(item:0: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
October 12th, 2023. For the record, my name is Kathleen
Jackson and I'm joined by Will McAdams, Lori Cobos,
and Jimmy Glotfelty. Before we get started, I wanted
to make everyone aware. (item:0:Chairwoman Jackson gives information on Winter Preparedness Work Session) The Commission is hosting a
Winter Preparedness Work Session next Friday, October
20th at 8am. And we'll discuss the Work Session later
on in the Agenda. Public Comments for General Matters
will be taken up when we get to Section 2, Item 14.
And Public Comments related to a specific Agenda Item
will be heard when that Item is taken up. Speakers
will be limited to three minutes each. Commenters should
not approach the table unless oral argument has been
granted or they have been invited by a Commissioner.
Shelah, will you please walk us through the Consent
Items on today's Agenda? Yes. (item:0.1:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel lays out Consent Agenda) Good morning Commissioners.
By individual ballot, the following Items are placed
on your Consent Agenda: Items 1, 2, 3, 6-11 and 13.
(item:0.1: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. I have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye.
Motion passes. Additionally, Item 32 will not be taken
up. Items 1, 2 and 3 were Consented. Next up is Item
No. 4. Shelah, will you please lay out this Item?
(item:4:Application of Orbit Systems & Undine Texas for STM of Facilities and Certificate Rights) Yes, ma'am. Item 4 is Docket No. 53629. This
is the application of Orbit Systems and Undine Texas
for the sale, transfer or merger of facilities and certificate
rights in Brazoria County. Before you is an appeal
of Order No. 20. Filed by a group of 13 landowners.
The Commission voted to place this Item on the Agenda
for this Open Meeting, so the appeal is before you.
Do you have any thoughts on this one? (item:4:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on the application) Yes. Uh I
would grant the landowner's appeal and reverse the
Commission ALJ's order denying the landowner's motion
to intervene and grant the landowner's motion. Um
intervention in the docket. Uh the notice requirements
in the Texas Water Code exist for a reason. Landowners
must be afforded due process full stop. Um The good,
a good cause exists for the late intervention. Because
the landowners were never noticed by Orbit and Undine
about their STM and CCN amendment application. Um as
required by the Texas Water Code and the Commission
rules. And so um, I the arguments that um Orbit ending
raised regarding the tenants in common. Um are, are
just not um uh I, I don't think that those um
apply to the statute is written and what it, how a
landowner is defined. And so um the type of ownership
of the track of land is relevant under the Water Code.
And so I would um grant the intervention.
(item:4:Commissioner McAdams' thoughts on the application) Madam Chair I, I for one agree with Commissioner Cobos.
I would second that motion. I believe this Commission
since we were comprised. Has always tried to adhere
and reinforce the statutory and rule based requirements.
Most especially notice so that those, those landowners are
appropriate, appropriately informed as to their rights
and their role in the process. Which helps inform our
ultimate decisions. So I, I would support Commissioner
Cobos on this one. I have nothing to add but I support
the effort. And I support it as well. (item:4:Motion to grant the landowner's appeal & intervention, and reverse ALJ's decision) So your motion
is to grant the landowner's appeal and reverse the
ALJs decision to deny the motion to intervene. Yes
ma'am and grant the landowner's intervention in the
docket. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor,
say aye. Aye. Motion passes.
Next up is Item No. 7, Item No. 5. Shelah,
will you please lay out this memo, this Item? (item:5:Application of 3083 Utility LLC for a CCN in Montgomery County) Yes, ma'am. Item
No. 5 is Docket No. 54273. This is the application
of 3083 Utility LLC for a certificate of convenience
and necessity in Montgomery County. Before you is a
motion for rehearing filed by Commission Staff. The
Commission voted to place this Item on the Agenda for
this Open Meeting. And Commissioner Jackson filed a
memo in this Docket. (item:5:Chairwoman Jackson lays out her memo) I filed a memo recommending granting
rehearing and issuing an order on rehearing to correct
the utility name on the tariff as detailed in my memo.
Any additional thoughts? (item:5:Commissioner McAdams thoughts on the memo) Madam Chair, I agree with
your memo, the errors need to be corrected. And if you
have a motion, I would second it. (item:5:Motion consistent with memo to grant rehearing and issue order for rehearing) I would move to grant
rehearing and issue an order on rehearing, consistent
with my memo. Second. Gotta a motion and a second. All in favor, say
aye. Aye. Motion passes.
Items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were Consented. Next up is Item
No. 12. Shelah, will you please lay out this item?
(item:12:Application of Southwestern Public Service Company to amend its CCN) Yes. Item 12 is Docket No. 55255, the application
of Southwestern Public Service Company to amend its
certificate of convenience and necessity. To construct
generation facilities in Lamb County, Texas and Leah
County, New Mexico for good cause exceptions and for
related relief. Before you is a draft preliminary order.
And have a Commissioner memo filed in this docket
from Commissioner McAdams. Commissioner McAdams, you
filed a memo. Could you please lay out your memo? (item:12:Commissioner McAdams lays out his memo) Thank
you Madam Chair, Members. Yeah the memo, I think largely
speaks for itself. Broadly I believe we need to keep
rate making matters to rate making proceedings. And
let's keep CCN matters to CCN proceedings. Therefore
as per the memo, I would remove issues 35-50
from the preliminary order. And add the issue detailed
in the memo
short of any other discussion. I'd, I'd be curious
on your thoughts. But I think this is a consistent
with the appropriate organization of how we consider
decisions of this magnitude, and welcome any thoughts.
I'm in agreement.
I'm in agreement as well. Thank you, Commissioner McAdams.
(item:12:Motion to approve preliminary order consistent with memo) Great. Madam Chair, if you would entertain a motion.
I would move to approve the preliminary order consistent
with the memo. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in
favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes. Item 13 was Consented.
We will now transition to Section 2 of our Agenda,
Rules Projects and Miscellaneous Items. Let's give
folks a minute to clear the room.
(item:14:Chairwoman Jackson lays out instructions for General Comments) Let's begin with Item No. 14, 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:14:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms sign-ups for General Comments) Yes
ma'am. We have two, two people that have signed up to speak.
The first person is David Carter.
Mr. Carter, will you please come up and state your
name and organization for the record? I think Mr. Carter
stepped out.
Do you want to go to the second speaker or? Let's do
the second speaker. All right. The second speaker is Cyrus Reed
Okay. Can you please state your name and organization
for the record? (item:14:Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of The Sierra Club on the upcoming Winter) Cyrus Reed, Lone Star Chapter of
the Sierra Club. I wanted to speak about the coming
Winter. And I understand from your announcement, there's
actually going to be a chance to discuss this further
on the 20th, so I'll be very brief. I think we all
saw on October 2nd. ERCOT has a concern about reliability
and the higher risk for EEA 1, 2 and 3 based on
probability analysis they did. And so they've called
for 3000 megawatts outside of the normal market structure.
I just want to mention this could be very expensive
to consumers. And their main solution bringing back
mothballed and shuttered plants. From Sierra Club's
perspective could also be bad for pollution. And just
want to remind the market that you do need to have
an operating permit with TCEQ. If you're going to come
back, so I think we should factor that in. And we hope
that on the 20th, in addition to looking at the RFP
itself. We can have a more general discussion about
this policy. And whether 10% is the right risk level
for an event that only would occur if we had a Winter
Storm Elliott type situation. And then we hope we continue
to look at other options that we have. At the same
time they're asking for an RFP for this 3000 megawatts.
They're also doing their ERS Winter program. We can always
expand ERS probably for a cheaper amount than this proposal.
And then just a reminder, as you know. The EE and DR utility
programs are another way to expand the use of demand
response and energy efficiency. I was pleased to see
CenterPoint Energy, my good friends at CenterPoint
Energy. Discuss their plans to change their Summer peak
demand response program to 24/7 Winter program. Those
are the kind of programs that we think would be cheaper
and better for the market versus ERCOT's proposed approach.
And with that, I'll be quiet. But I look forward to
participating in the hearing on the 20th. And hoping,
hoping it's a broader discussion than just the RFP
itself. Thank you for your comments.
Thank you. Next up, Mr. Carter if you're here. Would you please
come up and state your name and organization for the
record?
(item:14:David Carter, citizen speaking on SB2627 implementation by PUC Project 54997) David Carter representing myself and perhaps a few
other users of electricity. Uh I was here like a couple
of weeks ago and I introduced some of these thoughts.
But since then I have gone online and from your website.
As part of this uh SB2627 implementation by PUC
Project 54997. I uh I looked at the tasking on your
website. The Texas Education Fund would provide funding
opportunities for electrical generation projects. And,
and the PUC is tasked to come up with a plan of
how to do that, the application process. And how the
loans would be awarded. And it says here, uh
entities may apply for a loan to finance upgrades to
existing dispatchable electric generating facilities.
Or finance the construction of new electric generating
facilities. The reason I went to the hearing last May
in the House State Affairs Committee on this Bill. Was
because I was concerned from the previous Summers notice
to conserve, because we're about to run out of energy.
And they, they got my attention. My visceral reaction
was don't tell me to conserve, crank it up and try
and generate more electricity. And so I've, I've
been schooled by listening to other people who know
what they're talking about. About the different categories
of, of uh electrical generating facilities. You've
got the dispatchable can be brought online within 10
minutes. Those that are already generating regularly
and then you've got peak demand. And I think the peak
demand is what was basically killed by deregulation
back around the year 2000. Commissioner Cobos and
I had a brief discussion. We weren't able to go into
the details. But that's the, the framework that I'm
addressing is. I'm, I'm concerned that this Bill the
way it's crafted. May not even address uh fixing
the funding mechanism for peak Load. Those that only
are using for a couple of days in July and maybe a
couple of weeks in January or February. So that's the
introduction of what I've handed each, each of you
have a copy of this email traffic. David, uh Roberts
uh David, David Garden as the Executive Counsel in charge of
this particular Project 55997. And he's been very kind
to include my comments into the record. Public Comments
are due by tomorrow at 3 o'clock. And the last
thing I'd like to just ask. Is uh what about uh it
says here. New or refurbished plants, how about plants
that are mothballed or decommissioned. The facilities
are there, the infrastructure is there. The concrete
and steel and all the the turbines or whatever to generate
electricity are there. But they're not being used because
they were probably powered by coal. And the distortion
of the market by wind and solar. Has uh forced those
plants to be taken offline in favor of the cleaner
wind and solar. Which is by definition to a citizen
unreliable. And so I just want to ask a question, make
sure y'all, you know, make sure you ask questions
about. What about mothballed and decommissioned? Will
there need to be a change to the, to the Legislation
to cover those? Mr. Carter, your three minutes is up. Okay. Thank you
very much for the opportunity. Thank you for your comments.
