* 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.
          [00:00:08]
          KEEP THE SVP VIBES 
          [1. Antitrust Admonition]
GOING, UM, SINCE WE'RE MEETING IN PERSON, THEN IT'LL BE THE, THE FESTIVE LAST MEETING OF THE YEAR. 
          SO TODAY FOR, UH, IES AND ALTERNATIVE REPRESENT REPRESENTATIVES IN THE IOU SEGMENT. 
          UM, KEITH NICK WITH TNMP HAS ALT REP ROB BEZEL AND THE MUNICIPAL SEGMENT, RUSSELL FRANKLIN, GARLAND POWER AND LIGHT HAS ALT REP CURTIS CAMPO. 
          AND WE MIGHT HAVE TO DO A, A PROXY FOR ERIC GOFF, BUT WE'LL HANDLE THAT WHEN WE GET THERE. 
          FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, UH, RICHARD ROSS. 
          DO WE HAVE A THEME OF OCTOBER? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET BACK TO RICHARD. 
          UM, 
          [2. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)]
SO WE'LL GO TO THE REAL FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, UH, APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER TECH MEETING. 
          MINUTE. 
          UH, SUZIE, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY COMMENTS OR EDITS? I DON'T BELIEVE I GOT ANY. 
          NO, WE DID NOT HAVE ANY EDITS. 
          UH, THERE WAS A ADMINISTRATIVE EDIT MADE EARLY ON IN THAT VERSION TWO WAS POSTED, SO THAT'S READY TO GO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE ARE, UM, WHAT WE WERE LOOKING TO APPROVE IS VERSION TWO, AND SO I WOULD PROPOSE PUTTING THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OBJECTION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          ERIC GOFFS, DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE THEME IS NO THEME? IT'S NOT THAT WE HAVE NO THEME. 
          WE DO HAVE A THEME, AND THE THEME IS NO THEME. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL LET RICHARD CORRECT US IF WE'RE WRONG ON THAT. 
          UM, 
          [3. Meeting Updates]
MEETING UPDATES. 
          WE'VE HAD I THINK, QUITE A FEW MEETINGS SINCE OUR SEPTEMBER TECH MEETING. 
          WE HAD THE, THE OCTOBER ERCOT BOARD MEETINGS ON THE OCTOBER 9TH AND 10TH. 
          ALL REVISION REQUESTS WERE APPROVED THERE EXCEPT FOR MPR 1190, AND THAT WAS WHEN WE ACTUALLY BROUGHT TO THEM AT THE, THE AUGUST BOARD. 
          IT WAS REMANDED AT THE OCTOBER BOARD, AND IT'S ON OUR AGENDA SHORTLY, SO WE CAN HOLD DISCUSSION ON THAT UNTIL WE GET TO IT ON OUR AGENDA. 
          WE ALSO HAD PUC OPEN MEETINGS, I BELIEVE, SEPTEMBER 26TH, OCTOBER 3RD, OCTOBER 24TH. 
          UM, AT THE SEPTEMBER 26TH MEETING, ALL THE REVISION REQUESTS IN IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION WERE APPROVED. 
          WE DID WANT TO PULL OUT TWO DISCUSSION ITEMS ON, ON THIS UPDATE AGENDA ITEM. 
          UM, SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTING TO THE BOARD. 
          SO AT THE OCTOBER BOARD MEETING, WE, WE HAD KIND OF A, A LONGER TECH REPORT WITH MORE INFORMATION. 
          I WOULD SAY IT WAS VERY WELL RECEIVED. 
          YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR, OUR EFFORTS THAT WE'LL DISCUSS LATER AS WELL IS TO GET MORE COMMUNICATION AND MORE TRANSPARENCY TO THE BOARD AND TO THE COMMISSION. 
          WHAT WE DID AT THE OCTOBER BOARD MEETING WOULD INCLUDE AND OUR, OUR TECH HIGHLIGHTS, INSTEAD OF JUST HIGHLIGHTS FROM LITERALLY TECH, WE, WE INCLUDED HIGHLIGHTS FROM ALL THE SUBCOMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES THAT REPORT DIRECTLY TO US. 
          WE HAD KIND OF, SORT OF A LONG BULLETED LIST IN, IN SOME CASES, INCLUDING APPROVED NPR R MY PROPOSED DIRECTION WOULD BE TO HAVE EACH OF THOSE SUBCOMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES REALLY HIGHLIGHT KIND OF THE, THE STICKIER ITEMS, THE, THE ITEMS OF CONTENTION BEFORE THEY GET TO, YOU KNOW, VOTING AT THE BOARD SO THE BOARD CAN SEE WHAT DISCUSSIONS ARE HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS ON THE HORIZON. 
          AND I, I RECEIVED THE QUESTION ON THAT, YOU KNOW, SO YOU ONLY WANT TO HEAR BAD NEWS, AND I, I THINK THAT'S NOT TRUE. 
          I THINK WE WANNA HIGHLIGHT, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE GOT TO CONSENSUS, WHERE WE DID A LOT OF WORK. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, OUR RMS IS REALLY GOOD AT, AT, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT A SITUATION AND, AND UPDATING OR IMPROVING. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT KIND OF THING WE DO WANT TO HEAR ABOUT, BUT I WILL OPEN IT UP THERE IF THERE IS ANY INPUT ON, ON THAT REPORTING TO THE BOARD. 
          ALRIGHT, I DON'T SEE ANYONE IN THE QUEUE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I HAVE FLAGGED THIS FOR, UM, SUBCOMMITTEE AND TEST WITH LEADERSHIP. 
          SO I THINK I'LL CONTINUE TO WORK. 
          COLIN AND I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM OFFLINE. 
          BUT IF ANYBODY HAS FEEDBACK ON, ON THOSE REPORTS WE'RE DOING THE R AND M AND TO THE BOARD, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. 
          SO THE OTHER THING WE WANTED TO DISCUSS WAS, UH, GENDER 2 45. 
          THE COMMISSION DID APPROVE THIS. 
          UM, AS YOU REMEMBER, WE SORT OF BIFURCATED OR DECOUPLED THIS NORE AND THERE, THERE SHOULD OR WILL BE A, A PHASE TWO. 
          ANN, 
          [00:05:01]
ARE YOU GIVING US THE UPDATE ON THAT? YEAH, I CAN GIVE YOU A BRIEF UPDATE. 
          UM, SO AS CAITLYN SAID, WHEN NORE 2 45 IS APPROVED, UM, THE BOARD DID DIRECT A PRIORITY NO BE FILED TO ADDRESS THE REMAINING DETAILS OF THE EXEMPTION PROCESS. 
          SINCE THEN, THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS AND IT'S BEEN DECIDED THAT THAT PIECE IS GONNA GO THROUGH A PUC RULEMAKING INSTEAD. 
          AND THEN AFTER THAT IS COMPLETE, WE WILL MOST LIKELY HAVE TO FILE AN OVER TO LINE  GUIDES FOR PROTOCOLS WITH THE RULE MAKING. 
          OKAY, THANKS DAN. 
          I SEE, UH, BARKSDALE IN THE QUEUE. 
          THANKS, CAITLIN. 
          UH, AND GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. 
          AND, UM, JUST A, A BRIEF UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT RULEMAKING. 
          UH, WE HAVE A, A, A GOOD TEAM HERE SELECTED AT THE PUC, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH ERCOT STAFF TO TRY TO DEFINE, UH, EXACTLY HOW WE'RE GONNA HANDLE, UM, THIS PORTION OF THE NOER, UM, THAT WAS BIFURCATED OUT. 
          AND THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE HEADED RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE RULE WILL, UM, DEFINE, UM, UH, SCENARIOS UNDER WHICH, UM, UH, AN ENTITY CAN REQUEST AN EXEMPTION FROM A RELIABILITY RULE. 
          IT'S NOT GOING TO, AT LEAST AS WE'RE CURRENTLY THINKING ABOUT IT, IT WOULD NOT, UM, BE SPECIFIC TO THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED IN, IN NOGA 2 45, BUT BE MORE BROADLY APPLICABLE. 
          UM, AND THEN, UM, WOULD DEFINE CERTAIN, UH, CRITERIA UNDER WHICH ERCOT COULD, UH, EITHER GRANT OR DENY, UH, THAT REQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTION. 
          UM, THE RULE THEN WOULD LAY OUT A PROCESS FOR, UM, ERCOT TO, UM, PROPOSE MITIGATION STRATEGIES. 
          IF IT DOES, UM, THINK THAT AN EXEMPTION CAN BE, CAN BE ACCOMMODATED, UM, BECAUSE ERCOT WILL NEED THE AUTHORITY TO MAINTAIN RELIABLE OPERATIONS OF THE GRID. 
          AND THEN FINALLY, THE RULE WOULD, UM, LAY OUT A PROCESS FOR AN ENTITY TO SEEK AN APPEAL FROM THE COMMISSION OF, UH, ERCOT DECISION. 
          UM, AND THAT WOULD RUN THROUGH A CONTESTED CASE PROCESS IN WHICH THE ENTITY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE, UM, UH, EVIDENCE OF WHY, UH, THE, THE DECISION SHOULD BE AMENDED OR OVERTURNED. 
          UM, SO WE'RE STILL IN THE BEGINNING STAGES, UM, SINCE IT'S A RULEMAKING, IT'LL GO THROUGH KIND OF OUR NORMAL RULEMAKING PROCESS. 
          UM, AND, AND WE ARE ANTICIPATING ROBUST, UH, WRITTEN COMMENTS. 
          UM, AND OUR AIM IS TO TRY TO, UH, GET THIS, UM, ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, IN THE EARLY SPRING. 
          UM, SO THAT WE'VE GOT THIS IN PLACE, UH, IN TIME FOR, YOU KNOW, FILING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE COMING UP, UM, LATER IN THE SPRING AND INTO THE SUMMER. 
          I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS HERE, OR IF YOU WANNA, UM, PING ME LATER, UH, JUST FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT. 
          THANK YOU, BARKSDALE. 
          ANY, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? OKAY, I DON'T SEE ANY IN THE QUEUE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK, THANK YOU AGAIN, BARKSDALE. 
          [4. Board Remand of NPRR1190, High Dispatch Limit Override Provision for Increased Load Serving Entity Costs (Vote)]
SO WE ARE ONTO AGENDA ITEM, UM, FOUR. 
          AND SO THE BOARD REMANDED NPR 1190, WE, WE VOTED THIS THROUGH TECH IN JUNE. 
          IT WAS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD IN AUGUST WHERE THEY TABLED IT AT THE OCTOBER BOARD. 
          THEY DID REMAND IT BACK TO TECH, UM, BECAUSE IT WAS REMANDED. 
          IT'S SORT OF LIKE IT'S FIRST TIME AT TECH AGAIN. 
          SO WE WILL TAKE, WE WILL NEED TO TAKE SOME KIND OF ACTION. 
          MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO USE TODAY, IT'S SORT OF A, AN EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION SESSION. 
          AND THEN IF WE'RE NOT READY TO VOTE, TABLE IT AND PLAN TO HAVE THAT SUBSTATIVE VOTE IN NOVEMBER. 
          ANYTHING VOTED THROUGH TODAY OR NOVEMBER WOULD WOULD GO TO THE DECEMBER BOARD. 
          SO IT'D STILL BE ON THE SAME DECEMBER BOARD TIMELINE. 
          UM, AND I, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE TOOK SOME TIME TO, TO GET EDUCATION HERE. 
          WE HAVE, WE WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM ERCOT HIGHLIGHTING, ESPECIALLY WHERE THIS STARTED WITH NPR 6 49, WHAT WAS IN THAT VERSUS IN 1190, THAT WAS A TOPIC OF BOARD DISCUSSION. 
          AND THEN ERIC BLAKEY WILL WALK US THROUGH, UM, THE DISCUSSIONS AND ANALYSIS THAT ALREADY TOOK PLACE AT WMS AND WMWG. 
          I THINK THIS IS MY FAULT THAT THE AGENDA 
          [00:10:01]
DIDN'T GET UPDATED. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS, BUT WE WILL HAVE A NUMBER OF VERBAL COMMENTS FROM THE DIFFERENT IN INTERESTED STAKEHOLDERS. 
          SO WITH THAT, LET'S START WITH THE, THE ERCOT PRESENTATION. 
          UH, HELLO, THIS IS AUSTIN. 
          HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HEAR ME. 
          YES, WE CAN. 
          THANKS AUSTIN. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, HELLO. 
          CAITLYN SAID, UH, SHE ASKED US TO PUT TOGETHER SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE BACKGROUND ON THE CURRENT PROTOCOL LANGUAGE ON NPR 1190. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THIS PRESENTATION COVERS, AND I THINK DOUG MIGHT BE ONLINE. 
          SO DOUG, FEEL FREE TO HELP ME OUT IF YOU THINK I DIDN'T MENTION SOMETHING I SHOULD MENTION OR HELP WITH QUESTIONS. 
          UM, SO 1190 IS A MODIFICATION TO CURRENT PROTOCOL LANGUAGE, A CURRENT, UH, POLICY THAT EXISTS THAT WAS PUT THERE WITH NPR 6 49. 
          UM, NPR 6 49 CAME EFFECTIVE IN 2016, AND THAT PROVIDES A PAYMENT FOR QSC THAT MAY HAVE SUFFERED LOSSES DUE TO A HIGH DISPATCH LIMIT OVERRIDE. 
          THE WHAT CREATED THIS POLICY WAS THERE WAS A CASE AT THE PUC FILED BY ODESSA, WHERE THEY SUFFERED SOME LOSSES DUE TO SOME HDL OVERRIDES THAT WENT UP TO THE P UP TO THE PUC. 
          AND THERE'S THE DOCKET NUMBER HERE IF YOU WANT TO REVIEW THE, THE, UM, MORE DETAILED HISTORY THERE. 
          BUT WHILE THAT WAS BEING, UM, UH, WORKED OUT AT THE PUC ERCOT AND ODESSA REACHED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHERE WE WOULD DISMISS THE CASE, THE PUC GRANT, THE DISPUTES THAT WERE IN INITIALLY DENIED BY ERCOT FROM ODESSA, AND WE WOULD FILE AN NPRR THAT WOULD CREATE THIS, THIS NEW HDL OVERRIDE MECHANISM, UH, PAYMENT MECHANISM IN THE PROTOCOLS. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO, THE PUC CONSIDERED THAT MOTION SUPPORTED THE AGREEMENT TOLD US TO WRITE AN NPRR. 
          SO IN 2014, WE FILED NPR 6 49 AND NPR 6 49 WAS CONTENTIOUS. 
          IT TOOK ABOUT TWO YEARS TO GET TO THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. 
          UM, TAC REJECTED IT, IT WAS APPEALED TO THE BOARD REMAN, IT WAS REMANDED BACK TO TAC. 
          AND EVENTUALLY IN APRIL OF 2016, UH, WE FINALLY HAMMERED OUT THE FINAL LANGUAGE. 
          NOW, I NOTICED ON THE FIRST SLIDE THIS MORNING, I CALLED THIS THE LOST OPPORTUNITY PAYMENT. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S HOW THE, THE NPR STARTED. 
          BUT BY THE TIME IT GOT THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, AND AFTER THE TWO YEARS, THIS WAS NO LONGER A LOST OPPORTUNITY PAYMENT. 
          IT WAS A, UM, IT WAS MEANT TO ONLY COVER FINANCIAL LOSS. 
          SO, UM, LET'S SEE. 
          I SAW SOME STUFF IN THE CHAT. 
          I'M TRYING TO BRING UP THE CHAT WINDOW HERE AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO, HERE'S A REVIEW OF THE, OF THE CURRENT POLICY. 
          SO IF A RESOURCE RECEIVES AN HDL OVER HDL OVERRIDE, HIGH DISPATCH, LIMIT OVERRIDE, WHERE THEY'RE DIRECTED TO REDUCE THEIR GENERATION IN AN OUT OF MARKET ACTION, OR I GUESS BE HELD DOWN SO THEY CANNOT FOLLOW THAT, THEY, UH, THE PRICES MAY HAVE DISPATCHED THEM HIGHER ON THEIR ENERGY OFFER CURVE, THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GO BECAUSE OF THIS HDL OVERRIDE. 
          AND THAT CO COVERS A DEMONSTRABLE FINANCIAL LOSS. 
          SO THAT WAS LIKE THE CHANGE. 
          IT'S NOT A LOST OPPORTUNITY PAYMENT ANYMORE. 
          UM, IF THERE IS SOME SORT OF FORWARD OBLIGATION THAT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO FULFILL BECAUSE OF THE ACL OVERRIDE, THE QSC IS ELIGIBLE FOR TO BE CONSIDERED FOR COMPENSATION AND LIKELY GRANTED IF THEY, IF THEY SUFFERED A DEMONSTRABLE FINANCIAL LOSS IS THE TERM ON THE PROTOCOLS. 
          SO THAT'S THE CURRENT POLICY. 
          WE HAVE EXERCISED THAT, UM, MAYBE 20 TIME FOR 20 RESOURCES OR SO. 
          UM, MOSTLY DURING URI. 
          IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT A FREQUENTLY USED, UM, MECHANISM. 
          UM, AND RELATIVE TO OVERALL SETTLEMENTS, UH, I WOULD SAY THE, THE AMOUNTS THAT ARE, THAT HAVE BEEN PAID THROUGH THIS HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN, HAVEN'T BEEN SIGNIFICANT. 
          AND IF, IF YOU LOOK IN THE, UM, THE COMMENTS FILED BY ERCOT IN 1190, YOU CAN SEE SOME DATA SHOWING THE, THE, THE FREQUENCY OF GRANTED HDLS, THE FREQUENCY OF HDLS THAT DID NOT RESULT IN DISPUTES AND SOME OF THE SETTLEMENT 
          [00:15:01]
AMOUNTS RELATED TO 'EM. 
          UH, NEXT SLIDE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHAT DOES 1190 DO? SO, 1190 EXTENDS THE CURRENT LANGUAGE. 
          SO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN HDL AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF FORWARD OBLIGATION, DAY AHEAD SALE OR A, A, UH, BILATERAL, UH, AGREEMENT OF SOME KIND. 
          SOME ENTITIES MAY NOT HAVE THOSE BASED ON HOW THEY'RE, HOW THEY OPERATE LIKE A, A MUNI OR A COMPETITIVE ENTITY THAT HAS BOTH GENERATION LOAD WITHIN THE SAME QSC. 
          THEY MAY NOT HAVE BILATERAL CONTRACTS WITH THEMSELVES, OR MAY NOT NEED TO HAVE DAM ACTIVITY TO, TO, TO SERVE THEIR OWN LOAD. 
          SO 1190 WAS ORIGINALLY FILED BY AUSTIN ENERGY THAT EXPANDED IT TO MUNIS SAYING, WELL, MUNIS DON'T NEED TO NECESSARILY PROVE THEY HAVE A DAM OBLIGATION OF BILATERAL CONTRACT. 
          AND THEN, UM, UH, RELIANCE OR NRG UM, FILED COMMENTS SAYING, WELL, THEY SHOULD ALSO EXTEND TO ENTITIES THAT HAVE BOTH GENERAL LOAD UNDER THE SAME QSC. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT ULTIMATELY WAS APPROVED BY TAC AND WENT TO THE BOARD WAS EXTENDING IT TO THESE TWO TYPES OF ENTITIES. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO, I THINK ERIC HAS A MORE DETAILED BLOW BY BLOW OF, UH, 1190 AND ALL THE STAKEHOLDER ACT, UM, ACTIVITY. 
          BUT HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED AT TAC AND THE BOARD. 
          SO IN JUNE, TAC TAC RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF 1190, BUT THE ENTIRE CONSUMER SEGMENT VOTED AGAINST IT. 
          UM, SO THEN WHEN I WENT TO THE BOARD IN AUGUST, THE BOARD, THOSE NO VOTES FROM THE CONSUMER SEGMENT, UH, GAVE THEM SOME PAUSE. 
          SO THEY WANTED TO CONSIDER IT FOR A MONTH FOR A CYCLE, A COUPLE MONTHS FOR A BOARD CYCLE. 
          SO THEY TABLED IT AT THAT LEVEL. 
          AND, UH, WHEN IT CAME BACK UP IN OCTOBER, THE PUC MADE SOME COMMENTS AT R AND M SAYING THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT EXPANDING THE 1190 TREATMENT. 
          AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, THE, UH, IT WAS REMANDED BACK HERE. 
          AND THEN HERE WE ARE TODAY. 
          UM, SO THAT'S HIGH LEVEL BACKGROUND ON, UH, ON THE POL ON THE POLICY HERE. 
          UM, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS, BLAKE? HEY, BLAKE. 
          HOLT, LCRA. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? AUSTIN? YES, SIR. 
          NOW THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE LAST BULLET HERE. 
          UH, WHAT WAS THE SCOPE OF THE REMAND, UH, RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD? UH, WAS IT THE PUC STAFF CONCERNS OR THE JOINT CONSUMER CONCERNS? MY UNDERSTANDING IS BOTH POINTS OF VIEW ARE, ARE, ARE PRETTY DIFFERENT. 
          SO I'M UNSURE OF WHAT THIS, THE SCOPE IS FOR, FOR US TO CONSIDER TODAY. 
          OKAY. 
          NOT MY IDEA. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN ANYBODY'S, ANYBODY'S MOUTH. 
          I DIDN'T READ THAT OFFICIAL. 
          UM, IF THERE'S SOME OFFICIAL LANGUAGE WRITTEN ON WHY IT CAME BACK, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY, UM, ANYBODY ON THE LINE KNOWS BETTER THAN I DO. 
          UM, I KIND OF LEFT WITH THE IMPRESSION IT WAS YEP. 
          YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          I, I'LL, I'LL TRY TO TAKE THIS AND ANNE CAN JUMP IN. 
          UM, LIKE I DON'T THINK WE, WE DON'T REALLY GET SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION ON, ON WHAT TO CONSIDER IN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT THEY HAVE THAT WE CAN LEAN INFORMATION FROM THAT, THAT YOU'RE PICKING UP ON. 
          BUT AS FAR AS THE REMAND, I BELIEVE IT'S JUST VOTE TO REMAND AND, AND NOT A, A VOTE TO DIRECT US TO LOOK AT EXACT THINGS TYPICALLY. 
          AND IS THAT CORRECT IN THIS CASE? YEAH. 
          THAT, THAT IS WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DID HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND I THINK THOSE ARE ALL THINGS WE, WE SHOULD CONSIDER. 
          BUT IN THE FORMAL MOTION, IT'S NOT LOOK AT THINGS UNDER ONLY X SCOPE OR, OR ONLY Y SCOPE. 
          IT'S JUST A, A VOTE TO, TO REMAND AND, AND DISCUSSED AND BRING IT BACK TO THEM. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          BILL BARNES, DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD OR DO YOU WANNA HOLD YOUR QUESTION? UM, I MEAN, I CAN, GOING AHEAD IS GREAT. 
          I JUST WANTED TO E ERIC INDICATED HE WANTED TO WAIT, SO I JUST WANTED TO CHECK. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          WELL, I, I LIKE ERIC'S, UH, BACKGROUND ON THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY, BUT I, LET ME JUST PROVIDE OUR PERSPECTIVE. 
          'CAUSE WE DID EVENTUALLY GET INVOLVED IN THIS. 
          WE WEREN'T AN ORIGINAL SPONSOR. 
          UM, 
          [00:20:01]
BUT REALLY, AND I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN BOTH THE INITIAL, UH, DISCUSSIONS WITH FOR 6 49 AND KIND OF WHERE THIS ENDED UP. 
          AND, UM, REALLY FROM OUR VIEW, THE INITIAL INTENT WITH 6 49 WAS TO ENSURE THAT A GENERATOR THAT HAS A PPA TO SELL OUTPUT THAT IS IMPACTED BY AN HDL OVERRIDE, MEANING THE HDL OVERRIDE, PREVENTS THE GENERATOR FROM FULFILLING THEIR CONTRACT ON THE PPA WOULD BE ABLE TO RECOVER REASONABLE COSTS, UM, AND FINANCIAL HARM. 
          AND THAT'S THE WHOLE DEMONSTRABLE COMPONENT, IS YOU WOULD ACTUALLY SHOW ERCOT A-A-A-P-P-A OR A CONTRACT WHERE YOU'RE SELLING OUTPUT TO A COUNTERPARTY AND THAT HCL OF RED PREVENTED YOU FROM FULFILLING THAT CONTRACT. 
          NOW, AS WITH MUCH PROTOCOL LANGUAGE, IT PROBABLY WASN'T AS CLEAR AND CRISP AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. 
          AND SO, UM, ERCOT INTERPRETED THAT LANGUAGE TO ALSO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR A NON-OP IN THAT HAS LOAD, UH, WHICH WE DON'T PICK EXCEPTION TO. 
          WE THINK THAT GIVEN HOW THE LANGUAGE WAS DRAFTED, THAT WAS, UM, A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, BUT OBVIOUSLY NOT CONSISTENT WITH AT LEAST OUR PERSPECTIVE, WHAT THE INTENT WAS. 
          AND SO THAT IS WHERE I THINK THE DISCUSSION CHANGED AS TO, OKAY, WELL IF THIS IS GOING TO BE USED TO ALLOW FOR ENTITIES TO RECOVER COSTS FOR HEDGING LOAD, THEN WE, IT NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED FAIRLY, MEANING THAT ALL IMPACTED PARTICIPANTS, UH, WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE THE SAME SETTLEMENT TREATMENT. 
          UM, AND THAT'S WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE TRICKIER BECAUSE A COMPETITIVE ENTITY DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF CONTRACT LANGUAGE OR, UH, ARTICLE OF CERTIFICATION OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT MUNIS OR CO-OPS HAVE THAT SHOW THAT THEY HAVE FRANCHISE LOAD AND ANY IMPACT WILL OBVIOUSLY, UH, CAUSE THEM FINANCIAL HARM IN SELLING THAT AND PROVIDING THAT LOAD. 
          A COMPETIT DOES NOT HAVE THAT. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT WITH OUR GENERATION FLEET TO COVER EVERY EASY ID THAT WE'RE SERVING THAT WHICH CHANGES ON A DAILY BASIS. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE THE LANGUAGE, UM, THAT'S WHERE WE GOT INVOLVED TO SAY, OKAY, WELL IF WE'RE GONNA DO THIS, LET'S MAKE IT FAIR. 
          UM, BUT WE DID, WE, YOU KNOW, AS ERIC'S PRESENTATION LAYS OUT, WE SPENT PROBABLY OVER A YEAR BATTING THIS AROUND. 
          AND TO ME, I THINK THERE'S REALLY THREE MAIN POLICY DISCUSSIONS OR, OR, UH, DECISIONS TO MAKE ON THIS, WHICH WE'VE, WE'VE KIND OF WORKED OUR WAY THROUGH EVENTUALLY. 
          UM, THE FIRST IS WHAT, WHAT ERIC AND CONSUMERS BRINGS UP IS, SHOULD WE EVEN ALLOW THE ABILITY TO GET COMPENSATION FOR AN HDL OVERRIDE THAT IMPACTS, UH, GENERATOR? THAT'S NUMBER ONE. 
          UM, NUMBER TWO IS SHOULD THIS BE APPLIED NARROWLY TO A GENERATOR THAT HAS A PPA, WHICH WAS, AND FROM OUR VIEW, THE INITIAL INTENT OF WHAT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO DO. 
          AND THEN THREE IS IF IT CAN BE ALLOWED TO BE USED TO GET COST RECOVERY FOR HEDGING LOAD, THEN IT NEEDS TO BE DONE FAIRLY. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE THREE REALLY, I THINK, DISCUSSION POINTS AROUND THE POLICY HERE. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO LAY THAT OUT. 
          THANKS. 
          THANKS, BILL. 
          UM, ALICIA, THANK YOU. 
          UM, BILL SAID A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY, BUT I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR ERCOT. 
          UM, CLEARLY, UH, WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN ONE OF THESE, BUT MY, MY MAIN QUESTION IS IF, IF THE PROTOCOL DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY, UM, ALLOW FOR THIS, WHAT IS THE OTHER REMEDY THAT A GENERATOR, UM, MAY HAVE WHEN THIS SITUATION OCCURS? I MEAN, I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I'D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE. 
          SO, WELL, SO YOU'RE SAYING LIKE, IF WE REMOVE THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS INTRODUCED WITH 6 49 NO, THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT THIS NPRR IS SOLVING FOR, WHAT IS THIS CLARIFYING, WHAT IS THE SITUATION THAT THIS HELPS? AND I THINK THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION, I MAY BE DOING A REALLY BAD JOB OF FRAMING IT, IS THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN A DR PROCESS, CORRECT? NO DISPUTE PROCESS, BUT, UH, I THINK DOUG, LET LET DOUG, YEAH, THIS IS, THIS IS DOUG. 
          CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? Y'ALL HEAR ME? YES. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO, I'LL, I'LL ADD A LITTLE, UH, DETAIL ON HOW THIS CAME ABOUT. 
          SO WE HAD, UM, AUSTIN ENERGY ACTUALLY 
          [00:25:01]
HAD FILED AND, UM, HAD, HAD SOUGHT COMPENSATION ON THIS, THIS, THIS IS PUBLIC BECAUSE, UH, WE, WE GRANTED THEIR PDR, BUT, BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS THERE WAS A JOINTLY OWNED UNIT THAT HAD THIS HDL, UM, INSTRUCTION. 
          ONE OF THE OWNERS HAD FILED FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE EXISTING PROTOCOL LANGUAGE AND WAS ABLE TO HAND US A PAPER CONTRACT SHOWING THAT THEY HAD AN OBLIGATION THAT THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO FULFILL UNDER A CONTRACT THAT FIT NEATLY IN THE EXISTING WORDS AND THE PROTOCOLS, AND WAS GRANTED AUSTIN ENERGY, WHO IS THE OTHER CO-OWNER OF THE POWER PLANT, WHO ALSO SUFFERED THE EXACT SAME HDL INSTRUCTION AND, YOU KNOW, HAD THE EXACT SAME RAMIFICATIONS OR, YOU KNOW, IMPACT AS THE FIRST OWNER SIMILARLY FILED SEEKING COMPENSATION UNDER THIS LANGUAGE. 
          HOWEVER, AUSTIN ENERGY DID NOT HAVE A PAPER CONTRACT THAT THEY COULD HAND US, AND THAT MADE IT A LITTLE DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE, THE, THE LANGUAGE AS IT EXISTS TODAY TALKS ABOUT A BILATERAL CONTRACT. 
          AND SO THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS, WE HAVEN'T HAD VERY MANY OF THESE IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT WHEN WE HAVE HAD THEM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE ASK FOR IS A PAPER CONTRACT THAT YOU CAN SHOW US THAT YOU HAD THIS OBLIGATION THAT WAS NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE, OVER THE HDL OVERRIDE. 
          AFTER WE SPENT SOME TIME WITH, UM, IN A DR WITH AUSTIN ENERGY ON THIS ISSUE, THEY WERE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE ARE, CITY CODE LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THEIR OBLIGATION TO SERVE THEIR CUSTOMERS IS A CONTRACT. 
          SO THEY, WE FOUND THAT THAT LANGUAGE BEING LAW SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT THEIR OBLIGATION IS A CONTRACT OR AN, UM, OR CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE, THOSE LINES WAS SUFFICIENT TO FIND THAT UNDER THE PROTOCOL LANGUAGE, THEY HAD DEMONSTRATED A BILATERAL CONTRACT. 
          IF THAT LANGUAGE HAD NOT BEEN THERE IN THE CITY CODE, THIS VERY WELL MAY NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED. 
          AND WE VERY WELL MAY HAVE SAID, SORRY, YOU GET NO RELIEF. 
          WHEREAS THE, THE OTHER PARTY WHO, OTHER PART OWNER OF THE POWER PLANT DID GET RELIEF BECAUSE THEY HAD A PAPER CONTRACT AND YOU DON'T, WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT INCONSISTENT, AND WE THOUGHT THAT FOR OTHER MUNIS WHO MIGHT COME ALONG LATER THAT HAVE THE EXACT SAME SITUATION, BUT DON'T HAPPEN TO HAVE THIS LANGUAGE, MAGIC LANGUAGE IN THEIR CODE WOULD HAVE A TOTALLY OP, YOU KNOW, INCONSISTENT RESULT. 
          SO WE TALKED WITH AUSTIN ENERGY ABOUT HOW IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR MUNIS IN GENERAL. 
          THEY, THEY WERE FORTUNATE THAT THEY HAD VERY GOOD SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THEIR CODE, BUT FOR OTHERS THAT ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED, IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO CLARIFY IN THE PROTOCOLS THAT IF YOU ARE A NOI WHO'S GOT THIS OBLIGATION TO SERVE LOAD, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE OR, OR SHOW US A, A PAPER CONTRACT OR HAVE TO GET LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE CODE LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS YOUR OBLIGATION IS CONTRACTUAL OR IS A CONTRACT. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO FIX INITIALLY WAS TO, TO CLARIFY THAT IT, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE COULD BE THESE, THERE ARE THESE SITUATIONS WHERE LIKE, LIKE NOE'S THAT HAVE THIS OBLIGATION TO SERVE THEIR CUSTOMERS, THEY MAY NOT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF, OF THEY MAY NOT HAVE A PAPER CONTRACT LIKE OTHER PRIVATE PARTIES MIGHT. 
          SO WE WERE TRYING TO JUST FIX THAT AND, AND, AND, UH, WITH 1190, AND I THINK THAT IF YOU, IF 1190 GOES AWAY, WE'RE BACK THERE. 
          AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE, WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE INCONSISTENT RESULTS WHERE ONE PARTY CAN COME IN AND THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE A PAPER CONTRACT, THEY CAN SHOW US THE OTHER PARTY IS A NOE, A MUNI, OR A CO-OP OR SOMETHING. 
          THEY DON'T HAPPEN TO HAVE A PAPER CONTRACT AND THEY DON'T HAVE REALLY GOOD LANGUAGE IN THEIR CITY CODE SAYING SPECIFICALLY THAT IT'S A CONTRACT AND THEY WON'T GET ANY RELIEF FOR THE EXACT SAME INSTANCE. 
          SO THAT WAS THE WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE. 
          AND, AND IF, IF 11 NINETY'S NOT ADOPTED THAT, THAT'S WHERE WE'LL BE. 
          SO JUST A LITTLE CONTEXT ON KIND OF HOW THIS CAME ABOUT, UH, I APPRECIATE IT AND I, I DON'T HAVE ANY, ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK, THANK YOU BOTH. 
          AUSTIN, ARE YOU, I DON'T REMEMBER WHERE YOU WERE. 
          DID YOU FINISH THE PRESENTATION OR DO YOU NEED TO WRAP UP THE SLIDE? UH, NO, I'M DONE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR OFTEN BEFORE WE GO TO ERIC BLAKEY? I, ALL RIGHT, ERIC, ARE YOU READY? 
          [00:30:01]
I AM READY. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN HEAR YOU. 
          AWESOME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'M ERIC BLAKEY WITH PERELLIS CO-OP. 
          I AM THE CHAIR OF THE WHOLESALE MARKET SUBCOMMITTEE AND WAS ASKED TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY THAT, UH, THIS NPR HAD WITH OUR COMMITTEE AND, AND, AND THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. 
          SO IT WAS FILED, UH, A YEAR AGO ON JULY 26TH, FILED BY AUSTIN ENERGY, CPS ENERGY, DENTON MUNICIPAL GUARD, GARLAND POWER AND LIFE GREENVILLE ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEM. 
          THEY PROPOSED ADDING A PROVISION FOR RECOVERY OF A DEMONSTRABLE FINANCIAL LOSS ARISING FROM A MANUAL HIGH DISPATCH LIMIT OVERRIDE TO REDUCE REAL POWER OUTPUT IN THE CASE WHEN THAT OUTPUT IS INTENDED TO MEET QUEASY LOAD OBLIGATION. 
          THIS WENT TO PRS ON AUGUST THE 10TH, AND AUSTIN ENERGY PROVIDED AN OVERVIEW. 
          UH, PARTICIPANTS ASKED QUESTIONS AND, UH, DISCUSSED SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES AND SUCH AS PARTICIPATION IN THE DAY AHEAD MARKET AND ULTIMATELY REQUESTED ADDITIONAL REVIEW BY WMS. UH, LET ME SAY BEFORE I GO FORWARD, THESE SUMMARIES OF THESE MEETINGS ARE SORT OF FROM MY NOTES THERE. 
          THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME OTHER THINGS DISCUSSED. 
          UH, JUST WANNA SAY THESE, THESE WERE WHAT I IDENTIFIED AS AS THE HIGH LEVEL DISCUSSION. 
          THE, UH, THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY, THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE WMS MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 6TH OF LAST YEAR. 
          AGAIN, AUSTIN ENERGY PROVIDED A NO REVIEW, UH, DISCUSSED, UH, ISSUES AROUND NOE NOT HAVING A PHYSICAL CONTRACT, AS WE JUST DISCUSSED, STAKEHOLDERS QUESTION DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN APPLICABILITY TO AN INDIVIDUAL RESOURCE VERSUS AN ENTIRE PORTFOLIO OF RESOURCES. 
          AND WMS VOTED TO TABLE AND REFER THIS TO THE WHOLESALE MARKET WORKING GROUP. 
          ON SEPTEMBER 22ND, THE WMWG MEETING WAS HELD, AND AGAIN, AUSTIN ENERGY PROVIDED AN OVERVIEW. 
          I EXPLAINED THAT THE PURPOSE IS TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR NOI, NOT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. 
          THE GROUP DISCUSSED QUESTIONS REGARDING CONCERNS BY MARKET PARTICIPANTS AND WHETHER THE SCOPE SHOULD BE NARROW TO PROTECT SMALLER ENTITIES OR EXPANDED. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          ON JULY 26TH, UM, NO, SORRY, ON NOVEMBER 17TH, WE HAD COMMENTS FILED BY THE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS. 
          THEY PROPOSED EDITS TO NARROW THE SCOPE RATHER THAN EXPANDING THE SCOPE AS SUGGESTED BY NPR 1190. 
          THEY PROPOSED CLARIFICATION TO REMOVE UNCERTAINTY. 
          THEY COMMENTS SAID THEY REFLECT WHAT THEY BELIEVE WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE PROTOCOL SECTION, WHICH WAS TO COVER A NARROWLY TAILORED ISSUE AND NOT JUST ANY CONTRACT TO SERVE LOAD. 
          ON DECEMBER 1ST, WMWG MET AND REVIEWED THE RESIDENTIAL COMMENTS ON DECEMBER 4TH. 
          RELIANT FILE COMMENTS PROPOSING EDITS TO INCLUDE QUEASY RATHER THAN ONLY THE NOI. 
          THEY ARGUED THAT REPS DO NOT HAVE FRANCHISE SERVICE TERRITORY WITH CAPTIVE CUSTOMERS, AND THEREFORE THEY'RE UNLIKELY TO HAVE BILATERAL CONTRACTS THAT COVER SUPPLY FOR ALL CUSTOMERS THAT THEY SERVE, OR IT WOULD BE EXCESSIVELY BURDENSOME TO PROVIDE PROOF OF CONTRACTS AND HEDGE PURCHASES TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL HARM FROM AN HDL OVERRIDE. 
          FEBRUARY 13TH, WMWG MET, THEY DISCUSSED THE FINANCIAL HARM WITH ERCOT ISSUES AND OVERRIDE, UH, THAT LOWER GENERATION USED TO SERVE LOAD. 
          AND THEY DISCUSSED WAYS TO LIMIT T'S USE OF THE OVERRIDE RATHER THAN, RATHER THAN ELIMINATING THE COST RELIEF ON MARCH 4TH. 
          ERCOT FILED COMMENTS, UM, WITH CLARIFYING EDITS ON TOP OF THE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED IN NOVEMBER ON MARCH 6TH, WMS MET. 
          AND WE DISCUSSED THE STATUS OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AT WMWG, UH, AND WE ASKED ERCOT TO WORK, OR PARTIES TO WORK WITH ERCOT TO BRING BACK CLARIFYING LANGUAGE FOR THE NEXT WMS. NEXT SLIDE. 
          ON MARCH 26TH, RELIANT FILED ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WITH EDITS TO ADD  THE EDIT STATION, RATHER THAN REQUIRING THEM TO SUBMIT CONTRACTS ON MARCH 27TH. 
          HER FILE COMMENTS WITH ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING EDITS. 
          THEN IN APRIL, WMS MET DISCUSSED PAYMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE HDL OVERRIDE 
          [00:35:01]
AND IT REMAINED TABLED TO ALLOW FOR ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED AT WMWG. 
          THEY MET ON APRIL 24TH. 
          ERCOT EXPLAINED THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THE MT R IS ABOUT THE DISTRIBUTION OF MONEY. 
          WMWG DID NOT REACH AGREEMENT ON A RECOMMENDATION TO BRING FORWARD ON MAY 1ST. 
          WMF MET AND ENDORSED MTR 1190 AS AMENDED BY THE MARCH 26 RELIANT COMMENTS AND INCLUDED AN ATTESTATION REQUIREMENT FOR QUEASY REPRESENTING COMPETITIVE LOAD IN THEIR PORTFOLIO THAT ARE IMPACTED BY AN HDL OVERRIDE, HAD A RESOURCE AND THEY'RE STAYING QUEASY OR ONE THEY'RE PURCHASING ENERGY FROM. 
          THERE WERE THREE OPPOSING VOTES FROM THE CONSUMERS, THE RESIDENTIAL CMC STEEL AND DOW, AND THEN TWO ABSTENTIONS, UH, BY CITY OF EASTLAND AND PERNELL'S CO-OP. 
          NEXT SLIDE ON MARCH 9TH. 
          THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT PRF. 
          THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE MARCH 26TH RELIANT COMMUNIST. 
          AT THIS MEETING, THERE WERE FOUR OF OPPOSING VOTES, UH, FROM THE CONSUMER SEGMENT, RESIDENTIAL OPEC TO EASTLAND AND OCCIDENTAL, AND EIGHT ABSTENTIONS FROM THE CO-OP SECTION, UH, SEGMENT, WHICH WAS PEC, AND THEN INDEPENDENT GENERATOR, JUPITER POWER NEXTERA, N-G-E-D-F AND TWO FROM THE IPM SEGMENTS. 
