* 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.
          ALRIGHT, 
          [00:00:01]
GOOD MORNING. 
          THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. 
          SORRY FOR THE MONDAY MORNING MEETING. 
          UM, AS WE GET SETTLED IN, 
          [1. Antitrust Admonition]
LEMME GO AHEAD AND PULL UP THE ANTITRUST ADMONITION. 
          UH, TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT ANTITRUST LIABILITY, PARTICIPANTS IN NARCOTIC ACTIVITIES SHOULD REFRAIN FROM OPPOSING ANY ACTIONS THAT WOULD EXCEED OR COST AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL STATE LAW. 
          FOR ADDITIONAL INFO, STAKEHOLDERS SHOULD CONSULT THE STATEMENT OF POSITIONAL ANTITRUST ISSUES FOR MEMBERS OF ERCOT COMMITTEES, SUBCOMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS, WHICH IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. 
          SO, 
          [2. Timeline and governance recap (10 mins)]
THE WAY TODAY'S GONNA UNFOLD, UH, I'M STILL WAITING FOR THE ERCOT PACKAGE OF PRESENTATIONS. 
          WHAT WE HAVE IS A COUPLE STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS COME IN ON FRIDAY AND ANOTHER UPDATE THIS MORNING. 
          UM, SO ISH, SO TIME QUESTION NUMBER ONE IS ANYONE OPPOSED TO THE IDEA OF US HITTING THE, UH, DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR THE CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCES AN HOUR FROM NOW? UH, WE HAVE SOME CONFLICTS IN THE AFTERNOON THAT TAKE AG AWAY. 
          THEY'RE NOT IRRESOLVABLE, BUT IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND WALK THROUGH THE MARKET COMMENTS FOR THE FIRST HOUR AND THEN PIVOT OVER TO CLR. 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT? ALRIGHT, SEEING NONE IN THE ROOM, WE WILL GO THAT WAY. 
          AND THEN LET ME SEE IF OUR MATERIALS ARE POSTED. 
          THEY HAVE NOT POSTED JUST YET. 
          SO LEMME WALK THROUGH THE AGENDA TODAY. 
          SO I'LL DO THE TIMELINE AND GOVERNANCE RECAP. 
          WE'LL DO THE MARKET COMMENTS. 
          RECEIVED, UH, WE HAD FOUR NEW SETS OF COMMENTS COME IN. 
          THEY'RE FROM ANJI TRACKED, CRUSO IS SHOPPER, AND THEN, UH, CYPRESS CREEK RENEWABLES. 
          UH, ANDRES SENT THE EXAMPLE FROM LAST MEETING WAS WHAT HAPPENS IF WE RUN A, THE INITIAL BATCH STUDY, THEN WE HAVE COMMITS OR DECOMMIT. 
          AND THEN WHETHER OR NOT BASED ON THOSE DECOM COMMITMENTS, DO WE STILL HAVE A TOPOLOGY THAT HOLDS THE SYSTEM TOGETHER? SO ANDRE'S DONE A, UM, KIND OF A A WHAT IF SCENARIO AND HE'S UPDATED HIS SLIDES THIS MORNING. 
          SO WHAT'S POSTING RIGHT NOW IS GONNA BE REPLACED BY SOMETHING 10 MINUTES FROM NOW. 
          SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT SET. 
          SO THAT'LL PROBABLY TAKE THE FIRST HOUR. 
          RUN US, UM, 9 45 TO 10 45. 
          UH, AT THAT POINT WE'RE GONNA PIVOT AND GO DOWN TO THE, UH, CLR PIECE. 
          AND THEN AFTER THE CLR WE'RE GONNA DO THE DEEP DIVE. 
          KIND OF THE FOUR THEMES TODAY IS AGENDA ITEM FOUR, DEEP DIVE ON ELIGIBILITY. 
          THAT IS ALL, YOU KNOW, THE LION'S SHARE OF COMMENTS WE RECEIVED TO DATE ARE ON ELIGIBILITY AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. 
          SO THAT'LL BE JEFF BILL TAKING US THROUGH THAT AGENDA. 
          ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS A DEEP DIVE ON YEAR SIX, TRANSMISSION PLANNING. 
          UH, SO THE IDEA HAS BEEN IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, BATCH RUNS FIVE YEARS, WE ASSUME EVERYTHING SHOWS UP ON YEAR SIX. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THAT. 
          AND SO JEFF WILL DO A WALK DOWN ON THE PROS AND CONS OF WHETHER OR NOT WE, UH, GO INTO ANOTHER OPTION ON THAT. 
          AND AT THAT POINT WE'LL HAVE ALREADY DONE THE DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR CLR AND THEN WE HAVE THE BRING YOUR OWN GENERATION OPTION. 
          UM, AND SO IN THE EMAIL, I THINK WHERE, HOW HAS IT GONE THROUGH THIS SO FAR? WE BROUGHT FORWARD MULTIPLE OPTIONS. 
          WE CONTINUE TO TAKE SOME OF THOSE OPTIONS OFF THE TABLE TO SEE WHAT WE CAN GET TO THE JUNE 1ST BOARD. 
          RIGHT NOW, WHAT THAT'S LOOKING LIKE IS SELF-LIMITING, IS THE, UM, THE ONE ELEMENT THAT WE THINK WE CAN LATCH ONTO AND FINISH WELL, UH, THE PUN PLUS, UM, I KNOW THAT SAM BRANDON WANTED TO DO SOME, A LITTLE WALK DOWN ON THAT. 
          SO WE'LL STILL GIVE THE IDEA OF WHAT A PUN PLUS COULD LOOK LIKE AND WE MAY BE SURPRISED IT MAY SIMPLIFY SOME THINGS THAT WE HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT. 
          SO HE'LL HAVE THE FLOOR FOR, UM, THAT TIME WITH SLIDES THAT ARE BEING POSTED ALSO. 
          SO WITH THAT, LET'S HIT THE REFRESH BUTTON. 
          OH MAN, I'VE GOT GOOD PEOPLE. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST IN TIME. 
          BIT EARLY. 
          WOO. 
          AMEN. 
          OKAY, WE'RE READY FOR OUR MEETING NOW. 
          UH, AND BY THE WAY, THANKS TO A LOT OF PEOPLE WORK NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS ON THE ERCOT SIDE. 
          I KNOW TACK KEEPS SAYING NICE THINGS, BUT, UM, JEFF, AG, CHRISTINA, EVAN, THERE'S A LOT OF, HEY, RYAN, HOW'S GOING ON WEEKEND WORK GOING INTO THIS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN? ALRIGHT, SO LEMME TEE US UP. 
          OF COURSE, OF COURSE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND WE'RE GETTING SOME FEEDBACK ON THE PHONE IF YOU CAN MUTE YOURSELVES AND OFF WE GO. 
          , YES, ? UH, YES, WE HEAR YOU TALKING. 
          IF YOU'RE LAUGHING, WE HEAR YOU. 
          IF YOU CAN PLEASE MUTE YOURSELF. 
          WE'RE GONNA TRY TO FIND THE HAMMER, BUT IF WE CAN'T, THERE'S ONLY 166 TO GO THROUGH HERE. 
          SEE IF I CAN FIND IT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE, I LOOKED AT, UM, GOTHAM. 
          THERE IT IS. 
          OKAY, THAT'S FUN. 
          SUCH POWER . 
          ANYONE ELSE? OKAY, LET'S START THE MEETING. 
          OKAY, IT'S MONDAY. 
          GOOD MORNING, HAVE SOME COFFEE. 
          MY NAME'S MATT MARINAS ON BEHALF OF THE TEAM. 
          WELCOME. 
          WE'RE HONORED TO BE HERE AND START TO WALK THROUGH THE UPDATE FOR WORKSHOP NUMBER SIX. 
          UH, I JUST DID THE VOICEOVER ON THIS. 
          AGAIN, THESE FOUR STAKEHOLDER SETS WILL HIT PLUS ANDRE, UH, IN TERMS OF TIMELINE AND 
          [00:05:01]
GOVERNANCE, WE ARE ALREADY WORKSHOP SIX TIME FLIES, AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANOTHER MEETING NEXT WEEK. 
          UM, AND THE IDEA IS AS WE GET TO THE END OF THAT WORKSHOP SEVEN NEXT WEEK, THE ASSUMPTION WITH TAC LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN TO THEN PIVOT INTO DEDICATED ROS WORKSHOPS AND OR PRS WORKSHOPS TO GET US THE REST OF THE WAY. 
          YOU SAY, WELL, WILL IT CHANGE? WELL, IN SOME WAYS, NO, IT'S STILL HERE, IT'S STILL, EVERYONE'S WELCOME IT AND CAN SAY WHAT THEY SAY, BUT WE START TO HAVE THE VOTING MEMBERS AROUND THE TABLE BECAUSE IT'S THE VOTERS THAT ARE GONNA GET THIS OFF OF THE, UM, ESPECIALLY ON THE PLANNING GUIDE REVISION FOR ROS IS THE VOTING STRUCTURE TO GET IT OUT. 
          AND THEN ON THE PRS SIDE IS THE NPRR. 
          SO THAT'S WHY YOU START TO SAY WHY IF THE WORKSHOPS GO AWAY, WHAT TAKES THEIR PLACE. 
          BECAUSE IF YOU NOTICE, WE'RE STILL GONNA HAVE A MEETING EVERY WEEK FOR THE ALL OF APRIL. 
          SO WE GET TO SEE EACH OTHER ALL THE TIME. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, ERCOT HAS A, UH, THE ASPIRATIONAL, SO WE BELIEVE WE HAVE WHAT WE NEED TO GET THE, UH, CONTROL LOAD RESOURCE NPRR POSTED BY APRIL 8TH. 
          UH, THAT'S STILL A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE. 
          UH, AGAIN, AG AND THE TEAM HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THAT. 
          THE BYOG, WE PROBABLY WON'T HIT THAT APRIL 8TH, I'LL JUST BE HONEST. 
          BUT WE HOPE TO BRING MORE INFORMATION TO THE APRIL 9TH MEETING, UH, THAT WE MAY HAVE. 
          UH, ONE PIECE, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT'S IN THE SLIDES HERE, IS WE DO WANT TO GET OUR NEXT ROUND OF COMMENTS OUT, UM, A WEEK AHEAD OF THE NEXT MEETING. 
          I THINK THAT'S ON THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          REMINDER OF HOW TO FILE COMMENTS. 
          SO ON THE PUC SIDE, I'M, I'M GOING OFF SCRIPT HERE. 
          UH, WE ARE GETTING A LOT OF QUESTIONS ERCOT ON HOW THIS IS INTERPRETED, HOW THIS SHOULD BE DONE, EDUCATIONAL SLIDES, WE'RE STRUGGLING TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THE OTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS. 
          IF SOMEONE WANTS TO OWN AND OR PRESENT ON FINANCIAL STUFF AT THE NEXT MEETING, I WOULD WELCOME THAT PERSON THAT SAYS, I WANT TO TACKLE THIS AND TALK ABOUT FOLLOW THE MONEY, FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW IT WORKS. 
          AND BARKSDALE MAY, I'M SEEING IF I'M GETTING SHOOTING DARTING EYES AT HIM. 
          BUT IF YOU ARE SOMEONE THAT'S DEEPLY IN TUNE WITH THIS, YOU'RE ASKING A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING THE ENGINEERING SIDE, THE FINANCIAL SIDE, WE'D LIKE TO OFFLOAD THAT TO SOMEONE FOR THE NEXT WORKSHOP IF SOMEONE WANTS TO VOLUNTEER. 
          SO WHETHER YOU WANNA BE THE SUPERHERO TODAY OR EMAIL ME AFTER THE FACT, THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC SUPERHERO. 
          ALRIGHT, BARATH, THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WHAT DOES BARATH NEED TO BRING TO US FOLKS BE THINKING ABOUT? WHAT IS IT? SO HE'S GONNA BRING US A ROCK. 
          I DON'T WANT HIM TO BRING A ROCK. 
          AND PEOPLE ARE LIKE, THAT'S NOT THE ROCK WE NEED. 
          HERE'S WHAT WE'RE CONFUSED ON. 
          UM, AND MAYBE TODAY IS THE MEETING UNFOLDS. 
          SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME IN ARE ABOUT THE FINANCIAL SIDE. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WE CAN KIND OF MENTALLY BE KEEPING TRACK OF ANY CONFUSION THAT WE HAVE AND HOW THAT MET KIM FORWARD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND AGAIN, PEOPLE MAY SAY, WHY, WHY AREN'T WE, OH, GO AHEAD, JEFF, FINISH YOUR THOUGHT. 
          AND THEN I ADD A COUPLE COMMENTS. 
          WHY IS ERCOT NOT TRYING TO TAKE THIS HEAD ON? THIS HAS BEEN, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO SHADOW WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THE COMMISSION. 
          UH, THE IDEA IS ALL OF THAT FINANCIAL AND THE DECISIONS AROUND IT ARE THAT IS THE MODEL THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING. 
          UH, BARKSDALE AT THE LAST MEETING TALKED ABOUT, THERE MAY BE A FORK IN THE ROAD BASED ON TIMING AS WE GET TO BATCH ZERO, WHERE THERE MAY BE A, YOU KNOW, BREAK LEFT AND THEN FINISH IT OFF. 
          UH, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO RIGHT NOW FOLLOWING THE MONEY BASED ON WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE, UH, THE PFP, UH, THAT'S WHERE I'M CONCERNED WHETHER OR NOT TO USE SOME HELP. 
          BUT JEFF, YOU CAN OVERRIDE ME ON ANY OF THIS. 
          GO AHEAD, MR. BILLOW. 
          WELL, I, I THINK YOU, YOU COVERED PART OF WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY IS, IS A LOT OF THIS IS, UH, AT, AT THE COMMISSION FOR 58 41. 
          SO IT, I THINK WHAT WE DON'T WANT IS, I DON'T LIKE WHAT THE COMMISSION RULES ARE. 
          THAT THAT'S NOT TO DISCUSS HERE. 
          LIKE WE, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE WHATEVER THE DIRECTION WE GET FROM THE COMMISSION AND THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT. 
          UH, SO IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON SPECIFICS ON 58 41, UM, MARKDALE MENTIONED IT MULTIPLE TIMES THAT THERE'S A COMMENT PROCESS AT THE COMMISSION FOR THAT. 
          UM, THE, THE OTHER THING THAT, UM, I, I THINK THAT WE HAVE BEEN TAKING FOR GRANTED, BUT WE, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT THIS. 
          UH, AND, AND SO WE ADDED A NOTE IN RED ON THIS SLIDE. 
          UH, SO TO CLARIFY, SO OUR, OUR INTENTION IS, UH, IF WE THINK ABOUT BATCH ZERO, UH, WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE WHATEVER 58 41 DRAFT PFP SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT, UH, AS WE GO INTO THE BATCH ZERO. 
          SO ELIGIBILITY TO GET IN WILL BE BASED ON THAT 58 41 RULE. 
          UM, HOWEVER, UH, SO, SO THAT STARTS THIS SUMMER. 
          UH, THE RULEMAKING WE EXPECT TO BE DONE, UH, I DON'T RE REMEMBER THE DRAFT TIMELINE, BUT I THINK SAY EARLY FALL, ROUGHLY, UM, BAT ZERO GETS COMPLETED IN JANUARY OF NEXT YEAR. 
          UH, AND SO OUR INTENTION IS IT IF THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT, IF THOSE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS, IF THOSE CHANGE THAT FINANCIAL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS, IF THOSE CHANGE IN, UM, 
          [00:10:01]
YOU KNOW, SAY SEPTEMBER OR WHENEVER IT IS THAT 58 41 GETS FINALIZED, THEN WE WILL FILE A PIGGER TO UPDATE THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN THE PLANNING GUIDE SUCH THAT IN, UH, JANUARY WHEN BACTERIA WAS DONE, THE REQUIREMENTS THAT LOAD LOADS WILL NEED TO MEET WILL MATCH WHATEVER THE FINAL IS IN 58 41. 
          UH, SAME THING ON THE TIMELINE. 
          WE'VE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT, HEY, 30 DAYS IS REALLY SHORT, UH, 30 DAYS COMES, UH, STRAIGHT OUT OF 58 41. 
          IF THAT CHANGES, THEN WE WILL CHANGE THE, UH, THE PLANNING GUIDE WITH A, A NEW PICKER THAT, UH, WE WOULD HOPE TO GET IMPLEMENTED BY, UH, JANUARY. 
          UH, SO JUST WANT, WANTED TO MAKE THAT, UH, CLARIFICATION TODAY. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH, JEFF. 
          THANKS. 
          THANKS ALL THAT, MATT AND JEFF, UM, I ALSO JUST WANNA SAY THAT FOR THE RULEMAKING PROCESS, THE COMMENT DEADLINE 4 58 41 IS APRIL 17TH, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE DATE OF AN OPEN MEETING. 
          AND, UM, MAY BE, AND I'M NOT PROMISING ANYTHING, BUT IT MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO WEIGH IN, UM, ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF BATCH ZERO SPECIFICALLY. 
          SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A UNIQUE SITUATION HERE IN TERMS OF OUR RULE MAKING AND WE'RE TRYING TO LINE ALL OF THESE THINGS UP AT THE SAME TIME. 
          YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER FILING SOME COMMENTS PRIOR TO APRIL 17TH. 
          IF YOU ARE SERIOUSLY CONCERNED, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE FINANCIAL SECURITY PIECE, YOU CAN SUBMIT MORE THAN ONE SET OF COMMENTS, THAT'S OKAY. 
          UM, YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE YOUR COMMENTS IN BY APRIL 17TH, UM, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO, YOU KNOW, BE OFFICIALLY CONSIDERED, UH, IN THAT RULEMAKING PROCESS. 
          THE OTHER THING THAT I'D LIKE TO ADD, IF THAT'S OKAY, MATT, IS UM, WHATEVER OUR SUPERHERO IS GONNA BE TAKING ON IN TERMS OF PRESENTING ON FINANCIAL SECURITY, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE IS TAKING ANYTHING THAT'S BEING SAID HERE OR THAT MAY BE SAID IN THE FUTURE AS LEGAL COUNSEL ABOUT WHAT DOES THE PROPOSED RULE OR THE PROPOSED NPRR OR PIGGER MEAN FOR MY PROJECT SPECIFICALLY. 
          AND THEN IF THAT ADVICE TURNS OUT TO NOT BE EXACTLY RIGHT FOR YOUR SPECIFIC PROJECT, DON'T COME CAST IN KRYPTONITE, ROCKS OUT OUR MAN OVER HERE. 
          SO VERY GOOD. 
          THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND WE HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS COME IN. 
          UM, FIRST OF ALL IS KENT WINDROW, GO AHEAD. 
          THANKS, KENT. 
          WITHROW WITH CUSTOMIZED ENERGY SOLUTIONS. 
          I GUESS THIS COMMENT IS FOR BAR ROTH IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE MONEY, THE QUESTION THAT WE SEE POPPING UP OVER AND OVER IS JUST ON THE, THE FINANCIAL SECURITY REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, AND BASICALLY DOES THE $50,000 PER MEGAWATT FROM THE INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT STAGE, HOW MUCH OF THAT ROLLS OVER TO THE INTERCONNECTION FEE, UM, FEE, UH, STAGE, UM, AT THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT, UM, PHASE OF THE PROCESS? SO IS IT ALL OF IT ROLLS OVER, NONE OF IT ROLLS OVER, OR IT CAN PARTIALLY, UM, ROLL OVER AND BE APPLIED? THE INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT PART CAN BE APPLIED AS AS, UM, PART OF THE INTERCONNECTION FEE. 
          THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT SEEMS TO BE, THERE SEEMS TO BE A COUPLE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF AT LEAST THE DRAFT RULE AS IT STANDS FLOATING AROUND OUT THERE. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT SEEMS PEOPLE SEEMS TO BE, UH, PRIMARILY CONCERNED ABOUT. 
          SO YOU DIRECTED THAT TO BROTH. 
          SO IF YOU CAN TACKLE THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          YEAH. 
          SO BRO, DO YOU WANNA RESPOND? YEAH, I MEAN BOX STILL CAN ADD TO THIS, BUT I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU POST AT THE INTERMEDIATE STAGE $50,000 PER MEGAWATT AND IT GOES FIRM OR NON-REFUNDABLE INTER INTERCONNECTION STAGE. 
          IS THAT ACCURATE AS PER THE CURRENT DRAFT ? WELL, LET'S JUST, LET'S NOT TRY TO GET PEOPLE ON RECORD FOR WHAT WE THINK IT ALL, HOW'S IT GONNA WORK? SO YEAH, BUT WE HEAR THE QUESTION. 
          I THINK THAT WAS THE NEXT QUESTION THAT CAME THROUGH THROUGH AI IS THE TAG ON IT. 
          IF YOU CAN LOG IN AS YOUR NAME OR YOUR COMPANY, THAT WOULD HELP. 
          I'M NOT USUALLY GONNA CALL ON AI, UM, BUT SIMILAR QUESTION ABOUT THE 50,000 AT THE, UH, INTERMEDIATE AND THE INTERCONNECTION. 
          UH, EXACTLY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU BET. 
          ALRIGHT, AND THEN DANIEL MCGRAW, I GUESS YOUR HAND WENT UP AND BACK DOWN. 
          DID YOU WANT HAVE SOMETHING TO ASK? WE PUT YOU IN THE QUEUE. 
          ALRIGHT, WE'LL LET THAT ONE GO. 
          SO WE'LL CLEAR THE QUEUE AT THIS POINT AND MOVE ON. 
          THANK Y'ALL. 
          UH, YEAH, GO AHEAD RAY IF YOU GOT A QUICK ONE. 
          CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME ALRIGHT? YES, WE CAN, SIR. 
          AWESOME. 
          JUST A QUICK QUESTION. 
          UH, THANKS RAY COREY, ENERGY POLICY MANAGER AT AMAZON WEB SERVICES. 
          JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THE, THE, UM, FINANCIAL SECURITY AND AND COSTS. 
          DO WE ANTICIPATE THERE BEING A, A TOTAL CAP FOR WHAT YOU PAY FOR THESE INTERCONNECTION 
          [00:15:01]
FEES OR IS IT UNLIMITED TO THE POINT OF WHAT YOU ARE SUBMITTING AS A MEGAWATT? THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, IS THAT PART OF THAT WRITEUP? OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, OFF WE GO. 
          SO MARCH 4TH IS WHEN WE FILED THE ERCOT, WE, SORRY, FILED THE BATCH ZERO FIGURE 1 45 AND NPR 1325. 
          ALL THE COMMENTS TO DATE HAD BEEN ON P 1 45 BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE 99% OF THE INFORMATION IS. 
          UH, ERCOT POSTED ITS INITIAL SET OF COMMENTS ON MARCH 17TH, WHICH WAS MID MONTH. 
          WE'RE HERE AT THE END OF THE MONTH. 
          WE'RE GETTING READY TO THIS WEEK RELEASE THE NEXT ROUND OF COMMENTS, PART OF WHICH THE DISCUSSION TODAY WILL HELP WITH ALSO, IT'S A BIG BACKLOG OF 21 SETS OF COMMENTS TO NAVIGATE THROUGH AND MAKE SURE WE'VE CAUGHT EVERYTHING. 
          SO, UM, WORKSHOP NUMBER SIX TODAY IS THE MAJOR THEMES. 
          YES, HERE WE ARE APRIL 2ND TARGET FOR THE SECOND SET OF COMMENTS, WHICH WILL BE A WEEK BEFORE WORKSHOP NUMBER SEVEN, UM, TO THEN GO THROUGH. 
          WE WILL HAVE GIVEN YOU OUR COMMENTS A WEEK AHEAD OF THE MEETING. 
          SO THEN YOU CAN FILE COMMENTS AND WE COME TO THE MEETING AND I'LL PUT A DATE ON THERE PROBABLY TWO DAYS BEFORE THE WORKSHOP TO SAY WHOEVER GETS THEIR INFORMATION IN OR COMMENTS IN BY THEN CAN THEN PRESENT ON THEIR COMMENTS LIKE WE DID BEFORE. 
          SO WE'LL DO THAT ROUND ONE MORE TIME. 
          AND THEN AGAIN, THE IDEA OF CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCE AND BYOG, GETTING THAT OUT AND THE LONG TERM BATCHES OUT OF SCOPE FOR NOW. 
          HEY MATT, REAL QUICK? YES, JEFF. 
          UM, SO JUST BE TRANSPARENT. 
          I THINK APRIL 2ND ASPIRATIONAL TARGET. 
          I THINK FRIDAY IS MORE LIKELY, UH, FOR OUR SECOND SET OF COMMENTS. 
          UM, BUT WE, WE WILL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. 
          ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD. 
          THANKS JEFF. 
          ALRIGHT, UM, P 1 45 
          [3. Review any new comments received]
FEEDBACK. 
          SO HERE'S WHERE I'M GONNA PAUSE. 
          SO, UM, AGAIN, ANJI TRACK, CRUSO AND SHOPPER, UH, ALL FILED COMMENTS AND WE CAN GO IN ORDER OF THE AS RECEIVED. 
          UM, I EMAILED THEM BUT I DID NOT TRY TO ASK FOR CONFIRMATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 
          SO BOB HILTON, DID YOU WANT TO TAKE ON A SET OF COMMENTS THAT I CAN OPEN FOR YOU? UH, SURE, YEAH, I MINE MINE'S REAL QUICK, SO, YEP. 
          YOU CAN START WHILE I'M GETTING THERE OR YOU CAN PAUSE 10 MORE SECONDS HERE. 
          YEAH, I MEAN REALLY I, I'M NOT GONNA READ THROUGH 'EM 'CAUSE THEY ONLY HIT ONE ISSUE AND THAT'S THE, UH, USING THE RETROACTIVE DATES, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS THE MARCH 4TH DATE RATHER THAN LOOKING AT A DATE, YOU KNOW, AFTER APPROVAL OF THE PI BY THE COMMISSION, WHICH WE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF TIED THAT IN WITH WHAT, UH, WAS IN THE ENCORE COMMENTS OF THE JULY THE 10TH, UH, SO THAT WE COULD KEEP THAT ALL CONSISTENT. 
          UH, AND, AND ACTUALLY IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT OUR COMMENTS BACK, UH, BEFORE WHEN YOU WERE GOING AFTER THE, UH, GOOD CAUSE EXEMPTION, WE COMMENTED ON THE SAME ISSUE, DIFFERENT DATE, BUT THE SAME ISSUE. 
          SO, UH, WE JUST ARE TRYING TO CARRY CONSISTENCY THROUGH THAT AND TO IMPLEMENT THIS ONCE IT'S APPROVED RATHER THAN HAVING PIECES OF IT BEING IMPLEMENTED BEFORE IT'S APPROVED AND USING THOSE DATES. 
          SO THAT, THAT'S REALLY OUR, OUR EARLY COMMENT. 
          SO I THINK THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY ON THAT. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          SO THAT'S . 
          ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR BOB? ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD AND SHUT THIS ONE DOWN. 
          NEXT ONE WAS TRACKED. 
          DID SIR. 
          GOOD MORNING. 
          THIS IS OR ALWOOD TRACKED. 
          MATT, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, YOU SURE CAN. 
          GO AHEAD, SIR. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          UM, THANKS AGAIN TO ERCOT FOR, FOR THIS WHOLE PROCESS. 
          I'VE BEEN THE UNFORTUNATE VETERAN WITH LOTS OF GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION AND LOAD INTERCONNECTION QUEUE REFORMS, AND THIS HAS DEFINITELY BEEN THE MOST, UM, UH, THE, THE MOST AMOUNT OF FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED FROM, FROM THE REFORMING ENTITY. 
          SO REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE FEEDBACK AND THE CHANGES. 
          UM, WE'VE MADE SIX PROPOSED REVISIONS, UH, TO THE PGRR IN IN THIS COMMENT. 
          UH, I'M NOT GONNA GO IN DEPTH ON ALL SIX, UM, BUT I'LL, I'LL TOUCH A FEW OF 'EM IN PARTICULAR. 
          SO THE FIRST IS REQUIRING THE REFUND OF THE BAT ZERO BASE LOAD NON, UH, REFUNDABLE FEE IF THAT BASE LOAD IS INVALIDATED, UM, AND KICKED TO THE STUDIED OR ALLOCATED BUCKET OF BADGE ZERO. 
          UM, IN JU THE WAY IT'S PROPOSED IN JULY, UM, UH, AN ILLE WOULD HAVE TO PUT DOWN THE NON-REFUNDABLE FEE IN ORDER TO GET INTO BATCH ZERO BASE, BUT IN AUGUST, UM, THAT ILLE COULD BE TOLD THAT THEIR STUDIES ARE INVALID, UH, BY ERCOT AND THEREFORE THEY WOULD BE STUDIED AS PART OF BAT ZERO STUDIED OR ALLOCATED. 
          WHEN THEY GO THROUGH BAT ZERO, STUDIED OR ALLOCATED, THEY COULD END UP RECEIVING FEWER MEGAWATTS IN WHAT THEY'VE REQUESTED, INCLUDING THEY ZERO MEGAWATTS. 
          [00:20:01]
AND SO WE THINK IT'S IN UNE INEQUITABLE AND, AND UNINTENDED THAT, UH, AN ILLE WITH AN ALLOCATION OF ZERO MEGAWATTS WOULD HAVE TO BE CHARGED AND NOT A NON-REFUNDABLE FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 PER MEGAWATT. 
          UM, WE THINK IN THE LAST WORKSHOP, ERCOT ACKNOWLEDGED THIS ISSUE. 
          UM, AND, AND SO WE HOPE YOU ALL ARE WORKING ON CHANGES TO IT. 
          WHAT WE RECOMMEND IS BASICALLY YOU HAVE ONE EXCEPTION FOR WHEN THIS NON-REFUNDABLE FEE DOES BECOME REFUNDABLE. 
          AND THAT ONLY EXCEPTION WOULD BE WHEN ERCOT DEEMS THE ILLE, UH, STUDIES TO BE INVALID, UM, THAT ILE WOULD STILL HAVE TO PUT UP THE NON-REFUNDABLE FEE IF THEY PROCEED TO THE, TO THE JANUARY OR FEBRUARY, UM, FULL BATCH STUDY. 
          AND AT THE POINT THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT DOWN THEIR COMMITMENT IN THAT FEBRUARY OR MARCH 27 TIMEFRAME, THEN THEY'D HAVE TO PUT DOWN THE NON-REFUNDABLE FEE. 
          UM, SECOND ARGUMENT, HEY, REAL QUICK, LET ME JUST YEAH. 
          POINT. 
          SO AS YOU SAID, ERCOT NEEDS TO CONSIDER THAT WOULD BE THE WORLD THAT, THAT'S THE PUC DECISION. 
          SO WHAT WE HAVE IN THE PIGGER IS REFLECTIVE OF THE PUC OH, WHOA, WHOA, WHOA, SORRY. 
          ERCOT ACKNOWLEDGED THIS LAST TIME THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON THAT ER, ERCOT ACKNOWLEDGED THIS LAST TIME THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON THIS. 
          WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT'S THE CASE AND THAT WE'RE AVAILABLE TO WORK ON LANGUAGE, UM, WITH YOU GUYS. 
          SORRY. 
          NOPE, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. 
          CHRISTINA SWITZER, OUR SENIOR REGULATORY COUNCIL. 
          THAT IS SOMETHING WE ACKNOWLEDGED LAST TIME AND ARE WORKING ON. 
          IT'S, IT'S THE TIMING OF WHICH AGREEMENT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE, WHEN AND HOW AND WHICH BUCKET YOU'RE THEN IN FOR WHETHER YOU'RE STUDIED OR BASE LOAD. 
          SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE'RE AWARE OF AND ARE LOOKING AT HOW TO ADDRESS. 
          ALRIGHT, MY COMPLETE APOLOGIES OR, UM, SO YOUR QUESTION IS VALID. 
          I WAS WRONG. 
          YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          LET'S KEEP GOING. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          POINT TWO. 
          NO, NO WORRIES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, THE, THE SECOND POINT IS, IS THE SAME ONE THAT BOB JUST HIT, WHICH IS ALLOW PROJECTS WHOSE STUDIES ARE COMPLETED BY THE TIME THAT ERCOT PGRR BECOMES EFFECTIVE FOR THOSE STUDIES TO BE USED TO GET INTO BAT ZERO BASE. 
          UM, WE THINK THAT THE MARCH 4TH CUTOFF IS, UH, UNJUSTIFIED, UH, RESULT IN WASTE. 
          UM, THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN TALKED ABOUT. 
          THE ONE I WANT TO TALK, THE ONE REASON WHY WE THINK THAT, UM, THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED, UH, THAT I DON'T THINK HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT AS MUCH IS BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING GUIDANCE BY PUCT, UM, AT THEIR FEBRUARY OPEN MEETING, UM, THAT SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, PLANNING GUIDE SECTION NINE PGR ONE 15 IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. 
          THAT IS WHAT IS EFFECTIVE. 
          AND IF YOU MOVE WITH THIS MARCH 4TH CUTOFF DATE, THEN ESSENTIALLY THAT, THAT, THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THE EXISTING LAW OF THE LAND, UM, TO, TO, TO BE THE WAY THAT PROJECTS MOVE FORWARD. 
          UM, SO THOSE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN MOVING FORWARD, UM, SOME OF THESE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE RPGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED IN IN SPRING OR SUMMER OF 25. 
          SO IT'S NOT LIKE THESE ARE LATE DELUGE ISSUES, UM, WHICH WE TOTALLY UNDERSTAND AND WE THINK THAT THE DECEMBER CUTOFF TAKES CARE OF, OF THE DELUGE CONCERN. 
          UM, BUT WE DO THINK THAT BECAUSE THE PUC SAID THE LAW OF THE LAND REMAINS IN PLACE UNTIL THIS PGR 1 45 IS ADOPTED, THAT THOSE STUDIES WHO FOLLOWED THAT EXISTING LAW, IF THEY ARE COMPLETED BY THE TIME THAT THE THE REVISION REQUEST BECOMES EFFECTIVE, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE THOSE STUDIES TO QUALIFY FOR BADGE ZERO BASE. 
          UM, WE THINK THAT ULTIMATELY TAKES CARE OF THE UNDERLYING CONCERN, WHICH IS THAT THOSE STUDIES SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED RELIABLE WAYS TO, TO INTERCONNECT TO THE GRID IN A RELIABLE FASHION. 
          UM, AND SO WE, WE, WE THINK THAT STUDIES THAT COMPLETE BY JULY 10TH SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE USED TO GET INTO BAT ZERO BASE. 
          UM, THIRD ARGUMENT, UM, I I WON'T GET INTO MUCH HERE, MATT, BECAUSE A A AS YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, REALLY THESE ARE ARGUMENTS, UM, IN FRONT OF THE PUCT FOR 5 8 4 8 1. 
          SO WE WILL ADDRESS THOSE IN COMMENTS DUE TO THE COMMISSION, UM, BY APRIL 17TH. 
          THE ONLY THING I WANT TO P POINT OUT HERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHILE THE PUC IS DECIDING WHAT SHOULD BE THE STANDARDS FOR NEW INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS, WE THINK IT'S WELL WITHIN ERCOT DISCRETION AND, AND ERCOT JURISDICTION TO DECIDE WHO GETS INTO BADGE ZERO. 
          UM, AND SO WE DON'T THINK YOU, YOU HAVE TO BE, UM, YOU HAVE TO BE WEDDED TO WHAT THE PUC LANGUAGE IS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE PUC LANGUAGE IS GOING TO BE ISSUED IN FINAL ORDER AFTER BAT ZERO BASIS SORT OF, UM, INTAKED IN JULY. 
          UM, BUT I, I RESPECT THAT THAT'S REALLY AN ARGUMENT IN FRONT OF THE PUCT, SO WE CAN SKIP THE REST OF THAT FOR NOW. 
          UM, SAME THING WITH REMOVING NON-REFUNDABLE SECURITY. 
          WE'LL ADDRESS THIS IN OUR COMMENTS TO PUCT, 
          [00:25:02]
BUT ULTIMATELY THE POINT IS THAT FOLKS WILL BE SIGNING UP FOR AN INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT WITH 50 K PER MEGAWATT DOWN, AND 80% OF THAT IS POTENTIALLY NON-REFUNDABLE EVEN BEFORE THE ILE KNOWS IT'S CAPACITY TIMING OR ULTIMATE COST OF ITS LOAD RAMP. 
          UM, WE THINK THAT'S INEQUITABLE AND THAT'S GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE COST OF OBTAINING FINANCIAL SECURITY. 
          IT'S NOT GONNA BE THE ONE TO 3% CARRY COST THAT I THINK FOLKS ARE GENERALLY, UH, FAMILIAR WITH. 
          AND FROM OTHER CONTEXT, IF IT'S 80% NON-REFUNDABLE BEFORE YOU KNOW ANYTHING, THEN THE, THE CARRY COST IS ALSO GONNA BE VERY HIGH. 
          UM, SO WE'LL ADDRESS THAT FURTHER BEFORE THE PUCT BY APRIL 17TH. 
          UM, AND, AND THEN THE NEXT TWO ARE CLARIFICATIONS, WHICH WE THINK ERCOT HAS ALREADY SIGNALED THAT IT'S ON BOARD WITH, BUT WE JUST WANNA MAKE CLEAR IN THE LANGUAGE. 
          SO, SO THAT'S THE FIRST, UM, REGARDING THE REFINEMENT STUDY PROCESS, UM, IT'S CLEAR FROM THE PGR LANGUAGE THAT THE LOAD RAMP WON'T CHANGE POST THE REFINEMENT STUDY. 
          HOWEVER, WE THINK IT SHOULD ALSO BE CLEAR THAT THE COST OR FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED ON THE ILLE WILL ALSO NOT CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THE REFINEMENT STUDY. 
          IN COMMENTS AT THE LAST TWO WORKSHOPS, ERCOT HAS INDICATED AS MUCH SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL UPGRADES TO BE IDENTIFIED AND THEREFORE COST, UM, ALLOCATED TO THE ILLE TO INCREASE. 
          SO WE THINK YOU SHOULD JUST PUT THAT IN LANGUAGE RIGHT NOW IN THE PGRR. 
          IT, IT SAYS THAT FOR THE LOAD RAMP, BUT WE THINK YOU CAN JUST ADD, YOU KNOW, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS, OR EXCUSE ME, FINANCIAL SECURITY OR COST OBLIGATIONS TO THAT SAME LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REFINEMENT STUDY DOESN'T INCREASE THE LES'S ALLOCATED COSTS. 
          UM, AND THEN FINALLY AGAIN, WE THINK THIS IS, THIS WAS INTENDED BY ERCOT, BUT IT'S JUST NOT IN THE LANGUAGE AND THAT'S BADGE ZERO BASE LOAD SHOULD PROCEED THROUGH THE LEGACY PROCESS. 
          BASICALLY WHAT WE MEAN BY THIS IS THAT ONCE YOU GET INTO BAT ZERO BASE AND UNDER 9 2 1 4 SUB THREE ERCOT DETERMINES YOUR STUDIES ARE VALID, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ENTER INTO ANY ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS OR GO THROUGH ANY ADDITIONAL STUDIES BEYOND THOSE THAT A LEGACY LOAD WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH, FOR EXAMPLE, APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE OR GETTING IN THE QUARTERLY STABILITY ASSESSMENT. 
          WE THINK THAT'S ALL THAT SHOULD BE REQUIRED OF THE BAT ZERO BASE LOADS. 
          BUT THERE'S PARTS OF THE PIGGER THAT SAY, IF YOU'RE IN BAT ZERO BASE, THEN THE BATCH STUDY APPLIES TO YOU. 
          UM, AND SO WE, WE DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WAS INTENDED. 
          AND SO WE HAVE RECOMMENDED SOME LANGUAGE TO CLARIFY THAT ONCE YOU'RE FOUND VALID AS PART OF BAT ZERO BASE, THEN YOU HAVE NO FURTHER STUDIES OR AGREEMENTS OR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS AND YOU JUST CONTINUE TO ENERGIZE UNDER THE EXISTING LEGACY PROCESS. 
          SO THOSE ARE ALL OUR COMMENTS. 
          HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          EXCELLENT, THANK YOU. 
          ANY QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM OR ONLINE? GIVE PEOPLE A MINUTE. 
          THERE'S NONE IN THE ROOM. 
          I'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS IN THE QUEUE. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT, NEXT UP IS CRUSO ROTH, ARE YOU GONNA WALK THROUGH THESE WITH US? YEAH, I CAN GO THROUGH THIS HERE. 
          YOU CAN COME HERE OR I CAN STAY RIGHT HERE. 
          HAPPY TO DO SO. 
          YEAH, I CAN GO FROM, SO OVERARCHING, UH, I'VE USED THREE TOPICS TO DISCUSS IN THIS. 
          NUMBER ONE, THE SSO TIMING. 
          UM, IF YOU GO TO PAGE TWO, I THINK THE CONCLUSION KIND OF CLEARLY, UH, I LAID OUT THERE THAT I, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST OUR COURT TO REVISE SECTION 9.6 C AND D, UH, OF PEGA 1 45 TO DECOUPLE SSO STUDY COMPLETION FROM QSA PREREQUISITE FOR INITIAL ENERGIZATION. 
          UH, I THINK THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH AN PARALLEL TRACK APPROACH THAT  APPLIES TO GENERATE INTERCONNECTIONS. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, UH, RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO FINISH SSO BEFORE WE ENTER INTO QSA. 
          UM, SO I DO NOT FIND ANY TECHNICAL BASIS, UH, FOR THAT. 
          SO I APPRECIATE KO'S, UH, UH, ERCOT LOOKING INTO THIS AND COMING BACK TO US ON THAT, UH, ASPECT. 
          THE SECOND ONE IS THE FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS AND TIMING. 
          UM, I THINK I'VE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS LAST TIME AS WELL. 
          UM, I SEE BATCH ZERO AS CONSISTING OF THREE DIFFERENT TYPE OF LOADS. 
          LOADS THAT HAVE ALREADY 
          [00:30:01]
MET. 
          9.4 OR 9.5 ARE LOADS THAT DO NOT HAVE ANY UPGRADES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED. 
          SECOND ONE LOADS THAT ALREADY POSTED KAYAKS AND SECURITIES THAT ARE NEEDED AND HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH THE NORMAL LEGACY PROCESS. 
          AND THE THIRD BATCH IS THE ONE THAT PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, NEED TO BE STUDIED AGAIN TO REQUIRE UPGRADES. 
          SO MY, MY COMMENTS REFLECT THOSE AND UH, MATT, IF YOU CAN GO TO PAGE FIVE. 
          UH, I THINK SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE. 
          YEAH, I'VE BUILT A TABLE IN THERE WHERE IT SAYS, SO THEY TIER ONE BASE LOAD, YOU KNOW, SHOULD BE FULLY GRANDFATHERED IN, YOU KNOW, EXISTING EXECUTED IA SHOULD SATISFY ALL BAD ZERO REQUIREMENTS. 
          UH, THEY SHOULDN'T BE SIGNING ANY NEW IAS TIER TWO LOADS THAT HAVE ALREADY PAID KAYAKS AND POST-IT SECURITIES, SAME THING. 
          THOSE INITIAL POSTINGS SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERED INTO BAD ZERO. 
          AND, AND THEN IF YOU COULD SCROLL DOWN, THE THIRD ONE IS THE ONES THAT ARE NEW LOADS SHOULD SATISFY, UH, THE DOLLARS PER MEGAWATT FINANCIAL SECURITY AND COMMIT TO KAYAK OBLIGATIONS. 
          AND AGAIN, MY, OUR CRUCIAL STANCE IS THAT BIGGER 1 45 SHOULD ESTABLISH ITS OWN FINANCIAL COMMITMENT FRAMEWORK SELF-CONTAINED WITHIN, WITHIN THE BIGGER LANGUAGE. 
          AND THAT DOES NOT DEPEND ON, UH, 5 8 4 8 1. 
          UM, YEAH, SO THIS SHOULD HAVE ITS OWN, UH, STRUCTURED THREE TIER FRAMEWORK THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT. 
          AND TO THE EXTENT, YOU KNOW, PROJECT FIVE, WHEN ULTIMATELY ESTABLISHES STANDARDS THAT DIFFER FROM THOSE IN FIGURE 1 45 ERCOT CAN ADDRESS ANY ALIGNMENT THROUGH A TARGETED REVISION REQUEST AFTER BAD ZERO IS COMPLETE. 
          UM, THAT'S MY THESIS OR CRUCIAL STANCE IN THIS. 
          UH, AND THEN THE FINAL PIECE IS THE RTP REFERENCES THAT HAVE BEEN IN BIGGER 1 45. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, TIME AND AGAIN WE DISCUSSED ABOUT RTP AND BAD ZERO BEING INDEPENDENT PROCESS AND THERE IS NO CORRELATION. 
          SO CRUSO THEREFORE PROPOSES THAT SECTION 9.2 0.12 A AND TWO B BE REVISED TO REPLACE 26 RTP DEMAND REFERENCE WITH, UH, THE RECENT LCP SUBMITTED TO . 
          WE BELIEVE THAT THE LCP INDICATES UPDATED INFORMATION, UH, COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE DEVELOPERS. 
          SO THAT WILL BE, UH, MOST ACCURATE AND LATE LATEST DATA RATHER THAN TAKING A MINIMUM OF 26 RTP AND LCP. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE THREE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          AND SOME SUPPORT HAS COME IN FROM SKYBOX AND SATOSHI IN YOUR COMMENTS. 
          ANY QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM OR COMMENTS? ONLINE QUESTIONS? YEAH, SANDEEP, GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, SANDEEP BOKAR WITH L-C-R-A-I NOT, NOT SPECIFIC TO WHAT WAS PRESENTED BY BY BARIO, BUT I SEE THE REFERENCES TO VALID STUDIES. 
          UH, AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND, UH, FROM ERHART WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF MODELING LOADS IN THIS. 
          UM, I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE IF A LOAD IS VALID BECAUSE OF A RPG STUDY BEING APPROVED, UH, THE RPG STUDY USUALLY IDENTIFIES A SET OF PROJECTS BY A CERTAIN FUTURE IN SERVICE STATES AT 2031 IS THE POSITION THAT THE STUDY IS VALID. 
          PROJECTS WILL BE IN SERVICE BY 2031. 
          SO THE LOADS THAT WERE APPROVED AS PART OF THIS VALID STUDY WILL BE MODELED AT ZERO MEGAWATTS UNTIL 2031. 
          SO MAYBE, UH, UNDER YOUR EXAMPLE SANDY, UM, CLARIFICATION. 
          SO WHAT, WHAT IS, UM, THOSE PROJECTS IN LLIS PROCESS? NO, THIS IS, UH, AND THAT'S THE SECOND SCENARIO. 
          THE FIRST SCENARIO IS USING RPGS AS YOUR, UH, PRIMARY WAY OF VALIDATING A STUDY, BUT IT, IT NEVER WENT THROUGH LLIS BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THOSE LEGACY LOADS TO SO IT WAS EXEMPT? IT WAS EXEMPT, YES. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, I, I THINK WE, WE PROBABLY NEED TO TAKE IT BACK. 
          I DON'T PROBABLY YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING TO THAT OR? YEAH, I, I, I THINK THE WAY WE ARE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW IS, YOU KNOW, ANY, ANY, ANY PROJECT, ANY, ANY LOAD THAT'S DIRECTLY DRIVING THE PROJECT, WE ASSUME THAT AS LIKE THE, 
          [00:35:01]
THE BASE LOAD, UM, AGAIN, THE CURRENT PROCESS IS THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH BOTH LAIS AND THE, AND THE RRP T APPROVAL. 
          SO, UH, WE PROBABLY HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT, RIGHT? YEAH, I, I, WE PROBABLY NEED TO TAKE THAT BACK. 
          THAT'S, IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED THROUGH THAT SCENARIO IN INTERNALLY. 
          UM, YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT. 
          I, I THINK FOLKS HERE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT JUST THAT YOUR STUDY'S VALID, BUT ALSO WHAT LEVEL YOU'LL BE MODELED AT IN THESE BATCH LOADS. 
          'CAUSE YOU MAY BE IN IT AS A BASE LOAD, BUT YOU MAY NOT SEE THAT MEGAWATT UNTIL CERTAIN THINGS ARE DONE. 
          NOW, THE PART TWO OF THAT IS THE LARGE LOAD STUDY. 
          SO IF YOU WENT THROUGH AN LI AN LI IS APPROVED, BUT IT ALSO IDENTIFIES IN YOUR LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN THAT THE FIRST MEGAWATT CAN BE SERVED IN 2031 BECAUSE OF YOUR PREEXISTING ISSUES AND WHATNOT. 
          WHAT'S THE APPROACH AT THAT POINT? YEAH, I THINK THE, FOR, FOR THAT ONE, UM, IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH, UH, WHAT HAS BEEN STUDIED ALREADY IF IT'S BASE LOAD. 
          SO IF THE STUDY INDICATES THE SYSTEM CANNOT RELIABLY SERVE, THE VALID STUDY INDICATES THE SYSTEM CANNOT RELIABLY SERVE UNTIL 2030 OR 2031, THEN THAT WOULD BE WHERE THE, UH, LOAD WOULD ASSUME TO BE COMING ON THE SYSTEM. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S HELPFUL CLARIFICATION. 
          AND, UH, THE LARGE LOAD STUDY SCOPES, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE WAY THERE'S A REASON WHY WE ARE IN THE BATCH PROCESS TODAY IS BECAUSE THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WENT INTO IT WERE, I DON'T KNOW, DIDN'T LEND TO A REALISTIC CASE, UH, AT THAT TIME. 
          UM, SO I, I'LL, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. 
          UH, I, I WOULD SAY THE PURPOSE OF THE BATCH PROCESS IS TO EVALUATE WHAT CAN BE RELIABLY SERVED. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE, IT'S IT'S APPROPRIATE TO USE THAT AS AN ENTRY POINT TO SAY, HEY, YOUR LOAD SHOULD BE RELIABLY SERVED BEFORE YOU ENTER THE BATCH PROCESS, THOUGH I, I, I SEE THE RATIONALE FOR BOTH, BUT, UM, MAYBE ONE, ONE OPTION TO CONSIDER HERE IS IF SOMEONE HAS POSTED THE IDA AND POSTED THE SECURITY, THEN YOU EVALUATE THAT IN THE BATCH STUDY AND THEN IDENTIFY HOW MUCH CAN BE ALLOCATED FOR THAT BASED ON THE CRITERIA DRAWN, NOT SO MUCH OF WHETHER WHAT WAS DONE IN A PREVIOUS STUDY AND WHETHER THE CAPACITY THAT WAS IDENTIFIED WAS APPROPRIATE, UH, OR NOT. 
          SANDEEP, JUST TO ADD A, ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION THERE, ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT EFFECTIVELY NOBODY IS TREATED AS BASE LOAD, BUT THERE'S POTENTIALLY REALLOCATION EVEN, UH, FOR LOADS THAT HAVE VALID STUDIES? I AM SAYING THAT THERE ARE LOADS OUT THERE, UH, THAT PROBABLY HAVE PUT DOWN THE FULL SECURITY FOR INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS. 
          AND IF THEY ARE THERE AND THEY ARE ADVANCED STAGE, THAT IS THEY MOVE FORWARD, MADE DECISIONS ON THEM, THEN THOSE ARE YOUR FAIR PLACE TO START WITH A BASE LOAD. 
          BUT OTHERS, YOU, YOU WANT TO RETHINK, UH, SOME OF THAT. 
          UM, THE MAIN, MAIN THING IS IT, IT GOES BACK TO HOW THE STUDIES WERE CONDUCTED, WHAT SCOPES OF WORK WERE USED, WHAT LOADS WERE INCLUDED IN IT, UM, AND, AND, UH, NOT IN THE POSITION TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A BASE LOAD OR NOT. 
          ALL I'M SAYING IS YOU HAVE TO REVISIT IT BECAUSE FINALLY THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE OKAY, SAY YOU ASSUME 500 MEGAWATTS AS BASE LOAD, MODEL IT AS SUCH, BUT YOU FIND RELIABILITY ISSUES IN THE BATCH LOAD. 
          WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? ARE YOU GOING TO CURTAIL THEM, SHED THEM, OR, OR READJUST THEIR ALLOCATED FORECAST REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WERE BASED OR NOT? YEAH. 
          AND UM, I, I WANT TO GET INTO THIS LITTLE BIT LATER WITH, WITH, UM, AND, AND, UH, I, I APOLOGIZE THAT WE ONLY POSTED, UH, THE, UH, PRESENTATION AT, AT THE RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING. 
          BUT I, I HAVE SOME SLIDES ON THIS AND, BUT I WANT TO TALK THROUGH THAT EXACT ISSUE. 
          BUT I, I THINK THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT IF YOU ARE, UH, IF THAT LOAD IS CONSIDERED BASE LOAD IN BATCH ZERO WE'RE, WE WILL NOT GO BACK AND REALLOCATE WHAT WE'RE NOT GONNA SAY, HEY, WE TOLD YOU 500 BEFORE, BUT YOU KNOW, NOW IT'S, IT'S 300 IF, IF YOU'RE CONSIDERED BASE LOAD. 
          BUT WHAT THAT MEANS THOUGH IS THAT WE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE, AND, AND THIS IS WHERE THE STUDY VALIDITY QUESTION COMES INTO PLAY, IS WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT LOAD, THAT, THAT WE HAVE A STUDY THAT SHOWS US THAT WE CAN RELIABLY SERVE THAT LOAD. 
          AND, AND IF WE DON'T, THEN WE NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT, OKAY, WE TOLD YOU 500 BEFORE, 
          [00:40:01]
BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN RELIABLY SERVE. 
          THE IMPLICATION IS IF THERE ARE RELIABILITY ISSUES, THEN THAT'S GONNA SHOW UP IN REAL TIME AND YOU'RE GONNA GET CURTAIL IN REAL TIME NOW. 
          NO, NOBODY WANTS THAT. 
          UH, AND SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S THE TRADE OFF THAT WE HAVE TO KIND OF BALANCE THERE. 
          UH, I DO HAVE SOME SLIDES ON THAT AND WHAT WE'LL PUT INTO THAT. 
          YEAH, I HOLD FOR THAT THEN. 
          YES, THANKS FOR THAT. 
          WE, WE ARE PROBABLY THINKING ABOUT THE SAME THING OVER THE WEEKEND AND WORKING ON THINGS. 
          ALRIGHT, SHANNON, YOU HAD A QUESTION? WELL, IT'S REALLY A COMMENT ON SANDEEP'S UH, OBSERVATIONS HERE AND, AND MAYBE AS JEFF SAID, THIS WILL BE COVERED LATER, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT SANDEEP'S BRINGING UP WAS EXACTLY THE THING THAT I WAS MENTIONING IN OUR LAST, UH, WORKSHOP. 
          I HAD A RELATED BUT DIFFERENT IDEA THEN AND I WAS THINKING OF IT ON THE FLY AND TRIED TO WORK THROUGH IT IN SOME COMMENTS SINCE THEN. 
          BUT IF BETWEEN NOW AND JULY 10TH, 24TH, WHICHEVER THE JULY DATE YOU PICK THAT THE TSP THAT DEVELOPED THE RPG PLAN AND SUBMITTED IT, IF THEY COULD TAKE AND PUT TOGETHER THEIR OWN, UM, LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN OF THE LOADS THAT ARE IN IT, BECAUSE MANY OF THEM HAVE APPLIED IN DIFFERENT YEARS, UH, LIKE WE HAVE SOME RPGS THAT WE HAVE TWO PROJECTS IN AND THERE'S SEQUENTIAL, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THEM COMES AFTER THE FIRST ONE AND UM, SUCH THAT IT'S A BIG CONTINUOUS RAMP IN THAT AREA, NOT THAT THEY'RE OCCURRING AT THE SAME TIME. 
          SO THE TSP THAT PUT THAT TOGETHER, I I THINK IN MANY CASES COULD DO THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, FILE LIKE A SUPPLEMENTAL LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN THAT WOULD GO WITH THAT RPG OF HOW THEY WOULD SEE IT. 
          AND IF YOU COULD, THEN YOU COULD GET THAT DONE AHEAD OF THE START OF THE BATCH PROCESS. 
          AND UM, AND IN OUR OWN CASE, THE ONE WE'RE IN, WE'VE STUDIED THAT A LOT, LIKE I KNOW THE ANSWERS AS WELL AS WHAT'S IN THERE AND MUCH OF THE LOAD CAN BE SERVED WITH EITHER BASE SYSTEM, NON CCN UPGRADES OR SOME THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          AND THEN THE REMAINING KIND OF BACK END COMPONENT IS THERE'S CLEARLY CCN COMPONENT, LONGER LEAD TIME NEED, NEED NEW RIGHT OF WAY. 
          AND THE TSP IS AWARE OF ALL OF THOSE THINGS. 
          SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD CONSIDER. 
          BUT I AGREE THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT YOU WANT TO ADDRESS, UH, SO THAT ERCOT DOESN'T GET CAUGHT IN A BIND LATER WITH IT AND THE ILLE DOESN'T GET SURPRISED EITHER. 
          ALRIGHT, THANKS SHANNON. 
          JUST, UH, YEAH, FOR ROSS ACTUALLY THINK PROBABLY WANTS TO, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? YES, GO AHEAD. 
          PROBABLY SHANNON'S POINT, I, I THINK I, I JUST WANNA LAY OUT THE, THE WAY WE STUDY, UH, RPG RIGHT NOW IS WHEN PEOPLE SUBMIT PROJECTS OR LOADS THAT GOES INTO RPG STUDY, WE'RE NOT STUDYING THE COMMISSIONING PLAN OF THE LOAD WE ARE STUDYING FOR A PROJECT, RIGHT? FOR SOME THESE EXAMPLE, THERE COULD BE LOADS THAT SUBMITTED FOR RPG, WHAT COMES OUT OF RPG IS YES, THERE IS A PROJECT THAT'S NEEDED IN 2032. 
          SO WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH THE COMMISSIONING PLAN, LIKE WHAT THE BATCH STUDY IS GOING TO GO THROUGH. 
          SO I WANT PEOPLE TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE JUST THE LOAD WAS SUBMITTED IN RPG DOESN'T MEAN THAT LIKE TO BE SERVED PRIOR TO THE PROJECT. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T STUDIED. 
          I COMPLETELY AGREE. 
          THAT'S WHY I WAS POINTING THAT OUT LAST TIME. 
          YEAH, AND, AND UM, I'M, I'M OPEN TO THAT IDEA. 
          I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT SHANNON. 
