* 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. [00:00:02] ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS SUZIE CLIFTON WITH ERCOT. WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH TODAY'S SPECIAL TAC MEETING. IF I COULD ASK THOSE IN THE ROOM TO PLEASE FIND YOUR SEATS, DON'T DO THAT, AND WHY THEY'RE DOING THAT QUICKLY FOR US. I WILL GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH THE MEETING REMINDERS IF YOU ARE HERE IN THE MEETING ROOM. UM, WE ARE USING THE CHAT TO QUEUE FOR MOTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS. SO YOU HAVE TWO OPTIONS. YOU CAN HOLD UP YOUR CARD AND ELIZABETH IS HERE IN THE RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE ROOM. SHE WILL ENTER YOU INTO THE CHAT, OR YOU MAY ENTER YOURSELF INTO THE CHAT. SIMILARLY, THOSE ON THE WEBEX YOU WILL NEED TO ENTER YOURSELF. PLEASE WAIT FOR THE CHAIR TO RECOGNIZE YOU BEFORE YOU BEGIN SPEAKING. AND IF YOU ARE ON THE WEBEX WHEN WE COME TO A VOTE, IF YOU ARE A SEATED REPRESENTATIVE, WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AS WE APPROACH YOUR SEGMENT. AND THEN AFTER YOU HAVE CAST YOUR VOTE, RETURN TO THE MUTE FUNCTION. AND THAT WILL HELP US BE EFFICIENT WHEN WE COME TO THAT PROCESS. AND THEN IF YOU ARE HERE TODAY, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU SIGN IN OUTSIDE THE MEETING ROOM, THERE IS A SIGN IN SHEET, AND THAT WAY WE CAN CAPTURE YOU CORRECTLY. AND THEN IF THE WEBEX ENDS FOR ANY OTHER, UH, FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE GIVE US JUST A FEW MOMENTS AND THE WEBEX WILL BE RESTARTED AND YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE SAME MEETING INFORMATION. OR WE WILL SEND SOMETHING TO THE PR, I MEAN TO THE TAC LIST SERVE. ALSO, UH, IF YOU ARE COMMENTING TODAY AND YOU ARE ON THE WEBEX WHEN YOU BEGIN SPEAKING, PLEASE REMEMBER TO STATE YOUR NAME, YOUR FULL NAME, AND YOUR COMPANY NAME. AND WITH [1. Antitrust Admonition] THAT, CAITLYN, WE HAVE A CORPSMAN READY TO BEGIN WHEN YOU ARE. OKAY. THANKS SUSIE. UM, GOOD MORNING. IT'S MAY 13TH. THIS IS A SPECIAL MAY TAC MEETING. UM, THE ANTITRUST IS ON THE SCREEN. TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS WITH ANTITRUST LIABILITY, PARTICIPANTS IN ACTIVITIES SHOULD REFRAIN FROM PROPOSING ANY ACTION OR MEASURE THAT WOULD EXCEED TS AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. AND THERE'S MORE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE. UM, SO FOR THE AGENDA TODAY, WE ARE GOING TO COVER THE, THE PRS REPORT FROM MAY PRS, WHICH WAS HELD LAST WEEK. UM, WE'LL HOPEFULLY FINISH THAT IN ABOUT AN HOUR OR AN HOUR AND A HALF. AND THEN WE WILL TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE BATCH ZERO PIGGER. UM, HOPEFULLY GET ABOUT AN HOUR OF WORK DONE ON THE BATCH ZERO PIGGER BEFORE LUNCH. IDEALLY, TIME FOR ERCOT TO GO THROUGH THEIR LATEST COMMENTS AND, AND HAVE QUESTIONS ON THAT. AND THEN AFTER LUNCH, UH, WE DID PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFY SEVERAL TOPICS FROM ROSS WHERE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT TOPIC. UM, AND SO MAYBE SPEND ABOUT 20 MINUTES ON EACH OF THOSE TOPICS. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SPEAK ABOUT THEIR COMMENTS, THEY CAN DO SO AFTER THAT. UM, AND THEN SORT OF SEE, TAKE TEMPERATURES FROM THERE ON WHAT MAY STILL NEED TO BE LEFT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, OR IF WE'RE READY TO TAKE A VOTE. SOUND GOOD? OKAY. ALT REPS AND PROXIES TODAY IN THE COOPERATIVE SEGMENT. UM, MIKE WISE, FROM GOLDEN SPREAD HAS ALT REP JOE DAN WILSON. HI JOE. DAN, UH, IN THE I REP SEGMENT, JAY HARPEL HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO BILL BARNES AT 3:00 PM AND THEN IN THE MUNICIPAL SEGMENT, DAVID KEY HAS ALT REP DIANA COLEMAN. WE ARE NOW ONTO THE THEME OF THE MONTH, AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CONSUMERS, BUT I HEARD THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A CAUCUS. THERE'S NO CAUCUS. UM, THANK YOU. FABULOUS CHAIR . UM, FOR THE THEME OF THE DAY, WE'RE GOING BACK TO BASICS. OKAY? NO SONG LYRICS, NO POETRY, NO MAD LIBS, BUT TOPICAL. THE THEME OF THE DAY IS CLOSURE. OH, OKAY. THE IRONIC THING IS THERE'S TWO MAY MEETINGS, SO WE'RE GONNA DO THE TOPIC OF CLOSURE TWICE, , BUT I DO LIKE THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE THEME OF THE DAY THAT PROHIBITS THAT . ALRIGHT, ALL THAT SAID, LET'S GET STARTED. UM, SO WE ARE KIND OF HAVE AN ABBREVIATED AGENDA. WE'LL DO THE MINUTES AT THE NEXT RUBICON MINUTES AT THE NEXT REGULAR TECH MEETING. UM, NO BOARD OR PUC OPEN MEETING UPDATES FOR THIS MEETING STAFF. DID SOMETIMES SARIKA ADD SOMETHING HERE? WOULD YOU GUYS LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TODAY. THANK. OKAY, PERFECT. UM, [2. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions] SO WE ARE ON TO OUR REVIEW OF REVISION REQUEST SUMMARIES OR CAP MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS. AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO ANN. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE NINE REVISION REQUESTS, FORT CONSIDERATION THIS MONTH. UM, THERE ARE FIVE THAT ARE IN THAT GENERAL SYSTEM PROCESS IMPROVEMENT. CATEGORY [00:05:01] TWO WITH STRATEGIC PLAN, OBJECTIVE ONE AND TWO WITH STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVE TWO, UM, FOR IMPACTS OF NOTE. SO 1264 DOES HAVE A ONE 50 TO 200 K IMPACT, 13 0 7, 200 TO 300 K IMPACT. AND THEN PGR 1 45, THAT REVISED AGENDA, I THINK CAME OUT YESTERDAY. THERE IS A 300 TO 400 K IMPACT AND THEN A 3.6 TO 4.5 MILLION ANNUAL RECURRING ONM IMPACT. ERCOT DOES SUPPORT APPROVAL OF ALL OF THE REVISION REQUESTS AND HAVE PROVIDED POSITIVE MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS. NO CREDIT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NPR. AND THEN THE IMM, UM, HAS NO OPINION ON THE REVISION REQUEST EXCEPT FOR 1315, WHICH THEY OPPOSE. AND THEN THEY DO SUPPORT NPR 1330. OKAY. AND WE WILL, UM, WE'LL HAVE THE IMM SPEAK FURTHER ON THE OPPOSITION TO 1315 WHEN WE GET THERE ON THE AGENDA. UM, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OTHERWISE FOR THE REVISION REQUEST SUMMARY? BETH? YES, I, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE, OR JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT ON 1264. 'CAUSE AT SOME, AT ONE POINT THAT CHANGE WAS GONNA BE TO GO OFF AND DO A DIFFERENT PROGRAM THAT THE USERS WOULD PAY FOR. I THINK THAT'S CHANGED. AND SO THIS IMPACT IS JUST A REGULAR SYSTEM IMPACT THAT WE'RE ALL GONNA PAY FOR. IS THAT, DO I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? YEAH, I BELIEVE SO. I THINK, UM, IT'S PART OF US PROVIDING DATA TO THE THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR, AND THAT'S WHERE THE IMPACT COMES FROM. I THINK THAT, HAVE TROY SPEAK ON THAT ONE ANYWAYS WHEN WE GET THERE IN THE AGENDA, BECAUSE THERE'S ADJOINING REVISION REQUEST. SO MAYBE HE CAN, HE CAN GET TO THAT QUESTION TOO WHEN WE GET THERE. PERFECT. OKAY. UM, [3. PRS Report (Vote) ] PRS REPORT. DIANA, YOU READY? UM, LET'S TAKE THESE ONE SLIDE AT A TIME AND TRY TO GET THINGS ON BALLOTS AFTER EACH SLIDE. SO LET'S START WITH THE UNOPPOSED AND, AND NO IMPACT, AND THEN TAKE A PAUSE. OKAY. GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. DIANA COLEMAN WITH CPS ENERGY WITH THE MAY PRS REPORT. ALL OF THE ITEMS ON THIS FIRST SLIDE WE'RE UNOPPOSED WITH NO COST IMPACT. THE FIRST ONE IS 1316 COMES TO US FROM ERCOT. THIS WAS APPROVED ON APRIL 15TH, UNANIMOUSLY AS AMENDED BY THE APRIL 2ND WMS COMMENTS. AND THEN ON MAY 6TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TOT WITH THE DECEMBER 19TH IA FOR 1325. ON MAY 6TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT URGENT STATUS AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS AMENDED BY THE MAY 2ND ERCOT COMMENTS AND FORWARD ATTACK THE MARCH 4TH IA. AND THEN WE HAVE 1327 ALSO COMING TO US FROM ERCOT. PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. AND ON MAY 6TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE APRIL 15TH, 2026 PRS REPORT IN THE MARCH 31ST IA. AND THEN FINALLY, WE HAVE 1330 ON MAY 6TH. WE VOTED TO GRANT URGENT STATUS. THERE WAS ONE ABSTENTION. UH, WE VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED AND FORWARD TO T AND THE APRIL 21ST, 2026 IA. OKAY, THANKS, DIANA. SO MY PLAN HAD BEEN TO HOLD OFF ON TAKING ACTION ON NPR 1325 UNTIL THE END WITH PIGGER 1 45, BUT, UM, BUT I BELIEVE BILL WOULD LIKE THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT, BUT I'LL LET BILL GO AHEAD. YEAH. UM, NPR 1325, WHICH IS THE PROTOCOL REVISION FOR BADGE ZERO WAS NOT CONTROVERSIAL. UM, THAT WAS ON THE COMBO BALLOT AT PRS. I WOULD RECOMMEND THE SAME HERE SO THAT WE CAN ALSO GET THIS ONE VOTED THROUGH AND OUTTA THE WAY. I DID HAVE COREY, IF YOU COULD BRING THAT UP. ERCOT FILED SOME MAINLY CLEANUP EDITS, AND I NOTED A COUPLE WHAT APPEAR TO BE TYPOS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO CORRECT AND PUT THE DESK EDITED VERSION ON THE COMBO BALLOT. UH, IT'S PAGE 24. [00:10:02] UH, THERE YOU GO. SO EIGHT, UH, PARAGRAPH 18 UP AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, UH, CONSUMPTION WAS STRUCK AND, UH, THE LANGUAGE EDITED TO SAY LESS THAN THE SUM OF THE EXPECTED CONSUMPTION OF THE LARGE LOADS. SI DON'T THINK WE NEED THE S ANYMORE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE ERCOT HAS ANY CONCERNS WITH THAT. JEFF, IF YOU WANNA GO AHEAD YEAH. TO, SO WE CAUGHT THIS THERE, THERE'S ACTUALLY A FEW OTHERS THAT WE FOUND THAT, YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN IN HERE GOING DOWN, CORY, THE OTHER ONE THAT I CAUGHT, JEFF, AND THEN, UM, KEEP GOING DOWN. IT'S THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THIS SECTION RIGHT THERE. THAT NEW SECTION THERE, UM, SHALL BE BOUND BY OB ALL OBLIGATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PCLR THAT I THINK SHOULD BE W PUN. THOSE ARE THE TWO I CALL IT JEFF, IF THERE ARE OTHERS. I, YEAH, I I THINK WE HAVE HAD A FEW MORE. UM, MY, AS, AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE TODAY, I THINK MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD JUST FILE ANOTHER SET OF COMMENTS WITH ALL THE CLEANUP ISSUES THAT WE FOUND. OKAY. UM, AND, AND, AND THE OTHER, MY OTHER THOUGHT ON THIS, AND THIS GOES FOR 1 45 AS WELL, IS THAT YOU RECOGNIZE THAT OUR COMMENTS JUST CAME OUT 30 SOMETHING HOURS AGO ON THESE, AND, AND SO WE WOULD LIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE SOAP TIME FOR STAKEHOLDERS BEFORE WE DO A VOTE. SO OUR, OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO NOT HAVE A VOTE TODAY ON EITHER 1325 OR PICKER 1 45. OKAY. AND, AND WHAT, AND WE HAVE FOUND A NUMBER OF NONS SUBSTANTIVE EDITS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GO AND, AND, UH, CLEAN UP BEFORE THE FINAL TACK VOTE. ALRIGHT, SOUNDS GOOD. THANKS. OKAY. BOB, DID YOU HAVE, OKAY, SO WE COULD, I WOULD STILL SUGGEST MAYBE WE WAIT ON TAKING ACTION ON THIS UNTIL WE TAKE UP FIGURE 1 45. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ACTION COULD, COULD BE TO TABLE, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT ON THAT UNTIL LATER ON THE AGENDA. IS THAT OKAY? OKAY. THANK YOU, BILL. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO WE'D BE LOOKING ON THIS FIRST SLIDE, UM, FROM THE PRS REPORT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1316 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FIVE SIX PRS REPORT. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1327 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FIVE SIX PRS REPORT AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF NPR 1330 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FIVE SIX PRS REPORT WITH RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 16TH, 2026. AND WE PUT THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, DIANA, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AND THEN AGAIN, JUST ONE SLIDE AND THEN PAUSE. OKAY. SO QUESTION FOUR TAC, I KNOW THAT 1264 HAS SEVERAL ACCOMMODATING REVISION REQUESTS ON THAT ONE. ARE WE READY FOR 1264 TODAY? ARE WE GONNA WAIT FOR THE OTHER ONES? WAS THAT THE GOAL TO GET 1264? I THINK LET, LET'S GO AHEAD WITH 1264. OKAY, SO 1264. SO ON MAY 6TH, PRS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE APRIL 15TH PRS REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE APRIL 30TH ERCOT COMMENTS. AND THE APRIL 28TH IA, YOU SEE THE RECOMMENDED PRIORITY AND RANK THERE ON THE SCREEN AND THE COSTS AS WELL. WE ALSO HAVE 1307 ON APRIL, OR EXCUSE ME, ON MAY 6TH. ERCOT STAFF PROVIDED AN OVERVIEW OF THEIR IA, THEIR MAY 5TH IA, AND WE, LET ME SEE, YOU SEE OUR PRIORITY AND RANK THERE ON THE SCREEN BETWEEN 200 AND 300,000 WITH A PRIORITY OF 2027 AND A RANK OF 49 20. OKAY. THANKS, DIANA. SO LET'S TAKE UP 1307. FIRST, WE'D BE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1307 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FIVE SIX PRS REPORT. UM, BUT WE ALSO HAD NOUR 2 81, WHICH HAS BEEN TABLED ATTACK WAITING FOR THAT NPRR. SO WE'D BE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS WELL OF NOUR 2 81 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE FEBRUARY 5TH ROSS REPORT. IS THAT CORRECT, COREY? OKAY. ANYBODY HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH 1307 AND NO GER 2 81 GOING ON THE COMBO BALLOT? ARE YOU, ARE YOU GUYS GOOD, NED? GO AHEAD. JUST A QUICK VOICEOVER, NO OPPOSITION TO GO TO EITHER OF THEM GOING ON THE COMBO BALLOT. UM, I DID [00:15:01] WANT TO THANK ERCOT STAFF FOR THEIR ENGAGEMENT ON THIS ONE AND HELPING TO ADDRESS THE, YOU KNOW, THE PRICE FORMATION IMPACT. UM, THERE ARE STILL SOME SCENARIOS THAT WE WANT TO KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR. SO IF IT'S, SAY, A TRANSMISSION, UH, SERVICE PROVIDER DIRECTED, UM, UH, LOAD JET EVENT, IF THOSE GROW IN FREQUENCY, THEN WE CERTAINLY WANNA LOOK AT HOW WE CAN, UH, ADDRESS THOSE IN THE, THOSE IMPACTS AND PRICE FORMATION. UM, OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S A VERY INFREQUENT, UH, EXCEEDINGLY INFREQUENT USE CASE RIGHT NOW. BUT, UM, I WANTED TO VOICE THAT OVER JUST AS TO HAVE A PIN IN IT, IN CASE IT DOES INCREASE IN FREQUENCY AND WE CAN COME BACK. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME, SOME STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ISSUES FOR ERCOT IMPLEMENTING THAT AS WELL. BUT AS MORE AND MORE OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS GET, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY ON OUR PLATE, THE NEED FOR THAT WILL, WILL POSSIBLY GROW. WE HOPE NOT, BUT IF IT DOES, THEN WE, WE AS STAKEHOLDERS WANT TO BE READY TO, TO PUSH FORWARD WITH SOLUTIONS. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, NO ISSUES WITH COMBO BALLOT. OKAY. MIKE, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS ONE? SORRY, I MAY BE JUMPING THE GUN ON THIS, BUT, UH, I, I'M, I'M GONNA NEED A SEPARATE BALLOT FOR 1330 NO ISSUES WITH, WITH THESE ITEMS. OKAY. WE ADDED THAT TO THE COMBO, BUT I THINK WE CAN UNAD IT TO THE COMBO. RIGHT? OKAY. UM, LET'S FINISH. SO LET'S 1307 AND NUMBER 2 81. WE WERE PUTTING ON THE COMBO BALLOT. CORRECT. EVERYONE'S GOOD WITH THAT? OKAY. SO LET'S GO BACK TO 1330. UM, SO WE CAN'T PUT IT ON THE COMBO BALLOT ANYMORE, SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR A MOTION IN A SECOND. UM, IT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF NPR 1330 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AND THE FIVE SIX PRS REPORT WITH RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY 16TH, 2026. NED, LET'S DO NED AND BLAKE MOTION. AND SECOND. OKAY. TAKE IT AWAY, CORY. ALL RIGHT. ON THIS MOTION ON 1330, WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH GARRETT ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. MIKE ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU NICK. NICK FEHRENBACH YOU WITH US. I'LL LOOK BACK TO YOU. NICK. BETH? YES. THANK YOU. WILL. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR CO-OPS, BLAKE? YES. THANK YOU, KYLE. YES, THANK YOU, JOHN. YES, THANK YOU, JOE, DAN FOR MIKE? YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. NED? YES. THANK YOU, COREY. YOU BRIAN? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BOB. YES, SIR. SIR. CAITLIN? YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IPS. JEREMY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SETH. YES, YOU, UH, SHANE FOR RASHMI? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THANK SIR IAN? YES. THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR I REPS. BILL? YES. THANK YOU, JAY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHRIS. YES, THANK YOU, JEN. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IOUS. MARTHA? YES. THANK YOU, KEITH. YES, THANK YOU. EBY. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AARON. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR MUNIS, ALICIA. OOPS. YES. THANK YOU, JOSE. YES, THANK YOU. CURTIS GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT, CURTIS, THANK YOU, DIANA FOR DAVID. YES, THANK YOU. AND THEN NICK, I SEE YOU OFF MUTE NOW. GRAND FINALE. YES. THANK YOU, SIR. MOTION CARRIES UNOPPOSED TO ABSTENTIONS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE ON 1330 OR 1307. ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S GO BACK TO NPR 1264. UM, I THINK, CAN WE HEAR FROM ERCOT ON IMPLEMENTATION AND THE ACCOMPANYING REVISION REQUESTS? SO I CAN COMMENT ON THE ASSOCIATED REVISION REQUESTS. I KNOW TYPICALLY, UM, IT'S NOT OUR USUAL PRACTICE TO ALLOW THE NPR TO MOVE SEPARATELY THROUGH THE PROCESS, BUT THE GUIDE REVISIONS ARE VERY ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE, UM, AND JUST ALIGNING WITH SECTION 21. SO I THINK WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT MOVING FORWARD. OKAY. UM, ERIC, I JUST WANTED TO THANK OR CUT FOR THAT. UM, AND I THINK MY LINE HERE IS WE'RE DEFINITELY NOT SETTING A PRECEDENT [00:20:01] WITH DOING THIS. UH, THIS IS, UH, KIND OF A ONE-TIME THING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE, SO THANK YOU. MARKET RULES ON THAT. BILL JUST TRIED TO DO IT WITH 1325, SO, WELL, HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WANTS. I HAVE A LINE THAT I AGREED TO. UH, BUT, UM, THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ITEM THAT, UM, WILL LEAD TO MORE INVESTMENT IN, UM, CLEAN FIRM POWER. AND WE'RE HAPPY, UM, FOR THE SUPPORT OF, UH, TAC AND DOING THAT. UM, MY UNDERSTANDING, AND ERCOT CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT THEY'LL ISSUE AN RFP TO MANAGE THIS PROGRAM, UM, FOLLOWING, UM, THE, UM, PASSAGE BY THE BOARD. AND, UM, SO THIS WILL ENABLE MORE INVESTMENT AND MORE POWER PLANTS AND WILL HELP ENABLE CUSTOMER CHOICE. AND JUST THANK YOU VERY MUCH THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS. OKAY, NED? SO THIS ONE, UM, I, I, WE HAD FILED SOME COMMENTS ABOUT A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, EXPRESSING CONCERNS WITH THE THREE YEAR USEFUL LIFE, UH, OR THE, THE COMPLIANCE LIFE. I, YEAH, CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT'S CALLED. UM, WE FEEL PRETTY STRONGLY THAT THERE IS, IS IF THERE IS NOT A STATUTORY BASIS FOR A, SAY, A RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD, THEN THERE'S NO BASIS TO HAVE A, AN END POINT ON THAT. NOW, IN DISCUSSIONS WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, ERCOT AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS SINCE THEN, OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT, WELL, THERE'S A COM THERE'S A PRACTICAL LIMIT THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE, AND, AND WE WERE ABLE TO REACH, I, I THOUGHT SOME AGREEMENT ON 10 YEARS AS BEING A REASONABLE MIDDLE GROUND. UM, IN LOOKING AT THE PRS REPORT, I NOTICED THOUGH THAT IT'S ONLY A THREE YEAR LIFESPAN. AND SO I'M CURIOUS IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION TO MAKING A CHANGE FROM THREE YEARS TO 10 YEARS. THERE'S NO OPPOSITION FROM TEVA'S PERSPECTIVE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD IMPACT THE IA AT ALL. UM, BUT, UM, AND JUST TO COLOR AS TO WHY THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, IT'S BECAUSE THIS IS A MARKET BETWEEN WILLING BUYERS AND WILLING SELLERS. AND SO IF SOMEONE DOESN'T WANT TO BUY AN OLDER, YOU KNOW, UM, EAC, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO. SO IT JUST, I, I DON'T SEE A, A DOWNSIDE TO ENABLING THAT. I, I THINK PEOPLE, UM, WILL BE ABLE TO BUY WHATEVER THEY WANNA BUY. THANK YOU, ERIC. I AGREE 100%. IT IS A WILLING, BUYER WILLING SELLER MARKET, AND THE MARKET WILL DICTATE THE VALUE OF OLDER EACS IF, UH, IF ALLOWED TO. SO I, IF I CAN MAKE, IF I CAN RECOMMEND A DESKTOP EDIT TO CHANGE THREE YEARS TO 10 YEARS IN TERMS OF THE, THE USEFUL LIFE, I'D EVEN BE WILLING TO PUT A MOTION FORWARD. OKAY. BUT I SAW TROY COME UP. TROY, DID YOU WANNA COMMENT? SURE. THANK YOU. UH, TROY ANDERSON WITH ERCOT PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT. JUST TO ECHO ANN'S EARLIER COMMENT, THE COST HERE IS TO BUILD A DA DATA INTERFACE WITH THAT THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH WOULD BE A ONE TIME THING. SO THE DURATION THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF WOULD NOT AFFECT THE COST. THANK YOU, TROY. OKAY, BOB HILTON. I WAS JUST GONNA SECOND HIS MOTION WHEN HE MAKES IT. OKAY. SO COREY IS FINDING THE THREE YEARS, AND WHILE COREY'S DOING THIS, I'M GONNA OFFER MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT CATCHING THIS SOONER AND GETTING COMMENTS AND DOING THIS ON THE FLY. IT'S OKAY. IT EATS INTO YOUR TOTAL MEETING TIME, THOUGH THAT YOU HAVE. YEAH. OKAY. SO CORY'S CHANGING THE THREE YEARS TO 10 YEARS, SO IT WOULD BE, UM, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF NPR 1264 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS. AND THE FIVE SIX PRS REPORT IS REVISED BY TAC AND WE'LL GIVE COREY A FEW MINUTES. I GIVE SHANE. OKAY. SHANE. YEAH, I THANK YOU, SHANE, THOMAS, MICHELLE, I JUST WANTED TO GET, I GUESS MAYBE CLARIFICATION ON THE QUESTION BETH ASKED EARLIER, WHICH I THINK WE KIND OF GOT IN HIS RESPONSE ABOUT THE COST OF THIS, UM, THOUGH, SO IT IS GONNA BE LIKE IT WAS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY THAT THIS COST IS JUST CREATING THE INTERFACE TO SEND THE DATA OVER. AND IF A REP WANTS TO USE THESE NEW CREDITS, THEY HAVE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THIS FUTURE SERVICE AT THEIR OWN COST [00:25:02] OR LIKE, TROY, IS THAT HOW THIS IS GONNA WORK? TROY SHRUGGED TO ME. I I CAN GO, GO AHEAD ERIC. UM, SO THERE, BECAUSE THERE, THAT'LL BE BASED ON KIND OF AN RFP FOR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET. UM, THEN THERE MAY BE SOME MINIMAL COST ON THAT PROGRAM, LIKE MAYBE A RETIREMENT FEE OR SOMETHING. UM, ERCOT LOOKED INTO THIS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A PROHIBITION ON ANYONE USING THEIR OWN DOLLARS TO PAY FOR PROJECTS. IT'S A LONGSTANDING PROHIBITION. AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOME OF THE, UH, WE'RE NOT WEIGHING IN ON THE VALUE OF ANY PARTICULAR FUTURE VENDOR, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS SOME OF THE VENDORS HAVE EXPRESSED THAT IT COULD RESULT IN NO COST TO ERCOT IF WE, IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PAY FOR IT, BUT THEY'RE JUST NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR IT. UM, AND SO IT'S, UH, IT'S MINIMAL TO CREATE THAT REPORT, BASICALLY. AND IT'S THE METER DATA REPORT THAT THERE COULD BE BASED IN THE CONTRACT THAT COMES BACK SOME COST TO PARTICIPATE, BUT THIS LANGUAGE HAS TAC RECOMMEND THE VENDOR THAT ERCOT WILL SELECT TO THE BOARD IN THE FUTURE. AND SO TAC WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN ON THOSE TERMS. OKAY. SO POTENTIALLY WHO'S ACTUALLY PAYING FOR IT ON ONGOING BASIS IS TO UP IN THE AIR BID. YEAH. THIS DOESN'T SPECIFY HOW THAT WILL HAPPEN ON THAT, YOU KNOW, OFF, YOU KNOW, OUT OF PROTOCOL PROGRAM. OKAY. THANKS. BUT TAC LIKE I SAID, WILL TAX VOICE IN THAT DECISION AROUND SELECTION OF THE VENDOR WILL BE HEAVILY WEIGHTED, I THINK BY ER CAP. OKAY. SO WE'RE WAITING ON CORY TO MAKE THE EDITS FOR THE THREE YEARS TO 10 YEARS. YEAH. AN NED, I'VE JUST TAKEN THE VISTA COMMENTS THAT Y'ALL FILED BACK IN MARCH, AND THIS WAS THE ONE PARAGRAPH YOU WERE MAKING YOUR 10 CHANGE IN. SO CARRYING THAT OVER ONTO THE PRS REPORT, NOW IT'S HARD TO SEE THROUGH THE BLOOD, BUT IF YOU PUT IT IN SIMPLE VIEW, IT'S THE SAME. NOW RECS AND COMPLIANCE PREMIUMS HAVE A USEFUL LIFE OF 10 COMPLIANCE PERIODS, AND THEN THE REST FOLLOWS FROM YOUR COMMENTS THERE. SO DOES THAT, THAT, THAT LOOKS CORRECT TO ME. THANK YOU, CORY. SO WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ENDORSE NPR 1264 WITH THE DESKTOP EDITS MADE ATTACK. CAN WE PUT IT ON THE COMBO BALLOT? SURE. THAT WORKS FOR ME TOO. DOES ANYBODY NOT WANT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY. SO IT'S, UM, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1264 IS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FIVE SIX PRS REPORT AS REVISED BY TECH, AND WE'LL PUT THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT. THANK YOU AGAIN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, ANN? YEAH, THERE WAS ONE ON, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT 1264 PRS REPORT? I THINK IT WAS MARCH 31ST, 2035, LIKE RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE OF THE NEXT PAGE. OH, SHOULD IT BE, YEAH, I THINK IT'S 2035 THERE, MARCH 31ST. IS THAT, DOES THAT 2027 NEED A CHANGE? SO YES, YES, YES. YOU YOU'RE WRITE IT DOWN. THANK YOU. YEAH. 20 27, 25. YEP. OKAY. [00:30:14] ARE WE GOOD? DO WE NEED TIME TO REVIEW THIS? YOU'RE GOOD, NED. OKAY. ARE WE STILL GOOD WITH THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT THAT WAS REVISED BY TECH. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU GUYS. SO DIANA, LET'S GO BACK TO YOUR PRESENTATION LAST SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY. WHERE ARE WE AT, COREY? OKAY, SO 1315 WE GRANTED URGENT STATUS, AND THIS WAS APPROVED AS AMENDED BY THE MAY 5TH ACO COMMENTS AND REVISED BY PRS FOR TAX. TODAY WE HAVE THE DECEMBER 19TH IA. WE DID HAVE FOUR ABSTENTIONS AND ONE VOTE AGAINST 1315. OKAY. UM, WE DID HAVE IMM OPPOSITION ON THIS. JEFF, CAN I ASK YOU TO SPEAK TO THIS NOW? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. . THANK YOU. HEY, GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. YEAH, OUR, OUR OPPOSITION AND, AND I ACTUALLY, BEFORE I GET INTO THAT, I, I WANT TO NOTE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WERE CHANGES MADE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS TO MAKE THIS A, A BETTER AND TIGHTER PROCESS ALSO, UM, THAT, UH, THE RTO HAVING THE ABILITY TO PROCURE OUT A MARKET IN, IN CERTAIN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES, UH, IS NECESSARY BECAUSE NEW MARKET DESIGN, UM, PROVIDES FOR EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE. SO, I, I WANT TO NOTE THAT OUR PRIMARY, UM, OBJECTION IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE FEEL THIS IS TOO OPEN, UH, AND PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RTO TO GO OUT AND PROCURE IN ADVANCE OF LETTING THE MARKET, UM, REALIZE SHORTAGE PRICES. ALL OF YOU HAVE HEARD ME TALK BEFORE, PROBABLY REPEATEDLY ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF SHORTAGE PRICING IN THE ERCOT MARKET MODEL, AND ESPECIALLY IN THE, IN THE CONTEXT OF RA. AND IT CAN WIND UP BEING AN ISSUE OF THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, FULLY RECOGNIZING THAT RTO OPERATIONS, UH, PRIMARY JOB IS TO ENSURE RELIABILITY. AND SO THERE'S A TENSION THERE, UH, BETWEEN FORWARD PROCUREMENT AND PROCURE AND, AND ENSURING RELIABILITY AND ALLOWING THE SYSTEM TO GET TIGHT, UH, IN ORDER TO ALLOW PRICE SIGNALS TO INDICATE NEW INVESTMENT IS NEEDED. AND ERCOT IS IN A PARTICULARLY INTERESTING SPOT GIVEN, UH, LOAD PROJECTIONS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS OF NEEDING A SOLUTION FOR AN RA A A POTENTIAL RA ISSUE. AND SO MY PRIMARY CONCERN IS THAT THIS PARTICULAR NPRR IS A BIT TOO OPEN-ENDED AND PROVIDES TOO MUCH OPPORTUNITY FOR ERCOT TO GO OUT AND PROCURE FORWARD IN ADVANCE OF SHORTAGE PRICES, UH, REVEALING THAT NEW INVESTMENTS NEEDED. SO THAT'S AT A HIGH LEVEL, UM, AT A, I GUESS THE NEXT LEVEL DOWN, I KNOW THE NPRR STILL LEAVES FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PROCUREMENT FOR, UH, SYSTEM EMERGENCIES. AND I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE. I ALSO, NOT ENTIRELY SURE HOW MUCH OPPORTUNITY THERE WILL BE TO PROCURE FOR A PROCURE FORWARD FOR A PROJECTED SYSTEM EMERGENCY. UM, I, I, I WOULD IMAGINE MOST OF THE AVAILABLE CAPACITY WOULD BE PREPARED TO OPERATE COMMERCIALLY, UM, AND NOT UNDER CONTRACT, UH, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TIME TO BUILD NEW GENERATION, GIVEN A FIVE YEAR WAIT PERIOD FOR NEW TURBINES. SO, SO ANYWAY, UH, I'LL, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. MY, MY CONCERNS ARE, UH, IT'S NOT NARROW ENOUGH AND ALSO, UM, IN BOTH THE LOCAL AND SYSTEM, UH, PROCUREMENT SPACES THAT THERE ISN'T ENOUGH DEFINITION ON HOW AN EMERGENCY WILL BE DEFINED. UM, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THAT PROCESS IS TRANSPARENT, UM, AND VETTED THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AS NEEDS COME UP. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE IMM UH, OBJECTION, AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE [00:35:01] ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. THANKS, JEFF. LET'S GO TO BOB HILTON. YEAH, ACTUALLY, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH A LOT OF EVERYTHING JEFF SAID THERE. UH, HOWEVER, UH, JUST TO KIND OF THOUGHT, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS, UH, ON THE EMERGENCY SITUATION, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IN THE WAY I TAKE THIS IS THAT THIS IS TO AVOID LOAD SHED SCENARIOS. AND I WOULD EXPECT THEN THE RFP WOULD BE DESIGNED TO DO JUST THAT. AND NOT NECESSARILY THAT YOU GO AND PROCURE THE MEGAWATTS TO KEEP OUT OF AN EEA ONE OR AN OCN OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT NATURE. THAT'S THE WAY I'VE KIND OF UNDERSTAND IT AND WOULD HOPE TO SEE THAT. AND AS THE PROCESS GOES, WE'LL SEE HOW THAT WORKS OUT. ON THE SECOND PIECE, I THOUGHT WE PRETTY MUCH TOOK CARE OF THE SYSTEM WIDE PIECE, UH, THAT WE, THAT I HAD MAJOR CONCERNS WITH. I THOUGHT WE PRETTY MUCH FIXED MOST OF THAT. SO UNLESS I'M JUST MISSING IT ALL TOGETHER, I THINK WE WERE OKAY THERE. UH, WITH THAT, I'LL, I'LL WAIT FOR SOME OTHER COMMENTS WITH THAT. I, I DON'T LIKE THIS PROCESS SHOWING THAT THE MARKET'S NOT WORKING APPROPRIATELY AND PUTTING GENERATION IN THE RIGHT PLACE, BUT WE'VE GOTTA KEEP THE GRID OPERATING. SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1315. OKAY. CAN, SHOULD WE GET A SECOND TO THE MOTION? NOBODY WANTS TO SECOND THE MOTION BILL. BILL BARNES. OKAY. WE CAN CONTINUE WITH COMMENTS. WE MAY BE ABLE TO PUT IT IN THE COMBO BALLOT, BUT I JUST DIDN'T WANNA LEAVE THE MOTION HANGING OUT THERE. OKAY. OKAY. GOING TO NED. UM, BOB, I, I ALSO AGREE WITH YOUR FIRST STATEMENT AND AGREE WITH A LOT OF THINGS THAT, THAT JEFF HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS AND THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN. IT'S, UH, IT'S, IT'S A TOUGH, IT'S A TOUGH ONE. UM, ALWAYS WANNA PUT MARKETS FIRST AND GET TO RELIABILITY THROUGH MARKETS. UM, AGAIN, THIS IS A UNIQUE, UH, UNIQUE SCENARIO AND, AND A TOOL THAT WE HOPE DOESN'T GET USED VERY OFTEN. HAVING THE EXIT STRATEGY IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AS BOB MENTIONED, UH, RA DID PUT FORWARD SOME, SOME ADDITIONAL CONCEPTS AT PRS. UH, ULTIMATELY THAT IS NOT WHAT, WHAT MOVED FORWARD. I THINK THE, THE REASON WHY, IT'S LARGELY BECAUSE IT'S A MA UH, MANUAL VERSUS, UH, SYSTEMATIC APPROACH. SO WE DO LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING SOME ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS PROCESS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. UM, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT THIS KIND OF AS A, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES PEOPLE REFER TO POLICY MAKING AS IT'S A, IT'S LIKE GETTING ON THE BUS. YOU DON'T NECESSARILY GET EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO, BUT YOU WANT TO GO, GO IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND SO WE SEE THIS AS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND, UM, SO WE'RE, WE'RE ULTIMATELY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS MOVING FORWARD, SO WOULD BE FINE WITH THE COMBO PALLET AS WELL. OKAY. THANKS NED. UH, SETH? YEAH, FINE WITH THE COMBO BALLOT. VIAL SUPPORTS IT. I DON'T THINK IT'S MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION THOUGH. I THINK THESE OUT MARKET ACTIONS THAT WE NEED TO UNDERTAKE ARE SHOWING CRACKS IN OUR MARKET AND ABSOLUTELY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. UM, I THINK ONE WAY TO ADDRESS THIS IS TO HAVE THESE PROCUREMENTS IN THE REAL TIME PRICE DEPLOYMENT ADDER. I AM HEARING FROM ERCOT THAT YES, THEY WANT TO DO THAT, UM, BUT THEY WANT TO SEE THE ADDER PRICE FOR LOCATIONAL DEPLOYMENTS BEFORE THEY DO THAT. UM, MAYBE IT'D BE HELPFUL TO HEAR ERCOT SPEAK TO THAT. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. IS THAT CORRECT? WHAT DO YOU, UH, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. KENNETH? YEAH. AND THAT'S, UM, 1214, IS THAT RIGHT? AND WE THINK 1214 COULD MAKE IT HERE WHEN, UH, WE'RE TARGETING BRINGING COMMENT AIRCRAFT COMMENTS TO THE JUNE PRS MEETING ON JUNE 10TH. OKAY. SO THAT'LL BE JUNE PRS. IT'D BE A REGIONAL PRICING AND IT WOULD BE IN THE ADDER. SO WE THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF, OF THIS. AND I THINK THAT HELPS ALSO ADDRESS JEFF'S OR THE I'S CONCERNS AS WELL, AT LEAST IN PART. OKAY. AND WHEN WE GET THERE, WE'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVISIT THIS LANGUAGE, ADD THAT BACK TO THE PRICING ADDER WHEN IT'S FIXED. YEAH. ACTUALLY THE EDITS THAT WE'RE PREPARING FOR 1214 TOUCH THAT SECTION. SO IT'LL, IT'LL INCLUDE THE, OKAY. SO YOU'LL JUST WRAP IT RIGHT UP IN THERE. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE MAYBE ONE BOARD MEETING BEHIND. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. LET'S GO TO DIANA. I JUST, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD FOR A WHILE, AND I FEEL LIKE [00:40:01] THERE IS STILL SOME WORK TO BE DONE ON 1315 AND SOME OF THE OUT OF MARKET ACTIONS THAT ERCOT IS TAKING. WE DID ABSTAIN ON THIS AT PRS AND WE'RE OKAY WITH IT ON THE COMBO BALLOT, BUT AGREE WITH SETH AND SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT THE IMM MADE THAT WE NEED TO REALLY SPEND SOME TIME IN MAKING SURE THAT AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE WE CAN DO OUTSIDE OF THE MARKET AND ALLOW IT TO WORK THE WAY THAT IT NEEDS TO WORK. AND SO HE JUST WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD THAT WE WON'T BE ABSTAINING TODAY, BUT WE JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S STILL SOME WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANKS DIANA. LET'S GO TO BRIAN SAMS. HEY, GOOD MORNING. UH, ONE THING I WANTED TO CALL OUT, AND ALSO I'M GRUMPY ABOUT THIS NPR, UH, AND THE NEED FOR IT, UH, JUST TO CROSSLY THAT TO OTHER COMMENTS, UH, THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY MADE. BUT, UM, THERE IS SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ASSUMPTION THAT, UH, WOULD NECESSITATE THE, UH, THIS PROCUREMENT AND I WOULD EXPECT THAT, UM, STAKEHOLDERS WILL BE VIGOROUS IN THEIR REVIEW OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS WHEN, WHEN, AND IF THIS HAPPENS. SO JUST WANNA CALL OUT THAT OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, BRIAN. LET'S GO TO BETH. YEAH, I HAVE A, A SPECIFIC LANGUAGE QUESTION. IF, IF WE COULD PULL UP THE PRS REPORT AND IT, AND IT RELATES TO A COMMENT THAT, UM, THAT BOB SAID EARLIER THAT IT SOUND THAT YOU FELT LIKE YOU GOT, YOU HANDLED ALL OF THE SYSTEM-WIDE ISSUES THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS REALLY A LOCAL ISSUE. AND IF WE GO TO PAGE 10 OF 20, UM, I, I JUST, I WANNA UNDERSTAND AND MAKE SURE I'M NOT, UH, OR I WANNA BE EDUCATED. UH, IT'S RIGHT THERE. PARAGRAPH A, UM, TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, FOR RESOURCES, UM, TO ADDRESS AN ANTICIPATED EMERGENCY CONDITION RELATED TO AN ERCOT WIDE CAPACITY INSUFFICIENCY. THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN ERCOT WIDE CAPACITY INSUFFICIENCY AND CAPACITY INSUFFICIENCY COULD BE EEA ONE, UM, DEPENDING ON, ON HOW THAT'S, UH, HOW THAT'S DEFINED. IF Y'ALL HAVE ALREADY HAD THE FIGHT, AND THIS IS AS FAR AS WE CAN GET, I, I'M OKAY WITH IT, BUT I, THOSE WORDS DIDN'T IN MY MIND COMPORT WITH WHAT YOU HAD CONVEYED BOB OR OTHERS ABOUT THIS NPR. SO I, I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF ANYBODY HAD ANY REACTION TO, TO THAT SECTION. AND MY QUESTION IN PARTICULAR, YOU CAN GO AHEAD, BOB. I THINK WE STILL HAVE IN THE EXIT STRATEGY PIECE IN THERE, THAT'S STILL THERE, RIGHT? THAT, THAT WHEN YOU DO THIS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN EXIT STRATEGY THAT GOES WITH THIS. AND I THOUGHT THAT KIND OF HELPED TAKE CARE OF THAT BECAUSE SIMPLY SAYING MORE GENERATIONALLY EVENTUALLY GET BUILT IF WE DO SOME KIND OF OTHER MARKET IS NOT AN EXIT STRATEGY. UH, SO I WAS THINKING THAT THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT. AND I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY COME INTO PLAY. THAT WOULD, THAT YOU COULD DO THAT WITHOUT AN EXIT STRATEGY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S THE BEST I COULD SEE. OKAY. I I, I JUST, WHEN, WHEN I WAS, I WAS STRUCK BY, 'CAUSE I NOTICED AS I WAS REVIEWING THIS, I NOTICED THAT THAT WAS YEP. AS I REVIEWED, I SET, I SAW THIS ERCOT WIDE CAPACITY AND SUFFICIENCY, AND THEN YOUR COMMENTS SAYING, NO, WE'VE GOT IT KIND OF PRETTY WELL LOCALIZED, UM, DIDN'T COMPORT. AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, AS EVERYONE HAS SAID BEFORE ME, THERE'S STILL MORE WORK TO HAPPEN HERE. UM, WE'RE ALL GONNA HOLD OUR NOSE AND VOTE FOR THIS AND JUST MOVE IT FORWARD IS KIND OF WHAT IT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT ON THIS. NOW IF, IF I SEE THAT, THAT, UH, THAT'S SNUCK BACK IN, IN OTHER PLACES THAT I HAVEN'T CAUGHT, THEN WE'LL ADDRESS THAT IN ANOTHER DATE. BUT I UNDERSTAND WE NEED TO GET THIS GOING FOR SOME SPECIFIC ISSUES HERE RIGHT NOW. SO THAT'S, I'M HOLDING MY NOSE. BETH ENO, ARE YOU GONNA WEIGH IN HERE PLEASE? THANK YOU. SO THIS SECTION HERE TALKS ABOUT THE CALCULATION OF THE MOC, RIGHT? THE, UH, PART A IS THE BLACK LANGUAGE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. SO UNDER THE CURRENT PROTOCOLS, IF WE PROCURE CAPACITY UNDER THE AUTHORITY, THE, UH, GENERATION CAPACITY TO BE, TO BE CLEAR, THE MOC WILL BE SET AT VAL, RIGHT? AND THE YES FOR LOCAL CONGESTION, WE [00:45:01] HAD A PARAGRAPH B, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO NPR 7 84, WHICH WE DISCUSSED. UH, A PRS. WELL, YEAH. SO THIS NPR WAS TO ADDRESS THOSE LOCAL ISSUES. AND SO THEN YOU GO BACK AND SAY, WELL, IF WE DO IT FOR SYSTEMWIDE AND WE HATE DOING IT FOR SYSTEM WIDE. AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT THAT'S MY, THAT'S THE DISSONANCE THAT I'M FEELING RIGHT NOW, IS THE BLUE LANGUAGE ADDED TO, TO PARAGRAPH A TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TWO. UM, UNDERSTOOD. AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE THE ECA CONTROL AUTHOR IS ONE SECTION, AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAD TO INSERT PARAGRAPH B IN THE SAME SECTION. FAIR ENOUGH. THANK, THANK YOU FOR THAT, THAT QUESTION. OKAY, SHANE? YEP. THANK YOU, SHANE, THOMAS, MICHELLE, UM, WE WERE THE, THE NO VOTE ON THIS ONE AT PRS, AND I'LL, UH, I GUESS CONTINUE TO BE THE NO VOTE HERE AT, TO BE LIKE, AND IT'S OBVIOUS TO ME THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THIS CONCEPT. UM, BUT WE FEEL THAT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. AND SO WE NEED TO GET THE KIND OF A PROTOCOL VERSION OF SOMETHING THAT COULD CURRENTLY BE DONE UNDER PURA FORWARD, BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO DO THINGS AND PROTOCOL WORLD VERSUS SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THAT. AND SO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTROL OVER HOW THAT'S USED HERE, WHICH IS GOOD. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO BE THIS, YOU KNOW, SYMBOLIC, YOU KNOW, VOTING HERE TO SAY THAT, HEY, LIKE WE'RE STILL NOT OKAY WITH, YOU KNOW, THIS WHOLE PROCESS AND THAT THESE TYPES OF, UH, PROCUREMENTS SHOULD BE EXTREMELY LIMITED. UM, WHEN WE'RE GOING OUT AND LOOKING THIS FAR OUT IN THE FUTURE, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA BE HARD NOT TO FIND ISSUES THAT YOU COULD CREATE, UM, THESE FOUR DEPENDING ON HOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE, UH, ASSUMPTIONS IN THIS LIST. AND I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT ERIKA'S LOOKING OUT THERE AND GONNA BE TELLING THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION AND THE STAKEHOLDER BODIES ABOUT POTENTIAL ISSUES, THAT'S THEIR JOB. IT'S TO GET OUT THERE AND GET AHEAD OF THESE ISSUES. AND SO MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S AWARE OF 'EM. BUT IF WE'RE DOING IT IN A WAY WHERE THEN WE CIRCUMVENT THE MARKET AND MARKET SIGNALS, WE'RE JUST GONNA BE DESTROYING THE LONG TERM INCENTIVE TO GO OUT AND BUILT GENERATION THE TRADITIONAL METHOD. AND YOU'RE GONNA BE KILLING, YOU'RE GONNA BE PUTTING IN MORE COSTS INTO UNEDIBLE BUCKETS FOR LOADS, UM, FOR POTENTIALLY STUFF THAT'S NOT GONNA BE USED VERY OFTEN, IF AT ALL, AS WE GET CLOSER INTO REAL TIME. AND I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT WE'RE, WE'RE ALL SAYING THIS AND GETTING THIS, THAT THERE, UM, THE ISSUE I HAVE, UM, WITH TYING THIS, UH, A DER ASPECT INTO 1214 IS THAT I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE A VERY SUBSTANTIAL PROJECT TO, TO GET THE RDPA TO BE LOCALIZED. I THINK, I THINK IT REALLY, REALLY OPENED IT UP. UM, AND SO THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ME TO DELAY THIS FOR A VERY LONG TIME BEFORE THIS STARTS GETTING PUT INTO RDPA. I DO HOPE THAT IT'S GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, YEARS BEFORE WE USE THIS, SO MAYBE WE HAVE TIME TO DO IT THAT WAY. BUT TYING INTO THIS OTHER PROJECT THAT IS YET TO BE APPROVED HAS A POTENTIAL TO, TO REALLY DELAY THESE BEING INCORPORATED INTO RDPA. I MEAN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT GETS USED, UH, NEXT YEAR, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO CHANCE OF IT BEING ABLE TO IMPACT THAT. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WAITING FOR THE VERY BEST VERSION OF IT IS GOING TO ALLOW THE POTENTIAL FOR MARKET IMPACTS IN THE SHORT TERM, WHICH IS KIND OF WHERE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THE LONG TERM. YOU KNOW, WHERE EVERYONE'S MAKING DECISIONS RIGHT NOW ON WHAT TO DO FOR THREE YEARS FROM NOW. SO THAT'S ALL I'LL SAY ABOUT THAT. OKAY. ARE YOU REFERRING TO A, A LONG IMPLEMENTATION TIME ON THE RD LOCAL OR, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S, AT LEAST IN MY HEAD, I DON'T REM I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE GOT AN IA ON THAT YET. I DON'T THINK SO. UM, BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME. I THINK KENNETH CAN SPEAK TO IT MAYBE. YEAH, SO I THINK WE DID POST AN IA FOR THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE. UM, SO AGAIN, WE'RE WORKING ON ERCOT COMMENTS. UH, IN SOME CASES IT SIMPLIFIES THINGS, BUT WE THINK WE WILL NEED TO REDO AN IA AND THEN I THINK AT THAT TIME WE CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE IT LANDS AND HOW LONG IT'LL TAKE TO IMPLEMENT AND PRIORITY. OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHEN WE'LL GET THAT IA? WELL, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS IT POSSIBLE TROY STILL HERE? IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO GET THE IA WITH THE COMMENTS WE POST FOR JUNE 10TH AND WE DON'T WANNA PROMISE THAT QUITE YET? OKAY. SO YEAH. UM, [00:50:02] I HAD SOMETHING ELSE POP INTO MY HEAD I WAS GONNA SAY THEN IT POPPED RIGHT OUT. UM, BUT, UM, I'LL LET OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK. I SAW SOME MORE IN THE QUEUE. THANKS, TROY. DID YOU WANNA WEIGH IN OR WE, YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD THE, THE CURRENT 1214 IA SHOWS 800 K TO 1.2 MILLION, AND AS KENNETH SAID, WE WOULD, UH, BE REVISITING THAT AND WE TRY TO ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, FIT THAT ANALYSIS WITHIN WHATEVER DURATION THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS IS NEEDING. BUT, BUT IT WILL, IT'LL TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. SO DO WE KNOW THE LENGTH OF TIME ON THE, THE IA THOUGH, OR THE DURATION? YEAH, I'VE GOT IT ON MY SCREEN BEHIND ME THEN. OKAY. OKAY. NO WORRIES. MAY WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU. THANK YOU. LET'S GO TO NED. UH, THIS WILL BE, UH, RELATIVELY QUICK, I HOPE. UM, FIRST, SHANE, APPRECIATE YOUR, UH, YOUR SACRIFICIAL NO VOTE. AND I, I DO HOPE THAT GIVEN THE DISCUSSION, THE THE MINUTES FROM TODAY'S DISCUSSION WILL REFLECT THAT IT, YOU KNOW, STAKEHOLDERS ALL HAVE CONCERNS, BUT, YOU KNOW, RECOGNIZE THIS WILL BE THE FIRST STEP IN AN ITERATIVE PROCESS THAT WE WILL, WE'LL ADDRESS SOME OF THESE THINGS. UM, BETH, ON THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU FLAGGED IN PARAGRAPH A THAT CORY HAS ON THE SCREEN RIGHT THERE, I DID JUST WANT TO, UH, POINT YOU TO IN RA'S CINCO DE MAYO COMMENTS, UH, WE DID STRIKE THAT, UH, TO ADDRESS ANTICIPATED EMERGENCY CONDITION LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH A SO THAT THE DEFAULT IS THAT ANY, UH, CAPACITY THAT'S PROCURED UNDER SECTION PARAGRAPH FOUR OF SECTION 6 5 1 1, UH, HAS THAT, UH, ASSUMPTION AS THE BASELINE. AND THEN WE ADDED A NOTWITHSTANDING A ABOVE TO THE BEGINNING OF PARAGRAPH B SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC LOCAL ISSUE, THEN WHATEVER WE PUT IN B IS THE, THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. WE WERE A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT BY BRACKETING IN PARAGRAPH A, YOU MIGHT LEAVE A GAP, YOU KNOW, A THIRD, A THIRD RAIL THAT ISN'T ADDRESSED. SO, UM, FLAG THAT WE'RE SUPPORTIVE OF MAKING THAT CHANGE IF FOLKS WANNA MAKE THAT, BUT ALSO LIKE WE'RE WILLING TO HOLD OUR NOSE AND GET ON THE BUS. OKAY. BRIAN SAMS, UM, IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT, UM, WE'RE GONNA NEED OUR EXTRA T MEETINGS NEXT WEEK JUST BASED ON COMMENTS THAT JEFF MADE IT JEFF BILLOW MADE AT THE OUTSET ABOUT NOT WANTING TO VOTE ANYTHING OUT, UH, FOR, UM, THE BATCH TODAY. AND, UM, I I, IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST ON THIS, A PARAGRAPH. I'M CURIOUS IF WE COULD HAVE THIS DISCUSSION NEXT WEEK AND IF THAT CHANGES THE OUTCOME FOR, UM, ANY KIND OF, UM, BOARD APPROVAL. I DON'T THINK IT DOES, BUT WE NOT HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, CHANGE THE TIMELINE FOR BOARD APPROVAL, BUT, UM, IT, IT WOULD MAKE ME SAD, BUT IT WOULD MAKE YOU SAD. . WELL, I, I WOULD NOTE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, WE HAVE MEETINGS SET UP FOR, FOR NEXT WEEK, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'LL NEED TO DO THE BATCH REVISION REQUESTS OR, OR HAS SOME CLEANUP ITEMS STILL. AND I THINK WE WANT EVERYONE HAVE TO HAVE TIME TO THINK ABOUT THE COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED LATE MONDAY NIGHT. UM, WE ALSO HAVE FIVE RPG PROJECTS NEXT WEEK. SIX, I, UM, I THINK IT'S FIVE. OKAY. BETH SAYS IT'S SIX NED, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO YOUR, UM, CINCO DE MAYO COMMENTS ON THIS. AND, UH, UH, BE OPEN TO, UH, UH, AN AMENDMENT TO, UH, AMEND THIS WITH YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION JUST FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE TAX. OKAY. I SEE A LITTLE BIT OF A ERCOT CAUCUS GOING, I THINK, I MEAN, WE DO HAVE TIME FOR A 10 OR 15 MINUTE BREAK IF THAT HELPS, BUT I, I, WE HAVE A COUPLE IN THE QUEUE AND MAYBE WE THEN WE COULD TAKE A BREAK AND SEE WHAT IS WILLING TO WORK WITH US. SO LET'S, LET'S FINISH THIS QUEUE THEN MAYBE TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A BREAK TO SEE IF WE CAN RESOLVE THIS TODAY. AND IF, IF WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T. AND IF, IF YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE, BRIAN, I, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T STOP YOU. I JUST WANTED CLOSURE FOR THE CONSUMERS . I UNDERSTAND. I ALSO WANT CLOSURE FOR THE CONSUMERS AND ULTIMATELY THIS IS A THING THAT CONSUMERS PAY FOR. SO I APPRECIATE, UM, UM, GETTING THE RIGHT ANSWER. YEAH, UNDERSTOOD. OKAY, LET'S GO TO BILL BARNES. YEAH, I JUST GOING TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT WHY I'M ON THE MOTION. UM, WHICH IS, THIS DEBATE'S VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE HAVING ON, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM AND 1296, AND THAT'S THAT WE NEED TO BE REALISTIC ABOUT THE MARKET DESIGN WE ACTUALLY HAVE AND WHAT IT CAN REALISTICALLY ACCOMPLISH [00:55:01] IN TERMS OF PROVIDING RELIABILITY, WHICH MEANS PROVIDING ERCOT WITH THE TOOLS THEY NEED SUCH AS THIS AND OTHERS. UM, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE ABANDON THE SHIP. WE DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN IN TERMS OF GETTING, UH, THE PRICING AS, AS ADJUSTED AND AS WELL AS WE CAN. ERCOT HAS BEEN OVER BACKWARDS TO DO THAT AS A PART OF THIS EFFORT. SO I APPRECIATE THEM DOING THAT. UM, JUST LIKE 1296. SO IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CHANGES AND TWEAKS THAT WE COULD BE MADE THAT COULD BE MADE HERE THAT MAY IMPROVE THIS, I'M ALL FOR IT, BUT I'M ALSO FINE WITH MOVING IT FORWARD AS IS. OKAY. ARE WE FOCUSED REALLY JUST ON THIS SYSTEM WIDE ERCOT WIDE LANGUAGE HERE OR DO WE HAVE THERE'S, THERE'S ANOTHER, THERE'S ANOTHER, THERE'S ANOTHER, YEAH. OKAY. COMMENT. OKAY. ENO, UH, I THINK WE MIGHT BE WILLING TO MAKE SOME MINOR CHANGES ACCORDING TO, UH, THE PROPOSAL FROM NED, BUT WE NEED A COUPLE MINUTES OR SOME TIME TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. OKAY. LET ME TAKE THESE LAST TWO QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'LL WE'LL SEE. LET'S, LET'S GO TO BOB HELTON. YEAH, JUST REAL QUICKLY, ENO, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION ON THAT. WHILE AGO I WAS BEGINNING TO THINK I MISSED SOMETHING OR SOMETHING INADVERTENTLY GOT PUT BACK IN, BUT THIS IS REALLY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UH, DEALING WITH HOW THE MOC WORKS IN ASSOCIATION WITH WHAT HAS BEEN CONTRACTED RATHER THAN WHAT WILL BE CONTRACTED, THAT'S IN ANOTHER SECTION THAT DELINEATES OUT ALL THE EXIT STRATEGY AND EVERYTHING ELSE. IS THAT CORRECT? PRECISELY. UH, A THAT'S ADDRESSES WHERE I GOT, GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED FOR A MINUTE. A ADDRESSES THE CALCULATION OF THE MOC WHEN WE CONTRACT FOR CAPACITY OR CAR WHITE, BUT THERE HAS BEEN A RECOGNITION THAT WE MAKE CONTRACT FOR CAPACITY TO RESOLVE A LOCAL CONGESTION AND THE MOC SHOULD BE B BASED ON B, THE CONCEPT BB, YEAH. AND SO WHAT WE'RE KIND OF MIXING A LITTLE BIT IN A HERE FROM, CORRECT ME AGAIN IF I'M READING THIS WRONG, IS THE C FOR C CONTRACT STUFF AND THE STUFF THAT YOU MAY GO OUT THERE AND GET UNDER WHAT YOU SEE AS YOUR AUTHORITY UNDER PURA FOR ANY OTHER REASON FOR CAPACITY. WELL, , I'M BEING VERY CAREFUL WHAT I SAID THERE. OKAY. SO I, I CAN'T COMMENT ON WHAT WE MIGHT DO UNDER PURA. CLEARLY WE CONTRACTED LIFE CYCLES UNDER PURA TO SOLVE A LOCAL CONSTRAINT. AND THE MOC WAS SET EXACTLY SMB. OKAY. HOWEVER, IF WE CONTRACT CAPACITY LIKE WE DID IN 2011, ER Y THE MOC WILL BE SET AT VAL, WHICH IS $5,000 NOW. ALRIGHT, THANKS. OKAY. UM, WELL, BETH HAD A REMAINING QUESTION, SO BETH AND SETH. OKAY. UM, IF WE COULD SCROLL DOWN TO PAGE 16. YOU KNOW, ALL OF THIS STARTED WITH, I HAD A VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION AND IT, IT HIGHLIGHTED, IF WE LOOK AT THE RED LANGUAGE HERE, HERE'S SOME MORE, UH, ERCOT WIDE CAPACITY SHORTAGE, UH, LANGUAGE. AND MY REAL QUESTION, HAS TO DO WITH HERE'S, YOU KNOW, THE A THROUGH E IS A LIST OF THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED. AND IF AS I READ E IF WE COULD GO TO THE TOP OF THE NEXT PAGE, E THAT SENTENCE E DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME, AND I EITHER, IF I CAN HAVE IT EXPLAINED OR MAYBE WE NEED TO MODIFY IT, UM, CAPACITY FROM SETTLEMENT ONLY GENERATORS THAT IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE TO ERCOT DURING THE PERIOD, ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IS NEEDED. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ADDITIONAL PHRASE, SOMETHING LIKE, AND CAN BE AND CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE. UM, THIS SAYS IT, THERE SEEMS TO BE AN INTERNAL, UH, UH, INTERNAL CONFLICT WITH THAT LANGUAGE. OKAY. OR MAYBE THAT'S JUST ME, SO I'M HAPPY TO BE TOLD I'M WRONG. OKAY. AND I NEED TO READ IT BETTER. I DON'T WANNA SAY YOU'RE WRONG, . I, I'M HAPPY TO BE WRONG. OKAY. I WRONG IN A LOT OF THINGS. YEAH, I GUESS I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE STRUCTURE. I GUESS THE A IS AND IS CAPABLE OF BEING BROUGHT BACK INTO SERVICE. THE B IS DEMAND RESPONSE. THAT CAN BE BASELINE. OKAY. MAYBE THAT'S, AND THE C IS, YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF WE REALLY NEED THAT PHRASE AND CAN BE, AND CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE. THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE MY ANSWER IS, SO WE ADDED E BASICALLY SO WE COULD INCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF NEW SOGS THAT AREN'T THERE AND NOT EXPECTED TO BE THERE THAT COULD COME AND HELP THE SITUATION. SO, SO I GUESS I'M NOT REALLY SEEING YOUR, THE STRONG NEED FOR THE WORDS [01:00:01] YOU'RE SUGGESTING. I'M, I'M NOT THE, I'M NOT THE ARBITER OF THE, THE LANGUAGE. I JUST, I, IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME AS I READ IT AND WANTED TO, TO RAISE THAT AS A, AS A QUESTION. OH, SUCH CAPACITY FOR PURPOSE FOR EITHER PURPOSE MAY INCLUDE. SO IT MAY INCLUDE THAT, YEAH. OKAY. LET'S GO TO SETH. YEAH. MY, MY INTENTION'S NOT TO MUDDY THE WATERS, BUT IF YOU CONTRACT ONE OF THESE FOR SYSTEM CAPACITY AND YOU PUT IT IN AT THE VOL AMOUNT ONCE IT'S ONLINE AND IT'S BEING OFFERED IN, LIKE YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT HAPPENS AT THAT POINT, RIGHT? LIKE IT COULD BE DISPATCH FOR WHATEVER, UH, IT COULD BE A NON-COMPETITIVE CONSTRAINT OR WHAT HAVE YOU. AND I'M JUST WONDERING ONCE IT'S ONLINE, CORRECT? YEAH, YEAH. UH, UNFORTUNATELY SETH, UH, I SEE YOUR POINT. THAT'S THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE, WE HAVE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME IN THERE. OKAY. AND I CAN, I CAN LIVE WITH IT. WE DIDN'T REALLY, UH, DURING THIS ANALYSIS, WE DIDN'T REALLY, UH, LOOKED INTO VERY CLOSELY TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED THAT CHANGE. THE ONLY CHANGE WE MADE IS WHAT'S IN THERE RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK WE MIGHT BE WILLING TO TAKE THAT OUT AS FAR AS, UH, THE LANGUAGE THAT NET OR BISTRO ENTER IT. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE'RE STILL CONSIDERING CHANGES RELATED TO THE ERCOT WIDE LANGUAGE THAT WAS CHANGED IN THE CINCO DE MAYO COMMENTS. UM, DO YOU WANNA TAKE A FEW? I THOUGHT OUR 15 MINUTE HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT WAS TO LOOK AT A, IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. IS THERE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE BESIDES A, IS A THE ONLY DEAL BREAKER? WELL, WELL, BUT IS THERE A NEED? IF YOU'RE GONNA CHANGE IT THERE, IS THERE A NEED TO CHANGE IT ON PAGE 16 AND FOUR? I I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THAT WHOLE SECTION WHERE A AND B IS, IS ALL ABOUT THE MITIGATED OFFER CAP. SO HAVE WE JUMPED TO A DIFFERENT, AND THIS, THIS SECTION IS HERE'S, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE USE, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA GO GET IT FOR. YEAH. AND SO HERE'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA GO GET THESE TYPES OF THINGS FOR A SITUATION THAT COULD INCLUDE OUR CUT WIDE CAPACITY SHORTAGE. OKAY. WHY DON'T WE DO THE 15 MINUTES, AND I DON'T, WE DON'T NEED AN ANSWER AFTER 15 MINUTES, BUT YOU CAN EITHER SAY WE NEED MORE TIME, MEANING UNTIL NEXT WEEK, OR MEANING UNTIL, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE INTO THE, THE MATCH DISCUSSION. 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S A DIFFERENT OR CUT TEAM, RIGHT? SO IT WOULD BE OKAY TO KEEP WORKING ON IT INTO THIS AFTERNOON, BUT WHY DON'T WE SEE, UM, YOU KNOW, GET BRIAN SAMS ON THE PHONE AND SEE IF WE CAN , WE CAN HAVE A PLAN, UH, IN 15 MINUTES. DOES THAT SOUND OKAY? IT SOUNDS OKAY, BUT TO BE SURE WE ARE, WE'RE HAPPY WITH THE LANGUAGE. THE S IS SO IN CASE, BUT SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHANGE IT, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. OKAY, LET'S, LET'S AT LEAST EXPLORE IT AND SEE, SEE WHERE WE ARE IN, IN 15 MINUTES. SO 10 48. ALL RIGHT. THANKS GUYS. OKAY. UM, MY LAST EMAIL, SOMEBODY FROM ERCOT, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT WHERE WE LANDED? COREY? COREY, YOU'RE IN CHARGE. I'M THE LAST ONE TO SAY, NOT IT. SO UNDER, UNDER PROCEDURES. SO WHAT'S ON SCREEN RIGHT NOW? UH, IN RED, THESE ARE THE VISTA COMMENTS THAT NED ALLUDED TO WHERE WITHIN PARAGRAPH A, INSTEAD OF HAVING THIS CALL OUT TO SAY, HEY, THE EXISTING BLACK LINE IS FOR SYSTEM WIDE AND THEN EVERYTHING B IS LOCAL TO NED'S POINT, THEIR PREFERRED PATH WAS TO NOT HAVE THAT CALL OUT, JUST HAVE A B, THE DEFAULT FOR EVERYTHING AND HAVE B START OUT WITH A NOTWITHSTANDING A ABOVE. AND NOW HERE'S ALL YOUR EXCEPTIONS. SO INSTEAD OF A BUCKET FOR A AND A BUCKET FOR B, IT'S A IS EVERYTHING. AND THEN B IS YOUR CARVED OUT EXCEPTION TO WHAT'S ABOVE. SO IN THE DISCUSSIONS JUST NOW WITH NED AND ENO AND COMPANY, WE'D BE WILLING TO HAVE, OH, WEBEX IS MUTED. YOU GUYS MISSED MY WONDERFUL INTRODUCTION. WELL, THE FOLKS IN THE ROOM ENJOYED IT. OKAY. UH, SO LONG STORY, LONGER, WHAT'S ON SCREEN RIGHT NOW IN THIS P COLOR BROWN, UM, IS THE PORTION OF THE VISTA COMMENTS THAT ERCOT IS COMFORTABLE WITH. SO, UH, SIMILAR TO THEIR CONSTRUCTION OVER HERE, INSTEAD OF ADDING IN LANGUAGE TO A, TO DESCRIBE THAT IT'S SYSTEM WIDE AND HAVE BB LOCAL [01:05:02] CONSISTENT WITH VISTA'S PATH, TAKE OUT THAT PHRASE, BUT THEN ADD IN AN INTRO TO B TO SAY, NOTWITHSTANDING A ABOVE TO AGAIN, THE INTENTION TO BE THAT A, THE EXISTING BLACK LINE IS STANDARD. AND THEN NOW B IS YOUR, YOU KNOW, DISTINCT CALL OUT, UH, FOR THE LOCAL ISSUE. AND SO ERCOT, LEGAL ERCOT, SMES WERE OKAY WITH IT. NED WAS BEGRUDGINGLY OKAY WITH IT. UH, TWO THUMBS UP. SO ON THE WALK OVER, HE'S EVEN MORE OKAY WITH IT. SO IF THE MOVER AND THE SECONDER WOULD BE UP FOR ACCEPTING THESE DESKTOP EDITS, WE'D BE ONE STEP CLOSER TO A VOTE ON 1315. OKAY. THAT'S BOB AND BILL. THEY BOTH HAVE THEIR CARDS UP, BOB. YEAH. AND ACTUALLY I CAN SEE WHERE THAT COULD REDUCE SOME AMBIGUITY IN BETWEEN A TWO LANE ROAD AND A THREE LANE ROAD. SO I CAN SEE WHERE YOU, YOU COME UP WITH THAT AND I'M FINE WITH IT. SO, UH, I WOULD INCLUDE THE DESKTOP EDITS. OKAY. BILL, I'M FINE WITH AS WELL. I WAS JUST GONNA ASK WHAT THE PRACTICAL EFFECT WAS. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT DOES ANYTHING OTHER THAN MAKES US FEEL BETTER, BUT YOU AT LEAST WE FEEL BETTER, BILL. SO I'M, I'M GOOD WITH IT. LET'S GO. LET'S SECOND TO RELIABILITY. YOUR FEELINGS ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO US. . IF WE CAN KILL TWO VERSION OF ONE STONE, WHOA. WHOA. WHOA. I WISH EVERYONE FELT THAT WAY, COREY. NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE. GOOD TO GO WITH THE MOTION. OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, BRIAN? GOOD. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE THE MOTION ON THE SECOND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1315 IS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FIVE SIX PRS REPORT AS REVISED BY TECH AND THE FIVE 12 REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS EFFECTIVE DATE WITH A RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE DAY AFTER PUCT APPROVAL. THANK YOU, ANN . ALRIGHTY. SO ON THIS MOTION FOR 1315, WE WILL START UP WITH CONSUMERS WITH GARRETT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MIKE. YES, THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, NICK. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. AND BETH, VOTE FROM ACROSS THE ROOM. ALL RIGHT. CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO BETH WILL. YES, THANKS. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR CO-OPS, BLAKE ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. KYLE ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. JOHN ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. AND THEN JO DAN FOR MIKE ABSTAIN. THANK YOU, COREY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, NED? YES. THANK YOU, COREY. THANKS, SIR. BRIAN, UH, I HATE THIS YET. BEGRUDGING? YES. ALL RIGHT, BOB? YES, SIR. THANK YOU, CAITLIN. YES. THANK YOU. ONTO THE IPNS. JEREMY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SETH. YES. THANK YOU SHANE FOR REMI. NO, SIR. THANK YOU. IAN ABSTAIN. THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU, SIR. ONTO OUR IRES. BILL. YES, THANK YOU, JAY. YES, THANK YOU, CHRIS. YES, THANK YOU, JEN. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UNDER IOU IS MARTHA. YES. THANK YOU, KEITH. YES. THANK YOU. EBY. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AARON. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR MUNIS. ALICIA? GRUDGINGLY. YES. THANK YOU. LOWERCASE X, UH, JOSE? SAME. YES. THANK YOU. CURTIS GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT, CURTIS, THANK YOU, DIANA FOR DAVID ORLY. YES. THANK YOU. AND LAST BUT NEVER LEAST, UH, . YES, THANK YOU. SORRY FOR THE DELAY. NO, ADVERB. . MOTION CARRIES. ONE OPPOSED FIVE. ABSTENTIONS. BRIAN SAMS IS THE MOST LIKE, ICONIC VOTER, AND I WANT TO USE THE, I HATE THIS. YES, SOMETIME, BUT MAYBE LATER THIS MEETING. ALL RIGHT. BOB HILTON. YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK, NOW THAT THIS IS PASSED, SO I SEE THIS WILL GO TO THE JUNE BOARD MEETING. IT'LL BE AT, UH, THE PUC, PROBABLY JULY. SO WOODY KEN, ARE WE EXPECTING THE POTENTIAL FOR THE FIRST RFP FOR FAR WEST TEXAS TO BE IN AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER? [01:10:02] IT'LL BE THIS YEAR. OKAY. ALRIGHT. I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS. THANK YOU, BOB. OKAY. WE ARE NOT GONNA TAKE THE COMBO BALLOT YET, BUT EVERYTHING IS GOING GREAT. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. WE WILL GET BACK TO THE COMBO BALLOT LATER. UM, SO WE ARE GOING TO THE BATCH STUDY ITEMS. UM, WE JUST TOOK OUR BREAK. SO WHAT MY PLAN IS, HAVE ERCOT PRESENT ON THEIR LATEST COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, HAVE, HAVE THEM PRESENT AND TAKE SOME QUESTIONS. HOPEFULLY DO THAT IN AN HOUR TO AN HOUR AND A HALF. LESS WOULD BE GREAT IF I'M OVERESTIMATING THAN BREAK FOR LUNCH. THEN, UM, MARTHA HAD IDENTIFIED SOME ISSUES THAT, OR, OR REALLY ISSUES THAT CAME OUT OF ROSS WHERE WERE MULTIPLE PEOPLE WERE CONCERNED WITH, WITH A SINGULAR ISSUE. THERE WERE SIX, WE'VE ELIMINATED ONE. SO THERE ARE FIVE. UM, YOU CAN READ THEM YOURSELF OR I CAN READ THEM. SO, UH, THE FIRST ONE WOULD BE APPLICABLE, RPG DATES FOR INCLUSION AND BATCH ZERO. UM, THE SECOND ONE BE TREATMENT OF MISSING TBIT DATES. THIRD ONE IS ALLOCATION OF RPG PROJECT MEGAWATTS. FOURTH ONE, LOWERING THE 200 MEGAWATT MIN ALLOCATION, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS ADDRESSED IN OUR CAPS. LATEST COMMENTS MAYBE. UM, AND THEN THE, THE FIFTH ONE, WHICH I THINK WE CAN REMOVE IS THE REVIEW CONTRACTS FOR POWER, POWER LANGUAGE, UM, AND I, SO I THINK FOUR AND FIVE MAYBE ARE NON-ISSUE ANYMORE. AND THEN SIX WAS REFINE AND ESTABLISH DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF STUDY STATE OR STABILITY STUDIES TO ERCOT, UM, FOR STUDY LOADS. SO, AND THEN I KNOW WE HAD A NUMBER OF COMMENTS COME IN AFTER THE ERCOT COMMENTS. MY PLAN WAS NOT TO TAKE THOSE UP BY ONE BY ONE, BUT I'M DEFINITELY NOT PRECLUDING ANYBODY FROM SPEAKING TO THEIR COMMENTS. SO PLEASE, YOU KNOW, AT THAT TIME IN THE AGENDA, GET, GET IN THE QUEUE AND WE'LL GO THROUGH ANY OTHER OUTSTANDING COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. BUT IT ALSO DOES GIVE YOU SORT OF MATT'S PRESENTATION AND THE LUNCH BREAK TO, TO HOLLER AT ME AND, AND SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO ADD MAYBE TO THAT SECOND PART OF THE AGENDA. IS THAT A OKAY PLAN FOR NOW, AND WE WILL, WE WILL TAKE UP THE COMBO BALLOT WHEN WE RETURN FOR FROM LUNCH. ALSO. GO AHEAD, BOB. YEAH, JUST ON THE, THE COMMENTS BY THE OTHERS. AND YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT PLANNING WITH GOING THROUGH THOSE ONE BY ONE, WHICH IS FINE, I DON'T CARE. UH, YOU KNOW, IT'LL GO WHEREVER IT GOES. BUT, UH, IS ERCOT GOING TO ADDRESS THOSE IN, YOU KNOW, IN ANY MEANS OR SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO IN THEIR, THEIR COMMENTS THEY MADE THE OTHER NIGHT AND EVERYTHING THEY ADDRESSED, COMMENTS WERE MADE PRIOR TO THAT. MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE A CROWD GONNA CIRCLE BACK AND DO ANYTHING WITH THE COMMENTS THAT CAME IN YESTERDAY? MATT? YEAH, SO THIS IS JEFF. UM, JEFF, OKAY. YEAH, SO, UM, I'M, I DON'T KNOW, I THINK WE'RE STILL DIGESTING THOSE COMMENTS. YEAH, SORRY. UH, YEAH, SO I, I THINK WE'RE STILL DIGESTING THOSE. UM, UM, YEAH, I, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. I THINK, I THINK WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL SEE BASED ON THE NATURE OF THE COMMENTS. SOME, SOME OF 'EM WERE KIND OF MINOR OR OTHERS A LITTLE BIT MORE MAJOR. UM, SO WE'LL, WE'LL SEE. AND WE MIGHT ADDRESS SOME OF IT IN THE DISCUSSION TODAY. OKAY. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. YEAH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, NEED SOME HELP, BUT I, I AM SURE SOME OF THOSE WILL ALSO COME UP AS QUESTIONS TO ERCOT WHILE MATT IS GOING THROUGH, OR MATT, MATT OR JEFF ARE GOING THROUGH THE LATEST COMMENTS. SO I THINK WE'LL GET A LITTLE BIT ADDRESSED IN BOTH PLACES. GO. YEAH, YEAH, PLEASE GO AHEAD MATT. ALRIGHT, WE'LL JUST SEE HOW THIS GOES. WE'LL SEE HOW IT GOES. ALRIGHT, WELL THANKS FOR BEING HERE. UM, MATT MARINA IS WITH ERCOT ON BEHALF OF THE TEAM THAT'S BEEN WORKING TIRELESSLY TO GET THROUGH THIS. AND AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF THE, YOU'VE SEEN THE PICTURE A DOZEN TIMES NOW ON THE LEFT IS THE THINGS ARE GETTING STUCK. RE STUDIES ARE THE KEY. A LARGE LOAD INDIVIDUALLY UDDI COLLIDES WITH ANOTHER STUDY THAT'S IN FLIGHT, AND THEY'RE BOTH THEN PUT INTO A BAD SPOT AND MOVING TO THE BATCH PROCESS ON THE RIGHT. SO ERCOT BROUGHT THIS TO THE COMMISSION BACK IN DECEMBER. UH, THERE WAS THE IDEA OF KICKING OFF THIS NEW BATCH STUDY THING. THERE'S PUC GUIDANCE ON FEBRUARY 6TH THAT SAID, GO FORTH AND WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO COME UP WITH A STAKEHOLDER DRIVEN SOLUTION RATHER THAN ANY SORT OF, UM, OTHER WAY TO DO IT. AND SO THE BATCH ZERO FILING WAS, UH, THAT'S 80 DAYS AGO NOW, WHICH WAS [01:15:01] THE MARCH 4TH BATCH ZERO. UH, THEN, UH, MONTH AND A HALF LATER, UH, LAYERED IN THE CONTROL BELOW, UH, RESOURCE CONCEPT. THIS IS THE IDEA OF ALLOWING A DATA CENTER TYPE LARGE LOAD THAT MAY BE ABLE TO, IF THERE'S NOT CONGESTION, TO GROW INTO THAT EXTRA CAPACITY WHEN THERE'S NOT CONGESTION AND THEN GO BACK DOWN TO THEIR BASE VALUE. UM, AND SO THAT CONSTRUCT HAS BEEN PUT INTO PLACE BY FORKLIFTING EXISTING CONSTRUCTS IN A QUICK, RAPID WAY TO GET THAT SPEED TO POWER SOONER BECAUSE THEY CAN BE USING POWER THAT THEY NORMALLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE ABSENT THIS CONSTRUCT. UH, THE NEXT ONE WAS ON MAY 2ND. THAT WAS THE IDEA OF HOW TO ACCOMMODATE BRING YOUR OWN GENERATION ERCOT. WHEN YOU STUDY A LOAD NEXT TO A GENERATOR, WE STUDY THEM INDEPENDENTLY. THE IDEA IS PUT A CIRCLE AROUND THEM AND SAY, THIS LOAD WILL DISAPPEAR IF THE GENERATOR DISAPPEARS. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY CAN STILL ENERGIZE AND GET LOAD. THEY CAN CONSUME ENERGY SOONER OUTSIDE OF THE ERCOT GRID. AND THAT'S A WAY TO, AGAIN, GET ENERGY SOONER. UM, I'M USING THOSE PHRASES PURPOSEFULLY BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION OF, WELL, IF YOU'RE DOING THIS, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND CHANGE THE ELIGIBILITY FOR THESE. THIS IS ALWAYS ABOUT HOW TO GET, HOW TO CREATE FLEXIBILITY IN THESE ARRANGEMENTS RATHER THAN REASSESS ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AROUND IT. AND THEN ULTIMATELY LEADING TO THE ERCOT BOARD APPROVAL. SO THIS HAS BEEN KIND OF THE RACE TO THE FINISH. UH, WE'RE AT THIS SPECIAL T TODAY. WE HAVE THE PRS VOTE ON FIVE SIX FOR 1325. THE ROS ROS VOTE ON MAY 7TH. AND HERE WE ARE, UH, AT THIS POINT, UH, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF KEY THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED. THIS HAS BEEN A ROLLING STORY OF HOW THIS IS UNFOLDING. SO THE MAY 11TH COMMENT. SO AGAIN, THAT WAS THE MONDAY NIGHT FILING THAT JEFF TALKED ABOUT BEING ONLY 36 HOURS OLD, WAS THE, WHAT IS THE REFINED BATCH PROCESS? HOW HAVE WE REALIGNED IT TO MATCH WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE COMMISSION, AS WELL AS TO ACCOMMODATE OTHER, UM, PIECES THAT HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO THE TABLE. UM, AND ALSO DOWN AT THE BOTTOM WAS THE MAY 6TH COMMENTS, UH, PUC STAFF COMMENTS FILED. SO AS WE'VE BEEN AT THE COMMISSION, IT'S KINDA LIKE YOU'RE RIDING TWO HORSES. THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON WITH THE COMMISSION. BARKSDALE'S DONE A GREAT JOB OF BEING AT ALMOST ALL OF THESE FORUMS TO SAY THAT'S MORE OF A PUC ISSUE. LET'S TAKE IT ON DOWN THAT TRACK. AND THAT HAS HAD MOVEMENT. AND THEN THERE'S THE REST OF THIS THAT'S ON THE ERCOT SIDE. AND SO THOSE THINGS WORK TOGETHER. AND THEN THAT KIND OF FRAMES AREAS THAT I CALL THEM NO FLY ZONES AT R OS. THAT'S PROBABLY NOT THE BEST TERM, BUT PEOPLE HAVE SAID, ERCOT, IF YOU'LL JUST TELL US WHAT YOUR BOUNDARIES ARE, SO WE KNOW WHAT TO DEBATE, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE YOU STAND. SO THIS IS A WHERE WE STAND ON THINGS IF IT HELPS. UH, SO FIRST OF ALL, ERCOT DOES NOT SUPPORT CHANGES THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PUC UH, PROJECTS AS IT RELATES TO 5 8 4 8 1 AND 5 9 1 4 2. UM, WHETHER THAT'S A POWER CONTRACT, TENANT, CONTRACT, SITE CONTROL, ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN A PART OF THOSE HEARINGS AND RULEMAKINGS. UM, NOW WHEN IT COMES TO MARCH 4TH, A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID, LET'S MOVE THAT MARCH 4TH DATE LATER IN 2026. LET'S MOVE IT OUT TO JULY. WE DON'T SUPPORT THAT. UM, IT'S ALLOWING MORE BASE LOAD, UH, INCREASES THE RISK OF LOAD SHED. ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD TAKE A LOAD AND SAY, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH, YOU'RE IN WITH EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT THEN WE MAY HAVE OVERSUBSCRIBED THAT AREA SO WHEN IT BECOMES OPERATIONAL, YOU MAY BE ALREADY OVERLOADED IN THAT AREA, IN THAT LOAD. SHE RISK, UH, THERE'S A LITTLE FOOTNOTE ON THAT TOO. WE HAD TAKEN THAT TO THE COMMISSION. THEY ALSO AGREED THAT MARCH 4TH WAS A GOOD PLACE TO HOLD THE LINE. UM, ALSO THERE ARE O OTHER ELIGIBILITY PATHS TO GET VOTE BASE LOAD TREATMENT. SO THAT MARCH 4TH IS ONE KEY DATE ON AN AVENUE IN, BUT THERE'S OTHERS. THE NEXT ONE IS ERCOT DOES NOT SUPPORT HAVING DIFFERENT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR LARGE LOADS THAT OPT FOR THAT PCLR OR BRING YOUR OWN GEN TREATMENT AS DISCUSSED A MINUTE AGO. AND THEN GENERALLY SPEAKING, ERCOT DOES NOT SUPPORT FURTHER EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY. AGAIN, THIS IS THE IDEA OF IF WE OPEN IT UP TO A LOT MORE IN THIS CASE, RPG PROJECTS, THAT IS ANOTHER ALMOST OVERSUBSCRIBED TYPE, UM, SITUATION THAT WE TOOK TO THE COMMISSION. THEY ALSO WEIGHED IN ON SAYING, THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE TO US. SO, UM, THAT'S JUST KIND OF WHERE WE STAND ON THINGS, IF THAT HELPS FOR TODAY. AND THEN MY LAST SLIDE, AND I'LL TURN THE REST OVER TO JEFF, IS THE IA FOR THIS. WE JUST DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE SURPRISED BY IT. UM, THIS IS TAKING A, UH, BUSINESS PROCESS THAT'S BEEN SPREAD ACROSS MULTIPLE TSPS AND BRINGING A LOT OF THAT ANALYSIS WORK IN HOUSE. SO THAT DOES RESULT IN A GRID PLANNING GROUP NEEDING NINE ADDITIONAL FTES, THE DYNAMIC STUDIES GROUP THAT STUDIES ALL OF THESE, UH, WITH EIGHT FTES AND THEN THE PLANNING MODEL, BUILDING ALL THE MODELS FOR ALL OF THESE NEW, UH, STUDIES AND ALLOCATIONS. FROM A SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE, THE PCLR IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS TO CREATE THAT SCED STEP TWO, CHANGE FOR CONGESTION MANAGEMENT USING THE, UM, DATA CENTER THAT IS BEHIND A LOCAL [01:20:01] CONSTRAINT. SO THAT IS NOT NEEDED. HERE'S THE GOOD NEWS. THIS IS WHERE FINALLY OUR IT SHOP EXHALES. IT'S LIKE, WE DON'T NEED THIS UNTIL 2027. AND THEY'RE LIKE, OH, THANK KEVIN. SOMETHING THAT'S NOT, SO THIS IS NOT NEEDED TO RUN BATCH IN THE COMING MONTHS THAT'S NEEDED FOR OPERATIONS BY THE TIME WE GET THERE. UH, AND THEN THE LAST PIECE IS THAT THERE'S THIS ANNUAL ONGOING COST OF THOSE ADDITIONAL FTES. SO IF THAT'LL TURN IT OVER TO JEFF TO KIND OF WALK DOWN A SUMMARY OF THIS AND THEN OPEN THE SLIDES SO THE WORD DOCUMENTS OPEN BEHIND IT. SO OVER TO YOU. ALRIGHT, THANKS MATT. YEAH, SO, UM, THE, UH, FIRST THING I WANNA HIGHLIGHT AND THEN I AM GONNA GO TO THE, UH, WORD DOCUMENT IS JUST, UM, THE, UH, CHANGES THAT CAME OUT OF THE COMMISSION. SO THE, UM, STAFF, UH, FILED A MEMO, UH, DISCUSSING SOME OF THE, UM, CHANGES THAT THEY'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, UM, UH, PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE LOADS THAT WOULD GO INTO BATCH ZERO AS AS BASE LOAD. UM, AND SO THEY, UH, REMOVED THE POWER SUPPLY CONTRACTS FROM, UH, THE, WHAT THEY CALL THE ADVANCING, UH, CRITERIA. AND THEN THEY, UM, HAVE MADE SOME CHANGES WITH, UH, MAKING ADVANCING, UH, MADE THAT SO THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT POWER CONTRACT THAT A LOAD WOULD NEED TO, UM, HAVE A TENANT, UH, OR BE THE TENANT. UH, AND SO, UH, THAT, THAT CHANGES IN THEIR MEMO. AND THEN THEY ALSO, UM, UH, PUT A, UH, SO THAT, THAT ORIGINALLY THAT TENANT PIECE WAS IN THEIR DEVELOPING LOAD, UM, CATEGORY. SO THEY, THEY CHANGED THAT DEVELOPING LOAD CATEGORY TO, UH, THE, UH, THE REQUIREMENT TO BE THAT YOU NEED A CONTRACTOR, UH, OR CONTRACT WITH A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, UH, AND SUBSTATION CONTRACTOR, UH, AS WELL AS EVIDENCE OF ZONING APPROVAL. UH, SO THEY FILED THAT MEMO ON THE SIXTH, UH, AT THE MAY 7TH OPEN MEETING, HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, GAVE THE HEAD NOD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. SO IN THE COMMENTS THAT ERCOT FILED ON MONDAY, UH, WHICH I'LL, UH, UH, TALK THROUGH IN A MINUTE, UH, WE, UM, HAVE ATTEMPTED TO INCORPORATE THAT FEEDBACK IN, INTO, UH, PICKER 1 45. SO WE'VE CHANGED IT. IF YOU LOOK AT SECTION, UH, 9.2, UH, 0.1, 0.1, UM, PARAGRAPH ONE, UH, THE THESE TWO, THE ADVANCING AND DEVELOPING CONCEPTS, THEY ARE IN PARA SUBPARAGRAPH, E AND F. SO WE'VE MADE CHANGES TO EACH OF THOSE PARAGRAPHS TO, UM, INCORPORATE THAT FEEDBACK. UM, SO WITH THAT, I'M GONNA SWITCH OVER TO THE, UH, THE COMMENTS AND, UM, I'M GONNA FOCUS ON 1 45. IF WE WANNA TALK ABOUT 1325, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. AND, UH, I KNOW IT'S NOT THE MOST EXCITING PRESENTATION TO WALK THROUGH THE, THE, UH, A, A LONG, UM, COMMENT, UH, WORD DOCUMENT. UM, AND SO I'M, I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THE, THE BULLETS HERE. UH, NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE, UH, BUT I'M HAPPY TO TO DO THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT, UH, TECH MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THOSE THINGS. UM, SO, UH, AS I MENTIONED, WE MADE THOSE CHANGES IN 9 2 1 1 TO CONFORM WITH THE, UH, GUIDANCE THAT WE WERE GIVEN BY THE COMMISSION AT THEIR MAY 7TH OPEN MEETING. UM, THE, UM, OTHER CHANGE, UH, OR NEXT CHANGE I WANNA HIGHLIGHT IS ON THE, UM, ATTESTATION REQUIREMENTS. WE HAD GOTTEN SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT AS WELL AS WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF, IF, UM, IF FOLKS, UH, SUBMIT FALSE ATTESTATIONS OR, OR ATTESTATIONS THAT, THAT DON'T HAVE ALL OF THEIR REQUIRED INFORMATION. UH, AND SO WE HAVE, UH, MADE, UM, CHANGES IN, UH, WHAT WAS, UH, PARAGRAPH EIGHT UNDER SECTION 9.1, AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL PARAGRAPH NINE, UH, TO CLARIFY THE, THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT AND, AND JUST HOW WE WOULD, UH, LOOK AT THAT. UM, NE NEXT CHANGE. UM, I THINK THIS WAS MAYBE VISTA COMMENTS, UM, MAY, MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE. UH, BUT IN THE, UH, QSA SECTION THERE, THERE WERE SOME, UM, UH, PREREQUISITE DATES. SO IF YOU LOOKED AT THE TIMING OF, OF WHEN PROJECTS WOULD GO THROUGH THE EXISTING PROCESSES AS WELL AS THE BATCH PROCESS, UH, WE NEEDED TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE, UH, THE DATES ON THAT. AND SO WE MADE THOSE, UH, ADJUSTMENTS IN, UM, 5, 5 3 5, PARAGRAPH FIVE. UM, AND, AND THEN THE, UH, NEXT CHANGE, UM, HAD TO DO WITH, UM, UH, JUST SOME, UH, CLARIFICATIONS AROUND, UM, PROJECTS THAT WERE, UM, UH, PART OF A, A NET METERING ARRANGEMENT. UM, AND, UH, AND SO WE MADE SOME, UH, CHANGES ON THOSE, UM, THAT THOSE THAT THE COMMISSION HAD HAD TOLD US THAT THEY WANTED US TO, UM, UH, THAT, THAT THOSE [01:25:01] THAT WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE MARCH 4TH, THOSE ARE COMING IN AS, AS BASELOAD. UM, AND, AND SO WANTED, NEEDED TO MAKE A FEW CLARIFICATIONS AROUND THAT AFTER SOME, UH, FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED ON THAT. UM, AND THEN, UH, MADE A NUMBER OF, UM, I THINK IT, IT SOME MINOR, UH, CLARIFICATIONS ON THE MODELING ASSUMPTIONS FOR LARGE LOADS THAT ARE BASE LOAD. UM, BUT THEN I THINK A LITTLE BIT MORE SIGNIFICANT IS THIS, UM, NEXT BULLET. THIS WAS, UM, I THINK LCRA COMMENT ON, UM, REALLY AROUND THE ISSUE OF LOADS THAT COME INTO BATCH SERIAL AS BASE LOAD WHO HAVE A VALID STUDY THAT IS AN RPG UH, PROJECT. THE, THE WAY THAT WE HAD THE LANGUAGE LAID OUT BEFORE WAS THAT THOSE LOADS, UH, IT, IF THAT RPG PROJECT IS NOT SCHEDULED TO COME IN UNTIL 2031, UH, THEN, THEN THOSE LOADS WOULD BE ALLOCATED ZERO MEGAWATTS UNTIL 2031, AND THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THEIR, THEIR FULL MEGAWATTS. UM, AND HAD A NUMBER OF, UH, COMMENTS ABOUT THAT. AND LCRA HAD A, UM, PROPOSAL TO, UM, INCLUDE THOSE LOADS AS STUDIED LOADS IN THE PRIOR YEAR. SO IF, IF THEY WANTED TO, UH, COME ONTO THE SYSTEM IN 2029, BUT THEIR RPG PROJECT WASN'T GONNA BE THERE UNTIL 2031, THEN IN 29 AND 30 WE WILL, WE WOULD, UM, UH, STUDY THOSE LOADS AND ALLOCATE THEM MEGAWATTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SYSTEM, UH, CAN HANDLE AS, AS, UH, AS WE SEE IN, IN THE BATCH ZERO STUDY. UH, AND WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA. AND SO WE INCORPORATED THAT, UH, CONCEPT INTO THE, UM, INTO THIS SET OF REVISIONS. UM, THERE WAS SOME, UM, ADDITIONAL, UH, CLARIFICATIONS THAT WE MADE TO, UM, UH, INTERCONNECTIONS. UH, SO FOR STUDIES THAT WERE, UM, EXEMPT FROM THE, UH, THE, THE PRIOR LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDY PROCESS, UM, THERE WERE SOME CLARIFICATIONS. UH, SO WE, WE HAD MADE A, A CHANGE IN OUR, UM, LAST SET OF PROVISIONS TO, UM, UH, TO, UH, UH, I DUNNO, OPEN THE DOOR SO THAT THE RIGHT WAY, BUT TO, TO SAY IT, BUT ESSENTIALLY TO ALLOW THOSE LOADS TO, UM, UH, HA HAVE A PATHWAY, UH, IN, INTO, UM, BATCH ZERO. UH, AND, AND THERE WERE SOME CONFUSION, I THINK, WITH SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD ADDED ON THAT. AND SO WE ATTEMPTED TO, UH, MAKE SOME CLARIFICATIONS ON THAT IN THIS, UH, WE, WE ALSO, UM, WANTED TO CLARIFY, AND, UM, IN, IN THIS SET OF ORIGINAL REQUESTS THAT A LARGE LOAD COMING INTO BATCH ZERO, UH, THAT IT, YOU, YOU CAN'T SAY I WANT TO BE A-A-P-C-L-R AND A WL PUN. I THINK THAT THOSE CONTRACT OR THOSE CONSTRUCTS HAVE SOME, UM, MUTUALITY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T DO BOTH OF THOSE. UH, AND SO WE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, THAT YOU, UM, REALLY CAN ONLY DO YOU, YOU CAN EITHER JUST COME IN AS A STANDALONE, YOU'RE NOT P-C-L-R-W UPON, OR YOU'RE A-P-C-L-R OR YOU'RE A W UPON, UH, SO I WANTED TO, UH, MAKE THAT CLEAR, UH, AND ALSO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE PCLR AND THE W UPON THAT IS ONLY FOR LOADS THAT ARE GOING INTO BATCH ZERO AS STUDIED LOADS. UM, THERE WAS, UM, S SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL, UM, UM, FI FINANCIAL SECURITY CLARIFI CLARIFICATIONS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE. UM, AND, AND THIS IS, SO, SO WE, WE HAD, UM, UH, I THINK PREVIOUSLY WE, WE HAD THIS IDEA THAT YOU COULD, UM, UH, IF YOU CAME IN AS A, A BASE LOAD AND THEN, UH, BUT YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA BE BASE LOAD, BUT YOU ENDED UP, YOU, YOU FAILED SOMETHING IN THE BASE LOAD THAT, THAT YOU WERE GOING IN AS STUDIED LOAD. UH, SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU, YOU THINK YOU'RE COMING IN AS BASE LOAD, BUT IT ENDS UP THAT YOU'RE STUDIED LOAD. WE, WE NEEDED TO MAKE SOME, UH, CLARIFICATIONS AROUND HOW YOU, UM, UH, MEET THE, BECAUSE THERE'S DIFFERENT FINANCIAL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. AND SO WE'VE ADDED SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT HOW, HOW THAT PROCESS WOULD WORK, UH, TO GIVE A LITTLE EXTRA TIME. UH, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TIME IN THERE, BUT THAT'S JUST A CONSEQUENCE OF WHEN WE HAVE TO START THE STUDY, UM, TO, TO MEET THE DEADLINES AND, AND, BUT WE HAVE ADDED A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME AND LITTLE PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO, UM, FOR THE, THE LOADS TO BE ABLE TO MEET THOSE, UH, DIFFERENT FINANCIAL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. UM, WHEN WE INTRODUCED THE BOOKEND METHODOLOGY, THERE WAS SOME, I THINK, SOME CONFUSION IN SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT, UM, I THINK SOME TSPS WERE, UH, CONCERNED THAT, THAT THE LANGUAGE WOULD PROHIBIT THEM FROM STUDYING OR, UH, ANYTHING OTHER THAN 2032 AND, AND THEIR OWN ANALYSIS. AND SO WE ADDED SOME CLARIFICATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THEY COULD STUDY THE OTHER YEARS, UH, AS WELL. UM, HAD SOME, UM, COMMENTS ABOUT, UM, THE, [01:30:01] UH, DISCLOSURES, UH, PARTICULARLY AROUND, UM, WHEN A LOAD IS PURSUING SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR REQUEST, UM, WHEN THE DEVELOPER IS, UH, AND, AND WE TOOK THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY CAME, UH, DIRECTLY OUT OF THE 58 41 PFP, UH, HAD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THAT, THAT, THAT THERE WAS, UM, IN, IN SENATE BILL SIX, THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT THAT WAS LIMITED TO, UH, TEXAS. SO I THINK FOR BATCH ZERO, UH, WE WILL LIMIT THAT TO JUST, UH, TEXAS. UM, AND OBVIOUSLY IN THE LONG RUN, WE'LL, WE'LL FOLLOW WHATEVER COMES OUT AT 58 41, BUT, UH, I THINK JUST FOR BATCH ZERO, WE'VE, UH, LIMITED THAT REQUEST TO SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR REQUESTS IN TEXAS. UM, AND THEN AT, AT SOME CLARIFICATIONS AROUND LOAD COMMISSIONING PLANS. UM, AND THEN THERE WERE OTHER AREAS WHERE WE FELT LIKE, UM, WE, WE HAD USED, UH, MAYBE INCONSISTENT TERMINOLOGY, UM, IN, IN, INTO, WE MADE A NUMBER OF, UH, CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT JUST TO, UM, I IMPROVE THAT CONSISTENCY. UH, SO WE, WE'VE GONE, UM, THROUGH A, UH, IN INTERNAL ROUND OF, UM, QUALITY CONTROL, WE'RE, WE'RE DOING THAT, UH, ANOTHER ROUND OF THAT RIGHT NOW. AND SO THAT'S WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, TO MY COMMENT EARLIER TO, TO BILL, UH, I THINK WE, WE FOUND A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE, I, I WOULD SAY MO MOSTLY JUST SMALL, UH, TYPOS AND, AND INCONSISTENCIES, UM, SOME COPY PASTE ERRORS. AND, AND SO WE INTEND TO, UM, UH, RELATIVELY SOON, UH, WE WILL FILE SOME COMMENTS TO CLEAN THOSE UP, UM, SO THAT YOU GUYS HAVE A, A CLEAN VERSION TO, TO VOTE ON NEXT WEEK. UM, SO THAT, THAT, THAT'S A SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE. AND I, I DID WANNA ADDRESS SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE ELECTED NOT TO MAKE AND WHY WE, UM, HAVE DECIDED NOT TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. SO WE HAD A NUMBER OF COMMENTS AROUND TIP IT. UH, SO IF YOU LOOK AT, UM, THE, THE LANGUAGE FOR, UH, BASE LOADS AND HOW WE ARE THINKING ABOUT THE, UM, THE, THE LOAD RAMPS, LOAD COMMISSIONING PLANS FOR LOADS THAT COME IN AS BASE LOAD AND BATCH ZERO, UH, WE ARE LOOKING AT TIPT TO, TO THE EXTENT THAT A, A BASE LOAD, UH, IF THEIR STUDY SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS LOAD AS, AS AN EXAMPLE, IF IT SAYS, OKAY, THIS IS A, UH, A LOAD THAT CAN HAVE 400 MEGAWATTS UNTIL X, Y, Z TRANSMISSION UPGRADE IS IN PLACE, AND THAT, AND ONCE THAT TRANSMISSION UPGRADES IN PLACE, THEN THEY CAN MOVE FROM 400 TO 600. UH, WE NEED A, A DATE TO MODEL, UH, TO INCLUDE IN THE MODEL FOR WHEN, WHEN IS THAT XY, Z TRANSMISSION PROJECT IN PLACE. AND, AND SO WE HAVE, UM, IN THE LANGUAGE WE POINT TO TIP IT, UM, BUT WE HAVE GOTTEN FEEDBACK THAT MAYBE NOT ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE IN TIP IT TODAY. AND, AND TO ADDRESS THIS, WE ARE PLANNING ON DOING AN AD HOC, UH, TIP IT UPDATE IN LATE, LATE JUNE, EARLY JULY. UH, AND, AND THIS WOULD ALLOW TSPS TO, UM, TO PUT IN ANY PROJECTS THAT, UH, MAYBE WEREN'T IN TIPPE. AND I THINK THE COMMENT THAT WE HAD RECEIVED IS THAT MAYBE PROJECTS THAT WERE, UM, IN, UH, OR MAYBE JUST GOT APPROVED, UH, FROM, UM, UH, FROM THE BOARD THAT MAYBE SOME OF THOSE AREN'T IN, UH, UH, UH, TIPPE. AND SO WE'LL, WE'LL DO AN AD HOC UPDATE AFTER THE JUNE BOARD MEETING TO, UH, MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THOSE IN PLACE SO WE CAN USE THOSE. UM, THERE WAS, UM, SOME OTHER COMMENTS THAT SUGGESTED THAT, UM, PROJECTS THAT WERE, UM, PART OF A, UH, LARGE LOAD PROJECTS THAT WERE PART OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR AN RPG PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR RPG REVIEW, UM, A UH, SOME SOMETIME AFTER THE DECEMBER 15TH, UM, UH, DATE WHEN FIGURE ONE 15 WENT IN PLACE, THAT THOSE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN BACTERIA STUDY LOAD. UM, AND WE DID NOT SEE THAT THAT, THAT, THAT WAS APPROPRIATE. AND, AND, UM, THE, THE REASONS ARE, YOU KNOW, ONE THAT, UH, THAT RPG PROCESS THAT, SO THAT RPG PROCESS IS REALLY MEANT FOR TRANSMISSION PROJECTS AND, AND, UH, DETERMINING WHAT, WHAT TRANSMISSION PROJECTS ARE NEEDED AND, AND WHAT'S THE APPROPRIATE TRANSMISSION PROJECT TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS, UH, OF THE SYSTEM. UH, THAT REALLY WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDY. UH, AND SO WE HAVE, UM, UH, WHEN P ONE 15 WENT IN, THAT REALLY CLOSED THE DOOR ON THAT SO THAT THE ALL, ALL LARGE, ALL, ALL LARGE LOADS SHOULD GO THROUGH THE, THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDY PROCESS. UM, AND, AND SO I THINK WE DON'T REALLY VIEW THAT AS, UM, YOU KNOW, VALID GOING FORWARD. AND, AND THEN, UM, THE OTHER, OR THE NEXT THING ON THIS IS REALLY, UM, IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT THE, THE, THE STUDIES THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING AS VALID STUDIES, THEY'RE ALL, UM, HAVE SOME KIND OF ERCOT APPROVAL OR RPG ACCEPTANCE OF THOSE STUDIES. SO IT, IT'S NOT MERELY THAT YOU'VE JUST SUBMITTED A STUDY, UH, BUT THAT STUDY HAS GONE THROUGH SOME LEVEL OF REVIEW AND, AND [01:35:01] HAS BEEN EITHER ENDORSED OR ACCEPTED. UM, AND SO JUST, JUST SUBMITTING A STUDY WE DID NOT THINK WAS APPROPRIATE. UH, AND THEN LASTLY, JUST THE KIND OF A, FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, UM, WE, WE, UH, DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S FEASIBLE. UH, SO TO, TO GO TO THE EXTREME, WE, WE CAN'T HAVE ALL 400 GIGAWATTS OF LOADS THAT ARE IN THE, THE INTERCONNECTION PROCESS TODAY. WE CAN'T HAVE ALL OF THOSE IN BACHELOR. THAT, THAT WOULD BE, WE WOULD NOT GET GOOD STUDY RESULTS IF WE WERE TO DO THAT. UH, AND, AND SO JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'D BE ADDING, UM, A A LOT OF ADDITIONAL LOAD IF WE CHANGED THEIR CRITERIA HERE AND, AND WOULD BE PUSHING THAT STUDY INTO AN AREA WHERE WE JUST DON'T THINK IT WOULD, WE'D GET GOOD STUDY RESULTS. UH, SO THAT, THAT'S ON THE, THE COMMENTS AROUND SUBMITTED. UH, I THINK THAT THERE'S ANOTHER FLAVOR OF, UH, COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HAD, UM, AROUND, UM, RPG PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED. SO, SO THE COMMENTS I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT WAS MORE ABOUT, UH, THE, UH, AN RPG PROJECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND THIS LARGE LOAD WAS PART OF, OF THAT SUBMITTAL. UH, BUT THEN THERE'S ANOTHER FLAVOR THAT IS RPG PROJECTS THAT HAVE, UM, GONE THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS. AND, UH, THOSE RPG PROJECTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED EITHER THROUGH AN ERCOT ENDORSEMENT OR THROUGH RPG ACCEPTANCE IN THE CASE OF TIER THREE, TIER THREE PROJECTS. UM, AND I THINK THERE'S VARIOUS VERSIONS OF, OF THIS CONCEPT OUT THERE, BUT, UM, I, I, I THINK FOR THE WAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IT IS I THINK WE'VE, UH, DRAWN A REASONABLE, UM, CRITERIA HERE, UH, WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT WHEN THOSE STUDIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. UM, AND, UH, AND WE THINK THAT THAT IS A GOOD OBJECTIVE, UH, CRITERION THAT RESPECTS THE RELIABILITY LIMITS OF THE SYSTEM. UH, AGAIN, THERE'S SOME COMMENTS OUT THERE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THEY SAY, HEY, JUST, JUST CHANGE YOUR MARCH 4TH DATE TO JULY 10TH. UH, I THINK THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY, UM, YOU KNOW, BLESS OUR, OUR MARCH 4TH DATE ON THAT. AND SO WE'RE JUST NOT REALLY, UM, DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO GO BACK ON THAT BECAUSE THERE'S SOME RELIABILITY IMPLICATIONS OF DOING THAT. UM, AND THEN THE LAST THING, UM, IS, UH, AND MATT TOUCHED ON THIS, BUT IT'S, UH, HAD A NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT HAVE SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW, IF A LOAD IS WILLING TO BE A-P-C-L-R OR A W PUN, THEN THEY SHOULD QUALIFY TO GET INTO BATCH ZERO. UM, AND WE SEE THAT THAT COULD BE, UH, PROBLEMATIC, UH, FOR ONE ON THE PC LRS, IF A LOAD GOES INTO BATCH ZERO AND THEY SAY, WE WANT TO BE A-P-C-L-R, UH, UH, AT THE END OF BATCH ZERO, THEY CAN CHANGE THEIR MIND AND THEY CAN SAY, WE, WE DON'T WANT TO BE A-P-C-L-R. UH, WE, WE, UM, ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, WILLING TO JUST TAKE WHATEVER WE WERE ALLOCATED. UH, AND SO THIS REALLY WOULD THEN OPEN THE DOOR AGAIN, IT OPENS THE DOOR TO ALL 400 GIGAWATTS COULD CLAIM GOING INTO BATCH ZERO, THAT, THAT THEY WANT TO BE A-P-C-L-R, AND THEN THEY COULD CHANGE THEIR MIND AT THE END. AND SO WE, WE THINK THAT THAT WOULD NOT GIVE US, UM, GOOD, GOOD STUDY RESULTS. UM, AND THEN, UM, I THINK THE SECOND, UH, POINT HERE IS THAT AS, UH, AS WE GO INTO THIS BATCH ZERO STUDY, UH, WE WILL BE CONSIDERING WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED ABOUT THE PREVIOUS LARGE LOAD OR THROUGH THE PREVIOUS LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDIES, WHETHER THAT'S AN RPG PROJECT, UH, RRPG ROUTE STUDIES OR THROUGH THE LILLI PROCESS. UH, WE, WE ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL HAVE SOME, SOME LEARNINGS THAT WILL HELP US, UM, AS WE GO THROUGH THAT BATCH YEAR STUDY. UM, AND, AND THEN LASTLY, O OBVIOUSLY FROM A STUDY PERSPECTIVE, EVERY ADDITIONAL LARGE LOAD THAT THAT COMES INTO THE STUDY, EVEN IF THEY'RE A-P-C-L-R OR A WL PUN, WE, WE STILL HAVE TO STUDY THOSE LOADS. THAT, THAT THERE ARE STILL, UM, UH, STUDY, THERE'S ADDED STUDY COMPLEXITY FOR EVERY SINGLE LARGE LOAD THAT IS INCLUDED IN BATCH ZERO. UH, SO THIS IS IT, IT'S NOT A FREE OPTION FROM A STUDY PERSPECTIVE AND WE THINK PUTS THE TIME TIMELINE AT RISK. UM, SO WITH THAT, I WILL, UM, PAUSE IT, IS ALL, ALL THAT I HAVE TO PLAN TO PRESENT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT FOLKS HAVE. OKAY. YEAH, WE HAVE A LONG QUEUE. UM, I THINK WE'RE JUST GONNA ROLL THROUGH, BUT WE MIGHT ASK SOME QUESTIONS ON SOME TOPICS TO DEFER TO LATER OR SPEED SOME UP SO WE CAN KIND OF BATCH OUR SUBSTANTIVE TOPICS. UM, , I WAS GONNA SAY CLUSTER, BUT WE, WE DON'T USE THAT. SO LET'S START WITH ERIC GOFF. ERIC GOFF ON BEHALF OF TEXAS NEW BUYERS ALLIANCE. UM, FIRST OF ALL, WE APPRECIATE THAT YOU REVIEWED OUR COMMENTS AND INCLUDE SOME OF OUR SUGGESTIONS IN, UH, THE MAY 11TH COMMENTS. UM, I, I'M NOT GONNA KEEP COUNTING HOW MANY HOURS OLD THEY ARE AT SOME POINT IT'S TWO DAYS OLD . UM, [01:40:01] BUT, UM, WE DO INTEND TO PROBABLY FILE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, UM, BASED ON OUR LAST COMMENTS JUST FOR NEXT WEEK. UM, I'M NOT GONNA GET INTO THAT RIGHT NOW. I DO HAVE JUST A QUESTION ON THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADDED, UM, RELATED TO ALL LOCAL APPROVALS, WHICH IS ON PAGE 20 OF 78. UM, THERE'S THE LAST LINE SAYS, ALL REQUIRED APPROVALS AND PERMITS MUST BE FINAL AND NO LONGER SUBJECT TO APPEAL OR LEGAL CHALLENGE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF YOU CAN SEARCH THE WORD APPEAL, IT TAKES YOU RIGHT THERE. UM, SO THAT, UM, LAST CLAUSE AND NO LONGER SUBJECT TO APPEAL OR LEGAL CHALLENGE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, I DO THINK MAYBE OPENS A A CAN OF WORMS BECAUSE IF SOMEONE EITHER AN LIKE A LOCAL OPPONENT TO A FACILITY OR EVEN THEIR, YOU KNOW, COMPETITOR WERE TO FILE SOMETHING, THEN IT COULD EXTEND THAT DEADLINE POTENTIALLY. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS WHAT YOU INTENDED TO DO. AND SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER ENDING THE SENTENCE THAT THE WORD MUST BE FINAL PERIOD AND THEN STRIKE THE, THE REMAINING PART OF THAT. UM, I GET WHY YOU WANTED TO DO IT BECAUSE TECHNICALLY THERE'S AN OPEN-ENDED THING AND IN THEORY, BUT, BUT I THINK IT'S JUST A, A CAN OF WORMS AND WE'LL FILE FURTHER COMMENTS. OKAY. OKAY. LET'S GO TO CHRIS, CHRIS MONTEZ WITH GOOGLE. UM, I DO HAVE OTHER COMMENTS ON THE CONTENT, BUT WHEN MATT WAS GOING OVER THE, THE I A A HAD SOME QUESTIONS, ONE, Y'ALL ARE LOOKING FOR 19 FTES, IS THAT GONNA EVEN BE FEASIBLE TO HIRE BETWEEN NOW AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF BATCH ZERO ? YEAH, SO, UH, WE, SO WE HAVE A, UH, PLAN. UH, I THINK WHAT'S LIKELY TO HAPPEN IS WE'RE WE'RE WILL STAFF THOSE WITH INTERNAL RESOURCES FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS. UM, AND SO WITHOUT GETTING INTO ALL THE DETAILS ON THE MECHANICS, UH, THIS IS A HIGH PRIORITY FOR ERCOT. AND SO WE WILL, UH, ESSENTIALLY WE'RE GOING TO STEAL AND BORROW FROM OTHER GROUPS, RIGHT? AND THEN WE'LL BACKFILL THOSE OTHER GROUPS AND, AND IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, NO MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE OR SO THAT WE'RE STEALING FROM OTHER GROUPS, THAT THOSE GROUPS ARE HOPEFULLY STILL FUNCTIONAL. UH, BUT ALL LET'S SAY IS THAT WE, WE DO HAVE A PLAN TO STAFF THIS UP DID, AND, AND THIS IS REALLY ACTUALLY TRYING TO BE MORE SUPPORTIVE IF YOU NEED FUNDS IN THIS AREA. DID Y'ALL GIVE CONSIDERATION TO CONTRACTING FOR ANY CONSULTING RESOURCES IN THAT, IN THAT EVENT? AND THAT, THAT IS PART OF THE PLAN AS WELL. OKAY. UM, AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION, I GUESS FOR THE 19 FDA EASE, MY ASSUMPTION IS THIS IS ALSO PART OF THE BUDGET THAT'S GOING TO CARRY OVER INTO BATCH IN WHATEVER IS THE EXPECTATION THAT THIS TEAM CORRECT. OKAY. YES. YEAH. AND, AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT AS WE DRAFT THAT ADDITIONAL SET OF REVISION REQUESTS, DEPENDING ON HOW THOSE TURN OUT, THE IA IT, IT, IT COULD BE THAT WE, WE NEED ADDITIONAL FTS. SO I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS IS ALL THAT . OH, I DON'T THINK IT'S OVER . YEAH. I, I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE SCOPE OF WHAT COMES OUT OF THAT NEXT SET OF REVISION REQUESTS. OKAY. UM, AM I ALLOWED TO ASK AM MY OTHER ONES OR DO YOU WANT TO, HOW MANY MORE? I HAVE AT LEAST TWO . SURE. THANK YOU. UM, IN SECTION 9 3 2, 2 B FOR WL POND, ONE OF THE THINGS IS THE GENERATOR CONSIDERATION HERE. UM, IT'S BASICALLY ALL GENERATOR OFF, AND THEN THE LIMITATION IS ESSENTIALLY THE LIMITING OR BINDING LIMITATION IS GOING TO BE 90% OF GENERATOR OFF CONTINGENCY. WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR MULTI RESOURCE BEHIND THE METER? BECAUSE THERE ARE GOING TO BE AT LEAST SOME OF THESE WHERE THERE'S ONE TO TWO, MAYBE THREE GENERATING ASSETS BEHIND IT, AND I DON'T THINK THIS LANGUAGE IS CLEAR ON THAT. YEAH, SO THE, UM, SO FROM A, UM, A WITHDRAWAL LIMIT PERSPECTIVE, IT'S THE, THE WITHDRAWAL LIMIT WILL BE WITHOUT ANY GENERATION, UH, HOW MUCH CAN THE GRIDS SUPPORT. UH, SO THAT, THAT WILL BE YOUR WITHDRAWAL LIMIT. UH, NOW IN REAL TIME, OBVIOUSLY IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE GENERATORS AND, AND YOU ONLY LOSE ONE, HOPEFULLY YOU'RE NEVER HITTING THAT, I SEE WITHDRAWAL LIMIT. UH, [01:45:01] SO, UM, YEAH, SO THAT, THAT, SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE SETTING THE WITHDRAWAL LIMIT. UH, WE ARE LOOKING AND, AND ADMITTEDLY THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE WAY TO LOOK AT IT, BUT FROM A STABILITY STANDPOINT, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT, UH, CAN, CAN THE SYSTEM HANDLE ALL OF THAT LOAD WITHOUT THE, WITHOUT ANY GENERATION AND NOT HIT A STABILITY LIMIT? UH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS TO, TO GO TO THE EXTREME, IT'S, THEY WOULD, IF YOU PUT A THOUSAND MEGAWATT LOAD WITH A BUNCH OF, YOU KNOW, A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS WORTH OF CTS ON, UH, A 69 KV LINE, WE'RE, WE'RE TAKING A CONSERVATIVE VIEW AND MAKING SURE THAT THAT DOESN'T CAUSE ANY, YOU KNOW, TYPE OF STABILITY OR CASCADING, UH, ISSUES. AND, UM, I, I THINK WE'RE OPEN TO REVISITING THAT AFTER BATCH ZERO, BUT I THINK GOING INTO BATCH ZERO, THAT THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO, UH, THINK ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE STAYING BELOW THE, ANY KIND OF STABILITY OR CASCADING LIMITS. OKAY. AND THEN MY LAST ONE FOR AT LEAST THIS ROUND, I'LL GET BACK IN THE QUEUE, 9.18. YOU KNOW, Y'ALL SAY AT ANY TIME DURING THE BATCH ZERO PROCESS, YOU, Y'ALL ARE GONNA, Y'ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST SUPPORTING VALIDATION MATERIALS. I THINK THIS CREATES ADDITIONAL UNCERTAINTY, AND I'M CURIOUS IF Y'ALL WOULD BE OPEN TO POSING SOME LIMITS ON IT. I THINK IF WE GET TO THE BASICALLY CONFIRMATION POINT, THAT'S PROBABLY FAIR GAME, BUT THE BATCH PROCESS RIGHT THERE IS THIS SORT OF SIX MONTHS INITIAL STUDY, BUT REALISTICALLY, THE ENTIRE BATCH PROCESS IS ABOUT 15 MONTHS. AND IF WE'RE ALL CONSTANTLY COMING BACK AND FORTH, I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY IN ANYONE'S INTEREST AND IT CREATES A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY. SO I WOULD Y'ALL BE OPEN TO A CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN THINGS AT THE, UM, CONFIRMATION POINT WITH THE, WITH THE FINANCIAL STUDIES, HOWEVER THAT WORKS, AND THEN MOVING ALONG FROM THERE WITH THESE, WITH THESE LOADS HAVING DONE THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, BECAUSE WE WE'RE KIND OF GOING THROUGH THIS RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? WHERE WE'RE RECYCLING ALL OF THIS STUFF AND CON CONTINUOUSLY TRYING TO PROVE THAT OUR SITES ARE REAL. AND I THINK THERE'S A, THERE NEEDS TO BE A POINT WHERE IT'S JUST LIKE A PENS DOWN FOR BOTH SITES. YEAH. SO LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. SO WHEN YOU SAY, UM, THE CONFIRMATION, ARE YOU THINKING THE, UM, WHAT, AFTER, AFTER THE, UH, THE SIX MONTH PERIOD WHEN THE STUDY RESULTS ARE POSTED? WHEN OKAY. THE STUDY, YEAH. WHEN THE STUDY'S DONE. YEAH. UM, I THINK OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, UM, I'M OPEN TO THINKING ABOUT THAT, BUT I'M, I WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO TALK WITH SOME, SOME FOLKS ON OUR TEAM TO OKAY. I JUST, I THINK AFTER THAT WE'LL CONSIDER THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I'LL GET BACK IN THE QUEUE NOW. YOU'RE GONNA IMMEDIATELY GET BACK IN THE QUEUE. I'LL THINK ABOUT IT. YOU'LL THINK ABOUT IT, OKAY. OKAY. YOU CAN'T TAKE, UH, COREY FROM HIS GROUP TO WORK ON BATCH LOAD. THAT IS MY REQUEST. . UM, SO WE WILL MOVE TO BLAKE HOLT. HEY, BLAKE HOLT, LCRA. UH, JEFF, PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS IS TO GO TO 9 2 1 1 PARAGRAPH TWO C. PERFECT. SO TWO QUESTIONS BASED ON THE, THE COMMENTS Y'ALL RECENTLY, UH, POSTED. UH, NUMBER ONE, THANKS FOR INCLUDING THE VALID STUDY CRITERIA FOR A TSP AT A STATION ON AN INTERCONNECTION STUDY THAT THEY PERFORMED. UH, MY QUESTION HERE WAS HOW WOULD THAT VALID STUDY BE TREATED IN TERMS OF MODELING? UM, I THINK OUR THOUGHTS WERE THAT IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ROMAN I OR LITTLE I THERE, UH, IN TERMS OF THE PEAK, PEAK DEMAND AND THE EXECUTED INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT. BUT, UH, THE TWO LITTLE, I SEEMS TO BE PRETTY SPECIFIC TOWARDS RPG, UM, RELATED MODELING. SO CURIOUS WHAT Y'ALL'S THOUGHTS WERE THERE AND DOES IT NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC? YES. MAY MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, BLAKE. SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR A, UM, A LOAD THAT HAD A, UH, THERE, THERE STUDY IS A, UM, UH, THEY WERE EXEMPT FROM THE, THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDY PROCESS FROM THE INTERIM PROCESS. UM, SO HOW WOULD WE MODEL THOSE IN, IN THE, IN THE STUDY? I, I THINK IT IS. I, BUT I'M, I'M LOOKING AT MY TEAM AND GETTING HEAD NODS. YEAH. THAT WE WOULD USE THE I PERFECT. THE, THE, YEAH, ROMAN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T [01:50:01] NEED TO GET MORE SPECIFIC. AND THEN SECONDLY, UH, YOU COULD PROBABLY SCROLL DOWN TO, UH, SCROLL DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT TO BIG B THERE, OR PAUSE RIGHT THERE. I GUESS THE RECENT UPDATES Y'ALL MADE TO INCLUDE ALLOCATION FOR BASE LOADS IN THE INTERIM YEARS, I THINK THAT LARGELY COVERS, UH, OUR MOST RECENT SET OF COMMENTS. SO THANK Y'ALL FOR THAT. WE ALSO THINK THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO EXTEND THAT SAME TREATMENT TO, UH, LOADS THAT QUALIFIED UNDER THE LILLI PROCESS THAT WERE WAITING ON AN UPGRADE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THAT PROCESS. CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS THERE. WOULD THAT KIND OF FALL IN THE SAME BUCKET OR DIFFERENT FOR YOU? YEAH. UM, YEAH, I, I'D NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT. UM, THAT, THAT'S NOT AS AUTOMATIC TO ME, UM, BE BECAUSE OF THE, THE, THE NATURE OF THE LITTLE LIST PROCESS IS TO LOOK AT WHAT, WHAT IS THAT RAMP SCHEDULE WHERE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, RPG IS NOT, UM, I, I WOULD NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT. GOTCHA. AND WE HAD SOME SUGGESTION FOR LANGUAGES, THAT, LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE THAT. I THINK WITHIN PARAGRAPH B HERE, WE CAN SEND THAT OVER TO Y'ALL AND OKAY. UH, LET Y'ALL HAVE A LOOK. OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. YEP. OKAY. YOU GOOD. BLAKE? JOHN RES HUBBARD, JOHN RES, TIEC. UH, JEFF, I WAS HOPING TO UNDERSTAND ERCOT INTENT AROUND THE, UM, CONTRACTOR LANGUAGE AND 9.21, UH, I FORGET WHAT SUBSECTION, I THINK IT'S, IT'S A PARAGRAPH F MAYBE. UH, THERE IT IS. SO, UM, IN THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR PROVISION IT, IT SAYS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR THE LOAD FACILITIES. AND I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IS OUR COTS INTENT THE INTERCONNECTION FACILITIES? IS IT SOMETHING BROADER? WHAT IS THAT? I'M GONNA CALL A FRIEND HERE TO HELP. ALL RIGHT, EVAN, THIS IS EVAN ROW. UH, THE, UH, THESE WOULD BE THE, UH, FACILITIES, UH, OF THE, OF WHATEVER THE LARGE LOAD IS. THE SUBSTATION FACILITIES ARE SEPARATE, SO, SO I, I GUESS IS IT THEN THE WHOLE SITE, IS THAT KIND OF WHAT OUR COS THINKING A GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR THE WHOLE SITE? YES. OKAY. UM, I, I THINK Y'ALL MAY NEED TO, I THINK THE BEST QUESTION IS, IS DIRECTED TO PC STAFF ON THAT, BUT YES, THAT WAS OUR INTERPRETATION IS IT WAS A WHOLE SITE. UH, THIS IS BARKSDALE WITH THE COMMISSION. YES, THAT'S, I THINK, AN ACCURATE INTERPRETATION OF THE COMMISSION'S CONVERSATION AT THE LAST OPEN MEETING. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. I THINK Y'ALL MAY NEED TO THINK ABOUT DEFINING LOAD FACILITIES. RIGHT NOW. F FACILITIES IS SEPARATELY DEFINED AS EQUIPMENT SITUATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING SERVICE AND OR BUSINESS THROUGH THE USE OF THE ERCOT SYSTEM, WHICH, UM, I, I DON'T THINK WOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THE WHOLE SITE. SO IF THAT'S ERCOT INTENT, UM, I'D RECOMMEND A SEPARATE DEFINITION FOR LOAD FACILITIES. AND THIS CARRIES THROUGH THE OTHER PROVISIONS WHERE LOAD FACILITIES OR LOAD FACILIT IS MENTIONED. UM, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THERE'S A SECTION WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT IF A LOAD CHANGES THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ITS LOAD FACILITY. UM, AGAIN, FACILITIES SEEMS TO BE JUST REFERRING TO THE INTERCONNECTION FACILITIES WHEN THAT'S USED IN THE DEFINITIONS OF THE PROTOCOLS. THANKS. FAIR ENOUGH. THANKS. WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. OKAY. ARE YOU GOOD, JOHN? RUSS? I'M OVER HERE. OH, YOU'RE OVER HERE. WHY? WHY ARE YOU OVER THERE? THERE'S NO ROOM OVER THERE. THERE'S, THEY TOOK YOUR SPOT, MAN. TOO MANY PEOPLE HERE. OKAY. UM, LET'S GO TO NED. HOW MANY QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? TWO QUESTIONS AND NOT RELATED TO THE COMMENTS THAT WE FILED YESTERDAY. SO THESE ARE, THESE ARE, OKAY. UH, TOPICAL TO THE LIST THAT AWESOME SET UP. I TRUST YOU. ALRIGHT, ED SASK VISTA. UM, SO FIRST QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH, UM, THERE WAS A CHANGE THAT WAS MADE IN HERE, UM, AND I THINK IT WAS RESPONSIVE TO AEPS COMMENTS AS, AS AARON'S RUNNING OUT OF THE ROOM. , SORRY, SHE DOESN'T [01:55:01] KNOW YOU. IT WAS, IT WAS TO, UM, MAKE THE, UH, THE, THE REFERENCES TO INVESTMENT GRADE RATINGS FROM, UH, MOODY'S OR S AND P TO MOODY'S AND S AND P. AND TH THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT CAME UP LATE AS WE WERE REVIEWING IT AGAIN LATE YESTERDAY. IS THERE A REASON THAT FITCH IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF THE RATINGS AGENCIES IN THERE? THAT'S EXTREMELY SPECIFIC. UM, EVAN, DOES SOMEBODY FROM HAVE AN ANSWER? I CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THAT. I THINK IT WAS FORKLIFTED OUT OF THE, THE DRAFT RULE IN PROJECT 5 8 4 8 1. OKAY. OKAY. UM, WELL THAT, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE AS AN ORIGIN STORY. UM, AND I'M WONDERING IF FOLKS WOULD BE AMENABLE TO MODIFYING THAT UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A, A DESIRE TO HAVE A PLURALITY OF, UM, RATINGS, AGENCY'S CONSENSUS THERE, BUT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, TO INCLUDE FITCH IN THE LIST AND LOOK FOR TWO OUT OF THREE, UNLESS NOT RATED BY OR ONLY RATED BY ONE. I THINK COMMISSION STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THAT WOULD BE AN OKAY AMENDMENT, BUT THAT'S UP TO THE STAKEHOLDERS. OKAY. WOULD, THAT WOULDN'T REALLY BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE ROLE. IT'S JUST SORT OF VERY SPECIFIC. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. WELL I WANTED TO FLAG THAT ONE. CERTAINLY LOOK FOR, YOU KNOW, FEEDBACK FROM TSPS AND DSPS ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO BE ACCEPTING THIS AS WELL. BUT, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S THE PRETTY COMMON, UH, USE CASE IN LIKE THE BOND MARKET IS, YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK FOR TWO OUT OF THREE. UM, SO THAT WANTED TO FLAG THAT AND, AND ONE FOR FEEDBACK. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE A RELATIVELY EASY, UH, EASY IMPLEMENTATION THOUGH IF FOLKS ARE AMENABLE. UM, THE OTHER ITEM IS DOWN ON IN SECTION 9.24, PARAGRAPH FOUR. AND SO I, I, I'VE READ THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS DOES IN PRACTICE BECAUSE IT'S, IT, IT'S ADJUSTING THE LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN FOLLOWING THE BATCH ZERO INTERCONNECTION STUDY, BUT THEN IT REFERENCES BACK TO THAT VERY SPECIFIC 9.2 0.1 0.1 PARAGRAPH TO C TWO A TWO, WHICH I THINK IS THE ONE THAT BLAKE WAS JUST REFERENCING. YEP. AND THAT I THINK ONLY APPLIES TO, WAS IT DENF IN THE, IN THE LIST? YES. YEAH. OKAY. SO LET ME, UM, SEE IF I CAN, UH, ADDRESS THIS. SO FOR LOADS THAT ARE STUDIED LOADS, UH, THERE'S ALREADY A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU, WE, WE, YOU, YOU, UM, WHEN WHEN YOU DO YOUR INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT, THEN YOUR INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT'S GONNA REFLECT YOUR LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN. UH, BUT THE COMMENTS THAT WE ADDED, UH, BASED ON RA'S COMMENTS ADD A PATH FOR BASE LOAD TO HAVE, UM, STUDIED AND ALLOCATED LOADS IN, IN, UH, ALLOCATED LOAD IN EARLIER YEARS. AND, AND SO YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY UPDATING YOUR INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT 'CAUSE THEY, THEY'VE ALREADY, THEY, THEY ALREADY HAVE AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT FOR THEIR FULL, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER MUCH THEIR MEGAWATTS. UM, BUT WE STILL NEED THE LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN TO BE UPDATED. AND SO THAT, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO ADDRESS. OKAY. IS THAT, THAT THAT SPECIFIC SUBSET NEEDS TO HAVE AN UPDATED LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN. OKAY. SO THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO THOSE SPECIFIC SUBSETS. IT WOULDN'T BE APPLYING THIS SAME ADJUSTMENT TO EVERY LOAD THAT COMES OUT OF BATCH ZERO? CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. RIGHT. THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE PIECE I WAS TRYING TO PULL TOGETHER, BUT THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU, JEFF. OKAY. JIM, DID YOU HAPPEN TO BE RESPONDING TO NED? OKAY. IT WAS JUST COINCIDENTAL. HE ASKED FOR FEEDBACK FROM TSPS RIGHT WHEN YOU GOT IN THE QUEUE AND I JUST WASN'T SURE. OKAY. QUESTION FOR ERCOT ON THINGS LIKE THE CREDIT RATING, ADDING THE THIRD PARTY IN THERE, THAT COMMISSION STAFF SEEMS TO BE OKAY WITH, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU MIGHT BE OKAY WITH THAT. DO YOU, ARE THOSE THINGS YOU'RE OPEN TO MAKING IN YOUR NEXT ROUND OF COMMENTS OR DO YOU WANT NED TO REACH OUT TO YOU? JUST HOW, HOW DO WE WANNA KEEP TRACK OF THAT OR HOW DO WE WANT TO GET THAT FEEDBACK TO, TO YOU? YEAH, I, I THINK, SO I'M LOOKING AT MY TEAM, UM, AND I'M, I'LL MAKE A STATEMENT AND, AND GIMME HEAD, HEAD SHAKES OR HEAD NODS. UH, SO I THINK WE CAN CAPTURE THAT IN OUR NEXT SET OF COMMENTS. IF IT LOOKS LIKE TAC MEMBERS, IF EVERYBODY'S NODDING THEIR HEADS, THEN WE WILL CAPTURE [02:00:01] THAT AND PUT THAT IN THE, UH, COMMENTS THAT WE WILL PUT OUT HERE SOON. MY SENSE IS THAT'S NOT ONE ANYONE'S GONNA FEEL THAT STRONGLY OPPOSED TO. RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. GOT IT. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE'LL TRY TO DO THE HEAD NOD METHOD UNTIL IT STOPS WORKING THUMBS UP. RIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW, THAT SMALL THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT IT SEEMS LIKE NO ONE'S OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, I I THINK IT'S UP TO ERCOT IF THEY DON'T WANNA MAKE THOSE EDITS, BUT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE KEEPING TRACK OF THOSE FOR YOU, OR IF YOU WANTED TO REACH OUT TO YOU AFTER THE MEETING, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE, WE WERE CAPTURING THAT TOO. YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S GOOD. UM, ARE WE, UH, I HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S WE'LL CAPTURE THAT. OKAY. OKAY. LET'S GO TO, OKAY. YEAH, I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT IN OUR RULES, I LOOKED, AND FITCH IS ONE OF THE INVESTMENT GRADE RATING MENTIONED, SO IT'S IN COMMISSION RULES AS WELL, SO WE WILL NOT OPPOSE IT. OKAY. THANKS IKA. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO BILL BARNES. MY QUESTION WAS ON THE, THE NEXT TURN OF THIS, JEFF, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S, THERE WILL BE A CLEANUP WITH SOME OF THE CHANGES LIKE WHAT NED SUGGESTED. UM, WHEN DO WE THINK WE'LL SEE THAT? 'CAUSE I DO ANTICIPATE ANOTHER ROUND OF EDITS ON THAT CLEAN VERSION PRIOR TO T NEXT TUESDAY. UM, SO I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS WHEN WE MAY SEE THAT DRAFT. YEAH, SO I THINK IT'LL BE THIS WEEK. UM, I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE TODAY. UM, WE, WE HAVEN'T PUT IN INTERNAL DEADLINE ON THAT, BUT I'M, I'M GONNA SAY IT'LL BE THIS WEEK. GREAT. THANKS. WE'LL HOLD ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, IF ANY FOR THAT DRAFT. AND THEN I'M ON THE AGENDA FOR LATER. SO I'M NOT GONNA DIVE DEEP INTO THESE SUBJECTS, BUT JUST FLAGGING, UH, WE DEFINITELY WANT TO DISCUSS IN MORE DETAIL THE RPG ISSUE. UM, I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS ON THAT MAINLY BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A RISK TO FINALITY OF THESE RULES BASED ON THAT PARTICULAR SUBJECT THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WITH TAC MEMBERS AND EXPLORE MORE. AND THEN, UM, ALSO THE, UH, A DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF STEADY STATE OR STABILITY STUDIES, WHICH IS ALSO, UH, ON MY LIST TO DISCUSS LATER. SO I'M JUST FLAGGING THAT FOR, UM, DEBATE AFTER LUNCH. THANKS. OKAY. LET'S GO TO EVAN. EVAN NEIL WITH LANCIA. UM, I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS WITH MY FIRST, I THINK KIND OF PIGGYBACKS OFF OF WHAT BILL WAS SAYING. SO I THINK IF WE JUST WANNA DEFER THAT TO AFTER LUNCH THAT'S FINAL ASK IT DONE. UM, MY SECOND IS IN SECTION 9.3 0.2 0.1, WHICH IS, UM, HAS TO DO WITH THE PCL R AND SO I, I JUST NOTED HERE, AND I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, THAT HERE WE'RE SAYING THAT THE, UH, PCL R WILL GET AN MPC BASED OFF THE LCP THAT THEY SUBMITTED, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT TIED TO ANY OUTCOMES OF, YOU KNOW, RELIABILITY CONCERNS IN THE BATCH. AND I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE CONCERNS, WHICH WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, VOLTAGE OR STABILITY VIOLATIONS WOULD THEN GET RESOLVED THROUGH, UM, THE CREATION OF GTCS OR SOLS IN THE, UM, QSA. AND SO I JUST AM LOOKING HERE TO UNDERSTAND IF KIND HAS AN EXPECTATION FOR HOW MANY NEW GTCS THIS COULD POTENTIALLY CREATE IN REAL TIME. UM, OR IF THERE'S, YOU KNOW, ANY OUTCOME WHERE WE ARE CREATING A NEW SOL THAT COULD THEN HAVE, UM, IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ABILITY TO SERVE LOAD THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY PCLR. SO MAYBE INCUMBENT FIRM LOAD ON THE SYSTEM AS WELL. UM, I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION IS, I DON'T HAVE THAT ESTIMATE UNTIL WE RUN THE STUDY AND, AND UNDERSTAND, UH, WHAT THE, THE SYSTEM LOOKS LIKE ON THE, UM, UH, THE SECOND PART, I, I CAN'T, UM, I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYTHING. UM, BUT IT, IT'S, UH, I I HAVEN'T THOUGHT THROUGH THAT, BUT UH, BUT JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I, I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYTHING THAT WOULD IMPACT THROUGH, THROUGH A-P-C-L-R, UH, BECAUSE OF THAT ADDITION. I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYTHING THAT WOULD IMPACT THE EXISTING LOAD. UM, OKAY, SO, SO YEAH, AND, AND IN MY THINK, JUST TO THINK OUT LOUD, IT'S THE, THE PCLR HAS THAT DISPATCH, UH, WE CAN DISPATCH THAT DOWN. AND SO THAT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MECHANISM AS WE TRY TO DISPATCH THAT LOAD DOWN TO ADDRESS ANY KIND OF RELIABILITY ISSUES THAT WERE CAUSED BY THAT LOAD EDITION. OKAY. I, I HOPE THAT WOULD BE THE [02:05:01] CASE. I'M JUST KIND OF THINKING THROUGH MY HEAD, YOU KNOW, SEEING THE NUMBERS YOU HAD IN THE INTRODUCTION OF HOW MUCH COULD BE SUBJECT TO ALLOCATION, WHICH WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PCLR. SO LIKE SAY WE PUT 10 GIGAWATTS OF IT OUT IN WEST TEXAS AND THAT CREATES A CASCADING STABILITY ISSUE, YOU KNOW, WOULD JUST HAVING THEM IN SCED BE ABLE TO SOLVE THAT OR WOULD WE TAKE MORE CONSERVATIVE APPROACHES THAT WOULD RESULT IN SOMETHING LIKE A MITIGATION PLAN? SO I JUST WANT THAT FRONT AND CENTER AND I JUST WOULD HOPE THAT THIS WOULD NOT JEOPARDIZE, UH, INCUMBENT LOADS. YEP, I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. WHERE ARE WE, EVAN? NO, SAM, SAM BRANDON WITH AGENT INFRASTRUCTURE. SO ON THIS ISSUE RELATING TO PCLR AND WL PON AND, YOU KNOW, THE LACK OF APPETITE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON THERE, THE LACK OF APPETITE FOR INCLUDING THEM ON THAT BASIS IN THE, IN THE BATCH ZERO STUDY. SO ON THE POINT REGARDING, YOU KNOW, THIS POSSIBILITY OF PCL R RENEGING ON THEIR INTENTION OF BEING A-P-C-L-R AND THEN STILL GETTING INCLUDED IN THE STUDY. SO THAT POINT WAS AT LEAST ATTEMPTED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE JOINT COMPERS, UH, FILED COMMENTS ON APRIL 21ST WHERE IT BASICALLY SAID, IF YOU ARE INCLUDED IN BATCH ZERO ON THE BASIS OF ELECTING TO BE A-P-C-L-R AND THEN, UM, AT THE ELECTION STAGE FOLLOWING THE BATCH PROCESS, YOU KNOW, IT BASICALLY LIMITED THE SCOPE OF OPTIONS YOU COULD CHOOSE SO THAT YOU CAN'T PURSUE JUST TAKING YOUR LCP AND SO YOU'D BE KICKED TO BATCH ONE IF THAT'S WHAT YOUR INTENTION WAS. I GUESS WAS THERE A VIEW THAT THAT LANGUAGE WAS INSUFFICIENT FOR ADDRESSING THAT, THAT POINT OR, UM, 'CAUSE THAT THAT COMMENT WASN'T BROUGHT UP AT THE TIME WHEN THOSE COMMENTS WERE ORIGINALLY MADE? WELL, YEAH, SO I THINK THAT PARTIALLY ADDRESSES, BUT YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S, UM, IT, IT, EVERY, THE, THE INTENTION FOR THIS IS, IS NOT TO CREATE AN ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY PATH. IT, IT, IT'S REALLY TO ALLOW THE LOADS THAT ARE, ARE ELIGIBLE TO, TO BE ABLE TO, UM, YOU, YOU KNOW, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS, UH, PCLR CONSTRUCT. AND, AND SO I, I, YOU KNOW, WOULD STILL GO BACK TO, UH, IT, IT, EVERY LOAD THAT YOU ADD IN, IT JUST, IT ADDS STEADY COMPLEXITY. AND, AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO LIMIT THIS TO IT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, BATCH ZERO IS A TRANSITIONAL BATCH STUDY THAT WE ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL, WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO BATCH ONE AND BEYOND. AND, AND SO I'M HAPPY FOR NEW RESOURCES TO COME INTO BATCH ONE, BUT I THINK FOR THIS TRANSITIONAL BATCH, IT, WE, WE THINK THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE, UH, REASONABLE BOUNDARY. OKAY. SO I GUESS IT'S MORE PHILOSOPHICAL THAN ANY SORT OF SPECIFIC STANCE ON, YOU KNOW, ABILITY TO GAME THE SYSTEM. YEAH, I WOULDN'T SAY PHILOSOPHICAL. IT IT'S, I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S PRACTICAL STUDY LIMITATIONS, RIGHT? WE, WE CAN'T, AGAIN, I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND TO, TO GO TO THE EXTREME, WE CAN'T STUDY 400 GIGAWATTS IN, UH, OF EVERYTHING THAT HAS STARTED THE INTERCONNECTION PROCESS IN, IN BATCH ZERO. THIS IS A TRANSITIONAL BATCH, AND WE'RE TRYING TO PUT A, A BOUNDARY AROUND A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF GIGAWATTS THAT WE THINK THAT WE CAN STUDY IN THIS. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, WE THINK THAT WE HAVE THAT. YEAH. UM, OKAY. I MEAN, THE 70 GIGAWATT SCOPE IS NOT TRANSITIONAL THAT'S GOING TO PERMANENTLY IMPACT THE FUTURE OF TEXAS. UM, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S REALLY THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STUDYING 70 GIGAWATTS VERSUS 400. BUT IN EITHER CASE, POINT TAKEN, THE, THE COMMENT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ABILITY TO PURSUE PRIVATE RISK TAKING IN TRANSMISSION DELIVERY THROUGH PCOR AND WL PUN, UM, INFLUENCES WHERE YOU CAN HAVE THE MOST VIABLE PROJECTS, WHICH ARE MAXIMALLY ALIGNED WITH THE SPIRIT OF SENATE BILL SIX. SO BASICALLY THE, THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE STUCK WITH IS OUR ELIGIBLE PROJECTS ARE LESS ALIGNED OR LESS VIABLE THAN PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE UNDER THIS PATHWAY. AND SO, BECAUSE OF THE LEGACY ADOPTION OF TSB PRACTICES AND FORMING BATCH ZERO ELIGIBILITY, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON WHY WE'RE NOW GOING TO HAVE LESS EFFICIENT OUTCOMES IN BATCH ZERO. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THIS ABSOLUTE, YOU KNOW, I'VE NEVER SEEN A MORE CONSEQUENTIAL MOMENT [02:10:01] FOR GRIDS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES. I WOULD THINK THAT WE WANT TO LEAN INTO FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES AT EVERY SINGLE STEP, RATHER THAN ADOPTING THE LEGACY AND EFFICIENCIES THAT LED US TO THE BATCH ZERO PROCESS AND THE BATCH TRANSITION TO BEGIN WITH. AND SO, UM, YEAH, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND SO I GUESS MY, MY LAST QUESTION HERE WAS, UM, SO AT LAST WEEK'S ROSS, WE HAD BROUGHT UP THAT, UM, IF WE ARE GOING TO ADVANCE IN THE BATCH ZERO CRITERIA, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING THESE LEGACY TSB PRACTICES, THEN I THINK IT COULD BE HELPFUL FOR STAKEHOLDERS AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN THE FOOTPRINT OF PROJECTS ADVANCING UNDER BATCH ZERO CRITERIA VERSUS JUST THE TOTAL SCOPE OF INTEREST FROM LARGE LOAD REQUESTS, PERIOD VERSUS, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE 2026 RTP, FOR EXAMPLE. SO I GUESS, WAS THERE ANY, UM, THOUGHT PUT TO BEING ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER THAT, THAT DATA? UM, YEAH, SAM, SO WE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT, UH, UNFORTUNATELY DON'T HAVE THAT AVAILABLE FOR, UH, TODAY. UM, IT'S, UH, YEAH, BUT WE ARE, ARE WORKING TOWARDS THAT. UH, I'LL SAY JUST, UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING AS, AS I LOOK AT THE DATA, UH, I DON'T THINK THAT THE DATA DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT, I THINK SOME OF THE NARRATIVE THAT THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE, UM, ON THAT. UM, BUT I DON'T APOLOGIZE. I DON'T HAVE EXACT NUMBERS TO SHARE WITH, UH, TECH TODAY. OKAY. NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. THANKS. OKAY, LET'S GO TO MICHAEL JEWEL. THANK YOU MICHAEL JEWEL ON BEHALF OF MONARCH ENERGY. AND JEFF, THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK ON THIS. THIS IS A MONUMENTAL TASK. I WANNA TURN, UH, IF WE COULD TO 9.3 0.1 ON PAGE 39. SO THE, UM, SO RIGHT HERE UNDER A, WE'VE GOT THAT ERCOT IS GOING TO NOTIFY THE DSPN, UH, TSP ABOUT THE CLASSIFICATION AS TO WHETHER A RESOURCE IS A, UM, BASE LOAD ON AUGUST 7TH ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 7TH. WILL ERCOT NOTIFY IF THEY MAKE A NOTIFICATION THAT A LOAD IS NOT BASE LOAD? WILL THEY SAY WHY? UH, YES. YEAH, YEAH. WE, WE WON'T INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION. AND, AND, UM, SO IF A LOAD THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE A BASE LOAD AND THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD CHECKED ALL THE BOXES AND THEY'RE NOTIFIED THAT THEY'RE NOT BASE LOAD, UM, IS THERE GONNA BE ANY CURE OPPORTUNITY OTHER THAN JUST PAYING, UH, SHIFTING THE FINANCIAL SECURITY LOOKING AT MY TEAM? I'M NOT SEEING ONE RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHY I WAS KIND OF CURIOUS. YEAH, I, YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT WE DO, BUT, UM, MY TEAM IS CHATTING RIGHT NOW, SO LEMME GIVE THEM A, A MINUTE TO, TO RESPOND. AND, AND YEAH, WHILE, WHILE EVIDENCE WALKING OUT, I WILL NOTE THAT WE ALSO, UM, YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL JULY 10TH TO, UH, TURN INFORMATION IN. UH, WE, WE ANTICIPATE THAT, UM, WHAT WE'LL START GETTING THAT INFORMATION. UM, SO YEAH, YOU DON'T DON'T NEED TO WAIT FOR JULY 10TH. UH, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS TO WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE, BUT I JUST, IF YOU THOUGHT THAT YOU HAD EVERYTHING IN AND YOU FOUND OUT FROM OUR KIND ON THE, ON THE SEVENTH THAT NOPE, THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG. IS THERE A WAY TO FIX IT? UH, THIS IS EVAN ROWE. WE, UM, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT, MIKE. UM, WE HAVE LOOKED AT CURE PERIOD, UH, IN THE EVENT THAT THE, THAT THE BREAKDOWN WAS FROM THE TSP NOT NOTIFIED ERCOT, THAT SOMETHING HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND HAVE NOT FOUND A GOOD WAY TO DO THAT, THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF LOOPHOLES. BUT, UM, [02:15:01] IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOURS MIGHT BE MORE FUNDAMENTAL. WE MAY NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT OVER THE BREAK AND THEN TO COME BACK TO THAT. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT. OKAY. BUT THAT ISSUE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. WELL, WE'RE HOPING THAT THE PERIODIC UPDATES ARE GOING TO ANSWER MOST OF THOSE QUESTIONS AND THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT ACTUALLY NOT KNOW THEIR ANSWER AT THE VERY END IS GONNA BE SMALL. YEAH, NO, THAT'D BE GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY, LET'S GO TO SHANNON. JEFF, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR A LOT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND EDITS Y'ALL MADE IN YOUR FIVE 11 VERSION. UM, ONE OF THE FIRST ONES I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WAS TIP IT. I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THERE AND THE WAY YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IT, BUT SOMETHING YOU EXPLAINED A WHILE AGO, THOUGH, I STILL THINK THERE'S TWO PROBLEMS I SEE THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE REFINED OUT OF THIS. YOU TALKED ABOUT A LATE JUNE, EARLY JULY TIP UPDATE, BUT THINK ABOUT IF, IF, UH, LILLIS, THE LOAD COMMISSIONING PLANS CAN STILL GET, KEEP GETTING DEVELOPED THROUGH JULY 10TH AND TSPS ARE GONNA NEED SOME ADMINISTRATIVE TIME. THEY'RE NOT, THEY CAN'T RETROACTIVELY HAVE DONE THINGS. YOU ALMO. IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE THAT APPROACH ALL THE WAY UP FOR ALL OF THESE, THEN YOU REALLY NEED TO ADD THREE WEEKS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO JULY 10TH, WHICH THEN PUTS YOU TO AUGUST 1ST, OR YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE A GAP. SO THERE'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, WE FILED SOME COMMENTS YESTERDAY TRYING TO GET RID OF THIS CONCEPT THAT YOU JUST EVER DEFAULT TO 2034, THAT INSTEAD YOU JUST MUST WORK WITH THE TSP AND GET THE RIGHT DATE. AND MAYBE THAT IS THE WAY TO WORK AROUND THESE LCP OF THINGS THAT COME IN AT THE END OR OTHER THINGS. BUT I JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT THOSE TWO THINGS. OKAY. SECOND, SECOND ITEM I HAD WAS ON, UM, THE ZONING SITE, SITE APPROVAL THINGS THAT WAS IN 9 2 1 1, PARAGRAPH ONE F ROMAN THREE AT THE, AND I THINK IT'S ON PAGE 16, O'NEIL'S COMMENTS, I'M ASSUMING YOUR PAGES SAME WAY MINE DOES AT THE APRIL 17TH PUC MEETING. UH, LET'S SEE, THAT BARKSDALE STEPPED OUT, BUT THERE WAS COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION. OH, THERE HE IS AROUND, UH, ZONING BEING ONE OF THE ITEMS, UH, FOR SITE READINESS. AND I VERY REMEMBER VERY MUCH REMEMBER THAT DISCUSSION AND TUNING INTO IT. SO I THINK FOR THE LANGUAGE Y'ALL HAVE ADDED IN THIS, UH, ROUND OR A COUPLE ROUNDS HERE AROUND THAT, OR IS IN THIS ROUND, Y'ALL ADDED A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS ABOUT SITE APPROVALS. AND IT'S A GRAB BAG THAT IS MUCH BIGGER THAN WHAT THE COMMISSION TALKED ABOUT. AND THEN COMMISSIONERS AND THEN SEPARATELY, A LOT OF IT'S VERY LATE STAGE ACTIVITY. SO I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. THE ZONING PIECE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS TALKED ABOUT SEEMS ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE. SO WE, IN OUR COMMENTS, WE MADE IT TO WHERE YOU HAVE TO ATTEST TO THAT YOU HAVE THAT OR IT'S NOT REQUIRED. BUT THEN THE OTHER ITEMS, UM, THAT WERE SITE APPROVALS THAT Y'ALL HAD THEM LISTED, SEVERAL OF THOSE, AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF ONE ARE VERY LATE STAGE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE NEVER A BIG RISK ITEMS. THEY'RE SIMPLY ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. SO EXAMPLE, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT IS ONE OF THE, IS ONE OF YOUR ITEMS. PAGE 20, OH, UH, HE SAYS IT'S, UM, MICHAEL SENT PAGE 20, IT'S IN 9 2 1 1, PARAGRAPH ONE FT THREE. SO THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT SOMETHING, IT'S NEVER A DOUBT THAT YOU CAN BEAT IT, IT'S JUST HOW MUCH RETENTION POND ARE YOU GONNA CREATE? AND, BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY, WHERE ON YOUR SITE ARE YOU SETTING THOSE AND HOW DO THOSE FLOW INTO THE DRAINAGE CORRIDORS? AND THAT IS TIED TO WHERE YOU'RE PUT WHAT SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS YOU'RE PUTTING IN, WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING THEM, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE HAVE YOUR LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN. AND SO IN OUR COMMENTS THAT WE FILED YESTERDAY, I JUST TURNED ALL OF THOSE THINGS INTO, IF YOU'RE IN SERVICE DATE IS WITHIN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE 'EM DONE. BUT FOR THINGS WHERE, FOR THOSE, NOT THE ZONING, JUST THOSE FOR ANYTHING THAT, UH, IS LONGER THAN THAT, THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF TIME TO GET 'EM DONE. THOSE ARE LATER STAGE ACTIVITIES AFTER WE GET YOUR LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN. [02:20:03] THIRD ITEM WAS OVER ON CIEC, THAT'S IN 9 2 1 1 PARAGRAPH ONE E ROMAN AT SEVEN. AND THEN SAME THINGS IN F ROMAN FIVE. WE ADDED IN OUR COMMENTS YESTERDAY SOME CLARIFYING COMMENTS THAT, THAT THE CIAC MUST BE PAID. AND THEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT, UM, THE TERMS OF THE INTERCONNECT AGREEMENT, BECAUSE THOSE TERMS OF THE INTERCONNECT AGREEMENT, MUCH LIKE GENERATION INTERCONNECTS, UH, TSPS HISTORICALLY AND ALMOST ALWAYS WILL BLOCK THOSE OUT INTO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT MILESTONE ACTIVITIES. AND THESE ARE NEARLY ALWAYS TERMS SET AND DEFINED BY THE TSP THAT, LIKE IN THIS CASE, THE ILLE IS JUST SAYING OKAY, AND SIGNING OFF ON IT. SO WE ADDED JUST THAT YOU'RE DOING IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE IA. AND THEN NUMBER TWO, WE ADDED SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE THAT, UM, IN NO CASE SHALL A TSP AND ILLE BE REQUIRED TO AMEND A PRE-AP APRIL 30TH IA TO REDEFINE THE UPGRADES WHERE CIC IS REQUIRED. JUST TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. IF THESE IAS WERE SIGNED BEFORE Y'ALL PUT LANGUAGE OUT ON IT, WE DON'T NEED A, ANOTHER FIRE DRILL OF IF IT'S THAT IA DOESN'T PERFECTLY ALIGN WITH THIS LANGUAGE OF HAVING TO GO RE RENEGOTIATE. THOSE GO THROUGH ALL THE, THE LEGAL PROCESS ON THE TSP SIDE TAKES A LONG TIME JUST TO BE REAL HONEST. SO IT'S PRETTY SMALL, MINOR ITEM, BUT WE'D ADDED THAT. AND THEN THE LAST THING WE HAD WAS OVER ON SECURITY. IT'S IN THAT SAME SECTION. UM, IT'S JUST A PARAGRAPH OR TWO EARLIER. WE ADDED CLARIFYING COMMENTS THAT THE, THE SECURITY OF 50,000 A MEGAWATT SHOULD BE FOR IAS THAT CAME ALONG AFTER SENATE BILL SIX, UH, ASSIGNED AND BECOME EFFECTIVE BECAUSE PRE-EXISTING ONES THAT ARE DEEPLY IN FLIGHT, WAY DOWN THE PATH, UM, THERE'S NO LEGAL AUTHORITY, YOU KNOW, TO BE GOING AND REQUIRING DIFFERENT THINGS ON THOSE WHEN THEY'RE IN CONSTRUCTION, YOU KNOW, HAVE BEEN FINANCED FOR A LONG TIME. AND SO WE TRIED TO NARROW IT TO THAT. AND THEN NUMBER TWO, CLEAN UP SOME OF THE LANGUAGE WHERE Y'ALL TRIED TO BE VERY, VERY SPECIFIC IN AN RPG, HOW SOMETHING WOULD BE COUNTED. UH, EVAN MADE SOME GOOD COMMENTS. I THINK THE LAST MEETING KIND OF POINTING OUT HOW TAKEN LITERALLY WHAT YOU'VE GOT. SOME OF THAT'S LIKE EXTREME, YOU KNOW, MUCH, MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT TSPS HISTORICALLY HAVE REQUIRED SECURITY FOR AND JUST MADE IT UNIFORMLY IT'S 50,000 A MEGAWATT IF, IF, UH, SECURITY'S NEEDED, UH, AND LEFT YOUR ZERO MEGAWATT IF NO UPGRADES ARE NEEDED. SO THOSE ARE TWO THINGS AFTER SENATE BILL SIX BECAME A, A LAW AND THEN JUST UNIFORMLY 50,000 A MEGAWATT OR ZERO. UM, SO HOPEFULLY THOSE ARE THINGS THAT MAKE SENSE AND Y'ALL COULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT YOUR NEXT SET OF EDITS. YEAH. SO, UM, SHANNON, ON THE, UM, ON THE, THE NEW LANGUAGE ON THE, THE ZONING AND THE FLOOD PLAIN, THAT I THINK WHAT WE WILL TAKE THAT BACK TO STAFF AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CORRECTLY INTERPRETING WHAT THEY'VE ASKED US TO DO. I, I, I FEEL LIKE ON THE FINANCIAL SECURITY, I THINK EVERYTHING YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT, I, I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ALREADY ASKED THAT OF THE COMMISSION, AND THEY HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS APPROPRIATE. SO YOU THINK IT'S COMMISSIONER'S INTENT. AND I'VE LOOKED TO BARKSDALE FOR PRE SENATE BILL SIX PRO, UH, IAS THAT WERE EXECUTED PRE SENATE BILL SIX TO HAVE TO, AND THAT THEY'RE DEEPLY IN FLIGHT THAT THOSE NOW WOULD HAVE, UH, RETROACTIVELY APPLIED, UH, NEW, NEW REQUIREMENTS ON THEM AFTER THE LAW BECAME IN EFFECT. I THINK ANY PROJECT THAT'S DEEPLY IN FLIGHT SHOULD PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT ITS INTERCONNECTION REQUIREMENTS ARE. AND SO THE, THE PLACEHOLDER OF THE $50,000 PER MEGAWATT IS MAYBE NOT, UM, THE ONLY PATH FOR THAT LOAD BECAUSE I THINK THE LANGUAGE OF THE PIGGER [02:25:01] SAYS IT'S EITHER THE KNOWN AMOUNT OR THE $50,000 PER MEGAWATT. AND SO WITH THAT CONTEXT, I ALSO THINK THAT THE, MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT IS THAT THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY LOAD, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHEN IT STARTED ITS PROCESS, UM, THAT THE, THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOAD WILL HAVE TO MEET IN ORDER TO GET INTO BADGE ZERO. OKAY. THE ONLY REASON I WAS FEELING DIFFERENTLY IS AT, I SPOKE AT THE APRIL 17TH, UH, PUC MEETING AND MADE THIS POINT ABOUT NOT REQUIRING OPENING UP PRE-EXISTING IAS, ESPECIALLY ONES THAT WERE ENTERED INTO PRINTED PRECI BILL SIX. CLEARLY THERE WAS NO CLEAR DIRECTION, BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF HEAD NODS THAT IT SEEMED TO NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT IT AROUND THAT IT MADE SENSE THAT PRECENT BILL SIX, UH, I, YOU KNOW, INTERCONNECT AGREEMENTS WOULDN'T NEED TO BE RENEGOTIATED OR HAVE EXTRA REQUIREMENTS APPLIED, UH, FOR THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS COULD HAVE BEEN WRONG. I'M SURE Y'ALL HAVE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION SINCE THEN. I'D JUST LEAVE THAT WITH YOU TO THINK ABOUT. YEAH, I GUESS I'D JUST SAY, SHANNON, THAT, UM, I RESPECT YOUR OPINION AND YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON HOW THE COMMISSIONERS RECEIVED YOUR COMMENTS. UM, I KNOW THAT NONE OF THEM IN THAT MEETING OR ANY SUBSEQUENT OPEN MEETING HAVE DIRECTED US TO REVISE THE LANGUAGE IN THAT TABLE OR IN OUR MEMOS AND HOW WE'RE ADDRESSING THE FINANCIAL SECURITY COMMITMENT PIECES. OKAY. LET'S MOVE ON TO BARAF. YEAH. HI BARO. UH, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE CONTRACT FOR TENANT. SO THE GENERAL PRACTICE IS THAT WE GET BASE LOAD ELIGIBILITY, THEN WE GO NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT WITH THE TENANT, THEN WE GO FIND A GC AND WORK ON THE DIRT AND THE ZONING ASPECTS. SO IN HERE THERE ARE TWO PATHWAYS WHERE EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT FOR TENANT, YOU CAN DO THE DIRT AND SHOW THE ZONING ASPECT AND STILL BE QUALIFIED AS BASELOAD IN BAD ZERO. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHO, OR I MEAN, HOW IS THIS SEQUENTIALLY POSSIBLE IN GENERAL? BECAUSE YOU NEED TO HAVE A, I MEAN, GENERAL PRACTICE, AGAIN, IS TO, FOR A DEVELOPER, IS TO HAVE A CONTRACT WITH A TENANT BEFORE THEY EVEN GO SIGN A GC. YEAH, I THINK I'M PROBABLY, UM, I, I, I GUESS I'LL, I'LL SAY I THINK FROM KO'S PERSPECTIVE, WE'VE, UH, TRIED TO, UM, CAPTURE WHAT WE THINK THE COMMISSION HAS, UM, PROVIDED GUIDANCE ON. AND I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN CONFIRMATION FROM STAFF THAT THEY FEEL LIKE WE'VE APPROPRIATELY, APPROPRIATELY CAPTURED THAT, THAT, UH, DON'T WANNA SPEAK TO THE MERITS OF YOUR COMMENT. OKAY. I'LL PROBABLY TALK TO BOXDALE AFTER THIS. HE'S BUSY. AND THEN I HAVE THE SECOND, UH, IT'S A CLARIFICATION. AT SOME POINT, THERE WAS SOME NOTE ABOUT IF THE LOADS CANNOT SHOW, OR IF THEY'RE IN THIS INTERMEDIATE, IF THE BASE LOADS ARE IN THIS INTERMEDIATE CHANNEL OF, UH, MATURITY, THEY NEED TO POST 50 K AND 50% OF THAT IS NON-REFUNDABLE. IS THAT STILL EXISTS SOMEWHERE IN THE LANGUAGE OR, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT. YEAH, SO, UM, I, I THINK IT WAS FOLLOWING THE APRIL 17TH OPEN MEETING IF I, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, WE REMOVED, UM, I THINK COMMISSION GAVE HIS GUIDANCE TO REMOVE THE, UM, UH, THE, THE LANGUAGE ABOUT HOW MUCH, WHAT, WHAT'S REFUNDABLE AND WHAT'S NOT REFUNDABLE. OKAY. UM, AND SO WE'VE REMOVED THAT FROM THE PICKER, BUT COMMISSION STAFF DID FILE COMMENTS. UM, I THINK IT WAS THE APRIL, APRIL 29TH COMMENTS. UM, I I, I THINK IT WAS THEIR APRIL 29TH COMMENTS WHERE THEY, THEY LAID OUT, UM, SO THEY, THEIR GUIDANCE ON WHAT THEY, ON WHAT THE REFUNDABILITY, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY WERE REVIEWING THAT. SO THAT'S, I THINK GIVING DIRECTION [02:30:01] TO STAKEHOLDERS ON WHERE THEIR THINKING IS. OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT A, A FORMAL RULE. UH, IT, IT IS JUST COMMENTS, BUT AT LEAST I THINK THEIR INTENTION, UM, I DON'T WANNA SPEAK TOO MUCH FOR THEM, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GIVE GUIDANCE, UH, OBVIOUSLY THAT'LL BE FIRMED UP IN THE 58 41 RULEMAKING, BUT, UM, BUT YEAH, THERE'S NOT NOTHING IN THE PIG THAT DESCRIBES WHAT THAT REFUNDABILITY IS. OKAY. I GUESS SINCE, CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE CONTRACT FOR TENANT NOW THAT BOXDALE IS FREE? I APOLOGIZE FOR HAVING MY YEAH, NO ATTENTION IN A DIFFERENT PLACE. SO I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE CONTRACT FOR THE TWO PADS THAT ARE LAID OUT FOR BASE LOADS. ONE IS LLE, NOTICE TO PROCEED CONTRACT FOR TENANT, AND THE SECOND ONE IS THE GC AND, UH, ZONING, IT'S GENERAL PRACTICE THAT YOU GET A BASE LOAD APPROVAL, THEN YOU GO FIND A TENANT, SIGN THE CONTRACT, AND THEN GO SIGN WITH THE GC TO TURN THE DIRT ON IN THAT SEQUENCE. SO UNLESS YOU HAVE A CONTRACT FOR TENANT, YOU PROBABLY WILL NOT GO FIND A GC AND SIGN WITH THEM. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF, IF THIS IS BACKWARDS OR IS THERE A RATIONALE TO THAT SECOND, SECOND PATH? LOOK, I THINK, I MEAN, YOU AND I HAVE TALKED PRIVATELY, UM, AND HAVE TALKED WITH A LOT OF DEVELOPERS, UM, INDIVIDUALLY, UM, ABOUT THIS. UM, I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ALSO TALKED ABOUT IT PUBLICLY IN THEIR OPEN MEETINGS. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN PICKER 1 45, AND I'LL, YOU KNOW, SORRY FOR THE REDUNDANCY AND PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF HEARING ME SAY THIS, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY PROJECTS THAT ARE REAL AND CURRENT BUSINESS MODELS. UM, I THINK EVERYBODY, I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. I THINK MANY PEOPLE WOULD AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT OUR, THE CURRENT BUSINESS MODEL IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO DETERMINE WHICH PROJECTS ARE QUOTE UNQUOTE REAL AND WHICH ONES ARE MORE SPECULATIVE. WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT MANY DEVELOPERS FOR PERFECT BUSINESS SENSE WILL IDENTIFY MULTIPLE SITES FOR A HANDFUL OF PROJECTS AND WILL SEE WHICH ONES ARE THE MOST VIABLE. AND THEN ONCE THAT BECOMES CLEAR, MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL SITE OR THOSE, YOU KNOW, TWO OR THREE SITES OUT OF A POTENTIAL 10. AND YES, OF COURSE, I'M MAKING UP NUMBERS. SO WE KNOW IF JUST USING THIS EXAMPLE OF 10 POTENTIAL SITES FOR TWO POSSIBLE PROJECTS, EIGHT OF THEM ARE NOT REAL. I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES, MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES, BUT WE CAN'T CONTINUE IN THIS CYCLE OF THROWING EVERYTHING INTO THE HOPPER AND SEE WHICH ONES SHAKE OUT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAS CREATED AMONG OTHER ISSUES THAT HAS WHAT'S CREATED THIS, THIS NEED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BIGGER 1 45. AND WITH THAT CONTEXT IN MIND, WE HAVE CONTINUED TO EVOLVE HOW WE ARE DEFINING WHAT IS A QUOTE UNQUOTE REAL PROJECT FOR BATCH ZERO. BECAUSE GETTING INTO BATCH ZERO AS A BASE LOAD, YOU ARE GETTING YOUR MEGAWATTS AND YOU ARE GETTING YOUR LCP. AND SO THE LAST ITERATION IN WHICH WE SAID, SHOW US THAT YOU HAVE A CONTRACT FOR POWER SUPPLY AND YOU LOWER FINANCIAL COMMITMENT REQUIREMENTS, OR IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT, SHOW US YOU HAVE A CONTRACT FOR AN END USE CUSTOMER AND YOU HAVE HIGHER FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS, EITHER ONE OF THOSE CAN GET YOU INTO, INTO THE BASE LOAD FOR BATCH ZERO. WE HEARD THAT THE CONTRACT FOR POWER SUPPLY WAS REALLY TOO FAR DOWN THE LINE, UH, THAT THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A SIX MONTHS OUT FROM ENERGIZATION PART OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT CYCLE. AND SO WE TRIED TO ADJUST THAT TO SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT WE THOUGHT THAT MIDDLE CATEGORY OF THE KIND OF MEDIUM MATURE PROJECT CYCLE WOULD BE. I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS, UH, WHEN WE PRESENTED THIS IDEA AT THE LAST OPEN MEETING, THEY AGREED WITH THAT ADJUSTMENT. [02:35:02] UM, AND I AM CERTAINLY NOT AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK FOR THEM BEYOND PROVIDING WHATEVER MY INTERPRETATION IS, WHAT BARKSDALE'S BELIEF IS, OR WHAT COMMISSION STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING OF THAT CONVERSATION IS. UM, BUT I MYSELF AM JUST MY, MY SYMPATHY FOR CONTINUING TO, UM, CHANGE PI 1 45 TO GO BACK TO MEET WHAT THE CURRENT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS. I, I'M, I'M LOSING SYMPATHY FOR THAT ARGUMENT, UM, BECAUSE IT JUST, WE ARE CHIPPING AWAY AND CHIPPING AWAY AND CHIPPING AWAY AND SOON WE'RE GONNA BE BACK AT 400 GIGAWATTS IN BATCH ZERO. SO I, I THINK THAT'S A REALLY LONG-WINDED ANSWER. I'M SORRY, BUT, UM, I, I CAN'T SEE STAFF SUPPORTING ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THIS. I CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TIME TO GO BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO GET THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS. THAT'S PROBABLY, WOULD'VE BEEN THE BEST SHORTEST ANSWER. 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANOTHER OPEN MEETING, UM, BEFORE NEXT WEEK'S, UM, FINAL VOTE ATTACK. SO, SO THAT MEANS THAT WHATEVER IS PUBLISHED IN THE TABLE WILL BE LOGGED IN. LOOK, I THINK ANY REVISION REQUEST HAS TO GO THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND, UM, THE MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WILL CAST THEIR VOTES BASED ON WHAT THEY THINK IS THE BEST FOR THE MARKET AND BASED ON THE GUIDANCE THAT, THAT THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES AND THE MARKET AND THE REGULATORY AGENCIES HAVE PROVIDED. CAN I ASK THE SAME, UH, I HAD A CLARIFICATION QUESTION ABOUT THE 50% NON-REFUNDABLE. IS THAT STILL EXISTING FOR THESE INTERMEDIATE STAGE PROJECTS, OR IS THAT TAKEN AWAY? THAT'S, THAT WAS MY SECOND QUESTION. NO, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME. NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THAT AND THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE RULEMAKING. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. WE'RE GONNA TAKE A BREAK JUST IN A MINUTE. WE'RE GONNA LET JIM LEE ASK HIS QUESTION AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE A BREAK. THANKS. UM, JIM LEE, UH, WITH CENTERPOINT, SO HOPEFULLY THIS IS NOT A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE. UM, AS WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH TEAMWORK, GOT LAST WEEK, AND, UM, IT WAS PROBABLY AN INVERT OVERSIGHT, BUT PREVIOUSLY SENATOR POINT FILED COMMENTS ON SECTION 9 5 2 ON THE SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS, UM, TO INTENDING TO CAPTURE A KIND OF A SMALL, BUT AN IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION ON THOSE, UH, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. SO, UM, I THINK IN TALKING WITH ERCOT STAFF, THEY, THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT WAS PROBABLY INVERT OVERSIGHT, BUT WE, WE WANTED TO, UH, ADD BACK IN, UH, CLARIFYING LANGUAGE THAT, UH, THE SHORT CIRCUITED CASES WOULD BE DEVELOPED BY ERCOT BASED ON, UH, THE BASE CASES POSTED IN PARAGRAPH, I GUESS THREE HERE. SO, UM, IT WOULD BE CHANGES TO PARAGRAPH TWO THERE THAT JEFF HAS ON THE SCREEN. AND IF ERCOT AND TACK AGREE, I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THESE ADDED BACK IN EITHER THROUGH THE FOLLOW-UP CLEANUP COMMENTS, UM, ERCOT INTENDS TO, TO PUT TOGETHER, OR WE, SENATOR BOY CAN FILE, UM, CLARIFYING COMMENTS TO THIS. SO JUST LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM ERCOT ON WHICH WAY TO PROCEED. BUT, UH, I THINK HOPEFULLY THIS IS NONCONTROVERSIAL AS IT WAS KIND OF AGREED TO, UH, TO MAKE SENSE. OKAY. I DON'T REMEMBER AGREEING TO THAT, JIM, SO I, I WOULD NEED TO TAKE THAT BACK AND, UM, DISCUSS THAT WITH THE TEAM. OKAY. OKAY. MR. MR. ROWE HAS SOME OF THAT BACKGROUND, SO, UM, OKAY. YEAH. MAYBE ON THE BREAK. PERFECT. I CAN TOUCH YOU DO THAT. THANK YOU. YEP. OKAY. UM, I THINK WE WILL TAKE A BREAK AND COME BACK AND DO OUR FOUR ISSUES, FIVE ISSUES, UM, GO THROUGH ANY OF THEIR COMMENTS, NED AND ANYBODY ELSE. UM, I THINK LET'S HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS DURING THE BREAK. I THINK THIS WAS MOSTLY GOOD DISCUSSION. I, MARTHA AND I, I'M, I'M LOOPING YOU IN WITH ME, WOULD LIKE TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR NEXT WEEK. SO TO THE EXTENT WE CAN DO THAT, I, I DON'T, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ON THIS, THIS WEEK UNLESS SOMEBODY MAKES A MOTION. UM, BUT I KNOW ERCOT HAS SOME CLEANUP AND HAS AGREED TO A COUPLE OTHER THINGS. SO I, I THINK LET'S [02:40:01] THINK ABOUT HOW TO STREAMLINE THIS FOR, FOR NEXT WEEK AND REALLY FOCUS ON THE ISSUES WHERE WE MAY BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME CHANGES BETWEEN TODAY AND NEXT TUESDAY. REASONABLE. OKAY. HOW LONG DO YOU GUYS WANT? 45 MINUTES. ONE 15? MM-HMM . OKAY. SEE YOU AT ONE 15. READY, COREY? ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO ATTEMPT A COMBO BALLOT, BUT WE NEED TO GO BACK TO NPR 1264. SPEAK TO IT. YOU WANNA SPEAK TO IT, ED, OR DO YOU WANT OR CUT TO SPEAK TO IT? YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO, TO AT LEAST TEE IT UP SINCE I WAS THE ONE THAT TEED THIS UP IN THE FIRST PLACE. MM-HMM . I'VE, I'VE LEARNED THAT WHEN YOU, UH, WHEN YOU MAKE A MESS, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU CLEAN IT UP. THAT'S, UH, MAKE IT, THAT'S A, THAT'S A BACK TO BASICS, UH, LIFE PRINCIPLES. SO, UM, MY, I WANT TO, FIRST OF ALL, APOLOGY, UH, APOLOGIES TO Y'ALL. 'CAUSE UM, I KNOW IT TOOK SOME TIME THIS MORNING. UM, AND THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE APPROACH TO THIS NPR THAT I HAD. I HADN'T APPRECIATED. AND AS I WAS LOOKING THROUGH IT AND, YOU KNOW, SEARCHING FOR THE, THE WORD 10, BECAUSE THAT WAS, UH, SOMETHING I'D FLAGGED EARLIER. I HAD, I HAD MISSED THAT THE STRUCTURE HAD CHANGED TO NO LONGER INSERT THE, THE EAC IN THAT PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH AND WAS NOW MOVING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE IT'S NOT EVEN ADDRESSED. SO THE THIRD PARTY, UH, ADMINISTRATOR CAN HAVE 10 YEARS, IT COULD HAVE A HUNDRED YEARS, IT COULD HAVE NO, YOU KNOW, AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF YEARS. UM, THAT'S NOT SPECIFIED IN HERE. AND SO IT'S NOT A LIMITING FACTOR. SO, UM, APOLOGIES THAT I, I PUBLICLY FAILED MY READING COMPREHENSION TEST. UM, YOU CAN HOLD ME BACK A GRADE IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE. SO EARLIER, THE ITEM WE HAD ON THE COMBO WAS RECOMMEND 1264 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS AS REVISED BY TAX. AND NOW WE WOULD BE GOING BACK TO JUST AS REVISED BY PR OR AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS. THAT'S, THAT'S I BELIEVE SO. AND CORY, AND THAT'S OKAY WITH, WITH ANN SHAKING HER HEAD AND CATHERINE'S SHAKING HER HEAD. SO WITH ERCOT, WITH NED, WITH ERIC GOFF, WHO'S NOT IN THE ROOM. UM, BUT I DECIDED IT WAS OKAY WITH HIM. OKAY. SO WE, THAT WOULD BE ON THE COMBO BALLOT. UM, I WOULD PROPOSE PUTTING TABLING NPR 1325 ON THE COMBO BALLOT. AND THEN ALSO, SINCE WE ARE SPENDING A SUBSTANTIVE AMOUNT OF TIME ON IT, OR SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME ON IT, I WOULD PROPOSE ALSO PUTTING ON THE COMBO BALLOT, BOTH WAIVE NOTICE FOR PIGGER 1 45 AND TABLE PIGGER 1 45. COREY MADE A FACE, BUT HE TOLD ME IT WAS OKAY EARLIER. 'CAUSE OTHERWISE IT LOOKS LIKE WE JUST DIDN'T TAKE IT UP TODAY. OKAY. OKAY. IS A LITTLE STRONG, BUT IS THAT FINE WITH, IS IT OKAY-ISH WITH EVERYONE IN THE ROOM? LOWER. OKAY. LOWERCASE. OKAY. THE WORD OKAY, NOT THE TWO LETTERS. WE'VE HAD ISSUES IN THE PAST WHERE IF THE WILL OF THE GROUP IS THAT IT WILL BE UNANIMOUSLY IN ALL OF THOSE INSTANCES, WE'VE ALLOWED THE DAISY CHAINING TOGETHER AND AT TAC IT'S TWO THIRDS VOTE. SO THE CLEARANCE LEVEL IS THE SAME FOR ALL OF IT. SO IT CERTAINLY COULD BE PULLED OFF AND RUN INDIVIDUALLY IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO VOTE DIFFERENTLY ON THE WAIVING OF NOTICE, BUT THEN AFTERWARDS VOTE DIFFERENTLY ON THE TABLING. SO MUCH LIKE ANY OTHER COMBO BALLOT ITEM, IF ANY VOTER FEELS STRONGLY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WE CAN PULL IT OFF AND RUN AS MANY INDIVIDUAL BALLOTS AS NEEDED. BUT CLAYTON, OKAY. ANYBODY FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT NOT HAVING THAT ON THE CONVO BALLOT? ALRIGHT, COREY, [4. Combo Ballot (Vote)] LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THE COMBO BALLOT. OKAY. GIVE SUZY AND ANNA A CHANCE TO DOUBLE CHECK ME. SO WE PULLED 1315, RAN THAT SEPARATELY. WE'VE RUN 1330 SEPARATELY. SO I BELIEVE THESE ARE THE REMAINING ITEMS THAT Y'ALL HAVE. [02:45:06] COOL. WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR MOTION A SECOND ON THIS. SO WE NEED A MOTION. AND A SECOND BOB. SECOND NED. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ENERGY IN THOSE MOTIONS. ALL IT'S BECAUSE CLAYTON RUINED IT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMBO BALLOT. WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH GARRETT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MIKE. YES. THANKS. THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS? YES. THANK YOU NICK. NICK REBA, YOU WITH US? I SAW HIM COME OFF MUTE AND TAKE YOU IN CHAT IF YOU NEED TO. IF I WILL, I'LL LOOP BACK TO YOU. NICK, HOW ABOUT BETH? YES, THANK YOU WILL. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR CO-OPS, BLAKE? YES. THANK YOU, KYLE. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JOHN. YES. THANK YOU JO. DAN FOR MIKE? YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. NED? YES. THANK YOU COREY. YOU BRIAN? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, BOB. YES, SIR. THANKS SIR. CAITLYN? YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR I, MS. JEREMY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SETH. YES. THANK YOU SHANE FOR RASHMI. AND IAN, I'VE GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IRA. UH, BILL. YES. THANK YOU, JAY. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHRIS. YES, THANK YOU JEN. UH, I GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT, JEN. THANK YOU. AND THEN NICK, I GOT YOUR YES AS WELL. THANK YOU. ENTRE IOUS. MARTHA? YES. THANK YOU, KEITH. YES, THANK YOU. EBY. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, ERIN. YES. THANK YOU. ANDRE. MUNIS. ALICIA? YES. THANK YOU, JOSE. YES. THANK YOU. CURTIS GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT. CURTIS, THANK YOU. AND DIANA FOR DAVID. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. THANK Y'ALL. OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE GET BACK TO THE, OH, THERE'S SHANE. HE MISSED THE VOTE. UM, ALL RIGHT. EXCUSE ME. GONNA BE A NO TOO OR WHAT WAS BRIAN'S? I HATE THIS. YES. ALL RIGHT, LET'S [5. Batch Study Items] GO BACK TO THE, THE BATCH ITEMS. UH, WE WERE GOING TO START BACK UP AT THE KIND OF ISSUE LIST WE HAD. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO PULL IT UP ON THE SCREEN. UM, BUT THE FIRST ONE IS IN TWO PARTS. IT'S THE APPLICABLE RPG DATES FOR INCLUSION AND BATCH ZERO, AND THEN REVIEW THE TRADE-OFFS OF INCLUSION OF RPG PROJECTS AND BATCH ZERO IN ACCORDANCE WITH, UM, A FEW SETS OF COMMENTS. SO I THINK, ARE WE STARTING WITH CLAYTON AND THEN BILL BARNES? ARE YOU TAGGING IN HERE AT SOME POINT? SURE. I HAVE RELIANT. OH, IT'S IMPORTANT. CLAY, YOU PUT JACKET ON. YEAH, I WOULDN'T LOOK LIKE NED TODAY. WENT TO HIS STYLIST. UH, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. UM, WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE RPG ASPECTS OF PICKER 1 45. UM, OUR REQUEST IS GONNA BE THAT WE INCLUDE THE ORIGINATING LOADS IN THOSE LOADS IN, AND LET'S GO THROUGH THE ISSUES ONE AT A TIME. OKAY. THIS, WHAT DO I LITTLE HELP ? SORRY. YOU JUST HAVE TO CLICK OVER INTO THIS WINDOW TO LIKE ACTIVATE THAT. THIS IS THE ACTIVE WINDOW NOW, SO IF YOU, NOW IF YOU MOUSE WHEELER KEYS, IT SHOULD WORK. OKAY, COOL STUFF. DO YOU HAVE A DEFINITION OF ORIGINATING LOADS? SO ORIGINATING LOADS WERE THE ONES THAT WERE STUDIED IN THE PROJECTS THEMSELVES. SO YOU HAVE ORIGINATING LOADS THAT WERE IN THE RPG, THE, UH, TSP STUDIED THOSE LOADS, MADE SURE THAT THEY DEVELOPED ENOUGH PROJECTS TO SERVE THOSE LOADS. AND THEN THOSE WERE SUBMITTED AS A, YOU KNOW, AS [02:50:01] A STUDY OKAY. INTO THE RRP G PROCESS. OKAY. YOU'LL HAVE TO CHECK THE MINUTES TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, BUT THANKS. THANKS CLAYTON. GOT IT. THIS PRESENTATION WAS POSTED IN THAT, UH, ZIP FILE. RIGHT. OKAY, GOOD. ALRIGHT, LET'S GET STARTED THEN. UM, SO HOW WE GOT HERE, YEAH, THIS IN, UM, IN THE LIST OF ITEMS ARE ALL UNDER, I THINK THE BATCH ITEMS FOLDER, SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON THE POST-IT TO THE TAG PAGE. OKAY, VERY GOOD. I GOTTA TELL YOU THIS, I, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PRESENTATION THAN I'M USED TO GIVING. I USUALLY HAVE LIKE A WALMART LEVEL, UH, AND THIS, THIS IS MORE LIKE A JC PENNEY'S, SO I MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE WITH IT. UM, ON THE, UH, HOW WE GOT HERE. SO WE HAVE A LOAD INTERCONNECTION, UH, LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION PROCESS. THERE WAS HUGE BITCOIN MINING LOADS. AND, AND THEN WE STARTED TO GET DATA CENTER LOADS IN, UH, MARCH OF 2022. ERCOT SAID WE HAVE TO GO TO AN INTERIM, UH, PROCESS TO GET THESE LARGE LOADS INTERCONNECTED. UM, AND WE'LL, WE'LL SWING BACK TO THAT IN A SECOND. UM, PICKER ONE, UH, 15 LAST DECEMBER. CODIFIED THAT PROCESS ON DECEMBER 15TH OF LAST YEAR. AND THEN JUST THREE DAYS LATER, THEY ANNOUNCED THAT WE'RE MOVING TO THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. UM, IN SOUTH, IN SOUTHERN DFW, UM, KIND OF IN THE AREA AROUND LANCASTER RED OAK ALL THE WAY DOWN TO VENUS, WHERE OUR SITE IS, UH, LOOKING TO INTERCONNECT. UH, IT BECAME A HUGE HOTSPOT FOR DATA CENTER LOAD. ENCORE WAS INUNDATED WITH REQUESTS. AND SO THEY CAME BACK TO US AND SAID, OKAY, WE'RE STOPPING THIS. THEY, THEY CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT ERCOT DID. THESE, THESE ONE-OFF STUDIES ISN'T GONNA GET IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TOO MANY MORE LOADS COMING IN AND YOU JUST CAN'T KEEP UP WITH IT. SO INSTEAD OF DOING A STANDARD ONE-OFF STUDY, THEY DECIDED TO DO WHAT THEY CALLED A IS A CLUSTER STUDY AT THAT POINT. UM, IT'S THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY. UM, THAT THIS DEVELOPED A, UM, PROJECT. IT WAS THE SOUTHERN DFW LOAD, INTERCONNECTION AND GRID STRENGTHENING PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED IN MARCH. AND THEN THEY, UM, THEY KIND OF MODIFIED OVER INTO THE, WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER THE ERCOT BATCH STUDY PROCESS, WHICH IS THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN, AND STARTED UTILIZING THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN PROJECTS AND EXTRACTING THEIR LOADS AND THEIR PROJECTS, THEIR TRANSMISSION PROJECTS OUT OF THOSE. AND USED THAT AS THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS. AND THAT'S WHAT BECAME THE, UM, SET ONE, SET TWO THAT WE APPROVED OR THAT, THAT, UH, ERCOT PUT IN FOR RECOMMENDATION ON MONDAY. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? THAT'S A LOT OF WORDS. OKAY. SO WHAT CHOA FILED, WE, UM, HAVE A 703 ACRE SITE IN THE VENUS AREA. UM, WE SUBMITTED A PHASE ONE INTERCONNECTION REQUEST IN OCTOBER OF 23 ON THAT SITE FOR 400 MEGAWATTS. WE FOLLOWED THAT UP WITH ANOTHER 2000 TO KIND OF FINISH OUT THAT SITE. IT'S A HUGE SITE. UM, SO WE FILED THE 2000 MEGAWATTS IN MARCH OF 24. FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR, ENCORE CAME TO US AND SAID, WE'RE ON YOUR PHASE ONE APPROACH OR YOUR PHASE ONE SET OF, UH, OF LOAD. WE'RE GOING TO PUT 150 MEGAWATTS INTO THE SOUTHERN DFW PROJECT. THE OTHER 250 WILL GO INTO THESE RTP PROJECTS. AND, UM, ENCORE TOLD US AT THAT TIME, THE TARGET IN SERVICE DATE IS 2028 FOR THOSE. AND THERE'S SOME NUMBERS THAT MATTER. UM, THE, THE, THE FIRST TWO WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT, UM, THERE'S A KEY NUMBER HERE. THE ONE PLUS YEARS THAT IS THE SOUTHERN DFW OF PROJECT APPROVAL TIME. UH, THE NORMAL TIME FOR A, FOR AN RPG PROJECT IS 150 DAYS. IF IT GOES BEYOND THAT, ERCOT HAS TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL TIME. THIS DIDN'T JUST GO PAST ONE 50, IT WENT PAST ANOTHER ONE 50 AND THEN A THIRD ONE 50 BEFORE IT FINALLY GOT APPROVED. UM, AND THEN TWO NUMBERS I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT HERE ON THE BOTTOM, 2.9 GIGS OF ADDITIONAL LOAD WAS APPROVED IN THAT PROJECT OVER THE INITIAL STUDIED AMOUNT. AND THEN THE STUDIED AMOUNT, UM, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT FROM MONDAY'S MEETING WAS 11 GIGAWATTS OVER IN THE DFW AREA ALONE, 11 GIGAWATTS OVER WHAT WAS INITIALLY, UM, CONTEMPLATED FOR THE, UH, THE RTP SETS. SO, UM, NOW WE GET TO THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS, IS THESE LOADS WERE SUBMITTED AS AN RPG PROJECT, NOT AS AN LLIS. UM, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WHEN THE LLIS WAS CREATED, UM, OF NOTE IS THAT THAT LLIS, UH, WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE USED IN THAT INITIAL MARKET BULLETIN FOR LOADS THAT WERE GOING TO BE WITHIN TWO YEARS. IF THE LOAD WAS GONNA BE PAST TWO YEARS FOR INSTALLATION, THEN THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO USE THE NORMAL PROCESS, WHICH IS THE RPG PROCESS. SO, YOU KNOW, IN MY UNDERSTANDING, ENCORE DID WHAT THEY WERE REQUESTED TO DO BY ERCOT. UM, HOWEVER, THE RPG HAS A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF CARE AND MANAGEMENT THAN AN LLIS SET OF STUDIES FOR THE LLIS SET OF [02:55:01] STUDIES. THE LOAD IS CONFIDENTIAL, THE STUDIES ARE CONFIDENTIAL. NOBODY ELSE CAN ACCESS THOSE STUDIES. IN THE RPG PROCESS, THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAD IS PUBLIC. ALL OF THE PROJECTS ARE PUBLIC. AND THE PROBLEM THAT WAS CREATED HERE IS OTHER TSPS WERE ABLE TO USE THOSE PROJECTS TO JUSTIFY THEIR OWN LOADS. THE ONLY, YOU KNOW, IRONICALLY, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE RPG PROJECTS ARE THE SUBMITTING ENTITIES AND THE LOADS THAT WERE SUBMITTED WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO WAIT. THAT'S THEIR, THAT IS THEIR LLIS STUDY. THEY HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL IT'S ALL THE WAY COMPLETE AND THEN THEY RECEIVE THEIR INTERCONNECTION. SO, UM, INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, RRPG PROJECTS ARE TREATED AS GENERIC CAPACITY. THEY, SO THE ONES THAT ARE GENERIC, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S, IT'S EFFICIENT TO DO THIS KIND OF A THING. SO YOU ASK WHY WOULD OTHER TSPS BE ALLOWED TO GRAB THESE RPG PROJECTS AND USE THEM FOR THEIR OWN? IT'S BECAUSE IT'S EFFICIENT WHENEVER IT'S DEALING WITH RPG PROJECTS FOR, YOU KNOW, GENERAL LOAD UPGRADES, CONGESTION MANAGEMENT, THINGS LIKE THAT, THINGS THAT ARE GREAT IDEAS WITH LOAD SPECIFIC PROJECTS. WHAT YOU WIND UP DOING IS DOUBLE COUNTING. SO YOU HAVE THE LOADS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY INCLUDED IN THE STUDIES, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT ALL THESE NEW LOADS THAT WERE ABLE TO USE THOSE SAME PROJECTS. SO YOU GET AN OVER COUNTING OF THE MEGAWATTS THAT IT CAN, CAN DELIVER. UM, THE PROBLEM WITH DFW WAS IT TOOK OVER A YEAR TO APPROVE. SO DURING THIS YEAR WHILE THIS THING HA HUNG OUT THERE, ALL THE OTHER TSPS WERE ALLOWED TO COME IN AND SAY, OKAY, THAT PROJECT IS, IS GREAT FOR MY LOAD OVER HERE. YOU KNOW, THAT SOLVES MY CONGESTION PROBLEM AND, AND SO ON. AND SO YOU HAD A SITUATION WHERE ERCOT COMES IN TODAY AND SAYS, OKAY, WE CAN'T ALLOW THESE TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A STUDY THAT SHOWS ALL THIS LOAD CAN BE SERVED SIMULTANEOUSLY. SO PICTURES WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS HERE. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY IN A NUTSHELL WHAT HAPPENED. YOU HAD ENCORE THAT DEVELOPED A, A MASSIVE, YOU KNOW, THREE VERY LARGE SETS OF PROJECTS. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL SOUTHERN DFW PROJECT AS WELL AS THE TWO LOAD SETS THAT WERE APPROVED ON MONDAY. UM, THOSE HUNG OUT IN THE RTP PROCESS. ENCORE HAD TO TELL THEIR LOADS, YOU GOTTA WAIT UNTIL THESE THINGS ARE APPROVED. MEANWHILE, ALL THE OTHER TSPS WERE LOADING UP. SO, UM, WE WANTED TO POINT OUT ANOTHER PARALLEL HERE IS THE PERMIAN BASIN LOADS. THOSE LOADS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AND THEY'VE BEEN SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THESE ARE RPG RELATED BECAUSE, UH, ERCOT HAS SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED, YOU KNOW, PERMIAN BASIN LOADS THAT ARE, UM, RPG SIMILAR TREATMENT BASE LOAD TREATMENT IN THE BATCH. AND THEN THIS, THIS WAS, UM, A BIT GALLING TO ME. THIS WAS THE SLIDE THAT ERCOT USED TO, UH, SAY THAT THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW THESE RPG PROJECTS TO MOVE FORWARD. LIKE THEY ARE THE, THE LOADS IN THESE AND WHAT THEY, THEY'VE DONE THREE CRITICAL ERRORS. THREE, THEY'RE DEMONSTRATING THREE CRITICAL ERRORS IN HERE. ONE IS THEY'RE SHOWING THESE RPG PROJECTS AS BEING LATE FILED PROJECTS. SO YOU HAVE THESE EARLY FILED LLIS PROJECTS SUPPOSEDLY THAT ARE BEING DISPLACED BY LATE FILED RPG PROJECTS. THAT'S ACTUALLY REVERSED. YOU COULDN'T EVEN HAVE AN RPG PROJECT IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE LOAD THAT HAD APPLIED. AND SO THOSE LOADS THAT HAVE APPLIED WERE WELL IN ADVANCE OF EVEN THE RPG PROJECT. SO YOU HAVE LOADS LIKE OURS FILED IN 2023 THAT ARE NOW BEING DISPLACED BY LOADS THAT WERE FILED IN 2025. IT'S ACTUALLY THE REVERSE. THE OTHER KEY PIECE IS THIS, UM, RELIABILITY BASED SEQUENCING PHRASE THAT, THAT ERCOT HAS COME UP WITH. AND WHAT THAT ESSENTIALLY MEANS IS THE DATE ON WHICH THE STUDIES WERE APPROVED. AND AS WE JUST MENTION, THAT'S ALSO A FALLACY BECAUSE THE, THESE STUDIES THAT ARE BEING APPROVED ARE BEING APPROVED WITH THE PROJECTS THAT WERE INCLUDED FOR ANOTHER LOAD. THAT LOAD HAD TO WAIT UNTIL THE VERY END. SO YOU HAVE ALL THESE OTHER PROJECTS THAT, OF COURSE, THEY WERE APPROVED BEFOREHAND BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT COULD ACCESS THOSE, THOSE THAT CAPACITY, THOSE MEGAWATTS, THE LOADS THAT THESE WERE DEDICATED TO COULDN'T EVEN ACCESS THEM UNTIL APPROVAL. AND SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S A FALL FALLACY. SO, UM, WE ARE, YOU KNOW, ONE THING I DID WANNA ASK BARKSDALE IS JEFF KEEPS COMING BACK TO THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION HAS APPROVED THIS PLAN. WAS THIS WHAT YOU WERE RELYING ON OR WHAT WERE YOU RELYING ON? OR WHAT WAS THE, THE THESIS BEHIND, UH, THE COMMISSION OF THE QUOTE, COMMISSION APPROVAL OF, OF NOT INCLUDING A LOT OF THE RPG LOADS LIKE OUR OWN, THAT HAVE BEEN WAITING YEARS. I'M SORRY, I'M PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT. YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK YOU'RE ASKING ME TO TELL YOU [03:00:01] WHAT EACH COMMISSIONER WAS THINKING WHEN THEY ENDORSED THE CONCEPTS AROUND WHICH STUDIES WOULD BE ACCEPTED AS VALID, WHICH I THINK IS NOT REALLY AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR ME TO TRY TO ANSWER. OKAY, THAT'S FAIR. THAT'S CERTAINLY FAIR. I THOUGHT IT WAS YOUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT I GUESS THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. YOU ASKED ME WHAT THE COMMISSION WAS THINKING WHEN THEY APPROVED, WHAT WERE CONCEPTS MAY, SO MAYBE I WOULD ASK YOU, BARKSDALE, WHAT, WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS? WHAT DO I THINK ABOUT YOUR SLIDE HERE? WHAT DO, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS ENTIRE ISSUE THAT, THAT THAT WE'VE HAD LOADS THAT HAVE BEEN IN SINCE 20 23, 20 24. THEY WERE GIVEN THIS ONE AVENUE. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER WAY TO GET APPROVED. ENCORE CREATED THE STUDIES. THEY DID EVERYTHING THAT ERCOT ASKED 'EM TO DO. WE DID EVERYTHING ENCORE ASKED US TO DO. WE GET TO THE END OF THIS PROCESS, AND NOW WE'RE FINDING THAT OTHER LOADS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO USE THE PROJECTS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN OURS IN OUR STUDIES. AND WHAT WE'RE BEING TOLD IS NOW YOU HAVE TO WAIT. THESE OTHER PROJECTS TAKE PRIORITY OVER YOURS. YEAH, I GUESS, UM, I CAN'T WEIGH IN ON WHAT ANY INDIVIDUAL LOAD OR RPG PROJECT EXPERIENCED THROUGH THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS OF, OF ALL OF THE TURMOIL AND THE TRANSMISSION PLANNING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON HERE. UM, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, UM, SEVERAL TIMES, UM, THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE, THE CHAOS THAT IT HAS CAUSED. I AM SYMPATHETIC TO ANY INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS OR, UM, UTILITIES, UM, EXPERIENCE WITH ANY INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. AND, UM, I HAVE SAID FROM THE OUTSET THAT PIGGER 1 45 OR THE, THE BATCH PROCESS, EVEN BEFORE PIGGER 1 45 WAS ENVISIONED, THE BATCH PROCESS IS GOING TO CREATE A SET OF WINNERS AND LOSERS. AND THERE IS NO GETTING AROUND THAT. AND SO THE OBJECTIVE FOR THE COMMISSION AND THEN FOR ERCOT AND THEN FOR THE STAKEHOLDERS IS TO CREATE A SET OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA BY WHICH WE SELECT THOSE WINNERS AND LOSERS, UM, SO THAT NO ONE IN THIS ROOM OR NO ONE AT THE COMMISSION OR NO ONE AT THE CAPITOL CAN BE ACCUSED OF SAYING, I WANT PROJECT A OR I WANT PROJECT B. AND I THINK THE PROCESS THAT HAS LED US TO TODAY HAS TRIED ITS LEVEL BEST TO ACHIEVE THAT. YEAH, I DON'T ENVY YOUR, YOUR, UH, YOUR ROLE HERE. UH, YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DO A LOT AND YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO STICK YOUR NECK OUT A LOT. UM, I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IN MY MIND THAT WHENEVER SOME, IF WE HAD AN ENTITY LIKE IT'S, IT'S A PREPOSTEROUS IDEA TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE TWO LLIS PROGRAMS AND, AND I, IN MY LLIS CAN ASK ANOTHER LLIS ASK ERCOT TO GRAB THEIR, THE CAPACITY FROM THEIRS AND THROW IT IN MINE. I CAME, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHENEVER I CAME OVER A YEAR LATER AND SAY, OKAY, USE THEIR CAPACITY FOR MINE FOR THE LLIS PROCESS. THAT NEVER HAPPENED BECAUSE ALL THAT STUFF IS KEPT HIDDEN. THE PROBLEM HERE IS WE HAVE AN RPG PROCESS THAT WAS OPEN, IT WAS PUBLIC, AND THAT CAPACITY SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO BE USED, BUT IT HAS BEEN. SO WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. THE THING IS, IS WHAT DO WE DO NOW? UM, WE DON'T NEED TO COVER THIS. I JUST COVERED IT. UM, SO THE ISSUE HERE IS THERE'S, THERE'S A COUPLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE TAKE THESE LOADS THAT WERE, THAT HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR YEARS IN THE QUEUE AND LET'S THROW THEM IN BATCH ZERO AS BATCH ZERO STUDIED. AND THAT'S AT LEAST BETTER THAN NOTHING. BUT IT MAY ONLY BE JUST BETTER THAN NOTHING BECAUSE, UM, ESPECIALLY IN THE SOUTHERN DFW AREA, ENCORE IS ALREADY QUOTING TRANSMISSION INSTALLATION PROJECTS IN 2034. SO IF WE CAN PRESUME THAT WHENEVER THIS BATCH STUDY CLEARS, IT HAS PROJECTS THAT CLEAR THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE SERVICE OF ADDITIONAL LOAD, WHAT DOES THAT PUT IT AT? IS IT 20 35, 20 36, YOU KNOW, AND ON, SO IT BASICALLY EVISCERATES THE VALUE OF ANY PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE QUEUE AND WAITING. SO WHAT WE PROPOSED WAS TO MOVE THAT DATE TO JULY 10TH THAT WOULD CAPTURE THE SOUTHERN DFW PROJECT. IT WOULD CAPTURE THE, THE, UH, RTP SETS THAT HAD BEEN APPROVED ON MONDAY AND LET THOSE LOADS MOVE FORWARD AS BADGE ZERO BASE. WE'RE NOT ASKING ERCOT TO DO ANYTHING THAT IS UNRELIABLE. [03:05:01] WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE IS IF THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED THAT, UM, AND I THINK THE TERM YOU'RE USING, UH, JEFF WAS INVALIDATE, WE NEED TO INVALIDATE THOSE STUDIES AND UM, AND LET THOSE PROJECTS GO IN AS BATCH ZERO STUDIED BECAUSE THEY CAME LATER, THERE WAS PRIORITY HERE AND EVERYBODY ELSE FOLLOWED THE, FOLLOWED THE PLAN. UM, THERE ARE SOME MITIGATING FACTORS. UM, I MENTIONED EARLIER THE 2.9 GIGAWATTS OF ADDITIONAL, UH, CAPACITY APPROVED IN THE SOUTHERN DFW PROJECTS AND THE 11 GIGAWATTS THAT WAS STUDIED AND, AND I BELIEVE ABLE TO BE SERVED BY THOSE, UH, RTP SETS. THAT'S A GREAT START. I THINK THAT PROBABLY SATISFIES A LOT OF THOSE LOADS. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO STUDY, UM, AS TO WHETHER THAT'S POSSIBLE OR NOT. AND I BELIEVE THOSE STUDIES HAVE COMMENCED. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT ALL THE LOAD CAN BE SERVED, THIS BECOMES A NON-ISSUE. SO THAT MAY BE A HUGE MITIGATING FACTOR. UM, I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE TSPS THEMSELVES CAN PROVIDE SOME MITIGATION BY BRINGING IN ADDITIONAL HELP, UH, CONTRACT ENGINEERING CONTRACT, UH, CONSTRUCTION TEAMS TRY TO MOVE SOME OF THOSE TIMELINES UP. I MEAN, SIX YEARS IS QUITE A BIT OF, YOU CAN MOVE QUITE A BIT OF HEAVEN AND EARTH IN SIX YEARS TO GET PROJECTS DONE. SO HOPEFULLY THERE'S, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE CAN BE DONE ON THE TSP SIDE AND THEN ALSO ON THE LOAD SIDE, WE'VE GOT THESE NEW TOOLS, PCLR, WE'VE GOT, UH, WL PUNS THAT CAN ALSO BE USED ON THE LOAD SIDE TO TRY TO HELP IMPROVE THE SITUATION AS WELL. IF WE ALL WORK TOGETHER, I THINK WE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE FOR EVERYONE. UM, I WILL SAY THERE IS ACTUALLY ONE MORE MITIGATING FACTOR THAT I, I FORGOT TO INCLUDE IN MY SLIDES, AND THAT IS THE FINANCIAL SECURITY. UM, WE HAVE A TENTATIVE FEA THAT HAS BEEN SENT TO US THAT TENTATIVE, FEA HAS OUR PORTION OF A, OF I BELIEVE THE SOUTHERN DFW PROJECTS IN THAT. SO OUR, YOU KNOW, WE, EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT HOW HORRIBLE THE 50,000 PER, UH, MEGAWATT IS. OUR, OUR NUMBER CAME UP TO 206,000 A MEGAWATT. SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE APPLIED TO ALL THE ENCORE LOADS. I DOUBT THAT THAT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO ANY OF THE OTHER LOADS THAT ARE IN THIS STUDY BECAUSE I'M SURE THAT FROM, FROM THAT OTHER TSP STANDPOINT, THESE ARE SYSTEM PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE ALREADY COMING AND THEY DIDN'T NEED TO SECURITIZE FOR THAT. SO IF WE HAVE SOME LEVEL OF SECURITY REQUIRED FOR THOSE LOADS AS WELL, I THINK THAT'S GONNA HELP CLEAR OUT SOME OF THE STACK AS WELL. WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE QUESTIONS. OKAY, JEFF. HEY CLAYTON, THANKS FOR THE, UM, PRESENTATION AND THE COMMENTS. UM, TO MAYBE FIRST QUESTION, SO YOUR, YOUR LOADS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, ARE THEY IN THE LLIS PROCESS? ENCORE, I BELIEVE YOU'VE GOTTEN, I THINK THEY WENT IN TO FILE THOSE IN DECEMBER 15TH. OUR LLIS NUMBER ON OUR VENUS. I'M SORRY, CLAYTON, I DON'T HAVE THE DETAILS OF THAT. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE. I BELIEVE IT IS. THEY WEREN'T ORIGINALLY IN THE LLIS PROCESS BECAUSE THEY WERE PAST THE TWO YEARS AND THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE LLIS PROCESS. SO WHENEVER P PIGGER 15 CAME IN, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD IS WHENEVER PIGGER ONE 15 MADE THEM COME IN AND, AND, UH, APPLY IN THE STANDARD, PUT ALL THOSE LOADS IN. SO GOING BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL MARKET BULLETIN YOU HAD, IF YOUR LOAD WAS PASSED TWO YEARS, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO USE THE RPG PRO PROCESS TO GET THOSE LOADS APPROVED. WELL, YEAH, CLARIFICATION IS YOU, YOU HAD TO USE IF YOU WERE BEFORE TWO YEARS, BUT YOU COULD, YOU COULD USE THE LLS PROCESS AND AND MANY DID, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T WITHIN THAT TWO YEAR PERIOD. WELL, THERE WASN'T POINT OF CLARITY. THERE WASN'T A CLUSTER STUDY LOIS PROCESS. YEAH, WE DON'T, DON'T HAVE AN OFFICIAL CLUSTER BATCH STUDY PROCESS TODAY, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO, THAT BATCH STUDY IS THE CLUSTER STUDY. WE'RE TRYING TO SET THAT UP. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. SO THEY'D USE THE ONLY TOOL THAT THEY HAD AVAILABLE TO 'EM. WELL, I, I, I MEAN, I WOULD DISPUTE THAT I WOULD SAY THAT LLIS PROCESS WHAT WAS AN AVAILABLE TO AS OF 2022. SO AFTER 2022, YOU HAD THE, YOU HAD THE INTERIM PROCESS. THAT INTERIM PROCESS SAID THAT IF YOU HAD CRITERIA ON THAT. YEP. AND IF IT WAS GREATER THAN TWO YEARS, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH THE OTHER PROCESS, GO THROUGH THE RPG PROCESS. IT WAS OPTIONAL. THERE'S OPTIONALITY THERE. OKAY. WELL EVEN IF, EVEN IF THERE WAS OPTIONALITY, THERE WAS NO WAY, THERE WASN'T A PROCESS FOR A CLUSTER STUDY INSIDE OF THAT LLIS. IS THAT, IS THAT THE QUESTION? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE QUESTION IS. I'M, I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOU, [03:10:01] YOU, YOU KEEP MAKING A POINT ABOUT, HEY, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO OTHER OPTION. I I THINK THAT THERE WERE OTHER OPTIONS. YOU COULD HAVE GONE THROUGH AN LLIS PROCESS, UH, ENCORE LET US KNOW THAT THAT WAS NOT AN OPTION BECAUSE THERE WAS TOO MANY LOAD. THERE WERE TOO MANY LOADS. OKAY. I THINK IT'S THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT ERCOT HAS COME TO TODAY. SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. OKAY. UM, SO, UH, SO YOU'RE ON ON THAT POINT. YEAH. AND I SEE IF I COULD INTERRUPT YOU, JEFF, I SEE LIZ COMING TO THE TABLE. 'CAUSE IT WOULD HELP ME TO HAVE ENCORE AS PART OF THIS DISCUSSION AS WELL. SO I'M NOT PREPARED TO GO THROUGH THIS CHAPTER IN VERSE, BUT I GUESS JEFF, THE WAY WE VIEWED IT IS THERE WAS A OPTIONALITY YES. AN LLIS WAS PERMISSIBLE AND YES, AN RPG WAS PERMISSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN SOUTH DALLAS. WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO UNDERTAKE AN RPG BECAUSE THEN WE COULD BUNDLE MANY CUSTOMERS AND, AND UNDERTAKE THAT RPG STUDY IN LIEU OF MULTIPLE INDIVIDUAL LLIS STUDIES. OKAY. THANKS FOR CLARIFICATION KEY AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AGAIN, JUST TO KEEP IT, PROVIDE A DIFFERENT VOICE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE'RE FACING HERE IS WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE PROCESSES PRIMARILY TSP DRIVEN THAT NOW WE HAVE TO KIND OF SHIFT AND BECOME ERCOT DRIVEN AND DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TALKING TO A DIFFERENT TSP, YOU MIGHT, THE OUTCOME MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF, OF THAT DIFFERENT TSPS HAVE DIFFERENT PROCESSES, BUT SOMEHOW WE'VE GOTTA SMUSH ALL OF THIS TOGETHER IN SOME SORT OF COGENT PROCESS THAT'S GOING TO BE APPLICABLE OR CO WIDE. RIGHT. SO, AND I, AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANNA MAKE SURE IS NOT MISSED IN ALL OF THIS, THE RPG PRO PROJECTS, THOSE SETS OF PROJECTS, THOSE WERE OUR LLIS, THOSE WERE OUR STUDIES AND, AND OTHERS I'VE HEARD YOU SAY THAT. OKAY. I THINK I'VE HEARD ENCORE SAY THAT'S HOW THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT IT. AND WHAT I HEAR ERCOT SAYING IS, NO, YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS OTHER L-L-L-I-S THAT IT, AM I HEARING THE THREE OF YOU APPROPRIATELY? I, I'LL SAY FROM T'S PERSPECTIVE, I, I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT IN THAT DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT TSPS HAD DIFFERENT PROCESSES. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WAS ACTING OUT. NO, NOBODY WAS ACTING NEFARIOUS IN THAT EVERYBODY WAS DOING THE PROCESS THAT THEY FELT WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A STANDARDIZED, PRO STANDARDIZED PROCESS. AND, AND LIKE YOU SAID, WE WERE TRYING TO SMUSH THIS ALL TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH A, GOING FORWARD, WE NEED TO HAVE A STANDARDIZED PROCESS. WE, I THINK WHEN WE CONDUCTED OUR INTERVIEWS WITH, UH, INDIVIDUAL STAKEHOLDERS, I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR, IS THAT WE HAVE DIFF DIFFERENT RULES THAT ARE BEING APPLIED DIFFERENTLY ACROSS DIFFERENT TSPS AND WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A STANDARD PROCESS. UN UNDERSTANDING THIS TRANSITION IS, UM, IT, IT'S GOING TO BE PAINFUL, BUT GOING FORWARD WHEN WE GET TO BATCH ONE, OUR, OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE A STANDARD PROCESS THAT EVERYBODY FOLLOWS. OKAY. SORRY, I HAD A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. OKAY. UM, SO, UM, CLAYTON, ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT, OR, OR DO YOU THINK THAT PROJECTS THAT WENT THROUGH THE RPG PROCESS THAT, THAT THEY HAVE A RESERVATION, THAT THEY NOW HAVE TRANSMISSION RIGHTS TO THAT TRANSMISSION CAPACITY? THEY SHOULD, YES. OKAY. AND THAT IS THE MOST EFFICIENT SOLUTION BECAUSE THOSE PROJECTS WERE DEVELOPED SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE LOADS. LIKE I JUST SAID, THAT WAS THE, YOU HAVE LLIS STUDIES BEING DONE BY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, FOR AN INDIVIDUAL LOAD, THE TSP DOES THE LLIS STUDY THAT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT LOAD TO SERVE THAT LOAD HAS A SET OF PROJECTS THAT ARE NEEDED TO, TO SERVE THAT LOAD. THIS WAS A GRAND LLIS THAT WAS ALLOWED TO BE USED BY OTHER PEOPLE. THAT'S NOT DONE IN THE REGULAR LLIS AND IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ALLOWED HERE, BUT THAT'S WHERE THE SYSTEM BROKE DOWN. WHENEVER, WHENEVER OTHER PROJECTS WERE ABLE TO POINT TO, HEY, WE'VE GOT THIS HUGE SOUTH DALLAS SET OF PROJECTS OVER HERE THAT SOLVES ALL MY PROBLEMS. AND, AND ERCOT SAYS, OKAY, SOUNDS GOOD. THAT THAT'S WHEN THE PROBLEMS AROSE BECAUSE Y'ALL DIDN'T EARMARK THOSE, THOSE MEGAWATTS AS BEING RESERVED. SO WHY DO YOU THINK OTHER, OTHER TSPS PROJECTS HAVE USED THAT CAPACITY? IF THEY HAVEN'T USED THAT [03:15:01] CAPACITY, THEN THAT CAPACITY IS FREELY AVAILABLE AND YOU CAN PUT ALL THESE LOADS INTO BATCH ZERO BASE. OKAY. UM, AND THAT MAY BE WHAT YOU FIND. YEAH. I, I KNOW YOU'RE DOING YOUR STUDIES. YEP. THAT MAY BE WHAT YOU FIND IF YOU, IF YOU FIND THAT OUT, THIS IS A NON-ISSUE. YEAH. OKAY. AND, AND YEAH. AND, AND I GUESS I'M, SO IS IT YOU'RE MORE SPECULATING THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER TSPS THAT HAVE USED THAT? IF, IF NO OTHER TSP HAS USED THAT CAPACITY, THEN THAT CAPACITY IS AVAILABLE TODAY FOR THE LOADS THAT IT WAS INTENDED FOR. AND EVERYBODY SHOULD BE FINE WITH IT GOING INTO BATCH ZERO BASE. IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE, IT WOULD ONLY BE, IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE AND OTHER, OTHER TSPS WERE ALLOWED TO USE THAT, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THE DOUBLE COUNTING ISSUE AND POTENTIALLY NEED ADDITIONAL PROJECTS TO SERVE ALL THE LOAD. OKAY. I'M, I AM SIGNIFICANTLY ENCOURAGED BY THE FACT THAT WHENEVER WE WENT THROUGH THESE PROCESSES, THESE RPG PROCESSES, IT WASN'T SOLVING JUST FOR THE CAPACITY, BUT SOLVING FOR QUITE A BIT MORE. 