* 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. [00:00:01] GOOD MORNING. THIS IS STACY CLIFTON WITH ERCOT. UH, BEFORE WE GET STARTED WITH THE MAY 28TH TAC MEETING, JUST WANTED TO GO THROUGH THE MEETING REMINDERS VERY QUICKLY. UM, THEY ARE IN THE CHAT, BUT WE ARE USING THE CHAT FUNCTION, THE Q4 DISCUSSIONS OR MOTIONS. PLEASE WAIT FOR THE CHAIR TO RECOGNIZE YOU, UH, BEFORE YOU BEGIN SPEAKING. AND ALSO, AS WE APPROACH THE BALLOTING PROCESS, WE'RE ASKING SEATED REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE SURE THEY UNMUTE THEMSELVES AS WE APPROACH YOUR SEGMENT. AND THEN AFTER YOU HAVE CAST YOUR VOTE, PLEASE RETURN TO THE MUTE FUNCTION THAT WILL HELP US BE A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENT WITH THE VALIDATING PROCESS PROCESS. AND THEN IF THE WEBEX ENDS FOR ANY REASON, GIVE US JUST A FEW MINUTES. WE WILL START THE WEBEX WITH THE SAME, UH, MEETING DETAILS. AND IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THAT, WE WILL SEND SOMETHING OUT TO THE TAX. LISTERV AND KATELIN. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AND ARE, UH, READY TO GO WHEN YOU'RE READY. OKAY. I THINK I'M READY IF ANN WILL STOP SENDING ME LESS MINUTE EMAILS. UM, . OKAY. UH, GOOD MORNING. IT IS MAY 28TH. THIS IS OUR MAY TECH MEETING. WE ARE WEBEX [1. Antitrust Admonition] ONLY. THE ANTITRUST IS ON THE SCREEN. UM, TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT ANTITRUST LIABILITY, PARTICIPANTS IN ERCO ACTIVITIES SHOULD REFRAIN FROM PROPOSING ANY ACTION OR MEASURE THAT WOULD EXCEED ORCAS AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. AND THERE IS MORE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE. LET ME SEE. UM, SO TODAY FOR PROXIES AND ALTERNATIVE REPRESENTATIVES, UM, SO PROX IN, IN THE CONSUMER SEGMENT, ERIC GOFF, RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER HAS HIS PROXY TO NAVA FOR NPRR 1282 ONLY. UM, ALSO IN THE CONSUMER SEGMENT, NICK FEHRENBACH HAS HIS PROXY TO MARK REISS. I HAVE MY PROXY TO BOB HILTON AT SOME POINT IN THE AFTERNOON. IF WE ARE STILL GOING, UM, IN THE REP SEGMENT, JAY HARPO HAS HIS PROXY TO CHRIS HENDRICKS. AND THEN FOR ALTER REPS AND THE CO-OP SEGMENT, MIKE, WE HAS HIS, HAS ALT REP, UH, JOE DAN WILSON. UH, KEITH NICKS IN THE IOU SEGMENT HAS ALT REP ROD BEVEL. AND IN THE MUNICIPAL SEGMENT, RUSSELL FRANKLIN HAS HIS ALT REP, CURTIS CAMPO, QUITE A FEW TODAY. I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD A GOOD, UH, HOLIDAY WEEKEND. RICHARD ROSS, DO WE HAVE A, UH, UH, SUSIE, I MEANT TO ASK YOU THIS BECAUSE I PRINTED THIS LAST NIGHT. DO WE HAVE ADDITIONAL PROXIES OR ALT REPS I SEE IN THE QUEUE? SUZIE? UM, I JUST RECEIVED ONE NOW. UM, GARRETT KENT, UH, WILL NOT BE, I'M SORRY. UH, ERIC SCHUBERT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THE MEETING, AND HE HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO, UH, GARRETT KENT. GREAT. ALRIGHT. OKAY. I KNEW THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN AND I MADE A MENTAL NOTE TO ASK YOU AND I STILL FORGOT. SO NOW WE WILL GO TO, UH, WE SHOULD PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA. UH, RICHARD ROSS, WHAT IS THE, UH, THEME FOR MAY KATIE? I DON'T BELIEVE RICHARD HAS JOINED US YET. RICHARD HAS NOT JOINED US YET. OKAY. UM, WE WILL MOVE RIGHT ALONG. SO WE [2. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote) • April 23, 2025] ARE ONTO OUR MEETING MINUTE. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE HAD ANY GESTURE CHANGE WITH OR CORRECTION. IS THAT CORRECT, SUZIE? THAT IS CORRECT. CAITLYN, I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY REVISIONS OR, UH, EDITS TO THE MINUTES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT. UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OBJECTIONS. OUR MEETING MINUTE CORRESPONDENT LET ME KNOW THAT, UH, THE, THE MINUTES DON'T INCLUDE THE THEMES OF THE MONTH OR THE THEMES COOKIES. SO, UH, WE MIGHT NEED TO CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE WE'LL NEED FUTURE TECH MEMBERSHIP TO, TO KNOW WHAT WE WERE REALLY DOING HERE. UM, [3. Meeting Updates • PUCT Open Meetings] SO LET'S MOVE ALONG THE PUC OPEN MEETING. UH, THE, THE MEETING UPDATES, UH, THIS IS WHERE WE PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE BOARD AND PUC OPEN MEETING, UH, WHERE OUR REVISION REQUESTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED SINCE OUR LAST TECH MEETING, WHICH WAS APRIL TECH AT THE MAY 15TH PUC OPEN MEETING. THE COMMISSION APPROVED ALL THE REVISION REQUESTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE ERCOT BOARD MEETING [00:05:01] THE ERCOT BOARD IN THEIR, AT THEIR MEETING IN APRIL. THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS HERE? OKAY. [4. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions] SO NOW WE ARE ON TO OUR REVIEW OF REVISION REQUEST ARIES, OR CUT MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS. AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO ANN. OKAY. THANKS KATELYN. AND APOLOGIES FOR ALL THE LAST MINUTE EMAILS TODAY, . ALL RIGHT. UM, WE HAVE, Y'ALL CAN HEAR ME OKAY? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. OKAY. SO WE HAVE 10 REVISION REQUESTS FOR TACK CONSIDERATION. THIS IS NOT INCLUDING NO 2 64, WHICH WILL REMAIN TABLED. UM, BUT OF THE 10, WE HAVE TWO THAT HIT, UM, THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE NUMBER TWO, AND THEN SEVEN THAT ARE IN THE GENERAL SYSTEM PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS BUCKET AND ONE FALLS IN THAT REGULATORY REQUIREMENT BUCKET. UM, WE DO HAVE SEVERAL HERE THAT HAVE, UM, A BUDGETARY IMPACT THIS MONTH. 1226 AND 1267. BOTH HAVE A HUNDRED K TO ONE 50 K BUDGET IMPACT, AND THEN 1238 HAS A 700 K TO $1 MILLION IMPACT. UM, CREDIT FINANCE SUBGROUP HAS REVIEWED ALL THE NPRS AND NO CREDIT IMPLICATIONS THERE. ERCOT DOES SUPPORT APPROVAL OF ALL OF THE REVISION REQUESTS EXCEPT FOR NPR 1238 AND NO 2 65. UM, ORCUTT DOES NOT SUPPORT APPROVAL OF THESE, UM, AS THEY'RE INCONSISTENT WITH SENATE BILL SIX. AND THEN THE IMM HAS NO OPINION ON ALL OF THE REVISION REQUESTS EXCEPT FOR NPR 1282. AND THEY, UM, OPPOSE THE PRS RECOMMENDATION, BUT SUPPORT THE FIVE 13 IMM COMMENTS. AND I THINK WE'LL HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON ALL OF THOSE UNDER THE PRS REPORT. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. UM, JEFF OR ANDREW FROM THE IMM, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING, ANDREW, FROM THE IMM HERE? UH, I THINK WE'RE GOOD TO GO UNTIL WE GET TO THE DISCUSSION ON 1282. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE HERE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ALONG. OKAY. DO WE HAVE RICHARD YET FOR OUR THEME? I AM NOT GONNA HAVE A THEME TODAY. OKAY. OKAY. NED, WILL YOU MAKE SURE THE MINUTE NEXT MONTH'S DAY, THERE WAS NO THEME. ALL RIGHT. [5. PRS Report (Vote)] UM, NOW WE CAN MOVE ALONG TO THE PRS REPORT. UH, DIANA, WHY DON'T WE TAKE THIS FIRST SLIDE AND TAKE A PAUSE AND, AND SEE IF WE CAN DO THESE THREE MPRS AND, AND THEN, UM, WE'LL HANDLE THE NEXT TWO ON THE NEXT SLIDE KIND OF SEPARATELY. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. DIANA COLEMAN WITH CPS ENERGY WITH THE MAY PRS REPORT. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS FOR TAX CONSIDERATION THIS MORNING THAT WERE UNOPPOSED THAT DO HAVE IN IMPACT. THE, UH, FIRST ITEM IS NPRR 1226 THAT COMES TO US FROM THE ERCOT STEEL MILLS ON FEBRUARY 12TH. WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY THE FEBRUARY 11TH ERCO COMMENTS ON MAY 14TH. WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE MARCH 12TH PRS REPORT THAT WAS REVISED BY PRS AS WELL AS THE MAY 5TH IA WITH THE COST AND PRIORITY RANK THAT YOU SEE THERE ON THE SCREEN. 1267 IS OUR SECOND ITEM. THIS IS COMING TO US FROM THE JOINT SPONSORS ON APRIL 9TH. WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY THE FEBRUARY 8TH OR 28TH. RELIANT COMMENTS ON MAY 14TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE APRIL 9TH PRS REPORT AND THE MAY 13TH IA WITH A RECOMMENDED PRIORITY AND RANK AND, UH, COST THERE ON THE SCREEN. AND THEN FINALLY, 1276, WHICH COMES TO US FROM ERHA, UH, IN APRIL. UH, PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED ON MAY 14TH. WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO TAG THE APRIL 9TH PRS REPORT AND THE MARCH 10TH IA THAT IS THERE ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU ALL. AND KAITLYN, I WILL PAUSE. ALRIGHT. UM, SO I BELIEVE WE HAVE DESKTOP EDITS TO MPR 1226. [00:10:04] IS THAT CORRECT? IS SOMEBODY FROM ERCOT WENT TO GO OVER THOSE? HEY, CAITLIN, IT'S CORY. YEAH. UH, IN THE VARIOUS COOKS IN THE KITCHEN, UM, FINE TUNING THE LANGUAGE ON 1226 TO TURN IT INTO SOMETHING THAT PRS PASSED, WE MANAGED TO BUTCHER THE COVER PAGE LANGUAGE TO WHERE IT HAD A LOT OF COMMENTARY LEFT OVER, BUT IT DIDN'T HAVE THE SORT OF STANDARDIZED FORMAT OF THIS IS WHAT THE NPRR DOES. SO, UM, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS LITERALLY THE RED LINE BELOW OF WHAT THE PROTOCOLS SAY ERCOT WILL DO, LIFT IT UP INTO THE COVER PAGE SO THAT FUTURE FOLKS READING THIS AND ALL THE VARIOUS MEMOS TO GET PREPARED ABOUT REVISION REQUEST CAN ACTUALLY HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THIS NPRR DOES.DOT DO. SO THIS IS JUST DESCRIBING THAT REPORT AND THE ACTIVITIES OF PAID ESTIMATED LOAD THAT 1226 WOULD CREATE. SO THAT'S THE ONLY NOT THAT WE HAVE HERE, IT'S JUST PUTTING SOME OF THE RED LINES FROM THE PROTOCOLS UP HERE INTO THE DESCRIPTION SO FUTURE GENERATIONS WILL KNOW WHAT THE SUPERIOR DOES. SO IF Y'ALL ARE OKAY WITH JUST LIKE THE MINUTE YEP, THE GENERAL WILL BE OKAY WITH ATTACKING AS REVISED BY T ON YOUR MOTION. THIS WOULD BE THE AS REVISED BY T. OKAY. WHY DON'T, THIS IS STRAIGHTFORWARD OR, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT. SO I'LL GIVE FOLKS A MINUTE TO READ THIS. THIS IS MARK SMITH, UH, WITH THE ERCOT STEEL MILLS. UH, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DESKTOP EDIT. GREAT. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF MPR 1226 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND THE FIVE 14 PRS REPORT AS REVISED BY PAC, UM, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPRR 1267 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FIVE 14 PRS REPORT, AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1276 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FIVE 14 PRS REPORT. CAN WE PUT THOSE THREE ON THE COMBO BALLOT? GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. OKAY. COREY, WHY DON'T WE PUT, PUT THOSE THREE, UM, ON THE OPPOSED REVISION REQUESTS ON THE COMBO BALLOT. DONE. THANK Y'ALL. ALL RIGHT. OKAY, DIANA, UM, WE'RE ACTUALLY GONNA SPLIT UP THIS NEXT SLIDE. SO WHY DON'T YOU DO 1238 AND THEN ONCE WE'RE DONE WITH THAT, I'LL, I'LL HAND IT BACK TO YOU FOR 1282 AND ACTUALLY MARTHA WILL TAKE OVER FOR THAT MPRR AS WELL. OKAY, PERFECT. UH, 1238. THIS, UH, COMES TO US, UH, FROM GOLDEN SPREAD ON MARCH 12TH. WE VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY THE FEBRUARY 25TH ON FLOOR COMMENTS. THERE WAS ONE OPPOSING VOTE FROM THE I REP SEGMENT AND ONE INSPECTION FROM THE CONSUMER MARKET SEGMENT ON MAY 14TH. WE VOTED TO ENDORSEMENT FOUR TO TAG THE APRIL 9TH PRS REPORT THAT WAS AMENDED BY THE MAY 7TH OR CO COMMENTS AND THE MAY 13TH IA, UH, WITH THE RECOMMENDED, UH, PRIORITY RANK AND THE IA THAT'S SHOWN THERE ON THE SCREEN AS WELL. OKAY. UM, AND SO WE DID HAVE A NEW IA WITH, UH, KIND OF A HIGH BUDGET IMPACT, SO I THINK WE'D LIKE TO REVIEW THAT, BUT WE ALSO HAVE NEW ERCOT COMMENTS AS WELL. SO I WILL DEFER TO ERCOT ON THE, THE ORDER OF, OF BOTH, BUT I, I ASSUME SOMEBODY WANTS TO SPEAK TO BOTH. HEY, CAITLIN, THIS IS NATHAN BIGBY WITH ERCOT. I'M HAPPY TO LET, UH, TROY COVER THE IA FIRST IF THAT'S, UH, IN ORDER. SURE. WHY DON'T WE DO IT THAT WAY? GO AHEAD. TROY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. THANK YOU. THIS IS TROY ANDERSON WITH ERCOT. UM, THE UPDATE TO THE IA YOU SEE HERE, IT WAS JUST, UH, REMOVING THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO ERCOT STAFFING THAT WAS CONSIDERED TBD IN THE FIRST IA. SO, UM, PREVIOUSLY YOU WOULD'VE SEEN TBD AND A COMMENT AT THE BOTTOM THAT IT, THAT THE IA WAS CONSIDERED SOMEWHAT PRELIMINARY FOR THAT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. BUT WE'VE HAD THE CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT NO STAFFING IMPACTS, UH, COST AND DURATION REMAIN THE SAME. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO I, I BELIEVE THAT IT PREVIOUSLY SAID PBD ON STAFFING IMPACTS, AND, AND NOW IT SAYS NO IMPACT IMPACTS TO STAFFING. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S [00:15:01] RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. ALRIGHT. OKAY. UM, SO THERE WERE COMMENTS FILED. NATHAN, I ASSUME YOU ARE SPEAKING TO THOSE. YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. KAYTON. UM, OKAY. SO BACK IN MARCH WE FILED COMMENTS ON THIS NPRR EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONSISTENCY OF, OF THE LANGUAGE WITH, UM, THE CONCEPT OF THE DEMAND MANAGEMENT SERVICE THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED IN SB SIX. UM, THAT SERVICE IS STILL PART OF SB SIX. UM, HOWEVER, WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS PRUDENT AT THIS POINT TO TABLE THE NPRR PENDING THE LEGISLATURE'S CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THIS SENATE BILL. AS, UH, FOLKS WHO ARE FOLLOWING THIS ISSUE ARE CERTAINLY AWARE THIS BILL HAS BEEN AMENDED SEVERAL TIMES HERE JUST IN THE PAST FEW DAYS. UM, AND THERE REMAINS A SIGNIFICANT, UM, CHANCE OF OR FURTHER AMENDMENT. AND SO WE THINK IT'S PRUDENT AT THIS POINT TO, TO TABLE THIS NPRR PENDING THE LEGISLATURE'S CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF THIS BILL. OUR, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE BILL IS, UM, ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW AND, AND, AND SET TO BE, UM, UH, TAKEN UP, UH, EITHER AS PART OF A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE OR, OR JUST BLESSED BY THE, THE SENATE. UM, BUT THAT DECISION, UM, HA HASN'T BEEN MADE YET AND WON'T BE MADE UNTIL PERHAPS LATER TODAY AT THE EARLIEST. SO, UM, WE BELIEVE IT'S, IT'S PRUDENT AT THIS POINT TO, UH, TO TABLE THIS AND WAIT TO SEE HOW THIS PANS OUT AT THE LEGISLATURE. OKAY. UM, WE HAVE, UH, NATHAN, YOU HAVE, UH, GARNERED QUITE A FEW AND I WILL, I WILL GO BACK, UH, THE, THE THEME OF THE MONTH. SO WE'LL HAVE TO CHANGE THEM. AND IT'S A BAD QUESTION. HE GOT TIRED. WE GOT TIRED OF EVERYBODY SAYING GOOD QUESTION. EVEN IF IT WAS BAD FOR THE MONTH, THEY HAVE ALL BEEN BAD. ALRIGHT. UM, BOB WHITMEYER AND NATHAN, REGARDING THE DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM, I MEAN, THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE NEED THIS. NPRR, THE DEMAND RESPONSE CALLED FOR IN THE LEGISLATION EXCLUDES FLEXIBLE LOADS FROM PARTICIPATING. WHAT, UM, AND SO THEY WOULD TEND TO BE ONLINE MAYBE MORE. SO, UH, WHAT, WHAT IN THE DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM DO YOU SEE THAT'S IN CONFLICT? SO, BOB, FIRST I SHOULD NOTE THAT I THINK ERCOT IS REALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CONCEPT IN THIS NPRR. WE, WE DO THINK THIS SOLVES GOLDEN SPREADS ISSUE, UH, PERHAPS ISSUES FOR OTHER TOS. IT ALSO SOLVES A PROBLEM FOR ERCOT, UM, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE. AND SO I, I WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT WE LIKE THIS SOLUTION. UM, AND, AND THE ISSUE THAT WE'VE SEEN, I THINK IS CERTAINLY, UH, A DEBATABLE ISSUE. ONE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT INTERNALLY AND WE'VE WRESTLED WITH, AND I THINK REASONABLE MINDS, YOU KNOW, MAY BE ABLE TO DISAGREE ON, ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE. THE ISSUE THAT WE HAD RAISED PREVIOUSLY, AND FRANKLY ARE STILL, YOU KNOW, STILL EVALUATING TO SOME DEGREE IS, UH, IS THE POTENTIAL FOR AN, AN IMPLICATION OR INFERENCE OF CONFLICT BASED ON, UM, WHAT WHAT APPEARS TO BE, UM, A LEGISLATIVE CONFLICT. UM, AND THAT IS THAT, UH, IF THE LEGISLATURE'S MAKING A JUDGMENT HERE THAT LARGE LOADS SHOULD NOT AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, BE SUBJECT TO CURTAILMENT AHEAD OF EEA, THEN, UM, THEN ANY PROTOCOL PROVISION THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD REQUIRE LARGE LOADS TO CURTAIL AHEAD OF EEA WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THAT UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE THAT'S NOT EXPLICITLY STATED IN THIS LEGISLATION AT THIS POINT. UM, AND, AND I'M NOT AWARE BY THE WAY THAT, THAT THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED AT THIS POINT ARE ADDRESSING THAT DEMAND MANAGEMENT SERVICE. BUT, UM, WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERN THAT, UM, THAT THIS SORT OF PROPOSAL MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE, THE SPIRIT OF THE LEGISLATION, UH, WHICH, WHICH ARGUABLY MAY BE DRAWING A LINE, UM, TO, UH, TO ENSURE THAT THE ERCOT ERCOT RIGHT OF CURTAILMENT IS SUBJECT TO, UH, THE STRINGS THAT ARE ATTACHED INTO LEGISLATION SUCH AS, UH, THE, THE DUTY TO COMPENSATE, UH, THOSE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS SERVICE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE PRICE RESPONSIVE OR NOT. UM, OR IN THE CASE OF THE, THE OTHER RIGHT OF CURTAILMENT, UM, WHICH IS, UH, IN SECTION TWO OF THE BILL WHERE THERE IS A, A, IF, IF THE THE LOAD'S GOT A 50% OR MORE BACKUP GENERATION, UM, THEN ERCOT CAN CURTAIL THAT GENERATION AFTER IT'S, UH, DEPLOYED ALL, ALL, UM, MARKET SERVICES. AND, UM, SINCE THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ERCOT HAS A RIGHT TO CURTAIL THESE LARGE LOADS, UM, THE, THE NOTION THAT ERCOT HAS A BROADER RIGHT TO CURTAIL LARGE LOADS CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE MORE QUESTIONABLE. UM, AND THAT'S REALLY KIND OF THE, UH, THE, THE BASIS THAT WE COME AT THIS FROM, EVEN, EVEN THOUGH WE UNDERSTAND THE DEMAND TO MANAGEMENT SERVICE IS [00:20:01] LIMITED TO, UH, LOADS THAT ARE NOT PRICE RESPONSIVE, THE, THE RATIONALE FOR THAT SEEMS TO BE THAT THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO ENSURE THEY'RE GETTING WHAT THEY'RE GETTING, WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR. UM, AND NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THERE ISN'T, UH, A CUT BEING MADE TO, UM, TO GIVE ERCOT CARTE BLANCHE TO CURTAIL LARGE LOADS AHEAD OF AN EEA. UM, SO ANYWAY, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE, THE INCLINATION WE HAVE AT THIS POINT IN TERMS OF THE, UM, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE. BUT AGAIN, I, I THINK THERE ARE REASONABLE PERSPECTIVES ON EACH SIDE, UM, AND, UH, WE WANNA WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS AT THE LEDGE BEFORE, UH, WE HAVE THE BOARD DECIDE THIS ISSUE. OKAY. THANK, THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. I'LL STOP. OKAY. LET'S GO TO NED. THANKS, CAITLYN. UM, AND NATHAN, THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. I, I WAS GONNA HAVE THE SAME QUESTION OF WHAT, WHAT YOU SAW THAT WAS POTENTIALLY IN CONFLICT IN 39, 1 70. AND, UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT, IT ACTUALLY, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS MORE OF THE SECTION TWO, UH, YOU KNOW, PROPOSED P 37 0 5 6 1 PROVISIONS IN, UH, SUB SUB, UH, PARAGRAPH E. UM, SO THAT, I THINK THAT RAISES, UH, SOME INTERESTING QUESTIONS. I, YOU KNOW, WE HAD NOT READ ANYTHING IN THERE AS NECESSARILY, UH, BEING IN CONFLICT, BUT, UM, ONE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, AND THIS MAY BE A BAD QUESTION TO GO WITH THE THEME OF THE MONTH, UM, IS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT CONCERN COULD BE ADDRESSED BY RETURNING TO THE VOLUNTARY DESIGNATION THAT WAS IN THE, THE PROPOSAL PREVIOUSLY. AND I THINK THAT LANGUAGE WAS, WAS LATER PULLED OUT, OR THAT THAT PART OF IT WAS PULLED OUT. SO THANKS, NED. YEAH. I GET, JUST TO CLARIFY, I THINK OUR CONCERN, OR AT LEAST THE, THE, THE ARGUMENT WOULD BE ROOTED IN BOTH SECTION TWO, WHICH IS THE CURTAILMENT OF LOADS WITH BACKUP GENERATION AND SECTION FOUR, WHICH IS THE DEMAND MANAGEMENT SERVICE. UM, I THINK OUR, THE FOCUS POINT IN OUR MARCH COMMENTS WAS THE DEMAND MANAGEMENT SERVICE, BUT I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, BOTH OF THOSE ARE INSTANCES WHERE THE LEGISLATURE HAS IDENTIFIED, YOU KNOW, EXPLICIT RIGHTS OF CURTAILMENT AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO LARGE LOADS. AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, BOTH OF THOSE ARE, ARE INDICATORS THAT, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LEGISLATURE, UH, APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN, UM, CONSTRAINING, YOU KNOW, ERCOT AUTHORITY IN, IN CERTAIN EXPLICIT, YOU KNOW, CASES. UM, JUST TO JUST CLARIFY THAT. AND I GUESS AS FAR AS THE, THE REINTRODUCTION OF THE VOLUNTARY TERM, YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S, THERE'S ANY CHANGE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROGRAM THAT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING. I THINK IT'S REALLY JUST, I THINK THE REASON WE REMOVED THAT TERM WAS BECAUSE THE, THE PROGRAM THAT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING IN 1238 REALLY IS ULTIMATELY A COMPULSORY ONE, AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE TOS THAT INVOKE THIS, THIS PROGRAM. I MEAN, THIS ONLY HAS VALUE TO ERCOT IN THOSE TOS TO THE EXTENT THAT LOADS CAN BE REQUIRED, UM, TO ENROLL IN THAT SERVICE SO THAT IT DOESN'T CAUSE THE, TO, TO VIOLATE ITS LOAD SHE RESPONSIBILITIES. I, I THINK THAT'S THE IDEA. AND IF THERE ISN'T THAT SORT OF GUARANTEE, THEN THIS KIND OF LOSES ITS VALUE. WE, WE HAD PULLED THIS OUT OF THE LARGE LOAD CONCEPT AFTER 1191 WAS WITHDRAWN BECAUSE IT WAS DECIDED THAT THIS REALLY WASN'T GOING TO PROVIDE VALUE AS A PURELY VOLUNTARY SERVICE. UM, AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, TO US IT STILL SEEMS TO BE, I SHOULD SAY, TO ME AT LEAST, IT SEEMS TO BE A BIT OF A MISCHARACTERIZATION TO CALL THAT A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM WHEN THE DESIGN IS SUCH THAT, THAT IT, THAT ENROLLMENT WOULD BE COMPULSORY, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE TOS AREA. AND IF THAT'S NOT ACCURATE, YOU KNOW, I'D CERTAINLY WELCOME, UM, GOLDEN SPREAD CLARIFYING, BUT THAT'S AT LEAST HOW I, HOW I APPROACH THE, UH, THE THOUGHT PROCESS HERE. OKAY. I, I APPRECIATE IT. I, I THINK I HAD READ IT AS, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A CHOICE THAT THE LOAD CAN MAKE IN ORDER TO HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, HAVE ACCESS. UM, BUT YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR, FOR GOLDEN SPREAD TO HELP WITH THE ONE PROCEDURAL QUESTION THEN I'LL, I'LL HAND OVER THE MIC. UM, IS, IS THERE ANYTHING, ANY REASON WHY T COULD NOT ADVANCE THIS TODAY IN ORDER TO JUST KEEP THE BALL ROLLING, BUT IF, YOU KNOW, COME THE BOARD DISCUSSION NEXT MONTH, ERCOT STILL BELIEVES THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CONFLICT TO, TO RECONCILE THE BOARD COULD KICK IT BACK TO TAC AND WE COULD REVIEW IT AT THAT POINT. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, IF YOU'RE ASKING ME THAT, THAT THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, THAT THAT COULD PROCEDURALLY HAPPEN, I THINK OUR, UH, OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF, OF STAKEHOLDER PRACTICE HAS BEEN THAT IF THERE'S A CONCERN ABOUT, [00:25:01] UM, ABOUT SOME REVISION REQUESTS THAT YOU TYPICALLY WAIT UNTIL THE OUTSTANDING ISSUE IS RESOLVED AND THEN LET IT, UM, THE SMOKING READY FOR BATTLE. DID YOUR WHISKEYS WAKE UP READY BATTLE? MM-HMM . OH, I'M SORRY. DID SOMEBODY HAVE A QUESTION? MAYBE NOT. ANYWAY, I, I, I THINK THAT'S A, I THINK THAT IS A, YOU KNOW, A PROCEDURAL AVENUE TO CONTEMPLATE. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, KEEPING IT HERE WOULD ALLOW THE STAKEHOLDERS TO, UM, IMMEDIATELY EVALUATE THAT AND NOT REQUIRE THIS TO BOUNCE BACK, UM, YOU KNOW, TO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE BOARD AND, AND THE T OKAY. THE, THE REASON I ASKED IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A JUNE BOARD AND THEN A SEPTEMBER BOARD, AND SO THERE'S A, A BIT OF TIME IN BETWEEN. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THERE IS, IF THE, YOU KNOW, THE PATH CLEARS, THEN IT'S, YOU KNOW, MORE EFFICIENT TO LET THEM, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADVANCE IT, UM, TO THE PUC FOR APPROVAL VERSUS, UH, YOU KNOW, WAITING FOR, FOR A WHILE LONGER. SO IT'S REALLY JUST THINKING THROUGH THAT LOGISTICALLY. THANKS. OKAY. I SAW WE HAVE A LOT OF CHATTER IN THE CHAT. UM, I SAW A REQUEST FOR JOE DAN TO CHIME IN, AND ACTUALLY YOU, YOU KNOW, I, I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TO SPEAK AS WELL. WE KIND OF STARTED WITH WHAT MIGHT CONFLICT WITH SB SIX. SO, SO MAYBE YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING A LITTLE BIT, UM, JOE, AND, AND NOT ONLY ANSWER ERIC, ERIC'S SPECIFIC QUESTION, BUT, BUT MAYBE GIVE US KIND OF THE, THE OVERVIEW TO START WITH. OKAY. UM, OVERVIEW OF THE ENTIRE NPR OR JUST OVERVIEW OF KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT. JUST, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT A LONG ONE, BUT JUST HERE, HERE'S OUR INTENTION AND, AND HERE ARE THE THINGS, OKAY, HERE'S, HERE'S WHAT WE DO, BECAUSE THEY SORT OF JUMPED IN WITH DOES WHAT THIS DOES, YOU KNOW, DOES THIS MVR CONFLICT WITH SB SIX, AND WE DIDN'T START WITH WHAT DOES THIS NPRR DO? DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? ABSOLUTELY. YEP. NO PROBLEM. SO, OKAY. I'LL KIND OF START FROM THE BEGINNING AND THEN, UH, LIKE, UH, SHE SAID, I'LL, I'LL SWING AROUND AND ANSWER, UM, ERIC'S QUESTION OR, OR REALLY NED'S QUESTION, UH, THAT HE WAS POSED TO, UH, NATHAN. SO, UH, SO WHAT, FROM THE BEGINNING, GOLDEN SPREAD HAS TRIED FOR, FOR PROBABLY TWO YEARS NOW, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LONGER, THREE YEARS BEFORE I EVEN TOOK, UH, THIS POSITION, GOLDEN SPREAD, UH, TO TRY TO FIND A WAY TO, UH, MITIGATE A COMPLIANCE ISSUE THAT WE SAW, UH, FROM A MANUAL LOAD SHED PERSPECTIVE, UH, AS IT RELATES TO LARGE LOADS, PARTICULARLY ONES IN OUR SMALL SERVICE TERRITORY AREAS, UH, THAT, THAT THE LARGE LOAD ITSELF WOULD BRING SUCH A, A LARGE LOAD SHED OBLIGATION THAT EVEN IF OUR, IF THAT LOAD WAS NOT ON, UH, THE NEXT YEAR, THAT IF WE WERE TO, UH, RUN INTO A MANUAL LOAD SHED SCENARIO, THAT OUR, OUR PARTICULAR SERVICE AREAS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO, UH, SHED ALL THEIR, THEIR ENTIRE LOAD AND STILL BE COMPLIANT WITH THE LOAD SHED OBLIGATION THAT WAS, THAT WAS OUT THERE. UH, AND SO ORIGINALLY WE TRIED TO PURSUE SOME TYPE OF REAL-TIME METERING, UH, THAT WOULD ALLOW ERCOT TO REVIEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN REAL TIME AND, AND SHED THOSE LOADS BASED ON THE LOADS THAT WERE ON AT THE PARTICULAR TIME, UH, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, THE EASIEST SOLUTION, AT LEAST FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF, OF, UH, THE PROCESS OF LOAD SHED LOAD, MANUAL LOAD SHED. UH, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT ONE DID NOT WORK OUT. SO THIS WAS KIND OF A, A, A SECOND OPTION THAT WE LOOKED AT, IS TO TRY TO CREATE A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM, UH, AND USE THAT VOLUNTARY PROGRAM, OF COURSE, IN GOLDEN SPRINGS TERRITORY. MAYBE I'LL GO AHEAD AND JUMP TO ANSWERING THE QUESTION THAT YES, WE, WE WOULD, WE WOULD, UH, LOOK AT MAKING THIS A, A MANDATORY, UM, PIECE OF, OF SIGNING UP FOR GOLDEN SPREADS, UH, TO RECEIVE ACCESS TO THE, THE, THE GRID IN THOSE AREAS. HOWEVER, UM, WE DO BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE LOADS STILL HAVE SOME CHOICE IF THEY WANT TO MOVE OVER TO OTHER, UM, OTHER PARTICIPANTS AT ERCOT WHO DO NOT REQUIRE THAT, UH, GOLDEN STRIKE REQUIRES IT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE NEED TO REACH COMPLIANCE. BUT IT'S NOT SO MUCH DIFFERENT THAN, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HAVE CRYPTO LOADS LOOKING AT WHOLESALE PRICES AND MOVING ON AND OFF, THOSE ARE VOLUNTARY MOVES. SO YES, WE, YES, THERE IS A PROGRAM HERE TO CAPTURE ALL OF EM INTO, UH, ALLOW ERCOT KIND OF A, A ONE, A ONE SHOT TO, TO BRING THESE OFF BEFORE AN EMERGENCY OR AN EA ONE. UM, THIS 1238, UH, HAS GONE THROUGH, STARTED LAST YEAR, UH, AND WE ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO ERCOT IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR AND HAD THEM HELP US WRITE SOME OF THIS. UH, AS WE PUBLISHED IT IN JUNE LAST YEAR, WE, IT ENDED UP GETTING, UH, DEFERRED TO BOTH THE R OS AND WMS TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE IMPACTS, UH, AROUND REAL TIME CO-OP OPTIMIZATION. [00:30:01] UH, WE WELCOME THOSE. HOWEVER, WE, WE DROPPED URGENCY ON THIS ONE BECAUSE, UH, GOLDEN SPREAD HAD A GOAL TO TRY TO GET THIS IN BEFORE THE WINTER OF 20 25, 20 26, UH, WITHOUT SEEING AN IMPACT ANALYSIS, MAYBE THAT WAS A BIT NAIVE, BUT NOW THAT WE SEE THAT, WE, WE REALIZE NOW THAT THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A POSSIBILITY. UM, BUT TH THIS IS WHERE OUR URGENCY HAS COME FROM. WE STILL WOULD LIKE TO GET IT INTO ONE OF THE NEXT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SUMMER OR WINTER SEASON THAT, THAT THE NEXT ONE. SO WHEN WE MOVED OFF OF WINTER LAST YEAR, WE DECIDED, OR WHEN WE MOVED OFF OF WINTER FROM THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, UH, OF, OF, AS THIS WORKED ITS WAY THROUGH, UH, WE NOW HAVE A GOAL TO TRY TO GET THIS IN BY NEXT SUMMER, SO THAT AT LEAST BY NEXT SUMMER WE COULD, WE RAN, WE RAN INTO THIS SITUATION, WE KNEW THAT WE WOULD HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, BALANCE THESE LARGE LOADS WITH OUR COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS. UM, SO NOW HERE WE ARE, UM, AS WE, AND I APPRECIATE ERCOT AND, AND STAKEHOLDERS HELPING US GET TO THE MAY CAC MEETING, THAT WAS ACTUALLY A VERY IMPORTANT MEETING FOR US TO REACH. AS NED ALLUDED TO, WE'RE TRYING TO REACH THE BOARD MEETING FOR JUNE, UH, SO THAT WE DON'T GET DELAYED. UH, IF WE GET DELAYED AND WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE SEPTEMBER, UH, BOARD MEETING, UM, THIS WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES THAT WE WOULD MOST LIKELY HAVE TO MISS NEXT SUMMER'S IMPLEMENTATION. AND SO NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT 26, 27, YOU KNOW, WINTER, WHICH IS AT THE VERY END OF NEXT YEAR, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, STILL APPRECIATED THAT WE STILL MOVE THIS FORWARD, BUT WE DO STILL HAVE SOME URGENCY, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE REMOVED THE, THE TITLE OR THE LABEL OF IT, UH, WE STILL SEE THIS AS PRETTY URGENT FOR GOLDEN SPREAD AND FOR OUR MEMBERS. UM, LET'S SEE. I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT FOR TODAY. UH, I DON'T MIND COMMENTING AFTER I HEAR A FEW OTHERS, BUT THAT'S AT LEAST AN UPDATE. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS, UH, I CAN, I CAN BRING THOSE UP AS WE, AS I FILL IN AT THE END. CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY ON THE, THE MANDATORY VERSUS VOLUNTARY? BECAUSE I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY YEAH, BOTH IN DIFFERENT CONTEXT. YEAH. WELL, I MEAN, I DO THINK A LOAN, WHICH, WHO HAS A CHOICE TO COME INTO TEXAS, RIGHT? THEY, THEY CAN CHOOSE, UH, TERRITORIES THAT WILL NOT MAKE THIS MANDATORY, UH, GOING SPREAD NEEDS THIS AS THE TERMS OF OUR SERVICE. WE CURRENTLY ASK THE TERMS OF OUR SERVICE FOR THOSE LARGE LOADS TO STAY ON A MINIMUM AROUND THE CLOCK 24 7. THEY'RE EXPOSED TO REAL-TIME PRICING, THEY'RE EXPOSED TO, UH, STAYING ON RIGHT AS WE GET THROUGH THE EA ONE. AND IT, IT WON'T COME OFF UNTIL WE ACTUALLY GET TO LOAD SHEDS FOR ERCOT. AND SO RIGHT NOW, WE'RE, WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE ARE BIGGER ISSUES, UH, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GET SOLVED. BUT YES, UH, IT WOULD BE MANDATORY FOR US BECAUSE WE, WE SEE THIS AS, UH, COMPLIANCE. HOWEVER, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S MANDATORY FOR EVERY LARGE LOAD COMING INTO TEXAS. THEY, THEY CAN CHOOSE OTHER TERRITORIES, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S ALMOST LIKE GOLDEN SPREAD IS AT A DISADVANTAGE DURING THIS ECONOMIC BOOM THAT OTHER FOLKS MAY BE GOING THROUGH. UH, THAT IF WE, IF WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO, UM, OR IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO BRING THOSE LARGE LOADS ON, BUT ONLY AT, THEY HAVE TO CARRY A MINIMUM LOAD AROUND THE CLOCK, UH, THAT'S GONNA LOOK VERY DISA. UH, THAT'S, THAT GIVES GOLDEN SPREAD A DISADVANTAGE TO TRYING TO BRING THESE LOADS ONTO OUR SYSTEM. UH, WE JUST WANT A FAIR PLAYING FIELD, AND IN THIS CASE, UH, WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU ALLOW US TO MAKE THIS MANDATORY SO THAT WE CAN RELIEVE SOME OF THESE OTHER MANDATORY THINGS THAT ALSO DON'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. UH, BUT IN OTHER PIECE, OTHER PARTS OF TEXAS, IF, IF, YOU KNOW, LARGE LOAD FINANCE, YOU KNOW, AN AREA THAT DOESN'T WANT TO ENGAGE IN THIS, UM, THEN I'M SURE THAT THEY CAN MOVE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THEIR STRATEGY TO A SITE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO DO OTHER THINGS. BUT YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW GOLDEN SPREAD LOOKS AT IT. YES, IT WOULD BE, UH, TERMS OF SERVICE FOR US, BUT THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, IN FACT, WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS UP, IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKED, GOLDEN SPRAY WAS ONE OF THE FEW AT THE VERY BEGINNING THAT MENTIONED THAT WE WOULD EVEN USE THIS. SO I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT EVEN EVERY TO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, IN IMPLEMENTING THIS. OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. UH, LET'S GO TO JOHN RUSS HUBBARD. Y'ALL HEAR ME OKAY? YES. PERFECT. UM, JOHN RUSS HUBBARD WITH TIEC. WE RAISED, UM, YOU KNOW, THESE COMMENTS AT PRS AND, AND WE'RE SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE THAT GOLDEN SPREAD IS, IS TRYING TO ADDRESS, BUT WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION. UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH HAVING, WITH MANDATING THAT, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER FOR A LOAD TO INTERCONNECT, THEY HAVE TO BE, UM, CURTAIL ABLE, UM, MANY TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIAL LOADS CANNOT CURTAIL AT, YOU KNOW, QUITE SO EASILY. UM, AND THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE FLEXIBILITY IN WHERE THEY SITE, SITE LOCATIONS ARE DETERMINED BASED ON THE PROXIMITY TO CERTAIN RESOURCES, PIPELINES OR OTHER SERVICES. AND SO SITE LOCATIONS AREN'T FUNGIBLE. SO, UM, THEY, THEY CAN BE FOR, UH, MAYBE DATA CENTERS OR CRYPTO FACILITIES, BUT FOR YOUR TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIAL LOADS THAT THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. WE [00:35:01] HAVE CONCERNS, UM, WITH KIND OF GOING DOWN THE PATH OF, OF CREATING THIS TYPE OF A MANDATORY, UM, PRODUCT. UH, AND, AND WE DO SUPPORT ERCOT AND, AND AGREE THAT IT'S PRUDENT TO TABLE THE NPRR UNTIL AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, UM, WHERE WE CAN CONTINUE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. THANKS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ERIC. GO, YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD A QUESTION. I THINK THIS IS JUST YOUR QUESTION IN THE CHAT QUESTION, ANYTHING ELSE? UM, BUT IT, IT SEEMS LIKE REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO HERE, SD SIX IS GOING TO REQUIRE ERCOT AND THE COMMISSION AND ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS TO REEVALUATE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS ACROSS THE BOARD FOR LARGE LOADS. UM, AND YOU KNOW HOW IT IMPACTS WITH THE REST OF THE LOADS. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, HYPOTHETICALLY, THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ROLLED INTO THAT, UM, IN A MORE HOLISTIC WAY. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS COULD BE SOMETHING TEMPORARY, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I DO MORE FULLY UNDERSTAND NATHAN'S ARGUMENTS NOW AFTER THIS DISCUSSION. UM, AND, UM, AND HA HAPPY TO LISTEN TO THE REST OF THE DISCUSSION. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, BOB WHITMEYER. YEAH, LET, LET ME BACK THIS UP TO THE 10,000 FOOT LEVEL. UM, THESE ARE, THESE PARTICULAR LOADS ARE FLEXIBLE LOADS. THEY WANT TO BE OFFLINE WHEN PRICES ARE NORTH OF $200. OKAY? SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL LARGE LOADS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FLEXIBLE LARGE LOADS. THESE LARGE, THESE FLEXIBLE LARGE LOADS ARE ONLY IN THE LOAD SHED TABLE BECAUSE PRICES AT THE TIME, WE CALCULATE THE LOAD SHED TABLE, WHICH IS DONE DURING THE COINCIDENT PEAK OF THE SUMMER AND THE WINTER. IF THOSE PRICES ARE LOW, WHICH THEY CERTAINLY CAN AND HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN, NOW WITH THE AMOUNT OF STROLLER WE HAVE, THESE LOADS CAN BE ONLINE DURING ONE OF THOSE, ONE OF THOSE HIGH CONSUMPTION INTERVALS WITH LOW PRICES. THEY WILL BE OFFLINE WHEN THERE ARE HIGH PRICES, WHEN ERCOT WANTS THEM TO SHED, THOSE WILL BE HIGH PRICES, WELL NORTH OF $200. THE OPERATIONAL IMPACT FROM THIS NPRR SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THE ONLY REASON THERE IS ANY OPERATIONAL IMPACT IS THAT TODAY GOLDEN SPREAD IS REQUIRING THESE LOADS THAT WANT TO SHED TO STAY ONLINE SO THEY CAN MEET THEIR PERFORMANCE, UM, THEIR COMPLIANCE CRITERIA. IT IS NOT HEARTBURN FOR THESE LOADS TO SHUT DOWN. IT IS HEARTBURN FOR THESE LOADS TO HAVE TO STAY ON. OKAY, HOPE, HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS PEOPLE UNDERSTAND REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE DO A LOAD SHED TABLE BASED ON A HISTORY WHEN PRICES MAY BE LOW. WE ONLY SHED LOAD WHEN PRICES ARE HIGH. ALL THIS NPR IS REALLY TRYING TO DO IS FIX THAT ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM. IT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THESE LOADS SHED, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THAT GOLDEN SPREAD WILL FINALLY LET THEM COME OFFLINE WHEN PRICES ARE $5,000. THEY REALLY WANNA COME OFF UNDER $200. ALL RIGHT. HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS PEOPLE. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU, BOB. UM, WE ARE BACK TO JO. THERE WE GO. OKAY. YES, MA'AM. UH, SO YEAH, I JUST WANNA, UH, LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE LINING UP, BUT I, I STILL HAD A FEW OTHER POINTS I THINK THAT I WANTED TO, TO BREAK, UH, TO MAKE THAT I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO EARLIER. AND BOB WAS ALSO KIND OF ALLUDING TO THIS, BUT IN SB SIX, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S PRETTY, UH, UH, EXPLICIT IN, UH, SECTION FOUR IS THAT THIS WON'T APPLY TO CRYPTO LOADS, OR AT LEAST LOADS THAT ARE FOLLOWING THAT ARE SENSITIVE TO WHOLESALE PRICES. UM, YOU KNOW, THIS LEAVES THE [00:40:01] GAP FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT THESE TYPE OF LOADS WON'T BE, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, ATTENDED TO FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. UH, AND AGAIN, THESE ARE THE EXACT SAME LOADS THAT WOULD BE ON IN A PREVIOUS YEAR'S PEAK. LET'S SAY THERE'S LOW PRICES DURING THE PEAK OF THAT, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT COUNTERINTUITIVE, BUT LET'S SAY THAT THEY HAVE CHOSE TOTO STAY ON FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. MAYBE IT'S THAT BITCOIN PRICES ARE EXTREMELY HIGH DURING THAT TIME, SO THEY CAN AFFORD TO TAKE ON HIGHER PRICING DURING THAT SUMMER. UH, BUT THE NEXT SUMMER, DIFFERENT CONDITIONS THAT THAT PARTICULAR CRYPTO LOAD FOR BUSINESS REASONS NEEDS TO BE OFF, UH, OFFLINE DURING THAT NEXT, UH, POTENTIALLY EMERGENCY SCENARIO. UH, IN THIS CASE, WE WOULD RUN INTO THE EXACT COMPLIANCE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE, AND THAT'S UNDER THE EXACT LANGUAGE THAT WE SAW ON SB SIX THIS LAST TIME. NOW, I WILL GIVE YOU, UH, THE SAME THING. UH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S STILL SOME WRITING. WE, WE'VE WATCHED IT IN JUST ABOUT EVERY ITERATION THAT'S COME OUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE LAST FEW MONTHS, UH, AND HAVE SEEN MOST OF THAT LANGUAGE STICK FOR PRETTY LONG TIME. SO A LITTLE BIT SKEPTICAL THAT IT WOULD CHANGE FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, THAT THEY WOULD ALL OF A SUDDEN START ALLOWING CRYPTO LOADS, UH, TO BE, UH, ADDED INTO THAT COMPETITIVE SERVICE. BUT IF THEY WERE, UH, THAT MAY MAYBE ALLEVIATE THE GAP. BUT THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE GAP THAT IF THIS IS A COMPETITIVE SERVICE, THAT IMPLIES THAT NOT ALL LARGE LOADS WILL ACTUALLY BE PROCURED ON A DAILY BASIS. AND SO EVEN IF 99% OF THE LOADS WERE PROCURED ON A DAILY BASIS, AND THAT 1% HAPPENS TO BE IN GOLDEN SPREAD TERRITORY, AND THAT 1% HAPPENS TO BE, BE SUCH A LARGE LOAD THAT IT PUTS US IN A COMPLIANCE SITUATION, THEN THE GAP STILL EXISTS EVEN IN THAT PART OF THE LANGUAGE AS WELL. UH, HOWEVER, WE UNDERSTAND THE, AND EMPATHIZE WITH EVERYBODY WHO, WHO WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THIS. WE WOULD STILL LIKE TO TRY TO PAT THIS ON, AS NED, UH, SAID, TO AT LEAST THE BOARD, AND ALLOW THE BOARD TO PUC TO GIVE IT THE THUMBS DOWN IF IT GOT DOWN TO THE POINT THAT THEY DID BELIEVE THAT THERE IS CONTRADICTION IN THE LANGUAGE. THE REASON WHY WE WOULD LIKE TO PUSH THIS, UH, IS, IS NOT, NOT TO CAUSE MORE CONTROVERSY INSIDE OF, UH, ATTACK OR, OR CAUGHT, BUT, BUT REALLY WE'RE, WE'RE FOCUSED ON THAT TIMELINE. AND AGAIN, IF WE MISS THIS PARTICULAR ATTACK MEETING AND PASSING IT FORWARD, UH, WE'RE IN TROUBLE BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET IT THROUGH THE SET. WE CAN'T GET IT THROUGH UNTIL THE SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING. UH, AND THEN THAT ONE PUTS US, UH, ALMOST A YEAR AND A HALF BEHIND, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FROM WHERE WE SET TODAY. SO, UH, AGAIN, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS. AND THEN TO, TO JOHN'S POINT, I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING UP INDUSTRIAL LOADS. UH, TYPICALLY WE DO THINK A LOT OF THESE NEW DIGITAL CRYPTO LOADS, AI DINER, UH, AI DATA CENTER LOADS. AND, AND ONE THING THAT I COULD SAY IS THAT I CAN'T SPEAK TO EVERYBODY AT GOLDEN SPREAD, BUT I SURE WOULD THINK THAT GOLDEN SPREAD WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, IN BEING CREATIVE AROUND THAT. THE REASON WHY THIS IS VOLUNTARY, UH, YES, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT MANDATORY, BUT IF YOU CAME TO US AND WE'RE SITTING HERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE BRING, HOW DO WE BRING NEW LOADS IN? IT MIGHT BE THAT YOU GUYS WOULD BE WILLING TO STAY ON FOR THAT MINIMUM LOAD SO THAT YOU COULD COMPLY, UH, TAKE ON THE REAL TIME PRICING EXPOSURE, OF COURSE. BUT THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO OPTIONS NOW THAT GOLDEN SPREAD COULD POTENTIALLY, UH, DECIDE. I CAN'T SAY THAT GOLDEN SPREAD WOULD DO THAT, UH, BUT ALLOWING THIS TO BE VOLUNTARY DOES ALLOW SOME CREATIVITY. NOW, IF WE MADE IT MANDATORY ACROSS ALL OUR, UH, EXCUSE ME, ALL OF ERCOT, THEN OF COURSE, YES, WE WOULD, WE'D BE IN ISSUES WITH, WITH HAVING TO, UH, ENGAGE IN THAT TYPE OF DISCUSSION. SO THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED TODAY DOES LEAVE US SOME ROOM IS GOLDEN SPREAD TO BACK OFF OF OUR, THIS IS MANDATORY IN OUR, OUR SERVICE TERRITORY. I MEAN, THERE, THERE IS SOME POTENTIAL WIGGLE ROOM SIMPLY BY THE DESIGN OF THIS, AND NOT JUST FOR US, BUT FOR OTHERS AS WELL. SO HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS. UH, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT DOESN'T GIVE YOU A SILVER BULLET THERE, BUT, BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME, UH, REASONABLE, UH, DISCUSSION THAT COULD STILL TAKE PLACE. UH, AND AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS ON THE TABLE, BUT THE TWO OPTIONS THAT WE DO HAVE THAT, THAT COULD BE EXTENDED. SO I'LL DIGRESS AND LET OTHERS SPEAK. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, BACK TO, UH, JOHN SUBURBS. THANKS, CAITLIN. AND, UM, AND, AND, AND I GUESS FIRST, BOB, I, I, I HEAR YOUR POINT. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S ATTEMPTING TO FIX. I GUESS I'M CONCERNED THAT, UH, ANY NEW LOAD COULD GET SWEPT UP IN BEING REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A CURTAIL THE LOAD. UM, BECAUSE IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT THIS WILL ONLY BE LIMITED TO, UM, FLEXIBLE LOADS OR, OR, UH, THAT IT WOULDN'T, IT COULDN'T BE APPLIED TO TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES. UM, AND, AND, AND I THINK I ALSO, YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS NPRR WAS INITIALLY DISCUSSED AT, AT PRS, IT WAS APPROVED SO THAT WE COULD CONSIDER THE IMPACT ANALYSIS A AND TAKE IT FROM THERE. AND THERE WAS EXPLICIT CONVERSATION ABOUT NOT MOVING THIS FORWARD UNTIL AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. UM, AND SO NOW IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE THERE, THERE PARTY'S TRYING TO PUSH IT [00:45:01] FORWARD WHEN IT, IT SEEMED LIKE THE WHOLE POINT IN PRS PASSING IT WAS TO CONSIDER IT FROM, UH, AN IMPACT ANALYSIS, CONSIDER THE LEGISLATIVE, THE BILLS THAT MOVE FORWARD AT THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND THEN CONTINUE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. AND I THINK THE, THE SHEER NUMBER OF COMMENTS, UH, AND CONFUSION ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED ILLUSTRATES WHY, YOU KNOW, THERE NEEDS TO BE THIS CONVERSATION. THANKS. OKAY. LET'S GO TO, UM, MAGIC NUMBER RICHARD ROSS AND SUSIE, WERE YOU ABLE TO, UH, VALIDATE MAGIC NUMBER? GREAT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S, LET'S GO. RICHARD, DO YOU HAVE A BAD? GOOD QUESTION. YOU HAVE A BAD, BAD MIKE. ALL RIGHT. UM, GIVE, THAT IS THE END OF OUR QUEUE, WHICH IS GOOD, BUT LET'S GIVE RICHARD A MINUTE TO SORT, UH, THAT, THAT, MIKE, I AGREE WITH LAST STATEMENT. BOB WHITMEYER DID NOT NEED TO BE IN THE QUEUE, BUT 1238 IS NOT INTENDED TO DO ALL LOADS. IF THE LOAD WANTS TO BE ON LINE, THEN IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO LOAD SHE UNDER S3 SIX AND WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY 1238. ALL RIGHT, RICHARD. UM, HAVE WE RESOLVED THE MIC ISSUE? OKAY, LET'S SEE IF YOU CAN GET THAT RESOLVED, UM, WHILE WE TAKE THIS LAST COMMENT. BUT, BUT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS FOR I THINK, QUITE SOME TIME. SO, SO LET'S TRY TO WRAP UP AFTER, UH, JOHN RUSH AND, UM, MAGIC NUMBER. YEP. THANKS, CAITLIN. UH, BOB, TO YOUR POINT, I THINK IF, IF THAT'S THE INTENT, IT NEEDS TO BE MADE CLEAR 'CAUSE IT'S NOT CURRENTLY MADE CLEAR UNDER THE EXISTING LANGUAGE. THANKS. OKAY. RICHARD, ARE YOU ABLE TO SPEAK NOW? NOPE. OKAY. UM, SO I BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME AT TAX, SO WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION OF SOME KIND. I THINK, UM, WE COULD TABLE OR WE COULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND THE FIVE 15 PRS REPORT AND THE 5 27 REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS. WE DO ALSO HAVE NOER 2 65 LATER IN THE AGENDA, AND I THINK WE COULD TAKE THOSE TWO ITEMS TOGETHER. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS A COMBO BALLOT OR WE'LL NEED A SEPARATE BALLOT FOR THE, FOR THIS, A SEPARATE BALLOT. I WOULD PROPOSE TAKING KIND OF A MINI COMBO WITH NPR 1238 AND NO GROUP 2 65 TOGETHER. I SEE A MOTION TO TABLE FROM GARRETT. KEN, IS THERE A SECOND ON THE MOTION TO TABLE? OKAY. OKAY, A SECOND FROM NABA, CAN WE PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT, OR DO WE NEED A SEPARATE BALLOT FOR THIS? I'M ASSUMING WE NEED A SEPARATE BALLOT. SEPARATE BALLOT, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. UM, GIMME SECOND . AVA, WOULD YOU WANT TO MOTION TO TABLE BOTH NPR 1238 AND NO, 2 65? THANK YOU. I, I COULDN'T HEAR THE FIRST PART. NABA SAID YES, YES. OKAY. AND, AND GARRETT AS WELL? YES, MA'AM. SORRY, MY MIC WASN'T WORKING. NO WORRIES. UM, OKAY, SO THE, THE MOTION IS TO TABLE, AND IT WOULD BE A MINI COMBO BALLOT. IT WOULD BE TO TABLE NPRR 1238, AND TO TABLE 2 65. AND SO THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE TABLE. AND WE HAVE [00:50:01] A QUESTION FROM BILL BARN. HE HAS THE, I THINK ERCOT WAS REQUESTING A TABLE FOR ONE MONTH. IS THAT WHAT THIS MOTION IS? OR INDEFINITE TABLE? UM, I THINK COREY, YOU KNOW, HAS STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT A TIME CERTAIN, BUT I'M, I'M NOT AFRAID OF MAKING CORY MAD, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE REMOTE. UM, OKAY, NEVERMIND. I, I DON'T WANT TO COMPLICATE IT. NEVERMIND. BUT WE DO HAVE, RIGHT, EVERY, EVERYBODY FROM THE TABLE IS FOR AS SHORT OR AS LONG AS TAC WILLS, BECAUSE THEY'LL ALWAYS STAY ON THE, THE AGENDA. SO THEY'LL ALWAYS BE ELIGIBLE FOR A VOTE. IF WE WERE, IF WE WERE TYPE TO GROUPS THAT ONCE SOMETHING WAS TABLED, IT WAS TAKEN OFF THE AGENDA AND SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO LIKE, MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE, THEN MAYBE PUTTING SOME SORT OF TEMPORAL CONSTRAINT WOULD MATTER, BUT MM-HMM . NO, JUST SIMPLE MOTIONS AT THE TABLE. DO NOT BIND Y'ALL TO KEEPING IT TABLED FOR ONE MONTH, TWO MONTHS INDEFINITELY. IT'S ALL WITHIN TAX OR ANY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES THAT HAVE VOTING YOU, YOU DON'T NEED TO TACK THAT ON. THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO NOTE IS I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO TECH RIGHT THERE AF AFTER THIS TECH MEETING, WE GO TO JUNE BOARD, BUT I THINK AFTER THAT THERE WERE, I BELIEVE THERE WERE TWO TECH MEETINGS BEFORE SEPTEMBER BOARD, SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE ONE MONTH IS NECESSARY REGARDLESS. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, COREY, TAKE IT AWAY. I COREY, YOU'RE MUTED. I'M SORRY, I'M GETTING, I'M GETTING BACK AND FORTH. UH, JUST CONFIRMING, UH, ERIC, YOU NEEDED NAVA TO HAVE YOUR PROXY JUST FOR 1282, CORRECT? OR DO YOU HAVE THE ? YEAH, IT'S NOT, NOT FOR THIS, NOT FOR THIS ITEM. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. I SEE A COMMENT FROM SUZY. SUSIE, GO AHEAD. THAT'S OKAY. JUST DISREGARD MY COMMENT. COREY TOOK CARE OF IT. OKAY. IT, OKAY. THANK YOU. CALIN. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. THANK Y'ALL. THAT'S AS MUCH AS CAITLYN DOESN'T WANNA UPSET ME, I REALLY DON'T WANNA UPSET SUZIE, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD MY DUCKS IN A ROW BEFORE I STARTED. OKAY. I, I KIND OF DO WANT TO UPSET YOU AT LEAST ONCE, BUT WE, WE, UH, WE APPRECIATE YOUR ADVICE ON MOTIONS AND ROBERT RULES AND FOR FUTURE, AND, AND YOU'RE USUALLY RIGHT. SO I THINK I'D RATHER BE RIGHT THAN, UH, UPSET YOU JUST FOR THE SAKE OF UPSETTING YOU. THANK YOU. UM, ALRIGHT, GO AHEAD CO. SO ON OUR MOTION TO TABLE 1238 AND NO 2 65 FOR AS LONG IN ATTACK WISHES, WE WILL BEGIN UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH ERIC, UH, HEATHER? YES. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. SARAH NABO? YES. THANK YOU. GARRETT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. AND THEN GARRETT PER ERIC? YES SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. MARK, DR. YES, AND YES FOR NICK. GOTCHA. FOR BOTH OF THEM. THANKS SIR. ONTO OUR CO-OP BLAKE. NO, THANK YOU, JOHN. NO, THANK YOU KYLE. NO, THANK YOU. AND UH, JO, DAN FOR MIKE? NO THANK YOU ON FOR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. LOVE HILTON. NO, THANK YOU. CAITLYN? YES, THANK YOU. BRIAN. YES, THANK YOU, NED. NO, THANK YOU. CORY. THANKS SIR. AND OUR ITM DUH. YES. THANK YOU, . OKAY. THANK YOU. JEREMY. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU IAN, SANDY, IN WITH US YET ONTO IRE. BILL? YES. FOR A SHORT DURATION TABLE. THANK YOU, JENNIFER. YES, SAME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHRIS. YES. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. AND THEN CHRISTOPHER J? YES. THANK YOU. ANDRE IOU IS DAVID ABSTAIN. THANK YOU, RICHARD. KICK IN CHAT. [00:55:02] OH, THE NO, RICHARD, BELIEVE SO. MARTHA, ALTHOUGH, YES. THANKS COREY. THANK YOU ROB FOR KEITH? YES, COREY, THANK YOU. MUNI. JOSE? UH, YES. THANK YOU, DAVID. DEAN. THANK YOU, ALI. NO, THANK YOU. AND CURTIS FOR RUFFLE. NO, THANK YOU. AND MARTHA, CAN I DOUBLE CHECK YOUR VOTE? JUST, I, I MAY HAVE MISHEARD YOU, COREY. I VOTED YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR DOUBLE CHECKING ME, KATIE. I, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY MISHEARD VOTES BEFORE. SO THANK Y'ALL. AND MOTION TO TABLE A FAILED. JUST BARELY, LIKE, OKAY, COREY, CAN YOU GIVE US A REMINDER AS THE RULES, WE, WE CANNOT MAKE THE SAME EXACT MOTION TWICE IN ONE MEETING, CORRECT? BY THE, BY THE EXPRESS WRITING OF ROBERT'S RULE. THE INTENTION IS NO, BECAUSE OTHERWISE SOMEONE COULD JUST KEEP MAKING AND SECONDING MOTION THAT'S GOT NO CHANCE OF PASSING AND JUST, YOU KNOW, DERAIL THE MEETING WITH THAT. BUT THERE IS LANGUAGE IN ROBERT'S RULES, PARTICULARLY TALKING ABOUT, UH, THE FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS. SO IF THEY, IF A GROUP DOESN'T MEET THAT FREQUENTLY, AND IN OUR CASE, IT'S NOT JUST OUR GROUP, IT'S THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION TIMELINES THAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT. IT ACKNOWLEDGES THE NEED MIGHT ARISE FOR YOU TO TAKE UP THE SAME MOTION ONCE THERE HAS BEEN, QUOTE, SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN DEBATE OR BUSINESS. SO IT REALLY IS UP TO THE CHAIR TO DECIDE HAS ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, QUOTE UNQUOTE PROGRESS BEEN MADE IN DEBATE OR BUSINESS TO CHANGE THE HEARTS AND MIND. I KNOW THIS HAS COME UP IN THE PAST. I BELIEVE OUR, OUR, I BELIEVE RICHARD ROTH MAY HAVE BEEN THE ONE TO, TO BE THE DECIDING VOTE BECAUSE AFTER A VOTE FAILED, AND IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRS, BUT AFTER A VOTE FAILED, THERE WAS THEN, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT AN HOUR OR TWO OF DISCUSSION AROUND OTHER SETS OF COMMENTS AND OTHER VIEWPOINTS TO WHERE FOLKS CAME BACK AROUND TO SAY, OH, WELL, GOSH, IF I HAD KNOWN ALL THAT, I WOULD'VE VOTED DIFFERENTLY BEFORE. AND SO BY ALLOWING THE SAME MOTION TO BE MADE, BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN PROGRESS IN DEBATES, YOU'VE GOT A DIFFERENT OUTCOME. SO IT'S, IT'S INTENTIONALLY A GRAY AREA. SO RIGHT NOW, THE MOTION TO TABLE HAS FAILED. SO I THINK THE NEXT LOGICAL WOULD VOTE WOULD BE FOR DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD? BUT IF THAT WOULD THEN FAILED, WE WOULD BE RIGHT BACK TO WHAT DOES TAC WANT TO DO? DO YOU, DO YOU REALLY WANT TO TABLE IT OR DO YOU WANNA REJECT IT? OR ET CETERA. SO, OKAY, LET ME ASK, LET ME ASK TWO BAD QUESTIONS, AND ONE OF THEM IS GONNA BE BRIAN SAM'S BAD QUESTION. UM, SO, UH, HAVE WE DONE THAT BEFORE THE SIGNIFICANT TIME PERIOD AT AT TAC? HAVE WE DONE THE SAME MOTION IN TWICE IN THE SAME MEDIUM BEFORE? I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ELEVATED TO TAC I THINK WE'VE DONE, I THINK WE'VE DONE IT AT, AT PRF, AT LEAST THAT I RECALL. BUT I MEAN THE, THE, THE, THE MECHANISMS WOULD BE THE SAME, BUT, OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO NO PRECEDENT HERE. AND THEN, UM, OKAY. OKAY. HANG ON, HANG ON. SO THE CHAT IS GETTING A LITTLE CRAZY. JORDAN, I KNOW YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH THIS 'CAUSE I, I THINK WE HAD NED AND JOON AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE FOR WHATEVER REASON WE STARTED THE QUEUE OVER WITH BRIAN SANDS. UM, BUT LET'S, UM, LET'S TAKE ALL THE QUESTIONS ON THE, ON THE VOTE. SO I THINK THE SECOND ONE WAS BRIAN'S QUESTION. A TABLE FOR ONE MONTH IN MY MIND WOULD BE A DIFFERENT VOTE. AND COREY, YOU WOULD JUST HAVE TO COVER YOUR EARS. IS THAT RIGHT? LIKE A, A TABLE WITH A TIME? CERTAIN THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT VOTE. WE JUST, YOU WOULDN'T LIKE IT. I, I, I THINK YOU WOULD BE, YOU WOULD BE STICKING DIFFERENT WORDS ON THE SCREEN, SO VISUALLY IT MIGHT LOOK THE SAME, BUT THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS IT WOULD BE THE SAME ACTION, BECAUSE THAT WOULD IMPLY THAT TAX ACTION TODAY WOULD SOMEHOW EXPIRE IN AMONGST YEP, YEP. SO, SO THAT'S NOT A REAL ROBERT'S RULES THING. CAN, CAN YOU HEAR [01:00:01] ME OKAY NOW? YES, BUT CAN WE GET THROUGH THE QUEUE, RICHARD? YES, MA'AM. I'M YES MA'AM. OKAY. I'M JUST TESTING THE WATERS. WE CAN HEAR YOU THOUGH. GREAT JOB. OKAY, SO NED, CAN AN EMAIL VOTE BE TAKEN ON THIS AFTER JUNE 2ND, BUT WITH TIME TO GO TO THE BOARD? I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, IS YES, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH. EMAIL, QUESTION, EMAIL TO BE FOLLOWED FOR BY THE CHAIR, AND THEY RUN FOR TWO BUSINESS DAYS AND CLOSE. UM, WHICH IS, AGAIN, THAT'S ACTUALLY AN ARGUMENT FOR ALLOWING THE SAME MOTION TO BE MADE MULTIPLE TIMES IF THE CHAIR DEEMED IT WORTHY. BECAUSE IF YOU TOOK THE STRICT READING OF ROBERT'S RULES AND SAID YOU CAN'T TAKE ANY MORE ACTION AT TODAY'S TAC MEETING, ONCE TAC MEETING CONCLUDES TODAY, THE CHAIR COULD CALL AN EMAIL VOTE AND YOU COULD VOTE AGAIN ON THE EXACT SAME MOTION. BUT BECAUSE IT WAS AFTER THE MEETING TODAY CLOSED, YOU WOULD BE ACHIEVING THE, THE, THE BLACK AND WHITE WRITING OF, WELL, NOW IT'S A, IT IS A SEPARATE ACTION UNDER A SEPARATE DAY, BUT THAT'S JUST WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME, YOU KNOW, REALISTICALLY. YEAH. SO IT, YOU'RE BETTER OFF JUST ALLOWING IT TODAY IF THAT'S THE, IF THAT'S THE GOAL OF PAC. OKAY. SO IN SUMMARY, WHAT I'M HEARING IS TIME C CERTAIN VOTE IS NOT A REAL THING. SO LET'S TAKE THAT OFF THE TABLE. UM, AND THEN WE COULD, WE COULD WAIT SOME SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME AND DISCUSSION AT ATTACK AND TAKE THE SAME VOTE. WE HAVE NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE ATTACK, BUT WE COULD, AND THEN THE EMAIL VOTE WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY THE EQUIVALENT OF OF THAT. ALRIGHT, BARKSDALE, LET'S GO TO YOUR QUESTION. UH, THANKS CAITLIN. I JUST WANNA SAY THAT, UM, COMMISSION STAFF SUPPORTS, UH, ERCOT COMMENTS AND THINKS THAT, UH, TABLING UNTIL THE NEXT TAC MEETING, NOT AS A TIME CERTAIN, BUT YOU KNOW, JUST YOU, YOU CAN BRING IT BACK UP AT THE NEXT MEETING TABLING IT, UH, UNTIL WE SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE LEGISLATURE IS, IS SMART. UM, AMENDMENTS WERE ADDED ON THE FLOOR, YOU KNOW, TWO DAYS AGO TO THE BILL. SO WE'RE NOT EXACTLY SURE, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN PREDICT AT THIS POINT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. SO WE THINK IT WOULD BE MORE PRUDENT TO, UM, YOU KNOW, ALLOW TAC ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THE NPR IF, IF NECESSARY BEFORE IT GETS SENT TO THE BOARD. IT SEEMS, UM, CLEANER THAT WAY FROM A, A, A PROCEDURES WRITING PRACTICE. THANKS. HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS MUTED. OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY, THANK YOU. BARKSDALE, I BELIEVE JOE DAN WAS IN THE QUEUE, IS THAT CORRECT? IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VOTE? YES. OKAY. GO, GO WITH AND THEN WE'LL GO TO RICHARD. WELL, I ACTUALLY, I NOTICED THAT, UH, NED HAD A QUESTION I WOULD BE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN HEARING DISCUSSION ON BEFORE, UH, IT KIND EVOLVED AFTER IN THE QUEUE. I BELIEVE NED'S QUESTION WAS THE VOTING QUESTION, RIGHT? THE EMAIL VOTE? OR WAS IT A SEPARATE QUESTION? OKAY, CAITLIN. YEAH, CAITLYN, I'LL JUST JUMP IN AND IF IT'S HELPFUL TO CLARIFY, THE THOUGHT WAS WE COULD WAIT UNTIL AFTER JUNE 2ND, SO AFTER SIGNY DIE AND THEN HAVE FULL VISIBILITY INTO WHAT SENATE BILL SIX LOOKS LIKE, DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THERE ARE ANY CHANGES THAT WOULD BE NEEDED OR NOT, AND TAKE A, TAKE UP A MOTION TO APPROVE, NOT A MOTION TO TO TABLE, BUT A MOTION TO APPROVE VIA EMAIL VOTE, UM, TO SEE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD GIVE IT THE PATH TO GET TO THE BOARD IF POSSIBLE. AND IF MORE CHANGES ARE NEEDED, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'LL ALSO KNOW THAT BY THEN AS WELL. OKAY. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. AND, UH, YEAH, THIS IS JORDAN AGAIN, SO, OH, YOU KNOW, UH, I, I, I PREFER THAT METHOD AS MYSELF IF WE NEED TO. 'CAUSE I, I, I LIKE THE IDEA OF NOT CLOSING OFF THE JO, THE, THE BOARD, THE JUNE BOARD MEETING. I ALSO LIKE THE IDEA OF TRYING TO GIVE FOLKS AS MUCH TIME AS WE POSSIBLY CAN TO ACTUALLY LOOK THINGS OVER AND MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A U-TURN. OKAY. JORDAN, DID YOU HAVE FURTHER COMMENT? UH, THAT WAS JORDAN, I JUST, THAT THAT WAS ME. JUST WHILE IT GOES. YEAH, I'M I'M JUST ASKING IF YOU FURTHER COMMENT IS THAT, IS THAT ALL YOU GOT IN THE QUEUE TO, TO SAY YES MA'AM. YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO, FOR, FOR NOW, I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT, WHAT OTHER STAKEHOLDERS THINK ABOUT THAT, THAT PRO, THAT APPROACH. AND, UH, IF THEY, IF THEY GO THAT APPROACH, THEN I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. IF NOT, THEN MAYBE I HAVE SOME COMMENTS TO FOLLOW UP ON. OKAY. OKAY. BRIAN, WE COVERED YOUR COMMENT? CORRECT. OKAY. RICHARD, THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT. I'M GLAD YOU'VE GOT YOUR MIC WORKING. THANK Y'ALL FOR BEING PATIENT, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE BACKGROUND MUSIC. UM, I, I GUESS I'M, I'M COMFORTABLE [01:05:01] WITH US ENDING UP, YOU KNOW, PUNTING THIS TO AN EMAIL VOTE. UH, AFTER THINGS BECOME MORE CLEAR, UM, I'M COMFORTABLE. YOU KNOW, I HAD WANTED THIS TO BE IN THE BOARD'S HANDS SO THAT IF IT WAS, UH, CLEAR, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE THAT THEY COULD GO AHEAD AND DEAL WITH IT. UH, AND THEY COULD REMAND IT IF I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THE REMAND, IF THAT'S WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING, SO THAT WE DON'T LOSE TIME. THE EMAIL VOTE WILL ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING. UM, IF, IF WE GET INTO A ROBERT'S RULES ISSUE AND YOU NEED TO RE-VOTE ON THIS EXACT SAME THING, I BELIEVE AS BEING SOMEONE ON THE PREVAILING SIDE, I CAN MAKE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IF WE NEED THAT. UM, WHICH ENDS UP REQUIRING TWO MORE VOTES, BUT I PUT THAT AS AN OPTION. I JUST TRULY WANTED TO SEE THIS, GET TO THE BOARD MEETING IF IT POSSIBLY CAN WITHOUT CONFLICTING WITH WHATEVER WE END UP WITH IN SB SIX. THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THAT A MOTION? NO, IT IS NOT A MOTION YET BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA CONTAMINATE THE FLOOR IF THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WANT. BUT IF OKAY. A MOTION. IF YOU NEED THAT, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT, AND I'M HAPPY TO HELP WITH THAT, CONSIDERING I MAY HAVE BEEN THE TIPPING POINT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, ALICIA? UM, MINE WAS JUST A COMMENT, IF WE ARE GIVING GREAT DEFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH IS ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA, UM, I KIND OF AGREE WITH, UM, RICHARD ROSS. I WANTED TO KEEP THIS MOVING AND THEN, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THERE IS NO CONFLICT, BUT TO REALLY BE SURE THERE'S NO CONFLICT, WE REALLY SHOULD WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE VETO PERIOD, WHICH IS JUNE 22ND, I BELIEVE. OKAY. OKAY. APPRECIATE THAT. UM, THERE ARE NO COMMENTS IN THE QUEUE, SO ARE THERE MOTIONS ON THE TABLE? DOES ANYONE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION? I, WELL, KAYLYN, SO WHICH WAY WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO? I'M SORRY, I'M JUMPING IN WITHOUT BEING CALLED ON, BUT IF, ARE YOU, ARE YOU WANTING A MOTION TO CONDUCT AN EMAIL VOTE, OR WHICH WAY WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO? WELL, THAT'S NOT UP TO ME. UM, IT'S NOT UNDERSTANDABLE. YEAH, I DON'T, I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH ANOTHER MOTION TO TABLE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD REALLY ANY SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION. WE'VE ONLY HAD PROCESS DISCUSSION. UM, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED, DO WE, DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR A EMAIL VOTE? CORY? I DON'T THINK THAT'S HOW IT WORKS. NO, THE, THE, WELL, THE, THE PROCEDURAL PROBLEM YOU FIND YOURSELF IN RIGHT NOW IS THAT BECAUSE THE MOTION TO TABLE FAILED, NEITHER SIDE PREVAILED. AND SO TAX IS STILL NOT FORMALLY TAKEN ANY ACTION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 21 TODAY. BUT THEN, SO IF YOU WERE TO TABLE IT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT A EMAIL VOTE WOULD BE CALLED, YOU KNOW, AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE BEFORE THE NEXT TAC MEETING, IF THAT IS DEEMED SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN, IN DEBATE AND BUSINESS, SO THAT FOLKS WOULD BE MORE WILLING TO TABLE IT NOW, KNOWING THAT THEY WON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO WAIT, UM, ALL THE WAY UNTIL THE NEXT TAC MEETING, UH, TO FORMALLY TAKE IT UP. YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE A MOTION TO TABLE, BUT NOW SOME VOTES MIGHT ACTUALLY CHANGE, OR THE OTHER SIDE COULD MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1238 AND 2 65. AND IF THAT VOTE FAILED, SECTION 21 WOULD THEN SAY, A VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL THAT FAILED WOULD BE DEEMED REJECTED BY TAC. AND SO THAT WOULD COUNT AS THE TAC ACTION THAT COULD THEN BE APPEALED TO THE BOARD IF FOLKS REALLY WANTED TO MOVE IT FORWARD THAT WAY. BUT THAT OBVIOUSLY CARRIES SOME DIFFERENT OPTICS ON IT. UM, SO FOLKS MIGHT WANT TO JUST TABLE IT TODAY, SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH SB SIX, AND THEN CALL FOR AN EMAIL VOTE TO POTENTIALLY MOVE THOSE FORWARD IF FOLKS FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT FB SIX NO LONGER CONFLICT OR THERE IS NO CONFLICT THAT FOLKS ARE WORRIED ABOUT RIGHT NOW. OKAY. OKAY. WE HAVE A QUEUE AGAIN. UM, WE HAVE A REALLY ACTIVE CHATTY QUEUE TODAY. I'M JUST GOING TO START TAKING THESE IN ORDER. UM, AND YOU CAN, YOU CAN SAY YOUR COMMENT. OKAY. RIGHT BACK TO JODY ANN WILSON. ALRIGHT, SO, UM, WE JUST ANSWERED MY QUESTION THAT I DID HAVE, BUT I WILL SAY THIS, UH, UH, STICKING AROUND, I DO LIKE TO SEE WHAT, UH, THE ANSWER IS TO ERIC'S QUESTION. THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE NEXT THING I WOULD SUPPORT. UH, IF WE CAN TAKE A MOVE, UH, ALONG THOSE LINES. UH, AND IF SO, I'LL BE, UH, WOULD, WOULD MAKE A MOTION OR SECOND THAT MOTION IF ERIC DOESN'T [01:10:01] WANT TO TAKE THE MOTION. OKAY. LET'S GO TO SMI. UM, UH, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR OUR CODE. SO, WOULD A CODE BE OKAY WITH THIS LANGUAGE IF SENATE BILL SIX PASSES LIKE IT IS RIGHT NOW? IF NOT, WHAT CHANGES IN THE LANGUAGE OR WHAT CLARIFICATION IN THE LANGUAGE IS NEEDED FOR SENATE BILL SIX? OR DOES IT SENATE BILL SIX NEED TO FAIL FOR THIS TO BE OKAY? REMI, IF, UH, IF YOUR QUESTION'S DIRECTED TO ME, I THINK I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THERE ARE PROBABLY WAYS THE LEGISLATURE COULD BE CLEARER AND, UM, AND UNEQUIVOCAL ABOUT A DESIRE TO, UH, TO GIVE ERCOT AUTHORITY TO, TO CURTAIL LARGE LOADS AHEAD OF EEA. UH, AND IN FACT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE CONSENSUS, UM, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SP SIX DOESN'T PRECLUDE THAT SORT OF CURTAILMENT, THEN I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT POTENTIALLY OPENS UP SOME THINGS FOR CONSIDERATION, UM, PERHAPS AS PART OF THE, THE PC'S RULEMAKING THAT, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWS FROM SB SIX. UM, BUT, UM, I, I THINK THERE ARE WAYS THAT THE LEGISLATURE COULD CLARIFY THAT INTENT IF IT, IF IT WERE SO INCLINED. BUT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE STATE OF THE BILL AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, I THINK WE HAVE STILL HAVE SOME DOUBTS. AGAIN, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE REASONABLE POSITIONS TO BE MADE ON, UM, ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE. UH, I JUST WANT TO, TO CLARIFY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF OUR INCLINATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME BASED ON THE LANGUAGE THAT WE SEE BEFORE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. LET'S GO TO, OKAY, BOB WHITMEYER, YOU WERE OUT OF THE QUEUE. OKAY, LET'S GO TO NED. THANKS. AND, UM, NO, ALICIA, UH, YOUR, YOUR COMMENT ABOUT WAITING FOR THE END OF THE VETO PERIOD, I THINK IN A LOT OF INSTANCES THAT THAT WOULD MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. AND THIS ONE, IT SEEMED LIKE, LIKE WE'LL KNOW WHAT THE, THE BILL LANGUAGE IS, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE VETO PERIOD IS KIND OF A BINARY OUTCOME. AND IT, DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT IS, IT EITHER, YOU KNOW, EITHER ERCOT QUESTIONS STILL REMAIN OR THEY DON'T. UM, BUT THINKING THROUGH THE TIMELINE WITH THE BOARD, NEXT BOARD MEETING STARTING ON JUNE 23RD, IF WE'RE TRYING TO THREAD THAT NEEDLE, I THINK WE WOULD, Y'ALL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, BUT I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE THAT VOTE, UM, BY THE, UH, 16TH OR POSSIBLY SOONER IN ORDER TO MEET THE ONE WEEK POSTING FOR THE BOARD. I, I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR ANNE. YEAH, THIS IS ANNE. WE WOULD NEED IT TO FINISH SOONER IF, IF WE'RE RUNNING AN EMAIL THOUGH, IT TAKES TWO BUSINESS DAYS OR 48 HOURS, EITHER ONE. UM, SO WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO START RUNNING IT ON THE 11TH. OKAY. OKAY. BUT, SO THERE'S TWO, TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES I THINK WE'D BE TRYING TO SOLVE WITH THE EMAIL VOTE. ONE WOULD BE TO GET RESOLUTION TO THE BOARD, BUT THE OTHER, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS WE NEED TO TAKE SOME SORT OF ACTION AT QUOTE UNQUOTE THIS TECH MEETING. AND THE, THE EMAIL VOTE COULD SUPPLEMENT THAT AS LONG AS IT'S BEFORE OUR JULY ATTACK IS, IS THAT RIGHT, COREY OR ANN? YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK THE VOTES COULD CHANGE ON THE MOTION TO TABLE NOW BECAUSE YOU'RE ANTICIPATING THAT EMAIL VOTE. UM, SO YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD LIKE THAT AND JUST SAY, WE'RE GONNA TAKE AN EMAIL VOTE STARTING ON THE 11TH OR WHATEVER DATE YOU WANT. OKAY. BUT WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO AVAIL TO TABLE THAT TODAY. YEAH. ATTACK IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE AN ACTION, UM, ACCORDING TO SECTION 21. OKAY. AND IF WE DID HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE, THE VETO PERIOD, THEN, THEN I THINK IT BECOMES A DIFFERENT, IT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. 'CAUSE AT THAT POINT, WE'RE EFFECTIVELY TABLING UNTIL THE NEXT TAG MEETING ANYWAY, BECAUSE IT WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE THE JUNE BOARD. SO THAT, THAT WAS THE, THOSE WERE THE THINGS I WAS TRYING TO RECONCILE, UM, JUST LOGISTICALLY. OKAY. THANK YOU NED. LET'S GO TO ERIC. UM, I, I, I GUESS THERE'S TWO, TWO VERSIONS OF MY QUESTION. ONE, I THINK, ANN, YOU WERE MAKING THE, THE, YOU WERE SUGGESTING THAT THE GOOD LENGTHS OF TIME HAS PASSED AND THE FACTS HAVE CHANGED BASED ON THE EMAIL, UH, DISCUSSION. UM, AND, UH, BUT ALTERNATIVELY, YOU KNOW, COULD WE, AS PART OF A MOTION REQUEST THAT, UH, THE CHAIR DO AN EMAIL VOTE AT A TIME THAT SHE THINKS IS APPROPRIATE? THAT WAY WE CAN, [01:15:01] YOU KNOW, LET CAITLIN FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THE VETO PERIOD QUESTION IS, IS RIPE OR NOT AFTER TODAY'S MEETING? UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE PART OF THE MOTION, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY CAPTURE THAT IN THE, UM, DISCUSSION. THE MOTION WOULD JUST BE THE TABLE, UM, FROM THE TAG PROCEDURES ONLY THE CHAIR OF VICE CHAIR CAN REQUEST AN EMAIL VOTE, BUT WE CAN THROW IT OUT THERE AND CAPTURE IN THE DISCUSSION FOR SURE. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S FINE. BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, WHAT I SUGGESTED WAS THAT TACK WOULD REQUEST THAT THE CHAIR REQUEST AN EMAIL VOTE, BUT I, I GET YOUR POINT. OKAY. GO AHEAD, ALICIA. UM, I DIDN'T REALLY NEED TO SPEAK. I JUST WAS DISAGREEING WITH NED. I, I THINK THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES IN TEXAS IS DYNAMIC AND ALWAYS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. AND SO EVEN IF WE SEE WHAT'S N SB SIX, BUT IT GETS VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIKE SOMETHING AND THEN IT HAS TO BE RENEGOTIATED IN A SPECIAL SESSION, THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ISSUE. SO THAT COULD HAPPEN. UM, I THINK ANYTHING COULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN WITH THIS BILL AT THIS POINT. SO IT'S COMPLICATED. AND, UM, THAT'S ALL I GOT. OKAY. CHASE, CHASE, GO AHEAD. I, OKAY. CAN T REQUEST A SPECIAL BOARD MEETING BE SCHEDULED BETWEEN REGULARLY SCHEDULED JUNE OF SEPTEMBER MEETING? IS THAT AT THE DISCRETION OF ERCOT AND THE BOARD? YEAH, I, I DON'T THINK WE CAN, I MEAN, T CAN MAKE THOSE, T CAN MAKE THOSE, THOSE COMMENTS, YEAH, TACK CAN MAKE THOSE COMMENTS. UM, AND ERCOT CAN TAKE IT TO THE BOARD, BUT YEAH, THEY, THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT. . OKAY. OKAY. THE QUEUE IS CLEAR. ANY, ANY MOTIONS, ANY DIRECTION HERE? GO AHEAD, JODAN. ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME HERE. THANKS FOR STICKING WITH THE, WITH US WITH ALL THIS. UH, I, YEAH, I'VE KIND OF COME FULL CIRCLE. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN'T MAKE ERIC'S, UH, SUGGESTION TO TABLE, UH, AND, UH, RECOMMEND, UH, AN EMAIL VOTE. IS THAT, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE, WHERE WE'RE AT IS TO LAND BACK ON TABLING AND THEN JUST WORKING BEHIND THE SCENES TO TRY TO WORK AN EMAIL, VOTE OUT IF THAT'S WHAT THE CHAIR, UM, AT THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION. IS THAT, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? YES, THE EMAIL VOTE IS AT THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION, BUT YOU KNOW, CAITLYN OR MARTHA COULD COMMIT TO THAT NOW IF THEY WANT TO OR NOT. SO THE GOAL OF THE EMAIL VOTE WOULD BE TO GET SOMETHING TO JUNE BOARD? YES. UM, YES. AND, AND I THINK THE BOARD ALSO HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO TABLE IT IF THEY COME ACROSS, YOU KNOW, UH, LANGUAGE THAT CONCERNS THEM AND CONTRADICTORY, OF COURSE, I HOPE THAT'S NOT THE CASE, BUT IF, IF THAT DOES HAPPEN WITH THE VETO, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IF SOMETHING CHANGES ALONG THOSE LINES, THEN AT LEAST IT'S AT THE, AT THE, 'CAUSE THE BOARD IS REALLY THE STAGE GATE TO TRY TO GET IT IN BY NEXT SUMMER. SO AT LEAST IT'S AT THE BOARD'S DISCRETION AT THAT POINT. UH, SO THAT'S WHY I'D STILL LIKE TO TRY TO HAVE AN EMAIL VOTE TO TRY TO GET IT THROUGH. I STILL LIKE THE JUNE 16TH, 16TH TIMEFRAME IS WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD. WE STILL WORK TO TRY TO GET IT THROUGH. IF I'M WRONG ON THAT, WE CAN CORRECT THAT PART OF IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I, AND I COMPLETELY EMPATHIZE WITH THE FACT THAT THINGS COULD CHANGE WITH THE GOVERNOR AS WELL. BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS WE STILL HAVE OTHER PLACES WHERE THAT COULD BE TABLED AND DISCUSSED A BIT FURTHER OR REMANDED BACK TO ATTACK IF IT NEEDED TO BE. OKAY. UM, I STILL, I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'VE HAD NEW SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION. I THINK MAYBE SOME OF THIS PROCESSED INFORMATION IS NEW INFORMATION. UM, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT EARLY, BUT I, WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO IS TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK UNTIL 11. I'M GONNA MAKE A COUPLE PHONE CALLS, UM, OTHER PEOPLE CAN MAKE A COUPLE [01:20:01] PHONE CALLS, BUT LET'S KIND OF RESET. UM, 'CAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MIGHT WANT TO BE TAKING ESSENTIALLY THE SAME MOTION. UM, AND I'M NOT QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT YET AND I'M NOT QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH THE EMAIL VOTE. SO LET'S, LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK AND, AND COME BACK. OKAY. THANKS EVERYONE. OKAY. CAN SOMEONE CONFIRM THAT THEY CAN HEAR ME AND THAT WE'RE READY TO GO? YES. AWESOME. OKAY. SO I DO THINK WE GOT SOME NEW INFORMATION AND WE HAD NEW DISCUSSION ON, UM, ON TIMING AROUND, UH, LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT I DON'T THINK WE WERE CONSIDERING BEFORE WE GOT A NEW OPINION FROM COMMISSION STAFF. SO I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE, UH, A NEW MOTION TO TABLE IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE THAT. I AM NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THE, THE EMAIL VOTE, GIVEN SOME OF THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD. BUT WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE IS A SPECIAL TECH MEETING. DON'T GRO, PLEASE. UH, I, I THINK WE COULD DO THIS WEBEX ONLY. I THINK IT WOULD TAKE AN HOUR. WE CAN SCHEDULE TWO HOURS, UM, AND WE ARE LOOKING AT PROBABLY THE 12TH, JUNE 12TH IN THE MORNING. AND SO THAT IS, IS HOW I PROPOSE WE GO FORWARD IF SOMEBODY IS SO WILLING TO MAKE SUCH MOTION. AND I WILL, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST COINCIDENTALLY CALL ON RICHARD RUFFS. UH, CAITLYN, I AM HAPPY TO MAKE THAT MOTION TO TABLE NPR 1 2 3 8 AND GER 2 65 AS IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. OKAY. OKAY. CAN WE GET A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. IT IS JOE, DAN. OKAY, SO MOTION FROM RICHARD AND A SECOND FROM JOE. DAN. COREY, ARE WE, YOU KNOW, ARE WE IN ROBERT'S ROLL TELL OR ARE WE OKAY? NEVER WORK WE EVER DID AT PURGATORY, BUT NO, WE'RE GOOD . ALRIGHT. UM, MAYBE DON'T PUT ME SAYING HELL IN THE MEETING MINUTES. ALRIGHT, LET'S GO TO BOB HILTON. I I WAS JUST GONNA SECOND CAITLYN, SO YOU JUST DISREGARD THAT. OKAY. AWESOME. OKAY. AND, UH, EVERYBODY OKAY WITH A, A VERY SHORT, PROBABLY AN HOUR WEBEX MEETING ON, UM, THE MORNING OF JUNE 12TH. HEY, CAITLIN, THIS IS ANN. UM, UH, IT JUST POINTED OUT TO ME, I THINK THE 12TH IS RMS MAYBE, SO WE MIGHT HAVE TO DO IT EARLY. OKAY. BUT IN THE AFTERNOON WE COULD DO THAT. YEAH. OKAY. LET'S JUST TENTATIVE WE HAVE IT THAT DAY AND THEN WE'LL SEND OUT A MEETING NOTICE WHEN WE DECIDE. OKAY. WE WILL LOOK AT SOME SOMETIME THE WEEK OF THE NINTH THROUGH 13TH. FAIR ENOUGH. OKAY. COMMENT FROM JOANNE. YEAH, CAITLYN, UH, I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR YOUR, FOR YOU AND FOR THE REST OF TECH MEMBERS FOR, FOR, UH, LOOKING INTO THIS AND TAKING THESE EXTRA STEPS AND, UM, FROM GOLDEN SPREAD'S PERSPECTIVE, WE JUST WANTED TO EXTEND OUR APPRECIATION. ALL RIGHT. THANKS JORDANNE. OKAY, COREY, LET'S TAKE IT AWAY. ALRIGHT, THANK Y'ALL. ON THE MOTION TO TABLE 1238 AND NUMBERS 2 65, WE'LL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS AGAIN WITH ERIC. YES. THANK YOU. NABO? YES. THANK YOU GARRETT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. AND THEN GARRETT FOR ERIC? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. MARK DRAPER? UH, YES AND YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU AND OUR CO-OPS, BLAKE? YES. THANK YOU, JOHN. YES, THANK YOU, KYLE. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU JOHAN FOR MIKE. YES, YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ANDRE. INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. BOB HILTON. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, CAITLIN. YES, THANK YOU, BRIAN. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, NED. YES, THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU ANDRE. IPM SET UP. THANK YOU, [01:25:01] REMI. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JEREMY. YES, THANKS. THANK YOU. WE'LL CHECK AND SEE IF ANN JOINED US ON TO OUR IRA, IT'S BILL, BILL BARNES WITH US. UH, JENNIFER? YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. I GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT BILL. THANK YOU, CHRIS. YES AND YES. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU ONTO IOUS, DAVID? YES, THANK YOU, RICHARD. YES, THANK YOU MARTHA. I VOTE YES. THANKS COREY. THANK YOU. ROB FORKE. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR MUNI TODAY. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. DAVID? YES. THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU, ALICIA. YES, THANK YOU. AND CURTIS FOR RUFFLE. YES, THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK Y'ALL. I, OKAY, THANKS COREY. ALL RIGHT. ANY, ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON 1238? OKAY, SO YOU WILL SEE A, YOU KNOW, EMAIL MARKET NOTICE, UH, SO SOME KIND OF EMAIL FROM TAC UM, FROM ANN SCHEDULING THE, UH, MEETING FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 9TH. ALRIGHT, SO DIANA, I'M GONNA HAND IT BACK TO YOU ON NPR 1282 AND I'M GONNA HAND, UH, THE, THE CHAIR ROLE OVER TO MARTHA. OKAY, THANK YOU. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WE HAVE 1282, WHICH IS SPONSORED FROM ERCOT ON MAY 14TH. PRS VOTED TO GRANT URGENT STATUS TO 1282. THERE WAS ONE ABSTENTION FROM THE CONSUMER MARKET SEGMENT. WE THEN VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED AND FORWARD QT WITH THE APRIL 29TH IA. THERE WERE NINE OPPOSING VOTES, UM, ON THAT ROLL AND TWO ABSTENTIONS ON THAT VOTE AS WELL. SO I WILL PAUSE THERE. I KNOW WE'VE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FILED, SO MARTHA, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE, AND THANKS FOR THAT LAYOUT, DIANA, UM, KIND OF IN, YOU KNOW, SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE NPR THIS MORNING. AND, AND BOB, I SEE YOU IN THE QUEUE. I'LL, I'LL COME TO HERE IN A SEC. UM, WE DO HAVE TWO PRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR THE DISCUSSION TODAY, AND THEN ALSO ONE NEW SET OF COMMENTS FOR REVIEW THIS MORNING. UM, AND THEN I'D MENTIONED THAT THERE'S ALSO A COMPANION NOVA NUMBER 2 77 UNDER THE ROTH UPDATE, UM, THAT I SUGGEST WE TAKE UP WITH 1282. THE, THE NOVA PASSED THROUGH ROTH BY EMAIL VOTE WITH ONE EXTENSION. AND THEN JUST ONE MORE REMINDER THAT, UM, FOR THIS ITEM, ERIC GOFF HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO NAVA, AND ERIC'S GONNA BE REPRESENTING THE TEXAS SOLAR AND STORAGE ASSOCIATION FOR THE CONVERSATION. UM, SO I, I CONSULTED WITH THE, THE TWO PRESENTERS EARLIER THIS MORNING ABOUT WHAT THE BEST ORDER OF THE TWO PRESENTATIONS WOULD BE. UM, MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE IMM PRESENTATION FROM ANDREW RYMERS AND THEN HAVE ERCOT GO THROUGH HIS PRESENTATION. AND THEN FROM THERE WE'LL GIVE A PA AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW ITS COMMENTS FROM YESTERDAY. UH, BEFORE WE LET ANDREW GET STARTED, BOB, IS THERE SOMETHING YOU WANNA CHIME IN HERE WITH FIRST? YEAH, UH, TO, UM, I JUST SAT THROUGH, YOU KNOW, WE ALL JUST SAT THROUGH A VERY LONG CONVERSATION, A LOT OF DIFFERENT VOTES AND EVERYTHING, AND BASED ON THAT, I WANNA TRY TO GIVE US SOME DIRECTION, DIRECTION, WHETHER IT'S WHAT THE DIRECTION OF TAC WANTS TO BE OR WHETHER IT'S NOT, AT LEAST GET US IN A DIRECTION WHEN WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE DISCUSSIONS. SO I WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1282 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PRS IN THE FIVE 14, UH, PRS REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE FIVE 13 IMM COMMENTS. AND YOU'LL BE SEEING ALL THAT STUFF COMING UP HERE LATELY, BUT I WANNA GET THAT AT LEAST OUT THERE, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT AT LEAST THE DIRECTION. OKAY, THANK YOU, BOB. SO, UH, I, AND I SEE THE SECOND FROM KAITLYN HERE. I, I ASKED, WE'LL, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE ANY VOTES, BUT, UM, I, I, I GUESS I HAVE A QUICK QUE QUESTION TO COREY. UH, WOULD, WOULD THE MOTION BE JUST TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE IMM COMMENTS, OR IS IT LAYERED ON TOP OF THE PRS REPORT? LIKE BOB HAD SUGGESTED IT, IT, IT'S EXACTLY AS BOB SUGGESTED, BUT HE, HE'S [01:30:01] DEAD ON WITH HIS MOTION LANGUAGE. I'M SO PROUD OF HIM. OKAY. I'M SURE HE GOT A LITTLE HELP WITH THAT. UM, BUT JUST TO REITERATE, WHAT WE HAVE IS BOB MOVING TO RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FIVE 14 PRS REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE FIVE 13 IMM COMMENTS. WE DO HAVE A SECOND FROM KAITLYN SMITH. AND, UH, WE, BEFORE WE TAKE ANY VOTES, WE'LL ROLL THROUGH THE DISCUSSION ITEM, STARTING WITH ANDREW'S PRESENTATION FROM THE IMM. UM, ANDREW, DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE ON TAKING QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY VERSUS TAKING THEM ALL AT THE END HERE? I DON'T MIND TAKING QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY. UH, AND I WOULD JUST ASK THAT I'M ALSO ABLE TO RESPOND AFTER ERCOT PRESENTATION BECAUSE THEY ADDRESS SOME OF THE POINTS IN MY CO IN MY PRESENTATION. SO I THINK IT'S FINE FOR ME TO GO FIRST SINCE A LOT OF THEIR PRESENTATION IS REALLY RESPONDING TO MINE. BUT THEN I MAY HAVE SOME THOUGHTS THAT NEED TO BE ADDED ON TOP OF THAT. DOES THAT SOUND GOOD AB ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM. I'LL KEEP AN EYE ON THE CHAT QUEUE AND TRY TO CATCH YOU WHEN THERE'S SOMEONE THERE THAT WANTS TO ASK A QUESTION. THANKS. COOL. AND I SEE THE QUEUE, AND THERE ARE A FEW POINTS IN THE PRESENTATION THAT ARE MORE NATURAL FOR TAKING QUESTIONS THAN OTHERS. SO I MAY, YOU KNOW, DELAY ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS UNTIL WE GET TO CERTAIN POINTS IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT THAT'S FINE. SO, UH, GOOD MORNING EVERYONE FOR THE LAST LITTLE BIT OF THE MORNING. I AM MOSTLY GOING TO BE COVERING THE SAME MATERIAL THAT I PRESENTED AT R-T-C-B-T-F LAST WEEK, ALTHOUGH I'VE ADDED A LITTLE BIT TO THIS OR CLARIFIED A FEW POINTS. UH, THE GIST OF THIS PRESENTATION IS THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE DURATION CONSTRAINT FOR NONS SPIN BE SET AT ONE HOUR RATHER THAN FOUR HOURS. AND THE GIST OF THE BASIS FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IMPOSING A FOUR HOUR DURATION CONSTRAINT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO TEND TO INCENTIVIZE BATTERIES BOTH IN THEIR OFFERS AND THROUGH SC TO PROVIDE ENERGY RATHER THAN RESERVES. UH, AND BY PROVIDING ENERGY, THEY ARE EXHAUSTING THEIR STATE OF CHARGE. THUS, UH, KIND OF RUNNING AGAINST THE EXPRESSED INTENTION OF THE LONGER DURATION CONSTRAINT, WHICH IS TO PRESERVE RESERVES. UH, AND SO IN SUMMARY, WE'RE REALLY RECOMMENDING THAT THIS NPRR BE APPROVED WITH OUR AMENDMENTS AS EXPRESSED IN THE COMMENTS THAT, UH, WERE REFERENCED EARLIER AND THE MOTION THAT BOB MADE. SO IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, RIGHT. SO THE IDEA BEHIND THE FOUR HOUR DURATION CONSTRAINT IS ERCOT POSITION THAT, UH, NONS SPIN NEEDS TO LAST OR HAVE FOUR HOURS OF ENERGY BEHIND IT. UH, IN PRACTICE, THIS CONSTRAINT LEADS SCED TO FIND IT VERY EXPENSIVE TO AWARD NONS SPIND TO BATTERIES. SO INSTEAD OF AWARDING NONS SPIND TO BATTERIES, IT AWARDS NONS SPIND TO DURATION UNLIMITED RESOURCES, AND THEN AWARDS ENERGY TO BATTERIES. UH, THIS DYNAMIC EXACERBATES AS BATTERIES RUN OUT OF STATE OF CHARGE, ED IS MORE LIKELY TO OFFER THEM ENERGY OR AWARD THEM ENERGY INSTEAD OF NONS SPIND, THUS ACCELERATING THE RATE AT WHICH THEIR STATE OF CHARGE DECLINES. ONCE THE BATTERY'S OUT OF STATE OF CHARGE, IT CAN NO LONGER PROVIDE ENERGY OR RESERVES. AND SO IT MAKES SENSE TEMPORALLY TO DESIGN THE REAL TIME DISPATCH MODEL TO PRIORITIZE AWARDING RESERVES TO BATTERIES AND ENERGY TO RESOURCES THAT AREN'T DURATION LIMITED. IMPORTANTLY, THIS DYNAMIC DOES NOT DEPEND ON BATTERY SUBMITTING HIGH OFFERS FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES. UH, AND IT'S REALLY JUST A FUNCTION OF THE MATH OF SCAD THAT PUTTING IN A REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE FOUR HOURS OF ENERGY CORRESPONDING TO THE MEGAWATT AWARDS FOR NONS SPEND JUST MAKES NONS SPEND FROM BATTERIES APPEAR A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE. AND THIS COULD BE RESOLVED SIMPLY BY APPLYING A LOWER DURATION REQUIREMENT FOR BATTERIES. AND NOT MENTIONED HERE, BUT WE'LL GET INTO IT A LITTLE BIT, THERE'S ALSO SOME THOUGHTS ON HOW THIS INTERACTS WITH ENERGY OFFER PRICES. SO IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO TO MAKE THIS POINT, WE USED A SIMPLIFIED SC TOOL THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US BY STEVE BREY. UH, THIS TOOL IS JUST AN ADJUSTED VERSION OF THE EXCEL SC SIMULATOR THAT ERCOT PUT OUT, WHERE ALL THAT WAS ADDED TO. IT WAS A DURATION CONSTRAINT ON ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCES, UH, FOR THEIR ANCILLARY SERVICE AWARDS. THE IMPORTANT POINT [01:35:01] WITH THE WAY WE SET UP THIS MODEL, THERE'S NO TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS AND THE DEMAND IS EQUAL TO THE CAPACITY ONLINE OF THERMAL RESOURCES. SO TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, THE THERMAL RESOURCES COULD SERVE ALL OF THE LOAD, AND THEN DEPENDING ON THE STATE OF CHARGE OF THE ESRS, THEY COULD CARRY ALL OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICES DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE STATE OF CHARGE REQUIREMENT IS. UH, SOME IMPORTANT POINTS THERE. THIS SCENARIO OR THE SITUATION WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT REALLY COMES DOWN TO SITUATIONS WHERE WE'RE LIKELY OR POSSIBLY GONNA GO SHORT OF NONS SPEND, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE OTHER ANCILLARY SERVICE PRODUCTS. AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MARGIN WHERE WE MAY, WE ARE IN THE KIND OF ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE FOR NONS SPIN IN PARTICULAR. UH, AND I SEE I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I'LL JUST FINISH THIS REAL QUICK. UH, THE IMPORTANT FINAL POINT HERE IS THAT THE RESULTS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE WE'RE VARYING THE STATE OF CHARGE OF THE BATTERIES TO SHOW HOW AS THE BATTERY RUNS OUT OF STATE OF CHARGE, SKE ACTUALLY REACTS TO THAT BY AWARDING THEM MORE ENERGY AWARDS, REALLY, BECAUSE THE ENERGY REQUIREMENT FOR GETTING BASE POINTS IS A LOT LOWER THAN IT IS FOR NONS SPEND. FOR ENERGY, YOU ONLY NEED TO HAVE FIVE MINUTES OF STATE OF CHARGE, WHEREAS FOR NONS SPEND, YOU NEED FOUR HOURS. UM, SO WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM JAY SMITT. YEAH, HI, UH, THIS IS JENNIFER SCHMIDT FROM RHYTHM. I WANTED TO KIND OF DIG INTO THE QUESTION AROUND ENERGY FOR NON BATTERIES AND, UM, ANCILLARIES FOR BATTERIES. I, I GUESS I, I WONDER WHY THAT IS A PREMISE, BECAUSE ONE WOULD THINK THAT A LONGER DURATION EMISSIONS CREATING RESOURCE WOULD ACTUALLY BE MORE LIKELY TO FALL INTO A THING WE WANT TO HAVE AVAILABLE FOR CAPACITY PURPOSES, RATHER THAN SORT OF THE ENERGY MARKET WHERE I THINK BATTERIES FIT VERY WELL BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUCH FAST WRAP TIMES. CAN YOU DIG, DIG INTO THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE PLEASE? YEAH. UH, THE PROBLEM WITH WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS THAT BATTERIES ARE DURATION LIMITED. AND SO IF YOU'RE RELYING ON BATTERIES FOR ENERGY, ONCE THEY RUN OUT OF STATE OF CHARGE, THEY'RE NO LONGER ABLE TO PROVIDE ENERGY. AND ONCE THEY'RE OUTTA STATE OF CHARGE, THEY CAN'T PROVIDE RESERVES EITHER. WHEREAS IF THEY AREN'T PROVIDING ENERGY, THEY CAN PROVIDE RESERVES INDEFINITELY, PENDING ANY FURTHER, ANY FUTURE DISCHARGES. AND SO THAT'S REALLY THE, THE DYNAMIC THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. UH, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I GUESS THAT ASSUMES THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO CHARGE AN IN BETWEEN PERIODS OF PERFORMANCE, WHICH WOULD THEN IMPLY THAT WE'RE IN A PERIOD OF SUSTAINED OUTAGE, IN WHICH CASE THE LIMITED DURATION WOULD BE A PROBLEM FOR BATTERIES. THAT'S, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PERIODS OF PROLONGED, YOU KNOW, LET'S CALL IT SCARCITY. IT'S NOT A SEVERE SCARCITY PER SE. UH, THE SITUATIONS THAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE MAINLY PROLONGED FORECAST ERRORS. SO WHEN YOU HAVE FORECAST ERRORS, PARTICULARLY WHERE YOU'RE UNDER FORECASTING NET DEMAND, THE PROBLEM THAT CREATES FROM A RELIABILITY PERSPECTIVE IS THAT YOU'RE NOT SENDING THE SIGNAL TO FAST START RESOURCES OR, UH, WHAT WHATEVER TO COME ONLINE. AND SO AS THAT EVENT PERSISTS, AND IT TURNS OUT THE FORECAST WAS WRONG FOR SEVERAL HOURS IN A ROW, ONE, NOW YOU REALIZE DEMAND IS ACTUALLY GOING TO STAY ELEVATED FOR A LONG TIME AND IT'S TOO LATE TO TURN ANYTHING ELSE ON. AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW YOU GET INTO THIS SITUATION. SO WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT A PROLONGED FORECAST ERROR WHERE THE FORECAST ERROR PERSISTS FOR FOUR HOURS IN A ROW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? UM, SORRY FOR THE DOUBLE QUESTION, BUT IF IT'S A PROLONGED SERVICE, IF IT'S A PROLONGED CONCERN, THEN HOW IS HAVING SINGLE HOUR DURATION RESOURCES GOING TO MEET THAT NEED? BECAUSE HAVING THE LOWER DURATION REQUIREMENT INCENTIVIZES THE BATTERY TO PROVIDE RESERVES INSTEAD OF PROVIDING ENERGY, WHEREAS IF IT PROVIDES ENERGY, IT'S GOING TO RUN OUT OF STATE OF CHARGE AND THEN CAN'T PROVIDE ENERGY OR RESERVES AS THE EVENT PERSISTS. AND I KNOW THAT'S COUNTERINTUITIVE. UH, A SIMILAR EXAMPLE THAT WE BROUGHT UP LAST YEAR DURING THE 1224 DISCUSSION RELATES TO LIKE IN THE CURRENT MARKET DESIGN ERCOT POLICY AROUND ECRS DEPLOYMENTS, AND WE FOUND THAT THE ATTEMPTS TO PRESERVE ECRS RESULT IN [01:40:01] MORE BATTERIES BEING DISCHARGED FOR ENERGY RATHER THAN BEING HELD IN RESERVE. AND SO IT'S COUNTERINTUITIVE THAT HAVING THE LOWER DURATION REQUIREMENT ACTUALLY PRESERVES THE RESERVES OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE MATH OF HOW SCED WORKS AND THE OFFER BEHAVIOR OF THE BATTERIES, THE LOWER DURATION REQUIREMENT ACTUALLY RESULTS IN BATTERIES MAINTAINING THEIR STATE OF CHARGE OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. YEP. I DON'T SEE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. SO THE IMPORTANT FINAL POINT I'LL MAKE HERE. SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE AS PLAN. UH, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK TO THIS LATER. RIGHT NOW THIS IS SAYING THAT AS PLAN IS 9,500 MEGAWATTS AND WE HAVE 10,000 MEGAWATTS OF ESRS, AND THEY'RE WE'RE JUST SAYING ON AVERAGE THESE ARE ONE HOUR BATTERIES. SO THAT IS A, A POINT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AS WELL. SO LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS THE FIRST SET OF RESULTS. OH, THIS IS JUST THE DEMAND CURVE. SO LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS A SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF SC WHERE AMONG THE SIMPLIFICATIONS WAS A KIND OF, UH, APPROXIMATION OF THE AS DEMAND CURVES AS DEFINED BY 1268. THEY LOOK LIKE THIS. SO LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, RIGHT? SO HERE'S REALLY THE IMPORTANT POINT. UH, THESE ARE NOT TIME SERIES CHARTS, I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. SO WHAT THE X AXI IS SHOWING IS HOW MUCH OF THE SR'S STATE OF CHARGE HAS BEEN DEPLETED. SO IT'S SORT OF THE OPPOSITE OF STATE OF CHARGE. IT'S HOW MUCH OF IT IS HAS BEEN DISCHARGED. AND WHAT THIS CHARGE IS SHOWING IS AS WE INCREMENT OR DECREMENT THE STATE OF CHARGE OF THE BATTERY AND RERUN THE SCED SIMULATION, SCED IS INCREASINGLY LIKELY TO AWARD THE BATTERY ENERGY AS OPPOSED TO RESERVES. THE LEFT CHART HERE IS SHOWING THE RESULTS WHEN WE IMPOSE A FOUR HOUR DURATION REQUIREMENT ON NONS SPIND, AND THE RIGHT CHART IS SHOWING THE RESULTS WHEN WE IMPOSE A ONE HOUR DURATION ON NONS SPIND, THE IMPORTANT TAKEAWAY HERE IS SCED STARTS FAVORING THE BATTERY FOR ENERGY RATHER THAN RESERVES AT A RELATIVELY HIGHER LEVEL OF STATE OF CHARGE OR A RELATIVELY LOWER LEVEL OF DEPLETION IN THE FOUR HOUR DURATION CASE ON THE LEFT RATHER THAN THE ONE HOUR DURATION CASE ON THE RIGHT. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS IF THE BATTERY HAS LESS THAN 20% OF ITS STATE OF CHARGE, SCED STARTS PRIORITIZING AWARDING IT ENERGY, AND THAT INCREASES AS THE STATE OF CHARGE IS DEPLETED. AND SO IF YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW THIS WOULD PLAY OUT IN A TIME SERIES, SAY WE'RE IN A SITUATION LIKE THE SOLAR DOWN RAMP WHERE BATTERIES ARE INTENTIONALLY SELLING ENERGY BECAUSE PRICES ARE ELEVATED, AND SO THEY EXHAUST SOME OF THEIR STATE OF CHARGE AND THEN SAY THE FORECAST FOR WIND IS OFF BY AN HOUR OR TWO, OR SAY THERE ARE FORCED OUTAGES CONCURRENT WITH THE SOLAR DOWN RAMP. SO NOW THE BATTERIES ON THE SYSTEM HAVE ALREADY DEPLETED THEIR STATE OF CHARGE, AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THIS EVENT IS ONGOING SCHEDULE WILL CONTINUE TO PRIORITIZE THOSE BATTERIES FOR ENERGY. AND AS THEIR STATE OF CHARGE IS DEPLETED, IT'LL ACTUALLY INCREASINGLY RELY ON THOSE BATTERIES FROM ENER FOR ENERGY UNTIL THEIR STATE OF CHARGE IS COMPLETELY EXHAUSTED ON THE RIGHT SIDE. HOWEVER, THIS DYNAMIC IS JUST MUCH LESS SEVERE. SO WE DON'T ACTUALLY SEE SCAD PRIORITIZING, UH, BATTERIES FOR ENERGY IN THE ONE HOUR CASE UNTIL WE GO COMPLETELY SHORT ON NONS SPEND. SO THE ONLY TIME WHERE WE START USING THE BATTERIES FOR ENERGY IS ACTUALLY WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE GOING SHORT ON ECRS AS WELL. AND SO THAT'S WHY FROM 70 TO A HUNDRED PERCENT ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT END OF THE CHARTS, THAT'S WHERE WE'VE GONE COMPLETELY SHORT ON NONS SPIN AND NOW WE'RE GOING SHORT ON ECRS, WHICH WAS KEPT CONSISTENT BETWEEN THE TWO, UH, SETS OF RESULTS. AND SO I CAN PAUSE HERE. THERE'S SETH. WHAT'S UP SETH? THANK YOU. YEAH, SO JUST A, A QUESTION ABOUT THIS. UH, YOU, YOU, YOU REFERRED TO THE MATH OF SC A FEW TIMES. CAN YOU JUST AT A HIGH LEVEL ELABORATE, UH, WHAT THAT MATH IS DOING? YEAH, SO SC IS LOOKING AT THE COST OF GOING SHORT ON NONS SPIN AND IT'S LOOKING AT THE NEED TO PROCURE ALL OF THE ENERGY. AND YOU KNOW, IT HAS ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES FOR THE OTHER ANCILLARY SERVICES AS WELL. AND IT'S JUST TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE OVERALL [01:45:01] COST OF PROCURING ANCILLARY SERVICES AND ENERGY. AND AS THE BATTERY STATE OF CHARGE GETS LOWER FOR IT TO AWARD NONS SPIND TO THE BATTERY WOULD MEAN IT HAD TO GO SHORT ON SOME OF THE OTHER ANCILLARY SERVICES BECAUSE THERE ARE DURATION REQUIREMENTS WITH THOSE ANCILLARY SERVICES AS WELL. AND SO NOW INSTEAD IT'S GIVING NONS SPIND TO THE THERMAL RESOURCE AND THE ENERGY CAN TAKE UP IT, IT'LL AWARD ENERGY TO THE BATTERY BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY A FIVE MINUTE DURATION IMPLICATION FOR ENERGY INSTEAD OF 30 MINUTES OR AN HOUR. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OKAY. SO WHAT YOU'RE PORTRAYING IS THE INFEASIBILITY TRADE OFF THE, THE TRADE-OFFS WITH THE INFEASIBILITY IS THAT IT'S THE TRADE-OFFS WITH THE PENALTY PRICING ON THE ANCILLARY SERVICES. YEP. YEP, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. OKAY. YEP. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP, NO PROBLEM. ANYONE ELSE? THIS IS A GOOD SLIDE TO LINGER ON IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS. OTHERWISE WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE PRICING IMPLICATIONS. OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS, SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE PRICING IMPLICATIONS. YOU KNOW, I'M PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE I EXPECT IT IS OF INTEREST TO PEOPLE, AND YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT EITHER OF THESE SETS OF RESULTS IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER. IT IS JUST IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THE KIND OF PRICE SPREAD. YOU WILL SEE IF YOU HAVE THE FOUR HOUR DURATION REQUIREMENT VERSUS THE ONE HOUR DURATION REQUIREMENT, WHAT'S EFFECTIVELY HAPPENING IS THE PRICES ARE SCALING ACCORDING TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DURATION REQUIREMENT. SO ON THE LEFT SIDE, ONCE WE START REALLY GOING SHORT ON NONS SPIND, BECAUSE WE'RE RUNNING THROUGH THE BATTERY STATE OF CHARGE, THE NONS SPIND PRICE ENDS UP BEING FOUR TIMES HIGHER THAN THE ECRS PRICE AND EFFECTIVELY EIGHT TIMES HIGHER THAN THE REG AND RS PRICE. WHEREAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE WHERE BOTH ECRS AND NONS SPEND HAVE A ONE HOUR DURATION AND REG AND RS HAVE A 30 MINUTE DURATION, YOU EVENTUALLY SEE ECRS AND NONS SPEND HAVING APPROXIMATELY THE SAME PRICE, AND THAT'S TWICE AS HIGH AS REG AND R RSS. SO THIS IS JUST AN INTERESTING DYNAMIC TO POINT OUT. AND I WILL ALSO ADD THAT IF AND WHEN WE GET DRS IMPLEMENTED AND CO OPTIMIZED WITH OTHER ANCILLARY SERVICES, GIVEN THAT IT HAS A FOUR HOUR DURATION REQUIREMENT, WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE CERTAIN PRICE FORMATION BEHAVIOR, KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE SEE ON THE LEFT. SO THIS ISN'T INHERENTLY PROBLEMATIC, IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON YOUR VIEW AS TO THE ROLE OF NONS SPIN AND WHETHER IT IS MEANT TO BE THIS FOUR HOUR DURATION PRODUCT AND WHETHER YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRICE SIGNAL CORRESPONDING TO THAT. I DON'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS HERE. AND SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH GOES INTO OUR COMMENTS ON OFFERED BEHAVIOR. SO THIS IS GOING TO COME UP IN ERCOT PRESENTATION, AND SO I WANT TO ADDRESS IT AT SOME LENGTH HERE. UH, WE USED A THOUSAND DOLLARS A MEGAWATT HOUR AS THE ENERGY OFFER. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE ENERGY PRICES ON THE LAST SLIDE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THEY ARE COMING OUTTA THE THOUSAND DOLLARS. THAT PRICE IS EFFECTIVELY BEING SET BY THE A THOUSAND DOLLARS PER MEGAWATT HOUR OFFER FOR ENERGY FROM THE BATTERY BECAUSE THE BATTERY IS THE MARGINAL RESOURCE, UH, THAT PRICE COULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER. IF YOU SET THAT PRICE AT $2,000 A MEGAWATT HOUR, YOU HAVE LESS OF SCAD AWARDING BASE POINTS TO BATTERIES. SO WHO'S TO SAY BATTERIES WOULDN'T JUST INCREASE THEIR OFFERS TO PRESERVE THEIR STATE OF CHARGE? I THINK THE LOGIC OF THAT KIND OF FALLS APART WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE SITUATIONS WE'RE REFERRING TO. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FORECAST ERROR FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE BATTERY OPERATOR, PRICES ARE ELEVATED RIGHT NOW AND SOMETIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE THEY WON'T BE ELEVATED ANYMORE. AND SO ON SOME MARGIN WE ARE PRIORITIZING TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIGHER ENERGY PRICES WHILE THEY LAST. SO IN THE REALITY THAT SITUATION IS GOING TO PERSIST AND YOU WANNA MAKE BATTERIES LESS AND DIFFERENT ABOUT PROVIDING RESERVES VERSUS PROVIDING ENERGY TO DO THAT, YOU'RE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO GET BATTERIES WILLING TO PROVIDE RESERVES DESPITE ELEVATED ENERGY PRICES IF THEY CAN SELL A GREATER CAPACITY, CAPACITY OF RESERVES OR IF THEY CAN SELL ENERGY AND RESERVES AT THE SAME TIME. AND SO THAT IS WHAT WOULD BE ACHIEVED WITH THE LOWER DURATION CONSTRAINT. I'D [01:50:01] ALSO ADD AS MANY BATTERIES AS WE HAVE IN THE SYSTEM NOW. UH, THE FREQUENCY AT WHICH THEY OFFER AT VERY, VERY HIGH PRICES HAS BEEN DROPPING PRECIPITOUSLY. AND SO WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THIS COMING OUT IN THE STATE OF THE MARKET. EVERYONE STAY TUNED FOR THAT NEXT WEEK. UH, IT'S JUST UNREALISTIC TO IMAGINE THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, BATTERIES WOULD INTENTIONALLY TRY TO AVOID BEING DISCHARGED UNDER MOST SITUATIONS WHEN THEY COULD BE SELLING ENERGY AT REALLY ELEVATED PRICES. UH, I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT. UH, CAITLIN, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF FURTHER DIG INTO THAT POINT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT IS A QUESTION I HAVE GOTTEN A, A LOT AS WELL IS THE, WHY CAN'T YOU JUST RAISE YOUR, YOUR ENERGY OFFER, YOU KNOW? MM-HMM . AND TO BE CLEAR, SO AS THE ESR, WE PRESERVE OUR, OUR STATE OF CHARGE TO FULFILL WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, BILATERAL OR SERVICE RESPONSIBILITY WE HAVE, OUR ENERGY OFFER IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO THAT BECAUSE WE ARE ALWAYS AN ONLINE RESOURCE. AND SO THERE, THERE ARE TIMES WHERE RAISING THAT OFFER, IT'S NOT FIX THE SOLUTION. AND I BELIEVE THERE WILL BE EVEN MORE TIMES THAN IN RTC, UM, BECAUSE THE, THE OFFER IS GOING TO BE 2000 WHERE IT'S 5,000 NOW, AND THE PRICES CAN STILL GO HIGHER. I THINK IN ADDITION TO THE SITUATION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, ANDREW, THERE, THERE MIGHT BE SITUATIONS WHERE WE ARE PRESERVING FOR, FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES IN THE SUNSET RAMP, AS YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT. SO, SO MAYBE A, A TIGHT AFTERNOON WHERE ENERGY PRICES ARE ALREADY HIGH, WE WOULD STILL BE RESERVING FOR, FOR PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, RESERVES IN THE SUNSET HOURS, RIGHT? SO THIS POINT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP AND I THINK IS VALID, WHICH IS THAT ENERGY OFFERS ARE CAPPED AT 2000, BUT ANCILLARY SERVICE AND ENERGY PRICES CAN GO WELL ABOVE 2000. AND SO THAT IS A, YOU KNOW, CAUSE FOR CONCERN AS WELL AS FAR AS ESR OPERATOR'S ABILITY TO MANAGE THEIR STATE OF CHARGE. AND IT DOES GET KIND OF COMPLICATED. I WOULD KIND OF DEFER TO DAVE MAGGIO OR S ON THAT TOPIC BECAUSE THE MATH OF HOW THE OFFER CAPS INTERACT WITH THE, AS DOMAIN CURVES AS FAR AS PRICE FORMATION, THEY'RE REALLY A LOT MORE, UH, INTUITIVE, UH, ON THAT TOPIC. BUT THIS IS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN. IF PRICES ARE CLEARING ABOVE $2,000, THEN THE ENERGY OFFER CAP WOULD BE A PROBLEM. AGREE. AND I, I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT PERHAPS RAISING THAT, THAT OFFER CAP, AND AS YOU SAID, I THINK THAT'S QUITE COMPLICATED. UH, I'LL LET OR CUT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES NOW OR, OR LATER, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT'S NOT SOMETHING REALLY THAT IS ON THE TABLE UNTIL, YOU KNOW, SOME AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER RTC HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY TO IT. RIGHT. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, TO GIVE YOU OUR LIMITED PERSPECTIVE ON IT, AND I SEE DAVE'S IN THE QUEUE, UH, THERE IS SOME INTEREST IN REEVALUATING SHORTAGE PRICING GENERALLY, AND THAT MAY BE, YOU KNOW, THE TIME TO RECONSIDER OFFER CAPS. SO I'LL LET DAVE JUMP IN HERE. HI. YEAH, THANK YOU. HOPEFULLY ALL CAN HEAR ME. UH, I, I I THINK YOU ALL CAPTURED IT. WELL, I GUESS JUST DID WANNA NOTE FOR THE GROUP AND WON'T GET INTO THE DETAIL. UM, BUT AS YOU THINK ABOUT THE OFFER CAPS, THERE IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOW THE OFFER CAPS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED, HOW THOSE HAVE, UH, WOULD BE WORKING IN CONCERT WITH THE ANSI SERVICE DEMAND CURVES WITH THE POWER BALANCE PENALTY PRICING, UM, HOW WE DO THE CAPPING OF SYSTEM LAMBDA. I I KNOW THOSE ALL HAVE BEEN, UH, IN DISCUSSION AND IN SOME FORM OR FASHION, UH, THOSE REALLY NEED TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT IN THE CONTEXT OF ONE ANOTHER. AND SO THAT'S THE COMPLEXITY THAT, THAT YOU ALL WERE TALKING ABOUT. UM, I I GUESS BECAUSE I HAVE THE MIC, JUST WANNA HAVE A MAYBE A QUICK COMMENT THAT ANDREW, WHAT I WAS HEARING YOUR POINT AROUND THE $2,000 PER MEGAWATT OFFER IS AS WE'RE SEEING MORE BATTERIES THAT THE, THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE SEEING OFFERED AT THE, THE SUPER HIGHER PRICES, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE AROUND 5,000 LIKE WE SEE TODAY, WE'RE SEEING A DECLINE, I GUESS SEPARATE FROM THAT. CAITLYN, WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS IT'D BE LIKELY AND EXPECTED TO SEE MORE OFFERS NEAR TO 2000 AS WE MOVE INTO REALTIME IZATION [01:55:02] AS A FUNCTION OF TRYING TO MANAGE STATE OF CHARGE, PARTICULARLY IN A WORLD WHERE THE ANSLEY SERVICES AREN'T UNKNOWN, THEY'RE BEING CLE IN THE REALTIME MARKET. SO TH THOSE ARE, AM I CAPTURING THE DISTINCTION CORRECTLY BETWEEN ANDREW, THE POINT YOU WERE MAKING AROUND BULLET TWO AND KAITLYN, YOUR QUESTION? UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE TOO. YES, I THINK SO. OKAY. I, I AGREE WITH THE DISTINCTION ANDREW'S MAKING. I JUST WANTED TO RAISE AN ADDITIONAL SITUATION. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. UH, ALL GOOD POINTS. UH, I THINK THAT'S, MAYBE, MAYBE JUST TO HAMMER THIS 0.1 MORE TIME. UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROLONGED FORECAST ERROR. AND SO THIS IS REALLY A SITUATION WHERE WE THINK PRICES AND NET DEMAND ARE GOING TO GO DOWN, BUT THEN IN REALITY, THEY END UP BEING ELEVATED FOR LONGER THAN WE EXPECTED. UH, WE CANNOT KNOW THAT IN ADVANCE. AND SO WHEN THAT IS HAPPENING, BATTERIES HAVE MORE OF AN INCENTIVE, OR THEY'RE INDIFFERENCE PRICE TO SELL RESERVES VERSUS ENERGY IS HIGHER. AND SO GIVEN THAT CONTEXT, THE IDEA THAT THEY WOULD BE INTENTIONALLY SUBMITTING HIGHER OFFERS TO AVOID DISCHARGING, OF COURSE THERE'S ALL OF THE SITUATIONS CAITLIN ALLUDED TO AS FAR AS BILATERALS, AS FAR AS WHAT WERE THEIR ANCILLARY SERVICE AWARDS FROM THE DAY AHEAD. YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT IN A VACUUM, UH, THEY HAVE MUCH LESS OF AN INCENTIVE TO PRESERVE THEIR STATE OF CHARGE UNDER THOSE SIT UNDER THAT SITUATION WHEN THEY CAN BE MAKING A LOT MORE MONEY SELLING ENERGY. SO IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WHICH I THINK IS MY LAST SLIDE. SO THIS IS JUST TO REITERATE OUR POINTS. SO THERE'S ALREADY A MOTION WE WOULD REALLY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPRR 1282 AS WE AMENDED IT IN OUR COMMENTS. AND WE THINK THAT THE MECHANICS OF HOW A FOUR HOUR DURATION CONSTRAINT WILL, UH, INTERACT WITH SCED AND WITH THE OFFER BEHAVIOR OF THE BATTERIES, WILL ACTUALLY WORK AGAINST THE EXPRESSED INTENTION OF FOUR HOUR DURATION CONSTRAINT. AND SO WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT A PRR 1282 BE APPROVED WITH OUR AMENDED, UH, COMMENTS WITH A ONE HOUR DURATION CONSTRAINT. AND SO I THINK THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM NED ANDREW, AND I APPRECIATE YOU WALKING THROUGH THIS WITH US. UM, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE, MAYBE THE, THE DIFFERENCE OF PERSPECTIVES ON THIS COMES DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE WAY ONE INDIVIDUAL BATTERY MIGHT CONSIDER THE TRADE OFF, WHEREAS I THINK ERCOT IS LOOKING AT IT FROM WHAT IS THE, THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF THE NONS SPIND RESERVES, WHAT DOES THAT REPRESENT TO THEM AND WHAT CAN THEY EXPECT? SO IF, IF I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE THOSE TWO, UH, YOU KNOW, VIEWS OF THE WORLD, I, I THINK YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE A ONE HOUR STATE OF CHARGE, UM, FOR NONS SPEND ALL THOSE EQUAL, THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE NONS SPEND RESERVES BEING ABLE TO, TO RUN THROUGH FASTER THAN IF THERE WAS A A FOUR HOUR STATE OF CHARGE REQUIREMENT. AM I THINKING ABOUT THAT CORRECTLY? I AM NOT SURE I FOLLOW. SO IF, IF YOU HAVE, UM, NONS SPEND RESERVES ARE HELD BY, UM, BY ESRS WITH ONE HOUR STATE OF CHARGE, LIKE FOR, FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT ALL RESERVES ARE BEING CARRIED BY BATTERIES. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, UNIQUE, UNIQUE STATE OF THE WORLD, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE ENOUGH BATTERIES TO FILL THE ENTIRE ANCILLARY SERVICE PLAN, ALL ELSE EQUAL WITH A ONE HOUR STATE OF CHARGE REQUIREMENT VERSUS A FOUR HOUR STATE OF CHARGE REQUIREMENT. DOES, ER I THINK ERCOT WOULD RUN THROUGH ITS NON, IT WOULD GO SHORT ON NONS SPEND FASTER THAN WITH A FOUR HOUR REQUIREMENT. OH NO, THAT'S DEFINITELY BACKWARDS. SO IF YOU HAVE A FOUR HOUR STATE OF CHARGE REQUIREMENT, THE AMOUNT OF MEGAWATTS THAT ERCOT IS GOING TO, THAT SC IS GOING TO SEE IS GOING TO SEEM LOWER, RIGHT? AND SO IT'S GOING TO GO SHORT ON NONS SPIN A LOT EARLIER BECAUSE IT WON'T, IT'LL, IT WILL BASICALLY SEE THAT IT CAN'T AWARD SO MANY MEGAWATTS TO BATTERIES BECAUSE OF THE DURATION CONSTRAINT. AND IT'S EXPENSIVE TO AWARD NONS SPEND TO BATTERIES UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND SO THE PRICE, IT, IT'S [02:00:01] JUST GOING TO GO SHORTER AND THE CLEARING PRICE IS GOING TO BE HIGHER. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE HIGHER CLEARING PRICE ON NONS SPEND SOONER ON THE FOUR HOUR DURATION CURVE THAT CORRESPONDS DIRECTLY WITH SCED GOING SHORT ON NONS SPEND. THAT'S COUNTERINTUITIVE. UM, WELL, I'M THINKING , I THINK THAT A LOT OF THIS IS COUNTERINTUITIVE. I'M ACTUALLY NOT SURE WHAT'S COUNTERINTUITIVE ABOUT THAT. IF YOU SAY THAT YOU NEED FOUR HOURS OF ENERGY TO PROVIDE NONS SPEND, THAT'S MORE ENERGY. AND SO FOR THE SAME MEGAWATTS AND MEGAWATT HOURS IN THE SYSTEM, YOU CAN'T AWARD AS MANY MEGAWATTS OF NONS SPEND WHEN THERE'S A FOUR HOUR DURATION REQUIREMENT AS YOU CAN WHEN THERE'S A ONE HOUR DURATION REQUIREMENT. 'CAUSE THE AMOUNT OF MEGAWATT HOURS CORRESPONDING TO THAT NUMBER OF MEGAWATTS IS GREATER IN ONE CASE THAN IN THE OTHER CASE. CAN I RESPOND TO THAT REALLY QUICK? ANDREW AND NED? YEAH. MM-HMM . SO, SO NED, IT'S, THEY'RE OPTIMIZING ON MEGAWATT. SO WE WOULD, WE WOULD HAVE ONE FOURTH THE AMOUNT OF MEGAWATTS IN NON SPIN FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY. AND SO WE WOULD HAVE TO PRICE FOUR TIMES HIGHER IN ORDER, YOU KNOW, FOR SCED TO, TO PICK THAT UP ESSENTIALLY. AND SO THE, AND SO YOU'RE, OKAY. AND SO THEN IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM THAT HAS MORE THAN JUST BATTERIES IN IT, THEN THAT WOULD CREATE A TRADE OFF WHERE ERCOT WOULD BE ABLE TO AWARD THOSE RESERVES TO RESOURCES THAT COULD, WHEN, WHEN NONS SPIN IS DEPLOYED OR GOING SHORT, IT WOULD, THEY WOULD EXPECT THAT CAPACITY TO BE AVAILABLE FOR A LONGER PERIOD. UH, I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. UH, WHAT I WILL SAY IS, UH, LEMME THINK ABOUT THIS. THERE WAS A, THERE'S A WAY I KIND OF WANTED TO RESPOND TO THIS. UH, YOU KNOW, IN ANY CASE, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE BATTERIES ARE PROVIDING THE RESERVES, IF THE RESERVES WERE ENERGY, ONCE THE BATTERIES RUN THROUGH THEIR STATE OF CHARGE, SO WHERE THEY WERE BEING AWARDED ENERGY, THAT MEANS THAT THERMAL RESOURCES WERE BEING AWARDED THOSE RESERVES ONCE THE BATTERIES RUN OUT OF THOSE, THEIR STATE OF CHARGE. NOW THOSE RESERVES THAT WERE BEING CARRIED BY THE THERMAL RESOURCES HAVE TO BE CONVERTED INTO ENERGY. AND SO NOW YOU'RE RIGHT BACK WHERE YOU STARTED, ONLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE BATTERIES IN RESERVE ANYMORE. SO INSTEAD OF AWARDING ENERGY TO THERMAL RESOURCES TO START WITH, AND THEN HAVING THE BATTERIES IN RESERVE, JUST IN CASE YOU'VE BURNT THROUGH ALL OF THE BATTERY STATE OF CHARGE WHILE THE THERMAL RESOURCES WERE CARRYING RESERVES AND THEN THE RESERVES THAT WERE CARRIED BY THE THERMAL RESOURCES NEED TO BE CONVERTED TO ENERGY AND YOU DON'T HAVE AS MUCH RE IN RESERVE. AND THAT'S REALLY THE DYNAMIC THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE HERE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I THINK I'M FOLLOW, I THINK I'M FOLLOWING YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY NOW. UM, AND I SUSPECT SOME OF THE, THE, THE, SOME OF THE, THE TRADE OFFS WE'RE TRYING THAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT IS, UM, WHEN ERCOT SHOULD WANT THAT STATE OF CHARGE TO BE RELEASED FOR ENERGY GOING INTO A SHORTAGE CONDITION AND HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW QUICKLY OR HOW SLOWLY OR AT WHAT POINTS THAT HAS THE OPTIMAL VALUE FOR, UH, FOR THE GRID OPERATOR. OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . ANDREA, NEXT PERSON IN QUEUE IS MOHAMMED JEDI. OKAY, GO AHEAD. UH, HI ANDREW. THANK YOU FOR, FOR EXPLANATION. UH, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY IF YOU DECREASE THE DURATION, UH, THE SCALE WILL PICK MORE, UH, MORE BATTERY AND I THINK IT'S GOOD AS LONG AS THE BATTERY SHOULD SIT THERE AND DO NOTHING. BUT IN CASE OF AN OUTAGE, AND IF ERCOT NEEDS TO DEPLOY THEM BY LIMITING TO ONE HOUR, [02:05:01] IT MEANS THAT NON SPIN WILL BE GONE IN ONE HOUR. AND AN AIRCO HAS TO FIGURE OUT SOMETHING FOR BEYOND THAT, WHICH I'M NOT SURE IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF HAVING NON SPIN BECAUSE YOU ARE, YOU ARE USING YOUR SPINS TO GIVE TIME FOR NON SPIN TO BE ABLE TO COME ONLINE AND CAN LAST LONGER. SO IF YOU USE ONE HOUR BATTERY, IF YOU HAVE TO CALL THEM, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HAVE TO CALL THEM, EVERYTHING IS GOOD. BUT IF YOU HAVE TO CALL THEM, THEN THEY WILL BE GONE BY ONE HOUR INSTEAD OF FOUR HOURS, WHICH, WHICH GIVES ERCOT LESS TIME TO BRING UP ANOTHER UNITS TO COVER THAT. THAT'S JUST MY ONLY COMMENTS. RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. SO WE KIND OF ADDRESSED THIS POINT DURING THE AS STUDY, UH, BACK IN AUGUST, WHICH IS THAT WE HAVE A DIFFERENT OF PERSPECTIVE FROM ERCOT ON THE KIND OF DURATION OF RISKS THAT NONS SPIN IS MEANT TO COVER. AND SO THAT IS SORT OF A PRIOR THAT WE HAVE HERE THAT WE THINK THAT NONS SPIND IS REALLY MEANT FOR MORE THE KIND OF RISKS THAT YOU WOULD EXPERIENCE OVER AN HOUR. UH, AND SO THAT IS JUST A DIFFERENCE OF PERSPECTIVE I IMPRESSION IS THAT ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU. UH, ANDREW, I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, JUST FOR MY, UH, CLARIFICATION. UH, YOUR PROPOSAL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE JOINT COMMENTER PROPOSAL IN THAT YOU ARE CHANGING BOTH THE QUALIFICATION AND THE DURATION TO BE ONE HOUR AND JOINT COMMANDERS IS CHANGING THE, KEEPING THE QUALIFICATION TO BE FOUR HOURS AND UM, JUST CHANGING THE DURATION, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO WE HAVE INDICATED THAT THE KIND OF COMPROMISE POSITION POSITION SUGGESTED BY THE JOINT COMMENTERS IS SOMETHING WE WOULD SUPPORT OVER, UH, ERCOT PROPOSAL, BUT OUR PREFERRED SOLUTION WOULD BE FOR BOTH QUALIFICATION AND SCED TO BE SET AT ONE HOUR. SO, SO WHEN WE CHANGE BOTH THE QUALIFICATION AND THE DURATION IN THE SCHEDULE TO BE ONE HOUR, IT'S BASICALLY CHANGING THE NON-SCREEN TO BE A ONE HOUR PRODUCT. AND, UM, THIS QUESTION TO OUR COURT STILL FEES, THERE'S A FOUR HOUR NEED, SO CHANGING THE NON SPIND TO A ONE HOUR PRODUCT WILL NOT COVER THAT NEED, RIGHT? I I, RIGHT? I MEAN NOT YOU WOULD, AT THIS POINT YOU WOULD GET, THIS IS WHERE YOU WOULD GET INTO THINGS LIKE DO, DO YOU NEED ONE HOUR RESOURCES TO BE COMMITTED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. SO WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO ENSURE RELIABILITY OR THIS, UM, DISPATCH SITUATION, WHICH PROBABLY COULD BE MITIGATED BY THE ENERGY OF A CURVE MANAGEMENT, UM, OR AN LIKE AN EXTREME SITUATION, YOU MIGHT BE THEN BASED ON THIS LOGIC CHANGING THE RELIABILITY FOR ALL OF THOSE SCENARIOS BASED ON A CODE'S ANALYSIS, RIGHT? UH, I'M NOT SURE. 'CAUSE LIKE IF A CODE WANTS A FOUR HOUR PRODUCT AND BY CHANGING THIS YOU ARE ONLY GETTING A ONE HOUR PRODUCT, YOU ARE BASICALLY REDUCING THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT, RIGHT? AND THEN EFFECTIVELY REDUCING THE RELIABILITY FOR ALL OUR OTHER HOURS, RIGHT? FROM AIRPODS , THIS IS GOING TO GET INTO A LOT OF THE KIND OF LONGSTANDING DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN ERCOT AND THE IMM ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF NONS SPEND AND THE SCALE OF THE NONS SPEND PLAN. SO WE WOULD BE WILLING TO GRANT THAT THERE MAY BE SOME DEMAND FOR A LONGER DURATION PRODUCT LIKE DRS. THE PROBLEM IS HOW BIG THE NONS SPIND PLAN AND, AND IMPOSING THIS ENTIRE FOUR HOUR DURATION REQUIREMENT ON ALL OF THE NONS SPIND PLAN. SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE MONTH HOURS IN 2025 WHERE THE NONS SPIND PLAN IS OVER 5,000 MEGAWATTS. AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE INFORMATION THAT ARCOT HAS PRESENTED ON THIS SUBJECT SAYS WE NEED 5,000 MEGAWATTS OF NON SPIN IN RESERVE CORRESPONDING TO 20,000 MEGAWATT HOURS. EVEN THE EXAMPLES THEY PROVIDED IN THEIR COMMENTS DON'T MAKE THAT CASE. OKAY. OKAY. I, YEAH, I THINK, OKAY. THAT I UNDERSTAND. AND [02:10:01] THAT MAY BE A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION THAN THE DISPATCH DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS AN ISSUE IN A SMALL TIME, VERY SPECIFIC SCENARIO, WHICH PROBABLY COULD BE ADDRESSED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT THEN CHANGING TO ADDRESS THAT SCENARIO, YOU'RE CHANGING THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT IN ALL OTHER SCENARIOS. AND I GUESS WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WHEN THE, UM, AS REVIEW COMES UP. BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. THANK YOU. YEP. JEREMY, THANKS. JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. CLARIFICATION FROM MY EDIFICATION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM HERE, RIGHT? THAT IS STATIC, MORE OR LESS WITH THE RESOURCES THAT ARE ONLINE. SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT BRINGING ANY ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ONLINE. SO BY INCREASING THE DURATION, IS THAT JUST EFFECTIVELY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY THAT'S AVAILABLE IN THE PEAK HOUR AND STRETCHING THE AVAILABLE CAPACITY OVER THE FOUR PEAK HOURS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY DOING HERE, LIMITING THE AMOUNT THAT BATTERIES CAN PROVIDE IN ANY SINGLE HOUR? YOU'RE DIVIDING IT BY FOUR THEIR CAPACITY AND STRETCHING IT OVER FOUR HOURS, IS THAT RIGHT? NOT, OKAY. THAT'S MAYBE AN INTERESTING QUESTION. LET ME TRY TO ANSWER IT. SO IF YOU HAVE THAT FOUR HOUR DURATION REQUIREMENT, SAY YOU'RE A 100 MEGAWATT, 100 MEGAWATT HOUR BATTERY, YOU CAN ONLY PROVIDE 25 MEGAWATTS OF NONS SPEND AND THAT'S IT. SO THAT WOULD CONSUME THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR, ESSENTIALLY LIKE YOUR ENERGY BUDGET. AND THAT IS A MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION FOR A BATTERY THAN SELLING ENERGY WHEN THEY CAN SELL A HUNDRED MEGAWATTS OF ENERGY, RIGHT? AND SO THIS IDEA THAT THEY WOULD STRETCH THAT OUT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, THAT'S ECONOMICALLY JUST NOT A VERY ATTRACTIVE OPTION. RIGHT? AND THEN I GUESS MY OTHER QUESTION IS, I, I KEEP HEARING THAT WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUTTA NONS SPEND UNDER THIS SCENARIO WITH ONE HOUR, BUT WHILE THE DESIRE IS TO HAVE A FOUR HOUR DURATION, SCS STILL GOING TO RUN EVERY FIVE MINUTES, RIGHT. AND RE-DISPATCH NONS SPEND MM-HMM. OVER THE AVAILABLE RESOURCES EVERY FIVE MINUTES. SO EVEN IF BATTERIES WERE TO RUN OUT OF THEIR ENERGY, WHICH THEY'RE LIKELY GOING TO DO, DO WHETHER THEY'RE PROVIDING NONS, SPIND, OR ENERGY, SC WOULD JUST REDISTRIBUTE THE NONS SPIND REQUIREMENT TO THE OTHER ONLINE RESOURCES, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. BUT AS THE BATTERIES RUN OUT OF ENERGY, THE MEGAWATTS AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE NON SPIND IS GOING DOWN. GOTCHA. SO, OKAY. YEAH. YEP. THANKS. NO PROBLEM, CAITLIN. THANKS, MARTHA. I WAS GONNA MAKE A SIMILAR POINT TO JEREMY'S. I THINK AN ANDREW, YOUR RESPONSE THOUGH IS WHEN WE HAVE THE FOUR HOUR REQUIREMENT, THE ESR IS MORE LIKELY TO GET DISPATCH TO ENERGY, SO THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR NON RUNS OUT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. BUT THAT'S SORT OF OUR, OUR POINT THAT WE'VE MADE A FEW TIMES, YOU KNOW, OR, OR IS LOOKING TO HISTORICAL DEPLOYMENT OF, OF RESOURCES, WHICH I UNDERSTAND. BUT WHEN WE GO TO RTC, YOU KNOW, SC IS RE-OP OPTIMIZING EVERY FIVE MINUTES. SO A FOUR HOUR STATE OF CHARGE REQUIREMENT IS A, IS 48 TIMES THAT. UM, I, I KNOW THAT WAS A DISCUSSION WITH MOHAMED AND THEN JEREMY PICKED IT UP. SO THE JOINT COMMENTARY COMMENTS, THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT. REMI, WE SEPARATED THE, THE STATE OF CHARGE AND DURATION. AND I WANNA MAKE REALLY CLEAR, THOSE ARE SEPARATE THINGS. THE, THE DURATION IS HOW LONG YOUR BATTERY CAN RUN AT THAT KIND OF NAMEPLATE MAX CAPACITY. THE STATE OF CHARGE IS SORT OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE AT THE MOMENT, AND IT'S ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, DISCHARGING OR, OR CHARGING. WE'VE TREATED THEM SEPARATELY IN THE PAST. NPRR 10 96 DEALT WITH DURATION, NPR 1186 DEALT WITH DATE OF CHARGE. SO WE'VE ALWAYS DEALT WITH THEM SEPARATELY IN THE PAST. I UNDERSTAND RTC IS NOT A DIRECT COROLLARY, THAT'S KIND OF WHY OUR POSITION IS SORT OF OPENED. BUT THE JOINT COMMENTARY POSITION WAS CORRECT TO KIND OF KEEP DURATION REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WOULD MEAN HOW MUCH OF YOUR RESOURCE YOU CAN QUALIFY FOR, FOR THAT PRODUCT, UM, AS PROPOSED. BUT TO PUT A LESSER AMOUNT OF THIS ON THE STATE OF CHARGE IN REAL TIME, SO YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO HAVE 48 TIMES WHAT YOU NEED FOR FIVE MINUTES. THE WAY WE ARE THINKING ABOUT RTC, WHICH IS PROBABLY AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION, IS THAT YOU WILL HAVE A FIVE MINUTE PRODUCT IN REAL TIME AND A DAY AHEAD, YOU WILL HAVE AN [02:15:01] HOUR LONG PRODUCT. SO IN EITHER CASE, THIS IS MULTIPLES OF THAT. UM, SO THAT IS SORT OF OUR, OUR POSITION HERE. UH, CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING THING? SURE. UH, AND SO THE MOTION THAT IS ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW IS TO HAVE BOTH QUALIFICATION AND DURATION TO BE ONE HOUR, RIGHT? YES. WE, SO WE SUPPORT THE IMS. UM, OKAY. COMMENT, YOU KNOW, BUT, BUT WE OBVIOUSLY SUPPORT OUR OWN COMMENTS. UM, OH, OKAY. WE'RE HAPPY TO CHANGE IF DISCUSSION GOES THAT WAY, BUT, BUT WE'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, SOME COMMENTS FROM THE IMM AND FROM ERCOT AGAINST THE, YOU KNOW, QUOTE UNQUOTE DECOUPLING. BUT AGAIN, I WANNA MAKE CLEAR THAT THE NPRR FROM ERCOT IS NOT JUST DURATION, IT IS THE OPERATIONAL STATE OF CHARGE G NEEDS. AND, AND THAT IS THE ISSUE WE HAVE. I THINK THE IMMS ISSUE IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, BUT WE DO SUPPORT THEIR COMMENTS. OKAY. LOOKS LIKE THE QUEUE IS EMPTY AT THIS POINT. I SUGGEST WE TRANSITION OVER TO ERCOT PRESENTATION NOW. UM, NITKA ARE YOU MAKING THAT PRESENTATION? I AM. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, WE CAN HEAR YOU. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL THAT CONVERSATION. QUITE HELPFUL TO HEAR EVERYONE'S PERSPECTIVE. WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS I'LL START THE CONVERSATION OUT, BACK AT THE BASICS OF WHY 1282 IS EVEN OUT, AND THEN MAYBE GET INTO THIS CONVERSATION THAT WE WERE JUST HAVING AS TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN UNDER VARYING CONDITIONS. RIGHT. SO FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE'VE SAID, UH, WE ALL RECOGNIZE ANCILLARY SERVICES ARE AN IMPORTANT MECHANISM FOR MAINTAINING RELIABILITY, IMPORTANCE OF AS HAS GROWN AND CONTINUES TO GROW AS OUR FLEET EVOLVES. AND WE ADD MORE AND MORE RESOURCES ON THE RED THAT HAVE A VARIABLE OPERATION, OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC, WE PROCURE ANCILLARY SERVICES TO MEET TWO BASIC NEEDS. ONE IS TO MEET SOME OF THE RELIABILITY AND THE BALANCING OBJECTIVES THAT NERC HAS IMPOSED UPON BAS, LIKE ERCOT, AND TO REDUCE OPERATIONAL RISK ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATING WITH VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY ON THE GRID. THE PURPOSE OF NPRR 1282 WAS TO SPECIFY WHAT THE RELIABILITY NEEDS AROUND, UH, THE ANCILLARY SERVICE PRODUCTS THAT WE HAVE TODAY ARE. SO I'M SIMPLY TALKING ABOUT THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE IN OPERATIONS TODAY THAT ARE, THAT ARE, ARE GOING TO BE PART OF THE REAL TIME MARKET AND OUR PERSPECTIVE. UH, WHEN WE RAN THE ANALYSIS THAT, UH, UNDERPINNED 1282 WAS SOLELY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE ENERGY SUFFICIENCY NEEDS OF THE GRID, WHEN A TYPICAL EVENT FOR WHICH THAT ANCILLARY SERVICES PROCURED IS EXPERIENCED. BASED OFF OF THE ANALYSIS WE DID, WE RECOMMENDED INCREASING THE DURATION FOR REGULATION AND RRS, UH, AT LEAST. UH, WHAT, WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT FROM THE LENS OF, UH, EVENTS ON THE SYSTEM, ONE EVENT THAT STOOD OUT TO US WAS A SCED FAILURE EVENT. IF SCED FAILS, AN LFC IS STILL AROUND REGULATION, AND RRS WILL BE THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE THAT WE WILL RELY ON TO MAINTAIN FREQUENCY. AND IN THOSE SITUATIONS, UH, HAVING, UH, ACTUALLY LEANING INTO OUR HISTORICAL SC EVENTS. SO THIS IS THE EVENTS THAT WE'VE SEEN ON THE SC WE HAVE TODAY, A SC THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE SNOW WILL GO LIVE. UH, WE, UH, WE SAW EIGHT OUT OF 10 EVENTS, UM, SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE BEING, UH, LASTING ABOUT 30 MINUTES OR LOWER. SO WE ENDED UP RECOMMENDING A 30 MINUTE DURATION BASED OFF OF OUR CURRENT IN INFORMATION AND CURRENT, UH, EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAVE IN THOSE, IN CASE OF THOSE TWO PRODUCTS, WE LOOKED AT ECRS. IF YOU RECOLLECT, UH, BACK WHEN THE PREVIOUS NTRR CONVERSATION STARTED, WE HAD UNDER PENNED ECRS BASED OFF OF CERTAIN NERC REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WERE AROUND ENSURING WE COULD ARREST FREQUENCY AND RECOVER OUR RESERVES. AND THERE WERE DIFFERENT TIME DURATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. NOW THAT WE'VE HAD ECRS IN PLACE FOR SOME TIME, WE WERE ABLE TO LOOK AT HOW, UH, WHAT OUR EXPOSURE IS, UH, UH, UNDER THOSE TYPE OF EVENTS. WE ALSO LOOKED AT OUR, UH, CONSISTENT EXPOSURE TO, UH, ERRORS IN FORECASTING IN THE, IN THE, IN THE SHORTER TERM RANGE. AND WE, UH, IN THE, IN THE 30 MINUTE OUT TYPE RANGE, AND WHERE WE LANDED WAS IN CASE OF ECRS, THE DURATION CAN BE REDUCED TO ONE HOUR. HOWEVER, AND, AND IN THE SAME ANALYSIS WE DID GO AND REVIEW OUR EX [02:20:01] NONS SPEND RELATED EXPOSURE AND NONS SPEND RELATED EVENTS AS WELL. NOW, LET, LET'S TAKE YOU BACK TO, ANDREW POINTED THIS OUT IN SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS EARLY ON. CERTAINLY THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE IMM AND US WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, BOTH A CRS TO A CERTAIN EXTENT AND NONS SPEND AS TO WHAT IS WHAT, HOW, HOW THESE QUANTITIES SHOULD BE SET. WHAT EVENTS SHOULD WE BE PROTECTING FOR? NOW, LET'S THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY. NONS SPIN SERVES TWO PURPOSES. ALSO, WHEN WE HAVE EVENTS, WHEN WE HAVE UNDER FORECAST, UH, UH, WHEN WE HAVE SUSTAINED UNDER FORECAST IN NET LOAD, OR, OR WE HAVE FORCED OUTAGES OR BOTH COULD HAPPEN TOGETHER, WHAT OUR EXPERIENCE AS THE NEXT UNIT THAT CAN COME ON TO HELP OUT IN THOSE IN REAL TIME IS SIX HOURS AWAY. AND IF THAT UNIT SIX HOURS AWAY, WE RELY ON NONS SPENT TO RECOVER THE REGULAR DEPLOYED REGULATION, RESPONSIVE RESERVE ECRS, AND HELP SUPPORT THE GRID TILL WE CAN TAKE THAT NEXT ACTION TO BRING THE UNIT ON. SO THAT'S THE EVENT THAT NONS SPEND IS CONTENDING WITH. AND CERTAINLY WHEN WE LOOK TO INFORM OURSELVES OF WHAT SORT OF ENERGY SHOULD WE BE ENSURING, UH, IS, IS PRESERVED WITH NONS SPEND, WE LOOKED AT FROM THE LENS OF THE EVENT WE HAD, WE ALSO LOOKED AT FROM THE LENS OF, UH, SUSTAINED UNDER FORECAST ERROR. WE'VE SEEN, UH, HISTORICALLY, I KNOW THAT POINTS MADE AROUND WELL, FORECAST CAN BE IMPROVED, FORECAST CAN BE IMPROVED, BUT THERE IS, UH, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO FORECAST WHETHER FOR A VERY LONG TIME, WE CANNOT ELIMINATE ERRORS AND FORECASTS FORECAST. WE CAN IMPROVE OUR, UH, UH, IMPROVE OUR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. AND WE CERTAINLY DO THAT, BUT THAT DOES NOT ELIMINATE EXPOSURE TO SUSTAINED UNDER FORECAST ERROR. SECOND THING IS WE ALSO LOOKED AT, UH, LOOK, WE ALSO TRIED TO LOOK AT, UH, UH, UH, HISTORICAL DEPLOYMENT EVENTS MORE SO TO GAIN AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN WE ARE IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHEN THINGS ARE AVAILABLE. SO WE ARE NOT IN A SCARCITY CONDITION WHEN EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE ON IS ON, BUT WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE MAY, THERE MAY BE RESOURCES THAT ARE OFFLINE, BUT BECAUSE WE COULDN'T FORECAST THE EVENT COMING THROUGH, WE COULDN'T LINE THOSE RESOURCES UP IN THOSE TYPE OF SITUATIONS. HOW HAS, HOW HAVE WE USED OUR NON SPEND RESERVES AND OUR OBSERVATIONS AND WHAT WE SAW DURING THOSE EVENTS THAT WERE IN NON SCARCITY PERIODS? TO US, FOUR HOURS IS STILL AN APPROPRIATE ENERGY NEED. IN FACT, THERE ARE IN SOME CASES THAT THE ARGUMENT IS FOR A LONGER DURATION ALSO. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE NPRR THAT WE PROPOSE, WE PURPOSEFULLY CHOSE OUR WORDS ALSO AS BEING AT AT LEAST FOUR HOURS. WE ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH REDUCING NONS SPENT, UH, DURATION TODAY. THE PRODUCT, AS WE SEE NEEDING WITH THE TYPE, WITH THE SUITE OF RESERVES WE HAVE TODAY TO APPROACH ISSUES IN REAL TIME FOUR HOURS, IS APPROPRIATE DOWN THE ROAD WITH CHANGES, UH, INTO THE SYSTEM, BE IT NEW PRODUCTS OR BE IT MORE TOOLS. WE WILL BE, WE, WE, WE DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND A NEED TO REVISIT THE DURATION REQUIREMENT. SIMILARLY, WHAT I, I KNOW THERE IS AN ARGUMENT MADE THAT HISTORICAL DEPLOYMENTS ARE NOT A GOOD, UH, UNDERPINNING FOR LOOKING AT THIS ANALYSIS. WE WILL CONCEDE WITH RTC COMING OUR, THERE IS, UH, DEFINITELY A OPERATIONS CAN CHANGE, BUT IT IS YET TO BE SEEN HOW THAT OPERATIONS WILL CHANGE. AND IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD, EVEN AT THE PRS, WE WERE VERY OPEN TO SAYING, WE ARE OPEN TO REVISITING THIS DURATION QUESTION TO THAT BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT REAL RTC BEHAVIOR BY REAL OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE. AND THERE ARE TC. SO I, I, AND I MADE QUITE A FEW POINTS, BUT I'LL CONTINUE ON, UH, FROM HERE, UH, TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO MAYBE, ACTUALLY, IF YOU DON'T MIND GOING TO THE ONE SLIDE PRIOR TO THIS. UH, OKAY. THIS IS THE ONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. SO NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ANALYSIS. THE IMM DID REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT, UH, ANDREW PUT FORTH. NOW YOU HAVE SHARED THE, WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IS, UH, AN ANALYSIS WHICH DEMONSTRATES THAT BECAUSE ENERGY HAS A LOWER DURATION THAN NONS SPEND AS BEING PROPOSED UNDER 1282, OR ACTUALLY NOT EVEN 1282, THAT THAT IS ALREADY IN THE PROTOCOLS TODAY, AS IS IN THE PROTOCOLS TODAY. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT UNDER CERTAIN SITUATIONS, SC MAY AWARD ENERGY TO ESRS OVER NON SPEN. NOW, FIRST OFF, I WILL START OFF BY SAYING THE EXAMPLE THAT, UH, THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IS QUITE AN EXTREME SCENARIO WHERE THE DEMAND MATCHES EXACTLY THE AMOUNT OF THERMAL RESOURCES, UH, CAPABILITY THAT WE HAVE ONLINE. [02:25:02] UH, SO WE DID WANT TO LOOK AT, UH, WHAT, WHAT WE WANT TO CAUTION IS, YES, THERE IS, UH, WE UNDERSTAND THE EXAMPLE WHERE THE EXAMPLE SEEMS TO BE BUILT IN A MANNER TO MAKE A POINT. WE DID GO AND TEST, UH, A VARIETY OF, UH, DIFFERENT EXAMPLES WHERE FIRST WE TESTED WITH, WELL, WHAT IF WE KEEP EXACTLY ALL THE EXACT SAME SETUP, BUT CHANGE THE OFFERS FROM STORAGE RESOURCES? ARE THEY ABLE TO MANAGE A STATE OF CHARGE? UH, THEN WE ALSO LOOKED AT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE REPLACE THE AS PLAN THAT IS IN THERE WITH A MORE, UH, TYPICAL AS PLAN FOR THAT LOAD LEVEL. AND THEN, THEN WE TRIED A FEW DIFFERENT VARIATIONS THERE, AGAIN, TO GO AND ASSESS HOW WILL THE, UH, HOW WILL THE, UH, UH, UH, HOW WILL THE, HOW WILL THE OUTCOMES CHANGE? SO I DO HAVE SEVERAL GRAPHICS, UH, HERE IN THE FOLLOWING SLIDES THAT TRY TO, UH, THAT TRY TO WALK THROUGH THOSE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES. NOW, I'LL, I'LL START OFF BY SAYING WE AGREE THAT SCARED OPTIMIZATION MAY AWARD ENERGY OVER LONGER DURATION. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE SYSTEM CONDITION, THE VOLUME OF RESERVES BEING PROCURED, THE ENERGY OFFERS ALL PLAY A ROLE, UH, IN DETERMINING THE OUTCOME THAT MAY HAPPEN WITH HIGHER ENERGY OFFERS. YOU MAY BE ABLE, STORAGE RESOURCES MAY BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEIR STATE OF CHARGE IF NEEDED, UH, WITH A MORE TYPICAL AS PLAN OPTIMIZATION MAY AVOID ENERGY OF ANNOUNCEMENT. WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT IT MAY NOT HAPPEN TILL, UH, HIGHER LEVELS OF DEPLETION. SO, UH, WITH, WITH THAT SETUP, LET'S, I, I CAN STEP THROUGH, WALK YOU THROUGH THE EXAMPLES, UM, AND THEN, UM, AND I KEEP MOVING FORWARD FROM THERE. SO HERE, THIS IS JUST, UH, PUTTING WHAT, UH, WHAT EXACT CHANGES WE MADE TO THE EXAMPLE THAT, UH, I IMM SHARED, UH, IN MORE DETAILS. SO WE CAN PROBABLY MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THANK YOU. SO WE'LL START OUT BY FIRST COMPARING ENERGY AWARDS. NOW, THE, UH, SO THE X AXIS ON THIS CHAT IS SHOWING YOU A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS. IT'S SHOWING YOU OUTCOMES. WHEN A NONS SPEND DURATION IS ASSUMED TO BE ONE HOUR, IT'S SHOWING YOU OUTCOMES. WHEN THE NONS SPEND DURATION IS ASSUMED TO BE FOUR HOUR, THE DOTTED BLACK LINE THAT YOU SEE DRAWS THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO. AND THEN IT IS SHOWING YOU RESULTS UNDER ALL OF THE FOUR SCENARIOS THAT I JUST DESCRIBED AT DIFFERENT OC DEPLETION LEVELS. ON THE Y AXIS, WHAT WE'VE PLOTTED IS PERCENTAGE OF THE ENERGY AWARD. THE BLUE COLOR SHOWS PERCENTAGE OF THE ENERGY AWARD THAT GOES TO THERMAL RESOURCES. AND THEN THE ORANGE SHOWS PERCENTAGE OF THE ENERGY AWARD THAT GOES TO STORAGE RESOURCES. SO, UH, IF I MAY, UH, UH, I DON'T HAVE THE MOUSE HERE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT BEFORE OUR SITUATION, EXAMPLE ONE DASH ONE, YOU CAN START SEEING THAT, UH, UH, THE SC STAR WOULD IN, IN, IN THAT OUTCOME, THE SC OUTCOME WOULD START PUTTING SOME, UH, ENERGY AWARDS ON STORAGE RESOURCES AT A DEPLETION LEVEL AS IS 30. BUT THEN IF YOU GO, IT'S EXACTLY THE NEXT EXAMPLE, ONE DASH TWO, THAT PARTICULAR TRANSFERENCE OCCURS LATER AROUND AT 80% DEPOSITION. NOW, IF YOU SWITCH OVER AND PUT IN A MORE REALISTIC, UH, UH, AS PLAN, BUT WITH THE THOUSAND MEGAWATT DOLLAR OFFER, AS WAS ORIGINALLY, UH, PROPOSED OR ORIGINALLY ASSUMED YOU, YOU SEE THAT RELATIVE TO ONE DASH ONE EVEN HERE, THE, UH, ENERGY PREFERENCE TO PROVIDE AN ENERGY AWARD DOESN'T OCCUR TILL LIKE 60% DEPLETION. AND AGAIN, IF YOU, UH, IN THAT, IN THE SCENARIO WITH THE, UH, WITH THE TYPICAL AS PLAN, IF YOU PUT IN A $2,000 OFFER, UH, UH, THAT PREFERENCE DOESN'T SHOW UP TILL 90%, UH, DEPLETION LEVELS. SO CERTAINLY THIS IS ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION TO BE AWARE OF. LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. NOW, NONS SPIN IS THE ONE THAT WE'VE BEEN SPENDING MORE TIME TALKING ABOUT. SO THIS PARTICULAR GRAPHIC, UH, AGAIN, SHARES THE RESULTS FOR NONS SPIN AWARDS Y ACCESS CONTINUE TO BE PERCENTAGE OF THE AWARDS. SO HERE AS WELL, YOU ARE SEEING, UH, THE OVERALL OUTCOME FROM SC NOT JUST AN OUTCOME FOR BATTERIES, BUT FOR BOTH BATTERIES AND THERMAL RESOURCES. AND AS WAS POINTED OUT, UH, UH, IN AN EXAMPLE WHERE YOU ASSUME OF ONE OF FOUR HOUR DURATION AND, UH, AND THE TYPE OF SETUP THAT THE IMM PROPOSED, UH, YOU START SEEING THE RESERVES BEING PLACED ON THERMAL RESOURCES AT AROUND 30% DEPLETION LEVEL, AROUND THE SAME TIME WHEN THE ENERGY PREFERENCE STARTED SHOWING UP. BUT AGAIN, UH, WITH THE DIFFERENT OFFERS OR WITH THE DIFFERENT AS PLAN, YOU SEE THAT PREFERENCE SHIFTING TOWARDS HIGHER SOC DEPLETION LEVELS. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND. UH, THE, OUR POINT IS, THE EXAMPLE THAT IS BEING MADE [02:30:01] IS A, A VERY, UH, IS A SETUP, IS A, IS AN EXTREME SETUP. UH, BUT IT IS NOT A DE DEPICTIVE OF CONTINUOUS OPERATIONS. IT IS A DEPICTIVE OF A PARTICULAR SCENARIO THAT CAN HAPPEN, NOT NORMAL OPERATIONS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY. THE, THIS PARTICULAR GRAPHIC SHOWS YOU RESULTS FOR ECRS. I KNOW ECRS, UH, UH, RIGHT NOW IS, UH, NOT IN, UH, UH, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE, IT'S DURATION IS NOT SOMETHING WE CHANGED AND THE RESULTS, BUT I STILL, BUT WE STILL WANTED TO SHARE OUT, UH, UH, AND GIVE EVERYONE A HOLISTIC PICTURE. UH, AND HERE ALSO YOU WILL NOTICE, UH, UH, NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE, BUT WITH THE ENERGY OFFERS, YOU ARE ABLE TO, UH, SEE THAT THE, THE I AT IT'S AT, AGAIN, AT HIGHER LEVEL OF SOC DEPLETIONS, WHEN SCARED STARTS PLACING THOSE RESERVES ON, UH, THERMAL RESOURCES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY. SO WE TRY TO DO ONE MORE THING AS WE TRY TO ASSESS GAUGE WITHIN THIS EXAMPLE, WHAT COULD WE ESTIMATE PRC TO BE ON THE SYSTEM AND UNDER THESE CONDITIONS? AND WHAT WE NOTICED IS WITH A TYPICAL PLAN, UM, AT DEPLETION LEVELS AROUND 80%, YOU START SEEING THAT THE OVERALL PRC WOULD DROP BELOW 3000 MEGAWATTS, INDICATING THAT WE WOULD BE IN A, UH, SOME SORT OF AN ENERGY CONDITION, UH, AN EMERGENCY CONDITION WHERE WE TO BE THERE. SO IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. YOU DON'T SORT OF SEE THAT WHEN THE RESERVES ARE HIGH, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S A FUNCTION OF SKYPE SEEMS TO BE A FUNCTION OF SKYPE TIME TO PRESERVE HIGHER AMOUNTS OF RESERVES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. LIKE WE, UH, WE DO HAVE A FEW SET OF GRAPHICS THAT DO, UH, COMPARISON OF, UH, PRICES. THIS PARTICULAR GRAPHIC FOCUSES ON, UH, ENERGY PRICES. AGAIN, THE SHAPE OF THE CURVES LOOK SIMILAR. WHAT YOU WILL, UH, AS WAS POINTED OUT, UH, WITH A, WITH A, WITH AN INCREASE IN ENERGY OFFERS, YOU DO SEE THE, UH, THE RESULT, UH, THE, UH, PRICE OUTCOMES REFLECT THE, AT THE INCREASE IN ENERGY OFFERS AS FAR AS, UH, UH, DIFFERENCES IN PRICE. BECAUSE OF CHANGING IN A AS PLAN IS CONCERNED, YOU DO SEE A SLIGHT, UH, SHIFT TO THE RIGHT. IF YOU, UH, IF I MAY USE THOSE WORDS, UH, WHERE, WHERE THAT SORT OF PHENOMENA A SHIFTS A LITTLE, UH, UH, TO, TO A, TO WORKER AT HIGHER DEPLETION LEVELS. NEXT, UH, SLIDE PLEASE. OKAY. UH, SO THIS PARTICULAR GRAPHIC SHOWS, UH, UH, PRICE OUTCOMES FOR ECRS AND NON SPEND. AGAIN, OBSERVATIONS, UH, UH, ARE FAIRLY SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS GRAPHIC AS FAR AS THE SHAPE OF THIS, UH, THAT THESE RESULTS GO. UH, WITH THE HIGHER ENERGY OFFERS, YOU DO SEE HIGHER, UH, UH, PRICE OUTCOMES, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU SEE MUCH OF A, UH, THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE, UH, IN, IN THE OUTCOMES, BUT THEY ARE DRIVEN BY THE INPUTS THAT WERE PUT IN MORE. SO, NEXT SLIDE. OKAY, SO I, IN THE APPENDIX, I DO HAVE, UH, UH, I'M, I, I NEED TO CHECK IN THE APPENDIX. I SHOULD HAVE MORE SLIDES THAT, UH, SHOW RESULTS FOR, UH, RRS REGULATION AND PRICES FOR RRS IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED. BUT I'M, I'LL GO BACK TO OUR SUMMARY, UH, UH, FOR NOW. AND PRR 1282, UH, PUT, IT WAS, WAS PUT FORTH TO SPECIFY THE DURATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES THAT ARE PROCURED IN THE REAL TIME MARKET BASED OFF THE RELIABILITY NEEDS OF THE, OF THE GRID. UH, A SCALE OPTIMIZATION DOES CONSIDER THE VALUE OF SOC APART FROM MEGAWATT CAPACITY WHEN DETERMINING THE PRODUCTS, UH, WHICH PRODUCTS ARE CLEARED. UH, DOESN'T NECESSARILY SEE A PROBLEM WITH SCARED OPTIMIZATION, AWARDING ENERGY OVER LONGER DURATION AS TO STORAGE RESOURCES DURING TIGHT OPERATION OPERATING CONDITIONS BASED ON THEIR, UH, UH, BASED ON THEIR ENERGY OFFERS. NOW, DURING SCARCITY CONDITIONS, IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR SCALE TO VALUE ENERGY OVER RESERVES. UH, AND WE, WE DO EXPECT TO GO SHORT ON PROCURING RESERVES, UH, FURTHER, IF SCARCITY OR HIGHER PRICES WERE TO OCCUR EARLIER THAN TYPICAL AS, UH, I THINK CAITLYN WAS POINTING OUT, UH, ESRS HAVE THE ABILITY, UH, IN THIS, UH, UH, UH, AS THESE EXAMPLES SHOW TO SET THEIR OFFERS DIFFERENTLY AND PRESERVE STATE OF CHARGE FOR LATER HOURS. I KNOW THE POINT THAT WAS BEING EMPHASIZED WAS WHAT IF THIS, UH, THIS WE, WE LIVE IN, WE, WE'VE EXPERIENCED THIS SCENARIO WHERE, UH, UH, THAT, THAT [02:35:01] THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH FOR SEVERAL HOURS IN A ROW. I WOULD ARGUE AT THAT POINT, YOU ARE IN A SCARCITY TYPE SITUATION ALREADY. UH, BUT AGAIN, WHAT WE WORRY WHEN WE ARE IN THOSE SITUATIONS IS, UH, IS, UH, DO WE HAVE SUFFICIENT RESERVES SO THAT IF THE, OUR UNIT WAS TO TRIP AT THAT INSTANT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO OPERATE RELIABLY. AND THE PURPOSE OF, OF NEEDING, UH, LONGER DURATION RESERVES IS TO HELP US REACT TO THOSE TYPE OF SITUATIONS IN REAL TIME. UH, WE ARE, WE RECOGNIZE NOW WE RECOGNIZE AND AGREE THAT WITH THE EXPECTED GROWTH IN, UH, ESR INSTALLED CAPACITY, ADDITIONAL SYSTEM CHANGES ARE NEEDED TO BETTER MANAGE STATE OF CHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR FUTURE HOURS. THERE WAS SOME, UH, THERE WERE SOME IDEAS THAT WERE SHARED BY THE TSSA IN THEIR COMMENTS. WE, WE UNDERSTAND, UH, UH, AND I THINK WE AGREE THAT THERE IS MORE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE SO THAT HAS BETTER WAYS OF MANAGING ITS STATE OF CHARGE OR ENERGY NEEDS FOR THE FUTURE. TODAY, OUR, OUR, OUR TOOLS ARE LIMITED. IN THAT END, WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON IDENTIFYING CHANGES, UH, THAT CAN HELP US, UH, THAT CAN HELP US IN, IN, UH, GET MORE, UH, GET MORE ABILITY TO, UH, PREPARE FOR, UH, UH, THE, UH, FOR THE, UH, THE FUTURE INTERVALS AND HOURS. THE IDEA, UH, IDEAS LIKE, UH, UH, MULTI INTERVAL ARE INTERESTING, BUT WE STILL NEED TO WORK THE, WORK OUT, THE ISSUES IN THEM. UM, SO WE ARE, UH, WE ARE COMMITTED TO CONTINUE EXPLORING, UH, THOSE SOLUTIONS. AND I WILL, I I, AND COMMITTED TO SHARING WHAT WE FIND WITH TAC AND OTHER APPROPRIATE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS. AND I'VE SAID THIS A FEW TIMES NOW. WE ARE ALSO OPEN TO REVISITING DURATION, THIS DURATION ANALYSIS, POST RTC, GO LIVE WITH ACTUAL MARKET DATA, BOTH AS A PART OF THE WORK WE ARE DOING IN RESPONSE TO THE PUCS AS STUDY FINDINGS. AND WHEN DRRS IS IMPLEMENTED, AGAIN, UH, WE ARE HAPPY TO SHARE WHAT, UH, WHAT WE, UH, WHAT THOSE ANALYSIS OUTCOMES ARE WITH TECH AND THE APPROPRIATE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS. SO I'LL PAUSE WITH THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. NETIKA, YOU'VE GOT A QUESTION, A KEY FROM ANDREW? YEAH, THANKS, NETIKA. UH, SO I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO BOGGED DOWN ON THE SPECIFICS, BUT I DO THINK I HAVE THREE RESPONSES TO ERCOT PRESENTATION. UH, FIRSTLY RELATES TO THE OFFER PRICE DYNAMICS. I THINK WE'VE COVERED THAT IN MY PRESENTATION, UH, PRETTY THOROUGHLY. UM, IT COMES DOWN TO THE INCENTIVES BATTERIES HAVE, AND WHETHER THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THEM TO BE TRYING TO PROTECT THEIR STATE OF CHARGE WITH REALLY HIGH OFFERS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU'RE DESCRIBING. SECONDLY, UH, JUST TO REFER BACK TO THE AS STUDY, THE CLAIM THAT UNDER THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS, THE NEXT UNIT AVAILABLE, UH, TAKES SIX HOURS TO START, I THINK IS A VERY CONSERVATIVE ASSERTION. AND WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE DATA ON THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS, THERE'S USUALLY A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITY OF BATTERIES OF RESOURCES, SORRY, THAT CAN START WITHIN AN HOUR. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, IT KIND OF DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH CAPACITY YOU NEED, WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO TAP INTO A SIX HOUR RESOURCE. BUT WHEN WE'VE LOOKED AT IT, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF ONE HOUR RESOURCES, UH, AVAILABLE TO START. AND THEN AS FOR THE SYSTEM CONDITIONS, I SPELLED OUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY AREN'T INTENDED TO BE SUPER REALISTIC AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, THE LOAD LEVEL. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I HAD JACK THE LOAD LEVEL UP TO 60,000 MEGAWATTS, AND THEN ALSO JACK THE THERMAL RESOURCE LEVEL UP TO 60,000 MEGAWATTS, OR MAYBE, YOU KNOW, ADDED A BUNCH OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES INTO THE MIX OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT LOOK MORE REALISTIC. BUT IT IS THE CASE THAT THE NONS SPEND AND THE AS PLANE IN GENERAL IS GOING TO EXCEED 9,000 MEGAWATTS, NOT INFREQUENTLY IN 2025. THAT'S IN FACT, THE WHOLE BASIS FOR NPRR 1269, WHICH IMPOSES A $15 PRICE FLOOR ON THE AS PLAN. UH, THE WHOLE RATIONALE FOR THAT WAS THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHERE THE AS PLAN GOES OVER 10,000 MEGAWATTS, AND WITH THE WAY THE, AS DEMAND CURVE WERE DEFINED PRIOR TO 1269, THEY WOULD DROP TO ZERO BELOW THAT. SO IF THAT WEREN'T THE CASE, THAT CONVERSATION WOULD'VE NEVER REALLY BEEN NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO THOSE ARE MY RESPONSES TO ERCOT PRESENTATION. ALRIGHTY. THANK YOU. YOUR [02:40:01] RESPONSE, MONICA? SORRY, JUST A LITTLE. NOT A WHOLE LOT. I, UH, UH, ANDREW, AGAIN, UH, I, UH, WE'VE AGREED TO DISAGREE OR MAYBE WE'VE NOT AGREED. WE DO DISAGREE ON, UH, THIS, UH, THE, ON WHAT'S THIS NEXT UNIT THAT'S AVAILABLE. I, I WOULD ARGUE IT'S SITUATION SPECIFIC, BUT AGAIN, THE SITUATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN MIND HERE ARE MORE EXTREME SITUATIONS. AND IN THOSE EXTREME SITUATIONS, UH, UH, OUR EXPERIENCE, AND THERE'S BEEN ANALYSIS THAT I ALSO SHARED, UH, AS A RESULT, UH, AS A PART OF THE PRESENTATIONS I MADE TO RTC, UH, R-T-C-B-T-F, UH, ON THIS TOPIC, WHICH PRESENTS THE FACTS AROUND, UH, WHAT TYPE OF UNITS WE'VE, WE'VE ERUPT WHEN WE ARE, UH, UH, WHEN WE SEE A NEED FOR, UH, WHEN, WHEN WE SEE A NEED FOR CAPACITY. SO YOU CAN SEE THOSE, UH, FOR THOSE LAYOUT, THE FACTS AT LEAST AS FAR AS, UH, WHAT'S AVAILABLE AND WHAT'S BEING ER WRAPPED IN OUR MINDS. UM, UH, SO THIS, UH, OUR INFORMA OUR, WE DREW, EVEN FOR THIS 1282 ANALYSIS, WE DREW AND FOR OUR, UH, UH, WE DREW OUR RESULTS, OR WE DREW OUR ANALYSIS BASED OFF OF OBSERVATIONS WE SAW IN THE RECENT HISTORY AROUND, UH, UNITS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR US. AND SIX HOURS TO US IS STILL APPROPRIATE. I THINK SIX HOURS REFLECTED, UH, A 50% NUMBER, UH, AS FAR AS WHAT WE WERE, UH, UH, 50% OF THE TIME WE WERE, UH, UH, WE WERE CHOOSING TO WRAP SIX HOUR UNITS. UH, NOW THE SECOND POINT I THINK THAT YOU MADE WAS AROUND THE QUANTITIES OF AS QUANTITIES OF AS VARY WITH TIME OF DAY. UH, AND I, UH, I PUR PURPOSEFULLY, I UNDERSTAND YOU COULD HAVE JACKED UP THE QUANTITIES AND STILL COME UP TO THE SAME RESULTS. SO I'M NOT ARGUING WITH YOU ON WHETHER THE LOAD SHOULD HAVE BEEN 40 OR 60. I'M SIMPLY ARGUING THAT THIS SETUP WHERE EVERYTHING THAT CAN, THAT ALL THERMALS ARE AVAILABLE, UH, TO SERVE LOAD, AND THE RESERVES THAT YOU HAVE, UH, IN THAT, IN THAT SCENARIO, SEEM TO BE AN, UH, UH, UH, IS AN EXAMPLE PUT FORTH TO MAKE A POINT. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE POINT. ALL I'M POINTING OUT IS ANCILLARY SERVICE PLANS VARY, GIVE AT DIFFERENT TIME OF THE DAY. THERE ARE DIFFERENT PLANS. THERE IS TIMES WHEN WE PROCURE MORE THAN 9,000 MEGAWATTS. UH, YOU ARE CORRECT, BUT I DON'T SEE THOSE AS BEING THAT MANY NUMBER OF HOURS EVEN IN THE CURRENT YEAR. I CAN COUNT THOSE, UH, UH, AND SHARE THOSE OUT IF ANYBODY'S INTERESTED. BUT YES, UH, WITH DIFFERENT PLANS, UH, TYPICALLY ARE, UH, EXTREME PERIODS ARE SUNSET. AND OF COURSE, UH, SUMMER COMES TO MIND AS WE ARE IN THE SEASON LOOKING AT TYPICAL, UH, QUANTITIES. WHEN WE PROCURE DURING THOSE PERIODS, THE NUMBERS ARE NOT, UH, THE NUMBERS CAN BE DIFFERENT AND LOWER THAN WHAT WERE PUT IN THE EXAMPLE. SO WHEN PE PEOPLE LOOK AT RESULTS FROM THIS ANALYSIS, UH, UH, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, UH, HOW IT IS SET UP WILL CHANGE THE OUTCOME, AND THAT'S THE PRIMARY POINT. I'LL PAUSE. THANK YOU. UH, THE ONLY RESPONSE I HAVE TO, THAT RELATES TO THE COMMENTS YOU MADE ABOUT YOUR RECENT HISTORY WITH WHICH UNITS YOU'VE RUPT, UH, I THINK EVERYONE IS AWARE THAT SINCE 2021, THE USE OF RUCK HAS BEEN DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS PRIOR TO 2021. AND SO IT'S TRUE THAT THE RECENT, YOU KNOW, HISTORY OF WHICH UNITS WERE ROCKED AND HOW MANY UNITS WERE WRECKED, UH, LOOKS A LOT DIFFERENT. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT GETS REFERRED TO AS CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS, AND THERE IS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE RELIABILITY SITUATION AND THE NECESSITY OF THOSE ROCKS. THE AMOUNT OF HEADROOM THAT'S BEING KEPT ONLINE, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE DIFFERENT OPERATING PARADIGMS THAN WE HAD IN THE PAST. AND SO THE, THAT DATA SET IS GOING TO BE INFLUENCED BY THAT CHANGE IN OPERATIONAL PRACTICE. UH, SORRY, IF I MAY, YOU, YOU KNOW, SO THAT WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON, UH, THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY FOR NEXT YEAR. SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS BELONG THERE AS FAR AS, UH, WHAT QUANTITIES OF, AS WE ARE PROCURING, AND WE ARE HAPPY TO CONTINUE THOSE. UH, BUT, BUT THE OPERATIONS, UH, POSTURE WE HAVE IS THE OPERATIONS POSTURE WE HAVE. AND, UH, UH, AS THINGS EVOLVE, I'VE, I'VE CONCEDED AGAIN AND AGAIN, WE ARE HAPPY TO REVISIT IT, BUT TODAY, WITH THE WAY WE OPERATE THE GRID AND WITH THE, THE TYPE OF RISKS WE SEE [02:45:01] FOR NONS SPIN FOR OUR DURATION IS APPROPRIATE. ALL RIGHT. NEXT PERSON IN QUEUE IS GONNA BE BLAKE HOLT. BLAKE HOLT, LCRA. MARTHA, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. GOOD DEAL. UH, SO, SO IN OUR MIND, ERCOT HAS PROVEN OUT THE NEED FOR A FOUR HOUR TOOL, AND WE DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR PUMPING UP THE NONS SPIND PLAN WITH ONE HOUR TOOLS. UH, THIS SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'LL BE PUTTING THE GRID IN A LESS RELIABLE STATE AND THEN PUT ERCOT IN A TIGHTER SPOT TO SOLVE LONGER DURATION ISSUES. I THINK THERE'S A MORE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR A ONE HOUR TOOL, AND THAT WOULD BE PARTICIPATION IN THE ECRS PLAN. SECONDLY, IF WE WANT ERCOT TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF PRESERVING STATE OF CHARGE, I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. AND THAT WOULD BE THROUGH A MURDO TYPE OF APPROACH, WHICH WE WOULD SUPPORT. OTHERWISE, WE THINK THAT MARKET FORCES SHOULD INFLUENCE THE DISPATCH OF ENERGY, MEANING THAT BATTERY OWNERS SHOULD ADJUST THEIR STATE OF THEIR OFFERS TO PRESERVE THEIR STATE OF CHARGE. AND IF THE OFFER CAP ISN'T HIGH ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR THAT, WE WOULD BE OPEN TO EXPLORING A CHANGE THERE. ALL THAT BEING SAID WILL BE A NO ON THIS MOTION. THANKS. THANK YOU. NEXT STEP IS MARK DRYFUS. UH, THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, I GUESS I WANNA TAKE THE CONVERSATION IN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT DIRECTION AS WE'RE TRYING TO WIND UP TOWARD A VOTE. UM, FIRST I, I WANNA THANK NETIKA FOR HER OPENNESS TO REEVALUATING DURATION AT THE, AT THE PRS MEETING. I PRESSED HER PRETTY HARD ABOUT EIGHT CERTAINS FOR THAT REEVALUATION. AND, AND WHAT SHE PROMISED US WAS THAT FIRST AT THE END OF MARKET TRIALS, WE'D AT LEAST TAKE A LOOK AND SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT CAME UP IN THE MARKET TRIALS THAT INFORMED THIS ISSUE. AND THEN SECONDLY, THAT WE WOULD, UH, LOOK AT THE DATA AND REEVALUATE DURATION FOR THE 2027 ANCILLARY SERVICES METHODOLOGY UPDATE. AND, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT COMMITMENT. AND THAT COMMITMENT WAS WHAT ALLOWED ME TO VOTE FOR THE ERCOT RECOMMENDATION, UH, AT THE PRS MEETING. BUT, UH, BUT I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH THIS. AND, AND I'LL TELL YOU THAT FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE NOT OPERATIONAL, UM, AND DON'T LIVE IN THE REAL TIME CO OPTIMIZATION PLUS BATTERIES TASK FORCE, THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT ISSUE. AND I HAVE SPOKEN WITH MANY OF YOU OVER THE LAST, UH, COUPLE OF WEEKS, AND I'VE RECEIVED A LOT OF COMMENTS, WHICH I HAVE REVIEWED CAREFULLY AND, AND THOUGHT ABOUT. UM, BUT I, I HAVE TO SAY THAT ANDREW'S COMMENTS RELATING TO DURATION AND STATE OF CHARGE MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. BUT I ALSO AM CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, OUR PROCESS AND, AND THE INCENTIVES FOR OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND INVESTMENT THAT OUR PROCESS CREATES. AND SO I WENT BACK THROUGH KIND OF THE HISTORY OF THIS TOPIC AS FAR BACK AS THE REAL TIME CO OPTIMIZATION PLUS BATTERIES TASK FORCE, NPRR 10 11, AND I LOOKED AT NPR 10 96 WHERE WE SET THE FOUR HOUR LIMIT, AND AT NPR 1186 ON, UH, STATE OF CHARGE, AND EVEN AT 1290, WHICH CAME OUT JUST YESTERDAY, THAT IMPINGES ON THIS ISSUE. AND, AND WHAT STICKS OUT TO ME IN PARTICULAR IS RELATED TO NPRR 10 96, WHERE WE, UH, WE CHANGED ECRS TO A TWO HOUR PRODUCT AND NONS SPIND TO A FOUR HOUR PRODUCT. AND IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE PROTOCOLS, WE MADE THAT FOUR HOUR CHANGE IN A LOT OF PLACES EXCEPT FOR ONE. AND THAT IS THE, THE ITEM THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW. AND THAT'S IN THE GRAY BOX LANGUAGE IN PROTOCOLS 8.1, PARAGRAPH EIGHT ON QUALIFICATIONS. AND, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE LEFT THE ONE HOUR QUALIFICATION IN THAT SECTION INTENTIONALLY, OR IF IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT, AND, AND I'M NOT SURE IT REALLY MATTERS, BUT, BUT THAT DOES LEAD ME TO A BAD QUESTION. AND HERE'S MY BAD [02:50:01] QUESTION. GIVEN THAT THAT ONE HOUR DURATION LANGUAGE HAS BEEN IN THE PROTOCOL FOR BASICALLY SIX YEARS NOW WITHOUT CHANGE IN THAT GRAY BOX, DID THE BATTERY OPERATORS AND INVESTORS RELY ON THAT GRAY BOX LANGUAGE IN EIGHT, ONE PARAGRAPH EIGHT, TO MAKE THESE LARGE DOLLAR INVESTMENTS IN OUR MARKET IN ANTICIPATION THAT WE WOULD HAVE A ONE HOUR DURATION FOR NONS SPEND IN REALTIME CO OPTIMIZATION? THAT, THAT QUESTION REALLY DIRECTS ME FOR WHERE I MIGHT WANT TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE. AND, AND I'M NOT REALLY EXPECTING ANYBODY TO, EXCUSE ME, TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR ME, BUT I THINK THAT IF WE HAD AN INCENTIVE IN PLACE FOR SOMEONE TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY INVESTING IN OUR MARKET, WE OUGHT TO RESPECT THAT INCENTIVE. UH, THANK YOU, RASHMI. YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR . UM, AND KNOW THIS IS A LONG DISCUSSION, UH, AND I THINK IT IS HARD FOR EVERYONE TO, UH, EVEN DECIDE WHAT ENERGY OFFER TO PUT IN BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO MANAGE, UM, WHETHER YOU WANNA GET AWARDED FOR ENERGY THIS FIVE UNIT AND TAKE OUT YOUR CHARGE, STATE OF CHARGE ALTOGETHER, OR GET AWARDED FOR ANCILLARY SERVICE CONTINUOUSLY. SO, UM, THE QUESTION IS LIKE, WHAT SORT OF COMPLIANCE IS THERE FOR, FROM A STATE OF CHARGE PERSPECTIVE FOR ANCILLARY SERVICE? AND IF I UN I JUST WANTED TO ENSURE THAT I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT IN REAL TIME CO OPTIMIZATION YOU JUST GET AWARDED AND, UH, BASED ON THE PRICE AND YOUR DEPLOYMENT IS KIND OF EQUAL AND TO NOT GETTING AWARDED. SO THERE IS NO COMPLIANCE KIND OF, AND SO THERE'S NO REAL INCENTIVE FOR ANYONE TO CREATE OR KEEP ANY EXTRA STATE OF CHARGE OTHER THAN WHAT ARE COURT PROCURES? IS THAT CORRECT? OR IS THERE SOME COMPLIANCE OR SOME CHECKS? WHO IS YOUR QUESTION TO RASHMI? UH, NETIKA, CAN YOU, CAN YOU TAKE THAT QUESTION AND WE'LL GO BACK TO THE REST OF THE QUEUE? YES, I CAN TRY. RASHMI. AS FAR AS, UH, POST RTC WORLD GOES, POST RTC AS IS THE PHYSICAL, AS AWARDS ARE IN THE REAL TIME MARKET, AND THEY WILL BE BASED OFF OF STATE OF CHARGE AT THAT TIME WHEN SCARED RUNS AND THE AWARDS ARE BINDING AT RESOURCE LEVEL. SO OUTSIDE OF, UH, SO AT LEAST, UH, AS FAR AS, UH, COMPLIANCE GOES, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE LIKE WHAT WE CAME UP WITH IN THE, IN THE 1186 CONVERSATION, WHICH WAS APPLICABLE SOLELY TO THE PRE ITC SET UP . SO FOR, SO FOR ECR AS AND NON SPIN, THERE IS REALLY NO SPECIFIC DEPLOYMENT, OR IT IS BASICALLY CONVERTING THAT ECRS TO ENERGY BY THE SC. AND SO FOR YOU TO ENSURE THEN TO HAVE THAT STATE OF CHARGE, YOU HAVE TO BASICALLY PROCURE THAT FOUR HOUR. IF YOU WANT FOUR HOURS OF ENERGY, YOU HAVE TO PROCURE IT. OTHERWISE THERE IS, IF YOU DON'T PROCURE IT AND YOU ONLY PROCURE ONE HOUR, EVEN IF YOU PUT THE QUALIFICATION AT FOUR HOURS, IF YOU ONLY PROCURE FOUR HOURS, THERE IS NO THEN COMPLIANCE TECH OR NO, UM, INCENTIVE FOR, SAY IF I'M THE BATTERY, I DON'T HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO PRESERVE THAT FOUR HOURS AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CHECKS. THAT'S CORRECT. FROM A REAL TIME PERSPECTIVE. YES. OKAY. THANKS. UH, PELTON, YOU'RE UP NEXT. YEAH, JUST TO ADDRESS A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT MARK KIND OF TALKED ABOUT AND SOME OTHER IDEAS HERE IS, WELL, YES, WHAT'S IN THE GRAY BOXES AND WHAT'S IN THE PROTOCOLS IS WHAT EVERYONE BASE THEIR, THEIR ANALYSIS ON AND WHEN THEY'RE GONNA BUILD, WHAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA BUILD AND HOW THEY'RE GONNA OPERATE IT. SO IT PLAYS A BIG PART ON THAT. UH, ACTUALLY, IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT SOME OF THE EARLY CONVERSATIONS, UH, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LONGER DURATIONS AND THE FOUR HOUR AND THE TWO HOUR, [02:55:01] UH, WE WERE HITTING, UH, CANON AT THAT TIME ABOUT, WELL, YOU, YOU NEED TO DROP THESE WHEN WE GET TO REAL TIME CO OPTIMIZATION. AND THEN OF COURSE, THE ANSWERS WE WERE GETTING BACK THEN WERE, YEAH, WE'LL EVALUATE THAT. WE THINK WE CAN REDUCE THAT. UH, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. IT'S ACTUALLY GOING UP BECAUSE WE'RE GOING DOWN TO A FIVE MINUTE, UH, UH, DISPATCH, WHICH I, I HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH. BUT ON THE SIDE OF THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE JOINT COMMENTER'S COMMENTS THAT WE PUT OUT THERE, WE LOOKED AT AS A COMPROMISE SOLUTION TO THIS, TO WHERE WE LEFT THE LONGER DURATIONS FOR THE QUALIFICATION, AND THEN WE DIDN'T IMPLEMENT THOSE LONG, LONGER TERMS IN REAL TIME. AND WE DROPPED THOSE DOWN TO, TO WHAT THE, UH, YOU KNOW, TO THE ONE HOUR AND THE 30 MINUTES AND FIFTEENS. AND WE FELT THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WHAT WE DO TODAY AFTER 1186, WHEN THAT WENT THROUGH, WE'VE LEFT THE, THE, UH, TWO AND A FOUR HOUR IN THE DAY AHEAD FOR QUALIFICATION, AND THEN WE'VE DROPPED THAT THE WAY IT'S DONE THROUGH SC. AND SO I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE'RE NOT READY TO GO TO THE IMM OR ANYTHING ELSE, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE, THE JC COMMENTS AS A COMPROMISE TO WHERE IT DOESN'T REDUCE RELIABILITY. IT GIVES YOU THE SAME RELIABILITY YOU HAVE TODAY. 'CAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY. AND, UH, I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT AND SEE WHERE THE CONVERSATION GOES. OKAY. THANKS. BOB NAVA, THIS IS, UH, NAVA FROM OFFICE OF PUBLIC COUNCIL. UH, TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE FEW COMMENTS IN HERE. SO FIRST, OC HAS A MEETING WITH IMM AND LAST WEEK REGARDING THIS NPRR. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU BOTH IMM AND FOR THEIR ANALYSIS. AND, UH, THANK YOU ANDREW AND, UH, IKA FOR TODAY'S PRESENTATION, AND THAT REALLY HELPED US DETERMINE OUR POSITION. SECOND, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO KATHLEEN SMITH FOR REACHING OUT, AND WE UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF ENERGY STORAGE AND SOURCES THAT THE VALUE THEY PROVIDING TO, UH, TO THE AGGREGATE GRID, ESPECIALLY IN THE TIGHT CONDITIONS, ARE PHENOMENAL, AND WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS. THIRD, UH, WE HAVE A VERY HOT SUMMER MONTHS COMING UP. AND, UH, IN OUR DISCUSSION WITH , THEY EXPRESS THE SERIOUS AND VERY SINCERE RELIABILITY CONCERNS. MENTIONED THAT THIS PLAN IS, UH, TEMPORARY, AND I THINK, UH, IKA JUST MENTIONED THAT THING AS WELL. AND THEY ARE WILLING TO REVISIT THIS PLAN ANYTIME AFTER RTC PLUS B GO LIVE. OOC WOULD LIKE TO ENSURE THAT, UH, ARCU REVISIT AS PLAN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER RTC PLUS B GO LIVE. AND OOC ALSO WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST ARCU TO BRING THE APPROPRIATE DATA IN DISCUSSION FOR THIS STAKEHOLDER MEETING TO JUSTIFY THESE DURATIONS IN THE NEXT REVISIT. FINALLY, WITH THE REASONS I MENTIONED AND THE COMMITMENT PROVIDED WITH US, OPAC WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT FOR, UH, TO . THANK YOU. YOU, THANK YOU. NAVA S YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO, UH, VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR THE JOINT, JOINT COMMENTERS, UH, PROPOSAL. UM, YOU, I'LL LOOK AT THIS A COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS. UM, ONE IS, I THINK IT ERODES SOME OF THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WE COULD HAVE UNDER RTC. UM, THE OTHER, THE OTHER WAYS I LOOK AT IT IS NOT, THIS IS NOT REALLY THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO APPROACH THE PROBLEM. I THINK, UM, IF YOU NEED A A FOUR HOUR TYPE DURATION PRODUCT AND DRS WOULD BETTER SUIT THAT. UM, AND I ALSO INVOLVE, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE OPERATIONAL COMPLEXITIES WITH STATE OF CHARGE IS BEST RESOLVED THROUGH MURUM AS WELL. UM, AND I, I'VE ALSO, MY THIRD POINT IS I'VE MENTIONED THIS TO SOME OTHER PEOPLE OFFLINE, THAT, UM, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE RETROACTIVE THINGS, UM, WHERE WE'RE SORT OF MAKING UP RULES AFTER A CLASS OF RESOURCES HAS COME ONLINE AND THESE JUST AREN'T CHANGES AROUND THE EDGES. THEY'RE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. AND I JUST THINK IT REALLY ERODES MARKET CERTAINTY, INVESTOR CONFIDENCE, AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO THAT, THAT'S THE OTHER, THE OTHER THING THAT GIVES ME PAUSE HERE, I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO, UH, KEEP NON SPIN THE WAY PEOPLE ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED IT, AND THEN TO DEVELOP OTHER PRODUCTS, UH, TO [03:00:01] GET THE RELIABILITY ATTRIBUTES THAT YOU, THAT YOU WANT, NOT JUST ALL OF A SUDDEN TAKE EXISTING PRODUCT WITH THE EXISTING COMPENSATION STREAM AND REWRITE THE RULES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CAITLIN. THANKS, MARTHA. UM, I, I THINK I'LL ADDRESS A FEW COMMENTS, BUT I WON'T TRY TO BE LONG-WINDED. UM, SO, SO, UH, TO, TO BLAKE'S COMMENTS, UM, APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTFULNESS AND, AND WE SPOKE, YOU KNOW, I TOUCHED ON THIS EARLIER SUPPORT TO THE, YOU KNOW, PROPOSAL OR, OR WHAT PEOPLE ARE MAYBE WORKING ON OR HOPING FOR, FOR A HIGHER OFFER CAP. YOU KNOW, WE DISCUSSED THIS BRIEFLY WITH MAGGIO EARLIER THAT THAT IS NOT ON THE TABLE FOR A WHILE, AND SO WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO, TO PUSH THE SOLUTION, BUT I, I APPRECIATE THAT OF KIND OF AN ALTERNATIVE. UM, TO MARK'S QUESTION, YES, WE DO MAKE INVESTMENT DECISIONS ON, ON EXISTING AND, AND LONG SETTLED RULE. UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THE SFCI THINK HAS CHANGED UP AND DOWN SEVERAL TIMES, UM, OR, OR MAYBE NOT UP AND DOWN, BUT IT'S, IT'S CHANGED A LOT. UM, AND SO I WOULD ADD TO YOUR COMMENT, NONS SPEND AND ECRS HAVE REMAINED ONE HOUR PRODUCTS. WE, WE ALWAYS BUY AND SELL THEM, BUY THE, THE ONE HOUR NOW AND WILL IN REAL TIME CO-OP OPTIMIZATION, RIGHT? WE NEED FOUR HOURS OR TWO HOURS, BUT WE'RE NOT GETTING A FOUR HOUR OR TWO HOUR BLOCK WHEN WE SELL OR, OR BUY THE FOUR HOURS OR TWO HOURS DURATION. SO IT'S A ONE HOUR PRODUCT THAT REQUIRES A TWO HOUR OR FOUR HOUR DURATION. AND AGAIN, I'LL SHARP ON THE FACT THAT THE SOC YOU NEED IN REAL TIME IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE DURATION FOR A QUALIFICATION AMOUNT. UM, I THINK THIS IS WHAT REMI WAS ASKING. OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE COMPLIANCE ELEMENT IS THAT ED WILL JUST NOT PICK YOU UP, RIGHT? UNLESS THEY SEE THAT THE SOC. AND SO THAT'S SORT OF THE ARGUMENT WE'RE MAKING FOR A NON SPEND, THEY'LL NEED TO SEE FOUR HOURS WORTH, AND IT'S OPTIMIZING BY MEGAWATT. SO YOU CAN ONLY PROVIDE ONE FOURTH AMOUNT THE NONS SPIN AS ENERGY. SO IN ORDER TO OPTIMIZE YOU FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES, YOU WILL NEED TO PRICE AT FOUR TIMES THAT WE DO THINK THAT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON PRICE. YOU KNOW, GOING BACK TO, TO MARK'S POINT, WE DO MAKE INVESTMENT DECISIONS ON THIS. YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE HAD THE SAME CONCERNS WITH SOME OTHER GENERATORS ON MONEY GOING OUT OF THE MARKET. AND RTC, CANDIDLY, I SEE THIS AS AN ATTEMPT TO PUT MONEY BACK IN THE MARKET, BUT ONLY FOR A SELECTION OF GENERATORS, RIGHT? YOU ARE KIND OF ARBITRARILY TAKING OUT ALL BUT ONE FORTH THE CAPACITY FROM ONE TECHNOLOGY TYPE. AND THAT IS GOING TO MAKE THE PRICE THE OFFERS FROM THAT ONE TECHNOLOGY TYPE GO UP FOUR TIMES. AND THAT'LL INCREASE PRICES THAT YOU SEE OF CONSUMERS AND, YOU KNOW, FURTHER, FURTHER AFFECT THE INVESTMENT DECISIONS THAT WE'VE MADE IN THE PAST. AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANKS, CAITLIN. LOOK LIKE WE HAVE A BAD QUESTION FROM NED NEXT. NED. THANKS, MARTHA. I'M, I'M GLAD THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO INTERPRET THE B IN FRONT OF THE QUEUE. UM, SO I, IT IS ACTUALLY MORE OF A COMMENT, BUT I, I JUST WANTED TO GET IN HERE 'CAUSE I, I ALSO WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHY I'LL BE VOTING NO AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR MOTION AND, AND DO THINK THAT RCOS PROPOSAL IS THE, AND, AND WHAT PRS PASSED OUT, UH, PREVIOUSLY IS, IS THE, THE BEST, UH, OPTION BEFORE US. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WITH THESE THINGS YOU MAY NOT NECESSARILY GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE RIDING THE BUS. YOU, YOU GET ON THE, THE, THE OPTION THAT'S HEADING CLOSEST TO THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WANT TO GO. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK REALLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH HERE IS THE VALUE OF WHAT DURATION IS. UM, YOU KNOW, TO SOME DEGREE IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE NEED IS AN OPERATING RESERVE DURATION CURVE TO VALUE THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, AND IT SEEMS LIKE ARCOS APPROACH IS, IS KIND OF GETTING AT THAT, IT'S SHOWING THAT THERE IS A VALUE TO DURATION, UH, OF DIFFERENT RESERVE QUALITIES THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE REFLECTED. UM, YOU KNOW, I I, I CAN APPRECIATE THE SENSITIVITIES TO, UM, YOU KNOW, MARKET POLICY STABILITY. UM, I WILL SAY, I, I STRUGGLE TO BELIEVE THAT ANYONE THAT LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, REAL-TIME IZATION THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS NECESSARILY AN INVESTMENT SIGNAL TO, YOU KNOW, BASED SOLELY ON, ON WHAT WAS IN THERE FOR, UH, THE DURATION. UH, I SUSPECT THERE WERE PROBABLY BIGGER SIGNALS THAT, UM, WOULD'VE OVERRIDDEN, UH, THAT PARTICULAR PIECE IF, IF THAT'S WHAT SOMEONE WAS LOOKING AT. UM, BUT YOU [03:05:01] KNOW, I, ALL IN ALL, I ALSO THINK IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE MARKET STABILITY, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE ALSO WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO HAVE MORE CONSISTENT SIGNALS WITH HOW WE'RE VALUING IT AND HOW WE'RE VALUING STATE OF CHARGE IN, IN, UM, YOU KNOW, REALTIME OPERATIONS. I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, I'M, I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED WHY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO LINE UP THE VALUE OF STATE OF CHARGE FOR RAG AND RRS TO ALIGN WITH WHAT WE'RE U WHAT WE'RE USING FOR PHYSICALLY RESPONSIVE CAPACITIES CALCULATION. AND NPR 1273, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS A 45 MINUTE, UM, STATE OF CHARGE QUALIFICATION, I THINK WITH THIS WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ONLY PUTTING 30 MINUTES IN THERE, AND THAT WILL LEAD TO SOME, SOME NATURAL DISCONNECT. UM, YOU KNOW, ERCOT SIGNALED THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE WILLING TO REDUCE THE ECRS PROVISION, THEY, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THEY COULD SEE THAT THEY NEED TO, YOU KNOW, RAISE THAT BACK UP. IT SEEMS LIKE STABILITY WOULD, WOULD SEND A BETTER LONG-TERM INVESTMENT SIGNAL FOR, FOR FOLKS, UH, FROM THAT STANDPOINT. BUT, UM, ANYWAY, UH, JUST A FEW THOUGHTS. I KNOW I'VE SAID THOSE BEFORE. I WANTED TO REITERATE 'EM. I DO THINK, UM, THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, UH, PROBABLY MORE HELPFUL THAN PURSUING A MURDERDOM ROUTE TO CONSIDER RAISING THE OFFER CAP TO ALLOW BATTERIES TO BETTER MANAGE THEIR STATE OF CHARGE AND RELY ON THE WISDOM OF CROWDS AND MARKETS TO ADDRESS THAT, UH, THAT SAME ISSUE THAN TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, USE A TOP DOWN APPROACH THAT RAISES UPLIFT RISK TO THE REST OF THE MARKET. UM, BUT ALL THAT BEING SAID, IT SEEMS LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, ERCOT PROPOSAL AND WHAT PASSED OUTTA PRS IS THE, THE, THE PATH THAT, YOU KNOW, REFLECTS THE RELIABILITY NEEDS AND THE OPERATIONAL NEEDS, UH, THE MOST. SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, NED. LET, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN WRAP UP THE PRESENTATION WITH THE LAST TWO COMMENTERS IN THE QUEUE. WE STILL NEED TO, UH, REVIEW THE A PA COMMENTS, AND THEN HOPEFULLY AFTER THAT WE CAN GO LOOK AT THE MOTION AND GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE VOTE ON THAT. SO, UM, WE'LL GO TO CHRIS BROWN NEXT. ALL, UH, CHRIS BROWN ON BEHALF OF COMMISSION STAFF. UH, JUST WANTED TO, UH, WRITE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON, ON OUR VIEWS ON THIS. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE APPRECIATE ALL THE ANALYSIS FROM BOTH ERCOT, THE IMM, UM, ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, ERCOT ANALYSIS BASED ON THEIR RISK TOLERANCE AND EVERYTHING, AND, AND THE IMMS, IT, IT'S ALL VERY HELPFUL. UM, WANTED TO NOTE THAT, THAT THE PRS MEETING STAFF NOTED THAT THESE AREN'T NEW ISSUES ON, ON THE DURATION REQUIREMENTS. AND, AND THE AS STUDY, THE COMMISSION DID ADDRESS THIS AND PROVIDED A ROADMAP, UH, IN THE FINDINGS SO QUICKLY SUMMARIZING THAT, WE THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC, BUT MAYBE NOT CURRENTLY A TOP PRIORITY AND SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE REVISITED AFTER RTC AS STABILIZED. AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEY STUDY AS THEY'RE ADOPTED. UH, ALSO THE, THE COMMISSION HAS INDICATED SEVERAL TIMES THAT PRIOR TO GO LIVE, THAT, UH, A PREFERENCE TO REFRAIN FROM INTRODUCING SIZABLE CHANGES WHICH ARE NOT CONSENSUS BASED AND FULLY TESTED. UH, AND CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME ISSUES HERE THAT REQUIRE MORE NUANCED DISCUSSIONS AND, AND PEOPLE HAVE PROPOSED SEVERAL SOLUTIONS, UH, AND WAYS TO HANDLE THESE. UH, SO THAT BEING SAID, UH, STAFF SUPPORTS ERCOT VISION, UH, VERSION OF THE NPRR, UH, AS THAT'S THE MOST THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH BEFORE GO LIVE, UM, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES, APPROACHES AND PROPOSALS CAN ALWAYS BE EXPLORED AND DISCUSSED AFTER RTC ESTATE APPLIES. AND AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE MORE, UH, WE CAN MAKE MORE INFORMED DECISIONS BASED ON DATA AND OUTCOMES OBSERVED UNDER RTC. UH, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHRIS, CAITLIN. YEP. UM, I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO WRAP UP. I THINK THIS CAN DO IT. UM, CORY, WE WOULD LIKE TO AMEND OUR MOTION TO, UM, RECOMMEND APPROVAL, I THINK AS WHATEVER AS, AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND AMENDED BY THE FIVE 12 JOINT COMMENTERS COMMENTS. UM, THOSE DO PRESERVE THE QUALIFICATIONS THAT ERCOT PROPOSED. SO I THINK THAT IS MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT COMMISSION STAFF JUST SAID. YOU KNOW, UM, THE SOC ERCOT PROPOSED WAS A BIG CHANGE, SO WE, AND THE JOINT COMMENTS PROPOSED SOMETHING THAT IS THE, THE QUALIFICATIONS THAT PROPOSED, BUT, UM, [03:10:01] YOU KNOW, A C THAT IS CLOSER TO WHAT WE DO NOW, NOTING FOR ANDREW THAT OF COURSE, I KNOW RTC IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PARADIGM, UM, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, HEARING SOME OF SETH'S COMMENTS AS WELL AS SMIS, I THINK THE, UM, KEEPING THE QUALIFICATIONS HIGHER FOR SOME OF THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED WOULD, WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE THIS TIME. SO, I, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT PROCEDURE, COREY, BUT I BELIEVE IF, IF BOB AND I BOTH AGREE, WE CAN AMEND THAT MOTION, I'M GOOD WITH IT. YEP, YOU GOT IT. GOTTA HEAR FROM BOB. OKAY. YEAH, I'M UP NEXT. SO BOB, YOU GOOD WITH THAT? Y YEAH, I, I'M GOOD WITH THAT. CAITLIN, WERE YOU DONE? DO YOU WANT ME TO ADD SOME MORE COMMENTARY TO THAT OR YOU ARE? YOU STILL GOT SOME OTHER STUFF? UM, TURKEY ARE DONE AND I AM FINISHED IS WHAT MY FOURTH GRADE TEACHER SAID. SO YEAH, . OKAY. YEAH, I ACTUALLY, I WAS KIND OF GLAD YOU CAUGHT ON WHAT CHRIS SAID. UH, TALKING ABOUT CHANGES BEING MADE, UH, THAT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED WHAT WE WERE DOING. UH, AND THAT'S WHAT 1282 DOES AS WRITTEN BY ERCOT. UH, BECAUSE LIKE WE SAID, THE REASON WE WANTED AND THE JOINT COMMENTERS PUT IN THE COMMENTS WE DID IS BECAUSE WHAT'S BEEN WORKING NOW WE FELT WOULD WORK IN THE PAST, I MEAN, WORK IN THE FUTURE, AND THEN WE COULD EVALUATE THAT IF THAT NEEDS TO GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, UH, UH, AS WE MOVE FORWARD. BUT THIS WOULD LEAVE IT BASICALLY THE WAY IT'S OPERATING TODAY, UH, WHEN WE HAVE THE ONE HOUR, UH, UH, DURATIONS FOR THESE PRODUCTS AND NOT THE ABILITY TO CHANGE 'EM EVERY FIVE MINUTES. SO, UH, SO I'M GOOD WITH THAT. MEDICA, I WANT TO CONFIRM. JOINT COMMENTER'S COMMENT RECOMMENDS THAT THE QUALIFICATION FOR NON SPEND B FOUR, BUT IN REAL TIME THE PROCUREMENT BE BASED OFF OF ONE R ENERGY. YES. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING THAT. SO AT LEAST, UH, IF, UH, IT'LL NOT BE A SURPRISE WHEN I SAY THIS. OUR WHOLE POINT ON, UH, THE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IS WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY. LOOK, I KNOW THERE WERE STATEMENTS MADE THAT TODAY WE USE ONE HOUR DURATION TODAY. ALSO, THE DEFINITION OF THE PRODUCT IS A FOUR HOUR DURATION FOR NON SPEN AND TWO HOUR DURATION FOR ECRS. BUT THERE WERE COMPROMISES MADE AROUND AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT SCHEDULE LOOK TO, UH, ENSURE, UH, IS PRESERVED FOR AS THOSE APPLIED IN THE PARADIGM THAT WORKS TODAY, WHERE DAM IS THE ONE WHICH IS PROCURING AS, AND THEN WE HAVE THIS HASSLE CONVERSATION AND A CONTROL ROOM A TO TOGGLE ON WHERE THE AS IS USED. NONE OF THAT APPLIES UNDER RTC, UNDER R-T-C-R-T-C PROCURES THE ANCILLARY SERVICES BASED OFF OF CAPABILITY AND ENERGY AVAILABLE IN REAL TIME. THIS, THIS JOINT COMMENTER APPROACH THAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED STILL FUNDAMENTALLY ONLY PRESERVES ONE HOUR FOR NONS SPEND. AND OUR, OUR ISSUE WITH THAT IS WHEN WE ARE IN EVENTS, WE ONE HOUR IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE TYPE OF EVENT THAT WE USE NONS SPEND FOR. WE STILL NEED A FOUR A DURATION. THE QUALIFICATION, UH, UH, REALLY DOES NOT, DOES NOT GET US THE RELIABILITY WE NEED IN ENSURING THE RESERVES THAT RTCC PROCURES HAS ENERGY TO SUSTAIN OUR RESPONSE. SO WE, WE CERTAINLY ARE, I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, IT WOULDN'T BE A SURPRISE WHEN I SAY WE DON'T, UH, WE DON'T SUPPORT THE JOINT COMMENTER, UH, PROPOSAL TODAY. I'LL PAUSE WITH THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU NETIKA. UM, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN, SINCE THERE'S NO ONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GO OVER TO THE A PA COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED YESTERDAY AND SEE IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SORT OF COVER THOSE FOR THE GROUP. UH, KEN, ARE YOU GONNA DO THAT? YEAH, I'M ON. THANKS EVERYBODY. WE CAN HEAR YOU. YEAH, REALLY, REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION FROM ALL VIEWPOINTS, I THINK IT'S VERY INTERESTING. UM, SEEMS LIKE THERE'S GOTTA BE SOME TYPE OF MIDDLE GROUND ON THIS THING, UH, SINCE WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH, BACK AND FORTH. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE RELIABILITY CONCERNS, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT SOMETIMES WE TEND TO LOOK BACK RATHER THAN LOOKING FORWARD A LITTLE BIT MORE AS A PLANNER. BUT, UH, THESE ARE VERY VALUABLE RESOURCES ON THE GRID NOW. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE CONTINUING WITH THE TRANSITION AND THE FLEXIBILITY AND FAST-ACTING NATURE OF THIS RESOURCE MIX IS AMAZING, UH, AND IS CONTINUING TO GROW. AND I THINK WE'RE LEARNING THE VALUE OF THESE RESOURCES, UH, AROUND TIME. BUT AGAIN, A PA, UM, WE REALLY SUPPORT [03:15:01] THE IMM JUPITER POWER AND THE JOINT COMMONERS AND THE TEXAS SOLAR POWER ASSOCIATION COMMENT. UH, WE, WE THINK THAT 1282 ARE UNNECESSARILY ADMINISTRATIVELY RESTRICTIVE ON THE NUMBER OF MEGAWATTS, UH, ESR CAN OFFER. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO SENDS A SIGNAL TO ESR TO CONTINUE ADDING ONTO THE GRID, AND PARTICULARLY AROUND THE DIVERSE NATURE OF THE LOCATIONS AROUND THE GRID TOO. SO, AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT AGAIN, UH, THIS IS APAS COMMENTS AROUND THIS. AND WE, WE ASKED RECONSIDER, UM, THE DURATION REQUIREMENTS ON 1282 AND ALIGN MORE WITH THE IMM BY, BY THE WAY, ANDREW. AWESOME DISCUSSION. AND ERCOT VERY, VERY GOOD PRESENTATION TOO, SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, KEN. UM, COREY, CAN WE LOOK AT THE MOTION NOW? OKAY. SO THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS REVISED. UH, THE, THE ONE THAT WE HAVE ON THE SCREEN IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1182, SORRY, 1282, UH, AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND IS AMENDED BY THE MAY 12TH JOINT COMMENTER'S COMMENT. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW. UH, ARE THERE ANY FINAL COMMENTS OR OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE ON THIS MOTION? OKAY, COREY, I THINK WE'RE READY. ALL RIGHT. ON THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1282 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRF AS AMENDED BY THE FIVE 12 JOINT COMMENTERS COMMENTS. WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS AND THIS ONE, UH, NAVAS GOT ERIC'S PROXY, SO NAVA FOR ERIC? NO AND NO. NO. OKAY. AND THEN I'M SORRY, WAS THAT NO FOR YOU AS WELL? NAVA? YEAH, BOTH. NO, NO. AND THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GARRETT? YES. THANK YOU. AND THEN GAR FOR ERIC SCHUBERT? YES. THANK YOU. MARK. DR. YES. AND THEN MARK FOR NICK? YES. THANK YOU. UNDER THE CO-OP BLAKE? NO, THANK YOU, JOHN. NO, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. KYLE? NO, THANK YOU. COREY. THANKS, SIR. JOE, DAN, FOR MIKE? NO, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ON TO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. BOB. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. CAITLIN? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, BRIAN. NO, THANK YOU. THANKS SIR. NO, THANK YOU, COREY. THANKS, SIR. ONTO OUR IBN STUFF. CONCOR, YOU STILL WITH US? OH, THERE YOU GO. SORRY. CHARLIE. THE NO. GOTCHA. THANKS. THAT RASHMI? NO, THANK YOU. JEREMY. YES, THANK YOU. INHALE JOINED US OUT CO COREY? I WAS THE YES. OH, THE YES. . OKAY. YEAH. SORRY. THANK YOU FOR CHECKING ME ONTO THE I REP BILL BARN. NO, THANK YOU, JENNIFER. NO, THANK YOU. CHRIS HENDRICKS, NO AND NO, NO, NO. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IOUS. DAVID. NO, THANK YOU, RICHARD. UH, NO THANK YOU, MARTHA. UH, NO. COREY, THANK YOU. UH, ROB FOR KEITH? NO, THANK YOU. ON TO OUR MUNI. JOSE? YES, MR. YES. THANK YOU. JOSE. DAVID? YES. THANK YOU. ALICIA. YES, THANK YOU. AND THEN CURTIS FOR RUCKLE? NO, NO, THANK YOU. MOTION FAILED. 38%, 4 52 AGAINST I. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CORY. SO, UH, WE HAVE A FEW OPTIONS FROM HERE. UH, I ACTUALLY SEE A COUPLE FOLKS IN THE QUEUE ALREADY, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF THOSE. UH, NED LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE FIRST. THANKS, MARTHA. LET, UH, I'D RECOMMEND WE JUST MOVE ON TO THE, THE NEXT, UH, THE NEXT LOGICAL DISCUSSION POINT, AND THAT IS, [03:20:01] UH, A MOTION TO, UH, ENDORSE NPR 1282 IS RECOMMENDED BY PRS. OKAY. AND THANK YOU, NED. LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A SECOND FROM BLAKE. DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON TOP OF THAT, BLAKE? NO, MA'AM. YOU GOT IT? OKAY. CORY, CAN WE GET THAT BALLOT READY FOR REVIEWING? YES, MA'AM. THAT SHOULD BE WHAT'S GOING ON SCREEN RIGHT NOW. SO, JUST PLANO VANILLA, THE WAY THE PRS SENT IT TO YOU. OKAY. SO THE NEXT MOTION BY NED, SECONDED BY BLAKE WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FIVE 14 PRS REPORT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? CALIN? YEAH. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? UM, IN, YOU KNOW, I, I WON'T SEE PRESUPPOSE ANYTHING, BUT WE, WE HAD A HARD TIME WITH 1238 IN THE EVENT. WE DON'T GET TO ANYTHING THAT PASSES TODAY. WHAT, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AS WE GO FORWARD INTO MARKET TRAIL? SO, CAITLYN, THE QUESTION IS, IF THERE'S NO PASSING MOTION, NEED A MOTION PASSES GONNA PASS THIS, OR WE TABLED IT. WHAT, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN MARKET TRIALS? BECAUSE I, I KNOW THAT THEY NEEDED SOMETHING FOR, FOR MARKET TRIALS, MONICA. OH, CHRIS IS IN THE QUEUE ALSO. I, SO THERE IS FUNDAMENTALLY, THERE ARE GRAY BOXES TODAY FOR RTC THAT HAVE DURATIONS IN THEM, WHICH WERE VOTED ON THROUGH PREVIOUS NPRS. WE WOULD USE THOSE AS FAR AS, UH, MARKET TRIALS GO. AND ARE, WHICH ONES ARE THOSE? OR THOSE, THE ONES THAT MARK, DR. HAS REFERENCED THAT PEOPLE MADE INVESTMENT DECISIONS ON? I, THE, LET'S JUST, HOW, HOW ARE THOSE DIFFERENT THAN THIS PROPOSAL? LET HAVE CONVERSATION, I GUESS CONVERS, MAYBE LET'S JUST HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. LIKE SPEN IS THE ONE WHERE WE'VE HAD THE, WHERE THERE WAS THIS, UH, CO CON CONVERSATION OF, OH, HEY, Y'ALL MISSED ONE SPOT. THE SPOT THAT WE MISSED WAS THE QUALIFICATION CRITERIA. AND THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP SEVERAL TIMES WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE, UH, WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR SECTION, UH, AND TALKING ABOUT QUALIFICATION AS IT APPLIES TO OTHER RESOURCES. IF YOU REC RECOLLECT, WE SUBMITTED AN NPRR JUST PRIOR TO THIS ONE, WHICH TOOK AWAY THE AUTOMATIC QUALIFICATION OF ECRS AND NONS SPIN AND CONVERTED THOSE INTO BEING A PURPOSEFUL QUALIFICATION THAT RESOURCES WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH. SO WE RECOGNIZED THAT, THAT THERE WAS A DISCONNECT BETWEEN QUALIFICATION CRITERIA AND THE MONITORING CRITERIA FOR NONS SPEND, EVEN BACK IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS. BUT WE TABLED CORRECTING THOSE TILL THIS DURATION CONVERSATION MATERIALIZED, BECAUSE IN OUR COURT'S OPINION, THE QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR NONS SPEND SHOULD MATCH THE MONITORING CRITERIA THAT EXISTS IN REAL TIME. NOW, 10 96 MISSED UPDATING THE QUALIFICATION CRITERIA. THE MONITORING CRITERIA STILL SPECIFIES FOUR HOURS. SO THE, YOU ARE, THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT YOU OFFER THE ANNOUNCEMENT CAPABILITY THAT YOU OFFER TO SCARED SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SUSTAIN FOR FOUR CONSECUTIVE HOURS. THAT LANGUAGE IS STILL THERE IN THE PROTOCOLS TODAY. ALRIGHT, SO I KNOW YOU, YOU ASKED ME THE QUESTION, WHAT WILL APPLY THAT WILL APPLY AT LEAST AS FAR AS CLEARING ENGINE GOES. OKAY. THANK THANKS, , I APPRECIATE THAT. CHRIS BROWN. UH, YEAH. UM, JUST A SUPER QUICK CLARIFICATION ON MY PREVIOUS COMMENT TO HOPEFULLY CLEAR UP ANY POSSIBLE CONFUSION, UH, COMMISSION STAFF'S STANCE IS THAT WE SUPPORT ERCOT PROPOSED VERSION OF THE NPR. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, CHRIS. UM, AND SO THE, THE BASE OF THE EFFECT OF THE MOTION ON THE SCREEN WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE, THE ERCOT SUBMITTED VERSION, WHICH IS WHAT PRS ENDORSED. UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE? MARK? [03:25:01] THANK YOU, CHAIR. I'M GONNA BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, AND THE REASON THAT I AM COMFORTABLE DOING THAT, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IS TICUS COMMITMENT THAT SHE MADE AT THE PRS AND, AND I BELIEVE REPEATED TODAY THAT WE WILL REVIEW AFTER THE, UH, MARKET TRIALS, WHETHER THERE IS ANY INFORMATION GENERATED IN THE MARKET TRIALS THAT THAT RELATES TO THIS DURATION TOPIC. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A FULL REVIEW OF DURATION IN THE 2027 METHODOLOGY, UH, ANCILLARY SERVICES DOCUMENT. THANKS. THANK YOU, MARK. ANY OTHER FINAL COMMENT? MICHAEL JEWEL? YEAH. THANK YOU, MICHAEL JEWEL, ON BEHALF OF OLIAN, I JUST WANNA FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING THAT NITKA SAID EARLIER ABOUT RIGHT NOW, BOTH ECRS AND NONS SPEND. ECRS IS A TWO HOUR PRODUCT, AND, AND NONS SPEND IS A FOUR HOUR PRODUCT. BUT I THINK THAT WHAT WE RAN INTO ON THE DISCUSSION ABOUT 1186 IS THAT LOOKING AT THAT APPROACH, YOU STRANDED STATE OF CHARGE, IF YOU APPLIED IT AS A TWO HOUR REQUIREMENT WITH ECRS IN A FOUR HOUR REQUIREMENT WITH NONS SPEND. AND WE SEEM TO BE GOING BACK TO EXACTLY WHAT THE COMMISSION REJECTED IN 1186 WITH STRANDING STATE OF CHARGE. BECAUSE THE, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN RTC RELEASES ECRS OR NONS SPEND, IT TURNS IT INTO ENERGY, BUT IT'S NOT AWARDING TWO HOUR ENERGY OR FOUR HOUR ENERGY. IT'S AWARDING FIVE MINUTES AT A TIME. AND SO I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE JUST GOING BACKWARDS WITH REGARD TO WHAT THE COMMISSION RULED WHEN THEY REJECTED THE STRANDING STATE OF CHARGE UNDER 1186. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NIKA, MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SEMANTICS, MICHAEL, IN OUR, IN OUR PERSPECTIVE TODAY. YES, THAT IS, UH, IF YOU ARGUE THAT IF, UH, WHICH IS THE, WELL MAYBE TODAY, UH, UNDER TODAY'S CONSTRUCT WHERE, UH, UH, UH, WITHIN THE, THE CONVERSATIONS THAT APPLIED IN 1186 APPLIED SOLELY UNDER TODAY'S CONSTRUCT, WHEREBY MAKING THAT TRIANGLE START AT FOUR TIMES ENERGY AND STOP AT THREE TIMES ENERGY. WE, UH, AND HAVING THAT ENERGY BEHIND HASSLE WOULD HAVE ON MAKING, HAS AWARE OF THAT REQUIREMENT, WOULD HAVE MADE THAT ENERGY STANDARD IN, IN THE FACT THAT SKATE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEPLOY IT OR CONVERT IT AS SYSTEM CONDITIONS CHANGED. THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN UNDER RTC OR THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN UNDER R-T-C-R-T-C HAS THE ENTIRE CAPACITY AND ENERGY AVAILABLE TO IT, TO EITHER AWARD TO SERVE LORD OR PRESERVE TO HELP DURING EVENTS THAT MAY HAPPEN. SO I DON'T CONSIDER, LIKE I SAID, I, TO ME, IT'S SEMANTICS, BUT UNDER RTC, WE ARE STRICTLY NOT STANDING ENERGY IN THE SENSE THAT THAT CONVERSATION SHOWED UP UNDER 1186. THANKS, IKA. OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, COREY, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE READY TO VOTE. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU. SO, ON THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1282 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRO, WHICH AGAIN, JUST TO BEAT THE DEAD HORSE, IS THE ERCOT AD SUBMITTED VERSION. WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS WITH NAVO FOR ERIC? YES. AND THEN NABO. YES. THANK YOU. GARRETT. YES, SIR. AND THEN GARRETT FOR ERIC? YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, MARK ? UH, YES. AND THEN MARK FOR NICK? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. ONTO THE CO-OP BLAKE? YES. THANK YOU, JOHN. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, KYLE. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JO DAN FOR MIKE? YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU, SIR. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. BOB HILTON? NO, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. CAITLIN? NO, THANK YOU. BRIAN. THA YES. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY, BRIAN, THAT WAS REALLY QUICK. IS THAT A YES? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'VE, I'VE MET THAT TOO MANY TIMES TODAY. JUST WANTED TO BE SURE. THANK YOU, SIR. NED? YES. THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU. [03:30:02] ONTO THE IPM, SETH. YES. THANK YOU. READ ME. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JEREMY ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. EVERYONE. BE SURE TO GIVE IAN HALEY GRIEF FOR MISSING ALL THIS FUN. MOVE ON TO I AT STILL BARN. YES. THANK YOU, JENNIFER. YES, THANK YOU, CHRIS. YES. AND YES, THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU. UNDER IOUS IS DAVID. YES, THANK YOU, RICHARD. YES. THANK YOU. MARTHA. I VOTE YES. THANK YOU, ROB, FOR KEITH? YES. THANK YOU. ONTO MUNI, JOSE? YES. THANK YOU. DAVID. YES, THANK YOU. ALICIA? YES, THANK YOU. AND THEN CURTIS FOR RUFFLE? YES, THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIED TO OPPOSE ONE AB EXTENSION. THANK Y'ALL. OKAY, THANK YOU, COREY. SO THE TR WILL BE ADVANCING TO THE JUNE BOARD. LET, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN QUICKLY FIND A, A PLACE FOR THE RELATED NOER, AND THEN WE'LL PLAN TO TAKE A BREAK. UM, SO THE NOER, AGAIN IS UNDER THE ROTH UPDATE, UM, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY ROSS, BY EMAIL VOTE WITH ONE ABSTENTION. WOULD THERE BE ANY OBJECTIONS TO PUTTING THE, THE NOER ON THE COMBO BALLOT SINCE IT WAS UNOPPOSED? OR ARE THERE PEOPLE THAT WOULD NEED TO ABSTAIN OR VOTE AGAINST THE NOER? THIS IS NOER 2 77. HEY, MARTHA. I'M, I'M GONNA STAY. OKAY, VERY GOOD. UM, IS THERE ANYONE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE NOVEMBER 2 77? I MOVE TO APPROVE 2 77. THIS IS JENNIFER SCHMIDT WITH HIM. THANK YOU, JENNIFER. IS THERE A SECOND ON THE MOTION? SECOND FROM CHRIS HENDRICKS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE NUMBER 2 77? WE'LL JUST GIVE COREY A MINUTE HERE TO GET IT QUEUED UP THEN. OKAY. SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NUMBER 2 77 IS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE 5 20 25 ROSS REPORT. I SEE NO ONE IN THE QUEUE FOR DISCUSSION. SO, CORY, WOULD YOU TAKE US THROUGH THE VOTE PLEASE? ABSOLUTELY. AND ERIC, FOR THIS ONE, WE ONLY HAVE YOUR PROXY OFFICIALLY FOR 1282. ARE YOU OKAY TO, TO VOTE ON THE RELATED NOVA OR DOES NAVA NEED TO TAKE THIS ONE FOR YOU? UM, NAVA CAN HAVE IT. THANKS. OKAY, NO WORRIES. EASY ENOUGH. ALL RIGHT. SO ON THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 2 77, AS RECOMMENDED BY ROTH, WE WILL START WITH CONSUMERS WITH NAVA FOR ERIC S YES. THANK YOU. AND THEN NAVA? YES. THANK YOU. AND GARRETT? YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. UH, GARRETT FOR ERIC? YES, SIR. THANKS SIR. MARK. D DR. UH, YES AND YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU ON OUR CO-OPS, BLAKE. YES. THANK YOU, JOHN. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, KYLE. YES. THANK YOU, JOE, DAN FOR MIKE? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UNDER INDEPENDENT GENERATOR SWAP, HILTON, I'LL ABSTAIN. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. KAILYN 16. THANK YOU, RYAN. SAM? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, NED. YES, THANK YOU, CORY. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IPM DEBBIE. STILL WITH US? YES. YEAH. OKAY. GOTCHA. SORRY, I HAVE NO WORRIES. THANK [03:35:01] YES. YES. THANK YOU. REMI . THANK YOU, JEREMY. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BILL BARNES? YES, THANK YOU. JENNIFER. YES, THANK YOU, CHRIS. YES. AND YES, THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU ONTO OUR IOUS. DAVID? YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, RICHARD. YES, THANK YOU. MARTHA. YES, THANK YOU, ROB FOR KEITH? YES. THANK YOU. MUNI. JOSE? YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. DAVID? YES. THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU, FELICIA. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU CURTIS FOR RUFFLE. YES, THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES THEN OPPOSED TO ABSTENTION. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, SO I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK HERE, . UM, LET'S PLAN ON A 20 MINUTE BREAK. SO COMING BACK, LET'S JUST ROUND UP TO ONE 40. UM, WE'RE SORT OF GETTING INTO THE SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATES NEXT. WE STILL HAVE A PRETTY LONG WAY TO GO ON THE AGENDA, SO I JUST ASK THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS TO TRY TO MAKE THEIR AGENDAS AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE SO WE CAN TRY TO FINISH UP AT A SEMI DECENT HOUR. UM, SO WE'LL BE ON BREAK FOR 20 MINUTES TILL ONE 40. THANKS. ALRIGHT, WELCOME BACK EVERYBODY. UH, CORY, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU'RE BACK AS OUR DRIVER THIS AFTERNOON? YES, MA'AM. OKAY, GREAT. UH, [6. Revision Requests Tabled at TAC (Possible Vote) • NOGRR264, Related to NPRR1235, Dispatchable Reliability Reserve Service as a Stand-Alone Ancillary Service] LET'S CONTINUE ON WITH ITEM NUMBER SIX. UH, BY THE WAY, KAITLYN HAS HAD TO STEP OUT. UH, SHE MAY BE BACK IN A LITTLE BIT, BUT, UH, WE'LL TAG TINA THE REST OF THE MEETING BETWEEN THE TWO OF US BASED ON HER AVAILABILITY. UM, AS FAR AS ITEM SIX, NO, GRADE 2 64 CAN STAY TABLED. THERE'S NO ACTION NEEDED ON THAT, UH, THIS MONTH, SINCE IT'S STILL WAITING ON THE COMPANION NPRR. AND [7. RMS Report (Vote) • RMS Strategic Objectives • OBDRR054, TDSP(s) Pre-Production Verification Testing] THAT'LL TAKE US INTO THE SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE. THEN WE'LL KICK THAT OFF WITH DEBBIE AND THE RMS REPORT. DEBBIE, ARE YOU READY? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU, MARTHA. ALL RIGHT, NEXT? YES. ALL RIGHT. RMS UH, HAD TWO VOTING ITEMS AT OUR LAST MEETING. THEY WERE UNANIMOUS. WE HAVE OTHER BINDING DOCUMENTS, REVISION REQUEST 0 54. THE IMPACT ANALYSIS, THERE IS NO IMPACT ERCOT. UM, WHAT THE BUSINESS REASON, I'LL GO THROUGH THIS REAL QUICK, IS THAT THE CURRENT TEXAS MARKET TEST LANGUAGE IS THE OTHER BINDING DOCUMENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOES NOT HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED FOR MARKET PARTICIPANTS TO COMPLETE ANY PRE-PRODUCTION TESTING. AND THE EVENT QUALIFICATION WAS RECEIVED ON PAST VERSIONS. AND ENCORE HAD A COUPLE OF INCIDENTS, AND CENTERPOINT HAD FOUR, AND OURS WAS 16 YEARS AGO. A REP WAS CERTIFIED 16 YEARS AGO, AND THEY NEVER USED THAT DUNS. BUT BECAUSE OF A CERTIFIED AND THERE WEREN'T ANY RULES, THEY WERE ABLE TO COME INTO PRODUCTION. AND, UM, WHAT HAPPENED IS, BECAUSE THEY WERE ON A PAST VERSION OF TEXAS SET TRANSACTIONS AND A PAST VERSION OF THE NAS, BEDM OR A PAST TECHNICAL UPGRADE OF THE NAS, BEDM, UM, EVERYTHING FAILED. SO WE HAD TO GO BACK AND WORK WITH THEM TO GET EVERYTHING UH, CORRECTED. THEY WEREN'T AWARE THAT THEY HAD ANY SYSTEM CHANGES. SO THAT IS THE, UM, BASIS FOR THAT NEXT SLIDE. OH, I SEE. CHRIS. YEAH, THANKS DEBBIE. ONE QUICK QUESTION BACK ON THAT LAST SLIDE OR THE PREVIOUS SLIDE IT FOR TEXAS SET. UM, I THOUGHT THAT EVERY TIME THAT THE TEXAS SET CHANGED, THAT ALL MARKET PARTICIPANTS HAD TO GO THROUGH QUALIFICATIONS ASKING AGAIN. OH, YEAH, GOOD QUESTION. YES, THEY ABSOLUTELY DO. UM, THE REP THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT REQUESTED TO BE IN OUR, UH, PRODUCTION TO MOVE TO PRODUCTION HAD, UM, THEY HAD TESTED PRIOR TO TEXAS AT 4.0. SO WHEN WE WENT TO TEXAS AT 4.0, WHICH IS THE TRANSACTION STACKING LOGIC AND THINGS, THEY HAD TESTED ON, I THINK, TEXAS AT 2.0 BECAUSE IT WAS SO LONG AGO. AND I HAD A REAL HARD TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON BECAUSE I HAD THE LETTER AND THE ERCOT QUALIFICATION LETTER IDENTIFIES THAT ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING TESTING, [03:40:01] HAD BEEN, UM, COMPLETED AND THEY WERE GOOD TO GO IN PRODUCTION, BUT THE LETTER WAS DATED MAYBE 2008, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO WE HAD TO WORK REALLY FAST TO TRY AND GET 'EM IN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. UM, SO YEAH, IF ANY CHANGES OR OR SYSTEM CHANGES OCCUR AFTER THEY GET QUALIFIED, THEY WOULD NEED TO GO BACK AND RETEST THOSE. AND MOST OF THOSE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS BILLING AND PAYMENT, WHICH IS A POINT TO POINT. THOSE ARE POINT TO POINT PROCESSES. AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE CONNECTIVITY TESTING. AND USUALLY THAT CAN BE DONE JUST IN A MATTER OF MINUTES, BUT WE JUST REALLY NEED THIS LANGUAGE AND THE TEXAS MARKET TEST PLAN. AND KATHY IS SAYING HER YEAR WAS 2018. OURS WAS BEFORE THEN, BUT SHE HAD THE SAME, UM, SHE HAD THE SAME ISSUE. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, CHRIS? YEAH, IT DOES. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FOR OUR 2025 RMS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES, RMS DID APPROVE THIS. WE DID, UM, WE CONSOLIDATED OUR GOALS AND WE BELIEVE THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. WE ENDED UP WITH SIX STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. ALL ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SCOPE OF RMS. I THINK THAT THESE ARE RELATIVELY, UM, EASY TO UNDERSTAND THEIR OPERATIONAL. AND, UM, WE THINK THESE ARE GONNA BE EASY TO FOLLOW AND DO NOT REQUIRE OR MAY NOT REQUIRE MANY UPDATES, UM, GOING FORWARD, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. NEXT SLIDE. THERE WE ARE. ALL RIGHT. OUR RMS WORKING GROUP AND TASK FORCE PRIMARY ACTIVITIES IN PROGRESS PROFILING, WORKING GROUPS, STILL FACILITATING 2025 ANNUAL VALIDATION. AND THEY ARE LOOKING AT, UM, DOING AN IN-DEPTH REVIEW OF THE WHOLE LOAD PROFILING GUIDE. AND THAT REALLY IS, UM, IT'S A BIG EFFORT AND IT'S GONNA TAKE SEVERAL MEETINGS. THE RETAIL MARKET TRAINING TASK FORCE. WE HAVE RETAIL ONE-ON-ONE, INSTRUCTOR LED TRAINING COMING UP ON JUNE 18TH AND TEXAS AT 5.0 INSTRUCTOR TRAINING. IT'S GONNA BE ON JUNE 25TH, AND IT'S GONNA BE HOSTED BY VESTRA AND IRVING. AND THERE'S STILL SOME SEATS AVAILABLE TO THAT, UH, TEXAS DATA TRANSPORT MARKET TRACK SYSTEM. THEY'RE STILL DOING ANALYSIS FOR INADVERTENT GAMES. THE INADVERTENT GAINS ARE, WE'VE SEEN SOME REALLY GOOD PROGRESS. UM, HOWEVER, IT'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE AND, UM, IT'S LOWERED. AND MOSTLY, I BELIEVE THAT'S DUE TO THE AUTOMATION OF INADVERTENT GAIN PROCESSES THAT WENT IN WITH TEXAS AT 5.0. STILL THE MARKET TRACK APPLICATION AND THE QUARTERLY ERCOT REPORTS, THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT. AND THE RETAIL SYSTEM SERVICE LEVEL COMPLIANCE AND ISSUE RESOLUTION. AND TEXAS SAID, GOING BACK TO TALKING ABOUT THE TEXAS MARKET TEST PLAN, AGAIN, THEY ARE DOING A IN-DEPTH REVIEW OF THAT TO GO AHEAD AND SEE WHAT ELSE MIGHT BE NEEDED. AND THAT'S PROBABLY GONNA TAKE, UH, SEVERAL MEETINGS. NEXT SLIDE. AND OUR NEXT RMS MEETING IS THURSDAY, JUNE 12TH AT NINE 30, AND WE HOPE YOU CAN JOIN US. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE UPDATE, DEBBIE. SO WE HAVE TWO VOTING ITEMS UNDER RMS. UH, YES. WOULD THERE BE ANY OBJECTION TO PUTTING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RMS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AS PRESENTED ON THE COMBO BALLOT, AS WELL AS THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF OBDR OH FIVE FOUR AS RECOMMENDED BY RMS AND THE 5 13 25 RMS REPORT ON THE COMBO BALLOT AS WELL? IF ANYBODY NEEDS TO ABSTAIN OR VOTE AGAINST EITHER THOSE MOTIONS, UH, JUST MAKE YOURSELF KNOWN IN THE CHAT. CAN YOU PLEASE, CORY, DO YOU HAVE THOSE, UH, TUCKED AWAY FOR US? YES, MA'AM. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU AGAIN, DEBBIE. WE APPRECIATE THE UPDATE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. [8. ROS Report (Vote)] ALL RIGHT, NEXT UP WE HAVE KATIE RICH WITH THE ROS REPORT, KATIE . THANKS MARCO. SO THANKS, COREY. SO REALLY, WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE FIRST TWO ITEMS SINCE THE SECOND TWO WERE COVERED UNDER THE PRS REPORT FOR VOTING. SO THESE FIRST TWO WERE UNANIMOUS, [03:45:01] SO SHOULD BE COMBO BALLOT WORTHY. READY, UM, FOR T NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THAT WE REVIEWED THE DWG PROCEDURAL MANUAL, AND THERE WERE TWO PIECES TO IT. UM, WE DID A SEPARATE BALLOT BECAUSE THERE WERE ABSTENTIONS FROM THE GENERATOR SEGMENT WITH A PREFERENCE FOR DELAYING APPROVAL, UM, OF THE ADVANCED GRID SUPPORT TESTING UNTIL WE HAVE SOME SORT OF PROTOCOL PASS THAT WOULD NECESSITATE IT. UM, BUT IT'S STILL, STILL MOVING FORWARD. AND THEN NEXT ITEM I, I BRING THIS UP WITH A HOPE THAT I DON'T CAUSE ANY CONFUSION THIS MONTH. IF IT WILL CAUSE ANY CONFUSION, THEN I WILL CERTAINLY JUST HOLD OFF, OR THAT'S ON THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO WE HAVE FINISHED OUR WORK ON NPR 1238 AND OVER 2 65. SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS TAC ASSIGNMENT REMOVED FOR US NOW, BUT IF, AGAIN, IF IT CAUSES ANY CONFUSION, WE CAN WAIT FOR ANOTHER MONTH. AND THEN ON THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES, AS USUAL, THIS SHOWS YOU THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK ON AT OUR WORKING GROUPS. SAME ON THE NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN LASTLY, OUR NEXT MEETING IS JUNE 5TH. IT WILL BE WEBEX ONLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, KATIE. LET'S, UH, TALK ABOUT THE ACTION ITEM FIRST. D DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO ALLOWING KATIE TO REMOVE 1238 AND NOVEMBER 2 65 FROM THE ROTH ACTION ITEM? WE'LL, WE'LL STILL LEAVE THEM ON THE TAC ACTION ITEM LIST, THEN WE'LL BE HAVING ANOTHER MEETING IN A COUPLE WEEKS TO TAKE THOSE BACK UP. BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME TO LEAVE THEM ON THE ROSTER ACTION ITEM LIST SINCE THEIR WORK IS DONE WITH THOSE. SO ANY OBJECTIONS TO LETTING HER REMOVE THOSE? ALL RIGHT. I SEEN NO OBJECTION, KATIE. SO GOOD JOB THERE. UM, THANK YOU. AND YES, SO WE THEN WE HAVE THE, THE TWO REMAINING VOTING ITEMS FOR ROSS BEING NO, 2 75, THE SCHEDULING CENTER REQUIREMENTS FOR QUEASY. UM, I WOULD SUGGEST WE PUT A MOTION ON THE COMBO BALLOT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THAT NOER, UH, AS ROSS RECOMMENDED IN THE MAY 1ST ROSS REPORT. DOES ANYONE NEED TO VOTE AGAINST THAT OR ABSTAIN ON THAT MOTION? ALL RIGHT, COREY, I'LL LEAVE THAT IN YOUR GOOD HANDS. AND THEN IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE HAVE A DESKTOP EDIT ON FIGURE 1 25 TO LOOK AT. IS THERE SOMEONE FROM MARKET RULES THAT WANTS TO TEE THAT UP FOR US? YEAH, MARTHA. UM, COREY, IF YOU CAN BRING UP THOSE DESKTOP EDITS. IT'S JUST ADDING SYSTEM TO THE RIO REFERENCES, UM, THROUGHOUT THE PLANNING GUIDE. UM, IT REFERENCES RIO AS RIO'S SYSTEM. SO THERE WERE JUST A COUPLE PLACES WHERE WE ADDED IN THE SYSTEM. OKAY, THANK YOU, MA'AM. SO THEN WE'D BE LOOKING AT A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAYER 1 25, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE ROSS MAY 1ST ROSS REPORT AS REVISED BY T WITH THE INCLUSION OF THESE EDITS THAT WE SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE. UH, I THINK WE COULD ADD THAT TO THE COMBO BALLOT AS WELL. BUT ANYBODY HAS CONCERNS WITH THAT. UH, FEEL FREE TO CHIME IN HERE. ALL RIGHT, COREY, WE'LL TURN THAT MOTION OVER TO YOU FOR SAFEKEEPING AS WELL. DONE. THANK YOU. UH, KATIE, ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE ROSS REPORT? I, NO, THANKS MARTHA. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [9. WMS Report (Vote)] NEXT UP WE HAVE THE WMS REPORT. BLAKE? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU, MARTHA. THIS IS BLAKE HOLT WITH THE WMS REPORT. UH, WE LAST MET ON MAY 7TH AND HAVE A FEW ITEMS I'D LIKE TO BRING UP FOR, TO TAX ATTENTION. UH, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAD OUR FINAL DISCUSSION ON THE A DER PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT. WE GAVE, UH, AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES TO SAY THEIR PEACE ON A PATH FORWARD AND LEAP. VOLTI, VISTRA AND ENCHANTED ROCK AND TESLA ALL MADE THEIR CASE. UM, IN THE END, WMS ENDED UP VOTING 90% IN FAVOR OF THE RA AND ENCHANTED ROCK JOINTLY FILED CONCEPTS. AND I BELIEVE AFTER THIS REPORT, RYAN KING WILL DISCUSS THOSE, UH, IN MORE DETAIL. UH, SECONDLY, ENO GONZALEZ GAVE A WMS AN OVERVIEW OF THE RMR LIFECYCLE UPLIFT COSTS. UH, WE RECEIVED A BRIEF UPDATE, BUT THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED AT THAT TIME. SO ENO HAS COMMITTED TO COME BACK TO OUR NEXT [03:50:01] MEETING FOR ANOTHER UPDATE ON THIS TOPIC. UH, NEXT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WMS HAS AGREED UPON A NEW SET OF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES THAT WE POSTED TO THE TAC MEETING PAGE. UH, COREY, WOULD YOU MIND BRINGING THOSE UP BRIEFLY TO GIVE FOLKS A, A CHANCE TO, TO LOOK AT THOSE, OR AT LEAST SEE WHERE THEY ARE? THEN I'LL GIVE Y'ALL A, A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE. MARTHA, IF, IF Y'ALL ARE WILLING, I THINK THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR, UH, COMBO BALLOT APPROVAL. UM, BUT ALSO I'LL PAUSE FOR A LITTLE BIT TO SEE IF ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS ON THESE. ABSOLUTELY. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THE WS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES, THEN? ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO ADDING THOSE TO THE COMBO BALLOTS? ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S A GO BLAKE, WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE? SOUNDS GOOD. UM, FINALLY AT THE, THE BOTTOM, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED SOME ITEMS THAT WE APPROVED, BUT WE'RE STILL WAITING ON AN IA, SO LIKELY WE WILL HAVE A, AN UPDATE ON THOSE NEXT MONTH. AND, UH, I GUESS JUST TO CIRCLE BACK TO THE A DER PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT, UM, THIS WAS AN ACTION ITEM FROM TAC TO WMS AND JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT. I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE CLOSED THIS ONE OUT ON THE WMS SIDE, AND, UH, DEPENDING ON WHERE, WHERE THAT GOES, UM, MIGHT, MIGHT NEED TO TAKE THAT OFF OF OUR LIST. BUT, UH, I GUESS THE LAST DATE I HAVE IS OUR NEXT MEETING IS JUNE THE FOURTH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, BLAKE. PAUL WADDLE. THANK YOU. UH, BEFORE WE MOVE ON FROM BLAKE, I, I WANTED TO, UM, SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE, UH, A DER, UH, PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT. AND, AND I AM, UH, A LOT OF YOU KNOW ME, UM, I'M RETIRED, BUT I AM DOING SOME CONSULTING WORK, AND I'M, TODAY, I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF VOLTI. UM, SO WE, YES, THE, UH, WMS SPOKE LOUDLY ABOUT, ABOUT THE, UH, RA AND, UH, ENC, JANET ROCK COMMENTS, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WAY LIFE GOES SOMETIMES. BUT, UM, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF REASONS WHY I WANTED TO SEE IF, UM, TAC TODAY WOULD ENTERTAIN THE IDEA OF, OF TABLING THIS, UM, UNTIL THE NEXT T MEETING. UM, I, UH, THERE, SO WE REVIEWED A VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT AT WM S3 WEEKS AGO, UM, THAT HAD ALL THE RED LINES FROM, FROM VISTRA AND ENCHANTER ROCK IN IT. UH, THE DOCUMENT THAT'S POSTED TO TODAY'S MEETING IS NOT THAT DOCUMENT. IT IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, CATHERINE GROSS, BY THE WAY, DID A, UH, WHAT I APPEARS TO BE A MAGNIFICENT JOB OF CAPTURING EVERYTHING THAT WAS AGREED UPON AT, AT WMS. UH, BUT IT ALL RESULTED IN SOME MAJOR EDITS TO THE DOCUMENT. UM, SO THAT IS, UM, ONE REASON THAT I, THAT I WAS HOPING MAYBE TAC COULD LET THIS, UM, SIMMER ON THE STOVE A LITTLE BIT LONGER, UH, SUBSTANTIVELY, UM, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OF REASONS WHY VOLTI IS INTERESTED IN AT LEAST MAYBE EXPLORING A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL OPTIONS. AND ONE IS, UM, UH, THE, I, THERE'S A SENTENCE IN, IN THE DOCUMENT THAT IT APPEARS, AND I, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS WAS THE INTENT OR IF THIS IS THE ACTUAL, UH, LITERAL OUTCOME OF IT, BUT THEN IT APPEARS TO GIVE AN LSE, UH, QSE REPRESENTING AN LSE, THAT, UH, SORT OF BLANKET AUTHORITY TO TAKE ALL OF ITS PORTFOLIO OFF LIMITS TO THE A DER PILOT. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS THE INTENT. UH, I, BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT REALLY VERY WELL DISCUSSED AND NOT VETTED, UH, IN ANY LEVEL OF DETAIL, UH, AT EITHER THE SUBCOMMITTEE OR ANY WORKING GROUP LEVELS. SO THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE ONE. UH, THE OTHER THING IS THAT VOLTA, AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING WITH, UH, WITH VISTRA ABOUT THIS, UM, Y YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PROVISION IN THERE THAT ALLOWS, THAT ALLOWS THE L-S-E-Q-S-E TO, UH, REJECT A, UM, AN A, A SPECIFIC EASY ID OR SPECIFIC PREMISE FROM, UH, AN A DER, UH, UH, AGGREGATION, UH, ON A, ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOAD BASIS. AND, AND THAT'S, THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, PART OF THAT 90% VOTE THE OTHER DAY. UM, WE'RE JUST, WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN EXPLORING WITH, WITH INTERESTED FOLKS, [03:55:01] COULD, COULD THERE BE SOME SORT OF A DEADLINE FOR THE L-S-E-Q-S-E RESPONDING TO THE THIRD PARTY QSE, WHICH, BY THE WAY, THAT'S WHAT VOLTI IS, WHERE THEY'RE AN AGGREGATOR. UM, THEY'RE ONE OF THE, THEY'RE ONE OF THE, UH, CA UH, PEOPLE THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM, FROM VERSION THREE OF THE, UM, OF THE GOVERNING DOCK. AND, UH, BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO, TO PLAY IN THE MARKET. UM, IT, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IF THERE WAS A, A 30 DAY, YOU KNOW, UH, WINDOW FOR THE LSE TO COMMUNICATE BACK TO THE AGGREGATOR ON, UM, ON WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WHEN THESE LOADS WERE EITHER REJECTED OR APPROVED. SO THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE THE TWO PRIMARY SUBSTANTIVE REASONS. UH, PROCEDURALLY I THINK, UM, THERE'S BEEN A GOAL, I KNOW TO GET, UH, THE, THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF THE BOARD IN JUNE. UM, AND I, BUT I THINK IT IS A GOAL AND NOT NECESSARILY A MANDATE FROM, FROM ANYONE. AND MAYBE RYAN KING COULD ADDRESS THAT, BUT, BUT I'M, UH, I, ANYWAY, I'M JUST ASKING AND I, I CAN'T OBVIOUSLY MAKE A MOTION AND BOLT, THIS DOES NOT HAVE A SEAT AT THE TAC TABLE. IF SOMEBODY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN MO IN MOVING TO TABLE THIS TO GIVE IT, TO GIVE IT A LITTLE MORE TIME ON THE STOVE. UH, THANKS FOR YOUR TIME. THANKS, PAUL. UM, SO I, I GUESS ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS WE CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION AND SEEING THAT IN THE QUEUE, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE RYAN KING'S PRESENTATION, WHICH, YOU KNOW, SUGGESTS WE TRANSITION TO, IS I DON'T BELIEVE ATTACK VOTE IS REQUIRED TO ADVANCE THIS ITEM TO THE BOARD. AND SO I'M NOT SURE THAT TABLING WOULD REALLY HAVE ANY EFFECT IF, IF THERE'S A STRONGER DESIRE BY ERCOT TO BRING THIS TO THE JUNE BOARD. UM, BUT MAYBE RYAN CAN ADDRESS THAT WHEN HE GETS TO HIS PRESENTATION. UM, FOR NOW, LET'S TAKE NED'S COMMENT IN THE QUEUE AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE CAN TRANSITION OVER TO THE SLIDE DECK. NED, THANKS MARTHA. AND PAUL, THANKS FOR, THANKS FOR BRINGING THOSE, THOSE COMMENTS FORWARD. AND I KNOW WE'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH ON, UH, YOU KNOW, ON THIS TOPIC FOR A LITTLE WHILE NOW. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK ON YOUR, THE, THE POINT YOU RAISED ABOUT THE TIMING, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT PRECLUDES THAT FROM BEING PART OF THE CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE, THE TWO IES, THE LSE QUEASY AND THE THE THIRD PARTY, UM, NCLR QUEASY. UM, YOU KNOW, BUT I, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THOSE PARTIES SHOULD WORK OUT DIRECTLY BETWEEN THEMSELVES. THEY MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE A SHORTER TURNAROUND TIME PERIOD OR A LONGER TURNAROUND TIME PERIOD. IT'S, THAT'S REALLY, UM, A PARTY TO PARTY ISSUE. AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A NECESSARY ITEM TO ADDRESS IN THE, THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT, BUT RECOGNIZE THAT THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF A PARTNERSHIP. AND THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS APPROACH IS TO ENCOURAGE THOSE ENTITIES TO, TO WORK TOGETHER AND, AND MAKE SURE THEY HAVE CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AND ARE WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CUSTOMER. RYAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION AND THEN WE CAN SORT OF COME BACK TO PAUL'S COMMENTS? CERTAINLY THAT, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. CAN I JUST CONFIRM? YOU ALL CAN HEAR ME OKAY. WE CAN HEAR YOU, RYAN. WELL, I'M CLEAR. EXCELLENT. WELL, UM, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A FEW PURPOSES THAT I WANTED TO, TO, TO COVER WITH RESPECT TO, UH, THIS PRESENTATION TODAY. UM, AS NOTED, WE ARE PLANNING TO BRING, UH, OUR PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT TO THE BOARD IN JUNE. AND AS A CONDITION OF THAT, WE INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE RED LINES TO THE PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT, UM, BUT ALSO WE HAVE A REPORT THAT ESSENTIALLY COVERS THE EXPERIENCE, SOME OF THE RESULTS AND SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED DURING THE SECOND PHASE OF THIS PILOT. NOW, UM, THAT REPORT IS INCLUDED IN THIS PRESENTATION, BUT, UM, GIVEN THAT SORT OF THE TIME CONSTRAINTS, WHAT I MIGHT PROPOSE IS THE, THE FIRST PART OF THIS PRESENTATION WILL COVER, UH, NOT ONLY WHAT WE OBSERVED AT A HIGH LEVEL IN PHASE TWO, WE'LL ALSO SPEAK TO, UM, THE ENHANCEMENTS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR PHASE THREE, UM, AND ALSO COVERING, UH, SOME NOTICE THAT WE, WE INTEND TO INCREASE THE, THE PILOT PARTICIPATION LIMITS IN ADVANCE OF THE PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. SO I WILL MAYBE CHECK WITH, WITH THE CHAIR IF THAT WORKS. I DO HAVE THE REPORT. I AM HAPPY TO GO THROUGH IT, UH, IF, IF THAT'S THE, THE WILL OF FOLKS, BUT I'M ALSO, UH, COGNIZANT OF, OF THE, OF THE TIME HERE. YEAH, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD THROUGH IT, BRIAN. YEAH. ALRIGHT. UM, SO THIS IS REALLY HIGHLIGHTING SOME OF THE FINDINGS THAT, THAT WE OBSERVED. UH, WITH RESPECT TO PHASE TWO OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT. UM, AS OF, UH, MAY, 2025, WE DO HAVE THE THREE ADRS THAT ARE QUALIFIED. [04:00:01] UM, THEY HAVE A TOTAL OF 15 MEGAWATTS OF ENERGY AND ROUGHLY EIGHT AND CHANGE WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, NON SPIN RESERVE SERVICE AND ERCOT CONTINGENCY RESERVE SERVICE, SORRY, JUST ONE SEC, PARDON ME. UH, WE ALSO HAVE NINE ADDITIONAL ADR THAT ARE IN VARIOUS STAGES OF REGISTRATION IN TERMS OF ANCILLARY SERVICES. SO A, A BIG PART OF PHASE TWO OF THE PILOT WAS LOOKING AT EXPANDING THE, THE SERVICES THAT THESE RESOURCES WOULD BE ABLE TO, UH, BE AWARDED. AND THAT INCLUDED EXPANDING FOR ERCOT CONTINGENCY RESERVE SERVICE IN PHASE TWO. UM, WE DO, UH, WE DID MAKE SOME ENHANCEMENTS OR CHANGES TO TELEMETRY VALIDATION PROCESSES. SOME OF THIS IS, IS JUST PUTTING TOGETHER A, UH, A DESIGN THAT THAT IS A BIT MORE PROPORTIONATE AND COGNIZANT OF THE SMALLER RESOURCE AGGREGATIONS. AND THESE HAVE BEEN ALSO BEEN IMPLEMENTED BASED ON THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM PHASE ONE. ALSO, PART OF THE, UM, REPORT THAT THAT'S INCLUDED IN HERE IS WE DO A, A ZAL DISPATCH ANALYSIS. SO, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, UH, IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE WAS THAT THE, THESE ADRS, WHILE THEY'RE, THEY'RE AGGREGATED ACROSS A LOAD ZONE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY DISPATCHED AS IF THEY WERE ON A LOAD ZONE SHIFT FACTOR. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT IS, UM, WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY MEAN IN TERMS OF THESE DISTRIBUTED, AGGREGATED RESOURCES? WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY IMPACT THEM WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS LIKE, UH, CONGESTION PATTERNS? AND SO WE INCLUDE SOME ANALYSIS, UH, RELATED TO THAT IN THE REPORT THAT SHOWS THAT IN SOME CASES WE CAN SEE SOME, SOME DISCREPANCIES. IF WE TAKE THIS, THIS QUASI NOAL DISPATCH THAT, THAT WE HAVE KIND OF DERIVED, THAT'S KIND OF A, A LOCATIONAL WEIGHTED SHIFT FACTOR, WE CAN SEE SOME DISCREPANCIES. BUT I THINK THAT THE KEY THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THE, THE DISPATCH OF THESE RESOURCES IS FAIRLY INFREQUENT. UM, AND THE SIZE OF THESE RESOURCES IS SMALL. SO I THINK WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS THAT, UM, IT'S AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION. IT DOESN'T IN AND OF ITSELF NECESSITATE AS MOVING TO A CHANGE, PARTICULARLY AT THIS PILOT. AND ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT SORT OF NATURALLY HAPPENS IS THAT AS AN A DR GROWS, UM, POTENTIALLY SOME OF THE, UH, ISSUES THAT WE'VE SEEN IN TERMS OF THE, THE, THE DISCREPANCY MAY ACTUALLY CORRECT THEMSELVES AS THERE'S MORE PENETRATION OF, OF THESE RESOURCES. BUT WE DO INCLUDE THAT, UH, IN THE REPORT. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS HAS BEEN KIND OF DISCUSSED, UH, A LITTLE BIT BY BLAKE. UH, IT WAS ALSO DISCUSSED BY A COUPLE OF THE, UH, STAKEHOLDERS ON THE CALL HERE. BUT WE DO HAVE, UH, A NOW, UH, WHAT WE SEE AS THE, THE PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY WMS AND THAT, UH, WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF, OF WHAT WAS VOTED ON, UH, LAST MONTH. UM, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE, UH, CONCEPTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THIS, THIS PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT. FUNDAMENTALLY, UH, THE DRIVERS AND THE QUESTIONS FOR THE PILOT REMAIN THE SAME. UH, WE DO ENABLE A, A NEW PARTICIPANT, UH, A NEW PARTICIPATION MODEL, MORE AKIN TO A NON-CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCE. UM, IT DOES ENABLE A THIRD PARTY QSE AGGREGATION FROM, UH, PREMISES GREATER THAN 100, UH, KILOWATTS. UM, THERE IS THIS, UH, CONCEPT OF AN LSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM TO CONFIRM COORDINATION BETWEEN ENTITIES AND, UH, TO AVOID, UH, CROSS SETTLEMENT PROCESSES. AND ERCOT ROLE IN THIS IS, IS, IS SIMPLY TO VERIFY QSE RELATIONSHIPS DURING REVIEW. BUT I THINK, UM, WHAT, UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS NED HAD HAD NOTED THAT THERE, UM, THERE IS, UH, INEVITABLY GOING TO BE MORE DETAIL INVOLVED BETWEEN, UH, THE TWO PARTIES WHEN THIS SITUATION OCCURS. AND I TEND TO AGREE THAT IT PROBABLY DOESN'T NEED TO BE CODIFIED IN THE, THE GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT AT THIS POINT. UM, WE DO ALSO INCLUDE SOME, UH, UPDATES TO TELEMETRY VALIDATION, SOME DODO REVIEW PROCESSES. UM, AND WE'RE ALSO EXPANDING LIMITS FOR PARTICIPATION TO 160 MEGAWATTS FOR ENERGY AND 84 NON SPIN ECRS RESPECTIVELY. SO ESSENTIALLY DOUBLING THE LIMITS THAT WE HAVE TODAY. UH, WE ALSO INCLUDE IN THIS DOCUMENT, AND THIS WAS ANOTHER THING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT WMS AS THE ROBERTS REQUEST, I BELIEVE IT WAS FROM TESLA TO, FOR TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CLARITY AROUND WHEN AND HOW WE WOULD EXERCISE THE DISCRETION THAT'S INHERENT IN THE DOCUMENT WHEN IT COMES TO PARTICIPATION LIMITS. UM, SO WE DO INCLUDE THAT PROVISION. I'LL COVER THAT ON THE NEXT SLIDE. UM, [04:05:02] OKAY. MAYBE JUST, I THINK SOMEBODY MIGHT BE, THERE WE GO. UH, PARDON ME. UH, SO MAYBE JUST BEFORE WE GO TO THE, THE, THE LAST SLIDE HERE IS THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THIS PILOT. I THINK WHAT WE'VE ALSO SIGNALED THOUGH IS WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THIS TO A MORE PERMANENT, UH, PART OF ERCOT MARKET DESIGN. AND SO WE'VE ALSO SIGNALED THAT, UH, HERE. SO, UM, IN TERMS OF THE INCREASE TO PARTICIPATION LIMITS, WE NOTED THAT WE'VE PROPOSED INCREASING THOSE LIMITS AS PART OF PHASE THREE. UM, BUT BASED ON SOME OF THE INTEREST THAT WE'VE, UH, BEEN HEARING AND RECEIVING FROM FROM PARTIES, WE THINK IT'S ACTUALLY PRUDENT NOW TO, TO EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY TO, TO INCREASE THOSE LIMITS IMMEDIATELY. SO ESSENTIALLY FROM TODAY, WE'LL, WE'LL MOVE THOSE LIMITS TO 160 AND 80 MEGAWATTS FOR ENERGY AND ANCILLARY SERVICES. WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE PILOT, UH, IS BEING RESPONSIVE. UH, IT'S, IT'S A BIT ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE GROWING INTEREST AND RECOGNIZING THAT THERE'S BEEN A, A LOT OF INTEREST IN THIS. UM, THE REASON FOR THE LIMITS, WHICH I, I THINK WE NOTED, AND, AND, UM, I'LL JUST REITERATE HERE, IS THAT, UM, BECAUSE THIS IS A PILOT, THERE'S, THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE WORK THAT A TEAM AT ERCOT HAS TO PERFORM WHEN IT COMES TO THE, THE REGISTRATION, UH, OF THESE RESOURCES. SO WE DO THINK THAT, UH, SOME KIND OF LIMIT IS PRUDENT, UM, BUT WE ALSO WANNA PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY AND PREDICTABILITY WHEN IT COMES TO PARTICIPATION. SO, UM, I'LL JUST NOTE THE, THE WORDING HIGHLIGHTED HERE, WE'VE JUST TRIED TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLEARER IN TERMS OF WHEN AND HOW WE WOULD USE OUR DISCRETION. AND ESSENTIALLY WHEN WE'RE COMING UP AT, IN TERMS OF ONE OF THE LIMITS, WHETHER IT'S A A SYSTEM LIMIT OR A QSE LIMIT, WE WOULD THEN EXERCISE DISCRETION TO MAKE UPWARD ADJUSTMENTS TO EITHER OF BOTH, TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT, UH, GROWTH WHILE MANAGING THE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AHEAD OF A LONGER TERM OBJECTIVE, WHICH IS TO TRANSITION TO THE, UH, NOTE OF PROTOCOLS. NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. SO THAT ACTUALLY COVERS THE, THE SUMMARY AND, UM, WHAT IS INCLUDED IN PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. SO I MAY PAUSE HERE, UM, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. AND THEN I WILL KIND OF DEFER TO THE CHAIR WHETHER, UM, YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH THE REPORT, UH, PAGE BY PAGE, OR WHETHER WE CAN, UH, TAKE THIS AS FILED. THIS WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE WILL COVER WITH THE, UH, AT THE ERCOT BOARD MEETING. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, RYAN. I, I'M LEANING TOWARD THE LADDER THERE, BUT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO HAVE RYAN PRESENT THE FULL SUMMARY REPORT, JUST MAYBE MAKE THAT KNOWN IN THE CHAT QUEUE. AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A COMMENT FROM BILL BARNES. YEP. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE, THE, UH, RECAP, RYAN. UM, I WAS JUST GONNA, GONNA REINFORCE SUPPORT FOR WHERE WMS LANDED ON THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT FOR PHASE THREE. I'M NOT GONNA REHASH ALL OF THE, THE GOOD DISCUSSION, BUT THE RETAIL SEGMENT, UM, REPRESENTATIVES DID A GREAT JOB OF ARTICULATING THE CONCERNS AND ISSUES REGARDING THIRD PARTY ACCESS. AND I THINK THE COMPROMISE REACHED IN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND ALSO LIMITS THE DISRUPTION TO THE RETAIL MARKET. PAUL, IT'S GOOD TO, GOOD TO HEAR YOU AGAIN. I'M BOTH TO CHOSE A, A GOOD REPRESENTATIVE 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, THESE ISSUES VERY WELL, BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE. SO I, I KNOW I DON'T NEED TO REPEAT THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE FROM A RETAIL PERSPECTIVE. UM, SO I GUESS, RYAN, A QUESTION TO KIND OF GET US THROUGH THIS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. DOES ERCOT PREFER TAC TAKE ACTION ON THIS AND VOTE, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU AREN'T SEEKING AT THIS POINT? IF, IF YOU ARE, I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION TO SUPPORT ERCOT OR, UH, WMSS RECOMMENDATION ON THE, UH, A DR PHASE THREE PILOT. THANK YOU, BILL. I, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE, UH, SPECIFICALLY NEED A, A VOTE ON THIS ITEM. I THINK OUR, OUR, OUR PLAN HERE IS THAT THE VOTING WOULD REALLY HAPPEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE, THE, THE BOARD MEETING. SO HOPEFULLY I'M NOT TOO OUTSIDE THE LINES HERE, BUT, UH, CERTAINLY HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO BILL MAY, MAYBE WHAT WE DO IS JUST, UH, BEFORE YOU, YOU MAKE THAT MOTION, WE JUST SEE IF THERE'S AN APPETITE FOR PUTTING A MOTION TO ENDORSE THE PHASE THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT CHANGES AS PRESENTED ON THE COMBO BALLOT. IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, OBJECTIONS TO THAT, UH, BY PEOPLE THAT HAVE VOTING STANDING AT T, THEN WE COULD THEN MAYBE HAVE YOU ACTUALLY MAKE THAT MOTION. ANY CONCERNS WITH PUTTING THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT ON THE [04:10:01] COMBO BALLOT. OKAY. THANKS NED. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, I GUESS I WOULD JUST SAY THIS PROBABLY WON'T BE THE LAST TIME WE SEE CHANGES TO THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT, RIGHT RYAN? AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER ENHANCEMENTS GOING FORWARD. UM, I, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN HEARING FOR SOME TIME THAT THERE'S A DESIRE TO GET THIS TO THE JUNE BOARD, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT PERSPECTIVE FROM ERCOT. AND, UM, UH, THIS WOULD BE CONTINUE TO RESIDE AT WMS AS THE PRIMARY GROUP THAT WOULD HANDLE THIS. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THE TACK VOTES ARE SOMEWHAT ELECTIVE AS WE TALKED ABOUT ALREADY. UM, SO COREY, DO YOU HAVE THE MOTION TO ENDORSE THE AIDER FAITH THREE GOVERNING DOCUMENT IS PRESENTED IN YOUR TREASURE TROVE? I DO. OKAY. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYONE, UH, THAT WOULD NEED TO VOTE AGAINST THAT OR ABSTAIN, SO WE'LL, WE'LL VOTE ON THAT ONE A LITTLE BIT LATER. UM, RYAN, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEEDED TO HIT BEFORE WE TRANSITION TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM? RYAN OR BLAKE? ACTUALLY NOTHING FOR ME, BUT, UH, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. OKAY. BLAKE, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE AS PART OF THE WMS PRESENTATION? I'M ALL GOOD. [10. Credit Finance Sub Group (CFSG) Report] OKAY. THAT TAKES US TO CFSG THEN LORETTO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU GO AHEAD. WONDERFUL. I'LL MAKE IT SHORT AND SWEET. UM, WE MET ON MAY 19TH. WE HAD SEVERAL NPR. WE DID, UH, THE CREDIT UPDATES THAT WERE RE THAT ARE OCCURRING DUE TO THE REAL-TIME CO-OP OPTIMIZATION PLUS BATTERIES. WE DID LOOK AT A CRR CREDIT PROPOSAL FROM DC ENERGY, AND THEN ERCOT INTRODUCED A NEW TOPIC, WHICH I'LL GET TO THAT IN JUST A SECOND. AND THEN WE HAD THE REGULAR CREDIT EXPOSURE UPDATES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE FIRST TWO NPRS WERE OPERATIONAL AND NO CREDIT IMPACTS, AND OF COURSE, 1277 IS A CREDIT IMPACT AND WE DID ENDORSE IT. NEXT SLIDE THERE. UM, ERCOT GAVE US A PRESENTATION THAT REVIEWED THE CREDIT EXPOSURE CALCULATIONS. THAT WILL CHANGE BECAUSE OF REALTIME CO-OP OPTIMIZATION PLUS BATTERIES. THE MAJORITY OF THE CREDIT CALCULATIONS ARE DUE TO THE NEW AS VIRTUAL OFFERS, AND SO THEY'LL BE ADDED TO UNBUILD DAY AHEAD ACTIVITY, REALTIME COMPLETED, BUT NOT SETTLED. REALTIME LIABILITY FORWARD AND MINIMUM CREDIT EXPOSURE WILL NOW INCLUDE IT. AND THEN THEY'RE ALSO GONNA INCLUDE THE DEFAULT UPLIFT SUPPORTING DATA TO INCLUDE THAT ACTIVITY AS WELL. IF YOU WANNA SEE THE, THE DETAILS TO WHERE THE, THEY'LL SHOW UP ON THE CREDIT REPORTS, IT'S POSTED ON OUR MEETING PAGE. NEXT SLIDE. BROUGHT A CR CREDIT PROPOSAL TO US, BASICALLY SEDATING THAT. UM, OUR CURRENT CRR CREDIT POLICY MAKES CON CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS THAT DO NOT ALIGN WITH ACTUAL PORTFOLIO RISK. AND OPTION HOLDINGS THAT ARE PROVIDE DOWNSIZED PROTECTION ARE NOT ACTUALLY, UM, BEING CALCULATED OR INCLUDED WHEN WE'RE, UH, LOOKING AT THE OBLIGATIONS. SO THEY WOULD LIKE US TO DO A GAP ANALYSIS AND LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO OR CAN, UM, MAKE CHANGES TO THE CR OBLIGATION COLLATERAL. CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE? BASICALLY, THIS IS A, A CHART THAT EXPLAINS THAT, WHERE IF YOU'VE GOT, UH, UH, OBLIGATION FROM A TO B AND AN OBLIGATION FROM B TO A, THEY'VE NET OUT, THERE'S NO EXPOSURE AND THERE'S NO EXPOSURE IN THE CREDIT ON SITUATION TWO, WE'VE GOT AN OBLIGATION FROM A TO B, BUT WE'VE GOT AN OPTION FROM B TO A, WHICH COVERS THE DOWNSIDE RISK. SO WE'VE ONLY GOT UPSIDE ON B GOING TO B, BUT YET THE CREDIT EXPOSURE STILL HAS OBLIGATION EXPOSURE FOR A TO B. SO THIS IS WHAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO BE STUDYING THIS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF MEETINGS AT LEAST JUST TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A, A CHANGE IS WARRANTED. NEXT. THE OTHER THOUGHT THAT THEY BROUGHT TO US WAS THE FACT THAT FOR EVERY SINGLE MONTH THAT WE HAVE CREDIT, UH, UH, CRR OBLIGATIONS AND OPTIONS OUT THERE, MOSTLY OBLIGATIONS, WE ASSUME THAT EACH MONTH HAS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT HAVING 34 MONTHS IN A ROW OR HOWEVER [04:15:01] MANY MONTHS IN A ROW, IT'S NOT GONNA BE THE WORST CASE SCENARIO EVERY SINGLE TIME. SO BASICALLY THIS IS SOMETHING THEY WANTED TO BRING FORTH AND ASK IF WE WANTED, YOU KNOW, IF ERCOT WANTED TO CONSIDER DOING SOME, SOME ADDITIONAL GAP ANALYSIS ON THIS TO SEE IF WE NEEDED TO, UH, CONSIDER MAKING ANY CHANGES. NEXT SLIDE. SO BASICALLY ERCOT IS GONNA DO SOME GAP ANALYSIS, AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ANY OTHER CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE. NEXT SLIDE. ERCOT MADE A PRESENTATION TO THE GROUP DEALING WITH THE MARKET CREDIT RISK CORPORATE STANDARD, BASICALLY HIGH LEVEL 50,000 FEET IN THE AIR. THEY WANNA DO A WHAT IF ANALYSIS AND LOOK AT MARKET PARTICIPANTS' EXPOSURE TO DETERMINE IF THEY CAN WEATHER A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE AND IF THEY CAN OR CANNOT. THEY, THEY WANNA TALK WITH THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS AND MAKE SURE THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS ARE PREPARED FOR THAT. WHAT IF SCENARIO. AND THAT'S THE NEXT THREE SLIDES ARE ERCOT PRESENTATION ON THIS. AND SO I HOPE SANCHI IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT FOR ANYTHING RELATED TO THIS MARKET CREDIT RISK CORPORATE STANDARD, BUT IT'S JUST A HIGH LEVEL, HOPEFULLY MARKET PARTICIPANT EDUCATION, MAKING SURE THAT MARKET PARTICIPANTS ARE AWARE OF THE RISKS THEY'RE TAKING AND THEY'RE PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT RISK OR PREPARED FOR THAT ISSUE. DO YOU WANNA TAKE THE QUESTION IN THE QUEUE HERE? YEAH, GO MR. GO. SORRY, I'M ON MUTE BUTTON. UM, I, I, UM, THINK THAT ERCOT TAKING THIS, UM, RISK-BASED, UH, ASSESSMENT OF DEFAULT RISK IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND I WANTED TO THANK ERCOT FOR STARTING THIS CONVERSATION. UM, WE REALLY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ERCOT BOARD AND COMMISSION AND STAKEHOLDERS UNDERSTAND ANY REMAINING, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL DEFAULT RISK. UM, AND, UM, WE EITHER, YOU KNOW, INTENTIONALLY ACCEPT THE LEVEL OF RISK THAT'S IN THE MARKET OR TRY TO DO SOMETHING TO MITIGATE THAT RISK IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY, YOU KNOW, FUTURE TALK OF SECURITIZATION OR DEFAULT UPLIFT INVOICES. UM, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S AN ONGOING RISK IN THE MARKET AND THE MARKET DESIGN, UM, BUT WE DO THINK THAT THIS SORT OF INTENTIONAL APPROACH IS, IS GOOD AND, AND ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO FURTHER UPDATES. MARK STAFF. THANK YOU. WE AGREE. UM, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE ARE QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT NOT THIS IS A, A VALID TASK, WHETHER ERCOT NEEDS TO TAKE THE TIME ON THIS, BUT IT, IT'S NOT, IT, IT'S GONNA BE A MARKET EDUCATION EVENT FOR MARKET PARTICIPANTS INDIVIDUALLY. IT'S NOT GONNA BE, OKAY, YOU'RE IN THIS BUCKET, SO THAT MEANS YOUR CREDIT CALCULATIONS ARE NOW Y INSTEAD OF XI IF THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE COLLATERAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT'S JUST EDUCATION AT THIS POINT. AND I, I DO THINK ERCOT AND ESSENTIALLY MAYBE YOU CAN JUMP IN BASED ON WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO SAY, BUT, UM, I DO THINK ERCOT TAKING A LOOK AT OR CUT WIDE EXPOSURE HERE IS, UM, IMPORTANT AND, UM, AND GETTING A SENSE OF THE EXPOSURE OVERALL AND NOT JUST ON A ONE-ON-ONE BASIS. UM, BUT IT, IT, IT CAN, IT CAN DEFINITELY START THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, AND, AND TAKE IT ONE STEP AT A TIME. CHE, I, I'D LIKE TO BRING CHE IN PLEASE. YEAH. SO THIS CHE SPEAKING, UH, YEAH, ERIC, EXACTLY. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. UM, YOU KNOW, THE EXERCISE THAT WE JUST KICKED OFF, UH, LAST MEETING, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS REALLY JUST TO ESTABLISH OR ASSESS THE, UH, THE DEFAULT PROBABILITY DEFAULT AMOUNTS, POTENTIAL DEFAULT AMOUNTS IN CASE OF EXTREME VOLATILITY. SO AGAIN, WE HOPEFULLY WE'RE NEVER GONNA SEE ANOTHER WINTER STORM URI TYPE OF EVENT, BUT WE'LL DEFINITELY SEE SOMETHING SIMILAR, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT AS SEVERE. SO, SO JUST KIND OF, AGAIN, A, IT'S KIND OF AS INDUSTRY STANDARD, IF YOU WILL, IN DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES SUCH AS BANKING INDUSTRY, THEY DO STRESS TESTS AND ASSESS THE REGULATORS AND, AND, AND THE BANKS THEMSELVES. THEY PROBABLY NEED TO BE AWARE, YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF CAPITAL CUSHIONS THEY NEED TO HAVE TO, UH, TO SURVIVE THOSE EVENTS, WHICH AGAIN, WHICH ARE UNAVOIDABLE. SO THE POINT OF THIS EXERCISE IS TO REALLY TRY TO ASSESS [04:20:01] AND IDENTIFY, UH, THE RISKS, UM, AND TRY TO MEASURE THOSE RISKS. AND THEN AS A, AS A MARKET, AS STAKEHOLDERS, AS, AS THE ENTIRE, UM, FRAMEWORK IF YOU WILL, INCLUDING THE REGULATORS, THE PUC, THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS, , JUST TO DECIDE WHAT DO WE WANNA DO, IF ANYTHING, TO MITIGATE THAT RISK. SO WE JUST KICKED OFF THIS, UH, KIND OF EXERCISE. UM, AGAIN, WE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO, YOU KNOW, A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT, UH, PARTIES INCLUDING RATING AGENCIES, BANKS, OTHER ASSOS, KIND OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ARE THE BEST, YOU KNOW, INDUSTRY PRACTICES OUT THERE. WHAT I WOULD ASK, UH, OF THE TECH, UM, AS WELL AS, UH, THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS. PLEASE SEND YOUR CREDIT FOLKS AND, AND ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN THIS, UH, IN THIS EXERCISE. UM, AND, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS GONNA TAKE SOME TIME AND, AND WE WILL PROVIDE THE UPDATES TO TECH. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. UM, I'D LIKE TO GO FORWARD ABOUT THREE SLIDES ON THIS, UNLESS THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS. LIKE I SAID, I PROVIDED ERCOT WHOLE PRESENTATION IN CASE ANYBODY WANTED TO SEE IT. THAT WAY YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO DIG FOR IT. UM, THE MONTHLY CREDIT HIGHLIGHTS WERE MINIMAL CHANGES. UM, NO BIG ACTIVITY, NO UNUSUAL COLLATERAL CALL. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT WAS VERY LITTLE CHANGES FROM MONTH OVER MONTH. NEXT SLIDE, STATUS QUO, MINIMAL CHANGES NEXT MONTH OR NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THEN HERE'S THE LETTER OF CREDIT, UM, PER BANKS SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE THAT THERE'S NOT ANYBODY CLOSE TO BEING, YOU KNOW, OUT OF CREDIT FOR, FOR COLLATERAL PURPOSES FOR, UH, LETTER OF CREDIT. UM, AND I THINK THAT'S THE LAST SLIDE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, TINO, IN THE QUEUE. THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE, LORETTO. THANK YOU. OKAY, [11. Large Load Working Group (LLWG) Report] NEXT UP UNDER ITEM 11, WE HAVE BOB WHITMEYER WITH THE LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP UPDATE. BOB, ARE YOU READY? I AM, AND I PROMISE NOT TO TAKE MORE THAN AN HOUR. NO, NO, SERIOUSLY. THIS BE, THIS WILL BE QUICK . UM, SO THE FIRST ITEM UP FOR, UH, FOR TAC UH, CONSIDERATION IS CONFIRMATION OF WORKING GROUP LEADERSHIP, UH, NOMINATED. WERE MYSELF AND PATRICK VAR, UH, GO FROM ERCOT. UM, AND SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT THAT CAN BE INCLUDED ON THE COMBO BALLOT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY. LET'S JUST ASK, UH, ARE THERE ANY OBJECTION TO APPROVING THE LLWG LEADERSHIP OF BOB WHITMEYER AND PATRICK GREIS VIA THE COMBO BALLOT? I'LL KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR ANY OBJECTION, BOB, FEEL FREE TO ROLL ON AND IF THEY OBJECT, I'M GONNA NOMINATE THEM. SO, . ALRIGHT, SO WE, OUR MAIN MEETING WAS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON VOLTAGE AND RIDE THROUGH. UM, HISTORICALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN SOMETHING TO PROTECT THE LOAD WHEN THERE ARE PROBLEMS ON THE GRID GOING FORWARD, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PROTECT THE GRID FROM LOAD LOSS AND, UH, VOLTAGE ISSUES. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO, UH, THE CURRENT CONCERN ON THIS IS WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED THREE GIGS IN WEST TEXAS. UM, THEY'VE SEEN A NON COINCIDENT PEAK OF 2200 MEGAWATTS OUT THERE AND WHEN THEY RUN THEIR STUDIES WITH A 0.75 P, UM, WE COULD LOSE 2,500 MEGAWATTS OUT THERE. IF WE CAN CHANGE THOSE SUCH THAT THEY CAN RIDE THROUGH A 0.7 PU WE HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN LOAD LOSS OUT THERE THAT BRINGS US BACK INTO, I DON'T WANNA SAY A COMFORT REGION, BUT A CERTAINLY LESS PANICKED REGION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND SO TO, TO REALLY ADDRESS THIS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A WORKSHOP ON JULY 11TH. UH, IT'S PRIMARILY FOR THE DATA CENTER AND LARGE LOAD, UH, SIDE OF THIS. WE'LL DEAL WITH, UM, VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES AT ANOTHER TIME, I SUSPECT. BUT FOR ANYBODY OUT THERE WITH BEHIND THE METER SOLUTIONS, WE'RE INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM YOU, BUT NOT IN THE FORM OF A SALES PITCH. WE'RE MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN YOUR ENGINEERS, UM, COMING TO TALK [04:25:01] TO US, PARTICULARLY ON HOW THE BEHIND THE METER CAN PROTECT THE IN FRONT OF THE METER VOLTAGE ISSUES. AND WE'RE ALSO INTERESTED IN REGIONAL OR AREA SOLUTIONS IN FRONT OF THE METER, THINGS THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO SOLVE A PROBLEM FOR MORE LOADS IN AN AREA THAN JUST ONE. UM, AND IF YOU'RE A BATTERY GUY, UH, WE'RE PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN TALKING TO YOU ABOUT THAT. UM, SO, UH, THAT'S THE END OF MY SLIDES. UH, HOPE TO SEE MANY OF YOU ON JULY 11TH. THANK YOU FOR THE, ANY QUESTION. YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR BOB? AND IT, LOOK, IT LOOKS LIKE NO ONE CAME FORWARD WITH ANY STRONG OBJECTIONS TO THE LEADERSHIP, SO WE'LL PUT THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT. BOB, GIVE ONE MORE CHANCE. . THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S YOURS. WE APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE. UH, NEXT UNDER THE LARGE LOAD UMBRELLA, WE HAVE JULIE MITTMAN WITH THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STATUS UPDATE. GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU JULIE. AWESOME. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MY NAME IS JULIE SITMAN. I'M THE SUPERVISOR OF THE LARGE LOAD INTEGRATION TEAM AT ERCOT. TODAY I'LL BE PRESENTING THE LARGE LOAD QUEUE UPDATE AS I HAVE BEEN FOR THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS AT TECH. IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, UH, THE LARGE LOAD QUEUE HAS GROWN PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY. UH, Y'ALL CAN SEE THAT, UH, ABOUT THIS TIME LAST YEAR WE WERE A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MID 40 SOMETHING GIGAWATT RANGE. UM, CURRENTLY THE QUEUE STANDS AT ABOUT 156 GIGAWATTS IN TOTAL. THAT NET INCREASE FROM LAST MONTH WAS ABOUT 19 GIGAWATTS. UM, THAT INCLUDES ALL, UH, NEW PROJECTS AS WELL AS PROJECT IN INSTALLATIONS. NEXT SLIDE LINE FURTHER BREAKING DOWN THAT QUEUE. UM, YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, RAMP SCHEDULES REFLECTED IN THIS, UH, CHART THAT SHOWS THE, UH, THE LARGE LOAD QUEUE GOING UP TO 2030. IN THE COLORS IN THE BAR CHART, YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT LARGE LOAD STATUSES. SO THIS REFERS TO WHERE THESE LOADS ARE AT IN THE QUEUE. OBSERVED ENERGIZER LOADS THAT HAVE, UM, BEEN ENERGIZED AND ARE OPERATIONAL TODAY APPROVED TO ENERGIZE BUT NOT OPERATIONAL OR PROJECTS THAT HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE FROM ERCOT OPERATIONS. WE'VE STILL NOT SEEN 'EM. ENERGIZED PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED ARE PROJECTS THAT HAVE RECEIVED ERCOT APPROVAL OF REQUIRED INTERCONNECTION STUDIES. THAT PURPLE BAR IS PROJECTS UNDER ERCOT REVIEW. THOSE ARE PROJECTS THAT HAVE STUDIES UNDER REVIEW BY ERCOT. AND THE FINAL CATEGORY THOSE STUDIES SUBMITTED ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING TRACKED BY THIS TEAM. THEY HAVE HAD KICKOFF MEETINGS, UM, THAT ARE BEING TRACKED IN THE INTERCONNECTION QUEUE, UM, BUT HAVE NOT YET BEGUN STUDIES. SO WE HAVE A BUS NUMBER, MEGAWATT AND THEN SERVICE DATE. NEXT SLIDE. IN TERMS OF ERCOT APPROVALS FOR THE PAST 12 MONTHS, THE TOTAL LOAD OF PLANNING STUDY IS APPROVED, HAVE INCREASED SLIGHTLY IN MAY WITH APPROVED ENERGIZED LOAD INCREASING BY 95 MEGAWATTS. THE PAST YEAR HAS SEEN 1,395 MEGAWATTS OF LOAD APPROVED TO ENERGIZE. NEXT SLIDE OF THE TOTAL 6,874 MEGAWATTS APPROVED TO ENERGIZE. ABOUT HALF OF THAT RESIDES IN LOADS ON WEST AND THE OTHER 3,441 MEGAWATTS RESIDES IN THE OTHER LOAD ZONES. 5,609 MEGAWATTS CONSISTS OF STANDALONE PROJECTS, AND 1,265 MEGAWATTS CONSISTS OF CO-LOCATED NEXT SLIDE. AND OF THE 6,874 MEGAWATTS THAT HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE ERCOT HAS OBSERVED A NON SIMULTANEOUS MONTHLY PEAK CONSUMPTION OF 3,489 MEGAWATTS IN MAY. JUST A SLIGHT DECREASE SINCE LAST MONTH. THIS IS CALCULATED AS THE SUM OF THE MAXIMUM VALUE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOAD PER MONTH. NEXT SLIDE. S OBSERVED A SIMULTANEOUS MONTHLY PEAK CONSUMPTION OF 3,444, SORRY, 3,441 MEGAWATTS IN MAY. A SLIGHT INCREASE FROM LAST MONTH. THIS IS CALCULATED AS THE MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE SUM OF ALL THE INDIVIDUAL LOADS PER MONTH. NEXT SLIDE. FOR THE LARGE LOAD PROJECT DISTRIBUTION SIZE, WE HAVE A BAR CHART OF ALL THE LOADS IN THE QUEUE BY SIZE, WE GOT ABOUT 93 PROJECTS IN THE 75 TO TWO 50 MEGAWATT RANGE. 66 IN THAT TWO 50 TO 500 HUNDRED MEGAWATT RANGE. 53 [04:30:01] IN THE 500 TO A THOUSAND MEGAWATT RANGE, AND 56 PROJECTS THAT ARE OVER A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS IN THE QUEUE. I UNDERSTAND THAT OTHERS HAVE ASKED FOR FURTHER BREAKDOWN OF THIS INFORMATION THAT IS COMING, PARTICULARLY WITH, UM, SOME OF THE REQUESTS IN NPR 1267. UH, I HOPE IN THE COMING MONTHS TO PREVIEW SOME OF THE, UH, RESPONSES TO THAT. THAT'S ALL, BOB. OKAY, THANKS. YEP. YOU GOT BOB WHITMER IN THE QUEUE. JULIE, BOB? YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK, SLIDE THREE. JULIE, ON THE TABLE HERE, THE, JUST LOOKING AT THE 2030 NUMBERS TO MAKE IT SIMPLE, THE PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED PLUS THE APPROVED TO ENERGIZE PLUS THE OPERATIONAL. I ADD ALL THAT UP IF I WANNA KNOW HOW MUCH WE HAVE ON, ON THE SYSTEM OR COULD HAVE. IS THAT CORRECT? UH, CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, ANY, ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S UNDER ERCOT REVIEW OR NO STUDY SUBMITTED? UM, IS STILL WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE QUEUE? YEAH, I, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT KIND OF WHAT WE'VE APPROVED AND IT LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING CLOSE TO, TO 8 18 19 GIGS. CORRECT. AND KEEP IN MIND THAT, UM, THERE WE HAVE SEEN A, A NON-ZERO AMOUNT OF STUDIES THAT, OR SORRY, PROJECTS THAT HAVE PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED THAT DO SOMETIMES THEMSELVES CHOOSE TO OPT OUT EVEN ONCE THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED. SO THAT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT THEY'LL ENERGIZE, BUT RIGHT. UNDERSTOOD. APPROVED. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BOB. NED. THANK YOU MARTHA. AND, AND THANK YOU JULIE FOR, AS ALWAYS FOR BRINGING THIS TO US. UM, I, ON THAT NOTE, UM, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE HELPFUL IF Y'ALL ARE ABLE TO AT SOME POINT, HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DETAIL, UM, ABOUT WHAT THAT CHURN LOOKS LIKE. BECAUSE LIKE YOU MENTIONED, SOME OF THOSE ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, IN EACH CATEGORY, I'M SURE THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT DROP OUT. PROBABLY NOT THE OBSERVED ENERGIZED AS MUCH, BUT IN THE OTHER OF THE OTHER ONES, THERE'S PROBABLY SOME THAT, THAT POTENTIALLY DROPS OUT. AND THEN YOU HAVE OTHERS THAT COME IN. SO IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL JUST TO HELP FOLKS UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT DYNAMIC LOOKS LIKE AS YOU'RE TAKING FROM BACK. ABSOLUTELY. WE'VE HEARD Y'ALL LOUD AND CLEAR IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, AND WE'RE WORKING ON UPDATES TO THIS, UH, QUEUE UPDATE AND HOW, HOW THIS, UH, HOW THIS DEVELOPS NOW THAT WE'VE GOT THE, THE NPR 1234 AND BIGGER ONE 15 MOVING FORWARD. ABSOLUTELY. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JULIE OR ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER SLIDES YOU NEED TO COVER? JULIE, THAT'S ALL FOR ME. THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS. I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE UPDATE. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU MARTHA. UM, I'M, I'M GONNA TAKE BACK OVER. [12. RTC+B Task Force Report] WE ARE GOING TO THE RTC PLUS B TASK FORCE REPORT. UM, WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL ITEMS HERE. UM, AFTER THIS, THIS REPORT, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM KEITH, AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO TAKE ONE AGENDA ITEM, UH, OF ORDER, WHICH IS THE, UM, BIENNIAL TAX STRUCTURAL REVIEW. AND LET'S GO TO MATT AND THEN KEITH. AND THEN I THINK IT'S ME. ACTUALLY. GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, KATELYN. ALRIGHT, WELL THIS, THANK YOU FOR ALL THE TIME EARLIER TODAY, UH, ON THE REVISION REQUEST. SO WE'LL GET A QUICK UPDATE ON THAT. I DID WANNA GIVE A PEEK INTO THE MARKET TRIALS THAT ARE IN FLIGHT RIGHT NOW, AND THEN WE'LL TRAIN, I'LL PASS THE BATON OVER TO KEITH ON THE REQUEST FOR PAUSING OF WORK, UH, YOU KNOW, TO PROTECT THIS RTC PLUS B RESOURCES. AND SO IN THE REVISION REQUEST, HOW THESE THINGS FIT TOGETHER. AGAIN, THANK YOU. WE'VE TURNED GREEN. THERE'S A LOT OF MORE GREEN THAN YOU'VE SEEN IN THE PAST. SO THOSE TOP THREE NPRS WERE PCT APPROVED. SO THOSE ARE OUT OF THE WAY. NOW WE HAVE THE RTC UH, STATED CHARGE THAT Y'ALL JUST VOTED ON TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THEN WE HAVE THAT RED BOX IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CLEANUP REVISION REQUEST THAT WAS JUST RELEASED THIS MORNING. THAT'S NPR 1290. AND THE IDEA IS FOR THAT TO, UM, BE PRE FILED BUT TABLED AT PRS BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO THE SEPTEMBER BOARD. SO IT'S KIND OF SLOW ROLLING, BUT THEN THAT LAYS THE TRACK FOR MARKET TRIALS, IS WHAT WE'RE STARTING TO ENCROACH INTO. AND WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THOSE ACTIVITIES. BUT AGAIN, ON THE SECOND HALF OF THE SCREEN SHOWS A LOT OF THE GREEN AND DELIVERABLES THAT ARE COMPLETE. AND THEN THE LAST ITEMS THAT ARE NOT COMPLETE IS THE DELIVERY OF TRAINING MODULES. THAT'S THE ONLINE TRAINING WE'RE STILL WRAPPING UP AS WELL AS THE MARKET TRIALS HANDBOOK [04:35:01] FOR THAT CLOSED LOOP FREQUENCY CONTROL TEST. THAT'S STILL IMPORTANT TO US. UH, AND NEAR THE BOTTOM, THEN IT'S ALSO THE GO LIVE TRANSITION PLAN AND ANY PROTOCOL WAIVERS WE MAY NEED FOR GO LIVE. UH, SO ANYWAYS, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE BIG PICTURE VIEW OF WHAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO MARCH THROUGH AS WE GO INTO THIS. SO NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN, THESE THREE AREAS OF NPRS. FIRST ONE IS DONE A DURATION PASSED TODAY. FINAL CLARIFYING NPRS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR JUNE. AS THE TEAM WENT AND DID THE WORK, WE FOUND THAT THERE IS 10 AREAS THAT HAD CLARIFICATIONS. SO IT'S A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE CLARIFICATION AND KIND OF A GAP CLOSING NPRR. AND SO DAVE DID A GREAT JOB IN DEFINING IN THE REVISION REQUEST DESCRIPTION, THE 10 DIFFERENT AREAS THAT ARE TOUCHED WITHIN THAT. AND AGAIN, WE'LL BE CHEWING ON THAT OVER THE NEXT COUPLE MONTHS AT THE TASK FORCE. ALSO, A REMINDER, THERE ARE ONLY TWO BOARD MEETINGS, UH, BEFORE THE RTC GO LIVE. THE, UM, NOVEMBER IS OUR LAST BOARD MEETING TO HIT, UH, OR SORRY, SEPTEMBER IS THE LAST BOARD MEETING TO HIT BEFORE THE DECEMBER FIVE GO LIVE. SO ANY, ANY NPRS THAT TOUCH THE PROGRAM, THAT'S THEIR PATH, UH, TO THE FINISH. NEXT SLIDE, . AND THEN THIS IS AN UGLY SLIDE. UM, MY APOLOGIES. WHAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT IS ALL THE ACTIVITIES THAT WERE IN FLIGHT, UH, THE ONES IN RED I WANNA SPEAK TO, WE DID ESTABLISH A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION DOCUMENT AS A SPREADSHEET, MORE THAN A HUNDRED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ARE LOGGED INTO IT. AND THAT'S A WAY TO QUICKLY FIND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED. AGAIN, WE ARE TRYING TO GET THOSE TRAINING VIDEOS UP. WE GOT THE DAY HEAD MARKET VIDEO UP YESTERDAY. UH, MORE BEING RECORDED. UH, AND THIS ONE IN THE MIDDLE IS PROBABLY THE MOST ASKED QUESTION. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY AT TAX. SO ERCOT HAS POSTED SAMPLE SETTLEMENT STATEMENT AND EXTRACTS. UH, AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ASKED FOR QUITE A WHILE. THE STATEMENTS THEMSELVES DO NOT CHANGE IN STRUCTURE THE BILLING DETERMINANTS IN THEM DO. AND SO THAT WAS PRESENTED. THERE'S THE LINK AT THE TASK FORCE LAST WEEK. SO THANKS TO MAGGIE AND HER TEAM FOR THAT WORK. UH, AND THEN REALLY THE KIND OF THE IMPORTANT TRIALS PIECE OR THE, IS THIS CLOSED LOOP LFC HANDBOOK. THAT IS WHERE WE CONTROL THE SYSTEM WITH OUR, UH, REALTIME RTC SC AND TELEMETRY WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY LIVE FOR TWO TO FOUR HOURS IN THE SEPTEMBER OCTOBER TIMEFRAME. AND SO THAT'S WHEN WE WANNA BE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE MARKET ON FEEDBACK IN THAT AREA TO DO THAT RELIABLY AND EFFECTIVELY. AND THEN WE ARE STARTING WORK INTERNALLY ON A TRANSITION CUTOVER PLAN. IS THERE DUAL ENTRY REQUIRED? ARE WE GONNA HAVE A EXCEPTION FOR PROTOCOL? SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. I DID WANNA DO MY, JUST TO KIND OF BUTTON THIS ONE UP, SEAN'S HAD A PROPOSAL OF, UH, REMOVING SYSTEM LAMBDA CAPPING LOGIC. UH, AND THAT'S RELATED TO A, A FAIRLY DETAILED, UH, ISSUE THAT WE'VE RESOLVED WITHIN THE CLARIFYING NPR. BUT THERE'S THE IDEA OF, WELL, MAYBE THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO DO THIS. MAYBE WE CAP SYSTEM LAMBDA AND LET PRICES OR REMOVE THAT CAP AND LET THEM GO BEYOND THE HIGH, BEYOND 5,000. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS INTERESTING, BUT AT THIS POINT, IT'S NO LONGER AT THE TASK FORCE. IT'S NOT BEING BROUGHT TO TACT TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT. HE SHARED THAT HE MAY POTENTIALLY FILE AN NPRR, BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT ERCOT IS LOOKING AT FOR GO LIVE. SO I JUST WANTED TO BUTTON THAT ONE UP. AND THE NEXT ONE, YOU'VE SEEN THIS A HUNDRED TIMES, BUT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS WE ARE INTO MAKE, SO WHERE WE WEREN'T LAST MONTH, WE ARE NOW IS WE HAVE THESE LINE IN THE MIDDLE THAT QUEASY SCORECARDS AND EXIT CRITERIA. THOSE ARE STARTING TO LIGHT UP. THAT IS FOR THAT BLUE BOX, WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THIS HANDBOOK. NUMBER ONE IS RTC QUEASY SUBMISSIONS. AND THEN THE IDEA OF IN PARALLEL TO THAT IS QUEASY GETTING THE TELEMETRY UP AND RUNNING IN THAT ORANGE BOX. AND SO IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, AS WE'RE HAVING THESE MARKET TRIALS EVERY MORNING, EVERY MONDAY MORNING OR THIS WEEK WAS TUESDAY WITH THE HOLIDAY, UH, IT'S A STANDALONE CALENDAR ITEM. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IT, IT'S NOT UNDER THE R-T-C-B-T-F. THE CALENDAR ITEMS ARE STANDALONE MEETINGS EVERY MONDAY. UH, BUT THEN THE R-T-C-B-F HOMEPAGE HOUSES ALL THE MARKET TRIALS PARTICIPATION DOCUMENTATION WE'VE HAD BETWEEN 150 AND 200 PARTICIPANTS EVERY MONDAY MORNING. IT'S GONE VERY WELL. UH, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS COMING IN ON THAT RTC B@ERCOT.COM. UH, SO I DO WANNA USE THE NEXT FIVE SLIDES JUST TO GIVE A PEEK ON THESE ACTIVITIES. NEXT ONE, UH, AGAIN, THE FAQ, THIS IS JUST A SNAPSHOT. IF YOU WERE TO OPEN THAT SPREADSHEET THAT'S ON OUR HOMEPAGE. THERE'S THE CATEGORIES BELOW THE ANCILLARY SERVICES DAY, HEAD MARKET, ESRS. SO DO A SEARCH ON THE WHOLE WORKBOOK, NOT JUST A WORKSHEET FOR KEYWORDS FOR THAT NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN THIS IS THE SCORECARD. SO THIS IS OBVIOUSLY IN THE T DECK. SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO SLOW DOWN, GO LOOK AT THIS. THIS IS WHAT THE SCORES WERE AS OF THIS WEEK. [04:40:01] UH, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE RED PEOPLE, BUT IF WE SEE THAT THEY'RE RED ON THIS SCORE SCORECARD IN THE OTHER TWO SCORECARDS, THAT'S A WARNING. YOU'RE MISSING AN ACTION. WE NEED TO GO FIND YOU. AND SO WE'RE STARTING TO DO OUTREACH TO COMPANIES, UH, THAT ARE MISSING, THAT ARE READ ON TWO OR THREE CARDS, NOT 'CAUSE WE'RE CONCERNED. WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE AWARE OF AND THE COMMUNICATION IS, UH, OCCURRING BACK TO THEIR, UH, GROUP. SO SCORECARDS ARE FAIRLY COMPLICATED BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO TRACK LOAD RESOURCES DIFFERENTLY FROM GEN, DIFFERENTLY FROM BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE. SO WE DO HAVE THESE DIFFERENT GROUPINGS. AND AGAIN, THIS IS GETTING MORE GREEN EVERY WEEK. SO IT'S BEEN GREAT TO SEE. AND THIS ONE IS FOR MARKET SUBMISSIONS THEMSELVES. IT'S A, PEOPLE NEED TO SUBMIT INTO OUR MARKET SYSTEM A CURRENT OPERATING PLAN AS OFFERS THREE PART SUPPLY OFFERS. AND THIS IS THE CHECKBOX TO SAY THAT THEY'VE DONE THAT. THE NEXT HANDBOOK RELATES TO THAT TELEMETRY PIECE SLIDE. SO THIS IS MAKING SURE THAT QUEASY HAVE SET UP ALL THE TELEMETRY THAT'S NEEDED. SO IF YOU HAVE FIVE RESOURCES AND YOU NEED TO SET UP 20 POINTS FOR EACH OF YOUR RESOURCES TO GO GREEN, LIKE CALPINE HAS HERE, YOU NEED TO HAVE ALL THOSE POINTS MODELED AND IN OUR, UH, EMS SYSTEM SO THAT THE QUEASY CAN SEE ON THE ERCOT SEES THE TELEMETRY AND THE QUEASY HAS THE TELEMETRY. SO THIS IS A COMPLETENESS OF TELEMETRY SCORECARD. AND THEN THE LAST SCORECARD IS SIMILAR BUT DIFFERENT. IT'S ALSO TELEMETRY, BUT THIS IS A CHECKOUT OF YOU GET ON THE PHONE WITH ERCOT AND ERCOT CHANGES A VALUE IN TELEMETRY. AND ON THAT NEW TELEMETRY POINT, DO YOU SEE THE VALUE AND CAN YOU REPEAT BACK THE VALUE THAT WE'VE SEEN? AND SO THE IDEA IS WE DO WANNA TRACK THIS AND GET EVERYONE ON THE CALENDAR. SO WE GET THIS DONE AS WE GET TO THE END OF JUNE TO COMPLETE THIS. SO AGAIN, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF RED, BUT WE'RE STILL EARLY IN THE PROCESS. WE'RE NOT EVEN HALFWAY THROUGH, UH, THE MARKET TRIAL SEQUENCE, WHICH GOES THROUGH JUNE. BUT THIS IS A FEEDBACK LOOP. SO IF YOU SEE YOUR COMPANY'S MISSING, UM, THAT'S, THIS IS JUST A CHANCE FOR YOU TO SEE THAT NEXT SLIDE. ALRIGHT. AND THANK YOU FOR THE SHOW AND TELL, UH, AND THE TIME TO OPEN THIS UP. WHAT'S CRAZY IS THAT WITH THE BREAK IN JUNE FROM TAC MEETINGS, WHEN YOU GET BACK HERE, WE'LL NOT JUST BE A FIRST MONTH INTO MARKET TRIALS. WE'LL BE AT THE HALFWAY MARKET THROUGH MARKET TRIALS. WE'LL BE THREE MONTHS COMPLETE INTO THE SIX MONTH TRIAL. UH, WE'LL BE RUNNING RTC SCED, UH, TWICE A WEEK WITH THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS WITH REALISTIC OFFERS. SO THAT'S A GOOD TIME TO ASSESS AND CROSSCHECK ANY SHOWSTOPPING ISSUES THAT WE HAVE OR MISSING MARKET PARTICIPANTS. YOU ALSO SEE THE FINAL PLANS ON THE CLOSED LOOP LFC TESTING AND WHAT SOME INITIAL PLANS LOOK LIKE FOR TRANSITION CUTOVER TYPE ISSUES. UH, AND THEN WE'LL BE WRAPPING UP THE CLARIFYING NPRR. SO THAT'S IT ON THIS. AGAIN, THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT. UM, AND I, UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN PASS THE BATON OVER TO KEITH ON PRIORITIZATION TYPE WORK. ALRIGHT, WELL THANK YOU. OVER TO YOU, KEITH. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE HERE. UM, SO THANK YOU FOR HAVING SOME TIME, UM, TO CHAT TODAY ABOUT, UM, PRIORITIZATION, I THINK. SO THIS IS A REQUEST THAT WE HAVE FROM STAKEHOLDERS TO HELP HELP US, UM, WORK COLLABORATIVELY IN PRIORITIES, PRIORITIZING INITIATIVES DURING THIS PERIOD OF RTC IMPLEMENTATION. AND, AND SO AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, CURRENT STAFF ARE BEING PULLED IN MANY DIRECTIONS. UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE WORKING ON MARKET TRIALS. IT'S A BIG THING. THERE'S A LOT OF INITIATIVES THAT ARE GOING ON. UH, WE KEEP SEEING THINGS AND, AND, AND PEOPLE ARE VERY BUSY ON A LOT OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE COMING THROUGH. UM, BUT, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS TO CONSIDER SOME OF THESE INITIATIVES THAT REALLY COULD BE DONE AFTER GO LIVE, UH, RTC GO LIVE IN DECEMBER. UH, THAT, THAT WE WORK TOGETHER TO PUSH THOSE TO LATER IN THE PROCESS. AND, AND, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE SEEING IT STARTING TO IMPACT THE ABILITY, UH, PARTICULARLY FOR MARKET OPERATIONS AND SETTLEMENT SMES, UM, TO FOCUS ON THE RTCB IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS. AND THAT'S, THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM, FROM OTHER SMES. SO FOR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST HEARD FROM JULIE AND LARGE LOADS. YEAH, IT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S NOT AN AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. UH, WE HAVEN'T TALKED A LOT ABOUT TRANSMISSION PLANNING, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. AND SO REALLY, REALLY THE REQUEST IS TO PAUSE, UM, ESSENTIALLY NON-PRIORITY REVISION REQUESTS. AND, AND I, AND I TRIED TO FIGURE A WORD THAT WOULD WORK THERE. WAS IT DISCRETIONARY PRIORITY? IT, IT'S HARD TO SAY, BUT I I, I'VE DESCRIBED WHAT IT, WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IN TERMS OF THE DIFFERENCE. AND, AND I THINK THAT, UM, THERE ARE ITEMS THAT WE'VE [04:45:01] BEEN WORKING ON AND, AND I'LL HAVE SOME EXAMPLES IN THE NEXT SLIDES THAT EVEN WHERE EVEN ERCOT SPONSORED SOME NPRS THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS CAN REALLY WAIT. UH, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE NEED TO DEAL WITH NOW. UM, AND, AND WE THINK THAT THOSE, EVEN THE ONES WE'RE WORKING ON SHOULD WAIT. AND, AND WE'RE REQUESTING THAT, THAT STAKEHOLDERS DO THAT AS WELL. THERE ARE SOME PRIORITY ITEMS AND BY PRIORITY, UH, THESE ARE, THESE ARE MANDATORY ITEMS GENERALLY FROM, UH, THE LEGISLATURE OR THE PUC HAS REQUIRED ERCOT, UM, TO, TO WORK ON ITEMS. UM, DISPATCHABLE RELIABILITY RESERVE SERVICE DRS IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT'S REQUIRED. UM, FIRMING, UH, IS SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT YET, BUT THAT IS A REQUIRED ITEM AS WELL. THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S A TIMELINE ON THAT. OBVIOUSLY THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION IN THE CURRENT LEGISLATION LEGISLATIVE SESSION ON THAT, BUT THERE IS AN EXISTING REQUIREMENT AS WELL. UM, WE'VE BEEN WORKING A LOT ON DEMAND RESPONSE RECENTLY. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS, IS, WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD, UH, FOR ERCOT, UH, TO WORK ON. UM, SO AGAIN, THOSE, THOSE THINGS ARE, ARE THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED, UH, OF, OF STAFF. WE HAVE, WE'VE NOT REQUESTED TO PAUSE ON THAT, THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO GO EITHER TO THE PC OR THE LEGISLATURE AND SAY, HEY, WE, WE CAN'T MEET YOUR TIMELINE. UM, AND SO AT THIS POINT, WE'RE NOT ASKING TO STOP THOSE. UM, I THINK HOPEFULLY IF WE CAN CREATE SOME SPACE, WE WON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. UH, AND THEN FINALLY, UH, OBVIOUSLY AS I SAID, TRANSMISSION PLANNING, SYSTEM OPERATIONS, UH, ITEMS ALONG THOSE LINES, WE'LL, WE'LL LIKELY CONTINUE. UH, SO DON'T BE SURPRISED IF YOU CONTINUE TO SEE SOME OF THOSE, UH, NPRS, UH, STILL, STILL WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE SYSTEM CREDIT, FOR INSTANCE. UH, IT'D BE SOMETHING THAT WE, WE'D ALSO CONTINUE TO WORK ON, UM, GIVEN THAT CREDIT SYSTEMS ARE, ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED BY THE RTC PROGRAM. UM, UH, OUR, OUR FINAL REQUEST IS, IS TO TACK FOR, TACK TO CONSIDER, UM, WHETHER IT'S PRS, ANOTHER GROUP, UH, TO HELP DEVELOP A ROADMAP OR PARKING DECK. I KNOW THIS WAS USED, UH, BACK IN THE NODAL PERIOD, A PARKING DECK PROCESS TO HELP MANAGE THAT WORKFLOW. AND THAT, THAT WORKFLOW IS, IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT'S COMING INTO, IF YOU, IF YOU THINK OF WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PUTTING A DAM, IT'S WHAT'S COMING INTO THE DAM, BUT ALSO THE STUFF THAT'S ALREADY THERE. AND I, I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, UH, AT THE LAST TAP MEETING DURING THE WORKSHOP, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP WAS, WELL, GEEZ, THERE'S A LOT OF EXISTING ITEMS. UM, AND THOSE EXISTING ITEMS ARE ALSO BEING IMPACTED BY, UH, THE RTC PROGRAM. AND, AND SO YOU'VE GOT NEW ITEMS, ITEMS COMING IN, YOU HAVE EXISTING ITEMS, AND IS THERE A WAY TO PRIORITIZE THAT WORK? UM, I KNOW SOME FOLKS HAVE HAVE SAID TO ME, WELL, GEEZ, ALL THE OLD STUFF IS A PRIORITY. AND, AND MAYBE IT IS, MAYBE IT ISN'T. UM, BUT I THINK IT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE TO CONSIDER THAT GIVEN THAT SOME OF THAT, THAT OLDER STUFF WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO BE POTENTIALLY REWORKED. UM, SOME OF IT, UM, MAYBE NOT AS FRESH AS IT WAS WHEN IT WAS PASSED A FEW YEARS AGO. SO, SO IT'S GONNA TAKE SOME EFFORT TO WORK ON SOME OF THAT MATERIAL AS WELL. SO WE DO, WE DO RECOMMEND HAVING A PROCESS TO DEAL WITH THIS SO THAT WE CAN WORK ON THE INITIATIVES AS THEY COME THROUGH. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT EVEN TODAY IN TERMS OF, HEY, THERE'S GONNA BE SOME RTC FOLLOW UP OR SOME WORK TO, TO IMPROVE THE PROCESSES AND, AND WHERE DOES THAT FIT WITHIN THE OVERALL WORK SCHEME OF, OF OTHER ITEMS. AND I KNOW THAT IN TALKING TO SOME, SOME PARTICIPANTS AND STAKEHOLDERS, THERE ARE SOME, SOME IDEAS THAT AREN'T EVEN NPRS YET, BUT THEY'RE REALLY GOOD. UM, AND SOME, THERE ARE, THERE ARE SOME NPRS AND PROCESS, THEY'RE ALSO REALLY GOOD, BUT WE COULD WAIT TILL LATER. UH, SO, SO THAT'S REALLY GONNA BE OUR ASK IS TO, TO TO DO A PAUSE TO, UH, AND TO FIND A WAY TO ORGANIZE THE WORKFLOW, UM, ON THESE INITIATIVES AS WELL AS THE ONES THAT, THAT ARE SORT OF, THAT ALREADY HANGING AROUND AND, AND WAITING, UH, WAITING TO BE DEVELOPED. UH, POST, POST GO LIVE. ALL RIGHT. NEXT SLIDE. ALL RIGHT. SO TO GIVE A SENSE OF WHAT, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WE CONSIDER PRIORITY ITEMS? HERE'S A LIST, OBVIOUSLY CLEANUP ON RTC IS IS AT THE TOP, UM, 1282, WHICH WE DISCUSSED TODAY. UH, THE SYSTEM LAMBDA CAP THAT, UH, WAS PART OF THAT BIGGER PACKAGE THAT, UH, THAT MATT WAS TALKING ABOUT A SECOND AGO. UH, THE DEMAND RESPONSE EFFORT, THE RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE, UH, THE FIRMING, UH, MANDATE THAT'S, UH, LIKELY TO BE COMING UP, UH, SOON. UM, DISPATCHABLE RELIABILITY RESERVE SERVICE. WE'RE, WE'RE GEARING UP TO GET THAT RESTARTED. WE HAD SOME EARLY MEETINGS EARLIER THIS YEAR, AND WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE SOME MORE MEETINGS AS THE YEAR PROGRESSES. AND, AND THERE COULD BE OTHER, UH, MAN MANDATED LEGISLATIVE OR REGULATORY ITEMS. MY CENSUS IS IN THE SB SIX. THERE IS THE SORT OF THE LARGE LOAD [04:50:01] 24 HOUR NOTICE PROGRAM. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S LIKELY TO BE WORKED ON AS WELL. UM, UH, BUT AGAIN, IN TERMS OF MAPPING OUT WHAT'S THE TIMELINE AND WHEN WE CAN GET THAT DONE. UM, BUT THAT'S LIKELY TO, TO POTENTIALLY INTERFERE WITH OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE LIKELY TO DO AS WELL, GIVEN THE, THE MANDATE THAT'S GONNA COME DOWN. ALRIGHT, NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN, UM, AND THEN, UH, HERE'S SOME, SOME ITEMS THAT WE RECOMMEND PRIORITIZING AFTER GO LIVE. UH, 1214 PRICING MECHANISM ENHANCEMENTS. UH, PERSONALLY, I THINK SOME REALLY GOOD IDEAS IN HERE. UH, BUT, UH, IT'S ONE OF THOSE WHERE, HEY, THESE ARE GREAT IDEAS, UM, BUT WE NEED TO THINK THROUGH THEM AND IT MIGHT NOT BE THE PERFECT TIME TO DEAL WITH THEM RIGHT NOW. UH, BUT THERE'S SOME GREAT IDEAS. ESR MITIGATION. I KNOW THERE WAS, UH, WE, WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF TIME AS AN ERCOT STAFF AND SPEND A LOT OF TIME THINKING ABOUT, UH, 1255 AND ESR MITIGATION. UH, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT REALLY COMING TO ANY TYPE SORT OF CONSENSUS AT THE MOMENT. AND THERE'S STILL A LOT OF WAY RUNWAY TO GO IN TERMS OF GETTING SOMETHING THAT COULD BE APPROVED. SO WE THINK THAT THAT WOULD BEST TO PUT THAT ON THE SHELF. AND THAT'S AN ERCOT SORT OF SPONSORED ITEM THAT WE THINK, UH, SHOULD BE MOVED TO LATER. UH, WE DO KNOW THAT 1264 IS GONNA BE DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD. THERE'S GONNA BE SOME DISCUSSION THERE. NOW, DEPENDING ON HOW THAT GOES, THAT COULD BECOME A PRIORITY, RIGHT? SO I KNOW THERE'S GONNA BE PRESENTATION. THE BOARD COULD SAY, WOW, THIS IS WONDERFUL, WE WANNA GO FORWARD. WELL, IF IT'S A PRIORITY, IT'S A PRIORITY, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT A PRIORITY UNTIL IT BECOMES ONE. UM, CONTRACTED FUEL COSTS AND MITIGATION, THAT'S 1279. THAT'S SOMETHING WE THINK, UH, COULD, COULD WAIT TILL LATER. AND THERE IS SOME PRE NPR INITIATIVES WHERE WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH FOLKS THAT, AGAIN, THERE'S SOME GREAT IDEAS OUT THERE, BUT, UM, AGAIN, MANY OF THEM COULD PROBABLY WAIT TILL LATER. AND, UH, WE, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT TO HAPPEN. SO THAT'S MY, MY PRESENTATION. AND THERE ARE NO BAD QUESTIONS. THERE ARE NO GOOD QUESTIONS. THERE'RE JUST QUESTIONS. SO I'LL TAKE THE ZEN APPROACH AND SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY THANKS. ALL RIGHT. SORRY KEITH. DOUBLE MUTED. UM, LET ME SEE. NED, THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY, SO I THINK WE ARE JUST TO ANDY. YEP. ANDY, NOW WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. UH, MIKE ISSUES, UM, HOPEFULLY THIS ISN'T A BAD QUESTION, BUT IT MIGHT BE, UM, APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION, KEITH, DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE BANDWIDTH ISSUES. WE'VE SEEN THAT AT PRS WITH THE BUILDUP OF, UM, SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION ITEMS AND NPRS THAT JUST HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET THE BANDWIDTH NEEDED TO, UM, BE, UM, FIND ITS WAY IN THE PROJECTS LIST TO BE COMPLETED. UM, BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, THERE'S A COUPLE OF ITEMS ON HERE. UM, I KNOW THAT POTENTIALLY MAY NOT REQUIRE ANY ERCOT ANALYSIS OR ERCOT BANDWIDTH OR HAVE NO SYSTEM IMPACTS. IF, IF THOSE ARE THE CASE, YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SAY WE NEED TO SLOW ANY OF THAT DOWN. I THINK YOUR POINT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IS TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS A REVISION REQUEST THAT IS REQUEST NEEDING OR CAUGHT IN WITH, THAT'S WHERE, UH, A, A MORE DIFFICULT DECISION MIGHT HAVE TO BE MADE IN TERMS OF TRIAGING WITH, WITH PRIORITY GOING TO RTC. YEAH. AND, AND, AND AGAIN, I THINK IT, THERE'S, WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION TO SEE WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, IS THIS INITIATIVE THAT REQUIRES, UM, EITHER NO ORCO STAFF AND, AND THERE COULD BE SOME EXAMPLES OF THAT. UH, OR THERE COULD BE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T IMPACT AN RTC SYSTEM AT ALL. RIGHT? AND, AND AGAIN, LIKE A LARGE LOAD THING, YEAH, WE DON'T, NOT, NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, UM, NO, NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'D BE LOOKING TO SLOW DOWN, BUT I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S PROBABLY GONNA BE SOME SORT OF DIALOGUE TO HELP SORT OF SORT THE ONES THAT ARE LIKE, OKAY, THESE CAN GO AND THESE CAN'T, YOU KNOW, THESE, THESE, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WOULD CAUSE HEARTBURN. THESE ONES WOULDN'T CAUSE HEARTBURN, RIGHT? SO THERE HAD TO BE SOME SORT OF SORTING PROCESS ON THAT. NO, NO, CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT, KEITH. AND, AND THE REASON WHY IT KIND OF SPARKED MY QUESTION WAS AT LEAST FROM 1279, THAT WAS A PRIORLY PASSED NPRR THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN NEGOTIATED THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND ALREADY HAD, UH, NO IA IMPACT. NOW GRANTED, I WILL ACCEPT THAT IF IT GETS EXPANDED IN ANYWHERE, THEN CERTAINLY THIS, EVERYTHING YOU SAID WOULD, WOULD DEFINITELY BE APPLICABLE, BUT AS FILED WOULD, WOULD NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT. SO JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, MENTION THAT AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH [04:55:01] ERCOT ON IDENTIFYING THE ONES THAT YOU KNOW, ARE LESS IMPACTFUL TO Y'ALL SO THAT IT DOESN'T IMPACT RTC. AND THEN, UM, IDENTIFYING WAYS TO TRIAGE THE REST OF THEM FOR POST RTC. SO THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY, NED, BAD QUESTION, KEVIN. YEAH, AND THANKS KEITH. UM, ALONG THOSE LINES OF HOW TO TRIAGE, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK I'D, I'D SUGGEST AND, AND RECOMMEND THAT, UH, ERCOT LOOK AT, UH, PRIORITIZING ACCORDING TO E EITHER ITEMS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS OUT OF MARKET IMPACTS OR AVOID OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS AS, UH, AS ONE OF THE, THE METRICS IN THERE. AND, UM, BUT WANTED TO TOSS THAT OUT JUST FOR CONSIDERATION. UH, BUT THE QUESTION THAT I HAD WAS REALLY ON THIS, YOU KNOW, AFTER RTCB PLUS B GO LIVE, UHHUH , WHAT IS THE TIMEFRAME THAT Y'ALL ARE THINKING IS LIKELY WHERE WE MOVE PAST THE GO LIVE PHASE? 'CAUSE THERE'S OBVIOUSLY GONNA BE GO LIVE, PROBABLY SOME STABILIZATION EFFORTS. IT'S NOT LIKE DECEMBER 6TH WE PICK UP THIS LIST AND RUN WITH IT, RIGHT? YEAH, NO, THAT, THAT, THAT'S A GOOD POINT, RIGHT? SO THE, AS, AS EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT US AND, AND YOU AS WELL, IS THAT THERE'S, THERE'S USUALLY A CLEANUP PERIOD, RIGHT? OF, HEY, THERE'S, THERE'S A BUG, WE DIDN'T CATCH IT, WE NEED TO FIX IT. YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE GONNA BE RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE PRIORITY. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S THREE MONTHS AFTER GOLI, YOU KNOW, TWO MONTHS AFTER GO LIVE ONE MONTH AFTER GO LIVE, UM, SIX MONTHS. IT'S, IT'S HARD TO SAY, BUT I THINK IF YOU CAN TRIAGE, LIKE WHAT WE WERE SAYING IS YOU KIND OF HAVE A TIER ONE, TIER TWO, TIER THREE, RIGHT? IS YOU, YOU KIND OF LIKE, OH, BANDWIDTH STARTED TIER ONE STUFF, LET'S GO. RIGHT? YOU KNOW, IT, IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SET AN EXACT DATE, BUT YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU'VE GOT BANDWIDTH, AS THAT BANDWIDTH OPENS UP, YOU START PULLING THE STUFF IN OFF THE TIER ONE LIST, RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF HOW I SAW IT. BUT IT COULD BE AS EARLY AS MAYBE A MONTH AFTER RTC POTENTIALLY, UM, COULD BE A COUPLE MONTHS AFTER RTC. IT'S, IT'S HARD TO SAY. OKAY. SO Q1 OF NEXT YEAR IS PROBABLY THE, PROBABLY REALISTICALLY THE EARLIEST WOULD BE Q1 OF NEXT YEAR. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT COLOR. YEAH. AND, AND AGAIN, THE CONCERN IS, IS ALL, IT'S LIKE YOU, YOU'VE GOT A DAM, RIGHT? YOU'RE GONNA PUT THE DAM UP AND THEN EVERYTHING THAT WANTS TO GO IS GONNA SORT OF HIT THE DAM, RIGHT? AND THEN THE WORRY THAT WE HAVE IS YOU SORT OF LIKE, OKAY, RELEASE THE DAM AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT JUST TAKES EVERYTHING OUT, RIGHT? FLOODS EVERYTHING. UM, AND THEN YOU REALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING, RIGHT? SO WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING TO CREATE AN ORDERLY PROCESS, WHEREAS IF, IF THERE'S A TIER ONE SET OF ITEMS, HEY, THESE GO FIRST, OKAY, GREAT, LET'S PUT THOSE, AND AS AS THAT, UH, AS WE GET MORE SPACE, WE CAN JUST START THROWING THOSE IN THE HOPPER. AND THEN YOU, YOU MOVE THROUGH THOSE, YOU GO TO TIER TWO, YOU MOVE THROUGH THOSE, GO TO TIER THREE, AND THAT SORT OF FLOWS EVERYTHING THROUGH. IT'S SORT OF A, A MORE ORDERLY WAY OF MOVING THROUGH IT. AND THAT'S SORT OF THE, AND REMEMBER THERE'S SORT OF TWO PIECES TO THAT. THERE'S WHAT YOU CAN HANDLE COMING INTO, AND THEN THERE'S YOUR OUTFLOW, RIGHT? WHICH IS YOUR, IS KIND OF WHAT TROY HISTORICALLY WORKS ON. AND, AND I'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH TROY AND JP, AND I KNOW THEY SHARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT, HEY, WAIT A SECOND, THERE'S, WE'RE KIND OF PAUSING DEVELOPMENT WORK TOO. UM, AND SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THIS BIG DEMAND ON DEVELOPMENT TIME AND SPACE. AND SO THE MORE WE CAN ORGANIZE THE, THE FLOW ON THE INSIDE AS WELL AS THE OUTSIDE, I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THERE'S A HIGHER, HIGHER POTENTIAL FOR SUCCESS. OKAY. THE QUEUE IS CLEAR, WHICH I AM SURPRISED BY. UM, ALL RIGHT. KEITH, KEITH, DID YOU FINISH YOUR PRESENTATION OR WERE ? NO, THAT IS IT FOR ME. SO IF NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I WE'LL SIGN OFF. CAN YOU GO BACK, ACTUALLY, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON NEXT STEPS AND WHAT YOU NEED FROM US, MAYBE ONE SLIDE BEFORE THAT. OKAY. SO WHAT DO YOU, THIS THIRD BILL BULLET, I KNOW WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT OFFLINE, IS, IS THERE A DIRECTION YOU NEED FROM TAC KEITH, OR, OR IS THIS KIND OF JUST SOMETHING TO BE THINKING ABOUT AND WE CAN HAVE ONGOING? I THINK WHAT WOULD BE REALLY GOOD IS, IS TO HAVE SOMETHING A LITTLE, MAYBE A LITTLE MORE FORMAL RATHER THAN INFORMAL PROCESS. BECAUSE PART OF IT TOO IS I WANT, I DON'T WANNA HAVE A CONVERSATION IN ONE AREA, BUT NOT ANOTHER AREA. AND, YOU KNOW, HEY, WE, WE CONSIDERED THIS INITIATIVE, BUT WE DIDN'T CONSIDER THAT. AND YOU KNOW, THERE'S SORT OF DISORGANIZED. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN BE CENTRALIZED AND ORGANIZED IN TERMS OF, HEY, HERE'S THE PLACE THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE THIS DIALOGUE. [05:00:01] IT COULD BE PRS, RIGHT? AND, AND, AND THAT, THAT COULD WORK. BUT AGAIN, THAT SORT OF FOCUSES ON SORT OF THE INFLOW THAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT. AND SO THAT WOULD SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY ALSO BE WOR WORTHWHILE THINKING ABOUT THE OUTFLOW PIECE, RIGHT? IN TERMS OF, OKAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN ARE WE GONNA IMPLEMENT SOME OF THIS STUFF? UM, SO WE DON'T END UP IN THE PROBLEM OF, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE PASSED ALL THESE NPRS, BUT THERE'S NO SPACE TO GET ANYTHING DONE, RIGHT? SO HOW DO WE WORK ON THAT? UM, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT NEED TO BE POTENTIALLY CLEANED UP, RIGHT? WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE PRIORITY ON SOMETHING THAT'S MAYBE A FEW YEARS OLD? IT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP, WHICH MEANS THAT IT'S GONNA COMPETE WITH NEW INITIATIVES AND, AND HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO THAT MAY BE BIGGER THAN PRS. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A TASK FORCE OR WHATNOT, BUT IF WE CAN HAVE FROM THE TAC A SENSE OF WHERE THAT DIALOGUE'S GONNA OCCUR, WE CAN BEGIN WORKING THROUGH THAT STRUCTURE RATHER THAN, WELL, WE'RE NOT WORKING ON ANYTHING OR WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT TO WORK ON, SO WE'RE JUST GONNA KEEP PUTTING THINGS THROUGH. SO IF WE'VE GOT A WAY TO DO THAT, THAT'D BE REALLY HELPFUL. MY SUGGESTION, AND I AM OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, PUT FEEDBACK OR OTHER IDEAS IS THAT, AS YOU'RE SAYING, IT IS PROBABLY BIGGER THAN PRS. SOME OF THESE ARE NOT NECESSARILY REVISION REQUESTS YET. THEY'RE KIND OF BIGGER, BIGGER INITIATIVES THROUGH LEGISLATION. THEY MAY BECOME REVISION REQUESTS. UM, BUT SOME ARE, ARE KIND OF BIGGER AND CONCEPTS. UM, AND IT'S PARTICULARLY MARKET FOCUSED, AS YOU NOTICED. IT'S JUST THE ONE GROUP. UM, AND I, I KNOW WE MAYBE TALKED ABOUT A, A TASK FORCE. I, I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY NOT THERE YET. AND THAT'S A LOT OF THAT MIGHT CREATE SOME WORK WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO PAUSE SOME WORK. SO I, I WAS THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE QUARTERLY TECH WORKSHOPS, AND THEN IF NEEDED, WE COULD TURN THOSE INTO A TASK FORCE. YEAH. YEAH. IT COULD WORK, IT COULD WORK THAT WAY TOO AS A, AS A WORKSHOP. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE COULD, YOU KNOW, WITH THE GOAL OF CREATING THIS ROADMAP PARKING DECK PROCESS OF, OKAY, HERE'S SOME ORDERNESS TO WHAT WE'RE GONNA WORK ON. AND THAT CAN INCLUDE THINGS, UM, THAT, THAT WE'RE DOING. BUT AGAIN, MY, MY ONLY CONCERN WOULD BE IS WE PROBABLY NEED TO MOVE IN TERMS OF THE FIRST ROUND, SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, SO THAT FOLKS, FOLKS WILL KNOW LIKE, HEY, SHOULD I, SHOULD WE BE WORKING ON THIS OR NOT? RATHER THAN ERCOT STAFF JUST, JUST SAYING NO ALL THE TIME. I, I THINK WE CAN DO THAT, BUT I THINK IT'D BE BETTER IF IT WERE COLLABORATIVE. OKAY. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR RESPONSES TO MY IDEA? I OKAY. UM, THAT, THAT IS WHAT I AM THINKING. I HAVE SOMEBODY IN MIND THAT SEEMS BEING OPEN TO BEING VOLUNTOLD TO HELP SHARE LEAD THE WORKSHOPS. UM, I'LL, I'LL TALK TO YOU, KEITH OFFLINE. PERFECT. BUT I, I THINK MAYBE START, START THAT WAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT. AND THEN I THINK WE CAN TALK OFFLINE ABOUT THE, THE TIMING TOO. AWESOME. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANKS EVERYBODY ALL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE ARE, UM, [14. Other Business (Part 1 of 2)] WE ARE MOVING UP AN ITEM FROM OTHER BUSINESS. 'CAUSE I JUST THOUGHT IT KIND OF FIT IN WITH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE REVIEWING STAKEHOLDER INITIATIVES AND ITEMS. UM, AND SO IT IS THIS LAST BIENNIAL TAX SLASH TAX SUBCOMMITTEE, STRUCTURAL AND PROCEDURAL REVIEW. UM, I, I WILL ATTEMPT TO DO THIS AND, AND ANN WILL WEIGH IN. UM, SO WE USED TO DO THIS EVERY YEAR, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, YOUR YOUR BEST FRIENDS ANN AND CAITLIN MOVED IT TO EVERY OTHER YEAR. YOU'RE WELCOME. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE WERE KIND OF RUNNING INTO TREATING IT AS A CHECKBOX EXERCISE, AND SO A LOT HAS HAPPENED SINCE LAST YEAR. WE HAD, OR SINCE TWO TH SINCE 23. UM, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION LAST YEAR WITH, UH, COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSION STAFF AND THE BOARD ON STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. I THINK A LOT OF THOSE WERE FOCUSED ON TRANSPARENCY OF INFORMATION. I, I WOULD SAY THE OTHER THING I REALLY WANNA FOCUS ON THIS YEAR IS, UH, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS. AND SO WE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE, UM, NOBODY FEELS LIKE WE ARE SAYING YOUR GROUP'S NOT NEEDED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT I, I THINK WE DO WANNA KEEP IN MIND EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS AND LOOKING [05:05:01] FOR SOLUTIONS. UM, E EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT NOT SEEM LIKE A HUGE PROBLEM, I THINK IT IS GETTING HARDER AND HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO ATTEND A TON OF MEETINGS. UM, SO THINGS LIKE, CAN THE GROUP MEET LESS OFTEN? CAN, CAN THE GROUP HAVE MEETINGS WITH OTHER GROUPS WHEN THEY'RE CONSIDERING THE SAME REVISION REQUESTS? UM, AND THEN WE HAVE A LOT OF GROUPS THAT ARE NOT EVEN FOCUSED ON REVISION REQUESTS. SO I THINK THAT'S GREAT, BUT HAVING SOME CLARITY AROUND KIND OF WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS GROUP. SO WE CAN PULL UP THAT POWERPOINT AND GO TO SLIDE TWO. OKAY. SO HERE ARE OUR QUESTIONS. UM, I THINK WE CAN PAUSE HERE IF, IF TECH WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS. UM, BUT IT, IT'S A SELF-ASSESSMENT. SO WORKING GROUP OR SUBCOMMITTEE LEADERSHIP WOULD COMPLETE THESE QUESTIONS. WE WOULD BE PLANNING TO SEND OUT THE QUESTION, UH, SOON. UM, ERIC, I SEE YOUR PROPOSAL TO BRING BACK TOPS. I THINK IF WE DO THAT, WE JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO COMMIT TO AS MANY POWERPOINTS AS, AS JIM LEE HAD TO MAKE TO, UH, ELIMINATE IT. UM, AND THEN I WILL GO TO CHRISTIE ASHLEY, WHO I'M SURE HAS THE SERIOUS COMMENT. GO AHEAD, CHRISTIE. , I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS TOPIC A LOT, CAITLIN, AS YOU KNOW. UM, YES. AND IT, AND, AND WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH A COUPLE THINGS AND IT, I THINK IT BUTTS UP WELL AGAINST, UH, WHAT KEITH WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT AND SOME OF THE COMMENTS YOU'VE MADE. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ME, I HAVE BEEN IN THIS STAKEHOLDER PROCESS NOW FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. I HAVE HELD A SEAT AT T FOR MANY YEARS, THE SUBCOMMITTEES, I SAT ON THE BOARD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND I'VE HAD THE PLEASURE OF WORKING WITH A LOT OF YOU, UM, UH, ALONG WITH ERCOT, UM, AND OTHERS IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS DURING THAT TIME. UH, I THINK THAT THE ERCOT STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST ROBUST IN THE COUNTRY. AND I HAVE SO MUCH RESPECT AND APPRECIATION FOR EVERY STAKEHOLDER WHO VOLUNTEERS AND TAKES THE TIME TO LEAD MEETINGS, BECAUSE I KNOW IT CAN BE TIME CONSUMING AND A SOMETIMES THANKLESS JOB. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAN BE MADE SINCE WINTER STORM URI. IT FEELS LIKE THERE HAS BEEN A HUGE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF OVERALL MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD BASED IN LARGE PART ON LEGISLATION AND COMMISSION RULES THAT HAVE CREATED THE NEED FOR MULTIPLE WORKSHOPS. UM, AND, AND, AND, AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE AREAS THAT I THINK NEED TO BE CONSIDERED MATERIAL POSTINGS IS ONE . UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS WHO THEY ARE THE ONLY PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO ATTEND MEETINGS ACROSS THE BOARD. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE WEEK OF JUNE 16TH, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE 14 MEETINGS ON THE ERCOT CALENDAR. I WOULD ARGUE EIGHT, MAYBE NINE OF THEM ARE WHAT I WOULD CALL LIKE MAJOR STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS. UM, IF MEETING MATERIALS ARE NOT POSTED IN A TIMELY MANNER, IT IS REALLY DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO SPEND THEIR TIME AND HOW BEST TO ADVOCATE. BUT EVEN IF MEETING MATERIALS ARE POSTED IN ADVANCE, UM, IF YOU'VE GOT THREE A DAY OR FOUR A DAY MEETINGS, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHERE TO GO? IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, I HAVE ATTENDED WORKING GROUPS WHERE THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANTIVE UPDATES ON ANY OF THE POSTED AGENDA ITEMS. THE MEETING WAS OVER FAIRLY QUICK, BUT I DO THINK IT BEGGED THE QUESTION OF DID THE MEETING EVEN NEED TO OCCUR IN THE CASE WHERE THERE ARE TWO A DAY, THREE A DAY, FOUR A DAY MEETINGS? UM, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL, I THINK, IF THE CHAIRS OF THOSE GROUPS COULD KEEP AN EYE ON THE CALENDAR AND, AND MAYBE MAKE A JUDGMENT CALL AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE PRESSING, UM, ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, EITHER BECAUSE THERE IS URGENCY ATTACHED TO MAYBE A REVISION REQUEST OR BECAUSE THEY HAVE, UH, A REFERRAL THAT IS TIME SENSITIVE FROM THEIR SUBCOMMITTEE. UM, BUT IF NOT, IF IT'S JUST AN UPDATE AND ANOTHER REQUEST FOR ERCOT TO DO MORE ANALYSIS, MAYBE GOING BACK TO SOME OF THE POINTS KEITH MADE, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE PUT OFF A MONTH OR SO. THERE MAY BE GROUPS, UM, THAT CAN GO TO AN EVERY OTHER MONTH TYPE, UM, CADENCE. I KNOW THE DSWG HAS DONE THAT, BUT EVEN THEN IT, DO THEY EVEN NEED TO MEET EVERY OTHER MONTH IF THERE'S REALLY NOTHING PRESSING? UM, ARE THERE, UH, OTHER GROUPS THAT CAN GO TO THAT KIND OF CADENCE? AGAIN, UH, IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT KEITH MENTIONED, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A BARRAGE OF THINGS COMING [05:10:01] AT US AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION. LIKE WE ALWAYS SEEM TO, AND I THINK WE HAVE ALL HEARD MURDA COME UP, UH, ENOUGH TIMES AND ENOUGH MEETINGS OVER THE LAST SIX WEEKS THAT WE ARE PRETTY SURE THAT'S GONNA BE COMING DOWN THE PIKE , UM, AS THE NEXT MAJOR PROJECT AFTER RTC THAT ERCO WILL BE UNDERTAKING. SO, UM, I JUST, I REALLY IMPLORE THE LEADERSHIP TO THINK ABOUT THEIR AGENDAS, WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO MEET, HOW DO THEIR MEETINGS BUTT UP AGAINST OTHERS THAT MIGHT BE AT, ON THE CALENDAR AT THE EXACT SAME TIME. AND I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT PEOPLE MAY BE CONSIDER THE KEN DONAHUE RULE WHEN HE CHAIRED THE ROS, HE, HE CAME UP WITH THIS RULE THAT IF MATERIALS WEREN'T POSTED SOMETHING LIKE FIVE DAYS OR A WEEK IN ADVANCE, THEN THE ISSUE WASN'T TALKED ABOUT PERIOD ON THE AGENDA. UM, AND THAT WORKED AND IT KEPT MEETINGS EFFICIENT. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M SPEAKING NOT AS SOMEBODY WHO'S SITTING AROUND THE TABLE AND, AND DEBATING WITH YOU ALL THESE DAYS AND IN MY CURRENT ROLE, UM, BUT I AM SPEAKING AS SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN IN THIS PROCESS NOW FOR A REALLY LONG TIME AND HAVE SEEN THE CALENDAR JUST EXPLODE OVER THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, LUCKILY WE'VE GOT A COMPANY LIKE OURS THAT CAN KEEP YOU ALL IN THE LOOP, BUT , UM, YOU KNOW, IF I WERE SITTING THERE AND, AND IN A POSITION OF ADVOCATING, I DON'T KNOW HOW I, I DON'T KNOW HOW SOME OF YOU DO IT GIVEN GIVEN THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS ON THE CALENDAR THESE DAYS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE THINK ABOUT MAYBE SOME OF THE MEETINGS THAT DON'T NEED TO BE SCHEDULED. SO THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME GET ON MY SOAPBOX, CAITLIN, AND, AND JUST OFFERING SOME OF, YOU KNOW, MY THOUGHTS. UM, AND, AND AGAIN, I WOULD JUST IMPLORE THE LEADERSHIP TO REALLY CONSIDER SOMETIMES WHETHER OR NOT MEETINGS EVEN NEED TO TAKE PLACE. THANKS. OKAY. UM, ALRIGHT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON, ON THIS PAGE? DO WE WANT SOME TIME TO GO THROUGH THESE QUESTIONS OR, OR DOES TECH WANT SOME TIME TO, TO LOOK AT THESE OR WE COMFORTABLE WITH, WITH GOING AHEAD AND SENDING THESE OUT TO A SUBCOMMITTEE AND WORKING GROUP LEADERSHIP? OKAY. GONNA TAKE THAT AS A SIGNAL AND THAT WE SHOULD GO, GO AHEAD AND SEND THEM OUT. LET'S, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT PAGE. OKAY. THIS IS EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE WANT PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE THE WAY CHRISTIE JUST PARTICIPATED. UM, SO, SO I WANT, UM, THESE COMPLETED SURVEYS A LITTLE BIT EARLIER THAN USUAL. WE WILL SEND THEM OUT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. UM, AND THEN WE WANT THEM DUE BEFORE THE JULY 4TH HOLIDAY. AGAIN, IT, IT'S KIND OF A SELF-ASSESSMENT TO LEADERSHIP OF SUBCOMMITTEE WORKING GROUP TASK FORCE. IT MAY BE THAT THERE'S NOT A CYCLE OF, OF THEIR GROUP MEETING, BUT I, I THINK THAT'S OKAY. I THINK THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ATTENDEES OF, OF THEIR GROUPS TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS. UM, BUT WE WOULD LIKE THOSE SELF-ASSESSMENTS BACK JULY 2ND. UM, IN BETWEEN JULY 2ND AND AUGUST 12TH, THERE IS A TAC MEETING. AND SO HAVING THEM JULY 2ND WILL GIVE US TIME TO POST THOSE FOR TAC AND FOR, FOR TECH MEMBERS, HOPEFULLY MORE THAN JUST NED TO ACTUALLY READ THROUGH THEM AND DISCUSS. AND THEN TWO WEEKS AFTER THE TECH MEETING, WE WILL HAVE THE WORKSHOP WHERE WE WILL HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION. UM, WE'LL DO THAT BY WEBEX ONLY. AND I'M REALLY HOPING THAT, YOU KNOW, WORKING GROUP LEADERSHIP SOMETIMES TENDS TOWARDS SMES AND, AND NOT JUST THE REGULATORY PEOPLE. SO I'M HOPING EVERYBODY WILL ATTEND THAT WEBEX WORKSHOP. UM, AND WE CAN KIND OF START THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE THINGS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING AND, AND THAT CHRISTIE MENTIONED. AND THEN AT THE AUGUST TECH MEETING, WE'LL, WE'LL DO A FINAL REVIEW OF OUR ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THOSE WILL GO TO THE SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THERE? ALL RIGHT. OKAY. UM, WE ARE TAKING ANOTHER ONE UP OUT OF ORDER. UM, WE ARE GOING TO GO TO [13. ERCOT Reports] THE REPORT, THE SEGMENT MEMBERSHIP UPDATE WITH CATHERINE GROSS. HI, KAYLYN. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? IT'S A LITTLE BIT FAINT. OKAY. UM, IS THAT BETTER? THAT'S, THAT'S [05:15:01] MUCH BETTER, YES. MUCH BETTER. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR TAKING ME OUT OF ORDER. UM, I JUST HAVE A REALLY BRIEF UPDATE. UM, WE HAD TALKED BEFORE, UM, I GUESS WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT LAST FALL ABOUT POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE BYLAWS, JUST TO UPDATE THEM SINCE IT HAD BEEN A WHILE SINCE THOSE HAD BEEN LOOKED AT, UM, ON THE WHOLE, AND THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS. UM, AND THERE WERE NO RESPONSES TO THOSE PROPOSALS, UM, THAT WERE POSTED. I DO HAVE A VERSION OF THE BYLAWS, A DRAFT VERSION THAT INCORPORATES THOSE RED LINES AND ALSO MAKES OTHER CLEANUP, UM, CHANGES, UM, THINGS THAT, LIKE, THERE'S TYPOS OR, UM, INCONSISTENCIES IN THE BYLAWS THAT, UM, JUST ATTEMPTS TO, UM, JUST CLEAN EVERYTHING UP. UM, HOWEVER, UH, THE 20, THE, I GUESS THE LITIGATION IS STILL ONGOING FROM THE 20, UM, 22 BYLAWS UPDATE. AND SO I THINK WE HAD ORIGINALLY EXPECTED TO HAVE AN OPINION, UM, AND A FINALIZED OPINION REGARDING THAT LITIGATION, BUT WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR THAT. UM, SO BECAUSE OF THAT, AT THE JUNE BOARD MEETING, WE WILL PLAN TO GIVE A UPDATE. IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE STILL EVALUATING IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, UM, THE RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATION GOING FORWARD. AND SO WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR THAT LITIGATION TO BE, UM, FINALIZED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? I DON'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS. THANKS, CAITLIN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE WE ARE NOW BACK TO, ACTUALLY, WE TOOK MINE OUT OF ORDER, RIGHT? SO WE ARE RTC ITEM. NOW WE ARE TO REPORT. AM I RIGHT? OUTAGE COORDINATION, OUTAGE CAPACITY CALCULATION, AND PROCESS UPDATE. GOOD MORNING. THIS FRED, JUST WANT TO MAKE, WANT TO CHECK MY, IS MY AUDIO OKAY? YES. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS, UH, A BRIEF UPDATE. UM, I, I THINK, UH, THE PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF OUR PROPOSED REVISION TO THE M-D-R-P-O-C METHODOLOGIES. UH, WE ISSUED A MARKET NOTICE LAST FRIDAY, UH, ASKING FOR THE, UH, THE COMMENTS, FEEDBACK FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS. AND I THINK THAT, UH, SO THIS UPDATE IS KIND OF A, A QUICK OVERVIEW ABOUT THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE METHODOLOGY. UH, I THINK THE KEY TAKEAWAYS, UH, WE SHOW KIND OF IN THE FOLLOWING SLIDES. UH, THIS REVISION, UH, ALLOW US TO PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT OUTAGE CAPACITY AT THE MINIMUM COMPARED TO THE HISTORICAL, UH, OUTAGE LEVELS. AND, UH, THIS REVISION, PARTICULARLY THE RISK BASE, UH, IS APPLIED FOR THE M-D-R-P-O-C FOR DAYS MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS AHEAD OF THE OPERATING DAY. AND, UH, IN THIS REVISION, UH, I WOULD SAY APPRECIATE ALL THE FEEDBACK IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. UH, WE DO TRY TO INCORPORATE AND, UH, BASED ON THE FEEDBACK FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES AS WELL. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO, THE CHART ON THE TOP RIGHT, UH, WITH THE BRONCH COLOR IS, I'LL CALL IT PRELIMINARY, M-D-R-P-O-C CURVE. AND, UH, THE LIGHT BLUE, UH, THE DATA LINE IS THE EXISTING DEISTIC, M-D-R-P-O-C, UH, I THINK, UH, SEVERAL HIGHLIGHTED FOR THIS REVISION AND ASSOCIATED CURVE FOR THE THERMAL DURATION RESOURCES. UM, FOR THE NEAR TERM, UH, WE, UH, THE CALCULATED M-D-R-P-O-C STILL MAINTAIN A LOW RISK FOR THE FIRST YEAR. UH, WE CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THE LOAD OF GROWTH, UH, MOVING FORWARD, BUT ALSO CONSIDER THE NEED FOR TO SUPPORT THE RESOURCE OUTAGES. UH, AS A OUTCOME, WE DO SEE A HIGHER RISK FOR THE SUBSCRIPT, UH, FOR THE FUTURE YEARS. AND THAT IS DUE TO SOME OF THE COMBINATION OF THE LIMITED RESOURCE COMMITMENT FOR THE LONG TERM. ALSO THE EXPECTED OR PROJECTED A LOT OF GROWTH INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT. AND, UH, WE TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT, UH, ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. UH, SO WE APPLY THE FIRST E-M-D-R-P-O-C FOR THE OFFICIAL YEARS AS WELL. AND WE ALSO [05:20:01] TRY TO SMOOTH THE CURVE, UH, KIND OF TO ADDRESS, UH, SEVERAL RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN THE CONSENSUS AS WELL. AND WE DO PROVIDE OUTAGE CAPACITY FOR THE WINTER AND SUMMER. AND THEY ARE, UH, LISTED IN THE METHODOLOGY. UH, THE CHART BELOW IS REALLY ASSOCIATED RISK, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE CALCULATOR M-D-R-P-O-C, AND, UH, AS TYPICALLY THE PROCESS, UH, WE WILL UPDATE IT, UH, REGULARLY TRY TO INCORPORATE THE SYSTEM CHANGES, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL COMMITTED RESOURCE AND THE POTENTIAL LOAD GROWTH OR ADJUSTMENTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, I, I PROBABLY CAN TAKE PAUSE HERE. I SEE A COMMENTS IN THE QUEUE, BILL. YEAH, COMMENT AND, UH, QUESTION ON THE PRIOR SLIDE. SO FRED, JUST WANNA EXPRESS SOME GRATITUDE FOR, UH, TAKING IN STAKEHOLDER OPINIONS AND FEEDBACK ON THIS AND MAKING SOME PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO YOUR METHODOLOGY TO HELP ACCOMMODATE THE, THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE SEEING IN THE FIELD WHEN WE'RE CONDUCTING OUTAGES. SO, UM, THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR THE, FOR, FOR DOING THAT AND FOR MAKING THIS METHODOLOGY, UM, KIND OF CLOSER TO WHAT WE THINK WE COULD LIVE WITH. EXTENDING THE FIRST YEAR OUT FOR THE DURATION IS A, IS A, A VERY BIG POSITIVE CHANGE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. SO WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST WANNA REITERATE A POINT THERE, UH, IS THAT IT, IT, THIS IS NOT GONNA CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF OUTAGES THAT THAT HAPPEN. IT'S JUST GOING TO CHANGE WHETHER THEY'RE PLANNED OR FORCED OUTAGES. SO KEEPING THAT FIRST YEAR CONSTANT, UH, ALLOWS US TO HAVE CERTAINTY IN SCHEDULE OUTAGES SO THAT YOU, ERCOT YOU GUYS HAVE VISIBILITY. THE WAY THAT THE PRIOR METHODOLOGY SHRUNK OVER THE YEARS, WE'RE STILL GONNA TAKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF OUTAGES 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO, AND YOU'RE JUST NOT GONNA HAVE VISIBILITY 'CAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE FORCED OUT. SO THIS IS, THAT'S A BIG CHANGE. SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU ACCOMMODATING THAT. AND THEN HAVING A, THE HAVING MINIMUMS, UH, IN THE WINTER AND THE SUMMER ALSO ARE HELPFUL IN ALLOWING US TO SPREAD OUTAGES OUT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, WHICH WAS PROBABLY THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN THAT WE HAD IN THE ISSUE WE SAW WHEN TRYING TO SCHEDULE OUTAGES. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS A PRIOR VERSION OF, UM, YOUR REVISED M-D-R-P-O-C THAT YOU PRESENTED AT THE MAY 5TH WMWG MEETING HAD THE MINIMUMS AT 10,000 AND 5,000, 10,000 PER WINTER, SUMMER AT 5,000. UH, CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT WHAT'S CHANGED THERE? I THINK WE WERE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH A SLIGHTLY HIGHER MINIMUMS, UM, THAT YOU'D PRESENTED PRIOR. YEAH. AND, AND, UH, AND THINK FOR YOUR FEEDBACK, UH, MAYBE I HAVE A SLIDE IN, IN LATER ON AND I CAN JUST KIND OF ADDRESS A LOT OF QUESTIONS, UH, WHEN I REACH TO THE SLIDES. SOUNDS GOOD. THANKS, FRED. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. . SO I THINK IN ADDITION TO THE, I'LL CALL IT, UH, MOST OF THE CHANGES REALLY APPLY TO THE THERMAL DURATION RESOURCE CALCULATION, BUT WE ALSO, UH, HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT, LOOK AT THE M-D-R-P-O-C FOR OTHER RESOURCES, PARTICULARLY FOR THE RENEW, UH, INVERTER BASED RE I'M SORRY, THE INTERMEDIATE RENEWABLE RESOURCES, UH, UH, ESSENTIALLY IS A WIND AND SOLAR, AND ALSO THE ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY IS NOT, UH, UNDER THE M-D-R-P-O-C BECAUSE WE CONSIDER THEIR CONTRIBUTION AS, UH, UH, WE DON'T, WE DO NOT CONSIDER THEIR CONTRIBUTION IN THE EXISTING METHODOLOGIES. SO WITH ALL THIS UPDATED, UH, I THINK, UH, UH, KIND OF NOTABLE CHANGES HERE IS FOR THE IRR, ESSENTIALLY THE CALCULATION IS ALMOST THE SAME, UH, EXCEPT WE, UH, EXPECTED FROM ONE OH 5% TO ONE 10%. AND, UH, WE, UH, UH, OUR PROPOSAL IS TO APPLY A SIMILAR CALCULATION FOR THE ESR AS WELL. UH, ANOTHER ONE TO BE NOTED, THE IMPLEMENTATION FOR M-D-R-P-O-C FOR ESR, UH, WILL BE, UH, INCLUDED AFTER RTC PLUS B. UH, OTHERWISE THE RISK OF THE CHANGES WILL BE EFFECTIVE, UH, UPON THE APPROVAL, UH, OF THE METHODOLOGY. UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS SLIDES. I KIND OF TRY TO PROVIDE A KIND OF HIGH LEVEL, UH, KIND OF COMPARE THE REVISED METHODOLOGY, WHICH IS SHOWING US THE BRONCH COLOR. AND, UH, THE, THE REST OF IT IS THE HISTORICAL PLAN OUTAGE LABELS. UH, WE CHOOSE THE ONE, UH, 20 19, 20 20, WHICH HAPPENED TO BE BEFORE THE M-D-R-P-O-C IMPLEMENTATION AND ALSO 2324 AFTER M-D-R-P-O-C IMPLEMENTATION. [05:25:01] AND, UH, I, I WOULD SAY TITLE TWO, UM, BILL YOUR COMMENTS EARLIER. I, I THINK, UH, FROM HISTORICALLY, UH, BASED ON THE HISTORICAL PERFORMERS, THE, THE WINTER, UH, IN THE EARLY YEARS, UH, WE DO SEE, UH, THE SCHEDULE OF PLAN OUTAGE, UH, AROUND LIKE, UH, THREE TO 5,000 RANGE, UH, FOR THE WINTER. BUT, UH, OBVIOUSLY F 2022, ESPECIALLY, AS YOU CAN SEE, 20 23, 20 24, EVEN OUR EXISTING M-D-R-P-O-C, WE ALREADY PROVIDED A AVERAGE ABOUT 5,000 PER DAY. AND, UH, UNDERSTAND, I, I EXPECT BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN OF THE RISK, THE, UH, ON THE, I WOULD SAY ENERGY SIDE TO ENSURE THE WINTER WE HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY TO MEET THE DEMAND. SO WE DO SEE VERY LIMITED PLAN SCHEDULED, UH, IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. UH, EVEN M-D-R-P-C IS AVAILABLE BOTH SUMMER, UH, I WOULD SAY, UH, EVEN BEFORE THE M-D-R-P-O-C, UH, WE OBSERVED VERY LIMITED RESOURCE SCHEDULED FOR THE SUMMER. UH, BUT AGAIN, WITH ALL THE FEEDBACK, UH, WE RECEIVED FROM YOU AND ALL THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, AND, UH, WE ALSO TRY TO CONSIDER THE FEEDBACK FROM THE OPERATION RISK. SO I, I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE FLEXIBILITY FOR WINTER, THE SUMMER, BUT ANOTHER TO THE LABEL, UH, KIND OF A, A, UH, SHARP JUMP IN THE BEGINNING. UH, WE, WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN THIS WINE AND, UH, RECOGNIZE THE PERFORMANCE, UNDERSTAND THE RISK, UH, BEFORE WE CAN DO A FURTHER ADJUSTMENT. SO THAT'S WHY WE PUT A CAP, UH, FOR THE WINTER AVERAGE, ABOUT 5,000 MEGAWATT AND THE POOL CAP FOR SUMMER AVERAGE, ABOUT 2,500 MEGAWATT. UH, JUST TRY TO PROVIDE A ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY AT, AT THE SAME TIME, KNOWING WINTER AND THE SUMMER SEASON IS REALLY THE, THE, THE, THE SEASON WITH A HIGHER DEMAND WHERE THE, THE RISK IS, UH, RELATIVE HIGHER SUBJECT TO THE SYSTEM CONDITION, THE WEATHER CONDITIONS. SO WE TRY TO BE, I WOULD SAY, MORE CAUTIOUS, UM, THIS TWO SEASON WHEN WE TRY TO RELAX THE D-I-P-O-C. UH, BUT WE DEFINITELY TRY TO HEAR YOUR, GET YOUR FEEDBACK AND WE TRY TO, I WOULD SAY, OPEN UP A WINDOW. UH, I WOULD SAY GRADUALLY, UH, ALONG WITH, UH, MORE EXPERIENCE WE HAVE, WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE WORK WITH YOU TO MODIFY THIS ONE, BUT THIS KIND OF OUR, I WOULD SAY INITIAL ADJUSTMENT TO KIND OF ACCOMMODATE THE FEEDBACK, BUT AT THE SAME TIME CONSIDER THE RISK AND THE INPUT FROM THE OPERATIONS. THANK YOU. FRED, DO YOU WANNA TAKE ANOTHER QUESTION FROM BILL BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? YES. THANK YOU. YEAH, FRED, ALSO, WE'VE LOOKED AT THE NPRR THAT YOU FILED THAT'S MAKING OTHER CHANGES MM-HMM . UM, PARTLY TO ACCOMMODATE THIS AND SOME OTHER THINGS WOULD, WOULD ERCOT BE OPPOSED TO PUTTING THE MINIMUMS IN THE ACTUAL PROTOCOL LANGUAGE SO THAT WE HAVE CERTAINTY THAT THOSE WINDOWS ARE GONNA BE AVAILABLE FOR THE DURATION? I THINK THAT WOULD HELP US HAVE MORE CONFIDENCE TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY SCHEDULE CREWS YEARS IN ADVANCE KNOWING IT'S GONNA BE THERE. UM, I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S SOME ERCOT WOULD BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN. UM, I WOULD SAY THE NUMBER FOR FIVE TO 25 OR IS IN OUR PROPOSED METHODOLOGY REVISIONS. SO ONCE THAT ONE IS IN A METHODOLOGY, WE WILL NEED TO FOLLOW THAT NUMBER BECAUSE THAT REQUIRE POINT DATA APPROVE. SO I, I THINK HAVE THAT NUMBER IN THE METHODOLOGY SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH. UM, YEAH, BECAUSE ANY, ANY CHANGES IN THE METHODOLOGY OR PROTOCOL WILL NEED TO GO THROUGH THE, THE PROCESS AND I THINK WE TRY TO CONTINUE FOLLOW OUR PRACTICE. UM, UNDERSTAND THIS MAY NOT, THE METHODOLOGY MAY NOT REQUIRE TAKE, UH, APPROVAL, BUT WE CERTAINLY WANT TO COME TO YOU AND THIS GROUP FOR YOUR AWARENESS, FOR YOUR FEEDBACK BEFORE WE MAKE ANY CHANGES SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ARE DOING THIS TIME. SO I, I HOPE THAT IS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH. YEAH. THANKS. THANKS, FRED. JUST KNOW WE ARE, WE'RE CONSIDERING THESE CHANGES AND ARE SUPPORTIVE OF A LOT OF WHAT YOU'VE DONE, BUT I THINK THERE'S A, WE'D HAVE MORE COMFORT IF THERE WAS SOME, SOME [05:30:01] CERTAINTY IN THE PROTOCOLS. SO WE'RE JUST, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WHETHER WE MIGHT FALL COMMENTS ON, ON UH, 11, EXCUSE ME, 12, UH, 90, OR EXCUSE ME, 12 89, 12 87. SORRY TO, TO INCORPORATE THAT, BUT STILL, WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING THAT INTERNALLY. BUT THANKS FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE ON THIS. IT IS, UH, SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN, UM, WHAT IT'S BEEN IN THE PAST. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK. ANDY, YOU'RE UP NEXT. YEAH, THANKS MARK. DEFINITELY ECHO BILL'S COMMENTS. FRED, REALLY APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH US AND THIS IS CERTAINLY, UM, US MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I DID WANNA KIND OF PEEL ON BILL BARNES'S LINE OF THINKING AS WELL ON THE MINIMUMS. ONE OF THE THINGS WE LIKED ABOUT THAT ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY AND AGAIN, ACKNOWLEDGE ERCOT WANTING TO BE SOMEWHAT, UM, CAUTIOUS AS WE LOOK THERE. BUT MY QUESTION IS, BRETT, DID Y'ALL LOOK AT THE PAST WHEN WE DID NOT HAVE THE M-D-R-P-O-C AND HOW MANY SCHEDULED OUTAGES WERE IN THE WINTER IN THE SUMMERTIME? THAT, SO JUST TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THE BASIS OF, OF YOUR VALUES. YEAH, THAT, THAT'S THE PURPOSE FOR THIS SLIDES, RIGHT FOR 2019, WHICH IS ORIGIN CURVE, BUT 2020 IS A GREEN CURVE, WHICH LAY ON BEFORE M-D-I-P-O-C IMPLEMENTED. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IS WE, WE TRY TO LOOK INTO A HISTORICAL OUTAGE, NOT ONLY THE ONE AFTER M-D-I-P-O-C, WE EVEN LOOK AT A HISTORICAL OUTAGE BEFORE THE M-D-R-P-O-C IMPLEMENTED. THAT'S KIND OF, WE, UH, WE, WE TRY TO CONSIDER ALL OF THEM, UH, WHEN WE TRY TO REVISE THIS METHOD KNOWLEDGE. OKAY. YEAH, APPRECIATE THAT. SORRY, I HAD TO STEP OUT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I THINK WE'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. THE NUMBERS YOU'RE SEEING ON HERE ARE SHOWING THAT IF YOU LOOK IN THE SUMMER AND, AND MANY OF THE WINTERS, THE OUTAGES REALLY ALIGN WITH WHEN YOU WOULD WANT AND EXPECT RESOURCES TO BE AVAILABLE RIGHT WHEN IT'S VERY HOT AND VERY COLD. UM, AND SO I THINK THE FLEXIBILITY GAINED IS WHENEVER WE'RE IN THOSE FRINGE PERIODS WHERE WE'RE TRANSITIONING THROUGH A SPRING OR A FALL OR WINTER OR SUMMER, AND WE'RE, WE'RE NOTICING WE BEING THE RESOURCES NOTICE THAT THE WEATHER IS NOT MATERIALIZING AS QUICKLY AS WE'RE EXPECTING IT TO. AND IN THOSE REGARDS, WE THEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, PLAN, YOU KNOW, ON THE FRONT END OR THE BACK END OF OUR SUMMER OR WINTER. UH, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE'RE THINKING ON THAT TERMS OF FLEXIBILITY. AND THEN AS THESE CONDITIONS POTENTIALLY CHANGE, THE RESOURCES WOULD THEN REACT TO CHANGING WEATHER PATTERNS OR, OR, UM, NEW INFORMATION AS THAT COMES UP. SO, UM, REALLY APPRECIATE THIS, THIS SLIDE AND WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE YOU CONSIDERING THOSE ORIGINAL AMOUNTS BECAUSE I THINK EVEN IF YOU LOOK HERE, UM, THAT THAT ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY WOULD BE WARRANTED BECAUSE THESE ARE OLDER VALUES AND AS THE FLEET IS AGING, WE DO EXPECT THERE TO BE MORE FREQUENT, UM, MAINTENANCE OUTAGES POTENTIALLY NEEDED. SO THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THAT. YEAH, THANK YOU. I'LL JUST SAY, UM, THE, THE, THE PLUS HERE, INCLUDING THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE BEFORE AND AFTER M-D-I-P-O-C. THANK YOU NED. THANKS, UH, FRED, I'LL JUST ECHO WHAT OTHERS SAID. THANK YOU FOR, FOR BRINGING THIS TO US AND, AND FOR TAKING THE FEEDBACK. UM, I DO SEE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS HERE. THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE, AND I'LL, WELL, WE CAN PUT THIS IN COMMENTS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO FLAG IT, IS, UM, HOW THE M-D-R-P-O-C IS, IS UTILIZED IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE, WE HAD VOICED PREVIOUSLY. YOU KNOW, IF ERCOT CAN LOOK AT MAYBE AN AVERAGE OVER THE REQUESTED TIME WINDOW AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ONE DAY THAT FALLS OUT OF THAT WINDOW, UM, IF THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF VOIDS THE ABILITY TO, TO TAKE AN OUTAGE DURING THAT PERIOD. WE CAN FOLLOW UP ON THAT OFFLINE THOUGH. THANKS. YEAH, NO, NO PROBLEM. I, I THINK, UH, WE DO, UH, CONSIDER A LOT OF FEEDBACK AND, UH, I THINK ICU CAN NOTE IT, THE CURVE RIGHT NOW IS MUCH MORE SMOOTHER. SO TO SOME EXTENT A LOT OF THE CONCERN SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, UH, TO LARGE EXTENT ALREADY. YEAH, THERE'S DEFINITELY A LOT OF, UH, THANKS. SORRY, GO AHEAD. SORRY. THANK YOU, . THANKS NED. FRED, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW. MM-HMM [05:35:01] . DO YOU HAVE MORE SLIDE? YEAH, I THINK I HAVE REALLY QUICK UPDATE ABOUT NEXT STEPS. UM, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, UH, WE ISSUED A MARKET NOTICE AND, UH, IF YOU ARE CURIOUS AND, UH, DIFFICULT TO FIND A NOTE MARKET NOTICE, UH, I PUT A LINK ON THE SLIDE DECK AND, UH, WE ASKED FOR THE COMMENTS TO BE, UH, SUBMITTED TO US THROUGH THE EMAIL LIST ON THE, ON THE SLIDE. AND, UH, WE DO PLAN TO, UH, PRESENT THIS ONE AND, UH, REQUEST, UH, THE POINT LETTER APPROVAL. IT IS JUNE, 2025 MEETINGS SUCH A LOT. WE SET APPROVAL, WE EXPECT WE ARE ABLE TO UPDATE THE M-D-R-P-O-C WITH A NEW METHODOLOGY, UH, STUDY, UM, RIGHT AFTER THE APPROVAL. SO THANKS FOR ALL YOUR FEEDBACK AND, UH, WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU, UM, MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, FRED. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR FRED BEFORE WE LET HIM GO? OKAY, THANK YOU FRED, APPRECIATE YOUR UPDATE. SO WE ALREADY TOOK CARE OF THE SEGMENT MEMBERSHIP UPDATE, SO THAT WOULD TAKE US TO THE FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE SETTLEMENT REPORT, WHICH, UH, WOULD BE PRESENTED BY MAGGIE SHANKS THIS AFTERNOON. HI, THIS IS MAGGIE. SO THIS IS THE FIRM FUELS, UH, SUPPLY SERVICE SETTLEMENT REPORT. THIS IS, UM, THIS REPORT IS PRESENTED BECAUSE OF PROTOCOL SECTION, UM, 3 14 5, PARAGRAPH 15, WHICH AFTER, UH, THE END OF THE FFS SEASON REQUIRES ERCOT TO PRESENT THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS AT THE DESIGNATED, UH, TECH OR DESIGNATED SUBCOMMITTEE. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, JUST A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THIS SEASON'S FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE PROCUREMENT. THE OBLIGATION PERIOD WAS FROM NOVEMBER 15TH, 2024 THROUGH MARCH 15TH, 2025. WE HAD 33 GENERATION RESOURCES THAT WERE AWARDED AS PRIMARY FFS SRS. THE CLEARING PRICE WAS AT $12,240 PER MEGAWATT. WE HAD ABOUT 4,195 MEGAWATTS OF CAPACITY PROCURED, AND THE PROJECTED COST OF THAT PROCUREMENT WAS ABOUT $51.3 MILLION. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. NOW, FOR THIS SETTLEMENT FOR THIS SEASON, THE STANDBY FEE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT WAS $49.7 MILLION. AND THE REASON THAT THAT VALUE IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN THE ESTIMATED PROCUREMENT AMOUNT ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE IS, UH, BECAUSE SOME RESOURCES, UH, HAD SOME HAIRCUTS IN THEIR STANDBY FEE BECAUSE OF THE AVAILABILITY REDUCTION FACTOR. UH, THIS SEASON WE DID NOT HAVE ANY FUEL REPLACEMENT COSTS AND THE ESTIMATED STANDBY FEE CLAWBACK AMOUNT WAS ABOUT $7.3 MILLION. AND THOSE CLAWBACKS WILL BE REFLECTED ON THE TRIP STATEMENTS FOR THE FIRST 90 DAYS OF THE OBLIGATION PERIOD. AND THOSE CLAWBACK BEGAN ON MAY 14TH AND WILL END ON AUGUST 11TH. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. NOW, FOR THE CLAWBACK, THE RESOURCES THAT RECEIVED CLAWBACK THIS SEASON WERE BECAUSE OF THESE THREE PARAGRAPHS. SO PARAGRAPH NINE IS FOR ANY F-F-S-S-R THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE DURING A WATCH, AND THAT CLAWBACK IS 90 DAYS. PARAGRAPH 11 IS IF THE F-F-S-S-R COMES ONLINE. UM, BUT DURING THAT, FOR AN FFS DEPLOYMENT, THAT FAILS TO TER AN AVERAGE HSL EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 95% BECAUSE OF A FUEL RELATED ISSUE. AND THAT IS ALSO A 90 DAY CLAWBACK. AND THE LAST ONE IS PARAGRAPH 13. THE F-F-S-S-R FAILS TO COME ONLINE FOR A DEPLOYMENT OR STAY ONLINE, BUT IT IS DUE, BUT IT IS NOT DUE TO A FEW RELATED ISSUE, AND THAT'S A 15 DAY CLAWBACK. UM, I THINK I HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE AND THEN I CAN TAKE THE QUESTION. AND THIS IS JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE SIX RESOURCES THAT RECEIVED CLAWBACK CHARGES. SO OF THOSE SIX, THREE OF THEM RECEIVED CLAWBACK CHARGES RELATED TO BEING UNAVAILABLE DURING AN FFSS. UM, DURING A WATCH, TWO OF THE RESOURCES RECEIVED CLAWBACKS, UH, BECAUSE THEY FAILED IT TO LIMIT OR AN AVERAGE HSL EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 95% DURING A DEPLOYMENT. AND ONE RESOURCE RECEIVED CLAWBACK CHARGES BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO START ON TIME DUE TO MECHANICAL ISSUES, UM, DURING THE DEPLOYMENT. I BELIEVE THAT'S MY LAST SLIDE. OKAY, THANK YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU GOT A QUESTION HERE FROM ERIC GOFF. UH, REMIND ME, [05:40:01] UH, THERE, IS THERE A CAP ON THE PAYMENT HERE? IS IT A AND HOW DOES THAT CAP WORK? YOU MEAN THE CAP ON THE PROCUREMENT AMOUNT? IS IT THE PROCUREMENT AMOUNT OR IS IT THE COST OR JUST, I BELIEVE THERE IS A YEARLY BUDGET SET FOR THE PROCUREMENT AMOUNT. OKAY. AND THERE'S, IS THERE ALSO A CAP ON THE PROCUREMENT AMOUNT? SO IT WORKS INTO AN EFFECTIVE LIKE MEGAWATT CAP TWO? UH, I KNOW THERE'S A CAP ON THE OFFERS. I WOULD NEED TO GO BACK AND SEE IF THERE'S A CAP ON THE AMOUNT OF MEGAWATTS. SO, SO THERE'S A BUDGET AND A CAP ON THE OFFERS? YES. UM, AND IT IS THIS STILL CLEARING AT THE CAP ON THE OFFERS? I NEED TO GO BACK AND SEE WHAT THE CAP WAS THIS SEASON. SO I'M NOT SURE IF WHAT WAS CLEARED WAS AT THE CAP. OKAY. I HAD JUST GOT NOTE THAT IT WAS CLEARED AT THE CAP THIS SEASON. OKAY. AND THAT'S, AND WE PROCURE AS MANY MEGAWATTS AS POSSIBLE BASED ON OUR BUDGETING CAP THAT WAS SET FOR THE SEASON. OKAY. AND SO HAS IT CONSISTENTLY CLEARED AT THE CAP THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THIS PROGRAM PROGRAM? I WILL NEED TO, TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES, BUT, UM, SETTLEMENTS TYPICALLY ISN'T INVOLVED IN THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS. WE'RE JUST INVOLVED AT THE END. SO I, I NEED TO FOLLOW UP. OKAY. BRIAN, BRIAN SANDS, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR QUESTION? UH, HOLD ON. OKAY. I WAS JUST TRYING TO ANSWER ERIC'S QUESTION. COME OFF MUTE. YES, CLEARED AT THE CAP. UM, THE COMMISSION LOWERED THE CAP AND THEN IT CLEARED AT THE LOWERED CAP. OKAY. UM, I, I JUST, I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE CASE. I JUST BROUGHT IT UP JUST IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RECENT DISCUSSIONS ON, YOU KNOW, HOW TO MODIFY THIS PROGRAM. UM, I, UH, I WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S A COM. IT'S COMPETITIVELY PROCURED. THANKS. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MAGGIE? I OKAY. NOT SEEING ANY. THANK YOU MAGGIE. THANK YOU. NEXT UP ON THE AGENDA WE HAVE BU WITH AN RPG PROJECT, UPDATE THE DELAWARE BASIN STAGE FIVE PROJECT. THANK YOU. MARTHA, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, I CAN HEAR YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. YEAH. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS, UH, PR BONO MECO. SO I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE ENCORE DELAWARE BASE IN STAGE FIVE PROJECT FOR RPG REVIEW. UH, THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED BY ENCORE ORIGINALLY IN MAY, 2024, BUT ALSO PRO ALSO SUBMITTED A PROJECT FOR THE DELAWARE BASIN ALTERNATE PROJECT FOR RPG REVIEW IN AUGUST, 2024. SO THIS IS A TIER ONE PROJECT AS PROPOSED BY ENCORE WITH AN INITIAL COST OF $744 MILLION, WHICH WILL REQUIRE CCN AND THE WE PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDED, UH, TIER ONE PROJECT, UH, PORTION OF THE COST IS $305 MILLION. THIS ONLY REPRESENTED THE WE WE PORTION OF THE PROJECT COST. THE PRIMARY DRIVER FOR THE PROJECT IS RELIABILITY ISSUES IN THE FOREST. SEVERAL AREAS. UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU A BACKGROUND, THIS STAGE FIVE PROJECT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2019 DELAWARE BASIN INTEGRATION STUDY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AGAIN, AS THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE TIER ONE PROJECT, UH, THIS EXCEEDS A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. THIS IS CLASSIFIED AS A TIER ONE PROJECT, AND THIS WILL REQUIRE THEIR CARD BOARD ENDORSEMENT AND, UH, UM, AS STATED IN THE PROTOCOL SECTION 3 11 4 0.9, UM, WE ARE PRESENTLY HERE FOR THE TAX, UH, REVIEW ON COMMENTS, ANY COMMENTS FROM TAX SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AGAIN, UH, GOING BACK THE RELIABILITY NEED IS DRIVEN BY THE, UH, ORIGINAL DELAWARE BASIN [05:45:01] LOAD INTEGRATION STUDY, AND WE DID IDENTIFY THE NEED, UH, BASED ON THE 2023 RTP 2025 CASE, AND THE NEED WAS ALSO CONFIRMED IN 2024, UM, RELI PERMIAN BASIN RELIABILITY STUDY, WHICH IDENTIFIED SEVERAL UPGRADES INCLUDING THE DELAWARE BASIN STAGE FIVE PROJECT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO HERE'S THE COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS. UH, AMONG THE OPTIONS STUDIED. UH, THERE'S ARE THE SHORTLIST OPTIONS, THE ENCORE, AND WE OPTIONS THE TABLE COMPARISONS VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT, UH, INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF WAY COMPARISON, LONG-TERM LOAD SERVING, AND THE RELIABILITY ADDRESS NEED BOTH THE ERCOT AND THEIR CRITERIA AND THE PROJECT COST. BASED ON THE OVERALL COMPARISON, UH, ERCOT RECOMMENDS THE ENCORE OPTION AS THE PREFERRED OPTION FOR ADDRESSING THE DELAWARE BASIN STAGE FIVE PROJECT. NEXT, PLEASE. AGAIN, AS PER THE PROTOCOL, UH, THIS REQUIRES NEW RIGHT OF WAY NEW LINES. SO PER PROTOCOL SECTION 3.2 2.1 0.3, UH, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PERFORM AN SSR SCREENING AND, UH, WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY ADVERSE IMPACT SSR IMPACT DUE TO EXISTING OR PLAN GENERATOR RESOURCES CONNECTING AT THE TIME OF THE STUDY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AGAIN, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS TO LOOK AT THE CONGESTION AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. UH, BASED ON THE ANALYSIS, WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS, BASED ON THE CONGESTION STUDY, WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY ADDITIONAL CONGESTION WITH THE PROPOSED ENCORE PROJECT. AND ALSO LOOKING AT FUTURE POTENTIAL GENERATIONS, UH, WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY ISSUES WITH THE ADDITION OF FUTURE GENERATION OR LOAD SCALING, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. THANKS. SO BASED ON THIS, ERCOT RECOMMENDS THE ENCORE OPTION TO ADDRESS THE LABOR ISSUES IN THE FOREST OTHER ZONE. AND THE EXPECTED IN-SERVICE DATE FOR THIS PROJECT IS DECEMBER 20, 29. THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROJECT IS $855.3 MILLION. THAT INCLUDES, UH, THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO HERE'S THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT. SO I'M GOING TO, YOU KNOW, SUMMARIZE THIS BASED ON THE ONE LINE DIAGRAM, WHICH IS UP ON THE NEXT OR THE FOLLOWING SLIDE. CAN WE MOVE THERE PLEASE? UH, NEXT PLEASE. YES. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT IS, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, UH, THERE'S A NEW CLEAR FOLKS STATION. UM, THERE IS A LINE, A 3, 4 5 DOUBLE CIRCUIT LINE FROM CLEAR FORK TO LA MESA AND, UH, LA MESA TO FARADAY. AND ALSO THE, THE, THE CLEAR FORK TO LA MESA PORTION IS ROUGHLY 77 MILES. AND THE LA MESA TO FARADAY IS 38 MILES. UM, AND ALSO THERE IS A LINE, A NEW NEW DOUBLE CIRCUIT LINE, 3 45 KV LINE FROM CLEAR FORK ALL THE WAY TO DRILL HOLE THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 105 MILES. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS ALSO A 1 38 69 KV UPGRADE AT THE WELLS TAP, WHICH IS BEING CONVERTED TO A PIVOT 3 1 1 38 69 KV TAP AND MOVING SOME OF THE MESA TRANSFORMER ON THE LINES TO THE NEW STATION. AND ALSO, UM, ALSO UPGRADING THE LINES FROM LA MESA TO , WHICH IS ABOUT APPROXIMATELY TWO MILES. I THINK THAT'S THE KIND OF HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. I THINK THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY, THE QUEUE WAS CLEAR. ARE THERE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY, SO I THINK WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO ENDORSE THE RPG PROJECT COMBINED DELAWARE BASIN STAGE FIVE PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVE ENCORE OPTION. UM, CAN WE PUT THIS ON THE COMBO VIOLET? THINK THAT'S A YES. RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY, NOW WE ARE ON TO THE REALTIME MARKET PRICE CORRECTION, GENERIC TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINT, INCORRECTLY BEING CONSIDERED INSTEAD. UH, DAVID, [05:50:29] DAVID, DO YOU WANT TO, TO GIVE THE PRESCRIPTION UPDATE? OKAY, LET'S GIVE THIS A MINUTE. AND HELLO? CAN YOU CORRECTLY? YES. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. UM, HELLO EVERYONE. UH, I'M DAVID ZOE. I'M A MEMBER OF THE MARKET VALIDATION TEAM AT ERCOT. AND UMM JUST GONNA BE GIVING A QUICK EXPLAINER ON WHAT HAPPENED THAT LED TO THAT PRICE CORRECTION, UH, FROM MARCH 29TH, AND ALSO SHARE WITH Y'ALL THE RESULTS OF OUR IMPACT ANALYSIS. UM, SO ON MARCH 27TH, THERE WAS A ROUTINE SOFTWARE UPDATE FOR THE ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. AND DURING THIS UPDATE THERE WAS A CONFIGURATION PARAMETER THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY RESET TO ITS DEFAULT VALUE. UH, THIS PARAMETER CONTROLS ALL THE INTERFACE VIOLATIONS FOR CONTINGENCY ANALYSIS, AND ITS EXPECTED BEHAVIOR IS TO PREVENT POST CONTINGENCY INTERFACE VIOLATIONS FROM BEING SENT OVER TO THE OPERATOR FOR CONSIDERATION IN SCED. UM, SINCE THESE INTERFACES SHOULD ONLY BE MONITORED FOR BASE CASE CONDITIONS, BUT WHEN IT WAS RESET TO ITS DEFAULT VALUE, THIS IS NO LONGER THE CASE. THIS ISSUE ENDED UP IMPACTING INTERVALS ON BOTH MARCH 28TH AND MARCH 29TH. UM, AND THEN DURING THIS TIME, THERE'S SOME CONDITIONS WERE SUCH THAT A POST CONTINGENCY OVERLOAD ON A SOUTH TEXAS IMPORT GTC WAS ACTIVATED, WHICH CONSEQUENTLY IMPACTED ITS SCED. SO DURING THESE TWO, UH, OPERATING DAYS, THERE WERE MULTIPLE INTERVALS ALSO WERE THE CONSTRAINT REACHED ITS MAX SHADOW PRICE OF, UH, $5,251. WE WERE ABLE TO CORRECT PRICES FOR THE 28TH WITHIN THE TWO BUSINESS DAY DEADLINE, BUT NOT THE 29TH. AND, UM, IN EARLY APRIL, WE ISSUED A MARKET NOTICE IN FORMING THE MARKET OF THE ISSUE. AND THEN EARLIER THIS MONTH, UH, WE ISSUED A FOLLOW-UP NOTICE WHERE WE GAVE THE RESULTS OF OUR IMPACT ANALYSIS AND, UM, AND WE AFFIRMED OUR INTENT TO SEEK BOARD REVIEW. NEXT SLIDE. SO, UM, AS OUTLINED BY THE PROTOCOLS, WE DETERMINED THE ABSOLUTE VALUE IMPACT TO SINGLE COUNTERPARTIES, AND WE SAW 12 COUNTERPARTIES THAT MET THE CRITERIA OF A 2% IMPACT THAT WAS ALSO GREATER THAN $20,000. AND WE ALSO SAW 12 COUNTERPARTIES THAT MET THE CRITERIA OF A 20% IMPACT THAT WAS ALSO GREATER THAN $2,000. NEXT SLIDE. UH, WE ALSO DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUE IMPACTS TO COUNTERPARTIES. UM, THE MAXIMUM DOLLAR IMPACT THAT WE OBSERVED WAS JUST SHY OF A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. UM, THE MAX PERCENTAGE CHANGE WE SAW AT THAT $20,000 THRESHOLD WAS 49%, AND THE MAX PERCENTAGE CHANGE WE SAW AT THE $2,000 THRESHOLD WAS 98%. UH, WE ALSO DETERMINED THE NET CHANGE IN STATEMENT CHARGES TO BE ABOUT NEGATIVE $80,000, WHICH AMOUNTED TO ABOUT A 0.4% CHANGE FROM THE ORIGINAL CHARGES. NEXT SLIDE. AND, UM, WITH OUR ANALYSIS COMPLETE, UM, THE NEXT STEP FOR US WOULD BE TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD TO CORRECT THESE PRICES, UM, WHICH WILL BE AT THEIR UPCOMING MEETING IN JUNE. THANK YOU. OKAY, ERIC, GO. UM, HAVE, HAVE WE HAD INCREASE IN THE FREQUENCY OF PRICE CORRECTIONS IN THE LAST FEW YEARS OR IS IT JUST DUE TO LIKE, UH, DIFFERENT PROCESSES TO CATCH THEM? OR, OR IS IT JUST, IS IT THE SAME FREQUENCY THAT WE'VE HAD FOR A LONG TIME AND, AND YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, DAVID. I'M NOT SURE. UM, HEY, HEY, GORDON, I DON'T THINK I CAN, YEAH, WE COULD, I COULD THROW THAT QUESTION OVER TO MAYBE GORD OR, OR MATT YOUNG IF HE'S IN THE CALL, UM, REGARDING THE, ANY CHANGE IN FREQUENCY. YEAH, THIS IS, UH, THIS IS MATT YOUNG. UM, THERE HASN'T REALLY BEEN AN INCREASE IN, IN FREQUENCY FOR PRICE CORRECTIONS. THERE HAS MAYBE BEEN AN INCREASE IN PRICE CORRECTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD, [05:55:01] UH, JUST KIND OF DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF SOME OF THESE PRICE CORRECTIONS THAT HAVE SHOWN UP IN THE LAST YEAR. AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO MEET THAT TWO BUSINESS DAY DEADLINE. OKAY. SO IT POTENTIALLY IN THE PAST, UH, THE, UH, THEY WERE CAUGHT BEFORE THE TWO DAY DEADLINE BECAUSE IT, IT, IT JUST FEELS LIKE THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASE. UM, BUT, BUT MAYBE THAT'S NOT THE CASE. YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THAT'S CORRECT. UH, IT IS NOT SO MUCH THAT THEY'RE, UH, THEY'RE NOT, I MEAN, THEY'RE OFTENTIMES CAUGHT BEFORE THE TWO DAY DEADLINE. IT'S JUST THE COMPLEXITY DOESN'T ALLOW US TIME TO, UH, TO FINISH THE PRICE CORRECTION. OKAY. YEAH, I GUESS THE, THE REASON I'M ASKING IS, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, ASSIGN FAULT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I JUST WONDER IF, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THERE IS AN INCREASE, DO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF ADDITIONAL CONTROLS OR, OR ANYTHING ADDITIONAL IN ORDER TO REDUCE THIS HAPPENING? I KNOW IT'S A COMPLEX SYSTEM AND THINGS WILL GO WRONG AND COMPLEX SYSTEMS. I'M, I'M, I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING DID ANYTHING WRONG. MAYBE I CAN WEIGH IN, UH, AND, AND JUMP OUT OF THE QUEUE IF THAT'S ALRIGHT. GO AHEAD. I, I THINK THE, THE POINT IS WELL, WELL TAKEN, UH, BUT WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT THOUGH THERE, THERE IS AN INCREASING COMPLEXITY IN SOME OF THESE ISSUES, WHAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN IS REPEATED ISSUES. OKAY. AND SO WE DON'T SEE THE SAME ISSUES COMING UP AGAIN. UM, WE'RE, UH, WE'RE FINDING NEW ISSUES AS OPPOSED TO REPEATING OLD ONES. UM, AND TO MATT'S POINT ABOUT THE COMPLEXITY, IT'S, IT'S NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE FOR US TO, TO GET THAT COMPLETED BY THE, THE TWO DAY DEADLINE. UM, AND I THINK ONE CONVERSATION THAT IS PROBABLY WORTH HAVING WHEN WE'RE KIND OF CLEAR OF THE, UM, ALL OF THE TIME PRESSURES ON, ON ERCOT STAFF THAT, UH, THAT KEITH TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IS WHETHER WE HAVE, UH, THE, THE RIGHT THRESHOLDS FOR WHAT ULTIMATELY ENDS UP BEING BROUGHT TO THE BOARD. UM, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING FROM A, FROM A QUALITY PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE MAKING, WE'VE, WE'VE MADE CHANGES, UH, TO, UH, IN THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR TO THE CHECKLIST FOR THE, THE ROUTINE DEPLOYMENTS TO CHECK ON THE, THE, THIS PARAMETER FLAG. WHEN WE IDENTIFY NEW ISSUES THAT, THAT GENERATE PRICE CORRECTIONS, WE'RE ADDRESSING THOSE AT, AT THE ROOT. SO WE'RE, WE'RE TACKLING IT THROUGH BOTH, UH, UH, FROM A QUALITY PERSPECTIVE AND BEING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT CONTROLS, UM, BUT ALSO, UH, MAY MERIT THINKING ABOUT DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT, UH, SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA FOR WHAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE BOARD. UM, THAT'S A, A SEPARATE CONVERSATION AND ONE THAT WE MAY COME TO WHEN WE HAVE, WHEN WE, WHEN WE HAVE MORE TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE FOCUSING THE BOARD'S ATTENTION ON THOSE, UH, PRICE CORRECTIONS THAT ARE THE MOST MATERIAL. UH, THANKS. THAT ALL MAKES SENSE. I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD QUESTION AND THAT WAS HELPFUL. UM, MATT AND GORDON, YOU KNOW, I I WILL SAY THE NUMBER ONE QUESTION I GET FROM THE BOARD AND FROM JUST PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY WHEN THEY FIND OUT I SHARE TECH IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PRICE CORRECTIONS? I THINK IT SEEMS TO BE MORE, UM, SO MAYBE AT, AT WHATEVER CORRECT POINT IN TIME THAT IS, MAYBE WE COULD GET SOME DATA FROM ERCOT ON EXACTLY WHAT YOU LAID OUT. HOW, HOW MANY THERE HAVE BEEN, HOW MANY RISE TO THE, THE LEVEL OF GOING TO THE BOARD BECAUSE OF WHAT REASON. SO I, AND, AND THEN THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU SUGGESTED, SHOULD WE HAVE DIFFERENT THRESHOLDS OR LONGER TIME PERIODS? I THINK SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HAVE AT THE TECH LEVEL AND THEN THE BOARD COULD LOOK AT IT IF THEY WANTED TO, RIGHT? WHAT, WHAT DO WE PRICE CORRECT FOR? WHAT ARE THE THRESHOLDS AROUND IT? WHY ARE YOU SEEING THESE AND, AND SORT OF THAT, THAT DATA AROUND THE, THE NUMBER AND WHY AND SOME PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? AND, AND I, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT THAT NOW IS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO DO THAT, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD MAYBE DO IN THE FUTURE IF, IF IT'S HELPFUL IN, IN THE INTERIM BEFORE WE DO GET TO A, A BROADER DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, WE DO PR PROVIDE IN OUR BOARD REPORTING, UH, IN THE APPENDIX OF THE COMMERCIAL MARKETS, UPDATE A, A CHART OF THE PRICE CORRECTIONS, INCLUDING THOSE THAT, UH, DID AND DID NOT MEET CRITERIA TO BRING TO THE BOARD. UM, AND SO IF THAT'S A HELPFUL DATA POINT THAT WE CAN POINT FOLKS TO, UH, AT LEAST IT'S A REFERENCE AND, AND PERHAPS IN SUPPORT OF A LATER CONVERSATION, I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT, THAT WE DO HAVE SOME OF THAT DATA AVAILABLE AND, AND ARE PUBLISHING IT AND UPDATING IT ON A REGULAR BASIS. OKAY. OKAY. I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN FOLLOW UP, UM, ABSOLUTELY WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. THANKS, GABE. [06:00:01] THANK YOU. OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL [14. Other Business (Part 2 of 2)] RIGHT. COREY IS EAGER TO LEAVE, I THINK. DID WE, WE STILL HAVE THE BOARD STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT UPDATE OR DID WE DO THIS ALREADY? REBECCA, ARE YOU ON? I, IS STILL BE AT, UH, THE COMMISSION, BUT I THINK THE ONLY UPDATE HERE, THIS IS ANN, IS THAT, UM, TECH LEADERSHIP DID SELECT THE PRESENTERS FOR THE CYCLE. UM, AND THEY'RE GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND I THINK, UM, THERE'S ABOUT AN HOUR ALLOCATED ON THE BOARD AGENDA, UM, FOR THE THREE DIFFERENT SEGMENTS. OKAY. OKAY. UM, YOU KNOW, I'LL JUST ADD, WE, WE HAD SHARED THE THOUGHT ABOUT THE THREE DIFFERENT SEGMENTS AT, AT TAREK AND THEN WORKED WITH THOSE SEGMENTS SO IT WASN'T JUST KIND OF US PICKING, UM, BUT I, I THINK IT'LL BE A GOOD RESULT. WE HAVE SEVERAL PRESENTERS. UM, THE, THE PRESENTERS ARE SHOWN ON THE SLIDE AND THEN THE POLICY PROMPTS BELOW AND THIS WILL BE AT THE JUNE BOARD. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? AND THEN I THINK WE WILL START GETTING READY FOR SEPTEMBER BOARD. AND THE TOPIC IS RTC, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT CAITLYN. OKAY. AND STARTING DISCUSSION ON THAT AT JULY TECH, WE'LL GIVE US ENOUGH TIME. I BELIEVE SO, YEAH, WE'LL START TALKING ABOUT IT AT JULY TECH. OKAY. ALRIGHT. OKAY. ACTION ITEMS LIST REVIEW. MARTHA, ARE YOU READY FOR THIS? YEAH, THERE'S JUST ONE QUICK ONE FOR TODAY. IT'S NUMBER 10 ON THE LIST. UM, IN THE WMS UPDATE, YOU KNOW, BLAKE, UH, RECOMMENDED REMOVING THE A DER ITEM THAT'S ON THE WMS ACTION ITEM LIST, WHICH, UM, HE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESISTANCE TO. SO I PROPOSE WE DO THE SAME CHANGE ON THE TAC ACTION ITEM LIST. UM, THERE PROBABLY WILL BE FUTURE CHANGES TO THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT, BUT IT'S NOT REAL CLEAR WHEN THOSE WILL BE, UM, PAST THE CYCLE. AND SO I'M NOT SURE IT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THAT JUST LINGERS ON HERE FOR ETERNITY. SO I SUGGEST WE LET BLAKE REMOVE IT FROM HIS LIST AND THEN WE REMOVE IT FROM OURS AS WELL, KNOWING THAT THE NECK, UH, GOVERNING DOCUMENT CHANGE REVISION THAT INITIATED WOULD, WOULD BE HANDLED BY WMS. ANY CONCERNS WITH DELETION? ALL RIGHT, KAITLYN, BACK TO YOU. HEY, [15. Combo Ballot (Vote)] I THINK WE ARE FINALLY AT THE COMBO BALLOT. CAN WE GET A MOTION AND A SECOND ON, UH, KAYLIN? SURE. JUMP IN ONE A AFTER FRED'S DISCUSSION ABOUT THE M-D-R-P-O-C METHODOLOGY THAT DOESN'T OFFICIALLY REQUIRE ATTACK ENDORSEMENT. AND I KNOW FOLKS COMMENTED ON POTENTIALLY FILING COMMENT TO THE NPRR, I THINK IT'S 1287 TO ADD, YOU KNOW, MORE BELLS AND WHISTLES ON IT. BUT IN TERMS OF, DOES TAC WISH TO PROVIDE ANY TECHNICAL ADVICE TO THE JUNE BOARD SIMILAR TO THE DISCUSSION ON THE A DR DOCUMENT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON IT, BUT IT, IT HELPS IN TERMS OF ADVISING? I WASN'T SURE AT THE END OF FRED'S PRESENTATION WHERE ANYBODY LANDED IN TERMS OF, ARE Y'ALL OKAY WITH GIVING A THUMBS UP TO THE JUNE BOARD OR WOULD YOU RATHER JUST STAY SILENT ON IT OR HAVE A SEPARATE BALLOT? OKAY, SO THE FOLKS COULD VOTE DIFFERENTLY OR I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I'M RECORDING Y'ALL WISHES PROPERLY. SURE. OKAY. SO, UM, SO YES, WE CAN VOTE TO ENDORSE, WE DO NOT ASK YOU, UM, WE COULD ALSO VOTE TO ENDORSE AND TAKE IT AS A SEPARATE BALLOT AS, AS COREY NOTED. SO, SO YES, SORT OF LIKE A DR, UM, YOU KNOW, THE ANSWER SERVICE METHODOLOGY, THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, WE, WE DON'T HAVE TO, I SEE BLAKE'S NOTE THERE. UM, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL LET HIM SPEAK AS WELL, BUT I, I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, IF WE'D LIKE OUR OPINION TO BE KNOWN HERE, EVEN THROUGH A SEPARATE BALLOT, THE THE BOARD WILL TAKE THIS UP IN JUNE. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD BLAKE. YEAH, BLAKE COLE, LCRA. NOTHING, UH, SUBSTANTIAL. MORE TO ADD THAN, THAN MY COMMENT THERE. I, I WOULD [06:05:01] JUST LIKE SOME MORE TIME TO REVIEW THIS INTERNALLY, SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH VOTING ON IT TODAY. UM, YOU KNOW, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO, TO TAKE THE VOTE TO ENDORSE, BUT TO TAKE IT AS A SEPARATE BALLOT AND IF THERE ARE NO, OR ABSTENTION DUE TO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TIME OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE JUST RECORD THOSE LIKE ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THE BOARD WILL BE REVIEWING IT IN JUNE. OF COURSE. I THINK WE COULD NOTE IN OUR, OUR PRESENTATION IF WE DON'T VOTE THAT WE DIDN'T VOTE BECAUSE OF THE CONDENSED TIME. UM, BUT I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO TAKE THE VOTE TO INDICATE WHERE WE ARE, BUT DO A SEPARATE BALLOT. BUT I'M, I'M OPEN TO, TO WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE THINKS. I'M FINE WITH THAT, THAT APPROACH. THANKS. OKAY. WOULD THERE BE A, A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DO THAT? I GUESS SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO MOTION AND SECOND TO ENDORSE, UH, THAT, COREY, YOU DELETED IT, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MOTION IN THE THICKEN IS ANYMORE. YEP. I DELETED IT FROM THE COMBO BALLOT BECAUSE I'M RECREATING IT ON ITS OWN STANDALONE BALLOT FOR SOMEONE TO HOPEFULLY MAKE THAT MOTION. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE THIS MOTION OR DID I SHOULD KIND OF SCREW THIS UP. OKAY. JOSE, MOTION TO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO ENDORSE THE THIRD, SECOND CHRIS HENDRICKS. OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD CORY. ALRIGHT THEN ON THIS MOTION TO ENDORSE THE METHODOLOGY, WE'LL START OFF WITH THE CONSUMERS. WITH ERIC? YES. THANK YOU. NAVA? YES. THANK YOU GARRETT. YES, SIR. AND THEN GARRETT FOR ERIC? YES SIR. THANKS SIR. MARK DREYFUS? YES AND YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU ONTO THE CO-OP BLAKE ABSTAIN. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. JOHN TUCKER? YES. THANK YOU. KYLE, YOU STILL WITH US? HOW ABOUT JOE DAN FOR MIKE? YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. I TELL BOB STILL WITH US. HOW ABOUT KAITLIN? SUSTAIN? OKAY, THANK YOU RYAN. SAM, ABSTAIN. THANK YOU NED. THANK YOU COREY. I'M SORRY NED, I DIDN'T CATCH THAT ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. UNDER THE ITM, SETH. I'M SORRY, SETH. I'LL I'LL LOG OUT WITH THE THANKS. I DIDN'T CATCH THE, SORRY. SORRY, COREY. ABSTAIN. ABSTAIN. GOTCHA. READ ME ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU JEREMY. I'LL FOLLOW THE TREND AND ABSTAIN. THANKS. OKAY, THANK YOU IAN. ONTO OUR I BILL ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. JENNIFER ABSTAIN. OKAY, THANK YOU. CHRIS? YES, THANK YOU. AND THEN CHRISTOPHER J ABSTAIN. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. AND I IOU DAVID? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, RICHARD. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MARTHA? YES, THANK YOU ROB FOR KEITH? YES, THANK YOU. MUNI? [06:10:05] YES. THANK YOU DIANA FOR DAVID? YES, THANK YOU. ALICIA? YES, THANK YOU. AND CURTIS FOR RUFFLE? YES, THANK YOU. OKAY, A MOTION CARRIES UNOPPOSED WITH TENANT EXTENS. THANK Y'ALL FOR THAT. THANK YOU COREY. ERIC GOFF, I, I DON'T WANNA BELABOR THIS, BUT UM, THAT WAS A LARGE NUMBER OF ABSTENTIONS AND YOU KNOW, OUR YES WAS AS CLOSE TO AN ABSTENTION AS POSSIBLE JUST BECAUSE THIS IS AN ONGOING CONVERSATION. UM, I GUESS HOW WILL THAT BE DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD? I DON'T, YOU NORMALLY REPORT A BUNCH OF NOS AND WHY THERE ARE NOS, BUT, UM, IT, IT MIGHT JUST BE WORTH EXPLAINING THE ABSTENTIONS TO PEOPLE AND, AND MAYBE GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THAT SINCE THIS IS AN ONGOING CONVERSATION. WE, WE DO, WE DO DISCUSS THE ABSTENTION. OKAY, GREAT. AND MAYBE MAKE, MAKE SURE I'M NOT BEING CRAZY, BUT I, I BELIEVE WE DO ASK FOR THE REASONS FOR ABSTENTION TO DISCUSS THOSE AS WELL. UM, TYPICALLY ON NPRS, WE DON'T ASK FOR ABSTENTIONS. OH, I THOUGHT WE DID . NO, WE USUALLY ONLY ASK FOR THE NO VOTES, BUT MAYBE FOR THIS ONE BECAUSE OF THE QUANTITY ABSTENTIONS, WE MIGHT ASK. YEAH, I, I KNOW THE GENERATORS HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME PRETTY STRONG OPINIONS ON THIS TOPIC AND, UH, I, I KNOW MANY OF THE CONSUMERS ARE SHARE THEIR CONCERNS. AND, UM, AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD EARLIER IN THE CONVERSATION, THERE'S BEEN SOME PROGRESS ON THIS CONVERSATION ON THIS TOPIC, SO JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO PUT IT IN CONTEXT FOR THE BOARD. AND WHAT WE CAN DO, KAITLYN, IS SINCE WE'RE SENDING OUT AN EMAIL FOR THE NPRS FOR THE NO VOTES, WE CAN SEND A SOMEWHERE OUT, ONE OUT FOR THIS ONE, JUST ASK PEOPLE IF THEY WANNA PROVIDE A REASON FOR ABSTAINING. YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT. UM, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, AS, AS THE BALLOTS, DO WE NOTE THE ABSTENTION WHEN WE WE DO, WE TALK ABOUT THE NOSE. UM, AND SO I THINK EITHER WE COULD NOTE THAT THERE WERE 10 ABSTENTIONS AND CAPTURE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD, OR WE COULD ASK THE AB ABSTAINERS. I, I THINK EITHER WAY GETS YOU TO THE SAME POINT. I THINK IT, BECAUSE I THINK THIS WOULD JUST BE, YOU KNOW, IN TECH MEETING HIGHLIGHTS, NOT A REVISION REQUEST. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'D, WE'D NOTE THE VOTE OUTCOME AND, AND COULD NOTE THE DISCUSSION. YEAH, I THINK IF YOU JUST DESCRIBED THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN FRED AND BILL, THAT WOULD BE GOOD AND MAYBE THAT THAT'S ENOUGH. OKAY. OKAY. ANN AND I WILL CALL BILL. SO WE, WE, NO, OR, OR WE CAN JUST ASK THE, THE 10 PEOPLE FOR A REASON. AND A LOT OF TIMES WHAT HAPPENS IS, AS, AS YOU KNOW, ERIC, ONE PERSON ANSWERED AND EVERYBODY ELSE SAYS WHAT THEY SAID. SO MAYBE BILL WILL DO US A FAVOR AND ANSWER FIRST. ALRIGHT? RIGHT. ANY, ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. APPRECIATE, UM, THE, THE SEPARATE BALLOT THERE. ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE CAN MOVE TO THE COMBO BALLOT. IT'S STILL AROUND THERE, LENGTHY. UM, THE, THE ITEMS ARE ON THE SCREEN. I GUESS WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MOTION AND A SECOND MOTION FROM BLAKE, SECOND FROM JOSE. ALL RIGHT, COREY, I THINK WE'RE READY WHEN YOU ARE. ALL RIGHTY. ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMBO BALLOT, WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS. WITH ERIC? YES. THANK YOU. NAVA? YES. THANK YOU GARRETT. YES SIR. THANKS SIR. AND THEN GARRETT FOR ERIC? YES SIR. THANKS SIR. MARK DREYFUS, UH, YES, BOTH TIMES. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU BOTH TIMES ONTO THE CO-OPS, BLAKE. [06:15:01] YES, THANK YOU, JOHN. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU KYLE. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JOE, DAN FOR MIKE? YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU SIR. ONTO THE INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. BOB HILTON. I CALIN. YES. THANK YOU. BRIAN. YES, THANK YOU, NED. YES, THANK YOU COREY. THANKS SIR. ONTO THE IPM BETH. YES. THANK YOU. REMI MAY HAVE . UH, JEREMY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IRE STILL BARN. YES. YES. THANK YOU. JENNIFER. YES, THANK YOU CHRIS? YES. AND YES. AND THEN CHRIS FOR J? YES. THANK YOU. ONTO THE IOUS. DAVID? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU RICHARD. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MARTHA. I VOTE YES. THANK YOU ROB. FOR KEITH? YES, THANK YOU. AND THE MUNIS JOSE? YES SIR. THANK YOU. THANKS. THANK YOU SIR. DIANA FOR DAVID? YES. THANK YOU. ALICIA? YES, THANK YOU. AND THEN CURTIS ? YES. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES UNANIM PLEA. GREAT. OKAY, THANK YOU COREY. THANK YOU TO, UM, EVERYBODY FOR MAKING TIME FOR THIS TODAY. I GUESS EXCEPT FOR IAN. UM, IT WAS ONE MEETING WE ARE NOT MEETING IN. WE DON'T HAVE A REGULAR MEETING IN JUNE. WE DID ADD THAT SPECIAL WEBEX MEETING. I BELIEVE IT WILL BE SHORT ON 1238. YOU'LL GET A NOTICE FROM IAN. AND THEN WE HAVE A FULL MEETING IN JULY. THERE'S NO OTHER THOUGHTS OR OTHER BUSINESS WE CAN ADJOURN. * 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.