* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:03] ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS SUSIE CLIFTON WITH ERCOT. UM, IF YOU'RE HERE IN THE MEETING ROOM, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR SEATS. WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. I WILL GO THROUGH THE MEETING REMINDERS VERY QUICKLY. UM, IF YOU ARE HERE IN THE MEETING ROOM, YOU CAN ENTER YOURSELF INTO THE CHAT. WE ARE USING THE CHAT FUNCTIONALITY TO QUEUE FOR MOTIONS OR FOR DISCUSSION ITEMS. IF YOU ARE ON THE WEBEX, OBVIOUSLY YOU'LL NEED TO ENTER YOURSELF. UM, BUT AGAIN, AS I STARTED TO SAY WITH THOSE IN THE ROOM, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO ENTER YOURSELF, OR IF YOU HOLD UP YOUR CARD, BRITTANY'S IN THE RIGHT HAND CORNER AND SHE WILL ENTER YOU INTO THE CHAT. PLEASE WAIT FOR THE CHAIR TO RECOGNIZE YOU BEFORE YOU BEGIN SPEAKING. ADDITIONALLY, AS WE GO THROUGH THE BALLOTING PROCESS, IF YOU'RE ON THE WEBEX AND VOTING, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF AS WE APPROACH YOUR SEGMENT. AND THEN AFTER YOU'VE CAST YOUR VOTE, PLEASE RETURN TO THAT MUTE FUNCTION THAT WILL HELP US BE A LITTLE EFFICIENT WITH THE BALLOTING PROCESS. AND THEN IF YOU'RE HERE IN PERSON TODAY, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO SIGN IN AND THE SIGN IN SHEET OUTSIDE THE MEETING ROOM SO THAT WE CAN CAPTURE YOUR ATTENDANCE HERE IN THE MEETING MINUTES. AND FINALLY, IF THE WEBEX ENDS FOR ANY REASON, GIVE US JUST A FEW MOMENTS AND WE WILL RESTART THE WEBEX WITH THE SAME MEETING DETAILS. OR IF THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT, WE'LL SEND IT TO THE TAC LIST SERVE. AND WITH THAT, CAITLIN, I CAN CONFIRM WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AND ALREADY AT YOUR CONVENIENCE. ALL RIGHT, THANKS, SUSIE. I HEARD SOME CHATTER WHILE YOU WERE TALKING, BUT HOPEFULLY EVERYONE WAS LISTENING. UM, IT IS APRIL 29TH. THIS IS OUR REGULAR APRIL TECH MEETING. WE'RE IN PERSON AND WE HAVE A BIG MEETING. WE ARE GOING TO START TO VOTE ON SOME OF OUR PRIORITY ITEMS FOR JUNE BOARD, AND IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE WONDERFUL. SO, UM, LET'S GET READY. AND I'M GONNA DO THE ANTITRUST FIRST, SO I'M NOT JUST CHATTERING. BEFORE WE DO THE ANTITRUST. TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS [1. Antitrust Admonition] ABOUT ANTITRUST LIABILITY, PARTICIPANTS IN ERCOT ACTIVITIES SHOULD REFRAIN FROM PROPOSING ANY ACTION OR MEASURE THAT WOULD EXCEED ERCOT AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. THERE'S MORE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE. UM, COUPLE OF AGENDA NOTES, UH, THIS MONTH FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS THAT DON'T HAVE VOTING ITEMS, WE ARE WHAT, OKAY. UM, SO AGENDA FOR SUB SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS THAT DON'T HAVE VOTING ITEMS, UH, R-M-S-W-M-S AND CFSG, WE ARE NOT GONNA TAKE UP THOSE REPORTS ON, ON CFSG. WE'LL TAKE UP THE ONE VOTING ITEM ON THE MEMBERSHIP. AND THEN IF PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS, UM, WE'LL, WE'LL KIND OF ANNOUNCE A TIME WHERE YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS ON THOSE FILED REPORTS. UM, ON THE PRIORITY REVISION REQUESTS, THE PLAN IS TO TAKE UP NPR 1309 AND NOER 2 83, BOTH OF THOSE ON DRRS, UNDER THE PRS REPORT. BUT TO TAKE UP NPR 1308 AND NOER 2 82, BOTH OF THOSE ON VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH UNDER THE ROSS REPORT. AND MY SORT OF DREAM IS THAT WE WILL FINISH THOSE TWO VOTING ITEMS BEFORE LUNCH. MAYBE A LATE LUNCH. UM, BUT WE WILL SEE HOW THAT GOES. AND THEN FINALLY, ON THE PRIORITY REVISION REQUESTS THAT WE'RE NOT VOTING ON TODAY, UM, 13, 15 AND BATCH ZERO, WE ARE GONNA TAKE THOSE UP AT THE END OF THE AGENDA, SO AFTER COMBO BALLOT, SO WE CAN KIND OF SPEND WHATEVER TIME LEFT AND APPROPRIATE ON THE BATCH ZERO DISCUSSION ALT REPS AND PROXIES TODAY IN THE, UH, INDUSTRIAL CONSUMER SEGMENT. UH, GARRETT KENT HAS HIS GI HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO MIKE REED STARTING AT 1:00 PM WE WILL STILL BE GOING THEN, UM, IN THE CO-OP SEGMENT, MIKE WISE, HIS ALT REP, JOE DAN WILSON, IN THE INDEPENDENT POWER MARKETER SEGMENT, REMI HAS ALT REP SHANE THOMAS IN THE RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDER SEGMENT. UM, JAY HARPO HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO BILL BARNES AT 3:00 PM WE WILL STILL BE GOING. UM, AND IN THE IOU SEGMENT, KEITH NICKS HIS ALT REP, ROB BEVEL. AND THEN, UH, THEME OF THE MONTH, IT IS THE CO-OPS TURN. BLAKE, YOU LOOK READY? YEAH. DO YOU WANT TO HAVE FUN TODAY, CAITLYN? YES. OKAY. OKAY. HERE'S THE SUGGESTION. UH, RHYME TIME TECH. SO THERE ARE TWO LEVELS TO THIS, OKAY? LEVEL ONE, YOU MAKE YOUR POINTS WITH A CATCHY RHYMING PHRASE. UH, SOMETHING LIKE, UH, WHOEVER'S ABLE TO DISTILL THE BIGGER 1 45 COMMENTS DOWN TO A SINGLE VERSION, I WOULD CONSIDER A BATCH ZERO [00:05:01] HERO. SO THAT'S LEVEL ONE. NOT GONNA HAPPEN TODAY, BUT LEVEL TWO, UH, REALLY JUST TRYING TO TEE NET UP HERE ON SOMETHING YOU MIGHT SAY. UH, MAKE YOUR POINTS USING LYRICS TO YOUR FAVORITE SONG. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF BILL AND I WERE ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING, I MIGHT SAY, BILL, YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT. AND IF BILL'S REALLY ON HIS TOES, HE MIGHT RESPOND BACK WITH THE NEXT LINE OF THE SONG, COME ON, BILL, ON THE SPOT. SOMETIMES YOU GET WHAT YOU NEED. THERE YOU GO. SO, NO, THAT'S, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH. SO THAT'S MY PROPOSAL. YOU MISSED THE MOST IMPORTANT PART, BUT IF YOU TRY, SOMETIMES YOU'LL GET WHAT YOU NEED. I SHOULD HAVE PICKED ON BETH. GOOD JOB, BETH. OKAY. UM, , I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS. I FEEL LIKE IT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. I FEEL LIKE IT'S TURNING INTO A CONTEST, RIGHT? BUT I ALSO FEEL LIKE PEOPLE ARE GONNA USE AI AND JUST BE, YOU KNOW, TALKING TO CLAUDE OR CHAT GPT, THE WHOLE MEETING TO COME UP WITH RHYMES AND LYRICS, WHICH I THINK IS OKAY. SO EVERYBODY GOOD WITH BLAKE'S SUGGESTION? LET'S DO IT. RHYME, RHYME TIME, LYRICS, TIME, AND NEXT MONTH, UH, CONSUMERS HAVE TO PICK THE THEME. ALRIGHT? UH, ALL THAT SAID, WE CAN GET STARTED. FIRST [2. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)] ARE MEETING MINUTES. I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY SUGGESTED EDITS OR CORRECTIONS, CORRECT? CORRECT. SUSIE, CORRECT. NED. OKAY. UM, SO WE ARE LOOKING TO APPROVE THE MARCH 25TH MEETING, MINUTES AS PRESENTED. CAN WE PUT THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY. WE HAVE TO FIND A RHYME FOR COMBO BALLOT. SOMETHING MALLET. OKAY. UM, NOW WE ARE ON TO OUR MEETING UPDATES [3. Meeting Updates] WHERE WE PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE BOARD AND PUC OPEN MEETINGS WHERE OUR REVISION REQUESTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. UM, SO AT THE APRIL 20TH AND 21ST BOARD MEETING LAST WEEK, THE BOARD APPROVED ALL REVISION REQUESTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY TECH FROM OUR FEBRUARY AND MARCH MEETINGS. THOSE REVISION REQUESTS WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE MAY 29TH PUC OPEN MEETING. AND I WILL GO TO, UM, IKA FOR, FOR ANYTHING TO ADD FROM COMMISSION STAFF. THANK YOU, CAITLYN. SO I HAVE JUST TWO UPDATES. UH, NEXT OPEN MEETING, MAY SEVEN. I JUST WANNA ALERT YOU. PROJECT 5, 8, 7, 7, 7 RELIABILITY STANDARDS WILL BE TAKEN UP AGAIN AND STAFF, WE ARE ABOUT TO FILE A MEMO. AND THE MAIN THING IS GONNA BE THE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE LARGE LOAD. WE ARE FIRST TIME, WE ARE GONNA USE THE PROCESS IN 25 3 7 0. SO WE'RE JUST GONNA BRING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION TO YOUR ATTENTION. AND THE OTHER ONE, YEAH, WE ARE EXPECTING THIS MONTH, STATE OF THE MARKET REPORT FROM IMM. SO, UH, WE ARE GONNA REVIEW IT AND IT'LL BE FILED MAY 30TH, AND THEN IN AROUND AUGUST, SEPTEMBER TIMEFRAME, STAFF WILL HAVE REPLIES THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN DOING ON IT. UM, YEAH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? GO AHEAD, BRIAN. JUST WHEN YOU SAY ADJUSTMENT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TO THE SCHEDULE BECAUSE OF THE LOAD FORECAST OR BOTH OF IT? BOTH OF THEM, YEAH. SCHEDULE WILL BE ADJUSTED AS WELL AS THE LOAD WILL BE. GOT IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? NEXT IS OUR REVISION REQUEST. SUMMARIZE OR COMMENT, MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO ANNE. YOU HAVE A RHYME? I DON'T, I CAN'T THINK OF A RHYME RIGHT NOW. THAT MAY BE HALFWAY THROUGH. I'LL THINK OF SOMETHING. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE [4. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions] 10 REVISION REQUESTS FOR T CONSIDERATION THIS MONTH. NO, GRADE 2 81 WILL STILL REMAIN TABLED, STILL WAITING. 1307 FOR REASONS FOR REVISION, WE HAVE SIX THAT FALL IN THAT GENERAL SYSTEM PROCESS IMPROVEMENT. CATEGORY TWO UNDER STRATEGIC PLAN, OBJECTIVE ONE, AND THEN TWO. UNDER REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, UM, FOR ERCOT OPINIONS, WE DO SUPPORT ALL REVISION REQUESTS HERE AND HAVE PROVIDED POSITIVE MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS. AND THEN FOR CFSG, UM, NO CREDIT IMPLICATIONS EXCEPT FOR NPR 1309. THEY DID FILE COMMENTS YESTERDAY. UM, AND I THINK WE CAN DISCUSS THAT ONCE WE GET DOWN TO 1309 [00:10:01] AND IMM, UM, NO OPINION ON ALL OF THE REVISION REQUESTS EXCEPT FOR, UH, 1309, WHICH THEY DO OPPOSE. AND I BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA WAIT TILL WE DISCUSS 1309 TO BRING THAT UP AS WELL. THAT'S CORRECT. WE'LL TAKE THE IMM COMMENTS UP WITH 1309. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR ANN? OKAY, DIANA, [5. PRS Report (Vote)] LET'S GO, LET'S KICK IT OFF WITH THE PRS REPORT. UM, LET'S DO THE FIRST SLIDE OF THE UNOPPOSED REVISION REQUESTS AND, AND TAKE A PAUSE THERE. OKAY. GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. DIANA COLEMAN WITH CPS ENERGY WITH THE APRIL PRS REPORT. WE'RE GONNA TAKE UP ON THIS PAGE. UH, 13 18, 13 22 AND 1324. UH, 1302 AND 1306 ARE GONNA REMAIN TABLED. 1318 COMES TO US FROM ERCOT. THIS EXCLUDES THE INCENTIVE FACTOR TO ERCOT APPROVED COST RELATED TO ADDITIONAL ADMISSIONS ALLOWANCE PURCHASES, AND ERCOT APPROVED OUTSIDE ATTORNEY FEES. ON MARCH 11TH, PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. AND ON APRIL 15TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE HIM. FORWARD TO TAG. THE MARCH 11TH PRS REPORT IN THE 12 23 25 IA FOR 13 18 13 22 ALSO COMES TO US FROM ERCOT. THIS CORRECTS THE ABSENCE OF A REPORT POSTED TO THE ARCA WEBSITE THAT DISCLOSES TODAY HEAD MARKET AS ONLY OFFER AWARDS ON MARCH 11TH. WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS THIS, AS SUBMITTED ON APRIL 15TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD ATTACK THE MARCH 11TH PRS REPORT AND THE FEBRUARY 20TH IA. AND THEN LASTLY, WE HAVE 1324 ALSO FROM ERCOT. CLARIFIES THE PROCESS USED BY ERCOT TO DETERMINE THE STARTUP WARMTH STATE OF A BLOCK OF CONTIGUOUS ROOK COMMITTED HOURS. ON MARCH 11TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. AND ON APRIL 15TH, WE VOTED TO UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSE AND FORWARD ATTACK THE MARCH 11TH PRS REPORT AND THE FEBRUARY 24TH IA ALL WITH NO IMPACT. OKAY, UM, LET'S START WITH 1302 AND 1306. AS DIANA SAID, I BELIEVE WE'RE LOOKING TO TABLE BOTH OF THESE TODAY. CAN WE HAVE SOMEBODY FROM ERCOT SPEAK TO BOTH OF THOSE? CATHERINE ANN CATHERINE'S HERE. OKAY, I CAN, YEP, I'M HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES. DID WE PUT YOU ON THE SPOT? ARE YOU OKAY TO NO, THAT'S OKAY. I CAN, I'M, YOU DON'T HAVE TO RHYME. YEAH, SORRY. , I'M NOT PREPARED, ANN. UM, BUT I CAN'T SAY THAT WE CAN'T HEAR. I'M NOT SURE WE CAN HEAR YOU. OH, OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S GOOD. IS THAT OKAY? UM, FOR 1302 AND 1306, THEY NEED TO GO TOGETHER. IT WOULD BE IDEAL IF THEY WENT TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY'RE, UM, EDITING THE SAME, SOME OF THE SAME PROVISIONS. AND THEN FOR 1306, THERE'S SEVERAL, UH, REVISION REQUESTS THAT ARE STILL TIED UP IN OTHER SUBCOMMITTEES. SO, UM, WE COULD TABLE THIS FOR JUST BOTH OF THEM FOR JUST ONE MONTH. THEN SUPERVISION REQUESTS COULD GET OUT OF THOSE SUBCOMMITTEES AND THEN PUT ALL TOGETHER AT THE BACK. YEAH, MAYBE ANN. OKAY. YEAH, JUST TO REITERATE WHAT CATHERINE SAID, 1306 ITSELF HAS TO BE TABLED, AWAITING A COUPLE GUIDE REVISIONS TO MOVE FORWARD. AND THEN 1302 HAS CROSSOVER LANGUAGE WITH 1306. SO WE'D LIKE THEM TO MOVE TOGETHER. UM, SO WE'RE REQUESTING THAT BOTH 1302 AND 1306 BE TABLED THIS MONTH. OKAY. ANY, UM, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON 1302 OR 1306 AND OR, OKAY. ANY ISSUE WITH, UH, TABLING THOSE AND PUTTING THAT ACTION ON THE COMBO BALLOT? ALRIGHT, SO, COREY, LET'S, UH, TABLE 1302 AND 1306. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON. UM, WE WOULD ALSO BE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1318 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FOUR 15 PRS REPORT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1322 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FOUR 15 PRS REPORT AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1324 IS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FOUR 15 PRS REPORT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THOSE THREE REVISION REQUESTS? CAN WE PUT THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT? ALL RIGHT. OKAY, DIANA, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. UM, WE, [00:15:01] AGAIN, WE ARE GONNA TAKE NOUR 2 82 AND NPR 1308 UP WITH THE ROSS REPORT. BUT, BUT GO AHEAD AND COVER THAT ON THIS SLIDE FOR 1308. YEAH, JUST GO AHEAD AND COVER THIS SLIDE. BUT FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PEOPLE OUT THERE, WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE COMMENTS ON 1308 RIGHT NOW. OKAY. SO, 1308 COMES TO US FROM ERCOT. UH, THIS IS DEFINING THE LARGE COMPUTATIONAL LOAD ON APRIL 15TH. PRS VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY THE APRIL 13TH ERCOT COMMENTS AND FORWARD ATTACK, UH, NPR 1308 IN THE NOVEMBER 14TH, 2025 IA, THERE WAS ONE OPPOSING VOTE FROM THE CONSUMER MARKET SEGMENT. AND THEN THAT TAKES US TO 1309 THAT COMES TO US FROM ERCOT. THIS IS DEVELOPING THE DISPATCHABLE RELIABILITY RESERVE SERVICE AS A NEW A S ON APRIL 15TH, WE VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1309 AS AMENDED BY THE APRIL 9TH JOINT COMMENTS AS REVISED BY PRS AND FORWARD ATTACK THE REVISION REQUEST IN THE NOVEMBER 20TH IA WITH A RECOMMENDED PRIORITY OF 2026 IN A RINK OF FOUR 40. THERE WERE TWO OPPOSING VOTES AND FOUR ABSTENTIONS, AND WE HAD SEVERAL COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED SINCE. OKAY. UM, AND GARRETT, I SEE YOUR MOTION IN THE CHAT, BUT LET ME LAY OUT WHAT I, I THINK WE SHOULD DO. SO WE WILL, UM, ON 1308 AND 2 82, WE'LL TAKE THAT UP UNDER ROSS. UM, IF PEOPLE ARE WILLING, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE 1309 UP TOGETHER WITH, UM, NOIR 2 83, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS UNOPPOSED AT ROSS. SO WE WOULD, WHATEVER ACTION WE'D BE DOING ON, ON 1309, I, I PROPOSE WE'D DO SORT OF A MINI COMBO BALLOT WITH NOIR 2 83. UM, AS DIANA SAID, THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF COMMENTS THERE WERE SINCE PRS, UM, THERE WERE 4 23 TCPA COMMENTS. UM, 4 23 ERCOT COMMENTS, 4 24 HEN COMMENTS, 4 24 IMM COMMENTS AND TWO SETS OF COMMENTS, UH, FROM ERCOT YESTERDAY. AND SO I, MY THOUGHT WAS TO GIVE EACH PARTY JUST A FEW MINUTES TO GO OVER THEIR COMMENTS, UM, MAYBE NOT TAKE INTERACTIVE QUESTIONS DURING THOSE. 'CAUSE WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON TWO ISSUES. SO I THINK ALL THE COMMENTS KIND OF FOCUS ON THE SAME ISSUES, TAKE ALL THE COMMENTS, AND THEN HAVE FREE DISCUSSION AFTERWARDS. UM, SO IF THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO EVERYBODY, WE WILL GO TO GARRETT FIRST. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NO, I JUST WANTED TO HAVE THE MOTION TO APPROVE, UM, 1309 WITH THE JOINT COMMENTER'S COMMENTS FROM APRIL 9TH. SO, BASICALLY, UH, AROUND HAVING OR BEING CONSISTENT WITH ERCO T'S RECENT COMMENTS SUPPORTING THE TWO HOUR NONS SPEND DURATION, AND THE POSITION CONSUMERS HAVE PREVIOUSLY TAKEN OPPOSING ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE PRICE FLOOR AT ONE PENNY PER MEGAWATT ISLAND. OKAY. WHAT DAY WERE THOSE JOINT COMMENTS AGAIN? APRIL 9TH. APRIL 9TH. OKAY. SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1309 AS RECOMMENDED NOT BY PRS JOINT COMMENT, BUT AS, I DON'T KNOW, COREY'S SHAKING HIS HEAD AT ME. COREY, WHAT WOULD THE MOTION BE? WHAT THE JOINT COMMENTS FROM APRIL 9TH WERE MODIFIED BY PRS? AND SO NOW ANY ACTION THE T TAKES WOULD NEED TO BE COMMENTS AGAINST THE PRS REPORT. SO IT NEEDS TO BE, YEAH, SO ONE OF THE SETS OF ERCOT COMMENTS THAT CAME OUT YESTERDAY, OR THE IMM COMMENTS I DID NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND AND INADVERTENTLY FILL OUT. OKAY. COULD WE MUTE THE, THE BACKGROUND NOISE? ALL RIGHT. SO, SO GARRETT, UM, DO YOU HEAR THAT? SO WE, WE NEED TO WORK OFF THE PRS WITH WHAT COMMENTS FROM WHATEVER DATE PRS WAS. I MEAN, SHAMELESS PLUG THE SECOND SET OF ERCOT COMMENTS ATTEMPT TO RESTORE A LOT OF THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WAS IN THE JOINT COMMENTERS COMMENTS THAT WERE JOINT BETWEEN ERCOT AND THE IMM. SO THAT'S PROBABLY A DECENT STARTING POINT, BUT OBVIOUSLY WILL OF THE GROUP. OKAY. BECAUSE, SO WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US ARE THE COMMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY PS ON THE FOUR 15 PRS REPORT. SO WE WOULD NEED EDITS ON TOP OF THAT. SO [00:20:01] WOULD IT BE HELPFUL IF WE PULLED UP THE ERCOT, THE PRS WOULD, OR WOULD IT BE ERCOT SECOND COMMENTS, BUT WITH THE ONE PENNY PRICE FOR AS A DESKTOP EDIT? YOU CAN, YOU CAN MAKE WHATEVER MOTION YOU WANT. SO THAT WOULD, IF THAT'S YOUR MOTION, WE WE COULD PULL THAT UP. THAT IS MY MOTION. IF I NEED, DO I NEED TO START ALL THE WAY OVER? NOPE. SO IT WOULD BE, UH, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF 1309 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FOUR 15 PRS REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE ERCOT 4 27 2 COMMENTS WITH DESKTOP EDITS. COREY, IS THAT RIGHT? THE, UH, 4 28 ER CUT TWO COMMENTS AS REVISED BY TAC. YES. YESTERDAY WAS THE 28TH. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. UM, AS REVISED BY TECH. AND THEN, UM, GARRETT, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ALSO ADD NO GERD 2 83 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS AND THE FOUR TO ROSS REPORT? YES, MA'AM. I HAVE NO ISSUE. WELL, LET'S MAKE SURE WE GET FIRST. OKAY. LET'S, UM, WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THIS, BUT THE MO, SO THE MOTION IS ON THE TABLE. WE GOT A SECOND FROM MARK DREYFUSS. COREY'S TELLING ME TO SLOW DOWN. NO, NO. I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK THE, I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT THE DESKTOP EDIT IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE, I BELIEVE WE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE PRICE FLOOR. THE PRICE FLOOR. OKAY. I BELIEVE IN ERCOT COMMENTS. IT'S THE $10. SO THE $10 SHOULD GO TO THE ONE PENNY. SO RIGHT HERE, IS THAT CORRECT, GARRETT? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR SO MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1309 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND THE FOUR 15 PRS REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE ERCOT 4 28. TWO COMMENTS AS REVISED BY TAC AND MOTION TO RECOMMEND GER 2 83 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE FOUR TWO ROSS REPORT AS AMENDED BY ERCOT COMMENT. WHAT DATE? THE FOUR NINE ERCOT. FOUR NINE COMMENTS. OKAY, IS THAT MOTION CORRECT? GARRETT AND MARK? OKAY. YES, MA'AM. WE'LL LEAVE THAT MOTION ON THE, THAT MOTION IS A MOTION. UM, BUT WE'LL CONTINUE DISCUSSION, NED. THANK YOU. CAITLYN, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING AGAINST THIS MOTION. UM, PROBABLY NOT A SURPRISE. UH, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ISSUES WITH THIS. UM, FIRST AND FOREMOST, I GOTTA COME BACK TO WHY WE'RE EVEN TALKING ABOUT DRRS IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT IS BECAUSE THERE WERE, UM, ADVOCATES THAT WERE OPPOSED TO THE PCM THAT SWORE UP AND DOWN THAT DRRS IS THE TOOL THAT IS NEEDED TO MEET RESOURCE ADEQUACY IN THE ERCOT MARKET. THAT WAS HOW IT WAS PITCHED. THAT'S HOW, UH, LEGISLATORS WERE LED TO, UH, YOU KNOW, INCLUDE THAT IN STATUTE AND PURE 39, 1 59, WHICH IS ALSO THE, UH, ALSO THE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES US TO MEET THE RELIABILITY STANDARD, CREATE AND MEET A RELIABILITY STANDARD IN ERCOT. AND SO, WITH THE PCM BEING PUT ON THE SHELF, DRRS IS THE TOOL THAT WE ARE LEFT WITH IN REGARDLESS WHAT FORM DRS TAKES, IT HAS TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT OUTCOME. SO, YOU KNOW, 1309 IN AND OF ITSELF IS, IS, YOU KNOW, HAS SOME, I'LL SAY, UH, QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW EFFECTIVE IT WILL BE AT THAT. I CERTAINLY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW EFFECTIVE IT WILL BE AT REDUCING RUCKS, WHICH WAS ANOTHER ONE OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. UM, I CAN ALMOST GUARANTEE YOU THAT SETTING A PRICE FLOOR OF ONE PENNY ON THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE WILL CREATE SIGNIFICANT PRICE FORMATION ISSUES. AND YOU WILL STRUGGLE MIGHTILY TO BE ABLE TO PROCURE THE DRRS PLAN, IN PARTICULAR, IN ANY AMOUNT OF OFFS. SPIN DR OR OFF SPIN OFFLINE, NOT, UH, DRRS. THAT IS WHAT THIS STRUCTURE CRITICALLY DEPENDS UPON TO REDUCE RUX. UM, I MEAN, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS, IS [00:25:01] TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT OUTCOME. SO IF YOU PRICE OUT OFFLINE RESOURCES THAT HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR, THEY HAVE TO REASONABLY EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO COVER THEIR COMMITMENT COSTS THROUGH THAT AWARD, BECAUSE RECALL, IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY COMMITTED THROUGH DRRS, THEY DON'T GET A MAKE HOLE FOR THEIR COSTS. SO IF YOU THINK THAT YOU CAN COMMIT AN OFFLINE UNIT FOR A PENNY, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO , I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE, UH, MAKE THIS MAKE MORE SENSE. BUT, UM, I'LL JUST TELL YOU THAT'S NOT GONNA BE SUFFICIENT, AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE VERY, UM, DISAPPOINTED IN THE OUTCOMES THAT WE RECEIVE. SO, CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES. I'M SIMPLY TRYING TO LAY OUT WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS CHOICE WILL BE. SO IF YOU WANT AN INEFFECTIVE DRRS STRUCTURE, GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR THIS. UM, IF YOU WOULD PREFER A MORE EFFECTIVE DRS STRUCTURE, I'M NOT GONNA PRETEND THAT IT'S PERFECT, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE A MORE EFFECTIVE ONE THAT ACTUALLY LETS, AND, AND PROVIDES SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPETITIVE MARKET DISCIPLINE AND DYNAMICS TO SET THE PRICE AT THE, UH, AT THE DRRS PLAN, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE SOME AMOUNT OF HEADROOM WHERE COMPETITIVE OFFERS CAN TRY TO BEAT EACH OTHER UP, OTHER UP IN ORDER TO GET THAT AWARD. AND THAT'S WHAT HAVING THE PRICE FLOOR AT THE DRS PLAN IS INTENDED TO DO. UM, WHILE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SUPPORTED TPAS COMMENTS THAT RECOMMENDED USING THE SAME $15 FLOOR THAT APPLIES FOR OTHERS, RECOGNIZE, YOU KNOW, ERCOT HAS ALSO PUT OUT $10. IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF HOW ANCILLARY SERVICES SINCE REAL-TIME IZATION GO LIVE HAVE CLEARED, UH, RELATIVE TO THE $15 ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE PRICE FLOOR ALREADY, YOU'LL SEE THAT THEY CLEAR MUCH, MUCH BELOW THAT BECAUSE COMPETITION WORKS AND FOLKS WILL, UH, COMPETE TO, UH, OUTBID EACH OTHER TO GET TO THAT AWARD. AND YOU WILL GET THAT AT THE LOWEST COST BECAUSE COMPETITION IS A VERY EFFECTIVE, UH, PRICE, DISCIPLINE, FUNCTION, AND INCENTIVE. SO, UM, I HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH THIS. UM, THERE'S ALSO SOME OTHER LANGUAGE CLEANUPS THAT, UM, ARE IN THE TCPA AND HEN COMMENTS FROM, OH, SHOOT, I'M GONNA LOSE TRACK OF THE DATES. UM, IT'S 4 23. 4 23, THANK YOU. AND 4 24 FOR THE HEN COMMENTS. I THINK THERE, THERE IS SOME OTHER LANGUAGE IN THOSE THAT WOULD BE, UM, THAT IS ALSO WORTHWHILE OF TAX CONSIDERATION. UM, NOT ALL OF THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN THE ERCOT TWO COMMENTS AND CERTAINLY NOT INCLUDED WITH THIS DESKTOP EDIT. SO, UM, I WANTED TO VOICE THAT OVER, I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS. AND IF THIS FAILS, I WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, PUT FORTH AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO, UH, TO ENDORSE ONE OF THOSE, UH, SETS OF COMMENTS AND WILLING TO DISCUSS IF THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, DESKTOP EDITS THAT ARE NEEDED OR IF WE NEED A, A DANCE PARTY, UH, TO GET GOING. UM, OKAY. YEP. I'M GLAD YOU TEE THAT UP. YOU KNOW, I DO THINK WE SHOULD STILL GO THROUGH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED, SO LET'S DO THAT BEFORE WE GET TO THE QUEUE. SOMEBODY CAN ALWAYS CALL THE QUESTION IF, IF THEY'RE EAGER TO VOTE. UM, AND THEN ANN REMINDED ME, UH, WE, THERE IS A IMPACT TO, TO 1309. IT'S A THREE TO $5 MILLION IMPACT. SO LET'S, UM, NED, DO YOU WANNA DO TCPA COMMENTS? IS IT MICHELLE, LET'S START WITH TCPA COMMENTS. SORRY. UH, MICHELLE RICHMOND, TCPA, UM, I THINK NED PRETTY WELL LAID OUT WHAT OUR, OUR COMMENTS ARE. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT DRRS IS A COMPETITIVE MARKET PRODUCT THAT HAS IN MARKET CLEARING. UM, AND A PENNY IS NOT GOING TO DO THAT. UM, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A PRODUCT THAT INCENTIVIZES INVESTMENT AND THERMAL DISPATCHABLE GENERATION. UM, IT IS ALSO SUPPOSED TO REDUCE THE USE OF R AND THOSE ARE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. UM, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT PUTTING THE FLOOR AT A PENNY DOES NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS AND WILL FAIL TO ACCOMPLISH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE BY THE LEGISLATURE. UM, YOU KNOW, A A FLOOR IS NOT THE MINIMUM PRICE, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO REMEMBER THAT IT'S MAKING SURE THAT YOU HAVE COMPETITIVE MARKET OFFERS. THE OTHER COMPONENT OF THE TCPA COMMENTS ARE TO RETAIN THE FOUR HOUR DURATION FOR NONS SPEND. UM, WE HAVE AN ANCILLARY SERVICES METHODOLOGY REVIEW THAT'S ONGOING FOR 2027, AND IT WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THAT VETTED PROPERLY WITH FULL ANALYTICS, UM, [00:30:01] AS PART OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICES METHODOLOGY REVIEW, AS OPPOSED TO DOING THIS PIECEMEAL IN AN NPRR THAT IS INTENDED TO, UH, DESIGN A NEW PRODUCT. AND I'LL DEFER TO ANY OF OUR MEMBER COMPANIES WHO MAY WANNA ADD TO THAT. YEP. MICHELLE, IF I CAN, UH, JUST MAKE A QUICK POSTSCRIPT ON THAT. 'CAUSE THERE ARE TWO OTHER, UH, ELEMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE TPA COMMENTS THAT ARE ALSO IMPORTANT TO TEE UP. UM, I'LL START WITH THE EASY ONE, AND THAT IS, UH, THERE IS SOME STATUTORY LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT DRS BEING, UH, INTENDED TO ADDRESS MARKET UNCERTAINTY. UM, WHEREAS THE, THE LANGUAGE IN THE NPRR ONLY ADDRESSES UNCERTAINTY. AND SO, UH, WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT'S THE, THOSE ARE THE WORDS THAT THE LEGISLATURE CHOSE. AND, UM, FAR BE IT FROM US TO SECOND GUESS THAT, UH, THE, THE BROADER ISSUE IN THERE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT'S IN THERE IS, UH, THE NONS SPEND DURATION BEING AT FOUR HOUR, CONTINUING TO BE AT FOUR HOURS VERSUS TWO HOURS AS, UH, THE JOINT COMMENTERS HAD HAD AMENDED. AND I THINK IS IN THE, UH, THE ERCOT TWO COMMENTS. UH, MAIN ISSUE THERE IS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS IMPLEMENTING DRRS AND WHILE, UH, BE THE FIRST TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT REDUCING THE NONS SPEND DURATION TO TWO HOURS, THAT REALLY IS A SEPARATE TOPIC. THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WE THINK IS MORE APPROPRIATELY TEED UP IN THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY DISCUSSION, IN PART BECAUSE I HAVE A STRONG SUSPICION THAT IF THE, IF THE, UH, DURATION REQUIREMENTS ARE REDUCED FOR NONS SPEND, ONE OF THE TRADE-OFFS OR ONE OF THE OUTCOMES OF THAT DECISION, THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT DECISION WILL BE ERCOT MADE. I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M GETTING A RINGING SOUND. ARE Y'ALL HEARING THAT TOO? YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT IN THE ROOM. OKAY. UM, DOES ANYBODY HAVE THEIR MIC ON? OH, THAT DOES IT. OKAY. WHO'S MIC? SUZIE DID THE RESCUE. THANK YOU, SUSIE. UH, SO I, I SU BACKING UP A SECOND. I SUSPECT THAT IF, CAN WE WRAP THIS UP IN TWO MINUTES? NED, THOUGH, YOU GUYS HAVE HAD THE FLOOR FOR A WHILE. I'M A WORDY PERSON. YOU'RE A VERY WORDY PERSON VERB, AND WE LOVE THAT ABOUT YOU. UH, SO, ALL RIGHT, IF WE REDUCE THE, THE DURATION FROM FOUR HOURS TO TWO HOURS, WHAT'S OUR CALL LIKELY TO DO? THEY'RE LIKELY TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY GETTING THE SAME QUALITY OF RESOURCES FOR THIS RESERVE THAT WE USED TO GET. AND SO WHAT'S THE SOLUTION TO THAT? THEY'RE PROBABLY GONNA SAY, WE NEED TO BUY MORE NONS SPEND TO FILL THAT GAP. BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF DURATION LIMITED RESOURCES THAT ARE PROVIDING WHAT THEY'RE EXPECTING TO, UH, BE A DURABLE, UM, A DURABLE SOURCE OF ENERGY AND CAPACITY WHEN RELEASED, THAT'S GONNA BE THE, THE, THE LEVER THAT'LL BE THERE. SO THERE'S PROBABLY AN EFFICIENCY, UH, FRONTIER, UH, BETWEEN QUALITY DURATION AND QUANTITY PROCURED THAT WOULD REALLY BE BENEFICIAL FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO LOOK AT AND UNDERSTAND BEFORE MAKING THIS DECISION. AND SO I, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD, UM, EXTRICATE FROM THIS PARTICULAR VOTE AND TRYING TO GET DRRS TO THE BOARD. AND I REALIZE THAT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON THAT POINT, BUT WANTED TO AT LEAST MAKE THAT THANKS. OKAY, THANKS NED. LET'S GO TO THE, UM, HUNT, HUNT COMMENTS. SO ERCOT ACTUALLY HAS A PRESENTATION. SO MY PLAN NOW IS TO GO TO HUNT COMMENTS, IMM COMMENTS, TAKE THE QUEUE, AND THEN LET ERCOT PRESENT. AS ALWAYS, IF, IF WE'RE EAGER TO VOTE ON THE MOTION, UH, JUST CALL THE QUESTION OR BEFORE THAT POLITELY ASK TO, TO STOP CONVERSATION. ALL RIGHT. DOES SOMEONE WANT TO SPEAK TO THE 4 24, UM, HUNT ENERGY NETWORK COMMENTS? IS THIS SHAM? YEAH, THIS IS, YES. THIS IS SHA SIKI. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEP. OKAY. YEAH. UH, SHAM SIKI WITH CRESCENT PARK CONSULTING REPRESENTING HUNT ENERGY NETWORK ON THIS TOPIC. UM, SO WE, UH, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT THE TCPA COMMENTS. UH, WE ADD SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE ON HOW THE FLOOR IS. UH, THIS IS AN A SDC FLOOR, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT FLOOR IS NOT A PRICE FLOOR, IT'S AN A SDC, UH, THE DEMAND CURVE FLOOR. SO WE ADDED SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE TO REALLY MAKE IT CLEAR HOW THAT FLOOR IS APPLIED TO DIFFERENT, UH, PRODUCTS. UM, SO WE, UH, SUPPORT THE CONCEPT, AND I KNOW THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THE ERCOT PRESENTATION, THEY'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT, IF YOU GO TO THE MINIMUM PRICE LEVELS, UH, IN THIS COMMENTS, YOU'LL SEE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE MINIMUM PRICES WERE CHANGED AS WELL. SO, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR, UH, HENCE POINT OF VIEW IS THAT, [00:35:01] AND I THINK THEORETICALLY THIS IS THE RIGHT POINT OF VIEW, IS THAT YOU, THE ORDC, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU DO THE LOLP FOR THE ORDC, IT'S BASED ON A 30 MINUTE UNCERTAINTY. SO IT'S A 30 MINUTE PRODUCT AT MOST, YOU KNOW, FIVE TO 30 MINUTE PRODUCT THAT YOU'RE EVALUATING THROUGH THAT PROCESS. NOW, YOU'RE TRYING TO FIT IN A TWO HOUR PRODUCT INTO A 30 MINUTE, UM, DEMAND CURVE, UM, WHICH IS THE A-O-R-D-C, WHICH IS WHY, YOU KNOW, ERCOT IS SAYING, HEY, REALLY ON A 30 MINUTE BASIS, THIS HAS VERY LITTLE VALUE, AND WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT ON A 30 MINUTE, AN SERVICE LIKE AN OPERATING RESERVE MEANT TO ARREST FREQUENCY AND STUFF. UM, AND, UM, YOU KNOW, DRS DOESN'T HAVE THAT MUCH VALUE, BUT IT SHOULDN'T REALLY BE IN THAT CURVE TO BEGIN WITH. IT SHOULD BE A SEPARATE DEMAND CURVE BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE SIGNIFICANT VALUE WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT IT'S TRYING TO SOLVE THE STATUTE, UH, INTENDED IT TO SOLVE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, THE UNCERTAINTY AND INTERMITTENT AND ALL THESE RESOURCES, ESPECIALLY DURING A LONG WINTER STORM. AND THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO INCENTIVIZE DISPATCHABLE RESOURCE AND TO AVOID DRUGS. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, YOU REALLY NEED A SEPARATE DEMAND CURVE, UH, FOR, UH, APART FROM THE A-O-R-D-C, WHICH IS A 30 MINUTE PRODUCT, UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND VALUE THAT BASED ON THAT SEPARATE, UH, ANSWER SERVICE DEMAND CURVE. SO THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN FOR IS THAT, YEAH, WE'LL ADDRESS THAT IN 1310. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW, I DON'T KNOW WHERE 1310 IS GOING, BUT THE FACT IS, YOU KNOW, TREATING DRS AS JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THESE ANSP SERVICES WITH VERY LITTLE VALUE ON A 30 MINUTE BASIS, REALLY THERE'S A DISSERVICE AND DOESN'T PROVIDE THE INCENTIVE FOR DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES THAT THEY STARTED INTENDED. SO, UM, SO THE $15 FLOOR, UM, A SDC FLOOR IS NEEDED JUST TO NOT REDUCE ANS SERVICE PRICES FURTHER BY INTRODUCING THIS NPRR, UH, BECAUSE WE CURRENTLY HAVE A $15 A SDC FLOOR, SO IT JUST MAKES SENSE TO MAINTAIN THAT $15 FLOOR. UM, AND THE NEXT, UH, THE OTHER POINT IS THAT THIS NPR REALLY DOESN'T TAKE INTO THE GUIDANCE THAT THE PUC PROVIDED. THE PUC SAID THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE HSL REALLY REPRESENTS THE, THE MAXIMUM YOU CAN PRODUCE, WHICH IS SORT OF WHAT WE CALL, YOU KNOW, THAT, UH, NAMEPLATE HSL, YOU COULD SAY, UM, AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE A AND B TWO A AND B SHOULD BE TAKEN TOGETHER, WHICH MEANS THAT THE RESOURCE HAS TO BE, YOU KNOW, START UP AND GO TO HSL, UH, WITHIN THE TWO HOURS, AND THAT'S WHAT QUALIFIES YOU, UH, FOR THE RRS. SO WE DIDN'T SEE ANY ACCOUNTING OF THE PUC GUIDANCE. UM, WE THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. SO THOSE WERE OUR MAJOR ISSUES. UM, AND THE REASON WE PROVIDED OUR COMMENTS. SO FOR NOW, I GUESS, GIVEN THAT WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT A SEPARATE ANSLEY SERVICE, UH, OR DEMAND CURVE, UH, SO WE, THAT'S WHY OUR MINIMUM, WE SUPPORT THE TCPA INCREASING THE MINIMUM PRICE FOR THE D-R-S-A-S-D-C TO $15 TO, TO GIVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE VALUE, UH, WHEN YOU GET INTO DRS AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT THE $15 FLOOR ON THE A SDC CURVE, YOU REALLY WON'T GET ANY OFFLINE, UH, DRS BECAUSE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY COST TO, YOU KNOW, TO FOREGO YOUR MAKE CALL PAYMENT. SO THOSE ARE SORT OF THE, THE SUMMARY OF THE HAND COMMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU, SHAS. UM, NEXT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WITH IMM COMMENTS. JEFF, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK OR DO YOU WANNA WAIT TILL PRESENTS? OR SORRY FOR MOVING. IT'S, IT'S JUST EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO TAKE SHOTS AT ME IF I'M FAIR ENOUGH. YEAH. HI, UH, JEFF MCDONALD, DIRECTOR OF IMM. SO I, FIRST I WANTED TO THANK ERCOT FOR CONSIDERING OUR COMMENTS ON FRIDAY AND, AND COMING FORWARD WITH A SEPARATE SET OF COMMENTS ON MONDAY. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATED, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, I'D LIKE TO, SO, SO OUR BIG ISSUE, UH, WITH OUR COMMENTS ON FRIDAY HAD TO DO WITH THE TWO HOUR VERSUS FOUR HOUR. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT SHAMS HAS MADE. UM, I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN, SO THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING DISCUSSION FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF. I THINK WE, WE FIRST CAME INTO THIS, UH, IN THE AS STUDY IN, YOU KNOW, THE SECOND HALF OF 2024. AND THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS PUBLIC CONVERSATIONS SINCE THEN. WE, WE PRESENTED OUR, OUR POSITION AND OUR EMPIRICAL [00:40:01] ANALYSIS SUPPORTING A MOVE AWAY FROM A FOUR HOUR REQUIREMENT. I THINK WE'D ORIGINALLY, UM, PROPOSED A ONE HOUR REQUIREMENT, BUT TWO HOURS SEEMS FITTING, GIVEN THE TWO HOUR START TIME. THE ISSUE THAT HAS COME ABOUT, UH, THAT WE'VE NOTICED, AND, AND I THINK WE'VE PRESENTED THIS AT THE PEC AND POSSIBLY AT THE BOARD, I'M SURE IT WILL BE IN THE STATE OF THE MARKET REPORT, THAT IT WILL BE OUT IN A MONTH, AND IS THAT WE'RE SEEING PRICE FORMATION ISSUES RESULTING FROM THE CHOICE OF, UM, DURATION REQUIREMENT FOR ESRS. SO WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS NONS SPIN PRICES BEING, UH, NONS SPIN, WHICH IS CURRENTLY THE LOWEST QUALITY OF THE RESERVES, UM, BEING, YOU KNOW, MULTIPLES OF HIGHER RESERVES. AND THOSE MULTIPLES ARE DIRECTLY, UM, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DURATION REQUIREMENT, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE DURATION REQUIREMENT IN RRS IS A FRACTION OF THE DURATION REQUIREMENT FOR NONS SPIN. AND YOU'RE SEEING THE PRICES IN NON SPIN CLUSTERING AROUND THAT MULTIPLE OF THE RRS PRICE, UH, AND SO FORTH. SO THAT, FROM A PRICE FORMATION PERSPECTIVE, THAT DOESN'T, UM, MAKE SENSE TO US. UH, SINCE NONS SPIN IS A, A LOWER, UM, QUALITY RESERVE, WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE, AND, AND ALSO JUST FRANKLY, IT, IT ARTIFICIALLY RESTRICTS THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY AVAILABLE, UM, IN THE RESERVE SPACE TO ERCOT AND TO THE MARKET. SO, SO IF, YOU KNOW, SPEAKING JUST BRIEFLY TO SHAWN'S COMMENTS, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH, IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC ISSUE WITH THE QUALITY OF THE RESERVE THAT YOU'RE GETTING FROM A PARTICULAR TECHNOLOGY THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ADDRESSING THAT THROUGH THE DURATION REQUIREMENT FOR ESRS IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO ADDRESS IT. I THINK IT, IT MAY BE MORE OF A PRODUCT DEFINITION PROBLEM, BUT, UM, BUT ALL THE SAME. WE'RE SEEING PRICE FORMATION THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO US. SO I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH WHAT I PRESUME WILL BE COMMENTS COMING AT ME IN A COUPLE MINUTES ABOUT, WELL, ON THE ONE HAND YOU SAY WE NEED MORE REVENUE IN THE WHOLESALE MARKET TO GET PRICE SIGNALS. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU'RE SAYING THE PRICES ARE TOO HIGH IN NONS SPIN AND YOU'D LIKE TO SEE LESS REVENUE. SO THERE I, YOU KNOW, I'LL ADDRESS IT AND WE CAN ADDRESS IT AGAIN IN A MOMENT OR TWO WHEN THE QUESTION COMES AT ME. BUT, UM, BUT WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE ARE IS PRICE FORMATION THAT MAKES SENSE GIVEN THE PRODUCT DEFINITION AND THE NEED AND, AND THE DEMAND FOR THAT PRODUCT, WHICH IS PART OF THE PRODUCT DEFINITION, REALLY. SO, SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE IS THAT IF, IF ERCOT WINDS UP, UM, SEEING SHORTAGE CONDITIONS THAT DRIVE HIGHER PRICES, THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE HIGHER PRICES MAKE SENSE AS WELL. UM, AND THAT'S WHERE THE A SDC AUGMENTATION COMES IN, UH, FOR THE CURVES. SO, SO WE VIEWED THE A SDC CURVES AND THE DURATION REQUIREMENT AS BEING COMPLIMENTARY TO EACH OTHER, BOTH IN THE DIRECTION OF BETTER PRICE FORMATION, ARTIFICIALLY PUMPING, ARTIFICIALLY PUMPING REVENUE INTO THE MARKET IS, IS NOT GOING TO GET, UH, A SATISFACTORY RA RESULT. SO RA WILL COME WHEN, WHEN THE MARKET STARTS PERCEIVING SHORTAGES AND PRICING THEM AND, AND PUTTING MORE MONEY IN THE MARKET. SO, SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, AT A HIGH LEVEL, I THINK THAT'S WHERE, WHERE WE ARE ON THIS. AND AGAIN, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT ERCOT CAME BACK WITH, UM, THEIR COMMENTS TO, TO NED'S COMMENTS EARLIER. AND I, I'M NOT TRYING TO PICK ON ANYBODY. I JUST, SINCE I'M UP HERE, I JUST THOUGHT I WOULD, UM, DEAL WITH EVERYTHING. SO, SO THERE IS THIS OTHER DRRS PRODUCT, UH, IN 1310, AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS IN SOME SENSE OF AN RA CONCEPT WRAPPED AROUND DRS, UH, AS IT CAME FROM THE LEGISLATURE, BUT, BUT THEY'VE BEEN SEPARATED HERE, UM, INTO TWO DISTINCT INITIATIVES AND TWO DISTINCT PRODUCTS. AND SO, SO I DON'T THINK THAT LOOKING TO DRRS AS AN OPERATING RESERVE VIA 1309 AS A RESOURCE ADEQUACY VEHICLE IS, IS APPROPRIATE. I, I, AND I, AND I TRULY MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE IN THE SENSE THAT IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOAD GROWTH CURVES AND YOU NET OUT WHATEVER LOAD GROWTH MIGHT HAVE TO BRING ITS OWN GENERATION, YOU, YOU, YOU WOULD REALLY HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH REVENUE YOU THINK DRRS WOULD PUMP INTO THE MARKET, UM, ON ITS OWN AS, AS WE ROLL THROUGH INCREASING LOAD OBLIGATION. AND DRS ON ITS OWN ISN'T GOING TO ADD THAT MUCH REVENUE. UM, AND AGAIN, ALL THIS GETS TO THE ERCOT SYSTEM HAS TO GET SHORT AND PRODUCE HIGHER SHORTAGE PRICES IN ORDER TO GET ENOUGH REVENUE IN THE MARKET. IF, IF, IF THE LOAD GROWTH CURVES ARE EVEN 25% ACCURATE, WE'LL GET TO MORE REVENUE WITHIN [00:45:01] A COUPLE OF YEARS. UH, SO, AND, AND, AND THAT, THAT WON'T BE SPECIFIC TO DRS. UM, ON THE PRICE FLOOR MATTER, WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY OBJECTED TO THE PRICE FLOOR, BUT ERCOT ISS IN AN ODD SPOT, I THINK, I THINK THE SOLUTION TO THE PRICE FLOOR MATTER IS PUSHING TOWARDS ERCOT, NOT WRECKING TO, UH, AS TARGET, BUT RATHER WRECKING TO AN AS PROCUREMENT AN AN AN AVAILABILITY THAT WOULD AT LEAST SATISFY, UM, RESERVES THAT WOULD KEEP, UM, ERCOT OUT OF AN EEA ONE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S A, A FAIRLY LARGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EEA ONE AND THE PROCUREMENT TARGET IN TOTAL, I THINK, UM, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. AND, AND SO THE, THE PROBLEM WITH THE PRICE FLOOR MATTER COMES WITH ERCOT FEELING LIKE IT NEEDS TO R TO TO HAVE ENOUGH CAPACITY AVAILABLE TO MEET THE ENTIRE, UM, AS TARGET OR, OR AS, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE, AS METHODOLOGY PRODUCED. SO, SO I I KIND OF VIEW, WE, WE WE'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF PRICE FLOORS, BUT I VIEW THAT AS HAVING A SEPARATE TRACK, UM, THAT WOULD GET TO PUTTING SOME BOUNDS AROUND WHAT, WHAT ERCOT COULD RUCK FOR. AND THEN WE POTENTIALLY WOULDN'T NEED A PRICE FOR IN R WHICH MEANS THAT WE WOULDN'T NEED A PRICE FLOOR IN THE DAY AHEAD IN THE REAL TIME MARKET. SO I KNOW I'VE TAKEN UP A BUNCH OF TIME, I JUST WANT TO GIVE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF, YOU KNOW, OUR POSITION. I KNOW YOU'VE HEARD MOST OF IT REPEATEDLY, SO I'M, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR, OKAY, LET'S GO TO THE QUEUE, BUT I'LL GIVE PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE THE OPTION OF TALKING NOW OR, OR WAITING FOR OR CRACK COMMENTS. UM, SHANE? YEAH, THANK YOU, SHANE, THOMAS, MICHELLE, UM, JUST A LITTLE BIT, I GUESS MAYBE MORE DIRECTLY ADDRESSING WHAT HE WAS JUST SPEAKING TO. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO, HE'S DESCRIBING IT AS A LOWER, AS LIKE THE IMPOSITION THAT IT'S A LOWER QUAL QUALITY PRODUCT. AND WITH THAT REGARD, THEY'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE RAMP TIME, HOW LONG IT TAKES TO, TO SPIN UP. BUT THERE'S OTHER FACTORS THAT ALSO ARE IMPORTANT IN THE MARKET, AND WE'RE TRYING TO ASSIGN SOME SORT OF VALUE TO THEM. AND I, AND IN MY MIND, AT LEAST PART OF THE REASON THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DURATION IS SEEN AS IMPACTING REAL-TIME PRICES, YOU KNOW, THAT REQUIREMENT, WE SAYING THE, YOU KNOW, THE, IT'S, UH, NONS SPIN IS, IS, YOU KNOW, OFTEN, UH, CLEARING AT A MULTIPLE OF REGULATION OR RS, WHICH SEEM LIKE MORE VALUABLE SURFACES IS, THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S TRYING TO ASSIGN A VALUE TO THIS DURATION WHEN IT WE'RE SHORT OF DURATION IN, IN REAL TIME, BASICALLY. I MEAN, SHORT OF DURATION MAY BE, UH, THE WRONG, UH, TERM THERE, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SHOWING US THAT THAT'S WHAT'S BINDING IN, IN THE MARKET AND THAT'S WHY THESE PRICES ARE, ARE HIGHER. SO I THINK THE KIND OF THE ASSERTION THAT DURATION DOESN'T HAVE A VALUE, UM, UM, IS KIND OF ONE-SIDED ARGUMENT. UM, AND I THINK THEN LOWERING THE QUALITY OF NONS SPIN, YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO, TO SOLVE THE SAME ISSUE, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO BUY MORE OF IT. AND SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A COUNTERING OF THIS EFFECT. AND WHEN WE GO TO THE AS METHODOLOGY DISCUSSION, I THINK THAT THIS COULD PROBABLY BE HANDLED MORE HOLISTICALLY AS PART OF THAT, AND WE COULD SEE WHAT IT MEANS, UH, HOW MUCH OF IT ARE WE GOING TO BE NEEDING AT FOUR HOURS OF, UH, DURATION, HOW MUCH WOULD BE NEEDING IF IT WAS ONLY, IF IT WAS STILL IT WAS REDUCED TO TWO HOURS. AND WE CAN KIND OF EVALUATE THE ACTUAL IMPACTS OF THIS ON THE MARKET, UH, MORE DEEPLY BEFORE HAVING THAT DISCUSSION. UM, IN GENERAL ON, ON THE KIND OF WHAT'S PROPOSED BEFORE US, WE WOULD BE AGAINST THAT, UH, THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE BECAUSE OF IT REDUCING THE, THE FLOOR. WE, YOU HAVE TO LEAVE ROOM FOR THE MARKET TO SOLVE PUTTING A WELL, RIGHT, TYPING IT IN AS A A ONE PENNY FLOOR IS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY POINTLESS BECAUSE THAT'S THE LOWEST PRICE IT COULD BE. SO, AND IF YOU'RE NOT LEAVING ANY ROOM FOR THE MARKET TO SOLVE, WE'RE JUST GONNA SPEND $5 MILLION AND TWO YEARS OF WORK FOR WHAT IT'S, IT'S A LOT OF EFFORT TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW WE'RE BUILDING UP TO FAIL. AND SO WE NEED TO BUILD THIS IN A WAY THAT THE MARKET CAN SOLVE, THE MARKET CAN WORK AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WORK TOWARDS WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO DO AND REDUCE RUCKS AT LEAST WITH THIS, THIS VERSION THAT WE HAVE HERE. AND I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA SPEND A LOT OF TIME ARGUING ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, EXACT SHAPE AND LEVEL OF THE FLOOR, 10 VERSUS [00:50:01] 15 AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK THE 15 IS OUR PREFERRED OPTION, BUT REALLY WE'RE GOING TO DRAW THESE AT LEAST ONE MORE TIME, MAYBE TWO MORE TIMES BEFORE DRS GOES LIVE. SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE OTHER CHANCES TO DO THIS. UM, BUT WE NEED TO GET KIND OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF IT CORRECT HERE. AND I THINK ONE OF THAT, ONE OF THOSE IS PUTTING IN A PROPER FLOOR AND ESTABLISHING THE, THE FLOOR MECHANISM TO GET, UH, HAVE ROOM FOR THE MARKET TO WORK. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANKS SHANE. BILL, COMMENT NOW, OR COMMENT. DR. ERCOT, CAN I DO BOTH? YOU, YOU GONNA HAVE TO GET BACK IN THE QUEUE. WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR ER KAT'S PRESENTATION BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS MOTION. IS THAT CORRECT? YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW? YES. OKAY. IF SOMEONE CALLS THE QUESTION, NO. OKAY. UH, I'LL GET A COUPLE REACTIONS NOW. ONE IS OUR FOCUS ON THIS. THE DESIGN OF THIS VERSION OF DRS, WHICH IS NOT DRS PLUS, IS HOW EFFECTIVE IT WILL BE AT THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF REDUCING ROCKS. AND THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THIS PROPOSAL THAT MAKE IT EFFECTIVE AT DOING THAT. AND AS THE STRUCTURE OF THE DEMAND CURVE AND THE PRICE FLOOR AND THE DURATION LIMIT, AS WE SAW LAST WEEK AT THE BOARD MEETING, IF THERE ISN'T SUFFICIENT THERMAL GENERATION ONLINE, THEN ERCOT WILL RUCK DUE TO CONCERNS WITH STATE OF CHARGE DEGRADATION. SO THE GOAL OF THIS IS, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT HOW THIS IS DESIGNED, WILL IT PROVIDE PROPER PRICE INCENTIVES FOR THERMAL RESOURCES TO COMMIT MORE, MORE? AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHY THE LARGE CONSUMERS WOULD WANT THE WEAKEST VERSION OF THIS, BUT I'M NOT, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT WILL ADDRESS THE PRIMARY CONCERN WITH THE DESIGN OF THIS PRODUCT. AND I ACKNOWLEDGED JEFF'S, UH, COUPLE JEFF'S POINTS, WHICH HE SMARTLY LEFT THE MICROPHONE IS, UH, THE DURATION LIMITS IN THE ANCILLARY SERVICES CURRENTLY DO CREATE PRICING OUTCOMES WHERE YOU HAVE LOWER QUALITY RESERVES PRICING HIGHER, BUT THAT'S INTENTIONAL. THAT'S HOW YOU PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES TO COMMIT MORE THERMAL RESOURCES. SO YOU AVOID THE OUT OF MARKET ACTION, WHICH I CERTAINLY HOPE THE IMM AGREES THAT WE NEED TO DO WHATEVER POSSIBLE TO AVOID OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS, INTERRUPT COMMITMENTS. SO THE DESIGN OF THIS PRODUCT IS CRUCIAL TO DO THAT. AND ALSO, UM, JUST ANOTHER REACTION TO JEFF'S COMMENTS, WHICH I ACKNOWLEDGE, DIAMOND HAS BEEN VERY CONSISTENT ON THEIR PERSPECTIVE ON CONCERNS WITH CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS, THE AMOUNT OF ANCILLARY SERVICES WE PROCURE, THE DESIGN OF THIS PRODUCT FIRM, FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE, RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM, THEIR CONCERNS ARE ALL CONSISTENT, IS THAT WE NEED TO BE DEPENDENT ON TRUE SHORTAGES. THE PROBLEM IS WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T HAVE SHORTAGES IN SOME MARKET, AND WE GOTTA STOP ACTING LIKE WE CAN. SO THE WAY THAT WE AVOID THAT IS WE DEFINE A SHORTAGE AS SOMETHING THAT'S FAR AWAY FROM A SHORTAGE. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE WITH THE DESIGN OF THIS PRODUCT AND SUPPLEMENT THE CURRENT DESIGN WITH ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES. SO FOCUS HERE IS WELL REDUCE ROCK. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M GONNA BE ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON OUR ACCOUNT IN THEIR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU, JEFF. I'LL JUST ASSUME THAT WHEN YOU WANNA REP REPLY, REPLY TO SOMEONE, YOU'LL, YOU'LL COME UP HERE. OKAY? UM, LET'S GO TO DAVID KEY. THANKS. THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON. SO I WAS GONNA ASK JEFF A QUESTION. UM, WHAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY AS FAR AS WHAT'S BEING CONSIDERED, WHAT'S, UH, THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE? UH, WHAT'S THE, I'S OPINION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS? AND I'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY WE SET THIS UP IS GONNA MAKE IT EITHER WORK OR IT WON'T WORK. SO GIVEN WHAT WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON RIGHT NOW, OR WHAT'S ACTION ON THE TABLE TO BE VOTED ON, UH, COULD YOU GIVE US YOUR OPINION ON IF THIS WILL WORK? IN WHAT SENSE? SO, I'M SORRY. LET, LET ME, LET ME CLARIFY. THANK YOU, BRIAN. UM, IS THIS BEST FOR THE MARKET? IS THIS GONNA BE A REASONABLE OUTCOME TO THE PRICE FLOORS AND THE DURATION? GIVE US SOMETHING THAT WILL ACTUALLY, UM, HAVE PARTICIPATION AND MEET THE OBJECTIVES THAT ARE SET FORTH. SO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE HAS THE 1 CENT, RIGHT? WAS DESKTOP EDITS TO THE 1 CENT PRICE FLOOR AND THE TWO HOUR DURATION? YES. I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THAT THE MOTION ON THE TABLE WITH THE 1 CENT PRICE FLOOR AND THE TWO HOUR DURATION, WE'LL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS MOVING THE NEEDLE ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. AND SO, UH, AND TO, AND THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTION, WHAT'S BEST FOR THE MARKET, OBVIOUSLY, I, I BELIEVE THAT A TWO HOUR REQUIREMENT AND A 1 CENT PRICE FLOOR IS BEST FOR THE MARKET, UM, TO BILL'S COMMENT OF WE CAN'T EXPERIENCE SHORTAGE CONDITIONS HERE. THAT'S, UM, [00:55:01] THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DISCUSSED, IF THAT'S TRUE, BECAUSE THE ACCO MARKET IS VERY CLEARLY NOT SET UP TO, TO DO ANYTHING, UH, IN THE DIRECTION OF RESOURCE ADEQUACY IF IT'S NOT ALLOWED TO EXPERIENCE ANY SHORTAGE CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. THANKS, JEFF. YEAH, I DON'T SEE THIS 1309 AS A RESOURCE ADEQUACY MEASURE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN 1310. BUT, UM, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING FOR LATER. BUT, UH, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. THANKS DAVID. BOB? YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK, I JUST WANNA HIT ONE PIECE OF THAT 'CAUSE RESOURCE ADEQUACY PIECE KEEPS COMING UP AND, UH, IT'S KIND OF BEEN HIT ON A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH SIDES. THIS KIND OF REMINDS ME OF THE DISCUSSION WE HAD WITH THE RDC. EVERYONE KEPT TRYING TO CALL THAT A RESOURCE ADEQUACY TOOL. IT WAS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE. IT WAS DESIGNED FOR SHORT TERM PRICING OF RESERVES TO ADD RESOURCES INTO THE MARKET, WHICH YOU WOULD SAY WOULD CHANGE THE MARKET EQUILIBRIUM RESERVE MARGIN, BUT IT WAS NOT A CAPACITY MARKET. AND THIS SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME WAY, IT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AS A SHORT TERM OPERATIONAL DESIGN, UH, PROCESS HERE. AND THAT WHATEVER REVENUES COME OF THAT, WE'LL DO THE SAME THING THAT THE RDC WAS DESIGNED TO DO. AND I DON'T DISAGREE. WE DON'T HAVE A RESOURCE ADEQUACY ISSUE, AND WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT, AND I'M HOPING THAT WHATEVER WOULD COME OUT OF THE, THIS FALL RESOURCE, UH, THE RELIABILITY STANDARD IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THAT. SO I'D HOPE WE KIND OF KEEP THIS TO THE OPERATIONAL SIDE AND THE PRICING OUTCOME MECHANISMS IN REAL TIME. THANKS, BOB. BRIAN, WE'RE JUST GOING BACK TO OUR GAME. I WAS TRYING TO THINK OF THE WORD THAT RHYMES WITH UNINVESTIBLE AND I COULDN'T THINK OF ONE. UM, BUT THAT'S WHAT THIS VERSION OF THE, OF THE NPRR IS, IS IT'S NOT GONNA RESULT IN, UH, ANYONE ACTUALLY INVESTING, UH, UH, CAPITAL TO, TO BUILD, UH, FOR LONGER DURATION RESOURCES. SO IF THAT'S THE OUTCOME YOU WANT, COOL. UM, I HATE TO BE A, UM, REGULATORY NIHILIST, BUT, UH, I DO KIND OF FEEL LIKE THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE, UH, THE POINT THAT SHANE WAS MAKING EARLIER THAT WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT ALL OF THIS AGAIN, AND IT IN SOME WAYS DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU DO WITH, WITH THIS VERSION, BECAUSE HOPEFULLY THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, RECONFIGURE SOME OF THE, THE SHAPES OF THE DEMAND CURVES. BUT, UH, THIS VERSION, IT, IT'S DECK CHAIRS, TITANIC, WHATEVER THING YOU WANT TO USE. OKAY, THANKS BRIAN. UM, LET'S GO TO SETH. IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED. OKAY, THANKS. LET'S GO TO EY. EY, ARE YOU ON? YES, I'M, OH, YOU'RE HERE, HERE, HERE IN PERSON. I WAS TYPING MY NOTES, UH, IN CASE I FORGET. UH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS, UH, BECAUSE FIRST, UM, UM, UH, SEEMS LIKE THE IMM IS INDICATING THAT A REVERSE OF, UH, PRICES SOLELY THE DEMAND CURVES FAULT OR RESPONSIBILITY. UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, UM, THE PROBLEM IS VERY COMPLICATED. YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE, UH, OFFER STACK, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST THE BED STACK, RIGHT? AND THEN YOU HAVE TO ALSO LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, UH, WHERE THE UNITS ARE. SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THIS AND ALSO SHADOW PRICES, YOU KNOW, THE PENALTY, YOU KNOW, UH, PRICE, ALL THE THINGS. SO, UM, TO JUST TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A RE REVERSE OF PRICES. OH, IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S BECAUSE THE DEMAND CURVE AND IT'S NOT WORKING. LET'S FIX THAT. I DON'T THINK SO. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS WHOLE PROBLEM, UM, HOLISTICALLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON. UM, THAT'S ONE, UM, COMMENT. SECOND, AND, UH, IS IT BAD THAT WE HAVE A, UH, REVERSE OF PRICES? UM, MAYBE SOME, YOU KNOW, IT DEPENDS, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, EACH ENTRY SERVICE IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS A CATEGORY OF, UH, OPERATIONAL ISSUES. SO EACH SERVICE, YOU KNOW, HAS ITS UNIQUE VALUE, UH, JUST LIKE A PARENT LOOK AT HIS CHILD, RIGHT? CHILDREN, YOU KNOW, EACH VALUE, UH, EACH CHILD IS UNIQUE AND VALUABLE [01:00:01] TO, TO, TO HAVE AN ABSOLUTE, UM, HIERARCHY OF, UH, ASSET SERVICES. UM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF RE I DON'T THINK SO. IT DEPENDS ON, AGAIN, DEPENDS ON WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE SYSTEM. AND IF THAT PARTICULAR ASSET SERVICE OR JUST AN ISSUE AT THE MOMENT, THAT'S THE MOST VALUABLE ASSET SERVICE AT THE TIME. SO I THINK THE HIERARCHY SHOULD BE RELATIVE TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN REAL TIME. SO, YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE NON SPRING PRICE, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY WITH STORM FIRM IS A PERFECT, UH, EXAMPLE HOW, LIKE, YOU KNOW, UM, NON SPIN, YOU KNOW, THE FOUR HOUR NON SPIN AND DS IS MORE VALUABLE THAN RE UP AT THE MOMENT THAN THE, YOU KNOW, UM, UH, THE 30 MINUTE ECS, RIGHT? WE ALL KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THE NIGHT BEFORE BATTERIES START, STARTED TO DISCHARGE, BUT THEN THEY WRAPPED DOWN AFTER TWO TO THREE HOURS, AND THEN THEY COULD NOT BE CHARGED IN TIME TO SUPPORT THE, YOU KNOW, THE FAST LOAD INCREASE IN THE NEXT MORNING. SO ERICA HAD TO RACK INSTRUCTIONS, YOU KNOW, UH, SEND THE RACK INSTRUCTIONS TO CERTAIN UNITS, YOU KNOW, TO SAVE THE SYSTEM. IT AGAIN, TELLS YOU AT THOSE MOMENTS, LONGER DURATION, IT SERVICES ARE MUCH MORE VALUABLE THAN SHORT, UM, DURATION IT SERVICES. SO, UM, UM, SO I DON'T THINK OUR FOCUS SHOULD BE, UH, ALWAYS TRY TO FIX THE ER AND ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, THERE HASN'T BEEN YEAH, A, UH, UM, COMPREHENSIVE, YOU KNOW, STUDY TO, TO SEE, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, IF THIS PROPOSED TO CHANGE, YOU KNOW, UH, REALLY FIX THE PROBLEM, REALLY HAVE A, UH, VALUE END. SO, UH, WITHOUT A, UH, EVEN A BASIC, UM, GOOD ANALYSIS TO SUPPORT THIS CHANGE. YOU KNOW, I, I THINK FOR MARKET STABILITY, UH, SAKE, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD JUST KEEP THE CURRENT DESIGN AND THEN, YOU KNOW, MOVE FORWARD. UM, YEAH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. LET'S, UM, I UNDERSTAND ARCA HAS A PRESENTATION AND THEY FILED I THINK THREE SETS OF COMMENTS SINCE PRS. UM, BUT, BUT WE DO APPRECIATE THE, THE HARD WORK WORKING WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS. RYAN, IS RYAN DOING THE PRESENTATION? RYAN, CAN WE DO THIS IN 10 MINUTES? YOU GOT IT? CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES. ALRIGHT. APOLOGIES. LESS THAN 10 MINUTES IS FUNNY TOO. APOLOGIES FOR LESS THAN 10 MINUTES. ALRIGHT, 10 UP TO 10 MINUTES. YOU COULD MAYBE GET BONUS MINUTES IF YOU RHYME OR HAVE LYRICS. OKAY. YEAH, MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT BEING THERE IN PERSON. I GUESS Y'ALL HAVE TO SEND ME EMOJIS IF I'M GOING OFF TRACK HERE. BUT, UH, MAYBE WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. I'LL TRY AND, UH, HONE IN ON WHAT I THINK ARE SOME OF THE KEY COMPONENTS, UH, OF ERCOT COMMENTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO, TO 1309. BUT THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE WANNA HIGHLIGHT WHEN WE DO THIS PRESENTATION. UM, ONE IS MAYBE JUST REEMPHASIZE THE NATURE OF ANCILLARY SERVICE, DEMAND CURVES AND SHORTAGE FLOOR PRICES. UH, WE WANNA DO A COMPARISON AND A, A CONTRAST WITH SOME OF THE, UH, THE COMPETING PROPOSALS THAT ARE OUT THERE AND ARE RECOMMENDED A SDC CURVE AND SHORTAGE PRICE FOR SHORTAGE FLOOR PRICE, RATHER FOR MPR 1309. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, UH, A COUPLE OF TIMES, BUT I THINK IT BEARS REPEATING, IS THAT WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES AND, UH, SHORTAGE FLOORS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE CURVES WITH MINIMUM PRICES, UH, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS INSUFFICIENT SUPPLY TO MEET THE AF PLAN. AND THAT'S WHERE THESE DEMAND CURVES OR PENALTY CURVES COME INTO EFFECT. IT DOES BEAR REPEATING THAT ABSENT THAT IT IS JUST THE MARKET, UH, DYNAMICS OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND OPPORTUNITY COSTS, AND REAL TIME CO-OP OPTIMIZATION THAT WILL DETERMINE THE, THE PRICES FOR THESE SERVICES. SO WE ARE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TIMES WHEN WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH AND THEN WHAT THE, WHAT THE PENALTY FUNCTION SHOULD BE FOR THAT. SO THAT'S JUST SORT OF AN ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THAT, UH, CONSTRUCTION WORKS. NEXT SLIDE. ALRIGHT. SO TO SOME EXTENT WE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE, THESE ADCS, UH, AT AT NAM. SOMETIMES I THINK WE, WE COULDN'T MAKE THIS MORE CONFUSING AND IF WE TRIED, BUT I'LL, I'LL DO WHAT I CAN TO, TO HOPEFULLY CLARIFY SOME OF THIS. UM, AGAIN, THE, THE DEMAND CURVES, THEY, THEY REFLECT THE PRIMARILY PRICE FOR GOING SHORT [01:05:01] ON THE ANCILLARY SERVICE PRODUCTS RELATIVE TO THEIR VOLUMES IS DEFINED BY THE AS PLAN, AND THEY REPRESENT THAT WILLINGNESS TO PROCURE, UH, VOLUME AT A GIVEN PRICE AND WHAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE START TO GO SHORT ON THAT. AND SECONDLY, THE, THE SHORTAGE FLOOR PRICE. THIS APPLIES AGAIN, SORT OF THE MINIMUM PORTION WHEN WE ARE SHORT. SO WHEN WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SUPPLY TO MEET THE AS PLAN FOR A GIVEN PRODUCT, WHAT SHOULD THAT FLOOR PRICE BE? AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT TAIL ISN'T APPROACHING ZERO AS, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY. BUT I THINK THAT THE DISTINCTION HERE, AND I'M I'M SORRY FOR KIND OF GOING ON, IS THAT THE, THESE ARE NOT THE, THE, THE NORMAL CONDITIONS THAT'S COMPETITIVE OFFERS THAT ARE SETTING THE PRICE. AND SO NEITHER THE A SDC SHAPE NOR THE SHORTAGE FLOOR PRICE COME INTO PLAY. BOTH ARE, ARE, THINK OF THEM AS, AS HOW DO WE DESIGN THE SHORTAGE PRICING AND HOW DO WE CONSTRUCT THE HIERARCHY? NEXT SLIDE. OKAY, SO I TALKED ABOUT SHORTAGE PRICE FLOORS. NOW I'M TALKING ABOUT MINIMUM PRICES. AND SO MINIMUM PRICES HERE, AND, AND THIS IS WHERE IT, IT DOES BEAR. UM, THERE WAS AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION, I MAY SAY FROM THE, FROM THE IMM AT THE THIRD WORKSHOP THAT ORCO, UH, STAFF HAD HELPED IN TERMS OF ANALYSIS. UM, THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE LOWER BOUND ON THE NON-LINEAR CURVE SEGMENT OF AN A FDC. AND THIS IS ABOUT ENSURING THAT WE GET THE, THE KIND OF SHAPE OF EACH CURVE THAT REFLECTS THE RELATIVE RELIABILITY VALUE OF THAT PRODUCT. AND, AND THAT'S IMPORTANT. THERE, THERE IS A HIERARCHY AND, UM, THIS IS THE, THE CONSTRUCT THAT WE'VE USED, UH, IN CON IN CONCERT WITH OUR DISAGGREGATE AND BACKFILL APPROACH. THIS IS THE SET OF MINIMUM PRICES THAT WE USE THAT THAT CONSTRUCT OR SHAPE THOSE, THOSE INDIVIDUAL ASCS PER THEIR RELATIVE, UH, RELIABILITY VALUE. AND THEN, AS I MENTIONED, THE SHORTAGE FLOOR PRICE ARE DIFFERENT ELEMENT. THEY APPLY AT THE TAIL END AND THEY'RE THE FINAL STEP IN THE METHODOLOGY. SO THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED, UM, THE REG UP AND RS VALUES, AND PROBABLY MORE SPECIFICALLY, UH, IN THE COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED WITH WITH THE IMM IS, UH, A MINIMUM PRICE FOR ECRS AT $15 $5 FOR NONS SPEND AND ONE PENNY FOR DRF. AND I THINK IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, THIS WILL REALLY GIVE AN ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THOSE MINIMUM PRICES ARE DERIVED AN A SDC. SO WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS, UH, ON THE, THE LEFT CHART, THIS IS THE, THE ERCOT, I SHOULD SHOULD SAY, THE ERCOT IMM PROPOSAL, WHEN WE SET THE DRS MINIMUM PRICE AT A PENNY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT CURVE, WHAT IT DOES IS IT KEEPS THE DRS CURVE, THAT PURPLE CURVE BELOW NONS SPIN THROUGHOUT THE SHORTAGE RANGE CORRECTLY, REFLECTING THAT NONS SPIN HAS A GREATER SHORT TERM RELIABILITY VALUE, UH, THAN DRS IN REAL TIME. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN'T LOSE SIGHT OF, AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE STATUTE, BUT, UH, IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECALL THAT WHEN IT COMES TO ANCILLARY SERVICES, ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER DRS IS NOT JUST AN ANCILLARY SERVICE. IT HAS SOME UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE, UH, DEFINED BY STATUTE. IT IS MORE OF A, A, A RUCKING OPTION. AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IT, IF WE BUY MORE DRS IN REAL TIME, WE CANNOT DEPLOY IT. IT IT IS A WRECKING OFFSET OPTION. SO THIS IS THE, HOW WE CAN KIND OF CON COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE CURVE THAT I JUST DESCRIBED WITH ERCOT, WITH, WITH ONE OF THE OTHER PROPOSALS HERE, WHICH SETS THE MINIMUM PRICE FOR DRS $15 NONS SPIN AT A PENNY. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT WHAT HAPPENS HERE IS THAT IT CAUSES THE DRS CURVE TO SIT ABOVE OR EQUAL TO NONS SPIN OVER MUCH OF THE RANGE. YOU CAN SEE THAT PURPLE, UH, THAT PURPLE CURVE IS NOW ABOVE THE, THE GREEN ONE FOR, FOR MUCH OF THAT. AND WHAT THIS DOES IS IT, IT REALLY DOES OVERSTATE THE RELATIVE RELIABILITY VALUE OF DRS AND COULD DIVERT RESOURCES AWAY FROM NONS SPIND WHEN BOTH ARE COMPETING FOR THE SAME CAPACITY. SO REMEMBERING WHAT I SAID BEFORE ABOUT, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO REAL TIME DEPLOYMENT OF, OF DRS, LIKE THERE IS FOR NONS SPIND. SO IT, IT, IT'S NOT RATIONAL THAT WE WOULD WANT TO, UH, IF WE'RE GETTING INTO SHORTAGE CONDITIONS THAT WE WOULD PRIORITIZE DRS OVER NONS SPENT. THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A GOOD CONSTRUCT. AND I, I THINK THE, THE HIERARCHY THAT WE PRESERVE WITH THE MINIMUM PRICES THAT WE PROPOSE HERE, UH, IS A BETTER REFLECTION OF THE RELATIVE RELIABILITY VALUE OF THOSE SERVICES. NEXT SLIDE. UH, [01:10:01] I'LL, I'LL TRY AND KEEP THIS QUICK 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS. SO, UM, YEAH, IF WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. UM, I, I MAY SKIP THIS ONE JUST BECAUSE IN THE INSTANCE OF TIME FOLKS HAVE SOME FURTHER QUESTIONS, BUT THE, THE CONSTRUCT OF THAT IS, IS BASICALLY A, A REITERATION OF THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS GIVEN AT THE, THE WORKSHOP ON MARCH 9TH SIDE. OKAY. SO, UH, THE NEXT CRITICAL PIECE IS THIS, A SDC, UH, SHORTAGE FLOOR PRICE. SO, AS I MENTIONED, IT REPRESENTS THE MINIMUM PRICE AT WHICH THE FULL AS PLAN QUANTITY WILL BE PROCURED. AND SO IT ONLY COMES INTO EFFECT WHEN OFFERS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE AS PLAN, UH, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH THE, THE TAIL COULD, COULD GO, UH, TO, TO $0. SO IF YOU CAN THINK BACK TO, TO ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO, UM, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, UH, NPR 1269 AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE ADCS INITIALLY FOR R ACTUALLY, UM, THE IMPETUS FOR THIS 15 MEGAWATT, $15 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR FLOOR ON THE EXISTING ANCILLARY SERVICES WAS ALL ABOUT, UM, THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE TO SHOW THAT WHAT KIND OF A, A PENALTY PRICE DO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THESE NONS SPIND SHORTAGES IN RUCK AND $15 APPEAR TO BE THE RIGHT NUMBER THAT, THAT HELP TO RESOLVE THOSE, UM, THOSE SHORTAGES. AND, UM, IT ENSURES THAT THE, THE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY IS COMMITTED TO MEET TO, TO MEET THE AS PLAN. AND, UM, WE, WE, WE CAME TO SUPPORT THE, THE, THE TCPA AT THE TIME IN THEIR PROPOSAL TO, TO ADD THESE, UH, SHORTAGE FLOOR PRICES TO, TO BOTH THE, THE DAM IN REAL TIME. AND, UH, UNDER THE EXPECTATION THAT, UM, NOT HAVING A SEAM, WE WERE CONCERNED AROUND THAT. AND, AND THAT THE, THE ANALYSIS WAS PRESENTED TO INFORM THAT IT WAS, THAT IT WAS A RELATIVELY MODEST A S DC PRICE FOR LOW LEVELS OF SHORTAGES. NEXT SLIDE. SO WHAT I MIGHT DO IS KIND OF SKIP THIS ONE, BUT BASICALLY IT'S REALLY, REALLY HARD TO SEE WHAT A PRICE FLOOR OF A SHORTAGE PRICE FLOOR OF $10 VERSUS $15 IS. UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE, THE KIND OF CURVES, IT'S ALMOST INVISIBLE. WE HAVE KIND OF ZOOMED IN TO, TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT A FLOOR PRICE WOULD MEAN FOR, FOR 10 VERSUS $15. BUT I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I'LL KIND OF GET TO OUR RATIONALE FOR $10 AND THEN MAYBE OPEN IT UP TO, TO QUESTIONS NEXT SLIDE. SO HERE, HERE IS OUR PERSPECTIVE ON THE DRS, UH, SHORTAGE FLOOR PRICE FOR ONE, THE $10 FLOOR, IT MAINTAINED THAT, UH, RATIONAL RELATIVE PRICING BETWEEN THE AS PRODUCTS AND REFLECTS, I KIND OF NEED TO UNDERMINE THIS, BUT IT'S UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF DRS RELATIVE TO OTHER ANCILLARY SERVICES. ONE OF THESE IS NOT LIKE THE OTHER. AND, UH, THE OTHER THING AROUND THE $10 IS THAT IT DOES ALIGN WITH SOME OF THE, THE, THE POINTS THAT I THINK HAVE BEEN MADE FROM VARIOUS PER PERSPECTIVES HERE AROUND A SELF COMMITMENT INCENTIVES. AND SO THE, THE $10 PER MEGAWATT PER HOUR DOES, DOES KIND OF ALIGN WITH, WITH THE STARTUP INCENTIVES OF A MARGINAL COMBUSTION TURBINE UNIT WITH A FOUR HOUR MINIMUM RUNTIME, AND AGAIN, INCREASING THE FLOOR FOR DRF TO $15 IF WE'RE GETTING INTO TO REAL TIME, IT INFLATES THE VALUE OF DRS RELATIVE TO OTHER PRODUCTS, IN PARTICULAR NONS SPIN. AND WE DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT APPROACH GOING BACK TO THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS SERVICE RELATIVE TO OTHERS. AND SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT SENDING THE WRONG SIGNAL. UM, BUT WE WANNA MAKE SURE ALSO THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT REFLECTS THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF, OF, OF NOT STARTING UP AND PROVIDES THAT MARGINAL INCENTIVE THAT ALIGNS WITH, WITH THIS AS, AS KIND OF A, A RUCKING OPTION. SO, UH, AT THE BOTTOM HERE, YOU KIND OF NOW SEE THAT OUR, OUR MINIMUM PRICE CONSTRUCT, THAT'S TO DERIVE THE, THE HIERARCHY OF THE ADCS AND THEN THE, THE PRICE FLOOR, WHICH IS REALLY ABOUT SENDING THAT SIGNAL WHEN WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO MEET THE AS PLAN. NEXT SLIDE. I THINK THAT'S BASICALLY A SUMMARY OF OUR COMMENTS. UM, WE DID HAVE COMMENTS THAT, UH, AS, UH, AS THE IMM NOTED KIND OF REVERTING BACK TO THE, TO THE POSITION AROUND NONS SPEND. SO THIS SLIDE DOESN'T REALLY GET INTO THAT. THE FOCUS OF THIS IS REALLY AROUND THE ADCS GETTING THE MINIMUM PRICE CONSTRUCTS THAT WE GET, THE HIERARCHY THAT WE THINK REFLECTS THE RELATIVE RELIABILITY VALUE OF THESE SERVICES, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE APPROACHING INTO REAL TIME ACCOUNTING FOR THE UNIQUENESS OF DRS AND, UH, SIMILARLY, UH, A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FLOOR PRICE FOR DRS VERSUS THE OTHER ANCILLARY SERVICES, GIVEN ITS UNIQUENESS AND, [01:15:01] AND PRESERVING THAT HIERARCHY. SO I MAY PAUSE THERE, UH, HOPEFULLY I'M NOT TOO FAR OVER OR UNDER TIME, AND I SEE THERE'S A FEW QUESTIONS IN THE QUEUE, SO HAPPY TO STOP HERE. I THINK KEITH WANTED TO MAKE A, A QUICK COMMENT. YEAH, JUST A, JUST A QUICK COMMENT BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S SOME CONFUSION THAT WE HAD MULTIPLE COMMENTS AND WHY WERE THERE TWO YESTERDAY AND WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN? BUT I'LL, I'LL JUST SORT OF SUMMARIZE OUR COMMENTS VERY CLEARLY. NUMBER ONE, WE SUPPORT THE TWO HOUR DURATION, AND THAT IS AN ERCOT POSITION, NOT A KEITH OR A COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS POSITION. THAT'S AN ERCOT POSITION. TWO HOURS DURATION NUMBER TWO, AS, AS RYAN WAS CLEAR IN HIS PRESENTATION, WE SUPPORT A $10 SHORTAGE FLOOR PRICE. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S ONLY DURING SHORTAGE INSTANCES. AND FOR SOME, SOME, SOME COLOR. I LOOKED AT NONS SPIND OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS. 1.2% OF ALL INTERVALS WAS NON SPIN SHORT, AND IN HALF OF THEM, THEY WERE AT THE FLOOR TOTALING ABOUT $1.1 MILLION. OKAY, THAT'S SIX MONTHS. AND SO, UM, I'LL BE CLEAR, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, COMPARED TO WHAT THE IMM WAS SUGGESTING, THIS IS NOT A, UH, MASSIVE SHIFT OF, OF REVENUES TO GENERATORS. IT'S $1.1 MILLION, BUT WE FEEL THAT THE PRICE ACCURACY IS MORE IMPORTANT. AND SO WE DO SUPPORT THE $10 FLOOR. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE DEFINITELY HAPPY TO HAVE AN ANY QUESTIONS, UH, THAT YOU MAY HAVE. THANKS. THANKS, KEITH. OKAY, LET'S GO TO THE Q UH, JOHN HUBBARD. JOHN HUBBARD WITH TIEC. UM, RYAN OR KEITH, DOES ERCOT HAVE A RELIABILITY CONCERN WITH A 1 CENT PRICE FLOOR? WE HAVE A PRICE FORMATION CONCERN WITH THE 1 CENT FLOOR, BUT NOT A RELIABILITY CONCERN. WE HAVE A PRICE FORMATION CONCERN. AND THAT, AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT HOW THAT ULTIMATELY TRANSLATES INTO RELIABILITY, YOU KNOW, OUR MISSION IS TO PROMOTE RELIABILITY THROUGH MARKETS. SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S THE SENSE, BUT WE THINK THAT IT'S, IT IS BETTER PRICE FORMATION, UH, WITH THE, UH, AGAIN, I CALL IT THE SHORTAGE FLOOR PRICE BECAUSE IT'S REALLY ONLY DURING THOSE SHORTAGES TO, TO ENHANCE THAT SIGNAL. THANKS, O OKAY. BUT, SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, ERCOT DOES NOT HAVE A RELIABILITY CONCERN. THERE MAY BE SOME PRICE FORMATION CONCERNS, BUT THERE'S NO RELIABILITY CONCERN AROUND A 1 CENT PRICE FLOOR. A AGAIN, OUR SENSE IS THAT MARKETS PROMOTE RELIABILITY. SO IT'S, THERE IS INDIRECT EFFECTS, UH, BUT WE'RE, WE'RE NOT EXPECTING SOME SORT OF SHORTAGE, UH, SOME SORT OF FUTURE CONDITION. BUT WE DO BELIEVE THAT MARKETS PROMOTE RELIABILITY. SO IN THIS CASE, WE WOULD LIKE THE MARKETS TO PROMOTE RELIABILITY WITH USE OF THE FLOOR. BUT YOU PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED A 1 CENT PRICE FLOOR IN COMMENTS TWO WEEKS AGO. WE, WE HAVE CONSIDERED, UH, OUR VIEW, RECONSIDERED OUR VIEW, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE $10 IS THE RIGHT NUMBER. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, MY OTHER COMMENT IS THAT MANY OF THE COMMENTERS HAVE BEEN QUICK TO DISMISS A, A 1 CENT FLOOR, UM, AND RETICENT TO CHANGING THE NONS SPEND DURATION. BUT AS SHELL NOTED, THERE WILL BE OTHER CHANCES TO CHANGE THE PRICE FLOORS. UM, THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES ARE BEING, WILL BE STUDIED THROUGHOUT THE BEFORE DRS IS FINALLY IMPLEMENTED. AND I THINK ARBITRARILY SELECTING A $15 FLOOR OR EVEN A $10 FLOOR, UH, AT THIS TIME, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. UM, THAT CAN BE ADDED LATER, BUT AT THIS TIME, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE NOT TO HAVE, UH, A HIGHER PRICE FOR THAN 1 CENT. THANKS. OKAY, THANKS. UH, LET'S GO TO IKA. HI, IKA FOR COMMISSION STAFF. SO WE REALLY STRONG THE SUPPORT, UH, REDUCING DURATION PROMPT FOUR TO TWO HOURS. AND REASON FOR THAT IS IT'S REALLY ALIGNS WITH AS STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS. IT ALIGNS WITH ERCOT BUDGET PERFORMANCE MEASURES, AND WE REALLY WORK CLOSELY. WE MEET REGULARLY WITH ERCOT AND IMM ON THE AS STUDY AND HOW EVERYTHING IS IMPLEMENTED. SO WE WERE VERY HAPPY WHEN THEY FILED JOINT COMMENTS. ERCOT SAY THAT RELIABILITY IS NOT IMPACTED. IMM SAID IT'S GOOD MARKET DESIGN, SO WE REALLY STRONGLY SUPPORT TWO OURS ON THE FLOORS, WE ARE MORE NEUTRAL, BUT AFTER HEARING, SEEING REALLY RYAN'S REALLY EXCELLENT PRESENTATION, WE ARE OKAY WITH ERCOT STAND DOLLARS, BUT OUR MAIN ISSUE IS REALLY TO OURS, REALLY TWO HOURS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, LET'S GO TO NED. NED. NO, NO. FOUR MINUTE LONG QUESTION. , HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO WORK WITHIN THESE CONSTRAINTS? CAITLYN, THAT'S JUST . ALL RIGHT. UH, I'LL TRY TO HIT THESE QUICKLY. SO, UM, FIRST [01:20:01] OFF, UM, I WANT TALK TO THE BOARD. LAST WEEK I TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF OUR CONCERNS WITH THIS DIFFERENT TOPIC, BUT, UM, I TRIED TO FRAME WHAT OUR OBJECTIVE IS, IS SUSTAINABLE RELIABILITY THROUGH COMPETITIVE MARKETS AND WANT TO BRING THAT SAME FRAMEWORK. KEITH, YOU SAID RELIABILITY THROUGH MARKETS. I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE WE WANT THAT RELIABILITY TO BE SUSTAINABLE, SELF-SUSTAINED THROUGH THOSE COMPETITIVE MARKETS, AND THE MARKETS NEED TO BE COMPETITIVE. SO THE PRICING AND THE PRICE FORMATION. JOHN RUST TO YOUR, YOUR QUESTION, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A RELIABILITY ISSUE? WELL, THE MARKETS NEED TO BE THE ONE, BE THE FUNCTION THAT IS BRINGING THAT RELIABILITY TO THE MARKET, NOT A MONOS OPTIMISTIC PRICE SETTING FUNCTION THROUGH THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE. SO IF YOU WANT THE COMPETITIVE MARKET TO DRIVE IT, YOU NEED TO GIVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR COMPETITION TO WORK. SO THERE'S, THERE'S THAT POINT. UM, AND I'LL PAUSE IT THAT A 1 CENT FLOOR MINIMUM PRICE ON THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT. OKAY. THAT'S ANOTHER POINT. KEITH, I'M REALLY, REALLY GLAD THAT YOU, YOU MENTIONED THE STATISTICS ON WHEN THINGS GO SHORT. 'CAUSE RYAN, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THING, I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF THIS PRESENTATION IS WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN ALL DAY, EVERY DAY MINIMUM PRICE ISSUE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE 1.2% OF THE TIME THAT WE'RE SHORT. AND EVEN THEN OF THAT 1.2% OF THE TIME, I THINK IT WAS HALF OF THAT. SO 0.6% OF THE TIME YOU ACTUALLY HAVE PRICING SITTING AT, AT THE, UH, AT THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE. SO, UM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUDGET DUST IN TERMS OF THE, UH, THE OVERALL ERCOT SETTLEMENTS, UH, REALTIME SETTLEMENTS. THIS IS, THIS IS MINOR, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE THAT WE STAND BY AS A MARKET. AND, AND IKA, I I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THE CLARIFICATION ON, ON STAFF'S POSITION THERE. UM, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, UH, AND THIS IS FOR, I GUESS FOR, FOR ANYONE THAT IS, UH, IN FAVOR OF REDUCING THE NONS SPEND DURATION FROM FOUR HOURS TO TWO HOURS IN THIS PARTICULAR NPR. AND I'VE ALREADY SAID I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT, BUT IS THE INTENT THAT THAT WOULD BE DONE IN THE 2029 ANCILLARY SERVICE PLAN AFTER DRS GO LIVE? OR IS THAT INTENDED TO, UM, HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY? UM, BECAUSE THAT'S, UH, THERE'S, THERE'S, THAT WOULD BE A DISJOINTED IMPACT. AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN INDIANA JONES TRIES TO REPLACE THE BA THE BAG OF SAND FOR THE, THE JEED, UM, THING ABOUT BOB IN THE, IN THE, IN THE CAVE, THAT'S WHAT ENDS UP, YOU KNOW, BRINGING THE BOULDER DOWN. SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, UH, IF WE'RE GONNA GO THAT ROUTE, YOU'RE AT LEAST TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, REPLACE THE, THE, THE JEWEL WITH A BAG OF SAND AT THE SAME TIME TO AVOID THE, THE BOULDER OF DEATH. YES, I BELIEVE WE WERE, WE WERE GONNA DO IT CONCURRENTLY. UM, AND NOT, NOT DISJOINTEDLY. OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. APPRECIATE. ALRIGHT, I'LL BE QUIET. CAITLYN, KEEP GOING. ARE YOU GOOD? I CAN SAY MORE . OKAY. DO YOU NEED TO SAY MORE OR ARE YOU GOOD? SHANE AND CHEWE HAD SOME GOOD POINTS ABOUT THERE BEING MULTIPLE, YOU SAID, YOU SAID SHANE ACTUALLY HAD SOME GOOD POINTS. I SAID SHANE AND CHEWIER. OH, OKAY. AND CHEWE HAD GOOD POINTS ABOUT THERE BEING MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS TO THE RELATIVE VALUE OF ANCILLARY SERVICES. IT'S NOT A MULT A SINGLE DIMENSION ANYMORE ABOUT HOW FAST DOES IT RESPOND. THERE ARE DURATION, UH, CONSIDERATIONS THAT I THINK HAVE EMERGED. SO, OKAY, I WON'T REPEAT THAT. OKAY. UM, JUST TO FOLLOW UP, I DID ADDRESS HAND COMMENTS THERE, UH, CLAIM THAT IT DOES NOT REFLECT COMMISSION DIRECTION GUIDANCE IN FLOYD'S MEMO. WE RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THAT. SO, UH, SHAMS, IF YOU WANNA CONTACT US AND WE CAN TALK MORE WHY, BUT, UH, WE THINK IT DOES REFLECT COMMISSION GUIDANCE. OKAY. THANKS FOR THAT. LET'S GO TO MARK. THANK YOU CHAIR. AND I'LL BE BRIEF. UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE RYAN'S PRESENTATION AND UH, IT CLARIFIED A POINT FOR ME AND I THINK THE, THAT POINT IS THAT THE REAL HEART OF THE PROBLEM HERE IS CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS. CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS IS WHY WE HAVE TO HAVE A SHORTAGE PRICE FLOOR. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF PROMISES IN A LOT OF ROOMS ABOUT REVISITING CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS, AND IT IS TIME TO LIVE TO DELIVER ON THOSE PROMISES. THANK YOU. OKAY, BILL BARNES, YOU HAVE THE RHYMES READY. IT'S A TOUGH ONE, BLAKE. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T MAKE IT AS COMPLICATED LIKE, I'VE, I WAS READY FOR THE BATTERY BURNOUT OR WHATEVER WE'RE GONNA DO, BUT, YOU KNOW, [01:25:01] MAKE IT REALLY DIFFICULT. I'VE BEEN THINKING AND SO FAR NOTHING'S COMING TO ME. AGAIN. BACK TO THE, THE RUCK ISSUE, WHICH IS LIKE OUR PRIMARY CONCERN. AND THIS LOOKING AGAIN, BACK AT THE, AT THE DECK FROM LAST WEEK WHERE THERE WAS A INSTANCE WHERE ERCOT HAD TO RUCK AT LEAST SIX THERMAL UNITS DUE TO CONCERNS ABOUT BATTERIES CARRYING TOO MUCH OF THE RESERVES. AND I'M JUST WONDERING, CAN YOU RECONCILE THAT CONCERN THAT ERCOT RAISED WITH THE FACT THAT YOU'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING SHORTENING NONS SPEND TO A TWO HOUR DURATION LIMIT, WHICH BASICALLY MAKES IT A BATTERY PRODUCT, YET ANOTHER BATTERY PRODUCT. AND SO HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WHAT WE PASS TODAY WILL REDUCE AND IF THE HEAVEN'S PART, MAYBE EVEN ELIMINATE ROCK, WHICH I THINK EVERYONE WOULD CELEBRATE. HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WE DO THAT? OKAY, SO YOU, YOU ARE RAISING DAN'S DISCUSSION AND I BELIEVE THE CORRECT TERM IS FOLD BACK, UM, AS IT'S, SORRY, FOLD BACK, FOLD BACK. APOLOGIZE. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. UM, BUT I, I RECOGNIZE DAN DID USE A DIFFERENT TERM, BUT FOLD BACK, I BELIEVE IS THE CORRECT TERM. UH, AND THIS IS AN ISSUE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. AND, AND IF YOU FOLLOW SOME OF THE CAL ISO DIALOGUE, THIS IS AN ISSUE THEY'VE SEEN AND WORKED TO CORRECT. AND SO I WOULD ANTICIPATE US WORKING AROUND WITH OUR STORAGE FOLKS TO FIND WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE SO THAT IT BECOMES A BETTER APPRECIATION FOR WHAT THAT STATE OF CHARGE IS. AND SO FROM A DURATION PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT, UM, THAT A TWO HOUR VERSUS FOUR HOUR IS, IS THE SOLUTION TO THAT ISSUE. THE SOLUTION TO THAT ISSUE IS BETTER APPRECIATION FOR WHAT THE ACTUAL STATE OF CHARGE ON THESE RESOURCES ARE ONCE YOU GET TO A, A, EITHER A LOW LEVEL OR A HIGH LEVEL AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR YOUR ANCILLARY SERVICES AND TO INCORPORATE THAT IN HOW WE, WE ADDRESS THAT. AND I THINK IF WE CAN GET THAT ACCURATE, THEN THE, THE ACTUAL DURATION DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE YOU'LL ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT THE STORAGE CAN DO. AND, AND, UH, IN, IN THE EVENT THAT, UH, THAT MAY RESULT IN LESS QUANTITY THAN THERE WILL BE OTHER RESOURCES, UH, THERMAL OR HIGHER PRICES AS A RESULT. BUT YOU'LL HAVE ACCURATE REFLECTION OF WHAT THAT, UH, THE STATED CHARGE IS. SO THAT, THAT FROM OUR VIEW IS, IS HOW WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, WHICH WE BELIEVE TO BE SEPARATE FROM THIS PARTIC PARTICULAR ISSUE. OKAY. AND TO BE CLEAR, I'M A NO ON THE CURRENT MOTION. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A STRONG ENOUGH VERSION TO HELP REDUCE RUX. RTC WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. IT HA IT REALLY HASN'T. UM, SO I DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A, A CONCEPT OR A SUGGESTION THAT WE'RE GONNA CONTINUALLY REVISIT WHAT THE DURATION LIMITS SHOULD BE IN THE ANNUAL ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY. I HOPE THAT ONE OF THE KEY INPUTS INTO THAT DISCUSSION IS RUCK ACTIVITY AND WHETHER IT'S GOING DOWN OR NOT. AND, AND JUST TO, TO BE CLEAR ON TWO THINGS, I THINK RTC FROM OUR VIEW HAS, IT HAS NOT ELIMINATED RUCKS, BUT IT HAS GREATLY REDUCED THE INSTANCE OF RUX. AND WE THINK THAT 1309, UM, AND HOW THE MECHANISM IS GOING TO WORK AS A FULL PACKAGE SHOULD ALSO ADDRESS, UH, FURTHER ADDRESS THE RUCK ISSUE AS WELL. SO WE HAVE COMMENTS THAT IT'LL DO THAT. THANKS. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY, SETH? YEAH. CAN WE GO TO SLIDE SIX ON THERE? SO WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE BASICALLY CAPPING D'S PROCUREMENT AT A GIGAWATT. IF WE SET THE PENALTY VALUE AT A PENNY, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD PRICE FOR IT 'CAUSE IT'S REALLY NOT A PRICE FOR, IT'S AN OPTIMIZATION CAP, BUT, SO THE QUESTION IS WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? TO ME, WE WOULD ROCK MORE IF WE DID THAT. SO THIS IS ABSOLUTELY A PRICE FORMATION ISSUE BECAUSE IF YOU ROCK, YOU GET THE SAME RELIABILITY, BUT WE CAN OBVIATE THE ROCKS BY GETTING THIS RIGHT. SO I THINK I'M WITH, YOU KNOW, BRIAN SAMS AND NED OVER HERE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A PRICE FLOOR THAT WILL ACTUALLY ALLOW US TO PROCURE MORE OF THIS TO AVOID ROCKING IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND GETTING BACK TO KEITH'S POINT, I DON'T REALLY SEE THE RELIABILITY BEING THE CALCULUS IN ALL OF THIS. IT'S REALLY A PRICE FORMATION ISSUE. AND IF WE GET THE PRICE FORMATION RIGHT, I AGREE RELIABILITY FOLLOWS. SO THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M FALLING ON ALL THIS. UM, I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD JUST STOP PROCURING DRS AT, I'M SEEING IT, UH, OVER THERE WHERE IT'S SET AT A PENNY. IT'S ACTUALLY AROUND 800 MEGAWATTS OR SO AS IT APPROACHES ZERO, MAYBE IT'S LIKE 900. BUT I, TO ME THAT JUST, THAT THAT'S NOT THE CORRECT PATH TO GO IF WE WANT TO OBVIATE THE RUCKING THAT WE'RE SEEING. SO, SO JUST A COUPLE POINTS. THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATIVE VIEW. WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE QUANTITIES ARE YET. THAT'S, THAT'S TO BE STUDIED RELATED. WHEN WOULD WE KNOW WHEN THOSE QUANTITIES? UM, THAT'S AN NITKA QUESTION, BUT, UH, I SAW HER EARLIER. BUT, UM, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA BE STUDYING THAT SHORTLY, [01:30:01] BUT NOT BEFORE, UH, THE JUNE BOARD UNFORTUNATELY. UH, AND I THINK TO YOUR, YOUR, YOUR OTHER POINT, I THINK RYAN DID ALLUDE TO THIS IN HIS PRESENTATION THERE IS WHEN YOU THINK OF HOW THE RUCK IS GOING TO DEPLOY THE RESOURCES, THE REAL TIME AND HOW THAT INTERACTS IS, IS DIFFERENT. AND, AND RYAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO JUST CHIME IN ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT, UM, AND, AND REEMPHASIZE THAT, RYAN. YEAH. UH, THANKS VERY MUCH. YEAH. THIS, THIS IS THE UNIQUE CONSTRAINTS ON, ON DRS. SO THERE IS A REAL TIME PROCUREMENT OF DRS, BUT IF, UH, FOLKS RECALL THAT WAS WHEN WE DESIGNED THAT, THAT WAS REALLY MORE TO, UH, ENSURE THAT WE HAD, UM, KIND OF GOOD, GOOD PRICE FORMATION BETWEEN DAY AHEAD AND REAL TIME. THE, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT, UM, YOU, THERE'S NO DEPLOYMENT OF DRS IN REAL TIME LIKE THERE IS WITH NON SPEND. IT'S JUST NOT THAT KIND OF A SERVICE. IT IS DEPLOYED THROUGH R AND IT IS, IT IS MADE, UH, MORE IN MADE TO LOOK INEXPENSIVE SO THAT RUCK WILL SELECT IT FIRST. THAT'S THE INHERENT NATURE OF THIS. AND THAT IS A CRITICAL REASON WHY WE CAN'T JUST TAKE A KIND OF THROUGH LINE AND SAY, WE'LL, WE'LL TREAT ALL THE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL TREAT THIS LIKE ANY OTHER ANCILLARY SERVICE 'CAUSE IT, IT IS DIFFERENT. AND SO WE THINK THAT WITH THE, THE MINIMUM PRICES THAT INFORM THIS A-O-R-D-C CONSTRUCT, WE THINK THIS GIVES US THE RIGHT HIERARCHY. IT FORCES GET TO MAKE WHAT WE THINK ARE THE RIGHT DECISIONS WHEN WE GET INTO SHORTAGE AND HOW TO ALLOCATE THAT. AND, AND, AND IT'S THE SIMILAR CASE, UH, WITH THE FLOORS. OKAY. I SAW NETIKA, DID YOU WANNA WEIGH IN ON THE NOPE. OKAY. , LET'S GO TO TIKAS NOT HERE. UM, LET'S GO TO BOB HILTON. I'LL BRING ANYTHING I'M GOING TO SAY UP LATER. OKAY. ON THAT, ON WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY. OKAY. SO I THINK WE HAVE THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. WE'RE DOING DECENT TIME-WISE. WE'VE BEEN ON THIS ABOUT AN HOUR AND 10 MINUTES. COREY, WHAT WAS THE, UH, IT WAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AS AMENDED BY THE ERCOT 2, 4 28 COMMENTS AS REVISED BY TECH. AND THE RED LINE BY T WAS THE $10 TO 1 CENT ON THE NOT FLOOR, BUT THE SHORTAGE PRICING. UM, AND THEN WE'RE, WE'RE DOING A MINI COMBO WITH RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF GER 2 82 IS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS AND THE FOUR TWO ROSS REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE FOUR NINE OR CO COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE READY. COREY, DO YOU HAVE A RHYME? SURE. NOW THAT I CAN SAY IN POLITE COMPANY, , GEEZ, WE WILL BEGIN UP WITH THE CONSUMERS AND START WITH MIKE REED. YES. THANK YOU, GARRETT. YES, THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, NICK. YES, THANK YOU, BETH. YES, THANK YOU WILL. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR CO-OPS. BLAKE? NO, THANK YOU SIR. KYLE? NO, THANK YOU. JOE. DAN FOR MIKE? NO, THANK YOU. AND JOHN, NO THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. NED, I'M GONNA TRY TO MEET BLAKE'S CHALLENGE AND SAY, NO, NO, NO. BRIAN. NO. AND MY HEART WILL GO ON BOB HILTON. WOW. . UH, NO THANK YOU SIR. CAITLIN? YES. OH, THANK YOU, COREY. DON'T, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD LYRIC ONTO THE IPMS. JEREMY? NO, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SETH. NO, THANK YOU. IAN. YEAH, THANK YOU. NO, THANK YOU SHANE FOR RASHMI. UH, NO, SIR, SIR, ONTO OUR I REPS. BILL? NO, YOU, JAY? NO, THANK YOU. CHRIS. GOT YOUR KNOWN CHAT. CHRIS. THANK YOU, JENNIFER. NO, THANK YOU. ONTO THE IOUS. MARTHA? [01:35:04] YES, THANK YOU. EBY? YES. THANK YOU. AARON. YES, THANK YOU, ROB. FOR KEITH? YES. THANK YOU. UNDER OUR MUNIS. DAVID? YES. THANK YOU, ALICIA? YES. THANK YOU JOSE. NO, THANK YOU. AND CURTIS? YES, THANK YOU. MOTION FAILS. 40% IN FAVOR. 47% IN FAVOR. 53% OPPOSED. OKAY, I HAD, UH, MARK DREYFUS IN THE QUEUE, AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE A COUPLE OTHERS. GO AHEAD, MARK. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, AND AS, AS SPECIFIED AS RELATED THE APPROPRIATE COMMENTS TO INCLUDE THE TWO HOUR NONS SPEND DURATION AND THE $10 PRICE FLOOR. SO I THINK THAT'S ERCOT COMMENTS, THAT'S ERCOT TWO, THOSE WOULD BE ERCOT TWO COMMENTS FROM YESTERDAY WOULD DO THAT. OKAY. SO TO APPROVE THE PRS RECOMMENDATION AS MODIFIED BY ERCOT TWO, OKAY, SO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AS AMENDED BY ERCOT 4 28. TWO COMMENTS? YES, THANK YOU. AND THEN, UH, NOER, WHATEVER, 2, 2 83. AND ANY ACCOMPANYING NOER 1328 OR NO, 2 83 IS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS, IS AMENDED BY ERCOT. FOUR, NINE COMMENTS. YOU SAY THAT VERY WELL. THANK YOU. WELL, BETH IS NODDING IN ENCOURAGINGLY, SO, UM, I THINK, BOB, YOU WANTED A SECOND? YEAH, SO THE MOTION BY MARK, DRIVE A SECOND FROM BOB PELTON. NED, YOU'RE IN THE QUEUE. I WAS TRYING TO BEAT MARK TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS ONE AS WELL. I DO THINK WE HAVE BETTER OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US. WOULD YOU, LIKE, ARE YOU, ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION? I WOULD AMEND THE MOTION. I WOULD, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ENDORSE THE LATEST HINT. COMMENTS? COMMENTS, WHAT? AND IN THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE, I WOULD, UH, MODIFY THE $15 MINIMUM TO $10. I DUNNO, WILL OF THE GROUP, IF YOU, IF WE TAKE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO AMEND THE MOTION, WE'LL RUN THROUGH A, A BALLOT JUST TO SEE IF YOU'D RATHER VOTE ON NED'S MOTION INSTEAD VERSUS JUST RUN THROUGH THE MOTION WE HAVE. IF IT FAILS, THEN THE DECK'S CLEAR FOR ANYONE TO MAKE A NEW MOTION. SO I'D PREFER THAT SOUNDS LIKE NED'S LETTING EVERYONE KNOW IF YOU VOTE NO ON WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, HE'S, YOU KNOW, HOT TO GO WITH HIS OWN MOTION. SO YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN HOW QUICKLY WE CAN RUN THROUGH A VOTE AND HAVE IT FAIL. SO , THANK YOU AARON. GOT IT. TWO VOTES FOR AARON. WHAT? WHAT DO YOU WANNA DO, NED? WELL, I'VE GOT THE, I'VE GOT THE MOTION OUT. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? YEAH. CAN WE SUMMARIZE WHAT THIS IS? YEAH, I BELIEVE, I DON'T KNOW. I BELIEVE YOU'RE TRYING TO AMEND THE MOTION TO KEEP THE $10, BUT GO TO FOUR HOUR DURATION. BUT FIRST WE'D HAVE TO JUST VOTE ON THE ABILITY TO AMEND IT. YES. THE AMENDMENT WOULDN'T BE TO THE ERCOT. TWO COMMENTS. THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO SUBSTITUTE THE ERCOT TWO COMMENTS WITH THE HEN COMMENTS, AND THEN IN TURN SWAP OUT THE $15 MINIMUM FOR THE, UM, THE $10 MINIMUM. SORRY, I'M GETTING DIZZY. I THINK WE ALL ARE. GO AHEAD, BOB. I, I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON. SO WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, YOU'RE SAYING FOUR HOUR AND 15 AND YOU'VE CHANGED THE 15 TO A 10 IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH, CORRECT. [01:40:02] SO THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS THAT IS THE FOUR HOUR DURATION LIMIT VERSUS TWO HOUR? I THINK SO I HAVEN'T DONE A PERFECT COMPARE BETWEEN THE TWO. IS THAT, THAT IS MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS GOING FROM FORD BACK TO TWO WITHOUT THE ANALYSIS TO JUSTIFY THAT. YEAH. GIVEN THE CONCERNS RAISED AT THE BOARD MEETING LAST WEEK. SO YEAH, IF THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, I WOULD SECOND THIS MOTION HOWEVER WE GET TO THAT. YEAH, THAT'S THE INTENT. I WILL SAY THE HEN COMMENTS ALSO INCLUDE THE TCPA COMMENTS THAT INCLUDED THE ADJUSTMENTS TO, UH, TRACK THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE ON MARKET UNCERTAINTY VERSUS UNCERTAINTY AND A COUPLE OF OTHER MINOR CLEANUPS THAT ARE CONSISTENT. OKAY. THEY'RE CONSISTENT. I'M GOOD TO SECOND HILTON HILTON SECONDED THE MARK MOTION. AND THEN THIS IS A MOTION TO AMEND FROM NED WITH BILL SECOND. OKAY. BILL, DID YOU HAVE OTHER COMMENTS FIRST MATT AMEND, UH, MATT ARTHUR THERE AT LEGAL IF, UH, THE H OR THE TCPA COMMENTS ARE BEING CONSIDERED? UH, JUST, YOU KNOW, ERCOT MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE OF VIEWS ON THAT, BUT I'M JUST SPEAKING ABOUT THE MARKET UNCERTAINTY LANGUAGE FROM THE STATUTE. SO, UH, IF, IF THAT LANGUAGE IS TO BE ADDED, I THINK THAT'S IN THREE DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE NPRR, I THINK IT'S IN 2.1, THE DEFINITION IT'S IN 3 17 5 1 AND IT'S IN 6 5, 7, 6 2 5, WHICH I CAN REPEAT IF NEEDED. BUT, UM, TO, SO CURRENTLY IT SAYS TO MANAGE UNCERTAINTY AND WE WOULD BE ADDING MARKET UNCERTAINTY BECAUSE THE STATUTE DOES REFER TO, UH, MARKET UNCERTAINTY. BUT, UH, WOULD ASK IF THIS IS TO MOVE FORWARD TO SAY, TO ACCOUNT FOR MARKET UNCERTAINTY INSTEAD OF TO MANAGE MARKET UNCERTAINTY BECAUSE NOT DISPLAY HARRIS, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ACTUAL TRACKING OF THE STATUTE IF THE GOAL IS TO TRACK THE STATUTE. OKAY. COREY MOTION TO AMEND WOULD JUST BE, ARE WE WILLING TO AMEND IT, RIGHT? NOT AN UP OR DOWN ON THE AMENDED MOTION? UH, CORRECT, BUT WE ALSO, IT'S THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG THING. WE NEED TO GET THE RED LINE STRAIGHT SO EVERYONE KNOWS HOW THEY SHOULD VOTE ON THE MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION. BUT YES, THE MOTION TO AMEND IF IT SUCCEEDS WOULD JUST PUT A NEW MOTION IN FRONT OF EVERYONE TO MAKE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON IT. OKAY. BUT SETH, I JUST NEED A RECAP. SO WE'RE, WE'RE VOTING ON FOUR HOUR DURATION REQUIREMENT FOR BATTERIES AND A $10 PRICE FLOOR. WE WOULD BE VOTING ON THE ABILITY TO VOTE ON FOUR HOUR DURATION AND $10 PRICE FLOOR AND ALSO TRACKING DEFINITIONS. YEAH. SO IT WOULDN'T BE AN UP OR DOWN ON THAT YET. IT WOULD JUST BE, ARE WE WILLING TO CHANGE THE, THE MOTION TO THAT, DAVID? THAT'S GOOD. OKAY, LET'S GO FORWARD COREY. WELL LET'S GET THE DOCUMENT READY FIRST. OKAY. OKAY. SO LET'S GET THE ROAD LINES FIRST. SO NED, ARE YOU AMENABLE TO MATT'S CHANGING MANAGE MARKET UNCERTAINTY TO ACCOUNT FOR MARKET UNCERTAINTY? I AM. IF YOU CAN MAKE THE, THE RECITATION OF ALL THOSE SECTIONS RHYME , I CAN MAKE IT RHYME. IF I HAD ENOUGH TIME. GOOD ENOUGH, THANK YOU. DON'T, DON'T ENCOURAGE ME. HEY CAITLIN, I, I GUESS I DID HAVE A QUESTION WHILE WE'RE MAKING THESE CHANGES. SURE. UM, I THINK THERE WAS A HIGHLIGHT ON SOME OF THE, UH, MINIMUM PRICE FLOORS THAT WERE CHANGED. I DON'T KNOW IF EVER WE EVER GOT AN EXPLANATION FOR THOSE. SO I WAS GONNA SEE, UM, IF SEAN'S OR SOMEONE CAN SPEAK TO THOSE, GO AHEAD NED. 'CAUSE I BELIEVE WE'RE CHANGING THOSE FROM THE IN THE HAND COMMENTS, CORRECT? YES. SO WHERE IS IT SAYS 15 NOW CHANGE THAT TO 10 AS WELL AS THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE FLOOR FOR THE, THE, UM, YEAH, DOWN THERE. SO THERE'S TWO FUNCTIONS. ONE IS YOU'RE, WHERE YOU'RE SETTING THE, THE FLOOR ANYWAY, [01:45:01] BASED ON, UM, BASED ON THE INSULAR SERVICE PLAN, RIGHT? AND THIS LANGUAGE STILL RETAINS HAVING NONS SPIND FILL OUT THE TAIL OF THE AGGREGATE RDC. SO IN, IN TOTAL THE AGGREGATE OR DC WILL STILL MOVE OUT ASYMPTOTICALLY TOWARDS ZERO, RIGHT? AND SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S JUST KEEPING THOSE TWO, UH, TOGETHER. NOW RYAN DID SHOW IN HIS PRESENTATION THAT THERE, THERE IS AN IMPACT ON HOW THE CURVE IS SET. AND I THINK WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT HOW THERE IS RELATIVE VALUE TO THAT. THAT IS A, UH, AN ANCILLARY SERVICE THAT THE LEGISLATURE PUT IN STATUTE AND IS REQUIRING US TO IMPLEMENT TWO, TO HELP ACCOUNT FOR MARKET UNCERTAINTY AND TO MEET THE RELIABILITY STANDARD AND SUPPORT DISPATCHABLE GENERATION. SO, UM, THAT'S WHERE I THINK THERE'S SOME, SOME REASONABILITY IN, IN CONSIDERING THAT DIFFERENT SHAPE. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY, I, I, I THINK YOU'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF FOLKS SAYING IT DOESN'T HAVE TO SIT BELOW NONS SPIN. THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, I WOULD ALMOST SAY IT'S AN ANACHRONISTIC VIEW THAT THERE IS A SINGLE DIMENSION ACROSS WHICH WE'RE, WE'RE VALUING ANCILLARY SERVICES RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER. THE SYSTEM'S CHANGING, THE RESOURCE MIX IS CHANGING, THE LOAD MAKEUP IS CHANGING, AND THE NEEDS OF THE SYSTEM ARE CHANGING, INCLUDING SUPPORTING A FLEET THAT CAN MEET THE RELIABILITY STANDARD. SO WE DON'T HAVE A SINGLE TOOL FOR MEETING THE RELIABILITY STANDARD OR, OR GETTING THERE. WHAT WE NEED IS THE SUM OF THE PARTS TO GET THERE. THAT'S, THAT'S THE POLICY FRAMEWORK THAT WE'VE BEEN LEFT TO WORK WITHIN. AND SO, UM, I THINK THAT CHANGE IS SOMETHING THAT CAN HELP ALONG THOSE LINES. AND YEAH. COREY, COULD YOU SCROLL UP TO THE TABLE JUST A LITTLE BIT? AND I GUESS MY, MY ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO, UM, MOVING THE NONS SPIND MINIMUM PRICE FROM $5 TO A PENNY, AND THEN MOVING DRS FROM A PENNY TO $10 OF ENSURE WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE NONS SPIND CHANGE WAS. AND THAT MIGHT BE TO YOUR POINT, THAT THEY'RE NOT IN ORDER, BUT I'M, I WASN'T SURE ON THAT. IT WAS ALSO BECAUSE IF YOU SCROLL UP JUST A LITTLE BIT THERE, YOU SIGN ANY REMAINING ONE MEGAWATT SEGMENTS OF THE A RDC PRICED ABOVE A PENNY TO NONS SPIND, IT STRUGGLED WITH HOW I, I KNOW I PERSONALLY STRUGGLED WITH HOW YOU COULD HAVE THE $5 MINIMUM THERE AND STILL GIVE EFFECT TO THAT CASE, REQUIRE 10 WEEKS THREAD. UH, YOU HAVE A LIVE MIC. SO THAT WAS, THAT WAS, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, THAT WAS THE CONNECTION THERE. OTHERS MAY HAVE A A OKAY. A DIFFERENT VIEW. WELL, I JUST WANTED TO DRAW THAT DISTINCTION 'CAUSE I, I THINK WE'VE NOT REALLY DIRECTLY FOCUSED ON THAT, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE HAD THAT ANSWERED. SO THANK YOU. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THANK YOU DAVID. KEITH? YEAH, JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON, ON A POINT THAT, THAT NED MADE, I THINK WE, WE DEFINITELY DISAGREE WITH THE INTERACTIONS OF THE, THE CURVES THAT ARE, ARE IN THE PROPOSAL. UM, AND SO WE, WE'LL, WE'LL BE CLEAR THAT WE, WE DON'T SUPPORT THAT. WE, WE SEE THAT AS A PROBLEM AND WE DISAGREE WITH, WITH THAT ON THAT. THANKS WITH, OKAY. UM, COREY, ARE YOU STILL WORKING UP EDITS? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ASK NED. WHEN, WHEN YOU IS CHANGING THE $10 THERE, THE ONLY PLACE YOU NEED IT CHANGED OR DO YOU NEED THE LANGUAGE FROM, LIKE THE ERCOT TWO COMMENTS ABOUT THE D-R-S-A-S-D-C WILL HAVE A FLOOR PRICE OF $10 PER MEGAWATT, OR IS THAT NOT NEEDED IF YOU GET THE MEN PRICE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR HERE? UH, YEAH, THAT WOULD PROBABLY, YOU WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO INCORPORATE THAT. THAT'S A GOOD CATCH, CORY. OKAY. WELL, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO COMPLICATE IT, BUT IF YOU PUT THE MEN PRICE AT $10, IT'S EFFECTIVELY SETTING THE, THE FLOOR AT ABOVE $10 OR, YOU KNOW, LIKE IT'LL, IT'LL DRAW THE CURVE WHERE IT TERMINATES AT $10. YEAH, I AND SHANE, THAT'S A GREAT POINT. I'VE, I'VE SAID EARLIER, I THINK YOU WANT TO HAVE COMPETITIVE MARKET DYNAMICS. YOU KNOW, ERCOT SAID THEY THINK $10 IS ABOUT WHERE YOU GET TO THE, THE EQUIVALENT OF A COMMITMENT, UH, COST. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT ALWAYS BE THE CASE, DEPENDING ON WHAT GAS LOOKS LIKE ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY. UM, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO, TO GET AT IS A, A COMPROMISE THAT INCORPORATES THAT, THAT FEEDBACK HERE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, 90, 99% OF THE TIME, OR ACTUALLY 99.4% OF THE TIME, IT'S GONNA BE BELOW THAT POINT ANYWAY. YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S, YEAH, WE'RE NOT SETTING A, YEAH. OKAY. 98.8, RIGHT? 'CAUSE IT'S 1.2, BUT HALF OF THAT 1.2 IS UNDERNEATH [01:50:01] THE OKAY, FINE. ALL COREY, ARE WE GOOD? GOOD'S NOT A DEFINED TERM, BUT COREY ARE WE YES, WE ARE IN A STOPPING PLACE FOR A VOTE. YEAH, LEMME GET A MOTION OF FOR Y'ALL. OKAY. DO WE PEOPLE NEED MORE TIME TO REVIEW THE EDITS THAT, BUT THE VOTE IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE WANT TO TAKE A SUBSTANTIVE VOTE ON THOSE EDITS? YEAH, THE MOTION IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW IS THE ERCOT TWO COMMENTS, WHICH HAS THE TWO HOUR DURATION AND THE $10 FLOOR. SO THE MOTION THAT NED HAS MADE WOULD MODIFY THAT MOTION TO BE THE HEN COMMENTS, WHICH KEEPS THE FOUR HOURS, HAS SOME $10 CHANGES. AND SO THIS, THIS MOTION IN FRONT OF YOU WILL BE DECIDE IF YOU WANT LIKE TO VOTE ON THAT MOTION INSTEAD. OKAY. SO TO BE CLEAR, LYRICS, WE'RE VOTING TO DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT TO VOTE ON A DIFFERENT MOTION, CORRECT? WE'RE, YEAH, VOTING ON THE ABILITY TO VOTE ON NED'S MOTION BECAUSE IT WAS AN UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT. . I THINK THAT'S A, A FAIR ASSUMPTION WE DIDN'T EVEN ASK MARK, DO YOU WANNA ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT? I DON'T WANNA HAVE ANY KUNG FU FIGHTING HERE, BUT NO, IT WAS NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. MAY I ASK SOMETHING? OF COURSE. I THINK, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU ARE AGAINST TWO HOURS, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, ANALYZED. IT WAS IN THE AS STUDY, IT WAS IN PERFORMANCE MEASURES. UH, YEAH, I I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. AND WE DON'T SUPPORT THAT. YEAH, THAT'S A VERY FAIR QUESTION. IKA AND I, I AGREE. IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED A LOT AND IT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE STUDY. UM, THERE'S REALLY 2, 2, 2 PIECES THAT I CAN THINK OF OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. FIRST IS, UM, I THINK BILL COVERED THIS PRETTY EXTENSIVELY, WHICH IS JUST LAST WEEK, UM, THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSION OF, YOU KNOW, HOW THE, HOW ERCOT IS REACTING TO MORE RESERVES FROM, UH, DURATION LIMITED RESOURCES AND, UH, THE IMPACT THAT HAS ON ERCOT OPERATIONS AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS A, CALL IT A NEW INFORMATION THAT, THAT PROBABLY WASN'T IN, UH, WASN'T AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE STUDY AND IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING. THE SECOND PIECE, AND THIS I TRIED TO HIGHLIGHT THIS EARLIER, IS WITH THAT REDUCTION IN, UH, NONS SPEND IN, UH, MY PRESUMPTION IS THAT ERCOT WILL THEN SEE THE, THE MAKEUP OF RESOURCES PROVIDING NONS SPEND IS PROVIDING A LOWER QUALITY RESERVE. AND TO TRADE OFF THAT LOWER QUALITY THEY MAY SAY WE NEED NOW NEED A GREATER QUANTITY. AND IF THAT IS A TRADE OFF, THAT IS REALLY SOMETHING WE HAVE TO CONSIDER. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE WHAT THOSE TRADE-OFFS ARE BEFORE MAKING A DECISION RATHER THAN TRYING TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF FORCE IT IN TO A DRS DECISION IN THIS NPRR. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT FOLKS AREN'T GOING TO, YOU KNOW, AREN'T GONNA LET GO OF. AND I THINK WE'LL BE DISCUSSING IT, WE'LL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IT, BUT WE HAVE, AS, AS KEITH SAID, THE INTENT WOULD BE TO, TO BRING THIS UP FOR THE 2029 ANCILLARY SERVICE, UH, METHODOLOGY ANYHOW, ONCE DRS IS LIVE. SO WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, TWO-ISH YEARS TO, TO CONTINUE TO, TO WORK THROUGH THAT AND ANALYZE IT. AND THAT'S NOT A DECISION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE TODAY. THAT'S, THAT'S AT LEAST MY VIEW. I SECOND OKAY, I SEE CARDS FROM BILL AND BOB IF THERE'S ANY MORE CARDS AFTER THAT, I'M GONNA CALL THE QUESTION AND MARTHA SAID SHE WOULD SECOND IT. SO, UM, LET'S GO TO BILL AND THEN BOB. YEAH, I WAS ALSO GONNA ADDRESS EUREKA'S QUESTION ABOUT WHY WE HAVE DISCOMFORT WITH SHORTENING THE DURATION CURVE FROM FOUR HOURS TO TWO HOURS FOR NON SPEND AT THIS TIME. AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE MOST RECENT ANALYSIS WE HAVE IS FROM LAST WEEK THAT SHOWS THAT A FOUR HOUR DURATION LIMIT FOR NONS SPIND WASN'T ENOUGH TO AVOID RUCKS. AND SO WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS SHORTENING NONS SPIND TO TWO HOURS AND KEEPING DRS AT FOUR, WHICH DIDN'T WORK LAST WEEK OR DIDN'T WORK IN JANUARY AS PRESENTED LAST WEEK. WE MAY BE GOING BACKWARDS. SO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE ANALYSIS THAT'S ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED TO, AS PART OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGIES WHEN WE ANALYZE THE DURATION LIMITS FOR BOTH NONS, SPIND AND DRS [01:55:01] IS WHAT COMBINATION SOLVES THE OBJECTIVES. SO WE MAY END UP WITH A TWO HOUR NONS SPIND DURATION AND AN EIGHT HOUR DRS DURATION LIMIT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL THAT ANALYSIS BEFORE MAKING A FINAL DECISION ON THE DURATION LIMITS FOR NONS SPIN. THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S OUR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS. THANKS. THANKS, BILL. THAT WAS GOOD. MADE SUCCINCTLY, BOB. YEAH, I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT WE LIVE IN WASHINGTON DC WHERE NO GOOD ISSUE GOES UNEXPLOITED. UH, I THINK THAT THO THOSE ISSUES ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. I THINK ERCOT AT THE BOARD MEETING YES, DID BRING UP SOME ISSUES THAT THEY'VE IDENTIFIED AND THEY'RE DOING SOME RESEARCH ON. I THINK THEY ALSO DISCUSSED THE, THE POTENTIAL WAYS THEY'RE GONNA GET AROUND IT. AND NONE OF THEM THAT THEY MENTIONED WERE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DURATION PIECE. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT COMING OUT WITH SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL, UH, REVISION REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. WE'RE GONNA BE WORKING WITH THEM TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES. SO, UH, I DON'T SEE THAT REALLY PLAYING A FACTOR IN HERE. MM-HMM . DAN TOLD THE BOARD THAT THE TAX CHAIR WAS WORKING WITH THEM ON AN NPRR AND I BELIEVE HIM. SO, UH, LET'S GO TO BETH. I, I, I APOLOGIZE YOU PUTTING OFF YOUR, UH, MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION TO, TO ALLOW ME TO CHIME IN ON THIS QUESTION, ON THIS ISSUE. UM, AS, AS I THINK ABOUT ANCILLARY SERVICES, I THINK ABOUT WE HAVE DIFFERENT SERVICES TO ADDRESS DIFFERENT KINDS OF RISKS. AND MY CONCERN IS THAT BY JUST PANCAKING A FOUR HOUR PRODUCT IN NONS SPIN WITH ANOTHER FOUR HOUR PRODUCT IN DRRS, WE'RE NOT DIFFERENTIATING THOSE RISKS APPROPRIATELY. AND FOR THOSE THAT ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE THERE'S A MARKET FOR, YOU KNOW, SLOW STARTING, YOU KNOW, DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE, IT SEEMS LIKE YOUR POINT BILL GOES TO THAT END. IF, IF NONS SPIN ISN'T GOING TO BE THE THING AND DRRS NEEDS TO BE A LONGER DURATION, THAT THAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR INTEREST, UH, OR IN THE INTEREST OF THOSE, UH, OF THOSE FACILITIES. SO I AM VERY OF ALL OF THE ISSUES I CAN GIVE ON THE, ON THE A AS DEMAND CURVE ASPECT OF THIS, BUT THE DURATION IS SUPER IMPORTANT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. OKAY, THANK YOU BETH. LET'S DO, LET'S DO IT COREY, LET'S GO. OKAY. ON YOUR MOTION TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION FOR 1309 TO BE INSTEAD OF THE ERCOT TWO COMMENTS TO BE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF 1309 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND THE APRIL PRS REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE HE COMMENTS AS REVISED BY T WITH THE DESKTOP HEAD AS WE PUT UP ON SCREEN. SO AGAIN, IF THIS PASSES, THIS WILL BE THE MOTION THAT I'LL DROP INTO THE MINI COMBO BALLOT AND WE'LL VOTE ON 1309 AND IT'S NOER USING THIS MOTION. IF THIS FAILS, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE MOTION WE HAVE OF THE ERCOT COMMENTS. HEY COREY, CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON 2 83? IT WOULD BE WITHOUT THE ERCOT COMMENTS, RIGHT? 'CAUSE ERCOT COMMENTS ON 2 83 CHANGE IT TO TWO HOURS THE DURATION. YEAH. SO IT WOULD JUST BE 2 83, IS THAT CORRECT? SO 2 83 IS RECOMMENDED BY FOUR TWO ROSS, LET ME, I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION FROM ROSS WAS WITH THE FOUR HOUR. YEAH, YEAH. SO WE TREATING THE COMBO MOTION FROM BOB AS TWO MAIN MOTIONS THAT ARE GONNA BE AMENDED. SO WE NEED THE MOTION TO AMEND TO REFLECT BOTH AMENDING THE MOTION ON 1309 AND AMENDING THE MOTION ON THE NOER TO BE JUST THE ROSS REPORT, NOT THE CORRECT OR COMMENTS. OKAY. IS THAT RIGHT? NED? NED BILL CONFIRMED? YES. GOOD, GOOD HEAD NOD. YEAH. OKAY, ANDREW, WE HAVE 45 SECONDS. . HI GUYS. SORRY, I'M ON A PLANE. YEAH, I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT ALL HAS BEEN AMENDED. UH, SO I LOOKED AT THE INCOME AND I SEE A $15 MINIMUM PRICE ON DRS AND ON ECRS AS IS THAT WE, WE'VE, WE'VE CHANGED THE $15 AND WHAT'D YOU CHANGE IT TO? 10. [02:00:01] SO THIS, THIS VOTE IS TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THAT SUBSTANTIVE VOTE, RIGHT? IT'S A MOTION TO AMEND. SO WOULD CAN WE TAKE YOUR COMMENTS UP AFTER THIS VOTE? THIS IS A VOTE TO BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT. SO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS THE ERCOT TWO COMMENTS, BUT THERE WAS A REQUESTED AMENDMENT. IT WAS NOT A FRIENDLY QUOTE UNQUOTE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. SO WE'RE HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE TO BE ABLE TO AMEND. OKAY, GO AHEAD. OKAY, THANKS ANDREW. OKAY, LET'S GO COREY. SO NOW TO AMEND THE TWO MAIN MOTIONS, WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH MIKE. NO THANK YOU GARRETT. NO, THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS. NO, THANK YOU NICK. NO, THANK YOU. THANK YOU BETH. NO, THANK YOU. WILL NO THANK YOU. ONTO THE CO-OPS. BLAKE? YES, KYLE? YES. THANK YOU JO, DAN FOR MIKE? YES. THANK YOU, JOHN. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. NED? YES. THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU BRIAN. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, BOB. NO, THANK YOU KAITLIN. NO THANK YOU. UNDER IPMS. JEREMY ABSTAIN. THANK YOU SETH. NO, THANK YOU. IAN ABS ABSTENTION. THANK YOU SHANE FOR REMI. UH, ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. AND IRE. BILL? YES, THANK YOU JAY. NO, THANK YOU. CHRIS GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT, CHRIS? THANK YOU JENNIFER. NO THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IOUS. MARTHA? NO, YOU EBY? NO. WAS THAT, WAS THAT A NO, EBY? I'M SORRY. YEAH, THAT WAS A NO. OKAY. THANK YOU AARON. NO, THANK YOU ROB FOR KEITH? NO, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR MUNIS. DAVID. NO, THANK YOU ALICIA. NO, THANK YOU JOSE. NO THANK YOU. AND CURTIS, NO THANK YOU. MOTION FAILS. 70% OPPOSED. OKAY, SO THE, WE'RE BACK TO THE DREYFUS HILTON MOTION, WHICH IS BOY RECOMMEND 1309 AS RECOMMENDED BY FOUR 15 PRS AS AMENDED BY 4 28 ERCOT. TWO COMMENTS AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF GER 2 83 AS RECOMMENDED BY FOUR TWO ROSS AS AMENDED BY ERCOT. FOUR, NINE COMMENTS. I DID THAT ALL WITHOUT READING ANYTHING . THAT WAS RIGHT TOO, RIGHT? COREY? I'M SHUFFLING BALLOTS AT THE MOMENT, BUT MARTHA SAID IT WAS RIGHT, SO YEAH. OH, WELL I TRUST, OKAY, UM, LET'S, WE'LL TAKE THE QUEUE WHILE COREY SHUFFLES BALLOTS. BILL, WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS? WE ARE FRIENDS. I'M SUGGESTING THIS WOULD BE A COMBO BALLOT VOTE. I DON'T, IS ANYONE GONNA VOTE? NO, WE'RE OBSCENE ON THIS. WE CAN SPEED THINGS. OH, SORRY. NEVERMIND. BILL. YOU SWEET CAN CAN'T COMPLETELY BE FRIENDS. WE'RE ALMOST FRIENDS. GARRETT. YEAH, I'M, I'M GONNA SUPPORT THIS MOTION AND I CAN'T THINK OF A MUSIC LYRIC TALKING ABOUT THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE, BUT YOU KNOW, WE STILL HAVE ISSUES WITH THE CONSERVATIVE OPERATION IN THE PRICE FLOOR, BUT BE A YES ON THIS. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE ARE BACK TO OUR MAIN MOTION, WHICH AGAIN FOR THOSE FOLLOWING ALONG AT HOME 1309 WITH THE ERCOT TWO COMMENTS AND WHICH IS THE TWO HOUR DURATION AND THE $10 FLOOR. AND THEN 2 83 HAS THOSE ERCOT COMMENTS THAT ALSO LOWER THE DURATION TO TWO. SO PRS WITH ERCOT. TWO COMMENTS, ROSS REPORT WITH THE FOUR NINE ERCOT COMMENTS. AND ON THIS MOTION WE WILL START UP AGAIN WITH CONSUMERS, WITH MIKE. YOU HAVE THE SAME CONCERN WITH THE PRICE FLOOR, BUT UH, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND COMPROMISE AND SAY YES. ALRIGHT. THANKS [02:05:01] SIR. GARRETT? YES SIR. THANK YOU. MARK? YES, THANK YOU, NICK. YES, THANK YOU, BETH. YES, THANK YOU WILL. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR CO-OPS. BLAKE? NO, THANK YOU. KYLE. NO, YOU, JOE, DAN FOR MIKE ABSTAIN. OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, JOHN, NO THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. NED. NO, THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU BRIAN. NO, THANK YOU. BOB HILTON. YES, SIR. THANKS SIR. CAITLIN? YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IPMS. JEREMY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SETH. YES, YOU IAN? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, UH, SHANE FOR RASHMI. UH, YES, THANK YOU. A PAINED. YES. WE'LL TAKE THAT ONTO OUR I REPS. BILL. YES. THANK YOU, JAY? YES, THANK YOU. CHRIS. GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT, CHRIS. THANK YOU, JENNIFER. YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IOUS. MARTHA? YES, THANK YOU, EBY. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AARON. YES, THANK YOU ROB FOR KEITH? YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR MUNIS. DAVID. YES, THANK YOU, ALICIA. YES, THANK YOU, JOSE. YES, THANK YOU. AND CURTIS? YES, THANK YOU. Q. MOTION CARRIES 83% IN FAVOR, FIVE OPPOSED, AND ONE ABSTENTION TO BILL'S COMMENTS I GET BY WITH A LITTLE HELP WITH FROM MY FRIENDS. I DID IT. UM, AND WE DID IT. SO LET'S TAKE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? DAVE? I HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION. UM, I THINK THE BATTERY STORAGE WAS SEPARATED FROM 1309. IS THIS THE RIGHT ONE? JUST A QUICK STATUS UPDATE ON WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FOR THAT FOLLOW ON NPR. WE DO HAVE AN ADVANCED DRAFT, UH, OF THAT, UM, THAT PROPOSED NPRI THINK OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE THAT, UH, FINISHED AND COMPLETE, UH, BY NEXT MONTH. AND SO IT'LL ENTER THE PROCESS, BUT MECHANICALLY, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT PROBABLY STARTING IN JUNE THERE'D BE SOME DIALOGUE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, LET'S TAKE A QUICK, THIS IS MY PLAN. I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE A QUICK BREAK, COME BACK AT 1145 AND THEN TRY TO GET 45 MINUTES IN BEFORE WE BREAK FOR LUNCH SO WE CAN AT LEAST TAKE THE TEMPERATURES ON VOL VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH, WHICH IS OUR NEXT BIG EVENT. SO LET'S, LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK. AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT FIVE MINUTES, LET'S TRY TO ACTUALLY START AGAIN AT 1145 AND THEN GET MAYBE 45 MINUTES IN BEFORE LUNCH. OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE, WE'RE THE, WE'RE STILL ON OUR PRS UPDATE AND THE LAST ITEM ON PRS IS OUR PRIORITIZATION UPDATE WITH TROY. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, TAC. THIS IS MY EVERY OTHER MONTH. QUICK UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF REVISION REQUESTS IN THE PROJECT PROCESS. BEFORE I START THOUGH, THOSE WHO KNOW ME KNOW I WON'T BE ABLE TO AVOID COMPLYING WITH THE THEME OF THE DAY. SO AS I WAS THINKING ABOUT AGING REVISION REQUESTS, WHAT CAME TO ME WAS, YOU TAKE IT ON FAITH, YOU TAKE IT TO THE HEART, THE WAITING IS THE HARDEST PART. . YAY. OKAY, SO THE TOP, UH, THE 10 HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS THAT, UH, WERE DEEMED. SO LAST YEAR AT OUR PRIORITIZATION WORKSHOP, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THESE BEFORE. HERE'S THE STATUS. 1234 HAD THREE CHANGES THAT ARE ALL LIVE. NO MORE SYSTEM CHANGES. LEFT. THERE IS A GRAY BOX RELATING TO THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDY FEE. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS WITH FIGURE 1 45, THAT MIGHT SUPERSEDE THIS FEE. SO IT'LL REMAIN IN A GRAY BOX UNTIL WE STRIKE IT SOMETIME DOWN THE ROAD WITH A FUTURE REVISION REQUEST. ALSO, EAL UH, 1277 WENT LIVE. AND THEN IN FLIGHT 1188 AND 1244, THEY ARE TARGETING A JANUARY, 2027 GO LIVE. WE TRIED TO FIGURE OUT A LATE 26 TIMEFRAME THAT WOULD WORK, AND WE WERE UNSUCCESSFUL. SO IT HAD TO GO TO JANUARY, 1198 IS TARGETING SEPTEMBER, UH, 1238 WITH THE LLCM PROJECT IS TARGETED FOR LATE THIS YEAR GOING LIVE. AND THEN 1281 OCTOBER OF 2026, UH, 10 91 IS STILL GONNA BE PART OF AN RDPA ANALYSIS WITH OTHER REVISION REQUESTS. 