[00:00:03] ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS SUSIE CLIFTON WITH ERCOT. COULD SOMEONE CONFIRM THEY CAN HEAR US ON THE WEBEX? WE CAN HEAR YOU. THANK YOU. IF I COULD GET EVERYBODY TO TAKE THEIR SEATS IN THE ROOM, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. I'M GOING TO BEGIN WITH THE MEETING ROOM REMINDERS. IF YOU'RE HERE TODAY IN THE MEETING ROOM OR YOU ARE ON THE WEBEX, WE ARE USING THE CHAT TO QUEUE FOR MOTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS. IF YOU'RE HERE IN THE ROOM, BRITTANY CAN PLACE YOU IN THE CHAT IF YOU HOLD UP YOUR CARD, OR YOU CAN ENTER YOURSELF IF YOU'RE IN THE WEBEX AS WE GET TO THE BALLOTING PROCESS, IF THOSE OF YOU ON THE WEBEX WOULD, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AS WE APPROACH YOUR SEGMENT THAT AND THEN RETURN TO THE MUTE FUNCTION AFTER YOU CAST YOUR VOTE, THAT WILL HELP US BE A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENT ON THE BALLOTING PROCESS. THOSE OF YOU HERE IN PERSON, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU SIGN IN TODAY AT THE SIGN IN SHEET OUTSIDE THE MEETING ROOM SO WE CAN CAPTURE THAT YOU'RE HERE IN PERSON. AND THEN THE FINAL REMINDER, IF THE WEBEX ENDS FOR ANY REASON, GIVE US A FEW MINUTES, WE'LL RESTART THE WEBEX. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO LOG IN WITH THE SAME MEETING INFORMATION, AND IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO DO SO, WE WILL SEND SOMETHING TO THE LISTSERV WITH THAT. CAITLIN, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM AND ARE READY TO BEGIN WHEN YOU ARE. I'M NOT READY. OKAY. GOOD MORNING. WE ARE ON JULY 29TH. IT'S OUR REGULAR JULY MEETING. WE'RE IN PERSON. WE HAD A LONG BREAK. 11 WEEKS, TEN WEEKS. WE HAD A VERY LONG BREAK. AND I THINK THAT WAS GOOD. AND WE ARE BACK AND I THINK WE'LL LIKE EACH OTHER BETTER. AND IT MAY BE A QUICK MEETING. SO WE'LL DO THE ANTITRUST FIRST. [1. Antitrust Admonition] IT'S ON THE SCREEN TO AVOID RAISING. WE LIKE EACH OTHER BETTER. BETH, I JINXED IT. IT'LL BE FINE TO AVOID RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT ANTITRUST LIABILITY, PARTICIPANTS IN ERCOT ACTIVITIES SHOULD REFRAIN FROM PROPOSING ANY ACTION OR MEASURE THAT WOULD EXCEED OR CUTS AUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. DO WE HAVE EVERYONE? MUTED MICROPHONE? YEAH. OKAY. IF YOU'RE HERE IN THE MEETING ROOM, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR MIC IS OFF. ARE WE GOOD NOW? NO, IT'S AN INDIVIDUAL THAT'S GOT. CLAYTON. YES. YES. YEAH. OKAY. I THINK YOU'RE GOOD TO GO NOW. OKAY. ART REPS, PROXIES, AND NEWLY SEATED MEMBERS AND THE COMMERCIAL CONSUMER SEGMENT, WE HAVE CHRIS BREWSTER, CITY OF EASTLAND. HE IS NEWLY SEATED. WE MARK DREYFUS WILL NOT BE ON TAC ANYMORE. HE RETIRED. I DON'T THINK HE WANTED ME TO SAY THAT OUT LOUD. I THOUGHT ABOUT GETTING COOKIES WITH HIS FACE ON THEM, BUT I DID NOT. SO, MARK, IF YOU'RE LISTENING OR IF ANYBODY TEXTS MARK, TELL HIM HE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR NO COOKIES WITH HIS FACE ON THEM. BUT WE WE APPRECIATE MARK'S YEARS OF SERVICE. FOR ME, HE WAS A REALLY GOOD FRIEND AND MENTOR AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE SO. BUT WE'LL MISS HIM AT TAC. BUT WELCOME CHRIS, WHO I THINK IS ON THE PHONE TODAY. INDEPENDENT POWER MARKETER SEGMENT RESUME FROM SHELL HAS GIVEN HER OUT REP TO SHANE THOMAS. SHANE'S A FAMILIAR FACE FOR US. SETH FROM VITOL HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO SHANE THOMAS. SO SHANE IS VERY POWERFUL TODAY IN THE INDEPENDENT RETAIL SEGMENT. BILL BARNES HAS GIVEN HIS PROXY TO JENNIFER. UNTIL IF HE IS ABLE TO JOIN I BELIEVE HE'S AT THE CAPITOL. AND THEN CHRIS HENDRICKS HAS ALSO GIVEN HIS PROXY TO JENNIFER. SO TWO VERY POWERFUL PEOPLE ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROOM. DAVID KEY IN THE MUNICIPAL SEGMENT FROM CPS HAS DIANA COLEMAN, ANOTHER FAMILIAR FACE FOR US. ALL RIGHT. THEME OF THE MONTH. IT WAS MY SEGMENT'S TURN. WE HAD A LOT OF BAD SUGGESTIONS. SO MY FIRST SUGGESTION WAS, WILL MOM TALK SURVIVE THIS? I DON'T THINK ANYONE WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT. ERIN. MAYBE SHE'S NOT HERE. IT SOUNDS LIKE JENNIFER DID. YES. EVERYBODY NAMED JENNIFER IN THE ROOM UNDERSTOOD IT. AND THEN NED WANTED POLITE WAYS TO TELL HIMSELF TO SHUT THE F UP. BOB HILTON WANTED ALICE IN WONDERLAND, AND THEN BRIAN SIMMS AND I MADE THE EXECUTIVE DECISION THAT IT WOULD BE SUPERLATIVES. [00:05:09] MOST. THE ONE HE LIKED WAS MOST LIKELY TO BE A DISNEY ADULT. BUT YOU CAN DO ANY SUPERLATIVE YOU WANT. PROBABLY ABOUT YOURSELF. MAYBE NOT NAME CALLING UNLESS WE KNOW IT IS A COMPLIMENT, BUT WE WILL SEE HOW THAT GOES NEXT MONTH. KEITH. KEITH. WE HAVE AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER. KEITH IS GOING TO DO OUR AUGUST THEME. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN FOR SCHEDULING, WE KNOW THERE IS A VERY IMPORTANT SENATE BNC MEETING HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE STATE OF THE MARKET REPORT WITH JEFF AT THE END OF THE AGENDA. BUT I THINK WE'LL ALL CHECK IN WITH SOMEBODY. MAYBE BRIAN CAN HELP ME OUT OR SOMEBODY ON ON WHERE THEY ARE AND THE HEARING. HE'S ON PANEL FOUR, SO IF IT LOOKS LIKE HE'S NOT GOING TO MAKE IT, THEN WE'LL JUST RESCHEDULE THAT AND MAYBE GET OUT OF HERE EARLY. AND THEN I SAW CLAYTON'S NOTE. I THINK WE WILL DO BATCH ZERO PRESENTATION IN THE ORDER. IT'S ON THE AGENDA. AND POPCORN IS VERY EASY TO MAKE SO YOU CAN MAKE MORE LATER. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE REALLY GET STARTED? ALL RIGHT. FIRST UP, OUR MEETING MINUTES. WE HAVE THREE SETS OF MEETING MINUTES. [2. Approval of TAC Meeting Minutes (Vote)] WE HAVE APRIL 29TH, MAY 13TH, MAY 19TH. WE HAVE EDITS FROM VISTRA ON THE APRIL 29TH MEETING MINUTES. I THINK WE WANT TO PULL THESE UP. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT. NED, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK THROUGH THESE? SURE. HAPPY TO. I'M TRYING TO THINK OF A SUPERLATIVE TO EXPLAIN THE EXCELLENCE OF THESE THESE EDITS, BUT MOST LIKELY TO HAVE MEANING. MINUTE EDITS. OH, YEAH. NED IS DEFINITELY MOST LIKELY TO HAVE TO EDIT THE MINUTES. THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS IN HERE. FIRST IS CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THIS IS A COMMON JUST BEEN A COMMON IT'S A, I THINK SHORTHAND. SOMETIMES WE REFER TO A FLOOR PRICE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES. AND I THINK THAT'S EASILY MISINTERPRETED. SO I WANTED TO JUST BE VERY, VERY CLEAR IN THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN OFFER FLOOR PRICE OR A FLOOR PRICE, BUT RATHER THE BOTTOM OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVE. AS YOU ALL KNOW, THAT'S TYPICALLY ACTUALLY A, IT'S A SOFT CEILING ON THE THE OFFERS BECAUSE THEY WON'T CLEAR IF THEY GO ABOVE THAT UNLESS WE'RE GOING SHORT ON THE ACTUAL ANCILLARY SERVICE. SO TRYING TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT TO AVOID ANY ANY MISINTERPRETATION. SHOULD ANYBODY IN THE FUTURE GO BACK AND READ THESE. AND THEN THE OTHER PIECE IS ON THAT, THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT'S DOWN AT THE BOTTOM. YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSION THAT I THINK SEVERAL OF US WERE TRYING TO HAVE AT THAT MEETING WAS EXPRESSING CONCERNS WITH THE DOCTORS DESIGN IN PR 1309 AS NOT ACTUALLY BEING EFFECTIVE AT REDUCING RISKS AND NOT MEETING THE OTHER STATUTORY OBJECTIVES. AND SO THAT'S, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NEAR AND DEAR TO OUR HEARTS. AND SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD. DID WE SCROLL DOWN FAR ENOUGH TO SEE THAT PART? YES. IT'S RIGHT THERE AT THE TOP RIGHT. CAITLIN, IS THIS THE PART WHERE YOU NEED NED'S SUGGESTION OR I NEED WHAT? THE THEME OF THE DAY. YES, YES, THAT WOULD BE A BAD SUGGESTION, BUT THAT'S. THAT'S NOT NED'S SUGGESTION. NOT YET, NOT YET. GO AHEAD. KEITH. I THINK YOU'LL COVER WHAT I WANT TO ASK YOU, BUT GO AHEAD. I THINK THE WAY NED'S SORT OF MODIFICATION READS IS THAT IT ASSUMES THAT MAYBE. I THINK THE CORRECT THING IS FROM NED'S PERSPECTIVE. AND SOME OF THE PARTICIPANTS FELT IT WAS INEFFECTIVE. BUT MY SENSE WAS THAT THE DISCUSSION WAS PRIMARILY EITHER LIMITED TO THOSE. THOSE FEW THAT FELT IT WAS AN EFFECTIVE RATHER THAN. WELL, YEAH, WE ALL SAT AROUND AND DISCUSSED HOW INEFFECTIVE IT WAS VERSUS IT DID PASS. SO I ASSUME SOME FOLKS PROBABLY FELT THAT IT WAS EFFECTIVE. SO IT GIVES THE GIVES THE MISTAKEN VIEW THAT THAT WAS A MAJORITY POTENTIALLY. BUT THERE WAS DEFINITELY DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS INEFFECTIVE, EFFECTIVE OR INEFFECTIVE. AND SO THERE MAY BE A BETTER EDIT THAT CAPTURES THAT POTENTIALLY THAN WHAT YOU'VE OFFERED UP. PERHAPS WE COULD MODIFY THE BEGINNING OF THAT PARAGRAPH TO SAY SOME PARTICIPANTS DISCUSSED. SO THAT WAY WE'RE NOT IMPLYING THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS WERE TAKING THAT POINT OF VIEW. I THINK THAT'S A FAIR EASIER, BUT I WONDER IF WE NEED TO BIFURCATE THE ISSUES, BECAUSE I DO THINK WE DISCUSSED THE APPROPRIATE SHORTAGE [00:10:04] PRICE FLOORS AS A GROUP, RIGHT? I THINK WE VOTED ON TWO DIFFERENT ONES. WE DID. SO AFTER THE SOME A WORD BETWEEN AND AND THE AND AFTER THE COLON. RIGHT. AND SOME PARTICIPANTS DISCUSSED OR SOME SOME PARTICIPANTS RAISED. YEAH. PERIOD. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PARTICIPANTS ALSO DISCUSSED. SOME PARTICIPANTS. ALL PARTICIPANTS ALSO DISCUSSED. THAT WOULD BE A, I THINK, A FAIR WAY TO CUT IT. BETH, DO YOU HATE US? COREY? THESE ARE YOUR MINUTES. YOU'RE FREE TO EDIT THEM ON THE FLY. I GUESS JUST PUTTING SOME PARTICIPANTS SO THAT THE REST OF TAC WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION. AND THE REST OF TAC LEFT THE ROOM. KNOW THAT THE FIRST PART IS RIGHT. SO FROM FROM THE BEGINNING, PARTICIPANTS DISCUSS THE APPROPRIATE BLAH BLAH, BLAH PRICE FLOORS AND DURATIONS FOR DOCTORS RELATIVE TO OTHER ANCILLARY SERVICES, INCLUDING NON SPIN PERIOD AND SOME PARTICIPANTS RAISED, MAYBE RAISED INSTEAD OF DISCUSSED OR SOMETHING. YEAH. SOME PARTICIPANTS EXPRESSED CONCERN WITH QUESTIONED QUESTIONED THE EFFECTIVENESS AND MAYBE THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT. QUESTION THE EFFECTIVENESS OF REDUCING RUCK AS WELL AS MEETING OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. I'M OPEN TO OTHERS. I THINK EXPRESSED CONCERN WORKS TOO IF YOU PREFER THAT. I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD PREFER TO RETAIN THE EXPRESSION OF CONCERN WITH INEFFECTIVENESS, IF THAT'S OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. AND I ALSO WANT TO LOOK TO OTHER FOLKS THAT WERE ALSO IN THE DISSENTING SIDE TO SEE IF THAT MAKES SENSE. OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WHO ELSE WAS ON YOUR EMAIL? BLAKE. OTHER PEOPLE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT. IF THAT WORKS FOR KEITH, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU, KEITH? I WANTED TO CONFIRM BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SORT OF THE VERNACULAR ON THE PRICE, QUOTE UNQUOTE, PRICE FLOOR THAT THAT IT IT MAKES SENSE TO ERCOT TO JUST PUTTING A SDC AHEAD OF SHORTAGE PRICE FLOOR. YEAH. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONCERN WITH WITH THE A S D THE SHORTAGE FLOOR PRICE IS, I THINK, LOOKING AT OUR LANGUAGE THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE SAID. SO YEAH, THE OUR CONCERN WAS WITH THE IN AND THE NOT. AND I THINK THAT'S COMMENT SORT OF ISOLATES. YEAH. THANKS. SURE. OKAY. OKAY. IS EVERYBODY FINE WITH THESE. OKAY. AND THEN I I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY EDITS TO THE MAY 13TH OR MAY 19TH MINUTES. NO. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE ARE LOOKING TO APPROVE THE APRIL 29TH MEETING MINUTES. IS IT STILL JUST AS REVISED AS REVISED AND THE MAY 13TH AND MAY 19TH MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. CAN WE PUT THOSE ON THE COMBO BALLOT? YES. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. ON TO OUR MEETING UPDATES. [3. Meeting Updates] OR PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON BOARD AND PUC OPEN MEETINGS WHERE OUR REVISION REQUESTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED SINCE OUR LAST MEETING AT THE JUNE 1ST. AND FIRST AND SECOND BOARD MEETING. AND THE BOARD APPROVED ALL REVISION REQUESTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY TAC FROM OUR APRIL AND MAY MEETINGS. IS THAT RIGHT? IT WAS ALL YES. AND THEN THE PUC APPROVED THE BATCH ZERO REVISION REQUESTS AT THE JUNE 18TH OPEN MEETING, AND THEN THE REST OF THE REVISION REQUESTS AT THE JULY 9TH OPEN MEETING. COMMISSION STAFF. ERICA, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING IN THIS SECTION? AWESOME. OKAY, MOVING RIGHT ALONG. NEXT IS A REVIEW OF REVISION REQUEST SUMMARIES OR MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS. [4. Review of Revision Request Summary/ERCOT Market Impact Statement/Opinions] I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND IT'S OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE 18 REVISION REQUESTS THIS MONTH FOR CONSIDERATION. SEEMS LIKE A LOT, BUT EIGHT OF THOSE ARE GUIDE REVISIONS ALIGNING WITH NPR 1264, WHICH WAS THE CREATION OF THE EAC PROGRAM. AND THAT WAS APPROVED BY PUC IN JULY. FOR REASONS FOR REVISION, WE HAVE FOUR THAT ARE FALLING INTO THAT STRATEGIC PLAN. OBJECTIVE 110 WITH SPO TWO. AND THOSE ARE MOST OF THOSE ARE THE 1264 RELATED ITEMS. [00:15:09] TWO ARE GENERAL PROCESS SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS. AND THEN TWO ARE REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. JUST NOTING SOME IMPACTS. AND WE'LL LOOK AT THESE IAS WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THE REVISION REQUESTS. 1292 DOES HAVE A 1.2 TO 1.6 MILLION BUDGETARY IMPACT. 1326 HAS A 100 150 K. AND THEN 1328 AS A 1 TO 1.5 MILLION. FOR ERCOT OPINIONS, ERCOT IS IN SUPPORT OF ALL OF THE REVISION REQUESTS AND HAS PROVIDED POSITIVE MARKET IMPACT STATEMENTS. CSG DID REVIEW ALL OF THE EMPIRES AND NONE HAVE CREDIT IMPACTS. THEY DID FILE COMMENTS BACK IN MARCH ON NPR 1292. JUST STATING THAT THE NPR DOES CHANGE THE TIME OF USE BLOCKS USED IN THE FUTURE CREDIT EXPOSURE CALCULATION, BUT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT CALCULATION METHODOLOGY. BUT THE FCC COULD FLUCTUATE DEPENDING ON PORTFOLIO. AND THEN THE IM SUPPORTS 12921301, WHICH THEY DID FILE COMMENTS ON AND. 1326 AND THEY DON'T HAVE OPINIONS ON THE REST OF THE REVISION REQUESTS. OKAY. DO WE NEED TO PULL UP THE KFSG ECOMMENTS FOR ANY REASON? NO. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS HERE? ALL RIGHT, LET'S KEEP [5. PRS Report (Vote)] MOVING. WE'RE GOING TO DIANA WITH THE RPS REPORT. THESE ARE ALL UNOPPOSED. BUT WHY DON'T WE TAKE THEM SIDE BY SIDE? BECAUSE I THINK WE'LL WANT TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE IMPACTS. WE MAY HAVE A QUESTION IN THE FIRST GROUP, BUT LET'S LET'S DO THIS SLIDE FIRST. DIANA. OKAY. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS THAT WERE APPROVED THAT WERE UNOPPOSED AND NO IMPACT. THE FIRST ONE IS 1286. ON JUNE 10TH. WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AS AMENDED BY THE MAY 19TH RESIDENTIAL CONSUMER COMMENTS. AND ON JULY 15TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE JUNE 10TH PRESS REPORT AND THE MAY 21ST IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR 1301. ON JUNE 10TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AS AMENDED BY THE MAY 27TH. ERCOT COMMENTS. ON JULY 15TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE JUNE 10TH PRESS REPORT AND THE JUNE 23RD IA1319. ON JUNE 10TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AS AMENDED BY THE FEBRUARY 25TH ERCOT COMMENTS. ON JULY 15TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY, UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE JUNE 10TH PRESS REPORT IN THE DECEMBER 29TH, 2025, I A AND THEN FINALLY, WE HAVE 1320. ON JUNE 10TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AS AMENDED BY THE MAY 8TH W MS COMMENTS. AND ON JULY 15TH WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD ATTACK THE JUNE 10TH PRESS REPORT AND THE JANUARY 27TH, I. OKAY. QUESTION. ON 1286. GO AHEAD. BRIAN. OKAY. SO HISTORICALLY, WE'VE HAD TRANSMISSION PLANNED FOR RELIABILITY AND ECONOMIC PURPOSES OR FOR SOME PUBLIC POLICY PURPOSE. AND NOW THERE'S THIS NEW RESILIENCY CRITERIA. AND THIS MULTI FACTOR THING IS THERE'S LIKE FOUR CRITERIA IN HERE. IS THERE ANY KIND OF REPORTING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THAT EXPLAINS HOW DIFFERENT PROJECTS ARE BEING JUSTIFIED. THAT WILL BE PROVIDED TO TAK. IS MY FIRST QUESTION. AND IF ANYONE HAPPENS TO KNOW I'D BE INTERESTED. QUESTION I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER IT. YEAH. GREAT. I LOVE THIS BECAUSE I THINK PART OF THE PART, PART OF THE MOTIVATION FOR MY COMMENTS WAS TO TRY TO GET THIS THING MOVED, YOU KNOW, TO TRY TO BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN BASICALLY T, ISD AND ERCOT. AND PART OF THAT MOTIVATION WAS THIS RESILIENCY ASSESSMENT THING IS GETTING READY TO GET KICKED OFF. AND SO THERE WILL BE A REPORT GENERATED, I BELIEVE IT'S LATE THIS YEAR. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE EXTENT OF MY, OF MY KNOWLEDGE TRYING TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE, THE VERY GOOD QUESTION THAT YOU'RE RAISING, BRIAN. WELL, YOU MAKE ANOTHER GOOD POINT BECAUSE I'M STILL NOT TOTALLY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT A RESILIENCY PROJECT IS VERSUS A RELIABILITY PROJECT. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS ISN'T LIKE AN END RUN AROUND THE ECONOMIC CRITERIA, [00:20:04] BECAUSE THE ECONOMIC CRITERIA ARE WHEN YOU HAVE A MULTI FACTOR THING, IF YOU'RE LIKE, OH, I'M 95% OF THE ECONOMIC CRITERIA. AND OH, BY THE WAY, I'M RESILIENT BECAUSE ALL TRANSMISSION IS RESILIENT. THAT'S WHAT MY QUESTION IS ABOUT OR CONCERN IS ABOUT AND AND MUCH OF IT. AND AGAIN, I'M MY MY MEMORY IS HAZY AND MY KNOWLEDGE WAS WEAK TO START WITH, BUT THERE WAS SOME LEGISLATION AND A PUC RULE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS RESILIENCY STUFF. YEP. AND AND SO THERE COULD, THERE COULD BE SOME OF THAT, BUT I DON'T, I CAN'T SPEAK AUTHORITATIVELY. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE SPENDING AN AWFUL LOT OF MONEY ON TRANSMISSION. AND IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE SOME REPORTING AROUND, LIKE HOW MUCH EXTRA HAS COME IN THROUGH THIS AVENUE. THAT'S MY REQUEST. I SEE MATT IN THE QUEUE. DO YOU WANT TO STILL TRY TO TAKE IT? KEITH? NO. IF MATT'S IN THE QUEUE, I KNOW CHRISTIE WAS GOING TO GET SOMEONE, BUT IF MATT CAN SPEAK TO IT. OKAY, LET'S LET'S GO TO MATT. MATT WITH LEGAL? YES. SO THIS IS COMING OUT OF THE COMMISSION'S RULE 25 101. THEY AMENDED THAT IN RESPONSE TO SOME LEGISLATION TO INTRODUCE THIS IDEA OF A RESILIENCY PLUS FACTOR PROJECT. I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT'S NOT A DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF PROJECT. THEY'RE ALL ALL TRANSMISSION PROJECTS REMAIN EITHER ECONOMIC OR RELIABILITY PROJECTS, BUT UNDER 16 TO 25, 101. NOW, IF A PROJECT CANNOT QUITE MEET THE RELIABILITY OR ECONOMIC CRITERIA, THEN IT MAY NEVERTHELESS MERIT APPROVAL BY THE PUC. ULTIMATELY, IF IT HAS A RESILIENCY PLUS FACTOR THAT PUSHES IT OVER THAT HUMP. SO THIS IS THE SECOND PRR ADDRESSING THIS RESILIENCY PLUS FACTOR. THE FIRST WAS TO ESTABLISH THAT GRID RELIABILITY AND RESILIENCY ASSESSMENT. THE GRA REPORT THAT ERCOT DOES BIENNIALLY. SO THE FIRST ONE CAME OUT IN DECEMBER OF 2024. AND BETH YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. THE NEXT ONE IS GOING TO BE COMING OUT AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. AND SO THAT REPORT, THE PUC'S RULE SPECIFIES WHAT THAT REPORT MUST DO. AND WE HAVE A FEW MORE CLARIFICATIONS AROUND THAT IN THE PLANNING GUIDE NOW. BUT THAT IDENTIFIES AREAS OF THE STATE WITH RESILIENCY ISSUES AND ALSO IDENTIFIES TRANSMISSION PROJECTS THAT COULD ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES. THAT SAID, THOSE TRANSMISSION PROJECTS THAT THE GRAY IDENTIFIES ARE NOT THE FULL LAY OF THE LAND. UTILITIES HAVE THE OPTION TO PROPOSE OTHER ECONOMIC OR RELIABILITY PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE GRAY, AND USE A RESILIENCY BENEFIT CRITERIA TO GET THEM OVER THE HUMP. SO, SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS 1286 IS TO DEFINE WHAT THOSE OVER THE HUMP CRITERIA ARE, HOW MUCH A PROJECT COULD FAIL AN ECONOMIC OR RELIABILITY CRITERIA, BUT STILL BRING RESILIENCY BENEFITS THAT WOULD THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY JUSTIFY ITS ULTIMATE APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION. SO TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A OTHER THAN THE GRA WHICH IDENTIFIES THOSE AREAS OF THE STATE AND SOME POTENTIAL RESILIENCY PROJECTS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ONGOING REPORTING FROM RPG AS TO WHICH ONES WOULD HAVE A RESILIENCY TIE IN, BUT I CAN DEFINITELY BRING THAT BACK TO THE SMES AND SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE. AND THANK YOU, MATT. I'M SO GLAD THAT THERE WAS SOMEBODY WHO KNEW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT TO BRING SOME INTELLIGENCE TO THIS CONVERSATION. MY COMMENTS, BRIAN, WERE INTENDED TO TO REDUCE THE GAP ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLUS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T MEET THE ECONOMIC CRITERIA OR THE RELIABILITY CRITERIA AS PROPOSED, IT WAS WITHIN 90% IN MY COMMENTS. CLOSE THAT TO 95%. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WHAT THIS IS. THANK YOU. I, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT THERE ACTUALLY IS REPORTING, SO I'D LIKE FOR THAT TO EXIST IF WE CAN. SO YEAH, WE DO HAVE PING ON AS WELL TO SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT IS. BUT IF PING, IF YOU CAN JUMP ON AND COMMENT ON THE ABILITY TO DO SOME REPORTING. YEAH. SO I JUST DIALED IN. CAN I ASK THAT QUESTION? CAN, CAN BRIAN ASK THAT QUESTION AGAIN? BECAUSE I DID NOT HEAR THE QUESTION ASKED. MY, MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE A REPORTING OF THE TRANSMISSION PROJECTS THAT WILL BE JUSTIFIED USING THE MULTI VALUE CRITERIA? AND I DIDN'T HEAR A YES FROM MATT BUT THEY'RE DEFERRING TO YOU. [00:25:09] YEAH. THANKS, BRIAN. SO FOR THE MULTI-VALUE CRITERIA. SO THE PROJECT WILL STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH THE RPG PROCESS AND THEN THROUGH THE RPG PROCESS. IT WILL BE REPORTED TOGETHER WITH OTHER RPG PROJECTS AND ALSO IN THE MONTHLY REPORT, IF A PROJECT IS JUSTIFIED BASED ON THE PROJECT THE GR THE MULTI-VALUE CRITERIA, IT WILL ALSO BE AN ENTRY IN THE LIST OF ALL THE PROJECTS THAT GET PROCESSED. IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC REASON THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO CLEARLY LABEL THAT AS A MULTI-VALUE CRITERIA JUSTIFIED PROJECT, I THINK WE CAN MODIFY THE FORMAT OF THE REPORT A LITTLE BIT. TO ADD A QUALIFIER, ADD A COLUMN TO INDICATE THAT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANK YOU. I WOULD ALSO, IF I COULD I MAKE A NOTE, IF I COULD TAG ON. WE'RE GOING TO TALK LATER TODAY ABOUT ERCOT'S PROPOSAL FOR REVISING THE, YOU KNOW, PLANNING PROCESS, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND BATCH. WE NEED TO BRING THIS TOPIC BACK UP AS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION AS WELL, I WOULD SUGGEST. YEAH. THANKS, BETH. I AGREE WITH THAT. WE'LL MAKE NOTE FOR THAT. SO DO WE NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THIS? JUST AS LONG AS THE MINUTES REFLECT THIS COMMITMENT, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. THANK YOU. OKAY. YOU'RE GOING TO READ THE MINUTES NEXT MONTH AND MAKE SURE THE WORDS ARE RIGHT. YEP. YOU AND NED WILL. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON NPR? 130113, 19 OR 1320. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'D BE LOOKING TO APPROVE. NPR 1286 IS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE JULY 15TH PRS REPORT. AS LONG AS THE MINUTES NEXT MONTH ARE CORRECT AND PR 1301 IS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE JULY 15TH PRS REPORT, AND PR 1319 IS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE JULY 15TH PRS REPORT AND PR 1320 AS RECOMMENDED BY PRS IN THE JULY 15TH PRS REPORT. CAN WE PUT THESE ON THE COMBO BALLOT? OKAY. OKAY, DIANA, LET'S MOVE ON TO SLIDE THREE. OKAY, SO ANNE HAD NOTED THESE EARLIER, BUT WE HAVE THREE THAT HAVE FAIRLY LARGE IAS ON THEM. THE FIRST ONE IS 1292. ON MARCH 11TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AS AMENDED BY THE OCTOBER 2ND VISTA COMMENTS. ON JUNE 10TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO ENDORSE AND FORWARD TO ATTACK THE APRIL 15TH PRS REPORT IN THE MAY 20TH 6IA THAT'S SHOWN THERE ON THE SCREEN. 1326 ON MAY 6TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. ON JULY 15TH. WE VOTED TO UNANIMOUSLY ENDORSE AND FORWARD ATTACK THE JUNE 10TH PRESS REPORT AND THE JUNE 20TH 5IA THAT IS ALSO ON THE SCREEN. AND THEN FINALLY ON 1328. ON APRIL 15TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT 1328 URGENT. AND THEN ON JULY 15TH, WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, AS AMENDED BY THE JULY 1ST OR COURT COMMENTS AND FORWARD ATTACK THE APRIL 2ND I. THAT'S LISTED ON THE SCREEN. THE PRIORITY RANK OF 2026 RANK OF FOUR. 60. OKAY, THE MP ARE 1292 AND 1328. HAVE. HI. I SO I THINK WE WANTED TO PULL THOSE UP. SO IF WE COULD LOOK AT THE IA FOR NPR 1292. THIS HAS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT DID IT SAY BETWEEN 1.2 AND 1.6 MILLION. AND WE CAN JUST TAKE A LOOK AT IT. OR IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS WE CAN ASK TROY. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. PLEASE GO AHEAD. BECAUSE I HATE DEAD AIR. I AS THIS WAS GOING THIS WAS GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS I ASSUME AND WE HAVE CONTINUING AND ONGOING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE TIMEFRAMES WITH, YOU KNOW, THE LENGTHENING TIMEFRAMES THAT'S TAKEN TO SOLVE AUCTIONS. I ASSUME THE MECHANICS OF GETTING THE AUCTIONS TO SOLVE WITH THE DIFFERENT GRANULARITY OF, [00:30:01] OF TIME OF USES. THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AND PUT TO BED, AND WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT WE'VE GOT IT FIGURED OUT. GO AHEAD KEITH. SO WE WE DEFINITELY HAVE SOME WAYS THAT WE'RE WE'RE PRESENTLY WORKING ON. THAT SHOULD HELP RESOLVE THESE. BY THE TIME THIS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. YES. IS THAT SATISFACTORY? OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON 1292. NOPE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO 12 OR 1328. ANOTHER BETWEEN 1 AND 1.5 MILLION. I THINK MAYBE THIS IS WORTH SOMEBODY FROM ERCOT TALKING THROUGH. THIS IS A BIG ONE OUT OF THE LEGISLATION AND THE PUC RULE. KEITH, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OR TROY OR WHOEVER APPROPRIATE. YEAH. GORD. GORD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 1328 HAS IS OBVIOUSLY COMING OUT OF HOUSE BILL 1500 AND THE REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH A GENERATION AFFIRMING PROGRAM. THE BROAD OUTLINES OF THE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROGRAM WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE PUC. T. AND SO WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN 1328 IS GET INTO THE MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS, THE NECESSARY IN THE PROTOCOL LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO ENACT THE. ENACT THAT FRAMEWORK THAT ALIGNS TO BOTH THE RULE AS WELL AS THE AS WELL AS THE LEGISLATION IN HOUSE BILL 1500. WE'VE HAD A VERY ACTIVE AND HELPFUL INPUT FROM A NUMBER OF STAKEHOLDERS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS THROUGH THROUGH W, M, W, G AND W MS AND I WANT TO THANK IN PARTICULAR TCPA FOR THEIR HELPFUL COMMENTS, AS WELL AS THE TEXAS SOLAR AND STORAGE ASSOCIATION FOR HELPING TO REFINE, PARTICULARLY IN A NUMBER OF THE EQUATIONS, TO ENSURE THAT THAT THEY ARE BOTH ACCURATE AS WELL AS ALIGNED WITH THE INTENT OF THE RULE. AND SO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THE FOR THAT ENGAGEMENT MADE THE NPR BETTER THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. AND I THINK THAT THE CERTAINLY THE, THE VOTE AT PRS, I THINK, WAS A RECOGNITION OF THE WORK THAT WE ALL COLLECTIVELY DID TO, TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE NPR. THIS IS AS WE AS WE SEE A, YOU KNOW, 1 MILLION TO 1 MILLION AND A HALF. MOST OF THAT IS OR SORRY, I SHOULD SAY, ALL OF THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED AT, AT ERCOT. SO WE DON'T HAVE DEPENDENCIES ON THE, ON EXTERNAL VENDORS IN ORDER TO, TO PUT THIS TOGETHER, HOWEVER, WE ARE RECOGNIZING THAT THE LEGISLATION DOES HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO ENACT THIS BY DECEMBER 1ST, 2027. AND SO THAT IS THE EXPLANATION FOR THE URGENT STATUS THAT THAT WE'VE REQUESTED AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO SEE THIS CONTINUE THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS ATTACK TODAY. OKAY, LET'S GO TO BLAKE. BLAKE HOLT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF WMS. JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT WHAT GORDON SAID. FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THERE WAS A LOT OF HEALTHY BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE WORKING GROUPS IN ERCOT AND A LOT OF REFINEMENT ON THE FORMULAS SPECIFICALLY. AND SO JUST MY TAKE IS THIS IS PRETTY TRUE TO THE RULE AS IT STANDS. AND IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE COMMENT RECORD, YOU CAN SEE THE HEALTHY BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN MARKET PARTICIPANTS AND ERCOT. SO I, I THINK THAT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE AT WMS AND ALSO PSE, BUT JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH FOLKS. OKAY. THANKS, BLAKE. LET'S GO TO NED IN THE SPIRIT OF SUPERLATIVES, I WANT TO ECHO THAT IT WAS A MOST EXCELLENT YOU KNOW, INTEGRATION OF BACK AND FORTH AND STAKEHOLDER AND COMMENTARY. SO THANK YOU TO ERCOT FOR, FOR ENGAGEMENT ON THAT. AND I MEAN, DON'T, DON'T CAP THEM. ERCOT CAN ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, IT CAN GET BETTER AND BETTER STAKEHOLDERS WORKING WITH ERCOT DON'T, IT CAN ALWAYS BE MORE SUPERLATIVE THAN THEY CAN ALWAYS BE MORE BETTER, MORE INTEGRATED, MORE BETTER, MORE PERFECT, MORE BETTER, MORE BIGGER, JUST GOOD THINGS. THUMBS UP. THAT'S ALL. THAT WAS YOUR COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. CONTINUE. GREAT GREAT. MOST BEST WORKING TOGETHER. GOURD AND DEBBIE MS AND STAKEHOLDERS KNOW THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT MARTHA AND I HAVE BEEN RELAYING IN OUR BRIEFINGS TO PEOPLE BECAUSE WE WERE PRETTY SURPRISED THIS CAME OUT OF PZ UNOPPOSED. AND I THINK IT REFLECTS THE, THE BACK AND FORTH THAT ERCOT HAD WITH STAKEHOLDERS. AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT. BOB, ARE YOU ABOUT TO SAY I WAS WRONG? NO, NO, I WAS JUST ABOUT TO SAY IT WAS ROCK STAR PERFORMANCE. YOU KNOW, WE APPRECIATE EVERYTHING AND ALL THE COMMENTS. IT IS MOST LIKELY TO BE A ROCK STAR. GORD IS MOST LIKELY TO BE A ROCK STAR. [00:35:07] YEAH. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I KNOW TSA APPRECIATES ALL THE WORK YOU'VE DONE WITH THEM TO TRY TO RESOLVE ALL THE ISSUES. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS HERE? THIS IS A BIG ONE. I FELT REALLY EXCITED, LIKE WE WERE AHEAD OF TIME AHEAD OF SCHEDULE ON THIS ONE, BUT WE WERE JUST EXACTLY ON SCHEDULE. THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEEDED TO SEPTEMBER BOARD BECAUSE IT BY STATUTE NEEDS TO BE CLEAR TO RESOURCES FOR. JAN ONE, 2027. SO WE WE DID IT RIGHT ON TIME. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS ON 129213261328. SO WE'D BE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 1292, AS RECOMMENDED BY PEERS IN THE JUNE 10TH RPS REPORT AND PR 1326, AS RECOMMENDED BY RPS IN THE JULY 15TH RPS REPORT, AND MPR 1328 IS RECOMMENDED BY RPS IN THE JULY 15TH RPS REPORT. CAN WE PUT THESE ON THE BALLOT? DID I MISS SOMETHING? ANNE IS LOOKING AT ME. NO. OKAY. COMBO BALLOT. YES. ALL RIGHT. SO NOW, DIANA, ANYTHING ELSE ON THE RPS REPORT? THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. OKAY. SO BUT WE DO HAVE THE PRIORITIZATION REPORT WITH TROY. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. TROY ANDERSON WITH THE PROJECT PRIORITIZATION UPDATE. I HAVE A QUICK REPORT THIS MORNING. SO AS YOU KNOW AT PZ, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE AGING REVISION REQUESTS. IT'S BECOME AN ANNUAL EVENT. SO FOR THE PAST TWO MONTHS, WE'VE BEEN REVIEWING THOSE ITEMS ON THE LIST. YOU CAN SEE IT'S IN THE THE MID 60S IS THE COUNT. I LIKE TO KEEP KIND OF AN ONGOING TALLY OF WHERE THEY ARE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE DROPPED A LITTLE BIT FROM JUNE TO JULY BECAUSE A COUPLE PROJECTS GOT STARTED, SOMETHING WENT LIVE, AND THEN WE ADDED 1326 TO THE LIST, WHICH YOU JUST APPROVED A MOMENT AGO. SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO THE COUNT CONTINUES TO BE THE CRITICAL. AND HIGHS ARE WHAT I FOCUS ON THE MOST AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE GET INTO THE QUEUE OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR SO. SO THAT'S 11 ITEMS AS YOU CAN SEE, THREE CRITICALS AND EIGHT HIGHS. AND WE'RE EVALUATING TIMELINE OPTIONS FOR THOSE. OF COURSE A COUPLE ONE OF THOSE IS FIRMING, WHICH YOU JUST APPROVED A MOMENT AGO. AND WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING SOME ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS STARTED ON THAT BECAUSE ANYONE THAT DOES THE MATH, THE IA SAID 18 TO 24 MONTHS. IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT DONE BY DECEMBER OF NEXT YEAR, WE'RE ALREADY RIGHT AT THAT. 18. SO WE'VE GOT SOME ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS GOING NOW. WE'LL HAVE A HEAD START AND BE ROLLING. WE'RE NOT WRITING CODE YET OR ANYTHING, BUT THAT DOES HELP US HAVE A GOOD CHANCE TO MAKE THAT DATE. SOME OTHER THINGS AT THE BOTTOM I'M HIGHLIGHTING. WE'VE BEEN DOING AN OUTREACH ON THE NO ACTION AND REMOVAL CANDIDATES TO THE SUBMITTERS TO SEE IF YOU KNOW WHAT THE POSSIBILITIES ARE FOR THOSE. AND WE'RE WE'RE CONTINUING TO DISCUSS THOSE AT PRESS. AND THEN LASTLY, IF ANYTHING DOES GET SUGGESTED FOR REMOVAL, IT HAS TO BE A NEW NPR. THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS FOR EVERYONE TO SEE. SO I'D LIKE TO REPORT ON THE 11 CRITICAL AND HIGHS. THAT'S THE LIST RIGHT HERE. THERE'S YOUR 1328 YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT AND DOCTORS. 1309 WE ACTUALLY KICKED OFF THAT PROJECT LAST WEEK DOWN IN THE HIGHS THERE ARE VARIOUS SCENARIOS GOING ON. FOR EXAMPLE, 826 WE WOULD WE'D EXPECT TO BUNDLE WITH. 1342. THAT'S A MESS RIGHT NOW. 1004 WAS ON THE HIGH LIST FROM LAST YEAR, AND IT JUST STARTED LAST WEEK ALSO. SO THAT ONE'S UNDERWAY AND IT'LL DROP FROM THE LIST WITH MY NEXT REPORT. SOME OTHERS OF NOTE 1171 AND 1213 ARE OF A LOT OF INTEREST TO FOLKS. SO WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THOSE WILL FIT IN ONCE THE PROJECT'S IN FLIGHT GET COMPLETED. AND OTHER THINGS HAVE DIFFERENT STATUSES, BUT WE CONTINUE TO WORK THEM. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD IN MY IN MY APPENDIX, I'VE GOT THE LAST YEAR'S LIST AND WHERE THOSE ALL STAND. SO I THINK WE'VE GOT A GOOD TRACK RECORD THAT IF WE CAN KEEP THIS, YOU KNOW, THE HIGHS AT A MANAGEABLE NUMBER, WE CAN GET A LOT OF THEM WORK. SO WE'RE HAVING SUCCESS WITH LAST YEAR'S COUNT. AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT THIS YEAR WE'LL BE ABLE TO FOLLOW UP THE SAME WAY WITH THESE ITEMS. I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR TROY ON THE PRIORITIZATION UPDATE? OKAY. APPRECIATE THE UPDATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. WE'RE MOVING QUICKLY. LET'S WE ARE ON TO OUR SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS. [00:40:07] I BELIEVE DEBBIE IS DOING MS.. REPORT FROM THE PHONE. PERHAPS SHE'S HERE. I DON'T SEE HER. SHANE, WOULD YOU BE READY WITH ROSS? ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO ROSS FIRST. [7. ROS Report (Vote)] SHANE, THIS IS YOUR FIRST MEETING AS CHAIR, CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. CONGRATS. AS PROSPECTIVE CHAIR, I GUESS WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT. MOST LIKELY TO BE ROSS CHAIR. SO YEAH, HE DIDN'T SCREW IT UP ENOUGH TO NOT BE THE CHAIR GOING FORWARD. NOT NOT YET. ALL RIGHT. SO SO THAT'S EXCITING. AND DAVID BLANKENSHIP, WHOSE NAME I WILL GET. RIGHT. SO LET'S, LET'S GO AHEAD. DO YOU, DO YOU HAVE A FULL PRESENTATION? LET'S DO THAT. AND THEN WE CAN DO OUR VOTES, INCLUDING LEADERSHIP. ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS GOOD. PRETTY SHORT PRESENTATION TODAY. LET'S SEE. WAS THIS THE NEXT SLIDE I HAD ON THERE? OKAY. I KNOW THERE'S ONE BEFORE THIS. OH, NO. YOU'RE ON UPDATES. NEVER MIND. SORRY. I HAD A DIFFERENT PRESENTATION UP ON MY SIDE. SO A FEW UPDATES FROM WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING AT ROSS SINCE THE LAST TIME WE BROUGHT SOMETHING TO TACK. THERE WAS A RETIREMENT OF A SAM SWITCH. GENERIC GENERIC TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINT, WHICH I JUST WANTED TO BRING FORWARD AS LIKE A A SOMETHING. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GROWING OF THE GTCS, AND SO IT WAS NICE TO POINT OUT THAT ONE ACTUALLY WENT AWAY. THERE'S A LOT OF A LOT OF WORK BEING DONE OVER THERE TO TRY AND ELIMINATE THOSE. BUT IT'S ONCE THEY'RE THERE, IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET RID OF THEM. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON FIGURE 144 AROUND THE DYNAMIC MODEL SUBMISSION AND REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE LOADS, INCLUDING LARGE COMPUTATIONAL LOADS. WE DID OUR INITIAL APPROVAL OF THE LANGUAGE AND ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE IA AT OUR NEXT MEETING. THIS ONE'S WE HAD 100% YES VOTES, BUT EIGHT ABSTENTIONS. SO IT'S ONE THAT THERE IS A LOT OF A LOT OF DISCUSSION STILL HAPPENING ON. THEN WE HAD SOME NEW LEADERSHIP FOR THE PLANNING WORKING GROUP. I WANTED TO POINT THEM OUT. WE HAD TWO VICE CHAIRS GET NOMINATED AND APPROVED BY ROSS. KIRAN KODA FROM INFINIUM AND EVAN NEAL WITH LANCOME. SO WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE THEM ON THE TEAM. A GREAT DEAL OF ROSS WORK GETS DONE AT PLAY, SO IT'S NICE TO HAVE A FULL, FULL LEADERSHIP TEAM. WE BROUGHT FOR WELL, I GUESS ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN VOTING ITEMS, ALL OF WHICH WERE UNANIMOUS AT ROSS. THE FIRST FOUR ARE RELATED TO NPRR OR I GUESS THREE WERE RELATED TO THE NPRR1264, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE PUC AND WAS ON TROY'S LIST. THEN WE'VE GOT NOGUER 286, WHICH IS THE ADDITION OF 765 OPERATIONAL VOLTAGE LIMITS. THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS ANY SORT OF BUDGETARY IMPACTS, BUT IT'S LESS THAN TEN K. THEN WE HAVE NOGUER 287 LOAD SHED PROVISIONS TO IDENTIFY AND MINIMIZE OVERLAP OF ESSENTIAL LOADS. THIS WAS NO NO COST, NO PROJECT AS WELL AS THE BIGGER ONE. 28. REGIONAL PLANNING GROUP. DISCUSSION OF GRID ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES. FOR THAT ONE, I WOULD PULL OUT THAT THE SPONSORS WERE EAGER TO GET THIS ONE THROUGH AND HOPING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF HAVE THIS SORT OF WORKSHOP THAT THIS CREATES OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUT ALL OF THESE WENT THROUGH UNANIMOUSLY AND IT WAS SMOOTH SAILING. OKAY. WE HAVE SOME VOTING ITEMS AND SOME COMMENTS, I BELIEVE. LET'S DO LEADERSHIP FIRST. SO WE'RE LOOKING TO APPROVE ROSS LEADERSHIP AS PRESENTED CHAIR SHANE THOMAS, WHO JUST SPOKE, VICE CHAIR DAVID BLANKENSHIP FROM CENTER POINT. I THINK THIS IS GREAT. I THINK WE SHOULD PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. THANK YOU GUYS. AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, IF I CALL YOU, IF THERE'S AN OPEN LEADERSHIP SPOT AND I CALL YOU AND YOU DON'T WANT IT, DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE BECAUSE I DID THAT TO DAVID. SO LET'S. YES, HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. OKAY. SO ENCORE WAS IMPACTED BY. OH, SORRY. YEAH. DEBBIE. [00:45:03] PLEASE, PLEASE. THANK YOU. ENCORE WAS IMPACTED BY OKAY. SO WHEN YOU RETIRED THE SAM SWITCH, WHICH WAS GREAT, RIGHT? IT ALSO REMOVED COLUMNS. THERE WERE TWO COLUMNS, I THINK, REMOVED FROM THE EXTRACTS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT. OKAY, SO I'M HERE. SOMEONE HERE AT ERCOT IS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL WE CAN TAKE IT UP AT LUNCH OR YOU CAN DIRECT ME OR SOMETHING. SO ANYWAY, IT CAUSED SOME OF OUR STUFF TO FAIL, WHICH I THINK DID IMPACT YOU GUYS. SO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. WHAT WAS WHAT WAS THIS? IT WAS. SOME OF THE THE WE ENCORE HAS 16 REPORTS RELATED TO SUPPORTING TRANSMISSION. AND WE DID GET NOTICE OF THAT. YOU WERE RETIRING, SAM. BUT THAT DID NOT EQUATE TO US THAT TWO COLUMNS IN ONE OF THE EXTRACTS OR MULTIPLE EXTRACTS WERE GOING TO BE REMOVED, AND WE HAD TO DO SOME DIGGING, BUT IT WAS LIKE THE TITLE, THE SUBJECT CHANGED. AND ANYWAY, AND IT DID COME THROUGH THE TASB PRIMARY LISTSERV, AND I'M THE BACKUP AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. SO BUT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SENT ON AND WE THOUGHT THAT WAS OKAY, BUT THEY'RE LIKE, WE'RE WHAT ELSE, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT NOW THAT WE'VE GOT THIS. SO. OKAY. BUT THAT'S WHAT IT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. THANK YOU. OKAY, OKAY. OKAY. SO LET'S FOLLOW UP ON THAT AT A MEETING OR WORKING GROUP OR OFFLINE. YEAH. IT'S RELATED TO THE TOP ITEM. OKAY. YES. THANK YOU. THANKS, DEBBIE. THANKS, SHANE. SO LEADERSHIP WE'RE FINE WITH. YES. COMBO BALLOT. ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ANY OF THE ROSS VOTING REVISION REQUESTS BESIDES. 128. SO. 273286287123 RGRR038. I THINK MOST OF THOSE ARE RELATED TO THE EC1. WHAT WAS THAT? MPR1264. ARE WE OKAY WITH ALL OF THOSE? SO I WOULD RECOMMEND WE PUT THOSE ON THE A COMBO BALLOT. 273 AS REVISED BY ROSS OR AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE JUNE 6TH RULES REPORT NO. 286 IS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE JULY 9TH ROSS REPORT NO. 287 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE JUNE 4TH ROSS REPORT. 123 AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE JUNE 4TH ROSS REPORT AND RGRR38. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HOW YOU WOULD SAY THAT ACRONYM AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE JUNE 4TH ROSS REPORT. SO THOSE FIVE ITEMS CAN BE PUT ON THE BALLOT. OKAY, LET'S DO THAT. AND THEN LET'S MOVE ON TO 128. AND THEN WE DID HAVE COMMENTS THAT CAME IN, I THINK LAST NIGHT, YESTERDAY FROM TREATY OAK. SHANE, YOU DID CALL THIS ONE OUT IN YOUR PRESENTATION AND SAID THE SPONSORS WERE EAGER TO HAVE THIS MOVE FORWARD, SO I'M HOPING THE SPONSORS CAN ALSO SPEAK TO THIS. BUT LET'S LET'S GO TO TREATY OAK FIRST. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS ANUJ DIXIT WITH CLEAN ENERGY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU. OH. THANK YOU. HEY, SHANE. GOOD TO SPEAK WITH YOU AGAIN. YEAH. I MEAN, WE JUST SUBMITTED OUR COMMENTS YESTERDAY TO THIS TO THIS 128 AND OUR COMMENTS ARE SUPPORTIVE AS INDICATED HERE WE DO UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT ONCOR HAS RAISED. AND SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE SUPPORTERS, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS FIGURE IS NOT BURDENSOME TO THE ANALYSIS ITSELF, TO THE PLANNING STUDIES. ALL THIS FIGURE IS ASKING IS FOR ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN OPTION TO THE WIRE SOLUTIONS. AND WE ALSO RECOGNIZE SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED BY OUR STAFF ON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY OF THESE GRADE ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES. IF THEY WERE CONSIDERED AND THEY SHOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED NOT FROM JUST A THERMAL PERSPECTIVE, BUT STABILITY CONCERNS BE FACTORED IN. AVAILABILITY OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S USED SHOULD BE SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE ANALYSIS. AND THE RELIABILITY STANDARDS AS WE KNOW IT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED. SO I THINK OUR COMMENTS ARE SPECIFIC TO THE DYNAMIC LINE RATINGS WITHIN THE GRID ENHANCING TECHNOLOGIES FRAMEWORK. [00:50:03] VIDEO HAS COMPLETED SOME STUDIES AND REVIEWED PEER ANALYSIS SUPPORTING THE, THE BENEFITS FROM IMPLEMENTING DLS. AND WE BELIEVE THAT EVALUATING GETS AND OTHER OTHER TECHNOLOGIES IN THE ANALYSIS IN RTP WOULD JUST BE BENEFICIAL IN THE PROCESS AS A WHOLE. ONE QUESTION I HAD WAS TO SOMETHING SHANE MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO IS THERE GOING TO BE A SEPARATE WORKING GROUP? OR WHAT WOULD BE THE IDEAL PLACE TO FOLLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS? WOULD IT BE A STANDALONE WORKING GROUP THAT TRACKS THIS FIGURE SPECIFICALLY, OR WOULD IT BE WITH WITHIN AN EXISTING SUBCOMMITTEE? IS THAT A QUESTION FOR THE SPONSOR? GO AHEAD. ERIC. HI. ERIC GOFF ON BEHALF OF THE TEXAS AND NEW BUYERS ALLIANCE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE THOROUGH COMMENTS THAT POINT OUT THE BENEFITS OF SOME OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES. THE ULTIMATELY, THIS WILL GET TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT THE SEPTEMBER BOARD PROBABLY. AND SO WE'RE HOPING THAT THE WORKSHOP THAT WE HAVE ON THIS TOPIC CAN BE HELD VERY QUICKLY AROUND THE, THE PLANNING WORKING GROUP IN SEPTEMBER. HOPEFULLY WE HAD A CONVERSATION AT THE PLANNING WORKING GROUP WITH THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIRS ON THIS TOPIC. THE WORKSHOP WILL BE FOCUSED ON HOPEFULLY THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN BE INSTALLED ON THE TRANSMISSION GRID, HOW THEY WORK, HOW THEY CAN BE MODELED AND PLANNED FOR AND WILL BE INFORMATIONAL. SO IT'S NOT CHANGING ANY PLANNING CRITERIA. IT'S JUST PURELY INFORMATIONAL. AND I HOPE THAT THE INFORMATION WILL BE USEFUL FOR THE THINGS THAT YOU POINT OUT SUCH AS THE PENDING INTERCONNECTION OF LOADS, CONGESTION COSTS AND, AND OTHER CONSUMER BENEFITS. SO I'D WELCOME YOUR PARTICIPATION AT THE WORKSHOP. AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO REACH OUT TO ME TO TALK ABOUT YOUR EVALUATION HERE, I'D LOVE TO HEAR ABOUT IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS, ERIC. OKAY, BOB. YEAH. JUST TO KIND OF FOLLOW ON THIS IS A REAL IMPORTANT ISSUE. I MEAN, ACTUALLY, THEY'RE HAVING A HEARING OVER TRANSMISSION, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY OVER THE LEDGE. SO ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO AS A TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO MOVE FORWARD, NEW AND INNOVATIVE WAYS TO GET MORE EFFICIENCY AND COST SAVINGS OUT OF THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IS A GOOD THING. GETS ISN'T A NEW A LITTLE BIT OF AN ECHO, BOB. SOMEBODY'S NOT MUTED. CAN WE MUTE PLEASE? SOME STUFF I THINK TO LIKE SOME WHERE YOU GOT THEM. SUZY. BRAD. BRAD. CODY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. GO AHEAD. AS I WAS SAYING, THAT THAT GETS, ISN'T IT AS A CONCEPT ISN'T A NEW TECHNOLOGY. IT'S USED IN OTHER INTERCONNECTS. THE INDIVIDUAL TECHNOLOGIES UNDER THAT WILL HAVE TO BE EVALUATED AS THEY GO. BUT TO GET THIS PROCESS GOING, I THINK IS TIMELY RIGHT NOW AND NEEDED. SO THANK YOU. ERICA. YEAH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR ERCOT. IS THERE ANY PLACE IN THE PROTOCOLS? BECAUSE THE FINAL VERSION OF THIS FIGURE IS ONLY ERCOT SHALL HAVE A WORKSHOP. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER INSTANCES ERCOT HOLDS WORKSHOP AND WE NEED A FIGURE FOR THAT. I'M REALLY CONFUSED. SO WHY CAN'T YOU HOLD THE WORKSHOP ON YOUR OWN OR. I'M REALLY. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE IDEAS ARE GOOD, BUT IT WAS ALL STRIPPED DOWN AND NOW HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEFEND IT? AT THE COMMISSION, ERCOT SHALL HAVE A WORKSHOP. THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT BACK AND FORTH NEGOTIATION OVER THE LANGUAGE ON THIS, AND WE AS A CONSUMER GROUP, WANTED TO HAVE A CLEAR PATHWAY TO CONTINUE A DISCUSSION AROUND THESE TECHNOLOGIES. WE PROPOSED SEVERAL DIFFERENT CHANGES TO THE PLANNING CRITERIA THAT DIDN'T HAVE CONSENT OF THE PLANNING WORKING GROUP. SO IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO MOVE THE DISCUSSION FORWARD AND DEMONSTRATE WHAT OUR PERSPECTIVE IS AND THE VALUE OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES, WE THOUGHT HAVING AN ONGOING WORKSHOP TO SHOW THAT CHANGES IN THIS TECHNOLOGY SET COULD BE USEFUL. IT SAYS THAT ERCOT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE THE WORKSHOP IF THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, FEEL THE NEED TO IN ANY GIVEN YEAR. IT'S A, IT'S A MAY STATEMENT. THE OTHER LANGUAGE THAT WE PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T HAVE THE [00:55:07] VOTES IN TERMS OF ARE THERE OTHER, YOU KNOW, ANNUAL REQUIREMENTS, REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL. LIKE ROCK REPORTS TO BE PUBLISHED TO TAK SETTLEMENT STABILITY REPORTS ARE PUBLISHED AND DISCUSSED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A PUBLIC MEETING. SO I THINK THOSE ARE SIMILAR. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S COMMON IN THE PROTOCOLS. WE THOUGHT THIS WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TOPIC TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HAVE A TRIGGER FOR AN ANNUAL DISCUSSION. AND IF WE FIND IN THE FUTURE THAT IT'S NO LONGER VALUABLE, WE COULD REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT. IS THAT OKAY? ANY FOLLOW UP? NO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO ARE WE OKAY TO MOVE? KEEP MOVING. THIS ONE FORWARD. I'D BE GRATEFUL. BLAKE'S NODDING. THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. OKAY. SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PD 128, AS RECOMMENDED BY ROSS IN THE JULY 9TH ROSS REPORT. THINGS THAT COME TO NEXT TECH WOULD STILL GO TO THE SAME BOARD MEETING, BUT I DON'T SEE A LOT OF STRONG OPPOSITION. BOB. GO AHEAD. I WAS GOING TO SAY IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. CAN WE PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT? LET'S PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT, THOUGH. I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING WE SHALL HAVE A WORKSHOP EVERY YEAR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T SET A PRECEDENT. SO WE HAVE LOTS OF WORKSHOP FOR ANYBODY'S FUTURE IDEAS. THAT'S ALL. IF I COULD, I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T EXPRESS GRATITUDE TO ERIC SPECIFICALLY AND ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS TRYING TO PUSH THIS, THIS ISSUE INTO. I HAVE MANY DIFFERENT THOUGHTS ON THIS ENTIRE ISSUE, BUT WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT IT. WE NEED TO BE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE MOST CAPABILITY OUT OF OUR FACILITIES AND LOOKING FOR WAYS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT AND, AND EXPLORING OTHER, OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR GETTING MORE OUT OF WHAT WE HAVE. SO I APPRECIATE ERIC AND HIS EFFORTS ON THIS TOPIC. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. AND I GUESS MAYBE TO STAFF'S QUESTION OR CONCERN, IF IN OTHER TRANSMISSION DISCUSSIONS, THERE BECAME ANOTHER NATURAL FORUM WHERE WE COULD DISCUSS THIS ON A REGULAR CADENCE. YOU'D BE OPEN TO TO GETTING RID OF THIS REQUIREMENT OR SOMETHING. THE OTHER PROPOSALS WE HAD DIDN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE PLANNING WORKING GROUP. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU ERIC. AT EARTH I WASN'T GOING TO PIPE IN, BUT IT WASN'T CLEAR IF YOU ALL WANTED TO HEAR FROM ERCOT ON THIS OR NOT. BUT JUST TO AGREE WITH HOW ERIC CHARACTERIZED IT THERE, WHICH IS THAT I THINK IT IS SOMEWHAT UNCOMMON POSSIBLY UNPRECEDENTED TO, TO, TO PUT AN OBLIGATION ON ERCOT TO HOLD A WORKSHOP LIKE THIS. BUT AS ERIC POINTED OUT, IT DOES JUST SAY SHOULD, WHICH I THINK IS NOT IT LEAVES ERCOT DISCRETION, ALTHOUGH IT TILTS TOWARD HOLDING THAT. AND WE WERE APPRECIATIVE OF THE, OF THE BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND WERE OPEN, OPEN TO THAT. OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. MATT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE ALREADY HAD AGREEMENT TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT. SO WE CAN CONTINUE. SHANE. ANYTHING ELSE FROM ROSS? NO, THAT'S ALL WE HAD. WE GOT THE THE REST OF OUR MEETING SCHEDULE UP THERE IN CASE ANYONE NEEDS A PLACE TO FIND IT. THANK YOU AGAIN. THANKS, SHANE. THANKS FOR THE VOTE OF CONFIDENCE. OKAY. WE ARE GOING BACK TO OUR MISS DEBBIE. ARE YOU READY TO ROCK AND ROLL? [6. RMS Report (Vote)] YES. APOLOGIZE. I'LL BE PRESENTING FOR JOHN TODAY. OKAY. SO THE MISS UPDATE TO TAC, WE'RE BRINGING TWO ITEMS FORWARD FOR TAC CONSIDERATION. LP GRR076. RELATED TO NPRR126 FOR CREATION OF A NEW ENERGY ATTRIBUTE CERTIFICATE PROGRAM AND [01:00:03] RMGRR1. 82 WHICH IS RELATED TO THE SAME NPRR AND WE HAD A. WE DID NOT MEET LAST MONTH, BUT WE HAD A EMAIL VOTE AND IT WAS UNANIMOUS FOR THESE TWO AND TWO OTHER CHANGES. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. OKAY. SO WE ARE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF LPGRR76 AND RMGRR182. THE FIRST ONE AS RECOMMENDED BY MS. IN THE JULY 10TH REPORT, RGRR182, IS RECOMMENDED BY MS. IN THE JUNE 25TH REPORT. CAN WE PUT THESE ON THE BALLOT? YES, DEBBIE. ARE YOU FINE WITH THIS? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. MY ONLY QUESTION ON THE DO WE HAVE ALL OF THE GUIDES CHANGED NOW? ARE THERE ANY MORE? ARE THERE ANY MORE? ONE MORE. ARE RELATED TO 1264. ERIC GOFF PLEASE TELL US. YEAH. THERE'S SOME OF THE MOST LIKELY TO HAVE UNNECESSARY REVISION REQUESTS. ERIC GOFF ON BEHALF OF TEXAS BUYER'S ALLIANCE. I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET FOUR THINGS PASSED NEXT WEEK. THANK YOU MISS. AND ALL THE OTHER WORKING GROUPS THAT DEALT WITH A CHANGE OF THE REC PROGRAM NAME. THAT LED TO US HAVING TO UPDATE EVERYWHERE. IT SAID THAT THROUGHOUT OUR MANY DOCUMENTS. I THINK WE'RE DONE. AND THEN ALSO ITEM OF NOTE SINCE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC, ERCOT DID RELEASE THE RFP FOR PR 1264. SO IF YOU GO TO THE ERCOT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT WEBSITE, YOU CAN SEE THE RFP. AND THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. GREAT UPDATE. OKAY. WE HAVE A. WE HAVE A SPECIAL PRESENTATION IN REGARDS TO. MS.. I'M GOING TO ASK JIM LEE TO COME TO THE PODIUM OR TABLE OR WHEREVER JIM LEE WOULD LIKE TO COME TO AND PRESENT THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. THANKS. TECH LEADERSHIP, LEADERSHIP FOR ALLOWING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TECH A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MIC, JIM, I THINK. ALL RIGHT. SO I'D LIKE TO PRESENT TO TECH TODAY THE SPECIAL RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING KATHY SCOTT FOR HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ERCOT MARKET AND INVOLVEMENT IN THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. KATHY WILL BE RETIRING IN AUGUST AFTER 46 YEARS WITH CENTERPOINT ENERGY AND SPENDING THE LAST 27 YEARS CAREFULLY CURATING THE ERCOT RETAIL MARKET TO BE A PIVOTAL PLAYING A PIVOTAL ROLE IN MAKING THE ERCOT RETAIL MARKET WHAT IT IS TODAY. AND SO IT'S WITHOUT A DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT WITHOUT KATHY'S CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THE ERCOT MARKET AND STAKEHOLDER PROCESS WOULD NOT BE WHAT IT IS TODAY. AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND THE ERCOT STAKEHOLDER CIRCLES, IF YOU'VE BEEN HERE MORE THAN THREE MONTHS, YOU WILL HAVE RAN INTO KATHY OR YOU'LL HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY SOMETHING COMING OUT OF, OF OUR MESS OR EVEN HER SUPPORT FOR TECH. AND SO WITH THAT I'M CAITLIN, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU GUYS WANT TO HEAR ME READ THIS. BUT IT IS A RESOLUTION. AND I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE TECH TO CONSIDER THIS SPECIAL RESOLUTION FOR CATHY. I WON'T MAKE YOU. YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO. I WON'T MAKE YOU GUYS ARE ALL EXCELLENT READERS. YOU KNOW, I WON'T MAKE YOU. I FEEL LIKE IT MAY BE QUITE EMOTIONAL FOR YOU AND FOR CATHY TOO, SO I WON'T MAKE YOU READ THE WHOLE THING. SO YOU KNOW, THANK YOU, CATHY, FOR FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE TO, FOR STAKEHOLDERS. JIM BROUGHT THIS IDEA TO US WHICH WAS WONDERFUL AND VERY SWEET. AND I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE MAKE A, OR I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO ADOPT THIS AS A RESOLUTION, WE CAN TAKE A VOICE VOTE. BUT FIRST, I THINK DEBBIE OR OR ANYBODY ELSE FROM OUR MS. [01:05:01] LEADERSHIP, IF YOU'D LIKE TO TO SAY ANY WORDS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT TOO. THANK YOU CAITLIN. OF COURSE, I'M GOING TO TRY AND NOT CRY LIKE JIM MADE ME CRY AT MS.. BUT KATHY HAS BEEN MONUMENTAL IN THIS MARKET. I MET KATHY WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS RULEMAKING, AND SHE WAS SO CUSTOMER FOCUSED AND I KNEW SUCH, SO MANY THINGS ABOUT ERCOT AND THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IT'S EASY TO KIND OF LOSE SIGHT OF THE CUSTOMER. AND KATHY WAS BRINGING US BACK IN LIKE THAT. AND I WILL NEVER FORGET WE WERE OUTSIDE WAITING FOR A TAXI, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, BACK THEN, TAXIS. AND SHE WAS TALKING TO ME ABOUT THE CUSTOMER AND I WAS LIKE YEAH. AND AFTER THAT SHE WAS LIKE, TRULY A FULL TIME ADVOCATE DEFINITELY CHIMING IN ALL THE TIME. KATHY HAS BEEN LIKE A SISTER TO ME. WE SIGN EVERYTHING. BEST FRIENDS FOREVER. MANY PEOPLE GET US MIXED UP BECAUSE WE'RE TOGETHER SO OFTEN. AND PEOPLE WILL CALL ME KATHY AND HER DEBBIE. AND ONE DAY SOME SOMEBODY SAID, YOU WISH YOU WERE KATHY SCOTT. AND I SAID, I DO. AND AND KATHY GOES, YOU BET SHE DOES. AND SO ANYWAY, BUT WE HAVE WE'VE JUST SHE IS SUCH A MENTOR TO EVERYONE, SHARES KNOWLEDGE. IT'S NOT ABOUT HER. SHE'S SUCH A TEAM PLAYER AND I'LL JUST NEVER FORGET HER. AND I WAS THE SADDEST ONE WHEN SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS RETIRING. IT ACTUALLY MIGHT HAVE BEEN HER HUSBAND, BUT I WAS REALLY. I WAS REALLY SAD TOO. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ABOUT KATHY. THANKS, DEBBIE. ANYBODY ELSE? NED. CATHY, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR RETIREMENT. I THINK OF YOU AS AN INSTITUTION. YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF TIMES WHERE I'VE BROUGHT IDEAS OR SEEN IDEAS COME UP. AND YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE GUIDEPOSTS TO HELP MAKE SURE THAT IT MAKES SENSE. AND IT WORKS FOR THE, YOU KNOW, THE OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE AND YOU ASK THE CHALLENGING QUESTIONS AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S A, THAT'S A REALLY VALUABLE INPUT AND YOU WILL BE MISSED. SO THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE. I WOULD, I WOULD LOVE TO SECOND THE MOTION TO PUT THIS IN THE MINUTES. YOU KNOW, I CAN'T RESIST THAT. SO BUT THANK YOU FOR, FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE, CATHY, AND CONGRATULATIONS. OKAY. MARTHA SAID SHE'S OKAY WITH YOU BEING THE SECOND. SO WE'LL PUT WE'LL PUT THAT IN THE MINUTES. GO AHEAD. BOB. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO SAY, CATHY, YOU AND I HAVE BEEN AROUND HERE A LONG TIME TOGETHER, AND I'VE SEEN YOU FOR A LONG TIME. AND YOU'VE DONE SOME REALLY GREAT THINGS FOR THIS MARKET. AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MS.. AND I JOKE WITH PEOPLE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS TEXAS SET, BUT WE APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVING THE KNOWLEDGE. YOU'VE BEEN HERE AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER, AND ALWAYS VERY KIND AND, AND WILLING TO SHARE A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE. AND I BELIEVE, JIM, WE HAVE CAKE. I THINK SO. I SHAMED JIM, I SAID, ARE WE GOING TO GET HER SOME SWEETS OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO HAND HER A SHEET OF PAPER? AND HE SAID, WHEN YOU PUT IT THAT WAY, WE'LL GET HIM SOME. BUT THE IDEA, THAT IDEA CAME FROM ERICA ACTUALLY. SO WE WE HAVE SWEETS FOR YOU. I THINK WE HAVE CAKE WITH A FUNNY SAYING ON IT. I THINK IT SAYS KATHY IS TEXAS SET UP AND WE I WON'T PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY SOME WORDS NOW, YOU CAN. BUT WE'LL ALSO SIGN THIS RESOLUTION, AND I THINK JIM WILL GET IT FRAMED FOR YOU OR SOMETHING. YEP. THAT'S THE PLAN. I'LL COME WITH. YOU. YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN CRYING THE WHOLE TIME. BECAUSE THIS IS A BITTERSWEET MOMENT FOR ME IN A LOT OF WAYS. I'VE SEEN CHILDREN GROW UP. THEY WERE BABIES 25 YEARS AGO. NOW THEY'RE IN COLLEGE AND SO FORTH. BUT I PEOPLE SAY THEY LEARN FROM ME, BUT I LEARN FROM YOU JUST AS WELL. I, I, I THINK IF YOU DON'T TEACH PEOPLE TO DO WHAT, WHAT I DO OR WHAT WE DO, THEY WILL NEVER BE THE, THE, THE MARKET THAT WE WANTED TO BE. I THINK IF I SHARE EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE EVERYBODY JUST TAKE ON THE BANNER FOR ME. IT'LL BE A BETTER SOLUTION GOING FORWARD, EVEN AFTER I'M NOT HERE. SO I, IT WAS A DIFFICULT DECISION. I HAVE AN 11 YEAR OLD GRANDDAUGHTER THAT REALLY WANTS ME IN HER WORLD RIGHT NOW. [01:10:03] SO I LOVE HER AND I LOVE THIS AS WELL. BUT I, I CHERISH EVERY MOMENT THAT I'VE LEARNED FROM EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM. I STARTED OUT WITH, WITH, WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE, BUT WE STILL HAD THE SAME GOALS, THE SAME AMBITIONS, MAKING THINGS BETTER FOR US, FOR THE MARKET, FOR THE CUSTOMER, FOR THE FUTURE OF WHAT WE WANT, WHAT THIS MARKET TO LOOK LIKE. IF YOU DON'T TEACH A PERSON TO FISH, THEY'LL NEVER FISH. THEY'LL NEVER EAT. SO I'M ALWAYS ABOUT TRAINING AND LEARNING AND LEARNING FROM OTHERS. SO I, I DO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY JIM BEEN BEEN THERE FOR ME TO SUPPORT ME THROUGH ALL THIS THROUGH THESE LAST FEW DAYS. SO I APPRECIATE IT. AND, AND I'M ALL ABOUT CELEBRATING WITH SWEETS. IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT, WE'RE GOING TO ALWAYS HAVE A CAKE BECAUSE WE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO CELEBRATE WHENEVER WE MAKE A MILESTONE OR DO SOMETHING GOOD, WE NEED TO CELEBRATE THOSE MILESTONES. SO I'M APPRECIATE THAT. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR CONSIDERATION AND I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR RESPECT AND YOUR YOUR HELP HELPING ME BEING ABLE TO, TO, TO LOVE YOU AS MUCH AS YOU LOVE ME. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? JIM. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT AND LET ME USE WHATEVER WORD I WANTED. ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. YES, YOU CAN SEE PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED. SO DO YOU WANT HOW ARE WE DOING THIS VOICE VOTE BALLOT OR DOES EVERYONE SAY I OR HOW DO YOU WANT TO DO IT? VOICE VOICE VOTE MEANS WHAT THOUGH? LIKE ALL IN FAVOR. ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY, SO ALL IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING THE THIS IS A LONG TITLE. JIM. THE RESOLUTION HONORING CATHY SCOTT ON HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ERCOT MARKET. SAY I. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. JIM. THANK YOU. KATHY. OKAY. I FEEL LIKE WE NEED A BREAK AFTER THAT BEFORE WE GO BACK TO REAL BUSINESS, BUT ALL RIGHT. WHAT CAN I. CAN SOMEBODY. ALICIA. BRYAN, TELL ME WHERE WE ARE IN THE HEARING WITH JEFF MCDONALD. BE ABLE TO GET BACK HERE IN THE NEXT HOUR AND A HALF? YEAH. STILL FIRST PANEL. SO NO. SO WE MAY JUST BE ABLE TO WRAP THIS WHOLE THING UP BEFORE LUNCH IF PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN THAT AND DO. JEFF. AND I GUESS TACK, WHICH IS A LONG TIME FROM NOW, OR WE COULD DO A SPECIAL ONE HOUR. JEFF, TACK ON WEBEX. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY STRONG FEELINGS? I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO DISCUSS THE STATE OF THE MARKET HERE. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, IN THE DEMAND RESPONSE AND OTHER CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IS THE MARKET WORKING AND HOW MARKET WORKING. SO I WANT TO GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO FEEL THEIR FEELINGS ON THAT. AND I THOUGHT THE STATE OF THE MARKET WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY. SO, SO AUGUST TECH FOR THAT SUPPORT THAT. OKAY. FOR JEFF FEST. JEFF FEST OR JEFF FEST, A ONE HOUR WEBEX. JEFF FEST TWO TWO HOURS. OKAY. JEFF JAMBOREE. I HAVE A FEELING JEFF WOULD HATE THESE NAMES, BUT. BUT WE CAN LET, WE CAN LET HIM KNOW THAT JEFF JAMBOREE IS PLANNED. OKAY, WE'LL REACH OUT TO JEFF. I THINK IF THEY'RE ON PANEL ONE. HE'S. PANEL FOUR, HE'S NOT GETTING HERE, YOU KNOW, ANYWHERE CLOSE TO WHEN WE ARE DONE WITH THE REST OF THE AGENDA. SO I THINK WE COULD TAKE A COUPLE MINUTE BREAK HERE AND THEN GO THROUGH A TEN MINUTE BREAK. ALL RIGHT. COME BACK AT 1055. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE BACK. W MESS, MAYBE. YES. BLAKE. [8. WMS Report (Vote)] THANK YOU. COREY. BLAKE HOLT WITH W MS OUR FIRST. SO WE'VE HAD TWO MEETINGS IN JUNE AND JULY SINCE WE'VE MET LAST AT TAC AND WANTED TO TALK ABOUT OUR JUNE MEETING. [01:15:05] THE FIRST THING I'LL HIGHLIGHT IS THE THREE REMAINING REVISION REQUESTS RELATED TO 1264 WE APPROVED. DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A TYPO, A SMOGER 051 SHOULD BE SMOGER 031. BUT THESE SHOULD BE THE LAST REMAINING REVISION REQUESTS FOR TAC TO CONSIDER RELATED TO 1264. ADDITIONALLY, WE APPROVED NPR 1301, WHICH TAC HAS ALREADY TAKEN UP TODAY. WE DID HAVE A FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE WORKSHOP TO GET READY FOR PHASE THREE RULE CHANGES. ERCOT PREVIEWED SOME DRAFT MPR LANGUAGE, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FILED IN THE FORM OF MPR 1335. AND WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS, AND WE'LL SEEK TO BE MOVING THIS FORWARD. I WILL HIGHLIGHT THAT WE PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE TO GET 1335 THROUGH THE PROCESS BEFORE THIS NEXT CONTRACT PERIOD. BUT ERCOT STATED THEY'RE GOING TO LEAN ON THE RULE IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THAT. ALL RIGHT. NEXT SLIDE. DURING OUR JULY MEETING, WE ENDORSED 1328, WHICH WE'VE ALSO TAKEN UP TODAY AT THIS GROUP. WE'VE GOT A HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION ON THE 2027AS METHODOLOGY. AND SINCE THAT TIME, THERE'S BEEN SOME DETAILED DISCUSSIONS AT WMG JUST A FEW DAYS AGO. ERCOT WILL BE SEEKING APPROVAL OF THE NEW METHODOLOGY AT THE AUGUST SUB-COMMITTEES AND HERE AT PTAC. ANOTHER THING I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT IS NPR 1337. THIS IS RELATED TO ATTACK ACTION ITEM TO REVIEW ERS PRE-DEPLOYMENT AND TO ESTABLISH SOME ENHANCED PERFORMANCE AND AVAILABILITY METRICS FOR ERS PARTICIPANTS. WE HAD QUITE A LONG DISCUSSION AT THE JULY MEETING. AND YOU KNOW, THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF OPPOSITION TO THE APPROACH THAT ERCOT PROPOSED, AT LEAST VOCALLY EXPRESSED. AND THERE WAS SOME IN WRITING. SO DSG AND AS WELL AS WMG HAVE HOSTED ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS ON THIS TOPIC, AND I EXPECT TO HEAR SOME DECISION POINTS AT OUR AUGUST 5TH MEETING FOR WMS TO CONSIDER. ADDITIONALLY, WE DISCUSSED RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE. AT OUR JULY MEETING, ENERGY PREVIEWED AN ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT TO NPR 1296 AND HER GENERAL SUPPORT AROUND THE ROOM FOR THE IDEAS THAT THEY HAD AND ANTICIPATE. BRINGING THIS BACK UP AT AT OUR NEXT MEETING TO TO SEE IF ERCOT HAS ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK OR NRG HAS ANYTHING ELSE TO BRING FORWARD. AND THEN FINALLY, I WANTED TO BRING UP A STATUS UPDATE ON ANOTHER TACK ACTION ITEM RELATED TO THE 202 C ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED EARLIER THIS YEAR. I'VE BEEN WORKING OFFLINE WITH ERCOT STAFF ON THE THE BULLETS OR TRYING TO GET ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT THAT ARE ON THIS SLIDE. THE SHORT STORY IS ERCOT IS STILL INVESTIGATING SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, BUT ANTICIPATE THAT WE'LL BE HEARING BACK AND WORKING WITH THEM IN FUTURE MONTHS. BUT HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SLIDE SPECIFICALLY OR ANYTHING PREVIOUSLY. OKAY. LET'S DO THE VOTING ITEMS AND THEN MAYBE GO BACK TO SOME OF THE TOPICS. SO WE WERE NOT EARLIER, IN FACT FINISHED WITH THE 1264 REVISION REQUEST, BUT WE WILL BE NOW LOOKING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF COPMGRR51 AS RECOMMENDED BY W MS SMUGGER 31 IS RECOMMENDED BY W MS IN THE JUNE 3RD WMS REPORT AND VCMR43 AS RECOMMENDED BY W MS IN THE JUNE 3RD W MS REPORT. CAN WE PUT THOSE ON THE COMBO? CAN SOMEBODY CONFIRM WE ARE NOW FINISHED WITH THE 1264 REVISION REQUEST? YES, LET'S GO TO THE FIRM FUEL SUPPLY SERVICE. I ASKED KEITH OR SOMEBODY FROM MARKET TO WEIGH IN, BUT BRIAN SIMS WAS FIRST. SO LET'S GO TO BRIAN SAMS. THIS IS A QUESTION ABOUT THE RFP FOR THE UPCOMING TERM. IS IT COMING OUT ON AUGUST 1ST ISH? YES. [01:20:02] OKAY. SO WE'LL SEE IT WEDNESDAY SINCE THE FIRST, I THINK IS A SATURDAY. SORRY, FRIDAY. WE'LL SEE IT ON FRIDAY, MAYBE EXPECTED ON FRIDAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M JUST I'VE GOT SOME EAGER BEAVERS THAT ARE EXCITED FOR THIS. THANK YOU. OKAY. I JUST WANTED KEITH OR SOMEBODY FROM ERCOT TO TALK ABOUT THE TIMING THERE ON PASSING THIS NPR VERSUS THE PIECE IS CHATTING ON HIS WAY UP HERE. YES. SORRY. OR ON HIS. I THINK YOU MISSED CAITLIN'S QUESTION. NO. YEAH, I MISSED IT ON THE THE TIMING OF NPR 1335. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THEIR STANCE OR WEIGH IN. I BELIEVE IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S GOING TO BE DELAYED UNTIL AFTER THE NEXT RFP, BUT THAT IS FINE. THAT WORKS. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO USE THE RULE ACTUALLY TO APPLY FOR THE NEXT SEASON. AND EVERYTHING IN THE NPR IS REALLY WAS APPROVED ADOPTED IN THE RULE EXCEPT FOR SOME MINOR CHANGES. OKAY. OKAY. ANYTHING ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON FROM FUEL? CAN WE GO TO BLAKE'S NEXT SLIDE? ANYBODY WANT TO TALK ABOUT ERS. KEITH. ALL RIGHT. SO I KNOW THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AT CES ABOUT URGENT STATUS ON ERS. I DON'T BELIEVE A VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THAT. OUR OUR REQUEST IS TO, TO MAKE IT TO THE SEPTEMBER BOARD. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WOULD REQUIRE EITHER MOVEMENT AT THE WMS OR MOVEMENT AT CES TO MOVE THAT ALONG. WELL, ULTIMATELY MOVEMENT AT CES TO MOVE IT THROUGH URGENTLY. SO WE DO REQUEST THAT FROM STAKEHOLDERS. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ITEM FOR US. WE HAVE MADE SOME MODIFICATIONS BASED ON SOME FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM STAKEHOLDERS ON THE ON THE PROPOSAL ON 1337, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARDS TO SOME LANGUAGE THAT. HOW HOW THE MECHANISM WOULD WORK WAS WAS NOT EXPRESSLY IN THE PROTOCOL MODIFICATIONS, BUT. BUT THAT WILL BE AND HAS BEEN ADDED IN IN THE REVISED VERSION. SO WE ARE WE HAVE BEEN RESPONSIVE TO TO SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED. OBVIOUSLY, WE MAY NOT MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY ON THIS, BUT WE DO THINK THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CHANGE. THE ALTERNATIVE BASELINE, AND OUR VIEW IS BEING USED IN WAYS THAT IT WASN'T DESIGNED FOR. SO WE ARE MODIFYING IT IN WAYS THAT WE BELIEVE ADDRESS THAT ISSUE MOVING FORWARD. AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS TO THE SEPTEMBER BOARD. THANKS. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YEAH. JUST A FOLLOW UP ON THAT. PROCEDURALLY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN NEXT PRS MEETING NEEDS TO VOTE ON URGENCY. SO WE NEED. SO THE POINT IS WE WANT. OUR VIEW IS WE'D LIKE IT AT THE SEPTEMBER BOARD, AND OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'D NEED AN URGENT STATUS REQUEST AT PRS IN ORDER TO TAKE IT UP AT PRS IN AUGUST. OTHERWISE, WE MISS A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY. ALL RIGHT. SO. SO PRS SHOULD EXPECT THAT THAT TOPIC. I THINK YOU NEED THE URGENT STATUS TO DO BOTH THE LANGUAGE AND THE IA BECAUSE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PART. YEAH. IT'S JUST I WASN'T SURE WHAT KEITH WAS ASKING OR WHAT THE. YOU'RE NOT ASKING US FOR URGENT STATUS. YOU NEED TO ASK PRS FOR. WE'RE ASKING PRS TO HAVE THE URGENT STATUS. THAT'S RIGHT. COREY. YEAH. SO YOU WOULD WANT W MS TO ENDORSE IN AUGUST OR OTHERWISE PRS TO SKIP THAT ENDORSEMENT AND PRS TO ENDORSE IN AUGUST AND THEN HEAR. NED KEITH JUST TO PULL ON THE STRING FOR WHY SEPTEMBER IS IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD. I'M ASSUMING THAT IS SO THAT ANY CHANGES CAN BE IMPLEMENTED FOR THE WINTER ERS CONTRACT SEASON. IS THAT CORRECT? UNFORTUNATELY, NO. GIVEN THE TIMING OF WHEN THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE IT UP AND WHEN THE ERS PROCESS BEGINS, WE'RE GOING TO MISS THAT WINDOW. AND SO THIS PUSHES US INTO THE FALL. AND SO WE WANT TO WE DON'T WANT TO MISS ANOTHER WINDOW AND END UP HAVING TO BE EVEN LATER. SO IT BECOMES REALLY IMPORTANT. SO WE HAVE IT FOR THE SPRING AND THEN NEXT SUMMER. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. GOT IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT SHOULD BE THAT FAST, BUT AUGUST HACK IS THE LAST TIME TO GET [01:25:02] THINGS APPROVED BY THE END OF THE YEAR. BECAUSE SEPTEMBER BOARD THAN COMMISSION. SO IF YOU WANT SOMETHING APPROVED BY THE END OF THE YEAR HAS TO GO TO AUGUST TECH. THAT'S NOT AN INVITATION, BUT IT'S JUST A NOTE. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE ON URS? RESIDENTIAL DEMAND RESPONSE. BILL IS NOT HERE. KEITH, DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? I THINK WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON BILL'S NEW PROPOSAL. I THINK WE'VE BEEN EVALUATING IT AND CONSIDERING IT, SO I THINK MORE TO COME. THANKS. IS THERE A REQUESTED TIMELINE FOR MURCOTT ON THAT ONE? I THINK IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH FOLKS, I THINK THERE'S A SENSE THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY HERE AND I THINK HAVING SOMETHING IN THE COMING MONTHS MAKES MAKE SENSE? BUT BUT I THINK I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE, BUT I CAN DEFINITELY FOLLOW UP AND SEE IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC TIMELINE THAT THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT SOMETHING. THANKS. OKAY. THAT'S GREAT. CAN WE GO TO BLAKE'S NEXT? SORRY. ONE MORE. ONE MORE FOLLOW UP WITH KEITH ON THAT ONE. I LEFT MS WITH THE SENSE THAT ERCOT WAS GOING TO COME BACK WITH SOME IDEAS OR SOME INPUT. IF THAT'S NOT ERCOT PERSPECTIVE, THEN WE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. SO I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY OR VALIDATE. YEAH, I'LL JUST BE CLEAR THAT THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS HAPPENING INTERNALLY AT ERCOT AT THE MOMENT. AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THOSE, YOU KNOW, T'S CROSSED AND LOWERCASE J'S DOTTED. AND SO I THINK IT MAY, WE MAY NOT HAVE THAT READY JUST FOR THAT MS MEETING NEXT WEEK. I WOULDN'T EXPECT IT. WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IS A CONCEPT HAS BEEN LAID OUT. WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FROM ERCOT'S PERSPECTIVE IS KIND OF THE LAYOUT OF HERE ARE THE THINGS WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT. HERE ARE THE TOPICS THAT NEED TO BE FLESHED OUT. I'M NOT EXPECTING THE ANSWERS, BUT ERCOT, I THINK, IS THE BEST ORGANIZATION TO TRY TO COME BACK WITH. IF WE WANT TO GO DOWN THESE PATHS, HERE ARE THE THINGS THAT HAVE TO GET WORKED ON. IF YOU COULD, IF ERCOT COULD COME TO W.M.S. WITH THAT KIND OF INPUT, I THINK THAT WOULD REALLY HELP HELP THE DISCUSSION GOING FORWARD. SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S THAT Y'ALL, I'M LOOKING BEHIND ME TO IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE LOOKING AT THEM, I'LL LOOK AT THEM TOO. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS COULD THINK ABOUT THAT WOULD, THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THIS, THIS ISSUE IN PARTICULAR. WELL, WE APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK THAT. THANK YOU. DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING GORD? I'LL JUST ADD THAT WE WERE HAPPY TO TO BRING THAT TYPE OF CONTENT BACK TO WMS. BUT TO REITERATE WHAT WHAT KEITH SAID, IT LIKELY WON'T BE NEXT WEEK. OKAY. DOES ANYONE WANT TO DISCUSS THE, THE DOE ACTION ITEM? OKAY. BLAKE. ANYTHING ELSE? NO, MA'AM. THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ON TO LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP. [9. Large Load Working Group (LLWG) Report] BOB WHITMIRE. GOOD MORNING. SO I'D LIKE TO START OUT WITH I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT BATCH ZERO. I WILL TALK ABOUT PRE BATCH ZERO BUT NOT BATCH ZERO. LET'S LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO PRE BATCH ZERO WE HAD ABOUT 470GW IN THE INTERCONNECTION QUEUE. AND I'LL LEAVE THE REST OF THAT FOR FOR JEFF LATER TODAY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS COMING UP IS THE VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH ASSESSMENT THAT ERCOT HAS JUST PERFORMED. IF YOU HAVE A LARGE LOAD INSIDE ONE OF THESE CIRCLES, YOU ARE LIKELY TO BE SUBJECT TO CURTAILMENT. IF YOU CANNOT MEET NOGUER 282. THESE CURTAILMENTS SHOULD BE COULD BE SIGNIFICANT. YOU SHOULD REALLY BE INVESTIGATING HOW YOU'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH NOGUER 282 EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT TECHNICALLY REQUIRED TO. THE EXEMPTION YOU HAVE IS TO ALLOW YOU TO ENERGIZE. [01:30:01] IT IS NOT TO ALLOW YOU TO CONSUME. SO BE CAREFUL IF YOU THINK YOU'RE IN THE CLEAR. YOU ARE PROBABLY NOT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE NEXT BIG ISSUE COMING UP IS GOING TO BE THE LARGE COMPUTATIONAL LOAD POWER VARIATION LIMIT. THIS IS THE TEN MEGAWATT VARIATION OVER A FIVE ROLLING SECOND WINDOW. THIS DOES NOT LIMIT YOUR RAMP. YOU CAN RAMP THROUGH THIS. WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEE IS OSCILLATIONS OF TEN MEGAWATTS OR MORE ON ANY ROLLING FIVE SECOND BASIS. AND THAT LIMIT, AS BEING DISCUSSED TODAY, IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SIZE OF THE DATA CENTER. SO 100 MEGAWATT OR A GIGAWATT WILL BOTH FACE THE SAME TEN MEGAWATT LIMITATION. THE GOOD NEWS IS THE LIKELY FIX FOR THIS IS THE SAME FIX AS YOUR VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH. SO NOTHING YOU HAVE TO MEET TODAY, BUT LIKELY BEFORE YOU GET RESULTS FROM BATCH ZERO, THIS WILL BE IN PLACE. WE EXPECT TO SEE THIS FROM ERCOT SHORTLY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO SPEAKING OF NEXT MEETINGS IN AUGUST WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT PUNS AND PCLS. THE CONCEPT THAT ERCOT HAS BROUGHT FORTH ABOUT A YEAR AGO NETTED NETWORKS IS LIKELY TO BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR THESE DATA CENTERS. IF YOU REMEMBER, IN BATCH ZERO, YOU COULD, THE ONLY WAY WAS IF YOU HAD A GENERATOR BEHIND THE PHYSICAL POINT OF INTERCONNECTION NETTED NETWORKS MIGHT ALLOW NETTING WITHIN A SUBSTATION IF YOU HAD A GENERATOR AND LOAD IN THE SAME THING. AND WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT POWER VARIATION THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, SEPTEMBER. WE WANT TO START TALKING WITH PEOPLE THAT HAVE ACTUAL REAL VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED OR ARE BEING INSTALLED. LESS ABOUT THEORETICALLY WE COULD DO IT AND MORE PRACTICALLY, WHO IS DOING IT AND HOW ARE THEY DOING IT. SO IF YOUR FACILITY CAN DO THAT TODAY, OR IF YOU'RE A VENDOR AND YOU HAVE A FACILITY YOU'RE WORKING WITH, PLEASE REACH OUT TO ME. WE'D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU IN SEPTEMBER. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ON LARGE LOADS UNRELATED TO BACTERIAL. OKAY. BLAKE. HEY, BOB BLAKE KING FROM GALAXY DIGITAL. I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT TO AVOID THE SYSTEM OPERATING LIMIT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO MEET NOGA 282. I THINK THE WAY THAT THAT WAS CHARACTERIZED IN THE PAST WAS THAT YOU? YOU MAY NOT HAVE TO MEET THE FULL OGRE 282 REQUIREMENTS, BUT JUST SHOW SOME VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH CAPABILITY. IS THERE ANY CLARITY FROM ERCOT OPERATIONS ON WHAT WHAT SPECIFICALLY YOU NEED TO PROVE IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING CAPTURED IN THE SOL? SURE. I'LL SEE IF ANYBODY ON ERCOT CAN ANSWER THAT. I CANNOT, PATRICK. I SEE PATRICK'S HERE. HE'S THE PERFECT PERSON. HELLO, EVERYONE. PATRICK FROM ERCOT. SO, BLAKE. YES, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IF YOU DON'T MEET ALL OF NOUGAT 282 AND YOU THAT FACILITY IS RIDING THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR FAULT EVENT BECAUSE JUST TO, TO REMIND EVERYONE HOW THESE SIMULATIONS ARE RUN, WE'RE APPLYING A FALSE MOSTLY ON THE 345 KV THREE PHASE FAULTS AND WE'RE SEEING WHAT LOADS TRIP BASED ON THE MODELS WE HAVE. SO IF YOU HAVE A MODEL THAT'S REFLECTING YOUR ACTUAL RIDE THROUGH PERFORMANCE. AND IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY MEET ALL OF NAGDCA 282 AND YOU ARE EXEMPT. THEN IF YOU'RE RIDING THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR FAULT, YOU WILL NOT BE ADDED TO THAT LIST. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE POST FAULT. ACTIVE POWER RECOVERY IS, IS REALLY A BIG ONE AS WELL. SO IF YOU CAN RETURN WITHIN THAT TWO SECOND PERIOD THEN YOU ALSO WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS I.R.L LIST AND HAVE CURTAILMENT. DID THAT CLARIFY THINGS? I THINK SO. AND SO FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT HERE, IS THERE GOING TO BE A LIST OF PROJECTS PROVIDED TO THE TSP? AND THEN IN ORDER TO SORT OF, YES, EXPLORE EXEMPTIONS, YOU WORK WITH THE TSP, IS THAT SORT OF THE PROCESS? YES. WE'RE WE'RE DEVELOPING THE MITIGATION PLANS RIGHT NOW. WE'VE BEEN REVIEWING THOSE WITH THE TSP. THERE ARE ALSO SOME SHOCKS THAT WE STILL NEED TO CONTACT AS WELL, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOME CO-LOCATED FACILITIES THAT ARE ON THE LIST AS WELL, AND THOSE WOULD BE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR LOOKING AT THOSE [01:35:07] CO-LOCATED LOADS AND AND THAT MITIGATION AS WELL. SO WE'RE FINALIZING THOSE MITIGATION PLANS. WE HAVE PROVIDED A PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY LIST TO ALL THE CSPS. SOME OF THEM HAVE STARTED REACHING OUT TO THE CUSTOMERS AS WELL. AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS IF THE LCL ENTITY FEELS THAT WE HAVEN'T ACCURATELY REFLECTED THEIR RIDE THROUGH CAPABILITY WE CAN WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE UPDATED MODELS AND THE LARGE LOAD MODEL SURVEY. AND WE CAN GET THOSE THINGS CORRECTED IF NECESSARY AND GET IT INTO THE NEXT QSA VR ASSESSMENT. PERFECT. THANK YOU PATRICK. YOU'RE WELCOME. THAT'S THE ORDER. LUNCH ALARM. OKAY. CLAYTON. YEAH. BOB, CAN I ADD ONE TO YOUR LIST? THE DOUBLE PUN STUFF NEEDED WORK. FROM BATCH ZERO. ARE YOU PUTTING THAT ON YOUR LIST, OR IS THERE GOING TO BE ANOTHER GROUP THAT WILL. I THINK THAT'S ON MY LIST. CLAYTON. I DIDN'T CALL IT W ELL PUN BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF W ELL PUN CONTINUES AFTER BATCH ZERO, BUT CERTAINLY PUNS DO. AND THAT'S HOW I WAS LOOKING AT IT. SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YEAH, I THINK IT'S STILL IN OUR GROUP. AND THEN ANOTHER QUESTION I'VE ASKED THIS IN THE PAST IS ARE WE GOING TO DO ANY FOLLOW UP? LIKE EVEN THOUGH WE MAY NOT HAVE CLOSE END FAULTS TO ANY OF THESE DATA CENTERS, ANYTIME THAT WE HAVE A FAULT, ARE WE GOING TO BE PULLING PMU DATA AND MAKING SURE THAT THE RESPONSE WE'RE EXPECTING IS THE RESPONSE WE'RE SEEING? PATRICK. HI, CLAYTON. WE'RE GOING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN. LOOKING AT THE DATA CENTERS THAT DON'T RIGHT THROUGH. I MEAN, WE'RE WE'RE MOSTLY GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE DATA CENTERS THAT DON'T RIDE THROUGH. THAT'S PART OF OUR EVENT ANALYSIS PROCESS. WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE HOW MUCH LOAD WAS LOST FOR A GIVEN FAULT EVENT. IF WE ARE AWARE OF SOME DATA CENTERS THAT ARE CLOSE TO A FAULT THAT DID RIDE THROUGH WE WILL PULL THAT DATA AS WELL AND SEE HOW THAT DATA CENTER RESPONDED. BUT MOSTLY WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT THE DATA CENTERS THAT DO NOT RIDE THROUGH. OKAY. YEAH, I WOULD, THE LATTER ONE IS, IS JUST AS IMPORTANT. I WOULD SAY JUST AS A VERIFICATION, YOU KNOW, TRUST, BUT VERIFY YOU'RE GOING, YOU'RE PUTTING A LOT OF STOCK IN THESE, THE MODELS THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED TO YOU. AND, AND I LIKE THE FACT THAT WE'VE MOVED TO PERK ONE AND YOU GET THE TIMING ELEMENTS, BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE MODELS MATCH WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE FIELD, I THINK NEEDS TO BE BE DONE AS WELL. THANKS. OKAY. WE'LL TAKE THAT BACK. WE DID GET A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL FTES APPROVED WITH ANOTHER 282. SO WE COULD PROBABLY START LOOKING AT THAT MORE THOROUGHLY AS WE HAVE THESE FAULT EVENTS. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY. MIKE. MIKE FROM MOSAIC. SO JUST, I GUESS MY QUESTION TURNED OUT TO BE A FOLLOW UP TO WHAT CLAYTON SAID. I MEAN, AS PART OF THIS 82 COMPLIANCE OR THE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE IS IT THE INITIAL ANALYSIS IS PURELY BASED ON THE MODEL SUBMITTED AND IS GOING TO SOMEHOW THROUGH UP WITH THE ACTUAL DATA REAL, LIKE REAL LIFE DATA AS THEY COME OUT. OR IS THERE ANY OTHER PROCESS IN MIND. THERE ARE TWO PROCESSES HERE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE BIGGER 144 PROCESS AS PART OF THE INTERCONNECTION, VALIDATING THOSE MODELS WITH MODEL QUALITY TEST, AND RUNNING THOSE DISTURBANCE SIMULATIONS AND CHECKING TO SEE IF THESE MODELS MEET THE TWO REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY AS WE HAVE EVENTS AND FAULT EVENTS DOWN THE ROAD AND OPERATIONS WE WOULD TAKE SOME OF THAT PMU DATA WE COLLECT FROM THE SPS OR THE SCS AND RUN THAT SIMULATION AGAINST THOSE MODELS AS WELL TO SEE IF THEY'RE MATCHING. SO IT'S KIND OF A TWO PART, WE'VE GOT THE FRONT END AND THE BACK END OPERATIONS THAT WE LOOK AT THAT WE LOOK AT. YEAH. BUT I MEAN MODEL QUALITY TESTS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT'S A KIND OF A TO VALIDATE, BUT TO KIND OF VALIDATE THE MODEL, BUT NOT TO VERIFY THE MODEL. RIGHT. SO I TAKE IT THE VERIFICATION PART OF IT COMES USING THE PMU TEST DATA, IF ANY. RIGHT. YES, WE CAN DO VERIFICATION WHEN WE HAVE ACTUAL EVENTS ON THE PMU WITH THE PMU DATA, AND WE CAN MATCH THAT TO THE MODEL TO SEE IF WE GOT THE EXPECTED PERFORMANCE. AND IF WE DON'T, WE NEED TO FOLLOW UP AND GET FIGURE OUT IF THE MODEL IS INCORRECT OR SOMETHING'S INCORRECT IN THE FIELD. [01:40:06] SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DO WITH IVRS, WE FIGURE OUT WHAT WHAT THE ACTUAL ISSUE WAS, DO THE ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS, AND IF WE NEED TO GET UPDATED MODELS, THEN WE WOULD DIRECT THE ENTITY TO UPDATE THEIR MODELS AS WELL WITH THOSE IMPLEMENTED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. BUT IF THE IF, LET'S SAY THE EVENT HAPPENS AND AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THE MODEL SUBMITTED WAS NOT ACCURATE. AND IT CAUSED SOME SYSTEM RELIABILITY ISSUE. IS THERE ANY I DON'T KNOW RESPONSIBILITY ON A, ON THE LOAD CUSTOMER DO THEY HAVE TO. YES, THAT'S THAT'S WRITTEN IN THE NAGDCA 282. OKAY. THE PERFORMING THE ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPING THE IMPLEMENTATION, THE CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLEMENTATION. AND THERE'S ALSO SOME RULES WITHIN TRIGGER 144 TO UPDATE THOSE MODELS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY. ANY OTHER NON BATCH ZERO QUESTIONS FOR BOB OR ERKUT? NOPE. ANYTHING ELSE? BOB WALKED AWAY ALREADY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT'S A LOT OF WORK HAPPENING THERE. KFSG. THIS IS IS THIS JUST MEMBERSHIP APPROVAL AND NOT A REPORT? [10. Credit Finance Sub Group (CFSG) Report (Vote)] NO, THERE'S A REPORT. OKAY. REPORT. AWESOME. GO AHEAD. JETT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE HAVE TWO NEW MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. THE CFG DOES NOT APPROVE THESE. JUST A REMINDER. WE GIVE THE OKAY, MAKE SURE THEY HAVE MET THE CRITERIA AND THEN BRING TO TAC FOR APPROVAL. WE HAVE MISS SELASSIE WITH JUPITER POWER AND THEN SCOTT COKELY WITH JUST ENERGY. ON THE UPDATE. SO THE SLIDE DOESN'T REFLECT IT. WE ALSO MET IN JUNE. I BELIEVE IT WAS JUNE 24TH AND JULY 22ND. THE CFC MET VOTING MATTERS WHERE WE HAD FIVE HOURS AND THEN APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. ERCOT DID BRING A PROPOSED NPR FOR SECTION 16 CREDIT CLEAN UP. AND THEN WE HAD OUR REGULAR CREDIT EXPOSURE UPDATES. NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. SO THESE WERE THE 5NPRS REVIEWED. ALL FIVE. WE DID NOT BELIEVE THEY REQUIRED ANY CHANGES TO THE CREDIT MONITORING ACTIVITY OR THE CALCULATION OF LIABILITY. SO THE CFC WAS OKAY WITH ALL FIVE OF THESE FROM A CREDIT PERSPECTIVE. OKAY. AND THEN THE SECTION 16 CLEAN UP WAS CLEAN UP OF SOME OF THE EXPOSURE LANGUAGE AND FORMULAS REQUIRING NEW COUNTERPARTIES INTENDING TO SERVE LOW TO POST AN INITIAL MINIMUM COLLATERAL COMPARABLE TO THE 22,500 IMC REQUIRED OF TRADE ONLY COUNTERPARTIES AS ALSO INTRODUCTION OF LANGUAGE, ESTABLISHING TIMELINES FOR PROCESSING CASH, COLLATERAL DEPOSITS AND RETURNS. AND LASTLY LANGUAGE ON INVOICE PAYMENT PROCESS. AGAIN, THESE WILL COME BACK AS AN NPR, BUT ERCOT WANTED TO BRING THESE CFC ON THE FRONT END TO GET SOME, SOME THOUGHTS ON THEM. SO ALL NEXT SLIDE. TO THE CREDIT UPDATES OF MAY TO JUNE. NOT A LOT OF CHANGE FROM THE PRIOR MONTHS. IT'S A SLIGHT INCREASE OF TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE. JUST AVERAGE DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL SLIGHTLY DECREASED FROM 4.35 BILLION TO 4.31. AND THEN NO UNUSUAL COLLATERAL CALL ACTIVITY. SO FAIRLY QUIET ON THE CREDIT FRONT. AND NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. THIS JUST SHOWS THE AVAILABLE CREDIT BY TYPE COMPARE TOTAL POTENTIAL EXPOSURE. AGAIN RELATIVELY FLAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF JANUARY OF THIS YEAR MAY TO JUNE. NOT MUCH OF A CHANGE. NEXT SLIDE. SO AGAIN ANOTHER LOOK AT THE DISCRETIONARY COLLATERAL BY MAKEUP HERE FROM MAY TO JUNE. AGAIN, NOT A LOT OF CHANGE AS OF AS OF RECENTLY. AND THE NEXT SLIDE. OKAY. AND JUST A REVIEW OF THE ISSUER CREDIT LIMITS VERSUS TOTAL LETTER OF CREDIT AMOUNTS PER ISSUER. SO THESE ARE, THERE ARE TOTAL 36 BANKS THAT HAVE LETTERS OF CREDIT ISSUED FOR MARKET PARTICIPANTS. [01:45:03] AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN, JUST SHOWS THE HOW MUCH OF THE CREDIT LIMIT IS CONSUMED CURRENTLY? WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY OVER 100, ONLY ONE FELLOW FAIRLY CLOSE, AGAIN, MOSTLY DUE TO THE KIND OF QUIET CREDIT CONDITIONS IN, IN ERCOT HERE LATELY. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE LAST SLIDE. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A VOTING ITEM LOOKING TO APPROVE THE KFSG MEMBERSHIP ADDITIONS AS PRESENTED. MR FROM JUPITER. SO I. I TOLD MARTHA I'D VOUCH FOR HIM. SAME RULE APPLIES INTERNALLY. IF I CALL YOU AND YOU DON'T WANT TO BE VOLUNTEERED FOR SOMETHING, DON'T ANSWER. BUT HE. HE WILL BE GREAT. AND THEN SCOTT COKELY FROM JUST ENERGY. I THINK WE CAN PUT THIS ON THE COMBO BALLOT. YEP. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON KFSG? OKAY. RIGHT. NEXT IS STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER BOARD. [11. ERCOT Reports (Part 1 of 2)] IS REBECCA READY TO JUST SNEAK UP ON HER? I CAN SPEAK TO IT BRIEFLY. YES. I'M NOT SURE IF REBECCA IS ON THE PHONE. JUST BRIEFLY, I THINK THE TOPIC FOR THE SEPTEMBER BOARD IS POTENTIALLY GOING TO BE THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSMISSION PLANNING, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH TAC LEADERSHIP AND REACHING OUT TO INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES TO KIND OF GAUGE INTEREST THERE. IS THAT THE WHOLE UPDATE? OKAY. I THINK, YOU KNOW, FEEDBACK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. CLAYTON, THIS IS ALSO YOUR FIVE MINUTE POPCORN WARNING BEFORE BATCH ZERO UPDATE. SORRY, JEFF. BUT SO, SO AS ANN SAID, STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT FOR SEPTEMBER. BOARD. WE DID A COUPLE OF THESE LAST YEAR. I THINK A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO SPEAK AT THE ACTUAL BOARD MEETING. I GOT SOME REALLY GOOD FEEDBACK, ESPECIALLY FROM THE REAL TIME CO-OPTIMIZATION ONE, I THINK IT WAS SORT OF A KIND OF NON ADVOCACY TOPIC. AND, YOU KNOW, HEARING FROM THE POWER MARKETERS SEGMENT, I THINK WAS UNUSUAL FOR THE BOARD AND GOOD. SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO WORK WITH ERCOT ON TOPICS GOING FORWARD AND SPEAKERS GOING FORWARD. AND I THINK A LOT OF TAC FEEDBACK TO THE EXTENT PEOPLE HAVE IT IS APPROPRIATE. GO AHEAD. BLAKE. BLAKE HOLT LCRA. AND I'M CURIOUS, WHAT WHAT'S THE EXPECTATION FOR. SEEING A REVISION REQUEST RELATED TO THE CTP? IS THAT GOING TO BE. I KNOW THE GOAL IS TO APPROVE SOMETHING BY FEBRUARY OF NEXT YEAR. SO WALKING BACK, WILL WE HAVE AT LEAST A PROTOCOL FILE OR A REVISION REQUEST FILED AHEAD OF THE SEPTEMBER BOARD? DO WE KNOW THAT? I THINK MATT'S GOING TO TALK MORE ABOUT THAT WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT THE WORKSHOPS FOR COMPREHENSIVE TRANSMISSION PLANNING. SO WE'LL SEE WHAT HIS TIMELINE IS THERE. GOTCHA. MY POINT OF BRINGING THAT UP IS PERHAPS MAYBE A DECEMBER BOARD WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE HAD WORKSHOPS AND HAVE FULLY FLESHED IDEAS OUT THERE. JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. AND IT WOULD BE A KIND OF A HEADS UP FOR THE FEBRUARY BOARD THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS TOPIC IS COMING FOR, FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO CONSIDER. BUT JUST A THOUGHT. OKAY. WE CAN DEFINITELY TAKE THAT BACK. THANKS. THANKS, BLAKE. I THINK I HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIMING AS WELL, BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF IN MY MIND, A LITTLE ODDLY TIMED. IT'S KIND OF RIGHT AHEAD OF A PROPOSAL, BUT ALSO COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER HAPPENS TO BE SPEAKING TO PRESENT THEIR OWN PROPOSAL. SO I THINK THESE HAVE BEEN WORKING WELL, BUT I THINK IT'S WORKING WELL WHEN IT'S SORT OF AN A EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION THAT THE BOARD DOESN'T USUALLY HAVE ACCESS TO. ANY OTHER TOPICS? GO AHEAD. REBECCA'S HERE. WE DID IT WITHOUT YOU, REBECCA. WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SORRY. I WAS ON THE SENATE HEARING. THERE WAS A LOT GOING ON RIGHT NOW. THERE'S A LOT GOING ON. I DON'T THINK THERE ARE QUESTIONS. I THINK WE WERE JUST COMMENTING. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? I THINK WE WE WERE QUESTIONING THE TIMING A LITTLE BIT. COULD THIS BE A DECEMBER TOPIC. BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY THIS IS A GOOD THING THAT WE'RE DOING. [01:50:02] YEAH. WITHOUT HEARING THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATION. I WILL SAY THAT THIS TIMING HELPS GET TO A OVERALL STAKEHOLDER INFORMATION SESSION AND PRESENTATION OF PEOPLE'S HOPES FOR THIS PROCESS AND WHAT THEY'D LIKE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE VERSUS ISSUES SPECIFIC TO A STAKEHOLDER THAT MIGHT HAPPEN LATER IN THE PROCESS WHEN WE ACTUALLY HAVE LANGUAGE OR FURTHER INTO DELIBERATING THOSE SPECIFICS. SO I THINK THE TIMING ON THE FRONT END IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN DECEMBER OR FEBRUARY, WHEN THERE IS A DEEPER LEVEL OF CONVERSATION HAPPENING. AND THE BOARD REALLY APPRECIATED GETTING THE BROAD PERSPECTIVES. THE LAST TWO TIMES WE DID THIS LAST YEAR VERSUS, YOU KNOW, ARGUING ABOUT SPECIFIC THINGS FOR A ENTITY. I KNOW CHRISTIE WANTS TO MAKE A STATEMENT AS WELL ON THIS. MAYBE NOT RIGHT THIS SECOND, BUT I THINK LATER I THINK I THINK SHE'S HER VIEW AND REBECCA'S VIEW ARE MORE ALIGNMENT. OKAY. OKAY. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. I THINK MY CONCERN IS THE ADVOCACY POSSIBILITY FOR ADVOCACY, BUT I THINK URQUHART'S DONE A GOOD JOB OF PROVIDING. KIND OF GUIDANCE AND PROMPTS. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN. PARTICIPANTS. WE HAVE JUST FOR TRANSPARENCY ON THE PROCESS, WE'VE HAD KIND OF A FRONT END WHEN WORKING WITH TALK LEADERSHIP TO SELECT THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE SEGMENTS AND THEN DEVELOPING THROUGH THE PROCESS PROMPTS AND THEN HAVING ANOTHER MEETING TO LOOK AT PRESENTATIONS TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE MORE INFORMATION VERSUS ADVOCACY AND GETTING INTO THOSE SPECIFIC FOR COMPANIES AND REALLY REPRESENTING A SEGMENT OR INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE VERSUS INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES. SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE CONSIDER THROUGH THE PROCESS. YEAH, WE'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF SO FAR HAVING IT BE A SEGMENT KIND OF COLLABORATIVE AMONG THE SEGMENT. OKAY. I SEE A QUESTION IN THE. Q. IS IT? MEOW. QUESTION ON THE PHONE. NO. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE FOR REBECCA? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO UNMUTE IT. HELLO? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. GO AHEAD. OH. I'M SORRY. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. THIS IS FROM FIVE DIMENSIONS ENERGY. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE ZERO UPDATE. IN THE FUTURE, WHICH MEETING? COULD WE FOLLOW UP THE BACK TO ZERO UPDATES. AND WE HAVE THE UPDATED REPORT IN THE FUTURE. SO WE'RE ABOUT TO GET TO THAT. THAT'S THE, THE NEXT ITEM. AND THEN I THINK IF THE QUESTION IS WHEN THE NEXT UPDATE WILL BE, I THINK JEFF HAS ADDRESSED THAT IN HIS SLIDES. SO I THINK WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS AT THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. I SEE WHICH WORKING GROUP. WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT TO THIS AGENDA ITEM. WE'RE ABOUT TO GET TO IT AND PROBABLY 90S. AND, AND JEFF WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE FOR REBECCA? FROM REBECCA. MOST LIKELY TO LOVE BEING AT OUR MEETING. SUPERLATIVE. OKAY. IS THIS ANOTHER TOPIC? IS THIS IS ANOTHER TOPIC THAT IF WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT, DON'T ANSWER YOUR PHONE CALL. BATCH 000 SPEAKING TO THE BOARD. YES, BETH. ESPECIALLY MAYBE YOU ESPECIALLY DON'T ANSWER PHONE CALLS FROM ME OR REBECCA OR ANN. THEY'LL FIND SOMEBODY WHOSE NUMBER YOU DON'T HAVE. SO. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD BE GREAT IN THE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION THAT YOU GOT A PHONE CALL. ALL RIGHT. JEFF, ARE YOU READY FOR US? I HOPE SO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. JEFF, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON BATCH ZERO. [01:55:02] BUT BEFORE I GET INTO MY SLIDES, I JUST HAVE TWO SLIDES. I WANTED TO PROVIDE A COUPLE OF OTHER UPDATES. ONE, A PROGRAMING NOTE BEFORE I FORGET. SO MATT IS LISTED FOR THE THE CTP AND BATCH ONE PLUS AGENDA ITEM THAT'S NOT HERE TODAY. SO CHRISTY AND I ARE GOING TO FILL IN FOR HIM A LITTLE BIT LATER. AND THEN ALSO I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP IN THE WORKSHOPS AS WELL AS AT TAC ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO STAFF FOR BATCH ZERO. AND JUST A QUICK NOTE ON THAT IS THAT WE DO HAVE POSITIONS THAT ARE POSTED. I WOULD SAY OUR STAFFING PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES EXTERNAL HIRING EXTERNAL CONTRACTORS, AS WELL AS INTERNAL MOVING PEOPLE AROUND THAT THAT IS ON TARGET. AND SO WE'RE GETTING GOOD INTEREST IN THOSE POSITIONS. I ACTUALLY HAD ONE, ONE PERSON THAT APPLIED THAT THIS TO ME SEEMED LIKE THIS WAS GOING TO BE A, A STEP DOWN FROM A POSITION THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY IN. AND THEY SAID, THIS IS A ONCE IN A CAREER OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS. AND SO I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FILL THOSE POSITIONS. YOU RECRUITING RIGHT NOW, JEFF, DO YOU WANT TO PUT A LINK TO THE JOB DESCRIPTION AND THE YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE RESUMES. I ALSO NOTE. SOME PEOPLE HAVEN'T HEARD THIS YET, BUT AG IS FULFILLING HIS DREAM OF GOING TO OPERATIONS IN ERCOT. AND SO AFTER WE GET THROUGH THIS INITIAL BATCH ZERO INTAKE PROCESS, AG SPRINGER WILL BE MOVING TO OPERATIONS. THAT POSITION IS ALSO POSTED JUST IN CASE ANYONE IS INTERESTED. OKAY. OKAY. SO LOOK ON LINKEDIN OR CUT WEBSITE OR SEND THEM TO YOUR FRIENDS. SO LET'S. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU JEFF. YEP. ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT I HAVE IS AGAIN, JUST TWO SLIDES. SO ONE IS A REMINDER OF WHERE WE ARE AT IN THIS PROCESS. SO JULY 10TH WAS THE END OF THE CURRENT LARGE OR SORRY, THE PREVIOUS LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION STUDY PROCESS. SO THAT WAS THE DEADLINE FOR ALL OF THE STUDIES TO BE COMPLETED. AS FAR AS ELIGIBILITY THROUGH THAT, THAT PREVIOUS PROCESS. AND SO MY TEAM, AS WELL AS I THINK MOST TEAMS WORK LATE INTO THE EVENING RIGHT UP UNTIL THE MIDNIGHT ON JULY 10TH TO GET AS MANY OF THOSE COMPLETED AND ACROSS THAT FINISH LINE AS POSSIBLE. PICKER 145 WENT INTO EFFECT AT MIDNIGHT ON JULY 11TH. AND SO WE ARE NOW IN THAT BATCH ZERO PROCESS. THE NEXT BIG DEADLINE WAS LAST FRIDAY. THAT WAS THE DEADLINE FOR THE SPS AND DSPS TO SUBMIT THE PACKAGE OF INFORMATION THAT ERCOT NEEDS TO, TO PROCESS FOR INTAKING ALL OF THE LARGE LOADS THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE, THE BATCH ZERO PROCESS. SO AGAIN, IT WAS ANOTHER LATE NIGHT FOR ERCOT AND FOR THE DSPS AND DSPS. AND WE, YOU KNOW, GOT GOT THAT INFORMATION IN. AND SO WE ARE NOW JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS INTO PROCESSING THOSE FORMS AND THE ATTESTATIONS AND ALL THAT INFORMATION, THAT INFORMATION PACKAGE THAT WE GOT. WE ARE A COUPLE OF DAYS INTO PROCESSING THAT RIGHT NOW. SO WE HAVE A DEADLINE OF AUGUST 7TH. THAT'S OUR NEXT MAJOR MILESTONE. HERE IS AUGUST 7TH IS ERCOT'S DEADLINE TO MAKE THAT FINAL DETERMINATION OF OF EACH EACH PROJECT, WHETHER IT IS CLASSIFIED AS A BASELOAD, A STUDY LOAD, OR WHETHER IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN BATCH ZERO. SO AGAIN, THAT'S AUGUST 7TH. AND THEN THERE IS A LITTLE WINDOW AFTER AUGUST 7TH WHERE IF A PROJECT WAS CLASSIFIED AS A STUDY LOAD, BUT THE ENTITY THOUGHT THAT THEY SHOULD BE BASELOAD, THEN THERE IS A LITTLE DISPUTE WINDOW THAT THEY CAN MAKE THEIR CASE. THERE IS ALSO FOR THOSE PROJECTS SOME TIME FOR THEM. IF THEY DID NOT PUT UP THE FINANCIAL SECURITY THAT WOULD QUALIFY THEM FOR STUDY LOAD, THEN THEY CAN REMEDY THAT. IF THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE BASE LOAD AND PUT UP A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL SECURITY, BUT THAT'S THEY WERE ACTUALLY ENDED UP BEING STUDY LOAD, THEN THERE'S A LITTLE WINDOW FOR THEM TO CURE THAT. AND THEN THERE IS ALSO A WINDOW THAT GOES UNTIL THE END OF AUGUST. FOR IF WE FIND THAT THERE'S A DEFICIENCY IN THEIR DYNAMIC MODEL, THERE'S A WINDOW FOR THEM TO CURE THAT. SO FINAL ANSWER IS AUGUST 7TH. FINAL FINAL IS AT THE END OF AUGUST, ROUGHLY SEPTEMBER 1ST AND SEPTEMBER 2ND IS WHEN WE. BY THAT TIME, WE WOULD NEED TO START THE. THE PLANNING TEAM WOULD BE STARTING THE ACTUAL STUDY PROCESS. [02:00:02] THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED BUILDING THE CASES AND HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS THERE, SO I DIDN'T WANT TO. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THERE'S NOT NOTHING GOING ON ON THAT FRONT RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHEN THE STUDY ACTUALLY THE STUDY WORK WOULD OFFICIALLY COMMENCE ON SEPTEMBER 2ND. AND THEN I ALSO WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT PART OF THE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BATCH ZERO IS IF YOU ARE A, A BASE LOAD OR EVEN STUDY LOAD, THERE ARE CERTAIN INFORMATION THAT YOU WERE REQUIRED, CERTAIN ATTESTATIONS THAT YOU HAD TO, THE ENTITIES HAD TO ATTEST THAT THEY MET THESE REQUIREMENTS. AND THERE IS A WINDOW ACTUALLY THAT GOES ALL THE WAY UNTIL APRIL 9TH WHERE ERCOT HAS TO CHECK YOUR HOMEWORK ON THAT AND SEE, OKAY, YOU CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE THIS SITE CONTROL. WE CAN ACTUALLY CHECK, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, CHECK THAT YOU MET THAT REQUIREMENT. AND SO JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THAT THAT ONE WINDOW GOES ALL THE WAY UNTIL APRIL 9TH OF NEXT YEAR. AND THEN THE OTHER THING I HAVE IS JUST A LOOK, A PRELIMINARY LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. AND, AND THIS IS REALLY STILL JUST BASED ON THE STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA. NONE OF THE INFORMATION ON THIS SLIDE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT WHICH LOADS HAVE OR HAVE NOT. DO WE HAVE THE, THE ATTESTATIONS AND ALL OF THE FORMS AND ALL OF THAT? THIS DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHO HAS AND HAS NOT PUT UP FINANCIAL SECURITY OR ATTESTED THAT THEY HAVE THE SITE CONTROL. THIS IS REALLY JUST LOOKING FROM A STUDY ELIGIBILITY PERSPECTIVE. THOSE LOADS THAT HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS FROM A STUDY ELIGIBILITY PERSPECTIVE. AND SO BASED ON THAT INFORMATION AND WITH THAT DISCLAIMER IS WE CURRENTLY HAVE 65GW THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR BASE LOAD STATUS. ONE DISCLAIMER ON THAT NUMBER IS THAT THAT DOES INCLUDE SOME SOME OF THAT IS OPERATIONAL LOAD THAT, YOU KNOW, IT FALLS INTO, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE, THE ONE A AND THE ONE B BUCKETS THEN SOME OF THAT 65 IS I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT IS YET. WE STILL HAVEN'T PROCESSED ALL THAT INFORMATION, BUT WE'LL BE DOING THAT OVER THE NEXT WEEK AND A HALF. SO 65GW THAT IS WE KNOW IS ELIGIBLE FOR BASE LOAD. THERE IS ANOTHER 114GW THAT IS BACHELOR ELIGIBLE AS STUDIED LOAD. SO THEY WOULD BE ALLOCATED, STUDIED AND ALLOCATED MEGAWATTS. AND THEN THERE'S 25GW. THAT IS IN BETWEEN 25 THAT WE HAVE NOT YET DETERMINED IF THEY ARE BASE LOAD OR STUDY LOAD. AND AGAIN, THAT THAT IS PART OF THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH RIGHT NOW. AND WE WILL HAVE THAT DETERMINATION BY AUGUST 7TH. AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER 20GW THAT HAD MET THE STUDY REQUIREMENTS, BUT DID NOT SUBMIT A DYNAMIC MODEL THAT WAS DUE ON JULY 10TH, 20GW THAT DID NOT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT, AND THEN ANOTHER 274GW THAT DID NOT MEET THE STUDY REQUIREMENTS. AND SO IT IS NOT THAT THEY HAVE NO QUALIFYING STUDY, SO THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BATCH ZERO. SO WITH THAT, I WILL PAUSE AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT FOLKS LET ME I'M GOING TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF ADMINISTRATION. I THINK WE WILL NEED TO TAKE LUNCH STILL. WE CAN I CAN BOTHER JEFF MCDONALD. MAYBE, BUT BUT I THINK WE'LL GET THROUGH JEFF'S PRESENTATION AND ALL THE QUESTIONS. AND THEN I'D LIKE TO DO THE BATCH ONE UPDATE IMMEDIATELY AFTER. IF IF YOU AND CHRISTIE ARE OKAY WITH THAT AND THEN PROBABLY TAKE LUNCH AT THAT POINT, AND THEN WE STILL HAVE A FEW SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS, PARTICULARLY TO ANCILLARY SERVICE ITEMS WITH WITH NAUTICA. SO IF THAT SOUNDS OKAY WITH EVERYBODY, WE I FAKED YOU OUT. WE'LL BE HERE FOR A WHILE. AND I CAN CHECK IN WITH JEFF MCDONALD IF WE'RE STILL UP FOR, FOR I AM, BUT WHAT ARE THEY ON PANEL ONE STILL? THEY'RE ON PANEL TWO. BUT PANEL TWO IS LESS EXCITING, RIGHT? OKAY, LET'S GO BACK TO JEFF. I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, SO I THINK, JEFF, IF SOME OF THESE START TO BE SUBSTANTIVE THINGS THAT WE CAN'T OR WON'T ANSWER, THEN WE'LL TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT REPEATS OR DIFFERENT ITERATIONS OF THOSE QUESTIONS ARE NOT ASKED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. BUT LET'S, LET'S SEE HOW THIS GOES. LET'S START WITH SHANE. SHANE THOMAS THANK YOU. ONE, JUST A QUESTION ON THE SO THAT THE NUMBER IN THE KIND OF DESCRIPTION. THAT'S JUST HOW MANY PROJECTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THE GIGAWATT NUMBER ON THE THE OTHER SIDE. [02:05:02] CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH. YES. YEAH. PARENTHESES IS NUMBER OF PROJECTS. OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. I WAS KIND OF CONFUSED AT FIRST. ON THE, AND JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING OF THE NUMBERS, THE 65 IS LIKE, NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHO'S FULLY MET ALL THE ATTESTATIONS AND PROVIDED THE SECURITY OR DEPOSITS OR CORRECT. YEAH. WE DON'T, WE ARE PROCESSING THAT INFORMATION. AND TO THAT, NONE OF THAT IS REFLECTED IN THESE NUMBERS YET. OKAY. SO FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, THESE NUMBERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO GO DOWN THAN UP. I GUESS THIS IS AS MUCH AS COULD MAKE THIS. YES. THIS IS A CEILING. OKAY. AND THE 25GW IN THE MIDDLE, THOSE ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO BE EITHER YES. YES. YEAH. SO THOSE WILL. SO BY THE TIME WE GET TO AUGUST 7TH, THAT 25 WILL BE. SOME OF THAT WILL LIKELY BE IN BASE LOAD. SOME OF THAT WILL BE IN STUDY LOAD. BUT WE WON'T WON'T HAVE THAT CATEGORY AFTER AUGUST 7TH. OKAY. AND THAT'S LARGELY BECAUSE YOU ARE STILL PROCESSING THEIR APPLICATION. YES. RIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S ALL THE CLARIFICATION I WAS LOOKING FOR. THERE WAS A QUESTION ON THE 25 SHANE, MAKING SURE THAT, I MEAN, SOME OF THOSE COULD TURN OUT TO BE NOT ELIGIBLE EITHER WAY, OR THEY WOULD. EVERYTHING IN THE 25 IS ELIGIBLE. THEY HAVE A STUDY. IT'S IF YOU REMEMBER WHAT WE KIND OF COLLOQUIALLY REFERRED TO AS THE LATTER IN THE WORKSHOPS, IT IS WE HAVE TO DO THAT LATTER CHECK TO SEE, ARE THERE OTHER LOADS THAT HAVE OTHER LOADS IN THE STUDY AREA. SO WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER LOADS IN THE STUDY AREA, BUT WERE THOSE LOADS INCLUDED IN THAT PARTICULAR STUDY. OKAY. OKAY. GOTCHA. OKAY. LET'S GO TO BETH. A SIMPLE QUESTION, AND IT GETS BACK TO THE EARLIER COMMENT THE COMMUNICATION THAT WE SHOULD EXPECT FROM ERCOT ON SEPTEMBER 2ND. WHERE ARE WE LOOKING FOR THAT? IS THAT A MARKET NOTICE? IS THAT A WHERE SHOULD WE BE LOOKING TO SEE THAT. YEAH. SO WE HAVEN'T DECIDED THAT YET. BUT YEAH, I THINK YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT YOU WILL HEAR SOMETHING FROM ERCOT, BUT THE FORM, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE DECIDED YET. OKAY. OKAY. SMOKE SIGNALS. CARRIER PIGEON. IDEALLY MARKET NOTICE AND NOT SMOKE SIGNALS. BUT WE CAN WORK ON IT. BRIAN. THERE'S THIS PRESUMPTION THAT I HAVE, AND MAYBE IT'S NOT CORRECT THAT IF YOU'RE IN BASE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO ALLOCATION. AND THE 65 NUMBER IS BIGGER THAN WHAT I WAS EXPECTING TO SEE, JUST BASED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT THE JUNE BOARD HAD, WHERE THERE WAS LIKE MAYBE 35. IS THAT STILL A FAIR ASSUMPTION THAT IF YOU'RE IN BASE, YOU WON'T BE SUBJECT TO ALLOCATION? THAT'S CORRECT. IF YOU'RE BASE, THEN YOU HAVE THE GREEN LIGHT TO MOVE FORWARD. THERE IS NO ALLOCATION. THOSE ARE ALL YOU CAN SAY FROM HERE GOING FORWARD. YOU HAVE THE GREEN LIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. POSSIBLY A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THAT IS ALREADY OPERATIONAL. I WOULD NOT SAY IT'S A SIGNIFICANT PORTION. IT'S PROBABLY SINGLE DIGIT GIGAWATTS. IF I HAD TO SPECULATE AND YOU KNOW, SO DISCLAIMERS AROUND THAT, BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, YEAH. SO SOME OF THAT IS OPERATIONAL BECAUSE IT CAME IN THROUGH THE, WHAT WE AGAIN, WHAT'S IN THE LANGUAGE IN 911, IT'S ONE A AND ONE B. OKAY. OKAY. AARON CURIOUS HOW THE GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION TIMING COMES INTO THIS. AUGUST 7TH AND OR SEPTEMBER 2ND. TIMELINE FOR LOADS I KNOW IN THE MARKET. NOTICE IT SAYS PRESUME THEY'RE ELIGIBLE AND THEY'LL CONTINUE. DO YOU HAVE DATES OR ALIGNMENT TO WHAT WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT ON YOUR SLIDE? WE DON'T HAVE DATES FOR THAT. WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT. OKAY. MIKE. SO I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS, JEFF. THE ONE IS FOR THAT 65 GIGAWATT, YOU SAID KIND OF THAT'S A CEILING ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT SAYS THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR A BASE LOAD. SO WHAT IS THE GAP? WHAT MAKES THEM NOW THAT THEY'RE ELIGIBLE. WHAT MAKES THAT 65 IS A CEILING. IS IT BECAUSE OF THE SECURITY POSTING AT THE STATIONS? RIGHT. YEAH. SO AS AN EXAMPLE A LOAD MAY QUALIFY FOR BASE LOAD, BUT IF THEY DID NOT PUT UP THEIR KAYAK OR THEIR FINANCIAL SECURITY, THEN THEY WILL DROP OUT. AND SO WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT 65, WE DON'T YET KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT 65, [02:10:07] FOR EXAMPLE, DID NOT PUT UP THEIR FINANCIAL SECURITY. OKAY. SO THEY ARE NOT FULLY ELIGIBLE YET. THEY ARE ELIGIBLE FROM MAYBE FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, BUT NOT FROM A COMMERCIAL STANDPOINT. IS IT FAIR TO SAY CORRECT. THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FROM A STUDY STANDPOINT, BUT. RIGHT. WE HAVE NOT CHECKED ALL OF THOSE OTHER COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, THOSE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY, OKAY. THAT HELPS. AND MY SECOND QUESTION, I MEAN, YOU DID NOT TALK ABOUT IT ON THIS SLIDE. I MEAN, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON RPG. AND YOU MAY DEFER ME TO A DIFFERENT PLATFORM, BUT THERE WAS A LANGUAGE IN THE LATEST REVISION THAT BASICALLY IS GOING TO POST THE INITIAL BATCH MODELS, AND I SAW THERE WAS A PRESENTATION RPG THAT SAID ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, THOSE MODELS ARE GOING TO GET SHARED WITH THE TASB ONLY. SO I JUST WANTED SOME GET SOME, SOME CLARIFICATION BECAUSE A LOT OF THE CUSTOMERS OR A LARGE LOAD, BASICALLY THEY'RE TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THIS AND DO THEIR OWN ANALYSIS AND DUE DILIGENCE. ARE WE STILL GOING TO COMPLY WITH THAT LANGUAGE IN THAT REVISION OR WE DON'T KNOW YET THE TIMING. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK OBVIOUSLY WE'LL FOLLOW THE PLANNING GUIDE, BUT SPECIFICS ON THAT, I WOULD NEED TO REFER TO PLANNING. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY FROM. YEAH. HEY JEFF IT'S KRISTI DOWN HERE. SO WE'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT THAT. QUESTIONS COME UP SEVERAL TIMES AND WE ARE REVIEWING WHAT INFORMATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE ON THOSE PLANNING CASES THAT WE'RE INTENDING TO POST FROM A CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE, AND REALLY COMPLYING WITH WHAT WILL BE IN THE THE GUIDES FOR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT VIOLATING ANY OF THAT BEFORE WE WOULD POST THAT. SO WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF THAT AND SEEING WHAT INFORMATION CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE THAT WOULDN'T BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. OKAY. CHRISTY. AND AGAIN, NOT NOT TO HOLD YOU TO THAT, BUT IS THERE ANY TARGETED TIMELINE THAT YOU THINK YOU WILL HAVE A BETTER NEWS FOR THE STAKEHOLDERS OR BETTER, MORE DETAILED ANSWER? WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING AT THE NEXT RPG MEETING ON WHERE WE'RE AT ON THAT AUGUST 18TH. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHRISTY. I SEE COMMISSION STAFF IN THE QUEUE. SO LET'S GO TO ERICA. YEAH, I JUST WANT TO RESPOND TO BETH. SHE ASKED WHERE THIS FINAL LOT IS GOING TO BE FILED. DEFINITELY. WHEN COMMISSION APPROVED THE GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION IN 59772. THE ORDER ALSO DIRECTS ERCOT AS SOON AS THE DATA IS AVAILABLE TO POST IN THAT PROJECT. SO THAT'S ANOTHER PLACE. THANK YOU. VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. SO THE THE FINAL RESULTS WILL BE POSTED IN THAT DOCKET. AND THEN SOMETIME LATER A LOAD FORECAST BASED ON THOSE RESULTS. OKAY. OKAY. LET'S GO TO CLAYTON. SORRY GUYS. I TAKE MYSELF OFF. I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE 140. I GUESS BASICALLY THE WHOLE STACK IS REPRESENTS LOADS IN YOUR SYSTEM THAT HAVE PASSED EITHER THE DYNAMIC OR THE STEADY STATE OR BOTH. IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? AND YOU'VE NOT CROSS-CHECKED THAT AGAINST WHO YOU'VE RECEIVED PACKAGES FROM FROM. YES. THAT'S ACCURATE. OKAY. SO IT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT AS YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THIS NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS TO, TO NOTIFY THE MARKET. THIS IS A STAGGERINGLY LARGE NUMBER AND THE MARKET WILL MOVE ON THIS. SO YOU NEED TO BE AS OPEN AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN AS, AS THOSE NUMBERS GET REFINED. IF YOU COULD. YEP. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. AND THEN I HAD I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION. ASSUMING THAT IT IS SOMEWHERE ON THIS ORDER, 205GW, MAYBE MINUS A LITTLE BIT. BUT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO GENESIS ON THAT? SORRY, CLAYTON, YOU WERE BREAKING UP. I DIDN'T CATCH THAT. YEAH. GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE MODELING. WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS IS GOING TO TAKE YOU INTO THE, THE REALM OF, OF YOU KNOW, GUESSING WHERE, WHERE TO PUT STUFF AND YOU KNOW, THOSE ASSUMPTIONS WILL END UP DRIVING THE MODEL TO SOME DEGREE, ESPECIALLY AT THIS ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. SO I CAN TAKE THAT ONE AS WELL AS WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT BUILDING THE CASES AND PREPARING FOR [02:15:06] THE LOADS THAT ARE COMING RIGHT NOW BASED OFF OF WHAT IS IN THE GENERATION INTERCONNECTION QUEUE. IF WE GO THROUGH THE LIST, OF COURSE YOU CAN EXPECT THAT OUR NO SOLAR CASE IS GOING TO BE THE MOST LIMITING CASE. AND I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT AND THESE NUMBERS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE, BUT I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY 200GW OF GENERATION AVAILABLE FOR THAT CASE. AND SO WE WILL BE REVIEWING OUR ASSUMPTIONS AND HAVE THAT AS A PART OF THE SCOPING DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT RPG FOR THE SCOPE OF THE WHAT OUR GENERATION ASSUMPTIONS WILL BE AS A PART OF OUR CASE DEVELOPMENT. OKAY, SO AS LONG AS YOU'RE INSIDE OF THAT 200GW, YOU FEEL OKAY. BUT THAT WOULD ONLY REPRESENT, WHAT, ABOUT 110 GIGS OVER WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. SO WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET INTO SOME REASONABLE AMOUNT OF ASSUMING, I THINK THE CLARIFICATION IS THAT THAT 200GW THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ON JEFF'S SLIDE WILL BE INCREMENTAL TO THE NATIVE LOAD OF WHICH OF IS, I THINK, 110GW PLUS THE MEDIUM SIZED LOADS THAT WERE COLLECTED THROUGH THE RFI PROCESS THIS YEAR. OKAY, SO IT'S EVEN HIGHER. SO OKAY. YEAH, IF Y'ALL COULD BE OPEN ON OR MAYBE IT'S WORTHWHILE AT THE NEXT LARGE LOAD MEETING, KIND OF PROVIDING A PRESENTATION ON HOW YOU EXPECT THAT TO RUN AS WELL. THAT'D BE GOOD. THANK YOU. I THINK, CHRISTIE, YOU SAID IT WOULD BE A RPG THOUGH. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF WE KNEW BECAUSE CLAYTON JUST REQUESTED LARGE LOAD WORKING GROUP. BUT I THINK IF YOU'RE PROVIDING THE INFORMATION AT RPG, THEN LET'S PLAN TO BE AT RPG, RIGHT? YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. I APOLOGIZE, THAT'S WHERE YOU HAD THE LAST THE LAST ONE. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S WIDE ENOUGH OF A FORUM, THOUGH. THERE'S NOT THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS THAT DON'T GO TO RPG THAT PROBABLY NEED TO HEAR THIS. SO THINK ABOUT THAT. AND THE ARCHIVAL ARCHIVE ABILITY OF RPG INFORMATION ISN'T AS AS STRONG AS OTHER WORKING GROUPS. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT NOT BE THE PRIMARY PRIMARY SPOT. OKAY. MARTHA. THANK YOU. MARTHA AND ENCORE. JEFF. APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION ON THE 65GW AND THAT IT DOES INCLUDE THE OPERATIONAL LOADS UNDER 1A1B. THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT ENCORE HAD ABOUT THIS. SIMILARLY, DOES THE 65GW INCLUDE THE PBP LOADS FROM ONE D OF THAT SAME SECTION, OR IS THAT CAPTURED SOMEWHERE ELSE? I BELIEVE THAT IT DOES. LET ME PHONE A FRIEND AND SEE IF A G IS ON AND CAN HELP ANSWER THAT. HEY MARTHA G. SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE PERMIAN BASIN LOADS IS YES, THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE 65GW. I DO WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT JEFF SAID A LITTLE BIT EARLIER. WE BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE OPERATIONAL LOADS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS 65 HOWEVER THE THE ONE A LOADS ARE NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT BEING CONSIDERED BASED ON VALID STUDIES. AND SO THOSE WERE ONLY RECENTLY SUBMITTED TO ERCOT THROUGH AN RFI. SO THOSE ARE LIKELY ALREADY IN THE EXISTING LOAD FORECAST, BUT THEY'LL BE IDENTIFIED SEPARATELY AND INCLUDED FOR BACTERIAL. MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION. SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT LAST PART ONE MORE TIME? I COULDN'T GET TO THE END OF IT. SO SO THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY REPRESENTED IN THIS BASE LOAD BLOCK THERE. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE, WE BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE LIKELY ALREADY IN THE BASE LOAD FORECAST. THAT'S, THAT'S GOING TO BE USED FOR THE CASE BECAUSE THEY'RE LONG STANDING LOAD. BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PULLED OUT AND SEPARATELY ADDED TO THIS BASE LOAD BUCKET YET. OKAY. THANK YOU. WILL WE SEE A MORE GRANULAR BREAKDOWN OF THAT AT SOME POINT, YOU KNOW, LATER YOU THINK. YES. WE'RE EXPECTING TO HAVE I MEAN, SORRY, I DON'T DON'T WANT TO PREEMPT YOU THERE, JEFF, IF YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT. YEAH, YEAH. KEEP GOING. AG YEAH, THE WE EXPECT TO HAVE MORE GRANULAR DATA ONCE PROCESSING IS COMPLETE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. OKAY. THANKS SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. YEAH. AND THANKS FOR CORRECTING MY NOT STATING THAT CORRECTLY EARLIER. OKAY. YEAH. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME? YES. AWESOME. [02:20:02] SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE WHAT AG SAID, THE 65 IS EVERY TRACK IN THE BIGGER 145 MINUS ONE A IS THAT ACCURATE? EVERY BASELOAD TRACK, I WOULD SAY. WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE ONE B'S AS WELL, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THERE MAY BE A SMALL NUMBER THAT WERE NOT IDENTIFIED TO US DURING THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS THAT WE MAY RECEIVE LIFTS FOR, BUT WE WE JUST DON'T KNOW IF OR THE SIZE OF THAT YET. AND THEN SECONDLY, SO THAT 25GW, IF THEY POST AND SATISFY THE FINANCIAL CRITERIA AND OTHER TRACK E F. SO THE TOTAL LOAD WE ARE LOOKING AT AS BASE LOAD IS GOING TO BE 90GW, RIGHT? IF EVERYTHING IN THAT 25 ALSO SATISFIES THE CRITERIA. SO THE, THE 25GW IS REFERRING TO WHETHER OR NOT THESE STUDIES ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED VALID UNDER SECTION NINE TWO, ONE, FOUR, PARAGRAPH FOUR OF THE PLANNING GUIDE. ERCOT IS TASKED WITH DOING THAT REVIEW IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER BY AUGUST 7TH. YOU KNOW, FOR REFERENCE, THE EXTREMELY HIGH NUMBER OF STUDIES WERE WERE REVIEWED AND APPROVED. AS JEFF SAID DURING THE LAST DAY OR TWO OF THE LILLY'S PROCESS. AND YOU KNOW, THOSE THOSE ALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN A VERY SHORT TIME. AND SO WE'LL NEED TO REVIEW UNDER THAT LANGUAGE TO DETERMINE IF THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR BASE LOAD OR NOT. UNDERSTOOD. SO THESE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE REVALIDATION BUCKET CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN I GUESS ONE FINAL QUESTION IS ON SEVENTH OR ON OR BEFORE SEVENTH, EACH LILLY WILL KNOW THE STATUS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE LOADS AND THEN THE CASES WE ARE. THE DATE FOR THE POSTING OF CASES IS STILL TBD. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S MAYBE A SLIGHT CLARIFICATION IS BY THE SEVENTH ERCOT TELLS THE TASB AND DSPS. BUT PRESUMABLY THEY WILL PASS THAT INFORMATION ON TO THE ILE. OKAY. OKAY, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. NED. THANKS, CAITLIN. AND THANKS, JEFF FOR FOR PRESENTING THIS. AND CONGRATULATIONS ON GETTING THROUGH THE, THE, THE MILESTONES THAT YOU HAD ON THE CHART. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK TO GET THERE. AND THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT Y'ALL HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT MORE WORK TO, TO, YOU KNOW, WORK THROUGH ALL THE APPLICATIONS. YOU KNOW, I KNOW WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING PICKER 145 WE WERE ANTICIPATING 100GW BEING THE, THE UPPER BOUND. AND WHEN WE WERE LAST HERE IN IN MAY, I THINK AT THAT POINT, YOU WERE ANTICIPATING THAT THE AGGRESSIVE SCOPE WAS 220GW OF TOTAL MODELED LOAD FOR 2032, INCLUSIVE OF THE JUST THE NORMAL BASE FORECAST, THE MEDIUM LOADS AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING ASSESSED IN BATCH ZERO. SO YOU KNOW, CLEARLY SOME OF THE 65 IS ALREADY IN IS PROBABLY ALSO IN THAT BASE LOAD IS PROBABLY NOT A HUGE AMOUNT. BUT I'M CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN HELP US, YOU KNOW, WALK THROUGH WHERE THERE MIGHT BE SOME. SOME FUTURE CONVERGENCE BETWEEN THOSE VALUES AND, YOU KNOW, SO FOR INSTANCE, LIKE GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION LOAD, IS THAT MOSTLY GOING TO BE IN THE 114 BUCKET? IS THAT IN THE 25 GIGAWATT BUCKET OR IS THAT ONLY THE VALIDATION GROUP? YEAH, I THINK IT'S ALL OF THOSE IT'S AND I DON'T HAVE THE DATA, BUT YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTIONS FOR ANYTHING THAT'S IN ANY OF THOSE BUCKETS. AND I THINK THAT WE WERE CLEAR THAT IT'S IT'S NOT ABOUT THE, THE GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION IS NOT ABOUT THE STUDIES. IT'S IT'S MORE ABOUT THE OTHER ASPECTS. BUT YEAH, I DON'T HAVE A BREAKDOWN AS TO HOW MUCH ARE IN EACH OF THOSE THREE BUCKETS. OKAY. BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. SO FROM. I AM CURIOUS IS IT SAFE TO ASSUME THAT ALL 114GW IN THAT GROUP HAVE ALL POSTED 50,000 PER KW OR PER MEGAWATT OF FINANCIAL SECURITY? NO, NO, THAT'S. YEAH. YEAH. NOT SAFE TO ASSUME BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT CHECKED THAT FOR THOSE FOR THAT 114. [02:25:06] THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW. OKAY. SO THAT'S ANOTHER POTENTIAL CONVERGENCE POINT RIGHT? YEAH. I AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THESE NUMBERS ARE THE CEILINGS, THESE NUMBERS. AS WE CHECK THAT INFORMATION, THESE NUMBERS WILL DECREASE MOST LIKELY. GOT IT. OKAY. AND THEN JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT'S IN THAT THAT BIG NOT INCLUDED BUCKET. AND THE 274 AT THE TOP IS THAT STUFF THAT HAD AN LESS NUMBER BUT WAS NOT ASSIGNED TO BATCH ZERO NUMBER. SO ERCOT KNEW ABOUT IT, BUT IT DIDN'T. IT WAS NOT FAR ENOUGH ALONG THAT IT RECEIVED A BATCH ZERO NUMBER. YEAH. I THINK MOST, IF NOT ALL OF THEM DID HAVE BATCH ZERO NUMBERS. BUT AGAIN, THEY DID NOT COMPLETE THEY DID NOT HAVE A QUALIFYING STUDY THAT WAS COMPLETED BY JULY 10TH. GOT IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS. AND I ECHO WHAT CLAYTON SAID. YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST SO MUCH HUNGER FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THIS THAT, YOU KNOW, AS YOU ALL HAVE INCREMENTAL INFORMATION, THE THE MARKET AND STAKEHOLDERS WILL WILL BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATIVE OF WHAT YOU CAN SHARE. SO THANK YOU, SHANE. THANK YOU. SHANE. THOMAS. MICHELLE. I DID HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ON THIS PROCESS WHERE THE, THE BASE LOAD THE BASE LOADS IN HERE. IS IT ALSO SAFE TO ASSUME THAT THE TRANSMISSION FOR ALL OF THOSE HAS BEEN APPROVED? AND SO THE INCREMENTAL TRANSMISSION PROJECT THAT COMES OUT OF THIS WILL BE TO, TO SERVE WHATEVER THE ALLOCATED PORTIONS ARE. OR DO THEY STILL NEED TO CREATE TRANSMISSION PROJECTS POTENTIALLY FOR THE 65 AS WELL? YEAH. SO A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS ON THAT. SO I THINK THAT THE, ALL OF THAT 65, IT DOES HAVE, THERE ARE STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT WE CAN RELIABLY SERVE THE, THOSE LOADS. AND I THINK THAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY SAID THIS, THAT MAYBE SAID IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE STUDIED A SINGLE CASE THAT HAS ALL OF THAT. SO YOU MAY HAVE INDIVIDUAL STUDIES THAT THAT THAT SHOW THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE NEVER PUT THAT TOGETHER IN A SINGLE MODEL. SO I THINK THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL TRANSMISSION WHEN YOU PUT ALL 65 OF THAT ON TOP OF THE 110 PLUS THE, YOU KNOW, 13 OR 14, THAT WE PERHAPS MAY NEED ADDITIONAL TRANSMISSION FOR THAT. I, I MAY DEFER TO CHRISTY. THAT'S NOT YOUR, WHAT YOU WILL NOT SEE IN BATCH ZERO IS THAT WE THEN GO BACK AND SAY, OKAY, WELL, WE NEEDED THIS ADDITIONAL TRANSMISSION LINE FOR THIS BASE LOAD. AND SO THERE'S ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL SECURITY. YOU WON'T SEE THAT. BUT WE MAY THROUGH OTHER TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESSES. AND PROBABLY AT THIS POINT, I SHOULD BE QUIET AND LET CHRISTY IF SHE WANTS TO CONCLUDE THAT ANSWER. OKAY. BUT YEAH, I THINK WE'RE WE'RE HAVING THAT DISCUSSION. YOU KNOW, DO WE NEED IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE NEED ADDITIONAL TRANSMISSION. JUST FOR THAT, THAT BASE LOAD. I THINK WE'RE HAVING THAT DISCUSSION INTERNALLY. OKAY. BUT IF YOU'VE GIVEN SOMEONE A BASE LOAD DESIGNATION BY THE IN A ENERGIZATION PLAN ON THE SEVENTH, THAT'S BASICALLY GUARANTEED AT THIS POINT, THOSE NUMBERS WON'T BE ADJUSTED AS PART OF THE STUDY, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS LARGER. YEAH. SO YEAH, LET ME BE CLEAR ON THIS. SO IT IS, WE'RE NOT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BACHELOR PROCESS THAT IS GOING TO ADJUST THOSE NUMBERS LIKE THAT. IF YOU HAVE 500MW THAT'S COMING IN IN 2030 AND THAT'S YOUR BASE LOAD, THEN YOU, YOU GET 500MW IN 2030. THERE'S NOTHING IN BACHELOR THAT IS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IN REAL TIME. OPERATORS ARE GOING TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO MANAGE THE GRID. AND SO IF YOU GET AN AREA THAT YOU KNOW, LIKE IN FAR WEST THAT WE'VE SEEN WHERE THE LOAD HAS OUTPACED THE, THE TRANSMISSION BUILD IN THAT AREA YOU KNOW, THERE'S A RISK OF REAL TIME CURTAILMENT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HAD