          THEN AS AND TINA AND THE IOU SEGMENT, LINEBACKER POWER. 
          SO EIGHT UH, EXTENSIONS, ONE ON JUNE 13TH, THE RS MET AGAIN TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT ANALYSIS, WHICH WAS APPROVED. 
          IMPACT ANALYSIS DETERMINED THERE WOULD BE NO BUDGET IMPACT AND NO PROJECT REQUIRED. 
          UM, THERE WAS ONE OPPOSING VOTE FROM THE CONSUMER SEGMENT, OPEC AND TWO ABSTENTIONS, UH, FROM OCCIDENTAL AND DC ENERGY. 
          UH, JUNE 24TH, TAG MET AND APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED BY PRF. 
          THIS TIME STICKS. 
          OPPOSING VOTES, UH, FROM THE CONSUMER SEGMENT, RESIDENTIAL OPEC, CITY OF EASTLAND, CITY OF DALLAS, C NNC STEEL AND DALE CHEMICAL, ONE ABSTENTION FROM THE I REP GROUP, WHICH WAS A RHYTHM POWER ON AUGUST 8TH. 
          C**K FILE COMMENTS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAIL, I THINK ASSISTANCE FOR THE BOARD, UH, IN THE, UH, HISTORICAL A CO OVERRIDE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          I THINK THIS WAS COVERED IN THE OTHER PRESENTATIONS, SO I'LL JUST BE BRIEF. 
          AT THE AUGUST BOARD MEETINGS, UH, THEY DISCUSSED CONCERNS REGARDING THE, THE SIX OPPOSING VOTES IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE IMPACT. 
          ERCOT SAID THERE WERE 12 INSTANCES OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS THAT THERE WAS NOT A BIG FINANCIAL IMPACT, BUT THERE CAN BE IN AN INSTANCE, LIKE A WINTER STORM URI EVENT. 
          UH, SO THIS WAS REMANDED, UM, OR THIS WAS TABLED FOR, FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER AT THE NEXT MEETING IN OCTOBER, UM, ON OCTOBER THE SECOND, THE JOINT CONSUMERS, UH, FILED COMMENTS EXPLAINED THEIR CONCERNS WITH EXPANDING THE ENTITIES TO RECEIVE HDL OVERRIDE PAYMENT, SAYING THE PROPOSAL IS CONTRARY TO THE NOTABLE MARKET, WHICH TO REMOVE ALL HDL OVERRIDE PAYMENTS, NOT JUST THE ELIGIBILITY EXPANSION, UH, TO MOUS AND  WITH GENERATION AND LOAD, BUT NO CONTRACTS. 
          UM, AND SO THOSE WERE FILED ON OCTOBER 2ND. 
          THE BOARD MET AGAIN ON OCTOBER 9TH AND 10TH, AND, UH, THE R AND M COMMITTEE, UH, VOTED TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD TO REMAND IT TO TAC AS WE'VE DISCUSSED. 
          UM, ANY ANY QUESTIONS OR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR ANYTHING THAT I MIGHT HAVE LEFT OUT? I DON'T SEE ANY SPECIFIC TO, TO THIS ERIC, BUT, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO DO THIS. 
          I THINK THAT THE KIND OF INFORMATION, BUT, BUT IT'S PROBABLY HELPFUL TO, TO TAC MAYBE WHEN WE START CONSIDERING THINGS AND THEN TO, TO THE BOARD AS WELL TO SEE ALL THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN HAD AND THE WORK THAT WENT INTO IT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK IF IFT AND THE BOARD LOOKING AT THIS SOONER, THEN WE WOULD SAY, OH, YOU KNOW, THAT THIS HAS BEEN AT A WORKING GROUP FOR EIGHT MEETINGS AND HERE ARE THE DIFFERENT DISCUSSIONS THEY'VE HAD AND MAYBE HERE ARE THE ONES WE STILL NEED TO HAVE. 
          SO, SO I THINK THIS KIND OF INFORMATION IS HELPFUL. 
          ALRIGHT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO ERIC SCHUBERT. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          THIS IS KIND OF IN, IN, IN LIEU OF THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS SCHEDULED THERE. 
          UM, TO REPEAT, UM, WHAT ERIC HAD SAID THAT, UM, WE DO NOT SUPPORT 1190 BECAUSE IT WOULD, 
          [00:40:01]
UH, BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES AND THE INTENT OF THE NODAL MARKET IMPLEMENTATION THAT WAS DONE BY THE COMMISSION. 
          IT REWARDS OVER SCHEDULING POWER THAT CAN'T BE DELIVERED, AND AS SUCH WOULD FORCE CONSUMERS TO SUBSIDIZE INEFFICIENT HEDGING BY OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS IN THE FACE OF CHANGING CONDITIONS. 
          UM, A MAJOR REASON THAT THE ERCOT MARKET ADOPTED THE NO DISPATCH AND PRICING WAS TO AVOID PAIN GENERATORS FOR POWER THAT WAS SCHEDULED AND NOT DELIVERED. 
          AND THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR A COUPLE REASONS. 
          ONE IS, OF COURSE, FAIRNESS IN A SENSE THAT SOME OF US HAVE HEDGED AGAINST THESE THINGS AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT OTHERS DO AS WELL, AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE SUBSIDIZING THAT. 
          BUT BY PUTTING THE, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY IN THE LONG TERM, BY PUTTING RISK OF DELIVERY ON MARKET PARTICIPANTS KNOWN AS DIRECT ASSIGNMENT OF CONGESTION COSTS, YOU MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF DELIVERABLE POWER OVER TIME. 
          AND THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THIS MARKET BECAUSE YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE CHOOSING THE SITE A RESOURCE, AND YOU THEREFORE FOCUS ON DELIVER THE MAXIMIZE, DELIVER THE VALUE OF DELIVERABLE POWER, NOT THE VALUE OF THE CAPACITY OR THE SCHEDULED POWER THAT LEADS TO MORE EFFICIENCY AND MORE ABILITY TO, TO INTEGRATE NEW TECHNOLOGIES OVER TIME. 
          SECONDLY, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES OF MENTIONED TO HEDGE AND THAT THEREFORE ALSO, UH, INCREASES THE VALUE OF EXISTING RESOURCES THAT CAN DELIVER POWER AT A GIVEN TIME. 
          SO, UH, THAT IS PRETTY MUCH THE CORE OF OUR, OUR THOUGHTS AT THIS POINT, JUST AS A QUICK REVIEW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, ERIC. 
          OKAY, LET'S GO TO OUR QUEUE. 
          CLAYTON GREER. 
          YEAH, UH, DID ANYBODY SPEAK UP ON HOW WE GOT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? MY, IF MY MEMORY SERVES IT WAS BECAUSE ERCOT CAN'T GIVE INFORMATION ON THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM TO ANY ONE MARKET PARTICIPANT, WHICH IS A GOOD POLICY TO HAVE. 
          SO, UH, WHAT WAS HAPPENING WAS THEY COULDN'T TELL A UNIT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE TAKING AN OUTAGE AND COOLER OR COULD NOT START AND, AND ACTUALLY RUN FOR THE DAY. 
          AND SO IT WAS JUST A, A GAME OF CHICKEN AND, AND WHENEVER, WHENEVER THEY WOULD START, ERCOT WOULD, YOU KNOW, FORCE THEM OFF OR THERE WAS SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE. 
          BUT IT ALL RELATED TO THE FACT THAT THERE, THERE, THERE WERE TRANSMISSION OUTAGE JUST TAKEN ON THE SYSTEM AND ERCOT COULDN'T DISCLOSE, YOU KNOW, DAY BY DAY WHETHER, UH, YOU KNOW, A SPECIFIC LINE WAS GONNA BE OUT OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ARGUMENTS FOR NODAL, I HEAR THEM, BUT THERE ARE ALSO CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUES HERE THAT, THAT ARE ACTUALLY CAUSING THE COST. 
          SO, UM, I, I, YOU KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN A BIG FAN OF, YOU KNOW, DO NO HARM. 
          SO IF, IF SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN'T TELL SOMEBODY WHETHER OR NOT THEY TURN ON, THEY TRY TO DO THE RESPONSIBLE THING AND TURN ON, WE, WE DON'T WANNA PENALIZE THEM FOR THAT. 
          I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S THE WRONG MESSAGE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS CLAYTON. 
          ERCOT ON THEIR SLIDES TWO AND THREE, KIND OF HAVE THE, THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE TO THO ROSE FROM YOUR QUESTION MAY HAVE BEEN RHETORICAL, BUT, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY WENT INTO TO THAT, YOU KNOW, JUSTIFICATION FOR, FOR WHAT WAS NEEDED. 
          LET'S GO TO BILL BARNES. 
          UM, YEAH, SIMILAR KIND OF TRAIN OF THOUGHT HERE. 
          AND I'M TRYING TO MAKE A COMPARISON TO THE UMM SITUATION, WHICH, AND I WOULD AGREE THAT IS WE DON'T WANNA FIND OURSELVES IN A, UH, A FREQUENT OCCURRENCE OF HAVING, UH, SIDE PAYMENTS, UM, TO MAKE GENERATORS WHOLE FOR RELIABILITY DISPATCHES THAT AREN'T IN MARKET, RIGHT? I THINK, UM, ERIC SCHUBERT, THAT IS WHERE I THINK WE'RE WE'RE VERY ALIGNED ON IS THE WHOLE POINT OF MOVING TO NODAL IS THAT PRICES ARE THE PRIMARY, UH, MOTIVATION FOR BEHAVIOR AND SUPPLY RESPONSES. 
          AND WE WANT THAT TO COVER THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUTCOMES. 
          THE RARE INSTANCES WHERE AN HCL OVERRIDE OCCURS, THOUGH, IT'S REALLY MAKING ME WONDER IF THAT'S REALLY COMPARABLE TO AN UMM SITUATION, WHICH WAS A ALMOST A DAILY OCCURRENCE IN THE ZOLA MARKET AND REALLY NOT AVOIDABLE BASED ON, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO DISPATCH RESOURCES BASED ON AVERAGE SHIFT FACTOR FOR A ZONE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO MANAGE, UM, UH, ENTER INTRAORAL CONGESTION EFFICIENTLY. 
          UH, BUT YOU, THERE'S ONE QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU, ERIC, IS YOU MENTIONED THIS A COUPLE TIMES AND I REALLY DIDN'T PICK UP ON IT UNTIL THIS DISCUSSION IS YOU MENTIONED OVERSCHEDULING A GENERATOR, OVERSCHEDULING, 
          [00:45:01]
WE DON'T WANNA COMPENSATE OR REWARD OVERSCHEDULING. 
          CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT? THANKS. 
          WELL, BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THAT SITUATION IS THAT YOU ARE SCHEDULING MORE P MORE POWER THAN IS DELIVERABLE AT A GIVEN TIME AND ONE, AND SO THEREFORE, UH, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT OTHER ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE. 
          SO IF THAT POWER IS NOT DELIVERABLE, THERE'S A DELIVERABLE FROM ANOTHER, ANOTHER, ANOTHER SOURCE. 
          UH, AND, AND TO, TO RESPOND TO CLAYTON'S COMMENT AS WELL, UH, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, UH, I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE, THE, THE CONFIDENTIALITY AND SO FORTH, BUT THERE ARE N MINUS ONE CONTINGENCIES THAT CAN SHOW UP IN REAL TIME THAT CAN IMPACT THE PRICING OR THE ABILITY TO DISPATCH SOMETHING SAFELY. 
          AND THAT IS NOT TERRIBLY TRANSPARENT. 
          THAT IS PART OF THE REASON YOU HAVE SECURITY CONSTRAINED ECONOMIC DISPATCH. 
          SO I THINK THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE TRANSMISSION LINES BEING CONFIDENTIAL, UH, DOESN'T CARRY WEIGHT IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE ANYTHING IN THIS VERY TRICKY COMPLIC SYSTEM CAN POP UP AND THAT YOU JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ALL HAVE TO CONTRACT AROUND THAT KIND OF THING. 
          SO, UM, BUT I, I THINK IT'S JUST A, IT'S, IT'S A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR THE UNEXPECTED THAT IS PART OF THE WHOLE DESIGN OF THE MARKET. 
          AND BY HAVING BACKSTOPS AND HEDGING, YOU CAN DELIVER POWER FROM ANOTHER SOURCE IF NEEDED, OR YOU JUST BUY FROM THE SPOT MARKET. 
          THAT HAPPENS. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, IF, IF SOMETHING LASTS MORE THAN A UH, FEW HOURS, YOU HAVE ABILITY TO SHOP AROUND. 
          WE HAVE A VERY ACTIVE LIQUID BILATERAL MARKET THAT PROVIDES ALTERNATIVES AND THAT SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY BACKSTOP, NOT NECESSARILY HAVING TO SUBSIDIZE HAVING THE REST OF US SUBSIDIZE THAT. 
          AND I THINK IT ALSO THEN PROVIDES MORE REVENUE FOR WIDE VARIETY OF RESOURCES THAT CAN DELIVER POWER, WHICH IS GOOD FOR, UH, NOT ONLY REAL-TIME RELIABILITY, BUT ALSO LONG-TERM RESOURCE ADEQUACY. 
          THANKS, ERIC. 
          BILL, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? WELL, JUST THAT, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYONE FROM ERCOT OPERATIONS ON, BUT THE, I BELIEVE IN THESE CASES, AND I'LL ADMIT, I, MY COMPANY HAS NEVER RECEIVED AN H DEAL OVERRIDE, WHICH MAKES ME WONDER WHY I'VE GOTTEN MYSELF INSERTED IN THIS DEBATE, UH, FOR SO LONG AND VESTED SO MUCH, UH, OF MY TIME . 
          UH, BUT IT'S REALLY A PRINCIPLE OF WE FIND THEM OURSELVES IN THAT SITUATION. 
          BUT I, I THINK FROM AN OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE, UM, WHAT MAKES THIS DIFFERENT TO ADDRESS ERIC'S, UH, CONCERN REGARDING OVERSCHEDULING IS IN THIS CASE, YOU, YOU ARE RECEIVING AS A GENERAL CONFLICTING DISPATCH INSTRUCTIONS FROM ERCOT, YOU'RE GETTING BASE POINTS FOR ENERGY THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM, UH, A MANUAL RELIABILITY DISPATCH INSTRUCTION TO SOLVE A DIFFERENT RELIABILITY PROBLEM SUCH AS A VOLTAGE ISSUE. 
          SO IN THIS CASE, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW A GENERATOR COULD ACTUALLY, GENERATOR COULD ACTUALLY AVOID THIS SITUATION, EITHER HOW THEY OPERATE THEIR ASSET OR IN THE BILATERAL MARKET. 
          AND I, BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN THESE OCCUR, WHICH AGAIN, MAYBE SOMEONE ELSE CAN SPEAK TO THAT 'CAUSE WE HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ONE, UH, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN. 
          AND SO TO CLAYTON'S POINT, IF THERE'S REALLY NO WAY FOR YOU TO MITIGATE THIS OUTCOME AS THE GENERATOR, IT JUST, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM FAIR FOR YOU TO BE FINANCIALLY HARMED AS WELL. 
          BUT I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR SOMEONE, UH, FROM OPERATIONS EXPLAIN A LITTLE BETTER ON WHEN THOSE HDL OVERRIDES ARE ISSUED. 
          OKAY. 
          BLAKE SAYS HE CAN EXPLAIN, BUT LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET SOMEBODY FROM ERCOT TO RESPOND TO THAT. 
          YEAH, BLAKE HOLT, LCRA, UH, CAN, CAN HELP YOU WITH SOME CLARITY THERE. 
          BILL? UH, YOU KNOW, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T BELIEVE THE DECISION ON 1190 OR HCL OVERRIDE PAYMENTS IN GENERAL ARE CONTENTIOUS IN THIS BODY AS PROVEN WITH THE VOTE, UM, A FEW MONTHS AGO. 
          BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF EDUCATION, WE, WE DO FEEL THE NEED TO RESPOND TO THE JOINT CO CONSUMER'S POINT OF VIEW. 
          UH, THEY STATE THAT OVERRIDES TO GENERATORS, UH, ARE ISSUED TO THE GENERATORS WHO ARE CAUSING RELIABILITY ISSUES AND THAT THESE GENERATORS ARE OVERSCHEDULING AND THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE AGAINST THE NODAL MARKET DESIGN. 
          I WOULD ACTUALLY ARGUE THAT WHAT IS AGAINST THE NODAL MARKET DESIGN IS THE HDL OVERRIDE INSTRUCTION AND THAT THE 
          [00:50:01]
PAYMENTS ARE JUSTIFIED. 
          UH, AND THEN JUST, YOU KNOW, READING THE COMMENTS AND LISTENING TO ERIC, I THINK THERE'S SOME GENERAL CONFUSION ABOUT THE INSTANCES IN WHICH THESE ARE ISSUED. 
          SO I, WE CAN UNPACK SOME OF OUR EXPERIENCES WITH THEM. 
          SO TO ME, NODAL DISPATCH GENERALLY MEANS THE MOST ECONOMIC UNITS ARE DISPATCHED SUBJECT TO SYSTEM SECURITY CONSTRAINTS AND SCED PROCESSES ON CURRENT TOPOLOGY. 
          CURRENT OFFERS AND CURRENT SYSTEM NEEDS FOR DISPATCH DECISIONS. 
          THERE'S NO FORWARD LOOKING ABILITY IN SC AND THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A NEED FOR AN OPERATOR TO APPLY FORESIGHT TO THE DECISIONS THAT SC IS MAKING. 
          UH, THE, THE ABILITY FOR ERCOT TO ISSUE THESE INSTRUCTIONS IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE, AND WE THINK THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR ERCOT TO USE THESE IN RARE CIRCUMSTANCES. 
          AND SO IN TERMS OF OVERSCHEDULING IN MY, IN MY POINT OF VIEW, THERE'S, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS THIS RESOURCES THAT RECEIVE, UH, I'D LIKE TO FINISH. 
          PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          RESOURCES THAT RECEIVE HCL OVERRIDES ARE RESOURCES THAT ARE ECONOMICALLY PRIORITIZED BY SC AND ARE NOT HELD BACK FROM DISPATCH BECAUSE OF EVENTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE CONSTRAINTS FOR CONS FOR SECURITY, HAVE NOT YET COME TO PASS. 
          SO ONE SUCH REASON WOULD BE THE OPERATING FOR NEEDING TO PRE POSTURE FOR AN UPCOMING, WHICH IS WHAT CLAYTON WAS, WAS I, I THINK, UM, LEADING ONTO, AND SO HERE HERE'S OUR EXAMPLE THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST. 
          WE HAD A UNIT BEING DISPATCHED ECONOMICALLY TO ITS HDL, AND THEN THE ERCOT OPERATOR WAS MADE AWARE OF AN UPCOMING OUTAGE THAT WHEN TAKEN WOULD REQUIRE OUR UNIT TO MOVE TO A LOWER OUTPUT, UH, TO ENSURE RELIABILITY. 
          THE OPERATOR REQUESTED THAT OUR UNIT BACK DOWN AHEAD OF TIME SO THAT THEY COULD MANUALLY PUT IN A CONSTRAINT TO ALLOW SCAD TO MANAGE THE UNIT AT A LOWER LEVEL. 
          THE PERIOD OF TIME WHERE ERCOT WOULD BE HOLDING BACK THIS DISPATCH AHEAD OF THE OUTAGE IN ORDER TO ACTIVATE THE CONSTRAINT IS WHAT WE CARE ABOUT. 
          THIS MANUAL PROCESS MIGHT TAKE OVER AN HOUR TO IMPLEMENT. 
          ALL THE WHILE ED IS WANTING TO MOVE OUR ECONOMICAL UNIT UP BASED ON CURRENT SYSTEM TOPOLOGY. 
          THE DISPATCH IN THIS PERIOD GOES AGAINST THE NODAL MARKET DESIGN. 
          WE COUNT ON OUR RESOURCES IN OUR FLEET TO MINIMIZE THE COST TO OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          AND WHEN THE TOOL IS TAKEN OUT OF OUR BELT, IT IS ONLY RIGHT THAT RECOVERY IS CONSIDERED. 
          I'LL NOTE THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU RECEIVE AN HCL OVERRIDE, IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT YOU'LL RECEIVE COST RECOVERY. 
          ERCOT REVIEWS EVIDENCE AND MUST PROVE THAT THE QSE IS MADE SHORT GENERATION VERSUS LOAD BECAUSE OF THE INSTRUCTION. 
          THIS PAYMENTS IN IS IN A SIMILAR VEIN TO R MAKE WHOLE PAYMENTS. 
          THE RU DECOM COMMITMENT PAYMENTS, WHEN A RELIABILITY INSTRUCTION IS ISSUED THAT CAUSES DEMONSTRABLE HARM, COST RECOVERY IS ALLOWED. 
          SO I GUESS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE THAT THE, WITH THE POSITION THAT THESE PAYMENTS AREN'T JUSTIFIED AND BELIEVE THAT AT MINIMUM THE BLACK LINE PROVISIONS SHOULD BE UPHELD. 
          THANKS. 
          MAY I RESPOND? UM, ERIC, CAN WE, CAN WE JUST GET TO YOU IN THE QUEUE? YEAH, IT'S NO PROBLEM. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I SEE FREDDIE ON AND I WAS GOING TO ASK AGAIN IF SOMEBODY FROM ERCOT WANTED TO SPEAK. 
          SO LET'S, LET'S GO TO FREDDIE AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL GET BACK TO THE QUEUE. 
          SURE. 
          THANKS CAITLIN. 
          YEAH, JUST, JUST RESPONDING TO, UH, BILL'S, UH, QUESTION. 
          UM, AND, AND I THINK HIS CHARACTERIZATION OF WHEN HDL OVERRIDES ARE, ARE, ARE USED IS, IS FAIRLY ACCURATE. 
          AND, AND, AND IT'S ESSENTIALLY, UM, WHENEVER THERE'S A RELIABILITY CONCERN OR CONSTRAINT ON THE SYSTEM THAT SC UH, CANNOT SEE. 
          SO FOR INSTANCE, A VOLTAGE ISSUE, UM, SC IS SOLVING FOR THERMAL CONSTRAINTS, NOT VOLTAGE CONSTRAINTS. 
          SO THE CONTROL ROOM WILL USE HDL OVERRIDES TO, UH, CURTAIL A GENERATOR THAT MAY BE, UH, CAUSING A VOLTAGE ISSUE TO, UH, WORSEN. 
          SO THEY WILL UTILIZE, UH, HDO OVERRIDES TO RESOLVE THAT, THAT KIND OF CONSTRAINT OR ANY OTHER CONSTRAINTS SIMILAR TO THAT, THAT SKID ISN'T ABLE TO, UH, MANAGE OR HAS VISIBILITY TO. 
          SO HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK YOU DID. 
          THANKS FREDDY. 
          LET'S GO TO ERIC GOFF. 
          SO I WANNA CIRCLE BACK TO THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY CONVERSATION. 
          UH, AUSTIN STARTED THIS OFF BY SAYING THIS IS A SMALL DOLLAR AMOUNT. 
          WE'VE USED THESE HCL OF OUR PAYMENTS NOT VERY OFTEN. 
          [00:55:01]
AND THEN DOUG EXPLAINED THE, UM, DISPUTES THAT WERE FILED AND THE ADRS THAT WERE FILED BY AUSTIN ENERGY AND THE OTHER PARTY, UM, WHERE ONE PARTY AND AUSTIN ENERGY CO-OWN A GENERATOR TOGETHER. 
          UM, DOUG WAS CAREFUL NOT TO SAY THAT PARTY, SO I'LL CONTINUE THAT, ALTHOUGH I THINK IT'S FAIRLY OBVIOUS WHO THAT IS. 
          AND THE OTHER PARTY HAD A CONTRACT, UM, THAT WAS WRITTEN, AND SO THAT MET THE BILATERAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENT ON THE CURRENT PROTOCOLS, BUT AUSTIN ENERGY HAD TO POINT TO ITS CHARTER, UM, TO MAKE A SIMILAR ARGUMENT. 
          AND DOUG POINTED OUT THAT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER NOS, UM, THAT DON'T HAVE THE, SO-CALLED MAGIC WORDS AND THEIR CHARTERS. 
          SO WE NEED TO EXPAND THIS PROTOCOL ALLOWANCE TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL NOE PARTIES THAT DON'T HAVE THE, SO-CALLED MAGIC WORDS IN THE CHARTER. 
          UM, AND AS WE GOT THE NPR FILED, UM, BILL THOUGHT ABOUT, WELL, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE THOSE WORDS? UM, AND MAYBE IT'S NOT JUST NOE'S, BUT OTHER QSCS THAT ALSO NEED SIMILAR PROTECTIONS. 
          AND NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER NPRR, UM, THAT IS NOT UP FOR DISCUSSION TODAY THAT EXTENDS A SIMILAR PAYMENT TO CONGESTION MITIGATION PLANS. 
          SO THIS GETS TO MY FUNDAMENTAL CONCERN WITH THIS ARGUMENT OVER RELATIVELY SMALL DOLLARS THAT THIS IS A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE. 
          AND FOR THAT REASON, I REALLY WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT ERIC SCHUBERT SAID, WHICH IS THIS ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MIDDLE MARKET. 
          YES, THERE ARE DISTINCTIONS ABOUT WHY WE DID THINGS IN THE PAST THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE, BUT AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO STOP AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO GET THESE, UH, SITUATIONS REFLECTED IN PRICING. 
          SO WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE SIDE PAYMENTS. 
          AND WHILE MANY OF US CAN ARGUE FOR OUR PAST DECISIONS AS TO WHY THEY ARE APPROPRIATE, I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO BE FORWARD LOOKING AND MAKE A DECISION IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS THAT WE NEED TO STOP THIS SORT OF SIDE PAYMENT BEFORE IT BALLOONS INTO SOMETHING UNRECOGNIZABLE. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU ERIC. 
          LET'S GO TO ERIC SCHUBERT. 
          UH, UH, THANKS ERIC. 
          VERY WELL SPOKEN AND ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THE LONG TERM UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT UNDERMINES NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF EFFICIENT DISPATCH, BUT ALSO THE, THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE IN ERCOT, UH, THAT INCORPORATES NEW TECHNOLOGIES. 
          AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, UM, IT IS REALLY LOOKED AT BY OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. 
          THEY DESCRIBED IT AS CONNECT AND MANAGE. 
          UH, THAT ALLOWS US TO NOT ONLY SUPPORT RETAIL CHOICE VERY EFFECTIVELY, BUT ALSO INCORPORATE NEW TECHNOLOGIES VERY EFFICIENTLY. 
          THE OTHER THING I WOULD TO RESPOND TO BLAKE'S COMMENT IS THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF CONTINGENCIES THAT SHOW UP AT, AT THE LAST MINUTE THAT PEOPLE CAN'T PREPARE FOR, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOUR UNIT IS BACKED DOWN BECAUSE OF IT NOT, AND THE WHOLE REASON ERCOT DISPATCHES IS THAT THE ELECTRONIC, THE, THE ELECTRICAL FLOWS AND THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATED WITH THAT CANNOT BE RESPONDED TO BY THE MARKET IN TIME. 
          SO WE ALL HAVE TO PREPARE FOR THOSE KIND OF CONTINGENCIES, AND IT WAS, WHETHER IT'S MANUALLY DONE OR SOMETHING THROUGH SCD, SC IS, AND NODAL SC IS A PATHWAY, BUT NOT THE COMPLETE PATHWAY TO IMPLEMENT THE TYPE OF MARKET DESIGN THAT ALLOWS FOR CONNECT AND MANAGE AND EFFICIENT RESOURCES AND ALSO HEDGING. 
          SO SC IS NOT THE BE ALL AND END ALL. 
          IT IS A MEANS TO AN END. 
          AND IS IT AN INCOMPLETE MEANS? YES, IT IS. 
          BUT THE PRINCIPLES THAT, AND THIS IS WHAT GOES BACK TO ERIC GOLF SAYS, IS THE FACT THAT IF YOU START HAVING SIDE PAYMENTS, THEY EXPLODE AND THEN YOU UNDERMINE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE MARKET. 
          YOU ADD TO THE COST OF THE MARKET WHEN INSTEAD YOU JUST SAY, OKAY, UNIT I HAVE COULD GO OFF AT ANY TIME OR NOT BE DELIVERABLE TIME. 
          I NEED TO HAVE A PLAN B OR PLAN C INVOLVED. 
          IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU ERIC. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I SEE A KIND OF SIDE CONVERSATION IN THE CHAT. 
          UM, GOSH, SAID SOMETHING IMPORTANT ABOUT GETTING THIS ENTERPRISE. 
          I ASSUME YOU MEAN THE LMP ANSWER WAS YES. 
          SO OTHER THAN THAT, THE QUEUE IS CLEAR. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? 
          [01:00:01]
UM, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO PROPOSE A MOTION AT THIS TIME? YEAH, I'LL MOVE THAT. 
          WE TABLE THIS FOR ONE MONTH. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I BELIEVE WE CAN'T, I CERTAIN THE MOTION, BUT I'M SURE YOU'VE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH COREY, SO, SO WE'LL LITERALLY A HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES STANDING. 
          WE'LL, WE'LL TABLE IT WITH THE, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A A SECOND BECAUSE I, I SUSPECT WE CAN PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          CAN, DOES ANYBODY HAVE OBJECTION, UM, TO PUTTING TABLE NPR 1190 ON THE COMBO BALLOT? I SEE A COMMENT FROM ALICIA THOUGH, SO LET'S GO THERE. 
          I I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. 
          WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF TABLING IT? WE'RE JUST, I MEAN, IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT TO SAY HERE OR MORE WORK TO DO HOMEWORK? WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT HERE? IS ARE WE'RE JUST TABLING IT TO STALL IT? YEAH, I, I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT. 
          SO WE HAVE TIME, UM, BEFORE OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING, UH, GIVEN THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE LAID OUT PREVIOUSLY. 
          AND, UH, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, DISCUSS THIS WITH, UM, MULTIPLE PARTIES. 
          I, I THINK THE INTENTION, UH, IS TO HAVE DISCUSSION OF THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING AS WELL, UH, AND TAKE ACTION AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          BUT I'M, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR OTHERWISE, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA GET ANY DIFFERENT DISCUSSION OUT OF ANY OF THESE PARTIES. 
          I THINK THIS HAS BEEN PRETTY WELL SPOKEN TO. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW, JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD EITHER VOTE IT UP OR VOTE IT DOWN. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THAT A MOTION? I, SO NOW COREY WILL HAVE TO HELP ME OUT. 
          SO WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE TABLE. 
          UM, I THINK WE COULD TAKE ANOTHER MOTION, BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON THE MOTION TO TABLE FIRST. 
          IS THAT CORRECT, COREY? WELL, IT GOES BACK TO DID YOU RECOGNIZE THE SECOND WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU STOPPED IT TO SAY, WE DON'T NEED A SECOND 'CAUSE WE CAN PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          WAS THAT WIPING AWAY THE PROPOSED MOTION OR IS THAT ONE STILL ON THE TABLE? I MEAN, IF AT LEAST WERE TO MAKE A MOTION TO VOTE IT UP OR DOWN, SOMEONE COULD THEN MAKE A MOTION TO BLOCK TO, TO TABLE TO BLOCK IT SO WE CAN GET AROUND TO THE SAME SPOT. 
          BUT IT, I I'D SAY CHAIR'S DISCRETION OF YOU THINK YOU HAVE A LIVE MOTION AND SECOND THE TABLE, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD NOT GO ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          WE TAKE IT UP RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK WE WILL GET THERE EITHER WAY. 
          SO LET ME ASK ALICIA, IS THAT A MOTION OF SOME SORT OR IS THAT JUST A TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION REALLY QUICK? HAS ANYBODY'S VOTE CHANGED? ? I MEAN, HONESTLY, IT'S THIS THE SAME VOTE THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S, UH, LET'S TRY TO GET THROUGH, THROUGH THE, THE QUEUE REALLY QUICKLY. 
          UM, BRIAN, ARE YOU, UH, FOR SURE, NEVERMIND. 
          NO, I'M, I'M NOT A FOR SURE. 
          NEVERMIND. 
          I MEAN, MY, MY COMMENT REALLY IS THAT THE REAL ISSUE IT FEELS LIKE IS THAT THE L-M-P-L-M-P DOESN'T MATCH WHAT OR CUT OPERATIONS WANTS THE PLANT TO DO, WHICH IS A MUCH BIGGER ISSUE THAN UM, UH, THE HDLO RIDE. 
          AND IN TERMS OF LIKE, ALICIA'S QUESTION ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL, I I, I STILL FEEL LIKE IF THE GENERATOR IS DOING SOMETHING IN RESPONSE TO A, A  HDL OVERRIDE, I'M GONNA WANNA BE MADE WHOLE VERSUS THE OPPORTUNITY. 
          SO MY, MY OPINION ISN'T CHANGING HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          YES, I SEE THE POINT OF ORDER. 
          THIS, THIS IS MY MISTAKE, ERIC. 
          I I, WE DON'T HAVE A LIVE MOTION, BUT WE WILL GET TO YOU VERY SHORTLY, AT WHICH POINT I, YOU, YOU CAN REMAKE YOUR MOTION. 
          UM, SO LET'S, LET'S GO TO NED AND THEN ERIC GOFF. 
          I, UM, SO I, I I, I'M PROBABLY IN THE SIMILAR BOAT WHERE MY POSITION HASN'T CHANGED ON THIS, BUT I, I THOUGHT BILL DID A REALLY GOOD JOB LAYING OUT THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE THREE CONSIDERATIONS AT THE OUTSET. 
          AND SO I WANTED TO, TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY IS OUR DECISION SET. 
          YOU KNOW, ALICIA, YOU, YOU, YOU'D BROUGHT IT UP AS IS AN AN UP OR DOWN VOTE, BUT IS IT VOTING THIS UP, IS GOING BACK TO THE BOARD AS IS OR REJECTING OUTRIGHT, OR IS THERE A THIRD PATH THAT WOULD INVOLVE MODIFICATIONS? 
          [01:05:03]
I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          YEP, PLEASE, PLEASE GO AHEAD ERIC. 
          SO FIRST I'D LIKE TO REMAKE MY MOTION TO TABLE AND THEN TO ADDRESS THE POINTS MADE BY ALICIA AND NED. 
          JUST NOW, WELL, OKAY, LET'S PAUSE. 
          IS THERE, SO THE MOTION IS TO TABLE, IS THERE A, A SECOND ON THE MOTION ? SECOND. 
          SECOND FROM ERIC SCHUBERT. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          PLEASE, PLEASE CONTINUE. 
          ERIC GOFF. 
          SURE. 
          SO, UH, I THINK THERE IS OPPORTUNITY, UM, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION. 
          UM, FIRST, UM, WE COULD, UM, CHOOSE TO NARROW THIS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, UH, PROPOSAL FROM AUSTIN ENERGY AND OTHERS, UM, SO THAT WE DON'T CONTINUE THE SLIPPERY SLOPE. 
          UH, SECOND WE COULD MODIFY THIS TO REMOVE HDL OVERRIDE PAYMENTS AND, UM, HAVE THAT BE EFFECTIVE AT A TIME THAT WE CAN INCLUDE THESE OTHER, UH, OUT OF SC UM, ACTIONS INTO THE LMP PRICE. 
          I THINK AS MAYBE WAS SUGGESTED BY BRIAN, UM, AND THIRD, YOU KNOW, T COULD TAKE THE SAME ACTION THAT IT TOOK PREVIOUSLY AND I COULD LOSE A VOTE AGAIN. 
          UM, I DO THINK THAT THE BOARD SEEMED TO WANT US TO DO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL POINTS MAYBE OTHER THAN WHAT WE'VE CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY. 
          AND SO AT MINIMUM, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT THIRD STEP, I THINK YOU NEED TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE BOARD'S QUESTIONS AND NOT JUST REPEAT THE SAME ACTION AGAIN. 
          THAT SAID, I THINK THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY, UH, FOR US TO CONSIDER THE FIRST TWO OPTIONS. 
          UM, AND I IMAGINE THAT THE SECOND ONE MIGHT BE PREFERABLE FOR MOST PEOPLE, WHICH WOULD AGAIN, UM, KEEP OUR CURRENT, UM, PROTOCOLS IN PLACE WHILE WE WORK ON SOMETHING TO INCLUDE THESE OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN SCED IN SOME FUTURE CHANGE TO SCED. 
          THAT OF COURSE WOULD BE AFTER RTC. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          ERIC SCHUBERT, I BELIEVE YOU HAD A COMMENT, NOT JUST SECOND. 
          YES. 
          I THINK, I THINK JUST SENDING IT BACK UNCHANGED. 
          IT IS JUST PRETTY MUCH TELLING THE BOARD TO, UH, WE DON'T CARE. 
          I, I THINK WHAT ERIC IS TALKING ABOUT IS CONSTRUCTIVE BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW DO WE POSSIBLY IMPROVE PRICING? HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THESE ISSUES? HOW DO WE NARROW THE SCOPE? WE NEED TO PUT MORE THOUGHT INTO THIS TO RESPOND TO THE BOARD'S CONCERNS. 
          AND SO I THINK THE TIME THAT WE HAVE, BECAUSE THE MEETING'S IN DECEMBER, WE SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT. 
          SO LET'S, LET'S CONTINUE THIS. 
          LET'S TABLE IT, CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. 
          HOPEFULLY WE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING, UM, THAT, UH, THE BOARD WILL FIND, WILL BE RESPONSIVE TO, UH, ITS REMIT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I, I WOULD MAKE THE POINT. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT A, A REMAND ME MEANS WE NEED SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT BY NECESSITY. 
          I, I JUST THINK IT MEANS SEND IT BACK AND CONSIDER THOSE THINGS. 
          BUT I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD SHOW, SHOW THAT WE CONSIDER THE THINGS IN THEIR DISCUSSION. 
          I WILL PAUSE HERE AND SEE IF  STAFF OR COMMISSION STAFF WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON, ON THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE WE, WE DID THE, THE VOTE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          CAITLYN, THIS IS BARKSDALE. 
          AWESOME. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD, BARKSDALE. 
          HI. 
          UM, THANKS FOR THE INVITATION. 
          AND UM, FIRST I JUST WANT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE TIMING OF OUR COMMENTS AT R AND M LAST MONTH ON, ON THIS NPR, UM, I RECOGNIZE THAT IT MAY BE FRUSTRATING TO, TO FOLKS, UH, ESPECIALLY GIVEN HOW MUCH THIS NPR HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED. 
          AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF OUR CONTINUING EVOLUTION OF HOW STAFF SHOULD BE, UM, INVOLVED HERE, UM, YOU KNOW, I PLEDGE TO, TO YOU ALL THAT WE WILL TRY TO SIGNAL EARLIER, UH, WHEN, WHEN WE'RE STARTING TO HAVE PROBLEMS, UH, OR CONCERNS ABOUT ISSUES THAT, THAT MIGHT BE GOING UP TO THE BOARD. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S THE GOLDILOCKS MOMENT AND, AND WE'RE WORKING TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT IS. 
          UH, SECOND, WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC CONVERSATION HERE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, THE IDEA TO, TO TABLE IT AND TO CONTINUE DISCUSSING THE MERITS AND, AND UNDERLYING ISSUES, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T FORESEE STAFF HAVING ANY ISSUES WITH, WITH THAT. 
          I THINK IT, IT MAY LEAD TO A PRODUCTIVE OUTCOME. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, JUST LITTLE 
          [01:10:01]
BARKSDALE'S OPINION HERE. 
          I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT SENDING IT BACK UP TO THE BOARD, UM, UNCHANGED WILL YIELD THE DIFFERENT RESULTS. 
          UM, AND, UH, I GUESS THE LAST THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS, UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK STAFF AGREES WITH THE JOINT CONSUMER'S OPINION THAT THE NPR IS DRAFTED TODAY, UM, WOULD VIOLATE COMMISSION RULES. 
          UM, AND OUR CONCERNS ARE MORE FOCUSED ON THE BREADTH OF SCENARIOS UNDER WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, FOLKS COULD, COULD CLAIM, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, A DESIRE TO, TO HAVE MAKE COPAYMENTS. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'D BE INTERESTED TO SEE WHERE FURTHER CONVERSATIONS GO AND, UM, AND HOPEFULLY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WILL HAVE A LIGHT HAND AND, AND LET YOU KNOW AS, AS THINGS PROGRESS. 
          OKAY. 
          IRE, APPRECIATE ALL THAT, THAT FEEDBACK. 
          THANK YOU BARKSDALE. 
          ALRIGHT, LET'S, UH, LET COREY TAKE IT AWAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ON THE MOTION TO TABLE NPR 1190, WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH ERIC GOFF. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NAVA. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GARRIS. 
          YES SIR. 
          THANKS SIR. 
          ERIC SCHUBERT? YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANKS SIR. 
          MARK DREYFUS. 
          MARK DREYFUS. 
          YOU STILL WITH US? OH, GOT YOUR YES IN THE CHAT. 
          THANKS SIR. 
          NICK? YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANKS SIR. 
          ONTO OUR CO-OPS. 
          MIKE? YES, THANK YOU, BLAKE. 
          NO, THANK YOU. 
          ERIC BLAKEY. 
          YES, THANK YOU, JOHN. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, BRIAN? YES, AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THIS SCHEDULED SOLUTION. 
          THANK YOU, CAITLIN. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          BOB HILTON. 
          YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          NED? YES. 
          THANKS BOARD. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          ONTO TO OUR IPM SMI. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, JEREMY. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IAN. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          YES, THANK YOU, COREY. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
          MATT? YES, THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR IRES BILL. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          JENNIFER. 
          MATT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JAY. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, CHRIS. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          ENTRE IOUS. 
          RICHARD? YES. 
          THANK YOU, DAVID. 
          YES, THANK YOU, COLIN. 
          YES, THANK YOU ROB FOR KEITH? YES, THANKS SIR. 
          AND OUR MUNIS, UH, CURTIS FOR RUFFLE? YES. 
          THANK YOU, JOSE. 
          YES, THANK YOU, DAVID. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          AND ALICIA? YES, THAT'S I AM SORRY, LISA. 
