(item:00:Chairwoman Jackson calls meeting to order) Good morning. This meeting of the Public Utility Commission
of Texas will come to order. To consider matters that
have been duly posted with the Secretary of State for
September 28, 2023. For the record, my name is Kathleen
Jackson. I'm joined by Will McAdams, Lori Cobos and
Jimmy Glotfelty. I'm pleased to announce right off
the bat. (item:00:Chairwoman Jackson announces new appointments for Commissioners Cobos and Glotfelty) That Commissioner Cobos, Cobos will now be taking
the lead on transmission issues. As Commissioner Glotfelty
will be turning more of his attention and expertise
to leading the Texas Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working
Group. Um Commissioner Cobos has decades of experience
working on transmission issues in the public and private
sector, both in ERCOT and MISO. Most recently, um Commissioner
Cobos led the effort to grow transmission infrastructure
for reliability in the Rio Grande Valley. And a special
thanks to Commissioner Glotfelty for his leadership and hard
work related to transmission planning. We know you
will continue to be engaged and involved.
(item:00:Commissioner Glotfelty's remarks on his new appointment from the Governor) I will I promise.
This nuclear thing obviously, it builds a life of
its own. And when the Governor asks you to do it, you
have to do it. So I'm appreciative of Commissioner
Cobos willing to take this on. And we will work with
industry, and we will work with consumers, and we will
work with ERCOT. And make this a great transmission
system with your leadership. Thank you. Absolutely.
(item:00:Commissioner Cobos remarks on her new appointment) Thank you for the wonderful introduction, Chair Jackson.
And thank you um Commissioner Glotfelty. I look forward
to working with everybody involved, as you mentioned.
ERCOT, the stakeholders, the consumers. And continue to
work with you, Commissioner Glotfelty on these very
important issues for our State. (item:00:Commissioner McAdams' thoughts on his fellow Commissioners appointments) And I fully support
this prioritization of scope of work. So I think they're
going to collaborate well together and look forward
to the ultimate products and outcome. Well, now I have
the 1, 2 punch. That's right. (item:00:Chairwoman Jackson gives update on new Agenda structure) Um as you probably noticed we have
restructured the order of our Open Meeting Agenda.
All contested case items are now under Section 1.
And as a reminder, Public Comment is not available
for Contested Cases. And Rules, Projects and Miscellaneous
Items are now under Section 2. We will start Section
2 with the standing item for General Public Comment.
And if you signed up to speak on a specific Item. You'll
be recognized when we get to that Item. Shelah, will
you walk us through the Consent Items on today's Agenda.
Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. (item:00:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel lays out Consent Agenda) By individual ballot,
the following items are placed on your Consent Agenda:
Items 5, 6, 7, 11-13, and 15-18. (item:00:Chairwoman Jackson asks for motion to approve items on Consent Agenda) I
will entertain a motion to approve the items just described
by Shelah. So moved. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes.
Next up is Item No. 1. Shelah, will you please
lay out this Item? (item:1:Application of Medina Highlands d/b/a Avalon Point Water System, LLC for authority to change rates) Item No. 1 is Docket No.
52365. This is the application of Medina Highlands
doing business as Avalon Point Water System, LLC for
authority to change rates. Before you is a proposed
order. No corrections or exceptions were filed. Commissioner
Jackson filed a memo. (item:1:Chairwoman Jackson lays out her memo) It's my understanding that this
community is on uh TCEQ's 180 day list. That means that
they are within 180 days of running out of water.
This is something they self reported. Uh the utility
states, they need a final tariff to seek funding from
the Texas Water Development Board and time is of the
essence. I filed a memo addressing several issues. So
that the order and the tariff can be approved quickly.
Um any additional thoughts on this one?
(item:1:Commissioner McAdams makes motion to approve Chairwoman's memo) Madam Chair, I agree with you, uh with your memo. Uh,
I agree with you on this. I agree with the sentiments
in your memo. Uh and I would move uh, to um move
forward as you suggest in the memo. I would second. Okay.
I have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye.
Aye. Motion passes.
(item:1:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel asks for motion to state specific language) Chairman? Yes. I'm gonna back up for just a moment on that
motion. Um, it might be best to specify that the motion
is to approve the proposed order consistent with the memo. I'd be happy to do so. I, I missed that.
It's been a long week already. That's all right. That's why I'm here. So I, I would uh correct
my motion. (item:1:Commissioner McAdams updates his motion to approve proposed order modified by memo) Um I would move to approve the proposed
order as modified by your memo. I would second. I, I have a motion
and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes.
Next up is Item No. 2. Shelah, will you please
lay out this Item? Yes. (item:2:Petition of the City of Fulshear appealing N. Fort Bend Water Authority to increase groundwater reduction plan & surface water fees) Item 2 is Docket No.
53363. This is the petition of the City of Fulshear appealing
the decision of North Fort Bend Water Authority. To
increase groundwater reduction plan and surface water
fees. Before you is a SOAH proposal for decision. Commission
Staff in the City of Fulshear filed exceptions to the
proposal for decision. The SOAH ALJ filed a memo declining
to make changes to the proposal for decision. And Commissioner
McAdams filed a memo in this docket. Commissioner McAdams,
you filed a memo. Could you please lay out your memo?
Thank you, Madam Chair. (item:2:Commissioner McAdams’ lays out his memo) Um as outlined in the memo,
I believe that the Commission has the authority under
Texas Water Code 13.043, Subsection F to address this
appeal. The presence of the water service rates being
charged to Fulshear is sufficient for this petition to
be considered. Um really the application of the crystal
clear standard was a novel approach. As uh as applied
by, in by the ALJ. And um I believe the, the
distinctive factor is whether rates were involved.
(item:2:Motion to adopt & reject parts of decision and remand to SOAH consistent with memo) And so therefore, I would move that the Commission
adopt in part and reject in part the proposal for decision.
And remand the docket to SOAH for further processing
consistent with any discussion we may have, but certainly
my memo. I'm in agreement with Commissioner McAdams'
memo and I would second his motion. Unless y'all have
additional feedback. Okay. I have a motion to adopt the
PFD in part and reject the PFD in part. Consistent with
Commissioner McAdams memo and our discussion. Um we
have a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes.
Next up is Item No. 3. Shelah, will you please
lay out this Item? (item:3:Application of Aqua Texas for system improvement charges) Item No. 3 is Docket No.
53428. This is the application of Aqua Texas for
system improvement charges. Before you is proposed order
that addresses the unanimous agreement between the parties.
Commission Staff filed corrections to the proposed
order. Aqua Texas filed exceptions and corrections
to the proposed order. And the ALJ filed a memo revising
the proposed order. Commission Counsel memo is filed
recommending changes to the proposed order and Commissioner
Jackson filed a memo. (item:3:Chairwoman Jackson lays out her memo) While Aqua Texas was diligent
in ensuring that all of the tariffs were admitted as
evidence. There was no single filing that included
the most up to date proposed tariffs for all 6 regions
that are subject to this proceeding. I filed a memo
to clarify which tariffs are being approved. Uh do
we have any additional thoughts on this one? (item:3:Commissioner McAdams makes motion to approve proposed order as modified by Chairwoman's memo) Once again
Madam Chair, I agreed with your memo. And I would move
to approve the proposed order as modified by your memo.
Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes. (item:3:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel asks for motion to state specific language) Commissioners, I'm
sorry. I'm gonna jump in one more time. Um to ask if
perhaps the motion was to approve the proposed order
consistent with both the Commission Counsel memo and
Chairman Jackson's memo? Yes, Commission Counsel. (item:3:Motion updated to approve proposed order modified by Chairman Jackson & Commission Counsel memos) I would modify my motion
and move to approve the proposed order as modified
by your memo and that of Commission Counsel memo. I have
a motion. Second. And a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion
passes. Next up is Item No. 4. Shelah, will you
please lay out this item? Yes. (item:4:Application of Oak Bend Homeowners Water Supply Corp. for authority to change rates) Item 4 is Docket
No. 54153. This is the application of Oak Bend Homeowners
Water Supply Corporation for authority to change rates.
Before you is a proposed order. No corrections or exceptions
were filed by the parties. A Commission Counsel memo
was filed recommending changes to the order. Commissioner
Glotfelty filed a memo in this docket. The Item was
set for consideration at the August 24 Open Meeting.
Commission Staff filed a motion to delay discussion
of the Item at that meeting. And Staff followed up
with a filing on September 20, September 20. Recommending
the entry of an order consistent with Commissioner
Glotfelty's memo. So Commissioner Glotfelty, you filed a memo? (item:4:Commissioner Glotfelty lays out his memo) I did. Uh, I
filed it on August 23. Um just, uh some clarifications
on uh um in, in the order. And I would request that
we uh if there's no uh, discussion. Uh, approve
the order consistent with the Commission Counsel memo
and my memo from August 23. (item:4:Motion to approve proposed order consistent with Commissioner Glotfelty & Commission Counsel memos) That sounds like a motion,
I would second. Okay. I have a motion uh, to modify
the proposed order consistent with uh, Commission
Counsel memo and Commissioner Glotfelty's memo. Do
I have, and a second. All in favor, say aye.
Aye. Motion passes. Items 5, 6 and 7 were Consented.
Next up is Item No. 8. Shelah, will you please
lay out this item? Yes, ma'am. (item:8:Application of Denton Municipal Electric to change rates for wholesale transmission service) Item No. 8 is
Docket No. 52715. This is the application of Denton
Municipal Electric to change rates for wholesale transmission
service. Before you is a SOAH proposal for decision.
Denton, Commission Staff, OPUC and TIEC filed exceptions to
the proposal for decision. The SOAH ALJ's memo, the
SOAH ALJ filed a memo revising the proposal for decision
and it is before you now.
Any thoughts on this one?
What are you looking at me for? Well, I was wondering.
(item:8:Commissioner McAdams' thoughts on the application) Okay. So, so the way I look at this um set the
table. Uh I didn't intend to talk about this. But this
is a case that has had a drawn out process um for
over 2 years, I believe. Um and bottom line is, it
represents a much needed rate reduction uh for these
ratepayers. So uh in my view, we should adopt the
PFD and direct OPDM to draft an order consistent with
with that consideration. But I welcome any thoughts.