This complete Item No. 14. I don't have anything
on Items 15 or 16. (item:17:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 52373) Next up is Item No. 17, Project
No. 52373. This is the Commission's review of the
wholesale electric market design. Shelah, do we have
anyone from the public signed up to speak on Item (item:17:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no public comments) No.
17. No, ma'am. PURA 35.004(g) requires a review of
Ancillary services in the ERCOT Power region. Thomas,
do you have an update? (item:17:Thomas Gleeson, PUC Executive Director gives introduction on Commission Staff's ancillary) Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam
Chair. So in response to Commissioner Glotfelty's questions
last Open Meeting. Staff had scheduled a meeting with
the market monitor and ERCOT to discuss the Ancillary
services study. Market and Connie led that effort. So
I'm going to turn over to them and let them give you
an update on the details. The scope, the schedule around
that ancillary services study. (item:17:Connie Corona with Commission Staff on ancillary services meeting) So good morning, Commissioners.
As you're all aware. It is the time of the year when
we perform the annual methodology evaluation for Ancillary
services. Um So once that is complete, we will begin
the uh 35.004 study in earnest and collaboration.
Commission Staff and, and ERCOT, um along with the
IMM. To the extent that um that they have some suggestions
and recommendations about how to conduct the study.
We'll be doing that over beginning around the first
of the year and anticipate it will be complete by September
1. So that we can consider it in next year's annual
methodology evaluation. And should you all draw any
potential Legislative recommendations or something
of that nature from the study. We'll have plenty of time
to put those in our agency report.
(item:17:Commissioner McAdams thoughts on Ancillary services meeting) Madam Chair, may I? Okay. As things stand, the procedures
for Ancillary service methodologies aren't subject
to Commission approval. I want that highlighted. Um
I would direct ERCOT to file a revision request to
change this process. And the lawyers can argue about
what direct means in this context. Because they, they
can start the process of a revision request. I'm not
telling them exactly what to do. I'm saying that it
is appropriate to do this. The AAS methodology should
go through stakeholders in my view. Get Board approval
and then come back here to the Public Utility Commission
of Texas for final approval. If necessary, I would ask
ERCOT Staff to expedite the process. So we have that
revision request at an open meeting before the Summer
of 2024. And that the Commission would have a timely,
would be able to timely consider it for final approval
for next year's AAS methodology. I think the magnitude
of the impact of ancillaries, especially in light of
the statutory construct of House Bill 1500 is very
real. It is meaningful, it is significant to the market.
It's significant to the system. It is now a ,it is now
has strategic implications for everything. Both reliability
and market design. So that's an appropriate issue for
this Commission. Welcome any thoughts?
(item:17:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on ancillary services meeting) Thank you. I appreciate, I appreciate your thoughts.
And, and I hadn't heard that before. So I'm pleasantly
surprised and, and agree with what you, what you think.
The from my perspective, I'm glad we're doing this
study. Obviously, we're kind of behind doing it but
we've had a little bit on our plate. We ancillary services
under NERC guidelines. Are to ensure that the transmission
system remains reliable. It's not a capacity market
it's not a mechanism to pay people just to be around.
So, understanding that as we move into these different
market design things. I think it's great to get this
tee off. And I would suggest that a, that Commissioner
McAdam's proposal seems perfectly in line with where
we ought to go. And I would support that wholeheartedly.
(item:17:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on ancillary services meeting) Commissioner McAdams yes, thank you for highlighting that. Yes.
In fact, the Ancillary service methodology is approved
by the Board and that's where the buck stops. That's
historically been the process at ERCOT. Um given the
new chapter and of, you know, market redesign and changes
that we're experiencing in the market. I think it is
um prudent and, and diligent from a regulatory oversight
perspective. That we have a role in approving the Ancillary
service methodology. Because not only does it have an
impact on reliability, but it, as you highlighted Commissioner
McAdams. It has a tremendous impact on consumers and
the Load serving entities that are providing services
to those consumers. So, um our mission here at ERCOT
is to protect the consumers. And so we, we must
ensure that through our regulatory oversight over ERCOT.
that we are um exercising our due diligence. And so
I would support a uh protocol framework, um protocols
introduced into the process. To establish a framework
where the Ancillary service methodology would be approved
by the PUC after Board approval.
All right, everyone's looking at me. This is. I was
looking at Smeltzer. Um,
one way to discuss this is to have this discussion
out here. We could also recess for perhaps Staff to
have an individual conversation with the offices about
the procedure for this potential directive. Are you
concerned about 1500 and a directive to ERCOT? Well, I
mean, we could do it by rule and, and just house it
here our approval. Like I said, I'm not issuing any
specific direction to ERCOT. Just that they need to
open up a protocol. I'm not telling them how to, I'm
not going to introduce some army terms here. But
I'm not telling them how to create the mousetrap. I'm
saying you need to build a mousetrap, right? So what
I would suggest is that we take a recess at some point
during a meeting. Let's let's put this aside, have
a recess. Allow us to talk to each of the offices about
the procedure for this and, and then discuss it back
in the open meeting. Do you want to address multiple topics? Because
Commissioner Glotfelty has a memo that may introduce
some other conversation that you'll need to talk through.
So maybe we'll bring that, maybe we'll take that discussion
up when we bring that, that particular item up. But
for efficiency, if we believe there's going to be multiple
recesses. Multiple recess initiating events. We can
combine them. We can do those all at once. It may be appropriate.
Madam Chair, what do you think we have? Okay. We have Harika. (item:17:Harika Basaran with Commission Staff on ancillary services meeting) Yeah, this is Harika
with Market Analysis. ERCOT already started an initiative
to look all the other binding documents and move them
in the protocols. So that wouldn't be a new directive
it's already there. And we have been talking with them
when it's gonna happen. So I don't know how this impacts
Shelah's? So, so maybe I think there's, I think
she's pointing to an easy solution. In how legally this
match pairs with the intent of the law and our existing
interim procedures. And so I'm happy to readdress.
If we come back that way, there's comfort on how this
will proceed. But I think there's a path forward and
I think Harika is pointing to it right now. (item:17:Commissioner Cobos follow-up on ancillary services meeting) Well, I think
there's two options, there's potentially that option
from Harika and then the option if you really wanted
you know, because I have a feeling you'll have 1500
concerns and you want a PUC engaged. And if you really
want that, then you can put in a rule.
I don't care how we get there. If this is a rule
I'm good with that, but this will happen. (item:17:David Smeltzer, PUC Director of Rules & Projects on ancillary services meeting) Okay. So another
suggestion that I might have. Is I, I would want to
look into the, the project that Harika's talking about.
And so Commission Staff can do its homework on this.
And if we believe that HB1500 is implicated, we can
file a proposed directive for you for consideration
at a future at the next open meeting. If it's determined
that that would be, if we would recommend that that's
necessary. So that we can just cross all the t's, dot all
the i's. And it will happen initiative that you're saying
we can make sure it's all. Okay, Connie? (item:17:Connie Corona's follow-up on ancillary services meeting) So, so what
I'm hearing is from the Commission. A general um agreement
on policy that they would like to look at this methodology
and there are several procedural avenues. Perhaps Staff
can report next to you as David suggested at the next
open meeting. On the optimal procedure to get that accomplished.
Is that? By next Summer? Yes ma'am. Could we, could we invite Woody
Rickerson or Woody up. Just to make sure that this does
not hang up ERCOT's processes and timelines. Because
ultimately they, they will have to manage the system.
Woody, for the record please sir. (item:17:Woody Rickerson, ERCOT on ancillary services meeting) Woody Rickerson with
ERCOT. So the AAS methodology study is an engineering
study.
That determines products that are needed to maintain
reliability.
So it is a, it establishes a framework of things, products
that are needed. Now, how much you buy of those products
is a, is a function of conservative operations. It's
a product of what directions that we've been given.
So, approval of the methodology itself is an approval
of a study that looks at what's needed. So I'm not
for sure the, the changes that you would make to a
study that says what's needed versus how much you buy
of each of the individual products. (item:17:Commissioner McAdams on ERCOT's role in the ancillary services meeting) So, so what I,
what I would propose is the intent of my suggestion.
Is the scale and use cases for which ERCOT promotes
the market upon which they will use the ancillaries.
So that there is certainty there, more certainty. Now
again, you're the operator, you may deviate under exigent
circumstances, certainly. But some type of framework
on how the ancillaries will be used. So that we can
help provide guidance to the market and certainty for
which everything else revolves around it because it's
it's now a a key part of the market. The uses and
magnitude of the Ancillary procurement. And that's
what we need to define and especially for the purposes
of next Summer. Since it was a key tool that we were
able to manage through tight conditions in that Summer
season. I realize this Winter season is a, is a different
animal. It's, it's here upon us and we'll speak to
that more later. But the Summer is going to be key.
I just want to point out though that the AAS study
that we're working with market participants on right
now. That will be done by the end of the year. Is
a engineering study that says these are the tools that
are needed. How much you buy those is more of a policy.
It is certainly a policy and that's what the statute
directs us to affirm and that's what we're, we take
that next step. And all I'm saying is the protocols
which will result from that need to be accomplished
before the next Summer.
