* 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.
          [00:00:03]
          ALL 
          [*A portion of this meeting is missing content during Item 14*]
RIGHT. 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          THIS IS SUSIE CLIFTON FROM ERCOT. 
          BEFORE WE GET STARTED WITH TODAY'S TAC MEETING, I'M VERY QUICKLY GOING TO RUN THROUGH THE MEETING ROOM REMINDERS. 
          UM, IF YOU'RE SITTING HERE IN THE ROOM, YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS TO GET INTO THE CA UH, CHAT TO QUEUE FOR MOTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS. 
          YOU CAN EITHER HOLD YOUR CARD UP AND JORDAN'S IN THE RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE ROOM AND HE'LL ENTER YOU INTO THE CHAT, OR YOU CAN ENTER YOURSELF DIRECTLY IF YOU ARE LOGGED IN TODAY. 
          OF COURSE, THOSE OF YOU ON THE WEBEX WILL BE, UH, ENTERING YOURSELF IN THE CHAT AS WE APPROACH THE VOTING PROCESS AND BALLOTING. 
          IF YOU ARE A SEATED REPRESENTATIVE, PLEASE MAKE SURE IF TO UNMUTE YOURSELF AND THEN RETURN TO THE MUTE FUNCTION AFTER YOU CAST YOUR VOTE. 
          THAT'LL HELP US BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENT WITH THAT BALLOTING PROCESS. 
          IF YOU'RE HERE IN PERSON TODAY, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO SIGN IN IN THE SIGN IN SHEET OUTSIDE THE MEETING ROOM, AND IF THE WEBEX ENDS FOR ANY REASON, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND RESTART THE MEETING WITH THE SAME WEBEX DETAILS. 
          UH, IF ANYTHING CHANGES, WE'LL SEND THAT TO THE T LIST SERVE. 
          AND CAITLIN, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM THIS MORNING AND ARE READY TO BEGIN WHEN YOU ARE. 
          SORRY, I'M DOING MY VALIDATION, WHICH CAN WAIT, BUT I HAD COPIED AND SO I HAD TO HIT PASTE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, GOOD MORNING. 
          ON THE 
          [1. Antitrust Admonition]
SCREEN IS THE ANTITRUST ADMONITION. 
          TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT ANTITRUST LIABILITY, PARTICIPANTS IN NARCOTIC ACTIVITIES SHOULD REFRAIN FROM PROPOSING ANY ACTION OR MEASURE THAT WOULD EXCEED OR CAUSES AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. 
          AND THERE IS MORE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE. 
          IT IS AUGUST 27TH. 
          WE ARE IN PERSON. 
          UM, FIRST FOR ALT REPS AND PROXIES IN THE COOPERATIVE SEGMENT. 
          BLAKE HOLT HAS ALT REP TREVOR SAFCO, UM, IN THE INVESTOR U OWNED UTILITY SEGMENT, KEITH NICKS WITH, UH, TNMP HAS ALT REP ROB BEVEL AND DAVID MERCADO WITH CENTERPOINT HAS ALT REP, EBY, JOHN, AND THE MUNICIPAL SEGMENT, UH, JOSE WITH DENTON HAS ALT REP ANDREW KIEFER. 
          DID I MISS ANY? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          UM, WE HAVE A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS. 
          UH, WE, WE HAVE SEVERAL AGENDA ORDER CHANGES, UM, DUE TO SCHEDULING. 
          SO WE WILL TAKE UP THE LLWG REPORT AND THE, THE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STATUS UPDATE AFTER PRS. 
          UM, WE WILL HAVE LUNCH PROBABLY AROUND 1230. 
          WE ARE TRYING SOMETHING NEW, UM, DELIVERIES FROM LUNG LUNCH DROP E ERIC HAS QR CODES. 
          I GUESS I HAVE ONE ON MY DESK BUT DON'T, LIKE, DON'T COME TAKE IT FROM ME. 
          UM, BUT HE PASSED THEM OUT AND YOU NEED TO ORDER LUNCH BY 10. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ORDER LUNCH BY 10, PLEASE. 
          WE WILL, I THINK IT WILL BE DELIVERED BETWEEN 12 AND 1230. 
          SO WE WILL LOOK TO TAKE LUNCH AROUND 1230 WHEN WE RETURN FROM LUNCH. 
          WE WILL FIRST DO, UM, THE PC UPDATE ON ANCILLARY SERVICE COST ALLOCATION STUDY AND THEN THE SEPTEMBER BOARD STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT UPDATE. 
          AND THEN WE WILL START SORT OF OUR MAIN EVENT AFTER LUNCH. 
          THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY, UM, PROBABLY AROUND ONE 15. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THE THEME OF THE MONTH IS EFFICIENCY AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING A MEETING UNTIL 4:00 PM   OR, OR EARLIER. 
          DON'T LOOK AT ME LIKE THAT, BRIAN. 
          UM, IT DEPENDS ON HOW LONG THE ANCILLARY SERVICE, UH, METHODOLOGY CONVERSATION TAKES, I THINK. 
          BUT WE ARE PREPARED TO GO FOR A FEW HOURS AFTER LUNCH AND KEITH HAS HEALTHY SNACKS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, 
          [2. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)]
SO WE WILL START WITH THE MEETING MINUTES. 
          UM, WE, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY SUGGESTED EDITS OR CORRECTIONS. 
          SO WE ARE LOOKING TO APPROVE THE JULY 30TH MEETING MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? DOES ANYONE HAVE COMMENTS? UM, OR CAN WE PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY. 
          THE PUC 
          [3. Meeting Updates]
OPEN MEETINGS, UM, OR THE MEETING UPDATES. 
          THIS IS WHERE WE JUST GO OVER THE, THE MEETINGS WE'VE HAD SINCE TAC THE BOARD MEETINGS ARE OPEN MEETINGS. 
          THEY DID HAVE, UH, A COUPLE OPEN MEETINGS, BUT AT THE JULY 31ST OPEN MEETING, THEY APPROVED EVERY, ALL THE REVISION REQUESTS FROM THE JUNE BOARD. 
          SO NOW 
          [4. Biennial TAC/TAC Subcommittee Structural and Procedural Review Update]
WE ARE TO 
          [00:05:01]
THE BIENNIAL TECH AND TECH SUBCOMMITTEE, STRUCTURAL AND REVIEW, STRUCTURAL AND PROCEDURAL REVIEW UPDATE. 
          SO ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, WE HELD OUR BIENNIAL, UM, REVIEW. 
          WE USED TO DO THIS EVERY YEAR. 
          WE ARE NOW DOING IT EVERY OTHER YEAR, WHICH I THINK, YOU KNOW, HAD THE INTENDED EFFECT OF, OF BEING A LITTLE BIT MORE PRODUCTIVE. 
          UM, THANK YOU TO ALL THE SUBCOMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS FOR PARTICIPATING. 
          UM, AND, AND I KNOW IT WAS A LOT OF WORK AND THEY PROVIDED A LOT OF INFORMATION. 
          ALL OF THOSE MATERIALS ARE POSTED TO THIS MEETING SITE. 
          UM, AND I, I THINK I WOULD CALL YOUR ATTENTION, THERE IS ONE VERY GOOD CHART THAT SU AND ANN OR SOMEBODY PUT TOGETHER WITH, WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT KIND, HOW, HOW OFTEN MEETINGS MET, HOW, HOW LONG THEY TOOK, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE THERE. 
          UM, AND I, I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL IF PEOPLE WANNA TAKE A LOOK AT IT. 
          WE HAD, UH, SEVERAL SUBSTANTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS COMING OUT OF THAT REVIEW. 
          UM, UNDER RMS, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO, I THINK ESSENTIALLY CONSOLIDATE PWG WITH TEXAS SET. 
          UM, ANOTHER SUGGESTION FROM WMS WAS TO ME, MOVE THE METERING WORKING GROUP FROM WMS TO ROSS. 
          AND THEN ALSO UNDER WMS, THERE WAS A SUGGESTION TO SUNSET BOTH, UH, RCWG AND THE MARKET SETTLEMENTS WORKING GROUP AND HAVE THOSE KIND OF SUBSTANTIVE TOPIC MATERIALS GO TO WHOLESALE MARKET WORKING GROUP INSTEAD. 
          AND DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE NEXT STEPS FOR THOSE? YEAH, WE DO HAVE SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW TO DO THAT. 
          UM, WE DID LOOK THROUGH PROTOCOLS, GUIDES, PROCEDURES, AND THERE ARE SOME REFERENCES TO, UM, SPECIFICALLY PWG AND TEXAS SET AND THOSE DOCUMENTS. 
          SO THOSE WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGED AS WELL. 
          BUT WE CAN WORK WITH EACH OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS AND LET YOU KNOW, UM, WHAT ORDER WE NEED TO DO ALL OF THAT IN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THOSE WILL NEXT BE TAKEN UP JUST AT THOSE SUBCOMMITTEES THEN. 
          SO AT, UM, RMS NETWORK, AT WMS, I THINK THOSE DISCUSSIONS WILL START, UM, KAYTON, SORRY. 
          YEP. 
          STARTING EARLY. 
          UM,  IS, UH, DOES TECH NEED TO TAKE ACTION? SHOULD TECH DIRECT THE SUBCOMMITTEES TO EFFECTUATE THAT? I DON'T, I THINK WE WILL HAVE TO APPROVE THOSE CHANGES AFTERWARDS. 
          I DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE TO DIRECT THEM TO WE, WE CAN IF WE WANT TO. 
          WE'RE SITTING IN A GROUP OF VERY HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND INTELLIGENT AND ENGAGED INDIVIDUALS. 
          AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAD AN OPINION, YOU KNOW, THAT HAD AN OPINION COULD EXPRESS IT. 
          AND THIS MIC IS REALLY, REALLY LOUD. 
          THAT'S FINE WITH ME. 
          I THINK, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE THE SUBCOMMITTEES KNOW BETTER THAN I DO. 
          LIKE I RAISED, I THINK WHAT BECAME A SORT OF SILLY QUESTION ABOUT IS WHOLESALE MARKET WORKING GROUP THE RIGHT PLACE FOR MARKET SETTLEMENT WORKING GROUP? AND I, I DIDN'T GET A LOT OF RESPONSE, BUT I, I THINK I WOULD DEFER TO WMS ON WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY THINK. 
          SO I'M HAPPY TO TAKE DISCUSSION AND, AND IF WE HAVE DIRECTION TO THOSE, THOSE GROUPS. 
          BUT I THINK SOME OF THAT CAME OUT OF THE WORKSHOP TOO THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IT, THEY HAD CONSENSUS TO, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE CHANGES. 
          BILL, IN TERMS OF LEVERAGING OUR EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE, UM, AND I DEFER TO THE, OBVIOUSLY THE WORKING GROUPS, BUT JUST THINKING OF THE COMBINATION OF THE PROFILING WORKING GROUP IN TEXAS SET, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY HERE TO CREATE THE PET WORKING GROUP  OR THE PEST PEST IS BETTER. 
          AND SO I WOULD JUST OFFER THAT TO THOSE THAT ARE CONSIDERING WHAT THE COMBINED GROUP MAY BE CALLED. 
          THAT IS MY CONTRIBUTION AND MY EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE. 
          IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE THINKING, BETH , THAT KIND OF DIRECTION? NO, I'M, I'M NOT NEARLY THAT CREATIVE. 
          UM, I WILL, I WILL SAY CAITLIN, THAT RMS HAS, UM, WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS DURING MY PRESENTATION, BUT THE RETAIL MARKET SUBCOMMITTEE LEADERSHIP, WE'VE DEVELOPED A TEAM AND, UM, REALLY THEY'RE VERY INVOLVED IN WORKING REALLY HARD. 
          HOWEVER, BOTH GROUPS ALREADY HAVE A LOT ON THEIR PLATE. 
          AND SO I'VE TOLD THEM, WE'LL WORK WITH YOU, JOHN AND I WORK WITH YOU IN YOUR DIRECTION, BUT YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO FINISH THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE GOT IN PROGRESS RIGHT NOW. 
          SO THEY'VE HAD SOME JOINT MEETINGS, BUT, BUT NOT A GREAT DEAL. 
          BUT WE DID HAVE A LOT THAT CAME OUT OF THE MEETING ON AUGUST 12TH THAT REALLY HELPED US. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I THINK MAYBE IT WOULD BE MOST IMPORTANT TO ME FOLLOWING UP ON BEST QUESTION IF, IF SOMEBODY OBJECTED TO MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT, BUT I THINK OTHERWISE WE CAN LEAVE IT WITH THE 
          [00:10:01]
SUBCOMMITTEES. 
          BUT I, I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO KNOW OBJECTIONS NOW THAN TO HAVE THOSE GUIDE REVISIONS COME TO US AND US ALL OF A SUDDEN SAY, NO, WE DON'T LIKE THAT. 
          SO. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, THE OTHER CONVERSATION WE HAD THERE WAS ON, UH, LATE FILED MATERIALS. 
          I THINK I AM JUST GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO ANNE AND THEN TO, UH, KATIE RICH FOR THIS. 
          ALRIGHT, THANKS CAITLIN. 
          SO AT THE BIENNIAL REVIEW, THERE WERE CONCERNS RAISED REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF LATE COMMENTS AND MATERIALS AT MARKET MEETINGS. 
          UM, SOME CONCERNS WERE THAT PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME OR ADEQUATE TIME TO START PREPARING FOR THOSE MEETINGS WHEN THOSE MATERIALS COME IN LATE. 
          UM, SO KATIE RICH HAD A SUGGESTION TO GIVE SUBCOMMITTEE LEADERSHIP A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCRETION TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT LATE ME LATE MATERIALS COULD BE CONSIDERED. 
          SO AT THE REVIEW, IT WAS DISCUSSED TO CHANGE THE SUBCOMMITTEE PROCEDURES. 
          HOWEVER, AFTER WE STARTED LOOKING INTO IT, UM, IT WILL REQUIRE PROTOCOL AND GUIDE CHANGES. 
          THE PROTOCOLS AND GUIDES DO CURRENTLY ALLOW COMMENTS ON A PRS REPORT TO BE CONSIDERED REGARDLESS OF WHEN THEY'RE FILED. 
          SO IT WILL TAKE PROTOCOL AND GUIDE CHANGES. 
          UM, AND I KNOW KATIE'S BEEN WORKING ON FILING NPR TO MAKE THESE CHANGES, TO GIVE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS THAT DISCRETION TO CONSIDER THE LATE FILE COMMENTS. 
          UM, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH KA UH, KATIE ERCOT HAS ON SOME OF THE LANGUAGE AND THE NPR TO MAKE SURE IT DOES ACHIEVE WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO DO. 
          UM, HOWEVER, ERCOT IS CONTINUING TO ASSESS IF THERE ARE ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THAT, ANY GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS AND PROCESS ISSUES. 
          SO WE'LL FILE COMMENTS IN THAT NORMAL STAKEHOLDER PROCESS WHEN THAT COMES THROUGH IF WE DO FIND ANYTHING. 
          AND SO I'LL LET KATIE KIND OF SPEAK TO HER NPR AS WELL. 
          SORRY, I WAS WAITING FOR THE MOTORCYCLE TO COME TO A NATURAL STOP. 
          UM, SO FIRST I JUST, I REALLY WANTED TO THANK ANNE, BRITTANY, COREY AND KEITH ON THE ERCOT SIDE FOR HELPING ME THINK THROUGH THIS CONCEPT AND, AND HELPING ME PUT IT INTO PRACTICE IN THE NPRR. 
          AND THANK YOU FOR FINDING A, UM, A MORE EFFICIENT PROCESS FOR, UM, APPROVAL OF THE GUIDE. 
          SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL JUST BE THE NPR THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND THEN THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE PIECE TO IT WHERE ALL OF THE GUIDES THAT HAVE THE ASSOCIATED CHANGES WILL, WILL COME THROUGH. 
          SO I'M NOT FILING NINE REVISION REQUESTS FOR YOU TODAY. 
          I'M FILING ONE NPRR FOR YOU TODAY. 
          UM, AND THEN I REALLY WANTED TO THANK THE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE LEADERSHIP FOR, FOR THEIR INPUT AND SUPPORT ON THIS. 
          UM, NOT SURE I COULD HAVE MADE IT HAPPEN WITHOUT YOU GUYS, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          AND, UH, THE NPR WILL COME OUT BY THE END OF THE DAY. 
          BRITTANY AND I ARE WORKING ON IT RIGHT NOW, SO THAT WILL BE WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE PRS MEETING. 
          I WOULD PROBABLY SAY LET'S HOLD OFF ON ANYTHING TODAY. 
          I AM NOT ASKING FOR TAC APPROVAL. 
          T TAC APPROVAL WILL COME ONCE IT'S GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES. 
          SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME AFTER IT GETS FILED TODAY, PLEASE, UH, FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT. 
          THANKS KATIE. 
          UM, CLAYTON GREER IN THE CHAT. 
          IT, WELL, I, I DIDN'T NEED TO TALK, BUT I MEAN, I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT PRS IS DIFFERENT THAN, THAN THE REST OF THE GROUPS. 
          IF YOU BRING SOMETHING LATE TO THE REST OF THE GROUPS, I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF LATITUDE YOU CAN GIVE THEM TO REJECT, YOU KNOW, LATE FILE COMMENTS. 
          BUT AT, AT THE PRS, WE KIND OF LEAVE THAT OPEN MORE BECAUSE THAT IS THE APPEALS ROUTE, UM, THROUGH THE COMMISSION. 
          SO WE WANTED TO TRY TO BE AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE. 
          THANKS, CLAYTON. 
          ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UM, AND, AND THANKS KATIE. 
          I, I APPRECIATE IT. 
          I, I THINK THAT'S BEST TO KIND OF, SINCE YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL READY TO GO, LET'S JUST LET THAT GO THROUGH THE PROCESS IN CASE. 
          BUT IF, IF ANYBODY HAS, YOU KNOW, OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC BROADLY FROM THE, THE WORKSHOP, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR THOSE NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THANK YOU ANNE. 
          UM, I GUESS THE, THE QUESTION I HAD THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE ALREADY LOOKING AT IS, I, I THINK THIS SECTION OF THE PROTOCOLS IS SORT OF THE REQUIRED PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION. 
          AND SO, SO THAT'S HOW I VIEW IT IN MY MIND. 
          SO ARE WE, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT IMPACT ON, ON OUR ABILITY TO, TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY GETS HEARD? THAT KIND OF THING? I DON'T NEED AN ANSWER NOW THAT, THAT WAS JUST SORT OF THE, THE LENS IN WHICH I'M VIEWING IT. 
          CAN I, CAN I RESPOND TO THAT QUICKLY THOUGH? YEAH, BECAUSE I, I SEE TWO WAYS OF PEOPLE GETTING HEARD. 
          ONE, WE WANNA RECOGNIZE WHEN FOLKS DO TAKE 
          [00:15:01]
THE TIME INITIATIVE AND THOUGHT TO PUT TOGETHER COMMENTS. 
          AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PIECE, RIGHT? COMING TO THE MEETINGS BEING IN THE QUEUE. 
          SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THEY WILL BE HEARD. 
          UM, AND SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO IN HERE, THERE IS NOTHING THAT WOULD EVER SHUT DOWN PEOPLE'S PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THAT. 
          SO JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT ON THE RECORD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS KATIE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, WE ARE NOW HAVE A PRIORITIZATION WORKSHOP UPDATE. 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          AMANDA FRASIER WITH TREATY OAK CLEAN ENERGY. 
          AND SPEAKING OF LATE FILED MATERIALS, I JUST REALIZED MY SLIDES WERE STUCK IN MY OUTBOX. 
          I'VE JUST GOTTEN THEM TO STAKEHOLDER SERVICES. 
          THE WORKSHOP WAS MONDAY THOUGH, SO IT'S FINE. 
          THE WORKSHOP WAS MONDAY. 
          I'VE HAD 48 HOURS MONDAY AFTERNOON. 
          YEAH. 
          36 HOURS. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, SO IF IT'S OKAY, I'LL GIVE YOU A SECOND TO PULL 'EM UP. 
          NO, GOOD. 
          LET ME SEND THEM DIRECTLY TO YOU. 
          C WHAT DO YOU THINK IS BEST FOR YOU TO, UM, CAN YOU ACCESS CRAFT? IT'LL TAKE ME A FEW MINUTES TO LOAD IT AND CRAFTER, I JUST GOT THEM FASTER. 
          DO YOU WANNA, SHOULD WE DO SOMETHING ELSE WHILE YOU'RE LOADING IT? YEAH, YOU NEED TO MOVE TO SOMETHING ELSE. 
          OKAY. 
          [6. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions]
LET'S MOVE, UM, TO THE REVISION REQUEST SUMMARY OR CUT MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS. 
          ANN, THAT'S ME. 
          . 
          THAT'S ME AGAIN. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, SO WE HAVE 11 REVISION REQUESTS FOR TAC CONSIDERATION MINUS THE TABLED ONE, UM, THAT WILL REMAIN TABLED. 
          UM, WE HAVE SEVEN THAT ARE FALLING IN THAT GENERAL, UM, SYSTEM PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS, CATEGORY TWO THAT ARE REGULATORY AND TWO THAT HIT THAT, UM, STRATEGIC PLAN. 
          OBJECTIVE ONE. 
          UM, BUCKET ERCOT DOES SUPPORT ALL OF THE REVISION REQUESTS THAT ARE HERE FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          UM, IMM SUPPORTS 1279 AND THEN NO OPINION ON THE REST. 
          AND THEN CFSG DID REVIEW ALL OF THESE. 
          NONE OF THEM HAVE CREDIT IMPLICATIONS. 
          THEY DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 1290, UM, UPDATES USAGE OF THE SYSTEM-WIDE OFFER CAP. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY IMM WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? I DON'T THINK SO. 
          SHOULD WE, SUSIE, ARE WE READY? NO, WE'RE NOT READY YET. 
          ALMOST GOOD. 
          SORRY. 
          SHOULD WE MOVE TO PRS? OKAY. 
          LET'S 
          [7. PRS Report (Vote) (Part 1 of 2)]
MOVE TO PRS. 
          UM, I THINK THESE ARE ALL UNOPPOSED. 
          SO DIANA, WHY DON'T YOU GO THROUGH YOUR REPORT AND THEN WE WILL TAKE IT FROM THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. 
          DIANA COLEMAN WITH CPS ENERGY WITH THE AUGUST PRS REPORT. 
          THE FIRST ITEM WE HAVE FOR TAX CONSIDERATION IS 1266 ON JULY 16TH, PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY THE MAY 5TH. 
          ERCOT COMMENTS ON AUGUST 13TH, WE VOTED TO UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE JULY 16TH, 2025 PRS REPORT AND THE DECEMBER 31ST, 2024 IA WITH A RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE OF MARCH 1ST, 2026 NPRR 1279. 
          ON JULY 16TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. 
          ON AUGUST 13TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO TAG THE JULY 16TH PRS REPORT AND THE AUGUST 6TH IA WITH A RECOMMENDED SUNSET DATE OF APRIL 1ST, 2020 7, 12 83. 
          ON JULY 16TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. 
          AND THEN ON AUGUST 13TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE JULY 16TH PRS REPORT AND THE APRIL 29TH, 2025 IA WITH THE RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY 1ST, 2026. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE A SYSTEM CHANGE REQUEST 8 32. 
          THIS, UH, ON JULY 16TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. 
          AND THEN ON AUGUST 13TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO TAG THE JULY 16TH PRS REPORT IN THE JUNE 24TH IA. 
          AND I'LL PAUSE THERE, CAITLYN. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ON WHERE IS THIS ON NPR 1291? DID WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT? YES. 
          I THINK THERE WAS SOME GRAY BOX LANGUAGE OR SOMETHING WITH A RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE UPON SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE GRAY BOX LANGUAGE AND 
          [00:20:01]
THE FIRST MONTH FOLLOWING PUCT APPROVAL FOR ALL REMAINING LANGUAGE. 
          SHOULD WE LOOK AT THAT, CORY OR ANN, OR DO YOU THINK IT'S FINE? YEAH, WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING THERE THAT THE GRAY BOX LANGUAGE WILL GO IN UPON SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION AND THEN THE REST OF IT WILL GO, UM, UPON PUC APPROVAL. 
          OKAY. 
          1291 HAS THE DISTINCTION OF HAVING A MIXTURE OF RED LINES AND, YOU KNOW, SO RED LINES, YOU'RE ALL USED TO SEEING THOSE, BUT THEN ALSO CARL AND COMPANY PRE BOX SOME STUFF TOO. 
          SO IT'S ONLY THE GRAY BOXES THAT NEED THE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION. 
          EVERYTHING THAT'S RED LINED IS WHAT CAN TAKE EFFECT UPON FIRST OF THE MONTH FOLLOWING PUC APPROVAL. 
          SO THAT CLARIFIED MOTION THAT KAITLYN READ OFF IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO THROW EVERYTHING IN THE GRAY BOX. 
          IT'S ONLY WHAT'S ALREADY GRAY BOX THAT NEEDS THE SYSTEM WORK. 
          AND ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS ARE THE CLARIFICATIONS THAT CAN GO IN AFTER PSE APPROVAL. 
          SO A LITTLE WORDIER MOTION, BUT GETS TO THE RIGHT ANSWER, LAURIE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, COMMENT ON 1265 FROM BOB MEYER. 
          YEAH, JUST REAL QUICKLY ON 1265, THIS IS PRIMARILY REPORTING RESIDENTIAL, UM, RESIDENTIAL DISTRIBUTED GENERATION. 
          I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE CAPTURE THE DATE THAT THE DATA WAS ENTERED INTO THE SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, 30 YEARS FROM NOW OR 20 YEARS FROM NOW, THAT'S NOT GONNA BE THE SAME EQUIPMENT. 
          AND I THINK WE NEED TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE DATABASE SO THAT WE KNOW THAT. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU NEED A RESPONSE FROM ERCOT ON THAT JUST TO COMMENT? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ANY OF THESE REVISION REQUESTS? I, OKAY. 
          SO WE ARE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1265 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE EIGHT 13 PRS REPORT. 
          RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF 1266 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE EIGHT 13 PRS REPORT. 
          RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1279 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE EIGHT 13 PRS REPORT. 
          RECOMMENDED, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF 1283 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE EIGHT 13 PRS REPORT. 
          RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1290 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE EIGHT 13 PRS REPORT. 
          UM, THE LONG MOTION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF 1291 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE EIGHT 13 PRS REPORT WITH A RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE OF UPON SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE GRAY BOX LANGUAGE AND THE FIRST OF THE MONTH FOLLOWING PUC APPROVAL FOR ALL REMAINING LANGUAGE. 
          AND THEN RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SCR 8 32 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE EIGHT 13 PRS REPORT. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN WE PUT THOSE ON THE COMBO? ALL RIGHT, IKA. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I JUST, UH, ANNOUNCE REGARDING 1266. 
          IF YOU DID NOT NOTICE ON READY, WE OPEN DOCKET 5 8 5 3 1 REGARDING THE IZATION, UH, D UH, EXEMPT CUSTOMER LIST AND HOW WE ARE GONNA PROCESS IF THERE IS ANY CHANGES, I JUST WANNA BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION, THAT'S ALL. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. 
          ANYBODY OBJECT TO PUTTING ALL OF THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT? BRIAN? NO, NO OBJECTION. 
          BUT MAYBE WE CAN JUST THROW THAT DOCKET NUMBER IN THE, UM, IN THE CHAT. 
          YEAH. 
          WHAT WAS THE 5 8 5 3 1 5 8 5 3 1. 
          MAYBE YOU SHOULD WRITE IT. 
          BRIAN . 
          THANK YOU, JORDAN. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          CORY, DID WE GET THOSE ALL COMBOED? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          [5. Prioritization Workshop Update]
SO WE'RE BACK TO THE PRIORITIZATION WORKSHOP UPDATE. 
          GO AHEAD, AMANDA. 
          EXCELLENT, THANK YOU. 
          AND THANK YOU FOR, UH, FIXING MY MISTAKE IN GETTING THESE POSTED. 
          UM, SO WE HAD A WORKSHOP ON MONDAY AFTERNOON TO TALK THROUGH ERCOT RECOMMENDED PRIORITIZATION OF KIND OF ONGOING INITIATIVES. 
          UH, A LOT OF THESE ARE REPRESENTED AS NPRS OR OTHER REVISION REQUESTS, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE NOT. 
          SOME OF THEM ARE, ARE IDEAS OR THINGS THAT ARE STILL IN THE WORKS, UM, OR GOT PREPARED A SPREADSHEET THAT HAD KIND OF THEIR LIST OF THE INITIATIVES THAT THEY HAD OUTLINED AND THEIR RECOMMENDED KIND BASELINE FOR HOW THEY WOULD STRUCTURE, UM, THEIR PRIORITIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          [00:25:02]
UM, THERE WAS A, A, A LOT OF CONSENSUS AROUND THE ITEMS THAT ERCOT HAD DESIGNATED AS CRITICAL AND AS HIGH PRIORITY. 
          UM, AND IN FACT, NOBODY RECOMMENDED TAKING ANY ITEMS OFF OF THE CRITICAL OR HIGH PRIORITY LIST. 
          UM, SIMILARLY, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONSENSUS AROUND ITEMS THAT ERCOT HAD DESIGNATED AS NEEDING NO ACTION. 
          THE CURRENT TIME, UM, THERE WERE A COUP, THERE WAS ANOTHER BOX OF THINGS THAT WERE LABELED AS POTENTIAL FOR REMOVAL. 
          AND THERE WAS SOME, WERE SOME COMMENTS AROUND SOME OF THOSE THAT MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE MOVED TO NO ACTION. 
          UM, BECAUSE IT WASN'T TIME YET TO, TO GET RID OF THEM AND OR ERCOT SHOULDN'T UNDERTAKE THE WORK THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GET RID OF THEM. 
          THEY SHOULD JUST REMAIN PENDING, UM, BUT WITHOUT BEING PRIORITIZED FOR WORK. 
          AND THEN OF COURSE, THERE WAS A GOOD AMOUNT OF, UH, DISCUSSION AND DEBATE AROUND A NUMBER OF THE NBRS AND OTHER REVISION REQUESTS THAT HAD BEEN LABELED FOR MEDIUM PRIORITY. 
          AND, UH, MARKET PARTICIPANTS KIND OF WEIGHED IN ON SOME OF THOSE THAT THEY VIEWED SHOULD BE MOVED HIGHER IN PRIORITY OR CERTAINLY HIGHER IN RELATIVE PRIORITY TO OTHERS THAT WERE ON THE LIST. 
          SO NEXT, UH, SLIDE. 
          SOME OF THE GENERAL FEEDBACK THAT, UM, ERCOT RECEIVED WAS THAT ERCOT SHOULD INCREASE STAFFING TO HELP DELIVER MORE THROUGHPUT OF THESE NPR R THAT IT WAS NOT LIKELY TO BE THE CASE THAT ONCE THE CURRENT BACK LOG IS COMPLETED, THAT UM, THERE WOULDN'T BE ADDITIONAL, UH, THINGS IN THE WORK. 
          AND SO THE, THE LEVEL OF WORK WAS LIKELY TO CONTINUE. 
          UM, ERCOT DID, YOU KNOW, RESPOND THAT JUST ADDING STAFF IS NOT GOING TO FIX OUR NEAR TERM PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE, THE MATERIALS THAT WE KNOW NEED TO BE DELIVERED IN THE NEAR TERM. 
          UM, AND THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE TIME AND EFFORT TO TRAIN NEW STAFF TO, TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. 
          THERE IS ALSO GENERAL FEEDBACK THAT, UM, THERE MAY BE A NEED TO DEVELOP PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH INITIATIVES DESERVE PRIORITY. 
          SO SOME EXAMPLES WERE GIVEN, INCLUDING NRS, THAT IMPACT PRICE FORMATION SHOULD DESERVE PRIORITY NRS THAT IMPACT A LARGE NUMBER OF MEGAWATTS COMPARED WITH OTHERS DESERVE PRIORITY. 
          AND SO THERE MAY BE A NEED IN THE FUTURE TO, TO, UM, WORK THROUGH SOME OF THOSE GUIDING PRINCIPLES. 
          ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK WAS THAT THERE ARE MANY INITIATIVES THAT WOULD, UH, BENEFIT FROM ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION BEFORE A FORMAL FILING OF AN NPRR. 
          SOME EXAMPLES WERE GIVEN WHERE AN NPR HAD BEEN FILED AND THEN NEEDED TO BE WITHDRAWN OR COMPLETELY REWORKED BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH FEEDBACK ON THE FRONT END. 
          UM, OTHER COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, ERCOT SHOULD USE MORE WHITE PAPERS OR THAT SORT OF APPROACH TO EDUCATE ON ISSUES AHEAD OF DRAFTING LANGUAGE. 
          UH, AND, AND THEN ALSO THAT NASCENT IDEAS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AS COMPARED WITH SORT OF ONE-OFF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN A MARKET PARTICIPANT AND ERCOT TO DEVELOP SOME OF THAT FEEDBACK EARLY IN THE PROCESS. 
          AND THEN FOURTH, KIND OF THE GENERAL FEEDBACK WAS THAT THERE MAY NEED TO BE SOME MORE FORMALIZED PROCESS FOR HOW ERCOT SOCIALIZES WHEN THEY'VE RUN INTO AN IMPLEMENTATION HURDLE. 
          UH, THE EXAMPLE WAS WITH RESPECT TO MBR RR 10 0 6, WHERE AS THEY WENT TO IMPLEMENT ERCOT, UM, DISCOVERED THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CLEAN DATA SOURCE FOR WHICH TO BASE THEIR, UM, HOW THEY WOULD RUN THE RDPA NUMBERS. 
          AND SO THAT CAUSED A DELAY IN, UM, BEING IMPLEMENTED. 
          AND SO THERE MAY BE MORE WORK NEEDED ON. 
          HOW WOULD ERCOT, UH, RESOLVE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES THAT CAN'T BE RESOLVED INTERNALLY? I'LL NED I'LL TAKE YOUR QUESTION. 
          OR WHOEVER'S IN THE QUEUE. 
          I, I'M NOT SEE IN THE QUEUE. 
          YEAH, GO, GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS AMANDA. 
          UM, IT WAS A GOOD, GOOD SYNOPSIS. 
          UM, YOU, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT NO ONE HAD BROUGHT FORWARD, UM, PULLING ANYTHING OFF OF THE CRITICAL LIST. 
          AND I, I THINK SOME CONTEXT ON THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ERCOT, UM, PRIORITIZATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE NPRR. 
          AND I THINK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THE WAY THAT WAS CHARACTERIZED IS ERCOT IS PLANNING TO PRIORITIZE THEIR RESOURCES TOWARDS THAT. 
          BUT THE BEING ON THE CRITICAL LIST IS NOT, DOES NOT SIGNIFY STAKEHOLDER ALIGNMENT WITH 
          [00:30:01]
THAT VIEW, ESPECIALLY ON THAT PARTICULAR ONE. 
          THERE'S, THERE SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE, I, I'VE VOICED CONCERNS BEFORE ABOUT HOW THAT, UM, WILL UNDERCUT PRICE FORMATION IN AN ENERGY ONLY MARKET AND HAVE, UH, SOME, SOME ISSUES TO WORK THROUGH. 
          WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN, IN DUE TIME. 
          SO WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THAT DEBATE RIGHT NOW, BUT I DO WANNA FLAG THAT ONE PARTICULAR YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD CORRECTION. 
          SO, UM, THE FACT THAT THAT FOLKS SORT OF AGREED WITH WHAT, WHAT ISSUES WERE, UM, BEING PRIORITIZED DID NOT INDICATE THAT THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF, UM, THE CURRENT VERSIONS. 
          AND, BUT THAT I THINK THEY GENERALLY AGREED THAT THE TOPICS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED FOR DISCUSSION WERE THE RIGHT SET OF TOPICS GIVEN THE PRIORITIES OF THE COMMISSION, OF THE BOARD AND OTHER DECISION MAKERS. 
          UM, SO THAT'S A, THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION. 
          SO ON THIS FINAL PAGE, I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE OF TAKEAWAYS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE OF THAT WE, UH, COULD USE SOME ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK. 
          THE FIRST IS, SHOULD PRS AND DIANE, I'M GLAD YOU WALKED BACK IN THE ROOM, SHOULD PRS TAKE UP A FORMAL REPRIORITIZATION UM, EFFORT BASED ON THESE TYPES OF CONVERSATIONS? SO, YOU KNOW, PRS HAS A RANK AND PRIORITY THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO ALL OF THE EXISTING NPR, UM, IT, YOU KNOW, WORTH DISCUSSION AT PRS ON WHETHER IT'S TIME TO REVISIT THOSE AND KIND OF TAKE SOME OF THE INPUT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED THROUGH THE PRIORITIZATION WORKSHOP IN ORDER TO REWORK THAT LIST. 
          AND THEN, UM, SECOND, ARE FUTURE PRIORITIZATION WORKSHOPS USEFUL? AND, AND ESPECIALLY I WAS THINKING TO MAINTAIN AND DEVELOP THE LIST OF, UM, INITIATIVES THAT DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE AN NPRR ASSOCIATED WITH THEM SO THAT STAKEHOLDERS HAVE MORE TRANSPARENCY AROUND WHAT ARE THE GENERAL POLICY TOPICS THAT ARE, UM, DESERVING OF ERCOT RESOURCE ATTENTION. 
          CAN I, I HAVE A QUESTION ON, ON EACH OF THESE. 
          UM, SO ON THE FIRST ONE, THE FORMAL REPRIORITIZATION OF APPROVED NPR, CAN WE TALK THROUGH LOGISTICALLY WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE OR WHAT THAT MEANS? BECAUSE I THINK THE NPR ALL HAVE BOARD APPROVED IAS, AND SO WOULD THOSE ALL NEED TO BE RE BOARD APPROVED OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SOME OTHER PROCESS THAT COULD BE A AND QUESTION OR A AMANDA QUESTION OR KEITH QUESTION? I THINK TROY CAN PROBABLY OKAY. 
          SPEAK TO IT AS WELL, BUT, UM, KAITLYN'S RIGHT, THAT THE PRIORITY AND RANKS HAVE ALL BEEN APPROVED BY EITHER THE BOARD OR PUC ALREADY. 
          SO IF WE DID A FORMAL REPRIORITIZATION, I'M THINKING YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THAT PROCESS. 
          HOWEVER, IF YOU DIDN'T CALL IT A FORMAL REPRIORITIZATION , YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH JUST, YOU KNOW, HAVING A SPREADSHEET OR DOCUMENT OR WHATEVER AND SAYING, WE'RE GONNA KIND OF REARRANGE THESE. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALREADY IN THE BOARD REPORTS, IT'S ALREADY IN THE PDC REPORTS, WHAT WAS APPROVED THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. 
          CAITLIN'S IGNORING ME, SO I'LL FILL, I'M NOT IGNORING YOU BE GO AHEAD, . 
          BUT, BUT TO THAT END, I, I THINK THE, THE, THE PRIORITIZATION ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD FOCUS ON FIRST IS WHAT'S THE NEXT SLUG OF STUFF THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED POST RTC AND, AND IT SEEMS LIKE TROY AND, AND ET AL MAY BE WORKING ON THAT. 
          AND THAT MAY BE THE DEFACTO NEXT SORT OF REPRIORITIZATION OF NPRS. 
          UM, BUT, UM, UM, WE DON'T NEED TO GO, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT GOING BACK TO THE BOARD TO REPRIORITIZE THE LIST IS NOT A WORTHY AND UH, NECESSARY PROCESS. 
          UM, BUT WE DO NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT CO YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE BUILT UP A BACKLOG FOR THE LAST YEAR, SEVERAL MONTHS, AND SOMETHING'S GOTTA COME NEXT AND WE GOTTA HAVE SOME AS STAKEHOLDERS, I WOULD SUGGEST WE, IT'S IN OUR INTEREST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S COMING NEXT AND IN WHAT ORDER. 
          KEITH, DO YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THAT? YEAH, IN A WAY. 
          I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE DID THE OTHER DAY. 
          UM, AND I THINK GIVEN THE INFORMATION WE GOT IN TERMS OF PARTICULARLY WHAT'S ON THE HIGH LIST, IN MY VIEW, THAT'S WHAT'S NEXT. 
          AND I THINK TROY'S HOMEWORK IS TO SAY, OKAY, I GOT THE HIGH STUFF. 
          DEVELOP KIND OF THAT PLAN BASED ON THAT INFORMATION SO THAT WE CAN, 'CAUSE WE KNOW RTC IS IT'S, IT'S GONNA COME TO AN END AND 
          [00:35:01]
WHAT DO WE IMMEDIATELY GOT READY TO GO? AND I THINK HE'S, HE'S GONNA START WORKING ON THAT AND, AND BRING THAT BACK IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT PLAN WILL BE. 
          AND THEN THERE'LL BE MORE BITES OF THE APPLE, UH, EVENTUALLY. 
          BUT I THINK THE INITIAL PLAN, I THINK WE GOT, AND TROY'S GONNA WORK ON THAT. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY, CLAYTON? YEAH, I JUST, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHANGE THE, THE WAY THAT THE DOCUMENTS READ WHENEVER THEY GET APPROVED BY THE BOARD AND THE PUC IF IT'S NOT OFFICIAL WHENEVER THEY, PARDON ME. 
          'CAUSE IF THEY'RE APPROVING THE PRIORITIZATION, THAT SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME FORMAL PROCESS TO UNP PRIORITIZE THOSE. 
          JUST SAYING YOU SORT OF TRAILED OUT AND I'M, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTOOD THE, THE POINT JUST WELL, YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF THEM, SO IF THEY'VE APPROVED IT, YOU CAN'T UNAPPROVE IT. 
          YES. 
          SO IF YOU PRIOR, SO I MEAN, I WOULD JUST LIST THOSE AS, OKAY, SO WHEN WE, IF WE DO IT INFORMALLY, JUST PUT FOR INFORMATION ONLY OR SOMETHING ON IT. 
          WELL, I WOULD SAY WHENEVER YOU'RE ORIGINALLY GOING FOR APPROVAL OF, OF THE NPR R YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT PRIORITIZATION IS LISTED AS IN FOR INFORMATION ONLY OR CURRENT PRIORITIZATION. 
          SO I THINK THAT WOULD TAKE PROTOCOL CHANGE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE FIRST  IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE FORMALLY CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE PRIORITIZATION DATE, I, I THINK THAT WOULD ALSO TAKE A FORMAL CHANGE. 
          YEAH. 
          I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW, YOU KNOW, PRS AND TCC APPROVE A DIFFERENT LIST THAN WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE, THE BOARD ON THE COMMISSION. 
          OKAY. 
          RICHARD, ARE WE, IF IF WE'RE DONE WITH THIS, THEN I WON'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE, BUT IF WE'RE GONNA KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT, I WILL. 
          IT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU SHOULD TALK ABOUT IT. 
          WE'RE NOT DONE UNTIL, OKAY, WE'RE DONE. 
          AMANDA, WHAT DO YOU WANT? I MEAN, I MEAN, I MEAN WE'VE, WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT WE CAN'T CHANGE WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY DONE WITHOUT GOING TO THE COMMISSION TO CHANGE WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE. 
          UM, MY THOUGHT WITH WHAT YOU'VE ASKED IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE LIST AND YOU SEE A BIG UGLY SPOT WHERE SOMETHING'S JUST BASICALLY WRONG, DON'T CALL IT, HEY, I'M DOING A FORMAL REVIEW. 
          BUT IF THERE'S A BLATANT PROBLEM THAT WE NEED TO RELABEL SOMETHING, HEY, I'M ALL FOR ENTERTAINING. 
          BUT IF THERE'S NOT A BIG UGLY SPOT THAT NEEDS TO BE REPRIORITIZED, THEN MOVE ON AND WORK ON BETTER THINGS. 
          I AGREE WITH WHAT BETH SAID ABOUT, HEY, WHAT'S NEXT? AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS. 
          BUT I DON'T, I I DON'T THINK, I DON'T IF IF YOU WANT ANYTHING BEYOND THAT, I, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE NEED TO DO HERE. 
          CAN TROY WALK US THROUGH SOME OF THOSE OR? YEAH, LET'S SURE. 
          GO TO TROY CAN, I'M OVER HERE IN COREY'S SPOT BY THE WAY. 
          UM, ONE IDEA CHATTING HERE WITH MATT, PERHAPS WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS NOT REPRIORITIZATION. 
          IT'S A, IS DEVELOPING A RELEASE PLAN FOR ALL THESE ITEMS, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE, THAT ARE, UH, ON THIS, UH, BACKLOG. 
          AND AS THE PORTFOLIO MANAGER, I BELIEVE IT'S MY DUTY TO TAKE THE INPUT FOR MONDAY, TRY TO LAY OUT WHAT A RELEASE PLAN COULD LOOK LIKE SO THAT WE CAN ALL THEN COME TO GRIPS WITH WHAT'S LIKELY TO BE WORKED ON NEXT YEAR AND THE FOLLOWING YEAR, AND WHAT ITEMS ARE PROBABLY SLIPPING INTO YEARS AFTER THAT. 
          IN TERMS OF PRIORITIES THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING HERE TODAY, WE'VE KINDA TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THIS PROCESS WAS GOING ON IN PARALLEL. 
          SO THE THINGS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED, UM, FOR 2026, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE LEGITIMATE 2026 ITEMS TYPICALLY 'CAUSE THEY'RE IN A DIFFERENT PATH THAN THE MMS AREA WHERE WE HAVE THE MOST, YOU KNOW, CONSTRAINTS AMONGST THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN THE QUEUE. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS. 
          AND I, I THINK THAT FIRST BULLET MIGHT HAVE BEEN PLANTED BY ME WITH AMANDA. 
          MAYBE I SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT. 
          UM, I'M, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME THINGS THAT HAVE OLD PRIORITIES ON THEM THAT CLEARLY WILL BE DONE PROBABLY BEYOND 2026. 
          AND I JUST THOUGHT WE NEEDED TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR OR NOT. 
          BUT, BUT PERHAPS THAT THIS RELEASE PLAN IDEA IS THE WAY WE CAN KIND OF AVOID GETTING INTO THAT PROBLEM. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS TROY. 
          UM, LET'S GO TO BOB HILTON. 
          YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, THE PRIORITIES THAT WE PUT ON A PRS. 
          THEY DON'T ALWAYS WORK ANYWAY. 
          THEY DON'T WORK TODAY. 
          SO SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IT EXACTLY WHENEVER IT'S PRIORITIZED TODAY, THAT DOESN'T WORK. 
          IT NEVER HAS WORKED. 
          SO I'M LESS WORRIED ABOUT THAT PIECE. 
          SO I THINK THERE'S 
          [00:40:01]
A BETTER WAY OF GETTING AROUND THAT. 
          I THINK TROY HAD A PRETTY GOOD IDEA THERE OR SOMETHING, BUT I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT DATA ON THERE. 
          'CAUSE THAT IS IN MY MIND, ALWAYS BEEN, THIS IS WHAT WE WISH FOR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          ERIC GUFF. 
          UH, HI. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT TOPIC AND AT SOME POINT I DO THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE FOR TAC TO COME BACK TO THE QUESTION OF THE APPROPRIATE RESOURCES FOR ERCOT IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THESE OBJECTIVES. 
          LONG TERM UNDERSTANDING THIS IS SHORT TERM, YOU KNOW, SET OF CONSTRAINTS THAT'S JUST AS IMPORTANT, UM, AS LOAD GROWS AND AS THE, THE NUMBER OF FRANKLY COMPETING OBLIGATIONS THAT ERCOT HAS TO DO AT THE SAME TIME GROW. 
          UM, JUST THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE RIGHT RESOURCES TO NOT HAVE, YOU KNOW, YEARS OF DELAY, UM, WILL BE MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S ERCOT STAFF'S FAULT THAT WE'RE IN THIS SITUATION. 
          THEY'RE BEING GIVEN MORE WORK THAN THEY CAN HANDLE. 
          AND, UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK JUST FROM A STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE, THE ERCOT BOARD CAN RECOMMEND, UM, THE RIGHT LEVEL OF RESOURCES TO ACCOMPLISH THESE GOALS AND COLLABORATION WITH TAX, YOU KNOW, SETTING THE, THE IMPORTANCE OF THEM. 
          I DO THINK THAT IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THESE THINGS, IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR ERCOT TO BE ABLE TO PAY THE RIGHT AMOUNT TO HIRE TALENT SO THAT THEY CAN HIRE FROM THE MARKET AND NOT JUST THE MARKET HIRING FROM ERCOT. 
          AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THEY CAN HAVE THE RIGHT LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE AND RESOURCES NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH ALL OF THIS AND, AND WE CAN DO IT COLLABORATIVELY. 
          THANKS, KEITH. 
          YEAH, SO IN, IN RESPONSE TO ERIC'S POINT, I THINK WE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO NOTE THAT THERE'S SORT OF A SHORT TERM AND LONG, LONG-TERM DISTINCTION BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          UM, HOWEVER, I'D ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE BUDGET IS, IT'S IN FLIGHT ALREADY, SO IT IS BEYOND KEITH'S ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING TO IT. 
          UM, AND, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT SOMETHING IS RISING TO THE BOARD OR THE COMMISSION, IF, IF TAC WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA JUMP IN THE WAY SURE. 
          BUT, BUT I THINK THE, THE IDEA OF, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE TO SORT OF THINK ABOUT THIS IN A SENSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, THEIR KEY STAFF HAS CONSTRAINTS, IT HAVE HAS CONSTRAINTS, OTHER STAFF HAS CONSTRAINTS. 
          AND SO YOU, YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW THAT'S GOING TO HOLISTICALLY DEAL WITH THINGS. 
          AND I KNOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WHEN I FIRST CAME ON BOARD, WOODY SAID, KEITH, I NEED YOU TO ASSESS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE GROUP BEFORE WE GO ANY OTHER STEP. 
          AND SO I GUESS THE, THE, THE, THE RECOMMENDATION I WOULD HAVE IS LIKE, ARE WE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN FROM AN EFFICIENCY STANDPOINT BEFORE WE ASK FOR RESOURCES TO MOVE IT FORWARD? I, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND, UM, AND BEING CAREFUL WITH, RIGHT, PAYER DOLLARS IS ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, JOB NUMBER ONE. 
          UM, THAT SAID, I THINK THAT MOST TAC MEMBERS WOULD AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, ERCOT NEEDS THE RESOURCES TO GET ALL THESE THINGS DONE. 
          AND, UM, EXCELLENT POINT ON THE TIMING OF THE BUDGET. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'LL NEVER BE THE RIGHT TIME TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION, BUT AT SOME POINT THEY CAN ALIGN IN SOME FUTURE BUDGET, YOU KNOW, OR AT THE RIGHT OPPORTUNITY. 
          UM, I THINK, DIANA, ARE YOU STILL IN THE QUEUE? YES. 
          THANK YOU DIANA COLEMAN. 
          SO JUST TWO POINTS. 
          WE WANTED TO MAKE THE GOAL, ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE WORKSHOP ON MONDAY AFTERNOON WAS NOT TO START FROM SCRATCH, BUT RATHER TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT HAVE BOTH BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND ASSIGNED A RANK AND A BUDGET THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THOSE PROPOSED CHANGES, BUT ALSO PROACTIVELY TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT'S COMING POST DECEMBER 5TH AND TROY'S OPTIONALITY OF, UM, LOOKING OUT WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GIVEN A 2024 OR A 2025 PRIORITIZATION. 
          OBVIOUSLY THAT HASN'T COME TO FRUITION. 
          YES, WE, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH ERCOT, UH, AND LEADERSHIP TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEST MANAGE THIS. 
          AND SO JUST ONE POINT IS, IS THAT WE'RE DOING THIS WITH 
          [00:45:01]
AN ABUNDANCE OF TRANSPARENCY, SO FOLKS ARE NOT SURPRISED, BUT OUR GOAL IS NOT TO START FROM SCRATCH. 