'CAUSE I THINK THAT GIVES US SOME BUFFER FOR SOME OF THOSE MISTAKES TO HAVE BEEN MADE. YEAH. AND, AND, UM, AND, AND LIKE I SAID, WE'RE, WE'RE STILL DOING THAT ANALYSIS, BUT, UM, I WILL TELL YOU, UM, AND, AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN THIS NARRATIVE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S ENCORE DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND, AND SO WE'VE BEEN DISADVANTAGED. UM, I'LL TELL YOU, WHEN WE CHECKED LAST WEEK, ENCORE HAS MORE LOAD THAT IS QUALIFIED AS BASE LOAD THAN ANY OTHER TSP. THEY SHOULD, THEY'RE THE LARGEST TSP IN THE, IN THE STATE. AND IT WITHIN THE NORTH CENTRAL WEATHER ZONE, WELL NAME ANY PARTICULAR COUNTIES. THE, THE VAST MAJORITY IS ON COURT LOAD. THAT IS, THAT'S QUALIFIED AS THAT LOAD UP THERE. SO, GOOD. SO, UM, YEAH. AND THEN MAY, MAYBE MY LAST QUESTION IS, I WANNA BE CLEAR, 'CAUSE I, I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THIS. IT'S, IT'S NOT JUST MOVING THAT MARCH 4TH TO JULY 10TH. IT, IT IS, UM, WHAT YOU WOULD DO TO MAINTAIN THAT RELIABILITY IS LOADS THAT HAVE BEEN VALIDATED THROUGH THE LLIS PROCESS COULD POTENTIALLY BE TODAY. WE WOULD SAY THEIR BASE LOAD. YOU WOULD MOVE THOSE TO STUDY LOAD. YEP. AND YOU WOULD MOVE THESE OTHER LOADS AHEAD. EXACTLY. BECAUSE THE, ALL WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS YOU'RE INVALIDATING MY STUDIES AND NOT JUST MINE. ALL OF THE, ALL THE LOADS THAT WERE IN THESE PROCESSES THAT WERE JUSTIFYING THESE SOUTHERN DFW PROJECTS AND THE RTP PROJECTS, YOU'RE INVALIDATING THOSE STUDIES. SO WHAT'S, WHAT'S BETTER THE PEOPLE THAT JUSTIFIED THE PROJECTS AND THAT THE PROJECTS WERE DONE FOR LIKE THE LLIS PROCESS OR THE PEOPLE THAT WERE ALLOWED TO USE IT AFTER THE FACT. OKAY. THANKS. YOU BET. OKAY. LET'S, UM, LET'S SORT OF SEE HOW STAKEHOLDERS FEEL AND GET SOME QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS HERE. SETH. YEAH. CLAYTON, SETH WITH . SO WHAT'S THE TRADE OFF HERE? SO LET'S SAY THAT WE MOVE THIS DATE OUT. WHAT ARE ALL THE MOVING PIECES? WHAT FALLS OUT OF THAT? SO THE MOVING PIECES WOULD BE, UH, YOU WOULD HAVE THAT ZERO BASE ASSIGNMENT FOR MORE LOADS, UM, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN DO THAT RELIABLY. UM, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED ON THE MITIGATION SLIDES, AND I BELIEVE ERCOT HAS ALREADY STARTED A PROCESS OF TRYING TO VALIDATE TO SEE, OKAY, WE'VE GOT ALL THIS NEW CAPACITY, WE HAVE ALL THESE NEW LOADS, LET'S SEE WHAT CAN BE SERVED TOGETHER. IF CERTAIN LOADS HAVE TO FALL OUT. I WOULD RECOMMEND THOSE BE TAKEN FROM THE LOADS THAT CAME IN LAST, THE ONES THAT WERE LAST IN LINE, THAT WERE APPROVED AT THE END, AND VALIDATE THOSE AND PUT THOSE IN AS BATCH ZERO STUDY. OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE IF, IF YOU MAKE THIS CHANGE, THEN IT CREATES DIFFERENT SETS OF WINNERS AND LOSERS, OR IS IT INCREASED THE PIE THAT THEY STUDY, OR, WELL, THEY'VE ALREADY INCREASED THE PIE. THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE GOOD THING. WE'VE GOT, INSTEAD OF JUST FOUR GIGS OUTTA THE SOUTHERN DFW, THEY, THEY APPROVED 6.9 GIGS OF LOAD SERVICE CAPABILITY IN THE, UH, SOUTHERN DFW IF I READ THE CHART RIGHT. COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL 24 PROJECTS IN DFW, THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL 11 GIGAWATTS THAT WAS STUDIED AND I THINK ABLE TO BE SERVED IN THOSE PROJECTS AS WELL. SO, CLAYTON, I WANNA BE CAREFUL BECAUSE THE OTHER PROJECTS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVE NOT YET BEEN APPROVED. THEY'RE COMING BEFORE TAC THEY'LL GO BEFORE THE BOARD. FAIR ENOUGH. YEAH, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY WERE ENDORSED BY ERCOT MONDAY THEY GO TO TAC AND THEN THEY'LL GO TO THE BOARD, UH, JUNE 1ST. SO POINT WELL TAKEN. OKAY. UM, I GUESS I'M, I'M STILL TRYING TO APPRECIATE WHY NOT JUST DO THIS, UM, MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ERCOT. LIKE WHAT, WHAT IS [03:20:01] THE TRADE OFF? WHAT PROBLEM DOES ERCOT SEE WITH CHO'S PROPOSAL? YEAH, THIS IS JEFF. SO I THINK THE, THE, UM, THE CHALLENGE HERE IS THAT IT'S NOT, WE'RE WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO, UM, COME UP WITH A CRITERIA THAT IS BASED ON WHEN THESE STUDIES ARE COMPLETE. UH, BECAUSE THAT, THAT IS A, UH, WE FEEL THAT IS A MORE OBJECTIVE WAY TO LOOK AT, UH, TO, TO, TO STUDY THESE. AND THAT IS ALSO GIVES CERTAINTY TO THE STAKEHOLDERS AS THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD. SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE LOADS THAT THINK THAT THEY HAVE VALID STUDIES, THAT THEN ON JULY 9TH THEY BECOME INVALIDATED. WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAINTY ALONG THE WAY. SO JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND, WHAT JEFF IS PROPOSING IS THAT YOU GO BY THE COMPLETED STUDY DATE? THE PROBLEM IS, IS THESE OTHER PROJECTS WERE COMPLETED BECAUSE OUR PROCE OUR PROCESS EXISTED, OUR PRO, OUR SETS OF PROJECTS EXISTED AND WE WERE NOT ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD UNTIL THEY WERE APPROVED. SO WHILE, WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR OUR PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, WAITING OVER A YEAR FOR THOSE PROJECTS TO BE APPROVED, YOU HAVE OTHER TSPS THAT ARE COMING IN WELL AFTER THE FACT AND GRABBING THOSE PROJECTS AND SAYING, HEY, THAT SERVES MY LOAD. YOU KNOW, MY, MY LOAD IS SATISFIED BECAUSE THESE PROJECTS WERE AVAILABLE. THEY TAG THOSE, THEY TURN THEIR STUDIES INTO ERCOT, ERCOT GIVES THEM APPROVAL. SO IF OUR, IF OUR RTP PROCESS HAD BEEN LOCKED LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OR KEPT, YOU KNOW, TREATED LIKE AN OTHER, YOU KNOW, AN LLIS TYPE PROJECT TO WHERE NOBODY COULD SEE THOSE PROJECTS, WE WOULD BE FINE. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS, IS THOSE PROJECTS WOULD BE GOING INTO TUDY AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO. THEY NEED TO GO INTO TUDY THROUGH THE BATCH PROCESS. SO IF YOU WANTED TO KIND OF TRY TO KEEP APPLES TO APPLES, THAT IS THE MOST APPLES TO APPLES APPROACH. OKAY. CAN WE MOVE ON? OKAY, BILL, THANK YOU. THIS WAS LIKE EXACTLY THE DISCUSSION I WAS HOPING TO, TO HAVE ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT AND WHY I ASKED, UH, FOR IT TO BE INCLUDED ON THE AGENDA. UM, MAINLY A COUPLE THINGS. ONE IS I'VE HEARD FROM MORE THAN A HANDFUL OF COMPANIES IN CLAYTON'S SITUATION AND AS A NEUTRAL PARTY THAT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THIS, THEY MAKE A VERY COMPELLING ARGUMENT AND I, WE WANT TO BE AS FAIR AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. THE WORST CASE SCENARIO OUT OF ALL OF THIS IS THAT WE END UP WITH A SET OF RULES THAT ARE IN COURT FOR TWO YEARS AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL BATCH ZERO OR BATCH PROCESS IS GOING TO BE UNTIL THAT'S RESOLVED. WE WANNA TRY TO AVOID THAT IF WE CAN. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. UM, FIRST IS JUST MY IGNORANCE AND NOT, NOT KNOWING ENOUGH ABOUT SOME OF THESE PARTICULAR PROCESSES I'M HOPING TO LEARN. WHAT ABOUT AN RPG STUDY IS DIFFERENT THAN A LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDY IN TERMS OF, UM, RESERVING CAPACITY ON THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FOR THAT PARTICULAR LOAD, SUCH THAT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO INCLUDE THESE? THAT'S WHAT I'M MISSING. THAT KIND OF FUNDAMENTAL PIECE AS TO WHY WE DON'T THINK AN RPG STUDY THAT ASSESSES THE CAPABILITIES OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH WHAT A LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDY DOES. I'M SORRY, I'M LOOKING AT YOU JEFF AND IT'S ALRIGHT. HOPE YOU CAN EDUCATE ME. JEFF, QUESTION. YEAH, SO I, UM, I I THINK THAT WE, UM, I I MEAN I I CAN DEBATE LLIS VERSUS RPG. UM, I, I THINK THAT WE HAVE SAID THAT WE ARE OKAY ACCEPTING RPG PROJECTS AS A VALID STUDY. UM, AND THE PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT CLAYTON MENTIONED, WE, WE ARE HAPPY TO ACCEPT THAT AS A VALID STUDY. UM, I THINK IT'S THE, THE QUESTION IS MORE THE PRIORITY, YOU KNOW, IS IS THERE A, YOU KNOW, IS IT AN OPEN ACCESS SYSTEM OR HAVE THESE LOADS MADE A RESERVATION ON THAT FOR THAT CAPACITY? I THINK THAT'S MORE THE QUESTION IS DO DO THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT TRANSMISSION OR DO WE SAY IT'S OPEN ACCESS? OKAY. AND SETH ASKED THIS QUESTION, WHICH IS ALSO EXACTLY WHAT I WAS HOPING TO COVER AS WELL AS PART OF THIS DISCUSSION IS THE TRADE OFFS. 'CAUSE I DO THINK THERE, THERE'S POLICY DECISIONS AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT HAVING TOO MUCH LOAD QUALIFY IN BATCH ZERO AS BASE LOAD BECAUSE THAT WILL TURN INTO OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY PROBLEMS. [03:25:01] COMPLETELY GET THAT IN TERMS OF ALLOWING MORE PROJECTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE STUDIED LOAD. TO ME THAT'S A STAKEHOLDER DECISION. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE SOME STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE, THAT KNOW THEY'RE IN AS A STUDIED LOAD. THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO SACRIFICE SOME OF THEIR CAPACITY TO OTHER LOADS THAT WE LET IN, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED TO HAVE THIS DEBATE. 'CAUSE THERE THE FAIRNESS ISSUE REMAINS. UM, WHAT CONCERNS DOES ERCOT HAVE ABOUT HAVING THE TENT BE TOO BROAD FOR STUDIED LOADS THAT COULD QUALIFY? YEAH, AND NO, I, I I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE DEBATE HERE. UM, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, CLAYTON'S PROPOSAL IS IT'S, IT'S, IT, IT'S MORE THE LOADS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED IN AS A BASE LOAD AND STUDY LOAD. BECAUSE THIS, IF, IF THAT LOAD FAILS THE STUDY VALIDITY TEST, THAT THAT LOAD IS STILL ALLOWED IN A STUDY LOAD. SO THIS IS MORE WHICH OF THOSE LOADS ARE BASE LOAD AND WHICH OF THOSE LOADS ARE STUDIED LOAD. IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT LETTING MORE IN OR, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. AND THEN YOU MAY NOT KNOW THIS, BUT I WAS ALSO WONDERING IF THERE'S WAY, A WAY TO QUANTIFY THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL LOADS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED UNDER THE VARIOUS PROPOSALS. CHO'S, UM, A EP HAD A PROPOSAL AND THEN, UM, THE UNITED CO-OP WITH SAILFISH. I'M JUST, I WASN'T SURE IF ERCOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT TO US ON THAT. YEAH, SO I THINK ON, UM, ON CLAYTON'S PROPOSAL, IT'S, IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT OF LOAD. IT'S, IT'S JUST HOW YOU'RE TREATING IT, HOW YOU'RE DECIDING WHO'S GONNA BE BASE LOAD AND STUDY LOAD. OKAY. UM, I THINK THE AP PROPOSAL WOULD ADD, I THINK WE WERE LOOKING AT 40 ISH, UH, GIGAWATTS OF ADDITIONAL LOAD TO BE STUDIED LOAD. UM, AND I THINK WE DO HAVE A CONCERN WITH THAT BECAUSE FOUR 40 ON TOP OF LIKE HOW MUCH, SORRY, I DIDN'T CATCH THAT, BEN. UH, YOU SAID 40 40 GIGAWATTS OF ADDITIONAL STUDIED LOAD? YEAH. WELL, IS THAT 40 ON TOP OF FIVE OR 40 ON TOP OF 50 40 ON TOP OF, UH, 70 THAT'S ALREADY IN BASE. I, I'M USING LAST WEEK'S NUMBERS. THESE ARE CHANGE. WE'RE UPDATING THESE EVERY WEEK. UM, UH, SHOULD HAVE ANOTHER UPDATE TODAY. UM, BUT YEAH, SO THOSE ARE, UM, CHANGING. SO IT'S 40 ON TOP OF 70 THAT'S ALREADY IN BASE LOAD IN IN STUDY LOAD. UM, AND SO I, YEAH, I THINK WE DO HAVE A CONCERN WITH THAT, THAT WE'RE GONNA BE MORE INTO ADDING, NEEDING TO ADD GENERATION THAT HAS, HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE IN THE PLANNING GUIDE IN ORDER TO GET THAT CASE TO SOLVED UNDERSTOOD. AND GET MEANINGFUL RESULTS. UM, AND THEN HAD, HAVE NOT PULLED THE NUMBERS ON THE, THE CO-OP ISSUE. OKAY. UM, I, I THINK WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT, THAT AROUND CREATING OBJECT OBJECTIVE CRITERIA AROUND HOW, HOW YOU WOULD INCLUDE THE LOADS THAT FALL INTO THAT SITUATION. OKAY. THANKS FOR THE INFORMATION, JEFF. I WANT TO STEP BACK TO ONE OF THE THINGS JEFF SAID. HE SAID THAT BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT LOAD TO BE RESERVED FOR OUR LOADS, IT'S SOMEHOW A NOT, NOT AN OPEN ACCESS SYSTEM. SO I GUESS JEFF, IN YOUR MIND, EVERY LLIS STUDY THAT HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND RESERVED FOR THE LOAD THAT APPLIED WITH THAT L-L-I-L-L-I-S IS DEFY DEFYING THIS OPEN ACCESS THEORY THAT YOU'RE CREATING. I, I THINK WE'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR. DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS AN, UM, RESERVATION SYSTEM THAT AS THERE IS, YOU KNOW, THAT AS I THINK SOME PEOPLE HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, THINK, THINK ABOUT IT AS, UM, THE, THE, THE LLIS STUDY PROCESS IS A RESERVATION SYSTEM. YOU ARE GOING OUT THERE AND YOU'RE SAYING, THIS IS MY LOAD AND THIS IS THE CAPACITY THAT I NEED TO SERVE THAT LOAD. THESE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT I NEED TO GET BUILT TO, TO SERVE MY LOAD. THAT IS A RESERVATION. AND THIS, THE RPG IN THIS CASE WAS THE LLIS STUDY. THIS WAS THE STEADY STATE SET OF STUDIES FOR THIS LARGE GROUP OF LOADS. SO THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR A RESERVATION, THEY'RE ASKING FOR TREATMENT SIMILAR TO THE REST OF THE LLIS. AND TO GET BACK TO BILL'S QUESTION, ORIGINAL QUESTION IS, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN LLIS VERSUS AN RPG? THE RPG PROCESS IS PUBLIC. THEY MAY NOT KNOW WHICH LOAD IT IS, BUT YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT LOAD IS GOING WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING DONE. NONE OF THAT EXISTS IN THE LLIS. SO ALL THAT STUFF IS KEPT HIDDEN AND BECAUSE IT'S KEPT HIDDEN, I CAN'T A, I CAN'T GO AND ACCESS THAT PROJECT AND SAY, I NEED THAT ONE. YOU KNOW, I NEED THAT MORE THAN THEY DO GIVE IT TO ME. AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS YOU HAD, YOU HAD THESE PROJECTS IN ALL OF US WERE WAITING, AND WHILE WE WERE WAITING, YOU HAD OTHER, OTHER PEOPLE SAYING, HEY, I NEED THAT PROJECT FOR MINE. IT'S IN THE RPG, IT'S IN THE OPEN WATER. I CAN TAKE IT. OKAY. CAN I MOVE ON TO MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? LET'S GO TO ANDREW. [03:30:01] I GOT ANDREW SHOPPER FROM SHOPPER ENERGY CONSULTING. I HAD MAYBE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR CLAYTON ON THIS. SO I, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE, BUT ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE PROJECTS, THE RPG PROJECTS BEING QUOTE UNQUOTE BASELOAD. I THINK WE MADE COMMENTS TO THIS EFFECT AROUND THE TIMELINE, THE IMPLIED TIMELINE OF THE 150 DAYS. AND ALSO, AND I THINK, I THINK KOTT MADE COMMENTS AROUND WHEN THE, WHEN THE RPG STUDIES ARE ENDORSED OR WHEN THEY'RE FINALIZED. SO I HAD TWO KIND OF QUESTIONS AROUND THIS. ONE. IF YOU WERE TO USE THE RPG PROJECTS WHEN THEY WERE SUBMITTED, OR I, I GUESS WHATEVER DATA IS BEING PROPOSED HERE, HOW DO YOU PREVENT THAT FROM INVALIDATING EVERY LILI LOAD IN THE SYSTEM, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT USING TRANSMISSION FROM THESE RPG PROJECTS? THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS, WHY WOULD THE RPG LOADS NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RE STUDY RISK THAT THE LILS LOADS HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THIS WHOLE TIME? SO I'LL PAUSE THERE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, ANSWERS TO EITHER OF THOSE QUESTIONS. SO THE FIRST ONE'S EASY. UM, ERCOT ISS GOING THROUGH A PROCESS NOW TO VALIDATE AS MUCH OF THE LOADS AS THEY CAN IF THEY COME UP AND THERE'S TOO MUCH, TOO MUCH LOAD TO BE ABLE TO BE SERVED. IT, IT, THE, THE PEOPLE IN THE IMPACTED AREA, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS YOU GO FROM LAST TO FIRST, UM, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE BEST ORDER. UM, AND INVALIDATE STUDIES BASED ON, BASED ON THE STUDY ENDORSEMENT OR LIKE, BECAUSE THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHEN THE STUDY IS COMPLETED AND APPROVED. AND THAT WOULD BE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT AND THE LLIS PROCESS. AND SO I'M JUST, I'M WHAT I'M ASKING , I'M OPEN TO EITHER OF THOSE SYSTEM. YEAH. WHAT, WHAT'S, SO I'M OPEN TO EITHER ONE OF THOSE, EITHER WHENEVER THE LOAD WAS SUBMITTED, UM, OR WHENEVER THE LOAD WAS APPROVED. THE PROBLEM WITH THE LOAD BEING APPROVED IS THAT, HOLD ON NOW. YEAH. HOLD FOR, UH, THE PROBLEM WITH USING THAT LOAD APPROVED DATE IS IF, IF THEY ARE INVALIDATED, IT MEANS THAT THEY PROBABLY USED SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WERE IN THE RPG PROCESS. WELL, I GUESS THAT'S A SPECULA THAT'S SPECULATION THOUGH, RIGHT? CLAYTON? NO, I MEAN THAT IS NOT, THAT IS NOT SPECULATION AT ALL. IF THERE IS, HAVE YOU GONE THROUGH EVERY LIS PROJECT STUDY? THE RPG PROJECTS FULLY SERVE THE LOADS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THAT PROJECT. IT ALSO SERVED AN ADDITIONAL WHAT ABOUT THE LIS PROJECT STUDIES? I'M SORRY. THEY, THEY'RE IMPACTED BY LOADS THAT ARE IN, THAT ARE IN RPG STUDIES. JUST LIKE, JUST LIKE THE LOIS PROJECTS. I IMPACT THE RPG STUDIES. RIGHT. THEY IMPACT EACH OTHER. THE RPG PROJECT. SO THE RPG PROJECT IS A LIST OF TRANSMISSION UPGRADES. THERE ARE LOADS THAT ARE IN THERE THAT ARE BEING SERVED, AND THEN THE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES ARE, ARE SET TO TRY TO SERVE THOSE LOADS. WHAT, WHERE, WHERE ARE WE MISSING HERE? SO IN THE RPG PROJECT, THE SOUTHERN DFW STUDY. SO I GUESS, I GUESS WHEN A LOAD STUDY IS FINISHED AND COMPLETED AND APPROVED, IT HAS TO BE TREATED AS A MUST STUDY LOAD IN OTHER LILLI PROJECTS. IS THAT NOT THAT'S CORRECT. NOT ACCURATE. OKAY. AND SO ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT THE RPG PROJECT WHEN IT'S SUBMITTED IS WHEN WE WOULD CONSIDER IT COMPLETE? SO THE PROBLEM IS, IS IS THE RPG PROJECTS ARE OPEN FOR, THEY'RE OPEN TO EVERYBODY EXCEPT THE LOADS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN IT. THE WAY THAT THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE, ANDREW, IS WHENEVER THOSE RPG PROJECTS WERE SUBMITTED, THOSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFFLINE AND, AND KEPT OUT OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN JUST LIKE AN LLIS PROJECT. I JUST, I GUESS WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M, WHERE I'M TRYING TO GO WITH THIS, OR I GUESS THE QUESTION I'M ASKING IS HOW DO YOU GIVE PRIORITY TO THE RPG PROJECTS IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT COMPLETELY DISRUPT EVERY OTHER PROJECT IN THE WHOLE STATE? WELL, IT WON'T DISRUPT EVERY, EVERY OTHER LOAD IN THE STATE. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S HYPERBOLE. HOW DOES HAPPEN? WALK US THROUGH THAT. SO YOU HAVE THE LOADS THAT ARE IN THE DFW AREA, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED IF THE LOADS CAME IN AFTER THE FACT O PG PROJECTS AND THE REST OF THE STATE? OH, THERE CERTAINLY ARE. DO DO YOU HAVE A POINT? I MEAN, WHAT WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO? JUST BE ARGU ARGUMENTATIVE OR CLAYTON CLAYTON, FINISH YOUR POINT AND THEN ANDREW, FINISH YOUR POINT AND THEN LET'S MOVE ON. YEAH. OKAY, GO AHEAD. SO THE THING IS, IS THESE, THIS IMPACTS A SMALL AREA OF THE STATE. IT IMPACTS THE DF THE SOUTHERN DFW AREA. THERE ARE SOME, SOME OF THEM THAT INVOLVE THE CENTRAL, YOU KNOW, THEY GO DOWN INTO CENTRAL TEXAS AS WELL. UH, THEY WERE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR CERTAIN LOADS. HAD THIS BEEN DONE, IF, IF THEY HAD AN RPG PROCESS THAT WAS SIMILAR TO THE LLIS, THESE LOADS WOULD'VE BEEN ENTERED. THEY WOULD'VE BEEN, THESE, THESE PROJECTS WOULD'VE BEEN CREATED AND THEY WOULD'VE BEEN APPROVED OFFLINE. THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THIS OPEN, OPEN ACCESS TO THE, TO EVERYBODY ELSE'S PROJECTS LIKE, LIKE THE OTHER LLIS STUDIES ARE. SO WHAT'S HAPPENED TO ANDREW IS YOU HAVE, WHENEVER YOUR LOAD [03:35:01] STUDIES GET DONE, IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH YOUR LOAD, THEY CAN POINT TO ANY RPG PROJECT THAT'S IN THE QUEUE AND SAY, OKAY, THAT HELPS SOLVE MY PROBLEM. AND SO IF IF THE, IF THAT HASN'T HAPPENED HERE, THEN WHAT WE SHOULD HAPPILY FIND OUT IS THERE'S PLENTY OF CAPACITY FOR EVERYBODY AND NOBODY HAS TO, TO BE, UH, INVALIDATED. BUT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO DO IS ACCEPT INVALIDATION OF WHAT? OF MY, MY LLIS STUDY THAT HAS BEEN DONE FOR OVER, FOR TWO YEARS NOW. OKAY. ANDREW, DO YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THAT? YEAH, I DUNNO. YEAH, I GUESS I'M JUST NOT SEEING HOW THIS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. SO I I'LL YIELD BACK. OKAY. LET'S GO TO NED. WELL, I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS, UM, TO, TO THAT, BUT, UM, I, I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT HELP ME UNDERSTAND, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEARLY. UM, FIRST OF ALL, AGREE WITH BILL'S SYNOPSIS. CLAYTON, YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU PRESENT A, A VERY SYMPATHETIC STORYLINE HERE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, YOU FOLLOW THE, THE PROCESS AND IT LEADS YOU DOWN A PATH AND THEN YOU FIND OUT THAT PATH RAN INTO, INTO A WALL SOMEWHERE. SO I CERTAINLY THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT TO US AND, AND FOR LAYING IT OUT. ONE THING THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE I'M NOT IN THOSE RPG MEETINGS, NOT LOOKING AT THE PROJECTS IN DETAIL, AND I ACTUALLY PULLED BACK UP THE SOUTHERN DFW UH, TAC REPORT THAT WE LOOKED AT TWO MEETINGS AGO, AND I DON'T SEE ANYWHERE IN THERE THAT IT SPECIFIES, YOU KNOW, LOADS THAT ARE TIED TO IT. IS THAT SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CARTOON ON SLIDE FIVE, FOR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, IF I'M FOLLOWING THE ANALOGY CORRECTLY, THE FEAST IS IN HONOR OF THE, THE LITTLE KIDS IN BLUE SHIRTS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. YEAH. UM, DO THE, DO THE FOLKS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE THE SPREAD KNOW THAT THE, THE FEAST IS IN THEIR HONOR IN THE RPG PROCESS? IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO THEM BECAUSE ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS THEY'RE JUST LOOKING FOR CAPACITY FOR THEIR OWN LOADS. SO IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THE OTHER TSPS FAULT EITHER. THE FAULT IS THE PROCESS ITSELF, THE RPG PROCESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MANAGED, AT LEAST IN THE, IN THE CASE OF THESE PROJECTS DIFFERENTLY. AND THAT WAS NOT DONE. SO THEY MAY OR MAY NOT. SO THERE WASN'T AN R PROJECT. YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHICH LOADS. OKAY, IF I MAY GO AHEAD PLEASE. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHER UTILITIES, BUT WHAT ENCORE WILL TYPICALLY DO IS IF THE EXISTING SYSTEM IS INADEQUATE TO SERVE A NEW CUSTOMER, WE WILL TELL THE NEW CUSTOMER THAT WE WILL NEED ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE. NOW SOMETIMES THAT INFRASTRUCTURE CAN BE UNDERTAKEN WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL ERCOT OVERSIGHT. SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES ERCOT OVERSIGHT. WHEN IT DOES, WE FILE AN RPG PROJECT. YOU ALL HAVE SEEN NUMEROUS PROJECTS OVER THESE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. A LOT OF THEM IN WEST TEXAS, AND THEY WERE LOAD DRIVEN. AND THAT WAS THE BASIS ON WHICH WE FILED THESE. I CANNOT SPEAK TO WHETHER EACH CUSTOMER WAS DIRECTLY COMMUNICATED WITH, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE, AND SO THERE WAS NOT A PUBLIC ARTICULATION THAT SOUTHERN DFW WAS GONNA SERVE THE FOLLOWING SIX CUSTOMERS, BUT THOSE SIX CUSTOMERS UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT'S WHY WE FILED THAT PROJECT. OKAY. THAT, THAT'S HELPFUL. SIX BEING AN ILLUSTRATIVE NUMBER, BY THE WAY, BUT YOU GET MY POINT. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO, SO IT IS A PROCESS ISSUE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE, WHERE IT CUSTOMERS UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THE OTHER TSPS DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WERE CUSTOMERS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT PER PERHAPS MAYBE THAT, THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S THE TAKEAWAY. UM, I GUESS THE, THE NEXT QUESTION IS DOES, YOU KNOW, DID ENCORE KNOW OR, UH, NOT ENCORE, UH, ERCOT KNOW THAT THE PROJECT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIFIC LOADS WHEN IT WAS GOING THROUGH R PG? I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT RIGHT. SOMETIMES WE'VE APPROVED PROJECTS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, SORRY, SORRY. JOHN STECK PROJECT FOR AMMONIA PLANT. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT, IT'S DIFFERENT IN EACH CIRCUMSTANCE, BUT I'LL, I'LL LET JEFF, I'M SORRY I MISSED THE QUESTION. SO JEFF, THE QUESTION WAS, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THIS PICTURE ANALOGY, THE, YOU KNOW, THE LITTLE KIDS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THEY KNEW THAT THE FEAST WAS IN THEIR HONOR, THE TSPS ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, THEY COULDN'T SEE THOSE LITTLE KIDS. SO THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE, THE FEAST WAS SPOKEN FOR. BUT DID ERCOT KNOW THAT THERE WERE CUSTOMERS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PROJECT AS IT WAS GOING THROUGH RPG? WELL, BUT NED, [03:40:01] NO ONE FILES A PROJECT WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY IT'S NEEDED. OKAY. AND SO WE DIDN'T COME IN AND SAY WE'VE GOT GENERAL NON-SPECIFIC LOAD NEEDS. I THINK IT FOR PEOPLE WHO SPEND A LOT OF TIME AROUND RPG, PERHAPS NOT EVERYONE IN THE AIRCRAFT PROCESS, THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WERE CUSTOMERS TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THERE WERE, THERE ARE CUSTOMERS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. I'M, I'M CUR I'M CURIOUS AS WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, SECOND TIME I'VE DONE THAT TODAY. UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK CLAYTON'S SAYING THERE'S A ONE-TO-ONE CONNECTION HERE AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW HOW WELL UNDERSTOOD THAT WAS. WELL, YEAH, AND THERE'S, UM, COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION, WHICH I DON'T WANT TO DISCLOSE, BUT I I I WOULD SAY TO MAKE THIS PICTURE MORE ACCURATE, I I THINK IT'S MOSTLY ENCORE ON BOTH SIDES. SO WHERE YOU SAY OTHER TSPS, I THINK IT'S MOSTLY ENCORE. IT IT'S MOSTLY ENCORE LOADS THAT ARE IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. YEAH. WOODY, DID YOU WANNA YEAH, THE OTHER THING, LOOKING AT YOUR, YOUR CARTOON, UM, YOU GOT TWO KIDS ON THE LEFT AND NOW YOU GOT THREE KIDS ON THE RIGHT. AND THAT'S SURPRISINGLY ACCURATE. SHOWING KIDS SHOWING UP RPG PROCESS DURING THE RRP G PROCESS. MORE KIDS SHOWED UP IN THE RPG. AND THAT'S WHY JEFF WAS SAYING IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A COMPLETED STUDY, NOT THE FILED STUDY, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE SHOWING UP FOR THE PARTY KEEP GROWING. EVEN THE ONES THAT ARE BEING HELD BACK OVER THERE, THAT NUMBER GOT BIGGER. WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THAT MY TWO MONTHS AFTER THE START OF THE, OF THE, OF THE, UH, THE, THE REASON THE THIRD KIT IS, IS YOU GOT A BAD CAMERA MAN. THAT, THAT, THAT THAT CUT CUT THE THIRD KIT OFF. WELL, YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO BE ACCURATE, CAN TELL YOU, BUT YOU WERE VERY ACCURATE IN THAT THE NUMBER OF KIDS SHOWING UP GREW. OH, OKAY. IT'S JUST LIKE LIFE, RIGHT? THEY JUST KEEP SHOWING UP. YEAH. SO I, I CAN TELL YOU THAT MY, MY PHASE TWO IS NOT IN ANY OF THIS. MY, I'LL GUARANTEE YOU MY PHASE TWO WAS FILED WELL IN ADVANCE OF MOST OF THESE LOADS THAT HAVE, THAT HAVE TAKEN THIS CAPACITY. WELL, I THINK IT GOES BACK TO WHAT BILL WAS ASKING IS THE RPG PROCESS IS AN OPEN PROCESS THAT GETS SCRUTINY BY ALL THE OTHER TSPS. AND THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF IT. THE L-L-I-L-L-I-S PROCESS, ERCOT LOOKS AT IT FROM THE BEGINNING AND MAKES SURE THAT THE, THE UNIVERSE OF LOADS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THERE ARE THERE. AND THAT'S WHY THAT PROCESS WAS BREAKING ON US WAS BECAUSE BEFORE THE, THE STUDY COULD BE FINISHED, THERE WERE MORE PEOPLE IN THE UNIVERSE. SO THAT'S THE, THE DOWNSIDE OF BOTH OF THOSE PROCESSES. BUT LIKE JEFF SAID EARLIER, A LOT OF THE LLIS STUFF WAS FINISHED AND IS NOW A BASE LOAD. OKAY. YEAH. SO YEAH, A LOT OF OTHER AREAS OTHER THAN SOUTHERN DFW, THE, UM, SOUTHERN DFW LOADS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THAT THAT SHOULD, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE LIMIT. THE DOOR SLAMMED IN OUR FACE. THEY WERE DOING SERIAL STUDIES UNTIL THEY GOT TO US. SO WE WERE ONE OF THE FIRST PROJECTS THAT GOT ROPED INTO THIS PROCESS. AND THEN ON THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE ADDED, THERE WAS NO ADDED LOAD TO THAT CLUSTER STUDY ONCE WE GOT OUR LITTLE BID IN AND WE GOT 400 MEGAWATTS OUT OF A TOTAL OF, I DON'T KNOW, 30 GIGS OR SOMETHING THAT WAS APPROVED IN ALL THOSE PROJECTS, OR 20 GIGS ARE A LITTLE PART OF THAT NEVER GREW TO, TO INCLUDE THE OTHER LOAD. OH, IT DID, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS EARLY FILED. WE FILED THAT IN MARCH OF 24. RIGHT. BUT THERE WERE OTHER LOADS ADDED TOO, THAT RPG STUDY TO THE, TO THE ENCORE RPG STUDY. YES. THE, THE LOAD THAT WAS STUDIED WENT UP, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS ENCORE LOAD. I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE ERCOT PROCESS WHERE YOU JUST INCREASED THE 11 GIGS. I DIDN'T ASK WHERE THE 11 GIGS CAME FROM THAT YOU STUDIED IN AN ABOVE. I JUST THOUGHT THAT WAS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT Y'ALL RAN. OKAY. UM, LET'S, LET'S CHANNEL OUR INNER BILL BARNES'. 'CAUSE I THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB. I THINK LET'S FOCUS ON WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE POLICY DECISIONS AND MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LESS SPECIFIC PROJECT INFORMATION. UM, LET'S GO TO BOB. YEAH, MINE'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT QUESTION, SO I'M GONNA KIND OF GIVE THAT PIECE OF BREAK. BUT THE FIRST THING I DID WANNA SAY IS THERE'S YOUR BARKSDALE'S, RIGHT? WE'RE [03:45:01] PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS HERE. AND ACTUALLY THIS GROUP DOES THAT ALL THE TIME. I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY WRESTLING WITH HERE ISN'T THE, THE ASPECT OF WINNERS AND LOSERS. IT'S THE FAIRNESS WITHIN THE WINNER AND LOSERS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY WRESTLING WITH HERE. SO I THINK WE ALL NEED TO KEEP THAT TO HEART. BUT SOMETHING YOU SAID, CLAYTON, THAT HAS GOT ME CURIOUS AND IT JUST 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW, I PROBABLY SHOULD, BUT YOU, YOU HAD INDICATED THAT YOUR COST WAS 200 AND SOME ODD. 206,000 A MEGAWATT. A MEGAWATT. AND IS THAT BASED ON THE RPG PROJECTS? I, THE ONLY WAY THAT I COULD COME UP WITH THAT MATH, THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE FEA THAT IN THE, THE DRAFT FEA THAT WE WERE SENT THAT EXPLAINED WHAT THAT WAS. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY MATH THAT I COULD GET TO WORK. OKAY. WELL WHERE I'M TRYING TO GO IS, IS YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA USE YOUR, YOUR DRAWING AS MUCH AS I REALLY LIKE IT, UH, . SO YOU WERE USED TO COME UP AND JUSTIFY THOSE PROJECTS, SO THEREFORE THEY POINTED YOU FOR THOSE PROJECTS. EXACTLY. AND THE COST AND WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET AT AND THE COST OF THOSE PROJECTS. EXACTLY, YES. THE LLIS STUDIES THAT WERE DONE THAT THEN POINTED TO THOSE STUDIES THAT SAID OH, POINTED TO THOSE PROJECTS SAYING, OH, IT'S OKAY, I CAN DO THAT. DO THEY SHARE THE COST OF THOSE OR IS IT ALL BACK ON YOU AND THEY'RE JUST GETTING TO USE IT AND YOU'RE PAYING THE COST? YEAH, I, I DON'T HAVE THAT DATA. I WOULD REALLY LIKE THAT DATA. UM, CAN SOMEBODY ANSWER THAT ONE? I'M CURIOUS. NO, THERE'S NO ONE HERE THAT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. OKAY. BUT, BUT YES, YOU'RE HITTING ON A VERY IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT I'M ALSO, WELL, I'M TRYING TO GET TO COST CAUSATION AND EVERYBODY SHARING INTO COST EXACTLY. WHEN YOU GO PAST THE FAIRNESS THAT THIS IS PART OF THE FAIRNESS PIECE ALSO. YEAH. IS AND I THINK WHAT THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE PAYING FOR SOMETHING AND SOMEBODY ELSE YEAH. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT. AND I THINK THAT ONCE YOU START HITTING PEOPLE WITH A BILL FOR 206,000, UH, A MEGAWATT, I THINK YOU'RE GONNA SEE SOME OF THESE LOADS FALL OUT AS WELL. AND WE MAY NOT HAVE A PROBLEM AT ALL. WELL, I WOULD EXPECT THE NUMBER WOULD DROP, RIGHT? THE NUMBER OF LOADS WOULD DROP WELL, NUMBER OF LOADS AND POTENTIALLY THE NUMBER THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING CHARGED FOR THAT COULD ALSO INCREASE, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE OVERALL INDIVIDUAL COST. IT WOULD, YES. SO, SO THIS ISN'T MY PRESENTATION, BUT I THINK ARGUING ABOUT WHAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT PER MEGAWATT IS FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT IS PROBABLY NOT THE MOST USEFUL BASIS FOR THE DECISION THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE MISSING MY POINT, LIZ. I'M NOT ARGUING THE POINT OF WHAT THE COST IS AND WHAT IT COSTS YOU TO INSTALL IT. I'M TALKING ABOUT WHO PAYS THAT. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. NOT THE COST OF THE PROJECT, THE COST, THE PROJECT IS WHAT THE COST OF THE PROJECT IS. I'M TALKING ABOUT WHO ACTUALLY PAYS FOR THAT ON COST, CAUSATION AND USAGE IS WHAT I'M GETTING AT. THAT'S ALL I WAS GETTING AT. AND, AND I DID MAKE THE ARGUMENT EARLIER, LIZ, THAT IT'S POSSIBLE AND, AND ACTUALLY PROBABLE THAT SOME OF THE TSPS DIDN'T EVEN REQUEST ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO COVERING THE AMOUNT OF THIS PROJECT FOR THE LOADS THAT WERE APPROVED, WHICH, YOU KNOW, OKAY. DOESN'T MAKE US HAPPY. CAN WE MOVE TO THE NEXT QUESTION, BOB? YES. YEAH, YEAH, I'M GOOD. I JUST, OKAY. CLAYTON, WE'VE HAD YOU UP THERE FOR OVER AN HOUR. ABOUT AN HOUR. SO CAN WE MAYBE WRAP THIS UP SOON WITH MARK DRY FISH BEING THE KING OF CLOSURE. SO YOU'LL BE THE END OF THE QUEUE. YOU'RE NOT NEXT. SO, UM, LET'S GO TO BLAKE. BLAKE, I THINK YOU WROTE A COMMENT IN THE QUEUE, BUT CAN YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK TO IT, SORRY OR ANYTHING ELSE? CAN, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES, WE CAN. UH, SO YEAH, JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR ERCOT AND YES, I DID WRITE IT OUT IN THE COMMENTS. SO FOR, FOR THOSE THAT WEREN'T SORT OF REALLY CLOSE TO THIS MATTER, BACK DURING THE INTERIM PROCESS, THERE WAS A TERM CALLED MUST STUDY. AND MUST STUDY WAS SORT OF THE, THE WHERE YOU WANTED TO GET TO DURING THIS SORT OF MAD RUSH WHERE YOUR, YOUR LOAD WAS THEN INCORPORATED INTO OTHER FOLKS' BASE CASES. UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THE, THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT TRANSMISSION UPGRADES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE RPG PROJECTS WERE ALLOWABLE IN OTHER BASE CASES BEFORE THE LOADS. AS PART OF THOSE RPG PROJECTS MET MUST STUDY STATUS. AND I'M, I I WASN'T CLOSE TO THE RPG. I'M WONDERING IF ANYONE REMEMBERS WHEN THE RPG ORIGINATING LOADS WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE MET. THAT MUST STUDY STATUS. HA HAS IT BEEN ENDORSEMENT THE ENTIRE TIME? [03:50:08] YEAH, BLAKE. YEAH, I'M NOT SURE. I THINK A AG G HAD TO STEP OUT. HE, HE'D BE THE ONE THAT COULD ANSWER THAT. OKAY. YEAH. BUT YEAH, I, I THINK, UM, YEAH, AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFICATION, SO MU MUST STUDY, UM, IS THAT THRESHOLD IS, IS NOT THE SAME AS THE THRESHOLD THAT WE HAVE TODAY OF FINANCIAL COMMITMENT KNOWS TO PROCEED AND ALL THAT. SO IT WAS A LOWER THRESHOLD TO, TO ACHIEVE THAT MUST STUDY STATUS. YEP. OKAY. AND, AND THEN JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR, FOR THIS RPG PROJECT, I, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ORDER FOR THESE LOADS TO GET INTO THE RPG PROJECT, THEY HAD TO POST SECURITY OR OR CASH COLLATERAL. IS THERE ANY COLOR SOMEONE CAN PROVIDE ON HOW MUCH SECURITY THEY HAD TO POST RELATIVE TO 9.5 COMPLETION? LIKE HOW MUCH, HOW MUCH RELATIVE TO THE TOTAL COST OF THE RPG PROJECT IS HELD IN, IN UTILITIES AS CUSTOMER DEPOSITS? SO ORIGINALLY IT WAS SIX AND A HALF MILLION PER, PER PROJECT. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY, EVAN, EVAN, NEIL WITH, UM, THANK YOU FOR THIS PRESENTATION, CLAYTON. I THINK IT'S REALLY GOOD THAT YOU GOT THIS STORY OUT HERE, UM, AND KIND OF LET US HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. UM, I HEARD A, A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANTED TO TOUCH ON AND THEN I HAVE A, A QUESTION, UH, AS WELL. AND SO THE FIRST, LIKE GOING BACK TO, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER LOAD CAME IN AND IT'S LIST USED THE RPGS, I MEAN THAT, THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED, BUT YOU KNOW, ANOTHER POSSIBILITY WAS THAT IT COULD HAVE JUST BEEN A CONFLICTING LCP, RIGHT? IF A PROJECT GOING THROUGH LI LIST NEEDED TRANSMISSION, UM, YOU DIDN'T REALLY NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING GOING THROUGH RPG, YOU COULD KIND OF MAKE UP YOUR TRANSMISSION PLAN TO PUT IN YOUR LCP AS IS. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, THAT'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY THAT I THINK POINTS TO THE ISSUE THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE RAISING HERE. AND ANOTHER THING THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD DISCUSSED IS KIND OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SUBSTANTIATED LOAD AND A UNSUBSTANTIATED LOAD WITH REGARDS TO WHAT'S DIFFERENT BETWEEN AN RPG AND A LILLI. 'CAUSE I MEAN IT'S, IT'S IN THE PROTOCOLS THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN, UM, THRESHOLD THAT A LOAD'S GONNA HAVE TO MEET IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE ABLE TO BE INCLUDED TO JUSTIFY TRANSMISSION. AND YOU DON'T NEED THAT SAME CRITERIA FOR A LILLIS. AND SO I THINK THAT PUT A LOT OF UTILITIES IN A TOUGH SPOT OF, WELL IF WE KNOW WE'RE GONNA NEED TO PLAN TRANSMISSION TO SERVE THIS LOAD, SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND DO THESE LIT LIST STUDIES AND BE SUBJECT TO THE RE-STUDY RISK THAT WHAT HE TALKED ABOUT, JUST TO TURN AROUND TO KNOW WE'RE GONNA NEED TO THEN SUBMIT AN RPG STUDY AND DO THOSE EXACT SAME THINGS AGAIN. OR DO YOU JUST SUBSTANTIATE THE LOAD UP FRONT AND TAKE IT THROUGH AN RPG, WHICH IT SEEMS LIKE WAS THE CASE FOR YOU, WHICH I THINK WAS THE LOGICAL CASE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE OPTED TO GO FOR. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT WHILE THIS PROJECT WAS THE FIRST ONE OR ONE OF THE EARLY ONES THAT, YOU KNOW, DEALT WITH THIS, I THINK YOU SEE A LOT OF OTHER RPGS OUT THERE AS WELL WHO FACED THE SAME CONFLICT AND A LOT OF UTILITIES CHOSE A A SIMILAR PATH. AND YOU CAN SEE IN THOSE RPG FILINGS THAT THEY'RE MEANT FOR SPECIFIC LOAD PROJECTS OFTEN HAVE LOIS ASSIGNED TO THEM. UM, AND I THINK A LOT OF THOSE ARE ALSO BEING LOST IN THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE WALKING THROUGH HERE. UM, SO I THINK GETTING TO THAT, I, I REALLY WISH WHENEVER WE WENT TO THIS INTERIM PROCESS BACK IN 2022 THAT WE HAD NOT JUST CREATED THAT, BUT WE HAD CREATED A AN RPG PROCESS THAT WAS A LOAD RESERVED PROCESS. THAT WOULD BE, BECAUSE LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, IS TRUE. I MEAN, THERE WAS A SERIAL PROCESS WHERE YOU GO THROUGH ALL OF YOUR LLIS STUDIES, YOU COME UP WITH A BATCH OF PROJECTS. SOME OF THOSE MAY BE IN RPGS, WHICH YOU CAN CITE IN YOUR STUDIES. SOME OF THEM MAY BE NEW PROJECTS, BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO SUBSEQUENTLY GET AN RP G PROCESS AND THEN FOLLOW THAT THROUGH AND THEN THAT ONE IS SUBJECT FOR OTHER, OTHER LOADS TO POSSIBLY USE AND PICK OFF. AND SO YOU'RE IN THAT HUGE LIMBO. YEAH, AND, AND I MEAN I THINK, YOU KNOW, A WAY TO TO SAY THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES THAT BATCH IS TRYING TO SOLVE IS THE RESTUDY ASPECT. BUT I THINK THE OTHER BIG ISSUE WAS HOW DO YOU TIE THE LOAD APPROVALS TO THE TRANSMISSION APPROVALS AND THE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES, WHICH I THINK BATCH IS ALSO SOLVING AS EVIDENT THAT THE OUTCOME IS A FILING TO RPG. IT IS AN ACTIONABLE TRANSMISSION PLAN. AND SO I'M GLAD TO SEE WE'RE TAKING THAT STEP, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO RECONCILE A, RECOGNIZE THAT AS A GAP IN THE INTERIM PROCESS WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING BRIDGING THAT GAP. UM, AND, AND SO THEN JUST ONE LAST THING I WANTED TO TO POINT ON, AND THIS IS THE, THE 40 GIGAWATTS THAT, THAT JEFF REFERENCED, AND I THINK IT'S IN THE ERCOT COMMENTS, UM, ABOUT IF WE, YOU KNOW, EXPAND THAT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, WE'RE ADDING AN INCREMENTAL 40 GIGAWATTS. [03:55:01] UM, I MEAN I, I WENT BACK AND I LOOKED AT THE RPGS AND I DID COME UP WITH 40 TOTAL GIGAWATTS, BUT I, I DID KNOW, AND I THINK I JUST SAID IT, THAT A LOT OF THOSE RPGS HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE LLI NUMBERS LISTED OUT. AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THOSE LOADS HAVE ALSO BEEN GOING THROUGH THE INTERIM PROCESS AND CAN QUALIFY FOR BATCH INCLUSION AND OTHER PATHWAYS. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN REALLY SAY THAT WE'RE ADDING AN INCREMENTAL 40 GIGAWATTS, JUST THAT THERE'S 40 GIGAWATTS IN THIS BUCKET AND FOR ALL WE KNOW HALF OF IT IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE, THE 70 NUMBER THAT ARE CUTS REPORTED. AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IF WE CAN JUST GO BACK AND CLARIFY THAT, AND MAYBE I SHOULD BE PHRASING THIS AS A QUESTION TO SEE IF THAT'S BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR ALREADY. BUT THAT'S JUST SOMETHING I WANTED THE GROUP TO KNOW. YEAH, EVAN, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S FAIR. SOME OF THOSE MAY BE IN, UH, AND WE ARE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO CHECK THAT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. AWESOME. GREAT JOB. MARK, YOU'RE NOT THE LAST ONE. SHANNON SNUCK IN. THANK YOU. FABULOUS CHAIR. UM, IT'S COMING. GREAT. MY QUESTION IS SURPRISINGLY SIMILAR TO BOB HILTON'S, THOUGH HE'S NOT IN THE ROOM TO HEAR THAT COMPLIMENT. OKAY. UM, SO I AM SEARCHING FOR A PUBLIC POLICY REASON TO MAKE THIS DECISION. UM, I'M TOTALLY INDIFFERENT BETWEEN WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE, WE CHOOSE A FIRST IN FIRST OUT POLICY OR WE CHOOSE A FIRST COMPLETED STUDY POLICY TO, TO ME AT LEAST THERE'S NO PUBLIC POLICY CONTENT IN THAT DECISION THAT'S JUST PICKING WINNERS, LOSERS. UM, THE ISSUE THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TODAY THAT DOES HAVE REAL PUBLIC POLICY CONTENT TO ME IS WHAT JEFF MENTIONED ABOUT WHETHER THESE ARE OPEN ACCESS DECISIONS OR NETWORK BENEFIT DECISIONS OR, OR PRIVATE BENEFIT DECISIONS. UM, THAT'S REAL PUBLIC POLICY CONTENT. 'CAUSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, WE ARE CHANGING THE WAY WE ALLOCATE COSTS, TRANSMISSION COSTS IN ERCOT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 30 YEARS IN THESE PROJECTS. THAT WAS, UH, INCLUDED IN AS A REQUIREMENT IN SENATE BILL SIX. AND THAT'S A LOT OF WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT IS WHO, WHO RECEIVES PRIVATE BENEFIT FROM EXPANSION OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND THOSE WHO RECEIVE PRIVATE BENEFIT FROM EXPANSION OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ARE GONNA HAVE TO PAY THE COSTS OF, OF THAT BENEFIT AND THAT EXPANSION. SO WHEN I LOOK AT THESE ALTERNATIVES, I, I THINK IF I UNDERSTAND THE BIGGER AND THE, THE CONTEMPLATED COMMISSION RULE PROPERLY, IF YOU WENT THROUGH THE LLIS PROCESS, YOUR LOAD, YOU SUBMITTED INTO THAT PROCESS AND THAT PROCESS IDENTIFIED A TRANSMISSION UPGRADE THAT IS NEEDED TO SERVE YOU, THAT UPGRADE PROVIDES PRIVATE BENEFIT, NOT NETWORK BENEFIT. AND SO YOU ARE, YOU ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO INCUR THE COST OF THAT UPGRADE. NOW I THINK ABOUT THE, THE SOUTH DALLAS RPG PROJECT AND, AND HERE'S MY QUESTION. ARE THE COSTS OF THE SOUTH DALLAS TRANSMISSION EXPANSION THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD GOING TO BE BORN IN TCOS OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE DIVIDED UP BETWEEN THESE LARGE LOADS? THAT'S PART OF THE RULE, ISN'T IT? ENCORE HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN AN ANALYSIS OF HOW MANY OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE FOR THE PURE BENEFIT OF A PARTICULAR CUSTOMER AND WHETHER SOME OF THOSE ARE ACTUALLY STRENGTHENING THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE IN THAT AREA. SO THERE IS NOT AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION AS WE SIT HERE. SO WILL YOU BE DOING THAT ANALYSIS BEFORE YOU SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSION FOR A CCN? SOUTH DALLAS DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY CCNS. OH, RIGHT. I DO THINK ON A GO FORWARD BASIS IT IS LIKELY THAT THE COMMISSION WILL, WHEN IT FINALIZES ITS LARGE LOAD STANDARDS RULE, RIGHT? AND WE GET A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT THAT THE COMMISSION WILL BE INTERESTED IN HAVING US START DOING AN ANALYSIS OF THOSE COSTS. BUT WE'VE NOT YET RECEIVED ANY GUIDANCE ON THAT. AND WOULD THAT BE AN ANALYSIS THAT ENCORE WOULD CONDUCT OR WOULD THAT BE AN ANALYSIS THAT IS AN OUTPUT OF THE, OF THE, UH, I WAS GONNA SAY CLUSTER, THE BATCH ANALYSIS, THE BATCH ZERO ANALYSIS? I DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER. I MEAN, THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE MADE IN THE UNDERLYING RULEMAKING [04:00:02] HAVE BEEN IN AN EFFORT TO RECOGNIZE THAT TRANSMISSION IS OFTEN MULTI-BENEFIT AND MULTI BENEFICIARY. AND SO I EXPECT IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE INCUMBENT ON THE INDIVIDUAL TSP TO UNDERTAKE THAT ANALYSIS, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO GOING TO HAVE TO BE IN CONSULTATION WITH ERCOT IN ORDER TO CORRECTLY APPORTION THE BENEFITS. WELL I THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY LEFT IN THAT ANSWER. UM, BUT TO ME THE, THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION MAY BE KIND OF WHAT JEFF SAID, THAT THAT, UM, THE ANSWER IS IN WHETHER THE TRANSMISSION UPGRADE ASSOCIATED PROVIDES NETWORK BENEFIT OR PRIVATE BENEFIT. UH, FAR BE FAR BE IT FOR ME TO EVER CORRECT ANYTHING LIZ SAYS 'CAUSE SHE'S ALWAYS SO GOOD. BUT THERE IS SOME, THERE IS A CCN AS PART OF THAT SOUTHERN DFW PROJECT. IS IT TWO THANK YOU SHANNON. SORRY, MY MISTAKE. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ORIGINALLY AS WE SUBMITTED EXACTLY AND THEN THINK, THINK THAT WAS AS ERCOT MODIFIED IT YEAH, IT DID EXPAND. AND SO IT DOES RAISE THE QUESTION AS YOU KNOW, AS PART OF THOSE CM PROCEEDINGS, THERE'S SOME LEVEL OF REVIEW OF COST. AND I, CAITLIN, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, I YEAH, GO AHEAD. FOR FEAR OF UPSETTING THE CABOOSE OF THIS TRAIN HERE, COST ALLOCATION IS NOT PART OF THE DELIBERATION BETWEEN THIS BODY. THAT'S FAIR, RESERVED FOR THE COMMISSION I BARK SALE. OF COURSE THAT IS CORRECT, BUT, BUT THERE IS PUBLIC POLICY CONTENT IN THIS DECISION WHETHER WE ARE PRIVATELY PAYING FOR THESE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES OR WE ARE PAYING FOR THESE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES THROUGH THE TRADITIONAL TCOS PROCESS BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE NETWORK VALUE. AND I THINK THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE THING FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE BOARD'S TECHNICAL ADVISORS TO, TO WEIGH IN ON THAT. IT'S NOT REALLY A COST ALLOCATION ISSUE, IT'S A POLICY ISSUE I THINK. I THINK. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. MARK, ARE YOU, ARE WE GOOD? OKAY. AND I LET SHANE SNEAK IN TOO. UM, SHANNON, I FORGET WHO ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER, BUT ONE OF THE TAC MEMBERS ASKED, WAS THERE SPECIFIC, UM, LISTING OF THE CAPACITY, YOURS WAS RESERVED AT THESE BUSES OR WHATEVER. I DON'T HAVE EVERY RPG MEMORIZED, BUT I DO HAVE THIS ONE MEMORIZED AND I KNEW FOR SURE THERE WAS A TABLE IN THERE. IT'S TABLE THREE, PAGE 11. YEP. IT DOESN'T GIVE THE CUSTOMER NAME, BUT ASSUMING YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE AT VENUS, YOUR THREE ROWS FROM THE BOTTOM AND IT LISTS PRECISELY THE ENCORE'S. I, I APPLAUD THAT ENCORE DID THIS BECAUSE IT'S COMPLIANT WITH WHAT'S, WHAT'S PROTECTED INFORMATION AND WHAT'S NOT. THEY LISTED THE STATION NAME, THE BUS NUMBER, THE VOLTAGE, AND THE MEGAWATT SIZE OF EACH OF THE LOADS. SO WE WE'RE AT A NEW BUS, BY THE WAY. SAY AGAIN, WE'RE AT A NEW BUS, FINE, BUT SO WHICHEVER QUESTION, WHICHEVER ONE OF Y'ALL ASK THAT, THAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT. SECOND THING IS BACK TO, UH, EVAN'S POINT ABOUT THE A EP 40 GIGAWATTS OF, OF UM, PROJECTS AND SAYING, HEY, THAT WILL, TO EVEN HAVE THEM ALLOCATED IS TOO MUCH. EVAN IS CORRECT THAT NOT ALL, BUT MANY OF THOSE PROJECTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THE LILLI PROCESS AND HAVE MET NINE FIVE. WE, WE IN PARTICULAR HAVE ONE OF THE ONES THAT ARE IN THERE HAVE MET IT. SO UNLESS Y'ALL HAVE THE NUMBER WHERE YOU'VE NETTED ALL THAT OUT, THIS 40 GIGAWATT NUMBER IS INFLATED AND WAY TOO HIGH BECAUSE FOR THE EXACT REASON EVAN POINTED OUT. OKAY, SHANE? YEAH, THANKS FOR LETTING ME JUMP IN. I JUST HAD A QUESTION ON THE, THE GENERAL PROCESS HERE. UH, SHANE, THOMAS, MICHELLE, OUR KIND OF THE TRANSITIONING PROCESS HERE, WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE LLIS STUDIES AND YOU KNOW, YOU'RE DOING THAT BASED ON TRANSMISSION, WHAT LEVEL, WHEN ARE THE RPG PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THAT? SO WOULD THE SOUTH SOUTHERN DFW PROJECT BEEN IN THE PREVIOUS STUDIES OR THAT WON'T START BEING USED IN THE LS? [04:05:01] WELL, IT'LL NEVER HAVE BEEN USED IN THE LLIS STUDY. IT'LL ONLY HAVE BEEN USED IN THE BATCH PROCESS. SO I WAS LIKE, THIS IS A, IS THIS A NEW TRANSMISSION PROJECT THAT'S JUMPING INTO THE STUDY OR I'M, I'M THINKING ABOUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE USING IT IN THE LLIS, BUT THESE LOADS WEREN'T IN THE LLIS THEN LIKE DEFINITELY LOADS ARE JUMPING ON TOP OF 'EM AND YOU'RE AWARDING UH, LOAD COMMISSIONING PLANS TO ABSORB THAT CAPACITY POTENTIALLY. BUT IF THE LINES HAVEN'T BEEN USED, THEN MILLS LOAD COMMISSIONING PLANS SHOULDN'T HAVE ABSORBED ANY OF THIS CAPACITY YET. THEN THAT'S WHERE, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THIS. YEAH, SHE, I I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY ON ANY PARTICULAR LLIS PROJECTS, BUT, UM, IN GENERAL, THE PROCESS IS WHEN YOU HAVE A NEW LLIS THERE'S A SCOPING DISCUSSION THAT HAPPENS AND THAT SCOPING DISCUSSION WILL DETERMINE WHAT, WHAT THE CITY STATE BASED CASE ASSUMPTIONS ARE, WHAT OTHER LOADS ARE INCLUDED OR SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT. UM, BUT I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHEN OR IF THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN ANY LLIS PROJECTS. I, OKAY. YEAH, I DUNNO. OKAY. CAN WE WRAP UP? OKAY. UM, I THINK WE ARE AWARE OF WHAT ER KAT'S POSITION IS ON THIS ISSUE. WE'VE HEARD CLAYTON'S POSITION. WE'RE GOING TO HOPEFULLY TAKE A VOTE ON THIS PICKER AT THE MEETING NEXT WEEK. HOPEFULLY WE'LL DO IT ALL IN ONE DAY. UM, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE UP TO STAKEHOLDERS TO HAVE ALTERNATE LANGUAGE TO OUR COTS PICKER. IF, IF THAT WAS THE WILL OF A STAKEHOLDER OR MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS. UM, TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT HELP YOU MAKE YOUR POLICY DECISIONS, WHICH WAS THE ROAD BILL AND MARK LET US DOWN, WHICH IS I THINK A GOOD ROAD TO GO. YOU CAN ASK , BUT I, I WOULD TRY TO LIMIT THOSE AT THIS POINT. I THINK WE'VE DONE A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH, SO IF IT'S SOMETHING YOU REALLY NEED TO, TO KNOW TO HELP YOU MAKE SORT OF POLICY DECISION, THEN, THEN MAYBE YOU CAN ASK AND, AND THEY'LL BRING IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. BUT I, I WOULD SAY LET'S TRY TO LIMIT THAT. IS THAT A OKAY STOPPING PLACE FOR THIS ISSUE FOR EVERYONE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S TRY TO KICK SOME THINGS OFF THE REST OF OUR LIST. I'M GONNA SKIP TWO FOR NOW. THREE WAS, THANK YOU CLAYTON. THANK YOU. AND WE APPRECIATED YOUR, UM, SHARP ATTIRE. SO TWO, TWO, WE'RE GONNA SKIP. THREE WAS ALLOCATION OF RPG PROJECT MEGAWATTS, LCRA, BLAKE, I THINK YOU SAID ERCOT HAS SATISFIED YOUR QUESTION HERE. DO YOU WANNA UPDATE THE GROUP WITH ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. UM, FOUR WAS LOWERING THE MINIMUM, ALL THE 200 MEGAWATT MINIMUM ALLOCATION. I BELIEVE THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN KOTS. NEWEST SET OF COMMENTS. YEAH. OKAY. AND, AND I APOLOGIZE 'CAUSE I, UM, NEITHER PUT THIS IN THE PREAMBLE TO OUR COMMENTS NOR MENTIONED IT EARLIER, BUT TH THIS WAS A CHANGE THAT WE MADE BASED ON THE, THE FEEDBACK OKAY. THAT WE'VE GOTTEN. SO YEAH, THAT WE LOWERED IT TO 100 MEGAWATTS SO WE CAN SKIP ITEM FOUR. OKAY. AND YOU CAN STILL TALK ABOUT WHATEVER YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT SHANNON, BUT WE'LL SKIP ITEM FOUR. UM, NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT. THEY'VE ALREADY INCORPORATED IT. NOTHING TO SAY. AWESOME. AND THEN SAME THING WITH FIVE, THE, UM, CONTRACTS FOR POWER LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN REMOVED AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT WITH BLAKE. SO WE'RE GONNA SKIP FIVE. SO ALL WE HAVE LEFT ARE TWO AND SIX, ACTUALLY ONE, DID WE FINISH ONE? BLAKE OR BLAKE? BILL, DID YOU HAVE RELIANT? DID YOU DO YOUR RELIANT STUFF? WE HAVE CLOSURE. YOU HAVE CLOSURE? OKAY. SO WE'RE CLOSED WITH ONE. WE'LL EITHER HAVE ERCOT BIGGER, 1 45 LANGUAGE ON, ON THAT ISSUE OR SOMEBODY, ANOTHER STAKEHOLDERS. AND IF THERE'S INFORMATION YOU NEED FROM MAR TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION, LET THEM KNOW. BUT TRY TO LIMIT IT. UM, TWO, WE'RE COMING BACK TO THREE. WE HAVE TAKEN CARE OF. FOUR WAS ADDRESSED IN THE LATEST SET OF COMMENTS. FIVE WAS ADDRESSED IN THE LATEST SET OF COMMENTS. SIX. WE ARE COMING BACK TO, UM, IT IS 2 45. SHOULD WE TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A BREAK? QUICK, QUICK BREAK? SURE. OR MOVE ON? QUICK BREAK. UM, LIKE LET'S, LET'S START AT THREE 'CAUSE WE ALWAYS HAVE STRAGGLERS. WE'LL TRY TO DO ITEMS TWO AND SIX. TRY TO DO ANY OTHER COMMENTS. I KNOW FOR SURE VISTA HAS COMMENTS. I'LL, I'LL BE GONE BEFORE WE FINISH ALL OF THAT, BUT HOPEFULLY [04:10:01] WE COULD FINISH THAT BY FOUR 30 TODAY. YES, BOB? I HAVE ONE 32ND THING I'D LIKE TO SAY ABOUT THE IA WHEN WE GET DONE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO THAT'S OUR PLAN. UM, SO WE'LL COME BACK AT THREE, TRY TO DO TWO AND SIX AND 20 MINUTES OR SO EACH, AND THEN MOVE ON TO OTHER COMMENTS INCLUDING VISTRA AND NG. ALRIGHT, IS JEFF READY? OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GET STARTED. UM, WE'RE GONNA SORT OF ADD TWO THINGS THAT I MADE NOTE OF EARLIER, BUT ONE IS BOB'S THING AND THERE ARE ISSUES I THINK WE NEED TO ALSO WRAP UP BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS. UM, ONE I JUST WROTE LEGAL ISSUES, BUT I BELIEVE ERCOT IS PLANNING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF WORKSHOP ON THE ATTESTATIONS AND ALL OF THAT. SO THAT WILL NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AT SOME POINT. IS THAT POST US VOTING OR? YEAH. YEAH, CAITLIN. SO I'LL, I'LL DO MY, UM, LITTLE PSA ON THAT. SO ON UM, FRIDAY THIS WEEK WE PLAN TO HAVE A, UM, I DUNNO IF WE CALLED IT A WORKSHOP OR MEETING. IT IS JUST, JUST AN HOUR. UH, BUT WE INTEND TO TALK THROUGH, UH, KIND OF THE, HOW WE ARE SUNSETTING THE EXISTING PROCESS AND WHAT THAT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. AS WELL AS, UH, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE LOADS, UH, THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN BET ZERO TO PROVIDE DYNAMIC MODELS. UH, AND SO WE'RE GONNA PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILS ABOUT THOSE ON, UM, THE MEETING ON FRIDAY. IT IT'S SHORT WEB, SHORT WEBEX. AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING SCHEDULED FOR, UM, I THINK IT'S THE 28TH. IT'S IN, UM, THE LATTER PART OF THE MONTH. AND THAT MEETING WE DO PLAN TO TALK THROUGH THE ATTESTATIONS. UH, WE ARE HOPING TO HAVE SOME DRAFT DRAFT HERE. HERE'S A FORM THAT, THAT Y'ALL CAN USE, UM, AND, AND BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT SO THAT, UM, WHEN WE GET TO JULY 10TH, THAT THERE'S CONSISTENCY IN THE INFORMATION THAT WE ARE RECEIVING. OKAY. SO THE 28TH MEETING WILL BE AFTER WE VOTE ON THIS? IT, YEAH, IT, IT IS. AND, AND THIS IS, UM, THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT, UH, WHAT IT, IT'S TAKING WHAT WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THE ATTACK VOTE AND IT'S UH, TRYING TO COMMUNICATE HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO EXECUTE THAT. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO THAT'S ONE OF MY ISSUES. THE SECOND ONE, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT EARLIER, UM, AND I THINK BOB RAISED A GOOD POINT THAT WE WILL WANT TO AT LEAST SPEND SOME TIME WITH TECH CONSIDERATION OF THE IA BECAUSE IT IS QUITE A COST. AND, AND JEFF, YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE FTES, SO I THINK, I THINK WE CAN DO THAT NEXT WEEK, BUT CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT BEFORE THAT? YEAH. SO THAT IT CAN GET IT ON? YEAH, I, 'CAUSE I WASN'T REALLY TALKING, WE DO NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE COST AND EVERYTHING ELSE ON THAT, WHICH WE'LL DO NEXT WEEK. BUT THE THING I WANTED TO GET OUT THIS WEEK IS IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AND READ THE IA, IT'S EVERYTHING IT SAYS IS BATCH ZERO. AND I KNOW US AROUND THE TABLE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE BATCH ZERO AND BEYOND AN INFINITY. UH, AND IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THAT, I DIDN'T WANT SOMEONE TO COME AROUND AND START THINKING, WAIT A MINUTE, THIS IS ALL JUST FOR BATCH ZERO. UH, WE NEED, THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS ONGOING, IT'S GONNA BE ONGOING AND THIS REALLY COVERS MORE THAN THAT. SO IF THERE'S JUST A STATEMENT BY NEXT WEEK, THEY COULD PUT IN THE IA SOMEWHERE OR SOMETHING. I THINK THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD HELP OUT. AND WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT. OKAY. SO MAYBE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'LL HAVE NEWER COMMENTS BEFORE NEXT WEEK WITH AT LEAST SOME CLEANUP ITEMS. AND THEN MAYBE, SO TROY, COULD YOU GIVE US 10, 10 MINUTES AT THE NEXT MEETING ON THE, THE IA? OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE'VE GOTTEN RID OF BOB'S ISSUE, SO WE NOW JUST HAVE TWO, SIX AND NED. RIGHT? SO LET'S GO TO, UH, AP. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOU NEED FOR THIS? NOT, I, I THINK THAT THERE'S A PATH FORWARD THAT HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED. I WAS GOING TO HIGH LEVEL JUST AWESOME. LET'S GO LOOP FOLKS IN AND THEN WE CAN TALK AS WE NEED TO. UM, SO ONE OF THE PROPOSALS THAT HAS COME OUT [04:15:01] OF BATCH ZERO IS THE CONCEPT OF USING TIP IT AND THE, THE REPORT THAT'S OUT THERE TO HELP CREATE, UM, LCPS LOAD COMMISSIONING PLANS. I BELIEVE IT'S JUST FOR THE BASE LOADS. UM, TO, TO LEVEL SET ON TIP IT, THERE'S KIND OF TWO MAIN REASONS FOR THIS REPORT. FIRST BEING THAT IT, IT HELPS WITH VISIBILITY TO THE MARKET. UM, IT, IT LISTS TRANSMISSION PROJECTS AND IDENTIFIES PROJECT TYPE TIER TIMING STATUS. SO, SO THAT'S ONE TAKEAWAY FOR, FOR WHAT TIPT DOES. UM, THE OTHER ONE IS IT HELPS WITH PROJECTS ASSUMED IN ERCOT PLANNING MODELS. IT'S REALLY THE BRIDGE BETWEEN REPORTED PROJECTS AND THE MODELED SYSTEM TOPOLOGY. UM, AND SO WITH, WITH THIS PROPOSAL, I KNOW ERCOT HAS BEEN TALKING, UM, WITH THE TSPS ABOUT DOING AN INTERIM UPDATE, A AS THE MEANS OF, OF GETTING THIS INFORMATION. AND I, I APPRECIATE ERCOT HEARING THE FEEDBACK THAT THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS AND GAPS, GAPS WITH THAT. UM, I KNOW IN AEPS COMMENT SPECIFICALLY, WE HAD KIND OF HAD, UM, JUST A, A FEW CONCERNS THAT, THAT WE HAD SHARED WITH ERCOT, UM, AND THROUGH THOSE COMMENTS JUST ABOUT WHAT THE MECHANISMS OF TIP IT IS AND THEN HOW THIS COMES IN TO PLAY IN BATCH ZERO. UM, BEING THAT THERE, THERE COULD BE SOME CONFUSION, WE'RE USING THESE TO COME INTO THE BATCH WITH POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT ANSWERS COMING ON THE TAIL END. AND, AND SO I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION A LITTLE EARLIER WHEN ERCOT WAS GOING THROUGH THEIR COMMENTS AND, UM, WHEN WE, ONE QUESTION FOR YOU, JEFF, ON THAT WOULD BE, ARE WE PLANNING TO PUBLISH THIS INTERIM UPDATE THAT WE'RE DOING? LIKE, IS THAT GOING TO GO OUT TO THE MARKET? IT, IT WOULD BE, YES. OKAY. UM, AND SO I, I THINK SOMETHING WITH THAT IS JUST MAKING SURE FOLKS KNOW THAT WHILE THERE IS ANSWERS IN THERE, THOSE ANSWERS CAN CHANGE. AS THE BATCH HAPPENS, WE STUDY, LOOK AT ALL THE LOADS, POTENTIALLY REFINE 'EM, THOSE PROJECTS COULD SHIFT AND BECOME DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED. UM, AND SO THAT WAS JUST ONE THING WE WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME UNDERSTANDING OF THIS. THE SECOND ONE WAS JUST WITH THAT PIECE, THAT PLANNING MODELS UTILIZED, TIP IT. AND DO WE HAVE A MINDFUL APPROACH IN DOING THIS WHERE WE ARE PROTECTING SSWG CASES OR UNDERSTANDING THAT WE, WE DON'T WANNA TRY TO BE UNRAVELING SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, UM, BECAUSE OF THOSE CHANGES THAT WOULDN'T, WOULD COME FROM BEFORE TO AFTER THE BATCH. SO LEMME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. SO IS YOUR CONCERN THAT, UM, WE ARE PUTTING PROJECTS IN TIPPI THAT MAY NOT BE AS FIRM, UM, JUST SO WE CAN GET INFORMATION IN FOR THE, THE BATCH STUDY, AND THEN THEY MAY NOT, MAYBE THE DATES SHIFT OR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? CORRECT. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN APPROVED OR ENDORSED. AND, AND THEN, UM, THOSE COULD BE REPLACED BY PROJECTS AS THE RESULT OF THE BATCH STUDY. AND THEN WE WOULD KIND OF HAVE TO POTENTIALLY UNWIND THOSE IN THE MODELING CASES BECAUSE WE WOULD THEN REMOVE SOME, ADD NEW ONES OR SHIFT SOME OF THAT DATA. AND SO HOW WE PLAN TO DO THAT, TO KEEP THE STRUCTURE INTACT AND THE INFORMATION SOUND? YEAH, SO I, I THINK THAT, THAT, I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE, I I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, IS THAT WE MAY HAVE TO CHANGE THE CASES. SO, SO IF, IF THE PROJECTS CHANGE, THEN MAY HAVE TO CHANGE THE CASES. UM, I, I THINK THAT WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST AND, AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I I DON'T SEE THAT THAT'S ANY DIFFERENT HERE. THE, THE SCALE MAY BE DIFFERENT, UM, AND, UM, AND TO, YOU KNOW, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM MAYBE WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST. UM, I, I, I, I THINK MY COMMENT ON THAT WOULD BE, I, I THINK JUST, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE, IF WE'RE PUTTING IN PROJECTS THAT ARE MAYBE LESS FIRM TRANSMISSION PROJECTS, [04:20:01] WE JUST WANNA BE CAREFUL AND BE REALISTIC WITH THE, THE DATES THAT WE'RE PUTTING, THE IN-SERVICE DATES THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU, IF WE GO IN AND WE ASSUME A PROJECT AND THEN THAT PROJECT MAYBE DOESN'T END UP BEING THE ONE THAT'S ULTIMATELY RECOMMENDED MM-HMM . UM, YEAH, I MEAN, YEAH, WE, WE CAN CHANGE THE CASES, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST. UH, BUT I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SCALE MAY BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT HERE THAN IN THE PAST. OKAY. OKAY. SHANNON, ON THIS TIP AT ISSUE, UM, TAKING A QUESTION THAT YOU JUST ASKED TO AARON, UM, FOR, WE'VE GOT PROJECTS THAT ARE ON A EP DOWN IN THIS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT THEIR ONLY RPG OR LITTLE STUFF BY ANY MEANS, BUT IN PRIOR, UH, BATCH ZERO WORKSHOP MEETINGS, WAYMAN GAVE AN EXAMPLE, JEFF, THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. UH, BUT YOU'VE HEARD SO MANY THINGS SINCE THEN. YOU MAY HAVE FORGOT. HE POINTED OUT THAT ON LILLIS STUDIES, IF YOU HAD LILLIS A LITTLE B, LITTLE C AND YOU ADDED UP ALL THE PIECES THAT WAS IN THE LOAD RAMP STUDY FOR EACH OF THOSE, THAT ONCE ALL THREE OF THOSE HAVE BEEN PUT TOGETHER THE COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION OF WHAT YOU'LL DO, IF IT WERE EITHER AN RPG, WHICH WAS THE CONTEXT HE GAVE IT, OR IN THIS BATCH STUDY, YOU MAY ACT, THE, THE APPROPRIATE THING FOR THE TSP IS NOT TO DO ALL OF THE PIECES THAT WAS IN THE, THE LCP FOR LOAD A, LOAD B AND LOAD OR LILA STUDY A, B, AND C INSTEAD, THERE'S A CHEAPER SOLUTION THAT MAY EVEN BE ABLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED MORE QUICKLY. SO THAT'S HOW YOU CAN GET INTO THIS ISSUE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DESCRIBE. AND, AND IN A WAY, IF TO DO PRECISELY WHAT Y'ALL ARE SAYING, WHERE YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO SEE THOSE IN TIPPI, THEY'VE GOT TO GO ENTER IN A SET OF THINGS THAT MOST LIKELY WILL NOT BE THE FULL SET, WILL NOT BE, ALL OF THOSE WILL NOT BE THE SET YOU'LL USE LATER, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE IN YOUR BASE LOAD CATEGORY. SO THAT'S 0.1. AND I'LL, UH, THEN 0.2 WAS THE ONE I SAID EARLIER, BOTH VERBALLY AND WE WERE, I WROTE IN THE, EACH OF THE COMMENTS EACH TIME I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT IT. FUNDAMENTALLY, THE TSP SHOULD NEVER EVER, EVER, EVER BE IN A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S AN APPROVED LCP FOR SOMETHING. AND AT THE TIME THAT WHEN IT BECOMES APPROVED, THERE'S NOT AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE TIME FOR THEM TO GO PUT THOSE UPGRADES IN TO, UH, TIP IT. AND EQUALLY, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, THE ILLE SHOULD NEVER WIND UP IN 2034 BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T FIND THEM IN TIP IT BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T GIVEN TIME TO PUT THEM THERE. YOU SHOULD ALWAYS GO WORK WITH THE TSP AND GET THE CORRECT ANSWER, EVEN IF IT'S NOT IN TIP IT. AND I SAID THAT'S THE FINAL THING. THERE'S ACTUALLY ONE MORE ITEM. I'VE TAKEN ONE OF OUR OWN AS A CASE STUDY AND I'VE TRIED TO GO THROUGH AND DO WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED Y'ALL WANT TO DO. AND IN TOTAL THERE'S SEVEN STEPS TO ONE OF OUR LCPS. ONLY ONE OF THEM WILL YOU GO FIND IN TIPPI AS IT SITS THERE TODAY. AND OF FOUR OF THE SEVEN, THERE'S, THERE IS SOMETHING IN TIPPIT THAT I BELIEVE IS PROBABLY WHAT ADDRESSES IT, BUT THEY AREN'T WHAT'S PRECISELY IN THE LCP. AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. LIKE ONE OF 'EM IS UPGRADE A 1 38 KV LINE, TWO SEGMENTS OF IT. WELL, IN TIP IT, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT SAYS GO INSTALL SERIES REACTORS OVER AT WHERE THE AUTO IS THAT FEEDS THE 1 38 KV LINE. FUNCTIONALLY, THOSE ARE PROBABLY TWO OF THE SAME THINGS. YOU KNOW, THEY BOTH CAN WORK AND, BUT YOU WILL NOT FIND A ONE-TO-ONE MATCH OF WHAT'S IN TID. SO THERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS TRAIN WRECK CAN HAPPEN AND HOW YOU CAN GET INTO PHANTOM PROJECTS THEY'VE GOTTA PUT IN TO THEN LATER TAKE OUT, ANOTHER ONE WAS UPGRADE THE 69 KB LINE AND A 1 38 TO 69 KBI AUTO. THAT'S NOT IN TIPPI, BUT IN TIPPI, THE A P HAD CONVERT THE 69 KV LINE TO 1 38 KV. WELL, THAT'S IN TIPPI AND THAT'S, WE ALL KNOW THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM. SO I JUST THINK IF THAT'S THE CASE ON OURS, ON FOUR OUT SEVEN COMPONENTS OF THE ONE PROJECT THAT [04:25:01] I'VE LOOKED AT, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THIS ISN'T GONNA BE A TRAIN WRECK TRYING TO DO THAT LITERALLY WITH TIPT, ESPECIALLY FOR NEAR TERM THINGS WHERE YOU'VE GOT AN LCP THAT WAS RECENTLY PUT TOGETHER, BUT EVEN FOR ONES WHERE IT'S BEEN PUT TOGETHER FOR A WHILE, I THINK THIS IS ABOUT TO BE A FIRE DRILL FOR THE TSPS THAT IS OF LIMITED VALUE. MAYBE IT WOULD JUST BE SIMPLER TO HAVE 'EM RECERTIFY. YES, THIS IS THE SET OF UPGRADES THAT WE THINK IS NEEDED AND, AND, UH, THESE ARE THE DATES WE THINK WE CAN HIT THEM WITH THAT. AARON, NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NO. OKAY. OKAY. SO WHERE DO WE GO FORWARD ON THIS ONE? GO AHEAD, SHANE. THANK YOU, SHANE. THOMAS SHOW, UM, WHEN I'M, YEAH, LOOKING AT ALL THE, THE TIPPET STUFF AND HOW THAT'S GOING THROUGH, TO ME, I JUST ASK, DOES DO WE NEED TO BE THIS PRESCRIPTIVE IN THE LANGUAGE OR CAN WE JUST GIVE ERCOT LIKE GOOD ENGINEERING JUDGMENT? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. OR IS IT BETTER, I GUESS, TO HAVE IT DEFINED SO WE KNOW WHAT, WHAT'S GONNA BE IN THERE? WE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, WE'RE GETTING KIND OF MORE INTO THE DETAILS OF HOW THIS BE INCLUDED AND POTENTIALLY GETTING RID OF COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS WHEN ERCOT IS GOOD AT BUILDING THESE CASES AND THEY COULD JUST DO WHAT THEY THINK IS CORRECT. I I WANNA TIE THEM TO WHAT'S IN THE TIDBIT IF THERE'S SOMETHING EASILY MISSED BY THAT. YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY FROM A P'S PERSPECTIVE, BY NO MEANS I TEED UP THESE COMMENTS JUST BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN IN MINE. A EP IS HAPPY TO ATTEMPT IT. WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE RISKS AND OR FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE WHAT WE'RE SEEING, WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF GOING DOWN IT. I, THOSE COMMENTS MAY BE FOR EVERYONE ELSE TO CONSIDER. I JUST WANTED TO LEVEL SET. WE, WE CAN GO EITHER WAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE WAS ON THE SAME PAGE. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO SIX. I THINK. AARON, DO YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE FROM US? CLOSURE. CLOSURE. SO WE'RE GOOD WITH KO'S COMMENTS. . OKAY. SO YOU, A EP WOULD HAVE LANGUAGE, ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE TO ER'S COMMENTS OR WE'RE WE'RE GOOD WITH ERCOT? HE ALREADY PROPOSED YEAH. TO STRIKE, TO STRIKE THE USE OF TIPPET. BUT FROM MAY 11TH COMMENTS, I THINK WHAT A EP SAW IS ERCOT WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE TIPPE LANGUAGE THERE. OKAY. AND WE WILL NOT BE PROPOSING ANYTHING ELSE. WE WILL LEAVE IT AS IS. OKAY. SO WE'RE CLOSED, WE'RE CLOSURE CLOSER. OKAY. OKAY. LET'S GO TO SIX, REFINE AND ESTABLISH A DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF STUDY STUDY STATE OR STABILITY STUDIES TO ERCOT BILL. YES. IS THIS YOU? UH, I'VE RAISED THIS, UH, A COUPLE TIMES. IT'S IN SECTION 9 2 1 2, WHICH IS THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR, UH, STUDIED LOADS INTO BATCH ZERO FOR EVERY OTHER DEADLINE. IN THIS FIGURE, IT IS VERY CLEAR YOU MUST, AS A POTENTIAL, UH, ELIGIBLE PROJECT, YOU HAVE TO DO SOME ACTION OR SOME DELIVERABLE BY X DATE FOR THIS PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF A STEADY STATE OR STABILITY STUDIES, IT'S COMPLETELY OPEN. UM, AND THERE IS NO CERTAINTY FOR A STAKEHOLDER THAT IF YOU FILE THE STUDIES, IF YOU SUBMIT THE STUDIES TO ERCOT BY X DATE, YOU'LL GET A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER IT'S APPROVED OR NOT BY JULY 10TH. I THINK THAT IS NOT HELPFUL AND NOT A GOOD PROCESS DESIGN FOR ANYONE THAT'S GOING THROUGH THIS. I ALSO THINK IT'S NOT GOOD FOR ERCOT BECAUSE I SEE A SITUATION WHERE THEY CAN GET POTENTIALLY BOMBARDED WITH STUDIES THE WEEK OF JULY 6TH WITH PEOPLE EXPECTING THEM TO GIVE THEM A DECISION BY JULY 10TH. [04:30:01] SO TO ME, A MUCH BETTER APPROACH HERE IS TO HAVE A CLEARLY DEFINED DATE ON WHEN STUDIES MUST BE SUBMITTED IN ORDER TO GIVE ERCOT SUFFICIENT TIME TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER APPROVED OR NOT. I THINK THAT IS A COMPLETELY FAIR REQUEST AND, UM, WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FEEDBACK FROM ERCOT ON THAT. HEY BILL, THIS IS AJI SPRINGER. I CAN SPEAK TO THAT ONE. UM, SO YOU ARE, YOU'RE CORRECT THAT THERE IS NOT A, UM, DATE CERTAIN OF SUBMISSION FOR, UM, STUDIES AND FOR A GUARANTEED, YOU KNOW, RESPONSE ONE OR ANOTHER LISTED IN PGA 1 45. UM, BUT THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT IT'S SPELLED OUT IN THE EXISTING SECTION 9.4 OF THE ERCOT PLANNING GUIDE. UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE REVIEW TIMELINES IN SECTION 9.4, UM, ERCOT HAS 10 BUSINESS DAYS PLUS CAN, HAS THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 BUSINESS DAYS, UH, ON THE REVIEW OF A STUDY SUBMISSION. UM, AND SO IF YOU, YOU KNOW, TAKE JULY 10TH AND THEN BACKTRACK 30 BUSINESS DAYS, THAT PUTS YOU AT MAY 28TH, UM, FOR THE DATE AT WHICH, YOU KNOW, MAY 28TH BEING THE LAST DAY THAT A STUDY SUBMISSION IS, UM, GUARANTEED A RESPONSE BEFORE JULY 10TH UNDER, UNDER THE CURRENT PROCESS. SO, UM, ERCOT AGREES, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'LL BE COVERING, UH, THE WEBINAR THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, ONE OF THE THINGS ANYWAY. UM, BUT THE REASON WE DON'T FEEL THAT LANGUAGE IS NEEDED HERE IS 'CAUSE IT'S ALREADY COVERED IN THE EXISTING PLANNING GUIDE. OKAY. I THINK THE, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT AG IS THE UNCERTAINTY AROUND THE OPTION TO EXTEND AND, YOU KNOW, THE LACK OF HAVING SOME CERTAINTY IN TERMS OF THAT PROCESS AND WHAT ERCOT WOULD NEED TO SEE TO EXERCISE THAT OPTION OR NOT. LIKE IF YOU DIDN'T SUBMIT ALL THE INFORMATION YOU NEEDED OR IF THERE IS MODEL QUALITY ISSUES OR, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL AS WELL. UM, SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU, THAT COULD BE ADDED TO HELP PROVIDE THAT CERTAINTY. 