(item:8:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on the application) I'm in agreement as well. Um it's important that
we start, you know, bringing these rates up to date.
You know, there hasn't been a comprehensive rate case
for Denton in about 18 years. They've been filing interim T costs
for over the last 9 years. And so it's important
we go ahead and set the T cost rates at this time.
And get them to file an interim T cost filing shortly
after. And so I'm in support of the ALJ's finding
and their PFD.
Jimmy, what are you doing? I'm fine. Okay, cool. Okay, if we have
no further discussion. I would entertain the motion to
adopt the PFD as modified. (item:8:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel asks for motion to state specific language) May I just jump in with
one procedural issue? Um currently the order is
not, my understanding is the order does not have rates.
However, um included in that. However, Staff filed
a uh there was a number run that was filed by Commission
Staff. Right. And so the motion might be to, to adopt the
PFD as modified by the number run filed by Commission
Staff. (item:8:Motion updated to adopt PFD modified by filed Commission Staff number run & OPDM draft order consistent with motion) So I would uh, move to adopt the PFD um as
modified by the number run filed by Commission Staff.
And direct OPDM to draft an order consistent with that
uh with our consideration.
Second. Okay. So I have a motion to, um to adopt the PFD
is modified by the number run filed by Commission Staff.
And would ask uh, OPDM to prepare an order consistent
with this motion. And a second. All in favor, say aye.
Aye. Motion passes. Next up is Item No. 9. Shelah,
will you please lay out this item? Yes. (item:1:Complaint of McKamie Real Estate Services, LLC against Texas New Mexico Power Company) Item 9 is
Docket No. 53195. This is the complaint of McKamie
Real Estate Services, LLC against Texas New Mexico Power
Company. Before you is the proposal for decision. No
corrections or exceptions were filed by the parties.
Commissioner Cobos filed a memo in the docket.
Yes. (item:9:Commissioner Cobos lays out her memo) So the um ALJ in this proceeding is denying the
complaint um basically, um just on its merits. And
so I believe that it would be preferable to um, address
it under failure to prosecute without prejudice. So
that the pro se complainant will have an opportunity
to refile a complaint in the future. Because as it
as it stands right now. The pro se complainant would
be unable, would not be able to file a complaint in the future,
if the case is dismissed on, on its merits. I agree. (item:9:Motion to reject PFD & remand back to docket management for processing consistent with memo) And so I would
um, then reject the PFD and remand um, the proceeding
back to docket management for further processing to
take into consideration this preference. Second. Um
if that's a motion. Okay. So we have a motion to reject
the proposal for decision and remand to docket management
for further processing consistent with Commissioner
Cobos' memo. Um and in a second. All in favor, say aye.
Aye. Motion passes. Um next up is Item No. 10. Shelah,
will you please lay at this Item. Yes, ma'am. (item:10:Application of SWEPCO for authority to reconcile fuel costs) Item 10 is Docket No.
53931. This is the application of SWEPCO for authority
to reconcile fuel costs. Before you are two Items.
There is an unopposed agreement between certain parties
and there is a SOAH proposal for decision. The parties
to the agreement are: SWEPCO, Commission Staff, OPUC, TIEC and
CARD. The parties that did not join the agreement but
don't, do not oppose the agreement are: New Course Steel,
North American Coal Corporation, East Texas Electric
Co-op and Northeast Texas Co-op. Uh there was one contested
issue that was not addressed in the agreement and that
item is addressed in the SOAH proposal for decision.
There's more. Commission Staff, CARD, East Texas Electric
Co-op and Northeast Electric, Northeast Texas Electric
Co-op and TIEC all filed exceptions to the proposal
for decision. The Commission considered this docket
at the August 24 Open Meeting. And the Commission
requested additional testimony in support of the agreement
or to address the agreements. The uh, additional testimony
was filed in support of the agreement. And Commissioner
McAdams filed a memo in this docket.
Commissioner McAdams, you filed a memo? Could you
please lay out your thoughts? (item:10:Commissioner McAdams lays out his memo) Yes, ma'am. Um I, I don't
think it's a surprise to parties or anyone on the dais
that I've made my feelings known. About um, the Pirkey
Plant retirement in the past. Uh, I understand that
the prudent standard is not a high bar. I believe my
memo made that clear. But the lack of depth in the
2020 analysis, uh especially when you're retiring a
plant that is 12 years early. Um it, it simply did
not sit well with me. Um, and then to not go back
and reexamine the analysis in the wake of Winter Storm
Uri. Is in my view both imprudent and some could say
unconscionable. Uh it tells me that SWEPCO knew what
outcome they wanted to achieve and may have nudged
the analysis parameters to match that. Um it also appears
uh as I have outlined a path forward in my memo that
I favor. It appears that parties of the settlement
clearly contemplated the possibility that this Commission
uh would reject the prudency of retiring Pirkey. And
that the settlement specifies conditions that stipulate
the disallowance of caring costs for the Sabine Mine
which I agree with. So I, I think I my memo speaks
for itself. Again, we've had a long lead up of the considerations
of the fact pattern associated with the decision here.
Uh prudency is at its core. Granted a high standard
does not exist in that consideration. But with the
circumstances of the time of the analysis. Um I believe
even that that low bar was not met. I'd welcome any
thought?
(item:10:Commissioner Cobos' thought on the memo) Commissioner McAdams I, I'm in agreement with your
position. I spent a lot of time looking at the SOAH
ALJ's conclusions and the evidentiary record. And you
are correct the, um the standard that's applied with
respect to prudency is low. Um it, it's um
but at the same time as we look at the range of
of options that a reasonable utility manager would
would look at. We have we, we must sort of look at
that in a way that is based on the evidence. And it
the 2020 analysis contained, you know, just not a robust
enough um spectrum of scenarios. And um you know, the
sensitivity analysis only included one natural gas
price. They didn't capture a lot of the SPP energy
price differentials. And, and a lot of other factors
that I think um SWEPCO in the past has included. Um with respect
to Pirkey to justify environment, environmental controls
in the past. Um in Docket No. 46449, as you highlighted.
I, I think that the 2020 analysis was just not robust
enough to justify the retirement of the plant. And
a reasonable utility manager would have gone back and
updated its analysis from 2020 given all the changed
circumstances. Not only Winter Storm Uri but also um changes in
capital cost, supply chain, commodity prices. And SPP.
SPP conditions, market conditions. Um and um so uh generally
speaking, you know, I'm just kind of pulling pieces
from your memo. But a lot of the areas that you highlighted
in your memo. I went back and, and took a close look
um at, at the issues and the evidence and I come out
where you stand right now.
(item:10:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on the memo) I, I would uh I fall in the same area. I, I
don't think that the while SWEPCO says the economics
was the driving force here. The depth of the economic
analysis didn't seem to support that effort. Um the,
the uh reevaluation is absolutely necessary in my opinion
and they did not provide that. So, Commissioner McAdams
I support your, the memo in totality. Um and believe
that uh, uh it was imprudent not to uh reevaluate
this plant and it was imprudent to close it.
(item:10:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts on the memo) I support your memo as well for all the reasons that
have been stated up here. Uh we'd like to think that
we make decisions on the best information available.
And that when conditions change or more information
becomes available. That we utilize that in our decision
making process. And um overall, I always think about
what is best for the consumer and what's best for the
system in terms of reliability as a whole. So I very
much endorse what you've laid out in your memo. Appreciate
that Members. With that Madam Chair, uh If you would
entertain a motion I have one.
Yes. (item:10:Motion to approve agreement, grant good cause exceptions, direct Commission draft order and reject PFD consistent with memo) Uh Members, I would move to approve the unopposed agreement.
Grant good cause exceptions and direct Commission
advising to draft an order that incorporates both the
rejection of the PFD and the unopposed agreement consistent
with the discussion from the dais and my memo. Second. I
have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye.
Motion passes.
Items 11, 12 and 13 were Consented. Next up is Item
No. 14. Shelah, will you please lay out this Item?
Yes, ma'am. (item:14:South TX Electric Co-op to amend its CCN for the San Miguel-to-Cruce Double Circuit 345-kV transmission line) Item 14 is Docket No. 54936. This
is the application of South Texas Electric Cooperative
to amend it CCN for the San Miguel-to-Cruce Double
Circuit 345-kV transmission line. Before you is a
proposed order that addresses an unopposed agreement
between some of the parties. Commission Staff did not
join the agreement but does not oppose the agreement.
The Commission considered this docket at the September
14 Open Meeting. And the Commission requested filings
from representatives of the U.S. Navy and the National
Guard Bureau. Staff filed letters from the Navy and the National
Guard Bureau on September 21. And Order No. 5
was issued admitting the letters into evidence. Uh
one note, one procedural note is that the proposed
order has not yet been revised to reflect the admission
of the supplemental evidence. So Commissioner McAdams
you uh I just asked for previously some additional
information as well as Commissioner Cobos. (item:14:Commissioner McAdams' thoughts on the application) Yeah, absolutely Madam
Chair. I just sincerely appreciate the efforts made
by the U.S. Department of the Navy and the National Guard
Bureau in filing and, and of the ALJ admitting this
into evidence. Um, welcome Commissioner Cobos' thoughts
um but I, I think this would turned out into a positive
for the project. Yes. (item:4:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on the application) And, and thank you, Commissioner
McAdams for um, your additional attention to this matter.
I, I wanna thank the Navy and the National Guard Bureau
as well. For submitting these letters and stack for
working with these um, two federal entities. To make
sure we get those letters in the record. (item:14:Motion to amend proposed order, incorporate addition of letters that approves agreed route) And I would
move to, I guess, amend the proposed order to incorporate
the addition of these letters, um that approves the
agreed route.
And I would second such a motion. I have a motion and
a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes.
Items 15, 16, 17 and 18 were Consented. We will now
transition to Section 2 of our Agenda for Rules, Projects,
and Miscellaneous Items.