          DOUBLE CHECKING THAT. 
          WAS THAT A YES OR A NO? I'M SORRY. 
          YES. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          MOTION CARRIED. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANKS COREY. 
          SO WE WILL SEE THE NPR 1190 BACK HERE FOR NOVEMBER TAX. 
          I THINK IF ALWAYS, I WOULD ASK IF, IF THERE ARE GONNA BE COMMENTS WITH THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL THAT THOSE GET FILED A WEEK BEFORE TAX, SO EVERYBODY HAS TIME TO CONSIDER . 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ONE 90? OKAY, WE ARE ONTO THE PRS REPORT. 
          DIANA, I 
          [01:15:01]
THINK ALL OF THESE WERE UNOPPOSED, BUT I KNOW WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE TO DISCUSS 1180. 
          SO WHY, WHY DON'T YOU GO THROUGH THE FIRST SLIDE AND WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO AFTER THAT. 
          KATELYN, DO YOU WANT ME TO REVIEW THE REVISION REQUEST SUMMARY QUICKLY? OH, , YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY ANN. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO I THINK THERE'S 10 REVISION REQUESTS ON THE TAC AGENDA. 
          SOME OF 'EM ARE GONNA REMAIN TABLED, UM, BUT ERCOT DOES SUPPORT ALL THE REVISION REQUESTS. 
          UM, WE'LL POINT OUT THAT NO 2 64 IS STILL PENDING. 
          NPR 1235, UM, FOR IMPACTS NPR 1180 THAT DOES HAVE A REVISED IA AND NOW IS ESSENTIALLY NO IMPACT, BUT WE CAN DISCUSS THAT LATER ON IN THE, UNDER THE PRS REPORT. 
          AND THEN 1249 HAS A 25 TO 40 5K IMPACT FOR THE REASONS FOR REVISIONS. 
          OUT OF THE 10, SEVEN OF THEM ARE UNDER THE GENERAL SYSTEM AND PROCESS AND IMPROVEMENTS. 
          ONE IS AN ERCOT BORDER PEC DIRECTIVE, ONE IS REGULATORY AND ONE FALLS IN THAT STRATEGIC PLAN. 
          OBJECTIVE TWO, UM, CFSG TO REVIEW THE NPRS AND NONE OF THEM HAVE CREDIT IMPLICATIONS. 
          AND THEN FOR IMM OPINION, I DON'T BELIEVE WE RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM THE IMM ON ANY OF THE REVISION REQUESTS. 
          WE DID REACH OUT TO THEM, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HEARD BACK FROM THEM. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE IF IMM WANTS TO PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. 
          OKAY, THANKS ANN. 
          SO GOING BACK, 
          [5. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions]
WE ARE ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE, REVIEW OF REVISION REQUEST SUMMARY OR CUT MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS. 
          UM, AND, AND SO BACK TO ANNE'S QUESTION IF ANYBODY HERE FROM THE IMM AND AND WOULD THEY LIKE TO SPEAK TO THESE REVISION REQUESTS? UH, THIS IS JEFF MCDONALD, UH, WITH IMM. 
          UH, WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS TO ADD FOR THE TAC MEETING ON ANY OF THESE THAT, THAT WE HAVEN'T ALREADY, UH, PUT THROUGH THE, THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. 
          SO, UM, WE ARE ADDITIONAL OPINION FREE AT THIS POINT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST SO JUST TO CONFIRM, IM HAS NO OPINION ON ANY OF THE REVISION REQUESTS LAID OUT HERE. 
          WE, WE HAVE NO ADDITIONAL OPINION BEYOND WHAT WE'VE ALREADY OFFERED IN, IN OTHER MEETINGS IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT THEN I, I THINK GOING FORWARD, SO FOR THE TAC REPORT, IT DOES REQUIRE AN IMM OPINION TO BE CAPTURED THERE. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA CAPTURE IT AS NO OPINION UNDER THERE UNLESS WE'VE SEEN IM M COMMENTS FILED ON A REVISION REQUEST. 
          SO WE, BUT WE CAN TAKE IT OFFLINE WITH YOU, JEFF. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SUGGEST. 
          WE, WE CAN TAKE IT OFFLINE, BUT WE, WE ARE REQUIRED WHEN WE HAVE THE PROVISION REQUESTS AT, AT TAX TO HAVE THE, THE ITEM M OPINION ON 'EM. 
          SO I THINK WE JUST WANNA CONFIRM EVEN IF YOU MADE A COMMENT THAT A WORKING GROUP OR SOMETHING THAT JUST, THAT STILL STAND AND, AND WHEN, OKAY. 
          BILL BURNS, IS THAT A, A COMMENT ON THIS SECTION? YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA EXPRESS A STAKEHOLDER OPINION THAT, UH, THE IMM OPINION OF NO OPINION IS BETTER THAN PENDING. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEP. 
          I THINK THAT WE WILL JUST CLEAR THAT UP AND, AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE WAY TO GET THAT FROM, FROM THE IMM BECAUSE I THINK IT'S SORT OF MORE OF A, A FORMAL NO, NO OPINION OF IT CHANCE IN THIS PROCESS. 
          SO, WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE SURE WE, WE ARE GETTING THAT. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST. 
          IF THE, THE IMM FEELS STRONGLY ENOUGH ABOUT AN ISSUE TO WEIGH IN AND THEY CAN SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT, BUT IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF INSTANCES, LIKE ESPECIALLY FOR PROCEDURAL, UM, NPRS IT'S, IT SAYS NO OPINION. 
          I THINK WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST. 
          JUST PENDING WAS CONFUSING TO ME. 
          LIKE IF WE'RE, WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR WHEN THESE GET TO THE BOARD OR WHAT, SO NO OPINION WOULD BE BETTER THAN PENDING. 
          OKAY. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE IT MAY HAVE BEEN A, A MISCOMMUNICATION IN JUST THE KIND OF REPORTING STYLE. 
          SO, WE'LL, WE'LL GET THAT CLEARED UP OFFLINE, BILL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THERE? OKAY, NOW WE ARE ON THE 
          [6. PRS Report (Vote)]
          [01:20:01]
PRS REPORT. 
          SORRY, DIANA AND ANNA, I TRIED TO JUMP THE GUNS. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          DIANA, DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH YOUR FIRST SLIDE? OKAY. 
          GOOD MORNING TACK. 
          THIS IS DIANA WITH CPS ENERGY FOR THE OCTOBER PRS REPORT. 
          WE HAVE TWO PROPOSALS THAT WERE UNOPPOSED AND DID NOT HAVE AN IMPACT. 
          1245 CAME TO OR COMES TO US FROM ERCOT. 
          THIS WAS MAKING SOME CLARIFICATIONS AND, UH, IN PREPARATION FOR THE RTC INITIATIVE THAT'S GOING LIVE NEXT YEAR. 
          UM, ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY THE SEPTEMBER FIVE ERCOT COMMENT AND AS REVISED BY PRS. 
          AND THEN ON OCTOBER 17TH, WE'VE ADDED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO TAG THE SEPTEMBER 12TH PRS REPORT AND THE JULY 30TH IA 1248 ALSO COMES TO US FROM ERCOT, WHICH IS CORRECTING SOME LANGUAGE ON THE ERCOT HOLD. 
          SETTLEMENT METER NETTING SEPTEMBER 12TH, PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. 
          AND THEN ON OCTOBER 17TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO TAG THE SEPTEMBER 12TH PRS REPORT AND THE AUGUST 16TH IA. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND THEN MOVING FORWARD TO 1180, WE'VE HAD A REVISED IA ON THIS ONE, AND WE ALSO HAD SOME RECENT TCPA COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. 
          KAYLIN, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE FOR US TO, UM, WELL, LET ME, LET ME JUST TEE IT UP. 
          THIS IS SPONSORED TO US FROM A ENCORE. 
          THIS IS REVISING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMISSION RULES ON THE CERTIFICATION, UH, CERTIFICATION CRITERIA. 
          ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, PRS VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1180 AS AMENDED BY THE AUGUST 28TH. 
          COMMENTS. 
          THERE WERE TWO ABSTENTIONS ON THAT VOTE. 
          AND THEN OCTOBER 17TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE. 
          AND FOR TWO T, THE SEPTEMBER 12TH PRS REPORT AND THE OCTOBER 16TH IA, UM, THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSION ON 1180 BECAUSE OF THE HIGH COST THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AND THE FTES AT ERCOT IS CITING THAT THEY NEEDED. 
          UM, AND SO THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A REVISED IA FOR TAX CONSIDERATION THIS MORNING. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THOSE TCPA COMMENTS. 
          LET'S, UH, FINISH THIS SLIDE, DIANA, AND THEN, UM, SEE IF WE CAN PUT THE OTHER THREE ON THE COMBO BALLOT AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO 1190 OR 1180, UM, 1249. 
          THIS, THIS IS COMING TO US FROM . 
          THIS IS PUBLISHING THE SHIFT FACTORS FOR ALL ACTIVE TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS ON SEPTEMBER 12TH. 
          PRS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL ON OCTOBER 17TH. 
          WE ENDORSE AND BOARDED TO TAG THE SEPTEMBER 12TH PRS REPORT AND THE OCTOBER 15TH IA WITH A PRIORITY IN RANK OF 2026 IN A RANK OF 47 40. 
          OKAY, THANKS, DIANA. 
          SO LET'S PAUSE HERE. 
          UM, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE PUT IF YOUR 12 45, 12 48, AND 1249 ON THE COMBO BALLOT, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? OKAY, SO THAT WOULD BE, WE WOULD BE ADDING TO THE COMBO BALLOT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1245 IS RECOMMENDED BY PRF IN THE 1217 PRS REPORT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1248, AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND THE 1217 PRS REPORT. 
          AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1249 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND THE 10TH 17 PRS REPORT. 
          ALL RIGHT, SO COREY, LET'S ADD THOSE TO THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          AND THEN LET'S PICK UP NPR 1180. 
          AS DIANA INDICATED, WE HAVE A REVISED IA, AND THEN WE HAVE STAKEHOLDER COMMENT. 
          LET'S, LET'S START WITH ERCOT ON THAT IA, AND THEN LET'S GO TO PCPA ON THEIR COMMENT. 
          [01:25:04]
I BELIEVE, UH, TROY, TROY ANDERSON'S ON THE PHONE TO SPEAK TO THE IA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD, TROY. 
          SORRY I'M IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN USUAL HERE. 
          YES. 
          UH, TROY ANDERSON WITH ERCO PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT. 
          AFTER THE DISCUSSION AT PRS, UH, LAST TIME, WE RESTRUCTURED THE IA HERE FOR 1180, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT WE MOVED ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT FTES DOWN TO THE BOTTOM IN THE COMMENTS, MAKING IT MORE INFORMATIONAL. 
          AND WE NOTED THAT, YOU KNOW, TEXAS HOUSE BILL 5 0 6 6 AND THE COMMISSION RULE 25.101 ARE ALSO DRIVING FACTORS AROUND THE NEED FOR THIS STAFFING. 
          WE, WE PUT IN THE NOTES AT THE BOTTOM THAT WE WILL BE INCLUDING THIS STAFF IN OUR UPCOMING BUDGET SUBMISSION FOR 2026 AND 27. 
          AND WE'RE HOPING THAT BY THIS, UH, RESTRUCTURE OF THE IA, IT TAKES LESS OF THE, UH, ONUS ON 1180 FOR THESE FTES. 
          'CAUSE IT IS A COLLECTIVE NEED ACROSS THE, UH, VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          WE ARE AT MARK. 
          UH, HI, CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN. 
          YOU'VE GOT YOUR AUDIO TO WORK. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          WELL, I HAVE TO DIAL IN. 
          IT'S ONE OF THESE DIAL IN CALLERS 'CAUSE MY COMPUTER AUDIO IS NOT WORKING. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S, UH, IT'S WORKING SUFFICIENTLY. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          UM, I, FIRST OFF, I WANNA SAY THAT I RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT THE IA IN THE PROTOCOL REVISION SUBCOMMITTEE BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THE IA INAPPROPRIATELY ATTRIBUTED COSTS TO THE NPRR THAT WERE, UH, ALREADY BEING INCURRED BY ERCOT AND ERCOT HAS RESOLVED THAT ISSUE IN THE REVISED IA. 
          AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND, UH, THANKS TO ERCOT FOR, UH, MAKING THAT CHANGE. 
          UM, THIS NPRR HAS BEEN IN PROCESS FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. 
          WE WORKED THROUGH IT THOROUGHLY WITH A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT APPROACHES AT PLWG. 
          IT WAS, UH, VOTED OUT UNANIMOUSLY AT PRS AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S RIGHT FOR MOVING FORWARD. 
          I KNOW THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS FILED LAST NIGHT, UM, AND, AND I GENERALLY AGREE WITH THOSE COMMENTS, BUT, UH, I HOPE WE CAN APPROVE THIS NPRR TODAY AND THE COMMENTS THAT TCPA FILED WE CAN ADDRESS THROUGH A, UH, FORTHCOMING NPRR. 
          SO WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE, MADAM CHAIR, UM, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          OKAY. 
          I, SO LET ME GET TO, OKAY, SO LET'S TAKE THE, THE MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE, AND THEN WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          SO I DON'T WANNA MESS THIS UP AGAIN. 
          WELL, BUT I, I DO, CAITLIN, LET ME JUMP IN AND YES, MAYBE I'LL MESS UP FOR IT. 
          I'LL BE THE BAD GUY ON THIS ONE. 
          I APPRECIATE. 
          WELL, I WAS ABOUT TO ASK  ABOUT THE TABLING. 
          YEAH, GO, GO AHEAD, COREY. 
          YES, EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          EVEN, YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE GOT T CPA A COMMENTS TO REVIEW, EVEN IF EVERYONE WAS IN LOVE WITH 1180 AS IT SIT NOW, IT HAS A RELATED PIGGER THAT'S STILL AT ROTH, UH, NOT FOR ANYTHING CONTENTIOUS THAT I'M AWARE OF, BUT THE IA WASN'T READY FOR REVIEW AT THE LAST ROTH MEETING. 
          SO ROTH TABLED IT TO WAIT FOR THE IA TO COME BACK. 
          SO THE RELATED PIGGER, UH, WON'T BE HERE UNTIL NEXT MONTH'S PACK, HOPEFULLY. 
          UM, AND AS WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER, PROCEDURALLY, THEY SHOULD BE GOING TO THE TIMBER BOARD ANYWAY. 
          SO, UM, IN ANY OTHER CASE, WE WOULD BE USING T AS THE BACKSTOP TO LET THE RELATED REVISION REQUEST CATCH UP, AND THEN THEY COULD ALL MARCH TO THE BOARD TOGETHER. 
          SO, IDEALLY, WE'D BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO TABLE 1180, AND THEN WE WOULD TAKE IT UP NEXT MONTH ALONG, HOPEFULLY ALONG WITH THIS PICKER, AND THEN GET IT ONTO THE SAME BOARD MEETING. 
          AND THAT, I WOULD HOPE WOULD GO ON THE COMBO BALLOT IF, UNLESS FOLKS FEEL STRONGLY OTHERWISE, THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE YOU VOTE OUT 1180 TODAY, TEE IT UP FOR THE BOARD IN DECEMBER, AND THEN IF SOMETHING WEIRD WERE TO HAPPEN WITH THE PIGGER FOR SOME REASON, AND IT DIDN'T MAKE IT TO NEXT MONTH PACK, YOU'RE NOW SHOWING UP TO THE DECEMBER BOARD ASKING THEM TO TABLE IT IN A WAY THAT THEY'VE NEVER HAD TO DO BEFORE. 
          BECAUSE WE ALWAYS COLLECT THEM BEFORE WE SEND THEM ON. 
          SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT APPROVING IT TODAY WOULD NECESSARILY BREAK ANYTHING, BUT THERE'D BE A RISK THAT YOU COULD JUST AVOID BY TABLING IT TODAY AND TAKING THIS UP AT THE NEXT TAG MEETING. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST DIDN'T WANNA HAVE TO BACKTRACK LIKE WE DID ON THE LAST ITEM. 
          SO 
          [01:30:01]
NOTHING PROHIBITS US FROM VOTING THIS FORWARD TODAY, BUT THE TYPICAL PRACTICE IS TO, TO WAIT ON ALL THE ASSOCIATED REVISION REQUESTS SO THEY CAN GO TO THE BOARD AS A PACKAGE. 
          SO WE DO HAVE THE, I WENT AHEAD AND TAKE, TOOK THE MOTION AND, AND SECOND TO APPROVE, SO I WOULDN'T HAVE TO BACKTRACK. 
          UM, THERE WE DO HAVE STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS. 
          YES. 
          AND THEN, BUT THE OTHER REASON TO TABLE REGARDLESS WOULD BE THAT WE ARE STILL WAITING ON THE ASSOCIATED P UM, SO, SO WORST CASE SCENARIO IS THAT DIDN'T GET THROUGH. 
          NEXT TECH ONE WOULD GO TO THE BOARD WITHOUT THE OTHER HEARING THAT, UM, MARK AND ERIC, DO YOU WANT TO RESEND OR CHANGE THE MOTION TO APPROVE? UH, I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UNLESS MARK WANTS TO NO, GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, SO COREY, I APPRECIATE THAT IT IS OUR PRACTICE TO KEEP, UM, THESE ITEMS TOGETHER. 
          SO WHEN THEY PLANNING GUIDE REVISION, UH, PENDING AT ROSS OR, UM, METERING GUIDE REVISION P AT WMS, WE HAVE TABLE THINGS AT TACK UNTIL IT CATCHES UP SO THEY GO, UH, UP TOGETHER. 
          HOWEVER, GIVEN THAT THE BOARD MEETS, UH, ONLY EVERY SO OFTEN, UM, BOTH THESE ITEMS, IF THEY'RE APPROVED, WOULD GO UP TO THE BOARD, UH, AT THE SAME MEETING. 
          UM, SO I, I DON'T SEE A, A DOWNSIDE, UH, TO THIS. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF ACTIVITY, UM, GOING ON, UH, RELATED TO LARGE LOADS, AND IT'S GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION. 
          AND, UM, THIS NPRR HAS BEEN WORKED ON FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. 
          UM, AND I THINK THAT THERE IS MORE WORK TO DO ON THE GROWTH OF LARGE LOADS IN THIS STATE, UM, THAT WE CAN HANDLE IN FUTURE REVISION REQUESTS. 
          UM, BUT I'M READY TO, TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          AND SO I, I THINK I'D LIKE TO KEEP THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          MARK, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? WHY DON'T WE JUST GO THROUGH THE QUEUE AND IF AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION FINE OR OTHERWISE WE'LL JUST, UH, VOTE ON IT PER PERFECT. 
          THAT WAS MY, MY PLAN. 
          SO WE DO THIS STATUS UPDATE SO EVERYONE'S CLEAR. 
          WE, WE HAVE THE MOTION, UH, TO APPROVE ON THE TABLE, BUT AS IS ALSO OUR NORMAL PRACTICE, JUST A MOTION DOES NOT END DISCUSSION. 
          SO WE HAVE A QUEUE. 
          MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO, TO GO THROUGH BOB HILTON RESUME, MEET BOB WHITMEYER, LET TCPA REVIEW THEIR COMMENTS, BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY WOULD MAR MARTHA WOULD LIKE TO GO AFTER THAT AND THEN, AND LET SOMEBODY HAS THE MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION, AND THEN WE WOULD GO BACK TO THE, THE MOTION. 
          DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY? OKAY. 
          BOB HILTON. 
          YEAH, I, I ACTUALLY, I WAS GONNA TALK ABOUT THE TABLING ISSUE, AND I'M NOT SURE THEY HAVE TO WITHDRAW. 
          I THINK, UH, SOMEBODY MAKES A MOTION TO THE TABLE AND GET A SECOND ON THAT. 
          THAT OVERRIDES THE ORIGINAL MOTION ANYWAY, SO THAT CAN TAKE PLACE, BUT KEEP ME IN THE QUEUE UNTIL AFTER, UH, UH, TCPA GIVES THEIR PRESENTATION. 
          OKAY. 
          REMI, BOB WHITMEYER, DO EITHER OF YOU FEEL THE SAME WAY? DO YOU WANT TO LET MICHELLE TPA COME IN FIRST? YEAH. 
          MICHELLE, GO FIRST. 
          OKAY. 
          BOB WHITMEYER, DO YOU WANT, DO YOU WANNA WAIT UNTIL AFTER MICHELLE REVIEWS THE COMMENT? OH, PLEASE, PLEASE LET MICHELLE GO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE, THE QUEUE OF STANDS AT 1104. 
          IT'S A CORRECT QUEUE. 
          WE WILL TAKE IT UP, UM, AFTER MICHELLE PRESENTS THESE COMMENTS. 
          MICHELLE, ARE YOU READY TO GO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          UM, SO I, I THINK THE COMMENTS ARE SOMEWHAT SELF-EXPLANATORY. 
          I, UM, I APPRECIATE THE PERSPECTIVE FROM, FROM MARK AND ERIC. 
          UM, I, I, I THINK THE ISSUE HERE IS, YOU KNOW, OUR MEMBERS ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF LOW GROWTH COMING. 
          WE THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR THE STATE. 
          UM, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NEEDED FOR, IT IS BUILT. 
          HOWEVER, UM, I THINK WE WOULD, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE ALL OF THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS, UM, AND INCLUDING POLICY 
          [01:35:01]
MAKERS AND LEGISLATORS, UM, HAVE THE SAME CONFIDENCE IN THE LOAD FORECAST THAT THE TDSP HAS. 
          AND I DON'T FEEL THAT THAT IS THE CASE RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, OUR MEMBERS WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS TRANSPARENCY, UM, THAT THERE IS KIND OF SIMILAR, UH, SYMMETRICAL INFORMATION FOR THESE LARGE LOADS THAT ARE COMING, UM, TO THE TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT'S REQUIRED FOR GENERATION IN THE QUEUE. 
          UM, THESE ARE GONNA BE SUBSTANTIAL COST. 
          UM, I THINK THE NUMBERS I HAD SEEN WERE 15, $16 BILLION, AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT THAT'S GONNA GO UP FROM THERE. 
          UM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN VERY CLEAR FROM SOME OF THE, THE, UH, INTERIM COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS THAT THERE IS SOME SKEPTICISM ABOUT WHAT IS, UM, WHAT IS REAL AND WHAT IS NOT. 
          UM, AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE ARE PLANNING FOR TRANSMISSION, WE ARE ALSO PLANNING, UM, IN, UH, CDR AS WELL. 
          UM, AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT BEFORE WE START INCURRING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WE'LL GO DIRECTLY ONTO CUSTOMER BILLS. 
          AND QUITE HONESTLY, PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER BILLS, UM, THAT WE KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT BUILDING TRANSMISSION NEEDLESSLY. 
          SO I THINK WE ARE ALL FOR BUILDING WHAT'S NEEDED. 
          UM, WE THINK THAT IT WOULD BE WISE TO TABLE THIS, UM, AND LET THE PIGGER CATCH UP AND HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS ON, UM, SOME OF THOSE TRANSPARENCY MEASURES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE INCLUDED. 
          AND WITH THE BOARD NOT MEETING UNTIL DECEMBER, UM, THERE'S NO HARM IN DOING THAT BECAUSE IT CAN STILL GO TO THE NEXT BOARD MEETING, EVEN IF WE TABLE IT AND BRING THIS BACK UP IN NOVEMBER. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. 
          EVEN IN THE DISCUSSIONS ON, UM, HOUSE BILL 50 66, THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS MADE, WHETHER IT'S BY, UH, MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE OR BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION, THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE BAR HAS BEEN SET A LITTLE TOO LOW. 
          UM, AND SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE, UM, WE ALL HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT QUALIFIES FOR BEING INCLUDED IN THE TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND WHAT DOESN'T, THAT EVERYBODY'S KIND OF USING THE SAME CRITERIA, UH, TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AND THAT WE ARE, UM, GOING TO BUILD AND ASK GREAT PAYERS TO PAY FOR TRANSMISSION THAT IS TRULY NEEDED. 
          AND, UM, AND NOT JUST SPECULATIVE OR DUPLICATIVE IN NATURE. 
          AND SO THOSE, THOSE ARE, UM, OUR COMMENT, I THINK THAT, UM, THERE ARE PROBABLY SEVERAL OF MY MEMBERS THAT ARE GONNA HAVE SOME THINGS TO SAY ABOUT IT. 
          AND, UM, AND WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO, TO LET OTHERS TALK AND I APPRECIATE THE TIME, UM, FOR US TO LAY THIS OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, MICHELLE. 
          LET'S ACTUALLY GO TO CHRISTIE FROM ERCOT FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE UP THE REST OF THE QUEUE. 
          SURE. 
          AND I'M GLAD TO WAIT IN THE QUEUE IF YOU'D PREFER. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO, UH, THANK FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH US TIRELESSLY TO GET US TO THIS POINT. 
          UM, I JUST WANNA REMIND FOLKS, UM, THAT WE DO HAVE LEGISLATION THAT REQUIRES ERCOT TO ACCEPT THE LOAD FROM THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDERS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT TRANSMISSION AUTOMATICALLY GETS BUILT. 
          UM, WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT IN FOR OUR PLANNING PURPOSES, AND THEN THERE'S STILL ADDITIONAL PROCESSES TO CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH TO DEFINE THE REASONABLENESS OF THAT LOAD AS IT MOVES THROUGH THE RPG PROCESS. 
          AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE CCN PROCESS WHERE THE COMMISSION IS THE ULTIMATE DECIDER, UH, OF WHAT DOES ACTUALLY MOVE INTO THAT RATE BASE. 
          UM, AND I THINK I'VE HEARD, UM, SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS ALSO TALK ABOUT BEFORE, UM, THAT THEY DO EXPECT A, A, A RULEMAKING TO DECIDE AND DEFINE THAT REASONABLENESS. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT MIGHT BE SOME THINGS THAT ARE BETTER LEFT TO POLICY DECISIONS AT THE COMMISSION. 
          UM, I ALSO WANNA ADD THAT WE, WE'VE BEEN CONTINUING TO LEARN THROUGH THIS PROCESS, UM, AND I BELIEVE ERCOT HAS MADE SOME PRESENTATIONS TO SOME OF THE RECENT WORKING GROUPS TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO IMPROVE, UM, THE RFI PROCESS TO BETTER COLLECT INFORMATION FROM THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDERS, HOW WE'RE GONNA STREAMLINE THAT AND HOW WE'RE GONNA GET MORE INFORMATION. 
          AND SO THAT IS WORK THAT CONTINUES, UM, AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO, TO WORKING WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS TO MAKE SURE WE CAN SHARE, UM, AT AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL, UH, TO GIVE BOTH STAKEHOLDERS AND OUR REGULATORS, UM, THAT CERTAINTY. 
          UM, AND THEN JUST ONE LAST POINT TO ONE OF MICHELLE'S POINTS IS 
          [01:40:01]
JUST TO REMIND FOLKS THAT JUST BECAUSE WE BUILD MORE TRANSMISSION DOESN'T MEAN IT'S AN ADDED, UH, YOU KNOW, A DIRECT INCREASE TO THE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS OF TEXAS. 
          BECAUSE AS YOU ADD MORE LOAD TO THE STATE, UM, IT DOES CHANGE THAT DENOMINATOR AND HOW RATES GET ADJUSTED. 
          BUT AGAIN, THAT ENDS UP BEING AN ULTIMATE DECISION AT THE COMMISSION ABOUT WHAT GETS APPROVED TO BE BUILT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, CHRISTIE. 
          LET'S GO TO REMI. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          SO WE GREATLY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK DONE BY T DSPS ON THIS NPRR AND DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO PUT ROADBLOCKS ON THIS FOR PASSING, BUT WE DO FEEL THAT THERE IS TIME FOR THIS TO PASS BECAUSE OF THE, UM, CORRESPONDING FIGURE. 
          SO THAT'S WHY, UH, WE ARE ONE ASKING IF WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO, UH, ADD CLARITY ON THE SUBSTANTIAL LOAD CATEGORY C TO MAKE IT AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE. 
          UM, WE, WE DO SUPPORT LARGE LOAD GROWTH BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MAKES THE COING MARKET SUCCESSFUL, AND WE COMPLETELY AGREE WITH MAKING BROAD AND TRANSMISSION INVESTMENT NEEDED TO SUPPORT THIS, UH, THAT IS NEEDED TO MAKE THIS, UH, WHOLE GREAT WORK. 
          SO WE COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT AND, UH, SUPPORT IT. 
          UM, AND WE DO BELIEVE THAT, UH, EVEN IF THIS GETS TABLED, THIS MIGHT, UH, NEED MORE TIME, AS CHRISTIE SAID, TO DEVELOP, UH, UH, AN APPROPRIATE MECHANISM. 
          SO OUR ASK IS NOT TO DEVELOP THE EXACT CRITERIA NOW, BUT TO ADD SOME LANGUAGE THAT THE ATTESTATION WILL BE BASED ON SOME STANDARDIZED CRITERIA, WHICH COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY, UH, ADDING SOME LANGUAGE, LIKE, UH, THE LETTER FROM THE TDSP OFFICE ATTESTATION TO, UM, LOADS BASED ON CRITERIA DEFINED IN OTHER BINDING DOCUMENT OR LIKE TECH APPROVED PROCESS OR SOME METHODOLOGY. 
          AND I THINK THAT CAN BE DONE. 
          UM, AND I'M NOT SAYING WE NEED TO MAKE DESKTOP EDITS RIGHT NOW. 
          WE HAVE TIME IN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS TO ADD WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE FOR THAT, UM, AND GET THIS, UH, PASSED BECAUSE THIS IS, AS CHRISTIE SAID, REQUIRED BY RULE. 
          UH, AND WE ARE, UM, COMING AT THIS FROM ALL DIFFERENT SIDES, LIKE AS A LOAD, WE ARE CONCERNED, UH, ABOUT THE IMPACT OF, UH, BUILDING TRANSMISSION, UM, BUT ALSO WANT TRANSMISSION TO BE BUILT FOR ACTUAL LOADS. 
          WE WANT, WE SUPPORT THIS LARGE LOADS, WE SERVE THIS LARGE LOADS, SO WE WANT, UH, TRANSMISSION TO BE BUILT. 
          BUT, UH, LOOKING AT KO'S, UH, OCTOBER 16TH COMMENTS, SEEING ALL THE IMPACTS ON THE TRANSMISSION, UH, CASES THAT COMES OUT, AND, UM, THE COST IMPACTS FROM THE PERMIAN PATIENT STUDY, ALL OF THOSE GIVES US PAUSE. 
          UH, FROM A REP PERSPECTIVE, WE FEEL LIKE THIS COULD HAVE A BIG CHUNK OF IMPACT ON A TRANSMISSION IF THE LOAD ADDITION IS, UH, NOT ACCURATE. 
          IF IT IS ACCURATE, THAT IS THE VALUE. 
          IF IT IS NOT ACCURATE, THEN IT CAN MAKE A BIG CHUNK ON THE COST. 
          AND THAT COULD IMPACT THE RETAIL MARKET CON COMPETITION IF, UH, TRANSMISSION BECOMES THE BIGGEST CHUNK AND IT, IT MAKES THE, UH, WHOLESALE PRICES NOT THAT EFFECTIVE. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND, AND OVERALL, FROM A MARKET PERSPECTIVE, FROM A GEN INVESTMENT PERSPECTIVE, WE BELIEVE THIS WAS THE BIGGEST IMPACT BECAUSE THE MARKET, UM, NEEDS TO TRUST WHAT LOAD IS UH, COMING. 
          WE DO AGREE AND UNDERSTAND THAT TDSP ARE INUNDATED BY, UH, REQUESTS FROM LARGE LOADS, AND WE DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS LARGE LOADS COMING, BUT, UH, THE, WHAT WE ARE HEARING IS NOT A STANDARDIZED PROCESS, AND WE ARE SEEING A LOT OF REPORTS SAYING, UH, QUESTIONING THE TOTAL LOAD THAT IS COMING, AND WE SEE THE IMPACT OF THAT IN THE FORWARD CURVE. 
          UH, MARKET DOESN'T TRUST THIS, AND 
          [01:45:01]
UNLESS YOU MAKE, UM, STANDARDIZED PROCESS THAT EVERYBODY CAN RELY ON, UM, THE MARKET WON'T BE ABLE TO BET ON IT AND INVEST TO BRING THE GENERATION THAT IS NEEDED TO SERVE THIS LOAD AND BRING, UH, AND MAKE THE MARKET SUCCESSFUL. 
          SO ALL WE ASK IS TO ADD SOME LANGUAGE THAT THIS WILL BE A STANDARDIZED PROCESS, AND WE'LL WORK ON WHAT THE STANDARDIZED PROCESS IS. 
          AND THAT COULD BE SIM IT, IT, IT COULD BE SIMILAR TO THE STANDARDIZED PROCESS THAT WE ARE USING FOR, UH, GEN INTERCONNECTION, UH, LIKE, UM, THE, THE CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT ARE MET IN, UH, CONSIDERING THE GENERATION IN PLANNING STUDIES OR THE CDR. 
          SO THOSE KIND OF STUDIES COULD BE, UH, OR THOSE KIND OF CRITERIA COULD BE DEVELOPED FOR, UM, ADDING THESE LOADS INTO THE STUDIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          BOB WHITMEYER, HANK, UH, JUST, JUST REAL BRIEFLY, I'LL POINT OUT MY COMMENTS ON 1202 WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY FUND ALL OF THE COST RELATED TO ERCOT STAFFING REQUIREMENTS ON THIS ONE. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WE DID GET THAT UPDATED IA THOUGH. 
          UM, SO LET'S GO TO, BUT UNDERSTOOD. 
          I'M SORRY, THE STAFFING THAT, THAT'S MY POINT 12. 
          WE PAY FOR ALL OF THIS AND, BUT ALSO IN THIS THING IS NOTHING TO CONNECT LOADS OR GENERATION TO THE SYSTEM. 
          THIS IS JUST TO THINK ABOUT IT. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS, BOB. 
          I JUST WANTED TO, TO MAKE SURE WE WERE CLEAR ON THE IA WE WERE LOOKING AT, BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONTINUE TO DRILL DOWN INTO, UM, TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE UNDERSTANDING WHAT PAYS FOR WHAT IN REGARDS TO THE FTE. 
          APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. 
          LET'S GO TO MARTHA. 
          YEAH, THANKS, CAITLYN. 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          THIS IS MARTHA HENSON FROM ENCORE. 
          I WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE TCPA COMMENTS, AND THEN ALSO EXPAND A LITTLE BIT ON A COUPLE THINGS THAT MARK DREYFUS AND CHRISTIE MENTIONED. 
          SO, ENCORE IS THE SPONSOR OF 1180. 
          UH, THIS NPR HAS BEEN PENDING IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS FOR 18 MONTHS OR SO NOW, UM, AS SOMEONE MENTIONED EARLIER, THE LANGUAGE THAT IT'S FOUNDED ON IS ACTUALLY BASED ON SB 1281 FROM THE 2021 SESSION. 
          UM, IT'S ALSO BASED ON A SUBSEQUENT PUC RULEMAKING THAT CONCLUDED AROUND THE END OF 2022, AND ALSO, UH, FROM HOUSE BILL 5 0 6 6, WHICH EXPANDED ON THE 1281 LANGUAGE DURING THIS MOST PREVIOUS LEGISLATIVE SESSION. 
          UH, TODAY IN THE PROTOCOLS, A CUSTOMER HAS TO HAVE A SIGNED INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT TO GET AN ERCOT RPG PROJECT ENDORSEMENT FOR THE PROJECTS NEEDED TO SERVE THAT CUSTOMER. 
          AND THAT CONSTRUCT HAS GOTTEN US FARTHER AND FARTHER BEHIND OVER THE PAST EIGHT YEARS OR SO SINCE THAT LANGUAGE HAS CREATED IN OUR ABILITY AS A UTILITY TO SERVE CUSTOMERS IN A TIMELY WAY, UM, THE STATUTORY AND RULEMAKING CHANGES, THEY EFFECTIVELY MAKE THIS PROTOCOL LANGUAGE OUTDATED, AND IT'S, IT'S TIME TO ADJUST THE PROTOCOLS TO REFLECT THAT. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S ALSO TIME TO ELIMINATE THE LACK OF CLARITY THAT EXISTS TODAY AROUND HOW THE RPG PROCESS WORKS FOR FORECASTED LOAD AND LOAD SEEKING INTERCONNECTION. 
          ENCORE'S OPEN TO DISCUSSING THESE ADDITIONAL REFINEMENT OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE TCPA MEMBERS. 
          UM, WE DO NEED TO WORK THROUGH THIS CAREFULLY DUE TO THE CUSTOMER CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUES THAT THIS COULD PRESENT, BUT WE'D ASK THAT THAT EFFORT BE DONE SEPARATELY FROM 1180 AND WOULD ENCOURAGE TAC TO SUPPORT 1180 AS IT IS EITHER TODAY OR IN NOVEMBER WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT ERCOT PROVIDED IN ITS AUGUST 28TH. 
          COMMENTS. 
          UM, THOSE COMMENTS FROM ERCOT WERE APPROVED BY PRS. 
          AS DIANA MENTIONED EARLIER, I, I WOULD NOTE THAT THE LAST VOTE TAKEN AT PRS WAS UNANIMOUS, AND THERE WERE SEVERAL TCPA MEMBERS THAT ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED IN THAT LAST VOTE AND VOTED FOR THIS. 
          SO OUR REQUEST IS TO SEPARATE THIS NEW REQUEST INTO A SEPARATE EFFORT. 
          ENCORE IS PREPARED TO ENGAGE IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS. 
          I DO NOT BELIEVE WE CAN HAVE ALL OF T CPA'S WISHLIST ITEMS FLESHED OUT IN THE THREE WEEKS BETWEEN NOW AND THE NOVEMBER T. 
          BUT AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE AVAILABLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT IS 
          [01:50:01]
WORKABLE AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU'ALL. 
          THANKS. 
          THANKS, MARTHA. 
          LET'S GO TO BOB HILTON. 
          IT JUST, YEAH, REAL QUICKLY, LET, THIS IS KIND OF FOR MARTHA TOO. 
          MARTHA, YOU, IS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, YOU, YOU TALKED ABOUT BREAKING THIS OUT INTO A DIFFERENT NPRR, WHICH I, I CAN AGREE WITH TO A LOT OF THAT EXTENT. 
          BUT YOU ALSO MENTIONED ABOUT WORKING WITH TCPA AND ANYONE THAT HAS SOME COMMENTS TO TRY TO REFINE IT BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT TAC MEETING. 
          UH, DO YOU BELIEVE THERE'S SOME STUFF IN HERE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO GET IN THERE TO REFINE THIS A LITTLE FURTHER AND THEN CONTINUE WITH THE REST OF THAT, UH, IN ANOTHER NPRR? SO, I'M TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN REFINE THIS A LITTLE BETTER. 
          YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. 
          AND I, I THINK I'VE COMMUNICATED TO SOME OF THE TCPM MEMBERS, AT LEAST ONE, I KNOW THAT, UH, MY, MY PREFERENCE IS TO NOT MONKEY WITH THE LANGUAGE BETWEEN NOW AND TECH. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, IT WAS REVIEWED BY MULTIPLE SUBCOMMITTEES, WORKING GROUPS, ET CETERA. 
          I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE IS GOOD AS IT IS. 
          HOWEVER, I WILL MAKE THE COMMITMENT TO WORK ON THIS SEPARATE REVISION REQUEST, UH, TO SEE WHAT, WHAT CAN BE DONE. 
          AND WE WANNA DO THAT DELIBERATELY AND CAREFULLY DUE TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. 
          SO, UH, I, I DON'T SEE THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO REFERENCE ANOTHER DOCUMENT TODAY IN THE PROTOCOLS THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST YET. 
          I, I WOULD RATHER JUST KEEP THE LANGUAGE CLEAN AND MOVE FORWARD IN NOVEMBER WITH THAT BOB. 
          RIGHT. 
          THANKS. 
          THAT WAS IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU BOB AND MARTHA, LET'S GO TO BILL BARNES. 
          YEP, THANK YOU. 
          I HAD A QUESTION FOR CHRISTIE. 
          I THINK IT WAS ANSWERED IN SOME OF THE DISCUSSION, BUT JUST MAKING SURE NPR 1180 DOES NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON WHAT, UM, ERCOT IS DOING FOR THE PERMIAN BASIN RELIABILITY PLAN. 
          CORRECT? IT DOES NOT. 
          THE, THE PERMIAN PLAN IS, YOU KNOW, DIRECTED TO THROUGH THE STUDY PROCESS AND BEEN APPROVED. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST MAKING SURE. 
          YEAH, WE, AND I DO THINK THIS DISCUSSION IS VALUABLE. 
          I ALSO SEE THE BENEFITS OF 1180 AND, AND PROVIDING KIND OF CLEARER, UH, CATEGORIES FOR THESE LOADS. 
          BUT I DO THINK IT'S VALUABLE FOR TAC TO BE AWARE OF THESE GROWING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND OUR MARKET WITH LARGE LOADS AND THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND THE, AND REALLY THE, AN INSUFFICIENT PROCESS TO HELP VERIFY THOSE LOADS. 
          WE HAVE PROPOSED AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH IN THE PERME BASIN RELIABILITY PLAN PROJECT THAT WOULD REALLY ADD AN ADDITIONAL STEP WHERE THERE'S A REFUNDABLE DEPOSIT, UH, POSTED BY LOADS TO HELP ERCOT IDENTIFY, UM, THESE LOADS. 
          UM, I, SO I'M WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THE NEED FOR MORE. 
          UM, AND I DO THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR A, A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION AND ANOTHER PROCESS YET TO BE DEFINED. 
          BUT AS WE CONTINUE TO PROCEED DOWN THIS ROAD WITHOUT THOSE IMPORTANT STEPS, AND I'M GONNA DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO NPR 1247, THAT'S GONNA BE DISCUSSED AT ROSS NEXT WEEK, YOU, THERE'S A VERY SIMILAR IMPACT FOR A DIFFERENT PART OF THE TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESS. 
          WE CANNOT CONTINUE DOWN THIS ROAD WITHOUT ADJUSTING OUR POLICY TO REFLECT WHAT IS THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN NOW THAT HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY. 
