* 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. [00:00:05] ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS SUZIE CLIFTON WITH ERCOT. IF YOU'RE ON THE WEBEX, COULD YOU CONFIRM? YOU CAN HEAR ME OKAY. WE GOT YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED IN THE ROOM. UH, IF I COULD PLEASE ASK ALL OF YOU IN THE ROOM STANDING AROUND TALKING, WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS? THANK YOU. WE'RE TRYING TO GET STARTED AND THERE'S JUST A LOT OF CROSSTALK. SO, UM, VERY QUICKLY, WHILE EVERYBODY'S TAKING THEIR SEATS, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE MEETING REMINDERS. IF YOU ARE HERE TODAY AND IN THE MEETING ROOM AND A VOTING REPRESENTATIVE, YOU CAN HOLD YOUR CARD UP AND ELIZABETH MORALES IS OVER HERE IN THE CORNER OF THE ROOM. SHE WILL ENTER YOU INTO THE CHAT, UM, OR YOU CAN ENTER YOURSELF IF YOU'RE IN THE MEETING ROOM. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU'RE ON THE WEBEX, YOU WILL NEED TO ENTER YOURSELF. AND WE DO ASK THAT EVERYONE WAIT FOR THE CHAIR TO RECOGNIZE YOU BEFORE YOU BEGIN SPEAKING. AND THEN IF YOU'RE A VOTING TAX REPRESENTATIVE. AND ON THE WEBEX, AS WE APPROACH YOUR SEGMENT, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU UNMUTE YOURSELF. AND THEN AFTER YOU CAST YOUR VOTE, PLEASE RETURN TO THE MUTE FUNCTION. UH, IF YOU'RE HERE TODAY, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU COMPLETE THE SIGN IN SHEET OUTSIDE THIS MEETING ROOM SO WE CAN CAPTURE YOU FOR THE MEETING MINUTES AS BEING HERE ACTUALLY IN PERSON. IF THE WEBEX ENDS FOR ANY REASON, GIVE US JUST A FEW MOMENTS TO RESTART THE WEBEX. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO LOG IN WITH THE SAME MEETING DETAILS, AND IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THAT WEBEX, WE WILL SEND SOMETHING TO THE TACT LIST SERVE. AND WITH THAT, CAITLIN, WE DO HAVE A QUO AND READY TO BEGIN. UH, IF WE COULD PLEASE ASK EVERYBODY IN THE MEETING ROOM TO MAKE SURE YOUR MIC IS MUTED. DID WE GET IT? YES. OKAY. ARE WE READY? GOOD MORNING. IT'S MAY 19TH. THIS IS OUR, UH, REGULARLY SCHEDULED SORT OF TA MAY TECH MEETING. WE ARE IN PERSON. [1. Antitrust Admonition] UH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THE ANTITRUST. TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT ANTITRUST LIABILITY. PARTICIPANTS IN ERCOT ACTIVITIES SHOULD REFRAIN FROM PROPOSING ANY ACTIONARY MEASURE THAT WOULD EXCEED ER CO'S AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. AND THERE'S MORE INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE ALT REPS AND PROXIES TODAY. UM, IN THE CONSUMER SEGMENT IN THE RESIDENT FOR RESIDENTIAL, CONSUMER WILL HAS AT THE, AT OPEC HAS ALT REP SARAH KEMP, UM, AND THE COMMERCIAL CONSUMER. NICK BECK IS GIVING HIS PROXY TO MARK DREYFUS AT 1:00 PM IN THE COOPERATIVE SEGMENT. MIKE WISE FROM GOLDEN SPREAD HAS ALT REP JOE DAN WILSON, AND THE INDEPENDENT POWER MARKETER SEGMENT. UM, SMIA AT SHELL HAS ALT REP SHANE THOMAS IN THE IRE SEGMENT. JAY HARPO AT APG AND E HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO BILL BARNES IN THE IOU SEGMENT, EBY, JOHN HAS ALT REP DAVID BLANKENSHIP. AND IN THE MUNICIPAL SEGMENT, DAVID KEY HAS ALT REP DIANA COLEMAN FOR CPS. ALRIGHT, FOUR AGENDA TODAY. I THINK I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS TWICE. UM, SO WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE RPG PROJECTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA TODAY. WE HAVE A TWO HOUR WINDOW SCHEDULED. UM, HOPEFULLY IT WILL NOT TAKE TWO HOURS, BUT THIS IS MOSTLY SO WE COULD MAKE SURE OUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS FROM EACH TSP COULD BE HERE. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TAKE UP TO TWO HOURS. HOPEFULLY WE WILL NOT, MAYBE WE'LL TAKE LONGER, BUT WE WILL SEE. WE WILL TAKE THOSE RPG PROJECTS UP IN ORDER AFTER THAT. I THINK IT'LL BE PROBABLY A GOOD TIME FOR A FIVE TO 10 MINUTE BREAK. UM, AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE ON WITH OUR AGENDA AS IT'S LAID OUT ON THE WEBSITE. ONE SWITCH, WE WILL TAKE UP THE A DR PILOT BEFORE THE COMBO BI COMBO BALLOT BECAUSE THERE IS A VOTING ITEM ON THAT. UM, IDEALLY WE GET THROUGH ALL VOTING ITEMS BEFORE LUNCH. WE COME BACK FROM LUNCH, RUN THROUGH THE ERCOT REPORTS, AND ARE READY TO START BATCH REVISION REQUEST, UH, BY TWO. I WOULD LIKE TO GET THROUGH THE COMMENTS FILE TODAY FOR THE BATCH REVISION REQUESTS. IF WE'RE READY TO TAKE A VOTE, THEN GREAT. IF WE WANT TO GO HOME, PET DOGS, DRINK WINE, WHATEVER, AND COME BACK TOMORROW. GREAT. ALSO, MY EXPECTATION IS THAT WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE TOMORROW, BUT THAT WE WILL FINISH BEFORE LUNCH. SO I'LL REPEAT MYSELF JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR. OUR RPG PROJECTS FIRST AGENDA IS PLANNED. THE ONE SWITCH IS A, A SMALL SWITCH, A DR PILOT BEFORE THE COMBO BALLOT. SO WE HAVE VOTING ITEMS TAKEN UP. PROBABLY START BATCH ITEMS, [00:05:01] DEFINITELY AFTER LUNCH, PROBABLY BETWEEN ONE AND TWO. TRY TO GET THROUGH ALL THE COMMENTS FILED TODAY. HOPEFULLY WRAP UP TODAY. DEFINITELY WRAP UP BY LUNCH TOMORROW. ARE WE GOOD? OKAY. UH, THEME OF THE MONTH IS STILL CLOSURE. AND, UH, THE RICHARD ROSS THEME OF THE MONTH THAT WE DIDN'T ADD LAST MONTH OR LAST WEEK WAS CROSSING THE RUBICON. I DID HAVE TO LOOK THAT UP. IT'S LIKE A NAPOLEON. YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU CROSS THAT RIVER, YOU CAN'T GO BACK. I'M SURE PEOPLE ARE MORE EDUCATED THAN I AM, BUT FEEL FREE TO USE EITHER BOTH JULIUS CAESAR, NAPOLEON. I LOOKED IT UP AND IT WENT BYE BYE. SO I TOLD NED LAST NIGHT THAT I HAVE A REALLY GOOD MEMORY, BUT, UH, I, I USED TO BEFORE I HAD A CHILD, SO, ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON WITH OUR AGENDA. UM, IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ABOUT AGENDA, ORDER OR QUOTES THAT I AM GETTING WRONG, ALL RIGHT. USUALLY [2. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)] FIRST ARE MINUTES. UM, APRIL MINUTES ARE NOT READY FOR VOTE. WE'RE GONNA POSTPONE THOSE TO JULY AND JULY. WE'LL HAVE THREE SETS OF MINUTES. UH, SO WE'LL HAVE APRIL 29TH, MAY 13TH, AND TODAY, TOMORROW. SO THAT WILL BE A LOT OF WORK FOR SUSIE AND NED TO READ OVERNIGHT JULY 28TH. UM, BUT, BUT THERE WE ARE. UM, NOW WE'RE ONTO OUR MEETING UPDATES. PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON, UH, BOARD AND PUC OPEN MEETINGS. WE HAVEN'T [3. Meeting Updates] HAD ANY ERUPT BOARD MEETINGS. WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY PUC MEETINGS WHERE REVISION REQUESTS ARE, HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP. I BELIEVE THE APRIL ERUPT BOARD REVISION REQUESTS WILL BE TAKEN UP AT THE, THE END OF THE MONTH OF THE PC OPEN MEETING. IKA, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD FOR US? YEAH, I HAVE ONE QUICK UPDATE. WE JUST FILED A REQUESTING COMMENTS IN PROJECT 5 9 7 7 2 REGARDING T'S LOAD FORECAST ADJUSTMENT PROCESS. AND THE COMMENTS ARE DUE JUNE 1ST AND COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER IT AT THE JUNE 18 OPEN MEETING. WE ALSO FILED ANOTHER MEMO REQUESTING COMMENTS IN 5 5 9 9 9, UH, ASKING FOR COMMENTS OR CUTS TO GOOD CAUSE, EXCEPTIONS FOR THE TRANSMISSION PLAN AND CDR. PLEASE FILE COMMENTS, BUT MAKE SURE PLEASE, THEY'RE NOT EXTREMELY LONG. WE DON'T HAVE A LIMIT, BUT, UH, YEAH, THE DEADLINE IS AGAIN, JUNE 1ST. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I, OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR IKA? ALL RIGHT. [4. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions] NEXT, WE'RE ON TO ANN WITH OUR REVIEW OF REVISION REQUEST SUMMARIES OR CROP MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS. THERE WAS A QUESTION FOR IKA. I'M SORRY. OH, OKAY. BILL, MY CARD WAS UP IN TIME. WHAT'S UP, BILL? UH, QUESTION ON THE LOAD FORECAST ADJUSTMENT. UH, IT LOOKS LIKE THE TIMING, UH, IS GONNA BE PUSHED OUT TO MAYBE AUGUST FOR A FINAL DECISION ON WHAT THE ADJUSTMENTS WOULD LOOK LIKE. I ASSUME THAT IS GONNA ALSO PUSH BACK THE RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT. MOST LIKELY. THAT'S WHY WE ARE WAITING COMMISSION TO DECIDE ON THE LOAD FORECAST AFTER THAT STAFF WILL FIRE REVISED TIMELINE FOR THE RELIABILITY STANDARD. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM THIS TIME. OKAY. OKAY. NOW WE CAN GO TO ANN WITH OUR REVIEW OF REVISION REQUEST SUMMARIES OR CUT MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS. OKAY. UH, THIS IS ANNE. UM, WE HAVE SEVEN REVISION REQUESTS FOR T CONSIDERATION THIS MONTH. REASONS FOR REVISION. UM, FIVE OF THEM ARE IN THAT GENERAL SYSTEM PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS, AND THEN TWO ARE IN STRATEGIC PLAN. OBJECTIVE ONE, UM, IMPACTS TO NOTE ARE JUST PGR 1 45, HAVING THAT 300 TO 400 K BUDGETARY IMPACT AND THEN THE 3.6 TO 4.5 MILLION ANNUAL RECURRING O AND M. UM, ERCOT IS IN SUPPORT OF ALL OF THE REVISION REQUESTS AND HAS PROVIDED POSITIVE MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS. THE IMM HAS NO OPINION ON ANY OF THE REVISION REQUESTS BEING CONSIDERED TODAY. AND THE NPRS HAVE NO CREDIT IMPLICATIONS. OKAY. ANYTHING FOR ANNE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE. YEP. I JUST POINT OUT WE'RE NOT PROJECTING THIS SCREEN ON THE, ON THE VIDEO BROADCAST. OKAY. WE'VE GOT THE ROOM, BUT NOT THE SCREEN. WE HAVE THE ROOM ON THE WEBEX, BUT NOT THE, OR ON THE SWAG. YOU SEE IT? [00:10:05] WELL, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, BOB? BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ROOM. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SWAG, THE SLIDE THAT'S NOT SHOWING ON THE BROADCAST? ON THE, THE SWAG. THE SWAG BROADCAST. OKAY. AND YOU GUYS ARE ON THE WEBEX? YEAH. YEAH. 'CAUSE THEY HAVE THE, THE ROOM. OKAY. IS THERE A SWAG BROADCAST ISSUE WE NEED TO RESOLVE? UM, GIMME JUST A FEW MINUTES TO FIND HIM. OKAY. CAN WE MOVE, CAN WE KEEP GOING? YES. OKAY, LET'S KEEP GOING. UM, BECAUSE THE, THE WEBEX IS WORKING THE SCREEN ON THE SWAG, IT'S NOT WORKING. ALL RIGHT, LET'S [5. Regional Planning Group (RPG) Projects (Possible Vote)] GO TO RPG. UM, SO EVEN IF WE DECIDE TO PUT A PROJECT ON THE COMBO BALLOT, LET'S PAUSE AFTER EACH PROJECT AND DECIDE WHAT TO DO. UM, SO LET'S GO TO BU AND WE WILL TAKE THESE UP IN ORDER. SO LET'S GO TO THE FIRST PROJECT. COULD Y'ALL CHECK YOUR MICS, PLEASE? MAKE SURE YOUR MICS ARE ALL MUTED EXCEPT FOR THE FRONT MORNING EVERYONE. UH, ANA MECO. UM, I HAVE FIVE RPG PROJECTS TO GO THROUGH THIS MORNING AND TRY TO GET YOUR COMMENTS AND FEEDBACKS AND POTENTIAL, UH, ENDORSEMENT TO THE BOARD. UM, I'LL START WITH THE FIRST PROJECT. THAT'S THE CPS ENERGY COMBINED REACTIVE PLANNING PROJECT. AND THE LOTUS 3 45 1 38 KV SWITCHING STATION AND AUTO TRANSFORMER EDITION TO THE EAST SIDE SWITCHING STATION PROJECTS. THAT'S, THAT'S QUITE A HANDFUL. OKAY, SO THIS IS A PROJECT SUBMITTED BY, UH, CPS. UH, THIS WAS SUBMITTED, UH, FOR RPG REVIEW IN MAY OF 2025. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THIS RPG PROJECT IS TO ADDRESS, UH, ISSUES IN THE CPS AREA, PRIMARILY VOLTAGE AND THERMAL ISSUES. UM, THIS IS A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN TWO PROJECTS. C PS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED TWO TIER ONE PROJECTS LISTED HERE. UM, THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE FIRST PROJECT IS $116.5 MILLION. THE SECOND ONE IS $110 MILLION. UM, THIS IS PRIMARILY TO ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY ISSUES IN THE BEAR COUNTY. UM, ERCOT DECIDED TO CONDUCT A SINGLE INDEPENDENT REVIEW CONSIDERING ALL THE RELIABILITY ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE AREA. WE, WE COMBINED THOSE TWO PROJECTS. SO HERE'S THE OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT NEED. UM, BASED ON THE LAB ANALYSIS, WE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL VOLTAGE ISSUES, UH, THERMAL ISSUES ON 1 38, 3 45 KV LINES. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE WERE ALSO LIKE, UM, UNSOLVED POWER FLOW CONDITIONS, UM, THROUGH, DUE TO THE, YOU KNOW, REACTIVE ISSUES OR THE VOLTAGE ISSUES IN THE AREA. TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, ERCOT, UM, LOOKED AT FOUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS AMONG THE FOUR OPTIONS. OPTION THREE A ADDRESSES THE PROJECT NEED, AND IT ALSO ADDRESSES THE ERCOT AND THE NERC CRITERIA IMPROVES THE LONG-TERM LOAD SERVING CAPABILITY. AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, THE OPTION THREE A WAS IDENTIFIED AS FEASIBLE, SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED TOO. SO THE TABLE HERE, UH, SIMILAR TO ALL THE OTHER PROJECTS WE'VE DISCUSSED, HIGHLIGHTS THE COMPARISON FOR THE FOUR OPTIONS. UM, AS YOU COULD SEE, OPTION FOUR, UH, THE ESTIMATED COST IS $477 MILLION. I'LL GET INTO THE DETAILS A LITTLE BIT. THE INITIAL COST WAS $238 MILLION. UM, SO IN ADDITION TO THAT, OF COURSE, UH, THIS ADDRESSES THE LONG-TERM LOAD SERVING CAPABILITY, AND THIS WOULD REQUIRE APPROXIMATELY 14.3 MILES OF, UH, NEW RIGHT OF WAY. AND THE ESTIMATED IN-SERVICE DATE FOR ALL THESE PROJECTS IS MAY OF 2031. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROTOCOL, UH, WE ARE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THE SSO IMPACT SUB SYNCHRONOUS OSCILLATION, AND, UH, WE DID RUN THE STUDIES FOR THIS OPTION THREE A. WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY ADVERSE IMPACT, UH, DUE TO SSO. [00:15:01] IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ARE, AS PART OF THE PROTOCOL REQUIREMENTS, OUR PLANNING DATA REQUIREMENTS 3.1 0.3. UH, WE ARE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THE SYSTEM CONGESTION AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. UM, BASED ON THE STUDIES WE PERFORMED FOR SENSITIVE OR CONGESTION ANALYSIS, UH, OPTION THREE EIGHT DID NOT CAUSE ANY ADDITIONAL CONGESTION IN THE STUDY AREA. UM, ALSO THERE IS SENSITIVITY FOR GENERATION AND LOAD SCALING. SO WE LOOKED AT POTENTIAL FUTURE GENERATION SENSITIVITIES, REMOVING THOSE, AND WE DID NOT SEE AN IMPACT ON THE PROJECT. NEED, UH, THE LAST ITEM LOAD SCALING. WE DID NOT PERFORM A LOAD SCALING BECAUSE WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, SCALE THOSE LOADS IN THE BASE BASE CASE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THIS IS A PROJECT DRIVEN BY REACTIVE NEED IN THE AREA. WE PERFORMED A DYNAMIC STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR OPTION THREE A, UM, AND WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY, UH, ADVERSE IMPACT OR ADVERSE ISSUES RELATED TO DYNAMIC STABILITY WITH OPTION THREE A. HERE'S THE OVERALL SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT. UM, BASICALLY THIS IS TO CONVERT THE LOTUS 1 38 TO A 3 45 KV SUBSTATION AND LOOP AND ADJUST 3 45 KV LINES AND INSTALL A 270 MEGAWATT CAP BANK. AND ALSO IN INSTALLED TWO STATCOMS TOTALING 600 MEGAWATTS. UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS 14.3 MILES OF NEW RIGHT OF WAY, UH, APPROXIMATELY 43 MILES OF REBUILT OF 1 38 KV LINES. SO HERE'S THE RECOMMENDATION. SO ERCOT WILL RECOMMEND THE BOARD TO ENDORSE OPTION THREE A TO ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY ISSUES IN BEAR COUNTY AND THE SOUTH CENTRAL WEATHER ZONE. UH, THE EXPECTED INSERVICE DATE FOR THIS UPGRADE IS OCTOBER, 2031. UH, THE ESTIMATED COST IS $477.7 MILLION. AS I SAID, THE INITIAL PROJECT THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY CPS, UH, COMBINED TWO PROJECTS. UH, THE ESTIMATED COST IS $235 MILLION, BUT THERE WERE ADDITIONAL UPGRADES IDENTIFIED, INCLUDING THE NEED FOR A 3 45 KV LINE AND OTHER UPGRADES, UH, WHICH WAS PRIMARILY IDENTIFIED IN THE ERCOT INDEPENDENT REVIEW, UM, BASED ON RELIABILITY VIOLATIONS UNDER PEAK AND MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS. UH, AGAIN, THE HIGHLIGHTED ONE IS THE NEED FOR A CCN FOR THE HILL COUNTRY TO HEIM 3 45 KV LINE ON A DOUBLE CIRCUIT STRUCTURE WITH ONE CIRCUIT IN PLACE. UM, THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 14.3 MILES OF NEW RIGHT OF WAY. HERE'S THE RECOMMENDATION, THE OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT. SO, UM, IT SHOWS ALL THE UPGRADES. PLUS THE DOTTED, UH, GREEN LINE IS THE 3 45 KB LINE FROM HILL COUNTRY TO HEIM. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE LAST SLIDE. SO I'LL PAUSE HERE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS PROJECT. OKAY. UM, DID WE HAVE ANYONE FROM CPS THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS OR DO YOU WANNA WAIT FOR QUESTIONS? WE HAVE TWO FOLKS ONLINE AVAILABLE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. SO JUST LET US KNOW. WE HAVE, UM, MARCUS DE AND DAVID MILNER. OKAY, SO BEFORE I GO TO QUESTION, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? SO, OF COURSE, THE, THE FIVE PROJECTS BEFORE WE BROUGHT IT TO TAC WE STARTED THIS, UH, TAC COMMON PERIOD. SO BASICALLY WHEN WE POSTED THIS PROJECTS, WE OPENED IT FOR A COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, PREPARING FOR THE TAC PRESENTATION. UM, WE DID NOT RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS, BUT AFTER THE COMMENTS PERIOD, DURING, OKAY, I WAS, I WAS GOING TO SIGNIFICANT QUANTITY OF PROJECTS, WE, WE RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT QUALITY, BETH. OKAY, LET, LET ME, LET ME REPHRASE. SO DURING THE COMMENTS PHASE OR THE COMMENTS PERIOD, WE DID NOT RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS, BUT WHEN THE COMMENT PHASE WAS CONCLUDED, WE DID RECEIVE SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS. SO THAT'S WHY YOU, YOU DIDN'T, YOU DIDN'T HAVE A OPPORTUNITY TO, LIKE, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS. SO THERE WERE COMMENTS OUTSIDE THE COMMENTS PERIOD WE OPEN. RIGHT? AND I'M WILLING TO TAKE THOSE COMMENTS NOW AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THAT. OKAY. SORRY. IT'S GOOD POINT. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. SO I THINK, BETH, YOU'VE SENT SOME AROUND, BUT THEY WERE SORT OF AFTER THE COMMENT PERIOD, WHICH, WHICH IS FINE, BUT YOU KNOW, ERCOT DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO TO POST 'EM. SO I THINK WE'LL JUST TAKE YOUR COMMENTS. I I CAN JUST SAY IT OUT LOUD AS PROJECTS COME UP. UM, I THINK WE HAVE NED IN THE QUEUE FIRST, UNLESS YOU'D LIKE TO YIELD, BUT LET'S GO, LET'S GO TO NED AND THEN BETH. OKAY. UM, I THANK YOU PURU. I WANTED TO CONFIRM BECAUSE I APOLOGIZE I MISSED THE COMMENT PERIOD. UM, I [00:20:01] REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST TIME AND I DID NOT SEE THAT COME THROUGH, SO MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT. UM, SO IS THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS A PURELY RELIABILITY BASED PROJECT, NOT A, THIS ISN'T DRIVEN BY ANY PARTICULAR LOAD. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. ALRIGHT. YES. UH, CPS SUBMITTED THIS AS A RELIABILITY PROJECT, EXCLUDING THE PROJECTED LOADS, THE LARGE LOADS IN THE AREA. BUT WHEN WE DID THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW, WE DID ADD THOSE LOADS BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM OTHER TSPS AND PEOPLE WHO PROVIDED THAT FEEDBACK. SO THOSE LOADS WERE ADDED. OKAY. AND WAS THAT, I, I NOTICED ON ONE OF THE SLIDES EARLIER IT MENTIONED, UH, IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS ABOUT 178 MEGAWATTS OF LOAD ADDED. IS THAT THE, IS THAT THE AMOUNT TO CONSIDER? YEAH, THAT THAT IS THE LOAD ADDITIONAL LOAD SERVING CAPABILITY. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS WHATEVER THE BASE LOAD, WE, WE DID A SENSITIVITY TO SEE HOW MUCH MORE LOAD IT CAN ACCOMMODATE. SO THAT'S LIKE THE 178 IS THE INCREMENTAL LOAD ON TOP OF WHAT THE BASE LOAD WAS. OKAY. SO THIS IS, THIS GIVES YOU A SENSE OF HOW MUCH MORE MARGIN YOU HAVE FOR THE PROJECT. OKAY. OKAY. AND SO AT ABOUT 478 MILLION YOU, YOU'RE ABLE TO SUPPORT 178 MEGAWATTS OF ADDITIONAL LOAD? UM, NO. THERE, THERE IS, THERE IS BASE LOAD, RIGHT? THE, THE, THE PROJECT PRIMARILY THE A CPS PROJECT WAS NOT BASED ON THE LARGE LOAD. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S NOT BASED ON IT'S EX, IT'S PROJECTED, YOU KNOW, ISSUES, RELIABILITY, ISSUES WITH THE LOAD GROWTH THEY'RE ANTICIPATING. SO I'M GONNA PAUSE HERE TO SEE IF CPS WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING MORE. OKAY. IS THERE SOMEONE FROM CPS THAT WANTS TO ADD DAVID OR MARCOS? WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? YEAH, UH, THE, LET, LET ME ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION. UM, THIS IS BETH GARZA, THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSUMERS. I THINK THE SPECIFIC QUESTION NED WAS TRYING TO GET AT WAS HOW, HOW MUCH, IF ANY, LARGE LOAD WAS INCLUDED IN WHAT I WOULD DESCRIBE AS THE BASE EVALUATION FOR THIS PROJECT. YEAH, SO THIS IS DAVID MILNER, CPS ENERGY. SO THE CPS ENERGY STUDY DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY LARGE LOAD. THE MAIN PROJECT DRIVER WERE LOCAL GENERATION RETIREMENTS. OKAY. AND SO THE, THE LARGE LOADS WERE ADDED SUBSEQUENTLY IN ERCOT ASSESSMENT? YES. THERE WERE OTHER, I MEAN, IN THE STUDY OR THE NEIGHBORING TO THE STUDY AREA, THERE WERE SOME LARGE LOADS THAT WAS PROPOSED OR THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM SOME TSPS. YEAH. OKAY. AND, BUT THAT'S NOT THE 178 MEGAWATTS. THAT'S NOT OTHER AMOUNT. THAT'S, NO. OKAY. CAN YOU, CAN YOU GIVE US SOME COLOR ON THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT THAT WAS INCLUDED? I, I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS, BUT I THINK MY, YOU KNOW, AS I SAID THIS, THOSE LOADS WERE IN, IN, IN THE STUDY OR OUTSIDE THE STA AREA PRIMARILY. SO I CAN SEE IF, UM, I CAN HAVE SOMEBODY PULL UP THE NUMBERS. ROBERT IS HERE. I'M GONNA CALL A FRIEND HERE. SO, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE REASON I'M ASKING THIS IS THE SAME, SAME THING I ASKED BACK IN MARCH WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING SOME OF THE PROJECTS THEN IS IT'S REALLY HELPFUL FOR, FOR I THINK TAC MEMBERS TO SEE AND UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, HOW SOME OF THESE PROJECTS ARE COMING IN SERVICE ALONG WITH LOADS THAT'LL BE COMING IN. 'CAUSE THAT HELPS US UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE COSTS WILL BE SPREAD OUT. AND THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT. I, I, I THINK THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. SO ANYTIME THAT THE PROJECT IS DRIVEN BY THE NEED IS DRIVEN BY LARGE LOADS, WE TRY TO INCLUDE THAT. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, I'LL LET ROBERT SPEAK FOR THIS. THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE NEED WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE, BY THE RETIREMENTS. BY THE RETIREMENTS. AND BECAUSE WE ARE STUDYING THIS LOAD, YOU KNOW, WE, I MEAN WE ARE, BECAUSE WE ARE STUDYING THIS PROJECT, WE WANTED TO SEE THE IMPACT OF POTENTIAL LOADS IN OR IN OR NEARBY THE STUDY AREA. THAT'S THE LOAD. SO I'M GONNA PAUSE HERE TO SEE ROBERT HAS SOME COMMENTS. GO AHEAD. UH, YES, ROBERT GOLAN ERCOT, SO THE EVALUATION STARTED OFF WITH THE 2024 RTP AS THE SEED CASE FOR THIS EVALUATION. THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY 1900 MEGAWATTS WORTH OF LOAD ADDITION WITHIN THE BEXAR COUNTY. THAT WAS BASED ON JUST LOAD GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR THAT AREA FOR 2030. ON TOP OF THAT, WHEN WE RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE TSPS, WE ADD OVER THREE GIGS OF LOAD OF LARGE LOADS, UM, IN THE LCRA TERRITORIES THAT WAS ABOUT NORTH [00:25:01] NORTHEAST OF THE BEXAR COUNTY. SO THEY WERE OUTSIDE OF THE AREA, BUT YOU KNOW, IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THOSE LOADS INTO THE EVALUATIONS. WE WEREN'T ADDRESSING ALL THE NEEDS AND, UH, UH, ISSUES AND VIOLATIONS THAT WERE CAUSED BY ALL THAT LOAD NORTH OF BEXAR COUNTY. UH, BUT WE WERE PRIMARILY FOCUSING ON, YOU KNOW, BEXAR COUNTY ITSELF AND WHAT, WHAT RELIABILITY UPGRADES WERE NEEDED. HEY, HEY, ROBERT, AS, AS SOMEBODY, AS SOMEBODY WHO TRANSPLANTED TO AUSTIN 40 YEARS AGO, AND IN MY FIRST MONTH DID CALL IT BEARA COUNTY AND WAS CORRECTED. THAT'S BEAR. THANK YOU, BETH. I ACTUALLY JUST GOT LIKE THREE DIFFERENT IMS AT THE SAME TIME, SO I DO APOLOGIZE. BEAR COUNTY AND, AND, AND MY, AND JUST TO RAG ON YOU MORE, UM, YOU KNOW, AND SOMEBODY WORKS WITH TRANSMISSION, HAS TO DEAL WITH ALL THESE LOCATIONS AND ALL THE WEIRD NAMES AND YOU'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR A WHILE. YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. SORRY. UH, THAT'S A BAD, THAT'S A BAD, BAD FOUL. THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. UH, THANKS. THANKS, ROBERT. APPRECIATE THAT. IT, IT WAS A DISTRACTION. IT'S OKAY. OKAY. WE NED DO YOU HAVE MULTIPLE QUESTIONS AS USUAL? THINK THAT ANSWERS? NO, I THINK THAT ANSWERS THE, THE MAIN THING I WAS TRYING TO GET AT IT, THERE'S A RELIABILITY BASIS. THERE'S THREE GIGAWATTS OF AN INCREMENTAL LARGE LOAD. THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS WHETHER THAT LOAD IS POSTED FINANCIAL SECURITY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. THAT'S A QUESTION FOR CPS OR ERCOT CPS THAT LOAD. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THOSE ARE THE LOADS FOR WHICH MAKE IT IN THE RPG PROCESSES, BASED ON OFFICER LETTERS AT THE STATIONS OR THE LOADS THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED TO EITHER THE 2024 OR 2024 RTP. AND MOST OF THOSE LOADS ARE LCRA LOADS. AND IN THE REPORT ITSELF ON THIS PROJECT, WHICH FRANKLY I WOULD SUGGEST THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE TAC MATERIALS GOING FORWARD AS THE ACTUAL REPORT, UM, INCLUDED IN THE REPORT ARE THE LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION NUMBERS FOR ALL OF THE LCRA LOADS, NOT THE CPS LOADS. SO, OKAY, THAT'S HELPFUL. I'LL PUT MY CARD OUT. SO FOR WHATEVER BETH'S DONE BETTER HOMEWORK THAN I HAVE. OKAY. YEAH. UM, MY, STU MY, UH, WELL, CAN I, CAN I ASK NED TO FOLLOW UP? YOU WILL HAVE THE SAME QUESTION FOR EVERY PROJECT. I THINK IT'S HELPFUL FOR US JUST TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE LOAD THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT, THE TIMING YES. RELATIVE TO THE IN-SERVICE DATES. AND THEN IF YOU KNOW THE LOADS OF POSTED FINANCIAL SECURITY, I THINK THAT'S OKAY. THOSE ARE THE THREE BIG THINGS. THINGS WE JUST WANNA, AND JUST TO PUT ENCORE ON NOTICE IN MY REVIEW OF THE FIVE PROJECTS WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY, THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION AND THE TOPIC IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT AND WAY MORE MEANINGFUL FOR THE THREE ENCORE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT. OKAY. OKAY. BETH, LET'S GO TO YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROJECT. UM, MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROJECT WERE, UM, WERE MINIMAL, FRANKLY, JUST CONFIRMING THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE EXTRA, UM, $243 MILLION IN, IN PROJECT COSTS. WHAT WE'RE GETTING IS A NEW 14 MILE, 3 45 KV LINE AND REBUILDING 43 MILES OF, UM, OF RELATIVELY OLD TRANSMISSION LINES FOR, UH, MOST EXCEEDING 40 YEARS OLD WITH RATINGS INCREASING BY ROUGHLY 75%. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GETTING PRIMARILY FOR THAT INCREASED COST. THE ISSUE ON THIS, THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY, WHICH IS A SIDE ISSUE PET PROJECT THAT I'M, I'M THINKING ABOUT, WE SPEND A, WE ARE SPENDING A LOT MORE IN PROJECTS TO SATISFY THE MAINTENANCE OUTAGE CRITERIA. AND AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER ALL OF THOSE EXTRA HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE WORTH WHAT WE'RE, UH, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SATISFY HERE SINCE, UH, SAN ANTONIO WENT TO THE EFFORT TO HAVE THEIR EXPERTS ONLINE. I'LL ASK MY QUESTION OUT LOUD THAT I SAID I WOULDN'T, TO ERCOT, WHICH WAS HAD TO DO WITH THE, UM, THE LOCATIONS OF THE VARIOUS REACTIVE CAPACITY. THERE WERE A VARIETY OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS PROJECT. AND THEN WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO IT, THE, THE INITIAL PROPOSAL BY SAN ANTONIO WAS DEEMED TO BE INFEASIBLE. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS DEEMED TO BE INFEASIBLE BECAUSE OF PHYSICAL, UH, LIMITATIONS AT VARIOUS SUBSTATIONS RELATED TO THE ADDITION OF VARIOUS, UM, UH, UH, UH, CAPACITOR ADDITIONS. I, I, THAT STRUCK ME AS, AS STRANGE AS I WAS READING THE REPORT, THAT THE INITIAL PROPOSED PROJECT WAS THEN SUBSEQUENTLY DEEMED INFEASIBLE. UM, IF, IF SOMEONE FROM SAN ANTONIO COULD ADDRESS THAT, I'D, I'D LOVE TO HEAR [00:30:01] THAT, THAT DESCRIPTION. DAVID MILNER, DO YOU WANNA YEAH, THIS IS DAVID. UM, I THINK SOME OF THE, THE PRO THE PROJECT WAS DEEMED INFEASIBLE BECAUSE SOME OF THE LOCATIONS, UM, WHERE WE'RE PLANNING TO CITE CAPACITOR BANKS, UM, COULDN'T ACTUALLY ACCOMMODATE A CAP, A CAPACITOR BANK AFTER FURTHER ANALYSIS. EITHER IT REQUIRED, UM, THE SUBSTATION FOOTPRINT TO BE EXPANDED OR JUST NO SPACE. AND AND YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF THAT WHEN YOU SUBMITTED THE PROJECT? UH, I THINK THIS WAS, THIS PERTAINS TO, WHOOPS, OR DID THE LOCATIONS MOVE AROUND AS, AS THE PROJECT WAS BEING EVALUATED? HEY, GOOD MORNING. CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? IT LOOKS MY COLLEAGUE LOST CONNECTION. WE CAN HEAR YOU. GO AHEAD, MARCUS. OKAY. SO YEAH, SO AS THE PROJECT WAS BEING EVALUATED, THE, SOME, THE INITIAL LOCATIONS WERE BASED OFF OF ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE STUDY RESULTS WERE INDICATED IN TERMS OF THE, UH, EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CAPACITORS. AND SO, UM, YEAH, AS WE HAD, UH, OUR SUBSTATION ENGINEERING DO FURTHER ANALYSIS, UH, YOU KNOW, EITHER THE ACTUAL EXPANSION WAS INFEASIBLE FOR THE LOCATION OR IT WOULD REQUIRE, UH, YOU KNOW, TAKING POTENTIAL FUTURE DISTRIBUTION SPOTS. SO, UH, OVER THE COURSE OF THAT, THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL BACK AND FORTH THAT ENDED UP, UH, RESULTING IN THE, YOU KNOW, CHANGES FOR THE LOCATIONS AND THE OPTION BEING FEASIBLE. THANK YOU. I, I'LL LET MARK MAKE HIS COMMENTS, BUT I, I FOR 1:00 AM AM PREPARED TO ACCEPT THIS AS A COMBO BALLOT ITEM. OKAY, LET'S GO TO MARK. UH, THANK YOU, CAITLIN. UM, MY COMMENT IS, IS SIMILAR TO NED'S IN THAT FOR EACH OF THE, THE FIVE TRANSMISSION PROJECTS TODAY, BUT NOT JUST FOR TODAY, FOR, FOR ALL TRANSMISSION PROJECTS AS WE GO FORWARD AND, AND FOR THE OUTCOME OF THE BATCH STUDY, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT WE HAVE TRANSPARENCY INTO THE LARGE LOADS THAT WERE, THAT WERE EMBEDDED INTO THESE ANALYSES. AND THE, THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE WE ARE ABOUT TO, TO TRANSITION AWAY FROM DESIGN OF THIS, UH, BATCH PROGRAM TO A PERIOD OF COST ALLOCATION AND RATE MAKING. AND UNDER SENATE BILL SIX. UM, AND, AND AS WE'VE DISCUSSED FOR FOUR MONTHS IN THIS FORUM, THE LARGE LOADS WILL BE PAYING DIRECT COSTS RELATED TO THE TRANSMISSION EXPANSION THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR PROJECTS. AND, UH, THE COMMISSION POLICY ON THAT IS IN FLUX. THE, THE COMMISSION DID RELEASE A REALLY NICE WHITE PAPER IN 5 8 4 8 4 ON, UH, TRANSMISSION COST AND THEIR, THEIR THOUGHTS ABOUT BOTH THE FOUR CP CHANGE AND THE DEMAND CHARGE THAT MIGHT BE USED TO COLLECT SOME OF THESE COSTS. BUT AT SOME POINT THERE IS GOING TO BE A CONTESTED CASE PROCEEDING WHERE THE RUBBER'S GONNA HIT THE ROAD AND WE'RE GONNA FIND OUT WHO'S REALLY PAYING FOR WHAT, AND THEN THERE'S GONNA BE A SERIES OF T CRFS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS AFTER THAT. AND SO, UH, MY OBJECTIVE FOR THESE PROJECTS AND FOR PROJECTS GOING FORWARD IS THAT WE HAVE COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY INTO THE LARGE LOADS THAT WERE, UH, PART OF THE BASIS FOR THESE PROJECTS. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, MARK. OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT? SO WE'D BE LOOKING TO ENDORSE THE COMBINED, UH, 25 RPG 17 CPS SYNERGY, UM, ARLO SWITCHING STATION AND AUTO TRANSFORMER EDITION AT EAST SIDE SWITCHING STATION PROJECT AND 25 RPG 13 CPS ENERGY, REACTIVE POWER PLANNING PROJECT OPTION THREE A. CAN WE PUT THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT? AND, AND LAST WORD, I, I WANNA THANK, SINCE WE'RE STARTING WITH CPS, I'LL THANK THEM FIRST AND OR ERCOT FOR PROVIDING AGE OF FACILITIES THAT ARE BEING REBUILD AS WELL AS RATING INCREASES EXPECTED ON THOSE REBUILD LINES. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED, TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING FOR THE MONEY WE'RE SPENDING. SO THANK YOU FOR [00:35:01] THAT, THAT NEW EFFORT, UH, THAT, THAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU BETH. I, AND THEN A COUPLE OF ANNOUNCEMENTS. I'M TOLD THE, UH, SWAG IS WORKING NOW. UM, IT WAS, WE WERE ALWAYS BROADCASTING THE ROOM AND THE AUDIO, BUT THE, THE SLIDES WEREN'T WORKING, BUT I, I BELIEVE THEY WERE WORKING NOW AND THE WEBEX WAS ALWAYS WORKING, SO IT CONTINUES TO WORK. UM, AND THEN WE MISSED A PROXY, UH, SETH AND THE POWER MARKETER SEGMENT HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO IAN HALEY FOR THE MEETING. SO WE ARE ON TO THE SECOND RPG PROJECT, WHICH IS, UH, ON CORAL CA, LCRA PROJECT. I THINK WE'LL DO LIKE THE STANDING NED THEN BETH QUESTIONS, AND THEN WE CAN GO TO QUESTIONS AROUND THE ROOM FOR, FOR EACH OF THESE, THESE PROJECTS. ALRIGHT, LET'S GO BACK TO BU THANK YOU. THE SECOND PROJECT IS THE ENCORE AND LCRA MUSCOVY TO WAS LAKE 3 44, 1 38 KV PROJECT. UH, AGAIN, OVERVIEW OF THIS PROJECT. THIS WAS SUBMITTED BY ENCORE AND LCRA, UH, SUBMITTED THIS MUSCO, IT WAS LAKE PROJECT TO ADDRESS, UH, RELIABILITY NEEDS IN WILLIAMSON AND, UH, MILAM COUNTY. UM, THIS IS A TIER ONE PROJECT WITH AN INITIAL ESTIMATED COST OF $381.83 MILLION. AND THIS WOULD REQUIRE CCN BASED ON THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL. AGAIN, ERCOT PERFORMED THIS ANALYSIS, UH, RELIABILITY ANALYSIS, AND WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS RELIABILITY ISSUES, UH, WE VERIFIED THERE WERE SEVERAL ISSUES IN THIS STUDY AREA. UH, SOME OF THE CON COUNTIES, INCLUDING THE BELL BASTROP, TRAVIS HAYES, CALDWELL, AND ROBERTSON COUNTIES. WE, WE DID IDENTIFY SEVERAL ISSUES IN THE HUDDLE. WE, WE, THE, THE STUDY AREA WAS BASICALLY DIVIDED INTO TWO, UH, ONE FOCUSING ON THE NORTH OF HARO, AND THE OTHER IS SOUTH OF HARO. AND, UH, WE DECIDED TO DO AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW IN TWO PHASES. UH, THIS PROJECT PRIMARILY, OR THE RECOMMENDATION HERE IS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON STUDY AREA ONE, WHICH IS NORTH OF HARO. AS YOU COULD SEE, THE TABLE HIGHLIGHTS SOME OF THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN STUDY AREA ONE, BASED ON THE RELIABILITY ISSUES. THERE WERE SEVERAL OVERLOADS, THERMAL OVERLOADS, VOLTAGE ISSUES, AND UNSOLVED POWER FLOW CONDITIONS. ALL RIGHT, SO LOOKING AT ALL THIS ISSUES, UM, THAT WE IDENTIFIED IN THE INITIAL RELIABILITY ANALYSIS, UM, THIS PROJECT, OBVIOUSLY THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT WAS EXPANDED. SO THE, THERE ARE THREE PARTS TO THIS PROJECT. I'LL WALK THROUGH THIS. THE FIRST ONE IS THE ENCORE, LCRA MOSCOW WEST LAKE PROJECT, UM, THAT ADDRESSES SEVERAL POST CONTINGENCY THERMAL ISSUES, VOLTAGE ISSUES IN THE WILLIAMSON AND MILAM COUNTY. UH, THAT'S DIRECTLY TIED TO THE LOAD GROWTH THAT IDENTIFIED, THAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL. UM, SO THE PRO COST OF THAT PART OF THE PROJECT IS, UH, REVISED $388.94 MILLION. UM, ALSO SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES WE IDENTIFIED IN THE NORTH OF HARO, UH, WE DID LOOK AT OTHER PROJECTS. ONCOR DID SUBMIT, UH, SEVERAL OTHER RPG PROJECTS. ONE OF THE PROJECTS IS THE, UM, 25 RPG 0 4 1, WHICH IS THE ENCORE SET ONE NORTH, CENTRAL AND SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS RELI PROJECT. UM, THERE WERE SEVERAL UPGRADES IDENTIFIED IN THAT PROJECT, SET OF PROJECTS. SUBSET OF THE PROJECT ALSO ADDRESS SOME OF THE RELIABILITY NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN THE NORTH OF HA ISSUES. SO THOSE, THOSE ISSUES, WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL, BUT, UH, WE DID IDENTIFY THOSE PROJECTS AS PART OF THE 2024 AND 2025 RTP STUDIES. SO THOSE PROJECTS WERE, WERE MOVED TO THE MOSCOW WAS LAKE PROJECT AS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES IN THE NORTH CENTRAL. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE WAS ALSO LOOKED AT, LIKE, WE ALSO LOOKED AT ADDITIONAL LOADS, POTENTIAL LOADS, UM, THAT IS PROJECTED TO, YOU KNOW, OR PROJECT OR, OR WAS SUBMITTED IN OTHER SUBMITTALS, INCLUDING THE LATEST, UM, RFI, UH, FOR 2026, WE DID SOME SENSITIVITIES. WE DID IDENTIFY THAT WE NEED ADDITIONAL PIECES TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL LOADS BECAUSE WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT A PROJECT ADDRESSING ALL THIS RELIABILITY ISSUES, WE WANTED TO BUILD THE MARGINS TO SEE THAT LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT ADDRESSES ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL LOADS. SO THAT'S THE LAST PIECE OF THE PROJECT. UH, THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL UPGRADE IDENTIFIED, WHICH, WHICH IS A NEW LINE, UM, THAT INCLUDED $465 MILLION. [00:40:02] SO FROM THE ORIGINAL $388 MILLION. WHEN YOU ADD ALL THOSE THINGS, YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT COST INCREASED. UM, THAT'S, THAT'S THIS, THIS PROJECT IS ADDRESSING SEVERAL ADDITIONAL ISSUES THAT WAS ALREADY IDENTIFIED IN 20 24, 20 25 RTP, AND ALSO SUBMITTED AS, UH, PART OF OTHER PROJECTS. SO WHEN I TALK ABOUT SET ONE, SET TWO PROJECTS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS PORTION IS REMOVED FROM THAT ENCORE SET ONE, SET TWO PROJECTS, AND WE WON'T BE, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSING THOSE PARTS IN THE OTHER PROJECT. SO HERE'S THE COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS. UM, STUDY 10 DIFFERENT OPTIONS TO ADDRESS ALL THIS RELIABLE ISSUES IN THE NORTH OF HA AREA. AND WE SHORTLY LISTED FOUR OPTIONS AND BASED ON LOOKING AT ALL THE, ALL THE RELIABILITY NEED, LONG-TERM LOAD SERVING CAPABILITY, ADDITIONAL PROJECTED CONTRACTED LOADS, AND THE CCN REQUIREMENT, CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY, AND OTHER COST ESTIMATES, UH, WE RECOMMEND OPTION SEVEN A TO ADDRESS ALL THE RELIABILITY NEEDS. ERCOT AND NER CRITERIA IMPROVE LONG-TERM LOAD SERVING CAPABILITY AND ALSO POTENTIAL FUTURE LOAD, UH, GROWTH IN THE AREA AND FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTION. SO OBVIOUSLY THE COST OF ALL THIS OPTIONS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE INITIAL PROJECT. UM, THE, THE COST FOR THIS SHORTLISTED OPTIONS VARIES FROM TWO POINTS, 1.27 BILLION TO 1.45 OR $1.55 BILLION. SO THE OPTION SEVEN IS HERE, IS LIKE THE SECOND MOST EXPENSIVE OPTION HERE, I THINK. UM, THE RECOMMENDED OPTION IS $1.457 BILLION WITH AN ESTIMATED IN-SERVICE DATE OF, UH, DECEMBER, 2031 FOR BOTH THE LCRA AND ENCORE PORTIONS. SO THERE ARE SEVERAL PARTS OF THIS PROJECT. SO THE IN-SERVICE DATE, SOME PARTS MIGHT BE LIKE EARLIER THAN DECEMBER 3RD, 31 I THINK. AGAIN, UH, SUB SYNCHRONOUS OSCILLATION ASSESSMENT, UH, WE DID NOT SEE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT WITH OPTION SEVEN. A, UH, SIMILAR TO THAT, WE DID PERFORM THE CONGESTION ANALYSIS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL GENERATION AND OPTION SEVEN A DID NOT CAUSE ANY ADDITIONAL CONGESTION OR DID NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON FUTURE POTENTIAL GENERATION, UM, THAT MIGHT BE ADDED TO THE STUDY AREA. HERE'S THE OVERALL SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT. SO BASICALLY APPROXIMATELY 159 MILES CIRCUIT MILES OF, UH, NEW 3 45 KB LINES, A HUNDRED MILES OF REBUILT OF THREE FOUR EXISTING 3 45 KB LINES, 45 MILES OF REBUILT OF 1 38 KB LINES, UH, CONSTRUCTION OF THREE NEW 3 45 1 38 KB STATION CONSTRUCTION OF ONE NEW 3 45 KB STATION. AND, UH, INSTALL FIVE AUTO TRANSFORMER 3 45, 1 38 KB AUTO TRANSFORMERS AND ALSO INSTALL, UH, CAPACITORS, TOTALING 110 MEGAWATTS OF CAPACITOR BANK. I, I THINK THERE ARE THE, THE DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OR IN THE APPENDIX B I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THIS, BUT I'LL JUST LIKE END WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION SLIDE, WHICH KIND OF HIGHLIGHTS, UM, THE PROJECT. SO BASED ON THE REVIEWER CARD, WILL RECOMMEND BOARD ENDORSE THE OPTION SEVEN A TO ADDRESS RELIABILITY ISSUES IN BELL MILAM WILLIAMSON COUNTY AND ROBERTSON COUNTY IN THE NORTH CENTRAL, SOUTH CENTRAL AND EAST WEATHER ZONE. UM, THE ESTIMATED IN-SERVICE DATE IS DECEMBER, 2031. THE ESTIMATED COST IS 1.457 BILLION AND AS I SAID, THERE ARE THREE PARTS TO THE PROJECT. UM, THE CCN FROM A CCN, THE MAJOR PORTION IS, UH, NEW 3 45 KV DOUBLE CIRCUIT LINE FROM MUSCOVY TO OS LAKE. AND ALSO WE HAVE A NEW 3 45 KV LINE, UH, FROM SODO TO HURO SODO TO GABRIEL TO HURO. THAT'S A DOUBLE CIRCUIT 3 45 KV LINE. THOSE ARE THE MAJOR PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT. SO I'LL GO BACK TO THIS, UM, I'LL PAUSE HERE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. AND I THINK WE DO HAVE ENCORE AND LCRA FOLKS ON THE LINE. UM, NED DO YOU WANNA START WITH YOUR QUESTION? SURE. YEAH. SO SAME THING I SAW IN THE SELECTED IN THE TABLE ON SLIDE FIVE. YOU'VE GOT BASICALLY A GIGAWATT OF, UM, IMPROVED LONG-TERM LOAD SERVING CAPABILITY. IT SAYS IT ALSO SUPPORTS NEW CONTRACTED LOADS, BUT I'M GUESSING THAT THERE, EACH ONE OF THE COMPONENTS THAT YOU WENT THROUGH THAT WERE KIND OF ADDED TOGETHER TO GET HERE ALSO HAD SOME LOADS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO WHAT'S THE TOTAL LARGE LOAD THAT IS, I GUESS, BEHIND THIS SET OF, [00:45:01] UM, SET OF UPGRADES? AND DO WE HAVE SOME COLOR ON THE TIMING OF WINDOWS WILL COME ONLINE RELATIVE TO THE IN-SERVICE DATES OF THE FACILITIES? AND HAVE THEY POSTED, UH, FINANCIAL SECURITY? YES, SO THOSE ARE CAPTURED IN THE REPORT. SO I THINK THE ORIGINAL PROJECT SUBMITTED BY ENCORE WAS DRIVEN BY ROUGHLY AROUND 483 MEGAWATTS OF LARGE LOAD, UH, ENCORE AND LCRA. AND, UH, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE PROJECT, UM, THERE WERE OTHER PARTS OF THE PROJECT. I THINK THE NUMBERS I HAVE IS, UH, ROUGHLY AROUND 4.1 GIGAWATTS OF ADDITIONAL LOAD IN THE NORTH OF AUTO STUDY AREA. AND THE LAST PART OF THE PROJECT, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT FUTURE LOADS, THE CONTRACTED LOADS, UH, WE DID A SENSITIVITY FOR ABOUT ADDING APPROXIMATELY 200 MEGAWATTS OF ADDITIONAL LOAD, UM, THAT DROVE THE LAST PIECE OF THE PROJECT. SO I THINK THOSE, THOSE ARE THE, I BELIEVE THOSE NUMBERS ARE PART OF THE REPORT AND UM, THAT'S, I THINK THAT, I THINK THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE GET TO ABOUT FOUR, 4.8 GIGAWATTS OF TOTAL, TOTAL LOAD THAT'S SUPPORTED THERE. YES, THERE'S 4.8 TOTAL LOAD, BUT WHEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU COMPARE THE, THERE ARE, WHEN YOU COMPARE THE STUDY, WHEN WE SAY STUDY EAST, NOT CENTRAL, SOUTH, CENTRAL, WHEN YOU COMBINE ALL THE LOADS THAT'S IN THE MODEL, THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS STUDIED IN THE 2024 AND 2024 RTP. SO I, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL GO THROUGH THIS NUMBERS IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF PROJECTS, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE MODEL WE USE. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. OKAY. BETH, MY QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH THE DIVISION OF THIS INTO THE NORTH OF HUDU, SOUTH OF HUDU. UM, SO STARTING WITH, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO WHAT IS THIS SLIDE THAT HAS THE COMPONENTS, UH, OF THE COST? WAS THAT FOUR, UH, I'M SORRY, THE 382 OF INITIAL PROJECT SLIDE FOUR. UM, AS I LOOK AT THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH, YOU KNOW, THE INITIAL, UH, MASS IF YOU WILL, OF THE, OF, OF THE SUBMITTED PROJECT WAS THAT LINE FOR 380. NOW 389 MILLION WAS A LITTLE BIT LESS WHEN, WHEN PROPOSED, BUT IT'S BEEN AN OVER A YEAR. UM, MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH, WERE THERE OTHER THINGS IN THAT INITIAL SUBMITTAL, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH MORE COSTS ARE WE, ARE WE LOOKING AT TO DEAL WITH THE SOUTH OF HUDU STUFF? UM, YOU KNOW, IT DOES THAT, DOES THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH REFLECT 90% OF WHAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE INITIAL, UM, UH, PART OF THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL OR WAS IT 10%? UM, I ASSUME IT'S CLOSER TO 90 TO TEN FOUR. YEAH, LET ME UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. SO ARE IS YOUR QUESTION WHETHER SOME OF THIS PROJECT WILL ADDRESS THE SOUTH OF HARO ISSUES? WELL, THAT'S ONE, THAT'S ONE QUESTION. YES. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON, IT'S LIKE YOU PARSED OFF A PUN A BUNCH, YOU PARSED OFF A PIECE OF THIS PROJECT, BUT SAID HERE, OUR $300 MILLION PROJECT IS NOW A BILLION AND A HALF. HOW MUCH MORE IS LINGERING IN THE SOUTH OF HUN? IS THAT ANOTHER COUPLE HUNDRED MILLION OR IS IT ANOTHER BILLION DOLLARS? UM, OKAY. THAT, THAT PART WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF STUDYING THAT. SO I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER RIGHT NOW. THAT'S, UH, THAT'S SOMETHING WE WILL SEE. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, AS AS THE LOAD INCREASES, LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S CHANGING ON A MONTHLY BASIS OR LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S RAPIDLY CHANGING, SO THAT MAKES IT MORE COMPLEX, RIGHT? SO IF WHATEVER WE ARE SEEING TODAY, YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME WE DO THE STUDY, I'M, I'M REAL RELUCTANT TO SAY WHAT THE, HEY PROBABLY, I THINK ANOTHER THING BETH, SORRY, BEHIND YOU, IT'S CHRISTIE. OH, OKAY. UM, ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ADD, I KNOW THE CONCERNS ABOUT ADDITIONAL NEW LARGE LOADS MOVING FORWARD AND I WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, INVITE YOU ALL TO THE LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP THIS WEEK WE'RE GONNA BE STARTING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT KIND OF WHERE DO WE SEE PLANNING GOING FORWARD AND THE ROLE OF RPG IN THE PROCESS AS WE EVOLVE WITH THE NEW COMMISSION RULES, THE EVOLVING GRID, HOW DOES ALL THAT FIT WITH THE BATCH PROCESS? AND I THINK WHAT YOU'LL FIND IS WHAT WE'LL BE RECOMMENDING IS THAT GOING FORWARD AFTER HOPEFULLY THE APPROVAL OF THIS REVISION REQUEST WITH THE APPROVAL OF COMMISSION RULES, BEING ABLE TO UTILIZE AN RPG FOR NEW LARGE LOADS SOLELY FOR THAT, THOSE LARGE LOADS ARE GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BATCH PROCESS. AND SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO REVISIT, YOU KNOW, ANY ONES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN FLIGHT AND WHAT WE DO WITH, [00:50:01] UM, NEW SUBMITTALS GOING FORWARD. SO I THINK THAT WILL HELP TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I THINK YOU HAVE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, FUTURE PROJECTS TO ADDRESS LARGE LOAD GROWTH. AND, AND I APPRECIATE THAT, CHRISTIE. 