(item:19:Chairwoman Jackson lays out instructions for Public Comment) Let's begin with Item No. 19. General comments for
topics not specifically posted on this Agenda. Speakers
will be limited to three minutes each. Shelah, do we
have anyone from the public signed up to speak? (item:19:Shelah Cisneros confirms 1 person - David Carter has signed up for Public Comments) Yes
ma'am. We have one person that has signed up for Item
19. The person is David Carter. Okay,
(silence)
Thank you.
(inaudible)
Sit here? Yes sir. (inaudible)
Mr. Carter, will you please state your name and organization
for the record? Okay. Is this on? Yes sir. My, my I'm David
Carter out of uh Temple, Bell County. Uh last uh July
of 2022. I as a consumer of electricity I received
and ERCOT notice that things were getting a little tight
on the supply and demand and uh they asked us to conserve.
My visceral reaction at the moment was please don't
ask me to conserve. Please turn the, turn the knob
up and generate more electricity. It's a fundamentally
uh philosophical issue I have with, with that. Uh and
so I, I printed off the uh the graph that was available
that day. Showing that it really was getting tight on
supply and demand. And so that was my uh initial interest
in this matter. Subsequently last May, and the at
the, towards the end of the Legislative Session. This
uh hand out here, it's a four pager. That I, it's my
notes from the testimony given before the House State
Affairs Committee on SB 2627. Which proposed to set
up a uh investment banking system by the, by the Texas
Government. To fund additional electrical generating
capacity. However and listening to the testimony.
I'm, I'm not an expert in this. I just learned from
going to these meetings. But the, uh the issue is uh
there, there's base Load and intermediate Load plants.
They run all the time and they generate electricity.
And then there's the peak Load plants that come on
uh during the, you know, the Winter and the Summer.
And this, this Bill uh really excluded uh consideration
of the peak Load plants. And it came out in the testimony
that uh there was, there was a change of the Law in
either 2008 or 2000. I, I don't know it's in the, in
here. But they uh they changed the way, that ERCOT
changed the way that utilities could charge customers.
To cover the cost of the generating and these peak.
They, they changed it so the peak Load, uh plants cost
were no longer billable to the customers. And so I
I'm bringing that to your attention. That I think that
uh there needs to be some serious consideration. That
uh we have adequate uh funding stream, a continuous
funding stream for the peak Load plants that don't
generate day by day typically. That, that's the my main
reason for being here today. Okay. Thank you very much.
So maybe I could work with uh with Will or with John
Oliver uh later. Uh we could talk about this a little
bit.
(item:19:Commissioner Cobos welcoming Mr. Carter meet with them) Uh yes, sir. Your Chief of Staff. Yes sir. Um you're welcome to talk to any of us
about this issue. Okay. Yeah, Mr. Carter. (item:19:Commissioner Glotfelty welcoming Mr. Carter to meet) We, we've been working on market
design issues which of course this goes to the heart
of for quite some time. So I know Staff is really involved
in that. And uh I think any of us would be happy
to meet with you too. If you could point me in the
right direction, I'd be glad to hang around. Absolutely
(item:19:Commissioner McAdams remarks on deregulation and changes in the Law) Yeah. Mr. Carter around that time. A couple of things happened
in statute too. Uh a couple of the stranded cost, tariffs
started rolling off from deregulation. Uh so I don't
know if that's kind of what we're referring to. But
I mean we can look into that, that change in Law.
But um yeah. I, I just don't recall any type of uh
substantive change that occurred, that affected
peak pricing. Uh and especially that, that time period.
Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
This completes Item No. 19. I don't have anything
on Item 20.
(item:21: Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 54589) Next up is Item No. 21. Project No. 54589. This
is the Commission's rulemaking regarding Chapter 26
of the Texas Administrative Code. Substantive rules
applicable to telecommunications service providers.
Shelah, do we have anyone from the public signed up
to speak on Item No. 21? (item:21:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no Public Comments) No ma'am.
We have David Smeltzer with the PUC Staff here. Um
David do you, do you want to uh provide a brief overview
of this proposal for publication? (item:21:David Smeltzer with PUC Staff on proposal for publication) I would, I would
love to um during Session when the Sunset Commission
directed us to start doing substantive comprehensive
rule reviews. I was running around the building telling
everyone that was impossible, but nothing's impossible
when Mackenzie Arthur is on your Staff. And so before
before you, you have only a few pages short of four
of a 400 page PFP. That you know, modifies 20 or 30
different um of our telecom rules. To make a number
of changes. One it implements all three of the Bills
that were telecom related from the Session. It implements
a number of style conforming and clarity changes that
were identified by Staff. And it incorporates a number
of substantive edits from um stakeholders that filed
comments in response to a preliminary notice that we
filed. And uh I'm happy to answer questions if you
have them. But going through, you know, iterating these
in detail would be too numerous uh to do at this time.
Uh so, uh I'm happy to answer any questions. Otherwise
I would, you know, direct everyone to the filing. Um
and the, the review materials that we provided. And
so in addition to Mackenzie also, this is uh Kenneth
Ford from uh Customer Protections first rulemaking.
He's been here for decades and he made a lot of great
contributions on, on his first rule. And um Steve Mendoza
in rates helped a lot too. And it's, it's also worth
noting that the work doesn't end now. Because poor uh
Adrianna Gonzales over there and now has to take this 400 page
document. And line by line, put it into Texas Register
form. So uh labor of love by a couple of heroes over
there. With an area of work that a lot of us don't
focus on here which is telecom regulation. So I'm
very proud of their efforts. And we would, uh we would
hope that you would uh approve this for publication
in the Texas register. Along with the notice of
rulemaking, which was also filed. Which is just a box
check. Because up until this point, we've just filed
a preliminary notice. But we have to formally file
an actual notice for it to go forward. Thank you. Does
that need to be in the motion? Yes. Okay. Yeah so, so
yeah so, uh hopefully we, we'd have a motion to approve
um, uh the proposal for publication and the notice of intention
to review rules in the Texas Register.
(item:21:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts on rulemaking) I did wanna point out, I mean, something that you did
um in this rulemaking. And like you said, it was a
very comprehensive work effort. But, you know, going
out there at the onset. Which I think is something
kind of different than the process that we've done
in the past. To give uh the that opportunity to get
stakeholder input at the very beginning. I think that
was very good and then you were able to be responsive
to that and incorporate that into the process. So I
just wanted to call that out and, and um and thank
you for, for doing that. Sure. (item:21:David Smeltzer's follow-up to Chairwoman Jackson) Yes. And this,
this is the, this is roughly how we plan on doing all
of our rule reviews going forward. So they're gonna
be more substantive and a lot more uh meaningful.
(item:21:Motion to approve PFP and notice of intention, review Chapter 26 for publication to Texas Register) I'm appreciative of the hard work that y'all put forth
and not support the proposal for publication. And move
that it be published. And that the what Shelah? Notice of
Intention to review Chapter 26 for publication to the
Texas Register.
That too. So moved, so moved. Second. Okay. I have a motion and a second. All in favor,
say aye. Aye. Motion passes. Uh I don't have anything on
Items 22, 23 or 24. (item:25:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 53298) Next up is Item No. 25. Project
No. 53298. The Commission's project on wholesale
electric market design implementation. Specifically
we'll be discussing the results of the second procurement
of the reliability product farm fuel supply service.
Shelah, do we have anyone from the public signed up
to speak on Item No. 25. (item:25:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no Public Comments) No, ma'am. Um Davida uh Dwyer with uh
ERCOT is here. Uh Davida, if you come on up and um
provide us an update.
(item:25:Davida Dwyer with ERCOT provides results of 2nd procurement of firm fuel supply service) Davida Dwyer with ERCOT. Thank you, Chair and Commissioners
We appreciate the opportunity to give you an update
on the results of the second procurement of firm fuel
supply service. We made a filing in Projects No.
53298 and 52373. With this information additionally
on the ERCOT.com website. We have a website specifically
regarding firm fuel supply service that provides even
more information for anybody that's interested. In summary
during this procurement, we were able to procure 32
generation resources. That will be providing firm fuel
supply service during the next obligation period which
is May 15-March 15. Uh 31 of the 32 resources
offered fuel oil as the reserve fuel type. One offered
stored natural gas. That raises the point that all of
the resources that offered um cleared. All of those
that were offered and were cleared qualified under
the preexisting qualifications under Phase 1. Um
the results included that we had approximately 13%
more awarded capacity than the first obligation period.
And under your guidance, we also had um the additional
benefit of the cost of the procurement being approximately
43% less. It cleared up the offer cap. So we're pleased
with the results and optimistic for the next procurement
next year. Um one point that I did want to make. Was
that um some of the lessons learned that we incorporated
in another um revision. Were to move forward the timing
of testing in order to qualify to provide the service.
And we think that may have factored into some resources
not being able to qualify under the new um parameters
for Phase 2. So can, can you restate that um time
frame for the Phase 2 procurement, please? Sure.
(item:25:Davida Dwyer on obligation period) Uh the obligation period is mid-November, November
15 and it ends mid-March, March 15. Thank you.
Thank you, Davida for all your hard work on this issue.
(item:25:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on development of phases) I this has been an important issue for, for me. Um since
the development of Phase 1 and now Phase 2 of this
product. And um I'm very pleased to hear that we were
able to get more for less and um you know, we spent
a lot of time really evaluating what we should do with
Phase 2 over the last several months. And this is
a great result again, more for less. And to put it
in context, you know, the last time we deployed firm
fuel was Winter, Winter Storm Elliott. And we only
had to deploy 950 megawatts. And that's about, you
know, about 30% of the overall procurement at the time
was 2940 megawatts. So now we've got more and, and
it's always good to have more. And I think over time
we'll scale up to meet that 5000ish. Uh hopefully um Winter
Storm Uri, 5 to 6000. Uh Winter Storm Uri max but this is, this
is great news as we prepare on all fronts for the upcoming
Winter. And um and have additional resources and also
from a, you know, consumer cost stand point 0.43% less in
cost.