          OUR GOAL IS TO LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE AND PUT THEM INTO DIFFERENT TIERS. 
          AND THAT LEADS ME TO ANOTHER POINT THAT I WANNA ADD, AND IT WAS RAISED ON MONDAY, BUT I WANNA SAY IT AGAIN, THAT THE DIFFERENT TIER LEVELS THAT WERE ASSIGNED ON IN MONDAY'S WORKSHOP, THE ONE OF THEM WAS DEEMED CRITICAL. 
          AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO LOOK AT THAT, NOT AS A MATTER OF URGENCY, GIVING THAT PRIORITY OVER SOMETHING ELSE, BUT RATHER LOOKING AT WHAT WAS LABELED CRITICAL AS A NON-NEGOTIABLE. 
          THESE ARE ITEMS THAT WERE EITHER PROVIDED OR GIVEN TO OR CAUGHT BY THE LEGISLATURE OR THE COMMISSION AS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. 
          LIKE THERE'S NO WIGGLE ROOM ON THOSE. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS UNDERSTOOD THAT WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION ON MONDAY AFTERNOON. 
          BUT CRITICAL, THOSE TIER ONE, THOSE ARE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVES, PUC DIRECTIVES, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE. 
          THOSE DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY'RE GONNA JUMP AHEAD OF SOMETHING ELSE, BUT IT'S GONNA BE IN THE, THE GREATER LANDSCAPE OF PRIORITIES AND PROJECTS. 
          AND WE WILL KEEP WORKING AT PRS WITH ERCO AND WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS TO MAKE SURE THAT AS MUCH AS WE CAN, FOLKS AREN'T SURPRISED AND THAT WE KNOW WHAT'S COMING AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING, UM, THAT IS IMPORTANT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WE PROVIDED A WORKSHOP ON MONDAY THAT WAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR FOLKS TO LET US KNOW THAT WE HAD SOME, UH, PRIORITY RANKING, UH, OFFERS THAT WERE SUGGESTED. 
          AND SO I THINK WE'RE TAKING ALL OF THE FEEDBACK AND THEN WE'RE GONNA START WORKING AT PRS AND HERE AT TAC TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. 
          THIS ISN'T A COMPLETED CONVERSATION, BUT IT'S AN ONGOING CONVERSATION. 
          THANKS, DIANA. 
          LET'S GO TO SETH. 
          I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING THAT KEITH SAID ABOUT THE BUDGET. 
          I WAS WONDERING, IS THERE A SPECIFIC LINE ITEM FOR STAKEHOLDER PROJECTS IN THE BUDGET? TROY? UH, THERE IS NOT. 
          UH, WE HAVE A PROJECT ALLOCATION IN THE BUDGET AND A PORTION OF THAT IS EARMARKED FOR STAKEHOLDER WORK. 
          UM, THE NUMBER THAT ADDS UP TO CURRENTLY FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS IS $10 MILLION. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES THAT INCLUDES THINGS LIKE D-R-D-R-R-S AND OTHER SMALLER ITEMS? OKAY. 
          HAS THAT BEEN TRENDING UP OR DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS THAT ALLOCATION FOR STAKEHOLDER PROJECT? UH, IF YOU RECALL, I USED TO REPORT ON THIS IN VERY, IN A VERY DETAILED WAY AT PRS. 
          IT WAS THREE, TWO TO $3 MILLION MANY YEARS AGO, THEN IT WAS 4 MILLION. 
          AND AS WE'VE GOTTEN INTO LARGER AND LARGER REQUIRED REVISION REQUESTS, IT'S PROBABLY PEAKING AT ABOUT RIGHT NOW. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UH, I GUESS IS ALL THAT PUBLISHED SOMEWHERE THAT I CAN, YOU KNOW, GO ONLINE AND REVIEW? I BELIEVE AS PART OF THE, UH, THE BUDGET MATERIALS POSTED FOR THE BOARD, THERE'S A LIST OF THE CANDIDATE PROJECTS THAT ARE EXPECTED. 
          NOW ADMITTEDLY, THINGS CHANGE AS NEW THINGS GET APPROVED AND AS PRIORITIES GET ADJUSTED, BUT WE DO HAVE A, A TARGET LIST GOING IN OF WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT TO WORK ON. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I THINK WE HAVE MOSTLY TALKED ABOUT THE REPORT PRIORITIZATION. 
          UM, SO I DID WANNA ASK A QUESTION ON THE FUTURE WORKSHOPS. 
          AMANDA, DO YOU HAVE TO, TO QUOTE RICHARD ROSS? WHAT DO YOU WANT HERE? DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS CONTINUE? I, I GUESS I SEE THERE WILL PROBABLY BE MORE WORK. 
          SO I WOULD SEE TWO OPTIONS BEING STICKING WITH WORKSHOPS LIKE WE HAD OR MOVING THAT WORK OVER TO PRS. 
          UM, AND SO I, I THINK I'D WANT TO KNOW WHAT, WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT AND WHAT PRS THINKS ABOUT THAT. 
          YEAH, I AGREE. 
          THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS AND HAPPY TO FACILITATE A FUTURE WORKSHOP IF THAT'S THE WILL OF, OF TAC. 
          UM, OTHERWISE I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE ISSUES CAN BE HANDLED LARGELY THROUGH PRS, ESPECIALLY FOR THE NPR THAT ARE ALREADY FILED AND THEN POTENTIALLY THROUGH THE SUBCOMMITTEES FOR THE ISSUES THAT ARE MORE TOPICAL THAT HAVEN'T, DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE NPRS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM YET. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO, BUT I'M OPEN TO THE WILL OF TAC. 
          OKAY. 
          DIANA? YES. 
          WE'LL KEEP WORKING ON THIS, UM, AT PRS AND IF WE ARE HEARING OR FEELING THAT WE NEED ADDITIONAL WORKSHOPS OR MORE CONVERSATIONS, WE CAN WORK, UH, WITH AMANDA 
          [00:50:01]
ERCOT AND OTHERS, MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS. 
          OKAY. 
          BETH? YES. 
          ONE LAST QUESTION. 
          I, I, TROY, I I LIKED YOUR, UM, THE, THE PLAN, THE PROCESS THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF KIND OF THIS NEXT GA NEXT SET OF RELEASE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A RELEASE. 
          MY EXPECTATION IS THAT THAT WOULD SHOW UP AT PRS FOR DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT PRS. 
          IS THAT A REASONABLE EXPECTATION? I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT AT THE NEXT PRS, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE, TROY, DO WE THINK THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN A NORMAL PRS MEETING OR IS THAT, I THINK THAT'S THE GOAL. 
          A LOT OF EXTRA TIME FOR A PRS MEETING. 
          DIANE IS A WHI AT BRINGING THOSE MEETINGS IN, YOU KNOW, VERY EFFICIENTLY IN OUR WORD FOR THE DAY. 
          SO WE CAN, TROY, WE CAN WORK WITH YOU AND JUST, AND TRY TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE TYPICAL AGENDA THAT'S INCLUDED IN PRS FOR OKAY. 
          THE PROJECT PRIORITIZATION. 
          SO WE'LL HAVE SOME DEDICATED TIME WHERE WE CAN SPEND ON THAT, BUT NOT GROSSLY MAKE THE PRS INTO A, IT MIGHT TAKE A COUPLE ITERATIONS ALSO, SO IT'S A WORK IN PROCESS. 
          IT'LL BE A FIRST DRAFT. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE, WE HAD SAID WE WERE GOING TO TAKE LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP AND INTERCONNECTION QUEUE UP NOW-ISH, BUT JULIE HAS A HARD STOP AT 10 30, SO I THINK WE WILL NOW MOVE THAT TO THE END OF THE DAY, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH BOB WHO DIDN'T ANSWER MY TEXT, BUT GAVE ME A THUMBS UP. 
          SO, UM, 
          [8. Revision Requests Tabled at TAC (Possible Vote)]
WE CAN MOVE TO REVISION REQUESTS, UH, TABLED AT T AND SO WE HAVE NO GER 2 64 AND THAT CAN CONTINUE TO REMAIN TABLED. 
          AND THEN 
          [9. RMS Report]
WE ARE TO THE RMS REPORT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          UM, REALLY QUICKLY WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH A FEW OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT ALREADY TODAY. 
          THE, UH, CHANGES THAT ARE COMING FORWARD TO RMS WOULD BE THE MERGER OF PROFILING WORKING GROUP AND TEXAS SET. 
          THOSE TWO GROUPS HAVE A, A GREAT DEAL OF THE SAME ATTENDEES. 
          UH, THE CORRECTIONS FOR ANNUAL VALIDATION DO COME THROUGH THE TEXAS SET TRANSACTION, THE 8, 14, 20. 
          THERE'S A GOOD DEPENDENCY THERE THAT'S REALLY UNDERSTOOD AND APPRECIATED. 
          UM, AS I'VE, UH, SHARED WITH A COUPLE OF PEOPLE TODAY THAT HAVE ASKED ME ABOUT THIS, WORKING GROUPS ARE REALLY NEEDED WHEN YOU ARE SEEKING COLLABORATION AND CONSENSUS AND MOVING FORWARD. 
          LOTS OF BRAINSTORMING IS DONE AT, UH, WORKING GROUP MEETINGS AND A LOT OF THE AUTOMATION FOR ANNUAL VALIDATION AND STUDYING, UH, LOAD PROFILES. 
          UM, THAT'S REALLY, UH, SOME REALLY GOOD EFFORTS THAT'S SUCCESSFUL AT BOTH THE TDSP LEVEL AND AT ERCOT LEVEL. 
          SO REALLY WE WANNA TRY THIS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN DO THIS SUCCESSFULLY. 
          UM, IN ADDITION, WE HAVE, UM, TALKED TO A GREAT DEAL OF PEOPLE, JOHN AND I HAVE, AND WE REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE BEST WAY, UM, TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          SO THIS WOULD TAKE RMS FROM THREE WORKING GROUPS AND ONE TASK FORCE TO TWO WORKING GROUPS IN A TASK FORCE. 
          AND AT THE END OF LAST YEAR, WE SUNSETTED TWO TASK FORCES. 
          SO WE ARE BEING, UH, VERY CAREFUL AND LOOKING AT EFFICIENCIES. 
          THANK YOU RICHARD. 
          AND, UH, WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO SO. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND THIS IS HOW WE'RE DOING IT. 
          SO WE HAVE A TEAM LEADING THIS EFFORT AND UM, IT STARTS WITH KYLE PATRICK, WHO'S TEXAS SET CHAIR. 
          HE'S REALLY DOING THE HEAVY LIFTING AND KEEPING EVERYTHING ON TRACK AND, UH, COORDINATED. 
          KYLE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN SET FOR OVER 20 YEARS. 
          HE HAS CHAIRED FOR, FOR MANY YEARS. 
          HE'S REALLY BEEN INVOLVED. 
          HE HAS BEEN A PAST CHAIR OF RMS. UM, HE'S REALLY DEDICATED TO THE CAUSE. 
          UH, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, I GUESS DUST KICKED UP AT SOME OF THE MEETINGS, BUT, UH, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD. 
          THERE ARE NO MAJOR CONCERNS. 
          WE'VE GOT A GOOD TEAM INVOLVED. 
          JOHN AND I ARE PROVIDING OVERSIGHT. 
          UM, THE CORE TEAM DOES INCLUDE ALL OF THE LEADERSHIP CROSS RMS AND UM, THEN WE ALSO HAVE VETERANS SUCH AS LIKE KATHY SCOTT, WHO IS, UM, PROVIDING SUPPORT AND, UH, DEFINITELY A LOT OF, UH, DETAIL WHEN IT COMES TO THE DOCUMENTATION THAT NEEDS TO BE REVISED. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ACTIVITIES THAT WE'RE WORKING ON IS, UM, THE NEW SCOPE, THE ACRONYM, UM, THE WEBPAGE. 
          [00:55:01]
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'LL BE GETTING A NEW WEBPAGE. 
          UM, THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION SUCH AS ANNE MENTIONED THIS MORNING, THE CHANGES THAT WILL NEED TO BE DONE TO THE RETAIL MARKET GUIDE AND TO THE ERCOT PROTOCOLS, THE LEADERSHIP, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, WHAT WOULD BE A GOOD MODEL FOR 2026, MAYBE TWO, UH, CO-CHAIRS AND MAYBE THREE VICE CO-CHAIRS WHEN ONE WOULD WORK ON TESTING, ONE WOULD WORK ON TRANSACTIONS AND THE OTHER WOULD WORK ON PROFILING JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN KEEP THE WORK GOING. 
          AND, UM, WE REALLY THINK THAT EVERYTHING CAN BE IN PLACE BY THE END OF THE YEAR AND THEY WOULD KICK OFF THEIR FIRST MEETING, ELECTING THE NEW LEADERSHIP FOR THE JOINT EFFORT, UH, IN JANUARY. 
          AND THAT IS THE STANDARD TIMELINE FOR WORKING GROUPS AND TASK FORCES TO ELECT THEIR LEADERSHIP. 
          NEXT, THESE ARE SOME OF OUR ACTIVITIES GOING ON IN PROGRESS. 
          THE PROFILING WORKING GROUP. 
          THEY ARE GOING TO FINISH UP THE, UH, PROFILE, ANNUAL PROFILE VALIDATION. 
          THERE'S JUST SOME OUTSTANDING, UH, ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED THAT WILL FINISH THE END OF SEPTEMBER. 
          AS ON SCHEDULE, THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE PROFILE DECISION TREE AND GOING THROUGH THAT. 
          THERE ARE ALSO SOME CONVERSION OF, OF WORK FROM EXCEL TO WORD DOCUMENTS, WHICH REALLY IS GOING TO BE, UH, VERY HELPFUL. 
          THE RETAIL MARKET TRAINING TASK FORCE, OUR CLASSES ARE REALLY WELL ATTENDED. 
          MOST ARE COMPLETELY FULL BEFORE EVEN THE SECOND NOTIFICATION HAS GONE OUT. 
          SO WE'VE GOT THREE COMING UP. 
          A HUNDRED PERCENT OF RETAIL TRAINING CLASSES ARE NOW HELD VIA WEBEX. 
          AND ALL OF THESE HAVE INDIVIDUAL ONLINE MODULES THAT CAN USUALLY BE COMPLETED IN LESS THAN AN HOUR. 
          UM, BUT THE CLASSES ARE EITHER HALF A DAY OR FULL DAY. 
          THE TEXAS DATA TRANSPORT MARKET TRACK SYSTEM WORKING GROUP, THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE SUBTYPE ANALYSIS AND THAT'S A GOOD INDICATION OF WHAT KIND OF MARKET PARTICIPANTS OR WHICH INDIVIDUAL MARKET PARTICIPANTS HAVE AN ISSUE. 
          AND THERE'S REALLY, WE'VE ADDED TWO SINCE, UH, THE LAST QUARTER OF LAST YEAR. 
          AND THOSE HAVE BEEN, UH, HAVE AUTOMATED SOME OF THAT SUCH THAT THERE'S NOT SO MUCH MANUAL ANALYSIS NEEDED AND TEXAS SET. 
          AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THE TEXAS MARKET TEST PLAN. 
          WE'VE MADE SOME REALLY GOOD CHANGES. 
          ONE THING THAT CAME UP AT THE LAST RMS MEETING WAS THE 2026, THE TEST FLIGHT. 
          WE HAVE THREE TEST FLIGHTS A YEAR. 
          THE JUNE TEST FLIGHT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS GONNA BE ENDING ON A HOLIDAY, WHICH WAS A BANKING HOLIDAY. 
          SO THERE WASN'T A WAY FOR THE REPS TO BE ABLE TO FINISH THAT IN ANY EVENT, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPT. 
          SO WE HAD THEM REVISE THAT. 
          SO WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK AND, UM, WE'RE JUST GONNA KEEP MOVING FORWARD AND MAKING PROGRESS UNTIL WE FINISH. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          I WANTED TO MENTION THIS BECAUSE THE SMART METER, TEXAS FTPS AND API SECURITY UPGRADE DID GO LIVE THIS PAST WEEKEND. 
          THERE WILL BE ONE MORE UPDATE TO RMS AT OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          AND, UH, THE DECOMMISSIONING DATE SET FOR THE FTP IS IN SEPTEMBER. 
          SO ANYONE WHO IS RELYING ON THAT PAST TECHNOLOGY OR DID NOT MAKE CHANGES TO THEIR APIS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE FAILING WITH THOSE, THOSE, UH, TRANSMISSIONS. 
          AND DEFINITELY IF YOU ARE, IF YOU WERE USING AN API TRANSMISSION, THOSE CHANGES ARE NOT JUST OVERNIGHT. 
          YOU'RE REALLY GONNA HAVE TO GET YOUR TECH FOLKS INVOLVED. 
          SO IF YOU HAVEN'T, UM, BEEN KEEPING UP WITH THE PROJECT, PLEASE MAKE YOUR FOLKS AWARE. 
          ALL RIGHT, NEXT SLIDE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS THE TIMELINE AND WE'RE LOOKING AT SEPTEMBER 13TH AS THE DECOMMISSIONING DATE OF THAT IS FTP. 
          SO PLEASE PAY ATTENTION. 
          MANY REPS ARE COMPLETELY, EXTREMELY DEPENDENT ON THE DATA THAT THAT IS AVAILABLE IN THE SMART METER, TEXAS. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND WE INVITE YOU TO JOIN US ON SEPTEMBER 9TH. 
          UM, I DID WANNA MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT IS THAT RMS HAS USUALLY BEEN MEETING ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH, AND WE ARE MOVING TO THE SECOND TUESDAY OF THE MONTH, UH, STARTING IN 2026. 
          AND, UH, ERCOT HAS, HAS BEEN, WE'VE CHECKED WITH THEM AND THEY REALLY THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. 
          IT WOULD STILL ALLOW US TO PROVIDE, UM, I GUESS A COMMENTS TO PRS LIKE ENDORSEMENTS, UM, SINCE IT IS THE DAY BEFORE PRS. 
          SO WE REALLY THINK THAT'S GONNA BE, UM, A GOOD CHANGE. 
          MANY MARKET PARTICIPANTS THAT HANDLE SETTLEMENT, THIS WILL MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR THEM, SUCH THAT WE WON'T BE MEETING AT THE VERY FIRST OF THE MONTH. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          [01:00:01]
OKAY. 
          THAT DOESN'T POSE ANY ISSUES FOR GETTING THINGS FROM RMS TO PRS. 
          DON'T WE TYPICALLY LIKE A, A WEEK, IT'S THE DAY BEFORE. 
          YEAH, WE MIGHT HAVE, THERE MIGHT BE INSTANCES, DEBBIE, RIGHT? WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE TO, UM, DO AN URGENT VOTE ON AN ITEM OR, RIGHT. 
          IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          WE HAD, WE DID TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION. 
          UM, SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE, UH, HAVE PROVIDED DURING RMS, YOU DO GET THOSE FULL WEEK IN ADVANCE, BUT THERE'S OTHER COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME OUT SUCH THAT IT WOULD BE CLOSER TO THE PRS STATE. 
          SO BACK TO THE CIRCLE OF HOW MANY DAYS IN ADVANCE SHOULD COMMENTS BE CONSIDERED? MM-HMM . 
          THAT CHANGE THAT CAME UP, I BELIEVE THAT KATIE SUGGESTED AND RECOMMENDED IT AND PRESENTED IT AT THE AUGUST 12TH MEETING, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD COME INTO PLAY FOR YEARS. 
          THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS ON THE RETAIL SIDE THAT MANAGE SETTLEMENT, THEY HAVE REALLY WANTED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE FIRST OF THE MONTH. 
          WE DID LOOK AT MOVING TO THE SECOND THURSDAY OF THE MONTH, WHICH CAN CONFLICT WITH THE PUC MEETING. 
          UM, BUT WE REALLY FELT LIKE THIS. 
          WE STILL THINK THIS IS REALLY A GOOD CHANGE AND IT'S GONNA MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR OUR FOLKS ON THE RETAIL SIDE. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT IF WE, YOU'RE VOTING ON A VOTING ITEM, THE RMS, CAN IT, CAN WE GET IT TO PRS NEXT DAY OR IT JUST STARTS GOING TO THE NEXT MONTH? PRS IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ALL WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE NEXT MONTH UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S AN ANOMALY. 
          COREY, DON'T LAUGH AT ME. 
          . 
          . 
          WE DID, UH, LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF NPR R THAT RMS HAS PROVIDED THE INPUT TO, AND IT DOES SEEM LIKE THAT EVERY OTHER MONTH THERE IS SOMETHING EVERY OTHER MONTH, OKAY? MM-HMM . 
          THERE IT'S NOT A GREAT NUMBER JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE RETAIL WORK. 
          MOST OF IT GOES THROUGH, MOST OF OUR CHANGES ARE RETAIL MARKET GUIDE CHANGES, THE BLOCK CALENDARS. 
          SO, COREY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IF IT'S THE DAY BEFORE PRS AND IT HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THOSE MONTHS FOR THEY HAVE THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO SEND TO US, CAN YOU JUST WALK US THROUGH WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD LOOK LIKE? SURE. 
          IT'S, IT'S NOT UNLIKE WMS AND ROSS TODAY WHERE WMS AND ROSS MIGHT BE MEETING, YOU KNOW, EXACTLY SEVEN DAYS AHEAD OF PRS AND THEY'RE DISCUSSING NPRS THAT PRS SENT OVER TO THEM. 
          THEY HOPEFULLY TAKE A VOTE TO UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSE SOME VERSION OF THAT. 
          THOSE COMMENTS THAT COME OUT FROM THAT MEETING AREN'T NECESSARILY POSTED SAME DAY MARKET RULES PUT TOGETHER THOSE COMMENTS TO REFLECT THE VOTES OF WMS AND ROSS HAS TO BE CIRCULATED FOR WM WMS AND ROSS LEADERSHIP. 
          AND OFTEN THEY LEAVE THE WMS AND ROSS MEETING TO JET OFF TO BERMUDA, AND IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET THEIR APPROVAL. 
          THOSE NOT, I'M NOT SAYING THEY DON'T DESERVE THE TRIP, I'M HAPPY THAT THEY'RE GETTING THAT RELAXATION, BUT THEN THOSE COMMENTS COME OUT A DAY OR TWO AFTER ROSS OR WMS, WHICH MEANS THEY ARE FIVE DAYS AHEAD OF P-R-S-P-R-S ALWAYS HAS THE DISCRETION TO TAKE UP OR NOT TAKE UP THOSE REFERRALS BACK. 
          IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT THE REFERRAL CAME BACK FROM W-M-S-R-O-S, UM, WMS, R-O-S-R-M-S, SORRY, , FORGET MY CHILDREN'S NAMES. 
          THE, IT'S, IT'S ALWAYS WITHIN P S'S DISCRETION, AT LEAST CURRENTLY, UM, UNTIL AN NPR CHANGES THAT TO SAY, HEY, WMS OR RMS IS JUST RUBBER STAMPING. 
          SOMEBODY'S COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, WERE FILED SIX WEEKS AGO, WE REFERRED IT TO RMS TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK. 
          RMS MET WHENEVER THEY MET, FILED COMMENTS SAYING, HEY, PRS, THOSE COMMENTS FROM SIX WEEKS AGO, WE LIKE THEM. 
          THAT'S ALL THE SUBSTANCE THAT THEIR COMMENTS WERE. 
          THERE'S NO, OKAY, THERE'S NO NEEDING TO DIG INTO THE NITTY GRITTY LINES OF A FOUR SENTENCE OR FOUR LINE RMS COMMENT THAT SAYS, WE'RE HAPPY WITH THE LANGUAGE FROM MANY, MANY MOONS AGO. 
          SO I DON'T THINK PRS HAS EVER NEEDED THAT TIME TO DIGEST THAT. 
          THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT WOULD BE WMS RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF SOMETHING WHERE THEY PROVIDED 50 PAGES OF DESKTOP EDITS SO THAT THEY'VE TRULY MORPHED IT INTO SOMETHING THAT PRS HADN'T SEEN. 
          AND IF THOSE COMMENTS COME OUT 10 DAYS, FIVE DAYS, ONE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING, PRS HAS THAT DISCRETION TO SAY, I HAVEN'T REALLY HAD TIME TO DIG INTO THIS. 
          LET'S, LET'S PUNCH IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. 
          SO ALL THE EXISTING RULES WE HAVE IN PLACE TODAY ACHIEVE WHAT DEBBIE'S TALKING ABOUT. 
          SO I THINK THEM SLIDING THEIR MEETING AROUND IS NOT GOING TO DISRUPT. 
          OKAY. 
          PRS IN ANY WAY. 
          THANK YOU, CORY. 
          THANKS, COREY. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, THE GROUPS OF DISTINGUISHED SMART PEOPLE OR WHATEVER BETH SAID, ARE NOT JUST RUBBER STAMPING THINGS. 
          SO, UM, AND ANN TELLS ME IT'S GONNA BE OKAY, AND SHE TELLS ME THAT WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THE BLOCK CALENDAR WITH THIS CHANGE, WHICH IS POSTED TO THE TAC PAGE. 
          SO WE CAN, WE CAN ALL LOOK AT IT. 
          IT'S THE 2026 BLOCK CALENDAR. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANYTHING ELSE, DEBBIE? NO, I DO WANNA THANK MARKET RULES FOR WORKING WITH US SO INTENSELY ON BOTH THE CALENDAR AND THEN ALSO MERGING SET WITH PWG. 
          [01:05:01]
REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THE PAT OR THE PAST, I HOPE IT'S NOT PASSED, BUT I'LL SEE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, WE CAN MOVE 
          [10. ROS Report (Vote)]
TO THE ROSS REPORT. 
          KATIE, I WAS THINKING THAT WE WOULD DO YOUR REPORT AND THEN TRY TO GET THE TWO UNOPPOSED OR UNANIMOUS ONES, UM, ON THE COMBO BALLOT, IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE GROUP, AND THEN GO BACK TO 2 72 AND 1 21. 
          YEP. 
          SOUNDS GOOD. 
          SO, UH, CORY, FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE NEVER JETTED OFF TO BERMUDA AFTER A ROSS MEETING. 
          THERE'S TOO MUCH WORK TO DO, BUT WHEN I VOTE MYSELF OFF THE ISLAND IN RICHARD'S VERNACULAR, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL LET ME CHOOSE WHAT ISLAND I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO. 
          ALRIGHT, SO, SO WE HAVE TWO VOTING ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU, THAT ARE RELATED, THAT ARE NON UNANIMOUS. 
          I WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD BRING FRED UP. 
          I KNOW HE IS IN THE ROOM. 
          AND THEN MATT ATH, CAN YOU CONFIRM YOU'RE ON THE LINE? IT'S MATT ON. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WELL, FRED'S BACK THERE. 
          SO I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO A SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION ON THESE TWO ONCE I GET THROUGH MY REPORT. 
          BUT, UM, AND, AND I WILL GET TO THIS ERCOT FILED SET OF COMMENTS THAT CAME OUT AFTER ROSS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS KNOW THIS. 
          I HOPE YOU HAVE FIGURED THIS OUT, BUT FRED IS A VERY MUCH A SHINING STAR AT ERCOT. 
          YES, YOU ARE. 
          YES. 
          AND HE HAS BEEN ON THE FIRING LINE SEVERAL TIMES AT ROSS MEETINGS, AND HE SETS AN EXAMPLE FOR US ALL. 
          HE IS KIND, HE IS PROFESSIONAL, AND HE IS FLEXIBLE AND WILLING TO WORK WITH FOLKS TO TRY TO EITHER GET TO SOME CONSENSUS OR IN AGREEMENT TO DISAGREE. 
          BUT IT'S FOUNDED ON PRINCIPLES. 
          SO WHEN YOU SEE FRED AT THE MEETINGS, TAKE SOME NOTES. 
          'CAUSE WE CAN ALL LEARN FROM THE WAY FRED DOES THINGS. 
          UM, AND THEN WITH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE POSTED, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE. 
          SO THE LAST, UH, SENTENCE IN THE SECTION THAT IS BEING REVISED UNDER NOER 2 72 DID, DID CAUSE SOME CONSTERNATION AT, AT ROSS. 
          UM, THERE WERE WHAT FIVE SETS OF COMMENTS FILED ON THIS TOPIC. 
          UM, BUT FRED HAS WORKED OFFLINE WITH EACH ESR OWNER TO TRY TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF THOSE COMMENTS AND COME TO SOMETHING THAT, UH, HOPEFULLY I'M NOT PREJUDGING AND I'M NOT SHOWING BIAS HERE, BUT HOPEFULLY RESOLVE SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT ROSS. 
          SO, UM, I, I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK FRED. 
          I'VE SAID IT PRIVATELY, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY IT PUBLICLY. 
          AND I HAD HOPED MATT WAS ON THE LINE, BUT FOR, FOR MATT, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROTOCOLS AND BRINGING THAT RESEARCH TO US. 
          AND I ALSO APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO MEET WITH US OFFLINE TO TRY TO RESOLVE SOME OF THESE ISSUES. 
          UM, SO, SO WITH THAT, I'LL, I'LL MOVE ON FROM THIS SLIDE, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, AND LET YOU GET TO THE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION, BUT, UH, I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T SAY SOMETHING AS THIS IS COMING TO AN END. 
          SO WITH THAT, WE CAN GO ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO, NOER 2 78 IS RELATED TO 1291 OR 1290, I'M SORRY, 1290 WAS APPROVED. 
          UM, THIS NOER WERE SOME CHANGES THAT WERE NEEDED, BUT I THINK ERCOT STAFF WANTED TO MAKE SURE 1290 GOT THROUGH AND THEN THERE WERE SOME CHANGES UNDER, UH, 2 78 THAT WERE NECESSARY. 
          AND THEN, UM, WE WERE FINE WITH PICKER 1 29. 
          SO BOTH OF THOSE WERE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. 
          AND THEN, UH, NEXT SLIDE, THE TOPIC DE AZURE TODAY, THE AS METHODOLOGY. 
          UM, I DID WORK THROUGH THAT AT ROSS. 
          WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE A LIVE VOTE ON IT. 
          UM, THERE WERE FOUR NO VOTES AND EIGHT ABSTENTIONS. 
          I, I NOTE THAT BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT GOING INTO THIS DISCUSSION TODAY. 
          UM, SO SOME OF THAT WAS AROUND THE, UM, THE RISK CREDITS AND THE PERCENTAGE THAT WAS USED THERE. 
          UM, I THINK THERE WERE SOME OTHER, UH, CONCERNS FROM CONSUMERS. 
          I'LL LET THOSE REP, YOU KNOW, THOSE FOLKS REPRESENT THEMSELVES THAT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 
          I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU A FLAVOR OF THAT. 
          AND THEN, UH, AS USUAL, I USUALLY HAVE A COUPLE SLIDES THAT SHOW YOU KIND OF WHAT'S STILL AT ROSS AND, UH, WHERE IT IS SO THAT YOU CAN PLUG IN. 
          UM, ALSO WE'LL SAY THAT, UH, 
          [01:10:01]
WE, WE HEARD T'S CONCERN LOUD AND CLEAR ABOUT THE PLWG MEETINGS. 
          IF YOU CAUGHT THAT AT THE TAIL END OF PLWG YESTERDAY, WE ARE TRYING TO WORK OUT HAVING A SPECIFIC START TIME FOR PLWG FOR FOLKS THAT ARE TRYING TO PLUG IN THAT EITHER, UM, DON'T REGULARLY ATTEND OR WOULD NOT LIKE TO BE AT RPG AND PLWG. 
          JUST HAVE ISSUES AT PLWG. 
          UM, SO WE ARE RESOLVING THAT. 
          AND THEN, UH, NEXT SLIDE'S JUST A CONTINUATION HERE. 
          AND THEN OUR NEXT MEETING IS, UH, SEPTEMBER 11TH. 
          UM, OUT OF RECOGNITION OF THIS DAY, IT IS WEBEX ONLY. 
          I THINK MANY OF US COULD PROBABLY REMEMBER WHERE WE WERE ON SEPTEMBER 11TH. 
          UM, SO THAT'S THE NEXT MEETING. 
          AND, UH, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, AND THEN I WILL YIELD THE FLOOR TO THE DISCUSSION ON NUMBER 2 72 ON PICK 1 21. 
          OKAY. 
          QUESTIONS FOR KATIE? ALL RIGHT. 
          AND THANK YOU FOR THE, THE PLWG START TIME. 
          THAT IS, UH, AN ASK THAT CAME OUT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE WORKSHOP AND I, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT ONE. 
          ALRIGHT, SO WE, LET'S TRY TO TAKE UP THE UNANIMOUS ONE, SEE IF WE CAN GET THEM ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NO G 2 78 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE EIGHT SEVEN ROSS REPORT AND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF FIGURE 1 29 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE EIGHT SEVEN ROSS REPORT. 
          BETH, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THOSE? NO, NO. 
          I WAS JUST GONNA SUGGEST THAT, UH, IF WE NEED A MOTION OR WHATEVER THE PROCESS IS TO MOVE THOSE TWO TO THE COMBO BALLOT, USUALLY I JUST, YOU KNOW, ASK, LOOK, LOOK AROUND AND NOBODY LOOKS AT ME AND WE PUT IT ON THE COMBO BALLOT  OR I GET A THUMBS UP FROM A COUPLE PEOPLE COMBO BALLOT. 
          THUMBS UP. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LET'S PUT THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT AND THEN WE CAN, UH, TAKE IT OVER TO 2 72 AND 1 21. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU CAITLYN. 
          SO WE'LL TAKE UP NUMBER 2 72 AND PICK OUR 1 21 TOGETHER SINCE THEY'RE COMPANION ITEMS. UM, AT THE AUGUST ROSS MEETING, THEY DID VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF BOTH ITEMS. UH, FOR THE NOER, IT WAS APPROVED WITH THE ERCOT AUGUST ONE COMMENTS. 
          AND ON THAT VOTE, THERE WAS ONE OPPOSING FROM THE GENERATOR SEGMENT AND THERE WERE FOUR ABSTENTIONS, UH, FOR THE NOER. 
          THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS FILED BY ERCOT SINCE ROS. 
          UH, THOSE WERE FILED ON THE 20TH. 
          AND THEN PIGGER 1 21 HAD A SIMILAR VOTE AT ROSS THAT, FOR THAT ITEM, THEY VOTED TO APPROVE THE ERCOT JUNE 4TH COMMENTS WITH ONE OPPOSING FROM THE INDEPENDENT GENERATOR SEGMENT AND FOUR ABSTENTIONS. 
          SO I THINK, UH, WELL ACTUALLY, SORRY, LET ME SAY, UH, ON THE PIGGER, ERCOT HAS ALSO FILED COMMENTS TO THE PIGGER, AND THEN WE HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM TESLA THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED SINCE ROSS. 
          SO I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO HERE IS, UH, JUST HAVE FRED GO THROUGH THE ERCOT COMMENTS ON BOTH OF THESE, AND THEN WE'LL LET TESLA PRESENT THEIR COMMENTS AND WE CAN TAKE ANY DISCUSSION ALONG THE WAY. 
          FRED, GOOD MORNING. 
          UH, THIS IS FRED FROM, I THINK THE, UH, LATEST COMMENT WE FILE AS KIND OF WE DESCRIBED IN OUR COMMENTS, UH, DESCRIPTION, UM, AT OUR MEETING, UH, WHERE WE GET A LOT OF GOOD SUPPORT. 
          AND, UH, WE ALSO RECOGNIZE, UH, ADDITIONAL CONCERNS AND THE KIND OF RAISE, UH, AT THE MEETINGS AND THE FILE COMMENTS. 
          SO WE HAD A CHANCE TO WORK WITH, UM, MOST OF THE COMMENTERS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERNS AND, UH, ALSO LAY OUT WHAT WE NEED. 
          SO THE, THE CHANGES HERE IS REALLY TRY TO REFLECT THE DISCUSSIONS AND, UH, THE INTENT, UH, IN THE END IS FOR THE A GS REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXISTING PROJECTS IS GOING TO FOCUS ON ANY ADDITIONAL NEW EIGHT CAPACITIES FOR YOUR EXISTING CAPACITIES. 
          IF YOU, UH, FOR THE REASON FOR THE REPAIR OR FOR THE SOME ADJUSTMENT, AS LONG AS YOU MAINTAIN THE SAME CAPACITY, UH, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE A GS. 
          SO LET'S KIND OF TRY TO, UH, ADDRESS THE COMMENTS AND STILL TO MAINTAIN THE SYSTEM NEED AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, FRED. 
          UM, ANY, DID YOU ANY, ANY CHANCE WE COULD LOOK AT THAT WITHOUT THE, THE MARKUP? THANK YOU. 
          DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND SPEAK TO YOUR PICKER 1 21 COMMENTS, FRED? OKAY. 
          JUST MINOR CHANGE ON THOSE. 
          SO, UH, WE MAY NOT FILE A COMMENTS, WE RECOGNIZE THE, THE TESLA'S COMMENTS. 
          YEAH, I THINK THERE WAS JUST A CHANGE TO THE BUSINESS CASE, A SMALL DATE CHANGE, UH, THAT YOU GUYS FILED. 
          BUT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GO OVER TO TESLA AND LET THEM TALK ABOUT THEIR COMMENTS TO PICK 1 1 21. 
          ANITA, DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD? CAN YOU HEAR ME? ALL RIGHT? THIS IS ANITA. 
          YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          PERFECT. 
          YEAH, MY NAME IS ANITA SHARMA AND I COVER ERCOT POLICY 
          [01:15:01]
FOR TESLA. 
          UH, THANKS TO T AND ERCOT STAFF FOR CONSIDERING OUR COMMENTS ON BOTH BIG EARTH 1 21 AND, UH, NOGA 2 72. 
          UH, NOW TESLA'S INTENT WITH THESE COMMENTS WAS JUST TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE IN THESE GUIDES. 
          UH, WE READ THE LANGUAGE AS MEANING THAT ESRS WOULD NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE CAPABILITY TO PROVIDE ADVANCED GRID SERVICES OR A GS, BUT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A GS ACTIVATED DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS. 
          UH, SO TO ADDRESS THIS, WE PROPOSED SUBMISSION OF TWO MODELS, UM, ONE WITH A GS CAPABILITIES ENABLED TO DEMONSTRATE CAPABILITIES AND ONE WITHOUT A GS, UH, WHICH WOULD BE USED DURING OPERATIONS. 
          UM, NOW FRED  STAFF DID REACH OUT TO US TO CLARIFY THAT THE INTENT OF THEIR REVISION REQUEST IS TO MANDATE AT ACTIVATION OF THESE ADVANCED GRID SERVICES AND NOT JUST REQUIRE THEM AS, UH, CAPABILITIES. 
          SO WE ARE CLEAR ON THIS NOW. 
          UM, SO WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, REALLY THAT CHANGES THE CONTEXT FOR SOME OF OUR COMMENTS. 
          UM, HOWEVER, UH, I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO COMPENSATE ESRS FOR THE PROVISION OF A GS, UH, SINCE OPERATION AND GRID FORMING MODE, UH, DOES IMPOSE OPPORTUNITY COSTS. 
          UM, WE APPRECIATE STAFF EXPRESSING A WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS ON DEVELOPING A MARKET-BASED FRAMEWORK FOR EGS, AND WE REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO ENGAGING FURTHER ON THIS, UH, IMPORTANT TOPIC. 
          UM, THANKS FOR, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, ALLOWING US TO PROVIDE SOME COMMENTS HERE. 
          THANK YOU, ANITA. 
          UH, NEXT IN THE QUEUE IS PATRICK HART. 
          HI THERE. 
          THIS IS PATRICK HART FROM, UM, FROM MORTENSON. 
          I'M, I'M A, A TECHNICAL RESOURCE. 
          UM, SO NOT AN EXPERT ON POLICY OR ANYTHING. 
          UM, BUT I APPRECIATE THE, THE CHANCE TO SPEAK HERE. 
          UM, I, I, I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT HAVING MULTIPLE TYPES OF RESOURCES WITHIN, UM, A A A SINGLE FACILITY IS GOING TO PROVIDE SOME CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF HOW, UM, THE, THE FACILITY WIDE CONTROLS. 
          SO KIND OF THE, THOSE, THOSE PPCS THAT REGULATE THE, THE MULTIPLE TYPES OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE WITHIN ONE FACILITY, UM, TO THE POI, UM, THOSE, THOSE RESOURCES ARE, ARE NOT TYPICALLY DESIGNED TO CONTROL BOTH SAY THE GRID FORMING AND GRID FOLLOWING RESOURCES. 
          SO, SO THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME TECHNICAL CHALLENGES ON, ON THAT FRONT THAT IF, IF YOU HAVE BOTH TYPES WITHIN ONE FACILITY, I, I, I WANT TO, UM, KINDA BRING THAT UP 'CAUSE IT, IT, WE, WE, WE TEND TO, TO FOCUS ON THE, THE HIGH SPEED MODELS OF THIS, WHERE, WHERE THE INVERTERS THEMSELVES PERFORM THAT, THAT KIND OF RESPONSE. 
          UM, WITH RESPECT TO A AC GRID DISTURBANCE, IT, WE KIND OF TEND TO GLOSS OVER THE, THE MODE SWITCHES THAT HAPPEN AT THE, THE FACILITY WIDE CONTROLS LAYER. 
          UM, AND, AND, AND OFTEN THE MODELS DON'T, UM, THAT, THAT ARE PROVIDED DON'T COVER ALL OF THOSE, THOSE DIFFERENT MODE SWITCHES AND, AND DIFFERENT, UH, CONTINGENCY CASES. 
          UM, SO I, I'M, I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED, UM, ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE. 
          UM, AND, AND I'D, I'D LIKE TO WORK WITH THE TEAM TO KIND OF SORT THROUGH HOW TO KIND OF ADDRESS THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, PATRICK. 
          ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS EITHER FOR ERCOT OR FOR TESLA ON THESE ITEMS? SO GOING BACK TO THE COMMENTS, WE ONLY HAD ONE NEW SET OF COMMENTS FILED TO THE NOER SINCE ROS SO WE COULD CONSIDER, OH, SORRY MATT, YOU WANNA GO AHEAD? HEY, THIS IS MATT ARTHUR FOR ERCOT. 
          APOLOGIES THAT I'M LATE TO THE CONVERSATION HERE, BUT I DID, UM, JUST WANNA ADD ON THE NOER 2 72 COMMENTS THAT ERCOT FILED. 
          UM, WE INTRODUCED THE, THE MODIFIER ORIGINAL BEFORE THE SGIA UP THERE AND THOUGHT IT MIGHT JUST BE HELPFUL TO QUICKLY LAY OUT OUR THINKING ON THAT. 
          UM, WITHOUT THAT ORIGINAL THERE, IF A AN SGA WAS TO BE AMENDED AND RESTATED AT A LATER DATE, UH, PROBABLY THAT AMENDED AND RESTATED SGIA WOULD SAY THAT IT COMPLETELY REPLACES THE FIRST SGIA AND THAT WOULD, UH, MOVE THE, THE DATE OF THE SGIA UP. 
          SO BY PUTTING THAT ORIGINAL SGIA THERE, OUR INTENT IS TO SORT OF SOLIDIFY THAT GRANDFATHERING SUCH THAT IF, EVEN IF THAT SGIA IS LATER AMENDED AND RESTATED, THE, UH, GRANDFATHERING WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY. 
          UM, SO THAT'S SORT OF A MOVEMENT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO USE THAT TERM IN OTHER PLACES AS WELL. 
          I KNOW ANDY GALLO HAS BEEN WORKING ON THAT, I THINK, IN SOME OTHER REVISION REQUESTS, BUT, UH, JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT HERE. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BOB, 
          [01:20:03]
ARE YOU READY TO START MOVING THIS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE, I WAS GONNA HINT AROUND OR DANCE AROUND SOME OPTIONS. 
          UH, DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION? NO, I WANNA MAKE A STATEMENT FIRST. 
          GO AHEAD AND EVERYTHING. 
          WELL, FIRST OF ALL, AS WAS STATED LONG AGO, FRED'S BEEN GREAT WORKING ON THIS AND ANSWERED A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS TO TAKE CARE OF A LOT OF THINGS. 
          UM, WHAT I, WE'RE GONNA BE DISCUSSING THIS FOR SOME TIME IN MY MIND, UH, ALL THE WAY THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          'CAUSE WE DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW THIS IS ALL GONNA REACT IN EFFECT, UH, AS WE MOVE FORWARD. 
          UH, SO THAT'S ONE POINT. 
          THE OTHER POINT IS, FIRST I WANNA SAY I'M NOT GONNA OPPOSE THIS NOER, UH, FRED'S DONE A REAL GOOD JOB OF TAKING CARE OF THINGS, BUT I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT I STILL DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY OF DOING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE AND GET THE GRID FORMING OR ADVANCED GRID SUPPORT SERVICES IN THE AREAS THAT ARE MOST NEEDED BY THE GRID. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD BE DONE THROUGH A MARKET BASED AREA MUCH BETTER THAN THIS IS. 
          BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE WANTING THE CAPABILITY, SO I'M NOT GONNA STAND IN THAT WAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, RICHARD. 
          I'M TO MAKE A MOTION WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE AT THIS POINT. 
          SO, UH, ONE OPTION, RICHARD, FOR YOU TO CONSIDER, UH, IS THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND THE NOER AS ROSS RECOMMENDED IN ITS REPORT, AND ALSO AS AMENDED BY THE ERCOT AUGUST 20TH COMMENTS. 
          AGAIN, THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER NEW COMMENTS FILED TO THE NOER, UM, ALONG WITH THE IA I'LL ASK, BUT HAVE LOW HOPES THAT WE CAN PUT THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          SO IS THERE ANYONE THAT NEEDS TO ABSTAIN OR VOTE NO ON A MOTION LIKE THAT? OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO THAT'S NOT GONNA WORK. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          UM, SO THAT WOULD, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN MAYBE COMBINE IT WITH THE PIGGER AND BUILD FROM THERE. 
          UM, SO WITH, WITH THE PIGGER, WE HAVE THE CHOICE, RICHARD, A SIMILAR MOTION. 
          WE HAVE THE CHOICE OF THE ERCOT, UM, EIGHT, I'M SORRY, EITHER THE TESLA COMMENTS OR THE ERCOT 8 22 COMMENTS TO THE PIGGER. 
          SO THOSE HAD BOTH BEEN SUBMITTED SINCE, UH, WHAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE? AND I'M HAPPY TO AMEN. 
          MY MOTION. 
          SO I'M GONNA SUGGEST WE PUT THESE TWO TOGETHER ON A MINI COMBO BALLOT. 
          YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO WHAT, WHAT IS YOUR MOTION GONNA MAKE ME RESTATE? YOU WANT ME TO GIVE IT A SHOT, , OR I CAN HELP YOU. 
          I, I CAN HELP YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          LET ME, LET ME GIVE IT A SHOT HERE. 
          SO I THINK WE TOOK CARE OF THE NOER. 
          IT WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS, AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS, ALONG WITH THE NEW ERCO EIGHT 20 COMMENTS AND THE IA. 
          YES. 
          AND THEN FOR THE PIGGER 1 21, WE COULD LOOK AT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ALSO AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS WITH THE ERCOT 8 22 COMMENTS AND THE IMPACT ANALYSIS. 
          YES, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO RICHARD'S? YES, WE DO COMBO BALLOT MOTION? YES, WE DO. 
          F YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, CAITLIN? YEAH. 
          UM, SO I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS ONE. 
          I, I PRETTY MUCH AGREE WITH BOB HILTON, BUT I, I JUST WANTED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, UM, FRED AND, AND ERCOT DID A GREAT JOB WORKING WITH US. 
          UM, ALL THESE SORT OF TECHNICAL LANGUAGE, THE, THE DATE, UM, THE, THE ISSUE THAT GOT SOLVED IN THE LATEST COMMENTS, ERCOT WAS VERY ACCOMMODATING. 
          THE, THE LACK OF A YES IS JUST, YOU KNOW, ON, ON PRINCIPLE. 
          I, I BELIEVE THAT THE, THE MARKET BASED, UM, PRODUCT WOULD'VE BEEN A, A BETTER AND FAIRER WAY TO DO THIS. 
          BILL THAT WAS KAITLYN'S PARTIALLY ANSWERED MY QUESTION. 
          I WAS JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WHAT THE REMAINING CONCERNS WERE WITH THIS. 
          AND I'M KIND OF COMPARING IT TO NORE 2 45 WHERE, UH, THERE WERE NEW WRITE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS APPLIED TO BOTH EXISTING AND NEW RESOURCES, WHICH IS WHERE THOSE OF US THAT WERE MORE NEUTRAL ON THE ISSUE GOT CONCERNED WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO APPLY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ON INVESTED DOLLARS THAT HAPPENED YEARS AGO. 
          THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. 
          AND THERE CERTAINLY IS PRECEDENT WHERE ERCOT HAS ESTABLISHED NEW COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW GENERATION THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. 
          THE WHOLE D CURVE VOLTAGE ISSUE BATTLE BACK IN THE 2008, 2010 TIMEFRAME, POWER SYSTEM STABILIZERS, PMU RECORDING DEVICES, LIKE THIS IS NOT NEW. 
          THIS IS PRETTY TYPICAL ACTUALLY. 
          AND SO I WAS JUST KIND OF CURIOUS NOW THAT, UH, ERCOT HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF OBVIOUSLY TALKING TO THOSE THAT WERE CONCERNED AND MAKING THIS, UH, THE DATE FAR ENOUGH OUT WHERE THE CON THE CONCERNS 
          [01:25:01]
HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. 
          WHAT ARE THE REMAINING PROBLEMS WITH THIS? AND IT SOUNDS LIKE BOB EXPRESSED, AND CAITLYN TO SOME EXTENT IS THEY THINK THEY SHOULD GET PAID TO DO THIS, UM, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY DEBATABLE. 
          BUT IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT, THAT THET NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT LINGERING CONCERNS FROM THE, UH, BATTERY PROVIDERS ON THIS? I, I THINK THERE IS SOME LINGERING CONCERN. 
          UM, AND, AND YES, IT'S, IT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN 2 45. 
          AND THE, THE RETROACTIVITY IS, IS NOT HERE, BUT SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES AROUND, UM, THE, THE CAPABILITY REQUIREMENT VERSUS THE PERFORMANCE OBLIGATION I THINK EXISTS. 
          AND SO I THINK WHEN, WHEN BOB AND I TALK ABOUT CONTINUING TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION OR MAYBE NOT BEING ABLE TO ME FULLY SUPPORT YET, I THINK THERE ARE PROBABLY CONVERSATIONS WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO HAVE TO MAYBE EVEN HAVE MORE DETAILED LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING IN CAPABILITY IS MEETING ANY COMPLIANCE OBLIGATION. 
          BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE SEEN SOME TROUBLES IN IMPLEMENTING 2 45 AND, AND GETTING COMPLIANCE WITH THAT. 
          AND I THINK WE COULD SEE THAT THE SAME THING HERE. 
          THIS IS REALLY NEW TECHNOLOGY. 
          AND SO I, I UNDERSTAND IT WAS REALLY DIFFICULT AT ROSS AND IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR ME EVEN AS A ESR OWNER. 
          YOU KNOW, ERCOT WOULD SAY ONE THING ABOUT TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES, MY ENGINEERS WOULD SAY ONE THING, EVERY OTHER ESR COMPANY WOULD EACH SAY A DIFFERENT THING. 
          AND I, I THINK EVERYBODY WAS BEING SINCERE. 
          I THINK IT'S JUST SUCH NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT WE DON'T KNOW, LIKE IF IT'S ON ON MODE OR OFF MODE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DIFFERENT MODELS, HOW IT WILL REACT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. 
          SO I THINK THERE'S JUST SOME HESITANCY ABOUT WHAT THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE COMPLIANCE LOOKS LIKE AND, AND HOW THIS WILL BEHAVE IN REAL TIME. 