          SO FOR AWARENESS, I AGREE, THIS IS A GOOD DISCUSSION TO HAVE. 
          UM, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WAS AWARE FOR OTHER TAC MEMBERS TO TUNE IN AND ENGAGE. 
          WE NEED, WE NEED A LOT OF THOUGHT PUT INTO THESE PROCESSES, UH, TO IMPROVE THEM, GIVEN THE REALITY WE LIVE IN NOW. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU, BILL. 
          LET'S GO TO JOHN RUS HUBBARD AND THEN ERIC. 
          AND THEN BRIAN, MAYBE YOU CAN ASK ON MIKE, SO CHRISTIE CAN ANSWER ON MIKE JOHN. 
          YEAH, JOHN RUS HUBBERT WITH TIEC WE'RE SENSITIVE TO, TO TBAS CONCERNS AND AGREE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO HAVE UNNECESSARY TRANSMISSION BUILD OUT, BUT DEFINING A CRITERIA FOR VALID FOR A VALIDATION PROCESS SEEMS LIKE A LONGER AND A BROADER CONVERSATION. 
          SO A SEPARATE NPRR ON THAT SEEMS LIKE THE RIGHT APPROACH. 
          AND CONSIDERING THE STATUTORY MANDATE, TIC SUPPORTS MOVING THIS NPR FORWARD FOR THE DECEMBER BOARD, WHETHER THAT MEANS THIS MONTH OR, OR NEXT MONTH. 
          THANKS. 
          [01:55:02]
OKAY. 
          ERIC GOFF? YES. 
          UH, I THINK ANOTHER NPR THIS TOPIC DOES MAKE SENSE. 
          UM, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT DISCUSSION. 
          UH, I DO THINK THERE IS ONE, UH, COMMENT PREVIOUSLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE MARKET BELIEVES THIS LOAD IS COMING AND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE CAN BET ON THAT, I THINK WAS THE WORD THAT WAS USED. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK THAT'S, UH, THE ROLE, UH, OF THIS NPRR IS TO SEND A MARKET SIGNAL ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. 
          UM, BUT IT'S REALLY TO COMPLY WITH, UH, THE LAWS THAT MARTHA MENTIONED. 
          SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT TOPIC. 
          I AGREE WITH YOU, BILL, THAT MORE TRANSPARENCY AND MORE INSIGHT INTO THAT IS IMPORTANT. 
          UM, BUT I, I THINK IT'S A SEPARATE TOPIC. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU ERIC. 
          BRIAN, I, UH, CHRISTIE, I, I'M JUST HOPING TO GET SOME MORE CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE RPG CHANGES YOU MENTIONED, AND THEN YOU ALSO MENTIONED A, UH, PERSPECTIVE COMMISSION RULEMAKING. 
          UH, I JUST DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE SCOPE OR TIMING ON THAT, AND SO YOU COULD HELP OUT. 
          I'D APPRECIATE IT. 
          YEAH, SO JUST FOR CLARITY, BRIAN, UM, IT WASN'T REALLY CHANGES TO THE RPG PROCESS, BUT IT'S THINKING ABOUT THE PROCESSES THAT WE WENT THROUGH LAST YEAR AS WE WENT INTO ACTUALLY THE RTP PLANNING CYCLE AND HOW WE COLLECTED THESE LOAD FORECASTS FROM THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDERS. 
          AND SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING IN, I THINK HAS BEEN SHARED IN A COUPLE OF STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS IS HOW WE'RE GONNA COMBINE SOME OF OUR EFFORTS, UM, INTO A SURVEY OR AN RFI THAT WE WILL DO TO THE TRANSMISSION SERVICE PROVIDERS, WHERE WE'RE GONNA BE COLLECTING LARGE LOAD INTEGRATION TYPE INFORMATION, THE, THE FORECAST INFORMATION WE NEED FOR THE RTP THAT CAN ALSO BE USED AS A PART OF OUR LONG TERM, UH, LOAD FORECAST PROCESS HERE AT ERCOT. 
          AND SO IT'S, IT'S COLLECTING BETTER DATA, UM, FROM THE TSPS IN A, IN A MORE, UH, REFINED FORMAT. 
          LAST YEAR WE COLLECTED INFORMATION, THEN WE FOUND WE NEEDED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE HAD TO GO BACK OUT AS A PART OF OUR DIFFERENT PROCESSES AT . 
          SO WE'RE TRYING TO REFINE THAT. 
          UM, SO THOSE ARE THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'RE ALREADY MAKING. 
          UM, AS FAR AS THE COMMISSION PROCESS, I DON'T PERSONALLY HAVE AN UPDATE ON ANY OF THEIR TIMING, BUT I DO KNOW AT LEAST ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAS BEEN VERY ADAMANT ABOUT THE NEED FOR CREATING, UH, RULES ABOUT WHAT IS REASONABLE LOAD AS THEY START TO LOOK AT THOSE IN THE, THE CCM PROCESS. 
          UM, AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, SINCE I DO HAVE THE, MY COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS JUST TO, TO THROW IN, I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU HIT IT BILL BY SAYING THAT WE CAN'T KEEP PLANNING THE SYSTEM THE WAY WE ALWAYS DID. 
          UM, THINGS ARE CHANGING A LOT MORE RAPIDLY. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE SAW HB 50 66. 
          UH, THEY RECOGNIZED THAT WE NEEDED TO CHANGE THE PLANNING ROLES AND HOW WE TAKE THAT LOAD FORECAST INFORMATION IN, AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO, TO DO THAT. 
          UM, AND WE'RE, WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH FIRST TO GET THAT CERTAINTY. 
          UM, SO EVERYONE HAS BETTER INFORMATION AS WE CONTINUE TO EVOLVE THE PROCESS, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT'S PROBABLY ANOTHER REVISION REQUEST, UM, THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT IN THE FUTURE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, CHRISTIE. 
          ALRIGHT, NED, THANKS CAITLYN. 
          AND, UH, CHRISTIE, THIS IS ACTUALLY PROBABLY A, ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          YOU KNOW, THE, THE BILL OF THE QUESTION ABOUT, UM, THE PERMIAN PLAN, AND I WAS, I WAS WONDERING IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL ALSO NEED FOR THE 2024 RTP TO, TO MOVE FORWARD OR, UM, AND THEN, UH, SECOND QUESTION IS IN THE IA WITH THE EXTRA FTES, IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM THE DISCUSSION THERE WILL BE SOME OF THIS ADDITIONAL, UM, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY THROUGH THE IMPROVED RFI, UM, PROCESS AND, AND, YOU KNOW, ABILITY TO BETTER PROCESS SOME OF THESE, UM, THESE APPLICATIONS THAT YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY GET SOME OF THAT ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY. 
          AND THEN, AS YOU MENTIONED, THERE'S, THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL SCREENS AT THE, AT RPG AND, AND CERTAINLY THROUGH THE CCN PROCESS OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH, UM, I THINK WE HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE KIND OF HOW THIS, HOW THIS POLICY WOULD END UP SHIFTING A LOT OF THE, THE BURDEN ANYHOW, IS THAT IT, A LOT OF IT MOVES TO THE, TO THE CCN PROCESS, UM, TO EVALUATE. 
          [02:00:01]
BUT, UH, YEAH, SO THOSE, THOSE ARE THE TWO QUESTIONS I HAD. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO I GUESS FIRST QUESTION ABOUT DOES IT IMPACT THE 2024 RTP, THE PLANNING GUIDES DO GIVE US DISCRETION OF WHAT LOAD WE USE TODAY. 
          WHAT I WOULD CLARIFY IS THAT BEFORE WE WOULD START TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ANY PROJECTS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED IN THE RTP AND MOVE THEM THROUGH THE REGIONAL PLANNING GROUP PROCESS, WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE THE UPDATED, UM, RULES IN PLACE BEFORE WE COULD START REVIEWING THOSE RPG PROJECTS, ENDORSING THOSE PROJECTS AND MOVING THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          UM, AS FAR AS THIS REVISED RFI PROCESS THAT WE'RE GONNA UTILIZE FOR COLLECTING LOW FORECAST DATA FOR THE 2025 RTP LOOKING OUT INTO 2031, YES, I DO BELIEVE WE WILL START TO GET SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL BENEFITS THAT HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED IN THE TCPA COMMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WELL, I, I APPRECIATE THE, ALL THE DISCUSSION TODAY AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S GENERAL ALIGNMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD MAYBE TAKE ANOTHER MONTH TO TALK ABOUT IT OR MAY NOT BE A DEFINITIVE, UH, YOU KNOW, PATH FORWARD ON, ON MAKING CHANGES TO THIS PARTICULAR NPR, BUT I'VE CERTAINLY, UH, APPRECIATE THE, SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF MUTUAL AGREEMENT ON, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, TRY AND FIND WAYS TO, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CLARITY, WHICH I THINK BRINGS, UH, BRINGS BENEFITS TO, UH, LOTS OF DIFFERENT MARKET PARTICIPANTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS NED. 
          LEY. 
          UM, HEY, UH, THANK YOU CHRISTIE FOR, UH, AND ALL OF OTT FOR WORKING WITH THE, UM, T DSPS ON, UH, IMPROVING THE TRANSPARENCY. 
          UH, SO, UM, I BELIEVE YOU, UH, ERCOT SHARED IT AT THE SAWG ON, UH, A SURVEY WITH THE T DSPS. 
          UH, HOW, HOW, UM, WOULD THAT BE POSSIBILITY OF LOOKING AT MAYBE, UH, SOME MORE CLARITY ON WHAT IF THE LOAD IS, UM, SUPPORTING OR WORKING WITH MULTIPLE TDSP? AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE OFFLINE, BUT I, I, UH, I, I WAS WONDERING, UM, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE SCENARIOS THAT WERE CONSIDERED THAT YOU, UH, ARE CAUGHT FELT WOULD BE COVERED IN, UM, WITH THE SURVEY? SORRY, WE'VE GOT MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE PHONES GOING OFF HERE AT ONCE. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION THAT WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO, TO COLLECT IS, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST, BUT ADDING TO THAT, UM, I THINK HISTORICALLY, UM, WE'VE TRIED TO, TO, TO STAY OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF BETWEEN THE TWO TSPS, UM, DETERMINING THAT. 
          BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD HIGHLIGHT IN, IN WORKING WITH THOSE TSPS. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I ALSO WANTED TO ADDRESS ONE OF THE, UH, CLARIFICATION THAT, UH, ERIC, UM, MADE ERIC GOFF MADE. 
          UM, SO THIS NPRR, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, DEFINES THE LOAD, UM, THAT AND DEFINES THE SUBCATEGORY WHERE, UM, TDSP ATTEST STATION WOULD, UH, MAKE THAT AS, UH, AS THE DEFINED LOAD. 
          UM, SO THAT IS SENDING THE SIGNAL TO THE MARKETS, UM, THAT THIS IS THE LOAD THAT WE ARE STUDYING IN RELIABILITY STUDY. 
          THIS IS THE LOAD THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED THAT ERCOT IS PLANNING FOR. 
          AND THE WHOLE OBJECTIVE OF THIS, UH, MARKET IS FOR MARKET PARTICIPANTS TO RESPOND TO REPORTS, UH, TO THE INFORMATION THAT IS PUBLISHED BY ERCO. 
          AND, UH, I AM NOT SURE HOW, UM, ANY OF US CAN SAY THAT THE INFORMATION THAT IS PUBLISHED IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THAT IS NOT FOR MARKET TO RESPOND. 
          UM, THAT BEING SAID, UM, I, MARTHA, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR, UH, OFFERING TO WORK WITH US ON, UH, DEVELOPING A PROCESS FOR IT. 
          AND, UM, I THINK I SAW RICHARD ALSO SEEING THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO MAR MARTA, 
          [02:05:01]
CAN I ASK, UM, WHAT, WHAT DO YOU, UM, ENVISION THE PROCESS TO BE? I AM NOT PREPARED TO SPECULATE ON THAT TODAY. 
          RASHMI, AGAIN, AS I TOLD YOU YESTERDAY, UM, THIS NEEDS A LOT OF CAREFUL DELIBERATION, BUT WE ARE WILLING TO INITIATE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU, UM, AS EARLY AS NEXT WEEK. 
          AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN PROVIDE SOME SORT OF ASSESSMENT TO TACK WHEN THE NPR IS UP FOR APPROVAL WITH THE PIGGER IN NOVEMBER. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT WILL BE GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ARE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR COMMENTS? RE YEAH. 
          ALRIGHT, MARK FUSS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I, AFTER LISTENING TO THIS DISCUSSION, I HAVE TO SAY I AGREE WITH ALMOST EVERYTHING SAID BY EVERYBODY. 
          UM, I WOULD NOTE THAT THE COMMISSION RULE ADOPTED NEARLY TWO YEARS AGO SAYS THE FORECASTED LOAD AND ADDITIONAL LOAD CURRENTLY SEEKING INTERCONNECTION MUST BE SUBSTANTIATED BY QUANTIFIABLE EVIDENCE OF PROJECTED LOW GROWTH. 
          UM, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS HOW TO IMPLEMENT THAT SECTION. 
          AND WHETHER IT IS THROUGH THE PROTOCOLS OR THROUGH A COMMISSION RULEMAKING, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME VALIDATION OF THE, OF THE CLAIMS, UH, OR, UH, FUTURE INTERCONNECTIONS. 
          I SUPPORT THAT. 
          I TOO WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH TCPA ON THAT LANGUAGE. 
          WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT IF WE DELAY THE CURRENT NPRR, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE VALIDATION, WE'LL TAKE A WHILE. 
          AND SO WE WILL BE PUTTING OFF THIS NPRR THAT IS READY TO GO. 
          AND FRANKLY, I THINK EVERYBODY RECOGNIZES ERCOT IS ALREADY DOING THIS ON AN AD HOC BASIS. 
          WHAT THEY'RE DOING TODAY IS NOT REALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PROTOCOLS. 
          AND SO NPRR 1180 AND THE FOLLOW ON PIGGER WILL CREATE ALIGNMENT BETWEEN WHAT ERCOT IS DOING TODAY AND WHAT IS IN THE PROTOCOLS. 
          AND I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. 
          AND LET'S JUST APPROVE THIS NPRR TODAY, RECOGNIZING THAT WE'LL HAVE A FOLLOW ON WHERE WE'RE GONNA, UH, WORK TOGETHER TO WORK OUT THIS OTHER ISSUE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, MARK. 
          SO WE DID THE MOTION FROM, FROM YOU SECONDED BY OR MOTION FROM ERIC SEC. 
          MOTION FROM YOU SECONDED BY ERIC TO APPROVE IT'S STILL STANDING. 
          UM, WE DID HAVE KIND OF THE LOGISTICAL CONCERN THAT THE PIGGER 1 0 9, I BELIEVE IS NOT IN FRONT OF US YET. 
          SO THIS COULD GO THE RR COULD WE MUTE MULTIPLE FIELDS, THE ENERGY MORE EVENLY THROUGH, THROUGH THAT, UH, CAPACITORS THAT WERE FORMED AND REDUCE. 
          WAIT, CAN YOU MUTE BE AND, UH, RADIATE? OKAY. 
          AT THE POINT OR THE, THE BUSHING GOES, ITER GOES THROUGH THE, THE , UM, UH, COULD WE MUTE OFTEN HAD A, SO WE, THE, THE CONCERN IS THAT THIS WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE, THE PIG. 
          UM, AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. 
          DOES ANYBODY, , DID YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING TO THAT CONCERN AND TESTED, UH, THE POINT BEING OR YOU NO, WE CAN MANAGE. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN WE MUTE HIM ALL? UM, SO IF THE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT CONCERN, UM, MOTION STILL ON THE TABLE AND MARK YOUR INTENTION IS TO KEEP IT ON THE TABLE, AS I UNDERSTOOD TO COREY GO, GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT AWAY. 
          I CO GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I, I WAS JUST GONNA DOUBLE CHECK. 
          IT SOUNDED IN THE MIDST OF THE DISCUSSION, IT SOUNDED LIKE THERE WAS A MIXTURE OF VOTED OUT TODAY VERSUS LET'S TALK ABOUT LANGUAGE AND VOTED OUT NEXT MONTH. 
          'CAUSE PROCEDURALLY THEY WOULD HIT THE SAME DECEMBER BOARD MEETING. 
          AND SO I, I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK BEFORE WE RUN THROUGH THIS VOTE THAT THE, THE SAME FOLKS THAT WANTED TO TABLE 1190, BECAUSE LET'S TAKE SOME TIME TO TALK ABOUT IT. 
          IT'S GONNA HIT THE SAME BOARD MEETING. 
          FEEL THAT THERE'S A BENEFIT TO VOTING OUT THE NPRR NOW WITHOUT HAVING THE RELATED TICKER THAT I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S A BIG STEP FORWARD ON T AND WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO TALK ABOUT ALL THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THERE, ITEM SEVEN, ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE TABLED AT ATTACK TO BE THE BACKSTOP. 
          'CAUSE WHEN WE FILE THESE RELATED REVISIONS, IT'S NOT THE COMPLETE STORY IN ONE REVISION REQUEST, YOU KNOW, NECESSARILY THAT'S WHY WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, A RELATED NOER OR A PIGGER SO THAT WHEN 
          [02:10:01]
SOMEBODY'S READING, LET'S SAY THE NPRR, AND THERE'S LANGUAGE THAT SAYS PURSUANT TO PLANNING GUIDE SECTION X, Y, Z, THAT SECTION MIGHT NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE PIGGER HAS TO CREATE IT OR VICE VERSA. 
          OR THERE'S SOMETHING SILENT IN THE PIGGER AND SOMEONE CAN READ THAT AND SAY, WELL, WAIT, WHY AREN'T YOU ADDRESSING X, Y, Z? SAY WE'RE ADDRESSING X, Y, Z IN THE RELATED NO. 
          AND SO WE'VE HISTORICALLY TABLED THINGS ATTACK TO LET EVERYTHING COME TOGETHER SO THAT WHEN THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS ADVISING THE BOARD, THEY'RE GIVING THEM THE FULL PICTURE AND NOT ASKING THE BOARD TO TABLE THINGS TO LET OTHER THINGS CATCH UP. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PACK AS A BODY FEELS THAT VOTING OUT SOMETHING TODAY WITHOUT THE RELATED REVISION REQUEST, EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD JUST THE SAME BOARD MEETING IN DECEMBER, THAT THERE IS A MEANINGFUL BENEFIT TO THAT, WHICH I, I'M, I DON'T CLAIM TO BE THE SMARTEST GUY ON THE CALL, SO I MAY BE MISSING IT, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNEW THAT WE WERE DEVIATING FROM, YOU KNOW, STANDARD PRACTICE ABOUT HOW WE PRESENT MATERIAL TO THE BOARD. 
          OKAY. 
          I UNDERSTOOD COREY. 
          I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN VOTE BASED ON THAT INFORMATION AS WELL AS SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION. 
          I THINK IN ORDER TO TAKE THIS VOTE, WE REALLY JUST NEED TO CONFIRM THAT WITH THE MOTIONS. 
          WHO WERE MARK, UM, DREYFUS AND ERIC GOFF. 
          SO MARK AND ERIC, DO YOU STILL WANT THIS, THIS BALLOT ON THE TABLE? I, I THINK WE'VE SAID THAT NOW REPEATEDLY THAT WE DO. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN NOBODY WISHES TO MAKE A MOTION TO THE TABLE TO, TO . 
          SO JUST THE, I THINK I'M IN THE QUEUE. 
          I THINK I'M IN THE QUEUE. 
          UM, YEAH, PLEASE, PLEASE GO AHEAD, ERIC. 
          YEAH, SO COREY, I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS, BUT THIS MOTION IS MADE WITH INTENTION. 
          UM, AND UM, THIS CAN GO TO THE DECEMBER BOARD MEETING WHERE THEY CAN TAKE UP THE PIG AS WELL. 
          WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON THE PIG AS WELL. 
          UM, AND IT'S NOT ABOUT PROCEDURE NECESSARILY, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WHERE WE HAVE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH HOW TO HANDLE THIS. 
          AND COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED YESTERDAY, UM, SEEM TO BE BETTER HANDLED IN A SEPARATE REVISION. 
          AND RATHER THAN HAVING A CHAOTIC MEETING NEXT MONTH WHERE WE HAVE A VERY SIMILAR CONVERSATION AND, AND TRY TO HAVE PROPOSALS FOR HOW TO VERIFY LOAD THAT WON'T GET HANDLED IN ONE MONTH AND COULD PROBABLY TAKE SIX MONTHS OR MORE. 
          I, I'D RATHER JUST MOVE THIS FORWARD AND, AND KEEP NEXT MONTH'S MEETING MORE STABLE. 
          SO THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN VOTE HOW THEY WANT TO, BUT I THINK THIS IS READY TO GO AND HAS BEEN READY TO GO. 
          AND THE MOTION IS, UM, MADE AGAINST OUR USUAL PROCEDURES WITH THE INTENTION OF HAVING LESS DISCUSSION ON THE SAME TOPIC, UH, NEXT MONTH. 
          SO IF PEOPLE THINK THAT'S WORTHY OF DISCUSSION, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. 
          BUT THAT WAS THE INTENTION BEHIND WHAT COREY POINTED OUT AS AN UNUSUAL PROCEDURE. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          THANK YOU COREY AND ERIC, UM,  WAS IN THE QUEUE AND THEN OUT OF IT, BACK IN, SO LET, IT'S BOB HILTON AND THEN WROTE ME. 
          YEAH, JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING TO BE GAINED BY VOTING THIS UP OR DOWN TODAY. 
          UH, I, I SEE SOME DOWNSIDE TO IT THAT CORY'S ALREADY LAID OUT THERE AND I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE. 
          I DON'T LIKE GOING AGAINST WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR YEARS, AND I I, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT I AM IN FAVOR OF VOTING UP OR DOWN ON SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DOESN'T WANNA HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          I THINK THE MORE CONVERSATION WE HAVE, THE MORE CLEARER WE ARE AND THE BETTER VOTES WE GET. 
          SO I WOULD BE FINE WITH TABLING THIS TODAY. 
          IS THAT A MOTION? SURE. 
          WE'LL SEE IF A SECOND COMES UP AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO MOTION TO TABLE FROM BOB HILTON. 
          IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT? UM, I CAN SECOND ON THAT ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          THERE IS A SECOND IN THE QUEUE FROM CURTIS CAMPO AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND, UH, , DO YOU HAVE FURTHER COMMENT? YEAH, UM, I, I WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT ERIC SAID EARLIER, AND, UH, I SUPPORT THE SECOND, NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO BLOCK THIS, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR TO ALL THE TTSP THAT, AND  THAT, UH, WE REALLY SUPPORT THIS AND WE WANT THIS TO GO FORWARD. 
          AND, UM, UH, THE, TO 
          [02:15:01]
CLARIFY WHAT ERIC SAID, WE, THE ASK IS NOT TO DEVELOP THE CRITERIA IN THE THREE MONTHS. 
          IT IS JUST TO HAVE A LANGUAGE SAYING SOMETHING LIKE, THIS IS A STANDARD PROCESS THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED LATER, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES SO THAT THERE IS A, A PROCESS THAT WE CAN WORK ON AND WE, UM, AREN'T SUPPORTING THIS BECAUSE THERE IS TIME FOR THIS TO BE APPROVED IN . 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS EE. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO NOW WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS, BUT WE, WE ALWAYS TAKE THE MOTION TO TABLE FIRST, SO THE MOTION TO TABLE, UM, NPR 1180. 
          AND IF THIS FAILS, WE WOULD GO BACK. 
          I WONDER THE FIRST SESSION, I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THIS IN THE INTEREST OF HAVING A SHORT CONVERSATION LIKE I JUST SAID, BUT I, I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY OPPOSE A MOTION TO TABLE JUST WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO ADVANCE THIS FORWARD. 
          AND I WONDER IF BOB'S MOTION CAN GO ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT WOULD, THE VOTE MOTION TO TABLE CAN JUST GO ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS GOING ON THE COMBO BALLOT? SO, BUT THEN YOU HAVE YOUR MOTION ON THE TABLE. 
          SO WOULD THEY NEED TO WITHDRAW IT OR AT THE END OF THE COMBO BALLOT? I, I THINK WE HAVE TO TAKE THIS ONE SEPARATELY, RIGHT, CORY? JUST BECAUSE OF THE MULTIPLE MOTIONS ON THIS? NO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          TO BREAK THE STANDOFF, WE WOULD NEED RES AND BOB HELTON TO WITHDRAW THEIR MOTION TO TABLE, BUT THEN IMMEDIATELY ALSO NEED ERIC TO WITHDRAW HIS MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. 
          AND THEN WE WOULD CLEAR THE DECK. 
          SO IT'S, UH, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU WITHDRAW YOURS? I'LL WITHDRAW MINE. 
          YEAH, LET'S JUST, LET'S JUST VOTE ON THIS MOTION TO TABLE. 
          I CAN, I CAN SUPPORT WITHDRAWING IT AND GETTING IT TO THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          YEAH, EITHER WAY YOU WANNA DO IT. 
          I, IT DOESN'T MATTER IT'LL END UP AT THE SAME PLACE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THEY ARE SUPPORTING WITHDRAWING, SO THE MOTION TO TABLE GOES AWAY. 
          NOW WE ARE STANDING WITH JUST THE MOTION TO APPROVE MARK AND ERIC, ARE YOU NOW WITHDRAWING THAT MOTION TO APPROVE? WITHDRAWN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THEN THE NEW PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO PUT THE MOTION TO TABLE ON THE COMBO BALLOT? YES, MA'AM. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON NPR 1180? ALRIGHT. 
          AND AGAIN, THIS IS IN, AS MARTHA AND A FEW OTHERS, I THINK POINTED OUT THE NOVEMBER TACTIC IS THREE WEEKS. 
          SO IF WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER NEW COMMENTS OR SOMETHING, UM, I WOULD HAVE THE TYPICAL REQUEST TO GET THOSE IN A, A WEEK OR, OR SEE, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE AHEAD OF TIME SO THAT FOLKS COULD CONSIDER IT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU EVERYBODY. 
          DIANA, I BELIEVE YOU HAD A SECOND SLIDE ON YOUR REPORT. 
          YES, IT WAS AN UPDATE ON 1247. 
          THERE WAS A SPECIAL PLANNING WORKING GROUP MEETING THAT WAS YESTERDAY, AND WE JUST WANTED TO RAISE FOR EVERYBODY'S AWARENESS THAT THE GOAL AFTER YESTERDAY'S MEETING IS TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR ROSS'S CONSIDERATION NEXT MONTH, AND, UM, HAVE THAT ENDORSEMENT FROM ROSS TO PRS FOR THE NOVEMBER 14TH PRS MEETING. 
          WE WILL BE ABLE TO, IF WE TAKE URGENCY FOR THE LANGUAGE AND THE IA, A 1247, IF WE ARE IN ALIGNMENT AFTER ROSS AND AT PRS, WE'LL BE ABLE TO, UM, AND COREY, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M INCORRECT OR MISSING ANYTHING, BUT I BELIEVE WITH URGENCY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CONSIDER 1240 SEVENS LANGUAGE AND COST THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND SEND IT TO TAC FOR THE NOVEMBER 20TH TAC. 
          AND THAT WOULD MAKE THE DECEMBER BOARD, I KNOW THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REQUESTED THAT SCHEDULE, AS HAS ERCOT AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE COGNIZANT AND AWARE OF THE TIMING AND BE RECEPTIVE TO HEARING EVERYBODY'S INPUTS. 
          SO WE JUST WANTED TO RAISE FOR 1247 THAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE GOING AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING MORE SOLIDIFIED, UM, NEXT MONTH FOR TAX CONSIDERATION. 
          THANKS, DIANA. 
          OKAY. 
          SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, NOT TRYING TO DICTATE ANY VOTES, BUT 
          [02:20:01]
THE, THIS TIMELINE IS WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET NPR 1247 TO THE DECEMBER BOARD, AND WE JUST WANTED PEOPLE TO BE AWARE OF THAT. 
          IF STATUS, THE GOAL, THAT WOULD BE NOVEMBER 7TH CROSS, AND THEN AT NOVEMBER 14TH, PRS, THAT WOULD BE AN URGENT STATUS VOTE BECAUSE WE WOULD BE VOTING ON THE LANGUAGE AS WELL AS CIA AND THEN HAVE IT AT NOVEMBER ATTACK, UH, WITH ALL THE OTHER CONTENTIOUS ITEMS AND THEN TAKE IT TO DECEMBER 3RD BOARD. 
          DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, DIANA. 
          THANK YOU, CAITLIN. 
          OH, HANG ON. 
          I DID WANNA, NOT TO PUT BARKSDALE ON THE SPOT AGAIN, BUT IF, IF COMMISSION STAFF WANTED TO LAY IN ON, ON THAT DISCUSSION ON 1247 THAT THIS IS THE TIME TO DO THAT. 
          UH, THANKS, KAITLYN. 
          YEAH, NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO, TO ADD TO THAT AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW, UH, WE APPRECIATE EVERYBODY PAYING ATTENTION TO IT AND OUR CAUGHT STAFF GETTING THE WHITE PAPER THAT FOLKS WERE WAITING FOR OUT AND, UM, AND, UH, ARE APPRECIATIVE OF EFFORTS TO, TO GET IT MOVING. 
          SO, THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO NOW WE ARE BACK 
          [7. Revision Requests Tabled at TAC (Possible Vote)]
TO OR ON TO REVISION REQUEST TABLED AT CAC, UM, O-B-D-R-R 52 AND REMAIN TABLED AWAITING NPR 1246 AND, UH, NOVEMBER 2 64 CAN REMAIN TABLED AWAITING NPR 1235. 
          UM, THE NEW BDR WE HAVE OBD 
          [8. OBDRR053, Alignment with NPRR1131, Controllable Load Resource Participation in Non-Spin, and Minor Clean-Ups (Vote)]
53, UH, NIKA, ARE YOU TALKING TO US ABOUT THIS? I'M NOT SURE IF NIKA IS ON THE PHONE. 
          THIS IS ANN. 
          SO THIS IS JUST A FOLLOW UP TO NPR 1131, WHICH WAS, I BELIEVE IMPLEMENTED AT THE END OF AUGUST. 
          UM, THE SMES REALIZED THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE OBD AS WELL TO SUPPORT THAT IMPLEMENTATION. 
          UM, SO THIS OBDR IS JUST ALIGNING WITH THAT AND IT'S A NO IMPACT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, ANN. 
          SO WE'D BE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF OBDR 53 AS SUBMITTED AND THE OCTOBER 17TH IMPACT ANALYSIS. 
          ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO PUTTING THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY. 
          HEY, DON'T HEAR ANY, LET'S MOVE ON 
          [9. RMS Report]
TO THE RMS REPORT. 
          I WOULD PROPOSE, I THINK BECAUSE R HAS VOTING ITEMS THAT WE MAYBE TAKE A BREAK BETWEEN THE RMS AND R'S REPORT TO GIVE OR COP STAFF A BREAK AND LET PEOPLE GO GRAB FOOD AND ALL OF THAT. 
          DOES THAT WORK FOR PEOPLE? OKAY. 
          UM, DID YOU SEE MY NOTE? CAN WE, CAN WE PLEASE TAKE A BREATH? I MEAN, THERE, THE VOTING ITEMS ARE GONNA BE TABLED, SO MY REPORT WILL ONLY TAKE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS IS DEBBIE. 
          I THINK MY REPORT WILL TAKE, UH, JUST A FEW MINUTES. 
          IT'S JUST VERBAL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO YOU MIGHT TAKE UP BOTH OF THEM BEFORE BREAK. 
          JUST A SUGGESTION. 
          YEP, THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. 
          LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD, UM, DEBBIE AND KATIE, AND THEN WE WILL TAKE A BREAK BETWEEN THE ROSS AND WMS REPORTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WELL, UH, RMS HAS BEEN HEAVILY INVOLVED IN SUPPORTING RETAIL MARKET PARTICIPANTS FOR TEXAS F 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION, ALONG WITH MARKET TRACK SCR EIGHT 17. 
          UH, WE WILL BE MAKING THOSE CHANGES INTO THE MARKET THE WEEKEND OF NOVEMBER 9TH AND 10TH. 
          SO WE'RE GETTING REALLY, REALLY CLOSE. 
          THERE ARE A TOTAL OF, UH, SEVEN MARKET CHANGES GOING IN THAT, UH, WEEKEND, INCLUDING THE MARKET TRACK CHANGES AND THE TEXAS A VERSION 5.0. 
          WE DID FINALLY FINISH THE FLIGHT OH 9 24, WHICH IS THE MARKET TEST FLIGHT WITH, UH, TESTING ALL EXISTING MARKET PARTICIPANTS FOR TEXAS 
          [02:25:01]
F 5.0 AND, UH, THAT CONCLUDED YESTERDAY AT 5:00 PM ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY, 
          [10. ROS Report (Vote)]
GO AHEAD KATIE. 
          THANKS, CAITLIN. 
          NEXT? YEP. 
          SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THESE THREE ITEMS THAT COULD BE VOTING ITEMS ARE GOING TO BE TABLED TODAY TO AWAIT THE, UH, ACCOMPANYING NPR. 
          AND THEN NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO WE HAVE SOME, UM, RECENT ROSS ACTIONS, AND THEN AS YOU GUYS MENTIONED, PICKER 1 0 7 THAT'S RELATED TO 1180, THAT, UM, IA IS COMING BACK TO US NEXT THURSDAY, UM, ON THE DWG PROCEDURE MANUAL, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE MISSED AND SOME LANGUAGE THAT NEEDED TO BE BACK IN. 
          SO THAT'S GONNA COME BACK TO US, UM, NEXT WEEK AND THEN NEXT SLIDE SO YOU CAN GET A FLAVOR SALT, UM, SORRY, AMAZON GUY AT THE EXACT WRONG TIME. 
          OKAY, NEXT SLIDE. 
          JUST, UM, MORE ITEMS THAT WE ARE REVIEWING AND THEN OBVIOUSLY OUR NEXT MEETING IS, UH, NOVEMBER 7TH. 
          AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL TAKE THOSE. 
          OKAY. 
          KATIE, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING, UM, ON THE 1247 DISCUSSION AS IT'S HAPPENING AT P-P-L-W-G AND ROSS? YES. 
          UM, SO COUPLE THINGS. 
          IF FOLKS HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE LUMINATE COMMENTS, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THOSE, THOSE SERVED AS THE STARTING POINT FOR THE P-L-D-P-L-W-G, UM, CHANGES THAT WERE INCLUDED ON TOP OF THOSE. 
          THAT WILL BE, UM, FILED AS A DRAFT FOR, UM, ROSS CONSIDERATION. 
          I AM WORKING WITH PLWG LEADERSHIP TO COME UP WITH AN OUTLINE OF THAT DISCUSSION SO THAT WE CAN LAY EVERYTHING OUT AND HAVE IT READY FOR, UM, FOLKS TO VOTE. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WILL BE THE PLWG DRAFT, AND THEN THERE ARE SOME FOLKS WORKING WITH ERCOT TO TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME COMPROMISED LANGUAGE. 
          UM, IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THEN WE WOULD BASICALLY HAVE, UM, THE ERCOT VERSION OF THE COMMENTS AND THE PLWG DRAFT VERSION OF THE COMMENTS UP FOR A VOTE AT ROSS. 
          UM, AGAIN, WITH US HAVING THAT OUTLINE AND UNDERSTANDING THE TIMING, WE WILL DO OUR VERY BEST TO TRY TO COME TO A DECISION, UM, NEXT WEEK. 
          SO, UM, DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO TRY TO MAKE THAT ORDERLY. 
          THANKS, KATIE. 
          AND THOSE DRAFTS, PLWG COMMENT, THOSE WILL BE POSTED TO THE ROSS MEETING PAGE. 
          YES. 
          SO LET BE POSTED TO THE ROSS MEETING PAGE TOO LONG WITH THE PLWG, UM, UPDATE SLUGS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN IF THERE WAS A KIND OF COMPROMISE SET OF COMMENTS, THAT WOULD JUST BE FILED TO THE NPRR. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE LOOKING INTO DIFFERENT PLACES, PEOPLE, UM, SO WE DID HAVE THE THREE VOTING ITEMS. UM, I THINK WE COULD PUT THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT AS KATIE SUGGESTED. 
          SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO TABLE FIGURE ONE 16 AWAITING NPRR 1240 TABLE, NO, 2 66 AWAITING NPR 1239 AND TABLE NUMBER 2 67 AWAITING NPR 1240. 
          ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH PUTTING THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT? ALRIGHT. 
          OKAY, LET'S TAKE A BREAK UNTIL 1220 AND THEN COME BACK AND TAKE UP THE REST OF OUR AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          IT IS, UH, ONE AFTER. 
          SHOULD WE GIVE PEOPLE A COUPLE MORE MINUTES OR IS EVERYBODY ON ERIC? BLAKE, ARE YOU READY? LET'S DO IT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'VE PUT IN THE CHAT, UM, SOME PEOPLE WE ARE SENDING OUT THE LUNCH LIST. 
          IT'S, UH, EVERYBODY ORDER THEIR OWN AND PAY FOR THEIR OWN, BUT WE HAVE A GROUP ORDER. 
          UM, AND KELLY SENDS THAT OUT AND SHE SENDS IT OUT TO ALL MEMBERS. 
          BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME PEOPLE 
          [02:30:01]
WHO ARE REGULAR ATTENDEES THAT MIGHT NOT BE ON THE LIST. 
          SO SEND HER AN EMAIL. 
          UH, JUST ANOTHER REMINDER THAT THE NEXT MEETING IS AN 11:00 AM START. 
          SO WE'LL ORDER LUNCH TO ARRIVE A LITTLE BIT ON THE LATER SIDE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          BUT WE CAN PICK BACK UP FOR TODAY AT AGENDA ITEM KAYLIN, IF, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE PHRASE OF THE MONTH, IT'S, LET'S GET THIS PARTY STARTED. 
          UM, I THINK I LOVE THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          [11. WMS Report ]
I WAS, WAIT, I WAS WAITING FOR THAT. 
          UM, THE PHRASE OF THE MONTH IS, LET'S GET THIS PARTY STARTED. 
          SO, BLAKE, ARE YOU READY TO GET THE PARTY STARTED? I THOUGHT IT, UH, HAD ALREADY STARTED, BUT YEAH. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          LET'S KEEP IT, LET'S KEEP IT GOING. 
          UM, MM-HMM, . 
          SO IT'S ERIC BLAKEY WITH PARTNER NOW CO-OP CHAIR OF WHOLESALE MARKET SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          FEW ITEMS I WANT TO GO THROUGH. 
          WE HAD AN UPDATE FROM KEITH ON THE FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING MARKET DESIGN. 
          HE'S ON THE AGENDA LATER IN THE DAY, SO I WILL NOT, UH, SPOIL ANY OF HIS COMMENTS, BUT HE, HE GAVE A, A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION AND WE HAD A REALLY GOOD, UH, DIALOGUE WITH, WITH KEITH ON HIS PRESENTATION. 
          SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. 
          CONTINUED TODAY. 
          THE UPDATE ON DISCUSSION ON CRR AUCTION. 
          UH, WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS PREVIOUSLY DUE TO A CONCERN THAT THE CURRENT ALLOCATION OF CARD MAY CREATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES FOR LOADS TO OVERCONSUME IN CERTAIN HOURS TO MAXIMIZE CONGESTION REVENUE. 
          WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PROPOSALS DISCUSSED AT WMWG, AND, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAVE HUDDLED ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS. 
          THESE OPTIONS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE NEXT WMF, AND WE INTEND TO HAVE A VOTE, UH, ON THE DIRECTION THAT OUR ARCHIVE SHOULD PURSUE THROUGH AN NPR AT OUR DECEMBER MEETING. 
          THE UPDATE ON FUTURE LARGE FLEXIBLE LOAD INTERCONNECTION, THOSE UPDATES ARE NOW COMING TO TAC. 
          I DID WANT TO MENTION THAT, UH, ERIC GOFF AT OUR LAST MEETING, HE ASKED ABOUT WHETHER A WORKING GROUP SHOULD BE ASSIGNED THE TASK OF DEVELOPING AN NPR THAT BOTH MEMORIALIZES THE REPORT IN THE PROTOCOLS AND BALANCES, SHARING AS MUCH DATA AS POSSIBLE WHILE STILL PROTECTING CUSTOMER CONFIDENTIALITY. 
          WE AGREED THAT I WOULD RAISE THAT IDEA TO TAC. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING TODAY, UH, FOR ANY INPUT THAT, UH, TAC WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE. 
          UH, ERIC SAID THAT IT WOULD BE UP TO WMS LEADERSHIP, UH, BUT THOUGHT THAT MEMORIALIZING THE REPORT AND MAN MANDATING WHERE THE REPORTS SHOULD BE PRESENTED, UH, ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          AND THAT, UH, I WOULD BRING THIS FORWARD. 
          SO I, I, I WANTED TO DO THAT, SEE IF ERIC WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT DESCRIPTION AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY FEEDBACK. 
          GO AHEAD, ERIC. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT WAS PRETTY CLEAR, BUT JUST, UM, AS WAS ILLUSTRATED BY OUR LAST CONVERSATION, THERE'S A LOT OF ATTENTION ON LARGE LOADS AND LOTS OF DESIRE. 
          I THINK WE'VE HEARD IT IN 25 MEETINGS IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS TO GET MORE INSIGHT INTO THE LARGE LOAD QUEUE. 
          AND AS WE ALL KNOW, CUSTOMER INFORMATION IS PROTECTED, UH, AND IT'S OWNED BY CUSTOMERS AND PROTECTED BY, UM, THE PROTOCOLS. 
          SO WE NEED SOME WAY OF PROVIDING INSIGHT INTO THE PROTOCOLS, UH, I MEAN IN, IN THE PROTOCOLS OR IN THE PLANNING GUIDE, UM, TO PROVIDE WHATEVER DETAIL WE CAN ABOUT WHAT LOADS ARE COMING IN. 
          UM, SO THAT WAS THE IDEA, JUST TO MAYBE TRY TO FORMALIZE THE WORK THAT AIRCRAFT'S DOING AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAIL IF POSSIBLE. 