(item:25:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on firm fuel) I, I would say uh I, I'm uh after our discussions
and more discussions on firm fuel about the qualified
pipeline definition. Which it's clear that they're not
participating in this for some reason. I think in the
future, you know, it deserves a little bit more discussion.
To see if that becomes uh,
there becomes a need for more resources in this. We
aren't going to do that now. But I think the contracts
that we have the amount that we have as Commissioner
you said. More for less is good news for the consumers.
But the fact is that we still have huge numbers of
pipelines and storage facilities around the state. That
could be providing more reliability for these generators.
And I think amongst us and over the next year, we need
to reevaluate that and look. And just see what we need
and if there's a better qualified pipeline definition
or, or whatever as we go forward so. (item:25:Commissioner McAdams' thoughts on the report) Yeah in, in
in my view, Commissioners. This was a fascinating uh
report on what, what we're trying to do is send regulatory
market signals and this is now a market. So now we've
had the first example of real, real world feedback
uh coming to us. And it seems like the capabilities
of our generators have expanded somewhat uh in terms
of on site fuel. Um we didn't even know there was that
much storage capability out there. So somebody may
be installing. But ultimately, they're filling these
things and bidding into the program under Phase 1
conditions. And I, and to your point, Commissioner.
I think a little bit of the lag and uh we, we
had to take a little while to make a determination
on Phase 2. So again, the market didn't know what
exactly they were facing. Until right as the window
was, was upon them uh for bidding. And so I think the
more lead time they have, hopefully as Davida has alluded
to. We have more bids on that firm transmission and
uh storage uh side of it uh under the Phase 2 construct.
So I think this is uh positive for a number of reasons.
But um, I'll have to see the onsite uh capabilities.
I mean that, that's good resiliency right there. For
sure. (item:25:Commissioner Cobos' follow-up to fellow Commissioners thoughts) And, and to your point Commissioner Glotfelty.
And, and following up on Commissioner McAdams.
You know we've, we've sent a market signal and, and
I think we made clear. Is that we set a standard, we
want the industry and the market to rise to that standard.
And perhaps is what Commissioner McAdams I think you're
saying is that. You know, maybe over the next year
the folks with the um, storage and pipeline. Can rise
to that standard and get to where they can comply with
our current existing framework. Because if over the
course of the next year we change what we're doing.
Then we're not, we're kind of moving the standard around.
And so I think that it's important to see what we get.
If we get um some of these um companies and, and
um to, you know, work on perhaps renegotiating contracts.
And, and dealing with regulatory bodies to rise to
the standard. And, and I hope that now that they have
you know, over a year to, to get there. That maybe
they can get there. Um I, I would just be hesitant
to keep moving the standard around. Because, you know
to try to get more of the offline pipeline. Um I'd
like to see if they can rise to the standard and give
them some additional time.
(item:25:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts on continuous improvement) So I think a great example of um continuous improvement.
And I think as you mentioned um you know this is,
this is real time. This is um you know, success and
action. And, you know, we talk about resiliency and
what can we do um moving forward. And this is a, you
know real life, real time example of resiliency in
action. And um you know, a work effort that, you know
has, has very much been um you know, at the forefront.
Here at the Commission as well as in working with ERCOT.
So, um I think it's a real success and um something
that again is gonna be uh moving forward. Just an important
tool in our toolbox.
Thank you for your. Can I ask you one question? Uh
do we, do you feel comfortable with where on the ERCOT
system. These um uh facilities that have been, that
have been procured through this? Are they spread out
enough around the system where we give all regions
around the state some assurance. That this uh farm fuel
will help them in an emergency? Or how do you feel
about North Texas? How does that look? (item:25:Davida Dwyer on locations of resources) We're comfortable
with the locations of these resources. We believe that
some of these resources are, are areas that experience
um disruptions in fuel supply. And so we're, we're
pleased that they are providing backup fuel. Okay. They
are pleased. That's an important word. (item:25:Davida Dwyer gives thank you to Commission) I just wanted
to close with. Thank you so much for your attention
and guidance. We know that um you've really dedicated
time to this. And it's, it's been integral to the efforts.
So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Davida.
Thank you. Uh I don't have anything for Items 26 or
27. (item:28:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 54584) Next up is Item No. 28. Project No. 54584.
The reliability standard for the ERCOT market. At the
Commission's last Open Meeting on September 14. We
discussed the results of the first 24 of 48 initial modeling
scenarios. Today, we'll be discussing the modeling
results of the remainder and consider ERCOT recommendations
for the next iteration. Uh Commissioner McAdams filed
a memo. So let's discuss that following the public
comment and ERCOT's presentation. So Shelah, do we have
anyone from the public sign to speak on Item No.
28? (item:28:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no Public Comments) No, ma'am. Uh we do have Kristi Hobbs uh, with
ERCOT here. Kristi, if you wanted to come on up and
tell us about the results.
All right. (item:28:Kristi Hobbs with ERCOT on modeling results) Good morning, Commissioners. Kristi Hobbs
with ERCOT. Um, the team has been working very hard
uh since the last filing. To continue to improve upon
uh the scenarios and increase the amount of output
that we have to share with you. So, since the last
filing that we provided. Um you will notice and now
instead of the 24 you have the complete 48 scenarios.
Along with that we did add some additional fields.
And so you have that information for both the original
24 and 48. And just try to give you some additional
information on annual cost. What the Summer and Winter
reserve margins would be uh maximum duration and magnitude.
So for the multitude of runs for the particular parameters.
What did we see were those outliers of the maximum
duration um and magnitude of impact. We also um based
off of the questions. Thought it would be helpful to
put in a table that showed you that the resource mix.
And what changes were used and how those resource mixes
were built. So you'll find that um in our filing. Based
on the information we provided, we think it's important
to continue iterating through. And so that's where
we're gonna look for your feedback today. And we laid
out some thoughts um just to start the discussion um
but would like your feedback. (item:28:Kristi Hobbs on limiting frequency scenarios) So um the first thing
that we recommended is to limit the frequency scenarios.
And what we're seeing is, you know, the 1 and 5.
Probably would not be bringing us the level of reliability
that we think you're probably looking for, for the region.
So let's take it to those 1 and 10, 1 and 15
1 and 20. Um that would, you know, help with the modeling
runs. (item:28:Kristi Hobbs on more aggressive coal retirement) We also suggested including a more aggressive
coal retirement. Um and this was based off of some
of the work that we've done. You've seen in our filings
um for the EPA rules and regulations and what could
happen to the system. Um this would give the opportunity
to show what the impact would be. Uh if we had that
level of retirement and what the cost of the system
would be to maintain reliability. (item:28:Kristi Hobbs on adding a capacity mix) And then finally
add a capacity mix. Uh this was based off of the discussion
um from Chairman Jackson at the last Open Meeting. About
looking at a mix that added in additional inverter
based resources. (item:28:Kristi Hobbs on narrowing range of probabilities) The other item that we were looking
to get some guidance from you on. Is um narrowing in
the range of probabilities of exceedance. I do need
to highlight, we did make an error in our filing of
the memo. We did, we um aligned it to the weatherization
standard. But instead it was at 97% but it's actually
95 percentile. I think the thing that I would take
away from that. Is I still would recommend we need to
maybe look at narrowing those range of probabilities.
And I think it's important to point out that this Commission
has made decisions in the past. You know, looking depending
on your risk, um averse the risk awareness. Um based
off the cost. That you would be willing to take that
into consideration with your policy decisions.
So with that, um would welcome any feedback you have.
On how we narrow this down to continue moving forward.
You got a memo? I, I do. Uh would you like me
tee that up? So could we first kind of talk about. (item:28:Chairwoman Jackson on deliverables to give to ERCOT) I
guess there's some deliverables that we need to get
back from uh ERCOT. And so, you know, specifically
they'd like to kind of get our impact on our, our feedback
on um the, the next iteration. And they had suggested
three things that they wanted us to kind of focus on.
Um and then secondly, kind of give them some feedback
on the range of probability exceedance or the the potential
of, of discounting, I guess anything that would have
greater than 3%. Um Chris. So can we, can we start
with, I guess the iterative process and just talk about
that. (item:28:Commissioner Cobos on 8300 megawatts of coal and gas steam retirements) Um so as I understand it, that the next iteration
would focus on three things as you laid out. Um the
one I want to further discuss is the 8300 megawatts
of coal and gas steam retirements. So I, I you know
you're taking into consideration potential impact of
the EPA regulations. But um I'm, I'm wondering how
realistic this is. Given the fact that, um you know
I mean, the facts are the facts. There's a lot of money
in the market right now um tremendous amount. We've
hit Cone. I don't know what Cone is exactly these days.
But even if you said that it was higher than 105.
I mean, we could be well on our way to justifying
more than one ct of the cost of new entry. Even at
a very much higher cone. So facts are facts. There's
a lot of money in the market right now. Maybe there's
not the regulatory certainty for investment. Exactly
But there's a lot of money in the market. But secondarily
um as um Pablo laid out to us, um ERCOT is embarking
on a new strategy on RMR for capacity. So is it realistic
to think that um with the amount of money in the market
and ERCOT's potential strategy for RMR for capacity. That
we're really going to have 8300 megawatts of coal and
gas units leave the market?
I don't. (item:28:Kristi Hobbs on cost to the market if coal & gas were replaced) So I think the reason we thought we would on RMR for capacity
lay it out. Is just maybe not for being um you know
don't disagree um with your commentary. Um but what
would happen and what would be the cost to the market
if we had to replace that? It was really the approach
we were taking on that scenario. Kristi, would you
agree. That if, if you have if you take that into account
you have to take in 3 billion in state level investment
that we're gonna make in 26, 27. Uh that's gonna bring
on potentially 4 gigawatts of dispatchable power
to some degree. So I mean, what's good for the goose
is good for the gander. I mean, if you're going to
imply EPA regulations are gonna shutter 8300 megawatts
of coal, you have to take into account the absolute
possibility of the voters will approve the money and
we have state backed financing
And, and can I say. (item:28:Commissioner Glotfelty on EPA regulations) Um one of the, one of
the areas that I think is probably not totally accurate.