          AND, AND DOES THAT RAISE ANY CONCERNS FOR OR CO OR ESR OWNERS? THANKS NED. 
          THANKS MARTHA. 
          I WAS, I WAS, I'M PLANNING TO ABSTAIN ON THE VOTE. 
          UM, WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE EX UH, EXPLANATION OF WHY. 
          AND BILL, THIS PROBABLY GETS TO YOUR POINT, YOU KNOW, UH, EXISTING GENERATORS HAVE A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS THAT WE ARE KIND OF TABLE STAKES, BUT AS YOU KNOW, THIS NPR OR THIS, I'M SORRY, THIS, UH, THIS NO GRAND BIGGER HAVE HIGHLIGHTED, SOME OF THOSE CAPABILITIES ARE BECOMING MORE SCARCE AND THERE'S A NEED IN THE MARKET. 
          SO FROM A PRINCIPLED STANDPOINT, WE THINK A MARKET-BASED APPROACH WOULD BE A WAY TO ADDRESS THAT AND PROVIDE VALUE TO ALL GENERATORS, NOT JUST, UH, IBR, BUT HAVE THAT BE A, UM, YOU KNOW, PROCURED SYSTEM WIDE FROM ANY RESOURCE THAT CAN PROVIDE IT. 
          SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE PRINCIPLE. 
          THAT'S NOT THE WAY THIS ONE'S GOING. 
          WE ACTUALLY, BUT WE, YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT WE SEE HERE, UH, WE DO THINK ERCO T'S COMMENTS HAVE, UH, HAVE ADDRESSED THIS IN A WAY THAT IS PROBABLY THE, THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          SO NOT GETTING IN THE WAY OF IT BY ANY MEANS, BUT THAT'S THE, THE BASIS FOR THE, THE ABSTENTION. 
          OKAY. 
          BOB? WHOOPS. 
          YEAH, FIRST JUST TO GO ON AND TALK ABOUT ON THE COMPLIANCE PIECE IN THAT, I HAVE LESS OF A CONCERN ABOUT THAT ANYMORE, BUT I WILL REMIND EVERY ONE OF US, LIKE RICHARD AND BILL AND SOME OF US THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND HERE FOR A WHILE, WHENEVER THE CCG TS CAME IN AND WE STARTED MODELING CCG TS AND LOOKING AT, UH, PFR AND EVERYTHING ELSE, 'CAUSE THOSE ARE OPERATED DIFFERENT. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE A GOVERNOR, THEY HAVE A FUEL VALVE THAT DOES ALL THAT. 
          IT TOOK US, I THINK IT WAS A YEAR AND A HALF BEFORE WE EVER GOT THAT ALL COMPLETELY IRONED OUT TO WHERE WE WENT THROUGH WITH COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 
          SO THAT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST TO LAY THAT BASE OUT THERE. 
          BUT I'M NOT AS WORRIED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE WORDING AND THE WAY THIS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. 
          WHILE I STILL DO HAVE A LITTLE, BUT MY, MY, UH, CONCERN IS THAT NOT NECESSARILY THE PAY, ALSO IT'S THAT THE WAY THAT 2 72 WILL WORK IS ALL OF THE ESRS THAT HAVE AN SGIA AFTER APRIL 1ST, 2026, WILL HAVE TO HAVE THIS CAPABILITY. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S FINE. 
          YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GONNA BE. 
          YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GONNA BE CLUSTERED, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN AS IT MOVES FORWARD ON INSTALLATION. 
          AND I BELIEVE THAT THE GRID FORMING PIECES OF THIS NEED TO BE FOCUSED AND THEY'RE TARGETED FOR WHERE THEY WOULD BRING THE BEST POSITIVE IMPACTS TO THE GRID. 
          AND I'M SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE GTCS AND SOME OF THE OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY HAVE CONGESTION THAT THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY WOULD, WOULD HELP. 
          AND BY DOING IT IN A MARKET BASED EFFORT, YOU COULD TARGET THAT AND YOU COULD SAY, I NEED THEM IN THESE AREAS. 
          AND THAT'S WHY 1278 WAS WRITTEN THE WAY IT WAS, JUST TO USE THE EXAMPLE. 
          IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE ONE THAT WE USE, BUT THAT'S WHY IT WAS WRITTEN THAT WAY SO THAT 
          [01:30:01]
ERCOT COULD SAY, I NEED SO MUCH GRID FORMING IN THIS AREA. 
          I NEED SO MUCH IN THIS AREA, I NEED IT OVER HERE, RATHER THAN JUST HAVING IT BEING PUT OUT THERE LIKE A SHOTGUN. 
          AND SOME OF IT'S GONNA DO, DO SOME REALLY GOOD THINGS FOR IT, AND SOME OF IT AREN'T GONNA DO AS MUCH GOOD FOR IT. 
          AND THERE'S DEBATE, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO IT. 
          I'M NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS ON WHETHER A CONSOLIDATION OF GRID FORMING IN ONE AREA, WHICH YOU'D HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM WITH, UH, WITH THERMAL GENERATION ALSO, IF YOU HAD AN ALL TOO MUCH IN ONE SPOT, YOU GET OVERREACTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO THERE, THERE, THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN ABOUT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THAT'S WHY I'M NOT GOING TO OPPOSE IT, IS 'CAUSE IT'S GONNA GIVE, GIVE OR COP WHAT THEY THINK THEY NEED. 
          I THINK THEY NEED MORE . 
          THANKS FOR THE PERSPECTIVE. 
          THANK YOU KATIE. 
          THANKS MARTHA. 
          SO WHAT I'M HEARING RIGHT NOW, AND I WANNA RECONCILE THIS FOR EVERYONE, IS THERE'S A LINE IN THE SAND AND WE'VE GOT THE OPERATIONAL SIDE THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FROM ERCOT, AND WE'VE GOT THE MARKET SIDE. 
          WELL, I'M HERE TO TELL YOU, LIKE, WE CAN JUST MARK THAT OUT, TAKE YOUR SHOE AND JUST ERASE THAT LINE. 
          BECAUSE WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM FRED IS THAT THIS DOES NOT CLOSE THE DOOR FOR LOOKING AT THE MARKET ASPECT OF THINGS. 
          HE'S ALREADY COMMITTED TO DOING THAT. 
          HE'S ALSO SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU LIKE THIS IDEA FOR AN NPR OR NOT, HE, IT SOUNDS LIKE HE STILL IS DEVELOPING, FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH HIS WORD ON A ONE TIME PAYMENT. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT INCENTIVE THAT PROVIDES. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ENOUGH, BUT HE HAS COMMITTED TO STILL WORK WITH THE FOLKS THAT WOULD RATHER SEE, UM, A MARKET BASED APPROACH TO THAT. 
          AND AS NED STATED, IF WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THAT MORE BROADLY, UM, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          BUT I, I JUST WANT FOLKS TO KNOW THIS IS NOT THE THE END ALL BE ALL. 
          YOU'RE, YOU'RE TAKING A VOTE ON WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY, BUT THERE IS STILL MORE WORK TO BE DONE ON THIS SHUI. 
          HI, GOOD MORNING. 
          JUST ONE SECOND. 
          UM, UM, THANKS. 
          UM, FIRST I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR MY SHAKY VOICE BECAUSE I'M NOT USED TO TALKING TO, UM, A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE  EXPERTS AND, UM, THE, UM, VIPS. 
          AND SO, UM, MY THOUGHTS OF ALL THESE, UH, DEBATE IS THAT, UM, THEY ARE APPARENTLY, UH, ALL KINDS OF, UH, COMPETING PRIORITIES, RIGHT? SO I THINK, UM, SO WE NEED TO SORT THROUGH ALL THE DEBATES AND FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHICH ONES SHOULD TAKE, YOU KNOW, HIGHEST PRIORITY, JUST LIKE HOW WE PRIORITIZE THE, THOSE NPR. 
          SO I THINK THAT AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL, THE FIRST LEVEL WE WANT TO LOOK AT THE RELIABILITY AND THE ECONOMICS. 
          THESE TWO, WHICH ONE TAKES HIGHER PRIORITY IN THIS CASE. 
          SO ACCORDING TO ORCAS DEBATES, I THINK, YOU KNOW, UM, THEY REALLY THINK IT'S URGENT FOR UHRS TO HAVE THIS KIND OF CAPABILITY. 
          UM, SO, UM, SO I'M NOT SURE IF THAT GIVES A LOT OF WEIGHT TO THESE, UH, YOU KNOW, TO, TO THE FINAL DECISION OF THIS. 
          AND I THINK ONCE WE GOT THAT TAKEOFF, YOU KNOW, WHICHEVER WAY TAKES PRIORITY, RIGHT? RELIABILITY OR ECONOMICS, THE NEXT LET'S LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE ECONOMICS, WHICH IS COST OVER, UH, VERSUS COMPENSATION. 
          SO I, I HEARD PEOPLE TALK ABOUT ONE SIDE AND ANOTHER THE OTHER. 
          SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE HOW WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RE YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THE TRANSMISSION COST ALLOCATION, I THINK THIS IS SIMILAR. 
          SO IF WE WANT TO COMPENSATE EVERYBODY FOR THIS SERVICE, AND THEN WE SHOULD LOOK AT ALLOCATE THE COST TO THOSE WHO COST THIS, RIGHT? UM, SO, UM, YEAH, I JUST PUT IT OUT THERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, RICHARD. 
          YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO EXTEND THINGS TOO MUCH, BUT I, I DO WANNA, BOB, AND YOU IN PARTICULAR, I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU AND THEN SOME OF THE OTHERS ARE SAYING HERE. 
          'CAUSE I MEAN, NUMBER ONE, I THINK, UM, UH, THE COMMENTS ABOUT, HEY, THIS IS NOT OVER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE DISCUSSING THE COMPENSATION ISSUE AND, AND ALL OF THAT IS THAT I, I DO AGREE WITH THAT. 
          THIS DOESN'T CLOSE THE DOOR ON DISCUSSING THAT. 
          UM, THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT TO ME THAT WE GET IN PLACE SOME GROUND RULES SO THAT THE CAPABILITIES ARE THERE AND WITH WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GETTING IT WHERE IN THE RIGHT LOCATIONS AND, AND ALL OF THAT. 
          UM, I DO THINK THAT 
          [01:35:01]
IT, IT, IT JUST, IF, IF YOUR INTENT IS TO NOT HAVE TO DO IT AT ALL, UM, IN SOME LOCATIONS VERSUS HAVING TO DO IT IN, IN IMPORTANT LOCATIONS, THAT MAY, THAT ALONE MAY BE DIFFICULT. 
          YOU KNOW, THE CAPABILITY STANDPOINT, I FEEL LIKE THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE SYSTEM'S CHANGING. 
          AND SO ONE DAY THERE MAY BE A NEED, A LACK OF A NEED HERE TODAY AND A DESPERATE NEED TOMORROW. 
          UM, BUT IF YOU'RE, AND SO THAT I, I MIGHT BE WORRIED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, BUT WHAT I THINK YOU WERE REALLY GETTING AT WAS THAT HAVING THE STUFF ON ALL THE TIME TO BE CAPABLE OF, OF PROVIDING THIS SERVICE BOOM RIGHT NOW IS A COST. 
          AND WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE IS THE ABILITY TO RETREAT FROM THAT IF THERE'S INSTANCES WHERE IT'S REALLY NOT NEEDED IN A PARTICULAR AREA SO THAT YOUR ENERGY PRODUCTION OR WHATEVER IS CAPABLE OF MORE. 
          AND SO ALL I'M REALLY LOOKING FOR FOR IS, DID I, DID I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT AND, AND THE COLLECTIVE POINTS WELL ENOUGH, OR SHOULD WE JUST HAVE A SIDEBAR DISCUSSION? 'CAUSE I DO WANT TO UNDERSTAND IT. 
          WE CAN AND MAKE SURE I HEAR YOU. 
          YEAH, WE CAN, BUT IT'S NOT SAYING THAT I DON'T WANT TO SUPPLY IT IN AN AREA, IT'S NOT DOING VERY MUCH GOOD. 
          WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS THAT UNDER 2 72, PART OF MY CONCERN IS IT COULD ALL END UP IN AREAS THAT WE DON'T REALLY NEED IT. 
          AND THEN THE AREAS WHERE WE REALLY DO NEED IT, THERE'S NO ESRS NEW ASRS BEING BUILT IN THOSE AREAS, AND THEREFORE WE DON'T GET THE BENEFITS THAT WE COULD. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SO YOU'D LIKE THE, THE, THE, YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT SOMETHING SOMEWHERE. 
          OKAY, I HEAR YOUR MESSAGE. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS AFTER THAT I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BUT DO THAT. 
          YEAH, THAT'S ALL I WAS TRYING TO SAY. 
          YEAH. 
          PATRICK, ANOTHER TWO QUICK COMMENTS ON, ON BOTH THE COST AND, AND THE, LIKE, THE DENSITY OF, OF GRID FORMING RESOURCES. 
          UM, ONE, THE, THERE IS ADDED COST TO THE CAPEX SIDE OF THIS EQUATION. 
          SO AS YOU'RE BUILDING THE FACILITY, YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT IN A WAY THAT, THAT HAS ADDITIONAL COST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FACILITY KIND OF WITHSTANDS SOME OF THE, THE GRID FORMING BEHAVIOR OF THAT RESOURCE. 
          SO I, I, I THINK THERE, THERE IS ADDITIONAL COST THAT'S GOING TO BE INCURRED BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DEVELOPING THESE. 
          UM, AND, AND I THINK ONCE IT'S THERE, THE, THE, THE ADDED COST, I MEAN, THERE'S PROBABLY AN OPERATIONAL BENEFIT TO TURNING IT OFF, UM, WHEN WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE REQUIRING ESRS TO PROVIDE A BUFFER, UM, IN ORDER TO KIND OF PROVIDE PERFORMING RESOURCES AT ALL TIMES. 
          UM, BUT I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S REQUIRED WITH THIS, THIS, UM, THIS NOER. 
          SO, UH, JUST THE, THE COST SIDE OF THINGS, UM, ON, ON THE DENSITY, RIGHT? SO IF, IF THERE'S A, A REGION WHERE THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF THESE RESOURCES THAT ARE, ARE, ARE, UM, ARE GRID FORMING, UM, I DON'T THINK WE YET UNDERSTAND THE, THE, THE POTENTIAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN NEIGHBORING FACILITIES, FOR EXAMPLE, OR, UM, THE, LIKE THE IBS THEMSELVES WITHIN THE FACILITIES HAVING INTERACTIONS WITH COMPETING STRATEGIES OF, OF CONTROL DESIGN FROM, FROM POTENTIALLY NEIGHBORING RESOURCES THAT ARE NOT OF THE SAME MAKE AND MODEL. 
          UM, SO I THINK, I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S CONSIDERATIONS THAT, THAT NEED TO BE THOUGHT THROUGH ON, ON, ON THAT SIDE OF THINGS. 
          SO I, IF, IF A WHOLE BUNCH OF RESOURCES ARE GOING INTO AN AREA THAT IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO BE ABLE TO TURN THAT OFF, UM, IN CERTAIN AREAS IN CERTAIN FACILITIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, BOB. 
          JUST A FINAL WORD, UH, TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE TO VOTE NO HERE. 
          I'M NOT TRYING TO DO THAT AT ALL. 
          I JUST WANTED TO PUT, I FELT THAT I NEEDED TO GET MY CONVICTIONS OUT THERE ON WHAT I FELT ABOUT IT, AND I WILL BE SUPPORTING IT JUST TO LET YOU KNOW. 
          SO, UH, BUT I HAVE THOSE OTHER CONVICTIONS AND I THINK THERE'S BETTER WAYS OF DOING IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          OKAY. 
          THE QUEUE IS EMPTY. 
          AND SO WE HAVE THE MOTION ON THE SCREEN THAT RICHARD MADE, WHICH BETH SECONDED. 
          IS THERE ANY FINAL DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BEFORE WE VOTE? OKAY, CORY, WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHTY. 
          SO ON YOUR MINI YET POWERFUL COMBO BALLOT, WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS. 
          UM, MARK TRIFUS. 
          UH, YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, NICK. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, GARRETT. 
          YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          MIKE? YES, THANKS. 
          THANK YOU, BETH. 
          YES, THANK YOU, NAVA. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR CO-OPS. 
          MIKE? YES. 
          THANK YOU, JOHN. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANK 
          [01:40:01]
YOU, KYLE. 
          YES, PLEASE. 
          THANK YOU TREVOR FOR BLAKE. 
          YES, THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. 
          BOB? YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU, CAITLIN. 
          ABSTAIN. 
          WELL HOLD ON. 
          A COMBO BALLOT. 
          IT'S A, IT'S A MINI COMBO, BRIAN. 
          IT'S A MINI, IT'S SMALL BUT MIGHTY COMBO BALLOT. 
          IT'S A BID BEE. 
          IT'S A MINI COMBO, BUT YOU ABSTAINED ON THE COMBO. 
          BRIAN, BRIAN, DON'T TELL ME YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO BREAK. 
          DON'T TELL ME YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO BREAK THESE APART INTO TWO SEPARATE BALLOTS. 
          BRIAN, I DID ABSTAIN ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          DO YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO SPLIT THE MOTION? NO, I'M JUST TEASING. 
          UM, I I GOT IT. 
          I'M JUST SORRY. 
          INSIDE JOKE, I GUESS SOME OF US GOT IT. 
          UM, YES, WITH SYMPATHIES TO, UH, THE REST OF MY SEGMENT, THAT WAS A SYMPATHETIC YES. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
           NED? UH, ABSTAIN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WAS THAT A SYMPATHETIC ABSTENTION? IT WAS A SYMPATHETIC ABSTENTION, YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND AN EFFICIENT ONE, ? YEAH, WE JUST NEED Y'ALL TO TELEMETRY YOUR STATE OF SYMPATHY SO WE CAN MAKE SURE WE'RE TRACKING THAT ON THE IPM SETH. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SMI EPSTEIN. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JEREMY. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IAN? YES, THANK YOU COREY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO THE I REPS BILL? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JENNIFER. 
          JENNIFER SCHMIDT. 
          YOU WITH US? OH, GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT, JENNIFER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JAY? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CHRIS. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANDRE IOUS. 
          RICHARD? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MARTHA? YES. 
          THANK YOU ROB FOR KEITH? YES. 
          THANK YOU ABBY FOR DAVID? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND OUR MUNI IS RUSSELL. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, DAVID. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALICIA? YES, THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN ANDREW FOR JOSE? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MOTION CARRIES UNOPPOSED. 
          THREE ABSTENTIONS. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANKS COREY. 
          SO WE ARE FINISHED WITH ROSS NOW. 
          DOES ANYONE WANNA TAKE A SHORT BREAK OR DO YOU WANNA KEEP ROLLING UNTIL LUNCH? KEEP ROLLING. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO NEXT IS 
          [11. WMS Report]
THE WMS REPORT WITH, UH, JIM LEE TODAY. 
          THANKS. 
          OVER HERE. 
          UM, YEAH, JIM LEE, UH, VICE CHAIR OF WMS HERE TO GIVE THE UPDATE. 
          UM, SO AT OUR AUGUST 6TH MEETING, UM, WE HAD A VERY HEALTHY DISCUSSION ON THE 2026, AN ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY. 
          UM, AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THAT DISCUSSION, UM, IT WAS RAISED THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, MEMBERS DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THEY HAD, UH, ENOUGH TIME TO, UH, UH, GIVE A, GIVE A GOOD VOTE ON THIS ONE. 
          SO THE WS LEADERSHIP DECIDED TO, TO MOVE THIS TO AN EMAIL VOTE. 
          UM, AND, UH, WE USED THE, THE IDENTICAL MOTION THAT, THAT ROSS HAD USED FOR THEIR, THEIR, UH, VOTE THE THE FOLLOWING DAY. 
          AND SO, UH, THANKS TO KATIE FOR WORKING WITH WMS LEADERSHIP TO KIND OF COORDINATE, UM, THAT, UH, THE RESULTS OF, UH, THE EMAIL VOTE. 
          UM, IT PASSED, UM, IT HAD SIX, SIX OBJECTIONS WITH TWO ABSTENTIONS. 
          UM, I THINK I'LL, I'LL LEAVE THE, THE DETAIL DISCUSSION FOR AGENDA ITEM 15 ON, ON THE AS METHODOLOGY. 
          BUT, UH, THAT DID WRAP UP THE WMS PORTION OF THAT, UM, DISCUSSION. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER PIECE THAT WE, UH, TALKED ABOUT, UH, WAS NPR 1285, UH, WHICH IMPROVES THE, UH, SELF COMMITMENT, UH, WINDOW WITHIN THE R OPT OUT WINDOW. 
          UM, AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT, IT, UM, SEEKS TO EXPAND THE, THE R OPT-OUT WINDOW BY REMOVING THE, THE TWO HOUR REQUIREMENT CURRENTLY IN PROTOCOLS. 
          AND SO, UH, THIS ONE, UH, WMS VOTED TO ENDORSE AS SUBMITTED. 
          UM, AND THE NPR IS CURRENTLY AT PRS RIGHT NOW FOR IA CONSIDERATION. 
          SO THAT IS A UPDATE FOR THE MEETING ON THE SIXTH. 
          AND THEN THIS, THIS SLIDE JUST, UH, OUTLINES THE REMAINING TOPICS THAT WMS HAS ON OUR PLATE, UH, TO WORK THROUGH. 
          SO IT'S SHORT AND SWEET UPDATE. 
          HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR JIM? THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, THANKS JIM. 
          SO WE CAN MOVE 
          [12. Credit Finance Sub Group (CFSG) Report (Vote)]
TO, UM, THE CFSG REPORT. 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEP. 
          [01:45:01]
YEP. 
          WONDERFUL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, WE DIDN'T HAVE A MEETING THIS MONTH BECAUSE OF A LIGHT AGENDA. 
          UM, WE WILL BE MEETING LATER IN SEPTEMBER. 
          UM, THE ONLY THING WE NEED TO ADD TO THET AGENDA IS, OR THET BALLOT IS VOTING ON BRIAN PEN PENDERGRAST. 
          AND I HOPE I DIDN'T SLAUGHTER HIS NAME TOO BAD. 
          HE IS A BACKUP REPRESENTATIVE FOR CITY OF AUSTIN, AND OUR CHARTER ALLOWS, UH, MEMBERS TO HAVE BACKUP MEMBERS. 
          THEY ONLY HAVE ONE VOTE, BUT THEY HAVE AL, YOU KNOW, ALTERNATIVES THAT CAN SERVE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE ARE LOOKING TO APPROVE THE CFSG MEMBERSHIP EDITION AS PRESENTED. 
          BRIAN, UH, ER OF CITY OF AUSTIN. 
          CAN WE PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          ANYTHING ELSE FOR US, LORETTO? NO, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WE ARE SKIPPING, UM, LARGE LOAD UNTIL JULIA IS OUT OF FURTHER COMMITMENT, SO WE CAN 
          [14. RTC+B Task Force Report]
MOVE TO RTC PLUS B TASK FORCE REPORT, UH, IF MATT MARINAS IS READY. 
          THERE HE IS. 
          THANK Y'ALL. 
          AND I THINK I WENT FROM 40 SLIDES AT LAST HACK MEETING TO 14, SO I JUST GOT LUCKY ON THE EFFICIENCY. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THE ISSUES LIST THAT, UH, THAT TASK FORCE HAS BEEN WRAPPING UP. 
          IT'S REALLY ABOUT MARKET READINESS IN THE MARCH TO THE FINISH LINE. 
          WE'RE AT A HUNDRED DAYS, 100 DAYS FROM GO LIVE. 
          UM, AND WE HAVE THE LFC TEST IN LESS THAN THREE WEEKS. 
          SO I WANT TO KIND OF TOUCH ON HOW THINGS FIT TOGETHER, ESPECIALLY OVER THE NEXT 21 DAY. 
            OF MARKET TRIALS READINESS PIECES, AND WE'LL TOUCH ON THOSE IN A MINUTE. 
          UH, HERE'S THE, YOU KNOW, CHECKING 'EM OFF THE LIST. 
          THANK YOU FOR KEEPING THINGS MOVING. 
          UH, NOTE WE DID FILE A GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION. 
          UH, IF I DIDN'T TOUCH ON THIS, WELL LAST TIME IT WAS THE IDEA FOR THE LFC TEST THAT IS A PRODUCTION LIVE TEST ON SEPTEMBER 11TH FROM 10 30 TO 1230 WHERE THE CONTROL ROOM WILL DO A HOTLINE CALL AND SAY, FOLLOW THE RTC SIGNAL. 
          THAT IS ESSENTIALLY OUR VDI TO SAY FOLLOW SOMETHING ELSE. 
          THIS GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION SAYS ERCOT WILL NOT CHARGE FOR THOSE DEVIATIONS BETWEEN THE INSTRUCTIONS OR THE DISCREPANCIES DURING THAT PERIOD. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WAS FILED WITH THE COMMISSION TO ALLOW US TO ESSENTIALLY BREAK PROTOCOLS AND NOT USE THAT CHARGE. 
          SO POLICY WISE, WE THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION. 
          I HAVE HAD AT LEAST A COUPLE PHONE CALLS FROM PEOPLE SAYING COMPLIANCE, WHAT ARE, UH, WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR NODAL PROTOCOLS TO BE LIVE FOR TWO HOURS? THAT'S NOT THE CASE. 
          THIS IS A CONTROLLED TEST FROM THE CONTROL ROOM AND BACK OUT AGAIN. 
          UH, AND THAT'S HOW WE'RE MANAGING THROUGH THAT. 
          UH, THE SCOPE HAS NOT CHANGED. 
          THANK YOU STAKEHOLDERS FOR THAT. 
          UH, AGAIN, THE PROGRESSION THAT WE'RE IN, WE'RE INTO THIS, UH, END OF AUGUST, SO WE'RE IN THE TIPPING POINT OF MOVING INTO THE LOAD FREQUENCY CONTROL TEST AND DAY AHEAD MARKET. 
          IT'S ALSO KIND OF A WIN THAT WE'VE BEEN RUNNING SCED NOW FOR TWO MONTHS ALMOST WITH THE MARKET PARTICIPANT. 
          SO THE PRICES LOOK A LITTLE WEIRD, UH, BUT WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS WE ARE CLEARING ANCILLARY SERVICES FOR THESE HOURS. 
          WE ARE GETTING THE WORK DONE AND PEOPLE ARE EXERCISING THE SYSTEMS. SAW A QUESTION PIPE IN. 
          YEAH, NED, THANKS MATT. 
          AND I APOLOGIZE IF I MISSED THIS AT THE LAST, UH, TASK FORCE MEETING, BUT WHEN, UH, WHEN YOU HAVE THAT HOTLINE CALL AND YOU GIVE THE, THE EFFECTIVELY THE VDI FOR, UH, FOLKS TO SWITCH OVER, IS THERE GONNA BE SOME PHASING OF WHEN PARTICIPANTS GOING OR IS IT EVERYONE JUMPING THE POOL AT THE SAME TIME? GREAT QUESTION. 
          WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS, THE CON WE'VE TALKED TO THE CONTROL ROOM. 
          WE BELIEVE THE SYSTEMS ARE CLOSE ENOUGH IN HOW THEY RELATE TO WHERE IT'S SAFER TO GO WITH A SINGLE SWITCH. 
          SO IT'LL BE EVERYONE SWITCHES AT ONCE ON OR AROUND 10:34 AM WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT AT THE WORKSHOP NEXT WEEK TO CONFIRM THAT. 
          GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S ALSO THE BEAUTY OF THAT ONE IS IF THINGS, UM, GET INTO AN UNRELIABLE POSTURE, WE CAN THEN SNAP OUT IN LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES. 
          ALRIGHT, SO CONNECTIVITY WISE, WE'VE CHECKED THAT OFF THE LIST. 
          WE'RE WRAPPING UP THE JULY AND AUGUST AND HERE WE ARE WALKING INTO SEPTEMBER 2ND, NEXT TUESDAY. 
          UM, AGAIN, THIS ON THE RIGHT SIDE REFLECTS THIS LIVE PRODUCTION TEST. 
          ON THE LEFT IS THE DAY AHEAD MARKET. 
          THAT'S AN OPTIONAL, UH, PARTICIPATION DAY AHEAD MARKET IS ALMOST IDENTICAL. 
          UH, THERE'S VERY LITTLE LEFT, BUT THAT WILL BE THE CHANCE FOR MARKETERS AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS TO BE IN THERE IN AND SUBMITTING OFFERS IF THEY CHOOSE. 
          AND I'LL SHOW A CALENDAR OF THAT IN JUST A MINUTE. 
          UH, AND HERE'S WHAT I REDACTED FROM THE PREVIOUS ONE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO CLOSE THE DOOR ON. 
          IF ANYONE WANTS TO OPEN THIS PAST WEEK'S MEETINGS AND LOOK AT SCORECARDS 
          [01:50:01]
AND GO THROUGH THIS, WE CAN. 
          MY SUMMARY OF THIS IS THAT THE SCORECARDS ARE ON TRACK WITH THE ONGOING, UM, OUTREACH. 
          OUR TELEMETRY IS ABOUT 92%. 
          WE'VE HIT AS HIGH AS 95%, BUT ON AVERAGE WE'RE 92% AND SKI OFFERS ARE AT THE 95% LEVEL. 
          SO THOSE ARE BOTH KIND OF EXIT CRITERIA TO MOVE TO THE NEXT PHASE. 
          AND WE'RE HITTING THOSE AND WE STILL ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, IMPROVING IT EVEN THIS WEEK. 
          UM, ALSO IN THOSE SLIDES THERE ARE THE SUMMARY OF THE PRICES AND AWARDS. 
          AGAIN, THE AWARDS ARE MORE IMPORTANT, UM, IN TERMS OF MEGAWATT AMOUNT THAN THE PRICES RIGHT NOW. 
          THE BIG ONE IS THESE ATTESTATION. 
          SO I SENT OUT A MARKET NOTICE LAST WEEK, AND THIS WAS THE REALIZATION OF IF WE DO A HOTLINE CALL ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, IS THERE GONNA BE A CONTROL ROOM THAT ANSWERS THE PHONE AND SAYS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT REAL TIME IZATION IS. 
          AND SO I SENT OUT A MARKET NOTICE AND I SAID, ALL QUEASY WITH RESOURCES MUST RESPOND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE PERSONNEL AND SYSTEMS THAT WILL BE READY ON SEPTEMBER 11TH FOR THIS ACTIVITY. 
          SO IT'S REALLY KIND OF A GENTLE PING TO MAKE SURE THERE'S SOMEONE ON THE OTHER END OF THE LINE THAT THEY ARE READY FOR THAT DAY TO OCCUR. 
          UH, SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE READINESS. 
          SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID, WELL, WHAT IF EVERYTHING'S NOT PERFECT? WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR PERFECTION, WE'RE LOOKING FOR READINESS. 
          UH, AND THEN RAMPING UP FOR SEPTEMBER 11TH. 
          UM, AGAIN, I KEEP USING THE WORD LIVE PRODUCTION TEST BECAUSE CLOSED LOOP LFC TEST SOUNDS LIKE MUMBO JUMBO. 
          UM, BUT THAT IS THE TEST. 
          NOW THAT'S ON TAPE MUMBO JUMBO. 
          OKAY, SO WHERE ARE WE AT? UM, WE'RE ACTUALLY ON THE 27TH TODAY. 
          SO WHAT ERCOT HAS, THIS IS THE DUE DATE FOR THOSE AT STATIONS TO COME IN. 
          OUR TEAM IS MAKING A GO NO GO DECISION ON THE 29TH FOR THE SEPTEMBER 11TH LIVE TEST TO OCCUR. 
          THAT'S WITH CONTROL, THAT'S WITH DAN WOODFIN, THAT'S WITH CHAD SEALEY, THAT'S WITH KEITH, THAT'S WITH OUR IT STAFF. 
          THAT'S THE IDEA OF ARE WE ALL IN ON THIS? SO WE'LL SEND A MARKET NOTICE ON THE 29TH THIS FRIDAY CONFIRMING THIS TEST. 
          AND THEN I'VE PUT IN A, UM, UH, LFC WORKSHOP NUMBER THREE ON THE AFTERNOON OF THE FOURTH, A WEEK BEFORE THE TEST JUST TO DO ONE MORE WALK DOWN ON THIS TO MAKE SURE WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          UH, THESE YELLOW BOXES ARE WHERE WE'RE ASKING MARKET PARTICIPANTS TO BEHAVE AS IF IT IS THE LFC TEST. 
          IN TERMS OF OFFERS, UH, I WILL PAUSE. 
          THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT CONCEPT IS WE ARE ASKING IF YOU ARE CARRYING REGULATION RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE A QUEASY, YOU'VE BEEN AWARDED IN DAM, YOU HAVE TRADES, YOU HAVE 10 MEGAWATTS OF REGULATION THAT YOU'RE CARRYING. 
          WHEN WE GET INTO THIS TEST, WE'D LIKE THAT SAME QUEASY TO CARRY THAT SAME 10 MEGAWATTS. 
          SO WE'RE SAYING OFFER IN THOSE 10 MEGAWATTS IS $0 AND IF YOU'RE NOT AWARDED FOR THE OTHER STUFF, OFFER IT IN AT $2,000. 
          SO WE'RE COULD TRY TO PARK AND HOLD THINGS WHERE WE CAN, BUT THERE WILL INVARIABLY BE SOME DRIFT DURING THE TEST. 
          BUT THIS IS HOW WE'RE TRYING TO, ED'S GONNA WANNA REOPTIMIZE EVERYTHING TO THE LEAST COST SOLUTION. 
          WE DON'T WANT TO GO IN THAT TEST. 
          THIS IS ABOUT REGULATION AND CAN EVERYONE HOLD WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND WITH THE NEW SIGNALING STILL FOLLOW THE SIGNAL. 
          UM, SO ANYWAYS, THAT'S OUR PROGRESSION TO GET THERE. 
          THE BACKUP TEST, YOU KNOW, THE 18TH, THAT'S IF SOME BIG SYSTEM ISSUE IS OCCURRING THAT WE NEED TO RESCHEDULE, THAT'S IF A HURRICANE'S ROLLING IN. 
          BUT OTHERWISE, YES, IT MAY BE HOT, BUT WE'RE DOING THE 10 IN THE MORNING WHEN THE SUN'S UP AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE HEADROOM ON THE SYSTEM IS AROUND 10,000 MEGAWATTS. 
          UH, AND THEN WE'LL START RUNNING OUR FIRST DAY AHEAD MARKET MID MONTH. 
          UH, AND THEN WE'LL RUN THAT, UH, AT LEAST TWO OR THREE MORE TIMES. 
          SO REALLY YOUR STAFF, OUR STAFF IS LIKE NEXT WEEK'S A BEAR. 
          IT IS WHERE WE ARE ALL HANDS ON DECK REACHING OUT TO ANY QUEASY THAT'S NOT ABLE TO GET THESE OFFERS. 
          IN THE SAME WAY WE WANT TO START LOOKING AT PRODUCTION NEXT TO SC RTC AND SEE VERY SIMILAR, UH, DISPATCH. 
          SO WE GET TO THE 11TH. 
          THAT'S WORKING WELL. 
          SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THAT. 
          OKAY, SO THIS WEEK WE'RE CONTINUING TO OUTREACH ON TELEMETRY. 
          WE'VE BEEN REACHING OUT ON MARKET SUBMISSION, SO IF THERE'S STUFF MISSING OR THAT LOOKS OFF, WE'RE LETTING YOU KNOW. 
          UM, AND I TOUCHED ON THIS, ALTHOUGH WE'RE 90 PLUS PERCENT ON BOTH ITEMS, THE SCED PRICES ARE STRANGE BECAUSE WE'LL AWARD WANT TO AWARD REGULATION TO AN ECONOMIC OFFER, BUT THEIR TELEMETRY RAMP RATE IS ZERO. 
          SO YOU'RE LOCKED OUT AND YOU CAN'T MOVE THAT ONE. 
          SO YOU GO THE NEXT RESOURCE OR THE NEXT RESOURCE. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE PRICES ARE TENDING TO SPIKE, UM, ABNORMALLY WHILE PEOPLE FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THEIR SKID AND AS OFFERS ALL SYNCHRONIZED, UH, SO OUR OBSERVATIONS IS QUEASY NEED TO OFFER AS LEAST AS MUCH ANCILLARY SERVICES AS THEY'RE CARRYING IN PRODUCTION. 
          UH, IN THE LONGER TERM, QUEASY SHOULD BE OFFERING THEIR FULL CAPABILITY INTO THE SYSTEM. 
          UH, AND THEN N CLRS CANNOT USE THE SELF-PROVISION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE'RE NOT RUNNING THE DAY AHEAD MARKET. 
          SO NEXT WEEK, HERE'S MY VOICEOVER ALREADY HIT. 
          IT'S A SUPPORT INCREASE FOR THE QUEASY AND ERCOT. 
          WE'RE ASKING FOR SUBMISSIONS FOR ALL HOURS OF THOSE HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW DAYS. 
          THESE ARE THE DAYS TO PUT IN IT'S BUSINESS HOUR SUPPORT, BUT WE WANT YOU TO LOAD IN THE FULL 24 HOUR STRIP. 
          [01:55:01]
WE'LL BE WATCHING SKID OVER AND OVER AGAIN. 
          UH, S ARE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE LLC HANDBOOK DURING THAT TIME. 
          SO ENERGY OFFERS THE PRICE MATCHES PRODUCTION AS OFFERS SHOULD BE AT THIS ZERO OR 2000. 
          AND WE HAVE A DEEPER DIVE MARKET TRIALS CALL. 
          AND AFTER THE SEPTEMBER 11TH TEST, THAT'S WHEN WE PIVOT TO THE INITIAL DAY AHEAD MARKET TESTING. 
          UM, JUST A A VOICEOVER IF YOUR CONTROL ROOM'S INTERESTED IN THIS, WE DID POST AT THE LAST TASK FORCE BEING ALL OF THE RED LINES FOR OUR CONTROL ROOM, UH, PROCEDURES. 
          SO YOU COULD OPEN UP THE REAL TIME DESK THAT THE ERCOT CONTROL ROOM HAS AND YOU'RE SEEING WHAT IS DIFFERENT FOR HOW SCS BEING DISPATCHED, TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS, R DESK, ALL THOSE PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN UPDATED AND POSTED AS DRAFT JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY. 
          SO HERE IT IS, UH, UPCOMING THREE WEEKS ARE CRITICAL. 
          UH, WE NEED THOSE ATTESTATIONS. 
          THEY'RE DUE TODAY. 
          WE HAVE ABOUT HALF IN, SO THERE'S A LONG WAY TO GO. 
          UM, AGAIN, THE, THOSE HELP FEED IN WITH ASSURANCE OF A GO NO GO FOR FRIDAY AND SENDING OUT THE MARKET. 
          NOTICE THE RAMP UP FOR EARLY SEPTEMBER AFTER THE HOLIDAYS. 
          THE PLANNED WORKSHOP ON SEPTEMBER 4TH, IT JUST POSTED YESTERDAY. 
          AND I'LL GET A MARKET NOTICE OUT TODAY THAT SEPTEMBER 4TH FROM ONE TO THREE IS A WEBEX, THE PROD LFC TEST, THE ACTUAL SWITCHING OVER WILL BE ON OR AROUND 10:30 AM TO 12:30 PM WITH CONTROL ROOM HOTLINE CALLS. 
          AND THEN THE FIRST DAY AHEAD MARKET RUN IS SEPTEMBER 16TH. 
          SO THAT'S THE UPDATE WHEN YOU GET BACK IN OCTOBER. 
          HOPEFULLY WE HAVE FINISHED ALL THOSE LFC TESTS. 
          WE'RE DEEP INTO MARKET TRIALS AT THAT POINT AND WE'LL REALLY BE TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSITION TO GO LIVE AT THAT POINT. 
          SO IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN TAKE 'EM NOW. 
          GO AHEAD BILL, MATT, ON YOUR CALENDAR SLIDE, I KNOW WHERE IT IS. 
          I KNOW LIKE ALL EYES ARE ON UH, SEPTEMBER 11TH LLC TEST RIGHT NOW, BUT THE 17TH OF SEPTEMBER, WHAT IS, WHAT, WHAT ARE YOU PLAN THERE FOR NON-CONTROLLABLE LOAD, UH, SELF PROVIDE FUNCTIONALITY? YEAH, SO IT'S ACKNOWLEDGING A GAP THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WITHOUT A DAY AHEAD MARKET. 
          THE NON-CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCES ARE NOT BEING AWARDED, I'M SORRY, ARE NOT BEING AWARDED AN OBLIGATION THAT THEN THEY HAVE THAT CARVE OUT IN RTC THAT SAYS YOU CAN CARRY THAT OBLIGATION TO AND AUTOMATICALLY BE AWARDED IN REAL TIME. 
          IT'S NOT THERE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THERE'S NO DAY AHEAD. 
          SO THIS IS JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT DAMN RUN. 
          WE'LL GIVE YOU THAT CAPABILITY FOR NCLR TO SELF PROVIDE AND WE WANNA MONITOR TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY PICK UP ON THAT AND CAN CONTEST IT. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          YOU BET. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM IT? I DON'T SEE ANY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND SUPPORT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          WE ARE SAVING ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY FOR AFTER LUNCH 
          [16. ERCOT Reports (Part 1 of 2)]
SO WE CAN MOVE TO  REPORTS. 
          IS THAT RIGHT ANNE? SO FIRST IS THE RPG PROJECT. 
          UM, OR I GUESS WE'LL, WE'LL DO BOTH WITH BU IS HE READY? IS PRABU ON? OKAY, YOU WANNA SKIP? GO TO THE NEXT ONE. 
          GRID RESEARCH INNOVATION AND TRANSFORMATION GRID UP UPDATE, GET FROM MOVE ON TO DO THIS AFTERWARDS. 
          HI EVERYONE, I'M PRASHANT ELL. 
          I'M THE DIRECTOR FOR A GRID TRANSFORMATION TEAM, UM, WHICH IS A NEW TEAM AT ERCOT. 
          AND, UH, WE ARE WORKING ON, UM, SOME GRID TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVES. 
          UM, AND I WILL SHARE THE DETAIL OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT THOSE INITIATIVES ARE ABOUT, UM, AND HOW IT IS TIED TO OUR COURT MISSION, UH, AND THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD. 
          SO JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW. 
          UH, GRID TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVES ARE, UH, LIKE AS PART OF THIS EFFORT, WE ARE TRYING TO BE PROACTIVE IN, UM, UH, BASICALLY LOOKING AT THE FUTURE LOOKING PROBLEM, UH, TRYING TO RESEARCH WHAT THOSE PROBLEMS ARE AND PROTOTYPE THE SOLUTION. 
          UM, EFFECTIVELY THIS IS ALL PART OF THE ERCOT MISSION, UH, IN, IN TERMS OF HELPING US DEVELOP THE EXPERTISE AND, UH, EVENTUALLY FEED INTO THE RELI, UH, RELIABILITY AND THE MARKET EFFICIENCY OF THE GRID. 
          SO WHY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW, AS WE KNOW, THE GRID IS CHANGING A LOT AND, UH, IT'S BOTH ON THE GRID SIDE, MEANING, UH, WE HAVE, UH, IBS, WHICH ARE ALL, WHICH WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE A LOT AND IS CONSTANTLY INCREASING. 
          WE HAVE LARGE LOADS, 
          [02:00:01]
UH, WE HAVE WEATHER CONDITIONS, UH, DER GROWTH AND NOW GRID ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES TOO. 
          UM, SO THAT IS THE PART OF, UH, WHERE THE GRID IS CHANGING A LOT, BUT ALSO ALSO ON THE OPERATIONS SIDE, UH, THERE ARE NEW TOOLS THAT ARE COMING BOTH SIMULATION, AI, A LOT MORE DATA AND, UH, THE COMPUTATION CAPABILITIES. 
          SO COMBINE THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER. 
          UM, THERE IS DEFINITELY A NEED FOR  TO BE PROACTIVE IN UNDERSTANDING, UH, WHAT PROBLEMS ARE SURFACING, UH, RESEARCH THEM NOW AND ALSO START TO PROTOTYPE THE SOLUTIONS. 
          UM, AND, UH, AND WHICH IS, WHICH IS THE CORE MISSION FOR THE GRID TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVES THAT WE ARE PLANNING ON RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, SO I, I WILL, UH, AND EVENTUALLY LIKE WE, WE WANT TO LIKE, MAKE THIS PROCESS FLOW AND I'LL GO, I'LL GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          THIS IS SORT OF LIKE BEING, UM, THIS IS KINDA THE PRE-PROCESS TO, UH, HOW THINGS WILL COME TO DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUP. 
          UH, THIS WILL HELP US PREPARE, UH, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING AS A SOLUTION OR, OR WHAT OUR, OUR NESTING OF THE PROBLEM IS. 
          SO HOW IS IT TIED TO THE CO MISSION? IT'S REALLY, UH, IF YOU START FROM THE THIRD BULLET AT THE BOTTOM, UH, THIS IS ALL ABOUT BEING EXPERT IN, IN THE PROBLEMS THAT, THAT ARE COMING IN THE SYSTEM AND EVENTUALLY FEED IT BACK TO THE RELIABILITY AND THE MARKET EFFICIENCY, UH, THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY. 
          SO HOW ARE WE COMING UP WITH THESE INITIATIVES? UM, SO WE, WE OBVIOUSLY ARE WORKING WITH ALL THE MAR MARKET PARTICIPANTS AND POCS AND WE HEAR ALL, UH, THAT WE ARE SEEING IN THE GRID THAT IS COMING. 
          WE WORK WITH THE VENDORS, NATIONAL LAB UNIVERSITIES, ISOS, AND THE IDEA IS TO TAKE ALL THAT INFORMATION AND FIRST FUNNEL IT THROUGH THE INTERNAL PROCESSES. 
          UH, WE HAVE NOW, UH, BY BIWEEKLY DIRECTORS MEETING WHERE WE ARE SYNCING WITH DIFFERENT BUSINESS DIRECTORS TO ALIGN ON DIFFERENT PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS THAT THEY ARE SEEING IN THEIR BUSINESS UNIT. 
          UM, BECAUSE THERE'S, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE ARE A LOT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES BEING PROPOSED RIGHT NOW. 
          SO WE AS ERCOT HEAR THEM A LOT IN DIFFERENT BUSINESS TEAMS. SO WE ARE TRYING TO CONSOLIDATE THAT IN A BIWEEKLY MEETING DISCUSSION. 
          WE ALSO HAVE A BIMONTHLY DISCUSSION NOW WHERE WE PULL IN A LOT OF PRINCIPLES AND SMES AND UH, AND LEADERSHIP, UH, TO KIND OF CONSOLIDATE THAT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IN, IN A BIMONTHLY MEETING. 
          AND THEN WE ARE DOING A SEMI E SEMI-ANNUAL LEADERSHIP MEETING NOW, UM, WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO FUNNEL ALL THESE IDEAS AND SEE, UM, WHAT INITIATIVES, UM, NEED SOME PROACTIVE WORK NOW. 
          AND, UM, AND THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THAT THAT I'LL SHARE. 
          UH, SO ONCE WE HAVE THOSE IN GRID INITIATIVES, UM, LIKE THE, AND THE SELECTION PROCESS I WAS SAYING, YOU KNOW, IS WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PROBLEM STATEMENT, WE ARE CATEGORIZING THEM INTO TWO THINGS. 
          ONE IS DO WE UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM OR NOT? AND IF WE HAVE A PROBLEM, DO WE UNDERSTAND THE SOLUTION OR NOT? RIGHT? IF WE UNDERSTAND BOTH THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION THAT FITS WITHIN THE BUSINESS TEAM AS, UH, THE WORK THAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING WITH, UH, IN THE BUSINESS TEAMS, AND IF WE DON'T HAVE EITHER OF THEM, UH, THEN THAT BELONGS IN THE TRANSFORMATIONAL REALM WHERE, UH, OUR TEAM CAN WORK WITH DIFFERENT, UH, PARTNERS WITHIN OUR COT AND, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT PARTNERS OUTSIDE OUR COT, UH, TO HELP UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM OR THE SOLUTION. 
          AND THIS IS BOTH THE SELECTION PROCESS IN TERMS OF HOW YOU, UH, HOW YOU ONBOARD THE INITIATIVE. 
          AND ALSO, ONCE WE ARE DONE WITH THAT WORK, WE'LL, WE'LL BASICALLY OFFLOAD THAT INITIATIVE AND BRING THAT BACK INTO THE OPERATIONAL REALM, UH, WHICH IS WHERE, UM, IT CAN GO THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. 
          SO JUST TO EXPLAIN THAT PROCESS A BIT. 
          SO ONCE YOU HAVE INITIATIVE, UH, UH, ALIGNED, LIKE WITHIN OUR COURT, UH, WE'LL DO A WHITE PAPER OR RESEARCH PAPER OR SOME KIND OF A SURVEY PAPER. 
          UH, BY THE WAY, WE, WE WILL ALSO PUT THIS OUT, UH, PUBLICLY SO THAT, YOU KNOW, TECH MEMBERS OR, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDER MEMBERS OR EVEN OUR MEMBERS OUTSIDE OUR COURT, FOLKS OUTSIDE, UH, OUR COURT CAN COMMENT ON THOSE WHITE PAPERS. 
          SO WE'LL BE LAUNCHING OUR WEBPAGE, WHICH WILL GO ON OUR COURT.COM, UH, WEBSITE, UH, STARTING NEXT WEEK OR THIS WEEK. 
          SO WE'LL, WE'LL EITHER LAUNCH IT TOMORROW OR MAYBE NEXT WEDNESDAY. 
          UM, BUT ALL THESE WHITE PAPERS, ALL THESE PROBLEM STATEMENTS WILL GO LIVE ON THE WEBPAGE WHERE ANYONE CAN COMMENT, UM, ON THOSE, UH, WHITE PAPERS. 
          UM, AND BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GET, UM, WE WILL GO THROUGH THE, UH, NEXT STAGE WHERE WE WILL SELECT WHAT WHITE PAPERS SHOULD WE DO A PROOF OF CONCEPT ON. 
          SO, UH, SO THAT WILL BE THE NEXT STAGE, UH, OF THIS WORK. 
          AND THEN IF THERE IS, UH, IDENTIFIED PROBLEM AND A SOLUTION TO PROOF OF CONCEPT, UH, WE CAN BRING THOSE, UH, THROUGH THAT, AT THAT PART. 
          AT, AT THAT POINT WE'LL TRANSITION IT THROUGH THE 
          [02:05:01]
LER PROCESS, MEANING THROUGH THE LER STAKE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, WE, WE WILL BRING THOSE SOLUTION AND, UM, FORWARD THROUGH THE WORKING GROUPS. 
          UM, SO YEAH, SO THAT'S THE IDEA HERE. 
          AND SO FOR ALL OF THIS WORK, WHAT WE ARE FORECASTING IS, UM, UH, A $2 MILLION BUDGET, UH, FOR 2026 AND, UH, TWO FTES. 
          UM, SO, AND THIS IS, UH, NOT A NET NEW BUDGET IN THE SENSE OF $2 MILLION. 
           HAS ALWAYS BEEN ENGAGING IN DIFFERENT FORUMS LIKE EPRI, UH, AND EG AND . 
          BUT THE IDEA IS WITH THIS NEW TEAM FORMED, UH, WE ARE TRYING TO BRING IT UNDER ONE UMBRELLA. 
          UM, AND THEN THE NET NEW HERE IS REALLY THE PROOF OF CONCEPT WORK, UH, THAT WE'LL BE DOING, TAKING THOSE CONCEPTS, UH, WRITING THE WHITE PAPERS, AND, YOU KNOW, WORKING ON THE SOLUTIONS. 