1004, WE MAY HAVE FOUND A WINDOW TO START IT IN JULY. SO [02:10:01] THAT'S A, A, A, UH, TARGET START THAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARD. HOPEFULLY I CAN REPORT MORE ON THAT AT A FUTURE MEETING. AND THEN 1216 EMERGENCY PRICING PROGRAM. NO ACTION. 'CAUSE WE HAVE A WORKAROUND. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE OTHER REVISION REQUESTS UNDERWAY. UH, THE CRR PROJECT WITH 9 36 AND 1288 IS EXPECTING A Q4 GO LIVE. SO WE'LL HONE IN ON A DATE IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO. I DID FIND ONE ERROR HERE, 1201. IT IS TARGETING LATE 2026, BUT IT'S NOT YET IN FLIGHT. SO IT SHOULD BE IN THE, THE NOT STARTED GROUP. UH, 1303 IS MOVING A, A LANDING SPOT FOR INFORMATION FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER IN SEPTEMBER. AND THEN SCR EIGHT 20, WHICH IS RELEASING A NEW TOOL TOOL. WE'RE CALLING REAL TIME OPERATOR COMMUNICATION, RTOC, THAT GOES LIVE IN JUNE. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN SSCR EIGHT 20, THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF INFORMATION ON THE TWG WEBSITE ABOUT THAT. THEN UPCOMING STARTS 1290, PAIRED WITH 1323. WE WANNA GET STARTED, UH, VERY SOON. THAT'LL BE AT THE 1323. IT'LL BE AT THE COMMISSION NEXT MONTH. AND, UH, THE API FOR N-D-C-R-C 8 29, WE WILL START IN MAY 'CAUSE WE HAD RESOURCE AVAILABILITY FOR THAT, THE PARTICULAR PERSON THAT WORKS ON THAT APPLICATION. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, SCR EIGHT 18 PHASE TWO. AND IT'S CONNECTED, WHICH IS CONNECTED WITH 8 31. WE'RE HAVING RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS WITH THE SIM 16 PROJECT. LOOKS LIKE IT MAY NOT ACTUALLY START TILL EARLY 2027 AT THIS POINT. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE LATEST ON REVISION REQUESTS IN THE PROJECT PROCESS. AND CONTINUE TO UPDATE PRS EVERY MONTH AND T EVERY OTHER MONTH. GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR TROY? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SEE YOU IN JULY. OKAY. UM, WE ARE ONTO OUR REVISION REQUEST PREVIOUSLY TABLED AT TECH GER 2 81 CAN REMAIN TABLED AWAITING NPR 1307. UM, THEN TO OUR TECH PRIORITY ITEMS, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE THOSE TO THE VERY END OF THE AGENDA AFTER THE COMBO BALLOT. UM, SO WE ARE ONTO [8. Large Load Working Group (LLWG) Report] THE LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP REPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M BOB WHITMEYER AND, AND, UH, CAITLYN ASKED ME TO DO THIS QUICKLY, SO I'M GONNA SKIP ALL OF THE RHYMES AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. SO LET'S MOVE ON. I TOLD HER 10 MINUTES. SO LET'S SEE HOW I DO. UH, WE HAD OUR MEETING ON APRIL 24TH. WE GOT OUR LARGE LOAD UPDATE FOR THE INTERCONNECTION QUEUE. AND MY FAVORITE QUOTE OF THE WEEK WAS, IT WAS ONLY AN ADDITIONAL 35 GIGAWATTS SINCE THE LAST UPDATE, SOME OF THOSE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN AROUND THAT LONG MIGHT REMEMBER WHEN A GIGAWATT WAS A BIG NUMBER. BUT NOW 35 IS ONLY, EXCUSE ME, MARK HENRY GAVE AN UPDATE ON NERC ACTIVITY AND THE STANDARDS THAT ARE GONNA COME, UM, FROM, FROM NERC REGARDING LARGE, UH, COMPUTE LOADS, WHICH WILL BE THE NEW TERM THAT'S USED IN ERCOT. WE REVIEWED, UM, UH, FREQUENCY FOR LARGE ELECTRONIC LOADS, SOON TO BE LARGE COMPUTE LOADS. UH, DISCUSSION OF PICKER 1 44 AND I'D LIKE TO COMMEND ERCOT. UM, WE TALKED LAST TIME THERE WAS SOME, SOME CONTROVERSY OVER A FEW SWAPPED FROM, FROM, UH, CRYPTO TO AI. UM, AND ERCOT HAS AGREED WHEN A LARGE LOAD MAKES A CHANGE, IF IT IS AS GOOD OR BETTER, THERE'S A MUCH ABBREVIATED REVIEW PROCESS. SO APPRECIATE ERCOT FOR DOING THAT. AND I THINK AS GOOD OR BETTER IS A GOOD WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. I DUNNO WHAT THAT MEANS. CAN YOU PUT THAT IN? YES. SO WHAT IT MEANT IS IF YOUR VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS, IF YOU ARE SWAPPING EQUIPMENT AND YOUR NEW EQUIPMENT IS AT LEAST AS GOOD OR BETTER, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A SHORTENED PROCESS FOR YOUR REVIEW. AND LIKE I SAID, UM, AT PRS IF OR AT LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP, IF YOU'RE NOT INSTALLING AS GOOD OR BETTER, YOU'RE JUST AN IDIOT. . ALL RIGHT. AND THEN WE HAD PUTTING A LYRIC FRIGGING IDIOT WAS ACTUALLY THE WORD THAT I USED. SO THERE YOU GO. UM, AND THEN WE HAD, UH, PRESENTATION FROM VENDORS ON HOW THEY COULD MEET THE VRT AND OSCILLATION SOLUTIONS. WE'RE GONNA HEAR A LOT MORE ABOUT THAT IN NORE 2 82, BUT THERE IS TECHNOLOGY, BRAND NEW TECHNOLOGY OUT THERE TODAY THAT CAN DO SOME OF THIS STUFF. HERE IS YOUR LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECT QUEUE, [02:15:01] UM, TOPPING OUT AT 445 GIGAWATTS IN 2023. UM, AND, UH, YEAH, NO, NO PROBLEM WITH A HUNDRED GIGAWATT SYSTEM TODAY. WE JUST GROW FOUR TIMES BY 2033. UM, HERE IS THE REDUCTION IN IN PROJECTS MIDDLES LATELY WE'RE, WE'RE DOWN TO 25 GIGS IN THE LAST QUARTER. UM, AND NEXT MEETING IS MAY 21. AND I THINK I BEAT MY 10 MINUTES QUESTIONS. THAT WAS AWESOME. THANK YOU. YOU'RE NOT A FREAKING IDIOT. OKAY, LET US GO [9. ROS Report (Vote)] TO THE ROSS REPORT. SANDEEP, WHY DON'T YOU RUN THROUGH YOUR REPORT AND LET'S SAVE QUESTIONS THOUGH, 'CAUSE WE'LL TAKE THE REVISION REQUESTS UP OUT OF ORDER. YEAH, THANK YOU CA. CAITLYN, THIS IS SANDY BOKAR. UM, MY RHYME FOR THE DAY IS, UH, I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS QUICK FOR YOU SO YOU CAN GET GOING WITH NO GOOD. 2 82 MM. WHICH, UH, BRINGS US TO THAT TOPIC. NOLE 2 82 WAS DISCUSSED AT ROSS, UH, SEVERAL COMMENTERS, UH, SPOKE ABOUT IT. UH, PATRICK DID A GOOD PREVIEW OF WHAT COMMENTS WERE FILED AND HOW THEY WERE ADDRESSED OR NOT ADDRESSED. AMONG THE ONES THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED WERE, UH, COMMENTS FROM TIC AND I BELIEVE, UH, DATA CENTER COUNCIL. UM, THE COMMENTS WERE MOSTLY OF THE TYPE OF MORE ABOUT THE LEGAL ASPECT OF IT. AND SO WE, UH, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT FOLKS FROM ERHART TO SPEAK ABOUT IT AT THAT TIME. SO THOSE WEREN'T, UH, WHILE THEY WERE HEARD, THEY WERE NOT TAKEN UP FOR DISCUSSION. AND SO THEY'LL BE BROUGHT UP TODAY. UH, I THINK TIC HAS FILED COMMENTS ON THAT. UH, ONCE IT WAS PUT TO VOTE, WE HAD, UM, EIGHT ABSTAINS. UM, YOU HAVE THE SEGMENTS MENTIONED ON THE SLIDE, CONSUMERS, COOPERATIVES, INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, SO IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD AND ONE NO FROM CONSUMERS. UH, BUT THE MOTION PASSED AND IT IS, UH, READY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK, UH, AS AMENDED BY 3 27. COMMENTS, IF WE MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. YEAH, 1308 WAS, UH, PART OF THAT DISCUSSION. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF ALL LARGE LOADS, BUT IT DIDN'T GO FOR THE ENOUGH TO FILE COMMENTS OR ANYTHING, BUT, BUT WE DID PUT IT VOTE. WE GOT THREE ABSTAINS ON THAT, UH, PARTICULAR VOTE. UH, BUT THE MOTION PASSED. NO, 2 83. UH, I'LL SKIP THIS SINCE WE'VE HAD GOOD BIT OF DISCUSSION ALREADY ON IT. UH, THAT MOTION PASSED, UH, AT ROSS. UH, THE TWO QUICK ONES WERE P 1 43, STEADY STATE PLANNING SCHEDULE POSTING, UH, MORE LIKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE. THAT MOTION PASSED, UH, VIA COMBO BALLOT. UH, AND, AND IT'S, UH, READY FOR TACK TO VOTE ON P 1 33 IS CLARIFYING LEGACY GENERATOR BREAKER CONTROL, UH, THAT FINALLY CAME BACK TO ROSS AND WE RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE, UM, THE, THE BIGGER 1 33 AS FILE BOUND 1 28 JOINT COMMENTERS. COMMENT, UH, SOME ACTION, UH, AT ROSS. UM, WE HAD, UH, DISCUSSED A NEW NGER, UH, 7 65 ABOUT OPERATIONAL VOLTAGE LIMITS, UH, THAT NGER WAS REFERRED TO VPWG AND IS CURRENTLY TABLED. UH, LOOKING FORWARD TO TAKING IT UP AT THE NEXT ROSS. AND BIGGER 1 45 WAS, UH, FORMALLY, UH, DISCUSSED AND IT IS OF COURSE TABLED IN TARGETING THE VOTE ON MAY 7TH. SO MORE TO COME ON IT. UH, AS MANY, MANY COMMENTS. I THINK WE ARE AT COMMON NUMBER 52, UH, AT LOSE COUNT. BUT YEAH, GET GETTING THERE, UM, ON THE FIGURE 1 45. AND THAT'S, I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL OF, YEAH, THAT'S ALL FOR IT. REST OF THE SLIDES JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT, UH, REVISION REQUESTS ARE WITH ROSS CURRENTLY TABLED AT DIFFERENT STAGES. ANY QUESTIONS ON ROSS? IF NOT, WE CAN GET, UH, GET MOVING ON THE VOTING. YEAH, LET'S GO TO THE VOTING ITEMS. SO, UM, NOER 2 83 WE JUST VOTED ON. AND THEN WE WOULD ALSO BE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PR 1 33 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS. AND IN THE FOUR TWO P, UH, FOUR TWO ROSS REPORT AND 4 22 IMPACT ANALYSIS. AND THEN RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PIGGER 1 43 IS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS AND THE FOUR TWO ROSS REPORT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THOSE TWO? PIGGER 1 33 AND PIGGER 1 43? CAN WE PUT THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT? [02:20:02] YES. OKAY. OKAY, SO NOW WE ARE ON TO NORE 2 82. UM, SAME THING. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE TAKE THIS UP WITH NPRR 1308, IS THAT CORRECT? YEP. SO MANY COMBO BALLOT. UM, NUMBER OF COMMENTS, I BELIEVE FOUR 13 ERCOT COMMENTS FOUR 14. DISTRICT COMMENTS. FOUR 14 REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS, 4 24 TIC COMMENTS, 4 24 ERCOT COMMENTS, UM, ISSUED ISSUES HERE, A LITTLE BIT MORE VARIED. SO I THINK WE CAN TAKE UP QUESTIONS SORT OF AS WE GO IN THE COMMENTS, BUT ERCOT HAS ASKED THAT THEY DO THEIR PRESENTATION FIRST. SO LET'S HAVE PATRICK DO HIS PRESENTATION. UM, I THINK TAKE PATRICK TAKE COMMENTS AT THE QUESTIONS AT THE END OF YOUR PRESENTATION. IS THAT WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO DO? YES. AND THEN RUN THROUGH, UM, THE COMMENTS. AND I BELIEVE YOU'RE GONNA COVER FOUR 13 COMMENTS. YOU'LL COVER EVERYTHING FOR ARCH ARCHIVE EXCEPT FOR THE LEGAL ASPECTS, CORRECT? OKAY. YES. ALL RIGHT. THANKS KAITLYN. UH, GOOD, WELL, GOOD. A GOOD MORNING, AFTERNOON. GOING AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THIS IS PATRICK GRAVEL FROM ERCOT. UH, JUST WANNA KIND OF GIVE AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE WITH NOER 2 82 AND 13 0 8 BEFORE WE GET INTO, UH, SOME OF THE DISCUSSION ITEMS. UM, SO SANDEEP WENT INTO A LOT OF THIS ALREADY. WE DID PASS IT ROSS. UM, I DO HAVE THE LINK TO THE ERCOT ROSS PRESENTATION THERE. THAT TALK GOES OVER A LOT OF THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT REVISIONS THAT WERE REALLY MADE IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE DATA CENTER COALITION COMMENTS. WE TALKED ABOUT IT AT TAC LAST MONTH AS WELL. UM, I DO HAVE A SLIDE IN THE APPENDIX THAT KIND OF LIST SOME OF THOSE CHANGES WE MADE. UH, I'M NOT GONNA GO OVER THAT TODAY, BUT IT'S THERE FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR REFERENCE. UM, DO WANNA MENTION THAT AFTER ROSS, WE SUBMITTED SOME COMMENTS TO CHANGE THE NAME FROM A LARGE ELECTRONIC LOAD TO LARGE COMPUTATIONAL LOAD, UM, OR LCL. UM, REALLY BECAUSE THE ACRONYM LEL WAS TAKEN AND THE NERC EFFORTS ARE LOOKING AT USING COMPUTATIONAL LOAD, WE'RE ALREADY DEFINING, UH, THAT AS A COMPUTATIONAL LOAD AS WELL. SO WE MADE THAT CHANGE AFTER ROSS AND BROUGHT THAT TO PRS. AND THAT GOT RECOMMENDED THAT PRI RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AT PRS AS WELL WITH A 93% APPROVAL, ONE OPPOSING VOTE. AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING FOR A POTENTIAL VOTE TODAY ON BOTH THE NPRR AND THE NOER. UM, STILL TARGETING THE JUNE, UH, BOARD OF DIRECTORS VOTE AS WELL. SO THIS SLIDE JUST LISTS OUT THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED AND WHAT WE RESPONDED TO. UM, THE LEFT COLUMN. WE COVERED ALL OF THESE AT LAST TACK, UH, DOWN TO THE LATEST DATA CENTER COALITION THAT, UM, WE RESPONDED TO AND MADE A LOT OF THE REVISIONS, UH, IN THE MIDDLE. SOME OF THE COMMENTS WE HAVE NOT FORMALLY RESPONDED TO TEXAS BLOCKCHAIN COUNCIL, UM, WHOSE COMMENTS, UH, PROVIDED THOSE SUGGESTED REVISIONS REALLY JUST WENT OVER WHAT THE, UH, CRYPTOCURRENCY FACILITIES CAN RIDE THROUGH IN THE LOW VOLTAGE, UH, VERY LIMITED THERE AND THAT THEIR CLAIMS THAT THEIR, THE RIDE THROUGH SOLUTIONS WOULD BE, UM, NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE FOR THEM AS WELL. UH, SHAPER HAD SOME COMMENTS AS WELL THAT MENTIONED ERCOT NEEDS TO LOOK MORE AT TRANSMISSION MARKET SOLUTIONS, WHICH WE HAVE PRESENTED AT VARIOUS STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS, INCLUDING LLWG LAST WEEK. UH, WE TALKED A LITTLE ABOUT ABOUT FAST FREQUENCY RESPONSE DOWNWARD. UH, WE'RE STILL LOOKING INTO THAT, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO, UM, ALLEVIATE THE, THE NEED FOR WRITE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LARGE COMPUTATIONAL LOAD. UH, SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT PR 1 44, WHICH I THINK NEED TO BE ADDRESSED THERE. AND THEN SOME OF GOOGLE'S COMMENTS THAT WERE ALSO ADDRESSED IN THE DCC RESPONSE, THEY WERE THE SIMILAR COMMENTS. UH, ON THE RIGHT, WE HAVE, UM, ERCOT LATEST COMMENTS FROM 4 24 ADDRESSING SOME OF THE LEGAL, UM, CONCERNS BROUGHT UP BY THE TIEC COMMENTS AND THE TEXAS BLOCKCHAIN COUNSEL COUNSEL COMMENTS AS WELL. UM, AND SOME OF THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA, UH, COMMENTS, THE EXEMPTION DATE, UH, FOR THE RIDE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS BROUGHT UP BY VISTRA AND INTERSECT POWER. SO WE'RE GONNA KIND OF FOCUS ON THOSE TODAY. WE DO HAVE NATHAN FROM LEGAL HERE TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE, THE LEGAL CONCERNS BROUGHT UP BY TIEC. UM, I'M GONNA COVER SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ERCOT WOULD HAVE WITH THE MOVING THAT EXEMPTION DATE, UM, AND SOME OF MY SLIDES, UH, FIRST I WANT TO KIND OF COVER, I WANNA MAKE EVERYTHING CLEAR ON WHAT THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA IS, UM, FOR ALL OF THE FREQUENCY AND VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS IN NOGA 2 82. SO WE SUBMITTED THE INITIAL RRS ON [02:25:01] NOVEMBER 14TH OF LAST YEAR. UH, ANYTHING THAT WAS OPERATIONAL, ANY LARGE COMPUTATIONAL LOAD THAT WAS EITHER OPERATIONAL ENERGIZED OR HAD RECEIVED APPROVAL TO ENERGIZE FROM ERCOT ON OR BEFORE THAT DATE IS EXEMPT. UH, I'M GONNA GO OVER THE NUMBERS HERE ON THE NEXT SLIDE AS WELL. SO THOSE ARE ALL EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, ANY OF THE LARGE COMPUTATIONAL LOADS THAT MET THIS CRITERIA ARE ALSO EXEMPT. SO IF THEY HAD THEIR SIGNED INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT WITH THE TSP OR THE RESOURCE ENTITY, IF THEY'RE CO-LOCATED BEFORE NOVEMBER 14TH, THE TSP ALSO RECEIVED THE FINANCIAL SECURITY AND NOTICE TO PROCEED WITH INTERCONNECTION FACILITIES IF THEY RECEIVED THAT BEFORE THAT DATE. AND ONE OF THE FOLLOWING AS WELL, AND THIS BREAKS IT DOWN, DEPENDING ON IF YOU WENT THROUGH THE LARGE LOAD, THE INTERIM LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION PROCESS, OR IF YOU WENT THROUGH RPG. SO IF YOU WENT THROUGH THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION PROCESS AND YOU HAD YOUR STUDIES APPROVED BEFORE ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 14TH, AND THAT MEANS YOUR STEADY STATE, UM, STUDY AND YOUR STABILITY STUDY, IF YOU HAD THOSE APPROVED AND RECEIVED NOTICE FROM ERCOT, THEY WERE APPROVED, YOU'RE ALSO EXEMPT. OR IF YOU WENT THROUGH RPG AND WE RECEIVE AN ATTESTATION FROM THE INTERCONNECTING TSP THAT YOU WEREN'T REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH LILLIS BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T LOOKING TO INTERCONNECT WITHIN TWO YEARS, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE INTERIM LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION PROCESS, AND YOU'RE EXPECTED TO ENERGIZE THIS YEAR, YOU'RE ALSO EXEMPT. SO WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO HERE IS SAYING ANYTHING THAT HAD KIND OF RECEIVED THE GREEN LIGHT TO GO AHEAD AND START BUILDING OUT, WE WERE TRYING TO EXEMPT THAT. 'CAUSE WE KNOW IT MIGHT BE TOO LATE, THEY'RE ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THEY MAY HAVE PROCURED THEIR EQUIPMENT ALREADY. SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND SAY, NOW YOU HAVE TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, WHEN WE POSTED THESE IN NOVEMBER 14TH, THIS SERVED AS NOTICE THAT THESE RIDE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS WERE COMING AND THEY WERE NEEDED. SO IF YOU HAD THEY RECEIVED THAT GREEN LIGHT AFTERWARDS, YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE COMING AND WERE EXPECTING TO HAVE SOME RIDE THROUGH CAPABILITY, UM, AS YOU GO THROUGH YOUR BUILD OUT. SO THESE ARE THE NUMBERS ABOUT HOW MUCH WOULD BE EXEMPT, HOW MUCH WILL BE EXEMPT, AND HOW MUCH COULD BE EXEMPT IF WE MOVE THAT EXEMPTION DATE. UH, WE RECEIVED A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT MOVING THAT EXEMPTION DATE FROM NOVEMBER 14TH TO WHEN THE RRS ARE ACTUALLY APPROVED, UM, ARE EFFECTIVE, WHICH WOULD BE THIS SUMMER. SO I WORKED WITH THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION TEAM TO ANALYZE HOW MUCH WOULD BE EXEMPT NOW AND HOW MUCH COULD BE TO POTENTIALLY BE EXEMPT. SO RIGHT NOW, AS WRITTEN WITH THAT NOVEMBER 14TH DATE, WE HAVE 14 GIGAWATTS OF LLCL FACILITIES THAT WILL BE EXEMPT. EIGHT GIGAWATTS WERE L-L-I-L-C-L PROJECTS THAT WERE EITHER OPERATIONAL OR APPROVED ENERGIZED ON NOVEMBER 14TH. AND ADDITIONAL SIX GIGAWATTS DID NOT GO THROUGH LLI, THEY CAME THROUGH RPG. UH, SO WE HAVE 14 GIGAWATTS THERE FOR ABOUT 1415 GIGAWATTS IS WHAT WENT INTO THAT ORIGINAL VRT ASSESSMENT. THAT INTERIM VRT ASSESSMENT THAT KICKED OFF AT THE END OF LAST YEAR. UH, WE EXPECT THAT SIX GIGAWATTS WILL GROW THIS YEAR. UM, IN OUR LATEST VRT ASSESSMENT, WE'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT 20 GIGAWATTS IN THE LATEST VRT ASSESSMENT, AND WE'RE EXPECTING MOST OF THAT WILL BE EXEMPT AS WELL. SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT 14 TO 20 GIGAWATTS OF DATA CENTER AND CRYPTO LOADS THAT ARE GONNA BE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS AS WRITTEN. THE NEXT BUCKET, I ASK THE LLI TEAM TO ANALYZE HOW MANY ADDITIONAL LCLS HAD THEIR STEADY STATE AND THEIR STABILITY STUDIES APPROVED BEFORE ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 14TH. UH, THEY CAME UP WITH 26 GIGAWATTS THAT WERE APPROVED AT THAT POINT. UH, WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT MEETS THE 9.5 REQUIREMENTS. THAT'S THE SIGN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT, THE NOTICE TO PROCEED AND THE FINANCIAL SECURITY. WE WEREN'T REALLY TRACKING THOSE DATES BEFORE PR ONE 15 BECAME EFFECTIVE. BUT SINCE THAT EFFECTIVE DATE, WE HAVE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF THAT 9.5 REQUIREMENTS AND TRACKING THAT. BUT ALL THE DATES WE HAVE ARE POST NOVEMBER 14TH. UH, THEY'RE STARTING REALLY IN DECEMBER. SOME OF THIS 26 GIGAWATTS WOULD LIKELY ALREADY BE EXEMPT. THEY PROBABLY MET THOSE 9.5 REQUIREMENTS BEFORE NOVEMBER 14TH. WE'RE JUST NOT AWARE OF THAT. WE STILL NEED TO KIND OF GO THROUGH SOME RFIS. WE HAVE THIS DATA, UH, IT'S GONNA TAKE SOME TIME TO GO THROUGH AND FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH OF THAT IS EXEMPT. UH, BUT RIGHT NOW THE LARGE LOAD TEAM IS FOCUSED ON SEEING WHICH FACILITIES MEET THE 9.4, THE 9.5 REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET INTO BATCH ZERO. SO IF WE MOVE THIS DATE OUT TO TODAY'S [02:30:01] DATE OR THE SUMMER, A LOT OF THIS 26 GIGAWATTS WILL ALSO BE EXEMPT. WE DO KNOW OF THIS 26 GIGAWATTS, 14 GIGAWATTS OF THAT HAS MET THE 9.5 REQUIREMENTS ON OR BEFORE, ON OR AFTER, SINCE EITHER BEFORE NOVEMBER 14TH UNTIL NOW. SO IT'S A BIT OF A SLIDING SCALE. HOW MUCH THIS 26 GIGAWATTS WILL ALSO BE EXEMPT IF WE MOVE THIS DATE. UM, THE BOTTOM, WE HAVE 10 GIGAWATTS ON TOP OF THAT 10 GIGAWATTS THAT HAD THEIR PLANNING STUDIES APPROVED AND MET 9.5 AFTER NOVEMBER 14TH. SO THAT 10 GIG GIG GIGAWATTS WILL BE IN ADDITION TO THE LOWS THAT ARE EXEMPT. SO BROKEN DOWN ON THE RIGHT, IF YOU ADD IT ALL UP, WE'RE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY 40 TO 50 GIGAWATTS OF EXEMPTED LOAD. NOW, OF COURSE, WE KNOW NOT ALL OF THIS 50 GIGAWATTS WILL LIKELY COME IN, BUT WE'RE GOING ON THE PROJECTED NUMBERS, WHAT WE'RE BEING TOLD FROM THESE DATA CENTERS. SO SLIDING THIS OUT IS REALLY GONNA IMPACT ERCOT OPERATIONS A GREAT DEAL. UH, WE'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY CURTAILING LOAD IN REAL TIME TO, IN RE TO RESPECT THE SYSTEM OPERATING LIMIT OF NOT LOSING MORE THAN 3,200 MEGAWATTS OF, OF LOAD FOR ONE COMMON DISTURBANCE. UH, WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED TWO POTENTIAL SYSTEM OPERATING LIMITS AS A RESULT OF THE FIRST VRT ASSESSMENT. WE'RE WORKING WITH THE TSPS TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GONNA MAINTAIN THAT OPERATING LIMIT. AND IT'S GOING TO BE VERY CHALLENGING. WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS WE ARE IDENTIFYING THE GROUP OF LOADS FOR EACH TSP, GIVING THEM THE, THE GROUP OF LOADS AND TELLING THEM, HEY, YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN A CONSUMPTION BELOW THAT LEVEL, PRE-CON CONTINGENCY. THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY CHALLENGING ON THEIR END. UH, THEY, WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO AUTOMATE THIS. WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DISPATCH THIS SCED. THIS IS GONNA BE ALL MANUAL OPERATIONS. IT'S GOING TO BE THE TSPS WORKING WITH THESE DATA CENTERS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY CAN REDUCE THEIR CONSUMPTION, UH, FROM A VERBAL DISPATCH INSTRUCTION. AND IF WE'RE NOT CAPABLE OF DOING THAT, THERE'S POTENTIAL THAT WE'LL JUST HAVE TO BE OPENING BREAKERS FOR A LOT OF THESE FACILITIES. IF WE INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPTED LOAD, THAT'S JUST GOING TO MAKE IT MORE CHALLENGING. WE'RE GONNA HAVE MORE CURTAILMENTS. UM, IT'LL BE A DAILY CURTAILMENT, MAYBE A 24 7 TYPE CURTAILMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, WHERE WE'RE HAVING TO MAINTAIN THESE SYSTEM OPERATING LIMITS. UM, WE ARE FINISHING UP THE LATEST VRT ASSESSMENT RIGHT NOW, AND WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL SYSTEM OPERATING LIMITS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAINTAIN AS WELL. SO AS AN OPERATIONS ENGINEER, WE FIND, I FIND THIS VERY, VERY CONCERNING THAT WE'RE POTENTIALLY EXEMPTING 50, 40, 50 GIGAWATTS OF LOAD. UH, WE DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THIS. WE'RE WORKING ON A LOAD CURTAILMENT MANAGEMENT TOOL RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT'S REALLY FOCUSED ON CURTAILING LOAD AND EMERGENCY TYPE SITUATIONS, ASKING SOME OF THESE DATA CENTERS TO SWITCH OVER TO BACKUP GENERATION. BUT THIS RIDE THROUGH IS A 24 7, 24 7, 365 WILL HAVE TO BE OPERATING TO THESE LIMITS. AND THESE EVENTS COULD HAPPEN ANY TIME, MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT DAY PEAK DEMAND, UM, ANYTIME. SO THAT'S OUR CONCERN WITH MOVING THE ESTATE. UM, AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF TAKE QUESTIONS AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL ASPECT AS WELL. THANK YOU. OKAY. YEAH, LET'S PAUSE ON THE LEGAL QUESTION FOR NOW. UM, SO, SO TWO OTHER THINGS BEFORE WE GET TO THE DATE THAT YOU, YOU COVERED AT LEAST ONE OF THEM, I THINK, PATRICK. SO THE, THE NAME CHANGE WAS IN THE ERCOT FOUR 13 COMMENTS, LARGE ELECTRONIC LOAD TO LARGE COMPUTATIONAL LOAD. AND THEN THERE WERE ALSO ERCOT COMMENTS, UM, OR, UH, REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS ON FOUR 14. AND THAT, UH, INCREASED THE FTE REQUIREMENT FROM 2.9 TO 3.2 FTES. AND THEN LET'S FOCUS, I THINK, ON THE DATE UNTIL WE GET TO LUNCH. MAYBE IF WE CAN DO LEGAL BEFORE THAT TOO. BUT LET'S AT LEAST GET THE, THE DATE CONVERSATION DOWN. NED, I KNOW YOU'RE IN THE QUEUE, BUT DO YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH YOUR COMMENTS OR HOWEVER YOU WANNA DO THAT? BUT, BUT THIS IS ALSO YOUR TIME TO ADDRESS THE FOUR 14 RA COMMENTS IN THE SPIRIT OF EFFICIENCY. I'LL, I'LL COMBINE THEM. 'CAUSE I, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, FOR PATRICK, AND THEN I THINK IT, IT DOVETAILS INTO EXACTLY WHAT OUR COMMENTS WERE. SO, UM, AND PATRICK, FIRST OFF, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION AND REALLY WANT TO RECOGNIZE ERCOT HAS, YOU KNOW, HEARD FROM, YOU KNOW, HEARD CONCERNS FROM STAKEHOLDERS AND, AND THE LARGE LOADS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKING SOME STEPS TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THOSE. UM, AND I APPRECIATE YOU RECOGNIZING THE CONCERN [02:35:01] ABOUT FOLKS MAKING INVESTMENTS BASED ON, YOU KNOW, THE, THE RULES THAT EXIST AT A POINT IN TIME. UM, AT THE END OF THE DAY, VIST COMMENTS ARE TRYING TO RECONCILE WHAT I THINK IS A, IS KIND OF A, IS THE SAME TOUGH PROBLEM THAT, THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. WE RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'VE, YOU'VE LAID OUT THERE'S A RELIABILITY NEED TO ADDRESS THIS, UM, OR, AND THAT WE'RE SETTING ASIDE THE LEGAL DISCUSSION, BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT PROBABLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. UM, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A RISK THAT WE NEED TO COLLECTIVELY MANAGE. AND SO, UM, THAT WILL PLAY OUT. HOWEVER, THAT WILL PLAY OUT. THE, THE ISSUE THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THIS IS, IS REALLY, IT'S A PRINCIPLED ONE ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY DO, ARE YOUR EXPECTATIONS ONCE AN NPRR OR A NOER OR ANY REVISION REQUEST IS FILED? AND, YOU KNOW, WHILE THAT MAY BE, MAY PUT YOU ON NOTICE THAT SOMETHING IS CHANGING, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT CHANGE IS UNTIL IT'S ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS. AND SO THAT, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE THAT, UH, TO, TO USE THE TERM BRIAN, UH, USED EARLIER INVESTIBLE, UM, FROM, YOU KNOW, FROM JUST THE SIGNAL THAT SOMETHING MIGHT CHANGE. AND SO AS A, AS A PRINCIPLE THEN THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT APPLIES NOT JUST IN THIS CASE, BUT IN, IN MANY OTHER INSTANCES THAT WE AS MARKET STAKEHOLDERS HAVE. THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE VISTA'S CONCERN CAME IN AND SAID, WELL, LET'S JUST MAKE THIS EFFECTIVE AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE AFTER, AFTER APPROVAL TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE, THE CONCERNS YOU'VE LAID, THE RELIABILITY CONCERNS YOU'VE LAID OUT, AND, AND ALSO HAVE SOME, YOU KNOW, SUPPORT FOR THE PROCESS TO PLAY OUT BEFORE WE PUT IT IN PLACE. SO THAT, THAT'S THE SHORT TERM LAY THE, THE VERY SHORT VERSION LAYOUT OF, OF VISTA'S COMMENTS. BUT TO HELP KIND OF CONTEXTUALIZE THAT, YOU, YOU WERE MENTIONING EARLIER, PATRICK, THAT YOU KNOW, THESE LOADS THAT ARE QUOTE UNQUOTE EXEMPTED WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO CURTAILMENT UNDER THE INTERIM LARGE ELECTRONIC LOAD, UM, RIDE THROUGH EVALUATION PROCESS WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE MODELS, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SEE, YOU'RE EVALUATING THOSE TO SEE HOW THEY PERFORM IN DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. IF THEY RIDE THROUGH, THEN THAT'S GOOD. IF THEY DON'T RIDE THROUGH IN THOSE MODELS THOUGH, THEN THERE'S ONE OF TWO THINGS HAPPEN. EITHER YOU DON'T APPROVE TO ENERGIZE IF IT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON A SYSTEM OPERATING LIMIT OR AN EYE ROLL, OR IF IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT IMPACT, THEN YOU SAY, ALL RIGHT, YOU CAN ENERGIZE, BUT YOU'RE ON NOTICE. IF WE SEE A RISK, WE, WE, WE WON'T, WE WILL CURTAIL. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, THE LANGUAGE YOU USE THEN IS PROBABLY IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT'S, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY AN EXEMPTION , THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, THAT'S OPERATING UNDER A CERTAIN DEGREE OF, OF, YOU KNOW, KNOWN RISK TAKING. AND I THINK THAT A LOT OF, UH, SOPHISTICATED INVESTORS WILL LOOK AT THAT RISK PROFILE AND DECIDE, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE MAY TECHNICALLY BE EXEMPT, BUT WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST GO AHEAD AND TRY TO PLAN AROUND IT. I THINK BOB HAS A, A VERY, UH, COLORFUL WAY TO, TO DESCRIBE THAT, UH, THAT THAT MENTALITY. AND, UM, SO I, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THE, THE DATA THAT KIND OF GOES ALONG WITH THIS. LOAD FORECAST IS OBVIOUSLY A HOT TOPIC. WE CAN PROBABLY, WE COULD HAVE A LOT OF DEBATE ABOUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN THERE, BUT I, I DID WANT TO AT LEAST CONFIRM WITH YOU THAT WHAT YOU SAID IS, IS CORRECT, AND THAT IS, IF YOU'RE QUOTE UNQUOTE EXEMPT, YOU'RE STILL SUBJECT TO CURTAILMENT. THAT IS CORRECT, YES. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THAT'S SUPER HELPFUL. THANK YOU. AND I THINK THAT ALSO LAYS OUT, NO KAITLYN'S GONE, SO I CAN KEEP GOING. BUT, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT LAYS OUT THE VISTA COMMENTS ON WHY WE, WE WOULD SUPPORT THE, THE ROSS REPORT ADJUSTED, OR ACTUALLY IT WAS THE LATEST ERCOT COMMENTS TO, OR THE ERCOT COMMENTS THAT WENT INTO THE ROSS REPORT. CUT. I AM TERRIBLE WITH THIS TODAY DAY. THE ERCOT COMMENTS FROM APRIL 13TH MODIFIED TO YOU TO HAVE A JULY 10TH, UH, DATE AS OPPOSED TO NOVEMBER 14TH. AND SO THAT'S WHERE VISTA COMES OUT. I'M WILLING TO MAKE THE MOTION TO ENDORSE THE VISTA COMMENTS ALONG THOSE LINES, BUT I REALIZE WE HAVE MORE DISCUSSION TO GO THROUGH, SO I DON'T WANNA JUMP THE JUMP THE GUN THERE. THANKS NED. BETH. UM, THIS IS, UH, AND, AND I WAS, I WAS ON BOARD WITH, UH, I WILL SAY I WAS ON BOARD WITH VISTA'S COMMENTS UNTIL I SAW SOME OF THESE REALLY SCARY NUMBERS THAT GAVE ME PAUSE. MM-HMM . UM, I, AND I HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF MYTHS THAT I'D LIKE TO BETTER GRASP SOME OF THESE REALLY BIG COMMENTS, IF YOU DON'T MIND, PATRICK. UM, THE, THE SIX GIGAWATTS RELATED TO PROJECT OR SIX GIGAWATTS OF PROJECTS RELATED TO RPG PROJECTS, ARE ALL OF THOSE RPG PROJECTS NOW ENDORSED, OR ARE SOME OF THEM STILL IN PROCESS? I BELIEVE THERE'S MORE TO COME. UH, SO THIS SIX GIGAWATTS ARE LCLS THAT WE'RE IN OUR VRT ASSESSMENT. WE'VE BEEN MONITORING THESE MAKING [02:40:01] SURE, BECAUSE WE MIGHT HAVE TO START LIMITING THESE AS WELL. UM, RIGHT NOW THAT CONSUMPTION, THAT AGGREGATE CONSUMPTION IS ABOUT 1400 MEGAWATTS. SO WE'RE A GOOD WAYS AWAY FROM THE 3,200. BUT A LOT OF THESE HAVEN'T STARTED TO RAMP UP YET. UH, THEY'RE MODELED, SO WE DON'T DO THE VRT ASSESSMENT UNTIL THEY'RE IN OUR MODEL. SO THAT'S USUALLY CLOSE TO BEING ENERGIZED. MOST OF THEM MAY BE ENERGIZED, THEY'RE JUST NOT CONSUMING YET. UM, AND THE ONLY REASON WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD TO DO ANY CURTAILMENT YET IS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN MUCH SLOWER THAN WE WERE EXPECTING. WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY GONNA GET UP TO THAT FULL CAPACITY. WE NEED TO REACH OUT TO THEM AND GET THOSE UPDATED, UH, RAMP SCHEDULES, SEE WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON DOING. UM, BUT THAT SIX GIGAWATTS WE KNOW IS, IS THERE AND COMING, HOW MUCH? NOT EXACTLY. SURE. OKAY. UM, WE EXPECT THERE'S SOME MORE. OKAY. UH, THAT'S COME THAT ARE COMING. THAT'LL BE ENERGIZED SOON. UM, I WENT THROUGH THE LATEST VRT ASSESSMENT, EVERYTHING THERE, LOOKS LIKE IT WAS IN THE LLI, WE DID SEND OUT SOME RFIS LAST YEAR TO GET ACCOUNT ON WHAT'S REMAINING ON THAT RPG. UM, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THOSE NUMBERS, WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT WHEN WE WERE WRITING THESE REQUIREMENTS, THIS WAS KIND OF A REQUEST FROM THE TSPS TO HAVE THAT ATTESTATION TO MAKE SURE WE'RE EXEMPTING THOSE AS WELL. SO I'M EXPECTING THERE'S GONNA BE ANOTHER COUPLE OF GIGAWATTS IN THERE SOMEWHERE. WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE EXACTLY HOW MUCH MORE. ALRIGHT. ALRIGHT. THAT, THAT WAS, I'M GLAD I ASKED THE QUESTION. THAT WAS VERY, THAT WAS A VERY HELPFUL FOR ME. IT WAS A VERY HELPFUL DISCOURSE ON ON ON MUCH OF THE MOVING PIECES. HOPEFULLY THIS NEXT QUESTION WILL BE SIMPLER TO ANSWER , WHICH IS THE LAST 10 GIGAWATTS? UM, UH, 10 GIGAWATTS AS OF WHAT DATE? SINCE NOVEMBER 14TH. SINCE NOVEMBER 14TH. SINCE NOVEMBER 14TH LAST YEAR UNTIL LIKE LAST WEEK. OKAY. COULD BE MORE FROM THIS WEEK. I THAT I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS YESTERDAY. I SAID EVERYONE'S, EVERYONE'S TRYING TO GET THIS 9.4 AND 9.5 MET SO THEY CAN GET INTO BE ZERO. SO I THINK THESE ARE GOING UP PRETTY QUICKLY. OKAY. I, I WAS SURPRISED WHEN I SAW THESE NUMBERS AS WELL. OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAVE AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU, MARTHA. THANK YOU. UH, MARTHA HENSON SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ENCORE AND I, I UNDERSTAND THE SENSITIVITY THAT VISTA HAS TO A FUTURE DATE. I IMAGINE THERE WILL BE OTHERS THAT, YOU KNOW, AREN'T IN FAVOR OF THAT ON PRINCIPLE AS WELL, BUT, UM, ENCORE'S NOT SUPPORTIVE OF MOVING THE COMPLIANCE DATE TO JULY AS YOU SUGGEST IN YOUR COMMENTS. I THINK IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE TO POTENTIALLY EXEMPT 50 GIGAWATTS OF LOAD, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK PATRICK'S SLIDE IS SAYING HERE. UM, AND TO THE EARLIER POINT, THE MORE LOAD YOU EXEMPT FROM THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE MORE CUSTOMER LOAD YOU'RE GONNA BE SUBJECTING TO MANDATORY CURTAILMENTS. SO IT'S GONNA LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF LOAD THAT CAN BE SERVED IN PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS IF WE HAVE TO RESPECT, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE 3,200 LOAD LOSS CRITERIA AND WE'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT THAT AND PREPARING FOR IT AS PATRICK INDICATED. AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO REALLY WITH THE LOAD FORECAST ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S BASED ON CUSTOMERS THAT ARE IN, IN SERVICE TODAY THAT HAVEN'T REACHED THEIR FULL LOAD RAMPS AND OTHERS THAT ARE ABOUT TO ENERGIZE. SO WE WOULD MUCH PREFER TO SEE, UM, THE COMMENTS THAT ARE CAUGHT FILED ON THE 13TH, I THINK MOVE FORWARD, WHICH, UH, MAINTAINS THE NOVEMBER 14TH COMPLIANCE DATE. THANKS, BILL. YEAH, WE SUPPORTED THIS AT ROSS. UM, MAINLY DUE TO WHAT MARTHA JUST SAID AND A LITTLE BIT OF BETH'S COMMENTS AS WELL AS TERMS OF THE, THE NUMBERS THAT WOULD BE EXEMPT. WE'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE LOAD SHIFT RISK, RIGHT? AND, AND WHAT THIS COULD END UP BEING. AND A LOT OF LARGE LOADS ARE IN REMOTE AREAS, BUT THERE'S ALSO A LOT IN POPULATION CENTERS AND YOU'RE GONNA EXPOSE THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO LOAD SHED. AND LIKE I SAID EARLIER, WE CAN'T DO THAT , THAT'S NOT GONNA WORK WELL FOR ANYONE. SO I KNOW THE, THE BAR NEEDS TO BE HIGH WHENEVER WE IMPLEMENT A RETROACTIVE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS, IS, I KNOW YOU FILED IT ON THE DATE, YOU KNOW, AND GAVE A DATE THAT WAS NEAR THE DATE THAT YOU FILED IT TO GET PEOPLE A HEADS UP. IT'S STILL ESSENTIALLY RETROACTIVE THOUGH, UM, FOR A BIG CHUNK. THE REASON WHENEVER WE DO THAT, THERE HAS TO BE A REALLY GOOD REASON. AND TO ME, RISK OF LOAD SHED IS THAT IS MEETS THAT HURDLE. AND SO WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF ER KAT'S COMMENTS ON THIS. THANKS. YEAH, THANKS BILL. I JUST WANNA RESPOND TO THAT. I THINK, I THINK THAT'S HOW WE WOULD'VE PREFERRED TO DO IT. UM, IF WE COULD HAVE, UM, IT'S JUST WE WERE TOO LATE. I MEAN, IF WE COULD HAVE WORKED ON THIS A COUPLE YEARS AGO, GOTTEN SOME REQUIREMENTS IN THERE, WE KIND OF TO SEE IT WAS COMING, BUT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THOSE RIDE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS IN BACK THEN. AND IT IS JUST THE AMOUNT THAT'S KIND OF COME IN SINCE NOVEMBER 14TH HAS KIND OF CHANGED THE PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT WE CAN DO AS FAR AS MOVING THAT DATE. [02:45:01] UH, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAD JUST THE 14 GIGAWATTS OF EXEMPT, I THINK ERCOT OPERATIONS COULD, WE COULD WORK ON SOME TRANSMISSION MARKET SOLUTIONS. WE COULD WORK ON SOME MITIGATION. WE CAN WORK WITH SOME OF THESE FACILITIES TO GET THEIR RIDE THROUGH IMPROVED AND MITIGATE THAT. BUT IF WE, THIS GROWS TO 30 40 GIGAWATTS, I I JUST DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN REASONABLY MITIGATE THIS WITHOUT A CONSTANT LOAD SHED OR CURTAILMENT OF THESE DATA CENTERS IN REAL TIME. AND NO ONE WANTS THAT. UH, THE DATA CENTERS DON'T WANT IT. ERCOT DOESN'T WANT IT. THE TSPS DON'T WANT IT. UH, THIS DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T HELP ANYONE IF WE HAVE TO CONSTANTLY, UH, CURTAIL THIS LOAD. OKAY. BLAKE KING. BLAKE KING WITH GALAXY POWER. I, IT, IT'S STILL NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT, THAT FOLKS UNDERSTAND THAT THE, THE MANDATORY CURTAILMENT EXISTS TODAY. LIKE FOR ALL OF THESE LOADS. LIKE ERCOT CAN SPIN UP AN SOL OR AN IOL TOMORROW AND CURTAIL ALL OF THESE LOADS ALREADY, THAT THAT ALREADY EXISTS. AND SO TO ME THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE MARGINAL BENEFIT OF APPLYING THIS RULE ACROSS THE INDUSTRY RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING RELIABILITY MECHANISM THAT ERCOT ALREADY HAS, RIGHT? THE, THE COSTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPOSED HERE ON AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY RELATIVE TO THE MARGINAL RELIABILITY BENEFIT. AND I THINK WHAT PATRICK STATED DURING HIS COMMENTS WAS THAT IT'S COMPLICATED TO, TO ENACT THESE OPERATIONAL SORT OF PROCEDURES AND, AND I, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT IT'S COMPLICATED IS WORTH HAVING AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY SORT OF REFORM THEIR REQUIREMENTS WHEN THERE ALREADY IS AN EXISTING PROCESS FOR CURTAILING LOADS. SO I I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT, THAT THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A REQUIREMENT. IT JUST, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME LIKE A VERY STRONG ARGUMENT FOR NOT PUSHING THE DATE BACK, RIGHT? IF, IF ALL OF THE LOADS ARE ALREADY SUBJECTIVE TO MANDATORY CURTAILMENTS, IF THEY ARE IDENTIFIED, THEN THIS SOUNDS LIKE A HAMMER WHEN THERE ALREADY EXISTS A SCALPEL. UM, AND YEAH, AND I'M ALSO PARTICULARLY, IT SEEMS LIKE THESE NUMBERS ARE BEING USED TO SORT OF SCARE EVERYONE INTO THIS RULE. I'M, I'M PARTICULARLY SUSPICIOUS OF THESE NUMBERS, RIGHT? IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ARE, ARE WE EXPECTING BATCH ZERO BASE LOAD FIRM TO BE 50 GIGAWATTS? LIKE I I, 'CAUSE MY ASSUMPTION HERE WOULD BE THAT EVERYONE THAT WOULD BE EXEMPT WOULD END UP IN BASE FIRM LOAD CATEGORY. AND I, I CAN'T RECALL IF 50 GIGAWATTS IS THE KIND OF NUMBER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR BASE LOAD. I DON'T KNOW, PATRICK, IS THAT THE QUANTITY? YEAH. THESE, THESE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT HAVE MET THE 9.4 AND 9.5 THAT ARE LOOKING TO GET INTO BATCH. THIS, WELL, 26, WELL 26 GIGAWATTS HERE DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT 9.5, RIGHT? IT JUST SAYS LLIS APPROVED, RIGHT? SO IT'S NOT, SO WE DON'T HOW MUCH THAT 26 MEANT THE 9.5, BUT I DO KNOW A LOT OF THIS HAS MET 9.5 SINCE NOVEMBER 14TH. SOME OF IT MAY HAVE BEEN BEFORE NOVEMBER 14TH, WE JUST WEREN'T TRACKING THOSE DATES YET. BUT YES, THIS IS GOING ON THE PATH. IF WE'RE MOVING THIS DATE, ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT GETS INTO BATCH WOULD BE EXEMPT. AND YOU'RE UNDERSELLING THE OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE CURTAILING THIS LOAD. THIS IS NOT JUST, WE PUT IT IN SCED AND WE DISPATCH THESE LOADS DOWN. THESE ARE ALL MANUAL INSTRUCTIONS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE GIVING TO THE TSPS. THE TSPS, THERE ARE NO COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS THAT EXIST RIGHT NOW BETWEEN ERCOT AND THE LOADS. THERE'S VERY LIMITED THAT EXIST BETWEEN THE TSPS AND THE LOADS AS WELL. SO THIS IS LIKELY GOING TO END UP A LOT OF OPENING BREAKERS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME. THE MORE LOADS THAT ARE EXEMPT, THE MORE LOADS THAT ARE GONNA BE CURTAILED. AND, AND THE CHALLENGES IS JUST GOING TO BE, THEY'RE GONNA BE EXTREME CHALLENGES FROM THE AIR COTT OPERATION SIDE AND THE TSB SIDE TO MAINTAIN THESE SYSTEM OPERATING LIMITS. AND LIKE I SAID, WE CAN, WE CAN LIKELY MANAGE, IF WE KEEP THIS DOWN TO A 14 TO 20 GIGAWATTS RANGE, THERE'S STILL GONNA BE CURTAILMENT. BUT IF WE DOUBLE THAT EXEMPTED LOAD, UM, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE CONSTANT CURTAILMENT. AND YES, WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THIS, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT A DIRECTION WE WANT, THERE'S NOT A PATH WE WANT TO HEAD DOWN IF WE CAN AVOID IT. OKAY. UM, I THINK JEFF BILLOW WANTED TO JUMP IN TOO. UM, I'M HAPPY TO WAIT MY TURN. GO AHEAD. OKAY. OKAY, PLEASE. WELL, YEAH, SO, UM, UH, MAY MAYBE ON BLAKE'S, UH, QUESTION ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT WILL BE IN BACHELOR. [02:50:01] SO I THINK WE DON'T KNOW. I DO WANNA POINT OUT THE, THAT THE OPERATIONAL, SO, SO AS WE PRESENT NUMBERS IN THE, THE, UM, IN, IN THE WORKSHOPS OR AT THE COMMISSION OR, UM, YOU KNOW, AT, AT VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS WE'RE HAVING ON BATCH, UH, WE'RE NOT INCLUDING THE OPERATIONAL. UH, SO THAT WHAT WHAT IS ALREADY OPERATIONAL IS, IS ALREADY EXEMPT, BUT IT'S NOT, NOT INCLUDED AS NUMBERS. SO IT, IT, WE, WE COULD HAVE 50 GIGAWATTS OF BOTH OPERATIONAL PLUS NEW STUFF AND, UH, BA BATCH ZERO BASE LOAD THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE EXEMPT IF WE MOVE THE NUMBERS FORWARD. AND AGAIN, UH, THE, THE JULY 10TH THIS, SO THIS IS ONLY AS OF LAST WEEK BY JULY 10TH, THOSE NUMBERS COULD GROW SIGNIFICANTLY. UM, ALSO WANTED TO NOTE THAT, UM, WE ALREADY, AS PATRICK MENTIONED, WE ALREADY HAVE TWO AREAS TODAY THAT WE ARE MONITORING. THE ONLY REASON THAT WE HAVE NOT STARTED CURTAILING IS BECAUSE THOSE LOADS ARE NOT AT THE LEVELS THAT THEY HAVE, UH, COMMUNICATED TO US. SO THEY, THEY COULD RAMP UP AND, AND WE COULD, THIS SUMMER, WE COULD BE CURTAILING IN, IN THOSE AREAS, BUT WE'RE NOT, JUST BECAUSE THOSE LOADS HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO THAT, THAT LEVEL YET. SO IF THEY WERE ALREADY AT THE LEVEL THAT THEY, UM, HAD TOLD US THAT THEY WERE, WOULD BE AT, THEN WE WOULD ALREADY BE CURTAILING. UM, AND, AND AS PATRICK ALSO MENTIONED, I'LL, I'LL REITERATE, WE HAVE ALREADY IDENTIFIED WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE AND MAY, MAYBE TWO ADDITIONAL AREAS THAT WE ARE, UH, WE HAVE GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE MORE THAN 3,200 MEGAWATTS THAT DO NOT RIDE THROUGH THAT. WE MAY ALSO, UH, START MONITORING AND EVENTUALLY CURTAILING LOAD IN THOSE AREAS. UM, I I AM SYMPATHETIC TO THE IDEA THAT THE LOADS, UM, CANNOT, IF THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, THEN THEY CAN'T PLAN TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS WITH, WITH THEIR EQUIPMENT. UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT. UM, HOWEVER, THREE YEARS AGO WE PROPOSED VOLTAGE RIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE LOADS AND NO GROUP 2 56. WE GOT A LOT OF PUSHBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS AT THAT TIME. ONE, ONE BECAUSE OF THE SAME ISSUE, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A LITTLE BIT, WHICH IS, UH, YOU KNOW, CAN'T, CAN OR CAUGHT PUT REQUIREMENTS ON LOADS. UH, BUT THE OTHER ISSUE WAS AROUND SKEPTICISM THAT THIS WAS A REAL ISSUE. UH, AND SO I'M NOT SYMPATHETIC TO THE IDEA THAT WE GET PUSHBACK WHEN WE TRY TO BE PROACTIVE AND, AND COME UP WITH RULES AHEAD OF TIME. AND THEN WHEN WE HAVE TO PULL BACK FROM THAT AND, AND THEN WE DO COME UP, WE, WE DO IDENTIFY IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR WE TELEGRAPH THIS WAS COMING 'CAUSE IT, WE, WE PROVE AT THAT POINT THAT THIS WAS A REAL ISSUE. AND, AND UH, AND THEN IT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE TRIED TO WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND COME UP WITH A GOOD SET OF, UM, UH, REQUIREMENTS, UH, WHICH WE CAME OUT WITH IN NOVEMBER AND HAVE TRIED TO WORK WITH INDUSTRY AND, AND UPDATE THOSE AS WE WENT ALONG. BUT I, I'M, I'M JUST, I'M NOT SYMPATHETIC TO A, HEY WE, WHEN WE TRY TO BE PROACTIVE, THEN YOU PUSH BACK AND THEN WHEN, AND THEN THAT LEADS US TO POINT WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE SO MUCH THAT HAS GONE THROUGH THE GATE WHERE WE COULD HAVE HAD THESE REQUIREMENTS BEEN IN PLACE PREVIOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS JEFF. UH, BOB, YEAH, JUST REAL QUICKLY, I STILL HAVE STITCHES IN ME FROM NO GROUP 2 45 RIGHT NOW. AND THIS SOUNDS A WHOLE LOT LIKE THAT. SO A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND I, I GET IT. YOU KNOW, I WAS GLAD TO HEAR YOU THAT NO ONE SAID THAT THEY COULDN'T LOOK THEIR KIDS IN THE EYE IF THIS DIDN'T PASS AND IT WAS JUST A CONCERN. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WERE SOME LESSONS LEARNED OUT OF IT SO FAR. UH, BUT UH, , IF I COULDN'T RESIST, SORRY. UH, BUT EACH OF YOUR KIDS IS DIFFERENT. LIKE EACH, EACH ONE OF MY KIDS ARE SERVICE DIFFERENT. YEAH. SO YOU DON'T HAVE A FAVORITE ANCILLARY SERVICE. LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE A FAVORITE KIDS. YEAH. SO FOUR, YOU SET THE DATE. UH, AND OF COURSE THIS IS WHERE WE'RE HAVING ISSUES WITH 2 45 IS THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION IS YOU'VE GOT THE DATE YOU HAVE TO COMPLY. THIS IS ALL NEW, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THIS IS NEW. SOME SAY THEY CAN DO IT, SOME SAY THEY CAN'T. I UNDERSTAND THE VENDORS ARE GONNA MAKE A PRESENTATION, UH, AT THE BOARD POTENTIALLY. AND WE FOUND THAT SOME OF THE VENDORS HAVE SAID THINGS THEY COULD DO, THEY COULDN'T DO IT OR IGNORED YOU WHEN YOU TRIED TO CALL 'EM. SO WHAT KIND OF PROCESS HAVE YOU ALREADY LAID OUT? HAVE YOU TAKEN LESSONS LEARNED FROM 2 45 ON WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THIS IS IN EFFECT AND THE LOADS START TO COMPLY AND FIND, THEY RUN INTO SOME OF THE SAME ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH 2 45? HAVE YOU GUYS, ARE YOU TAKING LESSONS LEARNED FROM THAT? OR, OR HOW, HOW IS THAT PROCESS LAID [02:55:01] OUT? OR IS IT LAID OUT? 'CAUSE I THINK THAT'S REAL IMPORTANT TO THIS. SO, UM, THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ANYBODY. YEAH, I CAN TAKE THAT. GO AHEAD. UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM NOGA 2 45, YOU KNOW, WE ARE EXEMPTING THE OPERATIONAL NOGA 2 45 WENT BACK AND IMPOSED NEW REQUIREMENTS ON EXISTING OPERATIONAL FACILITIES. WE'RE NOT DOING THAT HERE. UH, THERE IS INCENTIVE FOR THEM, AS NED MENTIONED. THERE'S DEFINITELY AN INCENTIVE THERE FOR, TO MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS. UM, SO THEY'RE NOT RISKING POTENTIAL CURTAILMENT, BUT WE'RE NOT FORCING THESE REQUIREMENTS ON THOSE OPERATIONAL FACILITIES. UM, WE'RE NOT DOING THE FULL MAXIMIZATION PROVE THAT YOU MAXIMIZED TO YOUR FULLEST CAPABILITIES. UH, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE SAYING, HEY, THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO MEET. UM, AND EVEN SOME OF THE EXISTING, THEY MAY NOT HAVE TO MEET ALL OF NORE 2 82. THEY NEED TO SHOW THAT THEY CAN RIDE THROUGH SOMEWHAT AND THAT CAN HELP US WITH OUR POTENTIAL CURTAILMENT. UM, IT'S KIND OF THE SAME PROCESS WE'VE HAD WITH THE IBS. WE HAVE EVENT ANALYSIS TEAM. WE'VE LEARNED A LOT SINCE THEN. DETECTING THESE EVENTS, IDENTIFYING WHEN FACILITIES DON'T RIDE THROUGH, WORKING WITH THEM TO DEVELOP, FIND THE ROOT CAUSE, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. WE WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL, UM, AFTER THE ODESSA EVENTS AND IMPLEMENTING, GETTING A LOT OF THINGS FIXED IN THAT MANNER. UH, I THINK A LOT OF THE, THE REASON, ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT OF THOSE EVENTS, ONE IS ONE IS SOMEWHAT OF THE MAXIMIZATION OF THE IRS HAS HELPED EVERYONE'S GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THEIR SETTINGS AND VERIFYING, UH, BUT IT'S REALLY PICKING UP SMALLER EVENTS, GOING BACK, WORKING WITH THEM, FIGURING OUT WHAT HAPPENS, SEEING IF THEY CAN MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS. THERE MAY BE MORE CHALLENGES HERE. UM, REMEMBER I BS WERE ALREADY HAD RIDE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS. THESE FACILITIES DIDN'T HAVE THEM BEFORE, SO THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME GROWING PAINS. SOME OF THEM MAY NOT HAVE THE, THE EQUIPMENT THEY NEED, UM, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE EXEMPT, UM, UNTIL THEY CAN MAYBE SWAP OUT SOME EQUIPMENT. MAYBE THEY'RE SUBJECT TO CURTAILMENT AND THEY NEED TO IMPLEMENT SOME RIDE THROUGH TO GET OUTTA CURTAILMENT. SO WE'VE DEFINITELY TAKEN SOME OF THE LESSONS LEARNED FROM NOGO 2 45 AND AND APPLIED THEM TO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANNA SAY THAT I WASN'T TRYING TO HIT ERCOT EFFORTS TO HELP ON 2 45. I LOOKED AT THE PROBLEMS WITH 2 45 AND WHERE WE'RE AT STRUCTURALLY NOT, NOT THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T TRYING TO SET THAT WASN'T GETTING SET UP. THANK YOU. OKAY. JENNIFER, ARE YOU OUT OF THE QUEUE? YOU'RE DONE, YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY, AARON, UM, I'M GONNA QUOTE A SWIFTY SONG AND SAY IT WAS LIKE SLOW MOTION STANDING THERE IN MY PARTY DRESS. OH. AND I AM ASKING FOR A MOTION TO VOTE ON THE ERCOT COMMENTS FROM APRIL. OKAY. 13TH, I THINK. IS THAT FOUR 13 ERCOT COMMENTS? YES. SO IT WOULD BE NGER RECOMMEND NGER 2 82 IS RECOMMENDED BY IN THE FOUR TWO ROSS REPORT AS AMENDED BY FOUR 13 ERCOT COMMENTS AND THE IMPACT AND THEN THEN IMPACT ANALYSIS AND THE FOUR 14 REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS. AND THEN ALSO, IF YOU WILL INDULGE US, IT WOULD BE ALSO NPRR 1308 AS RECOMMENDED BY FOUR 15 PRS. YOU WANT ME TO, THAT WAS REVISED ALSO, WASN'T IT? NO. WAS REVISED BEFORE PR? YES. OKAY. YOU'RE CONFIRMED. DO, DO WE WANT A MOTION BEFORE WE GET INTO THE UM, UH, YOU KNOW, AUTHORITY GETS? YEAH. WE CAN TAKE THE MOTION AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSION UNTIL SOMEBODY CALLS THE QUESTION. I THINK BLAKE'S TRYING TO SECOND WHILE WE, WHILE HE WAS TALKING TO ME. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE FURTHER COMMENTS OR JUST A TAYLOR SWIFT QUOTE AND EMOTION TAYLOR SWIFT QUOTE AND EMOTION. THAT'S THE BEST COMMENT ALL DAY. I FELT LIKE IN A ROOM I NEEDED TO CALL OUT THE LYRIC. NO OFFENSE TO MAYBE THE DADS THAT MAY ALSO BE SWIFTIES, BUT I'M GOOD. SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES DADS ARE SWIFTIES. OKAY. BILL, DO YOU HAVE A TAYLOR SWIFT LYRIC FOR US? NO, I WAS GONNA SECOND THE MOTION WE CAN WELL, WE GOT AHEAD OF YOU. SORRY, BLAKE. GOT IT. BLAKE, DO YOU HAVE A TOILET? TAYLOR SWIFT MOTION LYRIC. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, WE, AS BETH POINTED OUT, WE HAVE NOT HAD THE LEGAL DISCUSSION. DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND DO THAT OR DO YOU WANNA BREAK FOR LUNCH? TRY TO DO IT. DOES IT MATTER? UM, NO, OI MEAN, I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT IF, BUT MAYBE THE, MAYBE I UTTER MY THOUGHTS, [03:00:01] GAVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THEIR COMMENTS. I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE TIEC AND NATHAN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THEIR COMMENTS UNLESS IF WE'RE GONNA DO THAT, AARON OR ANYONE WANT TO CALL THE QUESTION JOHN. LOOKS LIKE HE MAY BE LEFT THE ROOM THOUGH. I'D LIKE TO GO TO LUNCH IF THAT, IF WE'RE GONNA DO THAT, MY COMMENT WOULD BE THAT IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO GET RESOLVED AND THIS IS NOT THE GROUP TO RESOLVE IT. AND MY MOTIVATION IS TO, WOULD BE TO ACT ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE SO THAT WE CAN MOVE IT FORWARD AND THAT FIGHT CAN BE HAD IN THE FORMS IN WHICH IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, NATHAN, DO YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING? AND THEN I THINK WE CAN GO TO, TO A VOTE. DO YOU WANNA DISCUSS YOUR COMMENTS AT ALL? SO IF, IF THAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THIS COMMITTEE, I'M HAPPY TO, UH, ALSO HAPPY TO LET TIAC AND OTHERS ADDRESS THEIR COMMENTS IF THEY, IF THEY'D LIKE, SINCE WE RESPONDED, WE CAN LET THEM ADDRESS THEIRS. OH, THERE'S, THERE'S JOHN RUSS THERE. THERE'S JOHN. GO AHEAD JOHN. SORRY. SORRY. APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S PATIENCE. UH, UM, SO TIEC FILED ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. UM, WE HAD, YOU KNOW, SOME BRIEF CONVERSATIONS AT, UH, BRIEF CONVERSATIONS AT ROSS, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT ERCOT SHOULD CONSIDER ANOTHER APPROACH OTHER THAN ATTEMPTING TO IMPOSE THE ERCOT PROTOCOLS ON PURE RETAIL CUSTOMERS. ALTHOUGH NOIR 2 82 DOESN'T SEEM TO TARGET TIEC MEMBER COMPANIES, IT SETS A CONCERNING PRECEDENT THAT ERCOT WILL CONTINUE TO USE ITS RELIABILITY MANDATE ON OTHER PURE RETAIL CUSTOMERS. THE GRID AND ITS ATTENDANT RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS EXIST TO SERVE CUSTOMERS AND NOT VICE VERSA. AS OUTLINED IN PRIOR COMMENTS, ERCOT LACKS THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ON RETAIL CUSTOMERS AND LACKS THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE TO MANAGE INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT IN THESE COMMENTS, TIC SUGGESTS REVISING THE LANGUAGE AND REQUIRING UTILITIES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ERCOT ON THE CAPABILITIES OF LARGE COMPUTATIONAL LOADS AND TO CREATE OPERATING GUIDELINES FOR INTERCONNECTING LARGE COMPUTATIONAL LOADS. OUR HOPE IS THAT ERCOT CAN EXPLORE THIS ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO ADDRESS ITS RELIABILITY CONCERNS WITHOUT VIOLATING PURE. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANKS JOHN. UM, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE MOTION? CAN I ASK SOMETHING? YOU CAN ASK SOMETHING, OF COURSE. SO, JOHN, CAN WE EXPECT APPEAL AT THE COMMISSION AFTER BOARD APPROVAL? LIKELY, YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NATHAN, DID YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING QUICKLY? NO, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO, UH, REMAIN SILENT AND LET OUR COMMENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, IF THAT'S HELPFUL. OKAY. NO TAYLOR SWIFT LYRIC. OKAY, CORY, LET'S, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S ON THE SCREEN. I SAID IT EARLIER, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF NPR 1308 IS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FOUR 15 PRS REPORT. RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF NO G 2 82 IS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE FOUR TWO ROSS REPORT IS AMENDED BY THE FOUR 13 ERCOT COMMENTS AND FOUR 14 REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH THE ADDITIONAL 0.3 EMPLOYEE. ALRIGHT, TAKE IT AWAY. ALRIGHT, SO ON OUR MINI COMBO BALLOT THAT YOU KNOW ALL TOO WELL, WE WILL START UP WITH CONSUMERS, WITH MIKE. UH, BASED ON THE, WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT AND THE LEGAL CONCERNS, UH, IT'S NO FROM US. THANK YOU, GARRETT. NO, SIR. THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS. UH, YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, NICK. NEXT. THANK YOU SIR. BETH? YES, THANK YOU WILL. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR CO-OPS, BLAKE? YES. THANK YOU, KYLE. YES. THANK YOU JODAN FOR MIKE ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JOHN. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. NED, I'LL ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, BRIAN. UH, YES. THE SHEEP IS, YES. WE'LL TAKE IT. BOB, NOT VOTING FOR THE LEGAL SIDE. I'LL VOTE. YES, SIR. CAITLIN? YES. THANK YOU. [03:05:01] ONTO OUR IPS. JEREMY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SETH. YES, THANK YOU IAN. YES, THANK YOU COREY. THANK YOU SHANE FOR REMI. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THANKS SIR. ONTO OUR I REPS. BILL? YES. THANK YOU, JAY? YES, THANK YOU CHRIS. I GOT YOUR ABSTENTION IN CHAT. CHRIS, THANK YOU. AND JENNIFER? YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IOUS. MARTHA? YES. THANK YOU, ABBY. YES, THANK YOU. AARON. YES, THANK YOU ROB FOR KEITH? YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR MUNIS. DAVID? YES. THANK YOU, ALICIA. YES, THANK YOU JOSE. YES SIR. THANK YOU. AND CURTIS? YES, THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES 92% IN FAVOR TO OPPOSED FOR ABSTENTIONS. OKAY. ANY REMAINING QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS OR ANYTHING UNDER ROSS REPORT? OKAY, LET'S, UM, BREAK FOR LUNCH. AFTER LUNCH, WE WILL TAKE UP THE VOTING ITEM ON CFSG. IF ANYBODY FEELS LIKE DOING HOMEWORK DURING LUNCH, YOU CAN SEE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON R-M-S-W-M-S OR CFSG. OTHERWISE WE WILL SKIP THOSE REPORTS. BLAKE IS MAKING A FACE THAT INDICATES HE'S NOT TAKING QUESTIONS. UM, SO WE'LL DO THE CFSG VOTING ITEM AND THEN WE WILL GO TO ERCOT REPORTS, WHICH FOR TODAY ARE RPG, UM, SOMETHING VERY STRATEGIC. AND THEN THE LOAD FORECAST, UH, A LONG LUNCH, I DUNNO, 1 31, SAY 1 25 AND START AT ONE 30, SAY 1 25. AND SUSIE, WE NEED SUSIE IN THE ROOM TO START ON TIME. ALL RIGHT. 1 25. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DID IT. YOU CAN'T. AND OF COURSE WE DID IT. OKAY. ARE WE READY? SO WE ARE, UM, TO OUR [10. Approval of CFSG Membership (Vote)] REPORTS, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATIONS UNLESS PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS. UM, BUT WE DO HAVE A VOTING ITEM UNDER CFSG. IS, IS JET ON AND ABLE TO PRESENT THIS? UH, YES MA'AM. OKAY, GO AHEAD. OKAY, AND I'LL START US OFF WITH AN ADELE, UH, LYRIC OF HELLO FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LUNCH BREAK. UH, WE HAVE ONE ITEM PER VOTE HERE. IT'S A MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION FOR A RICHARD SANTOYO FROM CTS ENERGY. UH, WE HAVE JIMMY KOOL, WHO WAS PREVIOUSLY ON THE, UM, ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT IS ROLLING OFF AND RICHARD IS, UH, REPLACING HIM. AND SO WE ARE ASKING FOR A VOTE TO APPROVE RICHARD AS A, A MEMBER OF CFSG. OKAY. UM, SORRY, I'M SORRY. WE HAVE HER LISTED AND NOT, I LISTED THE WRONG PERSON. OKAY. SO I, WE HAVE HER. OKAY, SO WE CAN GO FORWARD, ANN. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO WE ARE LOOKING TO APPROVE THE CFSG MEMBERSHIP EDITION IS PRESENTED. UM, RICHARD SANTOYO FROM CPS ENERGY. ANYBODY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD. OKAY, THANK YOU. UM, THANK YOU. OKAY, NOW WE ARE UP [12. ERCOT Reports] TO ERCOT REPORTS AND WE ARE STARTING WITH RPG. I BELIEVE PABU IS GOING TO, UM, PRESENT WHAT THEY PRESENTED AT RPG REGARDING KIND OF THE NEW PROCESS FOR TAKING COMMENTS AT AT TAC. UM, WE CAN MAYBE DO A, A QUICK VERSION OF THAT AND THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR, UM, RPG ENCORE PAIR SWITCH TO MONTICELLO SWITCH PROJECT. THANK YOU. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON, . SO I'LL START WITH THE, UH, THE COMMON PROCESS WE STARTED FOR RPG PRIOR TO THE TAC. UM, WE PRESENTED THIS AT THE RPG MEETING. UH, JUST A COUPLE OF SLIDES HERE. SO, UH, RECENTLY WE HAVE HAD SOME LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS AT THE TAC. UM, SO WE CAME UP WITH THIS PROCESS, DISCUSSIONS WITH TAC LEADERSHIP AND OTHERS RECOMMENDATION. [03:10:01] WE CAME UP WITH THIS PROCESS. SO THIS IS BASICALLY, WE WILL OPEN A COMMON SPACE WHEN THE, BEFORE BRINGING THE PROJECT TO, TO TAC. UM, SO THIS WILL BE A, A TWO DAY WINDOW. UH, WHEN THE PROJECT IS DONE, WE POST THE FINAL REPORTS. WE'LL OPEN IT FOR COMMENTS FOR SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE TAC MEETING, AND WE'LL GIVE TWO BUSINESS DAYS FOR PEOPLE WHO WANNA SUBMIT COMMENTS AND ANY COMMENTS SUBMITTED, WE WILL TRY TO ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS PRIOR TO TAC AND, UH, I THINK THIS WAS THE FIRST PROJECT. THE NEXT PROJECT, I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT THE PARIS TO MONTICELLO SWITCH. WE IMPLEMENTED THIS, UM, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE, BUT, UH, WE DID THAT FOR THIS PROJECT. WE SENT OUT THE COMMENTS, UH, NOTICE TO RPG. AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE SET OF COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THIS PROJECT. UM, I WONDER, I WONDER WHO THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN. I WONDER WHO THAT IS. BUT ANYWAY, . OKAY, SORRY. UM, I THINK IT'S PUBLIC. YOU CAN SEE USMAN COMMENT, . SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THE PROCESS. SO I JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, BRING THIS TO TACK. SO THIS, THIS IS SOMETHING WE ALREADY PRESENTED AT RPG. ANY ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? PERFECT. THANK YOU. SO, SEE THE PRESENTATION? OKAY. YEAH. NEXT, WE MOVED TO THIS, UH, ENCORE PARIS SWITCH TO MONTICELLO 3 45 KV DOUBLE CIRCUIT REBUILD PROJECT. SO THIS IS A SUB, THIS IS A PROJECT SUBMITTED BY ENCORE FOR THE REBUILD OF THE, UH, PARIS TO MONTICELLO SWITCH DOUBLE CIRCUIT LINE, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 50 MILES. UH, THIS IS A TIER ONE PROJECTS BASED ON THE COST ESTIMATE THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE CCN, THE ESTIMATED COST AND THE SUBMITTAL WAS $231.75 MILLION. AND THIS IS PRIMARILY TO ADDRESS POST CONTINGENCY THERMAL OVERLOADS ON THE PARIS TO MONTICELLO SWITCH, UM, PRIMARILY IN THE NORTH, NORTH CENTRAL AND EAST WEATHER ZONE. SO OUR CO PERFORMED THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW. WE VERIFIED THE RELIABILITY CRITERIA VIOLATIONS LISTED HERE. SO YOU COULD SEE UNDER VARIOUS CONTINGENCY CONDITIONS, P THREE P SIX TWO, WE DID SEE, UH, THERMAL OVERLOADS ON THE PARTICULAR LINE. SO I THINK, UH, UM, THAT DEMONSTRATES THE RELIABILITY NEED FOR THE PROJECT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ALSO PERFORMED THE MINIMUM DELIVERABILITY CRITERIA ASSESSMENT FOR THIS PROJECT, AND IT ALSO SHOWED SOME RELIABILITY CRITERIA VIOLATIONS UNDER THE GEN DELIVERABILITY CRITERIA. TO ADDRESS THIS, WE LOOKED AT FIVE DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES OR OPTIONS, UM, BASED ON THAT. THREE OPTIONS WERE SHORTLISTED AND THE RESULTS ARE PRESENTED HERE. UH, OPTION ONE IS THE ENCORE OPTION. YOU COULD NOTE THE COST OF THE PROJECTS ARE SLIGHTLY DEVISED FROM 231 TO $233.3 MILLION. UM, SO THIS MET ALL THE RELIABILITY CRITERIA, UH, GAINED NO CCN AND THIS PROJECT IS FEASIBLE. WE ALSO LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF OTHER PROJECTS ALTERNATIVES, WHICH WERE AT HIGHER COST. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE PERFORMED THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND THE SUBSTANTIAL OSCILLATION ASSESSMENT. UH, WE DID NOT SEE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT FOR SSO IMPACT, UH, BASED ON THE PLANT FUTURE GENERATION IN THE STUDY AREA. OKAY. AND THESE ARE THE RESULTS OF THE CONGESTION ANALYSIS AND THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR GENERATION. UM, WE DID NOT SEE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM WITH THE ADDITION OF OPTION ONE. OKAY. UH, THE RECOMMENDATION TODAY IS ERCOT WILL RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD TO ENDORSE OPTION ONE TO ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY ISSUES IN NORTH, NORTH, CENTRAL, AND, UH, EAST WEATHER ZONES. THE ESTIMATED IN-SERVICE DATE IS MAY OF 2027, AND THE ESTIMATED COST IS $233.3 MILLION. UH, NO CCN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. WITH THAT, I'LL JUST, UH, HIGHLIGHT THE STUDY AREA AND THE LINE, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE, THAT'S THE PARIS TO MONTE TIC SWITCH APPROXIMATELY 50 MILES OF DOUBLE CIRCUIT LINE. UM, THIS WILL BE UPGRADED TO, UH, CONDUCT A RATING OF 2,987 AMPS AND THE TERMINAL EQUIPMENT NOT TO EXCEED, UH, 1,792 AMPS OR MVA. I'M SORRY. SO I'LL PAUSE HERE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? [03:15:01] OKAY. SO CAN I, CAN I MAKE A REQUEST? SO YES. TO, TO KEEP THE SPIRIT OF TODAY'S, UH, THEME. CAN I QUOTE LYRIC? YEAH, CAN YOU, WHAT? CAN I, CAN I QUOTE LYRIC? OF COURSE. OKAY. BLAKE LOOKS REALLY PROUD EVERY TIME SOMEBODY QUOTES THE RIC TO . SO I WAS JUST THINKING OF THE DISCUSSIONS HERE, PROBABLY THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, REMINDS ME OF THE, THE COLORS OF THE WIND FROM POCAHONTAS. SO, SO MY, MY, MY LYRIC IS I NEED HELP FOR SOMEBODY TO, YOU KNOW, FINISH THE NEXT LINE. BUT IF YOU WALK THE FOOTSTEPS OF A STRANGER , YOU'LL LEARN THINGS YOU NEVER KNEW. YOU NEVER KNEW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OH, YEAH, I, I WAS WORRIED SOMEBODY'S GONNA MISCO AND SAY LIKE, YOU WILL LEARN THINGS THAT YOU DON'T WANNA KNOW, . BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, I'LL LEAVE IT. OKAY. SO WE ARE LOOKING TO ENDORSE THE 25 RPG OH 26 ENCORE PARIS SWITCH TO MONTICELLO OR MONTICELLO MON MONTE. I WOULD SAY MONTICELLO SWITCH 3 45 KV LINE REBUILD PROJECT OPTION ONE. CAN WE PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT? AMAZING. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. BU WORD, I THINK YOU CAN DO EITHER, RIGHT? MONTICELLO, MONTICELLO NOT IN TEXAS. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY IN TEXAS? ERIC? MARTHA, YOU'RE A TEXAS. MARTHA, YOU'RE THE ENCORE EXPERT. OKAY, WE'RE, WE'RE MO WE'RE MOVING ON. I THINK IT'S MANTELLO. YOU GOTTA SAY IT WITH AN ACCENT. CELO. OKAY, WE'RE MOVING ON. UM, BUT THAT WAS GOOD. ALRIGHT. UH, KEITH, WE'RE GONNA TRY NOT TO HAVE DISCUSSION ON, UH, STRATEGIC VERSUS TACTICAL, BUT YOU CALLED YOUR PRESENTATION STRATEGIC DISCUSSION ON RESOURCE ADEQUACY AND THE ROLE OF DEMAND RESPONSE. WE'RE GONNA STOP, COLLABORATE, AND LISTEN. SO, UM, OOH, REALLY GOOD. SO, UM, WAIT, CAN I THROW IN, I DID HAVE MY POP CULTURE REFERENCE OF THE WEEK, WHICH SURVIVOR 50 IS VERY GOOD. AND CHRISTIAN AND HIS EXIT INTERVIEWS DID DISCUSS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL BEHAVIOR. SO WE LOVE CHRISTIAN, HE'S A ROBOTICS PROFESSOR. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD KEITH. SO, SO ON THAT NOTE, I WILL NOT GET INTO THAT DISCUSSION. JUST GO WATCH SURVIVOR 50 AND YOU'LL BE GOOD TO KNOW. ALRIGHT, UH, SO THIS IS, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A, A, A MINI VERSION OF THE PRESENTATION I GAVE AT THE BOARD LAST WEEK. IT, UH, WE, WE DID COVER THE, THE CHARLES RIVER ASSOCIATES REPORT, UH, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT HERE AS WELL. UH, BUT I THINK IT'S, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO, TO FRAME WHAT WE WERE, WHY, WHY NOW? WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? AND WHAT WAS IT THE BOARD, UH, WAS ENGAGED ON AND REALLY WANTED TO HEAR? I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER THING TO THINK FOR FOLKS THAT, THAT WERE ABLE TO LISTEN IN TO THE BOARD DISCUSSION. THERE WAS, THERE WAS POINTS AND QUESTIONS THAT THEY WANTED TO GET ACROSS, AND THERE WAS, THERE WAS DEFINITELY DIALOGUE, UH, UH, AMONGST THE BOARD, UH, ALONG WITH THE PUC AND ALONG WITH, UH, ER, ERCOT STAFF AS WELL. ALRIGHT, WE'LL, WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO THE, THE GENESIS OF OF THIS REALLY STARTS WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TWO BIG CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE SEEING, AND WE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, UH, IN, IN BOTH WAYS, UH, BOTH THE FIRST POINT AND THE SECOND POINT OF OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE LARGE LOADS, UH, WE KNOW THEY'RE COMING. UM, IT'S STILL REMAINS TO BE SEEN HOW MUCH, BUT, BUT THERE IS SOME VOLUME OF THAT. UH, WE ALSO ARE AWARE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT LIMITATIONS IN SUPPLY CHAINS. UH, YES, YOU CAN GET TURBINES, BUT WHEN AND HOW MANY, UM, HOW MUCH, UH, THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT BOTH OF THOSE TWO PIECES, YOU PUT THAT TOGETHER AND, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT, FOR INSTANCE, OUR CDR REPORT, OUR AURORA ANALYSIS, THE E THREE ANALYSIS, IT'S ALL KIND OF POINTING TO THE SAME PROBLEM RELATED TO, UH, RESOURCE ADEQUACY AND THE CHALLENGES THAT THAT THAT FACES. AND SO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, AND TODAY, THE DISCUSSION ON 1310, AND I KNOW, UH, SOME OF THE FOLKS BROUGHT IT UP TODAY IN TERMS OF, WELL, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT TOOLS DO WE HAVE? AND 1310 IS, IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED AND IS, IS ON THE HOPPER FOR DISCUSSION LATER IN THE YEAR. UH, AND, AND PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS, WELL, THESE INCENTIVES THAT WE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TO ENSURE MORE GENERATION, UH, WE'VE ALSO JUST TAUGHT DISCUSSION [03:20:01] ABOUT TRANSMISSION EXPANSION AND OBVIOUSLY THE 7 65 KV DISCUSSIONS THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON IN TERMS OF ENABLING THE, NOT ONLY THE, THE LOADS, BUT THE, THE SUPPLY RESOURCES TO, TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION. AND, AND THOSE THINGS ARE, ARE WELL AND GOOD, UH, BUT I THINK SOME FOLKS HAVE CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT, WELL, WHEN'S THE TRANSMISSION GONNA BE IN SERVICE? WELL, IT'S PROBABLY SEVERAL YEARS FROM NOW. UH, AND, AND WHEN, IF WE SEND PRICE SIGNALS TODAY, WHEN'S THE NEW GENERATION COMING? THE, THE THERMAL GENERATION? WELL, THAT'S PROBABLY A FEW YEARS FROM NOW. WELL, WELL, WHAT DO YOU DO IN THE SHORT TO MIDTERM? AND, AND THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION THAT CAME UP. AND AGAIN, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD MEMBERS OF THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION AND WHAT, WHAT WERE THOSE OPTIONS TO BE ABLE TO ENHANCE THE RELIABILITY? UM, AND AS WE SAID, AS I SAID EARLIER, ENHANCING RELIABILITY THROUGH MARKET SOLUTIONS. ALRIGHT, NEXT SLIDE. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE FOCUS SHIFTED TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT, WELL, DEMAND RESPONSE SEEMS TO BE AN OPTION THAT CAN FILL THAT GAP, UH, IN, IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO HELP MEET THE RELIABILITY OF THE SYSTEM. AND, AND THAT COMES IN DIFFERENT FORMS AND FLAVORS. WE KNOW THERE'S SENATE BILL SIX, THERE'S LARGE LOAD PROGRAMS AND, UH, AND, AND, AND OBVIOUSLY SOME OF THOSE ARE OBVIOUSLY UN UNDER DEVELOPMENT AT THE COMMISSION AND, AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS GOING AROUND ON WHAT THOSE PROGRAMS MAY LOOK LIKE. AND SO, YEP, THOSE, THOSE LARGE LOAD PROGRAMS ARE A PART OF THE, THE MIX. UH, AND AND PART OF WHAT WE, WE HAD THE, THE CHARLES RIVER ASSOCIATES LOOK AT IS, WELL, LET'S LOOK AT OUR EXISTING PROGRAMS AND LET'S THINK ABOUT WHAT, WHERE ARE SOME POTENTIAL GAPS AND, AND AREAS OF, UH, UH, FURTHER DEVELOPMENT. BUT HERE ARE THE, THE QUESTIONS THAT WE RAISED. I KNOW NED HAD HAD SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT HE WANTS TO ADD TO SOME OF THESE STRATEGIC QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL LET, I'LL LET NED COVER THOSE A LITTLE BIT LATER. BUT, UH, CAN DEMAND RESPONSE BE, UH, HELP ADDRESS NEAR TERM RESOURCE ADEQUACY CONCERNS? AND THE DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD, THE CHECK MARK, IS THAT I THINK THE SENSE WAS THAT YES, IT CAN, UH, OUR CURRENT DEMAND RESPONSE INCENTIVES ALIGNED WITH SYSTEM NEEDS. I THINK, UH, THIS IS WHERE WE MAY DISAGREE WITH NED, BUT I THINK WE, WE FELT THERE WAS A QUESTION MARK ON, ON THAT AT THIS TIME. UH, CAN DEMAND RESPONSE BE EFFICIENTLY TAPPED TO HELP ADDRESS RELIABILITY? AND I THINK THERE WAS A, A SENSE ALSO AT THE BOARD THAT YES, IT CAN AND CAN OUR EXISTING PROGRAMS BE IMPROVED? AND AGAIN, CHECK MARK, I THINK THERE WAS A SENSE THAT YES, THERE'S SOME AREA FIRM IMPROVEMENT AS WELL. SO I, I THINK THAT THESE, THESE QUESTIONS ULTIMATELY TRANSLATED INTO WHAT THE REPORT WAS, WAS TRYING TO GET AT, AT A, AT A HIGH LEVEL AT LEAST. AND, AND I THINK THE, THE DISCUSSION THAT THE BOARD DID REVOLVE AROUND, UH, SEVERAL OF THESE QUESTIONS AND, AND IT WAS GOOD DISCUSSION AMONGST THE, THE MEMBERS, RIGHT? NEXT SLIDE. SO THAT, THAT GETS INTO THE, THE CHARLES RIVER ASSOCIATES REPORT. AND, AND I THINK THAT, UH, WE, WE DID OBVIOUSLY GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK IN THE PROCESS. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WAS IT, IT WASN'T A, IT WASN'T A DEEP DIVE INTO EVERY, EVERY PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS TO GET A, A BIG, UH, A BIG OVERVIEW OF, UH, HOW THEY SAW THINGS, WHERE THINGS ARE AND WHERE ARE SOME AREAS OF, OF OPPORTUNITY. AND IF THAT MEANS WE, WE FOCUS, UH, UH, COULD THERE BE FOLLOW UP ANALYSIS? SURE. BUT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS GET THE BIG PICTURE, AND THAT WAS REALLY THE SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT. I BELIEVE THAT WAS SHARED ULTIMATELY WITH, WITH FOLKS HERE AS WELL. I THINK, UM, THAT THAT SCOPE WAS, WAS SOMETHING THAT, THAT WE, YOU WANTED TO SEE. AND WE, WE DID SHARE, UH, BUT IT WAS, WAS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE SCOPE. ALRIGHT, NEXT SLIDE. AND SO, UH, WHAT WERE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS? UH, THESE ARE THE, THE CHALLENGES THAT, THAT WERE IDENTIFIED. AND I, I THINK THE, THE NICE THING IS IN, IN MOST CASES, THESE ARE NOT UNEXPECTED FOR, FOR FOLKS IN THIS ROOM, OBVIOUSLY THE SCARCITY, UH, CHALLENGES WITH, WITH DEMAND POTENTIALLY OUTPACING GENERATION. THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, AGAIN, WE'VE SEEN THAT IN SEVERAL REPORTS AND THAT'S, THAT'S NOT NEW. UH, THEY TOUCHED UPON THE, THE FOUR CP AND HOW THAT, UH, IT, IT, IT IT'S ITS OWN, OBVIOUSLY IT'S A, IT'S A PROGRAM DESIGN FOR, UH, TRANSMISSION COST ALLOCATION, BUT IT DOES HAVE IMPLICATIONS AND WHEN AND WHERE, WHERE THAT OCCURS. THAT, THAT, HOW THAT AFFECTS THE, UH, THE SOLUTIONS. SO THEY TALKED ABOUT THAT. THEY TALKED ABOUT RETAIL DEMAND PROGRAMS AND, AND THEIR ALIGNMENT WITH, WITH THE MARKETS AND THE NEEDS OF THE SYSTEM, THE ERS AND, AND THE PRICE SENSITIVE RE RESOURCES, PARTICULARLY THE, THE CRYPTO MINING RESOURCES THAT, THAT PARTICIPATE AND, UH, LEADING TO THE POTENTIALLY INEFFICIENT LOW PRICES IN, IN THAT MARKET. AND THEN THE A DR PILOT AND SOME OF THE, THE TECHNICAL AND PARTICIPATION CHALLENGES THAT ARE, UH, THAT ARE PART OF THAT PROGRAM. AND THEN WE GO TO THE, THE NEXT [03:25:01] SLIDE. WE, WE TALKED ABOUT, OKAY, WELL THOSE ARE THE CHALLENGES. WHAT, WHAT WERE THEIR TAKEAWAYS? AND, AND ULTIMATELY THE DEMAND RESPONSE IS, IS A PART OF THE SOLUTION SET, UH, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE IT CAN OFFER A NEAR TERM SOLUTION. I THINK THE TERM I USED AT THE BOARD WAS, UH, THERE'S SORT OF LIKE TIME VALUE OF MONEY. AND I SAID, WELL, THERE'S A TIME VALUE OF RELIABILITY. UH, AND, AND REALLY IF YOU'RE GONNA ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY IN THE SHORT RUN IS DIFFERENT THAN ADDRESSING RELI RELIABILITY IN IN FUTURE YEARS. UH, THEY RECOMMENDED IMPROVING ALIGNMENT OF THE RETAIL PROGRAMS TO HELP, UH, HELP ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY, UH, IN THE NEAR TIMEFRAMES. THEY DID, UH, UH, INDICATE THAT THE RDR PROPOSAL, UM, HELPS FILL A GAP, UH, THAT, THAT THEY SAW IN, IN THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS THAT, THAT WE HAVE. AND THEY DID ALSO FOCUS ON THE COMPENSATION RATE. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE EXPLICITLY ASKED THEM TO DO, GIVEN THAT THEY, THEY HAD A GLOBAL VIEW, UH, LOOKING AT OTHER PROGRAMS AND OTHER MARKETS. AND THE CAL ISO FOR INSTANCE, IS, IS, IS ONE THAT THEY SAW PROGRAMS THAT WERE, AGAIN, NOT, NOT I COMPLETELY IDENTICAL, BUT, BUT, UH, RESIDENTIAL DR PROGRAMS AND, AND THE VALUE THAT'S PAID IN IN THOSE PROGRAMS AS, AS COMPARABLE. AND THEN, AND THEN FINALLY THEY IDENTIFIED THAT, UH, POTENTIAL FOR FORMS TO ERS TO HELP, UH, ADDRESS SOME OF THE SELF DEPLOYMENT THAT WE'VE SEEN, UH, AND THE PARTICULAR PARTICIPATION OF THE CRYPTO MINERS, RIGHT. NEXT SLIDE. AND SO REALLY IT GETS TO THE CONCLUSIONS THAT, THAT ERCOT TAKES AWAY FROM THE PRESENTATION, THE, THE CRA PRESENTATION, UH, THE DEMAND RESPONSES, UH, COULD BE A CRITICAL RELIABILITY BRIDGE SOLUTION. I THINK THAT'S, UH, IMPORTANT TO US AS WE, WE MOVE FORWARD THAT, THAT, YES, WE, WE WANT TO SEND THE APPROPRIATE SIGNALS, BUT THOSE SIGNALS MAY, UH, MAY HAVE A MISMATCH IN TERMS OF WHEN THE RESOURCES MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHOW UP, UH, VERSUS WHERE WE ARE NOW, UH, TO THE EXTENT THAT DEMAND RESPONSE IS, IS, UH, NOT ALIGNED, THAT THE MORE WE CAN ALIGN THINGS THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, UH, ENHANCING EXISTING PROGRAMS LIKE ERS AND A DR TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY EFFECTIVENESS, WE LOOK AT THAT AS, AS AN IMPORTANT TOOL AS WELL TO ENHANCE THESE PROGRAMS. AND THEN FINALLY, TARGETING AND PROMOTING RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE TO, TO FILL THE GAP. THOSE ARE OUR CONCLUSIONS. AND THEN THE FINAL SLIDE, IF WE GO TO THAT TALKS ABOUT OUR NEXT STEPS AND, UH, ULTIMATELY, UH, IF THERE ARE ANY NEAR TERM IMPLICATIONS ON, ON CURRENT OR PROPOSED PROGRAMS WE'RE, UH, OBVIOUSLY THERE WERE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE REPORT. THERE ARE SOME THAT WE THINK THAT WE CAN MOVE ON QUICKER THAN OTHERS. UH, ERCOT IS OBVIOUSLY GONNA WORK WITH THE PUC, UH, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY PROVIDE GUIDANCE, THERE WAS, THERE WAS EVEN SOME GUIDANCE AT, AT THE BOARD FROM, UH, SOME OF THE PUC DISCUSSION, UH, WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO, TO CONTINUE TO PROMOTE DEMAND RESPONSE AS, AS SOLUTIONS, UH, FOR, FOR EXISTING AND, AND PROPOSED PROGRAMS. AND ULTIMATELY, WE, WE HOPE TO HAVE RES RESIDENTIAL DR. UH, ALONG WITH OUR DRS PLUS AS PART, PART OF OUR RELIABILITY STANDARD ASSESSMENT. UH, I THINK WHAT WE'RE GONNA FIND IS THAT THERE'S NO ONE SOLUTION, UH, TO RESOURCE SAL CHALLENGES. THERE'S GOING TO BE A, A MIX OF SOLUTIONS AND DEMAND RESPONSE IS, IS LIKELY TO BE A PART OF THAT ALONG WITH, UH, OTHER PROGRAMS LIKE DRS PLUS. SO I'LL, I'LL PAUSE THERE AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE GOT SOME QUESTIONS AND SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANYTHING. OKAY. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE GOT EVERYBODY THOUGH. DID WE, DID WE GET ERIC AND BRIAN AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS QUEUE? BRITTANY? I'M SORRY, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ERIC AND BRIAN AND THE QUEUE. ERIC SCHUBERT AND BRIAN SAMS, SORRY. OKAY. SO LET'S START WITH, UH, ERIC SCHUBERT. UH, I GUESS THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE ABOUT RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE IS THAT IN ITS PUREST FORM WITHOUT BATTERY BACKUP, I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW IT'S GOING TO EASILY BE AND RAPIDLY EXPANDED. BECAUSE IF YOU TRY TO DO THAT DURING THE SUMMER IN TEXAS, WHEN THE TEMPERATURE IS JUST BRUTAL AND YOU CUT BACK FOR A COUPLE HOURS, UH, IT IS VERY HARD TO GET THE HOUSE COOL AGAIN. AND SO I, HOW ARE YOU GONNA ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF ISSUE WITH THE PROGRAM? WELL, I, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IN, IN WORKING WITH, UH, OUR, OUR EPS AND, AND FOLKS THAT WOULD, UM, HELP DEVELOP THAT, I'LL, I'LL SORT OF TURN IT TO THEM TO SEE IF THEY CAN ANSWER THAT A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICALLY. JENNIFER OR, OR BILL, YEAH, I MEAN, SORRY. THERE'S A, A FAIR AMOUNT OF TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PRE-COOLING THE TIMING. WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO OPTIMIZE FOR WHEN [03:30:01] WE HAVE, UH, THESE NET DEMAND ISSUES. AND SO THE TIMING OF WHEN YOU ARE SORT OF GETTING THE HOUSE BACK TO THE DESIRED TEMPERATURE, UM, CAN REALLY BE MODIFIED USING THAT TECHNOLOGY AND OPTIMIZING FOR THE TIMING. AND ADDITIONALLY, I WOULD SAY THAT WHEN WE'RE THE WHOLE POINT OF RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSES, YOU'RE TAKING SEVERAL DEGREES OFF OF A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE INSTEAD OF MANY MEGAWATTS OFF OF THE VERY FEW PEOPLE. AND SO THE, THE IMPACT INSIDE THE HOME IS RELATIVELY NEGLIGIBLE BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING 76 AND 78 OR 80 VERSUS 110 OUTSIDE IN SUMMER IN TEXAS, LIKE, YOU'RE STILL DEALING WITH VERY SMALL CHANGES THAT IN AGGREGATE MATTER DRAMATICALLY. AND THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, UM, BETWEEN FOCUSING EXCLUSIVELY ON A STORAGE SOLUTION, WHICH WILL FIT FOR A SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION AND HAVING A RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY LEVERAGE THE SCALE OF THE TEXAS POPULATION FOR. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, BRIAN, I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE, UH, FOUR CP COMMENT. JUST, IT'S NOT REALLY A ERCOT STAKEHOLDER ISSUE. IT'S A, A UTILITY RATE DESIGN ISSUE FOR THE COMMISSION. THAT'S MY FIRST POINT. SECOND POINT IS THAT TARGETING AT NET PEAK LOADS DOESN'T COME. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH COST. UH, WHAT, WHAT DRIVES THE COST FOR TRANSMISSION BUILD? AND THE THIRD THING IS, IS THAT IF YOU'RE TRYING TO, UH, ASSIGN COSTS FOR, UH, OR AVOIDING COSTS FOR TRANSMISSION BUILD, BUT LINKING IT TO THE WHOLESALE MARKET, THOSE, THOSE THINGS JUST AREN'T LINKED TOGETHER AT ALL. AND IT'S PRETTY UPSETTING FOR THE WHOLESALE MARKET. THE, THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE GONNA ALLOCATE TCO AND, UM, HAVE A, A RATE DESIGN BASED ON, UH, AT A, A WHOLESALE MARKET OUTCOME WHEN THEY'RE NOT AT ALL REALLY LINKED. UM, SO I WOULD DELETE THAT PERIOD. FROM THE RECOMMENDATIONS? WELL, WELL, AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS WAS THEIR RECOMMENDATION. AND I THINK OUR VIEW IS THIS IS SOMETHING BEING CURRENTLY HANDLED AT THE PUC AND THEY HAVE A PROCESS. SO WE'LL LET, WE'LL COMMENT IN THAT PROCESS AS APPROPRIATE, AND I'M SURE YOU WILL AS WELL. BUT THIS IS, THIS IS UP, THIS IS FOR THEM TO DECIDE. THANKS, NED. I DON'T, WE DID OUR VOTING ITEMS SO YOU CAN TAKE YEAH, AS LONG AS I RE AS YOU WANT. NED, BILL HAD HIS CARD UP BEFORE I DID. SO I, I, I WILL YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM NRG IF HE WANTS TO GO FIRST. OH MAN. WHAT ABOUT BOB THOUGH? 'CAUSE BOB'S IN BETWEEN YOU GUYS IN THE QUEUE. WE SKIP BOB. GO AHEAD BOB. WANNA SAY WHAT I SAW? I'LL YIELD BACK. YEAH. OKAY. WE'RE YIELDING REACH EACH OTHER. REACH, REACH. WHOSE TURN IS IT? IT'S BILL'S TURN. YEAH. BILL, BILL CAN GO FIRST. BOB, I'LL, I'LL CLEAN UP AFTER Y'ALL. OKAY, BILL, GO. I'M HAPPY TO GO, GO ONE. KEITH. JUST APPRECIATE THE WORK ON THIS. UM, THE DEDICATION TO EVALUATING THE SUITE OF DEMAND RESPONSE PRODUCTS, IDENTIFYING WHERE WE CAN GET BETTER, WHERE WE NEED TO GET BETTER. UH, OBVIOUSLY WE ARE A VERY STRONG SUPPORTER OF ANY TYPE OF PROGRAM THAT INCREASES OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE. I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH A LOT OF THE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE REPORT, WHICH IS WE ARE GOING TO NEED EVERYTHING WE CAN GET IF WE EXPECT THE COMPETITIVE WHOLESALE MARKET IN ITS CURRENT FORM TO SURVIVE THE NEXT FIVE YEARS BASED ON THAT LOAD GROWTH. SO SITTING ON OUR HANDS AND ACTING LIKE WE CAN WAIT FOR SCARCITY EVENTS TO HAPPEN AND THE POWER TO GO OUT OR GET NEAR IT IS NOT, THAT'S NOT A REALISTIC SOLUTION AND WE ALL KNOW THAT. SO WE HAVE TO TRY TO GET IN FRONT OF THESE RESOURCE ADEQUACY ISSUES AS BEST WE CAN. UH, AND AGAIN, THE REPORT REALLY DID A GREAT JOB OF IDENTIFYING WHERE DO WE NEED MORE HELP? WHERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY? AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IN THE RESIDENTIAL CLASS. UM, I KNOW, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS NUMEROUS TIMES THROUGH THE WORKSHOPS, AND NED BROUGHT IT UP AT THE BOARD MEETING LAST WEEK. WE DO NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OF PRICE FORMATION ISSUES AND DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN. THAT FEEDBACK WAS GIVEN TO ERCOT, ERCOT BROUGHT BACK A PRICING ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM FOR THIS PROGRAM, WHICH I WOULD ARGUE IS WAY MORE EFFECTIVE THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE FOR ERS. SO I'M UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THAT ADDRESSES A LOT OF THE REMAINING CONCERNS WITH THIS PROGRAM. AND MY MAIN QUESTIONS ARE WHAT DO WE DO NEXT? SO I SEE ERCOT WILL WORK WITH PUCT AND ALSO STAKEHOLDERS. WHAT'S YOUR PLAN, KEITH, FOR WHAT WE DO NEXT WITH NOT ONLY THE REPORT? 'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY WORTH DISCUSSING THE CONCLUSIONS OF THEIR REPORT, UM, BUT ALSO EVOLVING 1296 IF IT NEEDS TO BE SO THAT WE CAN GET IT [03:35:01] IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION IN TIME FOR THE RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS GONNA BE ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. SO LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING KIND OF HOW WE CAN HELP. SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF IKA WANTS TO JUMP IN IN A MINUTE, BUT I THINK PART OF WHAT WE SEE THERE IS WORK WITH THE PUC. I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE, UM, THEY HAVE SOME THOUGHTS AND, AND THINGS AND, AND WE DEFINITELY WANNA, UM, WORK WITH THEM AND RESPECT WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AND UM, AND HOW THEY WANT TO DO THAT. SO I THINK PART OF IT, IT DEPENDS ON THE PROGRAM, RIGHT? I THINK A DR AS AN EXAMPLE, WE'RE, WE'RE SPINNING THAT UP IN THE COMING WEEKS HERE ON ON SOME THINGS. UH, UH, ERS WE, WE'VE AT LEAST IDENTIFIED SOME, SOME AREA OF OPPORTUNITY THERE. AND, AND AGAIN, UH, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT'LL BE WORKED ON. AND THEN THE, AS YOU NOTED, THE, THE RESIDENTIAL DR, I THINK, UM, UH, IN TERMS OF THE REPORT, UH, WE'RE WE'RE LIKELY TO, TO MAKE A FILING WITH THE COMMISSION IN TERMS OF FILE THE REPORT WITH THE COMMISSION. AND, AND THEY'RE LIKELY, AS I UNDERSTAND, TO TAKE THAT UP AND, AND HAVE SOME DIALOGUE IN THAT IN THE COMING, IN THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS HERE. UH, AND SO I THINK OUR VIEW, AND, AND PART OF THE REASON FOR THE DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD WAS TO, TO ELEVATE THE DISCUSSION ON THESE TOPICS. AND, AND I THINK THAT, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE SEEING THAT PLAY OUT. AND OUR HOPE IS THAT WHEN WE DO GET TO THE RELIABILITY STANDARD ASSESSMENT, THAT WE WILL HAVE, UM, AN OPTION WITH REGARDS TO RESIDENTIAL DR. TO BE A PART OF THAT EQUATION. AND I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THIS, WE'LL HAVE SENATE BILL SIX RELATED STUFF AS WELL, A PART OF THAT. THANKS. YEP. THANK YOU. OKAY. NED, DO YOU WANNA TAKE YOUR TURN BACK NOW? SURE. ARE YOU GONNA TALK FOREVER OR NEED TO GO? ? NED NED CAN TALK FOR HIS NORMAL AMOUNT OF TALKING BECAUSE WE'RE PAST THE VOTING ITEMS. . OKAY. UM, I WILL TRY TO BE CONCISE THOUGH. UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, KEITH FOR, FOR LAYING THIS OUT FOR US. I KNOW WE TALKED LAST TIME, WE WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE IT WENT TO THE BOARD, BUT I THINK WE HAD, UH, I THINK IT WAS THE BOARD HAD A GOOD DIALOGUE ABOUT SOME OF THE, THE, THE TRADE OFFS. AND, UM, SO I, I DO APPRECIATE YOU FRAMING IT AS, AS IN THE WAY THAT YOU DID. AND, UH, AND FOR ERCOT FOR AFFORDING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE, THE OTHER ANGLES TO THIS, BECAUSE I, I REALLY WANTED TO COME INTO THIS AND NOT SAY THIS IS NOT A NO TWO DEMAND RESPONSE. THIS IS HOW TO DO DEMAND RESPONSE IN A WAY THAT WORKS FOR THE MARKET THAT WE HAVE. AND, AND THANK YOU BILL FOR, FOR RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S, I THINK THE BIG DIFFERENCE THAT VISTA HAS IS HOW MUCH WE'RE WILLING TO, YOU KNOW, TO THROW OUT OUR MARKET PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE. WE THINK THAT THE OVERARCHING OBJECTIVE OF SUSTAINABLE, COMPETITIVE SU SUSTAIN SUSTAINABLE RELIABILITY THROUGH COMPETITIVE MARKETS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN JUST WE SET A GOAL FOR OURSELVES THAT WE WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE MORE THERMOSTATS TURN UP WHEN IT GETS HOT AND, YOU KNOW, THROW OUT THE MARKET PRINCIPLES TO GET THERE. I'M BEING SHORT, SO , I, I COULD GO INTO MORE NUANCE, BUT I'M TRYING TO BE, BE BE CONCISE. SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE OUR CONCERN IS AND THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT WHETHER, UH, DEMAND RESPONSE CAN HELP ADDRESS THE NEAR TERM RESOURCE ADEQUACY CONCERNS. IT'S HOW CAN WE DO IT? AND SO ACTUALLY, IF WE CAN GO BACK TO SLIDE, UH, SLIDE THREE. I WANT TO JUST WALK THROUGH THAT REAL QUICK AND, AND GIVE THE, THE CONCISE VERSION OF, UM, A FEW COUNTERPOINTS. UM, FIRST OFF, UM, ALL RIGHT, SO I TOUCHED THAT FIRST ONE. IT'S NOT WHETHER OR CAN IT, IT'S HOW, AND THEN THE QUESTION IS, HOW ARE CURRENT SYSTEM, UH, DEMAND RESPONSE INCENTIVES ALIGNED WITH SYSTEM NEEDS? I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. YOU'RE GETTING THE DEMAND RESPONSE THAT THE MARKET SIGNALS ARE CURRENTLY TELLING YOU, IS THERE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE AND SAYING, WELL, BUT WE NEED MORE DEMAND RESPONSE IN THE FUTURE, THAT'S A MARKET PROBLEM. THAT'S NOT A, WE THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE MORE DEMAND RESPONSE THAN WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING. IT'S THAT THE MARKET IS NOT SENDING THAT SIGNAL. IT'S THE SAME REASON THAT YOU'RE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RESOURCE ADEQUACY, WE'RE SAYING, WELL, WE'RE NOT GETTING AS MUCH NEW BUILD AS WE WANT. IT'S BECAUSE THE MARKET'S NOT SENDING THE SIGNAL THAT ALIGNS WITH THE LOAD FORECAST. AND THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW MUCH OF THAT LOAD FORECAST IS IS REAL THAT ALSO NEED TO COME INTO ACCOUNT. SO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO JUMP HEADLONG INTO A SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THE MARKET PRINCIPLES, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE WE SEE LOAD GROWTH, UM, PARTICULARLY LOAD GROWTH THAT ALREADY HAS ITS OWN INTERNAL FLEXIBILITY REQUIREMENTS BAKED INTO LAW, THAT SHOULD TAKE CARE OF A LOT OF ITS, UH, A LOT OF ITSELF. ANOTHER POINT THAT, UM, AND THIS IS ON THE RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE BEING EFFICIENTLY TAPPED. I, I DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS AT THE BOARD, BUT I DO WANNA ADDRESS IT HERE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE, THE CHARLES RIVERS ASSOCIATE REPORT REALLY RELIED ON WAS THE TEXAS A AND M REPORT. [03:40:01] AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF Y'ALL HAVE DUG INTO THAT, BUT ONE OF THE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS IN THERE WAS THE ASSUMPTION THAT 76% OF PRESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS ARE WILLING TO SIGN UP FOR RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE. AND I'LL TELL YOU, WHEN OUR FOLKS LOOKED AT THAT, WE LAUGHED BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH OUR EXPERIENCE AT ALL. I'M NOT GONNA TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT OUR EXPERIENCE IS, BUT I'M GONNA TELL YOU IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THAT. AND ON TOP OF THAT, THERE IS A STEEP DEGRADATION IN RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE, WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE AFTER AN EVENT. SO YEAH, YOU CAN TRY TO PRE-COOL AND YOU CAN BE SMART ABOUT HOW YOU DO IT AND, AND HOW MUCH YOU TOUCH AND HOW MUCH YOU, YOU MO YOU MOVE THE THERMOSTAT, PEOPLE OPT OUT. AND I'M TELLING YOU THAT NOT JUST FROM A, YOU KNOW, AN OBJECTIVE STANDPOINT, I'VE DONE THAT MYSELF MANY, MANY TIMES. UM, AND I'VE BEEN PAID TO DO IT BY AUSTIN ENERGY. I APPRECIATE , YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, MY HOUSE GETS HOTS WHEN IT'S 110 DEGREES OUTSIDE. DEMAND RESPONSE DOES NOT CHANGE THE WEATHER. IT JUST CHANGES YOUR LEVEL OF COMFORT. AND THERE'S, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE MARKET DOESN'T VALUE THAT DIFFERENCE IN COMFORT SUFFICIENTLY. UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION. UM, DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULDN'T LEVERAGE IT AND WE SHOULDN'T MEET CUSTOMERS WHERE THEY ARE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY FLEXIBILITY THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO PROVIDE. WE JUST NEED TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, GETS THE MOST OUT OF IT, BUT DOESN'T THROW OUT OUR MARKET PRINCIPLES IN THE, IN THE, IN THE PROCESS. AND SO THEN ON THE EX EXISTING DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS BEING IMPROVED, YEAH, OF COURSE WE HAVE PLENTY OF EXISTING DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS. YOU KNOW, THE, AND THEY ARE INTEGRATED INTO THE WHOLESALE MARKET. YOU'VE GOT WEATHER SENSITIVE ERSI KNOW THERE'S, IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT AT LEAST THAT ONE, IT IS, IT'S A KNOWN QUANTITY. IT'S DEPLOYED BY ERCOT. THERE'S AN ADJUSTMENT MADE FOR THE PRICING IMPACT WHEN IT IS DEPLOYED. YOU HAVE NATURAL PRICE RESPONSE OF DEMAND RESPONSE. I THINK A BIG, A BIG GAP IN THE, IN THE ASSESSMENT IS THAT, IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT JUST BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL RETAIL CUSTOMERS DON'T RECEIVE A DIRECT PRICE SIGNAL FROM THE WHOLESALE MARKET, THAT THEY DON'T RESPOND. THAT'S TRUE. THAT THEY DON'T GET THAT SIGNAL. AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL TO SEND THEM THAT SIGNAL. UM, THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO, TO DO THAT, AND IT, IT, IT WENT VERY POORLY . AND, AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S A LAW SAYING YOU CAN'T DO THAT. NOW. UM, HOWEVER, ALL OF THE LOAD SERVING ENTITIES STILL HAVE EXPOSURE TO THAT REAL TIME PRICE SIGNAL FOR THOSE RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS. AND THEY STILL HAVE EVERY INCENTIVE WHEN THERE'S AN ECONOMIC REASON TO DO SO, AN INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN DRIVEN BY THE WHOLESALE MARKET PRICING TO INVEST IN THAT. SO WHILE I, YOU KNOW, I HEAR BILL YOUR POINT THAT WELL, YOU KNOW, WE SEE LOAD GROWTH COMING AND WE, WE CAN'T WAIT TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING. IF THE PRICE SIGNAL IS THERE, IT WILL GROW. BUT GROWING IT AHEAD OF THE MARKET PRICE SIGNAL IS, IS, YOU KNOW, IS ALSO PROBLEMATIC. THAT'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT FOR THE LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE, THE MARKET CONSTRUCT WE HAVE. UM, ON TOP OF THAT, YOU ALSO HAVE TDU LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. I KNOW THOSE AREN'T AS WELL INTEGRATED. WE'VE HAD AN NPR 1006 SITTING OUT THERE FOR A LONG TIME. THAT'S, THAT'S STILL SOMETHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS. BUT THOSE ARE THERE. AND RELATIVELY SPEAKING, THEY HAVE A SMALLER IMPACT BECAUSE THEY ARE DEPLOYED LATER IN THE PROCESS. SO THEY DON'T TOUCH THE CUSTOMERS AS AS OFTEN. UM, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE A DER, WHICH IS STILL SMALL, BUT IT'S GROWING. I'LL PAUSE IT, THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT'S GROWING AT THE PACE IT IS, IS, I MEAN, YES, IT'S HARD. I DON'T WANT TO DISMISS THAT BY ANY LACK BY ANY MEANS. IT IS A HARD THING TO, TO STAND UP BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, PUT IT ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH RESOURCES THAT ACTUALLY ARE INTEGRATED INTO THE MARKET. THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. BUT, UM, ALSO THE PRICE SIGNAL ISN'T THERE. COME BACK TO THAT SAME THEME, RIGHT? IF THE PRICE SIGNAL ISN'T THERE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GROW IT. SO, UM, I THINK I CAN, I CAN PAUSE THERE JUST TO, YOU KNOW, COME BACK, COME BACK TO THE FINAL CONCLUSION, WHICH IS WE NEED IT TO WORK WITHIN THE WHOLE, WITHIN THE WHOLESALE MARKET THAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS AN ENERGY ONLY MARKET. IT RELIES ON SCARCITY. SO, THANK YOU, ERIC. SO YOU LET BILL GO FIRST SO YOU COULD RESPOND TO HIM IN YOUR COMMENTS, , HOWEVER THE CHAIR PREFERS. NO, YOU, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED THOUGH. 'CAUSE YOU, YOU TOLD, YOU TOLD ME TO HAVE BILL GO FIRST. SO THAT WAS BECAUSE YOUR RESPONSE TO BILL WAS BAKED INTO YOUR CAR. NO, HE DID HAVE HIS CARD UP. I SAW HIM PUT HIS CARD UP AND I, I SAID, OH, NO, I NEED TO HIT MINE UP TOO. SO, OKAY, LET'S GO TO BOB HILTON. MINE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC, IT'S MORE CONCISE. , YOU, YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS SOMEWHERE IN ONE OF THE FORUMS YOU TALKED ABOUT, BUT SINCE YOU'VE GOT THIS STUDY DONE AND IT SAYS, LOOK AT THIS WHOLE PIECE AND PUT IT TOGETHER, WHAT DOES THAT [03:45:01] DO FOR 1296? ARE, WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS WITH 1296 NOW? IS IT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, OR ARE YOU GOING TO KICK BACK AND RELOOK AT THAT TO SEE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITH IT? I THINK SO PART OF WHAT OUR, OUR GOAL, BRINGING IT TO THE BOARD WAS NOT TO SAY, HEY, BOARD TELL US THAT 1296 IS THE ANSWER, RIGHT? LET'S UNDERSTAND THAT. UM, THERE'S AN AREA OF OPPORTUNITY AND IN OUR VIEW, WE'VE PUT SOMETHING FORWARD THAT WE, WE BELIEVE IN, UM, TO THE EXTENT THAT OTHERS, IT'S ALMOST LIKE A CHALLENGE. WE'LL COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T WORK, RIGHT? IF, IF YOU'VE GOT A BETTER IDEA OR A BETTER OPTION, LET'S HEAR IT. I THINK, AND THIS WAS MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER TODAY TOO, IS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE PERFECT PROGRAM, YEAH, THIS IS NOT THE PERFECT PROGRAM. OKAY, I'LL AGREE WITH THAT. UM, BUT IS IT, IS IT GOOD ENOUGH? I I, AND I THINK FROM THE ER CROP PERSPECTIVE IS YES, NO, OTHERS MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION. UM, I THINK, I THINK CHAIRMAN GLEASON MADE HIS, HIS COMMENTS AT THE BOARD FEELING LIKE HE, HE DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE YET. UM, BUT IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC NEXT STEPS, I THINK, UH, WE'RE STILL CONSIDERING WHAT THOSE ARE. UM, BUT I THINK WE STILL BELIEVE THAT, UH, A, A RESIDENTIAL DR PROGRAM IS, IS SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO US. AND THAT RIGHT NOW, 1296 IS, IS THE BEST OPTION ON THE TABLE, ALL ABSENCE, SOME ALTERNATIVE THAT'S BETTER. AND I THINK THE SENSE OF TIMING BECOMES IMPORTANT AS WELL, GIVEN THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD EARLIER TODAY. AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO SEE IN THE COMING MONTHS, WE'RE GONNA LEARN A LOT WITH PETE AND THE RELIABILITY STANDARD ASSESSMENT. AND SO, UM, I'M GONNA POINT TO SOMETHING THAT JEFF SAID EARLIER, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS REALLY GOOD WHEN HE SAID, HEY, WE COULD BE PROACTIVE AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING EARLIER AND BE RE READY AND PREPARED, OR WE COULD WAIT AND THEN HAVE THE ISSUE RIGHT IN OUR FRONT, RIGHT IN FRONT OF US. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE OPTIONS AREN'T AS AS GOOD AS WE'D LIKE THEM TO BE. SO I THINK, I THINK WE'RE TAKING THAT PROACTIVE APPROACH HERE AS WELL. AND, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS WE CAN. THANKS. OKAY. LET'S GO TO MITCH. HI, UH, MITCH MOAT. UM, A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I GUESS NUMBER ONE ON THE, UH, AND THIS WAS BROUGHT UP, UH, EARLIER IN THE CONVERSATION ON THE FOUR CP COMMENT, UM, THAT THE ERCOT HAS IN THE PRESENTATION THAT I, I THINK I AGREE IN SOME WAYS THAT IT'S NOT REALLY A ERCOT STAKE STAKEHOLDER ISSUE AND IS REALLY MORE OF A-P-U-C-T ISSUE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WHY THEY HAVE THEIR TRANSMISSION COST RECOVERY, UM, DOCKET ITEM OPEN RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE AT BASE POWER HAVE SUBMITTED COMMENTS TO THE EFFECT OF HOW YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, CHANGE THOSE TRANSMISSION COST ALLOCATIONS TO ALLOW RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDERS TO BE MORE EXPOSED TO THOSE COSTS AND THEREFORE INCENTIVIZE DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS, UM, MORE EFFECTIVELY. UM, TO NED'S POINT, THEY'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, UNDERUTILIZED IN THE PAST DUE TO A CUSTOMER'S LACK OF, YOU KNOW, UH, INCENTIVE TO TURN DOWN THEIR THERMOSTAT WHEN IT'S 110 DEGREES AND, YOU KNOW, A, A REP THEIR, THEIR RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDER JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO THEN PASS THAT THROUGH TO A CUSTOMER TO BE PROPERLY INCENTIVIZED TO TURN DOWN A THERMOSTAT. UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, THE RATE, UH, REDESIGNS, THERE'S OPTIONS THERE. UM, AGAIN, NOT REALLY AN ERCOT THING. SO I GUESS I'LL, UH, MOVE TO THE, THE SECOND POINT THAT I HAD, WHICH IS THE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT HOW TO PROPERLY SEND THE, THE RIGHT PRICING SIGNALS FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, DEMAND RESPONSE AND HOW TO ALSO HAVE THAT BE INCORPORATED INTO THE WHOLESALE MARKET. I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, THE NATURAL ANSWER TO THAT, THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT THAT IS ALREADY KIND OF HALFWAY THERE, IS THE A DER PROGRAM, RIGHT? UM, THESE ARE ALREADY RESOURCES. THEY'RE SCED DISPATCHABLE, THEY'RE RESPONDING TO PRICING SIGNALS, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, ARE ALREADY MOST OF THE WAY THERE TOWARDS BEING A FULLY RESPONSIVE RESOURCE. THE LAST, YOU KNOW, KIND OF PIECE THAT IT WOULD NEED IS OBVIOUSLY IMPLEMENTATION AND FULL ENSHRINEMENT IN THE PROTOCOLS, UM, AS WELL AS, UM, YOU KNOW, OPTIONALITY AND, AND SOME SORT OF NODAL EXPOSURE OR NODAL DISPATCH, UM, TO, TO FULLY, [03:50:01] YOU KNOW, ALIGN THAT PROGRAM INSIDE OF THE WHOLESALE MARKET AND KIND OF, YOU KNOW, ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF GETTING A FAST, YOU KNOW, FAST SOURCE OF CAPACITY THAT AS N POINTED OUT, IS GROWING RAPIDLY AND IS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF ALREADY ON THE SYSTEM, JUST NEEDS TO BE INTEGRATED INTO THE EXISTING PROTOCOLS. AND I THINK GIVING THAT NODAL EXPOSURE PIECE IS YET ANOTHER WAY TO INCENTIVIZE THAT, UM, THAT GROWTH TO CONTINUE AND EVEN ACCELERATE, UH, INTO THE FUTURE. SO I THINK A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN TERMS OF GETTING DEMAND RESPONSE, GETTING MEGAWATTS, UM, YOU KNOW, GETTING MEGAWATT REDUCTIONS DURING THE PEAKS, UM, AS WELL AS NON COINCIDENT PEAKS. I, I THINK THE A DER PROGRAM ADDRESSES A LOT OF THOSE DIRECTLY. UM, AND I THINK WHILE I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S THE ONLY RIGHT OPTION ON THE TABLE, CLEARLY THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT, UH, PROPOSALS. I DO THINK THAT THAT IS THE, UM, THAT IS THE OPTION THAT I, I'M NOT SURE IT, IT SEEMS LIKE IS NOT BEING TALKED ABOUT AS MUCH AND IS THE OPTION THAT IS ALMOST CLOSEST TO BEING EXACTLY ALIGNED WITH ALL OF THE OBJECTIVES OF KIND OF MORE BROADLY DEMAND RESPONSE ON THE SYSTEM. THANKS, MITCH. I HEARD IT IN PASSING, BUT COULD YOU IDENTIFY THE ORGANIZATION YOU REPRESENT JUST IN CASE OTHERS MISSED IT, PLEASE? YEAH, SORRY. UM, REPRESENTING BASE POWER COMPANY. OKAY. THANK YOU SETH. YEAH, I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS SO I UNDERSTAND IT. SO THIS, THIS, DR. DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE MARKET. CAN YOU, CAN YOU STATE THAT AGAIN, THIS DR, THIS DR THIS DR PROGRAM THAT YOU'RE CONTEMPLATING? THE 1296, YOU MEAN? YEAH. 'CAUSE THE DR PARTICIPATE IN THE CAPACITY MARKET, UH, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, IN THE MARKET, IN THE ERCOT MARKET, THE, THE GOAL, YEAH. SO THE 1296. SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CURRENTLY OR IN THE FUTURE, THE WAY YOU'RE ENVISIONING THIS, THIS CHANGE YOU WANNA MAKE WITH THIS NEW DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM? MM-HMM . YEAH, I THINK OUR, OUR GOAL THERE IS TO CREATE A PROGRAM THAT CAN ALLOW FOR THE, THE DEMAND RESPONSE TO BE ACTIVE. AND, UM, WE HAVE ADDED A MECHANISM TO, UH, A PRICING MECHANISM TO, TO SEND A SIGNAL TO THE MARKET. BUT IT IS NOT SUBMIT DISPATCH. WELL, THEY SUBMIT NO BIDS INTO MARKET. NO. OKAY. SO YOU'RE JUST GONNA HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT CURTAIL AND YOU THROW MONEY. IS THAT BASICALLY WHAT, WHAT THIS IS LIKE ERS, EXCUSE ME. YEAH, ERS IS DEFINITELY THAT. YEAH, THAT'S TRUE. UM, BUT SO LIKE MY, MY, MY MIND KIND OF TURNS TO, WELL, UM, ONE, WE HAVE AN A DR PROGRAM WHERE THEY ACTUALLY PUT BIDS IN MM-HMM . SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY GETTING STRUCK AND SCARED. THEY'RE SETTING PRICE. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S GOOD. BUT MY OTHER, MY OTHER THOUGHT IS, IS I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE RETAIL MARKET WAS TO HAVE THE INNOVATION SO THAT THE RETAILERS INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO CURTAIL AND THEN THEY MANAGE THAT RISK AND THEY OFFER THE PRODUCTS. LIKE, IS THAT NOT A THING ANYMORE, OR? WELL, I WILL SAY WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE, WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THE DATA, UH, IN TERMS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND IT IS, IT IS, UM, UH, ON THE LOWER END OF, OF ACTIVITY IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING. SO LIKE, BUT THAT'S THE THING. SO LIKE IF THE CONSUMERS ARE SAYING, WE WANT TO PAY FOR THIS, AND NOW WE'RE SAYING, WELL, UM, LIKE WE, WE DON'T WANT TO CURTAIL BECAUSE IT, THE UTILITY OF CURTAILING ISN'T WORTH IT TO US AS A, AS A CUSTOMER. SO THE RETAILERS ARE SORT OF HAVING A, A HARD TIME GETTING THESE PROGRAMS OFF THE GROUND, THEN THAT SHOULD SAY SOMETHING THAT'S LIKE THE ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY OF IT ALL. AND IF WE SAY, WELL, WE COULD GAME CURTAIL IF WE THROW 'EM SOME MORE MONEY. LIKE, WE COULD GET A LOT OF THINGS IN THIS MARKET IF WE THREW PEOPLE SOME MORE MONEY. UM, SO I, I JUST, I, AND TO ME, THIS JUST FEELS LIKE A SUBSIDY, UM, SORT OF LIKE TAF AND SORT OF LIKE A LOT OF THINGS. AND I WANNA SEE ALL THIS IN THE MARKET. UM, AND I, I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE DO TOO. AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS, SO I'M NOT TRYING TO LIKE CAST A BUNCH OF DISPERSIONS HERE, BUT I WANNA SEE THESE KINDS OF THINGS IN THE MARKET. SO WE HAVE A MARKETPLACE, MARKETPLACE MARKET PRICE THAT PEOPLE CAN RESPOND TO, HAVE WILLING BUYERS AND WILLING SELLERS TO COME PARTICIPATE, AND WE GET TO THE ECONOMICALLY OPTIMAL OUTCOME. THAT, THAT'S KIND OF, THAT'S WHERE VT OS SITS WITH IT THINK SO. VICTOR SERS? YES. VICTOR SERS, TKO, ENERGY, CAPITAL. JUST [03:55:01] A COMMENT ON THE ADD. OUR PROGRAM, WHICH WE'VE BEEN VERY INTERESTED IN, THE ERCO MARKET AND THE FEEDBACK THAT PROBABLY, UH, ATTACK AND USE. SO WITHIN OUR COMPANY WE DO MOSTLY INDUSTRIAL, BUT ALSO WE DO ENTITLEMENTS, WHICH IS LARGE RESIDENTIAL ON IT, AND ALSO PACE PROGRAMS, THINGS OF THIS NATURE ON THE SMALLER SIDE. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT. SO THE FEEDBACK WE GET FROM OUR SYNDICATED FINANCING AND OUR PEERS WHO ALSO DO THE SAME THING THAT WE DO WHEN WE DO ENHANCEMENT ON THE LOAD, SMALL LOAD TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A AAR PROGRAM IS THE WORD PILOT. SO ALMOST EVERY SINGLE UNDERWRITER SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S A PILOT PROGRAM, WE WANNA RISK THAT LONG TERM ITEM TO MAKE IT AFFORDABLE TO THE OWNER OF THE LOAD. SO THAT'S JUST FEEDBACK AND CONSIDERATION FOR TAC AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE, UH, MONITORING AND DEVELOPING THE AAR PROGRAM. ALSO, THE FEEDBACK WE GET IS THE 500 MEGAWATT, EVEN THOUGH WE JUST INCREASED IT, IT'S STILL, IT'S SOMETHING THAT GETS CONCERNED ABOUT FOR LONG-TERM PLAY FOR THESE KIND OF LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS BEHIND THE METER TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT TO OUR PROGRAM. MATTER OF FACT, MOST RECOMMENDATION JUST FOR TAX CONSUMPTION IS ADD A ZERO TO THAT 500. SO OBVIOUSLY IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING INTERNAL THAT MAKES THIS KIND OF CHALLENGING, BUT WITH LOAD ASSETS THAT HAVE, UH, DEBT CAPABILITY, REFI CAPABILITY, AND OTHER FINANCIAL PRODUCTS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN MAKING THAT PROPERTY AND ARE COMPLIANT AND CAPABLE, WE'RE KIND OF LIKE HURTING OURSELVES TO SEE THE FULL PICKUP DUE TO THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE LANGUAGE AND THE CURRENT AMOUNT QUANTITY THAT'S AVAILABLE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANKS. UM, THANKS, VICTOR. I'LL JUST SORT OF NOTE THAT THE, OUR, THE REPORT DID NOTE THAT TRANSITIONING TO A FULL PROGRAM IS, WAS RECOMMENDED, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE LOOK FORWARD TO DOING. AND THE, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, TRANSITIONING FROM A PILOT TO A A PROTOCOL PROGRAM IS, IS SOMETHING WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING ON IN THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS HERE. THANKS. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THE NEXT FUNDING CYCLE FOR MOST OF OUR PEERS, THAT INSTITUTIONAL FUNDING HAPPENS IN OCTOBER FOR THE MAJORITY OF FUNDING FOLKS. JUST FYI THANK YOU JENNIFER. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT. I MEAN, I'LL LEAVE COINCIDENT PEAK IDEAS ASIDE. JUST WE, RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS ARE CURRENTLY SUBSIDIZING THE FOUR CP PROGRAM TO SOME DEGREE. UM, SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE MARKET TODAY IS NOT EQUITABLE. AND SO CP CONVERSATION ASIDE, UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING FOR VERY SPECIFIC HOURS, NOT JUST IN OVERALL CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR. WE RUN THAT THROUGH ENERGY EFFICIENCY. WE RUN THAT THROUGH TIME OF USE PRODUCTS, REAL TIME OF USE PRODUCTS OVER THEM. AND MY CHALLENGE WITH SORT OF THE DISMISSAL OF A RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM IS THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BUILDING A NATURAL GAS PLANT, THE QUESTION IS HOW ARE WE GETTING TO, WHAT WAS THE WORD, INVESTABILITY? YEAH, INVESTIBLE. UM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD A NATURAL GAS PLANT IF YOU PROVIDE A SLIGHTLY STRONGER SIGNAL TO RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE. AND SO TO SAY THAT THIS HAS TO BE DONE PURELY IN AN ENERGY ONLY MARKET, WHEN WE RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE SPECIFIC PEAK HOURS REQUIRE SPECIAL INSTRUMENTS IN THE ANCILLARY MARKET, I DON'T THINK IS A CLEAR, UM, APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON. AND THE REP WOULD STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE AMOUNT OF MEGAWATTS THAT THEY CAN CURTAIL, RIGHT? AND SO THERE IS STILL AN ACCOUNTABLE PARTY TO THE AGGREGATION OF THE DEMAND RESPONSE. UM, SO I GUESS I YIELD BACK IKA. YEAH, JEFF, I WOULD LIKE ALSO TO SPEAK TO THAT. OH MAN. I'M GLAD YOU DID THAT. 'CAUSE I, I THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND KEITH TOLD ME NOT TO. JEFF, YOU'RE BEING CALLED UP. NO, BECAUSE HE'S DRAFTING STATE OF THE MARKET REPORT AND I'M SURE THERE'S A SECTION HOW TO INCORPORATE DEMAND RESPONSE. OKAY. EFFICIENTLY. SO, OKAY, SO THE QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, DEMAND RESPONSE. CAN YOU GIVE US A PREVIEW ON WHAT THE STATE OF THE MARKET IS GONNA SAY? WELL, I, I, I WOULDN'T WANT TO STEAL MY OWN FUNDER, UH, . SO, UM, SO, BUT, BUT, BUT IT'LL SAY THE SAME THING THAT, THAT WE'VE BEEN SAYING. I, I THINK ALL ALONG, I, I DO RECOGNIZE THAT, THAT THERE'S A, [04:00:01] A BIT OF A QUANDARY AS TO HOW TO ADDRESS THE, THE PERCEIVED RA ISSUE THAT'S, THAT'S COMING AS ALL THIS LOAD COMES IN. AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL SAY THE SAME THING THAT, THAT I'VE SAID A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TIMES, WHICH IS PICKING DIFFERENT OUTTA MARKET, UM, PROJECTS AND, AND THERE'S A LIST OF 'EM. UM, AND I THINK WE'VE WRITTEN IT DOWN IN A FEW PLACES AND, AND TAKING AN OUTTA MARKET APPROACH, IF, IF THE CONVERSATION NARROWS IN ON THE, ON THE MERITS AND THE DETAILS OF THAT PARTICULAR APPROACH, THEN WE, WE FORGET THE BIGGER PICTURE, WHICH IS THAT THE TEXAS MARKET IS SET UP TO PROVIDE REVENUE THROUGH SHORTAGE PRICING IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, BOTH SIGNAL AND FUND, UH, NEW CAPACITY TO MEET RA NEEDS. AS WE MOVE AWAY FROM THAT, AND, AND MANY OF THESE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, F-F-S-E-R-S-R-D-R, AND THERE'S MAYBE A COUPLE OF OTHERS, UM, THEY ALL TAKE REVENUE OUT OF THE MARKET. AND SO IT'S VERY INTERESTING FOR SOMEONE IN MY POSITION SEEING THE DISCUSSION HAPPEN, AND I'M USUALLY ON THE FRINGE OF THE DISCUSSION AND, AND I'M, I'M HEARING ON ONE HAND THIS, THIS, YOU KNOW, HORRIBLE PROBLEM THAT'S COMING WITH, WITH A, A, A GREAT RESOURCE ADEQUACY DEFICIENCY. AND THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, ALL THESE SMALL PROGRAMS AND, AND ONE OF THE FEATURES OF A SMALL PROGRAM IS, YOU KNOW, PRICE MOVEMENTS HAPPEN ON THE MARGIN. AND SO TEXAS IS A 8 85 GIG PEAKING SYSTEM RIGHT NOW. YOU, YOU TAKE A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS OFF OF THE PEAK, AND, AND THAT COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A THOUSAND DOLLARS PRICE AND A, AND A $200 PRICE. AND SO YOU, AND, AND SO YOU RIGHTFULLY RECOGNIZE IN, IN THE MORE NARROW CONVERSATIONS ABOUT RDR OR OR OTHER SIDE PROGRAMS OUTTA MARKET, THAT THIS PROGRAM COULD HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON PRICE THAT THE MEGAWATTS FOR RDR ARE NOT ANTICIPATED TO BE VERY LARGE. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT WOULD GROW INTO SOMETHING THAT WAS MATERIAL, UM, IN TERMS OF PROVIDING MEGAWATT RELIEF, BUT IN TERMS OF ITS IMPACT ON PRICE AND REVENUE IN MARKET, IT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO GROW THAT MUCH TO HAVE, UH, A FAIRLY PROFOUND EFFECT, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S, AS WAS POINTED OUT A FEW MOMENTS AGO, INTENDED TO TRIGGER DURING THE HOURS OF THE GREATEST NEED OR, OR THE, THE GREATEST SHORTAGE AND THE HIGHEST SHORTAGE PRICING. SO I'M NOT, I'M NOT UNIFORMLY AGAINST OUTTA MARKET PROGRAMS, BUT I'M PRETTY UNIFORMLY AGAINST ALL OF THE OUTTA MARKET PROGRAMS THAT EXIST IN . SO, UM, AND, AND SO, SO I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T IGNORE THE, THE POTENTIAL NEED, UH, TO ADDRESS RA MATTERS GOING FORWARD. I DON'T THINK THE RDR PROGRAM IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. UH, I DO THINK IT IS A SUBSIDY THEY'RE NOT BEING PAID, UH, IN, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THE WHOLESALE PRICE THAT'S BEING RECOGNIZED OR ANTICIPATED DURING THE TIME OF THE CURTAILMENT. AND I, I, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE SAID IN OUR WRITTEN COMMENTS PREVIOUSLY, I'D BE, I'D BE HAPPY TO, UH, AGREE TO IT IF IT MOVED INTO SOMETHING LIKE AN ER PROGRAM WHERE IT WAS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU CAN'T DO A WHOLESALE PRICE PASS THROUGH TO RETAIL, BUT THE WHOLESALE PRICE OR THE, THE PRICE RECEIVED BY RETAIL COULD BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE WHOLESALE PRICE AS, AS, YOU KNOW, DICTATED BY, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER PASSES PRICES. SO, SO THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT. I DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE IT'S OUTTA MARKET AND IT'S, AND IT'S JUST GOING TO FURTHER SUPPRESS, UM, REALTIME REVENUE AS THE ERCOT SYSTEM MOVES INTO TIGHTER AND TIGHTER CONDITIONS. SO I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS OR I THINK, I THINK YOU HAVE A RESPONSE, MY NOTES, IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY A QUESTION. I, OKAY. I THINK SO I, AND YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHAT, WHAT JEFF IS SAYING, BUT I, I THINK I WANNA BE CLEAR ON, ON SOMETHING YOU JUST SAID. YOU SAID THESE OUT OF MARKET PROGRAMS, WOULD THAT INCLUDE FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE? IT DOES. WOULD THAT INCLUDE WEATHERIZATION? WEATHERIZATION, I VIEW A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. SO WEATHERIZATION TO ME IS MORE OF A, A LOCAL AND EQUIPMENT ISSUE AS OPPOSED TO A MARKET PARTICIPATION ISSUE. OKAY. UM, AND, AND SO AGAIN, I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE. UM, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M NOT GONNA LIST ALL OF ALL OF THE, THE PROGRAMS, BUT, BUT I, I, I GUESS MY, MY RESPONSE NOW, UH, IS THAT I THINK ERCOT VIEW, AND, AND THIS INCLUDES THINGS LIKE ERS, UM, WE VIEW THAT AS AN IMPORTANT PROGRAM. WE, WE VIEW FARM FUEL AS AN IMPORTANT PROGRAM. UM, A LOT OF THESE THINGS IN, IN SOME CASES COME FROM THE COMMISSION ITSELF. AND, UM, I THINK THAT, WELL, WE SEE THEM AS, UH, IMPORTANT, UH, IN, IN HELPING PROMOTE THE RELIABILITY OF THE SYSTEM. [04:05:01] AND, UH, I THINK THAT, UH, THERE, THERE MAY BE A, A PERFECT WORLD, UH, WHERE, WHERE PRICES WILL, WILL ALWAYS BE ACCURATE AND SIGNAL AND WE'LL GET RESOURCES AT THE RIGHT TIME. BUT I THINK OUR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS LINE UP. AND, UH, WE, WE HAVE THESE MECHANISMS AND TOOLS TO HELP US, UH, MAINTAIN RELIABILITY, UH, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE NEED THE MARKET TO PROMOTE RELIABILITY THAT MAY NOT BE THE CASE IN, IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCES. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THESE SAFETY MECHANISMS THAT HELP US REMAIN RELIABLE. UM, AND AT THE SAME TIME, TO THE FURTHEST EXTENT WE CAN HELP, UH, PROMOTE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE MARKETS AS WELL. SO IT'S A BALANCE AND, AND WE THINK THESE PROGRAMS CAN, CAN BE A PART OF THAT PROGRAM, PART OF THAT BALANCE AS WELL. THANKS. YEAH, THANKS FOR COMMENTING ON THAT, KEITH. SO THAT GETS ME TO MAYBE PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION. IF THERE'S A RELIABILITY NEED AND THE MARKET ISN'T PROVIDING ENOUGH REVENUE TO MEET THE RELIABILITY NEED, IT'S NOT PROVIDING REVENUE FOR THE SERVICE THAT WOULD MEET THE RELIABILITY NEED, YOU KNOW, SOME THOUGHT HAS TO BE PUT INTO WHY ISN'T THE MARKET DOING THAT? SO, SO IN THE CASE OF WEATHERIZATION, YOU COULD KIND OF CONSIDER WEATHERIZATION BEING SORT OF A SHORTAGE PRICING RESPONSE. UM, IF, IF, IF I CAN'T PROVIDE ENERGY, IF IT'S WEATHERIZATION ON ENERGY PROVISION OR NATURAL GAS PROVISION, IF I CAN'T PROVIDE IT WHEN PRICES ARE HIGH, THEN I'M MISSING OUT. AND MAYBE, MAYBE IT WOULD BE WORTH MY WHILE TO GO AHEAD AND DO WEATHERIZATION. UM, BUT, BUT IT MAY BE BEYOND THAT BECAUSE THE COST MIGHT BE SO HIGH AND IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST A RELIABILITY MATTER THAT THAT WOULDN'T OR SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE MARKET. BUT FOR OTHER THINGS, LIKE IF YOU TAKE FFSS FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME THAT THE CURRENT ERCOT MARKET DOESN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH REVENUE TO, NOT ONLY DOES IT NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH REVENUE, BUT THERE MAY BE NOT ENOUGH FORECAST CERTAINTY FOR THE CONDITIONS THAT THE, THE TYPE OF, UM, FUEL CARRYING COSTS COULD BE RECOVERED ON A YEAR TO YEAR BASIS. BUT, BUT THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, OUGHT TO BE HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW HAVE WE CONSIDERED HOW THE MARKET DEALS WITH THAT AND ARE THERE TWEAKS THAT WE CAN MAKE TO THE MARKET OR NEW PRODUCTS IN MARKET THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN CONSIDERED WITH THE OTHER RESERVE PRODUCTS AND ENERGY SO THAT WE HAVE AN IN-MARKET SOLUTION FOR THAT RATHER THAN AN OUTTA MARKET SOLUTION THAT REDUCES REVENUE. AND SO, AND SO, AS I SAID BEFORE, I'M NOT UNIFORMLY AGAINST OUTTA MARKET, BUT I, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO DO DUE DILIGENCE TO TRY AND CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT AN IN-MARKET SOLUTION'S POSSIBLE, NOT WITH THE MARKET THAT YOU HAVE, BUT MAYBE YOU HAVE TO CREATE A NEW PRODUCT. THAT'S, THAT'S THE EFFORT THAT I THINK IS WORTH GOING THROUGH FOR ERCOT. AND, AND AGAIN, I'LL, I'LL CAP IT OFF WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT I'VE SAID BEFORE AT THE BOARD AND THE PC IS, IS IF THERE'S A RESOURCE ADEQUACY PROBLEM COMING, THESE SMALL PROGRAMS AREN'T GOING TO SOLVE IT. NOT, NOT ONE OF THEM WILL SOLVE IT, AND NOT ALL OF THEM TOGETHER WILL SOLVE IT. AND THERE ARE, THERE ARE SEVERAL ESTABLISHED PATHS, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE SOLUTION HAS TO BE LIMITED TO, YOU KNOW, THE THREE OR FOUR ESTABLISHED PATHS. MAYBE THERE'S SOME OTHER PATH MARKET DESIGN PATH THAT HASN'T BEEN CONTEMPLATED YET, BUT THE PATH THAT ERCOT IS ON WITH SMALL OUTTA MARKET PROGRAMS TO, TO PLUG GAPS, UM, IN, IN THE MARKET FOR RELIABILITY, THAT THAT ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT LEAD TO A RESOURCE ADEQUACY SOLUTION IN THREE OR FIVE YEARS. AND IN MY VIEW, IT WILL ACTUALLY UNDERMINE THE MARKET'S ABILITY TO MOVE TOWARDS THAT. SO, SO THANK YOU. OKAY, BILL. SO AGAIN, ACKNOWLEDGE JEFF ON HIS CONSISTENCY. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I WOULDN'T EXPECT NOTHING LESS FROM THE IMM. UM, BUT ALSO WHAT'S FRUSTRATING ABOUT THESE TYPES OF DISCUSSIONS IS A LACK OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF WHERE WE ACTUALLY ARE IN THE EVOLUTION OF OUR MARKET DESIGN. SO, AND WHEN I HEAR NED TALK ABOUT MARKET PRINCIPLES, LIKE I, I QUESTION WHAT MARKET PRINCIPLES ARE YOU REFERRING TO? BECAUSE IF IT'S TRUE SCARCITY IN AN ENERGY ONLY MARKET, WE'RE NOWHERE NEAR THAT. SO IF THAT'S, IF THOSE ARE THE MARKET PRINCIPLES WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO DESIGN OUR MARKET AROUND THEN WE NEED TO ELIMINATE ERS, WE NEED TO ELIMINATE DRS, WE PROBABLY NEED TO ELIMINATE ECRS. WE GOTTA BUY A LOT LESS ANCILLARIES. WE GOTTA MOVE THE DEMAND CURVE ALL THE WAY OVER TO 1500, WHICH IS WHEN WE SHED FIRM LOAD. THAT'S WHAT AN ENERGY ONLY MARKET THAT'S BASED [04:10:01] ON TRUE SCARCITY LOOKS LIKE. AND THERE'S A GOOD REASON WHY WE DON'T HAVE THAT AND WHY WE HAVE EVOLVED THIS MARKET AWAY FROM THAT OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS. AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DOES NOT ACCEPT SCARCITY. IT WILL NEVER ACCEPT WHEN THE POWER GOES OUT. SO WE HAVE TO REDEFINE WHAT SCARCITY IS. IT'S NOT EEA THREE, IT'S NOT FROM LOAD. SHE, IT'S FAR AWAY FROM THAT. AND THE WAY THAT WE DO THAT IN, IN THIS MARKET STRUCTURE WHERE WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE ENERGY IN THE ANCILLARY SERVICE MARKET BECAUSE OF THE BENEFITS OF ITS EFFICIENCY, IS WE SUPPLEMENT THAT GENERAL FRAMEWORK WITH CAPACITY PRODUCTS. AND THAT HAS, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE OVER THE LAST 10 15 YEARS, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS PRODUCT DOES. SO IF WE CAN GET THE PRICING RIGHT, WHICH I THINK IS YOUR MAIN CONCERN, AND DO OUR BEST ON PRICE ADJUSTMENTS SO WE DON'T SUPPRESS THOSE PRICING IMPACTS, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULDN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH A PROGRAM LIKE THIS. 'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S THE SAME DIRECTION THAT WE'VE BEEN HEADED WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE'VE ADDED TO THIS MARKET OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS. THANKS. OKAY, IKA? YEAH, MY COMMENTS WILL BE REALLY MORE PROCESS ORIENTED STUFF IS NOT AGAINST DEMAND RESPONSE OR RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE. HOWEVER, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE REALLY, AGAIN, JUST THAT PREFERENCE FOR TAG IS CHARLES RIVER ASSOCIATE. IF WE COULD GET MORE COMMENTS FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS ABOUT THE CONTENT AND ROBUSTNESS OF IT. UH, AND DOES IT REALLY ADDRESS, I THINK IN THE ANSWER SERVICE STUDY COMMISSION HAS ALSO HAD AN ASK FROM ERCOT TO EVALUATE ALL THE DEMAND, RESPOND HOLISTICALLY, AND FILE IT TO COMMISSION. AND DOES THAT COMPLY WITH THAT ASK OR IS IT STILL TO BE DONE? AND ONE MORE THING I WAS GONNA SAY IS IF YOU KNOW, WE ADOPTED TAG 25 180 6 RESIDENTIAL LOAD REDUCTION, AND IT REQUIRES EVERY TWO YEARS. BY JUNE 1ST COMMISSION STAFF WILL REVIEW THE DATA RECEIPT FROM ERCOT. UH, 'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S A 25% CALL TO REDUCE RESIDENTIAL DEMAND THROUGH THE DEVICES. AND THEN WE ARE GONNA FILE A RECOMMENDATION IN PROJECT 5 6 9 6 6 WHETHER THE COMMISSION SHOULD ADJUST THE GOAL. WE ALSO WANNA, YOU KNOW, WAIT AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANYTHING COMING FROM THAT REPORT. SO ALL THESE DEMAND RESPONSE AND RESIDENTIAL ESPECIALLY CAN BE ADDRESSED TOGETHER. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO DO YOU NEED ANYTHING FROM US AT THIS TIME? OKAY. OKAY. UM, MARK DREYFUS, THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I LIKE ABOUT THE CHARLES RIVER ASSOCIATION REPORT, UH, ASSOCIATES REPORT. I LIKE THAT IT RECOGNIZES THE NEED FOR REFORM OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICE, WHICH WE, WE'VE ALL DISCUSSED AND IS, IS LONG NEEDED. AND IT ACTUALLY, THE RECOMMENDATION GOES GO FAR ENOUGH. BUT I LIKE THAT. I LIKE THAT IT SAYS WE SHOULD FORMALIZE A DER. I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT, AND WE NEED TO FORMALIZE A DER AS A PART OF THE PROTOCOLS. I LIKE THAT IT PUTS AN EMPHASIS ON RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE, THOUGH AS WE'VE DISCUSSED OVER MONTHS AND MONTHS, I DON'T NECESSARILY SUPPORT THE APPROACH IN THE N-P-R-R-I. I LIKE THAT WE HAVE, UH, WE, WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD IN THAT DIRECTION. UM, I ALSO THINK WE'RE HAVING AN EXCELLENT STRATEGIC DISCUSSION TODAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. UH, I PERSONALLY, AND I THINK MOST CONSUMERS WILL SUPPORT THE POSITIONS ARTICULATED, ARTICULATED BY NED AND SETH AND JEFF TODAY. AND I GENERALLY AGREE WITH THOSE. BUT I ALSO RESPECT BILL'S POINT ABOUT, UH, THE RISKS WE TAKE IN THE MARKET. AND I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S A HUGE ISSUE WE NEED TO BE DISCUSSING BECAUSE WE ARE IN AN ENERGY ONLY A MARKET. UM, ALL THAT SAID, I AM STILL FRUSTRATED WITH THIS DISCUSSION AND I FAIL TO SEE THIS STRATEGIC PART OF THE CHARLES RIVER ASSOCIATES REPORT. AND I, AND I THINK THAT'S, IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF THE WORK THEY DID, IT'S BECAUSE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY WERE ASKED TO RESPOND TO. UH, THEY GAVE US SOME PIECEMEAL ANSWERS TO SOME PIECEMEAL PROGRAMS. WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THOSE. BUT, BUT THE REAL STRATEGIC QUESTION IS A BROADER QUESTION THAT WE'VE KIND OF BEEN ASKING IN COMMITTEES FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS TO LOOK AT. AND THAT QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MARKET DESIGN WE'VE BUILT TO PROVIDE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF DEMAND RESPONSE INTEGRATED INTO THIS MARKET TO SOLVE THE RELIABILITY AND RESOURCE ADEQUACY PROBLEMS [04:15:01] THAT WE'RE FACING? AND THEY'RE BIG PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF ALL THIS STUFF WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR WORKSHOP, AFTER WORKSHOP AFTER WORKSHOP. AND IF WE DON'T LOOK MORE STRATEGICALLY AND MORE BIG PICTURE, THEN WE'RE MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SOLUTION. AND SO, WHILE, WHILE THIS FILLS SOME GAPS THAT I KNOW YOU GUYS WANNA WORK ON, AND, AND YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF IDENTIFYING THOSE GAPS THAT YOU WANNA WORK ON, WE REALLY AS A, AS A GROUP THAT PROVIDES ADVICE TO THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, AND ULTIMATELY THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT A, AT A BROADER LEVEL AT THESE QUESTIONS. AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE THAT ON. THANK YOU. OKAY, NED. ALL RIGHT. I HAD BEEN TRYING TO, UH, MARK, I WAS HOPING THAT YOU WOULD TAKE THE BAIT AND, UH, RESPOND TO JEFF'S NOT WANTING TO STEAL HIS OWN THUNDER WITH YOU REFERENCING ON THUNDER ROAD. THUNDERSTRUCK OH, THUNDER ROAD. OKAY. THUNDER ROAD AND THUNDERSTRUCK. OKAY. UM, TRYING TO DO MY BEST, BLAKE. UM, ALL RIGHT. SO A COUPLE THINGS TO RESPOND TO HERE. UM, FIRST OFF, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I AGREE THAT THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES AND THE ANCILLARY SERVICES ARE CAPACITY PRODUCTS, UM, THAT GO BEYOND THE BASE, THE MOST BASIC ENERGY ONLY MARKET PRINCIPLE LEVELS, RIGHT? BILL, I, I'M GONNA AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT POINT, BUT CRITICAL DISTINCTION THERE IS THEY STILL RELY ON A SINGLE PRICE SIGNAL TO DRIVE BEHAVIOR FROM BOTH SUPPLY AND DEMAND. SO THAT, THAT IS A CRITICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL. AND, AND, AND, AND THOSE, I AGREE, IF WE WENT WITH A PURIST ENERGY ONLY MARKET, WE WOULD END UP IN A MUCH LESS PALATABLE RELIABILITY STANDPOINT. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THINGS LIKE THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES TO VALUE THE DEGRADATION OF RESERVES AS WE TRANSFER, AS WE TRANSFORM THOSE INTO ENERGY. THAT'S, THAT'S THE SYSTEM WE HAVE. UM, AND ALSO WE'RE CLEARLY NOT BASING THOSE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES BASED ON THE COST OF NEW ENTRY. WE JUST HAD A DISCUSSION THIS MORNING THAT MADE THAT I THINK, PRETTY CLEAR. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE NOT WILLING TO SPEND THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, PUT THAT KIND OF INVESTMENT SIGNAL IN, EVEN THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CORPS THAT WE DO HAVE, WHY DOES IT MAKE SENSE THEN TO TARGET THAT TO A SPECIFIC CLASS OF RESOURCE THAT I, I'M, I'M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN, IS NOT GOING TO BE AS DEPENDABLE AS, UM, AS, YOU KNOW, AN ACTUAL GENERATION RESOURCE OR, YOU KNOW, A BATTERY EVEN, OR, UM, YOU KNOW, MORE, UH, I'LL SAY MORE RELIABLE, UH, OR, OR HIGHER, UH, A DEMAND RESPONSE RESOURCE THAT'S HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, JENNIFER, YOU MENTIONED THE OTHERS' STILL HELD TO, THEY'RE HELD RESPONSIBLE, BUT THEY'RE NOT HELD RESPONSIBLE TO ANYTHING THEY PROMISED TO DO. THEY'RE JUST GIVEN UNDER THE NPR 1296 FRAMEWORK. THEY'RE JUST GIVEN SOME MONEY FOR STUFF THAT THEY PROBABLY WERE GONNA DO ALREADY. UM, ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS THE PRICE INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE THAT ACTION FROM THE GET GO DURING THOSE PERIODS, RIGHT? BECAUSE THE, THE NET THE NET LOAD PERIODS ARE THE PERIODS WHERE YOU SHOULD BE SENDING SCARCITY PRICE SIGNALS, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK JEFF'S ONE OF JEFF'S CORE POINTS WERE. UM, BILL, I ALSO AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT GONNA SUPPORT LOAD. SHED NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE AR YOU KNOW, WORKING TOWARDS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M ABUNDANTLY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. UM, WE DO NEED TO FIND WAYS TO INTEGRATE ANY LOAD FLEXIBILITY THAT'S OUT THERE AND DO IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE MARKET STRUCTURE. WE DON'T WANT LOAD SHED. I ALSO THINK THOUGH, THAT FROM A, LIKE A PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC PERCEPTION STANDPOINT, IT'S PROBABLY ALSO A LITTLE NAIVE TO THINK THAT THE PUBLIC WILL THINK, OH, IT'S OKAY. YOU KNOW, IF WE ARE SAYING WE NEED THIS BECAUSE OF LARGE LOADS GROWING, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE AN UNCONTROVERSIAL APPROACH TO SAY, WELL, WE NEED RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS TO BE UNCOMFORTABLE AND TURN THEIR AIR CONDITIONERS UP JUST TO, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THIS, THIS LOAD GROWTH. WE NEED MARKET SIGNALS TO BRING FLEXIBILITY WHEREVER IT'S WILLING TO COME FROM TO SOLVE THAT AND TO BRING RESOURCES IN SO THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING LOADS TO DO THAT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WE NEED IT TO BE SUSTAINABLE RELIABILITY, SELF-SUSTAINED, RELIABILITY DRIVEN BY THE MARKET. SO, UH, LAST POINT TO KIND OF DRIVE IT HOME, KEITH, YOU, YOU MADE THE, YOU THREW OUT THE CHALLENGE, WHICH IS, ALRIGHT, IF NOT THIS, THEN WHAT? AND I, I DO NEED TO PUSH BACK ON THAT PREMISE BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE AN UNWORKABLE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN PUT OUT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY, THAT WE NEED TO MOVE IT FORWARD. THERE CAN BE A BETTER APPROACH. AND I'VE BEEN TRYING TO BE AS CLEAR AS I CAN ABOUT THIS IN ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS IS, IS THAT THERE ARE KINDA LIKE, UH, LIKE JEFF WAS SAYING, WE DON'T HAVE TO BE OPPOSED TO [04:20:01] PROGRAMS OUTSIDE OF THE MARKET ENTIRELY. WE JUST NEED TO MAKE THEM WORK BEST. AND HOW DO WE DO THAT? WE, WE PROCURE A DEFINED AMOUNT. ERCOT DEPLOYS IT SO WE KNOW WHAT'S BEING DEPLOYED AND WE CAN ADJUST FOR THAT IN THE PRICE FORMATION. UM, I WOULD ALSO ADD ONTO THAT AS A, AS A THIRD POINT, AND THIS HAS LESS TO DO WITH THE MARKET PRICE FORMATION, BUT MORE JUST HOW DO YOU STRUCTURE A GOOD PROGRAM, AND WE LEARNED THIS THROUGH THE A DER PROCESS, IS YOU DON'T WANT TO CREATE WALLED GARDENS, RIGHT? YOU NEED TO HAVE A COMPETITIVE ECOSYSTEM WHERE CUSTOMERS CAN MAKE CHOICES BASED ON, OKAY, I HAVE A CONTROLLABLE THERMOSTAT AND I WANT TO GO AND, YOU KNOW, SEE WHAT, WHAT THIS REP HAS TO OFFER. I REALIZE THAT MAY NOT BE THE CASE FOR SOME OF THE, THE NON-OP ENTITIES THAT THAT'S, UH, IT'S A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE, BUT AT LEAST IN THE COMPETITIVE AREAS, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'VE, WE'RE ENABLING THAT. SO I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S TWO AND A HALF, THREE PRINCIPLES THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN WORK AROUND. FRANKLY, THE, THE THING I RUN INTO IS WE'VE GOT SO MANY OTHER PRIORITIES AND THIS IS AN ERCOT PRIORITY, MAYBE IT'S AN NRG PRIORITY, BUT IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL PRIORITIES THAT WE AS STAKEHOLDERS ARE WORKING THROUGH, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE HEARING IS, YES, THIS IS IMPORTANT, THIS IS NOT A BIG ENOUGH, UH, IT'S NOT MOVING THE NEEDLE ENOUGH AND IT HAS SO MUCH RISK OF DOWNSIDES THAT THIS GETS PRIORITIZED LOWER BEHIND OTHER I ISSUES THAT ARE MORE FRONT AND CENTER. SO HAPPY TO ENGAGE. WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO AT LEAST GET THROUGH THE BATCH BEFORE BEFORE WE DO THAT THOUGH. AND, AND JUST TO RESPOND TO, TO, TO NED, I THINK IT'S YOUR VIEW THAT IT'S UNWORKABLE. THAT'S NOT A UNIVERSAL PERSPECTIVE AS I UNDERSTAND. AND I THINK THE OTHER THING TO NOTE IS, IS WHAT I SAID EARLIER IS THERE'S A TIME TO BE PROACTIVE. AND I THINK THE BOARD MADE THAT CLEAR THAT THEIR PERSPECTIVE IS THAT IT'S TIME TO BE PROACTIVE. AND I THINK THAT, UM, WE CAN, WE CAN WAIT FOR US, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CONTINUE TO TALK, WE CAN GO MONTHS AND, AND PERHAPS YEARS MORE AND FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION JUST LIKE JEFF BILLOW WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER TODAY. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS NOT A SITUATION WE WANT TO BE IN BECAUSE YOUR ABILITY TO CREATE RESOURCES TO HELP SOLVE PROBLEMS, UM, UH, YOUR TIMELINE BEGINS TO SHRINK AND EVENTUALLY EVAPORATE. AND SO, UH, I THINK WE SEE, WE SEE THE NEED TO MOVE EXPEDITIOUSLY, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR THAT FROM YOU. I HEARD WE'RE BUSY. WE GOTTA REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS CAREFULLY, AND THEN WE MIGHT HAVE A SOLUTION AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. AND THAT IS, THAT IS VERY DIFFICULT, I THINK, FOR THE BOARD TO ACCEPT GIVEN THE DISCUSSION THEY HAD THE OTHER DAY. SO, KEITH, RESPECTFULLY, WE HAVE BEEN PROACTIVE ON THIS. WE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, WE WENT THROUGH A WHOLE BUNCH OF WORK ON MARKET DESIGN. WE WERE, YOU KNOW, MOVING FORWARD ON THE PCM. AND TO BE CLEAR, THE PCM WOULD'VE BEEN THE LARGEST DEMAND RESPONSE AND DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCE SUBSIDY OUT OF ANY MARKET DESIGN WE COULD HAVE CHOSEN. THAT WOULD'VE BEEN A HUGE INCENTIVE FOR DEMAND RESPONSE. IT WAS PUT ON THE SHELF AND WE WERE LEFT WITH AN ENERGY ONLY MARKET CONSTRUCT. AND SO WHEN WE TAKE THAT PROACTIVE KIND OF MARKET SOLUTION, AND WE SAY, NOW WE'RE NOT GONNA DO THAT, THAT'S NOT US AS STAKEHOLDERS SAYING TO KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. THAT WAS A POLICY DECISION THAT WE RECEIVED, AND NOW WE'RE WORKING WITHIN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT DECISION. OKAY. UM, KEITH, WHATEVER YOU SAID, A A BUNCH OF CARDS WENT UP, BUT, UM, WE'RE TRYING, TRYING TO WRAP THIS UP SOON, I THINK. SO I THINK WE HAVE DAVID E AND SETH OR SETH, AND I DIDN'T QUITE GET THAT. UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I WON'T CALL 'EM BACK UP HERE, BUT, BUT JEFF AND BILL HAD A SIMILAR CONVERSATION A FEW TIMES THIS MEETING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T GO TO SCARCITY THEN WHAT WE WANNA RELY ON THE ENERGY ONLY MARKET. I, I TALKED TO KEITH BRIEFLY. I THINK WE WANT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AT SOME POINT WITHOUT STEPPING ON COMMISSION TOES. I THINK IT'LL COME UP DURING, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE STATE OF THE MARKET, AFTER THE RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING I'LL, YOU KNOW, KEEP, KEEP THINKING ABOUT WITH, WITH KEITH AND JEFF, HOW WE COULD DO THAT IN ATTACK FORUM WITHOUT MAYBE STEPPING ON COMMISSION FORUM TOES. BUT LET'S TAKE, LET'S TRY TO GET THESE LAST THREE COMMENTS AND THEN MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON NEXT STEPS AND THEN MOVE TO THE, THE NEXT ITEM. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD DAVID. THANK YOU. I'LL JUST, I'LL BE BRIEF. I JUST WANT TO, UM, LAY OUT WHERE WE'RE AT. SO OVERALL, WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROGRAM. UM, WE DO HAVE A VERY LARGE PORTFOLIO OF DEMAND RESPONSE IN OUR, OUR, OUR, UM, OUR SERVICE TERRITORY. AND OUR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF OF VALUE THAT IT BRINGS TO OUR, OUR, OUR CUSTOMERS. UM, [04:25:01] THERE HAS TO BE A VALUE PROPOSITION, UH, FOR US. IT'S FOR CP AND THE MARKET RISK, UM, THAT WE, THAT WE COVER. UH, BUT THOSE ARE OUR SIGNALS. I THINK WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A STRATEGIC ERCO PROGRAM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SIGNALS SHOULD BE THE RELIABILITY NEED. UM, I THINK FROM WHERE WE'RE AT, I THINK THE MARKET OR INTEGRATING IT INTO THE MARKET NEEDS TO BE THE OVERALL GOAL, WHICH IS WHAT I'M HEARING A LOT ABOUT TODAY. UM, THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS WITH PRICE FORMATION AND SENDING THE RIGHT SIGNALS. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE SENSITIVE TO. UM, BUT IN MY MIND, UM, I THINK AN OPTIMAL MARKET DESIGN IS GONNA BE USING MORE PRICE RESPONSIVE DEMAND. SO I SEE LIKE A RDR PROGRAM BEING, YOU KNOW, STRUCK AT A CERTAIN PRICE OR HAVING SOME KIND OF PRICE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE, THE FOLKS THAT ARE IN THAT PROGRAM. SO, UM, OVERALL THINK WE'RE SUPPORTED, BUT WE DO WANNA FIND A WAY TO, TO MAKE IT WORK WITHIN THE MARKET. THANKS. THANKS, DAVID. LET'S GO TO IAN. THANK YOU. IAN HALEY, MORGAN STANLEY. UM, KEITH, THE, THE, I THE PART OF WHAT YOU SAID THAT GOT ME TO RAISE MY CARD IS, UM, YOU CANNOT DR YOUR WAY INTO A FUNCTIONING MARKET, YOU CANNOT PROVIDE A HUNDRED PERCENT DR TO FULFILL A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE NEEDS. UM, I DON'T THINK ERCOT FULLY UNDERSTANDS THAT WHEN CHOICES ARE MADE THAT IMPACT PRICE FORMATION IN CERTAIN WAYS, PEOPLE DECIDE NOT TO BUILD. UM, I AM A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR RESIDENTIAL DR. I'M A HUNDRED PERCENT FOR SMB DR OR LARGE DR. I DON'T CARE. AS LONG AS IT'S IN, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T IMPACT PRICE FORMATION, I DON'T CARE. BUT IF IT'S DONE WRONG, UM, IT WILL KILL THE MARKET. UM, IT WILL DRIVE LONG-TERM RELIABILITY NEEDS THAT CANNOT BE OUTDONE WITH SMALL RESIDENTIAL DR PACKAGES. IT'S GONNA TAKE GIGANTIC GAS PLANTS AGAIN. AND SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THESE THINGS CORRECTLY SO THAT WE DON'T ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF THOSE PLANTS BEING BUILT. I THINK OUR VIEW IS THERE'S A, IS A WIDER RANGE OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER TO ADDRESS RESOURCE ADEQUACY AND PRICE FORMATION. AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ONLY A PIECE OF THE OVERALL SOLUTION. AND I THINK EVEN JEFF SAID THERE IS NO ONE THING IN EVERYTHING, RIGHT? AND SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PIECE OF THAT. AND THE BIG DIFFERENCE, I THINK IN OUR VIEW IS, IS THE TI SEND THE PRICE SIGNALS YOU WANT. WHAT THERMAL RESOURCES ARE YOU GONNA GET IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS? I DON'T KNOW. UM, THAT PROBABLY PRETTY LIMITED, BUT YOU CAN MAKE REALLY GOOD SIGNALS FOR A FEW YEARS FROM NOW. THAT I THINK IS A CONCERN THAT WE SEE. AND WHAT RESOURCES ARE YOU GONNA GET? WHAT WE KNOW WE'RE GETTING TODAY IS SOLAR AND STORAGE. AND THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LIMITATIONS. AND WE ARE PRETTY MUCH IN A WORLD WHERE WE'RE GONNA EXPECT TO GET SOLAR AND STORAGE FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS. AND YEAH, WE'RE GONNA EXPECT TO HAVE SOME CHALLENGES AS A RESULT OF THAT. THE FAR WEST IS AN EXAMPLE, OKAY. AND SO YEAH, WE CAN SEND ALL THE SIGNALS WE WANT AND GET IT PERFECT, BUT WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO? WE'RE NOT GONNA GET ANYTHING FOR THAT TIMEFRAME. SO OUR VIEW IS THERE IS A TIME VALUE OF THIS RELIABILITY. WHAT ARE THE RESOURCES THAT YOU CAN GET TO FILL THE GAPS? UNFORTUNATELY, YES, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE THE PERFECT MARKET, BUT WE'RE GONNA HAVE SOME GAPS. WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO WORK AND DESIGN AN OVERALL STRATEGY. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S PART OF WHAT I THINK CAITLIN'S COMMENT AND, AND THE, OUR RELIABILITY STANDARD ASSESSMENT IS GONNA BE, WHICH BY THE WAY, WE'RE WORKING WITH COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE IMM ON SOME POTENTIAL IDEAS. SO, SO YES, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SEE. WE SEE A SHORT TERM, A LONG TERM, AND A HOLISTIC SOLUTION, BUT RIGHT NOW, TODAY'S DISCUSSION IS ONLY ABOUT ONE THING, RIGHT? AND SO I DON'T WANNA LOSE SIGHT OF THAT OVERALL PICTURE. THANKS. I, I UNDERSTAND. BUT I HAVE TO VOTE ON CHOICES THAT REPRESENT, UM, MY FIRM'S INTEREST AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WHOLESALE MARKET IS NOT MY FIRM'S INTEREST. AND WE HAVE HAD TENS OF THOUSANDS OF LITTLE CUTS INTO THE MARKET. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS JUST US TRYING TO SAY, HEY, LET'S JUST FIX THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE. I I DIDN'T SAY IT CAN'T BE DONE. I DIDN'T SAY IT CAN'T BE DONE FOR TWO YEARS. I DIDN'T SAY ANY OF THAT. I JUST SAID, HEY, LET'S MAKE SURE IT'S PRICE NEUTRAL. THAT'S ALL I SAID. YEAH. AND I THINK WE'VE BEEN LISTENING TO FOLKS AND THEIR, AND I THINK BILL COVERED THIS EARLIER, IT'S LIKE, YEAH, WE, WE HAVE RESPONDED, I THINK AS PEOPLE HAVE MADE CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS, WE'VE INCORPORATED [04:30:01] CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS IN OUR IDEAS AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. AND SO YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA DO THAT. BUT I THINK WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WORRIES US MORE THAN ANYTHING IS THE COMMENTS ARE NOT CONSTRUCTIVE TO THE, TO THE EXTENT THAT SOME COMMENTS ARE, ARE NOT DESIGNED TO BE CONSTRUCTIVE, RIGHT? DO WE WANT A PROGRAM THAT WORKS OR NOT? AND THAT'S REALLY THE QUESTION, DO WE WANT IT OR NOT? THANKS IAN. THERE'S A GREAT TAYLOR SWIFT SONG THAT'S DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT, SETH. YEAH, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK TOO LONG HERE, BUT I JUST WANNA SAY, I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IN THIS CONVERSATION, I LISTENED TO JEFF MCDONALD TALK ABOUT SOME OF THESE OTHER OUTER MARKET PAYMENTS. WE'RE IN AN A REALM OF WHERE WE ALL HAVE THIS, SUBSIDIES ARE TRYING TO COMPETE WITH SUBSIDIES. AND THIS IS, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE. AND SO WE HAVE ERS AND NOW RESIS WANT THEIR FORM OF ERS AND WE HAVE THIS FIRM FUEL STUFF. THIS ALL JUST NEEDS TO STOP. WE JUST NEED TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO MAKE THE WHOLESALE MARKET WORK AND FUNCTION WITHOUT ALL THESE OUT OF MARKET PAYMENTS. I'M WITH IAN, IT'S THEFT BY A THOUSAND CUTS. WE'RE GETTING THERE. UH, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IN MY FIRM'S INTEREST EITHER TO SEE US GO FORWARD. AND THEN MY LAST POINT IS I'M STRUGGLING TO SEE HOW THIS IS ANY BETTER THAN CONTRACTS FOR CAPACITY. AND IF YOU HAVE CONTRACTS FOR CAPACITY AS YOUR BACKSTOP, WHY NOT JUST DO THAT WHEN YOUR BACK'S UP AGAINST THE WALL AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A REAL CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW WE GOT THERE AND HOW WE NEED TO CORRECT THAT. THIS WILL LIVE ON FOREVER. CONTRACTS FOR CAPACITY WILL COME AND GO. OKAY. NED, KEITH, I, I, I COULDN'T HELP BUT WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU SAY FEEDBACK, THAT'S NOT CONSTRUCTIVE. I'M, I'M HOPING MAYBE YOU CAN ELABORATE ON WHAT KIND OF FEEDBACK IS NOT CONSTRUCTIVE VERSUS WHAT IS CONSTRUCTIVE. 'CAUSE I, I'VE TRIED TO LAY OUT WHAT WE THINK ARE, YOU KNOW, THE WORKABLE OUTLINES AND, AND I THINK YOU'RE HEARING CONCERNS FROM OTHERS ABOUT WHAT IS ALSO OUTSIDE OF, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE LINES THAT FOLKS ARE WILLING TO SUPPORT. SO WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE MORE CONSTRUCTIVE THAN THE FEEDBACK YOU'RE GETTING? I, I, I THINK WHAT'S NOT AS CONSTRUCTIVE AS SAYING THAT WE HAVEN'T LISTENED TO THE PRICING IMPACTS WHEN WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE WORKED TO TRY TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE, IN THE DESIGN. WE, WE DID. AND MAYBE IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT HOW YOU VISIONED IT, BUT TO SAY THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT IS INACCURATE. AH, OKAY. THE ORIGINAL DESIGN DID NOT HAVE THAT. THERE WAS FEEDBACK. WE TOOK THAT FEEDBACK AND MODIFIED THE PROGRAM BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK. AND TO SUGGEST THAT WE SOMEHOW HAVEN'T CONSIDERED PRICES IS, IS NOT ACCURATE. OKAY. THAT'S A, THAT'S A FAIR THING FOR YOU TO FLAG. AND I'M, I'M, I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING THAT. AND I WANT TO REITERATE, 'CAUSE I SAID I SAID THIS AT THE BOARD, I WANNA SAY IT AGAIN HERE. I REALLY APPRECIATE ERCOT TAKING THAT FEEDBACK AND, AND MAKING, TAKING A SHOT AT TRYING TO ADDRESS IT. UM, THE CONCERN THAT REMAINS IS THAT THE METHODOLOGY PROPOSED IS MORE SCATTERSHOT THAN THE IMPACT TO THE MARKET. AND, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE REALLY STRUGGLED TO, TO FIGURE HOW YOU CAN RESOLVE WITHIN THE BROADER STRUCTURE OF 1296. THERE MAY STILL BE A WAY TO DO IT, BUT IT HAS NOT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED DOESN'T CLOSE THAT GAP AND, OR AT LEAST DOESN'T CLOSE IT ENOUGH. I RECOGNIZE THAT WE'RE NEVER GONNA BE PERFECT ON THOSE THINGS. SO DON'T, AGAIN, TRY NOT TO LET BE THE, THE PERFECT, BE THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD, BUT, UM, WE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING BETTER OR WE NEED TO TRY A DIFFERENT GENERAL STRUCTURE AND HAPPY TO WORK ON A DIFFERENT GENERAL STRUCTURE. UM, BUT WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT WE WERE CLEAR ON WHAT WAS, UH, WHAT, WHAT Y'ALL WERE SENSITIVE ABOUT ON, ON THAT STANDPOINT AND, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE BEING CONSTRUCTIVE IN WHAT WE GIVE. YOU GOT ONE MORE TAYLOR SWIFT LYRIC, WHICH IS WHY YOU GOTTA BE SO MEAN. BUT, UM, NO, YOU'RE, WE'RE ALL BEING PRODUCTIVE IN THE CONSTRUCTIVE HERE, I THINK. UM, WE'LL, WE'LL GET TO JEN. I THINK YOU LIKE JEN, WE PREFER JEN TO JENNIFER, BUT I DO, AND THEN WE'LL REALLY WRAP IT UP. I THINK WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON NEXT STEPS. I THINK WE'LL WANNA GET WITH BLAKE. 'CAUSE I, I DO THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE HAD SOME KIND OF WORKSHOP TO, TO HAVE ALL OUR FEELINGS ABOUT ENERGY ONLY MARKETS AND SCARCITY RATHER THAN MAKE YOU HAVE THAT TWO HOUR CONVERSATION WITH NPR 1296. UM, SO LET'S, LET'S GO TO JEN AND THEN TRY TO WRAP UP NEXT STEPS. I'LL KEEP IT QUICK, QUICK TO PREVENT BAD BLOOD. OH MY GOSH. UM, SEE, YOU DIDN'T KNOW YOUR THEME DAY WAS GONNA TURN INTO TAYLOR SWIFT. LIKE SWIFTIES WILL TAKE ALL, UM, NO, UM, BUT I I, I DO FEEL LIKE WE'RE MISSING A LITTLE PRINCIPLE PIECE HERE THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT ON DEMAND RESPONSE, WHICH IS EVEN IF WE SEND THE PRICE FORMATION TO BUILD A NATURAL [04:35:01] GAS PLANT, NATURAL GAS PLANTS ARE INVESTING MONEY IN A PHYSICAL RESOURCE WHEN WE HAVE A BUNCH OF DEMAND RE RESPONSE RESOURCE THAT COULD COST A FRACTION OF A NATURAL GAS PLANT IF PROPERLY INCENTIVIZED. LIKE, AND IF WE DO THE MAP ON THE VALUE OF A NEW GENERATOR VERSUS EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE, THAT IS THE PIECE THAT I THINK IS MOST IMPORTANT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PRICE FORMATION, RIGHT? WE ARE AVOIDING THE BUILDING OF NEW GENERATION. AND SO I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT THAT RESOURCE EXISTS AND IS NOT BEING TAPPED. AND HOW WE GET TO THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A VERY STRONG CONVERSATION ABOUT PRICE FORMATION. BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S EQUIVALENT TO SAY THAT YOU NEED TO JUST KEEP BUILDING GENERATION BECAUSE WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS HIGHER LOADS. IF WE CAN USE EXISTING LOADS MORE OPTIMALLY, IF WE CAN SHIFT OUR LOAD FACTOR AS A MARKET THAT IS IN PRINCIPLE THE MOST EFFICIENT THING WE WANT TO DO. DO YOU WANNA CALL THE QUESTION? GO, GO AHEAD, BRIAN. I I THINK WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING. IT, IT'S, IT'S THE SAME DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE SAME COIN. THE REASON THAT THE DEMAND RESPONSE THAT YOU'RE WANTING ISN'T HAPPENING IS BECAUSE THERE ISN'T THE MONEY IN THE MARKET, WHICH IS THE SAME REASON THAT NEW THERMAL RESOURCES AREN'T BEING BUILT, IS BECAUSE THE MONEY ISN'T IN THE MARKET. AND SO WHEN YOU'RE UPSETTING THE MARKET WITH ALL OF THESE OUT OF MARKET THINGS, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE RESULT THAT YOU WANT. I DON'T DISAGREE. IT MAY BE CHEAPER TO HAVE A DR PROGRAM VERSUS BUILDING A A NEW GAS PLANT, BUT THE MARKET ISN'T SENDING THE SIGNAL FOR EITHER. AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE. AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO, TO ACHIEVE THAT, BUT GOSH, UM, LIKE PILING SUBSIDY ON TOP OF SUBSIDIES HURTS A LOT OF PEOPLE'S FEELINGS. OKAY. ARE WE GOOD? GOOD ON NEXT STEPS SORT OF. WELL, I DIDN'T MEAN TO START THAT. IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT. OKAY. UM, SO WE'LL CONTINUE SOME SORT OF DISCUSSION WITH 1296. I'LL GET WITH KEITH AND JEFF AND FIND THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A, A WORKSHOP ABOUT FEELINGS, ABOUT PRICE, PRICE SIGNALS AND SCARCITY PRICING. UM, LIKE I'LL HAVE BRIAN HELP ME FIND A BETTER TITLE. 'CAUSE YOU WERE PRETTY ELOQUENT THERE. UM, WHAT, JUST CALL IT FEELING, JUST CALL IT FEELING. I WILL CONSULT BIG FEELINGS. I GOT A 12-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER AT ELM AND WE TALK TAYLOR SWIFT ALL THE TIME. THERE'S GOTTA BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN USE. THERE'S BETTER OUR CONVERSATION. BIG FEELINGS. I THINK WE COULD FIND LIKE A DANIEL TIGER SONG, RIGHT? FEELINGS IS A SONG TOO FOR DANIEL TIGER. LET'S FLUSH AND WASH AND BE ON OUR WAY FOR THIS TOPIC. OKAY, GREAT JOB. OKAY. UM, DID YOU GET WHAT YOU, DID WE GET YOU WHAT YOU NEEDED, KEITH . ALRIGHT, I, I'M DONE. OKAY, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL FOLLOW UP, WE'LL HAVE A WORKSHOP ABOUT FEELINGS. WE'LL MAKE SURE BLAKE, UM, HAS SOMETHING MANAGEABLE FOR, FOR 1296. AND THEN WE WILL, UM, MAKE A PLAN AS WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT ERS AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS STILL COMING DOWN THE PIKE. UM, DO WE WANT A FIVE MINUTE BREAK? YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. MARTHA SAYS, YEAH, EVERYBODY ELSE IS SHAKING THEIR HEAD. MARTHA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK? CAN I TAKE A BREAK? YOU CAN TAKE A BREAK. UM, SUSIE, DO YOU NEED A BREAK? NO. OKAY, LET'S ROLL THROUGH. READY TO GO? BRITTANY, DO YOU NEED A BREAK? I'LL TAKE MY OWN BREAK WHEN I NEED IT. OKAY. YOU AND MARTHA CAN TAKE YOUR OWN BREAK. LET'S ROLL TO, UH, IKA. ALL RIGHT. HELLO EVERYONE. SO WHAT I HAVE HERE IS HOPEFULLY A VERY SHORT UPDATE FOR YOU ALL ON, UH, THE, THE PRELIMINARY LONG-TERM LOAD FORECAST THAT WE RECENTLY PUBLISHED. SO I'M, I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ANY NEW CONTENT IN MY DECK, BUT I'LL AT LEAST LAY OUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR AND WE CAN SEE WHAT, WHAT IT STIRS UP WITH [04:40:01] THIS COMMITTEE. SO WE RECENTLY FILED THE PRELIMINARY, UH, LONG-TERM LOAD FORECAST, UH, WHICH WE BUILT USING CRITERIA, UM, THAT WAS DEVELOPED IN THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION COMPLIANCE PLAN UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE THAT, UH, THE 25 3 70 G. UH, THIS BASICALLY INVOLVED, UH, ISSUING AN RFI, UH, TO SEEK INFORMATION MORE SO RIGOROUSLY ON THE LARGE LOAD. SO WE HAD THAN 75 MEGAWATT, UH, RESOURCES. AND WE DID ALSO SEEK INFORMATION ON MEDIUM, UH, LOAD. SO 25 TO 75. THE RFI WAS DUE APRIL 1ST. UH, WE'VE AGGREGATED THE RESULTS FROM THE RFI AND USED THAT TO PRODUCE THIS PRELIMINARY LONG-TERM LOAD FORECAST. WHAT IS CLEARLY VISIBLE, UH, FROM THE RESPONSES THAT WERE RECEIVED IS WE CONTINUE TO SEE A STRONG LOAD GROWTH, UH, DRIVEN LARGELY BY THE DATA CENTERS. NOW, WE'VE NOTED THIS IN PRETTY MUCH ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS, UH, INCLUDING IN THE FILING AS WELL. IF YOU COULD LOOK AT THE NUMBERS THAT, UH, THAT ARE OUT IN THE AGGREGATION, THE NUMBERS FOR, UM, AS YOU LOOK FURTHER OUT, LOOK QUITE BIG. AND, UH, WE DON'T, UH, THINK THEY ARE THE NUMBERS EVEN. UH, EVEN WHAT'S, UH, WHAT WE'VE COMPUTED FOR 2029, AS AN EXAMPLE, IS SUITABLE FOR USING IN STUDIES THAT WE, UH, DO AROUND MAYBE THE RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT OR EVEN THE TRANSMISSION PLANNING OR RESOURCE ADEQUACY. SO WE DID, UH, SPEAK AT THE OPEN, UH, AT THE OPEN MEETING, UM, ON APRIL 17TH. THE COMMISSIONERS AGREED THAT, UH, WE SHOULD ENGAGE THE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS THAT WAS ALSO CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE NEWLY ENACTED RULE IN 25 3 70. I'VE LISTED OUT ALL THE PARAGRAPHS WHERE THEY WERE. SO RIGHT NOW, WHERE DO WE STAND? WE ARE RIGHT NOW WORKING WITH, UH, COORDINATING WITH COMMISSION STAFF, THE UTILITIES TO REFINE THIS LONG-TERM LOAD FORECAST SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE, UM, UH, BUILDING IT IN A MANNER THAT CAN BE USED WITHIN THE STUDIES THAT WE PRODUCE. NOW THE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES ARE REALLY A, A BORROW FROM, UH, MATERIALS THAT, UH, WE'VE SHARED IN THE PAST. THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY IN, UH, PABLO'S UPDATE TO THE BOAT. SO THIS PARTICULAR GRAPHIC SHOWS YOU THAT AGGREGATED PRELIMINARY LONG-TERM LOAD FORECAST THAT WE BUILT. UH, IT HAS A, A FOR, UH, A BAR CALLED FORECAST, WHICH REPRESENTS REALLY THE, THE CORE COMPONENT OF THE LONG-TERM FORECAST. IT'S A BASE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND CERTAIN OTHER CRITERIA LIKE EV ADOPTION, PV ADOPTION, SO ON. AND THEN THE BLUE BARS, WHICH ARE, UH, THAT, THAT BASE FORECAST PLUS, UH, UH, HOW WE EXPECT, UH, THE LARGE LOADS AND THE MEDIUM LOADS, UM, THAT WERE REPORTED IN THE RFIS TO GROW. AND HERE'S A, A BREAKDOWN OF THE RFI RESPONSE BY TYPE. UM, AGAIN, YOU WILL NOTICE THE, THE, THE LARGEST NUMBERS SEEM TO BE TAGGED WITH THE DATA CENTER. LORD, AS WE NOTED. AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE ON MY DECK. I CAN PAUSE, I'M HAPPY, UH, TO SEE IF I CAN BE OF ANY HELP IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS. OKAY, BILL, THANKS NIKA, APPRECIATE THE BACKGROUND ON THE MEDIUM LOADS. I THINK THAT'S, UM, ONE PREVIOUS BLIND SPOT, SO IT'S GOOD TO KIND OF SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE. AND THEN CAN YOU REMIND US ON THE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS, THE WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE PROCESS THAT OR ACTUALLY FOLLOWS TO ADJUST THE FORECAST AND WHEN WE WILL SEE THE FINAL FORECAST, WHICH I WILL, YOU HAVE THE MM-HMM . UM, RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT. YEAH. BUT I ASSUME IT'LL ALSO, THE ADJUSTED FORECAST WILL ALSO BE USED IN THE 2026 RTP. SO WE ARE EXACTLY AT THE PLACE WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT TIMELINE WILL LOOK LIKE, WHAT THE ADJUSTMENT WILL LOOK LIKE. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN TELL YOU A LOT MORE IN TERMS OF DATE CERTAIN, BUT WE ARE HOPING TO GO BACK TO THE COMMISSION REAL SOON WITHIN A PROPOSED APPROACH FOR THE ADJUSTMENT. I BELIEVE IN THAT PROPOSED, IF THE PROPOSED ADJUSTMENT IS GOOD, I, THERE ARE SOME STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS BEFORE WHICH IT CAN BE ADOPTED. SO THERE IS A PERIOD, A PROCESS, UH, TIED TO IT IN OUR ASSESSMENT. THE MOST, THE IMMEDIATE THING THAT IS TIED TO THIS DATA IS A CDR REVIEW. SO AT LEAST THERE IS SOME, UH, SO WE KNOW AT LEAST, UH, WE WANT, UH, TO HAVE SOME SORT OF IDEA OF WHAT THE LONG-TERM FORECAST LOOKS LIKE, BUT TOO EARLY FOR ME TO GIVE YOU A DATE CERTAIN YOU ONLY HAD ONE QUESTION. OKAY, BETH? MY, MY QUESTION IS SIMILAR ON THE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS ITSELF AND, AND IT'S MY, UH, MY FAILURE OF UNDERSTANDING OF, OF HAVING THE DETAILS OF THE RULE, UH, MEMORIZED, BUT DID ERCOT NEED COMMISSION APPROVAL OR DIRECTION TO IMPLEMENT THIS ADJUSTMENT PROCESS? YES. UH, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WAS ADOPTED, I BELIEVE, LAST YEAR. AND THAT'S EMBEDDED IN [04:45:01] THE ROLE THAT SAYS, WE'LL BRING OUR STUFF AND THEN THE COMMISSION HAS TO TELL YOU TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. YES. YES. WE HAVE TO REACH OUT TO THE COMMISSION TO REQUEST, UM, GUIDANCE. MM-HMM . BE, I CAN TELL YOU THIS, IT'S IN 25 3 7 0 E, SORRY, D SECTION TWO. THERE IS A PROCESS FOR IT AND THERE IS A PROCESS FOR STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AS WELL. AND MOST LIKELY WHEN WE FILED A MEMO TOMORROW IN 5 8, 7, 7, 7, YOU WILL ALL HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF ALL THESE TIMELINES. YEAH, I I, I APPRECIATE THAT IN MY, YOU KNOW, THE SMART, THE, I I, I ASKED IT AS A SERIOUS QUESTION, BUT THE, YOU, YOU KNOW, THE SNARKINESS BEHIND IT IS, YOU KNOW, WHY WOULD ERCOT PRESENT SOMETHING THAT IS CLEARLY INFE? IT WAS PRESENTED AS INFEASIBLE AND ILLOGICAL. UM, AND THE ANSWER IS THEY HAD TO DO THAT SO THAT THEY COULD BE TOLD TO ADJUST IT IS, IS WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M TAKING AWAY, SO, OH, OKAY. SHANE, THANK YOU. UH, SHANE, THOMAS, MICHELLE, UM, YEAH, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT MAKING THESE ADJUSTMENTS OR Y'ALL ARE LOOKING AT MAKING THESE ADJUSTMENTS AND WORKING WITH, UH, THE TSPS, UM, WE KINDA HAVE TWO DIFFERENT USE CASES SET UP FOR WHAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS HERE AND, UM, FOR THE RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT ONE'S NOT LOCATIONALLY SPECIFIC. SO LIKE THAT ONE'S LOOKING AT GROSS, YOU KNOW, SYSTEM-WIDE DEMAND USES IN THERE. AND SO I FEEL LIKE THERE MAY BE, UH, WAYS TO WORK ON THAT THAT MAKES SENSE, THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPENS FOR SAY, THE TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESS BECAUSE THAT IS, YOU KNOW, LOCATION OF THE SPECIFIC LOADS AND HOW THEY'RE ALL ADJUSTED, UH, MATTERS THERE. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S THOUGHT HOW, IF RIGHT NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT KIND OF APPROACHING THOSE DIFFERENTLY, WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT JUST HAVING ONE SPECIFIC FORECAST, UM, JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO GET SOMETHING IN FRONT OF SOMETHING FOR THE USE AND THE RELIABILITY, UH, ASSESSMENT ARENA WHERE KIND OF THE PREVIOUS METHODOLOGY WAS THIS HAIRCUT THAT WENT ACROSS THE BOARD, WHICH GOT A LOT OF PUSHBACK BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS AFFECTING ALL LOADS EQUALLY WHEN, YOU KNOW, ALL LOADS HAD DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. AND, UH, I THINK THAT'S WHAT COSTS A LOT OF TURMOIL IN THAT PROCESS. YEAH, JUST WANTED TO, YEAH, NO, IT IS CONCERNS LIKE THOSE THAT ARE EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE THINKING THROUGH RIGHT NOW AS TO WHAT IS IT THAT SHOULD BE PROPOSED. UM, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL DYNAMICS AT PLAY, SO YOU POINTED THOSE OUT. WELL, I MEAN, THOSE ARE IN THE BACK OF OUR MINDS AS WELL AS WE ARE THINKING THROUGH WITH I, AND COMING UP WITH IDEAS FOR WHAT WE MAY, UH, SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION. BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE INSIGHTS BEYOND THAT, SHANE, SO THANK YOU. LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT. YES, NED, WHERE, YOU KNOW, THIS ONE'S GOING QUICK. OKAY. YES, MA'AM. UH, , UH, NUKA, I, I'M CURIOUS, DOES ERCOT HAVE VISIBILITY INTO OF THE, THE LOADS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE APRIL 1ST RFI, UM, WHAT, HOW MUCH OF IT FELL INTO THE THREE BUCKETS FOR THE FINANCIAL SECURITY OPTIONS? WE DID NOT, WE DO NOT HAVE VISIBILITY INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL IN THE RFI. OKAY. I THINK IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WILL BE, UM, REVIEWED AS PART OF THE, THE, THE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS , OR WILL THAT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION TO A, TO A LARGE EXTENT, THE, UH, THE, THE CRITERIA WAS IN THE COMPLIANCE PLAN PER SE. SO THAT'S, THE CRITERIA WAS ALREADY SET AHEAD OF TIME. SO I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT I CAN GO REALLY UNCOVER THE CRITERIA AND SLICE AND DICE IT PER SE. BUT, UH, WE CAN CERTAINLY, UM, UH, CONSIDER WHAT CAN BE DONE, UM, OR IF THERE IS INFERENCES THAT WE CAN DRAW IN THE BUCKETS OR NOT. OKAY. I'M, I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR ANY PARTICULAR OUTCOME, I'M JUST, I'M CURIOUS IF THERE'S ANY YEAH. INSIGHTFUL INFORMATION THAT MAY COME FROM THAT. UNDERSTOOD. THANKS. OKAY, GREAT JOB, NED. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SHANE, ARE YOU STILL UP IN THE QUEUE AGAIN? NO, I'M JUST BAD AT LOWERING THIS. OKAY. THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. ANY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? TIKA? SUPER QUICK QUESTION. DO WE KNOW WHEN THE MAY CDR WILL COME OUT FOR SUMMER? I, I WAS TOLD IT IS DUE END OF MAY, BUT IT'LL LARGELY DEPEND ON WHAT THIS PROCESS IS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. HEY CAITLIN, THIS IS CHRISTIE HOBBS AT ERCOT. [04:50:01] I CAN HELP WITH THAT QUESTION. GREAT, THANKS CHRISTIE. SO I EXPECT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT AT THE MAY 7TH OPEN MEETING AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT NEXT STEPS WOULD BE. OKAY. WE'LL STAY TUNED. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU, NETIKA. THANK YOU, CHRISTIE. WE, WE ARE ONTO THE, UM, FFSS DEPLOYMENT REPORT. I JUST SKIPPED THE ANG UH, GOOD AFTERNOON. UM, GO AHEAD, CHU, UH, WITH ERIC ON THE MARKET ANALYSIS, UM, GOING TO SPEND NEXT A FEW MINUTES TO, UM, PRESENT 25 TO 26 FROM FIELD SERVICE, UH, SUPPLY SERVICE DEPLOYMENT REPORT. SO THIS REPORT IS REQUIRED BY PROTOCOL LANGUAGE. UM, IF THE FFS IS DEPLOYED, ERCOT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A REPORT TO TECH, UH, WITHIN 45 DAYS, UH, OF THE END OF THE OBLIGATION PERIOD. AND THIS PRESENTATION WILL MAINLY FOCUS ON, ON THIS REQUIREMENT. UH, THERE IS ALSO ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT, UH, REGARDING THE FEW REPLACEMENT COST RECOVERY AND HOURLY STANDBY FEE, UH, STANDBY FEE PAYMENT, WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED AT A FUTURE, UH, FUTURE MEETING. UH, SO HERE WE HAVE THE COLD WEATHER EVENT TIMELINE, UH, FOR THE FFC DEPLOYMENT, UH, DURING THE 25 20 SIXTH OBLIGATION PERIOD, THERE WERE, UH, TWO, UH, WINTER WATCHES ISSUED. UH, THE FIRST ONE FROM JANUARY 24TH TO, TO 27TH, UH, RE RESULTED IN FFS DEPLOYMENT. UH, AND THEN THE SECOND ONE, UM, OCCURRED FROM JANUARY 30TH TO FEBRUARY 1ST. IT DID NOT. SO LEADING UP TO THE FIRST WINTER, UH, LEADING UP TO THE FIRST WINTER WATCH, UH, EVENT, UH, WAS INFORMED, UM, OF GAS SUPPLY RESTRICTIONS, UH, IMPACTING, UH, SEVERAL GENERATING RESOURCES. UH, AND GIVEN THE SYSTEM CONDITION, UH, WE JUST COULDN'T LET IT GO. UM, SO WHICH LED TO THE DECISION TO, UH, DEPLOY FFS. SO THE WATCH ITSELF, UH, STARTED AT 9:00 AM ON 23RD. UH, THEN, UM, AT THE 10:00 AM ON THE NEXT DAY, 24TH, UH, FS DEPLOYMENT INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED. UH, THAT DEPLOYMENT LASTED THROUGH THE NEXT FEW DAYS AND ENDED UP, UH, AT NOON ON 27TH, UH, WHEN THE WINTER WATCH WAS, UH, CANCELED. UH, SO HERE WE HAVE SOME KEY METRICS, UH, FROM THE F FS DEPLOYMENT, UH, A TOTAL OF FIVE RESOURCES RECEIVED IN FFF DEPLOYMENT INSTRUCTIONS. UH, THEY WERE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE A MAXIMUM OF SIX 15 MEGAWATTS OF AGGREGATED CAPACITY, UM, BASED ON AWARDS. THIS IS BASED ON AWARDS FROM THE FFS PROCUREMENT PROCESS, AND THEY TELL ME TO THE MAXIMUM, UH, AGGREGATED HSO OF 827 MEGAWATT AND THE MAXIMUM, UH, BASE POINT, UH, AGGREGATE LEVEL OR 681 MEGAWATT, UH, THE CHART BELOW GIVES THE MORE GRANULAR INTER LEVEL VIEW, UH, OF THOSE VALUES. AND, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT HSN BASE POINTS, UH, GENERALLY FOLLOW THE TREND, UH, OF THE OBLIGATION CAPACITY, UH, BUT DEPEND ON THE SYSTEM CONDITION, UH, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL RESOURCES. AND THERE CAN BE SOME GAPS, UH, AS CERTAIN INTERVALS. SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE DETAIL OF DEPLOYMENT, UH, OF, FOR EACH RESOURCES. UM, AND THOSE WERE ISSUED THROUGH MULTIPLE, UH, VDIS, UM, SPENDING THIS SEVERAL PRINTING DAYS. SO THIS SLIDE COVERS FFS, UH, RESOURCE PERFORMANCE FOR FFS, UM, PASSED ALL PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, AND THERE WAS ONE FFS RESOURCE TRIP THE OFFLINE, UH, WHILE SWITCHING TO THE FOOT, UH, FUEL, FUEL O DURING ITS INITIAL DEPLOYMENT. AND, AND AS A RESULT, THEY FAILED SOME REQUIREMENTS. AND ADDITIONALLY, O-F-F-S-R, UH, ARE REQUIRED TO SHOW AVAILABILITY DURING THE, DURING THE WINTER WATCH TIMEFRAME, REGARDLESS OF IF IT RECEIVED A DEPLOYMENT OR NOT. UH, AND THEN ON THAT FRONT, THE SEVEN UNITS, UM, HAD AVAILABILITY ISSUES DURING THE FIRST WINTER WATCH, AND THEN, UH, ONE UNIT DURING SECOND WATCH. YEAH. BETH? YEAH, I, I CAN TAKE A PAUSE HERE. YEAH. OKAY. GO AHEAD, BETH. UM, I, I WAS GONNA LET YOU DO YOUR LAST SLIDE, BUT I, IT, MY QUESTION IS ON THIS SLIDE AND THIS TOPIC IN TERMS OF THE UNAVAILABILITY MM-HMM . UM, I GUESS IT'S TWO QUESTIONS. IF YOU'LL, IF YOU'LL ALL INDUL INDULGE ME. THE ONE WHERE YOU MAKE THE STATEMENT AS A REL RESULT, THIS ONE UNIT, UH, FAILED SOME REQUIREMENTS, IS THERE [04:55:01] AN ISSUE OF HAVING TO BE REQUALIFIED OR DO THEY LOSE THE ABILITY TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FFS GOING FORWARD? OR IS THAT, IS THAT AN ISSUE WITH THIS SERVICE AT ALL? UM, SO I CAN THINK ABOUT LIKE TWO IMPLICATIONS FIRSTLY, ON THE, ON THE SETTLEMENT, AND THERE MAY BE IMPLICATION THEY FAIL, SOME REQUIREMENT THERE MAY BE CALL BACK OR WITHDRAW OF THE WITHHOLD OF THE PAYMENT. AND REGARDING THE CERTIFICATION, I BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE IS LIKE, UH, IT HAS TO BE TWO OR MORE FAILED DEPLOYMENTS. OKAY. SO SINGLE EVENT MAY NOT. OKAY. AND SO THEN SIMILARLY ON THE SEVEN UNITS INDICATING UNAVAILABILITY AT SOME POINT, DO YOU HAVE ANY KIND, CAN YOU SHARE WITH US ANY KIND OF SENSE OF, OF HOW BIG A DEAL THAT WAS OUT OF, YOU KNOW, SEVEN, SEVEN UNITS FOR X HOURS, 72 HOURS, WHATEVER IT WAS, YOU KNOW, DID THEY, WERE THEY UNAVAILABLE FOR 15 MINUTES OR WERE THEY UNAVAILABLE FOR HUNDREDS OF HOURS? UH, CAN YOU ADD SOME MORE COLOR TO THAT STATEMENT? UM, SO JUST TO MY BEST KNOWLEDGE, I, SO WE HAVE, I BELIEVE WE HAVE 32 RESOURCES THAT THE QUALIFY HAVE THE CARRY THE FFS OBLIGATION. SO THIS IS, UH, KIND OF SEVEN, SEVEN RESOURCES OUT THE 32, UH, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT I BELIEVE THAT RANGES FROM LIKE ONE HOUR UP TO MAYBE 11 TO 12 HOURS. OKAY. UM, THAT, THAT'S ROUGH RANGE. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. CAN I, UH, ADD SOME TO THAT? YEAH. HEY, BETH. YEAH. SO YES, WE ARE EVALUATING AND COMMUNICATING WITH THE, UH, QCS THAT, UH, WERE IMPACTED AND WE'RE DEFINITELY GONNA CLAW BACK MONEY, SO WE'LL HAVE MORE TO SAY AT THE RIGHT TIME. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THAT, THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UM, REGARDING THE NEXT STEP, UH, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE WILL BE A SUBSEQUENT REPORT ON THE FUEL REPLACEMENTS, COST RECOVERY, AND FEE PAYMENT. UM, AND THEN THIS IS, UH, THE FINAL SLIDE. UH, I JUST LIST A FEW CURRENT MPR RELATED TO FFS, UH, FOR REFERENCE. UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I HAVE. HAPPY TO TAKE MORE QUESTIONS. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU WO VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE, UM, WE'RE GONNA SKIP ACTION ITEMS UNTIL JULY. I BELIEVE THERE'S NO JUNE T, SO WE'RE GONNA START THEM UP IN JULY. OPEN ACTION ITEMS IN JULY ATTACK. ANY OTHER, OTHER BUSINESS? SO, SO KAITLYN, WE, WE CAN ACTUALLY CLOSE OUT AN ACTION ITEM. YOU WANNA MARTHA? YEAH. UM, MARTHA, DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS ? WELL, I APOLOGIZE. WE WERE GONNA SKIP ACTION ITEMS TODAY, BUT ENO TOLD ME HE CAME HERE JUST FOR AN UPDATE ON ONE OF THE ACTION ITEMS. SO WHILE WE HAVE THEM, AND THEN ALSO ACTUALLY I CONSULTED WITH BLAKE, SO THERE MAY ACTUALLY BE TWO THAT WE CAN STRIKE, BUT THIS WILL SHOULD ONLY TAKE FIVE MINUTES, I PROMISE. SORRY. YEAH, THAT'S FINE. UM, SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE FIRST ONE, UH, WHICH I KNOW IT'S SET UP ON THE SCREEN, BUT IT BASICALLY SAYS ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENERATION COST S SCALE AND HR PROTOCOL SECTION 5.5 0.2. THIS CAME FROM JULY OF 2022, SO ALMOST FOUR YEARS AGO. I DEFINITELY DID NOT WANNA MISS THIS BECAUSE YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS YOUNG, , YOU GUYS, SOME OF YOU MAY NOT REMEMBER THAT SONG, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH OLD PEOPLE IN THE ROOM TO REMEMBER. APPRECIATE IT. UH, YES. SO WE HAD, UH, THOSE TWO, UH, ACTION ITEMS THAT KEITH ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO IT. NOW THE FIRST ONE IS THE, UM, THE SCALING FACTOR. SO BASICALLY NPR UM, A 64 INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF SCALING FACTOR, WHICH WAS, UH, SET UP AT 20%. AND BASICALLY THAT'S TO SCALE DOWN THE STARTUP COSTS AND MINIMUM ENERGY COSTS BY 20% FOR RESOURCES WITH, UH, A COLD START OR ONE HOUR OR LESS. AND THAT'S TO MAKE IT MORE ECONOMICAL THAN OTHER RESOURCES. UH, DAVE MATTHEW, HE USED TO WORK FOR ERCOT, SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER, HE PRESENTED AT THE, UH, JULY, UH, 27TH, THE, UH, PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE SCALING FACTOR TO A HUNDRED PERCENT. NOW, AT THAT MEETING, TAC APPROVE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE SCALING FACTOR OF A HUNDRED PERCENT, AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVED THE CHANGE ON AUGUST 16TH, 2022. SO THE PROTOCOLS DO HAVE A SCALING FACTOR OF A HUNDRED PERCENT RIGHT NOW. SO MAYBE YOU WANNA TAKE THAT ONE OUT OF, UH, YOUR LIST OF OPEN ITEMS. IAN, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS? I THINK HIS QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE COMBO. I HAD A, SORRY, I, I THOUGHT WE'D SKIPPED THE COMBO AND WE CLOSE OUT THE MEETING. I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED. WE [05:00:02] KIND OF FUNNY, WE'RE GONNA DO ACTION ITEMS, OTHER BUSINESS, I GUESS IF ANYBODY HAS IT COMBO. AND THEN GO BACK TO THE PRIORITY ITEMS, WHICH ARE THE NON-VOTING PRIORITY ITEMS FOR TODAY. SO CONTRACTS FOR CAPACITY AND BATCH. SO YOU CAN LEAVE AFTER COMBO BALLOT, BUT YOU'RE HELD HOSTAGE FOR THE NEXT 10 MINUTES. NOPE, JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE DID COMBO AND THEN AS ANOTHER THING JUST CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD. UH, THE NEXT TAC MEETING IS TWO DAYER, SO UPDATE YOUR CALENDARS. UH, THE NEXT TAC MEETING IS A SPECIAL ONE ON MAY 13TH, AND THEN THE TWO DAYER. IT'S GONNA BE GREAT. I'M HOPING THE TWO DAYER WILL BE A ONE AND A HALF DAY. WE INITIALLY WERE GONNA START THE FIRST DAY A LITTLE BIT LATE, BUT WE'RE GONNA JUST START IT AT REGULAR TIME AT NINE 30 AND THEN HOPE THAT THE SECOND DAY IS, UH, NINE 30 TO 1230 OR SOMETHING, WHATEVER TIME YOU WANT. BASED ON ENO'S RESEARCH AND REPORT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE CONCERNS IF WE MARK ITEM NUMBER ONE COMPLETE TODAY? UH, OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS NUMBER FIVE. I CONSULTED WITH BLAKE AGAIN A FEW WEEKS AGO AND HE INDICATED THAT THIS WAS COMPLETED AND THEY HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO GROUPS UNDER WMS. SO I, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE NEED TO LEAVE THIS ONE ON HERE UNLESS YOU FEEL DIFFERENTLY, BLAKE. NO, I AGREE WITH YOU. MARTHA COULD, UH, MARK IT AS COMPLETE. SO WE WILL ELIMINATE NUMBERS ONE IN FIVE, AND THEN WE WILL NOT TALK ABOUT ACTION ITEMS AGAIN UNTIL JULY, MOST LIKELY JULY. SO ONE MORE. OH, WHAT ABOUT ACTION NUMBERS NUMBER TWO? OKAY, SORRY. OKAY, TWO , TELL US ABOUT TWO. SO WE ARE ELIMINATING ONE IN FIVE. YES. AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO. SO ER, RCA SUBMITTED NPR 1167, WHICH BASICALLY INTRODUCED, UH, CHANGES TO THE FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE, WHICH CAME UP HERE A COUPLE TIMES TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. ONE OF THOSE CHANGES ADDRESS THE, THESE CERTIFICATION OF FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICES. THERE'S THREE REASONS FOR DECERTIFY. A, A FIRM FIELD, UH, RESOURCE SERVICE RESOURCE. ONE IS BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO COME ONLINE OR STAY ON STAY ONLINE. NUMBER TWO IS BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO BASICALLY, UH, FOLLOW BASE POINTS. SO METRICS AND NUMBER THREE IS BECAUSE THEY, UM, FAILED TO MAINTAIN A ROLLING EQUIVALENT, UM, AVAILABILITY OF 50% OR MORE. AT THAT TIME, THE UH, PRS INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT OF FAILING TO PROVIDE, TO STAY ONLINE OR, OR PROVIDE THE SERVICE, UH, DUE TO A TWO FIELD, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH TWO FIELD DEPLOYMENT, UH, UH, UH, TWO FIELD ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH FUEL ISSUES. EXCUSE ME. SO FOR TWO OR MORE DEPLOYMENTS, ER A DISAGREE WITH THAT CHANGE AND, BUT IT REMAINS, UH, IN THE PROTOCOLS RIGHT NOW THAT IF IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH FUEL, THEN FOR TWO, UH, CONSECUTIVE DEPLOYMENTS, THAT BASICALLY WE CAN DECERTIFY THEM. IT JUST HAPPENS THAT RECENTLY WE DECERTIFY A RESOURCE, BUT NOT BECAUSE OF THE FAIL TO COME ONLINE. IT'S BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO MAINTAIN AN AVAILABILITY OF 50% OR GREATER. AND WITHIN A FEW DAYS THAT ISSUE WAS CURED AND WE RECERTIFY THEM AGAIN. HOWEVER, UH, WE DECIDED THAT WE'RE GONNA TAKE A LOOK AT THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF CERTIFICATION AND DECERTIFICATION AND WE MAY COME BACK WITH AN NPR SOMETIME THIS YEAR, MAYBE NEXT YEAR, AND HOPEFULLY TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO, UH, MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. SO YOU MAY WANT TO KEEP THAT ONE OPEN FOR NOW. YEAH, KEEP IT OPEN. WE CAN KEEP IT OPEN. OR I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU'RE SAYING YOU HAVE SOME TOOLS TODAY TO DECERTIFY FFSS PARTICIPANTS, BUT YOU ALSO PLAN TO BRING AN NPRR AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE THAT WILL ALSO ADDRESS IT. SO WE DON'T, I MEAN IT'S WHATEVER THE WILL OF THE GROUP IS. WE DON'T TYPICALLY KEEP ACTION ITEMS RELATED TO FUTURE NPR THAT ARE EXPECTED. SO I COULD GO EITHER WAY. UH, BOB'S SAYING TO CLOSE IT. IS THERE ANY OBJECTION, JEN IS SAYING TO CLOSE IT. IS THERE ANY CONCERN IF WE CLOSE NUMBER TWO AND HAVE ON THE RECORD THAT WE'LL BE SEEING A NEW NPRR SOMETIME ON THIS ISSUE IN THE MINUTES? PUT IT IN THE MINUTES. YEAH, WE'LL READ IT. GREAT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE ARE ELIMINATING ONE, TWO, AND FIVE. CORRECT. AWESOME. ANY, ANYTHING ELSE? NO. OKAY. I'M GLAD WE DIDN'T HAVE TO WAIT TILL JULY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. WOW. WOW. OKAY. SO WE'RE, WE WILL GET BACK TO IT IN JULY THOUGH. WE HAVE THREE, [05:05:01] THREE DAYS OF MEETINGS, TWO AND A HALF DAYS OF MEETINGS IN MAY, ZERO IN JUNE, AS OF RIGHT NOW, DEPENDING ON WHAT WE'RE TOLD WE NEED BY SEPTEMBER BOARD. UM, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK FOR REGULAR BUSINESS IN JULY. OKAY. WE DID LEAVE OTHER BUSINESS HERE. IS THERE ANYTHING ANYBODY WANTS TO MENTION THAT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT IS NOT THE CONTRACTS FOR CAPACITY OR BATCH ZERO? NOPE. OKAY. LET'S DO THE COMBO BALLOT [14. Combo Ballot (Vote)] AND THEN WE WILL GO TO KEITH ON 1315 AND MATT ON BATCH ZERO. HERE ARE THE COMBO BALLOT ITEMS. WE HAVE A MOTION, BLAKE, SECOND BILL. ALL RIGHT. ON YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMBO BALLOT, WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH MIKE? YES. THANK YOU GARRETT. UH, I HAVE PROXY FOR HIM STARTING AT ONE, SO, YES. UH, SORRY. DID I HAVE PROXY FOR HIM STARTING AT 1:00 PM TODAY? WE, WE GOOD? OKAY. JUST CHECKING. CHECK IN WITH MY BOSS TO MAKE SURE AS SU AS SUZY'S HAPPY. I'M HAPPY. OKAY. OKAY, COOL. AND THEN MARK TRIFUS. YEAH. AND THEN MARK FOR NICK? YES. THANK YOU, BETH. YES. THANK YOU. WILL. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR CO-OPS, BLAKE? YES. THANK YOU, KYLE. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JOE, DAN FOR MIKE? YES. THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU, JOHN. YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. NED? YES. THANK YOU, CORY. THANK YOU, BRIAN. YES, THANK YOU. YOU BOB? YES, SIR. THANKS SIR. CAITLIN? YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IPMS. JEREMY? OH, YES, THANK YOU. OH, THANK YOU SIR. SETH? YES. THANK YOU. IAN. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, UH, SHANE FOR RASHMI? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THANKS SIR. ONTO OUR I REPS. BILL, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU. YES, . THANK YOU BILL. AND COREY, AT THIS TIME WE HAVE, UM, JAY HAS GIVEN US PROXY TO BILL. OKAY. AND BILL, PLAY THAT BACK. YES, THANK YOU. I'M NOT GONNA SING IT AGAIN. IT ONLY HAPPENS ONCE. CHRIS? YES. THANK YOU, JIM. YES. THANK YOU. ONTO THE IOUS. MARTHA? YES. THANK YOU. EBY. YES. THANK YOU. AARON. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU ROB FOR KEITH? YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR MUNIS. DAVID? YES, THANK YOU, ALICIA. YES, THANK YOU. JOSE. YES. JOSE, YOU STILL WITH US? YES. OKAY, GOTCHA. THANK YOU. AND CURTIS, THANK YOU. YES, THANK YOU. A MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK Y'ALL. OKAY. [7. TAC Priority Items] ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO, UM, OR BACK UP TOT PRIORITY ITEMS, UH, CONTRACT CONTRACTS FOR CAPACITY. YEP. RIGHT. SO 1315, WE DISCUSSED THIS AT THE SPECIAL PRS MEETING, AND I THOUGHT THERE WAS A LOT OF GOOD, UH, COLLABORATIVE DISCUSSION. THERE WAS UNFORTUNATELY NO, NO VOTE TAKEN. AND, UH, ULTIMATELY, UH, IF WE'RE GOING TO HIT A JUNE TIME, UH, FRAME FOR THE BOARD, THEN, UH, THE MEETING ON, UH, THE, THE PRS MEETING ON THE SIXTH IS THE LAST DAY. UH, I WILL NOTE THAT ONE, WE DID HAVE A RECOGNITION AND THAT AN, AN URGENT, UM, A VOTE FOR, UH, AN URGENT MOTION MAY OCCUR. UM, IF, IF THAT'S THE CASE. UH, BUT, UH, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH, UH, SOME STAKEHOLDERS ON SOME OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS. I BELIEVE THERE'S A CALL COMING UP IN A FEW MINUTES TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. SO I, I THINK THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF, OF A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS. I THINK, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS AND MONTHS TO, TO MAKE THAT WORK. AND HOPEFULLY, WE'LL, WE'LL CROSS THE, THE FINISH LINE, BUT STAY TUNED FOR NEXT WEEK'S PRS. IT WILL BE A THRILLER, SO THANK YOU. OKAY. BRIAN SAMS, WE HEAR YOU. WE'LL BE THERE. WE'LL BE READY. IS THAT A SONG? NO, THAT'S NOT A SONG. WE JUST . WE, WE, I, I, I HEAR YOUR CONCERN. I HEARD TOM [05:10:01] BURKE SAY THAT HE'S GONNA MAKE THE URGENCY THING, AND I APPRECIATE THE CALL SOON TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT. IT'S NOT A SONG, IT'LL BE GOOD, BUT IT DID REMIND ME OF THE WHOLE BIT ON SUCCESSION WHERE THEY'RE COMING UP WITH A TAGLINE AND THEY'RE LIKE, WE HERE FOR YOU . IT'S A GOOD, IT'S A GOOD TOM AND GREG MOMENT. OKAY, ANY OTHER REAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ? OKAY, I'M GONNA HAND IT OVER TO MARTHA FOR THE REST OF THE MEETING, WHICH IS ONE ITEM THAT WE CAN TAKE AS LONG OR AS LITTLE OR AS MUCH TYPE AS MATT WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ON IT. UM, WHICH IS THE, THE BATCH BATCH STUDY PROCESS. I VOTE FOR THE SHORT VERSION, BUT WE'LL LET IT RIDE. UM, SO I WANTED TO COVER THE TIMELINE. WHAT I DO WANT TO SPEND A COUPLE MINUTES ON IS THIS EMERGING YEAR SIX ALTERNATIVE. WE GOT TO THE END OF ROS AT THE LAST MEETING WITH THE NEW SOLUTION, AND EVERYONE WAS TUCKERED OUT AND MOST PEOPLE HAD LEFT. SO I JUST WANNA TOUCH ON THAT ONE TODAY. OTHERWISE, WE DO HAVE A MEETING COMING UP ON MONDAY TO WALK THROUGH THIS. SO IT FEELS LIKE WE'VE ALL BEEN IN A YELLOW SUBMARINE IN THESE WORKSHOPS TO GET TO WHERE WE'RE GOING AND WE GOT A LITTLE WAYS TO GO. UM, WHAT WE DID ADD, AND I JUST SHOT A NOTE OUT TO TACK, P-R-S-L-L-W-G AND ROSS IS ANOTHER WORKSHOP. WORKSHOP NUMBER EIGHT, UH, IS NEXT MONDAY. IT'S A WEBEX ONLY. IT'S TO GET TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO RELEASE. AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE IS T'S CULMINATION OF COMMENTS THAT WE PLAN TO RELEASE ON THURSDAY, UH, AS WELL AS THEN TO TAKE THOSE COMMENTS AND STACK THE BYOG ON TOP OF IT AND PUT THAT ONE INTO THE FIELD OF PLAY. UH, WE KNOW THIS ONE'S LAST TO THE TABLE RIGHT NOW ON BYOG, UH, BUT WE'RE KEEPING THE FAITH THAT IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA MAKE IT THROUGH THE PROCESS HERE. UM, I HAVE A SUBSET OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS. I'M GONNA, I KNOW I HAVEN'T HIT EVERYTHING. THERE'S SOME, UH, NET METERING CONCERNS. THERE WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT LOADS THAT WERE AT 74 MEGAWATTS AND NOW THEY'RE CROSSING OVER INTO LARGE LOAD TERRITORY? WHAT DO WE DO WITH THOSE? AND THERE'S THIS CONCERN AROUND WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE FOR QUALIFYING OR ELIGIBILITY TO THE BATCH STUDY, THIS IDEA OF, OF, UM, OF AGREEMENT OR A CONTRACT FOR ENERGY FOR YOUR SITE. UH, THERE'S ALSO A LOT OF THOUGHTS ON THE RPG IF YOU'RE IN AN RPG FROM BEFORE. SHOULD WE BE REVISITING WHETHER OR NOT, THEY'RE NOW ELIGIBLE TO FIT INTO THIS. SO STILL GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THAT. AND THEN ALSO THE FINANCIAL SECURITY, UH, REQUIREMENTS. UH, WE STRIPPED OUT A LOT OF THE REFUNDABILITY UH, LANGUAGE, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE HOPING THAT THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, COMMISSION, UH, IS WORKING WITH THE TEAM ALSO TO SEE HOW THESE THINGS START TO FIT BACK TOGETHER AGAIN. SO THERE'S SOME LOOSE SENSES TO TIGHTEN UP, BUT WE DO THINK THAT WE'RE GETTING TO THAT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD CALL IT A 95% FIT, UH, TO CONTINUE FORWARD ON. SO THE WAY WE'VE LAID THIS OUT, IF YOU'RE GONNA SEE A LOT OF, UM, COMMENTS FLOATING AROUND, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO ANCHOR INTO WHAT'S GOING ON, THE IDEA IS WE HAD PICKER 1 45 AND 1325 WHERE TO MEET WITH THE COMMISSION. UM, GUIDANCE WAS, WAS GIVE US BATCH ZERO AND GET IT TO THE BOARD BY JUNE 1ST. AND IF YOU CAN GET CLR AND BYOG, SO CLR, WE BAKE THAT IN, THAT'S FLEXIBLE LOAD. WHAT OF THESE DATA CENTERS TRADITIONALLY HAVE NOT WANTED TO BE FLEXIBLE LOAD THAT WHEN THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ENERGY AROUND, THEY'RE WILLING TO BE FLEXIBLE. SO HOW DO WE ACCOMMODATE THAT? SO THAT'S THE PCLR COMMENTS THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE. WE RELEASED THAT DESIGN INTO COMMENTS ON PICKER 1 45 AND NPR 1325. AND SO THAT IS, NOW IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, THAT'S BOTH. AND THEN WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO RELEASE ON FRIDAY WOULD BE THE FIRST VERSION THAT THEN HAS THE BATCH ZERO PLUS PCLR PLUS BRING YOUR OWN GENERATION. SO THAT MAY 1ST VERSION OF ERCOT COMMENTS, WE'LL HAVE ALL THREE AS WE GO INTO NEXT WEEK. PRS AND R OS CAN BE LOOKING AT THOSE TWO DIFFERENT FLAVORS AND CONSIDER WHICH ONE TO MOVE FORWARD ON. UM, AND SO JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT, WE KNOW IT'S LATE THAT THERE ARE TWO VERSIONS AS YOU GO INTO THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS NEXT WEEK. UH, IF I'VE, I HAVE ONE SIDE TO REPRESENT 12 SIDES IN THE, UH, INTEREST OF SAVING TIME. THIS PROVISIONAL CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCE DESIGN IS THE IDEA FOR A DATA CENTER ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT THAT IS SEEKING A LOAD RAMP THAT IS BIGGER THAN ERCOT CAN GIVE. SO IF THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TO A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS IN YEAR FIVE AND THEY'RE GOING A HUNDRED FIFTY, THREE HUNDRED, FIVE HUNDRED, THAT BASED ON THE CURRENT TOPOLOGY ERHA CAN ONLY HOLD A HUNDRED, IS WHETHER OR NOT, BECAUSE THE BATCH STUDY IS DONE ON VERY CONSTRAINED SCENARIOS, ARE THERE OTHER HOURS OF THE DAY OR DAYS OF THE YEAR WHERE THERE'S NO CONGESTION AND THEY COULD CONSUME ENERGY. SO THE IDEA IS TO TAKE THAT MOVE BEYOND THE FIRM LOAD THAT ERCOT GAVE YOU AND ALLOW IT TO BE FLEXIBLE LOAD AND SC IT CAN GO FROM UP TO THE TOP AND THEN BACK DOWN TO THAT BASE LOAD AND THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN ANCHOR IN SOME ENERGY AND GET EXTRA IF IT'S THERE, [05:15:01] IT'S NOT A CLR BECAUSE UNLIKE A BITCOIN MINE, THEY CAN GO THE FULL RANGE OF MOTION ANYTIME THEY WANT WITH THEIR ECONOMICS. THIS ONE IS TIED TO A STEP TWO SCED DESIGN THAT WILL LOOK AT THE CONGESTION IN THE AREA AND CAP SAY A $500 BID FOR ENERGY DOWN TO $54 AND 11 CENTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE SHADOW PRICE SHIFT FACTOR LOOKS LIKE. IT FORCES THE LOAD DOWN TO THAT $54. AT THAT POINT, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE AWARDED AND SO THEY SINK BACK DOWN TO THAT BASE LOAD. SO WE'RE NOT OVERLOADING THE LINES. SO THAT'S THE CLR DESIGN, BYOG. I HAVE THREE SLIDES ON THIS ONE JUST TO GET IT INTO THE FIELD OF PLAY. WE HAVE INTERNAL SIGN OFF ON THURSDAY. IF THAT GOES WELL, WE'RE FILING IT ON FRIDAY. IT'S THE IDEA OF WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE TO BRING YOUR OWN GENERATION AND SELF-SERVE FROM THAT AREA. WILL ERCOT GIVE YOU THE GREEN LIGHT TO CONSUME MORE THAN WE STUDIED? AND SO THE IDEA IS WE WILL TAKE A GENERATION SITE, UH, USUALLY WE'RE USING A THOUSAND MEGAWATT LOAD AS THE EXAMPLE. AND IF YOU HAVE THREE UM, GENERATORS THERE THAT ARE 400 EACH, YOU KNOW IT GOES UP TO 1200. SO YOU HAVE ENOUGH GEN TO COVER THE LOAD. THE IDEA IS WE WOULD STILL STUDY THAT SITE TO SEE HOW MUCH LOAD WE CAN GIVE IT WITHOUT THE GENERATION FOR THE STUDY. BUT THEN WHEN IT COMES TO LOOKING AT TRANSMISSION, LOOK AT THAT SITE TO SEE DO YOU REALLY NEED TRANSMISSION TO THAT AREA ONCE ALL EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED. AND SO IN THE MEANTIME, THE IDEA IS TO PUT A BOX AROUND IT, CALL IT A PRIVATE USE NETWORK. THAT PRIVATE USE NETWORK WILL HAVE A WITHDRAWAL LIMIT OF SAY, A HUNDRED MEGAWATTS FOR THAT THOUSAND MEGAWATTS SITE AND THAT IT'S UP TO THE FACILITY TO AGREE TO AND MANAGE TO NEVER CONSUME MORE THAN A HUNDRED MEGAWATTS. AND THAT'S A SET IT FOR A GET IT VALUE FOR THE YEAR. THIS IS NOT MOVING IN AND OUT OF THAT. THE RANGE OF MOTION IS LIMITED TO THAT POINT. UM, THE GOOD NEWS IS ON THE SCED SIDE, THE ENERGY SIDE, THEY CAN INJECT AND PUT GENERATION ONTO THE SYSTEM IF THEY WANT. SO IT'S JUST A LIMITATION ON THE LOAD SIDE, NOT ON THE UH, GENERATION SIDE. UH, ALSO THIS IS THE IDEA THAT THAT GENERATION MIX CAN BE THERMAL RENEWABLES, BATTERIES, WHATEVER JUGGLING ACT YOU WANT TO DO BEHIND THE SCENES, THAT'S UP TO THE DATA CENTER AND THEIR LOCAL GENERATION TO NAVIGATE AND HOW TO, UH, STAY WITHIN THAT. AGAIN, HERE'S A BETTER PICTURE TO SHOW THE IMPORT. THE IDEA IS NO MORE LOAD THAN THE BATCH STUDY HAS PROVIDED. EXPORT IS WHATEVER EXCESS POWER THERE IS, YOU CAN EXPORT OUT ONTO THE GRID. UH, AND THEN THAT DOTTED LINE AROUND IT IS THE CONTRACT OR NOT CONTRACT THE AGREEMENT, WHATEVER YOU'RE DOING, WE'RE CALLING IT A FORM WHERE, AND IT'S WHAT IT'LL LOOK LIKE IS IN THE BATCH STUDY, WE'LL HAVE A LOAD THAT IS IN THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION QUEUE AND THERE'LL BE A GENERATION THAT'S IN THE INTERCONNECTION QUEUE AND THERE IS THEN A FORM THAT THE TWO SIGN OFF ON TO SAY WE AGREE TO OPERATE TO THESE NEW RULES OF THE ROAD. AND BECAUSE OF THOSE RULES OF THE ROAD, ERCOT DOESN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MANAGING THAT AREA. IT'S UP TO THAT LOCAL COORDINATION, UH, TO STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT THE GRID CAN SUPPORT. AND SO THIS IS THE IDEA. THE LARGE LOAD GOES IN. AGAIN, WE'LL STUDY WHAT DOES THE LOAD NEED FOR THAT AREA AND GRANT THEM ENERGY, UH, THROUGH THE STUDY. AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO GENERATION, WE'LL STILL DO WHAT WE ALWAYS DO IS STUDY THE GENERATION FOR AN INTERCONNECTION AND THEN ALSO GENERATION PLUS THE LOAD JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE STABILITY OF THE AREA. AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO A TRANSMISSION PLAN, IT'S LOOKING AT BOTH THE GIN AND THE LOAD THAT'S GONNA BE THERE IN THE LONG TERM TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU NEED TO HANG MORE WIRES OUT TO THE SITE. SO THAT'S THE IDEA OF GETTING UM, BYOG UP AND OUT THE DOOR. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO DESIGNS. NOW THIS IS A TOPIC THAT WE'VE ALL STRUGGLED WITH. UM, IT'S THE IDEA OF HOW MANY WIRES CAN BE PUT ONTO THE GRID IN SIX YEARS TO SATISFY EVERYTHING. SO 2032 IS OUT THERE. YES, THERE'S A 7 65 BACKBONE GOING IN. WHAT DO YOU DO IF IT'S ANOTHER X THOUSAND MEGAWATTS OF STUFF COMING? AND SO THE ORIGINAL PIGGER AND NOW PIGGER SEEMS SO LONG AGO, 45 DAYS AGO IT CAME OUT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS THE IDEA WAS ERCOT WILL STUDY THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND ASSUME YEAR SIX WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF. THAT THAT'S ENOUGH TIME WE CAN BUILD ANYBODY CAN FILL, BUILD A LINE IN SIX YEARS. WELL, THE REALITY IS, AND THROUGH DISCUSSION WITH THE WIRES COMPANIES AND EVERYONE IS STARTING TO QUESTION WHAT'S THE REALITY OR THE RISK OF THOSE WIRES BEING BUILT. SO OPTION TWO THAT WE STARTED TO EXPLORE WAS, WELL, LET'S NOT GIVE PEOPLE FALSE HOPE. LET'S STUDY WHAT WE KNOW WE CAN IN THOSE FIRST YEARS AND YEAR SIX WE'LL JUST BE A ROLLOVER OF THAT SAME CAPABILITY. AND THEN THE NEXT BATCH PROCESS, WE'LL START TO SEE THAT IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE HORIZON'S GETTING CLOSER. SO WHEN YOU STUDY IT, THEN YOU GET THE TRANSMISSION THAT'S NEEDED. WELL, THE TRADE OFF WE CAME TO AT ROS LAST WEEK, UH, WAS THE IDEA, THEY CALL IT A BOOKEND APPROACH. SO IT WOULD BE THE IDEA OF ERCOT DOES THIS NORMAL FULL STUDY FOR ALTERNATE YEARS. SO YOU GET A FIRST, UM, [05:20:01] YOU KNOW, FIRST YEAR STUDY AND THEN THE LAST YEAR STUDY, UH, THE IDEA WOULD BE THEY GET THAT LAST YEAR STUDY OFF AND OUT THE DOOR OVER TO THE TSPS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE IN THIS BATCH PROCESS. AGAIN, IF YOU SAY, WHY ARE WE NOT TRYING TO STUDY ALL YEARS? BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO DO BATCH QUICKLY, WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS IN MONTHS, NOT YEARS. AND SO THE TRADE OFF WAS THE IDEA OF STUDY 2028, GET A 300 MEGAWATT RAMP 2029. YOU WOULDN'T RUN AND STUDY FOR NEW TRANSMISSION IN THE AREA, BUT YOU WOULD REALLOCATE TO GET THAT WHATEVER'S BEEN CONNECTED. THIS ONE'S VERY PRONOUNCED AND THIS IS WHERE OUR ROS WAS KEEN ON WHEN THOSE 7 65 STARTS SHOWING UP IN 2031, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT WANNA RUN THE INCREMENTAL TRANSMISSION PLANS, RUN THE ALLOCATION SO YOU GET MORE MEGAWATTS ONTO THE GRID THAT ARE NOW AVAILABLE BECAUSE THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND ARE PLANNED FOR 2031 AS THEY ENERGIZE, GIVE THE MEGAWATTS AWAY, YOU KNOW, MAKE THEM AVAILABLE, UH, TO WHERE IT IS. SO THE BIG TRADE OFF OF THIS, AND AGAIN WE WILL CHEW ON THIS MORE ON MONDAY, IS THIS IS GONNA ADD 10 WEEKS TO THE STEADY STATE ANALYSIS. SO WHAT I DID IS JUST TO HELP THE STAKEHOLDERS CONSIDER THE TRADE OFF THE ORIGINAL BATCH ZERO TIMELINE. AND THAT'S GOING BACK TO THE IDEA OF DON'T STUDY YEAR SIX, UM, IS TO HAVE PUBLISHED THE FIRST BATCH ZERO RESULTS AT THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY BY GOING WITH THIS WAY, WE'RE GONNA HAVE 10 MORE WEEKS, SO IT'LL END UP BEING IN APRIL. SO THAT'S THE TRADE OFF IN TIMING. BUT THE BENEFIT OF WHAT YOU'RE GETTING IS MORE CERTAINTY ON THOSE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES, UH, BEING MORE FEASIBLE OUT IN YEAR SIX, UH, TO SHOW KIND OF A LINE OF SIGHT TO WHERE YOU'RE BUILDING TO. SO THAT'S THE BIG ONE THAT WE'RE GOING. AND ERCOT IS GONNA GO AHEAD AND WRITE THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT AND THAT IS WHAT WILL BE IN THE COMMENTS, WHICH IS NOW TOMORROW, ON THURSDAY, UH, TO REPRESENT THAT OPTION. SO AGAIN, IF IF PEOPLE WANNA BACK IT OUT, WE CAN BACK IT OUT, BUT WE WANTED TO TAKE A SHOT AT YEAR SIX AND THEN YEAH, I'LL JUST LAND IT RIGHT HERE AGAIN. SO WHAT WE HAVE IS THE WORKSHOP IS ON MONDAY. THE PRS VOTE IS ON WEDNESDAY. WE'LL BE SEEKING URGENCY AND THEN A POSSIBLE VOTE. AGAIN, YOU CAN TAKE WHICHEVER VERSION OF COMMENTS ARE OUT THERE. UH, THERE'S 57 COMMENTS TO CHOOSE FROM RIGHT NOW, , WE HOPE IT'S OURS, UH, AS YOU CONSIDER AT LEAST IN THE SHORT LIST. UH, AND THEN THAT WILL OBVIOUSLY LEAD TO THE SPECIAL TACKLE A WEEK LATER AFTER ROS SO THAT I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU MATT. UH, FIRST IN THE QUEUE IS BILL. ALRIGHT, I GOT A GOOD ONE. IN APRIL OF 1983, A BAND CALLED THE FIX RELEASED A SONG CALLED SAVED BY ZERO. YEP. . THE CHORUS LITERALLY SAYS, WILL I WIN SAVED BY ZERO? I'M PROPOSING THAT THAT BE THE WALKUP SONG FOR ROSS NEXT THURSDAY. THAT IS AWESOME. I WILL HAVE IT ON MY PHONE. OKAY. I HAVE THAT ALBUM. YES. AWESOME. MY QUESTION IS THIS, UH, ONE OF THE REMAINING POINTS OF CONTENTION, UM, IS AROUND THE RPG DEADLINES AND WHAT PROJECTS GET INCLUDED OR NOT, JUST TRYING TO GET IN FRONT OF THE DEBATE NEXT WEEK. UH, BOTH LC RA AND ENCORE FILED COMMENTS. I I'M WONDERING IF ERCOT HAS ANY PRELIMINARY OPINIONS ON EITHER OF THOSE PROPOSALS AND WHETHER THAT'S, UH, SOMETHING THAT WE THINK WE CAN RESOLVE FAIRLY QUICKLY DURING THE DISCUSSIONS AT EITHER PRS OR ROSS. VERY GOOD. AND JEFF IS COMING UP TO THE TABLE HERE, OR TO A MICROPHONE I SHOULD SAY. YOU KNOW, UH, SO I, I THINK THAT THOSE PROPOSALS ARE PROBLEMATIC 'CAUSE I, I THINK IT INTRODUCES SOME CHAOS INTO THE, THE, THE WAY THAT IT, THAT THE, UM, THAT WE'VE DRAFTED THE PIGGER IS THAT THERE'S A, AN ORDER TO AS PROJECTS AS STUDIES ARE GETTING DONE, THEN WE'RE VALIDATING THOSE STUDIES. I THINK THAT, I MEAN, ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK OUT TO JUNE BOARD, YOU COULD HAVE, UM, THOSE RPG STUDIES, INVALIDATE STUDIES FOR LOADS, WHAT WE'VE ALREADY TOLD THEM THAT THEIR STUDIES ARE VALIDATED. THANKS FOR THAT AND ALSO APPRECIATE THE, THE NEW IDEA ON THE YEAR SIX SOLUTION. THAT, THAT SEEMS TO MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. THANK YOU. I'M LEAVING, BUT I DROPPED THE BALL AND BLAKE TEED US UP. I DISCOVERED THAT NED IS A MUSIC TOGETHER FAMILY AND WE WERE GONNA SING. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY DO. HELLO EVERYBODY. SO GLAD TO SEE YOU AND LOTS OF GOOD, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE YOUNG KIDS YOU COULD GO TO MUSIC TOGETHER, BUT AT THE END IT'S GOODBYE SO LONG FOR WELL MY FRIENDS ACTUALLY, DON'T WORRY, YOU'LL STILL GET THE OPPORTUNITY. ASK, ASK NED TO SING, UH, DON ALFREDO BYLAW AND THEN WE'LL GO ED . UM, MATT, THANKS FOR WALKING THROUGH THIS AND THANKS FOR WALKING THROUGH THAT NEW, [05:25:01] UH, THE NEW CONCEPT ON, YOU KNOW, ADDRESSING THE, THE BOOKENDS. UM, I THINK THERE'S SOME, SOME VALUE TO THE BOOKENDS CONCEPT, THE A FLAG FOR YOU. THE ONE CONCERN WE HAVE IS THE EDITED TIMING AND UM, I THINK THAT THAT SHARPENS SOME OF THE POINTS CONCERNS WE'VE FLAGGED BEFORE ABOUT HOW THE BATCH TIMING WOULD SIT WITH RELATIVE TO, YOU KNOW, NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS WITH EXISTING GENERATORS AND THE, THE STATUTORY TIMELINE. SO NOT GONNA HAVE THE DISCUSSION HERE, BUT WANTED TO FLAG IT SINCE IT'S NEW. THANKS. VERY GOOD. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MATT TODAY? THE NEXT TIME HE COMES HERE TO TAC, UH, WILL BE, I THINK PROBABLY, HOPEFULLY THE FIRST TIME OFFICIALLY TAC WILL BE CONSIDERING BIGGER 1 45. SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF TIME IN THE WHITE SPACE, BUT, UH, REALISTICALLY WE'LL BE BACK HERE IN TWO WEEKS, HOPEFULLY WITH PIGGER 1 45 ON THE TAC AGENDA ALONG WITH THE COMPANION NPRR. UM, WHAT'S NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THAT IS TO HAVE A PRS VOTE NEXT WEEK ON THE NPRR AS WELL AS A ROSS VOTE ON SOME VERSION OF THE PLANNING GUIDE REVISION. SO THAT WOULD BRING IT HERE IN TWO WEEKS. AND THEN WE HAVE THE FINAL TAC MEETING OF MAY, WHICH IS A TWO DAY MEETING, WHICH IS EXACTLY THREE WEEKS FROM TODAY. SO LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF TIME, IT'S REALLY NOT A LOT OF TIME AT ALL. UM, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, A PRETTY ROBUST COMMENT RECORD ESTABLISHED, BUT WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO GO. SO WE WILL, UM, BE PREPARED TO BUCKLE IN FOR THOSE REMAINING THREE DAYS OF TACK. THAT'LL START IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. MATT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? HAKA? SORRY I MISSED YOU. YEAH, JUST TO, THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IF T'S COMMENTS ON PICKER 1 4 5 READY REFLECT COMMISSION'S DECISIONS AND BARKSDALE JUST FILED STAFF COMMENTS ON PICKER 1 4 5 GETTING CLARIFICATION. SO, OKAY. THANK YOU FOR POINTING US TO THAT. ALL RIGHT, I THINK WE ARE READY TO LET YOU GO, MATT. THANK YOU. AND WE'RE NOW AT THE END OF THE MEETING FINALLY. UM, I'M A FORMER NSYNC FAN, SO IN ORDER TO ADJOIN THE MEETING, I AIN'T GONNA LIE, I WANT YOU OUT THAT DOOR. BYE BYE BYE. AND WE'LL CALL IT THERE. US BOX. HAVE SOMETHING RIGHT WAY TO END. IT IS CUCKOO CUCKOO. SO LONG FAREWELL ATA SAYING, SAYING GOODBYE, GOODBYE, GOODBYE, GOODBYE. NOW EVERYBODY'S SUPPOSED TO SAY GOODBYE BACK. REMEMBER THE AUDIENCE DID THAT. OKAY, LET'S NOT, WE'RE ADJOURNED AND WE'LL SEE YOU IN WEEKS. I LOVE THAT. * 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.