          IT, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THAT THAT'S A PRETTY COMPLEX STUDY THAT WE WOULD BE ASKING TSPS TO TAKE ON RIGHT NOW WHEN THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRYING TO COMPLETE L-L-L-I-S-L-L-I-S STUDY, SO I, I THINK I WOULD MAYBE TURN THAT TO THE TSPS AND ASK THEM IF THEY THINK THAT THAT, THAT IT WOULD BE AN ACHIEVABLE THING. 
          'CAUSE IT, THAT SEEMS PRETTY COMPLEX, ESPECIALLY NOT KNOWING WHICH LOADS ARE GONNA, SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING UH, MULTIPLE PER DAY, YOU KNOW, REQUESTED TO GET STUDIES APPROVED AND, AND GET LOADS ACROSS THE FINISH LINE HERE. 
          UM, YEAH, I WAS THINKING THOUGH IS SOMETHING THAT'S, IF THE TSP CAN GET IT DONE, IT'S VOLUNTARY OF THE TSP. 
          IF THEY CAN GO DO IT, PUT IT TOGETHER, BRING IT TO YOU, SEEMS LIKE IT HAS A LOT OF VALUE. 
          THAT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE IN ALL CASES, EVEN FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL TSP. 
          IF THEY HAVE SIX OR SEVEN OF THESE OUT THERE, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET 'EM ALL DONE IN TIME, BUT IF THEY COULD GET FIVE OF 'EM DONE, THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          ALRIGHT, SO WE START WORK THE QUEUE. 
          WE HAVE THREE IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW. 
          SO BROTH THEN EVAN, THEN ERIC, GO AHEAD. 
          BROTH. 
          YEAH, QUICK COMMENT ON MY, UH, TIERS THAT I PROPOSE RIGHT NOW FOR US TO SIGN ANY INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT OR, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT LANGUAGES THAT EACH TSP USES. 
          IT TAKES US ANYWHERE BETWEEN 60 
          [00:45:01]
TO ONE 20 DAYS, UH, IN TERMS OF SIGNING ONE AGREEMENT. 
          NOW THINK ABOUT THE HUGE AMOUNT OF APPLICATIONS, UH, THAT WE NEED TO SIGN, UH, THE TSPS NEED TO HANDLE. 
          AND THEY ONLY, WE ONLY HAVE 30 DAYS TO SIGN ALL THIS AFTER THE STUDY. 
          SO I THINK, AND THAT'S WHY IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO FILTER OUT THESE LOADS THAT HAVE ALREADY SIGNED SO THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE NIGHTMARE, UH, IN TERMS OF SIGNING THEM IN 30 DAYS. 
          AND THE LOADS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE FINISHED AT IS STANDARD RISK BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT WITHOUT THEM DOING ANYTHING CHANCE, STANDARD CHANCE OF RISK TO UH, NOT SI SIGNING THAT IN 30 DAYS AS WELL. 
          SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION I WANTED TO CON CONVEY. 
          YEAH, THANKS ROTH. 
          I'M JUST GONNA GO RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD THEN EVAN, THEN ERIC, MAYBE WE CAN GET IAN IN HERE AFTER THAT. 
          UM, SO JUST, JUST TO GO BACK TO THE RRP G CONVERSATION, TWO QUICK COMMENTS. 
          SO THE FIRST ONE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT THAT THE RPG IS NOT SOLVING FOR AN LCP, BUT IT IS KIND OF SOLVING FOR AN LCP. 
          THE LCP IS JUST A CLIFF. 
          I MEAN WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGE, I MEAN I UNDERSTAND WE'RE SOLVING FOR THE, THE TRANSMISSION PLAN, BUT WE ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE TRANSMISSION PLAN CAN RELIABLY SERVE THE LOADS THAT ARE JUSTIFYING IT. 
          SO IN THAT SENSE, THE LCP IS THE LOAD RECEIVES A HUNDRED PERCENT OF ITS REQUESTED AMOUNT ONCE THAT TRANSMISSION PROJECT GOES LIVE. 
          SO I MEAN I, I AGREE WITH WHAT SHANNON'S SAYING, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT THAT ALREADY DOES EXIST TO SOME EXTENT. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING UP IS WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT JEFF LEAST I THINK SO, UM, OF KIND OF RECONCILING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING ALL THESE NEW LOAD REQUESTS NOW AND HOW DO YOU RECONCILE WITHOUT THE RPG? I MEAN, I WOULD MAKE THE COUNTER ARGUMENT THAT THAT IS ALSO HAPPENING IN THE LILLIS PROCESS. 
          I MEAN THE LILLIS PROCESS TODAY INVOLVES A PROCESS WHERE YOU DO YOUR STUDY AND YOU SAY, WELL I DO NEED TRANSMISSION FOR THIS. 
          AND YOU INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR LILI STUDY AND IT GOES INTO THE LCP. 
          THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IT'S NOT IN RPG OR HAS BEEN REALLY FORMALIZED WITH THE TRANSMISSION PROVIDER IN SOME CASES IN ANY WAY. 
          AND THEN YOU HAVE TO, THE SUBSEQUENT LILI STUDY HAS TO INCLUDE THE PREVIOUS LILLY'S IMAGINARY TRANSMISSION UPGRADE IN THAT AND YOU JUST KIND OF HAVE A, A STACKED CARD TOWER OF IMAGINARY TRANSMISSION UPGRADES. 
          SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT COMPLICATION SOLELY EXISTS IN THE METHOD THAT SHANNON HAS LAID OUT. 
          I THINK IT EXISTS IN THE PROCESS WE'RE WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW AS WELL. 
          ALRIGHT, ERIC, UM, IN SPEAKING WITH MANY TSPS ABOUT THIS TOPIC, UM, I THINK THAT IN ALMOST EVERY CASE THE TSP HAD, UM, LOADS IN MIND WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THE RPG PLANS AND, UM, KNOW WHAT LOADS THEY WOULD SAY WERE STUDIED AS PART OF THIS. 
          AND YOU KNOW, THE TSPS ALSO DO ALL OF THE REQUIRED RPG UM, STUDIES THAT ARE LISTED IN THE, UM, RPG SECTION OF THE PROTOCOL THAT INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, THE STABILITY ANALYSIS AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE PARALLEL, UM, STUDIES TO WHAT'S REQUIRED IN LIST. 
          SO I, I DO THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY, YOU KNOW, WHAT LOADS ARE THERE AND IF IT'S UNCLEAR, THE TSP WOULD KNOW. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU ERIC. 
          ALRIGHT, WELL THANKS KEN. 
          BROTH GOING DOWN THE LINE HERE TO SHOPPER ENGINEERING, SHOPPER ENERGY CONSULTING. 
          ANDREW, YOU'RE UP. 
          AH, SEE IF I CAN FIGURE THIS OUT. 
          THANKS FOR HAVING ME. 
          YEAH, WE'RE GOOD TO GO. 
          UM, THERE'S A LOT OF TEXT HERE, SO I THINK, UM, BARATH ACTUALLY COVERED MY POINTS PROBABLY THE BEST SO FAR. 
          UM, BUT WHAT WE DECIDED TO LAY OUT WAS SORT OF JUST A TIMELINE FOR HOW THIS WOULD ACTUALLY PLAY OUT. 
          I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO TRYING TO ADOPT THE 58 4 81 LANGUAGE INTO THE PICKER, LIKE, AND UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MIGHT BE LIKE A BREAK POINT. 
          BUT FROM A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE, FOR THOSE LOADS THAT ARE CONSIDERED BASE LOAD, NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL STUDY, I, WE THINK OF THIS MORE AS A CHECKPOINT, LIKE A CHECKPOINT TO CONTINUE ON AND BE CONSIDERED AS AS A BASE LOAD, NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL STUDY. 
          AND SO THERE'S TWO REQUIREMENTS. 
          THE FIRST IS THAT YOU'VE SORT OF MET THE LEGACY REQUIREMENTS. 
          THE NEXT IS THAT YOU'RE GONNA MEET THESE HIGHER STANDARDS THAT ARE ADOPTED AT THE PUC. 
          AND SO YES, WE HAVE MADE COMMENTS TO THAT RULEMAKING SEVERAL TIMES. 
          UM, BUT ONE OF THE ISSUES IS 
          [00:50:01]
JUST THIS IS GOING TO, BY DEFINITION THIS WILL BE RETROACTIVE. 
          SO THE WAY THAT IT'S SET UP NOW IS THAT THERE IS A JULY 10TH AT A STATION DATE, BUT THE PIGGER WILL NOT BE ACTIVE UNTIL NOTIONALLY, I GUESS EIGHT AUGUST 1ST. 
          SO I GUESS IT COULD BE BOARD APPROVED POTENTIALLY BY JUNE 1ST. 
          BUT AS BARATH I THINK POINTED OUT, I MEAN ON AVERAGE I WOULD SAY 90 TO 120 DAYS TO GET A FULLY EXECUTED INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT AND, AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THESE COULD BE AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACTS. 
          BUT I THINK THE PROBLEM IS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ATTEST TO HAVING A CONTRACT OF A CERTAIN TYPE WITH A RULE THAT WILL NOT BE FINALIZED UNTIL AFTER THAT. 
          SO I WOULD MAYBE JUST ASK IF ERCOT HAS THOUGHTS ON THIS OR IF Y'ALL HAVE CONSIDERED THIS AS A, UM, AN ISSUE THAT WE THINK WE'RE GONNA FACE COMPLIANCE WISE AND JUST ADMINISTRATIVELY IF FOR ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO TAKE THAT QUESTION. 
          GREAT. 
          HEY ANDREW, THIS IS AG SPRINGER, RIGHT? UM, I I, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR CONCERN CORRECTLY, UH, YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT THE JULY 10TH DATE IS RETROACTIVE. 
          UM, I'M LOOKING, LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM FOR MATT, BUT, UH, OH, THERE HE IS. 
          UH, IT, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A PATH FOR THAT TO BE THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE EFFECTIVE DATE. 
          AND SO THAT WAS THE INTENTION FOR WHY WE PICKED THAT DATE. 
          IS IT, UH, UH, POTENTIALLY COULD BE, UH, THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE EFFECTIVE DATE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO JULY 10TH COULD BE THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PIGGER, BUT THE LANGUAGE OF THE PIGGER WOULDN'T BE FORMALIZED UNTIL JULY 10TH. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT IS THAT FAIR. 
          I BELIEVE THE OPEN MEETING THAT IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED OUT WOULD BE THE DAY BEFORE. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE THE DATE. 
          SO LOAD CUSTOMERS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED BASE LOAD, NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL STUDY WILL HAVE ONE DAY TO MAKE SURE THEIR INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS CONFORM TO THE RULE AS IT'S DRAFTED HERE. 
          IS THAT WHAT I'M STANDING? YES, THAT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          ANDREA, IF I, THIS IS MARK SALE. 
          SURE, GO AHEAD. 
          I'M JUST GONNA SUPPOSE HERE FOR A MINUTE THAT, UM, IF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ENDS UP APPROVING PGA 1 45 IN WHATEVER FORM IT ULTIMATELY TAKES, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A PRETTY CLEAR SIGNAL TO THE INDUSTRY THAT THIS IS A PATHWAY THAT IS, UM, POTENTIALLY VIABLE, ONE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WILL STRONGLY CONSIDER GIVEN ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN GOING ON HERE. 
          AND I DON'T WANT TO FORECLOSE ANY COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES, UH, WHICHEVER OPEN MEETING THE, THE COMMISSION ULTIMATELY TAKES UP P 1 45. 
          UM, BUT I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY TAKE THAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE EVEN EARLIER AFTER ATTACK VOTE. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S THE TIME WHERE YOU START TALKING WITH YOUR, YOUR INTERCONNECTING UTILITY ABOUT STARTING TO WORK ON THOSE AGREEMENT CHANGES. 
          THE TIMING OF EVERYTHING IS HARD AND I GET IT AND I RESPECT THE, THE CHALLENGES, THE TIMING THAT'S BEEN PLACED ON ERCOT, ON THE PUC ON THE INDUSTRY IS ONE THAT'S BEING DRIVEN AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS. 
          AND SO I THINK WE ALL JUST NEED TO TRY OUR DARNEDEST TO WORK TOGETHER TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RATS ARE, ARE BEING HERDED IN THE RIGHT PLACE. 
          YEAH. 
          DID, HOW DID I DO THAT? I THINK IF IT WAS A, IF THIS WAS A MATTER OF A LOAD CUSTOMER, LIKE HAVING TO PUT A LOT OF EFFORT IN TO GET THIS DONE. 
          SURE. 
          RIGHT. 
          BUT FROM OUR VANTAGE POINT, THIS ISN'T POSSIBLE. 
          LIKE, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO ACTUALLY CONFORM TO THIS. 
          SO THIS IS A COMPLIANCE TRAP I THINK IN OUR MIND THAT NOBODY'S GONNA KNOW WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE UNTIL THE LAST MOMENT AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ATTEST TO HAVING AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS. 
          SO FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO UNDER SECTION 9.2 0.1 AS DRAFTED, MEET THE BASE LOAD, NOT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL STUDY, IT MEANS THEY WOULD'VE ALREADY SIGNED A CONFORMING INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT UNDER LEGACY 9.5 AND THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER OBLIGATIONS IS OUR POSITION. 
          SO I JUST DON'T THINK FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA WORK. 
          RIGHT. 
          I I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE. 
          SO THAT'S IT. 
          AND ANDREW, I I WOULD SAY, UM, I I DON'T THINK I, IF THE TIMING DOESN'T WORK, I DON'T THINK THAT THE DIRECTION WE WOULD GO IS JUST TO SAY NINE FIVE IS GOOD ENOUGH BECAUSE 
          [00:55:01]
I, I THINK THAT, UM, WHAT, WHAT WE HEARD IN THE, UM, WHEN, WHEN WE, IN THE INTERVIEWS WHEN WE TALKED TO STAKEHOLDERS MM-HMM  THERE WERE A SIGNIFICANT, UH, NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS THAT SAID, UM, THAT NINE FIVE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO, AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CURRENTLY, UH, TELL WHICH, WHICH PROJECTS ARE QUOTE UNQUOTE REAL, REAL PROJECTS. 
          UM, AND WE NEED A HIGHER HURDLE. 
          I THINK THE COMMISSION HAS, UH, GIVEN US SOME DIRECTION ON WHAT THAT HER HURDLE MAY BE. 
          UH, SO I THINK WE WOULD, UH, LIKE TO FOLLOW THAT TO AGAIN, ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS AND, AND ADDRESS THE, UH, KIND OF THE, THE DRAFT DIRECTION THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN FROM THE COMMISSION. 
          SO I, I THINK IF JULY 10TH IS NOT POSSIBLE, I, I I THINK THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO PUSH THAT DATE OUT, NOT TO GO BACK TO 9.5. 
          AND I'M GONNA PIGGYBACK ON, ON WHAT JEFF JUST SAID IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO, TO SET THE HURDLE CORRECTLY, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FILTERING, UH, SETTING OUR FILTERING CRITERIA APPROPRIATELY. 
          IF THERE IS A DIFFERENT SET OF, I'M GONNA SAY PROJECT MATURITY CRITERIA THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING FOR BATCH ZERO THAT SIGNIFICANTLY ACCOUNTS FOR THE PROBABILITY OF A PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF IDEAS THAT NEED TO CONTINUE TO PERCOLATE UP HERE SO THAT WHEN WE GET TO THIS POINT OF DIVERGENCE, WHICH WE WILL GET TO IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, WE KNOW WHAT PROJECT MATURITY MEANS FOR BATCH ZERO. 
          PERHAPS IT ACCOUNTS FOR THIS TIMING PROBLEM, PERHAPS IT DOES NOT. 
          IT'S, IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS. 
          I THINK, UH, THE, I THINK THE MAIN ISSUE, AND JEFF BACK TO YOUR POINT ON, HEY, WHAT IS THE INTENT OF THE COMMISSION? WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HERE? RIGHT? WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT LOADS ARE COMMITTED. 
          STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ON SECTION 9.5 OF THE PLANNING GUIDE IS NOT, I MEAN IT'S CERTAINLY IS IMPORTANT, BUT IN EVERY CASE WHERE WE'VE MET THAT CONDITION, THERE'S BEEN TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT'S BEEN PUT WITH THE UTILITY AND AT RISK. 
          SO I WOULD, I WOULD CANDIDLY LIKE TO HEAR THOSE FOLKS SPEAK UP HERE AT THIS MEETING IF THEY HAVE OBJECTIONS TO HAVING THAT AS AN INTERIM CRITERIA. 
          UM, I THINK THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT WE HAVE HERE IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT NEW INTERCONNECTION STANDARDS SHOULD BE PUT FORTH, BUT RATHER HOW TO COMPLY WITH THEM IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T FOOT FAULT A BUNCH OF CUSTOMERS. 
          RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S OUR CONCERN. 
          IT'S NOT CAN YOU DO IT OR NOT, BUT IF YOU GIVE THE LOAD CUSTOMER 60 DAYS, I THINK THAT'S PLENTY OF TIME. 
          THE PROBLEM IS ALSO JUST THAT THIS IS BACKWARD LOOKING, RETROACTIVE EXISTING CONTRACTS THAT HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY LOAD CUSTOMERS IN RELIANCE ON THE CURRENT RULE. 
          SO IT ACTUALLY KIND OF GOES BACK TO THE OTHER POINT THAT WAS BEING MADE AROUND THE PLANNING STUDIES. 
          FOLKS ARE RELYING ON THE CURRENT RULE AS THEY ARE, THEY'VE BEEN HEARING FROM THE COMMISSION THAT SAYS, HEY, THE CURRENT RULE IS GOOD, YOU CAN RELY ON IT. 
          THAT THAT ACTUALLY GOES FOR THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT STANDARDS AS WELL. 
          SO YOU'LL HAVE A BREAK POINT, BUT THERE DOES NEED TO BE AN ORDERLY TRANSITION WHERE FOLKS ARE NOT PENALIZED, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THIS LOOK BACK. 
          UH, AND THE, ACTUALLY I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE, UM, CONTRACTING IS GONNA BE THE MOST DIFFICULT PART OF THIS WITHOUT A DOUBT. 
          SO GO AHEAD, TAKE THEM FROM YOUR SEAT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALRIGHT, SO I'LL GET BACK TO THE HELM HERE AND ANDREW WILL GET BACK TO THE SEAT IS SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS COME IN. 
          UM, SO I'LL GO TO JANICE'S KEY. 
          OKAY. 
          SHANNON CAREWAY, GO AHEAD. 
          I WANNA SAY, I THINK ANDREWS BROUGHT UP SOME OUTSTANDING POINTS HERE THAT WE NEED. 
          I, I THINK THESE ARE VERY REAL. 
          AND I APOLOGIZE, I HADN'T TRIED TO FOCUS ON THIS PIECE. 
          I'D BEEN FOCUSED ON ANOTHER PIECE OF IT, BUT I'D IDENTIFIED THAT THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT I WANTED TO APPLY SOME, UM, UH, THOUGHT ON. 
          SO I THINK THIS IS VERY VALID. 
          AND I HAVE A QUESTION ON, BACK TO JEFF ON SOMETHING YOU SAID, WHERE YOU STAKEHOLDERS HAVE SAID THAT THEY THINK NINE FIVE IS NOT SUFFICIENT. 
          TODAY'S, I PRESUME YOU MEAN TODAY'S 9.5 TO, UM, BUT IT IS QUOTE, THE LAW OF THE LAND. 
          UH, YOU SAID THAT MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE TIMES. 
          AND IF, UM, CURRENT FIGURE ONE 15 PROCESS IS 
          [01:00:01]
IN PLACE FROM NOW UNTIL WHATEVER JULY DATE, WE WIND UP WITH STAKEHOLDERS WHO HAVE THAT VIEW, IT'S SORT OF IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S NOT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PROTOCOLS, WE HAVE PLANNING GUIDES, AND WE HAVE COMMISSION RULES THAT ARE IN PLACE TODAY. 
          AND FOR CONTRACTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SIGNED, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT MATTER. 
          NOT SOMEBODY'S OPINION THAT, WELL, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER. 
          WELL, IT WILL BE HIGHER ONCE WE GET THE COMMISSION RULE. 
          AND THEN FOR THEN ON GO FORWARD, THAT'LL BE WHAT APPLIES. 
          BUT FOR EXISTING CONTRACTS, IT HAS TO BE WHAT'S TODAY'S BOTH RULES AT THE COMMISSION AND TODAY THAT'S IN EFFECT, NOT THINGS BEING UNDER A PROJECT AND ERCOT CURRENT BINDING DOCUMENTS TO BE ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THAT. 
          I'VE JUST, THAT BREAKS ALL PRECEDENT I'VE EVER SEEN, UH, HERE. 
          SO I'D BE CURIOUS ON YOUR COMMENTS ON THAT. 
          YEAH, NO, I, I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN. 
          I THINK WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO IS, UM, WHAT SHOULD WE, UH, WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING GOING FORWARD? H HOW, AS WE THINK ABOUT THESE FOR BATCH ZERO H, HOW SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT THAT? I THINK WHAT WE HEARD WAS TH THERE'S HOW TSPS ARE APPLYING NINE FIVE IS NOT CONSISTENT. 
          UH, THAT, THAT THERE'S, UM, THE, THE FINANCIAL SECURITY HURDLES IN MANY CASES. 
          I FOLKS FELT LIKE THAT THAT'S NOT, I THINK WHAT WE THOUGHT WE HEARD WAS THAT, THAT THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT. 
          AND WHAT WE HEARD FROM MANY DEVELOPERS WAS, UM, MY LOAD IS REAL. 
          MY COMPETITORS IS NOT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, THEIR, THEIR THRESHOLD'S NOT THAT HIGH, UH, TO GET INTO THIS. 
          AND, AND, YOU KNOW, SO THAT I, IT WAS THAT, THAT WAS KIND OF THE NATURE OF THOSE COMMENTS. 
          UM, BUT, UH, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN. 
          WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE THAT BACK AND WE'LL, WE'LL THINK ABOUT THAT. 
          UM, BUT YEAH, IT'S, YEAH, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          AND WE HAVE A FEW HERE IN THE QUEUE. 
          SO IAN HALEY, YOU'RE NEXT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IAN HALEY, MORGAN STANLEY BARK SALE. 
          ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          SO IN THAT PREVIOUS CONVERSATION, THE BOARD ADOPTS AN A PIGGER AND SENDS IT TO THE COMMISSION, IS THE COMMISSION, UM, AND I APOLOGIZE, I'M NOT USING THE RIGHT WORD, BUT IS THE COMMISSION REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THAT BOARD RECOMMENDATION AND OR RESEND IT BACK? OR CAN THEY MAKE MODIFICATIONS THERE AND THEN TO KEEP IT ON THAT TIMELINE, YOU KNOW, WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK WITH, UM, OUR ATTORNEYS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING, OR AT LEAST OUR TYPICAL PRACTICE, HAS BEEN TO EITHER APPROVE THEM OR TO SEND THEM BACK FOR REFINEMENT. 
          YES. 
          UM, WHETHER WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES AT THE COMMISSION ITSELF, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD WANT TO INVESTIGATE. 
          UM, BUT IT IS NOT PART OF HOW I'M THINKING ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR P 1 45 TO WORK. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          IL DO YOU MIND GETTING BACK TO THIS GROUP? 'CAUSE I THINK THAT'D BE AN INTERESTING UNDERSTANDING FOR US. 
          I'D BE HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE COMMISSION, UM, HAS BEEN SO ADAMANT ABOUT KEEPING ON THE TIMELINE. 
          UM, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND FULLY THEIR TOOLS AS WELL TO KEEP ON THAT TIMELINE. 
          SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          NO PROBLEM. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT, UH, LEE BRATCHER, LEE BRATCHER, CIPHER DIGITAL BARKSDALE. 
          SORRY, ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          WOULD THE COMMISSIONERS BE OPEN TO PERHAPS A MEMO, UM, INDICATING THAT THEY WOULD SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE ADOPTED BY THE ERCOT BOARD, UM, OR, OR NOT DEVIATE SIGNIFICANTLY OR SOME SOMETHING THAT COULD GIVE DEVELOPERS MORE CERTAINTY. 
          THAT'S KIND OF MORE LIKE A 30 DAY WINDOW FOR PEOPLE TO REALLY KNOW WHAT 5, 8, 4 8 ONE'S GONNA LOOK LIKE? WHEN YOU SAY A MEMO, CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU MEAN? JUST SOME SORT OF OUTWARD SIGNAL FROM THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THEY WON'T SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATE FROM WHAT IS, AND MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT TO COMMIT TO THIS TODAY, BUT AS IT GETS NEARER AND THE, IT'S PASSED ROSS AND IT'S ON ITS WAY TO TACK AND IT GOES TO THE BOARD, UH, JUST AN OUTWARD SIGNAL THAT THEY WOULD NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATE FROM THAT. 
          YEAH, I, I FEEL SUPER UNCOMFORTABLE MAKING ANY KIND OF COMMITMENT, UM, OF THAT NATURE. 
          I WILL 
          [01:05:01]
SAY THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE CHAIRMAN AND, UH, COMMISSIONER ALTMAN OR MEMBERS OF THE ERCOT BOARD, UM, EX OFFICIO MEMBERS, NON-VOTING OF COURSE, UM, AND ALL OF THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, TYPICALLY ATTEND BOARD MEETINGS. 
          AND, UM, I THINK AT THAT MOMENT, ONE MIGHT, UM, ANTICIPATE THAT IF, IF ANY OF THOSE COMMISSIONERS HAVE CONCERNS, THEY MAY CHOOSE THAT MOMENT TO RAISE THOSE, THOSE, UM, CONCERNS. 
          OF COURSE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, UH, THEY CAN WAIT UNTIL THE ISSUE IS BEFORE THEM IN AN OPEN MEETING. 
          UM, I WILL ALSO SAY THAT OUR, OUR TYPICAL PRACTICE IS TO GIVE, GIVE ANY REVISION REQUEST 30 DAYS IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS VOTE ON IT. 
          UH, I, I THINK THAT'S A, GIVEN THE SENSITIVITY AROUND THE TIMING AND THE COMPLIANCE TRAPS, WHICH I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT CONCERN. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S A THING THAT, THAT WE AT THE COMMISSION THINK ABOUT IS CAN WE GET THE REVISION REQUEST IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR A VOTE EARLIER THAN 30 DAYS? THAT'S A MAYBE ANOTHER TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX. 
          ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD. 
          UH, DURGA AND THEN BOB KING DURGA FROM SOFTBANK ENERGY. 
          UM, I'LL GO BACK TO WHAT, UH, JEFF, UH, SAID ABOUT 9.5. 
          SO, UM, WE PUT, UM, UM, BOOTS ON THE GROUND, UM, BASING EVERYTHING ON PGR 1 5 1 1 5, LEGACY 9.5. 
          UM, AND TSPS CONFIRM THAT WE ARE MEETING THE 9.5. 
          UM, IF, IF YOU THINK THAT 9.5 IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT PROJECTS ARE IN ADVANCED STAGE, I BELIEVE THE ATIONS THAT'S, THAT ARE NEEDED IN THE 1 45 SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT. 
          AND IF MORE ATTESTATIONS ARE NEEDED FROM THE LOADS, THAT COULD ALSO BE AN OPTION RATHER THAN RETROACTIVELY GOING AND APPLYING THE MARCH 4TH. 
          AND, AND ANOTHER THING ON THE MARCH 4TH THING, RIGHT, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH A LOT OF DSPS, UM, AND CO-OPS, UM, E EVEN IF WE ARE APPLYING THE MARCH FOUR DEADLINE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE DAY PG R 1 45 WAS FILED, ONE OF THE THING THAT COULD BE CHECKED IS IF THE CO-OPS AND DSPS ALREADY HAD I IN PLACE, RIGHT? EVERYTHING SORTED OUT AND, AND THE IA FORMAT WAS AGREED UPON AND THERE WAS A SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR US TO SIGN, RIGHT? UH, I SAY THAT BECAUSE I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT FEW DSPS AND CO-OPS DIDN'T HAVE LIKE THEIR BOARD APPROVALS ON THOSE IAS, SO THERE'S NO WAY WE COULD HAVE GONE BACK AND SIGNED BY MARCH 4TH. 
          SO THERE'S A CERTAIN LOOPHOLE THERE. 
          SO IF, IF THAT COULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, UH, FOR THE LOOK BACK DATES, THAT, THAT'LL BE GREAT. 
          THANK YOU JEFF. 
          ALRIGHT THEN. 
          BOB KING, BOB KING FOR TRACK TODAY. 
          UM, I'M GETTING CONFUSED WITH ALL THESE DATES MYSELF, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES IS IF WE HAVE AN LLIS TODAY OR, OR AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM TODAY AS A DEVELOPER, WE MIGHT BE RELATIVELY FLEXIBLE ABOUT CHANGING THAT OR WHATEVER, BUT THE, THE IMPRESSION I HAVE FROM TARKIN UTILITIES IS THAT THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE A CLEAR PATH TO SIGNING THE NEW AGREEMENT WITH US BECAUSE THIS IS IN DISCUSSION AND SO IT, IT MAY NOT BE US. 
          THAT'S THE ISSUE. 
          AND I, I'D KIND OF LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE UTILITIES ARE ODDLY QUIET DURING THIS DISCUSSION. 
          UM, IN FACT I HEARD FROM SHANNON THAT SOME PUT IN COMMENTS AGREEING THAT SOME OF THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. 
          SO CAN THE UTILITIES SPEAK ABOUT, UM, THIS ISSUE ABOUT THE NEW INTERCONNECTION REQUIREMENTS AND SO ON, MAKING IT INTO OLD AGREEMENTS? CAN YOU GO BACK THROUGH YOUR QUESTION AGAIN, BOB, PLEASE? WELL, I MAY NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND ALL THIS CONVERSATION, BUT I THINK PART OF IT IS IF YOU HAVE A EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH THE UTILITY, CAN WE QUICKLY BETWEEN NOW AND SOME DATE UPGRADE IT TO EQUAL WHATEVER THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED UNDER THE DRAFT OR PROPOSED 58,481, OUR CONVERSATION WITH UTILITIES, NOT YOURS IN PARTICULAR, MARTHA, BUT, UM, THEY'RE NOT CLEAR ABOUT WHETHER THEY CAN DO THAT YET, OR THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE A LITTLE LESS FLEXIBLE OFTEN THAN WE DEVELOPERS ON THIS SORT OF THING. 
          SO, UM, 
          [01:10:01]
HOW ARE THE UTILITIES FEELING ABOUT TRYING TO UPDATE OR UPGRADE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS THEY ALREADY HAVE SIGNED TO THE NEW REQUIREMENTS OF A PROPOSED RULE ACCORDING TO, UM, PICK 1 45 BEFORE IT'S ADOPTED. 
          OKAY, SO MARTHA HENSON WITH ENCORE, I THINK IT'S, IT'S NOT APPARENT TO US AT THE CURRENT TIME THAT THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT ITSELF NEEDS SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS UNDER THE RULE LANGUAGE. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A STANDARD INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT BEING PROPOSED AT THIS TIME, ALTHOUGH MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT GETS WORKED ON LATER. 
          IT'S MORE AN ISSUE OF THE ATTESTATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE. 
          UM, ENCORE HAS BEEN COLLECTING SOME OF THOSE ATTESTATIONS FOR SOME TIME NOW, SO WE'VE ALREADY STARTED TO WORK ON THAT BECAUSE IT'S NSV SIX ON TO SOME LEVEL. 
          UM, I THINK THE OTHER PIECE IS, IT'S, IT'S MOSTLY THE COLLECTION OF SECURITY, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE AMOUNT IS GOING TO BE AT THIS POINT AND HOW LONG WE HAVE TO COLLECT THAT, PARTICULARLY FOR, YOU KNOW, MEETING A MILESTONE FOR A CUSTOMER TO BE EITHER BASE LOAD, RIGHT, MAINLY FOR THE BASE LOAD, UH, REQUIREMENT IN BATCH ZERO. 
          SO, UM, ENCORE WILL MEET WHATEVER IS NECESSARY UNDER THE PLANNING GUIDE REVISION AND THE RULE ULTIMATELY. 
          UM, SO I THINK, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AND TO THE EXTENT WE CAN WORK EARLIER BASED ON DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT WE THINK IS LIKELY TO BE, YOU KNOW, INCORPORATED, WE WILL DO THAT. 
          UH, BUT IT'S ALL TIGHT TIMELINES FOR US TOO. 
          YEAH. 
          WE WILL DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          AND I SEE SANDEEP, UH, FROM LCRA JUMPED IN THE QUEUE. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, JUST I GUESS ADD THAT WHAT MARTHA SAID ON ALL THE THINGS WE GENERALLY AGREE WITH, WITH WHAT SHE SAID, THE POSITION, UH, WHERE LCI IS AT. 
          THE REASON WHY I GOT INTO THE QUEUE WAS MORE TO POINT OUT, I THINK IT WAS CENTERPOINT'S COMMENTS THAT I, I, I LOOKED AT AND I LIKED IT, DIDN'T TALK ABOUT CHANGING ANY AGREEMENTS, BUT IT TALKED ABOUT IF YOU HAVE A INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT ALREADY SIGNED, THAT SHOULD BE EXTRA THAT WAS OR ADDED IN THE CRITERIA FOR WHAT GETS INTO, UH, UH, INCLUDED AS A BATCH, UH, AS AN ENTRY CRITERIA FOR THE BATCH STUDY. 
          SO IF YOU HAVE A INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT ALREADY SIGNED, THEN THAT SHOULD HOLD THE SAME VALUE AS YOU DON'T NEED TO POST INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT. 
          AT LEAST THAT'S, THAT'S HOW IT READ. 
          UM, SO WE, WE WERE ALSO LOOKING AT, UH, FILING SOME COMMENTS TO HELP, UH, HELP WITH THAT, UH, POSITION. 
          UM, BUT YEAH, NOT, NOT NECESSARILY CHANGING ANYTHING IN THE AGREEMENTS ITSELF AT THIS POINT, 'CAUSE THOSE ARE ALL THE PAST AGREEMENTS, BUT ALL THE POINTS THAT MARTHA LAID IS, I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, APPLICABLE THE AMOUNTS, THE TIMING FOR COLLECTION. 
          BUT I SEE YOUR POINT. 
          IF YOU ALREADY COMMITTED FULL SECURITY TO BUILD A PROJECT, DO YOU NEED TO AGAIN GO BACK AND, UM, POST ANOTHER FEE TO SAY, OKAY, NOW STUDY ME WELL, AND ARE YOU PREPARED WITHIN THE TIMELINE TO HELP US DO THAT? 'CAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO FAIL TO BE BASELINE BECAUSE OF YOUR FAILURE, RIGHT? WELL, WE JUST WENT THROUGH A, A, A SEMI HERCULEAN EFFORT TO GET THE 2026 RTP COMPLIANCE IDA, THE INTERCONNECTION INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT SIGNED AND MONIES COLLECTED. 
          AND SO WE, WE'VE DONE THAT AND WE'LL DO WHATEVER IS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE, THE BIGGER PROCESS AND THE BATCH PROCESS. 
          SO, UH, AND THAT'S WHY THAT, UH, ADVANCED NOTICE WILL DEFINITELY BE HELPFUL, UH, SO WE CAN START WORKING ON COMMUNICATING THIS, CALCULATING THE NECESSARY SECURITY AND ALL. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT, WELL THAT TAKES US TO THE END OF THE FORMAL COMMENTS, BUT STILL ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, UH, AGAIN, ANDRE HAD AT THE LAST WORKSHOP BROUGHT UP AN EXAMPLE AND SO I'M GONNA LET HIM PRESENT HIS EXAMPLE HERE AND WE'LL LET YOU GO AND SEE IF I CAN GET A BETTER VIEW OF THIS. 
          THERE YOU GO. 
          THANK YOU MATT. 
          GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. 
          MY NAME IS ANDRES MINE, I'M A DIRECTOR OF GRID INTEGRATION AT CYPRESS CREEK RENEWABLES. 
          I WANNA START FIRST BY THANKING ERKO FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO SPEAK HERE ABOUT THIS, UM, BATCH STUDY CONCERN THAT WE HAVE. 
          AND WE ALSO WANNA, UM, SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN PUT IN FOR THIS FIGURE 1 45. 
          SO I WANNA START BY LAYING OUT CCRS CONCERN THAT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO THE REFINEMENT STUDY PHASE WHERE ER'S CURRENTLY PROPOSING NOT TO ADJUST MEGAWATT ALLOCATIONS OR LOAD COMMISSIONING PLANS. 
          [01:15:01]
WE SEE A FUNDAMENTAL RISK ON THIS APPROACH ONCE A LOAD COMMITS AND EXECUTES AN IA, ITS MEGAWATT ALLOCATION WILL BE FIXED EVEN IF OTHER LARGE LOADS DROP OUT WITHOUT A STUDY TO VALIDATE UPDATED SYSTEM CONDITIONS. 
          ERCO MAY FACE A SCENARIO WHERE AN APPROVED LOAD IS UNABLE TO RECEIVE ITS ALLOCATED MEGAWATTS WITHOUT CAUSING RELIABILITY VIOLATIONS, ESPECIALLY IF NEW NETWORK UPGRADES ARE IDENTIFIED DURING THE REFINEMENT PERIOD. 
          SO NEXT I'M GONNA WALK YOU GUYS THROUGH A, A SIMULATION THAT WE DID, UH, INTERNALLY USING, USING TARA JUST TO SHOW THAT THIS CONCEPT EXISTS. 
          WHEN A LARGE LOAD DROPS OUT FROM A PLANNING STUDY OR POWER FLOW, IT CAN CAUSE RELIABILITY ISSUES. 
          SO WHAT WE DID IS WE, WE JUST GRABBED A 2029 SUMMER P CASE SSWE CASE. 
          WE LOOKED AT THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, I THINK THE EAST AND BUS LAKES AROUND THE TEMPLE AREA, CENTRAL TEXAS. 
          WE LOOKED AT THOSE 3 45 KB LINES BECAUSE THEY WERE HEAVILY LOADED ALREADY. 
          AND I JUST WANNA NOTE THAT THE ANALYSIS PRESENTED HERE IS RESTRICTED TO N MINUS SERIAL CONDITIONS BASE CASE. 
          JUST TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONCEPT OF LOAD WITHDRAWAL TRIGGERING NEW, UH, RELIABILITY VIOLATIONS. 
          IT'S NOT A REPRESENTATION OF A FULL INTERCONNECTION STUDY. 
          I ALSO WANNA NOTE THAT THE TRANSMISSION PLANNER FROM CCR WHO HELPED PREPARE THIS POWER FLOW IS NOT HERE TODAY. 
          SO I'M GONNA DO MY BEST TO WALK YOU GUYS THROUGH THIS. 
          SO THIS IS WHAT THE STUDY SHOWS, RIGHT? WHEN I PULL THE CASE, I'M LOOKING AT TWO BUSES, BELL EAST, BUS LAKE, TWO LINES CONNECTING THESE BUSES LINES ARE LOADED AT 90% OF OF THEIR, UM, MBA RATING. 
          SO WHAT WE DID NEXT IS WE ADDED TWO LOADS, LOAD A AND LOAD BH LOAD 750 MEGAWATTS AT UNITY POWER, POWER FACTOR. 
          AND THEN WE SOLVED THE BASE CASE. 
          AND THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE. 
          YOU SEE NO OVERLOADS, RIGHT? YOU HAVE LOAD A PULLING 750 MEGAWATTS, YOU SEE LOAD B PULLING 750 MEGAWATTS. 
          IF THIS WAS A BATCH STUDY AND THERE WAS A LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN, THEN I MEAN, MOST LIKELY YOU WOULD GET YOUR 750 MEGAWATTS BECAUSE THERE'S NO VIOLATIONS, RIGHT? THE LOAD CAN BE SERVED, THE LINES ARE NOT ABOVE A HUNDRED PERCENT. 
          SO I JUST WANNA FLAG AND MENTION THAT NEITHER LOAD A NOR B WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR NETWORK UPGRADES IN THIS SCENARIO. 
          BUT IF WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PHASE, WHICH IS THE, THE COMMITMENT PERIOD, 30 DAYS OR 60 DAYS, WHATEVER WE DECIDE IT'S POSSIBLE FOR SOME LOADS TO DROP, RIGHT? I MEAN IT'S GONNA HAPPEN. 
          SO IN THIS SPECIFIC SCENARIO, LET'S ASSUME THAT LOAD A DOES NOT SIGN THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS. 
          AND LET'S ASSUME LOAD B SIGNS THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS, THEY PAY THE 50 K PER MEGAWATT INTERCONNECTION FEE, NON-REFUNDABLE, THEY PAY FOR KAYAK FINANCIAL SECURITIES UPGRADES. 
          IN THIS CASE THERE'S NO UPGRADES OF COURSE, BUT YOU SEE MY POINTS. 
          SO WHAT WE DID NEXT IS WE'RE GONNA TURN OFF LOAD A AT BELL EAST THREE 40 5K BBO. 
          SO THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS ONCE YOU TURN, UH, LOAD A OFF ONCE LOAD A WITHDRAWS FROM THE PROCESS. 
          NOW YOU SEE AN OVERLOAD THAT WAS NOT THERE ORIGINALLY IN THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS, RIGHT? AND THIS IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE SEE OUTSIDE OF ERCOT. 
          YOU GO TO LIKE FERC CLUSTER STUDIES, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS. 
          THIS IS WHY IT'S AN ENDLESS TUDY THAT TAKES YEARS TO GO THROUGH BECAUSE UTILITIES, THEY DON'T KNOW. 
          I MEAN, THEY DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS GONNA HAPPEN, RIGHT? THERE COULD BE A SCENARIO WHERE LIKE, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AND EVERYBODY'S HAPPY AND, AND, AND WE MOVE FORWARD. 
          THE PROBLEM IS THEY DON'T KNOW. 
          AND BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THEY NEED TO TUDY BECAUSE THIS IS A SIMPLE SCENARIO. 
          I HAVE TWO BUSES ON TWO LOADS. 
          NOW, COULD YOU IMAGINE BEING A COMPLEX SYSTEM WITH THOUSANDS OF BUSES, THOUSANDS, THOUSANDS OF LINES ON MULTIPLE LOADS, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE A HUNDRED LOADS IN A STUDY. 
          THE MOMENT YOU START TWEAKING PULLING LOADS, YOU DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN. 
          THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW IS TO ACTUALLY DO A STUDY. 
          SO WITH THAT SAID, UM, I I I WANNA BRING UP THREE, THREE MAIN QUESTIONS FOR THIS QUESTION. 
          NUMBER ONE, WILL THE REFINEMENT STUDY IDENTIFY SCENARIOS LIKE THIS AND PROPOSE NEW TRANSMISSION? IF SO, THAT BRINGS ME TO QUESTION NUMBER TWO. 
          WHO'S GONNA SECURITIZE THESE UPGRADES? IS IT GONNA BE LOAD A OR LOAD B, LOAD A, IT'S GONE. 
          THEY DIDN'T SIGN THE INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT, LOAD B STAYED. 
          AND IN THEIR INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT THERE WAS NO NETWORK UPGRADES. 
          THIS IS THE ISSUE WE SEE OUTSIDE OF ER CODE IN THE FERC WORLD. 
          UM, QUESTION NUMBER THREE. 
          HOW IS ER CODE GONNA SERVE THE 750 MEGAWATTS IN THIS SCENARIO IN 2028 WITH A BASE CASE OVERLOAD? SO NEXT, IN, IN 
          [01:20:01]
THIS SPECIFIC SCENARIO, UM, ERKO CAN NO LONGER SERVE 750 MEGAWATTS FOR LOAD B IN 2028, AS NOW A NEW NETWORK UPGRADE IS REQUIRED. 
          SO ASSUMING THERE'S A TWO TO THREE YEAR UPGRADE TIMELINE, I MEAN THE, THE LCP SHOULD BE UPDATED. 
          'CAUSE THE BIGGEST HIGHLIGHT THAT I WANT TO SAY ON THIS SLIDE IS THAT LOAD B EXECUTED AN IA BASED ON THREE ASSUMPTIONS, MEGAWATTS, TIMELINE, AND COST LOAD B EXECUTED ON IA THINKING IT WAS GONNA GET 750 MEGAWATTS IN 2028 WITH NO NETWORK UPGRADES, AND NOW THEY'RE LEARNING AFTER THE FACT THAT THERE MIGHT BE, UM, A PROBLEM TO SERVE THAT LOAD. 
          UM, I JUST WANNA SAY IF I'M LOAD BII WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THIS, UM, THIS RISK OF COURSE, UM, LOADS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT EXECUTING AN I A WITH FIRM DELIVERABILITY MAY STILL CARRY RISK IF NETWORK UPGRADES ARE REQUIRED TO SERVE THAT LOAD. 
          BECAUSE IF THESE CONDITIONS HAPPEN IN REAL TIME AND THERE'S NO GENERATION SOLUTION THAT EXISTS TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM,  MAY NEED TO DECLARE A TRANSMISSION EMERGENCY AND CARTEL LOAD TO MAINTAIN SYSTEM RELIABILITY. 
          AND I CAN SPEAK TO THAT FROM EXPERIENCE. 
          I USED TO WORK IN THE CONTROL ROOM AS A SHIFT ENGINEER. 
          I DEVELOPED LOAD CHECK PLANS DURING WINTER STORM URI. 
          UH, EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS OF COURSE AN EXTREME, I ALSO DEVELOPED A LOAD CHECK PLAN BACK IN SEPTEMBER, 2020. 
          WE HAD A SITUATION LIKE THIS IN THE CONTROL ROOM. 
          WE HAD A BASE CASE OVERLOAD IN SOUTH TEXAS THAT WE COULDN'T HAVE SOLVE IT. 
          WE TRIED TO MOVE ANCILLARY SERVICES TO GET MORE GENERATION NOW TO SEE IF WE COULD LIKE HELP WITH THAT. 
          OF COURSE, WE COULDN'T DO, UM, A TO OR A POST CONTINUOUSLY MITIGATION PLAN BECAUSE IT WAS A BASE CASE OVERLOAD. 
          WE ALSO TRIED DO REMEDIAL SWITCHING MOVE FLOWS AROUND ANYWAY, WE COULDN'T FIND A SOLUTION. 
          SO WHAT DID WE DO? WE HAVE TO SHED FIRM LOAD TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. 
          SO, UM, I JUST THINK THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO SIGN AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT EXPECTING TO GET MEGAWATT COST AND TIMELINE TO LATER KNOW THAT THE REFINEMENT STUDY CAN CHANGE THAT. 
          AND HERE I HAVE ON THE RIGHT, UH, A LITTLE TABLE THAT I DO LIKE A LOT BECAUSE WE SEE THAT THE BATCH STUDY RESULTS WITH BOTH LOADS AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S NO ISSUES AND EACH LOAD GETS ITS MEGAWATT. 
          BUT THE MOMENT THE REFINEMENT STUDY IDENTIFIES AN UPGRADE, THEN EVERYTHING CHANGES. 
          AND THIS CAN ONLY BE KNOWN AFTER THE REFINEMENT STUDY ONCE LOAD B EXECUTES, UH, AND COMMITS. 
          SO THIS NEXT SLIDE JUST SHOWS WHAT WE HAD TO DO ON THE POWER FLOW STUDY TO SOLVE THAT BASE CASE VIOLATION. 
          WE HAD TO DROP THE LOAD 50% OF ITS MEGAWATT TO 3 75 TO SOLVE THE THE PROBLEM. 
          SOME OF THE CAVEATS AS STATED EARLIER ON, THE INTENTION OF THIS IS TO ILLUSTRATE THE POTENTIAL FOR THIS TO OCCUR. 
          IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THIS IS GONNA BE AN ISSUE EVERY TIME WE RUN THIS. 
          SO IT'S, IT IS NOT BY ALL MEANS, A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE OF ACTUAL STUDY RESULTS. 
          ALSO, I DO WANNA MENTION THAT THIS ANALYSIS WAS ONLY FOCUSED TO N MINUS ONE BASE CASE, BUT THIS, THIS RISK ACTUALLY OCCURS WITH EVERY SINGLE CONTINGENCY, RIGHT? LIKE YOU'RE RUNNING PC ROUTE THROUGH P SEVEN AND THERE'S MULTIPLE WITHDRAWALS, UH, PERMUTATIONS. 
          AS SOON AS YOU START REMOVING LOADS, ALL THE POSSIBILITIES OF WHERE THAT POWER FLOW COULD FLOW, IT COULD CAUSE A LOT OF A LOT OF ISSUES. 
          AND YOU WON'T KNOW THAT UNLESS YOU, YOU TUDY. 
          SO LASTLY, WELL, WHAT'S THE SOLUTION? IF WE HAVE THIS BIG PROBLEM, HOW CAN WE SOLVE IT? WELL, I I'M, I'M SORRY TO SAY THIS, BUT THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO PERFECT SOLUTION. 
          I MEAN, EVERY SINGLE MARKET SOLVES THIS OUTSIDE OF THE ERCOT BY DOING A RE STUDY, NOT BY CHOICE, BUT BY NECESSITY. 
          IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT NO NEW VIOLATIONS HAPPEN WHEN PROJECTS DROP. 
          AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO MARKET IN THE US HAS ELIMINATED THIS PROBLEM EXCEPT ERCOT. 
          ERCOT HAS SOLVED THIS PROBLEM WITH ITS CONNECT AND MANAGE APPROACH FOR GENERATION. 
          WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE FIS PEOPLE LOVE COMING HERE FOR GENERATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE FERC RABBIT HOLE OF ENDLESS RISK STUDIES AND WAITING, RIGHT? IT, IT'S GREAT. 
          SO MY QUESTION IS, HOW HAS T'S BATCH PROPOSAL SOLVED THIS TUDY PROBLEM BY HAVING ONE DECISION POINT WHERE LOADS EXECUTE AN IA AND COMMIT AND GET THEIR ALLOCATED ALLOCATED CAPACITY REGARDLESS IF OTHER PROJECTS DROP OUT. 
          A SEEN ON MY SLIDE, THIS, THIS APPROACH MAY NOT WORK. 
          ERCO CANNOT GUARANTEE MEGAWATTS TIMELINE NOR COST, AND WE CANNOT ASSUME THAT STUDIES ARE NOT NEEDED. 
          AND LASTLY, LARGE LOADS SHOULD NOT SIGN AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT THAT CLAIMS TO GUARANTEE MEGAWATT CAPACITY. 
          A FURTHER RELIABILITY VIOLATIONS DUE DUE TO WITHDRAWALS REQUIRE ADDITIONAL NETWORK UPGRADES TO PROVIDE FIRMS LOAD SERVICE THAT WERE NOT THERE IN THE BATCH. 
          AND 
          [01:25:01]
WITH THAT, UM, I WANNA FINISH AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. 
          ALL RIGHT, AND CAN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR SLIDE THAT HAD THE THREE QUESTIONS, SLIDE 10 OR SO? UH, HERE, THERE YOU GO. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          JEFF, DO YOU WANT TAKE A SHOT? YEAH, ANDRES, I I APPRECIATE THE POWER FLOW ANALYSIS HERE. 
          UM, QUESTION, DID YOU DO GENERATION RE-DISPATCH? I DID NOT. 
          AND THE REASON I, WE DID NOT DO GENERATION RE-DISPATCH. 
          I MEAN, I'M, I'M NOT TRANSMISSION PLANNING ENGINEER, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU CANNOT DO GENERATION RE-DISPATCH ON A PC VIOLATION. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS GENERATION RE-DISPATCH IS ALLOWED ON P THREES AND P SIX'S AND MINUS ONE, MINUS ONE. 
          WELL, WE, WE WOULD, WE WOULD DO A GENERATION RE-DISPATCH IN THE BATCH STUDY FOR THIS. 
          SO LET ME ASK A, A FOLLOW UP QUESTION THAT YEP. 
          IF WE DO GENERATION RE-DISPATCH HERE, I MEAN IN, IN MY MIND THAT'S, THAT'S LIKE A CONTRADICTION OF LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING IN BATCH BECAUSE IN BATCH WE'RE GOING IN WITH A FIRM POWER FLOW STUDY. 
          LIKE WHY NOT JUST DO GENERATION RE-DISPATCH IN IN, IN THE, IN THE INITIAL, IN THE INITIAL BATCH. 
          I MEAN, I GUESS MY POINT IS LIKE WHY WOULD WE GO THROUGH THE BATCH STUDY TO DO A FIRM LOAD STUDY AND THEN MIDWAY CHANGE TO A GENERATION RE-DISPATCH SOLUTION? SO WELL, SO, SO WE WOULD, AS PART OF BATCH, THERE IS A SECURITY CONSTRAINT. 
          OPTIMAL POWER FLOW IS, IS HOW WE WILL SOLVE THAT. 
          SO THAT, I MEAN THAT, THAT IS FUNDAMENTAL, THAT IS HOW WE WOULD PERFORM THE STUDY. 
          SO AS I SEE THIS, I, IF YOU HAD 750 MEGAWATTS OF LESS LOAD, YOU ALSO NEED 750 MEGAWATTS OF LESS GENERATION. 
          SO YOU, YOU HAVE TO DO A GENERATION RE-DISPATCH ANYWAY BECAUSE NOW YOU'VE LOWERED YOUR LOAD. 
          SO TO GET YOUR POWER FLOW CASE TO SOLVE, YOU HAVE TO LOWER YOUR GENERATION. 
          AND, AND SO I, I THINK THE WAY THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS IS WE WOULD DO, WE, WE WOULD DISPATCH THAT 750 MEGAWATTS OF GENERATION DOWN ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF YOUR DIAGRAM, WHICH SHOULD THEORETICALLY RESOLVE THOSE OVERLOADS. 
          BUT YOU SAY THEOR, I MEAN IT MAY, MAY OR MAY NOT SOLVE THE GENERATION RE-DISPATCH THIS PROBLEM, RIGHT? I MEAN, I I'M NOT PLANNING ENGINEER, BUT LIKE PER NERC STANDARDS, ARE WE ALLOWED TO DO GENERATION RE-DISPATCH ON BASE CASE OVERLOADS AND, AND PLANNING STUDIES? I MEAN, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR TSPS HERE. 
          YEAH, WELL, I WE ALREADY DO THAT. 
          I MEAN THAT, THAT'S HOW WE, THAT THAT THAT'S HOW WE PERFORM AND, AND, AND I THINK WHAT MAKES US SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND, AND I'M, I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON FERC JURISDICTION, BUT I I THINK GENERATORS GET FIRM TRANSMISSION IN THE FERC WORLD. 
          AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE MORE OF THESE ISSUES WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN ERCOT. 
          UM, IT IT, BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU SAID, IT'S CONNECT AND MANAGE ON THE GENERATION SIDE. 
          SO, SO I I, WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS AND WE WOULD RE-DISPATCH GENERATION TO SOLVE THAT OVERLOAD. 
          AND, AND I THINK, AND WE'VE RUN STUDIES ON THIS PREVIOUSLY AND, AND I, I THINK THAT IT SHOWS THAT YOU, YOU ANY, UH, DROP IN LOAD, LIKE YOU, YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE OVERLOADS IF YOU RE-DISPATCH A GENERATION AND IF THERE'S NO GENERATION SOLUTION, BECAUSE THAT DOES HAPPEN. 
          I MEAN, IN, IN REAL TIME, LIKE SOMETIMES WITH MY EXAMPLE IN, I MEAN, IN SOUTH TEXAS, YEAH, SOMETIMES THERE'S NOT A SOLUTION, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          BUT YOU SHOULD SEE THAT IN, IN THE STUDY. 
          AND, AND IF WE SEE THAT, THEN HOW WOULD WE, IF THERE'S NO GENERATION SOLUTION, THEN HOW ARE WE GONNA ANSWER THESE, THESE QUESTIONS? BUT, BUT AGAIN, YOU'VE, YOU'VE LOWERED YOUR LOAD, SO IF YOU'VE LOWERED YOUR LOAD, YOU CAN ALSO LOWER THE GENERATION. 
          SO THIS IS KIND OF THE SAME, UH, TO USE THE SOUTH TEXAS EXAMPLES, IT'S AS IF I HAD 750 MEGAWATTS LESS LOAD IN SOUTH TEXAS. 
          I I CAN LOWER THE GENERATION COMING OUT OF SOUTH SOUTH TEXAS BY 750 MEGAWATTS, AND I'M STILL TRANSFERRING THE SAME AMOUNT OF POWER FROM SOUTH TO NORTH AS I WAS BEFORE THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE CASE, I I JUST WORRY BECAUSE THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT NOBODY ELSE SEEMS TO, TO BE ABLE TO SOLVE OUT OUTSIDE OF ERCOT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THIS TUDY LOOP WHERE THEY DON'T KNOW IF GENERATION RE-DISPATCH IS, IS GONNA SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. 
          AND, AND THAT'S THE MAIN FLAG THAT I WANNA RAISE, THAT THERE MIGHT NOT BE A SOLUTION TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. 
          I MEAN, THIS IS A SIMPLE EXAMPLE. 
          LIKE I SAID, THERE COULD BE, YOU KNOW, WITH MULTIPLE BUSES, MULTIPLE LINES, THERE COULD BE A SCENARIO WHERE GENERATION DISPATCH IS NOT, IS NOT A SOLUTION. 
          AND NOW WE'RE GONNA BE STUCK WITH, WITH THIS. 
          BUT I HEAR YOUR POINT. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I'LL JUST SAY I, I DON'T THINK WE, WE DON'T SEE THIS AND, AND YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE RUN STUDIES ON THIS IN JUST NORMAL TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND, AND SO 
          [01:30:01]
WE DON'T SEE THIS SCENARIO AS BEING POSSIBLE ON ERCOT. 
          I I UNDERSTAND IN FERC WORLD, WE'RE, WE'RE THE GENERATORS THAT THEY HAVE FIRM TRANSMISSION THAT, THAT, THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE. 
          BUT I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE THAT HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE HAVE FOUR PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE, SO WE CAN KEEP TALKING THROUGH THIS HERE. 
          UH, SORRY, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS? WHO'S, I'M SORRY. 
          IF YOU CAN GET IN LINE WITH GOOGLE, SORRY, WHOEVER'S SPEAKING, YOU CAN JUMP IN THE QUEUE. 
          YOU CAN REQUEST TO TALK. 
          OKAY, NEXT UP IS BOB WHITMEYER. 
          YEAH, JEFF, UM, STU, STUPID QUESTION OF THE DAY. 