          UM, AND I, I THINK IT'D BE A, A WORTHWHILE DISCUSSION. 
          I THINK NED HAS A QUESTION. 
          I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE LEAD. 
          UH, NED, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? ? THANKS ERIC. 
          AND THANK YOU ERIC. 
          UM, YEAH, SO, UH, ERIC, I THINK, UH, ERIC GOFF, I THINK YOU HIT THE, THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. 
          YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD, UH, WAS, WAS CERTAINLY INDICATIVE OF, UH, INTEREST IN, IN, IN CONTINUING TO FLESH THAT OUT, SO, OR THAT TOPIC OUT. 
          SO, UM, AND I ALSO AGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE, THERE DOES NEED TO BE A CAREFUL BALANCE WITH, UH, CUSTOMER PRIVACY ISSUES. 
          SO, UM, I, I WAS JUST, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD THIS, THIS CLEAR FROM YOUR LAYOUT, ERIC BLAKEY, UH, THE THOUGHT IS THERE WOULD BE A TASK FORCE THAT, UM, 
          [02:35:01]
WMS WOULD CREATE, OR, UM, ONE THAT, UH, WOULD BE A TECH REPORTED TASK FORCE. 
          YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE GOT INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL. 
          UH, IF WE WERE JUST STARTING OFF WITH A SUGGESTION AND THEN IF IT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO PURSUE, WE CAN DISCUSS WHERE IT OUGHT TO BE. 
          YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          I, IN GENERAL, THE CONCEPT SEEMS TO MAKE SOME SENSE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE A, A CONTINUED FORUM, BUT, UH, CERTAINLY OPEN TO HEARING OTHER THOUGHTS. 
          OKAY. 
          CLAYTON GREER? YEAH, I WAS WANTING TO, UH, ASK A QUESTION OF ERIC ON WHAT HIS SPECIFIC ASK IS. 
          IS IT TO TRY TO GET A, UH, LIS SIMILAR TO THE GISY? YEAH. 
          UH, I DON'T THINK WE CAN GET THE GIS SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, BUT SOME SORT OF AGGREGATED VERSION OF THE, UM, INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS WITH AS MUCH SPECIFICITY AS POSSIBLE WHILE PROTECTING CUSTOMER CONFIDENTIALITY. 
          DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT SPECIFICS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR LIKE COUNTY LEVEL? WHAT LOCATION, I MEAN, TYPE INFORMATION ARE, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR PART OF THE GRID, YOU KNOW, LIKE 3 45 VERSUS 1 38 CONNECTED? YEAH. 
          TYPES OF LOADS. 
          GREAT. 
          GREAT QUESTION. 
          I, I DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO THAT, UNFORTUNATELY. 
          'CAUSE I THINK IT DEPENDS ON HOW LOW YOU CAN GO AND STILL PROTECT CUSTOMER CONFIDENTIALITY, BUT THE, THE MORE, THE BETTER I THINK, FOR EVERYBODY. 
          RIGHT. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. 
          AND THEN AS FAR AS THE, I GUESS I MISSED A, A MEETING OR TWO OR THREE. 
          UM, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT MOVING THE L-F-L-T-F UNDER WMS, OR WHAT WAS THAT? NO, I'M SORRY. 
          THE REPORTING THAT, UH, UH, UH, FROM THE UPDATES TO THE, TO THE QUEUE, I BELIEVE THOSE HAD BEEN COMING TO WMS, BUT I BELIEVE AT TA MEETING OR TWO AGO, T DECIDED THOSE SHOULD GO TO TAC, SO. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SMI, UM, JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR WHAT ERIC SAID. 
          UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL, SO THANK YOU, ERIC. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ERIC, BOTH ERICS, IS THE SUGGESTION TO WORK ON THAT IDEA AT WMS OR DO YOU NEED FEEDBACK FROM T IT SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE SUPPORT. 
          YEAH, I, I, I FEEL LIKE I'M HEARING SUPPORT FOR THAT DISCUSSION. 
          AND SO, UM, WE WILL, WE WILL TRY TO FRAME THAT AND, AND, AND MAKE A PROPOSAL, UH, IF WE CAN AT OUR NEXT WMS UNLESS SOMEONE HAS A OTHER THOUGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK THAT, OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE LAST ITEM IS TO, UH, ON OUR OPEN ACTION ITEM LIST. 
          JUST WANTED TO, TO MAKE FOLKS AWARE, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO PROACTIVELY CLEAN UP OUR, OUR VARIOUS ITEMS ON OUR, UH, OPEN ACTION ITEM AND PARKING LOT ISSUES. 
          UH, WE JUST HAVE ONE TACK ASSIGNMENT, ONE OPEN ACTION ITEM, BUT WE HAVE FIVE PARKING LOT ITEMS. ALL OF THESE WERE ASSIGNED TO EITHER WMWG OR CMWG. 
          I KNOW THAT, UH, THOSE WORKING GROUPS ARE, ARE LOOKING AT THESE VERY CLOSELY. 
          AND, AND, AND AT OUR NEXT WMS OR, OR SOON THEREAFTER, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST WANTING FOLKS TO KNOW THAT IF ANY OF THESE ITEMS ARE NEAR AND DEAR TO THEIR HEART, WE NEED TO TO KNOW, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE ITEMS ARE PRETTY OLD AND HAVE PROBABLY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF IN OTHER WAYS ALREADY. 
          SO, UH, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, TO KEEP SOME EFFICIENCY AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, MY PROPOSAL HAS BEEN JUST TO GET RID OF THE PARKING LOT, BUT I KNOW OTHERS FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE NEED IT. 
          UM, IT'S JUST WE HAVE NOT ACTUALLY UTILIZED THE PARKING LOT SINCE I'VE BEEN CHAIR, SO I WANT TO BE SURE THAT, THAT WE'RE BEING AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          OKAY. 
          ON THE PARKING LOT ITEMS, DO YOU WANT THAT FEEDBACK AT YOUR NEXT WMS MEETING? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THERE, OR, YOU KNOW, YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          SPEAK THERE. 
          OR, OR, AT THE WMWG AND CMWG WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY'RE CLEANING UP THE LIST, THAT'D ALSO BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO, TO TRY TO GET THESE CLEANED UP THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE. 
          [02:40:01]
UM, NEXT ITEM. 
          WE HAD TWO NEW NPRS, UH, BOTH OF THESE WERE TABLED, UH, 1250 RPS MANDATORY PROGRAM TERMINATION WAS TABLED FOR DISCUSSION AT WMS AND NDR 1251. 
          UPDATED FFF SS FUEL REPLACEMENT. 
          COST RECOVERY WAS TABLED AND REFERRED TO WMWG. 
          UH, THIS IS OUR ONGOING LIST OF, UH, REMAIN TABLE ITEMS. THE ONE I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS 1235. 
          WE HAD THIS ONE ASSIGNED TO BOTH WMWG AND SOG, AND WE HAVE NOW CONSOLIDATED THAT DISCUSSION AT SOG. 
          UM, AND I DO WANT TO JUST PROVIDE AN UPDATE. 
          UH, SOG HAD A MEETING LAST WEEK AND HAD A REALLY GOOD, YOU KNOW, ROBUST DISCUSSION, UH, ABOUT THE PROPOSAL. 
          THEY HAVE NOT YET REPORTED THE WMS, SO I WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO DEEP INTO WHAT THEY SAID, UM, OR TRY TO CHARACTERIZE THE CONVERSATION. 
          UM, BUT JUST WANTED TO, TO KEEP THIS ON, ON THE, ON THE LIST OF TAG MEMBERS, JUST TO, TO BE AWARE, UH, OF THIS ONE, THAT, UM, THAT THERE IS SOME DISCUSSIONS GOING ON AS TO PATH FORWARD. 
          THERE'S REALLY NOT BEEN A GOOD CONSENSUS, UH, WHETHER THIS IS OPERATIONAL ONLY OR A RESOURCE ADEQUACY TOOL. 
          UM, AND THEN I KNOW LAST WEEK THE IMM PROVIDED SOME, SOME COMMENTS AND OPINIONS THAT, UH, WMWG IS, IS LOOKING INTO. 
          AND SO THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE, ARE GOING ON. 
          UM, BUT AS, AS CHAIR OF WMS, I'M JUST WANTING TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT MISSING ANY EXPECTATIONS GIVEN THAT THIS CAME OUT OF LEGISLATION. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, JUST AS A HISTORY, THIS WAS THE ONE THAT  ORIGINALLY FILED AS PART OF NPR 1203, UH, AS A SUBCATEGORY SUBCATEGORY OF, OF NONS SPIN, AND THEN RECEIVED SOME DIRECTION FROM THE TUC, UH, TO, TO MAKE A STANDALONE PRODUCT. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT THEY PROPOSED IN THIS NPR 1235. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE DEFINITELY WORKING ON, ON GETTING THIS MOVED FORWARD. 
          THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GOOD DISCUSSION. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, LIKE ANY OF THESE, WE'LL, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION, UH, FROM TECH OR PC OR ANY, ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO, TO HELP US GET THIS MOVING FORWARD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS, ERIC. 
          I SEE A COMMENT FROM NED. 
          HEY, ERIC. 
          UH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR, FOR, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE SPACE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AT SAWG. 
          I REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT EVERYONE IS OF THE SAME OPINION AS YOU'VE NOTED. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IS THERE TO HELP FLESH OUT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M, I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE, UM, THE DISCUSSION THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TEED UP IN THE ANCILLARY SERVICES STUDY, UH, DRAFT ANCILLARY SERVICES STUDY REPORT, MAY, MAY ALSO BE A PATH TO HELP PROVIDE, UH, SOME GUIDANCE, BUT CERTAINLY, UH, I AGREE WITH YOU. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE WELCOME, WELCOME FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION ON THAT AS WELL. 
          UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, IN THE MEANTIME, IT, IT, WE THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC TO RAISE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, AS YOU NOTED, IT IS A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT. 
          AND THAT'S, FRANKLY, THAT IS WHAT, WHAT, WHAT LUMIN WAS HOPING TO, UH, TO MAKE SURE IT WAS REFLECTED IN THE, IN THE NPRR. 
          THANK YOU, NED. 
          OKAY, SO THAT IS CONSOLIDATED AT SAWG, SO NO LONGER AT WMWG, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, AS THEN NOTED, DISCUSSION FROM THE ANSWER SERVICE, UH, STUDY ADOPTED AT THE PC. 
          UM, I, I PROMISE I WON'T CALL ON YOU THIS MUCH NEXT TIME, DALE, BUT THIS, THE STAFF WANNA WEIGH IN ON ANYTHING HERE AS WELL. 
          UH, NO. 
          I THINK, UM, I THINK THE AGENDA THAT WE FILED, UH, YESTERDAY, WAS IT YESTERDAY WITH THE QUESTIONS? MAYBE IT WAS MONDAY. 
          UM, UH, SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. 
          OKAY. 
          HAPPY TO AGREE WITH THAT. 
          ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY ERIC BLAKEY, I THINK I CUT YOU OFF. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          NO, I, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, UM, THE NEXT MEETING IS NEXT WEDNESDAY THE SIXTH. 
          THANK YOU, KATIE, FOR CORRECTING MY REFERENCE AT, UH, 1251. 
          IS IT RCWG? UM, IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, UH, THAT'S MY REPORT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          HEY, I DON'T SEE ANY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU, ERIC. 
          UM, 
          [12. Credit Finance Sub Group Report (Vote) ]
          [02:45:01]
NEXT IS THE, UH, CREDIT FINANCE SUBGROUP. 
          AND WE DO HAVE A VOTING ITEM, UM, ON MEMBERSHIP HERE. 
          YES. 
          HEY, BRENDAN HERE. 
          CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? OH, HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU. 
          YES. 
          CAN WE HEAR YOU? YES. 
          SORRY. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANKS. 
          UM, HEY, THIS IS FROM OUR OCTOBER 23RD MEETING. 
          UH, WE LOOKED AT NRR. 
          WE'RE CONTINUING TO DISCUSS THE CHANGES TO, UM, ESTIMATE AGGREGATE LIABILITY, WHICH COMPRISES THE COLLATERAL, UH, COMMITMENT TO ERCOT, UH, SYSTEM AND REPORTING ENHANCEMENTS AND THE REGULAR CREDIT UPDATES. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          UH, IN DECEMBER 20, WELL, 2024, ERCOT WILL IMPLEMENT THE SYSTEM CHANGES AS A RESULT OF NPR 1184, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF INTEREST RECEIVED BY ERCOT. 
          UH, THERE WILL BE SOME, UM, LANGUAGE UNBOXED IN THE NPRS, UH, MARKET. 
          PARTICIPANTS WILL HAVE ACCESS TO REPORTS ON COLLATERAL HISTORY AND INTEREST, UH, ANNUAL AND MONTHLY. 
          UM, THEY'RE GOING TO, UH, IMPLEMENT AN AUTOMATED, UH, NOTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR, UH, LETTERS OF CREDIT AND SURETY BOND RELATED MATTERS, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, AMENDMENTS, TERMINATIONS, ET CETERA. 
          AND SOME OF THIS MATERIAL WILL BE APPEARING ON THE ACL REPORTS. 
          UH, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO, THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A WHILE, AND I'VE BEEN PRESENTING ON FOR A WHILE. 
          ERCOT HAS, UH, REACHED, THEY LOOKED AT VARIOUS SCENARIOS, I WANNA SAY LIKE SEVEN OR EIGHT FOR THE ESTIMATE OF AGGREGATE LIABILITY. 
          SO THIS IS SORT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL CALCULATION THAT, UM, COMES UP WITH WHAT YOU HAVE TO POST TO ERCOT, EXCUSE ME. 
          UM, SO, UH, THE CURRENT, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE CURRENT, UH, PROCESS AND THEN WHAT'S GOING TO BE CHANGED. 
          UH, BUT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR US TO VOTE ON, UH, THE CFSG TO VOTE, UH, IN SUPPORT OF, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS KIND OF, UH, BROAD FRAMEWORK. 
          UH, IT'S NOT GONNA BE ALL RESOLVED, I DON'T THINK, BUT, UH, WE'RE PROBABLY ABOUT 90% THERE. 
          AND THEN, UM, EVEN IF WE GET THERE THROUGH TAC AND THROUGH ANY OTHER APPROVAL PROCESS, IT WOULD, IT, IT'S GONNA BE A PRETTY BIG LIFT. 
          SO IT WOULD PROBABLY PRETTY, UH, LONG OUTLOOK FOR IMPLEMENTATION. 
          BUT, SO LET'S GO THROUGH. 
          SO, UH, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW, UH, IS THE FIRST COMPONENT IS THE RFAF. 
          AND THE RAF IS A RATIO OF, UH, FUTURES PRICES TO SETTLEMENT PRICES. 
          UH, THREE WEEKS OF FUTURES TO TWO WEEKS OF SETTLES THAT MULTIPLIES TIMES THE, UM, EXTRAPOLATED HISTORICAL REAL-TIME MARKET, 14 DAY AVERAGE STATEMENTS OVER LOOK BACK PERIOD. 
          UH, SO BASICALLY YOUR, YOU KNOW, YOUR REAL TIME IS, IS, UH, AVERAGED OVER 40 DAYS. 
          AND THAT, AND THE MAX VALUE OF THAT IS APPLIED AGAINST, UH, THE RF. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A HUNDRED DOLLARS, UM, THE, THE RATIO IS 10, THEN IT'S A THOUSAND DOLLARS. 
          IF IT'S THE RATIO TO THE FORDS TO THE SETTLES IS ONE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED DOLLARS. 
          UM, SECOND, THE DAY AHEAD FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS MULTIPLIED BY THE DAY AHEAD LIABILITY, THAT'S THE, UH, ITEM HIGHLIGHTED IN RED THAT IS GOING AWAY. 
          UM, UH, I THINK THAT'S, YEAH. 
          UM, ERIC, UH, LAST STEP FOR ERCOT TO GIVE IT? YES. 
          UH, OH. 
          ERCOT IS GONNA PRESENT AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING, I BELIEVE. 
          UM, SO I THINK THEY WERE LOOKING TO, YOU KNOW, GET, GET OUR SUPPORT AND THEN, UH, PRESENT TO TAC. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, AUSTIN, DID YOU WANNA SHARE SOMETHING? WELL, ERIC SAID THAT AFTER YOUR UPDATE, I'M FINE TO WAIT. 
          UM, WE MIGHT WANT TO, THAT SPURS MORE CONVERSATION, BUT, UM, I GUESS I GOT THE MICROPHONE NOW, SO I'LL TALK HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          BRENDAN, AND I DON'T KNOW IF SAN'S ON ERIC, WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN ABOUT YOUR REQUEST. 
          UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK GOING ON AT CFSG, AND I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY'S BEEN ABLE TO, TO TRACK EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON 'CAUSE THEY'VE BEEN RUNNING A TON OF SCENARIOS AND HAVING LOTS OF DISCUSSION ON SOME VERY DETAILED, YOU KNOW, FEATURES OF THESE EQUATIONS. 
          SO IN MY, IN MY OPINION, THE CFSG IS KIND OF COALESCING AROUND, UM, AN IDEA, UH, A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGES TO THESE, UH, EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS TO CONFIRM THAT I THINK THEY'RE GONNA VOTE ON IT NEXT MONTH. 
          LIKE I SAID, NOT EVERYBODY'S ABLE TO TRACK THESE CONVERSATIONS DOWN TO THE 
          [02:50:01]
NITTY GRITTY DETAIL. 
          I THINK ONCE CFSG IS HAPPY, I, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AN EXPANDED CONVERSATION WITHIN ERCOT, ALSO WITH UPPER MANAGEMENT AND THINKING ABOUT MAYBE SOME THINGS THAT JUST MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE WITH THESE IDEAS BEFORE WE, UM, TOTALLY COMMIT OURSELVES TO WANTING TO IMPLEMENT THESE, IMPLEMENT THIS CHANGE. 
          UM, IF WE DO GET COMFORTABLE WITH IT, I'D DEFINITELY LIKE YOUR IDEA OF COMING TO TAC AND PRESENTING HIGH LEVEL AND MAYBE HAVING A CONVERSATION, A HIGHER LEVEL CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE THAT MAY NOT BE SO INVOLVED THAT EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE. 
          SURE. 
          SO, SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. 
          SO WE'RE NOT, WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE'RE NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT THERE YET INTERNALLY AS WELL. 
          SO WE'RE NOT GONNA COME OUT GUNS BLAZING WITH AN NPRR ASKING FOR A VOTE. 
          YEAH. 
          YOU KNOW, AND AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING FOR EXACTLY. 
          BUT IT'S, IT'S CLOSE. 
          SO I, I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION, AND I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU FLOW, BRENDA, BUT, UM, I, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR A PRESENTATION TO TACK ON THIS TOPIC BEFORE ERCOT GETS TO 100% ALIGNMENT TO TALK THROUGH THE, ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES BEHIND THESE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED, AND HOW, UM, ARE WE GOING TO APPLY THOSE PRINCIPLES WITH THIS CHANGE? UM, ALSO, WILL THESE CHANGES BE SOMETHING THAT WILL HELP REDUCE THE RISKS THAT WE, UH, EXPERIENCED IN WINTER STORM URI? AND IF SO, EXACTLY HOW? UM, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT, UM, I, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO GET TO THAT LEVEL OF CONVERSATION BEFORE WE GET INTO SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE FORMULA. 
          I HAVE BEEN TO THESE MEETINGS BEFORE, I UNDERSTAND, WE ALL LIKE TO DIVE INTO THE FORMULAS, BUT I REALLY LIKE TO TAKE IT UP A HIGHER LEVEL, HIGHER TO THE POLICY DISCUSSION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS CHANGE AND WHY, AND THEN MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MEETING THOSE OBJECTIVES, UM, AND, AND REDUCING THE RISKS THAT WE ALL EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST. 
          UH, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD DIRECTION, YOU KNOW, DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'M NOT TRYING TO DERAIL ANYTHING, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE REALLY, UM, DRIVE THE WHY FORWARD FIRST. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ALRIGHT. 
          I SEE SETH IS IN THE QUEUE. 
          DID YOU WANNA COMMENT NOW OR? YEAH, FOR FOR SURE. 
          NO, AHEAD. 
          I, YEAH, I, YOU KNOW, I WAS IN SOME OF THE NASCENT DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS INITIATIVE AND THIS REVIEW. 
          SO WAS SHAS, THE Y WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT POINT, AND IT WAS DISCUSSED AT NAUM. 
          UH, I'M SORRY IF YOU MISSED IT, BUT, UH, THERE WAS A LOT OF PRESENTATIONS ON WHY THIS IS AN ISSUE. 
          EXACTLY, YEAH. 
          WHAT ISSUE WAS IN VERY QUANTIFIED DETAIL. 
          I DIDN'T MISS IT. 
          I, I THINK IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GONNA MAKE A NA A MAJOR CHANGE TO, UH, HOW WE'RE DOING CREDIT, NOT A BAD THING. 
          I WANNA BE CLEAR. 
          I JUST THINK THAT TAC NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE DOING AND, AND HOW IT FITS IN THE BROADER GOALS OF, OF REDUCING THE OVERALL RISK THAT WE HAVE, UM, IN THE MARKET THAT WE'VE CONTINUED TO HAVE AND AS YOU KNOW, HAVEN'T REALLY ADDRESSED SINCE THE WINTER STORM. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE BEEN ASKED, UH, OR CAUGHT TO PRESENT TO THIS GROUP, AND I THINK THEY'RE WILLING TO DO THAT. 
          UM, BUT THEY JUST WERE ON A PATH OF ANALYSIS. 
          THEY WANTED TO GET THROUGH OUR GROUP FIRST AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, MOVE UP TO LEADERSHIP AND EVERYBODY ELSE. 
          I MEAN, WE, IT, IT WILL, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT TAKES THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK AND TWEAKS IT. 
          SO I, I MEAN, IT'S NOT A, LIKE A MASSIVE CHANGE. 
          UM, BUT ANYWAY, SO YEAH. 
          UH, SO YEAH, I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, DFAF AND THE DAY AHEAD AVERAGE LIABILITY BEING A SEPARATE COMPONENT, AND THAT THAT'S GONNA BE NETTED, WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN IN A MINUTE. 
          THE THIRD COMPONENT IS THE, UH, COMPLETED NOT SETTLED CHARGES COMPARING, UH, REALTIME ESTIMATES VERSUS THE HIGHEST, UH, EXTRAPOLATED HISTORICAL REALTIME 14 DAY AVERAGE STATEMENTS OVER THE LOOKBACK PERIOD. 
          FOURTH, UM, IS THE OUT, UH, WHICH LOOKS AT OUTSTANDING INVOICES ON BILL DAY AHEAD, MARKET AMOUNTS FINALS, TRUE-UPS AND CARD. 
          AND THEN THE LAST ELEMENT IS, UH, LOAD EXPOSURE TO PROVIDER OF LAST RESORTS FOR MASS TRANSMISSION. 
          SO THESE ARE THE FIVE SEPARATE ELEMENTS OF THE CURRENT, UH, EAL CALCULATION. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO HERE'S, UH, THE FRAMEWORK THAT ERCOT HAS COME UP WITH, UM, ERCOT THE CREDIT TEAM THAT IS CHE'S TEAM. 
          UM, SO IN THE BLUE WE HAVE THIS NOTION OF, UM, NLE, THE NET LIABILITY EXTRAPOLATED, AND THAT INCORPORATES, UM, THE LAST 14 DAYS, REAL TIME INITIAL SETTLEMENT AVERAGE PLUS THE LAST 14 DAYS, DAY AHEAD, INITIAL SETTLEMENT AVERAGES TIMES M1, 
          [02:55:01]
UM, WHICH IS A DAY COUNT, UH, DEPENDING ON YOUR ACTIVITY. 
          SO THE, SO THERE, THE, THE KEY CHANGE HERE IS THE NETTING OF THE REALTIME AND DAY AHEAD, WHICH WAS SEPARATE OR, OR IS SEPARATE IN THE CURRENT, UH, FORM. 
          UM, THE NEXT TERM IS THE MAX OF THE REALTIME COMPLETED, NOT SETTLED, PLUS UNBUILD DAY, DAY AHEAD ABOUTS VERSUS THE MAX OF, UM, UNBUILD LIABILITY EXTRAPOLATED BASED ON 14 DAYS OF DAY AHEAD IN REAL TIME INITIAL STATEMENTS. 
          AND THEN THE FINAL TERMS ARE THE OUT AND THE ILE THAT I DESCRIBED BEFORE. 
          UM, SO THE, THERE ARE, WE HAVE THE FORWARD, UH, ADJUSTMENT FACTORS INCORPORATED IN THIS. 
          THE RA IS WHAT IT IS NOW, UH, 21 DAY FUTURES OVER 14 DAYS, REAL TIME PRICES. 
          UM, BUT IT IS BRACKETED AT A MINIMUM OF 0.05 TO A MAX OF 1.5. 
          NOW, I THINK DURING YURI, I, I THINK THIS WENT UP LIKE CERTAINLY OVER 10, AND I THINK MAYBE OVER 20. 
          UM, SO THAT, YOU KNOW, BRACKETING THAT, UH, TAKES OUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF VOLATILITY AND THEN IT, THAT IS EVALUATED AGAINST THIS NEW, UM, FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTOR OF, UH, 21 DAYS FUTURES VERSUS THE MOST RECENT SEVEN DAYS. 
          SO, UM, THEY SHORTENED THE DENOMINATOR A LITTLE BIT JUST 'CAUSE AGAIN, UM, AS THOSE, AS THOSE HIGH SETTLEMENT PRICES KINDA ROLLED INTO THE EQUATION, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A LARGER DENOMINATOR, THEN YOU GET A AMOUNT LESS THAN ONE, UM, WHICH HAIRCUTS THE INVOICE EXPOSURE. 
          SO, UH, ONE, IT'LL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE RESPONSIVE, UM, IN TERMS OF SHORTENING THAT SETTLEMENT DAY WINDOW. 
          AND TWO, UH, THEY'RE SETTING A FLOOR OF ONE, SO YOU WON'T BE HAIRCUTTING YOUR INVOICE EXPOSURE. 
          NOW KEEP IN MIND THAT WAS PARTIALLY, THAT WAS BY DESIGN BECAUSE GIVEN THE HISTORICAL LOOKBACK, THEY INTENDED TO HAIRCUT THAT, UM, THOSE ELEVATED, UH, YOU KNOW, THOSE ELEVATED HISTORIC INVOICES. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT. 
          UM, SO NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          OKAY, SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO ME? I THINK THE OVERALL GOAL HERE WAS, UM, MOST IMPORTANTLY NOT TO, UH, CREATE MORE SHORTAGES, RELATIVE COLLATERAL SHORTAGES RELATIVE TO INVOICE EXPOSURE. 
          THAT WAS THE FIRST PRIORITY. 
          SO IN ALL THEIR SCENARIOS, THEY, THEY LOOK CAREFULLY AT THAT PROBLEM, MAKE SURE THAT THE, THAT THE MARKET WAS NOT UNDER COLLATERALIZED. 
          THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE INSTANCES OF OVERCOLLATERALIZATION, UM, WHICH ARE SOMEWHAT AN ARTIFACT OF, UM, THE WAY THESE FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS, UH, JUST KIND OF ROLL OUT THROUGH TIME. 
          SO THEY NOTICE THIS SORT OF DOUBLE TOP ISSUE WHEN YOU HAVE A SERIES OF, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF VOLATILITY IN THE MARKET, LIKE AS IN YURI AND, YOU KNOW, A FEW OF THE OTHER STORMS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE HIGH, THE HIGH PRICES COME ON, YOU KNOW, YOUR INVOICE EXPOSURE IS, IS, YOU KNOW, DOUBLE TRIPLED WHATEVER. 
          UM, AND THEN THE, THE, IT WORKS THROUGH, AND THEN THERE'S SOME, SOME TAILING VOLATILITY IN THE MARKET, BUT IT'S NOT AS NECESSARILY AS VOLATILE AS THE INITIAL, UM, EVENT THAT THE ACTUAL EVENT DRIVEN ONE. 
          BUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE THOSE, UH, SETTLEMENT PRICES GOING IN, IT, IT CREATES A LOT OF VOLATILITY THAT, THAT, UM, AND OVERCOLLATERALIZATION THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY FOLLOW INVOICE EXPOSURE. 
          SO THAT'S KIND OF THE MAIN BENEFIT, UH, OF, OF THIS PLAN. 
          UM, SO THAT, THAT THIS, TRYING TO GET RID OF THESE DOUBLE TOPS AND THESE CAN BE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. 
          UH, AND ERCOT WILL, UH, IF YOU'D LIKE, UH, THE CREDIT GROUP WILL GO THROUGH YOUR FIRM'S, UM, YOU KNOW, YOUR FIRM'S, UH, COLLATERAL HISTORY AND TPE AND ALL THAT WITH YOU. 
          UH, SO YEAH, LOOKING AT THE DOUBLE TOP, UM, THE TPA UNDER THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK GOING INTO HIGH VOLATILITY COULD RESULT IN A HIGHER CUSHION AS OPPOSED TO THE EXISTING FORMULA. 
          ALSO DUE TO NETTING ACTIVITY, UH, REAL TIME AGAINST DAY AHEAD AND APPLYING A FAF AGAINST THE MOST RECENT ACTIVITY, THERE'S A INCREASED SENSITIVITY OF THE TPEA. 
          UH, AND THEN AFTER THE EVENT PASSES, THE, UH, THERE WON'T, THE, IT ADDRESSES THE DOUBLE TOP ISSUE. 
          SO, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO THIS, THIS IS, UH, ERCOT CONCLUSIONS. 
          UM, THE, THE PROBLEM THEY'RE TRYING TO SOLVE AFTER, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT, THAT THE, THE PRIMARY GOAL WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MARKET HAS SUFFICIENT COLLATERAL AS A, AS A SECONDARY, WE WANTED TO OPTIMIZE THESE DOUBLE TOPS. 
          UM, SO THIS WAS BROUGHT UP BY A NUMBER OF, UH, MARKET PARTICIPANTS. 
          THE CONCERN WAS THAT THE, UH, CURRENT FRAMEWORK LEADS TO UNREASONABLY HIGH COLLATERALIZATION. 
          LARGE POSITIVE GAPS ARE OVER COLLATERALIZATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN VOLATILITY OF THE EVENT IS FOLLOWED UP BY ANOTHER PRICE SURGE. 
          UH, UNDER CERTAIN THEORETICAL SCENARIO, THE EXTENT OF THE COLLATERAL CALLS 
          [03:00:01]
COULD BE ENDANGERING THE STABILITY OF THE MARKET AND LEAD TO A CASCADE OF DEFAULTS DUE TO INABILITY TO MEET COLLATERAL CALLS. 
          THIS COULD BE ESPECIALLY AGGRAVATING AND A NECESSARY WHEN THEY, UNDER CREDIT EXPOSURES HAVEN'T CHANGED MUCH IN THE TPEA IS DRIVEN BY THE MECHANICS OF THE FORMULA. 
          UM, SO THE CONCERN ABOUT HIGHER VOLATILITY IN TPA RELATIVE TO UNDERLYING CREDIT EXPOSURE AND ABOUT, UM, OVERALL OVER COLLATERALIZATION AND THE COST TO THE MARKET. 
          SO THEY LOOKED AT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED FRAMEWORK. 
          UM, IT WILL ADDRESS THE, PRIMARILY THE DOUBLE TOP ISSUE. 
          IT WILL REDUCE VOLATILITY OVERALL, PARTICULARLY IN THOSE TIMES WHEN YOU KNOW IT'S THE WORST, UH, AROUND STUFF LIKE URI AND, AND OTHER, OTHER STORMS. UM, THE REDUCTION WILL BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT INCREASING RISK. 
          AND, UH, WE EXPECT THE OVERALL REDUCTION, IN INSTANCE, IN INSTANCES AND THE EXTENT OF UNDER COLLATERALIZATION, THE EXACT IMPACT WILL DEPEND ON EACH COUNTERPARTY BEHAVIOR IN THE MARKETPLACE AND SO ON. 
          AND IT WILL REDUCE OVERALL COLLATERAL COST TO THE MARKETPLACE. 
          UH, THEY LOOKED AT DISADVANTAGES THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT COULD LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN, IN, IN INSTANCES AND AND EXTENT OF UNDER COLLATERALIZATION. 
          SO, BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO PREVENT THIS BY, YOU KNOW, REMOVING THE, THE CAPS OR, OR BRACKETS AROUND THE, UH, REAL TIME FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS. 
          UH, BUT WHEN YOU DO THAT, YOU, UH, RUN INTO THE HIGHER, UH, POSITIVE GAPS OR OVER COLLATERALIZATION. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          UH, SO THIS IS JUST OUR, THE NPR AS WE LOOKED AT AS OPERATIONAL, UM, THE ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCE TO TERMINOLOGY ALIGNMENT FOR SINGLE MODEL ERA AND THE MODELING DEADLINE FOR INITIAL SUBMISSION OF RESOURCE REGISTRATION DATA. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          AND HERE'S THE, UH, REGULAR HIGHLIGHTS. 
          UH, MARKET-WIDE, TPE DECREASED FROM 1.88 BILLION TO 1.72 FROM AUGUST TO SEPTEMBER. 
          UH, DECREASED BOTH TO A LOWER REALTIME DAY AHEAD PRICES AND FORWARD ADJUSTMENT FACTORS. 
          UH, THE DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL DECREASE FROM 4.26 TO 3.92 BILLION. 
          THERE WERE NO UNUSUAL CALLS. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          UH, AND YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, TPE, THE COLLE, UH,  COLLATERAL, THE CREDIT EXPOSURE, UH, RELATIVE TO, UM, THE COLLATERAL POSTED TO THE MARKET. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING DOWN, WE'RE GETTING OUT OF THE HOT SEASON, SO THIS IS ALL NORMAL AND FINE. 
          UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          UH, THIS IS JUST THE, LOOKING AT THE DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL FROM AUGUST TO SEPTEMBER. 
          UH, NOTHING UNUSUAL HERE. 
          YOU NEED THAT EXTRA COLLATERAL TO ACCESS THE DAY AHEAD MARKET, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S ABOVE THE OBLIGATION. 
          UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          AND, UH, ERCOT, UH, INCREASED THE LC LIMITS. 
          UM, SO YOU KNOW, THERE AGAIN, THIS IS A SLIDE TO TELL YOU EVERYTHING'S IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE. 
          UH, LLOYD'S IS GETTING CLOSE, BUT, UH, THERE'S PLENTY OF ROOM ELSEWHERE. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          AND THAT'S IT. 
          THANK YOU BRENDAN. 
          I'M GONNA JUMP IN FOR CAITLYN HERE. 
          SHE'S GOTTA TAKE CARE OF SOMETHING REAL QUICK. 
          UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FOR BRENDAN FROM A CREDIT FINANCE SUB SUBGROUP? I THINK WE DO HAVE ONE ITEM THAT WE NEED TO, UH, WE'VE GOT A NEW MEMBER TO THE CREDIT FINANCE SUBGROUP THAT WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED BY, BY, THAT'S BRIAN KLOWSKI. 
          UH, ANY CONCERNS FROM FOLKS TO ADD THAT TO THE THANK YOU, RICHARD. 
          THANKS. 
          THANKS BRENDAN. 
          YEAH, COREY, IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT TO THE COMMON BALLOT, THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 13 WITH THE RTC PLUS B TASK FORCE REPORT. 
          MATT, ARE YOU WITH US? ACTUALLY, THIS IS KEITH. 
          MATT IS, UM, HE'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE HERE IN A FEW MINUTES, SO IF WE WANNA SKIP AHEAD, THAT MIGHT, MIGHT BE BETTER. 
          HE'LL BE HERE, I THINK AROUND PROBABLY ABOUT 5, 5, 10 MINUTES. 
          BUT IF WE CAN DO SOMEONE ELSE, THAT'D BE BETTER. 
          OKAY, WELL, LET'S, LET'S SKIP ITEMS 13 AND 14. 
          I'M GONNA WAIT TILL KAITLYN GETS BACK TO FOR NUMBER 14. 
          [15. ERCOT Reports]
SO WE'LL GO TO  REPORTS. 
          ITEM NUMBER 15. 
          UH, LET'S START WITH THE A EP, UH, BROWNSVILLE AREA IMPROVEMENTS TRANSMISSION PROJECT WITH BU. 
          [03:05:01]
HEY, GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? I'M CLEAR. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL WAIT FOR THE PRESENTATION TO SHOW. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THERE WE OKAY. 
          YEAH, GOOD MORNING. 
          THIS, THIS IS TO GET THE A EP, UM, PROJECT RPG PROJECT, UH, THE BROWNVILLE AREA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD. 
          UH, THIS IS A TIER ONE PROJECT WITH AN ESTIMATED, UH, COST OF $387 MILLION. 
          UH, THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE CCN. 
          THE NEED IS PRIMARILY TO ADDRESS THE BOTH THE STEADY STATE THERMAL AND VOLTAGE ISSUES IN THE BROWNVILLE AREA IN THE CAMERON COUNTY. 
          UH, THIS, UH, HIGHLIGHTS THE AREA OF THE STUDY AREA HERE. 
          UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS THE TIER ONE PROJECT REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, THIS FALLS UNDER CATEGORY, UH, TIER ONE CATEGORY, UH, WHICH IS, UH, ESTIMATED COST OF A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE. 
          AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR CCN AND AS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE PROTOCOL, ANY COMMENTS FROM TAC SHALL BE INCLUDED, UH, IN THE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD WHEN WE SEEK THE APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT. 
          NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO THE NEED, NEED IS PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY, UH, STEADY STATE ISSUES, UH, WHICH IS, WHICH WAS VERIFIED BY, YOU KNOW, PERFORMING THE STEADY STATE STUDY, LOOKING AT THE PLANNING CRITERIA VIOLATIONS, AND THE TABLE HIGHLIGHTS SOME OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE SEEN THAT'S DRIVING THE NEED FOR THIS PROJECT. 
          UH, WE SAW ALMOST CLOSE TO A HUNDRED MILES OF 1 38 KV LINE OVERLOADS AND SOME VOLTAGE ISSUES, AND ALSO OVERLOADS ON EXISTING TRANSFORMERS UNDER VARIOUS CONDITIONS. 
          UH, P ONES TO P SEVENS, AND, UH, LOOKING AT G MINUS ONE PLUS N MINUS ONE AND X MINUS PLUS N MINUS ONE. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY ISSUES, WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL OPTIONS. 
          WE LOOKED AT TOTAL OF EIGHT DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES OR OPTIONS TO ADDRESS THIS, UH, THERMAL AND VOLTAGE ISSUES. 
          AMONG THOSE, UH, WE SHORTLISTED FOUR OPTIONS THAT WAS PRESENTED AT VARIOUS TIMES. 
          AT THE RPG, WE PROVIDED REGULAR UPDATES AND BASED ON THOSE, UH, ANALYSIS, OPTION TWO WAS IDENTIFIED AS THE OPTION THAT THAT WAS THE LEAST COST OPTION, AND ALSO ADDRESSES SOME OF THE OPERATIONAL CONCERNS AND THE LONG-TERM ROAD SERVING, UH, CAPABILITY FOR THIS AREA. 
          SO THE TABLE HERE SHOWS THE COMPARISON OF THE FOUR OPTIONS FOR SHORTLIST SHORTLISTED OPTIONS, AND YOU COULD SEE OPTION TWO WOULD REQUIRE, UH, 26 MILES OF NEW RIGHT OF WAY AND WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF FOUR $23 MILLION. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          AGAIN, PURSUANT TO THE PROTOCOLS, UH, WE ARE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT, UH, SSR SCREENING ANYTIME WE ADD NEW LINES. 
          AND WE, WE PERFORM THE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS NO ADVERSE SSR IMPACTS, UH, DUE TO EITHER EXISTING OR THE PLANT GENERATION RESOURCES IN THE AREA. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS ALSO A REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM SENSITIVITIES, UH, LOOKING AT, UH, SENSITIVITIES FOR BOTH GENERATION AND LOAD SCALING, AND ALSO PERFORM A CONGESTION ANALYSIS. 
          SO WE PERFORMED THE CONGESTION ANALYSIS AND WE DID IDENTIFY SOME ISSUES, BUT UH, WHEN WE TESTED THOSE UPGRADES, IT, IT DID NOT MEET THE ECONOMIC CRITERIA. 
          SO THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL UPGRADES RECOMMENDED AS PART OF THIS ECONOMIC ANALYSIS. 
          AND THE CONCLUSION FROM BOTH THE GENERATOR SCALING AND THE LOAD SCALING IS WE DID NOT FIND ANY IMPACT, PARTICULARLY WITH THIS ADDITIONAL OF THIS NEW PROJECT. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO THE RECOMMENDATION, UH, FOR ER IS FROM ER IS TO REQUEST, WE WILL REQUEST A BOARD TO ENDORSE OPTION TWO TO ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY NEED IN THE BROWNSVILLE AREA. 
          AND, UH, THIS, THE, THE TSP EXPECT TO IMPLEMENT THIS PROJECT BY MAY OF 2029, AND THE ESTIMATED COST IS 4 23 0.8 MILLION. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          [03:10:01]
SO THIS IS THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION. 
          AT A HIGH LEVEL, UH, THE PROJECT ADDS AN ADDS A NEW STATION SHALL BY PLANT STATION, UH, TO THE EXISTING, EXISTING 1 38. 
          AND ONE OF THE WE, ONE OF THE MAJOR PARTS OF THE PROJECT IS TO BUILD THIS LINE OF THREE DOUBLE CIRCUIT, 3 45 KV LINE FROM SHELBY TO PALM MITO AND KINGFISHER. 
          THIS IS, THIS LINE IS ESTIMATED TO REQUIRE APPROXIMATELY 24 MILES OF CCN. 
          IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS A CCN REQUIREMENT TO BUILD A NEW, UH, TWO MILE 1 38 KV SECTION, WHICH SHALL BE TO STILLMAN. 
          AND THE REMAINING UPGRADES OR THE FOUR LINES LISTED ARE REBUILDS OF EXISTING 1 38 KV. 
          THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE CCN. 
          IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ARE ALSO SEEING A NEED TO ADD A REACTIVE DEVICE IN THE STATION. 
          AND WE ARE PROPOSING, UM, 150 MEGAWATTS PLUS OR MINUS STAT COM AT SHALL BE 1 38 KV STATION. 
          THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          THE NEXT SLIDE PROBABLY SHOWS THE, UH, MAP OF THE AREA WITH THIS PROPOSED UPGRADES. 
          FOR YOUR REFERENCE, YOU COULD SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED ONES OR THE, UH, 1 38 KV UPGRADES AND THE DOTTED LINE AND GREEN IS THE NEW 3 45 KV LINE. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE LAST SLIDE. 
          WE'LL PAUSE HERE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY, I DON'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          UM, SO WE ARE LOOKING TO ENDORSE THE A EPF, THE BROWNSVILLE AREA IMPROVEMENTS TRANSMISSION PROJECT OPTION TWO A. 
          CAN WE PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY. 
          I THINK SO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          [13. RTC+B Task Force Report (Possible Vote)]
THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT, UM, WE HAVE MATT ON NOW FOR THE RTC. 
          YEAH, THANKS FOR, YEAH, THANK YOU CAITLYN. 
          IF YOU'RE WILLING TO TAKE ME, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO SO NOW. 
          YEP, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 
          ALRIGHT, SO SLIDE ONE. 
          SORRY, I'M OUTTA SYNC WITH WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. 
          OH, THERE IT IS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I WANTED TO REVIEW WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE TASK FORCE, WHAT IT DOES DO AND WHAT IT DOESN'T DO. 
          UH, THEN I'LL GO THROUGH THE USUAL, WHAT ARE THE CURRENT ISSUES THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH. 
          AND THEN WE'RE GONNA SLOW DOWN A LITTLE BIT TO TALK ABOUT THE TECH APPROVED PARAMETERS, UH, THAT WE HAD FLAGGED THAT WE'VE UH, WE HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT DIRECTION AHEAD. 
          AND THEN THE LAST PIECE, WHAT I REALLY NEED TO LEAVE WITH TODAY IS THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE MARKET TRIALS PLAN. 
          SO I'LL, I'LL UNPACK EACH OF THESE AND WE'LL WALK THROUGH OVER THE NEXT 10 MINUTES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          ALRIGHT, SO I HIGHLIGHTED IN RED. 
          SO WE HAD AS A TASK FORCE, A CHARTER, AND THE CHARTER IS COORDINATING PIPELINE AND ACTIVITIES AND NPRS. 
          AND THE OBJECTIVE OF WHAT WE'RE HERE TODAY FOR THE APPROVAL IS COORDINATING MARKET READINESS AND CUT OVER ACTIVITIES. 
          UH, BECAUSE THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY THROWAWAY, UM, ARTIFACTS. 
          THE IDEA IS FOR AS A TASK FORCE, WE'LL DEVELOP WHAT'S NEEDED FOR READINESS IN TRANSITION. 
          UM, AND THEN WHAT WE NEED ALSO IS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM IS CONSENSUS ON THOSE AND THEN ESCALATE TO T FOR A VOTE TO DECIDE THE MATTER. 
          THEY'RE NOT HERE TO T BECAUSE THERE'S ANY KIND OF, UH, CONTENTION. 
          IT'S JUST TO ESSENTIALLY MEMORIALIZE AND SIGN OFF ON ERCO. 
          AND THE MARKET HAS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL WHAT MARKET TRIALS LOOK LIKE AND BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO ENGAGE IN 2025 TO MAKE IT SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION. 
          SO THAT'S JUST AT THE STAGE FOR WHY WE'RE TAKING, UM, AN ENDORSEMENT ATTACK TODAY ON THIS PARTICULAR ARTIFACT. 
          AND I'LL COME BACK TO THAT AT THE END. 
          NEXT ONE, IN TERMS OF THE SEQUENCE, THIS IS THE PROGRESSION THAT YOU'VE SEEN. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING HAS CHANGED FROM LAST PAC EXCEPT MAYBE WE HAD ANNOUNCED A GO LIVE DATE OF DECEMBER 5TH, 2025. 
          AND SO EACH OF THOSE MARKET TRIAL SEQUENCES NOW HAS A START DATE. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE THAT MAY 5TH IS WHEN WE'LL START TO, THAT'S THE NEXT ENGAGEMENT WHERE WE'LL HAVE SCORECARDS UP FOR ALL THE 105 PLEAS OF ARE YOU GETTING YOUR SUBMISSIONS IN, ARE YOU PARTICIPATING IN THE OPEN LOOP SC, HOW'S THE CLOSED LOOP LT TEST DOING? SO AGAIN, THIS IS THAT PROGRESSION OVER TIME. 
          AND FOR EACH OF THESE BOXES, EXCEPT FOR THE TRANSITION PIECE, THERE IS A MARKET TRIALS PLAN IN PLACE THAT I'M GONNA ASK FOR A VOTE ON LATER TODAY WHERE EACH OF THESE BOXES HAS AN ENTRY CRITERIA AND EXIT CRITERIA AND ALL THE ACTIVITIES THAT HAPPEN IN BETWEEN. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          I WANNA GO FAIRLY QUICKLY 'CAUSE I THINK MOST EVERYONE HAS SEEN THESE. 
          AND AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST TAC MEETING IS WE HAVE SHUFFLED THE R-T-C-B-T-F ISSUES LIST INTO A, UM, COMPACT IS MORE FOR POLICY 
          [03:15:01]
DRIVEN DECISIONS THAT STILL NEED TO BE MADE, WHETHER IT'S AS PROXY OPERA FLOORS OR, UH, STATE OF CHARGE PARAMETERS IN RTC AND THE RTC SIMULATOR THAT MAY DRIVE DISCUSSION ON, YOU KNOW, THE AS DEMAND CURVES AND SUCH. 
          AND SO WE'RE WORKING THROUGH KIND OF THESE POLICIES DECISION IN PARALLEL TO WHAT'S IT LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF MARKET READINESS FOR THOSE BLUE AND GREEN AREAS TO START TO LIGHT UP. 
          AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY IS TO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE BLUE WENT DOWN IN THE MIDDLE THERE AND SAYS, RELEASE AND REVIEW A MARKET TRIALS PLAN. 
          SO OUR GOAL WAS TO HAVE THAT OUT OF HERE, AND THAT WILL THEN SET THE STAGE FOR US TO DEVELOP THE HANDBOOKS THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE EACH OF THOSE PIECES WITH MORE DETAILS. 
          IT'S HARD TO REPRESENT IN EIGHT PAGES WHAT SIX MONTHS OF MARKET TRIALS LOOK LIKE FOR 105 COMPANIES. 
          SO WE NEED, THIS IS KIND OF A, A RENDEZVOUS POINT TO SAY THIS IS ENOUGH INFORMATION TO NOW TO GO FORWARD AND WORK THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS. 
          AND SO THE NEXT SLIDE I'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT ARE THE KEY ISSUES IN FLIGHT RIGHT NOW. 
          SO WE DID TALK ABOUT SCALING FACTORS FOR RAMP SHARING. 
          THAT'S THE IDEA OF HOW WE'LL SC FOR RTC SHARE, UH, ANCILLARY SERVICE AND ENERGY RAMPS, UH, FOR RESOURCES AND SUCH AS THE FIRST ROUND. 
          WE HAVE THREE ROUNDS FOR EACH OF THESE. 
          UH, THE NEXT ONE WAS THE CLARIFYING REVISION REQUESTS. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR APPROVAL OF 1245 TODAY. 
          UH, 1246 WILL BE COMING ON BEHIND, UH, ERCOT WILL BE SUBMITTING COMMENTS FROM THE TASK FORCE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED NOVEMBER 2 68, 1 18 AND OVR 52. 
          THOSE ARE SUPPORTING, UH, BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE DETAILS, ESSENTIALLY THE RIPPLE EFFECT OF NEW TERMINOLOGY THROUGH EVERYTHING ELSE BUT THE REVIEW THAT THE TASK FORCE HAS DONE. 
          SO WE'LL FILE COMMENTS TO THAT EFFECT TO THEN SIGNAL THAT EVERYONE ELSE CAN BUTTON THAT UP AND MOVE IT FORWARD AS THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE. 
          WE DO NEED THOSE APPROVED BEFORE GO LIVE THOUGH. 
          UH, THE NEXT ONE IS THE MARKET TRIALS PLAN REVIEW. 
          UH, AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE, WE'VE HAD FOUR REVIEWS OF THAT, SO NOW WE'D LIKE TO ENDORSE THEM TODAY. 
          UH, THE NEXT THING IS, UH, AN APPROACH TO TRAINING READINESS. 
          WE HAVE STARTED REPORTING SOME TRAINING SO THAT WE, AND IT'S NOT TRAINING, IT'S, IT'S JUST IN TIME POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS. 
          UH, FOR EXAMPLE, MAGGIE SHANKS FROM OUR SETTLEMENTS TEAM DID A 45 MINUTE WALKTHROUGH ON ALL THE NEW AND MODIFIED BILLING DETERMINANTS FOR RCC. 
          SHE HAS THEN STEPPED INTO A RECORDING STUDIO, RECORDED THAT. 
          SO WE HAVE SLIDES AND HER VOICE TOGETHER TO BE A 45 MINUTE VIDEO THAT CAN BE WATCHED. 
          IT'S NOT THERE YET, BUT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO UPLOAD IT AND IT WILL BE A SELF-SERVE TRAINING. 
          AND WE HAVE KIND OF A, AN OUTLINE OF ALL THOSE DIFFERENT CONTENT PIECES OUT AT THE TASK FORCE TO SEE WHICH ONES ARE THE NEXT MOST IMPORTANT ONE TO FOCUS ON. 
          UH, WE'RE HEARING LOUD AND CLEAR THAT THE NEXT THING IS TO GET KIND OF THIS WHAT'S CHANGED BETWEEN NOW AND RTC, KIND OF A A 20 TO 30 MINUTE WALKTHROUGH FROM DAVE MAGIO TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S CHANGING WITH RTC AND ALSO WHAT'S NOT CHANGING SO THAT WAY PEOPLE CAN START TO GET UNDERSTOOD ON HOW THESE THINGS ARE WORKING. 
          UM, THE NEXT ONE IS THE REVIEW OF THE PARAMETERS TODAY AS PROXY OFFER CURVES. 
          AGAIN, THAT'S THE IDEA OF IF IT'S AN INCOMPLETE CURVE OR A BLANK, HOW DOES ERCOT FILL IT IN? JUST LIKE WE DO ENERGY OFFER CURVES TODAY IN INSTEAD, IF THE ANCILLARY SERVICES DON'T HAVE A PRICE QUANTITY PAIR, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? AND UM, SO THERE'S MORE DISCUSSION COME IN THAT, UH, WE DID BRING FORWARD NUMBER EIGHT THERE. 
          THE SIMULATOR UPDATE. 
          THIS IS WE TOOK A THREE OPERATING DAYS AND RAN THROUGH, THROUGH AN RTC STIMULATOR THAT WE HAVE IN-HOUSE. 
          WE LOAD ALL THE SAVE CASES UP FOR SC INTO RTC. 
          AND THEN WE RAN PRICE AGAIN, CONGESTION ANALYSIS AND SHARED THAT WITH THE TASK FORCE. 
          IT'S KIND OF A WHAT IF THIS WAS IN PLACE, SO YOU CAN GO LOOK AT THOSE RESULTS IF YOU WANT TO. 
          AND THEN THE LAST PIECE THAT THE IMM DID, UM, SHARE BRIEFLY THAT THEY ARE MAKING SOME PROGRESS ON THEIR AS DEMAND CURVES. 
          AGAIN, WE HAVE, UM, VERY, UH, SEGMENTED AS DEMAND CURVES. 
          IT GOES FROM ONE TO THE OTHER AND THEY WERE CONSIDERING WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE RAMP INS ON THOSE PRODUCTS. 
          AND I, I WON'T UNPACK THAT, BUT, UM, SO I SHOULD SAY THEY'RE GONNA COME FOR THE NEXT MEETING, HOPEFULLY WITH MORE DETAILS, UH, AND OR FILE A MEMO SOONER THAN THAT. 
          SO AT THIS POINT WE HAVE ALSO POSTED OUR 2025 MEETING DATES. 
          UH, WE WILL START TO INCLUDE TECHNICAL WORKSHOPS, WHICH WE HAD BEFORE WITHIN THE RTT DPF. 
          SO WE'LL HAVE EVERYTHING UNDER ONE, ONE UMBRELLA EACH DAY OF THE MONTH. 
          UH, AND THEN THE NEXT MEETING IS ON NOVEMBER 13TH. 
          SO LEMME TALK ABOUT TWO MORE ISSUES AND THEN I'M DONE. 
          I KNOW I'M TALKING FAST, I HATE IT WHEN MEETINGS ARE RUNNING LONG. 
          SORRY ABOUT THAT NEXT SLIDE AND WHAT IT WILL SAY WHEN IT COMES UP. 
          SO WHEN WE HAD THE RTC TASK FORCE IN 2019 AND 2020, THERE, WE WERE GETTING STUCK ON SOME THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T NEED TO GET STUCK ON. 
          ESSENTIALLY THINGS LIKE NUMBERS LIKE THAT A, THE AS PROXY 
          [03:20:01]
OFFER FLOOR. 
          LIKE WE COULD SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME DEBATING WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE $0 OR $2,000 OR WE CAN JUST MAKE IT A PARAMETER AND MOVE ON. 
          SO THAT'S HOW WE WERE ABLE TO STAY UNSTUCK AT THE TASK FORCE AND DEVELOP THOSE 500 PAGES OF PROTOCOL REVISIONS AND GET THOSE APPROVED. 
          BUT NOW WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND FILL IN THE BLANK. 
          AND SO THOSE ARE, WE FLAGG THOSE PARAMETERS AND T APPROVED PARAMETERS AND PROTOCOLS. 
          AND HERE'S AN EXAMPLE. 
          THIS IS IN OUR BOX PROTOCOL, IS THAT THE PROPERTY ANCILLARY SERVICE OFFER PRICE SCORES SHALL BE APPROVED, APPROVED BY TAC AND POSTED ON THE ERCOT WEBSITE. 
          SO THIS IS ALMOST CREATED IN ANOTHER OTHER BINDING DOCUMENT. 
          UM, TO CAPTURE THESE, WELL, WE HAD TO TALK WITH LEGAL AND THERE'S A, WE'RE FINDING SOME PROBLEMS IN THAT CURRENT APPROACH. 
          SO NUMBER ONE, IN RECENT YEARS, WE'VE BEEN GETTING AWAY FROM OTHER BINDING DOCUMENTS. 
          WE'D RATHER HAVE, UH, THINGS IN PROTOCOLS. 
          IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT SOMETIMES THINGS ARE OUTSIDE OF PROTOCOLS BECAUSE THEY CHANGE A LOT THAT THESE WOULD NOT BE FREQUENTLY CHANGED RATHER THAN WE WERE DEFERRING THEM UNTIL THEY COULD BE SETTLED AND MEMORIALIZED. 
          AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A RISK THAT WE COULD END UP WITH ATTACK APPROVED PARAMETER AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT PARAMETER MAY BE APPEALED WITH NO EASY GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE TO FOLLOW IT FORWARD AND GET A RESOLUTION. 
          SO PRETEND THAT THE PROXY ADS OFFER PRICE FLOORS BECAME VERY, UM, DIVISIVE. 
          WE GOT THE TACK AND IT BARELY PASSED, AND THEN PEOPLE WANTED TO ESCALATE IT. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN HAVING IT FLOATING AROUND IN A PARAMETER PAPER, UH, ERCOT LEGAL ADVISING, THE ERCOT WORK WITH THE TASK FORCE TO SPONSOR MAYBE ONE, MAYBE A COUPLE OF NRR TO CAPTURE THESE TAC APPROVED ITEMS THAT FALL IN THAT EXAMPLE ABOVE. 
          AND RATHER THAN HAVE 'EM AS TAC APPROVED, JUST GO AHEAD AND HARDWIRE THE NUMBER INTO THE PROTOCOL. 
          AND AS THE TASK FORCE OVER THE NEXT THREE MONTHS ARTICULATES AND COMES UP WITH THOSE NUMBERS, THAT NPR THEN BECOMES THE, THE MEMORIAL STONE FOR THE DECISION. 
          AND THAT GOES UP THROUGH FACT THE BOARD AND THE PC AND THEN WE'VE THEN AGREED TO THOSE PARAMETERS AS NEEDED FOR GO LIVE. 
          SO RATHER THAN HAVING THIS HODGEPODGE OF PACK APPROVED THINGS, IT'LL BE IN A SINGLE, I'M CALLING IT AN UFF NPRR, IF, IF THAT'S TOO DANGEROUS, WE NEED TO BREAK 'EM APART INTO SEPARATE NPRS, WE CAN. 
          BUT THE IDEA IS HOW TO KEEP THINGS FROM GETTING STUCK AND HAVING APPROVAL SO WE CAN GO LIVE WITH PARAMETERS THAT ARE IN PLACE. 
          AND THEN THE LAST SLIDE IS, UM, YEAH, IT'S MY REQUEST. 
          I, I'VE HINTED TO THIS A COUPLE TIMES ALREADY. 
          WE DEVELOPED THE MARKET TRIALS PLAN, IT'S AN EIGHT PAGER, WE REVIEWED IT FOUR TIMES WITH THE RTCB TASK FORCE. 
          WE HAD SOME GREAT, UM, BACK AND FORTH OF SOME DETAILS, AND ESPECIALLY ON THE LOW FREQUENCY CONTROL PATHS, WE DEFERRED SOME OF THOSE DETAILS INTO THE HANDBOOK. 
          SO WE'VE KIND OF SOFTENED THE LANGUAGE IN THE PLAN WITHOUT SACRIFICING THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PLAN AND THE TIMING OF THE PLAN AND THE ENTRY AND EXIT CRITERIA. 
          SO THE HOW WE KIND OF PULLED OFF INTO THE HANDBOOK DEVELOPMENT, BUT EVERYONE WAS PLEASED WITH IT AND NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM AT THE TASK FORCE THAT WAS VOICED WITH MOVING THIS ATTACK FOR ENDORSEMENT AS AN IMPLEMENTATION ARTIFACT. 
          UM, HAVING AGREED TO PLAN FOR GO LIVE, UH, SO THAT THE FINAL VERSION WAS POSTED AT THE FINAL BLACK LINE WITH THE T MATERIALS. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO OPEN THAT UP OR NOT, BUT WE ARE SEEKING TAX ENDORSEMENT OF THAT MARKET TRIALS PLAN. 
          MATT, THAT I'LL OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS. 
          I SEE ONE FROM NED. 
          THANKS, MATT. 
          UM, THE ONLY COMMENT I HAD WAS JUST TO, TO THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK AND AND DISCUSSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT MARKET TRIALS PLAN. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, FOR THE BENEFIT ATTACK MEMBERS, UM, YOU KNOW, ERCOT WAS REALLY GOOD ABOUT, UH, IN, YOU KNOW, HAVING BACK AND FORTH AS WE WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE, THE, THE NUANCES OF HOW EXACTLY TO, UM, MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A PROCESS TO, UH, TO TEST THOSE FEATURES OUT IN A WAY THAT WILL ACTUALLY WORK FOR MARKET PARTICIPANTS AS THEY'RE DEVELOPING THEIR RTC SYSTEM. 
          SO, UM, I I DON'T HAVE ANY, ANYTHING OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, SUPPORTING, UM, DAC MOVING FORWARD WITH OR ENDORSING THIS MARKET TRIALS PLAN. 
          RIGHT? YEAH. 
          AND IS, IF WE CAN OPEN THAT UP REAL QUICK, CAITLYN, ASK US TO DO THAT, I, IT'LL BE GOOD BECAUSE I CAN JUST KINDA SHOW WHAT IT IS. 
          UM, AND, AND NET AND TALK TO YOU WITH, UM, LUMINA AND A COUPLE OTHERS. 
          WE REALIZED THAT THERE WERE SOME BLIND SPOTS ON HOW WE WERE THINKING ABOUT THIS. 
          BUT AGAIN, WHY DON'T WE GO DOWN TO THE LFC TEST AND I'LL JUST LIKE HIGHLIGHT AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT CHANGES DOWN AROUND PAGE SIX, IF YOU DON'T MIND A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN. 
          THAT WAS SIX. 
          I WAS LINE, GO A LITTLE FURTHER. 
          NEXT ONE SHOULD BE THE CLOSED LOOP LFC TEST SECTION. 
          OKAY, THERE WE GO. 
          UM, SO DOWN THERE, IF YOU HOLD RIGHT THERE, YOU'LL SEE A BOLD FONT THERE. 
          FURTHER DETAILS WILL BE JOINTLY DEVELOPED WITHI IN LFC HANDBOOK 
          [03:25:01]
IN A MANNER THAT QUEASY CAN SUPPORT AND OR THAT ERCOT CAN ASSIST IN WORKAROUNDS THAT MAY BE NEEDED TO ENSURE RELIABLE PRODUCTION TESTS. 
          SO NOT TO BORE EVERYONE, BUT ERCOT CAME IN AND SAID, WE WANT THE QUEASY TO SUBMIT THEIR OFFERS IN A WAY AND THEIR TELEMETRY IN A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE SWITCH OVER TO THE RTC SYSTEMS FOR TWO HOURS, THAT IT MATCHES WHAT'S CURRENTLY GOING ON. 
          AND THE EDUCATION WAS, HEY ERCOT, WE CAN'T DUMMY UP OUR DATA TO MAKE IT FIT THAT WE'RE USING PRODUCTION LIKE DATA FOR SOME OF THIS. 
          SO LET'S TALK ABOUT DETAILS OF THE FLEXIBILITY IN THE TEST AND HOW ERCOT MAY NEED TO ASSIST WITH PUTTING GUARDRAILS IN THE LFC TEST SO THAT THE QUEASY DON'T HAVE TO DEPLOY YET ANOTHER ENVIRONMENT OR DO SOME THINGS THAT THEY WEREN'T INTENDING TO DO. 
          SO IT WAS REALLY ABOUT KIND OF A BACK AND FORTH ON HOW TO OPTIMIZE, UH, THE RELIABILITY OF THE TEST TO MAKE IT, UH, SUCCESSFUL. 
          SO AGAIN, WE THANK YOU FOR THE SHARPENING THAT, AND WE'RE PUNTING THAT TOPIC OUT INTO THE HANDBOOK, NOT BECAUSE IT'S EASY, BUT BECAUSE WE'LL KNOW MORE IN ANOTHER THREE OR FOUR MONTHS. 
          SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE HANDBOOK LOOKS LIKE, DEFINED OBJECTIVES, ENTRY CRITERIA, EXIT CRITERIA, SCORECARDS, AND THAT'S IT. 
          SO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THE HANDBOOK, HAPPY TO, HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE. 
          NOW YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SO WE ARE LOOKING FOR A VOTE THOUGH ON, WHAT ARE WE CALLING THAT TAX ENDORSEMENT OF THE R TT PLUS B MARKET TRIALS PLAN. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S ON THE SECOND TO LAST SLIDE HAS SORTED AND I SEE A REQUEST FOR A COMBO. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO, I THINK YOU, YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS, SO IT'S JUST TO KIND OF GET DOCUMENTATION OF THIS. 
          WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO VOTE ANYWHERE, I DON'T THINK. 
          UM, AND THE, THE BOARD, THIS DOESN'T GO TO THE BOARD OR TO THE COMMISSION AFTER US. 
          IT'S JUST SORT OF FORMALIZING MAKING THIS DOCUMENT A LITTLE BIT MORE FORMAL AMONG THE ERCOT DOCUMENTS. 
          I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THE RIGHT WAY. 
          QUESTION. 
          CORRECT. 
          THIS DOCUMENT STAYS HERE AND LET'S SHARE PACK. 
          AND IF WE'RE HAVING CHALLENGES WITH THE QUEASY MONTHS FROM NOW AND THEY'RE LIKE, ERCOT, WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO THIS? IT'S LIKE WE HAVE APAC APPROVED DOCUMENT OF THIS WAS HOW WE WERE GOING TO ENGAGE THIS. 
          SO I'LL ADVISE THE BOARD THAT THIS HAS BEEN MEMORIALIZED AND PAC APPROVED, BUT IT STAYS HERE. 
          YOU'RE ENDORSED BY PAC REALLY, AND THAT THE BOARD OKAY. 
          DOES NOT NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON IT. 
          YEP. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF COMBO VALID AS WELL. 
          ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? OKAY. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY, UM, THANK YOU. 
          MATT, DO YOU NEED ANYTHING FURTHER FROM US? NOPE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          T NOT RIGHT NOW. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THEN THE, THE TRAINING VIDEOS, WHEN THOSE, WHERE WILL THOSE BE POSTED AND WILL, WILL THERE BE ANY NOTIFICATION ON THAT? THERE WILL BE. 
          UH, I SEE ERIC SNUCK INTO THE QUEUE HERE. 
          WE HAVE PAID THEM. 
          I'M WORKING WITH, UM, AMY LOFTON ON HOW TO GET IT. 
          WE BELIEVE IT'LL BE ON THE R-T-T-B-T-F, UM, MEETING PAGE. 
          AND SO WE'LL CARVE OUT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A, A PAGE OFF OF THAT OR JUST SUPPORTING, UH, KEY MATERIALS UNDER THAT WOULD BE LS THERE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH THOSE VIDEOS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S NOT SO ME KNOW, ALTERNATE TRAINING. 
          YEAH, YEAH, LET LET ME KNOW OFFLINE WHEN THOSE GET POSTED TOO, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER THAT NEEDS TO BE SOCIALIZED MORE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'LL BE HELPFUL TO, TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. 
          YOU BET. 
          IT'S ABOUT EVERY OTHER EMAIL I'M GETTING RIGHT NOW IS WHEN WILL THERE BE MORE TRAINING MATERIALS? SO YES. 
          I'M, I'M, WE'RE HOT TO GET THESE OUTTA HERE. 
          THANK YOU, . 
          ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD ERIC. 
          ANY QUESTION FROM ERIC? YEAH, UM, I CERTAINLY SUPPORT PUTTING THIS WITH THE CON BALLOT AND WAS WAITING UNTIL THE END TO NOT DERAIL THE CONVERSATION. 
          I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT, BUT I ALSO, UH, DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO OUR OLD STYLE OF HAVING THINGS BE FINISHED AT TAC. 
          UM, WE HAVE MODIFIED THAT PROCESS AND I, I DON'T WANNA NECESSARILY HAVE AN AD AD HOC PROCESS TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS TAC APPROVED AND THEN HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT, WHAT THAT MEANS IN THE FUTURE. 
          I DON'T THINK THIS ONE WILL NECESSARILY CREATE THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A PRECEDENT NECESSARILY. 
          SO JUST MOVING FORWARD, IF WE CAN TRY TO DO STUFF, UM, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING OUR PROCESS, I'D APPRECIATE IT. 
          AND THIS IS JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO MENTION THAT. 
          I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT ON THIS ITEM. 
          YEAH. 
          AND JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES TO TALK ABOUT. 
          ONE IS MEMORIALIZING, LIKE THE TAC APPROVED PARAMETERS AND THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, TAKING THOSE OUT AND MOVING THEM INTO AN NPR SO THAT TAC APPROVAL DISAPPEARS ON THE REQUIREMENTS PIECE. 
          BUT WHAT IT GOES ON WITH ALL THESE TRANSITIONAL MATERIALS, IF YOU THINK THOSE TRANSITIONAL MATERIALS NEED TO GO BEYOND TAC, WE CAN TALK AT THE TASK FORCE OR ED NEXT T ABOUT THAT, BUT YEAH, IT FEELS LIKE THE WORK'S DONE, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE IT ON, WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. 
          I HEAR YOU. 
          I I DON'T NECESSARILY WANNA DERAIL ALL THE WORK YOU'RE DOING AND WOULD RATHER 
          [03:30:01]
YOU DO THE WORK YOU NEED TO DO, BUT JUST AS WE MOVE FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE TO THINK THROUGH WHAT DOES APPROVAL ATTACK MEAN AND YOU KNOW, ET CETERA. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF WE DO DELIBERATE. 
          YEAH, WELL, I MEAN JUST, I MEAN, TO PLANT THE SEED SO WE COME BACK EFFECTIVELY. 
          FOR ME, THE ONLY OTHER ARTIFACTS I'LL BRING BACK SIMILAR TO THIS ARE THE HANDBOOKS FOR EACH OF THESE MARKET TRIAL SEGMENTS AND THE TRANSITION CUTOVER PLAN. 
          AND ASIDE FROM THAT, EVERYTHING ELSE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER THINGS WE'D BE LOOKING FOR APPROVAL OF. 
          SO IT'S REALLY JUST THIS MARKET TRIAL, UM, GENRE OR THIS THEME OF TRANSITIONAL TYPE ACTIVITY. 
          SO OPEN YOUR IDEAS AND MORE DISCUSSION LATER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU BET. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYTHING ELSE FOR MATT? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO GOING BACK TO 14 OR START, I DON'T 
          [14. Update of Stakeholder Process and Communication Discussion]
KNOW. 
          UM, YES, 14. 
          SO THAT WAS THE UPDATE ON STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND COMMUNICATION GOT CONFUSED. 
          'CAUSE ON MY PREP, THAT HAS MATT MARINAS ON IT TOO, BUT MATT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S YOU. 
          I THINK THAT'S ME. 
          UM, SO THIS IS ON THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AT THE LAST TECH. 
          I THINK THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION. 
          THE, WE, WE SPENT A COUPLE OF HOURS ON IT COMMISSION STAFF WITHIN WELLS, WHICH WAS I THINK WAS REALLY GOOD. 
          I GOT A LOT OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE AN UPDATE KIND OF SUMMARY ON THE IMPROVED COMMUNICATION ASPECTS WE'RE WORKING ON. 
          SO, SO AS YOU GUYS HAVE NOTICED, UM, PARKSDALE HAS BEEN IN THE MEETING, I THINK COMMISSION STAFF GOING FORWARD WILL, WILL PLAN TO BE IN THE MEETING. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW ACTIVE THEY WILL BE AND, AND MAYBE I SHOULD STOP CALLING ON THEM SO MUCH, BUT THEY, THEY WILL BE IN THE MEETING. 
          UM, WE HAD THE EFFORT TO INCLUDE THE SUBCOMMITTEE INFORMATION AT THE, THE BOARD LEVEL. 
          WE TOUCHED ON THAT EARLIER TODAY AT R AND M. 
          I ALSO DID A PRESENTATION ON STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. 
          I THINK AT R AND M I'D LIKE TO GOING FORWARD INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING MAYBE NOT A REVISION REQUEST EVERY TIME I'M OPEN TO, UM, IDEAS ON THOSE TOPICS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE AN IDEA FOR THE NEXT TOPIC. 
          WE'VE DISCUSSED, UM, THE KIND OF ERCOT RESPONSES OR, OR, UM, FILING ON THE REVISION REQUESTED TO HAVE OPPOSITION BEFORE THEY GO TO THE BOARD. 
          KEITH WALKED THROUGH THAT WITH US. 
          SO THAT'S A LOT OF THE THINGS WE WERE DOING TO IMPROVE OUR COMMUNICATION TO THE BOARD SO THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR POSITION IS, WHAT ANALYSIS HAS GONE INTO IT. 
          A LOT OF THESE SUGGESTIONS AROUND KIND OF IMPROVED PROCESS. 
          WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT WHAT OTHER IFOS DO, KIND OF THE TAC DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, REPRESENTATION. 
          I THINK A LOT OF THOSE WOULD REQUIRE T PROCEDURE OR MAYBE EVEN BOARD BY LAW CHANGES. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE BOARD IS WORKING ON SOME IDEAS MAYBE WITH THE, THE PUC AS WELL. 
          WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE, AS YOU MENTIONED AT THE, THE OCTOBER BOARD MEETING, WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE CHAIRMAN FLORES TO, UM, ONE OF THESE CAC MEETINGS, HOPEFULLY THE NEXT ONE. 
          AND SO THAT'S JUST SORT OF A SUMMARY OF, OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING SO FAR. 
          UM, I THINK WE COULD TAKE FURTHER DISCUSSION AT, AT ANOTHER MEETING. 
          AS I SAID, I THINK A LOT OF THOSE IDEAS REQUIRED CHANGE IT TO SOME DOCUMENT AND SO I THINK WE'D PROBABLY NEED TO SEE THAT COME FROM A, A STAKEHOLDER OR MAYBE HAVE SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION HERE AT, AT THE BEHEST OF A STAKEHOLDER. 
          ANYBODY HAVE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON, ON THAT AT THIS TIME? I THINK IT'LL BE AN ONGOING CONVERSATION. 
          DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTS. 
          ALL RIGHT, I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON THEN. 
          UM, OKAY, SO NOW YOU DIDN'T GET MUCH OF A BREAK. 
          I THINK WE ARE BACK TO MATT AND, UH, THIS DRR TRANSACTION LIMIT. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU AGAIN KAITLIN. 
          SO, UH, TACK, I JUST WANTED TO APPRECIATE, UH, THE LEADERSHIP ALLOWING ME TO KINDA GET THIS ON LAST MINUTE INTO THE AGENDA. 
          UH, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAD A TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT PERIOD TRIGGER, UH, JUST A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. 
          THAT'S THE THIRD TIME IN A YEAR THAT WE'VE HAD THAT HAPPEN. 
          SO I WANNA KIND OF BACK UP AND READ EVERYBODY IN. 
          I KNOW I'VE BEEN TO TECH A COUPLE TIMES WITH THE CHALLENGES, BUT, UM, SO I'LL JUST KIND, I HAVE SIX SLIDES. 
          SO  EXPERIENCED SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN THE NUMBER OF CRR ACCOUNT HOLDERS PARTICIPATING, AND WE HAVE A OVERSUBSCRIBED LONG-TERM AUCTION SEQUENCE. 
          UH, WE'VE HAD THAT THREE TIMES 
          [03:35:02]
THE TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT PERIOD. 
          IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT, IT'S WHERE IT KICKS OUT ALL THE PORTFOLIOS THAT HAVE OVER A CERTAIN NUMBER AND THEY HAVE TO RESUBMIT 'EM ALL AGAIN. 
          AND SO WHERE WE GO IN WITH A 4,000 LIMIT FOR EACH DR ACCOUNT HOLDER, WHEN WE OVERSUBSCRIBE, IT TRIGGERS TO WHERE THEN THEY HAVE TO ADJUST THEIR PORTFOLIOS AND RESUBMIT TO GET DOWN TO 1,380. 
          SO WE'RE PROPOSING TODAY IS A TAX PROVEN OVERALL LOWER CR ACCOUNT HOLDER. 
          SINCE THERE'S MORE PEOPLE, IT DOESN'T REALLY FIT THAT 400,000 LIMIT, UH, TO IMMEDIATELY MITIGATE THE FREQUENCY OF THESE OVERSUBSCRIBED UM, TRANSACTIONS. 
          AND SO IF BY REDUCING THE 4,000 DOWN TO 2,800, UH, WILL GET US BELOW THAT, I WILL SAY UPDATED NEWS, UM, AND I DIDN'T UPDATE THE SLIDES, BUT WE COULD ALSO SUPPORT 3000 BEING THE MAGIC NUMBER THAT COMES OUTTA THIS AND LET THAT KIND OF SINK IN FOR A MINUTE. 
          AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, I'LL EXPLAIN WHY T AND HOW T CAN CHANGE THAT NUMBER. 
          AND I'LL SHOW YOU SOME NUMBERS THAT HOPEFULLY IN THE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES THAT'LL CONNECT ALL THIS TOGETHER. 
          SO NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO WHAT WE HAVE IS, UM, THIS, THE WAY TO READ THIS GRAPHIC ON THE FAR LEFT IS THAT SEQUENCE ONE IS WHEN WE SELL 90% OF THE MODEL FOR SIX MONTHS OUT. 
          AND THEN SEQUENCE TWO IS THE MODEL SIX MONTHS FURTHER OUT FROM THAT. 
          AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS SIX MONTHS OUT FROM THAT. 
          SO WE DO THESE SIX MONTH EARLY OPTIONS FOR THREE YEARS. 
          SO THAT'S HOW YOU HAVE SIX OF THESE AND IT GOES FROM NINE, SORRY, IT GOES FROM 70% OF THE MODEL DOWN TO 10% OF THE MODEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT, AND THEN IT RESETS AND WE GO BACK TO SEQUENCE ONE AGAIN, AND THEN WE MARCH DOWN THROUGH THE OUTER MONTH AND THEN WE GO TO SEQUENCE ONE AGAIN, AND YOU'LL SEE HOW THE NUMBERS HAVE GONE HIGHER AND HIGHER. 
          UM, SO THIS LAST SEQUENCE ONE WE HAD OVERSUBSCRIBED THAT, THAT 4 95 YOU SEE UP THERE. 
          SO I'M SORRY, JUST TO GIVE YOU A PERSPECTIVE, JUST LAST DECEMBER, DECEMBER OF 2023, WE IMPLEMENTED OUR SYSTEM TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT 400,000 BIDS. 
          WE'RE UP AT 4 95 IS WHAT WE HIT SIX MONTHS AGO, AND WE HIT 506,000 AGAIN. 
          SO WE ARE JUST, THE, THE 4,000 LIMIT OF INDIVIDUALS DOESN'T MEET THE OVERALL SYSTEM LIMIT OF 400,000. 
          SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT NUMBER TO PULL THAT VOLUME BACK DOWN TO WHERE IF EVERYONE SUBMITS WHAT THEY WANT TO, IT'S NOT UP AT 4 95, IT'S DOWN MORE AT THE FOUR 40 OR FOUR 50, AND WE CAN SUPPORT A LITTLE BIT BEYOND 400,000. 
          BUT OBVIOUSLY LIKE THE 500,000 IS ACTUALLY BIGGER THAN OUR RATE SIZE. 
          WE, WE AREN'T BUILT FOR THIS. 
          AND SO, UM, NEXT SLIDE. 
          DID YOU HEAR THAT JACK 16 TRADER FOR THE ONE 50 DAILY CALL? SORRY, I GOT A JOHN RICH, YOU'RE GETTING A OPEN LINE THERE. 
          AND SO, UH, MORE DETAIL. 
          SO WHILE ERCOT SYSTEMS CAN SUPPORT 400,000, AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT WE JUST IMPLEMENTED WITH SCR 8 0 7, UH, SOMETIMES WE CAN GO ALL THE WAY UP TO 475, UH, AT OUR DISCRETION, BUT IT'S GETTING TOO HIGH. 
          AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON CNWG WITH SOME NOAL PROTOCOL REVISIONS CONCEPTS TO LIMIT THIS AND TO LOWER THOSE LIMITS. 
          BUT UNTIL WE GET THAT CHANGE IN PROTOCOLS, WE'RE KIND OF STUCK WITH WHAT'S ON THE PREVIOUS TAC APPROVAL. 
          SO ERCOT SUGGESTING THAT T IMMEDIATELY TAKE A VOTE TODAY ON LOWERING THE LIMIT FROM 4,000 DOWN TO 3000 FOR ALL CR LONG-TERM AUCTION SEQUENCES. 
          SO THE MONTHLY AUCTIONS DON'T CHANGE AT ALL, BUT ON THE LONG-TERM AUCTION SEQUENCE RESET THE 4,000 TO 3000. 
          UH, THE LAST TIME THE AUCTION LIMIT WAS INCREASED, UH, WAS AGAIN SCR 8 0 7 IN DECEMBER OF 2023. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO WHAT GIVES YOU THE ABILITY TO DO THIS? SO IF YOU OPEN UP PROTOCOLS, 7.5 0.2, UH, THE TAC SHALL ESTABLISH TRANSACTION LIMITS FOR EACH CRR AUCTION FOR PARTICIPATING CR ACCOUNT HOLDERS. 
          UH, AND IT SAYS DOWN THERE IN THE NEXT RED SECTION, UPON TAX APPROVAL, A CHANGE IN TRANSACTION LIMIT, ERCOT SHALL POST THESE VALUES AS PART OF THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PR OPTION NOTICE. 
          AND THEN THE LAST SLIDE. 
          SO IN CONCLUSION, ERCOT ISS PROPOSING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT LANGUAGE, UH, AND APPROVE A NEW CR ACCOUNT HOLDER LIMIT TODAY FOR THE LONG TERM AUCTION SEQUENCE OF 3000 TO IMMEDIATELY MITIGATE THE FREQUENCY OF THESE OVERISH UH, OVERSUBSCRIBED AUCTIONS. 
          AND IRONICALLY, THE APPROVAL TODAY, UM, TODAY IS OUR, UH, AUCTIONED NOTICE GOES OUT FOR THE SEQUENCE TWO, AND WE CAN IMPLEMENT THAT TODAY AND THAT WOULD BECOME THE VALUE THAT GOES OUT FOR BIDS THAT ARE RECEIVED OVER THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS. 
          SO THAT'LL WRAP IT UP AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY, QUESTION MARK. 
          PRICE 
          [03:40:01]
QUESTIONS FROM? YEP, GO AHEAD. 
          THIS IS MARK PRICE FROM DC ENERGY. 
          ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR ME? YES, GO AHEAD. 
          I GUESS I HAVE A, I GUESS A QUESTION, A COMMENT AND A REQUEST. 
          SO, UH, BEAR WITH ME AS I GO THROUGH THESE. 
          UM, STARTING WITH THE QUESTION, SINCE WE'RE SORT OF JUMPING TO THE TACK HERE WITH THIS PROPOSAL TODAY, UM, SORT OF AND THE CMWG IS WORKING ON SOME LONG TERM SOLUTIONS, IS THIS PROPOSAL TEMPORARY IN NATURE AS IN WHEN THE CMWG GETS SOME OF THE LONGER TERM SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM THAT WE DOVE BACK TO 4,000? OR DO YOU VIEW THIS AS PERMANENTLY REDUCING THE, UH, BID COUNT FOR ACCOUNT HOLDERS? IN MY MIND, IT'S PERMANENTLY UNTIL WE GET THAT OUT OF CMWG WITH, UM, PARAMETERS, AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE TAKING TO CMWG IS REMOVING PACK APPROVAL ALTOGETHER. 