          UH, SO, SO THAT'S REALLY THE NET NEW HERE, UH, IN A SENSE. 
          SO LIKE JUST ONE CASE STUDY OF, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW TO THINK ABOUT WHAT INITIATIVES, UH, RISES UP TO BE A GRID INITIATIVE, RIGHT? SO THE, THE PROCESS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, UM, THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION, UH, DEFINING THE NU SCORING ON THE PROBLEM AND SOLUTION ACCESS. 
          UH, SO FOR EXAMPLE, UH, MEASURING, UH, REGIONAL INERTIA AND SYSTEM STRENGTH. 
          UH, SO FOR INERTIA TODAY, FOR EXAMPLE, OR CAUGHT, UM, I WOULD SAY CALCULATES THAT ESTIMATES THIS, UH, BASED ON, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY SYNCHRONOUS MACHINE ARE ONLINE TODAY. 
          UM, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO MEASURE IT BASED ON THE ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS COMING FROM THE GRID, UH, USING PNU DATA. 
          AND THE REASON IT KIND OF ROSE TO BE A, A GRID TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE PROBLEM IS BECAUSE THERE ARE VENDORS WHO WOULD CLAIM THAT THEY CAN DO SOME KIND OF A MEASUREMENT BASED ANALYSIS ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE SYSTEM INERTIA AND SYSTEM STRENGTH. 
          UH, BUT, UH, WE, WE DON'T KNOW IF THOSE SOLUTIONS ARE AC ACCURATE. 
          WE DON'T KNOW IF, UM, THEY CAN WORK WITH OUR CURRENT OPERATIONAL TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAVE IN, UH, IN A CONTROL ROOM. 
          SO THE IDEA WAS, UM, THE, THE PROBLEM WAS KIND OF DEFINED WHAT WE WANTED TO DO HERE. 
          WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTIONS ARE. 
          SO, UH, TO, TO GO THROUGH THAT, THAT PROCESS IN 2024,  BASICALLY DID A VENDOR SURVEY, UH, TRY TO TALK TO DIFFERENT VENDORS, UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR SOLUTIONS ARE, UM, AND THEN BASICALLY WE CHOSE A VENDOR, UH, THAT CAN DO A PROOF OF CONCEPT WITH US NOW WITH OUR EXISTING, YOU KNOW, UH, CONTROL ROOM TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAVE. 
          AND, UH, ONCE THOSE RESULTS ARE READY, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL BASICALLY BRING IT BACK TO DIFFERENT WORKING GROUPS, AND IT GOES THROUGH A REGULAR PROCESS IF YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION. 
          BUT FOR NOW, WE ARE JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS THERE A VIABLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM, AND IF THERE IS A SOLUTION, HOW ACCURATE IT IS. 
          SO WE'LL DO ALL, ALL OF THAT COMPARISON. 
          SO IT'S REALLY A PREP WORK, UH, SO AS TO SAY TO BRING, TO KIND OF TRANSITION THAT WORK INTO THE ACTUAL WORKING GROUPS. 
          AND THIS IS THE GENERAL IDEA OF HOW WE ARE SELECTING THE INITIATIVES, UH, FOR, UH, GREAT WORK, UM, UM, LIKE BOTH ONBOARDING AND, YOU KNOW, OFFLOADING. 
          SO ONCE WE, THE WORK IS, YOU KNOW, DONE, WE WILL TRANSITION IT OUT. 
          SO, SO THAT IS JUST ONE, UM, EXAMPLE OF THE CASE STUDY THAT I SHARED. 
          UM, BUT THEN THERE ARE OTHER INITIATIVES. 
          THERE ARE TOTAL OF 14 INITIATIVES THAT WE IDENTIFIED, UM, THROUGH VARIOUS ENGAGEMENT, INTERNAL DISCUSSION, EXTERNAL DISCUSSION LIKE THROUGH, THROUGH, YOU KNOW, UNIVERSITIES AND ET CETERA TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, LIKE, UH, WHAT INITIATIVES SHOULD WE WORK ON. 
          AND, UH, SO THE FIRST ONE HERE IS, UH, BATTERY ENERGY SUFFICIENCY. 
          THE IDEA IS, UH, LIKE AS OF TODAY, WE RELY ON BATTERIES TO MEET OUR EVENING RAMP. 
          UM, BUT GOING FORWARD, AS THE BATTERY STORAGE IS INCREASING IN THE SYSTEM, IF WE CONTINUE TO RELY ON THAT, UM, ENERGY, UH, TO MEET THE EVENING RAMP, LIKE, CAN WE BE BLINDSIDED WITH THAT, RIGHT? DO WE NEED TO SCHEDULE, UM, UH, BATTERIES OR AT LEAST HAVE AN IDEA OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT THAT ENERGY WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN WE ARE IN, WHEN WE ARE IN THE EVENING PERIOD? SO THAT'S THE FIRST INITIATIVE. 
          UH, THE SECOND ONE IS MORE ABOUT RECEIVING THE OPERATIONAL INFORMATION FROM DER, UH, WHICH IS MORE ABOUT AS DERS ARE INCREASING, THIS DATA IS ONLY GOING TO INCREASE. 
          I MEAN, SO FAR WE DO THE NET LOAD APPROACH THAT IS WORKING SO FAR AT SIX GIGAWATT, UH, WITH THAT SCALE TO AS DER INCREASES, UH, PROBABLY NOT. 
          SO WE HAVE TO START LOOKING AT PLATFORMS, TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN INGEST THAT MUCH DATA BECAUSE OUR CURRENT ICCP BASED APPROACH FOR LARGE TRANSMISSION, YOU KNOW, BASE CONNECTED RESOURCES MIGHT NOT BE SUFFICIENT AT THAT POINT. 
          SO, SO THAT'S THE IDEA TO START LOOKING INTO THAT. 
          UM, TECHNOLOGY. 
          NOW, METADATA DESEGREGATION IS, METADATA DESEGREGATION IS MORE ABOUT USING AI TECHNOLOGIES TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEHIND THE METER THAT CAN FEED 
          [02:10:01]
INTO DIFFERENT INITIATIVES LIKE DEMAND RESPONSE, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN UNDERSTANDING WHAT PROFILES OF, YOU KNOW, DER ARE COMING BEHIND THE METER, THAT CAN FEED INTO A PLANNING PROCESS AT SOME POINT. 
          UM, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT SYSTEMS STRENGTH AND INERTIA. 
          UM, THERE ARE OTHER INITIATIVES, MAYBE I'LL NOT GO IN DEPTH WHEN EACH OF THEM, BUT THERE ARE THINGS AROUND WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT CAN WE, UH, OPTIMIZE REACTIVE POWER AS MORE IBS AND LOADS ARE COMING INTO THE SYSTEM. 
          CAN WE, WE BE BLINDSIDED IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, VOLTAGE NOT BEING HEALTHY IN FUTURE LOOKING STATES. 
          UH, THERE ARE THINGS AROUND, UM, ROBUST OPTIMIZATION, UH, ENGINES. 
          UM, SO WE ARE LOOKING INTO THAT. 
          UM, THINGS AROUND IMPEDANCE SCAN TOOL, WHICH IS JUST NEW TOOLS THAT WE NEED AS PSSE PSCA, UH, OUR TRADITIONAL PLANNING BASED TOOLS CAN, CAN HIT THE LIMITATIONS AS MORE IB ARE INCREASING, UM, IMPROVEMENT OF LARGE LOAD MODELS. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE LARGE LOAD WORK IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW BASED ON THE MODELS THAT WE HAVE AT HAND. 
          SO THAT WORK IS ALL OPERATIONAL. 
          SO THAT, THAT IS CONTINUING. 
          THE, THE PART THAT KIND OF RISEN UP TO BE A GRID TRANSFORMATION INITIATIVE IS MORE ABOUT THE DATA CENTER ARCHITECTURE IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING. 
          UH, WE BASICALLY, AS PART OF THIS WORK, WE ARE PARTNERING WITH TEXAS A AND M TO GO IN DEPTH INTO THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE DATA CENTER AND CRYPTO AND POWER SUPPLIES TO THAT LEVEL TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO MODEL THEM IN PSCA. 
          WE'LL ALSO MAKE ALL THOSE MODELS, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC, UH, AS, AS WE DEVELOP THOSE MODELS. 
          BUT THE IDEA IS TO REALLY DEEP DIVE, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A CHANGING WORLD IN NEXT FEW YEARS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THIS ARCHITECTURE IS EVOLVING. 
          THE DATA CENTER ARCHITE, UH, ARCHITECTURE IS STILL EVOLVING. 
          SO THAT'S WHY IT RISE UP TO BE A GREAT TRANSFORMATION WORK, THAT PIECE OF IT. 
          BUT WE ARE CONTINUOUSLY WORKING ON THE, THE OTHER PIECE OF IT, WHICH IS ALL OPERATIONAL DISCUSSION THAT YOU'RE HEARING DIFFERENT WORKING GROUPS. 
          UM, THEN THERE ARE OTHER INITIATIVES AROUND, YOU KNOW, USING AI TO RUN, YOU KNOW, OPTIMAL POWER FLOWS AND THINGS AROUND SHORT CIRCUIT AND POWER QUALITY THAT COULD BECOME A ISSUE IN FUTURE, UM, AND SMART EDGE CONTROL OF, UH, DERS AND LOADS. 
          UM, AND THEN SINGLE TOOL FOR, YOU KNOW, UH, COMBINED ANALYSIS OF, UH, UM, CAPACITY EXPANSION AND PCM AND RELIABILITY. 
          UM, AND THE LAST SLIDE I HAVE IS, UM, SO WE ARE TAKING ALL OF THIS WORK PUBLIC, UM, UH, THROUGH OUR WEBPAGE LAUNCH. 
          UH, BY NEXT WEEK WE'LL HAVE THAT WEBPAGE UP AND THERE WILL BE MARKET NOTICE OUT, UH, ON THAT WEBPAGE. 
          WEBPAGE. 
          THERE WILL BE A RIPE PROGRAM THAT WE ARE LAUNCHING, MEANING, UM, THERE WILL BE A FORM THAT YOU CAN SUBMIT, UH, AND YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO PARTNER WITH OUR COURTS, WE, ONE, WE WILL HAVE THIS ROADMAP PUBLIC THAT WILL SHOW THE INITIATIVES THAT WE ARE WORKING ON. 
          IF ANYBODY WANTS TO PARTNER WITH OUR COURT, THEY CAN PARTNER WITH OUR COURT THROUGH, YOU KNOW, FILLING OUT A FORM. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THIS, YOU KNOW, INTERNAL DIRECTOR SYNC THAT WE HAVE, WE WILL, WE ARE LOOKING AT ALL THESE INFORMATION TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE AS A, OUR CODE DECIDE TO PARTNER WITH RIGHT TEAMS. UH, SO RIGHT PROCESS WILL BE THERE, WILL, THE WEBPAGE WILL ALSO INCLUDE THE ROADMAP AND THE WHITE PAPERS, UH, THAT WILL PUT IT OUT THERE. 
          AND THEN, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'LL USE THIS WEBPAGE TO ALSO ANNOUNCE OUR CODE INNOVATION SUMMIT. 
          UM, AND THE LAST THING IS GOING FORWARD, WE'LL GIVE UP, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, EVERY SIX MONTHS WE'LL BRING THIS UPDATE TO TECH WHERE WE ARE WITH THESE INITIATIVES SO THAT TECH IS AWARE AND WE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT SIX MONTHS, BUT WHEN TO CLOSE THE YEAR OUT, WE'LL GIVE AN UPDATE IN DECEMBER. 
          YEAH, I'LL PAUSE THERE AND SEE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. 
          YEAH, QUESTION FROM NED. 
          HEY, PRASHANT, UH, THANKS FOR FOR WALKING US THROUGH THIS. 
          IT'S, YOU'VE GOT QUITE A LOT ON THE, ON THE AGENDA THERE, AND, UM, I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT Y'ALL ARE, ARE, YOU KNOW, TAKING A, A SCOPE, A FORWARD-LOOKING SCOPE AND TRYING TO SEE WHAT, YOU KNOW, HOW TO LOOK AHEAD AND SEE ROUND CURVES. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, AN IMPORTANT, UH, AN IMPORTANT FUNCTION. 
          UM, BUT WHAT I WANTED TO ASK IS, UM, AND WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ERCOT PRIORITIZATION AND, AND PROCESS, UH, TODAY. 
          SO I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS FITS WITHIN THAT CONTEXT. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WOULD BE A SEPARATE STAKEHOLDER TRACK THROUGH THE RIPE GROUP, AND THEN IT COME, IS THERE GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH THE REVISION REQUEST PROCESS, OR IS IT SOMETHING SEPARATE WHERE ERCOT WILL TAKE FEEDBACK THROUGH RIPE, BUT THEN IMPLEMENT ON ITS OWN JUST WITH UPDATES TO TACK AND, AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR ROLE IS IN THIS PROCESS? YEAH, I THINK, UH, I THINK THE MAIN THING HERE IS, I MEAN, CONSIDER, CONSIDER THEM AS TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES, ENTIRELY SEPARATE PROCESSES. 
          SO THE PRIORITIZATION WORK THAT KEITH, UH, IS DRIVING IS MORE ABOUT THE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY LIKE DECIDED THROUGH WORKING GROUP, RIGHT? SO THAT IS A PRIORITIZATION. 
          THIS ONE IS MORE, UH, ABOUT, UH, AGAIN, 
          [02:15:01]
BEING PROACTIVE ABOUT THE PROBLEM STATEMENTS THAT WE ARE HEARING OR, YOU KNOW, THE GROUP HAS. 
          SO I THINK THE BEST WAY TO, FOR THE TECH TO ENGAGE IS, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THIS, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSIONS THAT WE WILL BRING FORWARD. 
          SO IF YOU WANT THINGS ON THE INITIATIVE, YOU KNOW, THE IDEAS THAT YOU HAVE, I MEAN, THIS IS, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT THE PRE-PROCESS OF IT, MEANING WE ARE, WE ARE DOING SOME INITIAL PROBLEM STATEMENT RESEARCH AND THE PROTOTYPE. 
          I WOULD NOT SAY THAT FLAVOR IS TRADITIONAL STAKEHOLDER FLAVOR OF IT. 
          NO, BECAUSE THIS IS, THIS IS ARE CALLED BEING PROACTIVE, RIGHT? BUT IF YOU BASICALLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, IDEAS OR PROBLEMS, THEN YOU CAN TAKE THE FEEDBACK THROUGH THE RIGHT FORM, YOU KNOW? UM, BUT BEYOND THAT, I THINK THE IDEA HERE IS ONCE THIS IS ALL SORTED OUT, THEN WE WILL HAND IT OVER TO OUR BUSINESS TEAMS. AND, AND ALSO, LIKE, UH, ONE THING I WANT TO MENTION IS GRID TRANSFORMATION TEAM IS NOT WORKING IN ISOLATION, UH, LIKE MOST OF THE WORK, UH, BECAUSE THE TEAM ITSELF WILL BE SMALL, BUT MOST OF THE WORK WILL PARTNER THROUGH DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, BUSINESS TEAMS TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER PROBLEM AND SOLUTION THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS VERY PRACTICAL, YOU KNOW? SO. 
          OKAY. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I, AND I SUSPECT WE'LL PROBABLY SINCE IT'S A NEW PROCESS, THERE'LL BE SOME, SOME ITERATION AND KIND OF LEARNING BY DOING AS WE, WE GO ALONG. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          AS I'M THINKING THROUGH SOME OF THESE, SOME SEEM LIKE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, FAIRLY, YOU KNOW, FAIRLY, YOU KNOW, STRAIGHTFORWARD AND MIGHT BE MM-HMM . 
          YOU KNOW, EASIER TO IMPLEMENT JUST FROM AN AR SIDE. 
          THERE MAY BE OTHERS THAT IMPACT OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS. 
          AND SO THE SOCIALIZATION AND, AND KIND OF GETTING HEADS, HEADS ALL NODDING IN THE SAME DIRECTION WILL BE, WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR, UH, FOR SOME, PROBABLY MORE THAN OTHERS. 
          BUT, UM, WE'LL LOOKING FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION. 
          YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          KEVIN HANSON? YES. 
          HI, UH, KEVIN HANSON AND ENERGY, UM, I'VE BEEN CURIOUS, YOU GOT A NICE, WONDERFUL LIST THERE. 
          I'M CURIOUS WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO ADD IN ADDITIONAL ITEMS. ONE SPECIFIC ONE I WOULD THINK BE VALUABLE TO LOOK AT IS BENCHMARKING YOUR, THE, UH, PLANNING MODELS WITH REAL WORLD HISTORY. 
          THE BIGGEST COMPONENT THAT'S CLEARLY MISSING IN THE PLANNING PROCESS RIGHT NOW IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL RENEWABLES ARE BIDDING IN AT ZERO, WHICH CLEARLY IS NOT REALITY. 
          CLEARLY WE SEE FROM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE PRODUCTION TAX CREDITS IN PLACE. 
          CLEARLY FROM THE SIX DAYS SC REPORTS, YOU CAN SEE THAT PROJECTS ARE BIDDING MUCH DIFFERENT NUMBERS THAN IN REALITY MM-HMM . 
          VERSUS WHAT WE'RE USING IN PLANNING PROCESS. 
          SO I'D BE CURIOUS IF THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION TO ADD IN. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT WILL BE GREAT FEEDBACK. 
          I MEAN, THROUGH THE RIGHT PROCESS, IF YOU FEEL THAT IS MORE OF A PROBLEM STATE, I MEAN, THAT MIGHT BE OPERATIONAL WORK THAT MIGHT BE ALREADY HAPPENING IN  BUSINESS TEAM, SO WE CAN ALWAYS DISCUSS THAT, LIKE IF IT IS ALREADY BEING DISCUSSED INTERNALLY. 
          BUT IF NOT, LIKE IF YOU THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IS STILL A PROBLEM STATEMENT THAT IS NOT REALLY UNDERSTOOD, OR THE SOLUTION IS NOT UNDERSTOOD, YOU KNOW, WE'D LOVE TO HEAR THE FEEDBACK THROUGH RIPE AND WE CAN DEFINITELY PUT IN A PRIORITY LIST. 
          YEAH. 
          CL CLEARLY IT'S NOT CURRENTLY IN THE PLANNING PROCESS THAT I KNOW FOR SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY I BRING IT UP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS FOR THE FEEDBACK. 
          YEAH. 
          BOB WHITMEYER. 
          YEAH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ONLY ASKING FOR TWO OVER HERE. 
          YOU'RE ONLY ASKING FOR $2 MILLION. 
          IS, IS THAT ENOUGH? UM, I'LL POINT OUT THAT IN GER 1202, THE MARKET SAID, PARTICULARLY ON THE LARGE LOADS, CHARGE US MORE, MOVE FASTER. 
          MM-HMM . 
          IF $5,000 ADDITIONAL FEE ON THOSE GUYS, THE $10 MILLION BUDGET TO ERCOT, THEY WILL GLADLY PAY THAT DAYS ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THEM. 
          SO IF YOU NEED MORE MONEY, RAISE YOUR HAND AND TELL US AND WE CAN FIND A WAY TO GET IT. 
          YEAH, NO, THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT . 
          I, IF ANYTHING, I, I WILL MAYBE, I MEAN, I THINK BASICALLY, I THINK THIS IS THE, AGAIN, WE'LL, WE'LL GO AT A PACE AT WHICH WE'LL START FIRST AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN MAKE THE PROCESS WORK AND YEAH. 
          MARTHA, THANK YOU MARTHA HENSON WITH ENCORE. 
          COULD YOU GO BACK THROUGH THE WHITE PAPER COMMENTING PROCESS AGAIN? IS IT JUST LIKE ONCE THEY GET POSTED TO THIS WEBPAGE, ANY MARKET PARTICIPANT CAN GO READ THEM AND JUST SEND COMMENTS IN INFORMALLY? OR IS THERE SOMETHING MORE TO IT THAN THAT? NO, JUST INFORMAL COMMENTS. 
          SO WE'LL HAVE A EMAIL, UH, ALIAS. 
          SO YOU'LL JUST SEND IT TO GRID TRANSFORMATION@OURCO.COM AND ANYBODY CAN SEND THAT COMMENT TO THE WHITE PAPER. 
          AND, UM, WOULD YOU MIND GOING BACK THROUGH THE VOICEOVER ON THE FIRST INITIATIVE ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE? THE ENERGY SUFFICIENCY? YEAH. 
          SO THIS ONE IS MORE AROUND, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW WE ARE DEPENDENT, UM, OR WE ARE USING ESR QUITE A BIT TO MEET OUR EVENING RAMP. 
          UM, SO GOING, AND WE ARE AT 15 GIGAWATT RIGHT NOW, AND THE QUEUE IS ONE 50 GIGAWATT. 
          [02:20:01]
THE IDEA IS IF YOU HAVE MORE ESR IN FUTURE, WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A MECHANISM TO UNDERSTAND DO WE HAVE ENOUGH, UH, ENERGY TO MEET THE EVENING RAMP, RIGHT? SO, SO THAT WE ARE NOT BLINDSIDED BY SOMEBODY DISCHARGING THE BATTERY AT TWO OR 3:00 PM YEAH. 
          THANK YOU, BETH. 
          I, I'LL JUST, I, I'M GLAD TO SEE ERCOT LOOKING FORWARD. 
          I, UM, I REMAIN CONCERNED THAT, 'CAUSE YOU SAID WE'RE GONNA REACH OUT TO THE BUSINESS GROUPS AND GET THEIR INPUT. 
          I REMAIN CONCERNED WITH KEITH KEITH'S, UH, STATED LIMITATIONS IN PEOPLE AND PROCESSES AND HOW, HOW TO MANAGE BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. 
          UM, NOT MY JOB TO MANAGE, THAT'S ERCOT JOB TO MANAGE, BUT I REMAIN CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE THESE TWO THINGS GOING ON, BOTH OF WHICH ARE PUTTING DEMANDS ON, ON THE SAME PEOPLE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THANK THANKS BETH. 
          AND JUST TAKING THE FIRST EXAMPLE, UM, SIZE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF BEING A PART OF THAT EFFORT AND BEING A PART OF OTHER EFFORTS. 
          SO YES, AND WE, WE WORK, WE WORK HARD TO MANAGE THAT, BUT WE APPRECIATE THE DIALOGUE WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          Q WAS EMPTY. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I DON'T SEE ANY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          I AM HEARING BU IS WITH US NOW, SO WE CAN TAKE UP THE RPG PROJECTS. 
          HI, GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. 
          ANA MECO. 
          SORRY I WAS IN THE ROOM, BUT I WAS, I WAS IN ANOTHER CALL, SO APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY. 
          BUT ANYWAY, UM, I DO HAVE LIKE TWO PROJECTS, RPG PROJECTS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, COMMENTS AND APPROVAL. 
          SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE BTU TEXAS A AND M, UH, SYSTEM, REALLY CAMPUS RELIABILITY PROJECT. 
          UM, I CAN, THERE WE GO. 
          GOOD. 
          SO THIS IS A PROJECT SUBMITTED BY, UH, BRYAN TEXAS UTILITIES, UM, TO SUPPORT A LOAD EDITION AS A TEXAS A AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUS. 
          IT'S REALLY, UM, THIS IS PROPOSED AS A TIER ONE PROJECT, UH, WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF $271 MILLION. 
          AND IT WILL REQUIRE CCN AS I SAID. 
          THIS IS AGAIN, UH, TO ADDRESS A RELIABILITY ISSUE DUE TO ADDITION OF A LARGE LOAD IN THE BRASS COUNTY AND IN THE EAST WEATHER ZONE. 
          UM, AGAIN, THIS FALLS INTO THE TIER ONE PROJECT, UH, BY THE COST THRESHOLD, A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PLUS, AND IT REQUIRES A CCN. 
          SO, UH, THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT SHALL BE PRESENTED AS A TIER ONE PROJECT TO TAC FOR REVIEW ON COMMENTS AND ANY COMMENTS FROM T SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION TO THE ER CARD BOARD. 
          SO THE NEED OF THE PROJECT, UH, WE, WE PERFORMED AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW, LOOKED AT THE, THE RELIABILITY CRITERIA UNDER PLANNING GUIDE AND NERC, AND WE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL, UH, THERMAL AND VOLTAGE ISSUES, UH, WITH THE ADDITION OF THE LARGE LOAD. 
          SOME OF THEM ARE DRIVEN BY SEC, UM, YOU KNOW, G MINUS ONE X MINUS ONE PRIOR OUTAGE CONDITIONS. 
          UH, SO THERE WERE SEVERAL, UH, THERMAL AND, UH, VOLTAGE ISSUES IDENTIFIED AS, UH, THE BASE LABATE ISSUE. 
          SO ERCOT ANALYZED, UH, FOUR OPTIONS AND, UH, SHORTLISTED TO THREE OPTIONS. 
          SO AMONG THE THREE OPTIONS, OPTION ONE AND TWO WERE SELECTED FOR FURTHER EVALUATION. 
          BASED ON SEVERAL ANALYSIS. 
          AND BASED ON ALL THE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS WE PERFORMED, UH, WE IDENTIFIED LIKE OPTION ONE PERFORMED SLIGHTLY BETTER FOR SERVING A LOT OF ADDITIONAL TO 1200 MEGAWATTS, WHICH HAS A FORMAL REQUEST IN THE STUDY ERA. 
          SO THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS SHOWED LIKE BOTH OPTION TWO AND OPTION ONE WILL MEET THE RELIABILITY NEED, BUT IN THE LONG RUN, IT SHOWED LIKE OPTION TWO WOULD COST AT LEAST A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS MORE COMPARED TO OPTION ONE TO MEET THIS, UH, PROJECTOR OR ADDITIONAL LOAD IN THIS AREA. 
          SO THE TABLE HERE SHOWS SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, OVERVIEW OF LIKE, WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS ADDITIONAL LOAD, UH, BEYOND WHAT WAS REQUESTED, YOU COULD SEE, YOU KNOW, OPTION TWO WOULD REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, OPTION SHOOT, OPTION TWO SHOWS MORE RELIABILITY AND THERMAL ISSUES, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE MORE PROJECTS TO ADDRESS THOSE OVERLOADS IF YOU WANT, IF YOU WERE TO BUILD ON, UH, FUTURE PROJECTS, 
          [02:25:03]
UM, THERE'S, HERE'S THE COMPARISON OF THIS OPTIONS OPTION ONE AND TWO. 
          AS I SAID, OPTION ONE OVERALL PERFORMS BETTER COMPARED TO OPTION TWO. 
          UH, AGAIN, OPTION ONE IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OPTION TWO, BUT IN THE LONG RUN WE THINK, UH, OPTION ONE HAS THIS FLEXIBILITY TO ADAPT ADDITIONAL LOAD AND EXPAND. 
          UH, FOR THE PROPOSED OPTION, AGAIN, AS PART OF THE TIER ONE PROJECT, THIS ADDS NEW TRANSMISSION LINE. 
          SO WE ARE PERFORMING, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE SSR SCREENING OPTION ONE, WE FOUND THERE WAS NO ADVERSE SSR IMPACT WITH THE ADDITION OF THE PROPOSED NEW LINES. 
          UM, ADDITIONAL SENSITIVITIES CONGESTION ANALYSIS. 
          UH, WE LOOKED AT, UH, BOTH THE CONGESTION ANALYSIS AND THE GENERATION SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND WE CONCLUDED THAT OPTION ONE DID NOT CAUSE ADDITIONAL CONGESTION OR, UH, NO POTENTIAL FUTURE GENERATIONS. 
          UH, THERE WERE THAT WERE INCLUDED AS SINCE WE DID NOT HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT ON THE PROJECT. 
          SO HERE'S THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE, UH, TO ADDRESS THIS, UH, RELIABLE ISSUE AND LOAD GROWTH. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS, UH, PROJECT THAT'S EXPECTED, UH, TO BE IN SERVICE OF OCTOBER, 2029 WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF $281.2 MILLION. 
          THIS WILL REQUIRE A CCN PRIMARILY. 
          THE BIG PORTION OF THE PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT A 40 MILE, UH, 3 45 KB LINE BETWEEN TNP ONE AND THE RELEASE SUBSTATION RAISE IS A 1 38 KB SUBSTATION. 
          NOW THAT WILL BE EXPANDED AND CONVERTED TO A 3 45 KV STATION WITH, UH, TWO AUTO TRANSFORMERS. 
          IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE ARE SOME, UH, SOME 1 38 KV, UH, REBUILDS AND NEW LINES NEEDED. 
          I'LL JUST GO IN HERE, SHOW YOU THE MAP. 
          SO THERE ARE A PORTION OF THE PROJECT IS A STEEL STORE TO COOK PROJECT. 
          THERE IS A NEW 1 38 KB LINE WITH SINGLE CIRCUIT, AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER, UH, NEW LINE BETWEEN RES AND RIVERSIDE. 
          THIS IS A NEW SUBSTATION THAT'LL BE TAPPED BETWEEN DAN P AND UH, UH, THOMPSON COOK, EXISTING 1 38 KB. 
          SO THERE'LL BE ANOTHER NEW LINE CONNECTING TO THE 2 1 30 KB LINES CONNECTING TO THIS RELEASE STATION TO SUB, TO SUPPORT THE LOAD. 
          I BELIEVE THAT'S THE LAST, UH, SLIDE. 
          SO I'LL PAUSE HERE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS HERE ON THIS PROJECT. 
          OKAY. 
          ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I SEE A COUPLE OF SLIDES. 
          OKAY. 
          BETH, GO AHEAD, BETH. 
          YEP. 
          YEAH, JUST, JUST A COUPLE ON THIS ONE. 
          UM, BACK TO THE SORT OF THE SUMMARY SLIDE OF THE, UH, OF THE OPTION SLIDE SIX. 
          I, I I WOULD JUST, I, I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT A SUMMARY THAT SAYS BETTER, UM, WHEN JUSTIF IS PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO JUSTIFY SPENDING AN ADDITIONAL $90 MILLION. 
          AND, AND, AND MY COMMENT WOULD BE FOR TAX CONSIDERATION THAT POTENTIALLY ASKING ERCOT TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, QUANTITATIVE IN THAT ASSESSMENT BEFORE THIS WOULD GO TO THE BOARD. 
          UM, OKAY, THAT'S, YEAH, WE'LL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          SO I THINK THIS IS THE SLIDE WHICH KIND OF EXPLAINS SOME OF THE THING, BUT YEAH, POINT, BECAUSE I THINK I, I, I KNOW AND, AND YOU WERE NOT SURPRISED BY MY COMMENT FROM YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I APPRECIATE THE, THE BACK AND FORTH THAT WE'VE HAD PRIOR TO THIS. 
          UM, I THINK THE, UM, YOU DID SOME WORK THAT SAYS THESE TWO OPTIONS SUPPORT AN ADDITIONAL X AND Y AMOUNT OF LOAD JUST BY THEIR OWN. 
          PLUS WE HAD THIS OTHER 1200 MEGAWATT INCREASE. 
          AND BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT MORE CLEARLY, I THINK IS A HELPFUL, UH, INPUT TO THIS, TO THIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION. 
          YEAH. 
          THANKS. 
          THANKS FOR THE COMMENT AND WE WILL TRY TO CAPTURE THAT IN THE BOARD. 
          UM, ONE THING TO NOTE IS, I THINK IN THE, YOU KNOW, YEAH, I THINK THAT INFORMATION IS ALREADY AVAILABLE, WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE REPORT, BUT YEAH. 
          I, AND ONE, ONE LAST QUESTION QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE, UM, JUST TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE, IT WAS A, WHAT, IT WAS A $270 MILLION PROJECT AS PROPOSED AND A $280 MILLION PROJECT AS RECOMMENDED. 
          IS, IS THAT JUST COST INCREASES OR, OR WHAT CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT SMALL CHANGE? YEAH, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. 
          IT'S PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, UPDATED COST INFORMATION. 
          WHEN WE, WHEN WE DO THE RPG REVIEW, WE DO GO BACK TO THE TSPS ASK FOR UPDATED CONFIRMATION, AND THAT I, I KIND OF ASSUMED THAT ON THIS PROJECT. 
          OKAY. 
          GIVEN THE TIMEFRAME AND THE INFLATION THAT WE'VE SEEN IN LOTS OF EQUIPMENT, THAT, AND SO THAT, YEAH, THAT'S ALSO A HELPFUL PIECE, I THINK. 
          AND, AND WE'LL GET TO MORE ON THAT ON THE, ON THE NEXT PROJECT, SO. 
          [02:30:01]
OKAY. 
          THANK YOU BILL. 
          SORRY. 
          YEAH, I'M GOING TO HAVE A BIG PROBLEM VOTING FOR THIS. 
          AS A GRADUATE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, MAYBE ONE, ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION WOULD MAKE KYLE FIELD AN INTERRUPTIBLE LOAD. 
          UM, THAT MIGHT BE TO GET ME TO YES. 
          ON THIS, UH, NO, I DO HAVE A REAL QUESTION THOUGH. 
          DID THIS PRO, DID YOU USE THE 2025 RTP FOR EVALUATING THIS PROJECT? OR IS IT 2024 RTP? THIS WAS THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S RTP BECAUSE THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED END OF LAST YEAR. 
          SO IT WOULD'VE BEEN LIKE, PICKED UP THE CASE. 
          I THOUGHT IT, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT INFORMATION, BUT THAT SHOULD BE IN THE REPORT. 
          I THOUGHT I SAW IT WAS SUBMITTED IN JANUARY 25. 
          YEP. 
          SO YOU, THAT WOULD PICK UP THE 24 RTP 24 RTP AND THAT LOOKED FORECAST. 
          OKAY. 
          AND JUST, AND I THINK THIS IS THE CASE IN THE 25 RTP AS WELL, YOU DID NOT HAVE TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL, I'M GONNA CALL IT FICTITIOUS GENERATION TO GET THE MODELS TO SOLVE. 
          YOU HAD ENOUGH IN THE CDR AND THE GIS THAT HAVE NOT MET THE 6.9 CRITERIA THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO USE FOR BOTH OF THOSE PLANNING MODELS. 
          CORRECT. 
          I, I THINK WE START, LIKE WHEN WE LOOK AT THE R-T-P-R-R-P-G ANALYSIS, WE REMOVE THOSE FIX GENERATION IN THIS AREA OF STUDY. 
          I, I, I HAVE TO GO LOOK BACK AT THE MODEL 2024, WHAT WAS INCLUDED, BUT GENERALLY OUR PRINCIPLE IS ONE, WE LOOK AT RPG, WE DON'T ADD THOSE FIX GENERATORS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I DID SEE, YEAH, I THINK THERE'S A, A NEW FIGURE THAT WAS FILED THAT THERE'LL BE INCREASED TRANSPARENCY WHENEVER ERCOT HAS TO TAKE THAT STEP TO ADD GENERATION, GENERATION THAT BEYOND 6.9. 
          YEAH. 
          BECAUSE THAT CAN OBVIOUSLY HAVE BIG IMPACT ON THE POWER FLOWS AND THE NEED FOR THERMAL OVERLOAD. 
          SO APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THANKS. 
          NOT NOT FOR THIS PROJECT. 
          WE DID NOT SEE THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY, NED. 
          HEY, THANKS. 
          BU, AND I, I, SOME OF THE, UH, BACK AND FORTH, YOU AND BETH HAD, UH, MAYBE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE, THE ORIGINAL FILING AND IT HELP, JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE THE ORIGINAL RPG FILING WAS IT REFERENCED A ABOUT A 300, UH, CALL IT A 400 ISH MEGAWATT LOAD, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION HERE CAN SUPPORT UP TO 1200. 
          IS THAT, THAT THE, THE RECOMMENDED PATH IS ABLE TO, TO IN, TO SERVE MORE LOAD THAN JUST WHAT THE INITIAL OUT, UH, YES, THE INITIATING REQUEST WAS. 
          YEAH. 
          APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE ALL THOSE DETAILS, BUT THAT'LL BE IN INCLUDED IN THE REPORT. 
          SO YOU'RE RIGHT, THE INITIAL LOAD WAS ROUGHLY AROUND 300 MEGAWATTS. 
          THAT'S PLANNING TO CONNECT AND THAT'S, THAT TRIGGERED THIS RPG REVIEW. 
          BUT WHEN WE DO DID LOOK AT THIS OPTION, SUB COMPARISONS, WE DO SEE THAT OPTION TWO COULD PROVIDE, I DON'T HAVE THE UP TO 400 MEGAWATTS COMPARED TO OPTION OR OPTION ONE CAN SUPPORT MORE LOAD, ADDITIONAL, MORE LOAD COMPARED IN ADDITION TO THE 300 MEGAWATTS. 
          I THINK THAT NUMBER WAS LIKE 400 MEGAWATTS. 
          AND THEN OPTION TWO WAS LIKE AROUND 250 MEGAWATTS. 
          AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS THERE ARE OTHER PENDING REQUESTS LIKE OFFICER LETTERS, THAT'S THE 1200 MEGAWATTS WE ARE SEEING. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ADDITIONAL 1200 MEGAWATTS OF LOAD, WE DO SEE THAT IT'S, IT'S CHEAPER TO EXPAND OPTION ONE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          OKAY, I FOLLOW YOU. 
          NOW IF THOSE LOADS MATERIALIZE, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE RELATIVE COST FROM THE INITIAL ESTIMATE TO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS ACTUALLY NOT 90 MILLION, IT'S MORE LIKE 10. 
          SO 10, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          MARK DREYFUS. 
          GO AHEAD, BETH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE 90 MILLION CAME FROM, SORRY, MARK. 
          THE 90 MILLION CAME BETWEEN THE OPTION ONE, OPTION TWO. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, AND THAT THE, THE ABILITY TO SPEND THAT EXTRA MONEY IS, IN MY MIND, JUSTIFIED BY THE ABILITY TO SERVE GREATER AMOUNTS OF LOAD IN THE VERIFIED BY THE SYNDICATION OF AN OFFICER ATTESTED LETTER. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S MY THINKING ON, ON ALL OF THAT. 
          THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          THANKS, BETH. 
          OKAY. 
          GO, GO AHEAD NOW, MARK. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU, CAITLIN. 
          UM, FIRST I, I JUST NEED TO NOTE THAT ON THIS PROJECT I HAVE SUPPORTED RYAN TEXAS UTILITIES THROUGH THE RPG PROCESS. 
          SO I WILL BE ABSTAINING IN MY POSITION AS THE SMALL COMMERCIAL CONSUMER REPRESENTATIVE. 
          UM, BUT FOR BTU IN RESPONSE TO THE, THE DIALOGUE WE'VE BEEN HAVING, I, I THINK THAT THE, THE DETAILED MATERIAL IS IN THE STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE RPG, THE QUESTIONS ARE REALLY ABSTAINING. 
          UM, I'M SORRY. 
          UH, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? I HEARD SOME BACKGROUND NOISE. 
          SORRY, THAT WAS ME. 
          GO AHEAD, MARK. 
          UM, SO I THINK THAT THE, THE DIALOGUE THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING IS, IS ANSWERED IN THE, THE MORE DETAILED STUDIES 
          [02:35:01]
THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED THROUGH THE RPG PROCESS. 
          AND THE QUESTIONS ARE REALLY JUST ABOUT THE PRESENT PRESENTATION OF THE MATERIAL. 
          SO, UM, ON BEHALF OF BTU, THIS IS THE CRITICAL PROJECT FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. 
          UH, THE BRYAN TEXAS UTILITIES REGION IS EXPERIENCING THE SAME, UH, CHARACTERISTICS OF, OF EXTREME LOAD GROWTH AND PROSPECTIVE DATA CENTERS THAT, THAT WE'RE SEEING ALL AROUND THE STATE. 
          AND I, AND I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THE BRYAN TEXAS UTILITY SYSTEM IS NOT ON THE 3 45 NETWORK. 
          AND, AND SO THIS IS JUST A, A REALLY IMPORTANT CONNECTION TO, UH, ALLOW FOR THE, THE ACCOMMODATION OF LOW GROWTH IN THE FUTURE OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          AND, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING TO ABSTAIN ON THE VOTE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. 
          I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD GIVE YOUR PROXY TO SOMEBODY, BUT I THINK IT'S TOO LATE FOR THAT. 
          SO WE WILL, WE'LL DO THE ABSTENTION, UH, KATIE RICH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, THE DELAY IN ME BEING IN THE QUEUE, UM, IS DELAYED MY RETORT TO BILL AS A FORMER AGGIE. 
          I JUST WANT PBU TO CONFIRM THAT OUR BELOVED MASCOT WILL NOT BE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE OPTIONS WE CONSIDERED, BUT ANYWAY, , I, I, I'M, I'M SORRY. 
          I MUST CORRECT. 
          UM, YOU'RE NOT A FORMER AGGIE. 
          YOU'RE A, YOU'RE A FORMER STUDENT. 
          ANYMORE AGGIE STUDENT OR OTHERWISE COMMENTARY . 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS RICHARD. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR BU? SO WE NEED A SEPARATE BALLOT ON THIS ONE. 
          A MOTION. 
          RICHARD WILL MAKE THE MOTION. 
          UM, SO THE MOTION IS ENDORSED THE BTU TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM,  CAMPUS RELIABILITY OPTION ONE AS PRESENTED. 
          AND RICHARD WILL MAKE THE MOTION. 
          CAN I GET A SECOND? WHO WAS THE SECOND? WE, I'LL, I'LL SECOND IT IF NOBODY ELSE. 
          I'LL, I'LL SECOND IT. 
          OKAY, GOOD. 
          I THINK WE'RE GOOD. 
          ALRIGHT THEN. 
          ON THE MOTION TO ENDORSE THIS PARTICULAR RPG PROJECT FOR THE FIGHT IN TEXAS, AGGIES, WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH MARK DREYFUS. 
          UH, YES. 
          AND I ABSTAIN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          GOTCHA. 
          THANK YOU, NICK. 
          YES, THANK YOU GARRETT. 
          YES, SIR. 
          THANKS SIR. 
          MIKE? YES. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK MIKE BETH? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NAVA. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO THE CO-OPS, MIKE? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JOHN. 
          YES, THANK YOU KYLE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU TREVOR FOR BLAKE. 
          YES, THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO THE INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. 
          BOB LOSE, ABOVE HILTON. 
          ALRIGHT, HOW ABOUT KAITLIN? YES, THANK YOU, BRIAN. 
          YES, THANK YOU, NED. 
          YES, THANK YOU COREY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR IPM, SETH. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, REMI. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, JEREMY. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IAN? YES. 
          THANK YOU COREY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR I REPS. 
          BILL HORNS UP. 
          YES. 
          THANKS, BILL. 
          JENNIFER? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JAY? YES. 
          THANK YOU CHRIS. 
          CHRIS HENDRICKS. 
          YOU WITH US? ALL RIGHT, NOW CHRIS, I SEE BOB HILTON'S BACK IN THE ROOM. 
          BOB? YES SIR. 
          THAT'S FOR MY GRANDDAUGHTER WHO GOES TO A AND M. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
           A WISE WOMAN. 
          ALL RIGHT, NOW CHRIS, RIGHT ONTO OUR IOUS, RICHARD GIG. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          MARTHA? YES. 
          GIAM. 
          ROB FOR KEITH? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ABBY, FOR DAVID? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO THE MUNIS RUSSELL. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, DAVID. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALICIA? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND ANDREW FOR JOSE? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LOOK AT THAT COOPERATION BETWEEN BOTH CAMPS. 
          SO PROUD OF Y'ALL. 
          [02:40:01]
MOTION CARRIES ONE ABSTENTION. 
          OKAY, THAT WAS FUN. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD DO COLLEGE SHIRT DAY IN OCTOBER. 
          CAN THAT FIT IN WITH YOUR THEME, RICHARD? OKAY. 
          SLIPPER SLIPPERS. 
          . 
          I THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE RED NOSE DAY SHIRTS AND SLIPPERS. 
          DO ANY OF YOU REMEMBER THE RED NOSE DAYS? WHICH WAS THE, THE FOOD FOR CHILDREN? WE STILL, WE STILL DO THE RED NOSE DAY, RIGHT? NO, WE HAVEN'T. 
          'CAUSE WE CHANGED THE DAY OF TACK AND IT DIDN'T FALL ON RED NOSE DAY. 
          OH. 
          SO I THINK WE'RE BACK TO IT THOUGH, SO INTERESTING. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, LET'S GO TO OUR NEXT, UH, RPG PROJECT. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, I, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE WAIVER NOW OR LATER ON. 
          THIS ONE. 
          IT WAS SUBMITTED. 
          UH OH. 
          YEP. 
          I HAVE THAT WRITTEN DOWN. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, I GOT DISTRACTED BY THE COLLEGE. 
          SO WE DO NEED TO WAIVE NOTICE. 
          I THINK I WILL DO WHAT COREY AND ANN TELL ME, EVEN IF THEY'RE CONFLICTING THINGS. 
          BUT I, I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN TAKE THE PRESENTATION UP AND THEN THROW A WAIVE NOTICE ON THE COMBO BALLOT IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYONE. 
          OR DO WE NEED TO WAIVE NOTICE NOW? BETH, BETH IS MORALLY OPPOSED TO THAT . 
          I'M NOT MORALLY OPPOSED. 
          I, I THINK, UM, I, I'M, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO WAIVING NOTICE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, I CERTAINLY AM GONNA HAVE COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION AND ON, ON THE PROJECT ITSELF. 
          SO WAIVE NOTICE, DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT? YEAH, YOU DO. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA VOTE TO, TO WAIVE NOTICE. 
          HOW ABOUT I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UH, WAIVE NOTICE ON CONSIDERATION OF THE BAYTOWN PROJECT. 
          GREAT. 
          CAN WE GET A SECOND? YEAH. 
          YOU'LL SEC RICHARD. 
          WE'LL, SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          IF WE CONSIDER DOING IT BY VOICE, REASSESS OUR PROCESSES. 
          OH, VOTING BY VOICE. 
          WE GOTTA TALK ABOUT IT. 
          I TALK ABOUT IT IN THE, IN THE FUTURE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL PUT IT IN THE TAC PROCEDURES. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T, I TOTALLY WANT TO REWRITE THE WHOLE T PROCEDURES. 
          I WANT ROBERT'S RULES IN THERE. 
          YOU DON'T, OKAY. 
          SO WE'D HAVE TO, WE DO HAVE TO DO WE HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE? VOTE NOW OR NOT? I MEAN, I, I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD, COREY. 
          LET'S TAKE THE VOTE. 
          I GUESS HE'S WORKING, WORKING ON IT. 
          YEAH, IT'S, Y'ALL WERE ONLY GIVEN SIX AND THREE QUARTERS, DAYS NOTICE AND NOT YOUR FULL SEVEN. 
          SO WE WOULD NOT WANT TO BELABOR A MEETING WITH Y'ALL POTENTIALLY DISCUSSING, DISCUSSING OR A PRESENTATION FOR THREE HOURS THAT YOU WERE NOT GOING TO WANT TO VOTE ON. 
          SO JUST TO BUTTON UP EVERYTHING, WE WILL TAKE THIS MOTION, WE'LL TAKE THIS MOTION TO WAIVE NOTICE FOR THE CENTER POINT BAYTOWN AREA LOAD EDITION PROJECT. 
          SO AGAIN, THIS IS NOT YOUR VOTE ON THE PROJECT ITSELF, IT'S JUST YOU ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE FULL SEVEN DAYS WAS NOT REQUIRED FOR YOU TO MAKE YOUR INFORMED, EDUCATED DECISION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. 
          SO WE'LL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH MARK. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, NICK. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, GARRETT. 
          YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          MIKE? YES. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BETH? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NAVA. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO THE CO-OPS. 
          MIKE? YES. 
          THANK YOU, JOHN. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, KYLE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU TREVOR FOR BLAKE. 
          YES, THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UNDER INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. 
          BOB HILTON. 
          DO YOU DISAPPEAR ON US AGAIN? HE WALKED OUT AGAIN. 
          THAT'S ME FOR NOT BEING ENTERTAINING ENOUGH, THAT'S ALL. 
          I'M, I'M SORRY, CAITLIN. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, BRIAN. 
          YES, THANK YOU NED. 
          I'LL ALLOW IT. 
          . 
          THANKS SIR. 
          ONTO THE IPM. 
          SETH. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, REMI. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, JEREMY. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IAN? YES, THANK YOU. 
          COURT. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          UNDER OUR REPS, BILL? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JENNIFER. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          JAY? YES, THANK YOU, CHRIS. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR IOUS. 
          RICHARD? UH, YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MARTHA? YES, THANK YOU, ROB FOR KEITH? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AB ABBY FOR DAVID? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO THE MUNIS RUSSELL. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, DAVID. 
          YES, THANK YOU, ALICIA? YES, THANK YOU. 
          AND ANDREW FOR JOSE? YES, THANK YOU. 
          MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          YOU'LL NOW FREE TO DISCUSS AND POTENTIALLY TAKE ACTION ON THIS RPG PROJECT. 
          THANKS, COREY. 
          THANK YOU, COREY. 
          LEMME SEE IF, UH, OKAY. 
          UH, THIS IS THE CENTER POINT ENERGY, BE ON LOW RADIATION PROJECT. 
          [02:45:01]
OH, SO CENTERPOINT SUBMITTED THIS PROJECT, UH, FOR THE BAYTOWN AREA LOAD EDITION. 
          AND THIS IS A TIER ONE PROJECT, UM, ESTIMATE. 
          ORIGINAL ESTIMATE WAS $141.65 MILLION, WHICH WOULD NOT REQUIRE A CCN PRIMARILY, YOU KNOW, REBUILDING, UH, OR UPGRADING 1 38 KB SYSTEMS I'LL TALK ABOUT LATER. 
          SO THIS IS TO ADDRESS AGAIN, THE PROPOSED LOAD EDITION IN THE HARRIS COUNTY, ROUGHLY AROUND 500 MEGAWATTS OF NEW LOAD, UH, THAT'S DRIVING THIS PROJECT. 
          UM, AGAIN, I WILL, I'LL SKIP THIS. 
          UH, THIS FALLS UNDER THE TIER ONE CATEGORY, A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS PLUS, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, AND ANY COMMENTS FROM TAX SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD. 
          SO THE, THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT, WE LOOKED AT THE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A RELIABILITY NEED. 
          THERE WAS THERMAL, UH, VIOLATIONS, WHICH WAS DRIVING THE BASE NEED FOR THE PROJECT, PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY N MINUS ONE G MINUS ONE N MINUS ONE CONDITIONS. 
          AND X MINUS ONE AND MINUS ONE CONDITIONS ARE SHOWN AT THE TABLE HERE. 
          IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE STARTED LOOKING AT THIS MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS, WHICH IS, UH, PART OF THE PLANNING CRITERIA. 
          NOW IT'S JUST LOOKING AT THE N MINUS ONE MINUS ONE CONDITION. 
          AND WE DID IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT, UH, ISSUES IN TERMS OF VOLTAGE VIOLATIONS AND THERMAL VIOLATIONS. 
          THERE WAS NO UN UNSOLVED POWER FLOW, BUT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT, UH, THERMAL AND VOLTAGE VIOLATIONS. 
          SO CENTERPOINT DID LOOK AT THIS AS PART OF THEIR SUBMITTAL. 
          THEY CONSIDERED SOME OF THE OUTAGES, UH, SOME OF THE PRIORITIES, CONDITIONS. 
          WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE NEED, WE IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL SYSTEM ISSUES IN THAT AREA. 
          I WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WERE, LOOK, THEY WERE LOOKING AT, UH, WE WERE LOOKING AT, UH, MAINTENANCE OUTAGE CONDITION. 
          LOOKING AT N MINUS ONE. 
          WE DID IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT, UH, THAT WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL. 
          SO, IN ORDER TO ADDRESS ALL THIS ISSUES, UH, WE LOOKED AT FOUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS. 