          WHEN WE DO THESE LARGE LOAD STUDIES, DO WE ASSUME THE LOAD IS ALWAYS CONSUMING OR IS THAT FACTORED IN WHEN WE'RE DOING THE BATCH STUDIES THAT SOME OF THESE ARE GONNA BE OFF AND SOME ARE GONNA BE ON, UM, THE, WE WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY'RE ALWAYS STUDYING EXCEPT WE WILL RUN, UH, THE CONTINGENCY LOSS OF THAT LOAD. 
          THAT THAT'S, THAT IS A, A VALID CONTINGENCY IN THE PLANNING GUIDE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE ARE SORT OF LOOKING AT THIS ALREADY, RIGHT? UNDER THAT CONTINGENCY SCENARIO UNDER, RIGHT. 
          YES. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          ALL RIGHT, NEXT, CINDY KAR. 
          UH, YEAH, JUST A CLARIFICATION. 
          WILL THE BATCH PROCESS HONOR THE MDC CRITERIA THAT YOU CANNOT DISPATCH AROUND, UH, NON, UH, NON-RENEWABLE GENERATION? YOU LOST ME WITH THAT ACRONYM. 
          OH, MINIMUM DELIVERABILITY CRITERIA. 
          IT'S, YEAH. 
          YES, STILL THIS IS , I THINK THE BATCH ZERO STUDY, UM, THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE SCOPE. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO CONSIDER BECAUSE THAT'S AN EXISTING CRITERIA. 
          SO WE, WHEN WE, WHEN WE DO THE STUDY, WE WILL HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. 
          YES, I WOULD THINK SO. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I, I GUESS THE POINT WAS CONCEPTUALLY THAT'S A RISK, WHAT'S MENTIONED THERE. 
          UH, IT, AND IT MAY POSE AS A SPECIFIC SCENARIO BASED ON WHAT WE ADD OR WHAT WE DON'T. 
          UM, SO SOMETHING TO FACTOR IN WHEN WE SAY WE CAN USE A-S-E-O-P-F TO DISPATCH AROUND THESE ISSUES. 
          UH, OFTEN THOUGH, THAT TOOL HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR TOOLKIT AS A PLANNER, UH, IN THE RECENT CHANGES. 
          YES, SANDEEP, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          SO ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DELIVERY CRITERIA IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES AND THE LOAD THAT USED IN THE STUDY IS NOT THE COINCIDENT PEAK. 
          IF I'M RIGHT, IT'S, UH, I'M SORRY, IT'S NOT THE NON COINCIDENT PEAK. 
          IT'S, IT MIGHT BE A LOAD LESS THAN WHAT WE STUDY IN THE, IN THE TRANSMISSION PLANNING. 
          YEAH, YOU, YOU WILL HAVE A SUMMER PEAK CASE AND IF YOU CAN ARGUE THAT MDC DOESN'T APPLY TO THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THEN IT CHANGES HOW WE PLAN THE SYSTEM, AT LEAST THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN APPROACHING IT. 
          YEAH, FOR THE NET PEAK CASE, I AGREE, YOU CAN DISPATCH AND TRUST ALL THOSE ISSUES. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT IN THE QUEUE IS BOB KING. 
          I JUST WANTED TO, UH, SAY THAT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE, UH, PRESENTATION. 
          IT BRINGS UP SOME GOOD QUESTIONS, BUT, AND ONE OF THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS WAS, WOULD IT CHANGE THE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS, THE FEE REQUIRED OF THE LOAD THAT REMAINS? 'CAUSE IT COULD CHANGE THE COST TO SERVE THAT LOAD SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT I THINK GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE'RE ALL PUTTING UP $50,000 A MEGAWATT HOUR NON-REFUNDABLE FEE TO PAY, IF THERE'S A LITTLE READJUSTMENT IN THE ACTUAL, DURING THE REFINEMENT, I, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE US FIX THE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENT AT THE TIME THAT WE MAKE THE COMMITMENT IN THE COMMITMENT PERIOD BECAUSE, UM, I MEAN SOME OF US WILL DO BETTER AND SOME WILL DO A LITTLE WORSE IN THAT PROCESS, BUT THE CERTAINTY IS WORTH SOMETHING AND MOVING FORWARD AND NOT RESTUDYING ALL THAT'S WORTH SOMETHING TOO. 
          SO I THINK WE'RE KIND OF COVERING ON THE FINANCIAL SIDE WITH VERY SIGNIFICANT NON-REFUNDABLE FEE COMPARED TO ANY OTHER MARKET. 
          SO MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE ISSUE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THERE. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES. 
          I MEAN, THIS ISSUE, I WORRY ONLY IN SCENARIOS WHERE LIKE LOADS DROPPING CAUSE NEW OVERLOADS, LIKE THIS IS JUST AN ISSUE WHAT I PRESENTED. 
          IF WHAT I'M SAYING HERE, IT IT'S AN ACTUAL POSSIBILITY, WHICH IT IS, UH, OUTSIDE OF KOT, I GUESS MY, I I GUESS MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO ERCOT IS THEN THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN THE BATCH. 
          IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING, ONCE YOU SIGN AN IA, AN IA ON THAT DECISION POINT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT 
          [01:35:01]
HAPPENS,  WILL GUARANTEE THE MEGAWATTS THE COST AND THE TIMELINE. 
          SO THERE WOULD NEVER BE AN OVERLOAD CAUSED BY ANOTHER LOAD. 
          'CAUSE LIKE IN THEORY, I MEAN SCOPE F SHOULD RESOLVE THAT, BUT I, I MEAN, I GUESS THE RISK IS WHAT IF IT DOESN'T? LIKE WHAT IF FOR SOME REASON THERE'S SPECIFIC UNITS THAT ARE ALREADY MAXED OUT OR WE CAN'T MOVE THOSE UNITS FOR ANY REASON, THEN THIS MIGHT BE A PROBLEM. 
          AND I GUESS THIS MIGHT BE A PROBLEM ONLY IF WE CAN'T LIKE, YOU KNOW, SOLVE THOSE VIOLATIONS. 
          YOU HAVE TO BE CLEAR. 
          YEAH, AND I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE WORD GUARANTEE, BUT, UH, BUT YEAH, THE, THE INTENTION IS THAT, UM, GUARANTEED FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, I, I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA GO BACK AND CHANGE THE MEGAWATTS. 
          WE'RE, WE'RE, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT FINANCIAL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS ARE BASED ON THE STUDY, WE WE'RE NOT GONNA GO BACK AND AND READJUST THOSE. 
          IT'S WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS AT THE END OF BATCH ZERO? UH, ANY CHANGES AFTER THAT SHOULD NOT IMPACT THE LOADS THAT, THAT'S THE INTENTION. 
          AND HOW WILL ERCO KNOW THAT THE SCOPE F WILL SOLVE THIS ISSUE IF BATCH STUDY HAS NOT BEEN RUN? UH, SO WE HAVE, I THINK BASED ON PAST STUDIES, WE BELIEVE THAT S-E-O-P-F SHOULD SOLVE THAT ISSUE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THERE'S STILL SOME PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE. 
          STAY UP THERE. 
          HERE WE GO, DURGA. 
          SO THERE'S THREE MORE AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PART. 
          SO DURGA, THANK YOU. 
          UM, DURGA FROM SOFTBANK. 
          UM, SO JUST TO CONFIRM, SO ONCE A BATCH STUDY'S COMPLETE AND THE LOAD SIGNS AND IA AND WE GO FORWARD AND SIGN ALL OF THIS STUFF WITH FINANCIAL STUFF, YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S NO WAY THE IA IS GONNA CHANGE, RIGHT? THERE'S NO NEED FOR AN IA AMENDMENT IN THE FUTURE, UH, SAYING THE, THE MEGAWATT CAPACITY HAS CHANGED. 
          IS THAT A, IS THAT TRUE? THAT'S, THAT'S TRUE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SEC SECOND QUESTION ON THE, ON THE SOLUTION, RIGHT? SO, UM, YOU SAID THAT GENERATION DISPATCH IS GONNA SOLVE THE ISSUE IF THE LOAD DROPS, BUT GENERATIONS ALSO DROP, RIGHT? UM, HOW COMFORTABLE IS THE CAR PROPOSING SOLUTIONS BASED ON GENERATIONS, ESPECIALLY FOR BEST? IS THERE, WHICH HAS A NEGATIVE SHIFT FACTOR ON THIS LOAD AND DISPATCHING THAT IS SOLVING THAT, THAT TRANSMISSIONS PROBLEM AND THE BEST DROPS IN THE FUTURE? UM, I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW  IS THINKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF SPECULATIVE GENERATION AS WELL, ESPECIALLY BEST. 
          WELL, UM, SO A COUPLE THOUGHTS THERE. 
          SO GENERATION WON'T BE ADDED TO THE CASE UNLESS IT MEETS 6.9 UN UNLESS WE HAVE TO GET TO PICKER 1 27. 
          BUT ON, UH, THAT, THAT METHODOLOGY, BUT ON, UM, THE BES, UH, THE BATTERY SPECIFICALLY, UH, THERE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT DISPATCH ASSUMPTIONS DEPENDING ON THE CASE THAT WE'RE RUNNING AND WE WON'T RESPECT THOSE, UH, DISPATCH ASSUMPTIONS, WHICH I THINK TYPICALLY FOR SOME REPEAT IS ZERO, RIGHT? IT'S, YEAH, THIS IS, UH, PR SO THE, THE BATTERY DISPATCH, IT, IT HAS TO MEET A CERTAIN DURATION TO BE CONSIDERED AS A, YOU KNOW, DISPATCHABLE AND SUMMER PEAK CONDITIONS. 
          UM, I THINK TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE, THE GENERATION CHANGE, ESPECIALLY LOOKING AT THE NEAR TERM YEARS, JEFF IS RIGHT, YOU KNOW, YOU ONLY MODEL GENERATORS THAT MEET 6.9. 
          UM, SO EVEN IF GENERATION LIKE, YOU KNOW, GENERATION EXPECTATION CHANGES, I THINK, UM, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO THIS LOAD ISSUE, I DON'T THINK THIS WE HAVE, WE ARE, I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING THIS COULD NOT HAPPEN, THERE COULD BE RARE SITUATIONS, BUT THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT HAPPENING BASED ON THE WAY WE DO PLANNING WHERE WE DO DISPATCH GENERATION, LIKE JEFF SAID, SO THAT TAKES INTO QUANT, LIKE, YOU KNOW, ON ON TOP OF THAT WE ALSO STUDY THE G MINUS ONE AND MINUS ONE, WHICH IS KIND OF A N MINUS ONE CRITERIA WITH THE ERCOT. 
          SO THERE, THERE ARE SOME SAFEGUARDS, YOU KNOW, HOW WE ACCOUNT FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, UNCERTAINTY WITH GENERATION. 
          YEAH. 
          SO JUST TO DOUBLE DOWN ON WHAT HE SAID, THIS IS ALREADY HOW WE DO TRANSMISSION PLANNING IN ERCOT. 
          SO THIS IS, THIS IS NOT NEW. 
          WE'RE NOT BREAKING NEW TERRITORY HERE. 
          THAT, THAT, THAT IS, THIS IS WHAT WE ALREADY DO. 
          YEAH, THE REASON I WAS ASKING THIS QUESTION IS BECAUSE WITH SO MUCH SPECULATIVE LOAD, I THINK A LOT OF FICTITIOUS GENERATIONS ARE GONNA GET ADDED AS WELL TO SOLVE THE CASE. 
          AND, AND THAT'S WHERE MY QUESTION WAS ALLUDING TOWARDS, LIKE IF, IF THAT GENERATION DROPS, THEN HOW, HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT BASICALLY IS MY QUESTION. 
          AND ESPECIALLY FOR A NO SOLAR SCENARIO, IT BECOMES MORE CRITICAL BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SOLAR IN THERE, RIGHT? SO ANY GENERATION THAT YOU'RE USING TO RE-DISPATCH AND SOLVE ISSUES, UH, THE SOLUTION 
          [01:40:01]
IS EXTREMELY SENSITIVE TO THAT GENERATION, UH, GOING ONLINE OR NOT, RIGHT? SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M, MY QUESTION IS HEADING TOWARDS HERE AGAIN, THIS , UM, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          SO IF YOU'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THE LAST FEW PLANNING STUDIES, INCLUDING THE RTP, THE, THE GENERATION, WHAT YOU DEFINE ASPHYXIATION AS A PROBABLY OUTSIDE THE PLANNING GUIDE, THAT'S MORE APPLICABLE FOR THE FURTHER OUT YEARS. 
          AGAIN, WE, WE DON'T KNOW THE LOAD PROJECTIONS FOR THE UPCOMING STUDIES. 
          YEAH, THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING WE, WE TAKE A LOOK. 
          I MEAN IF WE DID ADD THOSE KIND OF GENERATION, WE DO SOME SENSITIVITIES TO MAKE SURE THAT'S NOT DRIVING THE, OR MASKING THE PROBLEM OR DRIVING TRANSMISSION PROJECTS. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING WE, WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN OUR STUDIES, BUT UM, THE WAY THE BAT STUDY IS DEFINED RIGHT NOW, THE BAT ZERO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR THE NEAR TERM YEARS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE LOAD ALLOCATION PLAN OR THE LOAD COMMITMENT PLAN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK Y'ALL. 
          UH, THREE MORE COMMENTERS. 
          SO SAM, BRANDON, GO AHEAD. 
          THANKS SAM, BRANDON WITH THE GENETIC INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          UM, SO I GUESS NOW I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT DIALOGUE JUST NOW. 
          SO TO BE CLEAR, ENERGY STORAGE TODAY IN TERMS OF HOW IT'S REFLECTED IN THE, IN THE PLANNING MODELS IS BASED OFF THE ELCC CURVES IN THE CDR REPORT, RIGHT? LIKE IT'S NO LONGER ZERO. 
          THAT WAS LIKE THE LEGACY APPROACH. 
          I GOTTA GO AND LOOK BACK AT THE, I DON'T HAVE, I CAN'T RECALL THAT, BUT YOU ARE RIGHT, IT'S BASED ON THE SO, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT HAS TO HAVE A CERTAIN DURATION TO BE MODELED AS A DISPATCH PER RESOURCE. 
          YEP, YEP. 
          NO, THAT CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE. 
          UM, AND THEN, YEAH, SEPARATELY, MY POINT WAS JUST THAT, SO THE CONVERSATION JUST NOW JUST MADE ME THINK ABOUT PICKER 1 27 AND HOW THAT THE HIGH, THE HIGH LEVEL IS THAT PICKER 1 27 IS GOING TO ALLOW FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT AT 6.9 TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS MODEL. 
          AND ESPECIALLY IF WE GET TO THE PARTICULARLY DISCRETIONARY KIND OF LEVEL OF THOSE DECISIONS THAT COULD IMPACT THIS SORT OF DYNAMIC IN A PRETTY MEANINGFUL WAY. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE IF ERCOT HAS ANY IMMEDIATE THOUGHTS ON HOW YOU GUYS PLAN TO, LIKE, IS THERE ANY SPECIAL LIKE CASE CRITERIA THAT'S EXPECTED ONCE WE GET TO THAT LEVEL OF STUDY? YEAH, NO, TIM, YOU BRING UP GOOD POINT. 
          UM, AT THIS POINT WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON DOING ANYTHING SPECIAL AROUND THAT. 
          UM, THERE IS A RISK THERE. 
          UM, AND, AND I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, BUT AT THIS POINT WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON DOING ANYTHING SPECIAL TO ADDRESS THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT, NEXT IS RUSSELL. 
          UH, HI EVERYBODY. 
          UH, RUS THOMPSON HERE WITH ASPHALT. 
          UH, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS, UH, TOO SIMPLE OF A QUESTION, BUT I'D LIKE TO BE EDUCATED ON IT. 
          UH, THERE WAS A NOTE EARLIER ABOUT MEGAWATTS NOT BEING ABLE TO BE CHANGED, UH, DURING THE APP APPLICATION PROCESS, BUT SINCE MEGAWATTS AT THE APPLICATION ARE THEORETICAL, BECAUSE WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THE REACT STUDY TO BE INCOMPLETE, WE DON'T HAVE THE FACTORY ACCEPTED TEST REPORTS OF THE EQUIPMENT. 
          SO WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD OF CHANGE THAT IS ALLOWABLE, UM, AFTER THOSE MEGAWATTS NEED TO BE UPDATED? 'CAUSE THE MEGAWATTS ARE WHEN IN THE APPLICATION THEY'RE DETERMINED AT THE 3 45 KV BUS, NOT AT THE POI OR AM I WRONG ON THAT? YEAH, I, I THINK THAT, UM, IT, IT, WHATEVER YOU PUT IN YOUR APPLICATION, YOU, YOU SHOULD ACCOUNT FOR THE, UM, YOU KNOW, ANY, ANY POTENTIAL CHANGES. 
          SO IF YOU THINK IT COULD GO UP, YOU SHOULD SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION FOR WHATEVER THAT HIGHER AMOUNT IS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE, WE, IT'S OKAY TO GO FOR A HIGHER AMOUNT AND THEN IF IT'S NOT ACTUALLY THAT AMOUNT, IT'S FINE, IT'S FINE TO REDUCE IT DOWN, BUT IT'S NOT OKAY TO UNDERESTIMATE THAT THEN HAVE IT TO GO UP. 
          YEAH. 
          IF YOU WANTED TO GO UP, THEN THAT WOULD, UM, YOU, YOU'D HAVE TO GO IN FOR ANOTHER REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL MEGAWATTS, SO IT IT'D BE A SECOND REQUEST AND YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE STUDY PROCESS FOR THAT ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. 
          CORRECT. 
          UH, WHAT, IS THERE A SPECIFIC THRESHOLD OF, OF THAT? UH, SO LIKE FIVE MEGAWATTS OR SOMETHING? I THINK AGE JUST WALKED OUT, BUT I, I DON'T, UH, SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, BUT I I THINK IT'S, UM, DEFINED IN PLANNING GUIDE, UH, SECTION NINE POINT. 
          CHRISTINA OR EVAN? NO, OFF THE TOP OF THEIR HEAD, IT'S EITHER, I THINK IT'S 9.2, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THE SUBSECTION EXACTLY. 
          OKAY, I'LL, I'LL GO LOOK THAT UP IN THE, IN THE, IN THE PLANNING GUIDES THERE, BUT, BUT THE STRATEGY GOING FORWARD NEEDS TO BE THAT YOU OVERESTIMATE SO THAT WAY YOU CAN REDUCE BECAUSE REDUCING IS NOT THE PROBLEM. 
          AND THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU HAVE TO 
          [01:45:01]
INCREASE THE, UH, BASED ON THE RESULTS. 
          SO THESE, UH, STUDIES GOT, I'M, I'M NOT RECOMMENDING YOU OVERESTIMATE, BUT, UM,  OR, OR RECOMMENDING ANY STRATEGIES, BUT, UM, YEAH, BUT THAT, THAT WOULD SEEM LIKE YOU, YOU, IT WOULD BE HARDER TO GO INCREASE THAN TO DECREASE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT, GREAT. 
          AND LAST QUESTION, UH, LEE CHER LICHER CIPHER DIGITAL, JUST A CLARIFICATION FROM DURGA QUESTION EARLIER IT WAS MENTIONED THAT IF YOU MEET THE 5 8 4 8 1 CRITERIA, UH, YOU HAVE AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT SIGNED, YOU PAY THE, WHATEVER THE DOLLAR AMOUNT ENDS UP BEING, UM, TO GET INTO BATCH ZERO FIRM OR BATCH ZERO BASE LOAD, UM, THAT, THAT THOSE MEGAWATTS WOULD NOT BE LOCATABLE. 
          BUT ISN'T THERE A SCENARIO WHERE YOU COULD BE FAR ENOUGH DOWN THE LINE AND YOUR LOAD MET THOSE CRITERIA AFTER A BUNCH OF OTHER LOADS? DID THAT, AS YOU GO DOWN THAT CHRONOLOGY AND LOOK AT THE STUDIES, IF YOU HAD A STUDY THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN A STUDY THAT WAS APPROVED BEFORE, YOU JUST WANNA CLARIFY, THAT'S STILL THE CASE THAT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY BE IN BATCH ZERO, UM, BASE LOAD, AND THEN IN THE EVENT THAT THAT DOES OCCUR, YOU WOULD BE KICKED OVER TO BATCH ZERO LOCATABLE, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YEAH, I THINK I WOULD SAY IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT, BUT I, I THINK THAT THAT'S RIGHT. 
          SO, BUT YOU WOULD KNOW THAT AHEAD OF TIME. 
          IT, IT WOULDN'T BE THAT IN SEPTEMBER WE WOULD TELL YOU, OH, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NO LONGER BASE LOAD. 
          YOU'RE, YOU'RE, UM, YOU COULD BE REALLOCATED. 
          WE, WE WOULD KNOW THAT UPFRONT LIKE JU JULY 10TH TIMEFRAME. 
          YEAH, I, I THINK J JULY TIMEFRAME OR, UM, AND I'LL GET INTO THIS IN MY PRESENTATION, BUT WE, WE ARE INTENDING TO, UH, PROVIDE REGULAR UPDATES TO THE TSPS ON THE STATUS OF THESE, SO YOU WILL KNOW. 
          SO IF, IF YOU CAME IN ON MARCH 30TH, THEN YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU, YOU SHOULD KNOW IN APRIL ABOUT WHETHER YOU'RE WOULD BE CONSIDERED, UH OH UNDERSTOOD. 
          ELIGIBLE FOR BASE LOAD. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL AUGUST OR JULY. 
          THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. 
          HEY JEFF, REAL QUICK, JUST ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT. 
          ERCO WILL USE GENERATION RE DISPATCH SCOPE PF OPTIMAL POWER FLOW TO SOLVE AND MAINTAIN THE LOAD THAT STAYED AFTER THE, AFTER THE REFINEMENT AND SOLVE ALL THE RELIABILITY VIOLATIONS. 
          I GUESS THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION WOULD BE, WHY CAN WE USE THAT SAME CONCEPT INITIALLY? I MEAN IF ER CODE CAM GUARANTEE, LIKE, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, IF WE, WE HAVE 10 GIGAWATTS ON THE QUEUE AND TWO DROP AND, AND NOW WE HAVE EIGHT AND ER CODE GUARANTEEING THAT SCOPE F WILL SOLVE FOR THOSE EIGHT AND IT WILL SOLVE ALL THE VIOLATIONS THAT HAPPEN FROM LARGE LOADS WITHDRAWING. 
          I MEAN, WOULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO USE SCOPE F INITIALLY FOR THE 10 GIG AND, AND GIVE HOLD THAT 10 GIGS LIKE FIXED AND HAVE SCOPE F SOLD FOR EVERYTHING AND GIVE EVERYBODY THE, THE 10 GIGS? YEAH. 
          SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S THE, IN, IN, WELL I WOULD, MAYBE, AGAIN, I'LL SAY IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, BUT WE WILL USE S-E-O-P-F IN, IN THAT INITIAL BATCH OF STUDY. 
          UH, BUT WE EXPECT THAT EVEN WITH THAT THERE MAY BE OVERLOADS. 
          SO IT'S, SO, SO THE WAY THE PROCESS IS WORKING IS WE PUT ALL THE LOADS IN THE CASE, WE RUN S-E-O-P-F AND WE SEE WHAT OVERLOADS THERE ARE, AND THEN WE WORK WITH THE TSPS TO TRY TO, UH, COME UP WITH TRANSMISSION SOLUTIONS AND, AND MAYBE WE IDENTIFY A DOZEN TRANSMISSION SOLUTIONS AND WE PUT THOSE IN THE CASE WE RUN S-E-O-P-F AGAIN, WHATEVER VIOLATIONS EXIST AT THE END OF THAT PROCESS, WE, WE HAVE RUN S-E-O-P-F. 
          SO WE'VE DONE ALL THE GENERATION RE-DISPATCH THAT WE CAN DO. 
          IF THERE ARE STILL OVERLOADS, THEN WE WILL RUN AN ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND IT'S, IT'S ALSO S-E-O-P-F, BUT IT, IT'S, UH, IT WILL, UH, REDUCE THAT LOAD AMOUNT, UH, UNTIL WE GET A SOLVED CLEAN CASE. 
          BUT IT, IT, IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE WITH THE GENERATION THAT'S IN THE CASE TO RESOLVE ALL OF THE OVERLOADS, UH, BECAUSE IT, YOU KNOW, THERE JUST MAY NOT, THAT JUST MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE. 
          GOT IT. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          YEP. 
          GOOD DISCUSSION. 
          THANK YOU EVERYBODY. 
          ALRIGHT, 
          [6. Design elements for CLR]
SO WE'RE GONNA TRANSITION. 
          SO IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING AT HOME, WE ARE NOW JUMPING TO AGENDA ITEM SIX. 
          THIS IS THE DESIGN FOR CLR. 
          SO WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO THE MAIN ERCOT PRESENTATION AND I'M GONNA TURN THIS OVER TO AG AND WE'RE GONNA GO DOWN TO SLIDE. 
          OOH, THERE WE ARE. 
          SLIDE 16 AND RYAN'S HAPPY TO DO SLIDE. 
          [01:50:07]
ALRIGHT, UH, GOOD MORNING. 
          UH, A SPRINGER OR KA, UM, THANK Y'ALL FOR, UH, ACCOMMODATING US FOR GOING A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER. 
          UM, SO, UH, I THINK AT THE LAST WORKSHOP I HAD INDICATED THAT WE WERE HOPING TO HAVE LANGUAGE TO REVIEW, UH, AT TODAY'S WORKSHOP. 
          UH, WE DIDN'T QUITE GET THERE. 
          UM, THERE'S STILL, UH, A NUMBER OF, UH, TOPICS THAT WE ARE STILL VETTING INTERNALLY AND, UM, BECAUSE OF THAT WE'RE, WE'RE NOT QUITE READY TO SHARE LANGUAGE TODAY, BUT WE ARE, UM, STILL TARGETING THE APRIL 8TH DATE THAT MATT TALKED ABOUT, UH, EARLIER IN THE WORKSHOP FOR FILING THESE REVISION REQUESTS. 
          UM, SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE DOING TODAY IS NOT JUST REHASHING THAT, UH, ONE SLIDE, ALTHOUGH I'M GONNA START WITH IT, UH, BUT WE WILL WE'LL COVER, UH, MUCH MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE, THE REVISION REQUEST. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, HOPEFULLY THAT WILL GIVE YOU ALL A BIT MORE VISIBILITY INTO THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADING AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TAKE QUESTIONS AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH OR, UH, WELL IT'S, IT IS ONLY LIKE SIX SLIDES, SO LET ME GET THROUGH 'EM AND THEN, THEN WE WILL, WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS. 
          SORRY, . 
          OKAY, SO I'M GONNA START WITH THE, THE SLIDE AS A, A CONCEPT REFLE REFRESHER. 
          SO, UM, THE CONCEPT IS THAT, UH, LARGE LOADS THAT INDICATE, UH, PRIOR TO THE BATCH STUDY THAT THEY WILL BE, UM, WILLING TO HAVE SOME OR ALL OF THEIR LOAD, UH, ENTERED AS CLR, UH, WILL POTENTIALLY RECEIVE HIGHER MEGAWATT ALLOCATIONS. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA BE CREATING SORT OF A NEW MODIFIED, UH, CLR CONSTRUCT CALLED A PROVISIONAL CLR, UM, THAT WILL HAVE, UH, POTENTIALLY, UH, SOME CAPPING ON THE CLR BID CURVE, UH, INSTEAD, UH, BUT, UH, EFFECTIVELY, YOU KNOW, IT WILL ALLOW THESE LOADS TO POTENTIALLY CONNECT MORE MEGAWATTS, UH, OVER, YOU KNOW, SOONER THAN THEY WOULD HAVE IF THEY WERE STUDIED SOLELY AS FIRM LOAD. 
          UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE STRUCTURE WE'RE GOING FORWARD WITH. 
          UM, AND SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE DETAILS NOW. 
          SO FIRST OF ALL, STRUCTURE OF REVISION REQUESTS, UM, I'M GOING TO CA CAVEAT EVERYTHING THAT I SAY FOLLOWING THAT FROM THIS SLIDE FORWARD AS THESE ARE DESIGN, UH, PRINCIPLES THAT ARE STILL BEING, UH, REVIEWED INTERNALLY. 
          UM, SO SOME OF THESE DETAILS MAY CHANGE BETWEEN TODAY AND WHEN WE FILE THE REVISION REQUESTS. 
          UM, WERE WERE THERE SOME AREAS WHERE WE'RE STILL DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT WHAT WE ARE ARE DRAFTING IS, IS FEASIBLE? UM, SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, EVERY SINGLE SLIDE IS GONNA HAVE THAT FOOTNOTE ON IT. 
          UM, AND THAT'S BECAUSE, UH, IT'S ALSO THE REASON WE'RE NOT SHOWING LANGUAGE TODAY. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          SO, UH, THIS WILL CONSIST OF A PIGGER AND A COMPANION NPRR. 
          UM, AS WITH PIGGER 1 34 AND, UH, NPR 1325, UM, THE PROBABLY, UH, MOST OF THE PLANNING MEET WILL BE IN THE PIGGER AND THEN THE CHANGES TO SC METHODOLOGY AND, UH, THINGS LIKE DEFINITIONS AND THE AGREEMENT THAT WILL, WILL LOCK IN THE CLR, UH, ARE GONNA BE LOCATED IN THE NPRR. 
          AND THE WAY WE'RE STRUCTURING IT IS A MODULAR STRUCTURE WHERE EFFECTIVELY IT'S GOING TO KIND OF ADD ON TO PICKER 1 45 AND NPR 1325. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN PICKER 1 45, WE HAVE SECTION 9.2 0.2 THAT DEFINES THE SET OF INFORMATION THAT HAS TO BE PROVIDED TO GET INTO THE BATCH ZERO STUDY. 
          UM, WHAT WE'VE DONE IN KIND OF EACH OF THESE CASES IS ADDED ON A SECTION PLUS ONE NUMBER THAT WILL DEFINE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR ADDITIONAL STUDY PARAMETERS RELATED TO A PROVISIONAL CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCE. 
          UM, SO THE IDEA IS IT WILL PLUG INTO PGA 1 45 BUT NOT BE TIED TO IT DIRECTLY IN THE EVENT. 
          YOU KNOW, SO THAT'LL ALLOW THEM BOTH TO MOVE TO JUNE BOARD IF, IF THERE'S, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. 
          UM, BUT IT WILL NOT BOG DOWN PIGGER 1 45 BY BEING ADDED AS COMMENTS, UH, TO THAT, THAT PIGGER. 
          AND THE SAME FOR THE NPRR. 
          UM, SO THAT, THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADING. 
          KIND OF, IF YOU IMAGINE EVERYTHING IN SECTION NINE WILL KIND OF HAVE A LITTLE EXTRA SECTION ADDED TO IT THAT DESCRIBES HOW A PROVISIONAL CLR IS GONNA BE TREATED. 
          SO, UH, BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS, UH, THE DEFINITION, SO I MENTIONED THAT WE ARE CREATING A NEW CONSTRUCT CALLED A PROVISIONAL CLR. 
          UM, THIS IS EFFECTIVELY ACL R, BUT WITH A A FEW KEY 
          [01:55:01]
DIFFERENCES. 
          UM, THE FIRST IS THAT IT WILL BE LOCKED IN FOR A SET PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL, UH, THE POINT AT WHICH THE LOAD CAN BE SERVED RELIABLY AS FIRM LOADS. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HEARD FROM STAKEHOLDERS QUITE CLEARLY IS THAT THEY, THE DESIRE IS FOR A CLR TO BE A PATH TO CONNECT MORE MEGAWATTS SOONER, BUT HAVE AN EXIT PATH. 
          UM, AND SO PART OF THE B ZERO STUDY FOR, UH, THESE PROVISIONAL CLRS WILL BE TO IDENTIFY THAT EXIT DATE WHEN THE LOAD WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO BECOME SOLELY FIRM LOAD AND DEREGISTER AS ACL R. 
          UH, THE SECOND DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THAT THERE WILL BE LOW POWER CONSUMPTION LIMITS THAT ARE DEFINED IN THE BATCH ZERO INTERCONNECTION STUDY. 
          SO THIS IS EFFECTIVELY IDENTIFYING HOW MUCH OF THE LOAD CAN RELIABLY BE SERVED AS FIRM AND THE REST OF IT WOULD NEED TO BE OFFERED IN, IN REAL TIME AS DISPATCHABLE TO SCED. 
          UM, SO, UH, THAT, THAT MIRRORS, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF THE LOAD COULD BE SERVED AS FIRM IN FOR LOADS THAT ARE NOT WANTING TO BE CLR. 
          AND THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THAT BECOMES SORT OF YOUR, YOUR FLOOR AS ACL R, UH, IF YOU'RE GONNA GO THIS ROUTE. 
          AND THEN THE FINAL, UH, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRADITIONAL CLR AND THIS PROVISIONAL CLR, UM, WOULD BE THE, UH, THE BID CAPPING METHODOLOGY, UM, TO MITIGATE THE TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS. 
          AND SO WHAT THIS IS DOING IS IT'S ENSURING THAT THE SCED DISPATCH WILL ELECT TO DISPATCH THE LOAD DOWN IF IT'S NEEDED TO RESOLVE THE CONGESTION. 
          UM, BUT THERE IS MORE DETAIL IN THERE. 
          THE IDEA IS THAT IT WOULD BE DYNAMICALLY, UM, UH, SORT OF LAST IN LINE. 
          THIS LOAD WOULD SORT OF BE LAST IN LINE BEHIND ALL THE GENERATION THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THE DISPATCH. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN IS, UH, THE CONSTRAINT IS ALLOWED TO VIOLATE, BUT, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE WANTING TO NOT DISPATCH THESE CLRS AHEAD OF THE GENERATION. 
          SO THERE'LL BE SOME ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGY AND, UH, I'VE GOT A, I'VE GOT A TEAM OF FRIENDS FROM THE COMMERCIAL OPS SIDE WHO ARE GONNA HELP ME WITH THAT. 
          WE'LL GET TO THAT SLIDE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN THEN, FOR THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS? SO EFFECTIVELY IT MEANS THERE'S GONNA BE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION COLLECTED UPFRONT, SOME STEPS IN THE STUDY PROCESS AND THE COMMITMENT PROCESS. 
          AND THEN THE REFINEMENT STUDY WILL STILL BUILD THE FULL, THE, THE TRANSMISSION NEEDED TO SERVE THE FULL LOAD. 
          SO, UM, IF WE START AT BOX ONE, THERE WILL BE SOME EXTRA INFORMATION AND A DECLARATION OF INTENT TO REGISTER AS A CLR OR A PROVISIONAL CLR, UH, THAT WILL BE DUE TO ERCOT ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S COMING IN ON THE JULY 24TH DATE. 
          SO, UM, IF, IF YOU'RE WANTING, IF YOUR LOAD IS GOING THIS ROUTE, THERE'S JUST SOME ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION IN TERMS OF MODELING PARAMETERS THAT WILL COME INTO ERCOT BY JULY 24TH. 
          ERCOT WILL STUDY THE LOAD IN THE BATCH ZERO STUDY. 
          I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT BEING ACL R, AT LEAST AS WE'RE DRAFTING IT, DOES NOT IMPACT YOUR ELIGIBILITY FOR, UH, BATCH ZERO INCLUSION AS AN ASSESSED LOAD. 
          IF YOU WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION AS AN ASSESSED LOAD, DECLARING INTENT TO BE A CLR IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT. 
          UM, BUT ELIGIBLE LOADS CAN POTENTIALLY GET MORE MEGAWATTS SOONER IF THEY WANT TO GO THIS ROUTE. 
          AFTER BATCH ZERO, THERE'S GOING TO BE A STEP WHERE THE ILLE WILL HAVE TO, UH, UPDATE THEIR DECLARATION TO FORMALIZE THE AMOUNT OF, UH, THE FIRM LOAD AMOUNTS FROM THE BATCH ZERO STUDY AND TO AFFIRM THE INTENT TO REGISTER AS ACL R. 
          UM, AND THEN THE REFINEMENT STUDY REALLY, THERE'S NO CHANGE THERE. 
          THE REFINEMENT STUDY HAPPENS, UM, AND WE WILL STUDY THE FULL LOAD AMOUNT FOR, AGAIN, FOR INCLUSION, UH, TO ENSURE TRANSMISSION IS BUILT, UH, IN THE TRANSMISSION PLAN. 
          THE NEXT THREE STEPS ARE EFFECTIVELY EXISTING STEPS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN TODAY IN ORDER TO REGISTER AS A CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCE. 
          AND THESE WILL STILL NEED TO HAPPEN. 
          UH, SO THESE WILL INCLUDE THE CUSTOMER REGISTERING THE ILLE, REGISTERING AS A RESOURCE ENTITY DESIGNATING A QSE, UM, GETTING THE PROPER METERING IN PLACE, WORKING WITH ERCOT DEMAND INTEGRATION TO GET THE, UH, RIO SUBMISSIONS DONE TO GET THE CLR MODELED. 
          UM, AND, UH, ESTABLISHING THE REQUIRED TELEMETRY POINTS. 
          SO, UM, JUST LIKE ACL R, THIS IS A FULL REGISTRATION 
          [02:00:01]
AS A NERCOMP MARKET PARTICIPANT. 
          AND, UH, ALL THE TELEMETRY THAT WILL COME ALONG WITH THAT. 
          UM, THIS, UH, CAN BE DONE, WE BELIEVE IN PARALLEL WITH THE QSA REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT DEFINITELY HAS TO BE DONE PRIOR TO THE INITIAL ENERGIZATION, UH, POINT FOR THIS LARGE LOAD IN ORDER FOR THE NON FIRM AMOUNTS TO BE ALLOWED TO COME ONLINE. 
          UM, FINALLY, WE'LL, WE'LL VALIDATE ALL OF THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE PROCESS. 
          UM, SO I HAVE SOME MORE DETAILED SLIDES. 
          UH, I KIND OF VOICED OVER MOST OF THOSE, SO I'M GONNA JUST GO THROUGH THESE REAL QUICKLY. 
          UM, THE DECLARATION OF INTENT TO REGISTER, UM, WE'RE THINKING THAT WOULD BE A NOTARIZED DOCUMENT THAT'S SIGNED BY THE, UH, INTERCONNECTING LARGE LOAD ENTITY. 
          UM, THERE'LL BE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LIKE THE DESIRED MINIMUM FIRM LOAD AMOUNT SO, IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE A 500 MEGAWATT LOAD AND THE DESIGN OF YOUR FACILITY IS SUCH THAT A HUNDRED HAS TO BE FIRM, WE NEED TO KNOW THAT TO DETERMINE IF THE SYSTEM CAN RELIABLY SERVE THAT AMOUNT. 
          UM, IF IT GROWS OVER TIME, THE, YOU KNOW, IF YOUR FACILITY IS MODULAR, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE ACCOUNTED FOR AS WELL. 
          UM, FOR THE, SO IF WE MOVE OVER TO BOX TWO, I THINK THE ONLY OTHER DETAIL I WOULD ADD ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE HANDLED IN THE BATCH ZERO INTERCONNECTION STUDY IS THAT WE WILL LOOK TO SEE IF THAT MINIMUM LOW POWER CONSUMPTION AMOUNT, IN OTHER WORDS, THE, THE PORTION OF YOUR DESIGN THAT HAS TO BE FIRM LOAD, UH, WHETHER THAT CAN BE RELIABLY SERVED IN EACH YEAR OF THE BATCH ZERO STUDY. 
          UH, IF IT CANNOT BE SERVED, THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE AN INDICATION THAT EVEN THE, THAT BASE AMOUNT OF, UH, FIRM LOAD CANNOT BE RELIABLY SERVED. 
          SO EVEN, UH, AS BEING A CLR WOULD NOT ALLOW YOU TO CONNECT. 
          BUT THE, THE REVERSE IS ALSO TRUE. 
          SO IF, IF YOU DESIGNATE, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED MEGAWATTS MUST BE FIRM, AND WE, YOU KNOW, THIS, THE BATCH ZERO STUDY DETERMINES 150 COULD RELIABLY BE SERVED AS FIRM, THEN THAT WOULD BECOME YOUR ALLOWABLE FIRM LOAD AMOUNT, LOW POWER CONSUMPTION AMOUNT. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S STILL THAT RELIABILITY ASPECT. 
          WE WILL ALSO STUDY THE FULL REQUESTED AMOUNT FOR BOTH DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL TRANSMISSION UPGRADES AS WELL AS FOR THE STABILITY ANALYSIS. 
          UM, BECAUSE THE LOAD IS VARIABLE, WE NEED TO ASSESS, UH, THE IMPACT OF POTENTIALLY THE FULL CONSUMPTION AMOUNT ON THE SYSTEM, EVEN FOR THE EARLIER YEARS WHEN THE, THE FULL LOAD AMOUNT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE SERVED. 
          UM, DURING THE COMMITMENT PERIOD, AGAIN, THERE'S GONNA BE THAT UPDATE WITH THE DETAILS OF THE BATCH ZERO STUDY, UH, BEING INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENT AND, UH, UH, AGREED TO BY THE, THE CUSTOMER. 
          UM, AND THEN AGAIN, IN THE REFINEMENT, WE'LL STUDY THE FULL REQUESTED AMOUNT TO ENSURE THE TRANSMISSION PLAN, UH, FULLY REFLECTS THE, UH, THE REQUESTED LOAD. 
          AND THEN, UH, AGAIN, EXISTING STEPS HAVE TO BE TAKEN TO REGISTER AS A CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCE. 
          UM, AND THEN WE'LL VERIFY THAT DURING THE, UH, APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE PROCESS. 
          UM, SO WE DID HAVE ONE SLIDE. 
          UH, I, RYAN, IF YOU WANT TO TALK THROUGH ON THE, THE BID CAPPING METHODOLOGY THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING AND, UH, WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE REVISION REQUESTS. 
          YES. 
          UH, THANKS AG RYAN KING MANAGER MARKET DESIGN AT ERCOT. 
          SO WHAT I'LL TRY AND DO HERE IS THIS, THIS IS KIND OF AN OVERVIEW OF, LET'S CALL IT THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE DYNAMIC BIG CAPPING DESIGN, UH, THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AS PART OF, UH, THIS CONSTRUCT. 
          SO AS NOTED, THIS APPLIES TO THIS PROVISIONAL CLR CONCEPT. 
          SO I THINK WHAT I'LL DO IS JUST GO THROUGH THE STEPS AS OUTLINED ON THIS SLIDE, AND THEN I'M SURE THERE'LL BE A FEW QUESTIONS. 
          UM, SO AS AG MENTIONED BEFORE, THIS IS A, A KIND OF WAY OF DOING A LAST IN TIME OR LAST IN LINE, JUST IN TIME CONCEPT. 
          SO I'LL START ON THE, THE LEFT HAND SIDE HERE. 
          SO AFTER EACH SCED RUN CONCEPTUALLY, THERE'S GONNA BE A LIST OF BINDING TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS, WHICH ARE APPROACHING THEIR MAX SHADOW PRICE. 
          SO I HAVE A PARAMETER HERE, AN X PERCENT, AND I DID WANNA NOTE THAT THIS PERCENTAGE MAY NOT BE A SINGLE NUMBER, BUT RATHER IT MAY VARY DEPENDING ON THE, THE, THE TYPE OF CONSTRAINT. 
          AND THEN THESE ARE IDENTIFIED AS A, A POTENTIAL LIST OF TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS THAT CAN BE USED IN THIS BID, UH, CLR BID CAPPING PROCESS FOR THE NEXT SCED RUN. 
          SO THERE'S SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE PREVIOUS SCED RUN, AND THEN THE NEXT SCED RUN. 
          SO WE GET THIS LIST OF CONSTRAINTS DETERMINED 
          [02:05:01]
IN THE, THE, THE CURRENT SCED RUN, THE NEXT SCED RUN, UM, WHERE THE LIST OF CONSTRAINTS, UH, IDENTIFIED FOR THE BID CAPPING PROCESS FROM THE PREVIOUS SCED RUN MATCHES THOSE IN THE CURRENT SCED RUN. 
          THIS IS WHERE THE, THE THE, UM, BID CAPPING PROCESS APPLIES. 
          SO WHEN THO WHEN THE LISTS MATCH ANY CONSTRAINTS THAT MATCH, THEN ANY, UH, AND THAT SHOULD, PARDON ME, THAT SHOULD SAY, UH, PROVISIONAL CLR, ANY PROVISIONAL CLR WITH A HELPING SHIFT FACTOR. 
          AGAIN, THAT'S A, A PARAMETER. 
          SO WHAT WHATEVER THAT IS ON A GIVEN CONSTRAINT WILL HAVE ITS ENERGY BID CURVE CAPPED, UH, IN THE STEP TWO SCED RUN ACCORDING TO THE FORMULA THAT I'VE OUTLINED BELOW HERE. 
          SO THE BID CAP BAT, UH, PARDON ME, THE PROVISIONAL CLR BID CAP WILL BE STEP ONE SYSTEM LAMBDA, AND THEN IT WILL, UH, MINUS THE MAXIMUM OF THE MAX SHADOW PRICE ON THE CONSTRAINT TIMES THE SHIFT FACTOR, UH, LESS ONE PENNY. 
          NOW REMEMBER THAT THE, UM, IN THAT BRACKET, THOSE ARE NEGATIVE NUMBERS. 
          SO YOU HAVE TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE, THE WAY THE SIGNS WORK THERE, THAT THOSE WOULD BE ADDITIVE. 
          AND THEN BASICALLY, UM, IF FOLKS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SOME OTHER, UH, CONTEXT, WE'VE UTILIZED SOMETHING LIKE THIS, NOT THE SAME, BUT SIMILAR IN PRINCIPLE IN NPR 1255, FOR EXAMPLE, ALTHOUGH, TO BE CLEAR, THAT WAS BASED ON MARKET POWER MITIGATION. 
          THAT IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. 
          BUT BASICALLY THAT ALLOWS, UM, CLRS TO BE, UH, JUST AVAILABLE TO SCAD TO HELP RESOLVE THE TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINT. 
          SO I'VE RAMBLED ON A LITTLE BIT HERE. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A, A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE QUEUE. 
          I WILL JUST SEE IF S HAS ANYTHING THAT, THAT, UH, HE WANTED TO RAISE OVER AND ABOVE THAT. 
          IT'S GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, NOTHING FROM S SO WE'LL PASS THE BALL BACK TO AJI. 
          THANK YOU, RYAN. 
          SO BEFORE WE TAKE QUESTIONS, I THINK I JUST HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE. 
          SO LET'S GET THROUGH THAT AND THEN WE CAN, WE CAN OPEN UP THE QUEUE. 
          UM, I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN THAT WHILE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A VIABLE PATH FORWARD AND WE ARE, ARE STILL TARGETING THE APRIL 8TH DATE TO HAVE THIS FILED. 
          YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT WE ARE STILL WORKING ON INTERNALLY. 
          AND THIS, AGAIN, AS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE DON'T HAVE LANGUAGE TO SHARE TODAY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, SO IN THE B ZERO STUDY, IS THERE A STUDY SCENARIO POTENTIALLY FOR STABILITY WHERE WE MAY, UH, LIMIT THE MAXIMUM POWER CONSUMPTION OF THE, THE PROVISIONAL CLR? UM, THAT IS SOMETHING WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH. 
          UH, THE QUESTION OF CAN PCLR PROVIDE ANCILLARY SERVICES, I THINK IS STILL OPEN. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, THINGS FOR, HOW, HOW DOES THE CURRENT CLR PROCESS ENSURING THAT LINES UP WITH THE OVERALL BATCH STUDY PROCESS? UH, I THINK WE HAVE A, A PATH FORWARD THERE, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE STILL WORKING THE DETAILS THERE AND THINGS LIKE THE DETAILS FOR THE, UH, BID CAPPING PROCESS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PERCENTAGES AND THE SLIDE THAT RYAN JUST TALKED THROUGH, UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND IDENTIFYING THE SPECIFIC SYSTEM CHANGES AND ENSURING THAT THOSE ARE ACHIEVABLE BY THE POINT AT WHICH LOADS THAT, UM, WANT TO BE TREATED AS, AS PROVISIONAL CLRS IN THE BATCH STUDY WHEN THEY COME ON THE SYSTEM. 
          WE NEED TO HAVE SOME REALISTIC CHANCE OF HAVING THOSE, IF THERE ARE SYSTEM CHANGES NEEDED, HAVING THOSE IN PLACE. 
          UM, ONE LAST POINT BEFORE I OPEN IT UP IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I TALKED ABOUT HOW WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE WRITING THIS REVISION REQUEST IN A MODULAR FASHION. 
          UM, ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF DOING THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THIS, THESE WORKSHOPS IS THE DESIRE TO, WELL, COULD WE TREAT THESE LOADS THIS WAY IN THE PLANNING PORTION OF BATCH ZERO AND JUST NOT ALLOW THEM TO COME ONLINE, UH, UNTIL THE SYSTEM CHANGES ARE IN PLACE. 
          DOING THIS IN A MODULAR FASHION ALLOWS FOR THAT TO BE A POSSIBILITY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE, IF WE THINK ABOUT PICKER 1 45 AND SECTION NINE, YOU KNOW, SECTIONS 9.2 TO 9.5 ARE REALLY DEFINING THE PLANNING STUDY PORTION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          AND THEN 9.6 DEFINES THE INNER INITIAL ENERGIZATION AND ONGOING OPERATIONS PORTION BY PUTTING LANGUAGE IN 9.6 IN A, YOU KNOW, SEPARATE SECTION OF 9.6. 
          WE CAN POTENTIALLY LEAVE THAT GRAY BOX UNTIL THE SYSTEM CHANGES ARE THERE. 
          SO IT MAY ALLOW FOR THIS TO BE INCLUDED IN BATCH ZERO AS A STUDY, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE PLANNING STUDY AND STILL HOLD OFF ON THESE LOADS COMING ON THE SYSTEM UNTIL THE SYSTEM CHANGES ARE THERE. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE HEADED, BUT PLENTY OF OF OPEN QUESTIONS, UH, STILL TO RESOLVE. 
          SO, UM, MATT, I'M GONNA KICK IT BACK TO YOU AND, UH, WE'LL START THE QUEUE. 
          THAT'D BE GREAT. 
          AND JUST QUICK TIME CHECK. 
          SO IT'S 20 TILL NOON WE ARE HOPING TO TAKE, SO WE WILL HAVE A LUNCH TODAY. 
          OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO COVER, BUT WE'LL SEE HOW MUCH 
          [02:10:01]
OF THIS WE CAN GET THROUGH IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS BY 12 OR 1210, UH, TO SEE IF WE CAN WRAP IT UP BEFORE LUNCH. 
          SO WE'LL START THE QUEUE AT BILL BARNES. 
          THANKS GUYS. 
          BILL BARNES, NRG. 
          REALLY APPRECIATE THE, THE MEAT ON THE BONE HERE THAT ALLOWS US TO KIND OF SEE WHERE THINGS ARE HEADED. 
          UH, A FEW QUESTIONS BACK ON SLIDE 17. 
          SO WHEN YOU GUYS PRESENTED THE CLR CONCEPTS BEFORE YOU HAD VERSION ONE A AND VERSION ONE B ONE B HAD WHAT YOU DESCRIBED AS NON SYNCHRONOUS GENERATION THAT'S NOT REGISTERED. 
          I'M JUST WONDERING WHY THAT CONFIGURATION COULDN'T PARTICIPATE HERE? IT CAN. 
          I MEAN,  DOESN'T, IS NOT INTERESTED IN HOW YOU GIVE THE CLR THING. 
          OKAY. 
          UNLESS IT'S, UH, SYNCHRONOUSLY CONNECTED GENERATION. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          I'LL JUST CLARIFY, BILL, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT I, I JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU KNOW, TO ADD TO WHATS SAID IS, UM, I I THINK THE INCLUSION OF ONE A ON TOP OF THIS WAS PROBABLY AN OVERSIGHT. 
          UM, THE, THE INTENT WAS TO CONDENSE THIS DOWN INTO ONE SLIDE OF, YOU KNOW, WE, WE FELT LIKE THE OTHER CONFIGURATION WAS STARTING TO CREATE CONFUSION WITHIN THE CONVERSATION. 
          AND SO THE, THE CLR FOR CLARITY IS A LOAD THAT REDUCES ITS CONSUMPTION FROM THE ERCOT SYSTEM BY LEAVING THE SYSTEM EFFECTIVELY. 
          AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT IS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF UP TO THE OPERATOR OF THAT LOAD, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN SLIDE 21. 
          SO IN THE DESIGNATION OF INTENT, I'M JUST WONDERING WHY WE COULDN'T DO THAT IN THE INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT. 
          WE ALREADY HAVE TO, IN UNDER THE PROPOSED COMMISSION RULE, WHICH I THINK IS IN PICKER 1 45, WE'RE ALREADY TELLING YOU WHETHER WE'RE A CLR OR WE'RE BYOG, IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T COLLAPSE STEP ONE INTO THE INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT AND JUST DO, DO ALL OF THAT. 
          WE'LL ADD, ADD ALL THE INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED IF WE'RE ACL R. 
          THAT WAY THERE'S NOT ANOTHER FORM THAT WE HAVE TO FILL OUT. 
          SO UN UNFORTUNATELY, CHRISTINA HAS LEFT THE ROOM AND SHE'S, I PUNTED THIS QUESTION TO. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO I WILL BE HAPPY TO TAKE THAT BACK IN AND LOOK IF THAT'S FEASIBLE. 
          AND WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT , WE ARE ALREADY ANTICIPATING QUITE A BIT OF PAPERWORK COMING IN IN JULY, AND, UH, WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT LOOKING TO MAKE MORE FOR ANYBODY COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS CHRIS O'DONNELL, NICE TO MEET YOU. 
          PLEASURE. 
          I'M HERE WITH MY, UH, MY WIFE JUAN. 
          HEY CHRIS O'DONNELL, IF YOU CAN MUTE YOUR PHONE, WE'LL TRY TO MUTE IT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, CHRIS. 
          APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UH, WHICH BY THE WAY, CHRIS, UH, I HAVE MY, UH, MATT MARUS NUMBER ONE FAN MUG SO THAT ANYONE THAT UH, CAUSES DISRUPTIONS TO THE MEETING CAN CONTACT STEVE REY AND GET A MATT NESS NUMBER ONE FAN MUG. 
          NEXT, UH, SLIDE IS THE, THE, THE CAPPING PROCESS. 
          I THINK IT'S 24. 
          YEAH, THERE WE GO. 
          SO THE, THE GRAY BOX, SO AFTER EACH SCED RUN IS, DO WE THINK THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN STEP TWO OR SOME OTHER POST-PROCESS? UH, THIS IS AFTER SC COMPLETES. 
          OKAY. 
          THE BASE POINTS, EVERYTHING HAS GONE OUT. 
          THERE'LL BE A POST PROCESS, I MEAN, TIED TO THE SC PROCESS. 
          WE WILL LOOK AT ALL THE, UM, CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE BINDING OR VIOLATED THAT ARE ABOVE THE X PERCENT OF THE, THAT CONSTRAINTS MAX SHADOW PRICE. 
          AND THE CONSTRAINTS WE ARE LOOKING AT IS COMING FROM THE STEP TWO DISPATCH RUN. 
          SO IF THERE'S A PRICING RUN, WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT THAT. 
          WE'RE LOOKING AT THE STEP TWO DISPATCH RUN, IT COMES OUT OF THAT AND THE CLR OPERATOR, WE'LL JUST HAVE TO TAKE WHATEVER CAP. 
          THERE'S NO, LIKE, UM, YOU'RE NOT, LIKE YOU'RE TERING IT BACK TO THE CLR OPERATOR IN ADVANCE. 
          SO THEY GET A, LIKE A GLIMPSE AT WHAT IT'S GONNA BE OR IT JUST, IT YOU, YOU JUST ACCEPT THE OUTCOMES. 
          SO IF I KIND OF SEQUENCE THIS AND THIS ONE, NOTHING IS HAPPENING, RIGHT? IT'S IN, WHEN WE DO THE CAPPING, WHICH IS IN THE NEXT SCHEDULE, YOU PASSING IT OVER, WE COULD DO SOMETHING, UM, WE COULD SAY THAT, HEY, YOUR CLR BIDS ARE CAPPED. 
          UH, BUT IT'LL COME OUT WITH THE RESULTS. 
          THE OTHER WAY OF DOING IT IS WE ALREADY HAVE A CURTAILMENT FLAG. 
          WE COULD PURPOSE THAT AND TELL THEM THAT, HEY, YOU'RE BEING CURTAILED, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 
          AWESOME. 
          AND THEN THE WORDS HERE SAYS, ANY, ANY BATCH CLR WITH A HELPING SHIFT FACTOR? YEAH. 
          NEGATIVE, NEGATIVE SHIFT FACTOR. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHAT HELPING MEANS. 
          SO WHEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE CAPPING IT, YOU'RE REDUCING THE BID. 
          MM-HMM . 
          ANY PART OF THE ENERGY BID CURVE, THIS IS, REMEMBER THIS IS AFTER 1188 IMPLEMENTATION. 
          SO ANY PART OF THE BID CURVE THAT IS ABOVE THAT VALUE WILL BE 
          [02:15:01]
KIND OF SET TO THAT VALUE. 
          OKAY. 
          THE BIG CAP VALUE. 
          OKAY. 
          GOT IT. 
          AND I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK ON SLIDE 25. 
          LAST COMMENT FROM ME SO FAR. 
          SECOND BULLET, I'M JUST, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IF WE'RE DOING A CLR FOR A LARGE LOAD, IT'S, IT'S THERE TO SERVE THE LARGE LOAD, WE WOULD NOT, THERE WOULD BE NO INTEREST IN SELLING ANCILLARY SERVICES AND THAT MIGHT, YOU'RE PROBABLY GONNA WANT GRID CONNECTED, UH, YOU KNOW, BATTERIES TO PROVIDE ANCILLARIES VERSUS ONES THAT ARE BEING USED TO OPERATE AS A CLR FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LARGE LOAD. 
          JUST THAT'S OUR FEEDBACK. 
          THANKS. 
          I I JUST WANNA EMPHASIZE AGAIN WHAT S SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, WE A SYNCHRONOUSLY CONNECTED BATTERY IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR UH, C TO BE PART OF A CLR CONSTRUCT, JUST . 
          CORRECT. 
          BUT, BUT I ALSO HEARD YOU CAN OPERATE AS A CLR WITH NON SYNCHRONOUS BATTERIES THAT AREN'T REGISTERED AND POTENTIALLY OPERATE AS A CLR SELLING ANCILLARY SERVICES. 
          I'M JUST SAYING THE PURPOSE, IF YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY CO-LOCATING NON SYNCHRONIZED GENERATION TO OPERATE AS ACL R, IT'S NOT SELLING ANCILLARIES. 