          AND THE ERCOT AND EVERY AUCTION NOTICE WILL PROVIDE THE POPULATIONS AND PERCENTAGES OF WHAT IT THINK IT CAN SUPPORT IN EVERY AUCTION TO SUPPORT LIQUIDITY WHILE MINIMIZING THE RISK OF A TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT PERIOD. 
          THE SWEET SPOT FOR THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR AUCTION IS 3000. 
          AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING IT THIS WAY. 
          SO THIS IS NOT, THIS IS, THIS IS A STOP GAP AND IT'S OKAY IF PAC DOESN'T APPROVE THIS TODAY AND WE'LL LEAVE IT AT 4,000 AND IT'S A, UH, 80, 80 TO 90% CHANCE. 
          IT'LL BE OVERSUBSCRIBED THOUGH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THE MARKET FROM DRIVE DRIVING INTO ANOTHER TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT PROCESS. 
          YEP. 
          AND WE AGREE WITH YOU ON TRYING TO AVOID THE TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT PROCESS. 
          I GUESS WE'RE, DC ENERGY HAS SOME CONCERNS, IS, UM, APPLYING THIS ACROSS ALL SEQUENCES EQUALLY. 
          WE DO SEE FROM THE DATA THAT ERCOT HAS PRESENTED, UH, TO THE CMWG AS WELL AS TO THE TECH, THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS. 
          IN THE LATER SEQUENCES YOU GUYS PRESENTED, OR YOU GUYS HAVE STATED, THE GOAL IS TO GET THE SOLUTION RUNTIME FOR THE, UH, THE OPTIMIZATION TO BE UNDER A HUNDRED HOURS, BECAUSE THAT ALLOWS YOU THE CHANCE TO RERUN IT IF THERE'S AN ISSUE AND STILL MEET YOUR DEADLINE OF POSTING, UH, THE RESULTS IN TIME. 
          AND YOU JUST PRESENTED ANALYSIS THAT SHOWED THAT FOR THE LATER SEQUENCES, FOUR OR FIVE SITS, YOU END UP GETTING OVER A HUNDRED HOURS REGULARLY WITH THE NUMBER OF BIDS YOU GUYS ARE SEEING. 
          UM, HOWEVER, WE, THE DATA THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED DOESN'T SHOW THIS ISSUE FOR THE EARLIER SEQUENCES, SEQUENCES 1, 2, 3, UH, WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY RUN A SEQUENCE, ONE OR TWO WITHOUT AN ADJUSTMENT PROCESS IN OVER A YEAR NOW. 
          AND, UH, JUST GOING BACK TO THAT IS, SO WE RAN A SEQUENCE ONE A YEAR AGO. 
          IT HAD 450,000 BIDS AND IT WAS SOLVED IN UNDER 60 HOURS. 
          SO IT MET THE CRITERIA THAT ERCOT SET OUT OF SOLVING IT IN A HUNDRED HOURS. 
          UM, SINCE THAT TIME, THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF SOFTWARE UPGRADES AND THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER OF ERCOT GAVE A PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD THAT THE NEW SOFTWARE UPGRADES THAT WERE IMPLEMENTED IN JUNE AND SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR WERE ABLE TO ACTUALLY REDUCE THE SOLVE TIME OF THE CRR LTAS AUCTIONS BY 70 TO 80%. 
          UM, SO OUR THOUGHT IS THAT THIS LATEST SEQUENCE, SEQUENCE ONE THAT HAD 506,000 BIDS, SO ABOUT 50 TO 60,000 MORE BIDS IN THE ONE THAT SOLVED IN 60 HOURS, UH, WITH THE NEW SOFTWARE, YOU PROBABLY WOULD BE ABLE TO SOLVE THAT IN LESS THAN A HUNDRED HOURS. 
          UM, AND THEREFORE WHAT WE'RE, I GUESS REQUESTING IS THAT ERCOT TESTS THE ABILITY OF THE ENGINE, THE NEW SOFTWARE TO SOLVE SOME OF THESE, UM, EARLIER SEQUENCES, NAMELY ONE AND TWO, UM, WITH THE BIDS THAT YOU GUYS RECEIVED TO SEE IF WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A PROBLEM BEFORE WE START PERMANENTLY RESTRICTING LIQUIDITY INTO THESE OPTIONS. 
          I GUESS. 
          SO THAT'S OUR, THAT'S OUR REQUEST. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          UM, WOW, THERE'S A LOT TO SAY AT THE RISK OF BREAKING INTO ANOTHER CMWG MEETING. 
          LET ME TELL, LET'S GO BACK SLIDE. 
          AND I WILL TRY TO UNPACK, I THINK KIND OF THE TWO OR THREE DIMENSIONS OF YOUR QUESTION. 
          NUMBER ONE, THIS IS NOT, GO BACK TO THE GRAPHIC WITH THE, UH, THE AUCTION PARTICIPATION. 
          UM, WE, WE ARE AT A POINT WHERE THE BIDS ARE COMING IN TO OHIO AND SEQUENCE ONE AND TWO, IT'S, IT, IT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR ARRAY SIZE. 
          SO WE NEED TO ENGAGE THE VENDOR TO GO BEYOND 500,000. 
          ER TOP MET THE MARK NINE MONTHS AGO AND GAVE THE MARKET WEIGHTED DASHBOARD, WHICH WAS 400,000. 
          WE'VE BLOWN THROUGH THAT AND NOW WE'RE BREAKING THE NEXT BARRIER. 
          SO I APPRECIATE THE IDEA THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET IT TO SOLVE, BUT RIGHT NOW OUR SOFTWARE CAN'T HOLD IT AND WE'RE GONNA GO OFF THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S OVERSUBSCRIBED ON THE FRONT END BECAUSE IT'S TOO MANY. 
          NOW THE RISKS ON THE BACKEND IS AS 
          [03:45:01]
WE GET INTO THIS SEQUENCE, FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX ON A MUCH SMALLER TOPOLOGY, EVEN WITH LEFT BIDS, WE ARE FIGHTING FOR, UM, PERFORMANCE IN A WAY THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD TO DO. 
          AND WE'RE THE 180 HOURS WAS ONE OF OUR AUCTIONS. 
          ANOTHER ONE, THESE ARE AUCTIONS THAT ARE TAKEN OVER A WEEK TO SOLVE BY REDUCING IT TO 3000, FAX US OFF THE CLIFF, NOT ONLY ON THESE FRONT TWO AUCTIONS, BUT ALSO ON THIS BACK TWO AUCTIONS. 
          AND BY TAKING THIS 25% HAIRCUT ON SOME STAKEHOLDERS, IT WILL PROTECT THE REST OF THE MARKET LIQUIDITY TO BE ABLE TO FULLY FUNCTION, OFFER, END, AND BE SECURE IN KNOWING THAT ERCOT IS GONNA BE ABLE TO EXECUTE WITHOUT A TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT PROCESS AND PUBLISH RESULTS WITHOUT WONDERING IF WE'RE GONNA GET CAUGHT IN A DITCH AGAIN. 
          AND SO WE ARE AT THE, I WOULD SAY AT THE EDGE OF OUR TECHNOLOGY RIGHT NOW, AND IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE UPGRADE THAT WE SET IN PLACE OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, THAT 180 HOUR AUCTION WOULD NOT HAVE SOLVED. 
          SO THANK HEAVENS THAT WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS AND WE ARE SEEING THINGS IMPROVE BY 50 TO 70% IN THE LAB, AND WE'RE SEEING SOME OF THOSE, BUT NOT ALL THE TIME IN PRODUCTION. 
          SO WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS, BUT THE MARKET IS GROWING FASTER THAN WE CAN KEEP UP. 
          AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE WILLING TO ENGAGE ON A, I'LL ALMOST CALL, ALMOST CALL IT A CRR REDESIGN WITH THE CMWG, UH, WHETHER OR NOT TO START TO CHANGE THINGS DIFFERENTLY, SUCH AS GETTING RID OF THE, UM, UH, THE MULTI-MONTH BIDS. 
          SO WE'RE WORKING VERY COLLABORATIVELY WITH CMWG. 
          I BROUGHT THIS AS A HAIL MARY TAC TO SAY, DO YOU WANNA STOP A TRANSACTION ADJUSTMENT PERIOD? IF SO, PLEASE APPROVE THIS, UM, NEW LOWER LEVEL. 
          AND THAT WILL HEAD OFF TWO THINGS, THE OVER SUBSCRIPTION RIGHT NOW AND THE PERFORMANCE ISSUE UNTIL WE GET THINGS UNDER CONTROL. 
          MATTHEW, WE, I I APPRECIATE THAT ANSWER. 
          I, I, THIS IS, UM, THE 500 K LIMITATION TO YOUR SOFTWARE IS SOMETHING NEW THAT, UM, I HAVE NOT HEARD AT THE CMWG OR, OR IN THIS FORUM AS WELL, WHICH I GUESS MAYBE GIVES ME A LITTLE PAUSE TO THE SOLUTIONS THAT WERE, SO THE, THE PROBLEM AS IT WAS STATED IN THE CMWG IS TO SOLVE TIME BEING A HUNDRED HOURS OR MORE. 
          AND NOW THE PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE ALSO THAT THERE'S A 500 K SOFTWARE LIMIT TO THE BIDS TAKEN, BUT THE SOLUTIONS THAT WE'RE PURSUING IN THE CMWG, UH, TO BREAK OUT MULTI MONTHS WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE THE NUMBER INTO THESE. 
          SO WE'RE, WE'D ACTUALLY BE CREATING A BIGGER PROBLEM BY OUR SOLUTIONS. 
          SO PERHAPS THERE'S MAYBE A NEED FOR SOME BETTER COMMUNICATION OF WHAT LIMITATIONS WE'RE CURRENTLY FACING ARE SO THAT WE CAN APPROPRIATELY COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS THAT ADDRESS THEM. 
          YEP. 
          AND AS I SUPPORT IT, AND I'LL BE AT EVERY CMWG GOING FORWARD WITH THE TEAM, IS THAT SAMANTHA ALFREDO AND MYSELF ALL AGREED TO COME OUT OF THE BOX AND SAY, LET'S GO OUTSIDE OF PROTOCOLS AND LOOK AT DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS AND WORK COLLABORATIVELY AT CMWG ABOUT HOW TO GET TO THE NEXT GENERATION OF PERFORMANCE. 
          AND YOU'RE RIGHT, A HALF MILLION IS NOT OUR CAP. 
          UM, IT'S JUST THE WAY THAT IT WAS IMPLEMENTED WAS THE 400,000 AND IT WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, 25% OVERHEAD IN CASE. 
          BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT'LL BE SOMETHING THAT CHANGES AS WE LOOK AT THOSE MIDTERM TYPE CHANGES. 
          SO WE'RE OPEN TO, WE'RE OPEN TO OPTIONS. 
          WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE MARKET AS AN OPERATOR RIGHT NOW, AND WE SEE 3000 AS BEING THE BEST PLACE FOR THAT. 
          SO I THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATIONS IS THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A RAPIDLY EVOLVING ISSUE. 
          WE'VE HAD A LOT OF COOKS IN THE KITCHEN TRYING TO RESOLVE IT, AND WE'VE BEEN CMWG CONSISTENTLY ANSWERING ALL THE QUESTIONS WE CAN ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          AND SO WE'VE BROUGHT, I THINK IT'S NINE OPTIONS FORWARD AND WE'RE SHARPENING THAT TO SAY WE'RE GONNA DROP NPRS HERE IN THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS TO START TO GET TRACTION AND ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT SOLUTIONS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. 
          AND THE SOLUTION TO THE 500 K PROBLEM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS ACTIVELY BEING WORKED ON AS WELL? I'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT. 
          OH, AND BY THE WAY, WE ARE TESTING UPWARDS OF HOW, HOW HIGH WE CAN GET. 
          I'M SORRY, THAT WAS YOUR OTHER QUESTION. 
          ARE WE TESTING BEYOND THIS? AND THE ANSWER IS YES. 
          I, I GUESS TO CLARIFY ON THAT FRONT, YOU'RE ABLE TO TEST THE 506,000 BIDS THAT YOU GOT IN THE SEQUENCE ONE THAT RECENTLY WENT TO TAP. 
          WE DO HAVE THAT ABILITY IN PRODUCTION. 
          WE HAVE DIFFERENT ARRAY SIDE THINGS, AND SO WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO SOMETHING IN THE LAB THAT WE CAN'T DO IN PRODUCTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. 
          WE CAN UPDATE THE WG AS WE FIND RESULTS, BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET. 
          RIGHT NOW WE'RE STUDYING THE, TAKING OUT THE MULTI-MONTH BIDS AS, AS REQUESTED BY CMWG. 
          THAT WAS THE BIGGEST PRIORITY. 
          AND WE HAVE STUDIED THAT AND LOOK FORWARD TO SHARING IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          I SEE CLAYTON IN THE QUEUE AFTER 
          [03:50:01]
ALL THAT. 
          I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A DUMB QUESTION. 
          UM, THE, UH, THE NUMBER OF NODES IS GONNA INCREASE. 
          I, I FORGET IT'S NOT LINEAR AS, AS THE, LIKE, IF WE INCREASE THE NUMBER OF, OF NODES THAT DOESN'T CAUSE US TO, TO LOSE, IT'S ACTUALLY THE, THE ACTUAL OFFERS THAT COME IN OR THE BIDS THAT COME IN, RIGHT? YES. 
          SO THERE'S NOT LIKE A, IT GET A LOT MORE NODES. 
          THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE, THE NUMBER OF BIDS THAT ANYBODY CAN PUT IN, CORRECT? YEAH, I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON HOW BINDING CONSTRAINTS THEY CREATE. 
          UM, SO THAT IS THE CONCERN. 
          I, I GUESS IT SEEMED WG WE SAID THERE'S THREE THINGS CHANGING THE NUMBER OF CR ACCOUNT HOLDERS THEMSELVES, THE NUMBER OF, UH, SETTLEMENT POINTS AND AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF BIDS FOR PEOPLE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEP. 
          AND SO JUST SO I GET A KIND OF A GENERAL IDEA, 'CAUSE WE MAY SEE A DOUBLING OF RESOURCE NODES IN THE FUTURE YEAH. 
          IS, THAT'S NOT A ONE-TO-ONE, RIGHT? I WOULD, I WOULD BE ALMOST SQUARED SOME WAYS. 
          YEAH, YOU CAN END UP WITH SO MANY MORE PATHS, BUT IF THE INDUSTRY'S TWO MORE POINTS, THERE'S FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS IT COULD FLOW. 
          BUT, UM, YEAH, I'LL LET SMARTER PEOPLE ANSWER THAT IF THEY NEED TO. 
          BUT YEAH, THAT IS A CONCERN AND WE'VE BROUGHT THAT FORWARD AS MORE SETTLEMENT POINTS IS A MORE COMPLICATED SOLUTION. 
          YOU'RE CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ? OKAY. 
          WELL THE SECOND TO LAST SLIDE, OR THE LAST SLIDE WOULD BE, IF TAC WANTS TO CONSIDER THIS, IT'S A, IT'S A THOUGHT AND REQUEST IS A, UH, AND WHAT THIS SAYS IS IT WOULD GO INTO MEETING MINUTES AND THOSE MEETING MINUTES BECOME THE BINDING BECOME OUR WAY OF SIGNALING THAT THIS IS THE TAC APPROVED PARAMETER. 
          THAT'S HOW WE DID IT WITH THE LAST TIME WITH FCR. 
          8 0 7 WENT IN FOR THE 400,000, THAT'S WHEN THE 4,000 WAS SET WITH THE APPROVAL. 
          SO IN THE SAME WAY THAT WHEN T APPROVES THIS NEW LIMIT OF 3000, UH, THAT WOULD JUST THE TAC MEETING MINUTES BECOME THAT AUTHORIZATION FOR US TO CHANGE THE VALUE. 
          AND WE COULD USE THAT STARTING TODAY IF PEOPLE WANNA PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHAT WOULD GO ON THE BALLOT WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE LIMIT FOR ALL LONG TERM AUCTION SEQUENCES AND THE LIMIT WOULD BE 3000. 
          YES. 
          WILL FIT. 
          OKAY. 
          BILL BARNES, I CAN HEAR, OOPS, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? THAT BILL? I'M JUST MAKING SURE YOU GUYS CAN HEAR ME. 
          YES, NOW WE CAN. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'D BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION, UM, TO ADOPT WHAT MATT IS SUGGESTING IMMEDIATELY. 
          I, I, MATT, WE HAVE SEEN YOUR TEAM STRUGGLE TO TRY TO KEEP UP WITH THIS ACTIVITY. 
          UM, NUMEROUS PROPOSALS, VARIOUS UPGRADES TO THE CR SYSTEM, UH, JUST, UM, DOING EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO TRY TO KEEP UP. 
          AND I, I FEEL FOR YOU AS A MARK, LARGE MARKET PARTICIPANT IN THAT THAT HEDGES OUR LOAD POSITION. 
          WE DO NOT, WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE RISK OF HAVING OUR BIDS, UH, CURTAILED AT THE LAST SECOND. 
          SO WE WOULD RATHER HAVE CERTAINTY WITH A SMALLER, UH, BID AMOUNT UPFRONT TO HELP MITIGATE THIS ISSUE. 
          AND WE DEFINITELY LOOK FORWARD TO THE LONGER TERM DISCUSSION AS WELL. 
          SO, HAPPY TO MAKE VOTE ON THE COMBO BALLOT IF, UH, IF THAT'S A WILL CHECK. 
          YEP. 
          DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS GOING ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY, THE THREE QUESTION MARKS. 
          GOT IT DONE SO WE CAN PUT IT ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR MATT? THINK, THANK YOU. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          WELCOME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT, MATT. 
          I KNOW IT WAS LAST MINUTE, BUT, BUT YOU GOT THE MATERIAL TO US, UM, VERY, VERY QUICKLY. 
          SO I, I APPRECIATE YOU DOING ALL THAT WORK TO GET IT TO US. 
          UM, LAST MINUTE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          WE ARE ONTO  FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING MARKET DESIGN WITH KEITH. 
          HE HAS PRESENTED THIS AT WOSI BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME UPDATES AND INCLUDING KIND OF NEXT STEPS FOR FEEDBACK AND, AND DISCUSSION. 
          AND HOPEFULLY WE STILL HAVE THE ANIMATION. 
          I HOPE SO. 
          YEAH, IT SHOULD BE IN THERE. 
          THANKS, CAITLIN. 
          AWESOME. 
          UM, YOU'LL SEE ME. 
          OH, AND I FORGOT HIS EFFORT TO BE ON VIDEO. 
          I'M, I'M NOT GONNA GET ON VIDEO . 
          ALRIGHT, WELL I'LL 
          [03:55:01]
BE ON VIDEO. 
          I'M NOT SHY. 
          SO, UM, I THINK IT'S JUST A GOOD PRACTICE WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING. 
          IT'S, IT'S NICE. 
          SO, UM, I'LL DO IT AND HOPEFULLY OTHERS WILL JOIN. 
          UH, SO, UH, I DID PRESENT, UH, THIS FRAMEWORK. 
          IT WAS ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY PRESENTED, UH, BY PABLO AT THE AUGUST BOARD MEETING. 
          AND, UH, HE AND I TALKED AND SAID, WELL, GEEZ, IT'D BE GOOD TO, TO GET THIS OUT, UM, UH, GET THIS OUT TO, UH, TO OTHERS IN, IN OTHER FORUMS. SO, SO WE DID PRESENT THIS AT THE WMS, UH, A FEW WEEKS BACK. 
          AND, UH, WHY NOT ALSO AT THE TAC IT SEEMS LIKE A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT AS WELL. 
          SO IT'S, YOU'LL SEE THAT IF, IF YOU LISTEN IN ON, ON EITHER OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS AT THE BOARD OR AT THE WMS, VERY SIMILAR, BUT, BUT AS CAITLYN SAID, THERE IS, THERE'S A CO THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT, THAT I'VE CAPTURED IN THIS ONE THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN, THAN THE OTHERS. 
          SO, SO WE'LL START WITH, UH, START AT THE BEGINNING. 
          UH, THE MISSION AND VISION, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO RECOGNIZE THAT, YEAH, OBVIOUSLY ERCOT, UH, IS ABOUT RELIABILITY. 
          UH, IT'S IN OUR NAME, UH, BUT, BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT EFFICIENT ELECTRICITY MARKETS IS, IS A PART OF THE MISSION. 
          AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT AND THE VISION, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THE, THESE ARE SORT OF KEY THINGS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE WANT, UM, THE EFFICIENT MARKETS AND THE INDEPENDENT, UM, INSIGHTS FROM, FROM ERCOT ON, ON, UH, ELECTRICITY MARKETS. 
          AND SO THOSE, THOSE ARE KEY THINGS AND I THINK THEY'LL SORT OF SHAPE WHAT THIS FRAMEWORK HELP HELP US THINK ABOUT THE FRAMEWORK AND, AND WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT SLIDE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          AND THEN, UH, ALSO THINKING AT, YOU KNOW, STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS AND STRATEGIC LEVEL DISCUSSION IS, UM, UH, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE KEY STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES THAT, THAT ERCOT HAS? AND, AND OBVIOUSLY RELIABILITY, RESILIENCE AT THE, AT THE TOP, UH, VERY IMPORTANT TO US. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THE MARKETS SUPPORT THAT. 
          AND, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT, THAT THE MARKETS ARE DRIVING RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCE. 
          AND, AND IF WE'RE NOT, WE, WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT CHANGING THAT, OBVIOUSLY. 
          UM, BUT, UH, THOSE ARE KEY THINGS TO FOCUS ON AS WELL AS THE, THE SECOND POINT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, ENHANCING THE ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS, UM, UH, OF OUR MARKET, UH, RELATIVE TO OTHER, OTHER LOCATIONS, OTHER MARKETS, RIGHT? BOTH AT THE WHOLESALE AND RETAIL LEVEL. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, UM, UH, INDUSTRY EXPERTS AND EMPLOYER OF CHOICE, UH, ARE ARE ALSO GREAT THINGS TOO. 
          SO, UH, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO ONE OF THE, THE WAYS, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU START THINKING ABOUT EFFICIENCY IS, IS THIS CONCEPT OF, HEY, WE NEED TO USE THE RIGHT TOOL FOR, FOR, FOR THE JOB AT HAND. 
          AND SO AS WE, WE GO AND WE CLICK THROUGH THE SLIDES HERE, SO IF WE CLICK TO THE NEXT, ALRIGHT, SO DIFFERENT TOOLS HAVE DIFFERENT TASKS. 
          AND SO IF WE CLICK AGAIN, UH, IF YOU THINK OF YOUR TOOL SHED, RIGHT? WELL, WE GOT DIFFERENT TOOLS IN OUR TOOL SHED. 
          WE'VE GOT A RAKE, WE'VE GOT OUR SHOVEL, WE GOT OUR PITCHFORK, UM, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT TOOLS FOR DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT TASKS THAT WE NEED TO ACCOMPLISH. 
          AND SO WE CLICK AGAIN, WE'VE GOT, UH, HEY, IF WE'RE WE HA OR HAVE TO DIG A HOLE, WE GRAB OUR SHOVEL, RIGHT? AND IF WE CLICK AGAIN, IF WE'VE GOTTA PICK UP OUR LEAVES, WE GRAB A RAKE, RIGHT? SO, UH, THE RIGHT TOOL, THE RIGHT CH TASK, IT'S REALLY EFFICIENT, RIGHT? SO, UM, SO IF WE CLICK AGAIN, AND WHEN WE START THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE FRAMEWORK HELPS US DO IS IT STARTS TELLING US LIKE, HEY, WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE TASKS WE NEED TO ACHIEVE, RIGHT? HOW ARE WE GONNA RELIABILITY RELIABLY AND AFFORDABLY OPERATE THE GRID? AND WHAT ARE THOSE TOOLS IN THAT TOOL SHED THAT WE HAVE IN TERMS OF MARKET TOOLS AND MARKET DESIGN THAT'S GONNA HELP US GET TO, TO ACHIEVE THOSE, THOSE SORT OF TWIN OBJECTIVES THAT WE HAVE? RIGHT? NEXT SLIDE OR NEXT, NEXT, UH, QUICK END. 
          YEP. 
          THE DESIGN TO MARKET EFFICIENTLY. 
          UM, AND YOU'LL GET WHAT YOU NEED. 
          UH, AND SO AS WE'RE ALIGNING, UH, THE MARKET TOOLS WITH THE TASKS, UM, IT BECOMES MUCH LIKE WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE WITH OUR, OUR, OUR ANIMATION IS YOU'RE ALIGNING THE, HEY, DIG A HOLE, GRAB THE SHOVEL, UH, DO THE, DO THE LEAVES, GRAB A RAKE. 
          AND THE SAME THING CAN BE SAID ABOUT THESE MARKET TOOLS AND INCENTIVES. 
          UM, BUT THE WORD OF CAUTION IS THAT WE CLICK ONE MORE TIME IS, UH, IF WE USE THE WRONG TOOL, UM, YOU CAN CREATE SOME INEFFICIENCIES. 
          SO IT'S SORT OF LIKE SAYING, HEY, I NEED, NEED YOU TO DIG A HOLE, LET'S GO GRAB THE RAKE, RIGHT? WELL, YEAH, YOU COULD PROBABLY SCRATCH SOMETHING OR WHATEVER, BUT IT'S, IT'S GONNA TAKE YOU A WHILE AND IT'S NOT GONNA BE A VERY EFFECTIVE HOLE. 
          YOU PROBABLY GET SOMETHING AFTER A WHILE, UH, IN ADDITION TO SOME BLISTERS AND A, A BROKEN RAKE. 
          UM, BUT YEAH, INEFFICIENT. 
          AND THEN 
          [04:00:01]
THE SAME THING WITH, WITH THE LEAVES IS WE COULD GRAB THE SHOVEL AND YOU CAN PUSH THE LEAVES AROUND, BUT YOU KNOW, ONCE THE WIND COMES, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE A DIFFERENT THING. 
          SO BE BE EFFICIENT WITH YOUR TOOLS AND, AND HOW YOU'RE DESIGNING YOUR MARKET AND IT'LL ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES THAT YOU WANT, UH, MORE EFFECTIVELY. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND SO WHEN WE THINK OF THAT, UH, LET'S THINK ABOUT WHAT ARE THOSE, HOW ARE WE GONNA ACHIEVE RELIABILITY AND AFFORDABLY OPERATE THE GRID? WHAT ARE SOME OF THOSE ATTRIBUTES? WHAT, WHAT MIGHT THEY LOOK LIKE? AND HAVING THESE FRAMEWORKS, UH, WILL HELP US SORT OF THINK THROUGH THAT AND ARE WE ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVES WE NEED? WE'RE, WE'RE SORT OF IN THIS CHANGING, OBVIOUSLY ENERGY TRANSITION SEEMS TO COME UP ALL THE TIME. 
          OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HAVING A LOT MORE, UM, SOLAR IN PARTICULAR STORAGE RESOURCES, WIND, UM, SORT OF VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHERE WE WERE 10, 15 YEARS AGO WHEN A LOT OF THESE, UH, DESIGNS LIKE NOL WAS PUT IN PLACE. 
          IT JUST HAD A DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT VIEW. 
          AND SO WE GOTTA START THINKING ABOUT, WELL, OKAY, WELL, ARE WE ACHIEVING EVERYTHING, UM, THAT, THAT WE NEED TO ACHIEVE? UH, AND GIVEN THESE SORT OF CHANGING AND DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES? AND SO THAT, THAT THAT FRAMEWORK WILL HELP THESE DECISION MAKERS IN PARTICULAR AND POLICY MAKERS THINK ABOUT THIS, UH, RATHER THAN SORT OF THINKING ABOUT ALL THE INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVES, RTC OR DRS OR, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS OF EVERYTHING. 
          AND YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THAT ALL MEAN? WELL, DRS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FLEXIBILITY. 
          DISPATCHABILITY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RTC, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EFFICIENCY, RIGHT? THESE ARE TOOLS THAT HELP YOU GAIN DIFFERENT THINGS IN THE MARKET. 
          AND THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT BAD THINGS. 
          THEY'RE GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. 
          UM, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, AND SO IF WE, WE THINK ABOUT IT IN THOSE TERMS, WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE BETTER DECISIONS, RIGHT? NEXT SLIDE. 
          ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S TALK ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT THESE ATTRIBUTES ARE, RIGHT? SO FLEXIBILITY, DEPENDABILITY, AVAILABILITY, RESILIENCY, QUALITY, EFFICIENCY, LOCATION, THINGS THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER AS PART OF, OF THIS FRAMEWORK, RIGHT? AND, UM, AGAIN, WHEN YOU HAVE FORECASTED RESOURCES, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM, UM, RESOURCES THAT ARE, ARE, ARE MORE CONTROLLABLE, LIKE, UH, YOUR TRADITIONAL THERMAL FLEET, RIGHT? SO VERY DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTES, UM, THAT, THAT, UH, THE NEW RESOURCES BRING. 
          AND SO IT HELPS US THINK ABOUT, WELL, WHAT DO WE NEED? AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT IS, WELL, YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T GET SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T PAY FOR IT, RIGHT? IT'S LIKE, OH, OKAY, WELL IF YOU, IF YOU WANT FLEXIBILITY OR WANT AVAILABILITY, YOU NEED TO SORT OF ASK FOR IT. 
          IF YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR IT, YOU'RE NOT PAYING FOR IT, YOU'RE NOT RECEIVING. 
          SO, UM, SO THIS, THIS SLIDE HELPS US SORT OF, UH, DRILL INTO WHAT SOME OF THOSE KEY ELEMENTS ARE WITHIN THOSE, THOSE PARTICULAR, UM, ATTRIBUTES. 
          UH, I WON'T READ THROUGH ALL OF THEM. 
          I KNOW YOU, YOU, YOU CAN READ AND OBVIOUSLY TAKE A LOOK AT THE, THE PRESENTATION AS WELL TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT, BUT IT'S, IT'S COVERING, UM, HOW WE THINK WE CAN CREATE THAT RELIABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY GOING FORWARD. 
          RIGHT? NEXT SLIDE. 
          ALRIGHT, SO WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS TO THE WHOLESALE MARKET SUBCOMMITTEE, WE, WE HAD SOME GOOD FEEDBACK. 
          AND I, WHAT I TRIED TO DO IN, IN THIS SLIDE IS TO CAPTURE THE ESSENCE OF, OF SOME OF THAT FEEDBACK THAT WE DID RECEIVE. 
          UM, WHERE DOES RESOURCE ADVOCACY FIT IN? UH, HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THIS? WHERE'S THE MEASUREMENT OF WHERE YOU WERE, WHERE YOU ARE RELATIVE TO WHERE YOU WANNA BE, UM, WHERE OUR CURRENT INITIATIVES FIT? HOW DO THEY FIT WITHIN THIS? AND I THINK THOSE WERE ALL GREAT QUESTIONS. 
          AND I WILL SAY I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TODAY. 
          UM, BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE'RE CRAFTING THIS FRAMEWORK IS THESE ARE THE RIGHT TYPES OF THINGS. 
          SO I REALLY APPRECIATED THE DISCUSSION AND, AND THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTIONS ALONG THOSE LINES TODAY AS WELL. 
          AND, AND AGAIN, THIS IS A, WE'RE ALL LEARNING TOGETHER, WE'RE ASKING QUESTIONS IS GREAT. 
          HOW DO WE SET A FRAMEWORK FOR MOVING FORWARD AND HELP THOSE DECISION MAKERS THINK ABOUT, UM, HOW TO BE EFFICIENT WITH THEIR TOOLS AND THE TOOL SELECTION? UH, AND SO, UH, IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, I THINK THE KEY, THE KEY HERE IS, UH, WE DO WANT YOUR FEEDBACK, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE POINTS. 
          AND SO HOW DO WE, WHERE, WHERE DO YOU PROVIDE FEEDBACK? AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE THE TAC IS, IS A GOOD PLACE TO DO THAT. 
          AND SO, UM, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT YOU SUBMIT YOUR FORMAL FEEDBACK TO TAC AND UH, I THINK THAT'LL, UH, BE A GOOD PLACE FOR US TO SORT OF HAVE THIS DIALOGUE. 
          AND, UH, I DID, I DID PUT SOME QUESTIONS HERE TO SORT OF SEED WHAT YOU MIGHT, UH, MIGHT SAY. 
          AND AGAIN, I WON'T, I WON'T READ ALL THE QUESTIONS, BUT, BUT, BUT AGAIN, 
          [04:05:01]
HERE'S SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT IF YOU'RE, YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT HOW TO RESPOND OR, UH, WHAT, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY? UM, HERE'S SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT. 
          NOW, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN THINK ABOUT OTHER THINGS AS WELL, UH, RELATED TO THAT. 
          BUT, BUT HOPEFULLY THIS WILL GET YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR, YOUR THOUGHTS AND JUICES FLOWING. 
          AND, UH, AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, WE'LL BE ABLE TO SORT OF GRAB AND COLLATE THESE THINGS AND, AND TALK ABOUT WHAT, WHAT IT IS THAT, UH, THAT WE SAW FROM THE, OBVIOUSLY WE'LL SEE THE COMMENTS, BUT WE'LL SORT OF COLLATE THEM ALL TOGETHER, ET CETERA. 
          AND SO THAT BECOMES REALLY USEFUL FEEDBACK FOR US AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO I BELIEVE THE NEXT SLIDE IS MY LAST SUBSTANTIVE SLIDE. 
          UH, HERE WE GO. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, DIDN'T WANNA LOSE OUR SHOVEL THEME, UM, BUT YES, THE FRAMEWORK IS, IS NOT A DONE DEAL. 
          IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION, IF YOU WILL. 
          UH, WE'RE CONSIDERING IT. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY AS WE JUST SAID, WE'RE GONNA CONSIDER YOUR FEEDBACK AND, AND HOW, HOW THINGS FIT WITHIN THIS DIFFERENT CONTEXT. 
          AND THEN, UM, OBVIOUSLY WE ANTICIPATE FOR THE DISCUSSION AT THE TAC LEVEL, I IMAGINE THERE'LL BE MORE DISCUSSION ALSO WITH THE BOARD, ET CETERA. 
          BUT IT'S HOW WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IT. 
          UH, AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'VE GOT WAYS TO HELP US THINK ABOUT THAT, WE, WE LOOK FORWARD TO IT AS WELL. 
          SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUEUE, UH, CAITLYN, SO I AM HAPPY TO, TO, TO TAKE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          CLAYTON GR DID YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT ERS OR ARE YOU MAKING A JOKE? WELL, ERS IS THE JOKE, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT DIDN'T FIT ON ANY OF THAT. 
          I, SO I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD GOTTEN A CHANCE. 
          KEITH IS NEW, SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD GOTTEN A CHANCE TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT ERS. 
          OH, I HAVEN'T. 
          DO YOU WANT TO, KEITH? IS THAT I, I, I DON'T WANT, I WON'T DO IT DURING THIS. 
          IF YOU WANNA DO SOME OFFLINE, WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT IT. 
          YEAH, SURE, WE CAN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT OFF OFFLINE. 
          I'M, I'M ERS IS, UM, IT'S, IT'S AN INTERESTING THING. 
          UM, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY TALK ABOUT THAT LATER FOR SURE. 
          OKAY, INTERESTING WORD. 
          I WON'T HOLD UP THE MEETING FOR MY OWN ENTERTAINMENT. 
          SO LET'S GO TO ERIC SCHUBERT. 
          UH, THANKS KEITH FOR PROVIDING, UH, YOUR COMMENTS HERE. 
          I'M A LITTLE PUZZLED IN ONE SENSE IS THAT THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO AS A WHOLE FOR THE PAST COUPLE DECADES. 
          I MEAN, YOU'RE MM-HMM. 
          IT OUT MORE EXPLICITLY, AND THAT'S NICE, BUT I'M NOT REALLY SEEING ANY CHANGE IN WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING EITHER HERE AT THE COMMISSIONER AT THE LEGISLATURE FOR THE PAST COUPLE DECADES. 
          I GUESS, WHAT GOALS ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE IN PARTICULAR THAT AREN'T BEING DONE NOW? SO I THINK, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, AND, AND, AND I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT IS, IS THIS THE CONCEPT OF WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VARIOUS INITIATIVES, RIGHT? BUT AGAIN, WE COULD PICK ONE R-T-C-P-C-M, WHATEVER, IT'S RIGHT. 
          WHAT IS IT DOING? RIGHT? AND I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE SEEING IS WE GET ALL WRAPPED UP, UH, IN SOME OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT A PARTICULAR ITEM, RIGHT? AND SO IT'S, IT'S SORT OF LIKE, YOU'VE GOT A FOREST, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TREES, RIGHT? AND SO WE TALK ABOUT THE TREES A LOT AND, AND WHAT THE FRAMEWORK HELPS US THINK ABOUT IS HOW DOES THE, THE TREE FIT WITHIN THAT FOREST, RIGHT? AND, AND WHAT KIND OF FOREST DO YOU WANT? RIGHT? DO YOU WANT A FOREST WITH, WITH FRUIT? DO YOU WANT A FOREST WITH SHADE? DO YOU WANT A FOREST OF COLOR? AND SORT OF HELP, HELP REMIND YOURSELVES WHAT IT IS. 
          AND, AND, YOU KNOW, AT THE HIGH LEVEL, THE POLICY MAKERS, THE DECISION MAKERS AND EVERYBODY SORT OF ALIGN IN THAT. 
          WE DO HAVE SOME NEW FACES, OBVIOUSLY, THE, UM, IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AS WELL. 
          UM, AT THE LEGISLATURE, THEY GET PEOPLE THAT COME AND GO. 
          AND SO IT'S ALSO A GREAT COMMUNICATION TOOL TO HELP HELP FOLKS AT ALL LEVELS UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. 
          SO THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE SEE. 
          IT'S, IT'S NOT CREATING A, A BRAND NEW FRAMEWORK AND SAYING, HEY, WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST, YOU KNOW, COUPLE DECADES, DOESN'T MATTER. 
          IT'S, IT'S BRINGING THAT MORE TO LIGHT AND HELP US SEE COLLECTIVELY. 
          UM, AND THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THEM. 
          HOW, HOW THAT FITS TOGETHER. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S THE GOAL. 
          WELL, THAT CLARIFIES IT. 
          GOOD. 
          I JUST, IT'S JUST THAT GENERALLY WHEN THE PROPOSALS COME UP, THESE KIND OF THINGS COME AS PART OF THE CONVERSATION IN VARIOUS FORUMS. SO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS JUST PUTTING A KIND OF A FRAMEWORK OF WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING. 
          WOW. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT RELIABILITY, WE SHOULD, WE'RE ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT RELIABILITY, BUT IT'S PUTTING THAT FRAMEWORK AROUND IT. 
          AND, BUT IT MAY BE HIGHLIGHTING A FEW OTHER THINGS AS WELL, GIVEN THE FACT THAT, HEY, LOOK AT ALL THE SOLAR THAT WE HAVE, AND LOOK AT THAT RAMP AT THE END OF THE DAY, RIGHT? WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT RAMP AT THE END OF THE DAY UNTIL RECENTLY. 
          RIGHT? AND SO, YOU KNOW, SO WHEN YOU START THINKING ABOUT RAMP ABILITY AND DISPATCHABILITY, MAYBE THAT'S HIGHER UP IN YOUR, YOUR SORT OF, UH, THOUGHT PROCESSES. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          [04:10:01]
THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NEXT, I THINK IT'S NED. 
          YEP, GO AHEAD THEN. 
          THANKS KEITH. 
          AND I'LL JOIN YOU ON, I'LL JOIN YOU ON VIDEO. 
          UH, ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU . 
          SO, UH, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR, FOR PRESENTING THIS AND FOR, UM, FOR TAKING FEEDBACK AND ASKING FOR FEEDBACK. 
          UM, I, I GUESS, UH, ONE QUESTION IS, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW YOU WOULD LIKE THAT SUBMITTED TO TAC? IS IT JUST SOMETHING TO, YOU KNOW, SUBMIT TO, UM, STAKEHOLDER SERVICES FOR POSTING, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR THE NEXT TAC AGENDA AND WHAT TIMEFRAME YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT? UM, AND THEN THE, SO THAT'S, THAT'S MAYBE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. 
          AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THE BROADER FRAMEWORK, AND I, I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRYING TO GIVE IT THE, YOU KNOW, SO A, A VERY APPROACHABLE FRAMEWORK FOR THE HOLISTIC PICTURE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          UM, BUT WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY, HOW, HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE, THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE? 'CAUSE IF I, IF I'M THINKING ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A MARKET THAT IS, UH, DESIGNED TO DIG HOLE, DIG A HOLE,  MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO SCAFFOLD OUR WAY TO SOME, TO BUILDING SOMETHING THAT IS, UM, HELPS US GET OUT OF A HOLE, AT LEAST FROM A RESOURCE ADEQUACY STANDPOINT. 
          AND, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, AND THAT I'M NOT SHY TO SAY, I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, REALTIME OPTIMIZATION FOR ALL OF ITS, ALL OF ITS EFFICIENCIES ACTUALLY DIGS US DEEPER IN THAT HOLE. 
          UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE STARTING FROM. 
          THAT'S WHERE WE'RE, WE'RE DIGGING DEEPER AND HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE DIG OUT? BUT IF YOU'VE GOT A DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK OR A FRAMING OF, OF THE OBJECTIVE, I WOULD APPRECIATE HEARING IT. 
          WELL, AND I THINK THAT, I THINK YOU, WELL, WELL, THERE'S SORT OF MULTI-PART. 
          I'LL START WITH THE LAST ONE AND I'LL, I'LL MOVE, MOVE BACKWARDS. 
          SO I THINK YOUR, YOUR POINT ON RTC IS, RTC IS NOT A RESOURCE ADEQUACY TOOL, RIGHT? AND SO WHEN YOU THINK OF THE FRAMEWORK, IT'S LIKE, YEAH, IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO DO THAT, RIGHT? IT'S AN EFFICIENCY TOOL AND IT'S AN EXCELLENT EFFICIENCY TOOL, RIGHT? AND SO YOU HAVE TO PUT IT IN THE FRAMEWORK WHERE IT MAKES SENSE. 