          AMONG THE FOUR OPTIONS AS YOU AS COMPARED HERE. 
          OPTION TWO A, UH, MEETS THE BASELINE ERCOT, NERC AND RELIABILITY CRITERIA IMPROVES THE LONG TERM LOAD SERVING CAPABILITY AND ALSO IMPROVES THE OPERATION FLEXIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO LOOKING AT THE N MINUS ONE MINUS ONE ISSUES PRIMARILY. 
          SO ERCOT RECOMMENDS OPTION TWO A, AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE, UH, IN THE TABLE HERE, UM, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT COST INCREASE COMPARED TO THE, THE, THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL. 
          THE OPTION TWO A IS, UH, FOR HUNDRED 54.5 MILLION, $545.3 MILLION, UH, SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE COST. 
          PRIMARILY THAT'S DRIVEN BY A LOT OF ADDITIONAL UPGRADES THAT'S NEEDED. 
          I'LL, I'LL GO THROUGH THAT AT THE, UH, AT THE END. 
          BUT AGAIN, UH, LOOKING AT OTHER ASPECTS, THERE'S NO SSR ISSUES RELATED TO THIS UPGRADES. 
          UM, AGAIN, LOOKING AT SENSITIVITIES, UM, CONGESTION COST, UM, WE DID NOT SEE THAT THE OPTION TWO A DID NOT CAUSE ANY ADDITIONAL CONGESTION IN THIS, IN THIS AREA. 
          AND NO FUTURE POTENTIAL GENERATOR STUDIED, IMPACTED THIS PREFERRED OPTION, WHICH IS OPTION TWO A. 
          SO ONE THING TO NOTE IS, AS I SAID, THE COST IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH. 
          THIS IS IN, IN THE CENTER POINT AREA. 
          UH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL COST, $545.3 MILLION APPROXIMATELY, UH, THIS, SOME OF THE UPGRADES, MOSTLY IT'S PRIMARILY 1 38 KB UPGRADES. 
          UM, THEY REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT, UH, WORK TO ACCOMMODATE LIKE, YOU KNOW, OUTAGE ISSUES, WHICH IS ALSO PUTTING TEMPORARY, UH, WORK AND ALL STRUCTURES TO REPLACE THIS, UH, YOU KNOW, EXISTING STRUCTURES. 
          AND SOMETIMES LIKE, YOU KNOW, FULL TEMPORARY BYPASS, ALL THOSE THINGS ADDS TO THE COST. 
          SO OUT OF THE TOTAL COST, ROUGHLY AROUND, BASED ON THE TSPS ESTIMATE, WE PROB WE GOT THIS ESTIMATE FROM CENTER POINT. 
          45% OF THE COST IS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TEMPORARY WORK, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE, UH, TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND, UM, BYPASSES THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO UPGRADE ALL THOSE 1 38 KB UPGRADES. 
          AGAIN, THE, THE PROJECT IS PRETTY LENGTHY. 
          THERE IS SEVERAL, LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, I, I DON'T WANNA WALK THROUGH EVERY ONE OF THEM, BUT I'M JUST GONNA HIGHLIGHT LIKE MOST OF THEM ARE, YOU KNOW, UPGRADES OF EXISTING 1 38 KV. 
          IN ADDITION TO LOOPING THIS, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF SUBSTATIONS TO SERVE THE NEW LOAD. 
          SO I WILL SKIP ALL THIS THREE PAGES. 
          AND IN ADDITION, WE ALSO IDENTIFIED NEED FOR, YOU KNOW, ADDING, UH, ADDITIONAL CAPACITORS TO SUPPORT THE VOLTAGE ISSUES. 
          SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF THOSE LOCATIONS LISTED THERE. 
          UM, ROUGHLY IT'S AROUND LIKE 140 MEGAWATTS MEGAWATTS OF, UH, UH, CAPACITORS THAT'S NEEDED TO ADDRESS ALL THOSE VOLTAGE ISSUES. 
          SO WITH THAT, 
          [02:50:01]
I'M GONNA JUMP TO THE LAST SLIDE, WHICH KIND OF HIGHLIGHTS THE, THE 1 38 KV PATHS AND THE LOCATIONS WHERE THOSE CAP BANKS ARE ADDED. 
          SO, UM, ROUGHLY AT THE END IT'S AROUND LIKE 15 MILES OF, UH, UPGRADES, 1 38 KV REBUILDS AND UPGRADES. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S THE BULK OF THE PROJECT PLUS ADDITION OF, UH, CAPACITORS. 
          SO I'LL STOP HERE AND I KNOW I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. 
          UM, SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE THE QUESTIONS NOW. 
          OKAY, BETH? YEAH, THANKS. 
          UM, SO IT, LET'S START WITH JUST THE OPTIONS, UH, LAID OUT HERE ON, ON ON UH, SLIDE FIVE. 
          MY FIRST QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH, WE HAVE FOUR OPTIONS PRESENTED ONLY ONE OF WHICH MEETS THE CRITERIA, WHICH TELLS ME THAT THAT'S ONLY, THERE AREN'T REALLY ANY, ANY OPTIONS HERE. 
          AND, AND SO I GUESS MY SPECIFIC QUESTION IS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE TWO A, YOU KNOW, PART OF THAT REALLY GET GOT TO THE OUTAGE CONDITION IS, DO I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? YES. 
          SO NONE OF THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, NONE OF WHAT CENTERPOINT SUBMITTED OR INITIAL TAKE AT AN OPTION TWO, OPTION THREE, NONE OF THOSE MET THE OUTAGE CONDITION. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THIS IS, THIS IS, AGAIN, AS I SAID, THIS IS LOOKING AT THE MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS AT THE OFF PEAK OR THE EXPECTED OFF PEAK SYSTEM CONDITION, LOAD LOAD CONDITIONS. 
          SO, WHICH, WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT, WE DID IDENTIFY MOST OF THE ISSUES ARE OVERLOADS OF EXISTING ONE 30 KV LINES. 
          AND, UH, OF COURSE, LIKE THERE WERE ALSO VOLTAGE ISSUES. 
          SO THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS THIS IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, UPGRADE THOSE LINES. 
          AS I SHOWED IN THE LAST, UH, SLIDE, THERE ARE SEVERAL AREAS WHERE YOU COULD SEE THERE IS UPGRADES NEEDED FOR EXISTING 1 38 KV LINES. 
          YOU KNOW, THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO BUILD LIKE NEW LINES OR ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, 3 45 KV. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'LL ADDRESS THOSE SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE OUTAGE CONDITIONS BECAUSE THESE ARE LIKE THERMAL OVERLOADS OF 1 38 KV LINES, WHICH NEEDS A HIGHER CAPACITY UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS. 
          AND, AND I CERTAINLY RECOGNIZE THE, THE, THE POTENTIAL NEED FOR, NO, I CAN'T BREAK UP MY SYSTEM TO BUILD NEW STUFF. 
          I GOTTA HAVE BYPASS, I HAVE TO HAVE TEMPORARY BUILDS. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          AND THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT COST BY THAT NUMBER. 
          I COME UP WITH ABOUT $245 MILLION OUTTA THE TOTAL PROJECT. 
          THAT'S THE TOTAL IS RELATED TO THE, UM, TO ALL OF THAT. 
          I GOTTA, I GOTTA CREATE DETOURS TO BE ABLE TO DO THE WORK. 
          AND, AND THAT'S AN EXPENSIVE ASPECT. 
          I'M STILL STUCK, I'M STILL STUCK  WITH, IF I DO THE MATH, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THIS $142 MILLION PROJECT SUBMITTED THAT I READ AS OPTION ONE THAT KIND OF TURNED INTO $163 MILLION PROJECT THAT I'LL ATTRIBUTE TO JUST COST INCREASE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          INFLATION. 
          SO 163 PLUS 2 45 GIVES ME FOUR OH $8 MILLION, WHICH THEN LEAVES ME 145 MILLION FOR THE, THE, THE PART OF THAT GOES FROM TWO TO TWO A REBUILD, WHICH BY MY COUNT IS LIKE 15 MILES OF UPGRADES. 
          YES. 
          I, I, I APPRECIATE YOU NODDING YOUR HEAD TO CONFIRM. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL OF THAT WITH ME. 
          SO, AND, AND I'M LOOKING ACROSS THE WAY AT CENTERPOINT AND IF I SAY ANYTHING WRONG, I I, I WANNA BE CORRECTED AS WELL. 
          THE COST OF THAT INCREMENTAL 15 MILES OF, OF UPGRADE VERSUS THE COST OF THE INITIAL 40 MILES OF UPGRADE SEEMED TO BE VERY DISPARATE. 
          AND SO I'M, I'M INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING THAT ASPECT OF IT AS WELL. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          WE, WE BASICALLY TOOK THIS $163 MILLION, WHAT TURNED INTO $163 MILLION PROJECT TO UPGRADE SOMETHING LIKE 40 MILES OF LINE, AND WE ADDED 15 MILES OF LINE, AND THAT'S ANOTHER $145 MILLION. 
          AGAIN, REALLY BIG PROJECT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ALL OF THESE COST DRIVERS ARE, PLEASE. 
          SO, UM, I'LL START, MAYBE IT'S ON A POINT IF THEY WANT TO ADD, THEY CAN ADD. 
          SO I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, UH, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT'S, THAT'S AVAILABLE, BUT THAT, THAT WAS LIKE, YOU KNOW, ROUGHLY AROUND LIKE, UH, IT WAS NOT 50, 40 MILES, IT WAS WAY LESS. 
          IT WAS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS CLOSE TO 12 MILES OR 13 MILES OF TOTAL UPGRADES. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED AND NOW WE ENDED UP, YOU'RE RIGHT, CLOSE TO 50 MILES OF UPGRADES. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S 
          [02:55:01]
THE DIFFERENCE IN COST. 
          UM, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT MILES, BUT IF YOU WANT ME TO, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT SHOULD BE AS PART OF THE REPORT, BUT YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          UM, THAT'S HELPFUL FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND. 
          AGAIN, UH, THE, THE GOING IN QUESTION IS HOW DOES 140 TURN INTO A HALF A BILLION? UM, AND UNDERSTANDING THOSE PIECES AND DRIVERS IS SUPER IMPORTANT. 
          UM, SO, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU, I THINK WE HAVE WES ON THE LINE AS WELL, IF WE WANT TO KIND OF ADDRESS SOME OF THAT CAUSE AND ADDRESS, UH, BEST CONCERN. 
          UH, SO I'M GONNA LET, UH, WES SPEAK TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS RAISED. 
          OKAY. 
          WES. 
          WES, HEY, UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          YEAH, SO THE, THE ORIGINAL, UH, ESTIMATE OF 140 MILLION, YOU KNOW, DID HAVE A LOT LESS, UH, SORT OF MILEAGE OF UPGRADES, UH, THAT WE HAD INCLUDED. 
          WHEN ERCOT CAME BACK TO US AND SAID, HEY, WE FOUND A LOT MORE OF THESE MAINTENANCE OUTAGES, UM, ISSUES. 
          UH, PLEASE PROVIDE US ESTIMATES FOR THOSE. 
          UM, WE ALSO AT THE TIME DID A RE-ESTIMATE OF EVERYTHING WE HAD SUBMITTED. 
          SO THAT ORIGINAL 140, UM, BASICALLY THE SAME SCOPE AND UPGRADES IN INCREASED TO ABOUT, I WANT TO SAY TWO 20, UM, UH, 220 MILLION. 
          AND THEN THERE WAS SORT OF THE LEFTOVER NEW PROJECTS THAT WE HAD NOT IDENTIFIED, UH, THAT ARE SORT OF THE NEW MAINTENANCE OUTAGE. 
          THAT WAS ABOUT 300 MILLION OF THE, OF THE PROJECTS. 
          AND THEN, UM, THERE'S THE CUSTOMER PAY PORTION THAT'S SOMETHING JUST SOUTH OF ABOUT 30 MILLION. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S WHERE YOU GET TO THE, THE 540. 
          UM, I, I WOULD SAY THAT TYPICALLY THE, THE 1 38, UM, REBUILD COSTS, EVEN THE ORIGINAL ONES AND THEN THE NEW MAINTENANCE OUTAGES WERE VERY SIMILAR. 
          UM, I MEAN, IT COMES OUT TO ROUGHLY SOMETHING ABOUT $10 MILLION PER MILE WHEN YOU ADD IN THE TEMPORARY WORK. 
          WOW, THAT'S CRAZY. 
          , THANK, THANK YOU FOR THAT, WES. 
          I'M, I'M LAUGHING 'CAUSE I'M SITTING HERE NEXT TO, UH, MIKE WISE FROM GOLDEN SPREAD AND HE'S JUST INCREDULOUS AT $10 MILLION A MILE. 
          AND I SAID, YEAH, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN URBAN AND, AND HIS RURAL AREA. 
          UM, THE, I I FULLY ACCEPT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT COSTS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE IN CONGESTED AREAS. 
          AND, UM, UM, AND YOUR INFORMATION ON THE, WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER SORT OF THE, UH, COST ESCALATION INFLATION ASPECT DRIVER TAKING THAT INITIAL 140 TO TWO 20, UH, IS HELPFUL INSIGHT, UM, INTO, BECAUSE I KNOW, I KNOW THAT THAT'S A, THAT THAT'S A HUGE ISSUE THAT THE WE AS CONSUMERS, AS THE INDUSTRY ARE ALL, ARE ALL DEAL DEALING WITH AT THIS POINT. 
          OKAY, BRIAN? OKAY. 
          UH, THE, THESE QUESTIONS ARE JUST GONNA BE ASKED OUT OF TOTAL IGNORANCE. 
          UM, SO WHEN I SEE 45% OF THE ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR TEMPORARY WORK, UM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR RATE OF RETURN? IS IT STILL, UM, USED AND USEFUL IF IT'S TEMPORARY OR IS IT SOMEHOW CATEGORIZED AS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A CAPITAL COST? AND, UM, IF IT'S NOT A CAPITAL COST, WE SHOULD JUST BE A LOT MORE, UM, UH, DELIBERATE WITH OUR WORD CHOICES HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, THAT'S SOMETHING WE, I HAVE, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE WILL, WE ALWAYS KEPT, YOU KNOW, CHARACTERIZED EVERYTHING TO BUILD A TRANSMISSION PROJECT, INCLUDING MAIN, YOU KNOW, SUPPORTING OUTAGES AS CAPITAL COST. 
          BUT THAT'S A QUESTION. 
          I CAN TAKE IT UP TO THE TSPS OR, OR FOR INTERNAL DISCUSSION. 
          WESTER CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT, UH, UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL GONNA BE CAPITAL COSTS AND 
          [03:00:01]
THAT'S TYPICALLY THE WAY IT WOULD FOR US TO BE ABLE TO REBUILD THOSE LINES. 
          THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE CAPITAL COSTS. 
          YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S JUST SORT OF PART OF DOING THESE UPGRADES IS IN, IN A LOT OF CASES YOU HAVE TO USE, UH, YOU KNOW, TEMPORARY WORK, UH, TO GET THE PROJECTS BUILT WHILE MINIMIZING OUTAGES. 
          I MEAN, THESE, UM, MOST OF THESE UPGRADES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED EARNING EXTREMELY INDUSTRIAL AREAS WITH SOME LARGE, YOU KNOW, FACILITIES, YOU KNOW, INDUSTRIAL PLANTS, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO MINIMIZE OUTAGES. 
          YOU DON'T WANNA HAVE THOSE GUYS, YOU KNOW, RADIALLY FED FOR EXTREMELY LONG PERIODS OF TIME. 
          SO, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST KIND OF A NORMAL, UH, WAY WE HANDLE THE UPGRADES IN, IN, IN MOST OF THESE AREAS. 
          I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          UM, AND I SAW ONE OF MY PLANTS THAT AS A COGEN FACILITY IS, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THIS TERRITORY AND, UH, CERTAINLY DON'T WANNA LOSE SERVICE OR THE ABILITY TO HAVE EXPORTS TO, UH, WHEN, WHEN THAT, UH, FACILITY MIGHT BE DOWN. 
          UM, IT JUST, PART OF, PART OF THE REASON FOR MY QUESTION WAS TO MAYBE TAKE SOME OF THE, THE STEAM OFF OF LIKE THE HALF BILLION DOLLAR NUMBER IF IT'S REALLY NOT A CAPITAL COST. 
          SOUNDS LIKE IT IS THOUGH. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OF, OKAY, CAN I, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SO I, I GUESS BASED ON THE COMMENTS, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T HEAR ANY, ANY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. 
          IS THAT FAIR? IT'S AUTOMATIC. 
          WELL UNDERSTANDING. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          AT, AT A MINIMUM. 
          I I THINK IT'S, IT'S, IM, I WOULD SUGGEST IT'S IMPORTANT TO, FOR THE BOARD WHO WILL ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, APPROVE THIS PROJECT TO KIND OF FULLY UNDERSTAND THOSE, THE, THE GROWTH OF THIS PROJECT. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT STARTED AS THIS, YOU KNOW, A A GRAPEFRUIT SIZE BLOB THAT HAD THIS AMOUNT OF COST, AND THEN WE NEEDED TO ADD THESE PROJECTS AND THEN COST ESCALATED AND THEN WE REALIZED WE NEED TO DO ALL THIS TEMPORARY WORK. 
          AND ALL OF THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL SCOPE OF THIS. 
          UM, AND I GUESS, AND I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'VE, I'VE FULLY, UH, UNDERSTAND THAT THE DRIVER FOR THIS PROJECT AT ALL IS BECAUSE THERE'S SOME BIG NEW LOAD THAT WANTS TO LOCATE IN IN HARRIS COUNTY. 
          AND SO ALL CONSUMERS IN, IN ERCOT ARE BEING ASKED TO SPEND A HALF A BILLION DOLLARS FOR, UM, FOR, UH, CENTER POINT TO BE ABLE TO UPGRADE THEIR SYSTEM, TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE, ACCOMMODATE THIS BIG NEW LOAD. 
          JUST CHARGE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          PROBABLY YES. 
          SO WE, WE CAN VOTE AS WE USUALLY DO. 
          IF, IF PEOPLE WANT, WE'D BE LOOKING TO ENDORSE THE RPG PROJECT, UH, CENTER POINT BAYTOWN AREA LOAD ADDITION PROJECT OPTION TWO A IS PRESENTED. 
          DOES, DOES ANYONE WANT TO DO THAT? WE CAN PUT IT ON THE COMBO BALLOT OR WE COULD DO A SEPARATE BALLOT. 
          I WOULD PREFER, I WOULD PREFER THIS NOT TO BE ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION? HILTON. 
          HILTON WILL MAKE THE MOTION. 
          BOB HILTON, CAN WE GET A SECOND? I'D BE SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE, THE MOTION IS ENDORSE RPG PROJECT CENTER POINT BAYTOWN AREA LOAD ADDITION PROJECT OPTION TWO A IS PRESENTED. 
          UH, WE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          [03:05:03]
OKAY. 
          WE GOOD? SUSIE, YOU GOT YOUR MOVER AND SECONDER. 
          ALL RIGHT, COOL. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ON THE MOTION TO ENDORSE THE RPG PROJECT FOR CENTERPOINT AS PRESENTED OPTION TWO A, WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH MARK DREYFUS. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU NICK. 
          RELUCTANTLY. 
          YES. 
          APPRECIATE IT, SIR GARRETT? YES SIR. 
          THANKS SIR. 
          MIKE? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BETH, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND VOTE NO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NABA. 
          NO, THANK YOU. 
          ONTO THE CO-OPS. 
          MIKE ABSTAIN. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          JOHN? YES, THANK YOU, KYLE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU TREVOR FOR BLAKE. 
          YES, THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. 
          BOB? YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU, CAITLIN. 
          YES, THANK YOU, BRIAN. 
          YES, THANK YOU, NED. 
          YES, THANK YOU, COREY. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          ONTO OUR IPM, SETH. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, REMI. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JEREMY. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IAN? YES, THANK YOU. 
          COURT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UNDER OUR I REPS. 
          BILL? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JENNIFER. 
          JENNIFER SCHMIDT. 
          YOU STILL WITH? SORRY. 
          NO. 
          OKAY, GOTCHA. 
          NO, THANK YOU. 
          JAY? YES, THANK YOU. 
          CHRIS. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR IOUS. 
          RICHARD? YES, THANK YOU. 
          MARTHA. 
          YES, THANK YOU, ROB. 
          FOR KEITH? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          EBY FOR DAVID. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR MUNIS, RUSSELL. 
          YES, THANK YOU, DAVID. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALICIA? YES, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN ANDREW FOR JOSE? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MOTION CARRIES. 
          90%, FOUR, THREE OPPOSED? AND ONE ABSTENTION. 
          OKAY, THANKS COREY. 
          UM, SO I'M TOLD LUNCH IS HERE, SO WHY DON'T WE BREAK FOR LUNCH AND COME BACK AT 1 10, 3 PEOPLE AT ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, IT'LL BE FINE. 
          I WANTED TO BRING 
          [7. PRS Report (Vote) (Part 2 of 2)]
SOMETHING UP BEFORE I FORGOT. 
          UH, NPR 1283, WHICH WE PUT ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          COREY HAS FOUND, UH, MINOR CORRECTION, CHANGING, SYNCHRONIZED, ENERGIZED OR SO SOMETHING. 
          UM, BUT LOOK, I'M DOING THIS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. 
          UM, SYNCHRONIZATION TO ENERGIZATION. 
          IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID THE CHANGE WAS? THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          UH, 1283 IS CHANGING INITIAL SYNCHRONIZATION TO INITIALIZATION THROUGHOUT, WELL, IN THE COURSE OF ITS LIFE, NEWLY APPROVED NPR 12 80 12 34 ADDED A GRAY BOX IMMEDIATELY BELOW THERE. 
          THAT'S CHANGING SSR TO SSO IN A BUNCH OF PLACES, BUT IT DID NOT CARRY THAT SAME CHANGE. 
          SO 12 80, 12 34 IS NOT TRYING TO UNDO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH 1283. 
          SO IF Y'ALL ARE AMENABLE TO SOME DESKTOP EDITS. 
          THAT'S THE ENTIRETY OF 'EM THERE ON YOUR SCREEN WHERE IT'S JUST TAKING WHAT 1283 IS ALREADY DOING AND MAKING SURE THAT 1234 DOESN'T ACCIDENTALLY UNDO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          BY CHANGING ENERGIZATION BACK TO SYNCHRONIZATION. 
          SO IT'S PUTTING THE CHANGES BACK INTO THE GRAY BOX. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO THE, THE CHANGE TO OUR COMBO BALLOT WOULD JUST TO BE, TO CHANGE THE MOTION, UM, TO, TO APPROVE THIS AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AS REVISED BY TAC. 
          YOU'VE GOT IT. 
          THE, THE MOTION THAT Y'ALL HAD IS PERFECT AND JUST TACKING AS REVISED BY TAC ON IT. 
          WE'LL COVER THAT. 
          SO IF Y'ALL ARE STILL OKAY WITH LEAVING THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT, YOU HAVE MY APPRECIATION. 
          YEP. 
          GO AHEAD BOB. 
          YEAH, I AM. 
          UH, ACTUALLY, BUT ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO ATTACK ACTION, BUT TIED ONTO THIS ONE, ONCE WE GET IT THROUGH, UH, EITHER ROS OR I NEED TO GET WITH THE T DSPS, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT SSO STUDY PROCESS AND SEE IF THERE'S SOME THINGS WE CAN DO TO MOVE THAT, OR IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL SCREENING YOU CAN DO UP FRONT. 
          SOMETHING WE CAN DO TO NOT GET US INTO SOME SITUATIONS WHERE WE'RE PUSHING PROJECTS OUT TOO FAR. 
          SO I, THAT'S ON MY MIND AND I'M, I'M GONNA BRING THAT UP AND I CAN'T SOLVE IT WITHOUT YOU GUYS. 
          . 
          WE'RE HAPPY TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY DISCUSSIONS. 
          JUST LET US KNOW WHEN AND WHERE TO BE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH CHANGING THAT MOTION SLIGHTLY ON THE COMBO BALLOT. 
          [03:10:01]
OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          [17. Other Business (Part 1 of 2)]
NOW WE ARE GOING TO GO TO, UM, THE PUC STAFF UPDATE ON ANCILLARY SERVICE COST ALLOCATION STUDY WITH JULIE. 
          GET YOU FULL SCREEN. 
          COOL. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          THANKS. 
          ALL GOOD. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          I AM JULIE GADEN WITH PUC STAFF, AND I WAS THINKING THAT I WOULD START MY PRESENTATION WITH A GOOD CORNY JOKE. 
          I'LL ASK STEVE REEDY . 
          HOWEVER, I DECIDED IN THE INTEREST OF EFFICIENCY, I WILL NOT TELL A JOKE. 
          INSTEAD OF TAKING UP ANY EXTRA OF THESE GROUP'S. 
          VALUABLE TIME WITH A HUMOROUS ANECDOTE, I'LL BE JUMPING INTO MY PRESENTATION WITH ABSOLUTELY NO JOKING AROUND . 
          WHEW. 
          THIS, UH, I'M GONNA BE INTRODUCING A PROJECT THAT WE JUST KICKED OFF THIS MONTH. 
          THIS, UH, SLIDE SHOWS THE BACKGROUND OF THIS PROJECT. 
          IN THIS PROJECT, THE PUC, UH, AND ERCOT ARE REQUIRED TO PERFORM A STUDY ANALYZING THE COST ALLOCATION OF ANCILLARY SERVICES AND RELIABILITY SERVICES, UM, IN PURE, THIS REQUIREMENT WAS DEFINED IN 39 15 93, AND THIS STUDY, AND ALSO ALL DESIGN, PROCUREMENT AND COST ALLOCATION OF ANCILLARY SERVICES NEED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 35 0 0 4, UH, WHICH SPECIFIES THAT THESE SERVICES, UH, THE DESIGN, PROCUREMENT AND COST ALLOCATION NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH COST ALLOCATION PRINCIPLES. 
          AND ON A NON-DISCRIMINATORY BASIS, THERE ARE SOME THRESHOLD SCOPE ISSUES THAT WE'RE DEFINING RIGHT NOW, AND YOU'LL SEE THE, UM, TIMELINE FOR THE PROJECT LATER ON. 
          ONE OF THE KEY THINGS, AND ONE OF THE KEY REQUIREMENTS OF THE STUDY IS THAT WE NEED TO EVALUATE TWO COST ALLOCATION METHODS. 
          NUMBER ONE, THE CURRENT METHOD, AND NUMBER TWO, EITHER THE SPECIFIC METHOD THAT'S DEFINED IN PIRA OR ANOTHER METHOD IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION IN PUR. 
          THE ALLOCATION METHOD IS DEFINED TO ASSIGN COSTS, NOT JUST TO LOAD AS IS DONE NOW, BUT TO LOAD AND GENERATION. 
          AND ONE OF THE PROVISIONS IS THIS WOULD BE BY THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO UNRELIABILITY DURING THE HIGHEST HOURS, UH, TIMES OF RELIABILITY RISK DUE TO LOW OPERATING RESERVES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. 
          AND THERE'S OTHER REQUIREMENTS, OR AS I SAID, ANOTHER METHOD IDENTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION. 
          RIGHT NOW WE'RE WORKING ON COMMENTS FOR PUBLIC, UH, QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          AND THESE ARE SOME OF THEM AS EXAMPLES JUST TO GIVE YOU A, A FEEL FOR THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON. 
          DEFINING IN THE SCOPE. 
          AND WE'RE GONNA BE BRINGING THIS TO THE COMMISSION TO FINALIZE THE STUDY SCOPE BY THE END OF THE YEAR IS OUR GOAL. 
          AND WE ARE RIGHT HERE IN AUGUST. 
          WE'VE OPENED THE PROJECT AND HERE I AM TODAY, UH, KICKING IT OFF WITH YOU GUYS. 
          AND, UH, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE WORKING ON A MEMO WITH QUESTIONS. 
          WE'LL ALLOW PROBABLY THREE WEEKS FOR QUESTIONS. 
          AND THEN THE GOAL IS TO WRAP UP THE SCOPE AND HAVE IT WELL-DEFINED BY THE END OF THE YEAR SO THAT ERCOT CAN DIVE INTO THE ANALYSIS STARTING NEXT YEAR. 
          UH, THE ANALYSIS WILL TAKE, UM, ESTIMATED AROUND SIX MONTHS. 
          ALL OF THESE DATES HERE ARE TENTATIVE PAST TODAY. 
          AND AFTER THIS ANALYSIS, WE'LL HAVE, UH, AT LEAST ONE WORKSHOP AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT, UM, HOW TO MOVE THE FINDINGS INTO ACTIONABLE, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS AFTER THAT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? AWESOME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OH, OH, BILL BARNES. 
          OH, I'M SORRY. 
          BILL BARNES. 
          YEAH, THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT Q YEAH, I WAS LOOKING FOR YOUR HAND. 
          I FORGOT ABOUT THE CARDS. 
          , FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. 
          WE REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, THE HEADS UP ON, ON WHAT YOU'RE WORKING ON AND LAYING OUT THIS, UH, TIMELINE. 
          UM, ONCE UPON A TIME, THIS STAKEHOLDER BODY DID ATTEMPT TO CHANGE HOW ANCILLARY SERVICE COSTS, UH, ALLOCATION, UH, WORKS. 
          IT WAS QUITE CONTROVERSIAL AT THE TIME. 
          WE DIDN'T HAVE THE DIRECTION IN STATUTE AND THE COMMISSION TO HELP GUIDE US. 
          SO THIS IS GOING TO CERTAINLY BE HELPFUL. 
          UH, IT DOES GET COMPLICATED QUICKLY, UM, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'LL HAVE A BIG, WE'LL HAVE BIG FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES ON ALL OF US, SO I'M SURE YOU'LL GET A LOT OF ATTENTION. 
          THE, THE, MY MAIN QUESTION IS, IT LOOKS LIKE, JUST TO CONFIRM, THE DELIVERABLE IS NOT NECESSARILY 
          [03:15:01]
WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE RULE. 
          THAT'S WHAT IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE. 
          IT IS A REPORT ON THE POTENTIAL OPTIONS THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE COMMISSION LATER NEXT YEAR. 
          AND THEN IT WILL GO TO THE, IS THERE A REPORT GOING BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE TO WEIGH IN ON? THERE IS. 
          OKAY. 
          THE, THE PEC REPORT IS FOR THE LEGISLATURE. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT IS THE ULTIMATE DELIVERABLE IS A REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE, NOT A CHANGE IN RULE OR HOW THE ALLOCATION MECHANISM WORKS RIGHT NOW. 
          THAT'S THE ENVISIONED PROCESS. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          YEP, ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANKS BILL, BOB HILTON, YOU'RE GOOD? I'M GOOD. 
          CYRUS. 
          UM, UH, UH, BILL BARNES ASKED THE QUESTION I WAS GONNA ASK, SO I'M, I'M GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR JULIE? AWESOME, THANKS AGAIN. 
          GREAT JOB. 
          OKAY, NOW WE ARE GOING TO GO TO THE SEPTEMBER BOARD STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT UPDATE FROM REBECCA, AND THEN WE WILL GO TO OUR ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY. 
          I JUST HAVE A QUICK UPDATE. 
          UM, WE HAVE THE PRESENTERS, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THE SEGMENTS LAST MONTH. 
          WE HAVE THE PRESENTERS AND THEN THE POLICY DISCUSSION PROMPTS FOR THE RTC PLUS B BOARD EDUCATION STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITY IN SEPTEMBER. 
          NEXT SLIDE, CORY. 
          UM, SO AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR THOSE SEGMENTS AND ALL THE PRESENTERS. 
          I KNOW THIS IS, UM, TIME Y'ALL ARE PUTTING INTO DOING THIS. 
          IF YOU'RE ONE OF THE IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS, YOU SHOULD BE RECEIVING A EMAIL, UM, WITH INFORMATION ON GETTING A MEETING SET UP TO START PLANNING. 
          THIS MATERIALS ARE DUE IN TWO WEEKS FOR THE FIRST DRAFT, SO I KNOW IT'S A TIGHT TURNAROUND TIMELINE, BUT AGAIN, APPRECIATE THAT AND KIND OF THINK THE PROMPTS WILL HELP START GUIDING THAT DISCUSSION AND LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING THIS AT THE SEPTEMBER BOARD. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR REBECCA? I, I CAN READ 'EM IF ANYBODY WANTS. 
          I DON'T, I KNOW WE'RE IN A TIGHT TIMEFRAME. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANKS EVERYONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, LET ME JUST, WE'VE MOVED A BUNCH OF THINGS AROUND FOR PEOPLE'S SCHEDULES AND, AND OTHER TIME CONSTRAINTS. 
          SO, UM, I WANTED TO DO KIND OF AN AGENDA RUNDOWN. 
          SO, SO PRESENTERS AND, AND PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S COMING NEXT. 
          WE ARE ABOUT TO TAKE UP THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY DISCUSSION. 
          THAT'S A, A VOTING ITEM OR A POTENTIAL VOTING ITEM. 
          I ANTICIPATE THAT WILL TAKE SOME SUBSTANTIVE AMOUNT OF TIME. 
          AFTER THAT, WE WILL GO BACK TO THE LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP UPDATE AND THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION QUEUE. 
          THEN WE WERE SORT OF BACK ON ON TRACK. 
          WE WILL GO TO THE END OF THE ERCOT REPORTS AFTER THAT TO THE, THE PRICE CORRECTION. 
          UM, AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH THE OTHER BUSINESS THAT WE DIDN'T JUST COVER. 
          SO THE, THE ANNUAL, UH, MEMBER MEETING, THE ACTION ITEMS LIST REVIEW AND, UH, ATTACK PROCEDURES ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          [15. Proposed Changes to Ancillary Service Methodology for 2026 (Possible Vote)]
SO WITH THAT WE CAN START ON ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY. 
          WHAT I WAS PLANNING WAS TO HAVE ERCOT PRESENT TO HAVE THE IMM PRESENT AND THEN SOMEBODY FROM CONSUMERS OR MULTIPLE PEOPLE FROM CONSUMERS PRESENT THEIR, THEIR COMMENTS AND THEN JUST TAKE UP FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM FROM THERE. 
          I KNOW COMMISSION STAFF IS HERE, WHICH IS GREAT. 
          UM, AND, AND I'M SURE ERCOT STAFF IS IS, AND, AND JEFF ARE HERE TO ANSWER PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS AS WELL. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          UH, OSA WITH ERCOT, I WILL BE COVERING THE PROPOSED 2026 ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY AND PRELIMINARY QUANTITIES. 
          SO I WANNA START WITH SOME BACKGROUND. 
          UH, HOW DID WE GET HERE AND WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING? SO, JUST KIND OF WANTED TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE, THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AS WE REVIEW THE 2026 AS METHODOLOGY FOR THIS YEAR. 
          UM, AS PART OF THE REVIEW THIS, WE WANNA GO BACK AND KIND OF PICK UP THE PUC 2024 AS STUDY THAT HAPPENED. 
          UM, UH, AND I'VE PROVIDED SOME LINKS FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT THAT WOULD LIKE TO GO AND READ THOSE. 
          UM, THERE WERE A COUPLE TOPICS, FINDINGS AND, AND NEXT STEPS THAT WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THAT CAME OUT OF THAT PUC STUDY. 
          AND IN PARTICULAR, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED TWO BOXES HERE, UM, THAT WE'RE TACKLING IN THIS 2026 AS METHODOLOGY. 
          UH, THE FIRST ONE 
          [03:20:01]
WAS TALKING ABOUT APPROPRIATE CRITERION FOR PROCURING QUANTITIES. 
          UH, SO OUR CURRENT POSTURE IS MAINTAINING AS QUANTITIES AND MINIMIZE ENTERING A PRE EMERGENCY OPERATION CONDITION OF AN OPERATIONAL WATCH. 
          UM, AND THIS SHOULD BE MAINTAINED IN ORDER, UH, AFTER IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE MADE AFTER, AFTER YOUR, EXCUSE ME. 
          UM, AND WHAT WAS ASKED WAS, UH, HAVING THE ABILITY TO, TO DEVELOP A CAPABILITY TO PROVIDE ESTIMATES AND COST ON PROBABILITIES OF EXPERIENCE, A WATCH, AN EMERGENCY ALERT LOAD SHED, AND LOOK AT SEVERAL OTHER THINGS, UH, RELATED TO THE ANCILLARY SERVICES AND THE, THE, THE CRITERIA. 
          AND WE'RE USING FOR QUANTIFYING AS, UH, ONE THING I'LL NOTE IS, IS THIS WAS, UH, THIS, DID BOTH OF THESE POINTS HAVE A POINT TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE 2027 AS, BUT WE TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY IN 2026 TO TRY TO COVER THESE TWO POINTS. 
          UM, SECOND ONE IS MOVING TO A PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY. 
          UH, SO TODAY WE USE A STATISTICAL APPROACH. 
          THE LAST APPROVED AS METHODOLOGY IS USING STATISTICAL APPROACH FOR ALL OF THE AS. 
          UH, BUT THE GRID HAS CHANGED, IT'S EVOLVED, AND THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE WANNA LOOK AT AND YOU, YOU KNOW, CHANGE THE WAY WE LOOK AT THE RISKS. 
          SO, UH, THE, THE NEXT STEP IS MOVING TO THIS PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY, WHICH WE'VE DEVELOPED AND I'LL COVER HERE IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES AS AN INTRODUCTION OF WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES. 
          I WILL START WITH THE PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY, BUT WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW IS, IS OF EVERYWHERE THAT WE'VE TAKEN THE AS METHODOLOGY, WE DID HAVE THREE WORKSHOPS RELATED TO THE METHODOLOGY ITSELF, JUST BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A BIG CHANGE. 
          UH, BUT, UH, KIND OF STARTING OFF WITH THE, THE, THE EASIER TOPICS REGULATION, UH, UP AND DOWN IS STILL GONNA BE USING THE STATISTICAL APPROACH THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2024. 
          UH, THERE IS ONE CHANGE. 
          THERE IS THE REMOVING AND THE COMPONENT FOR FAST RESPONDING REGULATION SERVICE OR FRRS MAINLY BECAUSE THAT GETS RETIRED WITH RTC. 
          SO THAT PORTION IS REMOVED. 
          UH, RRS ALSO USING THE SAME METHODOLOGY AS WELL AS 2024. 
          BUT THERE IS AN UPDATE TO THE MINIMUM RRS PRIMARY OF PRIMARY FREQUENCY RESPONSE. 
          THIS IS BEING UPDATED TO 1377, UH, DUE TO NXS PRELIMINARY BOWEL THREE IFRO FOR OPERATING AT YEAR 2026. 
          SO THAT CHANGE IS ALSO IN THERE. 
          THEN YOU GET INTO THIS PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY, AND, AND THIS IS WHERE MOST OF MY SLIDES WILL FOCUS, BUT WE DID MOVE TO THIS PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY THAT IS GOING TO BE, THAT IS USING THIS SIX HOUR NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR AND COMMUTATIVE SIX HOUR COMMUTATIVE FORCED, UH, FORCE OUTAGES OF POTENTIAL UNITS. 
          ADDITIONALLY, WE PULL IN THE 30 MINUTE AHEAD NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR, AND WE'RE USING ALL THIS DATA TO THEN DO BUILD DETERMINE QUANTITIES THAT HAVE A ONE IN 10 YEAR PROBABILITY OF OPERATIONAL RESERVES DROPPING BELOW THE SUM OF REGULATION IN RRS OR A WATCH THRESHOLD, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER TO THE UNCERTAINTY IN, IN THE LOAD FORECAST AND CONVENTIONAL RESOURCE AVAILABILITY. 
          UM, THERE'S A CONCEPT OF OF OF RISK CREDITS, UH, AND WE, A MODERATE AMOUNT OF CREDIT IN THE NET RISK DERIVED FROM HISTORICAL HEADROOM AND OFFLINE CAPACITY IS RECOMMENDED. 
          UH, I HAVE A, A SLIDE THAT WILL SHOW KIND OF WHAT, HOW THIS ALL WORKS TOGETHER. 
          AND THEN FINALLY, WE HAVE POSTED A RED LINE DOCUMENT OF THE AS METHODOLOGY. 
          THERE ARE PRELIMINARY QUANTITIES ON THERE. 
          JUST PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THE QUANTITIES DO INCLUDE JANUARY TO DECEMBER, BUT, UH, ONLY THE DATA UP TO JULY, WHICH IS A FULL CLOSED OUT MONTH, UH, INCLUDES ALL THE 2025. 
          THE QUANTITIES WILL CHANGE AS WE INCLUDE DATA FOR 2025. 
          OKAY, SO NOW TALK, TALKING ABOUT THE METHODOLOGY AND THE FRAMEWORK ITSELF. 
          SO WE'RE MOVING, WE WERE RECOMMENDING THIS PROBABILISTIC MODEL TO QUANTIFY ECRS AND, UH, NONS SPIND QUANTITIES FOR 2026. 
          AND THE MODEL WAS DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH SUFFICIENT E-S-R-E-E-C-R-S AND NONS SPIND RESERVE QUANTITIES FOR NONS SCARCITY DAYS. 
          UH, SO THIS IS WHEN, SO THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY AVAILABLE ON THESE DAYS, BUT IT MAY NOT BE ONLINE OR AVAILABLE IN THE TIME TO COVER THE RISK THAT WE'RE SEEING FOR UNCERTAINTY. 
          UM, NOW THE ENGINE ITSELF, THE, THE MODEL ITSELF, THERE'S A, THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES IN HERE, BUT REALLY WANTED TO SHARE THAT. 
          THERE'S AN INPUTS, I'VE COVERED SOME OF THOSE INPUTS. 
          THERE'S A RISK CREDIT THAT WE'RE ACCOUNTING FOR BASED ON HISTORICAL AVAILABLE HEADROOM THAT IS AVAILABLE. 
          UM, AND, AND FROM OFFLINE RESOURCES PUT THAT INTO OUR ENGINE. 
          WE RUN AN OPTIMIZATION, WE HAVE A CONVERGENCE CRITERIA THAT'S DETERMINING IF THE QUANTITIES MEET THE, THE AMOUNT OF NET RISK THAT WE'RE SEEING IN REAL TIME. 
          UH, AND, AND THAT CONVERGENCE CRITERIA. 
          AND I'VE PROVIDED A CALCULATION AT THE BOTTOM. 
          ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT I WANT TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE SEE THERE IS THE CONVERGENCE CRITERIA IS TO ENSURE THAT WE MEET THE NET RISK AND WE'RE COVERING THE MAXIMUM OF REG PLUS RRS OR THIS WATCH CRITERIA THAT I'VE MENTIONED. 
          UM, THAT'LL BE IMPORTANT AS WE GO THROUGH THE NEXT QUANTITIES IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES. 
          AND THEN OUT COMES THE, UH, A TOTAL REQUIREMENT WE NEED FOR ECRS AND, AND NSRS, AND THEN WE, WE SPLIT THAT UP INTO INDIVIDUAL QUANTITIES. 
          WE HAVE A METHOD FOR THAT. 
          SO THAT'S AT A HIGH LEVEL. 
          I, I DON'T WANT TO GO TOO FAR IN DEPTH, BUT IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. 
          I WILL CONTINUE ON. 
          WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF THIS PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY? IF WE LOOK AT THE RIGHT CHART, UH, AND THE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT ERCOT IS RECOMMENDING IN PROBABILISTIC VERSUS THE STATISTICAL APPROACH IN GREEN, YOU SOMEWHAT SEE A SIMILAR TREND. 
          BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LEFT AND WE'RE LOOKING AT PARTICULAR MONTHS AND HOURS, YOU SEE HOW THE DI IT DIFFERS, UH, AMONGST OURS FROM THE STATISTICAL AND ERCOT PRO PROBABILISTIC 
          [03:25:01]
METHOD. 
          AND REALLY THE PROBABILISTIC GETS US, ALLOWS US TO, UH, TAILOR THE QUANTITIES TO MORE HIGHER RISKY HOURS. 
          AND, AND SO THAT'S THE BENEFIT THAT WE'RE SEEING FROM, FROM THE PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY. 
          DO YOU WANNA STOP AND TAKE A QUESTION FROM MARK DREYFUS? I CAN. 
          OR DO YOU WANNA HOLD UNTIL THE END OF YOUR PRESENTATION? UH, I CAN TAKE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD, MARK. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS SLIDE WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE, OF THE PROBABILITY BALLISTIC METHOD IN THE MONTE CARLO OPTIMIZATION. 
          HERE'S THE THING I, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. 
          UM, THESE VARIABLES THAT WE'RE DEBATING ABOUT WERE PICKED AS UNIQUE VALUES, SIX HOURS, 60%, 25%. 
          MY QUESTION IS, WHY IN RUNNING A PROBABILISTIC OUTCOME DIDN'T WE SPECIFY THESE VARIABLES UNDER SOME PROBABILITY, DISTRIBUTION OF REASONABLE OUTCOMES, AND THEN MAKE RANDOM SELECTIONS OF THE VALUE OF THOSE VARIABLES UNDER THE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION? I, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE GETTING IN THE OUTPUTS IF WE DON'T TREAT THE INPUTS AS VARIABLE INSTEAD OF A SPECIFIC VALUES. 
          THANKS. 
          UM, SO THIS MAY GO BACK TO SOME OF THE WORKSHOP SLIDES, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK THAT WAS DONE TO LAND ON THESE VARIABLES. 
          UM, AND, AND IF YOU GO BACK TO THOSE SLIDES THAT ARE OUT THERE, WE, WE QUANTIFIED, WE, WE, WE RAN ANALYSIS FOR DIFFERENT VARIABLES. 
          AND, AND I DO HAVE ADDITIONAL SLIDES ON HOW WE LANDED ON THESE SPECIFIC VARIABLES COMING UP. 
          AND MAYBE THAT WILL ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS A LITTLE BIT MORE DIRECTLY. 
          UH, BUT MOST OF THIS IS REALLY INTO THE EXPECTATIONS AND POLICY GUIDANCE THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN FOR HOW WE SHOULD BE OPERATING THE GRID. 
          UM, THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER. 
          BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UH, FOR SOME MORE DETAILS ON SOME OF THE DEEPER DIVE ANALYSIS, I WOULD RECOMMEND POINT, UH, GOING BACK TO SOME OF THE WORKSHOP SLIDES THAT HAS SOME OF THOSE DETAILS. 
          WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS NOT HOW DO WE LAND ON THESE SPECIFIC VALUES, BUT WHETHER WE'RE TAKING THE RIGHT APPROACH BY USING STATIC VALUES VERSUS A, A DISTRIBUTION OF REASONABLE VALUES. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DEBATE THAT HERE, BUT I, I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IN THE FUTURE AS WE, AS WE IMPROVE THIS PROBABILISTIC APPROACH. 
          OKAY. 
          NOTED. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          I WILL MOVE FORWARD. 
          SO MAINLY HERE, KIND OF RELATED TO THE QUESTION THAT WE JUST HAD, IS WHAT ARE THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD AND WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE, WHAT IS ERCO RECOMMENDING? WHY ARE WE RECOMMENDING WHAT THE VARIABLES WE'RE USING? UM, AND, AND KIND OF SOME SUPPORT AND PERSPECTIVE FOR SOME OF THOSE THINGS. 
          SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE, THE X PARAMETER AND THE INPUTS FOR NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR. 
          SO HERE WE ARE RECOMMENDING A SIX HOUR NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR TO BE USED AS, AS AN INPUT FOR THE PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY. 
          SO AGAIN, FROM FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR SIX HOURS IS, COMES FROM THE POLICY GUIDANCE THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN TO OPERATE AFTER SUMMER OF 2021, OR FOR SUMMER OF 2021 TO OPERATE A HIGHER RELIABILITY AFTER YURI, UH, AND TO OPERATE THE SYSTEM MORE CONSERVATIVELY WITH LESS RUX. 
          UM, ADDITIONALLY, IF WE THINK ABOUT THIS FROM AN OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE AS WELL, IS IF WE LOOK AT OUR HISTORICAL AVAILABLE RESOURCES AND THE RESOURCES THAT WERE USED FOR RUCK, UH, SIX HOURS IS RIGHT AROUND THAT PERIOD THAT WE'D HAVE AVAILABILITY. 
          UH, THERE'S SOME DEEPER DIVE ANALYSIS AND IT'S AROUND FIVE HOURS OR 4.95 HOURS PLUS THE TIME IT TAKES R TO RUN, WHICH IS WHERE WE LAND ON SIX HOURS. 
          UM, WE DO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT DRS HERE. 
          UH, THE POINT IS, IS WHEN DRS IS IMPLEMENTED, WE CAN THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ADJUSTING THESE QUANTITIES BASED ON, UH, OR YOUR NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR, SINCE YOU DO HAVE THIS NEW PRODUCT THAT WILL BE COVERING THIS MORE SHORT TWO HOUR STARTUP TIME. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHERE THIS BECOMES A LITTLE BIT MORE APPROPRIATE. 
          BUT IF WE SKIP ON DRS, THE ONE THING TO THINK ABOUT IS IF WE DO REDUCE THE OUTLOOK ON, ON, ON THE NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR THAT WE USE FOR AS AN INPUT, UM, THERE IS POTENTIALLY A MORE RELIANCE ON THE USE OF RUX, UH, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT FROM THE POLICY GUIDANCE WE'VE BEEN GIVEN IS THAT WE, WE SHRINK THE, AS QU AS YOU LOOK AT A SHORTER TIME HORIZON, YOU POTENTIALLY SHRINK THE, THE AS QUANTITIES, BUT YOU ALSO INCREASE THE PROBABILITY, THE, THE POTENTIAL FOR RUCKS DURING THOSE PERIODS. 
          SO, UM, WE'D LIKE US TO CONTINUE THIS SETUP UP WITH USING THE SIX HOUR BASED ON PO UH, OPERATIONAL POLICY THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN AND FROM GUIDANCE FROM POLICY MAKERS AND STAKEHOLDERS. 
          UM, BUT PLEASE, UH, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS NOTED. 
          OKAY, NEXT TWO SLIDES. 
          UH, THESE ARE THE NEXT TWO POINTS AND THE NEXT TWO VARIABLES THAT, THAT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT. 
          SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE, THE THRESHOLD FOR THE CRITERIA. 
          UM, WE ARE RECOMMENDING A 3000 MEGAWATT AND A ONE IN 10 PROBABILITY. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS BASED ON THE POLICYMAKER'S DESIRE TO OR OPERATE AT A HIGHER RELIABILITY, UM, ON THE SYSTEM AND OPERATE THE SYSTEM MORE CONSERVATIVELY. 
          [03:30:01]
UM, ONE THING THAT I DID WANT TO NOTE IN HERE, UH, THAT GOES BACK TO THE, THE FIRST POINT IS WE DON'T SEE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN OUR MODEL WHEN WE CHANGE FROM A WATCH THRESHOLD TO AN EEA TO A, TO A LOAD SHED IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF, UH, WE WANT TO ENSURE IN THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE, WE ARE REPLENISHING REG UP IN RS UH, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO ENSURE THAT'S IN THERE, AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS SIGNIFICANTLY IN SOME OF THE LAST FEW DISCUSSIONS, IS, IS REG UP PLUS RRS IN THAT, UH, CRITERIA IS WHAT'S MOSTLY SETTING MOST OF THE HOURS IN THAT PROBABILITY RISKS. 
          UM, SO THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WHY WE DON'T SEE A BIG CHANGE IF WE CHANGE THE THRESHOLD ITSELF. 
          AND WE HAVE SOME SLIDES IN THE APPENDIX THAT COVER SOME OF THIS STUFF AS WELL. 
          AND THEN LASTLY, IF WE GO TO THE RISK CREDIT, THE RISK CREDIT CONCEPT OF, OF LOOKING AT HOW MUCH DISCOUNT DO WE GIVE TO THE AS QUANTITIES BASED ON WHAT ADDITIONAL EXTRA HEADROOM WAS AVAILABLE IN REAL TIME. 