          YEAH, THANKS. 
          AND TO KEEP THE DESIGN SIMPLE, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HOPING TO KIND OF EXCLUDE, NOT HAVE TO WALK OUT ALL THOSE ISSUES. 
          SO, ALRIGHT, UH, NEXT IN LINE, UH, IS BROTH. 
          HEY, ON THAT PRICE CAP, UH, SLIDE, SO LET'S SAY A CLR SIGNED UP FOR 200 MEGAWATTS. 
          SO THEN EVERY SCHEDULED RUN THEY WOULD GET, UM, SO THERE IS A PRICE CEILING FOR HOW MUCH THEY CAN BE, YOU KNOW, SO WHEN THEY GET A CURTAIL WHEN SIGNAL, THEN IT SETTLES THEM WITH THE AMOUNT OF MEGAWATT THAT IS CURTAILED TO FOR THAT SPECIFIC PRICE. 
          I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE MECHANICS ON HOW THIS WORKS. 
          UM, SO, SO THE SETTLEMENT IS JUST BASED ON THE LMP. 
          SO WHATEVER THE LMP IS, RIGHT, UH, THEY'LL BE SETTLED AT A NODAL PRICE NUMBER ONE. 
          SO THAT TAKES CARE OF THE SETTLEMENT PART. 
          ALL THAT WE ARE DOING HERE IS WHEN WE ARE DOING RUNNING THE OPTIMIZATION FOR THAT PARTICULAR CLR, IT'S BIT TO BUY ENERGY. 
          UM, LET'S SAY IT'S A FLAT CURB OF $200. 
          YEAH. 
          AND LET'S SAY THAT THE CAP, THEY SUBMITTED SOMETHING AT $5,000 PER MEGAWATT, YOU REDUCE THAT FOR ALL THE 200 MEG. 
          WE'LL REDUCE THAT. 
          YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          AND LET THE OPTIMIZATION FIGURE OUT WHAT, WHETHER TO CURTAIL IT, NOT CURTAIL IT OR WHATEVER IT IS. 
          OKAY. 
          I GUESS THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE, UH, ON PARTICIPATION AG IS THAT, SO IF I HAVE, LET'S SAY BASE LOAD AND ALLOCATABLE LOAD, I CAN EXTEND THEM. 
          SO LET'S SAY I HAVE A RANDOM 500 MEGAWATTS OF BASE LOAD. 
          NOW I CAN SUBMIT AND ATTEST THAT THE, FOR ME TO HAVE ADDITIONAL 500 MEGAWATTS OF CLR ATTACHED TO THAT BASE LOAD. 
          I I, I'M GIVING IT FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE. 
          SO LET'S SAY YOUR TOTAL REQUESTED AMOUNT WAS A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS AND THROUGH THIS PROCESS YOU GOT A FIRM, UM, YEAH. 
          UM, THING OF 500 MEGAWATTS AND YOU WANNA DO ANOTHER 500 MEGAWATTS AS ACL R. 
          THERE ARE TWO WAYS YOU CAN REGISTER WITH ERCOT, YOU CAN MODEL TWO LOADS. 
          ONE IS JUST A REGULAR LOAD AT 500. 
          THE OTHER ONE IS A LOAD THAT'S, IT'S A CLR WHERE IT'S LOW POWER CONSUMPTION IS ZERO AND MAXIMUM POWER CONSUMPTION IS 500. 
          OR YOU COULD CLUB IT TOGETHER AND SAY THAT THE LPC IS 500, MPC IS A THOUSAND. 
          SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS OTHER WAY AROUND. 
          SO IF I ALREADY HAVE A BASE LOAD, RIGHT, CAN I FIRE AN EXTENSION APPLICATION? SHOULD I GO THROUGH THE TSP TO GET THAT 500 MEGAWATTS AS A CLR LOAD? YOU KNOW, UM, YEAH, SO IF YOU'RE ASKING, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A OPERATIONAL SITE THAT ALREADY HAS 500 MEGAWATTS, FOR EXAMPLE, COULD YOU FILE A NEW LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION REQUESTS TO ADD ANOTHER 500 MEGAWATTS, UH, AS CLR LOAD WITH EFFECTIVELY A MINIMUM POWER, A LOW POWER CONSUMPTION OF ZERO BASICALLY? YEAH. 
          UH, THE ANSWER IS YES. 
          HOWEVER, UH, YOU, THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR FORTHCOMING REVISION REQUEST FOR CLR THAT WOULD MAKE THAT LOAD MORE ELIGIBLE TO BE IN BATCH ZERO THAN A FIRM LOAD REQUEST. 
          SO IT WOULD NEED TO MEET ALL THE PROPOSED CRITERIA IN PICKER 1 45 TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE STUDIED IN BATCH ZERO, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          SO, YEAH. 
          SO, BUT YES, IT IS POSSIBLE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF THERE IS A LOAD THAT MEETS 
          [02:20:02]
BADGE ZERO CRITERIA, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR X MEGAWATTS, NOW CAN I, UH, ADD Y MEGAWATTS AS CLR TO THAT LOAD AND WILL I BE SUBJECTED TO X PLUS Y FOR THE FINANCIAL CRITERIA, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS ACL R? SO I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA PHONE, PHONE A FRIEND HERE. 
          SO THE, THE FINANCIAL, THE DOLLARS PER MEGAWATT I BELIEVE IS ON THE TOTAL REQUEST. 
          SO IF YOU INCREASE THE REQUESTED MEGAWATTS, YOU KNOW, TO TRY AND ADD CLR ON TOP OF IT, THAT WOULD ALSO INCREASE THE OBLIGATIONS FOR, UH, UH, FINANCIAL SECURITY THAT FOR INCLUSION BECAUSE WE ARE EVENTUALLY TRYING TO GET FIRM. 
          SO THAT'S, WELL PROBABLY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, WE, UH, SO CIRCLE BACK TO BILL BARNES' QUESTION, UH, CHRISTINA'S BACK IN THE ROOM. 
          THE QUESTION FROM YOU, BILL, WAS COULD THE, UH, ATTESTATION TYPE AGREEMENT FOR CLR OPERATIONS BE INCLUDED IN THE INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT? CHRISTINA SWITZER, SENIOR REGULATORY COUNSELOR, ERCOT, MY THINKING RIGHT NOW IS THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO BE TWO SEPARATE, UH, ONE, ONE IS AN ATTESTATION RELATED TO THE MEETING, THE INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT. 
          THIS WOULD BE A FORM THAT DECLARES INTENT TO BE ACL R, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS CONCEPT OF PROVISIONAL CLR AND MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO I THINK THE ATTESTATIONS, THE, THE ATTESTATION FOR THE INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT IS DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THIS FORM WOULD DO, UM, AS I'M THINKING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW. 
          BUT WE CAN, WE CAN THINK, TAKE THAT BACK AND THINK ABOUT MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO BRING THOSE TWO TOGETHER. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          JUST SUGGESTING A WAY TO POSSIBLY STREAMLINE STREAM. 
          YEAH. 
          AND IT'S, YOU'RE ALREADY REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IF YOU'RE GONNA OPERATE A CLR OR BYOG UNDER THE INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT, BUT YEAH, THERE'S MORE CONTENT YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO POINT TO A DIFFERENT FORM TO FILL OUT, SO. 
          YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          ERIC GOFF, UH, ERIC GOFF, UH, THESE QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF INFINIUM. 
          UM, SO, UM, INFINIUM, UM, IS INTENDING TO USE THIS PROGRAM AND WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO LATER THIS YEAR. 
          AND SO IN TERMS OF THE, UM, PARTICULAR EXAMPLES HERE THAT COULD REQUIRE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, THEY'VE EXPRESSED A WILLINGNESS TO TAKE ON CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS TO KEEP THEIR BIDS TO BUY BELOW CERTAIN LEVELS UNTIL THE SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ARE IN PLACE. 
          I'VE EXPRESSED THAT BEFORE TO SOME OF YOU ALL. 
          I JUST WANNA EXPRESS IT AGAIN HERE. 
          UM, IF THE TIMING OF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE IMPACT ANALYSIS IS, IS MODEST, WHICH IT IT MIGHT BE, THERE MIGHT NOT BE AN ISSUE TO, TO REQUIRE THAT. 
          AND SO FOR THAT REASON, WE REALLY WANNA FOCUS ON WHEN ANSWERING YOUR LIST OF QUESTIONS, UH, THE IMPLEMENTATION CAPABILITIES OR IS THERE A PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE SOME OF THE, THE CAPABILITIES ONLINE SOONER OR ALTERNATIVELY HAVE A MANUAL PROCESS THAT HAS CONTRACT CONTRACTS AROUND IT. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME TO COMMENT ON THAT IF YOU WANT TO, BUT I, I, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT AT THIS TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN THE SECOND QUESTION, UM, IS IF A LOAD HAS A, IN THEIR, UM, REQUEST, UM, HAS A MCL OF LET'S SAY 50 MEGAWATTS, BUT YOU CAN ONLY SERVE 20 RELIABLY, WOULD YOU REJECT THE LOAD FROM THE BATCH? WOULD YOU, WOULD THEY STILL GET A TRANSMISSION PLAN? UM, YEAH, SO THEY, THEY WOULD NOT, NOT GET REJECTED FROM THE BATCH, BUT THEIR ALLOCATION IN THAT YEAR WOULD BE ZERO UHHUH. 
          UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE, WHAT THEY'VE INDICATED TO US IS THEIR LOW POWER CONSUMPTION MINIMUM CAN'T BE RELIABLY SERVED. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND SO, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, SO IF, IF FOR EXAMPLE, A LOAD WANTS TO BRING, YOU KNOW, THEY NEED 50 MEGAWATTS IN YEAR ONE AND WE CAN'T DELIVER THAT TILL YEAR THREE, THEN FOR YEARS ONE AND TWO, THE ALLOCATION WOULD BE ZERO. 
          BUT THEN IN YEAR THREE, UM, THEN THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD HAVE THEIR 50 PLUS WHATEVER THEY WANNA BRING FOR CLR. 
          SO THAT OKAY. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S THE APPROACH WE'RE TAKING. 
          SO AND SO THEN YES, THEY WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TRANSMISSION PLAN THAT COMES OUTTA THE BATCH. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ONE OTHER THING BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION, I I, I'M GOING TO WALK BACK JUST SLIGHTLY WHAT I SAID ABOUT NOT BEING READY TO SPEAK ON YOUR FIRST QUESTION. 
          UM, ONE THING I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS THAT ALL OF THIS IS CONTINGENT ON NPR 1188 AND THE ASSOCIATED SYSTEM CHANGES BEING IMPLEMENTED. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, THERE IS NO PATH FOR THESE LOADS TO ENERGIZE PRIOR TO THAT BEING DONE AS WELL. 
          SO I AGREE, I JUST WANT TO, IT'S NOT CLEAR FROM THE SLIDES, I JUST WANT TO VERBALLY STATE IT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND SO 
          [02:25:01]
IT'D BE IDEAL AS IF THESE CLR CHANGES COULD BE FINISHED CONCURRENTLY WITH 1188 FROM LIKE AN IMPLEMENTATION PERSPECTIVE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NEXT LINE IS SAM BRANDON. 
          SO FOR THE, UM, FOR THE SCENARIO WHERE A CLR SUBMITS A LCP OF ZERO AND IS IN BATCH ZERO, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THE DELIVERY OF FIRM, UM, TRANSMISSION TO THAT PROJECT IS NOT GONNA BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER PROJECT IN THAT BATCH. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? SORRY, I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. 
          SO WHEN YOU SAY A LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN OF ZERO, YOU MEAN, OH, SORRY. 
          NO, I MEANT THE LOW, THE LOW POWER CONSUMPTION POINT IS ZERO. 
          SO, SO BASICALLY IF I SUBMIT A PROJECT THAT HAS A LPC OF ZERO, THAT'S NOT GOING TO, UM, CHANGE HOW FIRM SERVICE WILL EVENTUALLY BE DELIVERED FOR THAT SITE. 
          CORRECT. 
          THE, THE STRUCTURE IS, IS DESIGNED SUCH THAT THE FULL REQUESTED AMOUNT WOULD BE SERVED EVEN IF THE CUSTOMER INDICATES THE ENTIRETY OF IT IS FLEXIBLE, BUT THAT ALSO WOULD, YOU KNOW, COME WITH AN OBLIGATION WHEN IT IS ENERGIZED TO POTENTIALLY BE CURTAILED ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ZERO MEGAWATTS BY. 
          SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I, AND I CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THAT THAT IT'LL BE PHYSICALLY FEASIBLE. 
          UM, IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT AVOIDING THIS ISSUE OF YOUR LPC CREATING, UM, YOU KNOW, AN INABILITY TO SERVE YOU IN ONE YEAR, YOU COULD BASICALLY JUST HAVE AN LPC OF ZERO AND THAT WOULD GET YOU THAT SERVICE EARLIER, BUT THEN YOU JUST HAVE TO MANAGE IT UNTIL FIRM SERVICE IS DELIVERED. 
          YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT IS TRUE KIND OF REGARDLESS OF, UH, OF WHAT, WHAT YOUR MINIMUM LPC IS, IS DEFINED AS IS MM-HMM . 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY THE OBLIGATION FOR THAT FLEXIBLE AMOUNT IS FOR IT TO BE REGISTERED WITH ERCOT AS A CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCE, RESPOND TO DISPATCH AND UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE OBLIGATIONS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT REGISTRATION. 
          YEP. 
          MAKES SENSE. 
          THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT UP HARSH AG, COULD YOU TALK ABOUT HOW YOU PLAN TO RESOLVE VOLTAGE VIOLATIONS IF YOU IDENTIFY A VOLTAGE ISSUE AS A RESULT OF THE LOAD? UH,  CANNOT MITIGATE THAT. 
          SO HOW WOULD THAT WORK OUT? I THINK THAT KIND OF GETS ROLLED INTO THAT. 
          ARE THERE SCENARIOS THAT MIGHT IMPACT THE MAXIMUM POWER CONSUMPTION? UM, I THINK IT ALSO DEPENDS ON IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, STEADY STATE OR DYNAMIC, YOU KNOW, VOLTAGE ISSUES, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY THERE MAY BE GTCS THAT ARE CREATED AS WELL. 
          UM, BUT UH, I THINK WE CAN BRING A MORE DETAILED ANSWER THAN THE NON-ANSWER I JUST GAVE RIGHT THERE TO THE NEXT SPEAKER. 
          NO, UNDERSTAND. 
          AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO THINK ABOUT, WOULD THE COMMISSIONING PLAN THEN SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO INSTALL THIS, SAY CAPACITOR BANK BEFORE YOU CAN BE A CLR OR NOT, WHATNOT? YEAH, THAT, THAT IS A POSSIBLE, UH, OKAY. 
          POSSIBLE OUTCOME. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS, UM, YOU WILL IDENTIFY TRANSMISSION UPGRADES SO THAT THAT LOAD CAN BECOME FIRM EVENTUALLY. 
          AND AS EACH UPGRADE GETS COMPLETED, WOULD THEN THE LPC GET REVISED? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THAT, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY REMEMBER FROM THE LAST MEETING WE REVISED THIS GRAPH THAT WAS KIND OF SHOW, YOU KNOW. 
          OKAY. 
          IF, IF A UPGRADE COMES IN IN THE LATER YEAR THAT ALLOWS PART OF THE LOAD TO BE CONFIRMED, THAT WOULD, WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE AGREEMENT? UM, THAT IS SIGNED DURING THE COMMISSION. 
          THE COMMITMENT PERIOD IS LPC BY YEAR. 
          AND SO IF THERE'S AN UPGRADE COMING IN THE FUTURE, THEY'RE ALLOW IT TO GO UP, THEN THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THAT YEAR. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT, NEXT UP EVAN NEIL, I HAVE A NEW PLAN. 
          I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. 
          UM, SO THE FIRST ONE, I GUESS IT'S KIND OF RELATED TO WHAT BILL WAS TALKING ABOUT WITH WHERE YOU REGISTER THE PCLR. 
          AND I GUESS I'M JUST STILL KIND OF CONFUSED, LIKE WHAT ARE WE GAINING BY HAVING THAT REGISTRATION HAPPEN PRIOR TO BATCH? THE, THE MAIN REASON THIS NEEDS TO OCCUR BEFORE THE BATCH IS GONNA BE FOR THE STABILITY STUDIES. 
          SO, UM, THE WAY WE ARE THINKING ABOUT THE, UM, BATCH ZERO INTERCONNECTION STUDY IS THAT THE LIMITS IDENTIFIED IN THE STUDY STATE WILL INFORM HOW IT IS THE AMOUNT THAT IS STUDIED IN THE STABILITY SCREENING FOR EACH CALENDAR YEAR. 
          AND SO FOR A CLR IT POTENTIALLY COULD BE APPROVED UP TO THE FULL AMOUNT. 
          AND SO THAT FULL AMOUNT WILL NEED TO BE REFLECTED IN EACH YEAR OF THE STABILITY STUDY. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO KNOW THAT DESIGNATION AHEAD OF TIME. 
          [02:30:03]
OKAY. 
          I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT MAYBE, MAYBE I'M NOT FOLLOWING ENTIRELY. 
          SO I GUESS YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'LL GET AN OUTCOME THAT COULD BE WHAT YOU REQUESTED, NOT WHAT YOU'RE LIMITED OUT ON A STEADY STATE THERMAL BASIS, AND THEN YOU WOULD STUDY THAT IN STABILITY. 
          BUT I GUESS HOW IS THAT CHANGING THE OUTCOME OF THE STABILITY? I MEAN I, YOU'D STILL HAVE THE SAME ASSUMPTIONS AROUND VOLTAGE IN THE AREA. 
          WOULD YOU NOT LIKE, I GUESS YOU LIKE JUST TAKE A GIGAWATT LOAD FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S LIMITED TO 500 ON THERMAL, LIKE WOULDN'T IT STILL BE LIMITED TO THE SAME STABILITY AMOUNT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE STEADY STATE IS? 500 OR A THOUSAND? YOU WOULD STILL JUST KNOCK IT DOWN TO THE 400 AVAILABLE ON A VOLTAGE SIDE. 
          I CAN MAYBE JUMP IN ON THIS. 
          SO IN, IN YOUR EXAMPLE, EVAN, UM, IN UH, I'LL SAY NON CLRS, HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO STUDY THAT IN BATCH IS NOT STUDY THE FULL 1000 IN THE STABILITY. 
          UH, 'CAUSE THAT MAY CREATE A WHOLE BUNCH OF PROBLEMS. AND, AND SO WE WILL STUDY THAT IN STABILITY ANALYSIS AT 500 MEGAWATTS BECAUSE THERM THERMALS LIMITED AT 500. 
          SO WE WANT TO STUDY THE STABILITY AT 500. 
          HOWEVER, IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THAT LOAD COULD BE A THOUSAND BECAUSE IT'S ACL R, SO SOME, SOME DAYS IT MAY BE A THOUSAND, THEN WE NEED TO IDENTIFY AHEAD OF TIME IF THERE ARE STABILITY CONSTRAINTS THAT COULD DRIVE A NEW GTC BEING ADDED TO THE SYSTEM. 
          AND SO IF IT IS A CLR INSTABILITY, WE WILL STUDY IT AT THE FULL 1000 SO THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY ARE, ARE THERE POTENTIAL STABILITY CONSTRAINTS FOR WHICH WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT A NEW GTC. 
          SO THAT GOING INTO THE QSA, WE, WE, WE HAVE THAT PICTURE OF, OH, I I THINK I MIGHT HAVE A STABILITY CONSTRAINT HERE. 
          THAT IS SUPER HELPFUL AND I THINK IT ACTUALLY HELPED GET TO WHERE I WAS TRYING TO GO. 
          UM, AND SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THOSE GTCS THAT COULD BE IDENTIFIED, ARE YOU SAYING THAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE STABILITY SCREENING OR THAT HAPPENS IN, 'CAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE A QSA THING, RIGHT? I I THINK IT, THE, THE, UM, BATCH STUDY WOULD IDENTIFY A POTENTIAL STABILITY CONSTRAINT AND, AND THEN WHEN YOU GET TO THE QSA, YOU ARE IDENTIFYING WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY IS MY GTC? OKAY LI KIND OF SIMILAR TO HOW WE DO GENERATORS TODAY WHERE IT'S GENERATOR INTERCONNECTION STUDY SAYS, HEY, WE, WE HAVE A STABILITY ISSUE HERE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO, UH, PAY ATTENTION TO. 
          SO WHEN, WHEN WE GET TO THE QSA, THEN THAT, THAT GTC WORK THAT THAT HAPPENS DURING THE QSA. 
          YEAH, I, I APPRECIATE THAT AND I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY OF THINKING. 
          I THINK I WOULD JUST GO BACK TO MY POINT AND WHAT I THINK WE JUST WORKED OUT IS THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA REALLY KNOW WHAT THE RESULT IS UNTIL AFTER BATCH, RIGHT. 
          AND WE'RE TRUING UP SCREENING OR, UH, STABILITY STUDIES AND WE'RE DOING THE QSA TO IDENTIFY LIMITS AS THAT LOAD IS TRYING TO COME ONLINE WHENEVER IT DOES CHOOSE TO COME ONLINE. 
          'CAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA KNOW IF IT DECIDES TO BE A CR IN YEAR ONE OR YEAR TWO OR, OR WHATNOT. 
          AND SO I GUESS MY, MY POINT IS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE OUTCOME IS A TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FROM BATCH, I'M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED TO BE JUMPING THROUGH ALL THESE HOOPS IN BATCH RATHER THAN TREATING THE CLR PATHWAY AS, ALRIGHT, YOU GOT YOUR FIRM PATHWAY NOW HOW CAN WE GET ONLINE SOONER? WHICH IS GONNA BE SOMETHING THAT IS INHERENTLY LIMITED TO SOMETHING LIKE THE QSA THAT IS STUCK AFTER BATCH. 
          AND SO I, I AM GUESSING, I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE CAN'T PUT IT IN BATCH OR IN THE FRONT OF IT, I'M JUST STRUGGLING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GAINING BESIDES MORE WORK RIGHT NOW WHEN THE OUTCOME SEEMS TO BE THE, THE SAME. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I THINK IT WHAT, UM, WHAT ERCOT IS GAINING IS THAT IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE STABILITY CONSTRAINTS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY GO IN THAT, THAT NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED IN, UH, THE QSA. 
          YEAH, I I WOULD ALSO ADD TO THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN, UM, EXPRESSED DESIRE FROM STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS FORUM, THE, THAT THERE BE SOME VISIBILITY INTO THE ACTUAL ABILITY FOR THAT CLR TO EVER REACH THOSE HIGHER MEGAWATTS. 
          AND IF THAT'S NOT ASSESSED IN ADDITION TO THE RELIABILITY NEED TO ASSESS IT THERE, THERE'S ALSO NO WAY TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION WITHOUT ASSESSING IT. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE ADDED THAT TO MY ISSUES STILL TO BE WORKED OUTSIDE, BUT IS, YOU KNOW, THE LEVEL OF INFORMATION THAT CAN BE COMMUNICATED BACK TO THE CUSTOMER 
          [02:35:01]
ON, YOU KNOW, THE RESULTS OF THE, UH, UH, ANALYSIS, UH, IN TERMS OF HOW IT WOULD IMPACT THE HIGHER MEGAWATT LEVELS, UM, AS JEFF STATED IN THE LAST WORKSHOP, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO AN 87 60 TYPE ANALYSIS, BUT THERE IS LIKELY, YOU KNOW, SOME ABILITY, YOU KNOW, MUCH LIKE WITH A GENERATION INTERCONNECTION TO IDENTIFY AT LEAST THE TYPE OF CONSTRAINT THAT IS POTENTIAL TO HOLD DOWN THE CLR. 
          SO I THINK THERE IS VALUE TO BOTH PARTIES THERE. 
          SO THIS THANKS, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND, AND SO I GUESS THE IDEA IS THAT IT HELPS INFORM THE DECISION OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FIRM AGREEMENT OR NOT, OR SORRY, THE, THE NON-REFUNDABLE AGREEMENT AND, AND I, I GET THAT ARGUMENT. 
          I GUESS JUST ONE OTHER THING THAT I'LL POINT OUT THAT I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THINKING ABOUT THIS IS HOW PICKER 1 27 COMES INTO PLAY. 
          IF WE'RE ADDING A BUNCH OF GENERATION TO THE CASES, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING TO DO THAT FOR THE STABILITY CASES AS WELL AND THAT IS GONNA HAVE A, A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE OUTCOME OF THOSE CASES. 
          AND SO TO THE POINT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT JEFF, IS IF WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY LIMITS THERE, WE'RE GONNA BE IDENTIFYING DIFFERENT LIMITS THAN WHAT WE IDENTIFY IN THE QSA, WHICH IS WHAT IS THE ACTUAL, I THINK, THING THAT SHOULD BE BINDING THAT'S GONNA REFLECT OPERATIONS IN, IN REAL TIME. 
          AND SO I WOULD JUST BE CONCERNED THAT WE WOULD BE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR A PATH WHERE WE ARE GONNA INTRODUCE NEW RELIABILITY CONSTRAINTS THAT WILL NOT JUST IMPACT THE CLRS THAT ARE TRYING TO CONNECT, BUT IMPACT OTHER LOAD CUSTOMERS AS WELL. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S AN OUTCOME WE NEED TO BE REALLY CAUTIOUS OF. 
          UM, SO I'LL DROP THAT TOPIC AND I HAVE JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION, HOPEFULLY IT'S A LITTLE EASIER IS, SO WE'RE GIVING THE CLRS THE OPTION TO NOT BE A CLR ANYMORE. 
          ONCE THE FIRM TRANSMISSION IS IN PLACE, WILL THEY THEN SWITCH BACK TO A ZONAL PRICE WHEN THAT HAPPENS? I THINK THE ANSWER IS UNDER THE CURRENT, UH, PROTOCOLS. 
          YES. 
          HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT'S ANOTHER AREA THAT PROBABLY BEARS LONGER TERM DISCUSSION. 
          AGREE. 
          YEAH. 
          THE GOAL, THE GOAL HERE IS, IS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THESE LOADS CAN BE ACCOMMODATED IN BATCH ZERO. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          WELL LET'S DO ONE MORE QUESTION THEN WE'LL TAKE OUR LUNCH BREAK AND, UH, WE'LL HOLD PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE WHERE THAT WE LEFT OFF. 
          SO LAST QUESTION BEFORE LUNCH, SANDEEP SHARMA? SURE. 
          UH, THANK YOU MATT SANDEEP, UH, NEXT ERA. 
          I THINK I GOT A LOT OF ANSWERS TO MY QUESTION FROM THIS CONVERSATION, BUT I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM ON THIS SLIDE. 
          IF THERE IS NO STABILITY ISSUES ON THE VERY FIRST YEAR, YOUR MPC COULD BE 1100, RIGHT? SORRY, 1000 MEGAWATTS, RIGHT? IF THERE ARE NO STABILITY CONCERN, YEAH, AND I WOULD, I AGAIN EMPHASIZE THAT THE IMPACT OF THE STABILITY ISSUES ON WHAT WOULD WE DON'T, WE HAVE NOT DETERMINED YET HOW THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT IF THERE'S A LIMIT ON THE MAXIMUM POWER CONSUMPTION OR NOT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN ON SLIDE NUMBER 20, I THINK IF YOU GO TO SLIDE NUMBER 20, SANDY OVER HERE EVAN, UH, COULD YOU BACK SURE. 
          JUST TO MAKE SURE, SO THE RAMP THAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE, THE RAMP THAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE IN AN EXAMPLE IS ONE WHERE THAT'S THE CUSTOMER'S DESIRED RAMP. 
          SO IN YEAR ONE, THE CUSTOMER'S NOT DESIRING THE, THE FULL 1000. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IN YOUR CASE, IF IF THEY HAD WANTED THE FULL 1000, WOULD THEY BE ELIGIBLE FOR IT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING? RIGHT. 
          NO, NO, NO. 
          SO I THINK WHAT I WAS ASKING WAS, IF AFTER THE BAT STUDY, IF YOUR LPC OR YOUR FIRM SERVICE IS A HUNDRED MEGAWATTS, I'M BASICALLY USING THE DARK BLUE AS WHAT COMES OUTTA THE BAT STUDY, RIGHT? IF THAT IS THE FIRM SERVICE THAT A LOAD CUSTOMER GETS IN THE FIRST YEAR, AND THEN THE SECOND YEAR HE'S GETTING A HUNDRED, NOTHING INCREMENTAL. 
          THIRD YEAR IT'S JUMPING TO 300 IS THERE, AND IF THERE IS NO STABILITY ISSUES, I UNDERSTAND THE STABILITY ISSUES, UH, CONCERNS AROUND STABILITY ISSUES, CAN THE CUSTOMER ACTUALLY ENERGIZE ALL THE WAY TO 1000 MEGAWATTS IN THE FIRST YEAR PROVIDED 900 MEGAWATT IS COMPLETELY DISPATCHABLE. 
          I THINK WE'LL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT MORE INTERNALLY. 
          THE, THE IT THE INTENT IS FOR THE CUSTOMER TO COME WITH THEIR DESIRED RAMP SCHEDULE AND FOR THIS TO BE A PATH FOR MORE OF THAT DESIRED RAMP SCHEDULE TO BE ACCOMMODATED FASTER. 
          UM, AND SO I I THINK MY SORT OF HIGH LEVEL RESPONSE BACK WOULD BE IF 
          [02:40:01]
THE CUSTOMER IS DESIRING TO CONNECT A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS IN THE FIRST YEAR, THEN THAT NEEDS TO BE COMMUNICATED IN THE FRONT OF BATCH, UH, THE BATCH STUDY. 
          IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE, WELL, YOU FIND YOUR FIRM LOAD AMOUNT AND THEN YOU CAN CONNECT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF AS MUCH AS YOU WANT RIGHT AWAY THERE. 
          IF THAT'S THE DESIRED RAMP, THEN THAT NEEDS TO STILL BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE, UH, OTHER BATCH LOAD INFORMATION. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          AND SORRY, I FORGOT WE'RE GONNA LOSE AG FOR PART OF THE TIME AFTER LUNCH, SO LET'S JUST KEEP MUSCLING THROUGH, SEE HOW MANY WE CAN GET THROUGH IN THE NEXT 20 MINUTES. 
          SO, UH, BOB WHITMEYER. 
          YEAH, SO ONE OF THE THINGS GOING TO THE JUNE BOARD IS NOER 2 82, WHICH REQUIRES VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH, WHICH EFFECTIVELY REQUIRES BATTERIES AT LARGE LOADS. 
          ARE WE ASSUMING THOSE ARE NOT SYNCHRONIZED TO THE GRID AND STILL PROVIDING YEAH. 
          HELP, HELP ME OUTSIDE, UM, FOR PROVIDING VOLTAGE RIGHT THROUGH AND, UM, FREQUENCY, RIGHT THROUGH AND, AND SSO MITIGATION, THEY HAVE TO BE SYNCHRONOUSLY CONNECTED TO THE GRID. 
          NOW THE QUESTION IS WHAT DO THEY REGISTER WITH ERCOT NOW, AS PER THE CURRENT PROTOCOLS, THEY HAVE TO, IF THERE'S, DEPENDING ON THEIR SIZE AND IF THE TRANSMISSION CONNECTED, THEY HAVE TO REGISTER WITH ERCOT AS AN ESR. 
          UM, IT, IT, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER THERE YET BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT BE PARTICIPATING IN THE MARKET. 
          THEIR WHOLE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO, UM, BALANCE OUT THE LOAD AND PROVIDE VOLTAGE SUPPORT. 
          SO THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A GRAY AREA. 
          UM, SO WE NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSIONS ON THAT, BUT THEY ARE SYNCHRONOUSLY CONNECTED TO THE GRID. 
          THAT, THAT WAS MY THOUGHT AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS BOTHERING ME ABOUT THE STATEMENT THAT THEY CAN'T HAVE A SYNCHRONOUSLY CONNECTED BATTERY. 
          I THINK WHAT WE MEAN IS THAT SYNCHRONOUSLY CONNECTED BATTERY CANNOT BE THE PATH FORWARD TO ACL R. 
          YES. 
          RIGHT? YES. 
          BECAUSE WE DO NOT MODEL HYBRID RESOURCES. 
          AND THE THING IS, WE DON'T KNOW IF THE CLR CAN, IF, IF THAT COMBINATION CAN REALLY PROVIDE THE CLR SERVICE IF THEY DON'T HAVE STATE OF CHARGE BECAUSE CLR DOESN'T REQUIRE STATE OF CHARGE TELEMETRY AND ALL THAT. 
          SO WE DON'T WANT TO GO THERE. 
          WE HAVE NEVER DONE THAT. 
          YEAH, AND, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE GOT ALL THE BASES COVERED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, BLAKE KING. 
          HELLO. 
          YES, BLAKE, GO AHEAD. 
          UH, IS THERE A MAXIMUM LCP OR MAXIMUM RATIO OF LCP TO MCP CONTEMPLATED IN THIS SORT OF CONCEPT? I BLAKE, I'M, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. 
          ARE YOU ASKING IF THERE IS SOME, SOME, LIKE SOME PERCENTAGE OF THE LOAD HAS TO BE FLEXIBLE? UH, CORRECT. 
          UH, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS CURRENTLY CON CONTEMPLATED. 
          I THINK IT CAN BE, UM, YOU KNOW, AS, AS MUCH AS A HUNDRED PERCENT LOAD MAY BE FLEXIBLE OR A SMALLER, YOU KNOW, A LARGE PERCENTAGE MUST BE FIRM. 
          UM, BUT JUST, YOU KNOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT, UM, THE CURRENT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING IS THAT IF THE FIRM AMOUNT CANNOT BE SERVED IN A GIVEN YEAR, THEN IT, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE TOLD US THAT THAT IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT CAN BE, THAT MUST BE FIRM. 
          IF THAT CANNOT BE RELIABLY SERVED IN A GIVEN YEAR, THEN IT WILL BE ALLOCATED ZERO MEGAWATTS. 
          SO, UM, YEP. 
          YEAH, IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND IN, IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT I JUST SAID. 
          GOT IT. 
          AND, AND SO YEAH, THE THING THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IS IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S VALUE THAT ACCRUES TO BEING ACL R, BUT YOU ONLY REALLY HAVE TO BE FLEXIBLE FOR ONE MEGAWATT. 
          IT'S JUST, IT'S AN INTERESTING SORT OF FREE OPTION TO, YOU KNOW, TO ASK FOR FLEXIBLE CAPACITY ABOVE WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE. 
          IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST KIND OF AN INTERESTING CONCEPT. 
          I WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE I WAS UNDERSTANDING IT CORRECTLY. 
          THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          WOW, PEOPLE ARE FALLING OFF FOR THE LUNCH QUEUE HERE. 
          THANK YOU FOR YIELDING TO LUNCH TO EVERYBODY AND ANYBODY, UH, BILL BARNES, YOU'RE NEXT. 
          YEAH, THIS IS, IT'S KIND OF SIMILAR TO THE LAST FEW QUESTIONS SANDEEP MENTIONED IS JUST THE, THE CONCEPT OF HAVING A-A-C-L-R WHERE YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU DON'T NEED ANY FIRM LOAD. 
          YOU'RE WILLING TO TAKE ZERO AND YOU COULD FLEX UP, YOU KNOW, OR CONSUME AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WHEN THERE ARE NO CONSTRAINTS ON THE SYSTEM. 
          IS THAT AN OPTION? HOW WOULD THAT BE TREATED IN BATCH ZERO? HAS ERCOT CONTEMPLATED A VARIATION OF A CLR WHERE IT'S JUST A HUNDRED PERCENT NON FIRM LOAD? THE, THE 
          [02:45:01]
ANSWER TO THAT LAST QUESTION BILL, THAT YES, YOU KNOW, I THINK I, HOPEFULLY IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I GAVE TO SAM A FEW MINUTES AGO, IS THAT IS A POSSIBLE, YOU CAN TELL US THAT THE ENTIRETY OF THE LOAD IS FIRM, UM, BUT THAT ENTIRETY OF THE LOAD CANNOT BE UNDEFINED. 
          SO, UM, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE TOP OF THAT THAT FLEXIBLE, UH, IS, YOU KNOW, IT CANNOT BE LIMITLESS. 
          IT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED AHEAD OF BATCH ZERO SO THAT WE CAN ACCURATELY REFLECT THAT IN THE STABILITY STUDIES AS WELL. 
          THIS FEELS LIKE THERE MAY BE A EXPEDITED PATH FOR THOSE TYPES OF CLRS, BUT I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THAT. 
          THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU BILL. 
          ALRIGHT, IT'S WORTH THE BUILD. 
          THERE'S SOME FUN, FUN IMS GOING AROUND ON THIS STUFF. 
          OKAY, WE ARE GONNA BREAK FOR LUNCH RIGHT NOW. 
          AND SO YEAH, 1215 TO ONE 15 WILL BE LUNCH AND WHEN WE COME BACK WE'LL BE TAKING UP AGENDA ITEM FOUR, THE ELIGIBILITY MARCH 4TH DISCUSSION. 
          SO WE STAND RECESS FOR LUNCH. 
          THANK Y'ALL. 
          [4. Deep dive: Eligibility/March 4 Discussion]
ALRIGHT, FOR THOSE OF YOU AT HOME, WE'RE GONNA START WITH AGENDA ITEM FOUR. 
          UH, AGAIN, WE'LL HIT WITH THE ELIGIBILITY, JUST KINDA THE DEEP DIVE ON THE ELIGIBILITY IN THAT MARCH 4TH TIMELINE. 
          UH, AFTER THAT WE'LL HIT THE YEAR SIX TRANSMISSION PLANNING OPTIONS AND THEN WE'LL SKIP DOWN TO AGENDA ITEM SEVEN, THE BRING YOUR OWN GENERATION, UM, OPTION. 
          AND AT THAT POINT WE'LL BE DONE. 
          SO I'M GUESSING MAYBE AN HOUR EACH OF THESE. 
          SO WE'LL PROBABLY GO IN, I SAID MAYBE THREE 30, MAYBE IT'S MORE CLOSER TO FOUR, BUT WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES. 
          SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO JEFF AND WE'LL START WITH SLIDE 10. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANKS MATT. 
          SO, UM, THIS, THIS TOPIC IN PARTICULAR, WE HEARD IT TODAY, UH, WE, BY FAR THIS HAS BEEN THE TOPIC THAT HAS, UM, LISTED THE MOST NUMBER OF COMMENTS IS THE, THE STUDY VALIDITY AND HOW WE, UH, ARE THINKING ABOUT THAT. 
          SO I WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE TODAY ON OUR, OUR THINKING ON THE, THE MARCH 4TH, UM, AND WHY WE PICKED THAT AND REALLY WHAT, WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, OUR MOTIVATION FOR, FOR HAVING A, A RULE LIKE THIS IN PICKER 1 45, IT, IT IS REALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BASE LOAD THAT WE ARE, UH, SETTING IN BATCH ZERO DOES NOT EXCEED THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM RELIABILITY LIMIT. 
          SO IT, IT'S REALLY ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT, THAT WE CAN SERVE RELIABLY ALL THE LOAD THAT WE ARE SAYING IS BASE LOAD IN BATCH ZERO. 
          UM, AND SO, UM, IF WE WERE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE WHAT I THINK STAKEHOLDERS ARE PROPOSING IS THIS OPTION A HERE WHERE IT IS KIND OF AUTOMATIC STUDY VALIDATION FOR ALL, ALL, ALL PREVIOUS STUDIES. 
          SO WE, WE DEEM THAT THEY ALL THOSE STUDIES, UM, THAT WE'VE APPROVED THAT PRIOR TO BATCH ZERO, THAT THOSE ARE DEEMED VALID. 
          UM, WHAT THAT CREATES IS A SITUATION WHERE, UM, WE, WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY ALL, ALL THE LOADS IN AN AREA, THIS IS JUST A MA MADE UP EXAMPLE HERE. 
          UH, ALL, ALL THE LOADS IN IN THIS AREA ARE DEEMED, UM, TO HAVE VALID STUDIES. 
          UM, BUT WE MAY HAVE AREAS WHERE ALL, ALL OF THE LOADS THAT ARE THEN DEEMED VALID WHERE THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CANNOT RELIABLY SERVE ALL OF THOSE LOADS. 
          SO IF I JUST TAKE, TAKE THIS AS EXAMPLE AND, AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE UP SOME NUMBERS HERE. 
          SO LET, LET'S SAY THAT I, I HAVE, AND I'LL TAKE THIS LOWER AREA AS AN EXAMPLE, IF I HAVE EACH OF THOSE LOADS ARE SAY 400 MEGAWATTS, UH, BUT THIS AREA CAN ONLY, THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CAN ONLY RELIABLY SERVE A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS. 
          UH, I HAVE NOW DEEMED VALID STUDIES THAT WOULD, UH, HAVE 1200 MEGAWATTS OVER THE THOUSAND MEGAWATTS. 
          AND, AND HOW WE COULD GET TO THERE IS THAT, UH, ALL, ALL OF THESE, THE, THE STUDIES FOR EACH OF THESE LOADS MAY NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE OTHER LOADS. 
          SO IF I HAVE A STUDY THAT HAS TWO OF THEM, BUT NOT NOT THE THIRD, THAT STUDY'S GONNA SHOW THAT, YEAH, I CAN RELIABLY SERVE ALL THE LOADS, BUT, BUT IT, IT'S NOT GONNA SHOW ALL THREE OF THOSE LOADS. 
          AND SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW IF WE CAN RELIABLY SERVE ALL OF THOSE LOADS. 
          AND, AND SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT INTO THAT, THAT'S HOW WE COULD GET INTO THAT SITUATION. 
          AND SO WHAT OUR PROPOSAL IS, UH, SO WE HAVE A PROCESS TO CATCH THIS IN THE EXISTING LLIS PROCESS, BUT I I, IF WE HAVE A KIND OF A FLOOD OF LOADS THAT COME IN BETWEEN NOW AND THAT, THAT JULY 10TH CUTOFF DATE, THEN, THEN WE COULD GET INTO THAT SITUATION. 
          SO OUR, OUR PROPOSAL IS ANYTHING THAT IS BEFORE MARCH 4TH IS GETS THAT AUTOMATIC STUDY VALIDATION. 
          [02:50:01]
UH, BUT WE ARE NOT, UH, NOT GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY, BUT WE STILL WILL LOOK AT STUDIES, UH, THAT COME IN BETWEEN MARCH 4TH AND, AND JULY 10TH. 
          AND, AND SO THERE MAY BE SOME OF THESE LOADS THAT WE LOOK AT AND WE SAY, WELL, I CAN ONLY SERVE A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS IN THIS AREA AND I ALREADY HAVE TWO THAT CAME IN BEFORE MARCH 4TH THAT ARE EIGHT 800 TOTAL. 
          AND, AND SO I NEED TO RE-LOOK AT THIS, THIS LOAD HERE THAT, THAT CAME IN AFTER THAT DATE. 
          AND SO MAYBE THAT LOAD DOESN'T GET THEIR FULL ALLOCATION IN BATCH ZERO. 
          UH, SO AGAIN, IT IS REALLY ABOUT TRANSMISSION SYSTEM RELIABILITY IS, IS HOW WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS. 
          UM, AND, AND THIS SLIDE KIND OF DE DETAILS KINDA WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? UM, I'M GONNA GO TO A SLIGHTLY SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF THAT, WHICH IS ANYTHING THAT COMES IN BEFORE MARCH 4TH, THEN WE ARE DEEMING THOSE STUDIES TO BE COMPLETE AND VALID. 
          SO THEY GET AU THAT AUTOMATIC VALIDATION. 
          IT ANYTHING THAT COMES IN BETWEEN MARCH 4TH AND JULY 10TH, THOSE STUDIES, WE, WE MAY STILL DEEM THOSE STUDIES AS VALID. 
          SO IT'S, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY HAVE, THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY NOT DEEMED VALID, IT JUST MEANS THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO A CHECK ON THOSE. 
          UM, AND THEN ANYTHING AFTER JULY 10TH, REALLY WE'RE AT, AT THAT POINT WE'RE NO LONGER ACCEPTING CURRENT THE CURRENT LLIS STUDIES, UH, BECAUSE WE, WE NEED TO CREATE THIS, UH, KIND OF BATCH BATCH, UH, FILTER AND, AND FUNNEL THAT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO GO THROUGH BATCH GOING FORWARD. 
          AND SO WE'LL NO LONGER AFTER JULY 10TH, UH, IS DRAFTED IN PICK 1 45, WE'LL NO LONGER ACCEPT STUDIES. 
          AND, AND SO IF YOU'RE NOT IN BATCH ZERO BY, UH, BY THE JULY 10TH, IF YOU DON'T MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THEN YOU NEED TO WAIT FOR BATCH ONE, WHICH WOULD START IN MARCH OF NEXT YEAR. 
          AND IF YOU DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS BY MARCH OF NEXT YEAR, THEN YOU'RE NOT AT BATCH ONE. 
          YOU WOULD NEED TO WAIT IN BATCH TWO AND, AND SO ON GOING FORWARD. 
          UM, AND THEN, UM, WANTED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE FAQS THAT WE'VE HAD ON THIS, UH, BECAUSE I I DO THINK THAT THERE'S SOME CONFUSION. 
          SO, SO, YOU KNOW, ONE THING I THINK THAT WE'VE HEARD IS, HEY, IS IS MARCH 4TH A RETROACTIVE CUTOFF DATE IN PGA 1 45 FOR STUDIES? AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO, IT, IT IS NOT A RETROACTIVE CUTOFF DATE. 
          LOADS CAN STILL QUALIFY TO HAVE THEIR STUDIES DEEMED VALID AFTER MARCH 4TH, UH, BETWEEN MARCH 4TH AND AND JULY 10TH. 
          UM, BUT THAT WE, BUT WE WILL DO A CHECK TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER LOADS THAT HAVE MET THE, UH, THE MET THE STUDIES AND THE PLANNING GUIDE SECTION 9.5 CRITERIA. 
          WE WILL DO THAT CHECK TO SEE IF THOSE STUDIES ARE VALID, BUT IT'S, UH, QUITE POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD DO THAT CHECK AND WE COULD SAY, NO, THE STUDY IS GOOD. 
          SO EVEN THOUGH IT CAME IN JUNE 1ST, THIS STUDY IS STILL GOOD BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER LOADS THAT MET THAT CRITERIA. 
          AND SO YOU COULD HAVE JUNE 1ST STUDIES, YOU COULD HAVE JULY 9TH STUDIES THAT COME IN THAT WOULD STILL BE DEEMED VALID UNDER THIS PROCESS. 
          AND I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. 
          UM, AND I THINK WE, WE'VE HEARD ALSO THAT THERE'S THIS UNCERTAINTY THAT IF A PROJECT IS MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS LATER, THEN, UH, AFTER MARCH 4TH, THEN HOW WOULD THEY KNOW IF THEIR STUDY IS BEEN DEEMED VALID? AND SO WE'VE TAKEN THAT FEEDBACK AND, UH, ARE GOING TO, UM, START PRODUCING A STUDY REPORT. 
          SO WE, OR, OR A REPORT. 
          SO WE'VE ALREADY, UM, UH, ALREADY AT, AT ONE POINT, UH, I THINK A COUPLE WEEKS AGO WE PROVIDED TSPS A LIST OF THE, UH, LLI STUDIES AND KIND OF HOW WE SEE THEM, UH, IN, IN THE, UH, WHERE, WHERE THEY'RE AT IN THE CURRENT PROCESS. 
          UH, WE WILL ADD TO THAT REPORT AND PROVIDE THAT ON A, UM, I, I'LL SAY A PERIODIC BASIS, UH, DON'T WANNA COMMIT TO A FREQUENCY AT THIS POINT, BUT IT, IT'S OUR INTENTION TO UP THE FREQUENCY OF THAT SO THAT WE'RE PROVIDING THAT ON A, ON A REGULAR BASIS, UH, PROVIDING THAT REPORT TO THE INTERCONNECTING TSP SO THAT THEY KNOW, UH, AND THEY CAN COMMUNICATE TO THEIR, THEIR CUSTOMERS WHAT, WHAT THE STATUS IS OF THOSE PROJECTS. 
          SO IF YOU KNOW THAT, HEY, I CAME IN AFTER MARCH 4TH, UH, YOU KNOW, I I IF I CAME IN MARCH 30TH, IF I CAME IN TODAY, THEN I WILL KNOW IF THAT STUDY IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED DEEMED VALID OR IF THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT, THAT HAVE CHANGED. 
          AND, AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION THAT WE'VE GOTTEN QUITE A BIT IS, UH, WILL THE CURRENT LLIS PROCESS WILL THAT CONTINUE FOR PROJECTS THAT DON'T QUALIFY TO BE IN BATCH ZERO? AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. 
          SO I, ON JULY 10TH, THAT PICKER ONE 15 PROCESS WILL CEASE TO EXIST AS DRAFTED IN, IN PICKER 1 45 RIGHT NOW. 
          UM, AND AND SO GOING FORWARD, ALL LLI PROJECTS WILL NEED TO GO THROUGH 
          [02:55:01]
A BATCH PROCESS, UM, WHETHER THAT'S BATCH ZERO OR A SUBSEQUENT BATCH, IN ORDER TO BE, UH, QUALIFIED TO BE INCLUDED IN, UH, THE LOAD FORECAST IN ORDER TO BE THAT, THAT THEN DRIVES PLANNING IN ORDER, IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED IN, IN ANY, UH, LOAD FOR ENERGIZATION FORWARD, YOU'LL NEED TO GO THROUGH THE BATCH PROCESS GOING FORWARD. 
          UH, SO WITH THAT, LET ME PAUSE AND, AND SEE WHAT QUESTIONS THERE ARE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THERE ARE A COUPLE. 
          SO WE'LL START WITH COLIN XO. 
          COLIN, IF YOU'RE ONLINE, WE DON'T HEAR YOU YET. 
          I, ALL RIGHT, COME BACK TO COLIN BROTH. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          HEY JEFF, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IN BIGGER ONE 15, YOU'RE ALREADY DOING THIS, THAT'S WHERE THE STUDIES ARE COMING, RIGHT? SO THE NEW DIMENSION IS THE RPG PROJECTS THAT YOU ARE EVALUATING AGAINST? I, YEAH, I, I WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT A, A NEW DIMENSION THAT'S REALLY A LEGACY DIMENSION IS THAT THERE WERE, UM, SO AGAIN, RRPG, UM, HAS AND UM, AND CONTINUES TO BE A PROCESS FOR PROJECT, UH, TRANSMISSION PROJECT, UH, APPROVAL AND ENDORSEMENT. 
          UM, THERE WAS A LEGACY, UH, ALLOWANCE IN THE, THE INTERIM PROCESS WHERE WE WOULD SAY THAT, THAT THOSE STUDIES COULD BE ACT AS THE STUDIES FOR LARGE LOAD PROJECTS THAT WERE INTERCONNECTING LONGER THAN TWO YEARS. 
          UM, BUT THAT AS OF FIGURE ONE 15, THAT'S NO LONGER, THAT'S NO LONGER A, A VALID PATHWAY FOR THOSE. 
          SO ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL THESE PROJECTS NEED TO GO THROUGH THE LLIS PROCESS GOING FORWARD, . 
          SO I GUESS, BUT WE'RE, YEAH, WE, WE ARE TRYING TO ACKNOWLEDGE, SORRY TO CUT OFF, WE, WE, WE ARE TRYING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, THAT AT ONE POINT THAT WAS A, A, UH, VALID PATHWAY, ALTHOUGH IT NO LONGER IS. 
          SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS BEFORE OR ON, OR BEFORE MARCH 4TH, YOU STILL CONSIDERED THESE RPG PROJECTS WHEN YOU APPROVED THEM? YEAH, AND, AND, UM, AND I, A APOLOGY, APOLOGIZE, AGS NOT HERE, BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME, THERE ARE SOME NUANCES TO THAT THAT I THINK PROBABLY NEED AG TO HELP ADDRESS, BUT, UM, BECAUSE HE'S MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY ON THAT THAN I AM, UH, UNLESS EVAN, IF YOU KNOW OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD. 
          BUT, UM, UH, BUT YEAH, I THINK THAT THERE WAS KIND OF THIS, THIS PATH WHERE, UH, FOR PROJECTS THAT WERE ENERGIZING MORE THAN TWO YEARS OUT, THAT THEIR, THE RPG COULD KIND OF COUNT AS, AS THEIR INTERCONNECTION STUDIES. 
          UM, BUT I THINK THAT THEY'RE, UH, RECOGNIZED WHEN WE DRAFTED PIGGER ONE 15, THAT THERE WERE FLAWS IN, IN THAT PROCESS. 
          UH, AND SO THAT'S WHY ONE 15 EFFECTIVELY SHUT THE DOOR ON THAT. 
          BUT, BUT THERE MAY BE SOME THAT ARE KIND OF HANGING OUT THERE THAT WERE, UH, PRE-IMPLEMENTATION OF PGA ONE 15. 
          UM, AND, AND SO I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO ALLOW FOR SOME ALLOWANCE OF THAT. 
          I, OKAY. 
          I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS WITH REGARDS TO WHEN YOU'RE SEEING MARCH 4TH, IT'S THE EMAIL FROM TSP THAT THIS LOAD HAS MET 9.4 AND 9.5, NOT  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. 
          IS THAT ACCURATE OR HOW ARE YOU SEEING THIS? YEAH, UM, AND I APOLOGIZE 'CAUSE I NEED AG TO ANSWER THAT SPECIFICALLY, BUT MAYBE WE CAN LOCK THAT. 
          YEAH, I'LL HOLD OFF AND THEN COME BACK TO THAT IF, IF WE CAN MAKE A NOTE OF THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          I FORGOT I, I'LL COME BACK WHEN AG COMES. 
          SORRY. 
          THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          YEAH, WE'LL PARK THAT NOW. 
          UH, COLIN, WERE YOU ABLE TO GET YOUR AUDIO WORKING? ALRIGHT, WELL, HEARING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON. 
          WE'RE GONNA TAKE YOU OUTTA THE QUEUE FOR NOW, BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS TYPE YOUR QUESTION IN AND WE'LL GET TO IT THAT WAY. 
          ERIC GOFF, YOU'RE NEXT. 
          SO IN THE NEXT SLIDE, SLIDE 11, UM, IF YOU DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR BATCH ONE, UM, BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN STUDIES APPROVED YET, BUT THIS, THE PROCESS IS ENDING ON JULY 10TH, DO YOU ENVISION THAT BATCH ONE WILL DO MORE OF THE ACTIVITY TO APPROVE STUDIES THAT WE'RE NOT DOING AT BATCH ZERO? SO I, I THINK BATCH ONE, UM, WILL BE THE STUDY. 
          LET ME SAY IT THIS WAY. 
          ALL, ALL LOADS SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE. 
          THIS IS, AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IT NOW, HAVEN'T DRAFTED THAT PICKER YET, UHHUH . 
          BUT AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IT NOW, BATCH ONE IS OPEN TO ANY NEW LARGE LOADS THAT, UM, 
          [03:00:01]
THAT HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH BATCH ZERO. 
          SO THEY CAN GO THROUGH THE COMPLETE PROCESS WITHIN BATCH ONE. 
          YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE, YEAH, SO WHETHER YOU'VE STARTED THE OLD PROCESS OR WHETHER YOU COME IN IN FEBRUARY OF 27, YOU'RE BRAND NEW, NEVER REQUESTED BEFORE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I MEAN THERE, THERE ARE STILL THINGS THAT THE TSPS WILL NEED TO DO AHEAD OF TIME BECAUSE WE'LL NEED TO KNOW THINGS LIKE POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. 
          BUT THE IDEA IS THAT ANYTHING NEW, ANYTHING NOT INCLUDED IN BATCH ZERO IS, WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO BE INCLUDED IN BATCH ONE. 
          SO THE REASON FOR THAT LAST LINE PROJECT'S NOT INCLUDED IN BATCH ONE IS JUST BECAUSE THEY CHOSE NOT TO BE IN BATCH ONE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS POINT TO, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE HERE IS THAT THERE IS AN ONGOING BATCH PROCESS AND THERE WILL BE LOADS THAT DON'T QUALIFY TO BE IN BATCH ONE BECAUSE MAYBE THEY DIDN'T MEET THE INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS AS, AS THEY END UP BEING DEFINED IN 58 41 MAY. 
          MAYBE THEY, IT'S A NEW IDEA THAT THEY COME UP WITH IN APRIL OF 2027. 
          IT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE, THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE THAT OKAY, THIS, THIS IS AN ONGOING THING. 
          GREAT, THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT UP BLAKE KING. 
          UH, HELLO? YES, GO AHEAD. 
          UH, SO IS THE, IS THE SORT OF NOT AUTOMATIC VALIDITY, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S JUST PURELY RELATED TO THESE SORT OF RACE CONDITIONS WHERE, WHERE PROJECTS ARE TYING. 
          SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S, IT'S MORE OF A JUST KIND OF PUTTING, PUTTING INTO LANGUAGE THE TUDY MECHANISM THAT EXISTS TODAY. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT KIND OF HOW I SHOULD, SHOULD THINK ABOUT IT? YEAH, YEAH. 
          NO, THAT, THAT'S IT. 
          IT'S EXACTLY THE TU ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TODAY IN THE ONE 15 PROCESS. 
          UM, I THINK WHAT MAKES IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IS THAT, UM, IN THE ONE 15 PROCESS, ONCE YOU'VE MET 9.5, THEN YOU ARE, UM, NO LONGER, YOU KNOW, SUBJECT TO THAT, THAT, UM, RE STUDY THAT, THAT RE STUDY ISSUE. 
          I THINK THAT, AND, AND THAT'S FINE HISTORICALLY IF WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THESE COMING IN EVERY FEW WEEKS THAT, THAT IS MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS. 
          BUT IF, IF WE GET TO A POINT HERE WHERE WE'RE GETTING MULTIPLE OF THESE EVERY WEEK, THEN IT MAY NOT, WE MAY NOT HAVE TIME TO CATCH ALL OF THOSE. 
          SO, SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROCESS IS TODAY, YOU MEAN NINE FIVE, YOU, THE TSP THEN TELLS ERCOT, THEN WE GO AND LOOK AND SEE WHAT, WHAT OTHER STUDIES ARE IN THE AREA THAT MAY BE IMPACTED. 
          UH, AND, AND, AND AGAIN, THAT, THAT WORKS FINE IF IT'S HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, ONCE A MONTH OR SO. 