TO USE THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE SEE THAT THAT IS A RISK THAT, THAT WE HAVE. AND SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE TRIED TO BE CAREFUL IN SAYING THAT WHEN WE TRY NOT TO USE THE WORD GUARANTEE, BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING GUARANTEED ON THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, RIGHT. SO THAT'S OKAY. YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE SUPPOSE YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM THOSE PLANS, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO, YOU KNOW, REAL TIME MITIGATION OR GTCS SITUATIONALLY POTENTIALLY THERE. AND THOSE WON'T BE IDENTIFIED UNTIL LIKE THE QSA PROCESS MOST LIKELY OR YEAH, POTENTIALLY. [02:30:02] OR THERE ARE OTHER YOU KNOW, STUDIES THAT WE HAVE THAT LOOK OUT IN THE OPERATIONS HORIZON TO SEE WHAT KINDS OF ISSUES ARE WE SEEING COMING UP IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO. THOSE STUDY PROCESSES WILL IDENTIFY THOSE ISSUES. AND AGAIN, THAT'S NOT I SAY THAT THERE'S NOT THAT'S NOT ANY DIFFERENT FROM HOW WE DO THINGS TODAY. RIGHT. WE ALREADY DO THOSE SORTS OF STUDIES. WE DID THAT. THAT'S THAT SORT OF STUDY IS WHAT IDENTIFIED THE FAR WEST ISSUE THAT WE HAVE. WE'RE AGAIN, WE HAVE TRANSMISSION THAT'S COMING, BUT IT'S YOU KNOW, THAT LOAD GROWTH HAS OUTPACED THAT TRANSMISSION DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT THAT IS PART OF THE NORMAL THING THAT OPERATIONS DOES EVERY DAY. AND SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU BRIAN. QUESTION IS ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS. IT SAYS ERCOT WILL COMMUNICATE RESULTS BY SEPTEMBER 2ND. IS THAT A COMMUNICATION JUST TO THE TASB. OR WILL THE INTERCONNECTING LARGE LOAD ENTITY ALSO RECEIVE THAT NOTICE. YEAH. SO WE YOU KNOW, DON'T HAVE AND THIS, THIS WILL, WE'LL GET INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT IN THE NOT MAYBE GET INTO IT, BUT HIGHLIGHT THIS IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION. WE DON'T HAVE THAT DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE AISLE. AND SO WORKOUT WILL NOT BE COMMUNICATING THOSE RESULTS DIRECTLY TO THE AISLE. WE WILL BE COMMUNICATING THOSE RESULTS TO THE SPS. AND WE, YOU KNOW, I THINK I'VE HEARD THE FEEDBACK THAT THE MARKET ALSO WANTS TO SEE THAT. AND SO WE, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY IN AN AGGREGATE FORM, NOT SPECIFIC PROJECTS, WE WILL LOOK AT WAYS THAT WE CAN COMMUNICATE THAT TO THE MARKET. JUST TO FOLLOW UP QUESTION AND THIS IS SO I DON'T HAVE MY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FOLKS HARASSING OUR INTERCONNECTING DSPS. IS IT ALL GOING TO BE LIKE COMMUNICATED AT THE SAME TIME OR TO THE SPS, OR IS IT GOING TO KIND OF DRIP OUT OVER THE COURSE OF THIS MONTH BECAUSE WE WERE JUST SO THIRSTY FOR INFORMATION THAT I DON'T WANT TO BE CALLING ENCORE, FOR EXAMPLE, EVERY DAY SAYING, DID YOU GET IT? DID YOU GET IT? DID YOU GET IT? YOU KNOW, SO JUST ANY, ANY ADVICE ON HOW I CAN COACH MY PEOPLE WOULD BE APPRECIATED. YEAH. AG CAN I CALL ON YOU AGAIN? SURE. YEAH. SO THE INTENT IS TO NOTIFY THE SPS AS THE CLASSIFICATIONS ARE MADE. SO I THINK THAT WOULD RESULT IN A A TRICKLE OF INFORMATION. BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, AS REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING GUIDE, WE EXPECT TO HAVE ALL THE CLASSIFICATIONS MADE BY, BY AUGUST 7TH. BUT OF COURSE EVERYTHING WON'T BE FINALIZED UNTIL THE WINDOW ON RESOLVING ISSUES WITH THE DYNAMIC MODEL AND OR DISPUTE CLOSES AT THE END OF AUGUST. YEAH. AG, I I APOLOGIZE FOR PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IT'S LIKELY NOT MUCH OF THAT'S GOING TO COME OUT THIS WEEK? IT'S LIKELY MORE NEXT WEEK OR CORRECT. I WOULD EXPECT I WOULDN'T SAY NECESSARILY NOTHING WILL HAPPEN THIS WEEK, BUT VERY MOST OF IT WILL BE NEXT WEEK. YEAH. SO DON'T, DON'T, DON'T START PESTERING THE DSPS UNTIL NEXT WEEK. I MEAN, I'M BUT ONE PERSON. I'M SURE THAT MY EXPERIENCE IS SHARED, BUT GOSH I'M SORRY, TSPS. YEAH, THAT SEEMS LIKE IT DOESN'T JUST ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO CALL EVERY DAY. OKAY. LET'S GO TO CARA. HI, EVERYONE. CARA BECKMAN WITH NEXTERA. BRIAN HIGHLIGHTED EXACTLY WHERE MY QUESTIONS WERE. SO ANY KIND OF CLARITY, WE CAN GIVE OUR INTERNAL TEAMS ON WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT ON AUGUST 7TH VERSUS WHAT ON SEPTEMBER 2ND WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATIVE. HER COMMENT TO IT GOES BACK TO A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION. WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE HEARING YOU. I'M SORRY. CAITLIN. IS THIS BETTER? NO. NO. MAYBE A LITTLE. OKAY. HOW AM I NOW? OKAY. IF NOT, I'LL WRITE IT IN THE CHAT. I WAS BASICALLY SAYING. I WAS ECHOING BRIAN'S COMMENTS ABOUT ANY KIND OF TRANSPARENCY WE CAN GET AROUND AUGUST 7TH COMMUNICATIONS VERSUS SEPTEMBER 2ND WOULD BE GREAT FOR INTERNAL CHANNELS. SO JUST THANK YOU FOR KEEPING US UPDATED AS THESE TARGETS EVOLVE. AND JUST ONE MORE COMMENT ON STUDIES. THIS IS IN LIGHT OF THE JUNE 26TH MARKET NOTICE. [02:35:01] IN REGARDS TO POTENTIAL EYE ROLLS RELATED TO VOLTAGE ASSESSMENTS. YOU KNOW, I RECOGNIZE THAT IS ALREADY PART OF THE PROCESS. MY QUESTION, I GUESS IS MORE OF A QUESTION LESS THAN A COMMENT. IS THERE, IS THERE ANY KIND OF GUIDANCE OR THEORIES ON HOW THE EYE ROLL COULD APPLY TO BASE LOAD PROJECTS? IS THAT AG. THAT MAY BE A TRICK QUESTION. AND I'M NOT SURE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION, BUT LET ME TAKE A SHOT AND THEN LET ME KNOW IF I MISUNDERSTOOD. SO I THINK YOU'RE ASKING ARE LOADS THAT ARE BASE LOAD. WOULD THEY BE? SO WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS THE REORGANIZATION AND THE STABLES. IF THERE ARE SOME, THE RIGHT CITATION. PUT IT IN THE TEXT THAT WE INTEND TO PRESENT IN THE BODY. I THINK WE NEED TO MUTE AGAIN. OKAY. PATIENT, YOU'RE ON MUTE. JUST MIXING ON THE PHONE. SO, KARA, I THINK THE QUESTION WAS ARE LOADS THAT ARE BASE LOAD, ARE THEY SUBJECT TO THE IROL AND POTENTIAL CURTAILMENT? THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT IS YES. IS ANY LOAD THAT DOES NOT MEET THE OR DOES NOT HAVE VOLTAGE RIGHT THROUGH CAPABILITY THAT IS IN THE AREA OF ONE OF THOSE ROLES, WHETHER THAT'S A CURRENT OPERATIONAL LOAD, A FUTURE BASE LOAD, OR A FUTURE STUDY LOAD, ALL OF THOSE ARE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THAT CURTAILMENT. YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT I SAID IN. MY ANSWER TO SHANE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, OPERATIONS IS GOING TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO MANAGE. THE OPERATORS ARE GOING TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO MANAGE RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY ON THE GRID. AND SO IF WE HAVE LOADS THAT CAN'T RIDE THROUGH A VOLTAGE EXCURSION, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO MANAGE THAT SO THAT THAT DOESN'T GO ABOVE THAT IDENTIFIED 3200 MEGAWATT LIMIT. OKAY. AND THANK YOU. MUCH BETTER PHRASE, BY THE WAY. SO APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. SURE. EVAN. HEY, JEFF, THIS IS I JUST HAD SOME FOLLOW ON TO THE BACK AND FORTH YOU'RE HAVING WITH SHANE ON THE BASE LOADS. SO THE 65 TO POTENTIALLY 90. I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN LOOKING AT THEM ALL TOGETHER FOR THE FIRST TIME, THERE MIGHT BE NEW TRANSMISSION THAT NEEDS THAT COME OUT OF THAT. BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE LOADS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THERE, WHOSE STUDIES AND CPS WERE BASED ON TRANSMISSION UPGRADES THAT MAYBE NEED RPG APPROVAL BUT DON'T HAVE RPG APPROVAL YET. AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THOSE UPGRADES WERE THEN PUT INTO THE TIPPETT, AND THAT'S GOING TO SOMEHOW GET FACTORED INTO THE BACHELOR ANALYSIS. SO I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO REALLOCATE THESE BASE LOADS BASED ON THE TIMELINE THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THEIR APPLICATION, BUT THEY'RE STILL TIED TO A TRANSMISSION UPGRADE, THAT APPROVAL AND TIMELINE. MAYBE THERE'S SOME UNCERTAINTY THERE. KIND OF HOW ARE WE RECONCILING THAT? MAYBE IF THOSE TRANSMISSION UPGRADES IN THE TIPPETT SLIP OR YOU KNOW, SAY YOU DO RUN INTO AN ISSUE WHERE YOU SEE THAT MAYBE CAN'T BE SERVED ALL IN AGGREGATE OR MAYBE DUE TO THAT TRANSMISSION TIMELINE SLIPPING, YOU KNOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT MAYBE HAVING TO TAKING OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES TO MAYBE CURTAIL LOADS WILL. DO YOU GUYS ENVISION THAT OPERATIONAL CURTAILMENT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, YOU KNOW, A LOAD THAT MAYBE WAS IN THAT BUCKET OR HAD A MORE UNCERTAIN TRANSMISSION UPGRADE THAT LED IT TO BE IN BASE LOAD VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S MORE CONCRETE? OR ARE YOU THINKING SOMETHING MORE FLAT ACROSS ALL OF THE BASE LOADS? NO. WE'LL LOOK AT THAT ON A CASE BY CASE CONSTRAINT BY CONSTRAINT BASIS. AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, OPERATIONS WILL DO WHAT THEY'VE ALWAYS DONE AND THEY WILL DEVELOP MITIGATION PLANS AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY NEED TO RELIABLY MANAGE THE SYSTEM. OKAY. AND SO JUST FOR MY CLARITY SO IF THERE IS A BASE LOAD THAT'S BASED ON A TRANSMISSION PROJECT THAT'S NOT APPROVED YET, AND, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE SLIP OR THE ACTUAL TRANSMISSION PLAN OUT OF BATCH ZERO DOESN'T MATCH UP WITH THE TRANSMISSION PLAN AND THE LCP FOR THAT BASE LOAD. THAT BASE LOAD WILL STILL GET AN ALLOCATION BASED OFF OF THE THE YEARS THAT IT'S SUBMITTED INDEPENDENT OF THAT TRANSMISSION UPGRADE HAPPENING OR NOT. THERE'S THERE'S NO PLAN TO ADJUST THE LCP OR THAT THE BASE LOAD [02:40:09] CLASSIFICATION IS THE ALLOCATION FOR THOSE LOADS. AND SO THEY ARE ALREADY ALLOCATED. THERE'S NO PLAN TO GO BACK AND ADJUST THAT. OKAY. SO DO WE FORESEE THE TRANSMISSION PLAN COMING OUT OF BATCH ZERO TO TAKE THOSE UPGRADES PUT INTO TIPPETT THAT JUSTIFY THOSE LCP FOR BASE LOAD 1 TO 1, OR DO WE EXPECT A MORE CUMULATIVE PLAN TO COME IN AND REPLACE THOSE? I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REVIEW THOSE UNTIL WE SEE WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE. I CAN'T REALLY GIVE YOU AN ANSWER SITTING HERE TODAY. OKAY. THANKS, CHRISTY. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A MOVING TARGET. SO LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. OKAY. BLAKE. BLAKE. KING. GALAXY DIGITAL. OH! SORRY. HOLD ON. HAVING SOMEONE MUTE IN MY OFFICE SO I DON'T HEAR MYSELF. OF THE 49 PROJECTS IN THE BASE ARE ALLOCATED LOAD TO BE DETERMINED. DO YOU HAVE AN INTUITION ON HOW SENSITIVE THESE PROJECTS ARE TO ONE ANOTHER? I THINK WHEN I WHEN I VISIT THE LANGUAGE ABOUT HOW THEIR STUDIES ARE GOING TO BE VALIDATED, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE COULD BE A CASCADE IF ONE PROJECT WASN'T INCLUDED IN ALL OF THE OTHERS. LIKE, IS THAT INTUITION RIGHT WHERE 1 OR 2 OR A HANDFUL OF PROJECTS COULD INVALIDATE EVERYTHING? OR IS YOUR INTUITION THAT THE INVALIDATION IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE NUANCED AND LOCAL? ANY INSIGHT YOU CAN PROVIDE ON THAT? SO I DON'T HAVE A FEEL FOR HOW THAT'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO PLAY OUT. BUT I WILL SAY THE METHODOLOGY IS TO LOOK AT THE, THE AREA, THE STUDY AREA. AND, AND WE'LL LOOK AT IT ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS AND WE'LL LOOK IN THAT STUDY AREA. BUT YEAH, I, OKAY, YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE ON HOW THAT'S GOING TO TOTALLY. NO, I GET IT AND STUDY. YEAH. OKAY. STUDY AREA IS NORMALLY LIKE 3 OR 4 BUSSES. AM I THINKING ABOUT THAT? RIGHT? I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE THE AREA. IT'S OKAY. YEAH. IT. YEAH. IT DEPENDS ON THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IN THE AREA. OKAY. AND THEN JUST ONE FOLLOW UP. THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SORT OF PROCESS IN YOUR MIND, WHAT IS LIKE A WHAT IS A VALID DISPUTE? IS IT A VALID DISPUTE, SOMETHING WHERE THERE'S A QUESTION ON THE ATTESTATION OR LIFE FORM THAT LED TO A SORT OF RECLASSIFICATION? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT PARTIES COULD HAVE A REASONABLE DISAGREEMENT ON, OR IS COULD THERE BE A REASONABLE DISPUTE ABOUT THE STUDY BEING INVALIDATED? CHRISTINE, ARE YOU ON? BLAKE, I MAY NOT HAVE THE RIGHT PERSON ON TO ANSWER THAT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO SEND AN EMAIL, THEN WE CAN WE CAN TRACK THAT DOWN INTERNALLY AND TRY TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT. THANKS, JEFF. WHERE ARE WE? BASSETT. THIS IS BASSETT WITH ZERO EMISSION GRID CONSULTING. BASED ON THE PRELIMINARY DATA THAT IS EXPECTED TO GO INTO BY ZERO. HAS THAT GOT QUANTIFIED? WHAT PORTION OF THESE TWO, FIVE, 2 OR 5 GIGAWATT IS IN LCL. AND WHAT PORTION IS EXEMPTED FROM THE TWO TWO? I'M SORRY I HAD A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING. YOU SAID WHAT WHAT PORTION IS WHAT WHAT PORTION? THESE TWO, TWO FIVE GIGAWATT IS IN LCL AND HOW MUCH OF THAT IS EXEMPT FROM NAGDCA? 282. WHAT WHAT PORTION MEETS THE VOLTAGE RIDE THROUGH? NO, NO. I MEAN HOW MUCH OF OUT OF THESE TWO, TWO FIVE GIGAWATT, WHICH WILL WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR BATCH ZERO? I MEAN, OUT OF THESE. 205 HOW MUCH OF THIS IS HOW MUCH OF THIS LOAD IS IN LCL? AND OUT OF THAT LCL, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS EXPECTED TO TO EXEMPT FROM THIS NEGATIVITY TO THE HOW MANY NUMBERS ON THAT? [02:45:03] I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEBODY ELSE IS CATCHING THAT, BUT I'M NOT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. CAN YOU TYPE THAT IN THE CHAT? WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? WELL, A LITTLE BETTER. PATRICK, DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER? YEAH, I CAN OKAY, OKAY. OUR BEST ESTIMATE I, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LCL IS IN THE BAT ZERO, BUT I CAN TELL YOU OUR BEST ESTIMATE ON WHAT IS POTENTIALLY EXEMPT FROM NOGUER 282 IS AROUND 18GW. WE DON'T HAVE FIRM DATA ON A LOT OF THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE DATES FOR SOME OF THE EXEMPTION CRITERIA. SO IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO SOME OF THE LARGE LOAD ENTITIES TO DEMONSTRATE IF THEY HAD IF THE TASB HAD FINANCIAL SECURITY. BUT GOING OFF OF WHAT MET THOSE 9.4 AND 9.5 REQUIREMENTS AND THE AND WHAT WAS OPERATIONAL BEFORE NOVEMBER 14TH, WE'RE COMING UP WITH ABOUT 18GW. OKAY. THANKS. AND MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS, WILL THIS LIMIT APPLY TO ONLY THE LCL OR ANY LARGE LOAD. YEAH. FREDERICK PATRICK ON THAT ONE. IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE OTHER LARGE LOADS. RIGHT NOW IT'S ALL LCLS AND OUR. AND IN OUR ASSESSMENT RESULTS. BUT THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR OTHER LARGE LOADS. SO EVEN IF EVEN IF THAT LARGE LOADS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THIS NUMBER 22 THEY CAN POTENTIALLY BE EXEMPT. THEY CAN POTENTIALLY BE THIS RULE CAN BE APPLIED TO THEM, RIGHT? YES. IF ERCOT IDENTIFIES AN AREA WHERE OTHER LARGE LOADS THAT ARE NOT LCLS COULD ALSO TRIP FOR THE SAME FAULT EVENT AND EXCEED THAT 3200MW. THERE IS A POTENTIAL. LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE YET, BUT THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. OKAY. KEVIN HANSON, QUESTION IN THE CHAT. MOST LIKELY TO ASK ABOUT KILL SWITCH. IS THE 65GW GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE SB SIX KILL SWITCH IF WE DON'T GET ENOUGH GENERATION BUILT. I THINK THAT DEPENDS ON THE I THINK THERE ARE SOME DATES ON THAT. SO I WOULD REFER TO THE SB SIX. OKAY. KEVIN, I THINK YOU'RE BEING TOLD TO LOOK AT THE BILL, BUT MATT URQHART LEGAL HASN'T GOTTEN IN THE QUEUE, SO I THINK MAYBE THAT'S YOUR ANSWER FOR NOW. LET'S GO BACK TO SHANE. THANK YOU. LAST QUESTION, PROBABLY PROBABLY YOU EARLIER YOU MENTIONED ABOUT A LITTLE OVER 200GW OF GENERATION. YOU'RE EXPECTING TO BE ABLE TO USE IN THE 2032 CASE? IS THAT MEANING YOU'RE NOT EXPECTING TO USE LIKE THE BIGGER 127 LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ADD AS MUCH GENERATION AS NECESSARY? NO, THAT DOES NOT, NOT ASSUME THAT. SO WHAT I'M JUST TELLING YOU IS AS WE ASSESS TODAY WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE GENERATION INTERCONNECTION QUEUE IF YOU LOOK DOWN THE LIST, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS BIGGER 6.9 COMPLIANT. AND THEN WE WILL HAVE TO GO PAST THAT, WHICH MEANS WE WILL HAVE TO EXHAUST EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE QUEUE. RIGHT NOW OUR MOST LIMITING CASE WE WOULD EXPECT, OF COURSE, IS THE NON-SOLAR CASE BECAUSE OF THE LARGE AMOUNT OF SOLAR THAT'S IN OUR CURRENT INTERCONNECTION QUEUE. WE ESTIMATE THAT AND THIS WAS TWO MONTHS AGO. SO THE NUMBER COULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AS THERE'S BEEN NEW THINGS COME IN IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS IS APPROXIMATELY 200GW WOULD BE AVAILABLE GOING THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE QUEUE TODAY. AND THEN WE WOULD, IF THE LOAD IS PASSED, THAT WHICH POTENTIALLY IT COULD BE, ONCE YOU ADD THE BASE OF ECONOMETRIC GROWTH TO THAT, WHATEVER IS QUALIFIED OUT OF THIS RESULTS, IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH GENERATION TO SOLVE THE QUEUE, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE NEXT STEPS. OKAY, SO YOU STILL COULD POTENTIALLY ADD THAT WAS KIND OF MY ASSUMPTION OF THESE CASES THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE GENERATION LIMITED AT ALL, JUST BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE ABILITY TO, TO BRING ON NEW GENERATION AND YOU'RE REALLY JUST SOLVING A TRANSMISSION PROBLEM. [02:50:07] SO THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT FOR ME THERE. OKAY. WE ARE AT LILY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THANK YOU. LILY SANCHEZ WITH TOTAL ENERGIES. THANK YOU, JEFF, FOR GOING OVER THIS MEETING. I WANT TO ASK SEVERAL QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE SAME TOPIC, WHERE IT SAYS THERE THAT THE COURT WILL DETERMINE BEFORE AUGUST 7TH OR ON AUGUST 7TH, FINAL DECISIONS ON THE LOADS, AND THEN WE'LL COMMUNICATE RESULTS BY SEPTEMBER 2ND. DOES THAT MEAN THAT WHENEVER COMMUNICATES TO THE TASB, WE NEED TO REACH OUT TO THE SPS AND ASK FOR ERCOT'S FEEDBACK ON THE TERMINATION? IS THAT WHAT ERCOT MEANS? YEAH. SO WE WILL LET THE SPS KNOW BY AUGUST 7TH WHAT OUR DETERMINATION IS. AND SO ANY CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR PROJECT, I WOULD REFER YOU TO THAT, THAT YOU'RE INTERCONNECTING TASB AND DSPS. OKAY. AND THEN WHERE IT SAYS WILL COMMUNICATE RESULTS BY SEPTEMBER 2ND. DOES THAT MEAN THAT WILL COMMUNICATE A LIST PUBLICLY? WHAT EXACTLY WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YEAH. SO ANY FINAL, FINAL DETERMINATIONS ON SPECIFIC PROJECTS AGAIN WILL BE COMMUNICATED TO THE INTERCONNECTING DSP AND DSP. PUBLICLY. WE WILL SHARE AGGREGATE NUMBERS, BUT NOT, NOT PROJECT SPECIFIC INFORMATION. OKAY. SO THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE SUCH A SIMILAR AS GENERATION FUTURE PROJECTS THAT IS PUBLIC IN THE, IN SECTION. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE SUCH A THING FOR LOADS NOT, NOT FOR BATCH ZERO. IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IS ON THE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE STILL NEED TO ADDRESS THAT. IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP SEVERAL TIMES IN THE WORKSHOPS, AND SO WE THINK THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT FOR BATCH ONE AND MOVING FORWARD. OKAY. BUT NOT FOR BATCH ZERO AS OF TODAY. CORRECT. OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE FOR JEFF ON THIS ITEM? WELL, HE'S HE'S HE'S DOING THE NEXT ONE. BRIAN TELLS YOU TO RUN, BUT NOT YET. OKAY, LET'S GO TO OUR NEXT ITEM. WE ARE GOING TO KIND OF SWITCH AGENDA UP THOUGH. [13. Other Business (Part 1 of 2)] WE'RE GOING TO DO WORKSHOPS FOR COMPREHENSIVE TRANSMISSION PLANNING AND BATCH ONE MARINUS, I BELIEVE, IS ON A WELL-DESERVED VACATION. SO WE HAVE CHRISTY AND JEFF AGAIN ON THIS ONE. AND THEN AFTER THIS, WE WILL TAKE VACATION. WE WON'T TAKE VACATION. WE WILL TAKE LUNCH AND MAYBE VACATION. ALL RIGHT, I'LL MAKE IT QUICK. SO IT'S UP TO YOU ON HOW MANY QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK. AND LUNCH. THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD STARTING, RIGHT? THE MAIN GOAL THOUGH, IS, IS WE WANTED TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU ALL WHAT WE'RE DOING INTERNALLY AT ERCOT AND WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS OUT AND KIND OF LAY A ROADMAP OF HOW DO WE GET TO THAT NEXT STEP? THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP. YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS IF I'M NOT IN BATCH ZERO? WHAT HAPPENS IF I DON'T GET ALL OF MY ALLOCATED MEGAWATTS IN BATCH ZERO? AND WE NEED TO HAVE RULES IN PLACE, AND WE'VE SET TIMELINES FOR THAT ON A PATH TO GET FORWARD TO THAT. BUT ALSO WHAT WE RECOGNIZED AS WE WENT THROUGH THE BATCH PROCESS AND THE DEVELOPMENT, THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF OUR CURRENT PLANNING PROCESSES, RPG PROJECTS. THE RTP, THE ROADMAP INTO THE FUTURE YEARS. AND HOW DOES ALL THAT FIT TOGETHER? SO ERCOT HAS BEEN WORKING THE LAST, YOU KNOW, SIX WEEKS OR SO IN PARALLEL WITH THE BATCH WORK, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND OUR INTERNAL PROCESSES AND WHERE THERE MIGHT BE OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT. AND SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO AS A PART OF THIS NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS IS REALLY REVISITING THE PLANNING PROCESS. WE RECOGNIZE THINGS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR MANY YEARS. EACH TSP HAS MANY THINGS IN PLACE AT THEIR LOCATIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO DO TO MEET THEIR COMMITMENTS. BUT HOW CAN WE IMPROVE UPON THAT? I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET ALL OF THAT DONE IN THE NEXT 6 OR 7 MONTHS, [02:55:02] BUT WHERE CAN WE MAKE A START? AND I THINK THERE'S SOME AREAS WHERE WE CAN FOCUS ON AND HAVE US A ROADMAP TO CONTINUE EVOLVING THE TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESS. SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT TODAY, THERE ARE A LOT OF INPUTS THAT GO INTO A PLANNING PROCESS, WHETHER IT'S THE DATA FROM LARGE LOADS THAT TODAY COMES FROM THE SPS, THE GENERATION DATA THAT WE GET FROM OUR REGISTRATION SYSTEM, THE DIFFERENT TOPOLOGY THAT COMES IN TO BUILD THE CASES THAT ARE USED IN THE PLANNING STUDIES, AS WELL AS OUR FORECASTING PROCESSES FOR JUST PURE ECONOMIC GROWTH, MEDIUM SIZED LOAD GROWTH ON THE SYSTEM. ALL OF THAT IS INPUTS INTO THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS. AND SO WE WE'RE LOOKING AT THEM KIND OF IN DIFFERENT BLOCKS. THEN THERE'S ADDITIONAL ONCE ALLOCATION OR EXCUSE ME, THE BATCH SCREENING PROCESS HAS BEEN DONE. AND WHAT CUSTOMERS DO COMMIT. AND THEN THERE'S RELIABILITY ASSESSMENTS, ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE ON THOSE COMMITMENTS AND ON THOSE PLANS TO GET TO A FINAL SNAPSHOT OF SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ACTIONABLE, THAT CAN GO FORWARD AND BE BUILT ALL ALONG THE WAY. THERE NEEDS TO BE ENGAGEMENT WITH STAKEHOLDERS, A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH WITH THE SPS WHO KNOW THEIR SYSTEMS THE BEST. THERE'S THE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT. SO TRANSPARENCY FOR ALTERNATIVES, FOR OPTIONS FOR CONSUMER INPUT AS WELL. SO THIS IS REALLY JUST HIGH LEVEL HOW WE'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT INTERNALLY AND TRYING TO IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE WE CAN MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROCESS. SO TWO AREAS OF FOCUS OF COURSE, BATCH ONE, THERE WAS A LIST OF ITEMS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT THAT GOT PUT ONTO A PARKING DECK THAT COULD NOT BE ADDRESSED DURING BATCH ZERO. I'M RECOGNIZING WE PROBABLY WON'T GET TO EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE LIST, BUT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO FOCUS ON THOSE IMPORTANT ITEMS AND THEY FALL INTO THESE CATEGORIES. AND I DON'T KNOW IF, JEFF, IF YOU WANT TO HIGHLIGHT ANYTHING OFF OF THE LIST, BUT THIS IS KIND OF WHERE WE'VE, WE'VE HONED IN ON WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON RURAL DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN NOW AND FEBRUARY. BOARD. YEAH, AND I THINK SOME OF THESE CAME UP IN THE DISCUSSION WE JUST HAD ON, ON BATCH ZERO, BUT I'LL JUST HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS. I THINK LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION THAT THAT PROCESS AROUND THAT I THINK IS NEEDS TO CHANGE AND EVOLVE. AND WE HEARD THAT AS PART OF THE BATCH ZERO DISCUSSIONS, BUT OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T DID NOT MAKE A LOT OF THOSE CHANGES AS PART OF BATCH ZERO. BUT WE SEE THAT NEEDING TO CHANGE KIND OF THAT. HOW DOES WHAT DOES THAT RELATIONSHIP LOOK LIKE BETWEEN THE INTERCONNECTING LARGE ENTITY AND ERCOT? SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE JUST HAD THAT DISCUSSION AROUND, OKAY, I CAN'T TELL THAT INFORMATION DIRECTLY TO THE ILE. I HAVE TO GO TO THE TASB AND BRIAN HAS TO PESTER THE SPS UNTIL THEY, YOU KNOW, GET THAT INFORMATION. I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT RELATIONSHIP. SOME OF THE TRANSPARENCY AROUND THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. THE, THE, THE FINANCIAL SECURITY, HOW THAT IS DONE. WE NEED TO CLARIFY THAT STILL AND THEN GOING INTO BATCH ZERO. THE SHORT CIRCUIT STUDIES. THE SOE STUDIES. THE. IF A DYNAMIC MODEL CHANGED, THAT WAS STILL. WE STILL. FOR BATCH ZERO RELIED ON THE INTERCONNECTING DSPS AND DSPS FOR THAT WORK. I THINK WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT FOR BATCH ONE AND GOING FORWARD. DOES IT MAKE SENSE STILL FOR THEM TO OWN THAT OR SHOULD ERCOT OR SOME COMBINATION. AND THEN AND THIS IS ALSO COME UP AGAIN TODAY IS THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ENHANCED WITH REGARD TO THE BIOG AND THE CONTROL LOAD RESOURCE FRAMEWORKS. I THINK BATCH ZERO, WE DID AS MUCH AS WE COULD FOR THAT, BUT STAKEHOLDERS HAD A LOT OF OTHER IDEAS THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, I THINK WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT A LOT OF THOSE IDEAS. WE THINK THEY'RE GREAT IDEAS, BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOME WORK. AND THERE WAS JUST TOO MUCH WORK TO GET THOSE IN FOR BATCH ZERO. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THOSE THINGS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. AND I THINK AS WE GET INTO THE BATCH ZERO STUDY, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT THAT WE LEARN INTERNALLY AT ERCOT THAT WE CAN HELP MAYBE BRING SOME OTHER IDEAS ON HOW WE CAN IMPROVE FUTURE BATCHES GOING FORWARD FROM THE MORE THE COMPREHENSIVE OVERALL PLANNING SCOPE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT HOW DOES BATCH INTEGRATE INTO OUR OTHER PLANNING PROCESSES, LOOKING AT TRYING TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, OUR GOAL WOULD BE IS TO GET ALL OF THAT ON AN ANNUAL CYCLE, MEANING BATCH ASSESSMENTS AND OUR RELIABILITY ASSESSMENTS AS WELL. WE'VE REALLY BEEN HONING IN ON MODELING AND CASE BUILDING. WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM FOLKS ALREADY ABOUT IMPROVEMENTS THAT COULD BE MADE IN THAT PROCESS. I THINK ONE THING EVERYBODY CAN AGREE UPON IS A SINGLE SOURCE OF TRUTH FOR LARGE LOAD INFORMATION. AND HOW THAT CARRIES FROM THE BEGINNING OF CASE BUILDING ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE STUDY TO THE ENERGIZATION AND OPERATING EXPERIENCE. [03:00:07] AND THE STAKEHOLDER AND ENGAGEMENT, MAKING SURE WE DON'T LOSE THE BENEFITS THAT ARE THERE OF THAT TODAY. CLARIFYING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. SOMETHING ELSE THAT I THINK IF ANY OF YOU WERE DUAL LISTENING INTO THE HEARING THIS MORNING. SOMETHING WE'VE ALREADY BEEN THINKING ABOUT TOO INTERNALLY. THERE WAS SOME DESIRE FROM LEGISLATURE DISCUSSIONS THIS MORNING ABOUT MAKING SURE THOSE LOADS THAT ARE CRITICAL TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT YOU KNOW, MAYBE A LARGE MANUFACTURING FACILITY, HOW DO THOSE FIT INTO THIS PROCESS AS WELL TO ENSURE THEM A PATH FORWARD FOR DEFINED STUDY CYCLES AS WELL. SO THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. WE'LL BE TEEING UP YOU KNOW, SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE AS WE SIT AT THE END OF JULY? WE ARE WORKING TO SCHEDULE A SERIES OF WORKSHOPS STARTING AT THE END OF AUGUST, AND WE'D LIKE TO HANDLE THOSE MUCH LIKE WE DID WITH THE BATCH ZERO DISCUSSION. SO WE WOULD HAVE SPECIFIC TOPICS, PROBABLY HALF OF THE DAY FOCUSED ON BATCH REQUIREMENTS, THE SECOND HALF OF THE DAY, OR VICE VERSA ON THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSMISSION, SO THAT PROPER FOLKS CAN BE PREPARED TO PARTICIPATE AS NEEDED AND WORK THEIR THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO WE WANT TO GET SOME INITIAL FEEDBACK. WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGING THE SPS IN SOME INTERVIEW SESSIONS, AND THE REASON FOR FOCUSING ON THEM IS BECAUSE OF THEIR PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES IN THEIR REGIONS, MAKING SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY NEED FROM US, WHAT THEY NEED FROM THE PROCESS, AND VICE VERSA. TRYING TO IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE WE CAN MAKE IMPROVEMENTS GOING FORWARD TO SHORTEN TIMELINES AND HAVE BETTER EFFICIENCIES IN THE PROCESS. OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE SOME DRAFT REVISION REQUESTS THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE OCTOBER TIME FRAME, THAT THEN WE COULD CONTINUE TO WORKSHOP AND GET THEM SUBMITTED INTO THE CHANGE CONTROL PROCESS FOR THE STAKEHOLDER CONSIDERATION TO HAVE. AT A MINIMUM, SOME REVISION REQUESTS AT THE BOARD IN FEBRUARY TO ADDRESS WHAT IS THE NEXT BATCH CRITERIA AND HOW THAT PROCESS WILL BE CONDUCTED, HOW THAT INTERACTS WITH RPG AS IT IS TODAY. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE'VE GOT TO ADDRESS BY THAT TIME FRAME TO PROVIDE CERTAINTY MOVING FORWARD. SO ONCE WE COMPLETE BATCH ZERO, WE'RE READY TO START THE NEXT SESSION OF BATCH STUDIES. SO TAKE ANY FEEDBACK ON THAT PROCESS APPROACH. THIS IS JUST THE THE STARTING POINT. SO MORE DISCUSSIONS TO BE HELD. OKAY. LET'S GO TO CLAYTON. YEAH. CHRISTY, I WAS GLAD TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT. THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE A SHOT AT THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO, TO GET CRITERIA FOR BATCH ONE. I WAS GOING TO ASK IF, IF YOU WERE ANTICIPATING THAT WAS GOING TO BE DONE AT ERCOT OR THE PUC, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE LOOKING TO TRY TO DO THAT IN ARKANSAS. YEAH, I GUESS I WOULD SAY THE PUC RULES THAT WILL DEFINE CRITERIA FOR WHAT WE CAN STUDY AND NOT STUDY. AND SO THAT WILL DEFINITELY INFORM WHAT IS NEXT FOR CRITERIA. WELL, THE ENTRANCE OF BATCH ZERO WAS BASED A LOT ON WHAT HAD BEEN DONE PRIOR AS FAR AS THE STUDY PROCESS. NOW THAT THAT STUDY PROCESS IS GONE WE HAVE TO RETHINK EVERYTHING GOING IN. OH YEAH. DEFINITELY. FROM A STUDY PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, TO JEFF'S POINT, DO WE NEED SOME STUDIES THAT ARE DONE BY THE TSP MORE THINKING ABOUT SHORT CIRCUIT STUDIES OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE BASIC STUDIES, BUT DOING A FULL INTERCONNECTION STUDY AT THE TSP. I THINK THAT'S NO LONGER GOING TO BE REQUIRED. I WOULD ENVISION THAT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO GET IN, BECAUSE THAT STUDY PROCESS IS GOING TO BE DONE AT ERCOT CENTRALIZED, RIGHT? BUT I MEAN, AS FAR AS DETERMINING WHICH PROJECTS ARE MATURE AND WHICH ARE NOT, THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME SORT OF CRITERIA DEVELOPED. OTHERWISE IT'S AND WE COULD, YOU KNOW, ESTABLISH IT AS KIND OF A FREE FOR ALL, FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE. THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY OF DOING IT. BUT PROBABLY GOING THROUGH THE OPTIONS FOR BATCH ZERO ARE VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES FOR BATCH ONE. AND I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO INCLUDE CRITERIA ON PEOPLE THAT TRIED TO ENTER BATCH ZERO BUT, BUT WEREN'T ABLE TO GET IN. DOES THAT GIVE THEM HIGHER OR LOWER PECKING ORDER? IT'S GOT TO BE CONSIDERED PEOPLE THAT COME OUT OF THE END OF BATCH ZERO AND DECIDE NOT TO MOVE FORWARD. DO THEY GET TO BE ALLOWED TO KIND OF JUMP IN THE QUEUE IN BATCH ONE? YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED. THAT WAS MY COMMENT. THANK YOU. THANKS, CLAYTON. LET'S GO TO BETH. YEAH, I'M I'M I'M EAGER FOR THIS, THIS CONVERSATION TO START. [03:05:04] AS YOU KNOW, CHRISTY, I'M VERY ENGAGED AND ACTIVE ON THE ON THE SORT OF REGULAR PLANNING PROCESS. AND THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE AND MORPH GOING FORWARD. AS YOU ALL ARE THINKING ABOUT THESE UPCOMING WORKSHOPS, I THINK WHAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL IS A FRAMEWORK TO START FROM IS, YOU KNOW, THE LEGISLATIVE AND PUC RULE GUIDELINES FOR WHAT ARE ERCOT RESPONSIBILITIES TODAY AS DEFINED? WHAT ARE TASB RESPONSIBILITIES TODAY AS DEFINED AS THEY RELATE TO BOTH AS THEY BOTH RELATE TO PLANNING FOR THE GRID AND INTERCONNECTING LOADS? I THINK THAT WOULD BE I KNOW FOR ME, THAT WOULD BE A HELPFUL FRAMEWORK TO, TO START FROM. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. MARTHA. THANK YOU, MARTHA, AND I I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS TO US TODAY, KRISTI. AND ALSO, YOU HAD TOUCHED ON YOU KNOW, PART OF WHAT'S IN SCOPE HERE IS FIGURING OUT HOW THE BATCH PROCESS INTERACTS WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSMISSION, SORRY, REGIONAL PLANNING GROUP PROCESS, WHICH I KNOW HAS BEEN KIND OF A STRUGGLE AT RPG RECENTLY, SINCE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED EARLY, EARLIER TO SERVE LARGE LOAD REQUESTS, IT DIDN'T QUITE MAKE IT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE FOR TREATMENT AND BATCH ZERO. BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK FROM ENCORE'S PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE GOING TO GAIN A LOT OF INSIGHTS NEXT YEAR WHEN THE BATCH ZERO STUDY PLAN GETS RELEASED AND WE SEE THAT GO THROUGH THE RPG COMMENT PROCESS. MY FEEDBACK TO YOU AT THIS STAGE WOULD BE TO THE EXTENT WE NEED BROADER OVERHAULS OF THE ENTIRE RPG PROCESS, THAT WE HAVE MORE TIME THAN FEBRUARY BOARD FOR THAT PIECE SPECIFICALLY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS OR SO THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL DIFFERENT PROTOCOL CHANGES THAT HAVE MADE MODIFICATIONS TO THE RPG PROCESS AND EVEN ONE AS SIMPLE AS CHANGING THE TIER THRESHOLDS, WHICH WAS THE MOST RECENT ONE, TOOK NINE MONTHS TO GET THROUGH THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS. AND I KNOW SWEEPING CHANGES TO SECTION 311 ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF IMPACTS ON SPS, AND I THINK THIS TIMELINE WILL BE EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT TO OVERHAUL. 311 SO MY ASK WOULD JUST BE FOR ERCOT TO THINK ABOUT KIND OF NARROW, NARROWLY TAILORING THE CHANGES TO THE RPG PROCESS THAT NEED TO BE ON THIS TIMELINE TO JUST BE FOCUSED MAYBE ON THE THINGS THAT INTERACT WITH THE BATCH STUDY PROCESS OR THE WHATEVER THE NEW VERSION OF THE RTP IS GOING TO BE. AND, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE MAKING LARGER CHANGES TO RPG, THAT WE HAVE MORE TIME TO DO THAT THAN WHAT THIS ALLOWS. THIS IS PRETTY SIMILAR TO PICKER. 145 ACTUALLY IN TERMS OF TIMELINE, AND I THINK A LOT OF STAKEHOLDERS FOUND THAT TIMELINE TO BE EXTREMELY CHALLENGING ALL AROUND. SO TO THE EXTENT WE CAN SEVER THINGS OFF, THAT CAN TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER, THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. NED. WELL, THANK YOU FOR, FOR BRINGING THIS UP AND RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, AS AS DAUNTING AS THE TIMELINE IS, BECAUSE I CERTAINLY FEEL WHAT IT'S BEEN LIKE FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS OR SEVEN MONTHS. AND WE'VE GOT ANOTHER FEW AHEAD OF US. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS DONE SO THAT WE HAVE AN INTERCONNECTION PROCESS BEYOND THAT ZERO. AND WE CAN, WE CAN CONTINUE TO GROW THE, THE STATE'S ECONOMY ACCORDINGLY. ONE THING THAT I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T ASK ABOUT AND JEFF, WHEN YOU WERE PRESENTING, BUT I THINK IS PROBABLY IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT HERE IS, YOU KNOW, WE DID NOT INCLUDE NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS WITH EXISTING GENERATORS IN THE STUDIED LOAD FOR PICKER. 145 BECAUSE WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THAT. THE STUDIED. TOTAL STUDIED AMOUNT. TURNS OUT WE HAD ROOM. WE BLEW RIGHT PAST THE 100 GIGAWATT LIMIT. SO I THINK WITH THE SIZE OF WHAT WE HAVE IN BATCH ZERO, IT'S GOING TO BE ALL THE MORE IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT THOSE NET METERING ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE EXISTING GENERATORS, WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY INCLUDE NEW LOAD WHILE WE'RE BUILDING OUT THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM TO BUILD EVERYTHING THAT'S ALREADY IN GOING TO BE IN BATCH ZERO. SO I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AS AN IMPORTANT TOOL IN OUR TOOLBOX FOR, FOR THE BATCH ONE AND COMPREHENSIVE TRANSMISSION PLANNING PROCESS GOING FORWARD. YEAH, THAT'S DEFINITELY IN SCOPE. TO MY, MY FRIENDS, MORE ON THE MARKET OPERATIONS SIDE. SAY, TELL ME THAT THERE'S SOME DIFFICULTY THERE. AND SO NOT, NOT GUARANTEED. WE'LL HAVE THAT BY FEBRUARY. BOARD. BUT, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY IN SCOPE AND WE WANT TO TRY TO TACKLE THAT. SOUNDS GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY, MIKE. SO, I MEAN, I KNOW THE FOCUS OF THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION WAS BATCH ZERO. AND PROBABLY ON THIS PRESENTATION. [03:10:05] ALSO THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT BATCH, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT BOTH LARGE LOAD INTERCONNECTION BUT ALSO GENERATION INTERCONNECTION. RIGHT. AND THE WAY IT'S BEING DONE TODAY. BY I MEAN BY TASB, IS THAT THE FIRST TO SAY THERE WOULD BE WE'RE NOT ANTICIPATING ANY CHANGES TO THE GENERATION INTERCONNECTION PROCESS AT THIS TIME. OKAY. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE OTHER MARKETS, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS TO KIND OF BRING THE GENERATION LOAD TOGETHER. THAT'S NOT, I MEAN, AT LEAST INCLUDED. I MEAN, IN THIS AGENDA FOR NOW IS THAT THAT IS YEAH, THAT IS NOT ON OUR FOCUS NOW. OKAY. UNLESS WE'RE DIRECTED TO IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION. BUT THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT SET OF RULES AND NOT IN THIS ONE THAT WE'RE TARGETING FOR FEBRUARY. OKAY. THANK YOU. BROTH. REAL QUICK. SO ONCE THIS GETS APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD IN FEBRUARY, IS THE PLAN TO START THE BATCH ONE PROCESS, THE STUDY ITSELF IN MID YEAR NEXT YEAR. I THINK THAT'S TO BE DETERMINED AS WE WORK THROUGH THE RULES. BUT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT WAYS THAT AS WE WRAP UP BATCH ZERO INTAKE PROCESSES TO BE PREPARED TO START THE NEXT BATCH STUDY ONCE WE HAVE THAT TRANSMISSION. THE LOOK AT WHAT THE TRANSMISSION SYSTEM WILL LOOK LIKE. AND THEN WE CAN TAKE THE NEXT ROUND OF STUDY. SO THAT'S TO BE DETERMINED IN THIS NEXT RULE. RIGHT. OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE JEFF CHRISTIE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR JEFF? FOR CHRISTIE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO SAY 125 AND TRY TO BE HERE AT 130 OR DO WE WANT LONGER? IT'S STARTING TO GET KIND OF LATE INTO THE AFTERNOON. 125 I THINK IT'S A FAIRLY SHORT AGENDA AFTER LUNCH, BUT WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PRETTY SUBSTANTIVE THINGS TO GO THROUGH FROM. NAGDCA. ALL RIGHT. GO EAT. GO ON VACATION. PUT THE DINOSAURS IN THE MINUTES. WE. BRONTOSAURUS IS NOW WHAT? DIPLODOCUS. OKAY, PUT THAT IN THE MINUTES. WE'RE BACK. SORRY. WE CHANGED TIMES BECAUSE OF CAKE. AND THEN WE COULDN'T FIND KATHY. AND THEN WE FOUND HER. BUT WE WERE HAVING CAKE STILL FOR KATHY. WE'RE BACK TO THE AGENDA. WE'RE IN ERCOT REPORTS. [11. ERCOT Reports (Part 2 of 2)] AND SO WE ADDED ONE, BUT BOTH ARE NAUTICA. SO WE'LL DO THE ANCILLARY SERVICE COST ALLOCATION. AND THEN I THINK SHE WILL STAY UP THERE FOR THE A DISCREPANCY THAT THERE WAS A MARKET NOTICE ABOUT THIS WEEK. AND MARTHA IS GOING TO DO BOTH OF THESE ITEMS. LET'S SEE IF I CAN DO THIS. SO GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. JUST. WELL, THANK YOU FOR STAYING AFTER LUNCH AND. I'LL KEEP IT AS AS INTERESTING AS I CAN. SO I WILL START OFF WITH THE TOPIC ON AS COST ALLOCATION. YOU'RE SEEING ME UP HERE, BUT I HAVE A GROUP OF FOLKS ALONG WITH ME TO HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. SO WE WERE AS A SET UP, WE WERE HERE IN MAY AT THE MAY TAC MEETING TO PROVIDE YOU A INSIGHT OR A HEADS UP ON THE STUDY THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO DO OR ASKED TO DO UNDER THE PROJECT 585, FIVE, FIVE. BACK THEN WE STUDIED, WE SHARED THE PRELIMINARY SCOPE AND SOME PRELIMINARY SCOPE AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS, BUT WE. BUT THERE WAS STILL MORE WORK TO BE DONE. SO TODAY WE ARE BACK. TODAY WE ARE BACK WITH AN UPDATE ON THE ENTIRE STUDY. SO WHAT I DO HAVE IS A DISCUSSION OUTLINE, WHICH SETS IT UP FOR YOU IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU WILL HEAR FROM US IN THIS SLIDE DECK. I WILL TRY TO RECAP THE SCOPE AT A HIGH LEVEL AND SOME OF THE MATERIALS WE INITIALLY PRESENTED IN THIS DECK AS WE GO. [03:15:06] FEEL FREE TO STOP AND ASK US QUESTIONS AND WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO ANSWER THEM. SO WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO LET'S START OFF WITH. SO THE PURPOSE OF TODAY IS TO SHARE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS THAT ERCOT HAS COME UP WITH OR HAS DETERMINED THROUGH THE ANALYSIS IT CONDUCTED UNDER THIS YES COST ALLOCATION STUDY. WE ARE WE WE ARE HERE TO RECEIVE ANY FURTHER FEEDBACK THAT MAY HAVE. SO ERCOT CAN COMPLETE ITS REPORT AND FILE IT WITH THE PUC BY END OF AUGUST. AS A BACKGROUND, THIS PARTICULAR STUDY WAS REQUIRED WAS A REQUIREMENT PLACED IN THE IN THE PURA. 391593. WHICH REQUIRES THE PUC TO EVALUATE WHETHER ALTERNATIVE ANCILLARY SERVICE AND RELIABILITY COST ALLOCATION METHODS CAN PRODUCE A. NET CONSUMER SAVINGS COMPARED TO THE STATUS QUO. SO THE CURRENT METHOD OF ALLOCATING THESE COSTS TO LOAD AND LOAD. THIS STUDY IS REQUIRED. THE REPORT ON THIS IS DUE DECEMBER 1ST. SO AS I MENTIONED, THE SCOPE FOR THIS STUDY WAS OUTLINED BY PUC STAFF IN IN THE PROJECT 58555. SOME OF YOU WERE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING FEEDBACK AS THAT SCOPE WAS DEVELOPED IN THAT SCOPE OF WHAT IS REQUIRED TO CONDUCT ANALYSIS. AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. NOW, BEFORE I GO FURTHER. WHEN WE WERE HERE DURING THE MAY MEETING, WE APPRECIATED ALL THE FEEDBACK THAT STAKEHOLDERS AND PTAC PROVIDED US. WE HAVE RESPONDED TO THOSE FEEDBACKS AND THERE IS A DOCUMENT POSTED ALONG WITH THIS PRESENTATION ON TODAY'S PTAC MEETING PAGE. SO. SO CERTAINLY DO REVIEW THOSE IF YOU HAVE ANY ANY FURTHER INSIGHTS OR ANY FOLLOW UPS, FEEL FREE TO FIND US AND WE WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. NOW I'LL I'LL GIVE YOU A SNEAK PEEK OF WHAT OUR KEY FINDINGS HAVE BEEN SO FAR, BASED OFF OF ALL OF THE ANALYSIS WE'VE DONE AND THE RESULTS WE'VE SEEN. AT EQUILIBRIUM, THERE WERE THREE METHODS WE WERE ASKED TO ANALYZE. WE DON'T THINK THEY WILL DIRECTLY LOWER CONSUMER COSTS COMPARED TO WHERE WE STAND TODAY. ANY SAVINGS THAT CAN COME WOULD BE INDIRECT THROUGH. SO EFFECTIVELY, WHAT ALL THESE COSTS, ALL THESE THREE METHODS DO IS THEY SHIFT COSTS FROM LOAD TO RESOURCES THAT DRIVE THE NEED FOR THESE SERVICES. NOW, THESE METHODS THAT HAVE BEEN USED FOR ALLOCATING COSTS DO CREATE SOME DO CREATE SOME INCENTIVE IN ON THESE RESOURCES TO SEE IF THEY CAN TAKE ACTIONS OR MAKE BEHAVIOR CHANGE THAT MAY RESULT IN REDUCING THE NEED FOR THESE SERVICES. WHAT IS UNCERTAIN IS WILL THE INCENTIVES BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO DRIVE THOSE CHANGES? SO THAT'S VERY HIGH LEVEL, BUT I WILL GET INTO THE DETAILS OF HOW WE GOT THERE AS WE MOVE ON. SO. OKAY, LET'S DO THIS. SO REALLY LET'S START WITH THE NOMENCLATURE. WHAT YOU WILL HEAR THE TERMS YOU WILL HEAR US USE AS WE GET INTO THE DECK TODAY. STARTING TO WITH THE WORDS THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN TO YOUR TO YOUR LEFT BASE CASE. THIS IS THE CURRENT WAY OF ALLOCATING COSTS FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES AND UNRELIABILITY. SERVICES LOAD RATIO SHARE EFFECTIVELY. SO WHEN WE REFER TO BASE CASE, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE REFERRING TO. WE'VE USED THE TERM METHOD A AND METHOD B. BOTH OF THESE METHODS ARE. THE ALLOCATION IS FUNDAMENTALLY BASED ON OPERATIONAL RISKS FOR WHICH THESE SERVICES ARE PROCURED. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN METHOD A AND METHOD B IS THE HOURS ON WHICH THEY FOCUS. METHOD A FOCUSES ON HIGH RISK, HIGH RELIABILITY RISK COVERS. METHOD B FOCUSES ON ALL HOURS. ALSO ANOTHER DIFFERENCE IS METHOD A IS SEEKING TO. SETTLE SEMIANNUALLY, SO THE COST WOULD BE ALLOCATED ON A SEMIANNUAL BASIS. METHOD B. METHOD C FOR THAT MATTER, LOOK TO HOLD A STATUS QUO. NOW METHOD C USES A APPROACH THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE CAPACITY SHORT ALLOCATION APPROACH THAT WAS USED PRIOR TO RTC. IT SEEKS TO USE THAT SAME ALGORITHM OR SAME APPROACH TO ALLOCATE R S AS ANCILLARY SERVICE AND RELIABILITY SERVICE COSTS. SO EFFECTIVELY WITH CAPACITY, SHORT POSITIONS WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE TO ALLOCATE AT THAT COST. AND ANY ANY RESIDUAL WOULD BE PASSED BACK TO LOAD. SO THOSE ARE THE AT A HIGH LEVEL, THE THREE. ALLOCATION METHODS THAT WE. [03:20:04] WE WILL TALK ABOUT AS WE GET INTO THIS SLIDE DECK. THERE WERE TWO TYPES OF EFFECTS THAT WERE COINED AS WELL IN THE SCOPE. ONE WAS PRIMARY EFFECT, WHICH. WHICH EFFECTIVELY MEANS IF WE. IF WE STRICTLY GO AND LOOK AT HOW WOULD THE HISTORICAL COST FROM 2024 2025 SHIFT. IF WE WERE TO APPLY THE APPLY THE THREE ALLOCATION METHODS, HOW WOULD THE COST SHIFT. WHAT IS THE WHO GETS? WHAT WOULD THE BALANCE LOOK LIKE? THOSE WOULD BE THE PRIMARY EFFECTS. BUT THESE ALONE DON'T HELP PROVIDE INSIGHTS INTO WHETHER THERE WOULD BE NET SAVINGS. SO THERE WAS A THERE WAS THIS IDEA OF DOING A SECONDARY SET OF ANALYSIS. AND THIS WOULD EVOLVE MORE AROUND LOOKING AT MARKET BEHAVIOR CREDIT AND SETTLEMENT IMPACTS. AND, AND OF COURSE, DID THINKING THROUGH THOSE, THE LONG TERM IMPACTS OF SUCH CHANGES ON ANY CONSUMER NET SAVINGS. SO THOSE THREE ITEMS OR THOSE TYPE OF ANALYSIS WE COINED UNDER THE TERM SECONDARY EFFECTS. WE YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICES AND RELIABILITY SERVICES THAT ARE IN SCOPE FOR THIS STUDY. DRUGS IS NOT IN SCOPE, MOSTLY BECAUSE IT IS STILL BEING DEVELOPED AND THERE IS REALLY NO HISTORY ON IT RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK I'VE ALREADY LOOSELY ALLUDED TO THIS, THE THE HISTORY OR THE DATA SET THAT WE LOOKED TO RUN. THIS ANALYSIS WAS A TWO YEAR PERIOD. 2024 AND 2025. SO I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AND WE'LL START TALKING ABOUT PRIMARY EFFECTS AND FOCUS FIRST ON METHOD A AND METHOD B. SO AS I NOTED, METHOD A AND METHOD B ARE FUNDAMENTALLY ALLOCATING COSTS BASED ON THE OPERATIONAL RISK FOR WHICH THESE SERVICES ARE PROCURED. THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE THIS OUT A TABLE THAT FOCUSES MORE ON THE ANCILLARY SERVICES. WE PROVIDE INSIGHTS INTO THE CAUSE FOR EACH ANCILLARY SERVICE AND AND WHO THE WHO WHO THE COST WOULD BE ALLOCATED TO UNDER METHOD A AND METHOD B. I WILL NOTE RESPONSIVE RESERVE WAS CALLED OUT LAST TIME WHEN WE WERE HERE. AS TO CHECKING IF IT MADE SENSE TO ALLOCATE RESPONSIVE RESERVE TO DISPATCHABLE. WE'VE HAD SOME TIME THINKING THROUGH IT AS IT AS WELL, AND I'VE SHARED SOME INSIGHTS HERE AND I'LL SHARE THEM AGAIN. WE FUNDAMENTALLY BY RESPONSIVE RESERVE BECAUSE THERE IS A RISK OF TRIPPING. AND WHEN WE LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THE TYPE OF MIX WE HAVE, IT IS THE RISK OF A SYNCHRONOUS DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES THAT REALLY DRIVES THE NEED FOR HAVING RESPONSIVE RESERVE MORE SO THAN WITHIN A SINGLE WIND TURBINE OR A SINGLE SOLAR INVERTER. SO REALLY, TO US, THE ALLOCATION OF RESPONSIVE TO DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES MAKES SENSE. WE THINK IT CAN BE SHARPENED TO BE SYNCHRONOUS A GENERATION IF IT COMES TO IT, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS NOW. THERE WAS QUESTIONS ASKED AROUND WHAT ABOUT PENETRATION? WHAT ABOUT INERTIA? THOSE ARE RELEVANT. BUT THOSE THOSE ARE NOT THE CAUSE FOR WHY WE BUY RESPONSIVE RESERVE. THOSE SET THE QUANTITIES OF RESERVES WE NEED. BUT THE CAUSE IS STRICTLY THE RISK OF UNIT TRIPS AND FREQUENCY DEVIATIONS. SO I'LL MENTION THAT AND I'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THE NEXT SLIDE FOCUSES ON RELIABILITY SERVICES AND ATTEMPTS TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. IT LISTS ALL OF THE RELIABILITY SERVICES OUT AND AS WE HAD NOTICED IN OUR PRIOR PRESENTATION AS WELL, WE HAVE WE HAVE ALLOCATED UNDER METHOD A AND METHOD B, WE'VE ALLOCATED THESE RELIABILITY SERVICES. THEY ARE, THEY ARE THEY HELP ADDRESS SYSTEM WIDE NEEDS. SO WE HAD ALLOCATED THEM ALL 100% TO LOAD. WE DID GO BACK AND SPEND SOME TIME THINKING ABOUT FIRM FAILED SERVICE AND THIS GO AROUND. THERE IS A CHANGE THAT I WANT TO NOTE ARE WE'VE WE'VE RECOMMENDED TO ALLOCATE FIRM FAIL TO RESOURCES THAT DON'T THAT ARE NOT QUALIFIED FOR FIRM FUEL. EFFECTIVELY, THIS IS ONE SERVICE WHICH IS USED TO USED TO ENSURE THAT RESOURCES WHO ARE RELIANT ON NATURAL GAS SUPPLIES CAN RIDE THROUGH NATURAL GAS DISRUPTION DURING EXTREME COLD WEATHER. AND TO US, WHEN THINKING THROUGH THAT AND HOW THE SCOPE WAS WRITTEN FOR THIS PARTICULAR STUDY TO ENSURE THAT RELIABILITY SERVICES ALIGNED WERE ALIGNED WITH THEIR PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PROCURED. WHAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED HERE SUFFICIENTLY MEETS THAT INTENTION. WITH THAT, I'LL SWITCH AND SHARE WITH YOU THE THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AROUND THE THE PRIMARY EFFECT. SO IF WE STRICTLY WERE TO TAKE THE COSTS FROM 2024, 2025 AND ALLOCATE THEM BASED OFF OF THE GUIDANCE OR BASED OFF OF METHOD A AND METHOD B, THIS GRAPH HERE SHOWS AN IN AGGREGATE, HOW THOSE COSTS WOULD SHIFT. [03:25:03] AND WHAT YOU NOTICE IS. WITH UNDER METHOD A AND METHOD B, THOSE COSTS SHIFT FROM LOAD TO GENERATION. SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE COST GETS SHIFTED TO GENERATION. THE AMOUNT. THE PERCENTAGE OF COST ON DISPATCHABLE DOESN'T CHANGE IT'S VERY SIMILAR BETWEEN BOTH METHODS. NON-DISPATCHABLE SEEMS TO HAVE A HAVE A SLIGHTLY HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF COST IN UNDER METHOD. I'LL SWITCH AND TALK ABOUT METHOD C A LITTLE. AS I NOTED, THIS IS THE. THIS METHOD GETS ITS ALLOCATION FUNDAMENTALS FROM THE RACK CAPACITY SHOT APPROACH THAT WAS USED PRIOR TO ITC. WE TOOK THE CALCULATIONS FROM THE PROTOCOLS AROUND OUR CAPACITY SHOT, MODIFIED THEM. THE. THERE IS A. THE BOX. THE FRAME IN THERE CALLS OUT SOME OF THE MODIFICATIONS WE MADE. YOU CAN REFER TO SLIDE 17 IF YOU WANT ANY OF THE DETAILED. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT ANY OF THE DETAILED EQUATIONS THAT WE USED. BUT EFFECTIVELY WITH THESE EQUATIONS, WHAT WE DID IS WE COMPUTED EVERY SHS CAPACITY SHORTFALL IN A 15 MINUTE SETTLEMENT INTERVAL. THE THE ANCILLARY SERVICE AND RELIABILITY COSTS WERE CHARGED TO QTS IS PROPORTIONAL TO THEIR CAPACITY SHORT FALL SUBJECT TO A CAP AND THEN ANY, ANY COST IN AN INTERVAL THAT WASN'T ASSIGNED TO QTS WAS PASSED BACK ON TO LOAD RATIO SHARE. SO THIS IS HOW WE ALLOCATED THE THE COSTS. NOW, SOMETHING ELSE TO NOTE SINCE RACK CAPACITY SHOT OR THIS PARTICULAR APPROACH REALLY IS ALLOCATING COSTS TO QZSS, WE COULDN'T REALLY USE THE SAME DISPATCHABLE NON-DISPATCHABLE LOAD BUCKETS THAT YOU SAW IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDES. SO WE USE FOUR DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS. WE'VE CALLED THOSE CLASSIFICATIONS OUT. WE RECEIVED SOME FEEDBACK DURING THE MAY MEETING ABOUT HOW THESE CLASSIFICATIONS WERE MADE. SO WE'VE GONE BACK AND UPDATED THOSE. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE ARE THE ARE THE FINAL SET OF CLASSIFICATIONS WE INTEND TO USE. NOW WITH THIS I'LL SWITCH OVER AND SHARE THE. AGAIN PRELIMINARY ALLOCATION USING JUST THE PRIMARY EFFECT. SO IF WE WERE TO JUST TAKE THE COST FROM 2024, 2025 AND ALLOCATE THEM USING THE METHOD, SEE THE THE GRAPHIC IN FRONT OF YOU SHOW IS SHOWING A COMPARISON BETWEEN BASE CASE AND METHOD C APPROACH FOR ALL ANCILLARY SERVICES AND THE INDIVIDUAL A RELIABILITY SERVICES. WHAT YOU WILL NOTICE WITH. WITH METHOD C, THE COST. SUBSTANTIAL COST SHIFTS FROM LOAD SHOCKS TO GENERATION AND POWER TRADE POWER TRADE SHOCKS. NOW, ALL OF THESE COSTS THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE ARE PRIOR TO ANY CAPACITY TRADE. SO PRIOR TO ANY CAPACITY TRADE THIS IS HOW YOU WOULD SEE THE COST SHIFT. FROM HERE WE SWITCH ON. NOW THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT WITH THE PRIMARY EFFECTS OF THE THE THREE ALLOCATION METHODS, WE SWITCH AND START. WE WANT TO SHARE WHAT WE. SHARE, THE WORK WE DID ON THE SECONDARY EFFECTS PORTION OF THIS ANALYSIS, AS I NOTICED, STRICTLY REALLOCATING ANCILLARY SERVICE OR RELIABILITY COSTS TO GENERATORS OR CHASSIS IN ITSELF DOES NOT DETERMINE IMPACTS ON CONSUMER SAVINGS. SO THE SCOPE LAID OUT THREE DIFFERENT ASPECTS FOR US TO EXPLORE TO TO HELP ANSWER THIS THIS QUESTION. FIRST BEING MARKET PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR. SO WOULD THE NEW WAY OF ALLOCATING COSTS CHANGE OPERATIONS TRADING MAINTENANCE INVESTMENT DECISIONS. SECOND. SECOND WAS SETTLEMENTS AND CREDIT IMPACT. SO WITH THE WITH THE NEW ALLOCATION METHODS HAVE AN IMPACT ON HOW WE SETTLE, HOW WE WHAT SORT OF PROCEDURES WE MAINTAIN FOR CREDIT. AND PRIMARILY THIS PARTICULAR SECTION FOCUSED ON METHOD A, BUT WE CAN ALSO SHARE INSIGHTS ON HOW METHOD B AND METHOD C WOULD WORK. AND OF COURSE, THEN THINKING THROUGH IMPACTS ON CONSUMER CONSUMER COSTS, I. OR IF THERE WOULD BE ANY NET SAVINGS. SO. SO WE'LL WHAT WE'LL DO IS IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, WE'LL TAKE EACH OF THESE SECTIONS AND DELVE INTO THEM DEEPER, SHARE WHAT WE DID, WHAT WE FOUND, AND MOVE ON. SO STARTING WITH METHOD A AND METHOD B FIRST. SO THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE HIGHLIGHTS THE APPROACH WE TOOK TO CONDUCT ANALYSIS. THE CONDUCT THE MARKET PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR CHANGE ANALYSIS FOR THESE TWO METHODS. PRIMARILY WHAT I DID. WELL ACTUALLY I'LL PAUSE. I MISSED SHARING SOMETHING. SO WE USED WE PARTNERED WITH LONDON ECONOMICS TO HELP ANSWER THE QUESTIONS LAID OUT IN ITEM ONE, WHICH IS THE MARKET PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR. SO I USED A QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS WHERE APPLICABLE, AND AN ECONOMIC ECONOMIC THEORY AND JUDGMENT WHERE APPLICABLE, [03:30:08] TO HELP US ANSWER THE MARKET PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR QUESTION. THE OTHER TWO WE DID NOT DO ANY MODELING ON. SO THE INSIGHTS YOU'LL SEE FROM US ON THOSE TWO ARE MORE DIRECTIONAL AND QUALITATIVE FINDINGS. BUT I MISSED MENTIONING THAT. APOLOGIZE. SO WITH THAT INTRODUCTION. SO I'LL GO BACK TO THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE AND START SHARING WHAT THE TYPE OF APPROACH LONDON ECONOMICS USED IN ANALYZING IMPACTS OF METHOD A AND METHOD B ON MARKET PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR. THEY THEY ARE AT A AT A HIGH LEVEL. THEY THEY LOOKED TO COMPUTE THE COST ON A PER RESOURCE BASIS OF ANCILLARY SERVICES AND RELIABILITY SERVICES IN EVERY INTERVAL BY UTILIZING COST ALLOCATION ANALYSIS THAT ERCOT DID. AND THE HIGH SUSTAINED LIMIT EACH CELL OF EVERY RESOURCE IN THE INTERVAL. AND ONCE THE ONCE THEY HAD THOSE COSTS ANALYSIS THEY NORMALIZED THOSE COSTS AGAINST THE NAMEPLATE CAPABILITY. SO. SO ALL COSTS WERE REPRESENTED AS DOLLAR PER MEGAWATT OF NAMEPLATE FOR THE LONG TERM EQUILIBRIUM IMPACT. THEY EVALUATED THE IMPACT ON COST OF NEW ENTRY DUE TO THE HIGHER FIXED COSTS FROM THESE COST ALLOCATIONS, AND EVENTUALLY ATTEMPTED TO UNDERSTAND THE NET CONSUMER IMPACT OF THESE CHANGES. I APOLOGIZE, I DID NOT INTEND TO DO THAT. OKAY, SO LET'S MOVE ON. SO NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT FINDINGS. SO THERE WERE TWO PRIMARY FINDINGS. AT LEAST ON THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION OF MARKET PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR CHANGE AND THE METHOD A AND METHOD B IN THE SHORT RUN AND IN ECONOMICS DID NOT SEE DID NOT SEE A CHANGE PER SE IN BEHAVIOR. THIS IS BECAUSE WE EXPECTED THE COST THE ALLOCATED COST TO BEHAVE LIKE A FIXED COST. SO AS A REFERENCE, THESE COSTS ARE ALLOCATED AGAINST THE HIGH SUSTAINED LIMIT. SO THE CAPABILITY OF THE RESOURCE NOT IT'S NOT ITS DISPATCH OR MEGAWATT OUTPUT. SO A GENERATOR WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REDUCE ITS COST EXPOSURE BY SIMPLY CHANGING ITS OPERATIONAL BEHAVIOR. AS A RESULT WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T SEE A CHANGE IN SHORT TERM BEHAVIOR. THERE WAS ONE EXCEPTION AROUND PRIVATE USE NETWORKS. THESE RESOURCES HAVE SOME CONTROL OF THEIR HEALTH. SO THERE WAS SOME THERE WAS A A POTENTIAL TO BE NOTED, BUT WE DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD REALLY THE CAPACITY IS SMALL AND WE DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE AS SIGNIFICANT OF AN IMPACT IN THE LONG RUN, BECAUSE THESE COSTS ACT AS FIXED COSTS. THEY COULD IMPACT GENERATOR REVENUES AND GENERATOR PROFITABILITY AND IN TURN COULD AFFECT INVESTMENT, RETIREMENT DECISIONS AND AND AGAIN, IN THE LONG RUN, SOME OF THOSE COSTS COULD BE PASSED BACK TO CONSUMERS. SO THOSE WERE THE THOSE WERE THE FINDINGS ON THIS ONE. THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE TO NOTE. IF YOU JUST LOOK AT STRICTLY THE COST ALLOCATION, THE ANALYSIS THAT LONDON ECONOMICS DID AT A HIGH LEVEL, COSTS ARE AT A CATEGORY LEVEL BETWEEN DISPATCHABLE AND NON-DISPATCHABLE ARE VERY SIMILAR. SOME DIFFERENCES DO SHOW UP WHEN YOU LOOK CLOSER INTO THE NON-DISPATCHABLE CATEGORY ITSELF. WE HAVE AN APPENDIX AT THE BACK WHICH YOU CAN LOOK AT FOR IT. I'LL SWITCH OVER TALK ABOUT METHOD. SEE? SO THIS IS THE METHOD WHERE THERE IS A AN INCENTIVE FOR QSES TO USE CAPACITY TRADING AS A MECHANISM TO REDUCE THEIR EXPOSURE TO A S AND R S COSTS EFFECTIVELY WHEN. WHEN A QSC TRADES OUT OF ITS CAPACITY SHORTFALL OR REDUCES IT OR TRADES OUT THE. THE REMAINDER OF ANCILLARY SERVICE AND SES COSTS WILL FALL ON THE RESOURCES OR ON THE SHACKS THAT ARE STILL SHORT. SO THAT IN TURN CREATES THIS INCENTIVE OF TRADING BEING A WAY TO REDUCE THEIR COST EXPOSURE FOR. IN ORDER TO ANALYZE THE IMPACTS OF METHOD C ON MARKET PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOR, LONDON ECONOMICS SIMULATED TRADING OUTCOMES OF CHASSIS TO CHASSIS CAPACITY TRADING IN EACH INTERVAL USING 2024 AND 2025 DATA. THE FORMULA HERE SHARES THE MAXIMUM WILLINGNESS TO PAY OFF OF A CHASSIS SUBJECT TO A CAP, AND THE AND AND THE THREE FRAMES YOU SEE BELOW. THE THREE HELP CHER, CHER LIGHTS ON OR CHER. CHER. [03:35:04] THE CASES OF HOW THE EQUILIBRIUM PRICE WOULD BE SET IN EACH SETTLEMENT INTERVAL, DEPENDING ON THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND BALANCE. SO WITH THESE CHANGES, WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, OR WITH THIS SORT OF A SETUP, I'LL GO AND SHARE AT LEAST WHAT WE FOUND. AND THEN I'LL PAUSE FOR A MINUTE. SO AFTER TAKING CAPACITY TRADING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS ABOUT ONLY 0.3% OF THE INTERVALS WHERE THE SYSTEM WAS SHORT ON CAPACITY AND EFFECTIVELY 96% OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICE AND AND RELIABILITY SERVICE COST WAS ALLOCATED BACK TO LOAD. AS I AS I MENTIONED, REALLY THERE'S AN INCENTIVE IN THIS PARTICULAR APPROACH FOR FOR SHOCKS TO TRADE TRADE THEIR CAPACITY SHORTFALLS WITH EXTRA CAPACITY LONG. AND WHAT WE FOUND, MAYBE I'LL GO STRAIGHT TO WHAT WE FOUND WHEN WE LOOKED AT THOSE ALLOCATIONS. THE SIMULATION RESULTS CLOSELY AFTER TRADING MOST OF THE COST. MOST OF THE COST CONTINUES TO BE ON CHASSIS WITH LOAD. ONCE THE ACCOUNT TRADING RESULTS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR, GENERATION ONLY SHOCKS EMERGE AS NET RECEIVERS AND CHASSIS WITH LOAD TEND TO INCUR COST TO SECURE THOSE TRADES. THERE IS A. THERE IS UNCERTAINTY AROUND THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THIS PARTICULAR APPROACH BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON HOW OFTEN THE SYSTEM IS CAPACITY SHORT AND HOW. AND DURING THOSE INTERVALS. WHAT ARE THE SHOCKS, WHO ARE SHORT OR HOW. HOW HOW SHORT THEY ARE AT THE TIME. NOW SOMETHING ELSE WE NOTICED WAS IN SUCH A PARADIGM WHERE THE EXPOSURE TO COST WAS TIED TO CAPACITY, SHORT INTERVALS, DISPATCHABLE RESOURCE SHOCKS WERE. DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES SEEM TO BE. THE MORE EFFECTIVE WAY TO OFFSET THE EXPOSURE TO THESE COSTS AND. THIS IS STRICTLY BECAUSE. TYPICALLY, WHEN CAPACITY. SHORT INTERVALS OCCUR, THE AMOUNT OF NON-DISPATCHABLE CAPACITY ON THE SYSTEM IS LOW. THESE ARE EFFECTIVELY HIGH NET LOAD PERIODS. SO REALLY DISPATCHABLE RESOURCES WOULD BE THE ONES THAT WOULD BE AROUND. SO I'LL PAUSE HERE FOR A MINUTE AND I'LL I KNOW LONDON ECONOMICS IS ON THE ON THE PHONE. I'LL INVITE THEM TO SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY MORE INSIGHTS TO ADD BEFORE I MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AND I HAVE A QUESTION IF YOU. IF SO, LET'S SEE, BETH. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE. AND THEN I'LL COME TO YOU. KENT. WITHROW. YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ASK YOUR QUESTION? YEAH. KENT WITHROW WITH CUSTOMIZED ENERGY SOLUTIONS. I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE WAY THE WORD EQUILIBRIUM IS BEING USED HERE. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY EQUILIBRIUM PRICE AND FINDINGS AT EQUILIBRIUM? KENT. I CAN TAKE A STAB, BUT I SEE LONDON ECONOMICS IS IN THE QUEUE, SO MAYBE I'LL CALL THEM ON FIRST AND THEN I'LL I'LL COME BACK AND COVER. VICTOR, DO YOU WANT TO CHIME IN? SURE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU, VICTOR. OKAY, GREAT. RIGHT. SO. SO FOR EQUILIBRIUM PRICE IF YOU CAN GO BACK ONE SLIDE. THIS ONE. WELL. YES. YEP. SO WHAT, WHAT WE MEAN IN EQUILIBRIUM PRICE IS THAT EACH US EAST WHO HAS WELL, THINK OF THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT IT IS IN EACH INTERVAL, USC CAN TRADE BETWEEN EACH OTHER FOR CAPACITY, AND THEN THE NET POSITION, AFTER ALL, THE TRADING WILL IMPACT HOW THEY GET THEIR COST ALLOCATED. NOW THE USC, WHO HAS SHORT NET SHORT CAPACITY, WILL WANT TO BUY CAPACITY FROM THOSE WHO HAS LONG CAPACITY. AND ASSUMING THAT THEY ALL TRADE IN A SINGLE LIQUID MARKETS, THEN THERE WOULD EVENTUALLY BE A PRICE THAT THAT THE USC SHORT IS WILLING TO PAY THOSE CAPACITIES THAT IS LONG. AND THAT PRICE IS WHAT WE MEAN BY EQUILIBRIUM PRICE. SO ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT THIS TRADING PRICE OF THE CAPACITY, IT'S NOT ACTUALLY VISIBLE TO OUR COURT. IT WILL BE A SECONDARY MARKET THAT THAT CLEARS THE TRADE. AND JUST FOR THE EASY TO UNDERSTAND ON THE LOWER LEFT BOX IN NUMBER ONE, WHEN THERE'S NET LIKE MORE [03:40:10] CAPACITY THAN SHORT CAPACITY, WHICH, WHICH HAPPENS VERY OFTEN, THEN WHOEVER IS LEFT HOLDING THE CAPACITY AT THE END, LIKE RIGHT BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT, THOSE CAPACITY HAS NO INHERENT VALUE ANYMORE BECAUSE THE, THE SYSTEM DO NOT REWARD PEOPLE WHO HOLD A LONG CAPACITY. IT ONLY PENALIZES WHOEVER HOLDS THE SHORT CAPACITY AND THEREFORE THE ACTUAL VALUE OF WHOEVER HOLDS THE LONG CAPACITY GOES TO ZERO. SO THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SELL WHATEVER THEY CAN. SO THAT IS HOW WE THOUGHT LIKE IN, IN THIS SITUATION WHERE THERE'S LONG, MORE LONG CAPACITY THAN CAPACITY WILL END UP AND THE OTHER WAY AROUND, IT'S WHEN THERE'S MORE CAPACITY THAN MORE CAPACITY THAN THE SCHOLZ WHO IS NEXT SHOT WILL BE WILLING TO PAY UP TO WHATEVER THEY NEED TO BUY IN ORDER TO OFFSET THEIR POTENTIAL AS COST ALLOCATION. AND THE WAY THEY THINK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL AS COST ALLOCATION SHOULD BE, THAT IF ALL THE OTHER. USD THAT HAS NET SHORT POSITION SECURE ENOUGH LONG CAPACITY SO THEY BECOME LIKE NET ZERO, THEN WHATEVER IS REMAINING THAT HAS A NET SHORT CAPACITY HAVE TO BEAR ALL THE REMAINING AS COSTS, RIGHT? SO THERE IS A MAXIMUM WILLINGNESS TO PAY UP TO A CAP AND IN LIKE A SHORTAGE POSITION, THAT WOULD BE THE EQUILIBRIUM PRICE. AND THEN THERE WILL BE IN BETWEEN SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE PIVOTAL PLAYERS. AND THAT WOULD BE LIKE A GAME THEORY RESULT ON LIKE THE ACTUAL EQUILIBRIUM PRICE, WHICH IS MUCH SMALLER PORTION OF THE HOURS. I HOPE THIS ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. SO IT'S NOT ONE EQUILIBRIUM PRICE. IT'S LIKE EVERY SABLAN INTERVAL HAS A DIFFERENT EQUILIBRIUM PRICE. KENT DID I GET IT? YEAH, I THINK SO. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. BETH I'M GOING TO FOLLOW ON ON THAT. AND THEN I HAVE A DIFFERENT QUESTION. BUT FOLLOWING ON ON THAT DISCUSSION, WHAT I HEARD WAS WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME EFFICIENT, YOU KNOW, SORT OF EFFICIENT CLEARING WHEN THERE'S, WHEN THERE ISN'T A MECHANISM FOR THAT EFFICIENT CLEARING. AND I UNDERSTAND SOME ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S MY TAKEAWAY FROM THE CONVERSATION. AND IF THAT'S WRONG, I'M HAPPY TO BE STEERED IN A DIFFERENT WAY. MY QUESTION. OH, SORRY. YEAH. GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. VICTOR. YEAH. THAT'S A CORRECT ASSUMPTION. AND IN PRACTICE THIS THERE IS CAPACITY TRAINING RIGHT NOW FOR THE RUCK SETTLEMENT. WE DON'T HAVE INFORMATION OF HOW LIQUID THAT MARKET IS BECAUSE THAT IS OUTSIDE OF LIKE DATA THAT IS AVAILABLE TO ERCOT. EXACTLY. OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. MY, MY QUESTION IS MORE MAYBE MORE BASIC. AND IT, IT WAS SPARKED BY, YOU KNOW, JUST THE FOOTNOTE ON SLIDE THREE, WHICH TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LOW PRC HOURS. AND THEN HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NET SHORT HOURS. ONE, I'M NOT SURE IF THOSE ARE THE SAME THING. AND, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY CAN YOU GIVE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THE RIGHT DEFINITION IN MIND OF WHAT, WHAT THE PHRASE NET SHORT MEANS. WHAT IS THAT? ENERGY REQUIREMENTS PLUS ANCILLARY SERVICE OBLIGATIONS FOR THAT HOUR IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IS THAT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT NET SHORT IS? AND THEN HOW DOES A FOOTNOTE THAT REFERS TO PRC RELATE TO BOTH OF THOSE? ANYWAY, I JUST I'M CONFUSED BY THOSE TWO THINGS. AND, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THOSE ARE KEY ELEMENTS THAT OF THIS ANALYSIS, I'D LIKE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND. SO LET'S SEE. SO I GO ON, VICTOR, YOU DO THE NET SHORT AND I'LL DO THE OTHER ONE. OKAY. RIGHT. SO THE NET SHORT MEANING GOES TO SLIDE 17. IF YOU DON'T MIND JUMPING THERE BECAUSE IT'S 17 EASY 17. YES. YEAH. RIGHT. SO THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION HERE. YEAH. YES. WELL THIS IS THIS IS WHAT IS IN THE, THE MARKET RULE, BUT WITH SOME SLIGHT TERMS, SLIGHTLY ADJUSTED, FIFTH, WHICH IS BASED ON THE CURRENT RUCK SEDIMENT LODGING. GOTCHA. I KNOW THE EXPERT WOULD BE MAGGIE, WHICH IS NOT HERE NOW. FAIR ENOUGH. YEAH. THAT THIS IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME. THIS THIS GETS ME TO WHERE I NEED TO. THIS, THIS TIES TO THIS. THIS TIES IT BACK TO WHAT? WHERE I THINK. YEAH. SO NOW PRC. YEAH, IT APPLIED MORE TO METHOD A WHERE WHAT WE WERE TOLD TO DO IS, WELL THERE WAS A SET OF RELIABILITY [03:45:09] RISK COVERS THAT WE BORROWED FROM THE FIRM RULE. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO IT, WE WERE ASKED TO ALSO CONSIDER ANY HOURS WHERE PRC WOULD HAVE BEEN LOW. AND I THINK IT WAS LOWER THAN 3000. WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF LOW? IT WAS LOWER THAN 3000. IT WAS LOWER THAN 3000. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. AND THERE WERE NONE, AT LEAST IN THIS HISTORY, PERIOD. FAIR ENOUGH. NEXT UP IS NED. HEY GUYS. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR FOR TAKING THE FEEDBACK FROM THE LAST TIME WE GOT TOGETHER IN MAY. I THINK THIS IS TURNING IN A GOOD DIRECTION. THE COMMENTS THAT I HAD WERE MORE ON SLIDES FOUR AND FIVE AND I WANT TO VOICE THEM. I THE WAY I'M READING THIS IS IT PROBABLY DOES NOT CHANGE THE OUTCOME OR THE KEY TAKEAWAYS OF THE ASSESSMENT, BUT YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, ON YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SES AND HOW THAT MIGHT BE ALLOCATED. I, I CAN'T LOOK AT THIS AND NOT SAY THAT THE PURPOSE AND CAUSE OF ALL OF THESE IS TO SERVE LOAD. I KNOW WE'VE VOICED OVER THAT BEFORE, SO I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT IT AGAIN. I KNOW YOU'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING ELSE FOR THIS. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S PART OF THE EXERCISE. BUT ON SLIDE FIVE, I DID NOTE THAT YOU CHANGED THE ALLOCATION FROM ON THE LAST ONE FROM LOAD TO NON FS QUALIFIED GAS UNITS. AND I DID WANT TO RAISE AT LEAST A FRESH CONCERN WITH THAT. AND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT SERVICE IS THERE TO HELP SUSTAIN SERVICE THROUGH A DISRUPTION IN THE BULK NATURAL GAS SYSTEM, AND IS NOT NECESSARILY A FUNCTION OF THE NON FS QUALIFIED GAS UNITS. YOU COULD HAVE NON FS QUALIFIED GAS UNITS THAT ALSO HAVE DUAL FUEL. OR THEY COULD HAVE THEIR OWN FIRM GAS CONTRACT THAT JUST AREN'T ELIGIBLE. OR MAYBE THE FIRM FUEL RESTRICTIONS JUST DON'T MAKE IT ECONOMIC FOR THEM TO BID INTO THAT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE THAT DESIGNATION. SO I JUST WANT TO FLAG THAT ONE AS AS YOU'RE THINKING THROUGH HOW THE FINAL REPORT COMES TOGETHER. YEAH. THAT 1ST MAY MAKE SENSE TO GO BACK. IT'S ALMOST LIKE I'M GOING TO SIT ON THAT ONE AS A SHARPER ALLOCATION AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PENALIZE THOSE WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN A THROUGH A SUPPLY DISRUPTION, MAINTAIN GENERATION THROUGH A SUPPLY DISRUPTION. I APPRECIATE THOSE FEEDBACK. HE'S EMPTY. NOW, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING, I WILL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE THAT I HAVE IS IN TERMS OF ORDER. WE'LL FOCUS ON CONSUMER NET SAVINGS FIRST AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT CREDIT AND SETTLEMENTS. SO REALLY ON THIS ONE THIS SLIDE BRINGS THE ANALYSIS YOU'VE HEARD FROM US SO FAR TOGETHER. AND REALLY THE QUESTION ASKED IN THIS PARTICULAR STUDY WAS WHETHER ANY OF THESE METHODS WOULD RESULT IN SAVINGS TO THE CONSUMERS. THE SHORT ANSWER I PREVIEWED IT A WHILE AGO IS STRICTLY CHANGING. THE COST ALLOCATION WOULD NOT BY ITSELF CREATE SAVINGS. IT CHANGES WHO BEARS THE COST. AND THAT'S ABOUT. THAT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND. NOW UNDER METHOD A AND METHOD B, THESE COSTS ARE FIXED COSTS. SO THERE WERE NO SHORT TERM BEHAVIOR CHANGE IN THE LONG RUN. THESE RESULTS. THESE WERE ESTIMATED TO RESULT IN HIGHER CONSUMER COSTS BECAUSE OF PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT DECISIONS, PRIMARILY WHAT'S GOING ON? WHAT WOULD WHAT POTENTIALLY WILL HAPPEN IS PROFITABILITY OF RESOURCES WOULD BE IMPACTED. SO SO THAT WAS THAT. THAT'S THE LINE. THAT'S THE THAT'S THE REFERENCE THERE. METHOD C SHIFTS COSTS BETWEEN SHOCKS. IT. IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THE. IT DOESN'T REALLY INCENTIVIZE CHANGES THAT WOULD REDUCE THE NEED FOR A S OR RELIABILITY SERVICES. IT'S A DIFFERENT WAY OF ALLOCATING COST. AND IT MAY INCENTIVIZE RESOURCES TO BE AROUND SOME RESOURCES TO BE AVAILABLE DURING THOSE TIMES OF SCARCITY. SO AT LEAST AT EQUILIBRIUM, THE WORD AGAIN, WE DIDN'T EXPECT ANY OF THESE THREE METHODS TO PRODUCE DIRECTLY REDUCE COSTS. ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAPPEN WOULD BE INDIRECT. AND AS I MENTIONED IN, IN ALL OF THESE METHODS, THERE IS THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME INCENTIVE TO TO FOR THESE RESOURCES WHO ARE ALLOCATED THE COST TO TAKE ACTIONS IN A MANNER THAT MAY REDUCE THE NEED FOR RELIABILITY OR ANCILLARY SERVICES. IS THAT INCENTIVE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH IS SOMETHING WE ARE NOT. IT IS UNCERTAIN. SO WITH THAT, I'LL I'LL SWITCH TO SETTLEMENTS AND CREDIT IMPACT. [03:50:02] AND MAGGIE IS HERE TO HELP ME WITH THOSE. THANK YOU. MAGGIE SHANKS WITH ERCOT SETTLEMENTS. SO WITH. THIS SLIDE IS PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON METHOD A, AND THIS IS LOOKING AT CHANGING THE SETTLEMENT CADENCE FROM A DAILY SETTLEMENT, WHICH WE DO TODAY FOR ANCILLARY SERVICE AND RELIABILITY SERVICES TO MOVING TO A SEMIANNUAL COST ALLOCATION. SO FIRST WE LOOKED AT THE SETTLEMENT IMPACTS AND WE LOOKED AT, OKAY, FINANCIALLY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO GO FROM DAILY, DAILY SETTLEMENT TO SEMIANNUAL? SO THE FIRST WE LOOKED AT THE AVERAGE DAILY UPLIFT FOR AS AND SES FOR THE 2024 2025 PERIOD AND APPROXIMATELY $1.4 MILLION OF COSTS IS ALLOCATED DAILY. SO MOVING TO A SEMIANNUAL SETTLEMENT THAT WOULD CHANGE THAT COST TO ABOUT $254 MILLION ON A SINGLE INVOICE. SO WITH THAT, WE DO SEE A POTENTIAL FOR INCREASES IN THE RISK OF A QSC DEFAULTING GOING FROM, YOU KNOW, A, A SMALLER DAILY SETTLEMENT VERSUS A ONE LARGE LUMP SUM EVERY SIX MONTHS. WE ALSO CONSIDERED WHAT IT WOULD MEAN SYSTEMATICALLY IF WE WOULD MOVE TO SEMIANNUAL. SO IF WE WOULD DO THAT, WE WOULD HAVE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SIX MONTH PERIOD, AN INITIAL TYPE SETTLEMENT. AND THAT WOULD WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF ESTIMATE OF GENERATION AND LOAD TO KNOW WHAT WE WOULD CHARGE SHESAYS DURING THESE HIGH RISK HOURS. SO IT WOULD CAUSE US SOME CHANGES IN OUR SETTLEMENTS AND ALSO DEPENDING ON QSC BEHAVIOR, RELATIONSHIP CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE SIX MONTHS THAT COULD ACTUALLY THE INITIAL ESTIMATE COULD ACTUALLY DEVIATE FROM WHERE THE QSC WOULD BE ON ON THE TRUE UP AFTER THE END OF THE SIX MONTHS. SO DEPENDING ON THAT, THERE THE THE INITIAL CHARGES WOULD NOT MATCH ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE TRUE UP WOULD REFLECT BASED ON THEIR ESTIMATES AND ACTUAL DATA. ANOTHER THING WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT FOR ALLOCATING AS CHARGES UP FRONT. WE WOULD NEED SOME TYPE OF ANCILLARY SERVICE PRICE ESTIMATE TO KNOW WHAT THE COST WOULD BE FOR ANCILLARY SERVICES. SO WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT SOME TYPE OF HISTORICAL DATA TO GIVE THAT A BENCHMARK, WHICH SOMETIMES THAT MAY NOT REFLECT WHAT PRICES WOULD BE IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS. SO YOU COULD ALSO HAVE SOME COST DEVIATIONS THERE. ANOTHER THING WE ALSO LOOKED AT IS TODAY WE ALSO HAVE DAILY ANCILLARY SERVICE SETTLEMENTS. AND IF WE WOULD DO A SEMIANNUAL SETTLEMENT, WE WOULD STILL AWARD ANCILLARY SERVICES ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS. SO WHAT WOULD WE DO WITH THAT SETTLEMENT. SO ONE OPTION WOULD BE WE WOULD EITHER HAVE TO KIND OF KEEP A TALLY EVERY DAY OF ANY OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICE AWARDS THAT WERE AWARDED TO PAY THEM AT THE END OF THE SIX MONTHS, OR WE WOULD HAVE TO CREATE SOME TYPE OF FUND THAT WITH THE MONEY THAT WE CREATED AND WE, WE THAT WE COLLECTED INITIALLY HAVE SOME TYPE OF DAILY FUND TO ALLOCATE THAT MONEY EVERY DAY UNTIL ESSENTIALLY WE COULD BE SHORT OR LONG AT THE END OF THE SIX MONTH PERIOD AND THEN HAVE TO DO THAT RE-ALLOCATION THERE. SO A LITTLE BIT OF COMPLICATIONS WOULD COME WITH KIND OF HAVING TO THINK THROUGH DAILY VERSUS SEMIANNUALLY AND HOW THAT MONEY WOULD BE ALLOCATED ADDITIONALLY FOR SOME RELIABILITY SERVICES. SOME OF THOSE INCLUDE THINGS WHERE A CHASSIS COULD SUBMIT DISPUTES TO GET ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS FOR FUEL, OR IF THERE'S CLAWBACKS TIED TO PERFORMANCE OR STANDBY COSTS THAT ARE REDUCED BECAUSE OF AVAILABILITY, THINGS LIKE THAT. IF WE WERE TO JUST DO AN INITIAL AND A SIX MONTH SETTLEMENT, ALL OF THOSE TYPES OF PAYMENTS AND CHARGES WOULD NEED TO WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE SIX MONTH PERIOD TO BE ALLOCATED. AND OF COURSE, BECAUSE THIS DEVIATES FROM OUR CURRENT CADENCE OF DAILY SETTLEMENTS, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THIS WOULD BE A NEW TYPE OF INVOICE TO MANAGE THE SEMIANNUAL ALLOCATION. NOW, RELATED TO CREDIT, WE DO THINK THAT REQUIRING A SEMIANNUAL SETTLEMENT VERSUS DAILY ACTUALLY INCREASES COLLATERAL FOR THE MARKET PARTICIPANTS, SINCE UPFRONT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO KIND OF PRE-FUND AND HOLD ADDITIONAL COLLATERAL FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME VERSUS DAILY SETTLEMENTS. AND ALSO FOR NEW MARKET PARTICIPANTS, BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF HISTORICAL DATA, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE HAVING TO INCREASE THE INITIAL COLLATERAL AMOUNT UPFRONT TO KIND OF ACCOUNT FOR THOSE POTENTIAL A S AND RS COSTS THAT COULD HAPPEN THROUGHOUT THAT FIRST SIX MONTH PERIOD, SINCE WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY HISTORICAL DATA. SO THOSE IMPACTS ARE WHAT WE SEE FOR METHOD A, METHOD B AND METHOD C, BECAUSE THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE SAME DAILY CADENCE OF SETTLEMENTS. IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE PROTOCOL CHANGES AND IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE A SETTLEMENT SYSTEM UPDATES, [03:55:04] BUT IT WOULDN'T BE AS IMPLEMENTATION COST HEAVY AS DOING SOMETHING SO DIFFERENT AS A SEMIANNUAL COST ALLOCATION. AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR THE IMPACTS. ALL RIGHT. SO AT THE LAST SLIDE. SO REALLY, AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE WE'VE BEEN APPRECIATIVE OF ALL THE FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED FROM TECH SO FAR. AND ANY FURTHER YOU MAY HAVE. WE APPRECIATE AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT AS WELL. OUR NEXT STOP IS TO REALLY WORK ON THE REPORT SO THAT WE CAN FILE IT BY THE END OF AUGUST, AND AFTER THAT, THE NEXT PROCEEDINGS ON THIS ONE WOULD SHIFT TO SHIFT TO THE PUC T, WHERE THE STAFF WOULD START WORKING ON ITS REPORT AND SEEK INPUTS AS IT STARTS THAT EFFORT. SO THAT'S THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE ON THIS TOPIC. I CAN PAUSE IF THERE ARE ANY FEEDBACK, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. WE ARE HERE. WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. BETH. YEAH, I'VE GOT, I GOT THIS IS ONE WHERE I SHOULD LEARN TO KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO AGAIN. THIS WAS A STUDY REQUIRED BY LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENT. I DON'T HAVE A HIGH OPINION OF THE NEED TO DO THIS STUDY, AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE COSTS THAT WERE IMPOSED ON HAVING TO DO THIS STUDY, AND WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO, AS PART OF THE COMMISSION'S REPORT BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE, TO BE ABLE TO SAY ERCOT SPENT X HOURS AND Y DOLLARS TO PERFORM THIS STUDY, AT LEAST IN A FOOTNOTE SOMEWHERE, WOULD BE A HELPFUL ADDITION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. DON'T EXPECT TO SEE IT, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY WHAT NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO SAY SO THAT IT'S OUT THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW. SO LET'S GO ON TO THE 2026 AS METHODOLOGY DISCREPANCY IF YOU'RE READY FOR THAT. YES. GIVE US A MINUTE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO AS CAITLIN NOTED, WE ISSUED A MARKET NOTICE ON MONDAY THIS WEEK AS A PART OF WORKING ON THE 2027 METHODOLOGY, FOUND THERE WERE ISSUES IN THE CODE THAT WE HAD BUILT TO COMPUTE THE 2026 REQUIREMENTS, SPECIFICALLY FOR AKERS AND SPENCER. IF YOU RECOLLECT, LAST YEAR IS THE WAS THE FIRST YEAR WHERE WE TRANSITIONED OUR METHODOLOGY FROM A STANDARD STATISTICAL METHOD TO A PROBABILISTIC METHOD. AND WHAT WE. AS WE STARTED WORKING ON 27, WHAT WE NOTICED WERE THERE WERE SEVERAL ISSUES IN HOW THE CODE THAT WE WROTE WAS PROCESSING INPUTS THAT WE THAT WERE FED INTO IT. AND THERE WERE ISSUES EVEN WITH THE OPTIMIZATION ITSELF, SPECIFICALLY AROUND HOW IT WAS HANDLING LESS RISKY HOURS. AND AS A RESULT, WHEN WE CORRECTED THE CODES AND USED THE APPROVED PARAMETERS THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO USE, POST, POST THE WORK WE DID LAST YEAR, THE QUANTITIES FOR ANCILLARY SERVICE IN 2026 ON AN AVERAGE, WERE ABOUT 3700MW HIGHER IN EVERY HOUR. SO WE SO WE. SO WE WANTED TO. SO WE ISSUED THIS MARKET NOTICE RECOGNIZING THAT WE HAD IDENTIFIED THIS ISSUE IN THE CODE OR IN OUR IN OUR IN OUR TOOL FOR BUILDING THE QUANTITIES. I WILL AGAIN REITERATE THIS ONLY IMPACTS 2026 AND IT ONLY IMPACTS SERS AND NON SPIN. IT DOES NOT IMPACT REGULATION AND IRS. NOW TO DATE FROM A RELIABILITY PERSPECTIVE, WE'VE NOT SEEN ISSUES DUE TO THE LOWER REQUIREMENTS OR DUE TO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR SERS AND NON SPIN. NOW THIS IS PROBABLY THERE ARE SEVERAL LAYERS INVOLVED IN EXPLAINING WHY SINCE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RTC PLUS B, THE. WE ARE ABLE TO PROCURE. RTC IS ABLE TO AT TIMES PROCURE HIGHER QUANTITIES THAN THE PLAN. SO THAT FEATURE HAS HELPED REDUCE SOME OF THE GAP BETWEEN THE BETWEEN HOW HIGH THE REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE VERSUS WHAT WE ARE. WE WERE PROCURING ALSO DURING PERIODS WHEN THERE WAS HIGHER UNCERTAINTY THAN WHAT COULD BE COVERED BY THE POSTED QUANTITIES. [04:00:07] THE AVAILABLE SYSTEM HEADROOM WAS SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO HELP COVER THOSE ENERGY NEEDS AND EFFECTIVELY. SOMETHING ELSE WE NOTICED AS WE STARTED LOOKING CLOSELY AT 2027 IS, AS WE HAD EXPECTED, THERE HAS BEEN AN IMPROVEMENT IN THERMAL RESOURCE COMMITMENTS ALONG WITH RTC. HOWEVER, THERE IS ALSO, ALONG WITH IT, BEEN A VERY STEADY GROWTH IN INSTALLED CAPACITY OF BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE. AS A RESULT, THE ON LINE HEADROOM THAT WE TEND TO CARRY IS SIGNIFICANTLY OR IS IS HIGHER COMPARED TO THE PRIOR YEARS. SO ALL IN ALL, ALL THOSE THREE TOGETHER HAVE HELPED US MAINTAIN RELIABILITY DURING THE DURING THE FIRST SIX MONTHS, FIRST SEVEN MONTHS OF 2026. SO NOW WHAT ARE WE DOING? AND THIS IS WHAT THE MARKET NOTICE WAS FOCUSED ON. IT FOCUSED ON AUGUST. FOR AUGUST, WE ARE LOOKING TO HOLD THE POSTED QUANTITIES AS THEY STAND OR AS THEY WERE POSTED IN DECEMBER. WE ARE IN, WE ARE IN. WE ARE IN CONTACT WITH PUC, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK INSIGHTS FROM THEM AS TO HOW TO MOVE FORWARD FROM THIS POINT FORWARD. NOW, BECAUSE WE ARE HOLDING THE POSTED QUANTITIES AS IS WHAT WHAT IS OUR PLAN AS FAR AS REAL TIME OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINING RELIABILITY GOES? AND AS THE MARKET NOTICE MENTIONS HERE, WE WILL LOOK TO USE THE TOOLS THAT WE HAVE OPERATIONAL TOOLS THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED. WE WILL LOOK TO RELY ON OUR METEOROLOGISTS TO HELP US GAIN INSIGHTS ON UNCERTAINTIES, AND THEN THE TOOLS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE UNCERTAINTIES MAY IMPACT OPERATIONS. AND DURING PERIODS WHEN WE WHEN THOSE UNCERTAINTIES ARE THAT WE EXPECT THOSE UNCERTAINTIES, UNCERTAINTIES TO BE HIGHER THAN THE POSTED QUANTITIES, AS WE CAN DO TODAY, WE MAY LOOK TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM QUANTITIES, IF WARRANTED. AND AND THAT'S. AND THAT'S. A PROCESS THAT IS WELL DOCUMENTED AND OUTLINED BOTH WITHIN OUR COURT PROCEDURES AND, OF COURSE, THE METHODOLOGY ITSELF. SO THAT IS WHAT WE WILL LOOK TO BE LEANING ON GOING FORWARD. AS WE LOOK AT 2027, WE ARE LOOKING TO BEGIN OUR ANALYSIS FOR 2027 USING THIS CORRECTED MODEL THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED. LUIS HAS ALREADY SHARED PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FROM THAT WORK AT WMWG AND OWG EARLIER THIS WEEK. WE WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP THE MARKET UPDATED ON HOW WE MOVE FORWARD, AND SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE NOTICED, AT LEAST IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT LUIS ENGAGED. THE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR 2027 IS NOT LOOKING TO HOLD THE QUANTITIES AS HIGH AS THEY WOULD BE UNDER TODAY'S APPROACH OR 2026 APPROACH. WE ARE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RISK CREDITS WE TAKE. SO, SO THE QUANTITIES WOULD BE HIGHER THAN THIS YEAR BUT NOT AS HIGH AS WHAT THE, WHAT THE, WHAT CURRENT MODEL WITH LAST YEAR'S PARAMETERS WOULD PRODUCE. SO I'LL PAUSE WITH THAT. IT WAS A LOT THERE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU GOT A COUPLE FOLKS HERE LINED UP. WE'LL START WITH BRIAN SAMS. HEY THERE, BRIAN SAMS CONSTELLATION ENERGY GENERATION. I'M JUST CONFUSED ABOUT THE, THE PROCESS HERE, RIGHT. THE BOARD AND THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE METHODOLOGY. AND WE'VE DISCOVERED THAT WE HAVE THE WRONG NUMBERS, BUT WE'RE NOT UPDATING THEM FOR AUGUST. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. AND BASED ON WHAT AUTHORITY TO NOT UPDATE THEM. WELL, SO A FEW THINGS. BRIAN. WE ARE REQUIRED TO POST THE MINIMUM QUANTITIES AND AS YOU NOTICE, YOU ARE RIGHT THIS. THE. WE WENT THROUGH A PROCESS TO COME TO WHERE WE ARE. WHAT I'LL REMIND YOU IS WHEN WE WORK THROUGH THE ANCILLARY SERVICE PROCESS, AS WE ARE DOING RIGHT NOW, WE BRING FORTH A METHODOLOGY AND WE BRING FORTH THE OUTCOMES FROM THOSE METHODOLOGIES AND REALLY BOTH GO HAND IN HAND IN, IN LANDING US TO WHERE WE WHAT GETS APPROVED AT THE END OF THE DAY. SO WE CAN'T COMPLETELY DISREGARD THAT. THERE WAS A LINKAGE BETWEEN THE QUANTITIES WE HAD SHARED GOING IN TO WHEN JUSTIFYING THE, THE PARAMETERS OR THE APPROACH THAT WAS USED. AND, AND THAT'S REALLY THE UNDERPINNING HERE IS. IS, IS THAT IS THAT THE THE JUDGMENT WE MADE WAS BASED OFF OF AN OUTCOME THAT WE WERE EXPECTING. [04:05:05] AND SO THE METHODOLOGY REQUIRES US TO POST MINIMUM QUANTITIES, AND WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO UPDATE THEM. WE HAVE WE'VE, WE'VE, WE HAVE AT LEAST RIGHT NOW CHOSEN TO HOLD THAT APPROACH. WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE A HUGE DISRUPTION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR. WE HAVE SEEN HOW THE SYSTEM HAS OPERATED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS WITH THESE POSTED QUANTITIES, AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN RELIABILITY. AND AT LEAST FOR AUGUST, WE ARE WE ARE COMFORTABLE THAT THE APPROACH WE'VE LAID OUT WILL HELP US CONTINUE THAT SAME POSTURE. SO I'LL PAUSE WITH THAT. I SEE MATT GARTH GOT IN THE QUEUE. MATT MAY HAVE MORE INSIGHTS FOR YOU. YES. I WOULD JUST ADD ON COMPLETELY AGREE WITH WHAT NICK HAS SAID. AND WE ARE PLANNING TO MAKE A FILING WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, LIKELY NEXT WEEK, LIKELY IN PROJECT 55999. SO YOU KNOW, WE DO, WE DO HEAR YOU, BRIAN. AND I THINK THERE'S MORE TO COME ON THAT. SO WOULD WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO LOOK THERE. ARE YOU GOING TO ASK FOR LIKE A GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION TO JUST DO WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING THE WHOLE YEAR OR LIKE, WHAT'S, WHAT'S GOING TO CAN YOU GIVE US SOME BREADCRUMBS ABOUT WHAT TO EXPECT? I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE'RE EVALUATING. I'M NOT SURE WHAT I, WHAT, WHAT DECISIONS I CAN SHARE YET ABOUT WHAT, WHAT OPTION WE WOULD BE PRESENTING OR WHAT OPTIONS WE MIGHT PRESENTING TO THE COMMISSION. BUT THAT IS, THAT IS ONE OPTION. OKAY. I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE COMMENT ABOUT NOT WANTING TO UPSET REALLY RETAIL CONTRACTS BECAUSE YOU'VE, YOU'VE SHARED WHAT THIS NUMBER WOULD LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, BACK IN DECEMBER. BUT THE METHODOLOGY IS WHAT IS APPROVED. AND SO I'M, THAT HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING. YEAH. MAYBE I'LL SHARE ONE MORE INSIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THE METHODOLOGY HAS BEEN APPROVED. I PROBABLY WILL ALSO SHARE THE INSIGHT OF HAD WE SEEN THESE NUMBERS SAME TIME LAST YEAR, OUR PROPOSED APPROACH MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT ALSO. SO SOMETHING ELSE TO KEEP IN. FAIR POINT. OKAY. I GUESS WHAT WAS THE DOCKET NUMBER AGAIN? 55999. I'LL PUT THAT IN THE CHAT. I CAN REMEMBER THAT 1253 NINES. OKAY. THANK YOU NED. I'M GOING TO DOVETAIL OFF OF WHAT BRIAN WAS SAYING. AND MAYBE JUST ADD ANOTHER, ANOTHER LAYER ON TOP OF IT. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR FLAGGING THIS. AND, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU SAW IT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT TO IDENTIFY IT. AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT ERCOT'S APPROACH BE SOMEWHAT THE REVERSE, WHICH IS YOU'VE IDENTIFIED THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING THE APPROVED METHODOLOGY THUS FAR THIS YEAR AND RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU SAID. YOU KNOW, YOU MAY HAVE LOOKED AT A DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY HAD YOU SEEN CERTAIN OUTCOMES FROM THE MODELING. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. RIGHT? THE METHODOLOGY WAS APPROVED. WE KNOW WE HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING IT THUS FAR THIS YEAR. I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT OF THAT IS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS, YOU KNOW, IT PROBABLY IS OUT ON THE TAIL OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICE DEMAND CURVES. AND SO IT'S PROBABLY MARGINAL, BUT STILL IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO SEE AND OBJECTIVELY UNDERSTAND, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ENERGY ONLY MARKET CONSTRUCT. AND SO KNOWING WHAT THE IMPACT IS TO THOSE SIGNALS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A SENATE HEARING GOING ON RIGHT NOW WHERE THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF DISCUSSION GOING ON ABOUT, YOU KNOW, FOLKS INTERESTED IN GETTING MORE INVESTMENT IN GENERATION IN THE MARKET. WE SAW THE, YOU KNOW, THE THE. Q THAT IS COMING INTO BATCH ZERO BEING ABOUT TWICE WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, TWO AND A HALF MONTHS AGO WHEN WE LAST GOT TOGETHER. SO GETTING THOSE SIGNALS RIGHT IS, IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR MARKET CONFIDENCE. AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE THE BETTER APPROACH WOULD BE FOR ERCOT TO START OFF WITH SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO START IN AUGUST DOING WHAT WE WHAT WAS APPROVED, PUT THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION AND, YOU KNOW, LET THEM PROVIDE FEEDBACK INFORMED FEEDBACK BASED ON THAT ASSESSMENT. BUT AT LEAST THAT WAY YOU'RE STARTING OFF WITH, YOU KNOW, MOVING INTO A, YOU KNOW, A COMPLIANT OPERATING STRUCTURE FIRST AND FOREMOST. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE EASIEST, THE EASIEST APPROACH. AND THAT WAY YOU'RE, YOU'RE SENDING A SIGNAL TO THE MARKET. IT'S LIKE, NO, ONCE WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE, THE APPROVALS THAT WE'VE GOT. WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE THE COMMISSION'S ORDERS. AND YOU KNOW, WHILE WE MAY HAVE ENDED UP BEING FINE FOR MOST OF THIS, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE YEAR WITH THE UNDER PROCUREMENT, [04:10:03] I BUY HEALTH INSURANCE EVERY MONTH AND I DON'T USE IT MOST MONTHS I MIGHT EVEN EXERCISE AND, YOU KNOW, END UP HAVING A LITTLE EXTRA HEADROOM THAN I THOUGHT I WOULD HAVE. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE BUY INSURANCE IS BECAUSE OF THE TIMES THAT YOU DON'T REALLY ANTICIPATE. MATT. DO YOU WANT TO TAKE IT? YEAH. MATT. AGAIN, I GUESS I WOULD JUST SAY WE HEAR YOU THERE, NED. AND I THINK THAT IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE OPTIONS. I THINK SINCE THIS IS SORT OF HOT OFF, HOT OFF THE PRESS AND THERE ARE A RELIANCE ISSUES ON WHAT IS BEING PROCURED AT LEAST FOR AUGUST, I THINK THE PLAN NOW IS TO, TO CONTINUE PROCURING THE POSTED QUANTITIES. BUT BUT THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE OPTIONS GOING FORWARD. CAN CAN YOU POST THE PROPER QUANTITIES BECAUSE THAT'S THAT YOU KNOW, WE KNOW IT'S ON AVERAGE ABOUT 3700MW. BUT YOU KNOW, SEEING THAT DIFFERENCE MAY HELP US UNDERSTAND WHETHER IT'S REALLY A WHETHER THERE'S ANYTHING TO SHAKE A STICK AT. THIS IS LISA TURCOTTE. IF YOU GO TO THE W M, W, G OR THE OWG PRESENTATIONS ON THE A S, THE CORRECTED QUANTITIES ARE IN THE HTML THAT ARE PART OF THAT DISCUSSION. OKAY, WE'LL LOOK THOSE UP. THANK YOU. BLAKE. BLAKE. COLE. LCRA WON'T BELABOR THE POINT, BUT WE'RE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH CONSTELLATION AND VISTRA ABOUT THE NEED TO CORRECT THE QUANTITIES TO THE APPROVED METHODOLOGY. SETTING THAT ASIDE, I DID WANT TO SAY THANKS TO YOU AND TEAM FOR CATCHING THIS AND BRINGING IT FORWARD. I THINK THAT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT ANY MARKET PARTICIPANT WOULD HAVE CAUGHT THIS. AND I THINK AS WE THINK ABOUT THAT AFTER THE DUST SETTLES, I'D LIKE TO LOOK INTO WHAT WE CAN DO TO HAVE MORE TRANSPARENCY INTO THE MODELING, JUST THINKING ABOUT SOME OTHER SIMILAR TYPE OF VALIDATION THAT MARKET PARTICIPANTS CAN HELP OUT WITH. I KNOW IT'S LESS COMPLEX, BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM, ALL MARKET PARTICIPANTS HAVE SHADOW SETTLEMENT TOOLS AND LCRA SPECIFICALLY, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE CAUGHT AN ERROR HERE OR THERE AND ARE ABLE TO PARTNER WITH ERCOT IN YOU KNOW, MAKING CORRECTIONS. AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS. HOW CAN WE HELP PARTNER WITH VERIFYING, VERIFYING CORRECT QUANTITIES? YOU KNOW, AND THINKING ABOUT THE IMPACTS ALMOST CERTAINLY IMPACTS TO ANCILLARY SERVICE PRICES AND ENERGY PRICES. AND WHEN I GO DOWN THAT ROUTE AND LOOKING AT PRICE CORRECTION CRITERIA, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS DOESN'T QUALIFY AS AN INPUT DATA INTO QCD. AND SO I'M CURIOUS, AND I HAVEN'T HEARD THOUGHTS FROM ERCOT ON THIS AND WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT HOW Y'ALL ARE INTERPRETING PRICE CORRECTION CRITERIA. GOD IS IN THE QUEUE. GORDON DRAKE FROM ERCOT. THANKS VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION, BLAKE. ONE OF THE NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS FOR US TO PERFORM A PRICE CORRECTION IS THAT WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CALCULATE CORRECT PRICES. WE NEED TO HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO CREATE THE APPROPRIATE COUNTERFACTUAL. AND AS, AS ITHACA HAS NOTED, HAD THESE NUMBERS BEEN THE OUTPUTS OF THE. THE INITIAL MODELING. WHEN PUTTING TOGETHER THE 2026 METHODOLOGY, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THOSE NUMBERS PRIOR TO THEM BEING PUT FORWARD FOR APPROVAL. SO WE CAN'T LOOK AT THE THE, THE ABSOLUTE OUTCOMES AS, AS THEY'VE BEEN PUT FORWARD HERE AS THE SORT OF STRAIGHT LINE FROM THIS IS THIS IS WHAT THE ANALYSIS OR METHODOLOGY WOULD HAVE YIELDED WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT. WELL, WHAT WOULD THOSE NUMBERS OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN? AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT LAYER OF ANALYSIS TO SAY, HERE'S WHERE WE WOULD HAVE LANDED BACK IN THE FALL OF 2025 HAD WE SEEN THESE NUMBERS IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND SO BEFORE WE GET TO THE LIST OF THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY WE WOULD PERFORM PRICE CORRECTION. WE'RE WE'RE KIND OF STOPPED AT THAT DECISION GATE OF CAN WE CAN WE ACCURATELY CALCULATE WHAT THE PRICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN? AND WE DON'T FEEL THAT WE CAN. THANKS, GORDON. THAT'S FAIR. JUST THINKING THROUGH SIMPLE ECONOMIC DISPATCH. IF YOU HAVE A LOWER PROCUREMENT QUANTITY, WOULD YOU EXPECT A LOWER MARKET CLEARING PRICE? THAT'S WHAT ONE WOULD EXPECT THAT YOU'D HAVE A WITH A HIGHER QUANTITY, YOU WOULD HAVE A HIGHER MARKET CLEARING PRICE FOR POTENTIAL ENERGY AND ANCILLARY SERVICES. [04:15:01] THANKS. AND JUST ONE MORE POINT. AND I BROUGHT THIS UP IN THE WMD DISCUSSION. YOU KNOW, I'M CURIOUS WITH THE CAPACITY RELATED RISKS THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS YEAR AND THINKING ABOUT THIS COMMITTED CAPACITY MARGIN THAT I BELIEVE EXISTS IN THE ERCOT CONTROL ROOM, MY UNDERSTANDING PART OF THAT COMMITTED CAPACITY MARGIN IS MADE UP WITH OR IS COMPRISED OF THE A S PLAN. AND SO IF YOU HAVE A LOWER A.S. PLAN, YOU'RE PROCURING, IT STANDS TO REASON, AT LEAST FOR ME, THAT POTENTIALLY SOME CAPACITY DRIVEN TRUCKS WERE INITIATED BY THE FACT THAT THERE'S A LOWER PLAN ON COMMITTED ONLINE. AND IF I'M. I SEE KEITH SHAKING, SHAKING YOUR HEAD. SO IF I'M THINKING ABOUT THAT WRONG, PLEASE, PLEASE STEER ME IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I THINK IT'S IT'S HARD TO TEASE THAT OUT, BLAKE. AND THE REASON IS THAT GOING BACK TO YOUR, YOUR EARLIER POINT OF. WOULD WE HAVE SEEN HIGHER. MIGHT WE HAVE EXPECTED TO SEE HIGHER ENERGY AND ANCILLARY SERVICES PRICES. THAT ITSELF MAY HAVE PRODUCED A SIGNAL FOR MORE SELF-COMMITMENT, WHICH MIGHT HAVE REDUCED THE NEED FOR ROCK. SO IT'S IT'S NOT AGAIN, NOT A STRAIGHT LINE FROM. IF YOU CHANGE THESE QUANTITIES, DO YOU SEE MORE OR LESS ROCKS? BECAUSE THERE'S A BEHAVIORAL ELEMENT THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO PROPERLY ACCOUNT FOR THAT COULD COULD MOVE IT IN EITHER DIRECTION. THANKS, GORDON. I GUESS, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF WHERE WE STAND, THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPACTFUL TO MARKET OUTCOMES FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS. AND YOU KNOW, YOUR PREFERENCE IS FOR THE QUANTITIES TO BE CORRECTED. AND THEN SHOULD METHODOLOGY NEED TO CHANGE, WE HAVE AN ANNUAL PROCESS TO DO SO. AND THAT'S WHERE I'LL LEAVE IT. THANK YOU. BILL BARNES. HELLO. MIC CHECK. YEP. WE CAN HEAR YOU. OKAY. THANKS. I WAS WONDERING IF ANY OF THE PRIOR ROCK BEHAVIOR FROM THIS YEAR MAY BE THE RESULT OF THE FACT THAT YOU PROCURED LESS ANCILLARY SERVICES. AND THE ROCK ELEMENT HERE IS CONCERNING TO ME, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO THEN LEAN ON THAT TOOL FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT A NOT A GOOD OUTCOME. SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU THINK THAT THAT HAD IMPACTED ANY OF THE ROCK BEHAVIOR WE'VE SEEN SO FAR. SO IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO LET'S DO IT THIS WAY. THE QUITE A BIT OF THE ROCKS THAT YOU SAW HERE IN JUNE IN THE EARLY PART OF SUMMER. I'LL YIELD. TO THEM AS WE HAVE ANALYSIS THAT WAS SHARED AT WMWG SOME TIME BACK, AND THERE WERE A FEW DIFFERENT LAYERS INVOLVED THAT LED TO THAT ACTIVITY. AND PARTLY IT WAS AN INCREASED QUANTITY OF PROCUREMENT DURING THE EVENING HOURS. AND PARTLY IT WAS ENERGY INSUFFICIENCY THAT RUCK SAW. AND THIS WAS MORE RELATED TO INPUTS TO RUCK. SO AT LEAST FOR IN OUR PERSPECTIVE, THOSE RUCKS TO THE TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY WERE MADE, THEY WERE MADE BECAUSE RUCK WAS SEEING WAS STRUGGLING TO MEET ITS OBJECTIVE FUNCTION OF BEING ABLE TO SERVE, LOAD AND PROCURE THE RESERVES THAT WERE POSTED. SO NOW THE QUESTION OF HOW WOULD THINGS EVOLVE IF IF WE HAD A DIFFERENT QUANTITY? THERE IS, AS GORD ALLUDED TO, HAD THE QUANTITIES BEEN HIGHER, PERHAPS THE MARKET WOULD HAVE REACTED DIFFERENTLY. THE EDUCATION ON AT LEAST SUBMISSIONS OF ENERGY DATA IS SOMETHING THAT IS ONGOING. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN IGNORE THOSE. BUT AT LEAST RIGHT NOW I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN DRAW A STRAIGHT LINE FROM WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IN THE PAST AND SAY THOSE WERE RELATED TO UNCERTAINTY OR NOT PROCURING SUFFICIENT. YES. THOSE WERE JUST RELATED TO NOT BEING ABLE TO WHAT WE HAD POSTED. AND I'LL PAUSE. I SEE KEITH CAME IN THE QUEUE. KEITH MAY WANT TO CHIME IN ALSO. THANK YOU NITIKA. I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE A POINT THAT YOU JUST MADE IS THE INPUTS TO RUK, RIGHT? SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE STUDIED AND WE'VE LOOKED AT, AND THAT A MAJOR DRIVING FORCE OF THE RISKS THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS YEAR AS A RESULT OF INPUTS TO RUK. AND HAD THOSE INPUTS BEEN DIFFERENT, WE WE WOULD HAVE HAD DIFFERENT RESULTS. SO. AND SO I JUST WANT TO ECHO AND HIGHLIGHT THAT POINT THERE THAT. AND THEN I THINK GORD'S POINT ON LOOK DIFFERENT. YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD HIGHER PRICES, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD DIFFERENT APPROACHES. SO IT'S REALLY HARD TO SAY EXACTLY HOW THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN. THANKS. THANK YOU KEITH. SHAMS. YEAH. I GUESS IT'S MY EXPECTATION AND [04:20:02] HOPE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE METHODOLOGY SHOULD DICTATE HOW MUCH QUANTITY WE BUY. YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE, FOR OUR RS AND REGULATION, WE HAVE A METHOD THAT SAYS, OKAY, THIS IS HOW WE'LL CALCULATE ITS OUTAGE OF THE TWO LARGEST UNIT AND STUFF. AND BASED ON INERTIA. SO IF THE INERTIA GOES DOWN AND WE NEED 4000 5000MW OF RS, I WOULDN'T EXPECT TO SAY, OKAY, WE NEED TO CHANGE NOW WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE SORT OF DON'T MEET THAT CRITERIA BECAUSE WE THINK THAT THE MEGAWATTS IS TOO HIGH. SO THE MEGAWATTS SHOULDN'T DICTATE YOUR METHODOLOGY. YOUR METHODOLOGY SHOULD DICTATE YOUR MEGAWATTS. AND MY CONCERN WITH WHICH I EXPRESSED AT WMG AND WHICH SEEMED TO ME TO BE THE CASE, I CAUGHT IT AT THAT MEETING. YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE ADJUSTING THE THE RISK ADJUSTMENT FACTORS, YOU KNOW, BASED ON QUANTITIES THAT YOU'RE SEEING COMING OUT OF YOUR METHOD, WHICH IS NOT THE RIGHT FEEDBACK LOOP. SO THE RISK. THE RISK ADJUSTMENT, OR WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, THE RISK THAT 60%. THAT'S WHY I SAID THAT THAT THAT MAKES IT VERY SUBJECTIVE. AND THAT GIVES YOU A SORT OF A TOOL TO ADJUST IT BASED ON WHAT QUANTITIES ARE COMING OUT, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. REALLY. AS NED SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS IS INSURANCE AND WE BUY IT FOR THE TAIL EVENTS AND THE TAIL EVENTS. YOU YOU SHOULDN'T COUNT ON ANYTHING. JUST LIKE AN IRS, YOU DON'T COUNT ANY FREE CAPACITY FROM THE MARKET TO PROVIDE THAT THAT RESPONSE. SO REALLY OUR RISK A RISK ADJUSTMENT, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT, SHOULD BE 0%. YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T COUNT ON ANYTHING BECAUSE IN THOSE TAIL EVENTS, YOU SHOULD HAVE PRESERVED ENOUGH TO, TO HANDLE THOSE KIND OF SITUATIONS. AND AGAIN, I THINK LIKE THIS YEAR AND THIS 60% CAME UP AFTER YOU CALLED THIS THAT THE 25% YOU KNOW, RESULTED IN A HIGHER QUANTITY. SO IT SEEMS ALMOST LIKE YOU'RE ADJUSTING THAT RISK PERCENTAGE TO BRING THE QUANTITY DOWN, WHICH TO ME DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE METHOD IS DICTATING THE QUANTITIES, BUT ALMOST LIKE THE QUANTITIES ARE A FEEDBACK LOOP, AND THE RISK ADJUSTMENT FACTOR IS WHAT YOU'RE USING TO GET TO THE QUANTITY YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH. SO APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK. I KNOW MATT IS ALSO IN THE QUEUE. SO THERE IS YOU HIT A POINT. I'LL PROBABLY JUST DRAW THIS DISTINCTION. WE PROCURE CERTAIN SERVICES TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH NARC. AND YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. IF IT WAS RRS AND IF THE NUMBER THAT THE STUDY SAID WAS AS HIGH AS YOU QUOTED, THEN WE WOULDN'T. I MEAN, THAT'S ONE PLACE WHERE OUR RISK TOLERANCE IS ALMOST CLOSE TO ZERO. WE DO WE DO SET THOSE QUANTITIES UP IN A MANNER THAT WE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND ESPECIALLY THE UNCERTAINTY PORTION OF BOTH THESE SERVICES. THERE IS, AS YOU NOTED, SOME LEVEL OF TOLERANCE. AND AND TODAY AT LEAST THE DIAL THAT HAS BEEN USED IS THE RISK CREDIT AS A WAY OF SETTING WHAT THAT TOLERANCE IS. SO THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE OR THERE IS SOME ADJUSTMENT CAPABILITY THERE BECAUSE THOSE STRICTLY ARE NOT WORK RELATED. BUT I'LL PAUSE. I'LL YIELD THE FLOOR TO MATT. MATT PROBABLY HAS MORE INSIGHTS FOR YOU. I GUESS THIS IS MATT. I WOULD JUST ADD THAT I GUESS THE TRICKY THING IS, IS THAT THE ERCOT BOARD RECOMMENDS AND THE PUC APPROVES AN AS METHODOLOGY. THEY DON'T ACTUALLY APPROVE THE ANCILLARY SERVICES QUANTITIES, BUT THEY APPROVE THOSE WITH US PROVIDING WHAT WE THINK THAT METHODOLOGIES QUANTITIES WOULD BE. AND SO YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY WOULD HAVE APPROVED THE METHODOLOGY HAD HAD THEY KNOWN THE ALTERNATIVE NUMBERS OR NOT. SO I THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY HERE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE, I THINK IT'S ON PAGE 6 OR 7 OF THE ANCILLARY SERVICES METHODOLOGY IT SAYS THAT WE WILL PROCURE IT DOES SPECIFY THE RISK CREDITS THAT THAT SORT OF FREE HEADROOM, THE ADDITIONAL HEADROOM THAT WE'RE HISTORICALLY COUNTING ON, AND THAT THOSE WOULD BE PARAMETERS TO THE PROBABILISTIC MODEL. AND THEN WE WOULD USE THE THE OUTCOMES OF THAT MODEL. SO THAT IS ALL SPECIFIED IN THE ANCILLARY SERVICE METHODOLOGY. AND THAT METHODOLOGY LIKE I SAID IS IS WHAT WAS APPROVED RATHER THAN THE QUANTITIES. SO THAT'S SO YEAH, WE CAN DEBATE ABOUT THE, THE RISK, THE RISK FACTORS, BUT SO THE PUC DID APPROVE THE METHODOLOGY AND THAT METHODOLOGY HAD 25% AND 60%. SO THAT METHODOLOGY WAS APPROVED. AND THE QUANTITIES ARE JUST AN APPENDIX SORT OF THING. [04:25:05] IT'S JUST AN OUTCOME OF THE METHODOLOGY. SO IN THIS CASE IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S ALMOST LIKE A SOFTWARE ERROR OR MODELING ERROR ON OUR PART. AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE SHOULD BE AN ADJUSTMENT FOR THAT YOU KNOW, TO FIX THE PRICES BASED ON THE METHODOLOGY THAT THE PUC APPROVED. AND IF NOT, IF WE DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING, LOOKING BACK, AT LEAST IT SHOULD BE FIXED IMMEDIATELY. I MEAN, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BASED ON THE METHOD THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PUC. OKAY. THANK YOU JEN. SO I FIND THE RATIONALE THAT WE HAVE A LACK OF COUNTERFACTUAL REALLY COMPELLING. I DON'T LOVE THE IDEA OF HAVING APPROVED A METHODOLOGY THAT HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT METHODOLOGY YIELDED IN 2025 TO GET TO 2026, MIDWAY THROUGH THE YEAR. I 100% AGREE THAT WE CAN'T GO BACKWARDS IN TIME ON A HYPOTHETICAL. AND SO EVEN IF WE WERE TO SAY WE NEED TO FIX THE MODEL IMMEDIATELY, I THINK THAT THAT IS STILL PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THE METHODOLOGY PRESENTATION ASSUMED CERTAIN OUTCOMES. THEY WERE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AND I BELIEVE THAT ARCOT IS MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION RIGHT NOW IN SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH METHODOLOGY FOR 2027 REVIEW VERY SHORTLY. IF THAT METHODOLOGY IS COMPELLING, IF WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES, IT CAN SHOW UP IN TIME FOR 2027. WINTER ROCK, WHICH IS THE TIME WHERE THIS RISK YIELDS, RIGHT. SO WHY WOULD WE MESS WITH AUGUST WHEN THE OUTCOMES OF THE MODEL, WHAT WE BELIEVE THE MODEL TO HAVE BEEN DOING WAS LOOKED AT AND WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. AND WE'RE SAYING NOW WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE MODEL WAS RUNNING. THERE WAS A MODEL ERROR. COOL. WE CAN'T NOW SEND IT THROUGH THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IN LESS THAN A MONTH FOR THE REMAINING OF SUMMER. NOR IS THE ROCK RISK. THIS UNCERTAINTY IS SUPPOSED TO ADDRESS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. AND SO I BELIEVE WE SHOULD MAINTAIN STATUS QUO AS ERCOT HAS PROPOSED. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE TWO MORE IN THE QUEUE. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN TRY TO WRAP THIS UP AFTER. NED. SHANE, YOU'RE UP NEXT. YEAH. THANK YOU. SHANE. THOMAS. MICHEL. ONE FIRST THING. I JUST WANTED TO SECOND KIND OF WHAT BLAKE LAID OUT IN THAT. YOU KNOW, THERE'S REALLY. ERCOT IS REALLY THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THIS RISK OR SEEN THE THE TOOL, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT HAVE EYES ON THE ACTUAL TOOL AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO RUN IT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT RISK IS STILL KIND OF OUT THERE FOR A LOT OF THINGS. AND UNTIL, YOU KNOW, UNLESS THERE'S A WAY FOR MARKET PARTICIPANTS TO REVIEW THOSE TOOLS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT IN THE FUTURE AS MAKING SOME OF THIS MORE AVAILABLE. IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL AND NOT JUST CATCHING THE ISSUES, BUT ALSO LETTING MARKET PARTICIPANTS, YOU KNOW, HAVE BETTER INSIGHT INTO THE NUMBERS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF IT AND THE RISK AND LETTING US HAVE A SMARTER CONVERSATION ABOUT THE METHODOLOGY. SO I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD WE COULD LOOK TO, TO JUST HELP THE PROCESS IN GENERAL. THEN I HAD A QUESTION THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE, THE NEW RESULTS AND THE NEW, I GUESS THE SAME THOUGHT PROCESS, WHICH IS JUST YIELDING DIFFERENT RESULTS. DOES ERCOT OPERATIONS NOW PERCEIVE INCREASED RISK? AND I'M THINKING ABOUT THAT FROM LIKE, ARE THEY NOW MORE LIKELY TO ROCK OR DO SOMETHING IF THEY THINK THEY AREN'T GETTING NOW WHAT THEY THINK THEY SHOULD BE GETTING? I'LL ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION FIRST. I MISSED IT ON BLAKE'S. ALSO, WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO BE TO ENSURE THAT THE MODELS WE BUILD ARE TRUSTWORTHY. SO EVEN WE ARE GOING BACK AND THINKING THROUGH HOW WE. AS THIS WAS A QUITE A COMPLEX TRANSITION WE MADE FAIRLY QUICKLY. WE ALSO RIGHT NOW ARE THINKING THROUGH GOING FORWARD, HOW DO WE BUILD THOSE CAPABILITIES TO WHERE EVEN WE CAN BE VERY WE CAN MORE CONFIDENTLY SAY WHAT WE TRUST, WHAT WE BUILD, AND IF. AND SO TO THE EXTENT WE WILL MAKE SOME CHANGES IN OUR OWN PROCEDURES GOING FORWARD, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHARE THOSE, OR LUIS AND I WILL SHARE THOSE AS WE INCORPORATE THOSE, INCULCATE INCULCATE THOSE WITHIN THE 2027 APPROACH. NOW, THE QUESTION YOU ASKED ABOUT WHAT DOES OPERATIONS SEE? FOR US, EVERY DAY WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF LOOKING FORWARD, LOOKING AT RUNNING THE ANALYSIS OF HOW, HOW, WHAT DO WE EXPECT ON THE SYSTEM? WHAT IS THE UNCERTAINTY OF THOSE FORECASTS THAT WE ARE SEEING? HOW CAN IT IMPACT OPERATIONS? AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THOSE. [04:30:04] WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THOSE. WE ARE AWARE OF THESE QUANTITIES, BUT OUR JOBS CONTINUE TO BE WHAT THEY WERE. I DON'T EVEN TODAY. I THINK ONE THING I WILL EMPHASIZE THE ROCKS THAT CONTROL ROOM HAS RUN HAVE BEEN BECAUSE ROCK RECOMMENDED THEM. IT IS NOT AN OUT AN ACTION THEY TOOK JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO MAINTAIN A MARGIN. THEY TRUSTED THEIR TOOLS AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO TRUST THEIR TOOLS AND ALL OF THE INSIGHT THAT THEY GET THROUGH OUR UNCERTAINTY LENS. SO I EXPECT THAT TO PLAY OUT. EVEN IF YOU LOOK INTO THE METHODOLOGY ITSELF, THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE TALK ABOUT. WE TALK ABOUT BEING ABLE TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE RISK BY TAKING ACTIONS AT OUR END BY, BY SHARING THOSE SELECTION CHANGES. SO I EXPECT ALL OF THOSE PROCESSES TO CONTINUE TO WORK JUST THE WAY THEY HAVE BEEN. SO I'LL PAUSE. HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND, AND AS WE'RE KIND OF THINKING THROUGH THIS, I'M ALSO TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THE 2027 AS METHODOLOGY AND LOOKING AT THAT TOOL, IT SEEMS LIKE ALL OF THE OPTIONS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, DEFAULTED INTO THERE LIE BETWEEN THE EXISTING METHODOLOGY AND THE CORRECTED VERSION. AND SO I THINK GETTING SOME MORE INFORMATION ON HOW THINGS MIGHT HAVE PLAYED OUT, IS IT JUST RERUNNING A COUPLE OF DAYS WITH A HIGHER PLAN? I THINK THAT'S THE MOST SIMPLISTIC VERSION. OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY OF THE BEHAVIORAL CHANGES THAT MAY HAVE CAME WITH THAT. BUT SEEING SOME RERUNS THERE, OR YOU'RE SEEING SOME RERUN THE RUK ENGINE WITH A HIGHER AS PLAN INPUT, WOULD IT HAVE ON A DAY IT DIDN'T ASK FOR RECOMMEND RUK? WOULD IT NOW HAVE RECOMMENDED RUK? THOSE ARE JUST KIND OF THINGS THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN EVALUATING THIS SITUATION, BUT ALSO TRYING TO EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE THE OTHER 2027 METHODOLOGY PLANS. YOU KNOW, FOR THE VARIOUS REASONS YOU'VE HEARD US SAY, THE HIGHER QUANTITIES WOULD HAVE CHANGED EVEN THE MARKET'S REACTION. YEAH. AND THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ISOLATE TO RUN THIS. WITH THIS SETUP WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND DRAW INFERENCES FROM IT, BECAUSE THOSE GET THROWN OUT THE DOOR EFFECTIVELY BECAUSE THE MARKET'S RESPONSE WILL BE DIFFERENT. SAME THING WITH THE HEADROOM ANALYSIS, RIGHT? THAT HEADROOM WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT ALSO. SO IT'S ALMOST WE COME TO A POINT WHERE RERUNNING RUK OR MARKET OUTCOMES WITH THE INPUTS WE HAVE SEEMS TO BE A FALSE DIRECTION, AT LEAST IN OUR MIND IN TERMS OF PROVIDING INSIGHTS. NOW, LUIS CAME IN, HE MAY HAVE SOME MORE THOUGHTS TO SHARE. SO I'M GOING TO PAUSE AND LET HIM TALK. SO ONE THING I WANTED TO MENTION NOW THAT WE'RE ON 2027 AS METHODOLOGY, SHANE, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE DEFAULT VALUES IN THERE LAND BETWEEN POSTED AND CORRECTED. THERE'S SOME OUT OF OVER 500 SCENARIOS THAT ARE IN THAT HTML. WE PUT SOME IN THAT WERE CLOSE TO WHAT WAS SELECTED LAST YEAR VERSUS WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOW. THAT TOOL WAS INTENDED FOR THE SCENARIOS TO BE ADDED IN, AND THAT FUNCTIONALITY IS IN THE TOOL. SO YOU CAN GO LOOK AT WHAT SCENARIOS CAN BRING THOSE QUANTITIES DOWN IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN. OKAY. THANKS. ARE YOU GOOD, SHANE? SURE. OKAY, NED. SO THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT I WANTED TO RESPOND TO FIRST. YOU KNOW, NAUTICA AND KEITH. I HEARD Y'ALL TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS BEING AN INPUT INTO THE RUCK. AND I THINK WHAT YOU WERE JUST TALKING THROUGH NAUTICA IS THAT THE OPERATORS DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THAT AS A HARD CONSTRAINT. I AM SENSITIVE AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A FREQUENTLY OF A SUITE OF FREQUENTLY WRECKED GENERATORS TO THAT POTENTIAL OUTCOME. SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO SEE. TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE SEEING. I THINK THAT IS MOST APPROPRIATE FOR US TO ADDRESS IN THE THE ANCILLARY SERVICE PRICING, THE BASICALLY THE SHORTAGE PRICING, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE SIGNALS TO GET SELF COMMITMENTS AND YOU'RE HAVING TO RELY ON RUK, THAT IMPLIES THAT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO CLOSE THAT GAP FROM A MARKET STANDPOINT. NOT NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH ON AN ORDER FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE METHODOLOGY. BUT SO I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO, TO SOLVE FOR THAT. THAT MAY NOT BE AS FAST AS I WOULD LIKE, BUT I DO THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, EVEN IF IT'S A ROUGH APPROXIMATION OF THE IMPACT OF THIS YEAR TO DATE IS, I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL FOR US TO UNDERSTAND UNDERSTANDING. IT'S NOT PERFECT. AND I'M NOT GOING TO I'M NOT GOING TO DISAGREE THAT THERE'S BEHAVIORAL CHANGES THAT YOU CAN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. THAT'S THAT IS THE, THE BEAST OF DOING BACK CAST. RIGHT? BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, JEN, YOU BROUGHT UP THE, THE POINT ABOUT YOU KNOW, WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE IT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE [04:35:10] OF, YOU KNOW, GOING INTO AUGUST? I THINK ABOUT THIS. WHAT WOULD WE BE DOING IF THE ASSESSMENT WAS THE OTHER WAY? AND ERCOT ERCOT'S MARKET NOTICE SAID, OOPS, WE'VE BEEN BUYING 3700MW TOO MUCH ANCILLARY SERVICES. AND WHAT WOULD BE THE TENOR OF THE DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING TODAY? AND I SUSPECT THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF FOLKS SAYING, NOPE, WE GOT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT CHANGE RIGHT AWAY RIGHT NOW FOR AUGUST 1ST. AND THAT IS A DIS IT IS A DISPROPORTIONATE OR AN UNEQUAL, A BIASED OUTCOME. AND LIKE I SAID EARLIER, WE'VE GOT AN ENERGY ONLY MARKET. THAT'S THE CORNER WE HAVE BEEN PAINTED INTO, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE CAN'T HAVE OTHER MARKET DESIGN MECHANISMS. SO IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT WE HOLD BOTH SIDES OF THAT OUTCOME TO EQUALLY, RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHY I SAID AT THE OUTSET, THIS IS A MARKET CONFIDENCE ISSUE. IT'S NOT EVEN THOUGH I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS A MAJOR PRICE IMPACT, I THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT QUALITATIVE SIGNAL THAT YOU KNOW, WHEN WE SEE SOMETHING, WE ACT ON IT AND NOT JUST SWEEP IT UNDER THE RUG. SO I TAKE YOUR COMMENT FOR A MINUTE AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN GO BACK TO THE. Q. I EMPHASIZE THE POINT THAT KEITH MADE IS WORTH REMEMBERING. WE SAW THE NEED FOR RUX AND ANALYSIS THAT WE. WE DID SHOWED THE NEED FOR THOSE RUX WERE DRIVEN BY THE INPUTS THAT WERE GIVEN TO IRAQ. SO. SO REMEMBER SO ANY, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SENSITIVE. WE WE'VE BEEN MAKING DECISIONS TO IRAQ. THOSE UNITS. BUT RECOGNIZE IT'S WORKING OFF OF ITS INPUTS AND THOSE INPUTS ARE NOT UNCHANGED. SO EVEN IF YOU GO DO A BACK CAST, IT'S THOSE INPUTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN THERE AND THEY PROBABLY DON'T PAINT THE RIGHT PICTURE IN GENERAL. SO I'LL, I'LL PAUSE THERE AND I'LL LET THE REST OF THE PEOPLE CONTINUE. BRIAN, I JUST KIND OF WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS. THIS IS JUST AN INFORM TACK ISN'T BEING ASKED TO LIKE HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT WE SHOULD ACTUALLY DO THE QUANTITY BASED ON WHAT THE METHODOLOGY WAS. AND SO MATT, YOU'RE GOING TO FILE SOME KIND OF LETTER NEXT WEEK. WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. ONE MIGHT BE A GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION. ONE MIGHT BE TO DO THE THING THAT YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO DO IN THE METHODOLOGY. MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING IN BETWEEN. AND THE NEXT OPEN MEETING IS I THINK UNTIL AUGUST 20TH. THIS IS A NOBLE THING. HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. AUGUST 20TH. SO, LIKE, WHAT IS THE COMMISSION GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF BETWEEN LIKE THAT WHENEVER ERCOT FILES THAT LETTER? AND IS THERE SOME KIND OF BRIEFING YOU ALL WANT? LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE USEFUL OR PEOPLE COULD AS AN ACTIONABLE THING THAT PEOPLE COULD DO THAT'S BEING ACTIVELY DISCUSSED BETWEEN PUC AND ERCOT AS WE SPEAK. OKAY. I GUESS I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO FILE THE LETTER SOONER SO PEOPLE HAVE MORE TIME TO REACT AND GIVE MORE THOUGHTFUL INPUT. SO THANK YOU CAITLIN. THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH MY QUESTION. I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, BUT I WAS SORT OF LIKE, WHAT FEEDBACK DO YOU WANT FROM US? WE'VE VOLUNTEERED A LOT OF FEEDBACK. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF REQUESTS FOR DATA. REQUESTS FOR ANALYSIS. IS THAT SOMETHING THE PUC IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING? DO YOU WANT THOSE REQUESTS FROM STAKEHOLDERS? DO YOU WANT TO SEE SOME OF THAT DATA TO INFORM COMMISSION DECISIONS? I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON SORT OF THE PROCESS AND THE DECISION MAKER, BECAUSE WE'VE CERTAINLY GIVEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK AND REQUESTS FOR THOSE THINGS. BUT SHOULD THAT GO SOMEWHERE? FIVE, FIVE NINE. NINE NINE. OKAY, SO WE ON THE MIC. PLEASE JUST REPEAT IT ON THE MIC. FIVE, FIVE, NINE, NINE, NINE WILL BE THE PROJECT FOR ANY GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION OR CUT FILES. THANK YOU. BETH. I WAS SITTING QUIETLY AND BUT I HEARKENED BACK TO TO NED'S UNACCEPTED PROPOSAL ON WHAT THIS MONTH'S THEME SHOULD BE, AND REMIND EVERYONE HOW VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED [04:40:01] THE CONSUMERS WERE TO THE QUANTITIES OF ANCILLARY SERVICES, SPECIFICALLY NON-SPINE AND AKERS, THAT WERE PART OF THE METHODOLOGY FOR 2026 IN. AND FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF HOW I WOULD DESCRIBE IT, PANCAKING SERVICES TO ADDRESS THE SAME RISK. AS IT TURNS OUT, WE'VE NOW HAD SIX MONTHS OF MUCH LESS OF THOSE SERVICES, AND I'M AWARE THAT JUST BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM DOESN'T MEAN THERE COULDN'T HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM. BUT I JUST I WAS NOT GOING TO LET THAT SIT IDLY BY. SO THANK YOU. JEN. THANKS, BETH. SIMILAR. AND THEN I GUESS I WOULD ADD THAT WE. THIS ISN'T LIKE WE PASSED A METHODOLOGY. WE PASSED AN EXPECTATION OF A MODEL OUTCOME, AND NOTHING THIS YEAR HAS ALIGNED WITH THAT. WHAT'S HAPPENED IS WHAT WE THOUGHT THE MODEL WAS PRODUCING IS WHAT HAS BEEN PRODUCED, BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD A DIFFERENCE IN MODEL THIS ENTIRE TIME. AND SO I STILL FIND THE COUNTERFACTUAL ARGUMENT COMPELLING, BUT I GUESS I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REAL COSTS TO CUSTOMERS, WHICH IS WHY THERE'S AN ASYMMETRY IN THE PERCEPTION. AND I THINK, HOLD ON, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE BE COGNIZANT OF THE VALUE WE ARE GETTING FOR RELIABILITY, AND THAT IS WHY PANCAKING IS PROBLEMATIC. AND WHEN WE DO NOT SEE DIFFERENCES IN RELIABILITY AND THEN WE SAY, WELL, WILL YOU PASS THIS METHODOLOGY? EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE QUANTITIES OF THAT METHODOLOGY SHOULD BE INFLATED FROM WHAT WE LOOKED AT WHEN THIS PUC APPROVED THIS. LIKE I JUST, I FEEL LIKE MAYBE WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK ON THIS ONE AS ERCOT IS PROPOSING AND COME BACK TO THIS FOR 2027, BECAUSE RESETTLING WHAT CUSTOMER BILLS. THAT WOULD BE FUN, RIGHT? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IN PRACTICE, THE RESERVES WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GET FROM THIS MODEL WERE PROCURED. SO THAT'S MY $0.02. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS HERE TODAY, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THE MARKET NOTICE JUST CAME OUT A FEW DAYS AGO. I THINK IT'S BEEN HELPFUL FOR PEOPLE TO VET SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS TO HELP INFORM POTENTIAL THINGS WE MIGHT SEE IN FIVE, FIVE, NINE, NINE, NINE. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S THE RIGHT PLACE TO BE LOOKING GOING FORWARD. IS THERE ANY FINAL THINGS YOU NEED TO CLOSE OUT WITH HERE? I APPRECIATE YOUR FLEXIBILITY IN LETTING US COME SO CLOSE AND TOWARDS THE TAIL END OF YOUR AGENDA, AND PROVIDING YOU AN UPDATE ON THIS ISSUE AS WELL. WE RECOGNIZE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ONE AND SO WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR DOING THIS. I'M GOING TO TURN IT BACK OVER TO CAITLIN TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THE STATE OF THE MARKET REPORT ITEM. I HAD A REQUEST TO DO THE COMBO BALLOT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, SO WE PROBABLY ONLY HAVE TEN MINUTES AFTER THE COMBO BALLOT. [14. Combo Ballot (Vote)] BUT LET'S LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. IT'S IT'S THREE. SO. I'M SORRY I JINXED US ON THE TIME. I DID NOT JINX US ON LIKING EACH OTHER. I SAID IT TWICE, BUT YOU SAID I WAS JINXING US ON LIKING EACH OTHER. BUT WE STILL LIKE EACH OTHER. MOST LIKELY TO JINX US. WE NEED A MOTION. AND A SECOND. GARRETT AND. BRIAN. WAS A BIG EYE ROLL. I ROLL MY EYES. NOT ON PURPOSE. WHAT MOTION WAS FROM GARRETT? SECOND WAS FROM BRIAN TO VOTE ON THE BALLOT WITH ALL THIS STUFF ON IT. APPROVE THE BALLOT. WHAT? WHAT DID I DO WRONG, COREY? YOU'RE JUST STARING AT ME. GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF TIME EVERYONE'S HAD AND THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON, I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HAS TIME TO TAKE A LOT OF THINGS ON HERE. I DON'T WANT TO GET 80% OF THE WAY INTO THE VOTE AND HAVE SOMEONE SAY, OH NO, NO, I DON'T WANT HER TO PULL THAT ONE. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S COOL. WE CAN DO INDIVIDUAL BALLOTS IF WE NEED TO, BUT IF EVERYONE'S HAPPY TO GET OUR 20 COMBO BALLOT, 21 COMBO BALLOT ITEMS, I WILL GLADLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. I BELIEVE EIGHT OF THEM ARE RELATED TO 1264. THAT'S A REAL NUMBER. I THINK IT IS. I THINK IT WAS EIGHT. AND SUSIE, SHOUT OUT IF I'VE MISSED ANY PROXIES OR ALT REPS. I THINK I'VE GOT THEM ALL. BUT WE'LL FIND OUT IF I CALL FOR SOMEONE'S VOTE AND THEY'RE NOT HERE BECAUSE THEY'VE GIVEN THEIR VOTE TO SOMEONE ELSE, [04:45:02] SPEAK UP THEN. ALL RIGHT. ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE BALLOT, WE WILL START OFF WITH CONSUMERS WITH GARRETT. YES, SIR. THANK YOU SIR. MIKE. YES. THANK YOU. BETH. YES. THANK YOU WILL. THANK YOU, NICK FEHRENBACH. YES THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR CHRIS BREWSTER YES THANK YOU SIR UNDER OUR CO OPS BLAKE. YES THANK YOU. AND THEN BLAKE FOR MIKE. YES THANK YOU KYLE. YES THANK YOU JOHN. YES THANK YOU. ON TO OUR INDEPENDENT GENERATORS, NED. YES. THANK YOU. COREY. THANK YOU SIR. BRIAN. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CAITLYN. FOR. BOB. YES. AND THEN CAITLYN FOR WHAT? WOULD YOU. WHAT IF IT WAS NOT A YES? YES. YOU CONTAIN MULTITUDES, CAITLYN. I WOULD NEVER. AND THEN, ON BEHALF OF ALL IPMS. SHANE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO. DO YOU HAVE A VARIETY OF VOTES? YES, SIR. AND YES AND YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU. ON TO THE IRS. JENNIFER. EQUALLY YOU GOT. OH. AM I STILL BILL? SURE. YES. FOR ALL THREE, THEN? YEP. I MEAN, UNLESS BILL WANTS TO SPEAK UP. I THINK HE MAY HAVE DRIFTED BACK. JEN PROBABLY WILL VOTE BETTER THAN ME ANYWAY, SO. DEFER TO JEN. FAIR ENOUGH. HOW ABOUT JAY? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I OWE YOU. MARTHA. YES. THANK YOU. KEITH. YES. THANK YOU. ABBY. YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AARON. YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANDRE. MUNIZ. ALICIA. YES. THANK YOU. JOSE. YES. I'M SORRY. JOSE. I SAW YOU COME OFF MUTE, BUT I DIDN'T CATCH THE. THAT GOT YOU IN CHAT. THANK YOU. JOSE. CURTIS. YES. THANK YOU. AND THEN DIANA FOR DAVID. YES. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU ALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL RUN THROUGH A COUPLE OF THINGS REALLY QUICK. I AM JEFF IS AT THE CAPITOL. WE ARE GOING TO DO I'M AFRAID THE AUGUST AGENDA MAY BE LONGER. SO NOW I REVERSE JINXED IT. IT'LL BE SHORT. BUT IT MAY BE LONGER BECAUSE IT'LL BE AHEAD OF THE SEPTEMBER BOARD. SO WE'RE GOING TO DO A WEBEX WORKSHOP MOST LIKELY TO HATE NICKNAMES. JEFF. APPALOOSA. WE'RE GOING TO DO LIKE A TAK SOM WORKSHOP AND WE'RE LOOKING AT AUGUST 13TH OR 14TH, I BELIEVE THAT'S A THURSDAY AND FRIDAY WOULD BE WEBEX ONLY. IF, IF YOU HAVE ANY INPUT ON THAT, LET ME KNOW. MARTHA IS GOING TO BE ON VACATION, BUT WE'LL MISS HER. I'LL JUST PUT IN A GCP PLUG. WE HAD A VIRTUAL FORUM WITH JEFF IN JUNE THAT'S ACCESSIBLE FOR THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ONE SIDED CONVERSATION PREVIEW. YEAH. YEAH. DO SOME HOMEWORK. SO, BETH GAVE YOU HOMEWORK? PLEASE, PLEASE WATCH THE GCPA. 25 BUCKS. 25 BUCKS. I THINK JEFF WOULD APPRECIATE THAT, TOO, BECAUSE THEN WE CAN NOT, YOU KNOW, WASTE HIS TIME. AND SO I THINK THAT'LL BE GOOD. BLAKE WILL GET WITH YOU. WE'LL NEED YOU OR SOMEBODY FROM THERE, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WOULD COME OUT OF IT PARTIALLY WOULD BE ACTION ITEMS TO W MS. JIM. JIM CAN BE THERE. WHAT WERE WE GOING TO DO? [13. Other Business (Part 2 of 2)] ANNUAL ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING. TECH SPEAKER ANDY, YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS? WE HAVE HAD TECH SPEAKERS THE LAST THREE YEARS. CLIFF DID IT. COLIN FROM ENCORE DID IT. GARRETT DID IT LAST YEAR. I WAS GOING TO VOLUNTEER THIS YEAR BECAUSE I'M PLANNING TO NOT CHAIR NEXT YEAR UNLESS MARTHA GETS EATEN BY A BRONTOSAURUS. BUT IF ANYBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH THAT, LET ME KNOW. OR IF SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD RATHER VOLUNTEER. NED GAVE ME THE THUMBS UP, BUT I TOLD NED TO GIVE ME THE THUMBS UP AHEAD OF TIME, SO. BUT I THINK I WOULD GET WITH I TOLD GENERATORS, GET WITH THE GENERATORS AND MAYBE TALK ABOUT SOME THEMES, MAYBE EVEN POWER MARKETERS AND REPS. JUST SORT OF LIKE A COMPETITIVE MARKETS THEME TYPE THING. [04:50:03] BUT THAT WAS MY PLAN FOR THAT. IF EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT. OKAY. ACTION ITEMS. MARTHA. YEAH, JUST A SMALL ONE HERE. NUMBER TWO, WE HAD ONE THAT MARK DREYFUS WAS THE CHAMPION OF. MARK HAS RETIRED AND IS NO LONGER WITH US. THE ONE ABOUT PRE-DEPLOYMENT AND PARTICIPATION OF PRICE RESPONSIVE ERS. WE NOW HAVE NPR 37 THAT IS ADDRESSING THIS. SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE SAFE TO JUST REPLACE MARK WITH 1337 SO THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING TO TRACK THIS BY. SUSIE, ARE YOU TRACKING THESE OR IS THAT COREY. IT'S. COREY. OKAY. DO YOU THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE FOR THE NEXT VERSION? OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. SO DO WE LEAVE THEM ON HERE IF THEY'RE IN THE CURRENT PR, JUST UNTIL THE PR PASSES. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. OKAY. SEEMS TO SORT OF COORDINATE. WELL, WHEN THE PR COMES THROUGH HERE, WE CAN STRIKE THE ACTION ITEM OFF AT THAT TIME. AWESOME. OKAY. MY OTHER BUSINESS IS DAVE MAGGIO INFORMED ME BRONTOSAURUS WAS REINSTATED. IT WENT AWAY. IT CAME BACK. AND THEN IF. AND DAVE'S ALWAYS RIGHT. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE WE ADJOURN? ALL RIGHT. WELL, SEE YOU IN WEBEX IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS WITH JEFF AND THEN SEE YOU IN PERSON IN AUGUST. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.