Is some of EPA's regulations are more damaging to these
coal plants than others. The emissions parameters can
be met by reduced run times. And if that doesn't mean
that they are pulled totally out of the system. But
they are there in a, in a possibility of a backstop.
Or a RMR for capacity type uh program. And so, so I, I
question whether we should actually take them all out.
I'm, I'm all for data. Uh if we run that, maybe we
should see what it's like to add, you know, 25,000
megawatts of batteries. And see where we go on both
sides of this equation. But um I think we, we just
need to be careful about um predicting um, uh predicting
what the system is gonna look like. Um we can take
educated guesses. But we've got to do, we've got to
have these range of possibilities on both sides of
this, this equation so. (item:28:Commissioner Cobos on retirements from EPA regulations) So what I'm hearing is not
looking at this in a static manner, but in a dynamic
market manner. And to your point, I want to sort of
supplement that. My recollection from the Obama era
EPA regulations that actually resulted in retirements.
I mean, those retirements came fast. Right. There was
business decisions made before even the. They were marginal anyway. It was during
a low natural gas price environment, spark spreads were
super low. Right. So they were, and that's not the
case right now. And so, um yes, so good point that
that's what we wanted. Uh I mean, we, we didn't want
EPA shut them down, but we wanted the economics to
play out there. There were business decisions made
based on, you know, probably natural gas prices and
where they were at the time and impending regulations.
But today, you know, we haven't heard of any retirements.
Because now it's the flip side, the spark spreads are
really high. Gas prices and everything that Commissioner
McAdams just noted. And, and so um it, it's a different
sort of, I think environment that we're in right now.
Than we were back in again back in, back in the you
know, Obama era EPA regulation um approach. Versus
where we are today in the market. And with these EPA
you know, regulations coming our way. So I, I just
wanna make sure that we're looking at this in a very
real, you know, realistic dynamic manner to take in
a lot of factors.(item:28:Commissioner Cobos on stress testing the market) Because we are building a reliability
standard for the market. And, you know, we want to
stress test it. And I think that's what you're trying
to do to, to kind of show variation. But we're gonna
stress test it. Less stress test it based on, you
know, good factors that take into account all these
different um impacts. Like the loan program and the
money in the market and ERCOT's RMR for capacity strategy.
And everything that is going on. Because otherwise we're
gonna end up building a standard. That does not truly
account for um the realities of the market. And we
just spend a lot of time talking about dispatchable
generation or at least maybe Commissioner McAdams did
in a memo. (item:28:Commissioner Cobos on dispatchable generation) Um dispatchable generation and being good
reasonable um utility managers. And looking at the entire
environment when you plan for the future. So, so that's
really my point. I, I would offer up a little bit of
food for thought. Um this decision is gonna be hard
okay? (item:28:Commissioner McAdams on reasonable reliability standard) It was always gonna be hard, it's gonna be hard
in every system in the country. Uh because there's
gonna be costs associated with whatever standard. Contingent
upon reasonable assumptions that are used in the models.
And ultimately I, I think what the modeling is showing
now is that under a reasonable expectation again of
3300 megawatts of dispatchable retirements. Which we
have heard my gosh, we have delved into this so deeply
over the last 2.5 years. That is a reasonable assumption
on an economic basis. Of some of these units just not
being able to operate anymore. Because of the their
mechanical condition. And so that's a reasonable assumption
to take out. And with that reasonable assumption, we
are within striking distance of some type, some would
say a reasonable reliability standard. That is more
conservative than what we have today. That takes into
account the frequency and the magnitude. And you compare
that against what we could gather and feedback. To a
2011 event um which everybody remembers and for context
purposes. And then also compare that to what the ultimate
magnitude of Winter Storm Uri was. Which everybody in
the state recognizes that is unacceptable. (item:28:Commissioner McAdams on subtracting massive amounts of megawatts) Um but I
fear that if we start subtracting massive amounts of
megawatts out of the, the models. Due to hypothetical
federal regulations which we are sure to litigate and
go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Which will
take some time. Um that I believe it will blow out the
top of our models, unduly alarm the public, create a
narrative um that certain uh alternatives are better.
And I won't see the say the, the words but um everybody
in this room is thinking it. And uh and then we're,
we're left with nothing. So I, I would advise simpler
is better. Um provide focus to ERCOT, clear the field
of the massively hypothetical scenarios. And then just
look at what we have and the range fan.
I don't know it's just my thought. (item:28:Kristi Hobbs with ERCOT on feedback from Commission) So I appreciate the feedback. I think, um
it's always easier to red line than it is to come up
with a clean slate. So we wanted to put some options
out there. Thank you Kristi. And, and I know the team um will be glad
that they will have less sort of scenarios to run. If
we take one of those out. Um can, can I say. Um
I, I'm a little. (item:28:Commissioner Glotfelty on taking out the 1 and 5) I'm opposed to taking out the 1
and 5. We may not get a whole lot of data on
that. But um, the um you wanna see how lean and mean
we can run? No I, I just think it's another data point.
I mean no, nobody has proven to me in my 35 years
in this industry that 1 and 10 is the best and the
only. Will, you're doing that. Lori, you're doing that.
in these other markets where that's being questioned.
1 and 10 is not a panacea for outages. We saw the FERC/NERC
report that said that 40 something percent of the thermal
outages in, in the Northeast last year. Were, you know
they were in capacity markets. I mean, that's
it's just another data point. And I would say it doesn't
hurt to include that as a data point. So I would just
I would hope that we could just keep that in there.
Um I'm not, I mean I don't know in this future world.
Where people have power walls and generac at their house.
That 1 and 5 you know, for an hour or two each.
5 years is not a bad rate for outages versus 1
and 10 or1 and 15 and 1 and 20. Which are
all electric utility concepts. So I, I just I feel
like uh, we ought to include it. And if it's not that
much of a hassle uh, to keep it in there. And, uh
anyway that's my thought on, on that on the first
bullet. Um
so we kind of are we coalesced around not doing the
coal exclusion. So Kristi, um it was coal and gas,
gas together. So um and, and you specifically asked
for 8300 megawatts. So can you just, you know, kind
of give us ERCOT's thought. On why you made this proposal?
I mean, what was your thinking behind this? Sure.
(item:28:Kristi Hobbs on 8300 megawatts proposal) Was just to give you another set of data points. Looking
at um some things, some topics that we have been talking
about, right? This was um information that we provided
in, in Woody's testimony. On our feedback on several
of the EPA rules. And so that was the number that we
picked, um the reason for picking it. So again, as
I, I noted earlier. If you would like to disregard
that recommendation uh I, I'm not opposed to that
either. I just wanted to tee it up for a discussion.
(item:28:Chairwoman Jackson on gaining specifics on the 8300 proposal) So again, just to be clear, are you proposing that
you would do um kind of like a series of runs. That
would not include this. And then do kind of like a flex
case, including the 8300? So that you would have both
scenarios? Or were you initially just thinking to um
to, to reduce the um the availability by 8300? (item:28:Kristi Hobbs providing specifics on 8300 megawatts proposal) So if
you look at um the set of runs that we have now
and the different um you know, the levers that we could
pull. Um we would just, you know. For example, we had
um the set of frequency duration and magnitudes. Where
we had a capacity mix. Where we had just 100% CTS um
added to the mix. We had one where it was a CDR
mix. We had one where we had 900 megawatts retired.
We had uh scenarios where we had 3300. This would be
just like those, but we would add a scenario. Where
we kept that frequency duration magnitude. Um the capacity
mix is the same, but we would change the level of megawatts
that were retired, we would increase that. So it just
gives you some additional information potentially to
consider. (item:28:Commissioner McAdams on gaining clarity) It, it would but it's, it's a uh in my
opinion, outlandish expectation. Similar to potential
outlandish expectations that have been incorporated
into saras of the past. Again, we're trying to get
away from that. We're trying to get more granular and
accurate on our data inputs. Uh and, and not cloud
the issue. I mean clarity on this, in this proceeding
is, is gonna be critical to the ultimate decision.
But I, I would vote to exclude it. (item:28:Commissioner Cobos on outlandish scenarios) Yeah. I,I
would too. Um we don't want to include outlandish
scenarios that are not reality. Um 3300 is the max
so far besides 83. I mean, you know, that's probably
more reasonable to expect. I mean, it could maybe be
a little higher, it could be less. Again, you have
to take into consideration all the dynamic um sort
of evolutions of the market. And, and I think that
8300 is an extreme scenario. And I don't think it does
any good to be planning for an extreme scenario that
doesn't seem to be coming to fruition. Given market
dynamics, but also ERCOT actions and Legislative action.
(item:28:Commissioner McAdams on outlandish scenarios) Yeah and, and even then the state will take steps
to ensure that this doesn't happen. I mean, we will
we, we are not there are legal remedies here. There
are market driven uh remedies uh to keep these in the
system. So um we, we argued about this in the market
design debate. And I said, I said to this ain't gonna
happen. Um there's no way the Public Utility Commission
of Texas is going to allow this to happen. Um and so
no, I not accurate.
So what's in the base right now is 3300. Okay.
(item:28:Kristi Hobbs recaps feedback from Commission) So I guess maybe to summarize what I've heard. Um I've
heard a request to go ahead and keep the 1 and 5
in.
To disregard the additional scenarios with removing
the 8300 megawatts. So that leaves us with um just
adding additional capacity mix as was discussed at
the last Open Meeting. For the additional inverter based
resources into the mix.
I think that's accurate in my view. What, what do you
mean a frequency target? Meaning the, the loss of loaded
event target.
So add a capacity mix to achieve a frequency target.
Oh, I'm sorry. You're, you're doing frequency duration.
Magnitude frequency, not system frequency. So I would
say that when you put out this information. I'm, I'm
you know, as an additional data point of 1 and 5.