          BUT IF THAT'S, IF THAT STARTS TO HAPPEN FREQUENTLY, THEN WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CATCH ALL OF THOSE. 
          GOT IT. 
          SO, SO PUT ANOTHER WAY IT, BEFORE, WHENEVER THERE WAS JUST SORT OF THIS MUST STUDY DESIGNATION, ERCOT WAS IN CONTROL OF WHEN STUDIES MET THAT THRESHOLD, RIGHT? SO ERCOT COULD SORT OF DO THE DILIGENCE BEHIND THE SCENES AND SEE, BUT WITH NINE FIVE IT'S MORE AT THE TSPS DISCRETION ON WHEN THEY SEND YOU THE EMAIL. 
          IS THAT THE BETTER WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT? I THINK IT'S MORE, UH, SO I THINK THAT THAT'S, UH, THAT IS, UM, TRUE BOTH TODAY AND, AND, UM, AND GOING FORWARD IT WHERE, WHERE IT'S THE NINE FIVE, IT'S WHEN THEY TELL US THAT THAT A PROJECT HAS MET NINE FIVE, I THINK THE DISTINCTION HERE IS THAT THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY HAS SIGNIFICANTLY RAMPED UP AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS, UH, TRANSITIONING TO BATCH ZERO. 
          AND SO WE HAVE A, A, UM, SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LOADS THAT ARE TRYING TO REACH THAT NINE FIVE MILESTONE AND IT, IT'S NOT AT A PACE WHERE WE CAN KEEP UP WITH, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THOSE AND, AND, UM, PROACTIVELY TELLING TSPS THAT, HEY, ANO ANOTHER LOAD HAS MET THIS REQUIREMENT IN THE AREA OF YOUR STUDIES. 
          AND, AND SO YOU NEED TO, YOU KNOW, THESE OTHER LOADS ARE, ARE NO LONGER, UM, YOU KNOW, THEIR STUDIES ARE NO LONGER VALID. 
          SO WE HAVE A PROCESS TO THAT TODAY, THAT PROCESS IS NOT DESIGNED TO, UH, UH, KIND OF NO MOVE IT AT THE PACE AT WHICH THINGS ARE MOVING NOW. 
          GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IF I'M, IF I CAN BE GREEDY, SORRY TO BELABOR THE POINT, JUST ONE THING I'VE, I'VE HEARD FROM SOME TSPS THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY SURE IF THE, UH, 2026 R-T-P-R-F-I STUFF THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW, IF THAT'S CONNECTED TO ANY SORT OF PROJECT APPROVAL STATUS, UM, IT ARE THEY CONNECTED. 
          IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THEY ARE DIRECTLY, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU YOU HAD ANY CLARITY ON ON THAT? YEAH, MY, MY VIEW IS THAT THEY ARE NOT CONNECTED, UH, BECAUSE THE, THE CRITERIA FOR THE 2026 RTP IS NOT THE SAME CRITERIA AS LAID OUT IN EITHER PICKER ONE 15 PROCESS OR THE 
          [03:05:01]
PICKER 1 45 GOING FORWARD. 
          GOT IT. 
          THAT'S SUPER HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU, JEFF. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT ANDRES. 
          HI EVERYONE, THIS IS ANDRES WITH CYPRESS CREEK. 
          UM, ON THIS SLIDE, UM, CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY, JEFF AT THE BOTTOM, UH, THAT, UH, RED CIRCLE THAT SAYS THE GRID CANNOT RELIABLY SUPPLY ALL THE APPROVED LOADS. 
          LIKE WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN? LIKE, ARE, ARE WE TALKING STEADY STATES STABILITY? LIKE ARE WE LOOKING AT N MINUS ONE BASE CASE VIOLATIONS? YEAH, IT, IT, IT COULD BE ANY OF THOSE CONDITIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WITH THAT SAID, UM, AND I'M SORRY FOR BRINGING THIS BACK UP, BUT LIKE IF SOME, I, I UNDERSTAND SOME AREAS MIGHT HAVE STUDIES APPROVED PRIOR TO MARCH 4TH, THEY'RE INCLUDED AS BASE LOAD. 
          AND THEN I ALSO UNDERSTAND SOME LOADS THAT CAME AFTER MARCH 4TH, BEFORE JULY 10TH. 
          MIGHT OR NOT, MIGHT NOT BE, UH, VALID, BUT I GUESS THE POINT I'M, I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE IS IF, IF RAKU CAN USE SCOPE PF, UH, TO DO GENERATION RE-DISPATCH AND KEEP THE MEGAWATTS FIXED FOR ALL LOADS THAT COMMIT, UH, AND SOLVE THE TRANSMISSION VIOLATIONS IN THE REFINEMENTS, UM, AS, AS, AS, AS, AS, AS YOU SAID EARLIER, WHY CAN'T WE USE, UH, SCOPE F IN, IN THIS SITUATION TO KEEP ALL THESE LOADS FIXED AND AND THEN SOLVE THE GRID RELIABILITY ISSUES BY THE DISPATCH? YEAH, YEAH. 
          SO LET, YEAH, LET ME CLARIFY. 
          SO, UM, THAT IS A TOOL, BUT THAT TOOL DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT THERE ISN'T ENOUGH GENERATION TO SOLVE THAT. 
          SO IF I TAKE LIKE THIS EXAMPLE HERE ON THE LEFT, WE'RE, WE'VE GOT LIKE A RADIAL LINE HERE. 
          THERE'S NO GENERATION YOU CAN RE-DISPATCH, RIGHT? IT IS JUST, I'VE GOT SIX LOADS THAT ARE HANGING OFF OF THIS RADIO LINE AND, AND SO IF I LET TOO MANY LOADS CONNECT TO THAT RADIAL LINE, THEN MAYBE I CAN'T, THERE'S NO RE-DISPATCH I CAN DO, RIGHT? I'M JUST GONNA OVERLOAD THAT LINE IF I LET TOO MANY CONNECT. 
          SO, SO YOU KNOW, SU SUPPOSE THAT THESE ARE ALL, ALL SIX OF THESE ARE 100 MEGAWATT LOADS AND THIS IS A 400 MEGAWATT LINE. 
          IF, IF I LET SIX LOADS CONNECT THERE, THERE'S NO RE-DISPATCH. 
          I JUST HAVE 600 MEGAWATTS CONNECTED TO A 400 MEGAWATT LINE. 
          AND SO I'M, I'M JUST GONNA BE OVERLOADED INTO REAL TIME. 
          I'M JUST GONNA HAVE TO SHED LOAD, I'M, I'M GONNA HAVE TO ROTATE THESE GUYS. 
          AND, AND SO I, I THINK THAT'S THE, THE DANGER THAT WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF STAY OUT OF HERE IS, YOU KNOW, I I I DON'T WANT TO ALLOW MORE LOADS IN AS BASE LOAD THAN WHAT I CAN RELIABLY SERVE. 
          AND, AND SO I HAVE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF JUDGMENT AS TO WHICH LOADS I CAN RELIABLY SERVE. 
          AND I'M GONNA DO THAT BASED ON, UH, KIND OF WHEN THEY, WHEN THE STUDIES GOT APPROVED THAT, THAT THAT'S THE IDEA. 
          I SEE. 
          AND DO YOU SEE LOADS LIKE, UM, AND I'M SORRY YOU'VE EXPLAINED THIS IN, IN, IN, IN OTHER WORKSHOPS, BUT LIKE, ARE LOADS CLOSER TO THE JULY 10TH A BIGGER RISK THAN LOADS ACHIEVING THE, THE, THE STUDIES AND AGREEMENTS CLOSER TO MARCH 4TH? LIKE IS THERE A DIFFERENCE ON THAT? LIKE IF I HAVE A LOAD THAT'S STILL YEAH. 
          ON, IN IN PENDING STUDIES? YEAH, I, I IT'S MORE RISK. 
          I, I THINK THAT'S FAIR. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK THE CLOSER YOU ARE TO MORE MARCH 4TH AND THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT, THAT YOUR STUDY WOULD DEEM BE DEEMED VALID BE BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, AGAIN, AS WE GO FORWARD, YOU, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE MORE AND MORE LOADS THAT ARE GONNA MEET THAT, THAT, UM, THAT NINE FIVE CRITERIA AND, AND, AND WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT THOSE FIRST AND THEN THEY WILL DE BE DEEMED VALID AND THEN ANYTHING COMES AFTER THAT, WE'LL HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT LOAD. 
          GOT IT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT. 
          KILLING. 
          HEY, YES, MY QUESTIONS ARE ON SLIDE 12, MAINLY AROUND BATCH ONE. 
          SO DOES THAT 3 1 20 27 START DATE, IS THAT FIRM OR IS THAT STILL IN FLUX? IT'S A GOOD QUESTION THAT I WOULD SAY THAT'S DRAFT RIGHT NOW, UH, BE BECAUSE IT'S, UM, UL ULTIMATELY THAT WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE NEXT, UH, FIGURE THAT WILL COME. 
          UH, BUT I WOULD SAY BASED ON THE DATES OF, UH, HOW THE, THE DATES THAT WE HAVE LAID OUT IN FIGURE 1 45, I I WOULD SAY THAT IS THE TARGET DATE IS MARCH 1ST. 
          UH, BUT THE, UH, THERE, THERE WILL BE A SUBSEQUENT FIGURE THAT DEFINES WHEN BATCH ONE STARTS AND THAT WOULD BE MORE DEFINITIVE. 
          SO IT, IT'S SORT OF IN PENCIL AT THIS POINT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THEN I GUESS FOLLOW UP ON, I GUESS RELATED QUESTION FOR BATCH ONE, WILL THE REQUIREMENTS BE THE SAME FOR BATCH ZERO? OR I, I GUESS MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT 
          [03:10:01]
THERE WILL NOT BE A STUDY REQUIREMENT AND THAT THE BATCH ONE WILL BE THE STUDY FOR THESE LARGE LOADS IS, AM I CORRECT IN THAT ASSUMPTION? YEAH, SO, UH, I THINK THE, UM, THE THINKING RIGHT NOW, AGAIN, THIS WILL BE DEFINED IN A SUBSEQUENT FIGURE, BUT, UH, THE THINKING RIGHT NOW IS THAT, UH, TO GET INTO BATCH ONE, THERE WILL NOT NEED TO BE ANY SORT OF PREVIOUS STUDY THAT WAS PERFORMED. 
          UM, IT, WITH THE ASTERISK THAT WE, WE DO NEED THE TSPS, UH, THEY WILL NEED TO TELL US WHAT THAT POINT OF INTERCONNECTION IS AND TO WHAT WHATEVER STUDIES THAT THEY NEED TO DO THAT WILL, WILL NEED TO BE DONE BUT DON'T, WILL NOT HAVE TO HAVE IT CURRENT THINKING, WHAT WILL NOT HAVE TO HAVE A PREVIOUS STEADY STATES OR STABILITY STUDY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO GET INTO BATCH ONE. 
          SO, SO BATCH ZERO IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THAT REGARD, BUT BATCH ONE IS YOU COULD, UH, YOU KNOW, THE THEORETICALLY COME IN ON FEBRUARY 28TH WITH, UH, YOU'VE GOT YOUR POI FROM YOUR, UM, YOUR TSP, YOU'VE SIGNED YOUR INTERMEDIATE AGREEMENT. 
          YOU COULD BE KIND OF BRAND NEW LLI NUMBER AT THAT POINT AND STILL SHOW UP AND BE INCLUDED IN BATCH ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT, NEXT, SAM JUNG, UH, SAM JUNG FROM EP. 
          UM, SO I, I WOULD ASSUME THAT TOWARDS MAY, JUNE TIMEFRAME, YOUR, UM, ERCOT IS GONNA HAVE A LOT OF STUDIES SUBMITTED TO, UH, BE REVIEWED BY ERCOT. 
          UM, DOES ERCOT HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THESE STUDIES WILL BE, YOU KNOW, REVIEWED, YOU KNOW, BEFORE JULY, JULY 10TH TIMEFRAME? OR SHOULD YOU KNOW, I GUESS TSPS AND THE LOAD DEVELOPERS SUBMIT THEIR STUDIES BEFORE JULY 10TH AND THEN JUST HOPE THAT ERCOT HAS TIME TO REVIEW THEM ALL? YEAH, SO WE'RE, WE ARE, UM, WE'RE BRINGING ON ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO BE ABLE TO, UH, REVIEW ALL THOSE STUDIES. 
          SO WE ARE ANTICIPATING, AS, AS YOU'RE SAYING THAT, THAT WE WILL GET, UM, A A LOT OF STUDIES THAT ARE COMING IN, UM, AND, AND SO WE, WE ARE BRINGING EXTRA RESOURCES ONLINE, UM, TO HELP US WITH THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THERE'S NO LIKE, SAY CUTOFF DATE ON WHEN THE STUDY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO HAVE LIKE A PROPER TIME FOR REVIEW NEXT MAYBE COMMENTS BACK AND FORTH? YEAH, THE, THE, THERE'S NOT, WE, WE DIDN'T WANT TO, UM, PRESUPPOSE THAT. 
          UH, SO WE, I MEAN, THERE MAY BE STUDIES THAT DO GET SUBMITTED IF STUDIES SUBMITTED ON JULY 9TH. 
          IT'S, UM, THERE'S LOW LIKELIHOOD THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT. 
          UM, BUT UH, BUT WE DID NOT WANT TO PRESUPPOSE A, A CUTOFF DATE ON THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT, NEXT, SHANNON, JEFF, COULD YOU GO BACK TO, WE'LL START WITH SLIDE 10 MAYBE. 
          SO IN YOUR EXAMPLE HERE, THE RPG, SO THESE ARE ALL ONES IN YOUR BIGGER ONE 15 PROCESS THAT MAKE UP THE TRIANGLES ON THE PAGE, IS THAT CORRECT? COULD BE, YEAH. 
          OR IT COULD BE MAYBE THEY WERE, UM, EXEMPT IN AN RPG PROCESS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          YEP. 
          OKAY. 
          UNDER YOUR CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE, UH, UH, PR 1 45 THAT'S OUT THERE, THEY WOULD NEED TO BE IN THE RPG THAT ALREADY HAD ERCOT INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND APPROVED BY MARCH 4TH, UH, IN ORDER TO BE IN YOUR EXAMPLE HERE? YEAH. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO OUT OF THE 51 GIGAWATTS THAT I SHOWED OUR LAST MEETING THAT BY MY ACCOUNT ARE ONES THAT ARE IN THIS STATUS OF OUR TSPS, PUT THEM TOGETHER AND SOME OF 'EM IS PRETTY DARN COMPLICATED AND THERE'S A LOT OF PIECES TO IT AND BROUGHT THOSE FORWARD TO YOU. 
          THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THEM FALL INTO THE CATEGORY EVEN OF YOUR REALLY CONSERVATIVE, UH, DECEMBER 15TH, THEY HAD TO BE SUBMITTED AND BY NOW, AND, AND IT IS RETROACTIVE THAT YOU'RE SAYING BY MARCH 4TH THAT, THAT THEY HAD TO BE APPROVED. 
          THERE'S, BY MY MATH, THERE'S LIKE 20, YOU KNOW, RIGHT AT 24,000 5, 21 OUT OF MY LIST THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED THAT FIT THAT DEFINITION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO JUST, THAT, THAT ARE SUBMITTED BY DECEMBER 15TH, BUT WERE NOT APPROVED BY MARCH 4TH THAT ARE JUST GETTING TOSSED. 
          AND, AND MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS HOW ARE YOU TAKING THOSE INTO ACCOUNT HERE? AND, UM, BACK TO THE BROADER QUESTION I ASKED THE OTHER DAY, EVEN THE ONES THAT CAME IN AFTER DECEMBER 15TH, BUT BEFORE MARCH 4TH, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A YEAR LONG PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THESE THINGS, AND SOME OF 
          [03:15:01]
IT'S VERY COMPLICATED. 
          AS YOU GUYS KNOW, YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ENCORE'S 25 RPG OH ZERO FOUR TOOK Y'ALL 13 MONTHS TO GET DONE, OR 13 AND A HALF MONTHS. 
          SO IF YOUR REVIEW OF SOMEBODY'S TOOK THAT LONG, THINK HOW LONG IT TOOK TO PUT THESE TOGETHER IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IT SEEMS, UH, HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC THAT YOU'RE, YOU DON'T HAVE A PATH THAT IN YOUR CURRENT FIGURE 1 45 LANGUAGE THAT'S GONNA TOSS OUT THESE 51 GIGAWATTS WORTH, UH, I YEAH. 
          AND THAT IT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND, AND, UM, I, I WOULD SAY, UH, A I I THINK, AND I DON'T HAVE NUMBERS ON THIS, UM, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR KIND OF HAND WAVING, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK A LOT OF THOSE ACTUALLY ARE, UM, IF NOT MOST OF THEM OR ARE IN THE LLIS PROCESS. 
          AND, AND SO A LOT OF THOSE HAVE GONE THROUGH, SOME OF THEM HAVE MADE IT THROUGH, YOU KNOW, TO THE FINISH LINE ON THAT. 
          SOME OF THEM HAVE NOT. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT NUMBERS BECAUSE IT'S, UH, WE HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH THAT EXERCISE. 
          I WOULDN'T SAY THAT WE'RE THROWING THAT OUT. 
          THAT SAID, I, I THINK I, I, I APPRECIATE AND UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS THAT UNCERTAINTY FOR THE DEVELOPERS THAT UN UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENT THAT, HEY, WE, WE PUT UP SECURITY, UH, AND WE, WE WENT THROUGH THIS STUDY PROCESS, YOU APPROVED THE TRANSMISSION PROJECT. 
          UH, BUT I, I HAVE SOME UNCERTAINTY NOW WITH, WITH THAT LOAD. 
          I, I'M NOT DISCOUNTING THAT. 
          UM, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN. 
          I, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE HERE IS THAT THERE IS A RELIABILITY IMPLICATION IF WE JUST TAKE ALL OF THAT AND ASSUME ALL OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE BASELOAD IN, UH, IN BATCH ZERO. 
          I FULLY UNDERSTAND SOME OF IT MAY HAVE MADE IT THROUGH THE BIGGER ONE 15 PROCESS, JUST ONE OF THE ONES THAT WE'RE IN, THERE'S, UH, SIX OR SEVEN LOADS IN THAT RPG WERE TWO OF THEM, ONE OF THEM MADE THROUGH, AND ALL THE REST OF THEM I KNOW FOR A FACT HAVEN'T, SO I COULD DO THE MATH, BUT IT'S SOMETHING LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, IT'LL BE LESS THAN 20%, MAYBE 15% OF ALL THE MEGAWATTS IN THAT ONE WERE, UH, ALREADY THROUGH THE PAYER ONE 15 PROCESS. 
          NOW, MAYBE EVERY OTHER ONE OF THESE RPGS ARE DIFFERENT, AND THEY ALL WERE ALREADY THROUGH, I HIGHLY DOUBT IT BECAUSE THEY WERE PART OF THE INTERIM PROCESS WHERE YOU DIDN'T NEED TO DO THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE. 
          SO I THINK IT'S A PRETTY BIG PROBLEM, EVEN IF IT'S 75% OF, OR EVEN HALF OF 51 GIGAWATTS THAT WERE NOT SEPARATELY THROUGH PIGGER ONE. 
          I MEAN, ONLY 3,710 HAVE MADE IT THROUGH PIGGER ONE 15 FROM MAY OF LAST YEAR TILL APRIL. 
          SO WHEN WE KNOW THAT, AND WE KNOW THERE'S 51 GIGAWATTS, WE KNOW THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S JUST, IT'S MATH, THERE'S A GIGANTIC AMOUNT. 
          IF YOU DON'T ADDRESS THIS, THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE THROWING IT OUT. 
          AND IN OUR CASE, THESE ARE SIGNED INTERCONNECT AGREEMENTS. 
          THEY'RE ALREADY SIGNED, THEY'RE CIEC POSTED AND IT'S UNDER CURRENT PUC RULES OR CURRENT, OR AT THE TIME THOSE WERE SIGNED, AS WELL AS YOU'RE THE ONE WHO JUSTIFIED AND MADE THAT POSSIBLE DISCONNECTING THESE TWO, LIKE Y'ALL TALKED ABOUT LAST MEETING, IT'S, IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT LOAD, YOU WOULDN'T NEED THAT TRANSMISSION AND THE CONTRACTS THAT MADE THAT POSSIBLE. 
          IT'S JUST GOTTA BE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S ALREADY SIGNED INTERCONNECT AGREEMENTS, EVEN THIS HAS GOTTA BE ADDRESSED. 
          AND JEFF PROBABLY WAS KIND OF FLAGGING OVER HERE, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, PROBABLY MECO. 
          SO I, I KNOW WE, WE, WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING OR LAST WORKSHOP, THE SAME, SAME ISSUE. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, THAT 50 PLUS GIGAWATTS AND THE ASSOCIATED PROJECTS THAT'S GOING THROUGH RPG EVALUATION, THOSE ARE LONG-TERM PROJECTS. 
          SO SOME SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS THAT WON'T SHOW UP TILL LIKE, YOU KNOW, YEAR SIX OR SEVEN, THAT'S BASED ON WHAT'S SUBMITTED. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, LET ME, LET ME FINISH MY COMMENT. 
          I KNOW YOU HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, BUT I THINK IT MAKES SENSE, LIKE JEFF SAID, TO GO THROUGH THOSE PROCESS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, INDEPENDENT OF RPG TO COME UP WITH THE LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN FOR THOSE, AGAIN, THE, THE CONCEPT OF RPG IS TO IDENTIFY, ASSUME ALL THOSE LOADS ARE GONNA SHOW UP AT THE FULL VALUE AND WE ARE TRYING TO FILL TRANSMISSION PROJECTS, BUT STILL RPG IS NOT GIVING WHAT THE BAT ZERO IS GONNA DO OR THE BAT STUDY IS GONNA DO. 
          [03:20:02]
I, OKAY, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT DURING YOUR INTERIM PROCESS, THAT WAS HOW YOU, YOU, UH, INTEGRATE THESE IN. 
          AND SO WHILE THIS WILL BE DIFFERENT THAN THAT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT WAS YOUR PROCESS. 
          MUCH LIKE PICKER ONE 15 IS YOUR CURRENT PROCESS. 
          AND SO IF WE TAKE SANDEEP'S POINT THIS MORNING, THE QUESTION THAT HE ASKED IS IF THE RPG HAS AN END STATE TOPOLOGY SET OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT WILL SERVE IT, I'LL JUST MAKE SOMETHING UP AND SAY IT'S 2030, BUT THERE WAS A 20, 26, 27, 28, 29 COMPONENT OF RAMP OF LOAD THAT MADE THAT UP BEFORE YOU GOT TO 2030. 
          YOU NEED SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS YOU, BACK TO YOUR POINT JEFF, YOU NEED A STUDY YOU CAN POINT TO, TO KNOW THAT IN EACH OF THOSE YEARS IN 26, I HAVE A WAY TO SERVE IT IN 27, I CAN SERVE SOME MORE BECAUSE SOME MORE COMPONENTS OF THAT COME IN. 
          I THINK YOU NEED THAT. 
          I THINK YOU THINK YOU PROBABLY NEED THAT, BUT YOU DON'T WITHOUT ADDRESSING IT AT ALL IN THIS, YOU DON'T HAVE A PROCESS FOR THAT TODAY. 
          AND IT, THE IDEA THROUGHOUT THIS MORNING IS THAT THE TSP THAT SUBMITTED IT, THE SUBMITTER OF THE RPG TO THE DEGREE, THEY COULD DEVELOP ONE FOR YOU BEFORE JULY. 
          I THINK IT COULD SOLVE THAT PROBLEM, UH, FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT WHETHER, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE, THE LANGUAGE Y'ALL HAVE GOT OUT THERE NOW, SO, OKAY, SO I MEAN THAT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE BATCH ZERO, THAT, THAT ANALYSIS, WHY, WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST MAKE THOSE LOADS AS STUDIED LOADS IN BATCH ZERO? WELL, I'LL GIVE YOU A REAL SIMPLE ANSWER OF WHY IN YOUR PROCESS THAT, WHERE THAT WAS THE INTERIM PROCESS. 
          SO LET'S TAKE 25 RPG 0 0 4. 
          IT'S EN COURSE IT IS SUBMITTED FEBRUARY, MID-FEBRUARY OR SO OF 25. 
          Y'ALL DID NOT APPROVE IT TILL MARCH 19TH OR SOMETHING. 
          CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. 
          THERE WAS 4,096 MEGAWATTS IN THAT THIS WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE YOU EVEN HAD PICKER ONE 14 UNDER YOUR CURRENT LANGUAGE, ALL OF THAT LOAD, NONE OF IT IS ACTUALLY GETTING TREATED AS BASE LOAD. 
          AND I'M PICKING ONE THAT'S AN EXTREME BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE FIRST ONES IN THE LIST. 
          NONE OF IT GETS ANY BASE LOAD TREATMENT HERE YET. 
          IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE TSP UNDER THE INTERIM PROCESS LONG BEFORE YOU HAD BIGGER ONE 15. 
          WHY DID THEY NEED TO THEN TURN AROUND AND WAIT AND GO THROUGH THE BATCH PROCESS YET AGAIN AS AN ALLOCATED LOAD WHEN THEY WERE THE ONES WHO WERE IN THE, THE ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN FEBRUARY OF 25? SO I'LL PAUSE AND LET YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          I I MIGHT NEED TO BU UP, I I THOUGHT IT, I MAY MAY NOT BE REMEMBERING THIS RIGHT, BUT I THOUGHT AT TAC I THOUGHT THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED. 
          I I THOUGHT ALL OF THOSE LOADS MET THE REQUIREMENTS HAVE, HAVE THEY NOT ALL GONE THROUGH? THEY MET THE NINE FIVE REQUIREMENTS. 
          YEAH, BUT RPG WAS THE NINE FOUR REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? SO, OKAY, SO THERE IS NO TRADITIONAL LLI 9 4 4 THOSE GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU SEE? YEAH, NO, I, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. 
          UM, I'M USING THAT ONE AS A POSTER CHILD. 
          IT APPLIES TO ALL OF THEM, BUT THAT'S THE MOST EXTREME BECAUSE IT WAS LONG BEFORE THERE WAS EVEN P ONE 15. 
          YEAH, I, SO I, I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          BUT SINCE THEN I HAVE HAD OTHER LOADS THAT HAVE COME IN AND GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS AND, AND SO I NEED NOW, IF THERE'S NO OTHER LOADS THAT HAVE, HAVE COME IN AND I, I DON'T HAVE A RELIABILITY PROBLEM THEN, RIGHT? I I, THEY WILL GO THROUGH THIS CHECK AND IT WILL IDENTIFY THAT THERE'S, THERE'S NO ISSUES. 
          DID YOUR OTHER LOADS THAT COME IN UNDER BIGGER ONE 15, DID ERCOT IGNORE THE, I CAN'T IMAGINE YOU WOULD'VE IGNORED THE RPG FILING. 
          THAT WAS THE ONE, THAT WAS THE WAY YOU WERE CONNECTING THESE 25 RPG 0 0 4 LOADS. 
          THERE'S JUST NO WAY Y'ALL, WELL, I DON'T KNOW. 
          THERE'S NO WAY IT WOULD SEEM ILLOGICAL THAT Y'ALL IGNORED ALL THAT. 
          AM I MISSING SOMETHING THAT THOSE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN LOADS. 
          YOU WOULD BE MAKE, GO INTO THE PI, UH, PIER ONE 15 STUDIES 
          [03:25:01]
WHEN THOSE WERE STUDIED BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAD AN RPG FILING ON IT. 
          YEAH, AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYBODY HERE TODAY THAT I CAN YEAH, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          PROBABLY IF YOU THINK YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT. 
          SO FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT, I THINK THE RPG, WE DID MENTION THAT THERE ARE OTHER LOADS WHICH CAME IN AFTER THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED. 
          AND UH, WE FOCUSED ON THE PROJECT NEED BASED ON WHAT WAS SUBMITTED, THE PROJECT TRANSMISSION PROJECT AND THE LOAD THAT WAS SUPPORTING THAT. 
          SO OBVIOUSLY SINCE THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER LOADS THAT CAME IN THERE. 
          AND WE DID IDENTIFY IN THE RPG PROJECT, THIS IS NOT GONNA SOLVE ALL ISSUES. 
          THIS IS JUST ADDRESSING THIS PARTICULAR LOAD THAT WAS SUBMITTED. 
          THERE ARE OTHER PROJECTS THAT'S NEEDED TO SUPPORT ALL THE LOADS. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S AN ONGOING PROCESS THAT, THAT WILL BE IDENTIFIED IN THE OTHER PLANNING STUDIES AND OTHER RPG PROJECTS. 
          SO I THINK IT'S, LIKE JEFF SAID, THERE, THERE ARE LOADS THAT'S, YOU KNOW, CHANGE OR ARE ADDED TO THE SYSTEM AND EVERY TIME WE DO A STUDY, YOU KNOW THAT THAT NUMBER GOES UP. 
          SO IT'S AN ONGOING PROCESS, RIGHT. 
          SO THAT, THAT MAKES, I MEAN, IN MY MIND, THAT MAKES THE CASE TO LIKE WHY WE HAVE TO STUDY THAT AGAIN. 
          I MEAN THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED TO RPG RECENTLY AS RECENTLY AS THE SOUTH BFW PROJECT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE END POINT. 
          THAT'S ALL LIKE THE PROJECTS THAT'S NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE ONGOING ADDITION. 
          SO THERE'S A LOT MORE PROJECTS NEEDED, MAYBE A SOLUTION. 
          I'M, 'CAUSE I'M NOT JUST TRYING TO THINK OF PROBLEMS. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF SOLUTIONS WITH YOU ON IT. 
          THE IDEA I'D LAID OUT THIS MORNING IS IF THE TSP COULD DEVELOP SORT OF THIS, WHETHER YOU CALL IT A LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN OR A YEAR BY YEAR RAMP, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, TO THE ENDPOINT FOR THEIR RPG SUBMITTAL. 
          I THINK EVEN THOUGH IT'D BE HARDER STILL TO THE DEGREE, WHAT WOULD SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM, Y'ALL STATED PROBLEM IS IF THEY COULD ALSO, BECAUSE IT MAY WELL BE THAT THE LOADS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED HERE ARE ALSO THEIR LOADS. 
          IF THOSE, IF THEY COULD SUBMIT A, A, UM, A STEP, YOU KNOW, A YEAR BY YEAR PIECE, UM, AND ANY LOADS THAT YOU HAVE APPROVED HERE THAT WERE NOT IN THAT RPG, THEY ALSO ADDRESSED THAT FOR YOU AND GOT IT BY JULY 10TH, THEN I THINK IT SOLVES ALL THE PROBLEMS I'VE HEARD STATED TECHNICALLY THAT IS YOUR ISSUE. 
          IT WOULD THAT WORK? OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING? I, WELL, I I'D MEAN TO THINK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT'S, I THINK THERE ARE COMPLICATIONS IN THINKING THROUGH WHAT LOADS DO THEY INCLUDE IN THAT STUDY BECAUSE WHAT IF THERE ARE LOADS THAT COME IN ON JULY 10TH SO THAT IT, IT, I IMAGINE THAT STUDY WOULD NEED TO BE, IT NEEDS TO BE THE DATE WHEN THEY KICK IT OFF. 
          SO THEORETICALLY, YOU, YOU SAID, I LIKE THIS IDEA TOMORROW EACH OF YOUR TSPS GO DO IT. 
          IT WOULD BE AT THE TIME YOU HAVE, YOU KICK THEM OFF, IT'LL ONLY BE THE ONES THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED SINCE, UM, HERE. 
          IT CAN'T BE ONES THAT CONTINUE TO COME IN. 
          THOSE WILL NEED TO BE STUDIED WITH, YOU KNOW, THIS RPG LOAD PLUS THE PIER ONE 15 ONES YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED PRIOR TO WHATEVER DAY, YOU KNOW, TOMORROW OR HYPOTHETICALLY OR WHATEVER DAY IT IS. 
          YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? WOULD THAT SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM? UM, I I NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          POTENTIALLY, UM, BUT I ALSO DON'T, I'M, I'M CURIOUS IF TSPS WANT TO, UH, WEIGH IN TO, UH, SAY WHETHER THEY COULD PERFORM SUCH A STUDY. 
          AND THE REASON I, I WANNA HEAR THAT, KEEP PLAYING IT OUT FROM THE TSPS. 
          IT CAN'T BE FUN BEING A TS P AND THINKING ABOUT YOU DID ALL THE WORK ON THIS RPG SUBMITTAL AND THEN IT GETTING TOSSED, OR THE ALTERNATIVE THAT I HEARD LAST TIME IS, WELL, YOU ERCOT WILL GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE TRANSMISSION, BUT THE LO YOU KNOW, AND IF THE LOAD THAT JUSTIFIED IT, UH, AND PUT UP MONEY FOR THIS DOESN'T GET IT ALLOCATED TO THEM, I BET SOMEBODY ELSE WILL SHOW UP AND WILL USE IT. 
          HOW'S THAT GONNA GO DURING THE NEXT RATE CASE THAT THEY'VE GOT? WHEN SOMEBODY'S IN THERE WHINING THAT PROVE TO ME ALL THIS WAS USED AND USEFUL, THE WAY YOU SOLVE THAT IS NOT DOING SOMETHING YOU'VE NEVER DONE BEFORE, WHICH IS DISCONNECTING THE DRIVERS OF THE RPG PROJECT FROM THE RPG APPROVAL. 
          AND THAT'S WHY I WAS THINKING THEY SURELY WOULD WANT TO WORK HARD TO DO THAT JUST BECAUSE THAT SUGGESTION'S GOTTA BE QUITE UNPLEASANT FOR 'EM COMPARED TO SOMETHING THAT'S THE TYPE OF NARCOTIC APPROVAL THEY'VE ALWAYS GOTTEN. 
          ONCE THERE'S BOARD APPROVAL, THE COMMISSION CAN LOOK AT THAT AND KNOW ALL OF THE INPUTS DROVE THAT 
          [03:30:01]
OUTPUT AND IT MAKES SENSE AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANKS SHANNON. 
          UH, ORGY. 
          SO WE HAVE QUITE A FEW PEOPLE. 
          UM, SO ORGY IS NEXT AND THEN TYLER. 
          THANKS MATT. 
          UM, SLIDE 10 WHERE YOU ARE. 
          UM, I THINK YOU MENTIONED IT BEFORE, BUT COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MARCH 4TH, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM RELIABILITY LIMITS? I MEAN, WHY IS, UNDERSTAND MARCH 4TH IS WHEN PGR 1 45 WAS INTRODUCED, BUT WHAT, WHAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE WITH RESPECT TO STUDY VALIDITY? LIKE WHY NOT MARCH 5TH OR MARCH 3RD OR ANY OTHER DATE BEFORE JULY 10TH? YEAH, SO MARCH, MARCH 4TH, WE, WE HAVE DONE THIS STUDY VALID VALIDITY CHECK UP UNTIL MARCH 4TH. 
          AND SO WE KNOW, UH, WE HAVE HIGH CONFIDENCE THAT ANY STUDIES THAT CAME IN BY THAT DATE, THAT THOSE STUDIES ARE VALID. 
          A AFTER MARCH 4TH, UM, NOT, NOT AS CONFIDENT. 
          AND, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO DO THIS CHECK, UH, BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE STARTING TO GET AN INCREASE IN THESE STUDIES AND NEEDING THE, THE PACE OF STUDIES COMING IN HAS ACCELERATED QUICKLY AND, AND SO WE NEED TO, UH, MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO THAT EXTRA CHECK. 
          AND CAN THIS CHECK SINCE IT'S BEEN DONE, LIKE BY TODAY OR BY MARCH 4TH, CAN IT BE DONE ON APRIL 4TH? MAY, MAY 4TH, UH, ET CETERA, UNTIL YOU GET TO JULY? IT SEEMS LIKE WE COULD REDUCE THE UNCERTAINTY FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE BUCKET THAT SHANNON TALKED ABOUT UNTIL WE GET TO JULY 10TH. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO THE, THE WAY I THINK YOU, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT IN THE WAY THAT WE INTEND TO ADDRESS THAT IS NOT BY CHANGING THE PICKER LANGUAGE, BUT BY PROVIDING THAT CHECK. 
          AND AS WE DO THAT CHECK, WE WILL PROVIDE THAT UPDATE TO THE TSPS. 
          AND SO IF THERE IS A STUDY THAT COMES IN TODAY ON MARCH 30TH, THEN WE WILL COMMUNICATE THAT BACK TO THE TSP THAT WE HAVE DONE THIS CHECK AND THIS STUDY IS DEEMED, UM, VALID. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN FINAL QUESTION, UM, ON THIS SLIDE AND A FEW OTHERS, SOMETIMES YOU USE LLI, SOMETIMES YOU USE RPG, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE RPG PROJECTS ARE GONNA FACE THE, THE SAME DEADLINE AS THE LI PROJECTS. 
          UH, YES. 
          UH, AND THERE, THERE IS A NUANCE, AND I APOLOGIZE, AG G'S NOT IN HERE. 
          HE CAN BETTER ARTICULATE THAT NUANCE, BUT I, I THINK THAT NUANCE IS, THAT IS ONLY FOR, UM, UH, UH, LARGE LOAD PROJECTS THAT WERE, UM, UH, EXEMPT UNDER THE INTERIM PROCESS FROM GOING THROUGH THE LLIS PROCESS. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT UP TYLER, I THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO JUST FIRST OFF, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO THANK YOU, THANK THE ERCOT STAFF FOR, FOR HOSTING TODAY AND, UM, YOUR, YOUR CONTINUED TRANSPARENCY THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          UM, I I REALLY JUST HAVE, UH, COMMENTS, NOT NECESSARILY QUESTIONS. 
          UH, AND I WANT TO FOCUS MY COMMENTS NARROWLY ON THE PROPOSED MARCH 4TH, UH, LOAD CUTOFF, LOAD STUDY CUTOFF AND RESPECTFULLY URGE ERCOT TO PUSH THAT DATE TO JULY 10TH. 
          UM, AND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, FROM A LARGE LOAD AND DEVELOPER PERSPECTIVE, UH, THE, THE MARCH 4TH CUTOFF, IT, IT DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME TO INCORPORATE THE ELIGIBILITY CLARIFICATIONS THAT ARE, THAT ARE STILL EMERGING THROUGH THESE WORKSHOPS. 
          UM, MANY PROJECTS, OURS INCLUDED, ARE ACTIVELY COORDINATING THE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES SUCH AS PERMITTING, CONSTRUCTION PLANNING, UH, PHASE DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY SCHEDULES, AND IN RESPONSE TO THIS EVOLVING GUIDANCE. 
          AND SO, UH, ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN JULY 10TH IS, IS WHAT IT ALIGNS WITH THE LAST DATE THAT TSPS CAN SUBMIT THEIR COMPLETED LOAD PACKETS TO ERCOT. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS CREATES A MORE, MORE COHERENT AND WORKABLE HANDOFF BETWEEN MARKET PARTICIPANTS AND THE TRANSMISSION PROVIDERS. 
          UM, AND WITHOUT THAT ADDITIONAL TIME, UH, WE BELIEVE THAT PROJECTS, THEY, THEY RISK MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE STUDY ASSUMPTIONS AND REALLY THE, THE REAL WORLD COMM, UH, COMMERCIAL AND PHASE DELIVERY COMMITMENTS. 
          AND THIS INCREASES THE EXECUTION RISK AND DOWNSTREAM, UH, REWORK. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WE VIEW THIS AS A, A PLAQUE, A PRACTICAL ADJUSTMENT 
          [03:35:01]
THAT THAT HELP TO IMPROVE DATA QUALITY AND THEN ALSO STRENGTHEN THE, THE PLANNING DISCIPLINE, UM, INTERNALLY HERE AT ROMAN, BUT ALSO WE BELIEVE WITHIN ERCOT. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS AND CONTINUE TO ENGAGEMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          UH, NEXT UP IS SANDEEP. 
          YEP. 
          THANKS. 
          UH, SANDY BOKAR WITH LCRA ON, UH, ON A SLIDE 10. 
          I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, AS YOU WORK THROUGH THIS PROCESS, YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE MORE TRIANGLES TURN GREEN AND THE GREEN ARE ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU'D CALL AS BATCH ALLOCATED. 
          YEAH, I, I WOULD SAY, UM, WE NOT TURN GREEN, BUT UM, MAYBE, UM, ONCE YOU'RE TEAL YOU STAY TEAL. 
          OKAY. 
          IT, IT'S MORE, I MAYBE AS I ADD TRIANGLES, I'M ADDING MAYBE GREEN TRIANGLES INSTEAD OF TEAL TRIANGLES. 
          SO THE ONES THAT ARE NOT, NOT STUDY APPROVED PRIOR TO MARCH FOUR, ESSENTIALLY THEY WILL BE TREATED THE SAME. 
          SO I'M, I'M THINKING OF THE BATCH ZERO, THE STUDY THAT YOU'RE RUNNING. 
          FINALLY, YOU WILL HAVE SOME THAT YOU'LL NOT TOUCH, BUT THEN THERE'LL BE THIS OTHER BATCH WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE GREENS AND YOU'LL HAVE BAD ZERO ALLOCATED AND THEY'LL ALL BE TREATED THE SAME. 
          YES. 
          ESSENTIALLY, YES. 
          FROM A POWER FLOW STANDPOINT, RIGHT? SO IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A ALLOCATED LOAD COULD RECEIVE MORE MEGAWATTS COMPARED TO A BASE LOAD WAS, UH, JUST BASED ON WHERE THEY ARE ON THE SYSTEM AND WHAT OTHER SYSTEM LIMITATIONS COULD BE THERE, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          SO MAYBE TO, UM, TRY TO ILLUSTRATE THAT A LITTLE BIT. 
          SO IF I HAVE MORE LOADS THAT SHOW UP IN THIS AREA, THEY'RE LIKELY ALL GOING TO BE GREEN LOADS. 
          WE'RE GONNA STUDY AND ALLOCATE THOSE IN BATCH ZERO. 
          YEAH, MAYBE IT'S JUST THIS ONE. 
          MAYBE THERE ARE THREE OR FOUR THAT SHOW UP THERE, THERE MAY BE ANOTHER, ANOTHER PART OF THE SYSTEM THAT, YEAH, JULY 10TH, I ADD ANOTHER TRIANGLE. 
          THERE'S NO OTHER LOADS, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ISSUES IN THAT AREA THAT THEN MAYBE THAT SHOWS UP AS A, A, UH, TEAL LOAD. 
          SO IT'S, IT'S, IT COMES IN AS, AS BASE LOAD BECAUSE IT'S, THAT STUDY IS VALID, NO OTHER LOADS THAT WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THAT STUDY. 
          UH, SO IT, IT IS VERY MUCH A LOCATIONAL THING. 
          AND SO THAT, THAT TO THE QUESTION EARLIER THAT THAT'S WHY I CAN'T JUST RESET THAT DATE TO MAR TO MAY ONE OR JUNE ONE OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE SOME AREAS I, I COULD, AND THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM, BUT THERE MAY BE OTHER AREAS WHERE I CAN'T, IT, IT IS REALLY A LOCATIONAL TRANSMISSION ISSUE. 
          GOT IT. 
          SO THERE IS, THERE IS NO PRIORITY AS SUCH. 
          UH, ONCE, ONCE YOU'RE GREEN AND YOU'RE IN THAT LITTLE POCKET, YOU'LL, YOU'LL BE, UM, ADJUSTED BASED ON THE OPTIMIZATION LOGIC THAT YOU HAVE IN THE, IN, IN S-C-O-P-F. 
          SO THAT'S GOOD. 
          UH, THE, THE ONE ONE GAP THAT I SEE IN, IN, IN THIS CRITERIA THAT WE, WE ARE SEEING IS, UM, FOR THOSE LEGACY LOADS, UH, WHEN I SAY LEGACY, THOSE THAT WERE EXEMPT LOADS, UM, THERE WERE LOADS THAT DID NOT NEED RPG PROJECT BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAD TIER FOUR PROJECTS ADDRESSING THOSE NEEDS. 
          SO THERE WAS NO REASON FOR A TSP TO SUBMIT THAT, UH, THOSE WENT THROUGH. 
          THERE WAS NO NEED FOR LIS TO BE SUBMITTED EITHER. 
          SO THEY JUST WENT THROUGH TSPS FAC STUDY BASED ON ITS SCOPE OF WORK, UM, HOW, AND, AND THOSE MOVE FORWARD. 
          SOME, SOME OF THEM, UH, MOVE FORWARD SIGNED AGREEMENTS. 
          AND SO HOW DO THOSE GET CAPTURED INTO THIS? BECAUSE THE ONLY PATH I SEE FOR THEM IS PERFORM A-L-L-I-S TODAY. 
          AND IF I KICK OFF ANY LLI ANY LARGE LOAD STUDY TODAY, I YOU'RE, YOU'RE WAY BEHIND BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL THESE LOADS UP IN FRONT OF YOU. 
          SURE. 
          UM, YEAH, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          CAN YOU SEND THAT, CAN YOU SEND WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THAT? I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO TALK THROUGH THAT. 
          YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S THE PLAN, UH, LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT ROUND. 
          SO WE'LL HAVE THAT COMMENTED. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT, VERY GOOD, MONICA. 
          THANKS MATT. 
          UH, THIS IS MONICA FROM VISTA. 
          JEFF, THAT'S QUICK QUESTION ON SLIDE 13 I THINK. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE LAST, UH, THE DATE, YOU HAVE THE DATE WE HAVE DECIDED ON JULY 10TH BEING WHEN, UM, PEGA ONE 15 CEASES TO, WILL YOU TALKING 
          [03:40:01]
BE EFFECTIVE, THE PE EFFECTIVE CEASES TO BE EFFECTIVE. 
          UH, SO IF A LOAD IS IN BATCH ZERO, UM, AS A FORM LOAD DUE TO ITS HAVING MET ALL, ITS UM, ALL THE CRITERIA, UM, IT STILL CANNOT PROCEED TO QSA OR ANY OTHER ENERGIZATION UNTIL THE BATCH ZERO PROCESS IS COMPLETED. 
          SO, UM, THERE IS PROB POSSIBLY THERE WILL BE NO NEW LOAD ENERGIZATION BETWEEN THAT JULY, UH, DATE TO PROBABLY Q3 Q4 OF NEXT YEAR. 
          NO. 
          SO, UH, SO THANKS FOR BRINGING THAT UP. 
          'CAUSE I, I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION IS, UH, IF A LOAD IS BASE LOAD, MAY, MAY, I NEED TO ADD THIS TO FAQ. 
          IF A, IF A LOAD IS CONSIDERED BASE LOAD IN THE, UM, BATCH ZERO, THEN ALL OF THE PREVIOUS STUDIES, THAT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DEEMED VALID. 
          AND, AND SO THOSE STUDIES WOULD THEN ACT AS, AS THESE STUDIES, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED THESE STUDIES THAT YOU WOULD BASE YOUR QSA ON AND ALL OF YOUR ALL, ALL EVERYTHING THAT'S LATER IN THE PROCESS. 
          SO, SO THOSE, THOSE LOADS, IF YOUR BASE LOAD THEN YOU HAVE GOOD, YOU HAVE VALID STUDIES YOU, YOU CAN ENERGIZE AND WHAT WHATEVER THE ENERGIZATION SCHEDULE IS. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          HARSH. 
          UM, JEFF, JUST GOING BACK TO SOUTHERN DALLAS, RPG, UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE SUBMITTED THAT RPG BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 2025, NOT ONLY THERE WAS NO ONE 15, IT WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED OBVIOUSLY UNTIL DECEMBER, BUT IT WAS NOT EVEN APPROVED BY THE STAKEHOLDER HOLDERS UNTIL SUMMER SOMETIME. 
          SO IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT YOU HAVE AN RPG THAT TOOK YEARS IN PLANNING. 
          IT TOOK ERCOT OVER A YEAR TO APPROVE THAT PROJECT. 
          IT JUST GOT APPROVED. 
          BUT THEN HERE THIS FIGURE SAYS THAT IF SINCE IT WAS NOT APPROVED BY MARCH 4TH, IT WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A BASE LOAD. 
          I UNDERSTAND USING MARCH 1ST AS A DAY TO NOT APPROVE ANY FURTHER, ANY MORE LLIS PROJECTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. 
          BUT THE FACT THAT THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED BE BEFORE, UM, IT, IT, IT GOT SUBMITTED WAY BEFORE DECEMBER 15TH TIMELINE AND WE USED THE FRAMEWORK THAT WAS PUT OUT BY THE INTERMARKET NOTICE, WHICH SAID THAT YOU CAN USE RPG AS A VENUE TO GET PROJECT APPROVED. 
          SO I THINK ALL OF THE, UH, CONCERNS THAT SHANNON RAISED, I THINK WE HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS AND AS A WAY TO POTENTIALLY SOLVE THE ISSUES YOU HAVE OF HAVING JUST PEOPLE SUBMIT RPGS OR ANALYZE STUDIES THROUGH JULY TIMEFRAME. 
          ONE THING THAT'S HELPFUL TO CONSIDER IS WHAT IF YOU USED JUST THE SUBMISSION DATE BEFORE DECEMBER 15TH AS A GATING ITEM THAT WOULD THEN ENSURE THAT THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO SUBMIT THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ONE 15, YOU CAN PROCESS THOSE AS YOU GET 'EM BEFORE DECEMBER 15. 
          THAT'S ONE WAY YOU COULD DO IT. 
          THE OTHER WAY YOU CAN DO IT IS YOU CAN USE JULY 4TH DATE, UH, IF YOU WANT TO USE EIR AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSION DATE. 
          SO PROJECTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY  BY JULY 4TH OR JUST PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY DECEMBER 15TH WOULD MITIGATE THOSE, THOSE ISSUES WE HAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE USING MARCH 4TH IS JUST HYPER BECAUSE PROJECTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED UNDER BEFORE ONE 15 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARCH 4TH. 
          NOTHING CHANGED ON MARCH 4TH FOR THOSE KIND OF PROJECTS. 
          MARCH 4TH IS PURELY THE ERCOT PUTTING OUT THIS BIGGER 1 45, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROJECTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED YEARS AGO. 
          OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT. 
          UM, I NEED TO THINK THROUGH THE RELIABILITY IMPLICATIONS. 
          THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          E NEIL, E NEIL WITH LAN SAM, UM, I HAVE TWO THINGS, BUT MAYBE I'LL START WITH THE RPG STUFF SINCE HARSH JUST TALKED ABOUT IT AND DEFINITELY AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT SHANNON WAS TALKING ABOUT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I WILL JUST SAY I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE BROUGHT IT UP LAST MEETING, BUT I I HARSH JUST THROUGHOUT THE DECEMBER DATE, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE WOULD RECOMMEND THE APRIL 1ST DATE INSTEAD, BASED ON WHAT ERCOT HAS SAID THEY DEEM AS ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA FOR APPROVING AN RPG PROJECT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A LOT OF SIMILAR CONCERNS TO WHAT WE'VE ALREADY HEARD IS WHERE WE'D BE APPROVING RPG PROJECTS, UH, RPG TRANSMISSION AND HOLDING THE LOADS BEHIND BY NOT INCLUDING THEM IN BATCH ZERO. 
          AND, AND WE SEE THAT AS A HUGE CONCERN BOTH AS A LOAD DEVELOPER AND AS A RATE PAYER. 
          UM, SO I WOULD JUST TOUCH ON THAT AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT I HEARD IN THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN YOU AND SHANNON EARLIER IS THAT THERE'S A CONCERN OF RECONCILING THOSE RPG PLANS BECAUSE OTHER LOADS HAVE, HAVE COME ALONG IN THE LLS PROCESS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO I THINK LIKE AT LEAST HOW I'M THINKING ABOUT IT IS THAT, 
          [03:45:01]
YOU KNOW, BATCH ZERO IS THE PLACE TO RECONCILE THAT, RIGHT? I MEAN, IF WE'RE AGREEING THAT THE OUTCOME OF BATCH ZERO IS GONNA BE AN RPG SUBMISSION AND NOT ONLY AN RPG SUBMISSION, BUT AN RPG SUBMISSION THAT ALREADY HAS EIR ACHIEVED, THEN TAKING WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR PG AND THIS, THIS INCONSISTENCY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED AND ROLLING THAT INTO BATCH ZERO WITH THE LOADS WILL LET YOU ACHIEVE EIR FOR THOSE AS WELL AND KIND OF RECONCILES THIS WHOLE, WHOLE KIND OF UH, JUST THREE FOUR MONTH GAP THAT WE CURRENT HAVE. 
          AND THEN IF WE CAN RECONCILE ALL OF THAT, THEN WE KINDA START WITH BATCHES GOING FORWARD AS NOW THIS IS THE ONLY PATHWAY FOR RPGS FOR LARGE LOADS, RIGHT? 'CAUSE IF YOU DON'T INCLUDE THEM THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE KIND OF LEAVING A BUNCH OF PROJECTS BEHIND IN, IN LIMBO. 
          SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THERE. 
          HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT MORE IF YOU'D LIKE OFFLINE. 
          UM, MY SECOND POINT OR MY QUESTION IS, UM, SO FOR EXISTING LOADS THAT WENT THROUGH THE LI LIST PROCESS BEFORE MARCH 4TH, SO THEY'RE GONNA BE CONCERNED CONSIDERED FIRM IN THE BASE LOAD. 
          ARE THOSE LCPS GONNA BE RESPECTED TO TO, IT'S THE, LEMME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. 
          SO IT'S, UM, YOU HAD A WHAT OR CAUGHT DEEMED A VALID STUDY OR, OR OR YOU WERE BEFORE MARCH 4TH, YOU HAVE AN LCP THEN ARE WE RESPECTING THAT L-C-P-I-I THINK THE ANSWER IN 1 45 IS YES. 
          I I THINK THAT WE, THAT THAT IT IS THE LCP. 
          OKAY. 
          FROM THE STUDY. 
          I GUESS I WOULD ASK, I'M, I'M CURIOUS HOW, 'CAUSE I, I JUST, MAYBE WE CAN TALK THROUGH, 'CAUSE I THINK I SEE A GAP WHERE THOSE LCPS ACCORDING TO THE ONE 15 LANGUAGE CAN INCLUDE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES, BUT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THOSE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES HAVE TO HAVE RPG APPROVAL TO BE INCLUDED IN THE LCP. 
          AND SO YOU HAVE LCPS THAT INCLUDE UPGRADES THAT HAVEN'T HAPPENED AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN RESPECT THOSE LCPS IF THE OUTCOME OF BATCH ZERO INCLUDING THEM AS BASE LOAD WILL BE A, A DIFFERENT TRANSMISSION PLAN THAN WHAT WAS IN THEIR PREVIOUS LCP. 
          UM, AND I THINK THAT HAS A CASCADING EFFECT WHEN YOU CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, THE SUBSEQUENT LOAD HAS TO INCLUDE THE PRIOR LOADS LCP AND, AND AND STACKING THERE. 
          SO LIKE I THINK YOU WOULD, UM, YEAH, I GUESS I'LL JUST LEAVE IT THERE AND ASK FOR YOUR THOUGHTS. 
          YEAH, YEAH, WE, UM, THINK WE, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT AS WELL. 
          UH, WE'RE STILL TALKING THROUGH THAT INTERNALLY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I THINK THAT'S A PITCH FOR BATCH ZERO RECONCILING WITH RPGS. 
          IT ALL COMES TOGETHER NICELY, SO. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT. 
          ANDREW SHOPPER. 
          HEY GUYS, JOINING FROM THE PHONE. 
          SO, UH, JUST BEAR WITH THE BACKGROUND NOISE, BUT JEFF, I I MIGHT'VE MISSED THIS A LITTLE EARLIER AND, AND I HAD TO JUMP OFF FOR A MINUTE, BUT ARE YOU, UM, WITH THE COMMUNICATION BACK TO LOAD CUSTOMERS THAT YOU GUYS ARE CONSIDERING DOING ON A CADENCE OF SORTS? UH, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'LL BE KIND OF MORE, I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT LIKE A TEMPLATE OR SOME SORT OF MORE FORMALIZED, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S A DOCUMENT OR JUST A, A, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE PROVIDED TO THE TSPS THAT THAT EITHER CAN BE SHARED WITH THE LOAD CUSTOMER OR, AND I KNOW ERCOT DOESN'T HAVE A DIRECT, UH, RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LOAD CUSTOMER, BUT SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL CAN PROVIDE DIRECTLY TO THE, UH, TO THE CUSTOMER SO THAT THEY KNOW THEY'VE MET THOSE CRITERIA WITH CERTAINTY. 
          UM, DID Y'ALL COVER THAT WHILE I HAD TO JUMP OFF? UH, DID NOT COVER THE FORMAT. 
          UM, I I THINK IT'S MAYBE SLIGHTLY MORE CRUDE THAN THAT. 
          IT, IT IS, I THINK WHAT WE ARE CONTEMPLATING IS A SPREADSHEET WHERE EACH ROW IS AN LLI PROJECT AND EACH COLUMN IS STATUS. 
          AND SO THERE WOULD, YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT THERE IS A, A COLUMN THAT SAYS STUDY HAS BEEN DEEMED VALID WITH A YES OR NO. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, AND SO I GUESS THAT THE, THE COMMUNICATION OF THAT BACK TO THE TSP WITH THE COMBINATION OF HAVING MET 9.4 AND 9.5 BEFORE MARCH 4TH WOULD, WOULD CONSTITUTE INCLUSION AS, UH, UH, LOAD NOT SUBJECT TO FURTHER TU IN THE, IN PICKER 1 45. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH, WITH WITH THE OTHER, WITH THE OTHER CONDITIONS, SORRY, YES. 
          WITH THE OTHER CONDITIONS, YES. 
          GOT IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT HAN HEY, THIS IS, UH, HAN FROM BLACK MOUNTAIN. 
          QUICK QUESTION. 
          UM, SO ARE THE STUDIES THAT, 
          [03:50:02]
UH, ERCOT IS CURRENTLY APPROVING BETWEEN MARCH 4TH, UH, AND FORWARD, IF ANY STUDY HAS RECEIVED A PULL BETWEEN MARCH 4TH AND NOW, WOULD, ARE THEY STILL VALID OR DO THEY STILL NEED TO BE REVALIDATED HAD A HARD TIME HEARING YOU PRASHANT, BUT IF I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION RIGHT, IT'S, UM, STUDIES THAT WE ARE APPROVING, UH, AFTER MARCH 4TH, IF WE HAVE A STUDY RIGHT NOW, UM, ARE WE, UM, MAKING THAT DETERMINATION OF IF THEY'RE VALID OR NOT? UM, IF, IF IT IS JUST A STUDY APPROVAL, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT MAKING THAT, UH, DETERMINATION, BUT WE WOULD LET THE TSP KNOW IF THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER LARGE LOADS THAT HAVE MET THE, UH, SECTION NINE, 9.5, UH, THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT WE ARE COMMUNICATING THAT BACK TO THE TSPS AND ASKING THE TSPS TO, TO GO AND, AND DO A RE STUDY. 