          BUT I THINK AS YOU CORRECTLY SAID, IS LIKE, OKAY, WE'RE, WE'RE BEING SUPER EFFICIENT HERE. 
          THAT'S REALLY GREAT. 
          HOWEVER, WE'VE GOT OTHER BUCKETS THAT WE NEED TO FILL. 
          WE CAN'T JUST CALL IT A DAY AND SAY, YEP, WE'RE SUPER EFFICIENT AND A DAY, NO, WE'VE GOT, WE'VE GOTTA ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, OUR AVAILABILITY ISSUES, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, WE NEED RESOURCES TO BE AVAILABLE WHEN WE NEED THEM. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, THE SUFFICIENCY THING IS, IS, IS, IS GREAT, BUT IT'S NOT SOLVING THAT PROBLEM. 
          AND SO, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, AS I THINK ABOUT THE FRAMEWORK, IT'S, YEAH, YOU GRABBED YOUR RAKE AND YOU RAKED UP THE LEAVES, BUT YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE TO ADDRESS THE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT YOU HAVE. 
          SO, IN MY MIND, I THINK IT'S SORT OF DOES A GREAT JOB OF HOW WE THINK ABOUT, UM, THE DIFFERENT INITIATIVES WE HAVE, RIGHT? JUST DOING, IT'S ACHIEVING AN OBJECTIVE AND IT'S DOING THAT VERY EFFECTIVELY. 
          THERE ARE OTHER TOOLS THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT DO OTHER THINGS LIKE PCM, IT DOES OTHER THINGS, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT IT'S DESIGNED TO DO. 
          WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT, IT CAN HAVE EFFICIENCIES IN IT, BUT IT'S NOT PRIMARILY A TOOL TO CREATE AN EFFICIENT MARKET. 
          PCM THAT IS RIGHT? IT'S DESIGNED TO FOCUS ON SOMETHING ELSE. 
          WHEREAS RTC IS, IS EXACTLY, IT'S NOT A RESOURCE ENCY TOOL, IT'S A IT'S EFFICIENCY TOOL. 
          SO THAT'S HOW I LIKE THE FRAMEWORK. 
          IT, IT, IT, IT HELPS, HELPS ME THINK OF THAT. 
          AND, AND BASED ON SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME POLICY MAKERS AND DECISION MAKERS, HAVING SOMETHING LIKE THAT MAY HELP THEM AS WELL AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO, UM, NOW YOUR QUESTION IS, WELL WHAT ABOUT THE MECHANICS OF, YOU KNOW, HEY, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE? UM, AND SO I THINK IAN'S THE BETTER PERSON TO SAY, YOU KNOW, HEY, SEND IT IN THIS WAY OR THAT WAY. 
          BUT I THINK THE TIMELINE IS, IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE CAN GET YOUR COMMENTS IN BY THE NEXT, BY THE NEXT T MEETING IN A FEW WEEKS. 
          'CAUSE I, I UNDERSTAND DECEMBER WE'RE KIND OF OFF, RIGHT? SO AS LONG AS WE CAN HAVE YOUR COMMENTS BY THE NEXT MEETING AND THEN, UM, WE CAN DEFINITELY COLLATE EVERYTHING, UH, AND HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, BE AT A BETTER PLACE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, SEEING THAT THERE'S NO DECEMBER MEETING. 
          SO I, I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT WORKS REALLY WELL. 
          BUT ANN, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE, THE, UH, THE MECHANIC, LET ME JUMP IN CAITLYN REALLY QUICK AND YEP. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, IS THERE, IS THERE A URGENCY TO THIS? BECAUSE WE ARE KIND OF BUILDING UP THE AMOUNT OF REVISION REQUESTS WE'RE TRYING TO GET THROUGH NOVEMBER TAC, AND I KNOW PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO WRITE COMMENTS FOR THOSE. 
          SO IF, COULD WE PUT THIS OFF INTO DISCUSSION AT JANUARY TAC OR THAT WE, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          I MEAN, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, SET THE WILL OF, OF YOU GUYS, I THINK, UM, IT'S, IT'S YOUR ABILITY TO INFORM US IN OUR PROCESS. 
          SO IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE IT DONE BY THE NEXT TECH? NO. 
          UM, BUT UM, I SUPPOSE THERE IS NO DECEMBER, SO WE'D HAVE TO, IF YOU GET IT AS, YEAH, I SUPPOSE IF YOU GET IT TO US IN DECEMBER, 
          [04:15:01]
WE CAN HAVE SOME SOMETHING READY TO SAY IN JANUARY RATHER THAN, OH, WE HAVE ALL YOUR COMMENTS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY. 
          IF YOU CAN GET YOUR COMMENTS, UM, IN, IN BY, LET'S SAY MID-DECEMBER, THEN WE CAN HAVE A, A DISCUSSION IN JANUARY. 
          YEP. 
          THE NEXT, WE JUST HAVE A COMPRESSED TIMELINE. 
          WE ONLY HAVE THREE WEEKS BETWEEN THE TECH AND NOVEMBER TECH, AND I KNOW WE HAVE THREE REVISION REQUESTS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TODAY WHERE, WHERE FOLKS ARE PROBABLY GONNA WANT OR, OR NEED TO WRITE AND DIGEST COMMENTS. 
          SO, SO I WAS WONDERING IF THIS COULD GO TO JANUARY? YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. 
          WE CAN HAVE, YEAH, WE CAN, AS LONG AS WE GET OUR COMMENTS IN THIS YEAR, WE CAN HAVE THE CONVERSATION IN JANUARY BASED ON THE FEEDBACK. 
          I THINK THAT WORKS. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION FOR ANN. 
          STILL THERE, RIGHT? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          SORT OF THE MECHANICS OF THIS, UH, YEAH, THIS IS ANN. 
          UM, WE'RE TO SEND THE COMMENTS, I GUESS IF WE'RE POSTING THEM TO THE PACK MEETING PAGE, IF YOU JUST, JUST WANNA SEND 'EM TO REVISION REQUEST BLOCKS THAT WE CAN COMPILE THEM, MAKE SURE THEY GET ON THE, UM, THEY GET WITH THE JANUARY TAC DOCUMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          SOUNDS GOOD. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          THANK YOU BOTH. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN WE CAN SEND A REMINDER OUT TO THE TAC EXPLODER, UM, EXACTLY WHERE EVERYTHING NEEDS TO GO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, THANKS NED, AND THANKS FOR, THANKS FOR THE CAMERA. 
          WE GOT, I BELIEVE BRIAN'S UP NEXT HERE. 
          UM, I, I LIKED YOUR FRAMEWORK. 
          I, I AGREE WITH THE GOALS. 
          I THINK THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE IS TO IMPLEMENT A MARKET DESIGN THAT ACHIEVES THE RELIABILITY STANDARD THE COMMISSION HAS RECENTLY ADOPTED. 
          MM-HMM. 
          . 
          AND, UM, WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON THE FRAMEWORK, IT ALSO FEELS LIKE, UH, THE MARKET IS MAKING OTHER CHOICES THAT MIGHT BE MOVING US CLOSER OR FURTHER AWAY FROM THAT LONG-TERM GOAL. 
          AND I, I JUST WONDER HOW WE SHOULD BE EVALUATING, UH, WHAT THOSE, THOSE CHOICES ARE, IF THERE'S EVEN A, A MEASURING STICK TO KNOW IF WE'RE MOVING FURTHER OR CLOSER TO THE GOAL AS WE'RE SORT OF MAKING THE INTERIM STEPS TO THIS KIND OF, UH, MORE EFFICIENT OUTCOME. 
          UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON HOW WE SHOULD BE KIND OF MEASURING STUFF IN THE INTERIM? WELL, I THINK, I THINK, I THINK NED DID A GOOD JOB EARLIER, RIGHT? SO AS WE START THINKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TOOLS THAT WE HAVE AND WHAT THEY ACHIEVE, RIGHT? SO YOU, RTC IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF EFFICIENCY ENHANCING TOOL, RIGHT? UM, AND SO WHEN WE LOOK TO OUR, HEY, WHAT'S OUR, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT'S THE TOOL THAT'S, UH, TRYING TO ACHIEVE, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR OBJECTIVES OF, HEY, WE, WE NEED RESOURCES AVAILABLE. 
          WE NEED, WE NEED SOME MECHANISM THAT ACHIEVES THAT RESOURCE ADEQUACY. 
          WHAT IS IT? IS IT, IS IT PCM? IF IT'S NOT PCM, WHAT IS IT? RIGHT? AND HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT? AND SO, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FROM A DESIGN, SOMEONE WHO'S SORT OF HERE TO HELP, HELP LEAD DESIGN, UM, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, WE DEFINITELY WANNA POINT OUT. 
          AND HAVING THAT FRAMEWORK HELPS US SORT OF SAY, HEY, THERE'S A GAP HERE, RIGHT? AND IF PCM IS YOUR, YOUR TOOL, GREAT. 
          IF PCM IS NOT YOUR TOOL, OKAY, YOU STILL HAVE A GO, YOU HAVE A GAP, ALRIGHT? AND, UM, WE HAVE TO KNOW, PARTICULARLY AT THE POLICY, YOU KNOW, WHEN, AT THE POLICY LEVEL FOLKS, IT'S LIKE, OKAY, IF, IF THIS ISN'T YOUR TOOL, ALL RIGHT, WE NEED SOMETHING TO FILL THIS BUCKET, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE, IT'S, IT'S EMPTY. 
          UH, AND SO, YEAH. 
          UM, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT. 
          AND, AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S WHERE I THINK THE FRAMEWORK CAN HELP, IS TO SHOW THAT, UM, VERY CLEARLY AND SAY, THIS IS, THIS IS THE HOLE THAT YOU HAVE. 
          WE NEED SOMETHING TO FILL THIS HOLE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I I, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          UM, IT FEELS LIKE, UH, YOU'RE TRYING TO DO SOME EDUCATION HERE. 
          UM, BUT ON SLIDE SIX, IT ALSO FEELS LIKE POLITICAL FEASIBILITY IS, UH, ONE OF THE ATTRIBUTES THAT, UM, NEEDS TO BE SCORED. 
          AND THAT PROBABLY HELPS, UM, WITH, UH, WHAT'S POSSIBLE. 
          SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          GREAT. 
          THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S, WHO'S NEXT, BUT, UM, MAYBE CAITLYN CAN HELP ME THERE. 
          YEAH, IT'S MARKIS. 
          OH, IT'S MARK. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME NOW? 
          [04:20:01]
YES, WE CAN. 
          YEAH. 
          SORRY. 
          HAVING CONNECTIVITY PROBLEMS TODAY, SO YOU CERTAINLY WON'T BE SEEING ME ON CAMERA. 
          UM, I WANNA THANK YOU, KEITH, FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. 
          I THINK THIS CAN BE HELPFUL, ESPECIALLY WHEN WORKING WITH DECISION MAKERS WHO ARE NOT AS INTIMATE WITH, UH, THE OBJECTIVES OF WHAT WE DO EVERY DAY AND WHY WE, WE MADE THESE DECISIONS 20 SOMETHING YEARS AGO TO OPERATE A MARKET LIKE THIS. 
          BUT WHEN I LOOK AT YOUR LIST OF ATTRIBUTES ON PAGE SIX, I THINK THERE IS A KEY ATTRIBUTE THAT IS MISSING AS A STANDALONE ATTRIBUTE, AND THAT IS CONSUMER COST. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS LIST, I SEE FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT WAYS OF CHARACTERIZING RELIABILITY ATTRIBUTES. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          AND THEN EFFICIENCY IS DOING A LOT OF WORK. 
          AND WHILE CONSUMER COSTS AND AFFORDABILITY ARE OFTEN ALIGNED WITH EFFICIENCY, THAT IS NOT ONLY THE ALWAYS THE CASE. 
          AND WE'VE SEEN SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLES OF THAT HERE. 
          I THINK WHEN WE MAKE DEVIATIONS FROM EFFICIENT MARKETS, LIKE SOME WOULD ARGUE WITH CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS, THEY'RE MAKING TRADE OFFS THAT INVOLVE CONSUMER COSTS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY ALIGNED WITH EFFICIENCY. 
          AND I ALSO THINK WE DO A LOT OF, OF COST ALLOCATION HERE THAT IS SEPARATE FROM EFFICIENCY THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS CONSUMER COSTS. 
          SO I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO FIND THIS TO BE A USEFUL TOOL FOR WORKING WITH DECISION MAKERS WHO WANNA LOOK AT ALL ASPECTS OF WHAT IT IS WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, WE SHOULD CALL OUT A SEPARATE ATTRIBUTE FOR CONSUMER COSTS. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, WE DEFINITELY LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THAT IN YOUR COMMENTS. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          I I WILL, I WILL PROVIDE COMMENTS, BUT THAT'S MY COMMENT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, I BELIEVE WE GOT, IS IT ERIC SCHUBERT? I THINK, YES. 
          I WANT TO CON FIRST I WANNA CONCUR WITH MARK'S COMMENT ON AFFORDABILITY. 
          UM, THAT'S, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT THING. 
          THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG DRIVERS. 
          WHILE WE HAD A MARKET, YOU LOOK AT OTHER PLACES AROUND THE COUNTRY WHERE YOU HAVE COST OF SERVICE REGULATION, UH, YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF PRICES, PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE AN INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMER AND YOU NEED A GOOD WHOLESALE AND RELIABLE WHOLESALE MARKET TO BACK UP RETAIL CHOICE. 
          THE OTHER THING I WANNA SAY IS, UH, THE CONCERN I HAVE HERE IS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THIS FOLLOWS UP A LITTLE BIT WITH NED HAS TALKED ABOUT IS THAT MARKETS EVOLVE. 
          I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE AS HE HAS THAT WE'VE DUG OURSELVES A WHOLE, WE ARE MOVING INTO A DIFFERENT TERRITORY. 
          UM, WE HAVE FAR MORE INTERMITTENT RENEWABLES, WE HAVE STORAGE, WE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES, AND WE HAVE BEEN PUSHING FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF DECADES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THE TECHNOLOGY. 
          AND SO I, I THINK WE'VE GOTTA BE CAREFUL ABOUT TOING TO OVER-ENGINEER WHEN THE MARKET AS A VERY DYNAMIC SYSTEM WILL SELF-CORRECT. 
          TO A DEGREE. 
          YOU SEE THAT THE, THE RAMP WITH SOLAR, FOR EXAMPLE, NOW STORAGE IS FILLING THAT GAP. 
          MM-HMM, . 
          SO THESE ARE, THIS IS A NICE FRAMEWORK FOR TALKING TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE FOR ERCOT OPERATIONS, RIGHT? MAKE SURE THAT THAT, THAT, THAT THE, THAT THE LIGHTS STAY ON AND THAT'S DONE EFFICIENTLY AND THAT YOU, YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE RESULTS, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T OVER-ENGINEER IN THE SENSE THAT TODAY'S SOLUTIONS ARE WHAT APPEARS TO SEEM TO WORK, UH, WON'T REALLY BE THERE TOMORROW. 
          AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, UH, SORRY, IT BECOME COMMERCIAL, BUT THE PM FORWARD CAPACITY MARKET, RPM 20 YEARS AGO IT WAS TALKED ABOUT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THIS, 'CAUSE MARKETS DON'T WORK. 
          YOU CAN'T FILL THE GAP, RIGHT? WELL, WE WENT A DIFFERENT DIRECTION AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE TWEAKED ANCILLARY SERVER ON TOP OF THAT AND SO FORTH, BUT IT HAS ACCOMMODATED THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES. 
          'CAUSE THE MARKET CAME IN AND FILLED THAT IN. 
          THEY ARE STRUGGLING MIGHTILY UP NORTH WITH THE VERY CORE THINGS THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING BECAUSE THEY, THEY TRIED TO FIND TOO MANY SOLUTIONS DEFINITIVELY RATHER THAN PROVIDING THE RIGHT INCENTIVES FOR THE MARKET TO FILL THAT IN. 
          SO WE HAVE TO KE KEEP IN MIND WHEN YOU TALK, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS, THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE ENGINEERING THINGS, WE MAY NEED MORE. 
          AN EXAMPLE, YOU NEED ECRS, RIGHT? YOU NEED A RAMPING PRODUCT. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          UM, YOU MAY NEED MORE OR LESS IN NON SPIN, BUT DON'T PUT OVERLY CONS, DON'T OVERLY CONSTRAIN THE MARKET WITH ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS THAT SEEM TO WORK NOW THAT MIGHT BE CORRECTED BY THE MARKET MORE EFFICIENTLY AND PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH A WIDER RANGE OF SERVICES AND, UH, PRODUCTS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE. 
          SO, BE MODEST IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS CAN DO. 
          [04:25:01]
THIS IS A GREAT TEACHING TOOL AND IT A GREAT THINKING TOOL WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IT. 
          SO I'VE SAID MY PIECE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, RYAN. 
          I THINK IT'S ERIC. 
          ERIC GOFF. 
          UH, HOWDY. 
          SO I SAID A LOT AT WMS, SO I WON'T REPEAT MYSELF 'CAUSE YOU WERE THERE AND I THINK OTHER PEOPLE WERE THERE TOO. 
          I ALSO THINK I'VE GOT A START VIDEO BUTTON, SO LET ME JUST PUSH THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          BUT, UM, I DO WANT TO TRY TO MOVE PAST METAPHORS AND ANALOGIES AS WE GET INTO ANSWERING SERVICES, ESPECIALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE CONSIDERING WHAT WE DO ABOUT THE MARKET, UH, AND ANSWERING SERVICES, THEY'RE CERTAINLY USEFUL TO HELP UNDERSTAND THINGS. 
          BUT I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE A QUICK SILLY EXAMPLE OF, OF HOW SOMETIMES THEY CAN BE NOT USEFUL. 
          SO IN THE DIGGING A HOLE METAPHOR, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU DIG A HOLE TO GET OIL AND A MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO GET MORE OIL IS TO KEEP DIGGING OR TO DIG SIDEWAYS. 
          UH, AND, UM, THAT'S NOT HELPFUL ANALOGY, BUT IT'S A METAPHOR I CAN USE TO SAY, UH, OH, AND A MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO DIG IS GONNA GET TO RESOURCE ADEQUACY. 
          SO ALL THAT ASIDE ISN'T, ISN'T TO CRITICIZE, BUT TO SAY, I'D REALLY LIKE TO GET TO LIKE THE CORE REASONS WHY WE NEED TO DO THINGS AND THEN COME UP WITH THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE OR EFFICIENT WAY TO DO THOSE THINGS. 
          UM, AND, UM, SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BUY A 10 MINUTE RESERVE SERVICE FOR SOMETHING WE KNOW ABOUT DAYS IN ADVANCE. 
          UH, WHEN WE KNOW ABOUT A DAYS IN ADVANCE, IT MIGHT BE CHEAPER TO PROCURE SOMETHING THAT TAKES A LOT OF LEAD TIME. 
          UM, MM-HMM, , AND YOU STILL SOLVE THE UNDERLYING RESOURCE ADVOCACY PROBLEM. 
          UM, SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO FINDING COMMENTS, BUT, UM, I, I'D REALLY LIKE TO GET TO WHAT IT IS WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, UM, MORE SPECIFICALLY, BUT THIS IS A, A GREAT STARTING POINT. 
          UM, AND, AND WE CAN DIG DEEPER,  DIG DEEPER. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          . 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK, THANK YOU ERIC. 
          I APPRECIATE IT AS WELL. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S, THIS IS THE DISCUSSION I WAS HOPING TO GET, RIGHT? SOME GOOD THOUGHTS AND FEEDBACK, UM, AND DIALOGUE. 
          AND SO I HOPE TO, I HOPE TO CAPTURE THAT IN YOUR COMMENTS AS WELL. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GONNA GET SOME GOOD COMMENTS AND YEAH, I, I'D IMAGINE SOME, SOME TWEAKING, BUT AS ERIC ERIC JUST SAID, IS WE'RE GONNA MOVE FROM THE, YOU KNOW, FRAMEWORK, HIGH LEVEL STAGE, AND WE'RE GONNA START LOOKING AT, LOOKING AT THIS, UM, AND MORE APPLIED, IF YOU WILL, IN TERMS OF, UH, WHERE ARE WE, WHAT INITIATIVES DO WE HAVE? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THINGS DO THEY, THEY DO OR NOT DO, RIGHT? AND, UM, I THINK THAT THAT'LL HELP US. 
          AND UM, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LEGISLATIVE SESSION COMING UP AND, UM, THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO. 
          UM, SO, UH, ANYWAY, SO THIS IS, THIS IS A GOOD START HERE. 
          I THINK THIS IS GREAT. 
          I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK AND LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR COMMENTS. 
          SO I'LL HAND IT BACK TO YOU, CAITLYN. 
          THANK YOU. 
           OKAY, THANKS KEITH. 
          SO WE WILL PLAN TO, ANN, ARE YOU GONNA SEND OUT A NOTICE YOU SAID FOR, FOR COMMENTS, MAYBE REMINDING PEOPLE AFTER THE NOVEMBER TECH, OR WE CAN REMIND PEOPLE AT THE NOVEMBER TECH AND HAVE THESE DUE SOME TIME BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS IN DECEMBER AND THEN TAKE IT UP AT JANUARY TECH? YEAH, WE CAN, UM, SEND OUT AN EMAIL WITH KEITH'S PRESENTATION ATTACHED AND THEN REMIND PEOPLE WHERE TO SEND THEIR COMMENTS. 
          OKAY. 
          PRIOR TO THE NEXT, YEAH. 
          ALRIGHT, SO LET'S, UM, MOVE ON TO THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STATUS UPDATE. 
          WAS ERIC BLAKE, YOU MENTIONED WE HAVE MOVED THIS TO T FROM WMS. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. 
          CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? YES. 
          YEAH, WE CAN. 
          GREAT. 
          WELL, I'LL GET STARTED HERE. 
          AS I KNOW THE AGENDA HAS BEEN PRETTY FULL TODAY. 
          UM, MY NAME IS CHRIS CAUSEWAY. 
          I AM ENGINEERING THE LARGE LOAD INTEGRATION TEAM AT ERCOT AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THE EQ STATUS UPDATE FOR YOU GUYS TODAY. 
          SO LOOKING AT THIS FIRST SLIDE HERE, OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF STANDALONE, UH, REQUESTS COMING IN. 
          THIS CAN BE SEEN IN THE GRAPH, YOU KNOW, EVERY MONTH THERE'S SIGNIFICANT INCREASES. 
          UH, THERE ARE INCREASES IN THIS CO-LOCATED PROJECTS, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS WE'RE SEEING, UM, FOR THE STANDALONE GROWTH. 
          [04:30:01]
SO CHANGES SINCE LAST SEPTEMBER, UH, WE'VE SEEN A COMBINATION OF NEW STANDALONE AND COLOCATED PROJECTS. 
          THERE'S BEEN A FEW PROJECT CANCELLATIONS, BUT OVERALL, UM, THE QUEUE HAS INCREASED BY A LITTLE OVER FIVE GIGAWATTS. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO LOOKING AT THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION QUEUE, THE GRAPH ON THE LEFT SHOWS THE IN-SERVICE STATES AND THE, UH, LOAD MEGAWATTS. 
          AND THIS IS A PROJECTION BASED ON THE REQUESTED MEGAWATTS. 
          UM, WE ARE RECEIVING FOR PROJECTS AND THEIR IN-SERVICE STATES. 
          UH, MOST OF THESE YEARS WE'RE SEEING 10 PLUS GIGAWATTS, UM, BETWEEN 2024 AND 2027 AND MOST RECENTLY 20 27, 20 28. 
          UM, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS NEARLY 13 GIGAWATTS OF GROWTH. 
          SO A LOT OF, UM, PROJECT REQUESTS COMING IN AND MAJORITY OF THESE MEGAWATTS ARE UNDER AIRCRAFT REVIEW. 
          SO WHAT THIS MEANS IS, IS WE'RE WORKING WITH THE TSPS TO REVIEW THEIR STUDIES, UM, TO EITHER APPROVE OR, YOU KNOW, FIND SOLUTIONS OF HOW WE CAN, UM, LIMIT THE PROJECTS AND GET SOME TYPE OF MEGAWATTS FOR THEM. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO FOR AIRCRAFT APPROVALS OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, WE CAN SEE THIS MONTH THERE'S BEEN SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE APPROVED OR THE PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED AND SINCE OCTOBER, UM, TOTAL LOAD WITH PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED INCREASED, UM, THIS PAST MONTH. 
          THERE WAS A SLIGHT DECREASE, UM, IN THE MIDDLE HALF OF THIS YEAR. 
          UM, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE SEEING A INCREASE. 
          SO WE THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS THIS SHOULD, UM, CONTINUE TO INCREASE. 
          AND OVER THE PAST, UM, YEAR ABOUT 1,771 MEGAWATTS LOAD HAS BEEN APPROVED TO ENERGIZE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          LOOKING AT LOADS APPROVED TO ENERGIZE, UM, BY ZONE AND PROJECT TYPE OF A TOTAL OF 5,697 MEGAWATTS APPROVED TO ENERGIZE 3055 MEGAWATTS RESIDES IN LOAD ZONE WEST AND 2,642 MEGAWATTS RESIDES IN OTHER LOAD ZONES. 
          UM, THIS HAS SHOWN THE BOTTOM LEFT GRAPH HERE, UH, LOAD ZONE WEST ON THE LEFT AND THE ALL OTHER LOAD ZONES AGGREGATED IS ON THE RIGHT AND ON THE RIGHT GRAPH, 4,622 MEGAWATTS CONSISTS OF STANDALONE PROJECTS AND 1075 MEGAWATTS CONSISTS OF CO-LOCATED PROJECTS. 
          UH, AS WE SAW A TREND EARLIER, WE DO HAVE MORE STANDALONE PROJECTS IN THE QUEUE AND MORE APPROVED, UM, OR NON SIMULTANEOUS PEAK LOAD THAT WE'RE SEEING A LITTLE LOWER DOUBLE AND REMAINING APPROVED ENERGIZED LOAD. 
          THERE'S SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IN STANDALONE JUST BASED ON THE Q SIZE AND REQUESTS COMING IN FOR STANDALONE PROJECTS. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO SOME MORE OBSERVATIONS, UH, FOR LOADS APPROVED TO ENERGIZE 5,697 MEGAWATTS THAT HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE ERCOT HAS RESERVED A NON SIMULTANEOUS PEAK CONSUMPTION OF A LITTLE OVER 3,500 MEGAWATTS. 
          AND THIS IS CALCULATED BASED ON THE MAXIMUM VALUE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOAD, REGARDLESS WHEN THAT OCCURRED AT TIME. 
          AND THIS VALUE REPRESENTS HOW MUCH APPROVED LOAD AIRCO BELIEVES IS NOW OPERATIONAL. 
          AND LOOKING AT THE GRAPH BASED ON THE OBSERVED ON SIMULTANEOUS PEAK LOAD, WHICH IS IN BLUE, WE CAN SEE THAT STEADILY INCREASING, UM, EVERY MONTH AND THE REMAINING APPROVED TO ENERGIZE LOAD HAS, YOU KNOW, STAYED RELATIVELY CONSISTENT, UM, COMPARED TO THE INCREASE IN NON SIMULTANEOUS PEAK LOAD. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO SOME MORE OBSERVATIONS. 
          CROT HAS OBSERVED A SIMULTANEOUS PEAK CONSUMPTION OF 2,815 MEGAWATTS. 
          SO THIS IS THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE SUM OF ALL INDIVIDUAL LOADS. 
          AND THIS VALUE IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF LOAD THAT ERCOT, UM, HAS SEEN AT A SINGLE POINT IN TIME OR SERVED IN A SINGLE POINT IN TIME. 
          AND LOOKING AT THE GRAPH WITH THE IN THE GREEN IS THE OBSERVED SIMULTANEOUS PEAK LOAD. 
          THIS IS INCREASING, UM, IT'S A LITTLE BIT SLOWER THAN THE NONS SIMULTANEOUS PEAK LOAD, BUT IT STILL IS INCREASING. 
          AND THEN THE REMAINING APPROVED ENERGIZED LOAD HAS BEEN RELATIVELY, UM, CONSISTENT OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS. 
          NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. 
          SO AS I SAID, I'LL TRY TO KEEP THAT BRIEF FOR YOU GUYS. 
          IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO EMAIL THE LARGE ZONE CONNECTION@AIRCOD.COM. 
          UM, AND IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW, UH, FEEL FREE TO ASK THOSE. 
          I OKAY IF THE A QUESTION FROM EVAN NEIL? HEY EVERYBODY, UH, CAN I GET A CONFIRMATION? YOU CAN HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK 
          [04:35:01]
YOU. 
          UH, THIS IS EVAN NEIL WITH LANHAM. 
          SO CHRIS, QUICK QUESTION, UH, ON YOUR SIMULTANEOUS AND NON SIMULTANEOUS PEAK CONSUMPTION VALUES. 
          SO I SEE THAT THE NONS SIMULTANEOUS VALUE HAS BEEN INCREASING PRETTY STEADILY OVER THE PAST THREE MONTHS, BUT FOR THE PAST THREE MONTHS, THE SIMULTANEOUS VALUE HAS STAYED THE SAME, RATHER AROUND THAT 2,800 NUMBER. 
          UH, COULD ER ERCOT COMMENT AT ALL IF WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THESE LOWS THAT HAVE COME ONLINE REDUCE THEIR CONSUMPTION SINCE ORIGINALLY COMING ON AS THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WOULD THINK THOSE NUMBERS WOULD INDICATE? YOU KNOW, THAT'S A GOOD POINT, EVAN. 
          UM, I, I CANNOT COMMENT ON ANY SPECIFICS OF THAT, BUT BASED ON OUR DATA AND WE DO BELIEVE IT TO BE ACCURATE, UM, THAT COULD BE AN ASSUMPTION, UM, OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. 
          UM, THIS COULD LIKELY INCREASE IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BUT BASED ON, YOU KNOW, LOWER, LOWER LOAD ON CERTAIN PROJECTS, THAT COULD BE WHY WE'RE SEEING, UM, SIMILAR NUMBERS. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          WOULD, WOULD ERCOT CONSIDER POSSIBLY PRESENTING VALUES FOR SIMULTANEOUS PEAK CONSUMPTION ON A MONTHLY BASIS RATHER THAN A, AN ALL TIME PEAK CONSUMPTION VALUE? THAT'S SOMETHING I'D HAVE TO TALK INTERNALLY WITH MY TEAM. 
          I MEAN WE DO WANNA KEEP, YOU KNOW, CONFIDENTIALITY PROJECTS. 
          UM, SO WE DON'T WANNA GIVE TWO GRANULAR INFORMATION UM, THAT COULD, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD INFER WHAT PROJECTS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED MEGAWATTS. 
          SO I'LL TALK WITH MY TEAM AND I'LL GET BACK TO YOU IF WE CAN UPDATE OR PROVIDE A NEW CHART THAT COULD PROVIDE MORE SPECIFICS ON THAT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU EVERYONE. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE ARE ON TO 
          [16. Other Business]
OTHER BUSINESS. 
          IT IS, UH, MEMBERSHIP SEGMENT ELECTION TIME VIE. 
          DO YOU HAVE AN UPDATE FOR US OR INFORMATION? YES. 
          JUST A REMINDER, UH, THE DATE OF RECORD IS THIS COMING FRIDAY, I'M SURE SINCE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SEPTEMBER. 
          EVERYBODY'S GOT ALL THEIR MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION AND FEES IN AND TAKEN CARE OF AND THE ELECTION PROCESS WILL START THIS COMING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5TH. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO SEND THAT REMINDER AND NOTICES HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE INDIVIDUAL SEGMENTS FOR THE ELECTION, SO YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT ON MONDAY. 
          AND THEN WE WILL SEND OUT THE ELECTION NOTICE AS IT STARTS ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5TH. 
          THERE. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR THAT? I DON'T SEE ANY. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THE TECH PROCEDURE IMPROVEMENT, UM, THIS IS ME, I'M PROBABLY GONNA ASK CORY TO WEIGH IN. 
          UM, THIS IS A CONVERSATION WE HAD DURING NOVEMBER 2 45 WHERE WE, YOU KNOW, AS THAT PROGRESSED AND WE WERE CONSIDERING IT, THAT TECH, UM, INSTEAD OF KIND OF A CONSOLIDATED RED LINE, OUR, OUR PROCESS TURNS OUT THE RED LINE WHERE EACH AUTHOR SHOWS. 
          SO YOU COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, 20 DIFFERENT COLORS ON, ON SOMETHING LIKE NO 2 45. 
          AND SO WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE IDEA OF HAVING A CONSOLIDATED VERSION SO IT WOULD BE NOT A BLACK LINE. 
          UM, SO YOU WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, HIT HITTING VIEW FINAL VERSION DOESN'T, DOESN'T HELP YOU. 
          WE'D WANNA SEE WHAT WAS CHANGED BUT SEE IT IN KIND OF A CONSOLIDATED MANNER. 
          UM, AND I THINK THE PROPOSAL COREY AND I HAD BEEN WORKING ON WOULD KIND OF LEAVE IT UP TO EITHER TRACK THE BODY OR TECH LEADERSHIP DISCRETION, WHETHER WE WOULD WANT THAT KIND OF CONSOLIDATED VERSION WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING WITH THE TECH, EASIER TO READ AND UNDERSTAND. 
          ALSO IN THE CASE OF SOMETHING LIKE 2 45 EASIER FOR MARKET ROLES TO PROCESS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, THEY WERE GETTING COMMENTS AND THEN IT WOULD TAKE MANY HOURS OF PROCESS TIME FOR THEM TO KIND OF HAVING TO WORK OVERNIGHT I'M SURE DURING 2 45. 
          SO THAT WAS AN IDEA WE HAD THERE. 
          COREY, AM I LEAVING ANYTHING OUT? NOPE, I THINK YOU GOT IT. 
          FOR THOSE, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT LIVED THROUGH NO, TWO FORTY FIVE, YOU WILL CALL ONE OF THE MANY TAC MEETINGS. 
          IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT, YOU KNOW, IT HAD TURNED INTO A KALEIDO SCOPE OF VERY DIFFICULT TO READ LANGUAGE. 
          AND SO IT WAS SUGGESTED, HEY, WOULDN'T A CONSOLIDATED VERSION BE BETTER? AND WE WERE REALLY ONLY CONSTRICTED BY THE EXISTING SECTION 21 LANGUAGE THAT MANDATES THAT YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE I THE IDENTIFICATION OF AUTHORSHIP OF COMMENTS. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT CAITLYN AND I HAVE BEEN KICKING AROUND AND SOFTENING THIS LANGUAGE TO ALLOW, YOU KNOW, THE OPTION, NOT TO SAY WE WOULD TAKE IT AWAY, BUT JUST THE OPTION TO ALLOW TAC LEADERSHIP OR YOU 
          [04:40:01]
KNOW, AN ACTION ATTACK TO CONSOLIDATE THE AUTHORSHIP SO THAT IN THE EXAMPLE OF NO 2 45, ALL OF THOSE RED LINES WOULD'VE NETTED OUT TO SAY, HERE'S THE BLACK BASELINE AND THEN HERE'S RED LINES AUTHORED AS HIT ROSS OR AUTHORED AS T DEPENDING ON WHICH LEVEL WE WERE AT, JUST TO, SO YOU COULD SEE WHAT'S OLD, WHAT'S NEW. 
          YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THE HISTORY, ALL OF THE POSTED DOCUMENTS WOULD STILL BE THERE AS KEY DOCUMENTS TO SEE WHO FILED WHAT THE PRECEDING LEVEL OF REPORT, LIKE THE EXAMPLE OF NUMBER 2 45, THE ROSS REPORT WOULD STILL BE RAINBOW COLORED, BUT IT'S JUST ONCE THAT GOT TO THE TACK LEVEL AND WE WERE PUSHING IT ONTO THE BOARD AND FOLKS NEEDED TO FILE COMMENTS TO THE BOARD AND TURN THEM AROUND QUICKLY, HAVING THAT CONSOLIDATED VERSION WOULD'VE BEEN A HECK OF A LOT CLEANER AND EASIER FOR EVERYONE. 
          SO AGAIN, IT WOULD JUST BE A A A USED ONCE IN A HUNDRED TIMES HOPEFULLY, BUT IT WOULD BE THE OPTIONALITY IS WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO ADD IN TO GIVE TAC LEADERSHIP OR TAC AS A WHOLE. 
          THE ABILITY TO SAY THAT CONSOLIDATED AUTHORSHIP IS THE APPROVED VERSION FOR NORE 2 45. 
          WE ENDED UP WITH THIS SORT OF CLIFF NOTES VERSION THAT FOLKS WOULD LOOK AT BUT THEN HAVE TO FLIP BACK TO THE KALEIDOSCOPE TO MAKE THEIR FORMAL COMMENTS OR THEY SUBMITTED THEIR FORMAL COMMENTS ON THE CLEANED UP VERSION AND WE THEN HAD TO PORT IT OVER TO THE KALEIDOSCOPE TO MAKE IT OFFICIAL AND THEN GET THEM TO REVIEW IT ALL AGAIN. 
          SO AGAIN, JUST LESSONS LEARNED FROM NUMBER 2 45, WHICH I'M SURE WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN, WILL BE IN TOTAL SUPPORT OF EACH OTHER ON FUTURE REVISION REQUESTS. 
          BUT SHOULD THAT HAPPEN AGAIN, THIS IS THE KIND OF CHANGE THAT WOULD BE A VERY SMALL ONE IN TERMS OF REDLINING, BUT COULD HAVE A, A BIG IMPACT ON EVERYONE'S SHOP WHEN IT'S TIME TO FILE COMMONS. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY FEEDBACK HERE? OKAY, RICHARD SAYS LANGUAGE DOESN'T PROHIBIT IT. 
          SO I THINK, LET ME RICHARD, RICHARD, DO YOU WANNA SAY YOUR COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL SEE IF CORY CAN ADDRESS IT? UH, UM, MY, MY THOUGHT IF I UNDERSTOOD IT RIGHT WAS THERE'S NOTHING THAT PROHIBITED. 
          YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION REPORT THAT HAS IT, THAT PRESERVES EVERYBODY'S COMMENT. 
          IT'S THERE AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS WHEN YOU SEND THE T REPORT OUT, IT CAN'T BE A, A SINGLE RED LINE ADOPTED BY TAC BECAUSE AT THAT POINT TAC HAS ADOPTED AND, AND UM, UH, TAKEN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT WORD THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE TAKEN AND MAKING THEIR OWN ALL THE COMMENTS. 
          AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO SEE THAT INDIVIDUAL RED LINE, THEY CAN STILL GO BACK. 
          BUT I DON'T CARE IF YOU CHANGE IT TOO IN MY ENGINEERING NON-LEGAL OPINION. 
          CAITLYN, THIS, THIS IS ANN. 
          I DON'T THINK, YEAH, YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT, YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENTION WHEN THIS IS WRITTEN. 
          CAN'T TAKE IT BACK AND LOOK AT IT AND IF WE HAVE TO REVISE SECTION 21 THEN WE'LL DO THAT. 
          UM, AND YOU KNOW, TAP CAN DISCUSS IT WHEN THE MPR COMES OUT AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. 
          SO COREY, AND I'LL KEEP WORKING ON THAT AND YOU KNOW, YOU'LL SEE AN NPR. 
          ALRIGHT, 
          [17. Combo Ballot (Vote)]
WE ARE READY FINALLY. 
          READY FOR THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          HERE IS A LOT ON IT TODAY. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE COMBO BALLOT? ALL THE VOTING ITEMS ARE ON SCREEN. 
          SURE. 
          THIS IS BOB. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION FROM BOB. 
          BOB HILTON. 
          SECOND FROM DAVID KEY. 
          OKAY, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, CORY. 
          ALRIGHT, KEEP THE PARTY ROLLING ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH ERIC GOLF. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NAVA? YES. 
          THANK YOU GARRETT. 
          OH, GOT YOU IN CHAT, DEREK. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ERIC SCHUBERT? YES, THANK YOU SIR. 
          MARK DREYFUS. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU NICK. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          AND OUR CO-OPS. 
          UH, MIKE HAD TO LEAVE US, BUT HE PASSED HIS VOTE TO BLAKE. 
          IS BLAKE 
          [04:45:01]
FOR MIKE AND THEN BLAKE FOR YOURSELF. 
          DID WE LOSE BLAKE TOO? I'LL LOOP BACK TO HIM. 
          HOW ABOUT ERIC BLAKEY? YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANKS SIR. 
          JOHN PATRICK? YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. 
          BRIAN? YES. 
          I'M SORRY BRIAN, I THOUGHT YOU COME OFF MUTE, BUT I DIDN'T GET THE VOTE. 
          GOT YOUR YES IN THE CHAT. 
          THANKS SIR. 
          CAITLIN? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BOB HILTON. 
          YES SIR. 
          THANKS SIR. 
          NED? YES. 
          THANK YOU COREY. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
          ONTO THE IPM IS RIGHT? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU JEREMY. 
          YEP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU STILL WITH US? OKAY, GOT YOU IN CHAT. 
          IAN AND BLAKE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'VE GOT YOU AND MIKE, SO THOSE YESES IN THE CHAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, BACK TO OUR, AT THE END, IT'S MATT. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU ON TO OUR IRE BILL. 
          YES. 
          AND THEN BILL FOR JENNIFER. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JAY? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CHRIS. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANDRE IOUS. 
          RICHARD? YES. 
          THANK YOU DAVID. 
          YES, THANK YOU COLIN. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          AND ROB FOR KEITH? YES, THANK YOU SIR. 
          ONTO THE MUNI. 
          IT'S CURTIS FOR RUFFLE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU JOSE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU DAVID. 
          YES, THANK YOU COREY. 
          THANKS SIR. 
          ALICIA? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MOTION CARRIES. 
          UNANIM PLEA. 
          THANK Y'ALL. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU COREY. 
          ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE UH, END WITH THE PARTY? I PARTY IS OVER. 
          GO HOME. 
          OKAY. 
          SOMEBODY BRING COOKIES TO, UH, NOVEMBER TECH. 
          THANK YOU EVERYBODY. 
          I, WE WILL SEE YOU IN PERSON IN NOVEMBER.
* 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.