'CAUSE THAT'S MY REAL, THAT'S AS FROM A CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, MUCH, MOST OF THE BATCH ARGUMENT HAS BEEN WHO'S IN AND WHO'S OUT AND, AND FRANKLY I DON'T REALLY CARE, I DO CARE VERY MUCH ABOUT THE INTERACTION OF THE RESULTS OF THE BATCH STUDY AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR TRANSMISSION EXPANSION. SO I THANK YOU FOR, THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. UM, TO HONE IN ON THE LOAD ISSUE, UH, I ASKED IT PRETTY SPECIFICALLY, , YOU, YOU HEARD MY QUESTION PRETTY SPECIFICALLY, BUT THE $465 MILLION OF ADDITIONAL UPGRADES IS THAT DIRECTLY TIED TO THE 4,100 MEGAWATTS OF ADDITIONAL LARGE LOAD? CAN, I CAN IN MY MIND APPROPRIATELY TIE THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER THAT, THAT PART OF THE PROJECT IS DRIVEN BY? SO IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE OPTIONS EVALUATION THAT THERE'S POTENTIALLY ADDITIONAL NEW CONTRACTED LOAD IN THE STUDY AREA THAT WAS, THAT CAME IN LATE IN THE PROCESS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE OPTIONS COMPARISON, WHEN YOU ADD THAT ADDITIONAL LOAD, SOME OF THE OPTIONS DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. SO OPTION SEVEN A AND OPTION FOUR A MET THOSE LARGE LOADS. SO PART OF THAT IS DRIVEN BY THOSE ADDITIONAL CONTRACTED LOAD. OKAY. AND THAT A, AGAIN, THAT'S ANOTHER AREA WHERE, NOT INCLUDED IN THE DETAILS OF YOUR SLIDES, BUT IT IS EMBEDDED IN THE REPORT. IN THE REPORT ITSELF. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S 600 MEGAWATTS OF ENCORE LOAD AND 3,573 MEGAWATTS OF LCRA LOAD, UM, WITH 11 LARGE LOAD IDENTIFIERS FOR THE LC, UH, LOADS INCLUDED IN THE REPORT. UM, AND THIS, I DON'T INTEND IT TO BE A GOTCHA QUESTION 'CAUSE IT, BUT I JUST THOUGHT OF IT THIS MORNING IN THE SHOWER, SO I'M GONNA ASK IT NOW, , UM, WHAT WAS YOUR MOTIVATION FOR BRINGING THIS PIECE OF THE PRO, YOU KNOW, THIS PIECE OF THIS PROJECT FORWARD NOW, RIGHT? YOU'VE, AND WE'RE GONNA, I'M GONNA ASK THE SAME QUESTION ON THE LATER ONE. UM, YOU'RE SOLVING PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT INITIALLY WAS PRESENTED. WHAT WAS YOUR MOTIVATION FOR DOING THAT TODAY INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE WHOLE PROBLEM? YEAH, THIS IS, THIS IS SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT. SO THERE IS, IF, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY THE LOAD GROWTH, UM, THERE IS AN URGENCY TO MOVE SOME OF THE PROJECTS TO ADDRESS THE, THE RELIABILITY NEEDS. SO ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD POINT OUT TO, LIKE I HAVE TO GO BACK TO SEE WHICH ONE IT IS, WHETHER IT'S HOSPITAL 50 66 OR PROBABLY THE PREVIOUS ONE THERE IS, UM, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING TO MAKE SURE LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE INTERCONNECT THIS LOADS AND SERVE THIS LOAD IN AN EXPEDITED MANNER. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME, CAME THROUGH THAT, UH, I, I GOTTA GO AND LOOK THE LANGUAGE, BUT THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THERE EITHER IN THE, IN THE, IN THOSE ONE OF THOSE BILLS OR EXISTING, UH, YOU KNOW, PCD RULES, WHICH I THINK THE OTHER THING YOU SHOULD ADD BU IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO TAKE EACH ONE AT A TIME AND THIS PIECE WAS READY TO MOVE FORWARD AND IF WE WAIT FOR THE GOOD OF ALL, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THE GRID IS INTERCONNECTED, WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE STATE AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO IN THE BATCH PROCESS. AND SO THIS PORTION OF IT WAS MORE VETTED AND READY TO MOVE FORWARD. UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, WITH THE SAKE OF, YOU KNOW, NOT HOLDING EVERYTHING BACK, LET'S MOVE FORWARD WHAT WE CAN NOW. YEP. AND YEAH, THANKS CHRISTIE. AND, AND, AND I THINK THE OTHER PART IS ALSO LIKE WE, WE'VE BEEN SEEING THESE ISSUES IN, UH, IN THE LAST COUPLE OF RPG CYCLE, RIGHT? SO 20 24, 20 25 WE'RE SEEING THIS PROJECTS AND EVERY INDICATION OR THE, THE LOAD PROJECTIONS WE ARE GETTING IS, YOU KNOW, THE LOAD IS PROJECTED TO GROW HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS STUDIED IN 2024 OR 2025. OKAY. IT'S ALSO BASED OFF OF FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN FROM OUR OPERATIONS AREA. WE REGULARLY MEET WITH THEM TO SEE WHAT THINGS THEY'RE SEEING IN OPERATIONS, MAKE SURE WE'RE PICKING IT UP AND PLANNING. AND THIS HAS BEEN AN AREA OF FOCUS FOR THEM AS WELL. OKAY. UM, I'M DONE. YEP. GO AHEAD AND SARAH WITH, OH, [00:55:01] THIS IS REALLY LOUD, SARAH WITH OPEC. UM, I THINK MY QUESTION WAS JUST CLARIFYING THE R PT NOTES THAT THE, I GUESS THE NINE, ABOUT 1900 MEGAWATTS OF CONFIRM LOAD, THAT'S THE RRP RTP LOAD AND THEN THE 2200 OF TSPA TESTED LOAD, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AS ADDITIONAL CONTRACTED LOAD. THE FOR THIS IS, THIS IS GOING BACK TO WHAT'S IN THE CURRENT DEFINITION OR IN THE, IN THE PLANNING GUIDES. THIS IS CALLED THE SUBSTANTIATED LOAD. THERE ARE TWO PARTS. ONE IS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LOADS THAT HAVE CONTRACTS AND THEN THE OFFICER LEVEL LOADS THAT THAT'S INCLUDED IN, IN THIS REVIEW. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO PARTS. THE OTHER CONTRACTED LOAD I'M TALKING ABOUT, THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL LOAD THAT WAS NOT SUBMITTED INITIALLY AS PART OF THE STUDY. THAT'S SOMETHING WE, WE DID A SENSITIVITY TO ADD ADDITIONAL CONTRACTED LOAD, WHICH WAS NOT PART OF THAT. OKAY. AND THEN SO UNDER THE, I GUESS THE EXISTING, THAT MEANS THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED IN THE BATCH PROCESS 'CAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY, UM, PA I GUESS PAST THAT STEP. THEY'RE NOT THE, YEAH, SO I, I QUESTION THAT'S SOMETHING WE ARE WORKING ON, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHAT LOAD GOES INTO THE BATCH ZERO, THAT'S AN ONGOING PROCESS THAT ERCOT IS LOOKING AT. SO I CAN'T COMMENT ON WHAT'S IN THE BATCH PROCESS OR WHAT'S IN THE, IF I, I MIGHT HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, SO NO, YOU'RE GONNA, I MAY NOT HAVE ASKED IT WELL. UM, SO THE, THE 2200 OF TSPA TESTED LOAD AND THEN THE 1900 OF CONFIRMED LOAD, IS THAT HAVE ALREADY MOVED FORWARD IN THE CURRENT RPG PROCESS OF INTERCONNECTION? OR IS, IS THAT STILL LIKE IN THE INTERCONNECTION QUEUE WAITING TO BE CONNECTED? I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING I'M GONNA SEE IF ENCORE WANTS TO ADD MORE COLOR TO THAT LOAD OR, YEAH. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. UM, MARTHA HENSON WITH ENCORE. SO JUST KIND OF GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING WHEN, WHEN WE SUBMITTED THIS PROJECT AS BU STATED, WE HAD JUST SHY OF 500 MEGAWATTS OF ENCORE LOAD TO SUPPORT THE SUBMITTAL DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ERCOT INDEPENDENT REVIEW, ENCORE ADDED ADDITIONAL 300 MEGAWATTS OF, UM, LOAD TO THE SUBMITTAL. UH, MOST OF THAT LOAD IS CONTRACTED WITH ENCORE. THEY HAVE AN EXECUTED FACILITY FACILITIES EXTENSION AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPANY. UM, I'D ALSO INVITE LCRA TO PROVIDE ANY OTHER DETAILS ABOUT THE LOAD THAT THEY PROVIDED TO THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION AS WELL. YEAH, THANKS MARTHA. THIS IS SAND KAR WITH LCRA PLANNING. YEAH. AS THE STUDY SCOPE WAS BEING DEVELOPED, UH, L-C-R-A-T-C SAW L-C-A-T-C LAWS WERE JUST SOUTH OF THAT REGION, BUT HAVE, WERE BEING IMPACTED BY THE RELIABILITY ISSUES IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THE, UH, LIMBER MUSCO PROJECT. SO AT THAT POINT, UH, L-C-R-T-C ALSO INCLUDED, UH, SOME OF ITS, UH, LARGE LOADS THAT WERE CONTRACTED AS WELL AS, UH, UH, SOME OFFICER LEVEL LOADS AT THAT POINT. I THINK THOSE NUMBERS ARE CALLED OUT IN THE REPORT. UH, I BELIEVE IT'S, UH, 3003 5 7 3, UH, MEGAWATTS. UH, AND, AND WE ALSO PROVIDED THE LLI NUMBERS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, UH, AS A REFERENCE. THANK YOU. OKAY. ARE WE GOOD ON QUESTIONS? PROBABLY. DID YOU FINISH YOUR SLIDES ON THIS ONE? YEAH, I, I THINK I FINISHED THIS PRESENTATION. SO THE RECOMMENDATION HERE OKAY. FOR ATTACK, OKAY, SO WE'D BE LOOKING TO ENDORSE THE 25 RPG 0 0 9 ENCO, LCRA AT TSC, MUSK GOBY AND VOS LAKE 3 45 1 38 KB PROJECT OPTION SEVEN A. IS THIS A COMBO BALLOT ITEM OR A SEPARATE BALLOT ITEM? CONSUMERS, ARE WE LISTENING? COMBO BALLOT, SEPARATE BALLOT? I DON'T KNOW, IT'S A BILLION DOLLARS. FEELS LIKE, YOU KNOW, FEELS LIKE A SEPARATE BALLOT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE. A SYMBOLIC SEPARATE BALLOT. JUST 'CAUSE IT'S, IT'S A BILLION FREAKING DOLLARS. I MEAN A BILLION DOLLARS IS A LOT OF MONEY. THAT'S KIND OF MY THRESHOLD. I MEAN, IT'S, IT, THE OTHER ONES ON THE, OKAY, SO WE'RE GONNA AT SOME POINT PUT IN THE TECH PROCEDURES, THE BETH GARZA BILLION DOLLAR . I'M, IF I'M THE ONLY VOICE THAT'S, I, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO, UH, IT'S A SEPARATE OR COMBO. LET'S DO SEPARATE JUST [01:00:01] THIS TIME, BUT THE THIRD TIME. AND WHAT WE COULD DO IF, IF IT MAKES SENSE, COREY, WHAT WE COULD DO IS WE COULD SET IT ASIDE, GO THROUGH ALL THE PROJECTS, AND THEN COME BACK AND KIND OF SEQUENTIALLY AND DO A, DO A $3 MILLION BALLOT. OKAY. I'M, I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS YOU YOU'D LIKE TO DO. I'D RATHER DO IT, JUST PUT IT ON THE COMBO BALLOT THAN HAVE A RPG COMBO BALLOT. CAN. OKAY. I, IF I'M, DO WE NEED A SEPARATE BALLOT ON THIS? ARE THERE ANY ABSTENTIONS OR NOS? I WOULD SUPPORT A SEPARATE FOR THIS HIGH AMOUNT. OKAY. LET'S DO A SEPARATE BALLOT. OKAY. MOTION FROM BOB HILTON, SECOND FROM DAVID DA. DAVID HAD HIS FINGER HIGHER IN THE AIR, AARON, SO, OKAY. WE'RE COMING UP WITH ALL KINDS OF NEW PROCEDURAL RULES HERE. YEAH, I'D, I'D RATHER JUST TAKE THE SEPARATE BALLOT THAN HAVE LIKE A RANDOM REAL COMBO BALLOT RPG COMBO BALLOT. SO, WELL I WAS THINKING JUST A SERIES OF RPG BALLOTS ALL AT ONCE, BUT THAT'S OKAY. WE CAN STOP AND DO IT NOW. OKAY. BRIAN, JUST LET US DO THIS. ALRIGHT. MOTION FROM BOB SECOND FROM DAVID. BRIAN HATES THIS. AGAIN, I HATE THIS, BUT YES, WE'LL GET THROUGH IT. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'LL DOUBLE CHECK MY MOTION AND MAKE SURE THAT SHORT NOVEL DESCRIBES WHAT Y'ALL ARE ENDORSING. OPTION SEVEN A FOR THE ENCORE LCRA MUSKOGEE DEVOS LAKE PROJECT. AND THEN JUST A REMINDER, IN CASE ANYONE'S CONFUSED WHEN Y'ALL VOTE ON THE COMBO BALLOT THAT CARRIES THE SAME WEIGHT AS AN INDIVIDUAL BALLOT. SO IF, IF THERE'S ANY MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW MORE OFFICIAL THAN COMBOING FIVE ITEMS, 10 ITEMS, A HUNDRED ITEMS, THEY ALL CARRY THE SAME WEIGHT. SO YEAH, ANNIE, I KNOW, BUT IT'S SIMPLE. LISTEN BOY, IT'S, YEAH, IT'S SYMBOLIC. COREY, THEN SO IS MY COMMENTARY . I KNOW, I KNOW IT WAS RECEIVED. AND LISTEN TO AS SUCH. SO SO IS THE AMOUNT OF SLEEP YOU'VE BEEN GETTING. WELL WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH GARRETT. YES SIR. THANK YOU, MIKE. YES, THANKS. THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU NICK. NICK [01:05:01] FEHRENBACH YOU WITH US? I'LL SWING BACK TO NICK BETH? YES. THANK YOU SARAH FOR WILL. YES. THANK YOU. ONTO THE CO-OPS BLAKE? YES. THANK YOU KYLE. YES, THANK YOU, JOHN. YES, THANK YOU JOE, DAN FOR MIKE. YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. NED? YES. THANK YOU COREY. THANK YOU BRIAN. UH, MARK ME DOWN AS AN UPPERCASE X. YES. AS A SYMBOLIC. YES. THANK YOU, . YOU HAVE MY SYMBOLIC. THANKS BOB. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. CAITLIN, CAN I GET ONE OF THOSE UPPERCASE XES ALSO? SURE. NO FEES FOR THE FIRST ONES ONTO THE IPMS. JEREMY? YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU IAN FOR SETH? YES, THANK YOU. COURT. AND THEN IAN FOR MORGAN STANLEY. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, UH, SHANE FOR RASHMI? YES SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. ONTO OUR I REPS. BILL? YES. AND THEN BILL FOR J? YES. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU CHRIS. YES, THANK YOU JEN ABSTAIN. THANK YOU JEN. UM, NICK, I GOT YOUR YES IN CHAT. THANK YOU. ANGELA IOUS. MARTHA? YES. THANK YOU, KEITH. YES, THANK YOU, ERIN. YES, THANK YOU, UH, DAVID FOR EBY. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO THE MUNIS, ALICIA? YES. THANK YOU JOSE. YES. THANK YOU CURTIS. YES, THANK YOU AND DIANA FOR DAVID. YES, THANK YOU. OOPS. MOTION CARRIES WITH ONE ABSTENTION. I'M SO GLAD WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT. THANK YOU JEN, EVERYBODY THANK JEN FOR JUSTIFYING THAT EXERCISE. OKAY. SO IT WASN'T SYMBOLIC. ALRIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE ON THE SECOND PROJECT? OKAY. BU YOU, YOU HANGING IN THERE? ALL RIGHT, WE ARE GONNA GO TO OUR THIRD RPG PROJECT. UM, THIS IS ANOTHER ENCORE PROJECT, SO WE'LL DO, DO THE SAME THING. WE'LL DO BU ENCORE IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE. QUESTIONS. NED BETH O OTHER QUESTIONS? SOUND GOOD? ALL RIGHT, TAKE IT AWAY PU. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. THE THIRD PROJECT IS THE ENCORE COMBINED SET ONE NORTH AND CENTRAL TEXAS RELIABILITY PROJECT AND THE SET TWO NORTH AND CENTRAL RELIABILITY PROJECT. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY ENCORE. SO THESE PROJECTS, UM, ADDRESS VARIOUS LIBRARY ISSUES, UM, ESPECIALLY IN THE NORTH, NORTH CENTRAL AND THE EAST WEATHER ZONES, OR, UM, SO THIS, THE SET ONE AND SET TWO NORTH AND CENTRAL PROJECTS. UM, THIS, THESE PROJECTS WERE SUBMITTED BY ENCORE BASED ON, UH, THE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2024 AND 2025 RTP. UH, THIS IS A COMBINED PROJECT, AS I SAID, UH, SET ONE. THERE ARE TWO PROJECTS. THE THE SET ONE PROJECTS THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST WAS $1.79 BILLION, AND THE SET TWO PROJECT IS $1.33 BILLION. THERE'S A LOT OF ELEMENTS TO THAT PROJECT. UM, SO THE COMBINED ESTIMATE IS, UH, AROUND ROUGHLY AROUND THREE POINT, UH, 1 BILLION TO THREE POINT LESS THAN $3.2 BILLION. SO ERCOT DECIDED TO PERFORM A SINGLE, UM, ERCOT INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY COMBINING THESE TWO PROJECTS. SO THE BACKGROUND ON THIS IS THE, THE SET ONE PROJECTS AS SUBMITTED BY ENCORE OR PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN BOTH 2024 AND 2025 RTP. THE SET TWO PROJECTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE 2024 RTP, UM, AND SUBSET OF THE PROJECTS WERE IDENTIFIED IN 2025. SO BASICALLY THE DIFFERENCE IF YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE LAST FEW RPG CYCLE, RTP CYCLES, AND, UH, THE, THE LOAD PROJECTIONS IN THE AREA, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TABLE, GIVES THE COMPARISON OF WHAT WAS STUDIED IN THE ERCOT INDEPENDENT REVIEW. THIS, THIS PARTICULAR REVIEW VERSUS WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 2024 VERSUS 2025 RTP. [01:10:01] UH, 2025 IS THE ONE WHERE WE DID THE ERCOT ADJUSTED, UH, FORECAST. UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL LOADS IN THIS THREE WEATHER ZONES, UM, 2024, IT WAS 58 GIGAWATTS, 2025, UH, 55 GIGAWATTS. BUT THIS PROJECT, WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT ALL THE LOADS THAT'S SUBMITTED IN THE STUDY AREA, THAT LOAD ADDED TO BE LIKE 71 GIGAWATTS. SO BASICALLY THIS IS 16 GIGAWATTS, UH, MORE THAN WHAT WAS STUDIED IN THE 2025 RTP AND ROUGHLY 13 GIGAWATTS MORE THAN WHAT WAS STUDIED IN THE 2024 RTP. AGAIN, THE, THE PROJECT EVALUATION, UM, THIS IS AGAIN, BROKEN INTO THREE DIFFERENT, UH, BUCKETS OR GROUPS. THE FIRST GROUP IS WHAT WE CALL LIKE, UH, WHAT THE WAY WE APPROACH THIS COMBINED RPG REVIEW IS WE SAW LIKE NEEDS TO MOVE SOME OF THE PARTS AS INTO OTHER ONGOING RPG REVIEWS. SO THE GROUP ONE HERE IS, UH, SET UP PROJECTS THAT WAS CARRIED OVER TO THE ENCORE SOUTH DFW LOAD INTEGRATION PROJECT. THAT PROJECT WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS, THIS WAS ENDORSED. I THINK THE SECOND PART, THE GROUP TWO PROJECT IS, IS PART OF TODAY'S RECOMMENDATION OF THE GROUP THREE. GROUP TWO IS, UM, THERE IS SET OF PROJECTS WHERE THE SET ONE AND SET TWO PROJECTS. WE LOOKED AT THE LOAD PROJECTIONS, WE DID A COMPARISON, WE WHAT ON THE NEED, WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN 2024 AND 2025. AND BASED ON THOSE REVIEWS AND COMPARISON, WE ARE RECOMMENDING A SET OF PROJECTS, BECAUSE THIS IS COMMON. THIS ARE PROJECTS THAT SHOWED UP IN EITHER 2024 AND 2025, OR IT MIGHT HAVE SHOWED UP IN 2024. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PRO TOTAL PROJECTED LOAD THAT'S BEING STUDIED IN THE ERCOT INDEPENDENT REVIEW, THAT EXCEEDS EITHER 2024 OR 2020 FAIL FORECAST. SO THE RELIABILITY NEEDS, OR BASED ON EITHER 2024 OR 2025. SO THAT'S THE GROUP OF PROJECTS UNDER SET TWO OR GROUP TWO, I APOLOGIZE. AND GROUP THREE IS A SET OF PROJECTS. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE COMBINED, UM, THE SET ONE AND SET TWO PROJECT, THERE WERE PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT, WHICH OTHER TSPS, UM, PROPOSED COMMONS, AND THEY PROPOSED PROJECT ALTERNATIVES. SO ONE OF THE, THOSE PROJECTS WERE LIKE, YOU KNOW, PUT IN A SEPARATE GROUP, GROUP THREE, AND WE DID A TRADITIONAL, LIKE TYPICAL ERCOT INDEPENDENT REVIEW TO EVALUATE THOSE POTENTIAL COMPETING OPTIONS. THAT'S THE GROUP THREE HIGHLIGHTED HERE. SO BASICALLY, UM, BRASS AND TNP COMMENTED ON A SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT WHERE THEY PUT OUT LIKE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES, AND WE DID, UH, PERFORM AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW FOR THAT PROJECT. SO AGAIN, UH, FOR ALL THIS PROJECTS, WE DID AN SSO ASSESSMENT. UM, WE DID NOT SEE ANY IMPACT FOR SSO BASED ON ALL THE SET OF PROJECTS THAT WILL BE, UH, REC OR PROPOSED FOR, UM, ENDORSEMENT TODAY. AND SIMILAR TO THAT, UH, WE DID, UH, PERFORM THOSE CONGESTION ANALYSIS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL CONGESTION, OR WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE FUTURE POTENTIAL GENERATION, UH, IT DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT REMOVING OR, UH, LOOKING AT THOSE POTENTIAL GENERATION SENSITIVITIES. SO THIS, I'M GOING, I'M GONNA COVER THIS GROUP THREE PROJECT. THIS IS A PROJECT WHERE THERE WERE COMPETING OPTIONS. SO THEY BASICALLY, THERE WERE TWO SET OF PROJECTS, OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO. UM, SO ONE IS THE ENCORE PROPOSAL OR THE SUBMITTAL, AND THE OTHER ONE IS THE ONE I HIGHLIGHTED, THE, UH, SUBMITTED BY PROCESS AND TNMP. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT PROJECT, THE ESTIMATED COST, UH, BETWEEN THE COMPARISON IS $56 MILLION VERSUS $80 MILLION. AND WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE RELIABILITY NEED, LONG-TERM LOAD SERVING CAPABILITY AND COST ESTIMATES, UM, THE CONSTRUCTION FEASIBILITY, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE STILL RECOMMEND OPTION ONE, UH, WHICH WAS PROPOSED BY ENCORE FOR THIS PROJECT. SO WE DID SIMILAR TO THAT, WE, WE DID NOT ANY, WE DID NOT SEE ANY ISSUES WHEN, WHEN IT CAME TO SSO OR THE OTHER SENSITIVITIES FOR THIS GROUP THREE, OPTION ONE. SO TODAY, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION IS, AS I SAID, THE GROUP ONE WAS COMBINED WITH THE, WITH THE DFW SOUTHERN DFW PROJECT. THAT'S, UH, THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED. UM, THIS ONE HERE COMBINES THE GROUP TWO AND GROUP THREE UPGRADES. SO THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, ELEMENTS TO THIS, BUT AT A HIGH LEVEL, [01:15:01] UM, THIS IS, THESE ARE SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, KEY OR HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE, THE, THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT HERE. SO I'LL, I'LL, I'LL WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE THINGS. UH, CONSTRUCT A NEW SUBSTATION THREE, UH, TRANSFORMERS. THIS IS A 3 45 KV SUBSTATION AT 3 45, 1 38 KB TRANSFORMERS REBUILD FIVE EXISTING STATIONS AND ONE TRANSFORMER THAT INCLUDES, UH, 3 45 KB AND 1 38 KB SUBSTATION REBUILDS AND CONSTRUCT, UH, FIVE NEW, 3 45 KB AND 1 38 KB LINES. UH, ROUGHLY 115 MILES OF, UH, TWO NEW 3 45 KB LINES, AND THREE NEW 1 38 KV LINES, APPROXIMATELY 32.9 MILES. UM, THOSE ARE THE C THOSE WERE REQUIRED AS THE CCN AND UPGRADE SEVERAL MILES OF EXISTING 1 38 AND 3 45 KV, ROUGHLY AROUND 290 MILES OF 3 45 KV LINES, AND 233 MILES OF 1 38 KV LINES. SO, UM, THE DETAILS ARE IN APPENDIX B. UH, IT'S A LENGTHY DESCRIPTION. I'M NOT GONNA WALK THROUGH ALL OF THOSE. UM, BUT HERE'S THE RECOMMENDATION FOR, UH, FOR TODAY, BASED ON THE REVIEW, ERCOT RECOMMENDS THE GROUP TWO AND GROUP THREE UPGRADES TO ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY NEEDS IN NORTH, NORTH, CENTRAL AND EAST WEATHER ZONE. UH, THE EXPECTED IN-SERVICE DATES, AS I SAID, THERE ARE SEVERAL PARTS OF THE PROJECT INCLUDING REBUILD, UH, BUILDING, REBUILDING STATIONS, BUILDING NEW SUBSTATIONS AND NEW LINES. SO IT VARIES, UM, BETWEEN 2028 AND 2034, UM, THE ESTIMATED COST OF THOSE GROUP TWO AND GROUP THREE UPGRADES COMBINED IS $2.363 BILLION. UM, LET'S SAY THE ORIGINAL COST WAS 3.2 AROUND LA AROUND LIKE 800 OR 890 SOME MILLION WAS MOVED TO THE OTHER PROJECT, LIKE THE DFW SOUTH PROJECT, AND THAT WAS, THAT WAS A SEPARATE, UH, APPROVAL. UM, AND THEN HIGHLIGHTS SOME OF THE CCN MILES. I'M NOT GOING TO WALK THROUGH THOSE. UM, AGAIN, I WILL, OKAY, I'LL, I'LL STOP HERE. IF WE NEED TO GET TO THOSE DETAILS, THOSE ARE IN THE APPENDIX. SO IF YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROJECTS, WE HAVE THIS ALL THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT. SO IN ORDER TO SAVE TIME, I WILL PAUSE HERE AND TAKE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO LET'S DO OUR STANDING, STANDING NED AND BETH QUESTIONS, AND THEN GO TO, UH, SHANNON AND THE QUEUE. OKAY, SO BU I SAW THERE WAS 16 GIGAWATTS OF INCREMENTAL LARGE LOAD INCLUDED IN THIS, OR AM I MISREADING THAT, THAT SLIDE FROM, I THINK IT WAS ON SLIDE THREE. OKAY, LET ME GO BACK TO IT. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THIS CLEAR. SO THERE WERE LARGE LOADS INCLUDED IN BOTH 2024 AND 2025 RTP, THE 16 GIGAWATTS AND 13 GIGAWATTS REFERRED HERE. IT'S WHAT IS ON TOP OF WHAT WAS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE 2024 OR 2025 RTP FOR THOSE STUDY AREAS, RIGHT? IT'S NOT ONE AREA. ALL THOSE AREAS COMBINED THE PROJECTION FOR 20 24, 58, 58 GIGAWATTS, THERE WERE LARGE LOADS INCLUDED IN 2024. AND SIMILARLY, THERE WERE LARGE LOADS INCLUDED IN 2025. THE FORECAST, OF COURSE, WE DID THE ERCOT ADJUSTED FORECAST. THE LOADS DROPPED A LITTLE BIT 55, BUT, AND THE ARE FOR THE RP RPG PURPOSE INDEPENDENT REVIEW. WHEN WE ADDED ALL THOSE LOADS AT FULL UP, I MEAN, WHATEVER THE CONTRACT OR OFFICE LEVEL LOAD LEVELS, WE ENDED UP WITH 71. SO THE 16 GIGAWATTS IS COMPARING TO THE 2024 OR 2025 RTP AND 13 GIGAWATTS IS COMPARING TO THE 20 25, 20 24 RTP. OKAY. SO IT'S THE DELTA FROM 55.4 GIGAWATTS TO 71.9. YES. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND, UM, I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION, STANDING QUESTION IS, I, I SAW THE SET OR THE THIRD PIECE WAS A 2030 IN SERVICE DATE, BUT THE REST OF IT WAS SPREAD OUT BETWEEN 2028 AND 2034. UM, WHERE DOES THAT SIT RELATIVE TO THE LOAD RAMP THAT IS ASSUMED HERE? SO THAT I, I THINK IN, IN THE REPORT WE DID IDENTIFY THAT LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF THE LOAD SHOWS UP BEFORE THE PROJECT, ENCORE WILL WORK ON SOME CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. SO, UM, I DON'T HAVE A, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF LOAD. SO WE, WE WILL HAVE TO WORK WITH ENCORE BASED ON WHEN THIS LOADS ARE PROJECTED TO BE IN SERVICE, AND WE WILL HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, SEE WHAT PROJECTS ARE BUILT. OKAY. SO THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE WORKED OUT. UM, BUT WE'LL PAUSE HERE TO SEE IF [01:20:01] ENCORE WANTS TO COMMENT ON ANYTHING. YEAH, I WOULD JUST SAY, UH, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE VISIBILITY YET INTO THE SPECIFIC LOAD RAMPS. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BASED ON THE CUT POINTS THAT ERCOT HAS ESTABLISHED IN THEIR COMMENTS TO THE BATCH STUDY PICKER, THAT THIS PROJECT WON'T MEET THE THRESHOLDS TO AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A VALID STUDY. SO THE WAY I THINK THIS MOVES FORWARD, I'M HAPPY TO BE CORRECTED BY SOMEONE FROM ERCOT, BUT THE, THE PROJECTS, ASSUMING THEY MOVE FORWARD THROUGH T AND BOARD, UH, WOULD BECOME PROJECTS THAT CAN BE EVALUATED THROUGH THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS. AND AT THAT POINT, THE RESULTS OF THAT STUDY WILL BE WHAT ALLOCATES MEGAWATTS TWO PROJECTS AND CUSTOMERS, UH, YOU KNOW, IN AN LCP TYPE CONSTRUCT, UH, WHICH IS SORT OF, I THINK YOUR LOAD RAMP QUESTION THERE. SO THE SHORT OF IT IS, I DON'T THINK WE FULLY KNOW AS WE SIT HERE TODAY. THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL. THANK YOU, MARTHA. IT, THAT'S, IT'S GOOD TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS, IS, IF I'M PARAPHRASING, IT'S THIS IS GIVING AN OPTION FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE BATCH ALLOCATION, AND THEN THAT'S REALLY WHAT WILL SET, I MEAN, I GUESS WILL ADJUST LOAD COMMISSIONING PLANS BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF THAT, RIGHT? SO THAT THEY'LL KIND OF PAIR UP NATURALLY. IS THAT THE WAY TO ENCORE DIDN'T PROPOSE THIS PROJECT TO BE, YOU KNOW, UH, REVIEWED OR ALL OR UTILIZED IN THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS, PER SE. WE SUBMITTED THIS PROJECT BEFORE THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS GOT INITIATED, BUT DUE, BUT DUE TO THE TIMING, I THINK THE EFFECT WILL BE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THESE PROJECTS WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR ALLOCATING MEGAWATTS IN THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT THAT DOES THAT, THAT'S, AND I'M HAPPY TO BE CORRECTED BY PROBABLY OR ANYONE ELSE IF THEY SEE IT DIFFERENTLY. I DON'T WANNA SPEAK FOR ERCOT HERE. YEAH, I, I THINK ONE, WE, WHEN WE DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH LIKE A, THE BATCH ZERO STUDY, ANY APPROVED PROJECTS AND TRANSMISSION SOLUTIONS, WE, WE PLAN TO CARRY OVER TO THE BATCH STUDY. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY, BETH, UM, THANKS FOR, I DUG INTO THE LOAD QUESTION MYSELF, SO THANKS FOR, FOR GETTING DIGGING INTO THAT AND YOUR, YOUR RESPONSE. UH, MARTHA, THE, MY SNAR I'LL ASK MY S SNARKY QUESTION JUST 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE A FILTER. YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT IT FEELS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE ENCORE SYSTEM WILL BE COMPLETELY REBUILT BY ALL OF THESE PROJECTS. UM, THE, UH, THIS IS ALMOST 500 MILES OF REBUILT CIRCUITS, BUT AS YOU LOOK AT THE AGE OF THOSE CIRCUITS, AGAIN, APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION BEING GATHERED AND, AND PUT INTO THE REPORT. THESE LINES ARE, ARE, THERE'S SOME LINES THAT ARE AS OLDER THAN I AM, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE TOO DAMN OLD TO BE IN SERVICE. AND, UM, BUT THE AVERAGE AGE, IT'S APPROACHING 50 YEARS ON THE CIRCUITS THAT ARE GETTING REBUILT, INCREASED RATINGS ARE LIKE 150% INCREASE IN RATINGS. SO THE, THE VOLUME, YOU KNOW, JUST FROM A VOLUME OF MORE CAPABILITY, IT'S SIGNIFICANT ACROSS A WIDE SWATH OF THE AREA IS HOW I INTERPRET THIS, THIS PROJECT. UM, THE LARGE LOAD IMPLICATIONS OF THAT SHOULD BE THAT WE NOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PLANNING FOR A BIGGER SYSTEM TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE MORE STUFF AND HOW WE ALLOCATE TO THE MORE STUFF IS YET TO BE DECIDED. UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE. THIS IS ONE WHERE, UH, BECAUSE IT STARTED AS COMBINED 3.3 $0.1 BILLION PROJECT, WE MOVED $700 MILLION INTO A PROJECT THAT WE'VE ALREADY ENDORSED AND WE'RE NOW LEFT WITH THE $2.3 BILLION OF, OF COST. AND THAT ALL SEEMED TO BE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND, AND SUBSTANTIATED. OKAY, SHANNON? YEAH, COULD WE GO TO THE MAP PAGE? I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ERCOT OR ENCORE WOULD BE BEST TO ADDRESS IT. THE REBUILD OF VENUS TO NOTICE ALL MAKES SENSE. I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED TO SEE NO UPGRADES FROM NOTICE ON DOWN TO NAVARRO. AND THE REASON I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED BY THAT IS WE SEE THAT FOR, UM, IT'S A BINDING CONSTRAINT OVER ON, UH, LOAD INTERCONNECTIONS WE'RE TRYING TO DO ON THE BRAAS SYSTEM. AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S AN OLD 10 72 RATING WHEN THE, ALL THE REST OF THE FROM NOTICE TO VENUS IS, YOU KNOW, SOON TO BE 5,000 AMP CONDUCTOR. IT SEEMS SURPRISING NOT TO HAVE TAKEN THAT ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE NAVARRO SWITCHING STATION. ANY COMMENTS FROM ERCOT OR ENCORE ON THAT? [01:25:02] GO AHEAD. I'LL, I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO ENCORE. MARTHA, DO YOU WANT YEAH, THIS IS ENCORE. UM, WHAT WE PROPOSED IN THIS RRP G IS PURELY WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN 2024 R TP AND IN THAT CASE THAT NOTICE TO NOVEMBER LINE WAS NOT IN IT. SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THIS TRANSMISSION LINE AND PROPOSE A SEPARATE PROJECT AS NEEDED, BUT THE IDEA BEHIND THIS RPG WAS JUST TAKE WHAT'S IN THE 24 RTP AND PROPOSE THAT. GOT IT. OKAY. THANKS, THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU. OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR ERCOT OR ENCORE BU ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS PRESENTATION? NOPE, I AM GOOD TO, OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. THIS IS OUR THIRD PROJECT, UH, LOOKING TO ENDORSE THE COMBINED 25 R PG OH 40 ONCOURSE AT ONE NORTH AND CENTRAL TEXAS RELIABILITY PROJECT AND 25 R PG OH 42 ON CORSET TWO NORTH AND CENTRAL TEXAS RELIABILITY PROJECT GROUP TWO AND GROUP THREE UPGRADES. CAN WE PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT OR ARE WE DOING THE, THE BILLION DOLLAR SEPARATE BALLOT RULE, OR DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO ABSTAIN? I THINK COMBO MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THIS IS LARGELY, CAN YOU SAY THAT INTO THE MIC? I THINK COMBO MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THIS IS LARGELY PREVIOUSLY PLANNED SPEND. IT'S NOT INCREMENTAL TO THIS CONVERSATION COMBO THUMBS UP AS LONG AS WE RECOGNIZE IT. YEAH. YEAH, I THINK, I THINK WE CAN HAVE THOSE CON THOSE CONVERSATIONS. UM, BETH, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WE, WE'VE, I'VE, MARTHA AND I, WHEN WE TALKED TO THE BOARD, UM, YOU KNOW, TRY, TRY TO POINT OUT THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY MEAN MEANING AMOUNT OF PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING THROUGH RPG THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING ATTACK VERSUS BEFORE. UM, AND I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE, YOU'VE RAISED AWARENESS, WHICH IS GOOD, AND, AND PRABU, I THINK HAS, HAS RAISED AWARENESS TOO THROUGH THE, THE NEW PROCESS. AND I, I KNOW THAT GROUP IS REALLY BUSY. I WAS SORT OF AMAZED AND IMPRESSED THAT THEY ACTUALLY DID POST THE, THE PROJECT SO WE CAN ADVANCE. SO I, I THINK WE ARE, WE ARE DOING, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE KNOW THESE ARE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND, AND WE'RE SPENDING THE REQUISITE TIME. UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S A CONVERSATION WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE OF THE ONLY ISSUE I HAVE IS, AND, AND, BUT COREY SAID IT, I MEAN, THE VOTE IS A VOTE. YEAH. UM, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, APPROVING THE MINUTES HAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN IMPLICATIONS THAN ENDORSING A $2.3 BILLION PROJECT. AND I, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE TIME AND EFFORT TO HAVE A SEPARATE BALLOT ON A REALLY EXPENSIVE, REALLY IMPORTANT THING THAT TOOK UP SOME TIME AND THAT WE DELIBERATED ON, UM, IS, IS WORTHWHILE. BUT I'M, I, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO BE THE, THE VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS. WELL, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT THIS TIME BECAUSE WE DIDN'T PREPARE FOR IT, BUT MAYBE IN FUTURE MEETINGS WE DO TAKE UP A RPG BALLOT OR SOMETHING SEPARATELY FROM THE BALLOT THAT HAS THE MINUTES. UM, BUT FOR NOW, CAN WE PUT THIS PROJECT ON THE COMBO BALLOT? YES. OKAY. SO LET'S PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT. UM, AND LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR, OUR FOURTH PROJECT, WHICH IS A ENCORE PROJECT AS WELL. SO SAME, SAME ORDER, UH, BU ENCORE, IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE. QUESTIONS, NED'S QUESTION. BEST QUESTION. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IN, IN THE ROOM OR ON THE PHONE? OKAY, THANK YOU. UH, THE NEXT ONE IS THE ENCORE COMBINED SET ONE NORTH, CENTRAL AND SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS RELIABILITY PROJECT AND THE ENCORE SET TO NORTH CENTRAL AND SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS RELIABILITY PROJECT. UM, THIS, OKAY, AGAIN, UM, JUST BEFORE I START, THIS IS, THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS PROJECT, THE APPROACH, THE STUDY APPROACH. YOU WILL HEAR SIMILAR THINGS. UM, THERE'LL BE LIKE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PROJECTS. SO I'LL WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE THINGS. AGAIN. THIS, THIS SET OF PROJECTS ARE COMING FROM THE 2024 AND 2025 RTP, SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS PROJECT. UM, INITIALLY ONCORE SUBMITTAL, THERE IS, UH, 2, 2, 2 PROJECTS THAT THE SET ONE PROJECTS, THE ESTIMATED COST IS $943 MILLION [01:30:02] AND WILL REQUIRE CCN. AND THE SET TWO PROJECTS IS FOUR $40.79 MILLION. AND THAT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE CCN. SO AGAIN, THIS IS ALSO ADDRESSING VARIOUS ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE 20 24 1 25 RTP, UH, PRIMARILY IN THE NORTH CENTRAL, SOUTH CENTRAL, AND THE EAST WEATHER ZONES. AGAIN, ERCOT DECIDED TO DO A SINGLE, UH, COMBINED RPG REVIEW FOR THESE TWO SET OF PROJECTS. SO, UM, SIMILAR APPROACH. THE, THE, THE STUDY AREAS ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE TALKED IN THE PREVIOUS. I'M NOT GONNA SPEND A LOT OF TIME THOUGH AGAIN, THE NEED OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE EITHER, UH, SET ONE PROJECTS OR BOTH 2024 AND 2025. RTP SET TWO IS, UH, 2024. AND, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIVE, THE PROJECTS WERE ALSO INCLUDED IN 2025. UM, AGAIN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THE LOADS, THAT'S PART OF THE ERCOT INDEPENDENT REVIEW. UM, WE LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS HERE, SO AGAIN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. THE, THE, THE DIFFERENT WEATHER ZONES LISTED HERE. AS YOU COULD SEE, THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 20 24, 20 25 AND THE ERCOT INDEPENDENT REVIEW, ERCOT INDEPENDENT REVIEW NUMBERS WERE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER. UM, BASICALLY IT WAS, UM, 18 GIGAWATTS HIGHER THAN WHAT'S IN THE 2020 OR, OR 2024 RTP AND 19 GIGAWATTS HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS IN THE 2025 RTP. SO, UH, SIMILAR TO THE LAST PROJECT HERE, WE GROUPED THE PROJECTS INTO 3D THREE DIFFERENT BUCKETS. ONE OF THE GROUP ONE IS SOMETHING YOU ALREADY HEARD TODAY, IT'S PART OF THE MUSCOVY WAS LAKE PROJECT. UH, THERE IS A PORTION OF THE PROJECT THAT WAS MOVED TO THAT INDEPENDENT REVIEW, WHICH WAS MORE RELEVANT TO STUDY THERE. AND WHAT WE ARE TALKING HERE IS, UH, THE GROUP TWO AND GROUP THREE PROJECTS. OKAY, SO THE, AGAIN, THE GROUP TWO IS SET UP PROJECTS THAT WAS, UM, BASED ON THE NEED IDENTIFIED IN EITHER 2024 AND 2024 RTP. SO WE DID AN EVALUATION OF COMPARING THE LOADS THAT WAS STUDIED IN 20 24, 20 25, AND THE, AND THE ERCOT INDEPENDENT FORECAST AND LOOK AT THE RELIABILITY NEEDS IN THE STUDY AREA. AND WE CONFIRM, YOU KNOW, THE PROJECTIONS ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS STUDIED IN EITHER 2024 OR 2025. AND ALL THIS PROJECTS GROUPED AS GROUPED THREE GROUP TWO SET OF PROJECTS WILL BE ENDORSED BASED ON THE NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN 2024 AND 2025, AND THE REVIEW OF THE ERCOT INDEPENDENT, UH, REVIEW LOAD LEVELS. OKAY, UH, GROUP THREE, GROUP THREE IS, UH, ERCOT IS CONDUCTING A REVIEW FOR THE UPGRADES OF THE, THE PROJECT SUBMITTED BY TEAM. THIS IS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED IN THE, SO BASICALLY THIS PROJECT WE ARE, WE'RE NOT THERE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE GROUP THREE. SO THERE IS A SET OF PROJECTS THAT'S GOING THROUGH THE NORMAL OR THE ERCOT INDEPENDENT REVIEW DUE TO COMMON SUBMITTED BY TSPS OR OTHER COMPETING PROJECTS. THAT OPTIONS, WE ARE LOOKING, SO WE'RE NOT MAKING A RECOMMENDATION ON THE GROUP THREE TODAY. SO IT'S GROUP TWO. UH, NO IMPACT ON SSO ON THE GROUP TWO PROJECTS. AND AGAIN, WE DID NOT SEE ANY ISSUES RELATED TO CONGESTION OR, UH, WE DID NOT SEE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT WITH THE SSR OR FUTURE GENERATION SCREENINGS. SO HERE'S THE SUMMARY OF THE GROUP THROUGH GROUP TWO UPGRADES. UM, BASICALLY THIS IS CONSTRUCTING NEW, UH, 3 45 KB LINE. WHAT WOULD REQUIRE APPROXIMATELY 14 MILES OF NEW RIGHT OF WAY RE REBUILD 67 MILES OF EXISTING 1 38 KV AND REBUILD 2 3 45 1 38 KV STATION AND UPGRADE 1 3 45 1 38 KV STATION. I THINK THAT THE ESTIMATED COST FOR ALL THIS UPGRADES IS $381 MILLION. AGAIN, THERE ARE SEVERAL PARTS OF THE PROJECT, UH, THAT'S LISTED IN THE APPENDIX. SO, UH, DEPENDING ON THE, THE, WHICH, DEPENDING ON THE, ON THE UPGRADES, THE ESTIMATED IN-SERVICE DATE IS 20, ANY TIME BETWEEN 2028 AND 20 20 34. OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A PORTION OF THE PROJECT THAT WILL REQUIRE CCN FOR THE 14 MILES OF NEW RIGHT OF WAY OF 3 45 KV. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE LAST SLIDE HERE. I WILL, I'LL PAUSE WITH, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION AND OVERVIEW OF LIKE THE PROJECTED NEW ONE OR 3 45 KV LINE, 14 MILES PLUS THE HIGHLIGHT HIGHLIGHTED LINES OR UPGRADES OF EITHER 3 45 OR 1 38 KV REBUILDS. OKAY. READY FOR QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. [01:35:01] OKAY. YOU WANNA ADD ENCORE ANYTHING BEFORE QUESTIONS? NOPE. OKAY, NED, LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT. SO $381 MILLION AND THIS SUPPORTS AN ADDITIONAL 19 GIGAWATTS IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS, UH, STUDY PREVIOUSLY. OKAY. SO THAT'S, I NEED TO BE CAREFUL THERE BECAUSE WHAT WE SAW IS WE DID A COMPARISON BETWEEN 20 24, 20 25, AND THE PROJECTED LOAD IS 19 GIGAWATTS, 18 OR 19 GIGAWATTS GREATER THAN THAT. MM-HMM . THIS PROJECT SET OF PROJECTS DOESN'T ADDRESS ALL THE NEEDS OF THE 19 GIGAWATTS. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. SO WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS, YES, WE NEED THIS PROJECTS, THIS SET OF PROJECTS THAT'S COMING OUT OF 20 24, 20 25. IN ORDER TO ADDRESS ALL THOSE 19 GIGAWATTS OR 18 GIGAWATTS, WE WILL NEED ADDITIONAL UPGRADES ON TOP OF THIS. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE AMMO BUSH? YES. OKAY. AM I WOULD HOPE IT, I HOPE IT'S A LARGER, UH, LARGER ENTREE THAN THAT, BUT YEAH, MR. JOKE, NUD, IT WAS A, IT WAS A, A SNACK JOKE. SNACK JOKE. I'M STARTING TO THINK ABOUT LUNCH. IT WASN'T ABOUT CLOSURE. OH MAN, WE GOT A LONG WAY BEFORE LUNCH. BUCKLE UP. OKAY. . ALRIGHT, BETH, UH, SAME, SAME QUESTION. YEP. THAT NED RAISED THE, THE, THE SAME ISSUE AND JUST POINTING OUT THAT THERE'S, GIVEN THE MAGNITUDE OF DOLLARS IN THE INITIAL SUBMITTAL, THE, A BIG SLUG OF IT, HALF OF IT GOT SLID OVER TO THE MUSKOGEE VOSS LAKE PROJECT THAT WE ALREADY ENDORSED. MM-HMM . LEAVES HALF OF THE, YOU KNOW, HALF OF IT, A QUARTER OF WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THIS PROJECT. AND SO THERE'S ANOTHER 400 MILLION PLUS OR MINUS YEAH. THAT IS STILL OF PROJECTS THAT ARE STILL UNDER REVIEW AND THAT WILL COME BACK IN SOME OTHER FORM. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. BE IS HOW I WOULD, I WOULD DESCRIBE IT. SO, OKAY. I'M, I'M OKAY WITH THIS ON THE COMBO. YOU'RE OKAY WITH THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT BECAUSE IT'S LESS THAN A BILLION. OKAY. AND THE CRITERIA OF THESE ARE ALL, YOU KNOW, RTP PROJECTS COMING THROUGH THE RPG PROJECTS, UH, AS PROJECTS. SO THESE WERE ALL PROJECTS, THESE WERE ALL THE R TRANSMISSION PROJECTS IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESS AND CONFIRMED. AND SO, OKAY. OKAY. I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE ALL GONNA HAVE TO ADJUST OUR WAY OF THINKING MAYBE AFTER BATCH, BUT, WE'LL, DO YOU WANT A SEPARATE BALLOT, JEN? NO, NO, I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT THAT'S ALSO WHERE I FIND MYSELF IS HOW THIS INTERSECTS WITH THE BATCH STUDY IS THE PART WHERE I HAVE HESITANCY TO MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS DON'T END UP FOOTING THESE BILLS. AND SO LIKE THAT CONVERSATION WILL HAPPEN. IT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE. IT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE RIGHT NOW. OKAY. OKAY. ENCORE, WE GOOD? ALL RIGHT. UM, SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO ENDORSE THE COMBINED 25 RPG OH 41 ON COURSE AT ONE NORTH CENTRAL AND SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS RELIABILITY PROJECT AND 25 RPG OH 43 ON COURSE AT TWO NORTH CENTRAL AND SOUTH CENTRAL TEXAS RELIABILITY PROJECT GROUP TWO UPGRADES, AND WE CAN PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE ARE ONTO OUR LAST RPG PROJECT. UH, THIS IS LCRA AND CENTERPOINT, SO THANK YOU ENCORE. UM, SO WE'LL DO THE SAME THING BU EL AND CENTERPOINT IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING BEFORE QUESTIONS. AND THEN WE'LL DO NED BETH, UH, AND THEN OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM AND ON. I'LL SAY, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON YOU, DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE. AWESOME. NED, WILL YOU HAVE THE SAME QUESTION ON THIS ONE? TPD? YES, MAYBE NO. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND MOVING ALONG. SO THIS IS THE LAST PROJECT, THE LCRA AND CENTER POINT, UH, EUCLID, UH, 7 65 KVS TRANS SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION LINE EDITION PROJECT. THE OVERVIEW ON THIS PROJECT, UH, LCRA AND CENTERPOINT JOINTLY SUBMITTED THIS PROJECT TO ADD THIS EUCLID 7 65 KV SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION LINE EDITION AND BACK IN JANUARY, 2026. UH, THIS IS, UM, A TIER ONE PROJECT WITH AN ESTIMATED COST OF, UM, $1.831 BILLION. UM, WILL REQUIRE A CCN. [01:40:01] UH, THE PRIMARY NEED OF THIS PROJECT IS COMING FROM 2025 RTP TO ADDRESS THE RELIABILITY NEEDS AND GROWTH IN THE CENTRAL TEXAS AREA AS A MAP, WHICH SHOWS, UH, WHAT CAME OUT OF THE 2025 RTP. SO MOVING ON THE PROJECT NEED AGAIN, UH, THE 2025 RTP DEVELOPED THE, WHAT WE CALL THE STEP PLAN. AND WE, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS PLAN, WE DID IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL EXPANSIONS TO THE 7 65 KV. AND, UH, THIS PORTION OF THIS, THE EUCLID STATION PLUS A NEW LINE FROM EUCLID TO HILL G IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S COMING OUT OF THE 2024 RTP. AGAIN, THE LOAD LEVELS, UH, FOR THIS PROJECT, UH, WE USE SIMILAR LOAD LOAD FOR EAST NORTH, CENTRAL AND SOUTH CENTRAL WEATHER ZONE. UH, THIS TABLE REFLECTS THE SAME COMPARISON I SHOWED IN THE PREVIOUS, UM, STUDY, UH, THE, THE PROJECT AREA SIMILAR TO WHAT WE STUDIED IN THE PREVIOUS ONES. SO, UH, FOR THIS STUDY, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS RELYING ON 2025 R-T-P-R-T-P DID, UH, WELL IN AS PART OF THE 2024 RTP, WE DID AN EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS ON THE 7 65 KV, UH, STEP PLAN PLUS ADDITIONAL NEED. UM, ONE OF THE SECTIONS THAT WERE BASED ON THE JUST OR THE LOAD FORECAST IN 2025, WE DID IDENTIFY THE NEED FOR THE EUCLID STATION AND THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSMISSION 7 65 KV ADDITION TO THE STEP PLAN, UM, THAT WE DID HAVE SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS, STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS THROUGH RPG. UM, AS A C EFFECT OF THIS EFFORTS, ORCA HAS PROPOSED THIS, UH, EUCLID 7 65 KV STATION AND THE TRANSMISSION LINE EDITION OF, BASED ON THE 2024 RTP STUDY. UM, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT PROJECT. SO AGAIN, UH, SSO SCREENING, WE DID PERFORM THE SSO SCREENING FOR THE 7 65 KV SUBSTATION EDITION AND TRANSMISSION EDITION. WE DID NOT SEE ANY SSO IMPACT, UH, TO THE EXISTING OR THE PLANT GENERATION IN THE AREA. SO I, UH, THIS WAS A SIGNIFICANT PROJECT. SO WE DID LOOK AT THE DYNAMIC STABILITY ANALYSIS. UM, BASICALLY WE LOOKED AT, UH, THE, THE SELECTED, UH, LIMITED CONTINGENCY ANALYSIS IN THE STUDY AREA AND ALSO LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, THE IMPACT OF EXISTING STABILITY. SO, UM, BASED ON THIS ANALYSIS, UM, WE DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH ADDING THIS LG 7 65 KV LINE. UM, AND WE DO NOT, AT THIS POINT, WE DO, WE DO NOT SEE AN IMPACT ON THE WEST STABILITY LIMIT, UH, THAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE PREVIOUS STUDY, WHICH IS THE 7 65 KV STEP PLAN STUDY. SIMILARLY, WE DID, UH, PERFORM THIS, UH, SENSITIVITY FOR CONGESTION ANALYSIS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS. UM, SO, UH, BASED ON THE CONGESTION ANALYSIS, WE DID IDENTIFY AN ADDITIONAL CONGESTION IN THE STUDY AREA. UM, BUT AS PART OF THE TYPICAL PLANNING ANALYSIS, WE WILL START EVALUATING THOSE CONGESTION IN THE SUBSEQUENT PLANNING STUDIES, UH, SEE WHETHER, YOU KNOW, IT MAKES ECONOMICAL OR IT, IT JUSTIFIES AN ECONOMIC PROJECT TO RELIEVE THOSE CONGESTION BECAUSE THIS IS MORE RELATED TO THE DY FOR THE RELIABILITY ANALYSIS. UM, NO IMPACT ON FUTURE GENERATION STUDY. UM, THIS IS THE GENERATION SENSITIVITY. UM, UM, I THINK, UM, SO WE DO NOT DO A LOAD SCALING BECAUSE WE, WE DON'T DO THIS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T BREAK THE STUDY AREAS BY DIFFERENT ZONES. SO WE HAVE LIKE ONE COMPREHENSIVE MODEL WE USE FOR PLANNING. AGAIN, SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT, UH, THIS WOULD ADD A NEW 131 MILES OF NEW 7 65 KB LINES, SINGLE CIRCUIT LINE, UM, BETWEEN EUCLID AND LG. UH, AS PART OF THIS, BUILD THIS NEW STATION, UH, 7 65 KV STATION AND ADD NEW 7 65 KV TRANSFORMERS, AS WELL AS LOOP EXISTING 3 45 KV LINES INTO THIS NEW 7 65 KV STATION. AND AS PART OF THIS, UH, WE NEED TO UPGRADE SOME EXISTING THREE 40 V KB STATIONS, UM, TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE 7 65. SO WE'RE INCREASING THE BREAKER RATINGS, 80 KA AND AS I SAID, THERE ARE TWO NEW, APPROXIMATELY TWO MILES OF LINES THAT WERE LOOPED INTO THE NEW 7 65 KB STATION. SO BASED ON THE REVIEW, ERCOT WILL RECOMMEND THE BOARD ENDORSE THE INCLUDE 7 65 KV STOP STATION AND THE TRANSMISSION LINE EDITION PROJECT AS IDENTIFIED UNDER 2024 RTP TO ADDRESS THE [01:45:02] LOAD GROWTH IN ESPECIALLY THE CENTRAL TEXAS AREA. UH, THE EXPECTED IN-SERVICE DATE IS JUNE 30TH, 2031. AND OF COURSE, THE ESTIMATED IN ESTIMATED COST IS 1.831 BILLION, AND THIS LINE WILL REQUIRE A CCN. IT'S 131 MILES OF, UH, NEW TRANSMISSION LINE, UM, BUILT JOINTLY BY YES, UM, LCRA AND CENTERPOINT. UH, AGAIN, THESE ARE THE, THIS IS THE RECOMMENDATION, THE RATINGS OF THE NEW TRANSMISSION LINE. UM, UH, I DON'T THINK, YES. UH, ONE MORE THING TO ADD IS, YEAH, THERE, THERE WILL BE LIKE REQUIREMENTS TO ADD, LIKE ADDITIONAL REACTORS TO SUPPORT THE VOLTAGE FOR THE LINE AND OPERATIONS. SO THAT WILL BE DETERMINED AS, UH, WE AS THE TSPS PERFORM THEIR OWN STUDIES AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE THOSE DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS. OKAY. SO HERE'S, HERE'S THE BREAKDOWN. UM, THE LIKE 131 MILES, LIKE SPLIT BETWEEN LCRA AND CENTER POINT. AND, UH, YEAH, I'LL PAUSE HERE. STOP HERE. ALL RIGHT. I SEE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND. BETH, LET'S START WITH, UH, NED AND THE LOAD NUMBERS. YEAH, SO I'M GUESSING SINCE THIS IS A 7 65, THERE'S NOT A DIRECT, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT AS MUCH OF A DIRECT LINK TO ANY PARTICULAR LOADS. IT'S LOOKING MORE AT THE AGGREGATE AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS THE SAME 19 GIGAWATTS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PREVIOUSLY. SO WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT LOAD GROWTH, IT'S, IT'S THIS PLUS THE PROJECT WE JUST LOOKED AT AND PROBABLY OTHER STUFF THAT'S ALL SERVING THAT SAME LOAD GROWTH. IS THAT THE FAIR TAKEAWAY? YES. THERE, THERE IS NOT, YOU KNOW, PARTICULAR LOAD THAT'S DRIVING, BUT IT'S THE AGGREGATE OF ALL THE LOADS IN THE CENTER TEXAS, ESPECIALLY IN THE, IN THE LCRA FOOTPRINT THAT'S, UH, DRIVING THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT, I THINK. OKAY. WELL, ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT. AND CERTAINLY AS WE GET MORE OF THESE COMING THROUGH, UH, I'LL JUST ECHO THE COMMENTS YOU SAID PREVIOUSLY AND, AND I THINK BETH AND, AND MARK HAVE, HAVE ECHOED IS, YOU KNOW, HAVING MORE, MORE TRANSPARENCY OF THAT AND KINDA LINING THOSE UP WILL BE REALLY HELPFUL TO US. AND I THINK IT'S ALL IN SERVICE OF THE SAME THING JEN FLAGGED IS MAKING SURE THE COST IS, UH, ALLOCATED APPROPRIATELY. THANK YOU. THANKS NED. OKAY, WE'LL DO BETH AND UH, JEN THEN EVAN, I INITIALLY WASN'T GONNA SAY ANYTHING 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PROJECT COMPARED TO ANY OF THE OTHER 7 65 PROJECTS GOING FORWARD, AND THEY'RE GONNA GET THEIR OWN SORT OF OVERALL SCRUTINY, I ASSUME. UM, WHAT I'M STRUCK WITH BY THE CUMULATIVE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD ON ALL OF THESE PROJECTS IS HOW IMPORTANT THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESS IS FOR IDENTIFYING THE NEW PROJECTS NEEDED THAT THEN APPEAR MANIFEST AS REGIONAL PLANNING GROUP PROJECTS. SO I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT AND EMPHASIZE THAT POINT. OKAY, GO AHEAD. UM, I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT NEW 7 65 SPECIFICALLY HOOKING INTO EXISTING 7 65. SO I WANT US TO ALL JUST LIKE TAKE A MOMENT TO BE EXCITED ABOUT THE NEW GRID THAT WE WILL HAVE. IT'S AWESOME. OKAY. THAT'S UPLIFTING. OKAY, EVAN, I'M VERY EXCITED FOR THE NEW GRID. UM, OKAY, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION. UM, SO NOTABLY THIS RPG WAS SUBMITTED IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR AFTER THE DECEMBER 15TH DATE OUTLINED IN PICKER 1 45. AND SO I KNOW WE JUST TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE ENCORE PROJECTS ABOUT HOW THAT, UM, ASSUMING WILL ALLOW SOME OF THOSE LARGE LOADS DRIVING THAT TO GET INTO BATCH ZEROS ALLOCATED. I WOULD JUST TAKE IT THAT NONE OF THE LARGE LOADS JUSTIFYING THIS TRANSMISSION UPGRADE WOULD THEN MEET THAT CRITERIA TO BE INCLUDED IN BATCH ZERO. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I, I THINK THAT'S, UH, THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I WILL, I'LL, I'LL LET THE, YOU KNOW, BA BATCH DISPATCH ZERO DISCUSSIONS TO HAPPEN SEPARATE FROM THIS. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYBODY TO COMMENT ON THAT AG DO YOU WANT, I I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I THINK THAT NO, NO PROBLEM. IT'S AN ONGOING DISCUSSION. YEAH. AND, AND WE WILL, I THINK, ADDRESS THIS MORE THIS AFTERNOON, BUT EVAN, COULD YOU JUST REPEAT THE QUESTION PLEASE? YEAH, I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE OTHER RPGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 15TH CUTOFF IN FIGURE 1 45, AND I THINK WE CONFIRMED THAT THE LARGE LOADS DRIVING THE TRANSMISSION FOR THOSE UPGRADES WOULD BE INCLUDED IN BATCH ZERO, BUT NOTABLY THIS ONE WAS SUBMITTED AFTER DECEMBER 15TH. AND SO I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT THE LARGE LOADS DRIVING THIS WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN BATCH ZERO [01:50:01] IF NOT QUALIFYING VIA ANOTHER PATHWAY, CORRECT? YEAH, THE, UH, INCLUSION IN AN RPG SUBMITTED AFTER DECEMBER 15TH, UH, IS NOT A VIABLE PATH, UH, UNDER THE CURRENT DRAFT LANGUAGE. OKAY, THANKS. AND I, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS SAID, BUT DO WE HAVE A ESTIMATE FOR HOW MANY LARGE LOADS WOULD NOT BE THEN INCLUDED? I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER, UM, BUT I WILL, I'M JUST LOOKING AT SOMEBODY HERE, BUT I DON'T THINK, UH, WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION. SORRY. OKAY. SHANNON, KIND OF FOLLOWING ON EVAN'S QUESTION, YOU KNOW, WITH THE ENCORE PROJECTS, WE, Y'ALL WILL BE APPROVING THOSE AND THEN THAT TRANSMISSION WILL GO INTO THE BATCH ZERO ALONG WITH THE LOADS IS ALLOCATED. SO THEN YOU'VE, YOU'VE AT LEAST GOT SOMEBODY PAYING FOR IT. THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE HERE IS IF YOU DON'T LET THE LOADS COME IN TO BATCH ZERO ALLOCATED, BUT SEPARATELY APPROVE THE TRANSMISSION, YOU'VE GOT A DISCONNECT. LIKE, WHO PAYS FOR THIS? AND SO YOU NEED TO HAVE THE LOADS COMING COME IN ALONG WITH IT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE PEOPLE PAYING FOR IT THAT IT WILL SERVE. OKAY, THANK YOU. YEAH, BUT, BUT SHANNON, THERE AREN'T ANY LOADS HANGING OFF THE 7 65 SYSTEM. AND SO THAT, UH, YOUR, YOUR POINT BREAKS DOWN AT THAT LEVEL BECAUSE YOU GOTTA BUILD OUT ALL, WHICH IS PART OF THE OTHER RPG ENCORE PROJECTS IS BUILDING OUT ALL THAT UNDERLAYMENT, REBUILDING AND REBUILDING THAT UNDERLAYMENT THAT GETS IT DOWN TO SERVING LOADS. BETH, THERE IS ACTUALLY A LOT OF LOAD OVER AT THE LCRA INTO THIS. ABSOLUTELY, YES. OKAY, I SEE JIM IN THE QUEUE. LET'S GO TO JIM. YEAH. UM, JIM LEE, CENTER POINT ENERGY, JUST PROBABLY MAYBE, UM, THIS MAY HELP, BUT, UM, THE EUCLID 7 65 PROJECT, I THINK WAS ROOTED IN THE 2025 RTP, AND SO IT'S SIMILAR TO THE EASTERN BACKBONE. THERE'S NOT A LIST OF LARGE LOAD PROJECTS IN IN THAT RT. I MEAN, IT IT'S BASED ON THE RDB, SO IT'S, IT'S NOT THE SAME AS WHAT THE TWO ENCORE PROJECTS THAT WE JUST SAW THIS, THIS WAS VERY MUCH MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED TO THE 7 65 STEP EASTERN BACKBONE PROJECT, WHICH WAS ROOTED IN AN RT P. SO JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT THAT'S CORRECT FOR THE LARGE LEVEL QUESTIONS, TRAVIS? OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? LCRA WANNA ADD ANYTHING? NO. OKAY. SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO ENDORSE THE 26 RPG 0 0 1 L-C-R-A-T-S-C AND, UH, CENTER POINT HOUSTON EUCLID 7 65 SUBSTATION AND TRANSFORMATION TRANSMISSION LINE ADDITION PROJECT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2025 RTP. THIS IS A COMBO BALLOT ITEM? YES. OKAY. OKAY. LET'S ADD THIS TO THE COMBO BALLOT. BLAKE, BLAKE HOLE, LCRA. FIRST OF ALL, I, I LIKE QUESTIONS. I LIKE THAT WE ASK QUESTIONS AND THINK THEY'RE A GOOD THING, BUT I DID WANT TO GET SOME CLARITY ON THE NEW RPG COMMENT PROCEDURE, MAYBE FROM BU AND FROM YOU, CAITLIN. OKAY. HOW, HOW SHOULD WE APPROACH THIS FOR NEXT T WHEN THIS COMES UP? IS THERE A DEADLINE FOR QUESTIONS SUBMITTAL, OR, UM, HOW, HOW SHOULD WE APPROACH THAT? SO I BELIEVE THE PROCESS IS BU'S GROUP WILL POST THE PRESENTATION SEVEN DAYS AHEAD, AND THEN QUESTIONS THAT THEY RECEIVE WITHIN TWO BUSINESS DAYS, THEY CAN THEN POST. I THINK WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THAT SO THAT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS CAN BE PREPARED. WE ARE NEVER GONNA PRECLUDE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, AT, AT THE TABLE OR, OR ONLINE ATTACK, BUT I THINK THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IN, IN SOME OF THESE CASES WE'RE GETTING THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER. AND SO IF ERCOT CAN SORT OF BETTER INFORM THEIR PRESENTATION AND, AND YOUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS CAN BE BETTER PREPARED, I THINK WE WANT TO DO THAT. BUT I, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA PRECLUDE LATER QUESTIONS OR, OR QUESTIONS AT THE, THE TABLE. AND I AGREE WITH THAT APPROACH. UM, ONE SUGGESTION [01:55:02] FOR KIND OF NEXT TIME IS, UH, ROBERT SUBMITTED, LIKE NOTICE ABOUT THE PROJECTS AND THAT SCHEDULE YOU LAID OUT TO THE RPG EXPLODER LIST. I THINK MAYBE ALSO INCLUDING TAC MEMBERS ON THAT LIST AS WELL, UH, OR THE TAC EXPLODER WOULD PROBABLY GIVE GREATER NOTICE AND ENCOURAGE EARLIER QUESTIONS. CURIOUS ABOUT THOUGHTS THERE? I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY RIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, I, I HEARD THAT BETH HAD QUESTIONS, BUT I DIDN'T GET TO SEE THEM MYSELF BECAUSE I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I'M ON THE RPG EXPLORER. THEY WENT TO RPG, SO, SO I THINK HAVING THOSE GO TO TAC IF THEY'RE QUESTIONS FOR TAC IS MAKES SENSE. WE CAN DO THAT, RIGHT ANNE? YEAH, ANYONE CAN SEND, I'D ALSO REITERATE MY EARLIER REQUESTS THAT ERCOT INCLUDE, NOT THAT WE'RE GONNA REVIEW THE, NOT THAT IN THE MEETING WE NEED TO REVIEW THE 25 PAGE DOCUMENTS FOR ALL OF THESE, BUT I THINK AS PART OF TAC MATERIALS, WE SHOULD HAVE THE FULL ERCOT REPORT, UM, IN ADDITION TO THE PRESENTATION. SO IN, IN AN APPENDIX OR SOMETHING JUST INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, IT JUST LIKE WE DO WITH THE NPRS, RIGHT? ALL OF THE MATERIALS ARE LOCKED INTO A ZIP FILE THAT ARE, ARE CONSOLIDATED AND EASY ACCESS. THAT'S UP. I, I SAY THAT BECAUSE I CAN'T GO TO AN RPG SITE ON THE WEBSITE AND GRAB ALL OF THOSE REPORTS EASILY. RIGHT. OKAY. UM, SO HAVING THAT FOR TECH I THINK WOULD BE, UH, UH, BU AND ROBERT, IS THAT SOMETHING WE, WE COULD JUST INCLUDE WITH THE RPG MATERIALS THAT ARE POSTED TO THE ATTACK PAGE? YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO COMMIT TO A SEVEN DAY IN ADVANCE, WOULD BE MY GUESS, BUT YEAH, I, I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AT THE, I MEAN THESE ARE ALL ALREADY AVAILABLE, RIGHT? SO THE VERY LEAST, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE THE LINKS FOR THOSE. MAYBE, MAYBE WE CAN WORK AWAY HOW TO, HOW TO DO THAT. ALRIGHT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. SO, UM, CHAIR IF I MAY, SO I DO HAVE LIKE 20 MINUTES I THINK, BUT I'M NOT GONNA TAKE THAT. SO BEFORE I LEAVE, I, I JUST WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGE MY TEAM. THERE ARE LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WORK BEHIND THESE PROJECTS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE RPG, WE HAD LIKE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS, THESE PROJECTS HAVE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL ATIONS OF UPDATES, SO I WANT TO CALL OUT SOME NAMES. UM, WANT TO ROBERT FOR LEADING THE RPG. THESE ARE COMPLEX PROJECTS, AS YOU ALL KNOW. THERE'S SEVERAL PROJECTS, UH, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROCESS THROUGH RPG, UH, SOME OF THE KEY PEOPLE, ROBERT, ESPECIALLY THESE SET OF PROJECTS, UH, TRAVIS ING LEE, UM, TANZA, BEN, I MIGHT BE MISSING SOMEBODY ELSE. NAME AND ABHA. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE, ALL THE HARD WORK, ESPECIALLY THE LAST FEW DAYS. LIKE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GET ALL THE MATERIALS FOR T AND THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DID A, YOU KNOW, INCREDIBLE JOB BEHIND THE SCENES. THANK YOU. YES. WELL IN FRONT. DO YOU WANNA DO IN FRONT OF THE SCENES TOO? I MEAN, JUST, YEAH, THESE WERE LARGE, COMPLICATED PROJECTS WITH MANY MOVING PIECES THAT SOMEHOW PEOPLE KEPT TRACK OF AND HERE WE ARE TODAY. YES. YEAH. YOU KNOW, TO OUR EARLIER CONVERSATION, THERE'S A LOT MORE OF THESE AND HIGHER DOLLAR AND YOUR TEAM HAS DONE A, A REALLY GOOD JOB BU AT, AT GETTING US MATERIALS, YOU KNOW, PRETTY FAR IN ADVANCE CONSIDERING THE WORKLOAD YOU HAVE. THANK YOU ALL. OKAY. AND, UM, I WOULD THANK THE TSPS TOO. THAT WAS SORT OF A TWO HOUR WINDOW. WE ASKED SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS TO BE AVAILABLE. I KNOW IT'S, UH, A LOT FOR THE, THOSE TEAMS AND THE, THE REGULATORY TEAMS TO BE PREPARED FOR QUESTIONS. AND I THINK EVERYONE DID A GREAT JOB ALL. WAIT, I WOULD PROPOSE WE TAKE A SHORT, A 10 MINUTE BREAK AND THEN DO, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER 45 MINUTES WORTH OF WORK BEFORE LUNCH? SO TAKE, TAKE A QUICK BREAK, COME BACK. COULD WE PUT [6. Revision Requests Tabled at TAC (Possible Vote)] ALL THE, COULD WE PUT ALL THE REVISION REQUESTS ON THE COMBO BALLOT AND BE DONE WITH THEM? NO, BEFORE A BREAK? YEAH, NO FAIR ENOUGH. BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH SEVERAL REPORTS. SO LET'S, LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE, LET'S, LET'S ACTUALLY START BY 1140 AND THEN WE CAN DO THE COMBO BALLOT BEFORE LUNCH. CERTAINLY THAT'S MY GOAL. SO LET'S, LET'S TAKE A, A SHORT BREAK BE ACTUALLY BACK BY 1140. AND THEN LET'S HAVE THAT COMBO BALLOT AT LEAST, MAYBE ONE MORE OR CUT REPORT BEFORE LUNCH. THE FOUR 15 PRS REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE FIVE 12 [02:00:01] ERCOT COMMENTS. AND ALSO TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF NPR 1306 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE FOUR 15 PRS REPORT. CAN WE PUT BOTH OF THESE ON THE COMBO BALLOT? YES, PLEASE GO AHEAD BLAKE. UH, BLAKE HOLDS SPEAKING FOR WMS IN THE INTEREST OF EFFICIENCY. WE HAD TWO OTHER REVISIONS RELATED TO 1306 THAT, UH, WMS ENDORSED THE COP MGRR OH FIVE TWO AND V-C-M-R-R OH FOUR FIVE. UH, THESE REVISIONS REALLY JUST REMOVED THE REFERENCE TO DIGITAL CERTIFICATE AND EACH OF THE REVISIONS, UH, MADE IT MORE GENERAL. THEY'RE, THEY'RE BOTH NO IMPACT REVISIONS. I'M CURIOUS IF WE COULD ALSO ADD THOSE TO THE COMBO BALLOT. NOW I, YOU KNOW, I I HOPE THEY'RE ALL GOING TO COMBO BALLOTS, SO I DON'T MATTER, I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS IF WE PUT IT ON THE COMBO NOW OR LATER, BUT, UM, BUT SURE. SO IT WOULD BE A, DO WE, HOW DO WE SAY THAT ACRONYM? IT'S A COP M-G-R-R-O 55 0 52 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE WMS IN THE FIVE EIGHT WMS REPORT. AND THE V-C-M-R-R 45 IS RECOMMENDED BY WMS IN THE FIVE EIGHT WMS REPORT? YES, MA'AM. CAN WE PUT ALL FOUR OF THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY, LET'S DO IT. AND YOU ADD RMS, WE CAN ADD RMSS RMSS IS ALSO RELATED. UM, AND THAT IS THE R-M-G-R-R 180 4 AS RECOMMENDED BY RMS IN THE FIVE 12 RMS REPORT. IS IT FIVE FIVE REVISION REQUESTS? OKAY. SO WE'LL PUT THOSE ALL ON THE COMMA BALLOT. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO WE'RE TO [7. RMS Report (Vote)] W WE'RE TO R-M-S-R-M-S-D ONE TWO REPORT ON ANYTHING ELSE? I HAVE A REALLY QUICK, UM, REPORTS, SORRY, IT'S A VERBAL REPORT. JOHN HAD TO STEP AWAY, SO HE ASKED ME TO DO IT. WE REALLY MADE SOME GOOD PROGRESS WITH THE MERGER OF THE TEXAS SET AND THE LOW PROFILING GROUP. AND, UH, THEY'RE REALLY NEAR COMPLETION OF THEIR WORK FOR THE LOAD PROFILING GUIDE. SO REALLY THAT'S, IT'S BEEN O OVER A YEAR AND IT'S REALLY BEEN A LOT OF HARD WORK AND WE ARE ALSO MOVING FORWARD WITH THE TEXAS MARKET TEST PLAN AND WE'RE TAKING KOTS APPROACH ON THAT AND MAKING IT AN NPRR. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DEBBIE? ABOUT, ABOUT RMS? AND WE HANDLED THE VOTING ITEM ALREADY. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE TO, UH, WMS [8. WMS Report (Vote)] BLAKE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT WMS REPORT? UH, YES. IT'S JUST A VERBAL REPORT AS WELL. OKAY. UM, JUST WANTED TO GIVE SOME NOTICE ABOUT OUR JUNE 3RD MEETING. ERCOT REQUESTED FOLKS TO COME PREPARED WITH THEIR OPINIONS ON NPR 1296, THE RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM. I IMAGINE THE MAJORITY OF OUR FIRST PART OF THE AGENDA WILL, WILL HANDLE THAT DISCUSSION, UH, AS WELL AS THERE MAY BE ANOTHER, DON'T WANNA STEAL BEST THUNDER, BUT THERE MAY BE ANOTHER ITEM LA ADDED LATER IN THE AGENDA TODAY THAT WE'LL DISCUSS. UM, AND THEN SECONDLY, THE SECOND PART OF OUR AGENDA, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE AND THE REVISIONS NEEDED TO HANDLE, UH, THE MOST RECENT RULEMAKING THERE. SO, UH, PROBABLY A LONGER AGENDA ON JUNE 3RD, BUT WANTED TO GIVE FOLKS NOTICE ABOUT THAT. THANKS. I'M VERY CURIOUS ABOUT THE ITEM NOW. ALRIGHT, YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT. OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, SO LET IS, [10. ERCOT Reports (Part 1 of 2)] WE HAD ONE LITTLE AGENDA SWITCH. WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE A DR PILOT GOVERNING DOCUMENT BECAUSE THAT IS A VOTING ITEM AS WELL. SO LET'S DO THAT. AND THEN LET'S GO TO THE COMBO BALLOT. HELLO. UM, CATHERINE GROSS WITH ERCOT, I WAS GONNA GO OVER SOME UPDATES TO THE A DR GOVERNING DOCUMENT THAT WE WANTED TO ASK FOR A TECH ENDORSEMENT OF, AND THEN ALSO GIVE A BRIEF UPDATE ABOUT THE PILOT PROGRAM AND ABOUT, UM, OUR MOVING THAT PILOT PROGRAM INTO PROTOCOLS. UM, SO HOW DO I GO? YOU JUST HAVE TO CLICK ON THAT SCREEN JUST TO ACTIVATE IT AND THEN THE MOUSE WHEEL AND STUFF. CLICK THE MOUSE ANYWHERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO, UM, A QUICK UPDATE ON THE GROWTH OF THE EIGHTER PILOT PROJECT. UM, YOU CAN SEE THAT JUST, UM, IN THE LAST YEAR THERE'S BEEN [02:05:01] A LOT OF A, A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GROWTH. UM, WE'RE NOW AT, UM, 236 MEGAWATTS, UM, ENROLLED. UM, AND THAT'S OF A 500, UM, SYSTEMWIDE MEGAWATT CAPACITY, UH, CAP. AND THEN FOR ECRS, UM, GETTING CLOSE TO FILLING THE 100 MEGAWATT CAP, UM, WE'VE GOT 78 MEGAWATTS. AND THEN FOR NON SPIN, ABOUT HALF OF THAT IS, IS FILLED. AND CURRENTLY THERE ARE NINE AIDERS, UM, THAT ARE QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE. AND SO, UM, UH, THE MAIN REASON THAT, UM, WE ARE COMING HERE TODAY IS TO ASK FOR ENDORSEMENT OF, UM, A COUPLE OF CHANGES TO THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT. UM, THIS FIRST ONE IS REALLY WHAT, UM, I GUESS MOTIVATED US COMING HERE TO, TO ASK FOR SOME CHANGES TO THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT. UM, THERE IS A SECTION IN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT THAT TALKS ABOUT, UM, A CAP ON, UM, THE TOTAL RESPONSE CAPABILITY OF ALL EIGHT ERS ASSIGNED TO ANY SINGLE SIM LOAD SHALL BE CAPPED AT A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE RATING OF THE SIM LOAD. AND, UM, AS WE WERE GETTING CLOSER TO THAT CAP FOR SOME AIDERS, UM, WE TALKED WITH OPERATIONS AND REALIZED THAT THAT, UM, THAT CAP IS ACTUALLY NOT NEEDED. UM, A LOT OF THESE AGGREGATIONS, IF YOU'RE THINKING OF INDIVIDUAL PREMISES THAT ARE SPREAD OUT, UM, THEY ARE ONLY LOOSELY RELATED TO THE SIM LOAD WHERE THEY'RE MODELED AT. UM, SO HAVING THIS CAP IS ACTUALLY NOT SERVING AN OPERATIONAL, UM, NECESSITY. AND SO, UM, THERE'S TWO SPOTS IN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT THAT HAVE THIS LITTLE PARAGRAPH THAT WE WANTED TO REMOVE. UM, IF THERE ARE, UM, ANY OPERATIONAL CONCERNS OR CONCERNS WITH PHYSICAL SYSTEM LIMITS, THOSE CAN STILL BE ADDRESSED, UM, THROUGH THE ADA PROCESS AND THROUGH UPDATING THE DODA FORMS. UM, AND I SEE THERE'S A QUESTION FROM BOB HILTON. YEAH, JUST REAL QUICKLY, YOU KNOW, UH, ON THESE, UM, AND I MAY HAVE MISSED THIS OR MAY NOT KNOW IT 'CAUSE I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROGRAM, BUT, UH, IN THE ANCILLARY SERVICES AND EVERYTHING, IS THERE STATISTICS ON, ON COMPLIANCE ON THOSE TO, UH, DISPATCH INSTRUCTIONS AND COMPLYING WITH WHAT IS NEEDED FOR ECRS AND NONS SPIN? I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY NONCOMPLIANCE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THOSE. RYAN, DO YOU, RYAN? SO, UH, WE DO PUBLISH, UM, UH, I'M BLANKING ON THE EXACT ACRONYM, BUT BASICALLY IT'S A COMPLIANCE WITH DISPATCH METRIC THAT ALL, UH, CONTROLLABLE LOAD RESOURCES ARE SUBJECT TO. AND, UH, ADR R AS A LR ARE SUBJECT TO THAT. I, I CAN'T PULL ANY, UH, STATISTICS, UH, OFFHAND BUT THE, I DON'T THINK WE'VE SEEN LIKE A SYSTEMIC ISSUE WITH COMPLIANCE. OKAY, GOOD. AND 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, THERE WAS TALK RIGHT HERE ABOUT RAISING SOME OF THESE LIMITS OR GETTING RID OF SOME OF THESE LIMITS AND I'D BE REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT BEFORE WE REALLY DID THAT. OKAY. DO YOU WANNA GO TO MORE QUESTIONS, PHIL? SURE, YEAH. HEY CATHERINE, ON THIS SLIDE IS IT, ARE THIS STILL MAINLY UM, BATTERIES? YES. DO YOU HAVE A OKAY, THANKS. OKAY, GO AHEAD. OKAY, AND THEN, UM, SO AS I SAID, THE SIM LOAD RATING CAP IS THE, THE MAIN CHANGE. UM, BUT AS WE ARE LOOKING AT THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT, SINCE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD TO ASK FOR THEM TO APPROVE THAT CHANGE, WE LOOKED FOR ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDED TO BE UPDATED. UM, THERE IS CURRENTLY ON OUR WEBSITE, YOU CAN LOOK UP IF YOU'RE INTERESTED AND SEE HOW CLOSE WE ARE GETTING TO THE PARTICIPATION LIMITS. SO HERE WHERE IT SAYS TOTAL, YOU CAN COMPARE THAT TO WHAT THE CAP IS. BUT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT JUST TO ADD A LITTLE SENTENCE TO LET PEOPLE KNOW IF YOU WANNA KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT, UM, PARTICIPATION LEVELS ARE, GO TO OUR WEBPAGE TO FIND OUT THOSE, THOSE UPDATES. SO THAT'S BEEN ADDED INTO THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT. AND THEN FROM, UM, I THINK TWO, I GUESS THE LAST TIME THAT WE UPDATED THE CAPS, THERE WAS ONE SPOT WHERE WE MISSED, UM, UPDATING A REFERENCE. SO THAT HAS ALSO BEEN UPDATED AND THE RED LINE VERSION OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT IS ALSO AVAILABLE WITH THE MATERIALS FOR TODAY. UM, SO FOR NOW, UM, WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON SEEING HOW, UM, THE PILOT IS OPERATING. UM, WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING THROUGH DESIGN QUESTIONS THAT WILL NEED TO BE ANSWERED AS WE MOVE THE PILOT INTO PROTOCOLS AND WE ARE WORKING ON THAT NOW, HAVING A LOT OF MEETINGS, ALSO TALKING WITH UM, [02:10:01] DSWG ON THOSE ISSUES AND MEETING INDIVIDUALLY WITH STAKEHOLDERS. AND WE ARE CONTINUING TO DO THAT THROUGH, UH, NEXT QUARTER. AND THEN FOR, UM, THE LAST QUARTER OF 2026, OUR GOAL IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN NPRR PACKAGE READY, UM, THAT WE CAN SHARE. AND SO TO MOVE THE WHOLE PILOT COMPLETELY INTO THE PROTOCOLS. UM, BILL, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEP. DEFINITELY SUPPORT, UM, MAKING THIS A FORMAL PRODUCT IN THE PROTOCOLS. ONE QUESTION I HAD IS JUST GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, IS THERE FURTHER AUTOMATION BEING CONTEMPLATED, LIKE PROCESSING THE DOTA AND ALL THAT? 'CAUSE THAT'S PAINFUL. YES. I THINK THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT WOULD BE GREAT. UM, HAVING A MUCH MORE STREAMLINED PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS A LOT OF, IT'S AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S BACK AND FORTH OF YEP. UM, SENDING FROM THE QSC TO, TO THE DSP AND THEN, THEN WE GET INVOLVED AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH WITH, UM, BLOCKING OFF OR REJECTING INDIVIDUAL EASY IDS AND IT'S HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF THAT. AND SO WE ARE LOOKING AT AN AUTOMATED PROCESS FOR THAT. OKAY. I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THIS OR COMBO BALLOT IF YOU NEED IT. OKAY. ARE YOU DONE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION? YES. ALRIGHT. UH, MITCH. HI, MITCH FROM, FROM BASE POWER HERE, JUST, UM, KIND OF TO ALSO PARTIALLY ANSWER BILL'S QUESTION. WE DID JUST HAVE A DEMAND SIDE WORKING GROUP MEETING YESTERDAY WHERE, UM, SOME OF THE KIND OF POTENTIAL UPDATES TO THE A DER PROGRAM AS WELL AS, UM, MOVING FORWARD SOME KIND OF DESIGN QUESTIONS AS WELL AS AUTOMATION AROUND THE, THE DO DEFORM WAS DISCUSSED. UM, SO THE, UH, THE DEMAND SIDE WORKING GROUP I THINK IS WHERE A LOT OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE GOING TO BE HELD IN THE FUTURE. AND ALSO JUST HIGHLIGHTING, UM, THAT WE HAD ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS YESTERDAY, UH, FOR INTERESTED PARTIES. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO ENDORSE THE, UM, A DER PILOT PROJECT, GOVERNOR DOCUMENT AS PRESENTED. CAN WE PUT THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT? LET'S PUT IT ON THE COMBO BALLOT. ALL RIGHT. NOW LET'S GO [9. Combo Ballot (Vote)] TO OUR COMBO BALLOT. UM, BEFORE WE TAKE IT UP OR BEFORE WE GET STARTED, UM, WE, WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT, UM, PR 1 45 AND NPR 1325, LESS THAN A WEEK AGO. SO WE NEED TO WAIVE NOTICE. UM, SO I WOULD ASK IF WE CAN PUT WAIVING NOTICE OF PR 1 45 AND NPR 1325 ALSO ON THE COMBO. AND THEN I KNOW BILL HAS A OTHER REQUEST. LET'S GO TO BILL. YES. I MADE THIS SUGGESTION LAST WEEK. OKAY. I THINK'S BLEEDING TOGETHER. UM, IT WOULD BE TO HELP GO AHEAD. YOU DO? YEAH. TO HELP STREAMLINE OUR EFFORTS AFTER LUNCH. UM, I DON'T BELIEVE 1325 IS CONTROVERSIAL AT ALL. THERE HAVE BEEN NO OPPOSING COMMENTS FILED IN ANY WAY. ONLY ERCOT CLEANUP. I WOULD SUGGEST WE PUT THAT ON THE COMBO BALLOT AS WELL. SO THAT WOULD BE, UM, RECOMMENDED. 1325 AS RECOMMENDED BY FIVE SIX PRS REPORT AS AMENDED BY ERCOT FIVE 11 COMMENTS AND THE THREE FOUR IMPACT ANALYSIS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED THE IA, WE DON'T NEED THE I A QUESTION MARK. WE APPROVED IT. HOW DID WE APPROVE THE IA? PRS APPROVED IT. NO, WE DIDN'T APP APPROVE. YEAH. THREE FOUR IA. ANN P'S ALREADY APPROVED IT. SO YOU, OKAY. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THE IA. CORY, DO YOU OBJECT TO THAT? RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF 1325 IS RECOMMENDED BY FIVE SIX PRS REPORT IS AMENDED BY, OR FIVE 11 COMMENTS. I'M JUST LOOKING FOR CLOSURE AT LEAST ON PART OF THIS. PROBABLY A LITTLE LATE ON THAT ONE. I WAS A, THE PROBLEM IS THERE IS A, WE WOULD BE JULIUS CAESAR, AND THEN IF SOMETHING HAPPENS WITH FIGURE 1 45, WE CAN'T UNAPPROVE 1325. I KNOW, I, I HEAR THE CONCERN. THE RUBICON, I'M CONFIDENT, [02:15:01] MAYBE OVERLY SO THAT WE WILL VOTE OUT A VERSION OF PICKER 1 45 EITHER TODAY OR TOMORROW BEFORE MIDNIGHT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE OR WHAT'S GONNA BE IN IT, BUT I I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA SEND 1325 TO THE BOARD ON ITS OWN. AND IF ANYONE DISAGREES WITH THAT, WELCOME TO HEAR THOUGHTS. IT'S MAY, SORRY. IT'S MAY 15TH COMMENTS, NOT MAY 11TH COMMENTS. DOES THAT CHANGE YOUR MIND IN ANY WAY? BILL BARNES . OKAY. ARE PEOPLE OKAY WITH THAT ON THE COMBO COMBO BALLOT? OKAY. AND WILL YOU BE MAD AT US? NO, NO. UM, IN THE MOTION FOR THE L-C-R-A-R-P-G PROJECT, SHOULD IT SAY 2025. OKAY. IT SAYS RTP. NEVERMIND. IT'S JUST CUT OFF. OKAY. OKAY. THIS IS A LONG COMBO BALLOT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE COMBO BALLOT. BOB BILL, I ALREADY GAVE YOU ONE, DAVID. SO HIS FINGER WAS HIGHER THAN MINE, THOUGH. HIS FINGER WAS HIGHER AGAIN, BUT, AND AARON DIDN'T EVEN TRY THIS TIME. SHE'S MAD AT ME. RIGHT. CHILDREN , SHE'S MAD AT YOU FOR, OKAY. WELL, WE CAN WORK THAT OVER LUNCH. IT'S THE, THE MOTION. AND THE SECOND ARE BOB HILTON AND BILL BARNES ARE, AND THEY MAY BE MAD AT EACH OTHER ALSO, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW. NEVER, NEVER. BUT THERE'S A DISPUTE IN THE IO IOU SEGMENT THAT WE WILL RESOLVE OVER LUNCH. OKAY. THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU Y'ALL. ALL RIGHT. OUR MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMBO BALLOT. WE WILL START UP WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH GARRETT? YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. MIKE? YES. THANKS. THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS? YES. THANK YOU. COURT. THANK YOU NICK. NICK FARBA YOU WITH US? I CAN TAKE YOU IN CHAT AGAIN. NICK. I'LL, I'LL LOOP BACK. UH, BETH? YES. THANK YOU, SARAH FOR WILL? YES. 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, COREY. THANK YOU, SIR. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. NED? YES. THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU, BRIAN. THANK YOU. YES, THANK YOU. BOB HILTON. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. I GOT YOU, NICK. AND CHAT ONTO, UH, CAITLIN. SORRY. YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IPMS. JEREMY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU IAN FOR SETH. YES. THANK YOU. AND THEN IAN. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU SHANE FOR RASHMI. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. ONTO OUR I REPS. BILL? YES. AND THEN BILL FOR J? YES. THANK YOU TWICE. CHRIS? YES. THANK YOU, JEN. YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IOUS. MARTHA? YES. YOU KEITH? YES. YOU AARON? YES. THANK YOU, DAVID FOR ABBY? YES. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR MUNIS. ALICIA? YES. THANK YOU, JOSE. YES. THANK YOU, CURTIS. YES. THANK YOU. AND DIANA FOR DAVID. YES. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK Y'ALL. AMAZING. OKAY. I'M OVERLY CONFIDENT. ALSO, LIKE BILL BARNES. I THINK WE CAN FINISH ALL THESE OR WORKOUT REPORTS BEFORE LUNCH. UM, MAYBE. SO LET'S, THANK YOU COREY. ANY, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT WE VOTED ON? ANY ANYTHING? OKAY. [10. ERCOT Reports (Part 2 of 2)] LET'S GO TO, UM, MAGGIE, WITH THE FFSS SETTLEMENT REPORT. YEAH, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO CLICK ON THE LEFT SCREEN JUST TO ACTIVATE IT, AND THEN ONCE YOU'RE DONE, YOU SHOULD, MOUSE WHEEL OR ARROWS WILL WORK. OKAY. HELLO EVERYBODY. MAGGIE SHANKS FROM ERCOT SETTLEMENTS, AND THIS IS THE FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE SETTLEMENT REPORT FOR THE 20 25 20 26 SEASON. SO, JUST SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS REPORT. UM, AT THE END OF EVERY SEASON, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A REPORT TO TACK, UM, RELAYING THE SETTLEMENT DOLLARS THAT WERE PAID FOR FIRM FUELS, UH, SUPPLY SERVICE ON APRIL 29TH. A SECONDARY REPORT WAS PROVIDED THAT, UH, DESCRIBES THEIR REASONS FOR DEPLOYMENT, AND THAT WAS, UH, YOU COULD FIND THOSE MATERIALS ON THE APRIL 29TH TECH MEETING. UH, SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS SEASON, WE DID HAVE [02:20:01] 32 GENERATION RESOURCES AWARDED AS PRIMARY FFF SSRS. THE CLEARING PRICE WAS AT $12,240 PER MEGAWATT, AND WE DID HAVE A TOTAL OF 4254.6 MEGAWATTS PROCURED. UH, DURING THE SEASON, WE DID DECERTIFY AND RECERTIFY FOR FF SSRS. SO AFTER THAT RECERTIFICATION IT DROPPED. UM, THE MEGAWATT PROCURE DROPPED SLIGHTLY TO 4250.4 MEGAWATTS. THE TOTAL COST OF THIS SEASON, THE PROJECTED COST WAS A LITTLE BIT OVER $52 MILLION. THE STANDBY PAYMENT AT THE END OF THE SEASON WAS A LITTLE BIT UNDER $51 MILLION. AND THE REASON FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE $52 MILLION BUDGET OR PROJECTED BUDGET AND THE $51 MILLION STANDBY FEE THAT WAS PAID IS SOME RESOURCES, UM, HAD THAT STANDBY FEE REDUCED BECAUSE OF THEIR AVAILABILITY FACTOR. SO THEY HAD SOME OF THAT MONEY, UM, REDUCED. WE ALSO, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, HAD FOUR FFF SSRS THAT WERE DE-CERTIFIED, UH, DURING THE SEASON BETWEEN DECEMBER 23RD AND JANUARY 9TH. THEY WERE LATER RE-CERTIFIED ON JANUARY 10TH. SO THAT ALSO WAS A REASON FOR THAT LOWER STANDBY FEE, TOTAL COST. UM, AND THE REASON FOR THOSE, UH, DECERTIFICATIONS WAS BECAUSE THOSE FOUR RESOURCES DID NOT MEET THE 50% AVAILABILITY FACTOR THAT YOU ARE, UH, SUPPOSED TO MAINTAIN WHENEVER YOU ARE APPROVED FOR THIS, UM, CONTRACT. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY FUEL REPLACEMENT COSTS THIS SEASON, EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE FUEL REPLACEMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED, WE JUST DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY DISPUTES FOR THOSE AMOUNTS. SO WE DID NOT HAVE TO PAY ANY ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR FUEL REPLACEMENT COSTS. AND THERE WAS ABOUT $5.7 MILLION THAT WILL BE CLAWBACK TOTAL FOR THIS SEASON. AND THOSE CLAWBACKS BEGAN ON THE TRIP STATEMENTS ON MAY 12TH, AND THEY'LL CONTINUE ON UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9TH. RELATED TO THE CLAWBACKS, WE DID HAVE EIGHT RESOURCES THAT RECEIVED CLAWBACK CHARGES. SEVEN OF THOSE WERE RELATED TO THE AVAILABILITY FACTOR OF THEM. SO THE LONGEST AVAILABILITY DURING A WATCH WAS 26 HOURS. THE SHORTEST UNAVAILABILITY WAS ONE HOUR, AND THE AVERAGE BETWEEN THE TWO WATCHES FOR THOSE SEVEN RESOURCES THAT WERE CLAWED BACK WAS ABOUT 9.6 HOURS OF UNAVAILABILITY. ONE RESOURCE DID RECEIVE CLAW BACK CHARGES RELATED TO THREE DIFFERENT PARAGRAPHS. SO THEY WERE, THEY FAILED TO STAY ONLINE DURING A WATCH FOR A FUEL RELATED ISSUE, AND THEY FAILED TO GENERATE, UH, THE REQUIRED TOLERANCE, AND THEY WERE ALSO UNAVAILABLE DURING CERTAIN HOURS OF THE WATCH. SO ONE RESOURCE DID HAVE THEIR ENTIRE STANDBY PAYMENT CLAWED BACK FOR THE ENTIRE SEASON. AND THESE ARE JUST PROTOCOL REFERENCES IF YOU WANTED TO SEE THE EXACT LANGUAGE RELATED TO THE CLAWBACK. AND THAT IS IT. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR MAGGIE? I HAVE ONE. ALL RIGHT. DEBBIE IS, OR MAYBE THIS IS FOR BLAKE. IS THIS THE DRIVER FOR YOUR WORKSHOP? CAN YOU, CAN YOU TALK INTO A MIC FOR THE PHONE PEOPLE? SORRY. IS THIS THE DRIVER FOR YOUR WORKSHOP, BLAKE? NO, MA'AM. THE, THE PUC RECENTLY EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, FIRM FUEL SUPPLY PARTICIPATION, AND THAT WILL BE THE FOCUS OF OUR WORKSHOP, IS TO TALK THROUGH NEW PROTOCOLS TO, UH, ENACT THAT EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY. THANK YOU. YEAH, I BELIEVE THIS IS MAGGIE. THIS IS REQUIRED AFTER THE, THE SEASON? YES, CORRECT. AWESOME. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE POTENTIAL PRICE CORRECTION WITH MATT. HELLO, MY NAME'S MATT YOUNG WITH ERCOT. I'M GONNA BE GOING OVER A POTENTIAL PRICE CORRECTION FOR THE REAL TIME MARKET. UH, THE SUMMARY IS BASICALLY WE HAD A ENERGY OFFER CURVES THAT WERE GENERATED BY SCED FOR QUALIFIED FACILITIES THAT WERE INCORRECT. UM, OUT OF THE 20 PLUS DAYS THAT WE LOOKED AT, THERE WERE FIVE OPERATING DAYS THAT MET CRITERIA FOR BOARD REVIEW. SO TYPICALLY, WHEN, UH, RESOURCE SUBMITS AN OUTPUT SCHEDULE, ERCOT WOULD CREATE AN ENERGY OFFER CURVE FOR THAT RESOURCE, UH, SIMILAR TO THE ONE SEEN HERE. SO IF THEIR OUTPUT [02:25:01] SCHEDULE IS 50 MEGAWATTS, THEN THE, UH, PROXY ENERGY OFFER CURVE WOULD BE AT THE FLOOR OF NEGATIVE TWO 50 FROM LSL UP TO THAT TARGET. AND THEN ABOVE THAT, UP TO HSL WOULD BE AT THE REALTIME SYSTEM WIDE OFFER CAP. UM, FOR QUALIFIED FACILITIES, WE HAVE SPECIAL LOGIC. UM, A QUALIFIED FACILITY IS CONSIDERED A SMALL POWER PRODUCTION FACILITY OR QUALIFYING CODE GENERATION FACILITY UNDER REGULATORY QUALIFICATION. UM, THE, UH, RESOURCES ARE TREATED AS A MUST TAKE OR MUST RUN FACILITY, MEANING ERCOT ACCOMMODATES THEIR OUTPUT RATHER THAN DISPATCHING THEM ECONOMICALLY. UM, AND WHEN A RESOURCE THAT IS DESIGNATED AS A QUALIFIED FACILITY SUBMITS AN OUTPUT SCHEDULE, THEN THE CREATION OF THEIR ENERGY OFFER CURVE HAS ONE KEY DIFFERENCE THAN NORMAL, WHICH IS THAT THE TARGET MEGAWATT FOR THAT PROXY OFFER CURVE IS ACTUALLY THEIR TELE THIRD MEGA MEGAWATT OUTPUT. THERE'S AN EXAMPLE THERE. AND SO ERCOT DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS A SOFTWARE DEFECT ON JANUARY 29TH AFFECTING THE REAL TIME MARKET. UH, THE DEFECT OCCURRED BETWEEN DECEMBER 17TH, 2025 AND JANUARY 29TH, 2026. ERCOT CORRECTED THE DEFECT IMMEDIATELY. AND, UH, AS I EXPLAINED, UH, SCED WAS BASICALLY FAILING TO GENERATE THE CORRECT ENERGY OFFER CURBS FOR THOSE QUALIFIED FACILITIES, OR CAUGHT ISSUED A MARKET NOTICE ON FEBRUARY 5TH TO PRESERVE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS' ABILITY TO REVIEW PRICES. THE NOTICE COVERED OPERATING DAYS JANUARY 6TH THROUGH JANUARY 29TH, UH, 30 DAYS FROM THAT NOTICE. UM, BUT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE OPTIMIZATION ENGINE ON THE, ON JANUARY 8TH THAT RESULTED IN US NOT BEING ABLE TO ACTUALLY DETERMINE CORRECT PRICES FOR THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH. SO THOSE WERE EXCLUDED. THE RESULTS, UH, SHOWED THAT THERE WERE FIVE DAYS THAT MET THE CRITERIA REQUIRED TO SEEK BOARD APPROVAL. UH, SHOWN HERE THERE WAS, UH, FOUR PARTIES THAT MET THE CRITERIA, UH, FOR CRITERIA ONE AND TWO PARTIES FOR CRITERIA TWO CRITERIA BEING THAT THE IMPACT TO ANY SINGLE COUNTERPARTY BEING 2% OR GREATER THAN 20,000 OR 20% AND GREATER THAN 2000. UM, THIS TABLE JUST SHOWS THE, UH, MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE VALUE IMPACT TO A SINGLE COUNTERPARTY FOR EACH OPERATING DAY AS WELL AS PERCENTAGE, THE LARGEST BEING ON JANUARY 25TH FOR $74,000 TO A COUNTERPARTY. UH, THE MAXIMUM ESTIMATED CHANGES TO CHARGES DUE TO ERCOT ARE SHOWN IN THIS TABLE, UM, THE LARGEST ONE, AGAIN, BEING THE 25TH, WITH A NEGATIVE IMPACT OF 284,000 ROUGHLY. AND, UH, JUST TO BE CLEAR, NEGATIVE AMOUNTS ARE INCREASED PAYMENTS TO MARKET PARTICIPANTS WHILE POSITIVE AMOUNTS ARE INCREASED CHARGES. AND OUR NEXT STEPS ARE TO PRESENT THIS TO THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL FOR THE, UH, THE JUNE BOARD SPECIFICALLY. THANK YOU, MATT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MATT ON HIS PRESENTATION? BLAKE? HEY, MATT. BLAKE, HOL, LCRA. MM-HMM . I'M, I'M CURIOUS, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE OUTPUT SCHEDULE SET TO? WAS IT A A RANDOM NUMBER OR WAS IT A, THE, UH, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THESE QUALIFYING FACILITIES SET THEIR OUTPUT SCHEDULE TO. THEY COULD HAVE SET IT TO ANYTHING. UM, THE PROTOCOLS SPECIFY THAT, UH, WE USE A TELEMETRY TO OUTPUT AS THE TARGET MEGAWATT, CORRECT. I, I, I GUESS MY QUESTION COULD BE A LITTLE BIT BETTER. WHAT DID SCED TREAT THAT OUTPUT? OUTPUT SCHEDULE AS? OH, SCED WAS USING WHATEVER THEY SUBMITTED FOR THEIR OUTPUT SCHEDULE. AND IT WASN'T JUST ONE RESOURCE, IT WAS ALL QUALIFIED FACILITIES. OKAY. SO IF THEY, FOR INSTANCE, IF THEY SUBMITTED THEIR OUTPUT SCHEDULE AS 50 MEGAWATTS, SCED WAS GENERATING AN OFF CURVE WITH THE TARGET MEGAWATT OF 50 MEGAWATTS INSTEAD OF THEIR TELEMETRY MEGAWATTS. OKAY. SO, YOU KNOW, TER WAS 30, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED IN 30 INSTEAD OF EXACTLY. GOTCHA. UNDERSTOOD. THANKS. MM-HMM . OKAY. THANKS FOR THE REPORT. NO MORE QUESTIONS. NEXT UP IS LUIS WITH THE 2027 AS METHODOLOGY TIMELINE DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY. I AM GONNA BE TALKING ABOUT THE 2027 ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY TIMELINE, UM, MOSTLY HERE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE RIGHT STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS AND UNDERSTAND WHERE TO START LOOKING FOR MATERIAL AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS. UH, SO, UH, WHAT I HAVE UP HERE, UH, WE, WE, WE TEND TO SHARE SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR EVERY YEAR, BUT REALLY TODAY [02:30:01] IS HERE AT THE KICKOFF, TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE GET THIS OUT THERE AND GET THE WORD THAT THIS PROCESS IS, IS STARTING, UH, TO START GET, UH, STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK. UM, AND, AND WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THE 2027 AS METHODOLOGY. UH, WE ARE WORKING TO GET BOARD AND PUC APPROVAL YOU SEE THERE BY SEPTEMBER 15TH FOR THE BOARD. AND THEN WE WILL DECIDE, UH, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, WHEN IT GETS TO THE PUC AFTER THAT. UM, WHAT I'VE PROVIDED HERE IS OUR TYPICAL TIMELINE WHEN WE DO GET REVIEW AND, AND FEEDBACK FROM THE MARKET. SO WE ARE GOING TO WORKING GROUPS HERE STARTING IN, IN JUNE. UM, WHAT WE DO AS AN OVERVIEW IN JUNE IS, IS TALK ABOUT THE METHODOLOGY, TALK ABOUT FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST, THINGS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON, THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO, AND THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO GET BACK AS FEEDBACK FROM THE MARKET. IF THERE IS ANY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO US, UH, LAST YEAR, AS WE WORK THROUGH THAT FEEDBACK, WE GET INTO JULY. WE START WORKING THROUGH THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY, THINGS THAT WE ARE WORKING ON THAT, THAT WE THINK WE CAN SOLVE IN THIS YEAR'S TIMELINE, THIS YEAR'S METHODOLOGY, UH, AGAIN, BASED ON PRIORITIZATION AND FEEDBACK WE GET FROM STAKEHOLDERS. UH, SO WE WOULD BE SHOWING PROPOSED METHODOLOGY IN JULY, UH, HOPEFULLY THEN TO SET UP FOR VOTING IN AUGUST AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS. UM, NOW, UH, WHAT WE'VE DONE, AGAIN, WHAT WE DO IS WE TRY TO BRING THOSE, THOSE DEEPER DIVE DETAILS TO THE WORKING GROUPS. YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT METHODOLOGY, THINK ABOUT CRITERIA, THINK ABOUT PARAMETERS, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THE NITTY GRITTY THINGS. AND THEN WE TRY TO GIVE HIGH LEVEL DETAILS TO, TO, UM, YOU KNOW, BRING THOSE BACK TO THE SUBCOMMITTEES, MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THAT UNDERSTANDING IS CORRECT AND, AND, AND GOOD TO GO. UM, SO REALLY, I'M JUST HERE TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY SEES THE TIMELINE, KNOWS THAT IT'S COMING, AND, AND SENDS THEIR APPROPRIATE, UH, RESOURCES TO THE MEETINGS AS, AS WE SEE, AS YOU SEE FIT. OKAY. CAN WE TAKE SOME QUESTIONS? SURE. ABOUT YOUR CONTROVERSIAL TIMELINE. OKAY. OKAY, LET'S GO, LET'S GO TO BETH. YEAH. THIS, THIS WAS THE, UH, SURPRISE THAT, UH, BLAKE WAS ALLUDING TO EARLIER. UM, AND, AND I HAD SHARED THIS WITH LUIS PROBABLY VERY LATE LAST NIGHT, EARLY THIS MORNING, , UM, ONE OF THE, AS CONSUMERS, AS YOU ALL REMEMBER, WE WERE NOT, UH, WE WERE NOT ENAMORED WITH THE AS METHODOLOGY LAST YEAR. AND SO, UM, WOULD SUGGEST KIND OF GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS IN MAYBE A LITTLE DIFFERENT ORDER THAN WE'VE DONE PRIOR. AND, AND I, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT IN JUNE, ERCOT COME TO THE SUBCOMMITTEES WMS AND ROS TO LAY OUT THEIR ISSUES AND LET THE SUBCOMMITTEES DECIDE WHICH WORKING GROUPS NEED TO DIG INTO SPECIFICS. UM, PART OF THAT IS JUST AS, AND MY CONCERN, FRANKLY, WAS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, COMING TO, IN AUGUST, COMING TO A VOTE AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL WITHOUT SOME OF THE KEY DETAILS BEING HASHED OUT FOR THOSE ENTITIES THAT WERE MOST CONCERNED IS PROBABLY PROBLEMATIC FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. SO THAT'S A VERY SPECIFIC, UM, SUGGESTION I'VE MADE. UM, LUIS HAS HAD LIKE SIX HOURS TO THINK ABOUT THAT MAYBE. UM, AND OTHERS MAY OBJECT OR HAVE OTHER, OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON THAT, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A SUGGESTION. I'VE ALSO, I'VE RUN THAT, UH, SUGGESTION PAST BLAKE AND SANDY, UM, AND THEY BOTH SEEMED AMENABLE TO IT AS THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRS. SO, BLAKE, WHAT DO YOU THINK? I SEE YOU IN THE QUEUE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOU UP. YEAH, I, I AGREE WITH BETH. I, I THINK THAT COULD BE A GOOD APPROACH TO ALLOW THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO GIVE SOME DIRECTION FOR WMWG TO, TO SPEAK ON AND, AND LUIS A SUGGESTION OR AN OFFER FOR OUR JUNE 3RD MEETING. OKAY. IT'S GONNA BE A LONG ONE ANYWAYS. WHAT'S ONE MORE THING? UH, BUT I THINK THERE'S ROOM, UH, THAT WE COULD AT LEAST HAVE AN INITIAL DISCUSSION THERE. IF, IF Y'ALL BE READY BY THEN. OKAY. UM, WE COULD DO THAT AND THEN KEEP THE SIMILAR SCHEDULE. I THINK THAT COULD PLAY OUT WELL. OKAY. SO I THINK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD, OR WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THINKING THROUGH THIS SINCE, UH, BETH HAD GIVEN ME A HEADS UP IS, UH, DO WE THINK THE SUBCOMMITTEES HAVE THE TIME IN THE LONG DISCUSSIONS TO TALK ABOUT ALL THE DETAILS? TYPICALLY, WHAT WE BRING IN THE VERY EARLY DISCUSSIONS IS 20, 30 SLIDES, 40 SLIDES OF REAL IN THE WEEDS, DETAILS OF PARAMETERS AND HOW WE'VE DEVELOPED THE METHODOLOGY WHERE WE'VE COME FROM. WE, LAST YEAR WE SWITCHED TO PROPO, UM, PROBABILISTIC. SO WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH ALL THAT BACKGROUND AGAIN. DOES, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO BRING SO TO WMS AND ROSS? AND IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE STICK TO WORKING GROUPS. SO THEN THAT GETS, KIND OF, GETS FILTERED UP TO THE SUBCOMMITTEES. NOW I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WMS AND ROSS ACTUALLY ARE HAPPENING EARLY IN, IN BOTH OF THESE MONTHS. UM, AGAIN, I'D, I'D ASK, IS THAT OKAY? IS THAT APPROPRIATE? ARE YOU LOOKING FOR SOMETHING MORE SUMMARIZED? [02:35:01] CAN I OFFER MAYBE JULY IS THE TIME WHAT, MAYBE THE LET THE WORKING GROUPS DIGEST SOME OF IT FIRST? THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST. OKAY. IS JULY, THINKING ABOUT THAT, UM, WWG GETS A CRACK AT IT. JUNE 29TH. WE WILL HAVE A JULY 8TH WMS MEETING, BETH, WHERE THEY COULD RAISE OR FLAG ISSUES OR CONCERNS. WE'D HAVE A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN. THEN THEY GET ANOTHER CRACK AT IT JULY 27TH. UM, I, I THINK THAT COULD ALSO WORK WELL. YEAH. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE IS, I DON'T KNOW THAT, AND MAYBE IT'S JUST A WORK GROUP, UM, YOU KNOW, DIRECTION ISSUE, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE WE WERE HAVING VERY SPECIFIC METHOD METHODOLOGICAL QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE METHODOLOGY AT THE SUBCOMMITTEES, AND EVEN AT TAC MM-HMM . AND, AND I'M ALL ABOARD, LET'S HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS EARLY. YEAH. UM, AND SO, UM, THAT, THAT, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THAT. BUT WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, BLAKE SEEMS TO BE A, A WORKABLE, UH, A WORKABLE APPROACH. I, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK IT'S A WAY TO MAKE OUR DISCUSSION SHORTER AND MORE SUMMARIZED. UM, AND SO I CAN WORK WITH AMANDA ON HIGHLIGHTING THE ISSUES THAT SHE THINKS WE NEED TO WEIGH IN ON. UM, AND I, I PREFER THAT APPROACH MORE NOW. OKAY. AFTER THINKING ABOUT IT. ALRIGHT. SO WE'D ADD THE JULY WM, S AND ROSS, BASICALLY. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND I THINK SO THEN THEY COULD GIVE ANY DIRECTION THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE JULY WORKING GROUPS. RIGHT. OKAY. AND, AND IF THERE'S ANY FEEDBACK IN BETWEEN, THEN THAT CAN STILL COME TO US. BUT I THINK TO ME, THAT GIVES THE GROUPS A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO DIGEST, HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH SUBCOMMITTEES, AND THEN GIVE US THE FEEDBACK SO WE CAN WORK IT INTO THE PROPOSAL THAT WE BRING IN JULY. AND I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE MEETING CALENDAR TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AS CLEARLY. I DID NOT. SO, OKAY. ARE WE GOOD ON CALENDAR? MAYBE LET'S GO TO ERIC. ERIC GOFF ON BEHALF OF DETECTIVES BUYERS ALLIANCE. UM, AT THE SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING LAST YEAR, THERE WAS A INTERACTION BETWEEN SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AND THE IMM AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION AROUND, UM, THE FEEDBACK AND THE PROCUREMENT STRATEGY. UM, AND CHAIRMAN GLEASON SAID, LET'S KEEP IT THIS WAY FOR THIS YEAR AND RECONSIDER THE METHODOLOGY NEXT YEAR. ARE WE DOING THAT? WE ARE TAKING THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HAD FROM THE IMM LAST YEAR AND THE PUC AND WE'RE WORKING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SHOW THAT IN THE METHODOLOGY AND HOW THAT THOSE PARAMETERS MAY IMPACT. SO WE ARE SHOWING THAT, THAT WE'RE STARTING AND HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THAT, THOSE METHODOLOGIES. OKAY. UM, CHAIRMAN GLEASON ALSO USED THE PHRASE IN THAT, UM, DISCUSSION, UM, REVISITING CONSERVATIVE OPERATIONS. AND I THINK THAT'S A BROADER CONVERSATION THAN JUST THE ANSWERING SERVICES PROCUREMENT METHODOLOGY, BUT IS INTERRELATED. UM, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT AT THESE JULY MEETINGS OF THE WORKING GROUPS, EXCUSE ME, OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES. THANK YOU BETH . UM, WE ALSO TAKE UP THAT MATTER GENERALLY BECAUSE OF IT'S INTERRELATED. OBVIOUSLY. I KNOW THIS IS A BIG DISCUSSION. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR A LONG TIME. BUT, UM, GIVEN THE COMMENTS AT LAST SEPTEMBER'S BOARD MEETING, I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR US JUST TO PLAN TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. I THINK THE, WHAT I'LL JUST SAY, YOU HIT IT ON THE NAIL, THE NAIL ON THAT IS SO THAT DISCUSSION IS BROADER THAN JUST AS MM-HMM . BUT THERE ARE SOME PARAMETERS IN THE AS METHODOLOGY THAT WE ARE REVIEWING TO, TO SHARE THE SCENARIOS AND HOW THOSE WILL IMPACT THE METHODOLOGY. OKAY. UM, SO BLAKE SANDE, CAITLIN, I HOPE THAT AT THOSE MEETINGS WE CAN JUST BE TEEING UP THE BIGGER DISCUSSION AND HOW IT'S ALL INTERRELATED. THANK YOU. OKAY. I THINK WE CAN DO THAT. LET'S GO TO JOHN HUBBARD. JOHN HUBBARD WITH TIC. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS BY ERIC AND, AND BETH AND APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S FLEXIBILITY TO MOVING THIS INTO, UM, INTO WORKING GROUPS WHERE, OR INTO SETTINGS WHERE, UH, CONSUMERS ARE MORE PRESENT. UM, I HAD A SPECIFIC QUESTION ON, IN, IN THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICES, ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS BY THE 2027 METHODOLOGY WAS REEVALUATING THE, THE, UM, THE, THE TARGET RESERVE LEVELS BASED ON, UM, [02:40:01] WATCH EMERGENCY ALERT LOAD SHED. IS THAT PART OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IN THIS BULLET? WE ARE WORKING ON EVALUATING WHAT THE SCENARIOS WOULD LOOK LIKE BY MODIFYING THE TARGETS. SO WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE DEVELOPED THE TOOL LAST YEAR TO BUILD SCENARIOS AND BE FLEXIBLE. AND WE HEARD THE FEEDBACK FROM WHERE WE LANDED LAST YEAR ON THINGS THAT WERE POTENTIAL GAPS OR THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT. AND WE STARTED THERE AND PICKED THOSE UP AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MOVE FORWARD AND SHOW WHAT QUANTITIES WOULD LOOK LIKE IF THOSE PARAMETERS WERE CHANGED. OKAY. 'CAUSE I THINK THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION WAS ESTIMATES OF COSTS AND PROBABILITIES OF EXPERIENCING THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS. SO AS LONG AS THAT'S STILL THE PLAN, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT. OKAY. WE WILL, WE WILL LOOK AT IT. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. BILL, STRONGLY SUPPORT THAT SUGGESTION THAT TARGET RESERVE LEVELS ARE ONE OF THE BIGGER IMPACTS ON HOW MUCH WE PROCURE AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS SUPER TRANSPARENT AS TO WHAT'S GOING ON. SO THAT FULLY SUPPORT THAT INCLUSION. ALSO, WE'LL MENTION THAT, UM, WE'LL BE LOOKING SPECIFICALLY FOR DURATION LIMITS, HOW YOUR URINALYSIS, UH, IS IMPACTED BY THE DRE AND LIMITS THE PROCUREMENT QUANTITIES ARE IMPACTED BY DURATION LIMITS. UM, I ACKNOWLEDGE ERIC'S COMMENT ABOUT THE COMMENTS MADE LAST SEPTEMBER, BUT A LOT'S CHANGED SINCE THEN. PARTICULARLY WE'RE SEEING INCREASED RUX DUE TO, UM, CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, LIMITED STATE OF CHARGE. THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM. YEAH. AND SO THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM IS THROUGH A MARKET SOLUTION, WHICH IS THE PER PROCUREMENT OF ANCILLARY. SO THAT'S ONE THING WE'RE GONNA BE FOCUSED ON. SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE, AS PART OF THIS ANALYSIS, HOW MUCH OF YOUR REC ACTIVITY THAT HAS OCCURRED IS DUE TO THOSE CONCERNS. AND IF YOU CAN QUANTIFY THAT AS PART OF THIS ANALYSIS, THAT WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. 'CAUSE THAT'S GONNA BE A BIG INPUT INTO THE DECISION MAKING. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, WHICH I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IS THE CASE, BUT WANT TO CONFIRM, WE ARE, WE ARE NOT GONNA BE INCLUDING DRS IN 2027 AT ALL. IT'S GONNA BE IMPLEMENTED AFTER THAT. SO WE'RE NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT DRS QUANTITIES UNTIL 28 AND BEYOND. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. OKAY. IAN, HAILEY, YOU GOOD? OKAY. IKA, CAN I ASK JEFF TO COME AS WELL JUST TO PLEASE COME OKAY. TO SUPPORT WHAT, UH, LUIS WAS SAYING. OKAY. WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER 2027. ALRIGHT. SORRY, WE COULDN'T HEAR THAT. UM, A MIC ISSUE. I JUST ASKED IMM TO COME AND ALSO TELL HIS PART OF THE STORY HOW WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER WITH ERCOT AND IMM REGARDING 2027 AS METHODOLOGY. GO FOR IT. YEAH. THANKS. SO, UH, APOLOGIZE, THANKS JEFF FOR NOT BEING HERE. I HADN'T PLANNED ON SPEAKING HERE TODAY, BUT, BUT HAPPY TO. UM, SO WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT AND WORKING DIRECTLY WITH, UH, ERCOT STAFF AND ACTUALLY, UM, WITH PEC STAFF, UH, IN THESE MEETINGS AS WELL FOR A FEW MONTHS NOW. JUST TRYING TO HAMMER OUT, UH, WHAT SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE USEFUL IN TERMS OF, UM, I GUESS, UH, SIMULATION PERMUTATIONS, UH, THAT WOULD REFLECT DIFFERENT TYPES OF, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD CALL IT POLICY, BUT, BUT STUDY PARAMETERS. UM, LOOK, LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS ONE IN 10 VERSUS, UH, AVOIDING A WATCH. AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER ASPECTS TO IT AS WELL. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M ALWAYS HAPPY TO SAY OR REPORT WHEN WE'RE HAVING A VERY POSITIVE INTERACTION WORKING WITH, UM, ERCOT STAFF. SO IT, THAT'S BEEN FANTASTIC. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO GO INTO ANY DETAIL. I DON'T IF THAT'S APPROPRIATENESS NECESSARILY, BUT, YEAH. YEAH. SO, SO, SO IT'S BEEN A GREAT PROCESS. I THINK WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS NOW OR SO. UM, AND IT'S BEEN TERRIFIC AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM GOING FORWARD. GREAT. GREAT UPDATE. THANK YOU. BRIAN. I'M SORRY, I'M, I'M JUST CONFUSED ABOUT THE TIMING HERE. ARE, ARE WE EXPECTING TO SEE THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES, UM, PRIOR TO, UM, THE WMS THAT'S ON JUNE 3RD? SO LIKE, SAY, UH, WEEK AHEAD OF THAT, THE MAY WHATEVER, 23RD OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER DAY THAT WORKS OUT TO BE THE 27TH. MAY 27TH IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, WE'RE WE MOVED THAT TO THE JULY MEETING. OKAY. JUNE THIRD'S NOT HAPPENING. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, SURE. I APPRECIATES THAT, BUT SO AM I NOT GONNA SEE SOMETHING UNTIL JUNE 10TH, 10TH, JUNE 10TH OF THE FIRST TIME, IS TALKING ABOUT IT AT PDC WG. SO I, I CAN TRY TO HELP. SO WE'RE GONNA BE COVERING AN OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY THAT WE HAVE TODAY AND POTENTIAL CHANGES THAT WE WANT TO MAKE AS A CATCH UP ON JUNE 17TH. UM, I'VE HEARD WE WANT TO ADD THE JULY ROSS [02:45:01] AND WMS MEETINGS AS POTENTIAL, UH, CATCHUPS AND SUGGESTIONS ON, ON METHODOLOGY THAT THE GROUP, THEY, THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. AND THEN WE WOULD BRING THOSE PROPOSALS ON JULY 22ND AS A FIRST. OKAY. SO I'LL SEE IT MAYBE IN WRITING LIKE A WEEK BEFORE JULY 22ND. YES. AWESOME. AND PROBABLY AS A TEASER, THERE WILL BE SOMETHING IN THE IMM STATE OF THE MARKET REPORT. I BELIEVE THERE IS. THANK YOU. OKAY. BUT THERE'LL BE ROBUST CONVERSATION AT THE JUNE WORKING GROUPS AND THE JULY SUBCOMMITTEES BEFORE THE 22ND. THANK YOU . OKAY. OKAY. JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DAYS TO SET ALARMS FOR, TO, YOU KNOW, GO SCRAPE FOR THESE THINGS. I WAS TELLING ANN JUNE 3RD ON GILMORE GIRLS IS THE DATE LUKE AND LOLE DON'T GET MARRIED. SO IT'S THE DATE NOW WE'RE NOT DOING ANCILLARY SERVICES. , I GOT AN APPLAUSE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU GOT THE WORD. THANK YOU. UNDERSTAND THE WORDS . OKAY. I THINK, I THINK LET'S DO IT. LET'S, LET'S FINISH OUR CUT REPORTS. THIS IS IMPORTANT, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S BETWEEN YOU AND LUNCH, TIKA. SORRY, YOU HAVE THE WORST SPOT OF THE DAY, BUT WE CAN DO THIS. UM, SO THIS, THIS IS A UPDATE. THE ERCOT REPORT IS, IS DUE THIS AUGUST. SO ERCOT IS LOOKING FOR SOME FEEDBACK. NIKA ISS HERE TODAY, AND THEN SHE'LL BE BACK IN IN JULY. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT WE GET THROUGH THIS TODAY AND, UH, BE ABLE TO GIVE HER ANY FEEDBACK BY THE END OF THE MONTH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT SETUP. YOU HAVE HEARD OF THIS TOPIC BEFORE, I THINK, UH, PUC STAFF WAS HERE SOMETIME LAST YEAR, LATE LAST YEAR, TO SET UP THIS, UH, PARTICULAR WORK THAT THE PUC IS REQUIRED TO DO UNDER PURA. THERE IS AN OPEN PROJECT ON IT. THERE WAS A SCOPE OF WORK THAT WAS OUTLINED. THERE IS A TIMELINE FOR, UH, WORKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS SO THAT PUC CAN MAKE ITS RECOMMENDATIONS BY END OF THIS YEAR. SO THE, THE MATERIALS THAT I HAVE TODAY IS ABOUT 12 SLIDES, BUT WHAT I'M HOPING TO DO IS QUICKLY GIVE YOU A BACKGROUND OF WHAT THIS IS, TALK ABOUT WHAT WAS OUTLINED IN THE SCOPE SHARE WHERE WE ARE TODAY. UH, GIVE YOU A TIMELINE SO YOU CAN PROVIDE ANY FEEDBACKS OF THINGS WE SHOULD THINK OF OR CONSIDER AS WE ARE WORKING ON THE ANALYSIS. WE'LL TAKE THOSE, WE'LL WORK ON THEM. AND, UH, IN AROUND LATE, WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR JULY MEETING, WE'LL TRY TO BRING BACK OUR FINDINGS, UH, AND WORK, UH, AND AFTER THAT WORK THROUGH OUR REPORT. SO THAT'S THE OVERALL PROCESS. UH, SO WE'LL LET GET INTO IT. LIKE I MENTIONED, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN PUR A, WHICH REQUIRES TO EVALUATE BY DECEMBER 1ST, WHETHER AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO, UH, ALLOCATE ANCILLARY SERVICE AND RELIABILITY COSTS MAY PRODUCE A NET SAVINGS TO CONSUMERS COMPARED TO WHAT WE DO TODAY. UM, THAT IS AN ACTIVE PROJECT. THE STUDY SCOPE IS OUTLINED. I HAVE LINKED IT, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. UH, WITHIN THAT STUDY SCOPE, THERE IS A TIMELINE WHICH GIVES A CUT TILL END OF AUGUST, UH, TO, UH, WORK WITH THE TAC AND PRODUCE A REPORT. SO, AGAIN, LIKE I MENTIONED, OUR PURPOSE TODAY IS TO REALLY SHARE WITH YOU WHAT THAT WORK IS, SECURE INPUT AS WE WORK ON THE ANALYSIS. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK. I DID PRINT OUT AT THE TAIL END WHAT THE OVERALL TIMELINE FOR THIS EFFORT LOOKS LIKE. SO THIS IS NOT THE ONLY TIME FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO PROVIDE INPUT, UH, AFTER WHAT, AFTER A COURT IS DONE IN THAT SEPTEMBER TO NOVEMBER TIMEFRAME. ALL ALSO, THE VOC STAFF IS PREPARING TO ENGAGE WITH YOU ALL. SO AGAIN, BEFORE I GET INTO THE GUTS OF THE WORK, CERTAIN WORDS YOU WILL HEAR ME TALK ABOUT AS I GET INTO THE DECK. AND YOU WILL ALSO SEE SOME OF THESE REFLECTED IN THE REPORTS THAT WE PRODUCE. UH, THE, THE, THE COLUMN ON YOUR LEFT FOCUSES ON THE ALLOCATION METHODS. BASE CASE IS THE CURRENT METHOD, THE LOAD RATIO SHARE ALLOCATION. WE CAN, UH, WE COIN THE TERM METHOD A TO TALK ABOUT, UH, UH, METHOD THAT FOCUSES ON ALLOCATING COST BASED OFF OF ERRORS IN OUR FORECAST OR ERRORS IN FORECAST DURING THE HIGH RELIABILITY RISK COVERS. THIS PARTICULAR METHOD IS SUPPOSED TO ALLOCATE THOSE COSTS ON A SEMI-ANNUAL BASIS, UH, UH, ACROSS DISPATCHABLE, NON DISPATCHABLE, AND LOAD THOSE [02:50:01] THREE BUCKETS. WE USE METHOD B. IT'S, IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO METHOD A IN TERMS OF THE ALLOCATION PRINCIPLE, BUT IT USES, IT ALLOCATES THOSE COSTS BASED OFF OF FORECAST ERROR ACROSS ALL HOURS. AND THE LAST METHOD, METHOD C AS FOCUSES ON USING A QSE CAPACITY SHORT ALLOCATION APPROACH TO ALLOCATE THOSE COSTS. SO IN THAT METHOD, THE COSTS ARE FIRST CHARGED TO CAPACITY SHORT QCS, AND THEN ANY RESI, ANY RESIDUAL IS THEN ALLOCATED BY LOAD RATIO SHARE. SO THOSE ARE THE ALLOCATION METHODS. NOW, COUPLE OTHER TERMS AS I GET INTO THE DECK AND AS YOU LOOK AT THE SCOPE, PRIMARY EFFECTS. SO WHAT IS THE PRIMARY COST OF, UH, MY PRIMARY IMPACT OF REALLOCATING THE COSTS WE'VE SEEN HISTORICALLY? SECONDARY EFFECT, ONCE YOU REALLOCATE THE COST, WHAT SHOULD YOU THINK AS FAR AS, UH, UM, MARKET PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR CHANGES? HOW COULD THOSE COSTS IMPACT CREDIT AND SETTLEMENTS? UM, AND EVENTUALLY WHAT, WHAT, HOW WOULD THEY IMPACT YOUR CONSUMER COST, UM, AS A WHOLE? SO, PRODUCTION SCOPE FOR THE WORK WE ARE DOING ALL FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES, NOT DRRS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE ARE, IT IS STANDARD DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE NO HISTORY ON IT. AND ALL OF THE RELIABILITY SERVICES, UH, THE HISTORY THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT WAS ALSO OUTLINED IN THE SCOPE. IT'S TWO YEARS HISTORY. SO 2024 AND 2025 DATA IS WHAT WE WILL BE LOOKING TO USE FROM HERE. I'LL SWITCH TO SHARING SOME MORE DETAILS. FIRST, I'LL FOCUS ON METHOD A AND METHOD B, THEN I'LL REQUEST MAGGIE'S HELP FOR METHOD C. SO IN METHOD A AND METHOD B, LIKE I MENTIONED, THE PRIMARY, UH, UH, APPROACH IS TO ALLOCATE COST BASED OFF OF OPERATIONAL RISK FOR WHICH THOSE SERVICES ARE PROCURED AS A REMINDER REGULATION. AS WE, THE QUANTITIES FOR REGULATIONS ARE BASED OFF OF ERROR IN OUR FORECAST. THE FIVE MINUTE FORECAST THAT WE HAVE. UH, SO THIS IS REALLY THE ALLOCATION CATEGORIES END UP BEING LOAD AND NON DISPATCHABLE. 'CAUSE IT'S THE NET LOAD FORECAST ERROR THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH FOR RRS. THESE, UH, PRODUCT, THIS PRODUCT IS PARTICULARLY PROCURED, UH, TO ENSURE WE HAVE SUFFICIENT FREQUENCY RESPONSE FOR THE LOSS OF OUR LARGEST TWO UNITS. THIS COST HAS, WE'VE ALLOCATED IT TO DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES BY VIRTUE OF THE LARGEST TWO UNITS. ECRS AND NONS. SPIN, AGAIN, ARE BOTH DRIVEN BY NET LOAD UNCERTAINTY. ONE IS INTRA NET LOAD UNCERTAINTY. THE OTHER ONE IS SUSTAINED UNCERTAINTY PLUS FORCED OUTAGES. SO IN CASE OF ECRS, AGAIN, THE ALLOCATION LOOKS SIMILAR TO REGULATION LOAD AND NON DISPATCHABLE. IN CASE OF NONS SPEND, BY VIRTUE OF FORCED OUTAGES ALSO BEING PART OF THE QUANTITY DETERMINATION, ALL THREE BUCKETS IS WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO APPLY THOSE COSTS TO. AS FAR AS RELIABILITY SERVICES GO IN BOTH METHODS A AND METHOD B, THEY WOULD BE AS I ASSIGN A HUNDRED PERCENT TO LOAD. NOW WITH THIS, I KNOW THERE ARE QUESTIONS I'LL REQUEST TO HOLD THEM AND I'LL, I'LL TRY TO TAKE THEM, UH, TOWARDS THE END METHOD DAY. UH, HERE'S, IF WE LOOK AT, UH, THE FOUR FORECAST ERRORS, UH, SOLELY DURING THOSE HIGH RELIABILITY RISK COVERS, WHAT WOULD THE, UH, REALLOCATION OF COSTS LOOK LIKE? NOW FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIGH RELIABILITY RISK HOURS, THERE WAS SOME GUIDANCE IN THE SCOPE ITSELF. UH, SO THE FIRST SET OF HOURS THAT WE'VE SELECTED WERE BASED OFF OF SEASONAL RAMP HOURS. AND WE'VE SHOWN THEM HERE, THE SECOND SET OF HOURS WERE TIED TO ANY LOW RESERVE HOURS. AND THERE WAS A SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR LOW RESERVES IN THE SCOPE. AT LEAST IN 20 24, 20 25, NONE OF THE HOURS MET THAT SPECIFIC DEFINITION. SO REALLY THIS ANALYSIS THAT YOU SEE HERE IS PRIMARILY TIED TO THE SEASONAL RAMP HOURS THAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THIS TABLE. UM, WE'VE SHARED, UH, IF WE AGGREGATE UP ALL THE COSTS DIRECTIONALLY, WHERE, HOW WOULD THE SPLITS LOOK LIKE FOR ALL FOUR ANCILLARY SERVICES, UH, REGULATION, R-R-S-E-C-R-S AND NONS SPEND. UH, WE'VE, WE'VE TRIED TO SHARE BOTH PERCENTAGES AND DOLLAR AMOUNTS, SO YOU HAVE THOSE FOR REFERENCE. I'LL SWITCH TO METHOD B FOR A MINUTE, AND THEN I'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING BETWEEN THE TWO. HERE'S METHOD B. SO REMEMBER, METHOD B USES THE SAME ALLOCATION PRINCIPLE, BUT IT APPLIES ACROSS ALL HOURS. NOW IF YOU LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGES, UM, DIRECTIONALLY OR, OR QUANTITATIVELY, THE SPLITS DON'T CHANGE BY MUCH BETWEEN THE TWO APPROACHES. THERE'S A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN ECRS AND NONS SPIN, BUT OVERALL, UH, THE, THE SPLITS LOOK VERY SIMILAR. SO LET ME DO THIS. I'LL PAUSE HERE. I SEE A SLEW OF QUESTIONS. LET ME TRY TO TAKE SOME OF THOSE AND THEN BRING MAGGIE OVER. OKAY. JOHN HUBBARD, JOHN HUBBERT WITH TIC ON, UH, SLIDE FOUR. THE, UM, WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE RRS ALLOCATION, IT'S, RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ALL ALLOCATED TO DISPATCHABLE, BUT THERE ARE SOME LARGE [02:55:01] NON DISPATCHABLE INTERCONNECTS THAT RS ALSO HELPS WITH, ESPECIALLY DURING INTERVALS WHERE THERE IS LOW DISPATCHABLE IN THE SYSTEM. UM, SO I'M CURIOUS WHY IT'S JUST DISPATCHABLE ALLOCATION AND NOT, UM, BROADER. SO, SO FAR, UH, I I LEAN ON THIS ONE MORE SO TOWARDS THE DIRECT DEFINITION OF HOW RRS QUANTITIES ARE SET. THOSE ARE SET FOR THE LOSS OF OUR LARGEST TWO UNITS. YOU ARE RIGHT, UH, ON THE SYSTEM IN REAL TIME. THOSE LARGEST TWO UNITS CAN CHANGE. BUT OUR, OUR PRIMARY REQUIREMENTS ARE BASED OFF OF WHAT WE CONSIDER THE TWO UNITS. UH, AND THAT'S THE, THE UNDERLYING REASON RIGHT NOW, AT LEAST IN OUR MINDS. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL CONTEXT. I'D SAY THE REAL TIME CHARACTERISTICS MAY MATTER MORE THAN JUST THE DEFINITIONAL PART. UNDERSTOOD. PART, BUT UNDERSTOOD. OKAY, GARRETT? YES MA'AM. SO ON METHOD A AND B, YOU'RE SHOWING IT'S BOTH DISPATCHABLE, NON DISPATCHABLE AND LOAD ON THE LOAD SIDE. WILL IT STILL STAY AT THE QSE LEVEL OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT ACTUALLY GOING TO THE SITE OR THE METERS? FROM A SETTLEMENT'S PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD THINK IT WOULD GO DOWN TO THE QSCS. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. BILL, ARE BATTERIES IN A DISPATCHABLE CATEGORY? YES. AND THEN WHEN YOU'RE ALLOCATING TO GENERATION EITHER DISPATCHABLE OR NON DISPATCHABLE, IS IT JUST GENERATION RATIO SHARE, OR HOW ARE YOU ACTUALLY ALLOCATING IT? SO LIKE A LARGE NUKE PLANT WOULD PAY THE MOST. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE. RIGHT. SO, UH, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE SECONDARY EFFECTS, I CAN SHARE WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DO. SO THIS IS MORE OF AGGREGATING UP TO DATA AND SIMPLY ALLOCATING IT, UH, AT SYSTEM LEVEL. BUT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THINKING THROUGH SECONDARY EFFECTS AND HOW WOULD THEY TRICKLE DOWN, SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING EXACTLY ABOUT THAT. WHAT MAKES MOST SENSE? IS IT A RATIO OF THE GENERATOR, THE SIZE OF THE GENERATOR OR NOT? SO FAR WE HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATING MORE TOWARDS WHAT'S THE REAL TIME HSL, UM, OKAY. UH, COMPLETELY AGREE WITH JOHNS HUBBARD. AGAIN, IT'S TWICE WE'RE BROWSED TODAY, MAN. DON'T ACT LIKE THAT'S SHOCKING. . UH, I COMPLETELY AGREE. LIKE THE AMOUNT OF RESPONSIVE THAT YOU GUYS PROCURE, WHICH I AGREE WITH YOUR CRITERIA, IS HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY INERTIA ON THE SYSTEM AT THE TIME. SO I, THIS, I WOULD CONSIDER THIS INCORRECT. LIKE YOU NEED TO INCORPORATE THAT THE IMPACTS ON INERTIA AND WHAT, WHEN YOU TRIP UNITS AND YOUR, YOU KNOW, YOUR FREQUENCY DECAY IS ALMOST ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON INERTIA ON THE SYSTEM AT THE TIME. MM. UNDERSTOOD. THAT IS LIKE, SO I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU FIGURE OUT HOW TO INCORPORATE THAT IN HERE. THANKS. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. CAN YOU TAKE A COUPLE MORE? YES, LET'S DO IT. NED. OH, DID I GO WRONG ORDER BOB? OH, SORRY. BOB WAS FIRST. EITHER WAY, IT DOESN'T MATTER. YEAH. AND KIND OF GO TO WHAT BILL'S TALKING A LITTLE BIT. I'M NOT NECESSARILY AGREEING WITH YOU, BUT THE CONCEPT OF THAT IS IF, IF YOU LOOK AT, AT ALL OF THESE, YOU CAN SAY THAT THE DEFINITION DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE SENSE 'CAUSE ECRS AND NON SPIN AND EVERYTHING ELSE ALSO TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION FORCED OUTAGE RATES AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. SO I, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT PIECE EITHER. SO YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH YOU DISAGREEING WITH THAT ON YOUR ASPECT THERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT I DISAGREE WITH IT ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN THE LADDER, THAT, THAT YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY GO BY THAT DEFINITIONAL. YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT OPERATIONAL. IT'S WHAT I THINK WAS SAID DOWN THERE ON THE END. SO, UH, THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK YOU NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT ORDER OF PREFERENCE HERE AND THE WAY YOU DO THIS MM-HMM . ECRS ACTUALLY YOU USE TO BACKFILL RRS IN THE END ANYWAY WHENEVER IT GOES. SO, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THOSE ASPECTS WHERE THESE ALL MIX IN TOGETHER ANYWAY, SO, SO SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THE WAY THE LANGUAGE IN THE SCOPE IS WRITTEN, IT DOES BOX US IN TO DOING CERTAIN ALLOCATIONS OF THE WAY WE HAVE IN METHOD A AND METHOD B. 'CAUSE IT DOES TALK ABOUT BASING IT OFF OF THE, THE RISKS FOR WHICH WE PROCURE THESE SERVICES. SO I NATURALLY DO HAVE TO TIE IT BACK TO THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY. WE WILL TRY TO, AT LEAST IN CASE OF THE FEEDBACK THAT BILL GAVE, I DO WANT TO GO AND SEE IF THERE IS A WAY WE CAN REFLECT THE, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INERTIA AND THE TWO LARGEST UNIT AND, AND THE IMPACT ON INERTIA BY HAVING THE BUNCH OF NON, NON DISPATCHABLE THAT WE DO. SO THAT WAS AT LEAST HOW I TOOK AWAY [03:00:01] THAT FEEDBACK TO MEAN RIGHT NOW ALL I'M SAYING IS, IS ALONG WITH THAT, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE OTHERS MM-HMM . YOU NEED TO TAKE IN THE FORCED OUTAGE RATES AND HOW THAT PLAYS INTO THE OTHER ONES ALSO, WHICH YOU DIDN'T MENTION. SO FORCED OUTAGE IS IN THE NONS SPIN BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE IT GOES. SO THE, SO THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PRO PROCUREMENT VOLUME THAT IS DRIVEN BY FORCED OUTAGES IS DRIVING THIS 28% NUMBER THAT YOU'RE SEEING ALLOCATED TO DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES. OKAY. NED, NED, YOU'RE STILL UP? YEAH. UM, THANK YOU. UH, TIKA, WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WHEN THIS ON A, UH, ARE YOU TRYING TO ESTIMATE ANY SECONDARY EFFECTS ON, SAY, COST TO LOAD OF, UM, SAY DISCOURAGING INVESTMENT IN GENERATION BY ALLOCATING COSTS TO GENERATION? THEN I, I HOLD THAT TILL MAGGIE'S DONE. I HAVE A SLIDE THAT GOES INTO QUITE A BIT OF DETAIL ON THAT SECONDARY. EXCELLENT, THANK YOU. SO, OKAY, I'LL, WE DOWN. OKAY. I REQUEST MAGGIE TO COME AND MAYBE SPEND SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT THE CAPACITY SHORT APPROACH. OKAY. SO METHOD C, WE LOOKED AT ALLOCATING THE ANCILLARY SERVICE AND RELIABILITY SERVICE COSTS USING A CAPACITY SHORT METHOD. SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE TOOK THE REC CAPACITY, SHORT ADJUSTMENT PERIOD CALCULATIONS THAT WERE IN EFFECT PRE RTC SINCE THIS STUDY WENT FROM 2024 TO 2025. SO THAT WAS THE DATA WE DID HAVE AVAILABLE AND UH, WE DID MAKE SOME MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THOSE CALCULATIONS AS WELL. SO JUST AN OVERVIEW, HOW DOES THE CAPACITY SHORT CALCULATION WORK? SO FIRST WE WILL CALCULATE A QS E'S CAPACITY SHORTFALL ON A 15 MINUTE INTERVAL BASIS USING THEIR REALTIME LOAD, UH, COP CAPACITY TRADES AND DC TIES AND DETERMINE WHAT THEIR SHORTFALL IS PER INTERVAL. AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THOSE, UM, AS COSTS OR OUR OR RELIABILITY SERVICE COSTS AND ALLOCATE THOSE COSTS IN PROPORTION TO, UH, WHAT THEY WERE SHORT PER INTERVAL. AND IF AFTER WE'VE CALCULATED THOSE CAPACITY SHORT CHARGES, IF THOSE ARE NOT ENOUGH TO COVER THE TOTAL COST OF THE SERVICE, THEN WE WILL UPLIFT THE, REMAIN THE REMAINING AMOUNT TO LOAD RATIO SHARE. SO THAT'S A OVERVIEW OF HOW THE CALCULATION WORKS. A COUPLE OF MODIFICATIONS WE MADE TO THE EQUATION. AND, UM, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THOSE ON SLIDE 13 IN THE APPENDIX AS WELL. UM, WE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE EQUATION, THE BILL DETERMINANT, UH, FOR R MAKE COAL AMOUNT, IF YOU WOULD JUST REPLACE THAT AMOUNT WITH THE ANCILLARY SERVICE OR RELI OR RELIABILITY SERVICE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO CALCULATE, YOU JUST REPLACE IT IN THE EQUATION THERE. AND THE SAME FOR THE MEGAWATT QUANTITY, YOU WOULD USE THAT MEGAWATT QUANTITY FOR THE ASSOCIATED SERVICE IN PLACE OF THE RU CAPACITY TOTE FOR IRRS. UH, THE HSL WE USED, WE USE THAT IN PLACE OF THE HIGH ANCILLARY SERVICE LIMIT FOR THE ADJUSTMENT PERIOD BECAUSE TODAY WE USE THE, UM, HASSELL SNAP AT THIS, AT THE SNAPSHOT. AND SINCE THIS SERVICE, WHENEVER WE'RE ALLOCATING AS COSTS AND THE OTHER RELIABILITY SERVICE COSTS, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE SNAPSHOT DATA SINCE IT, UH, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE IT. SO, UH, WE JUST USE THE HSL IN THAT PLACE. AND FINALLY, SINCE RU COSTS ARE CONSIDERED A RELI A RELIABILITY SERVICE COST, WE JUST PULLED THOSE COSTS STRAIGHT OUT OF OUR SYSTEM WHENEVER WE WERE LOOKING AT THE TOTAL COSTS SINCE, YOU KNOW, THE SYSTEM ALREADY DID THE MATH FOR US AND THAT WAS THE MOST ACCURATE CALCULATION SINCE IT ALLOCATED IT USING THE, UH, PROTOCOLS IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. SO THOSE FOR THE RUT COSTS, WE DIDN'T USE ANY OF THE MODIFIED CALCULATIONS. ERIC JACKSON IS GONNA COME OUT AND CHECK ON HIM ALONG WITH JOSE CARLO THE THIRD, LEMME GET THAT MUTED HAPPENED WITH WARD GOING INTO SECOND. IT MIGHT BE MORE FUN THAN THIS IT MIGHT BE. OKAY, I'LL CONTINUE. UM, SO, SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE TOOK THOSE COSTS AND USED THESE QSE CLASSIFICATION CATEGORIES JUST BECAUSE A LOT OF THE, UM, DATA THAT'S USED IN REC CAPACITY SHORT IS ACTUALLY ON A QUEASY PORTFOLIO BASIS. SO IT WAS DIFFICULT TO USE THE DISPATCHABLE, NON DISPATCHABLE LOAD CATEGORIES. SO WE USED GENERATOR RETAILER UTILITY AND POWER MARKETER. SO A GENERATOR IS A QSE THAT REPRESENTS ONLY GENERATION A RETAIL IS A QSE THAT REPRESENTS ONLY LOAD A UTILITY REPRESENTS BOTH GEN AND LOAD, AND THEN A POWER MARKETER DOES NOT REPRESENT EITHER. AND THESE ARE THE PRELIMINARY RESULTS FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES. AND THIS IS, UH, SUMMARIZES BOTH FOR 2024 AND 2025 COSTS. SO IF WE WOULD CALCULATE [03:05:01] THE ANCILLARY SERVICE COSTS USING THE CAPACITY SHORT METHOD AND LOOKED AT HOW THOSE QUEASY CLASSIFICATIONS WOULD BE, YOU WOULD SEE THAT ON AVERAGE IT WOULD BE ABOUT 6% WOULD GO TO GENERATORS. UM, ABOUT 33% WOULD BE SPLIT BETWEEN POWER MARKETERS AND RETAILERS, AND ABOUT 25 TO 27% WOULD GO TO UTILITIES. THEN I'LL HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE AND THEN I CAN TAKE SOME QUESTIONS. AND THIS NEXT SLIDE IS SHOW SHOWS THAT SAME, UM, THOSE SAME RESULTS FOR RELIABILITY SERVICES. UH, WE HAVE BSS IS BLACKSTAR, ERS IS, UH, EMERGENCY RESERVE SERVICE. FFSS IS FIRM FUEL SERVICE RMR AND RUCK. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY VOLTAGE SUPPORT COSTS. SO THAT IS NOT ON THE SLIDE. AND, UM, JUST A COUPLE THINGS TO NOTE. RMR, SINCE WE ONLY HAD COSTS FROM MARCH TO DECEMBER OF 2025, THAT'S WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE BASED ON. AND IN THE ERS BUCKET, BECAUSE THE ERS COSTS ARE CALCULATED ON A, ON A SEASONAL VALUE, WE DID NOT HAVE DECEMBER, 2025, UH, SEASONAL AMOUNT YET SINCE THAT CONTRACT HAS NOT SETTLED. AND, UH, FOR THESE COSTS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT FOUR TO 6% WILL GO TO GENERATORS. ABOUT 35 TO 38% WILL GO TO POWER MARKETERS AND RETAILERS, AND THEN ABOUT 22 ISH PERCENT TO UTILITIES. CAN YOU, YOU SAID YOU DEFINED UTILITY HERE THOUGH, AS SOMEONE WITH LOAD AND GEN? YES. OKAY. OKAY. CAN WE NOT DO THAT , DOES THAT MEAN I GET A REGULATED RATE OF RETURN NOW? , MAYBE WE CAN CHANGE THE WORDING. YEAH, WE MAY WANT TO CHANGE THE WORDING ON THAT. OKAY. YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA GET A BUNCH OF COMMENTS THAT YOU DON'T NEED WITH THE USE OF THE WORD UTILITY. AND ALSO, UM, CAN WE USE ALL OF THE COLORS INSTEAD OF THREE SHADE OF BLUE ? OKAY. WE CAN, UH, LOOK, NEXT TIME WE PRESENT THIS, WE CAN CHANGE DIFFERENT COLORS TOO, ALL OF THE RAINBOW. AND DO WE HAVE A SUGGESTION ON WHAT WE WOULD WANNA REPLACE UTILITY WITH OR I'LL JUST CALL IT LOAD AND GEN. JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE CALL, CALL IT GENERATOR AND RETAILER OR SOMETHING. BEN TAYLOR. THERE YOU GO. HEARD THAT ONE. OKAY, LET'S GO TO BOB. YOU'RE COOL. I'M GOOD FOR NOW. YOU'RE GOOD. LET'S, NED, ARE YOU GOOD? NEVER. UH, I DO HAVE A, A COUPLE COMMENTS. UM, FIRST OFF, ON UTILITY, MAYBE YOU CONSIDER, UM, YOU KNOW, BALANCED PORTFOLIO, UH, , STRATEGICALLY BALANCED, WONDERFUL PORTFOLIO OR FIRM PORTFOLIO. FIRM PORTFOLIO. UH, THE, UH, AND THEN OTHER COMMENTARY IS, UM, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I THINK I'VE SEEN RMR AND R REFERRED TO AS A RELIABILITY SERVICE. AND THAT IT SEEMS CONCEPTUALLY DIS VERY DIFFERENT FROM SAY, BLACKSTAR ERS AND FIRM FUEL, WHERE IT'S A, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE PROCURED SERVICES THAT ACTUALLY HAVE DEFINED NEEDS, WHEREAS RMR AND RUCK ARE BY DEFINITION OUT OF MARKET ACTION. SO I CONCEPTUALLY WOULD SUGGEST SEPARATING THOSE OUT AND CALLING THEM SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT FITS WITHIN THE SCOPE. THEN IF, UH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, YEAH, THE SCOPE SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT THE RELIABILITY SERVICES WE NEED TO REVIEW AND THOSE TWO WERE LISTED ON IT AS WELL. OKAY. OKAY. BILL. MAGGIE, THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY INTERESTING EXERCISE AND A NICE BRIEF DISTRACTION FROM THE BATCH DISCUSSIONS. , WHAT ARE, WHAT'S A DR ONLY QUEASY IS THAT IN THE RETAILER CATEGORY, LIKE IF YOU'RE AN ERS ONLY OR IF YOU ARE A BATTERY, IF YOU, YOU'RE A-Q-C-Q-S-E THAT ONLY REPRESENTS BATTERIES, YOU ARE ACTUALLY IN THE GENERATOR CATEGORY. AND YOU SAID DEMAND. IF YOU'RE DEMAND RESPONSE ONLY T DEMAND RESPONSE, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, SO I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK. AND THEN THE CRR PEOPLE, ARE THEY IN HERE AT ALL? UH, POWER MARKETERS OR LIKE IF YOU'RE A QSE THAT ONLY HAS CR ONLY SHOP IS IN THE POWER MARKETER. YEAH, SO IF YOU'RE A, HOW DO YOU MEASURE THEIR ACTIVITY? SO IF YOU'RE A QSE THAT ONLY HAS TRADES, YOU'RE A POWER MARKETER. BUT IF YOU'RE A CRR ACCOUNT HOLDER, THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS SINCE THE R CAPACITY SHORT DOESN'T HAVE ANY CRR, UM, DATA IN IT. GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, BOB? YEAH, SORRY I'M BACK IN. YEAH, I'M JUST REAL CURIOUS ON THESE PARTICULAR ONES ON HOW, I MEAN YOU'VE GOT THE PERCENTAGES OUT THERE, BUT I'M REALLY CURIOUS ON HOW YOU BROKE CAME TO THOSE. THIS IS LIKE ON, ON SAY RMR, HOW YOU CHARGE A GENERATOR FOR RMR. HOW DID THEY CAUSE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE CAUSE FOR THEM TO BE CHARGED FOR THAT? UH, I'M CURIOUS ON HOW YOU GOT TO SOME OF THESE PLACES CHOSE TO RETIRE. YEAH, SO WE LOOKED OR YEAH, BECAUSE THEY CHOSE TO RETIRE, SO CHARGE [03:10:01] 'EM MORE . YEAH, SO WE LOOKED AT, WE USED THE R CAPACITY SHORT ADJUSTMENT PERIOD EQUATIONS. SO WE JUST PULLED THE DATA STRAIGHT FROM OUR SYSTEM, CALCULATED WHAT YOUR, WHAT THE QSCS SHORTFALL WOULD BE AT EVERY SETTLEMENT INTERVAL, ALLOCATED THOSE COSTS. AND THEN WE PULLED THE REGISTRATION DATA TO DETERMINE WHAT CLASSIFICATION THE QSE WOULD BE AND THEN ALLOCATED THOSE COSTS INTO THESE DIFFERENT BUCKETS. SO IT WAS BASED ON THE DATA, UM, IN THE SYSTEM FOR THE DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, TRADES GENERATION LOAD, DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT YOU DID MENTION IT WAS COST CAUSATION. IS THAT, IS THAT FITTING IN HERE OR ARE YOU JUST DOING THIS A DIFFERENT WAY? DID I MISS SOMETHING? WELL, WE, SO THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR METHODS D WAS TO LOOK AT IT BASED ON A CAPACITY SHORT APPROACH. SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID. I MEAN, WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO ADOPT THIS BECAUSE IT'S, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE CERTAIN, UH, RELIABILITY SERVICE IS NOT RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE ANY INBOUND BALANCE PORTFOLIO. BUT THAT WOULD BE, I GUESS, A DISCUSSION AT A LATER TIME. THIS WAS JUST, UH, HOW WE WERE TOLD AND SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THE CAPACITY SHORT APPROACH. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANKS. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY, MR. WHITMEYER, YOU'RE GOOD? OKAY. IKA, ARE WE, WE CONTINUING YOU'RE BACK TWO SLIDES, I THINK. WONDERFUL. THIS ONE'S THE MORE DENSE ONE, THE NEXT ONE SUMMARY. SO, UH, IT SHOULD GO, THAT ONE SHOULD GO QUICKER. BUT, UH, NOW THAT YOU'VE HEARD, UH, THE FIRST ASPECT OF THIS WORK, WHICH WAS AROUND GOING BACK AND DOING AN EXERCISE WHERE WE REALLOCATED THE COST BASED OFF OF SOME OF THE METHODS, THE THREE METHODS THAT WERE OUTLINED IN THE SCOPE, THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS ANALYSIS, UH, SWITCHES TO EVALUATING HOW THESE ALTERNATIVE ALLOCATION BEHAVIORS COULD AFFECT MARKET BEHAVIOR. UH, HOW COULD THE SETTLEMENT TIMING CHANGE, UM, IMPACT SETTLEMENTS, CREDIT EXPOSURE, AND, UH, AND OF, AND OF COURSE DIG TO THAT ULTIMATE QUESTION OF, UH, CONSUMER COSTS AND WILL THERE BE A DIFFERENCE OR A CHANGE OR A REDUCTION, UH, IN THAT? SO IN, AS A PART OF THE SECONDARY EFFECTS, UM, THERE ARE REALLY THREE DIFFERENT BUCKETS THAT HAVE BEEN OUTLINED FOR THE MARKET PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR BUCKET, WHERE WE ARE LOOKING TO SEE HOW THESE COULD CHANGE OPERATIONAL TRADING, MAINTENANCE OR INVESTMENT DECISIONS. WE HAVE, UH, INVOLVED A CONSULTANT, UH, TO HELP US IN THINKING THROUGH THOSE OUTCOMES. UH, ON THE RIGHT SIDE IN THE BLUE BOX, YOU I'VE, I'VE STARTED, I'VE, I'VE LISTED OUT AT LEAST THE ANGLE THROUGH WHICH THE CONSULTANT IS LOOKING TO HELP US IN THINKING THROUGH, UH, HOW COULD THE MARKET PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR CHANGE? AND THERE ARE A VARIETY OF, UH, UH, AREAS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO, UH, GET INTO SO THAT THEY CAN THINK THROUGH THIS IMPACT ALL THE WAY FROM, UH, MODELING THE COST SIGNALS. UM, THINKING ABOUT HOW THOSE RISK DRIVERS THAT WE'VE ALLOCATED THESE ANCILLARY SERVICES TO COULD MODIFY BEHAVIOR. UH, HOW COULD, UH, UH, WHAT PRACTICAL ACTIONS COULD MARKET PARTICIPANTS TAKE? WHAT IS THE COST, UH, OF TAKING THOSE ACTIONS? AND THEN WHAT COULD THE PRACTICAL OUTCOMES BE OR WHAT COULD THE POTENTIAL OUTCOME BE? THEY WILL LOOK TO SEPARATE NEAR TERM IMPACTS AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS, UM, AS A PART OF THEIR WORK. UH, WE ARE DEEP IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PARTICULAR ANALYSIS RIGHT NOW, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE, UH, ANY INSIGHTS TO SHARE FROM IT. BUT I LOOK TO, I HOPE TO BRING THOSE BACK WHEN I COME AGAIN IN JULY. UH, WE LOOK TO BRING AS MUCH DIRECTIVE AND QUALITATIVE INFORMATION AS WE CAN. TO THAT END, LET ME DO THIS. I AGAIN, SEE A SET OF QUESTIONS. LET ME GET THROUGH THE LAST SLIDE, SET IT UP, AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN COVER THOSE. SO THE, UH, THE SUMMARY, UH, IS THINGS, UH, THAT THIS IS THE WORK WE ARE DOING IN RESPONSE TO, UH, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ENFORCED UPON THE PUC AS A PART OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. WE ARE HERE TO SEEK FEEDBACK, UH, FROM TAC BASED OFF OF, UH, UH, AT LEAST THE SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS WE ARE DOING, THE ASSUMPTIONS WE PUT IN. I APPRECIATE WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR. IF THERE ARE ANY MORE, PLEASE FEEL TO SEND THEM. YOU CAN SEND THEM DIRECTLY TO ME, UH, MAY 29TH BY MAY 29TH. SO BY END OF THIS MONTH, WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO QUALITY REVIEW ON OUR ANALYSIS, UH, THE CHANGES THAT WE THINK WE CAN MAKE WITHIN THE SCOPE. UH, WE WILL ADD ABSOLUTELY LOOK TO WORK, UH, THROUGH THOSE BASED OFF OF YOUR FEEDBACK. UH, WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE SECONDARY EFFECTS AND WE HOPE TO BE BACK WITH OUR, UH, FINDINGS AND UPDATES TO THIS WORK, UH, ON JULY 29TH. SO I'LL PAUSE WITH THAT. UH, I SEE THERE ARE QUESTIONS. HAPPY TO TAKE THOSE NOW. YEAH, LET'S GO TO BOB. YEAH, JUST A COUPLE [03:15:01] THINGS. FIRST, WHO, WHO IS THE CONSULTANT? I DON'T KNOW THINK I'VE HEARD THE NAME OF WHO THAT CONSULTANT IS. HAS IT BEEN NAMED? AM I HAVE TO SHARE? IS IT SECRET OR, I THINK I GOT A THUMBS UP. IT'S LONDON ECONOMICS. LONDON ECONOMICS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 'CAUSE THIS IS GONNA BE REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT. 'CAUSE THIS IS WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD. WHEN YOU GET TO DOWN TO IT ALL IS, IS ADDING IN ALL THE RISK FACTORS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND CHANGING THE WAY WE ACTUALLY DO IT. 'CAUSE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE REASON WE HAVE EVERYTHING AND HAVE THE ANCILLARY SERVICE AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS ULTIMATELY TO SERVE LOAD. AND IN THE END, THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHO PAYS FOR IT. IT'S A MATTER OF HOW IT GETS THERE AND WHAT RISKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE GETS THROWN ON IT. SO I THINK THIS IS GONNA BE A REALLY IMPORTANT AND KEY PIECE OF THIS, THE SIGNING FACTOR IN MY MIND. OKAY. THANKS BOB. GARRETT, I'VE BEEN THINKING ON IT AND IT MAY BE WHEN YOU COME BACK. BUT AS, AS I'VE LOOKED AT THIS ON METHOD B, I, I DON'T THINK I'M SMART ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO COMPREHEND WHAT THE DAILY ALLOCATION REALLY DOES. OKAY. I ALSO DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER IT, BUT I CAN DEFINITELY LOOK TO GET BACK TO YOU. OKAY. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ONE MORE SLIDE. NO, THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT. OKAY. SO FEEDBACK BY THE 29TH, AND THEN YOU'LL COME BACK IN JULY, UNLESS I HAVE A SURPRISE UP MY SLEEVE AS WELL. UM, YOU KNOW, JUNE IS THE MONTH THAT HAPPENS AND THEN WE WILL, SO FEEDBACK TO YOU. AND THEN JULY IS REALLY, YOU ONLY HAVE A COUPLE DAYS BEFORE THE REPORT TO AUGUST, SO THAT'S MORE OF AN UPDATE. WE WILL HAVE A MONTH, END OF AUGUST IS WHEN THE, OH, END OF AUGUST. THE REPORT IS DUE, SO, OKAY. MM-HMM . OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. NO, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT. THANK YOU. OKAY. I HAVE A PLAN FOR AFTER LUNCH. DO YOU WANNA HEAR MY PLAN OR DO YOU WANT ME TO SURPRISE YOU? UM, SO WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE LUNCH AND THEN WE'LL START OUR DISCUSSION ON FIGURE 1 45 AFTER LUNCH. WE'LL, YOU KNOW, OPEN THE FLOOR OR WHATEVER. AND AS ALWAYS, PEOPLE CAN MAKE MOTIONS WHENEVER THEY WANT ABOUT WHATEVER THEY WANT. BUT I WOULD, YOU KNOW, REQUEST THAT WE LET PEOPLE GET THROUGH COMMENTS JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN BE HEARD BEFORE WE VOTE. BUT, YOU KNOW, CALL THE QUESTION AS A MOTION PEOPLE CAN MAKE. UM, I'LL, I'LL SAY THE ORDER AND THEN I'LL SAY IT AGAIN AFTER LUNCH. I SORT OF GROUPED COMMENTS TOGETHER, SO IT'S NOT A CHRONOLOGICAL, BUT WE WOULD FIRST HAVE ERCOT PRESENT ON ERCOT COMMENTS. SO WE HAD ERCOT MAY 15, 15TH ERCOT MAY 18TH, WHICH MADE JUST A ONE CORRECTION AND THEN, OR, OR ERCOT MAY 19TH THIS MORNING, I THINK WHEN CORY WOKE UP AT FIVE IN THE MORNING. AND THEN, UM, THE ERCOT MAY 18TH REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS. SO SPEND 30 MINUTES ON THAT. AND THEN THE COMMENTS, FOR THE MOST PART, I THINK PEOPLE WERE REALLY COOPERATIVE IN, IN NARROWING THEIR ASKS. SO I THINK EACH COMMENTER CAN, CAN GET THROUGH THEIR COMMENTS IN FIVE MINUTES OR LESS, MAYBE THREE MINUTES OR LESS. UM, THE SECOND GROUP I HAD AFTER ERCOT WAS THE ISSUE OF THE STUDY SUBMISSION DATES AND THEN ROLLING INTO THE INCLUSION OF THE RPG PROJECT. SO THE PEOPLE I HAVE IN THAT GROUP ARE RELIANT WISE, ENERGY, CHOA, TIBA, AND SAILFISH. AND THEN GROUP THREE I HAVE GOING INTO THE NET METERING ISSUE. SO I HAVE VISTA DATA CENTER COALITION, BKV, AND THEN THE, UM, AT THE END OF THAT GROUP, I WOULD TAKE THE OLLI COMMENTS THAT HAVE SORT OF A, A BUNCH OF COMMENTS IN THEM. GROUP FOUR, I WOULD GO INTO MORE OF THE PCLR ISSUES. SO WE WOULD DO THE EGEN AND LUMINARY COMMENTS. GROUP FIVE GOING INTO THE W PUN. UM, THAT'S SORT OF A NARROW ISSUE. GO TO CYPRESS CREEK. AND THEN GROUP SIX, UM, FOLKS TALKING ABOUT THE, THE CRITERIA. SO THE FEES, THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT. I HAVE MONARCH AND SATOSHI. GO AHEAD. BILL. IS CHAD SEALEY BUYING HIS DINNER? CHAD SEALEY? YES. WHAT, UM, JUST SO I CAN PREPARE MY SPEECH, HOW MANY, HOW LONG DO I HAVE EACH, EACH COMMENT SUBMITTER [03:20:01] GETS? WE CAN SAY IN FIVE MINUTES. YOU DON'T? I SURE. I DON'T LIKE 10 MINUTES. 'CAUSE THEN I FEEL LIKE THE PEOPLE THINK THEY NEED TO TAKE THAT LONG. YOU KNOW, I LESS IS MORE FIVE MAX. I CAN DO THREE FIVE, BUT ESPECIALLY I TRIED TO SORT OF DO THE ORDER AS PEOPLE PLAYED COMMENTS AFTER, OR YOU KNOW, WHO, WHO'S BEEN THE MOST SIGNIFICANT SPEAKER. SO YOU'RE THE FIRST IN YOUR GROUP, SO YOU CAN TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER, BUT IF PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY MADE YOUR POINT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE IT AGAIN. OKAY, THANKS. BUT YEAH, FIVE, I THINK THE PLAN, BY THE WAY, I DON'T THINK YOU NEED MORE THAN FIVE, RIGHT? NED? CAN YOU HANDLE IT IN FIVE OR LESS? I WILL ENDEAVOR TO MEET THE CHAIR'S REQUEST. ALRIGHT. OKAY. NED, YOU DO NOT MAKE BEDS ON NED, BUT UNLESS YOU OPEN, IT HAS TO BE A LIKE, FREE AND FAIR MARKET. SO, ALRIGHT. SO WE WILL BREAK UNTIL WHAT? 1, 1 45? SAY ONE 40, AND THEN WE'LL ACTUALLY BE BACK AT 1 45. OKAY. IT'S 1 0 4. LET'S SAY ONE 40 WITH THE HOPES THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY STARTING BY 1 45 OF ALL. [03:56:14] OKAY, [03:56:15] LET'S [03:56:15] GO [03:56:15] AHEAD [03:56:16] AND [03:56:16] GET [03:56:16] STARTED. UM, ALL RIGHT, I'LL DO MY SPIEL AGAIN. ARE WE READY? OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA [11. Batch Study Items (Waive Notice – Possible Vote)] OPEN CONVERSATION ON, UH, PIGGER 1 45. AS WITH ANY OTHER VOTING ITEM, UM, A SEATED MEMBER CAN MAKE A MOTION WHENEVER THEY WANT. ONCE A MOTION IS MADE, WE WILL CHECK FOR A SECOND AND THEN WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE QUEUE. MY REQUEST, IT'S A REQUEST, IS THAT WE ALLOW PARTIES WHO FILED COMMENTS TO GET THROUGH COMMENTS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY TAKE THE VOTE. BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE A SEATED MEMBER, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION WHENEVER YOU WANT, INCLUDING A MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION. UM, BUT I'D LIKE TO GET THROUGH COMMENTS BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF INTERESTED PARTIES WHO FILED COMMENTS ON THIS, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE THEM ALL TO GET CLOSURE. AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO TAKE COMMENTS UP BY TOPIC INSTEAD OF PURELY SEQUENTIALLY. I CAN REPEAT THAT ORDER AGAIN FOR YOU. UM, GROUP ONE WILL BE THE GROUP OF ONE ERCOT. THEY HAVE MAY 15TH COMMENTS, MAY 19TH COMMENTS, AND, UH, MAY 18TH REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS. I BELIEVE THEY ALSO HAVE A PRESENTATION, SHORT PRESENTATION. AND, UM, SO WE'LL DO THAT. THEN WE'LL, WE'LL GO TO GROUP TWO, WHICH IS REALLY TWO ISSUES. THE STUDY SUBMISSION DATE AND THE INCLUSION OF RPG PROJECTS. THAT GROUP IS RELIANT WISE ENERGY, CHOA, TBA, AND THEN SAILFISH GROUP THREE, WE'LL DO NET METERING. THAT GROUP IS RA DATA CENTER COALITION. UM, BKV. AND THEN WE'LL TAKE THE ELI COMMENTS UP AT THE END OF THAT. THEY'RE SORT OF COMPREHENSIVE GROUP FOUR. THE, UM, PCLR ISSUE WILL DO AG AGENTIC AND LUMINARY GROUP FIVE. THE WL PEN ISSUE WILL DO CYPRESS CREEK. AND THEN GROUP SIX, THE COMMENTS ON CRITERIA. WE'LL DO MONARCH AND SATOSHI. ALL RIGHT. AND WE'LL TRY TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. LESS, LESS IS MORE. UM, BUT ERCOT, YOU CAN TAKE LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES. JEFF, JEFF LOOKED LIKE EXCITED BY, BY A LIMIT. BUT JEFF, PLEASE TAKE AS LONG AS YOU NEED. UM, AND WE WILL SEE WHERE WE ARE. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON TACK. UM, IT, IT, I WILL, UH, START OFF, AND AGAIN, THIS IS A, UH, SHORT PRESENTATION, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE, UH, OR FOLKS HAVE. UM, GO, I'LL GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AND THEN I'LL GO THROUGH THE, UH, COMMENTS THAT WE FILED, UM, UH, BOTH THE MAY 15TH AND THE COMMENTS WE FILED LAST NIGHT. UH, JUST WANNA START OFF WITH A QUICK REMINDER OF WHERE WE HAVE BEEN, UH, WHERE WE STARTED THIS PROCESS. REALLY, IT STARTED WITH, UH, PABLO'S PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION IN DECEMBER. UH, AND, UH, STARTING IN FEBRUARY, WE HAD A SERIES OF WORKSHOPS. UH, WE'VE HAD SPECIAL PRS MEETING SPECIAL, UM, ROS MEETING SPECIAL T. AND, UH, I'LL SAY I, I REALLY APPRECIATE, UH, THE, UH, COMMENTS AND THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE [04:00:01] GOTTEN FROM STAKEHOLDERS, THE WORK THAT STAKEHOLDERS HAVE PUT INTO THIS. UH, I ALSO APPRECIATE THAT WE HAVE DROP COMMENTS, UH, MULTIPLE TIMES ON FRIDAYS AND SATURDAYS, AND YOUR COMPANIES ASK YOU TO REVIEW THOSE OVER THE WEEKEND. AND I, I KNOW THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS FOR Y'ALL. AND, AND SO, SO I JUST START OFF BY SAYING, UH, I, I APPRECIATE ALL THAT AND APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. AND I, I ALSO, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY HEAR ME PUSH BACK AT TIMES TODAY ON SOME STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK. AND, AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE OVER 400 GIGAWATTS OF LARGE LOADS THAT HAVE REQUESTED INTERCONNECT. AND, UH, PROBABLY, UH, THE MAJORITY OF THAT, UH, MORE THAN HALF OF THOSE ARE NOT GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BATCH ZERO STUDY. AND, AND ALSO UN UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY WANTS THEIR PROJECT IN, AND, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT, UH, JUST BECAUSE WE CAN'T. BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I APPRECIATE WHERE STAKEHOLDERS ARE COMING FROM WHEN THEY'RE SUBMITTING THEIR COMMENTS AND THEY'RE ADVOCATING FOR THEIR PROJECTS AND THEIR POSITIONS. SO, UM, MENTIONED, WE FILED COMMENTS ON, UH, MAY 15TH. UM, I'LL, I'LL WALK THROUGH THOSE IN A MINUTE. WE ALSO UPDATED THE IMPACT ANALYSIS, UM, ON MAY 18TH. AND THEN LAST NIGHT WE FILED SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL, UH, JUST SOME MINOR CLARIFICATION, UH, COMMENTS. UM, AND JUST AT A HIGH LEVEL, THE COMMENTS THAT WE, UH, FILED BOTH ON THE 15TH AND, UH, LAST NIGHT, NOT REALLY ANY MAJOR CHANGES, UH, THAT WE'VE INCORPORATED SINCE THE LAST SET OF COMMENTS THAT WE FOUND. UM, BUT AGAIN, I'LL, I'LL WALK THROUGH KIND OF WHAT THE COMMENTS WERE AND, AND, AND WHY WE FILED THEM. UH, I DID WANT TO TAKE JUST A, A BRIEF MINUTE TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND ON SOME OF THE, UM, DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD AT LAST WEEK'S, UH, TECH MEETING AND KIND WHY IS WHERE WE ARE AT ON, ON OUR POSITION ON THOSE ITEMS. UM, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT HAVE RE REQUESTED, UM, SOME INFORMATION ON WHAT, WHAT ARE THE LARGE LOADS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE TO BE INCLUDED IN BATCH ZERO, UH, AS WELL AS, UH, WHAT IS THE GENERATION THAT IS AVAILABLE. UH, SO ON, ON THE LEFT, WE PUT TOGETHER, UH, THIS IS THE LOAD THAT IS INCLUDED IN, UM, UH, OR ELIGIBLE TO BE INCLUDED IN, IN BATCH ZERO AS IT IS. SO WE HAVE OUR, OUR BASE FORECAST, WHICH IS JUST THE, WHAT, WHAT'S EXISTING ON THE GRID, PLUS THE NORMAL ECONOMETRIC, UH, FORECAST WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLE GROWTH WITH ROOFTOP SOLAR AND ALL THAT. UH, THAT IS 113 GIGAWATTS. UM, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT PREVIOUS WORKSHOPS AROUND THE QUOTE UNQUOTE MEDIUM LOADS, THE 25 TO 74.9 MEGAWATT LOADS. UM, THE TSPS, UH, GIVE US, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S AN ATTESTATION, IS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD, BUT THE TSPS TELL US WHAT ADDITIONAL, UM, OF THOSE MEDIUM LOADS NEED TO BE INCLUDED. THERE'S, UH, ABOUT 14 GIGAWATTS OF THE MEDIUM LOADS THAT, THAT, UM, WILL BE ADDED. THIS IS A 2032 LOAD, BY THE WAY. UM, AND THEN RIGHT NOW, UH, AS DRAFTED IN PAYER 1 45, UH, THERE IS ANOTHER 79 GIGAWATTS OF LOAD THAT IS ELIGIBLE TO BE EITHER BASE LOAD OR STUDY LOAD BASED ON THEIR STUDY. THE STUDY VALIDITY CHECK, WHICH WE'LL WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE. UM, AND THEN THERE'S THE PERMIAN BASIN LOAD, WHICH IS, UM, UH, PER THE LOAD THAT WAS IN THE PERMIT BASIN AND RELIABILITY PLAN, THAT'S ANOTHER 13 GIGAWATTS. SOME OF THAT MAY ALSO BE IN THE 79 GIGAWATT. WE'RE CHECKING THAT. UM, AND THEN THERE'S ADDITIONAL RPG LOAD, UH, THAT AL ALSO COULD ALSO BE IN PART OF THAT 79, SO THERE COULD BE SOME OVERLAP THERE. UM, AND THEN THE, UM, I REFERRED TO IT AS THE AP COMMENTS, WHICH IS, UM, UH, I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATES THAT THEY HAD IN THERE, BUT ESSENTIALLY LOADS THAT WERE, UH, SUBMITTED, UH, AS PART OF AN RPG STUDY AFTER THE, THE, UH, DECEMBER 15TH CUTOFF, THAT THAT WOULD ADD ANOTHER, UH, ABOUT 35 GIGAWATTS. UH, AND THAT LOAD IS NOT, UH, DOUBLE COUNTED TO THE QUESTION LAST WEEK IN THE 79, UM, BUT COULD BE DOUBLE COUNTED IN THE 38. UM, SO THAT'S KINDA ON THE LOAD SIDE. AND THEN ON THE GENERATION SIDE, I, I THINK IDEALLY WE WOULD LIKE TO RUN A TRANSMISSION PLAN BASED ON JUST THOSE FIRST TWO CATEGORIES, THE, WHAT'S OPERATIONAL GENERATION, AS WELL AS WHAT HAS MET 6.9 PARAGRAPH ONE, SO TRADITIONALLY AND TRANSMISSION PLANNING, THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO. UH, BUT AS WE ADD MORE LOADS ONTO THE SYSTEM, WE KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL GENERATION THAT WILL BE, UH, ADDED TO THE SYSTEM. UM, AND, AND SO THE FIGURE 1 27 LAID OUT A SERIES OF STEPS WHERE WE COULD ADD ADDITIONAL GENERATION INTO LOAD OR INTO THE BASE CASES. AND, AND SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HOW THAT STACKS UP, UM, FOR THAT, UH, AS YOU GO FURTHER UP, IT'S LESS AND [04:05:01] LESS CERTAINTY, UH, THEORETICALLY ON THOSE GENERATIONS. SO WE WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. UM, AND, AND THEN ALSO WANTED TO TALK THROUGH THE, UM, THE STUDY VALIDITY CHECK, UH, AND, AND JUST PUT TOGETHER THIS, UM, THIS SLIDE JUST TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND, UH, FOR TECH MEMBERS, UH, THAT MAY, MAY OR MAY NOT BE AS FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS. SO, UM, PRIOR TO BIGGER ONE FIFTEEN'S IMPLEMENTATION IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR, UH, LARGE LOADS THAT WERE INCLUDED IN AN RPG TRANSMISSION PROJECT REVIEW COULD USE THOSE STUDIES AS THEIR INTERCONNECTION STUDY. UM, AND IF THEIR IN SERVICE, IF THEIR INTERATION DATES, THEIR INSERVICE STATE WAS MORE THAN TWO YEARS IN THE FUTURE. UH, THE LARGE LOADS WITH THE INTERIM PROCESS IN 2022, LARGE LOADS THAT WERE REQUIRED, UH, THAT WERE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW IF THEIR IN-SERVICE STATE WAS LESS THAN TWO YEARS, BUT THEY HAD OPTIONALITY TO USE THE LOWEST PROCESS IF IT WAS, UH, MORE THAN TWO YEARS. AND JUST, YOU KNOW, A SIDE NOTE ON THAT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE RPG PROCESS IS ABOUT TRANSMISSION PROJECT AND GETTING TRANSMISSION PROJECTS APPROVED. UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A, IT'S PROBABLY THE BEST TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESS IN THE COUNTRY, IF NOT THE WORLD. UH, AND, AND IT, SO IT IS A FANTASTIC PROCESS FOR APPROVING TRANSMISSION PROJECTS. UM, YOU KNOW, IT REALLY, I THINK WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE THE LARGELY LINEAR CONNECTION, UH, PROCESS THAT THAT WASN'T WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO DO. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE FOR A TIME USED IT THAT TIME IS NOW PASSED. UM, UH, SO, UM, RPG PROJECTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO APRIL 1ST, THIS TIES TO THE 58 4 80 RULEMAKING AT THE COMMISSION. UM, THE, THOSE PROJECTS, THE LOADS THAT WERE INCLUDED WERE, UH, BASED ON THE SUBSTANTIATED LOAD PROCESS, UH, AND EACH TSP WOULD NOTIFY ERCOT OF WHICH LOADS THEY THOUGHT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN, IN RPG, UH, PROJECT. UM, AND AGAIN, THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT RPG PROCESS, THERE WAS NOT CONSISTENCY. THIS IS A THEME THAT WE HEARD GOING BACK TO THE INTERVIEWS THAT WE HAD IN, UH, JANUARY, IS THAT DIFFERENT TSPS HAD INCONSISTENT PROCESSES BOTH ON THE RPG SIDE AND THE LARGER INTERCONNECTION, UH, SIDE. AND WE INTEND TO REMEDY THAT WHEN WE, UH, GO TO THE BATCH ONE PROCESS, BATCH ONE, AND GOING FORWARD, UH, OR NOT, OBVIOUSLY NOT THERE TODAY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, BATCH ZERO IS THIS TRANSITIONAL PROCESS, BUT WHEN WE GET TO BATCH ONE IS OUR INTENTION THAT WE WILL CREATE A SINGLE PROCESS THAT EVERYBODY FOLLOWS GOING FORWARD. UM, SO WHEN WE GET TO BATCH ZERO OR CO NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT LARGE LOADS THAT ARE CATEGORIZED AS BASE LOAD, AND A REMINDER BASE LOAD MEANS THAT IF WE, UH, TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS, THEN YOU HAVE, UH, A THOUSAND MEGAWATT, WE WERE PLANNING THE SYSTEM AS IF YOU HAVE A THOUSAND MEGAWATTS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TURN THE DIAL BACK ON THAT LOAD FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE. SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL LOADS THAT ARE INCLUDED AS BASE LOAD AND B ZERO HAVE VALID STUDIES THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT WE CAN SERVE THAT LOAD. AND, AND ALL, ALL OTHER LOADS THAT ARE, ARE, UM, C CLASSIFIED AS BASE LOAD. UH, THAT ALSO MEANS THAT, UH, AS WE LOOK AT THESE STUDIES, IF THERE ARE TWO OR MORE LARGE LOADS THAT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN EACH OTHER'S INTERCONNECTION STUDIES, WHETHER THAT'S THROUGH RPG OR THE, THE LARGELY INTERCONNECTION PROCESS, THEN WE NEED SOME WAY TO RANK THOSE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WE CANNOT SERVE, UH, BOTH OF THOSE LOADS. UH, AND, AND WE NEED TO DO THAT RELIABILITY CHECK. AND SO WE NEED SOME WAY OF RANKING THOSE. AND SO THE WAY THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IT IN PGA 1 45 IS THAT WE WOULD USE THE STUDY COMPLETION DATE WHEN THOSE STUDIES WERE COMPLETED AS THE RANKING FOR THOSE. SO WE WILL DO A CHECK ON THOSE STUDIES AS THEY COME IN, AS THEY'RE COMPLETED, SO THAT WE CAN TELL THE LOADS WHICH OF THOSE LOADS ARE, UM, THEY, THEY HAVE VALID STUDIES IN WHICH NEED TO GO BACK AND DO SOME ADDITIONAL STUDY WORK. UM, SO THAT'S THE BACKGROUND. AND, AND SO HOW THIS PLAYS OUT IS, AS WE HAVE, UH, DRAFTED A PIGGER 1 45 SHOW ON THE LEFT, IS THAT, UM, ANY, ANYTHING THAT CAME IN BEFORE MARCH 4TH, BECAUSE WE DID THAT, THAT STUDY VALIDITY CHECK AS OF MARCH 4TH. UM, ANYTHING THAT CAME IN BEFORE THEN IS DEEMED AUTOMATICALLY VALID. AND THEN AFTER MARCH 4TH, WE WILL DO CHECKS. AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING CHECKS, AND WE'VE BEEN COMMUNICATING TO THE TSPS AS LOADS. UH, SOME OF THE LOADS THEY HAVE PASSED THAT VALIDITY CHECK AND OTHERS HAVE NOT. AND WE'VE ASKED THE TSPS TO GO BACK AND DO A RE STUDY ON THOSE. UH, SO THAT, THAT IS THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE LAID OUT IN FIGURE 1 45. SO IF WE CHANGE THAT AS SOME HAVE PROPOSED WHERE RPG PROJECTS GET THAT KIND OF AUTOMATIC, UH, STUDY VALIDITY, UH, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDIES, LILLIS [04:10:01] LOADS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY TOLD THEM THAT THEY STUDIES ARE VALID, UH, THEY NOW GO TO THE BACK OF THE LINE AND THEY HAVE TO BE RECHECKED. UH, THAT MEANS THAT LOADS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE SHOWED IT HERE, CAME IN IN JANUARY. IT COULD EVEN BE LOADS THAT COMPLETED THE LILI PROCESS LAST FALL. NOW GO TO THE BACK OF THE LINE AND THEY HAVE TO BE RECHECKED. UH, SO WE LOOKED THERE, THERE IS, UH, AS OF LAST WEEK, 62 PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVALIDATE THEIR STUDIES. UH, IF WE WERE TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, THE RPG PROJECTS JUMPED TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE, UM, WHICH MEANS THAT THAT MARCH 4TH DATE, WE WOULD NEED TO BACKDATE THAT TO, WE THINK AUGUST 1ST OF LAST YEAR IN ORDER TO, UH, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT, AGAIN, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT LETTING MORE BASE LOAD CONNECT INTO THE SYSTEM THAN WHAT WE CAN RELIABLY SERVE. UM, LA LAST THING I HAD IS, UM, UH, BEFORE I GET TO THE COMMENTS IS, UM, YOU KNOW, UN UNDERSTAND THAT WHATEVER COMES OUT OF TECH TODAY THAT THERE MAY BE, UM, STAKEHOLDERS THAT WANT TO, UH, PRESENT TO THE BOARD. UM, AND, UM, THE, UH, ASK THERE IS THAT, UM, THAT, UH, STAKEHOLDERS WOULD FILE, COMMENT, AND, UH, IF YOU ARE, UM, IT, IT, AND I SHOULD CLARIFY, SO THE BOARD MATERIALS ARE POSTED A WEEK, UH, PRIOR TO THE BOARD MEETING, UM, UH, WHICH REALLY MEANS I THINK BECAUSE THERE'S A HOLIDAY, UH, IT'S PROBABLY REALLY FRIDAY THIS WEEK AND, AND NOT MONDAY OF NEXT WEEK. UH, SO IF YOU WANT YOUR COMMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD, UH, THEN, AND YOU WANT TO GUARANTEE THAT, THEN YOU NEED TO FILE YOUR COMMENTS BY, UM, FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK. UH, ADDITIONALLY, IF YOU WANT TO PRESENT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE BOARD, THEN UH, YOU'LL NEED TO COMMUNICATE THAT THROUGH KOTS, UH, GENERAL COUNSEL. UM, SO WITH THAT, LET ME, UH, JUMP OVER TO THE, UH, COMMENTS. DO YOU WANT, CAN WE TAKE A QUESTION IN THE QUEUE? GO AHEAD. UM, SURE. ALICIA. YEAH, YOU MAY HAVE SAID THIS, BUT HOW LONG DOES A VALIDITY CHECK TAKE? YEAH, HOW LONG? YEAH, I, I'LL TURN TO AG ON THAT. UM, THIS IS AG SPRINGER. UH, SO THE ANSWER IS, UH, IT DEPENDS ON A COUPLE FACTORS. SO, UM, FOR A LILLI PROJECT, WE CAN, UM, RUN THAT CHECK WITHIN A, A FEW DAYS, UH, FOR THE RPG LOADS, BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY IN THE STUDY AREA, SO MUCH LARGER, IT'S TAKING US A LITTLE BIT LONGER. UM, ALSO, YOU KNOW, SINCE WE STARTED DOING, AFTER WE COMMITTED AND STARTED DOING THESE CHECKS, AS WE WERE, UM, GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE METHODOLOGY IN THE LATTER HAS, HAS CHANGED IN SUBSEQUENT COMMENTS. AND SO, UM, THAT HAS ADDED SOME, SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE, WE'RE MEETING THOSE AS WELL. ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION, ARE THE VALIDITY CHECKS, HOW MANY, HOW MUCH, UH, WITH REGARD TO RESOURCES DOES THAT TAKE UP? UM, IT, IT'S, UH, WE HAVE A TEAM OF FOUR ENGINEERS THAT DO THESE CHECKS AS PART OF THE OVERALL, UH, OTHER PAYER ONE 15 DRIVEN WORK THAT WE ARE SUPPORTING. SO THAT INCLUDES THE KICKOFF MEETINGS, THE SCOPING PROCESS, UH, THE REVIEW OF, OF COMPLETED STUDIES UNDER THE CURRENT PROCESS. OKAY. LET'S, LET'S TAKE SAM AND THEN LET'S GO TO ERCOT COMMENTS. LOOK AT ALL THE COMMENTS. HEY, SAM, BRANDON WITH AGENTIC INFRASTRUCTURE. UM, THE SLIDE FOUR JUST MADE ME HAVE A QUESTION. SO FOR WL PUNS THAT HAVE AN FIS INITIATED BY THE START OF BATCH ZERO, ARE THOSE GENERATION GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE, IN THE BASE CASE MODELS BASED OFF OF BASICALLY RUNNING DOWN THE, UM, THE GENERATION QUEUE AND GETTING TO 6.95 C3? I THINK IT, IT MAY OR MAY NOT. I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THAT BIGGER 1 27 PROCESS AND HOW FAR INTO THE STACK WE WOULD NEED TO GO. BUT I GUESS IF IT GOT TO THAT THRESHOLD, THEN THOSE GENERATION, THOSE ASSETS WOULD BE INCLUDED. IT'S POSSIBLE. GOTCHA. THANKS. OKAY, SHANNON, JEFF, WOULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT YOU HAD WITH, UM, THE GRAPH ON IT WHERE IT HAD THE LOAD ON ONE SIDE AND THE [04:15:01] CHIN ON THE OTHER? YEAH, THAT ONE, UH, HAVING HAD A PROJECT IN THAT, UH, TOP ONE THERE IN THE A EP COMMENTS PIECE, THE 35 GIGAWATT NUMBER THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HAD OUR DISCUSSION LAST WEEK, THE QUESTION WAS NOT WHAT WAS THE SUM OF THE TWO THINGS, YOU KNOW, THEIR PANHANDLE AND, UH, LRGB RPGS, IT'S WHAT WAS THE NET ABOVE, WHAT'S ALREADY THROUGH LILLIS, AND THERE'S NO WAY IT'S 35 GIGAWATTS. I JUST, WHEN YOU GO SUM UP THOSE, UH, SO I THINK THIS IS THE GROSS NUMBER, NOT THE NET ONE, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT MORE THAN THAT AMOUNT OF LOAD GROSS IN THOSE, UH, RPG SUBMITTALS. AND I KNOW JUST FROM OUR OWN EXPERIENCE, WE HAVE ONE LOAD THAT IF YOU TAKE IT OUT, THERE'S, IT'S NO WAY THIS NUMBER. SO I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE, DOUBLE TAP ON THAT AND ASK, ARE YOU SURE THAT'S THE NET NUMBER AND NOT THE GROSS ONE? YEAH, SO I'LL, I'LL CHECK. BUT MY, UM, WITH MY TEAM, BUT I, UM, IT'S A CLARIFICATION IS THAT THIS IS, SO, SO THE 79 IS ONLY, UM, WHEN, WHEN I SAY BATCH, IT'S ONLY WHAT IS CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE FOR BASE LOAD AND STUDY LOAD. IT IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE LLIS. SO, SO, SO IT, THERE, THERE ARE OTHER LARGELY LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDIES THAT ARE NOT REPRESENTED ON THIS. YEAH, I THINK I WAS ACTUALLY ASKING ABOUT THE TOP CATEGORY, THE ONE THAT SAYS A EP COMMENTS 35 GIGAWATTS, RIGHT? YEAH, IT, IT'S, YEAH. SO THE 35 IS NOT WITHIN THAT 79, BUT IT MAY BE WITHIN THE OTHER LARGE LOADS THAT ARE NOT ON THIS. TH THERE ARE OTHER LARGE LOADS THAT WE DID NOT PUT IN THIS GRAPHIC. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE PUT EVERYTHING IN THIS GRAPHIC, IT WOULD BE OVER W WITH BASE LOAD, IT WOULD BE OVER 500 GIGAWATTS. BUT WHEN I JUST ADD UP THE, THE GROSS HEADLINE NUMBERS OR MEGAWATTS IN THOSE TWO STUDIES, IT DOESN'T EQUAL MORE THAN THIS AMOUNT. IT EQUALS LESS. I DON'T HAVE, I THINK IT'S MORE THAN THOSE TWO STUDIES TO GET TO THE 35. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE YEAH, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU'RE INCLUDING TO GET THERE. AND THEN THAT WOULD JUST GET US TO BE THE GROSS NUMBER. THE NET NUMBER IS DRAMATICALLY SMALLER. I'M NOT, I'M NOT FOLLOWING YOUR NET, THE NET BEING WHAT'S NOT ALREADY THROUGH LILLIS. SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE IMPACT OF IT, I, I'M REALLY CONFIDENT IT'S NOT THE 35 AS A NET THAT'S CLOSE TO WHAT THE GROSS OF ADDING THE TWO UP WAS. IT'S ACTUALLY SLIGHTLY MORE SO ANYWAY, I JUST THAT ONE FROM A NET STANDPOINT, WHAT THE NET IMPACT WOULD BE OF INCLUDING IT, I'M CONFIDENT IT'S WAY SMALLER THAN THAT. UM, CAN I PHONE A FRIEND AG? LEMME KNOW IF I'M MISREPRESENTING THAT. NO, JEFF, I, I, THIS IS AG SPRINGER. I, I THINK JEFF HAS CHARACTERIZED IT CORRECTLY THAT THE 79 GIGAWATTS ON THE GRAPH REPRESENTS LOAD THAT HAS CURRENTLY QUALIFIED, UH, FOR BASE LOAD OR, UM, STUDIED LOAD UNDER BATCH ZERO, BUT THERE'S A LARGE POOL OF LILI LOAD. AND I BELIEVE WE'VE HEARD IN PAST WORKSHOPS THAT THOSE ARE LOWEST LOADS THAT HAVE NOT PROGRESSED THROUGH THE LILI PROCESS BECAUSE THEY ARE IN RPG ASSESSMENTS THAT UNDER THE CURRENT PICKER 1 45 LANGUAGE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN BATCH ZERO. AND SO I, YOU KNOW, I, I AGREE WITH JEFF. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS OVERLAP BETWEEN THE 35 GIGAWATTS AT THE TOP OF THAT BAR AND THE 79 BELOW. UM, BECAUSE, UH, YOU KNOW, JUST GIVEN THE, THE FOCUS ON THIS, I IF, IF THOSE LOADS WERE ALREADY QUALIFYING THROUGH ANOTHER PATH, I DON'T KNOW IF, IF THOSE COMMENTS WOULD'VE BEEN NECESSARY. WELL, THE REASON I'M STILL STRUGGLING WITH THIS IS THERE'S LIKE 6.9 GIGAWATTS OF LOAD IN THE L-R-G-B-R-P-G OF THEIRS. AND I DON'T HAVE THE PRECISE NUMBER, BUT I LOOKED IT UP YESTERDAY, I THINK IT'S LIKE 26 GIGAWATTS OR SO IN THE PANHANDLE ONE. YOU ADD THOSE TWO UP, THAT'S 33. AND THEN IF I ONLY TAKE OUR ONE PROJECT THAT I KNOW IS ALREADY THROUGH LILLIS, IT HA NEEDS TO COME OUTTA THAT NUMBER. AND SO IF WE WERE THE ONLY ONES TO HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH THAT NUMBER WOULD NEED TO BE 31. BUT I KNOW OTHERS HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH, SO I'M STILL QUESTIONING, [04:20:01] I JUST, I DON'T SEE ANY WAY 30 FIVE'S THRIVE NUMBER AND I'D BE GLAD TO TAKE THAT OFFLINE WITH YOU. BUT THERE'S, IF THAT NUMBER IS GREATER THAN THE GROSS OF THE TWO THAT'S IN EACH OF THOSE RPGS, THAT ALREADY IS KIND OF ODD. BUT WHEN I KNOW ONE OF OUR HAS ALREADY BEEN THROUGH, THAT'S NOT SMALL, I KNOW THAT NEEDS TO BE COMING OUT. SO ANYWAY, THAT STILL SEEMS NOT RIGHT. YEAH. LET'S, LET'S TAKE THAT MAYBE, UH, MAYBE OFFLINE. I THINK WE'RE GONNA GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT MATH AND WE WILL TAKE THOSE APPROPRIATELY. I, I THINK, I THINK WE'RE GONNA SEE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHY DID YOU HAVE THIS NUMBER HERE AND THIS NUMBER HERE, SO IF, IF WE NEED TO RESOLVE THAT, WE WILL. BUT LET'S, LET'S MOVE ON FOR NOW. THAT, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO GIDEON. HELLO? OH, FOUR INCHES AWAY FROM THE MIC. GIDEON OR SIX INCHES, I DON'T KNOW. BE, BE AWAY FROM THE MIC. GO AHEAD. I'M GONNA MAKE, I'M GONNA SPEAK WORDS. CAN I JUST, DO I, DOES IT HAVE TO BE A QUESTION? CAN I JUST SAY THINGS? YOU CAN SAY A COMMENT. YEAH. OKAY. YOU CAN JUST SAY THINGS. YES. I WOULD PREFER THAT THEY BE RELEVANT TO THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE DECK. IF YOU ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT YOUR COMMENTS, I THINK, WE'LL, WE HAVE LAID OUT AN ORDER FOR THAT, BUT IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS SLIDE DECK, SORRY. OKAY. OKAY. YOU CAN ALWAYS JUST SAY THINGS, BUT WE MIGHT SAY THINGS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIMES. OKAY. NED, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOME THINGS? I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION IF I'M OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, WELL FIRST I'LL SAY SOMETHING, AND JEFF, THANK YOU FOR, FOR BRINGING THIS, UH, THIS INFORMATION. I THINK THIS IS, THIS IS HELPFUL CONTEXT, AT LEAST FOR ME TO SEE, UH, THE CONSTRAINTS THAT ARPA IS TRYING TO WORK THROUGH. AND, UM, AND ESSENTIALLY IT'S A MODELING CONSTRAINT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, CORRECT? IT'S, IT'S HOW CAN YOU GET THE MODEL TO SOLVE AND GIVE YOU A USABLE OUTPUT. UM, AND I THINK WHILE, YOU KNOW, WHILE I WILL NOTE THAT IT SEEMS LIKE SOME OF THE NUMBERS ARE MOVING AROUND, AND I THINK THAT'S UNDERSTOOD, RIGHT? YOU HAVE HIGHLY PRELIMINARY AT THE TOP, SO THAT NOT GONNA FAULT YOU FOR THAT. I KNOW YOU'RE TAKING IN LOTS OF INFORMATION, UM, AND IT'S ADJUSTING IN REAL TIME. UM, BUT WHAT I'M HOPING TO UNDERSTAND IS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, THE AVAILABLE GENERATION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHEN I'M, WHEN I'M GOING DOWN THE LIST OF BULLETS, I SEE, YOU KNOW, YOU POINT TO, WELL, WE'RE STARTING OFF, WE'RE, WE'RE HAVING TO DIP INTO THE PLAN STATUS THAT STARTED AT FULL INTERCONNECTION STUDY. IT SEEMS LIKE FOR WHAT YOU'RE THE ABOUT 220 GIGAWATTS THAT, UH, OF 2032 MODELED LOAD THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UM, YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO DIP YOUR TOE INTO THERE, BUT THEN THAT'S A, IT'S A PRETTY WIDE CATEGORY. YEP. AND, YOU KNOW, THE LAST BULLET MAKES IT SEEM LIKE, OH, YOU REALLY DON'T WANNA HIT THE INACTIVE STUDIES. AND, AND SO THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S A, THAT'S CERTAINLY A HARD LIMIT, BUT WITHIN THAT 95 MEGAWATTS OR SO OF PLANNED STATUS, UH, BUT, AND STARTED FULL INTERCONNECTION STUDY GENERATION THAT YOU CAN HAVE AS AN INPUT, UM, YOU KNOW, HELP ME UNDERSTAND AND HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, WHAT THE SENSITIVITIES LOOK LIKE FROM A MODELING, UH, INPUT AND OUTPUT STANDPOINT. YEAH. I MIGHT PHONE ANOTHER FRIEND, A PLANNING FRIEND. SURE. SO I THINK CHRISTIE HOBBS, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS, UM, I ALSO WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT'S NOT REALLY VERBALIZED AS YOU LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS AS WE GO INTO THE INTERCONNECTION QUEUE, YOU CAN LOOK AT, UM, THE MONTHLY REPORTS THAT WE PUT OUT ON WHAT IS IN THE GENERATION INTERCONNECTION QUEUE, AND ABOUT 70 TO 80% OF IT, IT IS SOLAR AND BATTERIES. SO THOSE NUMBERS ALSO INCLUDE SOLAR AND BATTERIES. SO, UM, AS WE'RE GONNA START TO DO THE, THE NO SOLAR CASES, UH, THAT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE AMOUNT OF GENERATION AVAILABLE TO SOLVE THOSE CASES. UM, I WOULD ALSO, UM, NOTE THAT I NEED TO GO BACK AND, AND VERIFY WITH THE TEAM WHETHER THIS, I DON'T THINK THIS WAS NAME PLATE CAPACITY. THIS WAS WHAT IS USED IN THE CDR OLD METHOD OF REPORTING, HOW IT GETS UTILIZED IN PLANNING, WHICH IS LOOKING AT SOME WEIGHTED AVERAGES OF THEIR AVAILABILITY. OKAY. THAT, THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL. UM, SO I'M, I'M GONNA MAKE ONE, ONE LITTLE PIN THAT I'LL COME BACK TO WHEN WE GET TO, UH, COMMENTS. AND THAT IS AT LEAST FOR CO-LOCATION WITH THE EXISTING DISPATCHABLE GENERATION. THAT'S ALL IN THAT BOTTOM, UH, THAT BOTTOM 97 BLOCK. SO THERE'S NO CONCERN ABOUT THE, THE TRANSMISSION TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B. AND I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. THANKS. [04:25:06] OKAY, THANK YOU NED. UH, LET'S GO TO BROTH. YEAH, JEFF, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. UH, QUICK CLARIFICATION. YOU SAID IF YOU APPLY THE RPG PROJECTS AS BASE LOAD, THEN THE DATE MOVES BACK FROM MARCH 4TH TO AUGUST 1ST OF LAST YEAR? YES. BECAUSE OF THE ALLOCATION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THE RPG PROJECTS AND THAT'S RIGHT. WOW. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY, BLAKE, MIC CHECK. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, PERFECTLY. UH, THAT 62 LLIS NUMBER AND THE REVALIDATION THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED, UH, CAN YOU JUST WALK ME THROUGH THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE? WHAT, WHAT SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE HAPPENING HERE? IS IT THAT, IS IT THAT THE RPG PROJECTS THAT YOU WERE WITHHOLDING MUST STUDY STATUS UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THEIR RPG PROJECT? YOU WOULD BE SORT OF RETROACTIVELY GIVING THEM MUST STUDY STATUS AT THE DATE THE RPG WAS SUBMITTED. IS THAT WHAT IT WOULD BE? YEAH, I, I THINK THAT THE, UM, THE COMMENTS, AND I WOULD SAY IT'S THE CHOLA COMMENTS, THEY WOULD, UM, EFFECTIVELY THEY WOULD PUT RRPG PROJECTS AT THE FRONT OF THE LINE, UH, THE FRONT OF THE RANKING OR TOP OF THE RANKING, HOWEVER, HOWEVER YOU WANNA SAY IT. UH, WHICH MEANS THAT, UH, THAT YOU NEED TO THEN GO BACK ON ALL 62 OF THOSE LITTLEST PRO PROJECTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN CLEARED. YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND YOU NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK. DID THEIR STUDIES INCLUDE ALL OF THE LOADS THAT, THAT WERE NOW BECOME VALID THROUGH THE RPG PROCESS, DID NOT NOW HAVE A VALID STUDY. NOW THE, THE, AND I SHOULD BE FAIR ABOUT THAT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL 62 OF THOSE FAIL THE VALIDITY CHECK. UH, IT'S LIKELY SOME DO AND SOME DON'T. RIGHT. BUT WE, WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE AND THE IDEA GO BACK AND CHECK THAT. SORRY. AND THE, THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT THE STUDY SCOPE FOR THE LLIS PROJECT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE INCLUDED THOSE OTHER RPG LOADS INSIDE OF IT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD NEED BE, WOULD BE CHECKING. CORRECT. OKAY. AND THE, THE COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY SAY TO MOVE THE FIRM DATE TO THE SUBMISSION AND NOT SOME OTHER ARBITRARY DATE. IT, IT, I THINK IT'S NOT THE SUBMISSION. IT, IT JUST IN GENERAL, THOSE PROJECTS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RPG PROCESS, UH, IT, IT JUST, IT MOVES THEM. IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UM, LADDER SECTION IN, UH, 9.2 0.4, IT, IT EFFECTIVELY JUST MOVES THEM TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE. GOT IT. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. BOB HILTON? YEAH, I'M TRYING TO STAY ON THE SAME SLIDE. I'M TRYING TO, THIS IS PROBABLY OBVIOUS, BUT, SO ON THE START WITH THE YELLOW CHECKS, SAY, UH, LLIS LOAD FOUR, THE MARCH 6TH DATE, AND THEN THE LOAD, UH, FIVE MARCH 14TH DATE. SO THOSE HAVE GONE THROUGH OUR STUDIES ARE PROVISIONALLY VALID, BUT YOU'RE DOING THE CHECK RIGHT NOW TO SEE IF THEY'RE VALID, IF THEY'RE NOT VALID. ARE THEY NOW IN LLIS SIX, THE MARCH 23RD? SO, YEAH, SO, SO THE WAY IT IS WORKING TODAY IS, SO THE, THE GREEN GREEN CHECKS IS, YEP, WE'VE ALREADY SAID THOSE ARE GOOD. ALL, ALL THOSE LOADS HAVE VALID STUDIES. SO THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR BASE LOAD TREATMENT IN BATCH ZERO, THE, THE LOAD FOUR AND LOAD FIVE, THE YELLOW. WE HAVE DONE THOSE VALIDITY CHECKS MM-HMM . AND THEY HAVE PASSED. SO WE HAVE SAID, OKAY, YOU EVEN THOUGH YOU CAME IN AFTER MARCH 4TH, YOUR STUDIES ARE VALID, SO YOU ARE NOW ELIGIBLE FOR BASE LOAD TREATMENT IN BATCH ZERO. WHEN WE GOT TO LOAD SIX, THERE WAS SOME LOAD PREVIOUS THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDY, SO MAYBE THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE LARGE LOAD THREE. SO THEY NOW HAVE TO GO BACK AND INCLUDE LARGE LOAD THREE AND GO THROUGH A RE-STUDY PROCESS. AND WE HAVE COMMUNICATED THAT TO THEIR INTERCONNECTING TSP. AND THEN TSP IS, UH, IDEALLY GOING THROUGH AND, AND DOING THAT, THAT RE STUDY FOR, FOR THAT LOAD SIX. SO LOAD SIX IS SORT OF, UH, RIGHT NOW THEY ARE IN, IN AS STUDY LOAD, BUT THEY COULD BE IN AS BASE LOAD IF THAT RE-STUDY GETS COMPLETED. OKAY. [04:30:03] OKAY. SHANNON, STAND ON THIS SAME SLIDE. THIS IS ONLY AN ISSUE THOUGH IF ANY OF THAT RPG LOAD'S TRYING TO COME IN AS BASE LOAD, RIGHT? IF IT'S NOT, THEN IT'S JUST ALLOCATED. CORRECT. NONE OF THIS IS A CONCERN. IS THAT THE RIGHT WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT? UH, WELL, CONCERN IS IN TERMS OF INVAL, OF INVALIDATING ANY OF THE PRIOR APPROVED PROJECTS. CORRECT. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. ARE YOU READY TO MOVE TO YOUR COMMENTS, JEFF? YES. CAN I DO ONE MORE QUICK FOLLOW UP? NO, YES YOU CAN. YEAH, . OKAY. JUST REAL QUICK, JEFF, GO BACK TO THAT. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M SEEING THINGS. SO, OKAY, WE GET TO, UH, LOAD SIX AND YOU'VE GOT SOME THAT HAVE IS BEING RESTUDIED, AND THEN YOU'VE ALSO GOT LOS SEVEN, WHICH WAS ON MARCH 23RD. ALSO. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO? WERE THERE SOME THAT CAME OUT OF SEVEN THAT WERE OKAY AND SOME THAT WERE NOT AND THEY HAD TO BE RESTUDIED? I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE TWO THERE. YEAH. YEAH. SO ON MARCH 23RD, YEAH, IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF THINGS. SO IT, IT COULD BE THAT LOAD SEVEN MAY, MAYBE IT'S IN THE SAME AREA AS LOADS THREE AND SIX. AND IT ALSO INCLUDED LOAD THREE AND SIX IN ITS INTERCONNECTION STUDY. UH, OR MAYBE IT IS IN A DIFFERENT AREA. IT'S IN SOUTH TEXAS AND THREE AND SIX ARE IN WEST TEXAS. UH, AND SO IT, EVERYTHING THAT CAME IN RANKED ABOVE IT WAS ALREADY INCLUDED IN ITS LARGE LINEAR CONNECTION STUDY. YEAH. AND SO YOU, YOU CAN STILL HAVE LOADS THAT, UH, COME IN LATER THAN OTHER LOADS THAT, THAT PASS THAT STUDY CHECK. IT, IT IS JUST A CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY, YEAH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THAT THE PURPOSE IS EVERY LOAD THAT WE SAY IS ELIGIBLE FOR BASE LOAD, IT HAS A STUDY THAT INCLUDED ALL OTHER BASE LOADS IN, IN, IN ITS INTERCONNECTION STUDY. ALRIGHT, THANKS. AND JEFF, THIS IS A GI JUST WANT TO, UM, ADD ONE, ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON THIS SLIDE, UM, IS JUST THAT THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL SLIDE TO ILLUSTRATE THE IMPACT. UM, THOSE LOADS AND DATES ARE NOT CORRESPONDING TO ACTUAL LOADS. IT WAS INTENDED NOT TO IDENTIFY LOADS ON THE LIST JUST TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONCEPT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO OUR, UH, THEY MAY 15TH COMMENTS? YEAH. MAY 15TH COMMENTS. UM, WE, UH, COMING OUT, UH, TACK LAST WEEK MADE A NUMBER OF, UM, REVISIONS. UM, SO, UH, I'LL, I'LL JUST WALK THROUGH QUICKLY AND, UM, I'M NOT GONNA GO TO THE LANGUAGE, BUT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO GO TO THE LANGUAGE, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. UM, SO THE, UM, UH, THE FIRST ONE, I THINK GOOGLE HAD A COMMENT LAST WEEK AT TAC REGARDING KIND OF THIS IN INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF, UH, CHECK ON THE, UM, THE ELIGIBILITY STATUS, UH, THAT, THAT WAS IN THE, UH, PREVIOUS COMMENTS. AND SO WE, UH, PUT A, UH, STOP DATE ON THAT, UH, THAT WE CAN ONLY CHECK THROUGH APRIL 9TH, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHEN THE BATCH ZERO STUDY IS COMPLETED. UM, AND THEN I THINK IT WAS A EP THAT, UM, I THINK IT WAS AP THAT ASKED TO INCLUDE THE FITCH RATINGS, UH, A AS AN OPTION ON THE, UM, UH, ON THE CREDIT RATINGS. UH, SO WE ADDED THAT, UM, ACCORDING TO THE TAX DISCUSSION LAST WEEK. UM, AND THEN, UM, AND I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T REMEMBER WHO HALL MADE THE COMMENTS. I THINK THIS WAS SHANNON'S COMMENT ON THE, UH, RE REQUIREMENTS TO, UM, LOOK AT, UH, THE, THE DIRECT INTERCONNECTION COST THAT IT WAS ALREADY AGREED TO IN, IN AN EXISTING AGREEMENT FOR, UM, THE CERTAIN BASE LOAD, UH, PROJECTS. UH, AND SO WE MADE THAT CHANGE. UM, AND THEN THERE WAS, UH, SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE, UH, WHERE, WHERE WE HAD ADDED, COMING OUT OF THE MAY 7TH OPEN MEETING, WE ADDED SOME, UH, ZONING, UH, REQUIREMENTS, UH, FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION. UH, AND THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED, UH, ABOUT THAT. AND SO TRIED TO INCORPORATE SOME EDITS TO ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS, UH, AS MUCH AS WE COULD. UM, UH, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE WERE SOME THAT SAID, DON'T DO THAT AT ALL, BUT, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE COMMISSION DIRECTION, WE FELT LIKE WE NEEDED TO, UH, KEEP THOSE, UH, REQUIREMENTS IN. UM, AND THEN WE ADDED YOU, THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONAL, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT, UH, TBIT. AND SO WE JUST ADDED AN ABILITY TO CHECK WITH THE TSP IF A PROJECT IS, IS NOT IN TPI, UH, JUST TO, UM, YOU KNOW, KINDA GIVE US AN OUT JUST IN CASE, UH, PROJECT WASN'T IN TBIT, WE COULD [04:35:01] STILL WORK WITH THE TSP ON THE, UH, THE TIMING THAT, THAT THE DATES ON THOSE, UM, RPG PROJECTS, PROJECTS. UM, AND, AND THEN, UM, THE, UH, I DON'T REMEMBER IF WE HAD COMMENT ON THIS OR IF, IF THIS WAS MORE INTERNAL DISCUSSION, UH, BUT REGARDING THE DYNAMIC DATA, UH, WE, THERE IS A RECOGNITION, UH, UH, BECAUSE WE SEE THIS FREQUENTLY TODAY, IS THAT SOMETIMES THE DYNAMIC DATA, UM, THE, THE MODEL D DOESN'T PASS A MODEL QUALITY CHECK. UH, AND SO WE NEEDED A CURE PERIOD FOR ILES IF THEY'RE SUBMITTING THE DYNAMIC DATA, IF, IF IT'S, UH, DEFICIENT IN ANY WAY. SO WE ADDED THAT, UH, ADDED A CURE PERIOD IN DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST, UH, TO, UH, UM, MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT HOLDING A, UH, PROJECT UP. UH, I, UM, JUST WANT TO STATE ON, ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM. UH, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU CAN KNOWINGLY OR THAT YOU SHOULD KNOWINGLY SEND US BAD DATA ON JULY 10TH. UH, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO STILL, YOU TO DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE ON YOUR DATA AND, AND GET US GOOD QUALITY DATA. UH, WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE SOME GRACE HERE FOR THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, BUT, YOU KNOW, FAIL, THIS IS NOT A THROW SOMETHING OVER THE FENCE AT THE LAST MINUTE KIND OF A THING. SO, UM, UH, SO THAT'S YOUR ADMONITION, UH, ON THAT. UM, THE, UM, UH, ON REGARDING, UM, THE RPG UH, PROJECTS, UM, THE, THE TEAM AS, AS THEY WERE, UH, INTERNALLY, THIS CAME OUT INTERNAL, JUST THOUGHT WE NEEDED SOME CLARIFICATIONS ON, UH, YOU KNOW, WHICH LOADS SHOULD BE INCLUDED. UH, SO WE ADDED SOME CLARIFICATION THAT THE, THE LOAD NEEDED TO BE IN THE STUDY AREA. UM, AND THEN, UM, THERE WERE SOME, UM, REFERENCES TO THE MEGAWATT WITHDRAWAL LIMITS. UM, AND YOU KNOW, HOW THAT WORKS WITH RESOURCE REGISTRATION DATA THAT WE NEEDED TO CLARIFY. UM, AND THEN THE, UM, UH, THERE WAS, UH, SOME, UH, I THINK WE GOT SOME COMMENTS ABOUT IF THE, UM, ILES IF THEY, UH, IF WE'RE CHANGING THEIR CLASSIFICATION, UH, BASED ON SOME INCOMPLETE OR UH, INCORRECT, UH, INACCURATE INFORMATION, THEN WE NEEDED TO ALLOW A WAY FOR THEM TO REMEDY THAT. AND SO WE ADDED A LITTLE, A LITTLE PROCESS IN FOR THAT. UM, AND I THINK THE VISTA COMMENTS, UM, THEIR, UH, PREVIOUS SET OF COMMENTS THEY HAD RECOMMENDED IN 9 5 1 ADDING INTERCONNECTING, UH, TSP INTO THAT. AND CAITLYN, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, I'LL JUST GO TO, WE, WE ONLY HAD ONE, UH, YEP. I THINK RELATIVELY MINOR EDIT IN, IN THE COMMENTS THAT WE FILED LAST NIGHT. UM, AND THAT WAS, UM, AS THE TEAM HAS STARTED TO, THIS CAME FROM INTERNAL DISCUSSION AS THE TEAM HAS STARTED TO WORK THROUGH THOSE, UM, UH, CHECKING THE, THE VALIDITY OF, OF STUDIES, UM, WE, UH, FELT LIKE WE NEEDED TO MAKE, UH, SOME CLARIFICATIONS IN THERE. 'CAUSE OUR INTERNAL TEAM THOUGHT SOME OF THE WORDING WAS, UH, MAYBE NOT RIGHT. UM, AND SO WE WANTED TO JUST MAKE SOME CLARIFICATIONS THERE SO THAT, UM, EVERYBODY'S, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE. UH, SO THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE COMMENTS LAST NIGHT. OKAY. CAN YOU DO THE, UM, REVISED IA TOO? I THINK IT WAS JUST A NOTE THAT CAME FROM BOB HILTON'S REQUEST ON THE IMPACT BEING NOT JUST FOR BATCH ZERO, BUT FOR ONGOING BATCHES. I NEED HELP FINDING THAT. IT IS CORY'S PULLING THAT UP. THERE'S JUST A ONE LINER AT THE VERY BOTTOM IN THE COMMENT SECTION, WHICH WAS IF ALL THE STAFF, SORRY, MATT MARINA ERCOT OVER HERE. UM, AND THE IDEA WAS TO TAG IN THERE THAT EVEN THOUGH BATCH ZERO IS A ONE AND DONE ACTIVITY, IT FEEDS INTO SUBSEQUENT, UH, BATCH PROCESSES. SO WE PUT THIS LANGUAGE IN TO SHOW IT'S KIND OF A SEMI-PERMANENT TYPE THING, NOT JUST A, A SINGLE EVENT. SO HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS BOB. THUMBS UP. GREAT. GREAT JOB. OKAY. OKAY. SO LET'S GO TO, UH, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON OUR COTS COMMENTS. LET'S START WITH CHRIS MATOS. WOW. I FORGOT I HAD ALREADY PUT ON COMMENT OR I HAD A QUESTION. UM, CHRIS MATOS GOOGLE WITH RELATION TO THE DYNAMIC PA DATA AND INVALIDATION, AND THIS IS MORE JUST 'CAUSE I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND WE ARE MOVING MOUNTAINS TO GET EVERY PIECE OF DYNAMIC DATA DONE. WHAT MIGHT CONSTITUTE IS INVALID FROM Y'ALL'S PERSPECTIVE. AND WITH REGARD TO THE CURE, DO WE, IT U IT'S TAKING US ABOUT THREE MONTHS, FOUR MONTHS JUST TO GET TO BASELINES. AND SO WILL WE JUST SEE THESE AS EDITS THAT ARE FAIRLY QUICKLY FIXABLE? I'M GONNA LET FRED ADDRESS THAT. I THINK FROM THE [04:40:01] MODEL SUBMISSION PERSPECTIVE, I THINK WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS FILL IN THE LOAD SURVEY AS POSTED ON THE DW WEBSITE AND PROVIDE A, A CORRESPONDENT MODELS AS WELL. THAT IS A COUPLE WE'RE LOOKING FOR. I THINK WE WILL REVIEW THE VRT CAPABILITY, BUT IT'S NOT THE ONE AS A SUBMISSION CHECK. SO FROM THE SUBMISSION PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE CHECK, DO YOU HAVE A LOAD OF SURVEY PROVIDED, DO YOU HAVE A CORRESPONDING MODEL AND THE PARAMETER PROVIDED. THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE ARE CHECKING FOR. SO MY TAKE ON THAT IS Y'ALL ARE GONNA BE, I GUESS, FAIRLY LIGHT TOUCH ABOUT IT AND JUST FOR THE TIME BEING FOCUSED ON HAVING THE DATA AND ANYTHING THAT WOULD COME BACK WOULD HAVE TO BE LIKE, PRETTY EGREGIOUS. AND THEN WE'LL FOCUS ON UPDATES. AND FROM THE SUBMISSION PERSPECTIVE, UH, THE SURVEY WITH THE INSTRUCTION INCLUDED, AND THIS POINT, THE SUBMISSION FROM THE MODEL PERSPECTIVE IS A PCC MODEL. OKAY. OKAY. BURRO? YEAH. UM, THE COMMENT THAT CAME OUT YESTERDAY, SO THAT'S ADDRESSING FEB, UH, MARCH 25TH, 2022 TO DECEMBER, 1425. SO THAT'S THE INTERIM LLI PROCESS LOADS THAT DIDN'T REQUIRE ANY UPGRADES. YOU ARE NOW INCLUDING THEM IN THE VALIDATION STUDIES OR LET ME AG CAN PERTH, WERE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE VALIDATION CHECKS? SORRY, COULD YOU CLARIFY? YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE INCLUDING THE INTERIM L-L-I-L-I PROCESS LOADS, UH, IN THIS TEXT. AND WILL THOSE LOADS BE INCLUDED FOR THE VALIDITY CHECK? CORRECT, YES. UH, UH, I THINK THE, NOT JUST THE FORCE OF THESE COMMENTS, BUT ALSO SOME OF THE EARLIER COMMENTS CLARIFIED THAT THOSE, UH, THE LOADS THAT MET THE APPLICABLE MILESTONES UNDER THE INTERIM PROCESS, WERE CONSIDERED TO ALSO MEET THEM UNDER THE, THE FORMAL PROCESS. AND THOSE ARE BEING REFLECTED IN THE VALIDITY CHECKS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE TO DATE. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY, BOB? YEAH, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED, WHICH OF COURSE IS EASY FOR ME. BUT, UH, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE ISSUES WITH THE DYNAMIC MODELS. YOU, YOU, WE SAID, YOU KNOW, FOR READINESS AND EVERYTHING, YOU HAVE TO FILE EVERYTHING ON MARCH 28TH SO THAT THEY COULD ALL BE VALIDATED AND SAID THEY'RE GOOD BY JULY THE 10TH. BUT THEN IN THESE COMMENTS YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, THERE'S A CURE PERIOD UNTIL FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO AUGUST. HOW DO THOSE THREE DATES ALL COMBINE TOGETHER? OR AM I JUST MISSING WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE? YEAH. OKAY. UM, I'LL, I'LL TAKE A SHOT AND THEN I'LL ASK MY TEAM TO CLEAN UP ANY MESS I MAKE. SO, UM, THE, SO TO, UM, QUALIFY TO BE INCLUDED AS, UH, EITHER SAY BASE LOAD OR STUDY LOAD, YOU, YOU NEED TO HAVE STUDIES DONE AND APPROVED BY PER COT. MM-HMM . UM, IF YOU HAVE A LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDY, ERCOT HAS A 10 DAY PLUS PLUS ADDITIONAL 20 DAY REVIEW PROCESS. SO YOU, WE NEED TO HAVE THE STUDIES IN BY MAY 28TH TO GUARANTEE. SO, AND THAT, SO THAT'S THE STUDIES. SO THE STUDIES NEED TO BE IN BY MAY 28TH TO GUARANTEE THAT WE'LL REVIEW THE, THE ASTERISK. WE, WE MAY STILL, UH, AND, AND LIKELY WE'LL STILL REVIEW AND APPROVE STUDIES THAT COME IN AFTER MAY 28TH, UH, THAT, THAT'S JUST YOUR LAST GUARANTEE DATE. BUT THEN IN, UH, BESIDES YOUR, YOUR STUDIES, WE NEED TO HAVE YOUR DYNAMIC MODEL THAT, THAT YOU, YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION. I I, I, I WAS CONFUSING GETTING MIXED BETWEEN THE STUDIES AND THE DYNAMIC MODELS, SO, SO YOU CAN GO AHEAD FOR EVERYBODY TO, TO HEAR, BUT YOU TOOK CARE OF ME, . OKAY. ALRIGHT. I'LL, I'LL, I'LL PAUSE THERE FOR SECOND FOR THE INTERESTING TIME UNLESS FOLKS HAVE OTHER, UH, COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS OR COMMENTS FOR JEFF BEFORE WE MOVE TO OUR MYRIAD OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS? EVAN, REAL FAST, REAL FAST JUST, JUST IS, ARE THESE COMMENTS REFLECTIVE OF THE CHANGE IN YOUR SLIDE? WHICH, UH, WHICH CHANGE IN THIS SLIDE? THE CHANGE TO PUT THE RPGS AT THE TOP? NO. OKAY, GREAT. AND THEN JUST REAL FAST, DO YOU HAVE PRELIMINARY STATS OF THE DIFFERENT TOTALS OF LOADS THAT WOULD BE VALID BASED OFF THE, WHAT HAS BEEN THE STATUS QUO FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS VERSUS [04:45:01] WHAT THE RPG CHANGE WOULD BE? WE, WE DON'T, BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED TO THEN GO BACK AND, UM, IT, IT IS 27 OR SO, 27.9 I THINK GIGAWATTS OF LOADS THAT WE WOULD THEN HAVE TO GO BACK AND RECHECK THEIR STUDY VALIDITY. UH, AND THAT'S JUST A MANUAL PROCESS GOING THROUGH EACH STUDY SCOPE AND STUDY CASE AND ALL THAT. SO DON'T HAVE THAT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. THAT'S FINE. THAT'S GOOD CONTEXT. AND THEN JUST REAL FAST, SOMETHING YOU SAID THAT THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION IS YOU SAID WE NEED TO MAYBE GO BACK TO INVALIDATE STUFF ALL THE WAY FROM LAST AUGUST DURING THE INTERIM PROCESS. YEP. AND SO WOULD THAT JUST APPLY TO LOADS THAT HAD STUDIES DONE BUT DIDN'T GET A CONTRACT SIGNED? 'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S OTHER LANGUAGE THAT IF YOU GOT THE INTERIM STUDIES DONE PLUS WHAT BECAME NINE FIVE REQUIREMENTS, THEN YOU WERE VALID NO MATTER WHAT. SO IS THAT EXCLUDED FROM THAT? UM, IT WOULD BE ANY STUDY THAT WAS COMPLETED AFTER AUGUST, FIRST OF LAST YEAR, WE WOULD GO BACK AND CHECK EVEN IF THEY SIMILAR TO A LOAD THAT MEETS NINE FOUR AND NINE FIVE ON MAY 19TH, WE WOULD GO BACK AND CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR STUDIES ARE STILL VALID. SO SIMILAR WE WOULD GO BACK AND A LOAD THAT CAME IN IN SEPTEMBER THAT MET THE REQUIREMENTS, WE WOULD GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY OF THOSE RPG LOADS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, NOW JUMPED TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE, THAT WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THOSE LILI STUDIES INCLUDED THOSE RPG LOADS. OKAY. SO THERE WOULD BE MULTIPLE CHANGES IN THE LANGUAGE OR WOULD NEED TO BE FOR WHAT CONSIDERS PEOPLE TO BE VAL SAFE. OKAY. YES. SOUNDS PRETTY INTRUSIVE. SO THANKS, APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY REAL FAST EVERY TIME I THINK WE, WE WANT TO HEAR NEW YOU CALL I NO, I CALLED ON, I WOULD'VE CALLED ON YOU. I WILL CALL ON PEOPLE EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT BEING FAST, BUT WE SORT OF WANNA REQUEST THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS THAT CAN'T BE RESOLVED HERE. DON'T HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD OVER AND OVER. IF SOMEBODY HAS ALREADY SAID YOUR COMMENT BEFORE, DON'T SAY IT AGAIN. BUT THOSE WERE ALL NEW CLARIFYING QUESTIONS SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO SAY REAL FAST. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. CAN WE NOW MOVE ON TO STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, SO OUR FIRST GROUP AND, AND DON'T GET MAD AT ME IF I, YOU THINK I'M MISCHARACTERIZING WHAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE ABOUT, I'M JUST SORT OF BROADLY, UM, FIRST, FIRST GROUP, THE STUDY SUBMISSION DATE. UM, AND THEN BECAUSE SOME COMMENTS SORT OF ROLLED INTO THE SAME COMMENTS, ALSO THE, THE RPG, THE INCLUSION OF THE RPG PROJECTS. SO WE WILL DO RELIANT, UH, THE WISE ENERGY COMMENTS ARE PRETTY NARROW, SO WE'LL DO THOSE RIGHT AFTER RELIANT, THEN WE'LL GO TO CHOA, TIBA, SAILFISH. ALL RIGHT, BILL UP TO THANK YOU FIVE MINUTES. APPRECIATE THE, THE, UH, LEAD OFF AT BAT HERE. UM, ALSO JUST BEFORE I BEGIN, JUST THANKS TO THE ERCOT STAFF. I MEAN, THIS IS CLEARLY A LOT OF WORK. I THINK WE HAVE HAD TO HAVE SET A RECORD ON THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS FELL ON A REVISION REQUEST OVER 110, IS THAT RIGHT? WE'RE TIED WITH NOER 2 45. OH, WELL WE GOTTA FIX THAT. WE GOTTA FIX THAT. SO, UM, JUST KUDOS TO ALL THE WORK. IS THAT CORRECT, DAN? AS OF RIGHT NOW WE ARE TIED WITH NO G 2 45. WE'LL, WELL MAYBE GOFF CAN WRITE SOME 2 45 COMMENTS. YOU NEVER KNOW OH, A BATTLE. UM, ANYHOW, JUST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ALL THE WORK PUT INTO THIS AND THE, THE COMPRESSED TIMELINE TOO. THE, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE PROCESSED AND UM, MADE IT THIS FAR IN A MATTER OF MONTHS IS REALLY JUST PRETTY ASTOUNDING. SO A LOT OF GOOD WORK PUT INTO THIS. UM, OUR COMMENTS REALLY FOCUS ON TWO THINGS THAT, THAT WE REMAIN CONCERNED WITH THAT WE'VE BROUGHT UP AT VARIOUS, UH, STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS. BUT WE HAVE REFINED THEM TO BE AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE. THE FIRST IS THE, THE DEADLINE FOR WHEN, UH, STUDIES NEED TO BE SUBMITTED TO BE INCLUDED INTO BATCH ZERO AS A STUDIED LOAD. UH, AS AG EXPLAINED AT THE LAST, UM, ROSS, I THINK LAST WEEK, THEY'RE LEANING ON THE CURRENT PROCESS, WHICH IS, UH, WITHIN 10 BUSINESS DAYS WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND TWO 30 BUSINESS DAYS OR EXTEND 20 BUSINESS DAYS TO A TOTAL OF 30 BUSINESS DAYS. SO THAT ESSENTIALLY SETS THE DEADLINES RIGHT NOW AT NEXT THURSDAY. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A COMPLETED STUDY BY NEXT THURSDAY. IF, UH, YOU'RE GONNA MAKE BATCH ZEROS A STUDIED LOAD BETWEEN MAY 28TH AND JUNE 25TH, WHICH IS THE 20 BUSINESS DAY IS THE ZONE OF UNCERTAINTY, WHICH IS ERCOT WILL, WILL TRY, [04:50:01] BUT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET TO THEM. AND THEN WITHIN, UH, JUNE 25TH AND LATER, THAT'S WITHIN THE 10 BUSINESS DAYS. AND IF YOU DON'T SUBMIT WITHIN THAT, ERCOT DOESN'T HAVE TO CONSIDER THE STUDY. SO WE ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE MORE CERTAINTY BETWEEN MAY 28TH AND JUNE 25TH AS TO IF YOU GET A STUDY SUBMITTED BETWEEN THOSE TWO DATES, THERE'S MORE CERTAINTY THAT IT'LL GET REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE JULY 10TH DATE. WE THINK THAT IS COMPLETELY FAIR FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE PART OF A WL PUN AND A-P-C-L-R MAINLY BECAUSE THOSE RULES JUST CAME OUT. AND WHILE YOU CAN CERTAINLY HAVE STUDIES THAT WERE IN PROGRESS, THERE IS ALSO GOOD REASON WHY YOU MAY HAVE WANTED TO SEE WHAT THOSE RULES LIKE BEFORE YOU SUBMITTED A STUDY. SO WE THINK IT IS, UH, FAIR TO GIVE THOSE PROJECTS A TWO WEEK GRACE PERIOD. UH, WE, WE PROPOSED, UH, JUNE 12TH, WHY JUNE 12TH BECAUSE IT'S IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN MAY 28TH AND JUNE 25TH. THAT'S THE FIRST CHANGE. THE SECOND IS, AND YOU'RE GONNA HEAR THIS THEME FROM ME TODAY, WE CONTINUED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT PROJECTS THAT FOLLOWED THE PROCESS WITH THEIR INTERCONNECTING TSP AND ENDED UP NOT IN BATCH ZERO FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER. THERE'S A FAIRNESS ISSUE. WE THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN SOME WAY GIVEN ERCOT FEEDBACK ON THE CONCERN ABOUT ALLOWING TOO MUCH EITHER BASE LOAD OR STUDY LOAD INTO BATCH ZERO, WHICH WE AGREE WITH. WE TOOK THAT FEEDBACK AND CAME BACK WITH, AGAIN, THE MOST NARROWEST POSSIBLE WAY TO ALLOW FOR GRACE FOR PROJECTS THAT WERE, UM, STUCK IN THAT SITUATION AND NARROW TO EITHER A WL PUN OR A-P-C-L-R. WHY DOES THAT ADDRESS ERCOT CONCERNS ABOUT THE STUDIED LOAD? I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER THAN JEFF'S CHART THAT SHOWED THE AMOUNT OF LOAD IN BATCH ZERO AND THE AMOUNT OF GENERATION AND THAT HIS, HIS SLIDE IS CONVEYING A PROBLEM OF HAVING TOO MUCH STUDY LOAD INTO BATCH. ZERO MEANS YOU'RE GONNA RUN INTO PICKER 1 27 PROBLEMS. YOU'RE GONNA RUN INTO MODELING ISSUES BECAUSE YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GENERATION PCLR AND WL PUNS SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. AND THAT'S BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE TRANSMISSION STUDY, THE GENERATION OFFSETS THE LOAD. YOU DON'T NEED AS MUCH TRANSMISSION INFRASTRUCTURE. THE SAME WITH THE PCLR. SO NOT ONLY ARE YOU NARROWING THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT GET INTO BAT ZERO FOR STUDIED LOADS, YOU ALSO ADDRESS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE ISSUE WITH THOSE. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO ISSUES THAT WE ADDRESSED. YOU DID IT. THAT WAS FOUR MINUTES. AWESOME. I CUT YOU OFF IN CASE YOU HAD MORE . THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE, DO YOU HAVE A MINUTE WORTH OF EXTRA? UH, WELL JUST BRIEFLY THAT SAID, I ALSO WITH GREAT DEFERENCE TO ERCOT DO THINK THAT THERE IS GOOD REASON FOR TAC TO HAVE A STAKEHOLDER VERSION OF PICKER 1 45 THAT MAY DEVIATE IN A NARROW WAY FROM WHAT ERCOT HAD FILED ON MAY 18TH. AND AFTER WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL THE STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS AND, AND HEARD FROM EACH COMPANY'S INDIVIDUAL POSITION, I'D BE WILLING TO ATTEMPT TO START THE PROCESS OF MAKING A JOINT MOTION, UH, THAT ADDRESSES SOME OF THOSE OTHER CONCERNS WERE BROUGHT TO HEAR. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, THANKS BILL. I SORT OF BRIEFLY MADE THE COMMENT, BUT I FORGOT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF MY COMMENTS. I DO. I THINK MOST OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME IN FROM STAKEHOLDERS THAT ASKS WERE NARROW. AND SO I, I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY. UM, WE CAN HAVE MORE PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS LATER, BUT I THINK PART OF THE WAY I ORDERED THINGS WAS BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE DID COMMENTS ON TOP OF OTHER VERSIONS. SO WE'LL TRY TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT VERSION OF COMMENTS, UM, COMMENTS WERE, WERE DONE ON TOP OF MO MOST WERE EDITED ON TOP OF ERCOT MAY 15TH COMMENTS. UM, AND, AND THAT'S THE CASE FOR RELIANCE. SO I SEE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IN THE, THE QUEUE. UM, SO LET'S GO TO THOSE AG. THANKS. UH, AG SPRINGER, UH, UM, I JUST WANT TO WANNA CLARIFY, UM, SOMETHING, UH, THE WAY I HEARD BEAR, UH, BILL CHARACTERIZE WHAT I SAID AT THE LAST ROSS AND ALSO AT THE, UH, WEBEX THAT WE HOSTED LAST FRIDAY, DISCUSSING READINESS FOR BATCH ZERO. UM, THE, THE TIMELINE FOR REVIEW OF, OR ERCOT REVIEW OF THE, UH, INTERCONNECTION STUDIES PERFORMED UNDER THE EXISTING PROCESS THAT WAS SET BY PICKER ONE 15. THAT IS A TIMELINE FOR ERCOT TO REVIEW AND THAT MAY RESULT IN AN APPROVAL BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED TO RESULT [04:55:01] IN APPROVAL. UM, THE REVIEW IS TO ASSESS WHETHER THE, UH, STUDY, UH, MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE DOCUMENTED UNDER THE EXISTING PLANNING GUIDE. AND IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS OR, UH, AREAS OF THE STUDY THAT MAY NEED TO BE UPDATED OR REDONE, THAT IS PER THE EXISTING SECTION 9.4 TREATED AS A NEW SUBMISSION WITH A NEW CLOCK ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO, I, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT EVEN, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, THE COMMENTS THAT RELIANT HAS PROPOSED HERE, UM, YOU KNOW, I HEARD BILL SAY THAT THAT WOULD GIVE SOME CERTAINTY THAT THOSE STUDIES WOULD BE IN AND TIME TO BE INCLUDED IN BATCH ZERO. THAT THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE, EVEN IF, IF THAT DATE HAS CHANGED, UM, THAT UNDER THE CURRENT PROCESS IT IS A TIMELINE FOR REVIEW, AND THAT IS NOT GUARANTEED TO RESULT IN AN APPROVAL IF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING GUIDE WERE NOT MET. I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. AG, UM, AND ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT. THE CLARITY WE'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH IS, UH, A DATE WHERE WE KNOW THAT YOU WILL AT LEAST LOOK AT THE STUDY. THE, THE PROBLEM WITH THE UNCERTAINTY ON THE 20 DAY OPTION IS ANYWHERE WITHIN THAT RANGE. ER, I COULD JUST KIND OF THROW UP THEIR HANDS AND BE LIKE, WE WE'RE JUST NOT GONNA BE ABLE LOOK AT IT. SO WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE AT LEAST SOME CERTAINTY THAT YOU'LL, YOU'LL, UH, THERE'S A DATE BY WHICH YOU WILL AT LEAST START LOOKING AT IT. AND I KNOW ERCOT HAS SAID THAT WITHIN THAT 20 DAY OPTION WINDOW, YOU GUYS WILL DO THE BEST THAT YOU CAN WITH THE AVAILABLE RESOURCES. UM, DO WE NEED TO MUTE? LET'S TALK . COURSE NOT. IT'S NOT BASEBALL ANYMORE. NO, IT'S NOT BASEBALL. IT'S, IT'S NOT A, NOT A GAME. UPDATE'S. ARE WE GOOD? MAYBE I'M NOT, THEY'RE MUTED. I'VE HEARD. GO AHEAD, BILL. I THINK THAT WAS IT. OKAY. JUST SOFTLY AGREEING WITH AG AND HOPING FOR A BETTER DATE. , ARE YOU GOOD AG LET'S GO TO JIM. YES, THANK YOU, JIM. LET'S GO TO BOB. YEAH. ON THAT I GET, I GET WHERE BILL'S GOING ON THIS ON SOME CERTAINTY. THE THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF THAT, THAT DOESN'T CHANGE TO MORE UNCERTAINTY IF YOU'RE NOT A WL PUN OR, OR ANOTHER ONE, FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU'VE GOT THAT EXTRA TIME TO WHERE YOU'RE GUARANTEED THAT YOU'LL BE APPROVED OR AT LEAST LOOKED AT THAT YOU'VE GOT THOSE COMING IN DURING THAT SAME PERIOD OF TIME THAT AREN'T ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. AND WHERE MY CONCERN IS, AND I WANT TO HEAR FROM ERCOT, IS THAT THEY DON'T THROW ALL OF A SUDDEN BECAUSE YOURS COMES IN THREE DAYS LATER THAN SOMEONE ELSE'S DOES, BUT YOU'RE THE GUARANTEED IT'S GOTTA BE DONE NOW BECAUSE IT'S BEFORE THAT DATE. THE OTHER ONE IS NOT, I DON'T WANT THAT ONE THROWN OUT AND SAID, OH, THIS ONE, IF WE DON'T GET TO IT, WE DON'T GET TO IT. SO WE'RE NOT GONNA BOTHER WITH IT. WE'RE GONNA BOTHER WITH THE ONE WE SAY WE HAVE TO. AND I, I DON'T WANT THAT TO MESS UP THAT PECKING ORDER OF THE WAY THOSE ARE STUDIED IN THE PROCESS, THAT WHILE IT GIVES SOME CERTAINTY TO SOME, IT THROWS OTHERS OUT. THAT'S WHAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN. AND I DON'T BELIEVE YOU DO EITHER. UH, WELL, MAYBE WELL, THAT WAS, SO THAT WAS THE POINT OF NARROWING THIS, BUT THAT IS A CONCERN THAT I HAVE WITH THAT PROCESS, AND I WANT TO HEAR FROM ERCOT ON HOW THEY WOULD HANDLE THOSE SITUATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. OKAY. SO THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ERCOT. YEAH. YEAH, PRETTY MUCH. YEAH. UH, THIS IS AG SPRINGER I CAN ADDRESS. I'M NOT TRYING TO STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BILL. I THINK THIS, IT'S THE RIGHT DIRECTION ON THINGS. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. YEAH, I I I THINK THE ANSWER TO BOB'S QUESTION IS A QUESTION OF OVERALL WORKLOAD. UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, AS, AS WE STATED THAT THE, YOU KNOW, LAST COUPLE OF ROSS IN TACC MEETINGS, BUT ALSO AT THE WEBEX LAST WEEK, WE ARE TRYING TO BRING ON ADDITIONAL, UH, CONTRACT HELP TO, TO GET THROUGH THIS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THE EVENT THAT THE VOLUME REACHES A POINT WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, WE DO HAVE TO PRIORITIZE THEN IF THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT, [05:00:01] UM, TO, UH, UH, MEET A, A SHORTER DEADLINE FOR SOME OF THESE REVIEWS, THEN THAT COULD IMPACT THE REVIEWS OF, UH, STANDALONE PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT REGISTERING AS, UH, PCLR OR W UPON. AND THAT, THAT'S EXACTLY BOB, WHAT WE WERE HOPING IS, IF YOU'RE GONNA PRIORITIZE PROJECTS THAT GET IN AS STUDIED LOADS, DON'T YOU WANT THE ONES THAT ARE GONNA BECOME, THAT ARE EITHER FLEXIBLE OR BRING GENERATION? YEAH. AND THAT'S WHY I SAID, WELL, YOU DON'T, THEN I THOUGHT, OH YEAH, YOU DO . THAT'S WHY I CHANGED THAT. OKAY. JIM, GALVIN, ARE YOU BACK? I THINK HE'S TRY, I KNOW HE'S TRYING TO LOG BACK ON. OKAY. I THINK WE'RE GONNA STAY ON THE SORT OF SAME TOPIC. SO I I THINK WE CAN KEEP GOING. THE, TO ME, THE WISE ENERGY COMMENTS FROM MAY 18TH, WERE PRETTY NARROWLY IN SUPPORT OF RELIANT COMMENTS. I KNOW, UH, MR. GGL FELTY IS HERE. I'M HERE. WELL, I I SAW YOU EARLIER NOW. I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY YOU ARE. YOU'RE RIGHT HERE. OKAY. I CAME UP TO THE TABLE. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. SO, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UM, I REALLY JUST WANTED TO MAKE TWO OR THREE QUICK POINTS IN SUPPORT OF, OF THE RELIANT PROPOSAL, UM, GIVING A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND TO THIS. UM, A A AS YOU ALL KNOW, EVERYBODY IS IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION HERE. UM, THE, THE CHALLENGE THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN IS, UH, WHEN WE WENT INTO A PROCESS WE FILED FOR INTERCONNECTION IN 2024, UM, AND THE TDSP HAS NOT DONE STUDIES SINCE 2024 IN TO, TO ALLOW US EVEN INTO THE BATCH ZERO PROCESS. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW, UH, TODAY, YOU KNOW, SOME T DSPS YOU CAN FILE FOR INTERCONNECTION TODAY AS A LARGE LOAD, THEY CAN GET THE STUDY STATE STUDIES DONE AND SUBMITTED TO ERCOT, AND WE IN 2024 FILE FOR INTERCONNECTION AND CAN'T GET A-T-D-S-P TO DO THAT. AND THE WAY THAT I THINK THAT THIS CAN GET FIXED IS WITH THE, UH, UH, THE UCS COMMENTS THAT WERE FILED, AS WELL AS THE COMMENTS FROM RELIANT, I THINK THEY ARE A, A, UM, A NARROW WAY TO HELP GET PROJECTS INTO BATCH ZERO, UM, THAT ARE, THAT ARE VALUABLE TO THE SYSTEM OF OUR COT. UM, AND I SAY THAT, UH, WITH THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE, IF YOU'RE A LOAD AND YOU'RE PULLING POWER OFF THE SYSTEM, YOU'RE JUST TAKING SOMETHING. IF YOU'RE A WL PUN OR A-P-C-L-R, YOU'RE GIVING SOMETHING BACK TO THE SYSTEM. AND THAT IS EITHER REDUCING LOAD AND COST DURING CRITICAL TIMES, OR AS A GENERATOR, YOU'RE PROVIDING VOLTAGE. AND I KNOW ERCOT IS ENCOURAGING THOSE, BUT I WANT THEM TO, UM, THINK ABOUT IT IN THE TERMS OF THE WAY THE RELIANT PROPOSAL IS. UM, I THINK THEY ARE, UH, IMPORTANT, UH, TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS PROCESS BECAUSE AT NO FAULT OF OUR OWN, WERE WE EXCLUDED, WE STILL DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE IN THE PROCESS WE WERE. THERE WAS A, A, UH, AN ERCOT SLIDE THAT THEY PUT UP AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, AND IT SHOWED THAT, UH, IN 2026, THERE ARE 88 PROJECTS THAT, UH, ARE EXPECTED TO BE, UM, ONLINE LARGE LOADS THAT STUDIES HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN SUBMITTED TO ERCOT. AND I FIND THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT HAR, YOU KNOW, A, A A CHALLENGING ISSUE FOR THIS PROCESS, UM, THAT YOU CAN HAVE 88 PEOPLE THAT HAVE PAID FOR INTERCONNECTIONS AND THEIR STUDIES ARE NOT EVEN BEING SUBMITTED TO ERCOT. UM, TO ME THAT CHALLENGES THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROCESS AND, AND THINK THAT, UM, THE RELIANT THE IN UCS COMMENTS CAN SOLVE A LOT OF THAT, AT LEAST FOR THE FOLKS THAT, THAT I AM, UH, WORKING WITH ON OUR, ON OUR STUDY. SO, WITH THAT, UH, I APPRECIATE Y'ALL LISTENING. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ALL RIGHT. JIM GALVIN, ARE YOU, YOU ON NOW? UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. UH, I PROMISE YOU ALL, IT WASN'T A BASEBALL GAME THAT IT GOT ME OFF THE AIR THERE JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO. MY APOLOGIES. UM, I DO WANT TO, UH, THANK ERCOT AS EVERYONE ELSE ASKED FOR ALL THE TIME AND EFFORT THEY'VE PUT INTO THIS. I WILL SAY THAT, UH, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT RELIANCE DONE WITH THEIR COMMENTS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT DOESN'T GO AS FAR AS I NEEDED TO. AS I ADVOCATE FOR OUR, ALL OF OUR MEMBERS WHO, OR PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS WHO HAVE LARGE LOADS THAT ARE, [05:05:01] ARE IN OUR STUDY QUEUE AS A DISTRIBUTION UTILITY PROVIDER AND AS LOAD SERVING ENTITY, UM, WE HAVE A HANDFUL MORE PROJECTS THAT WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THESE PROVISIONS THAT ARE KIND OF OUTLINED BY RELIANT. AND, AND AGAIN, THAT DOES TAKE CARE OF A MAJORITY OF THOSE PROSPECTS WE HAVE, BUT WE HAVE SOME VERY MATURE PROJECTS IN, IN THE QUEUE THAT HAVE GOING BACK EVEN BE BEFORE 2025. UH, A LOT OF INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE, A LOT OF INVESTMENT ON OUR SIDE AND THE COOPERATIVE HAVE BEEN MADE TO SUPPORT, UH, GETTING THESE ENERGIZED AS THIS PROCESS HAS EVOLVED. SO WE'RE, WE'RE VERY SUPPORTIVE OF TRYING TO KEEP THE BROAD NATURE OF OUR COMMENTS IN PLAY TO INCLUDE THOSE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE SHOWING THAT KIND OF MATURITY. IF THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO, TO LIMIT THAT, I'M, I'M OPEN TO THAT, BUT IT IS, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE TRY TO CONSIDER THOSE WHO HAD MADE INVESTMENTS AND FOR WHATEVER REASON WAS NOT, WE'RE NOT GETTING THEIR STUDIES DONE. UM, SO AGAIN, I, I, I CAN SUPPORT WHAT RELIANT HAS PUT FORTH HERE, BUT I, I CAN ALSO SUPPORT OTHER COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN SINCE THEN. UH, EOLA WILL PROBABLY DISCUSS THEIR COMMENTS LATER TODAY. I THINK WE CAN GET ON BOARD WITH THAT. UM, BUT AGAIN, WE ARE ADVOCATING FOR OUR PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS WHO WANT TO INTERCONNECT, AND THE CHALLENGES UNDER DISTRIBUTION UTILITY HAS HAD UNTIL A FORMAL PROCESS HAS MADE HAS BEEN VERY COMPLEX. AND SOME OF THESE FOLKS HAVE PUT IN A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT TO, UH, FOLLOW WHATEVER RULES AS THEY'VE EVOLVED TO GET INTO THE QUEUE. SO THOSE ARE OUR COMMENTS. UM, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, BUT AGAIN, APPRECIATE WHAT RELIANCE DONE IN GOING MOST OF THE WAY TO WHAT WE NEED. WE JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT CONSIDERATION MORE FOR SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS WE HAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, WE ARE GOING TO PIVOT JUST A LITTLE BIT, UNLESS BILL WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE GO TO CHOA. OKAY. SO THE, THE COMMENTS WERE WRITTEN ON TOP OF THE RELIANT COMMENTS, BUT IT'S A, A DIFFERENT ISSUE. I KNOW WE HAVE BIG FEELINGS ABOUT IT, UM, AND WE HAD A PRESENT, A GOOD LONG PRESENTATION ABOUT IT LAST MEETING. BUT CAN WE SORT OF KEEP THE, THE INITIAL COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL SEE HOW DISCUSSION GOES. I'M SURE WE'LL GET A LOT OF DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD, GIDEON. THANK YOU. I ALSO REALLY LIKE RELIANCE COMMENTS, ESPECIALLY AROUND THE FLEXIBLE LOAD STUFF. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. I'M GONNA BE A LOT MORE FOCUSED ON THAT IN THE FUTURE. UM, I, UH, I WROTE IT DOWN. I WROTE SOME STUFF ON THE PAPER. MY WIFE APPROVED IT. MY MOM APPROVED IT. I DECIDED TO KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET AT ATTACK TODAY. IF YOU KNOW CLAYTON GREER, WHICH MANY OF YOU DO, AND FOR THOSE NEW LISTENERS WHO DO NOT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT CHOA HAS ADHERED TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS, ENGAGED CONSTRUCTIVELY FOR YEARS, AND OPERATED IN A GOOD FAITH AS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT WITHIN THE ERCOT PROCESS. ONLY TO NOW FACE THE RISK THAT MATURE PROJECTS, THE VERY TYPE OF PROJECTS BIGGER 1 4 5 IS INTENDED TO PRESERVE, MAY BE IMPAIRED DESPITE BEING MATERIALLY DEVELOPED IN RELIANCE UPON THE PRIOR FRAMEWORK DURING TRANSITION IMPLEMENTATION, I RESPECTFULLY ASKED TAC TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER CHO'S COMMENTS, WHICH REPRESENT A MASSIVE COMPROMISE ON OUR PART IN SUPPORT OF A WORKABLE, DURABLE, AND RELIABILITY FOCUSED TRANSITION FRAMEWORK. FOR THE RECORD, CHOA RESPECTFULLY BELIEVES TEXAS RISK DAMAGING LONG-TERM INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT CONFIDENCE IF MATURE COMMERCIALLY VIABLE PROJECTS THAT OPERATED IN GOOD FAITH UNDER THE PRIOR FRAMEWORK ARE MATERIALLY IMPAIRED. DURING TRANSITION IMPLEMENTATION, TEXAS BECAME THE BEST INFRASTRUCTURE MARKET IN AMERICA BECAUSE ENTREPRENEURS WERE WILLING TO TAKE LONG DURATION RISK UNDER STABLE PLANNING FRAMEWORKS. CHOA RESPECTFULLY ASKED TAC TO PRESERVE THE INVESTMENT CONFIDENCE WHILE STILL ACHIEVING THE BROADER RELIABILITY AND Q DISCIPLINE GOALS OF P 1 4 5. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IN THE QUEUE? I DON'T SEE ANY, SO WE WILL GO TO TIBA. IS THAT YOU ERIC, OFF? SEE YOU LOOKING AT YOUR PHONE. YOU DON'T NEED TO TIMER IT EXACTLY. WE JUST, WE TRUST YOU EXACTLY FIVE MINUTES. YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. THAT'S WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT TIME LIMITS. PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE TO GO UP TO THEM. YEAH. UM, ERIC GOFF, ON BEHALF OF TE A, UM, [05:10:01] WE'VE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN, UH, THIS PROCESS ON BEHALF OF OUR MEMBER COMPANIES, WHICH INCLUDE, UM, BUSINESSES ACROSS THE SPECTRUM, UM, IN TEXAS, SOME OF THE LARGEST EMPLOYEES AND INVESTORS. SOME OF THOSE INCLUDE DATA CENTERS, BUT ALSO LARGE BUSINESSES AND EMPLOYERS AS WELL AS SMALL ONES. SO OUR COMMENTS, UM, ADDED IN, UM, THE A EP PROPOSAL, AGAIN TO THE LATEST COMMENTS TO ALLOCATE, UM, CERTAIN RPG PROJECT LOADS. AND THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED AND I THINK WE'LL BE DISCUSSED. UM, BUT WE ALSO SPENT SOME TIME HERE TALKING ABOUT SOME RELIABILITY ARGUMENTS THAT I WANTED TO FOCUS MORE ON FOR COMMENTARY. UM, THERE'S BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WILL THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW LARGE LOADS LEAD TO LOAD SHED? AND, UM, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT, UM, IT COULD, BUT THE WAY SB SIX WAS STRUCTURED, THAT LOAD SHED WILL BE EXPERIENCED BY THE LARGE LOADS. UM, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THOSE LARGE LOADS BRING NEW GENERATION WITH THEM, EITHER DIRECTLY ON SITE OR THROUGH INVESTMENTS THAT ARE ENABLED BY A TRANSMISSION SYSTEM THAT CAN FLOW POWER FROM A GENERATOR TO A LOAD, UM, THEN THAT GENERATION WILL BE AVAILABLE TO SERVE LOAD. UM, THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, UM, CANNOT SERVE ALL OF THE LARGE LOADS THAT, UM, WOULD LIKE TO INTERCONNECT. BUT AS WE'VE, WE'VE CALLED FOR THIS, UM, BATCH PROCESS SHOULD BE AND I THINK IS A TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESS. AND SUBSEQUENT ONES, I THINK WILL BE THAT E EVEN MORE SO. AND THESE LARGE LOADS WON'T BE ALLOWED TO ENERGIZE UNTIL THAT TRANSMISSION IS AVAILABLE. UM, SO, UM, THERE'S THE QUESTION OF HOW LONG IT'LL TAKE TO, UM, STUDY, UM, THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM. AND WE ARE SENSITIVE TO THAT. UM, BUT, UH, WE DO THINK THAT THE ISSUE OF ALLOCATION IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT BILL RAISED ABOUT, UM, THE GENERATION BEING AVAILABLE TO, TO SERVE THE LOAD FROM A, UM, WWL PON OR A-P-C-L-R IN THAT YOU CAN REDUCE THE AMOUNT IN THEORY IN ORDER TO HELP THE SYSTEM SOLVE. BUT I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT GIVEN SOME OF THE DISCUSSION EARLIER, IS AROUND RESOURCE ADEQUACY, AND PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO HAVING THE APPROPRIATE GENERATION AND THE MODEL TO SERVE THE LOAD. UM, AND THIS IS A, A NEW PARADIGM, AND CAITLYN, IF YOU, EXCUSE ME, I THINK IT'S TIME TO CROSS THE RUBICON WHEN WE COME TO PLANNING BECAUSE LIKE NAPOLEON DID. WELL, NO, LIKE JULIUS CAESAR DID . UM, AND SO, UM, THIS LARGE LOAD IS AN INVESTMENT SIGNAL FOR NEW GENERATION AND THE APPROVAL OF THAT LARGE LOAD WILL BE THE STRONGEST INVESTMENT SIGNAL THAT ERCOT HAS HAD IN DECADES, UM, FOR NEW GENERATION. UM, AND IF OUR PLANNING, UH, PARADIGM IS ONE, BASED ON KNOWING WHAT GENERATION IS ALREADY PLANNING TO INTERCONNECT BEFORE WE ALLOW THE LOADS TO INTERCONNECT, WE WILL ALWAYS BE BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL. SO I APPRECIATE THAT BAT ZERO IS CONSTRAINED BY TIME. UM, BUT WE REALLY NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ALLOW THE GENERATION TO COME BECAUSE OF THE INVESTMENT SIGNAL CREATED BY THE APPROVAL OF LOADS. OTHERWISE, UM, WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS PROBLEM AND, AND WILL MISS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIGNIFICANTLY GROW, UH, THE CAPABILITIES OF THIS INDUSTRY IN TEXAS. SO I ENCOURAGE TAC TO CONSIDER THE COMMENTS AROUND INCLUSION OF SOME ADDITIONAL RRP G LOADS VIA ALLOCATION, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE THE LARGER POINT ABOUT WHERE WE'RE GOING. OKAY. THANKS ERIC. UH, JEFF, YEAH, JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A CLARIFICATION ON SOMETHING ERIC SAID. 'CAUSE I, I THINK THERE IS SOME CONFUSION I'VE HEARD AMONG STAKEHOLDERS ON, UM, THE LARGE LOADS WHEN THEY CAUSE TRANSMISSION ISSUES. IF WE NEED TO SHED LOAD IN REAL TIME, I THINK THERE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING THAT THE LARGE LOADS CAUSING THOSE ISSUES, THAT THEY MAY BE THE ONES THAT ARE SHED AND, AND THAT IS NOT THE CASE. UM, IT COULD BE THAT IF, IF THERE, AND, AND THIS IS NOT RESOURCE ADEQUACY ISSUE, NOT A SCARCITY ISSUE, THIS IS A TRANSMISSION ISSUE. IF THERE IS A TRANSMISSION ISSUE ON THE GRID, [05:15:01] THE OPERATORS DO NOT LOOK AT AND N NEITHER. IS THERE ANYTHING IN SENATE BILL SIX THAT TELLS THEM TO LOOK AT WHICH SPECIFIC LARGE LOADS ARE CAUSING THAT? THEY'RE, THEY'RE GONNA LOOK AT THE OVERLOADS THAT ARE HAPPENING ON THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM. THEY'RE GONNA LOOK AT WHICH SUBSTATIONS HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT, AND THAT MAY NOT BE THE LARGE LOAD THAT WAS ADDED DOWN, DOWN THE WAY THAT'S CAUSING THAT ISSUE THAT GETS SHED. SO IT COULD BE OTHER LOADS THAT BEAR THAT LOAD SHED WHEN YOU GET TO REALTIME. SO IS THAT SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO A TRANSMISSION ISSUE? THAT'S, YES. UM, AND UM, DO YOU, DO YOU NOT AGREE THAT SB SIX GIVES YOU THE AUTHORITY TO SHED THAT LARGE LOAD THAT'S CONTRIBUTING TO IT, EVEN IF IT'S MAYBE NOT THE BEST SHIFT FACTOR, BUT IS IT CONTRIBUTING TO IT? YEAH, I DON'T HAVE MY OPERATIONS FOLKS HERE TO CLARIFY THAT, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT NO, THAT THAT'S NOT, THAT, THAT WAS NOT HOW THE LAW WAS WRITTEN. I DON'T THINK IT HAD THAT LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY TO PRECLUDE THAT. UM, IT GAVE ERCOT FAIRLY BROAD AUTHORITY. I'M HAPPY TO HAVE A FOLLOWUP DISCUSSION. I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH A BACK AND FORTH ARGUMENT RIGHT NOW. UM, I AGREE, BUT I I DO THINK THAT YOU HAVE EXTREMELY BROAD AUTHORITY, UM, UNDER SB SIX. OKAY. LET'S GO TO JEN. MY QUESTION IS, IF WE WERE TO INCLUDE THESE, WHAT IS THE SORT OF RIDE THROUGH RISK WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING WITH THE INCREMENTAL PCLR? AND I, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR BATCH ZERO. 'CAUSE IF WE BRING DOWN THE GRID, IT WILL NOT MATTER IF THERE WAS ENOUGH GENERATION. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. UM, THE RIDE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS FOR, UM, NEW LARGE LOADS WILL BE IN EFFECT BY THE TIME ANY OF THESE NEW LOADS COME ON. AND SO THEY'LL BE OBLIGATED TO MEET THE RIDE THROUGH REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED BY THE PROPOSED, NO. OKAY. YOU GOOD, SHANNON? I WANT TO KIND OF AMPLIFY A COUPLE POINTS THAT, UH, ERIC MADE ON THE GENERATION SIDE OF THINGS. IT, I KNOW IT'S SOMETIMES HARD TO HAVE FAITH IN MARKETS. UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE WE NOW 25 YEARS INTO THIS AND IT'S MARKETS WORK? BUT THINK ABOUT THIS. FOR THE LARGE LOADS THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUILT, THESE ARE BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLAR ASSETS. DON'T THINK FOR ONE MOMENT THAT THEY'RE SO SHORTSIGHTED THEY AREN'T TURNING AROUND. AND AS SOON AS THEY ACTUALLY GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS, PROCURING NEW GENERATION TO COME TO THE MARKET TO SERVE THEM BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF SENATE BILL SIX, IF THEY DON'T, THEY WILL BE CURTAILED A LOT. AND THE ONES THAT WE WORK WITH, THEY'RE NOT THAT SHORTSIGHTED. THEY WILL BE, UH, PROCURING THAT ADDITIONAL GENERATION, BUT THEY CAN'T GO DO THAT BEFORE THEY GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS. SO I'D ENCOURAGE US TO CONTINUE TO HAVE FAITH IN MARKETS AND RATIONAL INVESTORS WILL BRING THAT ADDITIONAL GENERATION. NUMBER TWO. SECOND COMMENT I HAD WAS HIS 0.3 HERE, ADDING MORE LOADS, WE'LL TAKE ADDITIONAL TIME TO STUDY EVEN IF THEY'RE STUDIED OR ALLOCATED. I AGREE IT WILL. I MEAN, I USED TO BE A PLANNER MYSELF. I KNOW IT'S MORE SCOPE, BUT I THINK TIBA MAKES A GOOD POINT HERE IN THAT THAT'S THE LEAST INCREMENTAL IMPACT WHEN IT'S AN RPG PROJECT THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING REJECTED FROM EVEN BEING STUDIED BECAUSE THOSE, THEY'VE ALREADY BROUGHT THE TRANSMISSION SOLUTION. THAT'S WHAT THE RPG PROJECT WAS. SO I THINK FROM AN INCREMENTAL TIME STANDPOINT, THOSE ARE THE LEAST ADDITIONAL TIME TO STUDY. AND THEN I'LL COVER IT AGAIN LATER IN MY COMMENTS. BUT IN HOURS WE EVEN SUGGESTED THROWING A BONE AND, YOU KNOW, RECOGNIZING IT IS MORE WORK AND EXTEND THE DEADLINE OUT ON THE BACK END TO GET OR CUT TIME TO TAKE ON THAT EXTRA SCOPE. SO WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. OKAY. THANKS SHANNON. I THINK WE ARE, I HAVE TOO MANY PIECES OF PAPER NOW. UM, WE ARE ONTO THE SAILFISH COMMENTS AND WE, WE GOT A NOTE [05:20:01] FROM RYAN. I BELIEVE THESE ARE JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT RELIANCE COMMENTS DON'T MAKE BEING A CLR WL PUN OR PREREQUISITE FOR THESE OTHER RE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LOADS, CORRECT? YEAH, I, I ACTUALLY COORDINATED WITH RYAN AND THAT'S EXACTLY JUST CLARIFYING. OKAY. EXPLAINING. ALRIGHT. THAT'S JUST BASICALLY MODIFY THAT SECTION THAT IF YOU INCLUDE A WL PUN OR PCLR EXECUTED, UM, AGREEMENT, THEN THAT'S WHEN THE, THE DATE APPLIES. NOT THAT YOU HAVE TO BE ONE, SO, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT HIS COMMENTS WE'RE LOOKING TO. JUST MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. OKAY. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, RYAN AND WHO'S IN THE CHAT OR BILL ON THE SAILFISH COMMENTS? OKAY. ANY, UH, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON GROUP TWO, THE SUBMISSION STUDY SUBMISSION DATES AND THE RPG PROJECTS? JEFF? YEAH, SO, UM, A COUPLE THOUGHTS. SO ON THE, UM, STUDY SUBMISSION DATE, SO IN THE LAST MONTH, WE HAVE ALREADY HAD 20 GIGAWATTS OF LARGE LOAD STUDIES THAT HAVE COME IN FOR US TO APPROVE. UM, AND I'VE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF TSPS, I BELIEVE THAT WE'LL HAVE AT LEAST ANOTHER 10 GIGAWATTS IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO. UM, THAT IS ALREADY GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE, UH, FOR US TO REVIEW AND, AND APPROVE THOSE. UM, WE, AS AG SAID, WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO BRING ON CONTRACTORS AND, AND HELP WITH THAT, BUT I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN COMMIT TO A JUNE 12TH DATE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. WE'RE JUST NOT SURE. WE, WE WILL DO EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO MEET THAT, BUT I, I DON'T THINK ERCOT WOULD BE WILLING TO COMMIT TODAY THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO, TO MEET THAT JUNE, JUNE 12TH DATE. UM, UH, I THINK THE, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT, UH, BILL AND, AND OTHERS HAVE BROUGHT UP, UM, I UNDERSTAND THE, UM, DIFFICULTIES WITH THE DISPARATE TSP PROCESSES. THINK WE HEARD THAT LOUD AND CLEAR WHEN WE DID THE STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS BACK IN JANUARY. UM, WE'VE HEARD THAT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. UM, AND WE'RE, WE'RE, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK WE SAID THIS UPFRONT, WE'RE BATCH ZERO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO, UH, ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE. UM, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE HAVE A DEAF EAR ON THOSE, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND, UM, THOSE ISSUES. UM, THAT SAID, WE HAVE GOT TO GET THE BATCH ZERO STUDY DONE. WE HAVE GOTTA GET IT DONE, RIGHT? AND, AND SO WE ARE GOING TO PUSH BACK ON ANY ADDITIONAL SCOPE CREEP AND ADDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, HEY, HEY, JUST LET THIS ADDITIONAL LOAD IN INTO THIS STUDY. UM, AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, AGAIN, WE, WE'VE GOTTA GET THIS STUDY RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE GONNA, UH, WE ARE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF RELIANCE COMMENTS OR ANY OF THE OTHER COMMENTS ON THESE ISSUES, ON ANY OF THE ISSUES. NOT JUST THIS, MY GROUP TWO, I, I'M RIGHT NOW, I'M SPEAKING TO GROUP TWO. I'M HAPPY TO HEAR OTHER COMMENTS FROM OTHER, YOU KNOW, OKAY, THE OTHER GROUPS AS WELL. SO WE'RE SPEAKING TO GROUP TWO RIGHT NOW. IS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF INCLUDING THESE COMMENTS. OKAY. THAT SAID, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON GROUP TWO? ALL RIGHT, MY ALARM WAS IN CASE WE WANTED A BREAK. I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP ROLLING THOUGH THROUGH AT LEAST ONE OTHER GROUP. UM, LET'S GO TO OUR GROUP THREE, UM, WHICH IS NET METERING. AND THEN I THE, LET SHANNON, I THINK YOUR COMMENTS ARE SORT OF INCLUSIVE OF A BUNCH OF BILLS, BUT GROUP TWO, BUT INCLUDING NET METERING. SO I PUT YOU AT THE END OF THIS GROUP. SO I HAVE A RA DATA CENTER COALITION, BKV, AND THE ELI COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT, I'M STARTING MY TIMER. YOU, YOU DON'T NEED A TIMER. WE TRUST YOU, NED. IT'S GOING, IT'S GOING, IT'S GOING ALL RIGHT. SO NO SURPRISES IN VISTRA'S COMMENTS. UH, WE DID STREAMLINE THEM DOWN. SO THERE'S TWO SPECIFIC ASKS. UH, AND THOSE ARE ONE, ONE OF THEM IS MINISTERIAL. IT'S JUST FOR THE 9.7 DISCLOSURES FOR THE, UH, NET METERING, 39.169 NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS THAT ARE IN BASE LOAD. SINCE THOSE WILL HAVE, THOSE WILL HAVE, UH, THEY ALREADY HAVE PROCEEDINGS [05:25:01] GOING AT THE COMMISSION, THAT'S AN EFFICIENT WAY TO ALSO MEET THOSE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AS AN OPTION. NOT A REQUIREMENT, BUT AN OPTION. UM, THE TSPS AND DSPS HAVE A LOT, UH, THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE ASKED TO DO OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS ALONG WITH ERCOT. SO THAT SEEMED LIKE ONE WAY TO, TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE SOME PRESSURE OFF OF ONE, ONE STEP THERE. UM, SO THAT ONE'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. UH, THE MORE SUBSTANTIVE ONE, AS Y'ALL HAVE HEARD ME SAY MANY TIMES HAS TO DO WITH THE, UH, THE, THE KNOWN 39 1 6 9 NET METER ARRANGEMENT. SO THAT IS NEW LARGE LOADS THAT ARE CO-LOCATING WITH EXISTING GENERATORS THAT ARE NOT ALREADY IN BASE LOAD. THEY'RE NOT ALREADY BEING STUDIED AS ALLOCATED LOAD. THESE ARE ONES THAT HAVE PROBABLY BEEN TRYING TO GET IN THE QUEUE, MAYBE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THEIR STUDIES DONE. MAYBE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY DON'T GET THEM IN BY MAY 28TH OR JUNE 12TH OR WHATEVER THE DATE IS. UM, BUT WE THINK THAT THERE ARE STATUTORY AND GOOD PUBLIC POLICY REASONS TO CONSIDER THEM DIFFERENTLY. AND, AND WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT'S A RELATIVELY LIMITED SCOPE. SO UNDERSTAND AND, AND REALLY RESPECT THE CONSTRAINTS THAT JEFF HAS LAID OUT FOR US AND, AND REITERATED. UM, WE, WE RECOGNIZE WE NEED TO STAY WITHIN THOSE BOUNDS, BUT WE THINK THAT THESE ARE A VERY NARROW TAILORED SET. THEY HAVE THE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM. IN THE SLIDE THAT JEFF HAD UP EARLIER, UH, YOU KNOW, POINTED OUT, AND I SAID I WAS GONNA CALL BACK TO IT, THE NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS WITH EXISTING GENERATORS ARE GOING TO BE PAIRED UP WITH THAT 97 MEGAWATT OR GIGAWATTS OF OPERATIONAL GENERATION. THERE'S NO NEED TO ANTICIPATE THAT THERE'S A NEW GENERATOR THAT'S COMING ON OR A-P-C-L-R STATUS. IT'S JUST TIED UP WITH THE EXISTING GENERATOR. AND THERE'S MINIMUM TRANSMISSION, UH, UH, INCREMENTAL TRANSMISSION ASSOCIATED WITH IT. IT IS THE MOST TRANSMISSION EFFICIENT OPTION THAT WE HAVE TO HELP SUPPORT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE IN AN EFFICIENT MANNER. AND IT MINIMIZES COSTS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY FLOW OUT TO OTHER CONSUMERS. A LOT OF GOOD THINGS THERE. PLUS THERE ARE UNIQUE LOAD FLEXIBILITY CHARACTERISTICS. THAT'S WHAT SENATE BILL SIX LAID OUT. AND THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH TWO PROCEEDINGS WHERE THEY HAVE, UH, PUT CONDITIONS ON MANDATING THAT KIND OF FLEXIBILITY. THAT IS A UNIQUE CHARACTERISTIC THAT THOSE LOADS HAVE, THAT NO OTHER LARGE LOAD IS GOING TO HAVE. THEY OFFER, THEY OFFER OPERATIONAL TRANSPARENCY THROUGH REALTIME TELEMETRY. ERCOT WILL BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THOSE LOADS IN REAL TIME EVERY TWO SECONDS. AGAIN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT OTHER LARGE LOADS ARE GONNA GIVE YOU THE OPTION FOR. THEY'RE ALSO INDEPENDENTLY VETTED AS REAL BECAUSE THEY'RE SITTING WITH AN EXISTING GENERATOR THAT HAS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA PARTNER WITH SOMEONE THAT IS, YOU KNOW, FLY BY, FLY BY NIGHT OR NOT, UH, CAPABLE OF CONSTRUCTING THAT LOAD. YOU'RE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THERE. SO, UM, THERE'S ANOTHER VALUE THERE. IT ALSO SUPPORTS DISPATCHABLE GENERATION AND, AND, UM, HIGHLIGHTS THE VALUE OF DISPATCHABLE GENERATION WHEN PAIRING WITH, WITH THOSE, UH, THOSE RESOURCES AND HELP SEND A SIGNAL TO BUILD MORE IN THE SYSTEM. SO, UH, VIRTUOUS CYCLE, LIKE SHANNON SAID, WE WANNA TRUST MARKETS, MARKETS WILL DO THEIR THING IF WE GIVE THE RIGHT SIGNALS AND INCENTIVES. UM, SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS THAT I THINK REALLY HELP WITH THAT, THAT PUBLIC POLICY BENEFIT. BUT THERE'S ALSO THE UNIQUE STATUTORY PROVISIONS THAT TALK ABOUT THE TIMING FOR REVIEWING THOSE, THOSE NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE EXISTING GENERATORS. I'M NOT GONNA TAKE Y'ALL DOWN THAT PATH. AGAIN, WE'VE, WE'VE SPILLED A LOT OF INK ON IT AND I KNOW IT'S A, IT'S A TOUGH DYNAMIC, BUT THE, THE COMPROMISE THAT VISTA TRIED TO PUT FORWARD IS FOR THE ONES THAT WE KNOW ARE COMING ON AND HAVE INITIAL IN-SERVICE DATES IN 2028 WITHIN THAT WINDOW, THAT BATCH YEAR IS GONNA BE STUDYING. JUST MAKE SURE THEY GET STUDIED SO THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU DON'T RUN INTO A TIMING, UH, ISSUE THERE THAT THAT MIGHT RUN AFOUL OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. IT'S A WAY TO JUST KIND OF TAKE THAT RISK OFF. IT'S A COMPROMISE NOT PERFECT, BUT IT MOVES THINGS FORWARD. I ALSO THINK IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL GROUP, AND I TRIED TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF MATH IN OUR COMMENTS THAT THAT LAID IT OUT. WE THINK IT'S WELL BELOW 5% OF THE TOTAL LARGE LOAD QUEUE. AND EVEN WITHIN THAT, A LOT OF IT'S ALREADY GOING TO BE IN BASE LOAD OR IN THE STUDIED LOAD. SO THE INCREMENTAL LOAD IS PROBABLY VERY SMALL. WE DON'T HAVE THAT VISIBILITY. I WOULD CERTAINLY WELCOME ERCOT FEEDBACK. 'CAUSE AGAIN, JEFF, I RECOGNIZE THE, THE STRUGGLE THAT, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL ARE, Y'ALL ARE TRYING TO WORK IN AND, AND WE WANT TO BE VERY NARROW AND INCREMENTAL AND VERY NARROW IN ANY INCREMENTAL IMPACT ON THAT STUDY. SO WITH THAT, UM, I'LL CLOSE WITH WHAT JULIUS CAESAR SAID WHEN HE CROSSED THE RUBICON, WHICH WAS ALIYA IHA EST, WHICH TRANSLATES TO THE D IS CAST. AND WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. AWESOME. THAT WAS SO GOOD. OKAY, FIVE MINUTES. IT WAS EXACTLY FIVE MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR NED? OKAY, UH, DATA CENTER COALITION. THESE WERE EARLY COMMENTS ACTUALLY. UM, MAY, MAY 14TH, DATA CENTER COALITION COMMENTS, CAMERON OR ANYONE ELSE WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO THESE? [05:30:01] GIDEON, THIS IS AARON T ON THE LINE WITH THE DATA CENTER COALITION. HANG ON, I MIGHT HAVE JUMPED THE GUN. GIDEON, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR A QUESTION OR COMMENT ON NED'S COMMENTS? YEAH, YOU TALKED ABOUT FLEXIBLE LOAD, BIG FAN. UM, HELP ME UNDERSTAND. SO WILL THERE BE MUCH, UH, EXPANDED RATE BASE WITH THESE NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS? THAT'S A FANTASTIC QUESTION, GIDEON, AND I THINK YOU ARE LIKELY TO SEE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF EXPANDED RATE BASE WITH THESE NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS BECAUSE BY INTERCONNECTING BEHIND A EXISTING GENERATORS POINT OF INTERCONNECTION, THERE SHOULD BE LITTLE TO NO INCREMENTAL RATE BASE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT INTERCONNECTION. SO, UH, IT IS, THAT'S WHY I SAID IT'S THE MOST TRANSMISSION EFFICIENT. AND UM, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT JEFF'S CHART, WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE, THE, THE SHADES OF BLUE AND THE SHADES OF GRAY, THAT PROBABLY DRIVE BRIAN MAD. YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING IN THAT DARKEST, UH, PART OF THE, OF THE GENERATION PART WHERE THERE'S NOT A NEED TO CONNECT, BUILD A LOT OF TRANSMISSION TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B AS A RESIDENTIAL, UH, RATE PAYER, I'M EXTREMELY GRATEFUL FOR THAT. SO THANK YOU. LOOK FORWARD TO BEING STAYING INVOLVED IN THIS. OKAY, NOW WE CAN GO TO THE DATA CENTER COALITION. SORRY. NO PROBLEM. AARON T HERE, PINCH HITTING FOR CAMERON POR SALTAN WITH THE DATA CENTER COALITION. I'M SURE MANY OF YOU AWARE. DCC, NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATION FOR THE DATA CENTER INDUSTRY. WE HAVE 42, UH, DATA CENTER OWNERS, OPERATORS WITHIN OUR MEMBERSHIP, A VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE PURSUING PROJECTS OR HAVE PROJECTS ONLINE WITHIN ERCOT AND 11 OF WHICH ARE HEADQUARTERED WITHIN TEXAS. UM, JUST TO, AS YOU MENTIONED, OUR COMMENTS WERE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER ON, SO I'LL JUST PULL ON A, A COUPLE OF THREADS THAT WE'D LIKE TO CALL OUT FOR YOU ALL. UM, I THINK A POINT OF EMPHASIS FOR OUR MEMBERSHIP IS, UH, ONE, ENSURING THAT THE BATCH PROCESSING, UM, THAT IS, IS DONE, UH, WITH PROJECTS IS, IS ALIGNED WITH THE SB SIX, UH, NET METERING ARRANGEMENT LANGUAGE. I THINK IT'S, IM IMPORTANT FOR OUR MEMBERSHIP TO ENSURE THAT THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL TIMELINES, UM, ARE, ARE THE CONTROLLING SCHEDULE FOR SUCH PROJECTS AND THAT THE BATCH SEQUENCING, UH, DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THOSE TIMELINES. UM, WE REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT, UH, SUCH ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD EXPERIENCE DELAYS BECAUSE OF, UH, SYSTEM-WIDE, UH, RELIABILITY ASSESSMENTS ON GREENFIELD NEW TRANSMISSION DEPENDENT DEVELOPMENTS. UM, FEW OTHER POINTS THAT WE HAD INCLUDED IN OUR COMMENTS, UM, THAT WE WANNA ENSURE THAT THERE'S REGULATORY PARODY WHILE, UH, MAINTAINING EFFICIENCY. SO, UH, REALLY HOPING THAT NET METERED PROJECTS ARE ON THE SAME LEVEL OF REVIEW IS, IS NON NET METERED PROJECTS. UM, AND THAT THEIR DISTINCT SYSTEM IMPACTS, UH, ARE ALSO CONSIDERED AS WELL AS THEIR OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS. UM, BEYOND THAT, UM, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT RELATIVE TO VISTRA'S COMMENTS, UM, THAT WE DO SUPPORT, UM, SOME ASPECTS OF THEIR COMMENTS, PARTICULARLY THE RECOMMENDATION THAT NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS WITH AN LLI NUMBER AND AN INITIAL ENERGIZATION DATE BETWEEN JANUARY 1ST, 2028 AND DECEMBER 31ST OF 28, UM, THAT AREN'T ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE BATCH ZERO PROCESS, UM, BE INCLUDED, UH, AS LOAD TO BE STUDIED AND ALLOCATED. UM, THAT WOULD HELP MINIMIZE SOME DELAYS FOR THOSE PROJECTS WITH THE 2028 ENERGIZATION DATE. BUT, UM, REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO, TO WEIGH IN AND, AND SHARE SOME OF OUR THOUGHTS HERE TODAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO THE BKV COMMENTS. IS THIS MARK OR SOMEBODY ELSE? UH, YES MA'AM. THIS IS MARK GIBSON WITH BKV. UM, NEIL LAID IT OUT SO ELOQUENTLY, I WON'T SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME. I'D JUST LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW THINGS. UM, WE SUPPORT VISTRA'S, UH, PROPOSED REFINEMENT, UM, WITH A NET METERING ARRANGEMENT. UM, OUR COMMENTS ALIGN, UH, VERY CLOSELY WITH VISCERA. UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A CONCERN, UH, THAT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, INCLUDING OURS, THEY'RE REQUIRING APPROVAL UNDER SENATE BILL SIX WILL BE LEFT WITHOUT AN NEAR TERM STUDY PATH. UM, AS NED MENTIONED, THERE'S, WE THINK THERE'S ASSURANCES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS. ERCOT WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO ALLOCATE LESS THAN A REQUESTED LOADS. THE PUC WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO PUT CONDITIONS ON THESE PROJECTS SEPARATELY, WHICH PUTS THEM IN A UNIQUE POSITION COMPARED TO OTHER PROJECTS. AND WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT INCLUDING THESE REFINEMENTS IS THE BEST WAY TO ALIGN P 1 45 WITH THE STATUTORY TIMELINES THAT WERE [05:35:01] LAID OUT IN ESTABLISHED IN SENATE. BILL SIX AND FALL, ALSO FALL IN LINE WITH AIRCRAFT'S TRANSITION TO THE BATCH FRAMEWORK. THIS AVOIDS STRANDING MATURE 2028 PROJECTS BASED ON TRANSITION MECHANICS WHILE PRESERVING ERCOT FULL RELIABILITY REVIEW. AND SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THATT, UH, UH, APPROVE NED'S COMMENTS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. UM, UM, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS? SORT OF, WE'RE GONNA PIVOT JUST A LITTLE BIT. SHA SHANNON IS INCLUSIVE OF MORE ISSUES, SO LET'S GO TO JEFF. YEAH, SO JUST A FEW THOUGHTS ON, ON THESE COMMENTS. UM, SO ON ON, FOR EXISTING GENERATORS, THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN PLANNED AS IF THOSE GENERATORS ARE THERE PROVIDING POWER TO THE SYSTEM. UH, MEANING IF YOU CO-LOCATE A LOAD WITH THAT GENERATION, IT IS EFFECTIVELY FROM HOW THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN PLANNED, IT'S YOU'RE REMOVING THAT GENERATION FROM THE SYSTEM. UH, SO THAT IN MANY CASES IS GOING TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT TRANSMISSION IMPACT AND REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TRANSMISSION TO BE CONSTRUCTED. UH, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO DO THIS STUDY TO DETERMINE THAT, BUT THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S NOT INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK. UM, ALSO, AND I HAVEN'T CHECKED YOUR NUMBERS NED, BUT IF IT'S 5% OF VOTER REQUESTS, THAT'S OVER 20 GIGAWATTS OF ADDITIONAL LOAD, THAT WOULD THEN BE INCLUDED IN THE BACHELOR OF STUDY AND THAT'S NOT AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SCOPE CREEP. UM, AND THEN I THINK LAST LAST ISSUE IS, UM, I THINK WE DON'T AGREE WITH, UH, DATA CENTER COALITION AND B KVS AND VISTA'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TIMELINE REQUIREMENTS. AND I THINK STAFF HAS PREVIOUSLY, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, AFFIRMED THE, THE WAY THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT. UM, SO I'LL LEAVE THAT AT THAT. OKAY. OKAY. NED, JEFF, I I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK. ON, ON THE LAST POINT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A, A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THOSE TIMELINES AND THAT'S WHY WE TRIED TO PUT IT, YOU KNOW, PUT THIS FORWARD AS WE DID. THIS IS NOT SAYING THAT IT'S CIRCUM. YOU HAVE TO CONSTRAIN THE BATCH ZERO TIMELINE TO 120 DAYS. WE'RE WE'RE SAYING THIS IS A, A PATH FORWARD TO JUST TAKE THE CONTROVERSY OFF THE TABLE AND, AND MOVE THE WAY FORWARD FOR A LIMITED SET. AGAIN, ONLY THOSE WITH ENERGIZATION DATES IN 2028, SINCE THAT'S WITHIN THE BATCH ZERO FOR INITIAL ENERGIZATION WINDOW. UM, SO ONE TO JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SAY YOU HAVE TO CONSTRAIN THE TIMELINE HERE. UM, I KNOW WE'VE ARGUED THAT IN THE PAST WE WANNA FIND A, A WAY FORWARD, RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S IN EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST THAT WE, WE, WE HAVE A, A COMPROMISE THAT'S WORKABLE. UH, AND THEN ON THE TOTAL INCREMENTAL SIZE, I I REALIZE 5% OF THE TOTAL QUEUE CAN BE THAT LARGER AMOUNT, BUT THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY MUCH LESS THAN THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S SOME THAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE BASE LOAD. THERE'S SOME THAT'S ALREADY GONNA BE IN THE STUDY LOAD. SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT IT'S SOME FRAGMENT OF THAT THAT'S NOT ALREADY IN ONE OF THOSE TWO BUCKETS. AND THAT'S WHAT I, I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW THERE IS SOME, UM, IT WAS SO I THINK IT'S PROBABLY PRETTY DECENT, PRETTY WELL BELOW THAT NUMBER. UM, BUT I RECOGNIZE 20 GIGAWATTS IS PROBABLY A LOT, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY A NUMBER THAT'S, THAT YOU MAY NOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH. SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW VIS WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH MAKING, YOU KNOW, ADJUSTMENTS TO THAT IF IT HELPS TO GET IT UNDER, SAY, IF IT WERE TO LIMIT IT TO ONLY DISPATCHABLE GENERATION, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER IS PERHAPS ANOTHER WAY TO CUT AND, AND, AND REALLY PRIORITIZE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE MOST BENEFIT FROM THE, UM, JUST THE, THE SYSTEM AND AND PUBLIC POLICY STANDPOINT. UM, SO I WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE AS A, A POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, SECOND CUT, IF THAT'S HELPFUL. AND THEN ON YOUR, ON YOUR POINT ABOUT THE, THERE STILL BEING SOME POTENTIAL TRANSMISSION IMPACTS OF THAT CHANGE. I DON'T DISAGREE. I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN THOSE HAPPEN. UM, AND I I I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR THAT I'M SAYING IT'S THE MOST TRANSMISSION EFFICIENT 'CAUSE WE KNOW WE'RE NOT BUILDING NEW STUFF FOR IT NECESSARILY. IT'S, IT'S TO ADJUST FOR POWER FLOWS IF THAT, IF THE STUDIES COME BACK AND SAY THAT'S NECESSARY. WELL, YEAH, I MEAN YOU, YOU MIGHT BE, I MEAN, YOU, YOU ARE, EVEN WITH YOUR PROPOSAL, YOU'RE TAKING DISPATCHABLE GENERATION OFF OF THE GRID THAT, THAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD COUNTED, WE HAD PLANNED THE SYSTEM AS IF THAT DISPATCHABLE GENERATION IS [05:40:01] THERE. AND SO IF YOU'RE TAKING THAT AWAY, YOU THERE VERY WELL COULD BE TRANSMISSION IMPACTS. AND WITH THE SENATE BILL SIX REQUIREMENTS, THERE IS AN ABILITY TO ADJUST FOR THAT, ESPECIALLY DURING THE PEAK CONDITIONS. YEAH. BUT WELL, YEAH, AND WE, WE, WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT THAT MORE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK ER VIEW, AND I THINK WE SAID THIS IS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT TOOL WHEN YOU GET TO SCARCITY, THAT THAT'S A HARD TOOL TO USE WHEN YOU GET TO THE CONTROL ROOM AND THEY'VE GOTTA MAKE INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS. THAT THAT'S JUST A, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ADDING COMPLEXITY TO CONTROL ROOM WHEN YOU DO THAT. I THINK WE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE C COMMISSION GAVE US SOME GROUND RULES ABOUT A LIMITED SCOPE OF THAT, AND I THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT LIMITED SCOPE, NOT, NOT REAL COMFORTABLE OPENING THAT SCOPE UP ADDITIONALLY. SURE. UNDERSTAND. AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS AGAIN, ONLY FOR STUDIED LOAD. SO IF IT COMES OUTTA THE STUDY THAT HEY, YOUR ALLOCATION ZERO, THE ALLOCATION'S ZERO AND THAT'S WHAT IT IS, UM, THAT'S ANOTHER WAY WE'RE TRYING TO BE COGNIZANT OF THOSE, THOSE GUIDELINES. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. GIDEON? YEAH, JEFF, UM, WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY WAS GONNA TAKE, YOU KNOW, GENERATION CAPACITY, I'LL ASSUME, BUT WHAT I HEARD NED SAYING WAS THAT THAT GENERATION WAS GONNA THEN BE MADE AVAILABLE DURING, YOU KNOW, SCARCITY TYPES EVENTS. SO WHAT I THINK I'M HEARING IS THAT GENERATION WITHIN THE NET MEETING ARRANGEMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE IN OFF PEAK TIMES, BUT PROBABLY WHEN WE DON'T NEED IT. AND MAYBE THERE'S SOME TRANSMISSION ADEQUACY THINGS I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH, BUT I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE PROBLEM IS BESIDES COMPLEXITY. BUT I'D LOVE TO UNDERSTAND THOSE NUANCES. 'CAUSE I REALLY WANNA SEE NET METERING GO THROUGH. I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING FOR RESIDENTIAL RATE PAYERS AND OUR TEXAS ECONOMY. I'M VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THAT. YEAH, AND I'M TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THAT CONSTRUCT, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WE'RE VERY HAPPY WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING SUCH, SUCH A CONSTRUCT. IT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE BATCH ZERO STUDY. AND SO ADDING ADDITIONAL LOADS THAT ADD STEADY COMPLEXITY, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF ANY PROPOSAL LIKE THAT TODAY. AND, AND WHEN YOU ARE ADDING LOADS, EVEN IF IT IS AT AN EXISTING GENERATOR, THE SYSTEM HAS ALREADY BEEN PLANNED AS IF THAT GENERATOR IS GOING TO BE THERE. AND SO IF THAT GENERATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SERVING OTHER LOADS IN THAT AREA, IF IT'S NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO SERVE THOSE OTHER LOADS, THEN YOU ARE POTENTIALLY ADDING TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS THAT HAVE TO BE STUDIED, UH, IN, IN THE BATCH ZERO STUDY. AND SO THAT, THAT IS ADDING STUDY COMPLEXITY THAT AGAIN, PUTS THAT STUDY AT RISK. AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR ME TODAY, BE VERY PROTECTIVE OF THAT STUDY SCOPE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO GET THIS STUDY RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. CAN WE SLIGHTLY MOVE ON? WE'RE GOING TO GO TO, UH, TO SHANNON AND CARAWAY. WHERE IS HE OUT OF THE ROOM RIGHT NOW? THANKS. UH, IF YOU COULD PULL WHOEVER'S RUNNING THE SCREEN, IF YOU WANNA PULL UP OUR COMMENTS, THAT'D BE HELPFUL. OKAY. UH, SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT. SO THERE'S REALLY SIX TOPICS. SCROLL DOWN SLIGHTLY MORE, UH, WE'RE GONNA COVER HERE. ONE'S JUST CORRECTING A FORMATTING ERROR. HOPEFULLY THAT'LL BE THE LEAST CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC, UH, THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP TODAY. UM, MAKE A COMMENT ADDITIONALLY ON THE TIPT, THE UCS COMMENTS, RELIANT VISTA AND TIVA. SO IF, WE'LL SCROLL DOWN THE FIRST ONE HERE, UH, THE CORRECTING OF FORMAT ERROR. YOU KNOW, I LISTED OUT FOR SOME REASON THERE WAS A MISSING CARRIAGE RETURN AND SO THE FORMATTING WAS SCREWED UP. WE PUT THAT IN SECOND THING ON THE TIP, IT, WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT, UH, ERCOT MADE FROM, UH, THE LAST VERSION TO THIS ONE. UM, BUT WE ADDED, WE TOOK WHAT, UH, JEFF HAD EXPLAINED IN THE LAST T MEETING AND TRIED TO ROLL IT IN, WHICH WAS THAT THERE WOULD BE A SPECIAL BATCH ZERO TIP IT. AND SO INSTEAD OF HAVING IT REFER TO THE QUOTE LATEST TIPPET, IT WOULD BE TO THE ONE THAT WOULD BE THE SPECIAL BATCH ZERO ONE THAT ERCOT ISS TELLING US THEY'RE GOING TO DO. AND SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE PUT IN HERE IS, IF THERE IS NOT AN ENTRY IN TIPPET THAT THE DEFAULT BE TO USE THE IN-SERVICE DATE FROM THE LCP, FROM THE LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY GOING TO THE TSP TO GET THE BEST INFORMATION, WE THINK THERE'S NEVER A REASON TO DEFAULT [05:45:01] TO 2034 WHEN THE BEST INFORMATION HAS TO BE IN THE ABSENCE OF IT BEING IN TIPPI. IT NEEDS TO BE THE LOAD COMMISSIONING PLAN THAT CAME FROM THE TSP IN THE FIRST PLACE. THIRD ITEM HERE IS THE UCS COMMENTS. UH, I THINK JIM GALVIN DID A GREAT JOB WHILE AGO OF REITERATING WHY, UH, UM, AS IT PERTAINS TO THEM, UH, AS A DISTRIBUTION CO-OP THAT'S ENCOUNTERED THE CHALLENGES THAT HE'S TALKED ABOUT. WE BELIEVE LOADS THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THEY HAD, AND IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THEIR FIVE FOUR COMMENTS, THREE, IT WAS A PRETTY HIGH BAR. UH, YOU NEEDED TO BE A PRECENT BILL SIX INTERCONNECT REQUEST TO THE UTILITY, AND YOUR DSPS GOT TO ATTEST TO THAT. YOU'VE GOTTA EITHER HAVE A SIGNED F-E-I-A-D-S-A OR IA AND HAVE POSTED SECURITY AND YOU HAD TO BE IN THE 2026 RTP. THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES TO BE COUNTED IN THE CATEGORY THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND SO I WOULD ASK YOU THIS, IF YOU'VE GOT SIX, EIGHT, $10 MILLION TIED UP IN SECURITY AND YOU'VE MET ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, HOW IS IT THAT YOU'RE NOT MATURE ENOUGH AND CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO AT LEAST BE INCLUDED AS AN ALLOCATED, YOU KNOW, STUDIED ALLOCATED LOAD? AND SO WE FIND THEIR COMMENTS EXTREMELY COMPELLING AS OR AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN, AND WE SUPPORT THOSE IS WHAT I WAS SAYING HERE. UM, FOURTH ON RELIANCE COMMENTS. UH, WE FILED OURS ON TOP OF THEIRS AND WE ADDED SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE TO THE THING THAT BILL HAD ON THE KIND OF A, I, I'LL CALL IT A SAFE HARBOR DATE, UH, THAT HE WAS TRYING TO CREATE, WHICH I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. AND I JUST TOOK SOME WORDING THAT WE USE IN COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS ALL THE TIME THAT ERCOT WOULD AT LEAST MAKE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE EFFORTS, AS YOU KNOW, TO MEET THAT TIMELINE AS LONG AS TSPS SUBMIT THEIR, SUBMIT A 9.8 COMPLIANCE SET OF STUDIES BY THAT DATE, IT'S NOT REQUIRED. IT'S NOT SAYING ERCOT GUARANTEES THEY'LL GET IT DONE, BUT IT'S SAYING THAT THEY WILL MAKE COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE EFFORTS. I COULD HAVE SAID BEST EFFORTS, BUT REASONABLES EVEN A LOWER BAR. SO HOPEFULLY THERE'S NO OPPOSITION TO THAT ON VISTRA'S COMMENTS. UM, WE FOUND THEM TO BE COMPELLING AS WELL. UM, I, I, UH, APPRECIATE THE INTERACTION BETWEEN, UH, JEFF AND NED JUST NOW. I AGREE WITH JEFF THAT INTRODUCING IN NEW LOAD BY EXISTING GENERATION CAN HAVE IMPACTS ELSEWHERE IN THE SYSTEM. IN FACT, THIS WAS MY OLD PLANNING AREA FROM 25 YEARS AGO. I GUARANTEE YOU ADDING THE LOAD HERE WILL CAUSE STRESS OVER IN EAST DALLAS SOMEWHERE, BECAUSE YOU USED TO PUSH IN POWER FROM THAT WAY AND NOW IT HAS TO COME IN SOMEWHERE ELSE. OKAY, FINE. RA'S NOT ASKING TO COME IN AS BASE LOAD IN THAT CATEGORY. THEY'RE ASKING IT TO BE AT, AT LEAST CONSIDERED AS ALLOCATED SO THEY CAN BE STUDIED AND ALLOCATED IF, IF IT'S AVAILABLE. IF IT'S NOT LIKE NED SAID, IT WON'T BE. SO WE FOUND THAT COMPELLING. UM, AND THEN LASTLY ON TVA'S COMMENTS, FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT WE HAD SOME DIALOGUE ABOUT EARLIER AROUND THE A-E-P-R-P-G PROJECTS, WE FOUND THOSE TO BE EXTREMELY COMPELLING AS WELL. AND SINCE EARLIER TODAY WHEN WE HAD SOME DIALOGUE ON THAT, YOU KNOW, IN ER CUTTS GRAPH, IT SHOWED 35 GIGAWATTS OF LOAD IN THAT CATEGORY. SINCE THAT TIME I'VE GONE AND LOOKED AT BOTH OF THOSE RPG REPORTS AND IT WAS A TOTAL OF 33 8 21, SO IT'S ALREADY KIND OF OVERSTATED BY 1200. AND THEN WHEN I TAKE AND BETWEEN HOUR LOAD AND, YOU KNOW, MY PHONE A FRIEND LOADS OF FIGURING OUT ALL THE OTHERS THAT I KNOW ARE ALREADY IN THROUGH LLIS, I COME UP WITH LIKE ANOTHER 9,400 MEGAWATTS. SO WITH, IF, IF I, BETWEEN US AND MY PHONE A FRIEND, WE'VE COME UP WITH THE WHOLE UNIVERSE OF OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE THROUGH LILLI, WHICH IS DEEPLY UNLIKELY. THE ODDS ARE THERE'S MORE, THERE'S NO WAY THAT IT'S MORE THAN 24.4, NOT 35. SO EVEN IN THAT CASE, IF, IF WE KNEW EVERYTHING, THEN IT'S OVERSTATED BY 43%. SO IN THE CATEGORY. SO WE THINK TVA'S COMMENTS ARE EXTREMELY [05:50:01] COMPELLING FOR ALL THE REASONS THEY LAID OUT. AND SO, ONE THING I DIDN'T COMMENT ON EACH ONE OF THESE, BUT ON TBAS VISTAS AND ON THE UNITED CO-OP PIECE, WE TRIED TO THINK THROUGH HOW TO THREAD THE NEEDLE. ERCOT SAYING IT ADDS STUDY COMPLEXITY. THERE'S NO DOUBT IT DOES. IT ABSOLUTELY ADDS STUDY COMPLEXITY AND WE RESPECT THAT. HOWEVER, STUDY COMPLEXITY CAN BE SOLVED MORE THAN ONE WAY AND RATHER THAN INC INCLUDING MORE COMPLEXITY IN THE FINITE AMOUNT OF TIME. THE OTHER THING YOU CAN DO IS RESPECT. YES, IT'LL BE MORE WORK, BUT IT'S JUST FUNDAMENTALLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO, TO NOT EXCLUDE THESE LOADS THAT HAVE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES, DONE ALL THE THINGS THE WAY THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO, AND AT LEAST GIVE 'EM A CHANCE TO BE STUDIED. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED ON ALL OF THOSE. AND THEN WE RECOMMENDED ERCOT, YOU KNOW, MOVE OUT THE BACKEND DATE FROM APRIL 9TH TO MAY 9TH, YOU KNOW, ADD 30 DAYS. IF 30 DAYS IS THE WRONG AMOUNT, ERCOT SAYS NO, IT ADDS 45 OR 60, THEN THAT'S A DEBATE WE OUGHT TO HAVE, RATHER THAN JUST UNIFORMLY DISCARD THIS, THESE LOADS THAT HAVE FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES, PUT UP REALLY HARD EARNED MONEY FOR BOTH SECURITY PLUS ALL THE COST OF DEVELOPING THESE PROJECTS. AND THAT'S A SUMMARY OF WHAT WE HAVE. OKAY. ALRIGHT. UM, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR SHANNON? GIDEON, WE TOOK CARE OF YOURS ALREADY, RIGHT? YOU'RE NOT IN THE QUEUE AGAIN. I'M NOT. OKAY, SO WE ARE, WE'VE DONE TWO OF MY FIVE GROUPS, BUT WE'VE DONE TWO THIRDS OF THE COMMENTS. WE WANT A SHORT BREAK. WE WANNA KEEP ROLLING. BREAK WOULD BE GREAT. SHORT BREAK. BRIAN SAMS SAYS BREAK AND HE ALMOST NEVER SAYS BREAK. SO LET'S TRUST BRIAN. UM, SO LET'S COME BACK. I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW, 3 52 TO EIGHT MINUTES, 10 MINUTES. NO, WE'RE GONNA TRY TO FINISH TODAY. 10 MINUTES, 10 MINUTE BREAK. [06:06:14] LET'S [06:06:14] TRY [06:06:14] TO GET STARTED AGAIN. OKAY, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN WRAP THIS UP TODAY, SHALL WE? UM, I GOT CHEERS. ALRIGHT, UM, WE ARE TO MY GROUP FOUR, WHICH IS, I DON'T KNOW, I PUT, LET'S JUST SAY PCLR. UM, SO LET'S TRY. EVERYONE'S DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB. SHANNON WENT A LITTLE BIT OVER AND SAID COMPELLING A LOT, BUT I THINK EVERYONE'S DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF KEEPING COMMENTS NARROW. UM, AND FIVE MINUTES-ISH. SEE NED, YOU WEREN'T, YOU WEREN'T THE LONGEST FOR SURE IT WAS SHANNON. SO LET'S, UH, LET'S MOVE TO GROUP FOUR AND WE WILL DO AG AGENTIC AND THEN, UH, LUMINARY STRATEGIES. SO SAM, IS THIS YOU? YEP. YEAH. SAM BRANDON WITH AG AGENTIC INFRASTRUCTURE. UM, SO I WILL DEFINITELY TRY TO BE FAST HERE. SO AG AGENTIC WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREES WITH THE COMMENTS OF RELIANT CHOA AND TBA. UM, SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE INCLUSION OF WL PUNT AND PCLR CRITERIA. UH, WE THINK THAT THE WL PUNT AND PCLR CONSTRUCTS ARE NOT ONLY, YOU KNOW, NICE TO HAVES FOR BATCH ZERO, IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY NECESSARY THAT THESE CONCEPTS ARE INCLUDED FOR BATCH ZERO TO PRODUCE, YOU KNOW, MARKET BASED OUTCOMES, UH, BASED OFF OF PRIVATE RI TRANSMISSION RISK. UM, AND ALSO CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE ADEQUACY TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS A VIABLE OUTCOME HERE, UH, TO NOT HAVE MATURE PROJECTS HONORED, UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE RPG PROJECTS AND TO NOT LET PROJECTS PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDIED LOAD CATEGORY PICKS WINNERS AND LOSERS IN A MANNER WHICH FRANKLY RISKS LITIGATION AND ALSO DELAYS THE ADVANCING OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN TEXAS AS A WHOLE, UH, WHILE ALSO PERMANENTLY SETTING ERCOT ON A TRAJECTORY OF LESS OPTIMAL THAN POSSIBLE TRANSMISSION EXPANSION. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, RPG PROJECTS, UH, WHICH ARE TAILORED TO SERVE LOAD IS TAILORED TO SERVE THAT LOAD. SO TO USE THAT RPG PROJECT TO SERVE ALTERNATIVE LOAD IS BY DEFINITION SUBOPTIMAL COMPARED TO WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE THE OPTIMAL TRANSMISSION PLANNING SOLUTION TO SERVE THOSE ALTERNATIVE LOADS. UM, SO WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, WE SUPPORT THE, THE CHOA ARGUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SOUTH, THE SOUTH DALLAS RPG PROJECT. UM, ADDITIONALLY, WHEN IT COMES TO INCLUDING PCLR AND WL PUN IN THE STUDIED CATEGORY, UM, WE'RE OFTEN MET WITH THIS REFRAIN OF WE CAN'T STUDY 400 GIGAWATTS OF LOAD, WHICH IS USED TO AN AS A REASON TO NOT, UH, INCLUDE THESE CONCEPTS IN BATCH ZERO. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS TRULY A BEING AFRAID OF GHOSTS TYPE SITUATION. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, I'M GONNA GO ON, ON A LIMB AND SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF LOADS SERVED IN ERCOT IN THE NEXT SIX YEARS, UM, WHICH IS CERTAINLY A FAR CRY FROM THIS 400 GIGAWATT, UM, CONCERN OR THE 200 GIGAWATTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN BATCH ZERO. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE EVER GET CLOSE TO DOUBLING THE CAPACITY OF LOADS SERVED BY THE GRID, WE'RE GOING TO RUN INTO PHYSICAL SUPPLY CHAIN CONSTRAINTS IN THE DATA CENTER AI INDUSTRY. AND SO THE ONLY SOLUTIONS WE HAVE TO EFFICIENTLY DETERMINE, UM, WHERE LOAD GROWTH OCCURS AND HOW LOAD GROWTH OCCURS IS FREE MARKET COMPETITION. AND I THINK PRO OPPORTUNITY FOR PRIVATE RISK TAKING AND THE FINANCIAL HURDLES OF THE, [06:10:01] OF THE FINANCIAL DEPOSITS ARE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE A VIABLE OUTCOME, UM, AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. ULTIMATELY, IF SOMEHOW 400 GIGAWATTS OF LOAD POSTED THE FINANCIAL SECURITY TO PARTICIPATE IN BATCH ZERO, ONCE YOU GET TO THE ALL, YOU KNOW, THE OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY. IF, IF YOU'RE GETTING YOUR FULL ALLOCATION SIX YEARS FROM NOW AND YOU HAVE TO ASSUME, YOU KNOW, A THOU, YOU KNOW, A THOUSAND KV HVDC SOLUTIONS AND GENERIC NUCLEAR ADDITIONS IN ORDER TO SERVE THAT LOAD, THAT PROJECT WILL NOT GET THE FINANCING REQUIRED TO COMMIT. UM, AND SO ULTIMATELY TO CHOOSE ANY OTHER CRITERIA TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS HERE BESIDES FREE MARKET COMPETITION, UM, IS TO ULTIMATELY PICK A PATH THAT'S GOING TO DELAY ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN TEXAS AS A WHOLE, WHILE ALSO PERMANENTLY SETTING US ON A SUBOPTIMAL TRAJECTORY. SO THAT IS TO SAY WE ARE PICKING THE WINNERS AND LOSERS AND THE LOSERS IS OUR CO. UM, AND SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WE VERY MUCH THINK THAT INCLUSION AT WL PUN AND PCLR IS FUNDAMENTALLY REQUIRED, UM, FOR EFFICIENT OUTCOMES. AND FURTHERMORE, WE CAN, UH, CREATE A TRUE POSITIVE SUM OUTCOME BY LEVERAGING THE PCLR CONCEPT, UM, IN THE MANNER THAT I'M DESCRIBING IN THESE COMMENTS, WHICH IS, IT IS GENERALLY A MISCONCEPTION THAT PCR DO NOT HAVE CO-LOCATED RESOURCES WITH THEM. WL PEL, YOU KNOW, INHERENTLY HAVE CO-LOCATED RESOURCES WITH THEM. PCLR. I'M WILLING TO SAY THAT ALMOST ALL PCLR WILL ABSOLUTELY HAVE CO-LOCATED RESOURCES COMING ALONG WITH THEM BECAUSE YOU'RE PRIVATELY MANAGING TRANSMISSION RISK. AND SO THIS, THE GENERATION THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE QUEUE CO-LOCATED WITH PCL R SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE PLANNING CASE AND STUDIED IN PARALLEL WITH BATCH ZERO SO THAT WE CAN MAXIMIZE THE EFFICIENCY OF OUTCOMES HERE. UM, AND SO THIS IS TO SUGGEST THAT WE ARE, UH, AMENDING PLANNING GUIDE 6.9 TO UH, AMEND THE LANGUAGE INTRODUCED BY PICKER 1 27, SUCH THAT AFTER THE FIRST BATCH OF, YOU KNOW, TRUE GENERATION MEETING PLANNING GUIDE, 6.9 IS SET IS, YOU KNOW, EXHAUSTED. THEN ERCOT WOULD HAVE THE DISCRETION TO ADD CO ADD GENERATION THAT'S CO-LOCATED WITH PCL R TO THE PLANNING CASE, BECAUSE THAT NOT ONLY PRODUCES, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT ALLOWS PCL R TO BRING ALONG THEIR FIS STUDIES WITH THEM IN PARALLEL WITH THE LOAD STUDY. BUT THEN IT ALSO ALLOWS THE, THE GRID AS A WHOLE TO BENEFIT FROM THAT EXTRA, THAT INCREMENTAL DELIVERABILITY THAT'S CREATED BY THAT GENERATION THAT'S CO-LOCATED WITH A-P-C-L-R. AND SO PCL R ARE EXTREMELY MOTIVATED TO GET THOSE CO-LOCATED RESOURCES ENERGIZED, EVEN IF SOME OF THE BENEFITS GOING TO BE SOCIALIZED TO THE MARKET BECAUSE THEY ARE PRIVATELY WEARING THAT TRANSMISSION RISK. SO I THINK THAT THIS, THIS AMENDED LANGUAGE TO SECTION 6.9 IS A TRUE POSITIVE SUM, UH, SOLUTION OFF THE BACK OF PRIVATE RISK TAKING. AND THEN THE LAST ADDITION WE MAKE OTHERWISE IS TO ULTIMATELY, UH, CLOSE THE DOOR ON ANY OPPORTUNITY TO GAME THE PCLR ELECTION MECHANISM AS A WAY TO BE INCLUDED WHEN YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF BEING A-P-C-L-R. UM, SO THOSE ARE THE TWO, THE, THE TWO EDITS WE MAKE IN OURS, UH, IN ADDITION TO THE SUPPORT FOR THE RELIANT COMMENTS. THANKS. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR SAM? ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO THE LUMINARY COMMENTS. AHI, ARE YOU ON ? AHI, ARE YOU ON? OKAY, WE'RE READY WHEN YOU ARE. WE CANNOT HEAR YOU. HOW ABOUT NOW? YES, NOW WE CAN. ALRIGHT. AMAZING. OKAY. I DIALED IN, BUT IT'S APPARENTLY IT'S THE APP MIKE. OKAY. SO, UH, TO KEEP THINGS SHORT AND CONTEXTUAL, UM, THESE COMMON SUPPORT MULTIPLE PARTIES WHO HAVE JUST, UM, GONE IN THE VARIOUS GROUPS. ONE THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IS UNIQUE IS THAT, UM, ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT JUST WENT IN, UM, FROM WISE WAS READ OFF BY A FORMER COMMISSIONER, JIMMY, IF HE'S STILL IN THE ROOM, HI. AND WHEN HE WAS AT THE COMMISSION, WE TRIED TO DO EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS AND WE DID ONE. AND MY COMMENTS TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS OKAY [06:15:01] TO MOVE VERY SLOWLY AND TO ITERATE INTO EXPERIMENT. AND EVEN IF YOU LOOK BACK AND SAY, WELL, THAT'S RIDICULOUS, WHOEVER SUGGESTED 10 MEGAWATTS FOR THE ER PILOT, THE REALITY IS THAT IT'S OFTEN THE EXPERIENCE OF EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS AND PILOTS AND SUCH, AND WE CAN'T DO THAT HERE. AND THE REASON I BRING IT UP IS THAT I'VE HEARD A LOT OF VARIOUS TAKES IN THE MARKET EVER SINCE I FILED BIGGER 1 34, WHICH IS THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS FOR PCLR AS IT'S WRITTEN IN 1 45. WHEN I PUT THAT IN, I GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE SYSTEM CAN ACCOMMODATE THESE KINDS OF LOADS AND THEIR CO-LOCATED GENERATION AND THEREFORE A WHOLE SYSTEM RESOURCE. IS IT ERCOT THAT HAS TO SHOW US THAT THEY CAN'T ACCOMMODATE THESE RESOURCES QUICKLY WITHOUT BREAKING ANY PART OF THEIR PLANNING PROCESS AND THEREFORE OPERATIONS THEREAFTER? OR DOES THE MARKET HAVE TO SHOW? AND THE REALITY IS, IT'S EXACTLY HOW SAM BRANDON FROM MAG GENTECH JUST SAID IT IS THAT THE WHOLE POINT OF PRIVATE MANAGEMENT OF RISK IS TO REMOVE RISK FROM THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS, FROM THE ERCOT PROCESS, FROM THE PUCS OBLIGATION FOR MSP SIX, AND PUT IT SQUARELY INTO THE ECONOMICS OF FUNDING PROJECTS THAT ALL ARE WILLING TO TAKE THE BRUNCH NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. THAT IS WHY I DON'T SEE A REASON, AND LUMINARY DOES NOT SEE A REASON AS THE SPONSOR OF THE ORIGINAL CLR ENERGIZATION PROPOSAL IN 1 34, WHICH IS NOW PCLR, WITH ALL SORTS OF BELLS AND WHISTLES THAT WERE VERY APPROPRIATE. AND WE REALLY COMMEND THE EXCELLENT WORK, OR CAUGHT TO GET US HERE. WE DON'T SEE A BURDEN OF PROOF THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY ERCOT OR ANY OTHER PARTY THAT ADDRESSING THIS REQUEST IS GOING TO HAMPER A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR THE POWER GRID OR A POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR PRIVATE PARTIES. IN FACT, THERE ARE SO MANY RISK FACTORS TO ANYONE GETTING A FIRM ALLOCATION AND AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM ERCOT THAT THEY WILL GET SOMETHING OUTSIDE THE OTHER END OF THAT ZERO. WHAT I SEE THE MOST IS ABSOLUTE FEAR THAT IF YOU ARE JUST A FIRM LOAD, AND THERE ARE NO OTHER TYPES OF LOADS COMING INTO THIS PROCESS FOR BATCH ZERO WHO HAVE ALREADY INVESTED IN ENGINEERING DESIGN CAPITAL COMMITMENTS, EQUIPMENT COMMITMENTS, CONTROL ARCHITECTURE, THEY'RE NOT TALKING TO SOMEBODY OVER AT NVIDIA ABOUT FLEXIBLE AI FACTORIES BECAUSE THEY HAVE THIS VISION THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE SERVED FIRM BY ERCOT. WE ARE ACTUALLY UNDERCUTTING THE ABILITY FOR PRIVATE CAPITAL AND SCIENTISTS AND INNOVATORS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS THAT WE KNOW WE ARE GOING TO GET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE INITIAL BATCH ZERO STUDY. UM, ONE MORE POINT THAT I JUST HEARD, WHICH ALSO TIES INTO OUR COMMENTS AND IS THE LAST ONE, IS THIS IDEA THAT NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS IF THEY ARE ADDED INTO BATCH ZERO, IF FOR SOME REASON WE DO GET THAT WIN AS A RESULT OF THIS PROCESS THAT THEY MIGHT CAUSE ADDITIONAL TRANSMISSION ISSUES. WELL, GUESS WHAT? IF YOU PUT IN RESOURCES THAT LITERALLY ACT AS PRIVATE GENERATION AND LOAD EQUIVALENTS OF DYNAMIC LINE RATING, POWERFUL CONTROL, ALL OF THE THINGS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO TO HAVE A-P-C-L-R WITH CO-LOCATED ASSETS OR NOT, IF THOSE ARE A PART OF THE SAME PLANNING CASE BY DESIGN, THEY'RE PROVIDING PRIVATE CONSTRAINT MANAGEMENT SUPPORT TO A GRID THAT ALREADY IS GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS TRYING TO ENERGIZE THIS LOAD AND MIGHT HAVE PROBLEMS ENERGIZING NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE INCLUDED IN BATCH ZERO. SO I DON'T SEE ANY ANSWER OTHER THAN THIS BEING THE BEST ANSWER. AND IF THIS IS NOT THE BEST ANSWER, THEN I THINK THE OBLIGATION IS ON US AT TECH AND THE BOARD LEVEL TO BE SUPER, SUPER CLEAR ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE PROVEN BEYOND A BASIC DOUBT, NOT A REASONABLE DOUBT, JUST A BASIC DOUBT THAT KEEPING THESE THINGS OUT IS ACTUALLY BETTER GIVEN THE RISKS THAT WE KNOW AND MOST OF THE RISKS THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT HOW SUCCESSFUL THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO BE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANKS RUHI. ALL RIGHT. ANY, UH, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR AGENTIC OR LUMINARY BECAUSE WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT GROUP? , ANYTHING? NO. ALRIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO, UH, GROUP FIVE. IT'S ANOTHER GROUP OF ONE, UM, CYPRESS CREEK THAT IDENTIFIED THE CO I DON'T KNOW, A GENERATION ISSUE. IS THIS ANDRES? YES. CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? WE CAN HEAR YOU. AWESOME. UM, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU PULL UP THE COMMENTS OR DO I JUST TALK OR BOTH? GIMME, GIMME A SECOND. FIRST. I'LL PULL 'EM UP. LET'S GIVE THEY WERE DURING THE MEETING SO THEY'RE NOT IN THE BA IN THE ZIP FILE OF STUFF, [06:20:01] SO. OH, NO WORRIES ARE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT BREAKING A RULE. I'M MULTITASKED THE RECORD. WE NO, NO, NO. WE WE'RE INCLUSIVE OF THIS, RIGHT. ANN, WERE THESE PART OF THE TIE OR NO? CORRECT. THIS, THIS IS INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY TIED, THEY'RE STILL CURRENTLY TIED, TIED WITH NOER 2 45, BUT THERE'LL PROBABLY BE COMMENTS FILED BETWEEN NOW AND THE BOARD. SO, AND THERE WOULD BE ATTACK REPORT. SO WE WILL BREAK THE RECORD, BUT IF YOU ARE SO INCLINED, YOU COULD FILE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN NOER 2 45 ABOUT COMPLIANCE OR WHAT HAVE YOU ANYMORE. YOU CANNOT ANYMORE. ANN SAYS 2 45 IS CLOSED. I WISH WE COULD SAY THAT. . OH, AND YOU? NO, I DIDN'T MEAN TO START A DISCUSSION. . BOB IS THERE, IS YOUR, ARE YOU I'M WAITING. OKAY. NED, ARE YOU, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT TIES? AND I, I DO. I LOOKED AT NOGA 2 45 AND THERE ARE 112 ITEMS IN THAT LIST, INCLUDING THE PC REPORT AND THE BOARD REPORT. SO IS, ARE WE TALKING JUST COMMENTS OR ARE WE TALKING TOTAL ITEMS IN THE TOTAL ITEMS? SO I THINK WHEN IT'S SAID AND DONE, WE'RE GONNA WIN. YES, WE WILL WIN BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A ATTACK REPORT. ALRIGHT. WE WILL INEVITABLY BEAT, BEAT OURSELVES. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT WIN . COREY, ANY ANY WORDS FOR US? , YOU ARE ALL WINNERS IN MY BOOK. . MAYBE, YOU KNOW, COREY'S THE ONE WHO HAS TO POST ALL THESE ITEMS, SO HE'S, HE'S TRYING TO BRING IT TO CONCLUSION. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU COREY. ALRIGHT, ANDRES, SORRY FOR THE, SORRY, SORRY FOR THE DIGRESSION. ARE YOU, WE CAN, WE CAN GO BACK TO YOUR SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS, . NO WORRIES AT ALL. UM, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. THIS IS ANDRES MAEZ WITH CYRUS CREEK ENERGY. UM, THE COMMENTS WE SUBMITTED ARE REGARDING THE QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR THE PON UNDER THE CURRENT BIGGER LANGUAGE. ANY PROJECT WITH TWO HIGH VOLTAGE CONNECTIONS TO THE TSP SUBSTATION HAS TWO DIFFERENT ELECTRICAL POI BUSES AND DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR WPON STATUS. THIS IS TRUE EVEN WHEN THE LARGE LOAD AND GENERATOR ARE CO-LOCATED. BOTH THE LARGE LOWER AND GENERATORS SHARE THE SAME TSP SUBSTATION OR COMMON SWITCHER AS DEFINED IN NOT PROTOCOL SECTION 10.3. AND THIS CREATES AN UNINTENDED BARRIER TO PROJECTS DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARD RELIABILITY PRACTICES. THE RECENT PROJECTS MAY HAVE TWO, UH, HV CONNECTIONS AND TWO POIS IS TO MEET LONG-TERM RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS. SOME CO-LOCATED PROJECTS MUST MUST BE DESIGNED WITH AT LEAST TWO HP CONNECTIONS TO A TSP SUBSTATION. SUCH, SUCH THAT NO CREDIBLE CONTINGENCY WOULD RESULT IN THE SIMULTANEOUS LOSS OF BOTH TRANSMISSION LINES. BIGGER 1 45 LANGUAGE PENALIZES PROJECTS FOR IMPLEMENTING BEST PRACTICE RELIABILITY DESIGN AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY INTENT OF THE WL PON, WHICH IS TO FACILITATE CO-LOCATED GENERATION AND LARGE LOAD ARRANGEMENTS. CYPRESS CREEK ENERGY REQUESTS THAT ERCOT INCORPORATES A TERM COMMON SWITCHER INTO THE WL PON QUALIFICATION CRITERIA, EFFECTIVE ALLOWING MULTIPLE POIS WITHIN THE SAME SUBSTATION TO QUALIFY FOR WL PON. CYPRESS CREEK ALSO REQUESTS THAT WPON QUALIFICATION BE MADE CONSISTENT WITH NET METERING CRITERIA UNDER N PROTOCOL SECTION 10.3, 0.2 0.3. THIS SECTION OF THE PROTOCOLS ALLOWS MULTIPLE POIS TO QUALIFY FOR NET METERING PROVIDING ALL POIS ARE LOCATED AT, AT THE SAME SUBSTATION AND AT THE SAME VOLTAGE QUALIFYING STATION ARRANGEMENTS INCLUDE GENERATION AND LOAD CONNECTED IN A LINE BUS, RING BUS DOUBLE BREAKER OR BREAKER AND A HALF CONFIGURATION, NOT A PROTOCOL SECTION 10.3 0.2 ALSO ALLOWS MULTIPLE POIS TO QUALIFY FOR NET METERING WHERE THE LOADS AND GENERATOR OUTPUT ARE ELECTRICALLY CONNECTED TO A COMMON SWITCHER. UM, NOT ALL PROTOCOLS DEFINE COMMON SWITCHER AS AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION FACILITY WHERE THE POI FOR LOAD AND GENERATION RESOURCES ARE LOCATED AT THE SAME FACILITY, BUT WHERE THE INTERCONNECTION POINTS ARE PHYSICALLY NOT GREATER THAN 400 YARDS APART. SO WITH THAT SAID, WE ASK THAT ER COULD INCLUDE THE TERM COMMON SWITCHER IN THE W ONE QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR BATCH ZERO. AND WITH THAT I'LL TAKE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO JEFF. YEAH. HEY, AND ANDREAS APPRECIATE THE [06:25:01] COMMENT. UM, I'LL, I'LL SAY ERCOT IS, UM, SUPPORTIVE OF THIS CONCEPT. UM, HOWEVER THE, THERE ARE SOME COMPLICATIONS THAT WE JUST WEREN'T ABLE TO, UH, WORK OUT TO GET THIS IN FOR BATCH ZERO. SO I I I THINK THAT IN OUR MINDS THIS IS A BATCH ONE AND GOING FORWARD THING, AGAIN, WE'RE O OPEN TO THE CONCEPT, BUT THERE, THERE ARE SOME, UM, COMPLICATIONS HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU JEFF. OH, GO AHEAD. WOULD YOU MIND, UM, ELABORATE MORE ON, ON THE COMPLICATIONS? 'CAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, I MEAN, I, I'VE HEARD YOU TODAY SAYING THAT KEL DOESN'T WANT TO BRING NEW LOAD, WHICH COMPLICATES THE PROCESS AT THIS STAGE, WHICH I AGREE WITH THAT. UH, BUT THIS CHANGE WOULD NOT ADD ANY ADDITIONAL NEW LOAD TO THE PROCESS. IT WOULD SIMPLY GIVE LOADS THAT ARE ALREADY QUALIFIABLE FOR BATCH C, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING, UH, THEIR OWN GENERATION. SO THIS MATT MARINAS, AND I GUESS AS WE KIND OF MANAGE THE PROCESS AROUND THE, ESPECIALLY THE WL PUN WAS THE WHAT CAN WE DO OPERATIONALLY THAT WE CAN DEPEND ON AND ANCHOR INTO. UH, SO WE'RE NOT PRECLUDING ANYTHING FROM THE FUTURE, WE'RE NOT EVEN PRECLUDING FROM WHAT ENDS UP ENERGIZING IN A COUPLE YEARS FROM NOW THAT WE MAY BE AT A DIFFERENT SPOT. BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE TALK TO THE CONTROL ROOM COMPLIANCE, THE PEOPLE STUDYING THESE THINGS TO ADD MULTIPLE POINTS OF INTERCONNECTION JUST CREATES A LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY THAT WE COULD NOT CONQUER IN THE SHORT TIMEFRAME. SO THIS IS KIND OF LIKE, THIS IS THE BEST THAT WE HAVE AND WE'RE STILL WILLING TO EVOLVE IT, BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. SO, I'M SORRY, ANDRES, I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE SPECIFIC, WHY CAN'T YOU DO IT? IT'S MORE OF THE GROUND WE'VE ALREADY COVERED AND WE CAN'T GO BACK AND RECOVER THAT GROUND AGAIN. GOT IT. UNDERSTAND, BUT PER CODE'S OPEN FOR BATCH ONE THEN, RIGHT? YES. GOT IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY, BOB HILTON. YEAH, A LOT OF IT, I UNDERSTAND WHERE GOD'S COMING FROM. THEY ADD SOME COMPLEXITY IN THAT, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS TO, IN INSTEAD, AS BILL TALKED ABOUT, TRYING TO BRING IN LOADS THAT ARE BRINGING THEIR OWN GENERATION SO THAT WE CAN GET AND SOLVE THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THAT. UH, AND THE REQUIREMENT IS BASICALLY THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE LOAD OFFLINE. IF THE GENERATION FAILS WITHIN ONE MINUTE, THAT REQUIREMENT EXISTS WHETHER YOU'RE BEHIND ONE METER OR IF YOU'RE BEHIND TWO METERS THAT ARE 400 YARDS APART. SO I I I, I'M NOT SURE I COMPLETELY SEE THE COMPLEXITY THAT'S ADDED INTO THAT WHEN THE SAME REQUIREMENTS ARE THERE, THE TELEMETRY IS THERE, EVERYTHING IS THERE TO DO THAT. SO I, I JUST WANT TO PUSH A LITTLE BIT BACK ON THAT, BUT I DON'T SEE THE COMPLEXITY THAT THAT'S BEING MENTIONED AT THIS POINT, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD SAY THAT. OKAY, BILL, WE SUPPORT THIS FOR BATCH ONE. THANKS. OKAY. THAT'S MY COMMENT. AWESOME. GREAT COMMENT. SIX WORDS, I THINK. GREAT, GREAT JOB. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR ANDRES? ALRIGHT, WE ARE ON TO OUR LAST GROUP, GROUP SIX CES ARE COMMENTS ON, UM, VARIOUS CRITERIA FEES, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND SO WE WILL GO TO MONARCH AND THEN SATOSHI, UM, MICHAEL JEWEL ASSIST YOU FOR MONARCH? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND DEFINITELY APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT'S GOING INTO DEVELOPING BIGGER 1 45. THE COMMENTS THAT THE MONARCH ENERGY FILED ARE REALLY TO ADDRESS PROPOSED ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR RESOURCES THAT ALREADY QUALIFY AS BASE LOAD WITHIN THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS THAT, UH, IMPOSE COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT ALIGNED WITH HOW MANY LARGE LOAD PROJECTS ARE DEVELOPED OR FINANCED AND ARE NOT NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE ORCO STATED OBJECTIVE OF PROTECTING TEXAS CONSUMERS OR DISTINGUISHING VIABLE PROJECTS FROM SPECULATIVE REQUESTS. THE, UH, THE PROVISIONS AT HAND KIND OF PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. AND ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT HAS COME UP IS, WELL, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT YOU ARE A BASE BASE LOAD NOW IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO EXECUTE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR CONTRACTS AND OBLIGATE YOURSELF TO PERFORM EVEN AS OF FRIDAY DURING, UH, THE, UH, LAST WORKSHOP, ERCOT SAID TODAY NO ONE KNOWS IF THEY ARE IN BASE LOAD OR NOT. AND IN FACT, UNDER BIGGER 1 45, NO ONE WILL KNOW FOR SURE IF THEY'RE BASE LOAD OR NOT UNTIL AUGUST 7TH, AFTER ALL THE DATES OF ATTESTATIONS ARE REQUIRED. WE REALLY [06:30:01] APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ERCOT IS PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE TSPS WITH REGARD TO THE STABILITY TO THE STUDIES AND WHETHER THEY QUALIFY. UM, AND, BUT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS STILL A HUGE UNCERTAINTY PROBLEM THAT UNDERMINES THE ABILITY TO EXECUTE THESE MULTIMILLION DOLLAR CONTRACTS THAT UNDERLIE THE ATTESTATIONS THAT ARE BEING REQUIRED FOR THESE LOADS. THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN STUDIED BY ERCOT. ERCOT IS ALREADY DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE VALID STUDIES. SO ERCOT HAS ALREADY DE DETERMINED THAT THEY CAN RELIABLY BE SERVED. THE, UH, THESE LOADS ALSO HAVE GOT SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER PGO 1 45 WITH REGARD TO, UH, POSTING FINANCIAL SECURITY, PAYING FOR KAYAK, PAYING FOR LONG LEAD TIME EQUIPMENT, UM, POSTING FINANCIAL SECURITY FOR TRANSMISSION THAT NEEDS TO BE BUILT FOR THEM. AND SO THE CUSTOMER PROTECTION IS ALREADY IN THERE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE OF PIGGER 1 45, WHAT THESE REQUIREMENTS DO IS THEY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN HOW MUCH OF YOUR, UM, $50,000 PER MEGAWATT IS REFUNDABLE. AND THERE'S ALREADY OTHER PROVISIONS THAT ARE BETWEEN SUBSECTIONS E AND F THAT ALREADY DIFFERENTIATE THAT WOULD SU UH, SUPPORT A DIFFERENTIAL, UM, REFUNDABILITY REQUIREMENT. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS OUR, OUR REQUEST WOULD BE TO STRIKE, UH, SECTIONS 9.1 EV, UH, OR LITTLE I LITTLE FIVE, UM, AS WELL AS 9.1 F THREE, LITTLE I SEVEN, UH, SEVEN AND EIGHT. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL AND MONARCH COMMENTS? OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LET'S GO TO OUR LAST SET OF COMMENTS. UH, SATOSHI IS SOMEBODY ON THE LINE FOR THESE? YEAH, THIS IS PATRICK SNAR FROM SATOSHI HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? WE CAN HEAR YOU. YEAH. I, I THINK, FIRST OFF, THANK YOU TO THE COMMITTEE. UH, I CAN TELL YOU, AS A CANADIAN BORN CITIZEN TURNED ERCOT DEVELOPER, A REGULATORY CHANGE OF THIS MAGNITUDE BACK AT HOME WOULD PROBABLY TAKE FIVE YEARS. SO, KUDOS TO EVERYONE FOR PUSHING THIS THROUGH, UH, SO EFFICIENTLY. OUR, OUR FIRST COMMENT, THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY LOADS UNDER 9.2, WE FEEL IT SHOULD ALLOW I ILES TO POST KNOWN COSTS FOR SYSTEM UPGRADES WHERE AVAILABLE RATHER THAN THE BACKSTOP 50 K PER MEGAWATT. WE'RE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE, THE BACKSTOP 50 K PER MEGAWATT, BUT FEEL THAT SAME FLAT FEE SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED FOR PROJECTS WHERE SYSTEM UPGRADE COSTS CAN BE IDENTIFIED. THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A CLEAR BASIS UNDER WHICH A TSP OR DSP WOULD NEED TO SCRUTINIZE A HIGHER AMOUNT OR SECURITIZE A HIGHER AMOUNT WHEN THESE CAN BE, UH, EXPLICITLY DEFINED. AND THE IMPACT THERE IS MORE DISTRICT MARSH FOR NET METERED OR CO-LOCATED LOADS THAT OFTEN HAVE NO SYSTEM UPGRADE COSTS OR KAYAK COSTS, AS THOSE PROJECTS ARE OFTEN DESIGNED INTENTIONALLY TO LEVERAGE THE EXISTING SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE. UH, AND THAT APPROACH ULTIMATELY EASES THE BURDEN OF SYSTEM UPGRADES WHILE STILL ENABLING THE DEVELOPMENT OF LARGE LOADS. OUR REMAINING COMMENTS LARGELY MIRROR THOSE FROM MONARCH PREVIOUSLY, THE SECOND BEING UNDER 9.2, THE BASE LOAD ELIGIBILITY SHOULDN'T REQUIRE A BINDING EPC CONTRACT FOR A GENERAL AND SUBSTATION CONTRACTOR OR DISCRETIONARY PERMITS. THAT BEING THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IS LARGELY MISALIGNED WITH HOW LARGE LOAD PROJECTS ARE DEVELOPED WITH A LACK OF UNCERTAINTY AROUND MEGAWATT ALLOCATIONS. IT'S UNREALISTIC TO EXPECT A DEVELOPER TO COMMIT TO A BINDING EPC CONTRACT UNTIL THOSE MEGAWATT ALLOCATIONS ARE, ARE CONFIRMED IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR. AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT A, A STANDARD EBC CONTRACT TYPICALLY INCLUDES, UH, PROVISIONS FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. SO IF A PROJECT SCHEDULE IS DELAYED BECAUSE OF THIS PROCESS, FOR EXAMPLE, A DEVELOPER COULD FACE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN, IN LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. SO IT WOULD BE UNREALISTIC TO EXPECT THAT DEVELOPER TO EXECUTE AN EPC CONTRACT PREMATURELY. AND FURTHERMORE, IN, YOU KNOW, THE RARE CASE WHERE A DEVELOPER HAS EXECUTED THAT EPC CONTRACT, WE STILL FEEL IT'S IMPRACTICAL TO HAVE ALL DISCRETIONARY SITE APPROVAL SECURED. UM, EPC CONTRACTS, AGAIN, ARE TYPICALLY EXECUTED BASED ON AN EARLIER, UH, STAGE OF DESIGN, NORMALLY ABOUT 30%. SO MOST PERMITS, EVEN DISCRETIONARY ONES, CAN'T NECESSARILY BE IDENTIFIED UNTIL LATER IN THE DESIGN PHASE. SO CLOSER TO THAT 60 OR 90% MILESTONE. [06:35:01] AND THE EXAMPLE WE USE IN OUR COMMENTS IS A FLOODPLAIN FLOODPLAIN PERMIT FOR AN ACCESS ROAD, UH, WHICH COULD BE CONTINGENT ON A 60% DATA CENTER OR DESIGN TO DETERMINE THE ULTIMATE ALIGNMENT OF THAT ROAD. UM, SO AGAIN, IT'S UNREALISTIC TO HAVE ALL SITE APPROVALS OBTAINED, YOU KNOW, AT THAT EPC EXECUTION MILESTONE, AS MOST OF THOSE APPROVALS WOULD BE IDENTIFIED IN LATER STAGES OF DESIGN. SO OVERALL, WE FEEL THAT, UH, THE APPROACH SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE LANGUAGE OF, OF PREVIOUS PEGA ONE 40 FIVES TO COVER THIS RISK, UH, WITHIN, UH, THE SECTION 9.7 DISCLOSURES AS THIS INCLUDES REPORTING OF SITE PLANS AND PROGRESS TOWARDS ENGINEERING AND DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS, UM, PROGRESS THAT CAN BE REQUESTED AND REVIEWED BY BY ERCOT. AND OUR, OUR LAST COMMENT IS THE LANGUAGE OF PEGA 1 45, UH, SHOULD CLARIFY THAT A SUCCESSOR LLIS REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL LOAD BEHIND AN EXISTING POI IS A NEW STANDALONE REQUEST THAT DOESN'T REOPEN THE EXISTING INTERCONNECTION STUDY RESULTS MEGAWATT ALLOCATION OR COMMERCIAL MILESTONE. SO IT'S COMMON FOR DEVELOPERS RIGHT NOW TO CITE A SECOND PHASE OF A PROJECT BEHIND, UH, THE SAME POI AND WE SIMPLY REQUEST THAT ERCOT CODIFY THIS SO IT DOESN'T AFFECT A PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY LOAD ALLOCATION, YOU KNOW, IF AN ILLE HAS ALREADY COMMITTED TO THAT CAPACITY, RIGHT? AND THE, THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP ENT PHASES UNDER A SINGLE POI IS AN EFFICIENT PATH, UH, FOR SPEED TO POWER, WE FEEL THAT DEVELOPERS PURSUING THE STRATEGY SHOULDN'T BE PENALIZED, UM, IN DOING SO BY HAVING THEIR QUEUE POSITIONS IMPACTED FOR OTHERWISE VIABLE PROJECTS. SO THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT I, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR PATRICK? BILL? NONE FOR PATRICK. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR PATRICK? ALRIGHT, WE HAVE GOTTEN THROUGH OUR, ALL THE COMMENTS. EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK IF THEY PROPOSED, UH, LANGUAGE OR, OR HAD COMMENTS. UM, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR NEXT STEPS. I'LL GO TO, UH, JEFF AND THEN TO BILL. YEAH, JUST WANNA REITERATE MY APPRECIATION FOR ALL OF THE COMMENTERS AND THE, THE FEEDBACK AS WE HAVE, UM, WALKED THROUGH THIS PROCESS. AND SOME, SOMEBODY TOLD ME TODAY WE HAVE ON AVERAGE HAD ONE AND A HALF SETS OF COMMENTS FILED PER DAY SINCE THE, UM, FIGURE'S BEEN RELEASED. SO, UM, YEAH, SO I, I APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK, UM, NOT ONLY FROM MY STAFF, UH, BUT FROM STAKEHOLDERS AS WELL ON, ON THIS. UM, I THINK WHERE WE ARE AT IS WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE COMPROMISED, UH, GREAT DEALS AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS ALREADY AND, UH, ARE NOT ABLE TO, UM, COMPROMISE ANY FURTHER. UM, AND, AND SO WE THINK THAT OUR MAY 18TH COMMENTS ARE THE, UH, BEST PATH FOR BATCH ZERO. OKAY. CAN I, UH, THIS IS A GOOD TIME FOR IT. I THINK ONE AND A HALF COMMENTS PER DAY SINCE WHEN, WHEN DID THIS START? MARCH 4TH. MARCH 4TH. CAN WE GET A LITTLE FOR COREY, WHO I DON'T BELIEVE SLEPT LAST NIGHT? UM, AND, AND THE REST, REST OF THE MARKET RULES STAFF WHO WE MAY NOT BE SEEING. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, AS YOU POINTED OUT, THERE WERE COMMENTS POSTED DURING THE MEETING. I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. UM, SO THANK YOU. THAT'S A LOT OF WORK, . ALL RIGHT. BUT NOT TO GET, IN A WAY, ER, ER, KAT'S POSITION IS, CAN YOU JUST REITERATE THAT, JEFF? YEAH. BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. YEAH. SO WE, WE, WE THINK THAT OUR MAY 18TH COMMENTS ARE THE BEST PATH FOR BATCH ZERO. OKAY. OKAY. LET'S GO TO BILL. APPRECIATE THAT, JEFF. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, YOUR WORDS CARRY A LOT OF WEIGHT. THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE IS SOMETHING THAT HAS OBVIOUSLY CRAFTED, UH, WHAT'S GONNA COME OUT OF TAC, BUT I'M GONNA REPEAT SOMETHING I SAID EARLIER. I DO THINK THERE ARE SOME GOOD REASONS WHY THE STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE MAY DEVIATE, SO HOPEFULLY SLIGHTLY FROM WHAT ER, KAT'S OPINION IS. AND I WOULD AT LEAST LIKE TO HASH THROUGH THAT SO IT'S UNDERSTOOD AND SEE WHAT THE BODY OF TECH, UH, IF THEY AGREE OR NOT. SO, CAN WE START WITH, UH, EOS COMMENTS, IF YOU MIND PULLING THOSE UP? OKAY. AND IT'S, IT'S FOUR 30. I'D LIKE TO KEEP PUSHING, BUT IF PEOPLE START TO FEEL DIFFERENTLY, UH, LET, LET ME KNOW. FULLY UNDERSTAND THE NATIVES ARE GETTING RESTLESS. I DON'T, PEOPLE ARE DOING PRETTY GOOD. THE SNACKS ARE RUNNING LOWER THAN USUAL. CAN WE SCROLL DOWN TO, UH, SECTION 9.2? [06:40:03] AND I THINK THE IDEA HERE IS WE'RE START WITH, I THINK THIS VERSION HAS ASSEMBLED MOST OF THE COMPONENTS THAT WE EITHER ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OR HAVE HEARD FROM OTHERS THAT HAVE STRONG CONCERNS, AND USE THIS AS THE BEGINNING OF, UH, SOMETHING TO EDIT, TO GET A STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE VOTED OUT AS, UH, DESK EDITS FROM TAC IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING ME, COREY. OKAY. SO ELI COMMENTS HAVE THE CHANGE TO THE TIP, THE UNITED COOPERATIVE SERVICE COMMENTS FROM FIVE FOUR, THE RELIANT COMMENTS FROM FIVE 16 AND THE RA COMMENTS FROM FIVE 17, CORRECT? AND THE TEPA COMMENTS FROM FIVE 17. IF YOU COULD SCROLL DOWN TO ROMAN THREE, EXCUSE ME. FOUR, I LIKE SHANNON'S COMMERCIALLY REASONABLE EFFORTS. CAN YOU WHERE IT SAYS SECTION 6.9 AND HAS, AND HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ON OR BEFORE, INSTEAD OF JUNE 12TH, MAKE THAT JUNE 5TH. AND JEFF, THIS IS IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF YOUR CONCERN ABOUT HOW MUCH STUDIED LOADS YOU ARE GETTING IN HEARING YOUR CONCERN AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS. AND CAN YOU REINSTATE THE STROKE LANGUAGE FROM RELIANT COMMENTS FOR W PUNS AND PCL R GOING BACK TO THE POINT, IF WE'RE GONNA PROVIDE SOME GRACE, IF WE'RE GONNA LET MORE IN, THEY SHOULD BE GRID FRIENDLY ARRANGEMENTS, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THESE RULES ARE STILL FAIRLY NEW. I THINK THAT IS A FAIR ARGUMENT TO MAKE. AND IF I'M OBVIOUSLY MODIFYING IT FROM JUNE 12TH TO TO JUNE 5TH. SO THAT'S ONE WEEK. JUNE 12TH WAS YOUR RELIANT COMMENTS, CORRECT. AND WE'RE MOVING THAT UP A WEEK TO HELP APPEASE ORCO CONCERNS. THANK YOU. NOW DOWN TO 9.2 0.4 IN PARAGRAPH THREE, CHOA, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, MODIFIED MARCH 4TH TO MARCH 17TH, IF YOU COULD MAKE THAT ADDED, PLEASE. THREE A, THE CONCERN THAT I CONTINUE TO HEAR AND BE SWAYED BY IS THE FAIRNESS ISSUE. TOYA MOVED THEIR DATE FROM JULY 10TH ALL THE WAY UP TO MARCH 17TH, I BELIEVE, WITH THE INTENTION OF ONLY INCORPORATING ONE RPG PROJECT, WHICH WAS, UH, SOUTH D-F-D-D-F-W, UM, PROJECT. I'M COMPELLED BY THOSE ARGUMENTS, MAINLY BECAUSE I THINK IN THIS CASE, STAKEHOLDERS HAVE A, A BETTER VIEW OF THE RISK. THOSE OF US THAT ARE WORKING WITH THESE DEVELOPERS HAVE MORE DEPTH OF UNDERSTANDING OF HOW MUCH FORCES BEHIND SOME OF THESE PROJECTS THAT DIDN'T GET IN THAT PROBABLY WOULD'VE GOTTEN IN. SO I, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER WHAT WE CAN DO TO ALLOW THEM IN, WHICH INCLUDES THIS EDIT, IT INCLUDES THE, THE UCS PART, WHICH IS UNEDITED BY RELIANT BY THE WAY, AND ALSO, UM, THE RPG PROJECTS. I, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN, JEFF, THAT WE HAVE TO BE DILIGENT ABOUT ALLOW, ALLOWING MORE BASE LOAD IN. I THINK THIS IS ABOUT AS NARROW AS YOU CAN GET TO DO THAT ON THE STUDIED LOAD CATEGORIES FOR THE A EP COMMENTS, TBA COMMENTS, AND THE UCS COMMENTS, THIS IS WHERE I THINK THAT'S A STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVE THAT THOSE, THOSE ARE GONNA BE COMPETING WITH ONE ANOTHER FOR, FOR, UM, TRANSMISSION CAPACITY IN THE STUDIES. AND I DO KNOW FOR SURE FROM TALKING TO SOME DE DEVELOPERS THAT THOSE NUMBERS, SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS ARE DOUBLE COUNTED. SO ON YOUR CHART, I KNOW THEY'RE BIG AND SCARY, BUT I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE FINAL COUNT. AND MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING, IF THAT DOES MAKE IT TO THE BOARD, THERE CAN BE A REFINEMENT ON ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS IN MORE DEPTH IF WHAT THE RISK IS ON THAT PART. AND THEN, UM, I DO THINK I'M GONNA KIND OF HAND IT OFF TO NED. HE THINK [06:45:01] HE HAS AN UPDATE ON THE NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS AS WELL, TAKING YOUR FEEDBACK, JEFF? YEAH, BILL, UM, AS, AS I SAID EARLIER, I, I RECOGNIZE WE'RE TRYING TO LIMIT, YOU KNOW, ANY INCREMENTAL CHANGE. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE PULLING TOGETHER HERE IS, UH, REFLECTIVE OF, OF VISTRA'S COMMENTS REGARDING NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS. UM, AND CORY, YOU CAN GO TO 9.2 0.1 0.2, UM, RA'S ADDED PARAGRAPH TWO. UH, YEAH. SO THAT WILL BE CO-LOCATED WITH A GENERATION RESOURCE. I THINK YOU CAN MODIFY GENERATION RESOURCE RIGHT THERE. UM, I WOULD SAY DISPATCHABLE THERMAL GENERATION RESOURCE OR THERMAL DISPATCHABLE, WHICHEVER, WHICHEVER ORDER OF OPERATIONS YOU PREFER. AND HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS CUT IT DOWN TO, TO LIMIT THAT. IT'S OKAY. AND WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE DESK EDITS. NO, NO, YOU GO. JUST TO CLARIFY, BILL THESE COMMENTS FROM YOU DO NOT REFLECT THE FIVE 18 ERCOT COMMENTS. YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING YOU DON'T WANT THOSE, SORRY, WE WOULD WANNA INCLUDE THOSE CLARIFYING EDITS. MY APOLOGIES. YEP. YEAH, WE WANT THE, THE ERCOT FIVE 18 EDITS IN THERE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S GONNA MAKE JEFF HAPPY WITH IT. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. I KNOW IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE JEFF COMPLETELY HAPPY. MY COMMENT, I THINK I WANT YOUR COMMENT. OKAY. YEAH. UM, YOU, YOU JUST WENT TO, UH, A WHOLE DIFFERENT PLACE. THIS SHOULD NOT GO, THIS SHOULD BE DONE SYSTEMATICALLY AND IT SHOULD BE DONE NOT BASED ON ANY KIND OF OF UNITS OR ANY KIND OF SPECIFICS SUCH AS THIS. SO YOU TOOK ME TO A NO WITH THAT THERE, I JUST LET TACK KNOW THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON ANY TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY. IT SHOULD BE TYPE, IT SHOULD BE TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL, AND THAT TAKES IT OUT OF THAT SYSTEM. AND THEREFORE I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT, ANY OF IT BECAUSE OF THAT. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT NOT BE THERE. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO EDIT THAT OUT, BUT YOU, YEAH, SO I WOULD TAKE THAT BACK OUT THE, THE DISPATCHABLE THERMAL AND LEAVE IT AS IT IS ACCEPTED. OKAY. BILL, DID I INTERRUPT YOU? ARE YOU, NO, YOU'RE GOOD FOR NOW. OKAY. UM, LET'S GO TO JEFF. YEAH. SO SETTING ASIDE WITH MY EXTREME DISCOMFORT WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT THIS DOES TO THE, THE STUDY SCOPE, UM, AND THE UNWORKABILITY OF THIS, THE CHOA COMMENTS DO, I THINK, DO NOT DO WHAT YOU THINK THEY'RE DOING. SO THAT MARCH, JUST CHANGING THAT TO MARCH 17TH, DOES NOT ACTUALLY PUT ANY PROJECTS IN BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT WERE RPG PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED UNTIL APRIL 20TH. SO I, I THINK IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, AND AGAIN, I AM NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM ADVOCATING FOR THIS , BUT I WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO GET TO, YOU KNOW, JULY AND THEN YOU REALIZE IT DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING. SO YOU WANT, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, YOU WANT TO MAKE IT APRIL 20TH, AND THEN YOU ALSO, WELL, I DON'T KNOW, I, I'M MAYBE PUTTING WORDS IN, IN YOUR MOUTH AT THIS POINT, BUT, UM, WHAT CLAYTON SAID LAST WEEK WHEN HE DID HIS PRESENTATION WAS THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO MAKE MORE LO MORE BASE LOAD THAN WHAT CAN BE RELIABLY SERVED. HE'S JUST REORDERING THE PRIORITIZATION TO, TO DO THAT, YOU ALSO NEED TO GO THROUGH AND CHANGE THOSE MARCH 4TH DATES TO AUGUST 1ST, 2025. I WAS TRUSTING CLAYTON'S NON-EXPERT OPINION ON THAT. SO I KIND OF DEFER TO THE CHO OF FOLKS ON THAT. UM, I GUESS YOU CAN PUT ME IN THE QUEUE IN TERMS OF QUESTION. I DON'T WANNA SKIP THE TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THERE. YOU CAN SKIP, BUT HANG ON. I, DID YOU MAKE A MOTION OR DID YOU JUST SAY, LET'S START WITH THIS? I, I DID, BUT YOU DID MAKE A MOTION. FOLKS ARE NOT COMFORTABLE TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE LANGUAGE, BUT HANG ON. SO I MESSED UP IF YOU MADE A MOTION. I WE SHOULD HAVE STOPPED AND TAKEN A A SECOND. SO DID, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? WELL, I CAN PULL THE MOTION DOWN. NO. OKAY, SO WE'RE PULLING THE MOTION DOWN FOR NOW. OKAY. AND WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE THIS. JEFF, YOU FINISHED MAKING YOUR POINTS, BILL, WHY DON'T YOU RESPOND TO JEFF OR ASK WHATEVER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO ASK. [06:50:01] SO I JUST, IF WE CAN KIND OF TOUCH ON THE EXTREME DISCOMFORT AND IF YOU CAN ELABORATE MORE ON WHERE THE PAIN IS. YEAH, YEAH. THE PAIN IS THAN ALL THIS IS NOW OPENING THE DOOR FOR TENS OF GIGAWATTS OF ADDITIONAL LOAD TO BE INCLUDED, INCLUDED AS STUDIED. AND THAT'S JUST, I, I, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S WORKABLE WITHIN THIS STUDY SCOPE AND EE EVEN ADDING 30 DAYS, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T HELP. I JUST, IT, IT, IT'S JUST THE, THE WHAT, WHAT DO YOU, WHAT ARE WE GONNA GET OUT OF THIS? YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY GETS ZERO MEGAWATTS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU JUST, THE WAY IT ALLOCATES, I MEAN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET A GOOD STUDY RESULT WITH THAT MUCH LOAD IN, IN THE CASE. I THINK WE GET CERTAINTY THAT THESE RULES ARE GONNA STICK . THAT THAT'S ONE THING WE GET. UM, AND ALSO IN TERMS OF IF MORE FOLKS GET ALLOCATED LOWER AMOUNTS, AGAIN, WHY DOES ERCOT CARE ABOUT THAT? THAT SHOULD BE IF THE STAKEHOLDERS AGREE AND ARE OKAY WITH THAT. I, I, WELL, I, I, I THINK, UM, I, I THINK THIS MAY COME OUT WRONG, BUT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELVES. AND, UM, IT, IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THIS MARKET OR THIS STATE. IF WE HAVE AN OUTCOME WHERE WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ALLOCATING MEGAWATTS TO LOADS THAT ACTUALLY ARE, ARE VIABLE, YOU KNOW, TO GET BUILT. IF, IF EVERYBODY GETS ZERO THAT THAT'S NOT A GOOD OUTCOME FOR OCADO OR FOR TEXAS. AND IS THIS, DOES THIS POSE RESOURCE CONCERNS FOR YOU IN TERMS OF LIKE, BEING ABLE TO DO IT? THAT WAS WHAT I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA SAY, BUT THE WORKS INVOLVED IS STILL THE SAME, IT'S JUST YOU'RE WORRIED THE RESULTS ARE NOT GONNA BE AS THE INTEGRITY OF THE RESULTS ARE GONNA BE THREATENED. IS THAT THE CONCERN? I, I, I THINK THAT'S MORE OF A CONCERN. I DON'T KNOW IF CHRISTIE WANTS TO ADD ON THE RESOURCE SIDE OF THIS. YEAH, I THINK I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT WITH, UM, EACH ADDITIONAL PROJECT. SO THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT YEAR SIX AND TRYING TO GET YOU THAT FULL ALLOCATION AND WITHIN THAT TIMELINE TO GET YOU RELIABLE AND EFFICIENT TRANSMISSION SOLUTIONS, WILL WE BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS FOR ALL OF THE PROJECTS WITHIN THAT TIMELINE? SO THINK ABOUT TIMELINES WHEN WE DO THE WHOLE STATE TODAY, LOOKING AT PROJECTS THROUGH THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN. THAT'S A YEAR LONG PROCESS. AND THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THOSE ARE PLACEHOLDER PROJECTS THAT THEN GET FURTHER REFINED. SO, YOU KNOW, DOING THAT EIGHT TO 10 MONTHS IS NOT FEASIBLE. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER, YEP. LET'S, LET'S GO BACK TO THE QUEUE. ALL RIGHT, ANDREW, THE CHANGE ON THE, UM, I THINK THE MARCH 17TH DATE THAT YOU MADE THERE, BILL, AND, UH, IS THIS IN SECTION 9 2 1 4? YEP. YES, IT WAS TROY'S EDIT. YEAH. YEAH. CAN, CAN YOU JUST SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT TO THE LANGUAGE? SO, SO THIS IS JUST THE INCLUSION CRITERIA FOR THE LOADS AS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS. I GUESS THAT THIS, THIS STUDY REVALIDATION EXERCISE I IS, IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT THIS IS FOR? DID I, MAYBE A QUESTION FROM CHO OR, WELL, IF YOU'RE ASKING IN IN GENERAL, UM, YEAH, THIS 9 9 2 1 4 IS ABOUT WHAT, WHAT STUDIES ARE CONSIDERED VALID AND COMPLETE STUDIES. YEP. AND SO IS THERE A REASON THAT THE, THAT, UM, SUBSECTION A AND B WOULDN'T HAVE THE SAME DATE IN THEM? YEAH. BE BECAUSE IF THEY ARE, UM, IF THEY'RE THE SAME DATE, SO, SO MARCH 4TH IS OKAY, BUT THEN AFTER THAT THERE ARE, YEAH, THAT, THAT WAS KIND OF MY QUESTION WAS WAS WOULD IT BE THE 17TH IN BOTH OF THESE? OR, UH, IF, IF THIS CHANGE WERE MADE? YEAH. SO AGAIN, I, I THINK TO DO WHAT THEY WANT, WHAT TROY WANTS TO DO, I THINK YOU, YOU NEED TO MAKE IT APRIL 20TH. IF YOU DO THAT, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO, UM, NOW HAVE [06:55:01] AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE LOADS THAT HAVE, VIA THE RPG PROCESS, THEY HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO HAVE VALID STUDIES. UM, AND THOSE STUDIES DID NOT INCLUDE SOME LOADS THAT WENT THROUGH THE LILLIS PROCESS. AND SO IF WE CHANGE BOTH DATES TO MARCH 17TH OR APRIL 20TH, THAT THAT IS GOING TO HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING, WE, WE, WE WOULD BE KNOWINGLY ALLOWING MORE LOADS TO CONNECT IN AN AREA, THEN THE, THAT AREA CAN RELIABLY SERVE. AND SO WE, THAT THAT'S HELPFUL. THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU, JEFF. YEAH. SO IF YOU CHANGE THIS TO APRIL 20TH HERE, YOU, YOU THEN NEED TO GO BACK AND B AND CHANGE THAT TO AUGUST 1ST OF LAST YEAR, SO THAT WE CAN GO AND CHECK ALL OF THOSE LOADS THAT HAVE COME IN THROUGH THE LILLIS PROCESS SINCE AUGUST 1ST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY INCLUDED, UH, THE, THE LOADS THAT HAVE NOW BEEN VALIDATED THROUGH THE, UH, PARAGRAPH A. I WOULD, I MEAN, WOULD THAT BE, SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE FAIRLY DISRUPTIVE, RIGHT? I, I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE. OKAY. THANK Y'ALL. OKAY. SAM, WERE YOU JUST PROVIDING A CLARIFICATION ON THIS? YEAH, I WASN'T SURE IF THERE WAS CONFUSION OR IF I WAS MISSING SOMETHING, BUT IT SAYS MAY 17TH. OKAY. SO THE LANGUAGE SAYS MARCH, BUT THE NARRATIVE SAYS MAY IS THAT THE ISSUE? AT LEAST WHAT I'M READING, I'M NOT SURE IF I VERY LIKELY I'M MISSING SOMETHING. OKAY. GIDEON, CAN YOU CLARIFY THIS FOR US BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE QUEUE? YOU KNOW, WE'VE REALLY BEEN RELIANT ON OUR TSP, SO I'D REALLY LIKE ENCORE, SOMEONE FROM ENCORE TO STEP UP AND REALLY HELP US RIGHT NOW RESPECTFULLY. YEAH. SO THIS IS MARTHA HENSON FROM CORP. YOU KNOW, WE CONVEYED IN OUR EARLIER, BIGGER 1 45 COMMENTS THAT WE THINK THERE'S SOME CUSTOMERS THAT, UM, SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR BATCH ZERO THAT ARE DIFFERENT AND GREATER THAN WHAT ERCOT PROPOSED. AND ITS MOST RECENT COMMENT, RED LINES AND THE LOW. WE ALSO COMMENTED ON THIS RPG ISSUE AS WELL, UM, AND THOUGHT THAT THE, THE RPG PROJECT SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS BASE LOAD. HOWEVER, AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, WE ALSO FEEL A STRONG OBLIGATION TO MOVE BATCH ZERO FORWARD IN A WAY THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT ERCOT AND THE COMMISSION HAVE DIRECTED. AND THEREFORE, WE'RE NOT ADVOCATING FOR A CHANGE TO THIS DATE RIGHT NOW. THANKS. OKAY. CAN WE MOVE ON FROM THE, THE DATES FOR NOW? OKAY. IAN HALEY, UNLESS YOU'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE DATES, UM, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR JEFF, IF HE DOESN'T MIND. UM, JEFF, I WAS HOPING A LITTLE BIT MORE. I WAS LIKE, BILL, I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING THE, THE ISSUE OF ADDING THE ADDITIONAL LOADS INTO THE STUDY WAS, UM, ACTUALLY BEING ABLE TO RUN THE STUDY AND HAVE IT SOLVE IN A TIMEFRAME. AND SO I JUST WANNA CONFIRM YOUR NOT YOURS KOTS CONCERN IS IF YOU ALLOW TOO MANY OF THESE LOADS IN, WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THE, THE CASE WILL SOLVE, BUT THE, WHAT THE END PRODUCT IS WON'T BE USABLE TO ANYONE, AND THEREFORE IT'S, IT'S JUST A BIG MISS. IS THAT IS, I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I FULLY UNDERSTAND YOU. YEAH, YEAH. I, I I THINK THAT'S, UM, I, I'LL SAY THIS, I THINK THERE IS A GREATER RISK TO THAT. OKAY. UM, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, IS IT SOMETHING THAT ERCOT HAS LOOKED AT AND GO, OH, WOW, THIS WILL, OR IT'S A, HEY, WE THINK THIS MIGHT, OR I'M JUST, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, PLEASE, YOU KNOW, DON'T, DON'T NO NEED TO MAKE SOMETHING UP, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I FULLY UNDERSTAND. YEAH, SO I, I THINK, SO WE, WE HAVE, UM, LOOK, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE RUN SOME RTPS THAT HAVE HAD PRETTY HIGH LOAD LEVELS MM-HMM . UM, 150, 60 ISH, UH, GIGAWATTS. UM, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A MAGIC NUMBER THAT WE HAVE IN OUR MIND THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, ONE 70 IS OKAY, BUT ONE 70 ONE'S NOT. OKAY. OKAY. IT, IT, IT'S THE, THE FURTHER YOU GET AWAY FROM WHAT WE HAVE STUDIED, UM, IN THE PAST, I, I THINK JUST YOU, YOU INTRODUCE MORE RISK WITH THAT. PERFECT. UM, AND, AND I DO THINK THE ADDITIONAL PICKER 1 27 GENERATION ADDITIONS, THAT I THINK THAT THAT ADDS TO THAT RISK, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ADDING IN GENERATION THAT IS NOT, NOT, NOT FIRMLY COMMITTED. YEP. UM, AND THAT, SO, SO AGAIN, THE, THE FURTHER YOU GET UP IN THAT STACK, [07:00:01] YOU, YOU, YOU'RE JUST ADDING MORE RISK. UM, AND THEN WE, WE HAVE RUN SOME PILOTS IN HOUSE AND, UM, YOU, I THINK, YEAH, I THINK THERE IS SOME RISK THAT TOO MUCH LOAD AND, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A MINIMUM ALLOCATION, WE'VE GOT A MINIMUM ALLOCATION IN HERE OF A HUNDRED MEGAWATTS. THERE, THERE'S SOME RISK THAT EVERYBODY IS BELOW THAT AND EVERYBODY GETS ZERO. OKAY. UM, SO JEFF, JEFF, I'D ALSO ADD TO THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, REMINDER THAT WHEN WE STUDIED THE RTP, IT'S PARTICULAR ON WHERE THE LOADS WERE FOR THAT PARTICULAR RTP. AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS IT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF LOADS, UM, POTENTIALLY BETWEEN THE TWO CASES. SO LOCATION ALSO MATTERS. THE, THE OTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR IS THE RTP IS JUST A ROADMAP. NOT ALL OF THOSE TRANSMISSION PROJECTS HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RPG PROCESS YET. SO THEY WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE DURING THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS FOR ALLOCATION AS AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH. I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU HELPING AND NON-TRANSMISSION PERSON UNDERSTAND THIS. OKAY. THANKS IAN. UM, LET'S GO TO JEN. NO, YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY, LET'S GO TO SHANNON. I WANTED TO PULL THE THREAD A LITTLE BIT ON SOMETHING, UH, CHRISTIE JUST MADE THE COMMENT ON, SHE MENTIONED ABOUT, UH, RPG PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE TO BE USED FOR, UH, STUDIED AND ALLOCATED. IS THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID? NO, MY COMMENT WAS, IS IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT, WE STUDIED 160 GIGAWATTS IN THE 2025 RTP, THAT WAS A ROADMAP OF PROJECTS. NOT ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED THROUGH THE RPG PROCESS, MEANING THE TRANSMISSION PROJECTS. SO WHEN YOU GO TO THE BATCH ALLOCATION PROCESS, WHEN YOU START WITH YOUR BASE CASES, WHAT TRANSMISSION WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THAT ALLOCATION? YEAH. THE WAY I WAS, THOSE PROJECTS HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED YET. I AGREE, BUT UNLESS I'VE MISSED SOMETHING, TSPS HAVE THE ABILITY TO SUGGEST PROJECTS ALL THROUGHOUT THIS THING. AND SO AS PRETENDING I'M A TSP FOR A MOMENT, A PROJECT THAT I'VE ALREADY STUDIED EXTENSIVELY, MAYBE A YEAR, 15 MONTHS AND SUBMITTED AN RPG PROJECT FOR, MIGHT BE THE FIRST THING I WOULD GO TO IN MY TOOLBOX OF SUGGESTING UPGRADES. NOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, ONCE YOU WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS, Y'ALL MAY NOT APPROVE. YOU MAY NOT SAY ALL OF IT'S FEASIBLE, WHATEVER, BUT THOSE ARE PROBABLY THE MOST MATURE, AT LEAST BECAUSE THE TSPS HAVE ALREADY DONE A LOT OF STUDIES ON 'EM AND PUT 'EM TOGETHER TO AT LEAST GO IN AND BE CONSIDERED BE ONES THEY WOULD RECOMMEND AS UPGRADES FOR ALLOCATED LOAD. UM, COUPLE OTHER POINTS BACK TO JEFF'S CONCERN THAT IF YOU ADD THIS STUFF TO THE STUDIED AND ALLOCATED, THEN EVERYBODY WINDS UP WITH ZERO. HOW, HOW DO YOU EVERYBODY WIND UP WITH ZERO? EVERYBODY MAY WIND UP WITH LESS THAN THEY OTHERWISE WERE GOING TO, IF YOU'RE IN THE STUDIED AND ALLOCATED, BUT ULTIMATELY THE SAME AMOUNT'S GONNA GET SERVED AS STUDIED AND ALLOCATED THAT CAN ACTUALLY GET DONE, UM, THAT THAT'LL COME OUT OF THE STUDY. ANOTHER POINT RELATED TO THAT IS ERCOT CURRENT ANALYSIS IS, YOU KNOW, WITH THE BAR CHART WE SAW EARLIER, IT'S ASSUMING THAT EVERY ONE OF THOSE LOADS POST THE SECURITY AND MEETS EVERY ONE OF THE ATTESTATIONS. SO THEY'VE GOT A PRETTY BIG ASTERISK APPROPRIATELY SO THAT THIS IS WHO COULD BE ELIGIBLE. BUT, YOU KNOW, LIFE WILL TURN OUT TO BE LESS THAN ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO PULL ALL THOSE THINGS TOGETHER. SO I THINK THAT ALL BY ITSELF IS GONNA CALL A BUNCH OUT ONCE WE GET THERE. AND THEN THE LAST POINT I WOULD HAVE IS, UM, THINKING ABOUT JEFF'S COMMENTS AROUND, UM, WHAT CHO UH, PROPOSED CAUSING A NEED TO GO BACK AND REVALIDATE ALREADY VALID, UH, STUDIES. I THINK THAT'S EXTREMELY PROBLEMATIC TO, TO CAUSE THAT TO OCCUR. BECAUSE THINK ABOUT THIS. ERCOT HAS ALREADY SAID YOU HAVE APPROVED STUDIES, THEY'VE VETTED IT, AND UH, PEOPLE ARE OUT SPENDING REAL MONEY BUILDING REAL FACILITIES [07:05:02] BASED ON OUR CO'S APPROVAL. SO WE SHOULDN'T DO SOMETHING THAT IN INADVERTENTLY UN APPROVES THAT. AND A, A SOLUTION TO THAT IS RATHER THAN TRY TO FORCE THAT IN BASE LOAD, LET IT GO IN AS STUDIED AND ALLOCATED AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM. OKAY. WE HAVE QUITE A QUEUE. I'M INCLINED TO FINISH THIS QUEUE. IT IS BASICALLY FIVE. ANNE CAN GO UNTIL SIX. SO SIX IS OUR HARD STOP BECAUSE I CAN'T DO THIS WITHOUT ANNE. UM, AND QUORUM IS 16 IN THE ROOM, WHICH WE HAVE PLENTY, BUT I THINK SOME PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TO GIVE A COUPLE PROXIES AT AT FIVE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE, MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS OKAY TO STAY FOR A WHILE. I THINK PEOPLE WOULD PREFER TO JUST GET THIS DONE THAN TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE TO PUT ON REAL CLOTHES AND COME BACK TOMORROW. SO, SO LET'S DO THAT. WE CAN'T GO TILL MIDNIGHT. WE NEED ANN. WE, WE ABSOLUTELY NEED ANN. UM, ANN ANN'S HARD STOP IS SIX. WE CAN JUST CALL IT THE HARD STOP NOW. WE CAN'T, WE DON'T HAVE TO BLAME ANNE. SO WE CAN GO UNTIL WE CAN GO UNTIL SIX. UM, AND WE ANN'S VERY USEFUL TO US HERE. ALRIGHT, SO LET'S KEEP GOING ON THE, THE QUEUE, EVAN. UM, SO YEAH, TWO THINGS. SO FIRST I JUST WANNA AGREE WITH WHAT SHANNON SAID ABOUT THIS DATE HERE IN THE PARAGRAPH WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE AND WHAT YOU'RE PUTTING TOGETHER HERE, BILL, BUT YOU KNOW, THIS ONE KIND OF STICKS OUT AS EVERYTHING IS PUTTING THINGS IN ALLOCATED BUCKET, AND THIS ONE IS PUTTING THINGS IN THE BASE LOAD BUCKET AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S PUTTING THINGS AT THE BASE LOAD BUCKET, UH, POTENTIALLY AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER BASE LOAD. AND I THINK WE COULD BE MAKING A A, AN UNEQUAL TRADE THERE THAT WOULD HAVE SOME PRETTY SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS. AND SO I, I DO AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT JEFF IS SAYING ON, ON THAT POINT SPECIFICALLY. UM, MY SECOND POINT IS HEARING SOME CONVERSATIONS AROUND THE RPG PROPOSAL THAT TIBA HAS THAT'S IN HERE. YOU KNOW, I'D ALSO JUST WANNA POINT OUT THAT BY INCLUDING THAT LOAD, IT'S COMING WITH A YEAR SIX TRANSMISSION PLAN. YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE NOT ADDING A WHOLE BUNCH OF WORK ON ERCOT PART TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING FROM SCRATCH. THEY'RE ALREADY GIVEN A SOLUTION THAT'S BEEN STUDIED, THAT HAS SHOWN THAT IT, IT, IT WORKS. AND I, I HEAR THE COMPLAINT ABOUT, WELL, MAYBE WE'LL HAVE TO ALLOCATE A SET AMOUNT OF MEGAWATTS OVER MORE LOADS AND, UH, PUSH PEOPLE UNDER THE THRESHOLD. BUT I WANNA REMIND EVERYBODY THAT'S NOT EXACTLY HOW THE ALLOCATION IS STRUCTURED IN THE LANGUAGE. IT'S BASED OFF OF SHIFT FACTORS. AND SO LOADS THAT ARE LOCATED AT LOCATIONS THAT THE TRANSMISSION IS PLANNED TO SERVE FOR WILL GET SERVED AND LOADS THAT ARE IN NOT GREAT SPOTS ON THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM WILL NEED A, A NEW SOLUTION OR THEY'RE THE ONES THAT'LL GET ALLOCATED DOWN. I AGREE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THAT'S JUST A REALLY IMPORTANT NUANCE WHEN WE KIND OF TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT IS, YOU KNOW, TO ME THE TEPA PROPOSAL KIND OF SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GONNA PREVENT THE REALLY VALID ISSUE THAT CLAYTON AND CHO HAS BROUGHT UP OF THEIR RPG GETTING ALLOCATED TO OTHER LOADS. SO I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, A REALLY IMPORTANT ASPECT. IF WE MAKE SURE THAT THE RPGS THAT ARE OUT THERE TODAY GO WITH THE LOADS THAT THEY'RE MEANT TO SERVE, SO WE'RE NOT HAVING THIS CONVERSATION AGAIN DURING THE BATCH ONE CONVERSATION. SO THANKS. OKAY, GRANT, I, YEAH. CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? YEP. YEP. GREAT. UM, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY MARTHA'S POSITION FOR ENCORE ON THIS. I, I, I THINK I HEARD SHE'S SYMPATHETIC TO LOADS THAT WERE IN THEIR, UH, SERVICE TERRITORY THAT WEREN'T STUDIED. HOWEVER, UH, ENCORE SUPPORTS THE ERCOT PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED. IS, IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT'S CORRECT. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO MOVE BATCH FORWARD IN A WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT ERCOT AND THE COMMISSION VISUALIZE AND THEREFORE WE WILL BE VOTING NOTE ANY PROPOSALS THAT INCLUDE EDITS THAT ERCO STATES THEY OPPOSE IF WE EVER ACTUALLY GET A MOTION. THANKS. SURE. UM, IS ENCORE INTERESTED IN, UH, NET GENERATION IN ITS SERVICE TERRITORY TO SERVE RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LOADS? IS THAT A, DOES ENCORE SEE THAT AS A BENEFIT AND AN, YOU KNOW, UPSIDE TO CERTAIN TIER ONE PROJECTS? I'M NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. MAYBE YOU CAN JUST MAKE A POINT AND WE CAN MOVE ON. NO, NO, THAT'S OKAY. UM, SO I THINK I WILL LEAVE IT THERE. [07:10:01] THANK YOU. OKAY. BOB WHITMEYER? YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK FOR CLARITY, THE MARCH 17TH DAY, BECAUSE I JUST JUST LOOKED IT UP. MARCH 17TH WAS THE RPG MEETING. APRIL 20TH WAS THE DATE THE BOARD APPROVED THE MEET THE PROJECTS FROM THAT MARCH 17TH MEETING. SO I THINK THAT MIGHT HELP CLARIFY SOME THINGS. THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION, THE PROJECTS COMING OUT OF THIS, THE WILL GO INTO BATCH, RIGHT? NOT THE TRANSMISSION PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED IN APRIL ARE PART OF WHAT THE BATCH SYSTEM WILL RUN ON. RIGHT. I'M GETTING A COUPLE OF S THIS SHOULD BE PART OF THE BASE CASE. UH, I'M SORRY. THEY WILL BE PART OF THE BASE CASE. YEAH. OKAY. SO IT IS A LITTLE BIT WEIRD THAT THE PROJECTS THAT JUSTIFIED THE TRANSMISSION DON'T EVEN GET AN ALLOCATION OF TRANSMISSION. THAT'S KIND OF WEIRD, BUT I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THANKS. OKAY. OKAY, SAM, I WAS JUST GONNA CLARIFY FOR THE PROJECTS THAT WERE LOOKING TO BE STUDIED AND ALLOCATED AS WL PUN AND PCLR, THEY COULD HAVE A ZERO MEGAWATT ALLOCATION UNTIL YEAR SIX. SO THOSE PROJECTS COULD REALLY WEAR THE BURDEN OF, YOU KNOW, LACKING INCREMENTAL DELIVERABILITY UNTIL THAT FINAL YEAR. OKAY. BROTH? YES, I, UH, I JUST WANT TO ECHO WHAT SHANNON SAID ABOUT IF THE DATE MOVES. AND THAT MEANS ALL THE STUDIES THAT HAVE ARE FOR, BEEN VALIDATING THE LOADS FOR BASE LOAD ELIGIBILITY NOW GETS INVALIDATED. THAT'S GOING TO BE EXTREMELY, IT'S GOING TO CREATE AN UNCERTAINTY IN TERMS OF INVESTMENTS BECAUSE THESE LOADS HAVE TAKEN ERCOT STATION OF ELIGIBLE FOR BASE LOAD AND STARTED CONSTRUCTION AND TENANT AND OTHER THINGS. SO NOW IF IT'S GOING TO GO BACK TO SQUARE ONE, THAT'S GOING TO PLAY A HUGE IMPACT. SO JUST WANT TO VOICE OUT MY CONCERN ON THAT. WE ARE BACK TO BILL BARNES. ALL RIGHT. FEELING SOME CONCERNS, WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION. SO LET'S MIX SOME CHANGES. UH, COULD WE PUT MARCH 17TH BACK TO MARCH 4TH AND SCROLL UP BACK TO 9.2? YEP. UH, ONE UP THERE, COREY. OKAY. TRYING TO EVALUATE JEFF, THE LEVEL OF DISCOMFORT BETWEEN ALLOWING MORE STUDIED LOADS IN THROUGH THIS SECTION OR THE UCS COMMENTS, WHICH I THINK ARE MUCH MORE LIMITED AND REALLY FOCUS ON PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR YEARS, WHICH I THINK IS COMPLETELY FAIR. AND SO I WOULD STRIKE ROMAN AT THREE. AND THIS DOES HAVE THE ERCOT FIVE 18 COMMENTS IN, CORRECT? YES. THAT'S WHAT I WAS DOING DURING THE DISCUSSION DOWN HERE. AND THAT BATCH OF LIME GREEN TEXT WAS THE CONTENT OF THE, THIS, THIS WAS THE CLARIFICATION LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THE THANK YOU. FIVE 18 OR CUT COMMENTS. SO THIS WOULD BE I PART OF THE DESKTOP EDIT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE DESK EDITS. OKAY. YEAH. CAN WE WHAT? SORRY, CAN YOU QUICKLY GO THROUGH WHAT WE, WE MOVED THE MARCH 17TH DATE BACK TO MARCH 4TH, WHICH SEEMED TO HAVE THE MOST, LOOKING AT JEFF'S FACIAL FEATURES, THERE WAS MORE EXPRESSIONS, AGONY FEATURES STAY THE SAME ON THAT SUBJECT. AND ALSO THE AMOUNT OF STUDIED LOAD. WE LET, WE LET IN WHICH THE A EP COMMENTS, UH, WERE THE BIGGEST CATEGORY. SO WE'RE MAKING THIS EVEN MORE LIMITED. OKAY. AND THEN WHAT DID WE, JUST STRIKE WHAT I JUST SAID. OKAY. IS THERE A WAY TO, I BELIEVE THERE IS, IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU COULD JUST SHOW US THE REVISIONS FOR TODAY'S DESKTOP EDIT? OKAY, THAT'S THE MICROPHONE. THESE ARE, THESE DESKTOP EDITORS ARE ON ELO, ELO E LOW X, UM, EOL, [07:15:01] UM, COMMENTS? YES. SO, WHICH ARE NOT S COMMENTS. YEAH. CORRECT. SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE ROLLED UP INTO THE MAY 18TH, UH, EIC COMMENTS. OKAY. AGAIN, EIC USE THAT AS THE BASIS, THEY MAY HAVE STRUCK THINGS THAT OTHER COMMENTERS WISH THEY HADN'T, BUT THIS WAS ALL BUILT ON TOP OF THIS LITANY OF COMMENTS, INCLUDING THE ERCO FIVE 15, THE FIVE 15. SO THEY DON'T HAVE ERCO FIVE 18, BUT WE ALREADY DID THAT. I THINK THAT WAS THE DESKTOP EDITS. THAT WAS ONE OF THE DESKTOP EDITS THAT WE ADDED IN. OKAY. NOW IT'S THE STRIKING OF THE PARAGRAPH THAT BILL JUST WALKED THROUGH. OKAY. RESTORATION OF SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THE RELIANT COMMENTS THAT HAD BEEN STRUCK SLIDING THIS DATE FROM JUNE 12TH BACK TO JUNE 5TH. OKAY. AND THE ERCOT AND THEN CASE COMMENTS. THIS IS THE ERCOT FIVE 18 COMMENTS, THE CLARIFYING HOW THE WATERFALL OF EVALUATION WOULD GO. OKAY. OKAY. SO THAT WAS THE MOTION. THAT'S THE MOTION. THAT'S THE MOTION. WE NEED A SECOND. I NED SECOND FROM NED. OKAY. I'M GOING TO KEEP GOING THROUGH THIS QUEUE. UM, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MOTION BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE, THEN LET'S MAKE SURE WE GET THAT ALL CLARIFIED. UH, LET'S GO TO JEFF. YEAH, THAT IT WON'T, IT'S LATE. I WON'T BELABOR IT. I'LL JUST SAY FOR THE REASONS WE'VE STATED, WE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS. OKAY. BLAKE, BLAKE HOLT, LCRA. BILL, I, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF THIS. UH, WE'RE JUST UNCOMFORTABLE WITH INCREASING COMPLEXITY AT THIS TIME AND INTRODUCING ANYTHING THAT COULD, YOU KNOW, DELAY THE PROCESS. SO WE'RE GONNA BE A NO. GIDEON. YES. UM, MARTHA, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK ENCORE FOR A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR THE RECORD, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE INTERACTION BETWEEN ERCOT REVIEWING TIMING, TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND TRANSITION IMPLEMENTATION DURING THE PERIOD IN WHICH THE SOUTH DALLAS RPG AND RTP TRANSMISSION PROJECTS WERE UNDERGOING ERCOT REVIEW AND TRANSITION IMPLEMENTATION. DID ENCORE CONTINUE ADVANCING F FAS WERE OTHER LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION ACTIVITY WITHIN SOUTH DALLAS OR ELSEWHERE ON THE ERCOT SYSTEM INVOLVING PROJECTS THAT WERE ADVANCED IN RELIANCE UPON OVERLAPPING TRANSMISSION PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS, INFRASTRUCTURE, TIMING OR SYSTEM CAPABILITY MATERIALLY INFORMED BY THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTING SOUTH DALLAS LOADS? AND IF SO, HOW SHOULD TAC AND ERCOT CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THAT SEQUENCING AND COMPARATIVE ADVANCEMENT ON THE ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTING SOUTH DALLAS LOADS THAT MATERIALLY PARTICIPATED IN AND FORMED AND RELIED UPON THE UNDERLYING TRANSMISSION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IN THE FIRST PLACE? IS THAT, I THINK I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE QUESTIONING OF ONE OTHER STAKEHOLDER, BUT LI LIZ CAN CERTAINLY SPEAK FOR HERSELF, BUT I, I THINK THE, THE RECORD HERE IS, IS NOT TO CROSS EXAMINE ONE, ONE STAKEHOLDER ALL TSPS, SORRY. OR EXAMINE ONE STAKEHOLDER. SORRY. SO RESPECTFULLY, GIDEON, I THINK THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE A STATEMENT IN THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. AND SO I RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT. ENCORE IS NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, LET'S GO TO SHANNON. SHE WITHDRAW ME. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO GRANT. UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO COMMENT THAT WE SUPPORT BILL'S PROPOSAL, UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAD A LOOK, , WE MADE A REQUEST YEARS AGO. UM, AND, UH, WE THINK IT'S A, IT'S A TIER ONE SITE AND UH, THERE THERE'S BEEN LIMITED ACTION ON IT. AND UM, SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE'RE SUPPORTING, UH, RELIANCE PROPOSAL. UM, AND WE THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY'S HARD WORK. WE KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A SLOG. IT HAS BEEN OVER HERE TOO. THANK YOU. RIGHT. ARE YOU GONNA CALL THE QUESTION IAN? [07:20:02] NO, GO AHEAD. SO ACTUALLY, UM, KYLE, I WON'T CALL THE QUESTION IF YOU WERE HOPING TO SPEAK, BUT MY PLAN WAS TO SAY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TAC HAS TO VOTE SOMETHING OUT. UM, I SAID AT, WHEN WE FIRST GOT THIS THAT I WAS VERY, UM, IT'S A VERY HIGH BURDEN ON US, UM, THAT THE COMMISSION AGREED TO ALLOW US AS TAC AS STAKEHOLDERS TO GET SOMETHING TO THEM ON THIS TIMELINE. AND I THINK THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART. UM, I DO LIKE BILL'S CONCEPT, BUT IF IT FAILS, I WILL IMMEDIATELY BE TURNING AROUND AND VOTING FOR THE ERCOT COMMENTS. UM, KYLE, I WON'T CALL THE QUESTION. I'LL LET YOU GO. AND IF THERE'S ANY OTHER ERCOT TAC MEMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU KNOW, PLEASE, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS. THANK YOU. KYLE MIN PEREZ ELECTRIC. THANK YOU, IAN. UM, I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR BILL. UH, I KNOW, I, I WANT TO, I REALLY APPRECIATE BILL'S, UH, HIS SUPPORT OF UC. S'S COMMENTS, UH, TO, TO THIS PROCESS. I, I, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, AND, AND LOOKING AT THIS LANGUAGE, WE'VE BEEN TWEAKING IT QUITE A BIT. IS THE CURRENT VERSION THAT YOU HAVE A NOMINATION FOR, IS IT MORE OR LESS RESTRICTIVE THAN THE UCS VERSION? IT IS THE US UUCS VERSION. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. AT THE, UH, RISK OF IAN BEING MAD AT ME, IF WE'RE READY FOR THE VOTE, I WOULD SUGGEST WE TAKE A COUPLE MINUTES SO I CAN BE CLEAR WITH COREY ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY ELSE IS CLEAR. 'CAUSE WE'VE MADE A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, THE COMMENTS WE STARTED WITH INCORPORATED FIVE OTHER PARTIES, COMMENTS, AND THEN WE MADE FOUR DESKTOP EDITS. SO I'D LIKE TO TAKE A COUPLE MINUTES, LET PEOPLE TALK TO EACH OTHER, TALK TO COREY, COME BACK, TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, AND, AND THEN GO, IS THAT, IS THAT OKAY? BEFORE WE GO THROUGH WHAT THE EDITS ARE FOR THE GROUP, LET'S TAKE A, PEOPLE WANTED A COUPLE MINUTES. OKAY. SHANNON, DO YOU, DID YOU HAVE ONE LAST COMMENT BEFORE WE DO THAT, I DID HAVE ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION. UM, KYLE JUST ASKED, UH, TO BILL, IF WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS MORE RESTRICTIVE OR THE SAME AS WHAT UCS HAD, COULD WE GO TO THAT SECTION, UM, WHERE IT HAS THE UCS COMMENTS? SO IT'S IN 9.2 0.1 0.2. YEAH. UM, I THINK IT'S UP JUST A LITTLE BIT. HMM. WELL, WHILE WE'RE LOOKING FOR IT, I THOUGHT IT WAS NARROWED FROM UCS IN THAT, OR DID YOU UNSTR THAT? YOU'RE RIGHT THERE. COREY, LIKE HALF A PAGE. SCROLL UP. THERE YOU GO. IT'S THE, IT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT RELIANT HAD IN DE STRUCK. SO IT'S BACK TO THE ORIGINAL UCS VERSION. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. OKAY. STAY IN THE ROOM, BUT LET'S, LET'S PLAN TO VOTE IN FIVE MINUTES. [07:29:37] COME BACK PLEASE. LET'S VOTE. YES, SORRY. OKAY, WE HAVE A [07:30:01] MOTION AND A SECOND THERE THAT GO BACK. CORY, PLEASE, PLEASE. THEY'RE THE ELI COMMENTS, WHICH WERE THESE CHANGES BASE, BASICALLY, RIGHT? FORMATTING ERROR, TIPPE, UNITED COOPERATIVE SERVICE, COMMENTS, RELIANT COMMENTS, FISHER COMMENTS, TVA COMMENTS, AND, BUT THE RELIANT COMMENTS, WE MOVED THE DATE BACK A WEEK, EARLIER A WEEK, SO IT WOULD BE LESS PROJECTS. WE DELETED A PARAGRAPH THAT YOU LIKE ADDED AND THEN THERE WAS LANGUAGE FROM RELIANT COMMENTS THAT EIC DELETED THAT WE UNDELETED, AND THEN WE ALSO ADDED THE CHANGES FROM ERCOT MAY 18TH COMMENTS. AND WE'RE READY FOR A VOTE. COREY, WHAT'S TAKING SO LONG? I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE MOVER AND THE SECONDER UNDERSTAND THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE MOTION. THIS, I KNOW THIS IS WHAT BILL MEANT. SO IT'S THE FIVE SEVEN ROSS REPORT AS AMENDED BY THE FIVE 18 EOLA COMMENTS AS REVISED BY ATTACK AND THE FIVE 18 REVISED IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT WE LOOKED AT. AND THIS WILL BE TRUE FOR ANY MOTION. SO THIS IS PRE-DISCUSSION FOR IF, IF THIS DOESN'T PASS AND WE NEED TO RUN THROUGH THIS AGAIN, IT'LL BE THE SAME SONG AND DANCE. SO THE REVISED IA HAS THE LANGUAGE SPLIT OUT SUCH THAT, UM, THE BATCH ZERO AND PUN AND WL PUN LANGUAGE CAN GO IN RIGHT AWAY, START THE PROCESS. THE PCLR STUFF, AS IT'S BEEN REITERATED AT VARIOUS OTHER WORKSHOPS, IS DEPENDENT ON 1188 AND OTHER PROJECT WORK. SO THERE IS A PROJECT COMPONENT TO THE PCLR STUFF WHILE THE BATCH ZERO AND WL PUN STUFF CAN GO IN, UM, RIGHT AFTER PUC APPROVAL. SO IN ORDER IS, THAT'S, THAT SPELLED OUT THIS WAY IN THE REVISED IA. SO TO ACHIEVE THAT WITH YOUR MOTION, YOU'D TACK ON A RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE DATE OF DAY FOLLOWING PUC APPROVAL FOR BATCH ZERO AND WL PUN AND UPON SYSTEM LIMITATION FOR PCLR WITH A RECOMMENDED PRIORITY FROM TROY OF 2027 AND RANK OF FOUR 50, WHICH I BELIEVE IS JUST THE NEXT ONE IN LINE AND THE REGULATORY BUCKET. SO NOT CUTTING AHEAD OF ANYTHING ELSE, BUT, OKAY. SO IF THAT'S WHAT THE MOTION THE SECONDER WANTED, JILL AND NED, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED? AS ALWAYS, COREY, APPRECIATE YOUR ASSISTANCE. THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY. SO WE WILL RUN THROUGH THIS AND SEE HOW IT SHAKES OUT STARTING UP WITH THE CONSUMERS. GARRETT. NO, SIR. THANKS SIR. MIKE? NO, THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS. NO, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NICK FEHRENBACH. I'M OH, THANK YOU BETH. UH, NO THANK YOU, UH, SARAH FOR WILL NO THANK YOU. ONTO THE CO-OPS BLAKE. NO, THANK YOU. KYLE. YES. THANK YOU, JOHN. NO, THANK YOU. THANK YOU JOE, DAN FOR MIKE? YES. THANK YOU, COREY, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS. NED? YES. THANK YOU, COREY. THANK YOU BRIAN. UH, YES. THANK YOU. BOB HELTON? YES, SIR. SIR KAITLIN? NO, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR IPMS. JEREMY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU IAN FOR SETH? YES. THANK YOU, IAN. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU SHANE FOR RASHMI, UH, ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. ONTO THE IRS BILL. YES. YES. THANK YOU. AND THE BILL FOR J DOUBLE S. YES. THANK YOU, CHRIS. NO, THANK YOU. AND JEN? NO. Q ONTO OUR IOUS IS MARTHA. NO, THANK YOU. AND THEN MARTHA FOR KEITH? NO, THANK YOU AARON. NO, THANK YOU. AND DAVID FOR ABBY. NO, THANK YOU. ONTO OUR MUNIS. ALICIA? NO, THANK YOU. THANK YOU JOSE. NO, THANK YOU. CURTIS. NO, THANK YOU. AND DIANA FOR DAVID. NO, THANK YOU. MOTION FAILS. 34% IN FAVOR. 66 OPPOSED? ONE ABSTENTION. OKAY. LOOKS LIKE A RACE. UH, IAN, I THINK YOU'RE MAYBE FIRST, BUT YOU'RE FIRST ENOUGH. THANK YOU. UM, I DON'T GET TO MAKE MOTIONS A LOT, SO I WOULD [07:35:01] LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FIVE 18 ERCOT COMMENTS WITH WHATEVER ELSE COREY WANTS TO SAY IS IN THE MOTION. OKAY. I THINK BOB WAS TRYING TO SECOND THAT OR MAKE THE MOTION ALSO. BOB. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE STILL, UH, SHANNON, QUICK QUESTION. WOULD ERCOT BE OPEN TO THE PORTION OF OUR EDITS THAT FIXED THE FORMATTING ERROR AND CLARIFIED THE, UH, TIPPET LANGUAGE AND THE COMMERCIAL BEST EFFORTS PART OF WHAT RE RELIANT HAD THOSE SEEM LIKE REALLY LOW HURDLES THAT WE WOULD WANT TO INCLUDE? UM, ERCOT CAUCUSING. GOOD WORD. I CAN REPEAT THAT IF NEEDED. DID YOU HEAR SHANNON'S QUESTION? NO, I DID NOT. SORRY. OKAY, GO AHEAD SHANNON. I SAID, WOULD ERCOT BE OPEN TO THE PORTIONS OF OUR EDITS THAT WAS CORRECTING THE FORMAT ERROR THAT WE POINTED OUT IN NUMBER ONE WHERE IT WAS MISSING A CARRIAGE RETURN NUMBER TWO WAS FURTHER CLARIFYING ON THE TIP AT PIECE THAT WHAT YOU HAD STATED IN THE LAST MEETING THAT Y'ALL INTEND TO DO A SPECIAL BATCH ZERO TIP IT. SO RATHER THAN SAYING LATEST, IT POINTS TO THAT, AND THEN INSTEAD OF EVER DEFAULTING TO 2034, IT DEFAULTS TO WHAT'S IN THE LCP. AND THEN YOU FOLLOW UP WITH THE TSP TO CLARIFY. AND THEN THE THIRD THING WAS RELIANCE TRYING TO CREATE A SAFE HARBOR. WE WATERED THAT DOWN, BUT PUT IT TO WHERE IT WOULD BE ERCOT MAKES COMMERCIAL REASONABLE EFFORTS. YOU'RE JUST TRYING, THAT'S ALL IT'S STATING. WOULD Y'ALL BE OPEN TO THOSE THREE THINGS TO YOUR FIVE 18? SO I, UM, I THINK IF THERE ARE ANY TYPOS, UM, I'M GONNA LOOK TO COREY WHEN HE'S DONE TALKING, UM, ON THAT. I, I THINK THE OTHER ONES, I, I THINK THAT WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH OUR LANGUAGE. WE THINK THAT GIVES US THE LATITUDE THAT WE NEED. UM, AND SO I WOULD SAY I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH ANY ADDITIONAL EDITS. AND THEN CORY, I, I DID NOT SEE THE TYPO. THE, THE CARRIAGE RETURN ISSUE. THE CARRIAGE RETURN ISSUE WAS GENERATED IN EVERYONE'S COMMENTS WHO ALLOWS THE AUTOMATED NUMBERING WITHIN WORD TO START INSERTING ALL SORTS OF RANDOM FORMATTING. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M FIGHTING AGAINST AT 11:45 PM EVERY NIGHT TO TAKE OUT . SO IT WILL AND BE CORRECTED AS EVERY REVISION REQUEST IS. SO THERE IS ABSOLUTELY ZERO NEED FOR A VOTING BODY TO VOTE ON A CARRIAGE RETURN. YOU HAVE PROPERLY LABELED ALL OF YOUR PARAGRAPHS. THEY WILL BE PROPERLY ALIGNED WHEN AND IF THIS THING EVER CROSSES THE FINISH LINE. SO DO NOT WORRY ABOUT THAT. THANKS, COREY. ARE YOU OKAY HANGING IN THERE, BUD? ALL RIGHT. WHO, WELL, WHY DO I HAVE B BILL? I THINK IT'S, IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE BARNES? YEAH, YOUR NAME IS CHANGED. BILL, BILL, ARE YOU TRYING TO SPEAK? I WAS THINKING WE COULD COME BACK IN THE MORNING AND DO A COMMENT BALLOT. I HAVE B BILL. I HAVE BOB BILL OR SOMEONE BARNES. BILL, I'M, I'M GOOD WITH THE MOTION. APPRECIATE THE WORK ON THIS. YOU'RE OKAY WITH THE MOTION? OKAY. SO THIS LOOKS AMAZINGLY SIMILAR TO THE MOTION Y'ALL JUST VOTED ON, BUT NOW INSTEAD OF FIVE 18 IC AS REVISED BY ATTACK WITH JUST BACK TO CLASSIC FIVE 18 ERCOT COMMENTS AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME. WONDERFUL. NED. UM, I DID WANT TO ASK IF I CAN, UH, ASK FOR A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT JUST TO INCLUDE THE, UH, MINISTERIAL JEFF IS BEHIND YOU, JEFF, THE MINISTERIAL, UH, PART OF VISTA'S COMMENTS JUST TO ALLOW THE, UM, THE 9.7 DISCLOSURES THROUGH, UH, THE COMMISSION PROCEEDING. IS THAT SOMETHING ERCOT WOULD BE CHRISTINA SWITZER ERCOT? UH, WE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE ONE PROCESS WHERE EVERYTHING'S COMING IN THROUGH THE PROCESS, THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS. WE WILL SET UP FOR PICKER 1 45 AND NOT HAVE TO COLLECT INFORMATION FROM ANOTHER PROCEEDING. SO WE'D LIKE TO KEEP THE LANGUAGE, SO TO THE MOTION OR I'M GUESSING ANSWER, I'M INTERPRETING THAT AS A VERY UNFRIENDLY, YEAH. OKAY. WELL, LIKE WE SAID IN OUR COMMENTS, UH, WE THINK THIS IS IN [07:40:01] A MUCH BETTER SPOT THAN IT WAS WHEN WE FIRST MET IN THESE HOLLOWED HALLS ON FEBRUARY 3RD. SO, UM, WE'RE COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THE MOTION. THANK YOU. OKAY, LET'S DO IT COREY. ALRIGHT. ON THIS MOTION WE WILL START OFF WITH THE CONSUMERS, WITH GARRETT. YES SIR. THANKS SIR. MIKE? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MARK DREYFUS. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, SIR. NICK? YES. I'M SORRY NICK. THAT WAS A NO, THAT WAS A YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. SORRY. I'M SORRY I'M END OF THE DAY. BETH. YES, THANK YOU, SIR. FOR WILL? YES. THANK YOU. ONTO THE CO-OPS, BLAKE? YES. THANK YOU, KYLE. YES, THANK YOU COREY. THANK YOU JOHN. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU JOE, DAN FOR MIKE ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. ONTO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, NED. AYE. THANK YOU COREY. THANK YOU BRIAN. YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BOB HILTON. YES, SIR. THANK YOU SIR. CAITLIN? YES, THANK YOU. ONTO THE IPMS. JEREMY? YES, THANK YOU. THANK YOU IAN FOR SETH. YES AND YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH COREY. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU SHANE FOR REMI. YES SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. ONTO THE IRES BILL. YES, THANK YOU. AND BILL FOR J? YES, THANK YOU, CHRIS. YES, THANK YOU JEN. YES, THANK YOU. ONTO THE IOUS. MARTHA? YES, THANK YOU MARTHA FOR KEITH? YES, THANK YOU. AARON. YES, THANK YOU DAVID FOR EBY. YES, THANK YOU. ANDRA. MUNIS, ALICIA? YES. THANK YOU JOSE. YES, THANK YOU CURTIS. YES, THANK YOU AND DIANA FOR DAVID. YES. THANK YOU CORY. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. UNOPPOSED ONE. ABSTENTION ONE. OKAY. DON'T PACK UP. UM, NO PACK UP. UM, BUT [12. Other Business] QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S NEXT? YOU KNOW, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS. THERE ARE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO YOU TO WAIT TO CONTINUE TO WEIGH IN ON ERCOT PRESENTATION A FEW HOURS AGO. I BELIEVE IT WAS SLIDE SEVEN. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY SAID TO REACH OUT TO THE, THE GENERAL COUNSEL. AND I WILL NOTE THOUGH, WE ARE ON A TIGHT TIMELINE. THE, THE BOARD MEETING IS JUNE 1ST AND SECOND. THEY'D LIKE TO HAVE MATERIALS A WEEK AHEAD. SO A COMMENTS THAT WANT TO BE HEARD AT THE BOARD OR APPEARANCES THAT WANT TO BE HAD AT THE BOARD NEED TO BE SQUARED AWAY VERY SOON. AS ALWAYS, ANN ASK FOR NO VOTE REASONS, BUT THERE WERE NO, NO VOTES, SO SHE WON'T ASK FOR ANYTHING. UM, BUT WE JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. I DO HAVE ONE OTHER BUSINESS ITEM THAT I'M SURE PEOPLE WILL LOVE TO HEAR RIGHT NOW. UM, WE DO NOT HAVE A JUNE TAC MEETING PLANNED. HOWEVER, BATCH ONE OR BATCH N IS COMING OUR WAY. EERS SOME SOMETHING ERS IS COMING OUR WAY. DEMAND RESPONSE CONTINUES TO COME OUR WAY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO FLOAT THE IDEA OF A, UM, WEBEX ONLY COUPLE HOUR JUNE MEETING. I KNOW BLAKE IS HAVING A BIG WS MEETING ON JUNE 3RD, LORELEI'S NOT WEDDING. AND SO IF WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A JUNE TECH MEETING, TWO HOURS VIA WEBEX TO GET THROUGH THINGS COMING OUT OF WMS AND PRS, UM, THINK ABOUT IT. I CAN TALK TO MARTHA AND ANNE AND SUBCOMMITTEE LEADERSHIP, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO NOT BE IN THIS SITUATION IN AUGUST BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER BOARD MEETING WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE THREE TAC MEETINGS IN AUGUST. SO I WANNA PUT THAT IDEA OUT THERE. THAT SOUNDS GREAT. I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT. AND IT'S BETTER THAN MY IDEA THAT WE START BATCH ZERO TOMORROW SINCE WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED . OKAY, SO, SO ANN AND I WILL LOOK AT AT DATES, BUT WE WOULD DO THAT WEBEX ONLY. YOU CAN DO THAT FROM YOUR VACATION. UH, WE'LL TRY TO KEEP IT SHORT. IT'S UP TO, TO BLAKE AND WHAT COMES OUT OF WMS. DAVID, CAN YOU MAKE EBY COME IN PERSON? , I YOU'RE PERMANENT FIXTURE NOW YOU ARE HAVING MORE FUN THAN THE IOU SEGMENTS EVER HAD. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE PERMANENT ATTACK NOW AND WE'LL SEND OUT A NOTICE THAT TOMORROW MEETING'S CANCELED. WE'LL SEND OUT A NOTICE THAT TOMORROW, MEETING'S CAN TOMORROW MEETING. TOMORROW'S MEETING IS CANCELED. UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL EBY TO SHOW UP TOMORROW. HE'S ON VACATION. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. HE'S ON VACATION. IT'S OKAY. YOU'LL SURVIVE. [07:45:01] YOU DID A GREAT JOB. HE WENT TO NEW YORK. ALRIGHT, SO NO MEETING TOMORROW. UH, WEBEX ONLY MEETING IN JUNE. PROBABLY GO TO BLAKE'S JUNE 3RD MEETING. UM, WE ACHIEVED CLOSURE AND WE CROSSED THE RUBICON AND NOBODY HAD TO CALL THE QUESTION. THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT. NO JUNE 3RD WEDDINGS. NO JUNE 3RD WEDDINGS. AND THANK YOU COREY AND ANN AND JEFF AND MATT AND A BUNCH OF OTHER ERUPT PEOPLE. SUSIE ALWAYS SUSIE. * 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.