Yes, sir. We'll, we'll bring a recommendation to the
next step of meeting about how to accomplish this.
(item:17:Chairwoman Jackson's thoughts on ancillary services meeting) Okay. So what I'm hearing. Is that you're gonna go back
you're gonna kind of take a look at the um most appropriate
mechanism to um to, to consider. To kind of move forward
and achieve what we've been talking about here. Yes
ma'am. Okay. Woody, are you okay?
Rebecca, are you okay? For, for the record.
Rebecca Zerwas for ERCOT. I think we can work
with Staff for the next open meeting. To figure out
the best path forward. Whether that is a protocol change
or a rule change. And figure out, I know I see a
lot of Staff, but I'm sympathetic to that because I've
been there. Trying to figure out on the fly this procedure.
And I think we can all work together with our legal
and your Staff. To figure out the best path forward.
I do too. Okay. Thank you. Sounds good.
All right. So there's no vote. There's, we're just going
to wait for them to come back. We're going to wait
for them to come back. Jimmy's ready to vote on something. And tell us the best path forward.
Okay. So I don't have anything on Item 18 or 19. (item:20:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 54445) Next up
is Item No. 20, Project No. 54445. This is
the Commission's project for calendar year 2023's
review of rules adopted by the independent organization.
Shelah, do we have anyone from the public signed up
to speak on Item No. 20? (item:20:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms sign-ups for Public Comments) No, ma'am. Commission Staff
filed a memo. Recommending approval of 29 revision request.
I would agree with Staff's recommendation and approve
the proposed order. Commissioner Glotfelty, you filed
a memo. Would you like to lay out your memo? (item:20:Commissioner Glotfelty lays out his memo) I would.
This is the first of its kind probably not the last.
We have this new process where we are approving protocols.
Even protocols that we order to be changed, we have
to come back and approve.
I don't feel like we get the benefit of the discussion
when these protocols are being approved. We can go
back and read. I do accept that and I have done that.
But there are a lot of policy issues in here that I
think rise to the Commission level that we should take
a position on when these protocol changes come up.
And I also think that there has been some
shyness to speak your mind in the ERCOT Committee process
as a result of feared backlash. And I want everybody
in the market to know that these protocol changes while
they're going through the ERCOT process do have to
be approved by us. And with that I laid out this was
this is not intended to be confrontational. This is
intended to ask questions about NPRR changes and other
document changes that I have. And, and they happen to
be all nine of these or 10 of these. However many there
are in one docket, because we got 29 of them together.
So if, if we want to suggest a modification on how
we do that. I'm, I'm open to that. I'm open to having
more discussions about these as we go forward. But
before I ask Woody to come up is. I'm happy to speak
with you all about this or if you want me to go
in and talk with Woody, I'm happy to do so. I know
you had some questions and then. I do so. For the, for
those watching and listening. My, my memo
effectively asks questions about nine different protocol
changes. That are happening that have been approved
by the ERCOT stakeholder process as well as the ERCOT
Board. They're coming to us for approval. Once we approve
them, they become implemented in binding within the
ERCOT market framework. And some of these I have not
heard of before. Some of these I have concerns about
and some of them I just want to know the context of.
And that's why I would like Woody to come up and see
if, if we can have a discussion about these, about
these issues?
Woody? Woody, would you come up?
I just like to say Madam Chair this was a good memo.
Um I, I appreciated it and uh the discussions. Good
to have.
Thank you, Commissioner. I don't know if you want me
to go through each question or I'm, I'm happy to, but
I'd like to start at NPRR1165. There was a component
in here in one of the documents that we reviewed. That
said that, that this will strengthen the market and
thus competitors in the market and market entry as
opposed to reduced market entry. I, I to me it seemed
backwards to that. Um So I was just trying to understand
and get some context around this NPRR a little bit
more. So I could understand it more in the market context.
Okay. (item:20:Woody Rickerson, ERCOT responds to Commissioner Glotfelty's questions) Woody Rickerson, ERCOT. So part of your
question was. Is this an extended part of an extended
group of NPRR and it is. For NPRR1112 and
1165. They both kind of came out of the problems with
Uri.
So 1165 is a follow up to 1112. And it
introduces the elimination of unsecured credit. Um
1165 specifically focuses on the elimination of a
parental guarantee.
So unsecured credit is, you know, obviously we wanted.
That, that was already passed ineffective as collateral.
Um
unsecured collateral from a parent is cheaper than
secured credit.
But the unsecured nature of the collateral imposes
more risk for the rest of the market. So your original
question was, will this strengthen the market? I think
it does. Because every market participant is treated
the same. Because there's not the allowance of the unsecured
parental credit. Your second part of your question
will reduce market entry? Potentially. But the market
entry that it would reduce could be problematic to
have the market to begin with. Okay.
And this process that, that helps answer my question
on, on this NPRR. Thank you.
I would like to say that, see all of these are not
confrontational there. Some of this is context that
we don't get as part of this. And it's important to
me.
(item:20:Commissioner Glotfelty's question to ERCOT) Number 2 is NPRR1171, No. 250 RRGRR035. This
the questions. Can you confirm that these modifications
allow distributor resources including storage. To interconnect
on circuits that are currently any utility Load shed
plants? This was obviously an important issue that
Commissioner McAdams and I, and, and the rest of the
Commission. We're discussing with distributed resources
storage. Interconnected at the distribution voltage.
And I'd just like to get your understanding that that
is the case. This does allow that to go forward. And
if you could answer that, that would be great. (item:20:Woody Rickerson follows up to Commissioner Glotfelty's question) So I
can confirm that this, this NPRR does allow DGRs
and DESRs. Energy storage at the distribution level to
be on loaded circuits. Okay. The other questions were.
(item:20:Commissioner McAdams' question to ERCOT) We but not um
not. How do they operate in ancillaries under the context
of that policy change? (item:20:Woody Rickerson's response to Commissioner McAdam's question) So certain Ancillary services
are still allowed. Not stand cool, the others are still under review.
Right now, the other ones aren't. I mean there are some that
when a TSP is asked to shed Load. If a DGR providing
Nonspin is already providing that Nonspin. It would
have already been deployed. It would have already been
deployed because we're in Load shed. And the TSP is
required to shed a net amount of Load. And so we still
get the Load shed we need and it's accounted for the
energy is already accounted for.
Okay. Okay.
(item:20:Commissioner Glotfelty's additional question to Woody Rickerson) Um I, I think the, the last question on this. Was might
this include a requirement for TDUs that reclosing
be installed on lines that have DG resources? Is that
something that you all discuss? Where does that get
discussed? It might not be appropriate in this NPRR
modification. But where is that discussed in this,
in this effort? (item:20:ERCOT's follow-up to Commissioner Glotfelty's question) So it does not require
TSPs to install anything on our distribution system.
That's not something ERCOT has purview over the distribution
system. So we're not requiring section or reclosing
or changes to the distribution system. Um There is
some language that talks about reclosing but it's not
a requirement.
So, so. As we continue in our sectional study, you all
do. And the discussion of how these Load shed programs
are going to work at the distribution voltage or the
distribution level. Those can be considered and will
be considered. As how best to achieve that Load shed
number while keeping the most megawatts online. That's
right. Additional section of distribution would change
the total amount of Load that could be rotated. And
that's where it would roll up into the ERCOT process.
And that's the goal, that's the goal is I think right
now. And, but we talked about this with the reliability
standards study as well. As far as when you're thinking
about the magnitude of the uh is one of the legs of
that study. You know, it's around 14,000 megawatts
that can be rotated. Now, additional section could
increase that number.
Anybody else on that one, should I keep going? (item:20:Commissioner Glotfelty's question to ERCOT on NPRR1175) NPRR
1175.
This was, this was just a first blush. As I've told
you on the phone Woody. I, I get nervous when our
when the markets around the country retain all the
authority and get to make all the decisions on certain
things. But, and I know some of this is y'all's responsibility.
But I wrote this NPRR seems to give a lot of
authority to ERCOT. About what they can exclude and
when they can expel or exclude market participants.
And can decide what's risky and what's not. Are there
guidelines as part of this NPRR that show the market
the types of things that might affect their ability
to participate in this market.
Again, I'd just like you to answer that. And then give
me your thoughts on that. So yes. (item:20:Woody Rickerson's thoughts on Commissioner Glotfelty's question) Um as part of the
NPRR Section 16. 211, Paragraph 2. Has 5 paragraphs
that outline what market participants can expect. I
can go over those if you want me to. But there are
5 sections in there that talk about different things.
That could be used or will be used that they need to
be aware of. So you all that, that's the universe of
of um guideline that you all use to make that decision? That's right.
This is the queasy background check process under that
process or it's laid out. Here are the 5 areas that
we're looking at. Okay. And y'all feel comfortable
that that's the right number with this NPRR modification?
I think there were several things that have happened.
The blue hat default and PJM.
Some of the other things that have happened, that's
what brought this about. And I think this is a good
a good safeguard. Okay.
(item:20:Commissioner Glotfelty's question on conservative operations) Um
EEA trigger levels which is NPRR1176.
I just, I've tried to read up on this and, and understand
it. I don't understand what the impetus for the change
is. And I don't understand if this is exacerbating
a conservative operation? If this is codifying a conservative
operation or how this affects that? And would love to
just hear your background thoughts on, on this one.
(item:20:Woody Rickerson's response to Commissioner Glotfelty's question on conservative) So conservative operations are really the the amount
of reserves that we hold on a daily basis.
The EEA levels have to do when we get into
scarcity. So really, this is not part of conservative
operations at all. This has to do when we get in those
last, the last area of scarcity. When we get into EEA
levels. What is and with our changing resource mix.
In the past 1000 megawatts of synchronous generations
on the line had a certain amount of inertia.
We have a changing resource mix now. A lot of that
1000 megawatts could be made up of inverter based resources.