          UH, BUT I WOULD CAUTION JUST BECAUSE A, UM, A, A PROJECT WE GRANT APPROVAL OF THAT STUDY TODAY DOESN'T MEAN THAT TOMORROW A ANOTHER LOAD IN THE AREA MIGHT MEET, UH, SECTION 9.5 AND, AND THAT, AND THEN THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THAT RE STUDY. 
          SO THAT'S THE, I WOULD SAY THAT'S THE SAME RISK AS IT IS, UH, TODAY AND, AND HAS BEEN IN THE ONE 15 PROCESS. 
          I, I THINK WHAT MAKES IT DIFFERENT AGAIN IS THE PACE OF STUDIES THAT ARE COMING IN. 
          UNDERSTOOD. 
          AND HOW LONG DOES ERCOT, UH, TAKE THAT TO COMMUNICATE TO THE TSP? LET'S SAY THERE WAS A STUDY APPROVED A WEEK AGO, AND LET'S SAY THERE WAS A LOAD THAT MET 9.5 REQUIREMENTS THIS WEEK, WOULD AIRCO ACTUALLY INFORM THE TSP OR WOULD THE TSP NEED TO REACH OUT TO AIRCO? HOW DOES THAT WORK? YEAH, I MIGHT AG I MIGHT NEED SOME HELP ON THIS. 
          I THINK THE, SO THE QUESTION IS IF, IF A, UM, LOAD TODAY MEETS 9.5, UM, THE OTHER STUDIES THAT ARE IN THE AREA, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE? IS, IS OR ARE WE PROACTIVELY REACHING OUT ON THOSE OTHER STUDIES TO LET THE TSPS KNOW THAT, THAT THEY NEED TO RESTUDY THIS? THE PROCESS IS, YES, WE ARE PROACTIVE. 
          I DO NOT HAVE A TIME, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, WE TRY TO DO IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY DAYS THAT WOULD TAKE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND LET'S SAY THE STUDY HAS TO BE REDONE. 
          UM, IS THERE A DEFINITE TIMEFRAME, UM, UPON WHICH THAT SENSITIVITY STUDY NEED TO BE PERFORMED, INCLUDING THAT PARTICULAR LOAD? IS THERE LIKE 10 10 DAY TIMELINE OR SOMETHING? WHAT I'M TRYING TO SEE IS HOW CAN WE AVOID THAT LOOP AGAIN? UH, LET'S SAY THE THREE STUDIES ARE DONE AND THEN IT JUST GOES INTO THE SAME LOOP. 
          LET'S SAY ANOTHER PROJECT COMES WHILE THAT THE STUDY IS GOING ON. 
          HOW DOES THEIR GUT MAKE SURE THAT IT'S AVOIDED? I AM SORRY PRASHANT, I, UH, HAD A HARD TIME KIND OF HEARING ALL OF THAT QUESTION. 
          UM, SO IS THE, IS THE QUESTION, UH, HOW LONG DOES THE RE STUDY TYPICALLY TAKE? UM, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU JUST PLEASE CLARIFY? UM, SO IS THE, LET'S, UM, OKAY, LET, LET'S SAY A STUDY IS APPROVED, UH, LAST WEEK AND THERE WAS A, UH, 9.5 LOAD THAT MET THIS WEEK AND I GOT BASICALLY ASKED THE LAST WEEK'S LOAD TO BASICALLY REST STUDY, UH, OR SO HOW THE PROCESS GOES. 
          UH, MY QUESTION IS BASICALLY, LET'S SAY THE, IS THERE A 10 DAY TIMELINE OR SOMETHING THAT  WOULD DO TO THE TSP TO RESUBMIT THE RE STUDY? UM, I'M TRYING TO SEE HOW WE CAN AVOID THE RE STUDY LOOP, UH, THAT HAPPENED FOR THE FIRST TIME HERE. 
          SO IF, IF THE, IF THE STUDIES, UH, REQUIRE AN UPDATE UNDER THE CURRENT PROCESS, THERE IS NO, UM, NO DIRECT REQUIREMENT THAT THE RE STUDY BE COMPLETED WITHIN A SET AMOUNT OF TIME. 
          UH, THAT IS, UH, DEPENDENT ON THE TSPS TIMELINES AND WORKLOAD. 
          UH, ONCE IT IS UPDATED AND RESUBMITTED, IT'S UH, REVIEWED ACCORDING TO THE TIMELINES IN THE CURRENT SECTION 9.4 OF THE PLANNING GUIDE. 
          UH, WOULD  BE PROACTIVELY REACH TO THE UDDI LOAD AND GIVE THEM ANY ADDITIONAL LOADS THAT I MET SECTION 9.5 INSTEAD OF WAITING 
          [03:55:01]
TILL THE REST STUDY REPORT IS SUBMITTED? I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? IF YOU COULD MAYBE MOVE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO YOUR MICROPHONE, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          YEAH, LET'S SAY THIS STUDY IS GOING ON OKAY, UH, WITH A NEW LOAD, UM, BUT A WEEK LATER THERE IS ANOTHER LOAD THAT BASICALLY MADE SECTION 9.5 REQUIREMENTS. 
          NOW THE TSP DO NOT KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER LOAD. 
          SO THE REST STUDY WILL BE DONE BASED ON THAT ONE LOAD WOULD OCCUR, BE SOMEHOW PROACTIVELY, UH, INVOLVE AND BASICALLY ASK ESP, OKAY, THIS LOAD HAS MET, THIS SHOULD IMPACT YOUR REST STUDY. 
          SO PLEASE ADD THIS LOAD INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THE FINAL REPORT TO COME TO AIR GUARD. 
          YES. 
          UH, SO WHENEVER A PROJECT COMPLETES, IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF 9.4 AND 9.5, UH, ANY AFFECTED LOADS, THE TSPS FOR ANY AFFECTED LOADS WILL BE NOTIFIED. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UM, I WILL DO A TIME CHECK. 
          WE'RE ALMOST AT AN HOUR AND 15 MINUTES INTO THIS AND I KNOW THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, THE YEAR SIX STUFF IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND I UNDERSTAND BRING YOUR OWN GEN IS VERY IMPORTANT, SO WE'LL JUST TRY TO KEEP MOVING THROUGH THE QUEUE, BUT KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT WE NEED TO LAND THE PLANE HERE SOON. 
          UH, AND ALSO I RESPONDED TO A GENTLEMAN ON THE, UM, IS THERE A LIST OF BATCH ZERO LIST, BUT THAT WAS THE REPORT THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED EARLIER. 
          WE'RE GONNA START TRYING TO PUSH, WE ERCOT PUSHING UPDATES TO THE TSPS OF STATUSES OF STUDIES SO YOU CAN KNOW WHERE YOU ARE AS WE EVOLVE THIS BATCH ZERO, UM, ELIGIBILITY THING. 
          SO OKAY, NEXT IN THE QUEUE. 
          ANDREW BROTH. 
          OKAY. 
          BROTH AND BROTH AGES IN THE ROOM SO YOU CAN KIND OF HIT THOSE OTHER QUESTIONS. 
          DON'T, DON'T KILL 'EM. 
          JUST THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          BRIEF GO. 
          I THINK AGAIN, GOING BACK TO MARCH 4TH, IT'S, I WANT TO GIVE A CONTEXT ON HOW PROBABLY WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS, RIGHT? WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON A LOAD TO POST SECURITY POST KAYAK FOR THE LAST 90 DAYS BEFORE MARCH 4TH, TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND LET'S SAY MARCH 4TH IS FRIDAY, BY THE WAY, PEOPLE IN UTILITY ARE OUT OF OFFICE, SO THEY COULDN'T SEND THAT EMAIL. 
          NOW WE ARE ON MARCH 7TH AND WE MISSED THE DEADLINE, RIGHT? WE POSTED TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. 
          SO I, THAT'S WHY I THINK THESE RETROACTIVE DATES DON'T WORK, IN MY OPINION, WHERE IF YOU HAVE THE FUTURE DATE SET, AT LEAST YOU KNOW, WE WILL WORK WITH UTILITIES BECAUSE WE ARE AT THE MERCY OF, YOU KNOW, IES AND OTHER ASPECTS ON SATISFYING THESE REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO IT'S ABSOLUTELY, UM, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE WE MISSED THAT SPECIFIC DATE, IT IS AN INVALID STUDY AND WE DON'T KNOW WHEN WE WOULD GET THE RESULTS FROM NOW. 
          AND IF THESE LOADS ARE SHORT TERM IZATION, RIGHT? 27 OR 28, NOT KNOWING THESE RESULTS, EVEN THOUGH WE POSTED THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE STUDIES SATISFIED WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO HAVE A CERTAIN FUTURE DATE WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE TARGETING THESE THINGS AND, AND IN THIS PROCESS YOU CAN STILL DO DO THIS, RIGHT? YOU CAN STILL GO THROUGH YOUR VALIDATION CHECKS AND APPROVE AND LET THE LOADS KNOW RATHER THAN HAVING A RETROACTIVE DATE. 
          SO, SO, UM, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK IT'S RETROACTIVE BECAUSE YOUR MARCH 7TH EXAMPLE, THAT CAN STILL QUALIFY AND BE A VALID STUDY AND, AND LIKELY IF IT WAS MARCH 7TH, IT IT, IT'S UNLIKELY THAT ANYTHING CAME IN MARCH 4TH THAT WOULD INVALIDATE RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT WE WE HAVE TO CHECK. 
          YEAH, THAT'S UNCERTAINTY, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          I THINK WE ARE LOOKING FOR CERTAINTY HERE, RIGHT? THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT POINT. 
          YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. 
          I UNDERSTAND. 
          SO THAT IS WHERE THE WHOLE UNCERTAINTY KICKS IN AND IT'S SUPER TOUGH TO MANAGE AHA. 
          AND HOW THESE THINGS GO FORWARD. 
          SO YEP. 
          I YEAH, AND I I I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          YEAH, I THINK I FORGOT. 
          UH, AS FAR AS THE COMMUNICATION PIECE, SO WHAT'S THE, I THINK I ALSO SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT THE NUMBERS AND STUFF. 
          WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO TELL ME WHEN WOULD WE KNOW THESE LISTS AND, UH, THE NUMBERS THAT ARE KIND OF DRIVING THESE STUDIES IN TERMS OF RPG STUDIES IN 9.4 AND FIVE? IT'S, I DUNNO IF THAT'S A MATTER AN AG QUESTION, BUT I THINK I DON'T ASPIRATIONALLY WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT SOON. 
          YEAH, SOON. 
          UH, UH, WE, YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH JEFF. 
          WE'RE TRYING DO AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO NO CERTAINTY ON THAT. 
          UH, YEAH, I, I CAN'T COMMIT TO A DATE, BUT I WILL SAY WE, WE ARE, UM, BEHIND 
          [04:00:01]
THE SCENES WORKING AS HARD AS WE CAN TO, BECAUSE WE, WE UNDERSTAND, WE UNDERSTAND THAT UNCERTAINTY RISK AND AS WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          NEXT IS, UH, RICHARD MCMICHAEL, GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, I HAD ASKED IF I HAVE AN INTERIM FACILITY EXTENSION AGREEMENT. 
          DOES THAT MEAN MY LOAD STUDIES ARE COMPLETE? CAN YOU REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME? IT WAS, HE TYPED IT IN EARLIER TOO. 
          SO INTERIM FACILITIES, DOES IT QUALIFY AS WHAT I HAVE? I HAVE AN EXECUTED INTERIM FACILITY STUDY AGREEMENT. 
          I HAVE MY, MY LOAD QUEUE NUMBER AND ALL THAT. 
          DOES THAT MEAN MY STUDIES ARE COMPLETE? UH, THIS IS AJ FROM ERCOT. 
          I, I, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY IN INTERIM, AND I DON'T KNOW MANY OF MY TSP COLLEAGUES TO, TO HELP ME OUT HERE, UH, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE INTERIM FACILITIES EXTENSION AGREEMENT IS NOT THE FINAL INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT. 
          AND ALSO THERE ARE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 9.5 OF THE CURRENT PLANNING GUIDE THAT HAVE TO BE SATISFIED BEFORE, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE STUDIES THEMSELVES BEING COMPLETED, UH, BEFORE, UH, THE LOAD WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE, HAVE MET ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND MY TSR ID NUMBER, THAT DOESN'T TELL ME ANYTHING EITHER. 
          I, I'M NOT SURE WHAT A TSR ID NUMBER IS. 
          WELL, THAT'S MY KEY. 
          I I, THAT'S, THAT IS AN ENCORE CHARACTERISTIC WE USE TO SORT OF QUALIFY OUR LOAD REQUESTS. 
          BUT I THINK AG ANSWERED THE QUESTION CORRECTLY. 
          I APOLOGIZE. 
          THIS IS MARTHA HENSON FROM ENCORE. 
          THE, THE INTERIM FEA IS, UH, A PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT THAT WE USE TO SECURITIZE LONG LEAD TIME EQUIPMENT. 
          THERE'S STILL A FULL FEA LATER IN THE PROCESS. 
          THAT TYPICALLY DOESN'T HAPPEN UNTIL AFTER THE STUDY PROCESSES ARE COMPLETE. 
          I DON'T KNOW ANY SPECIFICS ABOUT YOUR INDIVIDUAL LOAD REQUEST, BUT IF YOU WANNA REACH OUT TO ME, I'M HAPPY TO PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH SOMEBODY AT ENCORE. 
          OKAY. 
          I'D APPRECIATE THAT. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          BOB HILTON. 
          YEAH. 
          GOOD, GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          HOW'S EVERYBODY DOING? UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME ALL RIGHT? WE CAN, YOU'RE A LITTLE MUFFLED SO YOU CAN SPEAK UP, BUT WE CAN HEAR YOU OKAY. 
          YEAH, JUST, UH, IT WON'T TAKE LONG. 
          JUST A REAL QUICK QUESTION. 
          I'M BACK ON, OF COURSE, THE MARCH 4TH DATE AND THE IMPORTANCE ON THAT MARCH 4TH DATE. 
          IF I REMEMBER, AND I HEARD CORRECTLY, JEFF HAD INDICATED THAT IT WAS BASED ON THE VALIDITY STUDIES HAD BEEN DONE UP TO MARCH 4TH, AND THAT'S WHY THE MARCH 4TH DATE WAS IMPORTANT. 
          BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHY WAS THAT DATE MARCH 4TH CHOSEN FOR THAT? WAS THAT BECAUSE THE DAY YOU WERE GONNA FILE IT? UH, OR ARE YOU STILL, AS OF THAT TIME WHEN YOU SET THE MARCH 4TH DATE, DID YOU STOP VALIDATING STUDIES AND NOW BASED ON WHERE WE'RE AT NOW, YOU'RE STARTING BACK UP VALIDATING, OR HAVE YOU BEEN VALIDATING ALL ALONG? SO DOES THAT, DOES THAT MAKES SENSE? YEAH, SO WE, WE HAVE BEEN VALIDATING WE WILL CONTINUE TO VALIDATE. 
          SO, SO MAR MARCH, BECAUSE YOU CAME IN AFTER MARCH 4TH, DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOUR STUDIES ARE DEEMED INVALID. 
          IT, IT IS JUST AFTER MARCH 4TH, WE ARE, WE NEED TO CHECK. 
          AND, AND THERE, RIGHT, THERE MAY BE SOME THAT, THAT, THAT HAVE THAT, THAT AT SOME POINT THERE WILL BE SOME THAT AREN'T VALID. 
          AND, AND SO WE CAN'T JUST KEEP PUSHING THAT DATE FORWARD. 
          I, I THINK IT'S, IT IS GOING TO BE BY A LOCAL AREA. 
          THERE MAY BE SOME, AGAIN, THAT ON JULY 10TH THERE MAY BE STUDIES THAT COME IN THAT WE DEEM VALID. 
          SO IT IS, IT, IT IS NOT A CUTOFF DATE IN THE SENSE THAT WE NO LONGER ARE VALIDATING STUDIES. 
          THERE WILL BE SOME THAT COME IN LATER ON IN THE PROCESS THAT ARE STILL VALID. 
          IT, IT'S JUST, WE HAVE TO DO THIS CHECK TO MAKE SURE BE, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE HAVE THIS RE WE HAVE RELIABILITY LIMITS THAT WE NEED TO RESPECT ON THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM. 
          ALRIGHT, THANKS JEFF. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          AND I'M GONNA GIVE THIS 10 MORE MINUTES AND AT THAT POINT WE'LL HAVE TO STOP AND, AND MOVE ON, PEOPLE ASKING QUESTIONS. 
          THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF THOSE FOLKS. 
          SO WE WILL GIVE IT ONE MORE SHOT AND SEE WHERE WE'RE AT IN 10 MINUTES. 
          SHANNON, FIRE AWAY. 
          I WAS GONNA ECHO SOMETHING THAT EVAN SAID EARLIER. 
          UH, AND A FOLLOW UP TO WHAT HIRSCH SAID. 
          , I, I UNDERSTAND A COUPLE THINGS OR WANTS TO CLOSE THE DOOR TO RPGS BEING THE PATH FOR THIS. 
          AND IT'S EASY TO SAY IF YOURS WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE DECEMBER 15TH, THAT'S A GOOD CUTOFF. 
          WHEREAS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AP THAT CAME IN THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY WORKED ON THEIRS JUST AS LONG AND HARD AS ENCORE DID ON THEIRS, AND THEIRS CAME IN WHATEVER IT WAS IN FEBRUARY, BUT THEY WERE WORKING ON THESE, I 
          [04:05:01]
KNOW FOR A FACT BECAUSE OURS ARE IN THERE BEFORE THERE WAS EVEN BIGGER ONE 15 IN THE, YOU KNOW, AS LONG BEFORE IT WAS EVER APPROVED, KINDA LIKE HIRSCH SAID. 
          SO I THINK APRIL 1ST IS A GOOD CUTOFF FOR THAT. 
          AND THEN THIS IS MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTION FOR ERCOT IS ON 58, 4 80. 
          WHEN YOU LOOK AT, UH, PAGE 93 OF THAT, IT'S THE EFFECTIVE DATE. 
          I'M NOT A LAWYER AND I'VE READ THIS THING MANY TIMES AND SOMETIMES I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT AND SOMETIMES I AM NOT POSITIVE. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT THAT AS BEING FOR THE RTP, BUT IT'S REALLY CLEAR IN THIS PARAGRAPH THAT IT'S TO BE USED FOR THE RTP AND THEN, AND THEN IT SAYS INCLUDING REGIONAL PLANNING GROUP SUBMISSIONS UNTIL ERCOT CONSTRUCTS NEW PLANNING CASES WITH LOAD DATA SUBMITTED BY DSPS, INCLUDING THE CRITERIA OF SUBSECTION C. 
          AND WHEN YOU GO READ SUBSECTION C, IT'S, YOU'VE GOTTA HAVE A SIGNED INTERCONNECT AGREEMENT TO BE IN THERE. 
          UM, AND THEN FOR THE LAST SECOND SENSE OF THAT ONE'S, FOR ALL PLANNING STUDIES AND RESOURCE ADEQUACY, THEY'RE CONDUCTED BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROTOCOLS OR COMPLIANCE PLANS UNDER SECTION SUBSECTION G OF THIS SECTION. 
          ERCOT MUST CONTINUE TO USE ITS LOAD FORECAST PRACTICES IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION. 
          SO IT SEEMS NOT BEEN THE LAWYER, I THINK THAT'S BEFORE APRIL 1ST. 
          YOU CONTIN, I THINK THIS IS WHAT Y'ALL HAVE EVEN GIVEN GUIDANCE TO SOMEBODY WHO ASKED IT IN ONE OF THE CENTER POINT RPGS BEFORE APRIL 1ST. 
          YOU'RE USING THE CURRENT LOAD FORECASTING METHODOLOGY AFTER APRIL 1ST, YOU MEET THE NEW ONE WHERE IT HAS TO BE SIGNED AGREEMENTS THAT ARE IN THERE. 
          SO TO ME, THIS IS A GOOD, SEEMS LIKE A GOOD JUSTIFICATION FOR THOSE BEING AT APRIL 1ST BEING THE CUTOFF. 
          BUT I JUST WANTED TO ECHO WHAT EVAN SAID AND THEN ASK FOR ANY CLARITY IS ARE WE UNDERSTANDING THAT RIGHT? IF THIS IS HOW Y'ALL ARE TRYING TO APPLY THE 58 4 80 RULE, I, I CANNOT, I, I, THIS IS DANGEROUS IN JUMPING IN FRONT OF, UH, MY, UH, LEGAL COUNSEL. 
          BUT I, I THINK, UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CALENDAR FOR BATCH ZERO AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REFINEMENT STUDY, THAT REFINEMENT STUDY WILL BE IN 2027, SPRING EARLY SUMMER OF 2027, THE, UM, WE WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO ANTICIPATE WHAT THE, THE REASON WHY WE'RE USING 58 41 IS, IS BECAUSE THAT 58 4 80 KIND OF EXEMPTION FOR 2026 STUDIES, KINDA THE SPECIAL RULES FOR 2026 STUDIES, THAT THAT WILL NO LONGER BE IN EFFECT. 
          AND SO WE WANT AN ACTIONABLE TRANSMISSION PLAN COMING OUTTA BATCH ZERO, WHICH MEANS WE NEED TO KIND OF THINK AHEAD TO WHAT 58 41 MIGHT SAY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TYING TO 58 41. 
          UM, SO, SO IN OTHER WORDS THAT THOSE SPECIAL RULES FOR 2026, UM, WON'T BE APPLICABLE TO THE REFINEMENT STUDY THAT COMES OUT OF BATCH ZERO, WHICH, WHICH THEN KIND OF PUTS IN JEOPARDY THAT BEING AN ACTIONABLE TRANSMISSION PLAN IF WE WERE TO TRY TO USE THAT. 
          BUT FOR YOUR BASE LOAD IN BATCH ZERO THINGS BEFORE APRIL 1ST HAVE TO BE STUDIED, YOU KNOW, THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THIS THING, THEY HAVE TO BE STUDIED USING YOUR CURRENT METHODOLOGY, THEN I THINK THAT'S A VERY VALID REASON THAT APRIL 1ST IS YOUR CUTOFF BECAUSE THAT'S, UNLESS I'M READING IT WRONG, THAT'S WHAT THAT SENTENCE IS, IS TELLING YOU. 
          AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, I DON'T SEE HOW IT PUTS ANYTHING IN JEOPARDY TO FOLLOW WHAT THE COMMISSION RULE WAS ON 58 4 80 FOR PURPOSES OF THESE RRP G STUDIES. 
          I AGREE, ANYTHING THAT COMES AFTER THAT, THEN THE FIRST SENTENCE GOVERNS AND IT HAS ITS OWN SUBSECTION C THAT DEFINES, YOU'VE GOTTA HAVE THE INTERCONNECT AGREEMENT, YOU GOTTA HAVE CERTAIN ATTESTATIONS, ET CETERA. 
          SO HOPEFULLY THAT GIVES YOU SOMETHING ELSE TO HELP HANG YOUR HAT ON, ON THIS DELINEATION AND THE DOORS CLOSED. 
          BUT WE'VE GOT A, A COMBINATION OF COMMISSION RULES, UH, THAT ARE SETTLED AND NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT'S A CURRENT ONGOING RULEMAKING. 
          ALRIGHT, FIVE MORE MINUTES ON THIS TOPIC. 
          UM, DURGA AND THEN COLIN, THANK YOU, UH, DURGA FROM SOFTBANK ENERGY. 
          UM, I'M LOOKING AT SLIDE 11 AND I BELIEVE I'M UNDERSTANDING IT. 
          JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THIS WITH YOU. 
          SO ANY PROJECT WHICH HAD STUDIES COMPLETE BEFORE MARCH 4TH AND UM, 
          [04:10:02]
TSP HAS CONFIRMED THAT IT HAS MET 9.4 AND 9.5, UM, THAT IS GOING TO GET MODELED AS BASE LOAD MODEL. 
          THIS BASE LOAD IF IT MEETS THE REST OF 9.2, 1 45 MODEL THIS STUDIED, IF IT CAN'T MEET THAT, BUT IT MEETS 9 2 1 2. 
          SO THERE, THERE ARE OTHER, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN 9 2 1 1, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY ATTESTATIONS BY JULY 5TH, JULY 15TH, RIGHT? UH, JULY 10TH NOW, BUT YES, JULY 10TH. 
          OKAY. 
          THERE ARE NO, THERE'S NO OTHER CATCH THERE, RIGHT JEFF? THAT THAT'S ALL IT IS. 
          UH, AS IN THAT, UM, BECAUSE BIGGER ONE 15 AND 1 45 DIFFER IN TERMS OF DEFINITION OF INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS A LITTLE BIT. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS RIGHT. 
          YEAH, SO I I THINK IT IS, UM, IT, IT IS FOR, UH, STUDIES TO BE DEEMED COMPLETE AND VALID. 
          UH, IF IT'S BEFORE MARCH 4TH, THEN YES, THAT, THAT PART OF 9 2 1 1 YOU'VE SATISFIED. 
          BUT THERE ARE OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN 9 2 1 1 THAT YOU NEED TO SATISFY TO BE CONSIDERED BASELINE. 
          BUT IF YOU MEET THOSE THEN YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND, UM, AND I, I WILL PAUSE AND SEE IF MY LEGAL COUNSEL WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT. 
          OH, I DISTRACTED HER. 
          SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          AND SHE'S, UH, SHE'S GOOD I THINK THEN. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND SHANNON, CHRISTINE CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR QUESTION EARLIER, OFFLINE. 
          UM, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN SQUEEZE IN ONE MORE. 
          UH, COLLIN, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, GO AHEAD COLIN. 
          YES, I HAVE ONE QUESTION REGARDING THE, UH, PR 1 45, UH, NINE 9.24. 
          BASICALLY IS THE ELIGIBILITY FOR STUDY TO BE CONSIDERED AS, UH, STUDY INCLUDING BATCH ZERO. 
          AND BECAUSE IN THAT, UH, UH, LATER SECTION YOU MENTIONED IT HAS NEED TO HAVE A ER CARD APPROVED LLS REPORT, BUT IN THE SECTION 9.8, 9.9, IT MENTIONED A FEW STUDY. 
          SO MY QUESTION IS LIKE, DOESN'T TO BE HOW APPROVED ALL OF THIS STUDY OR ANY OF THE STUDY APPROVED IT VALID? THIS IS CHY FROM . 
          UH, SO IT DEPENDS ON, IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE FOR TREATMENT AS BASE LOAD, IT WOULD NEED TO HAVE ALL OF THOSE STUDIES, UH, APPROVED, UH, PER THE LEGACY LANGUAGE. 
          IF IT, UM, IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR STUDY IN BATCH ZERO, ONLY ONE OF THE STUDY ELEMENTS. 
          SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE STUDY STATE OR THE DYNAMIC STABILITY STUDY, UH, NEED BE APPROVED. 
          UM, SO HOPEFUL, HOPEFULLY THAT CLARIFIES IT. 
          YEAH, SURE. 
          SO, UH, OKAY, SURE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          LET ME JUST CLARIFY, IF I HAVE A STUDY I HAVEN'T SUBMITTED TO ERCOT, AS LONG AS I CAN GET THIS STUDY, UH, LIKE APPROVED BY  BEFORE JULY 10TH, IT'LL BE STILL CONSIDERED AS A STUDY IN THE BEST YEAR, RIGHT? YES. 
          HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, MUCH LIKE THE, THE LAST QUESTION WHETHER THAT LOAD WOULD, WOULD BE INCLUDED IN STUDY LOAD WOULD ALSO BE CONTINGENT ON MEETING ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 9 2 1 2. 
          BUT YOU'RE CORRECT THAT THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO SATISFY THE ONE VALID STUDY, UH, PIECE OF IT. 
          OKAY? SURE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I'LL SEE IF WE CAN SQUEEZE IN THESE LAST TWO QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE QUICK ONES. 
          UH, PRASHANT, GO AHEAD. 
          JUST ONE COMMENT AND ONE QUESTION. 
          UH, ONE WAS WHAT RUSO WAS ASKING, UH, WHETHER THE STUDY VALIDITY WILL BE BASED ON WHEN THE TSP SENT ENDPOINT, WHY CONFIRMATION TO  OR BASICALLY  APPROVING IT? UM, SO I THINK, UH, WE A CARD TO CONSIDER WHEN PSP HAS SENT THAT BECAUSE  MAY TAKE THEIR TIME TO CONFIRM THAT. 
          AND ONE, UH, THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS, UH, HOW DOES AIR CODE DETERMINE, UH, I'M SORRY IF THIS HAS BEEN ASKED BEFORE, BUT THAT A STUDY IS VALID OR NOT. 
          E DO THEY BASICALLY, UH, EVALUATE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY NINE POINT FILE LOADS IN THE STUDY AREA AS DEFINED IN THE STEADY STATE? IS THAT THE CRITERIA THAT THEY'VE GOT PLANS TO USE? UH, I THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY ON THAT ONE WOULD BE HELPFUL HERE. 
          YEAH, I'M, I'M SORRY AGAIN, PRASHANT, BUT I I REALLY HAD A HARD TIME KIND OF PARSING THAT QUESTION. 
          UH, COULD YOU MAYBE SPEAK A LITTLE BIT CLOSER INTO YOUR MICROPHONE AND, AND RE-ASK IT, PLEASE? YES. 
          UH, SO HOW, WHAT IS THE, HOW DOES  DETERMINE THE STUDIES VALID OR NOT? UM, WOULD THEY BASICALLY LOOK AT THE NINE POINT FILE OR, 
          [04:15:01]
UM, WITHIN THE STUDY AREA THAT WAS UTILIZED FOR THE STEADY STATE STUDY FOR THE PARTICULAR PROJECT? UM, SO YEAH, IT, IT, IT, WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE AT A HIGH LEVEL IF THE STUDY FOR THE LOAD IN QUESTION INCLUDED ALL THE OTHER LOADS IN THAT STUDY AREA THAT HAVE, UM, VALID AND APPROVED STUDIES. 
          SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU KNOW, A MET EQUIVALENT OF 9.4 AND 9.5. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, THANKS TYLER. 
          LAST QUESTION. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU. 
          I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK. 
          UM, SO YOU MENTIONED THE, THE MARCH 4TH DATE, IT'S BASED ON THE TRADE OFF BETWEEN CERTAINTY AND SYSTEM RELIABILITY. 
          SO MY QUESTION IS, HOW CONCRETE IS THIS MARCH 4TH DEADLINE? AND IF, IF IT'S, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO MOVE THAT IS, OR IS ERCOT STILL REVIEWING THIS AS PART OF IS PI 1 4 5 AND WHAT IS A LIKELY DATE? SO, SO I WOULD SAY IT THIS WAY. 
          SO, UM, AT THIS POINT WE DO NOT INTEND TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE IN THE PLANNING GUIDE. 
          HOWEVER, THAT IT IS NOT A CONCRETE DATE IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU COME IN AFTER THAT DATE, THEN YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY INVALID IT, IT IS, UH, JUST, WE HAVE TO CHECK AT THAT POINT WHETHER THE STUDY IS STILL VALID. 
          BUT A, A AGAIN, YOU COULD COME IN ON JULY 10TH AND YOU MAY STILL ACHIEVE A STUDY THAT IS VALID. 
          IT IT, IT, IT'S MORE ABOUT THE LOCAL AREA. 
          IT JUST AS AG WAS DESCRIBING, WE WILL CHECK THE STUDY AREA AND UM, AND, AND IF THERE ARE NO OTHER LOADS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR STUDY THAT HAVE ACHIEVED THAT STATUS, UH, THEN THAT STUDY THAT COMES IN ON JULY 10TH WILL BE DE WILL BE DEEMED A COMPLETE AND VALID. 
          IS THERE VISIBILITY TO, TO KNOW WHAT OTHER STUDIES ARE IN THAT AREA? I, I THINK THAT TSP HAS THAT, BUT THE LOADS DO NOT BECAUSE IT, IT'S CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION, CORRECT? YEAH. 
          THE, THE TSP DOES HAVE THAT VISIBILITY, INCLUDING LOADS THAT POTENTIALLY MAY MOVE FORWARD AND IMPACT THIS STUDY, BUT IT, UH, THOSE ARE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED. 
          UM, BUT THEY ARE PROVIDED AS A, A SORT OF COURTESY. 
          SO JUST TO, JUST TO CONFIRM LIKE THIS, THIS MARCH 4TH DATE IS SOMETHING THAT HER CO IT IS NOT OPEN TO MOVING. 
          I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THAT. 
          YEAH, I, I WOULD SAY AT THIS POINT WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON CHANGING THAT IN THE PLANNING GUIDE. 
          BUT, BUT AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T, DOESN'T MEAN THAT STUDIES COME IN AFTER THAT OR, OR, YOU KNOW, WILL NOT BE DEEMED VALID. 
          THERE, THERE IS, THERE IS STILL A PATHWAY FOR, FOR LOADS TO BE DEEMED, UH, HAVE THEIR STUDIES DEEMED VALID AFTER MARCH 4TH. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK Y'ALL. 
          OKAY, 
          [5. Deep dive: Year 6 Transmission Planning]
JEFF, YOU READY FOR ANOTHER EASY TOPIC? HOW ABOUT YEAR SIX TRANSMISSIONS? OKAY, I THINK I JUST HAVE ONE, ONE SLIDE ON THIS. 
          ONE SLIDE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'LL GIVE THIS 45 MINUTES MY UNDERS. 
          SO, UM, SO, UM, AS WE DRAFTED, UH, PICKER 1 45, THE, UM, UH, SORRY, JUST A SECOND. 
          SO AS WE DRAFTED PICKER 1 45, UM, THE, UM, WAY THAT WE HAD BEEN THINKING ABOUT THE STUDY IS THAT WE WOULD, UM, YEARS ONE THROUGH FIVE, WE WOULD, IN BATCH ZERO, WE WOULD, UH, STUDY THOSE YEARS AND DETERMINE FOR EACH LARGE LOAD THAT IS STUDIED, WE WOULD DETERMINE, UH, HOW MANY MEGAWATTS, UH, WE COULD RELIABLY SERVE, UH, AS WELL AS WHAT, WHAT TRANSMISSION UPGRADES WOULD BE NEEDED, UH, THAT COULD BE IN PLACE IN THAT YEAR ONE TO FIVE HORIZON, UH, TO, TO GET THOSE LOADS THAT THE, THE MOST THAT WE, THAT WE COULD, UH, SERVE, UH, GIVEN THOSE TRANSMISSION TIMELINES. 
          UM, HISTORICALLY IN ERCOT, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONSTRUCT, UH, WHATEVER TRANSMISSION IS NECESSARY, UH, EVEN IF THAT'S NEW DOUBLE CIRCUIT 3 45, EVEN IF THAT'S NEW, 7 65, UM, ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE ANY IN SERVICE, BUT, UM, BUT HISTORICALLY, YOU KNOW, NEW DOM CIRCUIT 3 45, WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO GET THOSE IN PLACE WITHIN SIX YEARS. 
          UH, AND, AND SO WE MADE AN ASSUMPTION, UH, AND PEG 1 45 MAKES THIS ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN GET THAT LOW OR 
          [04:20:01]
GET THAT TRANSMISSION IN PLACE, UH, WHATEVER'S NECESSARY BY YEAR SIX. 
          UH, AND, AND SO, UH, WE MADE AN ASSUMPTION IN BATCH ZERO THAT WE DO NOT NEED TO STUDY THAT BECAUSE THOSE, UH, AS PART OF BATCH ZERO, UH, AND THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TIMELINE FOR WHEN BACHELOR OF STUDY WOULD COMPLETE, IT WOULD COMPLETE IN JANUARY OF 27, UH, THE LOADS WOULD NEED TO COMMIT BY, UM, UH, MARCH 1ST. 
          AND SO GOING INTO THE 2027 RTP, WE WOULD KNOW WHICH LOADS WERE GOING TO BE NEEDED FOR THAT YEAR SIX CASE. 
          UM, AND, UH, AND, AND SO WE COULD JUST ALLOCATE, UH, WE, WE, WE COULD HAVE AN AUTOMATIC ALLOCATION OF THE FULL MEGAWATTS, UH, UH, FOR THAT YEAR SIX. 
          UM, EVEN IF WE HADN'T STUDIED IN, IN BATCH ZERO AND DIDN'T, DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TRANSMISSION WAS GONNA BE NECESSARY, UH, THE ASSUMPTION WAS THAT 2027 RTP, THAT, THAT THAT STUDY WOULD IDENTIFY THOSE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES AND, AND, AND, UM, AND WE COULD GET THOSE IN PLACE IN TIME TO SERVE THAT LOAD BY YEAR SIX GIVEN HISTORY. 
          UH, AND, AND SO THE BENEFIT OF THAT IS THAT THAT PROVIDES CERTAINTY, UH, A, A WINDOW TO THE DEVELOPERS SO THAT THEY KNOW WHEN THEY WILL GET THEIR, THEIR FULL MEGAWATTS. 
          UM, I, I THINK THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE HEARD, UH, ESPECIALLY FROM TSPS IS THAT THAT THEN CREATES THIS POTENTIAL OF A STEP CHANGE IN MEGAWATTS BETWEEN YEAR FIVE AND YEAR SIX. 
          AND GIVEN THE UNPRECEDENTED NATURE OF THE LOAD THAT IS COMING, UH, I THINK TSPS HAVE, UH, COMMUNICATED THAT THEY'RE NOT SURE THAT THAT HISTORIC ASSUMPTION THAT THAT WILL HOLD, UH, GOING FORWARD, PARTICULARLY IN, IN BATCH ZERO. 
          UM, AND, AND SO AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH THAT WE WANTED TO BRING TODAY, AND I'M, UH, BRINGING THIS FORWARD. 
          I AM NOT, UH, ADVOCATING FOR THIS OR AGAINST SOMETHING ELSE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, BUT IT IS JUST AN ALTERNATIVE THAT WE WANTED TO BRING. 
          AND HERE STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ON WOULD BE, UM, THAT WE WOULD, UH, STILL DO THAT YEAR ONE TO YEAR FIVE ANALYSIS AS WE HAVE, UH, SCOPED FOR, UM, BATCH ZERO. 
          UH, BUT WE WOULD NOT, UH, FULLY COMMIT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FULL MEGAWATTS IN, UM, IN IN BATCH ZERO FOR YEAR SIX. 
          UH, AND THAT WE WOULD SAVE THAT FOR A SUBSEQUENT STUDY, LIKELY BATCH ONE. 
          UH, I THINK THE IMPLICATION THERE IS THAT VASH ONE MAY TAKE LONGER THAN SIX MONTHS TO DO THAT. 
          SO IF WE HAVE TO IDENTIFY WHAT THOSE FULL CHAIN EMISSION UPGRADES ARE, IT, IT LIKELY TAKES LONGER, UH, TO DO THAT THAN THAN A SIX MONTH PROCESS. 
          UM, BUT, UH, IT WOULD, UH, ADDRESS THAT ISSUE OF PERHAPS, UM, ALLOCATING AND COMMITTING TO MORE MEGAWATTS THAN CAN PHYSICALLY, WE CAN PHYSICALLY CONSTRUCT TRANSMISSION, UH, IN, IN THAT, UH, TIME HORIZON TO SERVE. 
          UM, SO THE, UM, I THINK THE, THE DOWNSIDE TO THAT IS THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD NEED TO MAKE A FINANCIAL COMMITMENT FOR KIND OF PARTIAL MEGAWATTS WITHOUT A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHEN THEY WOULD GET THE FULL MEGAWATTS. 
          SO EXAMPLE THAT WE HAVE SHOWN HERE IS THAT WE HAVE A 1000 MEGAWATT REQUEST. 
          UM, AND SO IN BOTH THE PICKER 1 45 APPROACH AND THIS ALTERNATIVE APPROACH IN YEARS ONE AND TWO, WE CAN ONLY SERVE A HUNDRED MEGAWATTS, BUT THEN PRESUMABLY THERE ARE UPGRADES COMING IN YEARS THREE AND FOUR THAT WOULD GET YOU TO FOUR 50 AND 600 MEGAWATTS RESPECTIVELY. 
          UH, AND THEN IN YEAR FIVE YOU'RE STILL AT THAT 600 MEGAWATTS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED THE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES NECESSARY TO GET TO THE FULL 1000 AND THE PICKER 1 45 APPROACH, WE WOULD ALLOCATE. 
          UH, SO, SO WE, WE, UM, KNOW HOW TO GET TO 600, WE DUNNO HOW TO GET TO A THOUSAND, BUT WE WILL ALLOCATE A THOUSAND ASSUMING THAT THE 2027 RTP WILL, UH, DETERMINE A SOLUTION FOR THAT. 
          UM, IN THIS ALTERNATIVE APPROACH IS THAT YEAR SIX, YOU ARE STILL JUST ALLOCATED THE 600 MEGAWATTS. 
          AND IN A SUBSEQUENT STUDY, UM, PRESUMABLY BATCH ONE, THEN WE, UH, WOULD DETERMINE WHAT IS NECESSARY TO GET, UM, THE, THE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES NECESSARY TO GET TO THE FALL, UM, A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS, BUT MAYBE THAT'S NOT YEAR SIX, MAYBE THAT'S YEAR SEVEN BY THAT POINT. 
          UH, SO THAT, THAT IS ALL THAT I HAVE TO PRESENT. 
          HOPEFULLY THAT IS, UH, CLEAR WHAT THE PERGA 1 45 APPROACH APPROACHES ANY ALTERNATIVE, I'D LIKE TO HEAR ANY STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ON THAT. 
          YEAH, WE HAVE FIVE IN THE QUEUE SO FAR. 
          I'LL START OFF WITH ERIC GOFF. 
          SO I'M GLAD WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS. 
          UM, BUT THIS IS GOING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM WHAT I EXPECTED AND HOPE FOR, INSTEAD OF SAYING WE CAN SERVE ANY LOAD IN 
          [04:25:01]
YEAR SIX, UM, WHY NOT JUST CREATE THE TRANSMISSION PLAN NOW RATHER THAN LATER IF WE KNOW WHAT THE LOAD REQUEST IS? SO YOU LOST ME ON THAT, ERIC. 
          HOW, HOW DO I KNOW WHAT THE LOAD, THERE'S A REQUEST FOR THE LOAD IN YEAR SIX YEP. 
          OF A CERTAIN QUANTITY. 
          WE CAN BUILD A LOT OF THINGS IN IN SIX YEARS. 
          I AGREE WITH YOU. 
          WHY NOT JUST DEVELOP THE TRANSMISSION PLAN TO SERVE THAT LOAD RATHER THAN SAYING, WE'LL COME UP WITH A TRANSMISSION PLAN LATER. 
          HOW, HOW DO I KNOW WHAT LOADS ARE GOING TO BE IN THE SAME WAY, YOU KNOW, YEAR ONE OR TWO THREE, I'VE GOT 400 GIGAWATTS OF LOAD UHHUH THAT HAVE, THAT ARE OUT THERE. 
          HOW DO I KNOW WHICH OF THOSE TO INCLUDE IN THE SAME WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR EVERY OTHER YEAR IF THEY NEED, YOU'RE SAYING IN ABOUT ZERO, JUST YES. 
          STUDY YEAR SIX OR SEVEN. 
          I MEAN, FOR THE LOADS THAT ARE IN THE STUDY, YEAH, I ENERGIZE THEM BASED ON, YOU KNOW, THEIR DESIRED ORGANIZATION. 
          RIGHT? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO BUILD A TRANSMISSION PLAN. 
          YEAH, I, SO I THINK THAT, SO HERE'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING NOT TO DO THAT UHHUH IN BATCH ZERO IS BECAUSE THAT LENGTHENS THE STUDY PROCESS. 
          UM, SO MAYBE AN, AN ALTERNATIVE IS THAT WE'D MAKE BATCH ZERO A LONGER STUDY PROCESS. 
          UH, BUT THEN I THINK THE WHY WE WERE NOT WANTING TO DO THAT INITIALLY IS BECAUSE WE WANT THESE LOADS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE 2027 RTP. 
          YEAH. 
          AND SO IF I GET DONE IN JANUARY AND THEY COMMIT BY MARCH 1ST, THEN THEY'RE IN THE 27 RTP. 
          IF IT'S A LONGER PROCESS THAN NOW, I'VE GOT KIND OF THIS MISALIGNMENT WITH THE RTP. 
          AND SO DO YOU IMAGINE THAT RTP WOULD PROVIDE THE APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE FOR THOSE LOADS? LIKE WHAT, WHAT'S THE PRACTICAL PROCESS FOR THE LOADS TO BE APPROVED, IF NOT THE BATCH PROCESS? WOULD IT THE FOLLOWING BATCH OR THE RTP PLAN? I THINK IT'S THE, IN THE ALTERNATIVE IT WOULD BE IN THE FOLLOWING BATCH. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, I HEAR YOUR POINT ON DELAY. 
          THAT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          UM, I WONDER SINCE IT'S SIX YEARS OUT, IF IT CAN BE LIKE A, WELL, UM, DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF HOW MUCH DELAY IT WOULD CAUSE TO HAVE A, A THE SIX YEAR PLAN VERSUS, YOU KNOW, THE ONE TO FIVE YEAR PLAN? UM, UH, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY THREE TO SIX MONTHS FOR THE EXTRA YEAR. 
          YEAH. 
          BE, BECAUSE WE WOULD, IF WE'RE COMMITTING TO THAT, THEN WE, WE HAVE TO KNOW THAT WE CAN, UM, FULLY DESIGN, UH, NOT, NOT IN THE SENSE OF, YOU KNOW, TOWER DESIGN, BUT FULLY DESIGN THAT PLAN TO MEET ALL OF THAT LOAD, WHICH COULD BE A LARGE NUMBER. 
          IT'S A, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE RTP IS A 12 MONTH STUDY, THAT, AND THE REASON PART, PART OF THE REASON IS THAT IT, IT HAS TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE OVERLOADS THAT THEY SEE IN THAT STUDY. 
          SO IF WE PUT THAT BURDEN ON THE BATCH STUDY TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE OVERLOADS, THEN, THEN YEAH, IT, IT'S, UH, YEAH, LI LIKELY A NINE TO 12 MONTH PROCESS. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NEXT'S KILLING. 
          THANK KEVIN . 
          UM, MY QUESTION IS ON THE, UH, TWO QUESTIONS ON THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH. 
          UH, THE FIRST ONE IS, IF FOR THOSE MEGAWATTS NOT ALLOCATED IN YEAR SIX, WOULD THOSE ME MEGAWATTS BE, HAVE PRIORITY OVER THE BATCH ONE? UH, LARGE LOADS? I, I THINK THAT'S TBD. 
          UM, I'M, I'M OPEN TO THAT CONCEPT, BUT I, I THINK WE NEED TO THINK THROUGH THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE AND MECHANICS OF HOW THAT WOULD WORK. 
          BUT I'M, I'M, I'M OPEN TO THAT CONCEPT. 
          AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, IF, IF FOR THE PROJECTS THAT WOULD GET YOU TO THE 600, WOULD YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVIDE SECURITY, UH, FOR THE 600 MEGAWATTS AND NOT THE FULL 1000 SINCE YOU'RE NOT BEING ALLOCATED TO FULL 1000? I, I, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          UM, LOOKING TO SEE IF, IF ANYBODY CRINGES FROM THE ERCOT TEAM. 
          UM, I I, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE IN THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH. 
          SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I, UH, YES. 
          SO MY, MY QUESTION WAS, SO FOR IN THIS EXAMPLE ON THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH, THE REQUEST IS FOR A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS, BUT THE TSP CAN ONLY GUARANTEE 
          [04:30:01]
600 MEGAWATTS. 
          WHAT, UM, WOULD THE PROJECT ONLY HAVE TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR THE 600 MEGAWATTS SINCE THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S GUARANTEED AND NOT THE FULL 1000? I BELIEVE IT'S STILL LINKED TO THE FULL REQUEST, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE MAY NEED TO, TO THINK MORE ABOUT WITH, WITH THE PFP. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, THIS IS BARKSDALE WITH THE PC. 
          JUST LOOKING AT OUR PROPOSED RULE, IT TALKS ABOUT THE CONTRACTED PEAK DEMAND. 
          SO I AM, I THINK THAT WOULD MEAN THE 1000 MEGAWATTS HERE. 
          NO, THAT'S THE PROPOSED RULE. 
          SO STONES AND ARROWS AND LET'S SEE, WHAT'S A GOOD ANIMAL METAPHOR? EVAN, HOW ABOUT WOUNDED PURPOSES? THROW THEM? GOSH, . 
          ALRIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO SANDEEP BOKAR. 
          THANKS. 
          YES. 
          UH, SANDEEP BOKAR, LCRA ON THE CURRENT APPROACH, UH, THE MENTIONED THE USE OF 2027 RTP IS THE INTENT THEN THAT TSPS SPIN A RPG PROJECT OUT OF THE 2027 RTP FINDINGS? YES. 
          AND IF YES, THEN HOW DOES THAT PLAY INTO THE NEXT BATCH WHEN BATCH ONE WILL HAVE YEAR FIVE, WHICH WILL HAVE THESE LOADS? YEAH. 
          YEAH, IT'S, I THANK YOU. 
          WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS, IT'S A GOOD POINT IS THAT THE, UM, LI LIKELY THAT NEXT, THAT YEAR FIVE CASE, THERE'S GONNA BE TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS THAT MAY NOT BE RESOLVED, THAT YOU'RE WAITING ON A PROJECT THAT'S NOT FULLY BEEN APPROVED. 
          I, I THINK THAT THAT'S, UH, I THINK THAT COULD HAPPEN. 
          HOW ABOUT, UH, AN ALTERNATE APPROACH NUMBER THREE WHERE MAYBE, OR CAUSE RPG TEAM TAKES THAT YEAR SIX UP AND PERFORMS A ADOC RPG STUDY FOR YEAR, YEAR SIX, WHICH KEYS OFF OF THE BATCH? UH, ZERO. 
          UH, SO, SO THEN YOU'LL HAVE TWO PARALLEL PROCESSES, ONE THAT WILL BE A LONGER EIR, THE OTHER ONE WILL BE A QUICK, UH, APPROVAL OF YEARS ONE THROUGH FIVE PROBABLY, IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT. 
          YEAH, THIS IS . 
          SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING. 
          SO WE, WHEN WE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS LONGER TERM BATCH PROCESS, WE ARE CONSIDERING THE HOLISTIC TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND SEE LIKE HOW EVERYTHING IS GONNA FIT RIGHT FOR THE CURRENT R-P-G-R-T-P AND THE BATCH PROCESS. 
          SO WE, WE DON'T HAVE ANSWERS YET, BUT WE HOPE TO BRING THAT BACK TO OKAY. 
          SESSION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BATCH, THE, THE BATCH PROCESS, NOT THE BATCH ZERO. 
          OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          KENT, WIN THROW. 
          THANKS KENT, WITH THROW WITH CUSTOMIZED ENERGY SOLUTIONS ON, ON YOUR ALTERNATIVE APPROACH. 
          I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT'S MEANT TO ANY UNSEEABLE LOAD IS MEANT TO ROLL OVER TO SUBSEQUENT BATCHES SO THEY COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE ANOTHER A HUNDRED APPROVED IN YEAR SEVEN, ANOTHER A HUNDRED IN YEAR EIGHT, AND SO ON, UNTIL THEY GET UP TO THEIR FULL 1000 CONTRACTED AMOUNT. 
          IS THAT THE WAY YOU'RE ENVISIONING IT AT LEAST? YES. 
          PERFECT. 
          THANKS SHANNON. 
          JEFF, I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING YOU SAID A WHILE AGO. 
          UH, FIRST OF ALL, THANKS FOR BRINGING US THIS, THIS IS SOMETHING GOOD TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH. 
          WHAT'S HARD TO, HARD TO ARGUE IT ISN'T A MEANINGFUL ISSUE. 
          UH, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU'D LIKE THE 2027 RTP TO, TO BE THERE TO REALLY TRY TO WORK ON THIS ISSUE. 
          ONE THING I WAS THINKING IS RATHER THAN WAITING, YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING OF THIS ON THE FLY HERE, BUT RATHER THAN WAITING TILL THEN FOR LOADS THAT ARE IN YEAR SIX THAT ARE ALREADY PART OF THE 2026 RTP AND HAVE ALREADY MADE THE COMMITMENTS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN IN YEAR SIX, IF THEY'RE IN THAT ONE, WHY WOULDN'T THEY, WHY DO WE NEED TO WAIT A WHOLE NOTHER YEAR BEFORE, BEFORE WE COULD START? YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO BE PLANNING FOR THOSE AND USE IT HERE? IT WOULD ONLY APPLIES, IT APPLIES TO YEAR SIX, BUT THEN IT ADDRESSES YOUR, YOUR STATED CONCERNS WHERE YOU WANT THE RTP TO BE LOOKING AT IT. 
          AND THAT WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF 58,480 IS FOR THE PUC TO GIVE US A PROCESS ON THAT AND THEN ALLOW PEOPLE TO GO EITHER COMPLY OR NOT. 
          AND Y'ALL 
          [04:35:01]
BEEN CLEAR IT DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FIRST YEARS OF THIS, BUT TO ME THAT'S REALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAIN READING OF THAT EFFECTIVE DATE SECTION AND ADDRESSES THE ISSUE YOU WERE OUTLINING A WHILE AGO. 
          SO I'D LAY THAT OUT FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT, BROTH. 
          SO THIS YEAR SIX IS, IS IT DRIVEN BY THE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OF BUILDING THE NECESSARY TRANSMISSION BY YEAR SIX OR, I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND ON WHY I, I THINK WHAT UM, WHAT WE THINK THAT WE HEARD FROM TSPS IS THE CONCERN WITH THIS IS YEAH, THERE MAY BE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS, THERE MAY BE SUPPLY CHAIN CONSTRAINTS THAT, UM, MEAN THAT, UH, PA PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE. 
          YEAH. 
          WHAT, WHATEVER THAT PHRASE IS, RIGHT? SO IT'S JUST BECAUSE WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN ABLE TO DO IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IN THIS TIME OF UNPRECEDENTED GROWTH THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF, I THINK IN BATCH WORKSHOP ONE OR SOMETHING, I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          APPRECIATE IT. 
          YEP. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          HARSH, JEFF, SIMILAR QUESTION. 
          JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE FOR. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND THIS GRAPH JUMPS FROM 600 TO THOUSAND AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THERE MIGHT BE TRANSMISSION THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE TIME TO SOLVE FOR, BUT WHAT IF YOUR FIVE LOOKS SAME AS YEAR SIX, THEN WHAT HAPPENS IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF LOAD IF, UM, I'M NOT SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT QUESTION. 
          SO HERE ON THIS GRAPH, WE ARE SAYING THAT YEAR FIVE LOAD IS 600 AND IT'S JUMPS TO THOUSAND IN YEAR SIX AND YOU WANT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SERVE 400. 
          BUT I'M SAYING IN AN, IN A, IN AN EXAMPLE WHERE YEAR FIVE TOTAL LOWER YEAR STUDY IS SAME AS YEAR SIX, WHAT HAPPENS WOULD  THEN SOLVE FOR YEAR FIVE? SO WE, WE WOULD, UM, THIS ASSUMES THAT THEY ASKED FOR A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS IN YEAR FIVE, RIGHT? UM, I DUNNO IF I, IF THAT WAS CLEAR IN THE EXAMPLE, BUT WE WOULD ONLY ALLOCATE WHAT WE THOUGHT WE COULD RELIABLY SERVE GIVEN, UH, TTSP FEEDBACK ON HOW SOON THEY COULD GET THE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES IN. 
          SO IF WE WENT TO TSPS AND SAY, HEY, THEY, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS IN YEAR FIVE, WE SEE THESE TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS AND, AND YOU TELL US, HEY, WE, WE, WE CAN GET THIS TRANSFORMER IN AND THAT'LL SOLVE IT, UH, THAT'LL SOLVE THE PART OF THE PROBLEM AND WE CAN GET THEM TO 600 BECAUSE WE CAN GET A TRANSFORMER IN IN YEAR FIVE, BUT IT'S GONNA TAKE A NEW LINE AND WE DON'T HAVE TIME IN WITHIN THE BATCH ZERO PROCESS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT NEW LINE IS. 
          UM, AND SO AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD ONLY ALLOCATE UP TO THE 600 MEGAWATTS 'CAUSE THAT'S ALL THAT WE WOULD'VE IDENTIFIED TRANSMISSION UPGRADES TO SOLVE. 
          SO IS IT TO SAY THEN THAT YOU WILL NOT IDENTIFY GREENFIELD TRANSMISSION AGAIN? 'CAUSE I I THOUGHT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT AT SOME POINT AND WE HAD COME TO AGREEMENT THAT YOU WILL IDENTIFY GREENFIELD TRANSMISSION. 
          YEAH, I, I I THINK IT'S, IT'S POSSIBLE. 
          I I, IN, IN THIS EXAMPLE, WE'RE ASSUMING, THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE. 
          WE'RE ASSUMING THAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT, UH, FOR YEAR FIVE. 
          BUT IF, IF WE WORK TOGETHER AND YOU SAY, YEAH, I, I I CAN BUILD THIS NEW TRANSMISSION LINE AND WE THINK THAT WE CAN GET IT IN PLACE BY YEAR FIVE, THEN I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT IN THE STUDY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF TSP CAN COMMIT TO YEAR FIVE UPGRADES, ANY UPGRADE THAT MAY BE GREENFIELD, YOU WILL APPROVE THAT OR YOU WILL PROPOSE THAT IN YEAR FIVE? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT, THAT'S HELPFUL. 
          UM, JUST GOING BACK TO THE COMMENTS SANDEEP MADE, UH, WHICH IS TO HAVE, ER A DO A SEPARATE STUDY, IF THAT'S WHAT IT HAS, HAS TO BE, I THINK THAT'S MUCH BETTER IDEA THAN A TSP GOING TRYING TO SOLVE FOR THIS ISSUE. 
          'CAUSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THERE MAY BE MANY PROJECTS, NOT JUST ONE PROJECT, RIGHT? THAT MIGHT BE IN THIS, UH, SAME BUCKET AND THINKING ABOUT TSPS, COLLABORATING, PUTTING TOGETHER AN RPG TOGETHER, AND THAT TAKES MONTHS. 