I'm, I'm good with that. Commissioner Glotfelty. (item:28:Commissioner Cobos on additional data point) Would
like to see that as an additional data point. But I
I do want to stress that it's not a standard that we
would want to live under. I mean, the public expects
more than would not want us to be in a 1 and
5 year scenario, right? Um so I mean, that's not
what we're driving towards. It's just an additional
data point. (item:28:Commissioner Glotfelty on a 1 and 5 standard) I, I mean I, I'm not uh I don't know
that we're not going to get to a 1 and 5, you
know, anyway. I, I don't know, this says that 1 and
5 standard, uh we have a 10% reserve margin. Um and under
the existing runs. Um I don't know if that's right
or wrong. Um But uh I don't know, I mean, the, the
system is changing and we're not solving for one major
generator leaving the system or two major generators
leaving the system. The system is, is changing in that
regard. And that's why um I mean I'm, I'm I, I
think we're, uh.
I think 1 and 5 is a valuable data point. And, and
I think not to put words in your mouth. (item:28:Commissioner McAdams on scenario outputs & costs) But your point is
depending on the outputs uh that those scenarios produce.
It may be a really small, uh I mean event. Um I'm
talking about like I, I in terms of duration, magnitude
everything else. I mean, so depending on the costs
I guess that's what he's saying is on a cost basis
compare that. What are you buying? And what are you
getting? All right. Well I, I guess what I'm saying
is I, I'm fine leave it in there. I know what
you're trying to do. But I, I don't know if we have
an event now and, or in five years that that's gonna
be palatable to anybody in the public, whether it's
shorter. No I get it. Is that what you were referring too?
That's my only point. (item:28:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts on how runs give relative sense of impact) And I think the value too is
that part of what you're using these runs for, is to
get a relative sense of the impact, right? And so to
your point, it's maybe not necessarily, you know, that
we're looking at the 1 and 5. As so much as we
you know to your point, we want to get that relative
impact. And then use that in the, in the decision making.
(item:28:Commissioner Glotfelty on other outlying opportunities) Also, if this is tied at some point in time to adding
capacity to the system. We can't have my view, we can't
have the starting point be this national standard.
We have to have it book ended by other uh outlying
uh uh opportunity. So 1 and 15, 1 and 20, and 1 and 5
outline that 1 and 10. So it gives us data on both
sides of that. A looser and a more stringent standard
to bookend. And the ability to answer that question
because it obviously is gonna come up. Yeah. Yeah.
All right. So we have the, um I guess the deliverable
back to ERCOT on um the, the next iteration of. Except
we need to talk about um the probability exceedance
which is next. Yes.
So, and so your proposal had been um to eliminate scenarios
with a probability of exceedance greater than 3%. So
so Kristi. So um there, there were a couple of these
things that clearly overshot uh 6% um in my view. Absolutely.
(item:28:Commissioner McAdams on probability of exceedance) Thank you for clarifying the 3% versus 5%. Because
you know, I was having PTSD on the weatherization thing.
And I was like, I thought that was 95th and we, we
compared that. And then we came to the conclusion that
you uh ERCOT Staff had done political analysis and
said that might be a little too loose um for, for
us to consider. Um, 3% is certainly more stringent
Uh again, I think in the ranges that we're seeing
at 3300. We're still within striking distance of accomplishing
our mission. With the uh, with the panacea of tools
that the Legislature has given us and the Governor
has signed in the Law uh, potential funding capabilities.
Um, we're almost there. So I don't necessarily see great
harm in eliminating 5%. But I did want to try to, I'm
I'm trying to uh conform all these policies to a uniform
standard. Uh I was trying to get within the ballpark
of the same exceedance probability that we were looking
at. Because that, that informs our risk tolerance. So
what do you think? Well um I mean, how would you compare
a weatherization management of risk tolerance with
what we're thinking about here. Which is the overall
system, right? It's not just kind of one area. By facility
or region by region. Exactly. Yeah, that's a good point.
Well I mean, bottom line is I'm good with 3%. Now
the question is the 5%. Um But um what do you guys
think?
(silence)
Kristi, can you lay that out a little bit more? So
I could better understand. Sure. (item:28:Kristi Hobbs on probability of exceedance) So, um if you look
at uh the tables that we provide and you've got the
the probability of exceedance. So for example, um I'm
just gonna pick a scenario and walk you through it.
It's probably. I think the 1 and 10 if you could just so we know.
All right.
So I'm gonna look at, if you've got it printed out
on Row 18. Uh, actually I'm gonna go to, I'm gonna
go to a CDR Row 26. You've got a 1 and
10 frequency event. Um, you've got a duration of 10
hours in a magnitude of 10,000 megawatts. And that one's
using the CDR mix. And with that, the probability
that we would exceed the duration of the event. Which
is 10 hours is 1.8%. And then the probability that
we would exceed the magnitude. What we saw on the runs
which the magnitude is 10,000 is 2.63%. Um If you,
if you move over to the left a little bit, you can
see out of all the runs that were done. What was that
that highest number that came out of the runs? And
you can see that the highest duration was 14 hours
and the highest magnitude was just over 20,000 megawatts.
So um if, if you go down to some of the, uh
the lower ones. If we take a 1 and 10 on Row
42. Duration of five hours magnitude of 5000 megawatts.
You see that probability of exceedance is higher
for both duration of magnitude. And so if you were
at like a 3 per saying we don't want. Where our
risk tolerance is that we don't want to exceed anything
by 3%. You would eliminate that as a potential for
your standard. You would, you would take out that 1
and 10 duration of 5 and 5000. Yeah. (item:28:Commissioner McAdams' follow-up remarks on probability of exceedance) And, and that
that impacts basically the all in impact of that magnitude
and the duration. So what are the odds that you're
going to exceed that maximum duration? And uh under
the 1.8 exceedance is extremely small chance. That, that
level event or whatever else in the future. Um comes
out and uh causes us to exceed that. And so it's, it's
very conservative, very. I need to stop using that
word. It's strict, it's a strict standard. Um
so yeah,
5% is loose. (item:28:Commissioner Glotfelty's follow-up question on probability weighting) I mean, does that get you to the same mathematical
point of, of uh uh. So I, I'm going back to the
1 and 5. The 1 and 5 if you eliminate the
1 and 5 there's only one scenario where that's
lower than uh than 3%. Which would be line number 9.
So, are you effectively doing the same thing by reducing
that, uh that probability weighting.
Kristi, may need to phone Pete uh and respond, but
you could do that in response to my questions too.
Okay, fair enough. (item:28:Kristi Hobbs' follow-up on probability of exceedance) I mean, you are looking at the numbers. You would,
I mean you've got all of the, the probabilities and
exceedances for their current runs. And so you can quickly
scroll through filter out. You can see which ones would
be eliminated.
(item:28:Kristi Hobbs on exceeding standard & cost) So to, to Commissioner McAdams point. It really becomes
a balancing of, you know, how risk averse are we for
exceeding the standard? And then you'll have to look
at too once you have all the cost information. What
is the cost of that in weighing that? Which I think
is what you were arguing earlier if.
(item:28:Chairwoman Jackson on probability of exceedance threshold for risk) So, I think what you're proposing is uh in terms of
probability of exceedance. And you're talking about
our threshold for risk. Is that if we were to choose
the 3% we're basically setting that as our kind of
expectation. And again, you know, further to your memo
which you're going to talk about later. You know, we
have all these assumptions, right? And so, you know
that enters into it as well. As to how accurate our
assumptions are. And so, you know, if you kind of,
if your starting point in my mind mathematically. Is
if you are, you, you're willing to take you know
this lower threshold of risk. Then in my mind, I mean
your outcomes and what you're using to make your decision
making. Is um is, is a whole lot more um provides a
whole lot more better data. And a chance of you actually
hitting that standard. It's a more accurate picture.
Yeah, so.
(item:28:Commissioner McAdams on risk threshold) So it, and there's another reason I didn't want to
exclude the 8300 megawatts of coal. Because uh under
these. Even at 3% which is a strict standard, a stringent
uh stringent risk tolerance um threshold. That we are
in striking distance. Uh the, the costs are within
the realm of, you know, logic. Uh what we're doing
in the market. So I, I think all this kind of converges
on that point. But ultimately, just to end the debate
3% is a stringent standard. Um The government probably
the government wants stringent standards. 95 percentile
as you pointed out. And I just wanna qualify this distinction
and the weatherization standard was based on a zonal
uh basis on a facility basis. Um And we, we appeared
to kind of find a happy medium. That both the OEMs
and the manufacturers producing these facilities. Could
comply with as well as mitigation strategies that could
be employed by our generation owners. So that was,
that is a distinction between what we're talking about
now, which is a system wide 3%. But that also gets
to, to make those assumptions that much more important.
How are you calculating for this? Is this a copper
sheet system? Okay. You know. No, it's not. Um So how
is that accounted for? So does it make sense? I'm just
wondering um to get all the data that Commissioner
McAdams is asking for the inputs and assumptions and
then make a decision on the 3%?
Well, she wants to. Well. Okay, Kristi. Can I lay out
my memo? I, I'll do it fast. Yes. (item:28:Commissioner McAdams lays out his memo) Um so, so bottom line
is the memo simply laid out questions on assumptions.
That I hope will help inform um the market actually.
Um because the market has technical uh data analytics
capabilities that even we will not have. And they will
be self interested to uh acquire those capabilities
to do this type of uh analysis. And provide feedback
to both ERCOT and the Commission. But um the, the assumptions
and I won't go into detail on each of the questions.
But help provide a more um better defined picture of
how these models are um producing these outcomes. And
uh ultimately, it was my intention and my desire. That
ERCOT might be able to. Because ERCOT has heard these
questions uh in private briefing. But I wanted to file
it for the public. So that the public would know what
they're being asked. And that ERCOT could produce responses
to some degree before your proposed technical workshop.
So that the stakeholders, the industry and the public
could come in armed to ask questions. Uh that are more
defined and more targeted of ERCOT. And then proposed
suggested modifications to those assumptions. To give
us a more comprehensive and universal picture of options
and scenarios to compare. Um So that's a, a high level
Madam Chair. And I think that speaks to 3% versus 5%.
But to get to you Kristi. What's your vision of
the workshop? And then how do you believe the interaction
between you and stakeholders, ERCOT staff and stakeholders.