And so the inertia level is lower. And so um we have
done some studies. And we determined that with the changing
resource mix. The minimum level reserves that must
be maintained for the single largest contingencies.
When you get down to that last level, 1000 megawatts
wasn't enough. So 1000 megawatts today with today's
resource mix doesn't have the inertia. That 1000 megawatts
had 15 years ago or 10 years ago. Do you think the
need for inertia is going to decrease as storage resources
come on? Yes.
Is there a uh process to or is this something that you
all will expect to be
adapted? (item:20:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on inertia) As I mean, I readily accept these are mostly
engineering studies. We don't want the inertia of our
system to drop to a point where we have critical reliability
problems on the system. But I, I will say that it is
an issue of great engineering research on these systems.
That have a lot of invertebrates, resources and storage.
And storage can react quicker than a spinning resource
can. Right. (item:20:Woody Rickerson's response on inertia) So we looked at um from January 2019 to
June 2022.
We looked at the pr when PRC was less than 3000.
Identified the minimum inertia value during this
period of 200 gigawatt seconds. Um perform simulations
for the loss of the largest single unit contingency
with a 200 gigawatt second system inertia. And we found
that we needed to maintain 1500 megawatts. To avoid
potentially dipping into that ULS activation.
(item:20:Commissioner McAdams' question on ancillary procurement) Does that impact your Ancillary procurement? I was
just kind of wondering what the second order effects
are of the increase. Not directly, I don't think. (item:20:Woody Rickerson's response on ancillary procurement) But
what it does is it raises that 1000 Load shed value
up to 1500 then in order to keep some separation from
EEA1 to EEA2 to EEA3. So
that they aren't all stacked on top of each other.
So there is a period of time between those that raises
those also. And so EEA1 goes up to 2300 or
I'm sorry. 2500 EEA2, 2000 and then the 1500
for EEA1. The current triggers are EEA1 is
2300. EEA 2, 1750. EEA3 is 1430,
then Load sheds at 1000. So this was combined Load
shed and EEA3. Right. But this is because when
you get in that situation, so didn't have anything
to do with conservative operations. It shouldn't affect
the procurement of a like services because at this
point, anything we have, we run everything's on, everything's
on the table.
But loaded films 500 megawatts earlier. The reason
I ask the question is
I hear the physical condition that you're attempting
to prevent. I'm trying to make sure that everything
else that we're doing on market design and value signals.
For price responsive behavior are synced up with that
effort as well. So I'm trying to make sure that. One
and, and now ancillaries are being viewed by the market
as a major driver of market activity. Um That's a major
discussion. Um A shift in the resource mix would change
this again if we were to ship to have more synchronous
generation,
that would be different. (item:20:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on ancillary procurement) Kind of an engineering question
and then sort of a public education observation. I
guess. So. So your your change to the EEA levels is
largely driven by the um. You know, because there's
going to be more murder based resources on the system
system inertia is, is gonna reduce. So it's a system
strength issue. I guess you want to be able to use
your tools earlier um to maintain frequency and, and
everything else that comes with more expedited loss
of, of inertia. What about um the asynchronous condensers
that you're considering for system stability and strength.
I mean, how does that feed into if any um relation
to helping maintain system strength? Because in one
hand, we're adjusting our EEA levels. But on the other
hand, and I don't know if this is related or not and
and I just wanna see if there's a clarification or
or explanation or whether or not they're related. ERCOT
is proposing those like eight asynchronous condensers
to, you know, West Texas to strengthen the system.
So I mean do they relate? (item:20:Woody Rickerson's response to Commissioner Cobos' question on ancillary procurement) They do provide inertia
but those have not been specked out yet. So we don't
know how much inertia? We don't know how, I mean, it's
going to depend on what technology, what brand, that
kind of thing you buy, how big they are. I mean, you
buy 2, 150 or one 300. I mean, that all
makes, makes a difference. And so those numbers will
be eventually calculated back into this. But uh and
they also have to be running when during this time
And so those are often run during periods, maybe not
peak periods, off peak periods. OK. And so now, as
you know, this, this new EEA um matrix rolls out. Um
there's a potential to be in emergency conditions more
often. And so I, I'm just wondering what ERCOT plans
are in terms of communicating. Now, why you know, with
with these changes in mind, um how you're going to
communicate to the public um out there um what these
new EEA levels now mean and why they're changing. Because
now EEA 3 is gonna be triggered earlier in the
process potentially. And so, I mean, I think there
needs to be a broader public education aspect to this
change. That, you know, again you know the markets
in flux, right? We're, now we're dealing with not only
peak demand during the day and the usual hours from
4 to 7. But we're also dealing with a solar ramp down
at night. That as I stated, last open meeting. I think
we need to do, you know some kind of education on why
we're why we're in, you know, emergency conditions
at night or in conservation. But now with these EEA
levels being changed in the whole matrix. I think
that a public education effort is really important
um as emergency conditions may be triggered earlier.
And secondly, if we're looking at the physical system
and installing engineering components to it. To add
system strength and the ratepayers are ultimately going
to be paying potentially billions of dollars. Then
we gotta make sure that it's all syncing up together
right? Because if those those condensers are approved
they're gonna be expensive. And if we're adding things
to increase the strength of the system and those could
maybe help. But then we're changing the EEA levels
and we're in emergency all the time. I mean that or
more often. I'm just trying to look out into the future.
(item:20:Woody Rickerson on synchronous condenser) The synchronous condenser, increasing system strength
is for voltage reasons in West Texas. Doesn't really
it's not really related to when you get into scarcity
capacity conditions. So I think those two things are
a little bit different. We're solving two different
problems there. Okay. Now the solutions do add a little
bit of inertia, but that's not a major contributor
here. Okay. So I think if we want to make sure the
public knows why the synchronous condensers are being
put in. Then that's a fairly technical explanation.
But we can talk about inverters and, and how wind and
solar uses inverters. And synchronous generation
doesn't need those. Um as far as EEA being more uh
frequent. I don't think it'll be any more frequent
We were talking about going into EEA 1 at 200 Megawatt
different level. I mean, statistically, it could be
a little bit more frequent. It's not gonna be multiple,
multiple times more frequently when we have a bad night
or bad evening. I think that the risk is about the
same. But we will be putting out more reports every
month and these numbers will be factored into those
reports. And those reports will have a probability of
how often we expect or where we expect to go. And whether
it's a 20% chance or a 5% chance or whatever. And so
that is a report we're putting out publicly every month.
to show what the risks are gonna be for given months
and the probability of those risks. And these EEA levels
will be incorporated in those reports. What he did
anybody, nobody voted against this TAC, correct?
This is all these, all of these were unanimous except
for, I think the very first one, 1165. Right. One, one thing I'd highlight.
(item:20:Commissioner McAdams' thoughts on policy change) This, this is a policy change based on technical analysis
and modeling. Okay. So it, it, it is in my mind, an
engineering constraint of the system. Based on a high,
high intermittent penetration and the resource mix.
And as a result, any outcomes are unavoidable. It's
it's going to be a fact of life for us to have
to deal with. So, and the Technical Advisory Committee
again, the so-called technical experts of the industry
did not vote against it. I would highlight that's why
those votes are very important to this Commission. To
see where they come down on this to verify ERCOT Staff
analysis, ERCOT models. Again, we're supposed to all
be working in one, one direction. And but I do think the
reason we're asking these questions, Woody. Is I think
these numbers again, that that's what we base all the
other stuff we're looking at around. Like how do we
stay out of this technical condition of potential system
failure? And um so it's, it's important and I think
the stakeholder votes on these policies are extremely
important and we look to those. So if they're not 100%
on board, we need to know that. Um, don't wanna stress
it. Yeah. Yeah, those are good points. Commissioner
McAdams. (item:20:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on policy change) I, I have visited with um, ERCOT about these
changes in the past. And, and I, I think it was highlighted
that it was driven by more inverter based resources
less inertia. Um again I, I think it's just kind of
trying to understand how everything works together.
And making sure that we're all on the same page moving
forward. As part of some kind of public um transparency.
And I think that you're highlighting what in the more
report this will be all sort of baked in. So, um I
think the discussion is helpful. So me too. (item:20:Commissioner Glotfelty's question on ratings) Woody,
you on number on this same one? It does note in there
that changing these EEA levels allows you to consider
alternative transmission ratings. Can you explain that
to me? I, I don't. I didn't understand how you were
able to do that. And if that goes awry of NERC facility
rating guidelines or if I'm totally missing the boat
there.
(item:20:Woody Rickerson on ratings) Well,
we have dynamic ratings, right? So we are considering
those. Um
when we have congestion on the system, one of the first
things we asked TSPs is what's causing the, what's
causing the limitation.
And so occasionally it's not the wires, it's actually
a something connected to the wires, maybe a uh a current
transformer or a wave trap or something like that.
So for a small price of replacing that small piece
of equipment, you can increase the rating of 100 mile
long line. And so we, we do have a process in place
when we see congestion. That's the first thing we do
is we go, we ask about the dynamic ratings. Is it dynamically
rated? If it's not, we try to get dynamic ratings?
Secondly, what's the constraint? Is it something that
could be fixed without building a whole new line? Can
we get more out of that line? Are we, are we realizing
the full capability of that line? So that, that's the
those are the two things we do when we do have problems
with the line. So the contingency, the alternative
transmission ratings is more of a, it's not an operational
issue in this context. Is that right? I wouldn't call
it an operational issue. I mean, it is an operational
issue but we fix it
through modeling. So, I mean, the context was September
6. When we went into EEA South of San Antonio because
we had a limited transmission element. Is this something
that can be considered and fixed under that, under that
or? Potentially we are still exploring that. There is
the potential that, that we can get some ratings changes
there that will help we're working with CPS on that.