10 DAYS SOUNDS REALLY GOOD TO ME. 10 DAYS PLUS 20, UH, I THINK IS KIND OF A STRETCH, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL, UH, INFORMATION OR GUIDANCE YOU CAN PROVIDE ON WHAT ERCOT WOULD, WHAT ER, WHAT WOULD TRIGGER THE, UH, OPTION, UM, THAT ERCOT WOULD LOOK AT. SURE. SO YEAH, IT'S PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY THE VOLUME OF SUBMISSIONS. UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I WILL WILL SAY THAT WE HAVE STARTED TO EXERCISE THAT EXTRA 20 BUSINESS DAYS, UM, IN RECENT WEEKS AS THE NUMBER OF STUDIES COMING IN FOR REVIEW HAS GONE UP, UH, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE BATCH ZERO DEADLINES. SO I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO EXERCISE THAT, UH, AS WE APPROACH JULY 10TH. THANK YOU. AND THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE TO ME, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THE IA FOR FIGURE 1 45 IS A ALSO A SOLVABLE PROBLEM IF, UH, ERCOT DECIDES TO INCREASE THE SUPPORT FROM CONSULTANTS, SAY, SO IF THERE WERE A DATE PROPOSED AT TAC NEXT WEEK, THAT MAY BE CLOSER TO YOUR 10, MAYBE 15 DAY REQUIREMENT THAT STAKEHOLDERS PREFER. UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT ERCOT COULD BE ABLE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON THEIR CONTRACTING STAFF AND MEET THOSE THAT REQUIREMENT. SO, UM, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF, UH, ATTEMPT OF BRINGING IN ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR BOTH THIS, THE END PERIOD OF THE LOWEST PROCESS AS WELL AS, UH, THE BATCH ZERO PROCESS. BUT, UM, I I, I, I DON'T BELIEVE WE WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF A REQUIREMENT THAT STUDIES SUBMITTED BY A CERTAIN DATE HAVE TO BE GIVEN AN ANSWER WITHIN A SET TIME BEYOND WHAT'S IN THE CURRENT PLANNING GUIDE. I THINK THAT RISKS THE SCENARIO THAT YOU RAISE OF STUDIES THAT ARE HASTILY COMPLETED BEING THROWN AT US A FEW DAYS BEFORE JULY 10TH. AND, UH, IF THERE WAS AN OBLIGATION THAT IS CREATED THEN, UM, IT, IT MAY BOTH BE IMPOSSIBLE TO MEET AND ALSO CREATE, UH, UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS AMONG, UH, STAKEHOLDERS AS TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH THOSE STUDIES. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW TIMELINE IS TO ENSURE THAT ERCOT HAS THE TIME NEEDED TO DO A THOROUGH REVIEW, UM, AND, AND WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT SHOULD CHANGE. OKAY. I, I APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK. I DO THINK THIS IS A SPECIAL CASE AND A SPECIAL SITUATION THAT DOESN'T MEET THE [04:35:01] KIND OF NORMAL BUSINESS AS USUAL DESIGN OF THAT PROCESS. UH, BUT I'LL THINK ABOUT YOUR FEEDBACK. I I MAY COME BACK WITH AN ALTERNATIVE FOR CONSIDERATION NEXT WEEK, BUT THANK YOU. AND, AND IF I COULD ADD, UM, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU SAID MAY, MAY 28TH, THAT'S, THAT'S THE LAST DAY THAT WE'LL GUARANTEE THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE WON'T STILL ACCEPT STUDIES UP UP UNTIL JULY 10TH. IT JUST MEANS THAT THE, THE UH, CLOSER YOU GET BETWEEN THE CLOSER YOU GET TO JULY 10TH, THE LESS LIKELY IT IS. WE WILL HAVE TIME TO REVIEW THOSE AND, AND WE ARE EXPECTING, UH, HIGH VOLUME OF THESE, WE'RE ALREADY STARTING TO SEE THAT. AND LIKE AS YOU SAID, WE ARE BRINGING ON ADDITIONAL, UH, CONTRACT HELP TO HELP WITH THAT. BUT, UM, OKAY. THERE, THERE ARE LIMITATIONS THERE. YEP. UNDERSTOOD. THANKS. OKAY, SO WE ARE GOOD ON THIS ISSUE. WE WILL MAYBE HEAR A NEW DATE FROM YOU NEXT WEEK, BILL. MAYBE I'LL RUMINATE ON IT. MAYBE, MAYBE NOT. RUMINATE. NO CLOSURE. OKAY. SO ONE, WE ARE GONNA HEAR, YOU KNOW, IF, IF SOMEBODY WANTS ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE, TWO ERCOT ON THE RPG DATES, SOMEBODY CAN BRING THAT FORWARD NEXT WEEK. TWO, WE ARE GOOD WITH THREE HAD BEEN THREE, WERE GOOD WITH FOUR AND FIVE WERE RESOLVED. AND ERCOT, I JUST COMMENTS SIX, BILL IS RUMINATING. ALRIGHT, SO WE DID GREAT. GREAT JOB, MARTHA. GREAT CHART. GREAT JOB. OKAY, NED, YOU WANNA, AND, UM, AND ANYBODY ELSE? I, I'M NOT GONNA CALL ON ALL THE COMMENTS AND ORDER, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF COMMENTS FILED SOME, I THINK RIGHT BEFORE T'S LATEST VERSION AND SOME AFTER, BUT, BUT MANY SINCE ROSS. UM, SO I'M NOT GONNA CALL UP EACH SET OF COMMENTS, BUT IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO, PLEASE GO FORWARD. I THINK IT LOOKED LIKE SHANNON WANTS TO, SO LET, LET'S DO RA AND THEN SHANNON AND THEN, UM, GO FORWARD FROM THERE. DID I SKIP SOME COMMENTS IN THE QUEUE? NO. DID I SKIP YOU IN THE QUEUE, SHANNON? YES, YES. I'M SORRY. OKAY. I WAS GONNA COMMENT ON REGARD TO NUMBER SIX, THE ONE OKAY, GO, GO AHEAD. I THOUGHT WE WERE MOVING ON, BUT I I SKIPPED THE COMMENTS IN THE QUEUE, SHANNON AND THEN LEE, AND THEN WE'LL LET BILL RUMINATE. SO I THINK THERE'S A CHANCE, BILL AND AG AND JEFF MAY BE TALKING PAST EACH OTHER, UM, BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT BILL'S TALKING ABOUT, AND I COULD BE WRONG. SO BILL, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SUBMISSION OF STUDIES AS IT PERTAINS TO A STUDY BEING ACCEPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF YOU LATER GO INTO ALLOCATION. IS THAT NARROWLY WHAT YOU MEAN IN THIS CONTEXT? OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS THE CASE THEN. I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH BILL, THAT LANGUAGE, THERE NEEDS TO BE A GRANDFATHER. THERE NEEDS TO BE A DATE CERTAIN WHERE FILES ARE STUDIED OR SUBMITTED BY THE TSP. YOU, YOU GET THIS TREATMENT BECAUSE THE DATE, THE, THE LANGUAGE YOU REFERRED TO, THAT'S ALREADY THERE. AG, IT'S FOR THE PURPOSE OF PIGGER ONE 15 AS EXISTS TODAY WHERE ERCOT IS GOING THROUGH THE HIGH HURDLE ALL THE WAY OUT OF ESSENTIALLY GRANTING, UH, BASE LOAD TREATMENT FOR LOAD, UH, NOT TREATMENT FOR WHAT LATER JUST BECOMES, UH, STUDIED LOAD AND NOTHING IS CERTAIN OTHER THAN YOU'VE GOTTA POST YOUR MONEY AND YOU GO IN AND YOU, YOU JUST GET TO ENTER THE GAME. UM, AND SO THOSE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS WITH THAT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT CAN'T BE THAT YOU'VE ESSENTIALLY SEEN, OH, AND ONE MORE THING THIS ACCEPTED LOAD. IT CAN TELL YOU IN THE STEADY STATE YOU'RE GETTING PRECISELY ZERO FOR A REALLY LONG TIME BASED ON ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE IN THAT STUDY. BUT IF ALL THOSE SAME PEOPLE DON'T SHOW UP IN THE BATCH ZERO BECAUSE OF THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS, YOU MAY ACTUALLY GET ALL THAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR. SO IT'S FURTHER ILLUSTRATING THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW YOUR TIMELINE FOR BASE LOAD PLUS, UH, VERSUS JUST AS A GATING ITEM TO GET IN IS STUDIED LOAD. SO WITH THAT, THAT'S THE MAIN POINT I WANTED TO MAKE THERE. AND I AGREE WITH BILL, SOME, SOME DEADLINE DATE CERTAIN IS HELPFUL TO THE TSPS AND THE LOADS. SO IF I, I COULD MAYBE RESPOND TO THAT. UH, YOU KNOW, SHANNON, I'M AFRAID I HAVE TO RESPECTFULLY, UH, DISAGREE WITH YOU THERE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UM, LANGUAGE IN PGA 1 45, [04:40:01] UM, FOR THE LOADS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE, THAT WOULD ENTER AS STUDY LOAD BASED ON 9 2 1 2, PARAGRAPH ONE A ROMAN THREE, UM, IT SAYS THE LARGE LOAD HAS RECEIVED ERCOT APPROVAL OF A STEADY STATE OR STABILITY STUDY AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 9.8, WHICH IS THE LEGACY 9.4. SO I AS INTENDED, THE, THE EXISTING PGA ONE 15 PROCESS THAT'S BEING USED TO QUALIFY LOADS EITHER AS BASE LOAD OR AS STUDY LOAD WILL, YOU KNOW, IS INTENDED TO CONTINUE TO APPLY UP UNTIL, UH, THE CUTOFF DATE OF JULY 10TH. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I I, I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE, UM, BUT AGAIN, I THINK THE RISK THERE IS THAT WE MAY BE RECEIVING STUDIES THAT DON'T MEET THE STANDARDS ON THE EXISTING PLANNING GUIDE, WHICH IS WHAT P 45, 1 45 REFERENCES AND AN ARTIFICIAL DATE WOULD THEN PUSH TO PUSH US TO HAVE TO ISSUE APPROVAL FOR THOSE. UM, AND SO I THINK AS DRAFTED THE CURRENT PROCESS AND THE CURRENT TIMELINES, UH, WOULD GOVERN EVEN STUDIES THAT ARE ENTERING AS, AS STUDY LOAD THAT'S SIMPLE. THEN ADD THE REQUIREMENT THAT FOR THE DEADLINE, THE 10 DAYS AHEAD OR WHATEVER, IT MUST HAVE MET ALL OF THESE, UH, PLANNING GUIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT IS SUBMITTED. BECAUSE YOUR RESPONSE IS IN PARTIC IN RESPONSE TO HOW FOR YOU EVALUATE IT FOR BASE LOAD TREATMENT BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S TO GET ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO PROVE STEADY STATE INSTABILITY STUDIES THAT WOULD BE AWARDING YOU BASE LOAD. THAT'S NOT WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR HERE OR WE'RE ASKING FOR. IT'S THAT YOU'VE GOT A STUDY THAT WAS VALID FROM THE TSP FOR PURPOSES OF JUST A GATING ITEM TO GET OVER TO AT THE ALLOCATED PROCESS. YEAH, I THINK WE, WE MAY HAVE TO, UH, AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THIS ONE. AGAIN, THE, THE LANGUAGE STATES THAT THE LARGE LOAD HAS RECEIVED ERCOT APPROVAL OF A STUDY, STATE STUDY UNDER THE LEGACY PROCESS. UM, AND SO AS A RESULT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, UH, EXISTING TIMELINES WOULD CONTINUE TO GOVERN THERE. OKAY. LET'S GO TO LEE AFFIRMING THAT WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT STABILITY AND STEADY STATE AND NOT LIKE, UH, PERC 1D WG VERSION TWO MODELS OR ANY OTHER KINDS OF THINGS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE TURNED IN BY MY, UH, BY MAY 28TH RATHER THAN JULY 10TH. AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECT? YEAH, LEE, THAT THAT'S CORRECT. THIS IS SPEAKING SIMPLY TO THE, THE STUDY APPROVAL PROCESS. UM, AND YOU KNOW, TO TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT MAY 28TH, I, I DO WANNA REEMPHASIZE WHAT JEFF STATED, THAT ERCOT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCEPT AND CONTINUE TO REVIEW STUDIES AFTER THAT DATE. THAT DATE IS SIMPLY THE DATE BY WHICH WE CAN GUARANTEE UNDER THE, THE UP TO 30 BUSINESS DAY TIMELINE. THERE WILL BE A RESPONSE FROM ERCOT. UM, BUT WE WILL CONTINUE TO ACCEPT, AND I EXPECT THE LARGE LOAD TEAM WILL BE CONTINUING TO REVIEW THESE STUDIES WELL INTO THE LATE INTO THE DAY ON JULY 10TH. SO WE WILL, UM, YOU KNOW, CONTINUE TO REVIEW THEM, BUT WE CAN'T GUARANTEE A RESPONSE UNDER THOSE TIMELINES AFTER MAY 28TH. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. BILL AND AGGIE, CAN YOU, UH, GIVE US A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT ERCOT OR YEAH, WHAT ERCOT IS LOOKING AT? ARE YOU, ARE YOU REVIEWING THE ENTIRE STUDY OR IS THERE PARTICULAR INFORMATION THAT'S PART OF THOSE STUDIES THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE WE PREPARE IN ADVANCE WHEN WE SUBMIT MODELS? UM, IF YOU CAN JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE VALIDATING SURE. FOR YOUR APPROACH. YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE REVIEWING THE STUDY REPORT AS SUBMITTED BY THE INTERCONNECTING TSP, UH, FOR, TO ENSURE THAT THE, UM, ACQUIRED SET OF LAR OTHER LARGE LOADS IN THE AREA WERE INCLUDED. THE FULL SUITE OF PLANNING GUIDE CONTINGENCIES REQUIRED UNDER THE EXISTING PLANNING GUIDE, UH, WAS STUDIED, UM, YOU KNOW, AND EFFECTIVELY THAT THE STUDY ADHERED TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET OUT IN THE CURRENT PLANNING GUIDE. UM, AND SO THAT IS THE PROCESSES THAT EXIST TODAY, UM, AND WOULD, WILL NOT CHANGE UP UNTIL JULY 10TH. OKAY, THANKS. OKAY. ARE WE GOOD TO GO BACK TO YOU RUMINATING AND COMING BACK TO US? OKAY. OKAY. SORRY, I JUMPED THE GUN. SO WE'LL [04:45:01] DO VISTA COMMENTS. SHANNON, I THINK YOU RAISED YOUR HANDS FOR WANTING TO DO YOUR COMMENTS TOO, RIGHT? NOPE, NOPE. NO, IT WAS ONLY RESPONDENT. IT WAS THIS. SO WE'LL DO NED'S COMMENTS AND THEN WHOEVER ELSE WOULD LIKE TO GET IN THE QUEUE. AND THEN WE GO HOME AND THEN WE GO, GO HOME. ALRIGHT, YOU FRAMED YOURSELF AS BETWEEN US AND GOING HOME. AND SO, SO I, I, I SEE, I SEE MY PLACE IN LINE, I UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION WE'RE IN, SO I'LL, UH, I'LL TRY TO BE RESPECTFUL OF EVERYONE'S TIME AND APPRECIATE THE, THE WILLINGNESS TO, TO, YOU KNOW, HEAR, HEAR ME OUT ONE, ONE MORE TIME ON, ON THIS TOPIC. UM, AND THANK YOU COREY, FOR PULLING THESE UP. UM, SO JUST TO, YOU KNOW, RESET BASELINE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF I THINK I'VE SAID BEFORE, IF WE WERE STARTING FROM SCRATCH, UM, YOU KNOW, KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW NOW ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF LARGE LOADS THAT WE HAVE COMING ONTO THE SYSTEM, WE WOULD'VE DESIGNED THE BATCH PROCESS FROM THE GET-GO. AND, UM, THE STRUGGLE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IN THIS PROCESS TODAY AND NEXT WEEK AND FOR, YOU KNOW, ALL THE, THE WEEKS THAT HAVE PROCEEDED IS HOW DO WE TAKE THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT HAVE BEEN IN FLIGHT AND HOW DO WE, YOU KNOW, FUNNEL THEM INTO A NEW ONE THAT CREATES SOME KIND OF NEW REPEATABLE PROCESS GOING FORWARD. UM, NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS, UH, SO UNDER P 39, 1 69 WITH EXISTING GENERATORS, THEY'RE NOT UNIQUE IN THAT RESPECT. CLEARLY WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION TODAY ABOUT, UM, YOU KNOW, OTHER, UH, OTHER DYNAMICS THAT ARE AT PLAY. UM, BUT I, I DO THINK THEY ARE UNIQUE IN THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE A STATUTORY BASIS AND THAT PRESENTS WITH, UH, THEM WITH SOME UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE REALLY JUST, I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US AS, UH, STAKEHOLDERS AND THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE BOARD TO, TO REALLY DOUBLE CLICK ON AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, A FULL, YOU KNOW, FULL DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF THOSE, UM, THOSE FEATURES. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IN A PERIOD OF ACCELERATING LOAD GROWTH LIKE WE FIND OURSELVES IN TODAY, UM, WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE BOTH KNOWN AND UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS, RIGHT? UM, THERE, WE'VE TALKED ALREADY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO KNOW WHAT'S THE REAL, THE REAL LOADS THAT ARE COMING. THAT'S A, THAT'S A COMMON REFRAIN THAT WE'VE ALL DEALT WITH. UM, WE ALSO WANT TO UNDERSTAND, WELL, HOW CAN WE GET THE MOST OPTIONALITY OR FLEXIBILITY? HOW CAN WE MITIGATE RISKS OF, YOU KNOW, OVERBUILDING TRANSMISSION IF THE LOAD DOESN'T SHOW UP AT THE SAME TIME TO BUILD IT? THOSE ARE ALL THE, THE, THE POLICY TOPICS THAT WE SPEND SO MUCH TIME THINKING ABOUT AND SPILLING A LOT OF INK ABOUT, TALKING ABOUT. UM, SO FROM A POLICY BASIS, I THINK THERE'S, UH, THERE'S BOTH THE, YOU KNOW, STATUTORY DISTINCTION WITH THE 39 1 6 9 NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS. WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE, THE TIMING THAT GOES ALONG WITH THOSE. UM, BUT THERE'S ALSO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CONSIDERATION OF THE, JUST THE GENERAL PUBLIC PUBLIC INTEREST BASIS FOR THOSE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS. SO NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS WITH EXISTING GENERATIONS, THEY'RE ALREADY, I THINK, GONNA BE THE BEST WAY TO VET WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S REAL, YOU KNOW, THAT IF A, IF AN EXISTING GENERATOR IS GOING TO GET INTO A LONG-TERM, UH, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBOR AND, UH, OPERATIONAL PARTNERSHIP WITH A LARGE LOAD, THERE IS, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF VETTING THAT GOES ON THERE, RIGHT? THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT JUST HAPPENS, YOU KNOW, UH, FLIPPANTLY THERE IS A, A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER AND, UM, VETTING OF THE, OF THE COUNTERPARTY THAT GOES INTO THAT. SO YOU'VE HAD A, A ANOTHER SOURCE OF KNOWING, HEY, THIS IS, THIS IS SOMEONE WHO'S REAL. THEY'VE GOT CREDIT, THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ABLE TO BUILD AND CONSTRUCT, UH, SECOND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE SOME OF THE BEST, UH, TRANSMISSION EFFICIENCY IN THEIR INTERCONNECTION. THERE'S EXISTING INTERCONNECTION TO THE GENERATOR, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, OFFERS THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO EITHER, YOU KNOW, IT MAY OFFER THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO PULL POWER FROM THE GRID. IT CERTAINLY ALLOWS THE GENERATOR TO EXPORT TO THE GRID. UM, AND IF THE, YOU KNOW, THE LOAD'S GOING IN BEHIND THE METER, THEY'RE GOING TO BE INVESTING IN THAT, UH, THAT ABILITY TO INTERCONNECT TO THE, TO THE GENERATOR, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS GONNA BE UPLIFTED TO OTHER CUSTOMERS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF EFFICIENCY THERE. ON THE TRANSMISSION SIDE, THEY ALSO OFFER REALTIME OPERATIONS VISIBILITY TO ERCOT THROUGH THE, THE REALTIME TELEMETRY OF THE GENERATOR. SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S A PREMIUM, RIGHT? ERCOT HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN KNOWING WHAT'S HAPPENING IN REAL TIME WITH THESE LARGE LOADS, CERTAINLY AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, THIS GROWTH PERIOD. AND, UH, AS THEY'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, THE NEED TO HAVE NEW, UH, FLEXIBILITY AND OPERATIONAL TOOLS. SO I THINK THAT'S A, A HIGH VALUE ADD FEATURE THAT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO UNDERSCORE. UM, AND THEN ON TOP OF ALL THAT, THOSE THINGS HAVE ALWAYS, ALWAYS EXISTED WITH NET METER ARRANGEMENTS WITH EXISTING GENERATORS, BUT SENATE BILL SIX ADDED ANOTHER PIECE. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF ADVOCACY ON, ON, YOU KNOW, THE, THE RELATIVE MERITS OF IT. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, SENATE BILL SIX ADDS CURTAILMENT, UH, UH, OF LOAD [04:50:01] CAPABILITIES FOR THE COMMISSION TO IMPOSE OR CRITERIA TO BE MET. UM, AND CAPACITY AVAILABILITY CRITERIA, RIGHT? THOSE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE INCLUDED. IT'S, IT'S PART OF STATUTE. AND SO AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS AND THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS OF THE NEXT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN ASK FOR A BETTER SET OF LOADS TO PRIORITIZE ALL ELSE EQUAL. IF YOU HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF LOADS TO LOOK AT, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WILL OFFER YOU ALL THE BEST FEATURES TO TRY TO PUT FIRST IN THE QUEUE IF YOU HAD TO CHOOSE. AND THERE'S GONNA BE SO MUCH MORE LOAD GROWTH THAT COMES, BUT AT LEAST THAT WAY YOU CAN GET OFF ON A FLEXIBLE FOOT AND HAVE TIME TO BUILD INTO WHAT COMES NEXT. UM, WHICH I THINK WE ALL, WE ALL SEE, AND WE'RE ALL HOPEFUL THAT THAT WILL BE A CONTINUED PATH OF PROSPERITY FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS. UM, WE JUST THINK THIS IS A, THIS IS A GROUPING THAT IS, OFFERS ADDITIONAL VALUE THAT WE, WE OUGHT TO JUST GIVE A GOOD FAIR SHAPE TO. SO, UM, FIRST OFF, I WANNA APPLAUD THE COMMISSION IN, IN ADDRESSING THE INFLIGHT NET METERING ARRANGEMENT APPLICATIONS. THAT'S A, THAT'S A GOOD MOVE. AND THAT COVERS, UH, A NUMBER OF THEM THAT ARE ALREADY ALREADY UNDERWAY. WHAT VISTA'S COMMENTS HERE FOCUS ON, AND I WANT TO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS 'CAUSE I'VE GOTTEN SOME, SOME CONFUSION ABOUT IT AND WANNA BE CLEAR, THESE ADDRESS THE, THE NET METER ARRANGEMENTS THAT HAVE YET TO COME. THEY HAVEN'T FILED THEIR APPLICATIONS YET. THEY MAY BE LIKE, IN, IN THE SAME EXACT BUCKET BILL JUST DESCRIBED. THEY'RE IN ITEM SIX, THEY'VE GOT STUDIES COMING, THEY'RE NOT SURE IF THEY'RE GONNA GET APPROVED, AND THEY MAY BE RUNNING UP AGAINST THAT DEADLINE, OR MAYBE THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THEIR STUDIES GOING AND BECAUSE BATCH ZERO'S BEEN SITTING HERE, IT'S BEEN HARD TO GET THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, GET THE PARTIES MOVING ON THE BIGGER ONE 15 PROCESS. I THINK BOTH OF THOSE THINGS EXIST, AND THERE MAY BE OTHERS THAT JUST HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE COMING DOWN THE LINE. AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT BATCH ZERO BASICALLY DRIVING WHAT CAN INTERCONNECT IN 2028, WELL THAT'S THE BEGINNING OF THE REAL INFLECTION POINT IN LOAD GROWTH. AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE OUGHT TO BE TRYING TO FOCUS GETTING THAT FLEXIBILITY, UM, OVER THE NEAR TERM. UM, YOU KNOW, BILL, I KNOW WE'VE, WE'VE DISAGREED ON, ON LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE PIECE. IT'S NOT BECAUSE FLEXIBILITY IS NOT, UH, IS NOT HELPFUL. A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE. IT IS. AND, AND LIKE I'VE SAID BEFORE, IF THAT'S COMING IN IN A WAY THAT IS, YOU KNOW, ALIGNED WITH THE MARKET, THAT'S GREAT. THIS IS JUST A BIGGER WAY, THIS IS A BIGGER TOOL, A BIGGER LEVER TO ACHIEVE THAT SAME OUTCOME. AND, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT AS THE BACKGROUND, UM, YOU KNOW, VISTA'S COMMENTS, THEY REALLY REITERATE. AND COREY, IF YOU CAN SCROLL DOWN TO THE SUMMARY AT THE, AT THE BOTTOM, THAT'S PROBABLY THE FASTEST WAY TO HIT THIS. UM, THERE'S FOUR THINGS THAT WE REITERATE REITERATED FROM OUR MAY 6TH COMMENTS, AND THOSE ARE THOSE FIRST FOUR ITEMS. UM, THAT'S, UH, ONE IS JUST FOR THE EXISTING NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS, UH, THAT HAVE, HAVE FILED ALREADY. THERE'S THE PROVISION THAT THEY HAVE TO SATISFY SECTION 9.7 REQUIREMENTS. JUST WANT TO TRY, WANTED TO TRY TO CREATE SOME, UH, ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY, LET THEM COVER THAT THROUGH THE NET METERING ARRANGEMENT PROCEEDING. UM, ITEM TWO, THAT'S THE ONE THAT REALLY GETS AT WHAT, WHAT I'VE JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT IS IF THERE'S A LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH A KNOWN LARGE LOAD THAT IS GOING TO BE CO-LOCATED WITH AN EXISTING GENERATOR, GO AHEAD AND PUT IT IN THE BATCH ZERO STUDY LOAD THAT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T FULLY ADDRESS THE TIMING ISSUES THAT I KNOW I'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, AND I KNOW OTHERS HAVE, HAVE CHIMED IN ON, BUT AT LEAST YOU'RE PUTTING YOUR BEST FOOT FORWARD IN TERMS OF GETTING THAT MOST FLEXIBLE AND MOST TRANSPARENT AND MOST TRANSMISSION EFFICIENT. UM, LOAD ON THE SYSTEM FIRST GIVES IT A SHOT. UH, THE THIRD ITEM IS, HAS TO DO WITH THE TIMING OF THE SYSTEM PROTECTION SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT BATCH ZERO CHANGES THINGS, YOU KNOW, YOU GET THROUGH THE BATCH ZERO PROCESS, THEN YOU HAVE WHAT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE A 60 DAY WINDOW FOR THE COMMITMENT PERIOD. AND THEN ANOTHER 30 DAYS AFTER THAT IS WHEN THE SYSTEM PROTECTION SHORT CIRCUIT ANALYSIS IS DUE. AND THEN ERCOT IS PROBABLY GONNA HAVE TO HAVE TO APPROVE IT AND THEN GIVE THEM THE, THE WAY THAT THE COMMISSIONS RULE CAME OUT. THEN YOU START THE PROCESS AT THE COMMISSION OF NOTIFYING ERCOT AND THEN GOING THROUGH THE 120 DAY STUDY WITH ERCOT AND 60 DAY, UH, PROCESS AT THE, AT THE COMMISSION. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT STACK UP FOR THESE NET MEETING ARRANGEMENTS. AND SO THIS IS ONE LITTLE THING THAT WOULD MAYBE HELP MOVE THAT UP, THAT PROCESS A LITTLE BIT FASTER IS TO SAY IT STILL HAS TO BE DONE, BUT IT'S NOT A PREREQUISITE TO GETTING, GETTING THE PROCESS GOING. UM, SO THAT, THAT'S THAT ONE. AND THEN, UH, I KNOW WE'VE ALSO BEEN HIGHLIGHTING, YOU KNOW, JUST HAVING THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS BOTH INTERCONNECTING TSPS AND DSPS. THIS WAS ONE THAT I THINK ERCOT COVERED MOST OF 'EM, THIS ONE WAS LEFT, AND SO WE JUST FLAGGED IT IN THERE AS A WAY TO, UM, JUST COVER ALL THE, ALL THE PLACES WHERE WE SAW BOTH. AND THEN THESE LAST TWO ON THE LIST, THESE [04:55:01] ARE NEW, THESE ARE ACTUALLY, UH, IN, IN RESPONSE TO, UH, LANGUAGE THAT WERE IN ERCOT COMMENTS FROM MONDAY NIGHT. UM, THE FIRST ONE UP HERE IS DOWN IN, UH, 9 2 1 5. UM, THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE THAT I, I THINK ERCOT PUT IN THAT WAS OVERALL HELPFUL. THE LAST SENTENCE IN THAT PARAGRAPH THOUGH SAYS THE, THE LILLI STUDY CAN OWN, CAN BE USED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE, THE SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY. UH, DON'T DISAGREE THAT THAT'S WHAT ERCOT INTENDS TO USE, BUT SOLELY SEEMED LIKE THAT WAS PERHAPS OVERLY RESTRICTIVE. THERE MAY BE OTHER USE CASES THAT EITHER THE TSP OR ERCOT OR THE COMMISSION HAS FOR IT AND DIDN'T NEED TO OVERLY RESTRICT THAT. SO WE, WE SUGGESTED STRIKING SOLELY. AND THEN, UM, THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO THE PUCS RULE THERE AND EVERYWHERE ELSE IT SEEMS LIKE THEY, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO P 39 1 6 9 INSTEAD, WHICH IS THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE STRONGER CITATION. SO WE SUGGESTED DOING THAT TO BE CONSISTENT AND AVOID ANY POTENTIAL CONFUSION ABOUT, UM, WHETHER THERE'S A, A DIFFERENCE IN, IN APPLICABILITY. UH, AND THEN THIS LAST ONE ON THE LIST, UM, SO IN THIS NEW PARAGRAPH, WHICH IS, UH, PARAGRAPH FOUR OF 9.2 0.2 ERCOT SAYING THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WILL BE INCLUDED TO BE STUDIED IN BACTERIA. YOU'VE GOT STANDALONE LARGE LOADS, YOU HAVE PCL R AND WL PUNS, AND I SUSPECT THAT ERCOT INTENT WAS THAT NET METER ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE EXISTING GENERATORS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE STANDALONE, UH, LARGE LOADS THERE. BUT GIVEN THE, THERE, THERE'S CERTAINLY SOME HISTORY WITH THE WORD STANDALONE IN THIS SPACE. AND SO, UM, WE THOUGHT IT WAS PROBABLY WISE TO JUST GO AHEAD AND STATE ALSO NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS WITH EXISTING GENERATORS SUBJECT TO PIER 39, 1 69 AS THINGS THAT CAN ALSO BE STUDIED IN THE BATCH PROCESS. UM, SO THAT'S THE SHORT LAYOUT. UM, HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS HERE, OTHER THOUGHTS? UM, OKAY. THANK YOU FOR LAYING THOSE OUT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR NED? UH, I ACTUALLY HAVE ONE QUESTION. ARE THESE IDENTICAL TO THE RED LINES YOU FILED ON THE SIXTH THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT ROSS, OR IS THERE SOMETHING DIFFERENT HERE? THEY ARE LARGELY IDENTICAL. UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE NARRATIVE IS OBVIOUSLY, UH, DIFFERENT. THE, UM, THE FIRST FOUR SHOULD BE IDENTICAL, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS IN THE SECOND BULLET, SO IN 9.2 0.2, PARAGRAPH TWO, UM, WE'D ALWAYS INTENDED THAT TO SPECIFY IT'S FOR THE NET METER ARRANGEMENTS NOT IN BASE LOAD. SO WE ADDED THAT TO BE CLEAR, WE HAD HAD THAT IN THE NARRATIVE BEFORE BUT HAD MISSED THAT IN THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE. SO I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THERE. THE REST OF THEM ARE THE SAME. AND THEN THOSE LAST TWO BULLETS ARE NEW BECAUSE IT'S RESPONSIVE TO NEW, NEW TEXTS SINCE MONDAY NIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW, AND IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY ALREADY, SO I SUGGEST WE TRY TO COME TO A, A WRAPPING POINT HERE. UM, YOU KNOW, THANKS TO ALL OF YOU CAME AND BROUGHT CONTEXT AND COMMENTS TO THESE ISSUES. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN TAKING INVENTORY OF WHERE WE ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE KIND OF SEEING THE SAME ISSUES BEING RAISED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, REALLY THE PAST THREE TO FOUR WEEKS. AND WE'VE HAD A LOT OF EXTENSIVE DEBATE ON THOSE TODAY, PARTICULARLY RPG ONE, WHICH I THINK WAS PAINFUL YET CONSTRUCTIVE IN SOME RESPECTS. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TRIED TO CREATE A FORUM TODAY TO TALK THROUGH THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE GETTING KIND OF REPEATED HITS AT ROSS LAST WEEK WHEN THE AND NPRR WERE VOTED OUT THERE. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE MADE OUR WAY THROUGH THIS LIST. AND SO I GUESS THE IDEA FROM HERE IS TO TAKE THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU'VE HEARD HERE TODAY FOR THE SEATED TAC REPS AND USE THAT DISCUSSION TO HELP INFORM YOUR VOTE NEXT WEEK. UM, WE ARE AT THE FINAL STAGES OF THIS, THE LAST MEETING, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CALL IT ONE MEETING OR TWO MEETINGS, BUT IT'S TUESDAY AND POTENTIALLY WEDNESDAY OF NEXT WEEK ARE THE LAST SCHEDULED TAC MEETINGS BEFORE THE JUNE BOARD. AND SO WE WILL NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON PGA 1 45 AND NPR 1325 EITHER TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY OF NEXT WEEK. SO ERCOT HAS SAID THAT THEY'LL BE FILING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. IDEALLY, I THINK I HEARD LATER THIS WEEK POTENTIALLY, UM, WHAT I HEARD WAS SORT OF TWO THINGS THERE. THERE WERE SOME CLARIFICATIONS AND ERATA, AT LEAST THAT'S HOW I WOULD DESCRIBE IT, THAT THEY WERE ALREADY PLANNING TO CLEAN UP. AND THEN TO THE EXTENT THEY DECIDE TO MAKE OTHER CHANGES BASED ON TOPICS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED HERE TODAY, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY ALSO IN THEIR PURVIEW TO DO, UH, THOUGH, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW THAT WE KNOW TODAY WHAT THOSE LOOK LIKE FROM A TAX STANDPOINT. SO, YOU [05:00:01] KNOW, I THINK THE BEST APPROACH FOR NEXT WEEK IS WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO START TAKING UP AND DOWN VOTES ON COMMENTS THAT ARE FILED. WE KNOW WE'LL HAVE THE ERCOT COMMENTS, AND THEN TO THE EXTENT THAT ANYBODY ELSE DECIDES TO FILE RED LINES ON TOP OF THEIRS, THOSE WOULD ALSO BE CANDIDATES. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WITH THE DEBATES THAT WE'VE HAD, UH, THEY'VE BEEN VERY INFORMATIVE, BUT THE ONLY WAY TO REALLY GET A RESOLUTION AT THIS POINT IS THROUGH OUR VOTING PROCESS. SO BE BE PREPARED FOR THAT TUESDAY. WE ALSO HAVE OTHER REGULAR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TUESDAY. I THINK THE OTHER SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS, AT LEAST IN AN ABBREVIATED FORMAT ARE ON THERE. AND, UM, THE FIVE RPG PROJECTS THAT, UH, HAVE COME THROUGH RPG THIS PAST MONDAY. SO IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE A FULL TWO DAYS WOULD BE MY EXPECTATION. UM, AND, UH, I'LL TAKE THE REMAINING FOLKS IN THE QUEUE HERE AND THEN WE'LL TRY TO WRAP UP THE MEETING. MICHAEL JEWEL. YEAH, THANK YOU MARTHA. UM, MICHAEL JEWEL, THIS IS JUST A, A GENERAL QUESTION. UM, INTERSECT USA FILED SOME INTERESTING COMMENTS, AND ONE OF WHICH WAS ASKING ABOUT THE PROPORTIONAL RESIZING OF A, UH, WL PUN, AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF ARCOT HAS ANY THOUGHTS WITH REGARD TO THE THAT ISSUE OR NOT. MICHAEL, CAN YOU REMIND ME THAT ISSUE? UH, THE QUESTION THAT THEY WERE RAISING WAS, UH, RIGHT NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT 9.4 0.2, UH, FIVE B, THAT IF THE GENERATION IS REDUCED, UH, THAT THAT MEAN IN A, UH, IN A, UH, BYOG, THAT IF, IF IT'S REDUCED, THEN THE LOAD IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BATCH PROCESS. WHAT ON THESE COMMENTS, WHAT THEY RAISED IS, WHAT IF THERE WAS A MOVE BY THE LOAD AND THE GENERATION TO REDUCE PROPORTIONATELY TOGETHER? IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? YEAH, I, SO I, HERE'S WHAT I WANT TO, I WANNA THINK ABOUT THAT IS THAT I THINK THERE ARE OTHER STUDY IMPLICATIONS THERE. UM, I I WILL ALSO SAY, UM, AND I HATE TO DO THIS, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS IS, THIS WOULD NOT BE CONSEQUENTIAL UNTIL NEXT YEAR. OKAY. UM, SO I, I MIGHT JUST GIVEN THE TIME CRUNCH HERE AND, AND I, I WOULD WANT TO TALK THROUGH THIS WITH OUR OPERATIONS FOLKS, AND I JUST DON'T KNOW IF, IF I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO DO THAT THIS WEEK, I, I MIGHT PUNT THIS, UM, TO THE SUBSEQUENT REVISION REQUEST. OKAY. IF, IF WE DECIDE THAT THAT COULD BE ALLOWABLE. I, I, I THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH HOW WE HAVE IT RIGHT NOW, BUT I, I UNDERSTAND THE ASK AND, AND I WOULD NEED TO GET SOME MORE COMFORTER ON THAT. OKAY. AND THEN IF THERE WAS A, UM, IS THERE A PATH IF, IF A, UH, WL PUN HAS BEEN GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THEN FOR SOME REASON, UM, THE GEN, UH, WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW UP, BUT THE LOAD WAS WILLING TO ABIDE BY WHAT ERCOT HAD IDENTIFIED AS ITS RAMP, WOULD THAT BE, DO THEY AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO GET, UH, PULLED OUT OF THE BATCH PROCESS OR ARE THEY ABLE TO JUST STICK WITH WHAT HAD SAID, THIS IS WHAT YOU COULD RELIABLY SERVE? UM, I THINK WE NEED TO, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE. I THINK WE HAD SOME INITIAL DISCOMFORT WITH THAT. UM, I'M, I'M WILLING TO CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION, BUT I, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A POST 1 45 DISCUSSION. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANKS MARK. MM-HMM . BILL, I WASN'T IN FOR THIS, BUT I AGREE WITH MICHAEL JEWEL THAT INTERSECT COMMENTS AS I'LL HAVE A LOT OF INTERESTING IDEAS FOR BYOG AND WL PUN THAT I THINK WOULD BE GOOD FOR BATCH ONE AND LATER THAT WE SHOULD, UH, KIND OF TEE UP FOR LATER. UM, I WOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO JEOPARDIZE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WL PUN CONCEPT IN BATCH ZERO. MY QUESTION WAS, JEFF, AND MAYBE WE JUST NEED TO WAIT, IS, I KNOW ERCOT ISS PLANNING TO FILE CLEANUP COMMENTS. ARE THERE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT ERCOT PLANS TO INCLUDE IN PICKER 1 45 OR 1325? OR IS JUST, WE JUST NEED TO WAIT AND SEE? I, NO, I, I, I THINK WE WANT TO TAKE BACK WHAT WE HEARD TODAY. BEFORE I ANSWER THAT, I, I THINK, UM, NED HAD A COUPLE OF POINTS. I DON'T KNOW HOW SUBSTANTIVE THEY ARE, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, ON, ON THE 9 5 1 1 ON THE INTERCONNECTING TSP THING, THAT I THINK THAT'S MORE THAN JUST A, [05:05:01] IT MORE THAN JUST AN ADA THING, BUT IT'S, IT NOT SUPER SUBSTANTIVE. AND ALSO I UNDERSTAND HIS POINT ABOUT THE STANDALONE. UM, I THINK THE MOST, UM, SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE WOULD BE IF, IF WE WENT WITH, UM, I THINK BLAKE'S PROPOSAL. UM, I, I'M NOT, I THINK WE, WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT IF THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO. UM, OKAY. SO I, I I THINK WE JUST NEED TO, TRYING TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD TODAY. YEAH. THAT I THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK AND, AND, AND, AND DISCUSS. UM, THOSE ARE THE ONES OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I KNOW EVAN IS, UM, AND CHRISTINE ARE, ARE, HAVE CAPTURED A LIST. UM, WE'LL WE WILL GO AND TALK ABOUT THOSE THINGS, BUT I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA CHANGE ANY MAJOR CONCEPTS. UM, IT, IT IS JUST MORE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE HEARD DISCUSSION TODAY, TRYING TO RESPOND TO THAT. OKAY. GREAT. THANKS. OKAY. UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR NEXT STEPS AND WHAT NEXT WEEK IS GONNA LOOK LIKE? YEAH, ERIC, SO YOU ASKED FOR COMMENTS TO BE ON TOP OF THE ORCA COMMENTS. DID I? OKAY. I THINK SO. AND SO JUST THE TIMING OF ALL THAT MIGHT JUST BE DIFFICULT. SO, UM, WE, WE MIGHT NEED SOME HELP ON MARKET RULES IN ORDER TO COORDINATE SOMETHING IF THERE'S LIKE SHIPS PASSING EACH OTHER DURING THE NIGHT WHEN COMMENTS BEING FILED. YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S FAIR. YEAH, BUT THE TIMELINE IS VERY SHORT. I MEAN, IT'S EFFECTIVELY THREE BUSINESS DAYS FROM TODAY. UM, SO I THINK IT'S VERY HELPFUL THAT ERCOT IS TRYING TO GET THEIR NEXT COMMENTS OUT THIS WEEK. BUT TO YOUR POINT, ERIC, THAT DOESN'T LEAVE A LOT OF TIME, BUT WE'RE AT THE END OF THE ROPE IN TERMS OF MEETINGS AND VOTING OPPORTUNITIES. SO I JUST DID WANNA FLAG THAT ONE MORE TIME FOR PEOPLE. UM, WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE NEXT TUESDAY, IDEALLY WEDNESDAY AT THE VERY LATEST. OKAY. UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS FOR THE GROUP BEFORE WE WRAP UP FOR TODAY? OKAY, WE WILL SEE EVERYBODY ON TUESDAY AT NINE 30. THANK YOU. * 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.