          AND THEN EIR WILL TAKE ANOTHER SIX MONTHS MINIMUM. 
          SO YOU'RE ALREADY ONE YEAR BEYOND THE END OF BATCH ZERO. 
          SO THEN THE QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENS IN BATCH ONE AND HOW DOES THAT GET INTO BATCH? UM, HOW DOES THAT RPG GET INTO THE BATCH ONE? IT JUST COMPLICATES THE WHOLE PROCESS. 
          SO JUST THINK SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE THAT BACK. 
          I, I, I THINK, UM, WHAT, WHAT IS, AND, AND THIS, THIS IS NOT ME SAYING NO, I'M, I'M JUST COMMUNICATING WHAT IS COMING IN MY MIND IS THAT THAT STUDY, THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP WITH RTP. 
          UH, SO WE JUST HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S MOST EFFICIENT THERE IN, IN DOING THOSE STUDIES. 
          YEAH. 
          THEN, THEN IT COULD BE THAT THE RRP G SERVES AS THAT AD HOC STUDY. 
          RT P MAY MAYBE. 
          YEAH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WAYMAN, 
          [04:40:07]
WAYMAN SMITH, YOU ABLE TO HEAR US? YOU THERE? IF YOU'RE SPEAKING, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU YET. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OH, DID YOU PIPE THROUGH? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? THERE YOU ARE. 
          LOUD AND CLEAR. 
          GO FOR IT. 
          HEY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ON MY FOURTH SELECTION OF MICROPHONE, I FOUND THE RIGHT ONE. 
          I THINK, UM, I THINK HEARS KIND OF ADDRESSED, UM, WHAT I WAS ASKING ABOUT PRIMARILY AROUND THE TIMING FOR THESE DIFFERENT STUDIES AND HOW THEY RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER. 
          UM, SO I THINK I'M, I THINK I'M GOOD. 
          I JUST, YOU, YOU KNOW, IF WE TAKE THE LOADS IN YEARS ONE THROUGH FIVE, PUT THOSE IN THE 27 RTP, DEVELOP LONGER TERM SOLUTIONS, THOSE AREN'T ACTIONABLE. 
          SO THEN YOU STILL HAVE TO DEVELOP AND SUBMIT AN RPG AND BY THE TIME YOU FINISH ALL OF THAT, YOUR ONE OR TWO MORE BATCH STUDIES ALONG THAT DIDN'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THOSE LONGER TERM UPGRADES WERE. 
          AND I, IT'S JUST NOT CLEAR TO ME HOW THE SEQUENCING AND THE TIMING FOR ALL THAT WORK. 
          SO ANYWAY, THAT WAS, THAT WAS MY COMMENT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANKS WAYMAN. 
          UH, JOHN, RUSS, JOHN, RUSS HUBBARD WITH TIEC. 
          UM, I JUST FIRST WANNA ECHO WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID ABOUT APPRECIATING THAT ERCOT TAKING THE TIME TO CONSIDER THIS. 
          UM, BUT AS ERCOT IS CONSIDERING IT AND, AND HOW TO PRIORITIZE OR NOT, UM, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY IMPORTANT TO PRIORITIZE LOADS THAT NEED OR, UH, LOADS TO MEET THEIR FULL MEGAWATT OUTPUT, UH, OR, OR DEMAND, UM, IN SUBSEQUENT BATCH STUDIES BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY'RE GONNA BE STUCK IN SOME INTERCONNECTION STUDY PROCESS AND NOT BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO IN A TIMELY MANNER. 
          THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANKS EVAN. 
          NEIL, EVAN WAS LANCE. 
          UM, I GUESS FIRST QUESTION, ARE THERE ANY EXISTING RPG PROJECTS THAT COULD HELP SOLVE FOR THIS YEAR SIX PROBLEM? I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, UM, EVERYTHING'S LOCAL IN NATURE, RIGHT? SO IT'S, IT DEPENDS, OKAY. 
          THERE JUST SEEMS TO BE SOME SIX YEAR PLANS OUT THERE ALREADY THAT MAYBE COULD BE COPY PASTED. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, BUT I, NEXT POINT, UM, TO WHAT ERIC WAS SAYING, YOU SAID IT WOULD ADD LIKE THREE MONTHS TO SOLVE FOR YEAR SIX IN THE BATCH SIX MONTHS, SORRY, WHAT WAS IT? THREE TO SIX MONTHS. 
          THREE TO SIX MONTHS I GUESS. 
          UM, IS ADDING TIME REALLY THE ONLY OPTION TO SOLVE FOR THAT? OR COULD THIS BE ACHIEVED ON A SHORTER TIMEFRAME BY ADDING MORE RESOURCES OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER MECHANISM TO SOLVE FOR YEAR SIX IN A MORE ACCEPTABLE TIMELINE? PROBABLY WANTS TO ANSWER THAT ONE. 
          YEAH, . 
          SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST FEW RTPS, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PROJECTS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT YEAR SIX, THE FURTHER OUT YEARS, LIKE WE ARE APPROACHING LIKE 300 PLUS PROJECTS BASED ON THE FORECAST THAT WENT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF RTPS. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FORECAST IS GONNA BE FOR THE UPCOMING BATCH PROCESSES. 
          SO IF IT'S GONNA BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER, THERE'S GONNA BE A NUMBER OF PROJECTS. 
          AND I THINK JEFF GAVE YOU, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A VERY OPTIMISTIC TIMEFRAME. 
          IF I ASK A PLAN, IF I ASK MY PLANNERS, IT'S GONNA BE MUCH LONGER. 
          SO IT'S NOT JUST THE PROJECTS IN ALSO IF YOU, IF YOU FOLLOWED THE LAST FEW R RTPS, WE HAVE TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS FOR GENERATION. 
          WHEN YOU GET INTO THE TIMEFRAME YEAR SIX, THAT'S, THAT COULD BE BEYOND 6.9. 
          SO WHEN YOU CONSIDER ALL THOSE THINGS SENSITIVITIES, THERE IS A LOT OF, UM, ANALYSIS THAT GOES INTO IDENTIFYING PROJECTS FOR YEAR SIX. 
          OKAY. 
          AND I, I, I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT EARLIER 'CAUSE I, I CAME IN LATE, BUT I MEAN, PERVUE JUST MADE A PRETTY STRONG CASE FOR WHY WE WOULDN'T DO THE 1 45 APPROACH AS IS. 
          SO HAS ERCOT DECIDED THAT WE'RE MOVING TO THIS ALTERNATIVE APPROACH? IS THAT THE BASE CASE RIGHT NOW? I WOULDN'T SAY THAT WE'VE DECIDED THAT. 
          I THINK WE WANTED TO BRING THIS AND SOLICIT COMMENTS FROM STAKEHOLDERS TODAY. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK EVERYTHING PURU JUST SAID WAS KIND OF CONCERNING FOR THAT, BUT I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT THERE. 
          THANKS. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          NEXT MICHAEL JEWEL. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I THINK IT'S REALLY HELPFUL TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION 
          [04:45:01]
RIGHT NOW TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT HOW THESE PIECES FIT TOGETHER. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT I'M BEEN WRESTLING WITH IS IF A LOAD POSTS FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS TO GET INTO THE BATCH STUDY FOR YEAR ONE, THEY GO THROUGH, THEY GET THE ALLOCATION YEAR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 
          THEY'VE POSTED FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR 400 MEGAWATTS FOR YEAR SIX. 
          HAVEN'T THEY SAID THAT THEY REALLY WANT IT AND SHOULDN'T PLANNING START FOR THAT? OR IS IT THAT 400 MEGAWATT FINANCIAL SECURITY GOING TO BE REFUNDABLE NOW? UM, IT'S, IT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          I THINK THAT'S AN OPEN QUESTION. 
          HOWEVER, I WOULD SAY WE WOULD STILL, UM, WE WOULD STILL PLAN FOR THAT ADDITIONAL 400 MEGAWATTS. 
          I THINK THE DISTINCTION HERE IS THAT, UH, WE ARE NOT SURE THAT WE CAN GUARANTEE THAT FOR YEAR SIX. 
          SO IT MAY BE YOU'RE SEVEN OR EIGHT OR WHENEVER. 
          UM, I, I THINK THAT'S THE DISTINCTION HERE. 
          NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THEN I THINK THE OTHER QUESTION THAT GOES TO THAT IS YOU SAID, WELL MAYBE WE WILL LOOK AT THE ADDITIONAL 400 IN BATCH ONE OR BATCH TWO OR, YOU KNOW, LATER ON. 
          YEP. 
          DOES THAT LOAD THAT ALREADY POSTED FINANCIAL SECURITY NEED TO COME BACK IN TO A SUBSEQUENT BATCH REPOST FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR WHAT IT HAD ALREADY POSTED AS WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS? IT'S NOT THE WAY THAT WE'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT. 
          IT'S, YEAH, ONCE YOU'RE IN A BATCH, UM, IF YOU ARE, UH, UN UNLESS YOU'RE SAYING NO, I, I DON'T WANT THE THOUSAND ANYMORE, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT 600, UH, THAT THAT WE WOULD STILL, WE WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE LOAD TO GO BACK AND POST ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL SECURITY AND ALL THAT TO GET INTO BATCH ONE. 
          THAT IT WOULD BE SORT OF AN AUTOMATIC, YOU GO INTO BATCH ONE. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, SHANNON, AND THEN BOB, QUICK QUESTION YEAR SIX IN THIS CONTEXT AS WE THINK ABOUT TODAY, IS THAT 2032 OR WHAT, WHAT DOES YEAR SIX PRACTICALLY MEAN? YEAH, I I THINK IT IS 2033. 
          UM, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IT AS, UH, FROM 27 OR 28 IS YEAR ONE AND 23, 30 32 IS YEAR SIX IF 27 IS YEAR ONE. 
          YEAH, SO WE'RE, UM, UH, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S A MAY MAYBE A SEMANTICS ISSUE. 
          UH, BUT, BUT WE'RE, WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT WE WILL STUDY, UH, 2028 THROUGH 2032 AND AS PI 1 45 IS LAID OUT, IT WOULD BE 2033, WHETHER YOU CALL THAT YEAR SIX OR YEAR 7, 20 33 IS WHERE YOU GET THE AUTOMATIC ALLOCATION, UH, IN THE PI 1 45 APPROACH. 
          UM, BUT WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, I I THINK THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S AN OPEN QUESTION RIGHT NOW IS IF THAT STILL OKAY. 
          IF THAT STILL HOLDS. 
          THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT BACK TO EVAN'S POINT. 
          AND SO I DON'T WANNA BEAT THIS MUCH MORE, YOU KNOW, FULL WELL THAT, UH, THERE'S MANY, UM, RPGS OUT THERE THAT, THAT HAVE THE TRANSMISSION IN THEM THAT YOU NEED HERE FOR THIS YEAR SIX. 
          AND THEY HAD THE LOAD THAT JUSTIFIES IT, WHETHER IT'S 25 RPG 0 0 4 THAT Y'ALL JUST APPROVED THE OTHER DAY. 
          AND HIRSH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK Y'ALL, THE, Y'ALL WERE SAYING 2030 TWOS WHEN Y'ALL COULD DO THOSE TWO NEW LINES THAT'S THAT'S RIGHT OUT THERE AT THIS TIME PERIOD. 
          AND THAT'S FOR AN RPG SUBMITTED FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR. 
          IT'S AN EXAMPLE IN ALL THE LCRA STACK ONES AND UH, A NOT YEAH, LCRA AND CENTERPOINT ONE FOR THE, UH, THAT HAD 7 65 OR THE A EP ONES THAT DO. 
          ALL OF THOSE ARE OUT IN THAT TIME PERIOD FOR WHERE THERE RPG PROJECTS YOU HAVE TODAY THAT ARE REALLY CRITICAL TRANSMISSION FOR THESE YEARS. 
          AND WE, AND YOU ALREADY HAVE THOSE AND MUCH NOT ALL, BUT MUCH OF THAT LOADS IN THE 2026 RTP AND WE, YOU'LL SOON HAVE THAT. 
          ALRIGHT, SAM? YEAH, I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BE, OR SAM BRANDON WITH AGENT INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BE LOST ON ANYBODY THAT THIS IS, IT'S A SOMEWHAT OF A CIRCULAR REFERENCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INFEASIBILITY OF TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND WE'RE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR THE THE GENERATION EDITION COMPONENT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, BY THE TIME WE'RE AT YEAR SIX, WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE MAKING VERY ROUGH ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT SORT OF A GENERATION EDITIONS CAN EVEN SERVE THIS LOAD. 
          AND SO THEORETICALLY, I MEAN, 
          [04:50:01]
ERCO COULD JUST DECIDE TO PUT IN PLACEHOLDER GENERATION THAT'S GOING TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF TRANSMISSION EXPANSION. 
          BUT THEN OBVIOUSLY THAT PUTS AN EXTREME RISK AT WHAT THE EVENTUAL TRANSMISSION AND RESOURCE TOPOLOGY ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE. 
          SO IF WE INCENTIVIZE BRING YOUR OWN GENERATION THAT RESOLVES THIS ISSUE, OR AT LEAST MATERIALLY CONTRIBUTES TO RESOLVING THIS ISSUE BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF TOTAL GENERATION WE NEED TO, OR TRANSMISSION, WE NEED TO SERVE ALL THIS LOAD. 
          UM, AND WE SHOULD ALSO BE ENCOURAGING THIS GENERATION TO BE, YOU KNOW, FRONT OF THE METER LIKE ERCOT FACING AND REGISTERED. 
          UM, BECAUSE IT SOLVES EVERYBODY'S NOT ONLY THE COST TRANSMISSION, BUT IT SOLVES THE TIMELINE FEASIBILITY OF DELIVERING TO ALL THIS LOAD. 
          ALRIGHT, THANKS SAM. 
          BOB KING. 
          HI. 
          I'LL BE REAL QUICK. 
          BOB KING ON THE FIRST OPTION. 
          I NEVER REALLY BELIEVED THAT YOU COULD PROMISE THAT  ANYWAY. 
          I, SO I AGREE THAT I THINK THERE ARE GONNA BE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 
          BUT IF WE WENT WITH A SECOND OPTION, I, LET'S SAY I ASKED FOR A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS, I WAS GIVEN SIX, I STILL WANT THE OTHER FOUR, BUT I'M IN, SO I MAKE MY COMMITMENT, I GO INTO REFINEMENT. 
          AM I AT LEAST BASE LOAD FOR THE NEXT, UM, BATCH ONE? YOU'RE, YOUR 600 WOULD BE BASE LOAD, BUT THE 400 WE STILL HAVE TO ALLOCATE BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE TO IDENTIFY WHAT TRANSMISSION UPGRADES ARE GONNA GET YOU TO THE 400. 
          BUT COULDN'T YOU ASSUME THAT YOU WOULD DEFINITELY CATCH THAT INCREMENTAL AMOUNT FROM BATCH ZERO IN A, IN WHATEVER YOU DO IN BATCH ONE? I MEAN THAT IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE SERVED AND THEN OTHER THINGS THAT ARE COMING IN NEW WOULD BE THE STUDY LOAD. 
          WELL, YEAH, I, I THINK IT'S, I I CAN'T AS IF I COULD ASSUME THAT THEN I COULD JUST DO THE BIGGER 1 45 APPROACH, BUT I CAN'T ASSU I THINK THE FEEDBACK IS ERCOT. 
          YOU CAN'T ASSUME THAT. 
          SO, SO ONE THING I WANT TO SAY THEN WE AGAIN REALLY HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS PROCESS IS GONNA PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, WE ALL, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY, OH, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PROJECTS ARE REAL AND WHAT PROJECTS AREN'T. 
          WE NEED TO WEED 'EM OUT, WHATEVER WE DO THAT GIVES SOMEBODY AN INTERCONNECTION IS GONNA MAKE THEM THE REAL PROJECT. 
          AND THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T MAKE IT WILL NOT BE REAL BECAUSE THEY WON'T , THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A CUSTOMER 'CAUSE THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET INTERCONNECTED. 
          SO WE'RE DEALING WITH A PROCESS WHICH IS VERY TRICKY POLITICALLY IN THE SENSE THAT ERCOT AND THE PUC WILL PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS. 
          AND THAT'S REALLY SOMETHING THAT THE STATE HAS BEEN RELUCTANT TO DO. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE ALL THESE ISSUES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE BEATING A DEAD HORSE ON SOME OF THEM MAYBE, BUT FAIRNESS IS GONNA BE SUPER IMPORTANT WHEN ALL THIS COMES TOGETHER. 
          'CAUSE THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF DISAPPOINTMENT AT THE END OF THE PROCESS. 
          AND AND THE END OF THE PROCESS IS GONNA BE THE FIRST RIGHT BEFORE THE, THE FIRST OF THE LEGISLATURE. 
          SO THIS COULD GET PRETTY BALLED UP. 
          AND, AND SO WE NEED TO THINK THROUGH HOW YOU TREAT THE FIRST IN TIME, UM, KIND OF PIECE AND OTHER FAIRNESS ISSUES. 
          THAT'S JUST MY 2 CENTS. 
          THIS IS BARKSDALE BOB. 
          UH, I NEED TO DISPEL THIS NOTION THAT THE PUC OR ERCOT IS PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS, UH, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GONNA GO AROUND THE TABLE AND SAY YES, YES, NO, NO, YES, YES. 
          NO, NO. 
          WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE ESTABLISHING THE OBJECTIVE IS TO ESTABLISH INDEPENDENT CRITERIA THAT IS OBJECTIVE AND IS REASONABLE, WHICH THEN RESULTS IN A LIST OF WINNERS AND LOSERS. 
          BUT I'M NOT GOING DEVELOPER BY DEVELOPER TSP BY TSP AND SAYING YEAR IN, YEAR OUT OUT. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT ERCOT IS DOING. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE. 
          LET'S JUST, LET'S MAKE THAT EXTRAORDINARILY CLEAR TO EVERYBODY WHO'S LISTENING THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ESTABLISHING INDEPENDENT OBJECTIVE CRITERIA BY WHICH WE CAN START ADVANCING FORWARD THE PROJECTS THAT ARE SEEKING TO INTERCONNECT, SEEKING TO MOVE FORWARD THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE REAL AS MUCH AS WE CAN TELL THEM TODAY, AND GIVE A PATHWAY FOR THOSE MORE SPECULATIVE PROJECTS TO GET INTO THE PIPELINE SO THAT IF THEIR PROJECTS BECOME MORE REAL, THAT THEY HAVE GREATER TRANSPARENCY AND CERTAINTY ON HOW THEY'LL GET THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          YEAH, 
          [04:55:01]
I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE A DISTINCTION ABOUT THIS IDEA THAT SOME ARE SPECULATIVE AND SOME ARE REAL. 
          I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF SERIOUS DEVELOPERS INVOLVED WHO WILL BECOME REAL IF THEY GET AN INTERCONNECTION AND A LOT OF SERIOUS ONES WHO WILL BECOME UNREAL  OR SPECULATIVE OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT IF THEY DON'T GET INTERCONNECTION. 
          SO THE PROCESS WILL END UP, AS YOU EVEN SAY, PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS AND, AND FOR IT TO BE OBJECTIVE, THAT'S GREAT, BUT I'M JUST SUGGESTING, UM, PLEASE BE PATIENT BECAUSE ALL THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT'S FAIR ARE REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME A HUNDRED PERCENT THEY'RE IMPORTANT AND THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN SITTING IN THIS ROOM FOR EVERY SINGLE WORKSHOP AND WHY YOU'VE GOT THE HEAVY HITTERS ON ERCOT STAFF HERE LISTENING TO ALL THESE COMMENTS AND TRYING TO ABSORB AND ADAPT AND CREATE A SET OF INDEPENDENT OBJECTIVE CRITERIA. 
          UM, THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT, UM, THERE ARE LOTS OF DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE PROJECTS IN MIND THAT ARE QUITE REAL AND THEY'VE THROWN MAYBE MORE SPECULATIVE PROJECTS ACROSS THE WHITEBOARD TO SEE WHICH ONES ARE GONNA STICK AND WHICH ONES AREN'T. 
          AND SO IF SOMEBODY'S GOT, YOU KNOW, 10 REQUESTS IN THE QUEUE AND THEY THINK THAT THEY CAN GET TWO OF THEM BUILT, MAYBE EENY, MEY, MIGHTY MO BASED ON ALL THE DIFFERENT FACTORS THAT GO INTO DEVELOPING THAT PROJECT, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PICK WHICH ARE THE TWO THAT ARE THE REAL ONES. 
          AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ESTABLISH THOSE STEPPING STONES TO GET THROUGH A PATHWAY SO THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, THESE ARE THE TWO THAT I, THAT I KNOW THAT I CAN GET DONE. 
          THESE ARE THE TWO THAT I'M GONNA ADVANCE FORWARD. 
          AND THIS DOESN'T STOP IN 26. 
          THERE'S BATCH FUTURE, RIGHT? AND SO, OKAY, MAYBE YOU DON'T GET INTO BATCH ZERO, DOES NINE MONTHS KILL YOUR PROJECT? IF IT DOES, IS WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN TERMS OF THE RELATIVE MATURITY OF THAT PROJECT COMPARED TO THE OTHER 300 REQUESTS THAT ERCOT IS TRYING TO FILTER THROUGH RIGHT NOW? ALRIGHT, NEXT WAYMAN. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO JUST, I I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE ALTERNATIVE APPROACH. 
          UM, SO, SO I GET YOU, YOU CAP AT 600 IN THIS EXAMPLE, SO THEN THE ADDITIONAL 400 WOULD BE KICKED OVER TO THE NEXT BATCH STUDY. 
          BUT WHEN YOU GET TO THE NEXT BATCH STUDY, WE STILL HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED OR APPROVED SLASH ENDORSED THE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES NEEDED FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL MEGAWATTS. 
          AND SO THOSE UPGRADES ARE STILL YEAR SIX, YEAR SEVEN, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T, WE HAVEN'T MOVED FORWARD WITH ANYTHING. 
          SO HOW DOES THAT, WHAT AM I MISSING HERE? YEAH, I I I THINK IT'S, UH, UNDER THIS ALTERNATIVE, I, I THINK IT IS LIKELY THAT BATCH ONE IS NOT A SIX MONTH PROCESS. 
          IT IS A LIKELY A LONGER PROCESS IN WHICH WE WOULD IDENTIFY ALL OF THE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES, UM, AND THE TIMELINE, WHETHER THAT'S SIX YEARS OR SEVEN YEARS TO GET THOSE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES PUT IN PLACE. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU, WE, WE BASICALLY, WHATEVER WE CAN SERVE THROUGH YEAR FIVE AND THAT'S ZERO GETS IDENTIFIED AND THEN WE, WE EXTEND THE STUDY HORIZON FOR BATCH ONE AND ADDRESS LONGER TERM. 
          SO WE KIND OF DEFER THAT LARGER PLAN TO MEET ALL THE YEAR SIX LOADS. 
          WE KIND OF DEFER THAT UNTIL THE NEXT BATCH STUDY. 
          RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, IAN. 
          IAN HALEY. 
          THANKS, IAN HALEY, MORGAN STANLEY. 
          UM, IS, IS THE HESITATION MORE THE ADDED TIME OR THE PHYSICAL LIMITATION? THE POTENTIAL PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS? I, I THINK IT'S, IT'S BOTH. 
          WE HAVE, WE HAVE BOTH CONSTRAINTS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH. 
          SO ONE IS WE'RE WE ARE TRYING TO GET BATCH ZERO COMPLETED IN, IN TIME TO GO INTO 2027 RTP. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, SO THAT, THAT IS A TIME CONSTRAINT. 
          BUT THEN THERE IS ALSO THE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT THAT, UM, IS IT, IT MAY TAKE LONGER. 
          IT, IT IT MAY BE HARDER TO SOLVE ALL OF THIS 
          [05:00:01]
THAN WHAT HAS PREVIOUSLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO THERE. 
          THERE MAY BE CONSTRAINTS, UM, SUPPLY CHAIN CONSTRAINTS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS THAT WE WE'RE NOT SURE, UH, IF WE CAN GET ALL OF THAT IN PLACE BY YEAR SIX. 
          AND, AND, AND SO THE, THE TIME CONSTRAINT SAYS, OKAY, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA NOT STUDY YEAR SIX MM-HMM  UM, IN THE BATCH ZERO, BUT THEN THE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS SAYS, AND MAYBE WE CAN'T, UH, ASSUME THAT WE CAN JUST GET EVERYTHING IN IN YEAR SIX. 
          AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH BOTH THOSE CONSTRAINTS. 
          NO, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. 
          WAS JUST TRYING TO THINK THROUGH AS I THOUGHT THROUGH THIS, WHAT MIGHT BE THE LARGER OF THE TWO CONSTRAINTS OR THE MORE BINDING. 
          ALRIGHT, NED ROSS, THANK YOU MATT. 
          I'LL, I'LL TRY TO BE REAL QUICK 'CAUSE I KNOW EVERYBODY'S TO GET ONTO BYOG. 
          UM, IT, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THE ALTERNATIVE PROCESS IS LENDING ITSELF TO LESS CERTAINTY INSTEAD OF MORE. 
          AND I THINK WE'RE ALL HERE TO CREATE CERTAINTY. 
          UM, WHAT I'M ENVISIONING IN MY MIND'S EYE WITH THAT ALTERNATIVE IS THIS NARROWING OF CAPACITY AVAILABILITY AS YOU ADD PROJECTS THROUGH THESE MULTIPLE BATCHES, RIGHT? SO THE FURTHER OUT IN TIME YOU GO, THE MORE PROJECTS YOU HAVE, WHICH MEANS THE LESS ALLOCATION YOU GET. 
          AND SO I THINK YOU'RE CREATING LESS CERTAINTY AND I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE FOLKS, SOME OF OUR ARE NOTABLY ABSENT TODAY. 
          I THINK OUR GOOGLE FRIEND AND SOME OTHERS AREN'T HERE. 
          I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM THESE GUYS WHEN THEY'RE DEVELOPING THESE MASSIVE PROJECTS THAT ARE WORTH TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, CAN THEY SCALE THEM TO THE ELECTRICITY THAT'S AVAILABLE OR ARE WE FRUSTRATING THE ENTIRE PROCESS? SO IF YOU'RE GONNA GIVE ME A HUNDRED MEGAWATTS A YEAR FOR SEVEN YEARS STARTING IN 2033, WHAT CAN I REALLY DEVELOP? I I I DON'T KNOW. 
          AND I ASK THAT NOT RHETORICALLY. 
          I'M ASKING THAT AS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANYONE WANNA RESPOND TO ED? ALRIGHT, GOOD QUESTION. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UH, I THINK WE'RE SHANNON, JEFF, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A WHILE AGO THAT BATCH ONE MIGHT NEED TO BE EXTENDED TO DEAL WITH THIS YEAR SIX ISSUE. 
          I APOLOGIZE IF THIS IS A OBVIOUS ANSWER AND I'M MISSING IT. 
          WHY WILL IT ONLY BE BATCH ONE? WHY WOULDN'T THIS ALWAYS BE A CONTINUING PROBLEM AND WOULDN'T IT ACTUALLY BE EASIER TO SOMEHOW ADDRESS IT IN BATCH ZERO AND MAKE IT THE ONE THAT RAN LONGER IF IT IS JUST SOMEHOW A UNIQUE ONETIME PROBLEM THAT WAY ALL SUBSEQUENT BATCHES RUN ON THE SAME CADENCE? YEAH, I I THINK IT IS AN ONGOING BATCH ISSUE. 
          UM, WE, WE, WE COULD JUST EXTEND BATCH ZERO. 
          THAT, THAT, THAT COULD BE AN, AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH. 
          UM, IT, IT'S, I THINK THAT, UM, BATCH ZERO AS IT'S LAID OUT NOW ALIGNS NICELY WITH OTHER, UH, PROCESSES AND, AND TIMING OF WHEN WE GET INFORMATION. 
          UM, NOT, NOT TO SAY THAT WE COULDN'T CHANGE THOSE, BUT UM, YEAH, IT'S, UM, IT'S AN ALTERNATIVE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          HA Q WAS CLEAR. 
          [7. BYOG interactive discussion on Self-Limited option]
ALL RIGHT. 
          HOW ABOUT SOME BYOG? UM, BYOB? UH, SO LET ME, SO LEMME THINK ABOUT THIS. 
          DID YOU WANNA PRESENT AFTER WE DO SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT OUR THINKING IS? OKAY. 
          DO YOU WANT ME TO KICK IT OFF? OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT, LET'S TRADE SPOTS JEFF. 
          ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S SEE. 
          THERE'S ONE OTHER PERSON WE WERE HOPING TO HAVE IN HERE, UM, REAL QUICK. 
          ALRIGHT, SO LEMME SET THE STAGE FOR WHAT WE WERE DOING ON THOSE FEASIBILITY OPTIONS, WHICH WAS TO WALK DOWN, YOU KNOW, THE ONE, THE ONE A, THE ONE B AND THESE PIECES PARTS. 
          AND ORIGINALLY ERCOT WAS IN THE SELF-LIMITING FACILITY IS WHERE WE FOCUSED THE NEXT. 
          AT THAT MEETING, THAT'S WHEN PEOPLE STARTED TO OPEN OUR EYES UP AND SAY, LOOK, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THESE SCENARIOS, MAYBE THAT'S THE SAME THING AS A PUN PLUS, WHICH WOULD SAY IF YOU'RE GONNA STUDY IT AS SELF-LIMITING, WHY WOULD IT EVEN HAVE TO BE LIMITING IF YOUR G MINUS ONE SECURE? SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE OPENED THE DOOR, WE EXPLORED AND TODAY WE'RE STARTING TO CLOSE THE DOOR ON THAT, BUT SAM HAS A, A PRESENTATION TO COVER. 
          BUT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS REALLY HAVE A MORE OF A BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION. 
          WE'RE HAVING A 
          [05:05:01]
HARD TIME SOLVING THIS. 
          UH, WE KNOW THAT, UM, I'VE HEARD PLANS THAT WHEN WE INITIALLY TALKED ABOUT BRING YOUR OWN GENERATION SOME WHITEBOARD DISCUSSIONS AND PEOPLE SAID, LOOK, THE LOAD CAN'T LOCATE WITHOUT A GENERATOR. 
          GENERATOR, CAN'T LOCATE WITHOUT A LOAD. 
          LET US PUT A CIRCLE AROUND IT AND WORK 'EM TOGETHER. 
          UH, IT RELIEVES THE URGENCY OF TRANSMISSION TO THE AREA, BUT HERE'S WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD WAS, BUT WE STILL WANT TRANSMISSION TO THAT AREA SO THEY'RE NOT COUPLED TOGETHER FOREVER. 
          UM, SO WE WANTED TO START ASKING ABOUT SOME ASSUMPTIONS OR THE END GAME ON THESE THINGS SO WE KNOW HOW TO STUDY THEM, WHETHER OR NOT TO BUILD TRANSMISSION OUT TO THEM OR NOT. 
          UM, SO THAT, THIS IS AN OLD SLIDE, SO I REALLY WON'T TALK THROUGH IT OTHER THAN TO POINT OUT TO THE RIGHT WHERE SOME IDEAS ON, WE'VE HEARD SOME COMPANIES ARE PUTTING A REALLY BIG SINGLE GEN NEXT TO A REALLY BIG DATA CENTER. 
          AND THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SAID IF YOU'RE G MINUS ONE, WHICH IS YOU LOSE THAT GEN, THE LOAD NEEDS TO GO ALSO. 
          BUT THEN WE ALSO HAVE THESE SCENARIOS WHERE YOU HAVE A LOAD THAT MAY BE A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS THAT MAY HAVE 5, 250 MEGAWATT UNITS AND YOU COULD LOSE GEN FIVE AND STILL BE, YOU KNOW, A NET NEUTRAL STILL AT A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS. 
          SO I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL THESE AGAIN, BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE AGAIN ON THE PRIVATE USE NETWORK, WHEN WE STARTED TO LOOK AT THIS, UM, PUN PLUS THING ONE THING IS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION AND IT KIND OF COMES IN LIKE ONCE PUN IS UP IN THIS AT THE PRIVATE USE NETWORK, MAGICALLY LANDED ALL AT THE SAME TIME AND WAS FUNCTIONING ALL AT THE SAME TIME. 
          MIGHT THIS WORK? IT MIGHT. 
          BUT DO YOU NEED A SELF-LIMITING CONSTRUCT TO EVEN GET TO THAT POINT TO WHERE EVERYTHING IS STABILIZED AND BALANCED WITH ALL THIS EQUIPMENT TO MEET THE LOAD? SO FROM A RISK MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE, IT COULD FEEL BETTER FROM AN ERCOT TO SAY, LET'S CALL IT A SELF LIMITING FACILITY. 
          SO NO MATTER WHAT'S GOING ON BEHIND THE FENCE WITH CONSTRUCTION, WE'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT SOME SORT OF NET EFFECT. 
          UM, THE OTHER PIECE WAS RELIABILITY UNIT COMMITMENT. 
          WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE FOR THE CONTROL ROOM TO BE OPERATING ALL THESE SITES AND KIND OF REACHING BACK INTO THE PRIVATE USE NETWORKS THAT WANT TO TAKE, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE A COP SUBMITTED TO BE OFFLINE TOMORROW BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMICS. 
          BUT THEN OUTAGE SCHEDULER, OTHER PEOPLE ARE FROM THE OPERATIONS CONTROL ROOM ARE TRYING TO HOLD THE GRID TOGETHER THE NEXT DAY BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL OF THESE ARE GONNA DO. 
          AND THIS ISN'T A THOUSAND MEGAWATT PROBLEM. 
          THIS COULD BE A 15,000 MEGAWATT PROBLEM. 
          SO IT FEELS LIKE A LARGER RISK ITEM THAN WE FEEL LIKE WE CAN GET OUR ARMS AROUND. 
          SO AGAIN, WE'LL KIND OF LET YOU KNOW, LET, UM, LET SOME TALK OPEN UP ON THIS IDEA ONE MORE TIME. 
          BUT WE REALLY WANTED TO FOCUS ON THE SELF-LIMITING FACILITY AND GO A LITTLE DEEPER INTO THAT WITH SOME QUESTIONS TODAY. 
          AND SO IF YOU CAN, LET'S JUST MAKE THIS KIND OF AN INTERACTIVE PIECE AND WE'LL WE'LL START TO WALK THROUGH IT. 
          SO, UH, I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION THAT ERCOT WANTS TO ASK IS HOW SHOULD THE, UH, SELF LIMITING FACILITIES BE MODELED ACROSS THE BATCH STUDY AND THE TRANSMISSION PLANNING, ESPECIALLY IF THOSE PROCESSES ARE INTEGRATED. 
          UM, GOSH, HOW AM I GONNA MANAGE THE QUEUE? DO YOU WANT ME TO, TO TAKE THAT, MATT? WHAT'S THAT? YEAH, I SAID, DO YOU WANT ME TO, TO WATCH THE QUEUE? WELL, IT'S NOT JUST THAT. 
          I MEAN, JANICE CAN WATCH THE QUEUE. 
          I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE DO WE GO, OH BOY, IT'S EMBARRASSING TO THINK OUT LOUD HERE. 
          DO WE GO TOPIC BY TOPIC ON THESE QUESTIONS OR IS JUST A FREE, OR WE JUST THROW ALL THIS OUT AIR INTO THE FIELD TO PLAY AND LET'S JUST TALK, UM, LEMME WALK THROUGH ALL THE QUESTIONS AND MAYBE THAT'LL HELP US SHAPE IT. 
          SO NUMBER ONE IS HOW DO WE PLAN FOR THIS? YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING IN THE STUDY, WHAT ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS ON HOW THAT SELF-LIMITING FACILITY IS INTERCONNECTED OR INTEGRATED IS ANOTHER WORD. 
          UH, HOW SHOULD THIS, UM, SELF-LIMITING FACILITY PRESENT GENERATION OR LOAD, UM, TO THE ERCOT SYSTEM IS THE EXPECTATION THERE WOULD STILL BE A COP FOR EACH RESOURCE OUTAGE COORDINATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          JUST THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE. 
          THE NEXT PIECE WAS REVERSE POWER AND COMPLIANCE CONSTRAINTS. 
          THE SELF-LIMITING CONSTRUCT FROM NPR 10 26 RIGHT NOW IS A ONE MONTH AFTER THE FACT. 
          LOOK BACK, WE CAN'T DO THAT WITH A THOUSAND MEGAWATT FACILITY AND SAY, WELL WE HOPE IT WAS, YOU KNOW, NOT EXCEEDING ITS LIMIT. 
          IF STUFF HAPPENS AND IT TRIPS THE GEN TRIPS OFF AT THAT FACILITY, SHOULD WE BE USING REVERSE POWER RELAY WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE? UM, DO WE EVEN KNOW THAT WE COULD HAVE A REVERSE POWER RELAY IF THERE IS A, UM, BASE LOAD? SO WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT IF WE HAVE A SELF LIMITING FACILITY, BUT THEY HAVE A NEED, THE A BASE LOAD ASSIGNED TO IT OF A HUNDRED MEGAWATTS. 
          DO WE WANNA LET THEM CONSUME A HUNDRED MEGAWATTS OR IS THAT NOW BECOME KIND OF THIS OTHER CONTINGENCY OR A RAZ THAT WE MAY DO AROUND IT? OR SHOULD IT JUST BE A NET ZERO SITE? SO AGAIN, ERCOT CAN SEE A BETTER LINE OF SIGHT TO A NET ZERO TYPE FACILITY THAN BALANCING 
          [05:10:01]
AROUND ON THE OTHER SIDES OF THIS. 
          UM, ARE THERE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, REVERSE POWER RELAY WITH LIMITS OR IS ZERO THAT NET ZERO KIND OF THE ONLY FEASIBLE OPTION? OKAY, SO THAT WAS THE COMPLIANCE, HOLDING IT IN CHECK SO WE DON'T BREAK EQUIPMENT. 
          NEXT ONE IS THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE SELF-LIMITING FACILITY DESIGN. 
          UH, SHOULD SELF-LIMITING FACILITIES BE LIMITED TO A ZERO MEGAWATT WITHDRAWAL TO AVOID RAZ OR COMPLIANCE COMPLEXITY? SHOULD THERE BE A MAXIMUM LOAD AND GENERATION SIZE BASED ON THE TRANSMISSION NETWORK? FOR EXAMPLE, COULD YOU HAVE A THOUSAND, UH, MEGAWATT FACILITY, UM, ON A A HUNDRED MEGAWATT 138 KW LINE? SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU SEE THE PROBLEM. 
          THIS IS BIG STUFF ON SMALL LINES. 
          HOW MUCH DO WE WANNA PROTECT THAT SYSTEM? AND THEN OPEN VALIDATION POINTS IS THE ZERO WITHDRAWAL CONSTRUCT ACCEPTABLE FROM A TSP AND OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE? AND HOW SHOULD DELIVERABILITY AND INJECTION LIMITS BE DEFINED FOR THOSE SELF-LIMITING FACILITIES? SO WE'LL JUST START TO WORK THROUGH THE QUEUE. 
          AND I, I CAN SEE IT FROM UP HERE, SO AS LONG AS JANICE, YOU'RE PUTTING 'EM IN, WE'LL TAKE 'EM AS THEY COME IN. 
          SO BILL BARNES, YOU'RE FIRST ALMOST, HOLD ON, WE'RE SWITCHING MICROPHONES HERE. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          UM, ON THE, AND I GET THE NEED TO NARROW THE FOCUS ON A CONCEPT THAT IS AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT FOR BATCH ZERO, ZERO BEING THE EMPHASIS, RIGHT? YES, PLEASE. 
          NOT A FOREVER. 
          WHAT WE WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE AND RECOMMEND IS THAT ANY BYOG ARRANGEMENT THAT CAN PARTICIPATE IN BATCH ZERO AS A SELF-LIMITED FACILITY HAS AN OPTION TO TRANSITION TO A MORE FLEXIBLE ARRANGEMENT IN BATCH ONE AND BEYOND. 
          I THINK THAT IS SUPER IMPORTANT AND MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PLANNING PROBLEM. 
          WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE SO THAT A SELF LIMING FACILITY CAN EXPAND THAT OPERATIONS. 
          LIKE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE CLR, WHERE, UM, AND I KEEP USING THIS SLF PLUS CONCEPT, BUT A CONDITIONAL SELF LIMING FACILITY, WHICH IS DURING CERTAIN TIMES OR CONDITIONS, THEN THE WITHDRAWAL LIMIT, UH, FOR THAT SITE IS, IS BINDING. 
          AND SO IF THE GENERATION IS ONLINE AND IT'S COVERING THE LOAD, THERE IS NORE REASON TO LIMIT THAT FACILITY WHATSOEVER. 
          IF THERE'S A, IF THERE IS A, UH, TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINT OR ISSUE, THAT GENERATION CAN BE RAMPED UP AND CAN MANAGE THAT CONSTRAINT JUST LIKE A CLR DOES. 
          SO, BUT THAT IS FOR LATER. 
          UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT WE'RE JUST NOT GONNA HAVE TIME TO GET THOSE, UM, REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE. 
          AND IT DOES LOOK LIKE JUST KIND OF READING BETWEEN THE LINES HERE ON THE SLIDE IS, IS ERCOT IS CONSIDERING AND A SIMPLE SELF-LIMITING, UH, FACILITY APPROACH. 
          MY PHONE RINGS ON THE MICROPHONE. 
          UM, THAT WHERE THE WITHDRAWAL LIMIT WOULD BE ZERO. 
          SO YOU BASICALLY HAVE A-B-Y-O-G ARRANGEMENT THAT HAS A GENERATION FACILITY AND THE WITHDRAWAL LIMIT FOR THE LOAD FOR THE LARGE LOAD WOULD BE AT ZERO. 
          THAT'S ESSENTIALLY AN ISLANDED CONFIGURATION. 
          WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT IN BATCH ZERO IF YOU GUYS WOULD ACTUALLY ACCEPT IT, UH, WITH ONE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT CAVEAT IS THE GENERATION MAY STILL HAVE OX LOAD, YOU GOTTA LET US SERVE THE OX LOAD, RIGHT? SO THERE MAY BE SOME, UH, SMALL AMOUNT OF POWER DRAW, UH, ON STARTUP OR AUX ZERO LOADS IF THE RESOURCE, IF THE GENERATION RESOURCES IS TRULY OFFLINE. 
          SO, AND THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER GENERATION RESOURCE THAT YOU'VE STUDIED SINCE WE'VE OPENED THE MARKET, RIGHT? AND SO I'M GONNA ASK THIS QUESTION AGAIN AND I BROUGHT IT UP IN THE COMMENTS WE FILED. 
          WHY WOULD THAT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A BATCH STUDY? IT THEY WILL NEVER, THE LARGE LOAD WILL NEVER IMPORT FROM, FROM THE ERCOT SYSTEM. 
          YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE STABILITY ISSUES 'CAUSE IT'S NEVER GONNA IMPORT YOU. 
          WHAT YOU HAVE IS A GENERATION RESOURCE THAT IS CO-LOCATED WITH A LARGE LOAD THAT WILL NEVER IMPORT FROM THE ERCOT SYSTEM AT ALL WITH AN IMPORT LIMIT OF ZERO. 
          I WOULD ARGUE THAT THEY WERE, THAT THAT'S JUST A GIS. 
          UM, AND YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH A BATCH STUDY IF YOU'RE IMPOSING AN IMPORT LIMIT OF ZERO FOR THE LA CO-LOCATED LARGE LOAD. 
          BUT THAT'S JUST SOME SOMETHING TO THINK THROUGH, UM, ON THE EQUIPMENT. 
          SO REAL, REAL QUICK. 
          YEAH. 
          ON THE, IF IT'S AN ISLAND, IS IT AN ISLAND FOREVER OR DO YOU EXPECT TRANSMISSION TO BE STUDIED AND APPLIED OUT THERE? I WOULD, EVERYTHING I'M SAYING WE WOULD EXPECT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE TO TRANSITION TO A MORE FLEXIBLE ARRANGEMENT. 
          EITHER A CONDITIONAL SLF OR A PUN PLUS. 
          SO IT'S JUST TIME TO EITHER DEVELOP THE TRANSMISSION OR GET RULES IN PLACE WHERE WE 
          [05:15:01]
CAN OPERATE THAT CONFIGURATION MORE FLEXIBLY IN REAL TIME CONDITIONS, ASSUMING THAT WE INSTALL THE PROPER EQUIPMENT. 
          AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, REVERSE POWER. 
          SO I DID HAVE SOME TIME OVER LUNCH TO, UH, PING MY ENGINEERS AND THE WAY THAT WE WOULD IMPLEMENT A SELF-LIMITING BYOG ARRANGEMENT IS, UH, WE WOULD HAVE RELAYS INSTALLED AT THE POINT OF INTERCONNECTION OF THE PUN AND IF IT EVER IN IMPORTED IN, WE COULD ACTUATE BREAKERS TO OPEN AN ISLAND, THE GIN AND THE LOAD, WE'D DUMP THE SITE. 
          SO WE CAN DO THAT. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, SO AGAIN, I, WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE, WE CAN GET SOMETHING IN BACTERIA, IT'S GONNA BE REALLY SIMPLE, IT'S GONNA BE REALLY LIMITING MM-HMM  WHICH IS FINE AS LONG AS THERE'S A PATHWAY TO EXPAND THE FLEXIBILITY OF THAT SITE IN BATCH ONE AND BEYOND. 
          YOU, YOU PUT US IN THE YES CAMP. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          AND WE CAN KEEP WORK ON THE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOW THAT COULD LOOK. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          YEP. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT. 
          VICTOR, VICTOR, SOS AND VICTOR, IF YOU'RE TALKING, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU YET. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          CAN YOU SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT MORE? CAN BARELY HEAR YOU. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME RIGHT NOW? THAT'S BETTER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          YES. 
          VICTOR SAUERS, TKNG CAPITAL. 
          SO FOR US, WE'RE LOOKING AT ON SELF-LIMITING, WHICH MOST LIKELY BE THE CASE THAT AS WE BUILD OUT INFRASTRUCTURE, I'M MAKING IT SIMPLE, EVERYBODY, IT'S LIKE 50 MEGAWATT SEGMENTS MODULES. 
          SO WE ARE GONNA HAVE ENERGY STORAGE TO PROTECT OUR GEN EQUIPMENT AND OUR, AND OUR PROCESSING EQUIPMENT. 
          CHIPS PER SE. 
          I'M SIMPLIFYING IT, BUT AS WE GO FORWARD AND WE ARE SELF-LIMITED TO, I MAKE IT SIMPLE AGAIN, A HUNDRED MEGAWATT THEN THAT SAYS WE STILL HAVE OUR ORIGINAL LOAD OF 1000 OF, OF MEGAWATT WHEN THE TRANSMISSION GETS DONE. 
          BUT ALSO AS WE GO FORWARD, ARE WE LOCKED IN, IF AN EXAMPLE WE DO NETTED NETWORK, WHICH MIGHT BE A BETTER, BETTER DEAL GOING FORWARD AFTER WE GO THROUGH THE BATCH PROCESS IN THE FUTURE. 
          BUT SAME THING, WE WANT THE FLEXIBILITY BUT THE CERTAINTY WITHOUT HARMING THE ERCOT PROCESS, BUT ALSO GIVES THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT, I HAVE YOUR GENERATION, I GOT YOUR ENERGY STORAGE WHEN 50 MEGAWATTS SEGMENTS GOING FORWARD. 
          THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LIMITED TO AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GONNA GENERATE. 
          LIKE I'M, I'M GONNA HAVE 400 MEGAWATT OF GEN ON SITE, SO, AND ANOTHER 400 OF EQUIPMENT COMING IN IN 50 MEGAWATTS SEGMENTS. 
          SO WE HAVE A LOT OF ASSETS TO HELP OUT BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE, UH, IF WE HAD A SIMPLE PLAY OF WAITING FOR WIRE AND THE GENERATION SOMEWHERE, I DON'T KNOW IF ERCO IS ABLE TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, IF IT'S, IF IT'S 45 GIGAWATT AND WE REDUCE THE LRS 85%, ARE WE GONNA HAVE ENOUGH POWER IN TEXAS OR ARE YOU GONNA RELY ON US TO BE THE FUTURE POWER PLANTS? SO AGAIN, THAT'S A LITTLE UNCERTAINTY THING GOING EIGHT YEARS FORWARD, WHERE'S THE POWER COMING FROM? BUT REGARDLESS, WE KNOW WE CAN GENERATE BETWEEN THAT TIME WHEN IT'S INDECISIVE. 
          SO SELF-LIMITED, FINE, AS LONG AS WE CAN BE SURE, WHICH IS A CERTAINTY. 
          A LOT OF THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THIS CONVERSATION TODAY THAT THE THE THOUSAND MEGAWATT LOAD IS YES WHEN WE GET WIRED TO YOU. 
          SO I'M SIMPLIFYING, BUT THAT SIDE, WE LOOK AT IT TRYING TO HELP YOU GUYS SAY THIS IS OUR CAPACITY AND CAPABILITY AND MULTI FRONTS GIVE US SOME CONFIGURATION. 
          GIVES A DEGREE OF CERTAINTY. 
          'CAUSE IF YOU JUST GIMME A HUNDRED MEGAWATT, BUT THE FULL LOAD REQUEST IS APPROVED WHEN WE GET WIRED TO YOU, I CAN TAKE THAT TO MY INVESTORS. 
          THAT'S EASY. 
          GIVES AN IDEA. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK SAM. 
          SO I THINK IT'S A TWO PART QUESTION HERE. 
          UM, SO FOR THIS ZERO NET DRAW SLF SCENARIO, SO FOR ANY OF THESE SITUATIONS THAT PEOPLE MIGHT BE PLANNING, UM, THE IDEA IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A GIGAWATT DATA CENTER, YOU'RE GONNA BE SELF-SERVING WITH BEHIND THE METER GAS. 
          AND IF YOU PLAN TO DO THAT, YOU'RE NOT JUST BUILDING ONE FOR ONE, YOU'RE PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST 25%, PROBABLY MORE LIKE 50% OVERSIZING YOUR GAS CAPACITY TO YOUR LOAD. 
          AND SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS FOR THAT BEHIND THE METER GENERATION CAPACITY, IS THAT GOING TO SHOW UP IN THE STEADY STATE MODEL FOR THE BATCH PROCESS? 
          [05:20:01]
SO WE'LL SHOW THE, WHAT WE'RE BRINGING TO THE TABLE. 
          YES. 
          SO YOU SEE WHAT WE'RE CAPABLE OF DOING TO HELP THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. 
          BUT IF IT SAYS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO GET IN BATCH ZERO APPROVAL FOR X AMOUNT TO BE ABLE TO GET HER A FULL AMOUNT LATER ON. 
          YES. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO SAM, I THINK YOU WANTED THAT ERCOT TO SPEAK TO THAT. 
          YEAH, YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          THIS IS Z SPRINGER ERCOT. 
          UM, SO YEAH, I MEAN IT, SO TODAY IT WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE MODEL IF UNLESS THE GENERATOR HAD MET 6.9 PARAGRAPH ONE OF THE PLANNING GUIDE. 
          ONE OF THE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS AS A POTENTIAL OPTION IS I THINK ONE OF THE, IT'S NOT ON THIS SLIDE, BUT ONE OF THE PIECES THAT WOULD COME ALONG WITH THAT IS AN ABILITY TO, FOR ERCOT TO ADD THIS GENERATION BECAUSE IT IS LINKED TO THIS LOAD PROJECT INTO THE BATCH ZERO STUDY EARLIER THAN IN ITS DEVELOPMENT CYCLE, RIGHT? HOW MUCH EARLIER I THINK IS STILL STILL OPEN FOR DISCUSSION, BUT UM, THAT LINKAGE THAT WOULD HAVE TO PROCEED FORWARD INTO OPERATIONS THAT THAT LOAD CAN'T COME ON UNTIL THAT GENERATION IS THERE. 
          UM, BECAUSE THAT WOULD, OTHERWISE YOU COULDN'T HAVE A SELF-LIMITING FACILITY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          SO, UM, WELL I'M SORRY THAT WE'RE GETTING TOWARD THE END OF DAY, THAT WAS A LONG-WINDED ANSWER, UH, TO BASICALLY SAY YES, BUT WE NEED THIS CHANGE TO ALLOW US TO PUT IT IN EARLIER AS DEVELOPMENT CYCLE. 
          OKAY, NO, THIS SUPER HELPFUL. 
          AND SO IN THAT SCENARIO WHERE THERE'S A GIGAWATT OF LOAD AND LET'S JUST ASSUME ACTUALLY IT'S, IT'S 4 250 MEGAWATT UNITS OF OF GAS DOES YOUR SLF BECOME YOUR G MINUS ONE? SO IT WOULD BE 750 MEGAWATTS OF ASSUMPTION. 
          THE WAY THAT SELF-LIMITING FACILITY WORKS TODAY FOR GENERATION IS THAT IT IS DEFINED BY THE INTERCONNECTING ENTITY, WHAT THEY WANT THEIR LIMITS TO BE. 
          AND I, I THINK OUR DESIRE WOULD BE FOR THAT TO CONTINUE FORWARD IF WE EXPAND THIS CONCEPT TO INCLUDE LOAD IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH PUN PLUS, UM, AS WE'VE STARTED TO DIG DEEPER INTO IT, IS THERE'S TOO MANY OPEN QUESTIONS AROUND THINGS LIKE WHEN THE RESOURCE TAKES OUTAGES AND UM, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT CAPACITY IS SHOWN IN THE COP AND WHAT'S AVAILABLE TO RUCK, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          WITH A SELF-LIMITING FACILITY, THERE'S A DEFINED LIMIT, UM, FOR INJECTION AND WITHDRAWAL AND IT BECOMES MUCH MORE INCUMBENT ON THE RESOURCE ENTITY TO MAINTAIN THAT, UH, OR THE QSE TO ENSURE THAT THAT LIMIT IS RESPECTED. 
          YEAH, I GUESS MY POINT IS THAT IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO AMEND THE SLF LIMIT TO REFLECT THE G MINUS ONE, THEN YOU'RE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST GENERATION RESOURCES THAT JUST SET SO HAPPENED TO BE CO-LOCATED WITH LOAD COMPARED TO IF YOU HAD A, AGAIN, UNAFFILIATED GENERATOR NEXT DOOR THAT JUST HAPPENED TO BE 6.9 QUALIFIED, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'D BE ABLE TO SERVE THAT 750 MEGAWATT G MINUS ONE SERVICE TO THAT LOAD. 
          THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN A CLUMSY WAY TO SAY IT, BUT, UM, I THINK THAT THERE'S A BIT OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE GOING ON BETWEEN LIKE THE NOTION OF COMBINING THESE CONCEPTS OF LOADING GENERATION VERSUS WHAT WOULD JUST HAPPEN IF THEY WERE OTHERWISE UNAFFILIATED. 
          UM, AND WE'RE ULTIMATELY CREATING A BALKANIZED GRID IF THAT'S KIND OF THE, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY HAS TO SERVE JUST THEMSELVES TYPE SCENARIO WHEN IN REALITY WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING THESE PEOPLE TO REGISTER ALL THESE AS FRONT OF THE METER RESOURCES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SYSTEM. 
          UM, SO YEAH, UM, I THINK THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT GENERATION DOESN'T MEET 6.9, OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE IN THE MODEL, BUT WE'RE GIVING, SO YEAH, WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE CREDIT FOR THAT GENERATION. 
          IT DOESN'T MEET 6.9, SO CERTAINLY BY THE TIME IT'S BUILT IT WILL BE 6.9 QUALIFIED. 
          SO I FEEL LIKE, BUT BUT YOU'RE, BUT YOU'RE ASKING FOR CREDIT TODAY, UH, IN BATCH ZERO, EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT MEET, UH, I THINK THAT'S TO JEFF'S POINT, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. 
          SO THE LIMITATION ACCELERATES THE LOAD IN THE PROCESS. 
          BUT, BUT SORRY. 
          LIKE, BUT SO ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOUR LOAD IS NOT, YOU KNOW, IS NOT ENERGIZED IN PARALLEL WITH THIS NEW GENERATION, THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT COMING ONLINE. 
          AND SO IT SHOULD JUST BE A QUALIFIER FOR BYOG TO ULTIMATELY ENERGIZE. 
          [05:25:01]
UM, AND FRANKLY LIKE THIS GOES BACK TO THE BIGGER 1 27 ISSUE BECAUSE OTHERWISE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, ERCOT IS GONNA HAVE THIS DISCRETIONARY CAPABILITY TO JUST KIND OF ELECT WHERE GENERATION PLUGS THE GAP. 
          AND OF COURSE, IF WE KNOW THAT THERE'S GENERATION THAT IS PRE 6.9 BUT IS CO-LOCATED WITH THESE LOADS, THAT SHOULD BE THE FIRST, YOU KNOW, PRE 6.9 GENERATION THAT'S CALLED ON TO BE REFLECTED IN THESE MODELS. 
          UM, BECAUSE OTHERWISE THERE'S JUST KIND OF THESE LATENT ASSUMPTIONS GOING INTO THIS GIGANTIC BATCH ZERO THAT BECOMES A BIT PROBLEMATIC, UM, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. 
          UM, SO THE LAST THING I'LL SAY HERE IS ALSO IF LIKE, 'CAUSE LIKE I SAID, I MEAN IF YOU'RE BEHIND THE METER OR ISLAND, YOU'RE NOT JUST BUILDING ONE FOR ONE, YOU'RE OVERSIZING YOUR GENERATION. 
          AND SO IF THAT GENERATION WAS GRID CONNECTED OR, OR WE ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO BRING BYOG PLUS OR PUN PLUS TO THE MARKET, THAT ACTUALLY CREATES MORE DELIVERABILITY FOR THE REST OF THE BATCH ZERO BECAUSE YOUR G PLUS ONE IS NOT ONLY YOUR G PLUS ONE, IT'S ALL OF YOUR REGIONAL LOADS G PLUS ONE. 
          UM, SO MY TAKEAWAY FROM THE MEETING TODAY IS I'M, YOU KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS APPROACHED CLR AND BYOG AS SOLUTIONS FOR, FOR RATE PAYER PROTECTION, BUT NOW I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY FUNCTIONALLY REQUIRED FOR BATCH ZERO TO WORK MM-HMM . 
          UM, SO, UM, I GUESS I'LL, I'LL END WITH THAT. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT UP, UH, BROTH. 
          YES. 
          HI. 
          UM, SO THIS IS GREAT. 