Okay. And it's, it's am I correct in saying. That it's
the TDU that provides you all the ratings based upon
what the vendor provides them. Is that correct? That's
right. (item:20:Woody Rickerson on rating methodology) Most, I think all TSPs have a rating methodology
that they use. They decide what, how they want to rate
their lines, the different ratings and, and how, how
to apply them what's acceptable for because there is
some risk to their equipment. So they all make those
decisions. They're not all uniform, some are more conservative
than others. But what we put in the model, well, actually
what they put in our model is their rating based on
their methodology. So they directly input that into
our model. And then there's a follow up process where
we look at that and say, well,
process, we just talked about where we look and say
well, is there something else that could be done with
this? Could this be dynamically rated that kind of
thing? And we're getting into the world of, of NERC
guidelines on facility writings for TOs and, and such.
is that right?
Um okay, that's all I have on that one. Thank you. I
appreciate the clarification. So I just had one more
thing. (item:20:Chairwoman Jackson's review of the Commissioners and ERCOT's thought') So I guess just to clarify, you know, the risk
has always been there, right? And we've always kind
of had an eye both on uh inertia as well as capacity
and as the resource mix has changed. I mean, it's been
prudent that ERCOT would go in and evaluate that. And
so the change here is really driven by again, that
engineering evaluation to maintain reliability for
the system and then going forth, we'll continue to
evaluate that as things change within the system, potentially
you know, we get, you know, a change in resource mix
or more batteries or, or anything that could kind of
impact these. So this, this will be an ongoing basis
And I think the other point you made is and again to
um Commissioner Cobos' question. Um the public now
has uh through the mora you know, some more information
to kind of be able to if you will predict going forward
what the probability is going into these challenging
seasons. Uh in terms of, you know, how, how close we
are to coming to these various conditions. That's correct.
It will be I mean, this analysis just went through
June 2022.
So we'll continue to look at periods when the grid
is in scarcity conditions and continue to look at that.
I mean, this is, you gotta remember, this is um this
is with, you got this much headroom left.
Everything's online, everything's running, there's
this much left what can pick up and the ability is
changing as the resource mix changes.
And I guess that's where I do have an interest in this
discussion about facility ratings, single contingencies
double contingencies. Something that we probably ought
to get to, that's beyond the scope of this, this
NPRR change. But, but something that could have
an impact on the flows across the system at different
times. So
on to the next one. (item:20:Commissioner Glotfelty's question on constraint competitiveness test) Which is NPRR1182 very generically.
What is the constraint competitiveness test? I haven't
heard that before in the context of what we do over
here. So I'm, I'm interested in what that is? (item:20:Woody Rickerson on constraint competitiveness test) So the
the constraint competitive test is a methodology that
we use to measure whether an entity has a local market
power. That's the, that's the purpose of the test.
It's a, it's a market concentration test applied to
local constraints adjusted by shift factor. The test
is used exclusively exclusively for real time offer
mitigation by resources. Um CLRs and, and batteries
or new resource types that need to be included in the
test, they're not included now. They will be with this.
So is are there any regions of the state right now
that fail the competitive, the constraint competitiveness
test? I don't know the answer to that.
Um I don't well. I don't know the answer to that.
I don't know, I'm not going to speculate.
So I, I guess the question is on this. So the, the
constraint competitiveness tests takes a region of
the state. Is that right? Just a local region is that.
It's a market concentration test applied to local constraints.
So if you have a local constraint that's affecting
prices. If you had an entity that had complete control
over that, then that would fail the test. And this
would say that
if you add in storage and CLRs, you're going to rerun
it and say, do they still fail the test if you get
x additional megawatts of storage or CLRs into that
market? (item:20:Woody Rickerson on battery charges) So currently, when a battery charges, we treat
it like a controllable Load resource. Okay. And when
it discharges, we treat it like a generation resource
And that's part of the limitations of not having a
unified model for a battery yet, which we should have
in the next couple of years. This method, all it's
it's suboptimal. Um but it was a, it was a way to
incorporate batteries into the model into the market
and get them online even though we didn't have the
unified model yet. So this was a suboptimal. What we
have today is a suboptimal way of incorporating batteries
as early as possible. Does this take into consideration
their state of charge? And if they are only available
in the Ancillary service market or does it just look
on a per Megawatt basis? So once we have RT C plus
batteries, it will. But what about under this today? This.
Yes, it does recognize the limits on the duration.
Ok. Yes. So it will be treating batteries and dispatchable
resources and take into account their state of charge
and duration. I guess I'd be interested. This seems
a little bit deeper than what I had anticipated on
this question. But it makes me think of different areas
of the state that have
uh that, that could be, that could fail this test. Where
transmission should be built or could be built to solve
that solution. I, I seriously think Houston. Is that
a, are those parallel discussions or are they?
Well, I think, I think a lot of this is. Uh I
mean, we think of the grid as this uh transmission
set of transmission lines and resources, but it's actually
something different every 15 minutes because of outages.
And so you've got a grid that's constantly changing
and moving. So there may be times when this has to
be applied that wouldn't apply at other times. So I
think you have to think about that as well.
Um
And again, so, so do other regions include storage
and controllable Load resources and their, I mean,
similar test. I'm sorry, do they have a similar test
for? (item:20:Woody Rickerson on battery testing) They include batteries? I'm sure they do. I don't
know if they include batteries or not. This is the
right way to go though, to make sure this competitive
test includes all the different resources that are
on the grid. So this is an improvement and it'll get
even better after RTC because we'll have a unified
model for. So this will be a step in that direction
I would be interested to know if there are any regions
that have failed this, that would be really good because
I think there are provisions of PURA that say that
if there are regions of the state that market power
exists,
transmission solutions can be ordered to help solve
those solutions and or help solve those problems. And
we're getting into a new area here but beyond this
NPRR. Um So anyway, um I will defer to that until a
later discussion.
I'm gonna go back and do some homework on that. That's
interesting. Um
I think I'm, I have a solution. (item:20:Commissioner Glotfelty's question on remedial action schemes) Or I have my answer
on the next question um on No. 7, limiting the
use of remedial action schemes. Can you explain? This
is one that has been around for three or three years
I think one that was tabled for the better part of
three years and then came back very quickly and passed
There was quite a bit of discussion between the transmission
owners. My limited knowledge of this tells me that
by putting this in a Nodal operating guide, you're
tying one of your hands behind your back when you have
tools in the toolbox for if a, if a remedial action
scheme can help system reliability, why would you limit
your use of that? (item:20:Woody Rickerson on remedial action schemes) So I think it's just the opposite
of that. Actually, I'll tell you why. So um back around
uh 2019 and 2020. We were getting a large number of
requests for, we looked at implementing them and we
started seeing problems. Uh We had problems with uh
like I, like I just said that the grid is changing
all the time. So if you put a, a ras on the
system and then you take an outage that ras potentially
is modified, it reacts differently. So just OKING a
ras was a problem because when you take an outage near
the ras or as part of the ras, then that remedial action
scheme behaves differently. And we have to account
for that or if you take a remedial action scheme and
put it next to another one and they affect each other
or if you have two next to each other and you put
an outage in the middle of or if you have different
wind and solar generation patterns at the same time
So there are a lot of moving parts and so we took
a step back and said this is causing potentially gonna
cause some reliability problems putting rass in place.
So we went to work with the market participants. I
think I looked and saw 38 separate comments that were
submitted on this over the course of two years, we
worked with them. And um what came out of this was
a set of, of qualifications for ras to be used. So
I think of this as actually opening the door for rass
is not closing the door. So with this is a, this is
a list of and this is in the protocols. Uh you know
10 things that rass needs to take into account before
it gets implemented and we can read through them if
you want me to. But it's 10 technical things that say
as long as it doesn't do this or do this or do
this or do this, then we can implement it. So I think
of this as opening the toolbox up but making sure the
tools we have in there are safe tools to use. Okay.
So what do you look this gets bottled up inside the
the committees for 3 years? Two years. Three years,
three years. How does this thing pop out all of a sudden
unanimously and I'm looking at other stakeholders,
I'm going to bring this up under other agenda items.
People need to wake up within the market and the industry.
I mean, we're asked to be approved, approving all this
stuff and we need feedback and all of a sudden this
thing comes out. How did that happen? (item:20:Woody Rickerson on implementing tools) Well, there were
a lot of meetings behind the scenes in that three years.
There were a lot of interest, a lot. We, I sat through
a lot of these different meetings and you know, it
was,
it was a uh discussion about reliability versus getting
the most out of the system.
And there's a tug of war there all the time. It's a
natural tug of war that happens. And I think where
we landed is a is a safe place to implement these tools
But um the discussion wasn't quiet during those three
years. It was ongoing. It just uh once we reached a
point and I think uh we had market participants that
own generation involved, we had a TSP that stepped
in and we had ICO. So we had all three segments that
helped craft that. And I think maybe that's what causes
it to uh to be voted for unanimously. Okay.
So I think you've answered my question here that you're
not limiting yourself, but you're creating the guidelines
by which these remedial action schemes will be accepted
And therefore, they can be used in the context of this
list of 10. If they are used correctly to make the
system more reliable, then they're acceptable. If not
well, then you're going to sign up and, and the nor
itself has a pretty good write up in it about the problems
that we were facing. And there's a good section in
there that here were the problems that we were having
that caused us to write this note here and then in
the nor itself, it says as long as the rass can meet
these standards, it can be implemented
that's helpful on that one. Do you still want to remand?
No, I think. I think I'm okay on it and I would
make that in, in whatever motion we have at the end
of this. Just two, two more. Uh
So the, the question was, I, I didn't quite understand
nor 247. Could you take me back and help me understand
how that works in real time? It doesn't seem like this
is that big of a deal upon reading about it. But I
just can you, can you walk me through that? (item:20:Woody Rickerson on frequency) Back in
Uri, we saw some seam turbines that had a little bit
of instability. Because frequency rose very quickly
because of the UFLS. And so this is simply taking those
steps and making them smaller so that they won't be
as show. That's right. So you're hoping that frequency
doesn't go up, frequency doesn't rock the system quite
as much. And so the total amount is the same. Uh It
doesn't change anything that has the OS designated
to do Load shed, it doesn't change anything like that
Um It's just, the programming is a little different
instead of 5% 10% 10% it just goes to 555 and five
So the total amount is the same. So it is a uh
we're smoothing it out instead of making it quite so
rocky. Okay. That's the only change though.