Will inform the next narrowing of the cone, the funnel
of options for us to consider. (item:28:Kristi Hobbs on vision for workshop) So I'm glad we're getting
to have this discussion. Because we've um excuse me.
Been debating internally about what's the best approach
for that workshop. And so what I would envision is
is just what she kind of laid out. We'd like to be
able to put together this information to be able to
walk through it. Um And so we'll be working with the
vendor. We're gonna need their help on some of the
inputs uh for the, the table read and the model inputs.
And we would like to be able um to put that. I
know we've also um got a meeting with Staff uh later
today. Where we wanted to get their input as well. Uh
My understanding is there may be some questions that
come out from Staff. That they're interested in getting
feedback on. And we could uh walk through those and
and facilitate that discussion as well during the workshop.
Okay. So. Where and where? Because I think a couple of studies
are sort of foundational pieces of this reliability
standard in some way or another VOLL. Where do we stand
there? Right. (item:28:Krisit Hobbs on VOLL) Um so on VOLL. We are I know you, you're
probably tired of hearing this. But we're very close
to wrapping up um the the work with the vendor. To lock
in the vendor that's going to help us do that uh study.
And so what we uh envision there is kind of a two
phased approach uh that'll be running concurrently.
And so the first phase task will be doing the macro
um the literature search. And so that's something that
we think um, could definitely be um completed. I think
by the end of the year. So we'll have that information
back. So that will give us another information point.
Um the, the piece that we're, we've been working
back and forth in the statement of work with. Um, that's
taken some time is because we were partnering with
the lab. We've got a triangle of folks that we're trying
to get to agreement on terms. And so we're very close
on that. Um and the reason for that. Is uh we wanna
be able to utilize uh the survey that the lab is using
in the AEP area. So that we don't have to hit
those customers twice. Um and so that's kind of the
vision on that. I think if we're able to wrap up this
statement of work, um in the near future. I think what
we need to take to get through that we can be in
a place by the end of the year. We know what that
survey instrument is. Um we'll be uh looking for your
help um to help us work with the TDUs. Um because
we're gonna need to partner with them and getting the
survey out to their customers. And that we could have
that survey out at the beginning of the year. And you
you mean you want us to tell them to cooperate with
you. Um
How are you gonna work with them? The nois
as well. But I know, I know the, the nuance there.
But we're, we're gonna be working on a communication
plan on once we have secured the vendor on how we,
we roll that out. So we have uniform participation.
Got it. Where do we stand with the cone study? (item:28:Kristi Hobbs on cone study) Uh the timeline
for that. So we've got the RFP went out um on September
18. Um so we're in that period now of questions and
proposals. Proposals are due on October 17. And then
we uh our goal is to go through those and have a
contract awarded that first week in November.
And, and you're when you, when you hire the um independent
consultant or vendor through this RFP process. ERCOT would
then engage with the IMM on coming up with the cone study.
Yes. Okay.
So knowing all that, Commissioner Cobos. What are your
thoughts on the 3% versus 5% exceedance and how that
plays into this, this next iteration. Uh which may
be informed by feedback to a degree. But I'm not sure.
(item:28:Commissioner Cobos' remarks on probability of exceedance) I mean I, I get your point. Um I think I'm good
with where you are. And, but I'm just wondering if you
know, is there any value in doing the 3. You know
the greater than 3% greater than 5. I, I don't know.
Let me ask you, when's the next iteration of models
gonna come back? Is it, will it be before our October
12 Open Meeting? (item:28:Kristi Hobbs on iteration of models) It will not. Because we're gonna put the
priority on getting this information out. So that we
can get stakeholder, stakeholder comment and feedback.
We want to keep that moving. Recognizing that, you
know, you're not gonna likely make a decision on the
reliability standard at your October meeting. So that's
kind of how we prioritize the work.
Yeah so, so I would, I would think um
they're, they're taking stakeholder feedback. (item:28:Commissioner McAdams on ERCOT techincal workshop) The,
the uh technical workshop will be productive. Probably
um if it's similar to the other technical workshops
that ERCOT is, is administering. Um they do take that
feedback into account. And then refine their path forward
after that is done. And so I don't know if we necessarily
need to make the determination on 3 versus 5% yet
is what I'm hearing. Because the market's gonna have
an opinion on that. Right. Um
so. I mean I think at the, at the end of the
day, it's going to be our decision, right? And, and
um I mean. (item:28:Chairwoman Jackson on ERCOT technical workshop) If your point is that you'd like to see
some of these, some of the questions answered, which
would give you a better feeling around the assumptions.
And then that in turn will kind of give you more information.
To kind of guide you towards the, whether, you know
it's 3% or it's 5%. And as long as it doesn't slow
down the process, right. Because we have an end goal
and an end time and a schedule, right? (item:28:Kristi Hobbs on additional inverter based resource capacity mix) And I think
what we can continue to do in parallel. Um it's my
understanding to get to this, this third item. That
we talked about, about the additional inverter based
resource capacity mix. That takes several iterations and runs of
the model. To get to determine the right level of those
resources. So that's work that can be done in parallel
um irrespective of the decision on the other parameters.
So for clarity you, you would need the, the 3% or
decision, 3 or 5% decision uh when?
November 2? Yeah, that's probably that's fine.
(item:28:Chairwoman Jackson's confirmation of any further questions for ERCOT) So getting back to your memo and the questions. Because
this is a deliverable back from uh from ERCOT. Um were
there any other questions that we wanted to have ERCOT
potentially consider?
In addition to the ones that you laid out in your memo?
Just opening it up to the other Commissioners? I guess, you know
I only have. (item:28:Commissioner Glotfelty on forced outage rates) Well, my question around uh forced outage rates.
Um but I don't know that I have them totally um formulated
in my head. I just, I don't understand in the model.
How we take into consideration forced outage rates across
different resource types. And where they are and maybe
I can get a little feedback from you Kristi and figure
that out. Before I see if there's a question that's
in there that needs to be answered. Or it might be,
it might already have a solution. Or it might already
be in there. I just don't know. Forced outages, obviously
um you know in these tail events. Are, can be a very
big driver. Absolutely. But, but doesn't that, isn't that serve
on account for that? It doesn't overly weight them.
I don't know. In the tail events. (item:28:Commissioner Cobos on forced outage rates) I'd like to see what
they're assuming for force outage rates. And, and if
there's any geographic um sort of analysis. Like, you
know, where are the forced outages, right? I mean, we
just had a situation where we had a bunch of forced
outages as you noted in the North zone. So, you know
what is. This is just beyond just weatherization based force outages.
Because. We're, we're kind of backing into that as ERCOT
continues to refine that assumption. Unplanned force
outages. Unplanned. (item:28:Commissioner Cobos on geographic diversity with forced outages) And maybe that's part of your request and
the inputs and assumptions. Is to understand um to get
information on what forced outage rate. Um Astrapé server
model/ERCOT's analysis. Um is incorporating into their
model runs. And if there's any geographic diversity
associated um with those forced outages that are being
assumed in the servant modeling. We can definitely
document the assumptions on the forced outages and
how it's accounted for in the model. Specifically on
these runs for the reliability standards. Ok. So that's
one more question to add to Will's questions so. Great. Okay.
and we're, we've got agreement on when you're going
to deliver back with that. And then you have um, what
you need from us and we'll wait on the 3% until um
in November. Okay. (item:28:Kristi Hobbs on takeaways for November Open Meeting) And we will work with Staff uh to
select a date for the workshop. Um it's gonna be dependent
on uh, we wanna make sure we have enough time for
the work that needs to be done. To get the information
out to the stakeholders and give them adequate time
to review. And be prepared to respond and ask questions.
Okay. Very good. So we'll be able to post that time for
that workshop and get that information out to everyone
that wants to um to participate. Thank you, Kristi.
Thank you so much for being here today.
Okay. I don't have anything for Item 29. Item 30 will
not be taken up. (item:31:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 55421) Next up is Item No. 31. Project
No. 55421. This is the Commission's project for
the Texas Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group. Shelah,
do we have anyone from the public sign to speak on
Item No. 31? (item:31:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no Public Comments) No, ma'am. Thank you. Uh Commissioner
Glotfelty, would you like to provide us with an update?
I would uh appreciate that uh opportunity. (item:31:Commissioner Glotfelty gives update on Nuclear Reactor Working Group) Um So we
have the uh organizational meeting this afternoon.
Or an informational meeting this afternoon at 2 o'clock
in this room. To lay out a structure in a form that
we want to get thoughts and comments on from the public.
As we go about creating the work streams for this working
group. Lay out the structure for the working group.
We've gotten a lot of nominations through Project 55421.
Although the deadline has passed, I'm still encouraging
people to, if they want to be a part of this. To
please be a part of this. The other is we wanted to
make sure I wanted to make it clear. That while we have
some specific individuals on a working group. This
is going to be a larger effort than just a few people.
Everybody is welcome to participate in this and has
a voice. We just can't come to a language if we've
got hundreds of people trying to write a report. So
anyway, stick around 2 o'clock in this room. If y'all
want to hear and talk anything nuclear or small
modular reactors in the state. This is the kickoff
and beginning of that. Thank you. Thank you and thanks
for your leadership on this. Uh I don't have anything
on item 32-36. (item:37:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 54446) Next up is Item No. 37. Project
No. 54446. The Commission's project for calendar
year 2023 Open Meeting Agenda Items without an associated
control number. Shelah, do we have anyone from the
public signed up to speak on Item No. 37. (item:37:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no Public Comments) No, ma'am.
Um PUC Staff filed a memo. Um Haley, will you please
uh come on up and provide an overview of your memo.
Thank you. (item:37:Hayley Hall with PUC Staff lays out Commission Staff's memo) Good morning, Commissioners. I have a memo
requesting approval to transfer $38,000 in each year
of this biennium. Fom our current operating budget
into our capital budget. That requires the approval
of an agency's governing body, the Legislative Budget
Board and the Governor to do that. And we're just our
current capital budget has money for laptops for our
current Staff. We ask for and receive funding for additional
Staff and equipment for them in the Legislative Session.