          UM, AND WHERE WE LANDED AT WAS WE ARE RECOMMENDING A 60% AT NIGHT AND A 25% CREDIT DURING THE DAY. 
          UH, SO A COUPLE THINGS TO THINK ABOUT WITH RTC BEING IMPLEMENTED HERE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          UM, THAT SAME HEADROOM CAPACITY THAT WE HISTORICALLY HAD MAY NOT MATERIALIZE AFTER RTC GO LIVE. 
          THERE IS GONNA BE SOME OPTIMIZATION THAT HAPPENS IN OUR, IN REAL TIME, SO HIGHLY DEPENDING ON WHAT WE HAD HISTORICALLY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT MAY NOT BE THE SAME OUTCOME WE SEE AFTER RTC GOES LIVE, SO WE NEED SOME TIME TO SEE HOW THAT CHANGES IN RTC. 
          UH, BUT WITH THAT SAID, WE DO EXPECT THAT THERE, THE GENERAL TREND OF HIGHER AVAILABILITY DURING OFFLINE HOURS, DURING LOWER RISKY HOURS OR LESS RISK HOURS, UM, NET WORKLOAD RISK HOURS VERSUS DAYTIME OFFLINE, UH, AVAILABLE CAPACITY, UH, UH, THAT TREND WOULD, SHOULD GENERALLY STILL STAY THE SAME. 
          BUT, SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE RENDER RECOMMENDING A MODERATE, UM, CREDIT BE TAKEN IN, UH, THE, THE RISK CREDIT, UH, COMPONENT OF 60% AT NIGHT AND 25% DURING THE DAY. 
          SO THIS IS THE END OF KIND OF THE, THE COMMON ISSUE, THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN SOME OF THESE LAST, UH, FEW MEETINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH AND THROUGH WMS AND ROSS WHEN WE WERE, WERE VOTING FOR THE AS METHODOLOGY. 
          THIS IS NOW JUST GIVING YOU AN INSIGHT TO WHAT THOSE QUANTITIES LOOK LIKE. 
          AGAIN, THESE ARE, THESE CALCULATIONS ARE PROVIDED IN ONE OF THE SPREADSHEETS THAT'S BEEN POSTED. 
          UM, ONE THING YOU'LL SEE ON HERE IS THIS 100% CREDIT. 
           RECOMMENDED 0% CREDIT IN THE STATISTICAL METHOD. 
          UM, SO AS EXPECTED, THE A HUNDRED PERCENT CREDIT, IF YOU'RE EXPECTING TO SEE ALL OF THE HISTORICAL AVAILABLE CAPACITY THAT WAS AVAILABLE BE AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE, YOU'RE GONNA SEE THE LOWEST QUANTITY. 
          IF YOU COUNT FOR ZERO CREDIT, UH, IT WILL LEAD TO THE HIGHEST QUANTITY. 
          UM, AND ERCO RECOMMENDED IS RIGHT AROUND THE MIDDLE. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT COMPARES TO THE STATISTICAL METHOD. 
          AND THIS IS JUST ECRS. 
          SO THIS IS SHOWING YOU ONCE WE'VE ALREADY SPLIT THE RISK, UH, THE TOTAL REQUIREMENT FOR ECRS AND NONS SPIN. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE THE SAME THING FOR NONS SPIN AS WELL. 
          SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE BROKE OUT THE QUANTITIES FOR ECRS AND NONS SPIN. 
          SO YOU CAN SEE THOSE. 
          UH, THIS IS HERE TO TOUCH ON, UM, AGAIN, ONE OF THOSE, UH, ONE OF THOSE NEXT STEPS IN THE FINDINGS OF TRYING TO SHOW WHAT SORT OF COST ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE DONE OR, OR CAN DO WITH OUR MODEL. 
          SO THIS IS USING HISTORICAL ECRS AND NONS SPIN, UH, MARKET CLEARING PRICE FOR CAPACITY. 
          SO CPCS, WE'VE PULLED ALL THE DATA FOR THE FIRST SEVEN MONTHS, UH, BY HOUR. 
          AND THEN WE, WE LOOKED AT HOW THE SENSITIVITIES OF RISK CREDITS ON THE THRESHOLD FOR SEVEN MONTHS WOULD IMPACT THE QUANTITIES. 
          SO AGAIN, SAME CONCEPT, ZERO CREDIT, A HUNDRED PERCENT CREDIT OR CARD RECOMMENDED. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE, THE HOW ZERO CREDIT INCREASES AS QUANTITIES. 
          YOU SEE THAT PRICE GO UP A HUNDRED PERCENT CREDIT REDUCES IT, YOU SEE A REDUCTION IN COST. 
          ONE THING THAT, AGAIN, TO MAKE CLEAR HERE IS WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT REGULATION PLUS RS IN THE, IN THE, IN, IN THE CRITERIA, EEA ONE AND LOAD, SHE DON'T MAKE A BIG, THERE IS NO CHANGE BETWEEN EEA ONE AND LOAD SHE IN THIS THRESHOLD WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A ONE IN 10 PROBABILITY. 
          AND THAT IS BECAUSE RAG AND IRS IS MAINLY WHAT'S HOLDING MOST OF THE HOUR QUANTITY OR QUANTIFYING THE, THE QUANTITIES FOR AS. 
          SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR HERE, AND THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE SAME NUMBER IN BOTH SECTIONS. 
          THIS CONCLUDES THE DISCUSSION AROUND, UH, PROBABILISTIC METHOD. 
          THERE ARE ADDITIONAL SLIDES THAT HAVE SOME OTHER SENSITIVITIES IN THE APPENDIX FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO GO LOOK AT THEM. 
          UM, I'M GOING TO SHIFT TO REGULATION AND R ARREST, WHICH AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, DO NOT CHANGE IN THE METHODOLOGY THEMSELF BY VERY MUCH. 
          UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAINLY SHOW THE QUANTITIES AS I DID ECRS AND NONS SPIN. 
          SO OVERALL, THERE'S AN INCREASE IN REGULATION UP INCREASE IN REGULATION DOWN THAT YOU'RE SEEING BETWEEN 2025 AND 2026, UH, FOR REGULATION. 
          AND THEN FOR RRS, UH, MOSTLY THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD IN MOST MONTHS. 
          THE ONE CALL I'LL MAKE IS JANUARY. 
          UH, ONE OF THE INPUTS TO OUR CALCULATIONS IS THE AMOUNT OF INERTIA THAT WE SEE ON THE SYSTEM. 
          SO, UH, IN JANUARY WE SAW 
          [03:35:01]
HIGHER INERTIA DUE TO HIGHER PEAKS IN WINTER. 
          SO THAT BRINGS DOWN YOUR INERTIA, QUANTITY BRINGS DOWN YOUR, OR BRINGS UP YOUR INERTIA QUANTITY REDUCES YOUR HOURS QUANTITY. 
          OKAY, SO IN SUMMARY, UH, WE DO, UH, AS IS DESIGNED FOR NONS SCARCITY DAYS, WE ARE PROPOSING MOVE TO THIS PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY. 
          UM, AND, AND THE, WHICH DOES GIVE US THE ABILITY TO FOCUS ON MORE RISKIER HOURS WHEN CALCULATING AS QUANTITIES PROVIDE YOU THE SUMMARY OF, OF THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE FOR THE, AS THIS YEAR, WE HAVE PROVIDED THE RED LINE DOCUMENT FOR AS METHODOLOGY, UM, AND WE ARE SEEKING YOUR, YOUR FEEDBACK AND ENDORSEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY AT, UH, FOR 2026. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE GO TO THE IMM? DO YOU WANNA MENTION I, I, I BELIEVE ERCOT MADE A, A SLIGHT CHANGE TO THE METHODOLOGY DOCUMENT SINCE THE ROSS AND WMS VOTES, RIGHT? YEAH, THE, UH, THERE WAS A SLIGHT CHANGE TO THE CRITERIA, THE WAY WE WORDED THE, THE WORDS AROUND CRITERIA AND, AND I THINK IT PREVIOUSLY IT SAID EMERGENCY CONDITIONS. 
          SO I THINK WE PUT IN THE WATCH THERE TO CLARIFY THAT THAT'S WHAT THE METHODOLOGY WAS PROPOSING, BUT THAT'S THE ONE CHANGE FROM WMS AND ROSS TO NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS. 
          SHOULD WE GO TO JEFF? UH, YEAH, ARROW. 
          A MOUSE WHEEL. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          I WILL, UM, UH, I'M JEFF MCDONALD WITH THE IMM AND I WILL PROBABLY SKIP A COUPLE SLIDES AND GO THROUGH, BECAUSE I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN A, IN A PRIOR FORM AT, UH, ROS AND WMS. UM, AND, UH, JUST IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, UH, I WILL PROBABLY JUST HIT THE, THE HIGHLIGHTS AND THEN, YOU KNOW, OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          SO, UH, AND I DO HAVE WITH ME, UH, CAMERON, WHO PRESENTED AT WMS AND ROS, UH, IN CASE WE HAVE ANY DETAILED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SIMULATION MODEL THAT, UH, I CAN'T ANSWER. 
          SO I I MAY KICK IT OVER TO CAMERON. 
          SO, SO TO START WITH A SUMMARY, AND, AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, NO SURPRISE TO ANYONE BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THESE POINTS SINCE THE AS STUDY LAST YEAR. 
          UM, AND YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE BEEN VOCAL THROUGHOUT THE AS METHODOLOGY PROCESS. 
          SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, I WANNA, UM, I WANNA COMMEND ERCOT FOR ADOPTING A STOCHASTIC MODEL TO ADDRESS, UH, RISKS. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S A BIG IMPROVEMENT AND A, AND A MOVE FORWARD, UH, IN, IN MODELING AND, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING, UH, SIMULTANEOUSLY, UH, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLE POSSIBILITIES, UH, FUTURE OUTCOMES. 
          SO I, I THINK THAT WAS A BIG IMPROVEMENT. 
          UM, WE, WE FOCUS IN OUR COMMENTS BOTH IN THE MEMO AND IN THIS, THIS PRESENTATION ON THREE AREAS WHERE WE FEEL, UM, THE METHODOLOGY AND THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT GO INTO IT, UH, OVERSTATE THE, THE, AS PROCUREMENT RELATIVE TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD BE OTHERWISE A, A REASONABLE PROCUREMENT LEVEL THAT WOULD PROVIDE A REASONABLE LEVEL OF RELIABILITY. 
          SO IN OUR ASSESSMENT, WE, WE DO HAVE A, A SIMULATION MODEL, AS I'M SURE MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE OF. 
          AND SO IT ISN'T, IT ISN'T EXACTLY THE SAME SIMULATION MODEL THAT ERCOT ISS USING, BUT IT, BUT I THINK IT'S CLOSE IN MANY ASPECTS BASED ON OUR BENCHMARK AGAINST ERCOT ASSUMPTIONS AND MODEL RESULTS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE SEE THAT THE PROCUREMENT THAT COMES OUT OF THE ERCOT APPROACH WITH THEIR ASSUMPTIONS IN THIS PROPOSAL RESULTS IN ABOUT TWO GIGAWATTS OF AS PROCURED. 
          THAT DOESN'T PROVIDE ANY RELIABILITY VALUE WHEN VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF, UM, REDUCING THE PROBABILITY OF LOSS OF LOAD. 
          SO THE THREE CRITERIA THAT WE FOCUS ON ARE THE WATCH RIGHT CRITERIA, WHICH WAS ADDRESSED, UH, YOU KNOW, A MOMENT AGO, UH, AS A POLICY DECISION, THE SIX HOUR LOAD FORECAST ERROR, AND THE FOUR HOUR, UH, 
          [03:40:01]
ESR DURATION REQUIREMENT. 
          SO I, YOU KNOW, I RECOGNIZE THAT THE, THE WATCH CRITERIA IS A POLICY DIRECTIVE OF SORTS. 
          UM, I, AND I, I DON'T, I HAVE, I'VE ONLY HEARD, UH, HOW IT CAME ABOUT. 
          SO IT, IT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT IS, THAT HAS A PAPER TRAIL PER SE. 
          UM, AND I WOULD SAY BEFORE I GET INTO, YOU KNOW, THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY TIME TO START QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT THAT IT'S STILL TIME TO HAVE THAT KIND OF A, A POLICY THRESHOLD FOR AS PROCUREMENT, UM, CLEARING TO A, A WATCH CRITERIA. 
          UH, A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR RESILIENCY AND RELIABILITY SINCE YURI, AND IT MAY BE TIME TO RECONSIDER THAT. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANNELS. 
          SO AS, AS WE'VE BROUGHT THAT UP OVER THE LAST YEAR, I GUESS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE KEEP GETTING THE SAME COMMENT BACK, WHICH WAS, THAT WAS A POLICY DECISION. 
          THAT WAS A POLICY DECISION. 
          IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR WHAT CHANNEL WE WOULD GO THROUGH TO HAVE THAT POLICY DECISION RECONSIDERED. 
          SO I PUT THAT OUT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION IS, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BE THE POLICY DECISION FOR MILLENNIUM, UH, UNLESS THERE'S, UNLESS THERE'S A CHANNEL TO, TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND RECONSIDER THAT. 
          SO, UM, AT THE END OF THE SLIDES, I'LL COVER A, A COMPROMISE PROPOSAL THAT WE'VE GOT THE COMPROMISES WITH RESPECT TO, UH, THE IMM BASE CASE. 
          SO, AND THE COMPROMISE IS USING A THREE HOUR DURATION REQUIREMENT FOR, OR EXCUSE ME, A, UM, A THREE HOUR LOAD FORECAST ERROR INSTEAD OF A SIX HOUR LOAD FORECAST ERROR. 
          BUT OTHERWISE, UM, USING THE IMM ASSUMPTIONS, WHICH IN THESE THREE CASES WOULD BE GOING OFF OF A LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY CURVE, NOT THE WATCH CURVE FOR CRITERIA. 
          AND, UM, ALSO HAVING A ONE HOUR ESR DURATION. 
          SO, UH, DOING THAT PRODUCES JUST UNDER THREE, THREE GIGAWATTS OF ECRS AND NONS SPIN, UH, WHICH BRINGS THE TOTAL AS PROCUREMENT UP TO JUST ABOUT SIX GIGAWATTS. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I'LL GO THROUGH REALLY BRIEFLY. 
          YOU KNOW, WE, WE FEEL THAT SOME OF THE ASSUMPTIONS AND AND PURPOSES THAT ARE EMPLOYED IN THE, IN THE ERCOT CALCULATION ARE A BIT MISALIGNED WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE RESERVE SERVICE. 
          UH, THE WATCH BEING THE MOST OBVIOUS. 
          AGAIN, I RECOGNIZE THAT'S A POLICY DECISION. 
          UM, AND THE EXTENDED FORECAST ERROR OUT TO SIX HOURS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IN, IN OTHER RTOS, THEY DON'T LOOK TO HAVE, UH, RESERVE PRODUCTS COVERING FORECAST ERROR OUT THAT FAR. 
          AND IN FACT, YOU KNOW, IN A SPOT MARKET, YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING TO HAVE THE MARKET RESPONSE COVER SOME OF YOUR FORECAST ERROR. 
          UH, ONCE THE PRICES BECOME HIGHER BECAUSE YOU ARE SHORT, UH, AND YOU GET A, A MARKET RESPONSE, YOU GET SELF-COMMITMENT. 
          UH, AND IN, AND IN THE MOST EXTREME CASES, YOU'LL GET, UH, OPERATOR INTERVENTION WHERE THEY'RE COMMITTING RESOURCES TO COME ON, BECAUSE THE OTHER TWO MEANS WERE INEFFECTIVE. 
          AND THE LOW FORECAST ERROR WAS SO GREAT. 
          SO, SO THERE ARE TWO, YOU KNOW, AND OF COURSE WE ALWAYS WANNA AVERT HAVING OPERATORS INTERVENE, UM, IF POSSIBLE. 
          BUT THERE ARE TWO OTHER FACTORS AND TRIGGERS THAT WILL, UH, COME IN AND, AND HELP CLOSE THE GAP OF THE LOAD FORECAST ERROR IF IT'S SEVERE. 
          AND SO YOU DON'T REALLY NEED TO BUY OUT, UH, YOU DON'T NEED TO BUY TO COVER A SIX HOUR LOAD FORECAST ERROR. 
          AND THAT WAS THE ONE, AS I MENTIONED, THAT WAS THE ONE WE FOCUSED ON TO TRY AND REDUCE THE OVERALL PROCUREMENT, UH, RECOGNIZING THAT THE WATCH IS A POLICY DECISION. 
          AND THE FOUR HOUR, UH, DURATION REQUIREMENT IS CODIFIED THROUGH AN NPRR. 
          SO WE, WE THINK THAT THE EASIEST WAY TO REDUCE REASONABLY REDUCED THE, AS PROCUREMENT TO SOMETHING MORE REASONABLE IS, IS THROUGH REDUCING THE, THE LOAD FORECAST HORIZON. 
          SO I WILL, UM, I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO I MENTIONED WE'VE GOT A STOCHASTIC RISK MODEL THAT'S SIMILAR, BUT DIFFERENT THAN THINNER COTS. 
          UM, MOVING TO THE THIRD BULLET HERE. 
          SO BASED ON OUR ESTIMATION, SO WE, WE, WE WENT AHEAD AND ESTIMATED A AVERAGE AS PROCUREMENT, UH, GIVEN WHAT, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS ASSUMPTIONS OR THRESHOLDS. 
          [03:45:01]
AND THEN WE PERTURB THAT, UH, BY CHANGING THE PARAMETERS, UH, AND INPUTTING ONE OF ERCOT PARAMETERS, UH, ONE AT A TIME TO, TO GET, UH, COMPARATIVE STATIC. 
          SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR, TIME HORIZON ADS ABOUT 1.2 GIGAWATTS TO THE OVERALL PROCUREMENT, THAT'S COMPARING A SIX HOUR LOAD FORECAST HORIZON TO A ONE HOUR, WHICH WOULD BE OUR PREFERENCE. 
          UH, THE CONVERGENCE CRITERIA ADDS ONE GIGAWATT, THE CONVERGENCE CRITERIA AS EVALUATED HERE DOESN'T INCLUDE THE, THE MAXIMUM OF 3000 MEGAWATTS OR, UH, THE REG PLUS RRS, UH, TARGET PROCUREMENT. 
          IT, IT JUST LOOKS AT THE 3000 MEGAWATTS. 
          WE, WE, YOU KNOW, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT ERCOT POSITION IS THAT, UH, NERC REQUIRES THAT THE SPIN AND NONS SPIN OR THE CONTINGENCY RESERVES ARE SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE, UH, REGULATING, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FREQUENCY RESPONSE AND RECOVERY SERVICES. 
          BUT THAT WASN'T OUR READING, AND I'M HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, TALK FURTHER ABOUT THAT. 
          SO WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT IN HERE. 
          SO JUST COMPARING, UM, 3000 MEGAWATTS VERSUS 1500 MEGAWATTS ADS, 1.2 GIGAWATTS TO THE PROCUREMENT, AND THEN THE ESR DURATION REQUIREMENT, THAT'S FOUR HOURS COMPARED TO ONE HOUR ADDS ABOUT A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, 624 MEGAWATTS TO THE PROCUREMENT. 
          UH, THERE WERE OTHER FACTORS ALSO, BUT THESE WERE THE FACTORS THAT PRODUCED THE LARGEST THREE INCREMENTS OVER WHAT WHAT WE THINK WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A PROCUREMENT LEVEL. 
          AND I WILL NOTE, UM, IT TOOK US A WHILE. 
          I, I MENTIONED OUR SIMULATION MODEL'S NOT THE SAME AS AS ERCOT, AND WE SPENT SOME TIME SPEAKING WITH THEIR STAFF TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES, BECAUSE WHEN WE WENT AND SIMULATED THEIR BASE CASE, WE GOT A NUMBER THAT WAS, I WOULD SAY, OUTTA TOLERANCE FOR WHAT I WOULD EXPECT. 
          UH, YOU WOULD NEVER EXPECT TWO DIFFERENT MODELS TO PRODUCE THE SAME NUMBER, BUT, BUT WE GOT A, A FAIRLY HIGH PROCUREMENT TARGET WHEN WE ORIGINALLY USED OUR MODEL WITH THEIR PARAMETERS. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I, I THINK, AND THIS DID COME UP EARLIER, ONE OF THE THINGS, BIG DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS IS HOW HEADROOM IS ADDRESSED. 
          UM, AND I THINK THE PRIOR PRESENTER, UH, DID COVER THAT, UH, WITH RESPECT TO HOW THEIR MODEL WORKS. 
          OUR MODEL, UH, ALSO DOESN'T ADDRESS HEADROOM IN A PURELY STOCHASTIC WAY, BUT IT DOES LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT, IT DOES LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT VALUES OF HEADROOM THAT WERE AVAILABLE DURING A PARTICULAR HOUR, YOU KNOW, ACROSS TIME. 
          UM, AND SO YOU DO GET, YOU DO GET MULTIPLE REPRESENTATION OF HEADROOM. 
          IT'S, WE DON'T JUST USE AN HOUR. 
          SO I WOULD CONSIDER IT SORT OF A HALF STEP TOWARDS MORE OF A STOCHASTIC APPROACH, BUT THAT APPEARED TO BE THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS THAT DROVE THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASELINE RUNS. 
          SO THIS GRAPHIC IS, IS GOOD TO LOOK AT, UH, FOR A LITTLE BIT. 
          I THINK IT, IT, IT TELLS THE STORY A LITTLE BIT BETTER. 
          SO THE BLUE LINE IS THE LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY CURVE, UH, BASED ON THE IMM MODEL WITH THE IMM ASSUMPTIONS, OUR BASELINE ASSUMPTIONS. 
          THE ORANGE CURVE IS THE, UM, WATCH PROBABILITY CURVE. 
          AND SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, BASED ON OUR LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY, IF YOU LOOK AT HOW FAR OUT ERCOT ISS PROCURING IT LOOKS, IT, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS THAT TWO GIGAWATTS OF THE ADDITIONAL PROCUREMENT, UM, IN THE ERCOT BASELINE, UM, DON'T PROVIDE ANY RELIABILITY VALUE WITH RESPECT TO CHANGES IN THE, YOU KNOW, REDUCING THE PROBABILITY OF LOST LOAD. 
          SO, AND I, I THINK THAT'S THE IMPORTANT TAKEAWAY FROM THIS. 
          I'LL, UH, I'LL SKIP THIS. 
          YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AS YOU, AS YOU LIKE. 
          SO GOING THROUGH THE FORECAST HERE, UM, AND I'LL, I'LL TRY TO, I'LL TRY TO SPEED THIS UP BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYONE'S READ THE, THE SLIDES AND THE, THE ACCOMPANYING MEMO, BUT YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE FEEL THAT THE LOAD FORECAST AIR LOOKING AT SIX HOURS IS EXCESSIVE. 
          THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT COME INTO PLAY. 
          YOU'RE GONNA GET, YOU KNOW, IF YOUR LOAD FORECAST IS OFF CONSIDERABLY, YOU'RE GONNA GET A MARKET RESPONSE TO THAT, UM, EITHER WAY. 
          AND SO, UH, IF YOUR FORECAST IS TOO LOW AND ACTUAL LOAD COMES IN HIGHER SIGNIFICANTLY, YOU'RE GONNA GET A MARKET RESPONSE. 
          AND, AND SO WHAT YOU NEED IS ONE HOUR OF RESERVE IN ORDER TO HELP YOU, UH, BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN THE PRICES STARTING TO GO UP AND THEN GETTING HIGH ENOUGH 
          [03:50:01]
TO, TO INCENT ADDITIONAL COMMITMENT. 
          AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IN THE EXTREME CASE, YOU'RE GONNA WIND UP WITH OPERATOR INTERVENTION, UM, WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO AVOID, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT BUYING FOR A SIX HOUR LOAD FORECAST ERROR NECESSARILY GETS YOU THERE. 
          I THINK ONE HOUR IS PROBABLY, UM, GOOD ENOUGH. 
          AND AS I SAID IN OUR, IN OUR, UM, COMPROMISE, YOU KNOW, THREE, YOU KNOW, THREE HOURS IS PROBABLY, UM, ABOUT AS GOOD AS IT, IT WOULD GET. 
          I HAVE A CHART AT THE END THAT WILL HELP ILLUSTRATE WHY WE FEEL THIS IS THE CASE. 
          UM, AND SO WE'LL GET THERE IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES. 
          THIS IS, THIS IS JUST FOR, FOR, UM, PERSPECTIVE. 
          SO THESE ARE THE, UM, DISTRIBUTIONS OF LOAD FORECAST ERROR AS YOU MOVE OUT THE HORIZON. 
          SO AS YOU CAN SEE, AS YOU GO FROM ONE HOUR OUT TO THREE HOURS OUT TO SIX HOURS, THE DISTRIBUTION SPREADS OUT YOUR LOAD, YOUR LOAD FORECAST BECOMES LESS ACCURATE AS YOU GO OUT, WHICH IS WHAT EVERYONE WOULD EXPECT. 
          BUT WE THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE USEFUL TO JUST LOOK AT. 
          SO HERE'S THE CHART I WAS REFERRING TO REGARDING, YOU KNOW, THE VALUE OF, UH, INCLUDING A SIX HOUR LOAD FORECAST ERROR. 
          SO THERE'S, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT CAPACITY. 
          THIS, THIS CHART REPRESENTS, YOU KNOW, WE WENT BACK, BACK AND LOOKED AT ALL OF THE AVAILABLE CAPACITY AND THEIR START TIMES WHEN THE PRC WAS LESS THAN FIVE GIGAWATTS. 
          SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, UM, THE, IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE VERTICAL LINE IS, THAT'S A ONE HOUR LEAD TIME. 
          AND MOST OF THE AVAILABLE CAPACITY, UM, IS ONE HOUR OR LESS START TIME REGARDING WHAT IS AVAILABLE, UM, TO, TO LEVERAGE THERE. 
          SO AS YOU GO OUT FARTHER, UH, IN, IN THE LEAD TIME, WHICH WOULD BE THE SAME AS THE LOAD FORECAST HORIZON, YOU DON'T REALLY GAIN THAT MUCH ADDITIONAL, UM, AVAILABLE CAPACITY. 
          UH, SO THIS, THIS IS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONVERGENCE CRITERIA, I THINK WE'VE, I THINK I'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY SUFFICIENTLY. 
          UM, I UNDERSTAND IT'S A POLICY LEVEL, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE PEC AND ERCOT TO FIGURE OUT, UM, WHAT CHANNEL IT IS. 
          WE ALL NEED TO GET IN IN ORDER TO HAVE A DISCUSSION TO CHANGE THAT. 
          UM, THIS IS, THIS IS SOMEWHAT INTERESTING ACTUALLY. 
          SO THE CHART HERE ON THE TOP RIGHT SHOWS THE PRC, IT, IT'S THE NUMBER OF INTERVALS WITH THE PRC BELOW THREE GIGAWATTS. 
          AND AS YOU CAN SEE, AS WE'VE MOVED OUT, AND, AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IN PART BECAUSE THE, AS PROCUREMENT HAS INCREASED CONSIDERABLY, BUT AS WE'VE MOVED OUT IN TIME, WE SEE FEWER AND FEWER INSTANCES WHERE THE PRC DOES GET BELOW 3000, UM, MEGAWATTS. 
          AND THE BOTTOM RIGHT TABLE SHOWS YOU THE FREQUENCY OR THE PROPENSITY OF THE REG PLUS RRS COMPONENT OF THE CRITERIA CONVERGENCE CRITERIA. 
          AND AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, ON AVERAGE, UM, 67% OF THE HOURS, THE REG PLUS RRS IS GREATER THAN THREE GIGAWATTS, WHICH MEANS THAT THAT'S THE CRITERIA, THAT'S THE COMPONENT OF THE CRITERIA THAT ARE GONNA BE DRIVING THE RESULT TWO THIRDS OF THE TIME. 
          SO ERS DURATION, UM, AND I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE CITED THIS, I THINK WE PROVIDED SOME EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS, UM, LAST FALL, UH, EITHER IN THE AS STUDY PROCESS OR IN THE, IN THE, IN, IN PR 1224 PROCESS. 
          ONE, ONE OF THOSE TWO REGARDING, REGARDING WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS, UM, WITH ESR DEPLOYMENT AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE OTHER RESERVES. 
          AND, AND IT TURNS OUT WHEN YOU DEPLOY MORE ERS, YOU F FOR ENERGY, YOU FREE UP OTHER CAPACITY ON OTHER RESOURCES TO BE AVAILABLE TO FULFILL YOUR RESERVE REQUIREMENTS WHEN YOU'RE GETTING LOWER ON RESERVES. 
          SO WHAT WE OBSERVED WAS USING A FOUR HOUR VERSUS A ONE HOUR ESR DURATION REQUIREMENT, YOU ACTUALLY WIND UP CONSTRAINING THE SYSTEM FROM FREEING UP ADDITIONAL 
          [03:55:02]
CAPACITY TO FULFILL YOUR RESERVE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE O FOR ANY OF THE RESERVES, QUITE FRANKLY. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE FEEL A ONE HOUR DURATION REQUIREMENTS APPROPRIATE. 
          AS I NOTED, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN NPRR THAT CODIFIES THAT FOR OUR DURATION REQUIREMENT. 
          I THINK WE OBJECTED TO THAT, UM, HERE AND AT THE BOARD, BUT, BUT FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION, UH, IT, IT'S, IT LOOKS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO US THAT REDUCING THE DURATION REQUIREMENT OF ESRS ACTUALLY IMPROVES YOUR ABILITY TO RECOVER YOUR RESERVE LEVELS. 
          UM, NOT, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 
          YEAH, 1282. 
          SO THE RISK CREDITS, UM, WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT IN OUR TOP THREE ITEMS. UM, AND I NOTED, YOU KNOW, WE SPENT A BIT OF TIME TALKING WITH ERCOT STAFF ABOUT THE RISK CREDITS. 
          WE, WE MODELED HEADROOM DIFFERENTLY THAN ERCOT MODELED HEADROOM. 
          AND I THINK AS WE CAME TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATION OF HOW THEY MODELED IT, UH, WITH AN AVERAGE AND THEN DISCOUNTING, UH, IN ORDER TO TRY AND GET CLOSER TO THE CORRECT NUMBER FOR THE TYPE OF HOURS, UH, THAT ARE BEING DISCOUNTED, IT, IT WASN'T CLEAR TO US IF WHICH DIRECTION THAT DROVE THEIR, THEIR FINAL, UM, PROCUREMENT QUANTITY. 
          IT LOOKED LIKE IT MIGHT DRIVE IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT COMPARED TO HOW WE MODELED IT, BUT, UM, THE GENTLEMAN WHO ASKED THE QUESTION TO THE PRIOR PRESENTER, YOU KNOW, IT'S A VALID QUESTION. 
          I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, IN, IN FUTURE ENDEAVORS, UH, LOOK, YOU KNOW, BOTH ERCOT AND IMM, YOU KNOW, COULD CONSIDER, UH, USING A STOCHASTIC REPRESENTATION OF HEADROOM, UM, AND THEN THAT WOULD CLEAR UP THAT CONFUSION. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE OBJECT TO THESE PARAMETER SETTINGS. 
          I, I THINK THEY'RE APPROPRIATE FOR HOW ERCOT CHOSE TO MODEL IT, BUT WE'RE, IT'S NOT SUPER CLEAR WHAT THE IMPACT OF THAT IS. 
          SO, SO I MENTIONED A A, A COMPROMISE, ACTUALLY, THIS IS JUST A, LET ME GET, ALL RIGHT, LET'S LOOK AT THIS AND THEN WE'LL GET TO THE, THE COMPROMISE SLIDE. 
          SO THIS SHOWS, UH, THE REGULATING AND CONTINGENCY RESPONSE, UH, PROCUREMENT FOR OTHER RTOS ON THE LEFT. 
          AND THEN YOU'VE GOT A TIME SERIES ER FOR ERCOT IN THE MIDDLE. 
          AND THEN THE THREE RIGHT BARS ARE, UH, THE ERCOT BASE CASE, THE, UH, IMM COMPROMISE AND THE IMM BASE CASE. 
          SO AS YOU KNOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, OUR, OUR BASE CASE IS CONSIDERABLY LOWER THAN ERCOT. 
          IF YOU MOVE OFF OF OUR BASE CASE BY ADDING, UH, YOU KNOW, BY USING THREE HOUR LOAD FORECAST HORIZON INSTEAD OF A SIX HOUR, THAT THAT MOVES YOU UP, UH, CONSIDERABLY UP OFF OF OUR BASE CASE, UH, YOU'RE STILL ABOUT TWO GIGAWATTS BELOW THE ERCOT BASE CASE. 
          BUT AS I, AS I NOTED IN THE INITIAL SLIDE, IT APPEARS TO US THAT THERE'S ABOUT TWO GIGAWATTS IN THE ERCOT BASE CASE THAT DON'T PROVIDE ANY RELIABILITY VALUE IN THE CONTEXT OF REDUCING THE PROBABILITY OF LOST LOAD. 
          SO THIS ACTUALLY, UM, LOOKS LIKE YOU, YOU, WHILE YOU WOULDN'T LAND AT OUR PREFERRED RESULT, UH, YOU WOULD ELIMINATE, UH, YOU KNOW, UNNECESSARY RESERVE PROCUREMENT THAT DOESN'T PROVIDE RELIABILITY VALUE. 
          SO THIS CHART, THE GREEN VERTICAL DASH LINE HERE SHOWS THE PROCUREMENT LEVEL FOR ECRS AND NONS SPIN. 
          IF YOU WERE TO ADOPT THE IMM COMPROMISE PROPOSAL, UM, WHICH WOULD BE THREE HOUR LOAD FORECAST, HORIZON ONE HOUR, UH, DURATION, AND JUST, UH, LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY, NOT WATCH OR, UH, NONS SPIN OR, UM, REGULATION PLUS, UM, RRS. 
          SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT PUSHES THE PROCUREMENT UP, UM, CONSIDERABLY. 
          AND IT, IT ACTUALLY GETS YOU BEYOND THE ONE IN 10 FOR LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY. 
          UM, YOU STILL HAVE SOME POSITIVE MARGINAL RELIABILITY VALUE TO ADDITIONAL PROCUREMENT, BUT YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT BUYING TWO GIGAWATTS OF RESERVES THAT DON'T PROVIDE ANY VALUE IN TERMS OF REDUCING THE LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY. 
          SO, UM, SO THAT'S IT. 
          THOSE ARE ALL THE SLIDES. 
          UH, SKIP THROUGH A COUPLE, BUT, UM, LIKE I SAID, I'M SURE EVERYBODY HAD A LOOK AT 'EM AHEAD OF TIME, SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          [04:00:02]
CHEF. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, SETH WITH VITOL, UH, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE WITH THE OTHER ISOS AND RTOS S YEAH, SO WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I'M KIND OF STRUGGLING WITH IT. 
          I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY THE POINT THAT'S TRYING TO BE MADE. 
          I SEE THAT YOU'RE COMPARING THE 10 MINUTE AND THE 30 MINUTE, BUT THEN WHEN YOU GET TO THE RIGHT, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING THERE WITH, UH, WITH THE, UH, GRAY AND THE GREEN? SO, SO IN, UM, AND SETH, YOU, YOU PROBABLY KNOW THIS IN THE OTHER RTOS, UM, REGULATION, YOU KNOW, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, NONS SPIN IS A 10 MINUTE RESERVE, AND THE OTHER RTOS IT'S ONLY A 30 MINUTE RESERVE HERE. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT OF A DISTINCTION. 
          UM, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY, MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. 
          I'M TRYING, I GUESS I, I MIGHT HAVE A QUESTION. 
          I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION YET. 
          I, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE SLIDE MORE THAT, THAT'S JUST KIND OF A GENERAL QUESTION. 
          YEAH, WE, SO WE WERE JUST TRYING TO REPRESENT THE TOTAL RESERVE PROCUREMENT AND THE 10 MINUTE VERSUS 30 MINUTE DISTINCTION MIGHT CONFUSE IT BECAUSE OF HOW IT'S OKAY. 
          DEALT WITH IN OTHER RTOS. 
          UM, I WOULD, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO JUST LOOK AT THE, THE TOP, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE FULL HEIGHT OF THE BAR. 
          THE REASON WE, THE REASON WE SECTIONED IT OFF THIS WAY WAS WE WANTED TO SHOW ACTUALLY ON THE RIGHT THREE BARS THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN ADDRESSING REGULATION IN RRS PROCUREMENT. 
          AND IN OUR ANALYSIS AND AND PROPOSAL, WE'RE REALLY FOCUSING ON 10 MINUTE ECRS AND 30 MINUTE NON SPIN AT THE, THE CHART IS A LITTLE CONFUSING THAT WAY BECAUSE OF HOW 30 MINUTE AND 10 MINUTE ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN RTOS. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THE TAKEAWAY IS THAT ERCOT ISS PROCURING MUCH MORE THAT'S THE TAKEAWAY. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THE ONLY THING THAT I'M THINKING THROUGH IS LIKE KAISO HAS AN FRP PRODUCT, FLEXIBLE RAMP PRODUCT, LIKE A SUPPLEMENTAL RESERVE AND LIKE MISO HAS A FLEX RAMP UP PRODUCT. 
          RIGHT. 
          WELL, LET ME ASK CAMERON, 'CAUSE CAMERON PULLED THE DATA FOR THIS. 
          CAMERON, ARE YOU, CAN YOU COMMENT ON WHETHER OR NOT, YOU KNOW, THE FULL PALLET OF RESERVE PRODUCTS WERE INCLUDED? HEY, THIS IS CAMERON, UH, WITH THE IMAN, UM, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE, UH, THE KAISO NUMBER SPECIFICALLY, OR, OR JUST ANY OF THE 10 AND 30 MINUTE BARS THAT WE HAVE THERE INCLUDED? OR WAS YOUR QUESTION IF I WAS REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT I, I COULDN'T HEAR, SORRY. 
          YEAH, WERE YOU SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO ONE OF THE ISOS SPECIFICALLY, OR, OR JUST BROADLY OR YES, BROADLY, BUT I'M JUST USING MY UNDERSTANDING OF, UH, MISO AND KAISO THAT THEY BOTH HAVE SUPPLEMENTAL RESERVE PRODUCTS, FLEXIBLE RAMP PRODUCTS. 
          YEAH. 
          WELL, THIS IS WHAT, UH, WE RETRIEVED FROM THE ISOS WHAT WE ASKED THEM KIND OF WHAT WERE THEIR 10 AND 30 MINUTE BREAKOUTS FOR OPERATIONAL RESERVES OR, OR CONTINGENCY RESERVES. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW HERE. 
          UH, SO YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK FOR KAISO SPECIFICALLY, IT'S POSSIBLE MAYBE THERE, THERE WAS SOME, SOME LEFT OUT, BUT I DON'T, I DIDN'T THINK SO WHEN WE, WHEN WE ASKED THEM FOR THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES IT LOOK LOWER THAN WHAT YOU EXPECT? IS THAT WHY YOU'RE POINTING THAT OUT? UH, I, I HAVE NOT GONE BACK AND TRIED TO REFERENCE THEIR PROCUREMENT LEVELS TO THE SLIDE. 
          UM, AS THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION CAME TO MIND BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS REPRESENTED AS 10 AND 30, WHEREAS I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD PICK UP THE, UH, FLEXIBLE RAMP PRODUCTS. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, YEAH, THE INTENTION IS TO TRY TO SHOW THE TOTAL, I GUESS SUB 30 OR UP TO 30 MINUTE, UH, RESERVES THAT ARE PROCURE OPERATION RESERVES THAT ARE PROCURED BY ISO. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. 
          WE'LL LOOK INTO THAT. 
          UM, BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, IN THE LAST DECADE, ADDITIONAL TYPES OF PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED TO, TO DEAL WITH RAMPING ISSUES. 
          SO WE'LL, WE'LL, WE WILL AMEND THIS, UH, AS NECESSARY OR CLARIFY THAT IT INCLUDES EVERYTHING. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. 
          IT IS JUST MORE OF A QUESTION. 
          AND THEN SEGMENTALLY, HAVE YOU TRIED TO QUANTIFY THE COST OF THE, SO GOING BACK TO YOUR SLIDE WHERE YOU SHOWED THE GRAPHIC OF THE, YOUR PROPOSAL VERSUS ORCO PROPOSAL, THIS ONE, YES. 
          SO HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED TO QUANTIFY THAT COST THAT, HAVE YOU TRIED THAT? SO, SO THAT'S A DIFFICULT THING TO QUANTIFY BECAUSE, UH, SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT I SKIPPED OVER, UH, TALKING ABOUT WHICH ARE, UH, IMPORTANT. 
          SO WE, WE COULD, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SIMULATE OFFER BEHAVIOR, UM, IN THE FIRST 
          [04:05:01]
INSTANCE. 
          AND SECONDLY, THERE ARE SOME INNER INNER RELATIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO GET A DECENT ESTIMATE OF IT, YOU'D HAVE TO SIMULATE THE DAY AHEAD, THE RUCK AND THE REAL TIME. 
          UM, BECAUSE WE ARE MOVING TO A SDC CURVES IN THE, IN THE DAY AHEAD. 
          SO YOU'RE GOING TO WIND UP WITH LOWER PROCUREMENT, UH, IN INSTANCES. 
          AND, AND ERCOT HAS INDICATED THAT THE R PROCESS IS INTENDED TO MAKE SURE THERE'S ENOUGH ONLINE TO COVER EVERYTHING. 
          SO, SO THE DAY AHEADS GOING TO DO A TRADE OFF AND UNDER PROCURE RESERVES BECAUSE THE PRICE TO PROCURE A LITTLE BIT MORE IS HIGHER THAN, THAN WHAT THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, EXPERIENCE FOR ENERGY. 
          AND SO THEY'LL DO THAT TRADE OFF. 
          OOPS. 
          SO YOU WILL WIND UP GETTING INTO A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO RUCK, UH, IN ORDER TO GET INTO REAL TIME WITH YOUR CORRECT AS PROCUREMENT, AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS ISSUE WITH A HIGHER AS REQUIREMENT, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE MORE RESOURCES ONLINE WITH MORE LSL THAT IS NOT PRICE SETTING. 
          AND SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A PRICE REDUCING EFFECT THERE. 
          SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE R THAN THAN YOU WOULD WITH A LOWER PROCUREMENT FROM THE DAY AHEAD. 
          AND, AND JUST HAVING A HIGHER, UM, PROCUREMENT LEVEL IN GENERAL IS GONNA MEAN MORE ONLINE CAPACITY THAT WILL BE AT LSL, WHICH WILL LOWER THE PRICE. 
          SO THOSE THREE COMPONENTS ARE SO INTERRELATED IN TERMS OF ESTIMATING THE COST THAT WE JUST WEREN'T PREPARED, YOU KNOW, TO, TO DO THAT COMPLEX OF A SIMULATION. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK, AND I'M THINKING THAT THESE HIGHER VALUES, IF THIS WAS TO OCCUR TODAY UNDER TODAY'S REGIME VERSUS RTC, THIS WOULD HAVE A HIGHER COST THAN WHAT IT WOULD UNDER AN RTC REGIME? UM, THIS, I, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. 
          I I THINK IT'S RIGHT, BUT IT IS COMPLICATED. 
          SO, SO AGAIN, SO IN TODAY'S WORLD AND IN PRE RTC WORLD, IF THE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS INCREASED, YOU'RE STILL GONNA WIND UP WITH ADDITIONAL LSL THAT'S NOT PRICE SETTING, BUT YOU WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL AVAILABLE CAPACITY WITHHELD FROM ENERGY UNTIL IT'S DEPLOYED IN THE ECRS CASE. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY IF YOU WOULD HAVE HIGHER OR LOWER COSTS. 
          I, I WISH I COULD. 
          YEAH, THAT'S FINE. 
          BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE KIND OF WORKING AGAINST EACH OTHER IN THAT SENSE OF, OF COURSE YOU WOULD HAVE HIGHER COSTS JUST IN, IN THE AS SPACE. 
          UH, BUT I, I THINK IT'S THE, HONESTLY, I THINK IT'S THE ENERGY SPACE WHERE YOU'RE GONNA SEE THE BIGGEST COST INCREASE OR DECREASE, UM, BECAUSE IT'S A MUCH LARGER MEGAWATT VALUE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, THANKS. 
          I'LL THINK ABOUT SOME, OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK ANDREW WANTED TO TRY TO HELP ANSWER SETH'S QUESTION AS WELL. 
          ANDREW, GO AHEAD. 
          YEP. 
          HI GUYS. 
          UH, I, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE RESERVE SLIDE. 
          I THINK WHAT WE WERE INTENDING TO CAPTURE HERE IS THE ONE COMPARING ISOS, THE 10 MINUTE RESERVES IS MEANT TO CAPTURE EVERYTHING THAT CAN RESPOND WITHIN 10 MINUTES, WHICH INCLUDES REAGAN, RRS, AND THE OTHER ISOS. 
          SO YOU'LL RECALL WHEN WE'VE PRESENTED ON THIS IN THE PAST THAT THE OTHER ISOS HAVE A SUBSTITUTABLE HIERARCHY OF ANCILLARY SERVICES. 
          SO THE FASTER RESPONDING RESERVES CAN FILL IN FOR THE SLOWER RESPONDING RESERVES IF THEY'RE BEING OFFERED AT LOWER PRICES, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          AND SO WHEN WE'VE SUMMED UP THE TOTALS WE'VE GOTTEN FROM OTHER OTHER ISOS, ANYTHING THAT CAN RESPOND IN 10 MINUTES, WE'RE COUNTING IN THE 10 MINUTE RESERVE BUCKET. 
          AND THEN ANYTHING THAT RESPONDS BETWEEN 10 AND 30 MINUTES IS INCLUDED IN THE 30 MINUTE BUCKET. 
          YOU GOOD, SETH? OKAY. 
          ANDREW, IS THAT ALL YOU NEEDED OR DO YOU NEED TO BE IN THE QUEUE STILL? THAT IS ALL I NEEDED TO SAY. 
          AWESOME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, BILL BARNES. 
          HEY JEFF, I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS. 
          UH, FIRST SLIDE IS YOUR, YOUR OPENING KIND OF SUMMARY. 
          YOU WANT ME TO GO UP THERE? EXCUSE ME? YOU WANT ME TO? YEAH, AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, THERE'S A, YOU HAD A COMMENT ON THERE THAT THE LAST BULLET THAT PROCURING BASICALLY PROCURING EXCESS VOLUMES AND ANCILLARY SERVICES, UH, REDUCES SCARCITY PRICING, WHICH I THINK WE SAW THE OPPOSITE HAPPEN IN 2023, 
          [04:10:02]
WHERE YOU'RE, AS YOU'RE PROCURING MORE RESERVES, THAT'S NATURALLY HOLDING THAT CAPACITY OFF THE SIDE SO IT'S NOT AVAILABLE IN SKID. 
          SO YOU, YOU SEE MORE, I'M JUST, COULD YOU EXPLAIN YEAH. 
          THAT AND HOW THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE CONCLUSIONS FROM 23? YEAH, I APPRECIATE YOU HIGHLIGHTING THAT. 
          SO THERE, THERE'S ANOTHER ASPECT OF ALL OF THIS WHERE, AND I, I KNOW I, I MENTIONED THIS AT A BOARD MEETING EARLIER THIS YEAR WHERE REGARDLESS OF WHAT POLICY CRITERIA OR RELIABILITY CRITERIA ARE DETERMINING WHAT THE PROCUREMENT LEVELS ARE, THE A SDC CURVES NEED TO BE CALIBRATED SO THAT THEY REFLECT THAT LEVEL OF PROCUREMENT. 
          IF, AND THIS IS, I I BELIEVE THIS IS WHERE THE, UH, $15 MINIMUM PRICE RULE THAT THAT WAS ADDRESSED THREE MONTHS AGO OR FOUR MONTHS AGO, THAT THAT'S ENDEMIC OF THIS PROBLEM, WHICH IS, UM, YOU, THERE'S, THERE'S NO MARGINAL VALUE FOR YOU PROCURING ADDITIONAL OR PROCURING LESS RESERVES, UH, THAT FAR OUT ON, YOU KNOW, BEYOND THE, THE A SDC CURVES. 
          AND SO YOU REALLY NEED TO HAVE THE A SDC CURVES CALIBRATED SO THAT THEY NEED TO BE CALIBRATED TO THE PROCUREMENT LEVEL OF EACH OF THE RESERVE SERVICES, SO THAT IF YOU RUN SHORT, YOU SHOW THAT YOU'RE RUNNING SHORT THROUGH PRICES THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, IT WON'T SHOW THAT YOU'LL, YOU'LL, YOU'LL DIMINISH YOUR RESERVE HOLDINGS, YOU KNOW, SOME AMOUNT BEFORE YOU START GETTING INTO WHERE THE AS DC CURVES WILL PICK THOSE UP AND PRICE THEM AS A SHORTAGE. 
          SO THAT COMMENT HAS TO DO MOSTLY WITH THE MISMATCH BETWEEN OH, OKAY. 
          AS SDC CURVES. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I, I AGREE WITH YOU. 
          THAT'S, UH, SO, AND, AND, AND TO BE FRANK, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE, I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR THIS GROUP TO CONSIDER, UM, MAKING CALIBRATING THE A SDC CURVES COINCIDENT WITH ANY, ANY NEW AS PLAN. 
          I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. 
          UM, AND IT, THIS KIND OF FEEDS INTO OUR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS AND WHAT OUR CONCERNS ARE AND WHY WE, UM, KIND OF BELIEVE THE THINGS WE DO IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE SUPPORTING HERE. 
          UH, AND IT STARTS WITH REALLY THE, THE, THE ITEM THAT YOU MENTIONED NUMEROUS TIMES THROUGH THIS IS, IS AVOIDING A WATCH. 
          AND, UM, I DO THINK THAT WAS A PRETTY CLEAR DIRECTIVE FROM THE COMMISSION. 
          THERE WAS A STUDY PERFORMED LAST FALL, UH, AVOIDED THE OPEN MEETING, A FINAL REPORT FROM COMMISSION STAFF PUBLISHED JANUARY 14TH, 2025 UNDER TOPIC THREE, WHICH SAYS, ERCOT CURRENT POSTURE OF MAINTAINING AS QUANTITIES THAT MINIMIZE THE CHANCE OF ENTERING A PRE EMERGENCY OPERATIONAL CONDITION OF AN OP OF A WATCH SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. 
          SO, LIKE I, I THINK IF YOUR CONCERN IS WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT, THAT IS A, THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED THE NEXT TIME WE REVIEW ANCILLARY SERVICES. 
          'CAUSE THIS FEEDS INTO OUR CONCERN. 
          OUR CONCERN IS IF THAT'S A RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT WE ARE SOLVING FOR, WHICH IT CLEARLY IS 'CAUSE IT'S BEEN DIRECTED TO DO SO, THEN WE COULD COMPEL ERCOT TO BUY LESS ANCILLARY SERVICES. 
          THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT THEY NEED OR THINK THEY NEED, THAT THEY WILL GO GET THROUGH OTHER MEANS, WHICH IS THROUGH AN OUT OF MARKET TOOL ROCK. 
          AND THAT IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE OUTCOME FOR US. 
          SO IF YOU START FROM THE BEGINNING, WHICH IS WHAT IS THE RE RELIABILITY REQUIREMENT WE'RE SOLVING FOR AVOIDING A WATCH, THEN YOU DETERMINE THE PROCUREMENT QUANTITIES. 
          YOU NEED TO GET ENOUGH ONLINE RESERVES TO DO THAT BASED ON YOUR MODELING, THEN THAT EVERYTHING FALLS OUT FROM THERE. 