And then on figure 103, this was my last question. Um I
had I, the way project development works is sometimes
you have supply changes, especially in this day and
age clearly. What you're trying to do is you're trying
to get facilities on the system commercial projects
operational. Are there exceptions to that? Or do you
if you don't pass this 300 days, do you go back to
score one or are you given? They're just, you know
in project development, Woody as you know. On the system
these things take a long time, 300 days is less than
a year. You all are put in the position of a facility
that wants to be on in 10 days most of the time.
Unless there are, you know, supply chain issues. I'm
just wondering, are there exceptions to this rule?
Are there processes that can be implemented that would
allow facilities to?
We're not encouraging this. We want to encourage them
to get on within the 300 days. But you've worked up
to 300 days and your equipment still hasn't arrived.
What happens? (item:20:Woody Rickerson on commissioning problems) Yes, I think first of all, we've got
a almost 12,000 megawatts
stuck in Part 2 trying to get to Part 3.
Some of those have been there three years.
Right. That's a problem. So those are not fully commissioned
units and we can't get them across the finish line
So I wouldn't think of this as waiting for equipment
to arrive. These are fully functioning plants that
have all their equipment they're running.
So they're not waiting for another something to arrive
in the supply chain. It's not a supply chain problem
It's a commissioning problem and like with a wind farm
if you've got 200 turbines. It does take a while to
do each one of those turbines. You have to have a wind
blowing first of all and things like that. And that's
where the 300 days came from. We felt like that was
a good co we wanted less. We compromised to 300. Probably
like, well, 300 is a good, a good amount. Um If there
is a good technical justification for not being able
to do it, then we can, we can give them a uh
we can, we can defer that 300 but at 300 days, if
they've been there for 300 days and they haven't gone
past, then we're going to report them. Does this have
to do with any of this? Have them, does any of this
have to do with them giving you models of their, of
their. The operational models associated with their
facilities? (item:20:Woody Rickerson on operational models associated with facilities) Um It could, it could. I don't think that's
the biggest thing that keeps those things from happening
now. Um There may be some updates to some models that
they still owe us or things like that, but I don't
think they even get to part two without giving us a
good model. Generally, this is, this is uh is just
the final performance testing before they are, get
the check to say you're commercially operational.
And, well.
And these are these megawatts included in CDR?
Yes they are. Okay. So they are. Even though they're D rated scale, right?
Because they're not fully rated up. No, they are included
at their ELCC. They're using this average waiting
thing.
So we're looking at them like they're fully commissioned
units from CDR more perspective. But you're trying
to, you're trying to close the book on this operation.
Let's get it done, guys. Come in the door, finish this
thing so we can go on to the next one. Yeah. Okay.
Um I'm, I am satisfied with these answers and, and
appreciate your discussion. I would say that I'm not
in the mindset to remand anything as noted on No.
7 in my memo. And would be happy to have discussion
or move that these be approved. Before we go forward.
(item:20:Chairwoman Jackson gives appreciation to Commissioner Glotfelty and Woody Rickerson) I just wanted to say thank you for taking, you know
this, this effort to go through and from a due diligence
standpoint. I mean, not only, I mean, these came to
us, I think and were considered by ERCOT because there
was a case for action. But I mean, to me, it's pretty
clear we're not just looking at, you know, how do we
solve, you know, the issue of the day at this point
in time, but also as you stated in the discussion,
you know, that kind of ensued is that we're also considering
what is the impact for the future and how does that
implicate everything else that we're kind of working
on? So I think the the questioning and um the due diligence
and the opportunity for ERCOT to come and to um really
kind of showcase. I think the good work that's been
done here and, and the, and the path forward is, is
was, was really beneficial. And I just wanted to thank
you for, for drilling down and taking the time to do
this. (item:20:Commissioner McAdams' provides final thoughts) I think it was that's great. And I just want to highlight
for the system is like, look, it's, it's our signatures
that are going on this thing and, and, and ultimately
it's the body of work that ERCOT conducts over these
years that, that we look to as that evidentiary record
to, to base our decisions on. And if people are muted
if they don't participate, we're at a point now where
the system, hard decisions have to be made. And these
even though these are the easy ones, Woody. These are
hard decisions, adjusting those EEA conditions is a
weighty decision and you guys were working on this
well in advance.
And, and then people will come back to me and say,
well, you signed it. I'm like, you're darn right I
signed it. I mean, given the information I had at the
time. But um, we need help and we need help from the
rest of the system. And if, and if they don't help
then they have what they have. But I echo your compliments
Madam Chair. I think Commissioner Glotfelty, you did
exactly what the Legislature intended and we'll continue
to do so. (item:20:Commissioner Cobos provides final thoughts and appreciation) Yes. I, I am in agreement with Chair Jackson
and Commissioner McAdams statement. Thank you, Commissioner
Glotfelty. I think this is a worthy exercise to have
a worthy discussion to have. As you know, Commissioner
McAdams highlighted at the end of the day, we have
to approve, deny or remand these protocols per 1500
it's incumbent on us to exercise our due diligence
and, and really try to understand where we may have
questions um where the NPRR is whether non unanimous
or unanimous um where they're headed and why and, and
I, I have always found it very um educational and informative
to hear, you know, ERCOT's perspective. And obviously
you know, when we have time to go back and dig through
stakeholder comments, you know, I certainly do that.
But to Commissioner McAdams point, you know, there
are issues we need to hear from the stakeholders too.
So anyway, thank you, Woody for all your feedback on that.
Thank you Woody very much. And Commissioner Glotfelty for your work on this. Just so
there's a motion. Yeah, I would move that we pass all
29.
What are they? Well, one procedural thing you could
do is move to approve the proposed order that's before
you. (item:20:Motion to approve proposed order) I would move to approve the proposed order that's before us.
Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say
aye. Aye. Motion passes.
I don't have anything on Item No. 21. (item:22:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 55323) Next up is
Item No. 22, Project No. 55323. This is the Commission's
rule making regarding its review of the renewable portfolio
standard. Shelah, do we have anyone from the public
signed up to speak on Item No. 22? (item:22:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no public comments) No, ma'am. No
one signed up to speak. We have um Zachary Dollar,
Dollar here. Um, and David Smeltzer with PUC Staff.
Um do y'all want to provide a brief overview of the
proposal for publication? (item:22:Zachary Dollar with Commission Staff lays out overview of proposal for publication) Yes, ma'am. Good morning
Commissioners. Zachary Dollar for Commission Staff. House
Bill 1500 from the 88th Legislative Session repealed
the renewable energy credits trading program under
Section 39.904 of the Public Utility Regulatory Act.
But required the Commission to continue the trading
program and a mandatory renewable portfolio standard
for only solar generation until the program's complete
repeal. Effective September 1, 2025. House Bill 1500
also required ERCOT to create and maintain a voluntary
accreditation banking system. To award and track all
renewable energy credits. To comply with statute, Commission
proposes repeal and replace language for Section 25.173.
That will establish compliance periods for 2024
and 2025 to meet statutory deadlines. Modify the trading
program to only allow the use of rex and compliance
premiums generated by solar energy resources. Restrict
the usage of compliance premiums to the 2024 compliance
period. Adjust RPS obligations for retail entities
to remain consistent with the intent of the modified
program. And instruct ERCOT to create a voluntary rec
accreditation and banking system. Also, Commission
Staff is recommending two changes from the file draft
to correct editorial errors identified after the filing.
Firstly, compliance premiums will continue to be generated
by all certified solar generators, not just those certified
after 2024. Secondly, we will be correcting the reference
subsection within the renewable energy credit definition.
The definition references Subsection E and it will
be changed to reference the correct subsection which
is Subsection D as was the original intent. Commission
Staff recommends that the Commission approve the proposal
for publication with these changes in the Texas Register.
Thank you and I'm happy to take any questions.
I would entertain a motion to approve the proposal
for publication as modified by Staff's recommendation.
(item:22:Commissioner McAdams' thoughts on Commission Staff's proposal for publication) So Madam Chair, I'd highlight that this is a proposal
for publication. Look forward to the comments. I think
they gave a they constructed a great target for the
industry to to fire at to to inform our decision. And
if there's any further conversation. (item:22:Motion to approve proposal for publication) I would move to
approve the proposal for publication. May I just say
one thing. Again during the comment period. I hope the
stakeholders in the industry. The part that interests
me on this is. (item:22:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on proposal for publication) If we move to a world where we
utilize these different colored hydrogens and our renewable
facilities are producing green hydrogen, there has
to be some credit program to or certification program
to credit that, that it's green. So I would love for
the industry to come and say does section, Subsection
F. Allow them what they need to ensure that these facilities
if they're producing green hydrogen are eligible for
federal tax credits under that program.
Both are renewable, right? No, just kidding. Both are
renewable. We just got to make sure we just got to
make sure one's tracked. So, and with that, I'm supportive
of your motion and second. Thank you. Okay. (item:22:Chairwoman Jackson confirmed motion language was modified) And you modified
it by the Staff's recommendation as well? Consistent with
recommendation. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Motion and a
second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes. (item:23:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 55421) Next up is
Item No. 23, 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 signed
up to speak on Item No. 23? (item:23:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no public comments) No, ma'am. Commissioner
Glotfelty, do you have an update? I promise I won't
ever talk as much like I have in this meeting.
(item:23:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on recent working group meeting) I just want to say thank you all for your support.
On October 10, we released a list of working group
members. We have a very good rounded list of members
from all over the state. Different types of entities
whether they be educational or construction or reactor
design companies. Education institutions, wholesale
customers, high tech customers they're all have been
named on this. And we are going to be moving at pretty
quick speed but we are excited to be moving forward.