And we just want to put that money with the other at
least laptop money just for greater transparency. And
it's just a little bit more correct to have it in that
budget. Okay. (item:37:Motion to approve transfer of funds from agency's operating budget to capital budget) Well, I would move um to request approval
for transfer of funds from the agency's operating budget
to its capital budget. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor,
say aye. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. (item:38:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 54455) Thank you. Next,
we will take up items 38 and 40 together. Item 38 is
Project No. 54455. Our 2023 rulemaking calendar.
(item:40:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 55156) And Item 40 is project 55156. Our 88th Legislative
implementation activities. Item 39 will not be taken
up. Uh Shelah, do we have anyone from the public signed
up to speak on Items 38 or 40? (item:38:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no Public Comments) (item:40:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no Public Comments) No. Okay. Um after
the July 20th Open Meeting, we approved Commission
Staff priority rulemaking plan and directed Staff to
provide a quarterly update at our meeting today. Uh
PUC Staff filed a memo on September 25. We have uh
Jess Heck and David Smeltzer here to provide an overview
of the memo. So, um Jess and David, do you want to
uh take us through and lay out your memo? Perfect.
(item:40:Jess Heck, Director of Government Relations with PUC Staff on priority rulemaking quarterly update) Thank you Jess Heck, Director of Government Relations
for the PUC. Um good morning, Commissioners. Um thank
you for this opportunity alongside the Rules and Projects
team. To present this priority rulemaking quarterly
update. I am happy to report the that initial
action has been taken on all 19 items. Additionally
the Commission has held workshops on multiple matters.
Including on September 21, relating to the PUC's implementation
of programs established in SB 2627 the Texas Energy
Fund. And on August 17, relating to the electric utilities
filing of transmission and distribution system resiliency
plan as prescribed in HB 2555. I want to take a moment
to thank stakeholders for their continued involvement
and input over the last few months. In the July 11
Public Priority Workshop, a top priority identified
by stakeholders other than implementing Legislation
was reviewing the financial assurance provisions of
the Commission's substantive water rules. Commission
Staff is beginning to review that issue. This quarterly
update has been distributed to our Legislative Committees
of jurisdiction. And future updates will continue to
be filed in Project No. 55156. We do expect to have
another quarterly update before end of year. Thank
you and happy to answer questions.
Okay. Any thoughts on this one, any questions? (item:40:Commissioner McAdams thanks PUC Staff for their work and updates) Good work for
Staff uh trying to organize these. There's many of
them uh in queue. And uh glad these are underway. So, thanks
for the updates guys. Appreciate the update. And seems
like we're on track. So um, look forward to continuing
to receive your progress reports. (item:38:Commissioner Glotfelty on a ancillary service study) Can, can I ask one
question? Um So we have had this, uh um I don't know
where it is on here. But we um can we get so
so I'm thinking about an ancillary service study. That
was required under uh, uh. Senate Bill 3. Senate, I'm sorry.
Senate Bill 3. Three? Two Sessions ago. Yes sir. And um just don't know. Can
you give me uh not right now. But an update or a
discussion at the next meeting where we stand on how
we might do that? I think we really need to do that.
Uh we haven't done that as directed by the Legislature
and it would be great to have that discussion at the
next meeting. Is, is the Commission directed to do?
Yes. It's the Commission? Yes. (item:38:Thomas Gleeson, PUC Executive Director on ancillary service study) Yes, in Section 14.
That's right. O that bill. We were directed to conduct
an ancillary services study. So it's not ERCOT it's us. That's correct. So I just
teed that up for the next meeting. Absolutely. We'll bring
that back to you at the next meeting.
Uh Do we have anything else on the Legislative uh implementation
Commissioner Cobos? (item:40:Commissioner Cobos on transmission build out in Permian Basin) Yes. Thank you, Chair Jackson. I just
want to highlight that through the passage of House
Bill 5066. The Legislature has made transmission build
out for reliability in the Permian Basin a priority.
By specifically requiring the Commission to direct
ERCOT to develop a reliability plan for the Permian
Basin region by January 30, 2024. I would like to
act, act on giving ERCOT that directive sooner rather
than later. Well, in advance of the January 30, 2024
statutory deadline. So that ERCOT can start the process
of developing the reliability plan for the Permian
Basin region. Um The Permian Basin region, like other
parts of the state is experiencing significant Load
growth. And given the time it takes to build transmission.
We must act in a steadfast and diligent manner. To ensure
that transmission infrastructure development is keeping
up with our growing state's needs. In the coming weeks
I will be uh preparing and filing a memorandum and
a proposed order for the Commission's consideration.
That will direct ERCOT to develop a reliability plan
for the Permian Basin region. The directive will set
expectations and provide a timeline. To ensure that
ERCOT provides a reliability plan for the Commission's
review and consideration of approval in a timely and
efficient manner.
I'm totally supportive. Off and running. Okay, thank you.
Okay. (item:41:Agency administrative issues) Next up is Item No. 41. Our standing item for
agency administrative issues. Shelah, do we have anyone
from the public signed up to speak on Item No. 41.
(item:41:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no Public Comments) No, ma'am. no one signed up. And Thomas, do you have an
update for us? Yes, ma'am. (item:41:Thomas Gleeson, PUC Executive Director on Winter preparedness work session) Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning Commissioners. Just one item this morning
we are making preparations to a Winter preparedness
work session. So, work session meaning very similar
to what we did leading up to the market design. Where
we would have invited testimony come, make presentations
to you all and you could ask them questions. Um We
don't have a date exactly nailed down. We're trying
to navigate your busy schedules. But we're, we're targeting
the end of October for that date. Um And I know Commissioner
McAdams, this was uh really his vision. So I think
he may have some more details on what he's looking
for. (item:41:Commissoner McAdams on Winter preparedness work session) Uh Thank you Thomas and thanks for the work of
Staff. I'm trying to nail down a date range. So um
for about the, the 10 groups that I've talked to in
the last 72 hours, October 26 is not the date. Uh
so don't, don't take that to the bank. Um But I believe
this work session is uh timely, it's important. Um because
I believe it will allow us to um one bring ERCOT forward
and begin to uh, uh articulate and demonstrate um near
term uh
modeling . For what we expect during the Winter season.
In terms of both demand and supplies available to us.
Um I think it will indicate that demand is going to
continue to grow. And the system could be well served
by evaluating increased capabilities to bring to bear
for this season. And that includes enhanced demand response
capabilities. Um We have a robust demand response,
uh suite of products and services now. Uh between ancillaries
and ERS uh as well as other uh tools that ERCOT
uh could bring to bear. Um I believe this is an opportunity
to call the market in uh in front of the public. To
uh discuss how we may be able to augment and enhance
our existing products and services. To overcome um
the, the good challenge of a growing economy and booming
population. Especially for the purposes of this season.
And uh and also start describing where we might go
in future seasons. Um I also think it's an opportunity
to highlight and gain confirmation for the Commission's
purposes on the work that has been performed and is
being performed right now on facility weatherization.
As well as go through some of the details on the firm
fuel supply service. So the public can be better informed
about what mechanisms we have available to meet the
future needs. So talk about what we have available
as well as what you know, the other tools in the toolbox.
And if there in capabilities so that we can be prepared
for the Winter going forward. Yeah, absolutely. (item:41:Commissioner Cobos on Winter preparedness work session) I mean
since the 2021 Session, we have implemented really
an arsenal of, of um actions and tools. To help build
Winter reliability and resiliency through Phase 1,
Phase 2 weatherization. Um Phase 1 and Phase 2
of the firm fuel supply product, um critical Load designation.
Um I mean, just a host that we've tightened our customer
protection rules. To uh you know better, better protect
consumers. There's, there's just been a lot of actions
we've taken since Winter Storm Uri. That we have at our
disposal at this time. But we're always looking to
optimize and leverage those tools. To be better prepared
in the future. And also to see what else we can harness
in to help us with the reliability and resiliency for
this upcoming Winter and Winters in the future. So
so as a little bit of elaboration, I think Commissioner
Glotfelty will happily dovetail in on this. (item:41:Commissioner McAdams follow-up on Winter preparedness work session) A criticism
of our existing framework has been that there is a
there is a limitation on the pool of uh consumer participants
in our existing demand response programs. And so this
workshop would provide a venue. To again uh advertise
uh make aware and harness the energy of uh of a broader
segment. Of not just industrial consumers but small
commercial and industrial consumers. Um and, and again
make them aware of how they can avail themselves of
these programs. And lend a hand to the system in times
of need. And ultimately, I, I think this is, this is
an opportunity for us. (item:41:Commissioner Glotfelty on Winter preparedness work session) I, I'm totally supportive of
this. And the, if we totally focus on the supply side
uh our hands are tied. We have to focus on the supply
And the, I'm sorry if we only focus on the supply side
our hands are tied. We have to focus on the demand
side as well. And that means all customer classes.
I think that some newspaper, I don't remember which
one it was. Said conservation calls are effectively
free demand response. And if we really want to better
understand how that can affect the system on a repetitive
basis. Understanding what the costs are and how we
can pay for that. Will give us a better understanding
of the value of that going forward. And how it affects
the system and the cost of the system and the reliability
of the system. So I'm all for this effort. Yeah. (item:41:Chairman Jackson on Winter preparedness work session) So
I look forward to getting um the update and having
the opportunity to sit down in a uh work session with
all of the Commissioners here. Get the invited testimony
and kind of ask those questions. What tools can we
kind of use moving forward to address the upcoming.
(item:41:Thomas Gleeson on finalizing agenda topics) Yes, ma'am. So with that, we will continue to work
with you all. To finalize agenda topics and reach out
to presenters um for that day. And we will also open
a new project so that those presenters can file their
presentations there and we can also get comments from
other parties. Great. Great. So to the market, please be watching
Stay tuned. Very good. Uh I don't have anything for
Item 42 or 43.
There is nothing for closed session. (item:44:Chairwoman Jackson adjourns meeting) There being no
further business to come before the Commission. This
meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas is
hereby adjourned at 11:14.