVEN IF IT'S CONS, UH, A SEGMENT VERSUS AN INDIVIDUAL COMPANY. THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO HAVE A MORE FORMAL PROCESS AT THE COMMISSION SO THE COMMISSIONERS CAN MAKE THE FINAL CUT ON THAT KIND OF SITUATION. THANK YOU, MARK. DRIVE. THANK YOU. UH, I TOO WANT TO WELCOME MARK STALE ENGLISH, THE ESTEEMED BARKSDALE ENGLISH TO OUR TABLE. AND I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT IN THE OLD AND OLDEN DAYS COMMISSION STAFF ALWAYS JOINED US AT THE TABLE. AND SOMETIMES THAT WAS GREAT, AND SOMETIMES IT WAS FRUSTRATING, BUT I THINK IN THE MORE COMPLICATED WORLD THAT WE WORK IN TODAY, IT IT'S A GOOD OUT, IT WOULD BE A GOOD OUTCOME. UM, I TOO AM STRUGGLING WITH THIS ISSUE ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF US AS MEMBERS OF THIS ORGANIZATION AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BOARD. AND I'VE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH THIS FOR A LONG TIME. AND AS I'VE SERVED ON THIS COMMITTEE, I HAVE ALWAYS FELT A TENSION THAT WHILE MY OBJECTIVE IS FOR WHAT IS BEST FOR THE ERCOT MARKET AND THE STATE, AND I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT FOR A VERY LONG TIME, MY POSITION HERE IS ALSO TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF MY PARTY AND MY SEGMENT. AND, AND I THINK THAT'S UNAVOIDABLE. WHEN I SERVED ON THE BOARD, I HAD A DIFFERENT OBLIGATION. I HAD AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW TO BE A FIDUCIARY FOR ERCOT THE ORGANIZATION. AND THAT COMES WITH SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES. AND SO I, I AM UNCLEAR [01:15:01] IF WE CAN CHANGE THAT DYNAMIC WHERE THE MEMBERS OF T HAVE, UH, A LARGER RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ORGANIZATION WITHOUT ALSO HAVING THIS, THIS SELF-INTEREST. AND WERE WE TO DO THAT, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A, MIGHT REQUIRE A LEGAL CHANGE OF SOME SORT. AND SO I WOULD COMMIT TO YOU THAT I WOULD LOVE FOR THE COMMISSION STAFF OR THE COMMISSION TO DEVELOP THAT ISSUE AND DISCUSS THAT ISSUE AS YOU DEVELOP YOUR ANNUAL REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE ON HOW WE MIGHT EMBED MORE RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS ORGANIZATION FOR OUR OUTCOMES. SEEMS LIKE A, LIKE AN ISSUE THAT'S RIPE FOR A LARGER DISCUSSION. THANKS, MARK. UH, BOB HEL, UH, WHO'S NEXT? NED'S NEXT. SO, UM, I, I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU, BARKSDALE, THE, YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION RUNNING AT A HUNDRED THOUSAND MILES AN HOUR, AND THAT ALSO TRICKLING DOWN TO, TO ALL OF US. AND, UH, THAT, THAT IS FELT . CERTAINLY I RECOGNIZE ALL THE WORK THE COMMISSION'S DOING AND CERTAINLY, UH, FEEL, FEEL HOW THAT, YOU KNOW, PLAYS OUT FOR ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS AND, AND CERTAINLY FOR US HERE ON TAC. UM, AND I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT DYNAMIC TO RECOGNIZE BECAUSE THAT, THAT IT IS, IT IS THE STATE OF THE WORLD THAT WE'RE IN. UH, AND IT PROBABLY ALSO CONTRIBUTES TO, UH, SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE ISN'T AS MUCH TIME, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A SENSE OF URGENCY, LIKE, LIKE CAITLYN SAID, TO GET SOME OF THESE THINGS THROUGH. AND THAT'S NOT TIMELINES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, OR, OR NECESSARILY EVEN THE COMMISSIONER SETTING THAT MAY BE SET AT, UH, AT DIFFERENT LEVELS. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THE, THOSE ARE SOME REAL CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAVE TO OPERATE UNDER. AND THAT DOES, I, I, I THINK RESULT IN, SOMETIMES YOU PROBABLY DO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE OF SAY, THE TRIBALIST, UH, OUTCOMES WHERE FOLKS ARE, ARE HAVING TO, TO LOOK AT THINGS, YOU KNOW, MORE QUICKLY THAN I THINK WE WOULD ALL LIKE, AND HAVING TO MAKE DECISIONS, MAKE, UH, MAKE VOTING DETERMINATIONS, UH, DETERMINING WHAT WHAT EACH SEGMENT THINKS IS BEST FOR THE MARKET. AND, YOU KNOW, UH, I WILL SUBMIT THAT PROBABLY EACH SEGMENT IS GONNA HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THAT. UM, AND THAT IS A, THAT IS A SOURCE OF CONFLICT, ESPECIALLY IN A, A, A, A TIME OF TRANSITION FOR THE INDUSTRY WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE MARKET, UH, STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE DOES NOT NECESSARILY DRIVE THE OUTCOMES THAT POLICY POLICYMAKERS WOULD LIKE TO SEE. UM, AND THERE IS MISALIGNMENT THERE. UM, AND YOU KNOW, THAT CHANGE IS A DIFFICULT ONE TO NAVIGATE. AND SO YOU, YOU, AS YOU'RE TRYING TO MANAGE THAT ALONG WITH A LOT OF OTHER, UM, JUST A LOT OF OTHER PRIORITIES THAT ARE COMING THROUGH ON, ON THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, NO, 2 45, YOU KNOW, THAT TOOK A WHOLE LOT OF TIME AND ATTENTION FROM, FROM THIS BODY AND, AND WILL, FROM, FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEES. UM, CERTAINLY AN IMPORTANT ONE. UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU LAYER THAT ON, ON TOP OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF, SAY THE PERMIAN BASIN RELIABILITY PLAN. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN, YOU CAN, YOU CAN PICK A NUMBER OF OTHER HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS THAT ALL, ALL VIE FOR ATTENTION IN ADDITION TO TRYING TO GET THE MARKET DESIGN RIGHT. AND, UM, THAT, THAT IS, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR FOR HOW WE NECESSARILY IMPROVE THAT OTHER THAN IT'LL BE, UH, IT'LL BE NICE WHEN WE'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT AND WE CAN ALL, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE HINDSIGHT, THE 2020 HINDSIGHT OF, UH, YOU KNOW, HOW WE GOT TO THE OTHER SIDE. UM, SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. BUT THANK YOU FOR, FOR JUST RECOGNIZING THAT THAT PACE AND THE IMPACT THAT HAS. OKAY. BOB HILTON? YEAH, JUST REAL QUICKLY ON, AND MARK KIND OF TOUCHED ON IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT I'D LIKE TO DIG A LITTLE DEEPER IN ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF WHAT WE THINK WE HAVE HERE AT TAC. AND I FULLY AGREE THAT WE'RE SEGMENT REPRESENTATIVES, AND I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE YOUR COMPANIES INVOLVED WITH THAT. UH, BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE IN SEGMENTS. THE SEGMENTS IN MY MIND ARE BALANCED SO THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE SEGMENT OR ONE GROUP LOADS OF GEN OR, OR POWER MARKETING TO DRIVE A DECISION OR HAVE A VETO. SO I'M HERE TO EXPLAIN AND DEFEND OR PUSH FOR HOW THINGS THAT COME THROUGH HERE WILL AFFECT THE GENERATOR COMMUNITY. AND THAT'S LIKE THE TOS THEY'RE HERE WHEN A CHANGE COMES THROUGH TO SAY, HERE'S HOW THAT AFFECTS THE TOS. AND WE'RE ALL HAVE THAT RESPONSIBILITY. AND WITH IT BEING BALANCED, THAT'S WHERE WE END UP HAVING TO COME TO A CONSENSUS TO GET A [01:20:01] 67% AGREEMENT TO MOVE THROUGH. 'CAUSE IT TAKES A LOT OF PEOPLE AND A LOT OF DIVERSE THOUGHTS TO GET TO THAT POINT. SO I JUST KIND OF, THAT'S KINDA THE WAY I LOOK AT OUR RESPONSIBILITY. UH, I JUST WANT TO, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THAT. I JUST WANT TO KIND OF CLEAR THAT UP FROM MY MIND. OKAY. BARKSDALE. YEAH, BOB, THAT'S CERTAINLY HOW I REMEMBER IT. WHEN, WHEN I HAD THE PLEASURE OF SERVING ON T UH, MANY YEARS AGO REPRESENTING AUSTIN ENERGY AND, AND THE MUNICIPAL SEGMENT. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THE MUNIS HAD, AND HOPEFULLY STILL HAVE A, AN INTERESTING ROLE BECAUSE THEY, THEY GET TO, YOU KNOW, PLAY IN IN THE ENTIRE CHAIN THAT EVERYBODY HERE IS REPRESENTING. AND, AND I ALWAYS, UM, TOOK THAT POSITION TO MEAN THAT I HAD TO HEAR WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ALONGSIDE WITH WHAT THE TOS WERE SAYING, ALONGSIDE WITH WHAT THE REPS WERE SAYING. AND BALANCE ALL OF THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT THE MARKET WAS BEING WELL SERVED BY WHATEVER CHANGE, EVEN IF IT WAS LESS FAVORABLE TO ONE SEGMENT OR ANOTHER, AS LONG AS IT WAS GOOD FOR THE WHOLE, IT WOULD BE GOOD IN IN GENERAL. UM, UH, THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO RAISE IS, IS JUST TO, MARK'S COMMENT ABOUT HAVING COMMISSIONED STAFF HERE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, STAFF WILL BE HERE AT TAC MOVING FORWARD. UM, I THINK WE'RE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE APPROPRIATE ROLE IS TO PLAY, BECAUSE I KNOW SOMETIMES, UM, HAVING COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION IN SOME FORM OR FASHION REPRESENTED ATTACK CAN FEEL, OR AT LEAST IT USED TO FEEL, UM, SOMETIMES IMPOSING, UM, SOMETIMES IRRELEVANT. UM, AND SO I THINK I'M CONCERNED ABOUT JUST FINDING EXACTLY THAT RIGHT. LITTLE GOLDILOCKS SPOT FOR STAFF TO PLAY. AND SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF IS CONCERNED ABOUT, AND YOU KNOW, I'LL, I'LL TAKE THIS ONE, UM, ON THE, THE ECRS CHANGE, WHAT WAS IT, 1224, WHERE STAFF CAME OUT KIND OF AT THE LAST MOMENT AND SAID, YEAH, WE, WE DON'T SUPPORT THIS CHANGE. LIKE, IF I HAD BEEN ON TECH, I WOULD'VE BEEN LIKE, HEY, THAT'S, I'VE, I HAVE SOME CHOICE WORDS FOR STAFF IN THAT MOMENT, RIGHT? SO THAT, SO THAT'S, THAT'S ON ME. AND I THINK, UM, I THINK WE, WE CAN HELP WITH CON MORE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES IF COMMISSION STAFF HAS AN OPINION ON THAT CONTENTIOUS ISSUE. IF WE RAISE THOSE EARLIER, UH, HERE, UM, AND PERHAPS EARLIER THROUGH THE SUBCOMMITTEES OR WORKING GROUPS IN FILED COMMENTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UM, AND SO YOU WILL SEE US HERE, UM, WHETHER IT'S ME OR IKA OR SOMEBODY IN RI RICO'S STAFF, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING ON THAT AND WE'RE WORKING ON EXACTLY HOW WE SHOULD ENGAGE SO THAT IT'S JUST THAT RIGHT LITTLE SPOT TO BE HELPFUL TO THE PROCESS AND NOT HARMFUL OR IRRELEVANT TO THE PROCESS. UM, AND I, UM, I GUESS AS THE CONVERSATION FEELS LIKE IT'S STARTING TO WIND UP A LITTLE BIT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE MEMBERS HERE TO THINK ABOUT THIS KIND OF CONCEPTUAL ROLE THAT BOB WAS TALKING ABOUT, OF, OF WHAT, WHAT YOU, WHAT YOUR JOB IS AS A MEMBER OF THIS BODY. UM, I AGREE WITH, WITH ERIC THAT OF, OF COURSE, YOU'VE GOT YOUR COMPANY'S INTERESTS THAT YOU HAVE TO REPRESENT, AND YOU HAVE YOUR SEGMENTS INTERESTS THAT YOU HAVE TO REP REPRESENT. THAT'S, THAT'S UNDENIABLE. UM, AND IN THE B BLENDER OF POLICY MAKING, AS BOB JUST DESCRIBED IT, WHERE EVERYBODY KIND OF THROWS IN THEIR OPINIONS AND HOPEFULLY WE GET, UM, AN OUTCOME THAT TASTES GOOD, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BEING MINDFUL OF NOT ONLY OUR OWN INDIVIDUAL COMPANY'S INTERESTS AND OUR SEGMENTS INTERESTS, BUT HOW IT'S IMPACTING THE, THE FUNCTIONING OF THE MARKET AS A WHOLE. THANK YOU. THANKS BARKSDALE. ERIC GOFF, UM, ON THE GOLDILOCKS BARKSDALE, UM, I'M OVER HERE. UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, YOU APPROACHING THAT WITH INTENTION. UM, AND I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSION STAFF HERE, ESPECIALLY IN THE SB TWO WORLD WHERE YOU MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSIONERS FORMALLY ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENS HERE. SO I, I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING TO HAVE ENGAGEMENT, UM, AND IDEALLY ENGAGEMENT, YOU KNOW, AS YOU'RE CONSIDERING WHAT THE, YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS, YOU KNOW, ON A TOPIC THAT THAT'S GREAT. UM, [01:25:02] AND, UM, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SPOT ON ABOUT THE NEED FOR KIND OF THE GOLDILOCKS PERSPECTIVE THERE. AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT IT FROM THAT WAY, I THINK WE'LL GET TO A GOOD OUTCOME WITH THAT. UM, I, YOU KNOW, SIMILARLY, UM, WITH, UM, ERCOT AND ERCOT STAFF, UM, AND PUC AND PUC STAFF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DISTINCTION, YOU KNOW, AND, UH, I THINK WE ALL NEED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, BE MINDFUL OF THAT IN THE PROCESS. UM, THERE'S ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, WITH THE ERCOT BOARD RELYING SO MUCH ON ERCOT STAFF, UM, UNDER THE NEW RECONSTITUTED BOARD STRUCTURE. UM, SO I THINK IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS, BUT, UM, IT'S GOOD TO GET THE FEEDBACK, UM, GOING BOTH WAYS SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I THINK I SAW A CARD GO UP, MARK, AND THEN WE DO HAVE, UM, ONE MORE SLIDE. IT'S FROM KEITH ABOUT THE, OR COMMENTS THAT GO TO THE BOARD. SO LET'S, LET'S GO TO MARK AND THEN LET'S GO TO KEITH SLIDE. AND THEN I, I JUST WANNA SUMMARIZE KIND OF WHERE I AM AND WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M INTERNALIZING FROM THE DISCUSSION TODAY. UH, FIRST ON THE COMMISSION PROCESS ISSUE, UH, I THINK THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT TO ME, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. IF WE HAVE A MORE FORMAL PROCESS AT THE COMMISSION, THEN A LOT OF THE DISCOMFORT ABOUT OUR PROCESS GOES AWAY, AND BARKSDALE'S COMMITMENT, THAT THAT IS ON THE AGENDA AND WILL BE ADDRESSED IN A RULEMAKING WHERE WE ALL GET TO PARTICIPATE. THAT'S GREAT. I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. I, I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. UM, SECONDLY, ON THE, THE LIST OF ISSUES, UM, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DOWNSIDE TO CONSIDERING ALL THESE, THESE MODIFICATIONS AND CHANGES AND WORKING THROUGH THE ONES THAT WE WANT. I DON'T THINK THEY SOLVE THE PROBLEM WHY WE'RE HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION TODAY, BUT NOT BAD TO HAVE THAT STUFF. THE PLACE THAT I AM STILL STRUGGLING IS, IS A, IS A BOARD STAKEHOLDER ISSUE, WHERE I THINK THERE IS A REMAINING DISCONNECT THAT I, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE RESOLVE. AND THAT IS, UH, AS MANY OF YOU HAVE POINTED OUT TODAY, WE BUILD AN EXTENSIVE RECORD WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS COLLABORATIVE PROCESS, UM, THE BOARD THEN RECEIVES THAT RECORD, BUT WE HAVE, DO NOT ALWAYS WITNESS THE BOARDS MASTERY OF THE RECORD OR THEIR INTENT TO MASTER THE RECORD. AND I THINK THAT'S A SERIOUS DISCONNECT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION TO THAT WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT MORE. UM, I THINK IN PART, A MORE FORMAL PROCESS OF THE COMMISSION SMOOTHS THAT OVER, BUT IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE CORE PROBLEM. AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING, UH, FOR MAYBE FURTHER ATTENTION. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT. LET'S GO TO SLIDE SEVEN. OKAY. ARE YOU READY? YES. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS A FOLLOW UP ON OUR DISCUSSION AT THE LAST TA MEETING, UM, WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT, UH, THE PROCESS FOR, UH, DEALING WITH, UH, NON UNANIMOUS DISCUSSIONS AT, AT THE BOARD. AND, AND WE, WE SAID WE'D TALK ABOUT IT TODAY. I THINK ONE, THERE'S, THERE'S A CLARIFICATION HERE, AND I THINK IT WAS MENTIONED A A LITTLE EARLIER THAT THE, THE PROCESS HAS ALWAYS EXISTED. AND SO I, I THINK IT'S KEY TO KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT A NEW PROCESS. UM, I THINK THAT, UM, IT, IT CAN ALWAYS BE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF, UH, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TAC WILL BE REPRESENTED, UM, THROUGH THE TAC REPRESENTATIVE. BUT COMMENTS, UH, COULD ALWAYS BE MADE, UH, DIRECTLY TO, TO THE BOARD, UH, AND, UH, IN, IN WRITTEN FORM AND, AND VERBALLY AS IS MY UNDERSTANDING. SO THE PROCESS EXISTS AND, UH, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE ITEMS THAT COME UP WHERE FOLKS FEEL THEY NEED, NEED TO SAY SOMETHING OR, OR, OR REPRESENT THEMSELVES, UH, BECAUSE PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU'D LIKE TO DO THAT. AND I THINK SOME OF THIS DISCUSSION SORT OF HIGHLIGHTS THAT. I THINK THERE WAS, THERE WAS A POINT EARLIER ON WHERE I THINK SOMEBODY SAID, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES I VOTE NO ATTACK, BUT I KIND OF REALIZE THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE ELSE. AND THEN THERE'S TIMES I VOTE NO ATTACK AND I JUMP ON THE TRACKS. UM, [01:30:01] IF, IF IT MEANS THE ISSUE'S GONNA KEEP MOVING FORWARD AND, AND, AND IF I'M IN, I'M IN A BOARD POSITION. AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHERE SOME OF THE DIALOGUE WAS, WELL, HOW, HOW DO I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE HOW? AND, AND SO WHAT THEY SEE IS, UH, THEY SEE WHAT, WHAT COMES TO THE TAC REPORT. UM, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS THAT OPPORTUNITY, UH, IF THERE IS AN ITEM WHERE, WHERE YOU WANNA MAKE THOSE COMMENTS, UH, AND, AND FOLLOW THOSE TO THE, THE BOARD AND, AND LET THOSE KNOWN. UH, I THINK CLEARLY ERCOT IS, IS BEING ASKED BY THE BOARD TO PROVIDE, UM, ITS VIEWS ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS. I THINK 1190 IS, IS AN EXAMPLE FROM THE LAST MEETING, AND IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA COME UP AGAIN AT, AT THE NEXT ONE. UH, SO I, I SEE IT AS A GOOD, I DUNNO IF PILOT'S THE RIGHT WORD, BUT I THINK IT, IT, IT HIGHLIGHTS THE PROCESS. UM, AND SO FOR FOLKS THAT, THAT PERHAPS HAVE A, A COMMENT THEY WANNA MAKE, UM, THERE IS THE EXISTING PROCESS AND I TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT. UH, SO, SO HOPEFULLY THE, THESE, THESE COMMENTS SORT OF REFINE, UH, WHAT I SAID LAST TIME. UH, BUT DEFINITELY HAPPY TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT, UH, TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT FOLKS HAVE, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD ANTICIPATE THAT, UH, THINGS LIKE THIS WOULD, WOULD CONTINUE GOING FORWARD. SO THANKS. OKAY. BILL BARNES ON THE SECOND BULLET, KEITH, UH, WE'VE SEEN THAT IN INSTANCE, PLAY OUT MANY TIMES WHERE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE A DISCUSSION AND THERE'S SOME FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS TO ERCOT, BUT DID THE BOARD MEMBERS ALSO KNOW THEY COULD REACH OUT TO STAKEHOLDERS? IS THAT ENCOURAGED? IS THAT ALLOWED? UH, I DON'T SEE THAT VERY OFTEN, AND THERE ARE TIMES WHERE I WONDER, UM, WHEN I SEE DECISIONS BY THE BOARD, IT'S LIKE, MAN, I WISH THEY JUST WOULD'VE ASKED ME. UM, AND I'VE GOT EVERYTHING FOLLOWED IN COMMENTS, AND THEN WE, WE SEE ERCOT RESPONDING TO SOME OF, OF BOARD MEMBER CONCERNS, BUT I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN THAT OTHER SIDE VERY OFTEN. I'M WONDERING IF THE BOARD KNOWS THAT THEY CAN REACH OUT TO STAKEHOLDERS IF THEY HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS AND ARE ENCOURAGED TO DO SO. WELL, I, I DEFINITELY THINK THE IDEA OF BEING ENGAGED WITH YOUR COMMENTS CAN HELP. NOW THAT CAN LEAD TO MORE QUESTIONS, BUT IF YOU'RE PROVIDING COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD THAT MAYBE SUMMARIZE, I KNOW THAT THERE'S THIS DISCUSSION OF, WELL, THERE'S THIS BIG RECORD. UM, I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN AID THE DECISION MAKER IN YOUR OWN COMMENTS WERE TO BE AVAILABLE, UM, DURING THE DISCUSSION AT THE, AT THE MEETING ITSELF. UM, I THINK THAT CAN ALSO AID IN THAT IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE. UM, UH, I, I KNOW THAT, UM, OBVIOUSLY KAITLYN HAS A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY CARRYING THE TAC, UM, DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD. BUT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF IF YOU HAVE A POSITION THAT, THAT YOU FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO BE THERE AND, UM, EITHER PRESENT OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS RATHER THAN IF, IF YOU WANT TO AUGMENT WHAT, WHAT CAITLIN IS DOING ON YOUR POSITION. SO I, I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING PROHIBITIVE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WANNA MAKE A DECISION IN THE MOMENT, RIGHT? SO IT'S ONE THING LIKE FOR INSTANCE, 1190 WHERE IT, IT WAS TABLED FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WILL HAPPEN. UM, BUT I THINK IN THE MOMENT WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO ASCERTAIN A QUESTION, IF, IF YOU'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THAT, THAT MAKES IT GO A LOT EASIER. THANKS CHAD. CHAD SEALEY WITH THERE. GOT, I THINK IT'S BEEN GREAT DISCUSSION. I THINK SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE ACTUALLY LISTENING TO THIS DISCUSSION GOING ON THIS MORNING. 'CAUSE WE'VE TOLD THEM THAT TAC WAS GONNA SPEND A COUPLE HOURS TALKING ABOUT THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND THEY'RE INTERESTED IN THE FEEDBACK FROM TAC AND, UH, Y'ALL HAVE HIT ON ALL THE THEMES. YOU KNOW, I THINK FROM A BOARD PERSPECTIVE, IT IS DATA DRIVEN FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. I MEAN, IT, IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE NON-SUBSTANTIVE, IT'S THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO TACK FOR A COMPLETE PICTURE OF THE DATA AND WHEN YOU GET NO VOTES, AND IT'S HARD FOR THEM TO RECONCILE WHAT THOSE NO VOTES MEAN. AND I, I THINK I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT 1190, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF SEGMENT NUMBERS THAT DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING IN THEIR COMMENTS THAT WE GRABBED NO VOTES ON WHY THEY VOTED NO. SO YOU HAVE SIX VOTES THERE THAT WERE, NO, SOME HAD SOME INFORMATION AND SOME DIDN'T. AND WE JUST SPENT A LOT OF TIME ABOUT THE ROLE OF SEGMENT MEMBERS AT TAC PROVIDING A SEGMENT PERSPECTIVE. AND YET THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE THAT INFORMATION IS NOT CLEAR TO THE BOARD. SO HOW SHOULD THEY RECONCILE A TAC RECOMMENDATION THAT HAS SEVERAL NO VOTES TO WEIGH THOSE POLICY BENEFITS BEFORE THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. THIS PROCESS THAT KEITH SPOKE ABOUT, I REALLY THINK THIS IS MORE OF AN INTERIM PROCESS UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT [01:35:01] HOW TAC CAN PROVIDE THE COMPLETE SET OF DATA TO THE BOARD. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ERCOT WANTS TO COME IN AFTER TAC AND FILE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. WE SHOULD BE PROVIDING MORE OF THAT QUANTITATIVE, QUALITATIVE DATA THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PARTICIPANT IS SO THAT THE BOARD HAS THE TAC RECOMMENDATION IN A FULL SET OF COMPLETE INFORMATION, EVEN WHEN THERE'S ABSTENTIONS OR MAYBE NO VOTES TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHY DID THE 30 MEMBERS HERE DECIDE WHAT THEY DECIDED? IT IS STILL ATTACK RECOMMENDATION, BUT EVERYBODY HAS A VOICE HERE. AND I THINK FROM THE BOARD'S PERSPECTIVE, WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THAT THEY DO WANNA HEAR FROM EVERY MEMBER, EVEN THOSE THAT ABSTAINED OR SAID NO. SO THAT AGAIN, THEY HAVE A COMPLETE PICTURE FROM A DATA PERSPECTIVE AS THEY'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. SO AGAIN, I THINK Y'ALL TALKED ON ALL THE THEMES REALLY LOOKING FOR, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE LOW HANGING FRUIT ON, ARE THERE CHANGES IN THE TAC REPORT? ARE THERE CHANGES IN THE WAY IN WHICH TAC LEADERSHIP PRESENTS TO THE R AND M COMMITTEE? ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE TALK ABOUT, THE PROCESS IS ALREADY THERE FOR INDIVIDUALS TO FILE COMMENTS. IAN BROUGHT UP SOME GOOD IDEAS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A NO VOTE, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO MEASURE THAT IN FRONT OF THE BOARD? DO YOU WANT MORE FORMAL COMMENTS? DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A PRESUMPTION IF NO ONE'S FILING COMMENTS, THAT THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN LESS WEIGHT? THESE ARE ALL GOOD POINTS TO BE THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE I THINK THE BOARD IS READY TO ENGAGE AND RELY ON TAC AS THOSE TECHNICAL EXPERTS TO GIVE THEM A COMPLETE PICTURE OF WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THEM. BUT I WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE US SAYING THAT THIS IS GONNA BE THE NORM FOR ERCOT. BECAUSE IF WE CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM FROM TAC TO THE BOARD ON THE COMPLETE PICTURE, THEN ERCOT DOESN'T NEED TO COME IN AFTER TAC AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL QUANTITATIVE OR QUALITATIVE DATA. I DON'T THINK THE STAKEHOLDERS REALLY WANT THAT EITHER. AT THE END OF THE DAY, I DON'T THINK THE STAKEHOLDERS WANTING US TO HAVE TO REPRESENT WHAT THOSE NO VOTES ARE, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE BEING ASKED BY THE BOARD, WHERE'S THE ADDITIONAL DATA SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, AND WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE OBLIGATED TO HAVE TO STEP IN UNTIL T AS THE TECHNICAL ADVISORS TO THE BOARD TO FIGURE OUT A BETTER AND MORE EFFECTIVE WAY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THIS SENATE BILLI BOARD. SO ALL THE OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THE PRE-SENT BILLI BOARD, WE HAVE THIS SENATE BILLI BOARD NOW, AND IT'S MORE ABOUT ADAPTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET A COMPLETE PICTURE OF ALL THE ISSUES. YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY DON'T LIVE IN THIS WORLD 365 DAYS, 24 HOURS, LIKE ALL OF US DO. THEY'RE VERY QUALIFIED TO SIT IN THEIR POSITION, THEY TAKE THEIR JOBS SERIOUSLY, AND THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A FULL PERSPECTIVE OF THE DATA SO THAT THEY CAN EVALUATE THOSE POLICY DECISIONS AS THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION ED. SO THANK YOU, CHAD, THAT THAT'S A, A HELPFUL EXPLANATION AND THANK YOU, KEITH, FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. I KNOW I'D ASKED TO SEE IT WRITTEN OUT, UH, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST MONTH, AND IT IS HELPFUL TO SEE THAT AND, AND, AND HAVE A BETTER CONTEXT FOR THE, THE, THE NUT THAT ERCOT IS TRYING TO CRACK. UM, I KNOW THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED LAST MONTH ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ERCOT REPRESENTING, UH, STAKEHOLDER POSITIONS. AND WHAT I'M HEARING IS IT'S REALLY TRYING TO FILL A GAP AND THERE MAY BE A, A COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE CAN, AS TECH CAN SUPPORT THAT. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO TALK ABOUT IF THERE ARE CERTAIN, SAY IF THERE IS A VOTE THAT'S NOT AS, UH, AS MUCH OF LIKE A, YOU KNOW, UH, IF IT'S NOT ON THE COMBO BALLOT, FOR INSTANCE, PROBABLY, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY BE TOO HIGH OF A, A BAR, BUT LET'S SAY IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S CLOSE TO THE THRESHOLD, RIGHT? THE 67% THRESHOLD I'M GATHERING THAT THE, THE BOARD WANTS MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER POSITIONS WERE IN THOSE SCENARIOS WHERE IT IT SQUEAKED BY FRANKLY, RIGHT? AND I, I THINK ERCOT ALREADY DOES A, A REALLY GOOD JOB OF REACHING OUT TO TRY TO CAPTURE INFORMATION ON THE NO VOTES AND ABSTENTIONS. I KNOW I'VE GOTTEN THAT OUTREACH MANY TIMES AND I ALWAYS TRY TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK. SO I, I THINK ERCOT ISS DOING A GOOD JOB ON, UH, ON TRYING TO GET THAT INFORMATION IN. UM, SO IF FOLKS DON'T PROVIDE INPUT, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, TO, I THINK THE POINT IAN MADE EARLIER TODAY, YOU KNOW, CHOOSING NOT TO SAY ANYTHING IS MAKING A CHOICE. AND THAT MAY BE, THAT MAY BE PROVIDING SOME, SOME SIGNAL AND MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO SUMMARIZE THAT. UH, BUT ALSO ON THOSE CLOSE ONES, THERE MAY ALSO BE SOME BENEFIT TO CAPTURING [01:40:01] SIMILAR INPUT FROM THE YES VOTES WHERE IT WAS CLOSE, RIGHT? UM, SOMETIMES THAT MAY BE JUST AS HELPFUL FOR THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEONE THAT WAS ON THE FENCE GOT OVER THE FENCE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE NO VOTES DIDN'T QUITE GET THERE, BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE CLOSE NO VOTES THAT ACTUALLY DID END UP, YOU KNOW, MAKING THE, THE BALANCE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FINDING THAT IT IS THE RIGHT DECISION FOR THE MARKET AND, AND MOVING THAT FORWARD, EVEN IF IT WASN'T ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IT WAS MAYBE RIGHT FOR THAT SEGMENT OR FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL COMPANY, BUT YOU GOT THERE, THAT THAT COULD BE HELPFUL AND YOU COULD PROBABLY GET THAT FROM YES VOTES. WE HAD ANN DO THAT ON NOIR 2 45 BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, LEADER LEADERSHIP JUST ASKED HER THAT ON HER OWN. AND WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT KIND OF BOTH SIDES OF THE PICTURE BECAUSE THAT WAS SO CLOSE. I THINK WE FREAKED OUT SOME TAC MEMBERS WHO WERE LIKE, WHY DOES OUR COP WANT THIS INFORMATION FROM US? BUT WE, WE DID DO THAT . I I I THINK THAT MAY BE A GOOD MODEL FOR US TO FOLLOW PERSONALLY FOR, FOR SOME OF THOSE CLOSE VOTES. UM, SO COMING BACK TO WHAT'S ON SLIDE SEVEN IN PARTICULAR, UM, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT THE WAY THIS IS LAID OUT WHERE ESSENTIALLY THE, THE ADDITIONAL STEP IN THE MIDDLE, THAT SECOND BULLET IS JUST ERCOT HASS BEEN REQUESTED TO HELP PROVIDE ADDITIONAL IN INPUT, BUT OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS CAN STILL FILE COMMENTS TO THE BOARD. UM, I, THAT DOESN'T GIVE ME MUCH HEARTBURN. UM, AS LONG AS IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM ERCOT THAT MAYBE THOSE COME IN A LITTLE BIT EARLIER SO THAT THAT WAY IF A MARKET PARTICIPANT DOES HAVE CONCERN WITH HOW THEIR NO VOTE OR, OR SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED ON THEIR BEHALF IS THERE, THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST PUT SOMETHING IN THAT CORRECTS THAT AND IT'S TIMELY FOR THE BOARD RIGHT. WITHIN THE SEVEN DAYS AHEAD OF TIME. YEAH. IF I MAY JUST SORT OF RESPOND QUICKLY, THIS IS KEITH COLLINS HERE WITH ERCOT THAT YES, I THINK THAT'S THE GOAL IS TO NOT PRESENT NEW INFORMATION TO THE BOARD, BUT TO MOVE THAT EVEN BEFORE THE TA PRE-TAX SO THAT THAT EVERYBODY'S SEEN IT IN ADVANCE. YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. THANKS FOR BRINGING THIS. I THINK NED, IT'S SORT OF THE ONES THAT SQUEAKED BY, BUT I THINK WHAT WE SAW WAS IS THIS 1190 WHERE THE WHOLE CONSUMER SEGMENT HAD VOTED AGAINST, I THINK THE BOARD JUST NOT HAVING THE DEPTH OF EXPERIENCE WITH, WITH US AS, AS CHAD IS SAYING, BUT TAKING THEIR JOBS VERY SERIOUSLY, RIGHT? KIND OF THINKS WHERE'S THE, THE DATA? AND I, I THINK WHAT COULD BE ARTICULATED BETTER IS, WELL, THE CONSUMER SEGMENT HAS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE VOTING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE MARKET, THEY'RE VOTING IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMERS. MAYBE WE AS TAC DIDN'T DO COLLECTIVE DATA, BUT IN ALL OF ERIC AND MARK AND ERIC'S EXPERIENCE, THEY KNOW HOW THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT THEIR BILLS AND THAT IS THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE THEY WERE DRAWING UPON TO CAUSE THOSE NO VOTES. SO I THINK THERE'S SOME LEGWORK THAT COULD BE DONE THERE, AND THEN IT'S JUST SORT OF CONTEXT. I THINK THE BOARD IS WONDERING, OKAY, THEY ALL VOTED NO, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE GONNA TAKE TO THE COMMISSION? IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO MORE? AND SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CONTEXTUALIZING THAT CAN BE DONE THAT MAKES THAT, THAT MAKES SOME SENSE. SO IF YOU HAVE A FULL SEGMENT THAT'S IN OPPOSITION AGAINST, UH, ALL THE OTHERS, THEN MAYBE THAT'S ANOTHER ONE TO GET SOME MORE FEEDBACK BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IN THOSE INSTANCES, YEAH, THE, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY HAVE THE CONSUMER SEGMENT SAYING, HEY, THIS IS GONNA IMPACT OUR BILLS, BUT THE REST OF TAC IS SAYING, LOOK, THERE'S A REAL PROBLEM TO SOLVE AND THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH IN A MARKET, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, SOLVING PROBLEMS, SOME HAS COSTS AND I THINK THAT MIGHT BE IT, RIGHT? THEY'RE SAYING IF YOU'RE THIS TECHNICAL DATA DRIVEN BODY, WHY IS THERE A SPLIT HERE? AND I THINK THAT'S HOW THAT WOULD BE ANSWERED, RIGHT? IN THIS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, THIS IS HOW THE CONSUMERS HAVE SEEN IT AFFECT THEM. AND SO THAT THAT'S WHAT THE DATA SET THAT THEY'RE VOTING FROM. SURE. DID I GET THAT WRONG, CHAD? NO, I DON'T THINK YOU GOT IT WRONG. I, I GUESS ALL I'M SAYING IS CONSISTENCY GOING FORWARD, I THINK ON HOW WE GRAB THE DATA, WHETHER IT'S AN ENTIRE BLOCK OF SEGMENT THAT VOTES NO. OR IF WE TOOK THE INDEPENDENT GENERATORS AND IT WAS TWO, YES, TWO, NO, I MEAN IT'S STILL GONNA BE ON THE R AND M AS A NON UNANIMOUS. AND SO WHY DID TWO OF THE INDEPENDENT GENERATOR SEGMENTS VOTE NO? IS IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIVERSITY AND FUEL TYPE AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE VOTING? NO BECAUSE OF THOSE IMPACTS, IT, IT'S STILL GOOD DATA FOR THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY THERE MAY BE A DIVIDE EVEN WITHIN A SEGMENT. SO I REALLY THINK THOSE ARE ACHIEVABLE GOALS AROUND CHANGING THE PROCESS AND TRYING TO GRAB MORE OF THAT INFORMATION, UM, UP THROUGH TAC. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY HOW TAC ULTIMATELY HANDS [01:45:01] OFF THAT TAC REPORT AND HOW IT'S PRESENTED FROM A TAC LEADERSHIP STANDPOINT. I THINK THOSE ARE LOW HANGING FRUIT IDEAS THAT WE CAN WORK ON PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS THAT GIVE MORE INFORMATION TO THE BOARD TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE TAC LEADERSHIP. IF THEY NEED TO ASK ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM PARTICULAR, UH, CORPORATE MEMBERS, THEY CAN DO THAT. THEY ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. IF THEY NEED TO TABLE SOMETHING AND GET MORE INFORMATION, EITHER FROM TAC AGAIN OR SPECIFIC CORPORATE MEMBERS OR ERCOT, THEY HAVE ALL THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO THAT ON. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME COMMENTS AROUND THE AGING REVISION REQUEST AND INITIALLY WHEN THEY LOOKED AT THAT WE HAD A PRETTY EXTENSIVE LIST OF AGING REVISION REQUESTS. SOME THAT HAD BEEN THERE FOR TWO YEARS THAT HAD BEEN KIND OF SITTING IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A REAL ISSUE RIGHT NOW, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT'S ANOTHER CONVERSATION WITH TAC LEADERSHIP IN THE COMMITTEE TO SAY, YEAH, THESE ARE THE ISSUES THAT ARE GOING ON. THIS IS WHY IT'S GONNA TAKE ANOTHER THREE MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH THAT. AND THERE ARE GREAT OPPORTUNITIES ON GIVING THE R AND M COMMITTEE AND AND THE BOARD MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT'S GOING ON WITHIN THE FULL STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. I THINK THEY WELCOME THAT. UH, WE'VE TRIED TO SET UP THE, THE ONE-ON-ONE ENGAGEMENTS WITH THE TAC MEMBERS. I THINK THAT'S GOING REALLY WELL. THEY'VE GREATLY APPRECIATED EVERYBODY'S PARTICIPATION IN THAT. YOU KNOW, I HAVE ADDITIONAL IDEAS AS WE MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS STRENGTHENING THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CORPORATE MEMBERS AND THE BOARD. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE BOARD DOES WANT A VERY STRONG RELATIONSHIP WITH TAC AND COMPLETELY RELIES ON TAX TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TO HELP THEM SEE A COMPLETE PICTURE OF ALL THE POLICY ISSUES. BOB HILTON. YEAH, JUST A COUPLE QUICK THINGS, AND IT KIND OF GOES BACK TO A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT BILL WAS TALKING ABOUT. NUMBER ONE, UH, AND I'M NOT ADVOCATING THIS COMPLETELY. A MEMBERS COMMITTEE THAT WORKS WITH THE BOARD FIXES A LOT OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THEY GET TO HEAR THE CONVERSATIONS FROM THOSE SEGMENTS AND THEN THEY CAN MAKE THEIR VOTES. SO THAT'S ONE WAY THEY COULD FIX THAT. IT'S NOT JUST WRITTEN DOWN ON PAPER. I, I, YOU KNOW, I GO BACK TO SOME FORMER DAYS MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, AND I REMEMBER A TIME WHEN I WAS ON THE BOARD THAT, AND I'M NOT SURE YOU'D WANNA DO THAT IN TODAY'S BOARD, BUT MAYBE R AND M, ANYONE IN THAT MEETING THAT HAD SOMETHING TO COULD CONTRIBUTE WOULD RAISE THEIR HAND, THE CHAIR COULD RECOGNIZE THEM AND THEY COULD PUT THEIR INPUT INTO THAT COMMITTEE THAT JUST AIN'T DONE ANYMORE. UH, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE THOUGHT ABOUT, ESPECIALLY IN THE RMM COMMITTEES. GRANTED, YOU DON'T WANT A TAC MEETING OR SOMETHING ELSE TO BREAK OUT AT THE RM COMMITTEE, BUT I THINK THAT EITHER HAVING TO SIGN UP AND SPECIFICALLY SAYING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, I WANNA TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE. OR IF DURING A DISCUSSION LIKE BILL WAS SAYING, I WISH THEY WOULD'VE ASKED ME THAT QUESTION, BILL HAS AN IDEA THAT MAYBE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THAT DECISION MAKING PROCESS, WHY CAN'T HE DO IT? AND TODAY THAT CAN'T BE DONE. IT'S TOO FORMAL IN, IN THAT PERSPECTIVE. I, I REMEMBER BACK IN THE DAYS WHENEVER MARK AND I USED TO HAVE KNOCKDOWN DRAG OUT FIGHTS AT THE BOARD MEETING AND UH, AND OVER THAT, AND WE WOULD HAVE OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK IN AND GIVE CONCEPTS AND THOUGHTS INTO US AS WE WERE HAVING THAT. AND I THINK THAT WAS ALL BENEFICIAL. JUST A THOUGHT, AND I'LL BE QUIET NOW. NO, DON'T BE QUIET. YOU WANNA MOVE ON? I WAS HOPING I HAVE SOME POINTS I MIGHT WANNA MAKE AND I WAS HOPING YOU WOULD SAY THEM AND YOU GOT PRETTY CLOSE. UH, ERIC SCHUBERT. YES. I WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THE COMMENTS ABOUT, UH, 1190. IT IS NOT JUST COSTS THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. THE NPRR SETS UP A PRINCIPLE THAT GOES AGAINST THE COMMISSION'S MARKET DESIGN AND SENDS UP PERVERSE INCENTIVES. SO IT HAS A FAR BROADER CONCERN. I UNDERSTAND IN A LOT OF CASES THERE ARE TIMES YOU THIS X OR Y IS GOING TO IMPACT OUR COSTS, BUT IN THAT, IN THAT SITUATION, IT WAS A FAR MORE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE. AND IT DOESN'T MATTER IF, IF WE WERE VOTED DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY, THE ISSUE STILL REMAINS. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAY HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE COMMISSION AT SOME POINT AS WELL AS A REGARD. SO YEAH, I I AND AT THE BOARD SIMPLIFIED TO THAT. WELL, CAN I ADDRESS THAT FIRST? 'CAUSE I THINK THAT WENT TO WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. I THINK THAT'S A CASE WHERE EVERYONE WOULD BENEFIT FROM WRITTEN COMMENTS IF, IF YOU FEEL THAT GOES AGAINST YEAH, WELL I, WE WOULD FILE THEM. OKAY. WE FILE COMMENTS AND WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL BE AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD AS WELL. YES, SIR. CAN GO, GO AHEAD. DID YOU, YOU HAD MORE? UH, NO, THAT WAS, THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH IT. [01:50:08] OKAY. UM, RICHARD, CHAD, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND, UM, I, I GUESS THE, THE OTHER ONE THOUGHT THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY SPUR PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY MAKE THOSE COMMENTS WOULD BE IF THE, THE R AND M COMMITTEE, INSTEAD OF WORRYING ABOUT THE NO VOTES, MIGHT TAKE THE PERSPECTIVE AND EVEN SHARE IT OPENLY THAT, HEY, IF, IF YOU VOTED NO ON SOMETHING THAT CAME OUTTA ATTACK AND YOU DON'T FILE COMMENTS, OUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT WILL BE THAT YOU WERE SAT SUFFICIENTLY SATISFIED THAT ALTHOUGH YOU DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT, YOU'RE NOT GONNA FILE PROTESTING COMMENTS OR FURTHER DIALOGUE WHEN IT GETS TO THE COMMISSION IF IT GETS APPROVED. AND THEN THAT WOULD PUT PEOPLE ON NOTICE THAT, HEY, IF YOU REALLY ARE GONNA FIGHT THIS FURTHER, I KNOW THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I VOTE AGAINST, I, I WILL VOTE AGAINST SOMETHING IN PART BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE, I DON'T WANT TO ABSTAIN, UH, BECAUSE THAT'S, YOU DON'T EXIST. AND I DON'T WANNA SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I VERY WELL IN, IN OTHER FORMS WHEN IT, BECAUSE IT'S JUST THE WAY IT WORKS. I MAY WANNA FILE A PROTEST AND I DON'T WANT THE RTO TELLING THE TELLING FERC, OH, IT WAS UNANIMOUS AND HE SHOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING. SO THAT'S SOME REASON THAT I WILL, I WILL, UH, VOTE NO ON THINGS. BUT IF WE TOOK IT, TOOK IT AND TREATED IT MORE LIKE AN ABSTENTION, UNLESS YOU FILE COMMENTS, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER WAY OF MOTIVATING FOLKS. THE OTHER THING IS I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE GONNA BE ON COMMENTS IF, IF BOB AND I SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY AND BOB FILES COMMENTS WITHIN THE SEVEN DAY DEADLINE TO GET IT INTO THE BOARD, AND I DON'T GET TO SEE THEM UNTIL AFTER IT GETS IN THE BOARD PACKET, UM, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I MAY NOT, I, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE BLOCKED FROM THE OPPORTUNITY. AND I KNOW I COULD USE THE PUBLIC COMMENT THING, MAYBE THAT, THAT SEEMS KIND OF AWKWARD, BUT I HOPE I GET THE, A CHANCE TO REFUTE WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, MISTAKES AND, UH, MISREPRESENTATION. BOB'S PUTTING IN HIS COMMENTS. I WOULD NEVER DO THAT. , THANK YOU. UH, RICHARD ROSS AT A EP. THANKS RICHARD. UM, YEAH, SO ON JUST TO FINISH 1190, I, I KNOW COMMENTS WERE FILED IN THE PROCESS, BUT I THINK AFTER THE TACK VOTE IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, SO THE BOARD HAS A, A FULL RECORD. YOU KNOW, WE COULD, IF YOUR ANSWER TO WHY IS NO, WANTS TO POINT THEM TO, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS FROM NINE MONTHS BEFORE WE, WE, WE COULD DO THAT. BUT I THINK WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS COMMENTS FILED AFTER TACK TO, TO MAKE SURE, OKAY, YOU KNOW, THE EL ISSUE IS ELEVATED. OKAY. THEN I WANT SOME CLARIFICATION IF THAT'S OKAY. UH, WE WERE GIVEN AN EMAIL SAYING WHY DID PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR NO VOTE. WE RESPONDED, YEP. IS THAT CONSIDERED, IS THAT CONSIDERED A FORMAL COMMENT TO THE BOARD? IT IS NOT, NO. OKAY. SO MAYBE THIS IS A GOOD ILLUSTRATIVE THING WITHOUT GETTING TO THE SUBSTANCE OF 1190, BUT WE FILED COMMENTS AS TO WHY WE HAD A PERSPECTIVE, UM, THAT WE THOUGHT THAT, UM, THE PROPOSED POLICY WAS IN CONFLICT WITH THE NODAL MARKET DESIGN, AND WE VOTED NO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET OUR WAY AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. DO YOU THINK THE BOARD WOULD WANT US TO FILE THE SAME COMMENTS AGAIN? I, AND NOT, NOT TO GET INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF 1190, BUT LIKE, SHOULD WE FILE DUPLICATIVE COMMENTS? I, I THINK YES, TO WHAT IAN WAS SUGGESTING, IF YOU WERE PLANNING TO PURSUE SOMETHING POST TAC DECISION, YES, YOU SHOULD FILE COMMENTS THAT STATE YOUR INTENT TO DO THAT. MS. I, OKAY. BILL BARNES OR I DON'T, AM I SKIPPING PEOPLE? ERIC DID WE WE GOT RICHARD AND ERIC. OKAY, GO AHEAD, BILL. SO THE, THE ISSUES WITH 1190 ARE MORE NUANCED THAN THAT, WHICH IS WHERE WE GOT INVOLVED IS THE CONSUMERS DON'T FEEL THERE SHOULD BE ANY COMPENSATION FOR HDL OVERRIDES. WE FEEL IF, IF THERE IS COMPENSATION THAT IT NEEDS TO BE FAIR IN THE WAY THAT ERCOT INTERPRETED IT, IT ALLOWED SOME PARTICIPANTS TO GET ACCESS TO THAT TOOL WHERE SOME SEGMENTS WOULD NOT. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE, THE DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD GETS A LITTLE COMPLICATED. WE'RE MORE NEUTRAL ON WHETHER THEY BELIEVE COMPENSATION SHOULD OCCUR OR NOT. AND IF THEY SAY IT SHOULDN'T, THEN IT NEEDS TO GET REMOVED FOR EVERYONE. YEAH. [01:55:01] BUT IF THEY BELIEVE THAT COMPENSATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED, THEN EVERYONE SHOULD GET ACCESS TO IT FAIRLY. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. AND I THINK IT GOES TO JENNIFER'S EARLIER COMMENTS ABOUT LIKE SPLITTING THE BABY THE WRONG WAY. BECAUSE IF YOU CHOOSE ONE SOLUTION, THEN YOU DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, YOU KNOW, AN OPINION THAT WAS CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING. UM, I'VE TAKEN THIS IN THE WRONG DIRECTION THOUGH. I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE COMMUNICATIONS TO THE BOARD. KEITH, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? WELL, I WANTED TO USE, YOU KNOW, SO THE 1190 IS A GOOD EXAMPLE TO PULL ON THAT THREAD. I THINK JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, AND, AND I THINK, I THINK BILL JUST SORT OF ALLUDED TO THIS, IS THERE WAS AN INITIAL POLICY FROM YEARS AGO, RIGHT? AND YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE, THERE WAS A DECISION AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST AND A POLICY WAS SET UP AND THEN 1190 COMES IN AND SAYS, WELL, OKAY, BASED ON THE EXISTING POLICY, THE, WE WANNA ENHANCE THE FAIRNESS TO THAT. AND SO THE QUESTION THAT, THAT WE SEE THE BOARD POTENTIALLY STRUGGLING WITH AND, AND IT CAME OUT AT THE LAST MEETING IS WHAT'S THE RELIABILITY IMPACT ON THIS? WELL, I I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A RELIABILITY, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH MORE RELIABILITY DO YOU GET BY PASSING 1190? HARD TO SAY IT'S A, IT'S A POLICY QUESTION, RIGHT? AND, AND THERE ARE DEFINITELY ENTITIES THAT HAVE AN OPINION ON A POLICY AND THAT POLICY MAY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED YEARS AGO, RIGHT? AND THEN IT'S A QUESTION OF IS IT, IS IT A FAIRNESS POLICY QUESTION? AND, AND SO HELPING THE BOARD WORK THROUGH THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, RIGHT? WHERE IS THE EMPHASIS ON THIS? AND SO I, THAT'S WHY I LIKE 1190 AS A, AS A GOOD PROCESS QUESTION BECAUSE AT, ARE WE REALLY DEBATING AN EXISTING POLICY? UM, AGAIN, OR ARE WE DEALING WITH A, A SECOND ITERATION AND, AND SHOULD THE BOARD UNDERSTAND BOTH OF THOSE PIECES? SO, SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THIS ONE IS, IS NICE BECAUSE IT, IT DOESN'T HAVE A VERY CLEAR CUT RELIABILITY ELEMENT TO IT. THANKS. SO THAT LEADS ME TO SOMETHING ELSE. IF IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT THE BOARD IS ASKING FOR ERCOT OPINION ON, WHICH IS FAIR, IS THE RE RELIABILITY IMPACT, I THINK TO A ONE OF BILL'S EARLIER LINES OF QUESTIONING. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE CLARITY AROUND CAN THE BOARD REACH OUT DIRECTLY TO BILL TO TAC AND DO THEY KNOW IF THEY CAN? BECAUSE I, I THINK WHAT, WHEN THIS CAME TO TAC THE COMMENTS ON THE ERCOT BOARD REVISION REQUEST, I THINK THE CONCERN FROM TAC MEMBERS WAS IT SORT OF LOOKED LIKE ERCOT WAS SPEAKING FOR US. AND SO CAN WE SPEAK TO THE BOARD WITHOUT AN ERCOT FILTER? AND ERCOT HAS THEIR OWN, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU ARE NOT A, A NEUTRAL PARTY IN THESE DEBATES. AND SO IS THERE A WAY, AND IS THAT CLEAR THAT STAKEHOLDERS CAN SPEAK TO THE, THE BOARD ON THEIR OWN? AND I, I THINK JUST TO, TO CONSIDER WHAT CHAD SAID EARLIER IS THIS IS A PROCESS WE HAVE NOW, RIGHT? AND THE PROCESS NOW IS THAT, UH, ERCOT WILL HAVE, UH, ITS COMMENTS AND, AND WILL BE ASKED BY THE BOARD WHAT OUR VIEW IS AND WE'LL PRESENT OUR VIEW. THE TAC THROUGH YOU OBVIOUSLY PRESENTS THERE, AND IF OTHER FOLKS WANT TO RAISE COMMENTS IN, IN FOR OR AGAINST, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT EXISTING AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT PROCESS NEEDS TO CHANGE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WHAT CHAD WAS WAS SAYING EARLIER IS IF THERE NEEDS TO BE A NEW PROCESS, WELL THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS. BUT IN, SO IN THIS EXAMPLE, TECH LEADERSHIP WAS NOT APPROACHED AND, AND ASKED TO ADD THIS TO OUR REPORT TO R AND M AND THE BOARD BEFORE ERCOT DID WHAT CHAD REFERRED TO AS THE INTERIM APPROACH. SO, SO ARE, ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE DISCUSSION AT THE LAST BOARD OR AT THE NEXT BOARD? I'M JUST, I'M WONDERING IN GENERAL ABOUT THE FEEDBACK ON THE CONTENT OR QUALITY OF TAC AND CORPORATE MEMBERS FEED, YOU KNOW, TO, TO THE BOARD HOW WE'RE GETTING THAT INFORMATION AND CAN WE GET THAT DIRECTLY FROM THE BOARD? YEAH, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE, THE QUESTION OR THE CONCERN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE BOARD OR BOARD MEMBERS THAT SIT ON A COMMITTEE. I MEAN, THERE IS A [02:00:01] PROCESS FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS TO RAISE A CONCERN WITH AN AGENDA ITEM. WE, WE DO IT AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY MEETING, VERY CONSISTENT WITH HOW THE COMMISSION DOES BECAUSE IT IS AN OPEN MEETING AS WELL. UM, THE BOARD CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF ANYONE, ERCOT, STAFF, TECH, LEADERSHIP, THE IMM, THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE ATTENDING. SO I GUESS I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT PROCESS ENHANCEMENT YOU WANT THERE, UNLESS WE KIND OF MORE FORMALIZE WHAT TAC WANTS TO MAKE IT MORE CONSISTENT ON A CONSISTENT BASIS. IF YOU WANT THE R AND M COMMITTEE TO ENGAGE EVERY TAC MEMBER THAT VOTED NO, THEN WE CAN FORMALIZE THAT PROCESS AND THEY CAN GO DOWN THE LIST AND SAY, I SEE THAT ERIC GOFF VOTED NO, ERIC, PLEASE COME TO THE TABLE AND EXPLAIN TO US. I MEAN, SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS WHAT DOES TAC THINK IS APPROPRIATE? AND I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME TOO, THAT, THAT PEOPLE REALLY WANT TO GO ADVOCATE. THEY WILL REACH OUT TO US AND SAY, I REALLY WANT TO ADVOCATE IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE OR THE BOARD. I'M GOING TO GO ALL IN ON THAT. WE'VE ALL SEEN THAT IN THE LAST TWO, THREE YEARS. WE SAW IT BEFORE THE SENATE BILL TWO BOARD TOO. THOSE PROCESSES ARE ALL STILL THE SAME, BUT REGARDLESS OF THOSE PROCESSES, WHAT THE BOARD IS ASKING FOR IS DATA PRESENTED IN A WAY THAT ACHIEVES MORE OF THEIR OBJECTIVES WHEN THEY GET THESE POLICY ISSUES IN FRONT OF THEM? AND THAT DOES REQUIRE SOME, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, YOU KNOW, MINOR CHANGES TO KINDA MOVE AROUND THE EDGES OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 24 YEARS TO PRESENT THE DATA IN A WAY THAT IS BETTER MEETING THEIR NEEDS. BUT IF THE STAKEHOLDERS HERE FEEL LIKE THEY NEED TO HAVE A ONE-ON-ONE WITH THE COMMITTEE OR THE BOARD FOR EACH NON UNANIMOUS REVISION REQUEST, THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AND DEVELOP A PROCESS FOR IT. I THINK THAT'S ALREADY THERE EMBEDDED IN THE PROCESS AND ANYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR THAT. AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER SAID NO TO ANYONE THAT REALLY WANTED TO TALK TO THE COMMITTEE OR THE BOARD. I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE QUEUE, BUT OKAY. UM, LET'S GO TO ERIC SCHUBERT. OKAY. I WANTED TO RESPOND TO KEITH'S COMMENT, AND I THINK THAT IT HIGHLIGHTS AN IMPORTANT POINT. THIS IS NOT JUST SOME COST THING HERE OR WE MADE A DECISION 20 YEARS AGO AND NOW WE'RE TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN MODIFY IT. THAT ISSUE GOES TO A CORE REASON. THE COMMISSION WENT FROM A ZONAL TO A NODAL MARKET DESIGN. AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE I WAS CO-LEAD ON THE PROJECT AT THE TIME, AND WE WENT THROUGH A MA AS, AS MANY PEOPLE HERE WENT KNOW, WE WENT THROUGH A MASSIVE DEBATE. AND THE THING IS, IF YOU APPROVE 1190, YOU MAY SET UP AND KIND OF WHAT BOB WAS TALKING, BILL WAS TALKING ABOUT, SORRY, BILL WAS TALKING ABOUT, UH, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE THEN YOU START SPIRALING. THERE WAS A RELIABILITY REASON WHY THE COMMISSION CHOSE NODAL PRICING, AND THAT IS DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY 1190. OKAY? SO PART OF THE THING IS THAT IT'S HARD TO GET SOME OF THE NUANCES INVOLVED IN THAT. YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE WILL DISCUSS IT HERE, WE'LL DISCUSS THE BOARD, BUT JUST KIND OF A SIMPLE, WELL, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A SIMPLE LOOK AT IT. THERE'S A, SOMETIMES THE ISSUES ARE A LOT MORE SUBTLE AND A LOT MORE INTERRELATED THAN APPEAR TO BE, AND THIS IS ONE ISSUE THAT 1190 THAT IS. SO I JUST JUST WANNA SAY THE RE COMMISSION MADE A VERY, AT THAT TIME, MADE A VERY, UH, SIGNIFICANT DECISION AND THERE WERE SOLID REASONS FOR IT. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE RECORD ON THAT. AND THAT IS THAT, THAT DEGREE MY MIND REFLECTS ON THE VALIDITY OF 1190. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, IT IS AFTER 11, BUT LET'S WRAP UP THIS QUEUE AND THEN TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS. UM, BILL BARNES? YEAH, I WAS JUST FOLLOWING BACK UP ON THE BOARD, BEING ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS TO STAKEHOLDERS AND JUST A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT ON THAT POINT. UM, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WE WILL ALWAYS TRY TO FILE A ROBUST RECORD AND PROVIDE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE CAN, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING THROUGH THE BOARD MEMBERS' HEADS AND WHAT QUESTIONS THEY MAY HAVE. AND I'M, I'M EVEN FINE WITH ERCOT REPRESENTING POSITIONS OF STAKEHOLDERS IF THERE'S NO VOTES. I'M JUST WONDERING. AND I WOULD RECOMMEND, UH, BEHIND THE SCENES WHEN BOARD MEMBERS ASK ERCOT QUESTIONS AND ERCOT IS REPRESENTING STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS AND EXPLAINING WHAT [02:05:01] HAPPENED AT TAC. IF THAT DOESN'T SATISFY THE, THE BOARD MEMBERS' QUESTIONS AND THEY STILL HAVE THEM. I THINK ERCOT SHOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO REACH OUT TO THE STAKEHOLDER. AND THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT IS IT WAS REALLY CAME FROM OUR BOARD ENGAGEMENT DISCUSSION WITH INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS IN PRIVATE MEETINGS. I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED A SINGLE QUESTION FROM A BOARD MEMBER IN MY 20 YEAR CAREER IN THAT MEETING. GREAT QUESTIONS. AND THEY ASKED FROM OUR SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVE ON CERTAIN ISSUES AND WHEN NPR IN PARTICULAR, AND I JUST KIND OF WONDER WHY DIDN'T THEY DO THAT MORE OFTEN? AND I JUST FEEL LIKE THEY, THEY COULD PROBABLY BE A LITTLE BIT MORE ENCOURAGEMENT, UM, ON REACH OUT WHEN THEY DO HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT AREN'T ADDRESSED BY THEIR BRIEFINGS WITH ERCOT STAFF. THANKS, IAN. UM, CHAD, I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING WHAT YOU THINK IS THE QUANTITATIVE, UM, PART THAT THE BOARD IS STRUGGLING WITH, WITH UNDERSTANDING, UH, THE VOTES ATTACK. UM, I DEFINITELY THINK IT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO CHEW ON AND, AND COME BACK AND SPEAK ABOUT AGAIN, BUT I JUST, UM, THAT WAS DEFINITELY SOMETHING MISSING FOR ME IN UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM. SO I, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING UP AND HELPING US UNDERSTAND THAT. OKAY. BOB HILTON? YEAH, JUST IT ACTUALLY, BILL SAID PRETTY MUCH MOST EVERYTHING THAT I'M GOING TO GET AT, UH, 'CAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, CHAD, IS EVERYTHING YOU SAID WAS, IF WE WANT TO ENGAGE THE BOARD, IF WE WANT TO ENGAGE THE BOARD, THAT'S A ONE WAY STREET. WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS WE NEED THE BOARD TO BE ENGAGING BACK TO THE STAKEHOLDER. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS TALKING ABOUT BEING ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS TO, I MEAN, EVEN IF IT'S JUST ATTACK MEMBERS OR THERE AT THE R AND M MEETING AND NOT THE REST OF THE PUBLIC, AND THE REST OF THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE TO SIGN UP. I MEAN, THAT'S ONE WAY OF LOOKING AT IT, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO PUSH THAT. UH, AND TO USE AN EXAMPLE, THAT CONVERSATION THAT JUST HAPPENED BETWEEN ERIC AND BILL WOULD'VE BEEN A GREAT CONVERSATION FOR THE BOARD TO HEAR, RATHER THAN TRYING TO READ, HERE'S THIS POSITION, HERE'S THIS POSITION. HOW DOES THAT FIT? THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT THEMSELVES, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE OUTTA CONTEXT IN SOME, SOME DEGREE, BUT THAT CONVERSATION I THINK WOULD'VE HELPED THEM GET OVER SOME HUMPS. THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS ON THAT. AND A, YOU KNOW, I'M INTERESTED IN THAT IDEA. I MEAN, MAYBE WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW TO MORE STRUCTURE THAT SO THAT IT'S JUST NOT THE WILD, WILD WEST. SO YEAH, WE DON'T WANT TO TAG BEATING, BREAKING DOWN. YEAH, EXACTLY. SO FULLY AGREE. I'LL JUST JUMP IN. SO MY CONCERN WITH YOUR COMMENT THOUGH, CHAD, WAS YEAH, THE STAKEHOLDERS HAVE TO REACH OUT, THE STAKEHOLDERS HAVE TO REACH OUT. AND THEN YOU SAID WE, WHO I TAKE TO MEAN ERCOT HAS NEVER SAID NO. SO WHAT IS THAT ERCOT ROLE BETWEEN THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE BOARD? BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT EXISTED WITH THE PREVIOUS HYBRID BOARD, RIGHT? LIKE, BOB, WHEN YOU WANTED TO YELL AT MARK, DID YOU CALL CHAD AND SAY, I'D LIKE TO YELL AT MARK, GET ON THE PHONE WITH US. NO, MARK JUST MOVED AND WOULDN'T SIT NEXT TO ME. I THINK, I THINK THERE COULD BE MORE CLARITY AROUND ERCOT ROLE IN BETWEEN THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE BOARD. YEAH. AND I, I KIND OF SERVE DUAL ROLE. I'M KIND OF TALKING AS CORPORATE SECRETARY FOR THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS OF THE BOARD AND HOW IT WORKS. AND I, I DID SUSPECT THAT , BUT I WANTED TO GET CLARITY ON IT. SO, AND UH, YOU KNOW, BUT AGAIN, TO, TO BOB'S POINT, IF, IF THERE'S IDEAS THAT TACK CAN COME UP WITH THAT WILL HELP WITH THE DATA PIECE FOR THE BOARD AND THE ENGAGEMENT PIECE FOR THE BOARD, THEN I THINK THE BOARD'S ALL IN FOR THAT TYPE OF DISCUSSION AND IMPROVEMENT AND PROCESSES. I'LL, IF YOU'RE JUST RESPONDING TO THAT, THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD RESPOND TO ON THAT WAS ACTUALLY WHENEVER I SAID, WELL, WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANT A TAC MEETING BREAKOUT IN THE BOARD MEETING. I AGREE THAT TAC MEMBERS AND SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE SHOULD NOT TRY TO BREAK OUT A TAC MEETING. BUT IF THE BOARD FELT AND THE CHAIR FELT THAT THEY NEEDED TO BASICALLY HAVE A T DISCUSSION AT THE, AT THE ARM END COMMITTEE, I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT AND BE ABLE TO ASK, YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS OF WHOMEVER IS AVAILABLE. JUST, JUST WANT TO ADD INTO THAT. SO I THINK IT'S THEIR DECISION ON WHAT THEY WANT. OKAY. MARK DREYFUS. WELL, FIRST OFF, I MUST ADMIT THAT IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN BOB AND I WERE ON THE BOARD, THAT I DID ARRIVE EARLY AND MOVE THE NAME TAGS AROUND SO THAT WE DID NOT SIT TOGETHER. . UM, I, I, I JUST WANT TO INVITE THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL [02:10:01] IF THE T CHAIR, AND I DON'T WANNA PUT A BURDEN ON YOU, BUT IF THE TAC CHAIR CAME TO THE BOARD WITH A FULLER AND MORE ROBUST PRESENTATION THAN WE'VE BEEN DOING LATELY, UM, THERE ARE TIMES IN THE PAST, I DON'T WANT TO JUST BE THE, IN THE PAST WE DID IT THIS WAY, GUY, BUT THERE ARE TIMES IN THE PAST WHEN THE, THE TAC CHAIR LED THE BOARD, OR IN THIS CASE THE R AND M THROUGH A FULL DISCUSSION OF, OF THE NRR AND ENGAGED IN DIALOGUE WITH THEM ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE. AND I THINK THAT SATISFIES A LOT OF, OF WHAT CHAD SAID ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DO WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE EVERY MEMBER SIT THERE SO THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS CAN ASK THEM QUESTIONS? I DON'T THINK WE NEED THAT, BUT I DO THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME OF THIS TO BE FILLED THROUGH THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU BRING TO THE BOARD AND THE COMMITTEE AND THE BOARD. I, I AGREE WITH THAT, AND ANN AND I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH THAT AT SOME POINT, THE BOARD REPORT KIND OF EVOLVED INTO SOMETHING THAT ANN REALLY DOES. UM, BUT, BUT WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT WAYS TO MAKE IT MORE EXPANSIVE, STARTING WITH, I THINK IN OCTOBER WE'D LIKE TO LAY OUT SOME OF THE BACKGROUND THAT, THAT WE PRESENTED TODAY ON HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. SO THEY'RE AWARE, THEY KNOW ALL THE DIFFERENT ENGINEERING WORKING GROUPS THAT, THAT HAVE VETTED THIS AND THE MAKEUP. UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IN FOLLOWING MONTHS, KIND OF DRILL DOWN INTO MORE TOPICS AS WELL. ROY? TRUE. ARE YOU ON THE PHONE? YES. YES. UM, I, I WAS JUST GONNA ASK THE QUESTION. I, I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, ALL THE DISCUSSION WE'VE BEEN HAVING, BUT I'M WONDERING, YOU KNOW, IN THE CASE OF NO 2 45 AND, AND THE REMAND THAT OCCURRED THERE, IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT CAN BE DONE TO TRY TO PRECLUDE THAT FROM HAPPENING? I MEAN, I, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A BIGGER ISSUE THAN SOME OF THESE OTHER, UH, EXAMPLES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN. THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT. THE EXAMPLES WE HAD ON THE SLIDE EARLIER WERE JUST THE ONES THAT WERE PASSED THE SUBCOMMITTEE VOTE, BUT DIDN'T PASS TAC, THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANCE TO THAT MOTHER, BUT THAN THAT, ALRIGHT, DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE NEXT STEPS WE WANNA TAKE OR SHOULD WE ALL JUST TAKE THIS HOME FOR A WHILE AND THINK ABOUT IT AND BARKSDALE GO THINK ABOUT IT TOO? WELL, I, I GUESS I'VE HEARD THREE THINGS, THREE KIND OF MAJOR BUCKETS. ONE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW ARE DECISIONS BEING MADE AS THEY ARRIVE HERE? UH, THE SECOND IS HOW ARE YOU MAKING YOUR DECISIONS AND THEN REPRESENTING THAT DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO THE BOARD. AND THEN THE THIRD IS THE PROCESS AROUND WHICH FOLKS WHO OPPOSE WHAT TAC HAS DECIDED HOW YOU ARE REPRESENTING THAT TO THE BOARD AND, AND THEN ONTO THE COMMISSION. AND, YOU KNOW, UM, I'VE COMMITTED AND, AND HOPEFULLY IT'S BEEN CLEAR THAT THAT COMMISSION STAFF IS WORKING ON A RULEMAKING RELATED TO THE, EXCUSE ME, RELATED TO THE PROCESS OF, OF APPEALS OF, OF, UM, DECISIONS OF THE BOARD UP TO THE COMMISSION. UM, AND THAT SHOULD BE COMING SOON. UH, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT WHAT YOUR ROLE IS HERE AND HOW YOU, HOW BARKSDALE ENGLISH, UM, WOULD LOVE FOR TAC MEMBERS TO VIEW YOUR RESPONSIBILITY HERE. AND, UM, UM, I GUESS IT, IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S ANOTHER CONVERSATION THAT NEEDS TO BE HAD AROUND HOW DO YOU CODIFY TAX ROLE IN RECEIVING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM YOUR SUBCOMMITTEES, AND HOW DO YOU CODIFY WHAT YOU'RE COMMUNICATING UP TO THE BOARD IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT COMMUNICATION HAPPENS WITH THE BOARD THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY TAX ROLE TO, TO DETERMINE THAT EXPRESSING DESIRES AND, AND ENGAGING BOARD MEMBERS IN IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS, I THINK IS CRITICAL. UM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT WILL BE THE BOARD MEMBERS' DECISIONS ON HOW TO, HOW TO RECEIVE THOSE REQUESTS. THAT'S HOW I'M SEEING IT. YEAH, I THINK THERE WAS A LARGE DISCUSSION, AS YOU NOTED AT THE, THE END ON THE KIND OF ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, DUTIES. AND I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYONE HERE WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE THAT MORE, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE NEXT STEP IS. 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT IS, IS THAT COMMISSION STAFF HOMEWORK? I DON'T, PROBABLY NOT. OR IS THAT SOMETHING, I MEAN, LOOK, [02:15:01] IF YOU WANT IT TO BE COMMISSIONS HOMEWORK. I IS IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? DO YOU REALLY WANT THE COMMISSION TO, TO IMPOSE ON THIS GROUP ITS DELIBERATION? NO, I THINK I JUST WANTED, I WAS, I DIDN'T THINK SO. THAT WAS MORE TO LIKE, GET SOMEBODY TO VOLUNTEER TO DO IT INSTEAD OF COMMISSION STAFF, BUT IT DIDN'T WORK. SO, UM, I, I CAN HAVE MY LITTLE MR. BURNS MOMENT HERE AND THEN SEE IF THERE'S A SMITHERS OUT THERE. THERE'S REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY THAT DIDN'T WORK, RIGHT? SO GO, GO AHEAD. SORRY. YOU KNOW, I THINK, I THINK STAFF WILL TAKE, ITS ITS ROLE IN, IN DEFINING THE FORMAL PROCESS AROUND APPEALS, AND PERHAPS THAT WILL HELP CLARIFY WHAT THE COMMUNICATION PATHWAYS NEED TO LOOK LIKE FROM TAC TO THE BOARD. I THINK YOU GUYS NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU WANT YOUR SUBCOMMITTEES TO BE DELIVERING TO YOU. AND, UM, STAFF CAN CERTAINLY WEIGH IN ON THAT AND PROVIDE ITS PERSPECTIVE. YOU KNOW, OUR LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN IN THE MARKET FOR COLLECTIVELY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE AS LONG AS RICHARD ROSS HAS BEEN IN, I'M, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE, UH OH, HE'S NOT HERE. SO THAT WASN'T FUNNY. UM, OKAY, SO I COULD HAVE SAID MARK THEN THAT WOULD'VE BEEN FUNNY. UM, HA HA, , NOW I'M DONE. I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. OKAY, GO AHEAD, CHAD. WELL, I'M OBVIOUSLY HAPPY TO TAKE ON ACTION ITEMS TO WORK WITH TAC LEADERSHIP AND TAC ON OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT BETWEEN TAC AND THE BOARD. SO I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF GREAT CONTENT HERE IN THE TWO HOURS OF DISCUSSION THAT WE CAN FRAME UP A A COUPLE OF IDEAS THAT CAN BE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM TYPE OF OBJECTIVES. SO, OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT, NED. WELL, SINCE NO ONE IS, UH, NO ONE IS, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYONE OTHER THAN SAY ERCOT AND PC STAFF ARE, UH, RAISING HANDS. I'M WONDERING IF IT MIGHT BE, UH, IF MAYBE THE TECH LEADERSHIP WOULD LIKE TO NAME, SAY, REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH SEGMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A, A SUB, NOT A SUB TASK FORCE, DIFFERENT, DO WE NEED ANOTHER TASK FORCE? I, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REALLY A TASK FORCE OR IF IT'S, THERE'S A DIFFERENT WORD FOR IT. UM, BUT WORKFORCE, A WORKFORCE. STRIKE TEAMS. GO AHEAD, JENNIFER. SO I'VE HAD THIS THOUGHT, 'CAUSE UM, I THINK THERE'S A FEW OF US THAT ARE ON A LOT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS ALREADY. I THINK THE TASK FORCE MEETINGS HAVE A LOT OF MEMBERSHIP. IF THOSE FOLKS COULD VOLUNTEER AND IDEALLY WE WOULD'VE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM EVERY SEGMENT AT LEAST, UM, TO REACH CONSENSUS ON HOW WE TALK ABOUT THE DISCOURSE TO DATE, NOT ON WHAT IT IS, UM, OR ON THE SOLUTION. I THINK IT COULD BE AN INTERESTING OPPORTUNITY KIND OF TO WHAT I SAID EARLIER, TO REALLY LIKE RAISE THE NEXT GENERATION OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. UM, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE TAKING NOTES AT ALL OF THESE MEETINGS AND YOU'RE LISTENING TO ALL OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE MARKET INSTEAD OF, LIKE, I SIT ON RMS, I'M RETAILER, BUT ROS MIND BLOWING 90% OF THE TIME. AND SO I THINK HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO NOMINATE SOMEONE. AND I THINK IF WE HAVE A SEGMENT WHERE IT'S A CHALLENGE TO FIND SOMEONE, MAYBE THIS IS A PLACE WHERE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF TASK FORCE RULES WHERE YOU DON'T NECESSARILY, LIKE IT CAN BE A NEW POSITION, RIGHT? UM, JUST LIKE WE HAVE FOR SOME OF THE TASK FORCE WHERE YOU JUST GET, YOU'RE JUST, UM, KIND OF NOMINATED INTO THAT POSITION BASICALLY. UM, AND THAT WAY IT REALLY IS LIKE A NOTES TAKER REPRESENTATIVE FOR EACH SEGMENT, FOR ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WILL MAKE IT TO THE BOARD AND THE PUCI KNOW IT WOULD BE A VERY LARGE ASK OF THAT PERSON, BUT IT WOULD ALSO BE A REALLY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO LIKE, DIG DEEP INTO THE MECHANICS OF ERCOT. AND I THINK IT COULD BE A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR LEARNING. I'M LOOKING AT ERIC BLAKEY BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD A REALLY HARD TIME JUST EVEN FILLING OUR CURRENT WORKING GROUP LEADERSHIP. WE'VE GOT A GREAT TEAM THOUGH, , WE HAVE A GREAT TEAM. BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE [02:20:01] POINT IS, EVEN WITH THE EXISTING KIND OF WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITIES, WE HAVE A REALLY HARD TIME GETTING THOSE FULL. YEAH, I, A LOT OF TURNOVER AND, AND THINGS THAT CHANGE DURING THE YEAR JUST MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE. BUT LIKE I SAID, RIGHT NOW WE'RE VERY BLESSED. WE HAVE A GOOD TEAM. YOU KNOW, MY POINT WAS JUST ADDING A WHOLE NEW SET OF ROLES WE'RE TRYING TO FILL WOULD PROBABLY BE DIFFICULT TO FILL THOSE. I GUESS I WOULD CHALLENGE THAT THE ALTERNATIVE IS THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF COMPANIES THAT HAVE TO FILE INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS ON A LOT OF ISSUES. SO FINDING ONE PERSON FROM EACH SEGMENT WHO'S WILLING TO DEVOTE TIME IS MAYBE A MORE EFFICIENT APPROACH. OKAY. LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT. UM, ED, WE GOT YOUR COMMENT RIGHT? OKAY. CHRIS HENDRICKS. YEAH. UH, YEAH, CAITLYN, I THINK YOU MENTIONED IT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, A WHILE BACK ABOUT THE WAY NEPO HANDLES IT. THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO KIND OF EXPLORE OF, TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE COUNSEL HELP PREPARE THAT AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, A SET BECAUSE THEY, THEY HAVE CONSISTENCY IN THE, IN THE MEETINGS OVER THE YEARS AND, AND KIND OF DO THAT. OKAY. UM, WHY DON'T WE PAUSE THIS FOR NOW. I WILL TALK TO COLIN WHO TOOK A BUNCH OF NOTES AND SO HE'S GONNA SAVE US ALL AND ANN AND COREY OFFLINE AND MAY, I THINK WE'LL RESERVE SOME AMOUNT OF TIME, MAYBE 30 MINUTES TO, TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS AT THE NEXT TAC MEETING, WHICH IS REMOTE. UM, BUT WE CAN MAYBE PROPOSE A COUPLE PATH FORWARD. OKAY. UM, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A COUPLE MINUTE BREAK BEFORE WE START JUST TO GET, LET EVERYONE KIND OF RESET. UM, SO MAYBE COME BACK AT 1135, YOU, YOU'RE [3. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes] LIVE ALL, UH, THANK YOU COLIN. SO I, I HAD SENT IN, UH, A FEW EDITS TO THE, UH, TO THE MINUTES. JUST THE INTENT WAS TO CAPTURE AT A PRETTY HIGH LEVEL SOME OF THE DI SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, FRANKLY, SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I THINK, UH, MEMBERS HAD RAISED ON A COUPLE OF ITEMS. SO, UH, FIRST UP IS, IS KIND OF DOVETAILS OFF OF OUR LAST DISCUSSION. AND SO THIS IS, UH, IT'S JUST CAPTURING THE, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ERCOT SUMMARY SUMMARIZING, UH, STAKEHOLDER POSITIONS TO THE BOARD. AND, YOU KNOW, KEITH BROUGHT THAT EARLIER TODAY AND WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT SINCE. THIS IS JUST KIND OF MEANT TO, TO CAPTURE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME. UM, SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S FAIRLY SELF-EXPLANATORY. UH, THEN ON THE NEXT ITEM IN THE, UH, BIFURCATED APPROACH TO NORE 2 45 WANTED TO CAPTURE THE FACT THAT I, I RECALL THAT AT LEAST I HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE, THE TIMELINE GIVEN THAT WE WOULD, WE'RE NOT EXPECTING TO SEE THAT ACTUAL, UH, SUBSEQUENT GER FILED UNTIL AFTER PUC APPROVAL. SO THAT'LL BE IN OCTOBER. AND THEN WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT TO THE ERCOT BOARD IN FEBRUARY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT CONCERN WAS, UH, WAS DOCUMENTED IN CASE WE DO RUN UP AGAINST A, UH, A TIMELINE ISSUE, HOPEFULLY NOT. UH, AND THEN DOWN IN THE REAL TIME CO OPTIMIZATION SECTION, UH, I DID WANT TO, UH, HIGHLIGHT THE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE, UH, THE MARKET TRIAL TIMELINE AND WHAT QUEASY WERE ATTESTING TO, UH, SINCE THAT WAS, UH, SOMETHING THAT, THAT WAS ALSO DISCUSSED. AND THEN, UH, THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR THE, UH, FOR GETTING MORE TRAINING, UH, SOONER RATHER THAN LATER ON CERTAIN ITEMS. UM, AND, AND JUST SOME OTHER DISCUSSION AROUND THE SIMULATOR FUNCTIONALITY AND, UM, UH, TRACKING THE, THE OUTCOMES BETWEEN THE REAL-TIME CO OPTIMIZATION, UH, ENGINE RELATIVE TO THE CURRENT ODC AND HOW THAT ALIGNS WITH ERCOT OPERATIONAL PREFERENCES, SPECIFICALLY THE, UH, UH, COMMITTED CAPACITY. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, IS THE ERCOT, UH, REPORTS ON THE 20 20 25 MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION, UH, PROCESS. AND, AND MY, THE CO MY COLLEAGUE BOB HELTON TO MY LEFT HAD, HAD RAISED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, SEPARATE INVOICES. AND THEN WE ALSO HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE, UH, THE ME, UH, MEMBERS WHO HAD AN EMAIL ASSOCIATED WITH A WEATHERIZATION REPORT NOT BEING ABLE TO COMPLETE THE, THE MEMBERSHIP REQUEST. [02:25:01] I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ARCOT HAS, UH, HAS INDICATED IS NOT AN ISSUE AFTER THIS YEAR. UM, BUT JUST WANTED TO COMMEMORATE THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. THAT'S ALL. THANKS NAN, APPRECIATE YOU TAKING A CLOSE LOOK AND RECOMMENDING THESE REVISIONS TO REFLECT THE DISCUSSIONS. ANYBODY HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH MODIFYING THE MINUTES MOVING THIS, THE COMMONWEALTH BALLOT? OKAY, UH, AGENDA ITEM [4. Meeting Updates] NUMBER FOUR, MEETING UPDATES. UH, SO THE PC HAS MET TWICE ON AUGUST 29TH AND, AND SEPTEMBER 12TH. SINCE THE LAST TAC MEETING, UH, THERE WERE NO, UH, REVISION REQUESTS, UH, UP FOR ADOPTION AT THAT POINT. SO WE'LL [5. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions] MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM A PUC STANDPOINT. ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FIVE, REVIEW OF REVISION REQUEST SUMMARY, MARKET IMPACT STATEMENT AND OPINIONS, ANN. OKAY, FOR THE REVISION REQUEST SUMMARY, WE HAVE EIGHT REVISION REQUESTS ON THE TAC AGENDA THIS MONTH. UM, FOR SPONSORSHIP, FIVE ARE ERCOT SPONSORED AND THREE ARE MARKET PARTICIPANTS SPONSORED FOR REASON FOR REVISIONS. UM, TWO ARE BOARD AND OR PUC DIRECTIVES. FIVE, UM, FOLLOW IN THAT GENERAL SYSTEM PROCESS IMPROVEMENT CATEGORY AND ONE IS REGULATORY. UM, FOR IMPACTS. NPR 1188 I'LL POINT OUT HAS A 1.8 MILLION TO 2.5 MILLION BUDGETARY IMPACT 1244 HAS A 70 TO 100 K IMPACT. AND THEN I BELIEVE THE REST ARE NO IMPACT OR CAPTURED IN OTHER REVISION REQUESTS. UM, ERCOT IS IN SUPPORT OF ALL OF THE REVISION REQUESTS AND PROVIDES POSITIVE MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS. UM, CFSG HAS REVIEWED ALL OF THESE AND FIND NO CREDIT IMPLICATIONS AND IMM SUPPORTS NPR 1188 AND HAS NO OPINION ON THE REMAINING REVISION REQUESTS. THANK YOU ANN. ANYBODY FROM THE IMM THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? OKAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WE'LL [6. PRS Report] MOVE RIGHT ALONG TO THE PRS REPORT. DIANA COLEMAN, GOOD MORNING TAG. DIANA COLEMAN WITH CPS ENERGY WITH THE SEPTEMBER PRS REPORT. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS MORNING. WE HEARD ANNE NOTE SOME OF THE IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT WE SEE HERE BEFORE US TODAY. THE FIRST ONE IS 1237. THIS ONE DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT AND IT WAS ALSO UNOPPOSED 1237. THIS IS COMING TO US FROM CENTERPOINT AND IT IS PROVIDING CONDITIONS IN WHICH ERCOT REQUIRES ALL COMPETITIVE RETAILERS, BOTH NEW AND EXISTING AND T DSPS TO COMPLETE RETAIL MARKET QUALIFICATION TESTING ON AUGUST 8TH, PRS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO APPROVE 1237 AS AMENDED BY THE AUGUST 6TH R UH, RMS COMMENTS. AND THEN IN SEPTEMBER WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO T WITH THE AUGUST 8TH PRS REPORT AND THE AUGUST 27TH IMPACT ANALYSIS. THE SECOND ITEM IS 1188. THIS IS COMING TO US FROM ERCOT. THIS IS CHANGING THE DISPATCH AND PRICING FOR CLRS. IN RESPONSE TO PHASE ONE OF THE COMMISSION PROJECT FOR THE MARKET DESIGN BLUEPRINT, YOU SEE THE IA THERE AND THE PRIORITY AND THE RANK ON AUGUST 8TH, PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY THE JULY 15TH. ENCORE COMMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TOT THE AUGUST 8TH PRS REPORT AS REVISED BY PRS AND THE JUNE 27TH, 2023 IA WITH A RECOMMENDED PRIORITY OF 2026 AND A RANK OF THREE 90. AND THEN THE LAST ITEM IS 1244. WE DID HAVE THE IA TITLE, UH, CHANGE JUST A LITTLE BIT AND WE HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THE PRIORITY IN THE RANK FOR 1244. THIS IS COMING TO US FROM PRIORITY POWER, WHICH IS ALIGNING THE PROVISIONS PER PFR TO PROVIDE ECRS AND THE CALCULATION OF PRC ON AUGUST 8TH, PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. AND THEN IN SEPTEMBER, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD ATTACK THE AUGUST 8TH PRS REPORT AS REVISED BY PRS [02:30:01] WITH THE SEPTEMBER 6TH IMPACT ANALYSIS. I BELIEVE TROY HAD OR, OR HAD A COMMENT ON OUR REVISED PRIORITY IN OUR RANK FOR 1244. TROY, THANK YOU. AND THIS IS TROY ANDERSON WITH PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT AT LAST WEEK'S PRS MEETING HERE. SORRY, LAST WEEK'S MEETING, UH, YOU WERE ASKED TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHETHER WE CAN SQUEEZE THIS TO ONE IN BEFORE RTC. OF COURSE THAT HAPPENED TO THE DAY BEFORE WE CAME OUT OF IT, THE, YOU KNOW, THE TARGET GO LIVE DATE. SO I EXPEDITED THAT REVIEW. AND, UM, BETWEEN OUR CONCERN WITH ADDING SCOPE TO THE CHANGE TO CRITICAL SYSTEMS AND THE TESTING AND DEPLOYMENT STAFF THAT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR 1244 THAT ARE ALSO FULLY COMMITTED TO RTC, UH, WE'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE SHOULD MOVE AT PRIORITY TO 2026, WHICH MEANS POST RTC AND THE NEW RANK WOULD BE 47 10. SO BASICALLY WE WOULD NOT TAKE THIS UP UNTIL AFTER RTC HAD DEPLOYED AND STABILIZED. YOU TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, TROY. NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS? UH, COREY, COULD WE PULL UP THE IA FOR 1188, GIVEN THE SIZE, JUST LET FOLKS TAKE A LOOK AT THIS FOR A SECOND AND ALSO ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS ON THE IA? OKAY, THANK YOU COREY. UH, SO ON THESE THREE ITEMS, UH, ANY OBJECTION TO MOVING THESE TO THE COMBO BALLOT? SO ON, UH, 1237, UH, THE MOTION WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1237 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2024 PRS REPORT FOR 1188, I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE NPR 1188 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE 9 12 24 PRS REPORT. AND FOR 1244 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1244 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE 9 12 24 PRS REPORT. AND THE 9 13 24 REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE RECOMMENDED PRIORITY OF 2026 AND A RANK OF 45, 30 47, 10 47 10 WAS REVISED. SORRY, THANK YOU. RANK OF 47 10 COREY, IF YOU GOT THAT. OKAY, I'VE GOT ALL THOSE, BUT I THINK WE WERE GONNA NEED A SEPARATE BALLOT FOR 1188 AND OBDR 46 BECAUSE OUR RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER REPRESENTATIVE WAS REPRESENTING FOLKS. GO AHEAD. YES, SIR. UH, I FILED COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT ON 1188 AND SO I RECUSED MYSELF INSIDE 'EM. SO IT'S UP TO Y'ALL IF YOU WANNA TAKE IT TO SEPARATE BALLOT OR NOT, BUT I'M ACCUSING MYSELF, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO. YEAH, WELL I CAN'T, I CAN'T ABT STAND AT THE COMBO. SO I, I RECUSE MYSELF OF 1188 AND GAVE MY PROXY TO DR. RASH. ALRIGHT, SEPARATE BALLOT. LET'S DO SEPARATE BALLOTS. ERIC, WHICH ONES ARE THOSE? 1188. IT'S 1188. AND I THINK THERE'S AN O-B-D-R-R ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AS WELL. THAT'S ALSO ON THE COS. I GOT IT PREPARED. YOU'VE GOT IT. THE O-B-D-R-R HAS BEEN SITTING HERE TABLED FOR MONTHS, WAITING FOR 1188 TO CATCH UP. SO NOW THAT 1188 IS HERE, BOTH ARE RIPE FOR ATTACK VOTE. SO ERIC PASSING HIS PROXY TO OR PASSING HIS VOTE TO NAGE FOR THAT ONE. SO A MOTION FOR THIS MINI COMBO BALLOT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. MOTION FOR ME. AND YEAH. AND THAT'S A MOTION FOR 1188 AND O-B-D-R-R OH FOUR SIX. YEP. YES, SIR. OKAY. JENNIFER, A SECOND. AWESOME. COOL. OKAY. NO DISCUSSION. GO AHEAD COREY. SOUNDS GOOD. SO STARTING UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, UH, NAVA FOR ERIC? YES. THANK YOU. AND THEN NAA? YES. THANK YOU GARRETT. YES, SIR. THANKS SIR. ERIC SCHUBERT? YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS. YES, SIR. THANKS SIR. NICK FEHRENBACH? YES, THANK YOU. THANKS SIR. MOVING ON TO OUR CO-OPS, UH, JOE, DAN FOR MIKE. SAY IT AGAIN. THAT'S A YES. [02:35:01] YES. THANK YOU, BLAKE. YES, THANK YOU ERIC. YES, THANK YOU, JOHN. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. BRIAN? YES, THANK YOU. CAITLIN IS NOT WITH US. BOB HILTON IS ALSO NOT AROUND. HOW ABOUT NED? YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU ON OUR IPMS SHANE FOR REMI. YES, THANK YOU, JEREMY. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, IAN. YES, THANK YOU CORY. THANK YOU. MATT MARAIS? YES, SIR. OKAY, GOTCHA. YES, I'M ON THE PHONE, SORRY. GOTCHA. NO WORRIES. THANKS MATT. AND OUR I REPS. BILL? YES. THANK YOU. JENNIFER. YES, THANK YOU. JAY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHRIS. YES, THANK YOU. ANDRE IOUS, UH, STACY FOR KEITH? YES. THANK YOU ABBY FOR DAVID? YES, THANK YOU, COLIN. YES, THANK YOU RICHARD. YES, THANKS SIR. ONTO OUR MUNIS RUSSELL. YES, THANK YOU, JOSE. YES, THANK YOU, DAVID. YES, THANK YOU. AND FAYE? YES, FELICIA? YES. OKAY, GOTCHA. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU COREY. SO WE'LL TAKE THE OTHER 2, 12 37 AND 1244 AND PUT THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT. UM, BARKSDALE, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT FOR AFTER YOUR VOTE, PLEASE? THANKS. OKAY, WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THESE ON THE COMBO BALLOT BARKSDALE. WE'RE GONNA PUT THOSE TWO ON THE COMBO BALLOT THAT WE'LL HANDLE AT THE END. OKAY, GO AHEAD DANA. THAT WAS IT. BERKS STILL DID WE WANNA RAISE ANYTHING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AT, UM, PRS? I'M SORRY. I'M, UH, STILL GETTING USED TO THE NEW WAYS. IT'S NOT NEW FOR YOU ALL, BUT IT'S NEW FOR ME ON COMBO BALLOTS. SO, UH, MY APOLOGIES. THANKS FOR, UM, TAKING MY COMMENT. UM, DIANA, YES, SIR. UH, QUESTION FOR YOU, UM, ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR FOLKS. I'M NOT ASKING TACK TO TAKE ANY, UM, ACTION. JUST A, A, UM, QUESTION FROM COMMISSION STAFF RELATED TO NPR 1247 MM-HMM. , I UNDERSTAND THAT'S BEEN TABLED THE PRS FOR A LITTLE WHILE. UM, AND I'M WONDERING IF AT YOUR NEXT MEETING YOU ALL CAN, UM, POSSIBLY DISCUSS THE REASONS FOR, UH, IT REMAINING TABLED AND IF IT'S RELATED TO, UM, ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND WHETHER THAT MIGHT RESULT IN, UM, CHANGES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION TO THE RULE THAT, THAT THIS NPRR IS SUPPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTING. UM, WOULD LOVE FOR THOSE, UH, QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS TO BE FLESHED OUT SO THAT WE CAN, UM, EITHER GET MOVEMENT ON THAT NPRR OR FIGURE OUT, UH, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. SURE. SO 1247 WAS REQUESTED WITH URGENCY. AND IF ANYONE ELSE WAS AT PRS AND HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION, PLEASE CORRECT ME. BUT THE DESIRE WAS WHEN WE WERE RAISING 1247, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION AROUND ERCOT WORKING ON A WHITE PAPER AND A STUDY AND WHAT THAT LANGUAGE LOOKS LIKE. AND THERE WAS CONCERN FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS PRESENT THAT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN URGENCY VOTE ON LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE NOT YET SEEN, DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE ENOUGH FOR AN URGENCY VOTE. SO IT'S TABLED. AND WHAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IS TO SEE WHAT THAT LANGUAGE LOOKS LIKE FROM AN ERCOT PERSPECTIVE IN ORDER FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH 1240, UH, 1247 ON THAT URGENCY. SO OBVIOUSLY THIS MONTH IT WAS NOT GRANTED URGENCY AND IT WAS JUST LEFT TABLED AT PRS, BUT I BELIEVE SOME OF THE CONCERN IS WHAT THE LANGUAGE WAS GOING TO BE INCLUDED ON WHAT ERCOT IS WORKING ON IN PARALLEL, BUT SEPARATE FROM 1247. AND I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT, UM, MY INTENTION GOING INTO THE PRS MEETING WAS TO VOTE FOR URGENCY, BUT ERCOT STAFF SAID THAT THIS, UH, FAILURE TO GET URGENCY AT THAT MEETING WOULDN'T IMPACT THEIR PRODUCTION OF, OR THE CONTENT OF THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN, AND THEREFORE THE NEED TO GET SOMETHING DONE ON A QUICK TIMEFRAME SEEMED TO HAVE GONE AWAY. SO IS THAT HELPFUL, PARKDALE? VERY, [02:40:01] I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY. AND COLIN, I THINK THAT'S ALL WE HAVE FOR PRS UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. GOT A COUPLE IN THE QUEUE. JOHN ROSS HUBBARD. YEP. UH, JOHN RUS HUBBARD WITH TIEC. UM, SO BARKSDALE TO YOUR QUESTION, JUST TO BE CLEAR, UH, NPR 1247 WAS JUST BROUGHT TO PRS LAST THIS THIS MONTH. UM, AND SO IT HASN'T BEEN TABLED THERE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. UH, AND THE REASON WE TIEC FILED COMMENTS AND, AND PART OF OUR DISCOMFORT WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT ERCOT HAD PROPOSED WAS THAT IT WASN'T CLEAR, THERE WAS NO, UM, CLARITY ON THE, THE TIME HORIZON THAT WOULD'VE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THE PC'S ORDER, UH, IN DOCKET OR IN PROJECT NUMBER, UM, I'M BLANKING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT IN, IN THE ASSOCIATED PROJECT NUMBER. UH, AND THEN THERE WAS, IT WASN'T CLEAR WHAT TEST WOULD ACTUALLY BE RUN AS DIANA MENTIONED. AND THEN, UM, WE ALSO BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE SOME TYPE OF A REQUIREMENT THAT ERCOT PUBLISHED THE ASSOCIATED, UH, DATA AND, AND MODELING SO THAT STAKEHOLDERS CAN, CAN VERIFY THAT THERE'S NO KIND OF ASSUMPTIONS BAKED IN THAT MIGHT, UH, SKEW SOME OF THE ANALYSES. JOHN, THANKS FOR, UM, FOR THE CLARIFICATION. AND I, I DID MISSTATE ABOUT, UM, 1247 BEING A PRS FOR A WHILE. IT'S THE DEVELOPMENT OF 1247 WAS A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN MAYBE WHAT WE HAD ANTICIPATED. AND AGAIN, NOT CASTING ASPERSIONS ON ANYBODY'S INTENTIONS HERE. JUST, UM, HOPING TO MOTIVATE SOME MOVEMENT. THAT'S ALL. I APPRECIATE IT. THANKS BRIAN. HEY THERE. UM, BRIAN SAMS ON BEHALF OF CALPINE, IT WAS A PRETTY, I GUESS A DIVERSE GROUP OF FOLKS THAT HAD PAUSE. I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS THAT, UH, CALPINE DIDN'T WANT TO SEE URGENCY IS BECAUSE OF THIS CONCEPT THAT THERE IS THIS EXTRANEOUS DOCUMENT THAT IS TOO LONG TO BE INCLUDED IN, IN THE PLANNING GUIDE OR THE PROTOCOLS, WHICH I'M NOT SURE THAT I'D NECESSARILY AGREE WITH. BUT IF THOSE ARE THE CRITERIA THAT ARE CREATING BINDING REQUIREMENTS ON, ON, UH, YOU KNOW, WHETHER UH, ECONOMIC PROJECT MOVES FORWARD OR NOT, IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN DOWN AND, AND BINDING AND NOT SOMETHING THAT'S, UH, UH, EXTRA SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO THAT, THAT WAS JUST A ANOTHER DATA POINT THAT I WANTED YOU TO HEAR. THANK YOU. GOOD. MATT ATH. HI, THIS IS MATT ARTHUR FOR ERCOT. JUST WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE OF POINTS HERE. UM, SO WOULD AGREE WITH, UH, ERIC GOFF'S, UH, CHARACTERIZATION PREVIOUSLY THAT, UH, THE RTP CALCULATIONS CAN CONTINUE WITHOUT, UM, URGENCY OF NPRR, BUT, UH, NEVERTHELESS, JUST WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR ERCOT STILL SUPPORTS, UM, URGENCY FOR THAT NPRR. UM, AND IN TERMS OF THE WHITE PAPER, UH, YES, WE ARE AWARE THAT FOLKS WANNA SEE THAT UNDERSTANDABLY, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. UH, WE ARE DEVOTING RESOURCES TO PRIORITIZE THAT AND, AND HOPE TO HAVE THAT AVAILABLE SOON FOR, FOR FOLKS TO VIEW. BUT, UM, WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT THAT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE, UM, KIND OF ADDITIONAL, UH, CLARITY. BUT, UH, THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT IS PROVIDED FOR THE CONGESTION COST, UH, SAVINGS TEST IN THE, UH, IN THE NPRR, I THINK WE, WE WOULD VIEW AS EQUIVALENT TO THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE PROTOCOLS FOR THE PRODUCTION COST SAVINGS TEST. UM, AND SO, UH, HAPPY TO PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON THE WHITE PAPER THAN WE HAVE TYPICALLY DONE IN THE PAST, BUT, UH, BUT, BUT WOULD ASK, YOU KNOW, THAT THOSE BE, UH, VIEWED SEPARATELY IN THAT NPRR, UH, 1247 BE ALLOWED TO, TO MOVE ALONG. UM, BUT THANK YOU, MATT. JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION. SO THE LANGUAGE THAT ERDA IS WORKING ON RIGHT NOW IN THE WHITE PAPER IS NOT CONTINGENT OR WILL NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIVE REALLY IMPACT TO 1247 IN THE URGENCY OR THE PASSING OF 1247. AM I HEARING THAT CORRECTLY? THAT'S RIGHT. THE, THE WHITE PAPER IS, IS MEANT TO GIVE, UM, SOME, JUST MORE IN DEPTH EXPLANATION ABOUT HOW, UM, THE CONGESTION COST SAVINGS TEST IS BEING CALCULATED, BUT IT WOULD NOT, UH, CHANGE THE LANGUAGE THAT'S PROPOSED IN NPRR 1247. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DIANA. ALL RIGHT. [7. Revision Requests Tabled at TAC] MOVING ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, REVISION REQUEST TABLED AT TAC. UH, WE HAVE THREE ITEMS HERE, UH, O-B-D-R-R OH FOUR SIX, WE JUST DISCUSSED PLACING THAT [02:45:01] ON THE COMBO BALLOT. UH, SECOND ITEM 0 5 2 O-B-O-B-D-R OH FIVE TWO. UH, THIS IS FOR ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCE TERMINOLOGY ALIGNMENT FOR THE SINGLE MALO ERA. I BELIEVE THIS ONE CAN RE REMAIN TABLED AS WE'RE AWAITING, UH, THE ASSOCIATED NPR 1246. AND THE THIRD ITEM IS NPR 1215. UH, THIS IS THE NPR THAT THAT WENT TO TAC APPROVED AND IT WENT TO THE BOARD AND WE HAD OR IDENTIFIED SOME, SOME ISSUES WITH THE LANGUAGE. AND, UH, THE MECHANISM THAT WAS USED THERE WAS THE, THE BOARD VOTED TO REMAND THAT BACK TO TACK FOR SOME EDITS AND CORRECTIONS. SO I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DESKTOP EDITS ON THIS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE AN SM E THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TO IT, BUT ERCOT DID FILE COMMENTS ON EIGHT ONE AND I BELIEVE AUSTIN HAD REVIEWED THOSE COMMENTS WITH TAC AND THEN WE FOUND SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE, JUST CHANGING CREDIT REDUCTION TO CREDIT EXPOSURE. AUSTIN, ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO TALK TO THAT REAL QUICK? SO BOSTON NOT ONLINE. UH, THIS IS ALFRED. I CAN, IS OVER THERE. OKAY. OH, THERE YOU'RE, GO AHEAD, ALFREDO. I DIDN'T SEE YOU BACK THERE. I WAS LOOKING FOR YOU. YEAH, RIGHT BETWEEN US. UM, YEAH, SO THE AUGUST 1ST, UH, COMMENTS OR GOT COMMENTS, UM, IN ADDITION TO, UH, THIS TABLETOP CHANGE CREDIT EXPOSURE, I THINK WE WE'RE ADDRESSING, UM, THOSE THINGS THAT, UH, WE NEEDED TO CO GO BACK AND, UM, AND CORRECT. SO OTHER THAN THAT, UH, WE, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING, UH, WITH THE MARKET PARTICIPANT AND, UH, DON'T SEE ANY FURTHER ISSUES. UH, SO THIS REALLY IS READY TO GO WITH THE AUGUST 1ST AND THE TABLETOP EDITS THAT CHANGES THAT, UH, CREDIT REDUCTION TO CREDIT EXPOSURE. THANKS, ALFREDO. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ON THIS? OKAY, RYAN, JUST TO COMMENT, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WAY THAT ERCOT MANAGED THIS, UH, CORRECTION. THANK YOU. YEAH, I AGREE. BRIAN SEEMED TO WORK WELL. ALRIGHT, ANY ANYBODY CONCERNS WITH PLACING THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT? THIS WOULD BE A RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF NPR 1215 AS RECOMMENDED BY TAC IN THE 6 24 24 TAC REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE 8 21 ERCOT COMMENTS AS REVISED BY TAC. OKAY, COREY WILL GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT ON COMMON BALLOT. [8. RMS Report] ALL RIGHT, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT RMS REPORT. JOHN, ARE YOU, ARE YOU HERE ON THE WEBEX? HI COLIN, THIS IS JOHN OR DAVID, SORRY, ACTUALLY I'M SITTING IN FOR JOHN. UM, I BELIEVE HE MIGHT BE AT HIS DAUGHTER'S WEDDING. SO THAT TOOK PRECEDENCE. UH, WE JUST HAVE A REALLY QUICK UPDATE, UM, JUST VERBAL, JUST TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTE IN IT. I CAN'T REALLY HEAR YOU VERY WELL. DEBBIE, IF YOU COULD SPEAK UP OR BIT A LITTLE CLOSER. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? NOT REALLY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OKAY, HOW ABOUT NOW? NOW IT'S NOT REALLY CHANGING ON OUR END, REALLY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? VOLUME? I THINK I'M IN A COMMERCIAL. OKAY. HOW ABOUT NOW IF WE LISTEN REAL CLOSELY? OKAY. I AM SORRY. EVERYBODY BE QUIET IN HERE. . SORRY ABOUT THIS. WE HAVE A REALLY QUICK UPDATE. IT'S REGARDING TEXAS AT FIVE IN THE MARKET TRACK, SCR EIGHT 17. BOTH OF THOSE ARE RETAIL PROJECTS. THE MARKET TRACK TRAINING WAS HELD YESTERDAY, THE T-D-T-M-S LEADERSHIP AND ERCOT DID AN EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT JOB. UM, I REALLY WANT TO COMMEND TAMMY STEWART WITH ERCOT FOR THE TRAINING, PROVIDED SHE KNEW ALL THE ANSWERS. WE HAD SOME REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS. I REALLY THINK THAT THAT WAS, UM, AN EXCELLENT, UH, ADD. WE HAD MORE THAN 165 THAT ATTENDED. UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANOTHER TRAINING SESSION CLOSER TO THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF TEXAS SET 5.0, AND THAT WILL BE, I BELIEVE, AT THE END OF OCTOBER. THE TEXAS APP 5.0 TESTING IS IN PROGRESS. WE HAVE ALL EXISTING RETAIL MARKET PARTICIPANTS IN THE FLIGHT AND THE NEW REPS. UM, WE'VE GOT A COMBINED OF 141 DUNS NUMBERS. THE, [02:50:01] UH, NEXT ACTIVITY IS THE TDS. PS ARE WORKING WITH ERCOT TO GET EVERYTHING IN THE TEST BED AND TRANSACTIONS FLOW NEXT WEEK. UH, I'M SURE SOME OF YOU KNOW RMS IS IN THE MIDDLE OF AN EMAIL VOTE TO RE APPROVE A REVISED VERSION OF THE TEXAS SET 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. WE MADE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO INCLUDE THAT THE T DSPS WILL SUSPEND THE LSE FILES AND THE 8 14 20 TRANSACTIONS AT 6:00 AM ON SATURDAY MORNING. THOSE ARE NOT CHANGES. THEY WERE JUST NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL TIMELINES. SO WE JUST ADD THAT FOR CLARITY. ANY QUESTIONS? NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM OR ON THE QUEUE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DEBBIE. ALL [9. ROS Report] RIGHT, AGENDA ITEM NINE. NUMBER NINE IS THE ROSS REPORT. KATIE RICH. YES. UH, THANKS COLIN. SO HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HEAR ME A LITTLE BETTER THAN YOU COULD HEAR DEBBIE, BUT WE HAVE TWO VOTING ITEMS FOR YOU. UM, NO, 2 63 AND THEN THAT, THAT WAS RELATED TO NPR 1244. THAT WAS ON THE PRS AGENDA. UM, AND THEN NO 2 64 RELATED TO NPR 1235. SO WE APPROVED THE IAS FOR BOTH OF THOSE. SO THOSE ARE BACK IN TAX COURT. AND THEN, UM, QUITE A FEW ITEMS THAT WE APPROVED AT THE, THE LAST MEETING. UM, SOME OF THESE WERE RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER. SO, UM, MANY OF THOSE WENT BACK TO PRS. UM, AND THEN I WANNA MAKE A QUICK NOTE ON P 1 0 7, UM, SINCE WE AMENDED THAT WITH THE ERCOT, UM, AUGUST COMMENTS, JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WHILE 1180 IS OVER AT PRS, UM, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROVED, SO IT'LL BE COMING BACK FOR IA. WE DID PUT 1180 ON, ON OUR ROSS AGENDA FOR OCTOBER JUST TO SEE IF WE WANNA LOOK AT THE, UM, SAME COMMENTS, UM, FROM ERCOT, SEE IF WE WANNA MAKE ANY, UM, MODIFICATIONS TO OUR VOTE ON 1180. SO JUST WANTED THAT TO BE AN FYI. UM, AND THEN THE AS METHODOLOGY HAD A COUPLE OF EXTENSIONS. I BELIEVE THERE WERE MORE AT, AT WMS, SO FOLKS CAN, UM, SPEAK TO THOSE, BUT JUST WANTED TO MAKE MENTION OF THAT. AND THEN YOU CAN GO ONTO THE NEXT SLIDE AND YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT REMAIN WITH US. UM, SOME OF THOSE WILL BE TAKEN OFF, ESPECIALLY THE ACCESS TO, UH, MARKET INFORMATION. AND NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. A COUPLE ITEMS HERE THAT ARE STILL WITH US AND STILL BEING REVIEWED AT THE WORKING GROUPS. AND THEN OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE OCTOBER 3RD. THAT WILL BE WEBEX ONLY. UM, THAT'S ALL I GOT FOR YOU IN CASE, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, KATIE. I'M NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. SO THERE ARE THREE VOTING ITEMS FROM THE ROSS REPORT. UH, THE FIRST IS RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NORE 2 63 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE 9 9 24 ROSS REPORT AND THE 9 13 24 REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS. SECOND ITEM IS TO TABLE NORE 2 64 AS WE'RE AWAITING, UH, THE ASSOCIATED MPRR. AND THE THIRD ITEM IS TO APPROVE THE MTE LIST AS PRESENTED. ANY CONCERNS WITH PLACING THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY, COREY WILL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. THANK YOU, KATIE. ALL [10. WMS Report] RIGHT, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10 WWMS REPORT. ERIC, THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON TECH. ERIC BLAKEY WITH PERALES CO-OP WITH THE WMS REPORT FROM OUR SEPTEMBER 11TH WMS MEETING. THE, UH, FIRST TWO WILL BE VOTED ON HERE SHORTLY. UH, THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ANCILLARY SERVICES WMS ENDORSED, UH, THE AS METHODOLOGY FOR 2025 AND THE CONGESTION REVENUE RIGHTS AUCTION MITIGATION. THIS WILL ALSO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER TODAY. THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION REPORT. THIS IS, UH, A NEW FEATURE AT WMS. IT, UH, UH, ERCOT IS GIVING, UH, MONTHLY REPORTS. UH, THE LAST REPORT SHOWED A INCREASE OF 4,439 MEGAWATTS SINCE THE AUGUST UPDATE. AND WMS LEADERSHIP WILL CONTINUE TO, TO MONITOR THIS. WE BELIEVE THE MONTHLY REPORTS ARE [02:55:01] VERY HELPFUL. UH, WE'RE STILL IDENTIFYING, UH, POTENTIAL ISSUES THAT WE CAN PRESENT, UH, BUT EVENTUALLY THIS MAY BE, UH, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GET AN UPDATE JUST EVERY QUARTER. UH, BUT WE'LL CONTINUE TO GET THE MONTHLY WRITTEN REPORTS. AS FAR AS REVISION REQUESTS, WE DID, UH, TABLE AND REFER 1230, UH, 1241 FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE. UM, THIS PROVIDES EQUITY AND CLARITY SURROUNDING THE HOURLY STANDBY FEE CLAWBACKS FOR FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE DURING A WATCH FOR WINTER WEATHER USING A SLIDING SCALE APPROACH. AND WE HAVE PREFERRED THIS TO WMWG. THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT REMAIN TABLED. TWO THAT, THAT I'LL HIGHLIGHT. 1202 REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS FOR LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDIES. THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT WMWG. I BELIEVE THEY'VE, THEY'VE EXHAUSTED THEIR DISCUSSIONS. WE HAD BEEN WAITING ON THE L-F-L-T-F TO, UH, CONCLUDE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAS NOW GONE INTO HIBERNATION. SO, UH, WE, WE DISCUSSED NEXT STEPS THAT WE WANT TO TAKE AT WMS, AND WE'RE TOLD THAT SOME COMMENTS WILL BE FILED BY ONE OF THE PARTIES, AND WE WILL BRING THIS UP NEXT MONTH FOR NEXT STEPS. UH, 1229 IS REALTIME CONSTRAINT MANAGEMENT PLAN, ENERGY PAYMENT. UH, THIS WAS, UH, UH, PROPOSED BY A MARKET PARTICIPANT. IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED AT SEVERAL MEETINGS, AND THIS IS ONE THAT, UH, ERCOT HAS IDENTIFIED SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AND WHETHER IT FITS CURRENT PUC POLICY. UH, THE COST RECOVERY PROPOSED COULD REACH, UH, INTO THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THEY SAID. UM, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD TEST CASE TO PRESENT TO TAC TO MAYBE PRESENT TO THE PUC UH, BARKSDALE'S HERE. I'M GLAD TO SEE YOU HERE, BUT WOULD APPRECIATE ANY INPUT YOU MIGHT HAVE. UH, THERE'S BEEN SOME THAT SAY WE SHOULD TAKE THIS FORWARD BEFORE WE TAKE ANY ACTION, GET A POLICY DECISION, A DIRECTION BEFORE WE SPEND, UH, TOO MUCH TIME, UH, GETTING INTO IT. THERE'S ALSO THE DISCUSSION THAT WELL, WE COULD JUST EITHER APPROVE OR REJECT, AND THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD EVENTUALLY GO TO THE PUC AND THEY CAN DECIDE WHETHER A POLICY DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE. SO, UH, WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE, UH, WE CONTINUE TO TABLE THIS ITEM. UH, I UNDERSTAND STACK AND ERCOT HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS. UM, AND SO WE'RE GONNA KEEP THIS TABLE, BUT WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DIRECTION, UH, THAT TECH MIGHT HAVE. AND I SEE ERIC HAS A QUESTION. JOHN BECKER, OR GO AHEAD, JOHN. JOHN PACKARD WITH SOUTH TEXAS ELECTRIC CO-OP, UH, WE DID SUBMIT SOME, UH, COMMENTS BACK TO OUR CO TODAY, UH, TO TRY TO ANSWER SOME OF THOSE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS. BUT, UH, WOULD OF COURSE ENTERTAIN ANY, YOU KNOW, GUIDANCE FROM THE PC ON, ON THIS ISSUE, OR TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT, THAT ANY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS HAVE, OR ERCOT OR THE PC. THANKS ERIC. ERIC. UM, WE'RE PLANNING TO FILE COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC. UM, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY ULTIMATELY BELIEVE THAT THE NPR SHOULD BE REJECTED, UM, BECAUSE WE SHOULDN'T BE CREATING PAYMENTS TO GENERATORS TO TURN OFF, UM, BECAUSE IT CAN LEAD TO ALL SORTS OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. UM, AND WE ALREADY HAVE A MARKET DESIGN THAT, UM, SENDS A LOWER PRICE SIGNAL TO GENERATORS WHEN ERCOT NEEDS LESS OUTPUT FROM THEM. SO WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO ENGAGE ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS, BUT, UM, I THINK IT'S A EXTRAORDINARILY SLIPPERY SLOPE TO START PAYING GENERATORS TO TURN OFFLINE. UM, AND, UM, IT, WE HAVE DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS INDUSTRY, UM, ABOUT WHY THAT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE PAST AND HOW IT LED TO MARKET MANIPULATION ISSUES. I'M NOT SAYING THAT STACK IS TRYING TO MANIPULATE THINGS UP BY ANY MEANS, BUT, UM, IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE, UM, HISTORICALLY, AND WE WANT TO AVOID ANY HINT OF THAT ALTOGETHER. YEAH, IT SOUNDS LIKE MORE DISCUSSIONS COME ON THAT, ERIC, APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP FOR EVERYBODY'S AWARENESS. THANK YOU. OH, ONE MORE SLIDE. OUR NEXT MEETING IS OCTOBER THE SEVENTH. YOU'RE ALL INVITED, UH, WITH THE, UH, WITH THE, THE, UH, OTHER MEETINGS ARE ALL GOING WEBEX. WE MAY GO WEBEX, BUT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, ERIC. [03:00:03] ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER [11. Proposed Changes to Ancillary Service Methodology for 2025] 11, PROPOSED CHANGES TO ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY FOR 2025. LUIS. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. LUIS AND ALSO WITH ERCOT, I WILL BE COVERING THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR, FOR THE A FOR AS METHODOLOGY. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UM, SO BEFORE WE GET INTO EVERYTHING, I KIND OF WANTED TO, WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON WITH AS RIGHT NOW. SO I WANTED TO KIND OF GIVE A KIND OF A BROADER PICTURE OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING, THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED THROUGH THE YEAR. UH, SO, YOU KNOW, WE, SOME THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED EARLIER THIS YEAR IS WE HAD SOME NPRS 12 24, 12 32 TALKING ABOUT POTENTIAL CHANGES TO ECRS THAT WE COULD GET IN BEFORE SUMMER. UH, TODAY I AM GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT THE AS METHODOLOGY NOW, AN NPR 1222 THAT TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OUR NORMAL ANNUAL PROCESS TO REVIEWING AS METHODOLOGY. WE WORK IT THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. UH, WE TAKE IT UP TO THE BOARD. AND NOW WITH NPR 1222, WE, WE HAVE, UH, THE PUC ALSO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE AS METHODOLOGY. UM, SO FOR THIS, UH, WE STARTED THE DISCUSSION HERE FOR THE WORK, UM, FOR THE AS METHODOLOGY IN JULY. UH, JUST SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE DISCUSSIONS GOING WITH ALL THE GROUPS AND THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS SO WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME FOR THE PUC TO REVIEW AND APPROVE. UM, AND THEN THIS WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE FOR JANUARY, 2025 FOR THE AS METHODOLOGY WE'RE TALKING TODAY. ADDITIONALLY, IN PARALLEL, THERE IS THE AS STUDY THAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE LEGISLATURE AMONGST P-U-C-I-M-M AND ERCOT TOGETHER. UM, THAT STUDY IS DUE IN SEPTEMBER 24, 24 HERE, HERE, SHORT TIME, UH, WITH AN UNKNOWN EFFECT DATE. SO WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THOSE DETAILS AND WE WILL BE SHARING THOSE, UH, THE FINDINGS FROM THAT. BUT, UH, WE'RE STILL, THAT, THAT HAS ITS OWN TIMELINE IS REALLY WHAT I WANTED TO TRY TO CLEAR UP. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, KIND OF THE MORE LONGER TERM IS, UH, IMPLEMENTATION OF DRS. SO 1235, I KNOW THAT'S GOING THROUGH DISCUSSIONS NOW, BUT, UM, AGAIN, ON ITS OWN TIMELINE WITH ITS OWN EFFECTIVE DATE. SO HOPEFULLY TRYING TO CLEAR UP WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY TO, TO DRAW A BETTER PICTURE OF, OF WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING GONNA SEE TODAY. OKAY. UM, SO HERE, JUST KIND OF KICKING THINGS OFF AGAIN, SHOWING YOU THE, THE REQUIREMENT FOR US TO ENSURE THAT WE REVIEW OUR AS METHODOLOGY AT LEAST ANNUALLY, UH, GET IT TO BOARD APPROVAL OR BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, AND THEN PUC AS WELL. UM, I'VE PROVIDED LINKS HERE TO ALL THE WORKING GROUPS AND, AND WHEN WE TALKED TO ROSS, WE TALKED TO WMS WITH ALL THE MORE DETAILED SLIDES THAT ARE THERE, THE ANALYSIS THAT WENT BEHIND A LOT OF THE AS. SO IF ANYBODY'S LOOKING FOR THOSE, UH, THEY ARE LINKED IN THE PRESENTATIONS. UM, BUT I WILL BE LOOKING AT, UH, SHARING IN THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES, THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR 2025 IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES. OKAY, SO KIND OF SETTING UP, UH, THE LAYOUT HERE, YOU'RE GONNA SEE THE SAME STRUCTURE FOR THE NEXT FEW SLIDES IS WHAT IS THE, AS KIND OF A REMINDER, DID WE MAKE ANY CHANGES? WHY DO WE THINK WE, WHY DID WHAT DATA SUPPORTED? WHY WE MADE THOSE CHANGES? AND THEN KIND OF SOME PRELIMINARY LOOK AT WHAT THOSE NUMBERS LOOK LIKE BASED ON THE ANALYSIS. SO THE FIRST ONE IS REGULATION, UH, SERVICE. UH, THIS IS USED TO, UH, BALANCE FREQUENCY BETWEEN SCED RUNS. WE DID HAVE ONE CHANGE HERE, WHICH IS SWITCHING TO UTILIZING THE NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR THAT IS SEEN BY SC. PREVIOUSLY, WE WERE USING REG HISTORICAL REGULATION DEPLOYMENT AND NET LOAD VARIABILITY RAMPING. UM, AND THE DATA THAT SUPPORTED THIS DECISION WAS, UH, WE NOW HAVE MUCH VERY MANY INPUTS TO GTPD, GENERATION TWO B DISPATCHED, WHICH IS AN INPUT TO SC. SO SC IS NOW AWARE USING FORECAST DATA OF WIND RAMPING, SOLAR RAMPING, WHICH WE DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE. WE CONTINUE TO TUNE THAT PROCESS, UM, TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO ENSURE OUR FORECAST AND INPUT TO SC IS, IS ACCURATE. SO, UM, WITH THAT CHANGE NOW THAT SC HAS THAT VISIBILITY, UH, WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING TO THIS NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR, UH, AS AN INPUT TO OUR ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY. UH, AND AGAIN, AT THE BOTTOM LOOKING PRELIMINARY AT JANUARY THROUGH JULY. I WILL NOTE THE SLIDES HERE HAVE JANUARY THROUGH JULY. I DID GET A CHANCE TO POST UPDATES TO THE SHEETS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED TO THIS. UH, THEY DO HAVE AUGUST DATA. UH, WE JUST DID NOT UPDATE THE SLIDES FOR THAT. SO, UM, SO WITH THAT, UH, REGULATION IS HAVING AN OVERALL INCREASE, UH, WITH THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY. I DO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL LINE, I THINK I DO THAT WITH SOME OF, UH, THE OTHER AS IS WHAT THE VALUES WOULD'VE LOOKED LIKE HAD THE METHODOLOGY NOT CHANGED. UM, AND THEN SO FOR REGULATION DOWN AGAIN, WE ALSO SEE AN INCREASE FOR 2025. UH, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. I WILL CONTINUE, UH, IF THERE ARE NOT. OKAY, MOVING ON TO RESPONSIVE RESERVE SERVICE. THIS IS TO HELP US RECOVER FRE OR, UH, ARREST FREQUENCY DURING GENERATION UNIT TRIPS. UH, WE DID NOT MAKE ANY METHODOLOGY CHANGES TO THE RRS UH, SERVICE. UH, WHAT DID HAPPEN IS, UH, THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE, UH, THE IFRO, UH, FOR THIS YEAR, FOR 2024, [03:05:01] UH, BASED ON NER R'S MOST RECENT, UH, ASSIGNMENT FOR ERCOT. UM, WHICH NOW SETS THE MINIMUM R-S-P-F-R LIMIT TO 1365. SO THE RS TABLE HAS BEEN UPDATED USING THIS NEW IFRO. UH, SO THAT IS WHERE YOU'LL SEE SOME SLIGHT CHANGE IN, UH, INCLUDING THE INERTIA VALUES THAT WE USE FOR, FOR OUR CURRENT SYSTEM. UH, BUT OVERALL, NOT A BIG CHANGE. UH, WHAT YOU SEE IS ABOUT A VERY SLIGHT INCREASE OF NINE MEGAWATTS, BUT OVERALL, NO METHODOLOGY CHANGE FOR RS. NEXT SLIDE. RYAN, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? OKAY. DO YOU WANNA HOLD QUESTIONS TO THE END? YOU GO, GO AHEAD. OKAY. UM, ON REGULATION AND R-R-S-I-I, I MENTIONED THIS. AT WMS, UH, WE JUST HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE REDUCTION IN REGULATION, ESPECIALLY IN THE MORNING, UH, WINTER MORNINGS. UH, THERE'S A REDUCTION OF GENERALLY 200 ISH MEGAWATTS. UM, I TALKED TO NETIKA ABOUT THIS AND I UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE ABILITY TO MEASURE THAT LOAD FORECAST ERROR, BUT IT'S STILL A, A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN, UH, REGULATION DURING, UH, THE MORNING RAMPS IN, IN THE WINTER. UH, JUST WE HAVE SOME OPERATIONAL CONCERNS, UH, UH, UH, ABOUT THAT REDUCTION. UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, FROM TALKING TO NATIKA THAT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR, UM, THE REDUCTION IS BECAUSE OF, UH, THE, UH, ABILITY OF OTHER, UH, ANCILLARY SERVICES LIKE, UM, R RS TO COVER, UH, UNIT TRIPS, EXCEPT THAT THERE'S NO INCREASE IN, UH, THE, UH, AMOUNT OF RS FOR THOSE SAME TIME PERIODS. IT'S, IT'S PRETTY MUCH FLAT YEAR OVER YEAR. UM, SO THAT JUST GIVES US PAUSE FOR OPERATIONAL REASONS. AND CAL PLAN DOESN'T SELL A LOT OF, UH, REGULATIONS. SO I'M NOT LIKE ARGUING MY BOOK HERE. IT'S JUST, UH, UM, AN OPERATIONAL CONCERN THAT, THAT WE HAVE. SO, WANTED TO RAISE THAT. THANK YOU IKA. WELL, UH, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT, BRIAN. SO THE SETUP HERE IS, AS LUIS MENTIONED, OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST FEW YEARS, WE HAVE IMPROVED OUR INPUTS TO SCED. SO SCED IS NOW AWARE OF NOT JUST THE CHANGE IN LOAD THAT WE EXPECT OVER THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES, BUT ALSO THE CHANGE IN WIND AND SOLAR. AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT LETS SC DO IS DISPATCH OTHER RESOURCES TO COUNTER FOR ANY CHANGES. UH, ESPECIALLY IF YOU THINK ABOUT WIND AND SOLAR, IF, UH, THERE IS A DECLINE. NOW I GET IT IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS BEFORE SUNRISE WINDS LIKELY THE DRIVER. AND DURING WINTER, OF COURSE IT WOULD, UM, UM, UH, IT WOULD BE, UH, IF WIND IS DECREASING, SCED WOULD BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THAT AND DISPATCH OTHER RESOURCES TO MOVE UP TO COUNTER FOR THE EFFECT. THE PURPOSE OF REGULATION IN THAT PARADIGM IS GOING TO BE TO COVER VARIABILITY THAT WAS, THAT SCED WASN'T ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR. SO ERROR IN THE FORECAST THAT WE FED INTO SC, UH, WE DO MONITOR REGULATION AND HOW IT IS GETTING USED. SO THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE THAT I DESCRIBED WAS THE SEEDS OF IT WAS HAVE BEEN SHOWN OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS OR SO. SO WE PUT AN INTRA HOUR WIND FORECAST, I THINK IN 2020 OR EARLIER INTRA HOUR SOLAR FORECAST WENT 10 AND 20, 21. AND THEN INCREMENTALLY, WE'VE BEEN IMPROVING THOSE INPUTS TO, UH, THOSE, UH, YOU KNOW, TUNING THOSE PARAMETERS, IMPROVING THOSE INPUTS. AND FINALLY HERE A FEW YEARS LATER IS WHEN WE ARE COMING WITH THIS PROPOSED CHANGE TO SAY, HEY, WE'VE, UH, WE'VE DONE THE WORK, WE'VE LET THE FORECAST STABILIZE. WE'VE LOOKED AT THE DATA AND, AND, AND, UH, AND AT LEAST THE, UH, IF YOU MEASURE THE AIR, OUR ABILITY, OUR ERROR IN FORECASTING NET LOAD IN THOSE PERIODS, THE NUMBERS THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE, DESCRIBE THOSE, UH, NOW, UH, TAKE IT A STEP FORWARD. WE ALSO, WITH THE PDC MONITOR REGULATION AND HOW IT IS BEING USED DURING THOSE PERIODS AND, AND THE REGULATION AS A MEASURE OF REGULATION EXHAUSTION, OUR REGULATION EXHAUSTION, QUANTITIES WERE, ARE PART OF THE MATERIALS THAT WE SHARED AT THE PDC AND WMWJ. AND GENERALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE HOURS, YOU, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GAUGE HOW REGULATION IS BEING USED. OUR GENERAL OBSERVATION WAS THAT WITH, WITH THE, HOW REGULATION WAS BEING USED, THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE IS APPROPRIATE. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO BALANCE SUPPLY AND DEMAND WITH THE AMOUNT OF REGULATION WE HAVE. SO THAT'S THE SETUP [03:10:01] OF HOW WE'VE COME TO WHERE WE HAVE AND WHY THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE IS, UH, IS APPROPRIATE. I THINK YOU ALSO MENTIONED WHAT IF THERE'S A UNIT TRIP? IF THERE IS A UNIT TRIP. RRS IS THE PRODUCT THAT WE WILL LOOK TO. WE SET RRS, UH, BASED OFF OF THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY WE WILL NEED TO ARREST THE DECLINE OF FREQUENCY WHEN YOU HAVE A TWO LARGEST UNIT STRIP. SO THAT METHODOLOGY, WE FUNDAMENTALLY NOT CHANGED. UH, AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY. WHAT WE DO YEAR OVER YEAR IS LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE TYPICAL INERTIA LEVELS IN THOSE HOURS. UH, AND AT LEAST SO FAR IN HISTORY, UH, UH, BASED OFF OF THE HISTORY WE ARE SEEING IN THOSE PARTICULAR HOURS THAT YOU ARE, UH, HONING IN ON. AND THE, THE TYPICAL INERTIA LEVELS SEEM TO BE VERY SIMILAR, WHICH IS WHY THE QUANTITIES LIKELY LOOK VERY SIMILAR. BUT WE SHOULD, AGAIN, A REMINDER WOULD BE ON THAT FRONT IS THE RRS QUANTITIES THAT WE SET UP ARE FOR TWO LARGEST UNIT TRIPS. UH, SO THAT'S ABOUT 2,805 MEGAWATT TRIP IS WHAT THE, THE QUANTITY, UH, YOU ARE SEEING HERE IS LOOKING TO ARREST AND COVER. AND I'LL PAUSE, UH, WITH THAT SETUP OF EXPLAINING HOW WE'VE COME TO WHERE WE HAVE WITH THESE TWO QUANTITIES. I, I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION JUST BETWEEN THE REDUCTION, UH, OF REGULATION AND THE FLATNESS OF, UH, RRS. WE JUST SEE MORE RISK AND GIVES US PAUSE. THANK YOU. OKAY. I THINK WE CAN KEEP GOING. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO I WILL MOVE ON TO ECRS. UM, AND SO THE BACKGROUND ON ECRS, UH, IT'S USED OR HISTORICALLY WHEN, AS WE, UH, USE ECRS PREVIOUSLY WAS, OR IS USED TODAY, IS IT'S USED FOR A 10 MINUTE FREQUENCY RECOVERY AFTER A UNIT TRIP AND OR TO COVER NET LOAD FORECAST ERRORS. UM, SO THERE ARE THREE CHANGES THAT WE ARE BRINGING, UH, FOR ECRS THIS YEAR. THE FIRST ONE IS TO REMOVE THE ADJUST, UH, THE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE RISK COVERAGE OF THE, UH, DURING SUNSET HOURS TO BE AT LEAST 90TH PERCENTILE. UH, WE REMOVED THAT, UM, AND WE, WE FELT COMFORTABLE WITH ALLOWING THE PERCENTILE COVERAGE TO BE, UH, UTILIZED THERE. AGAIN, LEANING ON A LITTLE BIT ON THE G TWO ED CHANGES THAT WE'VE, WE'VE USED TO COVER NET LOAD FORECAST ERRORS. UH, THE SECOND ONE IS TO ADJUST THE FREQUENCY RECOVERY PORTION OF OUR CALCULATIONS FOR ECRS TO BE 70TH PERCENTILE. UM, WE, WE, WE MADE THIS CHANGE TO ALIGN WITH OUR RRS METHODOLOGY TO DO THE 70TH PERCENTILE. AND THE, THE BIGGEST ONE, THE BIGGER CHANGE HERE OF THE THREE IS INSTEAD OF HIS, HISTORICALLY, WE WERE COMBINING BOTH RISKS, CALCULATING, UH, THE CAPACITIES FOR EACH AND THEN SUMMING THEM UP TOGETHER TO GET AN ECRS QUANTITY. UH, THIS YEAR WE'VE CHANGED IT TO BE THE GREATER OF THE TWO CAPACITIES, UH, TO BE THE ECRS QUANTITY. UM, AND WHY, UH, SO FOR THIS, WE, WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED TO SEE, UH, AND WE DID, WE SAW A VERY SMALL PROBABILITY OF SEEING A LARGE NET LOAD RAMP NEED TO RELEASE ECRS, UM, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY RELEASING ECRS FOR FREQUENCY RECOVERY. UM, SO WITH THAT, WE FELT COMFORTABLE WITH USING ONE OR THE OTHER. THE DR WHAT THAT ENDS UP LOOKING AT IS, IS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HOURLY, YOU KIND OF SEE A, A NIGHTTIME HOURS LEANS ON THE FREQUENCY RECOVERY AND DAYTIME HOURS IS MORE FOR THAT NET LOAD FORECAST RAMPING, UH, ERROR THAT WE'RE TRYING TO COVER. UM, AND SO OVERALL WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS FROM LOOKING AT JANUARY TO JULY, YOU SEE A DECREASE IN ECRS QUANTITIES COMPARED TO 2024. HAD WE NOT MADE THE CHANGE FOR ECRS, UH, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN HIGHER. UM, AND I DO SEE A QUESTION, NED. THANKS ELISE. NED BONKOWSKI WITH S UH, WITH LUMINATE. UM, I WAS, I HAD A QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU CHANGED THE FREQUENCY RECOVERY PORTION TO COVER THE 70TH PERCENTILE OF THE STROKE NET NET LOAD IN INERTIA CONDITIONS TO ALIGN WITH RRS. UM, I WAS CURIOUS WHAT THE RATIONALE WAS FOR TYING THAT TO, TO RRS, UM, SPECIFICALLY AND HOW THAT INTERACTED WITH THE OTHER CHANGE TO, INSTEAD OF USING THE, UM, UH, TO USE THE, THE MAX OF THE, UM, SORRY, BLANKING ON IT RIGHT NOW, BUT THE, THE OTHER CHANGE THAT YOU MADE. SURE. UM, SURE. YEAH. HOW, HOW YOU BALANCE THOSE. SURE. UH, SO WHAT ESSENTIALLY THE, THE NET LOAD AND THE INERTIA CONDITIONS ARE, ARE THE SAME INPUTS FOR THE RRS ANALYSIS AND FOR ECRS. SO BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT FREQUENCY RECOVERY PORTION FOR UNIT TRIPS, IT'S, WE'RE USING THE DATA FOR WHAT IS THE INERTIA FOR THOSE PERIODS WHEN WE DO SEE INERTIA TRIPS, AND WHAT IS THE CALCULATED NEED FOR CAPACITIES THAT WE NEED TO RECOVER FROM THOSE TYPES OF EVENTS. UM, SO BY BUMPING IN AND ALIGNING IT WITH THE RRS QUANTITIES THAT WE'RE USING, WE FELT THE METHODOLOGY WAS TIED A LITTLE BIT BETTER [03:15:01] WITH USING SIMILAR INPUTS FOR, FOR BOTH AS SO IS THE, IS IS THE RATIONALE THAT, UM, YOU ONLY NEED TO COVER THE 70TH PERCENTILE BECAUSE YOU CAN RELY ON, ARE YOU RELYING ON OTHER RESERVES TO HELP WITH THE RECCO WITH THE RESPONSE AND THE RECOVERY TO A FREQUENCY EVENT? OR IS IT THAT THE TOTAL QUANTITY REFLECTS, UM, THE, THE TOTAL QUANTITY WITH THE OTHER METHODOLOGY? UH, CONSIDERATIONS GIVES YOU ENOUGH COMFORT THAT YOU CAN COVER THE MAJORITY OF THEM. 'CAUSE SEVEN, FRANKLY, 70 SEEMS LOW. 60 SEEMED, THE 60TH PERCENTILE SEEMED LOW TO ME TOO. UM, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND RIGHT, WHY 70, RIGHT. SO, SO FIRST PART WAS ARE THERE OTHER AS THAT WILL HELP DURING A FREQUENCY EVENT? YES. REGULATION IN ITS NATURE IS WE WILL USE REGULATION DEPLOYMENT TO HELP RECOVER THAT FREQUENCY AS WELL. SO THAT IS GOING TO HELP IF WE HAVE IT. THERE ARE CASES WHERE MAYBE REGULATION IS ALREADY EXHAUSTED. I MEAN, THAT JUST DEPENDS ON EVENT TO EVENT. UM, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, SO WE'RE TRYING TO COVER SOME CONCERN REAL-TIME CONCERNS, RIGHT? WE'RE NOT TRYING TO COVER THE MORE EXTREME CASES. SO IF WE LOOK AT SOME OF OUR AS QUANTITIES AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE OUT, SOME OF THEM ARE OUTLIERS, SOME OF THEM ARE, YOU KNOW, VERY EXTREME CASE SCENARIOS WHERE OTHER THINGS ARE HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME. SO WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY TRYING TO COVER THOSE WITH OUR AS, AND WE KNOW IN COMBINATION WITH THE OTHER AS THAT WE DO HAVE AND OTHER RESOURCES THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE. WE, THAT WE FELT COMFORTABLE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO COVER THE, THE EVENTS THAT WE MAY SEE. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, GEN GENERALLY SPEAKING, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WE AS STAKEHOLDERS HAVE TO TRUST OUR, YOU KNOW, ER CUT'S PERSPECTIVE. Y'ALL ARE THE ONES THAT WEAR ARE GONNA WEAR THE HEAT IF THERE'S A RELIABILITY EVENT. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I LOOK TO Y'ALL TO, TO DEFINE HOW YOU COVER THAT. UM, I, I WAS ALSO CURIOUS, AND I KNOW THIS, I THINK THIS CAME UP IN A PRIOR DISCUSSION, BUT HOW, UM, HOW THE CHANGE IN METHODOLOGY, I, I THINK PRIMARILY WITH ECRS, BUT WITH ALSO WITH SOME OF THE OTHERS, UM, HOW THAT IN AGGREGATE WHAT MIGHT MAY IMPACT ERCO T'S, UH, NEED TO RELY ON RELIABILITY UNIT COMMITMENTS IN ORDER TO MEET COMMITTED CAPACITY MARGIN, UH, OPERATING PREFERENCES. RIGHT. AND I, IF, IF THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT PLACE, WE CAN TABLE THAT AND COME BACK TO IT, BUT FIGURED I AT LEAST TOSS IT'S, IT'S FINE. YEAH. UM, WE HAVE NONS SPIN NEXT WITH IT. WE CAN COVER IT NOW, BUT, UH, I MEAN, ROCKS ARE, ARE A NATURE OF THE SYSTEM OF WHAT WE SEE AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO COVER. UH, AND, AND IT'S ALSO A NATURE OF COMMITMENT TO THE SYSTEM. SO IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MARKET IS SEEING AS, AS WHAT THEY FEEL TO SELF COMMIT. UM, NOW WE HAVE THE, AS IF YOU'RE, IF YOU PROCURE THE AS, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SOME NATURE OF COMMITMENT BECAUSE YOU'RE CARRYING AS, UM, BUT HOW DOES THAT IMPACT RUCK? WE WOULD NEED TO DO AN ANALYSIS TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. BUT AGAIN, UH, I THINK THE BIG PART OF THAT IS WE HAVE PROCEDURES TODAY TO LOOK AT THE COMMITTED CAPACITY MARGIN. UM, WE'LL CONTINUE TO USE THOSE IF WE SEE THE, THE NEED TO, TO RUCK RESOURCES FOR ANY CONCERNS THAT WE MAY HAVE IN REAL TIME. UM, BUT, UH, AGAIN, I THINK, UH, THE FIRST DRIVING FACTOR TO ALL OF THAT IS, IS WHAT IS THE, THE ORIGINAL COMMITMENT TO THOSE HOURS THAT WE'RE SEEING. OKAY. SO IF THE MARKET ISN'T PROVIDING THOSE COMMITMENT SIGNALS, UM, AND REALIZE WE, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE THE ORDC FLOORS THAT SHOULD ALSO BE SUPPORTING THAT. SO I DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT THAT, THAT THAT EXISTS. UM, BUT I, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS THAT, THAT ANALYSIS IS, WAS NOT PART OF THIS, THIS BROADER METHODOLOGY? NO, IT WAS NOT. OKAY. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU. OKAY, BILL, WERE SOME OF THESE CHANGES DRIVEN BY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE IMM? I KNOW THEY HAD A COUPLE CONCEPTS THAT THEY HAD CONSIDERED, UM, WHICH I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT, BUT IF THIS IS PARTIALLY ADDRESSING THAT, THEN I THINK THAT PROBABLY SATISFIES MY, SO AGAIN, KIND OF TRYING TO LEAD IN WITH THE, THE INTRO SLIDE THAT I HAD KIND OF GIVEN THE PARALLEL THINGS THAT ARE ALL HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME. AND WE'VE LEARNED SOME THINGS THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS AND WE'VE HEARD SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN LOOKING AT WHAT WE CAN LOOK AT. BUT AGAIN, I TRIED TO SUPPORT THE WHY IN WHAT WE'VE SEEN AND WHY WE THINK WE CAN SUPPORT THE DECISIONS WE'VE MADE IN THIS YEAR'S AS METHODOLOGY NOW, WHERE THAT AS STUDY GOES WITH SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE FINDINGS THAT IMM HAS HAD, WE WILL TACKLE THOSE AT A LATER DATE, UM, TO SEE IF WE WE ADOPT ANY OF THOSE CHANGES, RECOMMENDED CHANGES. BUT FOR THIS AS METHODOLOGY, AT LEAST NOW, UM, WITH SOME OF THAT, UM, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY, NO DIRECT CHANGES OTHER THAN SOME OF THE FINDINGS WE'VE HAD IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS. OKAY. THANKS. [03:20:02] OKAY. I WILL CONTINUE. I HAD JUST ONE MORE QUESTION. I'M SORRY, I, I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE SHEET FOR AUGUST FOR ECRS. UM, HOW, WHATEVER VALUE YOU HAVE THERE, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO WHAT YOU ALL RELEASE, SAY IN ON AUGUST 20TH, UM, FOR A CRS? CAN YOU ASK THAT AGAIN? I I MISSED THAT. UH, SO YOU SAID THAT YOU'VE UPDATED THE SHEETS THROUGH AUGUST, RIGHT? IT, THE SHEETS THAT ARE POSTED ON THE TAC WEBSITE, THEY, THE DATA IS THERE, RIGHT? AS FAR AS THE NUMBER THAT'S, I, I DON'T RECALL RIGHT NOW WHAT THAT IS. OKAY. IS IT MORE OR LESS LESS THAN THE 2024 QUANTITY? WELL, I, UH, LESS THAN THE 24 24 QUANTITY. AND ALSO LIKE, IS IT MORE OR LESS THAN WHAT YOU RELEASED ON AUGUST 20TH? OH, WHAT WE RELEASED ON AUGUST 20TH. I, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK. I DON'T HAVE THAT ON ME RIGHT NOW. CAN I FOLLOW UP ON BILL'S QUESTION AND JUST, SO DID WE GET THE, I, I KNOW JEFF'S HERE, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE WE DO HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY, UM, TO GET IT THROUGH BOARD AND COMMISSION BY THE END OF THE YEAR. SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE HEARING IMM COMMENTS OR CONCERNS TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE ANY. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS JEFF MCDONALD, DIRECTOR OF IMM. SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. UM, I'LL SAY, YOU KNOW, SO WE'VE, WE'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH ERCOT THROUGH THE AS STUDY PROCESS, AND I THINK ERIC HAD MENTIONED, UH, A COUPLE MINUTES AGO THAT THERE WERE SOME, NOT ONLY PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS PRIOR TO THE AS STUDY PROCESS, BUT IN WORKING WITH ERCOT AND THE PEC ON THE AS STUDY, UM, AND THROUGH THE AS STUDY PROCESS, I THINK WE'VE LEARNED, UH, SOME THINGS ABOUT, UH, PROCUREMENT TARGETS AND SOME POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOW THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS CAN BE, UH, ADJUSTED TO, UH, RESULT IN A LOWER COST WITHOUT, WITHOUT COMPROMISING, UM, RELIABILITY. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, WE WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS LIMITED OPPORTUNITY FOR LESSONS FROM THAT PROCESS TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE 2025 METHODOLOGY PROCESS. WE, WE DO NOTE THAT, THAT, UM, WE'RE SEEING A MORE TARGETED PROCUREMENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS THAT'S RESULTED IN, UH, A REDUCTION IN BOTH THE ECRS AND NONS SPIN LEVELS PROCURED. AND, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO SEE THAT, THAT THAT DIRECTION PRODUCED THAT RESULT. AND WE WILL HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME OUT OF THE AS STUDY, UM, THAT WE FEEL WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT TO BE TAKEN UP AND DISCUSSED IN THE 2026 METHODOLOGY PROCESS. DOES THAT ADDRESS QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP? I, I THINK SO. SO NO NOTABLE CONCERNS WITH THIS. WE, WE, 2025 METHODOLOGY THAT NEEDS TO, THAT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FOR, WE, WE WE'RE NOT GOING TO OPPOSE THE 2025 METHODOLOGY. WE, WE WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN, UM, LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE AS STUDY INCORPORATED IN THE 2025 METHODOLOGY, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE TIMING, UM, YOU KNOW, PROCEDURALLY THAT THE TIMING DIDN'T NECESSARILY ACCOMMODATE THAT. OKAY. THANKS JEFF. OKAY. I SEE A QUESTION. YOU KNOW, THAT SAID, JEFF, THERE'S PROBABLY GONNA BE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR YOU, . UM, AND, AND MAYBE THIS ONE, BUT I DON'T KNOW YET. SO MAY YOU MIGHT WANNA SIT CLOSER OR SOMETHING. WE CAN, WE CAN LET LUIS CONTINUE HIS PRESENTATION, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE A QUESTION FROM SHAMS. YEAH, NO, MY QUESTION IS FOR ERCO. UM, SO ON THE, YOU'RE TAKING THE MAX FOR THE ECRS, UM, FOR THE 70TH PERCENTILE, YOU MEET THE FREQUENCY RECOVERY. SO WHEN THAT SETS THE MAX, I'M ASSUMING YOU WON'T RELEASE ANY, UH, ECRS TO SCALE BECAUSE YOU NEED THAT FOR FREQUENCY RECOVERY IN THOSE INTERVALS. AND THE OTHER, OTHER TIMES WHEN IT'S NOT SETTING THE MAX, YOU WILL ONLY RELEASE THE PORTION THAT'S ABOVE THE, THE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR FREQUENCY RECOVERY. IS THAT RIGHT? SO I I, I STRUGGLED A LITTLE BIT TO HEAR. I THINK YOU ASKED IF WE'RE TAKING THE MAXIMUM OF THE 70TH PERCENTILE IN THE NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR, IF THE FREQUENCY RECOVERY WAS SELECTED AS THE QUANTITY FOR THAT [03:25:01] HOUR, HOW WOULD WE USE IT? IT WOULD STILL BE RELEASED IF THEY, WE SAW A TRIGGERING CONDITION FOR IT. WELL, HOW, HOW DO YOU ENSURE RELIABILITY THEN IF YOU'RE GONNA RELEASE WHAT YOU THINK YOU NEED FOR FREQUENCY RECOVERY AND YOU RELEASE IT? OKAY. AGAIN, UM, SO WHAT WE SAW WAS THERE WASN'T THE PROBABILITY OF HAVING TO RELEASE FOR BOTH THE TYPES FOR ONE, FOR A NET LOAD RAMPING AND ONE FOR A FREQUENCY EVENT, UM, WAS VERY LOW. BUT, UM, IN THE NATURE OF ANY WAY WE WOULD'VE USED DCRS TODAY, OUR PROCEDURE IS IF WE SEE A NET LOAD RAMP CONDITION, WE WOULD RELEASE IT. OR IF WE HAD A FREQUENCY EVENT, IT WOULD BE RELEASED. NO, I'M SAYING THAT IF, IF IT WASN'T ONE OF THOSE TWO, BUT YOU JUST RELEASE IT BECAUSE, UH, THE SC YOU KNOW, THAT 40 MEGAWATT, UM, OUR BALANCE IN A VIOLATION IN THAT CASE, WOULD YOU RELEASE THIS OR NOT? WHEN THE FREQUENCY PORTION IS, FREQUENCY RECOVERY PORTION IS SETTING THE CAP. DID I MISS ONE? IT'S SETTING THE AMOUNT. OKAY. I THINK I'M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT WILL OUR PROCEDURE FOR DEPLOYING ECRS LOOK LIKE UNDER THE NEW, UH, THE THIRD TRIGGER TIED TO ANDROGEN? YES. YES. SO WE WILL, UH, SO THOSE PROCEDURES WILL CONTINUE TO STAY WHERE THEY ARE, UH, UH, AS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK AS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, THE CONTROL ROOM TRIES TO KEEP 900 MEGAWATTS OR SO IN THEIR POCKET. SO WE, WE WILL OF COURSE KEEP REVISITING, UH, THE EVENT, THE FREQUENCY EVENTS THAT WE'VE SEEN, UH, AND HOW MUCH, UH, MEGAWATTS WE NEED FOR RECOVERING, UH, IN REAL TIME. SO THAT THAT 900, AT LEAST WHEN WE SET, WHEN WE SHARED THAT NUMBER FOR 1224, IT WAS BASED OFF OF ACTUAL EVENTS THAT WERE SEEN. SO THIS AS METHODOLOGY DOESN'T NECESSARILY CHANGE OUR DEPLOYMENT PROCEDURES. AND SO THOSE TRIGGERS, WHEN THEY COME UP, THE CONTROL ROOM WILL, UH, RELEASE ECRS THE WAY THE PROCEDURES PRESCRIBE THEM TO. AND I, RIGHT NOW, WE ARE NOT CONTEMPLATING, UH, CHANGING THAT, UH, ADVISE OF AROUND 900 MEGAWATTS, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY AT THE END OF THE YEAR REVISIT. AND IF THAT ANY CHANGES WERE TO BE MADE, THERE WOULD BE, UH, A, THEY WOULD BECOME PART OF THE OPERATIONS BULLETINS THAT GO OUT. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S HELPFUL BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT BECAUSE THIS YEAR IN CERTAIN HOURS, YOU'RE JUST BUYING ENOUGH FOR FREQUENCY RECOVERY AT 70%, NOT EVEN 90% OR 95%. SO WHEN YOU'RE JUST BUYING JUST ENOUGH TO MEET THAT, RELEASING THAT TO SCALE JUST BECAUSE YOUR POWER BALANCES YOU ARE DEPLOYING REGULATION, I DON'T THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. I THINK YOU SHOULD BE RESERVING THAT AMOUNT OR THE FREQUENCY EVENT, OR ELSE YOU, I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE PUTTING THE SYSTEM THERE. SOUNDS, UH, MAYBE I, MAYBE CONTEXTUALLY THE FREQUENCY RECOVERY PORTION TYPICALLY AT LEAST, UH, SETS THE QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE NIGHTTIME HOURS MORE SO THAN THE DAYTIME HOURS. UH, I WOULD THI I WOULD ASSOCIATE AT LEAST THE ANDROGEN CONCEPT MORE SO WITH OUR AFTERNOON HOURS AND DAYTIME HOURS WHERE ALREADY NET LOAD FORECAST ISSUES ARE SETTING THE QUANTITIES. UH, SO I UNDERSTAND THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING AND WILL CERTAINLY, UH, UH, UH, WALKTHROUGH AND IT, BUT I DO, I DO THINK THE, THE, UH, IF YOU CONSIDER WHEN THE ANDROGEN CONDITION AND THE RELEASE FOR ECRS FOR THAT OCCURS, I WOULD NOT EXPECT IT TO BE IN THE NIGHT TIMES. THE PROBABILITY SEEMS SUPER LOW. RIGHT. OKAY. YEAH, WE GOOD TO LOOK AT THAT AGAIN. THANKS. THANKS. GOOD. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND I SAW BILL LEFT, SO, UH, BUT ONE THING TO HIS QUESTION, HE ASKED ABOUT HOW THIS WAS INFLUENCED A LITTLE BIT. I DO HAVE A SLIDE A LITTLE BIT LATER TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE IM RECOMMENDATIONS AND USING A PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS. SO I'LL TRY TO MENTION THAT WHEN HE COMES BACK, BUT FOR THE OTHERS THAT WERE LISTENING TO THAT QUESTION. OKAY, SO THE LAST ONE IS, UH, NONS SPIN. SO THIS ONE'S USED FOR, AGAIN, NET LOAD FORECAST ERRORS AND POTENTIAL OUTAGES IN IN RESOURCES. UH, SO FOR THIS ONE, WE DID MAKE ONE CHANGE FOR THE, AS FOR THIS NONS SPIN METHODOLOGY, AND THAT WAS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE NIGHTTIME HOURS. UM, WHEN, SO TODAY WE USE A SIX HOUR HEAD NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR TO DERIVE THE QUANTITIES FOR NONS SPIND. UH, BUT FOR THE HOURS, UH, OUR ENDING 23 TO HOUR ENDING SIX, WE CHANGED THIS TO USE THE FOUR HOUR NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR. UM, AND WHY IS THE ANALYSIS THAT WE LOOKED AT IN LOOKING AT OFFLINE RESOURCES DURING [03:30:01] THESE PERIODS AND THE COMMITTED CAPACITY MARGIN THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BRIEFLY, UM, DURING THESE PERIODS, UH, WE SAW, WE TYPICALLY SAW ENOUGH AVAILABLE RESOURCES ON THE SYSTEM THAT COULD BE BROUGHT ON IN LESS THAN FOUR HOURS DURING THOSE PERIODS. UM, SO THAT, THAT MADE US FEEL COMFORTABLE IN MOVING TO A FOUR HOUR NET LOAD, UH, FORECAST ERROR DURING THESE OFF PEAK PERIODS, UH, FOR THE NONS SPIN QUANTITIES. UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THAT, THE, THESE QUANTITIES WOULD'VE DR, BEEN DRIVEN BY THOSE DECISIONS, UH, WE SEE A SLIGHT, WE STILL SEE A SLIGHT INCREASE FROM LAST YEAR. UM, BUT THAT THOSE VALUES WOULD'VE BEEN HIGHER HAD THE METHODOLOGY NOT BEEN CHANGED. I SEE A QUESTION, NED. YEAH, SO LUIS, THAT, THAT, I THINK THAT GETS TO THE, THE QUESTION I HAD EARLIER. IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE, AND CORRECT ME IF I, IF I'M, IF I'M MISINTERPRETING, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE, THE DECREASE IN NONS SPEND OR THE CHANGE IN THE CHANGE IN METHODOLOGY THAT LED TO THE DECREASE IN NONS SPEND WAS DRIVEN BY AN ASSUMPTION THAT ERCOT WOULD JUST BE ABLE TO RUCK RESOURCES ON IF THE OPERATING NEED SAID THAT THAT WAS THE CASE? YES, THERE ARE RESOURCES THERE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN AVAILABLE TO BRING ONLINE IN A SHORT, SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. SO THAT IS A CONCERNING ASSUMPTION TO ME. I MEAN, WE'RE, WE SHOULD NOT BE PLANNING TO RUCK IN ORDER TO MEET THE NEEDS. WE SHOULD BE SETTING OUR ANCILLARY SERVICES PLAN IN ORDER TO BRING RESOURCES INTO, IN THROUGH MARKET MECHANISMS, UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING. SO THAT, THAT IS A CONCERN. UM, SO I WANTED TO, TO JUST VOICE THAT 'CAUSE THAT, THAT, THAT CATCH MY ATTENTION. UM, I, I'M ALSO CURIOUS, I MEANT TO ASK THIS EARLIER, NOW THAT I, I THINK WE SEE MORE AND MORE, UH, ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCES PROVIDING ANCILLARY SERVICES. HOW DO THOSE FACTOR INTO THE COMMITTED CAPACITY MARGIN ANALYSIS THAT ARCOT, UH, UNDERTAKES, I BELIEVE RIGHT NOW? UM, I THINK WE'RE TAKING IN THEIR HSL CAPABILITY. UM, I DON'T THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT STATED CHARGE TODAY FOR THOSE. OKAY. UM, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT WHAT WOULD, WHAT, WHAT ARE THEY SHOWING THAT THEY HAVE AVAILABILITY IN THEIR COP? WE'RE LOOKING AT COP DATA FOR A LOT OF THIS. AND DOES THAT LOOK AT THEIR CHARGING, UH, THE, THE CONTROL LOAD RESOURCE SIDE AS WELL? YES, IT DOES. OKAY. SO THEY, THEY'RE COUNTED, ARE THEY COUNTED TWICE OR IS IT JUST THEY'RE COUNTED JUST ONCE WHICH WHATEVER MODE THEY'RE IN. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. THANKS FOR THAT. SURE. GO AHEAD. CAN I ATTEMPT TO TALK THROUGH THE SIX R VERSUS FOUR R AND R? UH, UH, COUNTING ON R NONS SPIN, THE WAY WE DESIGN THE QUANTITY REQUIREMENT FOR NONS SPIN, UH, EVEN ABSENT WHAT LUIS IS TALKING ABOUT TODAY, UH, WHAT IT'S TIME TO DO IS SAY IF I SEE A SUSTAINED UNDER FORECAST OF MY NET LOAD, HOW MUCH QUANTITY OF THIS 30 MINUTE STARTUP TIME, UH, UNIT CAPACITY SHOULD I PROCURE SO THAT, UH, UNTIL I CAN BRING ON AN OFFLINE UNIT TO HELP ME MAKE UP FOR THE CAPACITY GAP THAT I COULDN'T FORECAST? WE'VE TYPICALLY SAID SIX R HAS BEEN THAT REFLECTION OF THE STARTUP TIME OF AN OFFLINE UNIT THAT'S TYPICALLY AVAILABLE DURING TIGHTER OPERATING DAYS AND NOT NORMAL TIMES, BUT DURING THOSE TIGHTER DAYS WHEN THE NET LOADS HIGHER, THE UNIT THAT'S AVAILABLE THAT WE CAN BRING ON GENERALLY SIX R IS A, A REPRESENTATION OF IT. NOW, WHAT THE PROPOSAL HERE IS, OR THE ANALYSIS THAT LOUIS, UH, LOUIS STOCK MENTIONS, UH, IS SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS AND LOOKING AT, UH, THE, THE SAME OFFLINE CAPACITY THAT'S AVAILABLE. WHAT WE NOTICE IS TYPICALLY DURING THE NIGHTTIME, AS YOU MAY EXPECT, THE LOADS, LOADS ARE TYPICALLY LOWER, THE NET LOADS ARE TYPICALLY LOWER COMPARED TO PEAK HOURS. SO THERE ARE UNITS THAT ARE OFFLINE, AND THOSE OFFLINE UNITS HAVE A SHORTER START TIME. AND THERE IS A, A, A, A HEALTHY AMOUNT OF CAPACITY THAT'S AVAILABLE, UH, IN THE NIGHTTIME, WHICH ARE WITH A SHORTER LEAD TIME. SO IF WE WERE TO HAVE A LARGE UNDER FORECAST OF NET LOAD IN THE NIGHTTIME FOR WHICH CAPACITY IS NEEDED, WE WOULD USE NONS SPEND. BUT THE UNIT, THAT NEXT UNIT THAT WE CAN BRING ON IS ONLY ABOUT FOUR HOURS AWAY. SO THE QUANTITY OF NONS SPEND WE NEED TO PROCURE MAY NOT BE NEED TO REQUIRE THAT SIX HOUR AHEAD LEAD TIME. IT CAN BE SET BASED OFF OF THE FOUR HOUR LEAD TIME. THAT'S, THAT'S THE SETUP OF HOW WE ARE LANDING TO WHERE WE ARE. OKAY. SO IF I'M PARAPHRASING BACK THEN IT'S, IT'S, YOU PROBABLY HAVE MORE WARM RESOURCES THAT MAYBE HAD RUN IN THE, UH, THE EVENING PRIOR AND ABSOLUTELY. SO THEY'RE NOT COMING ON FROM COLD. YEP. OKAY. YEP. UM, BUT THE ASSU IS THE ASSUMPTION THEN THAT IF YOU DO HAVE THAT LOAD FORECAST ERROR, MARKET SIGNALS, MARKET PRICE SIGNALS WILL GET THEM TO COMMIT? OR IS IT THAT ERCOT WILL, WILL ROCK THEM BACK ON? YOU KNOW, THAT PART OF THE PROCESS IS NOT ANY DIFFERENT THAN HOW WE WOULD LOOK, [03:35:01] UH, TO, TO LOOK ABOUT SOLVING UNDER FORECAST ERRORS TODAY. WE WILL LOOK TO USE NONS SPEND, BUT WE WILL ALSO START SEEING HOW CAN WE RECOVER THAT DEPLOYMENT OF NONS SPEND BY BRINGING AN OFFLINE UNIT ON, SO THAT, THAT, THAT INHERENT APPROACH OF, UH, UH, HOW DO WE REACT TO A LARGE UNDER FORECAST OF NET LOAD CONTINUES TO HAVE A ROUGH COMPONENT WITHIN IT. SO IT MAY NOT BE A MARKET SELF COMMITMENT, BUT IT MAY BE AN DIRECTION THAT HAPPENS, UH, OR COMMITMENT THAT HAPPENS. IT WILL HAPPEN THROUGH THE R PROCESS AND IT WILL, UH, ALL, ALL WE ARE TRYING TO POINT OUT HERE IS IF WE WERE TO BE IN THAT SITUATION IN THE NIGHTTIME HOUR, THE UNIT WE PICK MAY BE FOUR HOURS AWAY. I SEE. BASED OFF OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE, WE'VE SEEN OR OF THE UNIT COMMITMENT THAT WE AVAILABILITIES THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST HISTORY. OKAY. YOU GOOD THINKING THROUGH IT? ? OKAY. DO YOU WANT US TO STEER YOU WHILE YOU THINK THROUGH? OKAY, IAN, THANK YOU. UH, IAN HALEY, MORGAN STANLEY. WE DO NOT SELL NONS SPIN. UM, BUT UH, THIS CHANGE IS SOMETHING I'VE DISCUSSED WITH OUR CAT A COUPLE TIMES AND IT'S JUST SOMETHING I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH. UM, BECAUSE OF THAT, I'D LIKE TO ABSTAIN ON THE BOAT WHEN IT, UM, WHEN WE COME TO IT. OKAY. I THINK, THINK YOU CAN KEEP GOING. OH, THERE'S MORE. ERIC, YOU SOUND SO DISAPPOINTED IN ME. NO, UM, THE QUEUE'S NOT UPDATING AND I'M RELYING ON IT INSTEAD OF USING MY EYES. I UNDERSTAND. UM, SO, UM, IKA, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A VERY HELPFUL WAY THAT YOU JUST TALKED THROUGH YOUR RESPONSE TO THE LAST ANSWER. AND IT'S, UM, SIMILAR TO HOW I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE LONG TERM PERSPECTIVE FINANCIARY SERVICES AND HOW MUCH WE SHOULD BUY, UM, FOR WHAT REASONS. UM, AND SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT IT OUT AND MAYBE FOLLOW UP. SO THE WAY YOU TALKED THAT THROUGH IS THAT THERE'S SOME LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY THAT ERCOT NEEDS TO MANAGE OVER A TIME DURATION. UM, AND, UM, BECAUSE THE NEXT UNIT YOU CAN START IS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOURS IT'LL TAKE TO GET READY TO START, YOU NEED TO BE PREPARED IN ADVANCE. AND THAT'S KIND OF SIMILAR TO, BUT NOT THE SAME THING THAT, UM, THE IMM SAID ABOUT, UM, QUANTITIES OF 10 MINUTE RESERVES THAT WE NEED THROUGH ECRS AND WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED, YOU KNOW, THE, THE QUANTITY WE WERE BUYING LAST YEAR. UM, SO I'VE BEEN THINKING THROUGH THIS TOPIC, AND I THINK THAT IN MY MIND A GOOD WAY TO THINK ABOUT UNCERTAINTY AND HOW TO COVER FOR UNCERTAINTY IS TO THINK ABOUT WHAT LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY CAN YOU COVER WITH WHAT RESOURCES AND, AND CAN WE COVER ER CUT'S UN UNCERTAINTY IN KIND OF THE LEAST COST APPROACH. SO, UM, WE DON'T NEED TO BUY A UNIT THAT CAN START IN 10 MINUTES. IF WE HAVE 12 HOURS OF NOTICE THAT THERE'S SOME UNCERTAINTY IN THE FUTURE, WE, WE NEED ONE THAT CAN START 11 HOURS, RIGHT? AND HYPOTHETICALLY, THERE'S A WAY TO OPTIMIZE FOR THE LEAST COST WAY OF SOLVING THAT UNCERTAINTY. UM, AND I'D LIKE TO THINK THROUGH THAT AS WE THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF ANSWERING SERVICES, ABOUT WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE MOST COST EFFICIENT WAY TO MANAGE THAT UNCERTAINTY THAT ERCOT HAS. SO TO TAKE THAT A STEP FURTHER, YOU KNOW, UM, IN MANY CASES IN RECENT EXPERIENCE, WE'VE HAD DAYS OF NOTICE OF, UH, YOU KNOW, EXTREME WINTER WEATHER. AND HYPOTHETICALLY IF THERE'S A PLAN IN PLACE TO, TO DEAL WITH THAT, WE COULD HAVE SOME SORT OF SERVICE THAT WAS USED ONCE IN THE BLUE MOON, UM, THAT GOT PEOPLE TO CHANGE THEIR, THEIR BUSINESS OPERATIONS, UH, AT A FACTORY OR SOMETHING, UM, THAT MIGHT BE A LOT LESS COSTLY THAN BUYING 10 MINUTE RESERVES FOR 8,007 60 HOURS OF THE YEAR. UM, SO I DON'T KNOW, KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWER IS THERE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT THINKING BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU MIGHT BE THINKING ABOUT THE QUANTITIES THAT YOU'RE BUYING IN THIS PRODUCT BASED ON A SIMILAR SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. AND I DON'T NECESSARILY EXPECT A FULL AND DETAILED RESPONSE RIGHT NOW, BUT GIVEN THIS IS ALL TIED TOGETHER AND YOU MENTIONED ALL THE OTHER THINGS WE'RE DOING IN THAT FIRST SLIDE, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE MY THOUGHTS. OKAY. [03:40:01] THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO, OKAY. OKAY. I THINK THIS IS MY SECOND TO LAST SLIDE, BUT I, THIS IS THE ONE I MENTIONED EARLIER. I THINK THIS HELPS BILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THAT YOU HAD FOR ME EARLIER ABOUT, UH, SOME OF THE IMM SUGGESTIONS ON WHERE WE ARE ON THAT. SO A LOT GOING ON HERE, UH, BUT THIS IS JUST KIND OF WHERE WE'RE HEADED OR OUR THOUGHT PROCESS ON WHERE AS METHODOLOGY'S HEADED, UM, GOING AND HOW WE CAN GET THERE. SO THE STARS TODAY, UH, KIND OF DOING THE APPROACH THAT WE HAVE TODAY USING OUR STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, UH, KIND OF OUR NORMAL PROCESS THAT EXISTS TODAY. UH, AND THEN WHAT YOU CAN SEE THERE IS AT THE TOP WE HAVE TODAY'S CURRENT MARKET AND THEN GOING INTO RTC PLUS B. UM, AND WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD? WHAT'S THE, THE GOING ON IN OTHER DISCUSSIONS? SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE HEARD IS THE, IF WE LOOK AT THE TOOL METHODOLOGY IS NOW TALKING ABOUT THE FULL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, PROBABILISTIC, UM, UM, ANALYSIS FOR THE AS METHODOLOGY AND WHAT CAN WE DO THERE. UM, SO THAT, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA TRY TO PICK UP IN 2026. UM, THERE ARE SOME POLICY DECISIONS AROUND WHAT, UH, COVERAGE AND, AND RISKS WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT AND INCORPORATING IN THAT PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS, UH, THAT WE'LL NEED TO, TO HOPEFULLY FLESH OUT NEXT YEAR, UM, GOING INTO AN APPROVAL FOR STILL USING THAT ANALYSIS, UM, UH, UH, FOR 2026. AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND COMPONENT IS HOW DO WE CALCULATE AN ANCILLARY SERVICE AT A MORE DYNAMIC METHOD CLOSER TO THE OPERATING DAY? UM, WHICH AGAIN, I THINK WE'LL NEED SOME, SOME POLICY DECISION AND WORK THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, UH, AS WE DO TODAY. UM, AND THEN WE GET INTO 2027 WHERE WE CAN COMBINE BOTH FULL PROBABILISTIC WITH, UH, CLOSER TO OPERATING DAY DYNAMIC VALUES AND ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGIES. UH, IN 2027. THIS IS OUR THOUGHT PROCESS IN THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD AND LOOKING FORWARD AT SOME OF THE MANY OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING AND WHERE WE COULD LAY THIS OUT. UM, BUT 2026 WOULD BE LOOKING AT USING THAT FULL STATISTICAL MODEL VERSUS 2027 USING THE THAT AND THE CLOSER TO OPERATING DAY. SO I, I WANTED TO SHARE THIS TO TRY TO HELP COVER THAT AND SOME OF THE OTHER DISCUSSIONS THAT, THAT, THAT ARE HAPPENING AROUND THIS TO KIND OF SHOW WHAT OUR THOUGHT IS ON WHERE THIS IS HEADED. SO BILL, I, I SAW YOU HAVE A QUESTION. I'M WAITING TO BE RECOGNIZED. I THINK NED'S CARD WAS UP TOO. OH, IT WAS FIRST I ONLY, OKAY, BILL. UM, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. ARE YOU BILL BARNES FROM ENERGY? BILL BARNES FROM RELIANT, EXCUSE ME. RELIANT. SORRY. UM, I NOTICED THE SLIDE HAS CHANGED FROM PROBABILISTIC THE FULL STATISTICAL. I'M WONDERING WHAT THE, IS, IS THAT THE SAME, WHEN YOU SAY PROBABILISTIC, IT'S, IT'S, WHAT DO YOU THE SAME VERSUS FULL STATISTICAL? WHAT DO YOU, WHAT, WHAT'S, WHAT DO YOU MEANING IN TERMS OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO? CAN I TAKE IT? YEAH, SURE. MAYBE I'LL ANSWER FOR HIM. I CHANGED THE SLIDE, UH, TO ALIGN WITH THE WORDS WE USED IN THE WORKSHOP MATERIAL, BUT IT IS STILL THE RECOMMENDATION ONE, WHICH IS THE FULL PROBABILISTIC OR THE MONTE CARLO BASED APPROACH. IF YOU LOOK IN THE APPENDIX, I, I ALSO, I THINK YOU STILL HAVE THE ORIGINAL WORKSHOP SLIDES. NO, NO. OKAY. BUT THE WORDS HERE MATCH WHAT IS IN OUR WORKSHOP MATERIAL FOR THE POCS AS STUDY. OKAY. AND THEY MEAN THE SAME THING PROBABILISTIC. OKAY. AND I'VE STRUGGLED TO WHERE TO, TO BRING THIS TOPIC UP, BUT I MEAN, IT'S LAID OUT HERE, WELL, ON THE SLIDE, I WASN'T SURE IF I WAS GONNA BRING UP DURING MATT'S RTC PLUS B UPDATE, BUT SO OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE TRANSITION INTO RTC PLUS B, IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS PROCESS. 'CAUSE IN THIS PROCESS, RIGHT, THERE'S A BUNCH OF MATH, UM, AND WE'RE CHANGING TO PROBABILISTIC APPROACH, AND YOU'RE GONNA CALCULATE SOME AMOUNT OF ANCILLARY SERVICES THAT ERCOT DESIRES TO PURCHASE ON AN HOURLY BASIS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. BUT THEN WE IMPLEMENT RTC AND THAT, THAT ALL GOES AWAY, RIGHT? BECAUSE HOW MUCH ANCILLARY SERVICES YOU ACTUALLY PROCURE IS ALL DEPENDENT ON PRICE AT THAT POINT. THE, THE QUANTITIES WILL VARY SIGNIFICANTLY. SO I'M WONDERING HOW DO WE BRIDGE THAT GAP, RIGHT? SO I'VE JUST, THAT THAT QUESTION'S NEVER REALLY BEEN ANSWERED VERY WELL IS, OR ONCE A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND CAN GET THAT AMOUNT IF THE DEMAND CURVES ARE, AND THIS KIND OF BLEEDS INTO THE, THE DEMAND CURVE DISCUSSION AS WELL, BUT I, I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'VE REALLY FULLY EXHAUSTED THIS TOPIC. SO THERE'S GONNA BE A PUBLICATION LIKE WE DO TODAY OF QUANTITIES THAT ERCOT DESIRES TO PURCHASE. THERE'LL BE A PROCUREMENT IN THE DAY AHEAD, BUT IN REAL TIME, WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IS COULD BE LIKE VERY DIFFERENT. UM, I'M JUST KINDA WONDERING HOW WE THINK THAT'S GONNA WORK. [03:45:03] SO MAYBE I'LL, UM, ANSWER THAT BILL. SO I, I THINK FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, RRTC DOES NOT CHANGE THE QUANTITY OF ANCILLARY SERVICE, THE QUANTITIES OF ANCILLARY SERVICES THAT WE NEED, BECAUSE THE QUANTITIES ARE BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL OPERATIONAL RISKS. SO, SO IT'S HOW, HOW MUCH RRS DO YOU NEED TO ARREST THE FREQUENCY? HOW MUCH ECRS DO YOU NEED TO RECOVER FREQUENCY? BUT THOSE FUNDAMENTALLY OUR, OUR PHYSICS BASED QUESTIONS THAT RTC IS NOT CHANGING. UH, SO, UM, THE, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS, I, I THINK TRYING TO, UM, OUR RTC IS, IS TRYING TO DO WHAT WE WOULD DO, UH, TODAY MORE MANUALLY IN OPERATIONS WHERE I, IF YOU ARE GETTING INTO SCARCITY, THEN YOU GIVE UP SOME OF YOUR ANCILLARY SERVICES, WHICH IS KIND OF WHAT THE OPERATORS DO MANUALLY TODAY. IT'S JUST, THAT HAPPENS AUTOMATICALLY IN RTC. SO, SO I THINK OUR VIEWPOINT IS RTC DOESN'T CHANGE THE, THE QUANTITIES. UM, THAT, SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS FOR 2026, UH, AS WE GO INTO RTC, THE, THE METHODOLOGY, UH, FOR THE MOST PART IS, IS SIMILAR TO TODAY, EXCEPT WE'RE GONNA SHARPEN THE PENCIL AND DO THIS MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE, UH, ECRS AND NONS SPEND QUANTITIES. UM, BUT THEN THE, UM, KIND OF THAT, THAT MORE DYNAMIC AS, UH, AND, AND I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, UP, UP FOR DISCUSSION, UH, 'CAUSE I THINK WE HEARD YOUR FEEDBACK AT THE WORKSHOP, UH, YOU KNOW, FROM THE RETAILERS IS, DO WE WANT TO PROCURE, UH, SOME, SOME AS CLOSER TO REAL TIME OR CLOSER TO OPERATING DAY AS OPPOSED TO HOW WE DO IT TODAY WHERE IT'S JUST ALL KIND OF CALCULATED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. I, I THINK THAT COULD CHANGE THE QUANTITIES. UH, BUT WE THINK THAT THAT DOING THAT AT THE SAME TIME AS RTC MAY NOT BE PREFERABLE. AND, AND SO WE WANT TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF PUT THAT OFF TO 2027 TO, TO DO THAT. AND I, THAT'S EXACTLY THE CONCERN IS THAT, THAT THE HEDGING CHALLENGE, IT'S A MOVING TARGET, RIGHT? AND SO, AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT AS MARKET PARTICIPANTS, WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO EVOLVE AND ADAPT TO. AND THAT IS ATTEMPTING AS A, YOU KNOW, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A REP IS PURCHASING SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF ANCILLARIES TO HEDGE OUR POSITION, UH, BASED ON A, AN ANNUAL STUDY, THEN KNOWING THAT THAT ACTUAL PROCUREMENT AMOUNT WILL CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, THROUGHOUT THE DAY. UM, AND WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO BECOME MORE FLEXIBLE IN, IN HOW WE THINK ABOUT HEDGING POSITION. SO I JUST, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE BIG CHANGES THAT'S COMING WITH RTC THAT WE'RE STILL TRYING TO THINK THROUGH. SO, THANKS. OKAY. NED, I WANTED TO CONFIRM, ARE WE ALSO BEING ASKED TO ENDORSE THIS EVOLUTION ROADMAP IN ADDITION TO THE 2025 ANCILLARY SERVICE PLAN TODAY? NO. NO. OKAY. BECAUSE I, I HAVE THE SAME EXACT CONCERN THAT BILL HAS ABOUT THE, THE PROCURING CLOSER TO THE OPERATING DAY AND THE DIFFICULTY FOR, UH, RETAIL, UH, LOAD SERVING ENTITIES GENERALLY TO HEDGE THAT. SO, UM, THAT'S HELPFUL. UM, I'M, I'M, I'M ACTUALLY ON THE FENCE RIGHT NOW BETWEEN, UH, THE, MY, MY COLLEAGUE FROM MORGAN STANLEY'S POSITION ON, UH, ON, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, THE IMPLICATION OF RELYING ON ROCKS, BUT ALSO THE FACT THAT ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCES ARE COUNTED TOWARDS THE CAPACITY COMMITTED CAPACITY MARGIN THAT SOMEWHAT COUNTERBALANCES THAT CONCERN. UM, SO THAT'S A, THAT'S A, THAT'S A TOUGH ONE FOR ME, BUT ONE TO AT LEAST MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE I, THAT'S, THAT ONE'S A BIG ENOUGH CONCERN THAT I WOULD HAVE A, A AT LEAST AN ABSTENTION ON THAT ITEM. SO, SO AT LEAST TO PROVIDE CONTEXT, WE HEARD A LOT OF QUESTIONS AT ROS AND WMS ASKING ABOUT HOW DOES THE 2025 METHODOLOGY GEL IN WITH WHERE THE A S STUDY IS GOING. SO AT LEAST WE WANTED TO BE, UH, SHARE WHAT WE THOUGHT AS THE ROADMAP, UH, FOR EVOLVING AS COULD LOOK LIKE, UH, UNDER THOSE TWO DISTINCT THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON RIGHT NOW. SO YOU YEAH, WE ARE NOT REQUESTING YOU TO ENDORSE THIS. WE ARE REQUESTING YOU TO ENDORSE THE 2025 AS METHODOLOGY. OKAY. WELL, FOR, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH MY VOTE ON THE, ON, ON THE ONES, THE, UH, CLOSER TO THE OPERATING DAY, UH, PIECE IS, UH, THUMBS DOWN, BUT, OKAY. SHARMS. YEAH. SO WE SEE A LOT OF ANALYSIS ON THE ANS V SERVICE PROCUREMENT AMOUNTS, BUT, UH, WE DON'T SEE MUCH IN TERMS OF THE CAPACITY, YOU KNOW, MARGIN THAT YOU LIKE TO KEEP. UM, SO LIKE, IF YOU GO WITH THE PROBABILISTIC AND THE IMM SAID, REDUCE NON SPIN AND ECR SIGNIFICANTLY, AND WE STILL MAINTAIN THE [03:50:01] SAME, UH, CAPACITY MARGIN, THEN THAT WILL MEAN A LOT MORE ROCKING AND STUFF. SO, DOES ERCOT INTEND TO PRESENT SOME MORE INFORMATION ON, ON WHETHER THEY CAN IMPROVE ON THE CAPACITY MARK, THEIR CONSERVATIVE OPERATION THING? HEY, SHAS. UH, SO PARTLY SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS, UH, UH, YOU ARE CORRECT IN THE OBSERVING WHAT THE IMM IS RECOMMENDING. NOW, I'LL TAKE YOU BACK TO THE WORKSHOP, UH, CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD. AND ERHART CERTAINLY NOTED THAT SOME OF THE UNDERLYING, UH, UH, ASSUMPTIONS IN THE ANALYSIS THAT THE IMM DID, WERE FUNDAMENTALLY WERE BASED OFF OF FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT POLICY, UH, APPROACHES. AS AN EXAMPLE, UH, THEY WERE LOOKING TO BE SOLVING FOR A LOSS OF LOAD EXPECTATION. AND, UH, TODAY THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY IS SET UP TO AVOID, UH, ENTERING AN EMERGENCY CONDITION. SO A WATCH OR LOWER, AS AN EXAMPLE. SO, UH, SIMILARLY ON THE RUX ALSO, I THINK THEIR, UH, THEIR APPROACH OF SETTING NONS SPEND QUANTITY BASED OFF OF ONE HOUR AHEAD. UM, FORECAST ERROR CAME WITH THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF, UH, USING RELYING ON UNIT COMMITMENTS TO SOLVE, UH, THE SUSTAINED NET LOAD PROBLEMS. SO TO US, UH, TRANSITIONING TO A METHODOLOGY, UH, THAT USES THOSE POLICY DECISIONS, UH, THAT THE IMM IS PROPOSING NEED TO BE DISCUSSED, UH, AND VETTED THROUGH BOTH, UH, THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND POLICYMAKERS, UH, DECISIONS. UH, BUT THEY WERE WORTH NOTING THAT, UH, UH, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU SET UP THOSE DECISIONS OR THOSE, UH, CRITERIA IN THE STUDY WILL IMPACT THE ANCILLARY SERVICE QUANTITIES WE PROCURE AND HOW WE OPERATE THE GRID. UH, THERE IS A CERTAIN ASSUMPTION, THERE IS A CERTAIN POLICY DECISION WE HAVE DESIGNED RAS METHODOLOGY TO TODAY. IF THOSE NEED TO CHANGE, THOSE NEED TO BE VETTED THROUGH, UH, UH, THOSE NEED TO BE VETTED THROUGH. AND IN THIS ROADMAP HERE, WHAT YOU'LL NOTICE IS THAT POLICY DETERMINATION SWIM LANE, IS EXACTLY FOR THAT, UH, IS BEING SET UP EXACTLY FOR THOSE TYPE OF DISCUSSIONS. IF, IF THERE IS A NEED TO RE, UH, REVISIT, UH, THOSE DISCUSSIONS AROUND WHAT IS THE EVENT THAT WE, UH, DESIGN OUR A TO, THAT WOULD BE THE TIME WHEN WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO ENGAGE DISCUSSIONS ON. I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IRA IS CONCERNED ON THAT TOO, LOOKING AT LOLP AND STUFF, UH, LOLE AS A MEASURE FOR, YOU KNOW, THIS AND NOT TAKING TO IMPACT, LIKE EVEN WITH THE ERCOT REDUCED QUANTITIES, UH, AND YOU, IF YOU STILL MAINTAIN THAT CAPACITY MARGIN, UM, MEGAWATTS, UH, YOU KNOW, THE MOMENT YOU REDUCE THE QUANTITIES, THE PRICES ARE GONNA BE SUPPRESSED, AND YOU MIGHT NOT GET AS MUCH SELF COMMITMENT, WHICH ALSO RESULTS IN, YOU KNOW, UM, COMMITMENT THROUGH RUCK. SO I THINK WE JUST NEED TO LOOK AT THAT MORE HOLISTICALLY AND, AND WHETHER WE CAN FURTHER REFINE THAT CAPACITY MARGIN NUMBER, UH, HOW WE DETERMINE THAT AND WHAT GOES BEHIND THAT ANALYSIS. THANK YOU. OKAY. KEEP GOING. THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE SUMMARY SLIDE TO CLOSE THIS OUT, JUST SHOWING THE CHANGES WE TALKED ABOUT TODAY FOR THE AS METHODOLOGY REMINDER THAT THE, THE, THERE IS DATA POSTED, UH, WITH THIS SLIDE DECK ON THE TAC WEBSITE. UM, AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR ENDORSEMENT OF THIS AS, UH, 2025 QUANTITIES, UM, FROM TAC. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER? SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING, I THINK WE NEED, I KNOW WE NEED A SEPARATE BALLOT, SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO ENDORSE THE 2025 METHODOLOGY. WHAT'S THE CORRECT LANGUAGE ON THIS AS, AS, AS PRESENTED BY, IS THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND BLAKE? MOTION BILL? SECOND. [03:55:24] OKAY, GOOD. OKAY. SO NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. WE'LL START UP WITH CONSUMERS. COOL WITH ERIC? YES. THANK YOU, NAVA. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, GARRETT. YES, SIR. THANKS SIR. ERIC SCHUBERT? YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS. UH, YES, THANKS. THANK YOU NICK FEHRENBACH STILL WITH US, NICK, I WILL LOOP BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK ON HIM LATER, UH, ON THE CO-OPS, JOE, DAN FOR MIKE? YES, THANK YOU, BLAKE. YES, SIR. ERIC BLAKEY. YES, THANKS. THANK YOU, JOHN. YES, THANK YOU. THANK ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, BRIAN. OKAY. I NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE PREAMBLE WITH MY COMMENT BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT A, NO, WHAT AN ABSTAIN AND ALL OF THAT MEANS. SO, UM, IN THE PAST, I'VE USED AN ABSTAIN AS A GENTLE NO, THANK YOU. BUT I FEEL LIKE, UM, THERE JUST NEEDS TO BE A BETTER, UM, UH, ACCOUNTING OF THAT. SO I'M JUST GONNA BE A NO, AND, AND I WILL WORK WITH YOU ON THE REASONS FOR THE NO, BUT PART OF IT IS, UH, WE JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S ADDITIONAL RISK THAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE REDUCTION AND REGULATION IN THE MORNING, IN THE WINTER, IN THE SECOND REASON IS, UH, WE STILL BELIEVE THAT ECRS SENDS OR HAS SENT AN INVESTMENT SIGNAL, UH, FOR NEW GENERATION DEVELOPMENT. AND THE REDUCTIONS IN ECRS, UH, UH, I THINK ARE, ARE HARMING THAT SIGNAL. AND I WILL WORK WITH YOU ON SOME PARAGRAPHS THAT EXPLAIN OUR VOTES, AND, UH, BECAUSE I DIDN'T FILE COMMENTS, I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE SEEN AS SOMETHING THAT, LIKE, I'M, I'M, UH, DYING ON THE HILL ON OR NOT DYING ON THE HILL ON. THANK YOU. YEAH, THAT'S A REALLY HARD ACT TO FOLLOW BECAUSE I, I AM ABSTAINING, SO THANK YOU, CAITLIN. BOB HELTON. YES, SIR. THANKS, SIR. NED, I WOULD LOVE TO GIVE A, A, A LONG PROLOGUE, BUT I THINK I'VE ALREADY COVERED THAT. UM, GIVEN THAT WE'RE NOT BEING ASKED TO COVER THE, THE, THE EVOLUTION PLAN, UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, NITKA YOUR, YOUR COMMENTARY ABOUT HOW THE, THE ESRS ARE COUNTED TOWARDS THE COMMITTED CAPACITY MARGIN, I'M OKAY RELUCTANTLY WITH THE, UH, THE R RISK, BUT, UM, SO I'LL, I'LL GIVE A YES, THANK YOU. JUST NOTE, THESE ARE ALL LOWERCASE XS IN THE COLUMN. , THERE'S NO BOLD, AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. WE'LL, WE'LL INCLUDE THAT IN THE DATA. YES. SO ON THE IPMS SHANE FOR REMI? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THANKS, SIR. JEREMY? YES, THANKS. THANK YOU, IAN. I'LL ABSTAIN. THANK YOU, COREY. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. MATT. MATT MARAI STILL WITH? YES. DID YOU GET THAT? I'M SORRY, I WAS TALKING OVER YOU. YEAH. CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN. THANK YOU. YES. APPRECIATE YOU ONTO THE I REPS BILL. YES. THANK YOU. JENNIFER. YES, THANK YOU. JAY? YES, THANK YOU, CHRIS. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IOUS, STACY FOR KEITH? YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU ABBY FOR DAVID? YES, THANK YOU, COLIN. YES, THANK YOU, RICHARD. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO THE MUNIS RUSSELL. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JOSE. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU DAVID. UH, I ACTUALLY, I, DAVID, I BELIEVE AT ONE, SO WE'VE GOT DIANA COLEMAN FOR DAVID. YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND FAYE FOR ALICIA, CORRECT? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND LAST CALL FOR NICK FEHRENBACH, SET THAT KNOWLEDGE. ALRIGHT, SO THAT THEY CAN CLOSE IT. USE THE KNOWLEDGE MOTION CARRIES ONE OPPOSED TO ABSTENTIONS, RIGHT? BUT IT COULDN'T, WE JUST ASK, ARE YOU A USA AND IF. ALL RIGHT, THANKS COREY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR SPEECHES HERE? , I'M NOT MAKING FUN OF YOU , BUT THEY, THEY TOLD ME THERE'S MORE SPEECHES IN SVP, [04:00:01] SO WE ARE THE COOKIES DID IT, IT'D BE FINE IF YOU WERE MAKING FUN OF ME. IT'S I'M COOKIES, I'M CONFIDENT IN WHICH VERSION OF COOKIES. UM, OKAY, WE ARE [15. ERCOT Reports (Part 1 of 2)] SCHEDULE CHANGING SLIGHTLY FOR OUR OLD FRIEND CLAYTON GREER. AND WE ARE GONNA GO TO ERCOT OR OTHER BUSINESS WORD. ARE WE GOING TO THE MEMBERSHIP? WE'RE GOING TO ERCOT 2025 MEMBERSHIP, APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT FOLLOW UP. HI ALL. CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU CAN HEAR ME? PRETTY FAINT. OKAY. UM, IS THAT BETTER? IT'S BETTER. IT'S BETTER. OKAY. UM, OKAY. CATHERINE GROSS WITH ERCOT LEGAL. UM, I WAS JUST GOING TO GIVE SOME UPDATES, UM, ON THE 2025 MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT PROCESS. UM, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST TAC MEETING, AND I HAVE AN UPDATE OR SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE LOGIN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE WITH THE MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION AS WELL AS TO, UM, I WANTED TO ADDRESS MEMBERSHIP SEGMENT INFORMATION FOR, UM, SPECIFICALLY DATA AND CRYPTOCURRENCY CENTERS. UM, SO COREY, IF YOU COULD PLEASE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THANK YOU. UM, SO THIS IS A SLIDE FROM THE LAST MEETING. UM, SO JUST A REMINDER THAT, UM, TOMORROW THE MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION PROCESS WILL LAUNCH AND YOU'LL RECEIVE AN EMAIL AND A MARKET NOTICE THAT WILL OPEN UP THAT MEMBERSHIP PROCESS. SO, UM, PLEASE DON'T TRY AND, UM, TO FILL THAT IN TODAY, YOU'LL GET AN EMAIL AND MARKET NOTICE TOMORROW. UM, THERE'S ALSO A LINK ON OUR MEMBERSHIP PAGE AND, UM, IF YOU ALREADY HAVE CREDENTIALS, YOU'LL USE THOSE TO LOG IN. AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE CREDENTIALS, YOU'LL BE PROMPTED TO CREATE SOME. UM, AND SO ON THE NEXT SLIDE, I WAS GONNA GO OVER A LITTLE BIT SOME CLARIFICATION OF SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE. SO, UM, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME THAT THERE'S A LOGIN, UM, ISSUE, UM, SPECIFICALLY FOR SOME AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND BACKUP AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. AND SO I'VE GOTTEN SOME ADDITIONAL DETAILS ON THIS. UM, SO IF YOU ARE THE, THE PERSON FOR YOUR ENTITY THAT IS FILLING OUT ON SERVICENOW, THE 2025 MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION AND AGREEMENT, AND YOU'RE ALSO YOUR ENTITY'S AUTHORIZED REP OR BACKUP AR, UM, AND IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE USED THAT SAME AR BAR EMAIL ADDRESS PRIOR TO THIS APRIL, UM, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS LOGGING IN AND FILLING OUT THE MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT. UM, SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU WERE THE AR FOR YOUR ENTITY AND YOU HAPPEN TO FILL OUT THE MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT AND APPLICATION LAST YEAR, THEN THE SYSTEM SHOULD LET YOU USE THOSE SAME LOGIN CREDENTIALS THIS YEAR TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, THE PROBLEM IS THAT IF YOU, UM, IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING FOR YOUR COMPANY AND YOU'RE THE AR OR BAR AND YOU HAVEN'T GONE IN TO THE PUBLIC PORTAL, UM, PRIOR TO APRIL 24TH, UM, THEN THE SYSTEM IS GOING TO BLOCK YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO ALLOW YOU TO LOG IN TO THE PUBLIC PORTAL TO COMPLETE THIS MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION. UM, SO IF YOU'VE, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. IF YOU'VE BEEN YOUR COMPANY'S AR AND BBAR OR BAR FOR LIKE MORE THAN TWO YEARS OR, OR WHATEVER, BUT YOU'VE NEVER GONE INTO THE PUBLIC PORTAL, UM, TO DO ANYTHING, THEN IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BLOCK YOU. UM, I WOULD GO AHEAD AND TRY IT FIRST AND SEE IF IT BLOCKS YOU. UM, BUT IT, UH, ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION WE'VE BEEN GIVEN BY IT, IT SHOULD BLOCK YOU. UM, AND, UM, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE RESOLVED NEXT YEAR, SO IT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM NEXT YEAR. UM, BUT CURRENTLY FOR THIS SUBSET OF ARS AND BA, UM, IT'S NOT GONNA LET YOU USE YOUR, UM, SAME LOGIN CREDENTIALS THAT YOU USE TO REGISTER WITH ERCOT. UM, SO ON THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, SO IF, IF YOU'RE IN THAT BOAT WHERE YOU TRIED TO LOG IN AS THE AR OR BAR AND IT BLOCKED YOU, [04:05:01] UM, ONE OPTION IS TO CREATE NEW LOGIN CREDENTIALS. SO IF YOU USE A DIFFERENT EMAIL ADDRESS THAT'S NOT ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR, UM, AR BAR REGISTRATION WITH ERCOT, THEN THE SYSTEM WILL NOT BLOCK YOU. UM, THAT'S ONE OPTION. UM, ANOTHER THING IS THAT A LOT OF THESE MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONS ARE, ARE NOT ACTUALLY SUBMITTED BY, UH, ENTITIES, AR OR BBAR. THEY'RE OFTEN SUBMITTED BY JUST THE DESIGNATED REP, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT, UM, UH, JOB TITLE OR A TITLE. AND SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE AR OR BR IF YOU'RE GETTING INTO THAT SITUATION. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE, UM, IF YOU'RE HAVING PROBLEMS, THERE'S AN EMAIL ADDRESS ALL THE WAY ON THE LAST SLIDE THAT'S PORTAL SUPPORT@ERCOT.COM. IF YOU'RE HAVING ANY PROBLEMS AND YOU NEED TO BE THE ONE THAT'S FILL OUT FILLING OUT THE APPLICATION AND IT'S BLOCKING YOU AND YOU'RE HAVING NO LUCK WITH IT, CREATING A NEW EMAIL ADDRESS OR, OR WHATEVER, JUST PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THEM AND, AND THEY CAN HELP YOU. UM, AND AGAIN, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE RESOLVED FOR NEXT YEAR WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS NEXT YEAR. UM, WERE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON, ON THAT? BILL BARNES? HEY CATHERINE, I HAVE A FEW. OKAY. UM, YOU MENTIONED AN EMAIL COMING OUT OR MARKET NOTICE SOON WITH THIS INFORMATION. DID YOU SAY THAT'S TOMORROW? YES, TOMORROW. UM, YEP. AND THEN GO AHEAD. OH, GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, AND THEN IT CLOSES ON NOVEMBER 1ST, SO IF YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE ONE OF THESE PEOPLE THAT MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM, I WOULD URGE YOU TO GO AHEAD AND, UM, TRY IT RIGHT AWAY. AND THEN IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, THEN THE PORTAL SUPPORT EMAIL CAN THOSE, THOSE PEOPLE CAN HELP YOU, UM, TRY AND FIX IT. AND THEN THE ERCOT PUBLIC PORTAL, THAT'S NOT BMIS, RIGHT? BECAUSE I, I THINK FOR THE SERVICENOW, WE ACTUALLY NEEDED A DIGITAL CERTIFICATE FOR THE WEATHERIZATION STUFF, BUT THIS IS A DIFFERENT, THIS IS, YEAH, THIS IS SEPARATE AND THAT'S, I GUESS MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WHAT IS CAUSING THE ISSUE IS THAT WITH SERVICE NOW WE HAVE THREE BUCKETS OF, UM, PORTALS. I GUESS ONE IS FOR OR CO EMPLOYEES, ONE IS FOR, UM, PUBLIC, WHICH IS WHAT THIS ONE IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND ONE IS A PORTAL THAT'S JUST FOR WEATHERIZATION. AND SO THE AR AND B, THOSE EMAIL ADDRESSES WERE ADDED TO THE WEATHERIZATION PORTAL. AND SO THEN THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT THE SYSTEM WON'T LET THEM COME INTO THE PUBLIC PORTAL AND USE THAT SAME INFORMATION. OH, UM, THOSE SAME CREDENTIALS IN THIS OTHER BUCKET. BUT THIS ISN'T, THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING WE DID LAST YEAR. THE SAME SYSTEM, I GUESS IT IS THE SAME SYSTEM. OH, IT IS. SO IF SOMEONE WHO'S NOT IN JUST QUICK QUESTION SPECIFIC TO MY SITUATION, PROBABLY NOT GOOD FOR MY SEGMENT THOUGH. SO IF SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME WHO I'M THE AR LOGGED INTO THE THING LAST YEAR AND DID THE FORMS, THAT SHOULD STILL WORK. YEAH, THAT SHOULD STILL WORK. OKAY. YEAH, IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST A, A GLITCH WITH AR B AR, UM, REGISTRANT. THANKS. OKAY. OH, SURE JENNIFER. UM, CAN WE INCLUDE IN THE MARKET NOTICE THAT IT'S THE SAME SYSTEM AS LAST YEAR? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS LEVEL OF DISCUSSION AND PEOPLE MIGHT GET FREAKED OUT AND IF IT WORKED LAST YEAR, IT CONCEPTUALLY WILL WORK THIS YEAR, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD REASSURANCE. . YES. YEAH. UM, I THINK WE CAN ADD THAT FOR TOMORROW'S NOTICE, THE EMAIL AND THE MARKET NOTICE. UM, WAS THERE ANOTHER QUESTION FROM NOPE, WE'RE CLEAR. GO AHEAD. NOPE, IT WENT. OKAY. OKAY. UM, SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT, THE NEXT ITEM IS, UM, TALKING ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP SEGMENTS. UM, SO THIS IS SPECIFIC TO DATA AND CRYPTOCURRENCY CENTERS, UM, WHICH AS WE KNOW ARE, ARE LIKE A, A NEWER, UM, PHENOMENA, I GUESS. UM, AND OUR BYLAWS REGARDING SEGMENTS ARE, UM, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED IN A LONG TIME. AND SO UNDER THE BYLAWS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, UM, DATA AND CRYPTOCURRENCY CENTERS, THEY DON'T FIT NEATLY INTO ONE, ANY ONE MEMBERSHIP SEGMENT. AND SO, UM, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ABOUT, UM, NINE OF THESE TYPES OF CENTERS, SEVEN OF THEM ARE IN THE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER SEGMENT. UH, THE REMAINING [04:10:01] ARE IN THE LARGE COMMERCIAL. UM, IN LOOKING AT THE BYLAWS AND LOOKING AT THE, UM, COMMON USAGE OF WHAT INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES, WHICH IS NOT A TERM THAT'S DEFINED IN THE BYLAWS, UM, ERCOT HAS DETERMINED THAT FOR THIS YEAR, UM, THE BEST FIT FOR THESE TYPES OF ENTITIES WOULD BE THE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER SEGMENT. AND SO OUR GOAL HERE IS TO HAVE A UNIFORM RULE FOR THIS YEAR, JUST SO WE HAVE CLARITY. AND, UM, WHEN, UM, WHEN THE, WHEN YOU GO TO FI FILL OUT THE MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION, THERE'LL BE A LITTLE BOX THAT WILL SAY, UM, ARE YOU A DATA OR CRYPTOCURRENCY CENTER? AND YOU CAN CLICK ON IT AND IT'LL SAY, IF YOU ARE, THEN, UM, PLEASE APPLY FOR THE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER SEGMENT. UM, AND SO, UM, NOT JUST THESE KINDS OF CENTERS, BUT ALL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A TON OF CHANGES IN THE MARKET, UM, IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. AND SO IN LIGHT OF THIS, UM, ERCOT WOULD SUPPORT HAVING A, A BROADER DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT SEGMENT COMPOSITION SHOULD BE. UM, AND, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE, UM, THAT AS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION, UM, HOW WE CAN UPDATE OUR, OUR BYLAWS, UM, TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, REFLECTIVE OF THE MODERN MARKET. UM, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. CAN WE STOP THERE FOR SOME QUESTIONS? SORRY. SURE. ERIC, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA YES. UH, ERIC SCHUBERT, LDE CHEMICAL, UM, WE, UM, DON'T REALLY, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT, UH, CRYPTO CRYPTOCURRENCY AND DATA CENTERS FIT INTO THE INDUSTRIAL SEGMENT. WE REALIZE THE CHALLENGES THAT YOU'RE FACING TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO PUT THEM. SO, MM-HMM, , I THINK WE'RE FINE WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS, THIS SHEER, BUT WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND AND CONCUR WITH ERCOT THAT THIS HAS TO BE REVIEWED AS PART OF A BROADER, UM, UH, REVIEW OF WHAT A MARKET SEGMENT IS AND SHOULD WE BE ADJUSTING, ADJUSTING THAT TYPE OF CATEGORY FOR THE PURPOSES OF, UH, REPRESENTATION ATTACK. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, SO THIS IS JUST A SLIDE SHOWING, UM, WHAT I THINK I MENTIONED BEFORE IS THAT MOST OF THE, MOST OF THESE CENTERS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE ARE RIGHT NOW THEY'RE IN THE INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER SEGMENT, WHICH IS NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, TO SAY THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY LONG TERM THE RIGHT OUTCOME. BUT JUST TO SAY THAT THERE'S, THERE'S TWO THAT, UM, UNDER OUR INTERPRETATION WOULD NEED TO MOVE FOR THIS YEAR. THIS, UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THEN, UM, I HAD MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, GOING BACK TO ANY LOGIN ISSUES, UM, PLEASE CONTACT PORTAL SUPPORT@OURCO.COM AND IF YOU HAVE MEMBERSHIP RELATED QUESTIONS OR PAYMENT RELATED QUESTIONS, UM, THESE ARE THE, THAT WE, UM, WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO JUST ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF, UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I GOT ONE, IF YOU READY? I WAS TRYING TO READ YOUR NAME. CLAYTON, WHAT DID YOU HAVE ON THERE FROM CLAYTON? THE OTHER ONE TO EVERYONE. GO AHEAD. UM, SO WHEN, WHEN ARE WE GONNA DISCUSS THIS FURTHER? I MEAN, THIS LOAD IS PROBABLY GONNA BE ABOUT HALF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM LOAD HERE IN, IN, YOU KNOW, SIX OR SEVEN YEARS. SO THEY PROBABLY NEED AT LEAST SOME REPRESENTATION. YEAH, I, I THINK THAT WE'RE ERCOT OPEN TO DISCUSSING IT, UM, AND, AND FIGURING IT OUT FOR THE NEXT YEAR. SO I THINK RIGHT NOW, UH, WHAT, AND, AND I WOULD BE THE ATTORNEY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPING TO WORK ON THAT. SO I THINK RIGHT NOW I'M TRYING TO GET THROUGH JUST, UM, THIS MEMBERSHIP YEAR, BUT THEN I CAN PROVIDE AN UPDATE OF LIKE NEXT STEPS AS TO HOW THIS IS GONNA BE, HOW WE'RE GONNA GO ABOUT DOING THIS. OKAY. I MEAN, ANYTIME YOU DEAL WITH MEMBERSHIP, AND WE'VE, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS A FEW TIMES BECAUSE THERE'VE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO COLLAPSE CERTAIN GROUPS INTO OTHERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE PAST. UM, DO YOU, I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHERE YOU THINK IT'S GONNA GO? LIKE, DO YOU THINK THERE WOULD BE A FOURTH CATEGORY OF LOAD THAT WOULD BE MAYBE A LARGE LOAD OR A SPECIFIC DATA CENTER OR INVERTER BASED TYPE LOAD. OR NORMALLY YOU TRY TO GROUP, YOU KNOW, LIKES, LIKE ENTITIES LIKE TOGETHER. YEAH. I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON THAT, BUT I, I COULD SEE, I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED, I GUESS IF, IF THERE WAS SOME KIND OF OUTCOME LIKE THAT, BUT I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON IT. I THINK THAT, UM, IT WOULD BE A, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF DISCUSSION TO [04:15:01] GET TO THE END POINT OF, OF WHAT IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I GUESS, IS THAT GONNA BE NOTIFIED THROUGH THE TAC UH, EXPLODER OR HOW ARE WE GONNA FIND OUT THAT THESE MEETINGS ARE GETTING READY TO HAPPEN? UM, THAT IS LIKE A PROCEDURAL ISH QUESTION THAT I DON'T KNOW. COREY, IF YOU HAVE A INSIGHT INTO, HEY CLAYTON, I, I DON'T THINK IT DOESN'T, I DON'T THINK WE'RE EXPECTING ERCOT TO MAKE A UNILATERAL DECISION OR, OR RECOMMENDATION ON THAT. IT SEEMS LIKE, AND, AND THIS WAS GONNA BE MY NEXT QUESTION. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WILL HAVE THIS, UM, I, I'M LOOKING AT SLIDE SEVEN NOW, OR ERCOT TO SAY, SUPPORT A LONG-TERM, BROADER DISCUSSION OF SEGMENT COMPOSITION. UH, IT SAYS LONG-TERM AND BROADER, BUT, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN FROM JANUARY OF 2025 AND BE WRAPPED UP IN AUGUST, RIGHT? SO IT'S SOMETHING WE WANT DONE BEFORE THIS MEMBERSHIP ROLLS AROUND AGAIN NEXT YEAR. SO I, I THINK THAT, THAT SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME, BUT THIS IS A PRETTY STICKY ISSUE. SO I, I THINK WE'RE GONNA NEED TO BE AGGRESSIVE ABOUT TRYING TO GET, TO GET THROUGH THOSE DISCUSSIONS NEXT YEAR. YEAH. IS THAT CORRECT, CATHERINE? SO WE'D NEED, SORRY, CLAYTON, SO WE'D, WE'D NEED YOU GET THE BYLAWS CHANGED IN THERE TOO. I CAN'T HEAR HIM. YEAH, IT'S A BYLAWS CHANGE WE HAVE TO DISCUSS WITH THE BOARD. IT'S A BYLAWS CHANGE, BYLAW CHANGED AS WELL. SO WE WOULD NEED TO GET A RECOMMENDATION TO LIKE A SUMMER BOARD MEETING IN ORDER TO HAVE SOMETHING. YEAH, I I THINK THERE'S A WHOLE PROCESS BETWEEN BYLAWS CHANGES AND BRINGING IT TO THE BOARD AND IT WOULD TAKE LONGER THAN, I DON'T KNOW, IT USUALLY LASTS ABOUT A YEAR LONG. SO, I MEAN, SO IS, ARE WE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE DONE BEFORE 2026 MEMBERSHIP? I'M GONNA HAVE TO TAKE THAT BACK AND OKAY. ASK ABOUT THAT. OKAY. AND THEN I GUESS MY , SO YOU WON'T GET EMAILED AND ANSWER. YOU HAVE TO COME BACK TO EVERY TAC MEETING. CLAYTON , THERE'S GONNA BE SOME SECRET TAC MEETING THAT THEY DO ALL THE VOTING . UM, SO I GUESS DOES THIS IMPLY THAT WE'RE GONNA NOT ONLY LOOK AT THIS SEGMENT, BUT ALSO ALL THE SEGMENTS, THE COMPOSITION OF EVERYBODY? I THINK THAT ERCOT WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT YEAH, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ALL WOULD WANT. BECAUSE I, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT IN A LONG TIME, JENNIFER. OKAY. I HAVE A, THAT'S EXCITING. OKAY, CLAYTON, I'M GONNA GO TO SOME OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT HOPEFULLY YOU'LL HANG OUT JENNIFER. UM, I JUST WANNA EMPHASIZE HOW IMPORTANT IT IS, LIKE IF WE DO NEED TO KICK IT OFF FOR 2026. I AGREE WITH ERIC THAT LIKE WE CAN GET ON BOARD FOR ONE YEAR, BUT KIND OF TWO THOUGHTS. NUMBER ONE, WE JUST HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW THE STAKEHOLDER PRO HOLDER PROCESS NEEDS TO BE COMPREHENSIVE SO WE DON'T HAVE SURPRISE AT THE BOARD. AND THE PUC, IF YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPLE SITTING AT THE TABLE, THEN YOU GET THOSE SURPRISES. UM, AND THEN MY SECOND THOUGHT IS, I, I ACTUALLY AGREE THAT IT'S PROBABLY BIGGER THAN JUST CRYPTO AND DATA CENTERS IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE SLICE OF STAKEHOLDERS. UM, AND I SUSPECT ALL OF US HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. SO IS THERE A WAY TO KICK THIS OFF, LIKE IMMEDIATELY IF WE'RE SAYING IT'S GONNA TAKE A YEAR, ERCOT WILL LOOK INTO IT. ALL RIGHT. BOB HILTON. YEAH, I JUST WAS GONNA ADD ON TO WHAT JENNIFER WAS KIND OF ALLUDING TO, IS WE PUT THIS TOGETHER TO BALANCE THINGS OUT. IF WE MESS WITH ANY ONE SEGMENT OR ANY ONE SEAT, WE'VE GOT TO RE-LOOK AT THE ENTIRE THING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE NOT UPSET THE BALANCE OF, OF WHAT WE HAVE. SO, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THIS SEGMENT'S BEEN DEALING WITH THAT FOR A LONG TIME. OKAY. SO I, I FEEL WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH, BUT UH, IF WE'RE GONNA INCREASE THAT SEGMENT, THEN THAT AFFECTS EVERY SEGMENT AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT REALLY CLOSELY. WE COULD MAKE T BE 60 MEMBERS. YOU MEAN WE'RE GONNA LOOK LIKE MOPSY AT THE SPP? WE HAS A HUNDRED AND SOME ODD MEMBERS. YEAH. , WE MIGHT HAVE CAST FORCE PEOPLE THAT THOUGH ABOUT THAT. OKAY, LET ME GO, GO AHEAD BOB. CAN I THROW ONE OTHER QUICK THING? IT JUST HIT ME WHEN SHE SAID THAT, AND I'D HAVE TO GO [04:20:01] BACK AND LOOK AT THE BYLAWS, ANNE, BUT CAN'T THE SEGMENT DECIDE ON WHETHER THEY WANT TO DO SEGMENT VOTING LIKE WE HAVE HERE OR IF THEY WANT TO DO THE FULL VOTING BEHIND THE SCENE AND THEN YOU GET THE REPRESENTATIVE VOTE OUT OF THAT VOTE BEHIND. I MEAN, THAT'S ONE WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING, RIGHT? KIND OF EVERYONE IN YOUR THAT'S IN THE SEGMENT GETS A VOTE AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS? THAT'S ALL BROUGHT UP INTO, OKAY, SAY IT WAS 50 50 IN THE SEGMENT, THEN THERE'D BE TWO VOTES AND TWO VOTES ALONG THOSE LINES IS THE WAY THAT WOULD BE PUT OUT INTO A PERCENTAGE TYPE BASIS. OKAY. WE DID THAT A LONG TIME AGO. I COULDN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS STILL THERE OR WHAT, 'CAUSE NOBODY'S EVER USED IT YET. BUT THAT'S ONE WAY TO TAKE CARE OF ISSUES. OKAY. IT'S STILL THERE. WE TOOK CARE OF IT OVER HERE RATHER THAN DOING IT THAT WAY THAN JUST SPLITTING THE SEGMENT BETWEEN IBR AND THERMAL. YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE WAY WE DID IT. KO'S GONNA LOOK INTO IT. YEAH, WE JUST COMING UP WITH ANOTHER IDEA RATHER THAN JUST, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO MESS WITH THE SEGMENTS. WE CAN ADD IT TO NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA AND COME BACK AND DISCUSS. OKAY. CHRIS, CHRIS AGREES WITH JEN. OKAY. CATHERINE, DO YOU WANNA KEEP GOING? UM, I THINK THAT THAT WAS ALL I HAD. THEY'RE JUST, YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK, SO THE MEMBERSHIP NOTICE IS GOING OUT TOMORROW AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT 2026 MEMBER SEGMENTS NEXT MONTH. OKAY, [12. Large Flexible Load Task Force Report] LET'S GO. WE ARE BACK TO THE LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD TASK FORCE REPORT. BILL BLEVINS, ARE YOU HERE? I THINK I SAW YOU. BILL'S HERE, . HEY, I DRESSED UP FOR YOU GUYS. UH, I DON'T SHOW UP HALF THE TIME. UH, JUST CALL IN. SO, UH, WE HAD, UH, A GOOD MEETING. UH, THE LAST MEETING. UH, WE DECIDED THAT WE WOULD PUT THE TASK FORCE IN HIBERNATE MODE. UM, WE'VE GOT SOME RULES OUT THERE THAT ARE PROPOSED. UM, SO I DO THINK THAT WE'LL PROBABLY BE CANCELING A FEW OF OUR TASK FORCE MEETINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR. UH, BUT JUST GIVE T KIND OF AN ACCOMP OR LIST OF WHAT WE'VE GOT GOING ON SO THAT Y'ALL KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL. UM, SO WHEN WE STARTED THIS, I THINK IN 2019, WE DID SOME SURVEYS. AT THAT TIME, I THINK WE WERE HEARING THERE WAS LIKE 12 GIGAWATTS OF POTENTIAL LARGE LOAD THAT WAS INTERESTED IN COMING INTO ERCOT. UH, BY THE TIME WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING, I THINK IT WAS IN APRIL, I THINK THAT NUMBER HAD GROWN TO 17 GIGAWATTS. UM, YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT IT WAS MAINLY CRYPTO MINING, UM, REALLY THAT WAS DRIVING THAT. SINCE THEN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT AI DATA CENTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THE QUEUE IS NOW AT, I THINK SOMEWHERE AROUND 54 GIGAWATTS. UM, I'M TRYING TO BREAK THAT DOWN. WE DON'T HAVE, LIKE, NOBODY OFFICIALLY TELLS US EXACTLY LIKE I STARTED OUT, I WAS GONNA BE A CRYPTO MINING SITE AND NOW I'M GONNA SWITCH OVER TO BE A DATA MINING SITE. BUT BASICALLY ON THE ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE DONE, PROBABLY 30 GIGAWATTS OF THAT 54 IS PROBABLY STILL CRYPTO, BUT THAT'S WITH A LARGE QUESTION MARK BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING ASKED ALL THE TIME IF THEY WANNA HOST A, UH, AI DATA CENTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO WE'LL SEE HOW MUCH OF THAT PROBABLY, UH, 19 GIGAWATTS OR SO, SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO THAT IS, UM, AI DATA CENTER KIND OF LOAD. UM, WE PROBABLY GOT ANOTHER FOUR OR FIVE GIGAWATTS THAT, UH, LOOKS LIKE IT MAY BE HYDROGEN TYPE. SO THAT'S THE BEST THAT WE HAVE AS FAR AS BREAKDOWN RIGHT NOW. BUT THAT'S DONE THROUGH JUST KIND OF SERVING, UH, OR LOOKING AT THE STUDIES AND SEEING WHAT THE, UH, KIND OF LOAD THEY INCLUDED THERE. SO I WOULD SAY THAT'S KIND OF UNOFFICIAL. I DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY, UH, PUT THAT OUT YET TILL WE'VE MORE CONCRETELY, CONCRETELY, UH, UH, RECONCILED THOSE NUMBERS. BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE GOT A LOT. AND THIS LARGE NUMBER 54 GIGAWATTS, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH IS THIS TYPE OF LOAD, THAT [04:25:01] TYPE OF LOAD, ET CETERA. SO I THOUGHT I'D AT LEAST, UH, TRY TO PUT SOMETHING OUT THAT GIVES YOU WHAT WE KNOW. UM, SO THAT'S WHERE WE'VE GROWN TO. WE'VE GOT OUR RULES THAT, UH, WE'VE PROPOSED TO GET THE INTERCONNECTION PROCESS GOING FORWARD, AND WE'RE GONNA FOCUS ON THAT. UM, BUT DURING THIS HIATE MODE, WE DID HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS, UM, I THINK AT THE LAST MEETING THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER RULES THAT COME OUT OF, UH, THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. SO WE DON'T REALLY WANT TO CANCEL THE TASK FORCE. IF WE GET SOME MORE WORK THAT WE GET ASSIGNED, WE THINK THAT THE TASK FORCE MAY TAKE SOME OF THOSE UP. SO THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE OUR, OUR PLAN. UM, I WAS ASKED TO COME AND ASK THE, THE ATTACK IF WE'RE NOT GONNA BE HAVING MONTHLY MEETINGS. A LOT OF PEOPLE FOLLOW THOSE, THOSE, UH, LARGE LOAD QUEUE UPDATES AND, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO WE WANNA PUT THAT INFORMATION TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE? SO PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO DECIDE IF THEY'RE GONNA BUILD A GENERATOR 'CAUSE OF THIS LOAD CAN CONTINUE TO SEE THAT. UM, I THINK WE HAD SOME FOLKS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT GO TO THE ROSS. SOME PEOPLE WILL LIKE, MAYBE WHEN I SEE IT GO TO WMSI, I THINK WE'RE KIND OF INDIFFERENT AS FAR AS ERCOT. UH, WE'LL CONTINUE TO REPORT THOSE NUMBERS AND TRACK 'EM ON A MONTHLY BASIS. UM, BUT WE WERE ASKED TO ASK THE TAC WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE US TO, TO MAKE THOSE REPORTS. UM, AND I DON'T WANNA TRY TO PUSH IT ONE DIRECTION, BUT I, I DO WANT TO HOPEFULLY GO ONE PLACE INSTEAD OF A BUNCH. SO, UH, IF YOU GUYS COULD GIVE US SOME DIRECTION ON THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. AND, UH, WE DID HAVE A FEW OTHER TOPICS THAT WE'VE DECIDED THAT ARE NOT SOLELY FOCUSED ON LARGE LOAD. THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT CLRS WHEN SOMEBODY SIGNS UP TO BE ACL R, AND THEN HOW LONG DO THEY HAVE TO BE ACL R, UM, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME FINANCIAL IMPACTS IF THEY JUST SWITCH OUT BACK AND FORTH TOO FREQUENTLY. WE SAID THAT'S A CLR ISSUE, NOT A LARGE LOAD ISSUE. SO IT SHOULD BE TAKEN UP AT OTHER GROUPS. SO WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE THAT, UH, TOPIC UP. UM, I THINK WE ARE STILL WORKING ON SOME RULES ABOUT HOW LARGE OF AN INTERCONNECTION CAN SOMEBODY HAVE AND WE PUT OUT SOME RULES THERE. WE'RE WORKING ON COMMENTS TO GET, UM, OUR THINKING THERE. BUT I WOULD SAY RIGHT NOW WE, WE BELIEVE WE WOULD NEED TO DO A STUDY BEFORE WE WOULD ALLOW ANYTHING GREATER THAN ONE GIGAWATT. AND SO WE'RE WORKING ON, UH, OPERATIONS IS WORKING ON TRYING TO DO AN UPDATED STUDY TO LOOK AT THAT. BUT, UM, RIGHT NOW WE THINK YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE, UH, MULTIPLE CONNECTIONS IF YOU'RE GETTING, UH, A LOAD GREATER THAN A GIGAWATT. ALL RIGHT, THAT'S MY UPDATE AND I GUESS WE'LL TAKE SOME, UH, INPUT FROM YOU GUYS. I SEE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TOO. BOB WHITMEYER, LEMME JUST START WITH BILL AS BEING, UM, VERY HUMBLE HERE. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT, LIKE HE SAID, WHEN WE STARTED THE LFL, WE WERE FREAKING OUT OVER 12 GIGAWATTS. ERCOT HAS TODAY APPROVED 15 GIGAWATTS FOR AUTHORIZATION. THAT DOESN'T MEAN 15 GIGAWATTS IN 2024, THAT MEANS 15 GIGAWATTS BY 2028. BUT I THINK THAT IS A TREMENDOUS ACCOMPLISHMENT BY BILL'S GROUP. AND FRANKLY, I THINK THEY NEED A ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR PULLING THAT OFF WITHIN TWO YEARS, FIGURING OUT HOW TO CUT, CONNECT THAT AMOUNT OF LOAD TO THE SYSTEM. SO, WELL, THANK Y'ALL. UH, I MEAN, Y'ALL PAY ME AND HAVE HIGH EXPECTATIONS OF ERCOT, SO WE TRY TO DO WHAT WE CAN THERE. SO, BUT I DO APPRECIATE ALL THE HELP WE'VE GOT ALONG THE WAY. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PARTICIPATION, SO, UM, THAT HAS BEEN, UM, VERY HELPFUL TO US. AND, UM, HOPEFULLY WE'RE ON THE LAST PART OF GETTING THIS INTERCONNECTION PART DONE. WE STILL WILL HAVE SOME NEW ISSUES. WE ARE HEARING SOME THINGS ABOUT THE BEHAVIORS OF THESE NEW TYPES OF LOADS AND MAYBE SOME OF THE PHYSICS AND SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THERE. UM, SO I DO EXPECT WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE SOME MORE WORK FOR THE TASK FORCE, BUT, UM, RIGHT NOW WE WANT TO TRY TO GET THE TASK FORCE KIND OF HIBERNATED TILL WE HAVE SOME OF THOSE TOPICS BETTER UNDERSTOOD. AND WHERE WOULD Y'ALL LIKE US TO GO? AND, AND I, I WOULD LIKE TO GET A WEBPAGE, A LANDING PAGE FOR LARGE LOAD. 'CAUSE WE GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ALL THE TIME AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING UNDER THIS INTERIM PROCESS. AND SO SOMEBODY THAT STARTS A NEW PROJECT, THEY ALWAYS ASK ME, WHERE CAN I GO READ ABOUT ALL THIS? SO I THINK WE ULTIMATELY WOULD LIKE TO CREATE KIND OF A LARGE LOAD LANDING PAGE WITH SOME OF THE GENERAL INFORMATION THERE AND MAYBE WE COULD [04:30:01] PUT THE QUEUE OUT. BUT WE ALSO THINK IF Y'ALL WANT US TO GO TO A COMMITTEE, WE'D BE WILLING TO DO THAT AND, UH, TALK ABOUT THE QUEUE OR WHAT OTHER TOPICS WE NEED TO THERE. CHRIS HENDRICKS, UH, THANKS BILL AND GREAT JOB ON THE TASK FORCE. I THINK YOU'VE DONE IT REALLY, REALLY WELL SINCE IT STARTED. UM, MY SUGGESTION FOR TAC IS TO HAVE YOU OR HAVE THE, THE QUEUE REPORT BE PRESENTED EACH MONTH ATTAC, OR AT LEAST THE DOCUMENTS ITSELF. WE DON'T HAVE TO DISCUSS IT EVERY MONTH, BUT AT LEAST HAVE IT OUT THERE AND HAVE THE AVAILABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS THAT T IF NEEDED. SINCE IT'S SUCH A, AN ISSUE THAT COVERS NUMEROUS DIFFERENT SUBCOMMITTEES OF TAC, I THINK TAX IS AN APPROPRIATE PLACE. THANKS CHRIS. BILL BARNES. SO OUR PRIMARY FOCUS ON THIS, WHICH IS I'VE ECHOED DIFFERENT WORKING GROUPS, UM, SUBCOMMITTEES IS, IS JUST TRANSPARENCY AND INFORMATION. UM, AND I, I'M HOPEFUL THAT NPR 1234 PUTS IN PLACE A PROCESS FOR YOU GUYS TO GET MORE GRANULAR INFORMATION ABOUT THESE LOADS, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN REPORT THIS INFORMATION OUT TO ALL OF US. 'CAUSE IT IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST TREND THAT WE ALL SHOULD BE WATCHING AND ECHO THE COMPLIMENTS TO YOUR TEAM. THIS PRETTY MUCH CAME OUTTA NOWHERE A COUPLE YEARS AGO, AND NOW WE'VE, WE'VE GOT A, A BEAST ON OUR HANDS THAT WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND. AND SO THE FIRST THING IS JUST MAKING SURE WE GOT GOOD DATA. SO, UM, I'LL BE A HUGE SUPPORTER AT 1234 FOR THAT ASPECT OF IT. UM, AND I'M JUST KIND OF WONDERING WHAT, DO YOU HAVE AN UPDATE ON WHERE THAT STANDS? I SAW SOME COMMENTS FILED. SO WHERE IT RESIDES, SAY FROM ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE HAD, UM, THERE'S BEEN SOME COMMENTS THAT, UM, HAVE COME IN. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE MADE THE COMMENTS. SO IT WASN'T LIKE WE DIDN'T KNOW THE COMMENTS WERE COMING, BUT WE FINALLY GOT THEM TO LOOK AT. AND, UM, WE'RE WORKING ON TRYING TO INCORPORATE AS MANY OF THOSE COMMENTS AS WE THINK WE CAN. UM, I DON'T WANNA SAY WE'LL INCORPORATE 'EM ALL 100%, BUT, UM, WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. SO I'VE GOT SOME MEETINGS NEXT WEEK TO TAKE ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO ROLL THOSE INTO WHAT WE WERE ALREADY WORKING ON FOR OUR SET OF COMMENTS. AND SO HOPEFULLY I'LL BE ABLE TO GET THAT OUT THERE. I'M NOT REALLY FEELING LIKE I'M GONNA HAVE THAT DONE BEFORE THE NEXT PLWG, AND SO IT'S KIND OF BEEN WAITING. I I THINK MAYBE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ON THAT, THE PICKER PART OF THIS. AND SO, UM, WE MAY HAVE TO GO ONE MORE PLWG BEFORE WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE ALL THOSE COMMENTS. SO I THINK THAT'S OUR, OUR NEXT HURDLE TO GET THROUGH AND JUST CONSOLIDATE ALL THE, UH, FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE GOTTEN. MAINLY FROM I THINK THE TSPS. I HAD SOME DIFFERENT IDEAS AND COMMENTS THAT WE WANTED TO INCORPORATE. ERIC BLAKEY, ERIC BLAKEY PER ALICE CHAIR OF WMS. JUST WANTED TO SAY, I THOUGHT, WELL, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF REPORTS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED. UM, I JUST WANT TO SAY WE'RE, WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO, TO HAVE THIS AS PART OF, UH, THE REPORTING TO WMS. WE HAVE THE DE THE, THE DEMAND SIDE UNDER OUR PURVIEW. WE HAVE SUPPLY, WE HAVE SEVERAL OTHERS THAT ARE SORT OF RELATED. SO, UM, WE WILL FOLLOW THE WILL OF THE GROUP. BUT, UH, JUST WANTED TO SAY WE'RE, WE'RE HAPPY TO, TO HAVE THAT AS PART OF OUR AGENDA. THANK YOU. SO, UH, I JUST WANT TO, FIRST OF ALL, ECHO BOB'S, UH, ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR, FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE, BILL. IT'S, UH, IT, IT HAS DEFINITELY BEEN A LOT TO EVEN KEEP UP WITH. UM, AND, AND I'VE PROBABLY FALLEN DOWN ON THAT. BUT I, I RECOGNIZE THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT'S GONE ON THERE IS, IS VERY IMPRESSIVE. UM, IT ALSO, IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT'S NATURALLY EVOLVING NOW BEYOND LARGE FLEXIBLE LOADS TO JUST LARGE LOADS IN GENERAL. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE SCOPE IS CHANGING AND, AND, AND PROCESSES ARE, ARE SEEMING TO BE WELL WITH NPR 1234 AND, AND BIGGER ONE 15 SEEMS LIKE WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS GETTING A, A MORE ESTABLISHED PROCESS. SO IT IT, IT WILL MOVE FROM SOMETHING THAT'S BRAND NEW TO SOMETHING THAT'S MORE OF AN ESTABLISHED PROCESS. SO THAT'S, UM, THAT'S GOOD. UM, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE WHERE, WHERE TO GO WITH IT GOING FORWARD. THERE'S A COUPLE, UH, YOU KNOW, USE CASES. ONE IS, YOU KNOW, ON THE, THE TRANSMISSION PLANNING SIDE. SO IT SEEMS LIKE SOMEWHERE WITHIN ROS, MAYBE IT'S PLWG IS A, IS A NATURAL HOME. BUT THEN ALSO TO, TO ERIC'S POINT, AT WMS, THERE'S, THERE'S DEFINITELY A SUPPLY ANALYSIS AND, UM, FOR THE FLEXIBLE LOADS, THE DEMAND SIDE WORKING GROUP MAY, MAY ALSO BE NATURAL PLACES. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, SEEMS LIKE BOTH, BOTH HAVE VALUE, BUT [04:35:01] RECOGNIZE YOU DON'T WANT TO RUN AROUND TO EVERY WORKING GROUP. SO, UM, THAT, THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN, WE CAN THINK ABOUT. UM, ONE THING, ONE, ONE BIT OF FEEDBACK THAT I DID WANNA AT LEAST GIVE ON WHAT THE REPORTING IS. 'CAUSE THE REPORTING HAS BEEN VERY VALUABLE. IT'S OFTENTIMES COME, BRINGS MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS. UM, AND I THINK TO BILL'S POINT, TRANSPARENCY IS, UH, IS IS THERE'S A LOT OF HUNGER FOR MORE INFORMATION, RIGHT? TO HELP UNDERSTAND WHAT, UH, WHAT THE NEW LOAD DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE. AND SO IF I COULD MAKE A REQUEST, IT WOULD BE AS, AS YOU MOVE INTO WHAT THAT NEXT PHASE LOOKS LIKE, START ADDING, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ABOUT HOW LONG SOME OF THE, THE NEW LOADS TAKE TO COME ONLINE. SO WE, WE KNOW WHAT THE, THE ERCOT ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL PROCESS LOOKS LIKE, BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S, UH, CONSTRUCTION THAT'S NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE LOAD ON THE TRANSMISSION SIDE, THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON WHEN IT COMES ON. AND SO GETTING SOME MORE CLARITY AROUND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, I THINK WILL HELP FOLKS UNDERSTAND TIMELINES A LITTLE BIT BETTER. AND, AND SO WHEN SOMETHING POPS IN IN THE QUEUE, MY GUESS IS THAT A LOT OF TIMES IT'S, UH, IT'S REFLECTING WHEN THEY WOULD LIKE TO COME ON, BUT THERE'S, THERE'S PROBABLY SOME, UH, SOME VARIABILITY ON THE BACK END OF THAT PROCESS THAT UM, I THINK WE WOULD ALL BENEFIT FROM, FROM TRANSPARENCY ON. SO, UM, THAT, THAT'S THE FEEDBACK I'VE GOT FOR YOU. BUT, BUT THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU'VE DONE AND, UH, I THINK YOUR POINT IS, IS VALID. I MEAN, RIGHT NOW JUST AS FYI, WE HAVE OVER FIVE GIGAWATTS THAT IS IN THE MODEL THAT WE'VE APPROVED TO ACTUALLY ENERGIZE, WE'RE PROBABLY CONSUMING ABOUT THREE GIGAWATTS. SO THERE'S PROBABLY TWO GIGAWATTS THAT'S RAMPING UP TO THEIR NEXT LOAD LEVEL. SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW. UM, BUT UM, OUR, OUR, OUR ISSUE IS IF WE GET TOO DETAILED, THEN WE'LL BE DEALING WITH CUSTOMER INFORMATION WHICH WE HAVE TO PROTECT. SO, YEAH, UM, WE ARE TRYING, LIKE I SAID, I GAVE Y'ALL SOME PURVIEW ABOUT LIKE THE PERCENTAGES OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF LOAD IN THAT 54 GIGAWATT. 'CAUSE WE THINK THAT'S PROBABLY HELPFUL TOO. SOME PEOPLE MAY DECIDE THAT IF A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF A TYPE OF LOAD IS GONNA BUILD IN THIS AREA, THEN, THEN IT'S GO AHEAD AND BUILD A GENERATOR OR SOMETHING TO SUPPLY THAT. AND IF IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LOAD, MAYBE THEY DON'T, THEY'RE NOT AS INCENTED. SO ANYWAY, WE WANT TO TRY TO GIVE MORE INFORMATION, UM, WITHOUT CROSSING ANY KIND OF BOUNDARIES. SO WE WILL IMPROVE THE REPORTING OVER TIME. WELL, HAPPY TO, HAPPY TO SUPPORT YOU IN THAT EFFORT AND APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE DONE SO FAR. THANKS. SO DID WE GET A DIRECTION OR JUST COMING TO YOUR FAVORITE PART? I GOT A, I WAS GETTING A THUMBS UP, BUT I DON'T, I DUNNO WHAT THE THUMBS UP WAS. THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ASK YOU. DID YOU GET A DIRECTION AND WHAT WAS THE, WHAT DIRECTION DO YOU THINK YOU RECEIVED? WELL, I, I, THIS IS THE WAY I, MY BRAIN THINKS, SO Y'ALL CAN JUST ANALYZE ME. UM, I HEARD THAT THE, THE TAC, WHICH IS THE KIND OF THE, THE PARENT GROUP WOULD LIKE ME TO REPORT HERE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE MY, OKAY, MY UNDERSTANDING, I THINK THAT PERSONALLY MAKES SENSE, AT LEAST FOR NOW, UH, IN THE SENSE THAT I'M PROBABLY NOT GONNA FEEL THAT WAY AFTER WE TALK ABOUT IT FOR THREE OR FOUR MONTHS. BUT ONCE WE GET THAT REPORT AND, AND START SEEING IT BECAUSE IT IS THAT IMPORTANT, THEN WE MAYBE CAN BE MORE DELIBERATE ABOUT WHAT GROUP WE SEND IT TO. 'CAUSE I, I TEND TO THINK, NOT JUST BECAUSE I'M FOCUSING ON THE WIRES, BUT I THINK A LOT OF THE ISSUES AND THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IN, IN THE DETAIL ARE THE INTERCONNECTION AND THE WIRES AND THE PROCESS RELATED ISSUES. BUT EVERYONE ELSE WANTS PROPERLY TO KNOW, HEY, WHAT IS COMING? THEY WANT TO GET AN IDEA OF THE, THE, THE OUTPUT OF THAT. BUT THE DETAILS OF HOW WE INTERACT AND GET THERE, UM, ARE VERY IMPORTANT. AND I'VE, I WANNA TAG IN WITH ONE OF MY COMMENTS 'CAUSE WE ARE WORKING ON COMMENTS THAT I APPRECIATE YOUR DESIRE TO NOT HAVE TO GO TO MULTIPLE PLACES. 'CAUSE I'LL TELL YOU, MY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PEOPLE AND, UH, MY CUSTOMER RELATIONS PEOPLE, THEY DON'T WANNA GO TO MULTIPLE PLACES EITHER. SO THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO ENTER STUFF IN THE A EP SYSTEMS AND THEN TURN AROUND AND ENTER 'EM IN THE ERCOT SYSTEMS. AND SO THE INTEROP, THE LINKAGE, THE TRANSITION, THE FLEXI I'D LIKE, I HOPE THAT THAT WHATEVER THAT FORM THAT WE END UP HAVING TO SEND TO YOU, UM, IS AS FLEXIBLE AS YOU'VE BEEN PERSONALLY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS WORKING ON THIS THING. SO THAT I HAVE AN EASY TIME CONTINUING TO USE WHAT WE HAVE AND PULLING DATA OUT SO THAT I CAN GIVE IT TO YOU RATHER THAN HAVING TO DEAL WITH DUPLICATE ENTRIES AND [04:40:01] THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I'M SORRY I TRANSITIONED FROM THE ISSUE, THE, THE SUBJECT OF WHO'S RESPONSIBLE OR WHERE THE REPORT GOES TO ONE OF MY, ONE OF MY ISSUES. BUT I'LL STOP THERE. THANK, I'M SORRY. UH, I'LL STOP THERE WITH, UH, RICHARD ROSS, A EP THANK, THANK YOU, UH, SETH, UH, SETH WITH VIAL. JUST A QUICK QUESTION OR POINT. I THINK YOU SHOULD TRY TO PROVIDE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS YOU CAN FOR YOUR OWN GOOD AS WELL. 'CAUSE YOU COULD GET A LOT OF REQUESTS THAT ARE DUPLICATIVE OR PEOPLE HOARDING TO CERTAIN AREAS, WHEREAS IF THEY HAD MORE TRANSPARENCY IN THE PROCESS, THEN YOU MAY FIND YOURSELF WITH PEOPLE SAYING THINGS THAT ARE MORE INFORMED SO YOU WOULDN'T, UH, NECESSARILY GET BOMBARDED IN PARTICULAR LOCATIONS THAT WOULDN'T BE VIABLE IF EVERYONE WENT TO THAT PARTICULAR SPOT. YEAH, WE WOULD, I MEAN, I WOULD OBVIOUSLY LIKE TO SEE ALL THIS STUFF WORK AS SMOOTHLY AS POSSIBLE. AND I WOULD ALSO NOT LIKE TO HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF A BUNCH OF TIMES IF WE COULD MAKE THE INFORMATION. SO WE'RE GONNA TRY TO GET THE LANDING PAGE OUT THERE. SO IF WHEREVER WE END UP MAKING THIS REPORT, YOU DON'T KNOW, UH, YOU'RE, YOU WEREN'T AT THAT MEETING, YOU COULD AT LEAST GO OUT THERE AND STILL LOOK AT THAT. SO WE WILL TRY TO IMPROVE THAT PART. OKAY. AND I THINK MY PARTICULAR POINT IS THAT THERE'S, YOU TRY, TRY TO PUT IN AS MUCH SPATIAL GRANULARITY AS YOU CAN WITHOUT REVEALING, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S, THAT'S MY POINT. OUR, OUR OUR NEXT STEP IS TO GIVE THAT GRANULARITY ON LIKE THE, THE ONE QUESTION I'VE HEARD SO MUCH IS LIKE, OKAY OUTTA THAT 54, IS IT ALL CRYPTO OR IS IT SOME OTHER TYPE OF LEG? SO WE'RE GONNA TRY TO START PIECING THAT TOGETHER FOR FOLKS AND WHEN WE GET ENOUGH IN DIFFERENT AREAS, THEN WE MAY BE ABLE TO BREAK IT DOWN BY ZONE MORE THAN WE ARE ABLE TO DO TODAY. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. IAN? OKAY. NO, IAN DAVITA. HI. THANK YOU. THIS IS DAVITA DWYER. I'M ON COUNCIL WITH ERCOT AND I HEAR AND FIND IT VERY HELPFUL TO HEAR Y'ALL'S PERSPECTIVE REGARDING, UM, INCREASED TRANSPARENCY AND GRANULARITY OF INFORMATION. SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO LET Y'ALL KNOW SOME OF OUR PERSPECTIVE. WE CERTAINLY SUPPORT TRANSPARENCY TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN PROVIDE IT. IN P SECTION 17 0 0 4 A SIX CUSTOMERS ARE STATUTORILY ENTITLED TO THE PRIVACY OF THEIR CONSUMPTION AND THEIR CREDIT INFORMATION UNDER THAT STATUTE. THE PUC HAS ADOPTED CUSTOMER PROTECTION RULES AND ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THAT STATUTE. ERCOT IN OUR PROTOCOL SECTION 1.3, ADDRESSING PROTECTED INFORMATION HAS IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC TYPES OF CUSTOMER INFORMATION THAT IS PROTECTED AND CAN'T GENERALLY BE DISCLOSED BY ERCOT UNLESS THERE'S SOME SORT OF OTHER EXCEPTION, LIKE A PUC RULE THAT REQUIRES US TO DISCLOSE IT TO SOMEBODY LIKE A GOVERNMENTAL BODY. SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO IS PROVIDE INFORMATION, UM, PUBLICLY THAT PROVIDES AGGREGATED INFORMATION SO THAT, UM, THE MARKETPLACE AND ANYBODY WHO ELSE WHO IS INTERESTED IN THE PUBLIC HAS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCALE OF THE REQUESTS AND THE TYPES OF CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES POSED BY, UM, LARGER CUSTOMERS AND LARGE FLEXIBLE CUSTOMERS. BUT THE CHALLENGE IS THAT IF THE LEVEL OF GRANULARITY IS SUCH THAT, UM, THE INFORMATION THAT PROVIDED COULD, UM, MAKE IDENTIFIABLE A PARTICULAR ANUS CUSTOMER'S IDENTITY CONSUMPTION OR CREDIT INFORMATION, WE, WE CANNOT PROVIDE THAT. SO I SAY ALL OF THAT AS AN INVITATION FOR Y'ALL TO CONSIDER IF YOU THINK THAT THERE'S OTHER WAYS THAT WE CAN PROVIDE YOU INFORMATION, UM, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO YOU ALL WHILE STILL HONORING OUR, UM, STATUTORY AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS. THANKS VERY MUCH. THANKS DAVIDA. ALRIGHT, BILL, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK FROM US OR? THE PLAN IS YOU WILL COME TO TAC I WILL COME TO TAC AND, UH, AWAIT OTHER INSTRUCTIONS IF, UH, DOWN THE ROAD YOU GUYS THINK THERE'S A A, A BETTER PLACE FOR US TO DO THIS REPORTING. OKAY, THANK Y'ALL. THANK YOU. NEXT [13. Credit Finance Sub Group Report] IS THE CREDIT FINANCE SUBGROUP REPORT. HEY THERE. BRENDAN SAGER HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME ALL RIGHT? NO, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. REALLY? YOU CAN'T HEAR ME? HOW'S, HOW IS THIS, IS THAT BETTER? IT'S SLIGHTLY BETTER. SLIGHTLY BETTER? OKAY. WELL, YEAH, THIS IS, THAT WAS SLIGHTLY WORSE. OKAY. UM, ALRIGHT, WELL, WE'LL DO OUR BEST. I'LL, I'LL BE SHORT. UH, THIS IS FROM OUR, UH, SEPTEMBER 8TH MEET MEETING [04:45:01] YESTERDAY. UH, WE REVIEWED NPR R UM, AND THEN WE'RE CONTINUING TO REVIEW THE EAL UH, CHANGE CALCULATIONS, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE YOUR CREDIT OBLIGATIONS TO THE MARKET AND THE REGULAR CREDIT EXPOSURE UPDATES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THANKS. UM, THEY PROVIDED AN UPDATE ON NPR 1205. THIS FOLLOWS FROM THE, UH, RATINGS REQUIREMENTS CHANGE, UH, AND, UH, THEY'RE DOUBLING THEIR CREDIT LIMITS. UM, SO AS A RESULT OF THESE CHANGES, UH, THE, THESE BANKS ARE NO, WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTABLE TO ERCOT STARTING NOVEMBER 1ST. UH, YOU CAN SEE THOSE, UM, IF YOU KNOW, YOU'LL WANT TO REVIEW YOUR, UH, POSTINGS TO ERCOT, UM, CERTAINLY REACH OUT TO THEM. UH, THEY MADE, UH, CHANGES TO THE PERFORMANCE OR, OR THE SURETY BONDS, UM, TO, UH, RATINGS OF A MINUS AND A THREE. UH, ALSO NEED A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS CREDIT LIMIT APPLIED TO THE ENTIRE CORPORATE FAMILY. AND AM BEST CATEGORY 12. UH, THERE'S NO, ALL THE SURETY BONDS ARE IN GOOD SHAPE AND THAT'S, UH, THERE WAS A MARKET NOTICE SENT SEPTEMBER 10TH. NEXT SLIDE. OKAY, WE'RE CONTINUING TO LOOK AT THE ESTIMATE AGGREGATE LIABILITY, WHICH DETERMINES MOSTLY YOUR COLLATERAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE MARKET. UM, THE, UH, EALQ, THE THE EAL IS PRETTY MUCH DETERMINED BY, UH, YOUR MAX HISTORY OF, UH, YOUR REAL TIME LIABILITIES, UH, OVER THE, OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, UH, PLUS YOUR, UH, DAY AHEAD. UH, AND THESE ARE MULTIPLIED BY FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, UH, FORWARD MARKETS OVER SETTLED PRICES. UH, SO YOU CAN THINK OF AT ITS SIMPLEST LEVEL, IT'S THE FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTOR TIMES THE MAX 40 DAY REAL TIME INVOICE HISTORY, UH, AND REAL TIME. THE, THE REAL TIME IS THE MOST PROMINENT FEATURE IN THE EAL CALCULATION AND, UH, IT'S, IT'S APPLIED TO A MAX VALUE IN THE DAILY HISTORY. LOOK BACK. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, SO ERCOT HAS, THE CREDIT TEAM HAS, IS NEARING THE FINISH LINE ON, ON, UH, THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THIS AND THEIR OFFERING TO MOST MARKET PARTICIPANTS. UM, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUAL TIME TO GO OVER YOUR, UH, COLLATERAL HISTORY, YOUR OBLIGATION HISTORY. UH, WE, WE DID THAT TODAY. UM, AND IT WAS VERY, VERY INSIGHTFUL. UM, SO CERTAINLY REACH OUT TO THEM, THEM IF YOU, UH, WOULD LIKE TO GO OVER THAT. UM, AND THEY'RE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK TOO. UH, SO BASICALLY WHAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS, IS, YOU KNOW, TAKING THE EXISTING FORMULA AND TRYING TO MATCH IT MATCH THE, UH, OBLIGATIONS TO THE INVOICES, UH, MORE EFFECTIVELY. UM, SO THEIR NET 40 DAY LOOK BACK PERIOD TO 20 DAYS AFTER SUMMER, UM, THEY, BRENDAN YOU'RE DROPPING OUT ON US. CAN YOU HEAR US BRENDAN, WHILE WE'RE WAITING? I WAS GONNA ASK, UM, THIS SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL POTENTIAL PROPOSED CHANGE. UM, AND UM, I APPRECIATE THAT, UM, THE LEADERSHIP OF THIS SUBGROUP WHO'S BEEN GIVING US UPDATES ON AN ONGOING BASIS ON THIS. BUT I'D LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE RCAC CREDIT DEPARTMENT DURING THIS ANALYSIS COME TO TAC AND GIVE A PRESENTATION ABOUT, ABOUT THIS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. I'D LIKE TO GET SOME INSIGHT INTO IT AT A FUTURE TAC MEETING. I SEE I RAISED THE AUSTIN SIGNAL. OKAY, THANKS FOR THAT FEEDBACK. I'LL TAKE THAT TO THE CREDIT TEAM AND WE DEFINITELY CAN DO THAT. I GUESS WE'RE, LIKE BRANDON SAID, WE'RE GETTING NEAR THE FINISH LINE. WE'RE NOT THERE YET, SO IT MIGHT BE A COUPLE MONTHS. THAT'S FINE. AND THIS DEFINITELY WOULD RESULT IN A-N-P-R-R. SO YOU WANTING, I APPRECIATE, I'D LIKE TO GET MAYBE SOME AHEAD OF THE NPRR. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ASK. OKAY, GOT IT. THANKS ERIC. BRENDAN, YOU STILL THERE? [04:50:01] ON A RELATED TOPIC, I WAS GONNA RAISE THIS IN OTHER BUSINESS, BUT IT SEEMS PERFECTLY TIME NOW. COULD WE TALK ABOUT THE AUDIO ISSUES IN THIS ROOM? UM, WE CONSISTENTLY HEAR FROM PEOPLE ON THE PHONE THAT THEY CAN HEAR EACH OTHER VERY CLEARLY, BUT WE CAN'T HEAR THEM WHEN THEY HEAR EACH OTHER VERY CLEARLY. UM, AND I WONDER IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. UM, I, I KNOW IT'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE, UH, BUT IF THERE COULD BE SOME SORT OF LOOK INTO IT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE CONSISTENTLY HAD THIS ISSUE SINCE WE MOVED INTO THIS BUILDING TECHNICAL ISSUE FOR THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WE'LL LOOK INTO IT. . YEAH, SORRY BRENDAN, WE CANNOT HEAR YOU AT ALL NOW I LORETTO ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO FILL IN? CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? YES. ALRIGHT, SO TAKING OVER WHERE BRANDON LEFT OFF, UM, WHAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT IS NETTING REAL TIME AND DAY AHEAD WITH IN, WITH A FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, SHORTENING THE 40 DAY LOOK BACK TO 20 DAYS AFTER SUMMER. UM, WE'VE ALSO INCLUDED LOWERING THE FLOOR ON THE RFAF AS IT IS APPLIED TO THE NLE FROM ONE TO 7.75 AND 0.5 JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS THE PRICES ARE DECREASING AFTER AN EVENT, IT MAKES SENSE NOT TO KEEP IT AT ONE AND, AND CALCULATE THAT HIGHER PRICE GOING FORWARD. UM, UH, WE'VE BEEN TASKED, WE'VE TASKED ERCOT TO CONSIDER PUTTING A CAP ON THE FAF AS IT APPLI AS IT IS APPLIED TO THIS NLE ERCO FAVORS NO CAP. WHILE MANY IN THE GROUP WANT A CAP, ERCOT GONNA DO SOME FURTHER ANALYSIS. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL COST BENEFIT AND IMPACT ANALYSIS TO COME. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MINIMIZE THE NEGATIVE COLLATERAL GAPS AND ALSO MINIMIZE THE POSITIVE CREDIT GAPS. 'CAUSE WE DON'T WANNA OVER COLLATERALIZE, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO GET CREDIT RIGHT SIZED. AND LET ME ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY THAT WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS BEFOREHAND. YOU KNOW, OUR CREDIT FINANCE SUBGROUP MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO PARTICIPATION FROM EVERYBODY. IT'S ONLY THE MEMBERS THAT VOTE, BUT ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE CREDIT MEETINGS. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, SETH, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THE SLIDE? UH, I, I'LL REFRAIN, I'LL, I'LL KEEP, I'LL JUST KEEP IT A HIGH LEVEL. I I WAS GONNA GO IN THE WEEDS, BUT I, OKAY, GO AHEAD. OKAY, SO, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUSLY WE'VE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE UM, RFAF DATA AND UNFORTUNATELY THIS WAS BRENDAN'S PRESENTATION. I WAS NOT PREPARED TO DO THIS. SO I MEAN, I'M JUST GONNA LEAVE IT AS HIGH LEVEL THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE LOOKED AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO A HAPPY MEDIUM ON THIS STUFF. UM, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE DID REVIEW SEVERAL NPR R WHERE THEY WERE ALL OPERATIONAL, SO NONE OF THEM HAD CREDIT CONTACT OR CREDIT IMPLICATIONS AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE APPROVED THEM AS THAT. AND NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND OVERALL, FROM JULY TO AUGUST, 2024, TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE INCREASED FROM 1.81 BILLION IN JULY TO 1.88 BILLION IN AUGUST TPE INCREASED, MOSTLY DUE TO HIGHER REALTIME AND DAY AHEAD PRICES. DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL IS DEFINED AS SECURED COLLATERAL AND EXCESSIVE TPE AND CRR LOCKED AND AC AND DAM EXPOSURE. AVERAGE DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL INCREASED FROM 4.15 BILLION IN JULY TO 4.23 BILLION IN AUGUST. THERE WAS NO UNUSUAL COLLATERAL CALL ACTIVITY DURING AUGUST. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS IS THE USUAL COMPARISON OF THE PAST YEAR STATING WHAT TYPES OF CREDIT EXPOSURE THERE WAS AND WHAT TYPES OF COLLATERAL WAS POSTED VIA UNSECURED, WHICH IS NO LONGER THERE. UNSECURED GUARANTEES NO LONGER THERE. SURETY BONDS, LETTERS OF CREDIT, CASH, TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE. AND THEN THE MAX TPE FOR THE MONTH. NEXT SLIDE. AND THIS IS JUST THE NORMAL BREAKDOWN BETWEEN THE TYPES OF EX OF COLLATERAL POSTED AT ERCOT VIA IT, WHETHER IT'S THE TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE OR CRR IS LOCKED FOR YOUR CR CREDIT LOCKED FOR CRR [04:55:01] ACTIVITY OR DAM EXPOSURE. AND THE TEAL AT THE TOP IS THE DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL AT ERCOT. NEXT SLIDE. UM, I THINK IT WAS NPR 1205 INCREASED THE, THE COLLATERAL LIMITS FOR THE BANKS AND THIS IS JUST THE USUAL MONTHLY SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE BANKS AND THE AMOUNT OF COLLATERAL EACH ONE IS PROVIDING TO MARKET PARTICIPANTS. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY OVER COLLATERALIZED. ONE IS CLOSE BUT IS STILL UNDER A HUNDRED PERCENT. UM, AND I THINK THE SIX THAT ARE NO LONGER GOING TO BE ACCEPTED COME NOVEMBER ONE OR DOWN IN THE OTHER 29 BANKS. NEXT SLIDE. ANY QUESTIONS? NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS. LORETO, THANK YOU FOR JUMPING IN. NOT A PROBLEM. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, NOW [14. RTC+B Task Force Report] WE'RE ITEM 14 RTC PLUS B TASK FORCE REPORT, MATT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU COREY. ALRIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON TAC, THANKS FOR HAVING ME. THIS WILL BE KIND OF A TWO PART PRESENTATION. I'M GONNA DO SOMEWHAT THE USUAL SLIDES AND THEN I WILL TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO GO THROUGH, UM, THE AS DEMAND CURVE WHITE PAPER. AGAIN, THIS IS THE IDEA IS DISCUSSION AT LAST MONTH'S T THERE IS SOME CONFUSION AND LET'S JUST GET SOMETHING DOWN IN ONE PLACE. SO I JUST WANTED TO DO A SPEED READ ON THAT FOR YOU. SO IN TERMS OF THE BIG NEWS, WE HAD THE GO LIVE ANNOUNCEMENT LAST WEEK. UM, THIS IS AFTER A LOT OF WORK, UH, BOTH WITH THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS, MARKET TRIALS, MEASURING HOW THE SEQUENCE WOULD FIT TOGETHER WITH THE, OUR DEVELOPMENT OUR SOFTWARE VENDOR IS, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR PRIMARY ONE IS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. THE PROGRAM IS DOING WELL AT THIS POINT AND WE ARE ABLE TO LINE UP AND TICK AND TIE ALL OF THE INTERDEPENDENCIES TO GET US TO A GO LIVE THAT DOES MEET KIND OF THIS INDICATIVE VIEW WE'VE SEEN, WHICH IS THAT LATE 2025 MARKET TRIALS PIECE. UH, THE RED BOX IS SOMETHING WE JUST IS NOT IN THE MARKET NOTICE. SO I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT TO Y'ALL IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE USING THE WORD TARGET GO LIVE. THERE'S NEVER A GUARANTEE OF GO LIVE, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE HIGH CONFIDENCE IN AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND WE'LL CONTINUE AS WE GO THROUGH THESE MILESTONES OVER TIME TO CONTINUE TO MEASURE AND ASSESS WHERE WE'RE AT. BUT FROM A, UH, FROM A PROJECT STANDPOINT AND A POSTURE FOR NEXT YEAR, UH, ERCOT IS WELL POSITIONED TO DO THIS. SO, AND AGAIN, I I PUT LINKS TO THE MARKET NOTICE, THERE'S A PRESS RELEASE. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THE MARKET NOTICE DOESN'T POP IF THE PRESS RELEASE HELPS OR THE TRENDING TOPIC PAPER HELP THAT MAY BE A HAND AROUND FOR YOUR, UH, OFFICE WORKERS. IF IT HELPS CONNECT THE DOTS IN TERMS OF THIS GRAPHIC, WE'LL BE UPDATED WITH DATES. I'M UPDATING RIGHT NOW ACTUALLY FOR THE BOARD, UH, MEETING IN A COUPLE WEEKS. BUT ESSENTIALLY MAY 5TH IS WHEN WE'LL START MARKET TRIALS. AND DECEMBER 5TH IS WHEN WE GO LIVE. SO IT'S JUST LINING UP THOSE DATES IN BETWEEN THAT WE'LL BE FILLING IN THE GAPS ON. ANOTHER PIECE IS WE'VE HAD THIS ISSUES LIST KIND OF HANGING ON. UH, DAVE AND I HAVEN'T BEEN HUGE FANS OF OUR OWN TOOL. I HAVEN'T BEEN A FAN OF THE TOOL, I WON'T SPEAK FOR DAVE, BUT IT'S THESE 20 THINGS. SO WHAT WE DID IS WE OPENED UP THE LIST, WENT THROUGH IT, UH, DISPOSED OF A LOT OF THEM AT THE TASK FORCES, WHAT WAS MET, ESPECIALLY IN THE CLARIFYING, NPRS CHECKED A LOT OF BOXES. AND THEN THE IDEA IS WHAT IS OUR, WHAT IS THE MARCH TO GO LIVE? SO IF WE HAVE A GO LIVE DATE IN DECEMBER, MARKET TRIALS START IN MAY OF 2025 AND WE MAY HAVE THIS APRIL, 2025 REFACTORING THAT LAST MONTH TO KIND OF RECONFIGURE SOME THINGS BEFORE MARKET TRIALS. THEN WE REALIZE THAT CERTAIN POLICIES NEED TO BE SET IN TIME FOR MARKET TRIALS AND ULTIMATELY GO LIVE, WHETHER THOSE ARE HERE, WHETHER THEY'RE THE COMMISSION, WHEREVER IT IS, WE WANTED TO GIVE A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT TO THESE, UM, TOPICS THAT MAY BE A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT, UH, TO RESOLVE. SO THE WAY WE'VE LAID THIS OUT IS THE TOP, UM, FIVE OF THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY PARAMETER AND POLICY DEFINED ONES THAT WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT. THE NEXT ONE IS THE, UH, SIMULATOR ANALYSIS. IT'S THE IDEA OF THE RT SIMULATOR WILL BE UP AND RUNNING. IT IS ALREADY UP AND WE'RE GONNA PROVIDE, UH, SOME STUDIES TO THE OCTOBER PIECE, BUT THAT'LL BE SOMETHING THAT KIND OF RUNS IN PARALLEL TO THESE POLICY TYPE ISSUES. AND THEN MORE DETAILS ON THE MARKET READINESS, UH, PROGRESSION. SO WE LUMPED A LOT OF THE MARKET TRIALS PIECES INTO A PROGRESSION AND I WANNA START TO GIVE A STEP DOWN TO THAT EVOLUTION AND KIND OF GO LIVE AT THE MARKET TRIAL ACTIVITIES. WHEN WILL WE HAVE THE HANDBOOKS DONE WHEN WE'LL BE REVIEWING THOSE? SO AGAIN, THIS WILL KIND OF GIVE US THAT MARCH TO THE FINISH OF STEPPING STONES THAT WE NEED TO GET THERE RATHER THAN JUST HODGEPODGE LIST. UH, AND THE ONES THAT ARE IN GREEN ARE ONES THAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE. SO I DIDN'T TRY TO TAKE CREDIT OR MAKE THINGS GREEN HERE, BUT IT'S ACKNOWLEDGING THERE'S ALREADY BEEN PROGRESS IN THAT AREA. SO THIS IS WHERE I WANNA PAUSE, TAKE A BREATH, SLOW DOWN AND KIND [05:00:01] OF UNPACK WHAT'S COOKING AT THE RTCB TASK FORCE. UM, SO ISSUE ONE, THE INITIAL REVIEW OF PARAMETERS FOR AS PROXY OFFER CURVES. THAT'S A LONG WAY OF SAYING IF A QUEASY DOESN'T COMMIT, DOESN'T COMPLETE AN OFFER FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES, WHAT NUMBER DO YOU PUT IN ITS PLACE? IF IT'S AN ENERGY OFFER CURVE RIGHT NOW, IT GOES UP TO THE CAP IS HOW WE COMPLETE IT FOR THE ENERGY FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES. WE'VE UNPACKED THE LOGIC OF THIS AND THE LOGIC IS NOT SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND. THERE'S KIND OF A CASCADING LOGIC TO WHERE IF IT'S NOT HERE IN REGULATION BUT IT WAS OFFERED IN RESPONSIVE, DO WE GO TO THAT ONE AND THAT ONE. SO IT'S KIND OF SOME PRIORITIES OF HOW THINGS CASCADE AMONG THEMSELVES. BUT AGAIN, THE PROXY OFFER COULD BE AT THE OFFER CAP. UH, ERCOT RECOMMENDS IT BE AT ZERO OR SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN OR EXTENDING THE LAST HIGHEST OFFER IN THE FLEET. SO THIS'LL BE KIND OF A TOUGH NUT TO CRACK OR I'LL CALL IT A HOT TOPIC. UH, WE HAVE ANOTHER COUPLE CRACKS AT THIS. IT'S THE IDEA THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER. UM, AND THE THING IS, THIS IS A TAC APPROVED VALUE PER PROTOCOLS AND THAT'S WHAT WE'LL PUT IN FOR GO LIVE. BUT I KNOW THIS MAY END UP BEING BIGGER THAN ATTACK CONVERSATION. THIS MAY BE THINGS THAT START TO GET PULLED IN. UH, SO IT'S JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT THIS IS A, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL NEED TO KEEP AN EYE ON. COREY, WHAT DID I DO? THERE IT IS. OKAY. UH, THE NEXT ONE A LITTLE EASIER. THE CLARIFYING NPRS THANK YOU PRS FOR THE APPROVAL 1245 AND KEEPING THAT GOING. UH, 1246 AND THAT ALPHABET SOUP BEHIND IT IS THE CLARIFICATIONS FOR SINGLE MODEL. THAT'S THE RIPPLE EFFECT. WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT CLEARED OUT BY THE END OF THE YEAR. AND THEN THE RTC SIMULATOR UPDATE, SO THIS IS ERCOT NOW HAS THE TOOLS TO LOAD UP A SAVE CASE FROM SEPTEMBER OF 2023, RUN IT THROUGH RTC CODE AND SEE WHAT THE PRICE FORMATION IS. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE TASK FORCE HAS BEEN WAITING ON AND WE COMMITTED TO BRINGING THREE OPERATING DAYS OF STUDIES BACK TO THE NEXT TASK FORCE MEETING. SO THAT'LL BE KEY IN THAT POINT. THE NEXT ONE IS A MARKET TRIALS PLAN REVIEW. THAT WAS THE, UM, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS QUITE A FEW TIMES. IT'S THE WHAT DOES THAT PROGRESSION MARK MARKET TRIALS LOOK LIKE FOR EVERY ONE OF THESE BOXES WE HAVE A ONE PAGER OF WHAT ARE THE DETAILS BEHIND IT. SO WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT, BUT IT'S COMING TO A CLOSE. AND THEN THE LAST DISCUSSION WAS THE AS DEMAND CURVES, I'M SORRY, WAS SORRY, ISSUE 10 MARKET TRIALS PLAN. THE NEXT ONE IS DISCUSS THE APPROACH TO TRAINING READINESS. SO I PUT TOGETHER KIND OF A, A TRAINING COMPONENT, WHITE PAPER. IT'S THREE PAGES. IT SAYS FOR AN EXECUTIVE GROUP, HERE'S THE TYPE OF FIVE TO SEVEN MINUTE PRESENTATION WE THINK THEY NEED. HERE'S WHAT THE OUTLINE OF IT IS, WHAT DO YOU THINK TASK FORCE? NEXT ONE, WHAT'S THE 30 MINUTE PRIMER LOOK LIKE FOR A BASIC QUEASY? NEXT ONE, WHAT DO MARKETERS NEED? NEXT ONE. SO WE LAID THAT OUT. WE'RE GETTING RED LINES FROM THAT. EITHER WAY WE'RE GOING TO, WE ERCOT ARE GONNA KIND OF PRESS INTO THIS TOP TWO ONES TO GET 'EM GOING. 'CAUSE WE KNOW WITH AN ANNOUNCEMENT LIKE THIS QUESTIONS START TO BE ASKED OF Y'ALL TO SAY WHAT IS RTC AND HOW DOES IT WORK? SO WE'RE TRYING TO JUST IN TIME GET THAT UP AND RUNNING IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. AND THOSE WILL BE MORE OR LESS STANDALONE VIDEOS. VIDEOS, NOT WITH LIKE OUR FACES, BUT MAYBE A WALKTHROUGH OF A POWERPOINT WITH A VOICEOVER OF HOW THESE THINGS WORK. AND THEN ON ISSUE 18, THIS IS THE PLACEHOLDER WE'VE HAD FOR THE MARKET, UM, DISCUSSIONS OF THE AS DEMAND CURVES. AND I'LL PARK THAT ONE FOR A MINUTE. AND THEN ALSO I DIDN'T BRING THIS TO THE LAST TECH MEETING. UH, SHAMS HAD ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERNS WITH THE AS INDIFFERENCE PAYMENTS AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AND ADDED INTO SCOPE, UH, FOR REAL TIME CO OPTIMIZATION. SO I HAVE A LINK TO HIS, UM, PROCESS ON THAT ONE. AT THIS POINT, THE TASK FORCE HASN'T TAKEN IT AND WE'RE NOT MARCHING IT ANYWHERE, BUT JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THAT WAS AN IDEA BROUGHT FORWARD. SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA PIVOT OVER TO OUR NEXT MEETING IS OCTOBER 22ND. BUT I DO WANNA GO OVER TO THIS WHITE PAPER AND JUST GIVE YOU A QUICK PRIMER ON IT. I KNOW COREY'S STANDING BY. HE'S LIKE, HE'S GONNA HURT HIMSELF. ALRIGHT, THERE WE GO. FOX IN A BOX. OKAY, SO IN TERMS OF THE AS DEMAND CURVE, WHAT I'VE DONE IS JUST THROW IT IN HERE. IF IT'S NOT RIGHT, I APOLOGIZE. BUT IT'S JUST KIND OF HERDING DATA FROM MULTIPLE MARKET MEETINGS. HALLWAY CONVERSATIONS IN 2019 FORWARD HISTORY OF RTC INTO ONE PLACE ON THESE AS DEMAND CURVES. AND SO IF YOU DON'T KNOW IN AN AS DEMAND CURVE, WE EVEN DEFINE IT IN THIS PAPER. BUT THE IDEA IS IT'S AN EXPLANATION OF THE HISTORICAL NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AS DEMAND CURVES TO SUPPORT REALTIME CO OPTIMIZATION. UH, WE HAVE APPROVED PROTOCOLS ALREADY DEFINED, BUT THERE IS CONCERN WHETHER OR NOT THESE CURVES SHOULD BE MODIFIED. THE PURPOSE OF THE AS DEMAND CURVES IS TO CREATE A VALUE OR A PRICE AS RESERVES BECOME SCARCE. AND THAT'S DEFINED PER PROTOCOLS. A BACKGROUND IS THAT BACK IN 2010. SO I GO BACK FOR A HISTORY LESSON 2010, REALTIME MARKET HAD LOW REALTIME ENERGY PRICES EVEN WHEN RESERVES WERE SCARCE. DUE TO THE LACK OF THIS, IT WAS AGREED TO IMPLEMENT AN [05:05:01] ORDC. AND DURING THE DEVELOPMENT THAT ORDC, THERE'S ALSO THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT MOST OTHER MARKETS HAVE THESE SPECIFIC AS DEMAND CURVES. SO WE DON'T NEED THIS BIG CURVE IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC CURVES AND SHORTAGES OF YOUR AS DEMAND. SO YEARS LATER IN 2019 YOU ROLL FORWARD AND REALTIME CO OPTIMIZATION IS OFF AND RUNNING. UH, COMMISSION STAFF WAS ASKED TO ASSIST IN SOME DESIGN ELEMENTS AND THEY GAVE US THAT DIRECTION IN A MEMO. UM, AND PART OF IT WAS COMMISSION STAFF HAD SOME, UM, YOU KNOW, FILED A MEMORANDUM RECOMMENDING THAT THE DESIGN OF THE AS MAIN CURVES REPLICATE AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE PRICING OUTCOMES OF THE ORDC TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING, UH, MARKET MARK MEM. AND UM, AND THEN IT WAS CHAIRMAN WALKER FILED THE MEMO AND THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE TOOK WAS COMMISSION STAFF, I'M SORRY, AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF REGARDING THE DESIGNS OF THE AS DEMAND CURVES. THESE DEMAND CURVES SHOULD BE DESIGNED FOR RTC TO REPLICATE THE PRICING OUTCOMES OF THE ORDC. FURTHERMORE, THE SET OF ANCILLARY SERVICES APPROVED BY THE ERCOT BOARD IN NPR 8 63 SHOULD FORM THE BASIS FOR THAT DESIGN. SO WITH THAT, ERCOT CAME TO THE TASK FORCE, THE RTC TASK FORCE AT THE TIME, AND WE SLICED THE RESERVES UP UNDER THE CURVE AND WE DID ALSO INTERSPERSE SOME LOWER VALUE SERVICES TO CREATE A, UH, A RAMP SHAPE. WE USED THE POWER BALANCE PENALTY CURVE AND ERCOT PROPOSED THIS THING. AND SO SHAMS AS PART OF THAT PROCESS HAD ANOTHER PROPOSAL THAT SAID, WELL, WHY DON'T WE JUST, INSTEAD OF HAVING THESE INTERSPERSED PIECES, JUST DO IT IN STRAIGHT BLOCKS. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT TACKED THEN APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2019. THAT WAS THE KEY PRINCIPLE THAT WAS ADOPTED. IT IS PART OF NPR 1008. THOSE CURVES WERE PUT INTO PROTOCOLS AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD. SO THAT IN A WAY WOULD SETTLE THE MATTER. AND BRINGS US TO TODAY. SO IF WE'RE GOOD THERE, I'LL JUST TAKE TWO MORE MINUTES TO KINDA LAY OUT WHERE WE GOING NOW. SO ALTHOUGH THE POLICY DECISION WAS SETTLED IN 2020, EVEN IN FEBRUARY, PEOPLE WERE KNOCKING ON THE DOOR AND SAYING WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS. AND ERCOT PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF HOW IT WORKED USING THE PROTOCOL, UH, REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN ALSO THE IMM STARTED TO MEET WITH THE ERCOT IN THE, IN AUGUST TALK ABOUT THIS MAY NOT BE QUITE RIGHT. SO AS OF SEPTEMBER, THE DISCUSSIONS AT THE R-T-C-B-T-F, SO WHAT WE'VE HAD AT THE TASK FORCE, I WANNA WALK THOSE OUT AND THOSE IN THE ROOM CAN REPRESENT THEIR PIECE TOO. SO ERHA T'S UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE'S TWO DISTINCT ISSUES. NUMBER ONE IS THAT THE CURRENT ORDC SHAPE IS NOT ACCURATE DUE TO THE IMPACTS OF CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS AND THAT IT SHOULD BE CHANGED. THE SECOND PIECE IS THAT THE SHAPE OF THE ASCS UNDER THAT CURVE NEED TO BE CHANGED. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO PIECES. SO REGARDING THE SHAPE OF THE EXISTING ORDC, ERCOT IS CURRENTLY ANALYZING IN PREPARING THE ORDC BIENNIAL STUDY, THAT'LL BE FILED BY NOVEMBER 1ST AND THAT ANALYSIS MAY IDENTIFY AREAS FOR POTENTIAL CHANGE. HOWEVER, TO DATE, ERCOT HAS NOT OBSERVED ANY OPERATIONAL CONCERNS. SO THAT'S JUST A DATA POINT. NEXT PIECE IS VISTA THROUGH TCPA. COMMENTS RAISED CONCERNS THAT THE SHAPE MAY NOT ALIGN WITH MARKET OUTCOMES, UM, PARTICULARLY RELATED TO ERCOT COMMIT CAPACITY TARGETS, BUT HAS NOT MADE A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL AT THIS POINT. AND THAT THE SIMULATOR, THE RTC SIMULATOR THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER TO RERUN OPERATING DAYS MAY HELP TO SHAPE THAT DISCUSSION. HUNT ENERGY ALSO HAD THREE OR FOUR SLIDES OF QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT CHANGES. UM, SOME RELATING TO THE ORDC CALCULATIONS TO IGNORE OFFLINE RESERVES, UH, FULLY ELIMINATING THE VALUE OF LOSS LOAD SYSTEM LAMBDA AND SOME OTHER PIECES HERE. AND THEN I DID PUT AN END NOTE THERE. UH, SHAMS DID ASK, I GO AHEAD AND PUT IN HIS FULL DESCRIPTION. THAT'S AT THE END OF THE DOCUMENT IN THE APPENDIX. AND THEN AT THE SEPTEMBER 13TH MEETING, UH, PEOPLE STARTED TO KEY IN ON THE MEM AND WHETHER OR NOT IF ORDT WAS BUR BASED ON THE MEM BACK IN 2019. NOW WHAT IS O RT C BASED ON WHETHER TO REVISIT THAT. SO THAT'S THE RDC BUCKET. NOW WE GO TO THE AS DEMAND CURVE BUCKET. UH, STAKEHOLDERS ON BOTH SIDES, INCLUDING THE IMM, HAVE RAISED CONCERNS THAT THE ASCS MAY NOT REFLECT THE VALUE OF EACH AS PRODUCT IN TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IMM BELIEVES THAT A RAMP IN FOR THE DEMAND CURVES, UH, IS KEY TO AVOID THE FIRST MEGAWATT BEING PRICED AT THE CAB. SO EXAMPLE, NOT HAVING REG UP FIRST MEGAWATT SHORT OF REGULATION THAT THE PRICE GOES UP TO 5,000. UH, BUT THE IMM HAS NOT YET PROPOSED AN ALTERNATIVE. ALSO, SHELL THROUGH TCPA COMMENTS, THE LINKS THERE PROPOSED HOW TO REDISTRIBUTE PARTS OF THE DIFFERENT SERVICES UNDER THAT CURVE. SO KIND OF A REDISTRIBUTION, REDISTRIBUTION OF SOME SERVICES AND THEN HUNT ENERGY AGAINST SHAMS. UM, PART OF THIS ABOVE DID DEAL WITH THE DEMAND CURVES THEMSELVES. [05:10:02] AND SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US TODAY? SO ERCOT IS PLANNING TO HAVE THE RTC SIMULATOR UP AND RUNNING. IT IS RUNNING AND WE WILL PROVIDE THE FIRST DEGREE OPERATING DAYS, BUT WE WILL, UM, HAVE SOME CAPACITY AND COULD PROVIDE ANALYSIS FOR STUDYING CHANGES TO A SD DEMAND CURVES IF NEEDED FROM A POLICY UH, STANDPOINT. AND ALTHOUGH THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING CONSIDERED ABSENT ANY APPROVED CHANGES IN THE NEAR FUTURE, ERCOT DOES HAVE A CURRENT ORDC AND A SDC DESIGN APPROVED IN PROTOCOLS FOR IMPLEMENTATION. SO THE WHOLE IDEA OF THIS MEMO IS TO SHAKE THE TREE A LITTLE BIT AND SAY, IF WE'RE GONNA SOLVE ANY ISSUES THAT ARE GONNA STOP US FROM GO LIVE, LET'S GET TO THEM. NOW FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US IS A TOOL THAT MAY HELP THE RTC SIMULATOR WILL BE UP AND RUNNING IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND STARTING NEXT MONTH. SO STUDIES ARE NEEDED IF PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE SOMETHING TO THE PUC OR BRING IT TO THE TASK FORCE AS A IDEA, THAT'S THE PLACE TO GET ALL THIS STUFF OUT NOW. BUT THIS ALL NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED TO THAT OTHER CHART I SHOWED SO THAT WE CAN RECONFIGURE ANYTHING IN APRIL, WHICH IS JUST MONTHS AWAY TO PREPARE FOR MARKET TRIALS AND GO LIVE. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN ALL, THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION IN THE WHITE PAPER AND OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. SO MATT, WHAT FOUNDATIONAL PIECES ARE YOU MISSING THAT YOU'RE EXPECTING TO COME IN FOUNDATIONAL? I AM FROM AN INPUT STANDPOINT, CONCERNED WITH THE RISK OF LAST MINUTE CHANGES IN POLICY THAT ARE SOMETHING THAT COULD NOT BE ACCOMMODATED AND WOULD STOP US FROM GOING LIVE. SO THE IDEA IS SPEAK NOW, LET'S GET THESE THINGS OUT ON THE TABLE TO BE DEALT WITH AT A POLICY STANDPOINT IF NEEDED. AGAIN, ERCOT HAS WHAT IT HAS IN PROTOCOLS, BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ANYTHING THAT'S BEING ESCALATED NEEDED FROM WHETHER IT'S THE ERCOT BOARD, THE COMMISSION, AND WHERE THOSE THINGS LAND, WOW, WE WOULD WANNA TAKE CARE OF THOSE AHEAD OF TIME. SO WE'RE KIND OF IN THIS, WE HAVE THREE MONTHS TO KIND OF SIFT THROUGH THESE, PRIORITIZE THEM AND GET A GAME PLAN. BUT ABSENT A GAME PLAN, WE COULD JUST CLOSE, I'M SORRY, I'LL JUST SIDELINE AS AN IMPLEMENTER. I CAN CLOSE MY EYES AND SAY, I HOPE WE GO LIVE ON TIME. WE'LL HAVE THE SYSTEMS READY, WE'LL HAVE ALL THIS READY, BUT FOR THE POLICY ISSUES. SO THIS IS GETTING THE POLICY ISSUES UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT NOW AND THIS IS, I HOPE, A VEHICLE TO HELP GET PEOPLE TO THE TABLE ON THAT ISSUE. AND SO FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, I MEAN YOU NOTED THE, WE'RE WE'RE STILL WAITING ON SOME CON CONTENT FROM THE IMM. WHEN DOES THAT DOOR CLOSE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT DEPENDS ON THE CONTENT. UM, INTERNALLY WHAT WE'RE HOPING IS THAT ANY AND ALL IDEAS ARE OUT ON THE TABLE BY THE END OF THE YEAR AND THEN WHETHER OR NOT IT'S THE PUC WOULD BE THE ONES TO KIND OF OPEN THE DOOR ON THESE POLICY DECISIONS AND THEN WHETHER OR NOT IT'S HANDLED THERE OR THROUGH THE ERCOT STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO THEN DO A SPRINT ON THOSE POLICY ISSUES, UH, TO HAVE THOSE RESOLVED BY APRIL, 2025. BILL, THAT ADDRESSED ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, WHICH WAS WHAT DOES QUOTE IN THE NEAR FUTURE MEANS? SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IDENTIFY THE ISSUES BY DECEMBER, TEE 'EM UP FOR DECISION BY THE FINAL DECISION BY THE PUCT BY APRIL, THEN, THEN THAT CAN BE INCORPORATED IN THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE RTC. YES. OKAY, THEN, UH, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO A DIFFERENT ISSUE. I APOLOGIZE I MISSED THE LAST RTC MEETING. WHAT WAS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR ERCOT RECOMMENDING A $0 PROXY OFFER? DAVE, DO YOU WANNA TACKLE THAT ONE? YEAH, SURE, I CAN DO THAT. SO AS, SORRY, WE DID HAVE SOME SLIDES THAT KIND OF WENT THROUGH THIS BILL, AND I'M HAPPY TO YOU WALK THROUGH THE, WITH YOU MORE DETAIL. UH, AGAIN, I WILL SAY THIS IS OUR INITIAL PROPOSAL, SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY WHY WE'LL HAVE THE DISCUSSION GOING ON, UH, WITH THE, THE TASK FORCE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MEETINGS. UM, SOME OF THE COMPONENTS THAT WE WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE PROXY OFFER, IT IS THE PROXY OFFER FLOOR IF NO OFFER IS SUBMITTED. SO TO THE DEGREE THE THE QSE IS SUBMITTING ANCILLARY SERVICES, THE, THE PRIMARY METHOD WOULD BE TO DO AN EXTENSION OF THE, THE HIGHEST OFFER THAT THAT WAS ALREADY SUBMITTED. SO THAT WAS, I WOULD SAY, ONE COMPONENT OF IT. THE OTHER THING THAT WE'VE POINTED OUT IN OUR DISCUSSION IS IN OUR MIND, A $0 PER MEGAWATT OFFER IS GENERALLY A, A RATIONAL OFFER FOR ANSLEY SERVICES INTO THE REAL TIME MARKET. YOU DO SEE, OF COURSE, OFFERS ABOVE THAT. A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH RISK THAT PEOPLE HAVE IN TERMS OF RESOURCE AVAILABILITY, IN PARTICULAR IN THE DAY AHEAD MARKET. REALLY, A LOT OF THOSE RISKS ALL DISAPPEAR WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OFFERS INTO, UH, THE REAL TIME MARKET WHERE YOU KNOW EXACTLY THAT YOUR RESOURCE IS AVAILABLE, CERTAINLY, AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES. SO THOSE ARE A COUPLE OF COMPONENTS. UM, WE ALSO HAD SHARED SOME ANALYSIS. UM, I, I GUESS HAPPY TO ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS [05:15:01] OR, OR PERHAPS TAKE THAT OFFLINE, BUT PERHAPS I'LL STOP THERE FOR NOW. YEAH, NO, I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN TAKE THIS BACK UP AT THE OCTOBER 22ND RTC MEETING. THANKS, ERIC. UM, I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR DOING EVERYTHING YOU COULD TO ACCELERATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RTC. WE'VE BEEN WAITING A REALLY LONG TIME FOR IT. UM, AND I, I'M SURE THAT Y'ALL HAD TO MAKE SOME TOUGH DECISIONS TO DO THAT, SO I, I APPRECIATE IT. UM, I, I THINK AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE RELATED TO THIS SET OF TOPICS IS, UM, HOW WILL IT CHANGE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO SAY THIS? UM, HOW WILL THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION'S RULES VIEW CHANGES TO THIS AS IT RELATES TO CHANGES IN, UM, FIXED PRICE OFFERS FROM EPS? I KNOW THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO SOLVE, BUT I'M, I'M VERY CURIOUS ABOUT HOW THE COMMISSION WOULD REACT TO THAT, UM, AS IT WILL POTENTIALLY IMPACT, UM, RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO KIND OF TRUE THINGS UP, BUT I, I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER RELATED ISSUE. UM, AND SO, UM, I THINK THE COMMISSION'S, YOU KNOW, PARTICIPATION IN THIS TOPIC AREA SOONER RATHER THAN LATER WOULD BE HELPFUL SO WE CAN, YOU KNOW, CLOSE OUT ANY UNCERTAINTY THAT, UM, POTENTIAL CHANGES HERE MIGHT HAVE ON, UH, THE WHOLESALER RETAIL MARKETS. THANKS, BRIAN. I, I, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS, UH, NEXT STEPS. THIS LAST SENTENCE, UH, THAT BILL ALSO HIGHLIGHTED WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ABSENT ANY APPROVED CHANGES IN THE NEAR FUTURE. UM, LIKE I JUST, I WANNA UNDERSTAND, UM, THE CHANGE PROCESS IS, IS THAT SOMETHING, UH, YOU'RE EXPECTING STAKEHOLDERS TO, UH, PRESENT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME OUT OF RTC? UM, ARE YOU EXPECTING A MEMO, UH, FROM THE, THE COMMISSION? JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT, PLEASE. YEAH, THERE'S BEEN SOME INITIAL RE OUTREACH TO THE COMMISSION TO SAY, THIS IS AN ISSUE, HOW DO WE WANNA SOLVE IT? AND I THINK THEY ARE AT THIS POINT, TAKING A LOOK AT SHOULD IT BE ENTERTAINED AND IF IT'S TO BE ENTERTAINED, HOW TO, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE IN THE PC OFFICES OR, OR COT STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. SO I THINK THAT'S STILL TO BE DETERMINED. OKAY. I, I, UM, I GUESS I WANNA MAKE ONE OTHER POINT ON THAT. LIKE THE, THE 2019 MEMO WAS ATTACHED TO TRYING TO ACHIEVE AT THE TIME, UH, A SPECIFIC M RM, AND WE'VE GOT ORDC, WE'VE GOT CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS, WE'VE GOT A NEW STANDARD FOR RELIABILITY. UM, WE'VE GOT POTENTIALLY SOMETHING WITH, WITH PCM, WE'VE GOT POTENTIALLY SOMETHING WITH DRRS AND ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE JUST KIND OF DIFFERENT KNOBS THAT IMPACT THE, THE M AND I'M JUST, I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY'RE ALL BEING MEASURED TOGETHER, UH, TO ACHIEVE THE STANDARD THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BE AT IN, IN 2016, OR, SORRY, 2026 OR 2028 OR WHATEVER. SO JUST HAVING LIKE SOME HEALTH CHECK IS, IS BENEFICIAL TO, TO JUSTIFY ANY CHANGE, WHETHER IT'S A CHANGE IN THE, UH, A SDC OR, UH, SOME OTHER DIAL THAT WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO, TO, UM, MOVE TO GET TO OUR END GOAL. UH, THAT, THAT'S MY COMMENT. AND I, I DON'T KNOW IF THE TIMELINE FOR, FOR THAT KIND OF STUDY FITS WITHIN LIKE THIS, THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, TIMELINE THAT'S IN THE NEXT STEPS. UH, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE THINKING THROUGH. THANK YOU, BRIAN. I, UH, I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. UH, YOU SAID A LOT OF THE THINGS I WAS, I WAS IN THE Q4. I WAS, I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA ASK THAT WE SCROLL DOWN TO FOOTNOTE TWO, WHICH, AND I HAD MATT, BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE IT HIGHLIGHTS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ORIGINAL DESIGN DECISION AROUND MIMICKING THE ORDC IN 2019 WAS TIED TO A MEM OF 10.25% AND A 0.5 LOSS OF LOAD EXPECTATION. SO A ONE IN TWO, UH, YEAR EXPECTATION. AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY, UM, NOT MEETING THE, THE, THE ONE IN 10 ASPIRATION THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD AND, AND NOW HAVE REAFFIRMED RECENTLY, UH, THROUGH THE RELIABILITY STANDARD. SO, UM, [05:20:01] BUT BRIAN'S POINT IS WELL TAKEN THAT THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS BESIDES JUST THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES THAT WILL FEED INTO THAT. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE THAT THE PART OF, PART OF THAT IS, IS, YOU KNOW, REEVALUATING, UM, REEVALUATING THE, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, UH, PERHAPS SOONER THAN EVEN THE 2026 TIMEFRAME, EVEN IF IT'S INDICATIVE BECAUSE IT, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT AS ANOTHER INPUT POINT AS WE'RE DISCUSSING WHAT THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES LOOK LIKE. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, THE FIRST ORDER CONCERN THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN, IN THIS REPORT, THE ONES THAT, THAT VISTA RAISED, REALLY COME DOWN TO, HOW WELL DOES THAT, UH, DOES DO THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES DRIVE COMMITMENT THAT MEETS ERCOT OPERATIONAL NEEDS? UM, BECAUSE IT'S TIED TO THE ORDC CURVE WITHOUT THE ORDC FLOORS. UM, OUR CONCERN IS THAT YOU GET TO A POINT WHERE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH, THEY DON'T SEE ENOUGH SPINNING RESERVES, AND SO THEY GO TO START RUCKING TO FOR CAPACITY TO GET THERE. THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHAT THAT ISSUE IS. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE FIRST ORDER, BUT THEN THIS, THIS IS A SECOND ORDER, UH, CONSIDERATION THAT THAT REALLY CAME UP AT OUR, AT THE LAST MEETING, SO APPRECIATE YOU, INCLUDING IN HERE. YOU'RE WELCOME. AND BY THE WAY, REALLY GOOD JOB, MATT, UH, TO YOU AND, AND YOUR TEAM IN CONDENSING ALL OF THAT HISTORY INTO A SINGLE DOCUMENT. ALRIGHT. I KNOW THAT'S NOT EASY, SO, UH, I HAD SOME HELP. THANK YOU. HAT TIP. THANKS. THANKS, NED. KEITH. YEAH, AND I'LL, I'LL KIND OF PIGGYBACK ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS, UM, THAT WE HEARD JUST, JUST A MOMENT AGO THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE LAYERS OF, OF CONCERN. UM, AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS, IS SET UP A PROCESS WHERE WE CAN TACKLE, WE CAN TACKLE WHAT WE CAN, UM, UH, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY THE BACKUP OF, WELL, IF, IF WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING, THERE'S, WE STILL HAVE WHAT WE HAVE, SO IT'S STILL A WORKABLE SOLUTION, UH, BUT WE WANT TO SEE IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO. AND THERE ARE LIKELY TO BE LIKE ANY OTHER MAJOR CHANGE, THERE ARE GONNA BE FOLLOW UP FOR SURE. UH, I, I WOULD ENVISION THAT EVEN WITH WHATEVER CHANGES THAT WE THINK WE CAN GET IN, AND NOW THERE'S LIKELY TO BE FOLLOW UP AT SOME FUTURE PERIOD. UH, BUT, BUT AGAIN, I, I DO WANNA REITERATE A COUPLE POINTS THAT, THAT MATT HIT UPON IS IN TERMS OF THE TIMELINE, YOU KNOW, THE TIME IS NOW, UH, AND WE'VE GOT THE NEXT TASK FORCE MEETING COMING UP IN OCTOBER, AND THE NEXT OBVIOUSLY FOLLOWED BY THE NEXT TAC MEETING. I THINK, I THINK THE IMM HAD HAD PROMISED TO HAVE SOMETHING, UH, BY THE END OF, UH, I THINK IT WAS LIKE SIX WEEKS FROM THE BOARD MEETING. WELL, WE'RE, WE ARE, UH, I'M GETTING A SORT OF SIGNAL THAT, THAT THAT IS THE, THE CASE. UM, SO, SO JEFF, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA COME OVER HERE AND JUST MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK THAT MIGHT, MIGHT BE HELPFUL JUST SO PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, ARE UNDERSTANDING TIMELINE AND WHAT TO EXPECT, BUT ULTIMATELY I THINK, YOU KNOW, UH, THE TIME IS RIPE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO MAKE THAT. SO THANKS. GO AHEAD, JEFF. SURE. YEAH, THIS IS JEFF MCDONALD, DIRECTOR OF IMM. YEAH, SO, UH, THANKS FOR THE EXTRA TWO WEEKS. UH, I, I THINK I TOLD THE BOARD, UH, A MONTH, SO, UM, WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO HAVING OUR ANALYSIS WRITTEN UP AND WE SHOULD HAVE IT AVAILABLE. SO OUR, SO OUR INTENT WAS TO WORK WITH ERCOT STAFF FIRST, UM, AND GET SOME FEEDBACK ON OUR ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I, I, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE ERCOT STAFF, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN COMMUNICATING BACK AND FORTH WITH ERCOT STAFF THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. SO, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'LL LOOK TO GET, UH, OUR DRAFT WRITE UP OVER AND RECOMMENDATIONS OVER TO ERCOT STAFF NEXT WEEK, AND, UM, AND HOPEFULLY THAT WITHIN THAT EXTRA TWO WEEKS YOU GRANTED ME, UM, WE'LL BE ABLE TO COME TO A COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND THEN BE ABLE TO DISCUSS IT PUBLICLY. ALRIGHT, THANKS JEFF. UM, JUST CAN, CAN YOU SAY THE DATE AGAIN? UM, UH, JEFF, THERE'S NO DATE. THERE'S NO DATE. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, JUST TO REPEAT FOR FOLKS THAT AREN'T ON THE, COULDN'T HEAR IN THE ROOM, UM, UH, WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS IS WHAT JEFF SAID, AND GIVEN THAT TIMELINE, I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THE, UH, TASK FORCE MEETING IN OCTOBER ON THE 22ND WOULD, WOULD BE A CRITICAL PERIOD. ALL RIGHT. THANKS MATT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU TACK. ALL RIGHT. AGENDA ITEM [15. ERCOT Reports (Part 2 of 2)] 15, ERCOT REPORTS. WE'VE ALREADY CROSSED OFF ONE OFF THE LIST. UH, LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT TWO POTENTIAL PRICE CORRECTIONS. UH, MATT YOUNG, ARE YOU AVAILABLE? [05:25:02] DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITION, MATT YOUNG ERCOT MARKET VALIDATION? UM, I'M JUST GONNA GO OVER SOME PRICING IMPACTS THAT, UH, WE'RE LOOKING FOR BOARD APPROVED PRICE CORRECTIONS FOR THIS FIRST ONE IS THE RESULT OF, UH, UH, SOME INCORRECT RESOURCE DATA THAT, UH, RESULTED IN A, UH, RESOURCE NOT BEING CONSIDERED FOR SC DISPATCH. OH, THERE WE GO, . UM, YEAH, SO ON AUGUST 9TH, ERCOT, UH, FOUND THE, UH, THE ISSUE AND, UH, IT WAS FIXED ON AUGUST 10TH. UM, BASICALLY, UH, RE RERAN THOSE SC INTERVALS WITH THE, UH, THE RESOURCE BEING AVAILABLE, ISSUED A MARKET NOTICE ON THE 20TH, UH, NOTIFYING, UH, OF OUR, OUR INVESTIGATION AND OUR INTENT TO SEEK PRICE CORRECTION. AND THEN, UH, ANOTHER MARKET NOTICE ON SEPTEMBER 17TH WITH THE, UH, SETTLEMENT IMPACT RESULTS. SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT WHAT WAS THE SIZE OF THE RESOURCE? I'M SORRY? WHAT WAS THE SIZE OF THE RESOURCE? HOW LARGE? UH, I DON'T RECALL. UM, IT WAS, IT WAS, UH, IT HAD A LARGE HELPING SHIFT FACTOR ON A CONSTRAINT THAT WAS ACTIVE AT THE TIME, WHICH IS, UH, THE REASON THAT REACHED A CRITERIA SO, AND SO THE PROTOCOLS, UM, THEY STIPULATE THAT, UH, THE TWO HAS TO MEET ONE OF TWO CRITERIA, UH, TO BE, UH, SEEKING BOARD APPROVAL FOR PRICE CORRECTION, ONE OF THEM BEING, UH, 2%, UH, AND ALSO GREATER THAN $20,000 IN IMPACT. AND THE OTHER ONE'S 20% GREATER THAN 2000. AND, UH, ON THE TWO DAYS WE HAD A TOTAL OF FIVE COUNTERPARTIES THAT MET THIS CRITERIA, ONE ON THE NINTH FOR THE FIRST CRITERIA, AND FOUR ON THE SECOND. UM, FOR THE SECOND CRITERIA FOR THE FIRST OPERATING DAY, THE, UH, MAXIMUM AMOUNT IMPACT TO THE COUNTERPARTY WAS ROUGHLY 24,000, UH, AND THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE WAS 3.73%. AND THEN ON THE 10TH, IT WAS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF 4,500 ROUGHLY, AND THEN 42 TO 43%. UM, THE, THIS TABLE JUST SHOWS THE, UH, THE CHANGE TO CHARGES DUE TO ERCOT IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. UH, NEGATIVE AMOUNTS ARE PAYMENTS TO THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS, POSITIVE AMOUNTS ARE CHANGES IN CHARGES, AND IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, THE 10TH WAS ROUGHLY $281,000 WITH THE 1.56% NET CHARGE DIFFERENCE. UH, WE'LL BE, UH, SEEKING APPROVAL AT THE, UH, OCTOBER BOARD, AND WE'LL BE PRESENTING THIS AT THE OCTOBER 9TH R AND M COMMITTEE MEETING. UH, GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN, UH, THE SECOND ONE WAS FOR, UM, AUGUST 20TH, UH, FOR THIS PRICING ISSUE, UH, THERE WAS AN INCORRECT RECALL OF ECRS ON, ON THAT DAY. UM, THERE WAS A SOFTWARE DEFECT IN THE UI THAT THE OPERATORS USED TO RECALL, UH, A, UH, ECRS AND THE, THIS DEFECT RESULTED IN ALL 2000 MEGAWATTS OF THE CURRENTLY DEPLOYED ECRS BEING RECALLED. UH, THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO RECALL 500. UM, AT THE TIME OF THE RECALL, UH, CIS LAMBDA WAS AROUND $850. UH, AND THEN AFTER THE, UH, TOTAL RECALL OF ALL 2000 MEGAWATTS, CIS LAMBDA SPIKED TO THE, UH, OFFER CAP 5,001. UM, AND THEN THAT CONTINUED FOR ONE MORE INTERVAL ABOUT, IT'S LIKE ABOUT 25 SECONDS LATER, UH, SKIT HAD TO RERUN AGAIN, AND THEN, UH, ERCOT OPERATORS CORRECTED THE DEPLOYMENT OF ECRS. AND THEN WHEN SCED RERAN, AGAIN, SYSTEM LAMBDA DROPPED BACK DOWN TO ABOUT $284, UM, THERE WAS A FIX IMPLEMENTED ON AUGUST 28TH TO THE INTERFACE TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. UM, AND THEN TWO MARKET NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. ONE WITH, UH, JUST PRESERVING THAT 30 DAY PERIOD WE HAVE FOR SEEKING BOARD APPROVAL. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE FOR THE SETTLEMENTS ANALYSIS, THE IMPACT FOR THAT DAY, UM, ABOUT 37 COUNTERPARTIES MET CRITERIA 36 FOR THE FIRST ONE, ONE FOR THE SECOND, AND THEN FOR THE, UM, ABSOLUTE VALUE, [05:30:01] UH, MAXIMUM AMOUNT ABOUT $597,000 WAS THE MAXIMUM IMPACT WITH, UH, THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE BEING 41.05 FOR BOTH CRITERIA. AND THEN THE TOTAL, UH, UH, CHANGES TO, UH, ERCOT CHARGES WAS ABOUT, UH, 3.5 MILLION. THAT'S IN THOUSANDS. SO, AND THEN I GUESS, UH, ABOUT A 2.4% CHANGE. AND OF COURSE WE'RE GONNA BE, UH, SEEKING BOARD APPROVAL AT THE OCTOBER 10TH BOARD MEETING AS, AS WELL AS PRESENTING THIS AT THE RNM AND THAT, THAT'S ALL I HAD. UH, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR MATT? THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, NEXT STEPS IS THE CRR PERFORMANCE ISSUES UPDATE, ALFREDO MORENO. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. UM, WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT CR PERFORMANCE ISSUE AND UPDATE OF ALFREDO MORENO WITH ERCOT. ALL RIGHT, SO WE ARE GONNA BRIEFLY TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HIGH VOLUMES AND COMPLEXITY THAT WE'VE BEEN OBSERVING IN THE CR AUCTIONS. UH, WE'LL ALSO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RECENT PERFORMANCE ISSUES, THE CURRENT RISKS THAT WE HAVE AND THE STUDIES THAT WE'VE PERFORMED, UM, TO LOOK AT THAT. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, REALLY THE RAISE T AWARENESS OF THE POTENTIAL CR MITIGATION THAT WE MAY BE HAVING FOR THIS CURRENT AUCTION THAT CLOSES TODAY. AND ALFRED, I'M SORRY, CAN I INTERJECT A LITTLE BIT? SO YEAH, AGAIN, MATT MARINA. SO, UM, I CAME TO TAC AT THE VERY CLOSE OF LAST MEETING AND SAID, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. WE HAVE THESE BUILDING PERFORMANCE ISSUES, UH, WE'RE GONNA GO TO WMS, WE'RE GONNA SHARE WITH THEM WHAT WE HAVE, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA COME BACK TO TAC AND LET YOU KNOW WHERE WE STAND. AND SO ALFREDO IS NOW FINISHING OFF. SO, UH, AND BY THE WAY, WE, WE DID TAKE LIKE AN HOUR AT WMS ON THIS, SO THE IDEA ISN'T NECESSARILY TO FIX ALL THE LONG-TERM ISSUES, BUT ALFREDO'S GONNA KIND OF UNPACK THAT IN THE NEXT FIVE SLIDES TO GIVE A FRAME OF WHAT IT IS AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO MITIGATE, UH, THE RISK FOR THIS AUCTION. SO JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE, HE'S CONTINUING A DISCUSSION THAT IT STARTED. SO THANKS, ALFREDO. THAT'S GREAT. THANKS MATT. ALRIGHT, SO SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN THIS SLIDE BEFORE, UH, BUT THIS TABLE REALLY JUST POINTS TO THE INCREASE IN VARIABLES THAT WE'VE SEEN FOR THE AUCTIONS, UH, WITH SETTLEMENT POINTS AS WELL AS CR ACCOUNT HOLDERS AND, UM, COUNTERPARTIES FOR CR ACCOUNT HOLDERS. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASE. NOW, UH, TODAY THERE WAS AN APPROVAL OF, UH, 1188 THAT WILL ALSO BE INCREASING RESOURCE NODES, UH, THAT WOULD THEN AGAIN, UM, POTENTIALLY INCREASE THOSE PATHS AND THEREFORE TRANSACTIONS FOR THE CR AUCTIONS. THIS IS ANOTHER SLIDE THAT WAS SHOWN AT WMS. UH, AND THIS ONE REALLY IS JUST TO SHOW THE INCREASE THAT WE'VE OBSERVED IN THE TRANSACTIONS. AND, UH, AS YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IN THE HOCKEY STICK, UH, FORM HERE, UM, WITH THE LATER SEQUENCES, WHICH ARE THE LOWER CAPACITY, UM, LOWER AUCTION CAPACITY, UH, SEQUENCES, UH, THERE IS AN INCREASE IN RUNTIME. UH, SO THE LAST SEQUENCE, SIX, WE DID HAVE A RUNTIME OF OVER 363 HOURS. AND SO THIS IS WHERE THIS RISK MITIGATION IS COMING INTO PLAY, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE NEEDING, UM, BECAUSE AGAIN, TODAY WE WILL BE CLOSING THE NEXT SEQUENCE. SIX. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO ERCOT HAS SPENT QUITE A BIT OF, UH, TIME, NUMEROUS HOURS REALLY LOOKING AT THE PERFORMANCE AND THE TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES OF THE CR SYSTEM. UH, WE'VE LOOKED AT THE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS AS WELL AS THE, UH, HARDWARE SOLUTIONS WITH OUR IT GROUPS. AND, UH, SO THAT HAS BEEN, UH, SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR A LONG TIME NOW. THE MOST RECENT RELEASE WAS ACTUALLY DEPLOYED LAST WEEK, AND, UH, THAT'S ACTUALLY SHOWS SOME PRETTY GOOD RESULTS AS FAR AS THE PERFORMANCE BOOST. WE'VE BEEN SEEING A 10 TO 30% PERFORMANCE BOOST, UH, IN THAT RELEASE ITSELF. NOW, I WILL SAY THAT EVERY AUCTION WILL HAVE ITS OWN TOPOLOGY AND IT WILL HAVE ITS OWN, UH, VARIABLES AND SUBMISSIONS. SO, UH, AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A RANGE OF 10 TO 30% HERE IN ORDER FOR US TO PREPARE, UH, FOR THE SEQUENCE SIX THAT WE WANTED TO RUN A COUPLE OF STUDIES, RUN SOME, SOME STUDIES REALLY TO DETERMINE WHAT TO EXPECT WITH THIS NEXT SEQUENCE. SIX. UH, SO WHAT WE DID IS WE TOOK THE, WE TOOK A 10% AUCTION CAPACITY AND WE APPLIED THE SEQUENCE FOR THIS PAST [05:35:01] SEQUENCE FOR BID SET, WHICH, UH, HAD 143 PEAK WEEKDAY TRANSACTIONS AND A TOTAL OF 418,000 TRANSACTIONS. NOW THAT, UH, WHEN WE DID RUN THAT, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE RESULTS AT, UH, WMS, UH, WMS, UH, THIS MONTH. UH, AND THIS IS WHY WE'RE, WE'RE HERE TO, TO CLOSE THAT LOOP THERE. SO IT, THE STUDIES DID RUN IN A RANGE BETWEEN 230 HOURS TO 250 HOURS. SO, UH, THAT'S QUITE A BIT OF TIME FOR AN AUCTION TO RUN. UM, TYPICALLY, AGAIN, ERCOT IS, IS REALLY WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT OUR AUCTION SHOULD BE RUNNING IN LESS THAN A HUNDRED HOURS SO THAT WE DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES THAT MIGHT COME UP, UH, AT THE AUCTIONS AS WELL AS HAVE THAT ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO RERUN THE AUCTION IF IT'S NECESSARY. OKAY. AND AGAIN, SO THIS, THIS PART HERE, THE MARKET PARTICIPANT AWARENESS AND EXPECTATIONS IS WHERE WE WANNA REALLY KIND OF TOUCH BASE HERE. UH, IAN, MATT MENTIONED THAT, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT WMS, AND AGAIN, THE RISK FOR OXYGEN JUST CONTINUES TO INCREASE. UM, AND AGAIN, WE, AS WE SEE THIS TREND OF MARKET ACTIVITY CONTINUING TO INCREASE, WHICH HAS COST SIGNIFICANT PERFORMANCE RISK IN OUR LONG-TERM SEQUENCE AUCTIONS, SPECIFICALLY THE SEQUENCE FOUR THROUGH SIX, WHICH, UH, THOSE, AGAIN, THOSE ARE AUCTIONING OFF THIS, UH, NETWORK CAPACITY, UH, BETWEEN THE 10% AND 30%. ALRIGHT, SO WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE TIME OF USE THAT HAS GIVEN US THE MOST PROBLEM, WHICH IS THE PEAK WEEKDAY THAT SEEMS TO ATTRACT MOST OF THE, UH, TRANSACTIONS. SO MORE THAN A THIRD OF THE OVERALL TRANSACTIONS IS, IS REALLY, UH, IN THE PEAK WEEK DAY. UH, SO REALLY THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE'VE BEEN OBSERVING A, A LOT OF THIS RUNTIME AND, UM, AND RISK THAT, THAT WE SEE. SO AS SUCH, WE ARE GONNA MITIGATE THIS RISK OF OVERSUBSCRIPTION BY A WELL, THE OVERSUBSCRIPTION AND THE PERFORMANCE ISSUES THAT WE'VE BEEN OBSERVING, UM, BY TAKING THE TIME OF USE AND ACTUALLY CUTTING THAT INTO THIRDS, UH, FROM THE OVERALL 400 TRANSACTION LIMIT. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THAT IF ANY OF THE TUS EXCEED 133,000 TRANSACTIONS, THEN AN AUCTION WILL TRIGGER THE STANDARD TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT PERIOD. AND AGAIN, IF IT DOES NOT EXCEED THE 133,000 TRANSACTION, THEN NO MITIGATION WILL WILL BE NEEDED. AND AGAIN, THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE SEQUENCE SIX IS THE AUCTION THAT'S GONNA BE CLOSING TODAY. WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS REALLY JUST TO, TO, TO KIND OF MAKE THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS AWARE THAT CR CALENDAR SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR, UH, THE RISK THAT A TAP CAN HAPPEN, UH, THAT ISN'T GUARANTEE THAT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT CR CALENDAR SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR THAT. AND WE WILL CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION OF OUR MIDTERM AND LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS AT CMWG, STARTING WITH, UH, MONDAY THAT'S COMING UP. AND I WILL SAY JUST OFFER, IT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO JUST CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT, WE'RE GOING TO LIKE PUT OPTIONS ON THE TABLE AND SAY WE HAD TO USE AN OPTION THAT'S NOT ATTRACTIVE TO ANYONE, WHICH IS CLOSE THE GATE AND RESET. IF WE EXCEED IT, WE WANT TO COME BACK AT, AND THIS IS IN MONDAY'S MEETING. THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS. THAT'S RIGHT. AND WE'RE WORKING ON THESE APPROACHES TO SAY MAYBE WE NEED TO LOWER IT FROM 4,000 DOWN TO 2,500 PER CR ACCOUNT HOLDER SO THAT EVERYONE'S GENERALLY TAKING A HAIRCUT RATHER THAN THE SHOCK EFFECT OF CLOSING THE AUCTION AND HAVING TO REOPEN AT A MUCH LOWER LEVEL. SO, UH, AGAIN, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE CMWG, WMS AND T, UH, BUT WE'RE TAKING THIS ISSUE SERIOUSLY BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE BEING WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. UM, AND THANK YOU. JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT PIECE AT THE END. YEP, OF COURSE. AND AGAIN, THERE'S A APPENDIX, A COUPLE OF SLIDES THAT TALK ABOUT THE TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT PERIOD, UM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT ON, ON YOUR OWN. AND, UH, OTHER THAN THAT, UH, OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS. BILL. I AM WONDERING HOW MUCH LOAD DOES THE DATA CENTER CONSUME THAT YOU NEED TO RUN THE CR AUCTIONS WITH? THAT'S A JOKE. I'M TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME HUMOR AT THE END OF A LONG DAY. UH, IT DOES LEAD INTO MY REAL QUESTION THOUGH, WHICH IS, UM, ARE WE PRETTY MUCH EXHAUSTED THE, THE TECHNICAL SOLUTION TO THIS WHERE WE ACTUALLY BEEF UP THE PROCESSING POWER AND SERVERS? AND I MEAN, YOU GOT RIOT, WHICH IS LIKE A NOT TOO FAR AWAY. CAN YOU RUN A BIG CABLE OVER THE THERE? LIKE WHAT, WHERE, AT WHAT POINT DO WE START TO LIKE FOCUS ON, UH, OTHER SOLUTIONS THAN JUST INCREASING COMPUTING POWER? YEAH, SO WE'VE ACTUALLY TALKING TO OUR IT DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE AT THAT POINT WHERE WE'VE EXHAUSTED THAT ON THE HARDWARE SIDE. UM, AND AS FAR AS SOFTWARE'S CONCERNED, AGAIN, [05:40:01] UH, WE CONTINUE TO TALK TO OUR VENDOR, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE WE'LL COME IN AND SEE MWG AND UH, REALLY LOOK AT THE OTHER SOLUTIONS, THE MIDTERM AND LONG-TERM SOLUTIONS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT, UH, TO TRY TO HELP THIS, UH, FROM OUR SIDE, THE ERCOT, THE MARKET PARTICIPANT SIDE. BUT BILL, YOU DO BRING UP A, SHOULD WE BE BUILDING FOR A NEXT GENERATION OF TECHNOLOGY? YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANOTHER WAY TO GET THIS WHERE WE'RE RUNNING IN THE CLOUD AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS, THIS, THESE MACHINES ARE 28 CPUS CAN SEVEN BY 24 FOR TWO WEEKS TAKING TO SOLVE THIS THING. SO IT IS A BEAST OF A SOLUTION THAT IT'S, THAT'S CHEWING ON, BUT IS THERE A WAY TO LOOK AT OUTSOURCING, PUTTING UP IN THE CLOUD? UH, THAT WOULD BE KIND OF A TECHNOLOGY SHIFT THAT WOULD NEED TO WORK WITH OUR VENDOR ON AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD EVEN HANDLE THAT. BUT I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS LIKE, IS COMPUTING POWER A CONSTRAINT ANYMORE IN THE WORLD? WE HAVE FOUND THAT IF YOU ADD MORE THAN 28 CPUS, THE PERFORMANCE DROPS OFF BECAUSE NOW YOU'VE MULTI-THREADED SO MUCH, IT'S NOT PUTTING IT ALL BACK TOGETHER VERY EFFICIENTLY. SO WE ACTUALLY START TO LOSE PERFORMANCE AFTER 28 CPUS MUCH MORE ELEGANTLY. UM, WELL WE, WE OBVIOUSLY SHARE THE CONCERN ABOUT, UH, HAVING TO HAIRCUT, UM, UH, PARTICIPATION AND, AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE TO DO THAT, I'LL SAY THIS, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE. SAY IT AGAIN. UH, WE'D SUPPORT PRIORITIZING, UH, ENTITIES THAT HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, LOAD AND OR RESOURCES THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO HEDGE, UH, IN, IN THE CRR AUCTIONS. UM, BUT ONE, ONE YOU MENTIONED THAT IT SEEMED LIKE MOST OF THE CONSTRAINT WAS ON THOSE, UH, THOSE PEAK HOURS WEEK DAYS, THE PEAK WEEKDAYS. AND SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN, UH, NOODLING ON IS WHETHER THE GROWTH IN SOLAR, UH, CREATES SOME COM ADDED COMPLEXITY SINCE THE SOLAR HOURS DON'T LINE UP NEATLY WITH THE, UH, WITH THE PEAK HOUR BLOCKS AND, AND WHETHER IT WOULD BE WORTH LOOKING AT A SEPARATE, UH, TIME, TIME JUNK FOR THE SOLAR HOURS OR FOR THE SOLAR RAMP PERIODS. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL HAVE TALKED ABOUT. I OBVIOUSLY, I HAVEN'T BEEN VERY CLOSE TO IT, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS AND WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO IT OR TAKE IT OFFLINE. SO ESSENTIALLY BREAKING UP ANOTHER TIME OF USE. YEAH, WE HAVE THREE PEAK WEEKDAY, PEAK WEEKEND AND OFF PEAK STRIPS. SO IF YOU WANTED TO CARVE OUT YET ANOTHER FOURTH DIMENSION OF THAT, THAT'S RIGHT. SINCE THE, THE, THE POWER FLOWS ARE CHANGING RAPIDLY WHEN YOU HAVE, UH, A RAPID RAMP UP OR RAMP DOWN IN SOLAR, THAT THAT SHOULD DRIVE DIFFERENT, UH, DIFFERENT CONGESTION BEHAVIOR AND THEREFORE DIFFERENT HEDGING NEEDS. UM, AND SO I KIND OF WONDER IF IT WOULD, IT MAY HELP TO TAKE SOME OF THAT PRESSURE OFF. I, I, I DON'T KNOW, BUT PUTTING IT OUT THERE, YEAH, WE'RE ALL LEADERS. I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S A GOOD POINT. AND I, I MEAN, I THINK, UM, ANY TYPE OF, UH, DISCUSSION, I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT WILL DEFINITELY HELP. UM, JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM JUST IMMEDIATELY, IF YOU TAKE A TIME OF USE AND YOU SPLIT IT INTO TWO, THAT EFFECTIVELY REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS, BUT EVENTUALLY IT'LL ALSO CLIMB UP. MARK PRICE. MARK PRICE, DC ENERGY. UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, MARK. YEP. UH, SO I KNOW WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS A LONG-TERM SOLUTION, UM, IN THE CMWG, BUT IN THE MEANTIME FOR LTAS GOING FORWARD, DOES ZERTO PLAN TO DO A SIMILAR STUDY AS THEY JUST DID NOW IN SETTING THRESHOLDS THAT WOULD, UH, THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE TAP FOR, FOR ALL THE, ALL TASKS UNTIL WE GET TO THAT SOLUTION? YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF THE, THE, SOME OF THE STUDIES THAT WE WILL BE TAKING ON IS AGAIN, AS YOU MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENT SEQUENCES WOULD, UH, POTENTIALLY HAVE DIFFERENT LIMITS FOR THE TOU. UH, SO THEN YES, THAT WILL BE PART OF, UH, THE WORK THAT WE WILL BE DOING TO TRY TO UNCOVER THOSE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SETH. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE VOTER SUPPORT FOR WHAT NED WAS SAYING. I THINK THAT THE TIME OF USES ARE BECOMING OUTDATED AND YOU CAN ALREADY SEE IN THE OTC MARKETS THAT THINGS ARE STARTING TO CHANGE, UH, WITH DIFFERENT PRODUCTS AND THE WAY THINGS ARE TRADED. SO, UH, IN THE FUTURE IT WOULD BE GOOD IF WE START TO THINK ABOUT THAT. UM, IF WE JUST ADD IN A NEW TIME OF USE THOUGH, THAT WOULD PROBABLY JUST TA PUT MORE TAX ON THE SYSTEM AND MAKE IT HARDER TO SOLVE. SO WE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO JUST RECONFIGURE WITHIN THE THREE THAT WE HAVE RATHER THAN ADDING A NEW ONE. 'CAUSE IF WE ADD A NEW ONE, THEN WE'RE GONNA BUMP INTO MORE CONSTRAINTS IN THE OPTIMIZATION. ROY, TRUE PASS PASS, IS THAT A RHETORICAL QUESTION? ALRIGHT. YES. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, [05:45:01] WE'VE GOT ONE MORE ITEM UNDER ERCOT REPORTS. IT WAS A LATE AD, UH, THIS, THE 2024 ANNUAL UNDER FREQUENCY LOAD SHED SURVEY WITH JAKE PETTIGO, YOUR LAST NAME, RIGHT? CAN YOU CONFIRM? YOU CAN HEAR ME? BARELY. BARELY. OH GOODNESS. OKAY. UM, TRY AND GET CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, TAC FIRST, LET ME THANK ALL THE ENTITIES INVOLVED FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE 2024 ERCOT UFLS SURVEY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE SUCCESSFUL SURVEY DATA FOR YOUR REVIEW. FOR A QUICK BACKGROUND ON THE SUMMARY ON THE ERCOT NODAL OPERATING GUIDES REGARDING UFLS SURVEYS. ERCOT COORDINATED AND CONDUCTED THE 2024 SURVEY WITH ERCOT TRANSMISSION OPERATORS. THE SURVEYS SERVES TO ENSURE THAT THE REQUIRED AUTOMATIC UNDER FREQUENCY LOAD SHED CIRCUITS ARE CONFIGURED TO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE LOAD RELIEF IN AN UNDER FREQUENCY EVENT. THE TABLE IN THE MIDDLE IS TAKEN FROM THE ERCOT NODAL OPERATING GUIDE SECTION 2.6 0.1 SUBSECTION ONE, REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDER FREQUENCY LOAD SHEDDING AND LISTS THE ESTABLISHED LOAD SHED AMOUNTS. GIVE Y'ALL JUST A SECOND TO LOOK IT OVER. AND THEN, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO PRESENT THOSE PARTICIPATING ENTITIES WITH THE PREVIOUS DATES FOR THE SURVEY AND THE SUBSEQUENT REPORTING PRESENTATIONS THAT FOLLOWED. WE CAN SEE SEPTEMBER 19TH LAST REPORT, UH, TO TAC, WE HAVE ALREADY REPORTED TO OWG ROSS AND ERCOT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. NOW TO THE RESULTS, THE OVERALL RESULTS ARE REFLECTED BELOW. WE CAN SEE THAT ACCORDING TO THE UFLS REQUIREMENT, ALL STAGES WERE SATISFIED. THE ERCOT LOAD OBSERVED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS 55 50 5,616 MEGAWATTS. IN COMPARISON, THE 2023 SURVEY OVERALL ER RESULT WAS 30.95% AT 52,679 MEGAWATTS OF LOAD. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. NOER 2 4 7 REVISED GRAY BOX LANGUAGE IN THE NODAL OPERATING GUIDES. MODIFIES THE AUTOMATIC UFLS PROGRAM, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF LOAD SHE STAGES FROM THREE TO FIVE AND ADDS A MINIMUM TIME DELAY OF SIX CYCLES. YOU CAN ALSO SEE BELOW ON THE UH, POWERPOINT WE'VE INCLUDED A REFERENCE FOR EASE OF VIEW. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. REVISIONS FROM APPROVED NOGA 2 4 7 REGARDING THE OPTION TO IMPLEMENT. SUPPLEMENTAL UFLS STAGES IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED BUT NOT REQUIRED. WE CAN SEE FROM THIS DATA THAT TWO TO ENTITIES HAVE BEGUN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTATION. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. REVISIONS FROM APPROVED NO 2, 2 6. REGARDING THE OPTION TO IMPLEMENT ANTI STALL UFLS STAGES IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED BUT NOT REQUIRED. AS MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, NO EARLIER THAN OCTOBER 1ST, 2026 TOS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE LOAD RELIEF REQUIREMENTS OF THE ANTALL UFLS STAGES BY UTILIZING LOAD THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UTILIZED TO MEET THE 58.9 HERTZ AND 58.5 HERTZ STANDARD UFLS STAGES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE A COUPLE OF SLIDES AGO, WE CAN SEE THAT THIS DATA, UH, FROM THIS DATA THAT TWO TO ENTITIES HAVE BEGUN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTATION. ONCE AGAIN. NEXT SLIDE. ERCOT COMPLIANCE APPRECIATES ALL ENTITIES PARTICIPATION IN THE 2024 UFLS SURVEY. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I MAY ANSWER THEM NOW OR YOU CAN FURTHER QUE UH, FORWARD FURTHER QUESTIONS TO COMPLIANCE@ERCOT.COM. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANKS, JAKE. NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 16 [16. Other Business] OTHER BUSINESS. UH, WE GOT ONE ITEM HERE, A ERCOT UPDATE ON THE MOBILE APP. PRIYANKA? YES, I'M HERE. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME OKAY [05:50:01] AGAIN, VERY, VERY FAINT. OH, LET ME, THAT'S GOOD. MOVE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. IS IT BETTER NOW? THAT'S GOOD, THANK YOU. OKAY, PERFECT. UM, I'M GONNA KEEP THIS QUICK. UM, MY NAME IS PRIYANKA BARAR. I AM PART OF DIGITAL CONTENT MANAGEMENT TEAM HERE AT ERCOT. UM, WE MANAGE THE DIGITAL ASSETS SUCH AS THE WEBSITE, MOBILE APP AND SUCH. UM, WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE ARE GONNA BE RELEASING THE ENHANCED MOBILE APP, UH, BY THE END OF THIS MONTH. UM, NEXT, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, THIS IS, UH, A COMPLETE REWRITE TO THE APP THAT WE HAVE NOW. UM, WE HAVE, UH, LIKE I MENTIONED, MADE A LOT OF ENHANCEMENTS TO THE APP TODAY. I HOPE, UM, MOST OF YOU HERE RATHER ALL OF YOU HERE HAVE THE ERCOT MOBILE APP, YOUR PHONE. UM, IF NOT, PLEASE DOWNLOAD IT TODAY. UM, IT GIVES A LOT OF GOOD REAL TIME INFORMATION. NEXT SLIDE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. WE HAVE, UM, INFORMATIVE SCREENS. UH, WE'VE ADDED THESE FOR, UM, ALL SET UP FOR OUR AUDIENCE TO, UM, GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE APP OFFERS. UH, NEXT, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS HOW THE APP LOOKS TODAY, UH, ON THE LEFT. AND WE HAVE IMPROVED OUR HOME SCREEN TO GIVE A QUICK LOOK AT THE CURRENT GRID CONDITION, WHAT THE SUPPLY DEMAND IS. AND ALL THIS IS REAL TIME DATA LIKE WE OFFER ON THE WEBSITE DASHBOARDS. WE HAVE A QUICK PEEK INTO THE FIELD MIX. UM, IF YOU SEE THE NAVIGATION, IT'S NOW MOVED TO THE LOWER TRAY. IT'S EASY AND AVAILABLE AND IT'S VERY USER-FRIENDLY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UM, THE MOST POPULAR ER CARD DASHBOARDS ARE THERE ON THE APP. UM, GRID CONDITIONS, SUPPLY AND DEMAND FUEL MIX AND WHOLESALE SYSTEM-WIDE WHOLESALE PRICES. YOU CAN NOW, UH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOG INTO THE WEBSITE, YOU CAN NOW GO TO THE APP AND FIND ALL THIS INFORMATION. UM, WE ALSO HAVE THE DESCRIPTION OF THESE DASHBOARDS AND QUICK VIDEOS TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE DATA OFFERS AND WHAT IT MEANS SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. UM, AND LIKE I SAID, OUR GOAL IS TO, UM, REACH TO VARIED AUDIENCE AND, AND MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE DO AT ERCOT AND HOW IT'S VALUABLE TO THEM. SO THIS APP HAS BEEN ENHANCED TO, UM, TO DO THAT AND ADD THE VALUE TO ALL OUR CUSTOMERS. NEXT ONE, PLEASE. UM, WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO LET Y'ALL KNOW THAT WE ARE ADDING THE MEETING CALENDAR TO THE APP. IT GIVES YOU LIKE A ONE WEEK AHEAD MEETINGS, UM, ON THE APP, AND YOU CAN QUICKLY ADD IT TO YOUR PERSONAL CALENDAR. UM, AGAIN, SOMETHING WE WANNA MAKE, MAKE THE APP APP THE ONE STOP SHOP FOR ALL YOUR NEEDS. SO THIS IS ONE STEP TOWARDS THE DIRECTION. UM, WE ALSO HAVE PERSONALIZED HOME SETTINGS FOR YOU ALL TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT DASHBOARDS YOU WANNA SEE ON THE HOME SCREEN. UM, SO THOSE ARE AVAILABLE IN THE SETTINGS. SO YOU CAN CUSTOMIZE AND PERSONALIZE THE DASHBOARDS IN THE APP, UH, HOWEVER THEY FIT YOUR NEEDS. WE ALSO HAVE THE DARK MODE NOW SO PEOPLE CAN SWITCH BETWEEN LIGHT AND DARK MODE, UM, AND UM, OR SET IT TO THE SYSTEM PREFERENCE SO IT READS THE SYSTEM, UM, OS LEVEL SETTING AND OPERATES IN THAT MODE. UM, WE HAVE REWRITTEN THIS IN A NEW CODE SO IT PERFORMS BETTER, UM, AND IT'S LIGHT AND ALSO GIVES YOU THE IMPORTANT NOTIFICATIONS. EXPLAIN PLEASE. UM, CAN YOU GO? OH, OKAY. SO BASICALLY, UM, IF THE GRID CONDITIONS CHANGE, YOU'LL GET A PUSH NOTIFICATION ON YOUR PHONE. UM, AND THIS IS AS SOON AS THE GRID CONDITIONS CHANGE. SO, UM, IT'S, IT'S HIGHLY VALUABLE FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW. UM, WHEN WE GO FROM NORMAL CONDITION TO ANY OTHER GRID CONDITION, IT, IT SENDS YOU THAT PUSH NOTIFICATION IMMEDIATELY. UM, BOTH FOR TEXANS ALERTS AS WELL AS EE ALERTS. SO, UM, WE ARE ALL VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS, UM, ENHANCED APP COMING OUT END OF THIS MONTH. UM, SO IF YOU ALL HAVE THE APP, ONCE YOU GET THE NOTIFICATION, PLEASE UPDATE. UM, IF NOT, PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE APP TODAY. THANKS. THAT'S ALL I GOT. GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS? I'M NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS. APPRECIATE THE UPDATE. SURE, THANKS. ANY OTHER, OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE WE GO TO THE COMMONWEALTH BALLOT? HEY COREY, I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO GO. [17. Combo Ballot] THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE STUCK IT OUT, I THANK [05:55:01] YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION AND THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT WERE NOT TAKEN UP ON PRIOR VOTES. SO, UH, YOU'LL NOTICE I PULLED OFF THE AS METHODOLOGY AND WE DEALT WITH 1188 AND OBDR 46 ON THEIR OWN MINI COMBO BALLOT. SO WE LOOK LOOKING FOR A MOVER AND A SECOND ON THIS ONE. WE ALL AGREE BREACH NED AND BOB. THERE WE GO. , DO WE EVEN HAVE TO RUN THROUGH THE BALLOT IF EVERYONE MAKES THE MOTION? NO. WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IF WE DID IT LIKE, AS A VOICE VOTE OR SOMETHING? WE'LL ADD THAT TO THE APP. CAN WE START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS? WITH ERIC? AYE. THANK YOU. AND THEN ERIC FROM AYE. THANK YOU GARRETT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU SIR. ERIC SCHUBERT? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS? YES. THANK YOU NICK FEHRENBACH. OKAY, NICK, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE CO-OPS. JOE DAN FOR MIKE. AYE PLEASE. THANK YOU, BLAKE. YES, THANK YOU ERIC. YES, THANK YOU. JOHN. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ON WHAT INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, BRIAN? YES. THANK YOU. BOB HILTON. FOR KAITLYN? YES SIR. YOU AND THEN BOB. YES, SIR. YOU NED. A THANK YOU ONTO THE IBMS SHANE FOR SMI A. THANK YOU. JEREMY. YES, THANK YOU IAN. YES. THANK YOU COREY. THANK YOU. MATT. MATT, MA STILL WITH US? YEP. YEAH, THANK YOU. GOTCHA. UNDER THE I REPS BILL OUR, THAT'S A YES. SWABBY FINISH OUT WITH THE SEVEN C'S, BUT ALSO A YES. THANK YOU. JAY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHRIS. YES. THANK YOU ON THE IOUS, STACEY FOR KEITH? YES. THANK YOU EBY FOR DAVID? YES. THANK YOU. COLIN? YES, THANK YOU. DAVID WITHROW FOR RICHARD? YES, THANK YOU. ONTO THE MUNIS. RUSSELL. RUSSELL FRANKLIN, YOU STILL WITH US? I SAW YOU COME OFF MUTE RUSSELL, BUT THEN I, I DIDN'T HEAR THE VOTE. I CAN TAKE YOU IN THE CHAT IF, IF THAT'S EASIER. YOU WALKED THE PLAN. HOW ABOUT JOSE? YES, THANK YOU DIANA FOR DAVID? YES, THANK YOU FAYE FOR ALICIA? YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY THERE RUSSELL, I GOT YOU IN CHAT. THANK YOU SIR. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK Y'ALL. THANKS COREY. THANKS EVERYBODY. SEE Y'ALL NEXT MONTH. WE'RE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.