And I'm just happy that we got over this hurdle. For
for those that I know there was some disappointment
for some that didn't get on this, the actual working
group. But we have, we're going to have 6 more. Six
or 7 more groups of very specific issues that we
need to solve. The oil and gas interest in this. The
high technology interest in this. Workforce and supply
chain. So please don't think that you're not part of
this group. We want everybody to be part of this group.
Just like ADER. We had a few leaders and we had 70
people participating. That's what we want in this.
Thank you. (item:23:Chairwoman Jackson gives appreciation to Commissioner Glotfelty) Well, congratulations to the working group
members. Um a lot of exciting and very important work
ahead. And I would echo your thoughts and continue to
encourage all stakeholders and members of the public
to be engaged on this very important topic. Uh I don't
have anything on items 24, 25, 26 or 27. Next up is
Item No. 28. Shelah, do we have anyone from the public
signed up to speak on Item No. 28? (item:28:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no public comments) No, ma'am. This
Saturday, October 14, the solar eclipse will be visible
from many parts of Texas. (item:28:Chairwoman Jackson asks ERCOT for grid update on solar eclipse happening 10/14/2023) I would like for ERCOT to
provide an update on any impact to the grid. And so
if you could please come, come up Woody. And state your
name and organization and tell us how we're prepared
for the solar eclipse.
(item:28:Woody Rickerson with ERCOT on solar eclipse) Woody Rickerson with ERCOT.
So we don't expect any reliability impacts from the
eclipse. Uh obviously, the eclipse is going to have
an effect on solar output, but it also has an effect
on Load. And you also have not an effect, don't have
an effect on wind. But you actually have wind moving
at the same time as well. So all those things have
to be incorporated. And so we've, we've put all those
forecasts in and we'll make sure we have enough generation
online. With enough headroom to make up for the decreasing
solar amounts. And so we don't expect any problems.
So you forecast, I guess what, you anticipate the average
demand to be during the event on Saturday. And then
what the impact would be from the, from the reduced
amount of solar. And then you've got kind of a game
plan where the peakers would pick up the difference.
Yeah. So the ERCOT uh SCED engine actually looks at
this and make sure that there's enough ramp right there.
And if there is a problem, if we were to have a
forced outage of a unit that was supposed to be there.
We do have ERCOT contingency, reserve service, the
ECRS product there available that can be deployed to
help make up for a potential unknown unforeseen issue
with a, with a plant or something or maybe a forecast
issue or something. Like that and, and MDR POC has
been um uh thoughtfully adjusted to account for the
need of those dispatchable units over the period. Yeah.
The uh that's right. (item:28:Woody Rickerson's additional thoughts on solar eclipse) Um, the solar down ramp is actually
faster than a sunset. Really. So, and you have to think
about that. Uh the, the shadow as it moves from the
Northwest to the Southeast, it's not in one place at
all. So a wind, a solar plant is going to experience
that shadow moving over it, but it will be at a different
time from other solar plants.
And so there are several dynamics in involved and there's
some good maps out there that uh show that that shadow
moving across the different plants. But it's actually
a faster down around than you would expect to see in
any given. Is, is this going to be a pretty good test
case? Aren't we going to have one in April as well
Okay. Do you think it will be very similar to what we
experience or in terms of how you'll have to adjust?
It should be a really good test case.
Okay. Well, we appreciate the update and it sounds like
uh ERCOT is prepared. (item:28:Chairwoman Jackson lays out safety information on solar eclipse) Of course, we know that safety
is always number one. And during an eclipse, um it's
never safe to look directly at the sun without a specialized
eye protection designated for solar viewing. So I wanted
to make sure that all had so that they
have to
you can look at the eclipse and then save the glasses
for the total solar eclipse which will be next year
on April 8, 2024. Fantastic.
Thank you. Madam Chair, before we moved on. Could I
make an announcement under this heading which I believe
Staff has cleared. Sorry, sorry to deviate from script a bit. (item:28:Commissioner McAdams on upcoming ERCOT Budget Hearing) It has come
to my attention that the stakeholder awareness of the
upcoming budget related hearing for the ERCOT budget
is not exactly well known. It, it was not posted to
our Commission website as a, as an event. But it was
posted under the Project No. Which is Project 38533,
Control No. 38533. This is one of those items that.
Look I, I've told people I'm interested in industry,
market and stakeholder feedback, and questions around
the system administration fee. This is one of those
core functions that the PUC does in interrelation with
ERCOT and a core part of our relationship. The magnitude
of the increase is, is significant. And I, I want to
hear from stakeholders. We, we so far have heard nothing
about that within the ERCOT process, voted out unanimously
with within those, those groups. Um I'd like to know a little
bit more detail about if there are questions or concerns.
And then how that affects the Commission's deliberations.
So I want to highlight for everybody if I may. That
tomorrow Friday, October 13, 2023 at 9:30am in
this room. There will be a hearing to discuss the system
administration fee increase in ERCOT's budget. I'd
like to hear that there are questions asked around
this topic. Because this is a weighty decision on the
part of the Commission and we need to have those facts.
But thank you for humoring me on that. Madam Chair. Okay.
So tomorrow, on Friday at 9:30am. In this room. Hearing on the budget
ERCOT will be laying out all of the um, I guess ask
for the coming two years. And be giving information
regarding what those tasks are, that kind of go into
the fee that you discuss. So, so again I'd repeat
market wake up. We need engagement and we need feedback
from a Commissioner's point of view. This is important
as, as most of these things are. But at the year end
we're taking on some weighty issues and, and we need
their engagement. (item:28:Thomas Gleeson, PUC Executive Director gives information on ERCOT Budget Hearing) And Madam Chair, if I might just provide
just a little more detail. So that hearing will be
administered by our agency counsel, Kasey Feldman. ERCOT will
be here to give a brief budget presentation and then
we'll, we'll have the hearing part after that. Thank
you. Is it worth having Staff post on the website?
The information about I don't, I mean, I guess you
said that it wasn't posted. So yeah, and it typically
is Commissioner Cobos. I think there was just an oversight.
We, I think accidentally posted a different meeting
on that day than, than what should have been. So, we're
we're rectifying that right now. No problem. Thank
you. Okay. I don't have anything on Item No. 29. (item:30:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 54446) Next
up is Item No. 30, Project No. 54446. Today we'll
be discussing the Commission's Fiscal year 2024 Internal
Audit plan and Internal Audit Charter. Shelah, do we
have anyone from the public signed up to speak on Item
No. 30? (item:30:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no public comments) No, ma'am. Okay. Today we have uh Nicky Carter
with PUC Staff here. Nicky, if you would please
state your name for the record. (item:30:Nicky Carter, PUC Internal Audit Division on FY '24 Plan and Internal Audit Charter) Good morning. I'm Nicky
Carter with the Internal Audit Division for the Commission.
I'm here this morning requesting approval of the Fiscal
Year '24 Internal Audit Plan and the Internal Audit
Charter. Before I begin, I just want to take this opportunity
to express my sincere appreciation to Staff, Management,
Executive Administration and the Commission. For participating
in this year's risk assessment process and for contributing
towards the development of this year's audit plan.
The Commission's internal audit program is carried
out with objectivity and independence. And we have the
resources that are necessary to carry out what's outlined
in this plan. The Texas Internal Auditing Act, as well
as the professional auditing standards require the
development of an audit plan that's based on a systematic
assessment of risk for the agency. The act also requires
that the plan be presented to the Commission for approval.
A risk based methodology was used to prioritize audit
coverage for Fiscal Year 24 and agency operations were
analyzed based on multiple risk factors. We've incorporated
input from each of the Commissioners from Executive
Administration, Agency Management as well as key Staff
into this analysis. The FY '24 Plan consists of the
following audit projects. The first one is a risk based
audit of the consumer complaint process and the second
one will be a carry forward audit of compliance with
select Texas Administrative Code Chapter 202. Which
is information security standards. The plan will also
include follow up on work prior for audit recommendations
consultations, investigative reviews and other administrative
audit activities. In addition, the professional auditing
standards also require us to document the purpose,
the authority and responsibility of all internal audit
activities and to be formally defined in an audit charter.
That is consistent with the definition of internal
auditing, the Code of Ethics and the standards. The
charter must be presented to the Commission and Executive
Administration for approval also. In accordance with
these requirements, internal audit is requesting approval
of the FY '24 Plan, as well as the Internal Audit
Charter. And we'll be more than happy to answer any
questions that you have.
(item:30:Chairwoman Jackson on FY '24 Plan) Thank you so much for your presentation. As you mentioned
this is a thorough and independent process based on
a risk based methodology. And uh really, really glad
to have uh to have you on Board. And uh, I think
it's been uh, a very uh, intense uh, indulgent process.
So far as well as, you know, you have your new Staff
member here. So um, anyway I just really, really
appreciate all the work that you've done and look forward
to working with you and the value that I think you
bring, um to, to the PUC. Thank you. (item:30:Commissioner Glotfelty on FY '24 Plan) I totally agree.
I think it's professional. I think it's on top of every
issue and I just applaud your efforts here. I think
it's uh for audits that I've seen for audit plans that
I've seen. It's, it's a pretty darn good model and
you've done it, you've done it great. (item:30:Commissioner McAdams on FY '24 Plan) Very systematic,
incorporating
priorities and surveys of the entire agency by division.
It ably address, addresses what we were required to
do by statute, But also what we believe those highest
threat areas are so that we can continue to refine
our processes and work through those issues. So this
is great, Nicky. I, I applaud ya. (item:30:Commissioner Cobos on FY '24 Plan) Yeah, Nicky. Thank
you for all your hard work. Your work has been very
impressive. Your methodology, your attention to um
all the different areas um that you've highlighted
to us. Just very impressed with your work and um welcome
aboard to your new Staff member. And what is your name?