          AND THAT, THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE ARE ON THE ERCOT PROPOSAL. 
          SO WHERE I'M, I'M STRUGGLING WITH WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS THERE SEEMS TO BE A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE ULTIMATE RELIABILITY OBJECTIVE THAT WE'RE DIRECTED TO SOLVE AND, AND WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE DONE. 
          I WONDER IF YOU CAN COMMENT ON THAT. 
          I THINK THE GENTLEMAN WHO SPOKE BEFORE ME SAID IT THE BEST. 
          IT WAS A POLICY DECISION. 
          SO, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOSS, I MEAN NO, NO, NO. 
          RTO CLEARS TO, TO AVOID A WATCH EXCEPT FOR ERCOT. 
          THERE ISN'T A RELIABILITY BASIS IN IT. 
          UH, THERE'S A PUBLIC PERCEPTION BASIS AND IT, UM, AS YOU KNOW, AS WE SHOWED, AND, AND THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SIMULATIONS, RIGHT? SO THE AC THE ACTUAL NUMBERS ARE PROBABLY SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT, BUT WE SHOW ROUGHLY TWO GIGAWATTS OF, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE WASTED PROCUREMENT, BECAUSE YOU'RE PROCURING BEYOND WHERE YOU'RE GETTING ANY RELIABILITY BENEFIT FROM IT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE CRITERIA FOR A WATCH. 
          WE'RE USING 3000 THAT COULD CHANGE AND MOVE TO 4,500 OR 2,500. 
          IT CAN MOVE IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT ROOTED IN CEMENT THAT THERE'S A RELIABILITY VALUE AT 3000. 
          IT'S JUST WHEN WE NOTIFY THE PUBLIC 
          [04:15:01]
THAT THINGS ARE GETTING TIGHT. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING, BUT, BUT I DISAGREE, YOU KNOW, I DISAGREE THAT THAT IS THE SOUND, UM, PROCUREMENT LEVEL BASED ON RELIABILITY CRITERIA THAT ARE USED IN EVERY OTHER RTO. 
          I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IN TEXAS, THERE WAS A POLICY DECISION MADE TO DO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN I HAD ONE LAST COMMENT ON SLIDE 18, UM, SLIDE 1818, WHICH YEAH, BELIEVE ME, THE, THE PROCESS TO GET FROM THE BLUE LINE TO THE ORANGE LINE WHEN IT HAPPENED MONTHS AFTER YURI WAS PAINFUL . 
          SURE. 
          UM, UH, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE, A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF CHANGING THE OPERATING POSTURE OF, OF THE ERCOT SYSTEM IN A WAY THAT YOU MINIMIZE RISK AND AT WHAT COST. 
          AND THAT WAS, I MEAN, WE DEBATED THAT HEAVILY, UM, DURING THE SUMMER OF, UH, 21. 
          BUT WHAT WE'VE SLOWLY COME TO ACCEPT IS THAT PART WHERE YOU HAVE THE RED ARROW THAT SAYS NO RELIABILITY VALUE. 
          UH, I WOULD, I DISAGREE. 
          THERE'S NO RELIABILITY VALUE. 
          I THINK IT'S HARD TO QUANTIFY. 
          AND REALLY THE, IT COMES DOWN TO HOW YOU OPERATE THE SYSTEM AND WHEN YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM CLOSE TO THE EDGE VERSUS HAVING SOME EXTRA CUSHION, WHICH HAS A COST TO IT. 
          TO ME, IT'S THE ANALOGY WE USE THE CAR DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD A LOT. 
          SO ARE YOU DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD WITH YOUR RIGHT TIRES IN THE GRAVEL OR ARE YOU DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD WITH THE CAR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD? AND THAT'S, THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. 
          THAT WAS THE CLEAR, A DELIBERATE POLICY DECISION WE MADE IS IT'S PROBABLY NOT SMART FOR US TO DRIVE WITH A TIRE, OUR TIRES IN THE GRAVEL BECAUSE YOU JUST HAVE A HIGHER PROBABILITY OF THINGS OCCURRING THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO OCCUR. 
          NOW IT IS HARD TO QUANTIFY THAT. 
          LIKE, WHAT, WHAT'S THE PROBABILITY, WHAT'S THE COST? IS IT WORTH IT? I, I DON'T KNOW. 
          UH, I'VE YET TO SEE ANYTHING THAT DOES A GOOD JOB OF QUANTIFYING THAT. 
          BUT JUST AS A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON, THAT IS PART OF HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. 
          AND A LOT OF THE SAME ISSUES YOU RAISED, WE DEBATED, UH, QUITE HEAVILY AT THE TIME. 
          SO, UH, AGAIN, ALWAYS APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS. 
          THANKS. 
          THANKS BILL. 
          JEFF, I THINK, UH, SOME PEOPLE ARE HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU A LITTLE BIT. 
          IT'S BECAUSE YOUR TABLE'S TOO SHORT. 
          IT'S, 'CAUSE I WAS GONNA SAY, IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE VERY TALL. 
          I THINK IT, IT SHOULD RAISE AS IT RAISED ALL THE WAY. 
          IS THAT AN APPROPRIATE HEIGHT? AS YOU CAN TELL  IT'S, WE'LL, WE WILL, HOWEVER, ADJUST FOR THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF OUR GUEST. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I DO, I MEAN, I ALWAYS LOOK AT THAT AT THE BOARD MEETINGS. 
          IT'LL BE DAN OR SOMETHING THAN ME, AND I ALWAYS HAVE TO LOWER IT A GOOD EIGHT INCHES. 
          PERFECT. 
          OKAY. 
          HE'S TALLER. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, ARE THERE, LET ME SEE, WE'RE BACK TO THE QUEUE. 
          SO WE ARE TO NED. 
          THANKS CAITLYN. 
          AND, AND JEFF, THANKS FOR, UH, FOR WALKING THROUGH THIS. 
          THIS IS A, IT'S A HEADY AND TECHNICAL TOPIC AND IT'S, I I THINK WE'RE IN THE UNENVIABLE POSITION AND YOU'RE IN THE ENVI ENVIABLE POSITION OF TRYING TO EXPLAIN TWO DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES. 
          AND, AND, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT, IT TAKES US DOWN, UH, UH, A LOT OF RABBIT POTENTIAL RABBIT TRAILS. 
          I HAD THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT SETH AND BILL HAD FOR YOU, BUT I WON'T REPEAT THOSE OUT OF EFFICIENCY FOR RICHARD. 
          UM, BUT I, I DID WANT TO, UM, UH, NOTE THAT ON SLIDE 10, UM, AND THIS IS JUST AN OBSERVATION, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT WE'VE SEEN, UH, FEWER INTERVALS WITH PRC BELOW THREE GIGAWATTS SINCE WINTER STORM MURRY, THAT WINTER STORMING MURRY MAY NOT BE THE ONLY, UH, FACTOR THERE. 
          THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN, YOU KNOW, MATERIAL CHANGES IN THE FLEET MAKEUP AND LOAD MAKEUP AS WELL THAT, UM, THAT PROBABLY CONTRIBUTE TO THAT DYNAMIC. 
          AND, UM, WE'VE, YOU KNOW, JUST IN WHAT THE LAST NINE MONTHS OR SO, I THINK WE, WE ENDORSED, UM, AN NPRR TO MODIFY HOW PRC IS MEASURED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT LIKE STATE OF CHARGE DEPLETES, UH, FASTER THAN, THAN THE WAY THAT  WAS, HAD BEEN CALCULATING IT IN THE PAST. 
          SO, UH, IT'S, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF, IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED PICTURE. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, BEHIND THIS PICTURE AND WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT. 
          UM, BUT I DID WANT TO COME BACK TO, UH, AND FORGIVE ME IF THIS IS REPEATING, UM, BUT THE WAY THAT REAL TIME CO OPTIMIZATION CHANGES THE WAY THAT WE, UH, THINK ABOUT ANCILLARY SERVICES, AND THIS HAS BEEN A HARD ONE FOR ME TO, TO JUST INTERNALIZE IS A LOT 
          [04:20:01]
MORE, INSTEAD OF HAVING RESERVES THAT ARE ACTUALLY RESERVED AND THEN DEPLOYED ACTIVELY MM-HMM . 
          WITH SOME EXCEPTION LIKE REGULATION, THE, IT'S REALLY CHARACTERIZING THE TYPES OF RESERVES THAT ERCOT WANTS TO HAVE. 
          THEY WANT TO HAVE IT AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, ONLINE OR QUICKLY AVAILABLE. 
          AND SO IT'S, IT'S SAYING WE HAVE THIS NEED AND WE WANNA SEND A SIGNAL OF SORTS. 
          UM, AND SO IN MY MIND, I'VE THOUGHT OF THIS AS THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES ARE ERCOT SIGNALING, HEY, IF Y'ALL ARE OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE A VALUE FOR YOU AND, AND IF WE DON'T, THEN WE NEED TO START SENDING UP THE, THE FLAG. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT IN YOUR EXCHANGE WITH, WITH, WITH SETH AND BILL. 
          BUT IT'S HARD FOR ME TO RECONCILE HOW SHRINKING THAT RESERVE HELPS TO, HELPS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THAT AVAILABLE, THAT WE ACTUALLY END UP IN THE SAME RELIABILITY POSITION. 
          UM, SO OH, OKAY. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA PREEMPT YOU. 
          IS THERE, IS THERE MORE TO YOUR QUESTION? IT, IT'S, I'M JUST HAVING TROUBLE, TROUBLE RECONCILING IT. 
          SO I WAS, I WAS HOPING TO, THE, THE RECONCILIATION I THINK IS PROBABLY WITH WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK CLEARING TO A WATCH OR CLEARING TO A LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY IS THE RIGHT, YOU KNOW, OR, OR IN THE RIGHT WHICH ONE IS MORE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OR, OR WHICH ONE IS RIGHT. 
          SO, UM, IF, IF YOU ARE PROCURING TO A WATCH WITH, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER OTHER PARAMETERS ARE AVAILABLE, THE REAL TIME CO-OP OPTIMIZATION IS GOING TO PERFORM EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT WOULD IF YOU WERE PROCURING UNDER THE IMM PREFERRED PARAMETERS. 
          UM, IF, IF, IF YOUR A SDC CURVE DOESN'T, IF YOUR A SDC CURVE HAS A ZERO OR NEAR ZERO VALUE FOR ADDITIONAL RESERVE MEGAWATTS BEYOND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, 5,000, BUT YOUR PROCUREMENT PLAN PROCURES OUT TO 7,000, THEN THE A SDC CURVE ISN'T GOING TO VALUE A SHORTAGE. 
          DOES THAT, DOES THAT TIE IT IN FOR YOU? OKAY. 
          I'M, I'M, AND SO YEAH, FOLLOWING THAT APART, SO YOU, THE, AND THIS GETS BACK TO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, IT'S REALLY A SEPARATE MATTER, BUT THE A SDC CURVES HAVE TO BE CALIBRATED TO EVERY AS PROCUREMENT PLAN SO THAT THEY'RE APPROPRIATELY VALUING SHORTAGE, WHETHER YOU'RE PROCURING TO A WATCH OR THREE TIMES A WATCH OR HALF OF LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY, IT DOESN'T MATTER. 
          IT HAS TO BE CALIBRATED SO THAT WHEN YOU GO SHORT OF WHAT YOU DECIDED YOU WANT, IT SIGNALS THAT YOU'RE SHORT. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M, I'M CONNECTING WITH YOU THERE. 
          'CAUSE THAT THAT'S, WE'VE HAD THAT SAME CONCERN, WHICH IS IF YOUR A SDC IS NOT LONG ENOUGH TO MEET YOUR PLAN, THEN YES, YOU'LL ALWAYS BE SHORT AND THAT'S, THAT'S AN ISSUE. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          I FOLLOW YOU THERE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND THEN THIS IS THE, YOU TOUCHED ON THE RISK CREDITS. 
          THIS IS PROBABLY MORE OF A QUESTION OR A COMMENT FOR, FOR ERCOT GIVEN THEIR PROPOSAL, BUT POSE IT TO YOU AS WELL AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT CALIBRATION, SHOULDN'T WE JUST BE SAYING WHAT WE ACTUALLY THINK WE NEED FOR THOSE RESERVES AND THEN LET THAT BE REFLECTED IN THE MARKET PRICE FOR IT AS OPPOSED TO KIND OF ASSUMING THAT PAST PAST PERFORMANCE WILL BE REPEATED IN THE FUTURE? UM, IT, IT MIGHT BE A SHORTCOMING ON, ON MY END, BUT I, I SEE THOSE AS TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. 
          SO I, I THINK ERCOT USE OF THE RISK CREDIT WAS TO DEAL WITH AN ISSUE THEY HAD OF USING AVERAGES, UM, THAT THEY KNEW WOULDN'T, WEREN'T APPROPRIATE IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOURS. 
          AND SO THEY HAD TO, YOU KNOW, AND I'M SURE THERE WAS AN EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR IT, HAD TO ADJUST THE AVERAGES TO REFLECT WHAT THEY WOULD EXPECT IN THOSE HOURS. 
          THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO THAT. 
          OUR MODEL DOES THAT DIFFERENTLY. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING IT, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT STOCHASTIC. 
          WE ONLY DEAL WITH RISK MATTERS IN A STOCHASTIC WAY AND OUR MODEL. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WE JUST LOOK AT WHAT WAS OBSERVED, YOU KNOW, THE DI THE DISTRIBUTION THAT WAS OBSERVED IN THOSE HOURS. 
          SO I, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT ASPECT OF IT AND, AND THOSE ARE JUST TWO DIFFERENT MODELING APPROACHES. 
          I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT ASPECT OF IT RELATES TO THE OTHER PART OF YOUR QUESTION THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO LINK. 
          OKAY. 
          IT, IT MAY BE THAT THERE'S 
          [04:25:01]
ADDITIONAL DETAIL BEHIND THE CURTAIN THAT, THAT A LOT OF US DON'T, DON'T SEE AS DIRECTLY YEAH. 
          FROM A PRINCIPLED STANDPOINT, THAT, THAT HAS BEEN A CONCERN FOR ME THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, AND I'VE VOICED THIS AT THE, AT THE WORKSHOPS IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE, IF WE THINK WE NEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RESERVES, THEN WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD PLAN FOR THAT AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO BUY THAT AND THEN LET THE MARKET SIGNAL WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE THAT. 
          UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S BEEN, UH, IT, IT HAS BOTHERED ME FROM A PRINCIPLE STANDPOINT. 
          IT, IT MAYBE I HADN'T CONNECTED THAT IT WAS A MODELING ASSUMPTION OR A, A, A MODELING METHODOLOGY, UM, NUANCE THAT, THAT DROVE THAT CAN, CAN I JUMP TO Q AND TRY TO HELP A LITTLE BIT? YEAH. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          UM, A COUPLE THINGS ON RISK CREDITS, I'VE HEARD THAT WE AVERAGE THE QUANTITIES, WE DON'T, WE'RE ACTUALLY USING ACTUAL DATA AND RUINING MONO CALL LOAD DRAWS FROM THAT. 
          UH, SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT IN OUR PROCESS NOW, UM, TO THE ARGUMENT OF CREDIT. 
          SO ONE OF THE THINGS IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DRIVING, WE'RE CALCULATING A MINIMUM QUANTITY IN THE A S RESERVES. 
          AND WHAT HAPPENS IN RTC IS SOMEWHAT OF A KNOWN UNKNOWN, RIGHT. 
          OF WHAT THAT CAPABILITY IS. 
          AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE SAID WE SHOULDN'T BE RELYING ON A HUNDRED PERCENT. 
          UM, NOW WE DO THINK THERE'S GONNA BE AVAILABILITY OF CAPACITY AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY, OKAY, WE, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY 60%, 25%, UM, IS THERE A WAY TO MOVE TO A 0% CREDIT? SURE. 
          BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A MINIMUM QUANTITY. 
          WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADJUST IF WE NEED TO, IF WE SEE A HIGHER RISK THAT'S COMING IN IN REAL TIME. 
          UH, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST. 
          I KNOW IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO REGULARLY, BUT IT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO, TO SET A QUANTITY NOW AND SEE HOW RTC IMPACTS US. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, BUT FROM A PRINCIPAL STANDPOINT, WE CAN MAYBE HAVE A, A MENTAL EXPERIMENT THAT JUST SAYS, LET'S ASSUME WE DON'T HAVE ANY, ANY BLOCKY THERMAL RESOURCES. 
          AND IT'S, IT'S THE WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERIES WORLD WHERE THAT, THAT'S ALL THAT WE HAVE ON THE SYSTEM. 
          SETTING ASIDE, OTHER, OTHER CONCERNS, UM, THAT, THAT MIGHT  MIGHT HAVE, RIGHT? WE'LL HAVE TO GET THROUGH A LOT OF THE RIDE THROUGH ISSUES FIRST, BUT, UM, THE, UM, IN THAT WORLD, YOU DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY JUST SOME OF THAT BLOCKING CAPACITY THAT MAY COME ON AND BE AT LSL AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT EXTRA HEADROOM THAT'S THERE BECAUSE IT HASN'T FULLY RAMPED UP. 
          YOU ONLY HAVE WHAT'S, WHAT'S AVAILABLE. 
          AND SO WOULDN'T YOU JUST WANT TO ASSUME THAT YOU'RE JUST GONNA SAY, THIS IS WHAT THE VALUE OF THE RESERVE IS AND LET THE MARKET PRICE REFLECT THAT. 
          SO, AND THE REASON I ASK THAT IS IF WE ARE MAKING A CHANGE IN METHODOLOGY NOW THAT'S GONNA CARRY FORWARD FAR INTO THE FUTURE, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESET THAT EXPECT, JUST SET THAT EXPECTATION IN A, IN A WAY THAT'S RIGHT. 
          DURABLE. 
          SO I THINK I WANT TO TOUCH ON THE A SDC. 
          I THINK THERE IS A, SOME CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING AROUND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE AND HOW DOES THAT GET ADJUSTED BASED ON THE PROCUREMENT? I KNOW WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT THAT WON'T, THAT WON'T BE TILL AFTER RTC GO LIVE. 
          SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT IS ON THE RADAR, BUT, UM, NOT GONNA BE DONE NOW. 
          SO THIS IS FROM JUST, UM, THE PARTICULAR THING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW IS, THE OTHER THING IS WE'RE RUNNING A PROBABILISTIC METHODOLOGY ON OUR FOUR YEARS OF DATA. 
          YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS TO THINK ABOUT IS EVEN FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, IF WE'RE TRYING TO CALCULATE A QUANTITY, THAT HISTORICAL RISK THAT WE'VE SEEN, ALSO THAT EXTREME RISK THAT WE, THAT MAY BE SENDING THE QUANTITIES FOR THE HIGHER RISK HOURS, NOT ALSO GUARANTEED TO BE THAT HIGH OF A RISK GOING FORWARD. 
          BUT, BUT FROM A PROBABILITY PERSPECTIVE, IT IS WHAT SETS THE QUANTITIES. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, I'LL, I'LL PAUSE HERE. 
          I'VE, I'VE, I'VE MONOPOLIZED THE MIC ENOUGH, BUT THANK Y'ALL FOR, FOR INDULGING ME ON THOSE. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST LOOKING AT THE TIME. 
          UM, JEFF, YOU HAD FINISHED YOUR PRESENTATION, RIGHT? YES. 
          LET, LET'S KEEP TAKING QUESTIONS. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT, SO WE HAVE, LET'S FINISH UP THIS QUEUE AND THEN TALK, HAVE SOMEONE FROM CONSUMERS SPEAK TO THEIR COMMENTS. 
          IT IS 2 42. 
          I AM HOPEFUL WE CAN FINISH AS METHODOLOGY BY THREE 15. 
          OKAY. 
          I GOT SOME SHRUGS, SO I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT IDEA. 
          LET'S GO TO BRIAN. 
          WELL, TAKING THAT CUE FROM OUR, UM, OUR CHAIR HERE, UM, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION, BUT I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, ENDORSE THE ERCOT VERSION OF, OF THE ANCILLARY METHODOLOGY AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 
          UM, 
          [04:30:01]
THE, JUST GOING BACK TO LIKE SLIDE 16, UM, WHERE YOU'RE, YOU'RE SHOWING, SO WAIT, ARE, ARE YOU IN FACT MAKING THE MOTION? I WANT TO YOU HAVE A SECOND, LIKE WHEN WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSION. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, IT'S UP TO YOU. 
          IF THAT'S AN EFFICIENT WAY TO GO ABOUT THIS, THEN I WILL MAKE THE MOTION. 
          BUT I ALSO WANT TO GIVE CONSUMERS LIKE THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR COMMENT. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO, I HEARD YOUR COMMENT ABOUT YOU WANNA BE DONE BY THREE 15, SO JUST TRYING TO HELP US OUT WITH THAT. 
          NO, PLEASE. 
          WE'RE NOT DONE THERE IN THE QUEUE. 
          WE'RE NOT NONE. 
          BUT I, I, YOU KNOW, JUST WANTED TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT TIME EXISTS. 
          UM, BUT IT'S TOTALLY UP TO YOU IF YOU WANNA MAKE THAT THAT MOTION. 
          NOW WE CAN CONTINUE HERE TO HEAR DISCUSSION LIKE WE ALMOST ALWAYS DO. 
          ARE, ARE YOU, I DON'T WANT TO OFFEND YOU BY THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          MAKE MOTION, WE HAVE SOMETHING TO DISCUSS AND, AND OKAY. 
          WE'LL HAVE COMMENTS AS PART OF THAT. 
          SO IT'S ENDORSE 2026  SERVICE METHODOLOGY IS PRESENTED BY ERCOT. 
          THAT WAS MY MOTION. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IT'S A SECOND FROM REMI. 
          UM, SO MY QUESTION IS ON THIS SLIDE HERE, WHEN YOU'RE COMPARING ISO OPERATING RESERVES, IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THE OTHER, THESE OTHER ISOS HAVE THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE IN ERCOT? WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS WHAT SETH BROUGHT UP, IS THAT OTHER ISOS, SOME OTHER ISOS DO HAVE A RAMPING PRODUCT OR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          UHHUH, . 
          IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE BEYOND THAT? MAYBE? UM, INTER INTERCONNECTION TO INTER WITH LARGER GRIDS. 
          THANK YOU, BETH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, SO, BUT EVEN BEYOND THAT, NO, THAT'S IT. 
          NO, THAT'S IT. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE SO FREQUENCY DEPENDENT, UHHUH AND NEED TO HAVE THAT FREQUENCY PROTECTION. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, AND I, AND FOR MY BOOK, I, I WISH POTOMAC WOULD STOP SHOWING THESE KINDS OF CHARTS. 
          'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THEY'RE VERY HELPFUL OR USEFUL HERE. 
          THEY HAVE MUST OFFER. 
          YEAH. 
          AND WHAT, WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM? THAT MUST OFFER. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYWAY, CONTINUE . 
          UH, I, I JUST, BUT ONLY UNTIL THREE 15, UH, BETH HIT ON MY POINT HERE, LIKE THESE, THE SLIDES LIKE THIS ARE INTERESTING, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE JUST, IT'S NOT A GOOD APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON. 
          UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT, UH, THE ANCILLARY SERVICE, UH, DEMAND CURVES, UH, I THINK THERE WAS A LOT OF INTEREST IN, IN REDRAWING THAT OR REEXAMINING IT THIS YEAR, AND WE WERE TOLD NO, NOT UNTIL AFTER RTC. 
          AND SO I EXPECT THAT IT'S GONNA BE AN IMPORTANT DISCUSSION NEXT YEAR AND, UH, LOOK FORWARD TO PARTICIPATING. 
          I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY I WAS JUST READY TO MAKE THE MOTION TO ENDORSE THE  METHODOLOGY BECAUSE THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY PRACTICAL CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT YEAR, UH, AND NEXT YEAR. 
          UH, JUST CANNOT TELL YOU HOW EXCITED I AM TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, NEXT IS REMI. 
          UH, THANK YOU KATELYN. 
          UM, SO I WAS ALSO GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, UM, BECAUSE THIS DISCUSSION WAS GOING ALONG, BUT, UM, I WANTED TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS. 
          FIRST OF ALL, UH, THANK YOU JEFF FOR POINTING OUT THE A SDC UH, DISCUSSION. 
          UH, COMPLETELY AGREE THAT A SDC NEEDS TO REFLECT THE, UH, ACTUAL QUANTITIES THAT ARE PROCURED. 
          AND I'M ALSO LOOKING FORWARD TO THE, UH, RELIABILITY STANDARD DISCUSSION, UH, NEXT YEAR TO MAKE IT RIGHT. 
          AND, AND ALSO, UH, THANKS FOR POINTING OUT THAT THE PROCUREMENT NEEDS TO BE DONE THROUGH THE COMPETITIVE MARKET TO ENSURE THAT THE MARKET WORKS. 
          AND, UH, TO US, UH, WE SEE SOME OF JEFF'S CONCERN ABOUT WATCH AND CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS WERE HEAVILY DISCUSSED AT PUCT LAST FALL. 
          AND THERE IS ALREADY DIRECTION FROM PUCT ABOUT, UM, PROCUREMENT DIRECTIVE TO BE BASED ON WATCH. 
          AND SO BASED ON THAT, I THINK IT IS, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION ON BECAUSE THAT IS DIRECTIVE AND WE ARE MAKING, UH, A COURT'S PROPOSAL TO, OR A COURT'S PROPOSAL IS TO SUPPORT THAT. 
          UM, BUT ALSO WANTED TO, UH, POINT OUT ONE THING ABOUT ER CODE'S PROPOSAL. 
          UH, WE DO SUPPORT IT FROM AN EFFICIENCY PERSPECTIVE, UH, GOING TO THE PROBABILISTIC METHOD. 
          BUT AS, UH, NED POINTED OUT, UH, THIS USE OF RISK FACTOR OR RISK CREDIT IS USING OR RELYING CAPACITY WITHOUT, OR RELYING RESERVES WITHOUT LETTING THE MARKET PRICE IT. 
          [04:35:01]
SO, SAME AS THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD A LITTLE WHILE AGO ABOUT ES UH, BECAUSE WE HAVE A MARKET THAT IS KIND OF AT THE EDGE AND WE NEED TO SEND THE RIGHT PRICE SIGNAL, IT'S VERY IMPERATIVE THAT WE DESIGN THE MARKET TO HAVE THE QUANTITIES PROCURED, PROCURED THE NEEDED QUANTITIES PROCURED THROUGH THE MARKET SO THAT THE MARKET CAN PRICE IT AND NOT JUST ASSUME THAT IT IS GOING TO BE THERE. 
          AND IT'S ALSO VERY IMPORTANT, AS  ALREADY POINTED OUT, THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW RTC IS GOING TO, UH, END UP THE, AND USING A HISTORIC VALUE TO CALCULATE THE RISK CREDIT IS GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS. UH, AND KO'S PRESENTATION ALREADY POINTED OUT, OR ALREADY SHOWS, I BELIEVE THAT THE, GOING FROM A HUNDRED PERCENT TO A 0% RISK CREDIT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH OF A A PRICE DIFFERENCE. 
          SO WE QUESTION GOING IN THAT DIRECTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
           THANKS KEVIN HANSON. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, TRYING TO BE VERY EFFICIENT HERE TODAY. 
          UM, JUST PUT IN THE CHAT THERE THAT, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, UM, I'M NOT CERTAIN, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE LOWEST AIR CONNECTED CAPABILITY IS OVER 10 GIGAWATTS FOR ALL THE LIST ISOS ON THIS CHART HERE. 
          16. 
          SO AGAIN, THEY, IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, THERE'S AN EMERGENCY, YOU CAN TAP INTO THAT, WHICH IS THE FREQUENCY CONTRIBUTION IS THE DRUG. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, I'M JUST SAYING IN TERMS OF GETTING TO CAPACITY, YOU CAN GET TO IT. 
          I MEAN, SO, UH, UM, THAT NUMBER BLOWS THROUGH THE, UH, THE LEGEND ON THE, I MEAN THE, THE NINE GIGAWATTS ON THE SIDE OF THIS CHARTER. 
          THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. 
          THAT'S IT. 
          THANKS KEVIN. 
          ANDREW. 
          YEAH, I, UH, JUST WANT TO QUICKLY ADDRESS THE POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A CERTAIN NEED FOR RESERVES, THEN WE SHOULD SET THAT TARGET AND WE SHOULD BUY IT. 
          THE REASON THAT NUMBER DOESN'T COME OUT OF OUR MODEL IS FOR TWO REASONS. 
          ONE IS, IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS IN TERMS OF A MARKET THAT RUNS WITH REAL-TIME CO-OP OPTIMIZATION OF ENERGY AND ANCILLARY SERVICES. 
          IF YOU THINK OF A CONTINGENCY HAPPENING WHERE THEN RESERVES ARE CONVERTED INTO ENERGY, YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF HOW MANY ADDITIONAL, HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL RESERVE CAPACITY IS OUT THERE TO THEN BE AWARDED RESERVES. 
          SO THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO REFLECT IN THE WAY THAT WE'VE SET UP OUR MODEL. 
          THE OTHER THING IS THAT BY MAKING OUR TARGET AROUND FIRM LOAD SHED, ANY RESERVES THAT ACTUALLY WERE POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE IN THE SYSTEM WOULD BE UTILIZED BEFORE ERCOT STARTED SHEDDING LOAD. 
          AND SO THOSE TWO MODELING DECISIONS ARE WHERE YOU END UP LOOKING AT ALL OF THE AVAILABLE HEADROOM. 
          IF YOU WANT TO SET A MINIMUM FLOOR ON RESERVE PROCUREMENT, YOU KIND OF HAVE TO DO SO DETERMINISTICALLY RATHER THAN PROBABILISTICALLY. 
          AND SO WE'VE BEEN NOODLING ON THIS AND TALKING TO ERCOT ABOUT IT, AND IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA WORK ON GOING FORWARD, WHERE IF YOU WANT TO SET SOME KIND OF MINIMUM VOLUME ON LIKE A FREQUENCY BASIS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KIND OF ARE STUCK DOING THAT DETERMINISTICALLY, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT IT PROBABILISTICALLY, THERE'S ALL THIS EXTRA HEADROOM AVAILABLE A LOT OF THE TIME THAT IS GOING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY NEED TO PROCURE VERY MANY ADDITIONAL RESERVES. 
          IT'S JUST ALREADY THERE. 
          SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY ABOUT THAT. 
          AND I THINK KEVIN'S COMMENT ACTUALLY KIND OF GOES ALONG THOSE LINES, WHICH IS THAT THERE TENDS TO BE ALL OF THIS CAPACITY AVAILABLE IN THESE OTHER MARKETS TOO. 
          OKAY, THANKS ANDREW. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS JEFF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          STICK AROUND, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE AT THE, UH, SHORT PODIUM ANYMORE. 
          UM, MARK DREYFUS IS ON THE PHONE. 
          IS IT MARK OR BETH SPEAKING? YES. 
          TO CONSUMER COMMENTS. 
          UM, WELL, LEMME JUST SAY A FEW WORDS. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          UH, UH, WE FILED WRITTEN COMMENTS AND I WON'T REPEAT THOSE. 
          SO I WILL TRY AND BE BRIEF THOUGH. 
          I AM ENJOYING THE PACE OF OUR CONVERSATION THIS AFTERNOON. 
          I THINK IT WAS INTERESTING THAT AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF OUR MEETING TODAY, WE DETERMINED THAT THE WORD OF THE DAY IS EFFICIENCY. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S SO APPROPRIATE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IMN HAS ARTICULATED AND WE WROTE IN OUR 
          [04:40:01]
COMMENTS THAT WE BELIEVE THAT CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS UNDERMINES EFFICIENCY IN THE ENERGY MARKET. 
          ANYHOW, SKIPPING THE ARGUMENTS IN OUR, IN OUR COMMENTS AND CUTTING DIRECTLY TO THE POINT. 
          THE ISSUE US HERE WE'RE DEBATING IS CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS. 
          WE ALL UNDERSTOOD AFTER WINTER STORM URI THE NEED FOR CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS. 
          BUT WE ARE IN SUCH A DYNAMIC INDUSTRY AND WE'VE SEEN SO MANY CHANGES SINCE THEN AND WE'RE SOMEHOW STUCK WITH THIS POLICY ADOPTED FOR A WORLD THAT IS SO FOUR YEARS AGO, I MEAN, IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT WE DID AFTER, AFTER WINTER STORM URI ERCOT HAD A 60 ITEM ROADMAP, WE ACCOMPLISHED ALL OF THOSE. 
          THE PUC HAD TWO PHASE ROADMAP. 
          WE'D IMPLEMENTED ALMOST ALL OF THOSE ITEMS, THE WMS AND THE ROS. 
          WE WENT THROUGH ALL THE ISSUES WE COULD THINK OF THAT MIGHT AFFECT, UH, RELIABILITY IN MARKETS AND RESOLVED ALL THOSE ISSUES. 
          I MEAN, JUST THINKING ABOUT A FEW OF THE KEY ITEMS ON THE LIST, UH, THE COMMISSION ADOPTED GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION MAINTENANCE STANDARDS, INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT. 
          AND WE'VE DEVELOPED A WHOLE SECTION OF ERCOT TO CARRY THAT OUT. 
          WE IMPROVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE GAS INDUSTRY, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO WINTERIZATION STANDARDS AND IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL LOADS. 
          WE IMPLEMENTED FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE. 
          UH, WE'VE SEEN A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN FLEXIBLE LOADS WITH A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF FLEXIBLE LOADS WAITING TO INTERCONNECT. 
          WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF MEGAWATTS OF NEW BATTERY RESOURCES THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE THEN. 
          AND OF COURSE, REAL TIME COOP OPTIMIZATION IS COMING AND I THINK THAT'S GONNA IMPROVE COMMITMENT INCENTIVES. 
          JEFF ASKED EARLIER, WHAT CHANNELS DO WE USE TO DISCUSS THE POLICY BEHIND CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS AND HOW DO WE ELEVATE THAT DISCUSSION? AND I THINK THIS IS IT, WE'RE DOING IT TODAY. 
          THIS CONVERSATION CAN BE A, A VEHICLE TO INFORM THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION THAT IT'S TIME TO RECONSIDER CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS. 
          I, IF I WERE TO USE A BILLS ANALOGY OF, OF DRIVING THE WINTER STORM URI CAR, I MIGHT SAY THAT THAT CAR IS A MODEL T AND WE'RE IN A TESLA WORLD ALREADY. 
          AND SO IT'S TIME TO RETHINK AND RECONSIDER. 
          UM, I WAS PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION TODAY WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE ANCILLARY SERVICES METHODOLOGY. 
          UM, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION IF THERE WAS AN APPETITE FOR THAT, BUT I, I ASSUME THERE PROBABLY ISN'T. 
          SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THE METHODOLOGY DOCUMENT. 
          BUT I HOPE THAT THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING AND THE VOTE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CAN STIMULATE SOME DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD OF THIS POLICY BECAUSE I, I THINK, I THINK THIS DISCUSSION POINTS OUT AND THE, THE EVIDENCE THAT THE IM IMPORT HAS SHARED THAT IT'S HIGH TIME TO REASSESS CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS. 
          UM, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT UNLESS THERE IS INTEREST IN A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. 
          THANKS. 
          WELL, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, THE MOTION IT'S UP, IT'S UP TO YOU, MARK. 
          I DON'T THINK THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT WOULD BE ACCEPTED. 
          SO WE'D, YOU'D OFFER AN AMENDMENT, WE'D VOTE TO TAKE AN AMENDMENT, AND THEN WE'D VOTE ON THE MOTION AND THEN GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION. 
          BUT I, THAT, THAT'S REALLY UP TO, TO YOU MARK, AND TO ANYBODY ELSE WHO MIGHT WANT TO MAKE THAT AN AMENDMENT. 
          WELL, I, I'LL HOLD OFF AND SEE HOW THE TWO THIRDS VOTE ON THE, UH, CURRENT MOTION COMES OUT. 
          BUT IF THAT MOTION WAS UNSUCCESSFUL, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER A SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO THINK THROUGH AND, AND CREATE A PROCESS TO REVIEW CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS AND, AND TAKE A COUPLE OF THESE STEPS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, LIKE SHORTENING THE FORECAST AIRTIME HORIZON. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          BETH, DID YOU WANNA ADD, ADD SOMETHING TO CONSUMER COMMENTS? I, IT, IT, UM, THANK 
          [04:45:01]
YOU. 
          I WANNA THANK MARK FOR, UM, UH, FOR GOING FIRST BECAUSE HE'S SO MUCH MORE REASON REASONED AND CLEAR AND LESS ONIC THAN I WILL TEND TO BE ON THIS ISSUE. 
          SO THANK, THANK HIM FOR THAT. 
          UM, I, I, I ALSO HOPE, ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS STRUCK BY IS AS WE TALK ABOUT CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS AND THIS IDEA THAT IT'S, IT'S A POLICY CHOICE, BUT YOU KNOW, THE CHALLENGE OF HAVING THIS SORT OF INFORMAL THING THAT WE ARE DOING IS THERE'S NO WAY TO APPROPRIATELY CHALLENGE AND GET IT OFF THE TABLE. 
          UM, SO I, MY SUGGESTION, MARK, IF, IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT, IS WE JUST LET THE, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE GO AHEAD AND, UH, I, I ALSO WILL BE VOTING NO ON, ON APPROVAL AND WE'LL, WE'LL GO FORWARD FROM THERE. 
          OKAY, THANKS BETH. 
          UM, MICHELLE RICHMOND IN THE QUEUE. 
          SORRY. 
          THANKS. 
          UM, I, I APPRECIATE WHAT BETH SAID 'CAUSE I WAS GONNA POINT OUT THAT I, I FEEL LIKE THIS WAS A POLICY DIRECTIVE FROM THE COMMISSION. 
          IT CAME FROM THE DIOCESE PART OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICES STUDY REPORT. 
          AND SO IT SEEMS THAT THIS IS NOT THE PROPER VENUE. 
          UM, AND THIS ISN'T AT THE, THE BOARD, THE ERCOT BOARD. 
          SO IT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE KEEP GOING ROUND AND ROUND WITH THIS SAME DEBATE ABOUT CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS WHEN THAT'S A POLICY CALL AT THE COMMISSION. 
          AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL TO PETITION THE COMMISSION IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THIS REVISITED THERE, BUT WE KEEP HAVING THE SAME CONVERSATION AND IT KEEPS HOLDING UP A LOT OF THE MEETINGS ABOUT WHETHER CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS AS THE RIGHT CALL OR NOT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE IT OR NOT, THAT IS THE POLICY CALL THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          AND UNTIL THEY CHANGE THAT DIRECTIVE, THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH. 
          AND SO IT, IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY TO CONSIDER, CONTINUALLY HAVE THIS DEBATE WHEN THAT'S NOT A DECISION THAT ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM OR IN THIS BUILDING HAS THE ABILITY TO, TO MAKE OR CHANGE. 
          OKAY, THANKS MICHELLE. 
          IF MARK, IF, OH, I'M SORRY. 
          OH, DID YOU WANNA, YEAH. 
          UM, SO, SO JUST THINKING BACK TO THE, TO THE GUIDANCE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSION ON ANCILLARY SERVICES POLICY, UH, THE COMMISSION DID, UH, INSTRUCT THAT WE SHOULD PLAN TO AVOID AN OPERATIONAL WATCH. 
          UM, I, I, CONSUMERS, IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, WE DID NOT MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THAT. 
          THE COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT WE USE A PROBABILISTIC APPROACH. 
          WE SUPPORT THAT THERE WERE SOME OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          I, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE COMMISSION SAID. 
          THE COMMISSION DID NOT PROVIDE SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ON WHAT THE RISK CREDIT SHOULD BE, WHAT THE TIME HORIZON SHOULD BE, ET CETERA. 
          SO THOSE, THOSE PARAMETERS ARE IN PLAY IN THIS METHODOLOGY. 
          UM, SECONDLY, I, I THINK, UM, IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF TAC TO HAVE THIS CONTINUAL DISCUSSION AND TO ADVISE THE ERCOT BOARD, UH, ON POLICY ISSUES THAT WE THINK THE BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER AND ADDRESS TO, UH, PROVIDE RELIABILITY THROUGH MARKETS. 
          THAT'S OUR FUNDAMENTAL, UH, OUR FUNDAMENTAL GOAL. 
          OUR FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY. 
          I THINK WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR 25 YEARS AND, AND WE SHOULDN'T STOP AND WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. 
          I DON'T THINK THIS CONVERSATION IS HOLDING ANYTHING UP. 
          AND SO I, I THINK IT'S USEFUL TO LET THE BOARD KNOW THAT WE AS ITS TECHNICAL ADVISORS HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS POLICY ISSUE. 
          SO THE BOARD CAN DISCUSS IT, THE BOARD CAN HAVE DIALOGUE, AND THE COMMISSION WILL BE INFORMED THAT THE BOARD'S TECHNICAL ADVISORS HAVE THIS CONCERN. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY, LET'S GO TO IKA. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'M NOT SURE, SHOULD I SPEAK NOW OR AFTER THE VOTE? BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T WANT INTERFERE WITH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, BUT I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. 
          IT'S COMPLETELY UP TO YOU. 
          IF YOU WANNA WAIT UNTIL THE VOTE, THAT'S FINE. 
          JUST SOMETHING I NEED TO MENTION. 
          UM, AS STAFF, YOU KNOW, WE ARE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST, RIGHT? WE CARE ABOUT EVERY SEGMENT HERE, NOT JUST ONE. 
          SO RELIABILITY IS VERY IMPORTANT. 
          COST TO CONSUMER IS VERY IMPORTANT. 
          AND ALSO GOOD MARKET DESIGN IS VERY IMPORTANT. 
          AND NOW IS METHODOLOGY IS SUBJECT TO PUC APPROVAL. 
          AND 
          [04:50:01]
ONE THING I THINK I JUST WANNA MENTION AS STUDY, UH, I THINK WHAT AGAIN, THIS IS JUST REFLECT STAFF POSITION, NOT THE COMMISSIONERS, JUST MARKET ANALYSIS. 
          I DON'T READ IT AS COMMISSION SAID, CONTINUE ON CONSERVATIVE OPERATION FOREVER. 
          I AM READING IT AND WE CAN PULL IT UP. 
          UH, OPERATIONAL SHOULD BE MAINTAINED IN ORDER TO BALANCE IMPROVEMENTS MADE SINCE WINTER STORM URI UNTIL ADDITIONAL DATA IS AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT FURTHER COMMISSION EVALUATION OF THIS OPERATING POSTURE. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING TODAY. 
          AND NEXT STEPS,  WILL DEVELOP CAPABILITY TO PROVIDE ESTIMATES OF COST AND PROBABILITIES EXPERIENCING WATCH EMERGENCY ALERT LOAD CHAT FOR SEVERAL ALTERNATIVE TARGET LEVELS AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AND NO LATER THAN TO SUPPORT COMMISSION SETTING AND OBJECTIVE DATABASE PROCUREMENT CRITERIA FOR THE 2027 AS METHODOLOGY. 
          SO AS STAFF, WE ARE REALLY IMPLEMENT AND, UH, BENCHMARK EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO THIS. 
          IF THEY SAY, NO, I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS, NOW IT'S THEIR DECISION. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT'S WHAT WE WILL BE SUPPORTING. 
          UH, AND BUT WE GAVE THEM UNTIL 2027 AND I REALLY WANNA THANK  STAFF IKA AND HER STAFF. 
          WE DIDN'T EVEN EXPECT THEM TO DEVELOP THIS PRO MODEL. 
          THEY DID A GREAT JOB. 
          SO, BUT THE SECOND PIECE OF IT ALSO, UH, EVALUATE LIKE SOME PEOPLE SAID, BUT OTHER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS WE DID. 
          AND IS THIS STILL THE SAME POSTURE? IT CAN BE STILL THE SAME POSTURE. 
          I REALLY DON'T KNOW. 
          I DON'T WANNA JUDGE IT. 
          AND FOR THE IMM AND JEFF KNOWS THAT WE TALK ALL THE TIME, SOMETIMES THEY ARE PURIST, RIGHT? THEY WANNA GO ALL THE WAY. 
          BUT YOU HAVE TO BE ALSO REALISTIC AFTER YOU READ. 
          THERE IS DEFINITELY, UH, INTENTION TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE. 
          NOBODY CAN DENY THAT, BUT EXACTLY WHERE THAT PLACES, IS IT BETWEEN  OR WATCH THE PROBABILITY HAVING ONE WATCH OR TWO WATCH A YEAR, IS IT OKAY OR NOT? I THINK THERE IS STILL MORE, UH, ANALYSIS NEED TO BE DONE THERE. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS REALLY STUFF'S OPINION. 
          THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. 
          SO THAT OKAY. 
          I, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, I THINK EVERYBODY COULD, COULD HEAR YOU AS A LITTLE QUIET. 
          AND THEN WHAT YOU WERE READING FROM WAS THE FINAL REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF ANCILLARY SERVICES IN THE MARKET. 
          OKAY, NUMBER THREE. 
          YES. 
          WHICH ONE? WHAT DID YOU SAY? NUMBER THREE? NUMBER THREE FOR PROCUREMENT ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL TRY TO FIND THAT AND PASTE IT IN HERE. 
          GO, GO AHEAD BETH. 
          NO, I THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THOSE, THOSE SPECIFIC THINGS. 
          HE, THOSE VERY HELPFUL FOR, FOR US TO HEAR AND DELIBERATE. 
          I AM, UM, YOU KNOW, AS I, AS I TOOK OVER THIS ROLE, I, I DOVE HEADFIRST INTO ANCILLARY SERVICES AND, UM, AND WE HAVE SOME WORK TO DO. 
          LET ME JUST SAY THAT WE HAVE SOME WORK TO DO. 
          I ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS FROM, UM, UH, LUIS AND TIKA IN TERMS OF TRYING TO GET ME UP TO SPEED ON THAT. 
          UM, THERE'S MORE WORK TO DO AND I'M, I'VE SAID IT BEFORE IN OTHER FORUMS, I'LL SAY IT, UH, YOU'LL HEAR ME SAY IT OFTEN. 
          UM, WE NEED TO BE RETHINKING OUR, UM, OUR RISK TOLERANCE BY SEASON. 
          I THINK THERE ARE DIFFERENT RISKS. 
          EXPO CONSUMERS ARE EXPOSED TO DIFFERENT RISKS DURING SUMMER VERSUS COLD WEATHER, AND WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THOSE AND POTENTIALLY ADJUST OUR, UH, ANCILLARY SERVICES FOR THAT. 
          UM, I SAID I'M STILL GONNA VOTE NO ON THIS FOR WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. 
          AND PART OF THAT IS SIGNALING THAT THERE'S MORE WORK TO DO AND WHERE THOSE WEAKNESSES ARE. 
          SO CAN I SAY SOMETHING MORE OR? YES, YES, PLEASE. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          SO THE OTHER THING REALLY, WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED, UH, FOR THE FUTURE AND HELP ERCOT HAVE CERTAINTY. 
          HOW IS THIS THINGS GONNA PROCEED IF IT DOESN'T PASS THE WAY YOU WANT? JEFF, ARE YOU PLANNING TO FILE AN OBJECTION AT BOARD AND AT THE COMMISSION OR NOT? UH, YES, AT THE COMMISSION AS WELL. 
          YEAH. 
          WHAT ABOUT CONSUMER GROUPS OR ARE YOU PLANNING TO COME TO THE COMMISSION OR, WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF US, SO WE, WE'D HAVE TO GET OURSELVES ORGANIZED. 
          UH, AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, UH, POTENTIALLY. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING I THINK THE NET BOARD MEETING, UH, COMMISSIONERS WITH THE BOARD NEED TO DISCUSS SO THAT WE CAN BE PREPARED. 
          AND THERE ARE TWO OPEN MEETINGS IN NOVEMBER AND TWO IN DECEMBER. 
          SO WE JUST NEED TO BE COGNIZANT HOW ARE WE GONNA, UH, ADDRESS ALL THAT. 
          AND ALSO, IF YOU REMEMBER CHAIR GLEASON, HE REALLY WANTED THE RECORD TO BE COMPLETE AFTER WHAT HAPPENED WITH 1224. 
          [04:55:01]
SO I REALLY ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY, IF YOU ARE GONNA COME, MAKE SURE THERE IS A COMPLETE RECORD ON IT AND WE CAN TALK MORE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE WE NED IN THE SPIRIT OF A COMPLETE RECORD? UH, I, I DO PLAN TO ABSTAIN IN THE VOTE, AND I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN IT IS, IT IS DUE TO THE RISK CREDIT, UH, YOU KNOW, MY, MY STRONG PREFERENCE THAT THOSE NOT BE, UH, TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND SETTING THE, THE, THE QUANTITIES. 
          BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE TWO CHOICES IN FRONT OF US AND THAT'S WHERE THE VOTES ARE GOING. 
          AND I'M, I HAVE NO INTENTION OF STOPPING THAT. 
          JUST WANTED TO BE ABLE TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD AND I CAN, I CAN PUT SOME COMMENTS TOGETHER FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION. 
          THANKS, TED. 
          DO WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS COMING IN NOW? IAN? THANK YOU. 
          IAN HALEY, MORGAN STANLEY. 
          UM, ERCOT, SINCE WE GET TO RESTART THE A S METHODOLOGY AGAIN IN WHAT'S THREE WEEKS OR SO, UM, WAS HOPING THAT AS WE LOOK AT NEXT YEAR, WE COULD GO OVER HOW THE RISK CREDITS ACTUALLY, UH, CAME ABOUT AND WHAT YOUR OBSERVATIONS ARE IN REAL TIME. 
          UM, JUST BECAUSE WITH MOVING TO REAL TIME CO-OP NEXT YEAR, I JUST, THERE'S A LITTLE TOO MANY VARIABLES FOR ME TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND RIGHT NOW, SO I JUST APPRECIATE THAT BEING ON THE TO DO FOR NEXT YEAR. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          YES, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          IAN, THANKS. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          DIANA, DIANA COLEMAN CPS ENERGY. 
          WE JUST ALSO WANTED TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT WE ARE ABSTAINING ON THIS VOTE AND UM, WE ARE COMPELLED BY THE I'S PRESENTATION, BUT WE ALSO FEEL LIKE THERE IS SOME MORE WORK TO BE DONE, BUT WE DON'T WANNA BE IMPEDING ANY OF THE WORK THAT ERCOT IS DOING AT THIS POINT. 
          UM, WE SUPPORT TAKING A TOUGH LOOK AT THE RELIABILITY BENEFIT AND IF WE NEED TO REALIGN OUR PRACTICES TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS, WE'RE WILLING TO MAKE THAT EFFORT AND DO THAT WORK. 
          SO WE JUST WANTED TO HAVE IT ON RECORD OF WHY WE ARE CHOOSING TO ABSTAIN THIS VOTE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANKS DIANA. 
          SMI, UH, I JUST WANTED TO BE ON THE RECORD AS WELL. 
          UM, WE WILL BE VOTING YES FOR IT, BUT, UH, WE HAD CONCERNS WITH THE RISK CREDIT BEING USED, BUT WE BELIEVE THAT OUR COURT'S PROPOSAL IS A GOOD COMPROMISE TO GO, UH, IN THE DIRECTION, UH, OF PROCURING THE QUANTITIES THAT ARE COORDINATES. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY LAST QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? OKAY, GO AHEAD COREY. 
          ALRIGHT, ON THE MOTION TO ENDORSE THE 2026 AS METHODOLOGY AS PRESENTED BY ERCOT, WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH MARK DREYFUS. 
          UH, NO THANK YOU COREY. 
          THANK YOU NICK. 
          NO, SORRY. 
           GARRETT? NO SIR. 
          SIR. 
          MIKE? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          BETH? NO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NAVA, NO THANK YOU ONTO THE CO-OPS. 