          I THINK, UH, I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM, I AGREE WITH WHATEVER BILL BONDS SAID ABOUT THIS, UH, NET ZERO AT POI, UM, GIVING FIRM TRANSMISSION PATH WHILE, YOU KNOW, AS WE WAIT FOR THE FIRM TRANSMISSION, WE CAN STILL DO THE BEHIND THE METER. 
          ONE IS TO, ONE IS MY UNDERSTANDING, I'LL TALK TO SAM LATER, BUT THERE MAY BE AN COMMERCIAL DEPENDS ON THE COMMERCIAL OBLIGATION ON IF WE CAN ACTUALLY BUILD ONE IS TO ONE OR IF YOU WANT TO BUILD MORE THAN THAT THOUGH, SO IT'S UP TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE DIFFERENT NEEDS OF IT. 
          BUT SO, AND THEN OPERATIONAL CONTROL AND TELEMETRY, I THINK WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT AS WE GET CLOSER TO, SO THIS IS GREAT. 
          I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST DRAFT, RIGHT? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, UM, MY ONLY QUESTION IS AS WE GET THE GEN, UH, FIRM TRANSMISSION IN YEAR 1, 2, 3, WILL THE DEVELOPERS HAVE OPTIONALITY ON CONNECTING THE DELTA GENERATION TO THE GRID? OR SHOULD WE WAIT FOR THE ENTIRE TRANSMISSION FIRM TO COME IN BEFORE WE CONNECT THE GENERATION? OR CAN WE LEVERAGE THE DELTA GENERATION TO APPLY FOR ADDITIONAL TRANSMISSION IN BATCH ONE? I, I THINK IT'S MAYBE AND MAYBE NOT. 
          I MEAN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET YOU IS A FOOT IN THE DOOR AND THEN I THINK BILL KIND OF HIT ON IT AND THEN MAYBE RULES KIND OF EVOLVE AS WE GO THROUGH TIME AS TO HOW LIMITED YOU HAVE TO BE OR HOW WE CAN PLAN AND FACILITATE IT. 
          BUT, UH, I'M SORRY AG DID YOU THINK WE BOTH NO, I'M SORRY. 
          I WAS GONNA ASK FOR CLARIFICATION . 
          YEAH. 
          UM, UH, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, BY, BY DELTA ARE YOU, YOU TALKING ABOUT THE, IF THERE'S A BUILD OUT BEYOND THE NEED TO SERVE THE, THE LOCAL LOAD OR YOU COULD JUST CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT. 
          YEAH, SO IF YOU TAKE ONE POINT GIGAWATT, 1.2 GIGAWATTS, SO IT'S EASY DIVIDED BY SIX 200 PER EVERY YEAR FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT? SO I BRING IN 1.2 GIGAWATTS OF GENERATION 1.2 GIGAWATTS OF LOAD YEAR ONE. 
          LET'S SAY I GET 200 MEGAWATTS OF FOAM TRANSMISSION SERVICE NOW BECAUSE GRID POWER IS SUPERIOR. 
          NOW I HAVE THE OPTIONALITY OF THAT 200 MEGAWATTS OF BEHIND THE METER GEN. 
          CAN I CONNECT TO THE GRID OR CAN I USE THE 200 MEGAWATTS IN NEXT BATCH TO GET ADDITIONAL 200 MEGAWATTS OF UM, TRANSMISSION? I THINK THAT'S UNDEFINED AT THIS POINT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, AS AS, AS WE SAID AT THE, THE LAST WORKSHOP, UH, LAST WEEK, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT REALLY HADN'T THAT FEATURE OF HAVING AN EXIT PATH FOR ON THE LOAD TO EVENTUALLY NOT REQUIRE THE GENERATION REALLY HAD NOT BEEN PART OF OUR DESIGN UP TO THAT POINT. 
          AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S A QUESTION WE'VE ANSWERED YET IS UM, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT EXIT PATH WOULD ALLOW FOR EITHER OF THOSE CHOICES OR HOW WE WOULD TREAT THAT. 
          SO, UM, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL PROBABLY LOOK TO BRING BACK FURTHER, FURTHER DOWN THE LINE. 
          OKAY. 
          ONE LAST QUESTION IS, I THINK THERE 
          [05:30:01]
IS ALSO A USE CASE, AND THIS IS PROBABLY ON DEVELOPERS, IS TO COMBINE BYOG AND CLR AT A SINGLE POINT OF INTERCONNECTION WHERE YOU DESIGN ONE IS TO ONE AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE A CLR AND YOU PUT THEM TOGETHER AND SUBMIT IT AT A SINGLE POI WILL  ACCEPT THAT CONFIGURATIONS. 
          I, I I THINK WE'VE ALREADY RULED THAT OUT FOR BATCH ZERO. 
          I THINK THAT'S A LARGER, THERE'S NOTHING WELL SIDE KEEP ME HONEST HERE. 
          I I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE A CLR BEHIND THE METER OF A GENERATION RESOURCE. 
          UM, BUT THAT IS GONNA GET COMPLICATED FOR TREATING IT AS A SINGLE BLOB IN PLANNING. 
          AND SO AT LEAST FOR BATCH ZERO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S ON THE TABLE, BUT THEY CAN BE TWO DIFFERENT LOAD APPLICATIONS AT THE SAME POI WHERE LOAD ONE CAN BE BYOG LOAD TWO CAN BE CLR POTENTIALLY YES. 
          . 
          I HESITATE TO MAKE A BLANKET STATEMENT THERE WITHOUT KNOWING THE SPECIFICS, BUT YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, NEXT IS EVAN. 
          EVAN WITH LAN SAM. 
          UM, SO I, I AGREE WITH A LOT WITH WHAT SAM WAS SAYING ABOUT THE PUN PLUS AND THE BUSINESS AS USUAL. 
          AND I GUESS LIKE HOW I'M THINKING ABOUT IT IS I'M JUST KIND OF STRUGGLING TO FIND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO CONFIGURATIONS. 
          'CAUSE I LOOK AT THEM AND I SEE THE EXACT SAME THING. 
          SO MAYBE YOU COULD HELP ELABORATE ON WHAT YOU'RE THINKING ON HOW IT'S DIFFERENT. 
          I THINK AS, UH, JEFF ARTICULATED EARLIER THAT IT'S WOULD BE A PATH TO ASSOCIATE THE LOAD WITH GENERATION THAT HAS NOT MET 6.9 OF THE PLANNING GUIDE POTENTIALLY AS EARLY AS A BRAND NEW INR THAT WE WOULD NOT INCLUDE NORMALLY WITH THE, THE PLANNING MODELS. 
          BUT WE WOULD WITH PICKER 1 27 WHAT SAM WAS SAYING. 
          SO, SO LET ME, LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY. 
          LIKE, LIKE SAY I SUBMIT THAT INR AND I DON'T NET MY CONFIGURATION, BUT I'M, I'M THE LOAD DEVELOPER AND I SUBMIT THAT INR AND THEN IT GOES THROUGH THE PICKER 1 27 PROCESS. 
          'CAUSE WE NEED THAT GENERATION AND THAT GENERATOR GETS PUT RIGHT THERE NEXT TO MY LOAD AND NOW I GET CREDITED FOR IT. 
          G MINUS ONE. 
          I, YEAH, I, I GUESS I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN MAKE A BLANKET STATEMENT THAT THAT IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. 
          OKAY. 
          I GUESS WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS MORE. 
          THAT'S WHAT THE WORKSHOPS ARE FOR, BUT I, I AGREE. 
          I THINK SAM'S RIGHT HERE. 
          UM, AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION I GUESS I HAVE IS, ARE WE THINKING ABOUT THIS ONLY AND KIND OF HOW Y'ALL ARE DESCRIBING AS FOR FUTURE GENERATION PROJECTS OR ARE THERE ANY CONSIDERATION FOR EXISTING GENERATION PROJECTS? 'CAUSE I THINK IF YOU ISOLATED TO EXISTING GENERATION PROJECTS, THEN THESE DEFINITELY ARE THE SAME. 
          NO, I THINK WE, I THINK WE STATED IN THE LAST WORKSHOP THAT UM, ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY MET 6.91, WE WOULD CONSIDER TO NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS BECAUSE AT THAT POINT WE'RE ALREADY PLANNING THE SYSTEM WITH THAT GENERATION THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          I I PROBABLY JUST MISSED IT LAST WORKSHOP. 
          SO THAT MEANS WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE CHANGING THE PARADIGM OF HOW WE'VE BEEN DOING IT, WHERE IF WE REQUEST A LOAD CO-LOCATED WITH AN EXISTING RESOURCE, WE'RE NOT GONNA TURN ALL THE EXISTING RESOURCE OFF. 
          WE'LL KEEP IT ON IN THE STUDY. 
          UM, I DON'T SEE THAT AS A DIFFERENCE THAN HOW WE'RE DOING IT, BUT, UM, WELL, WELL TODAY, I MEAN, IT'S BEEN A MINUTE, IT'S BEEN ABOUT A YEAR SINCE I WORKED WITH YOU . 
          UM, BUT IF YOU REQUEST A NEW LOAD BEHIND AN EXISTING GENERATOR, THE STATUS QUO HAS BEEN, YOU TURN THOSE GENERATORS OFF, WHETHER IT'S ONE GENERATOR OR MULTIPLE GENERATORS. 
          NO. 
          OR JUST THE G MINUS ONE. 
          SO JUST SINGLE OKAY. 
          D ONE OR ANY, YEAH, I DON'T THINK YOU TURN OUT THE WHOLE PLANT. 
          UH, ESSENTIALLY ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS G MINUS ONE PLUS AND MINUS ONE, WHICH YOU DO FOR ANY OTHER LOAD, WHETHER BEHIND THE METER OR NOT. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL I STAND CORRECTED. 
          THANKS. 
          HARSH. 
          ALL RIGHT, SHANNON. 
          CONCEPTUALLY I AGREE WITH MOST, MOST ALL THE COMMENTS THAT BILL MADE AND SEVERAL OTHERS HERE, BUT IN, IN MY MIND I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS SELF-LIMITED, IS IT SELF-LIMITING INITIALLY TO GET THERE QUICKLY BUT TO BECOME MORE FLEXIBLE? BRING YOUR OWN GENERATION MUCH LIKE A PUN IS, UM, OR PUN PLUS. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUN AND PUN PLUS IS JUST BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH ECONOMY OR 
          [05:35:01]
ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF GETTING THIS STUFF TO WHERE IT'S DISPATCHABLE AND, AND BECOMES LIKE IT WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN IF IT WAS TO IN, YOU KNOW, AN INDEPENDENT GENERATOR, AN INDEPENDENT LOAD THAT SHOWED UP AT THE SAME NODE. 
          SO CONCEPTUALLY, THAT'S HOW I'M THINKING ABOUT IT. 
          RUNNING THROUGH YOUR QUESTIONS. 
          UM, HOW SHOULD DO YOUR, I'M GONNA CALL IT, UH, A, B, C AND D YOU KNOW, HERE FOR FIRST BLUE BOX IS A, SO IF A TWO, HOW SHOULD SINGLE UH, SELF-LIMITING FACILITIES PERCENT GENERATION AND LOAD TO THEIR CUT SYSTEMS COPS, OUTAGE, COORDINATION, ET CETERA? THE WAY I'M THINKING ABOUT IT IS THEY SHOULD SUBMIT, UH, IN THE LONG RUN, THEY SHOULD BE SUBMITTING THOSE, WHETHER YOU REALLY NEED IT IN THE BEGINNING, YOU KNOW, WHILE YOU'VE TRULY SELF-LIMITING, MAYBE YOU DON'T, IF YOU'RE GONNA LIMIT YOURSELF TO ZERO, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DON'T DO THAT RIGHT FROM THE OUTSET BECAUSE THEN IT DOESN'T LIMIT YOU TO HAVING TO PICK ZERO IS THE ANSWER ON SOME OF THESE LATER ONES. 
          SO I WOULD SAY YES, THEY SHOULD, THEY SHOULD BE REPRESENTED BY QSE AND THEY SHOULD BE DOING ALL OF THOSE THINGS. 
          UM, BOTH COP OUTAGE COORDINATION. 
          UH, THE SECOND CATEGORY HERE, CAN THE REVERSE POWER, UH, ABOVE ZERO MEGAWATTS BE SUPPORTED? I, I CERTAINLY HOPE SO. 
          THE WAY I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS IS I'M BRINGING LOAD, I'M BRINGING GENERATION UNLESS I'M BRINGING IT TO A NODE THAT HAS EXACTLY ZERO CAPABILITY TO SERVE ANY LOAD WITHOUT THIS GENERATION, WHICH YOU MIGHT BE DOING THAT, BUT A WHOLE LOT OF THE TIME THERE'LL BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SERVED THERE, MAYBE NOT VERY MUCH UNLESS YOU'RE BRINGING IT TO THAT TYPE OF SCENARIO. 
          THE WAY I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT IS YOU'LL BE STUDYING THE LOAD UP TO WHAT IT CAN BE SERVED WITHOUT ANY OF THAT GENERATION AND THEN ABOVE SOME THRESHOLD, I'LL MAKE IT UP 127 MEGAWATTS. 
          YOU'RE GONNA NEED SOME AMOUNT OF, UH, GENERATION THERE AND BE AT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE SELF-LIMITING FACILITIES SAYING, OR THE BRING YOUR OWN GENERATION SAYING THEY'LL BRING, AND IN THAT CASE, IN THAT EXAMPLE, THE LIMIT SET AT 127 MEGAWATTS, NOT AT ZERO. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WOULD HOPE OTHERWISE I, I THINK WE'RE PUTTING A HIGHER HURDLE HERE FOR BRING YOUR OWN GENERATION THAN WE WOULD WITH JUST LOAD WHO DIDN'T BRING ANYTHING. 
          AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S CONCEPTUALLY WHAT YOU'D WANT. 
          THIRD, THIRD QUESTION IN THAT, UM, SECOND CATEGORY, ARE THERE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES? SO YOU'RE NOT CALLING IT A RAZ, I ASKED THIS AS AN OPEN QUESTION A LITTLE BIT TO JEFF IN OUR LAST MEETING AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD TIME TO LOOK AT IT. 
          I CERTAINLY HAVEN'T EITHER, BUT I, I RECALLED BACK THAT 20 PLUS YEARS AGO WHEN ELLIS RANKIN WAS IN CHARGE OF OPERATIONS AT ENCORE, HE HAD RAN THROUGH ROS AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS STILL EXISTS OR NOT. 
          SO I'M, AGAIN, IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION, THE CONCEPT OF WHERE, WHEN IT'S ALL OCCURRING AT THE SAME SUBSTATION. 
          SO THERE'S NO REMOTE MONITORING, NO ANYTHING. 
          ALL OF YOUR SENSING CAN BE AT THE STATION WHERE, UH, THE ACTION'S BEING TAKEN THAT IT'S NOT CLASSIFIED AS ARAZ. 
          IF THAT STILL EXISTS, THEN I THINK HERE THERE ARE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES. 
          IT'S THAT AS LONG AS YOU STICK WITHIN THAT CATEGORY, IT'S NOT DEFINED AS A RAZ. 
          IF THAT'S STILL THE CASE, THEN IT ALLOWS SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST REVERSE POWER RELAYS. 
          NEXT CATEGORY, YOUR IMPLICATIONS FOR SLF DESIGN. 
          SHOULD SLF BE LIMITED TO ZERO WITHDRAWAL? AGAIN, NO, FOR THE REASONS I JUST STATED. 
          AND THEN LASTLY, IN THAT THIRD CATEGORY, SHOULD THERE BE A MAXIMUM LOAD IN GENERATION SIZE BASED ON TRANSMISSION NETWORK? UM, AND YOU GAVE A PRETTY, PRETTY BIG EXTREME EXAMPLE. 
          THE THING I WAS THINKING THERE IS IN YOUR CURRENT PICKER ONE 15 PROCESS, UM, ONE OF THE STUDIES THAT GETS DONE IS ON A, YOU KNOW, AN N MINUS. 
          THERE'S THE 125% LIMIT. 
          SO ON AN N MINUS ONE MINUS ONE, MAKING SURE YOU'RE NOT OVER 125% OF THE BRANCH RATING. 
          SO YOU DON'T, UM, RUN THE RISK OF TRIPPING EVEN THE LOWEST OF LOW SETTINGS FOR OVER CURRENT RELAYS. 
          TO ME, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT ONE'S PRETTY DARN CONSERVATIVE BUT, AND COULD BE HIGHER. 
          BUT TODAY YOU ALREADY DO THAT. 
          WHY DON'T YOU APPLY THAT SAME LOGIC HERE AND AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T TAKE YOU ON AN N MINUS ONE BASIS OR GN MINUS ONE G MINUS ONE ABOVE 125% OF THE LIMITING BRANCH, THEN IT'S FINE. 
          BUT IF IT'S TAKING YOU TO 270% OR 
          [05:40:01]
SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE IT'S GONNA TRIP IN, IN NO TIME, THEN THAT'S JUST TOO BIG AND YOU ALREADY HAVE A CRITERIA YOU'RE USING FOR THAT. 
          THANKS FOR FRAMING ALL THESE UP. 
          THAT'S HOW I WAS THINKING ABOUT 'EM. 
          ALRIGHT, THANKS. 
          APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. 
          ALRIGHT, IAN, MATT, UM, COUPLE THOUGHTS. 
          ONE IS IF THEY ARE GOING TO, OKAY, SO BACK UP. 
          I LOVE BILL'S IDEA. 
          YES, IF THEY ARE SELF-LIMITING, NEVER EXPORTING, NEVER IMPORTING EXCEPT FOR THE STATION LOAD. 
          BOOM. 
          DONE. 
          EASY RUBBER STAMP. 
          OKAY. 
          I THINK THOUGH IF THEY WERE TO DO THAT, THEY NEED TO, THEY NEED TO UM, IN SOME WAY AFFIRM THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE THAT. 
          BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A DAY WHERE SOMETHING ON THAT GENERATOR BREAKS AND IT MAY BE AN OWNER OR TWO DOWN THE LINE THAT DOESN'T REALIZE THAT THE SITE IS REGISTERED IN THAT DAY IN THAT WAY AND THEY ARE VERY UPSET THAT FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS THEY CANNOT RUN THEIR SITE. 
          UM, SO I I THINK IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE SELECTED AND SIGNED OR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IF THEY'RE GONNA DO IT THAT WAY. 
          YEP. 
          TYPE AGREED. 
          AND THEN, UM, MY THOUGHT IS IS IF MY THOUGHT IS THERE IS A LOT OF BENEFITS TO THE GRID TO RUN TRANSMISSION THAT CAN HANDLE THE FULL OUTPUT OF FULL GEN OR FULL LOAD, UM, TO THAT SITE FOR THE FUTURE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL THE GRID. 
          UM, SO IT, IT MAY BE THAT MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT THEY HAVE TO SELECT THAT THEY DO NOT WANT THAT TRANSMISSION RUN. 
          UM, AND IF NOT IT IS ASSUMED THAT TRANSMISSION WILL BE RUN. 
          NOW THE TIMELINE ON THAT, ET CETERA, I'M VERY OPEN IF THAT'S A BATCH ONE OR BATCH TWO, UM, I LEAVE THAT UP TO ER CAP BUT JUST SOME THOUGHTS AROUND THAT. 
          THAT'S GOOD. 
          I WILL GO BACK A SLIDE JUST, IT'S KIND OF IRONIC THAT YOU, THE END GAME ON THIS, IT MAY START OFF AS A SELF-LIMITING FACILITY, BUT ONCE IT'S BILLED OUT AND IT'S A LOAD WITH THESE FIVE GENERATORS, IT IS G MINUS ONE N MINUS ONE AND IT IS ITS THING AND THAT SELF-LIMITING IS THAT WHAT WE'RE THINKING IS CAN BE REMOVED. 
          SO THEN IT JUST BECOMES A THING IS A FACILITY , I WON'T EVEN TRY TO PUT A ACRONYM ON IT 'CAUSE IT'S LOADED QUESTION, BUT YOU SAID YOU SAID PUN NOT ME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO ANYWAYS, BUT I, I'M SAYING THIS, WE'RE SEEING THIS, I ALMOST WANNA CALL THIS PROVISIONAL SELF-LIMITING FACILITY OR BECAUSE HERE'S THE THING, I THINK ON THIS ONE, THE TOP ONE, WE WON'T BUILD WIRES TO IT 'CAUSE IT'S IN MINUS ONE G MINUS ONE SECURE. 
          IF THAT'S THE END GAME, THE ONE BELOW MAY NEED WIRES TO IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT G MINUS ONE SUPPORTING OF THE LOAD. 
          IF THEY LOSE A GENERATOR, THEY'RE GONE OR HALF THE LOAD'S GONE. 
          SO DOES THAT ONE NEED A WIRE? SO IT IS THIS QUESTION OF PUT SUPPLEMENT A BOX FOR NOW WHILE WE FIGURE ALL THIS OUT AND THAT'S A PLACE THAT THEY CAN LIVE AND GROW THE SITE WHILE WE FIGURE OUT THE REST OF THE RULES. 
          BUT THAT'S MATT'S SIMPLE MIND AND THESE GUYS STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ALL THE TIME. 
          SO. 
          ALRIGHT, UH, NEXT IN LINE WAS BOB KING, BILL BARNES, THANK YOU FOR THIS ARRANGEMENT. 
          THE BYOG SELF-LEARNING FACILITY AT, UM, CONFIRMING THERE WOULD BE NO EXPORT LIMIT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? JUST AN IMPORT LIMIT? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          WE TALKED ABOUT NET ZERO JUST BOTH SIDES AT FIRST. 
          OH YOU DID? OKAY. 
          I WILL, I WILL JUST SAY TODAY THAT IT I THINK IS, IS CURRENTLY POSSIBLE ON A SELF-LIMITING FACILITY TO HAVE A SELF-LIMITING FACILITY WITH ONLY AN IMPORT LIMIT AND NO EXPORT LIMIT. 
          AND SO THAT POTENTIALLY MAY BE POSSIBLE HERE, BUT YOU KNOW THAT ON THE FOOTNOTE I HAD ON THE CLR SLIDES, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS IS ALL VERY MUCH UNDER INTERNAL DISCUSSION STILL. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          AND UH, JUST TO KIND OF RESTATE WHAT SAM, EVAN, EVAN LEFT AND SHANNON AGREE WITH THE POINTS THAT THEY MADE ABOUT HOW THIS A SLF IS NOT A, IT'S NOT REALLY AN EFFICIENT CONFIGURATION IF IT'S PERMANENT, COMPLETELY AGREE WITH ALL THEIR COMMENTS IF IT'S PERMANENT, BUT THAT'S NOT, WHAT I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS IT'S TEMPORARY IN NATURE BECAUSE IF YOU'VE GOT A LARGE LOAD PAIRED WITH A GENERATION, WHETHER IT BE A GAS PLANT OR A BATTERY, LIKE WHAT'S MOST EFFICIENT FOR THE ERCOT SYSTEM IS WHEN THIS EXCESS GENERATION THROUGH RENEWABLES, YOU WOULD RAMP THE GENERATION DOWN THAT LOAD WOULD CONSUME LOW COST ELECTRICITY AND VICE VERSA. 
          YOU WOULD, EVERYONE SHOULD WANT THE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF HOW THAT SITE'S OPERATED. 
          BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT NOW IS WHAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET DONE MODEL AND PUT INTO BATCH ZERO, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CONSTRAINT IS REALLY THE LINKING THE TWO FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHICH HAS NEVER HAPPENED. 
          AND I, I UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S A CONCERN. 
          I JUST WANT TO 
          [05:45:01]
GIVE A VERY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE ON WHAT I HOPE WE ARE ALL KIND OF PADDLING TOWARDS, WHICH WOULD BE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. 
          YOU'VE GOT A THOUSAND MEGAWATT LOAD, A THOUSAND MEGAWATT GENERATOR, UM, AND IN BATCH ZERO BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET ALL THE RULES IN PLACE FOR HOW WE WOULD OPERATE THAT WE MAY IMPOSE A SELF LIMIT ON THAT OF AN IMPORT OF ZERO. 
          SO THAT MEANS THAT, THAT, THAT SITE CAN OPERATE IN ISLAND MODE WHERE THERE'S A GENERATION RESOURCE, UH, THAT IS REALLY LOOKS TO THE ERCOT SYSTEM LIKE ANY OTHER GENERATOR. 
          UM, IF IT'S A-T-C-G-T, YOU GOT OX LOAD, THERE'S NO IMPORT ABOVE THAT LIMIT FOR THE, FOR THE LARGE LOAD. 
          AND THEN AFTER BATCH ZERO WE FIGURE OUT A, I'M GONNA CALL IT CONDITIONAL SLF CONDITIONAL SELF LIMING FACILITY WHERE IT CAN OPERATE MORE FLEXIBLY UNTIL THE TRANSMISSION IS BUILT WHERE THE ENTIRE LOAD CAN BE SERVED. 
          AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE JUST A NORMAL PUN, WHAT WOULD BE A CONDITIONAL SELF-LIMITING FACILITY? A FEW IDEAS. 
          ONE, ERCOT CAN IMPOSE AN OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT WHERE THE GENERATION HAS TO BE ONLINE AT LSL. 
          SO YOU'VE GOT, YOU'RE SITTING AT THE BOTTOM, YOU THE LOAD MAY EXCEED THAT YOU'RE CONSUMING FROM THE GRID BECAUSE PRICES ARE ZERO AND WE GOT 40 GIGS OF SOLAR. 
          THEN AT NIGHT THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM STARTS TO GET TIGHT. 
          CONGEST THE LMPS AT THE SITE GO UP, THE GENERATION STARTS TO RAMP BACK UP. 
          THERE'S NO REASON WHY YOU SHOULD IMPOSE A LIMIT ON THAT CONFIGURATION IF THE GENERATION'S AVAILABLE. 
          THE GENERATION TRIPS, WHAT I SAID, RELAYS, ACTUATE THE BREAKERS, BOOM DUMPS THE SITE. 
          'CAUSE AT THAT POINT WE'RE, WE'RE VIOLATING THE IMPORT LIMIT BECAUSE THE GENERATION'S NOT THERE TO SERVE IT OR WE HAVE A BE A BEST SYSTEM SITTING RIGHT BESIDE THE CCGT THAT'S OPERATING THAT LOAD AS ACL R, UH, COULD BE ANOTHER, UH, OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT IN THAT TEMPORARY SLF PLUS STATE UNTIL THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IS FULLY BUILT OUT AND WE CAN SERVE THE ENTIRE LOAD FROM THE GRID. 
          AND IN THAT, IN THAT CASE, ALL THE CONDITION, ALL THE CONDITIONS ARE REMOVED AND IT JUST, IT IT OPERATES LIKE A PUN. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M VISUALIZING THAT I'M HOPING WE CAN TRY TO FIGURE OUT AS WE EVOLVE THESE RULES OVER TIME. 
          THANKS. 
          WELL SAID. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT MATT, IF I COULD JUST PLEASE RESPOND TO, TO ONE COMMENT THAT BILL MADE, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT, UH, THE REASON THAT YOU KNOW, SLF IS BEING CONSIDERED IS JUST BECAUSE WE, WE DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD OPERATE THESE SITES, UM, AND TIME TO GET INTO BATCH C-R-I-I-I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE SELF-LIMITING FACILITY CONSTRUCT WOULD ALLOW FOR IS ALSO FOR US TO ASSUME THAT WE ARE NOT GOING, WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO CONNECT ENOUGH MEGAWATTS SO THAT THERE'S NOT A TRANSMISSION SECURITY RISK THERE TOO. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, ON THE SLIDE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS OF GEN THOUSAND MEGAWATTS OF LOAD. 
          UM, THAT IS NOT AS WILD OF A SUGGESTED CONFIGURATION ON A SMALL, YOU KNOW, RELATIVELY SMALL TRANSMISSION LINE AS YOU MIGHT THINK. 
          UM, WE IF, IF, IF THERE'S A, IF WE ARE TO ASSUME THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LOSS OF GENERATION OR THE SITE IS NOT GOING TO CONSUME ENOUGH TO, UH, VIOLATE THE LIMITS ON THAT, THAT INTERCONNECTION POINT AND THE LINES THERE, THERE HAS TO BE A BINDING CONSTRUCT THAT REQUIRES THAT LIMIT TO BE MAINTAINED. 
          AND SO IT, THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT, UM, CONSTRUCTING SOMETHING THAT WE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ALREADY EXISTS AND WE CAN SHOVE IT INTO BATCH ZERO. 
          IT IS ALSO A STRUCTURE THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THE RELIABILITY STUDY TO TAKE CREDIT FOR THE FACT THAT THERE IS GENERATION OFFSETTING THAT LOAD THERE. 
          AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT, UM, WE KNOW WE COMPLETELY HEAR THE STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK OF THE DESIRE FOR AN EXIT STRATEGY TO GET TO, YOU KNOW, A MORE FLEXIBLE ARRANGEMENT. 
          BUT, UM, THERE IS A, A RELIABILITY, UH, BENEFIT THAT WE'RE TAKING CREDIT FOR IN THE INTERCONNECTION STUDIES AS WELL. 
          OKAY, THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR. 
          SO, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE A NON-ZERO SELF-LIMITING FACILITY CONCEPT IS STILL ON THE TABLE FOR BATCH ZERO. 
          CONCEPTUALLY, YES. 
          UH, AS WE TR START TO WORK THROUGH THE DETAILS THAT AS MATT SAID, WE MAY, THE DOORS MAY CLOSE FURTHER. 
          I, BUT YEAH, THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT, BOB KING. 
          THANKS BOB KING FOR TRACKED AGAIN. 
          UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY IT'S GENERAL FEEDBACK. 
          WE LIKE THE PUN PLUS I THINK BECAUSE OF THE FLEXIBILITY ISSUE. 
          SO BILL'S ALREADY SAID A LOT OF WHAT I WOULD SAY. 
          I GUESS I WAS THINKING OF IT MORE AS A YES, HOPEFULLY NON-ZERO SELF-LIMITING, BUT THAT IT COULD BE SELF-LIMITING 
          [05:50:02]
ON SIGNAL FROM SC IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE CLR WOULD BE. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'VE GOT A DIFFERENT SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE GENERATION THAT'S ACTUALLY A RESOURCE AS OPPOSED TO INVISIBLE BEHIND THE METER. 
          YOU'VE GOT SYNCHRONIZED GENERATION AND LOAD. 
          UM, SO IT IS DIFFERENT, BUT YOU COULD AGAIN WITH A SCED SIGNAL, UH, LIMIT IT UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY RIGHT AWAY. 
          IF THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE, THEN I'M, I'M WITH BILL. 
          LET'S DO THAT AS SOON AS WE CAN. 
          UM, AND ON THE RAZ, I AGREE WITH WHAT SHANNON SAID, THAT FERC RULE OR NERC RULES AT THIS POINT DEFINE A RAZ AS CENTRALLY CONTROLLED. 
          SO IF IT'S BEING CONTROLLED AT THE SITE BY THE LOAD, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT'S NOT A REMEDIAL ACTION SCHEME. 
          UM, AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO SAY IS, UM, EVEN IN THE BEGINNING, THIS, IF IT'S SELF-LIMITING, HOWEVER WE DEFINE IT, UM, I'D LIKE FOR THERE TO BE THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A POI FOR THE GENERATION AND ONE OR MORE, UM, SERVICE DELIVERY POINTS FOR THE LOAD IF UNDER THE SAME RULES FOR PUN THAT IS IN THE SAME SUBSTATION AT THE SAME VOLTAGE GRID, SHOULDN'T SEE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND A SINGLE POI. 
          UM, AND THAT ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY LATER BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY INVESTED IN A SEPARATE, UM, INTERCONNECTION POINT AND, UM, OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO REBUILD THE SUBSTATION IF YOU WANNA SEPARATE 'EM OUT LATER. 
          ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU BOB. 
          THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT, SO, SAM, DO I WANNA BRING SAM UP SO THE QUEUE IS CLEAR AT THIS POINT. 
          I HAD PROMISED SAM 10 MINUTES IF WE WANTED TO GIVE THE PUN PLUS TO KEEP US, KEEP THE BRAIN JUICES GOING ON THIS ONE AND THEN I'LL FINISH, UH, HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE DONE IN THE NEXT 20 MINUTES AND UP, DOWN. 
          YEAH, THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN I, I AM INTIMATELY AWARE OF THE FACT THAT I'M HOLDING UP PEOPLE FROM LEAVING. 
          SO, UM, , OKAY, SO I MEAN THIS HAS ALREADY COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES IMPLICITLY IN THE CONVERSATIONS WE'RE HAVING, SO, UH, I FIGURED IT MIGHT JUST BE GOOD SUMMARY IF NOTHING ELSE FOR FOLKS. 
          SO FOR I GUESS REALLY BRIEF SUMMARY, YOU KNOW, THIS PUN PLUS CONCEPT, WHICH AS YOU'LL SEE IN A MOMENT, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WHOLE TERM PUN PLUS IS REALLY G PLUS ONE CONFIGURATION CO-LOCATED WITH THE LOAD. 
          SO AS LONG AS YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS YOU'RE ABLE TO LOSE YOUR SINGLE LARGEST GENERATOR AND STILL SERVE YOUR LOAD, THEN THAT SATISFIES THE EXISTING PLANNING CRITERIA, UH, ASSET FORTH UNDER NERC TPL. 
          AND SO THAT SHOULD ALLOW YOU TO BE, HAVE FULL FIRM SERVICE FROM DAY ONE BECAUSE YOU'RE OVERSIZING GENERATION IN PARALLEL WITH THE LOAD THAT YOU'RE COMMISSIONING AT THE SAME TIME. 
          AND SO THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CONTROLLABLE LOAD WHERE YOU ARE PRIVATELY MANAGING AS AVAILABLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE AND YOU'RE CUR AND YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, WILLING TO CURTAIL YOUR LOAD EITHER BY ACTUAL CURTAILMENT OF THE LOAD OR YOU'RE SWITCHING OVER TO UNSYNCHRONIZED GENERATION THAT OUR COT CAN'T SEE. 
          AND SO IF YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE A CO-LOCATED GENERATOR OR ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCE THAT'S PART OF BEHIND THE SAME POI THAT IS NOT PART OF YOUR CLR, BUT YOU CAN CO-LOCATE A GENERATOR OR AN ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCE TO HELP MANAGE THAT, THAT CONTINGENCY, UM, OR THE, THE CONSTRAINT. 
          I MEAN, AND SO HOPEFULLY THIS IS JUST HELPFUL, UM, KIND OF SUMMARY OF THE TWO STATE OF AFFAIRS BECAUSE I THINK FOLKS GET A LITTLE BIT, UH, TWISTED AROUND THE AXLE ABOUT WHAT THESE ACTUALLY MEAN. 
          UM, OKAY, SO ON PUN PLUS, THE THING THAT IS FRUSTRATING ABOUT THE CONVERSATION IS THAT THERE WAS THIS NOTION OF, YOU KNOW, WELL ROCKING THE GENERATION UNIT, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE SO THAT WE CAN'T GET THIS DONE. 
          BUT THAT IS REALLY GETTING HOOKED ON THIS DEFINITION OF A PRIVATE USE NETWORK WHERE, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE USE NETWORKS HISTORICALLY ARE TO GET A SETTLEMENT AND METERING BENEFIT. 
          IT'S NOT A PLANNING BENEFIT, IT'S NOT EVEN REALLY AN OPERATION BENEFIT. 
          UM, AND SO THE POINT IS, IS THAT YOU CAN HAVE CO-LOCATED BUT SEPARATELY REGISTERED IN METERED RESOURCES THAT COMPLETELY ABSOLVES THIS WHOLE RUCK ISSUE THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE WITH A TRADITIONAL UPPERCASE PUN. 
          UM, AND SO WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE CALLING 
          [05:55:01]
PUN PLUS PUN PLUS IT SHOULD BE BYOG PLUS BECAUSE THE, THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT YOU'RE BRINGING YOUR YOUR G PLUS ONE SECURE. 
          SO IF YOU SUFFER A G MINUS ONE OUTAGE, YOU'RE STILL, UM, ABLE TO SERVE YOUR LOAD. 
          IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE, THE HISTORICAL USE OF A PRIVATE USE NETWORK IS. 
          UM, AND SO WITH THAT IN MIND, YOU KNOW, I JOKINGLY CALL THIS THE UN NETTED NETWORK. 
          UM, BUT REALLY THIS IS JUST WHAT'S ALREADY ALLOWED IN ERCOT TODAY IS HAVING BEHIND ONE POI HAVING SEPARATELY METERED GENERATION LOAD AND ENERGY STORAGE. 
          AND THE ENERGY STORAGE PLAYS A BIG ROLE HERE IN THIS EXACT CONCEPT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE BEHIND, IF YOU'RE IN A PUN WITH A BATTERY, YOU WOULD LOSE YOUR WSL TREATMENT, WHICH IS GENERALLY PERCEIVED TO BE WHAT ALSO GETS YOU YOUR CONNECT AND MANAGED TREATMENT IN YOUR STUDY. 
          UM, AND SO UNDER A PUN, UNDER A UN NETTED NETWORK CONFIGURATION, YOU CAN, UH, HAVE THE, THE PUN PLUS BENEFIT WITHOUT ANY SORT OF RUCKING ISSUE. 
          AND THIS IS ALREADY LARGELY FEASIBLE TODAY. 
          UM, I ACTUALLY DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY IT'S NOT IMMEDIATELY FEASIBLE TODAY. 
          AND SO THE REST OF THIS PRESENTATION IS REALLY FOCUSED ON THE FACT THAT BYOG PLUS WHAT IS CONVENTIONALLY KNOWN AS PUN PLUS, AT LEAST IN THE LAST WEEK, IS A REALLY POWERFUL MECHANISM. 
          I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE, ARE KIND OF LOSING THAT IN, IN HOW DENSE THESE CONVERSATIONS ARE. 
          BUT BYOG PLUS RESOLVES TRANSMISSION SECURITY AND RESOURCE ADEQUACY ISSUES. 
          AND IF YOU ARE G PLUS ONE, THERE IS A POSITIVE SUM OUTCOME TO THIS STUDY. 
          SO REALLY BYOG PLUS RESOURCES SHOULD BE ALLOWED INTO BATCH ZERO ON THE ELECTION OF BEING A-B-Y-O-G PLUS BECAUSE OTHER LOADS WILL GET MORE DELIVERY BECAUSE YOU ARE PURSUING YOUR LOAD THIS WAY. 
          AND SO IT'S NOT A SELFISH THING, IT IS LITERALLY THERE'S BETTER DELIVERABILITY FOR EVERYBODY. 
          UM, ADDITIONALLY I WILL SAY THAT THIS NOTION OF, WELL, I'M GONNA HAVE A-B-Y-O-G PLUS, BUT I STILL WANT FIRM TRANSMISSION DELIVERED EVENTUALLY. 
          I THINK THAT IS A LITTLE NAIVE. 
          UM, AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE PATRONIZING BY ANY MEANS, BUT IT WOULD BE ABSURDLY INEFFICIENT IF EVERYBODY BUILT A BUNCH OF GENERATION ON SITE AND JUST THREW A BUNCH OF JUNK TOGETHER AND WAS LIKE, WELL I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO RELY ON THIS 'CAUSE EVENTUALLY YOU'RE GONNA DELIVER ME TRANSMISSION SERVICE THAT MAKES NO SENSE. 
          LIKE THERE HAS TO BE GENERATIONS SOMEWHERE. 
          AND SO REALLY ANY OF THIS GENERATION SHOULD BE MADE WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE QUALITY THAT ANY, YOU KNOW, IPP OUT HERE TODAY OWNS GENERATION WHERE YOU EXPECT TO OPERATE IT, IT'S AN ECONOMIC INVESTMENT AND YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE YOUR MONEY THROUGH OPERATIONS AS A FRONT OF THE METER RESOURCE. 
          THAT IS HOW WE MINIMIZE THIS WHOLE ISSUE WITH YEAR SIX PLANNING AND ANY SORT OF PERVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF PI 1 27, UM, AND JUST AVOIDING OVERBUILDING THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM TO HIGH HEAVENS. 
          UM, SO THE LAST PIECE I'LL SAY ON THIS AND UH, YOU KNOW, FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT IF YOU EVER WANNA CHAT ABOUT THIS STUFF. 
          I PUT MY CONTACT INFORMATION ON THE FRONT OF THE DECK IS IF YOU WANT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, TRANSMISSION SERVICE DELIVERED, EVENTUALLY YOU SHOULD REALLY BE THINKING ABOUT BYOG PLUS, OR IT'S REALLY BRING YOUR OWN CAPACITY PLUS BECAUSE IF YOU CO-LOCATE WITH BATTERIES, THERE'S AN EXISTING FRAMEWORK BY WHICH TRANSMISSION WILL BE BUILT TOWARDS YOUR PROJECT OVER TIME BECAUSE THE ELCC, WHICH IS THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK FOR BATTERIES, UM, YOU KNOW, DECLINES OVER TIME. 
          AND SO ONE TO DO BYOG PLUS REALLY SLF TOO, IT'S DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST CAPACITY RESOURCES LIKE BATTERIES WHERE, UM, ANY SORT OF, YOU KNOW, BE THE WHOLE CONCEPT ORIGINALLY IS TO MAKE IT SO IT'S FAIR TO OTHERWISE UNAFFILIATED GENERATION AND LOAD JUST GOING THROUGH THE TRADITIONAL LOAD INTERCONNECTION PROCESS. 
          SO IF, IF A BATTERY IS PASSED PLANNING GUIDE 6.9, IT'S GOING TO SHOW UP IN YOUR LOAD STEADY STATE CASE. 
          AND SO ALL WE'RE SAYING IS YOU SHOULD JUST BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, TIE THESE TOGETHER EARLIER AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA COME ONLINE UNTIL YOUR BATTERY IS ONLINE. 
          BUT THEN JUST LIKE HOW IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS A STANDALONE BATTERY, ONCE IT'S PASSED 6.9, YOU'RE GONNA SEE THAT THAT CAPACITY BENEFIT IN YOUR DELIVERY TO THE LOAD. 
          UM, AND SO THE POINT IS, IS THAT THIS CAPACITY BENEFIT THAT SHOWS UP IN THE STEADY STATE IS DECLINING OVER TIME BECAUSE OF ELCC. 
          SO AFTER YOUR INITIAL SERVICE DELIVERY DATE, THE, THE STEADY STATE MODELS WILL ALREADY SEE THIS EVENTUAL NEED TO DELIVER MORE TRANSMISSION TO YOUR LOCATION OVER TIME. 
          UM, 
          [06:00:01]
AND SO YEAH, OVERALL, BYOG PLUS REALLY IS THE MECHANISM THAT WE, WE SHOULD BE USING FOR, FOR, UH, BOTH SLF AND NON SLF CO-LOCATED GENERATION. 
          AND IT SHOULD BE INCLUDING STORAGE. 
          UM, THERE'S ALREADY, THERE'S REALLY, I, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY TECHNICAL REASON WHY THIS IS, AREN'T, ISN'T COMPLETELY FEASIBLE WITH EXISTING RULES TODAY, ASIDE FROM JUST TYING TOGETHER, UM, YOUR, YOUR GENERATION AND YOUR LOAD. 
          UM, AND SO YEAH, I THINK THAT LASTLY, OR YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST TO SUMMARIZE THESE CONCEPTS MAKES ALL OF THIS WORK BETTER FOR EVERYBODY. 
          AND IT, IT CREATES A VERY STRONG INCENTIVE FOR SOLVING THE RESOURCE ADEQUACY PART, UM, BY HAVING PEOPLE BRING CAPACITY RESOURCES, UM, AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE FRONT OF THE METER FACING SO THEY'RE NOT JUST BENEFITING THE OWN LOAD, THEY'RE BENEFITING THE WHOLE MARKET. 
          UM, 'CAUSE YEAH, I I DON'T THINK, YEAH, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BUILD A BUNCH OF JUNK BEHIND THE SCENES AND THEN JUST THROW IT AWAY AFTER THAT WOULD BE VERY INEFFICIENT FOR THE ENTIRE MARKET. 
          SO THAT'S ALL I GOT. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR SAM? YEAH, GO AHEAD BILL. 
          IT'S NOT FOR SAM. 
          'CAUSE I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING SAM SAID. 
          I, MY QUESTIONS BACK TO ERCOT. 
          I'M WONDERING, I'M JUST GONNA BRING UP THIS, THE CONCEPT AGAIN. 
          UM, IF FOR BATCH ZERO ONLY, FORGET ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          IF YOU, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO ELECT TO BE A SELF-LIMITING FACILITY WITH A ZERO INTERCONNECTION ALLOWANCE, WOULD ERCOT ENTERTAIN THE NOTION THAT THAT SITE DOES NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH A BATCH STUDY AND YOU WOULD BE SLOT, YOU WOULD EVENTUALLY, IF YOU WERE GONNA TAKE ANY AMOUNT OF INTERCONNECTION FROM THE SYSTEM ABOVE ZERO, THAT YOU WOULD BE PUT INTO A BATCH AT SOME POINT YOU'RE SAYING NO, LIKE FOREVER HERE? NO, I'M SAYING HERE WE'RE GONNA ZERO. 
          WE'RE GONNA, WE HAVE A COMPLETED GENERATION INTERCONNECTION, SUITE OF STUDIES, FIS AND EVERYTHING. 
          WE'RE GONNA ENERGIZE THE GENERATOR, WE'RE GONNA BRING THE DATA CENTER ONLINE, IT'S GONNA HAVE A ZERO IMPORT RESTRICTION, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA BE, WE'LL HAVE THE COMBINED SITE OR THE LOAD SITE, WHATEVER YOU GUYS WOULD WANNA SEE IN A LATER BATCH. 
          AND WE'RE OPERATING IT UNTIL THAT GETS APPROVED AND THEN YOU START TO LIFT THE RESTRICTIONS, UM, LATER. 
          I, I I THINK WE WOULD, UM, MY MY THINKING IS THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO INCLUDE THAT IN A BATCH SO THAT YOU'RE IDENTIFYING THE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES. 
          YOU WOULD, IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO GET OUT OF THAT. 
          I'M, YEAH, I'M, WE TRY TO EXPLAIN IT BETTER. 
          WE WOULD, BUT I, I DON'T UNDER, I DON'T SEE WHAT WOULD, UH, PREVENT THE SITE FROM BEING APPROVED TO ENERGIZE BEFORE WAITING ON THE OUTCOME OF BATCH. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU GUYS WOULD EVEN BE STUDYING IN THAT CASE. 
          SO YEAH, IDEALLY SITES IN BATCH ZERO, BUT WE'VE GOT, WE'VE COMPLETED THE GIS, IT'S READY TO GO. 
          WE'VE GOT THROUGH ALL THREE PARTS OF COMMISSIONING, THE LOAD, THE DATA CENTER'S BUILT, AND IT'S SITTING THERE WITH THE, WITH THE ZERO IMPORT, UH, RESTRICTION ON IT. 
          WOULD THAT SOMETHING ERCOT WOULD APPROVE TO ENERGIZE AND THEN THE LOAD WOULD HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE BATCH STUDIES TO, TO PROCEED. 
          SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. 
          I KNOW, I'M JUST THROWING THIS AT THE END OF THE DAY. 
          NO, THIS IS EVAN. 
          YEAH, SO THE DATA CENTER WOULD HAVE NO, NO NEED TO BE STUDIED FOR STABILITY OR DYNAMICS. 
          GOT A ZERO INPUT, CAN'T PULL FROM THE GRID AT ALL. 
          YEAH, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T INTERACT. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY, THANKS. 
          ALRIGHT, KENNETH? UH, YES, I WAS GONNA RESPOND TO BILL'S QUESTION. 
          I THINK THE OTHER THING WE'VE ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT IS A REVERSE POWER RELAY THERE TOO. 
          SO IT'S NOT JUST A PROMISE, THERE'S ALSO THIS RELAY THERE THAT WILL PREVENT YOU FROM WITHDRAWING FROM THE GRID. 
          AND THEN AT A HIGHER LEVEL, I GUESS WHAT I KEEP HEARING IS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN DO THIS SELF-LIMITING FACILITY TO GET THINGS GOING AND THROUGH TIME YOU CAN TRANSFORM BY HAVING THE LIMITS CHANGE TO INTO YOUR FAVOR. 
          SO AT THE BEGINNING YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE BOTH A WITHDRAWAL LIMIT AND AN INJECTION LIMIT. 
          AND AS TIME GOES BY AND TRANSMISSION IS BUILT, THEN THOSE LIMITS CHANGE AND EVENTUALLY YOU CAN FREE YOURSELF OF THE, OF THE LIMITS. 
          LOVE IT. 
          THANK YOU KENNETH. 
          BE FREE. 
          SHANNON . 
          SHANNON, GO AHEAD. 
          AGAIN, TRYING TO THINK ABOUT WHAT BILL WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT AND MAYBE SIMILAR TO WHAT KEN WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, IN MY MIND I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS FOR CONCEPT TO BATCH ZERO. 
          [06:05:02]
WHY ISN'T THAT FOR, UH, A PAIRED, YOU KNOW, BRING YOUR OWN GENERATION? WHY ISN'T IT THAT THE LOAD IS STUDIED ALMOST AS IF IT'S A ALLOCATION AND WHATEVER AMOUNT CAN BE SERVED TO IT WITHOUT ITS OWN GEN? THAT'S THE AMOUNT IT CAN PULL FROM THE GEN, FROM THE NETWORK SECURELY. 
          AND THEN FOR ANYTHING ABOVE THAT, IT'S, IT'S GOT TO HAVE BROUGHT THAT AMOUNT OF GENERATION, UM, TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. 
          SO IN THE EXAMPLE WHERE WE HAD THE SIX OR FIVE, 200 AND SOMETHING MEGAWATT GENERATORS BACK IN THAT EXAMPLE OVER THERE, WHEREVER IT IS, MAYBE IF WE USE IT AS EXAMPLE YEAH. 
          ONE OF THE TOP RIGHT IN THIS CASE, IT IT'S, WE KNOW WE CAN ALL LOOK AT IT AND KNOW IT'S SECURE IF WE ASSUME THAT NO AMOUNT OF LOAD COULD BE SERVED FROM THE GRID, BUT IF YOU'RE RUNNING THAT LOAD THROUGH AS IF IT WERE ALLOCATED, THE RIGHT ANSWER MIGHT BE, OR THE TRUE ANSWER MIGHT BE 125 MEGAWATTS COULD HAVE BEEN SERVED, UH, FROM THE GRID SECURELY. 
          AND THEN IT'S AS IF 1 25 BECOMES THE BASELINE IN THIS EXAMPLE THAT WE'VE GOT INSTEAD OF ZERO. 
          AND THAT'S IN YEAR ONE. 
          IN YEAR TWO OF THE ALLOCATED IT MIGHT BE TWO 50 AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. 
          SO THAT TO GET TO THESE HIGHER LEVELS, YOU KNOW, IN ADVANCE, UH, THIS IS ALSO BACK TO BAR BROAD'S POINT EARLIER OF HOW MUCH GEN DO I NEED TO BE BRINGING, UH, TO SUPPORT A RAMP THAT IS VERY QUICKLY BRINGING THE, THE TRANSMISSION THAT COMES WITH IT. 
          BUT IT BECOMES YOUR WAY PRIVATELY OF BECOMING MORE FIRM, FIRM FOR MORE FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME AND, BUT LET IT BE STUDIED AS IF IT'S ALLOCATED AND FOR, UM, IN THE, IN THE, UM, BATCH ZERO OR BATCH PROCESS. 
          SO THAT INSTEAD OF JUST ASSUMING ZERO, WE GET THE RIGHT NUMBER FOR WHAT THE GRID COULD HAVE SUPPORTED. 
          DOES THAT SEEM LIKE THAT WOULD WORK OR AM I MISSING SOMETHING THERE? YEAH, THAT'S ACTUALLY THE PATH WE STARTED DOWN. 
          WE ORIGINALLY HAD THIS UP HERE WAS THE IDEA LAST WEEK. 
          GOSH, IT WAS ONLY THREE BUSINESS DAYS AGO, RIGHT? I MEAN THE STUFF'S GOING SO FAST, IT'S MIND BLOWING, WHICH WAS WE HAD PUT A HUNDRED MEGAWATT LIMIT THINKING THAT WAS THE ALLOCATION. 
          AND THEN AS WE WALKED DOWN THE IDEA OF IT'S LOAD TO BE SERVED AND WHETHER OR NOT THE REVERSE POWER RELAY WORKS AND WE TALKED ABOUT RAZ AND CONTROL ROOM AWARENESS, THAT'S WHEN THE COMPLEXITIES SAID, LET'S ROLL BACK TO JUST A ZERO TO SEE IF WE NEED TO SURVIVE ON THAT CONCEPT TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          SO I DON'T THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, WE JUST TO THE DEGREE THAT LOCAL LIMITING IS NOT, UM, DEFINED AS RAZ, WHICH WAS WHAT I THINK THE CASE IS. 
          AND I CAN'T SAY WITH CERTAINTY, BOB SEEMS TO THINK IT IS TOO. 
          TO THE DEGREE THAT'S THE CASE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO LIMIT OURSELVES TO ZERO. 
          I RESERVE THE RIGHT, I COULD BE MISSING SOMETHING, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO WE'LL HIT THE QUEUE. 
          LET'S SEE IF WE CAN WRAP IT UP HERE. 
          BROTH AND THEN BILL. 
          OKAY. 
          SAME, SAME DESIRE. 
          OKAY. 
          BILL JUST RESPONDED TO EVAN. 
          I'M BACK ON THE SELF LIMING FACILITIES, SELF LIMING FACILITY, ZERO INTERCONNECTION OR ZERO IMPORT, UM, WITHDRAWAL LIMB, EXCUSE ME. 
          THE NEED TO GO THROUGH A STUDY. 
          IF YOU, IT'S POSSIBLE YOU COULD HAVE THAT THE CCGT SYNCHRONOUSLY CONNECTED AND THE DATA CENTER SITS BEHIND A DC INTERCONNECTION, THEN THE LOAD WOULDN'T TOUCH THE GRID AT ALL. 
          I THINK THERE'S JUST A LOT MORE TO TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF WE PROBABLY NEED A WHOLE WORKSHOP ON BYOG CONFIGURATIONS AND WHAT ALL WE COULD DREAM UP FOR SOME OTHER TIME IN THE FUTURE. 
          UM, BUT I POINT IS FOR BATCH ZERO, WE SEE THE NEED TO SIMPLIFY. 
          WE CAN LIVE WITH AN SLF AS LONG AS WHAT I'M HEARING, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE EVERYONE'S IN AGREEMENT WITH, WE CAN MOVE TO A MORE FLEXIBLE ARRANGEMENT LATER ON. 
          THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. 
          SO APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATIONS. 
          I BET. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          AND THE GOOD NEWS WE HAVE ALL THE WAY UNTIL APRIL 9TH UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING, SO THAT'S, UH, NEXT THURSDAY. 
          IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR CALENDAR, IT FEELS LIKE A, A VACATION ALMOST FOR OUR, SOME OF OUR STAFF. 
          UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS TO TAKE CARE OF TODAY? 'CAUSE OTHERWISE WE WERE READY TO COME BACK. 
          LEMME JUST SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, BARATH, I HAD, YOU HAD TAKEN ON THE VOLUNTEERING OF, LET ME CLARIFY WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER ON THE FINANCIAL PIECE. 
          IT WAS JUST AN, UM, TO UNDERSTAND THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AROUND THE COMMISSION RULES ON 5 8, 4 8 1, WHAT THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS LOOK LIKE. 
          IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE. 
          IT'S NOT THE, AND WE SHOULD DO THIS AND WE SHOULD DO THAT. 
          IT'S JUST THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS WHAT WE ARE SEEING. 
          IF IT HELPS PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND LIKE A DIAGRAM FOLLOW YES. 
          YEAH. 
          DIAGRAM 
          [06:10:01]
OF FOLLOWING THE MONEY TYPE THING. 
          YES, PLEASE. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE BRIEF AND AMAZING WOULD BE A WONDERFUL TOOL FOR EVERYONE ELSE. 
          UH, AGAIN, WE'LL COME BACK. 
          UH, THE, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN THE MEANTIME IS ERCOT RELEASING ITS COMMENTS. 
          SO AGAIN, WE'RE DIVING THE, THE REST OF THE WEEK IS A HEAVY LIFT FOR ERCOT TO COMPLETE THE 20 PLUS SET OF COMMENTS TO BAKE IN AND RELEASE SOMETHING. 
          AND JEFF TALKED ABOUT WHAT, WHAT DAY WERE WE TARGETING TO RELEASE THE NEXT VERSION OF COMMENTS OR OR ASPIRATION IS FOR THURSDAY. 
          YES. 
          PRACTICAL MAY BE FRIDAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT STILL SOUNDS PRETTY GOOD TO ME. 
          AND SO THEN, UH, THE MARKET WILL HAVE THE WEEKEND, AND AGAIN, WE'LL TAKE IT RIGHT UP UNTIL WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON JUST SO EVERYONE CAN SEE COMMENTS AND WE CAN MAKE A SPACE IF THE PRIORITY OF IT WORKS OUT. 
          UM, AS WE COME BACK, WE COULD STILL DO THAT FIVE MINUTE HIT WHERE EVERYONE CAN SAY, STATE THEIR THING. 
          UH, AND THEN AGAIN, JUST A REMINDER, AFTER APRIL 9TH, THIS JUST DROPS INTO ROS MEETINGS, SPECIAL R OS MEETINGS GOING FORWARD. 
          SO IF YOU START TO LOSE TRACK OF WHAT'S NEXT, APRIL IS PACKED, USE THIS DIAGRAM TO KNOW WHERE WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS IT. 
          THIS COMING ROS IS GONNA BE MORE OF AN UPDATE ON THESE ARE THE POLICIES WE'RE ISSUING. 
          WE'RE NOT GONNA DO A DEEP DIVE AT ROS, UM, NEXT WEEK. 
          SO ANY OTHER FINAL QUESTIONS? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COMMENTS ON THE PIGGER 1 45? CORRECT. 
          WE JUST COVERED COMMENTS HERE TODAY ON THE PIGGER AND THEN WE'RE TAKING COMMENTS ON THE PIGGER NEXT WEEK. 
          SO THIS IS WHERE RS TAC AND PRS ALL AGREED THAT THE WORKSHOPS CONTINUE TO CARRY THE WATER ON DISPOSING OF COMMENTS UNTIL WE TURN IT OVER TO THE WORKSHOPS, UNTIL WE TURN IT OVER TO THE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. 
          THANKS. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU BET. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THE LONG DAY. 
          ON A MONDAY WE STAND ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.