Barbette Mace. Barbette, welcome. And um look forward
to continuing to working with you, um very impressive
work. Thank you. (item:30:Motion to approve Fiscal year 2024 Internal Audit Plan and the Internal Audit Charter) I would entertain a motion to approve
the Fiscal year 2024 Internal Audit Plan and the Internal
Audit Charter. So moved. Second. Motion and a second.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion passes. Uh, I don't have
anything on Item 31. Item 32 will not be taken up. (item:33:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Project No. 55156) Next
up is Item No. 33, Project No. 55156. Shelah,
do we have anyone from the public signed up to speak
on Item No. 33? (item:33:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no public comments) No, ma'am, Commissioner Cobos, she
filed a memo. Would you please lay out your thoughts?
(item:33:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on her memo) Yes, Madam Chair. So my memo is pretty straightforward
you know, I lay the context behind House Bill 5066
in the addition of new Section 39.167. But ultimately
um you know, I just want to direct um have the Commission
direct Staff to open a new projects. That will serve
as a repository for all the filings related to the
implementation of 39.167. That's related to the
you know, uh development of the reliability plan for
the Permian Basin. Um secondly, um I want to recommend
that the Commission set a deadline of December 1,
2023. For the applicable TSPs to submit the customer
Load data to ERCOT. Um this is not the formal directive.
This is just um a necessary step to um ensure that
the developers out in the Permian Basin. The oil
and gas developers, stakeholders um get this information
to their TDUs. So that the applicable TDUs, TSPs out
there. Can provide that data to ERCOT on a timely basis.
That will fit into the timeline that will be rolled
out later. And it it this information, the customer
Load data is, is critically important um for ERCOT's
ultimate development of a Permian Basin reliability
plan. So I just wanted to, to get that deadline out
there. So um we get that process going while we await
the directive. (item:33:Commissioner Glotfelty's thoughts on memo) I'm totally supportive of this. I totally
believe that I appreciate that you've taken this so
quickly. And you know, this is something that folks
in the Permian have been eager to solve for the last
four years or more. And it's only going to continue
to get worse as that area grows as a oil supply region
for the world and gas. I will say that as part of
this, my discussions with ERCOT, with Woody specifically
is. We are going to be able to do planning here on
the transmission side. We still have a generation problem
over there. So those those discussions are going to
have to come in as well as how much generation is needed
across the system and how much generation will be needed.
I know the Chairman mentioned this last time as well.
But we've got to get this kicked off and I applaud
you for doing this. I'm totally supportive of it. All
right. (item:33:Connie Corona with Commission Staff's clarification on project) Commissioner just to make a clarification. We
have an open project for regional transmission reliability
plans generally. And you're requesting that we open
one for the Permian specifically and we will do that. Yes.
Thank you and post it on the next open meeting. Yes
ma'am, thank you. Good deal. Very good. (item:34:Chairwoman Jackson lays out Standing Item for Agency Administrative Issues) Next up is
Item No. 34. Our Standing Item for Agency Administrative
Issues. Shelah, do we have anyone from the public sign
up to speak on Item No. 34? (item:34:Shelah Cisneros with Commission Counsel confirms there are no public comments) No, ma'am. Thomas. I
believe you have an update for us. Yes, ma'am. (item:17:Thomas Gleeson, PUC Executive Director gives updates on TX Energy Fund & Winter Prep) Thank
you, Madam Chair. Just two items this morning. First,
a reminder. So we're, we're and we've discussed this
with you all. The Texas Energy Fund which was passed
last Session in Senate Bill 2627 and which is up for
a vote by Texans in November. Uh the projects and programs
in that we have to get started on. It's a huge
task. So we are issuing an RFP to hire a firm to
help us administer those programs and that fund. Um
we anticipate publishing that on October 17. So this
is really an advertisement for firms interested. That
believe they can help us do that work to, to be on
the lookout for that um for that solicitation. So that
they can hopefully submit bids to help us get those
programs off the ground up and running. Because the
timelines on, on a couple of those programs are
extremely short. We'll also be holding a bidder's conference
to have a collaborative discussion with firms interested
in this sometime shortly after that RFP is issued. Secondly,
as what was discussed earlier. The Winter prep work
session on the 20. Yesterday, Staff filed a memo in
Project 55633. Kind of outlining and detailing what
the topics are gonna be. We plan to file the specific
agenda in the Texas Register later today. So the basic
thought is we'll hear from ERCOT, TDUs, generators on
what their Winter weather prep has been. We're also
gonna have a certain part of that devoted to ERCOT. Talking
about the RFP for capacity that they put out that was
discussed earlier as well. Um It is a public meeting.
It will be posted as, as an open meeting. So public
participation is, is gonna happen. We'll have public
comment sections for, for those items. Um and the only
other thing I'd say on that is it's, it's going to
be a robust detailed agenda. So we plan to post it
from 8 a.m. till 5 p.m. and I would tell everyone to
expect to be there all day.
(item:34:Commissioner McAdams' thoughts on RFP and Winter plans) Yes, ma'am. I think this is, this is an excellent opportunity
for the system to demonstrate all that we have done.
And to stress for our market participants how important
it is that you ably comply with existing Commission
rules, ERCOT protocols. In preparation for Winter months.
I think that it will be an excellent opportunity to
flesh out ERCOT's concept behind the capacity driven
RFP which they have issued. And demonstrate for the
public that we do have plans moving into Winter to
help satisfy and overcome potential challenges brought
on by increasing demand on the system. I think it's
also look the questions to the RFP have been rolling
in for ERCOT's purposes before their technical workshop.
Will be, which will be encompassed into our proceeding.
And some of the questions are excellent and I look
forward to the answers. One of which I would point
out is your current timeline does not align with ERS
procurement. This creates the very real risk that sites
did not clear either capacity. Oh, they aren't public.
I'll shut up.
Bottom line is we will learn how, how this is going
to work. And we will learn how it's harmonized with
ERS and other programs that exist in the system. And how
each of these capabilities complement each other to
work in a coherent and market driven way. Going into
peak demand on a seasonal basis. So this will prove
to be a template not just for this Winter but for other
seasons in the future. Especially going into a period
where the Legislative framework will begin to come
into play. House Bill 2627 in the Load program will
come into view pending voter approval in November.
But um this is our opportunity to talk through how
all this can work in concert. And uh I, I believe this
is uh we will rise to the occasion.
Great commentary, Commissioner McAdams. (item:34:Commissioner Cobos' thoughts on Winter reliability and resiliency) I think that's really
important to highlight all of the actions that we have
taken since Legislative Session 21, post Uri. You
know with, with respect to actions for Winter reliability
and resiliency. And with a further exploration into
ERCOT's RFP uh for capacity. And um providing more um
transparency to everybody involved. Um the commission
or, you know, the stakeholders out there and have a
robust discussion on um this concept. And, and um hopefully
um you know, package that up. So that um we can at
some point look back and do lessons learned. And figure
out what we need to do next with respect to um regulatory
due diligence with the overall RFP capacity. Um driven
um initiative that ERCOT has put out. Um So thank you
for your comments. I think that's important to highlight.
(item:34:Chairman Jackson's final thoughts) I'm very excited about the uh upcoming um workshop.
I think it's an excellent opportunity for ERCOT to
come in and give us an update on what what we're looking
at in terms of the upcoming Winter. So that again,
we, we're prepared um and key. And again the, the
key part I think of the workshop is preparedness, um
thinking about, you know, what tools we have, but also
what other tools might be available to us or how we
can expand some of our existing tools, particularly
demand response. So uh again, just kind of putting
everything out there ahead of time so that we're, we're
totally thinking about it and that we are totally prepared
So look forward to ERCOT or, or look forward to, you
know, the folks who will be coming in and kind of sharing.
What their existing programs and their thoughts and
ideas kind of moving forward. I would highlight Madam
Chair if I could. Is we're saying the word opportunity
and overcoming challenges a lot. But this is an opportunity
a feature of this workshop and the outcomes produced
of it and from ERCOT's perspective. The proposed RFP
is to expand the pool of existing demand side alternatives.
For this season but also as a, as a test case, certainly
for the future beyond the current pool of market participants
that are very familiar with ERCOT systems. Again, we're
trying to educate and broaden the pool. And I think
that is absolutely something this Commission has been
interested in over the last 2 1/2 years that we have
been together. And, and as a clear answer to the challenges
presented by Winter Storm Uri, Winter Storm Elliott.
And and those other high demand periods that, that
we know we will experience again at some point in the
future. So did you have anything else? Just one other
one other thing on this. (item:34:Thomas Gleeson sharing meeting will be livestreamed) It will be live streamed on
Texas Admin. For, so for anyone who can't make portions
or all of it. It will be live streamed there and archived.
Excellent. Rebecca approach, she may have something
to say to you. (item:34:Rebecca Zerwas, ERCOT gives clarification for Commissioner McAdams) I just want to clarify, Commissioner
McAdams. You did not misspeak, the questions are public.
They're posted to the ERCOT RFP page. Good, thank you. I appreciate
that. All of the questions should have been added to that
one. Well, it was a good question. You're going to hear
about it on next Friday.
Ok, very good. I don't have anything on Items 35 or
36. (item:37:Chairwoman Jackson pauses Open Meeting, to hold Closed Session) This brings us to Item No. 37, Closed Session.
Having convened in a duly noticed open meeting. The
Commission will now at 11:25 on October 12, 2023.
Hold a Closed Session to discuss personnel matters
pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code
sections 551.071, 551.074 and 551.076. We'll be back
in a few minutes. Thank you.
(item:37:Chairwoman Jackson concludes Closed Session, Public Meeting resumed) The Closed Session is hereby concluded at 11:46 on
October 12, 2023 and the Commission will resume its
Public Meeting. The Commission will take no action
as a result of Closed Session deliberations. There
being no further business to come before the Commission.
(item:37:Chairwoman Jackson adjourns meeting) This meeting of the Public Utility Commission of Texas
is hereby adjourned at 11:46am.