          UH, I THINK MIKE'S GONE. 
          SO KYLE, YOU'VE GOT HIS VOTE? UH, YES. 
          AND THEN KYLE FOR YOURSELF? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JOHN? YES. 
          THANK YOU TREVOR FOR BLAKE? YES, THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, BOB HILTON. 
          YES SIR. 
          THANKS SIR. 
          CAITLIN? YES, THANK YOU, BRIAN. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          NED ABSTAIN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SIR. 
          ONTO OUR IPM, SETH. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU RASHMI. 
          UH, CAN YOU COME BACK TO ME ON THE PHONE JUST TO COME BACK? I'M JUST SAYING. 
          OKAY, JEREMY? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IAN? YES, THANK YOU COREY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOING DRAW THE IRES BILL? YES, THANK YOU. 
          JENNIFER. 
          JENNIFER SCHMIDT. 
          YOU STILL WITH US? ALL RIGHT, HOW ABOUT JAY? NO, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN, UH, BILL FOR CHRIS? YES, THANK YOU. 
          UNDER IOUS. 
          RICHARD? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MARTHA? YES, THANK YOU ROB FOR KEITH? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          EBY FOR DAVID? YES, THANK YOU. 
          UNDER THE MUNIS RUSSELL? YES. 
          THANK YOU DIANA FOR DAVID ABSTAIN. 
          THANK YOU FELICIA. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          AND ANDREW FOR JOSE ABSTAIN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN LOOPING BACK. 
          REMI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CAST A VOTE? YES, THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          [05:00:01]
73%. 
          FOUR SEVEN OPPOSED? AND THREE ABSTENTIONS. 
          OKAY, THANKS COREY. 
          UM, SO AS FAR AS NEXT STEPS, ANN, ARE WE GOING TO, THIS ISN'T A NORMAL REVISION REQUEST. 
          ARE WE GONNA ASK FOR NO REASONS? YOU'LL PROBABLY WANNA EXPLAIN. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'LL, WE'LL ASK FOR NO AND ABSTENTION REASONS WHICH WE'LL WANT REGARDLESS. 
          AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IF CONSUMERS AND IMM SPEAK SEPARATELY TO TOTALLY UP TO THEM YEAH, I'LL SEND OUT AN EMAIL FOR THE A AS METHODOLOGY AND THE RPG PROJECT SINCE YOU WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, AND YOU'LL EXPLAIN THE NOS LIKE I DO FOR RIVER REVISION REQUESTS IN MY REPORT. 
          AND THEN AGAIN, CAN, CAN YOU GIMME A SENSE OF WHAT YOUR, WHAT YOUR TIMING EXPECTATIONS ARE THERE ON THE, NO, I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE MATERIALS IN BY NEXT THURSDAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I'LL PROBABLY SEND AN EMAIL OUT EITHER TODAY OR TOMORROW MORNING. 
          GOTCHA. 
          AND THEN HAVE YOU GUYS TURN IT AROUND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MM-HMM . 
          OKAY. 
          ANYTHING ELSE? IKA, IMM? ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE WANTS TO ADD ON IT? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, I APPRECIATE IT. 
          UM, I KNOW WE, YOU KNOW, AS IAN JOKINGLY ALLUDED TO, WE STARTED WORKING ON THE METHODOLOGY REALLY EARLY, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE WE STILL HAD A LOT OF WE CONVERSATIONS THAT CAME UP TOWARDS THE END. 
          SO I, I DON'T THINK I'M ADVOCATING TO START IT ANY EARLIER NEXT YEAR, BUT IF THERE'S MORE COORDINATION THAT CAN HAPPEN WITH THE IMM AND ERCOT AND PUC STAFF MAYBE EARLIER, I THINK THAT WOULD, WOULD HELP. 
          I I I SUGGEST IT WAS JUST EVIDENCE OR JUST EVIDENCE OF A NEW PROCESS YEAH. 
          AND HAVING TO FIGURE OUT NEW THINGS AND, AND THEN IT TURNS OUT, OH, SOME OF THOSE NEW THINGS REALLY WERE IMPACTFUL DECISIONS MADE ABOUT THOSE NEW, UM, UH, ASSUMPTIONS WERE SUPER IMPACTFUL ON THE, ON THE OUTCOMES. 
          BUT I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE MORE NEW THINGS NEXT YEAR AND WE WILL BE  IN RTC, WHICH IS ANOTHER NEW THING. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD, WE COULD MAYBE START COLLABORATING EARLIER. 
          I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS EARLIER THAN JUNE, BUT MAYBE THE COLLABORATION CAN START DAY ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO WE'RE BACK TO OUR AGENDA SORT OF, UM, GOING BACK TO 
          [13. Large Load Working Group (LLWG) Report]
LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP UPDATE, AND THEN WE WILL TAKE UP THE, THE INTERCONNECTION, LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION REPORT RIGHT AFTER THAT. 
          ARE YOU READY, BOB WHITMEYER? I AM. 
          AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO READ THE PRESENTATION AHEAD OF TIME, I'LL TRY TO GET THIS DONE IN THE NEXT HOUR AND A HALF AND WE SHOULD BE GOOD. 
          . 
          NO, ACTUALLY I HAVE A HARD STOP, BUT WHAT ABOUT EFFICIENCY ? I HAVE A HARD STOP AT THREE 30, SO WE WILL BE EFFICIENT HERE. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT, SO WE, WE MET IN AUGUST. 
          UH, THE FOCUS WAS PRIMARILY ON LARGE LOADS AND VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH. 
          UM, I WILL SAY THAT WE HAVE THE INDUSTRY'S ATTENTION. 
          UM, THE, THE BITCOIN MINERS ARE LOOKING AT SOLUTIONS, AI DATA CENTERS ARE LOOKING AT SOLUTIONS. 
          UM, WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A MINUTE. 
          UM, WE HAVE PEOPLE DIGGING INTO THE TRANSFORMERS. 
          UM, AND WHAT I LEARNED THAT WE AS POWER PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS UNDERSTAND IS THESE LARGE ELECTRONIC LOADS, THE HARDWARE GETS CHANGED OUT EVERY FOUR YEARS. 
          THIS IS NOT LIKE WHEN WE INSTALL GENERATORS OR WIRES THAT ARE THERE FOR 30, 40, 50 YEARS. 
          THESE ARE MORE LIKE BUYING A SET OF IPHONES EACH TIME THESE GET REPLACED, THEY'LL GET REPLACED WITH NEWER AND BETTER ONES. 
          SO PROVIDED THE STANDARDS MOVE ALONG WITH THEM, THIS PROBLEM WON'T LAST FOREVER. 
          THERE IS A-D-S-W-G SURVEY OUT RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, IT'S DUE TECHNICALLY SEPTEMBER 1ST. 
          SO THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WORKING ON THE HOLIDAY, OTHER ONES CAN SUBMIT IT BY AUGUST 31ST ON THE SUNDAY. 
          UM, SO AT THE LAST MEETING, ERCOT GAVE A PRESENTATION ON THE STUDIES THAT THEY'RE UNDERTAKING. 
          WE HAD A COUPLE OF VENDOR PRESENTATIONS AND OUT ON THE LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP, UH, HOMEPAGE, YOU'LL FIND A LIST OF FREQUENCY ASKED QUESTIONS AND A SET OF ANSWERS THAT GO WITH THAT. 
          OH, THAT WAS REALLY FAST. 
          UM, SO THESE ARE THE STUDIES THAT ERCOT IS LOOKING AT LOW VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH, UM, AND POTENTIALLY A SYSTEM OPERATING 
          [05:05:01]
LIMIT. 
          THEY'RE, LIKE I SAID, THESE ARE THINGS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT AND STUDYING. 
          UH, BENEFITS OF TRANSMISSION IMPROVEMENTS. 
          WE HAD A PRESENT, YEAH, FOR STATCOMS, UH, LOW VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH STUDY OR CO PROPOSED THIS CHART DOWN HERE ON THE LOWER RIGHT. 
          UM, I WILL POINT OUT, I THINK IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, HIGHLIGHT TEMPORARY LOAD REDUCTION IS PERMITTED. 
          THAT INCLUDES ZERO, BUT THEY NEED TO GET BACK. 
          THE REAL ISSUE IS BELOW 50%. 
          UM, THE SIGNAL THAT THE PEOPLE ARE READING INSIDE THEIR FACILITIES IS PRETTY WEAK AND THEY HAVE A HARD TIME DOING THAT. 
          THERE IS POTENTIAL THOUGH. 
          IF THEY COME BACK WITHIN A SECOND, WE'LL BE ALRIGHT. 
          UM, NEXT SLIDE. 
          WE HAD PRESENTATIONS ON SATCOMS FROM SIEMENS AND FROM MAINTAIN THE BRAIN FROM ADVANCED CRYPTO SERVICES. 
          BASICALLY WHAT THEY WOULD DO IS SHUT DOWN ALL THE OPERATIONS, JUST KEEP THE MOTHERBOARD ALIVE, UM, FOR A SECOND. 
          AND IF THEY CAN DO THAT, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO BRING THAT LOAD RIGHT BACK AFTER AFTERWARD. 
          UM, THERE WE GO. 
          SO, UM, NEXT STEPS WE'RE WORKING ON DEVELOPING A PRO A PROCESS FLOW FOR LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTIONS. 
          NEXT MEETING IS SEPTEMBER 19TH. 
          THE MEETINGS FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR ARE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. 
          UM, AND LIKE I SAID, THE DOCUMENT, UM, ON THE FREQUENCY ASKED QUESTIONS IS LISTED THERE. 
          I'VE ALSO BEEN ASKED TO READ A STATEMENT ALL YOU GENERATORS IN THE ROOM WHO ARE SLEEPING RIGHT NOW, WAKE UP FOR A SECOND. 
          UM, ERCOT HAS IDENTIFIED CONCERNS REGARDING POTENTIAL IMPACT OF GENERATOR SHAFTS RELATED TO LARGE LOAD SYNCHRONOUS SUB SYNCHRONOUS OSCILLATION. 
          WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT A LOT MORE IN OCTOBER, NOT SEPTEMBER, BUT OCTOBER. 
          UM, AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND, PARTICULARLY IF YOU ARE CO-LOCATING A SYNCHRONOUS GENERATOR WITH A LARGE LOAD, THAT THERE MAY BE IMPACTS TO YOUR, THE SHAFTS OF YOUR GENERATORS. 
          SO WHILE YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO AVOID THE LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP SO FAR, YOU MIGHT WANT TO ATTEND THAT ONE IN OCTOBER. 
          UM, SO, UM, WITH THAT I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE. 
          ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR BOB BRIAN? YEAH. 
          AS A GENERATOR THAT HAS SHAFTS AND MAYBE A CO-LOCATION, UM, WHAT COULD WE EXPECT TO, TO BE TOLD OR SEE AHEAD OF THAT, THAT MEETING JUST SO I CAN MAKE SURE MY APPROPRIATE SMES THERE? WHAT THEY ARE PARTICULARLY WORRIED ABOUT IS WITH, UM, MORE SO WITH DATA CENTERS THAN CRYPTO CENTERS, BUT THE ISSUE IS THE DATA CENTERS GET A JOB, THEY PROCESS THAT JOB, EVERYBODY'S WORKING, ALL THE COMPUTERS ARE WORKING AT ONCE. 
          THEY SHUT DOWN FOR A FRACTION OF A SECOND AND THEY START UP AGAIN WITH THEIR NEXT PROBLEM. 
          AND IF THEY'RE NOT PROPERLY BALANCED WITH SOME KIND OF BATTERY OR CAPACITOR SOLUTION BACK BEHIND THAT, BEHIND YOUR POINT OF INTERCONNECTION, YOU RUN A HIGHER RISK. 
          WHY IS IT CO-LOCATION? THAT'S THE HIGHER RISK. 
          THE REASON FOR THAT IS YOU DON'T HAVE THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM TO BALANCE OUT THAT SHOCK. 
          SO THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MITIGATION FOR THAT RISK THEN. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR BOB BEFORE WE TURN 'EM LOOSE? THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE. 
          AND SO PART TWO OF THIS ITEM IS THE ERCOT MONTHLY REPORT ON LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTIONS. 
          AND WE SHOULD HAVE JULIE S NIMAN ONLINE FROM ERCOT FOR THAT PIECE. 
          YES. 
          CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME OKAY? WE CAN HEAR YOU JULIE. 
          OKAY, FANTASTIC. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. 
          MY NAME IS JULIE NIMAN. 
          I'M THE SUPERVISOR OF THE LARGE LOAD INTEGRATION TEAM AT ERCOT. 
          A LOT OF Y'ALL ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH ME AT THIS POINT. 
          UM, WE CAN JUST GET RIGHT TO BUSINESS. 
          THIS IS THE USUAL MONTHLY REPORT THAT'S PRESENTED INTACT FOR THE LARGE LOAD QUEUE. 
          SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CURRENT AIR COT Q SITS AT 189 GIGAWATTS OF LOAD. 
          THAT'S UP FROM 182, A LITTLE OVER 182 LAST TIME WE PRESENTED THIS ATTACK. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS THE CURRENT LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION Q SNAPSHOT. 
          UH, A LOT OF Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS. 
          UM, AND TO BOB'S POINT ABOUT BEING BRIEF, I'LL ALSO TRY TO BE BRIEF HERE, BUT I DO WANNA DRAW EVERYONE'S ATTENTION TO THAT ORANGE BAR, 
          [05:10:01]
UM, IN THE CHART THAT IS THE NO STUDY SUBMITTED CATEGORY. 
          SO OUR, OUR QUEUE HAS INCREASED PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY. 
          UM, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE OVER HALF OF THAT QUEUE, UM, IS NOT CURRENTLY SEEING STUDIES SUBMITTED YET. 
          UM, THOSE WOULD BE, UH, PROJECTS THAT HAVE HAD KICKOFF MEETINGS, UM, BUT WE HAVEN'T YET SEEN A, A STABILITY OR A CITY STATE STUDY FOR THE PROJECT. 
          NEXT LINE HERE, YOU CAN SEE OUR APPROVALS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW THAT'S GROWN. 
          THE BLUE CHART REPRESENTS PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED GRAY REPRESENTS APPROVED TO ENERGIZE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND WE'LL SEE THE LOADS APPROVED TO ENERGIZE BREAKDOWN BY ZONE AND PROJECT TYPE. 
          GOT ABOUT 4,000 MEGAWATTS AND LOADS ZONE WEST, LITTLE OVER 3000. 
          AND THE OTHER LOAD ZONES, WE HAVE TO AGGREGATE THAT DATA. 
          ALMOST SIX GIGS OF STANDALONE LOAD AND ONE AND A HALF GIGS OF CO-LOCATED NEXT SLIDE OF THE 7,502 MEGAWATTS THAT HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE AIR COTA OBSERVED IN NON SIMULTANEOUS MONTHLY PEAK CONSUMPTION OF 3,694 MEGAWATTS IN AUGUST. 
          SLIGHT INCREASE SINCE JULY, 2025. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND WE'VE OBSERVED A SIMULTANEOUS MONTHLY PEAK CONSUMPTION OF 3,733 MEGAWATTS IN AUGUST, 2025, WHICH IS A SLIGHT INCREASE SINCE JULY. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND FINALLY THE LARGE LOAD PROJECT DISTRIBUTION SIZE BREAKDOWN. 
          Y'ALL HAVE BEEN SEEING THIS CHART FOR A COUPLE ATTACK MEETINGS NOW. 
          UM, JUST SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HOW THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS FITS INTO THOSE MEGAWATT BUCKETS. 
          SO WE'VE GOT 96 PROJECTS THAT FALL INTO THAT 75 TO 250 MEGAWATT, UM, UH, BRACKET. 
          AND BEFORE I CONTINUE, I SAW THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT'S CONSIDERED A LARGE LOAD. 
          IT'S ANYTHING 75 MEGAWATTS OR GREATER. 
          UM, SO HENCE THAT LOWER END. 
          AND I CAN, YEAH, YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          UH, I CAN GO AHEAD AND, UH, TAKE QUESTIONS. 
          THIS IS MY LAST SLIDE, NED. 
          THANK YOU MARTHA, AND THANK YOU JULIE AS ALWAYS. 
          UM, I HAD A QUESTION. 
          UH, IT, I GUESS IT KIND OF GOES TO SLIDE TWO, BUT ALSO SLIDE UH, THREE. 
          UH, YOU, YOU VOICED OVER THAT, UH, LAST MONTH. 
          THE TOTAL QUEUE WAS AT 180 2. 
          UM, BUT WHEN I'VE, WHEN I'D GONE, WHEN I'D, COMPARED TO LAST MONTH'S SLIDES, IT WAS AT 180 8 AND I HAD NOTICED THAT THERE WERE ALSO, UH, CHANGES FROM THE MONTHLY VALUES AND ON SLIDE THREE FROM, FROM LAST TIME TO THIS TIME, LOOKED LIKE WE MIGHT'VE ACTUALLY SEEN A LITTLE, A SMALL DIP IN THE, IN THE QUEUE FOR SOME OR FOR SOME DELIVERY YEARS. 
          AND I WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT'S THE CASE SINCE THOSE SEEM SEEM TO BE GOING IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS AND OR WAS THERE A DATA CORRECTION THAT, UM, THIS NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT? YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION NED. 
          UM, I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT WHEN WE DO PRESENT THIS AT TAC, UM, WE'RE NOT USUALLY, YOU KNOW, FULLY AT THE END OF THE MONTH IN THIS CASE, WE'VE GOT ABOUT THREE DAYS LEFT, BUT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE'RE CLOSER TO THE, YOU KNOW, THREE QUARTERS OR UH, MARK. 
          AND SO IT COULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW, SORT OF THE FINAL NUMBER AT THE END OF THE MONTH WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, UM, IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, UH, THERE BEING AN INCREASE, BUT MAYBE NOT BEING ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THIS RATE, UH, 20 GIGAWATT INCREASE THAT WE'RE USED TO MONTH TO MONTH. 
          UM, THAT IS A COMBINATION OF, UH, PROJECTS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WERE NOTIFIED, WERE BROUGHT OUT OF THE QUEUE OR, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST DIFFERENT, UH, DIFFERENT, UH, PARTICIPANTS JUST TELLING US THAT, UM, THOSE PROJECTS WERE CANCELED. 
          AH, OKAY. 
          SO A LITTLE BIT OF, LITTLE BIT OF CHURN, WHICH I THINK WE WOULD EXPECT. 
          YEAH. 
          YEP. 
          UH, CONSTANTLY CHANGING. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH, EVAN. 
          EVAN NEIL WITH LANCIA. 
          UM, JULIE, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU. 
          SO THE FIRST ONE HAS TO DO ABOUT THIS CHART THAT WE SEE RIGHT HERE ON THE SCREEN. 
          SO THE PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED NUMBER, THE THE PURPLE ONE. 
          UH, CAN YOU SHED ANY LIGHT ON HOW MANY MEGAWATTS ARE APPROVED CONTINGENT 
          [05:15:01]
A TRANSMISSION PROJECT, UH, BEING BUILT VERSUS HOW MANY PROJECTS ARE APPROVED WITHOUT A TRANSMISSION PROJECT NEED TO BE BUILT FIRST? I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER RIGHT OFF HAND, ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE THE SUGGESTION. 
          'CAUSE I, I DO HAVE SOME SLIDES, UH, IN LIGHT OF, UH, SORRY, I'M HAVING TO KEEP TRACK OF ALL THE NPRS, I BELIEVE IT'S 1267, BUT THE ONE, UM, SORT OF REGARDING THIS UPDATE, UM, THAT I'M, I'M KIND OF WORKING ON CLEANING UP IN ANTICIPATION OF THAT NPRR. 
          UM, THE, THE LANGUAGE I THINK IS A LITTLE BIT DELIBERATELY VAGUE FOR WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. 
          SO, UM, I CAN DEFINITELY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION FOR SOMETHING WE SHOW FOR THIS GROUP, BUT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. 
          OKAY. 
          GREAT. 
          YEAH, I I THINK THAT WOULD BE, UH, A FANTASTIC ADDITION TO THIS REPORT AND JUST BREAKING THAT DOWN FURTHER, LIKE WHETHER OR NOT THAT TRANSMISSION PROJECT NEEDS RPG APPROVAL OR NOT, I THINK WOULD ALSO BE VERY HELPFUL. 
          UM, AND THEN FOR THIS SURE. 
          THANKS. 
          YEP, THANKS. 
          AND THEN, UM, FOR THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD, UM, SO LOOKING AT THE MONTH OVER MONTH DATA ON THESE CHARTS, IT LOOKS LIKE PROBABLY AT LEAST TWO LOADS WERE APPROVED TO ENERGIZE IN THE LAST MONTH. 
          UM, AND SO I'M JUST A LITTLE CURIOUS, 'CAUSE ON THE 23RD OF JUNE, RIGHT, ERCOT PUT OUT THAT MARKET NOTICE SAYING THAT AN INTERIM ASSESSMENT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE TO GAUGE THE CAPABILITIES FOR RIDE THROUGH. 
          UM, BUT KIND OF THE CRITERIA FOR THAT STUDY OR WHAT LIMITATIONS ERCOT MIGHT BE CONSIDERING IN THAT STUDY HAVE NOT YET BEEN SHARED WITH THE MARKET. 
          SO I'M JUST VERY CURIOUS, UM, YOU KNOW, BEING COMPLIANT WITH THAT MARKET NOTICE WHAT PROCESS ERCOT WENT THROUGH TO MAKE THAT EVALUATION. 
          YEAH, EVAN, I, I REALLY CAN'T COMMENT ON SPECIFIC PROJECTS HERE AT TECH, BUT YOU AND I CAN, UH, CHAT OFFLINE ABOUT MORE GENERAL QUESTIONS. 
          YEAH. 
          SO IT'S NOT ABOUT SPECIFIC PROJECTS, RIGHT? IT'S ABOUT ERCOT PUT OUT A MARKET NOTICING THAT THIS REQUIREMENT IS IN PLACE TO ENERGIZE THESE LOADS. 
          AND SO I'M JUST, AS SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO ENERGIZE LOADS IN THE NEAR FUTURE, I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT THAT PROCESS LOOKED LIKE FOR APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE. 
          SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS LESS ABOUT A SPECIFIC PROJECT AND MORE ABOUT WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE TODAY TO HAVE A LOAD BE APPROVED FOR ENERGIZATION. 
          YEAH, AGAIN, I, I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO TALK AFTER EVAN. 
          UM, I'M NOT SURE IF I'LL, I'LL NEED TO GO LOOK BACK AT THE, UH, THE EXACT TIMELINE. 
          I THINK, UM, THOSE WERE SOME, UH, END OF, UH, END OF THE MONTH, UH, UH, KIND OF FINAL ADDITIONS BEFORE THAT MARKET NOTICE WENT OUT. 
          SO, UM, BUT I'LL, I'LL NEED TO CHECK ON EXACT DATES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WELL WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IF WE CAN BRING THAT, UH, ATTACK MEETING SOON. 
          THANKS, BRIAN. 
          HI, JULIE. 
          BRIAN SAMS CALPINE, GOOD TO SEE YOU HERE. 
          THANKS FOR GIVING US SOME TIME. 
          UM, THERE IS A STAFF QUESTION IN, UH, THIS PROJECT 5 8 4 8 0, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH ERCO LOAD FORECASTING. 
          AND THE QUESTION IS, WHAT DEMAND THRESHOLD SHOULD BE USED TO DEFINE LARGE LOAD CUSTOMER FOR PURPOSES OF THIS RULE? AND YOU'VE GOT A GREAT SLIDE IN HERE THAT KIND OF SHOWS, UM, A HISTOGRAM OF DIFFERENT INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS, BUT IT'S, UM, CUT OFF AT 75 MEGAWATTS. 
          I'M CURIOUS IF THERE'S AVAILABILITY OR POSSIBILITY TO GET A HISTOGRAM OR, OR JUST SOME DISTRIBUTION OF LOAD REQUESTS. 
          IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, THAT STAFF QUESTION. 
          YEAH. 
          SO LEMME MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THE QUESTION. 
          ARE YOU REFERRING TO, UM, LIKE WHAT THRESHOLD WE CONS, LIKE MEGAWATT THRESHOLD? WE CONSIDER LARGE LOADS TO BE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE 75 MEGAWATTS, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF I'M MISSING YOUR QUESTION. 
          YEAH, SO IF YOU GO TO SLIDE EIGHT, RIGHT? E EVERYTHING ON SLIDE EIGHT IS 75 OR ABOVE. 
          SURE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND THE, THE COMMISSION FOR LOAD FORECASTING IS SAYING, HEY, WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE DEMAND THRESHOLD TO USE TO DEFINE LARGE LOAD CUSTOMERS? SO I'M CURIOUS IF THERE'S LIKE A BUNCH OF PROJECTS THAT ARE 74.9 THAT WOULD INDICATE MAYBE SOME LOWER THRESHOLD OR MAYBE THERE'S A BUNCH OF PROJECTS THAT ARE AT 25. 
          UM, SO JUST HAVING THIS SLIDE BLOWN OUT IN A WAY THAT'S ANONYMOUS AND SHOWS SORT OF LIKE A, A LARGER DISTRIBUTION OF WHAT I WOULD SAY ARE, YOU KNOW, LARGE, LARGE OR JUST BIG LOADS THAT ARE MAYBE A MEGAWATT OR ABOVE WOULD BE, WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR, UM, INFORMING THE APPROPRIATE CUT POINT FOR WHAT IS A LARGE LOAD IN THAT RULEMAKING. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, IT, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO, TO SPEAK TO ANY, YOU KNOW, I'M HESITANT TO GIVE ANY SORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS POINT AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT, YOU KNOW, IN THAT AND KIND OF SPECIFIC ANALYSIS. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE Y'ALL ARE RUNNING SHOULD BE 
          [05:20:01]
THE THRESHOLD. 
          UM, I'LL JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, PUBLICLY THAT'S, YOU KNOW, 75 MEGAWATTS IS THE, THE AIRCO DEFINITION FOR A LARGE LOAD. 
          BUT, UM, YEAH, AND, AND STAFF IS ASKING, HEY, IS THIS THE APPROPRIATE THRESHOLD? SO JUST HAVING MORE DATA IS HELPFUL AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S AN ERCOT PRESENTATION, UM, THAT THAT'S PART OF THAT WORKSHOP. 
          UM, SO THAT'S LIKE A WEEK FROM MAYBE LESS THAN A WEEK FROM NOW, BUT JUST HAVING MORE INFORMATION THAT SHOWS THE DISTRIBUTION WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GOTCHA. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, AND I'VE BEEN ASKED TO BREAK THE, THE PROJECT DISTRIBUTION SIZE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN INTO SORT OF WHERE ALL THESE PROJECTS ARE AT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THEIR, UH, UH, SORRY, I WAS READING THE CHAT, UM, IN TERMS OF THEIR, UH, LIKE RELATIVE STATUS. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S BEEN NOTED AND WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          CYRUS, DO YOU NEED TO BE IN THE QUEUE? YOU CAN TAKE IT AS A COMMENT, A SUGGESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK JULIE PAUSED TO READ IT, RIGHT? SO, OKAY. 
          UM, LET'S GO TO RAS. 
          ME. 
          HEY JULIE, THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. 
          UM, IS THERE ANY UPDATE ON, UH, THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LOAD AMONG THE DIFFERENT, UH, TYPES OF LOAD? UH, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, UM, WHAT'S THE, UH, NON, UM, DISCOUNTED NUMBER? SO IT USED TO BE 2 0 8, AND THEN AFTER THAT WE HAVE STARTED USING THE DISCOUNTED NUMBER, WHICH STARTED AT 1 58, AND NOW IT IS 180 9. 
          SO WHAT'S THE NON-DISCOUNTED NUMBER AND WHAT'S A SPLIT AMONG THE DIFFERENT TYPE OF ROLES? ANY ROUGH IDEA OR COULD IT BE SENT TO THE TECH MEANING LIST? UH, SORRY, RENE, MAYBE I'M NOT FOLLOWING UP. 
          WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO WHEN YOU'RE SAYING THE SPLIT NUMBER? UM, SO YOU, YOU, YOUR SLIDE HAS THE NUMBER 180 9 3 28, RIGHT? THE TOTAL MEGAWATT, THAT ONE. 
          OH YES. 
          UHHUH . 
          YEAH. 
          I ASSUME THAT ONE IS LIKE, UH, FOR, SAY FOR DATA CENTERS WHICH DOESN'T HAVE, UH, FINANCIAL SECURITY POSTED. 
          LIKE IT'S ONLY ATTEST THAT IS LIKE ONLY 25 PERCENTAGE OF THAT DATA. 
          ROUGHLY 25 PERCENTAGE CONSIDERED, RIGHT? LIKE 55% AND THEN 45% REDUCED, RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          OR AM I MISTAKEN? HEARD THAT PORTION REMI? THIS IS, THIS WOULD BE THE FULL MEGAWATT AMOUNT WHERE THOSE REDUCTIONS GOT APPLIED IS IN THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SO THIS IS, THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE 2 0 8 NUMBER THAT WAS DISCUSSED SOMETIME AGO. 
          UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'LL BE, BE TALKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS MORE ABOUT IS WHAT WE FOUND AS WE STARTED GOING THROUGH THE RFI PROCESS. 
          WE REALIZED THAT THERE'S, UM, INTAKE FOR LARGE LOAD INFORMATION IN MULTIPLE AREAS THAT ARE CAUGHT. 
          UM, THERE MAY BE A LOAD THAT'S SUBMITTED AS A PART OF THE SSWG CASE. 
          THERE MAY BE A LOAD THAT IS SUBMITTED THROUGH THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION QUEUE, OR IT MAY BE A PART OF THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESS PROCESS. 
          AND SO WE'RE LOOKING TO TRY TO, OVER THE NEXT YEAR, REALLY, UH, AND AS WE WORK THROUGH SB SIX RULES, STREAMLINE THE PROCESS FOR HOW WE INTAKE LARGE LOAD INFORMATION SO THAT WE HAVE CONSISTENCY ACROSS ALL THE PROCESSES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO AT THIS POINT, IF WE SAY WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT IT IS 180 9 AND THAT 2 0 8 NUMBER WAS IN R-P-R-P-G CASE OR RTP CASE, WHICH WAS REDUCED TO ONE 50, IS THAT THEN CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND ONE THING I WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK ON ON YOUR, YOUR QUESTION, BRIAN, UM, AND JULIE AND I WERE CHATTING ON THE SIDE, I WAS GONNA ASK HER TO, TO CLARIFY. 
          SO COMING THROUGH THIS QUEUE, THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO COME THROUGH THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION QUEUE IF THERE'S 75 MEGAWATTS OR MORE. 
          WE DO SEE SOME THAT COME IN AT LOWER RATES, BUT WE, UM, UNTIL ALL OF, UM, NPR 1, 2, 3, 4, AND P ONE 15 ARE IMPLEMENTED WHERE THE TSPS ARE REQUIRED TO MODEL 25 AND GREATER, WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE VISIBILITY INTO ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT PULL YOU INFORMATION FOR WHAT WE HAVE IN THE QUEUE, UM, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE REPRESENTATIVE OF EVERYTHING THAT IS OUT THERE JUST AT THIS TIME. 
          SO I'D WANNA CAUTION 
          [05:25:01]
ABOUT HOW THAT, THAT NUMBER WOULD GET USED. 
          UH, THANK YOU CHRISTIE FOR THAT. 
          I, I AGREE WITH, WITH BRIAN THOUGH, THAT TO THE EXTENT THIS IS BETH CHRISTIE, TO THE, TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY OF THAT INFORMATION COULD BE GATHERED AND PROVIDED AS PART OF THE, UH, 5 8 4 8 OH DOCKET, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          UM, HEY, CAITLYN, UM, I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          I DON'T, I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN MISSED. 
          SURE. 
          GO, GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, SO ONE QUESTION WAS THAT DIFFERENCE IN NUMBERS. 
          THE OTHER WAS LIKE, UH, AT SOME POINT AIRCO HAS SHARED, HAD SHARED, UM, THE SPLIT OR THE PERCENTAGE OF HOW MUCH OF THIS LOAD IS DATA CENTER, HOW MUCH IS CRYPTO, HOW MUCH IS HYDRO STUFF, UH, HYDROGEN, STUFF LIKE THAT. 
          UM, IS THAT AN UPDATED NUMBER FOR THAT? OR IF WHAT'S, WHAT IS THE LATEST VERSION OF THAT NUMBER WE CAN LOOK AT? UM, I THINK SMI, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT GOT PRESENTED OR WHAT GOT SUBMITTED TO US IN THE RFI AS A PART OF THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN, THE ERCOT LONG-TERM LOAD FORECAST, I BELIEVE THAT INFORMATION IS POSTED ON THE ERCOT WEBSITE. 
          UM, CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY HOW TO NAVIGATE THERE, BUT IF YOU SEARCH FOR THE ERCOT LONG-TERM LOAD FORECAST, I BELIEVE THE BREAKOUT OF THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          ARE WE GOOD? YES. 
          THANKS. 
          YEAH. 
          ARE WE GOOD? YEAH. 
          THANK YOU, BRIAN, FOR BRINGING THAT UP. 
          THE REASONING BEHIND THIS REALLY ONE SIZE FITS ALL. 
          WE HAVE MULTIPLE RULEMAKING WHERE WE ADDRESS STILL LOAD FORECAST, LARGE LOAD NET METERING. 
          SO THAT WAS JUST TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION. 
          ARE WE MISSING A BIG CHUNK OF IT, LESS THAN 75 OR NOT TO GAUGE THAT? SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ALL AT THE WORKSHOP MONDAY AND DISCUSS IT AND TELL US. 
          THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT, CYRUS? YEAH, WE, WE ALREADY GOT CYRUS OUTTA THE QUEUE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR JULIE? ALL RIGHT, WE CAN MOVE ON. 
          WE 
          [16. ERCOT Reports (Part 2 of 2)]
ARE BACK NOW TO THE UNDER ERCOT REPORTS, UM, DAY HEAD MARKET PRICE CORRECTION, DAVID. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, HELLO EVERYONE. 
          I'M DAVID ZO, MARKET OPERATIONS AT ERCOT. 
          AND, UH, I'LL JUST BE GOING OVER A PRICE CORRECTION WE SAW ON THE DAY AHEAD MARKET CONCERNING, UH, THE INCORRECT LIMIT FOR A GTC. 
          SO ON OPERATING DAY JUNE 27TH, UH, THE DAY AHEAD MARKET USED AN INCORRECT LIMIT FOR THE SAM SWITCH, GTC. 
          UM, WITH THE OUTAGE CONDITIONS OBSERVED ON THAT OPERATING DAY, THE LIMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET TO 431 MEGAWATTS. 
          HOWEVER, THERE WAS A SOFTWARE MALFUNCTION WHERE THE LIMIT WAS ERRONEOUSLY SET TO 9,999 MEGAWATTS INSTEAD. 
          SO EFFECTIVELY NO LIMIT. 
          UH, WE IDENTIFIED THE ISSUE ON JULY 8TH, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO CORRECT PRICES WITHIN THAT TWO BUSINESS DAY TIMEFRAME. 
          ON JULY 25TH, WE ISSUED OUR FIRST, UH, MARKET NOTICE NOTIFYING THE MARKET OF OUR INTENT TO, UH, SEEK BOARD APPROVAL FOR PRICE CORRECTION. 
          UM, UPON THE COMPLETION OF OUR IMPACT ANALYSIS, AND ON AUGUST 19TH, WE ISSUED OUR FOLLOW-UP MARKET NOTICE, UM, WITH THE RESULTS OF OUR PRICE IMPACT ANALYSIS AND REAFFIRMING OUR INTENT TO SEEK BOARD REVIEW AND REQUEST THE APPROVAL OF A PRICE CORRECTION. 
          UH, SO THESE ARE THE RESULTS OF OUR ANALYSIS. 
          UM, THIS IS LOOKING AT THE ABSOLUTE VALUE IMPACT TO SINGLE COUNTERPARTIES. 
          UH, WE HAVE TWO CRITERIA. 
          UM, FIRST ONE BEING AN IMPACT OF 2%, ALSO GREATER THAN $20,000, UM, TO WHICH ONE COUNTERPARTY MET THAT CRITERIA. 
          UH, CRITERIA TWO, AN IMPACT OF 20%. 
          ALSO GREATER THAN $2,000. 
          WE SAW EIGHT COUNTERPARTIES THAT MET THAT THRESHOLD. 
          UH, SOME MORE NUMBERS HERE. 
          THE MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUE IMPACT. 
          UH, THE DOLLAR AMOUNT WE SAW, UH, WAS $26,000. 
          ABOUT, UM, THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE FOR THE COUNTERPARTY THAT MET THE CRITERIA. 
          ONE WAS ABOUT 25%, AND THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE FOR CRITERIA TWO WE SAW WAS ABOUT 116%. 
          THE MAXIMUM ESTIMATED CHANGE IN CHARGES DUE TO ERCOT WAS ABOUT $124,000, 
          [05:30:01]
WHICH AMOUNTED TO, UH, ABOUT 0.01% OVERALL. 
          UM, SO WITH OUR FINDINGS, UM, OUR NEXT STEP WE'LL BE TO FORMALLY SEEK BOARD REVIEW AND REQUEST APPROVAL FOR, UH, CORRECTION TO DAY AHEAD MARKET PRICES AT THEIR NEXT MEETING IN SEPTEMBER. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR DAVID? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT, COREY, UM, ANNUAL, SO NOW WE'RE TWO 
          [17. Other Business (Part 2 of 2)]
OTHER BUSINESS. 
          WE DID THE SEPTEMBER BOARD STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT UPDATE, ANNUAL MEETING OF ERCO MEMBERS, TECH REPRESENTATIVE. 
          THAT IS ME. 
          UM, WE, I'VE RAISED THIS I THINK TWICE AT THE TECH. 
          WE, SO THE ANNUAL MEETING, WE HAVE HAD ONE OR TWO SPEAKERS, MARKET PARTICIPANT SPEAKERS LAST TWO YEARS. 
          WE ARE LOOKING FOR THAT SPEAKER FOR THIS YEAR. 
          YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT WHY YOU LOVE BEING A MEMBER AND HOW WHAT YOU DO FITS INTO ERCOT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES. 
          WELL, WE HAD WE'D, MARTHA WOULD BE GREAT, BUT WE DID HAVE CALL IN LAST YEAR. 
          SO WE'VE HAD ENCORE, UM, I HAD REACHED OUT TO THE CONSUMER AND MUNICIPAL SEGMENTS 'CAUSE I THOUGHT WE MIGHT WANT TO VARY SEGMENTS A LITTLE BIT. 
          SO CLIFF AND I DID IT. 
          THAT'S CO-OP AND GENERATOR SEGMENT. 
          ENCORE DID IT. 
          UM, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE I'VE GOTTEN ANY VOLUNTEERS UNLESS I HAD MISSED THE EMAIL. 
          BRIAN, IS THAT, ARE YOU VOLUNTEERING? I, I'M NOT VOLUNTEERING, BUT I, I I DO JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS ONE OF THE PRIVILEGES OF BEING TECH LEADERSHIP. 
          YES. 
          . 
          AND IT WOULD BE YOUR TURN. 
          I WOULD REALLY LOVE FOR A CONSUMER TO DO IT. 
          I SEE GARRETT RAISING HIS CARD. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS ABOUT TO VOLUNTEER. 
          IF YOU WANNA HEAR ABOUT STEEL, I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT. 
           REALLY? IT'S A HARD TOPIC. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          GARRETT VOLUNTEER. 
          I THINK THAT'S GREAT. 
          MAYBE NOT JUST ABOUT STEEL, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, TAP LOAD STEEL AND STUFF. 
          STEEL AND STUFF AND HOW HAPPY. 
          YEAH, WE'LL TALK ABOUT CONSUMERS, INDUSTRIAL, THE WHOLE THING. 
          I THINK IT WOULD BE, I DON'T WANNA, JOHN RUSS ISN'T HERE, BUT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, RECEIVED SOME COMMENTARY ABOUT HOW IT MAY BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR CONSUMERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALSO, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THEIR REAL STEEL JOB. 
          SO MAYBE YOU COULD TALK ABOUT WHY THIS IS STILL IMPORTANT AND YOU MAKE TIME FOR IT AND PARTICIPATE AND, AND HOW THAT HELPS STEAL. 
          YEAH, NO, HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THE OPPORTUNITY. 
          IT'S GARRETT, WE DID IT. 
          YAY. 
          . 
          THANKS BRIAN. 
          YOU HELPED. 
          UM, OKAY, SO WE DID THAT. 
          ACTION ITEMS REVIEW, MARTHA. 
          YEAH, THANKS. 
          JUST A COUPLE QUICK ONES HERE. 
          UM, NUMBER, I WAS LOOKING INTO NUMBER SEVEN ON THE LIST, WHICH SAYS BRING BACK FOUR CP UPDATE IN SEPTEMBER THAT WAS ASSIGNED TO ERCOT. 
          AND I WAS LOOKING TO DO SOME SCOPING OF THAT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE. 
          I, I TRACED IT BACK TO A DISCUSSION LAST SUMMER, UH, AT TAC FROM THE JULY, 2024 MEETING WHEN RANDY ROBERTS PRESENTED A FOUR CP RELATED ANALYSIS. 
          OUR FEARLESS LEADER, UH, ACTUALLY ASSIGNED THIS ACTION ITEM TO ERCOT. 
          SO I'LL CHECK IN WITH YOU, CAITLIN, AND SEE WHAT YOU WANTED THIS TO LOOK LIKE OR WHETHER IT'S OBSOLETE. 
          NO, I WOULD SAY LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT FOUR P AT THIS TIME UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE FEELS STRONGLY OTHERWISE. 
          SO, UH, WITH THAT'S BEING SAID, THEN I SEE, I SEE CALVIN, I'LL COME TO YOU IN A SECOND. 
          UM, I PROPOSE WE REMOVE THIS FROM THE LIST, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT CALVIN HAS TO SAY AS WELL, JUST AS AN FYI. 
          WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO PRESENT AN UPDATE AT THE UPCOMING, UH, DSWG MEETING ON THIS TOPIC. 
          OKAY, THAT'S GREAT. 
          SO ARE YOU COMFORTABLE IF WE, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. 
          TAKE AWAY THE NUMBER SEVEN. 
          OKAY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND, AND THEN THE LAST ONE I'D WANNA RAISE IS NUMBER NINE. 
          UH, ANDY WYNN, UH, CREATED THIS ONE FOR US. 
          IT'S ABOUT, UM, RECOGNIZING FUEL, TRANSPORTATION AND CONTRACTUAL COSTS, UH, IN MITIGATION 
          [05:35:01]
AND VERIFIABLE COSTS. 
          WE DID APPROVE NPR 1279 TODAY, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS TIED TO THIS ISSUE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A STILL A SUNSET DATE IN, UH, 1279, BUT THAT'S NOT TILL 2027. 
          SO MAYBE A QUESTION TO ANDY OF WHETHER WE COULD REMOVE THIS FOR NOW WITH THE PASSAGE OF 1279 AND THEN PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, ADD IT BACK IN 2027. 
          ANDY? YEAH, THANKS MARTHA. 
          CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YEP. 
          YEAH, THANKS. 
          UM, ANDY, WHEN CONSTELLATION, APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS UP, MARTHA. 
          UM, AND I AGREE WITH YOUR PROPOSED PATHWAY TO AT LEAST STRIKE IT OFF THE ACTION ITEMS LIST. 
          I WILL NOTE THAT ON MONDAY, THIS ITEM WAS ACTUALLY INCLUDED ON THE NPR PRIORITIZATION LIST AS A PRE NPRR ITEMS. SO I FULLY EXPECT US TO, UH, DELIBERATE AND DISCUSS HOW WE CAN ADDRESS THIS LONG TERM IN THE WORKING GROUP AND WORK THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO SEE IF A NPR IS RIPE FOR CONSIDERATION TO, UH, REPLACE THE INEVITABLE SUNSET DATE THAT 1279 HAS. 
          SO, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT CERTAINLY, UM, WE'LL BE MINDFUL OF WHERE THIS WILL BE AND IF, YOU KNOW, THE WORST COMES, WE'LL HAVE IT ADDED BACK ON AS A TECH I ACTION ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT FEEDBACK, NED. 
          YEAH, I WAS ACTUALLY WONDERING IF WE COULD KEEP THIS ONE FOR THE TIME BEING, UH, YOU KNOW, WELL THE, THE NVR IS FOCUSED ON, UM, RUCK ISSUES. 
          THERE CAN BE TIMES WHERE, UH, IT CAN COME UP FOR NON RUCK IS, UH, RESOURCES AS WELL. 
          UM, SO I WANTED TO TO SEE IF WE COULD HOLD THAT FOR, FOR NOW. 
          I THINK WE'LL PUT YOUR NAME ON IT. 
          YEAH. 
          WE'RE GONNA REASSIGN IT TO YOU. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UH, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT TO NED. 
          YEAH, THERE HAS TO BE A HIGHER BAR FOR PUTTING THINGS ON THE LIST BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I'VE INADVERTENTLY PUT THINGS ON THIS LIST. 
          SO WE'RE KEEPING EIGHT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NINE NINE. 
          WE'RE KEEPING THE ONE THAT DEALS WITH ROCK OPTOUT. 
          IS THAT THE ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, NED? NO, I WAS THINKING OF NINE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND WHAT DO YOU WANT IT TO SAY? I MEAN, I THINK AS IT'S, I THINK IT'S BROAD ENOUGH THAT IT'LL, IT'LL ADDRESS, UH, AN ISSUE THAT WE, WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT. 
          UM, AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAD ALSO INCLUDED IN THE, IN THE PRIORITIZATION WORKSHOP MATERIALS AND OKAY. 
          UM, IT'S, IT'S IMPACTS OF, UM, WHERE YOU CAN HAVE REC RESOURCES DRIVING MITIGATION OF NON ROCK RESOURCES THAT THEN RESULTS IN, UH, CAN POTENTIALLY UNRECOVERABLE COSTS. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          CAN WE GET WITH YOU OFFLINE AND YEAH. 
          THAT WORKS. 
          LIKE FIGURE OUT A PRODUCTIVE PATH FORWARD. 
          WE'LL LEAVE IT ON FOR NOW. 
          YEAH, BUT CHANGE IT TO NED. 
          SOMEBODY CHANGE IT. 
          NED'S IN CHARGE NOW. 
          CAN YOU GO UP MARTHA WAS FIVE ALSO ME? I'M NOT SURE. 
          CAN, CAN I LOOK INTO IT AND REPORT? YEAH. 
          NEXT MONTH. 
          I THINK I DON'T SEE DAN WOODFIN HERE ANYMORE. 
          I THINK IT MAY BE SORT OF MOOT 'CAUSE IT WAS A LOT OF THOSE THINGS. 
          COMPLIANCE GO, GO AWAY AFTER RTC AND WE JUST DID 1282. 
          SO MAYBE, UM, I'M, I BET I PUT IT AT LIKE 75% THAT IT WAS MY ITEM AND I I THINK IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO TAKE IT OFF AT THIS TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE SHAKING THEIR HEADS. 
          SO WE'LL DO KILL FIVE INSTEAD OF NINE TODAY. 
          AND, UM, WORK ON SOME WORDING FOR NINE, UH, WITH ASSIGNMENT TO NED FOR NEXT MONTH'S REVIEW. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CAN I ASK A SILLY, UH, NEWCOMER QUESTION? UH, WHY, WHY ARE WE STILL KEEPING STUFF ON THE LIST THAT'S FOUR YEARS OLD? WHY CAN'T WE WHACK IT IF, IF IT CAN'T BE, CAN'T BE IMPORTANT. 
          IF IT HASN'T BEEN RESOLVED IN FOUR YEARS, WHY CAN'T WE JUST WHACK IT OUT OF, UH, FROM A, WE'VE BEEN WHACK, WE'VE BEEN WHACKING A LOT. 
          I'VE TRIED TO WHACK LIKE A COUPLE EVERY MEETING. 
          UM, SO THEY'RE COMING, UH, EITHER THEY'RE GONNA BE RE-SCOPE OR WE'LL FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ACTION ITEMS ACTUALLY ARE AND UM, OR WHACK. 
          SO IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR A DELIBERATE APPROACH. 
          MARTHA HAS DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF THIS. 
          WE PROBABLY CUT THE LIST WE HAD AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR DOWN TO A THIRD OF IT. 
          YEAH, HALF. 
          UM, SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO WHACK THINGS OFF. 
          MM-HMM . 
          EFFICIENTLY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I THINK WE T PROCEDURES ANN? YEAH, JUST QUICKLY WE WILL BE BRINGING SOME CHANGES, UM, TO THE TAC PROCEDURES TO THE OCTOBER TECH MEETING. 
          UM, MAINLY TO FORMALIZE THAT PROCESS OF ME EMAILING 
          [05:40:01]
EVERYBODY FOR THEIR NO VOTES . 
          UM, I KNOW WE HAVE TO INCLUDE THOSE IN THE TAC REPORTS AND SO WE WANTED TO GET IT INTO THE TAC PROCEDURES. 
          AND THEN ALSO WHEN WE WERE LOOKING, UM, AT THE ISSUE OF THE LATE COMMENTS, WE DID POSSIBLY FIND SOME CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE TAC PROCEDURES AND THE PROTOCOLS. 
          SO WE'LL TRY TO TRUE THAT UP. 
          AND IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CHANGES THAT YOU WANNA MAKE TO THE TAC PROCEDURES, UM, YOU CAN BRING 'EM TO OCTOBER TECH. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, LAST THING, SINCE YOU MENTIONED OCTOBER TECH, I GOT A REQUEST FOR LATE START. 
          SEVERAL OF OUR MEMBERS, I HAVE A CONFLICT. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH LIKE AN 11:00 AM START? AS LONG AS IT'S NOT LIKE TODAY. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          NOBODY GOT MAD AT ME. 
          SO I THINK WE'LL LOOK AT THE AGENDA, BUT LET'S YOU KNOW, UNLESS IT LOOKS LIKE A SEVEN, EIGHT HOUR DAY, IF WE COULD DO A 11:00 AM START, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP PEOPLE OUT. 
          OKAY. 
          [18. Combo Ballot (Vote)]
COMBO BALLOT. 
          . 
          A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE. 
          BUT EVERYBODY HAS TO READ THESE THINGS. 
          WHO'S THE MOTION? NED? MOTION HILTON. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND HILTON. 
          AND DON'T ABSTAIN. 
          OKAY. 
          TAKE IT AWAY, CORY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMBO BALLOT, WE WILL BEGIN UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH MARK DREYFUS. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NICK HAD ENOUGH? GARRETT? YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MIKE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BETH? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NAVA. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR CO-OPS, UH, KYLE, FOR MIKE. 
          YES. 
          AND YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THANK YOU, JOHN. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU TREVOR FOR BLAKE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. 
          BOB? YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          KAITLIN? YES. 
          THANK YOU, BRIAN. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, NED. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, COREY. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          UNDER OUR IPM, SETH. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU, REMI. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JEREMY. 
          YES, THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IAN? YES. 
          THANK YOU COREY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ONTO OUR I REPS. 
          BILL? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JENNIFER. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          JAY? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN BILL FOR CHRIS. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND OUR IOUS. 
          RICHARD? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MARTHA? YES. 
          THANK YOU ROB. 
          FOR KEITH? YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          EBY FOR DAVID. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          AND OUR MUNIS, RUSSELL. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU DIANA FOR DAVID. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALICIA. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND ANDREW FOR JOSE. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          THANK Y'ALL. 
          OKAY, LET'S GET OUTTA HERE. 
          UM, WE CAN ADJOURN UNLESS THERE'S OTHER, OTHER BUSINESS. 
          SEE YOU IN OCTOBER. 
          NED'S GONNA ORDER A TRAVELING HIBACHI.
* 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.